whats up with the germans

Yeah, you´re totaly right.

 

prior to ww1 im not sure that the british and the germans had ever clashed militarily. they were often allies..especailly against the french.

britain and prussia were allies in both the seven years war and the napoleonic wars unfotrunatelty for germany kaiser willhelm II arrogance and misguided ambition drove the british into an uneasy alliance with the french...and the rest as they say is history.

 

well if you are argumenting like this you can also say that the mustang is better than an f-15 or f-18 it has a better manoverbility start and land shorter less expensiv less complicated more guns and not so heavy.
And if the german technologie wasent superior why all the allies especaly usa captured all scientist and materials they could get.
and oh wonder in the years after the war the usa and cccp started a space programm and copied and modified existing german wonder weapons if they were so bad why the allis did every thing to gather german high tech if this was all crap why in korea war they use f-86 and not a mustang because the f-86 based on the focke wulf hückebein and so on and so on

 

Ok, Al Amin, please calm down.

Let me see. Yes, the Germans were the leaders in a number of scientific areas, most obviously rocketry & missiles.
But did they develop a proximity fuse?

What my example seeks to show is that while the Germans had better technology in some areas, the Allies had better technology in others. Like the various Anti-Submarine Warfare gizmos, radar-bombing & radar navigation...

The Allies also had a gun as good as the 88 (British 3.7 inch) but did not put it in tanks - mostly because it was too big. The only tank project it was in - the Tortoise - was silly.

Allied tanks did not reach the dizzy heights of the Tiger 2 in terms of armour and gun, but they could cross bridges. And they were far far more reliable (well, American tanks were, anyway).

The Me262? It was a beautiful plane, and lightning fast, but it was a one-trick pony. All it could do with a good chance of success was shoot down bombers. Provided its engines worked, its guns did not jam, and it was not shot down by an Allied fighter while it was taking off...

The F-86 Sabre was not a copy of any German plane. Please note for a start the time delay between Operation Paperclip and the first flight of the F-86.
The only influence German Science gave it was the swept wings, as the Americans captured bags of German research on them, which meant they had less testing to do themselves.

Oh, and the Americans did use the Mustang in Korea.

I would like to ask you one question. If the Germans were so brilliant, why did they lose?

 

As to 'Germans = better soldiers'

Well, this was only really apparent in WW2.

The Franco-Prussian War & WW1 were mostly results of superior / inferior generalship. Once the British, French & American generals worked out what to do, they had good successes (1918).

So, WW2.

I recently read Max Hastings book, 'Overlord'.
Max Hastings has often been criticised (even on here!) as being obsessed by the fact that the Germans were better than the Allies. Having read his book, I can see why.

However, he does explain in his Introduction that he wrote his books because he was sick of hearing the same old propaganda stories about the wondrous nature of Allied arms & armies. Hence his works will be slanted the other way. If you take them in that light, they are not too bad.

In his conclusion, he does highlight the fact that, typically, the German soldiers performed better than any other. He then attempts to explain why.

I recommend you read it - it is a good argument.

 

oh nice idea i will look out for it because i am also fed up by seeing germs and japs slaughterd by allided in masses in so many stupid war films
and the reason why germany lost is so big that books can be written but to make it short:
1. less resources,
2. Hitler involment in the general staff
3. to many opponents and and frontlines at the same time.
but that doesent mean that the german soldiers were bad or their equitment why else the allied Strategy was Germany first and not japan because germany was cleary the bigger superpower even japan was geograhicali bigger and more populated

 

German equipment & soldiers were by & large very good*, but they let themselves down in several areas, notably in failing to develop new ideas (particularly for the Luftwaffe & the U-boats) until it was too late to help.

Some equipment was, of course, equal to or worse than their Allied counterparts. Like Artillery.

 

I'm with Ricky here. Yes the Germans were very far ahead in R&D, but in all reality it was that which helped Germany's demise. Hitler's obession with "wonder" weapons took up the manpower and material that would have been much more effective in other areas. Instead of devolping a 70 ton tank monster (Pkw VII) why not use the same resourses to build 5 or 6 Pkw IV?

I know I have stated it before but Germany had over 300 types and varients of tanks which only hindered the mass production of a few types of tanks. This also goes for AT guns, fighters, etc.

So, yes, all in all German technology was much ahead of the Allies in some areas but did this help them win the war? No, and in the grand scheme of things its that which really matters.

BTW, if you're going to give praise to German technology, why not spread some to the British for developing the radar, this in turn helped the development of the microwave, which if I did not have I would surely starve to death. All hail Britian!

 

well sorry comrade but it was also the germans who developed radar
basicli it was tesla and hertz (mega hertz gigahertz) the britains just make such a big deal of it cause of the bob, but in 1939 german würzburg radar station picked up a wellington bomber formation in the north sea
me 109 were responding immidiatly wiping the formation from the skies
and at the end of the war the germans had the most advanced radar for airplanes the berlin with a parabolic antena complidil instaled in the nose like modern fighter and also the mamut radar stations on the ground with a range of 400 kilometers
the brits just know at the start of the war how to use it for defence cause it gives the defender the advatige and germany was the attacker in the beginnig

 

Al Amin, you strike me as one of those people who seem to be diluted into thinking war is a game. One of those people who seems to think its "good times" when people kill one another. You seem like the kind of person who thinks that war is like a game of Unreal Tournament, where the winner gets a prize for killing the most people and all the people who have had their lives prematurely ended just get up and walk home.

Sorry, that isn't the case. While you sit here and disrespect the efforts of all the nations who fought to create the world you currently live in, just try to remember the people who were stuck in a situation they really didn't want to be in, both Allied and German.

Researching World War II is not a hobby that is meant to reveal to you the strengths of the oh-so-powerful master race, and it isn't one to further dilute you to thinking the same master race was some sort of nation of Gods. It's to show you the determination of people. Germany invented a few cool toys when they were threatened. That's well and good, they handled it their own way. What did Britain do? They handed out armor segments to the home guard to convert every-day automobiles into combat cars in preparation for being invaded. What did Russia do? Its people responded with an uncommon zeal to protect their motherland.

Every country handles the threat of defeat in their own way. Germany just happens to make it a point to be ahead of everyone else when it comes to ingenuity, just like they have always done.

So before you go totting your preaching about how Germany was so great and powerful, consider the situation they were in. Then consider what any other country would have done if put in that same situation.

 

I've started typing replies to this about three times so far and got disheartened when it took about a page of regular typing to try and correct your incorrect assumptions.

The F-86 was not based on any German design, neither was the MiG-15 for that matter.

The F-51 Mustang was used in Korea.

Even if the Germans had the best air-to-air radar (Which I'm not convinced of either), you have to consider this in the context that the Luftwaffe needed it, the Allied airforces did not.

Your comments about the F15/F18 show just how lacking your understanding is. The F15 /F18 are good modern aircraft, their weapons systems are reliable, their engines are reliable, they have good range, they are supported by trained mechanics.

The Me262's engines were unreliable, it's weapons geared solely to bomber interception were also unreliable, it had poor range, unreliable undercarriage, and their was a lack of trained mechanics for the engines. The Germans essentially built a plane that exceeded their own capabilities to fly and maintain.

Best bomber interceptor of the war? Maybe, when it worked (And as the engines would fail after as little as 5 hours use that could not be relied upon). Best fighter, nope, not a chance.

The Wellington formation intercepted was not infact wiped out, although they did suffer heavy casualties, they would have got away a lot better off if it wasn't for the timely arrival of some of the then brand new Bf110s as the intercepting Bf109s were only able to attack the formation for a short time.

A similar thing occured when Norwegian based He111s tried to attack Northeast England during the Battle of Britain so I'm really not sure what you think you're proving here...

Radar was only a small part of the RAF's victory in the Battle of Britain, anyone who really knows anything about it knows that the RAF's command and control system was far superior to the Germans throughout the war, and infact the RAF system developed by Dowding is what modern air traffic control is based on.

You clearly have your view and agenda. The Germans were superior beings, produced the best equipment and soldiers but were overwhelmed by slavic hoardes in the east and the dastardly Yankees in the west. It's a shame really, if you read beyond wartime propaganda you might actually learn something.

 

for sure the f-18 is better then then the p-51 but if you dont know about ironic i feel sorry for yoú.
and to make one point clear. I AM A 100% PACIFIST AND AFTER MY OPINION EVERY KIND OF WEAPON SHOULD BE DESTROYED.
but since my earlyest childhood iam intressted in war stuff until today
iam not a supporter of the german master race we are all humans that is whats count
but i cant help german millitary stuff is fascenating me a lot
the war was lost by germany not because their equitment was bad or their qualiti of the german soldiers or a miss leadership of the general staff
Italy for example had bad equitment and low moraled and lazy soldiers (execept division folgore) but not the germans
even their uniforms of ww2 lokking very impressiv and intiminating especaly of the ss the me-262 was build to intercept bombers but a single hit by the mk-108 brought down every single engined fighter of the eto

 

You really need to appreciate that it is impossible to type ironically/sarcastically, even with the use of smileys which you haven't used...

the war was lost by germany not because their equitment was bad or their qualiti ... or a miss leadership of the general staff

That was precisely why the war was lost by the Germans.

 

sry i can understand that you are :angry:
i was not to use the smillies next time you can :bang: me
or we all meat and :smok: and after we are

 

A lot of their equipment was bad, or at least not what was needed, Me 262 with its short engine life, Tiger II (we've been through this :-? ), overweight etc, poor reliability, etc etc and the time money and effort frittered away on wunderwaffen when they could have done with more tried and tested designs.
Quality of German soldiers - towards the end of the war a good number of German troops were fresh-faced young boys with poor training, the veterans having been killed
Mis-leadership - IIRC it was Dave Langford who pointed out that most Western armies have adopted the German general staff model for armies, despite the fact that using this structure the Germans lost both wars they started
There were good points and bad on both sides (moral questions aside).
PS the Germans didn't invent cruise missiles, look up "Kettering Bug" sometime.

 

I looked it up - very interesting!

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... g_Bug.html

Oh, and the slightly earlier British 'Aerial Target', which was scapped as it was thought to have limited military potential...

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... arget.html

 

well this actually a biplane but the v1 was a cruisemissle prety much simillar to the actual design

so what ever it took the world three superpowers and hole buch of other nations to bring the germans down and when they were brought down the winners licking their fingers after german know how and scientist.

 

If you read the article, the design is very similar to the V1, given the obvious material limitations of the 1910's

You could say much the same of Napoleonic France, and I have yet to hear anybody on this forum say that the French are the world's best soldiers.

And Japan, interestingly. Were they super-soldiers as well?

 

yeah but in napoleans time or even the italions (rome) werent comparable with ww2 only wooden ships infatry cavalary and cannons
but in ww2 most toys avable today were used includes air force and all that modern stuff and this forum is about ww2 untill today if we would talk about the napoleonic age or roman age i would worship them . because napi was the best in his time like the romans were in their time but ww2 was germanys" big time"

 

Hmm... I sense an interesting parallel here:

Rome & Napoleonic France both had huge early successes, but both were brought down in the end.

Why?

Both originally had introduced radical new military equipment & tactics
(Romans - armour, discipline, etc etc, Napoleon - light & easily portable cannon, good combined arms assult tactics, etc), but both failed to adapt when their enemies matched their achievements.
Wellington said that Waterloo was a bit of a dissapointment, as Napoleon did the same old thing yet again.

In 1941 or 41, Hitler declared a stop to all military research, claiming that Germany had all the weapons it needed.

Far-fetched analogy?

Yes, probably!