Why did germany in world war ll get the technological edge in many departments during much of the war?

>why did germany in world war ll get the technological edge in many departments during much of the war?
Such as?

Yes goy let us celebrate the degenerate medi- uh, I mean the strong education perpetuated under the great Weimar Republic!
Hitler would've had it in a few months time, if he didn't flee to Argentina that is

They didn't "get" any technological edge during WW2, they still "had" the technological edge in some fields from the time of the German Empire. In fact, they would have been a lot better had Hitler not enforced racial policies and put people in charge who decided who would get funds depending on whether or not they were politically in line.

>Hitler would've had it in a few months time, if he didn't flee to Argentina that is

Yes, because he would manage to cover across about 3 years worth of development from a program that had massively more manpower, material resources, and prominent physicists in "a few months".

Are you retarded?

You probably could have gotten further into this argument before implying it was the jews' fault.

>implying it's hard to build a nuclear bomb
it is the Jews' fault

Well, it isn't Weimar Republic that destroyed the mathematical traditions that formalized quantum physics.

Wow nice source and quote taken out of context

> Nazi
> Being good for education
Choose one and only one.

>StG-44 is the same as the AK47
Okay I'm fucking triggered, you win. The StG and the AK use completely different gas systems. You might as well call the Mosin Nagant a copy of the Prussian Needle Gun if that's your definition of "copy".

Same for the aircraft; similar engine placement means that they "copied" the Germans? What nonsense. The Russians DID use underhanded means to get their first turbojet engine; they won the design off of the British in a card game and then used sticky-coated shoe soles to steal machining shavings from the factory so they could develop the alloy needed to make the fucking thing. To say NOTHING of the completely unrelated Allied jet programs that were in progress before and during the war.

I don't know if whoever made that was trying to be as wrong as possible or they were being completely serious, but it is nothing but bullshit.

> nice source
D. Nachmansohn, R. Schmidt: Die große Ära der Wissenschaft in Deutschland 1900–1933, 1988, S. 55

>all these comparisons of a WW2 tech to things designed significantly after the war

I mean, it's not like the US was using flying bombs in WW2
OH WAIT THERE WAS THE TDR WHICH ACTUALLY HAD IN-FLIGHT GUIDANCE UNLIKE THE V1 AND V2

Or what about the guy who FUCKING INVENTED THE LIQUID FUEL ROCKET

or the N-9M, the US flying wing that flew in 42

or the P-59, the US jet developed independently of German research

and the Germans never had the fucking bomb

and he fails to mention stuff like VT fuses, which Germany never figured out, or actually good radar

>not winning a noble prize makes you stupid
user don't you know that the Jews kept awarding themselves noble prizes during the weimar republic
Not even gonna reply

>Not even gonna reply

Because you're fucking wrong and you know it. Fuck off back to .

If you mean in the way that Hitler wasted a shitload of time and resources on exterminating them, you might have a point. Unfortunately, I sort of don't think you do.

>exterminating

> Not even gonna reply
I accept that your concede your point here.

> nazi
> technological edge
Great thread, OP.

Why would you need a copy if original was found?

Because no original was ever found?

Here is your original.

Hey, maybe if you wedge enough you'll never have to acknowledge that your point has fallen apart!

I don't speak Arabic

Not him, and he's clearly baiting, but I'm pretty sure the macro is talking about the concept of an assault rifle - the STG-44 is often hailed as the first of its kind.

Gotta wonder what effect the 262 woulda had on the war in the air if funding had been pumped into researching them and they'd been mass produced as soon as was possible instead of being delayed by Hitler's autism.

Only tangentially related but I remember watching a documentary on the Me-163 Komet where they had an interview with a German pilot who described flying the experience of flying the rocket plane as "it was like... soaring through the air, supported by the wings of an angel." By all accounts of allied pilots too, those things were terrifying for their extreme speed and ability to pull off vertical climbs with ease. Pity the design could only work as a very short range interceptor

lol this post

>TDR
>so "successful" it was cancelled before the war ended even after being used

>N-9M
>first one built from plywood, crashed and killed it's first pilot leading to cancellation

>P-59
>performed so terribly it was cancelled despite having a jet engine

>meme-bel prizes

>being this triggered

This thread is garbage. Oh and
>Hitler
>decorated for bravery and being wounded 3 times in WW1, barely surviving a gas attack and taking on one of the most dangerous wartime jobs

Fucking hell.

Which ones do you mean?

>b2 bomber inspired by ho229
This is so full of bait

>Gotta wonder what effect the 262 woulda had on the war in the air if funding had been pumped into researching them and they'd been mass produced as soon as was possible instead of being delayed by Hitler's autism.

Given that historically, they didn't have the pilots rated to fly them, nor the fuel to train the pilots, and almost 5/6 of the Me-262s ever produced were destroyed on the ground before they ever got a pilot, I'm guessing more of them doesn't help all that much.

>he leaded the nasa
Typical naziboos

>using slave labor to build complex machines

>still use bolt action rifles as the main service rifle all the way to 45
John Garand says hello, you kraut fuck

Some of this might be true but dude you cant compare ho229 and ba2

> (((John Garand)))

>its an "unfortunate bores propagate plebbish propaganda and nationalistic ideology due to their ignorance of history, technology and science and oh, im also a jew" episode

The individual rifleman, especially in German infantry doctrine, was pretty irrelevant. The central weapon in a German infantry section was the machine gun, either MG-34 or 42. It was this machine gun that would deal the lion's share of damage during a fire-fight. Rifles and other small arms were less important, serving more a role of a means of personal defense. As such, German small arms that weren't machine guns largely fell into the "good enough" category. The K98 was a rugged, battle-tested design from which all the machinary and infrastructure was already in place to churn out in large numbers, and was competitive with most other rifles their enemies carried at the time. They made stabs at trying newer designs, like the G43 and STG44, but the K98 never became less relevant.

That heart quote is cute.

And they still lost

They had technological edge in rocketry and slight edge in jet engines.
That's literally all.

They also were a bit ahead of the rest of the world in high-speed flight research, although such advances never materialized on an operational aircraft. Even the Me 262's swept wings were only meant to adjust the center of gravity, not being swept enough to reduce transonic drag.

>why did germany in world war ll get the technological edge in many departments during much of the war
Didn't the Heer rely on horses and cart for logistics as late as '45? Because I'd prioritize full mechanization over "muh Wunderwaffe".

Germany also had no nukes.

In the case of the Jet they literally stole the idea from some British doctoral student's thesis paper.

You'd think maybe le superior German engineering would have saved them from suffering the most humiliating defeat in history.

Hitler was into blue-sky research for wonder weapons. As a result, the V-missiles and jet propulsion programs got lots of money.

However, this was also why Germany lost the war. The scant resources available for war production should have gone into cheap smgs for the volkstrum, long-range luftwaffe bombers and more u-boats. Fact is, 1,000 fully loaded B-17s are better than 50 missiles.

One of the reasons our perception of war has changed is due to the Cold War, where technology played a huge role because of the deterrence factor. But in a real war, tech development is secondary to cheaper and more expendable arms.

Isn't saying Germany's defeat was due to logistical and industrial problems a bit simplistic?

by having technological weaknesses in other departments.

radar, computing, the manhattan project, ASDIC (sonar).

and probably the most important element of WW2 allied technology? the stock keeping unit (SKU). That simply little numerical code allowed a massive optimisation of logistics, which in many ways was what won the war.

simplistic but not inaccurate

other than a edge in rockets they didnt.

the jets were only slightly sooner to first flight than the meteor and slower to full service, and had horrible engine problems, they were inferior to the allies in prop planes, the allies had caught up in tank tech by wars end and their great innovation in small arms was something the british had considered but relegated to a post war concern as the priority was building enough good weapons rather than a inadequate number of better weapons

ak47 and stg44 are only superficially similar

and you want to credit the germans over the americans for jet development but dont acnowledge that jet engines were first thought of by frank whittle, a englishman.

not to mention the fact that the US jets were designed during the war with technology supplied by britain.

the canberra not only isnt a american design - english again- but again existed as design studies before 1945, indeed its design was largely solidified by late 1944

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_R-4
US helicopter that entered service in 1942 development and that was based on wor begun in 1938 with the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought-Sikorsky_VS-300

flying wings were something the germans, the russians the british and americans had all experimented with before and during ww2 during ww2 armstrong whitworth in britain were considering a flying wing airliner for post war use and had gotten as far as glider tests, by 44.

germany lagged behind in nuclear weapons, several years behind the british

the Me262 was being used in 1942? Wow

Also, I've heard the horten called the gotha. Which ones the correct name? (Or does it have two for some reason)

Horten is correct for the aircraft IRL, Gotha would be producing it if it entered service.

Vrill energy.

They also accidented into the shaped charge, seems they got a few lucky accidents, but it was not enough to save them.

>the most humiliating defeat in history
That would be the defeat of France in WW2 which eternally branded them as cheese eating surrender monkeys. Nobody doubts that Germany put up one hell of a fight in both world wars though.

youtube.com/watch?v=K_DnRn9hyFU

It certainly wasn't tactics, because that's what Germany excelled at. German doctrine was all about delivering a fast knock-out punch, a war of attrition was unaffordable. And a war of attrition is what happened, and that is won through industrial output, logistics and manpower.

they got cucked by communists, idk about you but that's pretty embarrassing to me.

Funny thing is that wunderwaffe were the only thing that could win the war for Germany.

Except they chose to develop the delivery systems for the bomb, not the bomb itself.

Communists who were aided by America and Britain. Not to mention that Germany was responsible at least as much rape, murder and suffering in Russia so they're in no position to whine about Russians doing the same unto them (and arguably only the eastern part of the country was ravaged by the Soviets). Neo-Nazi whining about rape is merely a distortion tactic to make people forget about German war crimes - and rape happened quite frequently and it's well documented too.

They were desperate and put prototypes into service.
Britain and US had the same techs but only used them when they were mature and tested.

There was no doctrine of delivering a quick knockout punch. In fact Germany went into ww2 fully expecting a war of attrition against France.

>what's blitzkrieg?

which in turn made them think they'll be able to do the same to Germany

i meant to say USSR

it's something they codified after winning against France so quickly. It was also obsolete by the time the USA joined the war which was a problem because the USA doctrine was based on it

Germany went into the war thinking that they could win a conflict like WW1 through tactical military prowess alone. The initial successes were no coincidence because German officers had learned how to operate properly in WW1.

Obviously they were wrong - a conflict of that scale cannot be won tactically. But their approach was mostly by solving the problem of being strategically badly disposed through tactical means.

Sauce?

A myth.

t. Lancaster

he first known use of the word blitzkrieg in an English publication occurred in an article in Time magazine in September 25, 1939, discussing the Polish campaign

>the v2 is big, fast, and makes scary noises!
>the anglos report hundreds of deaths with each one fired!
>they'll collapse any day now just like the red army did in Stalingrad

>mfw v2 project by the end of the war cost 2x the amount of the Manhattan project
>mfw hitler thought centrifuges and refining uranium was a jewish trick

Not him, but that means absolutley jack shit.

First off, German military publications would likely not be immediately known to the English speaking world, nor would they necessarily use the same terminology.

Secondly, just because the word itself is not necessarily used, doesn't necessarily entail that the doctrine about a mobility based army focusing on a weak point and then using rapid exploitation of the gap to encircle and annihilate wasn't there.

This is well substantiated. Not to mention: if you look at the strategic planning of WW1 on all sides of the continental powers, you will find that they all had offensive planning meant to deliver one fast decisive strike at the enemy. This is the thing that the Schlieffen Plan, Plan XVII and Plan 19 all have in common. However, only during WW1 they had learned how to actually practically do this sort of thing.

Just because they had no name for it doesn't mean that its principles weren't applied.

>Just because they had no name for it doesn't mean that its principles weren't applied.
It's pretty much universally acknowledged that "Blitzkrieg" as a concept was not adopted in German war-planning. They lucked into BoF.

So did everyone else. A lot of the allied technical edge was equally fancy but less flashy. Things like information theory, decryption, self-healing fuel tanks, and better electronics. They don't make big ol' recognizable-profile tanks, but they weigh in pretty significantly all the same.

>doesn't mean that its principles weren't applied.
Except they weren't. Should Guderian and Rommel have conformed to the orders that they were delegated, they would've entrenched themselves at Sedan, which was the strongest point from where to fight a war of attrition against France, but instead they shunned what was being ordered by the German High Command and raced for Boulogne-sur-Mer, strangling the French and the BEF into an improvised pocket (well "improvised", hmm, von Manstein had foreseen its execution, but the remainder of the German generals hadn't consented to it being exacted).

The German invasion of France was a bout of "on-field" improvising, and deceiving the Allies into believing that it had been thought-up on purpose by German generals was pure propaganda.

Hell, had the instructions for Fall Blau not been captured by the Belgian army, there would've been an even greater spirit of "lmao let's do the war of attrition thing over again".

I hate to use wikipedia but here's the plan for the invasion of France
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manstein_Plan#cite_note-FOOTNOTECiano1946-3

Again, not that user, but how are you defining "Blitzkrieg as a concept"? The Ardennes attack was classic blitzkrieg thinking, attacking at a localized thin point in the French lines and then rapidly exploiting outward from the hole you've run through, chewing up the rear and surrounding the main mass of the French army.

You can see principles to that effect very clearly laid out in things like Achtung Panzer (1937) and Hitler's rejection of Halder's plans which were much more attritional for the defeat of France.

as for the USA using outdated blitzkrieg
here's something from Field Manual 100–5, Operations as related to the use of tanks
ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/FM100-5/index.html

>The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas
Offensive operations against hostile rear areas is what Germans did in France and poland but was no longer feasible which is why the Sherman tanks were somewhat unprepared to tank vs tank fighting which were the new reality of war

>ffensive operations against hostile rear areas is what Germans did in France and poland but was no longer feasible

Da fuck are you on about? Have you ever heard of operations like Cobra? Dragoon? How the fuck do you think the Falaise pocket formed?

> Sherman tanks were somewhat unprepared to tank vs tank fighting which were the new reality of war

From this book.

amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062

They did quite well when up against other tanks, their main problems were anti-tank guns and mines. And of course, they did swimmingly against softer, rear-echelon targets like artillery and command infrastructure, which is why you had so few armor commanders requesting the up-gunned 76mm longer nosed cannon in 1944.

>Again, not that user, but how are you defining "Blitzkrieg as a concept"?
Preparing for a short war.

>The Ardennes attack was classic blitzkrieg thinking
It was an improvised plan. Germany didn't go into war thinking they would quickly deliver a knockout punch.

>You can see principles to that effect very clearly laid out in things like Achtung Panzer (1937)
Acthung Panzer is not a product of German war-planning.

>Hitler's rejection of Halder's plans which were much more attritional for the defeat of France.
Which doesn't negate the fact that their actual plan was Schliefen plan 2.0, which everyone knew would lead to another war of attrition.

So whats the difference between blitzkrieg and Deep Battle? Both seems to want to achieve a breakthrough through combined arms against a weak point and then exploit that weakness by flooding reserves into those holes created and into the back of the enemy to fuck shit up.

it's fair to say that the AK47 is a simpler, cheaper, better version of the stg-44.

Like the battle of Kursk where their superior tactics triumphed over the Red Army.

>Schliefen plan 2.0, which everyone knew would lead to another war of attrition.
The Schlieffen plan was specifically made to AVOID a war of attrition. They didn't plan on getting stuck in WW1, it was a consequence of not being able to operate properly yet. The German generals in charge in WW2 had learned how to avoid it however, and that is what they did.

>Preparing for a short war.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with Blitzkrieg or its lack. Were Soviet invasions of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Romania "Blitzkrieg"? Was Frederick the Second's invasion of Silesia back in the 18th century "Blitzkrieg"?

Every modern description of Blitzkrieg is operational in level, not strategic, and has nothing to do with how long the war lasts.

>It was an improvised plan. Germany didn't go into war thinking they would quickly deliver a knockout punch.

No it wasn't. It was planned months before it went into operation. The main meeting where the bulk of it was decided was on February 17th, 1940. You may as well say Overlord was an "improvised plan" at that point.

>Acthung Panzer is not a product of German war-planning.

But it was indicative of what was going on in the mind of the German military thinkers pre-war.

>Which doesn't negate the fact that their actual plan was Schliefen plan 2.0, which everyone knew would lead to another war of attrition.

The Schlieffen plan 1.0 was designed NOT to lead into a war of attrition. It failed, and that's what wound up happening, but no, "Trying to get this right" would not lead to a war of attrition, which you seem to set up as oppositional to "Blitzkrieg", which has nothing to do with your retarded definition of war by length of hostilities.

So, this is based on the anecdotal evidence of an Italian aristocrat? Amazing level of evdience.

The main operational level difference between the two is that Blitzkrieg envisions one point of penetration. You try to find the weak point in your enemy's line, you mass your best and most mobile elements opposite to it, break through, chew up the rear, and hopefully eliminate your enemy's ability to resist.

Deep battle, on the other hand, envisions more of a stretching sort of war. You keep moving around, a lot, with multiple independent units of high mobility. Your opponent can't keep up with all of them, and you make multiple breakthroughs all at once.

Tactics are just one element of warfare - they can only get you so far. The point remains however that tactics were the one thing were the Germans excelled at. To deny this is utter nonsense.

When it comes to strategy on the other hand, Germans have been notoriously bad.

More than the concept per se, I find the logistics of deep battle as really interesting. You know, moving those divisions across the front, form one point to another, even if the distances were huge.

>But that has absolutely nothing to do with Blitzkrieg or its lack.
Blitzkrieg is a "concept" defining how a nation approaches war, not individual battles or even an operation. Obviously if it was real, then the doctrine will filter down to operational and tactical levels, where quick, decisive strikes will be favored.
However German military planning focused the vast majority of its resources not on mobility but on shell production, you know, to avoid a repeat of WW1 shell crisis. That should tell you all you need to know about the reality of German planning as opposed to the fantasied "blitzkrieg" Germany made up by media.

i didn't mean that offensive operations against hostile rear areas was never needed again, i meant that the tanks were more often forced into infantry support and tank vs tank battle and they weren't designed for that.