News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Game Changing Weapons of the Third Reich

Started by jimmy olsen, April 10, 2009, 04:00:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

What weapon, if introduced a year earlier, would have had the most positive effect on the German War effort.

Sturmgewehr 44
2 (6.1%)
Panzer V
3 (9.1%)
Me - 262
15 (45.5%)
Type XXI U-boats
6 (18.2%)
Panzerfaust
2 (6.1%)
Other (specify)
5 (15.2%)

Total Members Voted: 32

jimmy olsen

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:51:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:46:41 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
300 me-262 fighters? i don't think so.
Really?  On what date do you fix the delivery of the 300th Me-262 fighter?

Well considering from all reports of what i 've read the Hitler was still gungho on them as bomber till Oct '44 when the Arado 234 was shown to be a real Jet bomber, i'd say the 354 Me-262's delivered by end of Oct were  primarly delivered as...wait for it.... bombers.
Well obviously were speculating an early introduction as fighters so I don't see why that matters.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

katmai

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 07:53:19 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:40:05 PM
I believe a dreadnought being obsolete in WWII yes.
They're still morally superior.

A lot of good that does them at bottom of the ocean.  :hug:
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

katmai

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:52:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:48:34 PM
... my question is 300 of them operational in Oct '44 which is Grumblers contention.
That isn't my contention, but go ahead and tell us when the 300th ME-262 fighter was delivered.  Are you going to argue for November 1944, or December 1944?

Ah the good old gumbler gambit :lol:
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

Neil

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:57:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 07:53:19 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:40:05 PM
I believe a dreadnought being obsolete in WWII yes.
They're still morally superior.

A lot of good that does them at bottom of the ocean.  :hug:
They don't end up at the bottom of the ocean.  Out of the 82 dreadnought warships that served the seven main powers of the war, only 20 were lost to enemy action.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Josquius

Quote from: mongers on April 10, 2009, 07:05:37 PM
I thought one of the key problems with the 262 were the engines, specifically low quality turbine blades, which iirc fed off the problem of not having sufficient alloying metals. Weren't the engineering of the blades themselves not much cop either ? 

Yep.
Increasing production of the me 262 may not even have been possible, they were already scraping the bottom of the barrel in materials with what they did make.
The Nazi-tech fanboys may love the 262 but it was pretty crappy in the real world, it could only fly for half an hour or so at a time and maintainance was a bitch. The meteor was far better.

And of course the Germans don't exist in a vacuum. If they decide to put more effort into jet fighters earlier then the British too would step up their jet fighter project.
██████
██████
██████

katmai

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:28:55 PM

They don't end up at the bottom of the ocean.  Out of the 82 dreadnought warships that served the seven main powers of the war, only 20 were lost to enemy action.

:lol:
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

Neil

Quote from: Tyr on April 10, 2009, 08:34:15 PM
And of course the Germans don't exist in a vacuum. If they decide to put more effort into jet fighters earlier then the British too would step up their jet fighter project.
Yeah, but that's irrelevant, as British jets can't escort Allied bombers over Germany.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Neil

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:36:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:28:55 PM

They don't end up at the bottom of the ocean.  Out of the 82 dreadnought warships that served the seven main powers of the war, only 20 were lost to enemy action.

:lol:
I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

katmai

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:37:19 PM

I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.

Yeah as they were such a "game changing" force in WW2.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

Josquius

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:36:31 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 10, 2009, 08:34:15 PM
And of course the Germans don't exist in a vacuum. If they decide to put more effort into jet fighters earlier then the British too would step up their jet fighter project.
Yeah, but that's irrelevant, as British jets can't escort Allied bombers over Germany.

True.
I guess then it becomes the grand old question of whether the strategic bombing campaign was worthwhile or not.
Would make for a interesting scenario to assume jet interceptors active from the start of the war- neither side can really bomb each other too effectivly.
██████
██████
██████

alfred russel

You all know more about WWII than me, but to really turn things around for Germany, wouldn't there have had to be success on the Eastern Front? 300 jet fighters after Stalingrad seems unlikely to change the course of the war.

Had Germany defeated the Soviets quickly, they could have had the manpower to prevent a successful invasion of Europe. I don't know if jets could have turned the tide in the east, but fully mobilizing at the start of the war would have given Germany a better chance.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Neil

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:38:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:37:19 PM

I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.

Yeah as they were such a "game changing" force in WW2.
Out of those 82 dreadnoughts, 49 of them belonged to the USA and UK, who won the war.

Why did the Axis lose?  Because out of the two full-time Axis powers, they only had 16 dreadnoughts, and only one of them survived the war.

Not just a coincidence.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Neil

Quote from: mongers on April 10, 2009, 08:40:33 PM
(why aren't there more threads along the lines of which Allied weapon if introduced earlier might have significantly shortened/affected the outcome of the war? )
Because that one is easy:  The atom bomb.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

katmai

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:49:04 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:38:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:37:19 PM

I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.

Yeah as they were such a "game changing" force in WW2.
Out of those 82 dreadnoughts, 49 of them belonged to the USA and UK, who won the war.

Why did the Axis lose?  Because out of the two full-time Axis powers, they only had 16 dreadnoughts, and only one of them survived the war.

Not just a coincidence.

What was ratios of carriers for USA/UK vs Axis powers?

:P
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

Neil

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:52:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:49:04 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:38:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:37:19 PM

I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.

Yeah as they were such a "game changing" force in WW2.
Out of those 82 dreadnoughts, 49 of them belonged to the USA and UK, who won the war.

Why did the Axis lose?  Because out of the two full-time Axis powers, they only had 16 dreadnoughts, and only one of them survived the war.

Not just a coincidence.

What was ratios of carriers for USA/UK vs Axis powers?

:P
Fleet carriers were 40 to 11.  However, carriers lack the fleet-enhancing powers of dreadnoughts.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.