Which period had the fastest technological progress in a short span of time?

>Cold War saw more progress than the WWII
Maybe becouse it was longer?

There weren't any petrol based ships in 1900? Really?

>le dark ages meme

>>and german zeintizts where ze best ! :-DDD
Note, how I didn't say anything about Germany in particular in my original post.

>Fuck you, the Cold War saw more progress than the WWII, wherhaboo scum.
No, it did not.
In terms of technological progress 1 year of WW2 equals roughly 10 years of cold war.
And I'm not even speaking about truly revolutionary stuff like nuclear weapons, passive night-vision or the introduction of jet-powered aircraft.

Just look at the evolution of tanks during WW2.
For example, the Wehrmacht started out with mostly PzIIs and IIIs in 1939. Even By 1941 they were obsolete and completely outclassed by contemporary Soviet tanks. By 1942-43 came along Pz IVs and StuGs with 75mm L43 and L48 guns, but by 1945 those things were nothing compared to PzVs and King Tigers.
Same could be said about the Red Army who made a giant leap from BT-7 to T-44 (54) during the same period and the US, who progressed from m2 light and medium tanks to fucking M26 Pershings.
In general, an AFV of 1939 would perform very poorly in 1941-1942 and would be utterly useless by 1945.

Now, let's make a (rough) comparison to the Cold War:

Soviets:
50s - T-54/55, 60s - T-62, 70s - T-64A and T-72, early 80s - T-64B, T-72A, late 80s - T-72B and the pinnacle of Soviet tank engineering T-80U.
Sidenote: T-62 is merely a modification of the 54 design, everything since the 70s is based (or heavily influenced by) the T-64.

US:
50s - M47 and M48, 60s - early M60s, 70s - M60A3, early 80s - early M1s and M1IIP, late 80s - M1A1.
Sidenote: Everything up until the M1 is based on the m47/48 design.

Germany:
50s - M47, 60s - early Leo1s, 70s - late Leo1s, early 80s - early Leo2s, late 80s - Leo2A4.
Sidenote: Leo1s had so little frontal armor that they could literally be penetrated by a M4 Sherman or T-34-76.

As you can obviously see, much slower progression, and none of the tanks of the 50s would be completely useless against tanks of the late 80s. Not efficient for sure, but not useless. An M47 would still penetrate the side armor of an T-80U at a reasonable range.

Should we even speak about infantry weapons if the current service rifle of the Russians is still a modification of a post-ww2 design and the US use a rifle developed in the late 50s?

Or aircraft? When both the Russians and the Americans use to this day the strategic bombers put in service in the mid 50s?

>cherry picking the forefront of ww2 technology and legacy cold war aircraft
If you want to talk about 20th century tech then maybe the B2, F22, YF23, X35, Seawolf, Aegis, ERA like Kontakt-5, S-300, AShMs, GPS...

Yes, and all of those came after DECADES of runup. They didn't just magically get farted out of Robert McNamara's ass one summer's morning.

>Just look at the evolution of tanks during WW2. For example, the Wehrmacht started out with mostly PzIIs and IIIs in 1939. Even By 1941 they were obsolete and completely outclassed by contemporary Soviet tanks. By 1942-43 came along Pz IVs and StuGs with 75mm L43 and L48 guns, but by 1945 those things were nothing compared to PzVs and King Tigers.Same could be said about the Red Army who made a giant leap from BT-7 to T-44 (54) during the same period and the US, who progressed from m2 light and medium tanks to fucking M26 Pershings. In general, an AFV of 1939 would perform very poorly in 1941-1942 and would be utterly useless by 1945.

Dude we are talking about technology not design.

The late war tanks use exactly the same tech. as the early war tanks their design just changed.

Come back the day you know what technology is.

Well, radar is a good example. The cavity magnetron was probably one of the most inventions of the 20th century, and it made radar tech jump incredibly in a single year. Chain Home was revolutionary when the war started in 1939, and by mid-1941 aircraft were carrying radar sets that outclassed it by orders of magnitude.

I didn't say there were no advances.

He just doesn't know the difference between design and technology.

Using tanks as example for his point was thr worst chance he could have made.

>If you want to talk about 20th century tech then maybe the B2, F22, YF23, X35, Seawolf, Aegis, ERA like Kontakt-5, S-300, AShMs, GPS...
>B2
Which was in a development from 1979-1989, longer than WW2.
>F22
15 years from 1st flight to introduction. Still (somewhat) vulnerable to 4th generation fighter like Su-27S and MiG-29M.
>YF23
Prototype that went nowhere.
>X35
You mean F-35? That's not even Cold War anymore.
>Seawolf
Improvement over the Los Angeles-class, but arguably a much smaller step than the jump from the early U-boats designs (which had mainly to operate above water) to Elektroboote (true submarines), in a much smaller timeframe.
>Aegis
In development since 1969, still used today.
>ERA like Kontakt-5
Logical evolution of the ERA concept, neither ground-breaking nor really necessary if you're willing to sacrifice weight.
>S-300
Development started in 1967, put in service in 1978, still used today.
>AShMs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293
>GPS
Launched in 1973.

See a pattern here?

What if all this means is that tank design can't be meaningfully improved anymore since it's no longer in its infancy? Sort of like how video games from 1984 are drastically different from ones in 2000, but comparing 2016 to 2000 isn't as big of a leap.

Not saying you're wrong, just throwing it out there.

WW1 imo
>first tanks
>airplanes that weren't complete shit
>start of chemical warfare
>submarines
>automatic weapons

>Dude we are talking about technology not design.
>The late war tanks use exactly the same tech. as the early war tanks their design just changed.
>Come back the day you know what technology is.

Torsion-bars, stabilizers, high-pressure guns, usage of automated welding, rangefinders are all examples of technology lacking in early war tanks.
Early war tanks even lacked radio-equipment.

It's not just tanks, though.
Same goes for firearms, ships, aircraft and (to a certain degree) even missile-systems.
A weapon put in service in the 60s would still be useful in 70s. During WW2 even 4 years was enough to make most designs completely outdated.

20th century, particularly 1914-1960

Inb4 that retard comes in and goes autistic over his claims that the 18th century saw the most

yeah I remember that guy.

fuck that guy.

Radar, sonar, the first computer, night vision, command guidance are all good examples of revolutionary developments in technology during WW2.

I think you miss his point.

technological progress has been accelerating on a exponential curve for much of history

Right now. The leaps keep getting bigger, its just harder to realise.

This. Our progress in the last century alone is fucking mind boggling

Defo going to be WW2 with RADAR tho.

Yes but the King Tiger, Tiger and Panther were terrible tanks. Soviets used the incredible KV-1 and T-34 tanks that ruined germany. Germany were still using fat 75mm lob cannons that couldn't even pen these tanks at the time.

The Pershing wasn't a very good tank, the Shermans were far better. You need to understand that mediums of the war stole the show, up until the Centurion came out as a true MBT.

but all these technologies were invented before ww2 you fucking idiot.

Just learn when to shut up and cut your losses.

Yeah that's why soviet and allied commanders called the Panther the best tank of ww2.

Fucking tanky

technologically and design wise best=/=effective.

Soviet sloped armor and mass produced american tinfoil tanks won the war.

Yes

I didn't say it could have won them the war, I know that zerg rush is better.

It still is the "best" tank of the war, numbers produced are a different subject.

Btw it also had sloped armor.

transistor

Going to need a source on that one you fucking mong, the tank broke down all the time was was shit. Used low quality steel armour and had terrible side armour.

The french and the brits trialed it after the war and deemed that is was too unreliable and unergonomic for the crew. BECAUSE IT WAS SHIT AND GAY.

Kill yourself wehrb.

The Panther was literally the best tank of WW2.

>Fuck you, German Scientists were nothing.
>Posts period in which German Scientists were fuck crucial.

Do a bit of googling you retard. I'm guessing this is a shit attempted at bait though.

I don't understand how you could think a tank that most losses occurred through mechanical malfunction could be good.

Sherman was the best tank of the war.

An invention is worthless without being put into service.
WW2 pushed all those new technologies, which were in it's infancy before the war to a logical conclusion and implemented them in various new designs, which soon were put into mass-production.
Never before and never after did mankind implement new military technology at such an astonishing rate.

>Never before and never after did mankind implement new military technology at such an astonishing rate.
>mankind implement new military technology
>new military technology
>military
Where's your cum tribute to Hitler already?

Funny because them being mongoloids like you is precisely the reason the German lost the warS. Same in both WWs ... "We are ze best, best tanks mean we win" (eventhough the enemy has 25 tanks for each tank we have"

Meanwhile in Paris or London, "Hey Chaps, guess who cracked the German code, again ?"
Long story short, codes are what decided both WW outcomes, and allied scientists created the computer out of nothing. That is a huge gap in terms of technological advancement to the German "New panzer XXiIiII.bfwwe12-version1.23214, nothing changes but now the exhaust pipe can also output bratwurst by the meter :-DDD"

>Do a bit of googling you retard. I'm guessing this is a shit attempted at bait though.
Very good armor, amazing gun, reasonable mobile, great suspension.
>I don't understand how you could think a tank that most losses occurred through mechanical malfunction could be good.
It was pushed too soon into service, no doubt. But that is hardly a fault of the design.
>Sherman was the best tank of the war.
Sherman had the best price–performance ratio of any tank in WW2. But facing a Panther on the battlefield, the Sherman was severely outclassed.

Once again, I didn't say shit about Germany in particular.
Why are you projecting again?

>The Pershing wasn't a very good tank, the Shermans were far better.
The Pershing's role was to lay the groundwork for the M47 and M48.

>the flaws in the design aren't the fault of the design
Wut

1900-1950 imo.

>Used low quality steel armour and had terrible side armour.
Most late war german tanks had problems with the quality of steel, this is not a problem specific to the Panther design.
>terrible side armour
You do realize that all modern tanks (yes, even Leopard 2A6s and M1A2 SEP V2) have terrible side-armor compared to their frontal armor? You can't have 360 degree protection without making the vehicle impractically heavy, so sacrificing the armor on the part of the vehicle that is less likely to be hit it the only reasonable choice.

Technologies are not pushed they are invented if, where and how you use them is a completely different story.

Do you have mental issues or don't you fucking get what technology is?

Everything you listed was invented before ww2.

Fucking think before you answer next time.

19th century.

>technological progress has been accelerating on a exponential curve for much of history

The tech curve is logistic, not exponential.

What about the other parts like the unreliability?

Every single new design of a machine inherently has flaws, that need to be ironed out.
The more the new design differs from the previous one, the more flaws and unexpected failures of components you are likely to face.
The Panther was a completely new tank, barely having any commonality with previous German AFVs and it was pushed immediately into mass production, so low mechanical reliability on the battlefield should not be surprising.

>But facing a Panther on the battlefield, the Sherman was severely outclassed.
Because one's a heavy and one's a medium tank?
That's like saying the MG-42 severely outclasses the M1911, they're used in two different roles, there's no reall way to compare them, besides maybe, MAYBE cost-effectiveness.
Compare the Sherman to the Pz IV if you want a fair comparison.

So you admit it was a shitty tank with a shitty design?

>Technologies are not pushed they are invented if, where and how you use them is a completely different story.
You fail to realize that there's a long way between invention and practical implementation.

Lol Panther was a medium tank you shitlord.

Do your research.

The Panther was a medium tank, as was the Pershing.
>That's like saying the MG-42 severely outclasses the M1911
Nice strawman.
>Compare the Sherman to the Pz IV if you want a fair comparison.
Neither the Sherman nor the Pz IV influenced post-war MBT designs.
Both the Panther and the Pershing did. Go figure

Sherman vs Pz. 4 H have a nice day sherman crew.

Better gun better sights can engage at far greater range and penetrate.

Allied air superiority fucked german tanks not shittu sherman crews stop getting your facts from hollywood

Nice shitpost.

what was the question op asked?

Can you even read?

No you can't, I know that implememtation takes time but rhat was never the question.

Stop making the discussion what you want it to be and stick to the topic goddamn.

Its was a medium tank in classification alone.
The t-34 weighed about 25 tons.
The panther V weighed 45

Well your entire argument seems to be "if COULD have been"
Which is irrelevant. You could've been a logical faggot instead of a dumb one as well.

US Civil War.

Started with muzzle-loading muskets. Ended with machine guns and armored steam-powered battleships.

classification
everything that matters

not germanys fault that all the other shitlords built 200kg tanks

So what does it have to make it a medium tank if it isn't in between the heavy and medium weight classifications?

M46 Patton weighs 44 tons
T-54 - 36 tons.
Both are medium tanks. Your point?

Both were produced at the ass end of the heavy tank race and could be considered main battle tanks at that point.
Protip - the panther was an early MBT

>what was the question op asked?
Here you go:
>Which period had the fastest technological progress in a short span of time?
And here's the correct answer:

Ooookay you realize that light medium and heavy have more something to do with the design caracteristics and doctrine this tank should be used in and not only the weight.

Fuck is everyone here a 12 year old Hoi4 gamer?

So why wasn't the panther used as a medium tank in the way you saw the panzer IV used?

>Protip - the panther was an early MBT
True. And as such, it should not come as an surprise that the Sherman was completely outclassed by the Pz V.

I wasn't arguing that point.
My point was the panther as it was released was a shitty design.
>30% combat readiness on average

Whoops, wrong one.

Germany kept the Pz IV in production only because the factories were already tooled-up for mass-production. Same story with the soviets and the T-34.

I know it is the 2nd ww.

Your examples were horrible that is all I am trying to say.

No I mean doctrine wise. Where was the panther used as other medium tanks were?
You can see two very different doctrines in a pzIV and a panther, why is that?

No, you are horrible.

Enlighten us with your knowledge and sources.

ps: Ofc they used it different because it was their best tank idiot.

You're the one who made the original claim that a medium tank was more about design characteristics and doctrine than weight.
So where was the panther used in a medium tank doctrine?
Why is weight not part of the design characteristics?

Fast forward to Korea and see how the M4 and M46 are used. Both are mediums too.

I don't think the two conflicts are comparable in doctrine considering the full combined arms support the US could always count on receiving.
I would also like to note that they were more in line with a MBT doctrine as there was no longer need for a heavy, light, and medium at that point.

>Mongoloids like you.
Fuck off, I was commenting on Mongoloids like you who inundate this board with pointless anti-German bullshit nobody can't be assed about.

>Paris
>When it was a really British effort, the cracking of the code.
Fucking Frog detected. Holy shit. Not a day goes by without your stupid pettiness. Why don't you go whine about how silly the HRE was or something.

21st century, seriously did you see what cellphones looked like 2000.

Open a book though, the German code was cracked by the French in WWI.
Also in WWII, more than just the British cracked the code. I assume you saw the recent movie about Alan Turing and thus act like a know-it-all. But if Turing brought the idea of the computer, a lot of other people actually cracked the code. Not just English too. Even some French. (but mostly Polish, as you probably don't know)

>french
>polish
Those are all minor nations, not worth mentioning in the same sentence as the great nations of Germany, Britain and, of course, the US.

dubs don't lie

this. why they get mentioned when WWII is brought up is beyond me

Ww1-ww2

Because the Polish won the BoBritain and the French won the North African Campaign ?
Given they had been left alone by the Brits, the US and the Russians when the German stroke, this is quite the achievement...

HMS Dreadnought was the first oil-powered warship

No idea about civilian vessels

>get steamrolled within a few weeks
>WE WON THE WAR GUIZE XDDDD
fr*g pls

>Given they had been left alone by the Brits, the US and the Russians when the German stroke, this is quite the achievement...
>western allies need at least 1000 allies to defeat one axis member and they are proud about it

I fucking know before entering that this thread would derail to a germs shit.

>Centurion came out as a true MBT
fuck off with the brit meme
Centurion was the reflection of the failure of the British armored forces making the political split of the armored school into infantry and cavalry. The "Universal" tank is literally what everyone else called the "Medium" tank for the past 15 years.

19th century objectively

Any source?