Worst equipment of WW2

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Post Reply
Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#46

Post by Graeme Sydney » 13 Mar 2014, 00:37

WEISWEILER wrote:And what do we think of the Salatschüssel?

Image
Although it looks medieval it is very good for it intended purpose - stopping falling debris and low velocity heavy flying objects from incapacitating the user.

One of the benefits of the design is that it didn't capture sound and send you deaf as the M1 did (and I'm guessing any of the others that came over the ears).

But keeping it in place during activities - running, jumping and throwing yourself on the ground - it was completely useless.

6 out of 10 if you are generous (M1 about the same).

flakbait
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 02:37

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#47

Post by flakbait » 14 Mar 2014, 09:39

The Imperial Japanese Okha suicide rocket bomb was certainly unable to live up to it`s potential, being piloted by men who towards the very end of the war were forced to forego even the single supposedly `mandatory unpowered glider version training flight. Over 700 were built, and carried hopefully close enough to be released and once clear of the mother G4M "Betty" bomber, these young brave men were expected to ignite the rockets and in a shallow dive at close to 600 mph crash into Allied capital ships, at least crippling them, or better yet sinking them...the reality was far different. Of the approx. 110 attempted attacks less than 20 were successfully dropped and 3/4th of these total sorties were dropped as the "Betty" came under attack from Allied aircraft, completely too far away for even the Okha to cover the distance, and with greater than 60% of the "Betty" bombers shot down, most times before the Okha could be launched or just jettisoned . For the loss of approx. 65 "Betty bombers and their crews, the Okha and pilots, exactly 3 managed hits on Allied ships, lightly damaging 1 older US battleship, and sinking 1 US destroyer and 1 Liberty ship...


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#48

Post by phylo_roadking » 14 Mar 2014, 13:55

To be fair though - by the end of the war, how many hits would those 65 "Bettys" configured as bombers have achieved on U.S. ships? ;)
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

flakbait
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 02:37

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#49

Post by flakbait » 15 Mar 2014, 03:05

Out of the 110 sorties how many Okha hits did they get ? A TOTAL of 3...plus the weight and drag of the Okhas made them even easier sitting ducks than they already were...

User avatar
sunbury2
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 09:35

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#50

Post by sunbury2 » 15 Mar 2014, 03:42

flakbait wrote:Out of the 110 sorties how many Okha hits did they get ? A TOTAL of 3...plus the weight and drag of the Okhas made them even easier sitting ducks than they already were...
I don't think the Okha classifies as "bad equipment". It didn't blow up regularly or crash due to technological issues. It basically worked fine.

What was wrong was the tactical environment it was operated in. A long over water flight in a slow twin engined bomber against an enemy who had over whelming superiority in everything; i.e. radar, warships, fighter aircraft.

A "what if" , is who can say how it would have operated during an Invasion of Japan, where ships would be close in shore and options for launching could have been varied.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#51

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Mar 2014, 21:02

Yep, ditto for the air-launched V1s. The "launch system" was highly vulnerable, but the weapon itself no worse or no better than the ground-launched V1.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

flakbait
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 02:37

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#52

Post by flakbait » 19 Mar 2014, 07:02

Where the Okha MIGHT have excelled would probably have been during the actual invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. Few persons know the Okha was also successfully tested as a GROUND launched weapon. They were made largely of wood and were able to be quickly and cheaply massed produced and being rocket powered rapidly sped up to close to 600 mph while climbing and selecting their targets, then diving down at 650+ mph, almost unable to be intercepted or shot down. The Japanese hoped to have 1,500 in place to meet the 1st wave of gunfire support ships as the Allies stormed ashore, along with approx. 3,000 other Kamikazes. With `only` an average success rate of 14% that works out to over 300 hits on the invasion fleet ships on J-Day; assuming that `only` 10% of the victims sink, that`s 30 ships SUNK in just the 1st 24 hours... it does not count the badly damaged or crippled ships beyond economic repair...it would certainly make the naval commanders think really HARD about being willing to stay close enough to provide critically necessary naval shore bombardment capabilities. It becomes easier to understand Truman`s clear and unregretted decision to use the atomic bombs just as SOON as possible to avoid exactly this scenario...keep in mind that ALL Japanese persons old enough to fight at all were being given sharped bamboo spears to fight along side the regular Army and Naval troops...

randwick
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 23 May 2006, 23:08
Location: randwick

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#53

Post by randwick » 23 Mar 2014, 06:33

.
the Sherman was a shocking machine ,by 1944 sending it against the Germans was a crime ,
it suffered astronomical losses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4
its propensity to catch fire was only related to its ammo storage ,
worst was its thin skin , high profile and the use of high octane gasoline for its aviation derived engine
its gun was way to small , up gunning it was very difficult due to its small turret ring
for a short while around early 1943 it was adequate ,but was left behind by the new generation of armor

The worst should not be applied to prototype , that's normal to develop duds ,
that's why the weapons are field tested
it's not fair either to mention obsolete equipment, off course the results will be under par
the Buffalo was used by the Australian ,because that's what they had ,
it was OK as long as fighting Zero one on one was not on the menu

as for the OKA , sinking one ship probably paid for the whole project,
it's about asymmetry of means to an end.

The Sten was cheap , cheerful, light and easy to make ....plenty were made
as was pointed out above , magazines are the usual weak point in automatic weapons
its lack of a safety probably killed quite a few allied soldiers , it did the job if looked after with some suspicion
certainly it was very far from outstanding but it delivered on its purpose , close quarter combat

For me the worst piece of equipment , in a very contested field , is the British tank , the Churchill
developed during the war , in full knowledge of the requirements and with a long list of crappy predecessors
it was under gunned and unreliable with all the defects of its predecessors and the only advantage of a fine suspension
when the first specimen fell into German hands after the Dieppe raid the German couldn't believe that was the new British main battle tank ,
they supposed it was a rejected project send on a mission to fool the Wehrmacht into complacency

It found some marginal use as specialized equipment for the D Day landing
the British then used the Sherman , totally outclassed by then

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#54

Post by LWD » 24 Mar 2014, 14:47

randwick wrote:.
the Sherman was a shocking machine ,by 1944 sending it against the Germans was a crime ,
Not really.
it suffered astronomical losses
Compared to what?
... its propensity to catch fire was only related to its ammo storage ,
worst was its thin skin , high profile and the use of high octane gasoline for its aviation derived engine
???
I think you misplaced a word or two. All WWII tanks tended to catch fire rather easily. From the analysis I've seen the Sherman was a little better than some of the German tanks and a little worse than others. I'm not sure that the numbers were statistically significant. The German tanks all used gasoline as well. After the wet storage I suspect the Sherman was acutally less likely to catch fire than the German tanks. Then of course some of them were diesel as well. It also never had a tendency to self immolate as the Panthers did.
its gun was way to small , up gunning it was very difficult due to its small turret ring
for a short while around early 1943 it was adequate ,but was left behind by the new generation of armor
It's gun was not "too small". It was essentially the same size as the Panther and it's performance was on a par with the guns of the T-34. The 75mm gun lacked armor penetration compared to other late war tanks but the 76mm gun brought it up to par with the PzIV and the T34. The turrent ring was not too small. It was the same size as the turret ring on the Pershing and could have accomidated that turret. Note that there was also a 105mm armed version. It was at least adequate late war especially if you take into account the "ilities" (i.e. reliability, availability, transport ability, sustainability, produceability, etc). I do think it could have been better (a new turret with a 90mm gun for instance) but it simply isn't in the running for worst in any reasonable analysis.

flakbait
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 02:37

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#55

Post by flakbait » 25 Mar 2014, 07:44

The Sherman was on a par with the T-34 roughly; while not outstanding individually, it WAS easy to build, transport, maintain, repair, and it could be modified for a variety of roles as occurred at Normandy and beyond. And as has been mentioned, both the Firefly and the upgunned and up armored E-8 versions held their own against the rapidly collapsing Nazi forces and into Korea and service with Israel. Lastly, there were SO MANY of them...the Russians, themselves no strangers to the Shermans have this saying they are rather fond of : "Quantity has a quality all of it`s own..."

User avatar
Maxschnauzer
Financial supporter
Posts: 6002
Joined: 24 Jan 2014, 08:36
Location: Philippines

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#56

Post by Maxschnauzer » 25 Mar 2014, 11:10

I'm reluctant to call anything best or worst but one of he most ineffective weapons systems of the war has to be the Japanese "balloon bombs". Of over 9000 balloons launched only one resulted in casualties (a woman and her children) and no major incendiary fires although their psychological effect was no doubt felt on the US west coast.
Cheers,
Max

randwick
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 23 May 2006, 23:08
Location: randwick

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#57

Post by randwick » 25 Mar 2014, 12:26

.
on the Sherman losses in 1944 , I suggest you actually watch the video
nothing like personal testimony from a knowledgeable witness
the 105 mm variants were Jerry rigged with some difficulties by the British , the gun was mounted side on
the firefly was open top
the Sherman did pretty good work as an infantry tank but even the Hertzen was chewing it up
about 4000 tanks destroyed just for Normandy ,
some units had 600% losses and they kept going !!!

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#58

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 25 Mar 2014, 13:24

randwick wrote:.
on the Sherman losses in 1944 , I suggest you actually watch the video
nothing like personal testimony from a knowledgeable witness
the 105 mm variants were Jerry rigged with some difficulties by the British , the gun was mounted side on
the firefly was open top
the Sherman did pretty good work as an infantry tank but even the Hertzen was chewing it up
about 4000 tanks destroyed just for Normandy ,
some units had 600% losses and they kept going !!!
Yea, yea, just a few comments. There were about 50,000 Shermans built of which around 7000(most in ETO) were destroyed in total WWII. But if you compare that to the T-34 of which there was also about 50000 built , 45000 of them were destroyed in WWII. :wink:

I suppose we could go find the numbers and percentages for various German tank models destroyed in WWII , although I am fairly certain :lol: those figures would be about as bad or worse than the T-34.

But, if you really want to know, try this http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.ph ... opic=30346

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#59

Post by RichTO90 » 25 Mar 2014, 14:45

randwick wrote:.
on the Sherman losses in 1944 , I suggest you actually watch the video
Why would we want to get history from a video?
nothing like personal testimony from a knowledgeable witness
Yes, for the personal events that they experienced and remember, including the confabulation of 70 odd years. Otherwise, we have the documentary testimony, which doesn't change.
the 105 mm variants were Jerry rigged with some difficulties by the British , the gun was mounted side on
Er, no, either you or the documentary are horribly confused. The M4 105mm Howitzer as mounted in the M4 Medium Tank was most definitely not jury rigged (what is "Jerry rigged?) Given that the armament and mounting were developed over the course of some three years its difficult to imagine how it could be considered a jury rig? The British 17-pdr as mounted by British Ordnance in the M4 Medium Tank on the other hand was a jury rig, and was mounted on its side.

BTW, have you seen how the Germans mounted the 7.5cm KwK 40 in the Jg.Pz. Hetzer? Now that is a jury rig.
the firefly was open top
No, it was not. I think you need to start watching some better videos.
the Sherman did pretty good work as an infantry tank but even the Hertzen was chewing it up
What, pray tell, is a "Hertzen"?
about 4000 tanks destroyed just for Normandy ,
Um, no, not by any stretch of the imagination. U.S. tank losses for the Normandy Campaign (i.e. to circa 24 August 1944) were 819. British losses were 1,211. Total, 2,030. German losses were at least 617, but likely closer to 1,800-odd in the same period.
some units had 600% losses and they kept going !!!
Amazing! :roll: The hoary old 3rd Armored Division factoid - 780 tanks lost versus 390 on hand or 633 Medium Tanks versus 232 on hand - it isn't even good math. It also conveniently ignores that it was the highest tank loss by any division..and that in turn the Division claimed the destruction of 1,023 German tanks by their own fire and another 423 recovered abandoned.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

#60

Post by gebhk » 25 Mar 2014, 15:29

Regarding the TKS with 20mm autocannon - you need to view equipment in its context. This was a recce vehicle for infantry and cavalry units. An appropriate comparison would be with the German SdKfz 13/14 and British scout carriers. Was it worse equipment than those? I very much doubt it, even if we consider the standard MG armed version, let alone the 20mm auto-cannon armed job we see in the photo. Compared to the others it had a MMG or 20mm weapon vs lmg or umg and a fully enclosed fighting compartment rather than an open top. I would hazard a guess that x-country performance of the TKS was better than that of the SdKfz 13/14.

In competent hands it could go toe to toe with light battle tanks even though it was never designed for this role. On 19th September Roman Orlik claimed 7 ex-Czechoslovak Pz 35(t)s in a head to head encounter (although subsequently other Polish units fighting in the same encounter claimed some of the 'scalps'). The point is the 'weapon' could hold its own and come out unscathed even though grossly outnumbered and on paper outmatched. Would a scout carrier or SdKfz 13 have done equally well? Doubtful.

Post Reply

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