How far would Hitler have gone?

[Norsefire]

Hitler was not a Christian, he was an atheist; he was too bright to have been a Christian, anyway. He also expressed sentiments about the flabbiness of Christianity and how Islam was 'more compatible' with his goals; obviously, religion was a propaganda tool for him.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hitler's religion: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

I'm not going to paste in all the evidence from that website. Folks can just go read it. However, I will offer some explanation of Hitler's ideals. See, Hitler believed in his own odd version of Hegel's philosophy of God. If God evolved as the universe and life evolved, and humans were at the pinnacle, and Germans were at the technological pinnacle (as they were), then that made Germans closest to God. That's the simple version of what Hitler believed.

However, Hitler did not stick solely to Christian texts for his beliefs. He and his pals were also interested in the Mystery traditions (Freemasonry is a Mystery tradition, for example), which is why they also had mystical symbols all over the place, such as the black sun.

 

[Dywyddyr]

and Germans were at the technological pinnacle (as they were)

Rubbish.

 

[Scaramouche]

Rubbish.

No, it's spelled H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, it's spelled H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.

Which you don't appear to read.
Do you have anything to support your contention other than blanket statements?

 

[Scaramouche]

During the 1930s, Germany had the world's finest engineering and manufacturing. This was how they were able to develop such a powerful and effective military.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529548,00.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_had_the_better_technology_during_the_Second_World_War
http://www.2worldwar2.com/german-secret-weapons.htm

After WW2, science in Allied nations shot forward specifically due to the German scientists taken through Project Paperclip. Example: Werner Von Braun.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ho ho ho.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529548,00.html

Yes the Go 229. Wasn't even in service. How did that help them? (And wasn't a war-winner even if it had entered service).

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_had_the_better_technology_during_the_Second_World_War

Did you read this before linking it?
I'll just italicise the comments that directly undermine your contention.

When the Germans invaded France in May 1940 they faced more and better tanks than were in their own panzer forces. The British army at that point was the only one in Europe which had effectively eliminated the use of horses (much German artillery was horse-drawn). The best overall tank in the world at the time of deployment was probably the Soviet T-34 (by very late in the war, some German Panthers were equipped with innovative infra-red sights, which was higher technology). The jet fighter was better developed in the German Me 262 than the British Meteor[see my note]. Rocket technology was superior in Germany, but the allies developed nuclear weapons first.
Of all the possibilities, the most critical technology may have been that of mass production, where America was the pioneer, via Springfield and Ford.

Note: this is untrue: the Me 262's engines had a service life of around 20 hours.

http://www.2worldwar2.com/german-secret-weapons.htm

And the majority of that list were largely abortive or unworkable programmes, and didn't enter service. And were also mid-to-late-war developments: i.e. a consequence of the war itself, NOT a indicator that the Hitler believed Germans were superior because they had superior technology - that list is things developed to counter Allied superiority (and is also wonderfully incorrect on a number of counts).

After WW2, science in Allied nations shot forward specifically due to the German scientists taken through Project Paperclip. Example: Werner Von Braun.

Science did?
So Goddard didn't help? I wonder if the US had paid more attention to him where they'd have been.
Ever thought how much German science/ technology would have advanced if they'd won and taken our developments?

 

[John99]

After WW2, science in Allied nations shot forward specifically due to the German scientists taken through Project Paperclip. Example: Werner Von Braun.

I think that is all over exaggerated.

 

[Scaramouche]

Yes the Go 229. Wasn't even in service.

Didn't say it was. I said they had the best technology.

(And wasn't a war-winner even if it had entered service).

Pure conjecture.

Did you read this before linking it?
I'll just italicise the comments that directly undermine your contention.

I certainly read it, but I know all this stuff anyway. Germany had superior technology, but orders from the command had them deploying basically units which were far from their best available technology. Again, you're complaining about what was used and how.

Note: this is untrue: the Me 262's engines had a service life of around 20 hours.

More like 20 to 50 depending on the pilot and the action it saw, and that was just the jet engines, which were a new technology (created by the Germans). The aircraft's fuel capacity gave it a flight time of around an hour to an hour and a half, which means it could perform dozens of flights before needing the engines replaced, which could take from a few hours to half a day.

And the vast majority of that list were largely abortive or unworkable programmes, and didn't enter service.

1. They were workable enough to be carried on by the victorious nations.

2. Again, you're complaining not about the technology, but about its deployment. The technology existed, and it was Germans that made it.

And were also mid-to-late-war developments: i.e. a consequence of the war itself, NOT a indicator that the Hitler believed Germans were superior because they had superior technology - that list is things developed to counter Allied superiority (and is also wonderfully incorrect on a number of counts).

No. It's the other way around. Early on, through the 1930s, the Germans had pretty much better everything. Very good manufacturing and engineering. At the start of the war, they had the best fighters by far. However, as we saw with attacking Britain, the Germans just didn't have the fuel and range advantage; the British did, which hampered the Germans a lot. Anyway, after an initial splurge on new technologies, Hitler stuck his stupid nose in and stopped a lot of the developments, which allowed other nations to leapfrog ahead a little in some areas. Then toward the end of the war Hitler encouraged new developments again.

Science did?
So Goddard didn't help? I wonder if the US had paid more attention to him where they'd have been.

But they didn't.

Ever thought how much German science/ technology would have advanced if they'd won and taken our developments?

But that's an alternate history story that didn't happen.

 

[Scaramouche]

I think that is all over exaggerated.

Like building NASA wasn't really a big deal?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Didn't say it was. I said they had the best technology.

And the example doesn't make your point.

Pure conjecture.

Nope.

I certainly read it, but I know all this stuff anyway. Germany had superior technology

The sentences I italicised clearly show that German technology was inferior.

but orders from the command had them deploying basically units which were far from their best available technology.

Evidence?

(created by the Germans).

No it wasn't.

The aircraft's fuel capacity gave it a flight time of around an hour to an hour and a half, which means it could perform dozens of flights before needing the engines replaced, which could take from a few hours to half a day.

Which made it inferior since the aircraft couldn't be used until the engines were overhauled.

1. They were workable enough to be carried on by the victorious nations.

Oh yeah, we always use rocket-powered fighters.
As for the others: if they were abortive or unworkable then they weren't a technology, they were experiments.

2. Again, you're complaining not about the technology, but about its deployment. The technology existed, and it was Germans that made it.

See comment above: if it's not available it isn't a technology.

No. It's the other way around. Early on, through the 1930s, the Germans had pretty much better everything.

Such as?
Better tanks? Oh, not them.
Better radar? Oh, not that either.
Etc...

At the start of the war, they had the best fighters by far.

Did they?

But they didn't.

But Goddard had the technology (the way the Germans had so much of the technology you claim they did).

But that's an alternate history story that didn't happen.

But it still highlights the fact that the Germans would also have leaped forward if it had happened: i.e. it wasn't better it was different technology/ ideas that swapped hands.

 

[Scaramouche]

And the example doesn't make your point.

So... first jet fighters, first rocket fighters, first guided missiles, first assault rifles, best fighters at the start of the war, first nerve gas...?

Nope.

Actually yes. You posted pure conjecture. Here's what you said:

(And wasn't a war-winner even if it had entered service).

That's conjecture.

The sentences I italicised clearly show that German technology was inferior.

Playing dumb only makes you look dumb. Best avoid it. As I said, they deployed to the field some inferior tanks due to bad orders from above (a problem which plagued the Germans throughout the war). If you'd be so kind as to read the information provided, you'd learn all sorts of interesting things about the powerful German tanks and related technologies... which were not fielded. Again, that is a difference between developing the technologies and deploying them. What you are complaining about, without realising it, is the deployment of technologies.

Evidence?

Panzer III was used. Panzer IV already existed. Easy.

No it wasn't.

Well, it was the development of the first, which was the He178 (another German aircraft).

Which made it inferior since the aircraft couldn't be used until the engines were overhauled.

The same applied to all aircraft. The same applies to all aircraft today. Obviously the plane couldn't fly while its engines were being repaired or replaced. Still, the Me262 could fly dozens of missions, and on those missions it rocked. It absolutely kicked arse. And it was the first fully operational jet fighter in the world, thanks to German engineering.

Oh yeah, we always use rocket-powered fighters.

It was one of the rocketry developments which heralded the space age.

As for the others: if they were abortive or unworkable then they weren't a technology, they were experiments. See comment above: if it's not available it isn't a technology.

Good grief. So now we're into twisting English in an attempt to exclude those technological developments you'd rather not discuss? Ok.

Such as?
Better tanks? Oh, not them.

As demonstrated already. They had the Panzer IV but did not deploy it.

Better radar? Oh, not that either.

Actually radar was developed by many different nations independently, including Germany. Britain was just the first to deploy it on a large scale.

Etc...

You wish there was an etc.

Did they?

Certainly.

But Goddard had the technology (the way the Germans had so much of the technology you claim they did).

No. Goddard had bloody good ideas but never gained the support he needed to make anything of them. Even so, I obviously consider him one of the fathers of rocketry. Clever guy.

But it still highlights the fact that the Germans would also have leaped forward if it had happened: i.e. it wasn't better it was different technology/ ideas that swapped hands.

It highlights the fact that you don't post information, only "Nope!" and so on, and also of course alternate histories which are irrelevant. Try what I do, and stick to facts.

 

[Scaramouche]

Anyway, book time.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So... first jet fighters, first rocket fighters, first guided missiles, first assault rifles, best fighters at the start of the war, first nerve gas...?

In order:
Built but not in service - He 178,
No - Soviet BI-1,
No - Kettering Bug,
No - Soviet Federov Avtomat,
No - Hurricane, Spitfire, Germany had Bf 109
Yes.

Actually yes. You posted pure conjecture. Here's what you said:
That's conjecture.

Nope. It's backed by knowing the production capacities of the combatants. There's no way they could have built enough, fast enough to win the war.

Playing dumb only makes you look dumb. Best avoid it.

Quite, stop doing it.

As I said, they deployed to the field some inferior tanks due to bad orders from above

Evidence that this was the case?

If you'd be so kind as to read the information provided, you'd learn all sorts of interesting things about the powerful German tanks and related technologies... which were not fielded. Again, that is a difference between developing the technologies and deploying them. What you are complaining about, without realising it, is the deployment of technologies.

If you would care to read up on what the Allies had and didn't deploy you'd find that there's no real difference between them and us.

Panzer III was used. Panzer IV already existed. Easy.

So what?
They weren't superior to, say, Char B1 bis, Matilda II, Somua S-35, T-34...

Well, it was the development of the first, which was the He178 (another German aircraft).

Um, your statement was that the jet engine was created by the Germans. Which is not the case.

The same applied to all aircraft. The same applies to all aircraft today. Obviously the plane couldn't fly while its engines were being repaired or replaced. Still, the Me262 could fly dozens of missions, and on those missions it rocked. It absolutely kicked arse.

And the technology was inferior to that of the engines in the Meteor.

And it was the first fully operational jet fighter in the world, thanks to German engineering.

Meteor was the first operational jet fighter.

It was one of the rocketry developments which heralded the space age.

Nope.

Good grief. So now we're into twisting English in an attempt to exclude those technological developments you'd rather not discuss? Ok.

Twisting?

Definitions of technology on the Web:
* the practical application of science to commerce or industry

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/technology
If it's in small numbers it's experiment/ prototype, not technology.

As demonstrated already. They had the Panzer IV but did not deploy it.

Wrong: Pzkpfw IV (as you stated above) was deployed from the start. And it was still inferior to some foreign AFVs.

Actually radar was developed by many different nations independently, including Germany. Britain was just the first to deploy it on a large scale.

I said "better" not first.

You wish there was an etc.

I was sort of hoping you'd try some actual reading for yourself instead of being spoon fed.

Certainly.

Nope.
Bf 109 and... what other "better fighters by far" did they have?
UK had Spitfire and Hurricane for comparison.

No. Goddard had bloody good ideas but never gained the support he needed to make anything of them.

In other words "high command didn't let him implement the technology"? Oh wait...

It highlights the fact that you don't post information, only "Nope!" and so on, and also of course alternate histories which are irrelevant. Try what I do, and stick to facts.

Facts?
I post "nope" because you make flat statements (which turn out to be false) without support.
As for "irrelevant" I've already expanded on the point you seem to have missed. "Different", not "better".

 

[John99]

Like building NASA wasn't really a big deal?

Technology is built upon. What did it change? I estimate a year or two in development time.

 

[joepistole]

Hitler was not a Christian, he was an atheist; he was too bright to have been a Christian, anyway. He also expressed sentiments about the flabbiness of Christianity and how Islam was 'more compatible' with his goals; obviously, religion was a propaganda tool for him.

Religion is a tool for most leaders, and a tool that works well.

 

[Scaramouche]

In order:
Built but not in service - He 178,
No - Soviet BI-1,
No - Kettering Bug,
No - Soviet Federov Avtomat,
No - Hurricane, Spitfire, Germany had Bf 109
Yes.

Rocket planes. Soviet BI-1 first flight 1942. German Lippisch Ente, first flight 1928.

Guided missiles. The 1918 (I'll skip over your objection about technologies being deployed...) Kettering Bug was not a guided missile. It was a winged torpedo. It had no guidance. The German missiles had quite fancy guidance systems.

Assault rifles. There's a difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault rifle. Assault rifle refers to a specific type of rifle. There were obviously many self-loading and automatic weapons prior to the German Sturmgewehr, as automatic weapons were popular in WW1, but they were not assault rifles.

Fighter aircraft. The 109 was superior to the Allied planes at the start of the war. Here's a page with critiques of all those aircraft during WW2: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html Note that the Germans were full of praise for the Spitfire, but after the new engines and such were added from 1940 onward. Just skip on down to the Conclusion if you want the words of the Germans from the time.

Nope. It's backed by knowing the production capacities of the combatants. There's no way they could have built enough, fast enough to win the war.

Obviously they couldn't build enough to win the war. We know that, because they didn't win the war. However, that's not even slightly anything to do with this discussion. Here's what you said, regarding Germany's stealth fighter:

(And wasn't a war-winner even if it had entered service).

For context, we are discussing the funky technologies Germany came up with. Not the quantity of units they could pump out per day.

Quite, stop doing it.

You failed to address the point this stems from.

Evidence that this was the case?

Read up on the Battle of France. They deployed the IIIs.

If you would care to read up on what the Allies had and didn't deploy you'd find that there's no real difference between them and us.

Dude, I've read enough. You have comprehensively failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support anything you've said thus far.

So what?
They weren't superior to, say, Char B1 bis, Matilda II, Somua S-35, T-34...

The Battle Of France was from May 1940. The T34 was fielded in September 1940. The Panzer IV was simply superior to the S-35, the Matilda II, and the B1 (which the Germans used as a training vehicle since they were useless as tanks).

Um, your statement was that the jet engine was created by the Germans. Which is not the case.

Sure, you can look back to ancient Rome for steam jets if you want. But the Germans created the first functioning turbojet engines, and the first turbojet fighter plane. But I do enjoy how your argument has morphed several times: first complaining about deployment rather than development, then about the operational lifetime of ME262s, and now this.

And the technology was inferior to that of the engines in the Meteor.

Meteor's engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Welland
Me262's engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004

Meteor was the first operational jet fighter.

He178: First flown in 1939. Did not enter service.

Me262: Development began in 1939. First flew in April 1941. First Allied planes shot down by it in July 1944.

Meteor: Development began in 1940. First prototype flew in May 1941. Entered service July 1944.

Nope.

If you're going to reply with something as inane as that, go to a hip-hop forum or something.

Twisting?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/technology
If it's in small numbers it's experiment/ prototype, not technology.

25 definitions of technology: http://onelook.com/?w=technology&ls=a

So you're saying experimental nano-robots are not technology?

Wrong: Pzkpfw IV (as you stated above) was deployed from the start. And it was still inferior to some foreign AFVs.

You're going to need better reading and comprehension skills. The Battle Of France was the example used. The Germans had the Panzer IV, which as I said was better technology, but due to shitty orders deployed the Panzer III, which was a shitty tank.

I said "better" not first.

Hmm, we're discussing technological firsts...

I was sort of hoping you'd try some actual reading for yourself instead of being spoon fed.

If you're going to reply with something as inane as that, go to a hip-hop forum or something.

Nope.
Bf 109 and... what other "better fighters by far" did they have?
UK had Spitfire and Hurricane for comparison.

The Me109 was the superior at the start of the war, for obvious reasons. the Hurricane was limited by altitude, and the Spitfire stalled out in climbs. There were other problems, but those two were massively exploited by the 109 pilots. The Spitfire and Hurricane caught up after upgrading began in 1940.

In other words "high command didn't let him implement the technology"? Oh wait...

And? There were some brilliant guys everywhere. Germany had the best and the most, which is why the Allied forces nabbed them all.

Facts?
I post "nope" because you make flat statements (which turn out to be false) without support.
As for "irrelevant" I've already expanded on the point you seem to have missed. "Different", not "better".

You have yet to post any facts, or any support of claims. At all.

 

[Scaramouche]

Technology is built upon. What did it change? I estimate a year or two in development time.

Would you care to clarify that post a little?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Rocket planes. Soviet BI-1 first flight 1942. German Lippisch Ente, first flight 1928.

And the Ente wasn't a rocket fighter. Keep trying.

Guided missiles. The 1918 (I'll skip over your objection about technologies being deployed...) Kettering Bug was not a guided missile. It was a winged torpedo. It had no guidance. The German missiles had quite fancy guidance systems.

On the contrary the Bug was guided, and the V-1 had very similar guidance.

Assault rifles. There's a difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault rifle. Assault rifle refers to a specific type of rifle.

Exactly: the Federov Avtomat was the first assault rifle. (Or if you want to really push the boat out, the Italian Cei-Rigotti of 1890, but that wasn't taken into service).

Fighter aircraft. The 109 was superior to the Allied planes at the start of the war.

No it wasn't.

Here's a page with critiques of all those aircraft during WW2:

Explain how that page shows a superiority.

Read up on the Battle of France. They deployed the IIIs.

AND Pzkpfw IV. The IVs were in service from the start of the war.

The first mass-produced version of the Panzer IV was the Ausführung, A (Ausf. A or Batch A), in 1936.

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

Dude, I've read enough. You have comprehensively failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support anything you've said thus far.

In other words you're ignoring facts.

The Battle Of France was from May 1940. The T34 was fielded in September 1940.

What's the Battle of France got to do with it? We're talking about the start of WWII.

The Panzer IV was simply superior to the S-35, the Matilda II, and the B1

In what way?
Generally thinner armour? Worse tank-killing gun?

Sure, you can look back to ancient Rome for steam jets if you want. But the Germans created the first functioning turbojet engines

No they didn't, that was Whittle - the German types pre-Whittle were externally powered the same way Coanda's 1910 engine was.

But I do enjoy how your argument has morphed several times: first complaining about deployment rather than development, then about the operational lifetime of ME262s, and now this.

My argument?
You're the one that claimed the Germans created the jet engine.

Me262: Development began in 1939. First flew in April 1941. First Allied planes shot down by it in July 1944.
Meteor: Development began in 1940. First prototype flew in May 1941. Entered service July 1944.

Er, remember your own words?

And it was the first fully operational jet fighter

The 262 kills were made by a trials unit.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2433084&postcount=43

If you're going to reply with something as inane as that, go to a hip-hop forum or something.

If you're going to post unsupported nonsense that's all the reply you should expect.

So you're saying experimental nano-robots are not technology?

An experimental technology isn't a technology since it isn't provably workable as a technology.

You're going to need better reading and comprehension skills. The Battle Of France was the example used. The Germans had the Panzer IV, which as I said was better technology, but due to shitty orders deployed the Panzer III, which was a shitty tank.

The IV was used from the very start of the war.
And the III was so "shitty" it was still in use in '44 (and variants, e.g. the StuG lasted throughout the war).

Hmm, we're discussing technological firsts...

Hmm, your original statement was "superior technology": that includes "better" or not.

If you're going to reply with something as inane as that, go to a hip-hop forum or something.

Why? Is that where you get your information?
No thanks I'd rather stick with genuine stuff instead of false data.

The Me109 was the superior at the start of the war, for obvious reasons. the Hurricane was limited by altitude, and the Spitfire stalled out in climbs. There were other problems, but those two were massively exploited by the 109 pilots. The Spitfire and Hurricane caught up after upgrading began in 1940.

Any two competing aircraft will have a swings and roundabouts comparison, one is better at X, the other Y. A superiority as a fighter depends on many things: you still haven't shown the 109 was superior.

And? There were some brilliant guys everywhere.

Yet somehow you count the German undeveloped stuff and discount that of the Allies.

You have yet to post any facts, or any support of claims. At all.

Wrong and wrong.

 

[Scaramouche]

And the Ente wasn't a rocket fighter. Keep trying.

Quite right for once, it was a rocket aircraft.

On the contrary the Bug was guided, and the V-1 had very similar guidance.

No, the Kettering Bug essentially went in a straight line until it ran out of fuel. The V1 actually had relatively complex guidance to ensure it went in roughly a straight line before running out of fuel. The V2 was more complex again.

Exactly: the Federov Avtomat was the first assault rifle. (Or if you want to really push the boat out, the Italian Cei-Rigotti of 1890, but that wasn't taken into service).

It wasn't an assault rifle, it was a self-loading or semi-automatic rifle. There's a difference.

No it wasn't.

You're going to have to start supporting your assertions some day. Otherwise you're just looking ridiculous. Start by reading that page I linked with comparisons of the Me109, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire.

Explain how that page shows a superiority.

Read the assessments of the experts. Those being the professional fighter pilots who flew and fought with those aircraft. It's all on that page. I provided the information, and you chose to ignore it so you could simply continue arguing.

AND Pzkpfw IV. The IVs were in service from the start of the war.

Yes. It was. And the III was deployed for the Battle of France. Getting it yet?

In other words you're ignoring facts.

You haven't posted any yet.

What's the Battle of France got to do with it? We're talking about the start of WWII.

The Battle Of France was an early major campaign of WW2. Not the first action, but early, and showed how the German leadership was screwing things up for the military by giving dumb-arse orders. The Germans had the better technology, but did not employ it.

In what way?
Generally thinner armour? Worse tank-killing gun?

Most of a tank's mass comes from its armour.
Panzer IV: 25 tons, with armour up to 80mm.
Matilda II: 25 tons with armour up to 78mm.
Matilda II: 19.5 tons with armour up to 47mm.

Main armament.
Panzer IV main gun: 75mm.
Matilda II: 40mm.
S35: 47mm.

Power to weight ratio.
PIV: 12 hp/t.
MII: 6.5 hp/t.
S35: 9.7 hp/t.

Speed.
PIV: 42 km/h.
MII: 25 km/h.
S35: 41 km/h.

But yeah, good work there on those claims...

No they didn't, that was Whittle - the German types pre-Whittle were externally powered the same way Coanda's 1910 engine was.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm

My argument?
You're the one that claimed the Germans created the jet engine.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm

Er, remember your own words?
The 262 kills were made by a trials unit.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2433084&postcount=43

Yeah, your post there is incorrect. The Me262s saw combat when I said they did. That's how they managed to shoot down enemy aircraft. You can't do that without combat. Those special forces guys were tasked with taking new equipment into active combat situations. That was their job, that's what they did, and that's why the Me262 saw action as early as it did in WW2.

If you're going to post unsupported nonsense that's all the reply you should expect.

Dude, you haven't supported anything yet. Don't pretend otherwise.

An experimental technology isn't a technology since it isn't provably workable as a technology.

25 definitions of technology: http://onelook.com/?w=technology&ls=a Each of the linked pages there contains multiple definitions.

The IV was used from the very start of the war.
And the II was so "shitty" it was still in use in '44 (and variants, e.g. the StuG lasted throughout the war).

And they had the IV and ordered the III deployed for the BOF, showing how they tended to not use the best available technology even in major campaigns, due to shitty orders.

Hmm, your original statement was "superior technology": that includes "better" or not.

Except no. Both England and Germany (and others) had radar. What Britain had was more of the same. More units in place. More units deployed.

Why? Is that where you get your information?
No thanks I'd rather stick with genuine stuff instead of false data.

If you get around to posting facts rather than 'nope", let me know.

Any two competing aircraft will have a swings and roundabouts comparison, one is better at X, the other Y. A superiority as a fighter depends on many things: you still haven't shown the 109 was superior.

Go to the page I linked which has many statements from experts.

Yet somehow you count the German undeveloped stuff and discount that of the Allies.

Not at all. I don't discount the atomic bomb or any such things. But feel free to make more such baseless assertions...

Wrong and wrong.

... Like that.