The best allied equipment

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: The best allied equipment

#31

Post by Don Juan » 25 Jun 2014, 21:54

I liken people who still think the Panther is a good tank to those Japanese soldiers on isolated Pacific islands who think WW2 isn't over yet.

Anyway, best Allied equipment? Well famous high-performance planes bore me shitless, and a good many of them, though "dominant", often didn't change the direction of the war, which was never much of a competition because the Allies were going to win it anyway. Besides, if technological superiority was a measure of a nation's virility, then the British, Americans and Soviets wouldn't have spent the best part of the post-war period being humiliatingly ejected from Third World nations by peasants armed with AK's and mules.

So I nominate these undersung heroes: PBY Catalina, P-40, F4F, Fairey Fulmar, Fairey Albacore, Blackburn Skua, Polikarpov U-2

Not because they were equally good designs, or were influential on the future of aviation, but if anyone bothers to read about their service, they will find out that contrary to all expectations, and often their on-paper performance, they had excellent combat records, and they gained those during some of the most crucial periods of the war. What these aircraft did was often extremely important, but because the didn't have BEST SPEED BEST ALTITUDE or some other such bragging-rights toss, they are often neglected, or worse, unfairly castigated.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
Karelia
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 28 May 2012, 15:55
Location: Pohojanmaa, Finland

Re: The best allied equipment

#32

Post by Karelia » 25 Jun 2014, 23:09

Don Juan, your reasoning makes very much sense. Here's some other examples of the allied equipment (though not in the hands of the Allies...), which perhaps were not "the best" in many ways, but nevertheless did wonders:

Fokker D.XXI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.XXI

"Lentolaivue 24 ampui Fokkereilla talvisodassa alas 127 konetta menettäen itse 9 konetta ja 5 ohjaajaa ja Lentolaivue 26 24½ konetta menettäen itse yhden Fokkerin ja ohjaajan."

"In the Winter War the 24th Fighter Squadron shot down 127 soviet planes and lost 9 planes. The 26th Fighter Squadron shot down 24,5 soviet planes and lost 1 plane. "

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.XXI

Brewster B-239

In Finland in the Winter War (only during the last few days of it) and the Continuation War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

"476 Soviet and 3 German planes were shot down, 19 Brewsters were shot down in air-to-air combat, the final kill ratio thus being 1-to-25.2. "

http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf2con.htm

IIRC that kill ratio is the best in the World.


User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: The best allied equipment

#33

Post by Kingfish » 26 Jun 2014, 03:01

Guaporense wrote:I believe that if the Allied armed forces did not field a single tank and a single aircraft (including the Soviet Union), they would have won the war in the same way and their losses wouldn't have varied significantly from historical levels
Someone needs to frame this.
It is classic

Simply classic
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: The best allied equipment

#34

Post by Don Juan » 26 Jun 2014, 12:56

EKB wrote: Actually it was a Rolls Royce / Farman / Packard engine. :lol:

The two-speed supercharger was developed by French engineers, and purchased by Rolls Royce through license agreement with Farman. Packard also made several improvements to the Merlin, including installation of the Bendix injection-carburetor (the British Skinners Union float carburetor was garbage) the Wright supercharger drive quill replaced the Farman type, and all Packard V-1650 engines had Allison main bearings.
Well, I certainly can't wait until the Lockheed Martin Northrop Grumman Pratt & Whitney BAe Systems Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Rolls Royce RdF Alenia Aermacchi GKN Israeli Aircraft Industries Fokker Dunlop Eaton Precision Components Otto Fuchs Aurora Optics UTC Martin Baker Goodyear Harris Corporation Mercury EADS Honeywell FLIR Systems Air Liquide Dassault Systemes F-35 comes into service!
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: The best allied equipment

#35

Post by Don Juan » 26 Jun 2014, 13:08

Paul D wrote:ok, let me re-phrase the question
Much has been written about suposed axis superiority in equipment during ww2, not all of which is correct, whilst they may of started to develop some excelent equipment the war ended before they saw complete development.
i'm interested in allied equipment that didn't have an axis equal, areas where the allies were completely dominant.
so;
De Havilland Mosquito,
P51 mustang (c/w royals royce engine)
Mullberry harbours (well at least one of them)

i'd like your ideas and a degree of justification
I think almost all of what has been written about the supposed superiority of Axis equipment is incorrect. It makes me chuckle that the British rejected the Centaur tank because it failed to pass a severe non-stop 3000 mile endurance test, and was therefore deemed "unreliable", but the Germans put the Panther into service, which would have been lucky to have passed a 300 mile paved road test. This is the kind of warped lens through which Allied equipment has often been viewed.

My own view is that the best Allied equipment wasn't the stuff that was marginally superior in some performance parameter to its Axis equivalent, rather it was the bog-standard reliable stuff that could be produced in large numbers and did the job it was supposed to do. Which means unsexy things like Jeeps, C-47's, Lee Enfields, Shermans, P-40's, A-20's, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, Liberty Ships, Flower Class Corvettes, Light Cruisers, T-34's, PPSh 41's etc. etc. These were what good weapons and equipment should be.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: The best allied equipment

#36

Post by Graeme Sydney » 28 Jun 2014, 01:41

Although not 'war winning'. although not 'sexy', although not doing a dramatic task and although not widely applauded, and even with the dodgy exposed driving position and crew quarters, and with minimal armour and dodgy self defense, I dominated the British Daimler Dingo scout car.

Image

"The Daimler Dingo in action
The Dingo was first used by the BEF (British Expeditionary Force), 1st Armored Division and 4th Northumberland Fusilers in April-May 1940. The main users were cavalry corps using small reconnaissance units, which consisted generally of two Dingoes and two Daimler Armored Cars for support. The Dingoes served on every front alongside many Allies armies (Australian, New Zealand, even Polish and Free French Forces) and were so proficient that no replacement was sought before 1952, when the Daimler Ferret appeared. They served as reconnaissance vehicles but also as mobile observation post and by Royal Engineer units for locating mine fields and bridging positions, and HQ liaison vehicles. They were generally highly praised by the officers of all ranks, which tried to have them as their personal liaison and command vehicle.

Fast, reliable, nippy and quiet, this vehicle was probably one of the most successful British AFVs of the war, perfectly suited for its tasks.
" - See more at: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/g ... DS2rS.dpuf

Spontoon
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006, 06:12
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: The best allied equipment

#37

Post by Spontoon » 02 Jul 2014, 05:15

I nominate that little 5 cent can opener that came in ration packs from the US.!

Paul D
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 May 2014, 22:56

Re: The best allied equipment

#38

Post by Paul D » 02 Jul 2014, 13:59

Don Juan, thanks, sorry for the late reply i've just got of a deserted pacific island!!
Some of the equipment you've listed is exactly the response i was looking for. As with any conflict the 2 opposing forces always develop a micro-arms race, and each side will have good and "not so good" equipment. we constantly hear about the axis equipments superiority when in reality the allies had equally as much success with its equipment.
Spontoon, i believe that the 5 cent can opener ytou refer to has only just gone out of service with the british army, in fact if you go to many an ex-service mans house you may well find one in the kitchen draws. Longevity being a true sign of its worth.

I'm not sure the questioning of the mullberry harbour effectiveness is founded. Granted your statistics demonstrate it didn't convey the material that maybe its cost warranted, but was that not because Cherborg was captured in relatively good condition, meaning a deep water harbour was available. Had German defence and demolition been better (not just at Cherborg but at all smaller ports) would the harbour been more critical? Plan for the worst hope for the best!!

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: The best allied equipment

#39

Post by RichTO90 » 02 Jul 2014, 14:45

Paul D wrote:I'm not sure the questioning of the mullberry harbour effectiveness is founded. Granted your statistics demonstrate it didn't convey the material that maybe its cost warranted, but was that not because Cherborg was captured in relatively good condition, meaning a deep water harbour was available. Had German defence and demolition been better (not just at Cherborg but at all smaller ports) would the harbour been more critical? Plan for the worst hope for the best!!
Since it was me questioning the Mulberry effectiveness I guess I will reply. :D

No, Cherbourg was not captured in "relatively good condition". It was a wreck requiring much more work than anticipated. The port reconstruction began on the day after the German surrender, 27 June and wasn't completed until mid August. In any case, during the period of the Normandy campaign, the bulk of logistical operations was over the beaches rather than through ports of any kind.

Cheers!

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: The best allied equipment

#40

Post by Don Juan » 02 Jul 2014, 20:38

Personally I see the Mulberry harbour as a kind of British equivalent of the V2 rocket - an exuberant, expensive, resource-heavy display of national technical prowess of minor, but not entirely negligible, utility.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: The best allied equipment

#41

Post by RichTO90 » 02 Jul 2014, 22:08

Don Juan wrote:Personally I see the Mulberry harbour as a kind of British equivalent of the V2 rocket - an exuberant, expensive, resource-heavy display of national technical prowess of minor, but not entirely negligible, utility.
Indeed, it had the not negligible utility of giving enough confidence to the whingers that they agreed to go ahead with the operation. :D And although it was not decisive by itself, it was a major contribution to the logistical effort. Without it the entire ramshackle edifice likely would have collapsed. :lol:

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: The best allied equipment

#42

Post by Graeme Sydney » 03 Jul 2014, 00:17

Don Juan wrote:Personally I see the Mulberry harbour as a kind of British equivalent of the V2 rocket - an exuberant, expensive, resource-heavy display of national technical prowess of minor, but not entirely negligible, utility.
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. :lol:

Maybe in hindsight it shouldn't be put 'on the pedestal' (if indeed it has) but it was a good idea and did give confidence in the basic concept of the Invasion of not depending on capturing a harbour but to land unexpectedly in a relatively undefended coast.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: The best allied equipment

#43

Post by Graeme Sydney » 03 Jul 2014, 00:26

Spontoon wrote:I nominate that little 5 cent can opener that came in ration packs from the US.!
:thumbsup:

The Australian version had a bottle opener ( but no bottles in the rat pack 8O ) and incorporated a spoon :thumbsup: .

Image

The best, most reliable and fastest tin opener I ever used. :thumbsup:

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: The best allied equipment

#44

Post by Graeme Sydney » 03 Jul 2014, 00:31

No comments on my nomination, the humble Dingo, :cry:

Suffer through this vid to see the little beast hammer through the fields - pretty impressive for a 3 ton vehicle 70 years ago :milwink: . And it was British with a reputation for reliability :milsmile: .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoEQ64A5-O4

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: The best allied equipment

#45

Post by Don Juan » 03 Jul 2014, 23:20

Graeme Sydney wrote:No comments on my nomination, the humble Dingo, :cry:
The Dingo was great.

I just happen to think that the 2 pdr. equipped Daimler Armoured Car was even better.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

Post Reply

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”