Riddle me this: If the Germans were such amazing engineers then

>>30940714

>If the Germans were such amazing engineers

Germany had many brilliant engineers. However, the majority fled the country after the Nazis took over. The few that did not (or didn't get out in time) had some clever ideas but not the time or resources to bring them to fruition. Hitler's obsession with developing "wonder weapons" rather than trying to nail down the fundamentals didn't help matters either.

>>30940714
>>30940809

I would also like to point out that Hitler actively impeded the STG-44 from achieving widespread usage within the Wehrmacht.

Yup, only werhaboos believe that germany had a technological superiority. The few advanced things that they did have were only better on paper, with terrible safety and reliability (IE kraut vs britbong jets).

>>30940714
>why did this country fighting a multi front war with no real allies struggle so much

>>30940714
Because they were transitioning to UFOs, but they went to war before they were ready.

>>30940714

>except on on Tiger iteration

You do mean Panther I trust.

[spoiler]Mauser sights are shit[/spoiler]

>>30940833
This. The rationale was sound (kinda). He wanted to keep logistics simple so that when ammo was sent, the troops got ammo they needed.

>>30940878
This quite a bit.

>>30940847
It was hit and miss. The Germans had some innovation but not a monopoly on it. The fighters and tanks were top tier, but other areas (like infantry small arms as >>30940833 implied) not so much.

Even so they had a fucking amazing k/d ratio compared to the allies. There is a lot that goes into this.

>>30940714
>Riddle me this: If the Germans were such amazing engineers then why is the following true:
Because they weren't. They had a select few areas where they were more advanced than the Allies - namely high-speed flight and rocketry - but for the most part they were no further along (or even well behind) than the Allies techologically.

The meme of Nazi super science comes from
>everyone liking a good underdog story
>Operation Paperclip trying to take what expertise they could from the conquered country
>the fact that every single crazy design ever conceived was released to the public after offices and factories were overrun.

>>30940847
There is an exception to this, their AT guns were top tier, especially in the later part of the war. (1942 on wards)

I'm not saying everyone else had shit guns, but the Germans consistently made good ones. Long barrel 75mm's in PAK's and KwK's (Early L40's and late L48's) had good performance against practically everything.

Also, no sloped armor on a Panther? What?

>>30940909
Tiger II P and Tiger 105mm had sloped armor

>>30940714
>bombers
Probably resources and lack of design expertise. Russia was the same case, iirc the largest bomber they fielded in ww2 was the Pe-8.

>sloped armour
The T-34 was the first one to majorly implement this, and after fighting against them Germany developed the Panther tank with sloped armour.

>plexiglass
Not sure why this would even be a relevant point, really. They had bulletproof glass all the same on their aircraft.

>tank gun calibre
The only ones that fielded guns significantly higher calibre than Germany was Russia. UK capped out with the 17 pounder (not counting howitzer tanks) at 76mm, America with their 90mm. Russia on the other hand went with 100mm, 152mm and 122mm guns for the purpose of destroying fortifications. For most of their large calibre tanks, destroying enemy strongpoints was their priority in design, with killing tanks coming second.

>>30940968
Pretty much this, plus the german military WAS more advanced than anyone at the start of the war.

By the time war was in full swing the allies controlled a monopoly on raw matieriel and any advances germany came up with were limited in scope.

Strategic bombing wasnt a real thing yet when germany designed its bombers, and by the time the american B-17 and following designs were proving how brutally effective it could be it was too late to suddenly replace an entire airforce with updated bombers.

>>30941060
>17 pounder (not counting howitzer tanks) at 76mm

Churchill AVRE w/ 290mm spigot gun

>>30940847
>>>/reddit/

File: 1402176518178.jpg (55KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 560x407px

>>30940714
>shittiest bombers, even worse than Jap ones like the G8N1 while although a prototype, was battle ready

Germans did fuck up with not having a long range bomber to reach past the Urals, although comparatively only the Americans and British had bombers that were not ass.

>refusal (or perhaps inability?) to incorporate sloped armor except on on Tiger iteration

German tanks that were not prewar designs had sloped armor.

>lack of plexiglass on ANY of their planes such as with the P-51 or spitfire

Germany used plexiglass in its canopies.

>tank gun calibre cap at 105 mm while other nations were popping out 120 mm tanks

The long 88 was the most capable anti-tank gun of the war. 75mm-90mm was the norm for late war tanks and the Soviet 122mm guns were artillery guns stuffed into tanks.

>>30941085
That comes under the blanket of "howitzer tank", because you're sure as shit not using it against enemy tanks when your maximum range is barely the other end of a soccer field.

>>30941121
But anon, you could use it as a normal tank in Men of War Assault Sqaud

>>30941022
The what?

>>30940878
THIS

>>30940714
>prove me wrong
>don't facts like they were fighting a 1v3
pro tip: you can't

>>30941084
>Pretty much this, plus the german military WAS more advanced than anyone at the start of the war.
In no way was the German military more advanced. Its gear was either much worse (tanks) or slightly better (fighter) or on par (Everything else). The worst part about the German army was that it was pathetically motorized, having about half the motor vehicles that the French had, despite having a larger army. Compared to the BEF (which was admittedly a tiny professional force), German army was practically medieval.

>>30941084
>Strategic bombing wasnt a real thing yet when germany designed its bombers,
B-17's first flight was 1935, same as Ju87.

>>30941060
>sloped armour
>The T-34 was the first one to majorly implement this....

Wrong.

There was other tank models before WW2 that had "sloped armour".

Both the French Char B1 and S35 tanks had sloping front armor... but the French government at the time with WW1 thinking generals kind of bungled their usage.

>>30940945
>Even so they had a fucking amazing k/d ratio compared to the allies.
Depends on your standard for "fucking amazing" I guess.

>>30940714
1. They never fully developed any heavy bombers as they believed that emphasis on light-medium bombers would be more effective, mostly for costs. A massive industrial effort is required to mass produce heavy bombers, they were fighting a massive ground war over most of Europe. It also helps that Weaver, the man in charge of the heavy bomber program, died.

2.Most countries lacked the sloped armor with an angle comparative to the T-34.

3. I'm not sure why they didnt use plexiglass. They might not have had the capacity through their chemical industry to mass produce it. Only the US army air corps ever fielded any significant number of aircraft with plexiglass canopies.

4. The Jagdtiger had a gun of a caliber of 128mm. Also most of the >90mm guns of the war were either low velocity or suffered some serious draw backs. This is a terrible way to judge a countries engineering ability.

>>30941556
Someone who thinks WoT/Warthunder paper tanks were real.

File: dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd.jpg (223KB, 1204x832px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1204x832px

>>30941918
well fighting both the Americans and British Commonwealth powers with only a quarter of their strength the majority of it on the Eastern Front. They per country lost about the same and yet if you combine all the forces Germany Faced on the Western Front its incredible. Not including the Eastern Front Kill Death Ratio

>>30940714
>shittiest bombers, even worse than Jap ones like the G8N1 while although a prototype, was battle
ready

A couple of reasons, the main one is doctrine, blitzkrieg emphasized CAS over strategic bombing, so the Luftwaffe focused its resources towards designing and building Schnellbombers or fast medium bombers. Additionally Germany's aviation industry just can't mass produce large four engined strategic bombers. So really its a decision based on doctrine and industrial limitations.

And a minor but still noteworthy reason, the main advocate for strategic bombing in the Luftwaffe Walther Wever died in 1936.

>>30942109
>A couple of reasons, the main one is doctrine, blitzkrieg emphasized CAS over strategic bombing
Germany did not have a doctrine of blitzkrieg. They did not have strategic bombing because they couldn't afford it.

File: tumblr_mermbraC0w1r3eyedo1_540.jpg (88KB, 540x416px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 540x416px

>>30942106
http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
here is a cool video guide

>>30940833
>I would also like to point out that Hitler actively impeded the STG-44 from achieving widespread usage within the Wehrmacht.
Did they even have 5 million StG-44 to hand out?

File: charlemange3.jpg (268KB, 800x420px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 800x420px

>>30942291
not after Hitler impeded it's progress

>"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked." - Herman Goring


And when his bombers did reach Glasgow they had a tiny bombload and half of them would have been shot down on the way, lack of a 4 engine bomber was a big mistake.

>>30941084
>plus the german military WAS more advanced than anyone at the start of the war.
Literally no, on every single front.

The Heer was hilariously unmechanized despite the reputation of the Panzers, and most men were reliant on horses to get supplies around. Their artillery was lacking, particularly in heavy pieces, where they were forced to use Czech guns for sieges.

The Luftwaffe was hampered by poor doctrine and a failure to develop high-powered piston engines that would prevent them from producing a serious strategic bomber. And strategic bombing very much was a real thing when Germany designed its bombers - Walther Wever was pushing for the development of a strategic bomber from the minute the Luftwaffe reformed in 1933, but the rest of Luftwaffe high command fell for the dive bomber meme and cancelled his work after he died in a plane crash. Most of the designs that would go on to be the mainstays of the Allied bombing effort would either be flying or well under development around the same time the Luftwaffe developed their bombers. Select aircraft like the Bf 109 had some novel features like the automatic slats, but they were no more advanced than the Spitfire with its elliptical wing or the early Mustangs that were flying around the same time.

>>30941834
See, "first to majorly implement this". The T-34 was constructed with severe sloping on all sides of the tank. Not just the front happening to be slightly sloped, or one half of the front being sloped.

>>30940714
>shittiest bombers, even worse than Jap ones like the G8N1 while although a prototype, was battle ready

there were quite good bombers like the He 111, Ju 88 and the Do 17. The problem was German leadership decided the bombers had to be tactical, which means only to support the advancing landforces. Göring interfered personally in order not to make the He 177 four engined.

>refusal (or perhaps inability?) to incorporate sloped armor except on on Tiger iteration

sloped armour is overrated, if the T-34 wouldn't have had sloped armour, the 37mm still would hot have penetrated, the 88mm did regardless (needless to say any projectile not hitting in a 90° angle hits sloped armor) - the initial Soviet 45mm failed to penetrate the Panzer III at a reasonable distance too...

>lack of plexiglass on ANY of their planes such as with the P-51 or spitfire

plexiglass was used, some late Fw 190s had bubble canopies too, Germany was plagues by material shortages though

>tank gun calibre cap at 105 mm while other nations were popping out 120 mm tanks

you're talking about post WW2 tanks? The Leopard 1 used the standard British 105mm, the Leopard 2 had 120mm from the beginning whereas the Abrams got German designed 120s as upgrade...

File: Boeing_Model_299_crash[1].jpg (351KB, 1741x1026px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1741x1026px

>>30942741
>And strategic bombing very much was a real thing when Germany designed its bombers

In Germany's defense, when Wever died in 1936 the only four engine heavy bomber in development - the Boeing model 299 - had had its only prototype crash and had just been canceled due to the high unit cost. The USAAF managed to order a series of 12 'prototype' aircraft due to a legal loophole. No one else was even looking at four engine bombers - not the Brits, not the French, not the Russians*, not the Italians or the Japanese. It's difficult to blame them for lacking the USAAF's unique foresight.

*Before you bring up the Pe-8, know that it has the same gross weight as a B-25, a little more than half that of the B-17. The fact that it has four engines has more to do with Russia's inability to construct high powered radial engines than anything else.

>>30942106
When outnumbered and fighting defensively you are far more likely to kill more people. Hardly impressive and is common as long as the outnumbered defenders aren't retarded or completely outmatched.

>>30941022
>WoT/Warthunder

OUT!

>>30940714
Initially, at least, the Germans were so impressed by the success of stuka dive-bombing in the Spanish civil war that they decided it was the perfect compliment to blitzkrieg tactics. They focused their development of bombers on medium/dive dual bombers such as the ME-410 and JU-88. Dedicated medium bombers such as the DO and HE series of bombers were also developed as a way to perform early high-alt bombings. The Germans never really got into the doctrine of carpet bombing using heavy bombers like the US and England, especially as later the Germans were fighting a defensive war and couldn't spare the resources for new heavy bombers or even carpet bombing runs on Allied cities. So I guess in essence, at first they didn't have a reason and then they didn't have the resources for it.

>>30940907
Do you even know what UFO stands for?

>>30942291
>the cost and complexity of the stg-44 limited its widespread usage.

>>30940847
>ie cucked brits
be happy the US and Russia saved you from being assraped you crumpet eating cuck

>>30940714
Because they weren't.

They couldn't make sloped armour for years because they've had problems with welding it properly for instance. They did realise the advantages of it perfectly though, it was just impossible for them to do.

>>30943090
Not inherently true when the enemy has a massive logistical advantage and immutable superiority in the air and in support artillery.

>>30941989
>They never fully developed any heavy bombers as they believed that emphasis on light-medium bombers would be more effective, mostly for costs
He-177 Greif
A disaster btw.

>>30940714
Spoiler alert: reasons that had nothing to do with engineers.

>>30940714
This fucking edgelord anti-wehraboo shit is annoying, I hate people who do it just like I hate the slavering fanboys of X, Y, or whatever the fuck else. Stop.

Now to answer your question:

>>shittiest bombers
They actually had -amazing- early war bombers, a lot of people look at WWII as a whole but don't realize that in 1939 Poland had the most advanced bomber, the PZL.39, in the entire world. Flash forward just five years and it would have been outdated because medium bombers were useless. Germany had a lot of flops, but the Luftwaffe was by no means terrible.

>>refusal (or perhaps inability?) to incorporate sloped armor except on on Tiger iteration
Let me tell you something about real life: it's full of different kinds of people. Many of these people, actually almost all of them, are convinced they're 100% right about everything. Sometimes bad people get in charge of things, and then when they're faced with good ideas they don't like they reject them out of hand despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is why Human Resources is important in any corporate structure, it's why a fair and just government has checks and balances and an appeals process, and why we have rules of conduct for many things.

Nazi Germany had none of those things.

>>lack of plexiglass on ANY of their planes
... Uh, they did use plexiglass when they could afford to do so. Germany had a chronic petrochemicals shortage for the entire war, of course they didn't use something that was expensive and relied on scarce resources.

Nobody important cares, they still had armored windscreens and canopies.

>>tank gun calibre cap at 105 mm while other nations were popping out 120 mm tanks
"I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm going to keep talking."

Until the 1950's came around everyone was using 105mm or smaller, 120mm guns in widespread use is new.

>>30940714
Whatever the 'thing' they're designing, german engineering has 3 major problems.

1: the project director is always right. The end result of the project will reflect the initial vision of the project exactly, even if that vision was fucking stupid or completely pointless.

2: Any problems created by overengineering will be solved by more engineering added on top of that. IE a washer will be held in place by a pin, which is held in place by a support arm, held in place by another pin, under a cranked lock. Nightmare for maintenance.

3: Each 'thing' is designed to do one, and exactly one thing. Each aircraft and ground vehicle is specifically designed to do one job and nothing but that, meaning that you need a vast number of different designs, and each manufacturing center puts its own spin on each design, meaning that it's a logistical clusterfuck.

Most other problems stem from these basic issues.

>>30944555
>Poland had the most advanced bomber in the entire world

made my evening

>>30940714
>Riddle me this: If the Germans were such amazing engineers then why is the following true:
Its because you're an idiot for believing in the hype in the first place.

Also:
>refusal (or perhaps inability) to incorporate sloped armor
There are trade offs involve din using sloped armor
>>tank gun calibre cap at 105 mm while other nations were popping out 120 mm tanks
Biggest German tank gun on a production tank was 88mm. It was 100% at least adequate, if not excellent.
Only the IS family carried 120 [122mm actually] guns.

>>30942778
'Majorly implement this' makes absolutely no sense though.
Plenty of tanks implemented sloped armour fully throughout their production run before the T-34.

File: fucking disgusting.png (181KB, 460x558px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 460x558px

>>30944648
>made my evening
I'm assuming you find this humorous and if so: proves you know jack shit about early WWII.

Everything about the PZL.39 was amazingly new and advanced, but those same features quickly became commonplace.

Years earlier, the PZL.11, was at a time the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world and was for several years. Thing is though an all-metal monoplane pursuit fighter is not at all a novel concept, and it was outclassed in every single way by 1939. Had the Poles not eventually lost they would have discovered the Ju-88 was uncomfortably close in capability and they didn't actually have any fighters to protect the PZL.39 beyond obsolete interwar aircraft.

>>30940945
>tanks were top tier
Not really, if we're going by tanks that anyone encountered, I'd hardly call the Panzer IV 'top tier', adequate maybe, but not 'top tier'.

>they had a fucking amazing k/d ratio
Oh, you're 12 years old, now I get it.

>>30944169
>t. butthurt wehraboo
Follow your leader.

>>30944555
>Luftwaffe was by no means terrible
There completely, 100% pants-on-head-retarded policy of keeping flying aces on the front line rather than retiring them to train green recruits, says otherwise.

>>30944648
He should have said 'one of the most advanced in the world', at least that's what the wikipedia article he got his information from says.

>>30944795
*their

>>30944703
>was at a time the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world and was for several years

Yeah, the progress in aircraft design was so fast, what was super-ultra-advanced one year, was completely obsolete 3 years later.

Germans actually knew it, they knew that with the new airplanes (and tanks too), they have gained an advantage that will last no more than a few years, if they don't win the war by then, they are fucked.

I remember reading some materials about it, about discussions among the planners, Hitler, the strategists and the officials in like, 1936...

>>30940714
> If the Germans were such amazing engineers
They weren't. But that's more of a failing of the war planners and technical requirements than the engineers themselves.

>>30944795
>There completely, 100% pants-on-head-retarded policy of keeping flying aces on the front line rather than retiring them to train green recruits, says otherwise.

Its not like they could afford to.

>>30944897
>keeping flying aces in the water
waiting for the B of B to be over.

>>30940809
The majority did NOT flee. Not their engineers. Like half their physicists were jews that left tho.

>>30944795
>There completely, 100% pants-on-head-retarded policy of keeping flying aces on the front line rather than retiring them to train green recruits, says otherwise.
See if you're going to be condescending in a reply you -might- want to remember to stay on topic. We're talking about equipment, you're talking about doctrine, and when I made my original post it was very clear this was an equipment discussion.

Still, Nazi Germany was not at all the only nation who did this and it mirrored conventional thinking from the previous war: keep your best guys in front so they can lead by example and achieve the highest possible combat efficiency before perishing. Aircraft are quite finite, if your number of victories exceed the production capacity of your enemy then they will eventually simply run out of aircraft and achieve the coveted goal of air superiority. Once you have that you can strike at the enemy with impunity, so it was natural that the Germans thought they could out-kill their opponents with their rockstar aviators.

Pulling the best and brightest off the front line was by no means popular among the American and British air forces, it was universally disliked but they did it anyway. We're looking at a conflict that took place almost a hundred years ago and going, "well obviously that's what they should have done!" No, nothing about it was obvious.

>>30944835
>Yeah, the progress in aircraft design was so fast, what was super-ultra-advanced one year, was completely obsolete 3 years later.
All of the interwar aircraft fascinate me, during the 20's you could see early attempts at airliners and oddly enough Germany led the field. (or more specifically, Junkers building aircraft that Lufthansa used) Then in the 1930's you saw the American Ford Trimotor and the British Handley Page H.P.42 which may very well be my favorite aircraft of the era.

Really though the defining feature of that era in aviation was the speed of advances. Really neat time in history.

File: 7229651-albert-einsteins-famous-matematical-equation-e-mc2-written-on-a-chalkboard-600x402.jpg (45KB, 600x402px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x402px

>>30944948
That chap legged it, the others must have been short of the smarts.

>>30943020
>In Germany's defense, when Wever died in 1936 the only four engine heavy bomber in development - the Boeing model 299 - had had its only prototype crash and had just been canceled due to the high unit cost
I guess the B-17 didn't exist or something?

>>30940714
They made cool shit but the idea that they were well made and organised is bs
Tiger tanks sucked dick, they shoulda stopped trying to be so complex a d stop investing in retarded prototypes and shoulda banged out more panzers

>>30940714
>sloped armor
What is Panther.

>plexiglass
What is FW-190 (BTW had Me 163 framles plexiglas canopy probably first in world)

>were popping out 120 mm tanks
Like Sherman with 75mm or Sherman with 76mm? Or Sherman with 76.2mm?

>>30941060
>Russia on the other hand went with 100mm, 152mm and 122mm guns for the purpose of destroying fortifications.
Russia went with 85mm, 122mm and 152mm guns because it what was available for them. After they encounter Tiger I they had literally panic attack, despite lack of sloped armor Tiger was invincible to any antitank and tank gun gun in their dispasoable. So they started grabbing most powerful field guns they had and shoving them into AFVs. Also should be mentioned that soviet industrial capability was limited so they could not developed any new artillery system during war they could only uses guns already in production. It took them 4 years do develop and put into production 100mm armor piercing round for future BS-3/DT10...

>>30941084
>the german military WAS more advanced than anyone at the start of the war

They developed more advanced tactics, their gear wasn't better.

109 was arguably the best fighter at the time and that's it.

>>30941989
>Also most of the >90mm guns of the war were either low velocity or suffered some serious draw backs. This is a terrible way to judge a countries engineering ability.

This.

Why do Britfags even come here?

>>30944897

The Brits rotated their aircrews out of hot spots even during the worst days of the Battle of Britain.
The Luftwaffe was just being retarded and it cost them in morale.

File: 1468005882719.jpg (16KB, 234x255px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 234x255px

>>30940714
>shittiest bombers
Heavy bombers were unneeded, they were fighting a defensive war. Churchill declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler was willing to end the war and make peace early in the war when he was still winning.

>refusal (or perhaps inability?) to incorporate sloped armor except on on Tiger iteration
The Panzer tank was developed before the war, and their Panther/Tiger II tanks show their innovation in engineering.
>but anon muh t34
Shit gun, shit tank.

>lack of plexiglass on ANY of their planes such as with the P-51 or spitfire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

>tank gun caliber cap at 105 mm while other nations were popping out 120 mm tanks
The only non-german tank during WW2 that comes to mind with a caliber size larger than 120mm is the KV-2; and even then, they weren't mass produced. Germans were mass-producing tanks with a caliber size of 88mm and higher.

Stay mad, slavaboo.

File: 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10.jpg (28KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x373px

>>30945543
>KV-2
>120mm

and, as much as i love the king tiger, it was awful. sure, tactical mobility wasnt THAT bad, but strategic mobility was beyond awful. and being the baddest guy in the schoolyard only matters if you work. now, it worked brilliantly while it did, but that just didnt happen as often as the krauts would have liked

and the tanks that mounted the KwK 36 and PaK/KwK 43 was still few. i dont think the amount of Tigers, tiger 2s, jagdpanthers, Ferdinands and nashorns added together reached 5000 vehicles

and as far as i can tell, there wasnt really anything bad with the T-34s gun, or rather any of the guns it used. (L-11, F-34, D5T and maybe another one, cant remember)

>>30940714

The bombers weren't shit, it was due to doctrinal differences. The bomber arm of the Luftwaffe was intended to support the advance of ground forces with tactical rather than strategic bombing, Hence, two-engine bombers. Using Valhalla formations with an Me-109 escort during the BoB, they did a terrifyingly good job of almost wiping out British fighter production, such as the Supermarine works at Woolston. Out of the 3 main bomber types, the Ju 88 was the most contemporary, and it performed very well during the campaign, despite it's losses (they were often sent unescorted, to the most difficult targets). Fortunately, the will of the British people is what won the campaign. Not a wehraboo, just an aviation buff.

>>30945638
>, they did a terrifyingly good job of almost wiping out British fighter production
Which must be why British fighter strength increased steadily through out the BoB.

>>30945605
There's something....

...not quite right with that tank

File: 1372382434168.jpg (1MB, 1920x1171px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1171px

>>30945682
Looks like a perfectly normal M10 to me.

File: 142874047.jpg (75KB, 1548x1028px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1548x1028px

>>30945605
>there wasnt really anything bad with the T-34s gun
It could not penetrate any of Tiger I armor. Slopefags on suicide watch.

>>30945543
> no tanks had 120 mm category guns.

What is IS-2

>>30945925
a tank ruskies used to parade after the war
no combat

>>30946461
Nice meme

> Muh strategic bombing
Strategic bombing is the biggest meme of WWII, expending masses of industrial capacity to kill harmless civilians, strengthen the enemies resolve ("moral bombing" indeed) and influence the war effort hardly at all. The allies had the luxury of spare industrial capacity. Soviets and germans didn't and see, they disregarded strategic bombing almost entirely.

/wtg/ here
I apologize for some sperg escaping and creating this thread
won't happen again

>>30940989
Imagine if they had come up with the high-low pressure system early in the war, and replaced all of their AT and assault guns with it, using HESH (if they went with rifled barrels) or HEAT (smoothbore) against Soviet tanks that were vulnerable to both.

>>30945219
...

Please do a quick search on the Boeing Model 299 before you post again.

>>30945682
>tank

>>30944555
But the reasons that any nation doesn't produce good weapons is the same kind of politics. Britain had bad tanks at the start of the war because it had an "infantry tank" doctrine. The French had an overly defensive doctrine because of politics, the Italians had no Ship radar and poor morale because of politics. The Russians executed their best engineers and officers because of politics.

Politics is part of the game.

One thing that folks are leaving out...

Germany's entire doctrine and strategic intent was built around being a land power in the middle of continental Europe. Britain's was built around air and sea power (being an island, and all). The US, dominating its continent, was the same; the Navy had a fleet of battleships and aircraft carriers, and trained heavily, whereas the Army at one point had to issue wooden mock-ups as rifles (note, too, the preference the Navy gets in the Constitution).

These geographical "starting points" influenced decision-making. Germany could simply overrun every country in Europe *except* England with their armies, so it made perfect sense that the Luftwaffe would focus on CAS/BAI roles over strategic bombardment (why waste effort trying to smash factories when you can seize them on the ground?).

The Nazis never had a good plan for dealing with England (U-boats hurt them, but never actually "starved" them, and Hitler kept believing that they would eventually negotiate a peace that simply gave him the continent), and, in the end, that was what doomed them. If England *had* agreed to terms, Germany could have bought all the strategic supplies they needed from abroad, and faced Stalin one on one with no strategic bombing campaign, no threat of American involvement, and no Lend-Lease fire-hose of critical items for the Soviets. With England still in the fight, Germany wound up with something like 70% of the world's manufacturing capacity and most of its raw resources against him.

>>30940714
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring

>>30946672
This is true, the allies could have expended the same effort on long distance air dominance and won the battle of the Atlantic in 1943.

>>30947276
This is all true, but Hitler actually made the call to declare war on America, for no valid reason and with not even the beginning of a plan for defeating it.

>>30940945
>German fighters
>good
They were pretty much lagging behind Allied fighters the whole time. Bf-109 and Fw-190 were nothing special and made up the overwhelming majority of German fighters, along with utter trash like the 110. The jets only showed up in small numbers at the end, and then would have had to compete with the Meteor if they weren't just for bomber interception.

>>30947355

The US would've intervened in Europe anyway. Once the Great Giant awoke, it was filled with the thirst only the blood of every fascist in the world could quench.

>>30943109

That must be WT, That sure as fuck aint in WoT. WoT does give the tiger 1 the long 88, but only the Tiger 2 gets a 105.

>>30947343
They *did* win the Battle of the Atlantic in 1943.

See: Black May

>>30947355
His reason was that FDR was provoking him with Lend-Lease and escorts that were committing acts of war against U-Boats.

That doesn't make it smart; he belittled US military power and grossly underestimated our production capacity (roughly half of the entire world's at the time). If he had played it smarter, maybe used the US press against FDR for the latter's undeclared war against Germany in the face of Japan's sneak attack? Maybe, if everything had gone just right, he could have focused the US onto a "Japan first" strategy with less Lend-Lease support for Stalin. Hard to say, though.

File: Czech_Avia_S-199[1].jpg (154KB, 1040x513px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1040x513px

>>30940714

>No heavier bombers

The He 177 originally was produced in low numbers due to DB engineers being absolute fuckwits with their fancy double engines. As the war went on the Germans simply could not afford fielding these gas guzzlers in any significant number, 400 He 177s consumed an eight of the Luftwaffe's fuel in 1943, and it all went downhill from there. Plus, as they were faced with the more tactically-oriented TOWs of the Eastern front and later on heavy bomber campaigns, putting your money on fighters, interceptors and multirole aircraft was the better way for a country with its back against the wall.

>refusal (or perhaps inability?) to incorporate sloped armor except on on Tiger iteration

Bullshit, as soon as they saw the effectiveness of the T-34's sloped front ALL further designs with the exception of simple upgrades to existing vehicles got sloped armor. Panther, Tiger II, Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, you name it.

>Lack of plexiglass on ANY of their planes such as with the P-51 or Spitfire

That was more ease of production than anything else. As a matter of fact, the Fw 190 had the best visibility of any fighter aircraft when it was first introduced.

Once Messerschmitt engineers realized how shit their design was, they designed the Erla hood, which, while not overcoming the cockpit being integrated in the fuselage, improved visibility by quite a lot. This was a design flaw of the plane which nobody could fix, didn't stop the Czechs from trying it though (pic related).

>tank gun calibre cap at 105 mm while other nations were popping out 120 mm tanks

There was no German 105mm AT gun fielded except for some prototypes. In addition, calibre is irrelevant if your 88mm L/71 gun can pierce ANY tank with no given problems.

(cont.)

>>30948217

(cont.)

The IS-2 was not primarily designed to fight tanks, its gun just happened to have such a high kinetic energy that it could double as an AT gun if needed, there are those stories of Panzer IVs having their turrets blown off by a HE round. An 88mm L/71 penetrated armor better and fired much faster than the IS-2s two-piece-ammunition gun, but of course its HE performance was worse. If not for the horrible trademark Soviet crew ergonomics, the long reload time of the gun and the old KV transmission the IS-2 would have been the best tank of the war, no doubt.

As for the rest of the Soviet high-calibre tanks, the same applies. 152mm assault guns were that - heavy multirole assault guns that had tankbusting as one of their purposes. In addition, they had rather weak armor that even 75mm PaKs cracked open on a regular basis. I'll not go for the KV-2 at this point.

On the allied side, with the exception of the M36 in late 1944 and the few Spergshings who made their cameo in the last days of the war Britain and America never fielded an AT gun greater than 76mm. This point appears rather hollow if you consider that the Tiger's main gun set the standard calibre for western tanks that stuck until the 105mm L7 rolled around.

Also, good bait, made me and others reply.

File: img_14.jpg (23KB, 486x334px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 486x334px

>>30941022
You mean the Tiger II with the Porsche turret and that Tiger II that never made it off the drawing board. Just say Tiger II you stunned cunt.

wwii

>>30946461
that's IS-3, IS-2 saw a shitton of combat.

>>30945658
not only did fighter strength increase, but actual monthly production figures did as well

>>30944203
>He-177 Greif

>>30942914
>Göring interfered personally in order not to make the He 177 four engined.

The He 177 is a perfect example of how the German leadership fucked up everything by interfering. It could have very easily been designed as an effective heavy bomber, but by insisting it also withstand the stresses of dive bombing for some insane reason, it had to be designed with a dual engine setup that beats the Fairey Gannet for complexity, it was a structural nightmare and IIRC the undercarriage collapsed if the landing wasn't absolutely perfect.

File: 19700202-wernher-von-braun-nasa.jpg (1MB, 2241x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2241x3000px

>>30940714
>german scientists
>not brilliant engineers
Most german engineers were pretty good at what they did; however, they were mostly fucked by incompetent nazi bureaucrats or dumb politics just like today. Given, they were no provided enough resources or the time to develop better products.
>be werner von braun
>get "collected" by american army expecting to get executed
>get comfy office
>get unlimited funding and resources to compete against other german researchers that got "collected" by the russians
>they get unlimited funding by russians to compete with filthy american capitalists
>both teams get the ability to destroy the earth with nuclear holocaust
>hitler laughs from the grave

>>30940714

As for aircrafts there it was a little mafia thingy going there as they were accepting proposals only from Messerschmidt,Junker and Focke Wulf.

Other projects were discarded or accepted only if they had turbine engines,the ability to carry a bomb cause uncle Adolf still wanted to bomb the bongs and something that could keep up with the Mosquito (He 219) but failed as the planned upgrades didn't went live and also the plane a bitch to take off and fly with

For tanks the bigger,the fucking better,I think Guderian went postal against him and his fixation for complex machines,can't be helped when an nazi armchair general is on command

Weren't the later BF-109K,FW-190 F8,Doras and whatnot equipped with bubble canopies to grant their crew a better field of view?

As for tank guns well I don't know,JT had the 128mm but at that time it was just a waste of resources and nothing more

>>30950946

Actually that mafia was mostly from Messerschmitt crawling so far up the Reich air ministry's arse it's not even funny.

>Kills the He 100
>Kills the Fw 187
>Kills the Fw 190 C by demanding DB 603s for Me 410s
>Kills FW development by demanding DB 603s for the 209
>Kills the He 280 to prevent competition to the Me 262 while it's uncertain if the engines get delivered in time
>Ensures that the Bf 109 (obsolete by 1943) stays in service

>>30945543
>he uses the meme term "slavaboo" unironically

Cringe

>>30948347
>horrible trademark Soviet crew ergonomics

To the IS-2's credit, it did have a "relatively" spacious turret by Soviet standards; the loader had about the same space to work in as that of a Tiger 1. (Yes, 122mm vs 88mm, but since using two piece rounds, the individual pieces would be short and a bit fatter than the long 88mm, so it wouldn't be THAT much more difficult, if a bit slower)

Not without downsides of course; as far as I can tell, the driver had no hatch to go through except the turret (unless there was a floor hatch?) And while a tank will probably not need to use its max rate of fire at anything but short range, the 28 round magazine was still a hindrance.

But in many ways, I do think the IS-2 was a better heavy than Tiger. It's cannon had comparable AP capabilty, while having a far superiour HE round; many people forget that most of a tank's targets are going to require HE.

You know, it seems that IS-2 was the last successful heavy tank; any true heavies that came after IS-2 were either crap and unreliable, or genuinely good but MBT's had come that could do the same thing more cheaply.

>>30950904
>german researchers that got "collected" by the russians
Ah yes, the brilliant German scientists Sergei Pavlovich Korolev and Valentin Petrovich Glushko,

File: theory.gif (557KB, 245x250px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 245x250px

>>30945000
>>30944948
Because the Nazis were fucking retarded, and declared Einstein's theories as "Jewish Physics" and discredited them. They even tried to drive Heisenberg out of the German scientific community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

This naturally did WONDERS for their theoretical science research.

>>30948347
>The IS-2 was not primarily designed to fight tanks
It was. IS-2 upgrade over IS-85 was literally caused by insufficient armament of the last to have overmatch over Tiger I.

>An 88mm L/71 penetrated armor better
122mm penetrated Panther glacis at longer range and did it with plain AP.

>>30952052
>I do think the IS-2 was a better heavy than Tiger.
It had comete overmatch in armor and gun than Tiger I.

>It's cannon had comparable AP capabilty
Much better.

>that IS-2 was the last successful heavy tank
Fan fact: IS-2 weights 46 tons same as Panther and 16 tons less than M1A2. You can't even really call IS-2 heavy tank. It is medium tank or MBT.

>>30952301
It's more about intended role. Panther had much inferiour armour and guns, and a bigger engine (though less reliable).

IS-2 had the armour and cannon of a heavy by it's time perioud, but NOT the mobility of a medium, and thus cannot be considered an MBT.

STG44: 10/10
FW190: 10/10
Tiger I, II, Panther 9/10
Panzerschreck: 10/10
Panzerfaust: 10/10
Kar98k: 7/10
MG42: 10/10
StuG: 9/10
German AA: 10/10
German AT: 10/10
MP40: 9/10
Me262: 10/10


the choice is clear

germany was better in every way

>>30952407
>he forgot nebelwerfers and panzerwerfers
>he forgot the Ta series, including the jet the MIGs copied
>he forgot the radio bombs

>>30952229
no it wasn't you retard

the IS-2 was designed to be a heavy tank capable of taking hits from 88mms and rolling up to emplacements and blasting them with an HE shell

it was what came after the tard mobile KV2

the 122mm could not pen the front of a panther from any range

>>30952454
The early AP shell had a bad tendency to bounce off slopes, but later version fixed that.

There's also something called overmatch!

>>30952331
>but NOT the mobility of a medium,
Fan fact: IS-2 had better speed than T-34s made in 1941-42 and better reliability, so yes IS-2 in fact had better mobility than soviet main medium tank. Today such tank would be called MBT.

>>30952454
IS-2 was designed as carriage for best anti-tank gun available to soviets - 122mm.

File: 99.jpg (3MB, 2179x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2179x3000px

>>30952454
>the 122mm could not pen the front of a panther from any range
>[citation needed]

>>30952509
it was shit

>>30952509
The 100mm was somewhat better than 122 at AT, but 122mm was more available and had better HE.

122 also severely unbalanced the turret, which was originally balanced for the 85mm; attempts to up-armour the turret front were cancelled because it would require a new traverse mechanism, which would slow production.

>>30952602
what is angles

>>30952628
That's what the curves are.

>>30952621
>The 100mm was somewhat
100mm didn't have AP round in mass production in 1943, only HE and semi-armor piercing shells (it was naval gun) so there were no real choice between 100mm and 122mm.

>>30952717
But I did say the 122 was more available. Guess I should've said "and it's ammunition"

File: 1358592090942.jpg (126KB, 498x675px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 498x675px

Gee i don't know OP maybe it's the fact that they really didn't want a war (unlike the allies who developed their first heavy long range bombers at the start of the 1930's when they started planning for WW2 to end the great depression and sanitize US fiscal domestic debt) and thus virtually were not ready when england and france kicked off WW2 in 1939 which meant they had to literally rush all of their most important materiel (including most of the useable tanks) while a state of war existed at the same time

>>30952824
You do realize Germany was spending far more heavily on rearmament than France and Britain from 1934 on, right? French and British rearmament did not begin in earnest until very late in the 30s. US rearmament did not begin in earnest until 1940.

File: Military%20expenditure[1].jpg (24KB, 400x164px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x164px

>>30952824

>>30952824
>didn't really want a war
>used threat of military force to seize large swaths of territory

If you just rolled over and let us take your lands we wouldn't have gone to war, GOSH

File: Do19[1].jpg (30KB, 606x219px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 606x219px

>>30952824
>unlike the allies who developed their first heavy long range bombers at the start of the 1930's when they started planning for WW2
Germany was developing long range bombers in the 30s too, you colossal twat. The only reason they stopped was Ernst Udet won his little flyoff so the Luftwaffe concentrated on tactical aviation over strategic aviation.