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.
RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by RichTO90 » 17 May 2014 04:28

phylo_roadking wrote: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.
Er, no, not really I'm afraid.

Armor Basis (i.e. effective thickness) M5//M24 in inches

Hull Front Upper 2 1/2 // 2 1/2
Hull Front Lower 2 to 2 1/2 // 1 1/2
Hull Sides and Rear 1 to 1 1/2 // 3/4 to 1 1/4
Hull Top 1/2 // 1/2
Hull Bottom 3/8 to 1/2 // 3/8 to 1/2
Turret Front 2 // 2 to 2 1/4
Turret Sides and Rear 1 1/4 // 1 to 1 1/4
Turret Top 1/2 // 1/2

The only significant advantage the M5 had in armor was the lower hull front, which was one of the least vulnerable areas unless at very close range, when it would hardly matter. The only place where the armor was "half the frontal thickness" (actual rather than armor basis) was also the lower hull front; 1 inch in the M24, but better employed than the 2 to 2 1/2 inch thick plate on the M5 that wasn't sloped.

Maximum speed on level ground for the M24 was 35 MPH, for the M5 it was 36, so in fact it was slightly slower...except on any sort of grade where its wider tracks provided better traction. The M24 could cross a 6 1/2 foot trench compared to the 5 1/3 foot ability of the M5; the M24 could climb a 36 inch vertical obstacle, while it was only 18 inches for the M5; the M24 could ford 40 inch depths, the M5 only 36 inches; and the M24 had 17 inches of ground clearance, the M5 only 13 3/4; and finally, the M24 had only 10.7 lb./sq.ft. ground pressure compared to the M5 12.4. The center-guide tracks of the M24 were less prone to being thrown, while the torsion bar suspension gave a better ride.

The M24 was as well protected, easier to drive, was more maneuverable, and had much greater firepower, all in a vehicle only 5,750 pounds heavier in gross weight.

Bokkop
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 04 Jan 2009 20:05
Location: West Sussex

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by Bokkop » 17 May 2014 12:23

Many of the nominations for worst equipment had been quite adequate for their intended purpose when they first entered service, and when used later in extremis might not have been very effective but weren't necessarily bad.

That can't be said of the Sten, which AFAIK had only one redeeming feature (price). Magazine lips are indeed vulnerable and do lead to jams, but other designs seem to be less vulnerable.

I think ChristopherPerrien is onto something though:
ChristopherPerrien wrote: To be honest , I rather hear of non-combat/mundane use equipment that was the worst, rather than just weapons. Soldiers used that stuff far more than they used weapons, so this topic should be a discussion more of raincoats, packs, coats, heaters,lamps, boots, rations, tents , trucks , containers, tools , utility knifes, etc, ad inf.
In the non-weapon category I nominate the 4 gallon fuel container. Flimsy, difficult to pour from, likely to leak, and with handle of matching stupidity. I don't have the biography to hand, but seem to recall that the South African general Dan Pienaar said that fuel containers were the one thing that everybody, of all ranks, envied the enemy for. Not a small matter, fuel supply.

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 May 2014 20:29

Hi Bokkop - the "flimsy" was mentioned a few pages back....but technically the TWO-gallon version was "worse" - ALL the same issues but the same price to make as the four gallon one!
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
Maxschnauzer
Financial supporter
Posts: 4869
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 07:36
Location: Philippines

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by Maxschnauzer » 18 May 2014 03:18

Bokkop wrote:

In the non-weapon category I nominate the 4 gallon fuel container. Flimsy, difficult to pour from, likely to leak, and with handle of matching stupidity. I don't have the biography to hand, but seem to recall that the South African general Dan Pienaar said that fuel containers were the one thing that everybody, of all ranks, envied the enemy for. Not a small matter, fuel supply.
Yet even the much reviled "flimsy" proved useful in unintended roles after being replaced by the Jerry Can:
Filled with sand, it became an impromptu building block for gun emplacements and buildings. Cut in half and filled with petrol-soaked sand, it was used as a stove for boiling water (in another half-flimsy), and known as a Benghazi burner or Benghazi boiler (the latter term was subsequently applied to the Thermette, an early volcano kettle supplied to troops from New Zealand). The Benghazi burner was also effective for illuminating rough landing strips at night...
http://www.overlandexpo.com/overland-te ... limsy.html
Cheers,
Max

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by randwick » 18 May 2014 23:43

.
Worst equipment of WW2
a dishonorable mention for the Nbr 4 spike bayonet ,
last used at El Alamein for no good purpose , it was useless in its first duty as a can opener
the Soviet bayonet was also no good , it made the Moisin nagan top heavy ,
the shock infantry used sharpened spade as battle axes instead
the Japanese made much of bayonet charge , that was a medieval delusion
probably got more imperial soldiers killed than anything
by the time an assault is within hand to hand range , bayonets are not very useful

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by LWD » 20 May 2014 14:23

randwick wrote:.... for scouting purpose wheeled vehicles were much better
That is very dependent on where you are. The greater mobility of tracked vehicles in rough terrain would imply that they are better scouts in such terrain.

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by randwick » 21 May 2014 22:47

.
speed , longer range , less noisy , easier maintenance , much smaller fuel consumtion
higger ground clearance , better performance on broken ground
only if towing heavy load or on very soft ground and snow is tracked better
up to 5 tons , four wheels win
up to 15 tons , six wheels win

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by LWD » 21 May 2014 22:57

Better preformance on broken ground? Care to provide some sources.
Speed over rough terrain is not necessarily greater either. On roads certainly but off road, not so much.

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by randwick » 23 May 2014 05:35

tracted vehicle suspension is appaling over rocky ground
I know I've ridden them ,
the ground clearance is usually pretty low making the driver circunspect of rocks than a wheeled vehicle would ride over
even on soft ground the wheelies perform nearly as good

Tracked ligh armor is pretty questionnable ,their best undisputed superiority is as Infantry fighting vehicles
but even then the wheeled APC can mix it and support their sqad

vehicle recon is pretty much ....looking for trouble , finding it , being shot at and skeedazzling , fast !

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by LWD » 23 May 2014 13:53

When the US army was running test for a new armored vehicle several years ago it came down to the Stryker vs the M113. In measure of mobility but on road performance the M113 came out ahead. Now I have had an opertunity to ride in both and I'd certainly perfer riding in a Stryker. I just don't find it convincing especially with WW2 era technology that the wheeled vehicles had better mobility than tracks in most cases.

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by randwick » 25 May 2014 04:16

.
Interesting , what was the maintenance and fuel consumption like ?
and more to the point where do you think the weight crossover point is ?


the Marines have one up to 10 tons , the LAV 125 , but with a small gun
the Brits have gone all tracked ,
while the Germans have the heaviest 8x at nearly 30 tons , small gun too

The French have some wheelies with 90mm gun ,the ERC 90
That seems to be pretty hard on the recoil for a 9 tons

P.S. we are getting off topic... ;-))

for WW2 the US used the M8 a 6x , with pretty good review and a long use in service
definitely not the worst item of ww2
a pity it was not used in the desert , as far as I know

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by Felix C » 26 May 2014 02:57

I suppose those motorcycle+sidecar reconnaisance teams were discontinued after drawng so much fire due to noise.

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by LWD » 27 May 2014 13:30

randwick wrote:Interesting , what was the maintenance and fuel consumption like ?
I don't remember if I heard. Probably not a fair test in this case as the tracked vehicle was at least based on the M-113 (I think it was a somewhat improved variant) which had been arround for a long time and thus many of the bugs worked out of it and the maintenance crews were likely very familiar with it. The Stryker while based on the Pyranna (I think) had some significant changes and there was little experiance in maintaining such vehicles in the US. Likely the wheeled Stryker had better fuel efficiency but that wasn't one of the critieria or if it was it was a minor threshold type criteria.
and more to the point where do you think the weight crossover point is ?
I'm not at all sure and it's likely variable over time and probably not uniformly so. As things worked out the Stryker was the best choice IMO.
the Marines have one up to 10 tons , the LAV 125 , but with a small gun
The LAV 125 is significantly smaller than the Stryker and the newer variants are heavier yet I beleive.
...while the Germans have the heaviest 8x at nearly 30 tons , small gun too
Here's an article on the Stryker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker
a bit over 16 tons. I'm pretty sure I've seen LAV variants with a 105 but I think at least one had 10 wheels.
P.S. we are getting off topic... ;-))
Yes I agree so will stop here. Interesting enough topic that it might deserve a thread of its own though.

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

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by Felix C » 22 Jun 2014 02:16

Boys Anti-Tank Rifle

User avatar
Empiricist
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 03 Jun 2021 11:22
Location: European Union

Re: Worst equipment of WW2

Post by Empiricist » 03 Jun 2021 13:43

WEISWEILER wrote:
11 Jan 2014 05:05
What do you think was the worst equipment of the war...
When it comes to cargo gliders -- the CG-4A.

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