Nah, that's like asking "What's the best car in the world?". It depends on what you want it to do. And considering we won and they didn't....
Sure, but if you're really paying attention you've also seen how I completely shot down just about every one of his statements. His (and your) economic logic has serious flaws. It's very important to remember this: anyone can support anything - but being correct may be a different matter altogether. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Took nearly every country? Easy: no-one wanted another war, no-one wanted to enforce the terms from the last victory. They were allowed to, through laxness.
only because germany didn't patent the process. yes. my mistake. the actual product was buna-n instead of neoprene. it doesn't change any of the facts. no, i haven't forgotten. but i also will not acknowledge britain as the inventor of jet aircraft for the simple reason that it's too easy to SAY you've invented something and kept it a secret. GERMANY invented AND FLEW the first jet aircraft. they also invented cruise missiles and swept wing aircraft. no, actually it's you that needs to give credit where credit is due. don't get me wrong, hitler was a terrible man that did despicable things. still, the german people deserve the recognition that's due them.
They didn't take Britain, they didn't take America. They took part of France. If by "take" you mean "take on" (as opposed to capturing), look at the tactics and strategies of the day (WWI I assume you mean, since you said about rebuilding 20 years later). WWI was a war of non-movement and trenches: the defender had the advantage. How many men would you have sent marching across no-man's land to take a position?
????????????? Who are you talking to? Don't you know how to use the quote function? It makes it much easier to follow the conversation. If you're still talking about "took nearly every country" what does America and Britian have to do with that???
They might have flown one first, but they didn't invent it: a court case involving, IIRC, Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney and few others, back in the late 80s established that Whittle had a greater claim on the invention of the gas turbine than Ohain. Ever heard of the Kettering Bug? American, 1918.
No you didn't. German industry was largely unaffected by the bombings. German industry, because of its high quality, could be revamped into a consumer goods industry right after the war, when they got the green light from the allied forces.
Now that you've mentioned it, I do vaguely recall having come across something somewhere that made a similar statement. I don't know about it's accuracy, though - do you happen to have a link to a resource that discusses it?
I have read it in a book. If I recall correctly the Germans never lost more than 20% of their industrial capability. But I do not rely on my memory so you should not do that either. I have a strong suspicion the book was: Berlin - the downfall 1945 by Anthony Beevor http://www.antonybeevor.com/Berlin/berlinmenu.htm Unfortunately my copy resides somewhere in the Netherlands. The general message was actually that the production of German war goods kept going up till the very end. It's just that the production was never enough to make up for the losses during the final part of the war. But once again, this is a conclusion based on my memory. It was also the case that some production was suffering, could have been ammo, but for instance rifles kept being produced at a high or increasing level. hmmm....I want my book!!! edit: and the bombings mainly affected the civilian population. The industry had been moved to safe locations.
I also remember two other bits: one was that they were almost out of aircraft well before the end. Even though they had a couple of very good, effective models, were they being shot down faster than they could be made? Another was that their supply lines had grown very long in some theaters. So regardless of production, if they couldn't get them to the troops the amount produced didn't really matter. I believe fuel for the tanks was major issue - IF, as you say, memory serves and I don't like relying on it either.
maybe. i'd like to see something solid though so? an airplane with a bomb. big deal. the V-1 was designed from the ground up to be a self contained, self guided flying bomb
can you provide a link to this? (not the thread, been there, but to what you mentioned) i found the following which supports my claim: forward-swept wing is a high-performance aircraft configuration, first proposed in 1936 by a German aircraft designer . . . . Not until World War II did designs incorporating forward-swept wings appear; such as the experimental Junkers Ju 287 bomber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing they (the germans) overran the Maginot line and started advancing south. as they did the french called up what little reserves was available and tried to contain the break-through but was unable to. the french retreated south, eventually leaving france. i'll have to look at your source again because i must have missed this part.
Why would any country honour an enemy country's patent? If Germany wanted to keep their technology to themselves they'd have to keep it secret, and patenting does the opposite of that.
Some Wiki links on WW2 production output. German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II Total production WW2 aircraft production German aircraft production during World War II Of note are the figures on German AFV production from the 1st link: 1942 - 4,136 1943 - 13,657 1944 - 18,956 and aircraft production from the 2nd link 1942 - 15,409 1943 - 24,807 1944 - 40,593 Even if these are merely "ballpark" figures, it illustrates the German capacity to increase production in the face of an increasingly intense Allied strategic bombing campaign. Not necessarily - although obviously the numbers of German aircraft available were being steadily reduced by combat, but trained pilots certainly were being killed faster than they could be replaced, and aviation fuel shortages contributed to decreasing the number of sorties which could be flown. Some notes on the German fuel situation: Strategic Air Attack on the German oil Industry I believe the inability to supply field units had more to do with the ongoing destruction of the German rail system and Allied air supremacy in general - at least nearer to war's end. Still - as you say - production quantity hardly matters if it can't be utilized. Regarding the fuel situation again - from the above link: "In the case of Russia," Albert Speet, German Minister for Armament and War Production, said when questioned on 30 May 1945, "the need for oil certainly was a prime motive" for the attack in 1941. That need also contributed to the Russians' victories later. According to Speer, the Germans had 1,200 tanks concentrated against the Baranow bridgehead in 1945, but there was only enough fuel to refill the tanks two or three times, so the tanks were virtually immobilized. Had it not been for the lack of fuel, Speer said, Upper Silesia might not have been lost and the Russians might have been held for a long time.
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html http://www.afa.org/magazine/Oct1996/1096wings.asp Slightly before the Germans, neh? The French left France? Kettering Bug: More or less the same guidance that V-1 had. Larynx: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larynx_(Long_Range_Gun_with_Lynx_Engine)
