Most feasible/effective Wunderwaffe?

[Yodasgrandad]

I know majority of the Wunderwaffe was garbage but I was wondering if there were any that would been actually decent?

And yes I know it's not a game changer so they'll automatically win I am simply enquiring about the most plausible design?

[maltesefalcon]

I think the only weapon that could be developed in time to be a game changer would be some kind of biological weapon.

It could be deployed in aerosol form in standard gas shells or dropped by aircraft. No need to wait for V1 or V2.

It was risky and invited retaliation by the allies.

They would likely need to deploy en masse by summer 1943 to turn the war around though.

The risk of spreading contagion within occupied territories or the Reich itself would need to be carefully balanced (and minimized) with the realization that the alternative was defeat.

[T. A. Gardner]

I could think of a several that might have been very useful to the Germans, particularly if taken seriously or developed a bit earlier:

The PAW 600 antitank gun
Recoilless rifles
The MP 43/44
Nepolit (an explosive)

The advantages of these would have greatly improved the firepower and fighting capacity of German infantry divisions. What the Wehrmacht needed most was to have more than 20% of their army really needed to be offensively capable and needed far more heavy weapons.

[maltesefalcon]

I have a real cheap but effective game changer. One 9mm round chambered into a P-38, then fired into Hitlers head right around the time of Dunkirk should do the trick.

[Yodasgrandad]

I could think of a several that might have been very useful to the Germans, particularly if taken seriously or developed a bit earlier:

The PAW 600 antitank gun
Recoilless rifles
The MP 43/44
Nepolit (an explosive)

The advantages of these would have greatly improved the firepower and fighting capacity of German infantry divisions. What the Wehrmacht needed most was to have more than 20% of their army really needed to be offensively capable and needed far more heavy weapons.

Wasn't the MP44 unreliable though?

[T. A. Gardner]

Wasn't the MP44 unreliable though?

Not that I've heard of. The magazines were a bit cumbersome and pouches often were non-existent or in short supply. There was initially some issues with jamming due to use of steel cartridges but that was sorted out by putting a varnish on them that kept them from sticking. That method is still used today. You can see it with AK 47 cartridges that are a greenish color. Same thing. Steel with a varnish on them.

As for the other weapons, these were cheap and easy to produce. If a typical infantry division had 36 to 48 antitank guns like the PAW 600 instead of may 12 to 24 that would be a big benefit to them. Recoilless guns are the same way. Man portable with lots of firepower.

Switching very early to some sort of cheap mass produced crawler tractor would have helped infantry divisions too. These could have replaced horse teams for towing artillery. The speed would have been about the same as using horses, but one or two tractors doing the work instead of 6 to 12 horses, would have been a huge improvement. The Lanz Bulldog tractors, for example, used "semi-diesel" engines and would run on just about anything combustible, including kerosene, used motor oil, cooking oil, and even unrefined crude oil. Something like that isn't putting a big burden on fuel supplies. The Germans could have powdered coal, mixed it with water, and heated that to get a liquid fuel for this sort of tractor if they had to.

When roughly 80% of the Wehrmacht was good for little more than holding ground, that is a huge problem. Making infantry divisions more effective than they were should have been a very high priority.

[Yodasgrandad]

Wasn't the MP44 unreliable though?

Not that I've heard of. The magazines were a bit cumbersome and pouches often were non-existent or in short supply. There was initially some issues with jamming due to use of steel cartridges but that was sorted out by putting a varnish on them that kept them from sticking. That method is still used today. You can see it with AK 47 cartridges that are a greenish color. Same thing. Steel with a varnish on them.

As for the other weapons, these were cheap and easy to produce. If a typical infantry division had 36 to 48 antitank guns like the PAW 600 instead of may 12 to 24 that would be a big benefit to them. Recoilless guns are the same way. Man portable with lots of firepower.

Switching very early to some sort of cheap mass produced crawler tractor would have helped infantry divisions too. These could have replaced horse teams for towing artillery. The speed would have been about the same as using horses, but one or two tractors doing the work instead of 6 to 12 horses, would have been a huge improvement. The Lanz Bulldog tractors, for example, used "semi-diesel" engines and would run on just about anything combustible, including kerosene, used motor oil, cooking oil, and even unrefined crude oil. Something like that isn't putting a big burden on fuel supplies. The Germans could have powdered coal, mixed it with water, and heated that to get a liquid fuel for this sort of tractor if they had to.

When roughly 80% of the Wehrmacht was good for little more than holding ground, that is a huge problem. Making infantry divisions more effective than they were should have been a very high priority.

Hello,

Thanks for the reply, I just remember reading somewhere that it was fragile or something, you could drop it on a hard floor and it would break apparently.!

[stg 44]

I could think of a several that might have been very useful to the Germans, particularly if taken seriously or developed a bit earlier:

The PAW 600 antitank gun
Recoilless rifles
The MP 43/44
Nepolit (an explosive)

The advantages of these would have greatly improved the firepower and fighting capacity of German infantry divisions. What the Wehrmacht needed most was to have more than 20% of their army really needed to be offensively capable and needed far more heavy weapons.

Agree on the PAW, they had recoilless rifles, but the propellant usage was too much to make them worthwhile (which led to the PAW BTW), the STG44 wasn't that great, but the STG45 was, but all of the above don't really solve the strategic issues of the Wehrmacht. The V-1 ready in 1941 would have been a game changer in a lot of ways on the strategic level, but really the biggest difference would have to be not to invade the USSR and instead work out a deal to bring them into the Axis.

[T. A. Gardner]

The advantages of these would have greatly improved the firepower and fighting capacity of German infantry divisions. What the Wehrmacht needed most was to have more than 20% of their army really needed to be offensively capable and needed far more heavy weapons.

Agree on the PAW, they had recoilless rifles, but the propellant usage was too much to make them worthwhile (which led to the PAW BTW), the STG44 wasn't that great, but the STG45 was, but all of the above don't really solve the strategic issues of the Wehrmacht.[/quote]

What I was looking at was making say 50% of German divisions combat effective rather than 20%. That translates into a big strategic advantage for a land power. Making more infantry divisions capable of actually fighting offensively and more than capable of standing up to mechanized attacks on the defense is really a big change.

The V-1 ready in 1941 would have been a game changer in a lot of ways on the strategic level, but really the biggest difference would have to be not to invade the USSR and instead work out a deal to bring them into the Axis.

Probably not. The V-1 was a nuisance. Worse, it's so simple a weapon that it's easily copied and turned on it's inventors. The US thought about doing that historically. Their first flying copy of the V-1 was ready 60 days after the first V-1 hit London. Ford Motor Company and Willy's Overland were tentatively going to start mass production of 5,000 a month to fire into Germany, but the US military decided it wasn't worth the cost or effort as late in the war as it was.
Even in 1941, most are going to end up being shot down. AA guns in 1941 are nearly as effective versus the V-1 as they are in 1944.

Not invading the USSR is the big strategic item. All Germany needs do is make friendly with them and keep out of a war. Concentrating on getting a peace with Britain should have been the driving issue for Germany post defeat of France.

[stg 44]

What I was looking at was making say 50% of German divisions combat effective rather than 20%. That translates into a big strategic advantage for a land power. Making more infantry divisions capable of actually fighting offensively and more than capable of standing up to mechanized attacks on the defense is really a big change.

Not sure if those changes you describe get you anywhere close to 50% more effective and even if so there are the supply issues that come with having a more firepower oriented force.

Probably not. The V-1 was a nuisance. Worse, it's so simple a weapon that it's easily copied and turned on it's inventors. The US thought about doing that historically. Their first flying copy of the V-1 was ready 60 days after the first V-1 hit London. Ford Motor Company and Willy's Overland were tentatively going to start mass production of 5,000 a month to fire into Germany, but the US military decided it wasn't worth the cost or effort as late in the war as it was.
Even in 1941, most are going to end up being shot down. AA guns in 1941 are nearly as effective versus the V-1 as they are in 1944.

It was much more than the nuisance. Based on calculations I've seen in Allied reports they spent at least 3:1 resources combating it (total cost of V-1 defense/damage/etc. for the Allies: total cost to the Germans to develop/make/launch sites/defend sites/etc.). The US thought they were so effective they built over 1300 copies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2
The Allies also spent over 70k tons of explosives trying to shut down just the launch sites. They had to evacuate up to 800k people from London and suffered damage to over 1 million houses. The cost to shoot down one V-1 before the introduction of the 90mm US AAA with SCR-584 radar with automated guidance and VT fuse was several times more than the missile cost to make (2000-3000 AAA shells at several pounds/dollars per shell, while the V-1 was 5000 Reichsmarks, which was worth a fraction of the dollar or pound); that is if they even successfully hit one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flyin ... Assessment

There is no SCR-584 in the field until 1944, no VT fuse to use before mid-1943. The Brits would have to invest in vast AAA belts that would have a severe opportunity cost in 1941 and beyond to build. Intercepting with existing fighters is nearly impossible, only the Tempests, Meteors, and Griffon engine Spits could catch them at altitude. In 1941 there is just not an effective counter and historically the V-1s inflicted more damage in shorter time at lower cost to the Germans than the Blitz.

Edit:
BTW Nipolit used to make parts of the V-1 missile, say the nose cone and part of the body around the warhead, would dramatically improve it's explosive potential.

Not invading the USSR is the big strategic item. All Germany needs do is make friendly with them and keep out of a war. Concentrating on getting a peace with Britain should have been the driving issue for Germany post defeat of France.

Agreed.

[losna]

Not invading the USSR is the big strategic item. All Germany needs do is make friendly with them and keep out of a war. Concentrating on getting a peace with Britain should have been the driving issue for Germany post defeat of France.

I agree that Germany absolutely needed peace with the UK after the Fall of France, but I don't agree with a peace with the USSR.
Occupation of the USSR was the only way to turn Germany - in the long run - into a superpower like the US. Otherwise, Germany would have striven with the raw materials and foodstuffs constraints that limited its power as in OTL; furthermore, having the USSR as a raw material supplier in the Axis would have meant Stalin holding the purse strings - a very dangerous situation.
Indeed, Germany without an open Western front could have made its victory against the USSR, though at a high cost.

Switching very early to some sort of cheap mass produced crawler tractor would have helped infantry divisions too. These could have replaced horse teams for towing artillery. The speed would have been about the same as using horses, but one or two tractors doing the work instead of 6 to 12 horses, would have been a huge improvement. The Lanz Bulldog tractors, for example, used "semi-diesel" engines and would run on just about anything combustible, including kerosene, used motor oil, cooking oil, and even unrefined crude oil. Something like that isn't putting a big burden on fuel supplies. The Germans could have powdered coal, mixed it with water, and heated that to get a liquid fuel for this sort of tractor if they had to.

Do you mean something like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWtZKTfhZ-Q

The Super Landini could pull 5 metric tons - the main problem is turning it into a crawler, but it can be manufactured by Italians, thus potentially saving German industrial capacity.

[T. A. Gardner]

Here's the German equivalent, the Lanz bulldog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uybslncIbVg

There was a crawler version in production pre-war and Lanz built thousands of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9200cRc3J58

So, the equipment was already available in Germany, the military simply didn't see the value in it.

[stg 44]

Here's the German equivalent, the Lanz bulldog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uybslncIbVg

There was a crawler version in production pre-war and Lanz built thousands of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9200cRc3J58

So, the equipment was already available in Germany, the military simply didn't see the value in it.

Is that because groups like Organization Todt were the ones that were considered responsible for major construction tasks and the Army did not have something equivalent to the US Army Corps of Engineers for such jobs? It could just have been part of the Nazi organizational mess of having such construction tasks performed by a non-military, Nazi labor organization, rather than a task for the military to handle as it was in the US.

[T. A. Gardner]

[
Is that because groups like Organization Todt were the ones that were considered responsible for major construction tasks and the Army did not have something equivalent to the US Army Corps of Engineers for such jobs? It could just have been part of the Nazi organizational mess of having such construction tasks performed by a non-military, Nazi labor organization, rather than a task for the military to handle as it was in the US.

OT was more like the US CCC or WPA of the New Deal era. OT became simply a institutionalized public works program as it evolved. But, I get the impression that in Germany in the 30's and 40's mechanized construction of the sort the US was doing on a widespread basis simply wasn't even being considered. I suspect that the German government simply saw mass manpower as cheaper than providing lots of machinery to do a task.

But, the Wehrmacht never seems to have considered the crawler tractor, particularly a simple one, as an alternative to horses. I think here the pre-war mindset was to get "the best" designs for everything. Hence, why the "standard" motor vehicles had things like independent spring suspensions with unequal A arms, the halftracks had those grossly expensive lubricated pin rubber pad tracks and interleaved suspensions that included a complex steering assist, and that sort of thing. The Wehrmacht wanted the very best stuff they could get and put getting their needs met in quantity a distant second. That left most of their units with hand-me-downs, captured gear, or leftovers from WW 1 when it came time to actually fight a war.

[stg 44]

OT was more like the US CCC or WPA of the New Deal era. OT became simply a institutionalized public works program as it evolved. But, I get the impression that in Germany in the 30's and 40's mechanized construction of the sort the US was doing on a widespread basis simply wasn't even being considered. I suspect that the German government simply saw mass manpower as cheaper than providing lots of machinery to do a task.

OT certainly was not like the CCC or WPA, it build military project like the Atlantic Wall and West Wall plus used slave labor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Todt

The Todt Organisation (German: Organisation Todt, OT) was a Third Reich civil and military engineering group in Germany named after its founder, Fritz Todt, an engineer and senior Nazi figure. The organization was responsible for a huge range of engineering projects both in pre-World War II Germany, in Germany itself and occupied territories from France to the Soviet Union during the war. It became notorious for using forced labour.

I can see why you'd assume it was like the US civilian works programs, because it started as that, but rapidly became a power center for Todt and focused on military projects.

But, the Wehrmacht never seems to have considered the crawler tractor, particularly a simple one, as an alternative to horses. I think here the pre-war mindset was to get "the best" designs for everything. Hence, why the "standard" motor vehicles had things like independent spring suspensions with unequal A arms, the halftracks had those grossly expensive lubricated pin rubber pad tracks and interleaved suspensions that included a complex steering assist, and that sort of thing. The Wehrmacht wanted the very best stuff they could get and put getting their needs met in quantity a distant second. That left most of their units with hand-me-downs, captured gear, or leftovers from WW 1 when it came time to actually fight a war.

What are you talking about? They had prime movers as alternatives to horses and entire classes of halftracks for supply and movement of equipment.
I mean they had the RSO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raupenschlepper,_Ost
Crawler tractors are not meant to do long range movement, which is why you need thinks like halftracks and interweaved suspension to smooth out the ride (prior to being able to develop better torsion bar suspension that didn't require interweaving, also a function of spreading out the weight as Germany lacked the raw materials to make high strength torsion bars that could handle weight with fewer bars; that was also part of the reason the Allies generally didn't use torsion bar suspension during the war for their mass produced designs).

Crawler tractors have different roles than things like long distance haulers, so you can't compare them in terms of roles. They did have those sorts of tractors/prime movers though.