The Gewehr 43 semi-automatic rifle came to service 1943. The STG 44 came into service 1944. The King Tiger Tank (Tiger II) also came 1944. What if the whole Vergeltungswaffe project started in 1939? What if Germany attacked Poland with all of this technology? How would the course of the war differed?

I honestly think the war would have quickly ended in Germany's favor. With the 262's and Salamanders (and of course the Komets), Germany would have invaded Poland faster, which would have sped up the invasion of France. A similar thing would have happened in North Africa. Russian T-34s would be no match for Tiger IIs, and with the V4s, England would have been hammered to dust. The US would put up a fight, and in the end America and Europe would be mostly destroyed.

1. Germany would have lost the war.

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics

What would the Allies, with many times more industrial, engineering, and scientific resources do in response? I also think you're severely overrating these weapons.

1. G43 = Good small arm, but in the end it is only a small arm.
2. STG44= Good small arm. There will be an allied response.
3. Tiger II = 75% of these were abandoned rather than destroyed by enemy fire. Once again, there will be an allied response.
4. 262 = supremacy until an allied response
5. Comet= flying coffin

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics

First of all technology doesn't move in a vaccume so if German tech is advanced significantly so will allied tech be at least to some extent.

Pretty good summary except for 4. The Me-262 couldn't have been fielded, deployed, and operational in the numbers needed with out haveing a severe impact elsewhere on the German war machine. It's presence however could well impact allied air doctrine and strategy into other lines some of which might actually be worse for Germany.

It wasn't tech that lost the war for Germany so much as logistics.

Germany wuolde have won ww2! America wase only strong cause America was never bomb herself unlike germany wase.(this had nothinge to do withe this topic,but i had to add it)
This meanning thate withe germany;s high tech equipment early on wuolde have beaten briton,therefore meanning only one front for thee germans to fight on.
After all,thee Russians and Americans were so keen on germany's technolghy,after ww2,so germany;s advance techonghy must have had alot of impact in ww2 .

I disagree with this conclusion. Germany wasn't all that technologically advanced over other belligerent countries, and in some cases trailed the technology of it's enemies. What superior technology that Germany possessed certainly wasn't enough to overcome her fundamental weaknesses which were a rather weak and fragile economy, a lack of a robust industrial base, and insufficient raw materials.

Specifically, Germany still didn't have the technology by the end of the war to mount any kind of serious bombardment of the US industrial base; no one did, and US industry remained inviolate until the mid-1950's with the advent of mass nuclear weapons delivered by ICBM's.

Second, no amount of high tech could have compensated for Germany's weakness as a naval power which was the basic reason Germany could never have eliminated Britain as a player in WW II. Any invasion of Britain had, as a prerequisite, control of the sea surrounding the British isles; this was impossible given the disparity between the Royal Navy and the German Navy.

German technology research was certainly sought after by the Soviets and western Allies after WW II, but only on the off chance that some avenue of scientific inquiry was being pursued that had not been covered in Allied research. Almost all of it was superseded with a year or two of the end of WW II.

That is so true DA,. The German tech was not all the "gee-whiz" that too many give it. And a great deal of it was simply improvements on existing concepts which they were forced to "try" on the off chance it might be a "war winner".

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Disaarrge! It wase high tech cause America ande russia wase so desperate to get thee german advaces into there own couintry.
America wase not that high tech in ww2,America however had some importance designs,whiche germany cuolde have used for herself.

But back to thee topic! Those jets ande helicoppters thate germany invented at thee near ende of ww2,America 100% arm forces are full of these products!
All these equipment if germany had built earlier during ww2,wuolde yuo say won;t make a difference at all during ww2??? but america hase use these weapons for the there high tech defence force!

Incorrect Heidi, the Soviets and Allies were not desparate to get them for themselves, but to make sure the other guys didn't get 'em. We didn't know what the Germans may have had tried out, or experimented with and didn't have time to develop. When America took the stuff home we were "underwhelmed".

Our own and the British axial flow engines were better than theirs, our solid fuel rockets were better, our code machines were better (America's was never broken and stayed in use until 1959), we soon discovered that their liquid fuel rockets were simply Goddard's designs; put into production. Their swept wing technology was never deployed in spite of the appearance of the 262, its wing sweep was below the angle where speed was increased by its angle. Our own NACA had experimented with swept wings, but not had the engine power to utilize, nor the need to take advantage of them.

Their Me-162 rocket plane was a flying coffin, and more pilots died from its own failure than from enemy bullets. Their V-1 flying bomb was an old French idea from WW1 era, but until it was coupled to the advance of the self closing intake vanes, it refused to function well. The AK-47 is NOT a copy of the StG-44, the form follows function precept is the only similarity. I mean no disrespect to German engineering, it was and remains superb.

America's Sikorski choppers were deployed before wars end, and superior to the German designs, and while some of the ideas which the Germans had tried out were and remain being used in the modern world, they weren't all their own you know. Our (Americas) flying wings were superior to the Horten designs, they actually worked beyond the prototype model. Northrop's bomber being ignored is more of a scandal than I need to get into here.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

I agree with Wolfy. Warfare is a series of action and reaction. With all the top notch German equipment many feel were war winners, if they had been placed into production earlier. This would not have been the case. The Tiger II’s had all sorts of different problems that, as has been pointed out, caused as many to be abandoned as were destroyed in combat. Specifically weight was a great issue. Most of the mechanical breakdowns were caused by the tanks being so heavy. They also consumed a great amount of fuel. A resource Germany was lacking.

The Me-262 also had many problems of its own. There was also a fuel consumption issue, as well as numerous issues with the engines. The Historical allied response to these planes was swift. The allies began to determine where these planes where stationed and thus bombed them. On occasion it would take a tremendous amount of AA cover as well as conventional fighter cover, just to allow these planes to take off and land. A waste of good fighters just so a faster fighter can take off unmolested if you ask me.

I think the T-34 would have held it’s own until the Soviets could make better tanks, same with the US and Britain. They would have worked day and night to come up with an equivalent. Same can be said with any technology put into the field.

Heidi, don't confuse not placing them into production as not having the capacity. The US's first jet fighter, the P-59 Airacomet, made its first flight only three months after the Me-262. To make such a large change in production would require extensive time to re-tool machines and other necessary changes. It was a calculated risk in that quantity outweighed the need for quality. The knowledge was there, it just wasn't used to its full potential.

__________________
"Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes! Powder is scarce and must not be wasted. Fire low! You are all marksmen and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards. Reserve your fire and the enemy will all be destroyed! - Israel Putnam, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775
"War is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others." - Karl von Clausewitz

That fact that the US and the Soviets were anxious to obtain the services of German scientists and engineers after WW II does not mean that German technology was all that far in advance of American, British, or Soviet technology; it is more indicative of the fact that there was tremendous competition between the West and the Soviets for experienced researchers in the fields of research which might offer a future military advantage. It should be noted that the US also sent a technical mission to Japan, certainly no technological giant, to seek out any technology which might be unknown and useful to the West.

As for jet aircraft propulsion, Germany was not that far advanced over British technology. The first British patent for a jet engine was registered in 1930, six years before a German engineer received a patent for a jet engine in 1936. Jet planes were on the drawing boards in Britain, the US and Germany at the same time. That Germany fielded the Me-262 before the US or Britain had an operational jet plane merely indicates that Germany put more effort into it. Had Germany deployed jet aircraft earlier, it's certain that Britain and the US would also have placed more emphasis on jet plane technology and fielded operational jets much sooner also.

Research into helicopters was not exclusively a German monopoly. As far back as the turn of the 20th. century, various researchers were experimenting with helicopters. In 1922, a Russian emigre to the US Georges de Bothezat, built a helicopter for the US Army which made many successful flights. The French flew a successful helicopter between 1923 and 1924, in 1929, another Russian engineer, working in Belgium designed, built, and flew a tandem-rotor helicopter, and in 1930, the Italians also built and flew a successful helicopter. All of these early helicopters were cumbersome and difficult to control, but in the 1930's several researchers, including British, French, Russian, American, Italian and Germans, developed better means of control which meant that helicopters became relatively safe to fly.

In the US, Igor Skikorsky, a Russian by birth, perfected a practical helicopter which flew in May, 1940. By 1941, Skikorsky had begun production of his machine, the R-4, for the US military. Skikorsky's next model, the R-5, began production in 1943 and several hundred saw military service in the Pacific before the end of the war. The helicopter was certainly NOT a German invention, and Germany was never more than a few months ahead, if that, in research in helicopter technology. In any case, the helicopter was not a war-winning technology and did not become a significant military weapon until the 1960's.

In actual fact, there is no scientific field of research in which Germany had a commanding lead during WW II. In many areas, such as nuclear physics, Germany actually lagged significantly behind the Western Allies. While German scientists and engineers did produce many discoveries and interesting developments in various areas during WW II, the reality is that the US and Britain, with far more scientists and engineers, were technologically, generally abreast of, or in advance of, German technology.

to amplify a bit
The Me-262 would never have been put in service by the US or British. When the Germans first started using them the engines lasted on average something less than 10 hours. By the end of the war they had this up to somewhere between 20 and 30 hours. Now considering that an Me-262 had 2 of them that means even by wars end after about 12 hours you are likely to have an engine failure unless the engines are replaced and overhauled. If you have 2 hour sorties that's every 6 sorties. Just think of the log and maintenance burden this creates.

Since we mentioned the NACA........
NASA - WWII & NACA: US Aviation Research Helped Speed Victory

__________________
"Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes! Powder is scarce and must not be wasted. Fire low! You are all marksmen and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards. Reserve your fire and the enemy will all be destroyed! - Israel Putnam, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775
"War is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others." - Karl von Clausewitz

I'll bow to the superior knowledge of Clint, DA, and Mikebatzel. In my mind, any early advantage that Germany had in technology was more than overcome by the production capacity of the US. No technology is ever conceived in a vacuum, so it isn't strange that WW2 developments were mostly refinements of earlier technology, whether it be rockets, jets, or helicopters. Allied, but especially American, technical knowledge grew by leaps and bounds, not least because in democratic societies, knowledge is open to all. Anyone with a good idea could piggy-back on someone else's idea and create something new. This free flow of ideas was aided by the vast industrial capacity of American factories. It was coupled with the willingness of American manufacturers to retool for military production (the automobile industry for one).

The post war grab for German scientists was more a reflection of the growing US-Soviet competition than it was a desire to hijack German technology. The bombing of Peenemund notwithstanding, it was the US which created the first working nuclear weapon, for whatever that's worth.

__________________
"Faint heart never won fair maiden", so I say "Go for it!"

Lou

I hope you are the fine maiden in your avatar. lol

Germany's defeat was not the result of her inability to equipped her armed force with efficient weapons, but her inability to come up with a comprehensive and coherent strategic war plan, which would require a totally different chain of command. Weapons do not win or lose wars, people do. In the case of Germany, the problems within its command structure was apparent even before the war started. The generals, with very few exceptions, didn't think much of Hitler and was constantly plotting coups against him; and Hitler, likewise, didn't trust his generals. This sort of command structure is only sufficient in small scale, short, and pre-planed military confrontations, given everything goes exactly according to plan. When that is no longer the case, then the generals would inevitably have to fight a two front war, if you know what i mean.

__________________
Russisch Frauen über alles, über alles in der Welt - me

Just to clarify, remember that the difference is that all the technology was constructed and available at the beggining of the war. The 262 and V3 would have made an immense difference in the Blitz. Britain would have been torn to shreds!

The BAR was availible since WWI, a weapon that would have helped the Americans. Even so, America wasn't ready for any kind of air raids in 1940, so bombers escorted by 262's would have done lots of damage to the eastern seaboard. I don't know who would have won, but the war would come to American soil.

How much fuel can a 262 carry? Bomb the east coast? Kinda difficult to make a 1200+ mile journey (one way) with a craft whose range is around 650 miles

__________________
"Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes! Powder is scarce and must not be wasted. Fire low! You are all marksmen and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards. Reserve your fire and the enemy will all be destroyed! - Israel Putnam, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775
"War is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others." - Karl von Clausewitz

1. The Me-262 was not suitable for dogfighting- it was just fast, but not maneuverable. It was an anti-bomber aircraft. And Germany was on the offensive in the BOB.

2. Most of the casualties in WW2 were not caused by small arms, but artillery/mortars.

3. Germany, industrially and militarily, was simply no match for the US. The German Army was excellent, but Germany's naval forces were weak. Germany could not even afford long range strategic bombing wings.

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics

Please i am not being rude ok,juste stating my opinion-Yuo aggree withe eache other cause yuo are all American guys!
Thates cause yuo guys are American ande yuo automatic thinke American technoghy wase better all ruond ande better than other cuontries.

Maybe yuo are right abuot germany still not winning the war withe jets and rockets earlier but if Nazi germany ande hitler never made those bad mistakes,those advances in technoghy whiche germany had,wuolde have won ww2.

yeah,yuo do have a point here,the Allies had better plans ande planning than Nazi germany!
If germany wase like america ande never been heavily bomb,all germany hight tech technoghy wuolde have been rolling off the production line.
I do agree,thate hitler had bad dicsions,also the allies never saw eye to eye niether.
Avator ist me,i like to stare at people lol

I don't believe any of us felt you were being rude, but I also don't think that our responses were the result of being American. My reading leads me to think that Germany, with whatever technological advances it made, could not have won WW2. Their lack of natural resources, limited manpower, and the poor decision making of Hitler all contributed to the loss. If you add in the fact that Germany had a totalitarian government that stifled the free flow of ideas, it only helped to seal the deal. The vast resource base and technological advances of the Americans far outstripped anything that Germany could produce. I don't have the technical expertise of others in the forum, but I just don't see how Germany could have won the war. Even if Britain had succumbed in the Battle of Britain, the US would still have ramped up their production and ultimately come out victorious. The Soviets were also doing their part in the east to keep Germany from any thoughts of victory.

__________________
"Faint heart never won fair maiden", so I say "Go for it!"

Lou

yuo guys knowe howe to come up withe goode answers!lol.
Ok,liminted manpower,i forgot abuot thate!Thate wuolde effect germany!ande wuode made germany lose the war.
in responce to the threade heading,without liminted manpower ande Hitler idoitoed bad moves,germany withe earlier high teach tecnolghy cuolde have won ww2???

Are you using babelfish or some sort of translator, Heidi?

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics

Germany had enough manpower and sufficient modern technology to win the war.

Germany could have defeated the USSR if not for Hitler actually let his generals, namely Manstein, draft a plan and implement it with absolute freedom. With the USSR defeated, Germany would be in a far better position to defend itself from any Allied invasion. The original plan was o take care of the USSR before the Allies fully geared up for war. Once that is achieved, Germany would have all the resources and manpower neccesary to fight America on equal terms.

__________________
Russisch Frauen über alles, über alles in der Welt - me

Germany has until mid 1945 to conquer America/Europe and then win the war. It's not happening..

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics