Why do Germans get mocked for building prototypes and experimenting when the Allies did the same thing?

FW 190s weren't obsolete, not sure where you got that from. The Bf 109s were becoming obsolete, yeah, but Fw 190 not really. Russia only got a plane that could keep up with the thing in 1944, and even then hardly.

If you keep making the same plane without any r&d on the side, it will become obsolete. Do you really not understand that?

Are you assuming improved variants of the Fw 190 were not being made?

but it wasn't obsolete in 1944-1945, insead they started building prototypes immediately that weren't combat ready.
People wouldn't laugh at them if they tested and worked on their prototypes and deployed them once they could actually be used, but instead they wasted resources building unworkable aircraft instead of ones that actually worked.

>if you keep making the same plane
Germany had over 10 different Focke-Wulf types, each one being improved upon either via fuselage design, ordnance carrying or firepower. Or do you believe the Spitfire was obsolete as well despite the fact it was constantly being perfected? I'd rather have 50 Fw 190 A-5s than 10 Me 163s that are a bigger risk to the pilots than the fucking enemy bombers. that or pic related, which has taken a few pilots' lives because of plywood delamination.

You don't wait until your gear becomes obsolete. You always have some research going on the side.
I've never seen any proof that Germans dedicated more money to R&D than Allied countries or that their R&D was not justified.

You can make improved variants but you eventually have to upgrade your gear. Or should the USAF be using upgraded Mustangs?

Nobody is claiming that you doof. What people are saying is that the Germans rushed things into the front and geared up for war production on designs that hadn't been fully tested. To nobody's great surprise, a lot of them didn't work, or had horrendous teething issues.

There's a difference between having research going and putting untested and untried prototypes into service that have huge problems with them that haven't been worked out into service.
You're the one who's missing the point, it isn't that German researched things, its that they either made unworkable stuff with wild fantasies, or they put stuff into service that didn't work because they didn't spend the time to figure out their issues.
You're making a false dichotomy and claiming that research = putting prototypes into combat use without solving their problems, and conflating research and military production

You do have to eventually upgrade your gear, correct. But that doesn't mean you're supposed to rush monstrocities like this
Germans were fucking retarded because they rushed designs as states. The Me 163A series had problems with its fuel being very concoctive. The plane could burst into flames when landing, pilots had to wear special suits, 2 seperate trucks were to be carried for the fuel. The plane had to be rinsed with water so as the fuel wouldn't contact outside of the engine, pilots lost a ton of lives.
Germany didn't address any of this, instead, they created the Me 163B, a variant whose fuselage was much more simple in design, but still had the same problems. Perhaps if they addressed this logistical nightmare better, we wouldn't be mokcing them for it.

>What people are saying is that the Germans rushed things into the front
Actually people don't say that. They always bring up one-off prototypes (like the Maus tank) as if Germans expected those be anything more than experiments.
No one ever talks about the Pz V or Meme 262 as rushed prototypes.

>They always bring up one-off prototypes
The Me 163 entered mass production, though. For every 4 Me 262s, there was 1 Me 163. Yet it had all the problems as said.

They built like 300 Me 163, which I guess takes it out of prototype stage but they realized it was foolish very soon.

Yes they do. I don't know where you've been hanging out. For instance, nobody has mentioned the Maus up until now, and most of the discussion has been on late war jets.

And for the record, I would say that both the Panther and the Me-262 were bad designs, especially considering the needs of the German military when they came out.

>foolish very soon
They fucking created a B variant to ease production. They were still producing them in 1945, do you even know what you're talking about?
>The new powerplant and numerous detail design changes meant to simplify production over the general A-series airframe design resulted in the significantly modified Me 163B

Eh I'd say they overproduced Me 262s, a few would've been fine like given to the top aces. But Germans fucked up again and the pilots basically fought to the death. That and the constant demand for new pilots meant giving these sort of planes to inexperienced pilots was a nightmare. A good example would be the He 162, flown by Hitlerjugend.

Plenty of people talk about the Panzer V as a rushed prototype and the Me 262 as an equally problematic plane. The Panzer V broke down en masse in Kursk, it lost far more tanks to mechanical problems than it did to enemy combat. Even by the end of the war they were just barely managing to make an adequate tank out of it. Meanwhile the Me 262 was a relatively useless aircraft that had constant engine problems (they lasted, what, 20 hours?) and lost more aircraft than it shot down.

The Me-262 had a much worse kills per sortie ratio than the FW-190. In 1944, you're not trying to engage in 1 to 1 flying duels with enemy fighters, you need to intercept bombers and shoot them down before they wreck large quantities of shit.

Guess what? Escorting enemy fighters are going to stick with those slow bombers, and whether you go 685 km/h or 900 km/h isn't going to make that much of a difference when your targets, your real targets, are mostly going at around 350 km/h.

Add to the fact that no matter how great your plane is, it can be destroyed by bombing or strafing it on the ground, and devoting extra resources into a superplane like that is a real dumb idea given Germany's situation in the air in 1944.

>flown by Hitlerjugend
>literally letting kids fly planes
They were desperate, but I don't think they were ever THAT desperate.

I don't think they saw combat, but they wanted to use them for combat, sort of wrote that in a deceptive way, my bad:
>this plane should be a 'people's fighter,' in which the Hitler Youth, after a short training regimen with clipped-wing two-seater gliders like the DFS Stummel-Habicht, could fly for the defense of Germany,
>The He 162 was originally built with the intention of being flown by the Hitler Youth, as the Luftwaffe was fast running out of pilots.

Good catch, didn't think of that. Also didn't German planes have trouble actually reaching the bombers due to fuel problems?

Yeah, perhaps if Germany kept fighting, they'd need Hitlerjugend pilots. They fought alongside solders in the defense of cities late in the war because of troop shortages iirc.

>Escorting enemy fighters are going to stick with those slow bombers
That's actually the tactically worst thing a fighter pilot can do. Sticking to the bombers gives them a false sense of security while it strips the fighter pilot of all initiative. If would surprise me if the Allies still did close escorts in the late 40s.

>Germans fucked up again and the pilots basically fought to the death
Germany was short on pilots. They had no other choice but to keep their pilots in operation.

Germany could not fight the war in the same fashion as the Allies did - if Germany fought in the same manner as the Allies they would have lost even sooner.
Germany winning or losing had nothing to do with Germany not fighting efficiently enough, not having had the right or inferior weapons or wasting resources on research or something. Germany lost the war strategically. Even if they further optimised their tactical potential, fielding better weapons (e.g. under the assumption that late war detriment on equipment or various issues with their more experimental stuff was not an actual issue), they still would have lost. Any claims to the contrary come from people who are apparently just as short-sighted as the German generals who started the war holding the foolish assumption a war of such scale could be brute-forced through superior tactics, except that they at least can claim to not have had the opportunity to learn from history.

>Germany was short on pilots.
Because they flew their aces to death and threw away all their instructors at the Stalingrad airlift.

By the end of the war, yeah, they couldn't afford to pull their aces off the front. But that's because of their retarded strategic decisions early in the war.

Again: they had no choice but to keep them in operation because they otherwise wouldn't have had enough pilots. You can only afford to rotate pilots if you have enough of them.

The same reason Bomber Harris is a meme.

Butthurt Jews and Communists hate when the the German military of WW2 is celebrated, so they play up all of it's ridiculous attributes in order to make it seem less cool. It's the exact same phenomenon as autists claiming katanas are shit swords because they're butthurt over all the "Nippon steel folded thousand times" memes from the 80s and 90s.

When I said "fought to the death" I was more of talking early on in the war, not 1944. And I never claimed they would have "ever won", so I don't know why you started yammering about how they still would've lost.

Which is perfectly logical considering the one resource Germany had in abundance was coal.

>they had no choice but to keep them in operation because they otherwise wouldn't have had enough pilots
Only after they wasted away their pilots on operations like the Battle of Britain and lost so many instructors during the Stalingrad airlift. Had they actually had good training policies early in the war it wouldn't have been as much of a problem.

Germany wasn't suffering the kinds of shortages Japan had (something like less than 10,000 pilots trained in the entire country's history by 1939) until their own retarded practices had done it to them.

>Escorting enemy fighters are going to stick with those slow bombers
Allied escort doctrine was to leave the bombers and destroy German fighters.

At the beginning the Luftwaffe didn't have that significant loss rates. Only from '43 onwards things really got bad up to the point where pilot survival rates were rivalling those of submarine crews.
The second part of my post was more aimed at the thread as a whole than your post in particular, maybe I should have pointed that out. People seem to make a big deal out of rather minor decisions which really didn't affect the war significantly or decisions which from the German perspective made complete sense as they were looking at things from a different strategic disposition. Maybe you don't hold that view in particular but the idea that if the Germans had done what the Allies had done would have won them the war is complete nonsense.

>idea that if the Germans had done what the Allies had done would have won them the war is complete nonsense.
I agree with that entirely, Germany was fucked at an entirely strategical level, especially regards to logistics, I thought you implied that I was thinking that they would've ever won with minor decisions at first. Cheers for the provided information.

I believe its called "fpbp"