It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nazis had no "advanced" technology

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
PSTEEL :

NUTZ


read conways , you wither dont know or ignore such facts as :

when scharhorst / gniesenau were builit [ 1936 ] or thier displacement [ 26000 tons ]

or the laid down dates of bismark and tirpitz [ 1936 ]

these all predate zplan

maybe you better get the facts clear in your mind before you lecture me

YRS - APE




posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
PSTEEL :

NUTZ


read conways , you wither dont know or ignore such facts as :

when scharhorst / gniesenau were builit [ 1936 ] or thier displacement [ 26000 tons ]

or the laid down dates of bismark and tirpitz [ 1936 ]

these all predate zplan

maybe you better get the facts clear in your mind before you lecture me

YRS - APE


You must be thick if you think that two 11" gun battle ships could constitute a 'blue water' navy realtive to RN home fleet. Building ships is only the first step, then they have to be commissioned and put to sea with trained crews.Scharnhorst isn't operational until 1939/40 and Bismarck isn't even a factor until 1941. The only difference between the plans for the coastal fleet of 1935 was the upgrading the Scharnhorst class from Pocket Battle cruisers to battle ships with 14" frontal armor.Hardly enough of a change to signify anything.

Also consider the escorts. Capital ships are not supposed to put to sea without escorts. Most German destroyers before Z-36M were not deep sea ships and suffered water over the bow. Likewise the Koln class cruisers were in poor shape structurally along with the Torpedo boats. It was not until the war started that the Hipper class cruisers and better destroyers showed up in 1940/41.

No matter if you like it or not Hitler stood in the way of Wehrmacht development and the out come [possibly of the war] whould have been hughly different if he had stayed out of the rearmament program, to say nothing about staying out of the conduct of the war!

[edit on 6-9-2005 by psteel]

[edit on 6-9-2005 by psteel]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
QUOTE : “You must be thick if you think that two 11" gun battle ships could constitute a 'blue water' navy realtive to RN home fleet

I must NOT be thick , because I never claimed that ,

I did claim however that scharnhorst was a blue water , the ` thinking ` behind such vessels was a raider with the capability to [ paraphrased ] – out run any vessel that out gunned it , and outgun any cruiser that could catch it


QUOTE : “. Building ships is only the first step, then they have to be commissioned and put to sea with trained crews.Scharnhorst isn't operational until 1939/40

Yes ????? and where did I claim different ?????????????? you are now just misrepresenting everything I say

So now do you accept that these vessels were built , PRIOR to zplan , and accept the dates for the keek laying of bismark etal ??????????



QUOTE : “. and Bismarck isn't even a factor until 1941. The only difference between the plans for the coastal fleet of 1935 was the upgrading the Scharnhorst class from Pocket Battle cruisers to battle ships with 14" frontal armor.Hardly enough of a change to signify anything.

Are you REALLY really claiming that scharnhorst was a littorial vessel ???????????

Ps – please research the “ overseas cruisers “ concept

QUOTE : “Also consider the escorts. Capital ships are not supposed to put to sea without escorts. Most German destroyers before Z-36M were not deep sea ships and suffered water over the bow. Likewise the Koln class cruisers were in poor shape structurally along with the Torpedo boats. It was not until the war started that the Hipper class cruisers and better destroyers showed up in 1940/41.

Mostly correct – alas it is also a strawman ,

QUOTE : “No matter if you like it or not Hitler stood in the way of Wehrmacht development and the out come [possibly of the war] whould have been hughly different if he had stayed out of the rearmament program, to say nothing about staying out of the conduct of the war!”

ROFLMAO –

Are you taking the piss ????????

Go back to my opening statement – my entire premise was that the blue water fleet should not have been built , in favour of uboats and sboats , do you remember that ??????

Further I advanced the notion that sea lion would be unessecary as yould defeating the RN in naval engagements , as if doenitz had been given ` carte blanc ` to persue the uboat war as he saw fit and had the hulls he wanted – the UK would have been forced to terms

Aso I noted that the Luftwaffe could and should have deteated the RAF , and but for the incompetence of goering / hilter would have


For reasons best known to you , it was you that latched onto the “ error “ of my over simplification of the german ship building program and proceeded to throw almost every logical fallacy you are capable of at the “ problem “

Before this degenerates further – I suggest we drop this and “ agree to differ “



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I think this thread is like a rip off of my thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you want to talk about how advance Germany was, or wasn't during WWII, then please talk about it in the thread I created. In my thread there is support that shows Nazi Germany was VERY advance during WWII.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Firstly the 300 Uboat navy could not have been built in peace time. Even if you start converting shipyards to Uboats [took 2 years in war and peace time takes 7 times longer than wartime] so production would at best double or triple over the rearmament phase so you'd start the war with ~ 150 Uboats instead of 50. What would you gain and loose?

Without surface fleet, Norway can't be invaded as too with England. Uboats can't escort or protect troop ships leaving them wide open to destruction by RN/RAF forces. So you give up any real chance of ending the western front. What do you gain...increased the destruction of RA merchant ships in the first years , after which the law of diminshing returns takes hold and effectiveness compared to the historical case evens out. .... ....more Uboats also means more RN escorts and less BB/CC built.

But the task is daunting to say the least! RA counts on over 5000 merchant ships and adds about ~200 -400 per year. Commonwealth adds another 1000 and the Norwegians add a further 1100. So before the US comes in with over 5000 of their own merchant ships they can amass 7500 merchant ships within a year of the out break of war.
Heres the rough break down of what hiostorically sunk what...

1939 = 220 merchants sunk; ½ sunk from 66 Uboats & 1/10th by 170 x A/C , while 5000 merchants + 200 built + 1000 commonwealth

1940 = 985 merchants sunk; ½ sunk from 86 Uboats & 1/5th by 250 x A/C,while 5980 merchants +290 built & ~1100 Norwegian ships joined.

1941 = 1065 merchants sunk ;½ sunk from 246 Uboats & 1/3rd by 260 x A/C , while 6305 merchants + 460 built

1942 = 1245 merchants sunk; 2/3 sunk from 393 Uboats & 1/10th by 200 x A/C, while 5520 merchants + 1800 built [USA entered the war]

1943 = 487 merchants sunk; 2/3 sunk from 419 Uboats & ¼ by 135 x A/C , while 6833 merchants + 3500 built [ Enigma code cracked]

1944 = 145 merchants sunk; 60% sunk from 359 Uboats & ¼ by 200 x A/C, while 10188 merchants + 3200 built [ 1 convoy escort per merchant reached]

1945 = 99 merchants sunk; 60% sunk from 289 Uboats & ¼ by ~100 A/C, while while 13,289 merchants ~ 2000 built.

Tripling the Uboat fleet in 1939 & 1940 means sinking only 167 more merchant ships in 1939 and ~ 350 more in 1940 and 1941 and 400 more Merchants sunk in 1942 . At most 1300 more merchants sunk over and above the 3500 historically sunk , when the replacements ran at ~ 4800 for that same period . So the delivery capability would not increase as it historically did until the Americans come to the rescue. But would the UK ever let it get that bad?

NO they would divert more of their battle fleet construction into escort ship building possibly adding another 560 Destroyers and escorts which would triple the effective escort fleet. Alternatively they could add 200 more escorts and 10 CV and 58 CVE over the course of the war . These changes alone would turn the tide on the Uboats much faster leading to much lower % merchant casualties and much higher Uboat casualties.

Additionally more % of bombers would be allocated to maritime missions to hunt down the Uboats. Thus the Uboat campaign becomes a delaying mechanism forcing the brits into more of a holding pattern until the USA joins the fight. The larger USA presence would then free up the Japs to do more in the east at least in the short term.

Time is not on the Germans /UBoat fleets side with this strategy, since the allies grow stronger all the time. Whats worse this runs counter to Prussian/blitzkrieg doctrine. You don't throw your efforts at the enemies strengths, you throw them at their weakness and you don't present them with an open ended strategy that they can react too in time.

The Weakness of the UK position was geography. They were right next door to the continent and no amount of RAF/RN could alter that, at best it could delay the German troops. Worse , while alot of brits were against involvement in European affairs, enough were for direct fight against Hitler. This figure swung to 3/4 after Munich. It seems the brits like a good fight.

UK strategy gambled on the RN/RAF at the expense of the Army mostly due to considerations of policing and protecting the empire. They never believed the French would fall as soon as they did. Germany did the opposite [gambled on the Army at the expense of the Navy]. So you throw German strength against British weakness and attack them directly with ground troops. That way the KM & Luftwaffe only has to be able to get the German troops to the main land and protect them, while the Heer would do the rest. If they followed the combined arms doctrine [as seen in Norway ] they would seize & secure a number of ports and airfields, denying the RN/RAF operating bases and bring their force to within support range of their troops. The British ‘First Sea Lord’ conceded to Churchill this would happen in summer of 1940 and 100,000 German troops could land on British ports.

The divisions and generals the Germans planned to send over were the best while the British troops were mostly territorial troops [No Dunkirk would have been allowed with this strategy].So the longer the Germans are on the mainland, the worse the British position becomes. One key weakness of the RN was the fleets were tied to ports and not just any ports but big ones. So the more ports the German seize, the smaller the operating RN fleet becomes and the more has to flee to Canada and the USA .

Likewise the RAF is tied to airfields, but less so than RN. A key RAF weakness was that all the engines for their planes were built in only a small number of factories so finding those factories and bombing them would be paramount. Another key RN/RAF weakness was, all the fuel had to be imported, so target #1 for UBoat /maritime bomber forces would be oil tankers.

So emerging from this strategy would be the need for a balanced Navy with enough capital ships to surge and draw off the RN Home fleet. A battle fleet of ~3 battleships plus a similar number of Pocket battleships, escorted by an aircraft carrier or two. Such a force would be capable of surging with an escort of about ~2 dozen large destroyers .

Parallel to this would be the need for a fleet of ~60 ocean going Uboats [Type-VII] to surge and interdict the sea lanes looking for oil tankers.

Another requirement emerging from this would be a fleet of multi engined strategic bomber like the Ju-89 [planned for 1937/38] and eventually the He-177.This would be needed to chase down the British fighter and bomber squadrons and operating bases as well as long range interdiction of RN ports up and down the coast .The needed force could be built from diverting the Do-17& He-111 industry and reducing the Ju-88 to its original 7 ton ‘schnell bomber’ Ju-88…and keep Udets paws off all bombers J Only the Stuka should be a dive bomber J

Luftwaffe pilots[ including Stuka] would be given bombing training against ships.

In addition a requirement would exist for a large channel crossing landing craft to support the port landings with beach landings .This was to be had from the Japanese, who built the first true landing craft in the early 1930s and used in China. In the same way they exchanged to let the Germans study their building of carriers, the same could be done for the 'Dai Hatsu type' boats. If done right the small boat industry ['Eboot' & 'Rboot'] , could be harnessed to instead to produce ~200-250 Heavy [200 ton] landing craft by the middle of 1940. In addition ~ 1000 x engineering rafts could be converted to 'Sieble type' ferries [ each powered by 2 x older surplus Luftwaffe engines].

This invasion force would need to be escorted with many small patrol warships, and that meant corvettes. The balance of the German ship building industry could produce another two dozen 5-6" gun destroyers and ~ 60-70 x 700 ton, 4" guns corvettes. Further this would be supplemented with civilian ships converted for short term usage. Several hundred 800 ton trawlers converted to armed patrol boats could be readied by the middle of 1940 [Vorpostenboote], while ~50 merchant ships could also be converted to 'Sperrybrecher' mine clearers.

This in addition to 1600 patrol boats and ~150 merchants /liners for troop and supply transport. This force constitutes about ¼ of the D day landing force, and should be able to land ~100,000 troops on beach heads in Kent over the course of a couple of weeks.

Sure this would have cost time money and steel, but all could be freed up from existing programs/supplies and the overhaul of the heavy industry I referred to days ago.

The result is the UK is occupied and knocked out of the war in 1940 and thus the end of the western front and maybe the war.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by psteel]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Ok, maybe they aren't advanced in todays life... Maybe not enev advanced then... In that case the other countries weren't advanced... What about the V1, V2...?



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Tripling the Uboat fleet in 1939 & 1940 means sinking only 167 more merchant ships in 1939 and ~ 350 more in 1940 and 1941 and 400 more Merchants sunk in 1942 . At most 1300 more merchants sunk over and above the 3500 historically sunk , when the replacements ran at ~ 4800 for that same period . So the delivery capability would not increase as it historically did until the Americans come to the rescue. But would the UK ever let it get that bad?


Well tripling the U-boat fleet back then would have had a geomtetric effect not arithmatic. A U-boat fleet that size would have largely negated the British Home Fleets power in their own waters, espcially without effect Anti-sub warfare techniques. This wuld have made Operation Sea Lion more likely. A successful invasion would have negated any increase in cargo ships as they had nowhere in England to ship the stuff to.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   
There are alotta ideas about Hitlers biggest mistake and most of them involve the two front war which I agre with, but I want to take it a step further and say Hitler not becoming allied with Russia was the biggest mistake! Stalin LOVED Hitler, he met with him several times and had nothing but good things to say about him.

If Hitler wasn't so hell bent on taking out Russia for his 'Lebensraum' there would be no chance in hell the allies would have made it out on top. Its not a stretch by any means to beleive Stalin would have allied with Germany if it was offered. It wouldn't be hard for Hitler to convince Stalin to start executing the jews in the USSR as he ended up becoming quite anti-semetic after the war.

Is there any real chance the Allied forces (minus the USSR) woudl have been able to stand against a German / Japanise / Soviet alliance? I would expect not, *Just incase anyone wants to pull the Bomb card* Even if the Allies were able to develop the Atomic bombs in what would be the worst possible scenereo (and not in our favor) They only had enough Materieal for Two bombs, it was feared that after the second bomb dropped if the Japaniese didnt surrender that we would still be stuck with a land wa in Japan. Imagine if there were Still 2 other countries that we were fighting.

Japan was extremley close to an atomic weapon as well. Germany should have had the Atomic bomb before we even came close but thank #ing god common sense prevailed in the minds of the scientists and they didn't give Hitler accurate info anyway, what im saying here is if the USSR joining the Axis bought anymore time in the war either Japan or Germany would have an atomic weapon and its a reasonable inferrance to think if Hitler had that # we would be #ed on a scale noone wants to think about.

Hitler screwed up big time with the decision to break the nutrality pact with Russia, he could have played his cards better by joining with Russia and when it came down to the two of them he could stab stalin in the back after. in which case you would be reading this in German unless you are jewish in which case extinction would be a distinct possibility.

**This is meant to be totaly hypothetical, I have no love for Hitler or the Nazi party in fact I really dont like the guy lol or the party. I am just offering what I beleive the most surefire way for Germany to have won WWII**

Hopefully this all came out right, im running on about 2 hrs sleep and Jimmy-B so forgive any run-on's or poor grammar

[edit on 8-9-2005 by Cseven]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by wdl


I've seen so many programs about all this "advanced" technology that the nazis had but people seem to forget that the allies had the most advanced technology of all - radar, computers and the atom bomb!

Sure, the nazis weren't helped by Hitler going mad and ruining everything for them
but the fact is they lost the war when the RAF owned them in the battle of britain (using "inferior" technology like the spitfire, hurricane and radar) they then decided the invade Russia instead of Britain. Once they decided to fight on two fronts it was all over bar the shouting and no amount of technology was going to save them.

Most of the "advanced" technology the nazis had was developed out of desperation because their regular weapons weren't up to scratch. The nazis had to develope the V1, V2 because their regular bombers/fighters couldn't get through the "inferior" allied defences; neither the V1 or V2 where that effective and where counter-measured out of the war after a few months. As for the rocket fighter, that was developed becasue of a lack of oil and the VTOL craft were developed becasue of a lack of runways - again "inferior" allied planes had bombed the nazis oil fields and runways out of existance.

The point I'm making is this: the nazis came up with a lot of innovative ideas but none of them helped them win the war and many were never even deployed.

The allies on the other hand developed the spitfire, hurricane and radar which held off the nazis despite being heavily out numbered during the battle of britain.

The allies invented the computer which broke the nazis enigma code and most importantly the allies developed the atom bomb which ended the war.

I'd say that radar, computers and atom bombs where truely "advanced" technology that actually worked and helped us win the war. What did the nazis have to compare with them? Nothing.


1) Nazis were experimenting with radar before us

2) Nazis were working on atom bomb before us (per einstein)

3) There are reports of them making synthetic gasoline (im not sure if anyone has brought this up, ive heard it from several sources)

4) They had the first fighter jets

5) They had superior tanks at the time

6) The mg-42 had a higher rate of fire than the standard US deployable machineguns at the time

7) The first long range missles. (v1-v2,etc)

8) The only reason they lost the war is because hitler had syphilis and his brain was roting out. He was crazy.



[edit on 8-9-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by wdl



Also the Spitfire, Radar and Hurricane were British developments, not Allied.


The British were among the allied forces!


Doesn't matter. Those three items were exclusively British developments. Operation Overlord was an "allied" development.

No advanced tech...Say, what was radar, the jet, the liquid and solid fueld rocket...the squeezegun...shaped demolition and AT charges...the helicopter...the assault rifle...the GPMG...the navigational beacon...



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Going back even further with German technology. During WWI they developed a revolutionary process to extract nitrogen frmo the air in industrial amounts. This was necessary for their explosives.

And yes ( previous post ), the Germans did develop synthetic fuels and oils.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by wdl

The nazis had to develope the V1, V2 because their regular bombers/fighters couldn't get through the "inferior" allied defences; neither the V1 or V2 where that effective and where counter-measured out of the war after a few months.


Name one counter measure for the V2.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Name one counter measure for the V2.


A good shot with a high caliber rifle? It would ignite the explosives and blew it up in flight. As long as you had enough time to get your gun and were good enough to compensate for speed and wind.. I'd say you'd have a pretty good chance. From what i remember on the history channel they flew about 300mph. i dont recall what the top speeds were for raf fighters at the time, but they should've been able to intercept. (With no radar, you'd have to be pretty lucky to catch one though)


[edit on 8-9-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Name one counter measure for the V2.


A good shot with a high caliber rifle? It would ignite the explosives and blew it up in flight. As long as you had enough time to get your gun and were good enough to compensate for speed and wind.. I'd say you'd have a pretty good chance. From what i remember on the history channel they flew about 300mph. i dont recall what the top speeds were for raf fighters at the time, but they should've been able to intercept. (With no radar, you'd have to be pretty lucky to catch one though)


LMAO. a V-2 travels more like 3000 mph. They were impossible to shoot down, the first time someone knew one was in the area was from the explosion.

Sounds like you're talking about the V-1 which was basically an aero frame with a rudimentary autopilot.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Sounds like you're talking about the V-1 which was basically an aero frame with a rudimentary autopilot.


I think you're right.. The v-1 was the "buzz bomb" right? That's what i had in mind.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Tripling the Uboat fleet in 1939 & 1940 means sinking only 167 more merchant ships in 1939 and ~ 350 more in 1940 and 1941 and 400 more Merchants sunk in 1942 . At most 1300 more merchants sunk over and above the 3500 historically sunk , when the replacements ran at ~ 4800 for that same period . So the delivery capability would not increase as it historically did until the Americans come to the rescue. But would the UK ever let it get that bad?


Well tripling the U-boat fleet back then would have had a geomtetric effect not arithmatic. A U-boat fleet that size would have largely negated the British Home Fleets power in their own waters, espcially without effect Anti-sub warfare techniques. This wuld have made Operation Sea Lion more likely. A successful invasion would have negated any increase in cargo ships as they had nowhere in England to ship the stuff to.


In principle I agree,the whole point would not be to fight the british indirectly with bombers and Uboats from afar, but to use those technology advantages to leverage a landing and bring the battle to the ground. Prussian doctrine recognised that it was only when the 'close combat' occured that the battle was settled.

Mind you any significant increase in weapons has to be matched with a similar increase in trained crews and this may be more of a limiting factor for a massive Uboat fleet prewar. I understand that in the first year(s) the expert Uboat commanders accounted for the bulk of the kills.This can't be mass produced so the net difference maywell be of a arthmatic nature.

Any massive increase in the UBoat fleet , prewar , would have violated the Washington treaty and forced the UK to adjust over time. This they could do by rearranging overseas committments and building priorties etc. The point behind the balanced fleet was that RN had already agreed to a KM fleet of 1/3 the size of the RN, so none of those builds would have violated the treaty and as such not brought any significant change.

The advantage of the Uboat was limited by Sonar effectiveness, which had greater range than Uboat torpedos effective range [~ 3km vs 1km] . So unless guided torpedos are developed to increase launch range to effectively attack and escape [prewar], UBoat fleet was always going to be limited in its effectiveness. In fact it was only the lack of a corresponding surface radar on these ships that allowed the Uboat successes of the early years. The captains learned to attack from the surface and then dive to evade. By the time the 10cm radars appear [1941/42?] that tactic is reaching the end of its usefulness.Not surprisingly from 1942 Uboat losses skyrocket with the aid of much larger patrol bomber fleets.



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join