# German Weaponology



## Soren (Mar 11, 2008)

An Excellent must see documentary on the Waffen SS and the weapons of the German army!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXvWOCVkD7U_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P_-8spMsjQ_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kutTWIGqtvo_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RicFXjVXhQE_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50iouga7Ri8_


----------



## glen (Mar 12, 2008)

LOL，how old are you Soren？ When I was in 20s I was fond of german weapons, but not now. The best weapons in WWII were usally not designed/produced by German.

MG42 is from a Polish design. The best submechinegun is from Filand. US Infrared weapons were used in Okinawa in 1945.The best rifle is US M1 Garand. The best Light machine guns was made in Czech. The best Battle ship is Yamato class. The best piston fighter is Spitfire from British.The best Pistol is colt M1911. The best 20mm Aviation cannon is british hispano/soviet b20. The best Rockets is "Katyusha". The best bomber is US B29....... too many to recall.

I suggest you to study how British and US helped Hitler with money and technology in 1930s. Anyway, the center of sicience/technology of the world was in United States BEFORE WWII.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2008)

I would be quick to agree that the U.S was the centre of industrial technology, but nothing else. Nuclear technology, for example, how far was the U.S into researching it until 1939? Aviation studies, how far was the U.S into swept wing research, turbojet study and rocket propulsion? 

I'll never agree that everything that was in the German war machine was the best to see service, but I do have to point out that your list is a matter of opinion. For example, you smash the point down that the best piston fighter was the British Spitfire; I would have to agree but I know there are plenty people on this site that could argue in favour of the Corsair, Fw 190 or Ta 152 and good arguments they would be too. 

And I'm sure Soren could turn around and simply say; the best jet fighter was the Me 262, the only assault rifle (and therefore the best) was the Stg.44, the leading rocket and ramjet nation was Germany, the best light tank was German, the best medium tank was German, the best heavy tank was German, the best super-heavy tank was German. The best military issue underpants were German... the best stoves were German. 

I'm only slightly having a go because Soren has posted a documentary and he didn't claim that everything in the Wehrmacht was the best in the world. So I was quite confused when you came out with, simply, a pathetic rant. And then had to add that the U.S. was the best before World War II. 

Everyone had their strengths in World War II; unfortunately for the Allies and the Germans were a great strength. No matter which way you flip the coin - Germany held off the great powers of the world for six years... they lost four million soldiers...and still came out of a massive European power 60 years later. That's SOME strength worthy of any lowly peasants respect - so they've got mine !


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2008)

As usual you're completely wrong glen.

Germany was the leader in technology since way before WW2, and continued to be so until the end of WW2 after which it still continued to be the leader in many areas right up till today.

Ever heard of the University of Göttingen and the labs there ? Did you know that most of the great mathematicians phycisist of the 19 - 20 th century went there? Or how about the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, Max Planck Institute etc etc ? I guess you never heard of these either.

Laboratory of Göttingen was the main center of theoretical and mathematical aerodynamics and fluid dynamics research from soon after 1904 and to the end of WW2, completely leading the way throughout WW2. 

Since 1904 and throughout WW2 the Germans were ahead in aerodynamics, esp. high speed aerodynamics, Adolf Busemann Ludwig Prandtl being responsibe for the greatest advances in areodynamics in history. Ludwig Prandtl, the farther of modern aerodynamics, coining the term boundary layer and founding modern mathematical aerodynamics. Prandtl was the absolute undisputed leader in the field of aerodynamics/fluid dynamics throughout the war.

Adolf Busemann was the foremost expert in supersonic aerodynamics, and with the help of Prandtl he was the first to discover establish the characteristics, advantages disadvantages of the swepped wing. Hence why the Germans were deploying and designing swepped winged jet a/c during WW2, long before anyone else. The famous German designer Hans Multhopp was also an expert in this area. 

Hence why the German were fielding the best fighters and most advanced a/c of WW2, the below examples being completely unrivalled: 

Me-262A-1a 
Ta-152H C
He-162A-2
FW-190 D-12 13
Ar-234B-2
He-277
Ju-388


The German advances in aerodynamics was also the reason why they were the leaders in ballistics research and designs, designing producing the best projectiles of WW2. German rifles, machineguns etc etc were firing heavy boattailed spitzer projectiles (Designation: FMJ-BT) with very high Ballistic Coefficients, and many other specialized types, while nearly all other countries, including the US, still used flat based Spitzer bullets from the first world war. Spitzer bullets (Sharp pointed bullet) are a German/French design btw and were revolutionary in WW1. 

German snipers could because of their better and more accurate projectiles also hit their targets more precisely at longer ranges than Allied snipers, a great tactical advantage on he open battlefield.

The Germans were also the leaders in rocket science, being the first to deploy self guided ballsitic missiles and air to air rockets. 

Germany was also the leader in radar infrared techonology, being the first to deploy infrared equipment on smallarms AFV's, a good number of Pzkpfw.V Panthers being equipped with this in late 44 on the western front and enjoying amazing success.

And like we all know the Germans were also waay ahead throughout the war when it came to designing and building tanks, fielding the unrivalled Pzkpfw. VI Ausf.B King Tiger Pzkpfw. V Panther and their subvariants.

On top of this the Germans were also the undisputed leaders in smallarms gun design, designing building the best most powerful guns of WW2, most notably the unrivalled examples below:

Smallarms
MG-42, the best machinegun of WW2 and all time.
MG-34, the second best machine gun of WW2.
FG-42, one of the most advanced smallarms of WW2, a supurb LMG.
StG.44, THE best smallarm of WW2.
M98, the best bolt action rifle of all time.

Aircraft armament
30mm Mk-108
30mm Mk-103
20mm MG151/20
15mm MG151

Big guns
128mm KwK/PaK 44 L/55 L/61, the most powerful AT gun of WW2.
88mm KwK/PaK 43 L/71, the best tank AT gun of WW2.
75mm KwK/PaK 42 L/70, the second best tank gun of WW2.
170mm K-18, the best heavy artillery piece of WW2.

And the list goes on....

Furtermore the Germans were producing the best most precise optics in the world, Zeiss Dialytan developing and providing optics for tanks, smallarms, guns, U-boats etc etc of unrivalled quality precision.


As for the MG-42, there's nothing Polish about it glen, it was designed by German Dr. Werner Grüner and produced by Mauser AG Werke Borsigwalde, Gustloff-Werke in Suhl, Grossfuss in Döbeln, Maget in Berlin and Steyr in Vienna.

The MG-34 was designed by German Heinrich Vollmer, who also designed the MP-40 SMG.

And the StG.44 was designed by German Hugo Schmeisser.



Now finally I thought I had already asked you not to fabricate stuff anymore glen, so why do you continue doing so ??


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2008)

The Germans weren't the best at everything like Plan_D said, however in most areas they were ahead, but not always by much.

This didn't matter much though seeing that Germany was facing nearly the entire world, and the Allies certainly werent poorly equipped either!

The Germans might have designed and produced the best machines weapons of WW2, but they didn't produce enough of them. Infact even in 1944 most German infantry were still equipped with bolt action rifles, which eventhough exceptional for long range work, just wasn't the ideal weapon for anything else. The US Garand was more versatile because of its higher RoF, and it was produced in MASSIVE numbers! 

As for the best fighter of WW2, well nothing the Allies built could compete with the Ta-152H or Me-262A1a, however again too few were built and fuel was critically low.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 12, 2008)

glen said:


> Anyway, the center of sicience/technology of the world was in United States BEFORE WWII.



WHAT????  Are you kidding?

I suggest you get a book called Hitler's Scientist. It, in extreme detail, documents how Germany, not the U.S. was the "center of all sciences" (aeronautics, mathematics, chemistry, etc) of any country from the late 1800's to WW2.

Sorry to tell you, but your quote to completely wrong........and that's not my opinion. That's a fact.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

So tell me again why was the US and Russia fighting over German scientists after the war?


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 12, 2008)

Njaco said:


> So tell me again why was the US and Russia fighting over German scientists after the war?



They knew good jokes


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 12, 2008)

Njaco said:


> So tell me again why was the US and Russia fighting over German scientists after the war?



The U.S. and Russia didn't have a good bratwurst sauerkraut recipe.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

Well I for one, know the Germans were experts at gliders. Hardy Kruger said so in that old movie "Flight of the Phoenix". That was like a documentary, right?


----------



## wilbur1 (Mar 12, 2008)

No that was a time/life show, i just bought the whole set for 29.95 a month


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 12, 2008)

Well said, Soren . . . . there's a reason half the countries in Europe COPIED WWII German designs directly after the War; look at the Avia S-92, a direct copy of the ME 262; the FRG's MG-1, MG-2 the modern-day MG-3 are almost EXACT copies of the MG42 (though slightly different in caliber); most post-WWII armored car designs borrowed ideas from Germany's SdKfz. 234-series of 8-wheel armored cars. I could go on, but you get the idea.


----------



## Juha (Mar 12, 2008)

Soren
even if I agree that many German weapons were top class and generally the level of German equipment was very good but still.
What made He-277 and Ju-388 completely unrivalled? Surely not effectiveness in combat.
And Ta-152? Eric Brown’s assessment of H-1 was “In my view, Ta 152H was every bit as good as any of its Allied piston-engined counterparts and, from some aspects, better than most” (source AE No 1 p. 112) so very good plane but not necessarily completely unrivalled.

“a good number of Pzkpfw.V Panthers being equipped with this in late 44 on the western front and enjoying amazing success.” Any source to back up that, I mean something that was checked against Allied records, not some Internet stories.

Why the leader in radar technology was forced to copy Allied radar systems, Rotterdam gerät etc?

Were German snipers more efficient than for example Soviet snipers?

“unrivalled Pzkpfw. VI Ausf.B King Tiger Pzkpfw. V Panther and their subvariants.”
IMHO Panther was the greatest disappointment of German tanks when committed into battle in summer 43. In one month Panther Brigade’s strength dropped from 200, even with 12 replacement Panthers, to 9 operational plus 47 in repairs and 156 total loss. And there has been 2 weeks lull before Soviet attack on Aug 5th, so there was time for repairs and maintenantance And it was 1943 when the Germans really needed good medium tank, 1944 war was already lost. 

What makes MG151 unrivalled? It was a good gun but was it more efficient than Hispano Mk V or Soviet B-20? 

Juha


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 12, 2008)

Well I don't think that the Panther was "the greatest disappointment"..."The Panther's excellent combination of firepower, mobility, and protection served as a benchmark for other nations' late war and immediate post-war tank designs and it is frequently regarded (along with the Soviet T-34-85) as the best tank design of World War II."That definitely sounds like the definition of disappointment...did you think for an instant that those losses may be attributed to various causes not necessarily proving that the Panther was a bad tank...
I guess you read probably this and memorized only what you liked..."The Panther first saw action at Kursk on July 5, 1943. Early tanks were plagued with mechanical problems: the track and suspension often broke, and the engine was dangerously prone to overheating and bursting into flames. At Kursk, more Panthers were disabled by their own failings than by enemy action. For example, the XLVIII Panzer Corps reported on July 10, 1943, that they had 38 Panthers operational and 131 awaiting repair, out of about 200 they had started with on July 5. Heinz Guderian, who had not wanted Hitler to order them into combat so soon, later remarked about the early Panther's performance in the battle: "they burnt too easily, the fuel and oil systems were insufficiently protected, and the crews were lost due to lack of training." Guderian also stated, however, that the firepower and frontal armor were good. While many of the Panthers used at Kursk were damaged or suffered from mechanical difficulties, only a small number were lost for good and the tanks also achieved success, destroying 263 Soviet tanks."


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2008)

Juha,

The Ta-152H was faster, more maneuverable, climbed faster and had a MUCH higher service ceiling than ANY of the late war Allied fighters. The Ta-152H is as many experts agree, THE best piston engined fighter of WW2, completely unrivalled.

The Pzkpfw. V Panther performed poorly in terms of reliability at the Battle of Kursk as it was rushed into service before all its teething problems had been fully addressed. However the Ausf.D quickly solved the reliability issues and from that point on the Panther was a VERY reliable tank, esp. considering the conditions in which it operated. The Panther was quite simply the best tank of WW2.

As for the Tiger Ausf.E B, well the Allies failed to produce anything that impressive, the Tiger Ausf.E still easily handling the new Soviet IS-2's in 44 45 as it did the T-34 from 42 and onwards. And the Tiger Ausf.B was unrivalled in firepower armour protection, and was despite what some say a reliable tank if given proper maintenance. Problem though was that there was nearly no fuel to go around to power these Monsters in 1944, and spare parts were few as-well.

As for Soviet snipers, well their success was in Urban areas where distances weren't very long, there rarely being more than 200m to the target. The Soviet snipers however were at a big disadvantage on the very long distances on the Russian plains, which is where the German Snipers shined. 

The German Scharfschützen were best trained equipped in the world, Germany being the first nation to establish specialized sniper schools (Before the war), and their tactics were so efficient that todays US Sniper training program is a close copy of the WW2 German program used to train the Sharfschützen. The German snipers were also armed with the most accurate sniperrifle of WW2, the Karabiner 98k, which with its far superior optics and the sS Patrone was deadly accurate out beyond 800m, and with the V-patronen (V for Verbessert, in english "Improved"), issued to the LW, the effective range was beyond 1,000m. Read Peter Senich's excellent book on the subject for further information, its a great book, worth every penny!



As for the MG-151, check out the weight, MV and RoF of the gun Juha, a very efficient gun for its caliber. The 20mm MG-151/20 was even better, being just as light and firing the devastating minen rounds was one of most lethal fighter armaments of WW2.


----------



## Juha (Mar 12, 2008)

Köningstiger
Panther was not a bad tank from Ausf. A onwards, but IMHO the first model Ausf D was, it was usually too unreliable. My figures were for Aug 8th, ie when Germans were forced to fast retreat and end result was massive total losses for Panthers. Pz IVs and Tigers managed better. But as I wrote, it was 1943 when war was irreversively lost for Germany and so it was 1943 when Germans would have needed reliable Panthers. And the 263 destroyed tanks is only claim, difficult to verify. And from Germans reports one see that Panther easily burn when hit.

Soren
I gave one expert who didn't agree to your claim on Ta 152, can you name some of those many experts who agree.

On Panther's reliability, why Guderian demanded urgent action to improve Panther's final drive in late summer 44 (source Jentz's Panzertruppen p. 100) and Panzerkomission complained on weak final drive in Jan 45 if Panther was VERY reliable from Ausf D onwards ie from first version onwards?

On Russian snipers, IMHO Finns thought they were dangerous also over 200m distance.

On MG151 and 151/20, I recommended Williams' Gustin's Flying Guns, look the Appendix 6 Fighter Gun Effectiveness and surprise surprise MK 108 is best but B-20 is second and Hispano V third (efficiency 9.7, 6.8 and 5.7 respectedly) only then MG151/20 and MK 103, both 4.9. Parametres used are ROF, cartridge destructiveness and gun weight.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

One other factor to consider when comparing is sabotage. Because Germany at many times used foreign and slave labor, the incidents for sabotage were high throughout the military industry. You can have the best whatever on the planet but it ain't gonna go if somebody is gumming up the works.


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> I gave one expert who didn't agree to your claim on Ta 152, can you name some of those many experts who agree.



What Brown said was that the Ta-152 was better than Allied fighters Juha.

But yes, I can easily name one more; Willi Reschke. Want more ?

You could also ask the experts on this board like Erich ? He's expressed more than once that the Ta-152H was the ultimate prop job of WW2.



> On Panther's reliability, why Guderian demanded urgent action to improve Panther's final drive in late summer 44 (source Jentz's Panzertruppen p. 100) and Panzerkomission complained on weak final drive in Jan 45 if Panther was VERY reliable from Ausf D onwards ie from first version onwards?



I actually meant the Ausf.A, but yes most of the teething problems were solved with this version, and the tank proved very reliable considering its working inviroment.

As for Guderians request and the Panzerkomission, well Juha do you have any idea under which conditions these tanks had to work by 44? The maintenance they recieved, availability of spare parts ? And are you aware of the fact that they were often at the mercy of inexperienced drivers ?

Had a Sherman been subjected to the above I'm sure equal requests complaints would've been sent forth.



> On Russian snipers, IMHO Finns thought they were dangerous also over 200m distance.



The Finns used a different rifle based on the Mosin Nagant but with a heavier barrel and other type ammunition. This rifle was the M-39. And btw, the Finnish were accurate with these rifles at pretty long range and with open sights. But still the distances were rarely above 300m, something which the top Finnish Sniper remarked IIRC.



> On MG151 and 151/20, I recommended Williams' Gustin's Flying Guns, look the Appendix 6 Fighter Gun Effectiveness and surprise surprise MK 108 is best but B-20 is second and Hispano V third (efficiency 9.7, 6.8 and 5.7 respectedly) only then MG151/20 and MK 103, both 4.9. Parametres used are ROF, cartridge destructiveness and gun weight.



I strongly disagree.

The thing about the MG151/20 is it fires the HE(M) Minen round, a round which is over TWICE as devastating as those fired by the B-20 Hispano V. So the MG151/20 was a far more devastating armament Juha.

Take a look here: WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

Note the damage of a single HE(M) round, nevermind the Power of the gun as that is based on Momentum and is rather irrelevant as Tony points out himself.

Another thing about the MG151 MG151/20 is that they were immune to jamming.


----------



## glen (Mar 12, 2008)

> Germany was the leader in technology since way before WW2, and continued to be so until the end of WW2 after which it still continued to be the leader in many areas right up till today.
> 
> And like we all know the Germans were also waay ahead throughout the war when it came to designing and building tanks, fielding the unrivalled Pzkpfw. VI Ausf.B King Tiger Pzkpfw. V Panther and their subvariants.
> 
> ...



Soren's bias is obvious. I am familiar with all the german weapons raised by him. However, I found that he is quite unconversant with allied weaponology. It will cost us a lot of time in arguing "which weapon is the best" issues. OK, now let's compare german and allied weapons from Ta152H. Since soren said T152H is the best piston fighter in WWII, completely unrivalled! Soren, please tell me why Ta152 is superior to Spitfire MK 21/14 and F4U-4 P51H, P47M/N...

1) Top speed: Spitfire MK21 -----732km/[email protected]

Spitfire Mk 21 Performance Testing

Spitfire MK14----720km/[email protected]

Spitfire Mk XIV Performance Testing

P51H----788km/h 　Note that the first P-51H-1-NA flewn on 3rd Feb.1945. P51H was ready in WWII, but it was no need to put them in battle fields in a hurry.

P47M------761km/[email protected]

P-47 Performance Tests


F4U4 (served in 1945) ----728km/h 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4.pdf

Ta152H----750-760km/h

Soren said that Ta152H was faster than any of late war Allied fighters...... Is the Ta152H faster than P51H and P47M? 

2) max climb

Ta152H ----25m/s
spitfire 14----25m/s
spitfire 21--23m/s
p47m----20m/s
p51h-----25m/s
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg15.jpg
P-47 Performance Tests

Does the Ta152H climb faster than any allied fighter?

3) service seiling:

Ta152H: 48,550 feet
Focke-Wulf Ta 152
Spitfire 21: 42,800 ft (44500feet)
P47m: about 42000 ft somehow managed to reach 47000ft
F4U-3:772km/[email protected] faster than Ta152H, due to the absence of Japanese high fighters, f4u3 cancelled, only 3 made. 

P47m and spitfire outmaneuver Ta152H @ high altitude, note that spitfire14 especially spitfire21 outroll Ta152H. 

Supermarine Spitfire - Great Britain

This link said spitfire14's ceiling is 44500 feet. Fighter can fly higher than "norminal service ceiling" as long as they can get enought time, and the climbe rate of allied fighter such as p47m/n and spitfire14/21 is as good as (if not better than) Ta152H.

In 1935, US exported a lot of advanced air-cool piston engines to 3rd Reich.It's United States introduced air-cool piston enginee to germany. German air-cool power never exceeded US.

Late allied piston beasts: Spiteful and Seafang were the fastest piston fighters, one of them even reached 795 km/h!

German piston power is smaller than allied beasts: R2800, saber, and griffon. In 1945, birtish piston power is almost 4000HP!
The Hawker Tempest Page

The smaller power of piston is german tradition,lol, so was WWI.


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2008)

You're just beyond ridiculous glen, you don't know anything about which you talk and you keep fabricating stuff in your head. Let me ask how old are you glen ?

Anyway for your information the P-51H Spitfire Mk.21 didn't see service in WW2, something which you unsurprisingly didn't know.

Furthermore the P-47 is a large and heavy fighter glen, it wasn't very maneuverable, and so it always relied on its speed at high alt and its high acceleration in a dives to fight the enemy. The P-47 was dead meat in a dogfight against any of the LW's dedicated fighters.

And as to why the Ta-152H was unrivalled well let me sum it up for you:

Top speed: 760 + km/h (473 + mph) Thats faster than any Allied fighter
Service ceiling: 15.1 km (49,540 ft) Thats way higher than any Allied fighter
Climb rate: ~ 26 m/s (5,100 ft/min) That's faster than any Allied fighter (Except a + 25 lbs/sq.in. boosted Spit IX)
Time to climb 10km: 10.1 min (10.1min to 32,808 ft) Thats faster than the Spit Mk.21

And on top of this the Ta-152H featured better maneuverability than ANY of the late war Allied fighters, being capable of outturning the Spitfire Mk.XIV at all altitudes. The reason behind this excellent agility (Esp. in the horizontal) was the wing, being the most efficient wing put on a fighter during WW2, featuring a very high lift airfoil design whilst AR was very high, increasing lift even further whilst reducing drag, giving the wing an extremely high L/D ratio. And the L/D ratio is one of the most crucial factors to high turn performance. Hence the Ta-152H had no problem outturning any of the fighters you mentioned.


----------



## glen (Mar 12, 2008)

Just before WWII, the "allied countries" provided a looot of [email protected] to 3rd Reich.

<WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER >
WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER, by Antony C. Sutton



> Anyway for your information the P-51H Spitfire Mk.21 didn't see service in WW2, something which you unsurprisingly didn't know.



You really don't know Spitfire21's story.



> The Spitfire F.21 entered service with No 91 Squadron at Manston in January(1945,glen), despite having suffered early handling problems. This Mark had a protracted development, first flying as early as July 1943. The wing was strengthened , and the ailerons extended. The undercarriage legs were also extended, to enable a11ft Rotol 5 blade-prop to be fitted. The modifications to the structure meant that a new name of Victor was considered for a while.
> 
> The squadron began operations with modified aircraft from Ludham in March, flying armed reconnaissances and on 16 April, two aircraft strafed a midget submarine they caught on the surface and claimed it as sunk. 91 sqn was the only squadron to operate the Mk.21 during WW2.








The Royal Air Force - History Section

P51H and P80 are ready IN WWII, howver, german troops were at berlin not new york, so US army didn't have to send out their P51H and P80 jet plane in a hurry.


----------



## m kenny (Mar 13, 2008)

Soren said:


> Germany was also the leader in radar infrared techonology, being the first to deploy infrared equipment .................on AFV's, a good number of Pzkpfw.V Panthers being equipped with this in late 44 on the western front and enjoying amazing success.



Myth. Perhaps a single example of this 'amazing success' could be provided?There was only very limited use of IR during the war. The Germans hesitated to use this equipment because they knew the Allies had their own IR sets available to retaliate with.



from:
Axis History Forum • View topic - What are the Germany's "Wonder Weapons"?


_everyone had infrared, even low-tech types like Australia, Russia and Italy. (Australia and Italy had break-the-beam type harbour protection infrared and the Russians had a useable driving system in 1940 called DUDKA). 

Only the Germans had infrared image forming equipment (of such quality = range – due to their chemical knowledge making the filters and layering phosphors coatings for receivers, etc) to be able to use it for weapons control for AFV’s. Everyone else had picture forming driving systems suitable for 30 – 50 meters. 
The Germans knew the west had IR and specifically forbad its use on the Western front. The west knew the Germans had IR and went specifically looking for it. Had the Germans used IR Panthers on the western front the British alone had thousands of IR detectors ready to hand out. 

The British were the first to mount their TABBY system on a Sten gun in June ’44 (Source PRO, dated blue print). Whereas the Germans only saw the need for small arms infrared in October ’44 at which point the VAMPIRE was designed (source: Dr Gaertner, head of WaPruf 8/I Optics, report to American interrogator’s June 1945). Neither of which saw much action. The American M3 Sniperscope was first used on Okinawa to great effect (they claim 30% of all small arms casualties due to it’s use) against the Japanese in 1945. (5 years before Korea). 

I always get a laugh from the American code for their infrared, which was NAN or NANCY. The thought of all those Nancy boys blazing away! 

The real lead the Germans had in infrared which got the allies hot and bothered after the war (apart from the quality of the picture forming gear) was the industrial sized production of Pb (lead) crystals which have a certain thermal detection window. Very exciting in 1945, less so now. 

If you have an interest in Television you may be interested to know the first televised infrared image was by the Scottish inventor John Logie Baird in Leads in 1926. The astonished crowd at the demonstration had to be dispersed by mounted police. That was 10 years before the 1936 AEG infrared tube. _

also

Infrared Sniperscope M1, with M3 Carbine


----------



## glen (Mar 13, 2008)

And as to why the Ta-152H was unrivalled well let me sum it up for you:

Top speed: 760 + km/h (473 + mph) Thats faster than any Allied fighter
except P47M and P51H and F4U-3
Service ceiling: 15.1 km (49,540 ft) Thats way higher than any Allied fighter
15km is not practical.
Climb rate: ~ 26 m/s (5,100 ft/min) That's faster than any Allied fighter (Except a + 25 lbs/sq.in. boosted Spit IX) P51H near 6000ft/min, spitfire 14 got 5110ft/min @Jan.1944 service and better climb when 21lbs ATA introduced after 1944 fall at the same time Ta152H hadn't come into service.
Time to climb 10km: 10.1 min (10.1min to 32,808 ft) Thats faster than the Spit Mk.21 

18lbs spitfire14: Time to 30,000 ft. 8.35 mins. 21lbs is even faster. 



> And on top of this the Ta-152H featured better maneuverability than ANY of the late war Allied fighters, being capable of outturning the Spitfire Mk.XIV at all altitudes.



Blether.Spitfire Mk.XIV outturns Ta152H at all altitudes.

With regard to jet plane, P80 was as good as Me262.
Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star - USA



> The airplane had its origin in June 1943, when Lockheed was requested to design a fighter around the De Havilland turbojet engine developed in England in response to Germany's twin-engine jet fighter, the Messerschmitt Me 262. The XP-80 was designed and built in the amazing period of only 143 days--37 days less than the original schedule. It was flown for the first time on January 8, 1944, and its performance was considered sensational.
> 
> "It was a magnificent demonstration," said Clarence Johnson, Lockheed's chief research engineer. "our plane was a success -- such a complete success that it had overcome the temporary advantage the Germans had gained from years of preliminary development on jet planes."
> 
> The Army Air Force planned to build the Shooting Star in large numbers. However, only two of the machines arrived in Italy before the end of the war in Europe, and these were never used in operations. Despite the cessation of hostilities, production was continued on a reduced scale.



Acording to Soren， Ta152 can outturn almost every fighter.





The ratio of weight/area of wingspan is critical to a fighter's truning ability, Ta152H's this ratio is not very good for turning.



> The German advances in aerodynamics was also the reason why they were the leaders in ballistics research and designs, designing producing the best projectiles of WW2. German rifles, machineguns etc etc were firing heavy boattailed spitzer projectiles (Designation: FMJ-BT) with very high Ballistic Coefficients, and many other specialized types, while nearly all other countries, including the US, still used flat based Spitzer bullets from the first world war. Spitzer bullets (Sharp pointed bullet) are a German/French design btw and were revolutionary in WW1.
> 
> German snipers could because of their better and more accurate projectiles also hit their targets more precisely at longer ranges than Allied snipers, a great tactical advantage on he open battlefield.



Interesting! Let's see how advanced the german aerodynamics is! German MG131 is almost rubbish compared to Browning M2.

And then plz tell me why bismark's skc34 380mm cannon was the worst compared to Italian and French 380mm? Benefit from the best projectiles of WW2? Why did german troops still use horses in WWII? Why couldn't german provide excellent supercharger to Bf109/Fw190?...


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 13, 2008)

glen said:


> And then plz tell me why bismark's skc34 380mm cannon was the worst compared to Italian and French 380mm? Benefit from the best projectiles of WW2? Why did german troops still use horses in WWII? Why couldn't german provide excellent supercharger to Bf109/Fw190?...



Well Glen lets think for a second that Germany was at war with the whole world and that it took 6 years for it to be defeated by the greatest super powers back then, that says something.Lets not forget Hitler constant interfering with production and designing.An by 1944 Germany suffered from lack of materials and manpower yet its still managed to hold its ground.Now the Allies had numerical advantage, air domination, if Germany didn't had technological advantages over the Allies how the hell did they manage to hold on so much and so fierce.And by 1944 they got a decisive blow when my country declared war on them making the whole eastern front collapse which shorted the war greatly.


----------



## Juha (Mar 13, 2008)

Soren
I quoted Brown's assesment, and IMHO it didn't support your claim that Ta 152H was completely unrivalled.

"But yes, I can easily name one more; Willi Reschke. Want more ?"
Definitely, how many Allied fighters Willi had flown. If we began to count how many P-51 pilots said that P-51 was the best fighter of WWII and how many Spitfire pilots claimed that the Spit was the best and how many Bf 109 pilots thought that their mount was the best we probably got that majority of pilots thought that their plane was the best. Any experts who had flown many times the main contenders to the best piston fighter of WWII title and who claimed that Ta 152 was completely unrivalled?

Now Guderian acknowledged that the reliability of the engine was got better but the final drive was still much too weak, same to Panzerkomission and the French study in 1948. And French used Panthers in peace time. Have you any source for the claim that Panther was VERY reliable.

And was the raports and stories I have read, Soviet snipers could been dangerous well beyond 200 meters.

"Take a look here: WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS"
Now that is Tony Williams' site, one of the authors of the book I recommended, if you bother to look the Table 2 on the site and especially the last column of it, you see what I meant. MG 151/20 wasn't the most efficient 20mm cannon according to the link you gave.

"Another thing about the MG151 MG151/20 is that they were immune to jamming."

Are you kidding, I have read all Finnish AF combat reports from 1944, and I can say that MG151/20 wasn't immune to jamming. What is your source of that claim. Also germans experienced jammings of MG151/20. I don't claim that MG151/20 was exceptionally unreliable but it surely wasn't immune to jamming.

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Mar 13, 2008)

As a design the Panther was definately the best to see action during World War II. It's early combat reports do not shine a great light upon the machine, but it's mobility, firepower and armour were the best compromise of the war. The Panther G could match anything the Allies had in a straight shooting match and could be used as a 'cruiser' tank for those vital breakthroughs. If the Germans had managed to introduce the Panther II it would have only increased the reputation of the Panther. If we're talking about what could have been though, I would rank the Centurion very close to the top. 

The problem with this argument is that everyone is taking the side of Germany or not Germany. The Germans led in rocket technology. The U.S led in industrial technology. The British led in ASW technology. The Soviet Union led in ... urh...


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 13, 2008)

plan_D said:


> The Soviet Union led in ... urh...



Feeding their own troops to machine guns...... 

I love this thread! TONS of information. I hope it stays on the civil side.


----------



## Juha (Mar 13, 2008)

Hello Plan D
I’d not say that as a design Panther was definitely the best to see action during WWII because its final drive was a part of its design. But I as an ex-Panther fan agree that on paper it looks like a world beater. But it had it weak points, its side protection was rather weak and it burned easily, bit like Shermans at least before the latter got wet storage. And do you have proof that it was capable for 'cruiser' tank role. Best I can recall was the Ardennes operation, 80 km advance in rather difficult terrain but still far cry from hundreds of kilometres fast advances made by Shermans, Cromwells and T-34s. 

And I’m not anti-German, I have high regard on Pz III (after it got 50mm gun) Pz IV, Pz VIE and StuG III; Bf 109E-F and G-10, Fw 190 etc and I have always liked German medium bombers, MG 42 etc

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Mar 13, 2008)

The side armour of the Panther G cannot be considered a major weakness in its design; the turret being 45mm at 25 degrees and the hull (upper) being 50mm at 30 degrees. The only two German tanks that were heavier in side protection are the slab-sided 80mm of the Tiger E and 80mm at 30 degrees on the Porsche Tiger B. 

I don't know any percentages for Panther units servicability but I know the Panther G was an improvement over the D and A in reliability. The introduction of a gearbox oil cooler improved the life of the drive train, while the installation of 3mm armoured ammo bins decreased the chances of an ammo hit. It'd be foolish to think that the Panther, or any other tank, was without flaws but the Panther provides the best compromise in World War II. 

An 80km advance through harsh terrain in the middle of winter is pretty impressive. Nevertheless, the Germans were largely on the retreat when the Panther was introduced so it didn't exactly have the chance to go riding across the Pontic steppes with the Luftwaffe providing full support, plenty of fuel and bucket loads of spares ... all things that the T-34, Sherman and Cromwell had. There's nothing about the Panther G that says it could not have performed any less in a breakthrough than any Allied design. In fact, due to the Panthers ability to actually go head to head with other tanks it probably would have done a lot better. The 6th Coldstream Guards seemed to enjoy a Panthers company... Cuckoo

The Panther was operating in much tougher operational conditions than any Allied machine in 1944 - 1945. And it constantly proved itself to be a deadly weapon of war, and certainly capable in every theatre of operation. No other machine that served in World War II comes close to the true modern MBT - only the Centurion, which did not see action, was close.


----------



## Juha (Mar 13, 2008)

Hello Plan D
IMHO especially turret side armour of Panther was on weak side when compared to what some 15 tons lighter Shermans (63mm) or T-34/85 (75mm) had.

And IMHO Soviet tank vanguards travelled "light", one reason why Soviets preferred simple, rugged designs. But I agree that in frontal fight Panther was excellent. 
And yes I know the story of Cuckoo, the unit history of 6th Guards Tank Br. was the first British unit history I read and it was a great read! Highly recommended book. As is the history of 11th Armoured Div, published probably soon after the war.

But how good Panther was, I don't know, for example the PzBrigades did rather badly in Lorraine in the autumn 44.

And Centurion, my favourit tank, has also rather bad reliability problems. IMHO only US automotive components made possible to realize its full potential.

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Mar 13, 2008)

Modern reliability seemed to be a dream in the 1940s when it came to AFVs. I cannot remember the source but I do remember reading that the T-34 was not as reliable as claimed but it's reputation comes from ease of maintenance. 

As for the Panthers performance, it's hardly surprising that they were on the bad end of the statistics - under supplied with spares, fuel and ammo, under constant bombardment from overwhelming enemy air and artillery and vastly out-numbered. The performance of the Panther in extremely harsh battle conditions does not take away from its design, in my opinion. 

You really have to imagine the Panther in the Shermans, or T-34s position... supported with everything it required, it would have proven without a shadow of a doubt to be the supreme AFV in World War II - in my opinion.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 13, 2008)

German designs were not poor, were not average but were really very good. If Germany had the Panther or Ta 152 or any other of its innovative designs in a quanity as the Allies had Shermans and Mustangs, etc. it might be a slightly different ending. Not gonna argue whats "Best" as thats been discussed in numerous other threads but the premise that the Germans had poor quality or were behind in developement is just incorrect. IMHO.


----------



## Graeme (Mar 13, 2008)

From an article in a Popular Science magazine (September 1945) applauding new armoury for the US Army, titled..*NEW KICKLESS CANNON FOR GI'S*.


----------



## m kenny (Mar 13, 2008)

Njaco said:


> German designs were not poor, were not average but were really very good.



So why did their U-Boats lose the Battle of The Atlantic? Their submarines being the product of this 'very good' system they had?
Is it like the myth of IR Panthers destroying all before them?
Why did the 'superior' German aircraft fail to win The Battle Of Britain?
I suppose Russia was defeated by these 'excellent' tanks in 1941 when they were subject to a suprise attack?

Nope, none of the above and thats when all the excuses come into play to explain away the disaster that was the German attempt to conquer Europe.
They were better at everything - except winning!


----------



## Njaco (Mar 13, 2008)

So their planes were crap, their tanks were crap, their guns were crap and they just happen to stumble into Paris with 'surprise'?

Come on, Germany had many excellent designs and some were not better than the Allies, thats true. And what drove the Allies to make better than Germany's? Could it be the less than average weapons of the Axis? It was because of advancements that Germany made to weapons that drove the Allies to improve theirs.

And as for BoB, they almost did win, it was a change of tactics not the failure of their machines. Of course if there were 1000 He 111s and Ju 88s protected by 800 Bf 109s like the Allies had later in the war they might still be goose-stepping in Piccadilly Circus even now!


----------



## m kenny (Mar 13, 2008)

Njaco said:


> So their planes were crap, their tanks were crap, their guns were crap and they just happen to stumble into Paris with 'surprise'?



Never said that so continue that argument with yourself.



> Come on, Germany had many excellent designs and some were not better than the Allies, thats true. And what drove the Allies to make better than Germany's? Could it be the less than average weapons of the Axis? It was because of advancements that Germany made to weapons that drove the Allies to improve theirs.


Or the other way around?



> And as for BoB, they almost did win, it was a change of tactics not the failure of their machines.



Just as I said. When the uber-weapons were bested the old excuses are dragged out to explain why it was not really a failure.

Are we are being asked to to believe that the Army that relied mainly on horses for transport right up to 1945 was the most technicaly advanced?


----------



## glen (Mar 14, 2008)

German weaponology is of first class, but it dosen't mean that other countries' are inferior.

"IF" issue is pointless. If British and France invade German in 1933, if pershing tank comes out 1-2 years earlier, if P80 is massivly produced, if A-bomb finished in 1944. If wall street didn't provide money to hitler, if US didn't privide air-cool piston enginee to German ,if .... These are useless.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 14, 2008)

IN THE MAIN, German weapons TENDED to be better than the Allies weapons, especially early in the War; I believe this can be traced back to the fact that Germany began re-arming in ernest in 1930-35, whereas the Allies (particularly the Americans) didn't get started re-arming until 1935-1940. The Germans, due to their more martial society, had a 5 year head-start over the Allies in terms of weapons development. However, the Allies quickly caught up once the War started.

In general, however, the Germans did have some superior weapons, particularly in the small-arms department (and, later in the War, armor). There is a reason that Mercedes-Benz still touts "German engineering".


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2008)

_"Are we are being asked to to believe that the Army that relied mainly on horses for transport right up to 1945 was the most technicaly advanced?"_

In some areas, yes. The easiest example is rocket technology where the Germans were far above any other nation in the 1940s. I don't believe anyone has made the statement that Germany was superior in every aspect of warfare. Germanys' inability to provide motorised transport for its entire military is a failure of planning and industrial capacity, not science and technology. 

_"Just as I said. When the uber-weapons were bested the old excuses are dragged out to explain why it was not really a failure."_

Germany losing the war does not affect the ability of its designs. France lost their battle in 1940 but that does not mean the Somua S-35 was anyway inferior to her opponents in the Wehrmacht.

More importantly, there's more to winning a war than the designs of your war machines. Production, strategy, home front, politics and allies all play a part in victory or defeat. 

_"They were better at everything - except winning!"_

Njaco never said that the Germans were better at everything. In fact, no one on this site has ever claimed that the Germans were better at everything. So, do you want to continue that argument with yourself? 

As I've said before on this thread there should be credit where credit is due. The Allies and Axis both provided technology in vast quantities that were equal or superior to their opponents. 

_"German weaponology is of first class, but it dosen't mean that other countries' are inferior."_

Absolutely right. What did the Germans have that could match the B-29? If all the World War II machines had no national ties it'd be easier for everyone to pick the best (even then the aircraft were so close it'd be an argument), but it's all bias. 

Aircraft, for example, we can say that on paper the Ta 152 was the best but in reality it would have had no massive superiority over the P-51H or Spitfire F.21. They'd have been shooting each other down just as much as the Bf 109E was the Spitfire Mk.I


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 14, 2008)

Nobody so far stated that Germany was best at everything so quit "charging" at people...every country had its best of something and M Kenny with all do respect read carefully again the history of WW2 from different sources before you go argument something.First the U-boat thing:
Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril".
If Churchill was afraid of crappy submarines than Great Britain should be speaking German now...
Second the BoB...well Njaco already said what had to be said...
Third the Russia thing:Russians won the war by large numbers and the constant interfering of Hitler in the strategy of the German army and Stalin was warned that Germans would attack.He did nothing and only the fact that Russia is a very very big country and the coming of winter stopped the Germans from annihilating the Red Army.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 14, 2008)

Never made the claim that the best weapons were in Germany. The Allies also had superior weapons but....

Did the Allies have their factories bombed day and night?
Did the Allies suffer large scale sabotage within those factories?
Did the Allies have to scatter their resources instead of keeping it efficently in one spot?

Germany faced all this to their design and production and were still able to produce weapons that could take on the Allies. But sometimes - sometimes - quality is lost in quanity. How many Shermans did it take to take-out a Tiger tank? Lets ask those chaps at Villiers Bocage how bad German tank design was.



> Germany began re-arming in ernest in 1930-35, whereas the Allies (particularly the Americans) didn't get started re-arming until 1935-1940.



You forget the second part of introducing a new design - field trials. While the US and others were re-arming, Germany was getting the kinks straighened out in Spain.

You are correct, Kenny, you never said they were crap, but the tone of your post suggests that they didn't have adequate weapons. That is what I was responding to. And I have no idea how horse transport got in here. If thats a gauge, they ALL should have lost. Poland, Russia, even the UK (musta missed the Land Rover plowing through the jungle of Burma running over those horses and bicycles).

Germany had very high quality weapons - not always the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2008)

I dont believe that anyone said that the Germans were more advanced and superior in everything they built.

In some cases they were more advanced in other cases they were equal and in other cases they were inferior.

I am still trying to figure out your agenda mkenny...


----------



## Juha (Mar 14, 2008)

Much of German weaponry was first class. For ex. their fighters, IMHO LW had the best fighters in 1941-42 and only possible equal to Bf 109E in 1939-40 was Spitfire Mk I. And up to 1945 German fighters were among the very best. LW medium bombers were very good but lacking in defensive firepower. Their navigational aids were the best in early war years. Their submarines, motor torpedo boats and minesweepers were top class and their tank guns from 42 onwards had best AP capabilities. Also many of their AFVs were very good, I specially like Pz IV and VIE and so on.

One of their problems was to make overcomplicated and so expensive to produce weapons because of their drive to technical excellence. For ex. their 50mm mortar was overengineered and I know that many will disagree with this but I still think that Panther was too complicated and too expensive as main medium tank.

Soviet didn’t do that mistake, their 50mm mortar was extreme simple. And usually Soviet infantry weapons were simple and reliable. They understood better than westerners that one main requirement for infantry weapon was ability to function reliable in dirty battlefield conditions. Also their aircraft cannons were very good, light with high ROF. Pe-2 and Tu-2 were good bombers, La-5FN and -7 were excellent low level fighters and Il-2 was rather unique and innovative solution for ground attack, I’m not sure that it was the best solution but at least enemy infantry was rather helpless against it. Also I like T-34 series, it was rather ideal for Soviet needs, simple and rugged. Also it had good HE for 30 ton tank and SU needed tanks that were good to knock out mg-nests and A/T-guns more than Germans from 43 onwards.

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2008)

Njaco, Great Britain had to spread its factories about. Not as much as Germany in '43 - '45 but it certainly had to. I must also point out that Great Britain had the largest amount of motorised transport compared to any other military force in 1939. The motorised units had to be downgraded in the CBI because of the terrain; where motorised units were hinderance, not a help.

Certainly, Juha, one thing the Germans did do was over-engineer. They also had too many designs that were going beyond the drawing board. The Pz.Kpfw IV is often forgotten about but it was the Pz.Kpfw IV that was more likely to be met in battle. Often Allied and Soviet reports claim these to be Tigers, even when Tigers weren't about. 
The Pz.Kpfw IV was a very, very good medium tank. The only problem was the lack of numbers! I have always wondered what their kill ratio was against Allied armour... I certainly consider it a superior machine to the Sherman and T-34.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2008)

plan_D said:


> Certainly, Juha, one thing the Germans did do was over-engineer.





And they still do it today, and not just in technology and manufacturing but also in paper work everything!


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2008)

I'd rather have German over-engineering than the now British non-engineering. And as for paperwork ... well, Britain loses all hers !


----------



## m kenny (Mar 14, 2008)

Konigstiger205 said:


> M Kenny with all do respect read carefully again the history of WW2 from different sources before you go argument something.



Suprisingly I have already done that. Out of curiosity how many British accounts of WW2 do you consult?



> First the U-boat thing:
> Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril".
> If Churchill was afraid of crappy submarines than Great Britain should be speaking German now...



Yes well the point was these 'superior' submarines were beaten. Allied counter-measures completely destroyed the U-Boats. Nothing wrong with being afraid when you have won. And I note the attempt to insert 'crappy submarines' into the debate. I never said that and it is your invention. 



> Second the BoB...well Njaco already said what had to be said...



?



> Third the Russia thing:Russians won the war by large numbers and the constant interfering of Hitler in the strategy of the German army and Stalin was warned that Germans would attack.He did nothing and only the fact that Russia is a very very big country and the coming of winter stopped the Germans from annihilating the Red Army.



As I said earlier _When the uber-weapons were bested the old excuses are dragged out to explain why it was not really a failure_
Every failure is explained away. The only thing that is not admitted is that the Germans could have been outfought.




Njaco said:


> Never made the claim that the best weapons were in Germany. The Allies also had superior weapons but....
> 
> Did the Allies have their factories bombed day and night?
> Did the Allies suffer large scale sabotage within those factories?
> Did the Allies have to scatter their resources instead of keeping it efficently in one spot?



All this, and much more, applied to Russia in 1941-42.



> How many Shermans did it take to take-out a Tiger tank?.



Perhaps you could inform us of this magic figure? Backed by a source I presume?




> You are correct, Kenny, you never said they were crap, but the tone of your post suggests that they didn't have adequate weapons. That is what I was responding to



I responded to a claim that IR Panthers destroyed all before them and what a wonderful example of superior German weaponry they were. The whole claim about IR Panthers is fiction. It is not true. It did not happen. How many of you knew that? Not many I would guess.




> And I have no idea how horse transport got in here. If thats a gauge, they ALL should have lost. Poland, Russia, even the UK (musta missed the Land Rover plowing through the jungle of Burma running over those horses and bicycles).



The least mechanised Army in WW2 was The German Army. As Maurice Micklewhite would say 'not a lot of people know that'.




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont believe that anyone said that the Germans were more advanced and superior in everything they built.
> 
> In some cases they were more advanced in other cases they were equal and in other cases they were inferior.
> 
> I am still trying to figure out your agenda mkenny...



Have not got an 'agenda'. If someone makes a claim that simply is not true (i.e IR Panthers) then my aim is would be to point this out. Find me the post where I said all German weapons were inferior and I will understand what all the fuss is about. The thing that puzzles me is the endless list of excuses as to why Germany did not win WW2. This list never seems to admit they might have been outfought. Total war means using every means at your disposal. If you have the fastest firing MG in the world it is not much good if the poor horse that delivers your ammo is killed 50 miles away by an enemy that devotes a good chunk of its effort to developing a well rounded war machine. An enemy that has a fully functioning Army Navy and Aifrforce. If your airforce has a few magnificent aircraft it is not of much use against an enemy that has thousands of magnificent aircraft. A few dozen Panzer Divisions fully mobile and hundreds of Infantry Divisions who mostly walked everywhere is of little help when your enemies Infantry Divisions are fully mobile and have more tanks than your Panzer Divisions.
There is a lingering belief that if only the war had lasted a little longer all the fabulous German wonder weapons would have come on stream and beaten the Allies. For this to be true you have to ignore the A Bomb.


----------



## glen (Mar 14, 2008)

> Aircraft, for example, we can say that on paper the Ta 152 was the best but in reality it would have had no massive superiority over the P-51H or Spitfire F.21.



hmmmm. please tell me what's the advantge of Ta152H over P51H and spitfire XIV on paper?

Does anyone know the vast technolgy export from Britain/US to German Before 1939?


----------



## Juha (Mar 14, 2008)

Plan D
"The Pz.Kpfw IV was a very, very good medium tank. "

Yes, it was. In 44-45 maybe a little light in protection but with good firepower. And above all tank which served with distinction from the first day of war to the last. Really amazing achievement. IIRC some Matildas served in 45 on some Pacific islands and maybe some BT-7s or was that -8s to 1945 but those were secondary types by then and Matilda was a newer design. So Pz IV’s record was unique, and speaks much of the quality of its design.

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2008)

I wasn't saying that the Ta 152 was the best piston engined fighter, I was saying that it could be argued (and it has been). Admittedly the point wasn't laid down effectively, but the point was simply that no matter how many numbers you throw about the late war piston aircraft were all practically on the same field of play (all reaching the zenith of piston fighter development), glen.

Juha, I believe the Matilda II was the longest serving Allied tank in World War II - including both frontline and second line duty. The Matilda was still in frontline operations in Ukraine 1944; if not '45 in the Eastern Front as well as CBI. But that's not important ... as you say the Pz.Kpfw IV record speaks for itself... if only, if only...the Germans had produced more and made the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 sooner. Imagine the damage done on the North African wastes in the early Afrika Korps days and the Eastern Front. The T-34 would not have had that nice time in '40 - '41. 

I agree that the Pz.Kpfw IV was not armoured well, but I don't think it was too much trouble given the firepower of the machine that enabled it stay out of ...too much... trouble. It was never intended for infantry support, after all. Well ...the KwK40 L/43 versions weren't anyway.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 14, 2008)

Well if Germany was so weak and its technology so bad how did they manage to conquer almost the entire Europe and then hold back the entire world for so long?Wikipedia states that the Allies lost over 14,000,000 men and that the Axis lost over 8,000,000 men...if Germany didn't had some advantages how in Gods name did the Allies lost so many men since they had superior numbers over Germany?
Kenny you asked how many Shermans did it take to take out a Tiger...of course you have to know the story of Michael Wittman that attacked the famed Desert Rats with one Tiger:"In the Battle of Villers-Bocage, he destroyed over two dozen Allied vehicles including several tanks; and single-handedly held up the advance of the entire 7th armoured Division until his tank was knocked out and abandoned."
You want more:"On 8 August 1944, a single Tiger commanded by SS-Unterscharführer Willi Fey from the 1st Company of sSSPzAbt 102, engaged a British tank column, destroying some 14 out of 15 Shermans, followed by one more later in the day using his last two rounds of ammunition. sSSPzAbt 102 lost all of its Tigers during fighting in Normandy, but reported 227 Allied tanks destroyed in six weeks."


----------



## glen (Mar 14, 2008)

> Never made the claim that the best weapons were in Germany. The Allies also had superior weapons but....
> 
> Did the Allies have their factories bombed day and night?
> Did the Allies suffer large scale sabotage within those factories?
> Did the Allies have to scatter their resources instead of keeping it efficently in one spot?



LOL, Allies suffered a lot from the collaboration with Nazi before WWII.



> Du Pont-GM Nazi collaboration, according to Snell, included the participation of Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) in one, very important arrangement. GM and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint subsidiary with the giant Nazi chemical cartel, I.G. Farben, named Ethyl G.m.b.H. (now Ethyl, Inc.) which, according to Snell: "provided the mechanized German armies with synthetic tetraethyl fuel (leaded gas). During 1936-39, at the urgent request of Nazi officials who realized that Germany's scarce petroleum reserves would not satisfy war demands, GM and Exxon joined with German chemical interests in the erection of the lead-tetraethyl plants. According to captured German records, these facilities contributed substantially to the German war effort: 'The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce lead-tetraethyl is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans (Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil) had presented us with the production plants complete with experimental knowledge. Without lead-tetraethyl the present method of warfare would be unthinkable.'" (7)



Nazis in the Attic
It was Britain and US who wanted to rearm hitler germany, without the capital and technology from allies, Nazi would lose much military ability from the begining.



> Well if Germany was so weak and its technology so bad how did they manage to conquer almost the entire Europe and then hold back the entire world for so long?Wikipedia states that the Allies lost over 14,000,000 men and that the Axis lost over 8,000,000 men...if Germany didn't had some advantages how in Gods name did the Allies lost so many men since they had superior numbers over Germany?



Allies lost over 14,000,000 men.......how many russian? 

With the help of allies, hitler germany became one of the most mighty/modern countries in the world, but still not as good as U S in ecomomics and technology fields. .Would you check the US lose during WWII? Britain lost 1% of her population and US lost only 0.5% while Germany lost over 10% and russian lost more! 

Britain industrialist,Arthur James Balfour admited on Oct. 1933: German will go to another war again? I am not surprised at all...believe that we must rearm germany in oder to watch out for Russian(bolshevik).....
For germany and russian, WWII was disastrous, anglo-american industrialist/financier/government should answer for the tragedy too.


If U S fights against the whole world, it's hard to say which side will win while Nazi only lasted 3 years after Pearl Harbor. German manage to conquer almost the entire Europe.......LOL US managed to "conquer" Britain and germany/Italy/France/North America/ south Anerica/ asia .........except eatern europe and russian in 1945.


American capital and technology also played a important role in soviet's industrialisation before WWII. It is said that 2/3 russian technology are from US at that time. For example ,T34's chassis. However, this is not opposed to such fact: soviet is the first launching artificial satellite. If I say duo to russian artificial satellite or better tanks in WWII, russian technology is better than US, does it sounds reasonable?


----------



## m kenny (Mar 14, 2008)

Allied ORO Teams who analysed the tank wrecks in Normandy found that the PzIV was worse than a Sherman as regards penetrability. A Sherman wreck averaged 1.63 hits and 1.55 penetrations but the PzIV numbers were 1.2 hits and 1.2 penetrations.
82% of Shermans burnt when penetrated, 80% of Tigers/PzIV's and 63% of Panthers.
The samples were high on the Sherman numbers but low of the German side (110 tanks: 8 Tigers, 82 Panthers and 20 PzIV) but you get the picture. PzIV/Sherman were roughly equal.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2008)

That doesn't show anything that we cannot already grasp from the armour values of the Pz.Kpfw IV. Just reading the paper values of the Pz.Kpfw IV vs. M4 show it to be thinner armour plate. However, that does not show it's effectiveness in combat given the fact that the KwK40 was a superior tank gun to the Shermans 75 and 76mm weapons. 

All this infatuation with the burning of tanks has always confused me. The vast majority of tanks burnt when their armour bins were penetrated there's not much anyone can do to stop a tank from exploding and burning except stopping the ordnance getting through the armour. 

Comparing the M4, T-34 and Pz.Kpfw IV shows that they are all certainly on a level playing field to an extent...however, I believe given the reality of mobile warfare - the Pz.Kpfw IV was the superior design. The T-34-85 would undoubtedly been the superior machine if fitted with German equipment. All three were excellent tanks, in my opinion ... fitted their roles perfectly...it just so happens that the Germans seemed to be able to fit their panzers to the needs better than the W.Allies did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2008)

m kenny said:


> Have not got an 'agenda'. If someone makes a claim that simply is not true (i.e IR Panthers) then my aim is would be to point this out. Find me the post where I said all German weapons were inferior and I will understand what all the fuss is about. The thing that puzzles me is the endless list of excuses as to why Germany did not win WW2. This list never seems to admit they might have been outfought. Total war means using every means at your disposal. If you have the fastest firing MG in the world it is not much good if the poor horse that delivers your ammo is killed 50 miles away by an enemy that devotes a good chunk of its effort to developing a well rounded war machine. An enemy that has a fully functioning Army Navy and Aifrforce. If your airforce has a few magnificent aircraft it is not of much use against an enemy that has thousands of magnificent aircraft. A few dozen Panzer Divisions fully mobile and hundreds of Infantry Divisions who mostly walked everywhere is of little help when your enemies Infantry Divisions are fully mobile and have more tanks than your Panzer Divisions.
> There is a lingering belief that if only the war had lasted a little longer all the fabulous German wonder weapons would have come on stream and beaten the Allies. For this to be true you have to ignore the A Bomb.




I dont believe that anyone has argued any different. Peoples arguements however are valid.

Germany was outfought in the end.

Germany was outnumbered in the end.

What is wrong with these facts?


----------



## m kenny (Mar 14, 2008)

Konigstiger205 said:


> Kenny you asked how many Shermans did it take to take out a Tiger...of course you have to know the story of Michael Wittman that attacked the famed Desert Rats with one Tiger:"In the Battle of Villers-Bocage, he destroyed over two dozen Allied vehicles including several tanks; and single-handedly held up the advance of the entire 7th armoured Division until his tank was knocked out and abandoned."



Wrong. Wittmann did not attack 'alone'. He had several Tigers with him. He did not hold up an Armoured Division but 1 Squadron of 3rd CLY.
The whole Division consisted of:
3rd CLY
1st RTR
5th RTR
8th Hussars.

4 tank Regiments each of 3 Squadrons or 12 Squadrons. Wittman attacked one of these Squadrons (A)and was forced to retreat by the actions of the second (B)

The Division also had 3 Battalions on Infantry.
Thus Wittmann did not 'single handed' hold up an entire Armoured Division.
SS 101 and Pz Lehr engaged the 7th AD at Villers Bocage. 
Truth rarely matches fiction.





> You want more:"On 8 August 1944, a single Tiger commanded by SS-Unterscharführer Willi Fey from the 1st Company of sSSPzAbt 102, engaged a British tank column, destroying some 14 out of 15 Shermans, followed by one more later in the day using his last two rounds of ammunition. sSSPzAbt 102 lost all of its Tigers during fighting in Normandy, but reported 227 Allied tanks destroyed in six weeks."



Of course he did. 11th AD lost 23 Shermans that day. The Division had 4 tank Regiments in action. 23rd Hussars, 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 3rd RTR and 2nd Northamptonshire Yeomanry with 200 tanks between them.
Will Fey. Alone in an open field. Attacked by bombers who disabled his tracks. With both MG's destroyed and a crew member wounded. Close to several other Tigers who never took any part in the action he destroyed 15 of the total of 23 Shermans lost in the whole days fighting. He did this as well as destroying carriers, trucks, armored cars and other vehicles that were 'impossible to tally'.
Not only that but he ran out of ammo and had to send a crewman over to the nearby Tigers (remember they did not help him though they were in sight) to borrow 2 rounds of ammo. Just as the crewman got the ammo to Willy the very last Sherman charged at the Tiger. Will fired a round and missed! With his very last round he aimed again and knocked out the very last Sherman!!!!!
The story is so full of holes. Only the gullible would take it at face value.
Like Fey's claimed late war award it is full of ambiguity


----------



## m kenny (Mar 14, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> .
> 
> Germany was outfought in the end.
> 
> ...



Nothing. They are both true .


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 14, 2008)

Okay, just to throw a little more gasoline on the fire, I'm going to quote from _Putnam's History of Aircraft: Aircraft of the Second World War_, a chapter in that book entitled _Armament Diversifies_, by R. Wallace Clarke, to back up my above claim as to why the German armament was somewhat more advanced than the Allies':

The strength and ingenuity of the German armament industry since the turn of the century has provided its armed forces with weapons *which often seemed one jump ahead of the opposition* (my emphasis). In the First World War the aircraft, guns, and synchronising gear supplied to German aviators often gave them an advantage over their Allied opponents. When the Armistice was signed in November 1918 there were several new types of aircraft guns about to come into service. One of these was the revolutionary Gast gun, firing 1,600 rounds a minute; another was the STB Szakats 20mm aircraft cannon. The Dreyse model 1918 was an advanced rifle-calibre gun which was covertly developed after the war; it was to have a great influence on the design of later aircraft and ground service guns, the most important being the MG 15 and the MG 17 of 1934. These weapons, produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig, were recoil-operated, rifle-calibre guns, the free-mounted MG 15 being fed by a 75-round saddle-type magazine. The fixed MG 17 was belt-fed and was fired electrically by a solenoid. Designed in 1932, these guns were to be fitted to most Luftwaffe aircraft in 1939.

The general trend of aviation armament was towards larger-calibre guns with more striking power. As early as 1933 Rheinmetall commisioned a talented designer, Louis Strange, to design a 13mm automatic gun suitable for air use. This gun, the Rheinmetall-Borsig Model 131, was adopted by the Luftwaffe as the MG 131. It was in mass production by 1939, and was widely used on fighters and as a bomber defence weapon. Electrically fired, it was chambered for a special round fired at 750m/sec.

It was generally agreed that the ideal fighter gun would be a 20mm shell-firing weapon, and all the European powers adopted guns of this calibre for aircraft use. *All such guns in use at the outbreak of the war were descended from the German Becker cannon of 1916* (my emphasis). The Swiss Oerlikon concern produced three automatic 20mm guns in 1935, *all based on the Becker*. One of these, the Type F, was adopted by the Luftwaffe in 1935 as the MG FF. It was manufactured under licence by Rheinmetall-Borsig, being used as a fixed fighter gun and as a movable weapon for bomber defence. It was operated by a blow-back action and fed by a 60-round drum.


----------



## m kenny (Mar 14, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> The Swiss Oerlikon concern produced three automatic 20mm guns in 1935, *all based on the Becker*. One of these, the Type F, was adopted by the Luftwaffe in 1935 as the MG FF. It was manufactured under licence by Rheinmetall-Borsig, being used as a fixed fighter gun and as a movable weapon for bomber defence. It was operated by a blow-back action and fed by a 60-round drum.



Following the same logic (i.e.we invented it thus all derivatives are ours) can we say that the Panzer was a British invention and thus no credit accrues to Germany for its use?
Wasn't the Bismark a development of the Dreadnaught?


----------



## Njaco (Mar 14, 2008)

Wow, I still can seem to grasp exactly what the arguments are. Ken and Glen, you sound like Germany was bringing a knife to a gunfight.



> The least mechanised Army in WW2 was The German Army. As Maurice Micklewhite would say 'not a lot of people know that'.



Can somebody then explain the concept of 'Blitzkreig' to me?

I can't argue about IR Panthers as I have absolutely no knowledge about that area. But I have read and I will try to find where its stated - by IIRC Sherman tank crews - that it usually took about 3 or 4 Shermans to effectively knock out a Tiger or Panther. Memory is a faulty source so am not going to argue the point. (BTW It was I that brought that up, not Kenny).



> However, this is not opposed to such fact: soviet is the first launching artificial satellite.



And they did this all by their little lonesome?



> Find me the post where I said all German weapons were inferior and I will understand what all the fuss is about.


well what is this then?


> So why did their U-Boats lose the Battle of The Atlantic? Their submarines being the product of this 'very good' system they had?
> Is it like the myth of IR Panthers destroying all before them?
> Why did the 'superior' German aircraft fail to win The Battle Of Britain?
> I suppose Russia was defeated by these 'excellent' tanks in 1941 when they were subject to a suprise attack?.....Nope, none of the above ......



Sure seems to me your'e saying that German weapons are inferior.

If this isn't true, then again I have a hard time trying to grasp your position. Many countries relocated factories - granted - but with as much trouble as the Germans were facing? This argument can go back and forth and like I said, for particulars on each weapon there are a multitude of threads that deal with these single issues. But as a whole Germany had excellent and in some cases advanced weaponery than any other country.

Name me one BB that the US, UK or Russian had that Germany had to mobilized almost its entire fleet to stop? Germany had the Bismarck.

Name me one aircraft became so famous that it attached a name to its speciality that the US, UK or Russia had? The Stuka wasn't the name of the aircraft but it became so, kinda like xerox.

Name me one aircraft that when introduced bested all that Germany had - so much so that secret ops were made to capture one and bring it back for evaluation. Fw 190 did just that. And if you want I'll give you the Mosquito for that one.

Name me a tank that when introduced on the battlefield, it had such an impact that it became a blanket term for almost any enemy tank. The Tiger caused quite a stir in North Africa and thereafter. And on this I'll give you the T-34 and KV-1 but somehow just ain't the same thing.

These so called 'inferior' weapons had to have something that shook the boots of the Allies.


----------



## m kenny (Mar 14, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Can somebody then explain the concept of 'Blitzkreig' to me?



Why? Do you dispute that as late as 1944 the bulk of German transport was horse drawn. Its a simple yes or no.






> Sure seems to me your'e saying that German weapons are inferior.


No I say that German weapons were not all superior and better than Allied ones. However seeing as they Battle of the Atlantic was lost by Germany it would appear the Allied Anti-Submarine tactics were better than the German submarines. Would you agree?



> . But as a whole Germany had excellent and in some cases advanced weaponery than any other country.


And the opposite is true. Many Allied weapons were superior to German ones.



> Name me one BB that the US, UK or Russian had that Germany had to mobilized almost its entire fleet to stop? Germany had the Bismarck.



So you think Britain should have sent out just one ship to fight a duel with the Bismark? Just like Germany sent a couple of Regiments to attack Greeece and Yugoslavia? Get real. The Bismark was sent to the bottom on her first voyage. The pride of the fleet lasted a few days in action. So good were the results obtained by this unsinkable ship that her sister spent the rest of her life hidind in fiords and never daring to put to sea



> Name me one aircraft became so famous that it attached a name to its speciality that the US, UK or Russia had? The Stuka wasn't the name of the aircraft but it became so, kinda like xerox



I do not know any country that calls it dive bombers 'Stukas'. Remind me who they are?.

.



> Name me a tank that when introduced on the battlefield,...................



Stop right there. Where did the word 'tank' come from?


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 14, 2008)

Njaco said:


> These so called 'inferior' weapons had to have something that shook the boots of the Allies.



Thats what I've been trying to say from the start but nobody listened to me.Its funny how this thread ended..from a couple of videos on youtube to an argue on who got the best of everything in WW2...


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 14, 2008)

m kenny said:


> Stop right there. Where did the word 'tank' come from?



So did the Germans invented the submachine gun...assault rifle too...that doesn't mean that no other country can use those words or develop their own projects....


----------



## Njaco (Mar 14, 2008)

In answer to you're first question, I'll have to say no but.....
you said "The least mechanised Army in WW2" and I believe Blitzkreig was based on an army being mobile. As far as motor transport, I can't argue.



> No I say that German weapons were not all superior and better than Allied ones



I'm not either. Never said all German weapons were.
What I said was "_as a whole Germany had excellent and in *some* cases advanced weaponery than any other country_". Which does lead to the next conclusion


> And the opposite is true. Many Allied weapons were superior to German ones.


. I think I've said that several times.



> However seeing as they Battle of the Atlantic was lost by Germany it would appear the Allied Anti-Submarine tactics were better than the German submarines.



Explain to me how tactics equates into superior weaponery? IMHO those are two different things. And if Germany lost because of incompetance in tactics - that I'll agree. But what does that have to do with execellent German design?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 14, 2008)

Quite the active topic we have here . . . . .




Njaco said:


> I can't argue about IR Panthers as I have absolutely no knowledge about that area. (BTW It was I that brought that up, not Kenny).



As for the "IR Panthers", there is no evidence that any were used in their intended role (nightime assault); the few that were captured were being used during the day as "regular" assault tanks. The following is from George Forty's book _German Tanks of World War Two "In Action"_: "On 31 July 1945, 21 Army Group, Tech Int, produced a report on German infrared equipment as fitted to the Panther. It was based on the examination of four Ausf G's which had been equiped with IR, plus one captured crew member. The report explains how the four tanks had been at Fallingbostel with the *Panzer Jager Lehr und Versuchs Kompanie* (author's emphasis). However, they had not been withdrawn northwards with the soft-skinned vehicles on the formation of _Kampfgruppe Uhu_, but were comitted in a daylight role to the battle east of Minden. Three were subsequently burnt out and the fourth badly damaged. Their IR equipment comprised a screened car-type headlamp with a 12 v 200 w transmitter lamp; an IR receiver gunsight for use with the main armanent; a gun elevation control device; a power source (12 v batteries), vibrator unit (?) and a transformer. The codename for the equipment was _'Puma'_, according to a crew member interrogated; however, another PW called it _'Sperba'_ (sparrow-hawk). The equipment had to be lined up and checked against a source of light at 600 m before going into action. The tank commander alone could traverse, elevate, or depress both the screened headlight and the receiver, by means of special hand grips. The tank commander only could see where he was going or spot a target, for the rest of the crew worked 'blind' on orders over the intercom."



> But I have read and I will try to find where its stated - by IIRC Sherman tank crews - that it usually took about 3 or 4 Shermans to effectively knock out a Tiger or Panther. Memory is a faulty source so am not going to argue the point.


 
Actually, it was closer to 5; official US Army documents state that they estimated that it took approximately five (5) Shermans to destroy a Panther (not a Tiger, though it's probably about the same).


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 14, 2008)

m kenny said:


> Have not got an 'agenda'.



Of course you have, I know your stuff for half a decade, on every board its like waving the red carpet in front of a maddened bull to even mention that any German made stuff in WW2 could possibly have any quality whatsoever.. Mentioning the Panther in particular has similiar effect as pulling the trigger - you explode immidately.

At least be honest to yourself about your acute germanophobia, and spare us from it please... and especially from these ultra-stupid arguements like you are throwing around lately. 

They are offense against any intelligent being..

One more thing. Systematically bullying members for opinions which existance you appearantly cant even bear will probably get you kicked from this board extremely quick. This is a friendly place, with a friendly tone, and most of us would want it to remain the same.


----------



## m kenny (Mar 14, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Actually, it was closer to 5; official US Army documents state that they estimated that it took approximately five (5) Shermans to destroy a Panther (not a Tiger, though it's probably about the same).


Their is no such 'Official US Army Document'. It is much quoted but never referenced. It can not be quoted becuase it does not exist. The whole 5:1 exchange ratio is the product of wish fulfilment.
Of course if you have figures showing a 5:1 exchange rate I would be extremely interested in seeing them.



Kurfürst said:


> Mentioning the Panther in particular has similiar effect as pulling the trigger - you explode immidately.



.

Someone quotes the old myth about IR Panthers and I simply tell them that it is all fiction. Is that a problem? You know the stories about the Comets being destroyed is made up but perhaps you would prefer I did not mention it?
Then we could wait until it is brought up again and we can all sit and wonder at the amazing German technology.



> One more thing. Systematically bullying members for opinions which existance you appearantly cant even bear will probably get you kicked from this board extremely quick. This is a friendly place, with a friendly tone, and most of us would want it to remain the same.



Oh dear. If you don't like the message shoot the messenger!



> They are offense against any intelligent being..



At least I didn't offend you then..that's a relief!

There is also the fact that the German Enigna codes were broken by the Allies. They were good at some things, average with a lot and poor with others. Sort of like ordinary. Just like normal humans worldwide


----------



## Udet (Mar 14, 2008)

Mr Glen:

Your opening statement on this thread was a very interesting piece of summary.

Can you elaborate further about that comment of yours affirming the best rocket was the Katyusha? I wasn´t really aware of that.

And about the Spitfires...a midget submarine "claimed as sunk" is surely battle record enough to elicit the claim the Mk. 21 is better than the Ta 152 H?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2008)

Well since this is obviously not going to remain civil. Case closed...


----------

