German Weaponology

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just before WWII, the "allied countries" provided a looot of capital@technology 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.
Click to expand...

You really don't know Spitfire21's story.



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.
 

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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


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.


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?...
 

Attachments

  • empic.jpg
    244 KB · Views: 166

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


 
Njaco said:
German designs were not poor, were not average but were really very good.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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!
 
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'?
Click to expand...

Never said that so continue that argument with yourself.

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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".
 
"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
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
German tank duels 1945
Replies
14
Views
3K
Jerrybandit67
J
A
German Halftrack. Stalingrad Survivor.
Replies
4
Views
2K
Snautzer01
Germany vs Japan
Replies
2
Views
729
ThomasP
T
Stalag Luft III: Did the Germans Know About the Escape
Replies
3
Views
300
KLS&C 85
German Luftwaffe Fighter Staff Conference 1944
Replies
8
Views
2K
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register