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.
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by phylo_roadking » 26 Apr 2014 02:27

but they didn't perform all that well during the "Channel Dash"
Well, given that the RAF flew off examples of every combat aircraft currently in service during CERBERUS....Esmonde's Swordfish at least found and attacked the enemy! :P Which, in the context of that single operation, made it the most successful combat type in the British inventory! 8O
I don't think the Swordfish met any "serious" aerial opposition in the Atlantic
The Swordfish could actually absorb quite a lot of punishment - better than its barely-protected crew could :roll: The (very few) survivors of Esmonde's flight, and other Swordfish veterans, reported that having that big radial engine right up front protected them from a lot of oncoming lead!
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...

randwick
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 23 May 2006 22:08
Location: randwick

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by randwick » 26 Apr 2014 05:16

.
a bit unfair , they did pretty good against the Bismark and the Italian fleet .
another obsolete performer during the Norway campaign was the Fleet air arm Gladiators
though their rugged build and few needs made them operate from primitive snow airfields
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=WW2+ ... 36&bih=696

obsolete is not worst

User avatar
Maxschnauzer
Financial supporter
Posts: 4869
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 07:36
Location: Philippines

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by Maxschnauzer » 26 Apr 2014 06:10

Takao wrote:AFAIK, I don't think the Swordfish met any "serious" aerial opposition in the Atlantic, but they didn't perform all that well during the "Channel Dash", nor did they fair any better in the Pacific.
That may be true but torpedo bombers only have to be lucky once. Capital ships have to be lucky every time. The officers and men of the Bismarck would likely agree. :) That's why I don't think this aircraft should be put into the "worst" column. Just as in the story, the Philistines laughed at that kid David's slingshot as a weapon until he got off a lucky shot to Goliath's cranium.
Cheers,
Max

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3302
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by Takao » 28 Apr 2014 13:39

phylo_roadking wrote:
but they didn't perform all that well during the "Channel Dash"
Well, given that the RAF flew off examples of every combat aircraft currently in service during CERBERUS....Esmonde's Swordfish at least found and attacked the enemy! :P Which, in the context of that single operation, made it the most successful combat type in the British inventory! 8O
Yes, and so did some 40 other British bombers.

Not the first time I have heard a military failure called a "success."
phylo_roadking wrote:
I don't think the Swordfish met any "serious" aerial opposition in the Atlantic
The Swordfish could actually absorb quite a lot of punishment - better than its barely-protected crew could :roll: The (very few) survivors of Esmonde's flight, and other Swordfish veterans, reported that having that big radial engine right up front protected them from a lot of oncoming lead!
Many US veteran pilots reported the same with radial engines, as well as reporting that the radials could keep running with some serious damage to them.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3302
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by Takao » 28 Apr 2014 14:00

randwick wrote:.
a bit unfair , they did pretty good against the Bismark and the Italian fleet .
another obsolete performer during the Norway campaign was the Fleet air arm Gladiators
though their rugged build and few needs made them operate from primitive snow airfields
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=WW2+ ... 36&bih=696

obsolete is not worst
and
Maxschnauzer wrote:
Takao wrote:AFAIK, I don't think the Swordfish met any "serious" aerial opposition in the Atlantic, but they didn't perform all that well during the "Channel Dash", nor did they fair any better in the Pacific.
That may be true but torpedo bombers only have to be lucky once. Capital ships have to be lucky every time. The officers and men of the Bismarck would likely agree. :) That's why I don't think this aircraft should be put into the "worst" column. Just as in the story, the Philistines laughed at that kid David's slingshot as a weapon until he got off a lucky shot to Goliath's cranium.
Would either of you two gentlemen care to post a quote where I stated that the Swordfish belonged in the "worst" column.

Randwick,
It is hardly being "unfair". The Douglas TBD Devastator did pretty good against the Japanese carrier Shoho and reasonably well, considering their defective torpedoes, on most of the early nuisance raids against Japanese islands. But they were slaughtered at Midway when they ran into heavy Japanese resistance.


Maxschnauzer,
Actually, torpedo bombers have to be lucky all the time, just as capital ships do. The Americans and Japanese torpeckers took some very heavy losses early in the war.

User avatar
sunbury2
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: 07 Jan 2012 08:35

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by sunbury2 » 09 May 2014 12:14

The US Military spent millions on building a Bat Bomb! (cue music)

Image

No not that lol but that is saner but this

Image

While the best minds of a generation were working on the Manhattan Project, lesser minds were devoted to well, tying bombs to bats.

From wiki
Bat bombs were an experimental World War II weapon developed by the United States. The bomb consisted of a bomb-shaped casing with numerous compartments, each containing a Mexican Free-tailed Bat with a small timed incendiary bomb attached. Dropped from a bomber at dawn, the casings would deploy a parachute in mid-flight and open to release the bats which would then roost in eaves and attics. The incendiaries would start fires in inaccessible places in the largely wood and paper construction of the Japanese cities that were the weapon's intended target.
It took years to develop a bomb that a bat could carry but fortunately the war ended before such terror could be unleashed.

The only known use of the weapon was a "friendly fire" incident when some bats escaped and set fire to parts of the US Camp.
In one incident the Carlsbad Army Airfield Auxiliary Air Base 32°15′39″N 104°13′45″W near Carlsbad, New Mexico, was set on fire on May 15, 1943, when armed bats were accidentally released.[5] The bats incinerated the test range and roosted under a fuel tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

Felix C
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 04 Jul 2007 16:25
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by Felix C » 11 May 2014 21:38

Were light tanks actually useful? I mean say in 1943 onwards when mediums and heavies were present in larger numbers?
This is in reference to the ETO/EF/Italy.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by LWD » 12 May 2014 13:35

For scouting probably, the US certainly continued with them even after the war although what constituted a "light" tank in 1946 was quite a bit different from what constituted a "light" tank in even 1941.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by phylo_roadking » 12 May 2014 14:54

Quite true....an M5 had just about the same top speed as a Vickers MkVI...but five times the front armour thickness - and a 37mm gun! :lol: I can think of some early war cruiser and "heavy cruiser" tanks that didn't reach the same spec as the M5! 8O

And that's without mentioning the M3/M5's enviable reputation for reliability compared to those!
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...

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by LWD » 12 May 2014 18:16

And when you consider that this light tank went into production in 44:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Chaffee

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by phylo_roadking » 12 May 2014 19:05

The M24 is a strange case - it had the gun....but not the armour; almost half the frontal thickness of the M5. Shows just how to get one aspect improved, you have to compromise somewhere else in the equation :(

The speed was only a few mph higher too - although the suspension etc. was admittedly a huge improvement.
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...

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by LWD » 12 May 2014 20:14

Still I'm sure say the British would have loved to have had a bunch of them for use as "light tanks" in say 1940 and 41.

randwick
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 23 May 2006 22:08
Location: randwick

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by randwick » 13 May 2014 01:59

.
There were a fair bit of confusion on "light tanks"
Patton for one was enamored of them and saw their use as exploitation , cavalry like
like the horse cavalry , with the notable exception of the Eastern front ,that was a delusion

but anything which was machine gun and mortar proof could and was used for infantry support
the British infantrymen loved the Honeys ,
for scouting purpose wheeled vehicles were much better

pugsville
Member
Posts: 907
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by pugsville » 13 May 2014 06:28

The Swordfish outlasted it's designator successor in service the Albacore, mainly as the swordfish could operate in crapped conditions on escort carriers were it's lower speed made it more serviceable (less pace to take off). The Swordfish gave good service, but mostly in a fighter free environment, I'm sure in the pacific short comings would have been much more exposed. In European theatre British Carriers and Convoy protection aircraft operated in an environment generally free of hostile fighters.

randwick
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 23 May 2006 22:08
Location: randwick

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by randwick » 17 May 2014 00:32

.
No fighters cover was a must for the torpedo planes
they had enough trouble without them
flying slow , low on a steady heading was making them the choice target for every guns
dive bombers had a much better chance of survival and escape
as for the Bismark , the critical factor was that he was alone , no destroyer escort riding flank

Even when sending the Yamato on a criminally insane one way mission
he was provided with five escorts

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