German Weaponology

[plan_D]

Modern reliability seemed to be a dream in the 1940s when it came to AFVs. I cannot remember the source but I do remember reading that the T-34 was not as reliable as claimed but it's reputation comes from ease of maintenance.

As for the Panthers performance, it's hardly surprising that they were on the bad end of the statistics - under supplied with spares, fuel and ammo, under constant bombardment from overwhelming enemy air and artillery and vastly out-numbered. The performance of the Panther in extremely harsh battle conditions does not take away from its design, in my opinion.

You really have to imagine the Panther in the Shermans, or T-34s position... supported with everything it required, it would have proven without a shadow of a doubt to be the supreme AFV in World War II - in my opinion.

[Njaco]

German designs were not poor, were not average but were really very good. If Germany had the Panther or Ta 152 or any other of its innovative designs in a quanity as the Allies had Shermans and Mustangs, etc. it might be a slightly different ending. Not gonna argue whats "Best" as thats been discussed in numerous other threads but the premise that the Germans had poor quality or were behind in developement is just incorrect. IMHO.

[Graeme]

From an article in a Popular Science magazine (September 1945) applauding new armoury for the US Army, titled..NEW KICKLESS CANNON FOR GI'S.

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Njaco

German designs were not poor, were not average but were really very good.

So why did their U-Boats lose the Battle of The Atlantic? Their submarines being the product of this 'very good' system they had?
Is it like the myth of IR Panthers destroying all before them?
Why did the 'superior' German aircraft fail to win The Battle Of Britain?
I suppose Russia was defeated by these 'excellent' tanks in 1941 when they were subject to a suprise attack?

Nope, none of the above and thats when all the excuses come into play to explain away the disaster that was the German attempt to conquer Europe.
They were better at everything - except winning!

[Njaco]

So their planes were crap, their tanks were crap, their guns were crap and they just happen to stumble into Paris with 'surprise'?

Come on, Germany had many excellent designs and some were not better than the Allies, thats true. And what drove the Allies to make better than Germany's? Could it be the less than average weapons of the Axis? It was because of advancements that Germany made to weapons that drove the Allies to improve theirs.

And as for BoB, they almost did win, it was a change of tactics not the failure of their machines. Of course if there were 1000 He 111s and Ju 88s protected by 800 Bf 109s like the Allies had later in the war they might still be goose-stepping in Piccadilly Circus even now!

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Njaco

So their planes were crap, their tanks were crap, their guns were crap and they just happen to stumble into Paris with 'surprise'?

Never said that so continue that argument with yourself.

Come on, Germany had many excellent designs and some were not better than the Allies, thats true. And what drove the Allies to make better than Germany's? Could it be the less than average weapons of the Axis? It was because of advancements that Germany made to weapons that drove the Allies to improve theirs.

Or the other way around?

And as for BoB, they almost did win, it was a change of tactics not the failure of their machines.

Just as I said. When the uber-weapons were bested the old excuses are dragged out to explain why it was not really a failure.

Are we are being asked to to believe that the Army that relied mainly on horses for transport right up to 1945 was the most technicaly advanced?

[glen]

German weaponology is of first class, but it dosen't mean that other countries' are inferior.

"IF" issue is pointless. If British and France invade German in 1933, if pershing tank comes out 1-2 years earlier, if P80 is massivly produced, if A-bomb finished in 1944. If wall street didn't provide money to hitler, if US didn't privide air-cool piston enginee to German ,if .... These are useless.

[SoD Stitch]

IN THE MAIN, German weapons TENDED to be better than the Allies weapons, especially early in the War; I believe this can be traced back to the fact that Germany began re-arming in ernest in 1930-35, whereas the Allies (particularly the Americans) didn't get started re-arming until 1935-1940. The Germans, due to their more martial society, had a 5 year head-start over the Allies in terms of weapons development. However, the Allies quickly caught up once the War started.

In general, however, the Germans did have some superior weapons, particularly in the small-arms department (and, later in the War, armor). There is a reason that Mercedes-Benz still touts "German engineering".

[plan_D]

"Are we are being asked to to believe that the Army that relied mainly on horses for transport right up to 1945 was the most technicaly advanced?"

In some areas, yes. The easiest example is rocket technology where the Germans were far above any other nation in the 1940s. I don't believe anyone has made the statement that Germany was superior in every aspect of warfare. Germanys' inability to provide motorised transport for its entire military is a failure of planning and industrial capacity, not science and technology.

"Just as I said. When the uber-weapons were bested the old excuses are dragged out to explain why it was not really a failure."

Germany losing the war does not affect the ability of its designs. France lost their battle in 1940 but that does not mean the Somua S-35 was anyway inferior to her opponents in the Wehrmacht.

More importantly, there's more to winning a war than the designs of your war machines. Production, strategy, home front, politics and allies all play a part in victory or defeat.

"They were better at everything - except winning!"

Njaco never said that the Germans were better at everything. In fact, no one on this site has ever claimed that the Germans were better at everything. So, do you want to continue that argument with yourself?

As I've said before on this thread there should be credit where credit is due. The Allies and Axis both provided technology in vast quantities that were equal or superior to their opponents.

"German weaponology is of first class, but it dosen't mean that other countries' are inferior."

Absolutely right. What did the Germans have that could match the B-29? If all the World War II machines had no national ties it'd be easier for everyone to pick the best (even then the aircraft were so close it'd be an argument), but it's all bias.

Aircraft, for example, we can say that on paper the Ta 152 was the best but in reality it would have had no massive superiority over the P-51H or Spitfire F.21. They'd have been shooting each other down just as much as the Bf 109E was the Spitfire Mk.I

[Konigstiger205]

Nobody so far stated that Germany was best at everything so quit "charging" at people...every country had its best of something and M Kenny with all do respect read carefully again the history of WW2 from different sources before you go argument something.First the U-boat thing:
Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril".
If Churchill was afraid of crappy submarines than Great Britain should be speaking German now...
Second the BoB...well Njaco already said what had to be said...
Third the Russia thing:Russians won the war by large numbers and the constant interfering of Hitler in the strategy of the German army and Stalin was warned that Germans would attack.He did nothing and only the fact that Russia is a very very big country and the coming of winter stopped the Germans from annihilating the Red Army.

[Njaco]

Never made the claim that the best weapons were in Germany. The Allies also had superior weapons but....

Did the Allies have their factories bombed day and night?
Did the Allies suffer large scale sabotage within those factories?
Did the Allies have to scatter their resources instead of keeping it efficently in one spot?

Germany faced all this to their design and production and were still able to produce weapons that could take on the Allies. But sometimes - sometimes - quality is lost in quanity. How many Shermans did it take to take-out a Tiger tank? Lets ask those chaps at Villiers Bocage how bad German tank design was.

Germany began re-arming in ernest in 1930-35, whereas the Allies (particularly the Americans) didn't get started re-arming until 1935-1940.

You forget the second part of introducing a new design - field trials. While the US and others were re-arming, Germany was getting the kinks straighened out in Spain.

You are correct, Kenny, you never said they were crap, but the tone of your post suggests that they didn't have adequate weapons. That is what I was responding to. And I have no idea how horse transport got in here. If thats a gauge, they ALL should have lost. Poland, Russia, even the UK (musta missed the Land Rover plowing through the jungle of Burma running over those horses and bicycles).

Germany had very high quality weapons - not always the best.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont believe that anyone said that the Germans were more advanced and superior in everything they built.

In some cases they were more advanced in other cases they were equal and in other cases they were inferior.

I am still trying to figure out your agenda mkenny...

[Juha]

Much of German weaponry was first class. For ex. their fighters, IMHO LW had the best fighters in 1941-42 and only possible equal to Bf 109E in 1939-40 was Spitfire Mk I. And up to 1945 German fighters were among the very best. LW medium bombers were very good but lacking in defensive firepower. Their navigational aids were the best in early war years. Their submarines, motor torpedo boats and minesweepers were top class and their tank guns from 42 onwards had best AP capabilities. Also many of their AFVs were very good, I specially like Pz IV and VIE and so on.

One of their problems was to make overcomplicated and so expensive to produce weapons because of their drive to technical excellence. For ex. their 50mm mortar was overengineered and I know that many will disagree with this but I still think that Panther was too complicated and too expensive as main medium tank.

Soviet didn’t do that mistake, their 50mm mortar was extreme simple. And usually Soviet infantry weapons were simple and reliable. They understood better than westerners that one main requirement for infantry weapon was ability to function reliable in dirty battlefield conditions. Also their aircraft cannons were very good, light with high ROF. Pe-2 and Tu-2 were good bombers, La-5FN and -7 were excellent low level fighters and Il-2 was rather unique and innovative solution for ground attack, I’m not sure that it was the best solution but at least enemy infantry was rather helpless against it. Also I like T-34 series, it was rather ideal for Soviet needs, simple and rugged. Also it had good HE for 30 ton tank and SU needed tanks that were good to knock out mg-nests and A/T-guns more than Germans from 43 onwards.

Juha

[plan_D]

Njaco, Great Britain had to spread its factories about. Not as much as Germany in '43 - '45 but it certainly had to. I must also point out that Great Britain had the largest amount of motorised transport compared to any other military force in 1939. The motorised units had to be downgraded in the CBI because of the terrain; where motorised units were hinderance, not a help.

Certainly, Juha, one thing the Germans did do was over-engineer. They also had too many designs that were going beyond the drawing board. The Pz.Kpfw IV is often forgotten about but it was the Pz.Kpfw IV that was more likely to be met in battle. Often Allied and Soviet reports claim these to be Tigers, even when Tigers weren't about.
The Pz.Kpfw IV was a very, very good medium tank. The only problem was the lack of numbers! I have always wondered what their kill ratio was against Allied armour... I certainly consider it a superior machine to the Sherman and T-34.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Certainly, Juha, one thing the Germans did do was over-engineer.

And they still do it today, and not just in technology and manufacturing but also in paper work everything!