Was the Nazi War machine really that powerful?

beauf · 08-02-2014 3:14pm

What was the jellied material in a full tank?

Wibbs · 08-02-2014 3:41pm

some reference to fire control?

Reading that account and others from Luftwaffe pilots another thing really stands out is the length of time they spent in training. As yer man says in the above interview

"The entire training took two years. / at this time it was the regular length of time to train a pilot. My first plane was a biplane, the Hienkel He-72 Kadett. The I went on to the Bucker Bu-131 Jungmann, the Bu-133 Jungmeister and the Bu-181 Bestmann. By the time I had finished my training I had flown about 35 different types of airplanes.".

Now this was from 41 to 43, the war was at full throttle, yet they didn't skimp on the training. Plus most of these guys had pre war glider experience on top of that. That some serious commitment to training. Now compare that length of training to the usual Allied levels. The old story of the average BoB Spitfire pilot only having an average of 8 hours on the type before flying into battle and he probably only had one trainer type to his name before that. Old Hermann had thirty five different planes under his belt before he set foot in his operational mount(including a captured P51 and a ridealong in a B17). That's near test pilot stuff. And he was just one out of his class with the same. In his book "I Flew for the Fuhrer"(another good one, on the 109 this time) Heinz Knocke reports similar. In training if the thing wasn't nailed down he'd take a jaunt in it. No wonder the German pilots had such kill rates. It actually says even more of the young RAF guys with so little time by comparison that they were able to generally keep up.

Jawgap · 08-02-2014 3:43pm

beauf wrote: »

What was the jellied material in a full tank?

Sorry 'full' should have read 'fuel'

Napalm - it was prepared on site using the formula provided and they found that fuel / drop tank casings made ideal shells.

The mix was made up, placed in the tank (usually allowed to 'cure' for 24 hours) then slung on to the aircraft. Detonation was effected by using a white phosphorous grenade strapped to the top of the fuel tank with a wire running from the pin to a fixed point on the aircraft.

All the pilot had to do was fly and drop the tank - as the tank fell away the pin gets pulled and a few seconds later you get an explosion.

They also used napalm in the Crocodile tank s(a converted Churchill) and Wasp flame throwers (a converted Bren / Universal carrier).

kumate_champ07 · 09-02-2014 8:01pm

was reading about 'revisionists' last night and found it very interesting, is there a thread about the subject on boards or is it discussed here?

I was aware of the term 'Holocaust Denial' and its negative viewing but it would seem logical for some facts to be misrepresented, as propaganda was/is widely used by all sides

I recently read about how the Japanese treated prisoners, the Russians(apprently the Nazis copied their techniques), USA and more, they all did some truly nasty experimentation. Its hard to think about humans doing such things to each other.

there have been recent modern genocides, with the goal of extermination of a race, the Nazis dont seem very special overall except for the uniforms and swastika

for the record Im not 'anti-Semite' , a slanderous name which is too easily thrown at anybody who questions facts

beauf · 09-02-2014 8:25pm

I'm sure there is if you search for it. This topic is about something else though.

beauf · 09-02-2014 8:25pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Remarkably few compared to other equally famous aircraft. Only two I know of that are autobiographical; Stuka Pilot by Hans Ulrich Rudel first published in the early 50's(pdfs are out there on the interwebs) and Memoirs of a Stuka Pilot by Helmut Mahlke that came out in the early 90's. Both are different in tone. The Rudel one is more martial and came out not long after the war ended. He was a card carrying Nazi and favourite of Hiter. Mahlke's book is more human I'd say. Rudel misses out on France, the UK and the low countries, really only seeing action in Greece but mostly on the Eastern front. Mahlke is there from the start, inc the Battle of France, Britain, Greece, North Africa etc only leaving flying after he's shot down and badly injured in Russia. Hes got far more experience of all theatres and talks more on the wider military stuff. There are other dryer I suppose historical type books on the aircraft alright.

Cheers

Capt'n Midnight · 09-02-2014 8:29pm

Didn't Fritz Todt find out by the end of 1941 that German industrial output wasn't up to a prolonged war ?

Reekwind · 09-02-2014 9:00pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Didn't Fritz Todt find out by the end of 1941 that German industrial output wasn't up to a prolonged war ?

General Thomas (essentially the Wehrmacht's chief economist) had been flagging that directly to Hitler since 1938. The basic economic realities facing Germany were no secret. Hence the brief despair* that enveloped the leadership in Berlin once it became clear that Typhoon had failed and that Germany was now embroiled in a long war.

*Until delusion reasserted itself, as was typical amongst the Nazi leadership

silverharp · 09-02-2014 9:16pm

There was an episode of "nazi megastructures" (I know I know) but they made an interesting contrast between German and US tank design. Porsche was working on a tank design the Maus which was stupid big, couldnt use bridges, would cost a fortune to make and I assume would be easy pickings for aircraft. Meanwhile the US came up with an adapted Sherman and put a bigger gun on it the Firefly which was good enough to counter the Tiger. Hitler was the ultimate stooge for any "monorail" salesman

Reekwind · 09-02-2014 9:33pm

silverharp wrote: »

There was an episode of "nazi megastructures" (I know I know) but they made an interesting contrast between German and US tank design. Porsche was working on a tank design the Maus which was stupid big, couldnt use bridges, would cost a fortune to make and I assume would be easy pickings for aircraft

That would be the Maus heavy tank. Which is the subject of one of the best (anonymous) WWII quotes I've seen:

"Unfortunately, as the Maus Heavy Panzer Division ground inexorably forward across the Russian steppe, continental drift was slowly carrying their destination off in the other direction. Were they getting closer to Moscow?... or further away?"

(Which is a joke. The Maus never entered production)

beauf · 09-02-2014 10:25pm

silverharp wrote: »

T...the US came up with an adapted Sherman and put a bigger gun on it the Firefly which was good enough to counter the Tiger....

I think that was the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

silverharp · 10-02-2014 12:43am

beauf wrote: »

I think that was the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

true it was

"Unfortunately, as the Maus Heavy Panzer Division ground inexorably forward across the Russian steppe, continental drift was slowly carrying their destination off in the other direction. Were they getting closer to Moscow?... or further away?"

that sounds about right, apparently if they were to cross a river they would have to go in twos one would power the other while it went under water. :rolleyes:

it just shows now nuts their ideology was that they went down just about every technical cul de sac. or overly inappropriate solutions given their situation

Jawgap · 10-02-2014 8:36am

beauf wrote: »

I think that was the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

It certainly was and a discussion for another time is whether the 17-pounder was the most under-rated tank gun of the War - better than anything the Americans or Soviets managed to put on a tank and as good as the Tiger II's 88m L/71.

The 17-pounder could penetrate the frontal armour of the Tiger I easily enough. It could also could punch through the gun mantlet of the Panther - but not the glacis plate.

beauf · 10-02-2014 12:56pm

silverharp wrote: »

...it just shows now nuts their ideology was that they went down just about every technical cul de sac. or overly inappropriate solutions given their situation

In fairness, innovation is often a matter of trial and error of Dead Ends.

GideonMcGrane · 10-02-2014 8:09pm

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

was reading about 'revisionists' last night and found it very interesting, is there a thread about the subject on boards or is it discussed here?

I was aware of the term 'Holocaust Denial' and its negative viewing but it would seem logical for some facts to be misrepresented, as propaganda was/is widely used by all sides

I recently read about how the Japanese treated prisoners, the Russians(apprently the Nazis copied their techniques), USA and more, they all did some truly nasty experimentation. Its hard to think about humans doing such things to each other.

there have been recent modern genocides, with the goal of extermination of a race, the Nazis dont seem very special overall except for the uniforms and swastika

for the record Im not 'anti-Semite' , a slanderous name which is too easily thrown at anybody who questions facts

I dont think they like talking about holocaust deniers because they are afraid the neo-Nazis will take over.

Wibbs · 13-02-2014 12:03pm

beauf wrote: »

In fairness, innovation is often a matter of trial and error of Dead Ends.

True enough and to be fair to Germany they innovated like mad all over the place. Though that was much down to the internal competition between manufacturers to catch and keep the eye of Hitler. Plus Hitler did love his "wonder weapons". Of course the problem was they often had little focus overall because they were chasing so many different innovations at once. Still, some of their innovations were truly remarkable. Me262 and the like.

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

I dont think they like talking about holocaust deniers because they are afraid the neo-Nazis will take over.

More likely because the deniers stuff tends to get more and more out there in content. Oh I'd have some questions and musings myself on some aspects of the narrative, but at the same time I'm wary of stepping into that particular minefield, because it tends to get very polarised, very quickly.

Jawgap · 13-02-2014 3:12pm

The problem with new technology and innovations - as the Germans amply illustrated - is that their introduction, while solving one problem creates myriad others. It also creates uncertainty and that uncertainty reverberates through the military while they figure out how to properly apply such developments and how to logistically support units based on new technologies.

The jet is a good example. The Allies had jets that were every bit as good but were taking their time to introduce them while they figured out how to use them. In the case of the USAF they were reluctant to accept them in operational squadrons until they had the maintenance, supply and logistics network in place to support them - and they were reluctant to put that in place in a wholesale fashion for fear it would disrupt existing systems at a critical time.

Emme · 14-02-2014 4:33pm

Wibbs wrote: »

True enough and to be fair to Germany they innovated like mad all over the place.

That's true. It's sobering to think of the origin of some of the things we take for granted today. Certain pharmaceutical companies have very dark beginnings.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-02-2014 12:32am

Emme wrote: »

That's true. It's sobering to think of the origin of some of the things we take for granted today. Certain pharmaceutical companies have very dark beginnings.

The patenting of penicillin was another one

Jawgap · 15-02-2014 9:19am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The patenting of penicillin was another one

I don't think the Germans got that far with penicillin. They were certainly aware of it through the article that discussed it in the Lancet and there was a fear they would try to obtain samples through their Swiss connections.

The real 'villains' in the story of penicillin were the Americans - Florey and his co-discoverers were all about sharing the discovery with the world and making it as widely available as possible (except to the Germans!!) given its medical potential. When they brought it to the Yanks to develop and scale up production - one of the American scientists patented the production method and as a result the British (and everyone else) ended up paying royalties for the privilege of using the drug.

There's a very good book called "The Mould in Doctor Florey's Coat" that tells the story of its discovery and development.

The title is drawn from the contingency plan the scientists had - in the event of invasion, their lab was to be evacuated. But if things got really serious the lab and all the work was to be destroyed and the scientists were to be evacuated to Canada - to make sure they brought the precious mould with them they rubbed spores of it into their coats!

GideonMcGrane · 15-02-2014 11:08pm

Wibbs wrote: »

True enough and to be fair to Germany they innovated like mad all over the place. Though that was much down to the internal competition between manufacturers to catch and keep the eye of Hitler. Plus Hitler did love his "wonder weapons". Of course the problem was they often had little focus overall because they were chasing so many different innovations at once. Still, some of their innovations were truly remarkable. Me262 and the like.

More likely because the deniers stuff tends to get more and more out there in content. Oh I'd have some questions and musings myself on some aspects of the narrative, but at the same time I'm wary of stepping into that particular minefield, because it tends to get very polarised, very quickly.

I agree, we should keep all denial off the net, the last thing we need are neo-nazis spreading their vile questions. :mad:

Capt'n Midnight · 16-02-2014 11:11am

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

I agree, we should keep all denial off the net, the last thing we need are neo-nazis spreading their vile questions. :mad:

Holocaust denial denial is the belief that Holocaust denial never occurred or at least not to the degree that many believe it to. :pac:

Nazis 'researched use of mosquitoes for war'

Jawgap · 16-02-2014 1:14pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Holocaust denial denial is the belief that Holocaust denial never occurred or at least not to the degree that many believe it to. :pac:

Nazis 'researched use of mosquitoes for war'

Before anyone comes along to point out that the Allies also had a biological weapons programme which in many ways was more advanced than the Germans and Japanese (the Allies had weaponised anthrax and several hundred bombs containing it were available by 1944) - it may be worth bearing in mind that the US and British didn't experiment on human subjects, PoWs, internees etc.

Nor did they actually release any bioweapons as the Japanese did at Changteh.

In addition to Malaria, the Nazis also experimented with Rickettsia prowazekii, and hepatitis A virus by infecting humans with these organisms.

Was the Nazi War machine really that powerful?

Comments