Germany's Weapons in WWII
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:17 pm
The point wich comes over most strongly in these fascinating threads is that generalisations in regard to each nations weapons only rarely work.
It has been asserted in many books and periodicals that the Spitfire was superior to the Me109. The fact is that each aircraft had it's optimal flying charcteristics set to different heights the Spitfire was a match for the 109 up to 20,000ft when the 109 became superior and considering that the Luftwaffe was hunting the RAF during the Battle of Britain, if the Germans were going to knock the RAF out they would have to come down and fight at their level.
When Goering asked Galland what his fighter squadrons needed to defeat the RAF he replied; "A squadron of Spitfires." This remark has gone down in History and although it was a slap in the face for Goering to wake him up to the idea that they could lose the battle. The remark has another edge in saying; "if we are expected to fight on the enemy's ground, we will need his weapons." The 109 was good in attack but not so good in defense, it was faster than the Spitfire, but not so maneouvreable.
With regard to tanks, the Germans did not possess the best tanks in 1940, it was organisation and panzer tactics which won the battles. The German's shock at first meeting the T34 in Russia sent their tank industry into overdrive trying to come up with an answer to it. The result was a slower tank with a much larger profile and which kept breaking down. The Panther was a beautiful looking beast, but it still would not out match a T34. Later marks did improve the Panther's performance, but by then, other soviet production had advanced. Early success against the soviets was gradually cancelled out as the enemy developed his tactics and against such a good tank produced in such large numbers the German army eventually found itself at a disadvantage.
When the Belgian FN was introduced to Britain's armed forces we turned our noses up. It was less accurate than the Enfield 303, having a shorter barrel and when it fired, instead of jumping straight back into your shoulder, the butt tried to rotate upwards and into your face. However it was a good choice for infantry and shore detachments. Figures for rifle casualties in 2 world wars showed that by far, the highest percentage of rifle casualties occurred at ranges below 200 yards, so there was logic in producing an average, lightweight, rapid-fire weapon, which could be cheaply manufactured and which would make a reasonable shot of most men. The 303 was over-engineered for the job it was required to do.
If war with Britain was the plan, then ships like Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Graf Spee were a bad choice. They were all very fine weapons and each made a very good account of herself in her final battle, though at the time of their inception Germany was still very weak and could only hope to play an armed role, as auxilliary to other more powerful forces on the world's oceans. They were long range vessels capable of operating far from the Baltic and they were excellent sea-keeprs too, which further strengthens the idea of world-wide displays of naval power by a resurgent Germany, keen to show the world what it could do. Although each ship was designed to show maximum strength in terms of hitting power and ablity to withstand punishment and such capabilities would no doubt be shown in relation to the best that the world could produce, their design and construction does not of itself imply aggressive intent towards Britain.
These were prestige weapons and nations with the cash to spend would be able to buy their own super-fast battleships and some could even be sold cheaply as a hook for tasty trade deals. When we look at the expense of production, the bulk of the cost would be spent on development, making up the jigs and setting up the machinery for production of the originals of the different types, especially guns and machinery, so a futher prodution run of say five or six units could be produced at the same cost as the original unit and if they sold, a good profit would be made on each. We should not forget that Germany was a capitalist nation with a hungry eye on markets.
I read somewhere that the guns for certain types were to be bought from the USA and this, if correct, seems to imply that the ships were simply commercial ventures, by which Germany as a heavy manufacturing nation would secure a slice of the world market for warship production. Graceful lines, extremely high speed, hitting power and good overall protection would make these vessels show-piece items - a must for any developing nation with designs on dominance at sea. I believe Britain built or sold the plans for Japan's fleet around the turn of the century and four ships intended for sale to foreign parts were commandeered to fight the First World War. So perhaps this was to be a re-run of an old and on-going economic naval strategy.
At Jutland German ships demonstrated superirority to the British units they were matched against, so anything German and which looked right might sell very well.
Vic Dale
It has been asserted in many books and periodicals that the Spitfire was superior to the Me109. The fact is that each aircraft had it's optimal flying charcteristics set to different heights the Spitfire was a match for the 109 up to 20,000ft when the 109 became superior and considering that the Luftwaffe was hunting the RAF during the Battle of Britain, if the Germans were going to knock the RAF out they would have to come down and fight at their level.
When Goering asked Galland what his fighter squadrons needed to defeat the RAF he replied; "A squadron of Spitfires." This remark has gone down in History and although it was a slap in the face for Goering to wake him up to the idea that they could lose the battle. The remark has another edge in saying; "if we are expected to fight on the enemy's ground, we will need his weapons." The 109 was good in attack but not so good in defense, it was faster than the Spitfire, but not so maneouvreable.
With regard to tanks, the Germans did not possess the best tanks in 1940, it was organisation and panzer tactics which won the battles. The German's shock at first meeting the T34 in Russia sent their tank industry into overdrive trying to come up with an answer to it. The result was a slower tank with a much larger profile and which kept breaking down. The Panther was a beautiful looking beast, but it still would not out match a T34. Later marks did improve the Panther's performance, but by then, other soviet production had advanced. Early success against the soviets was gradually cancelled out as the enemy developed his tactics and against such a good tank produced in such large numbers the German army eventually found itself at a disadvantage.
When the Belgian FN was introduced to Britain's armed forces we turned our noses up. It was less accurate than the Enfield 303, having a shorter barrel and when it fired, instead of jumping straight back into your shoulder, the butt tried to rotate upwards and into your face. However it was a good choice for infantry and shore detachments. Figures for rifle casualties in 2 world wars showed that by far, the highest percentage of rifle casualties occurred at ranges below 200 yards, so there was logic in producing an average, lightweight, rapid-fire weapon, which could be cheaply manufactured and which would make a reasonable shot of most men. The 303 was over-engineered for the job it was required to do.
If war with Britain was the plan, then ships like Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Graf Spee were a bad choice. They were all very fine weapons and each made a very good account of herself in her final battle, though at the time of their inception Germany was still very weak and could only hope to play an armed role, as auxilliary to other more powerful forces on the world's oceans. They were long range vessels capable of operating far from the Baltic and they were excellent sea-keeprs too, which further strengthens the idea of world-wide displays of naval power by a resurgent Germany, keen to show the world what it could do. Although each ship was designed to show maximum strength in terms of hitting power and ablity to withstand punishment and such capabilities would no doubt be shown in relation to the best that the world could produce, their design and construction does not of itself imply aggressive intent towards Britain.
These were prestige weapons and nations with the cash to spend would be able to buy their own super-fast battleships and some could even be sold cheaply as a hook for tasty trade deals. When we look at the expense of production, the bulk of the cost would be spent on development, making up the jigs and setting up the machinery for production of the originals of the different types, especially guns and machinery, so a futher prodution run of say five or six units could be produced at the same cost as the original unit and if they sold, a good profit would be made on each. We should not forget that Germany was a capitalist nation with a hungry eye on markets.
I read somewhere that the guns for certain types were to be bought from the USA and this, if correct, seems to imply that the ships were simply commercial ventures, by which Germany as a heavy manufacturing nation would secure a slice of the world market for warship production. Graceful lines, extremely high speed, hitting power and good overall protection would make these vessels show-piece items - a must for any developing nation with designs on dominance at sea. I believe Britain built or sold the plans for Japan's fleet around the turn of the century and four ships intended for sale to foreign parts were commandeered to fight the First World War. So perhaps this was to be a re-run of an old and on-going economic naval strategy.
At Jutland German ships demonstrated superirority to the British units they were matched against, so anything German and which looked right might sell very well.
Vic Dale