How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: hawker

The ME262 was inferior in almost every respect. All it had was very good speed. That made it a strong candidate for intercepting bombers. It was otherwise a monumental waste of German resources. Had they built more FW190s that would have aided the Germans substantially. Had they built more ME262s they'd have lost the war faster.

The duration was abysmal. 1/2 hour in the air from launch to landing. That made it excessively vulnerable. Poor acceleration and engines that had to be gently nursed into increased throttle. It was at a compelling disadvantage against most fighters because German pilots were not used to deflection shooting much less at the high closing rates offered by a 262. So to get at, say, a P-51 most 262 pilots had to enter the combat around 400 mph... at which speed the P-51 was as likely to eat the ME262s lunch as anything.

So,according to you,P-51 is better plane then ME-262!!!
That is serious BS.[:-]

Well, just from the duration in the air, I'd say the P-51 was the better plane. How do you expect to cap your ground forces, escort bombers, and sweep the skies if you only have a 30 min duration?

You know, there are many factors in what makes a great plane. having a one on one engagement where both parties are aware of the other do not necessarily show you which plane is better.

If the 262, Tiger, super subs, ballistic missiles, super battleships, etc etc were so much better, then why didn't the Axis win the war?

Bradley7735...shhhh (some people don't know the Axis lost the war...you gotta let them figure that out for themselves[:D])

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum


[:)] And they were so scared of the other they resorted to dropping bunker buster bombs on her [:D]

I would argue that the other was so scared of the RN, it wouldn't come out to fight. So, the RN had to resort do bunker busting it in port. [;)]

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: hawker

365 (i think) Tiger tanks produced in whole war and 50000 Shermans.Tiger is much much better than Sherman in every apect except speed. Imagine what will Germans do with 50000 Tigers.

So why didn't Germany build 50,000 tigers? Oh, that's right. because it cost too much to build them. Imagine what the Germans could have done with 50,000 SHERMANs. I bet a million dollars that it would have been more than they accomplished with 365 tigers.

That's probably the main point that Mdiel tries to make with you guys. The cost to build 365 Tigers was detrimental to Germany's war effort. They would have been better off building more, smaller tanks. The same goes with the 262. More FW190's would have been better to their effort. The same goes with missiles and Bismark's.

Sure, a one on one duel between a tiger and a sherman would probably end in a dead sherman. I don't think anyone is arguing that. But, the tiger wouldn't be fighting one sherman. they'd be fighting 16 shermans, 22 P-47's and probably dozens of artillery. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be anywhere near that Tiger. It's going to be dead meat, regardless of whether it kills that first Sherman or not.

One wonder weapon does not win a war. dozens of of very slightly inferior weapons do. And, because you now have dozens instead of one, that slightly inferior weapon becomes superior.

[Przemcio231]

Bradley7735...shhhh (some people don't know the Axis lost the war...you gotta let them figure that out for themselves

And what dose that mean???? Well i think all people in Europe know that axis lost WWII we are just saying that Germany had some of the best equipment of the countrys fighting WWII... lucky for all of us they had it in small numbers...

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

If the 262, Tiger, super subs, ballistic missiles, super battleships, etc etc were so much better, then why didn't the Axis win the war?

Greetings Bradley....

hm... i start to write long answer but then again i think it's not neccesarry....

German population - 80 millions, Japan 73 millions...

US - 130 million, UK 50 million, CCCP 190 million... add to that French, Commonwealth, all conquered countries and US industrial strengh and you will get clear picture of it...

EDIT: UPS... millions


BTW, i don't want to be rude, really, but if everyting american was better why they employ Werner von Braun... IIRC both American and Soviets wanted german scienists....

[el cid again]

Yes, Churchill and Roosevelt were wise to focus on Germany as the greater threat as her industrial potential was far larger than Japan's.

Just remember that "focus" was more rhetorical than real. If you look up the number of planes or ships (or anything else) transferred to the Pacific, it was never the officially stated "15%". In some critical categories it was a majority, and in many about a third. Nor is it clear to me this was the only viable strategy. If you are building up (as we were) and if there are vital strategic interests (the vast majority of the world's tin might be one, and antimony another, and our own territory for another still), you might consider swatting the smaller enemy hard first.
I think in this case it was not possible - we were not good enough in 1942 - and it would have been combat inefficient to close with the Japanese until we got our act together. But possibly it might have led to a shorter war, if we put someone like Nimitz in charge of ALL forces - not just Navy ones. Really joint, something never achieved in PTO.

[el cid again]

BTW, i don't want to be rude, really, but if everyting american was better why they employ Werner von Braun... IIRC both American and Soviets wanted german scienists....

In Ice Station Zebra (both book and movie) Alastar McClean has a Briish character say to an American one:

"Your German scientists made the satellite. Our German scientists made the film. The Soviet German scientists made the rockets that put the satellite in orbit."

It is only a slight exaggeration. An astonishing amount of German research got taken over - including things that never worked (like atomic powered airplanes and missiles - four US programs with 9 figure budgets each). We actually captured SUPERIOR Japanese submarines - based on "superior hydrodyamic research" - but NEVER tested them - because we "knew" (falsely) that the German designs "must" be better. [See Norman Polmar in Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy, back in print after many years not being available - I had to spend a fortune to get a copy but you don't!] For a lengthy technical treatment, see Norman Friedman in US Submarines to 1945 and US Submarines Since 1945. You will find out how we based our modern sonar on German sonar (captured on Prinz Eugen) there too - with a picture of that sonar reassembled surrounding a submarine conning tower! I once learned of a German theory of ECM - passive single station ranging of a radar signal - and practiced with friendly planes being tracked by radar out of my sight - until I was able to call their range within 10% WITHOUT triangulation. I have never met ANYONE (US, Brit, Aussie or even Soviet) who could do that. The USAAF had problem navigating in the Arctic as late as 1950 - but Germany was able to send (Italian crewed) aircraft to Japanese Manchukuo by that route - 3 days a month - navigating when both sun and moon were above the horizon - something we seem never to have learned to do. And the Krakatoa Effect was forgotten by us - we "rediscovered" the "Van Allen Belts" about 1958 - but the Germans based a weapon concept on it during WWII. At least they pay attention to technical history.

[el cid again]

And what dose that mean???? Well i think all people in Europe know that axis lost WWII we are just saying that Germany had some of the best equipment of the countrys fighting WWII... lucky for all of us they had it in small numbers...

It is false to say the Germans had the best equipment, period. The Germans NEVER had a tank competative with the Russians, for example.
The Germans NEVER had a competative heavy bomber - for a study of all their efforts and attempts see Luftwaffe Over America (new). There are places the Brits or the Americans or even the French had better gear.

The Germans had some superb concepts. Lucky for all they attempted to do TOO MANY of them, resulting in ALMOST NONE having an operational impact. We got a lot of stuff from Germany - but we had to develop it further - and it took us decades to do it. [Sometimes we don't admit it either. Zirconium was a wartime German invention for cladding the elements of nuclear reactors. But since we refuse to declassify Axis atomic research - and so do the Russians - it is one of those few indicators more was going on than has yet been admitted. But don't get the idea the Germans were close to a viable atomic science: the first diagram indicating the nature of a German atom bomb (just released by BBC) shows a flawed concept - IDENTICAL to OUR OWN first design - a "plutonium gun" that won't work. And it was not Germany that designed an atomic powered submarine during the war, although both UK and Japan did.]

[el cid again]

The same goes with the 262. More FW190's would have been better to their effort. The same goes with missiles and Bismark's.

Maybe the Me (and a different, earlier jet fighter) WOULD have won the war - IF they had put them in production - instead of deciding "the war is all but won and we don't need them" - as happened. It is not just the quality of the toy that matters, it is strategic vision about what toys to buy when.

[mdiehl]

Don't bother trying to get into argument with "mdiehl" it's pointless

It's as pointless as bringing a meat fork to the gunfight at the OK corral.

The ME-262 was a marvel of innovation and a great concept. Its execution was not ready for prime time. If the Germans could have developed as much thrust from a Jumo as Allison got from one of their turbofans, thereby eliminating the need for two nacelles and vastly improving acceleration, the 262 might have been a war winner.

But as it stood the ME-262 was inferior in every useful respect to both the P-51, its erstwhile opponent, and the FE190/TA-152 (its resource rival). Judging the needs and capabilities of all the participants in the ETO, Germany would have done much better to make and use more FW190s than any ME262s.

[mdiehl]

Tiger is much much better than Sherman in every apect except speed.

Uh, actually no. The Sherman was faster, less prone to mechanical breakdown, had faster turret traverse, and better infantry support armaments. Their armor was comparable if you consider the armor slope, the Tiger making do with a flat surface and thicker armor, and the Sherman with less armor but superior slope. The Tiger's ONLY superiority was in the gun. And that was worth alot. Early Shermans (with the 75) were no match for it because they had to get quite close to kill one. M4A3 series with the 76 could hole the Tiger rather handily out to 1000m, which was fine for most combat ranges in the ETO. The chief problem with Shermans is that by the end of the war there were still a bunch of them running around with 75s.

The Germans' best tank was the Panther, once they'd worked out all the "Oh shit my engine just caught on fire spontaneously" problems with the early engines.

If you want a couple great tanks you have to reach for the US M26, and the Soviet JS2 to find something that could easily get the drop on a Panther.

[mdiehl]

Well apart from Speed the Me262 mounter 4x30 mm Cannon a great weapon ageainst the Bombers... the Schwable made the best interceptor in that time...

That sounds about right. It really really needed another hour of air time though. Its best attributes were pretty much nullified by the fact that it had to refuel almost as soon as it left the runway.

[mdiehl]

Well i think all people in Europe know that axis lost WWII we are just saying that Germany had some of the best equipment of the countrys fighting WWII... lucky for all of us they had it in small numbers

The problem here is that "best" is an adjective that means nothing at all. Unless you delve into the actual merits and drawbacks to designs there is little basis for comparison. That is why Axis fanboys (not saying you are one) continually grasp at straws like "best" but fail to back up their claims with specific comparisons.

Late (76 armed) Shermans were very capable of killing Tigers one on one. The problem was that there were lots of Shermans with 75s, and of course the Allies had the unenviable position of being constantly on the attack. Naturally a Tiger is likely to get the first shot if it's camoflaged and opening up on an attacker.

But if you really wanted to stop the US and UK in 1944 your best choice would have been a StuGIIIG. Because a 76 armed sherman can hole either a Tiger or a StuG and the StuG can hole a Sherman but the Stug is less easily seen and more mobile on the defensive than a Tiger. Since one Stug cost about 1/5 Tiger it would have been my AFV-of-choice for the primarily defensive war waged by the Axis on the western front.

[mdiehl]

BTW, i don't want to be rude, really, but if everyting american was better why they employ Werner von Braun... IIRC both American and Soviets wanted german scienists....

Owing to difficulties faced by his employer, Von Braun happened to be available at the time. Without him the US missile program would have required maybe 18 months more to accomplish what we did. After all, the Redstone was no technological marvel, and despite being a Von Braun design it had plenty of teething problems (most of which featured the rocket flipping fins over nose and blowing up on or near the launch pad).

The US was ahead of Germany in light rockets. We had a proximity fused ground to air missile that would have made flak pretty much obsolete in 1944 if the Axis had been decent enough to give us a strategic bomber to shoot at. By 1945 we had a radio guided one. By 1947 a radar guided one.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well i think all people in Europe know that axis lost WWII we are just saying that Germany had some of the best equipment of the countrys fighting WWII... lucky for all of us they had it in small numbers

The problem here is that "best" is an adjective that means nothing at all. Unless you delve into the actual merits and drawbacks to designs there is little basis for comparison. That is why Axis fanboys (not saying you are one) continually grasp at straws like "best" but fail to back up their claims with specific comparisons.

Late (76 armed) Shermans were very capable of killing Tigers one on one. The problem was that there were lots of Shermans with 75s, and of course the Allies had the unenviable position of being constantly on the attack. Naturally a Tiger is likely to get the first shot if it's camoflaged and opening up on an attacker.

But if you really wanted to stop the US and UK in 1944 your best choice would have been a StuGIIIG. Because a 76 armed sherman can hole either a Tiger or a StuG and the StuG can hole a Sherman but the Stug is less easily seen and more mobile on the defensive than a Tiger. Since one Stug cost about 1/5 Tiger it would have been my AFV-of-choice for the primarily defensive war waged by the Axis on the western front.

One thing forgotten to be brought up is the "other Sherman", by which I mean the M-10 TDs and M36 TDs.
From Tunisia on - US TDs were quite capable of dealing with all heavy German armor, and the US made many more of those types alone than Germany ever made Heavies (German heavies of course had to be split in deployment between Eastern Front and Western/Mediterranian Fronts).

Also lost are a couple of other facts not being mentioned - first, for most of the war (untill the latter half of 1944) the main tank of the panzer division was the PZKW III, which (in any mark) was never a match for any Sherman.

Also, by Dec 1944, well over half of all M4 mediums in the ETO were late model 76mm gunned Shermans.

[mdiehl]

Also, by Dec 1944, well over half of all M4 mediums in the ETO were late model 76mm gunned Shermans.

Sure. The problem here is the amount of mythmaking that comes out of the ardennes offensive. If you've got one M4A1 with a 75 that has just met a Koenigstiger then it doesn't matter if it's the only Koenigstiger within 20 miles you have an encounter that is sure to scare the crap out of an M4 driver. Of course, the proper and typical US response to such situations was to have division artillery lay 155s on the thing until the road wheels popped off and then take it out with a well placed Bazooka shot.

[String]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well i think all people in Europe know that axis lost WWII we are just saying that Germany had some of the best equipment of the countrys fighting WWII... lucky for all of us they had it in small numbers

The problem here is that "best" is an adjective that means nothing at all. Unless you delve into the actual merits and drawbacks to designs there is little basis for comparison. That is why Axis fanboys (not saying you are one) continually grasp at straws like "best" but fail to back up their claims with specific comparisons.

Late (76 armed) Shermans were very capable of killing Tigers one on one. The problem was that there were lots of Shermans with 75s, and of course the Allies had the unenviable position of being constantly on the attack. Naturally a Tiger is likely to get the first shot if it's camoflaged and opening up on an attacker.

But if you really wanted to stop the US and UK in 1944 your best choice would have been a StuGIIIG. Because a 76 armed sherman can hole either a Tiger or a StuG and the StuG can hole a Sherman but the Stug is less easily seen and more mobile on the defensive than a Tiger. Since one Stug cost about 1/5 Tiger it would have been my AFV-of-choice for the primarily defensive war waged by the Axis on the western front.

One thing forgotten to be brought up is the "other Sherman", by which I mean the M-10 TDs and M36 TDs.
From Tunisia on - US TDs were quite capable of dealing with all heavy German armor, and the US made many more of those types alone than Germany ever made Heavies (German heavies of course had to be split in deployment between Eastern Front and Western/Mediterranian Fronts).

Also lost are a couple of other facts not being mentioned - first, for most of the war (untill the latter half of 1944) the main tank of the panzer division was the PZKW III, which (in any mark) was never a match for any Sherman.

Also, by Dec 1944, well over half of all M4 mediums in the ETO were late model 76mm gunned Shermans.

Panzer IV not Panzer III, unless you move the date back to the middle of 1943

[mdiehl]

Panzer IV not Panzer III, unless you move the date back to the middle of 1943

That's what I was thinking as well.

[Mynok]

Also lost are a couple of other facts not being mentioned - first, for most of the war (untill the latter half of 1944) the main tank of the panzer division was the PZKW III, which (in any mark) was never a match for any Sherman.

I'm thinking that is a year late. I'll have to go check my books now. There were plenty of III's still in service, but the IV's were the main tank by the end of 43.

Also one must keep in mind that the SS divisions started really sucking the good stuff from the Wehrmacht in 43, so a Wehrmacht panzer division might officially have a majority of IVs, but in reality would have mostly IIIs, while an SS Pz div might have no IIIs other than recon models, even though they might technically be on a TO&E. TO&E really didn't mean squat by the time Shermans started fighting Germans.


EDIT: I see others are seeing an issue there too. However, I do not agree that a IV was not a match for a Sherman. A III was not, but a IV was, and IVs were the main battle tank by the latter half of 43, not 44.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Also lost are a couple of other facts not being mentioned - first, for most of the war (untill the latter half of 1944) the main tank of the panzer division was the PZKW III, which (in any mark) was never a match for any Sherman.

I'm thinking that is a year late. I'll have to go check my books now. There were plenty of III's still in service, but the IV's were the main tank by the end of 43.

Also one must keep in mind that the SS divisions started really sucking the good stuff from the Wehrmacht in 43, so a Wehrmacht panzer division might officially have a majority of IVs, but in reality would have mostly IIIs, while an SS Pz div might have no IIIs other than recon models, even though they might technically be on a TO&E. TO&E really didn't mean squat by the time Shermans started fighting Germans.


EDIT: I see others are seeing an issue there too. However, I do not agree that a IV was not a match for a Sherman. A III was not, but a IV was, and IVs were the main battle tank by the latter half of 43, not 44.

As I recall, it was in 1943 that the Whermacht decided to reconfigure the panzer division with PZKW IVs and Vs.
However, I do beleive that was not accomplished until mid 1944 (Whermacht wide) - which is why I referred to the mid 1944 date.