WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby govardhanks » 10 Sep 2009 17:56

From mod's command :) i am starting this new thread. This thread is for discussing and posting world war II military technologies. It is about aircraft, armoured vehicles, flying boats, Machine guns ityadi all developed during world war II to defend their own country. Some of these technologies are even used now and some just stay in museum.

Do's and Don'ts: People please fallow these ASAP my request.

1. There are thousands of WWII aircraft don't put their images, put only if relevant. Put their links.

2. More technology and concept related posts please.

3. Compare the old a/c with new ones which look same and may have same tech.

4. Do not discuss about war ,do only if it describes the technology involved in it.

These WW II technologies and experience from their failures thought the new lessons from which new military tech developed.
Advance thanks for all those who contribute..
Last edited by govardhanks on 11 Sep 2009 09:42, edited 3 times in total.

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: World war II Militray technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby govardhanks » 10 Sep 2009 19:04

The Russian flying boat or a/c :

Image
The photo is stored in flickr website but the author unknown.

Other images link -http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyhappyjoyjoy/page32/

This a/c has 8 engines and also has missile battery firing (not there in this photo). Some unknown source says that the aircraft production was stopped after the cold war. Some of them are still present in some lake non- functional.
It was a very high speed a/c used to transfer troops when in need. No such a/c seen in world now.
Last edited by govardhanks on 10 Sep 2009 19:50, edited 1 time in total.

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: World war II Militray technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby govardhanks » 10 Sep 2009 19:24

Horten Ho 229 flying wing fighter/bomber:

During WWII two German people designed the prototype of Hilter's stealth figther.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview26#tab-Photos/0

The aircraft was made up of mostly wood and is said to reflect less radar energy.
Much of discussion about this aircraft is in this link-

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/the-aircraft-that-could-have-m.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: World war II Militray technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby shiv » 10 Sep 2009 19:32

spelling alert

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: World war II Militray technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby govardhanks » 10 Sep 2009 19:47

Image

One of the British museum describes this as guided bomb and in some it is German air to ship guided missile now in museum in Britain (Museum of Flight, Scotland).

This one very interested although not a technology ( "to save his life a man finds all possible ways" ).

During world war II German tanks were highly developed and were invading soviet area. The Soviet union used trained dogs to bomb the tanks. The dogs were made hungry by not giving food, and made to search food under tanks. Once bombs loaded on the field they went near the German tanks and the bomb exploded. Nearly 300 German tanks were disabled. Germans became evident of this and commanded to shoot every dog on site. Even vehicle mounted gun was ineffective due to small size of dogs. Today they could be called as dog guided bomb. :rotfl:

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: World war II Militray technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby govardhanks » 10 Sep 2009 19:52

shiv wrote:spelling alert

sorry sir i rechecked again plz say whether it is corrected or not. If not plz show by quote

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: World war II Militray technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby shiv » 10 Sep 2009 20:06

govardhanks wrote:
shiv wrote:spelling alert

sorry sir i rechecked again plz say whether it is corrected or not. If not plz show by quote


Sorry - the name of the thread has "Militray" instead of "Military"

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby govardhanks » 10 Sep 2009 20:13

Thanks very much sir big mistake :cry:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby Singha » 10 Sep 2009 20:22

my favourite a/c of WW2 - De havilland Mosquito. fast, high flying, long range, precision strike, night fighter and pathfinding - lone wolf personified. made some daring low level strikes on pinpoint targets like gestapo jails and command HQs.

the Su34/F15E of its era.

http://www.spitcrazy.com/mosquito-lr.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

7500 were built

animesharma
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 20:56

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby animesharma » 10 Sep 2009 20:49

I am not sure if this has been posted before. the images below are screen shots from a NGC documentary about Hitler's secret stealth fighter.
---------------------------------------------------
Horton-229
A Nazi weapon that may have changed the outcome of war, and it is said to be a stealth weapon.
Dual Jet engine powered stealth fighter aircraft.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... 16217.html
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/e ... b-Photos/0
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... index.html
http://img401.imageshack.us/i/vlcsnap656390.jpg/

And another long range stealth fighter
Horton-18
Designed to deliver nuclear bomb to distant enemies like US.
http://img139.imageshack.us/i/vlcsnap657722.jpg/
http://img188.imageshack.us/i/vlcsnap657676.jpg/

SOurce:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... plane.html

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: World war II Militray technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby ArmenT » 10 Sep 2009 20:52

govardhanks wrote:The Russian flying boat or a/c :
It was a very high speed a/c used to transfer troops when in need. No such a/c seen in world now.

Yes, the Russians pioneered the ground-effect transports. The idea is that when you fly really close to a flat surface (height < your plane's wingspan) such as level ground or sea, the aerodynamic drag is significantly reduced. Pilots experience this effect when they come in for landings. The physics behind this was calculated by Tsiolkovsky, the Russian space pioneer. The Russians then built aircraft specifically to take advantage of ground effects and they fly fast and low above the water surface. The first ones were built in Scandinavia a little before WW-II actually, and development efforts continued after the war as well. The pic you have in your post is from the 60s or so. Discovery Channel had a program on these a few years ago.

They built one that had missile launchers in the 80s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan
The CIA nicknamed this one "The Caspian Sea Monster" when the first pictures emerged.

soumik
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby soumik » 10 Sep 2009 22:45

the best german designed sub was the U-XXI .This submarine class directly influenced nearly all modern SSK designs of the soviets and the allies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Type_XXI_submarine

Also when taking about WW2 submarines one cannot help but point out that the IJN I-400 class vessels were the Biggest non-nuclear submarines in history, they would only be dwarfed by the SSBN's built in the 1960's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby a_kumar » 10 Sep 2009 23:07

France built one of the largest submarines between the World Wars, 3250 Ton (surfaced) Surcouf

Its was known for being the first "aircraft-carrying submarine" to operate successfully. It carried reconnaissance aircraft.
For reconnaissance, she carried a Besson MB.411 observation float plane in a hangar built abaft of the conning tower;


Japanese took it ahead by building submarines for even more offensive role. They built I-400 (1934) to carry 3 bomber aircrafts. At 5224 Tons surfaced, I-400 is possibly the largest conventional submarine ever operated.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54247
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2009 23:10

RADAR

PROXIMITY FUSE

M4 Sherman Tank

T-34 TANK

Panzer family of tanks

German 21cm diameter Rockets: nebel werfur?

Russian Katyusha rockets

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: World war II Militray technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby rajsunder » 11 Sep 2009 03:48

govardhanks wrote:The Russian flying boat or a/c :

Image
The photo is stored in flickr website but the author unknown.

Other images link -http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyhappyjoyjoy/page32/

This a/c has 8 engines and also has missile battery firing (not there in this photo). Some unknown source says that the aircraft production was stopped after the cold war. Some of them are still present in some lake non- functional.
It was a very high speed a/c used to transfer troops when in need. No such a/c seen in world now.

I believe this is not a World War II technology, rather a cold war relic.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby rajsunder » 11 Sep 2009 04:04

ramana wrote:RADAR

PROXIMITY FUSE

M4 Sherman Tank

T-34 TANK

Panzer family of tanks

German 21cm diameter Rockets: nebel werfur?

Russian Katyusha rockets


I think we can also add the Field of Operation Research to the above list.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby Jagan » 11 Sep 2009 06:35

Recommended Reading : Most Secret War by R V Jones.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16996
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby Rahul M » 11 Sep 2009 06:55

Drop Tank

Jet Engine

Bombsight

Sonar

in addition to ramana ji's list.

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: World war II Militray technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby govardhanks » 11 Sep 2009 08:36

rajsunder wrote:I believe this is not a World War II technology, rather a cold war relic.


Yes it is true it is a cold war relic.
http://www.se-technology.com/wig/html/main.php?open=showcraft&code=0&craft=26

AnantD
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 04 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Aurora, Illinois, USA

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby AnantD » 11 Sep 2009 08:46

Atom Bomb - worked
Naval Air Power/ AC Carriers - worked, Battleships - good for shore bombardment/landings only
Naval Oilers and supply ships - new concept
Blitzkrieg - combined arms concept
Concept of bridgeheads in military doctrine
Chaff to confuse radar

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby shiv » 11 Sep 2009 08:48

The "bouncing bomb" An enchanting concept that actually worked as designed - even if its effect on the course of the war was limited.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby shiv » 11 Sep 2009 08:52

No a technolgy but a concept. Strategic bombing aka indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets was a WW2 concept that was taken to Korea and Vietnam. Wars that did not involve the US (Arab-Israeli, India-Pakistan) did not implement this. Even for the US it became outmoded from Kosovo onwards.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby ArmenT » 11 Sep 2009 09:04

Japanese I-400 class submarine
This was a submarine that was also an aircraft carrier! Only 3 were built out of the planned 18.

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby govardhanks » 11 Sep 2009 09:05

Wasserfall- (waterfall) was a radio controlled German supersonic( :?: ) guided missile for anti-aircraft purposes.

It was designed to intercept hostile aircraft and to fly at 19000mts at 880km/hr with ranges upto 48km. This whole idea was highly advanced in 1940's not achieved by any other country. If deployed in few hundreds they could well defend Germany from enemy a/c.
The research started in Peenemünde Research Station in 1942, first launching took place cross the Baltic in February 1944, a altitude of 7000m was achieved by the rocket. Research and development terminated in feb 1945 for no known reasons with speculations that they were deployed.
The missile weighs 3.5kg and could 306kg warhead.

http://www.strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/oddpics/WSF.jpg

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby govardhanks » 12 Sep 2009 16:56

ramana wrote:Russian Katyusha rockets

Image

Features:
1. It delivers a large amount of explosives to the target area quickly.
2. Propelled by a solid nitrocellulose based propellant and mounted on many platforms, trucks, tanks, armoured trains and naval vessels.
3. Mobility gave Katyushas an advantage: Hit the target all at once and then relocate to escape from counter battery fire.
4. Disadvantages were- Long time to reload compared to conventional artillery guns, Lower accuracy, fragile compared to artillery guns.
5. Advantages were - Inexpensive and easy to produce.
6. Weighs 22 kg, range is 5.4 km.

Wikipedia says: The weapon is less accurate than conventional artillery guns, but is extremely effective in saturation bombardment, and was particularly feared by German soldiers. A battery of four BM-13 launchers could fire a salvo in 7–10 seconds that delivered 4.35 tons of high explosives over a four-hectare (10 acres) impact zone.


Comments-
Wiki page even says that they were exported to many countries sad to say no name of our country but the name of China is there :( .
If exploited properly with new techs the disadvantages can be overcome to some extent no need of strict accuracy. 8)
I particularly want to say we have find a way for the concept of "Saturation Bombardment"
which i think is very effective. :twisted:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16996
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby Rahul M » 12 Sep 2009 19:17

Wiki page even says that they were exported to many countries sad to say no name of our country but the name of China is there

isn't the reason obvious ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16526
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby NRao » 12 Sep 2009 20:52

Watching the Military channel on B-29s. States that the first ones landed in Calcutta in 1942 - the first forward air base for them. They attacked Bangkok from Calcutta!!!

Boeing has been in India since then (at least).

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: World war II Military technologies: succeeded and failed

Postby govardhanks » 14 Sep 2009 13:55

AnantD wrote:Blitzkrieg - combined arms concept
Concept of bridgeheads in military doctrine


Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war").
It is sudden and surprise attack of your enemy bases with lighting speed. It takes advantage of relative unpreparedness of enemy troops and their inertia. It is done with a highly mechanized and highly mobile combined forces concentrating on a small part of enemy troops. It is just giving a death blow to your enemy before they could fully mobilize and of course as said combined arms concept. Blitzkrieg strategy involves dsirupting enemy communications first, massive air strike to arrest the enemy movement and defences second, assault by fully mechanized army so deep inorder to encircle massive enemy forces and achieve a rapid victory third.
This techniques demands few things, fully mechanised army in terms of quality to win over quantity.(For instance if you take Sino-Indian situation we need to get that quality in army so as to gain over quantity which is very difficult beacuse No.1 It requires huge amount of Money. No.2 It requires quality in army men in other words their selection will be more time consuming. No.3 It is really time consuming to bring super quality in armour. No.4 Once produced such an troop should not be idle!!! ...). Second thing it demands is the terrain, it can be fully and easily used only in battlefeild which is flat in surface, in other words it is completely not usefull in Mountain Warfare( The best examples are the taliban war, where militants hideout where in mountains and no army could reach them effectively, the Predator drones evolved from such a situation because they remain airbrone long time they could trace their hideouts.. in analogy like a eagle hunts a rat or snake which is hidden in a tunnel).

A much detailed note is in Wikipedia, especially the mode of operation part for now i will describe about countermeasures-
1. Terrain specialized army depolyment- Since Blitzkrieg is not effective in other than flat terrain; the woody forest(this concept was failed in one of the part of france by germans) , river beds(?) and mountains could be used for depolying the troops in strategically important parts.
2. Air dominance- The Blitzkrieg demands air superiority which if failed can lead to ineffective conquest and an effecient air to ground attack can make the whole raid ineffective.
3. Anti-tank and anti-air warfare- If effective it can make Blitzkrieg vulnerbale!!!
4. Extensive minefield with combination of defense forces by soviet gave a very hard time for Germans in Battle of Kursk.

Bridgehead:
The bridgehead is a area near river beds wherein the army has to fight to gain the control over bridge. So as to conquer a bridge(that is what i understand), it is interesting because conquering the bridge can allow one to gain access to the other side of bank of river. In essence it is the gain of easiest transport route for passage of troops from one bank of river to the other side, it may apply to huge rivers only. The bridgehead is a typical area around both the side of banks of river with a bridge in between and the bank should be flat and of neraly 30 sq.kms( anonymous source..).

There are several Bridges aroung Indus river in pakistan to name few Chilas bridge(~300 Km from srinagar), Astor and Alam bridges. Some are having a favourable terrain and other do not. Dont know about chinese part.

shyamm
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 23 Aug 2006 21:06
Location: bangalore

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby shyamm » 15 Sep 2009 19:04

The German Radio controlled Missile/bomb FritzX which sank the Italian battleship Roma after the Italian surrender killing 1200 sailors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby Bob V » 15 Sep 2009 19:37

was the runway bomb ( the one which spilled a liquid which formed icicles on contact with ground) an Indian invention ? I believed it was a WWII concept, but a '71 war veteran told me that it was ours.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby Jagan » 16 Sep 2009 07:39

Bob V wrote:was the runway bomb ( the one which spilled a liquid which formed icicles on contact with ground) an Indian invention ? I believed it was a WWII concept, but a '71 war veteran told me that it was ours.



The description is close but not quite accurate. the bomb had steel tripods that had one pointy end straight up which ever way they fell nd these were stuck to the runway using an adhesive. glue bomb, araldite bomb, steel tripod bomb. I havent found whats its official designation was.

but yes, it was an indian invention. never found an equivalent WW2 concept.

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby Bob V » 16 Sep 2009 18:23

but the one that I'm talking about, used a liquid that produced icicles on external contact. I got this from a '71 war veteran (then Sqr.Ldr) who used it on some godforsaken place.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby Jagan » 16 Sep 2009 18:32

Bob V wrote:but the one that I'm talking about, used a liquid that produced icicles on external contact. I got this from a '71 war veteran (then Sqr.Ldr) who used it on some godforsaken place.


afaik nothing like that was used.

Do you know Which squadron used it. what type of aircraft.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby Shameek » 16 Sep 2009 18:55

Initial concepts of AEW on the Avenger.

To add to the list started bt Ramana and RahulM above.

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby Bob V » 16 Sep 2009 20:02

Jagan wrote:
afaik nothing like that was used.

Do you know Which squadron used it. what type of aircraft.


I think it was the Hunter. give me sometime I'll clarify it....the person is actually my GHQ's father :oops: ......what if he chokeslams me?

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby Jagan » 16 Sep 2009 21:09

He might call RAW on you "My Son-in-law is asking too many nosey questions" :mrgreen:

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby govardhanks » 21 Sep 2009 11:40

I am struggling to get a job/P hd studentship. Soon will be back for the discussion. :)

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby govardhanks » 13 Nov 2009 19:26

Regarding the bouncing bomb i found a beautiful picture showing how it works .
http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-bomb-lg-2.html plz have a look at it

:D and i am back got Phd studentship will register shortly 8) :mrgreen:

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Antitank weapons

Postby govardhanks » 21 Nov 2009 14:20

The antitank weapons that were used in world war 2 , mainly Bazooka(US) and Panzerfaust(German)

Bazooka is one of the first anti-tank weapons used US army. Colonel skinner suggestion of placing this weapons on experimental rocket launcher than tank made a good match. It was very effective, by 1942 M1A1 was introduced. It was 4ft wooden tube into which 60mm rocket grenades were inserted.. A small battery was provided as for charge to iginite after triger was pulled.. Disadvantage of this weapon was backblast and smoke trail.. Further developments led to M9-M20 series of anti-tank weapons with a range of 150m

Panzerfaust- A copy of Bazooka( as it is said), very simple and handy then the american counterpart.. Range 30, 60 and 100m long ranges were tested after the war ended..

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10024
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: WW2 Military Technologies: Successes and Failures

Postby sum » 21 Nov 2009 14:57

The antitank weapons that were used in world war 2 , mainly Bazooka(US) and Panzerfaust(German)

Introduction of the shaped charge concept by the Germans to attack the Sherman M-4s..


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dumal, Prithwiraj, Sagrawal and 73 guests