Nazi weapondry

Is it true that the tanks and the planes the nazis had were shit?
Is it true that the Spitfire was better than his counterpart, that the T-34 was better that his counterpart, and that the Tiger was shit?

>Tiger was shit?
The tiger was just hard to mass produce and unreliable.

>T-34 was better
The T-34 was a pile of dog shit. Soviet crewmen preferred the lend lease Shermans.

>Spitfire was better than his counterpart
Yes

French equipment were all superior. Traitors and anglos kept from using in war.

>Soviet crewmen preferred the lend lease Shermans.
So the T-34 was better than the german counterpart, and the Sherman was better than the T-34? German tanks were THAT bad?

>French equipment were all superior.
So now you say the French had better tanks. So the Germans had the worst tanks in the war?

>that the T-34 was better that his counterpart
I thought the whole thing with the T-34 was that it didn't freeze up so easily in winter.

>The T-34 was a pile of dog shit. Soviet crewmen preferred the lend lease Shermans.
>American tankers hated the Sherman
>Soviet tankers loved them

What does he mean by this?

Italians and Japanese had the worst but Germans are close

on strategic level, yes, at least in Europe

No, anglos have worst tanks, left behind retreating and melted down for scrap

>American tankers hated the Sherman

Give a source that's not Belton Cooper, or Belton Cooper derived.

Anglo tanks were horribly overspecialised, but they werent that bad from technical and strategical point of view

The British were still using riveted armor in 1944, which is pretty pathetic.

anglo tanks very low reliability and difficult maintenance issues

>His

Happened because English is not my mother language. The things-have-gender from Spanish slipped into the grammar of that sentence.

I used to make these kinds of threads when I was 13 and not supposed to be posting. Not on Veeky Forums though. t. born in 2000 :^)

>Is it true that the Spitfire was better than his counterpart
No.

The Spitfire wasn't better than the Bf109. The aircraft were pretty evenly matched.

from 1940 - 1942 Japan possessed the BEST fighter aircraft in the A6M line, the land based Jap planes were top notch in mid-later periods of the war.

people talk of the manueravability, but the planes range was what really set it apart. over 3k KM which is unheard of in europe apart from bombers and late war rides.

>People born in 2000 will be 18 this year
I feel old and I'm going to be 23 soon

Because everyone else wasn't retarded and realized that armor and self-sealing fuel tanks weren't a meme. Not to mention that zero was fucking slow. The Zero was a plane of compromises and it shows

A6M was good for a naval fighter, but it was not a technical match for 109E or Spitfire V. What Japan did have was the best fighter pilots in naval aviation.

>The T-34 was a pile of dog shit. Soviet crewmen preferred the lend lease Shermans.
says you

the only thing soviet crewmen liked about the shermans was the leather seats and the optics
in winter the sherman's air circulation was so bad that they might as well have been outside
which would be a huge issue assuming the tank even manages to not get bogged down in the shitty ground with its narrow tracks

dont get me wrong, the sherman is a good tank
its just absolute shit for the conditions in the eastern front
the whole "soviet crewmen preferred it" is a meme that needs to die

I have a decade on you. Imagine how I feel.

It still amazes me that people born in the 1990s are even adults.

>Is it true that the Spitfire was better
No. The two planes were evenly matched, but the best recorded matchups between the two were during the blitz, when the spitfires had enough fuel to take full advantage of their maneuverability, and the 109s only had enough fuel for fifteen minutes of very basic dogfighting

No, most German equipment was no worse off in reliability than other countries counterparts, its just that replacement parts for stuff that would inevitably break became harder to come by as German industry and capability to produce was destroyed by strategic bombing.
Tiger I and Tiger II had a combat readiness rate around 58%, which was pretty much on par with allied tanks, Panther was less around 48%, this was due to how long it took to work on the tank, not really a thing about them breaking more.
Spitfires had excellent climbing and dogfighting ability, their main problem was that they had atrocious range and thus not really of any impact after the defense of the Britain in the early part of the war.
The T-34 is the most overrated tank of WW2 and its longevity was measured in miles. An average T-34 lasted about 200 miles before being destroyed, abandoned, scraped. They were also death traps, with a 90% fatality rate if an anti-tank weapon penetrated the tank. Contrast this to the Sherman where you had a 75% chance of survival if the tank was penetrated by an anti-tank weapon. Shermans lasted years...decades even, not just a couple hundred miles.

The Sherman was without a doubt the best tank of the war in terms of total impact- regarding things like crew protection, environment versatility, reliability, and fulfilling and performing its intended role. It didn't have the best gun or the most armor but it had enough to get the job done. US Tankers only suffered 1400 KIA in the entire war, across all theaters of war and all tank types.

>The Sherman was without a doubt the best tank of the war
*blocks your path*

How can someone say - without being ironic - that German equipament was worst than the other countries at the time.

Zeros were superior in most ways to either the Spitfire or 109 of comparable era.
Spitfires became non-contenders after 1942 when their shit range hampered what they could actually do. 109s would still be used and developed.

Spitfires also suffered a lot against German pilots who could exploit the non fuel injected Spitfires who wouldn't be able to follow in dives/negative G.

Zero had the exact same cutout issue the Spitfire did

It didn't have abysmal range though

Same reason people suck off Tigers and Panthers

Our tankettes were not tanks. They were cute!

French were cuter though

>Is it true that the Spitfire was better than his counterpart
What counterpart? If it's the Me 262 then the answer is obviously no.
And overall their material was good enough to conduct a war, ignore the nitpicking so called specialists.

Spitfire had better armament, armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, superior high altitude performance and was faster.

Normal operational combat radius for both was roughly comparable.

>tanks
sometimes
>planes
yes

That's a meme. Sherman and T-34 were roughly equivalent tanks.

In performance yes but the Sherman was much more comfortible for crews.

>all that matters is range
Come on nigger. That's entirely situational. A plane needs enough range to engage and that's it, and the European fronts weren't being fought over the fucking pacific. Even 'manueravability' is of middling relevance. WW2 showed decisively that only one thing really matters, and that's speed.

On what bizarre world was the Me 262 the Spitfire's counterpart? The two aren't even vaguely equivalent.

In the same kind of mind that thinks Tigers were the most common German tanks. So in other words a Wehraboo

No, the Nazis had a lot of good weapons. And a lot of shit weapons. Mostly, they had weapons that were good in some contexts and shit in others. The thing is, Wehraboos (people who are obsessed with the WW2 German war machine) have been annoying people for decades by vastly exaggerating how good German weapons were. This has led to a bit of a backlash. From what I can tell, the truth is that the Nazis had a good, but flawed military which operated mostly good, but flawed weapons, and also operated some real pieces of junk, of course. Their fighter planes were good, especially in the early war, but eventually got long in the tooth. Their bomber designs were just ok, and some proved pretty much worthless. Their tanks in the first part of the war were about average if you compare them with British, American, and Russian designs. Starting in about 1942, they started to roll out heavy tanks like the Tiger. These were impressive machines with good survivability and a long reach, and gave the Germans a temporary advantage in tank combat. However, these tanks also tended to have maintenance problems because of design flaws and because of their weight. And the advantage didn't last long because of Allied airpower, new Allied tank designs, and German resource problems which meant that as the war dragged on, the Germans had fuel problems and also had to make do with using inferior materials for things like armor.

>from 1940 - 1942 Japan possessed the BEST fighter aircraft in the A6M line
The zero was shit internationally, it was only successful because everything else in the early pacific theater was even shittier, as they were designed around carrier forces or were second rate aircraft sent to the colonies

>WW2 showed decisively that only one thing really matters, and that's speed.
This, and to a lesser extent climb rate lets you control air combat.
the spitfire and 109E had a 30kmph speed advantage over the zero and wildcat, and would have been near untouchable if they met in combat

Nazi technology and efficiency was just a meme pushed as an excuse for the incredibly incompetent leadership of many allied nations getting BTFO early in the war. Germany was a second rate power that never should have been able to get any major gains, let alone last 7 years.

How does it feel you're not even at the half point of your life?

hahahahaha, really ??? hahahahahaha, french equipment???

But it was a death trap , caught fire easily

Was good enough for the Germans

Everyone loved the Sherman.

Even Germans who used captured Shermans preferred them to their own tanks.

Not in terms of build quality

Equipment, nations, and vehicles are all feminine.

>Even Germans who used captured Shermans preferred them to their own tanks.
They were probably just happy to get something that's engine or drive didn't break after 150km

It’s more of a social convention though. Not a grammatical rule

Spitfire and Bf 109 were evenly match but I'd give the edge to the Internal Anglo machine but the FW190 was flat out superior to the Shitfire for nearly a year

>On what bizarre world was the Me 262 the Spitfire's counterpart?
In OP's picture...

>Is it true that the Spitfire was better than his counterpart
no.
it depends on the models you are comparing.
the 109 and spit leap frogged over eachother in performance throughout the war.
sometimes the 109 was better.
sometimes the spit was better.

>Equipment, nations, and vehicles are all feminine.
Nations are masculine, countries are femenine.
In equipment, every especific piece has its own gender, and half of them are male: a nail is male, a gear is male, a hammer is male, a helmet is male...
Vehicles the same, each has its gender. Tanks are male, and planes are: male if you call them planes, male if you call them aeroplanes, and female if you call it airship, because ships are female, but if you call them boats, then they are male.
In Spanish things don't have a gender, it's WORDS that have a gender. It's not at all like you say.

Bf 109 was pretty good and also a cute. It just stayed in service for too long and started to show it's age later down the line. Just like the Zero.
The Fw 190 was nice too

t. Nigel Beadyeyedson

no its not true

the spitfire was a meme airplane, you dont get to turn in an engagement much, Bf-109s had the advantage with climbing and speed, which matters if they have enough fuel, they lacked the range

the T-34 had no counterpart when the german encountered it, maybe the Panzer IV (Ausf. A-D) but that was considered the heavy tank of the panzer regiments and very few of them with only a short barreled 75mm cannon

once the germans upgraded their IIIs and IVs they were matching the T-34 but then the soviets upgrade the it to a 85mm cannon with a bigger turret

the germans had better optics and used this advantage to their benefit, the T-34 was still a better protected and mainly more numerous vehicle

the Tiger wasnt shit, but it was produced in low numbers and simply could not make enough impact against the endless numbers of allies and soviet armor, during the later years of the war its armor also proved to be lackluster as everyone and their mom was armed with either a 76,75 or 90++mm gun

>fighter planes
>you dont get to turn in an engagement much

You severely underestimate the tiger's armour, even 76mm Shermans (not arriving until two years since the Tiger's first deployment) needed to be within a minimum of 600m or so.

Does Veeky Forums prefer bombers or fighters? Which is cooler?

Bombers. Ultimately, all fighters do is make it easier or harder for the bombers to do their jobs; they are a support weapon of a support weapon.

Fighter bombers

its a little more complicated than that really.

the various marks of spitfire and BF109 traded superiority over each other for much of the early stages of the war, however later marks of spitfire began to enjoy significant performance advantages over the Bf109 as british aero engine development outpaced german, a late war 109 was not the equal of a late war spit.

they started out even but the spit had better growth potential and the british were better placed to exploit its potential

For most of the war the aircraft were evenly matched. Assuming both pilots are aces and the situation is 1v1 I'd put my money on the Bf109 though.

I go with the spit, better turning and for most of the period better weapons, 2-4 hispanos, and a few MGs if it wasnt carrying 4 hispanos.

also better cockpit visibility and after 1940 the whole 'engine cuts out in negative g' thing wasnt a thing having been fixed.

The turn as an offensive tactic is a thing of WW1. Most aces, both on the Axis and the Allied side were in agreement that speed and climb is more important. When it comes to weaponry, I would say that the Bf109 was more than evenly matched, if not superior. Cockpit visibility wasn't as good though, this is true.

Not to mention the fact that Brit fighter pilots had a better survival rate. A Brit shot over Britain who survives a crash can simply be but into another spitfire, whilst a G*rman that survives the crash is gone for the wars duration.

that and there's a lot of elbow room in a sherman for "plus size" americans. Meaning you could also be somewhat secure in the knowledge that you could get out of a burning tank.

the wet-ammo-storage was also a bonus in this regard.