The best weapon of WW2?

The best weapon of ww2 was the 88mm artitillery piece.The germans sometimes even tried to shoot it at one person running across a field.

 

Now that's just mean.

 

Why would they waste a shell on one person, considering the ammo shortages. I am not saying that it didn't happen but I doubt it was on a regular basis.

 

Actually, there's a question nabout the 88 that's been bothering me.

It was originally designed as an anti-aircraft weapon. During the invasion of France, as I recall, at one stage Rommel was confronted by Allied tanks that were too heavily armoured to be stopped by his own small anti-tank guns. Reputedly, he ordered the 88s to fire on the enemy tanks, which at first they refused to do since they were supposed to be anti-aircraft guns only. But in the end Rommel persuaded the gunners and won the battle -- beginning the 88's long and successful career as an anti-tank weapon.

My question is -- if this story is true, what sort of ammunition were the 88s using? Presumably they would have been supplied only with Flak shells, since they were not originally intended for anti-tank use. If so, how did they kill the tanks? Was their shell simply so big and fast that the lack of AP shot didn't matter?

 

The Flak 88mm guns were used in the A/T and artillery role since the Spanish Civil war. They were used in the A/T role in France.

 

Thanks. I guess that account I read was wrong then.

 

Who would Rommel need to persuade them, he says fire at the tanks, they start firing, they wouldn't have questioned a superior officer, especially if they were attached to his units.

 

In operation Goodwood, there is an account of Colonel von Luck angrily forcing a scared Flak battery to engage a mass of Allied armor.

 

In my opinion, I think one of the best weapons were the Katyusha Missile launchers invented by the Russians.

They were highly mobile (could be attached to trucks and vehicles), and pretty much destroyed the area they fired at.

 

The missile launchers had a more psychological rather than destructive effect.

 

What are appropriate criteria for "best"?

For instance: If it's overall effect on the war psychological effects are probably more important than pure destructive effects.

In any case it's awfully hard to choose "a" best weapon although the atomic bomb might be worth considering.

 

A no brainer

YouTube - Monty Python - The Funniest Joke In The World

 

The german broadcast in the end, complete with the uber alles song, had me in tears..

 

I would say that the Iowa Class battleships were the finest built fighting ship ever and they were used on active duty until the 1990's need i say more

 

it had to be the 88mm gun by far

 

I think some people are confusing "best" with "coolest"...Best to me means most effective. Best tank? Tiger Tank. The T-34 was mass produced and out numbered the germans, the Russians finally learnt tank strategy off the germans and the Tiger Tank became vulnerable too far from its support, was maintenance hungry and required heaps of fuel constantly.
best weapon? Nuclear bomb (All bombs are atomic bombs because the reaction occurs at an atomic level, where with a nuclear bomb the reaction takes place at the nucleaus of an atom hence Nuclear bomb....been mistitled for years!!!) No other weapon ENDED the war...They are so powerful even today that they are used to PREVENT war now.
Best weapon other than THE BOMB?: hmmm.....MG-42? 88mm? Sherman? Depends on the situation.
Best aircraft? Me 262 easily. Best piston engined? FW190 - Vought Corsair? Spifire?
The two most effective aircraft i think though were the Lancaster and the B-17....Had more say in how the war was going.
But thinking out of the box, THE best two weapons of the war, or most effective to the outcome were merchant shipping and the civilian population...get your head round that one!

 

How about ULTRA? Pretty much saved Britain from becoming completely blockaded, as-well as preventing a major Soviet defeat at Kursk, amongst many other things...

Knowing your enemies next move is a pretty good advantage to have I'd say...

 

That's been extensivly debated on this board and elsewhere. Suffice it to say that claim is somewhat controversial.

Not really. They occur at the molecular level i.e. rely on a difference in chemical energy between molecules.

The convention has been atomic bombs = fission, nuclear = fusion. Somewhat arbitrary but that's the working defintion and in common usage so it's hardly "mistitled".

Again a position that has a history of extensive debate so no not "easily".

The question is can these really be considered "weapons"? Most wouldn't consider them so but they were clearly important.

 

Tiger Tank is only contoversial depending on what you judge as the best - Quantitively it can be proved as the best or most powerful...as a standard tank anyway...there are always prototypes. But i will accept that there are plenty of front runners.

Molecular level? Molecules are constructed of atoms- of different elements. Scientifically speaking (if i may) the reaction is a atomic reaction, including molecular reactions - molecules are the ocean, atoms are the drops of water. Fission and Fusion are the different sides of the same coin, one rips and the other joins, again the reaction occurs at a sub-atomic level (neutrons) in both instances. The convention as you put it, has been mislabled. This bit of info comes from a Physics professor, so your arguing with him on this.

262? See first answer.

I agree, civilian populations and merchant navies DO have massive effect on the outcome of a war (WW2), but they are NOT weapons.

 

That's a tautology is it not?

Depending very much on your defintion of "best". If for instance you include operational and strategic mobility factors as part of that definition said proof is very much in question. Other factors can also be considered that are very reasonable and at the same time will count against the Tiger.

The energy released from chemical explosives is due to the rearangement of molecular bonds. The reaction is not atomic because it doesn't result in any fundamental change to the atoms.

The reaction occurs because that atoms are split or joined. That's the atomic lievel. While neutrons are involved so are protons and other particles.

It's a defintion. As such it simply is. You may consider it confusing or inappropriate and even reject it.

From the physics viewpoint that's entirely reasonable. From the veiw point of common usage it's irrelevant.

Would similar logic not result in the Maus being considered the best tank? Good luck defending that one.