The best weapon of WW2?

No sir, it was studies into the causes of casualties in WWII that spurred development of modern body armor after the war and first fielded in Korea. You are kidding about the Germans and especially the Russians not having having large amounts of artillery, right?

 

In Normandy, the Americans calculated 70% of all combat casualties suffered was inflicted by German artillery and mortars, which American gunners thought was not as good as their own. If we give credence to the German's low opinion of allied infantrymen, than one can only surmise Wehrmacht losses to artillery was much higher. Testimonies extracted from German POWs seem to support this.

 

Btw, how well would the B-29 fare in ETO? If memory serves, they had to fly within range to Japanese AA guns to drop payload with any semblance of accuracy.

 

Got any sources for that?

Others have addressed this.

First of all the Stug isn't a tank. SEcond of all even if it did kill "more armoered vehicles than all others" that doesn't make it the best.
... When it comes to fighters, Its almost a tie. The 109 and P-47 are absolutely the most important fighters.
[/quote]
Are they? What criteria are you using? Most important doesn't imply best either.
Yes, both could have been replaced, but only later in the war. The 109 would not have an equivalent until 1941, while the P-47 did not until 1944. No other aircraft could have replaced them,
[/quote]
Why not?

 

The difficulty is that until 1944 the number of Stug was well below the tank numbers.

May 1943 3:1 Tank/Stug
Nov 1943 2:1
May 1944 1:1

Only in the last year of the war did the Tank/Stug numbers achieve parity.
What were the tanks doing 1939-1943?
Either the tank force was inept or the oft repeated claim is bunk. Which is it?
It should be interesting to see how it can be claimed a Stug was a better tank killer than the uber-Panther of even the Uber-Uber Tiger!

 

Not again.
German tanks in general had a 6:1 kill ratio, as did the Stug. The Stug was produced in larger numbers, therefore it had the most kills. Its cheaper, equal in kill ratio, and was the backbone of armored support. If its not so great, why dont I see any Allied tanks doing as well, let alone withing the same magnitude?

Also, it is a tank. Not all tanks had turrets, especially the first ones. Just because it doesnt have a turret does not mean its not a tank. If that doesnt make you happy, then I change its name to "most important armored vehicle". Either way, it doesnt change that it was an excellent weapon.

 

And your reference for this is?

What part of the tank park numbers I posted do you not understand.

There were many more tanks thans Stug.
You are all at sea here.

 

Are they? What criteria are you using? Most important doesn't imply best either.
Yes, both could have been replaced, but only later in the war. The 109 would not have an equivalent until 1941, while the P-47 did not until 1944. No other aircraft could have replaced them,
[/quote]
Why not?[/QUOTE]

Ok, I take it back, I meant most effective.

The 109 and P-47 simply did not have equivalents for large periods of the war, and those that showed up later didnt really do it any better. The fw190 really wasnt a better fighter, it was just faster. Its handling was quite poor, while the 109 was more than acceptable. The P-47 could do anything the P-51 could do, and often better. It had a much lower loss rate, even though it served in tougher times. It could carry the same weapons load or better, and it was far more well suited to low altitude work. It was the smaller targets that mattered, as the heavy bombers made little impact on production, while the medium bombers and fighter bombers really made the ground forces hurt. I would say that making the entire ground forces quake in their boots is a little more useful than bruising a small amount of production.
Both aircraft really did make the largest impact, and did it well.

 

Unfortunately for you the Germans had a strict method of describing their AFV's
If it had a turret it was a tank.
If it did not have a turret it was not a tank.
Their production figures show more tanks than Stug/Sp.

No amount of twaddle can get you around the fact that there were more tanks thans stugs.

 

Quite simply wrong.

Taking the numbers of tanks (PzIII to Tigers) gives a total of 36,000 tanks produced 1939-45
The figures for Stug and JgdPz (PzIII to Tiger chassis)is 22,000.
So even by missing out the large numbers of Pz II and 38t tanks (3000) the Stug/SP total is c. 61% of tank numbers.
Even if we stretch 'Stug' a bit more to include the Hetzer JgdPz it would add only 6,000 to your SP total.

Max 39,000 tanks v 28,000 SP (Stug + Jgd Pz)

 

Not necessarily. Kill ratios are typically based on vehicles of that type killed vs kills by said type. Production numbers don't necessarily correlate with that. Then of course there is the question of why it had the kill rate it did. There is at least a decent case for it being at least partially due to the crews. There's also a question of how the kill ratios were determined.

How many allied tanks were on the defensive much of the time in such a target rich environment?

While some of the early ones didn't the defintion of tank that evolved in between the two wars pretty much equalled an armored, tracked, vehicle with a turret. Even some of those didn't qualify (such as some US TDs).

 

Jadgermeister,
Sturmgeschütz translates as assault gun, so even it's name supports the fact that it isn't a tank. Panzerkampfwagen translates as "Tank combat car". m kenny's right.

 

I hope this wasn't mentioned yet, but I thought the Hedgehog (also known as anti submarine weapon) developed by the British sounded like a great idea. It looks as if it had about 5 percent success rate in terms of actual destruction in the ocean. Over time, the percentage went up but don't know how much. It seems like it had more drawbacks then positive uses. Since it only would explode by making contact, that may have been a problem. I give them credit for the good idea. If at all, this could be under the worst weapons?

The Hedgehogs - Technical pages - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net

 

By no means. They turned out to be better than "ash cans". Just what is the 5% "success rate"? Is it per weapon fired? or per attack made? or per engagement? From what I recall the USS England used a hedgehog during her famous effort. see: USS England (DE-635) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Squid apparentlly surpassed it but I don't see it qualifying for worse.

 

This is like saying the F-18 is not a fighter, because it carries bombs. Just as a plane which has primary armament to kill other planes is a fighter, an armored vehicle with a primary role of defeating other armor is considered a tank by all but the most stubborn people. Its like saying you cant refer to a truck as a car, or saying you cant call a motorcycle a bike.

Either way, it doesnt disprove that it was an excellent "armored vehicle", and I already said Ill call it and "armored vehicle" if you guys cant handle the word "tank". Arguing over a technicality in name make no difference in its importance as an armored vehicle.

 

Bad example the "F" in the designation stands for fighter as the "F" in F/A-18 (fighter attack). It is a fighter even if it carries bombs, just as the Stug is an assault gun even if it is used to kill tanks.

Nobody denied this that I can recall, we are agreed. And armored vehicle, armored fighting vehicle or self-propelled gun is a correct description.

See this is where our views diverge. The "Sturmgeschütz" (assault gun) was designed as just that an armored, self-propelled gun used to provide support for infantry assaults. It was even assigned to the artillery. That it was later employed, sucessfully, in an anti-tank role doesn't change this. Germans had purpose built vehicles for this, they were called Jagdpanzers (Jagd=n. hunt, act of chasing and capturing game animals, chase, hunting, pursuit, shoot) and (panzer=n. armor, coat of mail, garment made of linked metal rings; covering of metal plates; tank, armored combat vehicle) or Panzerjagers (panzer=same definition as above) and (jaeger=n. hunter, one who chases and captures game animals, huntsman, one who hunts, one who pursues). Tanks hunters. The Stug was regunned to make it more effective in the tank destroyer role and if you had chosen to call it a tank destroyer you would have been correct. The U.S. had Tank Destroyers such as the M-10 M-36 and M-18. They may resemble tanks but are Tank Destroyers.

 

Minor point : The F111/ F117 carried bombs and are not fighters. ...Why do they do that? Call an apple an orange?

 

the F111 is a "Fighter Bomber" so its more half and half

 

Not sure the F111 was a fighter. It had no capability to shoot down another plane. It would be a sitting duck in any air to air combat... i think...Does the F117 even have a gun?