german engineering

Yes I absolutely dispute. There was no better battleship made than the Bismark. It took the whole British Fleet to take it down. and even then it wasn't sunk. It was scuttled, after taking 700 direct hits. It took down the British capital ship, the Hood, with three shots. Because it's firing was so prices and it's armor unmatched. They didn't build aircraft carriers because it wasn't necessary to their strategy of a predominantly land oriented war in Eutope. The German submarines were unmatched in their destructiveness. And most everything else you named were not weapons that turne te tide of war, like self propelled artillery. The nuclear bomb was the only thing the US built that the Germans didn't and were trying to. But, again, that was a resolve intensive project and the Germans had 1/20th the material resources available to the US.

Yeah, but what if the Bismarck had been launched in 1920 and HMS Hood in the late 1930s....

In do love a good what if...

No, I don't ....I'm not allowed to. I'll get banned...

If my aunt could piss standing up, she'd be my uncle...

 

I have to say something real quick about the Audi comment. That comment reflects the fundamental difference between how Germans think and how most of the world does. They work to create powerful yet safe, well-balanced cars that are capable of precision maneuvering even at autobahn speeds, and you're pissed because the battery is not in the most convenient way to jumpstart it. And you don't care that the placement of the battery makes the car safer, because your dirty cable soils the upholstery. Well you know what, they probably wouldn't have such dirty cables.

It wasn't my car so I quite frankly did not give a rat's ass how it performed. A simple maintenance task, quite common in cold climates was made quite stupid.
The weight distribution issue is easily accomplished, and has been for years, by simply distributing the various components to achieve balance.

 

If my aunt could piss standing up, she'd be my uncle...

And possibly a contestant on Britain's Got Talent!

 

"It is a moot point if technically the Tiger or
Panther were individually a superior
machine to Kirovs or T-34s. The Soviet
Army was not jousting—it played the
game at the operation level.

In fact, the most successful tank

killer of the Second World War was
German engineering. The greatest
wastage figures were not attributed to
close air support or antitank fire, but
crew

destruction and abandonment of


mechanically disabled tanks.


Between 6th June and 7th August 1944, (a
relatively sane period with time for
regular maintenance) 27% of German
tank casualties were due to mechanical
failure; by 31 August (a period during
which manoeuvre and redeployment
was required due to relentless Allied
pressure) the figure rose to an
astounding 82% (34% abandoned; 48%
destroyed by crew)! American surveys
for German tank losses between 1944 to
1945 from “non enemy action” put the
total figure at 43.8%.






In comparison, British and Canadian armouredformations (4th Canadian Armoured


Division, 1st Polish Armoured Division,
7th British Armoured Division, 11th
British Armoured Division, The Guards
Armoured Division, and 8th British
Armoured Brigade) during the
Normandy pursuit (average: 9.3 days;
317 miles) reported 22% tank casualties


due to “mechanical failures”.



At a time when the T-34 was being
run hundreds of kilometres per week
and maintained by illiterate youths
and
kulaks, the Tiger and Panther
required a coterie of Porsche-trained

mechanics. The best way to kill a Tiger
was to make it move."




by Lieutenant-Colonel (ret’d) Roman Johann Jarymowycz, OMM, CD, Ph.D.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_04/iss_3/CAJ_vol4.3_17_e.pdf

 

Two utterly different scenarios. You really haven't done your homework here. It's a fact, bomber command was extremely concerned with pilot and air crew morale. If the kill rate went too high, they were near guaranteed death. And flying in a plane thinking that today's your day to go down is one of the most terrifying prospects imaginable. It's just a fact man. There was absolutely a notion of unacceptable losses to Bomber Command

 

Stalingrad was a turning point ultimately, but it certainly did not have to be. All The German forces had to do was get out of the Soviet Union in 43.

And Uncle Joe was going to let them just pack up and go home?
Bring the troops back to a more beneficial turf. I the Soviets attacked, the Germans had morethan enough manpower still to annihilate them. The only advantage the Soviets had going through 43 was the winter.
Sweetheart, the cold affected both sides. But wait, the all-encompassing, all-powerful German engineering should have negated that.

All the German generals recommended this pullback of forces. Hitler didn't listen, as was his modus operandi from then on. Using the Me262 for it's intended purpose couldve singlehandedly destroyed enough bombers to break the British an American pilots' morale. That would've changed the dynamic of the war drastically
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. You can't prove any of that.

Yes I absolutely dispute. There was no better battleship made than the Bismark.
That, my friend is a bold statement. Prove it.
It took the whole British Fleet to take it down. and even then it wasn't sunk. It was scuttled, after taking 700 direct hits. It took down the British capital ship,
I note your choice of words there, capital ship vs battleship, which the Hood was not. Cruisers are considered capital ships and that was what the Hood essentially was, considering its armor, a very large, heavily armed crusier. ALso, how many indirect hits did the Bismarck take?:pthe Hood, with three shots. Because it's firing was so prices and it's armor unmatched. They didn't build aircraft carriers because it wasn't necessary to their strategy of a predominantly land oriented war in Eutope. The German submarines were unmatched in their destructiveness.
Negative. The ONLY successful submarine campaign was conducted by the US Navy. Seventy percent of German sub crews did not survive the war.And most everything else you named were not weapons that turne te tide of war, like self propelled artillery. The nuclear bomb was the only thing the US built that the Germans didn't and were trying to. But, again, that was a resolve intensive project and the Germans had 1/20th the material resources available to the US.
Like trucks?

 

Two utterly different scenarios. You really haven't done your homework here. It's a fact, bomber command was extremely concerned with pilot and air crew morale. If the kill rate went too high, they were near guaranteed death. And flying in a plane thinking that today's your day to go down is one of the most terrifying prospects imaginable. It's just a fact man. There was absolutely a notion of unacceptable losses to Bomber Command

55,000 casualties weren't enough to reach that morale plateau?

 

Yes I absolutely dispute. There was no better battleship made than the Bismark..

This is too easy but since I cast the bait I guess I must land the fish.

Bismark

8 x 15" main armament
12.6" vertical belt armor
4.7" deck armor
13.5" conning tower
150,000 HP
30 knot speed


Iowa

9 x 16" main armament
12.25" sloped belt armor
6" deck armor
17.5" conning tower
212,000 HP
33 knot speed

So Iowa could open and close the range at will and pound Bismark with her more numerous, heavier, radar directed guns.

No contest.

 

Oh my God the comments about the subs you made are so lacking in context. Yes at the end of the war when the German war making capability had ground to a halt, then the u boats were destroyed too.

 

The German war strategy did not necessitate a naval focus. The Germans weren't even making battleships when the Americans made their best at the end of the war. That was no longer their focus because it wasn't necessary to their strategy. They weren't fighting a naval war at all really. It was overwhelmingly a land battle. The Americans by the end of the war still needed a naval focus to win. My point is, whatever the Germans chose to pour their resources into, they built the best of.

 

Meaning, if their strategy had a naval focus at the end of the war, yOu better bet they would've built the best battleships. Take the best American battleships of 1941, the year Bismark was sunk, and put them up against the Bismark and they would've been toast.

 

Oh my God the comments about the subs you made are so lacking in context. Yes at the end of the war when the German war making capability had ground to a halt, then the u boats were destroyed too.

That would be negative. The year with the largest loss of subs was 1943 when 239 did not make it back to port.

The German war strategy did not necessitate a naval focus. The Germans weren't even making battleships when the Americans made their best at the end of the war. That was no longer their focus because it wasn't necessary to their strategy. They weren't fighting a naval war at all really. It was overwhelmingly a land battle. The Americans by the end of the war still needed a naval focus to win. My point is, whatever the Germans chose to pour their resources into, they built the best of.

But they were when the South Dakotas appeared.
Perhaps you ought to look at this well respected page: Battleship Comparison

By the way, you still have not answered any direct questions, nor provided anything other opinion to support your contentions.

 

Uncle Joe had no say. His forces were surrounded. Not the other way around, at least for the first half of the battle. And the clod absolutely affected the invaders more. Are you kidding?

 

Uncle Joe had no say. His forces were surrounded. Not the other way around, at least for the first half of the battle. And the cold absolutely affected the invaders more. Are you kidding?

 

I would put the Bismarck against a South Dakota anyday. The Sea was not the Germans main focus. The acts are, where the Germans focused on, land and air, they were unmatched. Until the very end of the war when America made excellent carpet-bombing planes

 

Meaning, if their strategy had a naval focus at the end of the war, yOu better bet they would've built the best battleships. Take the best American battleships of 1941, the year Bismark was sunk, and put them up against the Bismark and they would've been toast.

Ah, what might have been.
If only the war had been fought by brilliant engineers and mechanics, I'd be speaking German now and driving a ...........
No not a BMW, pure junk.

 

And I have absolutely answered direct questions. And I have provided evidence, such as the Bismarck battle and whatnot. Now you're merely being unfair

 

Uncle Joe had no say. His forces were surrounded. Not the other way around, at least for the first half of the battle. And the clod absolutely affected the invaders more. Are you kidding?

I'm not sure what you are talking about it as you do not provide a reference quote.

You are drifting in and out of reality.

I'm going to bid adieu and let the moderators deal with you tomorrow.

 

And I have absolutely answered direct questions. And I have provided evidence, such as the Bismarck battle and whatnot. Now you're merely being unfair

No malice intended Tocharian. Just having a little fun with you. Your perspective is so strident and absolute that it invites some teasing. As for unfair, some of that may come your way soon enough.

 

I still haven't figured out the reply button. I thought when I replied to a certain comment it would show there. Anyway, this whole thing started because I said German engineering was what allowed that small nation to take on the biggest superpowers in the world. Then it turned into a "what could've been" debate. Ultimately, anyone who argues that the Germans were not the superior engineers is kidding themselves, in my humble opinion