Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, the comparison with the FW-200 has limited usefulness. The Stuke was a diver bomber that was also used to strafe and terrorize. The FW-200 was a four engine bomber that was likely used in level bombing and later for transport. Apples and oranges.
My point was that the FW-200 was much better at an anti-shiping role than the Stuka, the only role the Stuka 's chief advantage, precision, might have been valuable for. People argue that the Stuka, was effective at demoralizing troops. What evidence is there that it was more so than other aircraft, such as P47's, Sturmoviks (that Germans called black death), or Typhoons? Personally I would have been more afraid of B-17's when used to bomb troops
The Stuka that was used to attack tanks was a late war varient, very different than the early war model we think of commonly. It was armed with a 37mm cannon, which is what killed tanks not bombs. The Russian Strumovik and probably the rocket armed Typhoon was much better in this role generally whatever one German ace achieved. There were so many Russian tanks, killing a lot of them was not very difficult.
I can beat that - I was trained to use it in 1988.
The M1 was still standard issue for the Royal Danish Army in 1988? When was the M1 finally replaced? I believe they use the Diemaco C7/C8 (Canadian produced version of our M16 series rifle) now am I correct?
The M1 was still standard issue for the Royal Danish Army in 1988?
In a limited sense, but yes.
Combat and combat support troops were issued the H&K G3, which was introduced in 1975 - that was always my primary weapon, except when I schlepped the MG3.
The M1 was retained for sentries and rear-rear-echelon troops, and it was kept around for mobilization purposes. Also, the Royal Guards kept it because it looks snazzier than any modern rifle. Denmark didn't have much of a military budget, so we tried to keep things around as long as they were useful. And while you don't want to go into a pitched battle with an M1, it's perfectly adequate for an ambulance driver.
If push had come right down to shove, tens of thousands of men had been trained to use it during their national service - if Ivan had gotten frisky, it's a damn sight better than no rifle. We expected to fight where we lived, which can change your outlook.
Quote:
When was the M1 finally replaced?
For most, in 1975.
Quote:
I believe they use the Diemaco C7/C8 (Canadian produced version of our M16 series rifle) now am I correct?
That is correct. The Danish Army underwent a transformation from mobilization-based invasion defense force to an international role, and a lot of gear was seriously upgraded.
I promise to stop the derail, but you have to take the overall look into effect. It was felt that a slightly more traditional rifle went better with this uniform:
I'm not sure I disagree, but military aesthetics are hard to pin down.
Apparently, the niche for the Stuka was found in anti-tank warfare. German Stuka pilot Hans Rudel is credited with knocking out 519 tanks. A link follows:
The effectiveness of Rudel flying a Stuka was more due to Rudel than the Stuka. Rudel had hundreds of tank kills, his nearest competitor less than 100 IIRC.
Actually I have to disagree. Troops guarding an important position, actually any position, are more likely to be afraid of highly accurate fire from a 155mm gun than a rocket that was highly unlikely to hit them.
Well, yeah... The rocket-armed Typhoons were seriously inaccurate, yet they tore up even SS armored columns. There's something about the sheer weight of ordnance dropping in that breaks morale. Accurate fire hitting over there means I can tell myself I'm safe here. Rocketsgoing wild all over the place? Nowhere is safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Walmsley
I understand that the Germans had a drawn rocket launcher, the Nebelwerfer, in service on the eastern front before the Soviet's Katyusha.
The Nebelwerfer was originally designed to launch smoke/chemical warheads. Like a lot of German weapons, it was engineered to more exacting specifications than its Soviet counterpart and harder to keep supplied.
Quote:
Many years ago I recall a neighbor, who was among those pinned down for days at the Anzio beachhead, saying that the Germans fired their 88mm antiaircraft guns on the beachhead. He said it was a very frightening sound. The 88 must have been one of the most dreaded weapons of WWII.
A fearsome weapon, indeed. Developed as anti-aircraft and pressed into service as anti-tank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006
Wasent their a variant of the Sherman tank with rocket tubes mounted over the turret? IIRC correctly only a few dozen were ever produced and I am not sure if it was ever used in combat.
The Calliope. Interesting name - Calliope being a sort of cinema organ. I wonder if they knew of the Stalin Organ when naming it?
I think the 88 probably was the most effective weapon in the Second World War if the criteria is how well it did against similar weapons of its type. What is remarkable is that while designed as a AA gun, it was used as an artillery piece, and an anti-tank guns. In all these roles it was devestating.
The nebelwefer was originally designed to fire smoke. It then was redesigned to fire HE as well.
On the opposite track, weapons that were greatly overstressed, the King or Royal Tiger has to be near the top. It has a fearful reputation, but only a handful were made. It was incredibly slow and bogged down on anything but hard packed earth or roads. I watched an interveiw with a German tanker who drove the, much less heavy, Tiger. He noted that when they lost a track (just driving not in combat) they were unable to get anyone to come and move it.
He joked they left it in France and it might still be there
I have wondered why the Germans, who invented the diesel engine, used gasoline engines in most of their tanks and the Russians used diesel. It seems that the Russian tanks were more reliable and easier to maintain.
Getting back to the OP's original question, I understand that the Germans had a drawn rocket launcher, the Nebelwerfer, in service on the eastern front before the Soviet's Katyusha. However, it seems that the Katyusha was a more potent weapon and was easily installed on Studebaker trucks, making it very mobile. Both must have been intimidating sounding weapons.
Among awesome weapons, the Germans used a railroad gun called Dora in the Crimea that fired 5-ton shells. It required several dozen people to maintain it. Many years ago I recall a neighbor, who was among those pinned down for days at the Anzio beachhead, saying that the Germans fired their 88mm antiaircraft guns on the beachhead. He said it was a very frightening sound. The 88 must have been one of the most dreaded weapons of WWII.
I believe the book was Inside the Soviet Army that told of how the Reds and the restricted German Army had co-op secret tank tactics and design in Russia in the 20's-30's;tractor mgf. to hide the activity;which came to haunt them with the T-34 A NASTY SURPRISE! Studebakers,International Harvesters and Dodges went to the Red Army why is that?
I believe the book was Inside the Soviet Army that told of how the Reds and the restricted German Army had co-op secret tank tactics and design in Russia in the 20's-30's;tractor mgf. to hide the activity;which came to haunt them with the T-34 A NASTY SURPRISE! Studebakers,International Harvesters and Dodges went to the Red Army why is that?
Well its true that the Germans and Russians cooperated after Rapallo, the T-34 had little to do with the Germans.
The Russians, pretty much alone in the world, realized the use of the christie suspension. It has always amused me that the Russian T34 was propelled by a suspension system the US rejected - from an American engineer who could not interest the US in it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Studebakers,International Harvesters and Dodges went to the Red Army why is that?
