Technology and Science from 1901 to 1945

[parsifal]

Kenny

Ive given this some further thought, and have some suggestions as to how you need to organize your rebuttal



Not true. If anyone has data that leads them to believe this claim then it is up to them to produce it. There simply were not enough Allied tanks produced to give a 3:1 or 5:1 ratio. It is an old chestnut but it has no connection to reality.


Well, even though you say the sources provided are not credible, they are still sources. You need to find sources that either prove the sites that mention these ratios are not credible, or provide evidence that of itself disproves the claim, for example, the numbers of Allied tanks lost to the numbers of German tanks lost, or something similar

The Achtung Panzer article is full of errors and supposition. It even ends by mentioning none of its 'facts' are confirmed. There was no Platoon of Comet tanks destroyed by IR Panthers. The second link is a retelling of the Achtung Panzer story so is of no value.
The third link plainly states that none of the IR Panthers saw action in the Bulge.

It might have errors, I agree, but its a source. If you want to expose the innaccuracy of the Achtung Panzer site, you need to provide better source material that shows that



Perhaps you could tell me how I can produce 'evidence' that no IR Panthers served in the West in 1944? Would it not be much much easier for those saying they did to name the Units, dates and results of any such usuage?

The site I have produced does say what you are looking for, but then you simply dismiss its credibility by saying it is not accurate. That is not a proper rebuttal at this stage, all that can be said is that it is an opinion. As I said above, you need to find a source that contradicts the claims being made in the German sourced material, and then demonstrate its superior credibility

Regards

Parsifal

 

[m kenny]

Well, even though you say the sources provided are not credible, they are still sources. You need to find sources that either prove the sites that mention these ratios are not credible, or provide evidence that of itself disproves the claim, for example, the numbers of Allied tanks lost to the numbers of German tanks lost, or something similar

Forgive me but you just said there was a 3:1 or 5:1 ratio of losses. You gave a ratio without a single figure to back it up nor any source where you say this ratio is mentioned. Thus you have not provided anything for me to rebut.
What numbers would you like?
The Normandy loss totals were some 3000 Allied v 2000 German. Is that good enough?

It might have errors, I agree, but its a source. If you want to expose the innaccuracy of the Achtung Panzer site, you need to provide better source material that shows that

Perhaps one way would be to point out that claims a whole platoon of Comet tanks were destroyed by IR Panthers is fiction. As the Comet was quite new at the time all the losses are well documented. Only 26 were knocked out in the entire war. The option now is open for any believer in the IR Panthers to provide the confirmation for these Comet losses and destroy my credibility.
I urge you to heed the words of caution contained in this very same article:

"One combat report is by a veteran of 1st SS Panzer Regiment of 1st SS Panzer Division "LSSAH", who states that few Panthers equipped with infrared night-vision devices possibly from 116th Panzer Division were used in 1944/45 during the Ardennes Offensive. In April of 1945, Panthers equipped with IR equipment (solution B) joined Panzer Division Clausewitz and in mid April near Uelzen destroyed entire platoon of British Comet cruiser tanks. Also on April 21st of 1945, same Panthers overran an American anti-tank position on the Weser-Elbe Canal.Most of those reports can't be confirmed and are questionable.

Remembering the above you can compare:
"One combat report is by a veteran of 1st SS Panzer Regiment of 1st SS Panzer Division "LSSAH", who states that few Panthers equipped with infrared night-vision devices possibly from 116th Panzer Division were used in 1944/45 during the Ardennes Offensive."

With this from another of the links you provided:

"Nightfighting Panthers in Action

In summer 1944 the Panthers of 3.Kompanie, 24th Panzerregiment, 116th Panzerdivision, were equipped with UHU on the battle/excercise-area BERGEN, and actually trained the use of the night fighting concept SPERBER. Hitler planned the mission of this Kompanie to be during the Operation WACHT AM RHEIN (Battle of the Bulge) and actually some squads were transferred to the western front, but never saw action there."

The site I have produced does say what you are looking for, but then you simply dismiss its credibility by saying it is not accurate.

I simply tell you that this source (that admits it is 'questionable') is exactly that, questionable. I then use one of the other sources you provide to show that these claims are indeed questionable-or to put it bluntly wrong.

That is not a proper rebuttal at this stage, all that can be said is that it is an opinion. As I said above, you need to find a source that contradicts the claims being made in the German sourced material, and then demonstrate its superior credibility

It is proper. I say that the story about a platoon of Comets being destroyed is false. I put my neck on the line by saying this. You can be sure there are people reading that who would love to discredit me. All they have to do is find confirmation of the Comet losses and I am busted.

I say no IR Panther served anywhere in the West in 1944. Again it must be fairly simple to find info on the Units and actions of these phantom IR Panthers and again I am busted.
So far the proponent of this fiction has failed to find anything to confirm his claims and has simply stopped replying. I am sure that is not a coincidence.

 

[Juha]

Hello Soren
Quote:"Well we know what the tests concluded Juha, that the Type XXI was far ahead of its time."

Well, I don't claim that you are wrong, but who are we all? I haven't see the test reports, from where you have read them? And Clay Blair, who had served in US submarines and had been insideat at least one XXI just after the war and had wrote books on US and German submarine wars wasn't very impressed on XXI. Not saying that Blair's opinion was right but at least he is a professional who had much studied the subject.

Quote:"There's no comparison Juha, the hydrophones on the Type XXI were state of the art."

Now from where you has read on R-Class hyprophones so that you can make the comprasion or in fact claim that there's no comparision? Now R's system was state of the art on its time, technology goes ahead, but that submarine has state of the art hydrophones isn't in itself revolutionary thing. XXI wasn't the first submarine equipped with state of the art hydrophones.

Juha

 

[Glider]

Well I don't know about being 'all' but I consider the Type XXI to be far ahead of its time. A number of post war submarines were based on the type XXI design and its principles including the first nuclear submarine Nautilus.
This link may help.
German Type XXI submarine Summary

 

[TempestMKV]

Well I don't know about being 'all' but I consider the Type XXI to be far ahead of its time. A number of post war submarines were based on the type XXI design and its principles including the first nuclear submarine Nautilus.
This link may help.
German Type XXI submarine Summary

Well I don't know about being 'all' but I consider the antisubmarine weapon of allied to be far ahead of its time. A number of post war antisubmarine weapon were based on the WWII allied design and those principles including today's weapons.

 

[Glider]

Well I don't know about being 'all' but I consider the antisubmarine weapon of allied to be far ahead of its time. A number of post war antisubmarine weapon were based on the WWII allied design and those principles including today's weapons.

Totally agree with you. British RN anti Submarine weapons were well ahead of most nations with Limbo and Squid seeing service before the end of the war. That said, it doesn't stop the Type XXI being the best Submarine.

 

[Juha]

Hello Glider
Well the text to which You gave the link begin "Type XXI U-boats, also known as "Elektroboote", were the first submarines designed to operate entirely submerged, rather than as surface ships that could submerge as a temporary means to escape detection or launch an attack. "

Now R-Class from 1918 was already designed to operate mostly underwater and was optimized for underwater speed and because of that it wasn't very good surface boat. Of course it lacked the later Dutch innovatio, the schnorkel, but the idea was same. But the main reason I'm not so sure on how revolutionary XXI was is that I know very little on I-200 Class. I shall find more on that when I'll have time, maybe after retirement.

Juha

 

[Glider]

The Type XXI was more than just a design for high underwater speeds. It had the latest technology was capable of firing blind at targets based on its sensors. Active and passive radars that could be raised alowing the submarine to stay underwater.
Its torpedo's could be reloaded automatically alowing it to fire all its torpedos in 20 mins (I think).
The Japanese had submarines that had similar performance to the Type XXI and the USA had technology that could match the Type XXI in some areas but the Germans put the two together in one package.

The R Class were designed for a similar role but if I recall were difficult to control. Had they worked then I would have expected the design to continue into WW2. It didn't which tends to support the idea that it was an idea ahead of its time.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

I don't think most scientifically literate people (of whom I am - barely - one) would argue that germany was not tremendously advanced in both pure science and technology during the period.

However, when it comes to war, and especially industrial war, I would like to point out that economic, efficient and swift production is ALSO a technology...and, perhaps, THE technology to have in an industrial war.

 

[TempestMKV]

The Type XXI was more than just a design for high underwater speeds. It had the latest technology was capable of firing blind at targets based on its sensors. Active and passive radars that could be raised alowing the submarine to stay underwater.
Its torpedo's could be reloaded automatically alowing it to fire all its torpedos in 20 mins (I think).
The Japanese had submarines that had similar performance to the Type XXI and the USA had technology that could match the Type XXI in some areas but the Germans put the two together in one package.

The R Class were designed for a similar role but if I recall were difficult to control. Had they worked then I would have expected the design to continue into WW2. It didn't which tends to support the idea that it was an idea ahead of its time.

1)science/technology
2)requirement
3)capital and time

These are the most important factors in weapon developement, since axis and allied tech were nearly on same level, either of sides could produce 1st or super weapons ahead of its time which were most needed and worthy of investment.


With regard to submarine and antisubmarine weapons in WWII, both side had the their own advanced equipments. I believe UK and USA would had manufactured revelutionary sub if they attained as much importance to submerine as germans, vice verse.


Therefore, Type XXI proved nothing, this can't be the proof of so called "overall axis technology advantage" which didn't exist at all in WWII.

 

[TempestMKV]

I don't think most scientifically literate people (of whom I am - barely - one) would argue that germany was not tremendously advanced in both pure science and technology during the period.

I don't think most scientifically literate people (of whom I am - barely - one) would argue that germany was tremendously advanced in both pure science and technology during the period.

Please see my post in 1st page.

So called germany tremendously tech/science advantage could only mislead those people who are lack of science.

In my opinion, after WWII, the Financial Oligarch of UK and USA just fabricated the germany tech advantage in order to cover their collaboration with Nazi before WWII.
They controlled the media, and suceeded in distorting history in some way.

 

[parsifal]

whoa

Hold up there trigger....allied collaboration with the axis before wwii????As I recall, it was the Russians who allied themselves with the enemy in 1939, with their nonaggression pacts during the collapse of Poland. And this was not a passive collaboration, as events such as Katyn, the occupation of Moldovia, the occupation of the baltic States, and the war with Finland all demonstrate.

The allies were guilty of appeasement with Germany, but it is a bit rich to say that appeasement is equivalent to collaboration.

In the case of China, her very survival depended on the continued support of the Allies during the pre-1941 period. The Russians here provided the bulk of aid, but significant amounts were also being delivered by the westrern allies as well

 

[timshatz]

In my opinion, after WWII, the Financial Oligarch of UK and USA just fabricated the germany tech advantage in order to cover their collaboration with Nazi before WWII.
They controlled the media, and suceeded in distorting history in some way.

Dude, that is way out there. I mean one step away from "little green men abducted me" stuff. While capitalist nations are interconected via a financial system, finance is just one part of the structure.

Did the US and UK collaborate with Germany before WW2? Yes, that is part of Western Economies and their interdependence. But not to the extent the Soviet Union did. And the SU was never part of any financial oligarchy. Further, far more testing and training was done with the SU than was ever even dreamed of with the West.

Germany was more technically advanced in plenty of ways, but not all. Plenty have been listed on this board. Jet Power, Anti-Tank Weaponry, Assalt Rifles were all ahead of the Allies. Sonar, Radar, RDF, Heavy Bomber, were not. Germany needed to fight and win a short war. It did not have the resources, much like Japan, for a long one.

But to think the West made up this story to cover some kind of greedy capitalist co-op is a fairytail. Banking is an industry as susceptable to the rules of free markets as any other industry. The only difference is the commodity they work with is cash.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Dang, I posted a long reply to Tempest...and I lost the connection and had to log in again, and so lost my post...

Just to say, briefly, that if you look at the financial history of the Nazi Party, especially in the period 1930 to 1933, you will see that it was all done with GERMAN capital - over 95%.

'nuff said!

 

[Juha]

Hello Glider
my point is that Type XXI maybe wasn't SO revolutionary than some think because of if there had not been Types XXI and XXIII I-200 and Ha-200 Classes would anyway have changed the submarine design same way as happened after WWII. Those Japanese classes were also designed to operate underwater long time, having snorkels for ex, and had high underwater speed. IIRC USN fleet boats had masthead radars, freezers and probably even a shower and very good sonar etc. The most important thing in XXI and I-200 Class was the idea, which in fact was return to the roots, Holland type submarines were optimized for underwater performance but very soon submarines development went towards boats which had better and better surface performance .

On R-Class, yes it was difficult to control at high underwater speed because its controls were purely mechanical, IIRC. IIRC there were some discussion in RN in 30s to build an improved version but nothing came on that. Probably because British remembered the problems and as RN wrongly concluded that with ASDIC in hand it could handle U-boats as just a guess they also concluded that there would not have been much use of dedicate hunter-killer sub.

Juha

 

[Burmese Bandit]

IMHO the type XXI was highly evolutionary, but not revolutionary. Much of her new designs were either taken from other designs, or a natural outgrowth of existing design. Now an angled deck for a carrier, or turbines instead of pistons to power battleships...THAT would be revolutionary!

 

[Glider]

.

In my opinion, after WWII, the Financial Oligarch of UK and USA just fabricated the germany tech advantage in order to cover their collaboration with Nazi before WWII.
They controlled the media, and suceeded in distorting history in some way.

Hi Tempest
Are you seriously saying that the Me262, to take a good example wasn't far more advanced than anything the British or Americans had?

It wasn't Media that designed and built the Me262.

 

[timshatz]

It wasn't Media that designed and built the Me262.

It was the Financial Oligarchy! Those guys do everything!

 

[Marcel]

Hi Tempest
Are you seriously saying that the Me262, to take a good example wasn't far more advanced than anything the British or Americans had?

It wasn't Media that designed and built the Me262.

I would not say far. The Meteor was maybe less advanced but not that much far behind and earlier in service. The only innovative of the Me262 over the Meteor was the swept wing IMHO.

 

[Glider]

I would not say far. The Meteor was maybe less advanced but not that much far behind and earlier in service. The only innovative of the Me262 over the Meteor was the swept wing IMHO.

Again I agree with you. The engines were similar but its the lack of a swept wing that made the Meteor a dog in Korea when coompared with the F86 and Mig 15.