This website has some interesting pictures of what German planes would look like if the war went on. http://www.luft46.com/ This would probably be a good rescource if you wanted some crazy diesel-punk inspired jets, a prolonged WWII, or something else. Some of those planes are pretty crazy looking.
Luft46
- Thread starter Dynamitard
- Start date
And that they're implausible in the first place, with their current tech level then. That is.
Hapsburg
Banned
Not really. If they had the resources, i.e the metal, the fuel, and the facilities, they could've built many of those. Granted, there are some barely plausible ones like the orbital bomber and the flying saucer ones, but if they had more time to develop them and more resources to use, they could've made some. All it would take is the Germans winning Stalingrad and Moscow, and they would've have access to vast amounts of oil, metal, and lumber with which to construct at least some these aircraft.And that they're implausible in the first place, with their current tech level then. That is.
They couldn't master the He 177 or the Me 210. Nazi science is greatly exaggerated and nothing special,the Allies has prototype helicopters in 1944 and bombers that Hitler could only dream of
backstab
Banned
What hellicopter was that. To have a prototype means jack. Germany had accually used some of theirs in yougoslavia. Dont forget that the Germans also had the first TV guided missile, the first IR sights, the First assault rifle, the first disposable antitank weapon. The yanks could only turn out huge quantities of crap (ie sherman)
Hapsburg
Banned
In addition to that, the Germans had the first ballistic missile, the first cruise missile, the first effective jet interceptor, the first rocket fighter (so what it failed, the Komet was still cool), and the first SMG with a foldable stock.
The germans in WW2 were lightbeers ahead of the allies until around 1944/45.
A foldable stock!?! My god what an unbelievable advance in weapons technology.
And BTW the fuel the Komet used was so toxic if there was a leak it could disolve the pilot.
And if Nazi technology was so damned superior to ours why did they lose?
Nazi technology was not any more advanced than Allied technology it was just more visable because Germany was lead by a lunatic who'd greenlight any crackpot idea that took his fancy while the Allies were being run by hard headed pragmatists who weren't going to divert scarce resourses from the important job of winning the war.
If any of these so called wonder weapons had ever posed a real threat to that objective then the Allies would produced counters to them within months.
backstab
Banned
The reason that they lost is that they had 3 of the strongest Nations fighting them at once. No way on this earth that the allies came close to Germany's superiority in military equipment (Ground/air). How many balistic missiles did the yanks have ? how many shermans did it take to kill a tiger. WW2 was a war of production..... thats why they lost.
Bull-shit.
The Allies may largely have won because of numbers and production capability but German weapons were vastly overrated.
The Americans didn't need an unreliable missile that could, with luck, get 2000lbs of explosive to a city sized target 300 miles away. They had bombers that could get payloads twice as heavy twice as far and then come back to base to do it again another day.
The Tiger wasn't an advanced design it was an entirely conventional one scaled up in accordance with Germanic giantism. Not only could the Allies have built an equivilent they did. Only they weren't stupid enough to field tanks that had quite obviously outpaced the limits of mechanical reliability.
Most German soldiers didn't go into battle carrying a sturmgehwer or even an smg but a mauser K98.
It wasn't the British or American armies that had to rely on horses to pull their artillery.
And in the end it wasn't the Germans who developed the Atomic Bomb.
backstab
Banned
And if the germans had the production capability of the US what would you find ? As for Heavy tanks ... the closest the US came to a heavy tank was the M26 Pershing which still was INFERIOR. The germans had produced the best tank crew in the world and they had done wonders with the limited support that they had. Who holds the record for the most tank kills , it was not an american, and what tank did he use ? if it was that overrated how did they get the kills they did ?. The US tactics in ww2 was much like the russians.... swamp'em with men and tanks and sooner or later they'll run out of ammo !
And if Hitler had had a magic lamp he could have wished his enemies away.
The closest the US came to a heavy tank was this and the British this, oh and this.
And I couldn't give a damn about Wittman's record. In the end he got killed by the Allies like all his other little ubermensch friends because the Germans might have been capable of turning out a few superweapons and superpilots and tank commanders but they were never able to see past putting those men's talents to good use in training the next generation of soldiers unlike America.
And if you think the Americans used the same tactics as the Soviets then you know less about military history than I think you do. The Americans pioneered all arms warfare in WW2, the combination and coordination of armour, infantry, artillery and air support that formed the basis for modern tactics.
And apparently you fought and won WWII all by yourselves with no help from anyone else. Oh well, all in a day's work I guess. Right.
backstab
Banned
Sounds like ameriwank to me .... we won the war all by ourselves ! And if you beleive that tripe then maybe you should do a bit more study instead of watching Band of Brothers, Saving private ryan and Battle of the Bulge. The US would not attack (And could not succeed in an attack) unless the greatly outnumbered the enamy , had overwealming air/artillery support
Ah, the good old 'Germans were the best!!!!!!111111' argument still lives. I thought I escaped it when I left high school, but, whatever. It makes me feel nostalgic.
Anyway, the Germans did have their superiorities over the Allied powers. Certainly, the Tiger and Panther were better than the Sherman tanks qualitatively, though the Sherman was a vastly better choice from a quantitative perspective. The T-34, on the other hand, was probably the best machine from a quantitative and qualitative perspective of the entire war. Though the Allies would never field an assault rifle, the Germans never managed to equip more than a small fraction of their army with the weapon, forcing most soldier to fight with bolt-action rifles. Their American counterparts, on the other hand, fought with Garand semi-automatic rifles. This is of course a general trend in Germany's economy: they could design good weapons but could not produce them. It was not only that the United States had more industry than the Third Reich, it had better industry. The average American worker was twice as efficient as his German counterpart in both agriculture and industry. German industry was far too connected to its craftsmen origins and did not fully embrace mass production. During the war, the United States increased its lead in efficiency as it strictly limited the number of different models of various war goods while Germany produced a multitude of different weapons that performed the same function.
In regards to air forces, though the Me-262 was the first operational jet interceptor, the British hold the record for the first operation jet fighter, the Meteor. German jets would be plagued by poor engines and insufficient thrust. The Americans and the British would lead the Germans in heavy bomber technology and, naturally, carrier aircraft. The best tactical air force is usually granted to the Red Air Force, the the USAAF leading as the superior strategic air force.
In the harder technologies, the Western Allies seemed to hold the lead in radar technology, though the Battle of the Atlantic makes for an interesting study in the race between detection and counter-detection technology. The US of course holds the ultimate trumpt card in the atomic bomb, something the Germans never came close to completing. The Germans certainly held an advantage in strategic rockets, though I would argue their impact on the war was negligable in comparison to the tactical rockets of the bazooka, panzerfaust, kayutsa, and Nebelwefer.
If we really must get into the argument of who was the best the soldier, I believe we are in agreement that the Soviet soldier fought harder than any other combatant in the war. The American soldier largely proved unaggressive though it should be remembered that unlike the German/British/Soviet soldier, his homeland was not directly threatened by the war in Europe and the infantry received the least capable soldiers in the army. When capable, motivated soldiers were placed in the infantry (Rangers, Airborne, Marines) they were the match of the infantry of other combatants. As Max Hastings in Armageddon states, the US was not a militaristic society but rather an industrial society. It not surprising then that the biggest advantages of the US rested in the industrial sector.
Anyway, the Germans did have their superiorities over the Allied powers. Certainly, the Tiger and Panther were better than the Sherman tanks qualitatively, though the Sherman was a vastly better choice from a quantitative perspective. The T-34, on the other hand, was probably the best machine from a quantitative and qualitative perspective of the entire war. Though the Allies would never field an assault rifle, the Germans never managed to equip more than a small fraction of their army with the weapon, forcing most soldier to fight with bolt-action rifles. Their American counterparts, on the other hand, fought with Garand semi-automatic rifles. This is of course a general trend in Germany's economy: they could design good weapons but could not produce them. It was not only that the United States had more industry than the Third Reich, it had better industry. The average American worker was twice as efficient as his German counterpart in both agriculture and industry. German industry was far too connected to its craftsmen origins and did not fully embrace mass production. During the war, the United States increased its lead in efficiency as it strictly limited the number of different models of various war goods while Germany produced a multitude of different weapons that performed the same function.
In regards to air forces, though the Me-262 was the first operational jet interceptor, the British hold the record for the first operation jet fighter, the Meteor. German jets would be plagued by poor engines and insufficient thrust. The Americans and the British would lead the Germans in heavy bomber technology and, naturally, carrier aircraft. The best tactical air force is usually granted to the Red Air Force, the the USAAF leading as the superior strategic air force.
In the harder technologies, the Western Allies seemed to hold the lead in radar technology, though the Battle of the Atlantic makes for an interesting study in the race between detection and counter-detection technology. The US of course holds the ultimate trumpt card in the atomic bomb, something the Germans never came close to completing. The Germans certainly held an advantage in strategic rockets, though I would argue their impact on the war was negligable in comparison to the tactical rockets of the bazooka, panzerfaust, kayutsa, and Nebelwefer.
If we really must get into the argument of who was the best the soldier, I believe we are in agreement that the Soviet soldier fought harder than any other combatant in the war. The American soldier largely proved unaggressive though it should be remembered that unlike the German/British/Soviet soldier, his homeland was not directly threatened by the war in Europe and the infantry received the least capable soldiers in the army. When capable, motivated soldiers were placed in the infantry (Rangers, Airborne, Marines) they were the match of the infantry of other combatants. As Max Hastings in Armageddon states, the US was not a militaristic society but rather an industrial society. It not surprising then that the biggest advantages of the US rested in the industrial sector.
First let us not confuse superior tactics with technology and equipment.
Second Germans do not have better equipment? Man all those dozens upon dozens of history books must have lied to about everyone the better qaulity of German arms.
Yes they made tanks to adapt to others, but is that what you are required to do in a war? In the whole span of the war the majority of German weapons preformed well.
Saying that not all Germans used the sturmgehwer is not an example against their technology, but their manufacturing problems. The fact that the Germans created and fielded the first assualt rifle is a feat in itself.
Germany for years was at the forefront of almost every single technological field. From farming, chemicals, weapons, and physics from 1900 to 1945 a German was the brains behind most of the important discoverys.
Next the Americans and British made similar things and that is a sign of their superiority? Most of what people have cited as proving Anglo superiority was in response to German creations. The T-28 was designed to break through German defense's and the Centurion was designe dto deal with the 88mm cannon of a German tank.
And while I am on a rant DO NOT in any way compare going from France into Germany by America as what the Russians did. They crossed and fought for thousands of miles facing better soldiers for years. Russia defeated Germany, while America distracted it.
Second Germans do not have better equipment? Man all those dozens upon dozens of history books must have lied to about everyone the better qaulity of German arms.
Yes they made tanks to adapt to others, but is that what you are required to do in a war? In the whole span of the war the majority of German weapons preformed well.
Saying that not all Germans used the sturmgehwer is not an example against their technology, but their manufacturing problems. The fact that the Germans created and fielded the first assualt rifle is a feat in itself.
Germany for years was at the forefront of almost every single technological field. From farming, chemicals, weapons, and physics from 1900 to 1945 a German was the brains behind most of the important discoverys.
Next the Americans and British made similar things and that is a sign of their superiority? Most of what people have cited as proving Anglo superiority was in response to German creations. The T-28 was designed to break through German defense's and the Centurion was designe dto deal with the 88mm cannon of a German tank.
And while I am on a rant DO NOT in any way compare going from France into Germany by America as what the Russians did. They crossed and fought for thousands of miles facing better soldiers for years. Russia defeated Germany, while America distracted it.