Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
Author Message
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #1
The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
This is always a fun topic of conversation. Which weapons in each war helped turn the tide towards victory or defeat, or could have.

To make this easier for all of us, please name the war you're talking about and then the country followed by the weapon. Then tell us all why you think that. That'll make it easier to keep track and make comparisons.

We'll start with the obvious:

World War 2
United States
P-51

It's simple, it made it possible to both destroy the industrial capacity of Germany and also allowed the bombers to double as bait to draw the Luftwaffe into the air to be destroyed.

These actions made it possible for the allies, including the Russians to take full advantage of the production capacity. A war with an unhindered German production capacity would have been a much longer and bloodier conflict, especially for the Soviets.
06-05-2014 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #2
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
A weapon that helped lose a war:

World War 2
Italy
Breda Safat Machine gun

The machine guns inadequacies put Italian aircraft, infantry, and tanks at a serious firepower disadvantage. The gun was the primary arm for the Italians and was inferior in almost every capacity.

The end result is Italian infantry were at a firepower disadvantage in nearly any engagement and superb aircraft were left without the offensive capability to capitalize on any of their advantages, particularly the MC 202.

The Italians were never able to solve these problems. The SAFAT served throughout the war and beyond with a modest rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, terrible ammunition, and modest to poor levels of reliability.

You could make a solid argument that this weapon, and it's many inadequacies, ensured Italian defeat.
06-05-2014 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DragonLair Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,662
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Uab
Location:
Post: #3
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
The UK.
The Spitfire

I remember watching a history channel show that said that the spitfire was one of the reasons the British were able to field the amount of planes they did. It had a remarkable salvage rate. If the plane crashed they could practically reuse the whole plane to fix other ones. It was quite remarkable.
06-05-2014 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,770
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 2265
I Root For: Bearcats U
Location: North Carolina
Post: #4
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
WWII
US
A-Bomb

Obvious answer but this horrific weapon of mass destruction saved more lives than it took since an invasion of mainland Japan/prolonged war with them became unnecessary.

Quote: The main argument in support of the decision to use the atomic bomb is that it saved American lives which would otherwise have been lost in two D-Day-style land invasions of the main islands of the Japanese homeland. The two operations combined were codenamed Operation Downfall. There is no doubt that a land invasion would have incurred extremely high casualties, for a variety of reasons. For one, Field Marshall Hisaichi Terauchi had ordered that all 100,000 Allied prisoners of war be executed if the Americans invaded. Second, it was apparent to the Japanese as much as to the Americans that there were few good landing sites, and that Japanese forces would be concentrated there. Third, there was real concern in Washington that the Japanese had made a determination to fight literally to the death. The Japanese saw suicide as an honorable alternative to surrender. The term they used was gyokusai, or, "shattering of the jewel." It was the same rationale for their use of the so-called banzai charges employed early in the war. In his 1944 “emergency declaration,” Prime Minister Hideki Tojo had called for "100 million gyokusai,” and that the entire Japanese population be prepared to die.

Studies estimating total U.S. casualties were equally varied and no less grim. One by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945 resulted in an estimate of 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities. Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief, estimated 268,000 casualties (35%). Former President Herbert Hoover sent a memorandum to President Truman and Secretary of War Stimson, with “conservative” estimates of 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities. A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated the costs at 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities.
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2014 10:07 PM by UCGrad1992.)
06-05-2014 10:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #5
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
One that almost resulted in an L...

WWII
US
Naval Torpedo Station - Newport, RI

The Mk 14 torpedo being dreadfully faulty weapon that cost lives, is an eventuality in all warfare. The crime was in the intractability and bureaucratic posturing of the staff at NTS as they vehemently defended their POS weapon. If not far field mods on fleet boats themselves (which is something I can scarcely imagine) more submariners lives would have been lost.
06-06-2014 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #6
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
(06-06-2014 10:27 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  One that almost resulted in an L...

WWII
US
Naval Torpedo Station - Newport, RI

The Mk 14 torpedo being dreadfully faulty weapon that cost lives, is an eventuality in all warfare. The crime was in the intractability and bureaucratic posturing of the staff at NTS as they vehemently defended their POS weapon. If not far field mods on fleet boats themselves (which is something I can scarcely imagine) more submariners lives would have been lost.
Due to budget restrictions have read that they only had tested the torpedo twice.
06-06-2014 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #7
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
Her's another loser that has serious implications this weekend...

WWII
US
Norden Bomb Sight
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2014 08:08 PM by vandiver49.)
06-07-2014 07:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #8
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
(06-05-2014 10:03 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  WWII
US
A-Bomb

Winner.

Definitely an "everybody out of the pool" game-changer.
06-08-2014 07:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #9
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
The siege of De'an (China) in 1132
Song Chinese
Firearms
06-08-2014 11:26 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #10
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
Sino-Japanese War 1
Torpedo boat

The adoption of French style small attack craft by the Imperial Navy have it a great advantage over the Chinese.

The small attack craft could deal serious damage and also break up large formations. This allowed the superior gunnery, weaponry, and tactics of the Japanese to be used to their fullest effect. The end result was that the Japanese navy, over the course of both wars, obliterated the Chinese who were thought by many Western observers to be the superior naval force.
06-08-2014 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #11
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
(06-05-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  A weapon that helped lose a war:

World War 2
Italy
Breda Safat Machine gun

The machine guns inadequacies put Italian aircraft, infantry, and tanks at a serious firepower disadvantage. The gun was the primary arm for the Italians and was inferior in almost every capacity.

The end result is Italian infantry were at a firepower disadvantage in nearly any engagement and superb aircraft were left without the offensive capability to capitalize on any of their advantages, particularly the MC 202.

The Italians were never able to solve these problems. The SAFAT served throughout the war and beyond with a modest rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, terrible ammunition, and modest to poor levels of reliability.

You could make a solid argument that this weapon, and it's many inadequacies, ensured Italian defeat.
Believe the Italians were their own worst enemy and ensured Italy's defeat. They could have simply copied Germanys weaponry.
06-11-2014 12:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #12
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
(06-11-2014 12:26 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  A weapon that helped lose a war:

World War 2
Italy
Breda Safat Machine gun

The machine guns inadequacies put Italian aircraft, infantry, and tanks at a serious firepower disadvantage. The gun was the primary arm for the Italians and was inferior in almost every capacity.

The end result is Italian infantry were at a firepower disadvantage in nearly any engagement and superb aircraft were left without the offensive capability to capitalize on any of their advantages, particularly the MC 202.

The Italians were never able to solve these problems. The SAFAT served throughout the war and beyond with a modest rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, terrible ammunition, and modest to poor levels of reliability.

You could make a solid argument that this weapon, and it's many inadequacies, ensured Italian defeat.
Believe the Italians were their own worst enemy and ensured Italy's defeat. They could have simply copied Germanys weaponry.

In a lot of ways they did, the DB series engines. However, they had a lot of weapons that could easily be considered better, the 90mm flak cannon was superior to the famous German 88, Italian armoured reconnaissance vehicles, the Auoblinda, was better, the SM 79 was better than the JU87 or 88 in either role, the P108 was a true long range bomber that Germany utterly lacked, and Breda sub machine guns were better than the MP-40. Italy could just never produce those weapons in significant quantities. Also, new development of weapons hit its stride at in late 42, with the M26 tank, Semovente 90, MC 205, and the new 62mm anti tank gun.

Most of the Italian inferiorities came from the fact Italy had jumped way ahead in the mid 30s and quite developing. Also, the military was designed to fight a war in Northern Italy against the Germans themselves and was not prepared for the war they ended up fighting.

I agree with you in some ways though, taking the MG34-42 would have been a good move, producing Panzer Mark IIIs would have been better than M13-15 tanks, and the Kar 98k would have been better than the Carcano.
06-11-2014 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #13
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
(06-11-2014 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 12:26 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  A weapon that helped lose a war:

World War 2
Italy
Breda Safat Machine gun

The machine guns inadequacies put Italian aircraft, infantry, and tanks at a serious firepower disadvantage. The gun was the primary arm for the Italians and was inferior in almost every capacity.

The end result is Italian infantry were at a firepower disadvantage in nearly any engagement and superb aircraft were left without the offensive capability to capitalize on any of their advantages, particularly the MC 202.

The Italians were never able to solve these problems. The SAFAT served throughout the war and beyond with a modest rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, terrible ammunition, and modest to poor levels of reliability.

You could make a solid argument that this weapon, and it's many inadequacies, ensured Italian defeat.
Believe the Italians were their own worst enemy and ensured Italy's defeat. They could have simply copied Germanys weaponry.

In a lot of ways they did, the DB series engines. However, they had a lot of weapons that could easily be considered better, the 90mm flak cannon was superior to the famous German 88, Italian armoured reconnaissance vehicles, the Auoblinda, was better, the SM 79 was better than the JU87 or 88 in either role, the P108 was a true long range bomber that Germany utterly lacked, and Breda sub machine guns were better than the MP-40. Italy could just never produce those weapons in significant quantities. Also, new development of weapons hit its stride at in late 42, with the M26 tank, Semovente 90, MC 205, and the new 62mm anti tank gun.

Most of the Italian inferiorities came from the fact Italy had jumped way ahead in the mid 30s and quite developing. Also, the military was designed to fight a war in Northern Italy against the Germans themselves and was not prepared for the war they ended up fighting.

I agree with you in some ways though, taking the MG34-42 would have been a good move, producing Panzer Mark IIIs would have been better than M13-15 tanks, and the Kar 98k would have been better than the Carcano.

Let's admit it though, the Muss was the one wanting empire. The Italian people and armed forces could have cared less.
06-11-2014 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #14
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
(06-11-2014 11:40 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 12:26 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  A weapon that helped lose a war:

World War 2
Italy
Breda Safat Machine gun

The machine guns inadequacies put Italian aircraft, infantry, and tanks at a serious firepower disadvantage. The gun was the primary arm for the Italians and was inferior in almost every capacity.

The end result is Italian infantry were at a firepower disadvantage in nearly any engagement and superb aircraft were left without the offensive capability to capitalize on any of their advantages, particularly the MC 202.

The Italians were never able to solve these problems. The SAFAT served throughout the war and beyond with a modest rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, terrible ammunition, and modest to poor levels of reliability.

You could make a solid argument that this weapon, and it's many inadequacies, ensured Italian defeat.
Believe the Italians were their own worst enemy and ensured Italy's defeat. They could have simply copied Germanys weaponry.

In a lot of ways they did, the DB series engines. However, they had a lot of weapons that could easily be considered better, the 90mm flak cannon was superior to the famous German 88, Italian armoured reconnaissance vehicles, the Auoblinda, was better, the SM 79 was better than the JU87 or 88 in either role, the P108 was a true long range bomber that Germany utterly lacked, and Breda sub machine guns were better than the MP-40. Italy could just never produce those weapons in significant quantities. Also, new development of weapons hit its stride at in late 42, with the M26 tank, Semovente 90, MC 205, and the new 62mm anti tank gun.

Most of the Italian inferiorities came from the fact Italy had jumped way ahead in the mid 30s and quite developing. Also, the military was designed to fight a war in Northern Italy against the Germans themselves and was not prepared for the war they ended up fighting.

I agree with you in some ways though, taking the MG34-42 would have been a good move, producing Panzer Mark IIIs would have been better than M13-15 tanks, and the Kar 98k would have been better than the Carcano.

Let's admit it though, the Muss was the one wanting empire. The Italian people and armed forces could have cared less.

I think that was not true throughout the 30s and into the war but it certainly became more and more true as the was turned against them and the people realized the war was unwinable and would ruin the country.

Support for Mussolini was extremely high during the 30s and the conquest of Ethiopia even when it brought them to the brink of war with the UK. It was also very high for the invasion of Egypt and Greece.

The Italians also fought bitterly in the closing phases of the North African campaign around Tunis.

I think the biggest factor in the Italian people and leadership's checking out had to do with total subservience to the Germans, especially in North Africa and the naval campaign. Admiral Ghe hated the Germans for refusing to support an invasion of Malta. An invasion that should have taken place.

Giovanni Messe, who was arguably the finest Italian general of the war, said as much.
06-11-2014 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #15
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
For some weird reason I've always found Italy and Romania to be the two most interesting participants.
06-11-2014 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #16
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
They didn't really have their heart into it. When they originally went to war
there were some young hot guns, which there always are, but they could have
cared less most of the time.
Yes, they should have invaded Malta. Big mistake.
06-11-2014 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #17
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
Italy's total subservience to Germany was their biggest mistake.

The Italian navy sat idle for most of the war because the Germans saw no use for it, being naval idiots themselves.

Meanwhile, the Italians were screaming for an invasion of Malta and Gibraltar. But, Rommel wanted to go back to Egypt so the Italians were ignored.

The defense of Sicily also collapsed because of German interference.
06-11-2014 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Lord Stanley Offline
L'Étoile du Nord
*

Posts: 19,103
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 994
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #18
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
(06-11-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For some weird reason I've always found Italy and Romania to be the two most interesting participants.

Since everyone played a part in the Allied victory, I've enjoyed reading about the Mexican Air Force and the Brazilian military involvement in WWII.

Also, the Cuban Navy sank a German U-boat in WWII.......

Weird
06-11-2014 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofM_Tiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,996
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Tigers
Location: Memphis
Post: #19
RE: The Weapons that Won/Lost the War
"The Jeep, the Dakota, and the Landing Craft were the three tools that won the war." -- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
"the battle is won by the quartermasters before the shooting starts." -- Field Marshall Erwin Rommel
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 02:39 PM by UofM_Tiger.)
06-11-2014 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.