Was Nazi Germany really technologically more advanced

>>3383901
They pretty much pioneered early modern rocketry, I mean it was a massive waste of time and resources for them, but they did

File: GIRD.jpg (156KB, 564x387px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 564x387px

>>3383901
Only in certain areas like small arms, jet engine, submarines or strategic rockets.

>>3383910
So did Russians, but they had certain issues (like sending their best engineer to GULAG) due to Stalin's autism. During WW2 Germans had better strategic rockets, Russians had better MLRS.

>Jet engines
>Enigma
>Bismark

>>3383901
>i mean their tanks weren't as good as the t-34s or even the french tanks

Really faggot?

>>3384091
>Enigma
>Bismark (sic)
>good in any way

>Jet engines
>somehow uniquely German
>or even WW2 tech

>jewish physics

>>3383901

WW1 Germany had a bigger technological advantage over its enemies than WW2 Germany did. Although it might be more accurate to say "parity" than advantage.

>>3384091
What about the Bismarck was groundbreaking?

>>3384108
They weren't, the Germans were using flat front armour until the fucking Panther, what made their tanks any good was the ability to communicate and coordinate with eachother, the infantry, artillery and close air support. The Panzer III and IV were in need of constant up gunning

>>3384186

It was the largest and fastest battleship-class constructed in Europe but other than that there wasn't much special about it. In some ways, it also had some weird "retro" features, like the fact that it used twin turrets for the main battery instead of triple turrets. The 3 x 3 design is the most efficient layout in terms of maximizing firepower relative to tonnage. It's probably an inevitable result of the fact that Germany had been out of shipbuilding game for so long, and they didn't really have time to catch up before the war began.

File: powdered_toast_man.jpg (6KB, 228x186px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 228x186px

>>3384169

I want to understand them, I really do. But I can't.

>>3383910

>They pretty much pioneered early modern rocketry.

Americans like Robert Goddard did.

>>3384211
>In some ways, it also had some weird "retro" features
It was a backwards design in almost every way, other than a very decent RADAR and good guns.

>>3384166
Enigma got broken, Bismark was a shit battleship that was over-weight, the Americans and British had jet engines and better ones than the Germans (it is no surprise the Russians dumped the shit German jet engines and got British ones post war, lmao)

>>3384503
Not an argument

The tanks did have some technical advancements, such as the new turretless tank hunters/destroyers. Other than that their tanks weren't so special apart from uniqueness.

>>3384483

It also had very good compartmentalization which is something that it inherited from WW1 German dreadnoughts which also had very good compartmentalization for their era. This is why it took so damn long for the ship to sink, although the armor wasn't good enough to provide the vital parts of the ship with adequate protection, meaning that the ship was rendered ineffective long before it actually went under.

>>3384211
It literally is not the fastest nor heaviest battleship to come out of Europe. It's matched almost 1:1 speed and weight wise with the Italian Littorio-class and the French Jean Bart is faster yet a similar weight additionally the HMS Vanguard is heavier

>>3384692
>>3384692

The Littorio had a lot shorter range but you're right about the top speeds being the same. The Bismark was still a bit heavier though in terms of full load tonnage. Vanguard didn't came until after the war was already over.

>>3384723
He's right though. Bismarck is nothing special. The only reason its famous is because its the only German surface ship that manages to destroy a iconic yet obsolete British capital ship in an even duel. Yet, it like many other German ships still falls victim to the proud German naval tradition of scuttling your ship when faced with adversity.

File: Bismarck-firing-on-Hood1.jpg (55KB, 1181x682px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1181x682px

>>3384780

It's not just that she destroyed the Hood, it's that she did in with ONE HIT. It's true that Bismark wasn't the most efficient design, but it was still a seriously formidable warship.

>>3384179
britain and french made huge advances in tanks though didn't that?

>>3384809

I still think that Germany had a much better shot at winning WW1 than WW2. The Germany of WW2 was much weaker relative to its enemies.

>>3384211

The German designers though that increasing the number of turrets would mean that one turret getting knocked out reduces the firepower of the ship less.

Also the reloading machinery for the Bismarck could not be placed behind on the gun like on other battleships (has to do with the semi-cased ammo), so they had to be placed alongside the guns, which increases the minimum distance between the barrels. Without making the beam too wide, 2 15 inch guns was the max they could fit in the turret.

>>3384808
Hood had been hit multiple times by both German ships at the Denmark Straits. The Germans got extremely lucky considering the angle and range they were shooting at and hit the magazine. Also the damage the Bismarck suffers at Denmark Strait later helps leads to her demise

>>3384808
The Hood was a WW1 battlecruiser
whose concept is basically flawed to begin with (a ship that has the guns the caliber of battleship but the armor of cruisers)
so she has nothing too be to proud of
also HMS Prince of Wales was pressed without a shakedown

>>3384863

>Also the damage the Bismarck suffers at Denmark Strait later helps leads to her demise

From planes, not from enemy warships.

>>3384864

The HMS Hood was the pride of the Royal Navy.

>>3384878
Doesn't change the fact that it is an inherently flawed concept and a shit ship

>>3384868
What fucking difference does it make if ships or planes dealt the death blow? Because of the damage at the Denmark Straight she couldn't lose the British ships tailing her she was too slow and was leaving a massive oil slick everywhere she went?

>>3384895

I don't think you understand just how influential the Hood was for future warships. Pretty much all the 1930's era battleships drew inspiration from her.

>>3384901

Again, that was from planes, not ships. All battleships turned out to be quite vulnerable to air attack, that wasn't something that was exclusive the Bismark. This is why battleships are no longer made. Trying to condemn the Bismark for something that was a problem for all battleships in WW2 is ignorant.

>>3384903
Hood had massive issues from the get-go. It's deck armor was severely obsolete even for 1916. It was hilariously overweight and had a highly stressed structure. Not to mention it hadn't gone through the planned refit when it faced Bismarck

>>3383901
They had some niches:
>Rocketry
>High speed flight research

But for every advantage they had, there were flaws that would prevent them from being decisive. Rocketry was a waste of resources because, while the world's first ballistic missile and operational rocket fighter may be fancy and all, they aren't effective enough to be strategically significant given their cost. Their high speed flight research was interesting and very useful to many postwar designers - see their swept wing research that directly influenced planes like the Saab 29 and B-52 - but it never made a showing on an operational aircraft and it was never going to get to a point where it could be truly decisive due to Germany's inability to make a good transonic wind tunnel.

>>3384918
Actually the damage that causes the Bismarck to sink is primarily from surface fire and torpedos from cruisers. Although a torpedo from a Swordfish is what causes the steering gear damage

>>3384970
I'd like to add that the sinking of the Bismarck does serve to prove that battleships were retardly robust as the two British ships responsible for most of the shelling almost ran out of ammo before being sure that Bismarck couldn't reach port. And if we look at the rest of the evidence for WW2 this holds true. Most battleships were sunk by aerial attack, submarines or in Roma's case was destroyed by a glide bomb

>>3383901
A technological advantage in tanks wouldn't really mean much. The land war in all its forms was only ~33% of German production. There wasn't a single year that production of aircraft alone dropped below 50%. It wasn't even until the end of '43 that tanks and spgs overtook navel vessels in munitions output.

>>3384822
in firm agreement here, WW1 germany was in much better shape, but it's not a very low bar (multi-front war and geography).

>>3384091
Enigma was invented long before Hitler took power, brainlet

>>3384947
They had some pretty interesting infra-red shit too, the Vampir is sort of underappreciated but only became practical post-war

>>3385360
Ah yeah. That really seemed to be the case with pretty much any breakthrough they made. Their discoveries or inventions had potential, but they lacked some critical pieces of technology that would have made them immediately useful.

>>3385360
Yanks had IR in field use by the end of the war.

>>3384169
>ancient Jewish technology

>>3383901
/his/ should limit the amount of WW2/Nazi/Hitler threads to just ONE at a given time.

>>3386507
America was about 6 months behind on it, both designs weren't very practical though considering the weight and huge fucking battery you had to lug around

>>3384903
Lmao no.

The Japanese did their own thing. The Nagatos weren't influenced by the Hood, and neither were the Yamatos.

The North Carolina class was basically clean sheet in order to fit into the London Naval Treaty weight limitations. The South Dakota and Iowa took after that.

The Royal Navy's KGV class were also clean sheets to a degree.

The Bismarck was an enlarged and faster Bayern class.

The Vittorio Venos had their unique armor belt and TDS design. Also had ABX turret layout.

The Richelieu had the French doing a clean sheet to conform with the London Naval Treaty.

The only ships the Hood influenced were the American/Japanese battlecruisers that got turned into carriers.

>>3383901
In some regards they were more advanced (or rather: more innovative - after all, nothing Germany had wasn't something that the Allied side was unable to reproduce) in others they weren't.

What is true however is that Germany put more emphasis on tactics, because the German military held the (in hindsight wrong) belief that a war of the scale of WW1 (which was the model for WW2) could be won by fighting more efficiently than the enemy. At such scale the strategy becomes more important though. On the other hand: given the geo-strategic and geo-political disposition of post-WW1 Germany there was no other way but to focus on tactics in order to win (assuming one starts a war).

>>3384864
>whose concept is basically flawed to begin with (a ship that has the guns the caliber of battleship but the armor of cruisers)
YOU FUCKING TAKE THAT BACK RIGHT NOW. Battlecruisers are a lot cooler than those fat fuck dreadnoughts.

File: Yamato1945.png (2MB, 4177x2026px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4177x2026px

>>3384091
*blocks your path*

>>3386886
From what? The Hotel lobby?

>>3384918
Bismarck took a shell in her fuel tanks that mission killed her. That was from PoW. The swordfish got her later.

Hood was fully equal to the Yamato, as was Bismarck and Iowa

>>3387189
But they didn't have BEEHIVE SHELLS or a bretty gud film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcBW2r8-abk

>>3384947
you're that >>3384361 faggot aren't you? When i asked for a citation for your claim of their "fundamentally flawed" high speed research you came up with
>But the problem was the wind tunnel data - according to my one professor
Which is not a very credible source.

As for the topic on wind tunnels, when i visited a research center for fluid phenomena they showed a supersonic windtunnel and explicitely said
>yeah this one is from Nazi-Germany when they were designing the V2
Which is confirmed by
https://books.google.be/books?id=QxHlBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&source=bl&ots=TzxHHO1C9f&sig=5DoHpbTw78aaA1KKhf4piv903Os&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic8KGF36fWAhVSblAKHSM2BIkQ6AEINTAF#v=onepage&q&f=false

And considering they were able to hit London they were probably accurate enough, but this is for the supersonic case. When searching for WWII transonic windtunnels they indeed mention the results were inaccurate due to wall reflections and choking over the airfoil
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/271130.pdf page 34

Which got bypassed by using drop tests which proved to be accurate. So they did have accurate data for transonic flow and it's safe to say the were "really technologically more advanced than the allies during the war" as to answer OP's question, or at least in this specific area.

>but it never made a showing on an operational aircraft
I believe that's open for interpretation. I'd say the Me 262 and the Komet were pretty significant contributions but indeed not a result of their high speed research, only the planes that pressed the urge to properly investigate it, which was indeed way too late to have any impact on the outcome of the war.

>>3386474
battleships weren't much of a breakthrough desu, the American navy would rock bottom the Bismarck quickly just based upon carrier tactics.

>>3384169
>>3384234
>dem motherfucking JEWS refuse to recognize vrill power because only aryans can wield it! purge all the jews from the physics department and we'll be flying saucers with our minds in no time

>>3387366
Neither the Me 262 nor the Komet had swept wings for high speed flight. The 262's sweep wasn't enough to provide any benefit and was purely to adjust cg. The Komet's was to provide the aircraft pitch authority since it lacked a conventional tail.

>>3387437
sources are contradicting each other senpai, some say it had an initial sweep angle of 35° but had to be reduced to 18° for the right cg, while others claim the angle purely was a result of cg requirements (implying an initial straight wing).
Still, the me 262 was faster than the American and British counterparts, or at least according to wikipedia

>>3383901

They had a lot of really advanced technology, but it didnt always trickle down to useful stuff

Nazi scientists were some of the best in the world at that time though

>>3387366
They did have supersonic wind tunnels, and that was never really an issue for anyone. The problem (for everyone at the time, really) was transonic tunnels, which are vital for any serious work on anything that can't just power through the transonic envelope - so pretty much anything that's not a bullet or rocket.

>>3387729
>Nazi scientists were some of the best in the world at that time though
Like Einstein, Franck or Meitner?

>>3387094
The Swordfish didn't destroy her

People who want to play up german tech are really just trying to get around how well the wehrmacht performed despite technological limitations (especially logistical). When it comes to weaponising technology, taking technical advances and turning them into practical and mass-producible objects, germany lagged behind for most of the war.

>>3383901
>Was Nazi Germany really technologically more advanced
absolutely not
>their true innovation comes mostly in military tactics than technology
it was just continuation of previous Prussian strategy
>>3383910
Goddard and Tsiolkovsky did
>>3384091
>jets
Guillaume,Griffith, Whittle came up with jets before Germans
>enigma
cracked by Turing
>Bismark
btfo by obsolete biplanes
Japanese and American battleships>Bismark anyway
>>3387729
Nazi scientist were picking their noses while Jewish scientists were busy building nukes and computers for Americans

>>3387877
>it was just continuation of previous Prussian strategy
at the strategic level yes, entirely. wehrmacht dominance was entirely tactical, which while commendable of them is not something that wins wars all on its own.
Y'know, give them their credit where credit is due, while also noting they lost for a good reason, which was being terrible at everything else.

>>3383901
They had an edge in some areas, a disadvantage in others.

>>3387877
Just because certain concepts weren't invented by the Germans doesn't mean they couldn't have a technological advantage in X. But go ahead and show me the allied equivalent of the V2

>Nazi scientist were picking their noses while Jewish scientists were busy building nukes and computers for Americans
The fact that a buttload of German scientists ended up working for NASA is just a mere coincidence right?

>>3383901
in some areas yes

>>3388203
And the fact they were shit was also a coincidence?

>>3388229
(You)

File: boom.jpg (19KB, 479x275px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 479x275px

>>3388203
>show me the allied equivalent of the V2

>Reusable
>Can carry more payload
>More reliable
>More accurate
>More bang for your buck

>>3388203
V2 wasn't really an advantage so much as it was a hindrance.

>>3388501
that wasn't the point

File: 6789078907890.jpg (177KB, 640x516px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 640x516px

>>3388203
>Allied equivalent of V2
What could have been...

It depends.

They had rockets and jet advancements. But the British had real working radar and higher tech aircraft, same for the Americans with the addition of a fucking nuke. The most low tech would probably be the USSR but if tech also = ingenuity then they're equal to the rest of the allies.

I'd argue they had the lowest mass-producible (therefore useful) tech of all sides in the war.

File: GuWRD_001.jpg (46KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1024x512px

>>3389656
The USSR is an interesting case because of the workarounds they found for shortcomings in areas like jets. Because of the lack of a working jet engine late in the war, there were a couple different things the Soviets tried as a stopgap:
>rocket/ramjet fighters like the BI
>mixed rocket/prop fighters like the La-7R
>various motorjet proposals culminating in the MiG I-250

But if we're going to shoot for lowest tech, that'd be either Italy or Japan. Italy couldn't even produce competitive aircraft engines by the time they left the war in 1943, let alone a real jet fighter.

>>3384534
I was under the impression that German drednought design was actually superior to British design, that's why the Battle of Jutland actually ended up in a German tactical victory- British Strategic one. As they ultimately would never have as many ships as the British, losing them in normal engagements was an awful idea. And thus turned them to convoy raiding.

>>3389919
Jutland ended up the way it happened because the British battlecruisers left the safety doors open in their turrets and got themselves blown up.

>>3389612
Cute birb

>>3390910
>birb
Hi r*ddit

>>3390833

Jutland ended up the way it happened because by the time battlecuisers were introduced, contemporary rangefinding and gun stabilizing technology had already made it quite practical for a battleship to hit another battleship-sized target from 10+ miles away, regardless of whether it was moving at 20 knots or 30. So stripping off all the armor so it can go faster turned out to be a really bad idea.

The British battlecruiser Invincible got blown in half at the Battle of Jutland. Only 6 of the 1032-man crew survived. The shell that destroyed the ship was later discovered to have gone right through the faceplate of the central main turret, detonating the magazine beneath it. That was the most heavily armored part of the entire ship.

A fucking fire door isn't going to stop something like that.

>>3393515
>A fucking fire door isn't going to stop something like that
no shit it's not gonna stop a shell retard, it would stop the subsequent explosion from destroying the entire ship and not just the turret and surroudings.

>>3384186
Nothing really, it's a very overrated ship. Richelieu-class battleships beat it in almost every category except maybe RoF, and of course it can't hold a candle to USN BBs.

>>3384169
Joke all you want, ignoring Jewish science was a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

>>3386708
Just wanted to point out the Littorio-class' torpedo defense system was so shit most historians now agree that is was actually less effective than no torpedo defense at all, because it created a structural weakness.

Allies had
>Nukes
>Programmable electronic computers
>Centimeter RADAR
>Reliable jet engines that were copied after the war even by the Russians

Germans had
>Rockets that caught fire a lot
>Jet engines that caught fire a lot
>Jerry cans

>>3389919

> German drednought design was actually superior to British design

This part is debatably not true. The 4 Queen Elizabeth class battleships took on a much larger squadron of German Battleships and Battlecruisers, and all of them made it out. Warspite survived concentrated fire for over 15 minutes while dealing with a jammed rudder.

>>3394004

Yes, but they still did their own thing instead of "Copying the Admiral class"

>>3394328
Post war allies didn't mind they caught fire alot.

>>3383901
Yes they were, fuck Russia.

>>3387877
>Nazi scientist were picking their noses while Jewish scientists were busy building nukes and computers for Americans

Quit outting yourself, and those Jews were all traitors to America.

>>3394743
>Jews were all traitors to America

go away stormfag

>>3394749
>On June 7, 1949, Oppenheimer testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, where he admitted that he had associations with the Communist Party in the 1930s.[139] He testified that some of his students, including David Bohm, Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz, Philip Morrison, Bernard Peters and Joseph Weinberg, had been Communists at the time they had worked with him at Berkeley.
>The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened a file on Oppenheimer in March 1941. It recorded that he attended a meeting in December 1940 at Chevalier's home that was also attended by the Communist Party's California state secretary William Schneiderman, and its treasurer Isaac Folkoff.

lol

>>3394749
>For some twenty years, Teller advised Israel on nuclear matters in general, and on the building of a hydrogen bomb in particular.[89] In 1952, Teller and Oppenheimer had a long meeting with David Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv, telling him that the best way to accumulate plutonium was to burn natural uranium in a nuclear reactor. Starting in 1964, a connection between Teller and Israel was made by the physicist Yuval Ne'eman, who had similar political views. Between 1964 and 1967, Teller visited Israel six times, lecturing at Tel Aviv University, and advising the chiefs of Israel's scientific-security circle as well as prime ministers and cabinet members.[90]

>In 1967 when the Israeli nuclear program was nearing completion, Teller informed Neeman that he was going to tell the CIA that Israel had built nuclear weapons, and explain that it was justified by the background of the Six-Day War. After Neeman cleared it with Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, Teller briefed the head of the CIA's Office of Science and Technology, Carl Duckett. It took a year for Teller to convince the CIA that Israel had obtained nuclear capability; the information then went through CIA Director Richard Helms to the president at that time, Lyndon B. Johnson. Teller also persuaded them to end the American attempts to inspect the Negev Nuclear Research Center in Dimona. In 1976 Duckett testified in Congress before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that after receiving information from "American scientist", he drafted a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Israel's nuclear capability.[91]

Man, it's almost as if Hitler's claims that the Jews were untrustworthy were founded.

>>3394799
What's wrong about Teller advising Israel?

>>3394841
Teller was an American who swore secrecy and allegiance to the US, but then gave his knowledge to a foreign power which could be used in turn against the US. Israel is not America.

>>3383901
>electronically guides a missile at you
Yes.

>>3383901
Their tanks were better than the allies in terms of head on battle field performance yes, but they didn't have enough of them, or enough fuel, supplies, logistics, support, etc.

So it made little difference on the grand scale.

Of course it made all the difference when a panther destroyed your sherman before you even see him.

>>3394882
>Israel is not America.
It's American fob.

>but then gave his knowledge
He did so rather openly, if USA had problems with it, they would not allow him to do so.

File: IMG_0413.jpg (108KB, 739x551px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 739x551px

>>3394923
>if USA had problems with it, they would not allow him to do so.

The Jews own the US, this is why LBJ gave them almost everything they wanted even at the expense of the Vietnam War.

>>3383910
>early modern
i don't think you know what that means

File: rocket.jpg (14KB, 245x206px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 245x206px

>>3396273

>>3383901
The Nazis invented the flying saucers.

>>3394758

> HUAC
> Actually producing anything of value

>>3386708
What did the Lexington class battlecruisers take from Hood?

File: Shermans v Panthers.jpg (127KB, 680x1060px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 680x1060px

>>3394915
>Their tanks were better than the allies in terms of head on battle field performance yes,
Not really, no.

>>3383901
Did they have better technology in only certain areas, but in every field it was shown, German technology was still very much in the testing/prototype stage with rushed designs and production for the war effort.

the V1 and V2 rockets were groundbreaking in overall design, but ineffective as actual weapons of war due to how unreliable they were at actually hitting their targets, and the extreme cost in money and material that went into them.

The Me 262 also broke ground, but jet technology wasn't reliable enough to see any combat effectiveness, with many of the 262's just exploding before or during takeoff. Germany produced 1,400 of the jet aircraft, but only around 200 ever saw combat while the rest were plagued with mechanical troubles.

Everywhere else, German war machines were rather comparable to Allied counterparts, even the later developed Panther and Tiger Tanks could still lose to the Soviet tanks after their upgrade to 85 mm guns.