Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason some people think of the Nazi war machine as "superior" is because of the high tech stuff they managed to make at the end of the war like jet aircraft, ballistic missiles, the type XXI submarine, the first true assault rifle and so forth.
None of that stuff helped the Germans hold out, much less gain ground. In fact, the tech itself was very problematic and full of bugs as it was rushed from the drawing board to the battlefield in desperation. We really didn't use copies of any of the german wartime "superweapons", just took the concepts and actually made them work.
Otherwise, with few exceptions our equipment was better and we had more of it along with a safe place to make more of it completely uninterrupted.
Don't forget, the single most powerful and fearsome weapon advancement of WW2 was American:
Other famous scary German weapons really were more myth than reality. Their greatest battleships (Bismarck and Tirpitz) were barely a match for the French Richelieu, much less the King George V, Nelson class or US South Dakota class and would not have stood a chance against an Iowa class battleship.
Not that it really mattered; battleships were dinosaurs by 1939 and Hitler would have been much wiser to use the steel to build more U-boats or even aircraft carriers instead.
The Germans had slightly better tanks but we had more of them and their air force was completely outclassed by US planes.
The V1 and V2 were good at instilling terror but not at actually aiming for and destroying useful targets.
I'm having a hard time finding German "superiority" anywhere here!
BTW, invading France is not really good evidence of how powerful a military is. I could probably plant my flag on the Arc De Triomphe with a moderately large army of heavily caffeinated 7-year olds armed with BB guns.
The Germans had slightly better tanks but we had more of them and their air force was completely outclassed by US planes.
....
I'm having a hard time finding German "superiority" anywhere here!
I can not will agree, the superiority of aircraft of Allies was quantitative - both in planes, and in pilots - but not qualitative. And it concerns not only aircraft, and as a matter of fact is shown in opposition of resources, in which USA and USSR significantly surpassed a Reich.
I can not will agree, the superiority of aircraft of Allies was quantitative - both in planes, and in pilots - but not qualitative. And it concerns not only aircraft, and as a matter of fact is shown in opposition of resources, in which USA and USSR significantly surpassed a Reich.
Germany didn't even have planes that could do what American planes could do... especially with large strategic bombers and our best bomber (the B-29) wasn't even used over Germany.
A P-51 vs a FW 190 was basically an even match and BF 109s were simply outclassed by most advanced allied fighters.
The Me262 was faster than anything in the sky but it had poor maneuverability and there just weren't very many of them.
As for German Engineering; yes, the Germans have a reputation for making quality stuff but quality suffered as wartime production was steadily choked off by relentless allied attacks. Slave labor doesn't generally make for great quality stuff either.
Not to mention the most damning evidence of all... they lost and ended up with a country in ruins in the process.
Despite the atrocities done in the name of Adolph Hitler should we still recognize the military supremacy of the German army in the yrs. that make up WW2?. What army today could demolish the French? Take aim at Britain, leveling cities with aerial bombardments? and all the while dominating the Russians to the East.What army of today would even try?.
These nations owe there existence to the United States entering the War(you're welcome), what would today's Europe look like if the German's had won that war?. Who can deny Germany's military prowess?.
our best bomber (the B-29) wasn't even used over Germany.
Interestingly why? I can assume, that losses of these very expensive machines in the sky of Germany would be too high. Including from such machines as ме262, which low maneuverability not so essential lack at struggle against huge bombers. And against fighters quite would approach he162... But they were not - neither enough of jet engines, nor the qualified pilots.
Quote:
Slave labor doesn't generally make for great quality stuff either.
Now I cannot cite precise data, but how much I heard quality of German technics especially have not injured to 1944 when practically all manufacture has passed to use of slaves - at a stage of acceptance still there were Germans and ruthlessly punished for the slightest lack (that also confirms in modern China). And quality has fallen off because of impossibility to use some components of alloyed steels.
Quote:
... they lost
Iron argument. Unfortunately in my country it is used in unworthy objectives when affirms, that all that it was done - properly, because USSR has won that war.
The only reason some people think of the Nazi war machine as "superior" is because of the high tech stuff they managed to make at the end of the war like jet aircraft, ballistic missiles, the type XXI submarine, the first true assault rifle and so forth.
Once again, a careful reading of the original post doesn't make mention of the German "war machine" I doubt that anyone would argue that the German Navy was superior to anyone's. But the army certainly was.
Once again, a careful reading of the original post doesn't make mention of the German "war machine" I doubt that anyone would argue that the German Navy was superior to anyone's. But the army certainly was.
Still, the army was defeated. They were superior to the French and Polish armies sure, but who wasn't?
Something telling to me was how the German army surrendered in droves at the very end when the outcome was obvious. Some may argue that's because they knew they would be treated well by the allies but the same was true on the Eastern front and surrendering to the Soviets was as dangerous as surrendering to the Taliban.
Truly brave, patriotic people would have fought to the last to protect their homes but instead they gave up in an attempt to save their own skins.
Then again, most of the truly hardcore soldiers were already dead and buried somewhere in Russia or France.
Oh come on, we LOVE to fight... especially about things that don't matter!
When there is some legitimate and worthy of fighting over... you're just trolling and I just not into it tonight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
