Dirty Little Secrets of World War II

[AquaShrimp]

This is an amazing book filled with interesting facts about WW2.  I read it several years ago, but I found it online for free here

Heres an excerpt:

Equipment. While much American equipment was first-rate, the
infantryman's weapons left something to be desired. The soldier's
rifle, the semiautomatic MI, was the best available anywhere
at the beginning of the war. But by 1944 it had been
outclassed by the German SG-44 (the AK-47 is essentially a copy
of this weapon). Fortunately, the Germans began to arm their
infantry with the SG-44 only in 1944 and by the end of the year
most German troops were still using the Mauser 1898 bolt-action
rifle. A larger problem was the machine guns the American GIs
had. It was recognized during World War I that the machine guns
supplied most of an infantry squad's firepower. The other troops
in the squad protected the machine gunner and did the maneuvering
and dirty work with grenades and, sometimes, rifle fire.
The American squad had one or two Browning Automatic Rifles.
A World War I weapon, the Browning was, in effect, a 20-pound
. 30-caliber (7.62mm) automatic rifle that had a 20-round box
magazine. It had a heavier barrel than a bolt-action or semiautomatic
(like the MI) rifle, but would still overheat if too many
magazines of ammo were shot off in a few minutes. In defensive
situations, the Browning was at a distinct disadvantage because
of the overheating problem. On the attack, it was more in its
element. The Germans solved all these problems with their MG-
42, a fast-firing, 26-pound .31 caliber (7.92mm) machine gun.
Most important, the MG-42 had a removable barrel. Thus in
defensive situations where a lot of firepower was needed, an
overheated barrel could be quickly replaced with a fresh one. The
closest thing the Americans had to the MG-42 was the M1919
.30-caliber machine gun. This beast weighed 32 pounds, needed
a 14-pound tripod, did not have a removable barrel, and fired more slowly than the MG-42. A 33-pound bipod version was
developed for American paratroopers, but that was the only improvement
made.

[68ROX]

In LW yesterday, I asked a "dirty little war" history question and not one knew the answer.

What Soviet General horrified General Eisenhower when he informed him that he used infantry to go across the battlefield (minefield) first to clear mines for the tanks to follow by walking on them to explode them?






Answer?



















General Georgi Zhukov







68ROX

[DarkglamJG52]

Originally posted by 68ROX
In LW yesterday, I asked a "dirty little war" history question and not one knew the answer.

What Soviet General horrified General Eisenhower when he informed him that he used infantry to go across the battlefield (minefield) first to clear mines for the tanks to follow by walking on them to explode them?






Answer?



















General Georgi Zhukov



68ROX

Easy question IMHO.

[Charge]

AFAIK you cannot explode an antitank mine by walking on it and antipersonnel mine does not damage a tank.

-C+

[Nilsen]

Yup.. easy question.

Try asking the same question when school is back in the fall and maybe you get better answers. A couple of days ago a fella in orange complained that the m60 on his m8 tank had a lower rate of fire than his dad said it had.


Very hard to not comment when stuff like that pops up on your screen.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
This is an amazing book filled with interesting facts about WW2.  I read it several years ago, but I found it online for free here

Heres an excerpt:

Ahh but the one thing the Americans had, Particularly in Europe was artilllary. Lots and lots of artillary.

Often when American units came in contact with a particularly tough position or found themselves out gunned they would simply fall back and call in an artillry strike

[DarkglamJG52]

An other Trivial Pursuil question are: what general don't lose any battle at WW II?

Answer (Myth): G. Zhukov.

But  Operation Mars...

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/bookmarks/bk01/0705zhukov.htm

Sorry for my english.

[Banzzai]

Originally posted by Charge
AFAIK you cannot explode an antitank mine by walking on it and antipersonnel mine does not damage a tank.

-C+

IIRC the german WW2 "Tellermines" had a split setting on the
pressure plate 90kg on the edge & 180 KG in the center of the mine
in theory a medium sized soldier with kit could set it off.

[SirLoin]

Q:What was the only military leader in history to never lose a battle/war?

Hint:He would always lead the charge & was wounded several times.

[john9001]

Originally posted by SirLoin
Q:What was the only military leader in history to never lose a battle/war?

Hint:He would always lead the charge & was wounded several times.

Alex from Macedonia

[OdinGrunherze]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ahh but the one thing the Americans had, Particularly in Europe was artilllary. Lots and lots of artillary.

Often when American units came in contact with a particularly tough position or found themselves out gunned they would simply fall back and call in an artillry strike

Yes, The US Army was the master of Arty in WW2...
No Doubt about that...

Their ability to mass fires from different directions was awesome...
Their counterbattery fire was deadly as well.. German guns knew that they were in trouble, as soon as they opened fire...
Large numbers of Arty spotters were with the forward units, so heavy Arty fire was almost always a call away...
And L5's could bring fire on german units that "Thought" they were safe...
All that gave the US Army, a big sledgehammer, that no other army could match...

OG

[Angus]

Originally posted by SirLoin
Q:What was the only military leader in history to never lose a battle/war?

Hint:He would always lead the charge & was wounded several times.

And killed?

Nelson?

[Angus]

"What Soviet General horrified General Eisenhower when he informed him that he used infantry to go across the battlefield (minefield) first to clear mines for the tanks to follow by walking on them to explode them?"

He said something like:
"My soldier will advance through a minefield as if it was not there"

Similar tactic as to the fast japanese infantry, i.e. advancing down malasya. They would override barbed wire machine gun posts by the numbers and the first guys who fell as well as dropping on the barbed wire to form a bridge for the advance.

Like ants.....

[AquaShrimp]

Heres a few more interesting facts from the book:

Units that
dropped tracers from their ammunition supply saw their kills increase
50 to 100 percent, while their own losses declined.

A truly odd bit of data emanating from the war was the fact that aces
(those with five or more air-to-air kills) tended to have blue or lightcolored
eyes (over two thirds), were shorter than average, and (later on
in life) had more daughters than sons. This may mean something, but
to date no one has figured out what.

The venerable Piper Cub (single-engine, two-seat civilian aircraft)
went to war as an artillery spotter. While the pilot dodged enemy
ground fire, the second man spotted targets for the artillery and radioed
back the information. In April 1945, one such aircraft, called Miss Me
spotted one of their German opposite numbers (a Fieseler Storch) and
the Americans drew their .45-caliber pistols and dove on the Storch
with guns blazing. Amazingly, they damaged the German aircraft,
forcing it to land. The Piper Cub then landed and the Americans
jumped out and took captive the startled Germans. Four more and the
Miss Me pilot would have been an ace.

The war in the Pacific was notable for the high number of aircraft
destroyed by "noncombat causes." Overall, only 25 percent of the
aircraft lost were due to enemy action. The others were destroyed by
the weather, the difficulty of operating from aircraft carriers, hastily
built airfields, and the insidious effect the tropical climate had on
machines. These losses were higher in the Pacific than in other theaters
because of these unique conditions. And sometimes it got worse. In the
fourteen-month Aleutian Islands campaign in Alaska, 87 percent of the
aircraft losses were to these noncombat causes. Although there was no
tropical climate to worry about in Alaska, the arctic weather proved
even more ruinous to an aircraft's life span.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by john9001
Alex from Macedonia

Yep..!