Nazi aircraft

Originally posted by SandMan
Yes, the Nazis certainly had some good aircraft concepts, including the jet engine. Keep in mind that they had a jet engine in the mid 40's and it took the USA at least 10 years to catch up to them as far as jet engine technology is concerned. Now the challenge: can anybody explain how Germany was so far ahead of us in that regard?

If by "us" you mean the United States, then you have to consider that the United States was a developing power (think India/China today) during that time and was not militarily advanced nor innovative (tanks were developed in Britain, MG's/assault rifles developed in Germany, etc.; but nothing new in military hardware was coming out of America). Europe fell apart after WW2; which paved the path for American/Soviet dominance.

Originally posted by AlphaOfTheOmega
hey have any of you guys heard of Vril Disks?Theyre Disk shaped planes made by the Nazi's that use Gravitational Field Displacers/generators.They possess all the capabilities of a modern day UFO (insane acceleration,impossibly fast speeds)6 were made and shipped to a Nazi base in the Antarctic.The US sent a full carrier battle group to destroy the base after the war and the 6 disks destroyed the entire battle group.the disks were not used in the war as the weapons had to be fitted in the antarctic (i think there was a research lab there oe something)one of their craft they did get to use use was called a FeuerBall (Fireball)it was a small remotely operated ball propelled by gas jets and fans (the same propulsion use on harrier jumpjets)

I've actually read accounts of Nazi "UFOs" engaging Allied aircraft. Kugelblitz being one of them. I've also seen pictures in the past (can't find them anymore) of these UFO's being fitted with machine guns and such. Apparently, one of these UFOs flew past Allied aircraft and destroyed them without firing a shot. This could possibly be the result of a forcefield of some type. I cannot verify the validity of any of this information though; however, there are many that are convinced that the Nazis have had UFOs. From what I know, the Nazis disposed of all of their UFOs at around the end of the war to ensure the Allies would not get their hands on it. Of course, we'll never know if the Allies obtained any of it while Area 51 remains locked up .

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
But, and here is the killer everytime, Germany had neither the man-power, productive capacity nor resources to defeat the USSR.
Ever.

End of.

I assume you've never heard of Field Marshal Erich von Manstein then. Manstein had trapped the Red Army and was ready to crush them. All he needed was the green light from Hitler. Hitler decided to shift his troops elsewhere to defend instead even though Manstein promised that "victory was at hand." Manpower isn't everything in warfare. A good strategist can trump manpower (i.e. Battle of Thermopylae in Persian Wars).

Manstein was indeed a terror for the Red Army. Zhukov, in his journal, praised Manstein for his leadership and intelligent strategy.

Even when Hitler's idiotic decisions allowed the Red Army to break through, Manstein was still able to hold out. He decided to let the Red Army advance rapidly; thus, spreading their forces thin. Then he would flank and systematically annihilate them or force them to retreat. Sorry, had to explain that strategy since I'm such a warmonger .

Manstein was eventually removed by Hitler, which was a huge relief for the Red Army (namely marshals Zhukov and Koniev). Manstein also has Jewish lineage and often did a mock Nazi salute in front of Hitler... just because he can .

Just a few of possibilities:

Flying saucers: www.hitechweb.szm.sk/UFOpreprava.htm

Big guns: www.hitechweb.szm.sk/delo.htm

Space: www.hitechweb.szm.sk/spacefighters6.htm

VTOL: www.hitechweb.szm.sk/vtol4.htm

.....

Originally posted by Blackout

If by "us" you mean the United States, then you have to consider that the United States was a developing power (think India/China today) during that time and was not militarily advanced nor innovative (tanks were developed in Britain, MG's/assault rifles developed in Germany, etc.; but nothing new in military hardware was coming out of America). Europe fell apart after WW2; which paved the path for American/Soviet dominance.

The US (while not nearly the superpower it is today) still had some of the worlds best technology in that era.

Just a few of the items that were better than the rest of the world's equipment:
Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), Browning .30 and .50 machine guns, B-29 Bomber (prototypes were available in around 1940), radar (about as good as the UK's - but certainly more advanced than Germany).

However, the US was still an isolationist state that was not willing to accept that it could no longer stay out of the world's affairs due to the Atlantic and Pacific cushion - therefore there was not a concerted effort to build up these weapons and develop new ones. Until 1941.

Originally posted by samtalkington
man they sure weren't good. we killed them in ww2. usa

Actually they killed you. On the ground and especially in the air. There were just more of you. Many, many more.

Just a few of the items that were better than the rest of the world's equipment:
Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), Browning .30 and .50 machine guns, B-29 Bomber (prototypes were available in around 1940), radar (about as good as the UK's - but certainly more advanced than Germany).

O.K. then. The StG.44 which was the basis of the assault rifle concept.

The Arado Blitz jet powered bomber.

Late model airborne radars on german night fighters such as the Heinkel Uhu were quite effective also.

[edit on 24/2/2005 by JamesBlonde]

Originally posted by JamesBlonde

O.K. then. The StG.44 which was the basis of the assault rifle concept.

The Arado Blitz jet powered bomber.

Late model airborne radars on german night fighters such as the Heinkel Uhu were quite effective also.

[edit on 24/2/2005 by JamesBlonde]

I did not mean that the US was absolutely superior. All parties involved had some good equipment. However, the notion that the US was technologically behind Europe is largely incorrect. In fact, many of the weapons that the US used (such as the BAR, M2 .50 Machine gun) were developed prior to WWI, and were still the best systems 40-50 years later.

What the Americans lacked was intent. Many US companies with good products (such as the P-51 Mustang) had to sell them to other countries becuase the US did not see a need for them. Of course in a capitalistic, free market economy with no (or a very limited) market available companies had little incentive to produce the best that they were capable of. If you look at manufacturing capability, engineering acheivements, and general state of technology it's hard to argue that the US was (realative to Europe) a "developing country" in 1940.

Sorry. Some times I just like to argue.

It's nice to see a moderate viewpoint such as your comments previous.

US also had assault rifle in WWII. It was called M2 and was modified M1 carabine. It used 7.62X33 ammo, had selective fire as stg44 and 750 rpm in auto mode. It could use the same magazines like M1 (not garand) 15 or 30 rounds. I know some of them were used by 82th airborne div in normandy.
M2 carabine (btw doesnt it looks similar to M-14???)

USA havent used any jets in ww2 but they had some other good aircrafts that had no match. There was no propeller fighter faster than mustang. Best of its models were about 20-30 mph faster than fastest focke wulfs and spitfires.
And best strategic bombers like B-17 and B-29. In addition to good aircrafts they also had very large aircraft carriers, largest in WWII and lot of them.

Anaways, germans had some very advanced weapons like wire guided bombs (sank british cruiser) , first use of air to air rockets (unguided R4M rockets used by me262 against bombers) and prototype of ground to air missiles (wasserfall)

[edit on 24-2-2005 by Adam_S]

Jets like me262, eteor and other ww2 jets had one very important flaw: engines. They had breakdowns very often, also in flight and they had very short life (in me262 no more than 24 hours in later models, 12 hours in earlier) so after few flights they needed a pair of new engines, not counting those that crashed cause engine problems. Thats why US did just test flights with jets to make a reliable engine. It would also be problematic to use such jets in flights, cause they would have to be shipped to europe, and any upgrades and spare engines would need few weeks to arrive. They had not enough operating range to be tested in pacific from island airfields, and flying over ocean with unreliable engines would cause lot of casulties.

Originally posted by Adam_S
US also had assault rifle in WWII. It was called M2 and was modified M1 carabine. It used 7.62X33 ammo, had selective fire as stg44 and 750 rpm in auto mode. It could use the same magazines like M1 (not garand) 15 or 30 rounds. I know some of them were used by 82th airborne div in normandy.
M2 carabine (btw doesnt it looks similar to M-14???)

This would have had a folding stock also right. I play 'Call of Duty' and this and the StG are my weapons of choice.
I believe that some troops filed the sears off of these to make them fully automatic? A very handy weapon anyway.

USA havent used any jets in ww2 but they had some other good aircrafts that had no match. There was no propeller fighter faster than mustang. Best of its models were about 20-30 mph faster than fastest focke wulfs and spitfires.
And best strategic bombers like B-17 and B-29. In addition to good aircrafts they also had very large aircraft carriers, largest in WWII and lot of them.

Hawker Tempest was the fastest piston engined WW2 Fighter I think.

I believe the FW-190D or at least the Ta-152H were superior to the P-51D in many respects but limited numbers saw service and thoe that did were in mainly inexperienced hands.

They max speed is about the same, tempest is faster on medium ceiling while mustang is faster at high ceiling. And mustangs had some limited models that had no armor, just 4 mg's and engine boost that were used for hunting german flying bombs, and they WERE faster than tempest. And focke wulfs were not good dogfighters cause lack of maneverability. When first focke wulfs appeared they were faster than spitfires and that was their adventage, but later spitfires were as fast as focke wulfs they lost it. P-51 was also more maneverable than focke wulf.


[edit on 24-2-2005 by Adam_S]

Originally posted by Starwars51

Originally posted by Blackout

If by "us" you mean the United States, then you have to consider that the United States was a developing power (think India/China today) during that time and was not militarily advanced nor innovative (tanks were developed in Britain, MG's/assault rifles developed in Germany, etc.; but nothing new in military hardware was coming out of America). Europe fell apart after WW2; which paved the path for American/Soviet dominance.

The US (while not nearly the superpower it is today) still had some of the worlds best technology in that era.

Just a few of the items that were better than the rest of the world's equipment:
Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), Browning .30 and .50 machine guns, B-29 Bomber (prototypes were available in around 1940), radar (about as good as the UK's - but certainly more advanced than Germany).

However, the US was still an isolationist state that was not willing to accept that it could no longer stay out of the world's affairs due to the Atlantic and Pacific cushion - therefore there was not a concerted effort to build up these weapons and develop new ones. Until 1941.

Alright, I'll give you that. Perhaps a better comparison for the US then would be France/Germany today. I also don't like to debate over better guns (such as StG 44 assault rifle vs. BAR) as they hardly made the difference on the ground versus other technology.

As for military technology, America was in reality more behind than most countries and not as close as you make it out to believe. On the ground, America had never depended on technology. They depended on manpower alone - something British field marshals such as Montgomery could not depend on. For instance, the M4 Shermans were inferior to German tanks in nearly every respect. It was typical to see 5-10 Shermans battle a single Panzer IV tank because the M4 Shermans just weren't able to penetrate the Panzer armor by itself - even such an old model as the Panzer IV (it was even more chaotic when Germany began rolling out heavier tanks such as Panther and Tiger/King Tiger). Even French tanks were better than the tanks coming from American factories (before they collapsed under German blitzkrieg, of coruse).

Also, as many have already mentioned in this thread, Nazi air technology was clearly superior to anyone's at the time aside from its lagging on radar tech. I'm not going to doubt that P-51 Mustangs and Spritfires were great planes. They were impressive planes, but they weren't innovating to the extent German scientists were. Mustangs and Spitfires were just...fighters. Germany was experimenting with/developed viable helicopters, jet aircraft, manned rocket planes, unmanned aircraft/weapons (V weapons, Goliath remote bombs, etc.), advanced rocketry and missiles, modern siege weapons (Sturmtiger), anti-landmine pasting (on King Tigers and various other tanks), infrared sniper scopes, and so forth.

At sea, America/Japan was all over carriers. Germany decided not to deal with carriers but rather built large battleship and sub fleets - which they were very advanced in (particularly in the sub industry).

If America was important enough on the world stage in 1939, Hitler would have struck. The reality was that America wasn't that far and didn't concern Hitler much. It wasn't until 1945 that Hitler became angered with America and wanted to bombard New York with rockets - which never arrived on time.

Many of the Nazi inventions were never produced in sufficient numbers or just plain never saw service. Lack of resources and time can be fatal. Although, Rommel was secretly negotiating peace with the Allied powers due to the lack of air superiority as many higher ranking authorities were at the time; however, Rommel's staff car was strafed by a Royal Canadian Air Force pilot and he was later forced to suicide by Hitler for having allegedly plotted against him (which he didn't).

Anyhow, America never fully caught up with Nazi 1945 tech for at least 10 years (could possibly be more) because Panzer VI Tiger II (King Tiger) was still the most powerful tank 10 years after the war. Of course, the catch up time would've been doubled or even tripled if America didn't capture Nazi scientists (that's right, it wasn't great American innovation that got us into space) - many of which are believed to still be working at Area 51...

Shermans were not SO bad, especialy after upgrade to 76,2mm/L54 gun. After it they could penetrate front armor of any Pz 4. But they had big problems with panthers and tigers. But what is the air support for? HVAR rockets were enough to eliminate most of few german heavy tanks on western front. Even german tank ace, Michael Wittman was kiled by these rockets. And USA had no match for king tiger until first M60 with 105mm cannon was built.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by Adam_S]

Originally posted by Adam_S
They max speed is about the same, tempest is faster on medium ceiling while mustang is faster at high ceiling. And mustangs had some limited models that had no armor, just 4 mg's and engine boost that were used for hunting german flying bombs, and they WERE faster than tempest. And focke wulfs were not good dogfighters cause lack of maneverability. When first focke wulfs appeared they were faster than spitfires and that was their adventage, but later spitfires were as fast as focke wulfs they lost it. P-51 was also more maneverable than focke wulf.


[edit on 24-2-2005 by Adam_S]

Sorry but we're both wrong. Here are the specs.

Maximum Speeds (clean)

P-51D Mustang, 437mph

Spitfire Mk XIV & MkXVIII, 448mph

I know that the griffon engined Mk XIV was used for anti-diver work. Never heard of the Mustang doing this so why if it was fastest...?

ME-109 K-4, 452mph (Even the old Gustav went 428 clean)

Hawker Tempest Mk V, 435mph (Close though)

Ta-152H, 472mph

Yak-3 (with VK-107 engine), 448mph

Source: Gunston, Bill. Aircraft of WW2

Speed does not always make a superior fighter. Countless factors contribute and at the end of the day much comes down to luck and the pilot. The fighters I have mentioned are all exceptional aircraft It must have been a huge thrill to fly them in combat.

Germany was the most advanced militairy country in WW2. The mg34 was already a excellent machine gun the MG 42 is still in service (only a different round and renamed as the MG3) STG series of weapons are better than the M2. Why well larger magazine capacity and already limited possibility for addons (Vampyr anyone?) Machine pistols: Russia had the best, its rather unclear.

In aircraft germany was more advanced. Look at the Do335 and Ta152H the later defeated 2 tempests in a 2v2 fight. Jet aircraft is clear. Guided weapons is clear. Radar was just as advanced in the later stages of the war. Tank tech was more advanced. Ships is something i do not have allot of knowledge about but i do know that germany had the first true submarines(not submarines that had to surface every 12 hours.

Originally posted by Adam_S
Shermans were not SO bad, especialy after upgrade to 76,2mm/L54 gun. After it they could penetrate front armor of any Pz 4. But they had big problems with panthers and tigers. But what is the air support for? HVAR rockets were enough to eliminate most of few german heavy tanks on western front. Even german tank ace, Michael Wittman was kiled by these rockets. And USA had no match for king tiger until first M60 with 105mm cannon was built.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by Adam_S]

Yes, but you have to remember that Germany had a similar (but slightly more advanced in most respects) arsenal as well - save air superiority. Shermans weren't bad, but were technologically inferior (as that's what we're debating, no?) as most American weapons even to French tanks.

The lack of Nazi air superiority was not a result of improvements in Allied technology, but rather Hitler's own devastating decisions (for instance, Hitler wanted to bomb civilians and other useless infrastructure rather than airfields during the Blitz - which basically opened the doors for the Brits to counterattack).

Also, I wouldn't start hugging those anti-tank rockets so quickly. Realize that the thickness of German heavy tanks nearly rendered these rockets useless. For instance, the King Tiger was basically immune from all sides except the back (150mm frontal armor I believe ), but even then you had to slam it hard at a certain angle because even the engine was well protected. There's no documented evidence of a King Tiger having actually been destroyed by enemy fire; it was more prone to mechanical failures than enemy fire. Not even Soviet heavy tanks (which were better than the US and Britain's tanks) such as the Stalin tanks were able to match up to the King Tiger. Here's a quote from a King Tiger driver:

"On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."

OKW had more problems with Hitler than Allied troops. Manstein, Rommel, and Guderian were military geniuses. Allied commanders were not known for their strategic genius; in fact, most of what is revealed about Allied commanders is just conventional confrontation and thrusts toward Germany rather than great and notable tactics. With military geniuses coupled with technological superiority, you'd think that victory would be ensured. However, Hitler got his way to the very end.

I'll repeat, yet again, that the German High Command petitioned for complete handling of army operations without the Fuhrer's intervention, but Hitler declined fearing that he would lose power. Amazing how men can be so corrupted that they would sacrifice victory in order to consolidate power.

And after much pondering, I've finally come up with a better explanation for Nazi technological achievements than my previous explanations - desperation.

After the failure of the Blitz, Allied air superiority was secured. After having constantly been hampered and pounded by Allied bombings, Germany developed a wealth of weapons to counter the threat. This planted the roots for Wasserfall, advanced aircraft, and so forth.

The only problem with my little philosophy is that this doesn't explain the innovation prior to and during the beginning of the war - such as the invention of the assault rifle (StG 44) and the first viable helicopter (the one with two rotors I believe) . I don't think combat helicopters were ever produced, but I do know that helicopters were invented in Hitler's Germany (can't remember where I found this though ).

Originally posted by Blackout

OKW had more problems with Hitler than Allied troops. Manstein, Rommel, and Guderian were military geniuses. Allied commanders were not known for their strategic genius; in fact, most of what is revealed about Allied commanders is just conventional confrontation and thrusts toward Germany rather than great and notable tactics. With military geniuses coupled with technological superiority, you'd think that victory would be ensured. However, Hitler got his way to the very end.

I'll repeat, yet again, that the German High Command petitioned for complete handling of army operations without the Fuhrer's intervention, but Hitler declined fearing that he would lose power. Amazing how men can be so corrupted that they would sacrifice victory in order to consolidate power.

Too true. The same applies to the use of their aircraft. General der Jagdflieger Adolph Galland was constantly in conflict with Hitler and Goering over the use of fighter aircraft. Hitler's absurd insistence that the ME-262 be developed as a vengance blitz bomber cost the Luftwaffe a real opportunity to neutralise the USAAF's daylight offensive. The fighter coud have gone to units much earlier and in far greater numbers without the interference of Hitler and the sycophantic attitude of the OKL.

During the Battle of Britain (blitz) Goering was responsible for eliminating the tactical advantages the Luftwffe held over the RAF by insisting that the German escorts employ a close ecort strategy when they were on the verge of decimating Fighter Command in Aug/Sep 1940.
With out England as a strategic base where would the US have been then in fighting Germany. Dire straits, thats where. With time and lack of interference from Allied actiity German 'super weapons' could have been developed further with devestating effect.

Funnily enough at the time of the invasion of France German tanks were actually inferior to French. The Char B outclassed th Panzer II and III in all areas except speed. It is the creative uses of these resources which is the decisive factor.

The same situation applies to the surface ships of the Kreigsmarine. The Tirpitz, Bismarck, Graf Spee, Scharnhorst, Gniesnau and Prinz Eugen were all exceptional warships which were used foolishly at times and, in the case of the Graf Spee and Bismarck, and lured into pointles confrontations.
These ships were superior to even the Royal Navy which for centuries was reguarded as the most powerful navy in the world.

Right, i skimmed and scanned, so sorry for any repetition.

Germany developed alot ,but couldn't produce it due to appaling economy managment on the home front, from what I can tell by the late war. The concepts were great, just couldn't be rolled out in time

The USSR was hardly backwards, they used the best strategy to use when your not quite ready. Retreat, taking EVERYTHING with you. What you can't take, destroy. Also, Stalins industrialisation plan meant that they could roll out many tanks, very fast. And The T-34 was the best tank of the Era. Where was the Sherman inspired from? Not to mention the almighty IS2...
And Leningrad proved the Russian people are far more strongly willed than anyone expected. Lets not forget by the time the Germans hit the borders of Moscow, they were far from their homeland and supplies were being destroyed on route to them, so they were starving adn had no warm gear. They progressed to fast, and the Russians retreated quickly, allowing the Russians to build an almighty force once they had retreated, due to a large concentration of forces. And which was the only majour dictatorship to survive WW2, after all? :p

The USSR wern't doing to bad in the Air either... Il-2, anyone? At the time it wwas introdcued, BF-109's counldn't penetrate it's armour. The MiG-3 was bad, ok, excpet the U version. But the Polikarpov's rocked most hard.

Germany had the tech but not the Resources. And a mad leader, which didn't help. But their "UFO tech" was awesome. I liked how on a Channel 5 or 4 TV show the US claimed the USSR took it and used it to spy on them. Cold War Paranoia is so amusing. Yet sad to think folks beleive it. The Russians used satelites to spy on you... Honestly.

Us Brits were good at improvised tech. Its opur best strong point is British ingenuity. We rock. And our Navy unleashed some pretty powerfull stuff on them Nazi's. We still have the Best navy to.