Um, isn't this video about an early prototype jet design? Incredibly advanced for its time. Good thing the Germans had a lunitic for a leader, because I can tell you as an engineer, their engineering capability at the time was stellar!
Developing an experimental model and putting it into serial production are two very,very different things. I also wonder where they'd get all the Chromium & Nickel needed for it's engine production.
Well, the Me 262 was in serial production. Germany was about 15-20 years, and in other areas even more, advanced than anyone else on the planet. There would had been a lot more in serial production if germany hadnt been depleted of the neccessary resources. The german jetfighters had been flying with a mixture of oil and coaldust!
@nethead4223 Oh??? Then just tell me when they went into serial production??? The engines weren't ready till about May of 1944 and at that had an extremely short life. . No the Germans weren't about 15-20 years ahead of everybody else ,the British produced jet fighters during the war. The US could have produced them much earlier if the impetus was there. Heard about the Manhatten Project?? Tube Alloys Project? The V-2 program used over 200+ patents of the US's Robert Goddard.
@nethead4223 I was talking about the Me-262 as an example of why the He-280 wouldn't have been in serial production very soon, this has been discussed on several dedicated aviation forums. The Germans basically tried to develop & employ 1950's type technology while fighting a war,not good. The Allies meanwhile took 1930's technology and pushed it to the limit ,the Manhatten Project excepted. You are also forgetting that if the Allies had pushed they would have developed jets much,much faster.
Yes, the Allies could have pushed but they still had been decades behind german development in most areas. In the few areas where germany had been allowed to continue development (i.e. not in Aviation and not in Rocket-Technologie), germany still produces the best military weapons. See Tanks, Subs and good old Heckler and Koch. As for pushing, see the Horten Ho IX/229. This was the product of 2 brothers from spareparts and 2 BMW Jet-Engines.
@nethead4223 Very,very debateable...Tanks??? Well if the Germans had to produce tanks that could be transported overseas ,be easy of maintenance,be able to be landed over beaches from landing craft well maybe they wouldn't stack up so well. The Allies wereevery bit as capable as Germans in aviation furthermore per rockets Dr. Braun owed alot to an American,Robert Goddard.Braun used over 200+ of Goddard's patents eventually paying Goddard's wife large royalties.
Most of the US Equipment and especially the US troops had been inferior to the german forces. As far as i now the sherman tank hadnt been developed with ease of transportation in mind. You have any source on ths? And US rifles, tanks and non-atomic subs are still inferior to german products. Concerning Van Braun: The US didnt find anyolse else who could win the space war. All US teams failed so the US had to hire Braun which they didnt want because of his background.
@nethead4223 The US tank force was geared to the offensive therefore that meant having to have bridging equipment to handle them ,so Heavy Tanks were out of the question. The M- 6 was cancelled specifically because of problems in transporting it. As per subs it's very debateable that Gato/Tench class were inferior to the standard german subs. The The Type XXI's meanwhile had somesevere production difficulties. US M-! Garand was superior to german rifles.
First, i was writing about post war weaponery in my last posts. Concerning the subs you didnt had anything even remotely comparable to the german XXI class (search XXI uboat net) as u now dont have anything comparable to the german 212 A class (successor of the XXI class) .Tanks: It took 4 Shermans to destroy one german tank. Hit Ratio: US troops sucked ass. Read up "Kampfkraft" von van Creveld. You might want to watch less Band of Brothers and other bull....
@nethead4223 I don't watch Band of Brothers, I read serious books on the matter . On the Type XX1 I'm telling you the Germans had all sorts of problems with them at first. No it didn't take 4 Shermans to destroy one German tank like I've said before german tanksaccounted for very few Shermans relatively speaking. Nothing comparable to 212A now?? The USN hasn't built any non-nuclear subs for almost 50 years so do the Germans have anything like the Los Angelos class much less the Seawolf class???
Germany had not been allowed to develop atomic subs. Neither Rockets and Planes until the late 70s and then germany had been forced to do it with the french and british. It took 4 shermans on average to destroy one tiger. Rad it up! And the US tried to buy the german companie producing the 212/214 class subs a couple of times because you nearly cant locate em using sonar or radar.
@nethead4223 What's your source for it took 4 Shermans to knock out one Tiger??? A study was done and found that alot of times every German tank was a Tiger furthermore a Tiger would be given credit for knockoing out a group of tanks when it was actually a mine,panzefaust,anti-tank gun or self propelled anti-tank gun. Yes Diesel -electric subs have their advantages over nukes but SSN also have some formidable advantages over diesel-electrics.
Citation: “According to US Army Ground Forces statistics, destruction of a single Panther was achieved after destruction of 5 M4 Shermans or some 9 T-34s." - U.S. Army report prior to September of 1944
Not really hard to find via google. If germany had been allowed to construct Atomic-Subs you bet they would very probably had been superior again. Thats why germay hadnt been allowed to develop a lot of stuff anyway. After the US stole german patens worth billions.
@nethead4223 Well the Panther was maybe given credit for it but far more often then not,with alot of recent scholarship, it was german infantrymen supporting said tank knocking out those Shermans with Panzerfausts,anti-tank guns or mines laid or a STG III, JagdPanzer or other selp-propelled anti-tank gun. Per last sentence it wasn't the US that stole from Germans,remember as I've stated before the V-2 program owed alot to an American Robert Goddard ,who had his patents stoled by Dr. Braun.
@nethead4223 Surely the only thing that matters is that the evil genocidal bastards were defeated? It's just a shame we had to ally ourselves with a dictatorship that was just as bad as Hitler's in order tro get the job done.
@ned262626 I never mentioned the Yanks. Huh? So US-centric, you people. Britain fought in the war, too, you know. Ummmm...but since you asked...how did the Yanks help win the war...hmmmm...lemme think....maybe BOMBING THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF CITIES AND FACTORIES IN GERMANY AND JAPAN DAY AFTER DAY FOR YEARS? REDUCING AIRFIELDS AND SYNTH-PETROL PLANTS TO HEAPS OF RUBBLE? Just possibly that might have hastened the end a little bit? Fuck the Yanks, anyway...Russia coulda won on its' own.
During the "Operation Overlord" allied tank casualties were 4000 tanks. Germans lost over 2000 tanks.
Then let's take notice that many (perhaps majority) of those allied tanks were destroyed with anti-tank guns, panzerfauts, mines and so on. In the end german tanks didn't even get 2:1 kill ratio against allied tanks. You claim that allies needed four tanks to knock out one enemy tank? That's simply not true.
@nethead4223 Just what makes you think US troops were inferior??? You think the fact that German's had been fighting for 2 1/2 years longer then GI's that at first the Germans were better??? I'd say that byu the end of the war the GI's were every bit as good as the Wermacht in it's heyday.
Trevor Dupuy, US Military Historian and WW2 Vet: "The study results showed that Allied success was only assured (with some exceptions) where their overall power superiority was very great. In cases where the power ratio favored the Allies only marginally, the Germans were usually successful. In situations where the power ratio suggested an indeterminate outcome, the Germans were invariably the "winner", just as they were when the ratio was in their favor
@nethead4223 Like I said read Stephen Zalooga's books ,as well as others, a little more. When the Sherman was on the defensive it did quite well against the Panthers & Tigers. Oh what about the Battle of the Bulge?? The uS Army there at the outset was outnumbered by better then 4-1 and haeld up the German advance immeasureably. Also read up on the Battles in the Lorraine later on.
Control of airspace. If this wasnt given you got your ass kicked. Check the worst defeat of US Troops ever which happend in the "Hurtgen Wald" where german troops did mainly re-use US Equipment because they had been depleted of material and most german soldiers came fresh out of a "singing school". And u did read my citation of Dupuy, did u. So what part of "In situations where the power ratio suggested an indeterm. outcome, the Germans were invariably the "winner" u dont understand
@nethead4223 Oh really ??? The US didn't have control of the air during the battle of the Bulge and fought the Germans to a stand still. In another battle an equal number of Shermans completely whooped an equal number of Panthers without any interference whatsoever from the air. The Hurtgen Forrest??? Good God a couple of girl scout troops could defend that realestate. Oh yes I have read accounts of both sides being badly outnumbered,if locally,or equal.
@nethead4223 He probably did say that but the Germans were playing defence weren't they??? In most cases it takes far,far less force to play defence then offence. As per the other way around lokk at Middleton's Corps during the Battle of the Bulge ,badly outnumbered but they sure held the Germans up for quite awhile. read Zalooga's" Panther versus Sherman" about the differences of each tank versus one another and the difference being on defence makes.
The US did very rarely encounter any properly equipped and trained german soldiers. After fighting this little cute country called Russia for 2.5 years germany was already depleted of man and material, 90% of the forces the US encountered consisted of new, badly trained recruits and the "leftovers" from the east-front. Then you did control the airspace. Then german mostly did attack in this war, figthing 10 to 1 outbumbered most of the time and did win until out of resources.
@nethead4223 and during the Normandy invasionthere were more tanks in the West then the East. The US certainly faced properly equipeed German forces in North Africa, Sicily and Italy then you have the aforementioned Battle of Bulge. There the US had beat up and some very green units that fought veteran ,very well equipped German units to a stand still. Yes one does have to give the Russians proper credit. However how large an army do you think the US could have had if fight in their home turf?
But i admit it was extremely hard Terrain and the german force was led byt an SS Division which had experience with fighting in forest. Nonetheless a lot of the young US soldiers ran crying off the battleground. Theres a memorial for a german soldier pulliing an us soldier out of an minefield btw. The german soldier died during the attempt.
@nethead4223 You need to read some different references or go to some better forums such as tanknet,th WW2 forums, or Navweapons website. The Germans threw 3 Armies at Middleton's Corps ,so more like about 250,000-300,000 Germans. As per a US soldier crying to need to read the exploits of the 2nd Armored, 99th Infantry and 28th Infantry. The 99th was a green unit almost straight from the states that alongst with the 2nd armored held up athe 6th Panzer army. The 28th held up the Nazi 7th Army.
@nethead4223 Some more info...You think maybe that some of Russian tanks might be equal to german tanks??? Think the Sherman is equal to the MK IV?? Remember the Tiger & Panther's were 55-70 ton & 46 ton tanks respectively whereas the Sherman/Allied Medium Tanks were around 30-35 ton tanks you think if the Allies had built 45-70 ton tanks they wouldn't be equal to the German Heavy tanks? No the Allies weren't decades behind in most areas.
For some time Russan Tanks had been better, then german tanks had been better. German Tanks around 1939 had been crap, The Panther and Tiger Tanks developed at the end of the war had been superior ro anything the US and UK had. The Sherman was very Crappy too. And i did talk about modern tanks btw like the Leopard II. BTW: Germans did destroy over 25.000 Russian Tanks with their inferior 5000 Tanks until 1942.
@nethead4223 Once again the Allies could have put better armed tanks into the field BUT then they would have to redesign landing craft 7 such to accomodate them right??? Another thing read Stephen Zalooga a little ,alot of the reasons German tanks did as well as they did was because they were on the defensive furthermore alot of times Tigers & Panthers got credit for what infantry armed with panzerfaust's ,AT guns and SPAT's accomplished . German tanks only knocked out about 30% of allied tank.
And concerning the use of advanced technology: Germany doesnt has enough natural resources to sustain a war. The only hope for germany to win had been the use of superior tactics and weapons. Then, u may want to look at the russion and us space programm, which was basicly a german space programm. Now the germans are gone and whats left? Slighly more developed WW2 technologie.
@nethead4223 Did the Germans develop anything like ENIAC during the war??? The forerunner of modern computers. Allied radar??? Once again Allied types seemed better especially ones mounted in aircraft. Who had better surface warships?? Once again the A-Bomb???
Eniac was a mechanical device, Konrad Zuse did invent and develip the modern Computer before und during the war. Germanies industry and science was not aimed for war production untll 1942. Concerning the A-Bomb: The german Team was led by Heisenberg who developed the first working reactor back during WW2 but didnt want to develop the A-Bomb. Heisenberg was activley hindering efforts to build an A-Bomb as he saw it unethically. Heisenb. was shocked when hearing about Nagasaki and Hiro
@nethead4223 What's your source for a German team achieving first working reactor?? No the modern computer was basically an American development. Again your source for this statement?
Read the Farmhouse Protocols. Its in the washington US online libarary. As stated before, the USA acknowledged that invention of the modern computer had been done by Konrad Zuse. "Google It. And sorry for that Band-of-Brothers crap i gave u.
@nethead4223 Your talking about the Z-3 from May,1941 which was an electro-mechanical device not a fully electronic device like ENIAC. In the summer of 1941 Atanasoff-Berg(from the US) developed the first electroninc computing device. In 1943 the British Colossus was fully electronic computer but wasn't a general purpose computer but only for code breaking.Then you have the Howard Aikens 1944 Havard 1. Doesn't seem to me the Allies were behind but well ahead in computers.
@nethead4223 Well let me see I've tried being nice but first you say ENIAC was an electro-mechanical device now that evidently it,ENIAC, wasn't but was an actual electronic being electro-mechanical isn't that big of a deal. what has made modern computers is being electronic not electro-mechanical andbeing binary which I must agree Zuse pushed BUT which electro-mechanical doesn't work that well with,i.e. being binary further being turing compliant which the Z3 wasn't without much hacking.
A couple of years ago the USofA did officially acknowledge that the invention of the modern computer has been accomplished by Konrad Zuse. You can verify this easily.
@nethead4223 and the man never ever documented what/when he had built in 1941,he rebuilt it from memory in the 1980's . The first truly electronic general purpose computer was ENIAC.
@nethead4223 yes but the Z3 wasn't turing complete nor could it make conditional responses like the ENIAC. It wasn't till 1998 that the Z3 was made turing complete and that was only afer considerable modification and hacking.
@nethead4223 I'm not dishing Zuse's contribution to computers only that he didn't build the first electronic, turing compliant general purpose computer. He accomplished gret things and he pushed binary function BUT binary function doesn't work that well with an electro-mechanical then per a pure electronic machine. IMHO computers were like the A-Bomb so vast a project that no one person or maybe you can even say one nation can take all the credit.
This was ready to go, and plans for much higher speeds, The big thing historians leave out is that, Heinkel, Junkers, BMW etc were not Nazis, they were under house arrest, but Messy was a true business man selling out to the highest bidder. That is abig reason why the Luft sufered also, Hitler put an end to developments in 1938, so all that stuff at the end of the wear could have been easily produced in numbers etc...
@MrBritdog2 Yes, ironically Hitler was Britains best weapon. For if he had listened to his commanders then the Nazis would surely have won the war. He was an idiot
It was very lucky for Britain that this plane never entered production and it was lucky that these first jet powered fighter were made during the last years of the war.
But given the circumstances they should have used it as an interim fighter while the 262 was developed. They just didn't give jet fighter development the priority it needed.
Um, isn't this video about an early prototype jet design? Incredibly advanced for its time. Good thing the Germans had a lunitic for a leader, because I can tell you as an engineer, their engineering capability at the time was stellar!
MrJdsenior 5 months ago
el primer avion a reacion q grande
itsmimanu2010 8 months ago
Developing an experimental model and putting it into serial production are two very,very different things. I also wonder where they'd get all the Chromium & Nickel needed for it's engine production.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Well, the Me 262 was in serial production. Germany was about 15-20 years, and in other areas even more, advanced than anyone else on the planet. There would had been a lot more in serial production if germany hadnt been depleted of the neccessary resources. The german jetfighters had been flying with a mixture of oil and coaldust!
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Oh??? Then just tell me when they went into serial production??? The engines weren't ready till about May of 1944 and at that had an extremely short life. . No the Germans weren't about 15-20 years ahead of everybody else ,the British produced jet fighters during the war. The US could have produced them much earlier if the impetus was there. Heard about the Manhatten Project?? Tube Alloys Project? The V-2 program used over 200+ patents of the US's Robert Goddard.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
You may want to re-read my comment. I wrote the _Me_262_ was in serial production. The Heinkell He 280 onluckily not.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 I was talking about the Me-262 as an example of why the He-280 wouldn't have been in serial production very soon, this has been discussed on several dedicated aviation forums. The Germans basically tried to develop & employ 1950's type technology while fighting a war,not good. The Allies meanwhile took 1930's technology and pushed it to the limit ,the Manhatten Project excepted. You are also forgetting that if the Allies had pushed they would have developed jets much,much faster.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Yes, the Allies could have pushed but they still had been decades behind german development in most areas. In the few areas where germany had been allowed to continue development (i.e. not in Aviation and not in Rocket-Technologie), germany still produces the best military weapons. See Tanks, Subs and good old Heckler and Koch. As for pushing, see the Horten Ho IX/229. This was the product of 2 brothers from spareparts and 2 BMW Jet-Engines.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Very,very debateable...Tanks??? Well if the Germans had to produce tanks that could be transported overseas ,be easy of maintenance,be able to be landed over beaches from landing craft well maybe they wouldn't stack up so well. The Allies wereevery bit as capable as Germans in aviation furthermore per rockets Dr. Braun owed alot to an American,Robert Goddard.Braun used over 200+ of Goddard's patents eventually paying Goddard's wife large royalties.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Most of the US Equipment and especially the US troops had been inferior to the german forces. As far as i now the sherman tank hadnt been developed with ease of transportation in mind. You have any source on ths? And US rifles, tanks and non-atomic subs are still inferior to german products. Concerning Van Braun: The US didnt find anyolse else who could win the space war. All US teams failed so the US had to hire Braun which they didnt want because of his background.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 The US tank force was geared to the offensive therefore that meant having to have bridging equipment to handle them ,so Heavy Tanks were out of the question. The M- 6 was cancelled specifically because of problems in transporting it. As per subs it's very debateable that Gato/Tench class were inferior to the standard german subs. The The Type XXI's meanwhile had somesevere production difficulties. US M-! Garand was superior to german rifles.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
First, i was writing about post war weaponery in my last posts. Concerning the subs you didnt had anything even remotely comparable to the german XXI class (search XXI uboat net) as u now dont have anything comparable to the german 212 A class (successor of the XXI class) .Tanks: It took 4 Shermans to destroy one german tank. Hit Ratio: US troops sucked ass. Read up "Kampfkraft" von van Creveld. You might want to watch less Band of Brothers and other bull....
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 I don't watch Band of Brothers, I read serious books on the matter . On the Type XX1 I'm telling you the Germans had all sorts of problems with them at first. No it didn't take 4 Shermans to destroy one German tank like I've said before german tanksaccounted for very few Shermans relatively speaking. Nothing comparable to 212A now?? The USN hasn't built any non-nuclear subs for almost 50 years so do the Germans have anything like the Los Angelos class much less the Seawolf class???
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Germany had not been allowed to develop atomic subs. Neither Rockets and Planes until the late 70s and then germany had been forced to do it with the french and british. It took 4 shermans on average to destroy one tiger. Rad it up! And the US tried to buy the german companie producing the 212/214 class subs a couple of times because you nearly cant locate em using sonar or radar.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 What's your source for it took 4 Shermans to knock out one Tiger??? A study was done and found that alot of times every German tank was a Tiger furthermore a Tiger would be given credit for knockoing out a group of tanks when it was actually a mine,panzefaust,anti-tank gun or self propelled anti-tank gun. Yes Diesel -electric subs have their advantages over nukes but SSN also have some formidable advantages over diesel-electrics.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Citation: “According to US Army Ground Forces statistics, destruction of a single Panther was achieved after destruction of 5 M4 Shermans or some 9 T-34s." - U.S. Army report prior to September of 1944
Not really hard to find via google. If germany had been allowed to construct Atomic-Subs you bet they would very probably had been superior again. Thats why germay hadnt been allowed to develop a lot of stuff anyway. After the US stole german patens worth billions.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Well the Panther was maybe given credit for it but far more often then not,with alot of recent scholarship, it was german infantrymen supporting said tank knocking out those Shermans with Panzerfausts,anti-tank guns or mines laid or a STG III, JagdPanzer or other selp-propelled anti-tank gun. Per last sentence it wasn't the US that stole from Germans,remember as I've stated before the V-2 program owed alot to an American Robert Goddard ,who had his patents stoled by Dr. Braun.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Surely the only thing that matters is that the evil genocidal bastards were defeated? It's just a shame we had to ally ourselves with a dictatorship that was just as bad as Hitler's in order tro get the job done.
ProjectFlashlight612 6 months ago
@ProjectFlashlight612 i think your off about your idea of the us helping to win the war.
fact: 93% of german military deaths were from soviet bullets. the other 7% came from polish , italian, french , british, american , etc soldiers.
given this fact tell me why the usa had any real impact on the germans losing please
ned262626 5 months ago
@ned262626 I never mentioned the Yanks. Huh? So US-centric, you people. Britain fought in the war, too, you know. Ummmm...but since you asked...how did the Yanks help win the war...hmmmm...lemme think....maybe BOMBING THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF CITIES AND FACTORIES IN GERMANY AND JAPAN DAY AFTER DAY FOR YEARS? REDUCING AIRFIELDS AND SYNTH-PETROL PLANTS TO HEAPS OF RUBBLE? Just possibly that might have hastened the end a little bit? Fuck the Yanks, anyway...Russia coulda won on its' own.
ProjectFlashlight612 5 months ago
@ned262626 i can agree with this, and very well put too.
MrTubbymarshall 3 months ago
@nethead4223
During the "Operation Overlord" allied tank casualties were 4000 tanks. Germans lost over 2000 tanks.
Then let's take notice that many (perhaps majority) of those allied tanks were destroyed with anti-tank guns, panzerfauts, mines and so on. In the end german tanks didn't even get 2:1 kill ratio against allied tanks. You claim that allies needed four tanks to knock out one enemy tank? That's simply not true.
MokomaSusi 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Just what makes you think US troops were inferior??? You think the fact that German's had been fighting for 2 1/2 years longer then GI's that at first the Germans were better??? I'd say that byu the end of the war the GI's were every bit as good as the Wermacht in it's heyday.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Trevor Dupuy, US Military Historian and WW2 Vet: "The study results showed that Allied success was only assured (with some exceptions) where their overall power superiority was very great. In cases where the power ratio favored the Allies only marginally, the Germans were usually successful. In situations where the power ratio suggested an indeterminate outcome, the Germans were invariably the "winner", just as they were when the ratio was in their favor
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Like I said read Stephen Zalooga's books ,as well as others, a little more. When the Sherman was on the defensive it did quite well against the Panthers & Tigers. Oh what about the Battle of the Bulge?? The uS Army there at the outset was outnumbered by better then 4-1 and haeld up the German advance immeasureably. Also read up on the Battles in the Lorraine later on.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Control of airspace. If this wasnt given you got your ass kicked. Check the worst defeat of US Troops ever which happend in the "Hurtgen Wald" where german troops did mainly re-use US Equipment because they had been depleted of material and most german soldiers came fresh out of a "singing school". And u did read my citation of Dupuy, did u. So what part of "In situations where the power ratio suggested an indeterm. outcome, the Germans were invariably the "winner" u dont understand
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Oh really ??? The US didn't have control of the air during the battle of the Bulge and fought the Germans to a stand still. In another battle an equal number of Shermans completely whooped an equal number of Panthers without any interference whatsoever from the air. The Hurtgen Forrest??? Good God a couple of girl scout troops could defend that realestate. Oh yes I have read accounts of both sides being badly outnumbered,if locally,or equal.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@nethead4223 He probably did say that but the Germans were playing defence weren't they??? In most cases it takes far,far less force to play defence then offence. As per the other way around lokk at Middleton's Corps during the Battle of the Bulge ,badly outnumbered but they sure held the Germans up for quite awhile. read Zalooga's" Panther versus Sherman" about the differences of each tank versus one another and the difference being on defence makes.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
The US did very rarely encounter any properly equipped and trained german soldiers. After fighting this little cute country called Russia for 2.5 years germany was already depleted of man and material, 90% of the forces the US encountered consisted of new, badly trained recruits and the "leftovers" from the east-front. Then you did control the airspace. Then german mostly did attack in this war, figthing 10 to 1 outbumbered most of the time and did win until out of resources.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 and during the Normandy invasionthere were more tanks in the West then the East. The US certainly faced properly equipeed German forces in North Africa, Sicily and Italy then you have the aforementioned Battle of Bulge. There the US had beat up and some very green units that fought veteran ,very well equipped German units to a stand still. Yes one does have to give the Russians proper credit. However how large an army do you think the US could have had if fight in their home turf?
ickysdad 10 months ago
@nethead4223 also a large % of the Luftwaffe fighter force was stationed in the west guarding against Allied air raids.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Badly outnumbered?
US Troops 120.000, German "Troops" 90.000
But i admit it was extremely hard Terrain and the german force was led byt an SS Division which had experience with fighting in forest. Nonetheless a lot of the young US soldiers ran crying off the battleground. Theres a memorial for a german soldier pulliing an us soldier out of an minefield btw. The german soldier died during the attempt.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 You need to read some different references or go to some better forums such as tanknet,th WW2 forums, or Navweapons website. The Germans threw 3 Armies at Middleton's Corps ,so more like about 250,000-300,000 Germans. As per a US soldier crying to need to read the exploits of the 2nd Armored, 99th Infantry and 28th Infantry. The 99th was a green unit almost straight from the states that alongst with the 2nd armored held up athe 6th Panzer army. The 28th held up the Nazi 7th Army.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Some more info...You think maybe that some of Russian tanks might be equal to german tanks??? Think the Sherman is equal to the MK IV?? Remember the Tiger & Panther's were 55-70 ton & 46 ton tanks respectively whereas the Sherman/Allied Medium Tanks were around 30-35 ton tanks you think if the Allies had built 45-70 ton tanks they wouldn't be equal to the German Heavy tanks? No the Allies weren't decades behind in most areas.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
For some time Russan Tanks had been better, then german tanks had been better. German Tanks around 1939 had been crap, The Panther and Tiger Tanks developed at the end of the war had been superior ro anything the US and UK had. The Sherman was very Crappy too. And i did talk about modern tanks btw like the Leopard II. BTW: Germans did destroy over 25.000 Russian Tanks with their inferior 5000 Tanks until 1942.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Once again the Allies could have put better armed tanks into the field BUT then they would have to redesign landing craft 7 such to accomodate them right??? Another thing read Stephen Zalooga a little ,alot of the reasons German tanks did as well as they did was because they were on the defensive furthermore alot of times Tigers & Panthers got credit for what infantry armed with panzerfaust's ,AT guns and SPAT's accomplished . German tanks only knocked out about 30% of allied tank.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
And concerning the use of advanced technology: Germany doesnt has enough natural resources to sustain a war. The only hope for germany to win had been the use of superior tactics and weapons. Then, u may want to look at the russion and us space programm, which was basicly a german space programm. Now the germans are gone and whats left? Slighly more developed WW2 technologie.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Did the Germans develop anything like ENIAC during the war??? The forerunner of modern computers. Allied radar??? Once again Allied types seemed better especially ones mounted in aircraft. Who had better surface warships?? Once again the A-Bomb???
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Eniac was a mechanical device, Konrad Zuse did invent and develip the modern Computer before und during the war. Germanies industry and science was not aimed for war production untll 1942. Concerning the A-Bomb: The german Team was led by Heisenberg who developed the first working reactor back during WW2 but didnt want to develop the A-Bomb. Heisenberg was activley hindering efforts to build an A-Bomb as he saw it unethically. Heisenb. was shocked when hearing about Nagasaki and Hiro
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 What's your source for a German team achieving first working reactor?? No the modern computer was basically an American development. Again your source for this statement?
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Read the Farmhouse Protocols. Its in the washington US online libarary. As stated before, the USA acknowledged that invention of the modern computer had been done by Konrad Zuse. "Google It. And sorry for that Band-of-Brothers crap i gave u.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Your talking about the Z-3 from May,1941 which was an electro-mechanical device not a fully electronic device like ENIAC. In the summer of 1941 Atanasoff-Berg(from the US) developed the first electroninc computing device. In 1943 the British Colossus was fully electronic computer but wasn't a general purpose computer but only for code breaking.Then you have the Howard Aikens 1944 Havard 1. Doesn't seem to me the Allies were behind but well ahead in computers.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Citation
".. it became evident that the Z3 machine can be considered the first, electronic -in fact electro mechanical-,
programmable, binary computer in history." University of California, Santa Barbara. I considered this settled now.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 Well let me see I've tried being nice but first you say ENIAC was an electro-mechanical device now that evidently it,ENIAC, wasn't but was an actual electronic being electro-mechanical isn't that big of a deal. what has made modern computers is being electronic not electro-mechanical andbeing binary which I must agree Zuse pushed BUT which electro-mechanical doesn't work that well with,i.e. being binary further being turing compliant which the Z3 wasn't without much hacking.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@nethead4223
A couple of years ago the USofA did officially acknowledge that the invention of the modern computer has been accomplished by Konrad Zuse. You can verify this easily.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 and the man never ever documented what/when he had built in 1941,he rebuilt it from memory in the 1980's . The first truly electronic general purpose computer was ENIAC.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@nethead4223 yes but the Z3 wasn't turing complete nor could it make conditional responses like the ENIAC. It wasn't till 1998 that the Z3 was made turing complete and that was only afer considerable modification and hacking.
ickysdad 10 months ago
@ickysdad
Citation: "the Z1 ... first programmable computer and predates the ENIAC in the U.S. by many years",
"The Z3 thus became the first functional program-controlled, all-purpose, digital computer."
This is officially acknowledged by US scholars >point<
Zuse did this alone working in the living rooms of his parents btw. Little bit more efficient than the crowd around ENIAC.
nethead4223 10 months ago
@nethead4223 I'm not dishing Zuse's contribution to computers only that he didn't build the first electronic, turing compliant general purpose computer. He accomplished gret things and he pushed binary function BUT binary function doesn't work that well with an electro-mechanical then per a pure electronic machine. IMHO computers were like the A-Bomb so vast a project that no one person or maybe you can even say one nation can take all the credit.
ickysdad 10 months ago
Quite a three point landing. The Germans were simply years ahead.
49bobbyk 1 year ago
incorrect, the first ejection seat saw service in the 335 arrow Dornier.
germaniajim 1 year ago
This was ready to go, and plans for much higher speeds, The big thing historians leave out is that, Heinkel, Junkers, BMW etc were not Nazis, they were under house arrest, but Messy was a true business man selling out to the highest bidder. That is abig reason why the Luft sufered also, Hitler put an end to developments in 1938, so all that stuff at the end of the wear could have been easily produced in numbers etc...
MrBritdog2 2 years ago
@MrBritdog2 Yes, ironically Hitler was Britains best weapon. For if he had listened to his commanders then the Nazis would surely have won the war. He was an idiot
bloobear1 2 years ago
It was very lucky for Britain that this plane never entered production and it was lucky that these first jet powered fighter were made during the last years of the war.
bladefyre666 2 years ago
lol that landing was very funny^^
nice plane but underpowerd and not as good as the me 262 which could reach a higher mach number
deseryve 2 years ago 2
But given the circumstances they should have used it as an interim fighter while the 262 was developed. They just didn't give jet fighter development the priority it needed.
gaff2006 2 years ago
the he 280 wasnt ready for serial production and the problems were fixed as the me 262 was nearly ready
also it would cost a lot of money to develop a lot of projects, so they decided for the me 262 - she was better and almost ready
deseryve 2 years ago