|
They had some pretty good and severe training of even the average infantryman.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:Was there any field of tech that the Germans had a dominant edge in for significant amounts of the war? My understanding is that the tank design was not light years ahead of the soviets(just good doctrine and people for a while) and they only had only a few breakthroughs in air power. They also had poor signals intelligence and code breaking compared to their enemies and obviously lovely progress when it came to nuclear weapons programs. Was there any area that one of the worlds former science meccas was able to produce great results compared to its enemies? Perhaps the biggest one was rocketry and then jet engines. Pretty sure this was also well ahead of its opponents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44 Their encryption tech, even though it was broken, was probably the best in the world? Just means that Allies decryption tech was awesome too. Their submarines might have been well ahead of their adversaries. Acoustic torpedoes were pretty cool but were very very quickly countered. Instead of dumb firing, the torpedo would home into the biggest noise it could detect, typically the biggest ship in the convoy and was effective. But, the convoys just started towing very noisy "noise makers" behind their ships. EDIT: A rather non-tech but surprisingly techy one is Helmets! To manufacture helmets in large quantities, requires cold drawing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawing_(manufacturing)) It is surprisingly demanding in terms of technical specifications, particularly regarding the skills to produce steel with the correct material properties that can be drawn sufficiently. The net result is that the Germans had a better helmet, as they were able to manipulate the steel more effectively. For comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_III_helmet British helmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahlhelm German helmet The German helmet which actually entered service in WWI, covers much more of the sides of the head! 
BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
They were also way ahead of the curve with making poo poo from stamped metal in general especially guns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:There does seem to be a thing where its easier to explain ones failures by the "other guy" having amazing tanks rather than acknowledging the truth that our doctrines suck and we suck. Rommel's aggressive maneuvering in North Africa was either a brilliant exercise in making the best of what he had and giving complacent Commonwealth forces nasty surprises or an incredibly irresponsible strain on Reich logistics that showed an unfortunate disregard for strategic realities, depending on your perspective. Perhaps the truth is... somewhere in the middle... In any case, post war a previously lauded general who was made to commit suicide by the dastardly Fuhrer was a pretty ideal candidate for hagiography and rehabilitating the image of Germany's armed forces. I can't really speak to British tank designs, but from what I've read it's true enough that Rommel gave them a proper hiding, at least for a while. Rommel's skill as a general is definitely a source of modern debate though. Fuligin fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Pretty sure this was also well ahead of its opponents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44 This like many innovative German weapons probably did not have the impact it could have had due to the conditions under which it was deployed. The Germans had a preference for issuing new equipment in bulk to newly formed or reconstituted formations. By the time the StG44 came around the Germans did their thing of trying to have a greater quantity of short range automatic weapons make up for less long range firepower, particularly artillery which really proved less than succesful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
My favorite remark about Rommel was that he needed four panzer divisions to conquer North Africa. He had two. And he had enough supplies for one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:Was there any field of tech that the Germans had a dominant edge in for significant amounts of the war? My understanding is that the tank design was not light years ahead of the soviets(just good doctrine and people for a while) and they only had only a few breakthroughs in air power. They also had poor signals intelligence and code breaking compared to their enemies and obviously lovely progress when it came to nuclear weapons programs. Was there any area that one of the worlds former science meccas was able to produce great results compared to its enemies? Does industrialized mass murder count, or are we sticking to the cool stuff?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:Does industrialized mass murder count, or are we sticking to the cool stuff? No, because we are currently discussing equipment, troops, training and historical bias. Not trying to start a derail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:Was there any field of tech that the Germans had a dominant edge in for significant amounts of the war? My understanding is that the tank design was not light years ahead of the soviets(just good doctrine and people for a while) and they only had only a few breakthroughs in air power. They also had poor signals intelligence and code breaking compared to their enemies and obviously lovely progress when it came to nuclear weapons programs. Was there any area that one of the worlds former science meccas was able to produce great results compared to its enemies? Jerrycans. They were a revolutionary development at the time, far easier to both manufacture and use than any other WWII nation's fuel containers - to the point where most of Germany's opponents ultimately reverse-engineered and copied German innovations for themselves. Aside from that, there were plenty of cases where German technology was ahead of the curve; the problem was that they didn't have the resources, the doctrine, or the spare production capacity to use that technology in a way that made a meaningful difference, the absurd Nazi bureaucracy and stubborn/crazy engineers tended to lead to projects taking far too long and making fairly boneheaded decisions, and in the end they usually only managed to get new stuff into the field a few months ahead of the Allies' version at best. Even when groundbreaking stuff made it into the field, high command would mandate that it be used in basically the most counterproductive way possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Jerrycans. They were a revolutionary development at the time, far easier to both manufacture and use than any other WWII nation's fuel containers - to the point where most of Germany's opponents ultimately reverse-engineered and copied German innovations for themselves. Holy poo poo I never knew why they were called Jerrycans. Krautcanisters
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
^^yeah that makes so much sense nowMain Paineframe posted:Even when groundbreaking stuff made it into the field, high command would mandate that it be used in basically the most counterproductive way possible. Are you talking about V2 Rockets? Or are there more?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Jerrycans. They were a revolutionary development at the time, far easier to both manufacture and use than any other WWII nation's fuel containers - to the point where most of Germany's opponents ultimately reverse-engineered and copied German innovations for themselves. This was the number one thing I took away from the entire World at War series. When Olivier explained the etymology behind jerry cans I said "whoaaaa" out loud. Though I think in the episode that was in they had a British soldier explaining how they reverse engineered them for soldier's water in the North African campaign. I could be mistaken though. Speaking of World at War, I was wondering if anyone knew of a similar quality documentary that dealt with the commonwealth's contributions to the British war effort, specifically Canada.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
nozh posted:This was the number one thing I took away from the entire World at War series. When Olivier explained the etymology behind jerry cans I said "whoaaaa" out loud. Though I think in the episode that was in they had a British soldier explaining how they reverse engineered them for soldier's water in the North African campaign. I could be mistaken though. There is this documentary series, also done by the BBC, all on the youtubes too! I think World at War is of a better quality but for WWI this is probably one of the better and more detailed ones. Don't know specifically about Canada being mentioned though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxK-qR14pVg This youtube channel has some pretty good detail on the whole WWI and they have a huge loving hardon for anything Canadian. There is a lot of good content and detail there. But in my personal opinion they are pretty short on objective critique and can get very preachy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=user?TheGreatWar?videos A specific Canada episode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYmsRaT6L1Y
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Are you talking about V2 Rockets? Or are there more? The ME-262 comes to mind as a good example of Germany's poor use of innovative technology. Designed as a fighter jet, Hitler insisted on adapting it as a fighter-bomber.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:^^yeah that makes so much sense now You might check out the hilarious development cycle of Germany's only heavy bomber, the HE-177. If it hadn't been crippled by its engines' habit of setting themselves on fire, it certainly would have been by Hitler's diktat that all German bombers had to be able to dive bomb. Because the JU-87 was so good* at that, it made sense that they all had to do it, even four-engine** heavies, right? *good here defined under heavy qualifications including complete air superiority and limited/non-existent enemy AA capability **Yes I know most marks had only two engines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:Was there any field of tech that the Germans had a dominant edge in for significant amounts of the war? My understanding is that the tank design was not light years ahead of the soviets(just good doctrine and people for a while) and they only had only a few breakthroughs in air power. They also had poor signals intelligence and code breaking compared to their enemies and obviously lovely progress when it came to nuclear weapons programs. Was there any area that one of the worlds former science meccas was able to produce great results compared to its enemies? Jet engines and rocketry. Pretty much all modern aircraft and spacecraft can trace their lineage to Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
I was under the impression that we owed more to the gloster meteor and the rolls royce jet engine. And that the us and britain had functional jet fighters before they ever got ahold of the 262 to reverse engineer it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 04:31
|
|
Elmnt80 posted:I was under the impression that we owed more to the gloster meteor and the rolls royce jet engine. And that the us and britain had functional jet fighters before they ever got ahold of the 262 to reverse engineer it. Yeah, the Jet engine was invented simultaneously in Britain and Germany, and a lot it's truer to say that space exploration owes a lot to Nazi rocketry than that modern jet propulsion owes a lot to Nazi Germany. It doesn't.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:You might check out the hilarious development cycle of Germany's only heavy bomber, the HE-177. If it hadn't been crippled by its engines' habit of setting themselves on fire, it certainly would have been by Hitler's diktat that all German bombers had to be able to dive bomb. Because the JU-87 was so good* at that, it made sense that they all had to do it, even four-engine** heavies, right? The dive bombing thing was common and due to the difficulties with high altitude bombing. Don't think dive bombing like a ju87 think more the mild dives of a ju88. There are reasons the norden bombsight was considered top secret and the first thing crews were instructed to destroy if they landed in enemy or neutral territory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yeah, the Jet engine was invented simultaneously in Britain and Germany, and a lot it's truer to say that space exploration owes a lot to Nazi rocketry than that modern jet propulsion owes a lot to Nazi Germany. It doesn't. It wasn't simultaneously invented, the idea and various jet engine designs were around since WW1, nobody else had the interest or technology to put it into actual use US National Bureau of Standard,1923 posted:there does not appear to be, at present, any prospect whatever that jet propulsion of the sort here considered will ever be of practical value, even for military purposes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
So.. it had been invented then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:43
|
|
504 posted:So.. it had been invented then? Only if you strain the word 'invented' to breaking point.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
504 posted:So.. it had been invented then? Only if you think da Vinci invented the helicopter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:53
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
504 posted:So.. it had been invented then? It had been proven in concept models(ie 'it works in the lab'), but no one had run a plane solely with jet engines yet. The Germans were the first ones to actually produce a working prototype jet plane, and the first ones to introduce a jet plane fighter, but the Me 262 was by no means a unique fighter concept. The British had jet fighters flying home defense in 1944. If anything, the Germans were about three months ahead of the Allies in introducing a jet fighter. The Me 262 went into widespread service in May 1944, the Gloster Meteor went into widespread service in late July, 1944. In terms of development, the Allies and the Axis each had working jet fighter prototypes by 1942. The real problem with jet's in WW2 was making a jet engine that wouldn't flame out if the pilot went into a dive/flame out and explode if a mechanic looked at it cross-eyed. The Germans and the British independently solved their metallurgical and practical problems with their jet engines about the same time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Only if you think da Vinci invented the helicopter. I loved him in the departed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
King Possum III posted:The ME-262 comes to mind as a good example of Germany's poor use of innovative technology. Designed as a fighter jet, Hitler insisted on adapting it as a fighter-bomber. According to Galland, Hitler's insistence on fielding it as a fighter-bomber didn't really affect the Me-262 development much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:According to Galland, Hitler's insistence on fielding it as a fighter-bomber didn't really affect the Me-262 development much. From what I've read, I'd agree that Hitler's interference didn't have much effect on the Me 262's development. At least, not in it's originally intended design as a fighter. If Hitler hadn't ordered changes, it could've been introduced as a fighter at least 6 to 8 months earlier. Probably not enough to make a meaningful difference in the outcome of the war, but the Allied bombing campaign would've taken much higher casualties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
If you really want to find funny examples of Hitler loving around with procurement directly you need to look at small arms. He essentially ordered the StG44 killed in its infancy because he thought the idea was stupid, and then the designers did an end run by classifying it as a next-gen SMG to replace the MP40. Quite a few were made as the "MP43" or "MP44". Even funnier, a few years later when he figured out it was a good thing he ordered a completely arbitrary name change to StG44 essentially because it sounded cooler - it was a pure propaganda move. That was also the order that made the G43 into the K43 because I guess a carbine is better than a rifle. The gun itself wasn't changed at all (at least due to that order - there were a whole chain of more or less minor design changes to that gun throughout its production run).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
King Possum III posted:From what I've read, I'd agree that Hitler's interference didn't have much effect on the Me 262's development. At least, not in it's originally intended design as a fighter. Not really, because the major issue in the design work was to get the Jumo engines into shape, and the changes that making it into a fighter-bomber were more or less trivial for the designers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Not really, because the major issue in the design work was to get the Jumo engines into shape, and the changes that making it into a fighter-bomber were more or less trivial for the designers. I see your point about design, but don't you think the Me 262 would've entered service earlier (as a fighter) if Hitler hadn't ordered it to be adapted into a fighter/bomber?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Is there some kind of comprehensive list somewhere of all the things Hitler hosed up/is accused of loving up and the consequences that resulted? Because it always seems like whenever someone wants to explain why the Nazis did something weird or stupid Hitler is personally to blame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Is there some kind of comprehensive list somewhere of all the things Hitler hosed up/is accused of loving up and the consequences that resulted? Because it always seems like whenever someone wants to explain why the Nazis did something weird or stupid Hitler is personally to blame. Not always. Sometimes it's Himmler or Goering who're loving things up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Hitler hosed it up sounds like a pretty good scapegoat for your own gently caress up after the war, is there any evidence of that sorta thing happening? Itd be kinda similar to the german generals talking themselves/soldiers/equipment up and blaming the loss on being overwhelmed by the soviet hordes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
There's definitely some merit to the idea that 'Hitler hosed it up'. Don't get me wrong, Hitler made many serious strategic errors. But the reason why you see 'It's all Hitler's fault' so commonly in the historiography of WW2 is because the last 50 years of our research into WW2 has been purely from the German side. The biggest decision makers who survived the war often blamed Hitler for losing it, and that's been the predominant narrative. German generals were amazing, German soldiers were amazing, German equipment was amazing, but no, if it weren't for Hitler, we surely would've won the war with the Soviets! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:There's definitely some merit to the idea that 'Hitler hosed it up'. Don't get me wrong, Hitler made many serious strategic errors. But the reason why you see 'It's all Hitler's fault' so commonly in the historiography of WW2 is because the last 50 years of our research into WW2 has been purely from the German side. The biggest decision makers who survived the war often blamed Hitler for losing it, and that's been the predominant narrative. German generals were amazing, German soldiers were amazing, German equipment was amazing, but no, if it weren't for Hitler, we surely would've won the war with the Soviets! Blaming Hitler was also the main defense strategy at the postwar trials conducted by the allies. Almost all the defendants claimed they were just carrying out orders from their superiors, with Hitler at the top of the pyramid. Hitler's interference and assorted blunders were a frustration for his staff, but a blessing for his foes. As you pointed out, German generals, soldiers, and equipment were amazing, but I think the Germans would've prevailed against England and the Soviet Union if not for American Lend-Lease supplies. I read that around 1943 or '44, Stalin was informed that one of their agents in Germany was in a position to assassinate Hitler, and was waiting for orders from Moscow. Stalin decided that Hitler's incompetence in military matters made him more useful alive than dead, and decided not to have him killed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Hitler's biggest mistake was starting the war in the first place. Everything after that is just details
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Is there any alt-history speculation about what-if Hitler had slow-burned Anschluss everywhere possible while building up population/industry while delaying any big slowdown? Like "got Austria totally content... except I'm just gonna nip over here and restore Danzig for a sec... and let me just put some security observers in Tangayika while we litigate some ownership disputes... Samoa too". Like basically uniting every remotely defensible Germanic diaspora and prior claim while insisting he was just trying to address wrongs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Is there any alt-history speculation about what-if Hitler had slow-burned Anschluss everywhere possible while building up population/industry while delaying any big slowdown? Like "got Austria totally content... except I'm just gonna nip over here and restore Danzig for a sec... and let me just put some security observers in Tangayika while we litigate some ownership disputes... Samoa too". Like basically uniting every remotely defensible Germanic diaspora and prior claim while insisting he was just trying to address wrongs? Putin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Is there any alt-history speculation about what-if Hitler had slow-burned Anschluss everywhere possible while building up population/industry while delaying any big slowdown? Like "got Austria totally content... except I'm just gonna nip over here and restore Danzig for a sec... and let me just put some security observers in Tangayika while we litigate some ownership disputes... Samoa too". Like basically uniting every remotely defensible Germanic diaspora and prior claim while insisting he was just trying to address wrongs? The German economy would probably have collapsed by 1940, it couldn't support all the military spending. If you delay the war for a few years, then the western Allies have that much more time to re-arm (a process begun in the early 30's), and the Red Army has recovered from the purges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The German economy would probably have collapsed by 1940, it couldn't support all the military spending. So a repeat of WW1 but ending with nuclear weapons being utilized large-scale (meaning berlin hamburgmunich, London paris nice lowe etc etc) To end the war?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:53
|
|