Every single line in this post is wrong.
Nah, the Navy part is correct. The Airforce part too (mostly).
Every single line in this post is wrong.
I'd say equal parts bravery, desperation and Commissar-inspired fear. Remember that 'sabotage' order concerning tank crews?They had great pushes in the Battle of the Bulge, but overall they were getting steamrolled once Britain defended itself from invasion, and Russia just being all balls out brave on the Eastern Front.
Yup. I find it even more interesting that WWII. Which obviously has a moral good vs evil.
Imagine how quickly things would have been over had France and the UK reacted to the remilitarization of the Rhineland with some force in '36.All this is to say that it is probably an error to look at the German successes in the early stages of the war and attempt to back out some kind of technological advantage.
They just had some really neat technologies. Some of my favorites are the FG-42 and STG-44.
Yeah that was the Me-163 Komet that was a death trap. The 262 just liked having its engines fail after ~20ish hours which is terrible.
And the paper stats don't really matter when they can't actually be fielded effectively or in large enough number to actually make a difference.
All of the late war German stuff starts to blend together since they all pretty much have at least 1 major reliability flaw.
That's what test pilots do, the US/UK didn't really rush experimental weapons into productions because "This one will surely turn the tide!".
Yeah I don't at all like the premise of this thread. US had better planes, tanks, guns, bombs, navy, subs, pretty much everything. That's why they were able to come into the war late and wipe the floor with the axis powers. Fuck nazi Germany.
Paising Germany during wwii is cool I guess.
Seriously sure the Germans had scientists. The US and the allied powers had better ones. What purpose does this thread serve in this climate of widespread nazism, racism, and anti semitism?
It's literally a thread of minimalizing how awful nazi Germany was, complete with pics of hey look yall, these nazi death machines were pretty dope.
Sub-wise the Allies were behind the Axis.And yeah, with the exception of rockets and jets, the Allies tech was overall more impressive.
Yeah I don't at all like the premise of this thread. US had better planes, tanks, guns, bombs, navy, subs, pretty much everything. That's why they were able to come into the war late and wipe the floor with the axis powers. Fuck nazi Germany.
Paising Germany during wwii is cool I guess.
Seriously sure the Germans had scientists. The US and the allied powers had better ones. What purpose does this thread serve in this climate of widespread nazism, racism, and anti semitism?
It's literally a thread of minimalizing how awful nazi Germany was, complete with pics of hey look yall, these nazi death machines were pretty dope.
The British innovated even more. The Hundred Days Offensive is pretty eye-opening.That ww1 series of dan Carlin really impressed me how the Germans innovated a lot in ww1.
A lot of people seem to get hung up on the Sherman not being all that great against other tanks. However, that isn't the only role of a tank; it's not even in the top 3 roles of a tank, and the Sherman is great at all the others. I'd still put the edge on the T-34 overall, but different armies have different needs, and the Sherman would be better for the US Army.While I wouldn't say the Sherman was the best tank family of the war, it is definitely the one that gets the most unfair reputation, and I would probably rank it as one of the best, it's primary failing being that it didn't see much action at the time in which it most favorably compared to other tanks in the field. But despite theorycrafting about how this or that German tank could beat it in a fight, or "5 Shermans = 1 panther!!!", the actual real world statistics bore out that it was an effective combat vehicle.
The Soviets were also better at strategic and operational warfare. The German military had a lot of shortcomings, and much of that was disguised by German generals blaming all of their failures on Hitler after the war.The issue was one of quantity. The Allied beat them because they had more of everything. More tanks, more guns, more men. Often raw numbers is the deciding factor, just look at the Soviet Union.
The issue was one of quantity. The Allied beat them because they had more of everything. More tanks, more guns, more men. Often raw numbers is the deciding factor, just look at the Soviet Union.
"This is not a thread discussing the massive crime on humanity Germany is responsible for"
It's literally the first sentence in this thread.
I for example think the Autobahn was a pretty good thing to be built. Hitler was even in my hometown of Unterhaching for the ground-breaking ceremony of today's A8.
I guess in your book I'm a raging Nazi now since I like and use that Autobahn almost daily.
If you can't handle a topic and diversify, stay out of it.
American small arms, armor, and aircraft were at or near par with the axis forces at the start. It didn't take long for the US to pull forward in every area and even produce so much that they could also supply the UK and Russia.
Yeah I thought you got confused.
You get it wrong again regarding engine life. Engines didn't fail after 20h, they needed maintenance every 20h and replacement after 200h.
As for the impact of the 262 in the war it was certainly a case of too little too late, I just pointed out the P80 was not its USAF counterpart, as you suggest, because it's an aircraft that didn't even participate in WWII.
You are trying to dismiss the technological achievement the 262 was with unreliability claims that are factually false and/or blatantly exagerated. Then you use these to justify the US or the UK could have matched the aircraft specs and deployment date if they wished to, but they choose not to striving for superior reliability.
The engine operating lifetime of 50 hours was severely decreased due to the shortages of strategic material especially in metals for ferritic heat-resistant steel with addition of silicon or aluminium, that could resist high temperature up to 1700° Celsius. However, with adequate maintenance between the major overhauls, a pilot could expect an engine life of 20–25 hours from the 004's.
The Americans also tested a Me 262A-1a/U3 unarmed photo reconnaissance version, which was fitted with a fighter nose and a smooth finish. Between May and August 1946, the aircraft completed eight flights, lasting four hours 40 minutes. Testing was discontinued after four engine changes were required during the course of the tests, culminating in two single-engine landings.[81]
I don't know if it has been mentioned but their rocket program was really advanced, the creator of the V-1 and V-2 rockets went to work with Nasa after the war and he was the one who created the spacecraft that landed on the moon, here he is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
A lot of German equipment performed less well in reality than designed. The main reasons were that they were critically short of all sorts of resources like aluminum and metals and sabotage. Similar to the Me-262, the Tiger II's armor is extremely impressive on paper, but it fared much worse in combat because the quality of German armor was quite poor by the time it saw extensive service.Maybe on paper the engine life was 200h, but not in the beginning at least.
About tanks, The Mighty Jingles (a famous World of Tanks player), showed the difference in construction between german and soviet tanks. Very cool video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fEsNwHSDs
A lot of German equipment performed less well in reality than designed. The main reasons were that they were critically short of all sorts of resources like aluminum and metals and sabotage. Similar to the Me-262, the Tiger II's armor is extremely impressive on paper, but it fared much worse in combat because the quality of German armor was quite poor by the time it saw extensive service.
Germany basically planned for a war where they wouldn't be bombed in return.
Dont forget the MG42 aka "Hitlersäge" / "Hitlerhacksaw"
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1800/1*vfc5tfKi-PMsxmwVuCZEqw.jpeg
One of the few WW2 designs that are still in service (in the form of the MG3). Of course not a patch on the M2 Browning HMG, US design doctrine is basically "stick more M2s on it" to this day.
Funny enough the .50 cal round was made from reverse engineering rounds recovered in WW1 from tankgewehrs that were captured.
This is not a thread discussing the massive crime on humanity Germany is responsible for.
It's more so about the technological and military accomplishments of Germany during this time. Somehow, Germany alone was able to conquer majority of Europe. The country was able to hold it's own against U.K., France, USSR, AND the United States for sometime.
How?! The fact that the Germans were enraged, disgruntled, and unified surely played a part. But the Germans legitimately had some excellent scientists. They created some of the most powerful and durable tanks at the time along with other weapons. They even managed to create synthetic oil to power its war machine, since the country has no oil reserves.
Thankfully the good guys one in the end, but still its difficult to believe that a lone country was able to hold its own against 4 major world powers at the time.
Sure, they mobilized for war, but the German economy wasn't set up as a true total "war economy" until Albert Speer took over as minister of Armaments and War Production.
Even here, the Me-262 is a lot better on paper than in reality. The Germans built 1500 of these planes but they only ever managed to field about 200 at any one time. This isn't even a matter of attrition through combat losses since the Allies only shot down about 100 of them. It's quite possible that the Me-262 project consumed more resources than they managed to inflict against their enemies.The ME-262 was actually good in combat though. The only chance the allies had against it was to shoot it while taking off and landing. The lack of raw materials and likely the extreme lack of mid level engineers and technicians (who were probably dead or at the front) to support the program is why it didn't have enough of an impact. But its operational record when it did see combat was legit.
In general, I think that the Germans had a good run during the early war, but it was one that was largely expected of them. I'd contend that the overwhelming victory during the Battle of France still says a lot of good things about the Wehrmacht. They succeeded beyond all expectations and they did so as quickly as humanly possible. It's the high-water mark of German military accomplishment, and I don't think it should be downplayed.This has already been pointed out to an extent but to my mind, if anything the germans underperformed. Their early string of victories; Poland, France&Beligum&Holland, Yugoslavia, Greece was all against countries that were vastly inferior economically and in manpower. Yes the French were allied with British but the British contribution in 1940 was sadly, a joke, 47 million country with bigger GDP per capita deployed little bit more than 1/10 of the French contribution. Gamelin should have done much better than he did with the historical ratio of forces but since the German Division count for Barbarossa reached ~180 (+ other fronts), I'm not really sure if the French had a chance in the long run.
Tooze has really put his mark on industry during World War II.The modern historiography has mostly has put aside this notion afaik. The rise of german production is to a large degree explained as a result of investments of 39-42 coming online, influx of slave labour, even Speer cooking the books.
American tanks were dog shit tier compared to German and Russian ones during WWII.
The only good thing about Sherman was mass production
Why does the Sherman have such a bad reputation anyway?
There was tank nerds comparing specs 1v1, and a bad History Channel documentary. The Panther looks better in every way until you start looking at its problems.Why does the Sherman have such a bad reputation anyway?
There was tank nerds comparing specs 1v1, and a bad History Channel documentary. The Panther looks better in every way until you start looking at its problems.
Now we are going too far the other way. The Panther was a superior tank to the Sherman, especially the 75mm variant.
Yup.
It's kind of hard to overstate just how big of a manufacturing advantage the US enjoyed in 1939. Adam Tooze pointed out that even a fairly poor industrial worker in Detroit could expect a standard of livingin terms of food available, apartment space, and appliances ownedequal to a middle-class German.
Or, in other words, US industry could churn out refrigerators and radios cheaply enough for working-class families to afford, and Model Ts cheaply enough for middle-class families to buy, while German, British, and Soviet industry could not. That was the kind of manufacturing advantage needed to design, test, and mass-produce reliable semi-auto rifles, as opposed to refurbishing WWI rifles like all the other combatants were forced to.
Now we are going too far the other way. The Panther was a superior tank to the Sherman, especially the 75mm variant.
Now we are going too far the other way. The Panther was a superior tank to the Sherman, especially the 75mm variant.
Why does the Sherman have such a bad reputation anyway?
Damn Americans actually being smart and building vehicles that were reliable and easy to fix. Tanks that also didn't catch fire randomly due to shit transmissions(panther)
If you've left your tank in a position where it's silhouette is visible then that's your fuckup, not the tank's.They were comparatively easy to spot because of their unusual silhouette.
You kinda have to if you want to use them in an offensive capacity.If you've left your tank in a position where it's silhouette is visible then that's your fuckup, not the tank's.
The Sherman was notorious for catching fire ("Tommy cooker") until it got some revisions to the design.
It was also made out of wood and had durability issues due to shit wood glue. Honestly the most fascinating of the nazi jets, but it was a last ditch of last ditch effortsPeople constantly bring up the Me 262, but the He 162 Spatz was a better plane. Admittedly, it was a worse bomber destroyer, due to weaker armament (2x 20 mm MG151/20 OR 2x 30 mm MK108 instead of 4x 30 mm MK108). Also, it suffered from insufficient testing (had some teething problems and fresh-design flaws), plus it needed relatively experienced pilots (which Germany had no more by 1944)
And the petrol powered German tanks had it much worse in this regard.They were as liable to catch on fire as other comparable tanks it wasn't unique, unlike other countries the U.S actually fixed the problem with Wet Stowage, removing ammo sponsons and not letting crews carry extra ammo.
After the revisions its burning rate was well below comparable tanks.
The Panther is only better at facing off against other tanks. At everything else, the Sherman is superior, sometimes by quite a lot. And as these include things like strategic mobility, operational mobility, the infantry support role, and overall ergonomics, it's a pretty big deal. The Panther is a pretty cool tank, but it was a 45-ton tank that was conceptualized as a 35-ton tank. The disparity gave rise to all sorts of mechanical reliability problems that severely hamper it in most tank roles. I'd also note that while on paper, the Panther is a superior tank to the Tiger, the Western Allies feared the latter tank much more.Now we are going too far the other way. The Panther was a superior tank to the Sherman, especially the 75mm variant.
The Sherman is one of the tallest tanks in the war. It's one of the complaints that are entirely valid.If you've left your tank in a position where it's silhouette is visible then that's your fuckup, not the tank's.
Panther shouldnt be compared to the sherman, it should be compared m26.Now we are going too far the other way. The Panther was a superior tank to the Sherman, especially the 75mm variant.
The UK didn't have much force in 36. We've never been a country with a large army, and even into the late 30s our policy of appeasement was not much of a choice. After the huge cost of WW1 the military was put on the back burner in favour of investing elsewhere.Imagine how quickly things would have been over had France and the UK reacted to the remilitarization of the Rhineland with some force in '36.
Didn't it crushed the Sebastapol fortress by piercing into its ammunition depot ?
Also, it was planned to have it refit into dual turrets and mounted on the H44 battleship design, the pinnacle of Hitler's fleet with a ship to his name :
This would have never been built. Even if germany won the war, they would have, by that time, understood that battleship were obsolete to carrier warfare and they would not have commited to such a gigantic project. It was drawn mostly to hype Hitler and have him put more funding into the Kriegsmarine renovation and expansion effort.