german engineering

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by panzerschmuck, Sep 8, 2006.

Tags:
Page 6 of 10
  1. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    You are in the wrong type of Forum.
    You belong somewhere like here:

    Axis and Allies .org Forums: World War II History

    but there are many others on the same (entry) level.

    I suspect you are no stranger to this type of turmoil and wonder if you could provide a link to other forums where you post or do you claim this board is the first time you ever posted?

    Are you man enough to reveal your prior posting record or are you going to chicken out?
    If required I will give you my history but I am on AHF/Fedgau/Missing Lynx/Armchair General for starters...
     
    m kenny, Mar 13, 2012
    #101
  2. Orwell1984

    Orwell1984 Senior Member

    Alright, I looked up stuff on the web concerning German engineering in WWII. This is one of the first links to show and I'm sure a lot of people read it. I read it and saw a bunch of falsehoods and wished to correct them. Then you bunch of harpies pounce and have very little to back up your statements. So I debate back and that infuriates you, gets all your panties in a bunch. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen
    For such a big talker, I've yet to see you back up anything you've claimed with any evidence. Not even links to wikipedia.
    Plus you debate like you're twelve. If you start supporting some of your claims with links to reputable websites that support them, perhaps others will take you more seriously. Right now all you've down is lay out your own personal views with nothing to back them up. You're the one who came on here making the grandiose claims. Now back them up with some solid evidence.
     
    Orwell1984, Mar 13, 2012
    #102
  3. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Alright, I looked up stuff on the web concerning German engineering in WWII. This is one of the first links to show and I'm sure a lot of people read it. I read it and saw a bunch of falsehoods and wished to correct them. Then you bunch of harpies pounce and have very little to back up your statements. So I debate back and that infuriates you, gets all your panties in a bunch. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen
    First of all, lose the attitude. If you are respectful of others then they will be the same of you. You have, what 40 posts here? You're not here long enough to gauge how the site works. You have opinions, great! Put them forward and stop trying to ram them down other people's throats. Oh and its not your kitchen, stop trying to start fires in places that you've only just entered.

    Debate doesnt have to be always confrontational and believe me, we've seen better and brighter than you walk in here and attempt to piledrive their opinions on top of members. If you dont like this place fine, you know where the door is. but if you think you're going to walk in here and show everyone just what you are made of, you'd better find another approach than the one you're currently pursuing. All you need to do is engage in logical and respecful debate. Take a deep breath and try again, is my advice.
     
    Gerard, Mar 13, 2012
    #103
  4. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    Germans had better tactics??? Strategically they were a mess. No war economy, in 1940 Britain was out-producing them in terms of aircraft alone. They didnt know how to run a war economy, no mass mobilisation till after Stalingrad when the best and the brightest of the Wehrmacht lay in graves on the Soviet Steppe, no dispersion of Industries properly, constant problems with fuel supply. An army that was not properly mechanised, and a war on two fronts. Not to mention problems with manpower, these are all more pertinant points when discussing the war with Germany than talking about tactics. Logistics, Economy of scale and Industry wins wars ultimately. Please note that I have not even begun to compare the Allies versus the Germans. All the above were problems on the German side that they never overcame. And the Allies did. Please remember this as you waffle on about how great the German tactics were and how superior their weapons were.

    Then why did Churchill say this?

    "Before America entered the war I knew we could not win it, but after she entered I knew we could not lose"- Winston Churchill

    And America was providing muchos material resources to Britain before they entered the war. I mean, you all know that right? The industrial Goliath America was supporting Britain way before entering the war. It wasn't really Britain and France versus Germany. There was a little US in there from the beginning. And even then they didn't have it clinched
     
    Tocharian, Mar 13, 2012
    #104
  5. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Then why did Churchill say this?

    "Before America entered the war I knew we could not win it, but after she entered I knew we could not lose"- Winston Churchill

    And America was providing muchos material resources to Britain before they entered the war. I mean, you all know that right? The industrial Goliath America was supporting Britain way before entering the war. It wasn't really Britain and France versus Germany. There was a little US in there from the beginning. And even then they didn't have it clinched
    Please explain how Churchills comments have anything to do the lack of gearing up for a war effort, their lack of mechanisation apart from the Panzer Divisions, their constant supply problems etc.This has nothing to do with the Allies, lets talk about Germany. Could you also define how much "Muchos" is please?
     
    Gerard, Mar 13, 2012
    #105
  6. Orwell1984

    Orwell1984 Senior Member

    Please explain how Churchills comments have anything to do the lack of gearing up for a war effort, their lack of mechanisation apart from the Panzer Divisions, their constant supply problems etc.This has nothing to do with the Allies, lets talk about Germany. Could you also define how much "Muchos" is please?

    I'd be interested in knowing the source of this Churchill quote too. You've trotted it out twice in this forum. A google search on it comes up with 5 hits on it. One for this forum (your usage), one for the gamesquad forum, one from World Affairs Board a message board site and two hits on David Icke's site :)blink:).
    Strangely enough it doesn't come up in any of the collections of Churchill quotes I found. Can you provide your source? Perhaps I missed something?
     
    Orwell1984, Mar 13, 2012
    #106
  7. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Tocharian,

    Help us out here. Could you provide a list of books that you have read pertinent to the subject, were we to ask you do so? Knowing what kind of books you use as a source would go far.
     
    Slipdigit, Mar 13, 2012
    #107
  8. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    Okay you all are far more confrontational than me. I got confrontational only after being called a troll and constantly people saying they "obviously know who's drum I'm beating." that's not true. I honestly can't believe all of you believe that, overall, the Germans were not the superior engineers. Okay so let's get back to engineering, which I used the what ifs only to back up. Does anyone here honestly believe that the P-51 was the superior technology, even for the logistics? It seems you all want to focus on the Messerschmidts relatively minor downsides, like it's technical difficulties at times. Overall though, when those jets were used as interceptors they were well worth their downsides. They went a hundred miles per hour faster than the fastest prop, while carrying massive cannons that could shred bombers let alone the escorts. There was no competition. Their cons being considered, they were the better concept and engineering project
     
    Tocharian, Mar 13, 2012
    #108
  9. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    I'd be interested in knowing the source of this Churchill quote too. You've trotted it out twice in this forum. A google search on it comes up with 5 hits on it. One for this forum (your usage), one for the gamesquad forum, one from World Affairs Board a message board site and two hits on David Icke's site :)blink:).
    Strangely enough it doesn't come up in any of the collections of Churchill quotes I found. Can you provide your source? Perhaps I missed something?

    I got it from one of your senior members on the one other thread I commented on. I won't say his name cuz I don't wanna be a dick. But it's a small thread and easy to find the quote.

    And if that quote is true, to those of you who ask what is it's pertinence. It's pertinence is that it meant Churchill thought he was going to lose before America entered the war. Which vindicates Germany's war strategy at the very least before America entered the war. Some of you are tryin to make it seem like the British had it in the bag before America entered the war. That is not true whether the Churchill quote is real or not. But yes I got that quote from one of your senior members who was using it to back up his debate against me. So that says something if it's not true, because someone else said I need to shut up and learn from you wise gurus who are way out of my league. As if everythin you guys say is true
     
    Tocharian, Mar 13, 2012
    #109
  10. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Interesting comment on the perceptions of German Engineering superiority in Hogg's British & American Artillery book:
    Another reason for the lack of flamboyance in Allied development was that by 1939, armament design in both countries was firmly tied to Government establishments and under the overall supervision of single agencies. In Germany, gunmaking was in the hands of commercial companies; although guided to some extent by military requirements and specifications, they were entirely free to develop weapons in whatever manner they chose, to produce competing designs for a given specification, and to develop weapons on their own initiative in the hope that they might find favour with the military and be adopted. In addition to this system - which, on the whole, worked well - there were so many political and party agencies anxious to be seen to be assisting the war effort that it was relatively easy for any inventor or entrepreneur to find an influential ear and set forth on a development programme without military knowledge or approval.

    This was scarcely possible in the West. Design and manufacture of weapons was controlled by central authorities, by virtue of the fact that gun-making and weapon development was largely in the hands of Government establishments. There were a few commercial firms in the artillery business, but by the 1930s, these were much reduced from their former greatness, a process brought about by the events of the First World War. Prior to 1914 the British Army, requiring artillery, drew up a broad specification and circulated it among the gunmakers ... With the expertise and manufacturing capability largely in Government hands, it was thus easy to control the research and development programme so as to avoid overlapping and the exploration of blind alleys.

    As the war progressed, more and more research agencies sprang up, and some of them took to tinkering with artillery, but they were still under central direction, they were required to report progress periodically, and, since the supply of raw materials was controlled, they were in no position to take the bit between their teeth and start producing something without the proper authority.

    ...

    This is not to say that wild ideas were ruthlessly stamped on in the West; they were not, but the proposer of the idea had to show how he proposed making it work. And in this connection it must be remembered that during the First World War, both Britain and the USA had Munitions Invention Departments which had been deluged with crackpot ideas; they had assessed them, initiated research on some of them, and had seen them fail in most cases. So that when the same ideas made their appearance in the Second World War, they could be instantly refused without wasting further time; in many cases the appropriate authority could give chapter and verse for its refusal.



    In short - Germany hunted the Wunderwaffen & constant innovation, and yet ultimately failed.
    'The Allies' applied more considered controls on Engineering under a staff system, and ultimately succeeded.

    As the topic is 'German Engineering', I'll not deny that they had some exceptionally clever buggers, as did all sides, but I do become suspicious, given many years of being obsessed with WW2 Military design/Engineering processes, when someone sings anything's praises so highly, without enough apparent appreciation of nuance or application to the real world.

    Have you seen many pictures of German MV production in process, Tocharian?
    Not the ones that made the newsreels, but the sheds that turned out less glamorous but essential machines like Halftracks, Lorries & recovery/engineer equipment- many honestly look barely a step up from blacksmith's shops - 'something' is awry when one endeavours to look beyond the headline machinery. Add to that Slave labour and it's associated 'issues', and the cracks begin to widen even more.
    It's all very well to have ideas, and a fine new theory of eg. welding, materials, gearboxes, jets, etc. etc. etc. (Maybe call it 'Pure Engineering'), but it's quite another to then source the materials, line up the workforce, provide facilities, spares, tools, delivery etc. (Maybe call it 'Applied Engineering').
    It just isn't enough to admire a 262, The Bismark, or a Tiger (the somewhat extreme plaudits given to which even surprised/embarrased it's own original Engineers), without placing them into a more thoroughly thought out concept of what a 'Military Engineering success' actually is.

    In my book, the real success in that massive war, was to place a reliable, replaceable, repairable item, along with lots of ammunition, fuel & support infrastructure in the hands of troops trained to use it, all on a large enough scale for it to be a useful weapon, without it hampering the wider mass supply of other useful weapons/items across all theatres and Arms of service - something Germany did not achieve with much consistency when it wandered off down certain paths.
     
    von Poop, Mar 13, 2012
    #110
    Rich Payne and Orwell1984 like this.
  11. Orwell1984

    Orwell1984 Senior Member

    Mystery partly solved as to our friend's background and belief system.
    Curious name he chose but something about it seemed familiar. A quick search and voila.
    The Tocharian
    from the above website which discusses “The Unofficial BNP Book of Polemics: How to Dumbfound Your Opponents The now extinct Tocharians were the easternmost dwelling of all Indo-European tribes. Their homeland, Tocharia, was in the Tarim basin, in what is now China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Most intriguing of all, the Tocharians were anthropologically North European, displaying typically Germanic features: white skin with light-coloured hair and eyes. When Tocharia was overrun by Turkic Uyghurs fleeing from Mongol encroachment into their own territory in 840AD, the Tocharians were very quickly assimilated
    Tocharian

    Lots of great songs from DJ Himmler I see including such toe tappers as Sieg Ueber USA

    Of course it all could be a weird co-incidence and you just picked that name because for some unconnected reasons and not for its association with the views espoused on the sites above.
     
    Orwell1984, Mar 13, 2012
    #111
    Owen and von Poop like this.
  12. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    I got it from one of your senior members on the one other thread I commented on. I won't say his name cuz I don't wanna be a dick. But it's a small thread and easy to find the quote.

    And if that quote is true, to those of you who ask what is it's pertinence. It's pertinence is that it meant Churchill thought he was going to lose before America entered the war. Which vindicates Germany's war strategy at the very least before America entered the war. Some of you are tryin to make it seem like the British had it in the bag before America entered the war. That is not true whether the Churchill quote is real or not.

    Not only a fanbois but one of those loudmouth 'we saved your ass' bores. Constantly reminding the world how indespensible you are and demanding we all fall on our knees and pay homage to your munificence.

    Any chance you could show a posting history elsewhere or are you going to ignore my question (again) in order to 'save your ass'?
     
    m kenny, Mar 13, 2012
    #112
  13. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    Mystery partly solved as to our friend's background and belief system.
    Curious name he chose but something about it seemed familiar. A quick search and voila.
    The Tocharian
    from the above website which discusses “The Unofficial BNP Book of Polemics: How to Dumbfound Your Opponents Tocharian

    Lots of great songs from DJ Himmler I see including such toe tappers as Sieg Ueber USA

    Of course it all could be a weird co-incidence and you just picked that name because for some unconnected reasons and not for its association with the views espoused on the sites above.

    Well I never, and I thought that it had something to do with the Reverend Clayton and Talbot House. :unsure:
     
    Rich Payne, Mar 13, 2012
    #113
  14. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    I got it from one of your senior members on the one other thread I commented on. I won't say his name cuz I don't wanna be a dick. But it's a small thread and easy to find the quote.

    And if that quote is true, to those of you who ask what is it's pertinence. It's pertinence is that it meant Churchill thought he was going to lose before America entered the war. Which vindicates Germany's war strategy at the very least before America entered the war.
    You havent answered my question. Please explain how Churchills comments have anything to do the lack of gearing up for a war effort, their lack of mechanisation apart from the Panzer Divisions, their constant supply problems etc.This has nothing to do with the Allies, lets talk about Germany. Churchill thought about a lot of things. I'm merely asking you to talk about the shambles that was Germany's economy, the fact that at one stage there were 40 different designs competing for production with regard to the Luftwaffe, that the JU88 required literally thousands of amendments before it became a useful and productive bomber, that there was no long-term planning amongst the Germans in relation to new types. And you offer me one quote, as a rebuttal against these. Because if you are going to start to talk about the vindication of Germany's war strategy then you might want to start addressing the above issues. They are far more pertinant to the discussion than Churchill's Quote. And the source for the above is Max Hasting's "Bomber Command" (in case you think I'm pulling these facts out of air) :)
     
    Gerard, Mar 13, 2012
    #114
  15. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

    Wills, Mar 13, 2012
    #115
  16. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    You havent answered my question. Please explain how Churchills comments have anything to do the lack of gearing up for a war effort, their lack of mechanisation apart from the Panzer Divisions, their constant supply problems etc.This has nothing to do with the Allies, lets talk about Germany. Churchill thought about a lot of things. I'm merely asking you to talk about the shambles that was Germany's economy, the fact that at one stage there were 40 different designs competing for production with regard to the Luftwaffe, that the JU88 required literally thousands of amendments before it became a useful and productive bomber, that there was no long-term planning amongst the Germans in relation to new types. And you offer me one quote, as a rebuttal against these. Because if you are going to start to talk about the vindication of Germany's war strategy then you might want to start addressing the above issues. They are far more pertinant to the discussion than Churchill's Quote. And the source for the above is Max Hasting's "Bomber Command" (in case you think I'm pulling these facts out of air) :)

    I actually did address this in a previous comment. If the Churchill quote is true, and now it's in debate if it was, but if it was it more than proves my point that, overall, Germany's strategy against Britain, economic logistics and all, was better than Britain's. All strategies have weaknesses, because no one has infinite resources at any given time to allocate to everything. So there is triage, gauging what altogether will work. The German strategy was overall winning against Britain, and I believe that to be true, whether the quote is real or not. But if it is real, the wartime leader of Britain saying that his country would have lost if America hadn't entered the war is more than enough proof to say Britain did not have the superior strategy in fighting Germany, economy, technology and all
     
    Tocharian, Mar 13, 2012
    #116
  17. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    You havent answered my questions.


    Nor mine.
     
    Slipdigit, Mar 13, 2012
    #117
  18. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    You know, having a troll of this sort once in a while is useful to shake us a bit out of our cosy complacence, and reminds us of what the e-world is 'out there'. Like a wheat field, but beware of not wearing tall boots and trosers, or else you will have ticks and all manner of bugs clinging to your legs.

    By the way, I'm still waiting for that itemised reply to that list posted by Dave55, but as Mr. Troll prefers to weasel out and cherry-pick his replies, there is little hope we shall see it. Not that it would be of much interest.

    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

    In the meantime, I changed my mind, this is not a troll, this is something else.
     
    Za Rodinu, Mar 14, 2012
    #118
  19. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    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.

    Hey Za, this is what I wrote in retort to Dave's list. I'm not more inflammatory than you are home skillet. Oh ye who does not want to be questioned
     
    Tocharian, Mar 14, 2012
    #119
  20. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    I think that old Tic-Toc is really Mr. Bluett from the "Time on My Hands" Dad's Army episode.

    Dad's Army - Time On My Hands - Part one - YouTube

    "The Germans make very good megaphones"....

    We know and we heard you the first time...and the second time...and the third time...
     
    Rich Payne, Mar 14, 2012
    #120
Page 6 of 10

Share This Page