Most Important Technology for Allies in WW2

MRC_Hans said:
That was not technology, that was ressources. The Germans probably had the most superior technology, and both Germany and Japan developed extremely efficient weapons during the war. But they could not produce them in significant quantity to change the outcome.

Hans
Click to expand...

I don't think they did have the superior technology. It certainly hasn't been demonstrated in this thread.
 
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Battle of Taranto, given the discussion about aircraft carriers. If anything shows the dominance the aircraft carrier will have during the war, the Battle of Taranto does quite early on. Admiral Cunningham, after the battle, said the following.

"Taranto, and the night of November 11–12, 1940, should be remembered for ever as having shown once and for all that in the Fleet Air Arm the Navy has its most devastating weapon."
Well, the Strategic Bombing Survey has some impressive figures on its side as well. For those interested, the summary report on the European campaign bombing efforts can be read here.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link Corsair. I'll have a look through it.
 
Taranto doesn't show technological superiority though. It was a success despite the starvation of investment and technology in the Fleet Air Arm up until that time. Inter service rivalry kept the Navy starved of planes, the RAF, still a 'new' service at the time was determined to keep aircraft for itself . At Taranto the Navy shouldn't have been relying on open cockpit canvas biplanes as their main strike force.
 
MRC_Hans said:
#5 is incorrect. The Germans were very much op to date with R&D. As some have mentioned, sometimes almost too much; some of their designs were too complicated to be produced in volume, under war conditions.

Hans
Click to expand...

Good examples of this...

Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe - The first Operational Jet Fighter Craft. Had they gotten it out earlier in the war when they still had a goodly number of experienced pilots, it could have been much uglier for the Allies.

Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - To date, the only operational rocket-powered fighter craft. Built and designed to take out Allied Bombers.

Horten Ho 229 - Flying Wing fighter craft. Developed during the war, sadly never saw full production or combat. We recovered prototypes.

StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44 or "assault rifle model 1944") - An assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II and was the first of its kind to see major deployment, considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle.

They were working on helicopter designs, missile carrying subs to attack the US, VTOL aircraft, you name it.

Just look up Wunderwaffe in wikipedia. I'd post the URL, but I'm not permitted at this time.

They were very creative. Sadly micromanagement and the fact that the allies were bombing their ability to produce anything back into the stone age severely crippled their ability to get any of these ideas off the planning and/or the prototype stage.
 
A lot of interesting points here, but I think the important things to look at are those that the Allies could do better than the Axis.

For instance RADAR: While RADAR was, obviously, essential to the conduct of the war, the German's RADAR equipment was more advanced than that of the Allies during most of the war.

The Norden bombsight has been mentioned. The Norden Bombsight was fantastic, provided the bombers could find and see the target. And could have a relatively undisturbed run-in over the target. However, in the windy, cloudy, flak and fighter-infested skies over Europe, it was virtually worthless till proper navigation means and fighter superiority became available.

During the Battle of Brittain, the Germans had quite efficient navigation systems, bringing the bombers right to the target, and their bomb sights, while not advanced at all, had quite adequate precision for the circumstances. What they didn't have was heavy bombers, and fighter superiority.

Hans
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Taranto doesn't show technological superiority though. It was a success despite the starvation of investment and technology in the Fleet Air Arm up until that time. Inter service rivalry kept the Navy starved of planes, the RAF, still a 'new' service at the time was determined to keep aircraft for itself . At Taranto the Navy shouldn't have been relying on open cockpit canvas biplanes as their main strike force.
Click to expand...

As neither the Germans nor the Italians had developed the carrier the British clearly had a lead in that technology.
 
akenlon said:
Good examples of this...

Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe - The first Operational Jet Fighter Craft. Had they gotten it out earlier in the war when they still had a goodly number of experienced pilots, it could have been much uglier for the Allies.
Click to expand...

Still had serious teething troubles (e. g. engine life about 150 hours) still a very good design.

Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - To date, the only operational rocket-powered fighter craft. Built and designed to take out Allied Bombers.
Click to expand...

A rather desperate machine, IMHO. Caused more casualties among its pilots than to the enemy.

Horten Ho 229 - Flying Wing fighter craft. Developed during the war, sadly never saw full production or combat. We recovered prototypes.
Click to expand...

Cool design, but somehow flying wing designs never seem to make the transition to practical application. Something must be basically wrong with the principle.

StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44 or "assault rifle model 1944") - An assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II and was the first of its kind to see major deployment, considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle.

They were working on helicopter designs, missile carrying subs to attack the US, VTOL aircraft, you name it.
Click to expand...

They had operative helicopters. Not many, but they were there.

They were very creative. Sadly micromanagement and the fact that the allies were bombing their ability to produce anything back into the stone age severely crippled their ability to get any of these ideas off the planning and/or the prototype stage.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't agree with "sadly". ;)

However, the main point is that while technology is very important in warfare, in an all-out war, ressources win over all. While they had plenty of ingenious plane designs, the old ME109 remained the mainstay of the fighter branch throughout the war. Apart from the FW190, few of the more advanced designs made it to the battlefront in significant numbers.

Hans
 
akenlon said:
Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe - The first Operational Jet Fighter Craft. Had they gotten it out earlier in the war when they still had a goodly number of experienced pilots, it could have been much uglier for the Allies.
Click to expand...
While the Me262 was a capable interceptor it required a long, paved, airstrip and had poor range. Engine life was also short. It's arguable that the resources devoted by Germany to jet aircraft might have been better on prop aircraft development and production. Either way Allied numerical superiority and German lack of fuel would have severely hampered air operations.

akenlon said:
Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - To date, the only operational rocket-powered fighter craft. Built and designed to take out Allied Bombers.
Click to expand...
Which it didn't do, it was a suicidal folly. More like a crewed missile than an aircraft. There's a reason that the military doesn't use rocket powered aircraft much.

akenlon said:
Horten Ho 229 - Flying Wing fighter craft. Developed during the war, sadly never saw full production or combat. We recovered prototypes.
Click to expand...
A quite possible better design than many that entered production, stifled by politics.
akenlon said:
StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44 or "assault rifle model 1944") - An assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II and was the first of its kind to see major deployment, considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle.
Click to expand...
Actually it was the MP43, later the Stg44; the 'machine pistol' designation was originally used to hide the weapon from Hitler's notice as he disapproved of the assault rifle concept. The weapon was developed to counted extensive Soviet use of the PPS/PPD/PPSh sub-machine guns.
The first assault rifle was the Russian AVF-16 used in WW1.

akenlon said:
They were working on helicopter designs, missile carrying subs to attack the US, VTOL aircraft, you name it.
Click to expand...
So was the United States, both made limited use of helicopters in WW2. However piston engines left them underpowered.

akenlon said:
They were very creative. Sadly micromanagement and the fact that the allies were bombing their ability to produce anything back into the stone age severely crippled their ability to get any of these ideas off the planning and/or the prototype stage.
Click to expand...
Britain and the US were equally creative, often with less tendency to try an render workable as fundamentally flawed design.
 
Marduk said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahlhelm#Postwar

:p
bought to you by the devils advocate marketing board : we all float down here
Click to expand...

Grumble, grumble. Instead of depending on nicknames given to them by soldiers:

From The History of the PASGT Helmet by Charles A. Simpson

Although the contour of the PASGT is frequently compared to the NAZI helmet, it was not deliberately modeled after the M-35. The slight similarity in contour is the result of the fact that the Germans and Natick used the same methods to determine the contour. Both relied on wound probabilities, equipment interaction studies, and the anthropometric data to establish the shape. The people at Natick do not like to hear their helmet compared to the German M-35.
Click to expand...
 
catsmate1 said:
Britain and the US were equally creative, often with less tendency to try an render workable as fundamentally flawed design.
Click to expand...

Of that I do not deny. All sides were very creative in developing weapons of war. I was pointing out that the poster that said that the Germans were not up on R&D was incorrect and that they were very much alive on the R&D front. They just were not able to put enough of the ideas into field trials to work out the kinks.

And I do know that the technologies I mentioned had many flaws. Does not invalidate the point that they did think outside of the box.
 
Speaking of WW2 jets, there was also the Italian "jet":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campini_Caproni_CC.2

:roll:

The story goes that Mussolini ordered his designers to build a jet fighter. They duly presented the CC2, which took off with delightful noise and an impressive exhaust flame, making Il Duce very satisfied.

.... As can be seen from the specs, they would have had a better plane (though still way below other fighters of the time) if they had fitted a propeller to the engine and dropped the "jet" arrangement.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Cool design, but somehow flying wing designs never seem to make the transition to practical application. Something must be basically wrong with the principle.
Click to expand...

B2 Bomber. 20 active aircraft currently in service.

Expensive as all crap, but it is effective, had recent upgrades, is capable of using the MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) and do it with stealth.

The problem is that the Flying wing is a very stable platform. Stability, while wonderful for bombers, transport, observation and re-fueling craft is not so great for fighters as they need to walk the fine line between stable and unstable to be able to maneuver quickly. The F-22 in fact is so unstable that it requires computer assistance to maintain level flight.
 
akenlon said:
B2 Bomber. 20 active aircraft currently in service.

Expensive as all crap, but it is effective, had recent upgrades, is capable of using the MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) and do it with stealth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, true. The B2 must be considered a flying wing.

The problem is that the Flying wing is a very stable platform.
Click to expand...

Well, stable in the roll axis. Not so much in the pitch. :boggled:

I think another problem is that once you exceed its control limits, stall it or spin it, there is no way out.

Stability, while wonderful for bombers, transport, observation and re-fueling craft is not so great for fighters as they need to walk the fine line between stable and unstable to be able to maneuver quickly. The F-22 in fact is so unstable that it requires computer assistance to maintain level flight.
Click to expand...

Basically all types of aircraft except fighters (and, of course, other aerobatic planes) benefit from stability.

I think there are also a number of practical problems with flying wings:

- To have any reasonable payload, it must be rather thick, which either means that it must be very large, or have low top speed. In any case, the flying wing will tend to get a quite low wing-load (wing area/weight), ... which is mainly desirable for fighters

- In mass production, the conventional tube-with-attached-wings layout is extremely practical.

- Tubular fuselages lend themselves nicely to pressurized cabins.

- High-speed, fuel economic designs require high-chord, thin-profile wings, which will leave no space in a flying wing.


... But we are getting off topic.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Speaking of WW2 jets, there was also the Italian "jet":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campini_Caproni_CC.2

:roll:

The story goes that Mussolini ordered his designers to build a jet fighter. They duly presented the CC2, which took off with delightful noise and an impressive exhaust flame, making Il Duce very satisfied.

.... As can be seen from the specs, they would have had a better plane (though still way below other fighters of the time) if they had fitted a propeller to the engine and dropped the "jet" arrangement.

Hans
Click to expand...

Those specs.
 
Aitch said:
Well, the Japanese had these - I think one got quite close to New York.
Click to expand...
Ah! Submarine aircraft carriers, like multi-turret tanks, another military fad of the thirties that didn't pan out.
While they could have had some military utility, early war attacks on the Panama Canal or biological strikes on US west coast cities are popular in AHs, they were basically white elephants. Huge white elephants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom