Top 10 Inventions Of WWII

[spidge]

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 10 2006, 02:05 PM) [post=45524]Hi Geoff, I am partial to penicillin being one of the most important developments. Would you call it an invention or a discovery? I don't know alot about medecines.

Let's try everyone respond with their top ten list of WWII inventions.

Should prove interesting.
[/b]

1. Penicillin - Invention of the development process and practical use of.

2. Radar

3. Electronics in General

4. Jet Aircraft

5. Computer Technology

6. Synthetic Rubber (more produced than the real thing)

The above as they were inventions that altered the world post war as well.

7. Sonar

8. Jeep

9. Nordon Bomb Sight (With this they could at least nearly hit their target)

10. Atomic Bomb ( More so the technology for the creation of the nuclear age)

[Gnomey]

I would agree with that list Geoff. I would also have somewhere (although probably and number 11) the V2.

[sapper]

There is no doubt that one invention had a terrific effect on the war. They came under the collective and general term of:

"Hobarts Funnies" The were mainly "AVRE" Armoured Vehicles Royal Engineers,To see the real value of "The Funnies" look them up...What a great shame that the Americans spurned the use of the "Funnies" they were offered them.. For they would have drastically reduced their casualties.

With the American Gung Ho attitude, they thought that they would sweep all before them. It did niot turn out that way, and I think that their refusal to use the "Funnies" was a great mistake. and one that they paid a great price for.
Sapper

[spidge]

(sapper @ Feb 10 2006, 08:48 PM) [post=45555]There is no doubt that one invention had a terrific effect on the war. They came under the collective and general term of:

"Hobarts Funnies" The were mainly "AVRE" Armoured Vehicles Royal Engineers,To see the real value of "The Funnies" look them up...What a great shame that the Americans spurned the use of the "Funnies" they were offered them.. For they would have drastically reduced their casualties.

With the American Gung Ho attitude, they thought that they would sweep all before them. It did niot turn out that way, and I think that their refusal to use the "Funnies" was a great mistake. and one that they paid a great price for.
Sapper
[/b]

One of these Sapper?

[attachmentid=1507]

Armored Vehicle Royal Engineers. A Petard 29cm caliber mortar was fitted to turret. Fired 40lb bomb 80 yards. 180 available by D-Day. 1st Assault Brigade of 79th Armored Division. 574 more were converted. Some were equipped to care fascines and CIRD for mine-clearing.

The development of the 79th Armoured Division was strongly encouraged and supported by General Montgomery as he prepared to assault through Generalfeldmarshall Rommel's defenses again, this time the Atlantic Wall in Normandy. General Montgomery was determined to be better prepared for the tricks of the Desert Fox'

The pioneers on D-Day than he had been at El Alamein. It should be noted, that some historians attribute the disparity between British and American casualties on D-Day to the decision by General Omar Bradley to use primarily dismounted engineers to breach the beach obstacles, while the 'funnies' of the 79th Armoured Division were able to execute a mounted breach of the Atlantic Wall".

(spidge @ Feb 10 2006, 06:11 AM) [post=45556]
Armored Vehicle Royal Engineers. A Petard 29cm caliber mortar was fitted to turret. Fired 40lb bomb 80 yards. 180 available by D-Day. 1st Assault Brigade of 79th Armored Division. 574 more were converted. Some were equipped to care fascines and CIRD for mine-clearing.

The development of the 79th Armoured Division was strongly encouraged and supported by General Montgomery as he prepared to assault through Generalfeldmarshall Rommel's defenses again, this time the Atlantic Wall in Normandy. General Montgomery was determined to be better prepared for the tricks of the Desert Fox'

The pioneers on D-Day than he had been at El Alamein. It should be noted, that some historians attribute the disparity between British and American casualties on D-Day to the decision by General Omar Bradley to use primarily dismounted engineers to breach the beach obstacles, while the 'funnies' of the 79th Armoured Division were able to execute a mounted breach of the Atlantic Wall".
[/b]

If the American's couldn't get Shermans ashore because of the low tide and high waves at the time they attacked, then why would anyone think you could have gotten a behemoth like that ashore? It's range was only 80 yards so it can't suppress the enemy and it is therefore a sitting duck to the artillery and anti-tank fire or even Panzershreks. I don't see its benefit. I mean the Germans would have simply blown their tracks off and created an even bigger obstacle since they needn't fear it's ability to range them. Am I missing something here?

[angie999]

(jimbotosome @ Feb 10 2006, 12:13 PM) [post=45559] If the American's couldn't get Shermans ashore because of the low tide and high waves at the time they attacked, then why would anyone think you could have gotten a behemoth like that ashore? It's range was only 80 yards so it can't suppress the enemy and it is therefore a sitting duck to the artillery and anti-tank fire or even Panzershreks. I don't see its benefit. I mean the Germans would have simply blown their tracks off and created an even bigger obstacle since they needn't fear it's ability to range them. Am I missing something here?
[/b]

Yes, you are missing something. The British used them and they worked. Their descendants are still found today in the engineer components of armoured divisions.

The AVRE with the Petard mortar was basically a Churchill tank. They were not adapted for DD drive, so they landed via LCTs. Their role was to deliver a demolition charge to fortified positions and they were very effective in doing this. The British continued to use them to attack fortifications until the end of the war.

[Glider]

One invention that was used in WW2, that isn't used today, but could be of significant benefit.

Synthetic Oil

Germany produced many thousands of tons of Synthetic Oil using coal. Today countries like the USA and definately Europe are depending on the Middle East countries for oil while we have large stocks of coal.

With modern technology we should be able to produce it more efficiently than Germany did

Just a thought

(angie999 @ Feb 10 2006, 07:51 AM) [post=45561]
Yes, you are missing something. The British used them and they worked. Their descendants are still found today in the engineer components of armoured divisions.

The AVRE with the Petard mortar was basically a Churchill tank. They were not adapted for DD drive, so they landed via LCTs. Their role was to deliver a demolition charge to fortified positions and they were very effective in doing this. The British continued to use them to attack fortifications until the end of the war.
[/b]

The issue here was why didn’t the Americans want them. The inference was that they were just gung-ho idiots.

As far as the DDay invasion you(they?) are comparing apples to oranges. The British invasion was completely different from the American invasion. The British invasion happened much later and with higher tide than the American attack along with massive pre-bombardment from air and navy. The context was not “did it work for the British”, but was it the best solution for the Americans. For that matter American engineers blowing up the traps worked for the Americans even out in the water, and worked terrifically on shore once they got some armor on the beach, so that does not address the article’s claim that it cost the US in the invasion. If you can’t get a Sherman on the shore you can’t get a “AVRE” ashore.

A Sherman is lighter than a Churchill and the Americans couldn’t get them to shore in the LCTs either because they got hung up in the underwater obstacles which the AVRE could not have helped move either, they didn’t simply rely on DDs which were overwhelmed by the high seas at early light. The AVREs would have been scrap iron had you have even got it ashore on Omaha early in the morning of June 6th.

But in the context of the value of a fortification destroyer, there were other solutions that worked much better. For instance the M7s, M8s, M12s (mobile long toms), M37s M43s, T92/93s most of which could fire from 16 miles direct or howitzer style rounds from 105-240mm. I have yet to hear (until to day) anyone make an argument that the US had trouble destroying fixed fortifications. Patton crossed the Siegfried Line in three places just rolling the M7s up close enough to the lines for direct fire and letting them quickly blow the fortifications to pieces. He didn’t even have to wait for the heavy stuff. Not to mention the convenience of precision air strikes. All of these weapons could destroy the heaviest fixed fortifications from a distance without having to take out the German heavy armor first. The “Funnies” had to fear mines, anti-tank guns, other tanks and even infantry hidden in the bushes with panzershreks and panzerfausts. Why would the Americans have needed it in any scenario over any other type of vehicle in their inventory that would warrant an inference that they were over-zealous and too stupid to realize it? The American strategy was mobile warfare. It sounds like a liability to me unless you are waging tank on tank static warfare. That’s what I don’t get.

[Herroberst]

Jim, I think we dropped our DD tanks too far out and they sunk in the swells. That's why there wasn't any armour at Omaha to support the initial landings.

Thanks for bringing up the funnies Sapper.

I think the crocodile would have been particularly effective.

I remember hearing that the US commanders kid of hurumphed at the funnies. They were highly effective for the British...oops we should have used them. They would be vulnerable to heavy AT fire...but would have overall made the op more effective.

[Run N Gun]

You guys think the M1 garand should be in there? the top 10 i mean.