I was doing research on the atomic bomb and compared it to all the other major weaons of WW2; now in spite of the destruction the bomb had, was it the best weapon. I wonder out of all the major weapons of destruction-the Curtiss P-40, M-1 Garand, stick grenades, Super Tiger tank, submarines, the atomic bomb, B-17, and the rest of the weapons of WW2, which was the best or most effective in it's purpose and jobs?

__________________
Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it- Sun Tzu

At the moment I have two "favourites":

The 88 mm gun ( especially AT although was used in about all purposes )

the "Tallboy" bomb

__________________

This could be debated endlessly but straight in, I'd agree with Kai about the 'dreaded 88'.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

interesting but the 8.8cm was devised as a during and post WW 1 weapon........whatever.

the most dramatic has to be the V-2 or atom bomb

The best weapons?

Well....the MP-40......of course!

Can I just say WELCOME BACK !! to the near-legendary Erich Hartmann ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

I'll go for something as unglamorous as an artillery piece - the trusty Soviet 76.2mm gun. Artillery inflicted the majority of casualties during WWII, and the 76.2mm (in various models) was prolific on the eastern front.

Many versions also doubled as AT (and even AA ) guns with good performance. Cheap, easy to transport, low maintenance, etc, etc.

__________________
"Nervous wait for the whistle to blow
Rush of blood and over we go..."
- Iron Maiden, "Paschendale"

it was the cheif Soviet AT piece right up to war's end. The German heavy SS Panzerabteilung 503 in the east ran up or over this thing constantly......what was the German nick name for this gun if anyone knows ?

~E

Wasn't it something along the lines of "crash-boom", because the high velocity of the shell meant the impact came before the sound of the gun firing?

__________________
"Nervous wait for the whistle to blow
Rush of blood and over we go..."
- Iron Maiden, "Paschendale"

or the Rausch-boom ? I think you are right though........

~E

Not a major weapon of distruction, not even used much, but my current preference is the Gurkha Kukri. I have one and they are the finest knives on the planet, razor sharp, heavy enough for some serious work and bloody frightening to be on the other end of one would imagine. I read one particular story where Gurkhas advanced towards a Japanese held tree line on the flank of some Scots, as the Scots began to charge suddenly all the sounds of battle were drowned out by a howl as the Gurkhas drew their Kukris (the HQ on a hill near by saw a flash as the blades were raised) and charged past the Scots into the wood, witnesses reported finding numerous fully loaded rifles along the edge of the wood where the Gurkhas dropped them as they charged in with just their blades.

Ok, so maybe not the most common or most dangerous, definatly not vital to the allied victory but definatly a great weapon.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

So Stefan, was this knife a Scot knife or who was it designed by? Also for the general populace, what in your opinion was the best plane of the entire war, all countries included?

__________________
Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it- Sun Tzu

Ok, potted history of the Kukri:

Ancient Egypt, the pharoes soldiers carried a sword with a long, curved blade, the sword was called the Kopesh. Now it is believed that this developed into the sword carried by the Greek Hoplite, called a Kopis. This bladeform is beleived to have been brought to Northern India by the Macedonians under Alexander in the 4th century BC, this led to numerous similar blade shapes in India, particularly in Nepal (it is rather more complicated than this involving the occupation of Nepal and a revolution by the Gorkali people) where two kinds of fighting blade became very important, the long curved sword (Kora) and a shorter blade used more as a tool than for fighting, this was the Kukri.



Three of the blades I have referred to are pictured above, note the key features that show the liniage, i.e. a blade that curves forward which tends to produce what is known as a 'sweet spot' on the inside of the curve, this part tends to be rediculously sharp (I am VERY careful with knives and still manage to cut myself regularly without even noticing it) whilst the base of the 'drop' is hard and capable of seriously heavy duty cutting.



And this is a beautiful WW2 type Kukri, not the similarities to the blades above, particularly to the Kopis. The Kukri is a fantastic weapon and tool, capable of being used both as a knife, a dagger and an axe. The Gurkhas are a race of Nepalese mountaine men who live high in the Himalayas, when the East India Co managed to pick a fight with them the Gurkhas won but so respected the British troops they gave something like a hundred men to the British crown. Ever since then the Gurkha people see it as a great honour to serve in the Gurkha units in the British and Indian army, they have a reputation as some of the most loyal and efficient soldiers in the world. I am currently reading a memoir of a chap who served with them in Burma and am constantly amazed by the way these men faced all kinds of hardships with characteristic cheerfulness and professionalism. It is hardly surpriseing that the British officers who commanded them saw it as an honour.

Best plane of the entire war? Well for the time it saw action the Hurricane, failing that the Spitfire, both because they are beautiful, great aircraft in their own right and they saved our arses (in Britain anyhow). I don't want to get into any kind of firepower vs power:weight ratio argument, I just happen to really like these two (rather fashionable) aircraft.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Scots (not necessarily military) may carry a Dirk in their sock. A short 'dagger' type knife, nothing like a Kukri. The Kukri is a traditional tool of the Nepalese area, characteristic of but not exclusive to the Gurkhas. Most salient points are well put at,
http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gu...ri_History.htm

No.9

The scottish Dirk is a small dagger with a long, narrow triangular blade. It is decended from the so called 'bollok dagger' of the middle ages. They are mainly designed for fighting and eating, no where near as much use as a Kukri.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Concerning tanks, what was the most effective tank of the war on all fronts in all countries?

__________________
Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it- Sun Tzu

I would have to say the T-34 or the Tiger.

The Tiger was a excellent tank with it's heavy armor, and large gun it was almost invincible in combat, but it had it's drawbacks mainly that it was difficult to produce, and the Germans were unable to support them. Many Tigers were abandoned because of mechanical failure, running out of fuel, and running out of ammunition.

The T-34 was the best tank during the first 2 years of the war. It's 76mm gun could fire could fire a shell at a speed of roughly 2500 feet per second twice as fast as the Panzer IV's 75mm gun could fire. The T-34s sloped armor was able to deflect most projectiles. In addition to this the T-34 was cheap and easy to produce and maintain. During production the T-34 required only one fifth the amount of steel a Panther needed.

__________________
"Family, friends, religion. These are the demons you must slay if you are to become successfull in bussiness. When opportunity knocks, you don't want to be sitting in some phoney-baloney church... or a SINAGOGUE!" - Montgomery Burns

In terms of loss / kill ratio the German Tiger. In overall terms, the lowly Sherman. It was used on every front of the war from Europe to Asia to the Pacific. The Russians used it in quantity. Practically other Allied nation used it as well. In the Pacific it was the equavelant of the Tiger in performance against the Japanese.
While the T-34 was in some ways a superior vehicle, the Sherman in overall performance outdid it.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

While Soviet units did use the Sherman T-34s far outnumbered them. The USSR produced more tanks than any nation during the war.

The T-34 and the Sherman do share some characteristics mainly they were both easy to produce, and maintain, but the T-34 was far better in combat, because it had sloped armor, a better gun(the first T-34s were equipped with 76mm guns later models were equipped with 88mm guns), the T-34 had a wider track which allowed for better cross country performance, another major advantage of the T-34 is that it used a deisel engine opposed to the gasoline engines of the Shermans.

In the western front 1 Tiger was lost to every 3 Shermans, and in the eastern front 1 Tiger was lost to every 4 T-34s. This statistic is misleading because most Tigers on the western front were lost due to air or artillery attack, mechanical failures, or running out of fuel or ammunition.

Two tanks that don't recieve as much credit as they should are two soviet heavy tanks KV-1 used in the early part of the war, and the IS-3 used in the later part of the war.

[ 28. September 2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: reddog2k ]

__________________
"Family, friends, religion. These are the demons you must slay if you are to become successfull in bussiness. When opportunity knocks, you don't want to be sitting in some phoney-baloney church... or a SINAGOGUE!" - Montgomery Burns

While Soviet units did use the Sherman T-34s far outnumbered them. The USSR produced more tanks than any nation during the war.

The T-34 and the Sherman do share some characteristics mainly they were both easy to produce, and maintain, but the T-34 was far better in combat, because it had sloped armor, a better gun(the first T-34s were equipped with 76mm guns later models were equipped with 88mm guns), the T-34 had a wider track which allowed for better cross country performance, another major advantage of the T-34 is that it used a deisel engine opposed to the gasoline engines of the Shermans.

[/QB]</font>[/quote]On the plus side for the Sherman was far more reliability. The track alone had roughly 4 times the life of a T-34's and it didn't get thrown anywhere near as frequently. The engine and transmission were also far more reliable and far more easily maintained. Armor and guns on both were roughly equal. True, the T-34 had a better armor layout but, the actual thickness was roughly the same even considering slope. The Shermans supplied to the Soviets were diesel models (as were those used by the USMC). The US Army chose gasoline models because they wished to simplify supply of fuel by making all vehicles gasoline powered having started off that way. Switching to diesel would have created a logistics bottleneck, not that it wasn't thought of.
The Sherman also had big advantages in having a 3 man turret, far better optics and, refinements like variable speed power traverse. The T-34/76 buttoned up (a necessity as the commander was also the gunner)was virtually blind. Unless a target presented itself to its front, a T-34/76 was unlikely to spot it. Hence one major reason so many blundered into destruction at the hands of the Germans.
In guns, the 76 mm on the T-34 is almost identical in performance to the Sherman's 75mm. Likewise, the Soviet 85mm is very similar in performance to the US 76mm. There really isn't anything to choose between the two. With HVAP rounds the US 76 is noticably superior.
The T-34 did have superior cross country mobility. That certainly was one area where the Sherman was at a deficit.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

With its problems the T-34/76 was the king of the hill in the eastern front until Tiger tank ( and Panther and the long barrel Pz Iv )entered the scene as the PzIII-IV and other AT guns than 88 mm could not kill it except from the side.That is somewhere about spring-summer 1943, I think. By early 1944 the Russians had the T-34/85. As well I think they made some corrections with the cupola but I´m not sure about the number of men as the T-34 was made better in the later series.

The Russians had a model of T-34/76 with commander cupola but they did not have time to switch to this model in 1940 as the production was hurried.

Anyway if you think that the T-34/76 could be made ready in just about 24 hrs or less it was quite an amazing vehicle.Thinking about the working hours for German tanks...

[ 29. September 2003, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

__________________

On T-34

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html



Version of T-34 with commander cupola ( not in use early in war anyway??! ) from the site above.

[ 29. September 2003, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

__________________