Such as these?
Such as these?
What about the Colt M1911, and the Thompson sub-machine gun - both of which were considered prize war trophies and much feared by the Germans? The Willis Jeep was considered the best all-round utility vehicle of the war. In the ari you can add the B-17, the P-47, the P-38 and even the B-25 and 26.
American armor, while initially out-gunned and out-classed in terms of armor protection was far more mechanically reliable, more manueverable and faster than German heavy tanks. Most knocked-out american tanks were returned to service within days, often more than once, while a knocked out German tank tended to stay that way. Once fitted with high-velocity 76mm and 90mm cannon and improved armor protection, American tanks were much better able to take on German Armor if they worked in teams. The biggest problem with American tanks was actually their gasoline engines, which, though reliable and producing more power to weight than a diesel, burned readily when hit.
The only area in which American equipment was inferior to German equipment was in tank technology. In almost every other area, our equipment compared favorably or proved superior to German arms - with a few notable exception that are always pointed to as proving the rule.
German intelligence critiques of most American equipment during the war were quite favorable. Nothing scared the German infantryman more than the sound of a Thompson or an M2 nearby, and they tried whenever possible to get hold of Colt .45 pistols because of their reliability and stopping power.
One of the comparisons that is always made is between the Bazooka and Panzerfaust. The Panzerfaust packed a real wollop, but had only half the range of a bazooka and presented the problem of Ammo supply because they were single shot and rather bulky if you tried to cary more than one. A bazooka team, however, carried a reusable launcher and could carry more bazooka rounds. While the bazooka was not effective against most german tanks, it proved quite the bunker-buster and proved to be such a useful infantry weapon that the Germans copied it late in the war with the introduction of the Panzerschreck.
Engineering: Far better then the anyone else.
A-Bomb: No one else was able to make one during the war.
Logistics: We fought and won a two front war with each front on the other side of the world (Hitler could not even cross the Channel), oh yea we also supplied the Russian Army.
To be continued....
What about the Italians?
Maybe the German JU 88 or HE 111 was better then a B-17/B-24/B-29?
I know!!! ... you believe that Aryan crap(and myth)that the Germans were better then we were ... well the Germans had worse leadership ... poorer equipment ... and they could not fight as well as US!!!
Sorry buddy but as an aviator who comes from a long line of aviators I have to take exception. The B-24 was a death trap, ask anyone still alive who flew her. Most crews always tried (unsuccessfully though) to transfer to B-17 squadrons after a few missions in the 24. Most of the vets I've talked to say the 17 was more likely to bring you home than a 24 if you got raked over the coals on a mission. The B-17 was by far the most superior heavy bomber of the war until the 29 came along.
I think what you were trying to say(?) was the krauts had us beat hands down in technology in a lot of areas. No argument from me there. They truly were engineering wizards. I suppose everyone can argue til we're blue in the face about the outcome of WWII had Hitler been a more prudent leader, but there is no doubt we just outproduced and outmanned them into submission. Had he paced Germany's timetable and listened to his people, military and civilian, those wonder weapons might have been our demise.
Eagle
Yes, the US has great weapons--but if we keep them holstered, they do us no good.
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
Sure, at the start it was. The French were best-equipped.