German WWII Technology

@ABWorsham:

I’m surprised the Tpye XXI U-Boat isn’t getting more votes. The weapon could have been a convoy buster weapon.

By 1943, the allies had devised excellent anti-submarine technology and tactics, and I don’t think the Type XXI U-boat was sufficiently advanced to overcome these.  Had these boats  been around in 1941 (before the anti-sub technology was developed) then, yes it might have made a difference.  But IMO, 1943 was too late to win the war against the UK by submarine blockade; at least with any technology the Germans had.

I agree that the only listed choice would be the ME-262. The V2 the second choice but after watching Scud’s smacking Israel and Saudi Arabia, the V2 alone was not enough. These rockets are just to random to make a difference.

However, I agree about the Atom Bomb, as long as the US was on track to develop it by 1945 and the German’s weren’t, the end would have been the same, eventually. Also remember both the UK and US had flown their Glouster E28/39 and Bell XP-59 prototype jet planes by 1942. The allies certainly would have worked hard to develop jet fighters of their own to counter the Germans.

The Germans flew the first Jet plane the Heinkel He 178 on August 27, 1939. A few days before Poland. At that time they were to busy to anything but tinker with Jets but what if they had thrown the full weight into them?

German economic production could only do so much.

Though I voted for the ME, I actually  think it would have taken a combination of tech. for Germany to have had different results.  They would have needed the jets early on so that they could have largely - if not totally - dominated the sky.  Air superiority would be key to deliver an Atom Bomb (either that or rocketry I suppose - but it would have to be many more years advanced than what they had)), which would have also been necessary to change the outcome… and even then, I think it might have ended in an armistice of some sort, even after dropping some bombs. Really depends on the nation, Japan was crippled by it - and though dropping 2 A-bombs in the USSR or the states would have damaged many elements - morale, prod. etc., I don’t think it would have caused an immediate surrender… we’re talking much larger areas of land.  Though in the USSR’s case it might be a little different, since it would depend how bad off they were when the Germans started dropping A-bombs (US having the advantage of distance in some respects). Just ME’s alone?  Eh… perhaps it would have extended the war, but certainly not changed the end result.  Someone else mentioned fuel and production - yeah, Germany just didn’t have the industrial might of the states which entered the war with the benefit of the world’s largest automotive industry, which simply switched to wartime production.

As I indicated in my earlier post on this subject, I think the war could have been extended into 1947-48 with the domination of ME262S in EARLY 1943. Germany was nowhere near producing an A-Bomb in 1945 and I doubt they would have had one by 1947-48. The U.S. and U.K. would have caught up with Germany in the production of jet fighters by then. The war could have ended earlier depending on the willingness of the U.S. to use the A-Bomb over europe. This would have saved many lives on the battlefield but cost many additional civilian lives. I would not want to have to make that decision.

@Fishmoto37:

As I indicated in my earlier post on this subject, I think the war could have been extended into 1947-48 with the domination of ME262S in EARLY 1943. Germany was nowhere near producing an A-Bomb in 1945 and I doubt they would have had one by 1947-48. The U.S. and U.K. would have caught up with Germany in the production of jet fighters by then. The war could have ended earlier depending on the willingness of the U.S. to use the A-Bomb over europe. This would have saved many lives on the battlefield but cost many additional civilian lives. I would not want to have to make that decision.

Yep, I read your indication.  Incidentally, I posted a link to some interesting alternative WWII history you might find interesting (I’d call it amusing but that would make the content sound funny… it’s not).

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Morgen_die_ganze_Welt

I looked at the Air War on your link. That is some amazing and scary stuff.@Viracocha:

@Fishmoto37:

As I indicated in my earlier post on this subject, I think the war could have been extended into 1947-48 with the domination of ME262S in EARLY 1943. Germany was nowhere near producing an A-Bomb in 1945 and I doubt they would have had one by 1947-48. The U.S. and U.K. would have caught up with Germany in the production of jet fighters by then. The war could have ended earlier depending on the willingness of the U.S. to use the A-Bomb over europe. This would have saved many lives on the battlefield but cost many additional civilian lives. I would not want to have to make that decision.

Yep, I read your indication.  Incidentally, I posted a link to some interesting alternative WWII history you might find interesting (I’d call it amusing but that would make the content sound funny… it’s not).

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Morgen_die_ganze_Welt

@Fishmoto37:

I looked at the Air War on your link. That is some amazing and scary stuff.@Viracocha:

@Fishmoto37:

As I indicated in my earlier post on this subject, I think the war could have been extended into 1947-48 with the domination of ME262S in EARLY 1943. Germany was nowhere near producing an A-Bomb in 1945 and I doubt they would have had one by 1947-48. The U.S. and U.K. would have caught up with Germany in the production of jet fighters by then. The war could have ended earlier depending on the willingness of the U.S. to use the A-Bomb over europe. This would have saved many lives on the battlefield but cost many additional civilian lives. I would not want to have to make that decision.

Yep, I read your indication.  Incidentally, I posted a link to some interesting alternative WWII history you might find interesting (I’d call it amusing but that would make the content sound funny… it’s not).

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Morgen_die_ganze_Welt

Given the subject we’re on - thought you might find it interesting.

I have previously posted why I think the ME262 would have had an influence on the eastern front. With contol of the air over Europe, there would have been no d-day in 1944 which would have freed many German divisions to be transfered there as well as many Luftwaffe units. (Bombers) Would there have been a different outcome at Kursk (Operation Citadel July 5th 1943) with Germany in control of the air? I think that a stalemate would have occured and maybe a slight chance of a truce. With extra German forces in northern Italy the allies probably would have been stopped there also. Remember the choice in this poll was large numbers of ME262s in EARLY 1943. @ABWorsham:

The British and U.S bombing of Germany did not cause Germany’s loss in WW2. The vast area of the U.S.S.R and the millions of Soviet troops was the doom of Germany. The Sturmgewehr 44 was the best of the poll choices to check the Red Army. The Me-262 would have little value on the Eastern Front.

I voted for the Me 262, though I have to admit I was tempted by the Type XXI U-boats. The Western Allies’ efforts to destroy Germany’s production, demolish its transportation system, wipe out large numbers of civilians in firestorms, and destroy its fuel supply were devastating. Moreover, the air superiority attained by the Western Democracies played a key role in making the Normandy invasion work. On Germany’s Eastern front, both sides used bomber aircraft primarily in a tactical role, and in support of the army. Control of the skies on that front meant that your dive bombers would be free to destroy the enemy’s tanks and artillery from the air, while your own tanks and artillery would be protected. At the battle of Kursk, for example, the Soviets had more military aircraft present than did the Germans; with both sides’ planes being roughly comparable in terms of quality. The avian situation on Germany’s eastern front progressively deteriorated, with the Soviets attaining first parity, and then superiority, in the skies above the battlefields. The Me 262 would have solved that problem.

On the other hand, the Type XXI U-boat represented a dramatic leap forward from any previously encountered sub design. These subs had more in common with the first nuclear subs of the postwar era than they did with their WWII contemporaries. They had the potential to make sub raiding a far more effective strategy than it had been in the past. But from a strategic perspective, Germany needed aerial superiority a lot more than it needed better sub raiding.

I would have to go with the ME-262.  When the allies concentrated on bombing german fuel supplies in mid-44 the Germans had more airforce/navy/mechanized army then they had fuel to deploy, so whatever super weapons they then had, no fuel, no use, no use.

I think the best super weapon for Germany would have been Albert Speer in charge of war production earlier and Hitler’s crazy commands not issued.  By early 42 the German economy was not even on a war footing!  The Nazis didn’t want women working in the factories, and the factories only ran on one shift!  This well over a year after they lost the battle of Britain and they easy successes on the eastern front were all but over.

The allies had air domination by mid 43, yet German war production actually increased until mid-44.  It was only until they began to lose France and the economies of the eastern territories that their war production went down.  By then they had no fuel so it didn’t matter what they made.

By May 43 the ME-262 was ready for full production, Hitler didn’t trust the air generals at the time so he blocked production.

ugh, why does my screen jump all over now that I am one line below the text box……

http://www.2worldwar2.com/me-262.htm for a time line

It isn’t sexy like jets, rockets, and U-boats, and the atom bomb, BUT I think the real game changer would have been the assault rifle

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/MP44.jpg

The war for Germany was won and lost on the Eastern front.  If the frontline German troops had assualt rifles, you are talking about a whole different war.

All though sexy, and a HUGE tech. advancement the ME262 could not have saved Germany- the bombing we did, did not decide the war from 42 on.  I think Germany (even with jets) would have fallen reguardless of the bombing.  Bloodier - yes, more Russians would have died - but bombing did not decide the war.

Interesting choice on the assult rifle, if the front line troops had that and the panzerfaust early on to counter the T-34 tanks thing indeed would be different.  While I agree that the bombings by the west were not nearly has helpful as we like to think, concentrated bombings of ball bearing factories and oil facilities did affect output.  But as I said, Germany had more than enough equipment produced, it just lacked the fuel to use it.  At the conclusion of the battle of the bulge, the Germans were destroying their super tanks as they ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned.

Had the germans put their economy on a war footing in 1938 instead of 1944 me thinks things would  be far different in the world.

I think that the V2 would have changed the course of the War in the West.  If Britain was pounded for over two years by Rockets and the marshaling grounds for D-Day were targeted the Western Allies would have had a rough go… IMO  The V2 only made a short appearance at the END of the War when it was already to late.  Being in operation longer would also have improved the technology and accuracy of the weapon during the war, making it a viable MILITARY technology rather than just a TERROR technology.

This is all conjecture of-course…

Actually, the V-1 was probably the better weapon.  With slight improvements in speed but still sub-sonic it would be immune to the wing-tip-over that was often used to disable them.  The resources required for a V-2 were astounding.  That’s why they don’t really use ICBMs for conventional munitions, though they are thinking of this for quick time-of-flight long distance attacks.  I should do some research but I would imagine you could build dozens of V-1 for the resources of a single V-2.  The V-1 is basically an unguided cruise missle and uses a highly efficient pulse engine.  Waves of those launched against the D-day landings would have been a nightmere.

@Zooey72:

It isn’t sexy like jets, rockets, and U-boats, and the atom bomb, BUT I think the real game changer would have been the assault rifle

Hard to deny it would’ve been a whole new ballgame launching Barbarossa in '41 with assault rifles and SMGs as standard issue…
I just think of house-clearing with a bolt-action rifle and get the willies.

#688

@ABWorsham:

I wonder if Germany had used the assault rifle earlier in the war, how soon would the allies have countered with their own weapon?

Good question.

Hmmm, higher ammo consumption would’ve been a pain considering the Allies weren’t firing the same round…

Wonder if the US would’ve just “boosted” production the BAR?
Or rushed production of the M1 carbine?

#709

A quote attributed to Eisenhower (I’ve seen several different versions of it, but containing the same elements) states that he considered the following four items to be the key war-winning weapons of the Allies: The bazooka, the jeep, the atom bomb and the C-47 Dakota transport plane.  The jeep and the C-47 might seem surprising choices at first glance – and indeed might not even be considered weapons in the strict sense – but they gave the Allies tremendous battlefield mobility and logistical capacity.  Both these things are critical in modern warfare.  Richard Overy, in his book Why The Allies Won, makes the same point.  He notes that during the war, Germany produced highly advanced next-generation weapon systems like cruise missiles (the V1), ballistic missiles (the V2) and jet fighters (the Me262), but neglected to pay much attention to such unglamorous basics as providing its army with enough trucks to break free of its continued large-scale use of horses.

Another factor Overy mentions is the technical fussiness of the Wehrmacht.  Its weapon specifications and quality-control standards were so exacting that they got in the way of efficient mass production.  The Panther, for example, was an adaptation of (an in some respects an improvement over) the T-34, but it was more complex and time-consuming to build, so the Germans never had enough of them.  The Russians stuck to the philosophy of “make it simple, make it work, and make more of it.”  The British applied the same approach to manufacturing the early versions of the Sten gun, which was intended to be a simple, cheap weapon which could be produced in vast quantities to meet the emergency Britain faced after Dunkirk.  The Sten Mark III, which looked like a piece of scrap iron, was probably the ugliest gun ever used by the British Army, but it got the job done, and the British were sensible enough to realize that the second half of 1940 was not the time to get sentimental about having to give up finely polished walnut rifle stocks and carefully blued gun barrels.

People interested in this general topic might like to read a sci-fi short story by Arthur C. Clarke called “Superiority,” the inspiration of which he said would be clear to anyone familiar with the Second World War.  It describes how a galactic war takes an unexpected turn when one side becomes obsessed with developing fancy new high-tech weapons, while the other side sticks to producing huge numbers of good old-fashioned “primitive” ones.