german engineering

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

Come on now. The North Carolinas, South Dakotas and Iowas all outgunned the Bismark by a pretty good margin. So did the Rodneys and even the Marylands for that matter, but they were a good deal slower.

Stick around though, at least you're interested in WWII.

Dave

 

There's a flaw in the design of the scoring system. Rating weapons strictly on destructive power fails when in a pitched battle with other vessels. Effective power is a better measure. You must allow for reload time, force required to train the weapon, efficiency of sighting systems, etc. The Ajax, Exeter and Achillies did a pretty fair number on the Graf Spee.

 

There's a flaw in the design of the scoring system. Rating weapons strictly on destructive power fails when in a pitched battle with other vessels. Effective power is a better measure. You must allow for reload time, force required to train the weapon, efficiency of sighting systems, etc. The Ajax, Exeter and Achillies did a pretty fair number on the Graf Spee.

Hello,

Please elaborate. I like this area. I was only talking about range and weight of salvos but I know the American ships had a good reload rate and very good optical range finders and later had radar direction. I assume the RN could reload very quickly as well. I know their destroyers did a number on some Italian cruisers but I can't recall the ships involved.

Thanks,

Dave

 

So I'm not discounting that other countries were capable of good engineering. It's just, overall, the best was Germany, just like they dominate in the most lucrative engineering today. And is anyone really saying that it was naval battles that was most important to the European theatre in WWII? No. Therefore, Germany focused more on land and air, where it showed it's abilities to engineer the first jets in battle, the most potent tanks which, taking into consideration their problems, were still the most effective on the battlefield and if the Germans had one fifth the material resources of America they could've produced plenty enough of all their weapons and vehicles to change things. They were at a severe disadvantage on population size and land size. How else did they put up a fight against the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States? It was the size of one state

 

Excerpt from your last post:
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

The original Poster asked this:
Germany is often critisized (by historians) for over-engineering its equipment. Much of its equipment was considered the best of all the nations when it was working correctly, but that was the rub; the highly engineered stuff also required the most maintenance. At which point do you think Germany pushed the designs of their equipment further than it proved useful?

For me, the Tiger II comes instantly to mind, and possibly the Tiger I. They were far too hard to maintain, and the cost in man-hours and material to manufacture them could have been spent better elsewhere.

For that matter, what equipment from any nation was over-engineered?

Your first two posts in this thread:
The 262 production was not delayed because of their misappropriation as a bomber. There were enough planes. They were just misused. And on the issue of even the Tiger being an inferior machine supposedly. Any WWII American tank commander would've rather been in a Tiger than a Sherman. And so would any of us if we could transport back to Normandy 1944. It took 4 Shermans often to beat one Tiger. The Germans were not able to produce enough Tigers, not because of overengineering, but rather because they had been fighting with the superpowers of Europe, including the Apocalyptic Eastern Front battles, for three to five years. They were a tiny country with little natural resources goin up against the largest empires in the world. If America had not joined in they surely would've won. And you don't think their tech had anything to do with that? Then we did we scramble to nab as many German scientists and engineers as possible after the war before the Soviets got them?

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.

Yeah, their leaders were the weak link. Hitler launched Barbarossa and conducted the eastern front in a way that was against the advice of his generals. And I don't get the Elvis comment. Are you saying their was no Operation Paperclip? No Werner Von Braun? Back to strategy. I guess I was more referring to their tactical skill. Nonetheless, if Hitler were killed in 44 and especially 43, and thus his madness was taken out of the equation, the Germans most likely would've won the war

I don't see anything about a small nation taking on larger nations. You jumped out there with some bold statements concerning subjects that have been discussed here and other places ad nauseum where summations contrary to your statements were deduced.

Dont' get me or anyone else here wrong, the Germans did make a good many first class weapons, but they also made some clunkers. The Me 210 comes to mind almost immediately. They had some excellent ideas about other equipment, but they also duds. Why on Earth did they chose to outfit infantry in trousers with gallouses that went under the jacket?
The 75mm L70 was a great weapon and the Panther was a notable tank....but... there is more to it than sticking a great gun behind 4 inches of armor and hoping for the best with the drive train. The Panther had terrible problems with its engine and transmission and with the way it was designed, it took an inordinate amount of time and manpower to replace either one. When you are already short AFVs to begin with, it is not wise to compound the problem by lengthy shop visits.

All nations made some good weapons and some not so good weapons.

Logistics, the bane of every wargaming general. Without an ability to keep a tank supplied, it will only be effective the distance it can travel on one tank of fuel. One of the posters above mentioned that, when talking about German tanks being abandoned. Whether you like it or not, the German army depended on horse-drawn transport for a majority of their logistics transport and it was their achilles heal on nearly every front.

As far as superior engineering being the sole factor that kept them in the war longer, well that is like saying Alabama won the Collegiate Football National Championship this past January because they had better helmets and pads. An example, the Germans were very adept at making ad hoc units out of nothing. But that had a lot to do with the way they thought and organized lower level units, not necessarily only because of their their weapons.

AFterthe summer of 1940, the best they could hope for was a negotiated settlement with Great Britain, but with Churchill as Prime Minister, that outcome was unlikely.

You can argue that either June 22, 1941 or December 11, 1941 was their doomsday and probably be right with just one of them even if the other did not occur. Either way, they were going to lose.

 

Yeah, I don't buy that. I can understand why you felt the entrance of America into World War II was what marked the death knell for Germany. Let's say I accept that, which I don't. But that also brings up why did this gigantic nation have to jump in on the side of already gigantic empires to defeat a nation that at best had just recently taken over France. They still were at a massive numerical and land disadvantage. I think their tactical skill was brilliant and was what helped them. But I argue their tech was what also won the day. And I don't buy the whole idea that it was in the bag that the Allies were gonna win and the German tech merely delay the inevitable. Normandy was most certainly not inevitably going to be won. If Hitler had listened to Rommel on D-Day things would've been a lot different. Here's a fact. The British High Command was putting together a plot to kill Hitler. But, around 1942, they determined not to because Hitler was their greatest helper. His megalamaniacal behavior led him to disregard all advice given by his generals. The Allies got really lucky on this. There's no way that Allied High Comman felt as sure of victory as you do on the eve of D-Day

 

Yeah, I don't buy that. I can understand why you felt the entrance of America into World War II was what marked the death knell for Germany. Let's say I accept that, which I don't. But that also brings up why did this gigantic nation have to jump in on the side of already gigantic empires to defeat a nation that at best had just recently taken over France.
I assume you mean the US. It got into the Euroean war because Germany declared war onthe United States on Dec 11, 1941. Could Congress have said, "Naw, we don't think so. We have this little country off the coast of China we need to deal with first."?They still were at a massive numerical and land disadvantage. I think their tactical skill was brilliant and was what helped them. But I argue their tech was what also won the day. And I don't buy the whole idea that it was in the bag that the Allies were gonna win and the German tech merely delay the inevitable. Normandy was most certainly not inevitably going to be won. If Hitler had listened to Rommel on D-Day things would've been a lot different. Here's a fact. The British High Command was putting together a plot to kill Hitler. But, around 1942, they determined not to because Hitler was their greatest helper. His megalamaniacal behavior led him to disregard all advice given by his generals. The Allies got really lucky on this. There's no way that Allied High Comman felt as sure of victory as you do on the eve of D-Day

I've said nothing about D-Day. I was referring to the hard work at done at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Alamagordo. The Bomb trumps everything. That's a little engineering feat there, isn't it?

 

Are you kidding me? The Germans declared war. The Japanese, that little island off China, had actually attacked us. Yes, if the Germans were not the far greater threat the US wouldve gone after Japan. The US government had all the political capital to attack Japan first.

 

. But that also brings up why did this gigantic nation have to jump in on the side of already gigantic empires to defeat a nation that at best had just recently taken over France.

This is a common mistake of the fanbois.
They think that Germany was only defeated because everyone ganged up on her and completely ignore the fact that the Germans attacked all those nation by choice.
It was not an alliance made because the Allies thought it would need all of them to defeat this mighty nation but a state of affairs brought about by Germany herself.
Many try to twist this idiotic/stupid/ massive mistake by the Germans (idiots if you you want my opinion) into a sign that they were so superior they needed to be outnumbersed for any hope of beating them..
Sorry but the utter stupidity of Germany was the reason for her defeat not any great fear of this wonderful warrior nation.
You can even say that The Soviets and the UK could have finished the war between them but on a longer timescale.
I realise such a thought never enters the head of someone who trots out the trinity of the besotted.
I.E
A. Bismark was indestructable and the new U Boats undetectable.
B. German Jets would wipe out every allied air force.
C. German tanks could defeat any tank in the universe in the mythical 'fair fight'..

I have to ask how old are you because your argument is juvenile in the extreme. It represents the state of affairs when the internet first started and the net was overun with (mostly) gamers who used to live and breathe your argument. It took a while but serious scholorship eventualy knocked some sense into all but the most myopic aryan supporter.
Nowdays you can still see this case still being made but only on '3rd divison' forums where the level of knowledge is basic in the extreme.

 

I have to commend you m Kenny on your attempt to rip me a new butthole. Very clever word usage and determined condescension. That being said, I didn't hear any facts. Just opinion. You think I'm myopic. I think you are. America would not have lost hundreds of thousands of people in a war with Germany if it were not necessary. The political climate in America was not so different than today. Those types of casualties were not shrugged off by the people. The point is, it was necessary for America to enter the game, because the Soviets and the British could not close the deal. And let's not forget the Germans had conquered France with ease, though France and Britain were allied and had declared war on Germany. The Brits were sent runnin at Dunkirk. If America had attacked Japan first, Germany would've conquered the Soviets and British, giving them plenty of resources, the one thing Germany lacked, making world conquest almost inevitable. The Americans and Japanese would've been forced into alliance to halt the German Empire

 

And why? Because German technology and military leadership, except for Hitler, the mad king, were leaps and bounds beyond everyone else. That's why it was necessary forAmerica to enter the war because the British Empire, the biggest empire in history, and the Soviet Union, which owned a such of the planet's land, could not defeat a country the size of California with no empire

 

. The point is, it was necessary for America to enter the game, because the Soviets and the British could not close the deal. And let's not forget the Germans had conquered France with ease, though France and Britain were allied and had declared war on Germany. The Brits were sent runnin at Dunkirk.

I think you will come to regret letting your mask slip...............

 

Oh come on. Now I'm hiding behind some sinister mask? Is it not true that Britain and France declared war on Germany? Is it not true that they were handily defeated in the first round? You know what else? America provided endless resources to Britain before entering the war. Without that, Britain would never have won the Battle of Britain. People get really pissed when someone tells the truth on this subject. Why are people so stuck on believing it was all in our control when we defeated the Nazis? We got lucky. God, the universe, karma, saved us from being conquered by a dangerous and bloodthirsty regime in charge of an extremely capable people

 

You know what else? America provided endless resources to Britain before entering the war. Without that, Britain would never have won the Battle of Britain.

Did you see that in a Hollywood blockbuster?

 

Tocharian - Obvious who's drum your beating, your argument about German engineering (I am an engineer myself) is based on books and bias. You are beating that drum so loud you are incapable of logical thought. It was the United Nations that took on a vile regime and beat it with admirable restraint. You make claims about endless resources before the Battle of Britain. Yes the Americans supplied 100 octane fuel - what you fail to mention is that we had British engineering - Radar set up. Secondly the all conquering Luftwaffe came up against an equal - where one might have thought this superior German engineering might have carried the day. Claims can be made about the specifications of opposing aircraft, the two British fighters were designed as local defence fighters and did not do too bad. 'We got lucky again eh?' According to your diatribe we can put the whole United Nations war effort down to luck! Looking at the outcome - fine you call it luck, I will stick with the facts it was the desire of good men and women everywhere to crush evil. Including the engineers of America, the UK and others.

'The Luger from three decades before' odd statement! Maybe the fact that John Browning had been designing before Lugers arrived on the scene around 1908 The Luger was probably a very good weapon, but it is not the system used in many weapons today which is based on Brownings system. (128 patents) All I see here is if' maybe's could have been, none of which suggest German engineering was in anyway superior. I agree with one point only. we do not like to hear things that do not fit our precepts, in doing so we must not come to our conclusion with a bias and then try and bluff it without doing research, I heard or I read it in books of my choice will not cut it unless you can cross reference - one author - a fact does not make.


Randall and Boot Birmingham University England - the successful development of the cavity magnetron (rdf/radar) so many uses - it may rank up there with war winners.

 

Wow. I gotta honestly say I've never been on a blog about this subject and heard so prolifically this notion that every nation was on an equal footing technologically. Naturally, this would mean that the defeat of Germany was a foregone conclusion, for if every Allied fight was evenly matched with Germany tactically and technologically, then with the overwhelming numerical and resource superiority the Allies were assured victory. Which is what many of you are proposing. I've never herd thy. It kinda takes the drama out of Normandy and all the battles, being that it was an inevitable victory. Somehow I don't pick up on that in the history books and documentaries. I don't think most historians would agree either. World War Two was not a guaranteed victory for the Allies. I don't know where this new meme caught on. Roosevelt was desperate to get us into the war and was thanking God when the Japanese gave us a reason to enter. Why? Because he knew the Germans were inches away from conquering all of Europe. The Allied generals were sweatin Normandy on its eve because they knew that it's success or lack of would determine the outcome of the war. It was, as Romnel said, the longest day.

 

And this has what to do with German superiority in engineering? This is beginning to take nonsense to a new level. Rommel - tell me again which battles of consequence did he win? Romantic tosh!





'Oh come on. Now I'm hiding behind some sinister mask? Is it not true that Britain and France declared war on Germany? Is it not true that they were handily defeated in the first round?' - Very true but then we were not gearing up for world domination and genocide were we? Declaration of war - I read that as a desperate fight for the survival of democracy against tyranny. For all of your defence the fact remains tyranny was defeated. Reading your appraisal of superiority we can but marvel even more at the fact that the inferior allies got lucky.

I have a special relationship with Germany - I lived there and loved every moment, in modern times they do have a better engineering base but that is down to investment. We turn out students with degrees in law, economics and modern politics whilst the Germans regard the spanner of more import than a 2.1 in modern art.

Out to you!

 

Alrighty then.

Lets compare some examples of German vs American engineering.

I am not as familiar with some of the excellent CW stuff such as radar and sonar.

Were did the American have it over the Germans in quality (in addition to quantity) ?

I'll only list the ones that are not even close.

Aircraft carries
Battleships
Battle cruisers
Heavy and light cruisers
Destroyers
Subs
Landing vessels of all sizes
Tankers and oilers
Cargo ships
Attack transports
Carrier fighters, bombers and torpedo planes.
Amphibians and sea planes


rifles
radios
trucks !!!
engineering and bridging vehicles
Prime movers
locomotives
light tanks
Self propelled artillery
Tractors and dozers

Strategic bombers
Atomic bombs
Medicine
Packaged food

Care to dispute any single item, old boy?

Dave

I would very much like to see Mr. Resident Troll go through the list above, item by item.

 

Come on now. The North Carolinas, South Dakotas and Iowas all outgunned the Bismark by a pretty good margin. So did the Rodneys and even the Marylands for that matter, but they were a good deal slower.

Stick around though, at least you're interested in WWII.

Dave

You let the Yamatos out.

 

And why? Because German technology and military leadership, except for Hitler, the mad king, were leaps and bounds beyond everyone else. That's why it was necessary forAmerica to enter the war because the British Empire, the biggest empire in history, and the Soviet Union, which owned a such of the planet's land, could not defeat a country the size of California with no empire


The problem as I see it (and a point often ignored) is the German Army had that wonderful piece of German Engineering, the horse!! Doesn't matter about Tigers and Panthers when your infantry and a lot of your logistics relies on the horse. Blucher had his artillery towed the same way at Waterloo. 5000+ horses for an Infantry division perhaps 20,000 for a Korps even 100,000 for an Armee. Come on! the resources wasted, there were more blacksmiths and vets than Jet pilots.