<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top 10 Weapons That Could Have Lost Us The War</title>
	<atom:link href="http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/</link>
	<description>Ultimate Top 10 Lists - Listverse</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 00:00:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jstrump</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-449233</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jstrump]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-449233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At that time there were very few gun laws in the majority of countries...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At that time there were very few gun laws in the majority of countries&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TJ</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-448678</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TJ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:20:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-448678</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;d just like to point out, part of the reason the Sovet Union took the number of losses they did was that Hitler&#039;s attack caught them by surprise. Plus the Red Army&#039;s tactics at the time pretty much consisted of charging forfified locations en masse. Their contributions were extremely important, there&#039;s no doubt about that, but casualties aren&#039;t a good way to judge such things.

Thermopylea is a good example of that.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d just like to point out, part of the reason the Sovet Union took the number of losses they did was that Hitler&#8217;s attack caught them by surprise. Plus the Red Army&#8217;s tactics at the time pretty much consisted of charging forfified locations en masse. Their contributions were extremely important, there&#8217;s no doubt about that, but casualties aren&#8217;t a good way to judge such things.</p>
<p>Thermopylea is a good example of that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TJ</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-448675</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TJ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:13:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-448675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m an american, and honestly I think you&#039;re absolutely right. Idk if Germany would&#039;ve defeated America one way or the other however I doubt America could&#039;ve defeated Germany either. I say this because at the time many Americans owned guns, and knew how to use them. That would make American an extremely difficult country to invade.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m an american, and honestly I think you&#8217;re absolutely right. Idk if Germany would&#8217;ve defeated America one way or the other however I doubt America could&#8217;ve defeated Germany either. I say this because at the time many Americans owned guns, and knew how to use them. That would make American an extremely difficult country to invade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-4/#comment-425965</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:23:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-425965</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Was WW2 really that close?

So what if the Germans built an aircraft carrier or some fance new planes. The sheer air and naval power that America commanded at the time meant sticking a couple of fleets in Europe would decimate the Kriegsmarine.

Sure, the Stürmgewehr was an incredibly well designed gun, but again, the Soviets were just able to make so much more weapons and ammunitions for a fraction of the price. A short burst of machinegun fire from German guns equates in cost to a rocket barrage from the Soviets (OK, I&#039;m exaggerating, but the cost difference is still massive)

Let&#039;s also not forget that close to the end of WW2, the Werhmacht numbered little more than 400,000. The Soviets had over 1 million, America could potentially match Germany&#039;s forces, and then then there&#039;s all that resistance to deal with from occupied territory, especially the well-organised and lethal French Resistance which alone can also match the Wehrmacht in sheer numbers. You also have to take into account that Germany will eventually piss off Switzerlanland (a nation where military training and service is compulsory and repeaed) which can chuck another million soldiers into the fray without breaking a sweat. Of course there&#039;s also the Allied powers across the globe, from Africa to Australia to the Middle East...

I simply don&#039;t see how Germany, with no matter what fancy weapons they have (except perhaps the atomic bomb), can withstand the sheer military size of half the world combined.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was WW2 really that close?</p>
<p>So what if the Germans built an aircraft carrier or some fance new planes. The sheer air and naval power that America commanded at the time meant sticking a couple of fleets in Europe would decimate the Kriegsmarine.</p>
<p>Sure, the Stürmgewehr was an incredibly well designed gun, but again, the Soviets were just able to make so much more weapons and ammunitions for a fraction of the price. A short burst of machinegun fire from German guns equates in cost to a rocket barrage from the Soviets (OK, I&#8217;m exaggerating, but the cost difference is still massive)</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s also not forget that close to the end of WW2, the Werhmacht numbered little more than 400,000. The Soviets had over 1 million, America could potentially match Germany&#8217;s forces, and then then there&#8217;s all that resistance to deal with from occupied territory, especially the well-organised and lethal French Resistance which alone can also match the Wehrmacht in sheer numbers. You also have to take into account that Germany will eventually ***** off Switzerlanland (a nation where military training and service is compulsory and repeaed) which can chuck another million soldiers into the fray without breaking a sweat. Of course there&#8217;s also the Allied powers across the globe, from Africa to Australia to the Middle East&#8230;</p>
<p>I simply don&#8217;t see how Germany, with no matter what fancy weapons they have (except perhaps the atomic bomb), can withstand the sheer military size of half the world combined.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gun Guru</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-424276</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gun Guru]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-424276</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nope, it&#039;s Sturmgewehr. Sturm meaning Storm (as in Sturmabteilung - Storm Division/detachment) and gewehr meaning rifle. Literally Storm Rifle. However, the Storm in this meaning also means assault. So yes, the well-known name &quot;assault rifle&quot; was created by Hitler.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nope, it&#8217;s Sturmgewehr. Sturm meaning Storm (as in Sturmabteilung &#8211; Storm Division/detachment) and gewehr meaning rifle. Literally Storm Rifle. However, the Storm in this meaning also means assault. So yes, the well-known name &#8220;assault rifle&#8221; was created by Hitler.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PC</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-4/#comment-396312</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-396312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#10. &quot;Me-262 was a fast and deadly aircraft, and outpaced almost all Allied fighters (only the P-51D Mustang could match it.)&quot;  
 
Utter nonsense; P-51&#039;s and the DeHavilland Mosquito did shoot down ME-262&#039;s that were caught unawares cruising, on take-off or out-turned but not because they could match the ME262 s top speed of 569 mph. 
No reciprocating engine could match this jet. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#10. &#8220;Me-262 was a fast and deadly aircraft, and outpaced almost all Allied fighters (only the P-51D Mustang could match it.)&#8221; </p>
<p>Utter nonsense; P-51&#8242;s and the DeHavilland Mosquito did shoot down ME-262&#8242;s that were caught unawares cruising, on take-off or out-turned but not because they could match the ME262 s top speed of 569 mph.</p>
<p>No reciprocating engine could match this jet. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Swag Master</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-4/#comment-389673</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Swag Master]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:57:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-389673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[disagree....absolutely the atomic bomb. for something that &quot;could have&quot; lost us the war, you could really say anything. The fact that hitler didn&#039;t concentrate on moscow &quot;could have&quot; cost us the eastern front, letting him commit all resources to the west, obliterating us. but the only real weapon that would have hands down ended the war in favor for the germans was the A-Bomb.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>disagree&#8230;.absolutely the atomic bomb. for something that &#8220;could have&#8221; lost us the war, you could really say anything. The fact that hitler didn&#8217;t concentrate on moscow &#8220;could have&#8221; cost us the eastern front, letting him commit all resources to the west, obliterating us. but the only real weapon that would have hands down ended the war in favor for the germans was the A-Bomb.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Name Pyncky</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-356522</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Name Pyncky]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:52:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-356522</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree.  We should not compare G.W. Bush to Hitler.  It would be closer to compare Hitler to Cheney.  Bush was just a stupid puppet.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  We should not compare G.W. Bush to Hitler.  It would be closer to compare Hitler to Cheney.  Bush was just a stupid puppet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Slacker</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-4/#comment-353659</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Slacker]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-353659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ &quot;In trained hands, the StG-44 could lay down a devastating hail of 7.92mm bullets (the same as used by the Kar98),&quot; 
This is incorrect the STG-44 used a toned down version of the round using less powder making it smaller lighter and have less recoil but a shorter effective range. 
 
Also the Graf Zeppelin would not have been very effective as carriers were almost never used in the European theater as  
 
1 carrier based planes are inferior to land based planes 
2 there was no need for them as all targets could basically be reached by land based fighters. 
 
Also this carrier would have been not very useful as the German navy was so out numbered they had no hope of engaging and defeating the UK&#039;s navy nor the US&#039;s.They would have been better off putting the resources to use else where the only useful ships to the Germans were subs. 
 
Other than these problems good list although I disagree about the viability of the V2 as a weapon for anti military role as it was not cost effective as a actual weapon but as a terror weapon. Hitting military targets would have lessened the terror. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> &quot;In trained hands, the StG-44 could lay down a devastating hail of 7.92mm bullets (the same as used by the Kar98),&quot;<br />
This is incorrect the STG-44 used a toned down version of the round using less powder making it smaller lighter and have less recoil but a shorter effective range. </p>
<p>Also the Graf Zeppelin would not have been very effective as carriers were almost never used in the European theater as  </p>
<p>1 carrier based planes are inferior to land based planes<br />
2 there was no need for them as all targets could basically be reached by land based fighters. </p>
<p>Also this carrier would have been not very useful as the German navy was so out numbered they had no hope of engaging and defeating the UK&#039;s navy nor the US&#039;s.They would have been better off putting the resources to use else where the only useful ships to the Germans were subs. </p>
<p>Other than these problems good list although I disagree about the viability of the V2 as a weapon for anti military role as it was not cost effective as a actual weapon but as a terror weapon. Hitting military targets would have lessened the terror. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Msf (Brasil)</title>
		<link>http://listverse.com/2009/04/05/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/comment-page-4/#comment-291847</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Msf (Brasil)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-weapons-that-could-have-lost-us-the-war/#comment-291847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The first bad list I saw here. But nothing is perfect ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first bad list I saw here. But nothing is perfect </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

