Were the Nazis more advanced than the British and French?

Yes, true Yeager did shoot down a ME-262. Not sure if he was the first.
Still it was a great aircraft for it's time. The Czechs used captured ME262's until 1951.

I got to see one in thecAir museum when I went TDY to Wright Pat in 1968.

 

The Germaniacs already proved your point for you.. lol

 

Well, in that case you are more wrong than you realize. The Nazi period in German history was a sort of renaissance after the trauma endured by post WW I. The Holocaust was a falter in their otherwise positive, social advancement. The Nazis could have been a shinning example for the world had they not become a cult with ever increasing madness at the helm.

 

Russian tanks were not better, they were simply more abundant. Tank battles became "unfair fights" with one German tank against x number of Russian ones.

As far as fighter planes, British, American, Russian, and German planes were so competitive that one day the Brits might be top dog, the next day the Americans, the next the Russians, and the next the Germans. There were about 300 different types of fighter aircraft flown during WW II, each new one an improvement in order to beat the best.

 

I mentioned the English lathes as MY best lathes. I used the New in 1967 Colchester Lathe. I called it my best for a reason. First one good feature of a top lathe is the head stock has a huge hole. This allows you to use a larger diameter bar stock that you feed into the Chuck. The Colchester had flame hardened ways. If you do not understand the terms, ask me.

I will supply a photo of this type lathe.

I also had a Clausing. Clausing was owned by Colchester but I believe was made here in the USA. It was excellent though a smaller machine. It proved to be very reliable.

Both had plenty of power. The Colchester had 10 hp and that is a bunch.

There were then better lathes than mine. Such as the Monarch. But they were very very expensive.

Tool Room lathes were higher quality too.

I had the 17" by 96" it gave me capacity for the large and long jobs.



I had the Clausing 12" machine that was about 60" inch centers.

 

James Bacque is the author of the above piece. Not everyone agrees with his numbers. Ambrose is one; http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/22/specials/ambrose-atrocities.html

There are two links in Bacque's article. One is by an unknown author at Rense.com. If you want people to doubt your claims, post it on Rense with the author listed as "unknown". The other link is a wall of text with few references; one which belongs to James Bacque. Smooth move; list yourself as the go to reference.

 

Not quite advanced enough to dispense with horses to drag most of their equipment around.

 

Their tactics were superior at the start of the war, not their tech. The British and French had some tanks equal or better than the Germans, the T-34 and KV-1were much better. British planes were equal to the Germans. One problem was after WW I, Germany lost all military hardware so they had newer equipment. The Allies had some superior equipment but also a lot of obsolete equipment. Later in the war German tech advanced past the allies in certain fields, but the allies led in other fields. For example the US had proximity fuses that far outclassed the Germans and really put a hurt to German planes in Italy and on German infantry when used in artillery or tank shells.

 

In order to defeat Britain he had to help Italy in N Africa. If he would have continued there, he could have pumped the oil he needed to keep his war machine moving instead of attacking the USSR. If he took Gibraltar, he could have cut off British shipping.

I don't think German had the ability to produce long range four engine bombers in very big numbers.Without long range fighter escorts, they would have been vulnerable anyway. The ME-110 would have failed in that role.

The German surface fleet was a work in progress and not ready for war with Britain. Having a one dimensional sub based navy would have allowed Britain to concentrate efforts in one area and it's easier to create anti-sub destroyers than capital ships to counter battleships.

Any delay of jets wouldn't have hurt all that much since the main problem was the engines. By the time the ME-262 went online Germany was starved of strategic materials and had to use softer metals for the fan blades. This caused them to have an average life of 8 hours.

Germany was close with some techs that could have hurt the allies even more, but they didn't have the centrifuges needed to produce an atom bomb so if all the other techs Germany had surpassed the allies, they wouldn't be able to stop attacks from nuclear weapons.

 

Not really. At the beginning of the war, they weren't that much advanced. French people developped early jet engine, the french tanks in 1940 weren't that bad. In 1940, at the battle of stonne, one B1 french tank destroyed 13 german panzer and 2 cannons, alone.

The main problem is that the french generals in 1940 were gigantic idiots. Most german generals in 1940 actually fought in 1918, the french one were already in the command centers.

There is a joke about 1918 and french generals at those time :
A french soldier charge with his whole regiments, but the whole regiments are decimated by cannons and guns. He wake up among piece of arms and legs of his buddies while being aimed by german artillery. He panicked and retreat, he run, run run. Then he knock into an officer :
"Sorry my caporal" "Soldier, I'm no caporal !" "Sorry my Lieutenant" "Soldier, I'm no Lieutenant, I'm a general" "What ? I'm so far of the frontline ?".

The german army was better commanded and used their tanks in a better way. French and british were divised and not coordinated, furthermore, both used silly strategies.

Winning against the nazis in 1940 was possible. Thereafter they got the whole western Europe at their service and easter Europe. At that time, France was in the top three of most powerfull nation, still being able to rivalize with the USA at that time, so having the french industrial capacity were a huge asset.

 

There are some myths flying around here about german technology especially with regards to tanks,
In 199 the french had the two best tanks on the planet in the Somus S35 and the Char B as Votre Altesse has pointed out, De Gaulle showed just how good the french tanks were in his attacks in May 1940 unsupported by air cover or artillery. The heavy losses he took were due to artillery, mines and Stukas not to german tanks!
From 1940 to 41 the Matillda 2 could out gun and out armour any german tank on the battlefield.
The T34 was the best tank for two years from June 41 to 43 when the Panther became the direct response to the T-34. The Panther was probably the best cruiser tank until the end of the war, only being rivalled by the Comet and later versions of the T-34. The Tiger an Tiger 11 tanks were best use as defensive weapons but incredibly difficult to deploy and useless for chasing retreating armies.
At the end of the war the British Centurion tank was the best tank bar none, but it came just to late to be engaged in any tank on tank actions, only 6 prototypes being delivered in Belgium.
German early victories were very much as a result of the tactics an the use of artillery and Stukas as support for the infantry an tanks. The Stuka was next to useless when air superiority was lost and the Stormovic was the best aircraft of WW2 for close ground support.
Here is an interesting point though, probably the most technologically advanced warship afloat in the european sector was the Bizmark, she was crippled by a fairy Swordfish, an old, slow biplane obsolete before the war even began!
Of course all of this is subjective and just my opinion, but the myth of German technological superiority is just that a myth.

 

Of course you will find many apologists for Eisenhower's criminality, he was one of the victors and his hatred for the German people is well known.
I'm well aware that historians differ on many numbers of various tragedies but at what point do the numbers become irrelevant and we recognize a war criminal for a war criminal?

That's why I encourage everyone to do their own research.

 

Germany captured a lot of oil in Romania. A few days back, reviewing this city using Amazon.com prime, I saw film about this WW2 site. This will be a good review since it is DOD film and is a good reminder about German oil supplies.

 

That was pretty good. I had never heard of a proximity fuse before. That is an interesting device. At my first job out of college I was working with a group of aerospace engineers. Some of them had worked on very sophisticated weapon systems. I never forget this guy describing one weapon system that he had worked on. It must have been some sort of cluster bomb. He said the bomb was dropped, and then separated into many smaller bombs that actually drilled themselves down into the earth upon reaching the ground. I didn't get to ask him the details of how the thing worked at the time because when he told me that I was so dumbfounded that such things even existed. One of my daughters is in school and is very interested in math and physics. I was talking to her about it and she asked me how could the smaller bombs sense how near they were to the ground. I did not have a good answer, and I have since wondered about it. Since you pointed this out, I would speculate that they must have something like a proximity fuse to detect where they are relative to the ground. Obviously I don't know that, just wondering.

 

It appears you know more about military tactics and technology than I do. That said, I think that if the Nazis had waited until some of their technologies like the V1 and V2 were more mature before being so aggressive things might have turned out differently for them. For example it was the Nazi threat that caused the US to invest so much time and energy on developing a fission bomb in the first place. IF that threat had not been so substantial, then I don't think a fission bomb would have materialized as quickly as it did. If we assume that is the case, then the threat from Nazis would have materialized after they had a working ICBMs and cruise missiles that could have inflicted severe harm on the US mainland. That would have then triggered the race on both sides to develop a fission bomb which may have resulted in both sides getting the technology at roughly the same time. If the Nazis had really felt the strong need to develop a fission bomb quickly, they most certainly were capable of developing centrifuges capable of isolating the needed isotopes of fissionable elements like uranium. Therefore I believe your point about nuclear weapons is mute under the scenario that I put forward. Actually when I think about it, I'm glad that scenario did not materialize, because if they had actually had nuclear weapons, along with cruise missiles and ICBMs, I likely would not be here today, at least not in this body. Any rate, another interesting post. Interested in hearing what you think about what I put forward.

 

Can you give some examples of silly strategies used by the French and British?

 

Can you cite some specific examples of how that caused them problems?

 

The Nazis may have been ahead in some areas, but remember the British were far ahead in radar

 

Another good, informative post. I looked up the T34 and found this interesting tidbit on Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks

 

Though I have not studied how they work, as a pilot, my guess is they depend on the common barometer to select when to explode. Barometers can be quite sensitive so if the bombs are set to blow up at X distance above the ground, they ought to be fairly reliable. Recall the era. The electronics of the era were not what we have today.

 

Proximity fuses work in the same manner as metal detector circuits. What I find truly amazing is in the era before solid state the US somehow got the electronic small enough and also able to survive the hundreds of G of being fired out of a anti-aircraft gun.

 

The Germans had neither the plans, desire nor the delusion of being able to conquer the US. The myth that Hitler wanted to invade the Americas (N. &. S.) was a British propaganda ruse(1) so effectively promulgated using fake maps & forged documents to dupe the American people that some people believe it to this day.

Because of Hitler's experience in WW1, he dreaded the thought of Germany having to fight a 2 Front war so badly that according to historian Peter Padfield, he sent Hess with a peace proposal to Britain in May, 1941 (2) so that Germany could focus on the growing Soviet threat to the East. Churchill refused to meet with Hess, rejected the peace plan & successfully lured the US into the war because he wanted to destroy Germany & expand the British Empire which at the time comprised 1/4 of the globe.

Contrary to the myths, Churchill was delighted with the outbreak of WW2 & justifiably confident in persuading an equally war hungry Roosevelt to join Britain.
Among the terms of Hess's proposal, Germany would withdraw from recently conquered territory to the North, West & South in exchange for a "Well Wishing Neutrality" with Britain & the West.

Briefly put, millions of lives could have been saved if Churchill had chosen peace with Germany over war. Churchill could have made any number of demands from Germany in exchange for Western neutrality. A clash between fascist Germany & communist Russia was inevitable however war with the U.S. etc was not.

According to former KGB Operative & historian, Victor Suvorov,(3)(4) Stalin had amassed forces in Offensive positions & was preparing to attack Germany. A fact that supports Suvorov's assertion is that among the Soviet forces poised to attack Germany were nearly 1 million Soviet paratroopers whose primary function is for Offensive operations.

While the following excellent article looks at only 2 types of tanks, it also supplements the respective weapons with comparative training, morale and other details that lead to either victory or defeat:

"Tank Clash – The German Panther vs. the Soviet T-34-85"
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/03/20/tank-clash-the-german-panther-vs-the-soviet-t-34-85/






(1) "The conquest of the United States by Britain"
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/mahl.htm

EXCERPT "The principal tactic of British propaganda, Mahl points out, was to excite American fears of a direct German threat to the United States. That involved two basic themes:

- that Germany was poised to take over Latin America and that American non-interventionists were pro-Nazi fifth columnists. (It should be noted here that there was virtually no mention of German persecution of Jews, which today has become the ultimate justification for the "good war.")

The theme that non-interventionists were really Nazi agents had perhaps the greatest long-term impact. That lethal smear destroyed the careers of many non-interventionists, eliminating opposition not only to involvement in World War II but also to postwar American globalism in general.

Further, numerous works have shown that American intervention was not even essential for England's salvation. As John Charmley and others have maintained, England could have saved herself by agreeing to a separate peace with Germany.CONTINUED


(2) "Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR"

http://www.historyextra.com/news/se...estern-europe-exchange-free-hand-attack-ussr’

EXCERPT ""A new book claims to have solved the riddle of the flight to Britain in 1941 of Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler’s deputy. Historian Peter Padfield has uncovered evidence he says shows Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, brought with him from Hitler a detailed peace treaty, under which the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe in exchange for British neutrality over the imminent attack on Russia. The episode remains, more than 70 years on, shrouded in mystery."CONTINUED


(3) "Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler in 1941? The Historiographical Controversy Surrounding the Origins of the Nazi-Soviet War"
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/art...urrounding-the-origins-of-the-nazi-soviet-war

EXCERPT " He [Victor Suvorov] cites a lack of defensive preparations, such as the construction of fortified lines and anti-tank ditches, and notes their deployment in hidden areas (such as woods) as evidence of the intention of the soviet leadership to conceal an imminent offensive operation.

…Stalin’s desire to attack Nazi Germany in 1941 with an analysis of soviet foreign policy during the 1930s. They contend that Stalin believed in the concept of world revolution, and that the Second World War provided Stalin an opportunity to extend soviet influence throughout Europe. Mel'tiukhov, for instance, asserts that, “the USSR’s principal aim was to expand the “front of socialism” across as much territory as possible.”CONTINUED


(4) "Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe:…"
https://www.counter-currents.com/201...onquer-europe/

 

I don't think cluster bombs were used until the 1960s. That said I suppose you could use a device sensitive to atmospheric pressure to detect altitude, that would make sense to me. However, my question is more about how the submunitions that I mentioned detect how close they were to the ground. I am speculating that in order for them to actually drill into the ground, they must need to orient themselves in some fashion. In order to do that they would need to do so before they actually made contact with the ground. So they must have some sort of relatively simple mechanism to detect how far they were from the ground so that they could do so. That may be stupid, but I am just talking off the top of my head.

 

Wrong as for example the Germans did not come near to the Brits and the US development of short wave radar, nor did they match the allies computer works used to break the German and Japanese codes and to produce firing tables for artillery, or the mechanical computers and radar that was used in the B29 to remotely fired the rear machine gun.

 

I was not addressing the cluster bomb at all. I was speaking of the proximity fuse.

I don't know when cluster bombs first originated. But what applies to one bomb could also apply to a number of smaller bombs. Cluster bombs are simply smaller bombs inside a container that carries them. As to them drilling into the earth, I would only be guessing. If one can force them to spin at a suitable speed, they might drill into the earth for a short distance.