The Deadliest Weapon of WW II -1 reply

Please wait...

{9thInf}QbanRev*E*

Hero

50 XP

26th October 2005

0 Uploads

276 Posts

0 Threads

#71 15 years ago
{9thInf}QbanRev*E*By deffinition the dealiest weapon that killed the most people.... Zyclon B But other than that i would have to say the garand. I can see where that got the most kills. Maybe on the eastern front simple DP's and mg's honestly i dont know. But i bet the garand is up there.

hmm i reconsider. Even though america fought both fronts, Russia and germany wasted more people. So, weapon with the most kills... probaly in general the panzer. Millions of russians died. Just pick the most updated german tank for the time (or most in use) and it was killing the most people. Now as for most Feared. the devastation bombers, on either side. Nothing strikes fear into your enemy like a plane squadron that you cant defend against bombing your homes and tank columns in the middle of the night And daytime.




{9thInf}QbanRev*E*

Hero

50 XP

26th October 2005

0 Uploads

276 Posts

0 Threads

#72 15 years ago
sibenWell, i think the deadliest weapen must be bombers, think about it, they only bombed city's and factories with the goal to get maximum casualties (the alies must have been thinking:lots of cevilian casualties=less factorie workers=less enemy output=good for us) Where i live their was a important railwaystation, well they bombed it more then 3 times (they missed the first times) and more then half of the people living in a 2km radius died becous of that, more then 20 000 and that was just here, it must be much worse in city's/huge factorie complexes. Also i remember hearing that planes and arty where the biggest killers and rifle fire only a smal part, becous it wasnt like in the movies. You cant just kill a fellow human without hesitating and being in a plane, tank, behind arty takes that away bacous its hard to see the anemy, its just a target. Some statistics i heared in a wo2 documentery say that if you take 100 infantrists then you have 75 guys just getting suplies and evacuating wounded, 23 guys are just shooting without aiming hitting the enemy rarely and 2 people are shooting to kill, 1 is a psychopath with no feelings and is enjoing killing people and the other 1 is a 'hero', he goes killing enemys with the motivation 'if i dont kill them, they will kill my friends'

Ive heard that too, but i think after a battle or 2 there would be Way more heros, and hardened battle vets, stil your deff right. shit one bombing run to dresden killed 100k+, and thats conventional bombs. I would really like to know if the people of your country hate america and brittain for the indescriminate bombing campaigns? My grandpa stayed in france in the service after the war and he said they hated us because of all the damage we did to their country. he quoted from a frenchman "We cant afford you americans to 'liberate' us again, you just destroyed everything"




Stienmetz

Drunk most of the time

50 XP

3rd November 2005

0 Uploads

32 Posts

0 Threads

#73 15 years ago

Allies and Axis had huge stockpiles of gas weapons.Italy actually used them against Ethiopia. Goering interviewed after the war explained that one of the main reasons that they diddent use them first was that nobody could develop a proper gas mask for the horses. 75% of axis transport was horse drawn. Anything that kills is a weapon. How about the torpedo? 2 or 3 can sink a ship with 10,000 people on it. Like the Wilhelm Gustloff in Jan 1945. Hou about incindiery bombs? wiping out entire citys in one night. Dresden or Tokyo anyone? Im glad some of these posts bring out the anger in you. The way things are going on this planet these days, we all just might get a new taste of some of the more deadly weapons we have invented. At least during the cold war both sides hade the good sense to keep the bad stuff locked up..Not any more.




Gauntlet

Dead rather than Red!

50 XP

25th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,346 Posts

0 Threads

#74 15 years ago
czech speacial forcesi think it depends on the theater. probley ship arty in the pacific. in the eastern front probobley the mg42 or k98 in the open fields of russia with a million russians charging. pacific front it was probobley aircraft.

:p

This conversation is going nowere. And I doubt there is a statistic over the soldiers of WW2 and what their cause of death was.




Safe-Keeper

Aw, c'mon Cyan, it's quality!

50 XP

28th September 2004

0 Uploads

1,225 Posts

0 Threads

#75 15 years ago
Zyklon B was a pesticide, prussic acid (HCN) and used against unarmed civilians at the Holocaust killing millions and mentioning it as a weapon is the biggest pile of bullshit i heard the last time, damnit.

I already pointed to the definition of "weapon" in this thread once when addressing the Russian Winter. It appears I need to do so again:

Weapon

  1. An instrument of attack or defence in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
  2. Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
  3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.

So yes, both the Russian Winter and Zyclone B were weapons of World War II.

But as my landsman pointed out, this thread's going nowhere.




BigDom

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

19th November 2005

0 Uploads

25 Posts

0 Threads

#76 15 years ago

Seth_Soldier:) there is the depression due to the explosion too ! Imagine, you explode from inside ... The soldier was told to keep their mouth open and bit some textile with the teeth.

the most stupid tactics: carpet bombing on a town to destroy an simple objective ...

Actually at the time we had little alternative. Whilst some target where the civilian population up to around 1943 (When we developed the techniques of Pathfinding and technical advances such as radar and radio beacons in combination with the best WWII bomber the Lancaster ) the British had little choice but some form of area bombing to achieve it's objective. This coupled with problems such as creap back ( where crews would start on the target but creap back due to the need to unload there bombs and wish to get the hell out of dodge asap ) meant that up to 1943 made carpet bombing the only option.




Seth_Soldier

"Mort aux cons !"

50 XP

22nd December 2003

0 Uploads

883 Posts

0 Threads

#77 15 years ago

i can understand that carpet bombing was used against objectives out of urban area to destroy completely the installation (v1 etc ...) but i don't tolerate the carpet bombing as bombing objective inside urban area (like train station by example) That's only proved that's the quality of the crews was worse and worse and consequently the quantity of bomb needed to be increase.

the most horrible the allies wanted to do is certainly the directive RE 8




Bikewer

Dread pwns me!

50 XP

17th October 2003

0 Uploads

474 Posts

0 Threads

#78 15 years ago

I did some searching and though I found all sorts of sites with casualty figures (both civilian and military) for various countries in WWII, only one tiny reference broken down by battle casualties by weapon. This only referred to the Bougainville campaign in the Pacific, as well, so it's probably not entirely relevant to European battles. The figures from one table indicated about 30% from artillery, 28% from mortar (listed seperately), and the rest from various small arms, grenades, etc. here's a link to a rather exhaustive page on wound ballistics and casualties...

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter4.htm




jumjum

Write heavy; write hard.

50 XP

10th April 2005

0 Uploads

6,827 Posts

0 Threads

#79 15 years ago

For the love of God, please put this thread out of its misery.




[BC] Tex Arcana

Smokey Smith kicked butt!

50 XP

1st June 2004

0 Uploads

401 Posts

0 Threads

#80 15 years ago
jumjumFor the love of God, please put this thread out of its misery.

I concur: It has no real objective in the "long-run" anyway... We find so many ridiculous ways to "Do" each other. Thats the real point isn't it?