Which was better?

[2nd Bat]

All armies have key equipment items necessary for day to day operations and while often their approach is similar, sometimes they are quite different with one sides execution vastly superior. Sometimes so much so that the enemies design gets copied.

What examples of equipment or weapons execution are examples of this?

I'll start with the kind of thoughts I'm hoping this thread will discuss:

ENTRENCHING TOOL. The US Army like most of the world's Armies issued all front line soldiers small shovels. The US Army started the war with designs left over from WW1. The ETool was known as the "T Handled shovel and it was 22 inches long (shortened to 18 inches for airborne troops). It was an essential piece of equipment and was used for digging shallow latrines, foxholes, filling sandbags and even occasionally as a close combat weapon. It frankly sucked at busting through roots or digging in frozen or rocky soil. A separate small pick was often issued. The Germans started the war with a superior design which folded and was hence was less obtrusive. The blade could be tightened at a 90 degree angle and could be used as either a pick or shovel. This clever design was envied by GIs and later copied by the US in the form of the M1943 E Tool.

There are many many examples like this. What comes to mind or has your research uncovered? Let's have fun with this and build on one another's knowledge!

[2nd Bat]

Another possible discussion would be the iconic German potatoe masher vs the US pineapple grenade?

Or the .45 vs the Luger

American vs German flashlights

field comfort items. ( blankets, overcoats wet weather gear)

us Shelter halves vs Zeltbaun

Canteen designs

Field web gear

Helmet designs

Field uniform

Footwear

Radios

Thompson vs the MP40

Field Glasses

Bazooka vs the Panzerfaust?

Etc etc etc

[volkssturm]

Personally, I think the US canteen design was far superior to the German. It was a full quart, it would stand upright when you put it down, and the design of the canteen cup was brilliant. I'm amazed the Army came up with it. I also think that US and British web gear was far better than the German design. They were both essentially modular before the term was invented, so you could hang pouches on it to suit your needs. Not sure, but I suspect the cotton webbing was probably superior to leather in most climates. I think the Germans probably stayed with leather as long as they did because in wartime their access to cotton supplies was problematic.

Here's a video comparing the Thompson and the MP40:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZo7ejVtNa4

I think deciding between them is maybe too subjective a thing to make a judgment on.

[shiftysgarand]

Though the Luger was said to have better accuracy and 'pointability' than the M1911, I think the fact that the M1911 is still in service today 104 years after its introductions with only minor modifications shows its potential superiority. The .45 ACP cartridge was designed to be unnecessarily powerful for the purpose of stopping drug-fueled Filipino guerrillas, something that the .38 cartridge it replaced and the 9mm Parabellum round cannot do. Though 9mm is now the standard pistol cartridge of the world, the Luger itself is long gone, along with its design traits. I have not seen any weapon with a toggle-lock mechanism similar to it made since the 1930s with the Pedersen rifle. The M1911's slide, however, is now used in nearly every pistol produced today. I think the Luger was a good design, but the M1911's reliability, hitting power, and influence on current designs (not to mention it's still around in service,) show it is a better pistol.

[aldrich]

Well, even the German army replaced the Luger with the slide mechanism based p38. The 1911's widespread use may be in part due to the dominance that the US army had over the armed forces of the non Soviet block countries following WWII, coupled with the fact that it was a reliable design which meant that there was no need to replace it. The German field gear was basically the same platform as it had been since the 1870's. Uniform wise, the Germans were quite outdated, leaning too heavily on military tradition over practicality. Not that their uniforms were not functional, but impractical in the long term.

[2nd Bat]

The US Army pinneapple grenade and German "potatoe masher" are equally as iconic and readily identifiable for each side. In terms of effectiveness there are arguments for both. The German grenade with its extended handle could be thrown farther and its explosive charge was somewhat greater. The US grenade took up less space and was a more devestating casualty producer with its excellent fragmentation capability. A far less well known but actually more common German grenade was their lemon shaped grenade. The US grenade with its spoon and pin design could be armed and held indefinitely which from a tactical application perspective was quite handy albeit a bit disconcerting to do.

[volkssturm]

Rifle sights. Britain, with the No. 4 Enfield, and the U.S. used aperture, or peep, rear sights placed at the rear end of the receiver. The aperture sight, with a long sight radius (distance between the front and rear sights) is generally better for accurate shooting. The French had also gone to an aperture sight with the MAS 36 and MAS 40. Pretty much everyone else stuck with the V notch open sight placed in front of the receiver, even with later weapons like the STG 44. The Japanese compromised on the Type 99, leaving the rear sight in front of the receiver but replacing the notch with an aperture. The Russians continued with the short radius open sight on the AK series right up until the most recent versions. The AK-12 moved the rear sight to the rear end of the receiver cover, but it's still the old notch type. It's interesting that the non-Soviet Bloc AK clones, like the Galil, the Finnish RK series and the Indian INSAS rifles all switched to aperture sights.

AFAIK the British get credit for starting the switch with the Pattern 13 Enfield. In the Boer War they faced the Boers, who were generally good marksmen, in open country where there was a premium on accurate long range shooting. So they designed the Pattern 13 (which became the Pattern 14 and then the US Model 1917) for the kind of war they'd fought in South Africa, with what were, for the time target sights combined with a fixed aperture battle sight. John Browning used the same sight on the BAR. The Pattern 14 turned out to be inferior to the SMLE for trench warfare, except that it made an excellent sniper rifle. The British experimented with an aperture sight on the No. 1 Mk. III, and then incorporated in on the No. 4. I'm not sure, but I suspect that experience with the Model 1917 Enfield sights might have influenced the sight selection of the M1 and later US arms.

[2nd Bat]

Great "insight" Volks! The main reason for the switch from the US M1903a1 to the A3 was adopting an appeture sight which kept US marksman to a more uniform sight picture regardless of the weapon. I have always felt it was more intuitive and easier to train on than conventional "V" iron sights.

One caviate for airsoft is that with our abbreviated ranges the need for exacting precision is not as great and the benefit of maintaining a wider more reactive sight picture means airsoft gunners with peep sights are best served to enlarge the hole somewhat over what would be correct on the actual weapon. I do that with all my airsoft guns.

[volkssturm]

The American "Jerry Can" vs. the German "Jerry can".

Recently read a book about the Long Range Desert Group. The author made a comment that the German jerry can was superior to the American can, which of course was inspired by the German original. This seemed odd, since how much better could one can be over another? I found this article on the German can and he may be right.

www.prepandmore.com/jerry-can-information/

"To facilitate large scale mass production the design was constructed from two halves stamped from sheet steel. These were then welded together. The weld joining the two halves was placed in a central ‘gutter’. This protected it from impacts and abuse, increasing durability. In place of a conventional thread on cap Grunvogel designed an entirely new closure system. This eliminated the leaks associated with thread on caps subjected to hard military use. Grunvogel’s system consisted of a rugged cam lever locking mechanism. This secured a snap-closure lid located on top of the filler neck. His novel design proved both practical and reliable."

"Another important feature of his design was an air pipe. This was incorporated neatly into the filler neck. Its purpose? It decreased the time required to pour the contents of the can while also smoothing the flow of the liquid eliminating splashing. It accomplished this by acting as a breather tube. Grunvogel neatly accomplished this without having to resort to an additional external vent which could leak."

[stuka]

I wonder if the need for such quality was related to their overall lack of oil and fuel sources

[volkssturm]

That could well be. Plus Germans are kind of noted for over-engineering things.

[2nd Bat]

It is telling when an innovative design from the late 30s remains in use virtually unchanged 75 years later and is still considered an excellent engineering accomplishment. The "Jerrie" can was equally adept at fuel and water. The screw in filler neck is critical for preventing spills, waste and fires and I wasn't clear if that was part and parcel to the original design.

[insterburger]

One other thing I have anecdotally heard is that apart from having the increased leverage to fly farther, GIs liked to use captured German grenades when throwing at targets uphill from themselves, as they tended to roll back down less easily. Unless you're "cooking off" the fuse to nearly nothing before tossing it, this could be a real possibility with consequences worth avoiding, so I tend to believe it.

[stuka]

Speaking of Germans and grenades, apparently this silly incident happened

sploid.gizmodo.com/secret-message-found-inside-ww2-bullet-is-the-end-of-a-1682902455

[2nd Bat]

Grenades, were inheritantly dangerous and as a one time grenade range safety officer I can only say in hindsight. "Thank God for excellent NCOs!

[volkssturm]

I read once that during WWII the US developed a grenade that would explode on contact instead of using a fuse, because of the problem of rolling back, being thrown back etc. Everything was going fine until they arranged a demonstration for the bigwigs. At the grenade range this officer explains how grenade works, pulls the pin, tosses it in the air...and catches it. They never figured out just what the heck he was thinking. The grenade was never adopted as being too dangerous. (I think that was in a book titled "Of Spies and Stratagems", by a guy who worked in R & D for the OSS. It came out in the 1960's, when his 25 year oath of secrecy expired.)

[2nd Bat]

I too had heard that story. People get extremely erratic behaviorally around explosives. Think family mindsets at a community 4th of July party where normally stable and mature individuals go nuts for a while. It's not just the booze! At the grenade range individual tensions vary from person to person and you can't Always predict it as your student steps into the pit. Many (but certainly not all). Grenade ranges have a line of pits arranged along a berm with room for the student and a safety NCO. The pits are often elevated above a large sump with angled channels surrounding the base of the pit. Should an active grenade be dropped inside the pit, the grenade can be shoved or kicked into the channels and thus into the concrete reinforced pit below. Behind the row of grenade throwing pits is often a foot and a half tall reinforced concrete wall. This is there to provide hasty cover be going prone behind it. Students practice numerous times the actions they will take inside the pit before throwing an actual grenade. Like everything in the Army you train to the lowest denominator and repeat the precise actions so it is automatic and total muscle memory. Inspite of all of that it is amazing how often guys freeze, drop grenades or in one case I witnessed hurl a grenade straight up. (It apparently slipped out of his hand like a QB hit in the act of throwing.). Immediately upon throwing the grenades (which are all thrown simultaneously) everyone goes prone in their respective pits. The NCO in this case was particularly alert and shuffled the grenade into the sump saving the soldier and himself.

[2nd Bat]

A frequent comment from German veterans was how impressed the were with American GIs to be self sustaining in the field. Particularly with regard to rations and individual cooking capability. For the Wehrmacht hot chow had to come from Kompanie or Abteilung field kitchens. (Horse drawn typically). They were amazed at the little Coleman stoves an Infantry GI squad invariably had. The clever little P38 can opener and variety of meals available.

Our rations (as bad as they were) were the envy of all Army's in the world! As a change to routine GIs enjoyed captured cheese, German chocolate (very rare find) bread and Sardines brats etc. when they came across them.

[volkssturm]

One area the Germans were way ahead of everyone else - military music, particularly marching songs.

Panzerlied www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvpSVVkmUlg

Erika www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnyZ5WVxZP8

Westerwald Lied www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTPHBVxydnI

Fallschirmjaeger Lied www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo_E6qOIcnM

And everyone loved "Lili Marlene" www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUsePoATbrU

This I believe is actually an old folk song. The title of Florian Geyer (a knight in the Peasants War) was adopted by an SS division. "Wir sind des Geyers schwarzer Haufen" www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz1mW8CvQbI

And then there's the Luftwaffe March, from "Battle of Britain", which isn't German, but I include it here because to me it blends British and German march styles. And I like it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1teoC2aMVtY

[2nd Bat]

It is always fun to have period music at WW2 events and interestingly US swing band music was enjoyed and present for both Axis and Allied troops. The big band music of the countries is absolutely my favorite genre of music with the 60s a close second.

[insterburger]

Mar 2, 2016 19:51:21 GMT -5 2nd Bat said:

It is always fun to have period music at WW2 events and interestingly US swing band music was enjoyed and present for both Axis and Allied troops. The big band music of the countries is absolutely my favorite genre of music with the 60s a close second.

Second that, SecondBat. While the Nazis officially considered swing music to be degenerate negro-Jewish cultural poison, the average German happened to love it, so by mid-war most German popular music had a definite swing/big band sound.

Also, the German military officially banned their troops listening to Allied radio broadcasts, but that order was also routinely ignored. I'm sure you can hear it on YouTube etc., but I have a very interesting CD of a broadcast of Glenn Miller and the Army Air Force Band circa 1944 directed specifically to German troops... the announcer, "Ilse," addresses "Deutsche Soldaten" and speaks only German. Even Glenn himself tries a few words of it, and Johnny Desmond-- who actually speaks German quite fluently during the broadcast-- even sings "Long Ago and Far Away" in German. A very interesting example of American propaganda efforts directed at German troops. I'm sure it worked.

Supposedly Bing Crosby's nickname of "der Bingle" originated with his popularity among German troops. I don't doubt it.