Who were technologically superior? The Axis or Allies in WW2?

Were the Axis or Allies superior regarding technology? And how would the Central and Axis powers of WW1 and WW2 have fared without Germany? Let's find out.
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The intro for this video was created by Terri Young, and many of the graphics in my videos were done by her. Need graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from KZbin ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Two things: 1, yes I’m knackered again. I’ve been working almost constantly since my last break in November, and the last three videos were difficult to make, so I’m behind with next week’s Stalingrad video. I needed a quick and easy video to do this week, so this one is what it is. 2. Also, I’ve got a second video coming out this week. It’s on a topic that impacts the history videos I’ve been making, and I’ve been meaning to talk about it for months, but kept putting it off. I think many of you will find it useful, and I could do with some answers to the questions I pose at the end of that video, so please let me know.

[@madmodder123]

Don't wear yourself out everyone needs a break every once in awhile. Your content is top notch, we will always come back :)

[@danbrown5736]

Here King 👑 you dropped this

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Thanks guys! I think I've shot myself in the foot trying to do too much at once - Stalingrad, Weimar Hyperinflation, Korsun, the Q&As... I always do this to myself!

[@ColourOfTheGods]

Please don't wear yourself out. Ultimately if you don't look after No 1 first and foremost, you'll burn out and I don't get history vids ;)

[@beanhavok2287]

Just do your best man!

[@Gauntlet_Videos]

Japan did have a few technologies that outclassed their American counterparts at least in the beginning of the Pacific War. Their Type 93 torpedo (long-lance) and A6M Zero were better than the American Mark 14 (even if it worked properly) and the Wildcat respectively. However, their ships were largely equivalent or inferior in terms of technology but were initially superior in terms of training and command. Eventually the Japanese were outclassed in pretty much every aspect (I would say around mid 1943).

[@whitephosphorus15]

The B5N2 was also the best torpedo bomber at the beginning of the Pacific war.

[@z3r0_35]

Japan had the world's best carrierborne aircraft in the world at that time, period, but it was as a result of design compromises that other powers weren't willing to make, and when the Allies came out with new shit, they took too long getting replacements operational.

[@man1699]

Didn't the "long lance" Torpedo get developed because of a misunderstanding?

[@SOLAscriptura-]

I was typing a comment and saw you had already cited exactly what I was going to say, regarding the Japanese (particularly the Japanese Naval capabilities early in the war). 👍

[@vindicare9636]

The Japanese naval airforce training regime was so anime levels of strict,I'm suprised they didn't make a slice of life anime out of it

[@aerialmacaroon6312]

I think even if the axis had the superior tech, they did not have the resources to both make and use, as you have shown

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Very true. Horses cannot support tanks

[@tedarcher9120]

Not really. They were more advanced is some areas of chemistry, but on balance allies were way ahead. Remember, that jet engines were invented in Britain, americans had radar fuzes in 1942, and whole german nuclear programm consisted of uranium bricks in a pond. Oh, and america had self-homing antisub aerial drop torpedoes lol

[@billbolton]

@@TheImperatorKnight but horses don't run on oil.

[@SirShakesworde]

@@Edax_Royeaux how do you know that it killed more people to build. That is an impossible fact to obtain

[@Arkantos117]

In theory if they kept down the rocketry tech tree and got something like a exocet anti-ship missile it would've been game changing, of course they'd probably need the war to be thrice as long to pull that off.

[@conormacneill8284]

I think one of the most impressive and overlooked bits of allied tech was the proximity fuze used on anti-aircraft shells. Before that, fuzes had to be preset to a certain height or timer. They used them very sparingly though since they were afraid of them being stolen by the axis. Also Italy doesn’t get enough credit for their ships. Overall great video!

[@tcofield1967]

Italian ships were very hit and miss. Italian cruisers were fast and well designed for the Med but poorly armored and suffered when when hit. Their lack of radar really hampered them at night, as seen by the fiasco at Cape Matapan. I do remember reading that the Italian battleships had issues with shell dispersion and this made reliable engagements with enemy ships much more difficult. In addition, while the Littoros were fine ships the preceding Andrea Doria and Conte di Cavour classes were pre-WW1 designs that were heavily remade but still were no where near on par with modern capitol ships. The Queen Elizabeth class BBs were only marginally slower and better armed and armored.

[@dusk6159]

Both the Allies and Italy don't get credit because their huge stuff was either the "small" things, less glitzy equipment or stuff that couldn't be actually applied because the country was crippled (plus Italy being in dire straits in other sides of technology and preparation). The western Allies, even the US alone, are criminally overlooked because of a pile of myths and their implementations being less flashy than the german tanks and japanese's planes and navy material (despite Germany and especially Japan being outright disastrous and fatally ill-equipped in many angles, with the USSR, US and UK feasting on it, especially the USSR with US equipment).

[@conormacneill8284]

@@dusk6159 I wonder if the Allies and Italy’s tech getting overlooked was a consequence of Nazi propaganda campaigns to convince the German people that their wonder weapons would turn the tide and win the war….in mid 1944/1945 when there was little to no chance of them actually winning the war. I think one video from the world wars channel said that the nazis were peddling this propaganda as late as the battle of Berlin

[@dusk6159]

@@conormacneill8284 Yeah, myths and blame are definitely the main workhorse. Italy had great stuff going on but the both technologically superior AND successful with it (already by their setups and organizations, ground, air and sea) western Allies getting casually brushed off, and by bs fantasy weapons, is the main ridicolous thing.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@tcofield1967 The shell dispersion issue was NOT a result of poor design, but of poor manufacturing procedures, and even then it was far less severe than commonly assumed. And while some of the Italian light cruisers were genuinely delicate, their other light cruisers and their heavy cruisers we’re actually decently protected for their size. Certainly far better than what the Germans had.

[@Einwetok]

No matter who has a technology advantage, that advantage is useless if you cut off access to the required resources. For example, squeeze bore AT guns requiring cobalt, Jumo production jet engines being built of inferior materials because they didn't have enough cobalt and nickel, or tank armor needing molybdenum to avoid the brittleness issues later German tanks had to face.

[@chriscw3487]

seem to remember reading the 262's engines had a life span of 15 to 20 HOURS flying time due to the lack of tungsten to properly heat treat the various parts

[@Einwetok]

@Happy Carnivore It's also used to line the inside of the bore. Otherwise the barrel wouldn't handle it. Technique still used on modern MG's.

[@jenniferthomas3875]

The Messerschmitt 262 jet was way faster than anything the allies had but it spent a lot of time in the repair shop.

[@HoneyBee.productions]

Imagine if they made planes out of wood, random mosquito sounds. Resource management definitely an allied advantage and it was always part of the long war plan.

[@joegerhardusa9017]

This is why blitzkrieg was the name of the game. Because Hitler and OkH knew they didn't have the resources. They should have remembered this fact before invading Russia.

[@lisbon1492]

Nuclear weapons automatically win this argument for the allies. I've always found it interesting to hear people talk about how Germany could've avoided defeat in May 1945. To paraphrase Citino, Germany would have just been the first country to get nuked if it had stayed in the war a few more months.

[@jaypoole8056]

Germany's only chance of avoiding defeat was to somehow get rid of Hitler and sue for peace before 1943 before FDR declared unconditional surrender. Other than that I don't see much of a way out for them except for some Frederick III miracle which was what Hitler was pinning all his hopes on.

[@roboticrebel4092]

@Happy Carnivore the main purpose of nukes was Germany. Japan was an afterthought

[@sthrich635]

Dropping nukes on Germany would probably prolong the fighting (or at least German surrendering) a bit instead of shortening it. German leadership in early 1945 was already pushing the idea that Allies were aiming for total destruction of Germany and reducing it to wasteland, convincing their population to fight to the last. Dropping nukes would only confirm this idea to German people and invalidate the idea that Western Allies are any better that Soviets (One of main goal in Wehrmacht was to hold the Soviets so people can surrender to the West). Not to mention by May 1945 the remaining major German armies were stationed at foreign land in Central Europe (Prague etc) or Norway, so nuking there wasnt really an option.

[@lisbon1492]

@@sthrich635 How long could Nazi Germany have realistically held out if the Allies started dropping atomic bombs on it? Once nuclear weapons are used, resistance really does become rather futile. Besides, the Japanese used the same sort of propaganda as the Germans (i.e., that the Allies wanted to destroy the motherland), yet Japan still surrendered to the Allies. Why wouldn't Germany? Granted, Japan's main reason for surrendering likely WASN'T the use of atomic weapons. The Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria was Japan's main reason for surrendering. That being said, my main argument was that the Americans' development of nuclear weapons makes the Axis holding out past 1945 something of a moot point.

[@simplymadness8849]

@Happy Carnivore No, losers often quite literally write the history books. Like how the ex confederates created the still pervasive “lost cause” narrative and how ex German generals wrote their histories of the Second World War which still impacts today’s view of it.

[@Timbo5000]

I've already seen proximity fuses, radar and some other things from the Allies (mainly British inventions though), but British anti-submarine technology is also a very worthy mention. By '43-'44 they started making German subs just about obsolete. Very impressive feat in the Atlantic.

[@m.b.blenkoblanka4167]

I am German. I can read the German literature on the subject. Recently, I have a book, the best I have ever read on the subject, and on the subject of Germany and the Second World War. The book is called Operation Paperclip - The Great Patent Robbery. Science at that time was completely dominated by Germany in all areas. The German language was the language of science. And of course, the US captured the German atomic bomb in Germany and used it in Japan. Germany was technologically ahead of the world by several decades. Probably even by a century, in some areas. Hitler cut back on armaments after the peace pact with Stalin. The further development of weapons ceased. And wanted to start with the biggest social program in the history of Germany. Hitler, the Nazis were socialists. Until Hitler, until 1933, Germany was forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles to build powerful aircraft engines, for example. Also no tanks. Also the development of other technologies, Germany was forbidden. Germany had a backlog of a decade in 1933! And yet, Germany was the leader in all technologies. Also radar etc and above all! In the field of nuclear research. The first nuclear reactor was in Germany. The first television. The first computer. The list is so long. And Hitler has stopped the armament, and also the further development of weapons, and airplanes! For one or two years! They USA, have violated all laws, and have stolen all patents from Germany. And in addition Germany after the war forbade to do further research. The value of the German patents, which the USA have robbed, is inconceivably high. Thanks to the stolen German technology. Thanks to the kidnapped German scientists, the USA became an empire in the first place. Wernher von braun is an example. Had Hitler not stopped armament and research for a short time, the first operational jet fighter , du Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[@Monkey-kq1cr]

@@m.b.blenkoblanka4167 don't care plus you lost

[@Anglisc1682]

@@Monkey-kq1cr Lollll

[@lokischeissmessiah5749]

@@m.b.blenkoblanka4167 seems germans are still brainwashed and believe propaganda. "the german atomic bomb". you people still believe this bullshit? haha

[@johnpeate4544]

@@m.b.blenkoblanka4167 You're talking drivel.

[@baryonyxwalkeri3957]

I heard this argument and I like it: The common idea that Germany should have produced tons of Panzer IVs with long guns instead of "unreliable" Tigers and Panthers doesn't really hold up, because Germany didn't have the personnel to man all these extra vehicles. It actually made more sense to produce bigger and better tanks that would protect the crew more and gave them more to work with.

[@hoodoo2001]

No. It only made sense to end the war. Everything else the Germans did after 1943 was NONsense...and I am talking literally not figuratively. The Tigers and Panthers were useless machines, good for murdering some allied troops, but just as overall ineffective as long barreled Panzer IV's. The Tiger II was developed to counter superior Soviet tanks and the Tiger I was essential obsolescent by mid 1944. The Panther was built to no good purpose, a knee jerk response to Soviet T-34's and KV-1's without thinking of operational needs. The allies played it smart and improved their basic machines with the idea of winning. The Germans did not have a lot to work with in any event and after 1943 they did not even know what they wanted. Hitler realized the war was over and it was just a matter for him of fighting out of spite and taking the German people down with him (of whom he had begun to hold in contempt) and exterminate the Jews from Europe, by 1943 that was Hitler's only chance towards a legacy he had left.

[@Nef22]

They could build 2 panters or 1 panzer iv. Doesnt make sense to produce panzer iv after that

[@Jakob_DK]

@@hoodoo2001 Sadly very true. It was lost by spring 1943 if not earlier.

[@baryonyxwalkeri3957]

@@hoodoo2001 You spout a lot of nonsense here. You might as well say all wars didn't make sense, which is true of course. But given that they did happen, it is still possible to speculate within this reality.

[@sthrich635]

People often comparing Stug and TD with Panthers doesnt seem to realize they are two different weapon systems, its like saying Germany should replace MG34/42 with cheaper MP40. Stug and Pzjager are great at ambushing and delay enemy tank advances, but sucks horribly at offensive missions like counter-attacking, mobile reserve, breaking out encirclements etc things armies need to do to actually win fights, not just "destroying enemy tanks". And the fact that Pz IV had used up it upgrade potential is enough reason to develop new Panther tank, regardless whether Pz IV was still effective at that time or not, in order to continue the tank arms race with the Soviets.

[@JK-rv9tp]

One of the most amazing bits of tech at the tactical level, just from a geek perspective? The B-29's defensive fire control system. It was way beyond "remote control turrets". It was a "fly by wire" control system, a decade plus before the concept had even started to be experimented with for airplane flight controls. You had a central computer, that received electrical signals from "Selsyn" sychro units at the gunner's sight head. The gunner aimed his optical sight at the target and tracked it. The sight sent elevation/azimuth/range signals to the computer from the Selsyns. The computer applied a half dozen or so correction factor schedules, using mix of electronics and motors and cams, representing true airspeed, pressure altitude, temperature, sight-to-turret parallax error, bullet trajectory, lead, etc., and operated the turret to point the guns, electronically, where the COMPUTER decided they should be pointed. The guns were never actually aligned where the sight was pointed, as you would have with a simple remote control system, but where the computer worked out they needed to be pointed to place bullets where the sight was calling for bullets to be placed. The gunner provided target data to the computer, a "request", and the computer did the pointing. That's little different from fly-by-wire flight controls. Then there was the VT proximity fuse, which help defeat the V1 and the Kamikaze.

[@MrBigCookieCrumble]

Wow! i had no idea it was that sophisticated!

[@primmakinsofis614]

_Then there was the VT proximity fuse, which help defeat the V1 and the Kamikaze._ The VT fuse was also used to great effect in U.S. Army artillery during the war.

[@duedman-alleswasknallt5775]

Thanks for that, never heard of it before!

[@silentbob5566]

I'd actually vote for the American radar-guided AA artillery system, reportedly much more accurate than German 88mm.

[@VorpalDerringer]

That's amazing! Thank you.

[@pavelc8998]

The Italians stopped using their new rifle because it was designed to be used at 200 m (short barrel and sights fixed at 200 m) and they were fighting in Africa at greater ranges so they went back to the old rifle with adjustible sights and longer barrel that was more suited to the longer ranges.

[@lassenikulainen6722]

They could just have update the sights and produce longer barreled model if that was the problem. The reason why they went back to the older model was logistics and manufacturing capacity: they had more and more efficient assembly lines for the older model that used the old 6.5 caliber and they also had hundreds of thounsands of those older models stockpiled. The new 7.35×51mm was flatter shooting and thus BETTER for long ranges if shot from similliar barrel lenght

[@kimoandrews5802]

Don't forget, the Italians rifles could used as cigarette lighters... and they had places on the barrel to attach a white flag.

[@localbod]

@@kimoandrews5802 Nice.

[@Dennis-vh8tz]

Also because they had huge numbers of the old rifles in inventory leftover from WWI, hadn't completed the transition from old to new, and couldn't build the new rifles fast enough to equip their burgeoning armed forces. Since they were going to have to continue using the old rifles, and the two rifles used different ammunition, it made more sense to standardize on the old design than to try supplying their army with two different types of ammunition (they had more than enough logistical problems without this additional challenge).

[@ZER0ZER0SE7EN]

@@kimoandrews5802 The Italian tanks only had 1 forward gear, but 3 for reverse!

[@philliplarose8570]

Haven't seen anyone mention it yet; but the allies had the proximity fuse. These fuses were a force multiplier of several magnitudes to anti-aircraft and air burst artillery.

[@richardkalmwater5996]

Yep. The proximity fuse was a true super weapon that saved loads of ammo while being able to cause damage to its target. I read the Germans committing 33% to 40% of their country's ammo on air defense. Had they had the proximity fuse you could divide their anti-air ammo usage by 3.

[@JayM409]

VT Fuses.

[@1985rbaek]

This is true. Very interesting technology for the time.

[@rjs3590]

How does a proximity fuse work in World War II?

[@philliplarose8570]

@@rjs3590 Its actually super complicated, I would recommend; kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGG2mHZtbb55hsU ; as it has a good explanation.

[@wojtek6781]

@TIKhistory, the Italians dropped their new M38 Carcano rifle because of logistical issues. The new rifle used a larger bullet which they thought was deadlier and they were in the process of converting existing rifles to take the new ammunition. They weren't able to complete the transition by the time they joined the war so to simplify logistics they went back to the older type, meaning some units had both types and consequently two different ammunition types to supply. Forgotten Weapons made a video about that entire situation if you're interested.

[@ivanthemadvandal8435]

Bad, but not as bad as the French

[@NYG5]

They adopted the 7.35 Carcano not so much because it was more "deadly", but because they realized infantry rifles just needed to be effective in the 300m range (hence the fixed 300m battlesight) and wanted lighter recoil than the .30 cal rifles of the time, but wanted a .30 cal they could run through machine guns too for anti-material purposes

[@88porpoise]

@@NYG5 More the opposite. The 7.35mm cartridge was adopted because it was more effective at longer ranges than their older 6.5mm cartridge. However, that was due to machine guns, which could benefit from that. The 7.35mm rifles were adopted to just have the rifle and MGs use the same cartridge. For the reasons you mention, the 6.5mm cartridge was better for rifles at practical combat ranges, but riflemen were secondary to MGs. The Japanese adoption of 7.7mm was for the same reasons.

[@fleebogazeezig6642]

Didn’t the Japanese have a similar problem with them switching to a 7mm cartridge right before the war began. Only in their case they just said screw it and used both the older type 38 and the newer type 99

[@oceanmadrosci3381]

Obviously germans! Source: Diary of lord and saviour Manstein AKA miracle man.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Well he was able to turn Aryan blood into panzer oil

[@michaelhawkins7389]

@@TheImperatorKnight you forgot to mention that Germany invented night vision and was used on the later models of the Panther tank, also invented TheT StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44) which was the very first successful assault rifle

[@360Nomad]

Germans: WE HAVE WUNDERWAFFEN ROCKETS Americans: Haha, atom go split

[@MrOiram46]

Also Atomic bomb: some of my creators were German

[@ahmetkeremcelik4164]

@@MrOiram46 Indeed, many of Einsteins friends were in US by then and Oppenheimer learned many things in Germany.

[@bb62bb62]

@@MrOiram46 Very very few (and only at low technology levels) were German nationals involved in the design of the atomic bomb. And the German who made up part of the German bomb effort didn't even believe the US was able to develop an atomic weapon after the news of Hiroshima. They thought the Americans were lying. Germany was FAR behind that of the the Allies in atomic technology.

[@SubvertTheState]

The Japanese I400 Submarine was incredible. A submersible aircraft carrier which could quickly launch aircraft which could operate in special attacks on specific targets is very impressive. More of a tactical capability than anything but they even had an anacoa coating which is a stealth technology.

[@Nimmermaer]

In my opinion, the myth of German technological superiority was convenient for the Allies both to cover up political and strategical mistakes (both Britain and the Soviets had a disastrous start into the war) as well as to glorify the later mop-up operations against a clearly outmatched enemy. That said, Germany (or rather Central Europe) actually was a major science and technology hub - before Nazi rule and the mass exodus of both Jewish and non-Jewish intellegentsia. Just look at famous physicists of the early 20th century: General Relativity - Einstein Quantum Physics: Heisenberg, Schrödinger Nuclear Fission: Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner. Their famous papers were all written in German. And a lot of the scientists that were integral to the Manhattan project had emigrated from Axis occupied territories, Enrico Fermi probably being the most famous example. When famous mathematician David Hilbert was asked by the Nazi Reich Minister for Science, Education, and Popular Culture if the formerly world-leading mathematical institute of his had really suffered so much from the departure of the Jews and their friends, he famously said: "Suffered? No, it hasn’t suffered, Mr. Minister. It simply doesn’t exist anymore!" So to summarize, Hitler and his closed-minded fascist bunch certainly did not make Germany more technologically and scientifically advanced, on the contrary. Still, Germany was at the cutting edge of technological and scientific development in the early 20th century, but that position certainly had nothing to do with racial superiority and its proponents. Some of that advantage translated into wartime achievements, for example in rocketry. (And even in computer science, Germany made some advances: check Konrad Zuse's work).

[@scottc858]

The Germans were ahead in some things but not by enough to make a difference. Part of this problem was incompetence at the top. They seemed to have spread themselves quite thin and could not tell the difference between weapons that could help them win the war and those that were good for nothing but show. Had the Germans been competent and got their jet fighters out earlier and in numbers they could have been a real problem. The time and money spent on the V1 and V2 was completely wasted. We were using those shitbox Sherman tanks that had about the same amount of armor as a cheap automobile but we had them in very large numbers. They sucked but in enough numbers they could cause problems. The German planes were not competitive with British or US planes and we had a lot more of them than they did. They didn't have the fighters necessary to do the required amount of damage to keep the bombers away. In the beginning they had better luck but they didn't keep up. The Germans came up with some decent tanks but the numbers were too small. A big part of the German problem was sheer stupidity. You can't be against the Jews or any other group on racial grounds and expect to be an attractive ally to legitimate governments. If Germany had not had the senseless dislike of the Jews and looked before they leaped they may have been able to increase their territory and gotten away with it. The French were a bunch of pussies. Why they were given their country back after the war with that fairy Degaulle running the place was beyond me. I would have had him shot and kept France as spoils for the US and UK. The Germans over ran France in about 10 minutes. Maginot line, great idea, that really worked well. It was all the frogs fault and the pussies got what they deserved. They were coming down hard on Germany after WW1, being completely unreasonable. They got their asses kicked really hard by the Germans and deserved every bit of it. Disgusting country. I'm ashamed that they were allowed on the allied side. They didn't deserve it. At least the Germans could fight. They had their flaws but at least they could fight. The french couldn't do anything, they were all flaws with no positive abilities except to fold up in the face of a smaller army like a bunch of scared children. Taking France would be no big deal for the Germans. Poland was a problem because of their alliance with the UK. Again, unlike the french, the British could fight. The Germans would not want to get on the bad side of the UK so no Polish invasion. At least not right away. The problem was greed. Germany already was good sized but wanted more. If they had stayed out of Poland and instead went for the small countries after consulting privately with the big players and then turned to territories off the European Continent where the conquests wouldn't have caused as much trouble, they may have been ok. Take france, no challenge there and her overseas posessions and be happy with that. Unfortunately while Germany could fight, their leadership while more competent than the french, that isn't saying a lot, was not smart enough to know what it could get away with and when to stop. Incompetence at the very top contributed greatly to the ultimate devastation of Germany along with the fact that hitler was not sane and did not have any concern for his people. He was lucky in the beginning and too stupid to quit while he was ahead and could very well stay there.

[@1987retroman]

@@scottc858 "The German planes were not competitive with British or US planes" Lol what? Late model BF109s and FW 190s were just as good, if not better than, late model Spitfires and Mustangs

[@theeternalsuperstar3773]

When discussing German army tech development, we must always take into account that they were developed with the resource crisis in mind. So, Germany was "Theoretically superior" as they had some nice designs but couldn't build them to their full potential. I believe that the main cause of the Engine and final drive problems in the Panther and Tiger were due to the Germans having to produce machinery without access to many rare metals and chemicals, not because the Germans didn't know how to build an engine. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

A similar thing goes for Italy but to an even greater extreme, considering Italy had an industry roughly 1/6th that of Germany. See for example developing jets independently at roughly the same time as the germans.

[@gingernutpreacher]

No they new how to build a engine but they had a massive nickel shortage (please look up Greggs automobiles channel) not only did This shorten the engine's life it limited the amount of boost that could be used when they put a German engine in a captured spitfire just after Dunkirk before the nickel issue kicked in but it climbed faster had a faster top speed and a higher top cealing

[@paulbabcock2428]

On someone (else's) WW2 video, it was explained that the Brits bought ALL the tungsten from someplace, which was Germany's supplier, precisely for that purpose of denying it to Germany.

[@ulf6drega]

Yes supply of materiel from around the world is limited during a World War, too bad for the German war industry that some idiots started that...

[@MrDwarfpitcher]

@@paulbabcock2428 that sounds like a typical British thing to do vs their enemies since Napoleon. Those Brits are quite a handful

[@111111310]

The Japanese Army pioneered several amphibious invasion ships of various designs. Most had well decks for landing ships, some also had flight decks for aircraft and autogyros. These were considered top secret weapons at the time of their development and were typically made from converted civilian vessels. They used a shell company to acquire to avoid arousing suspicion. These design principles have endured to the present in the USN's LHA amphibious assault ships.

[@michaeldunne338]

Which ships? Or Makes? Because it seems the Number 101 landing ships were actually inspired by experience from Guadacanal and reports from the Germans on Torch ... I know there was the Shinshu Maru in the early 1930s, but thought that was kind of a demonstrator/test bed/lab project. Was there a particular class of ship that followed in the 1930s?

[@TheRandCrews]

@@michaeldunne338 there was the Imperial Japanese Army aircraft carriers that works as a “Landing Craft Depot Ship” which also has a flight deck and storage for a maybe a round 1-2 squadrons worth of aircraft. The ship classes were the Hei Type, Ko Type, and the singular Otsu type (Takatsu Maru). Akitsu Maru I think is the most popular one known that really looks like an LHA design

[@tcofield1967]

@@michaeldunne338 I think he was talking about ships like the Shinshū Maru. These were dedicated assault ships, designed to carry small craft to bring troops on shore. It was a novel concept and probably could have been fleshed out much better but the intense interservice rivalry between the IJN and IJA meant that both sides ended up fighting each other as much as they did the Allies. The Navy wouldn't give up ships for conversion because they wanted everything they could get their hands on to move cargo and the Army was more interested in China in the pre-war years. So I think there were only a few of these kinds of ships in service when the war broke out.

[@dusk6159]

Japan and Italy had shamefully huge lackings considering what they had going on in other angles and designs, superb stuff sometimes. Same could be said for Germany too of course.

[@lucas82]

Yep, and meanwhile the Germans were planning to invade Britain using converted Rhine barges for troop transport. Of course that plan never materialized because they lost the Battle of Britain but It's interesting how Germany thought they could mount a naval invasion.

[@scotthill8787]

The Allies were able to develop anti-submarine technologies much faster than the Germans were able to counter them. The Allies won the Battle of the Atlantic because of it, and, possibly, the War.

[@iansneddon2956]

Naval codes so sophisticated that they could not be broken fast enough to use the information by any human mind, so build one of the first computers. Submarines remaining underwater during the day to hide from air patrols, and surfacing at night to move at speed and to coordinate operations with other u-boats, so development of ASV radar so sophisticated it could be used to locate and attack a surfaced u-boat in complete darkness. Further development allowed a u-boat's snorkel to be detected. The Battle of the Atlantic was a technological battle. And it was such an existential threat to Britain that massive resources were put into winning this fight. The Germans tried to catch up in 1943 and after through development of snorkels (allowing diesel engines to be operated by a submerged submarine) and improved u-boats but they kept on losing.

[@michaeldunagan8268]

I heard that Americans used different Indian tribes' languages as well which was not known in the European theater so it made many codes hard to break using those languages.

[@KronnangDunn]

The Japanese A6M Zero fighter bomber was considered the best and more advanced carrier based fighter plane worldwide in the eatly stages of WW2. It had superior range, speed and maneuverability than any other fighter at the time. It was less armored and lacked self sealing tanks but had a superior design and was made of a top secret aluminum based alloy. Japanese pilots were instructed to destroy their fallen Zero planes to keep them from falling into enemy hands because they were considered top secret technologically advanced weapons...

[@iansneddon2956]

I think everyone would try to destroy their planes to keep the enemy from salvaging and studying them. A notable failure in this was a Fairey Swordfish torpedo bomber (you know, those obsolete looking biplanes that looked like they were from WWI) that was forced to land in France having gone off course and having insufficient fuel to make it home. There was also insufficient fuel with which to burn the plane. So the Germans got their hands on a British ASV radar set which they soon copied into a prototype of their own.

[@Pete-tq6in]

As an aircraft guy, I’d suggest that the Japanese Mitsubishi Zero was a very potent fighter in 1940 and would go so far to say that it would have presented a pretty big headache to the RAF in the Battle of Britain, had it seen service there. It might have lacked in armour protection when compared with later war German and Allied machines but people don’t tend to realise that in 1940, self sealing fuel tanks and heavy armour were fairly rare on contemporary types too. The Bf-109’s major weakness - range, was not a problem for the Zero and had the Luftwaffe operated Zeros during the BoB, their loiter time and ability to escort bombers over great distances would have been very difficult to counter. They could out-turn Spitfires and Hurricanes, had a respectable climb rate and a decent service ceiling, and they had both powerful armament and fairly plentiful ammunition. Its weakness lay in its lack of development potential and Japan’s inability to keep up with engine design and manufacturing was mostly to blame but in 1940, that wasn’t so much of an issue.

[@ojvamysigt]

Very noteworthy here is that the Zero was a carrier-based aircraft. And at the start of the war, it was on par with the landbased 109 and Spitfire. Thats pretty impressive.

[@primmakinsofis614]

_They could out-turn Spitfires and Hurricanes, had a respectable climb rate and a decent service ceiling, and they had both powerful armament and fairly plentiful ammunition._ The Zero was fantastically maneuverable -- at lower speeds. At higher speeds, its controls became stiff. It could also not dive very well. The key to fighting the Zero was keeping the speed up, and using boom and zoom tactics against it. As to the Zero's armament, its two 20mm cannons were fed by drums holding only 60 rounds (a belt-fed 20mm cannon wouldn't appear until the A6M5). Once those were expended, it was left with just its two 7.7mm machine guns.

[@aleksazunjic9672]

Zero was beautiful aircraft that did it best to hide Japanese main weakness - lack of strong enough aircraft engines. Engines, aircraft or tank, were main reason for success or failure of certain designs.

[@alexhurlbut]

On a note related to "If Luftwaffe had Zeros"; Sweden was looking at purchasing the Zero as well (being that Japan didn't officially get involved in the "world war" beside China until '41, it was a valid consideration for them.)

[@eze8970]

Yes, a very capable aircraft. I don't know how advanced it's radio was (even if it had one), or oxygen supply was (if it had any), as these were new technologies at the time, but both would have hampered it's overall fighting ability. As others have said, RAF would have to use dive & zoom tactics - IF you could get enough height in time. RAF may have reduced machine gun armament to try & save some weight etc. Very difficult for RAF to beat. I cannot say how much of this range was due to drop tank.

[@pwmiles56]

Britain was ahead of the Germans by about 2 years with air to air radar; with centimetric radar (the Germans eventually copied the magnetron but never deployed it); with alloys for jet engines. Oh and antibiotics. Japan had the Long Lance torpedo and the Zero ( a winner early on).

[@MrDwarfpitcher]

Long Lance was birthed from projects the Allies did not dare to do. A bomb so volatile that it may just go off if some part is just a little too imperfect? Still, their range was so great that Allied commanders never thought that the ships in the distance were launching those torpedos. You just can't fight what you don't know

[@hoodoo2001]

There is a huge list of allied technologically superior weapons due to the allies luxury of vast resources and unfettered manufacture and large population (better deployed than the Germans who had this weird Hitlerian agrarian focus). The Germans failed to make the most of what they had to good purpose, they squandered much of what they had with fantasy weapons that were not capable of overall mission performance. They had also driven out many of their greatest mind into the allied camp. The Zero was not a technologically superior aircraft at all. It was an extreme design compromise which is why the Japanese ran out of so many irreplaceable pilots so quickly. The allies could have made Zeros, they did not want to make those compromise. The Zero was only effective for a short time under tactically favorable conditions against primarily outdated aircraft. The Long Lance torpedo was Japan's technical marvel.

[@Dragonblaster1]

Also ASDIC/sonar, Monica, Hedgehog, Leigh Lights, Window/chaff and so on.

[@Jakob_DK]

If you have the metal and tools to built a jet engine. Attempting to get a hungry slave to make quality is a waste any way.

[@alganhar1]

@Happy Carnivore Again, as a broad overview this is wrong, the problem you see is you have to determine WHEN. At the start of Japan's war then yes you could argue the Japanese soldier was better man for man than British or American soldiers. By 1943 however there was parity, and by 1944 the quality was the other way around due to better training, more scope for training and more concentration on training among the Western Allies. As for the SS, many of their exploits have been over hyped. They tended to suffer massive casualties for far less result than the majority of the Heer in most situations for example. The real power of the SS units were that they got the cream of the equipment, and were far less likely to be understrength than the main German Army units.

[@Graphene_314]

Frankly if you want to look at something Germany did REALLY well its sheet steel stamping. Complex machinery to take just a piece of stock sheet steel and make complex shapes in no time instead of milling away metal. Sturmgewehr stampings are beautiful and outclass the basic stampings on the peacetime made AK.

[@stihlvarna]

Germany was no more proficient in stamping than the US.

[@brucetucker4847]

The original AK had a milled receiver. The AKM was optimized for ease of manufacture, and was significantly cheaper to make than an StG-44.

[@Graphene_314]

@@brucetucker4847 The type 2 and 3 AKs had milled receivers because of the high reject rate of the stampings of the type 1.

[@matthewfederici9821]

Hi TIK, just wanted to explain why the Italians went back to old bolt action M18/91 Carcano rifle instead of the new modern Carcano M19/38 ( which is considered one of the best bolt action rifles of the war) the reason is not surprising at all, Italy's poor industry. When the new rifle came out it used a brand new 7.35 x 51 mm rifle round while the old rifle used the 6.5 x 52 mm round, however the Italian industry was so bad that they literally couldn't produce mass quantities of the new round for the new rifles to replace the old ones (this also caused logistical problems due to units being equipped with old and new rifles), so after a couple of years the Italians were forced to abandon the rifle, although their was limited manufacturing of it.

[@davidtuttle7556]

Japan had arguably the best torpedo of the war. They did produce the Arisaka which was very good. And their cruisers and destroyers were pretty good. Their carriers were good in some respects and poor in others. I would say technologically they were fairly on par with the US and British, but had severe logistical and economic issues, ie raw materials for making steel and eventually fuel oil.

[@horsem.d.7979]

The zero was excellent early on. The problem is when you have wooden cities you may not have the best or safest industrial base.

[@lassenikulainen6722]

But on the other hand they had poor tanks, their radar tech was laking and even though Arisaka was realiable, easy to use and lightly recoiling bolt action rifle it was still a bolt action rifle against semi auto Garands and submachineguns from the US side. Type 100 id decent but somewhat unrealible submachinegun but the real problem about that was that Japan lacked the stamping techonology required to produce millions of SMG:s like allies and even their ally German managed to do

[@Vuda22]

@@lassenikulainen6722 To be fair their tanks were designed for basically just fighting Chinese milita and supporting infantry + they were far older than the sherman and other allied tanks

[@silentbob5566]

@@Vuda22 The problem was economic, for understandable reasons Japanese navy was getting lion's share of mil budget.

[@yulusleonard985]

I dont think they are supperior. Wood cassing and using propellant that everyone reject for safety reason. You defiantly dont want to sit behind Zero or crewing their ships. They have high casualty rate specially those who carry long lance. 6.5 Arisaka are not good enough for the period to the point they have to introduce 7.7. Everyone including the USSR already planing for semi auto battle rifle.

[@jpjpjp453]

Speaking of radios, the US SCR-300/SCR-536 combo made for a vastly better frontline radio net than what the Germans or Japanese were able to deploy. Also the US Army SCR-584 was an absolute world beater fire control radar.

[@silentbob5566]

It never ceases to amaze me why detailed, sound technical arguments get largely overlooked while the often repeated half-truths and myths get many upvotes..

[@ZER0ZER0SE7EN]

The German tank radios were AM that could get more interference than the US FM radios. The German tank radios had a range of about 3 miles vs the US range of 10 miles.

[@michaeldunne338]

@@ZER0ZER0SE7EN Yes, in terms of voice communications, the Allies came out ahead, and then also had a far more dense distribution of radios, at least by late summer of 1944. And, they had radios and field telephones set up to support cooperation between infantry and armored vehicles (so an infantry radio set in the AFV, or a telephone at the back of the vehicle). Believe also forward observers for Close Air Support and field artillery was also worked out with decent communications, enabling combined arms on a whole different level.

[@jpjpjp453]

@@michaeldunne338 Thanks to the dense US radio nets, it was theoretically possible for a single FO and FDC to call in a fire mission from every artillery battery within range. Frequent German recollections about the sheer volume of American artillery fire at certain points seems to indicate that an FO radioed in a vital target and the FDC got on their radio to send the info up to Division, which quickly got word back to prioritize the target and hit them with every available tube.

[@michaeldunne338]

​@@jpjpjp453 Yes. Then add in new techniques, like linear programming for keeping the shells coming, the time-on-target that you mentioned, proximity fuses with the VTs, and you have field artillery with the help of radio nets come together to win the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge. In short, proof in the pudding, of superior communications, pivoting of field artillery assets and good coordination with infantry and various armor units, to win the day, in bad weather, against a surprise attack.

[@death31313]

With the case of the stg44 i would say the American M1 carbine is pretty similar in a lot of ways they have a similar practical effective range of around 300 yards, similar effects on soft tissue, similar weights and similar handling characteristics. While the STG was probably superior, there's a reason that the M1 carbine was still used in such large numbers so far after the end of WWII.

[@bigvinnie3]

Id say its more because there were a shit load of surplus M1s to give away. The StG was definitely the superior weapon. But I do agree the M1 wasn't bad but its round was just not as good and essentially a beefed up pistol round, the 7.92x33 was much heavier and much hotter. Not to mention 15 rounds vs 30 in the magazines and the pistol grip for better handling. The StG really was revolutionary in small arms. It wasn't the first assault rifle as I'm sure you know, but it was the first to show it was a practical concept.

[@death31313]

The 7.92x33 Kurtz has 1886 J of energy, while the .30 carbine has 1311 J of energy. They both traveled at very similar velocities at 685 m/s for the 7.92x33 vs 610 m/s for the .30 and had similar bullet masses at 123 gr vs 110 gr. By every objective measure, yes, the 7.92x33 was more powerful but not by a whole lot. I would attribute that to the design principle that inspired the development of those rounds and weapon platforms. As you said the .30 carbine is a scaled up pistol round while the 7.92x33 is a scaled down rifle round, and the purposes of the weapons reflect that with the M1 being ment to replace the m1911 in many roles while the STG was ment to replace a combat rifle like the k98 in many roles. I'm not really sure what my point is; it's just really interesting how 2 designs made for very different reasons ended up being so similar and ended up being used for such similar applications once adopted. Edit: I should also note that there wouldn't be so many M1 made if it wasn't an effective weapon. There's no shortage of small arms that fizzled out and saw limited production and adoption during WWII and the post war period.

[@rogerfisher2319]

Stg was heavy too

[@death31313]

@@rogerfisher2319 you're absolutely right, in comparison to the m1 carbine (5.2 lbs unloaded 5.8 loaded) it's very a heavy rifle at 10 lbs unloaded and 11 lbs loaded. That's about in line with the weight of an M16A4 with an optic, and peq15 for comparison which weighs 10.25 lbs loaded.

[@EdMcStinko]

I very much agree that technological superiority during WW2 was a limited factor Simply making sure your mechanized, tank and aircraft units could resist breakdowns as much as possible, and simplifying their prodcution so they could be made relatively easy to repair and replace were also significant. (These are also innovations Germany notoriously failed to implement)

[@standriggs2420]

It would be nice to include the economic aspects of technology in the discussion. For example, you could argue that the P-38 with the proper engine and propeller upgrades would have been superior to the P-51; however, you could build two Mustangs for the same cost as one Lightening. German technology has the reputation of being over-engineered and difficult to produce, which negates any technical advantage. Similar to the British favoring production of 2-pounders over 6-pounders for economic reasons. If it costs too much to build it, or if it breaks down quickly in the field, is it really superior technology?

[@christianlibertarian5488]

One can argue that our current technology has not learned that lesson. Yeah, the F22 is amazing, but only 100 will ever exist.

[@mikehoncho1005]

Exactly, if I was a tank commander in WW2 I would take a battalion of Sherman's or T34s over early Panthers or Tigers at least for offensives that involved significant distances. Static defense or limited offensives / counter attacks would be a different story but the reliability is a huge factor when you need tanks to be independent deep in enemy territory.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

iirc, the Allison engine in the P-38 actually outperformed Merlins due to the powerful turbochargers in the plane. On other planes that was not the case as that turbo was quite big and designed for the P-38, it couldn't simply be installed in other aircraft and without it, the Merlins came with a decent supercharger and outperformed Allisons that didn't have that turbo.

[@mrdean171]

@@christianlibertarian5488 well things are a lot different now. The modern tech you have to fit in a plane is so expensive its not possible to mass produce even a cheap jet. That said while having an entire airforce of expensive 22’s or 35’s is not realistic, having a limited number is very valuable. There are lots of situations where a single 22 or 35 could complete a mission that a dozen 16’s couldn’t.

[@Treblaine]

They favoured 2-pounder because at the time no tanks existed that could resist the 2-pounder at any range that a gunner could actually see, the 6-pounder was only developed later when tanks with much better armour were developed.

[@sfjp1]

The answer isn't exclusive, each learnt to adapt from each other depending on circumstances including the Russians and Japanese. As one advanced the other learnt to combat the advantage whilst gaining their own different branch, which is then countered etc.

[@billcallahan9303]

Good comment Sam....and it continues today. Got a question if you have the time. In today's military, are the Russians copying our aircraft & technology or is it vice versa?

[@randysavage1]

Germany was clearly ahead in every category except radar ( Britain)....t34s came later in the war and Japan's had mini submarine aircraft carriers. Besides those examples Germany was a decade ahead of everyone else.....

[@billcallahan9303]

@@randysavage1 Completely agree Randy. Far ahead of the world.

[@Camel-from-Arabia]

Germany was ahead with their science and they trying to create unusual weapons (new tanks, jet fighters, ballistic rockets, noctovisors etc) that can give them victory. USA had money, oil, powerful economy, and that's why they can produce for example huge amount of strategic bombers which are better for total war, than fancy, but few German jet planes. Besides USA also developed nice weapons or vehicles (German officers loved to ride in captured Jeeps) and their also invent history changing science achievement - nuclear bomb. Those two countries were ahead of rest of the world. USSR had massive army but they never produce something really astonishing from technological point of view. They depend mostly on sheer numbers. Japanese or Italian armies were even more obsolate. yeah, Brits invented radar, Poles a mine detector, but there were rather small local inventions compared to technological progress of Germany or USA.

[@Habdabi]

Yes of course that is the sensible answer but for fun if you had to pick, it makes a great discussion as it makes people think about these aspects (e.g., russian and Japan technology)

[@flyop312]

excellent. keep up the good work

[@ebeneezerscrooge8394]

Another great video

[@ashcarrier6606]

The Allies get my vote. The cavity magnetron, variable time proximity fuzes, radar-controlled naval gunfire, Betchley Park, IBM "bombes", anti-submarine warfare, the atom bomb... ...but then there are more prosaic things. Like the explosion in mass food production science.

[@byrnemeister2008]

Norden bomb site. Massive project. B29 the largest weapons program of WW2. Bigger than the Manhattan project.

[@valenrn8657]

@@byrnemeister2008 B29, the world's first long-range strategic nuclear bomber.

[@youtubeuser1993]

Amazing video, don't forget the British (mostly American produced) proximity fuse, massively useful in anti-aircraft and artillery warfare

[@richardvernon317]

The design of the original electronic circuit was British, but what the APL guys did to put it into a Shell fired from a gun was just a complete different level.

[@ssmith5048]

keep up making your videos, they are great!

[@NexusBreeze99]

Would also add that Japan had arguably the best infantry mortars and the Italian mini-subs and their Beretta SMGs were also top class.

[@andrewdelaix]

The Germans rushed out new weapons with minimal field testing and sorting out production issues. The US was much more conservative in deploying new weapons with comprehensive testing to ensure battlefield effectiveness. That's why Sherman tanks had a 90% readiness rate and the Panthers were lucky to have a 50% readiness rate.

[@robert48044]

the German home land was being flattened the States weren't

[@paulflocken2730]

The USA was quite capable of combining hubris and stupidity. Look up the Mk14 torpedo.

[@JohnSmith-sb2fp]

The sherman while easy to field,repair and replace was a death trap. Panthers were the opposite.

[@joeyschmidt6676]

@@robert48044 Yeah like the US didn’t have to worry about losing their industrial heartland any time soon, the germans had to rush out new equipment in an attempt (desperate) to just try to stem the tide

[@silentbob5566]

"The Germans rushed out new weapons with minimal field testing and sorting out production issues." - well that really depends on the tech in question. Panther was the worst offender in this regard, though Elefant may have been even worse. So was Me-262. P III, P IV, Fw-190, first half of the war BF109, Panzerfaust, Stug III, PaK cannons, 88mm were generally well tested. They really should have hanged Dr Ferdinand Porsche by the balls.

[@whitephosphorus15]

In regards to your comments about the StG 44, there were quite a few produced, about 425,000. Not an enormous number by WWII standards, but small arms weren't going to win the war anyway. For comparison, about 400,000 MG 42s were produced. Speaking of which, the MG 34 and MG 42 were superior to anything the allies had for infantry base of fire. The MG 42 derived MG 3 is still in service today.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Yeah, you see, that's the problem. 425,000 rifles isn't a large enough number to make a significant impact, especially that late in the war. (I'm assuming that 425,000 number doesn't include any that might have been built post-war?) I also did a video a while ago explained how the MG-34s and MG-42s gave the German squads more firepower than any Allied or Soviet squads kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaWshqh9e6llgac

[@whitephosphorus15]

@@TheImperatorKnight I don't know how many if any were built post war, but I know a significant number were just sitting in crates and never issued.

[@bigd4366]

@@TheImperatorKnight While it wasn't developed with the intent of being an assault rifle, the select-fire variant (M2) of the US M1 carbine had every feature of an assault rifle with the possible exception of the cartridge being a little weak for the role. Per Wiki, over 6.1 million carbines were built (across three models, the M1 being semi-auto only), compared to the Garand's 5.4 million, and at roughly half the price of the Garand. The only thing keeping the US carbine from fame is the doctrine involved in its deployment and usage. A slightly better cartridge and a more deliberate distribution amongst front-line troops (in particular, the armored divisions) might have made it the undisputed best small arm in WWII.

[@Lunkwow]

@@whitephosphorus15 Didn't the production of 8mm Kurtz also lag behind?

[@jaypoole8056]

No offense but without tank support and air support, the entire Wehrmacht could have been armed with Stg44s and still lost because of air, arty, and mortar strikes. It's just like the Maus concept...sure the Germans could have built this massive tank that no tank could ever hope to defeat...all well and good until you see a pair of P47 Thunderbolts come in from the sky and drop 2,000 lbs of bombs on the thing.

[@tankgirl2074]

Thanks, TIK. An interesting discussion and a very tough one to tackle. For myself, I've seen it as a see-saw... back and forth. One side will have something better so the other reacts to counteract or improve against. Thus, the technology shifts back and forth. In war, there are soooo many different technologies involved, it would likely take years of detailed research to fully come to grips with the topic. For now, we can only generalize. Excellent presentation, and yes, I expect there will be those who slag you for your comments. Best regards! B

[@aaroncurley2377]

Dude, your content and knowledge is top-tier. Keep it up but make sure you give yourself breaks / time off as needed

[@adythedog]

One of the great inventions of the Americans, with a major impact, was the radio proximity fuze.

[@captainswoop8722]

British invention but sent to the USA with the Magnetron where it was developed in to a working device.

[@Timbo5000]

That's a British invention though

[@Treblaine]

​@@captainswoop8722 The magnetron the Americans got from the British could not simply be put into an artillery fuse. It took substantial innovations by the Americans to develop that technology - in record time - into something small and rugged enough to fit in a conventional artillery fuse.

[@captainswoop8722]

@@Treblaine You misunderstand me, the Magnetron and Cavity Magnetron were already developed and given along with the prototype proximity fuse as part of the technology package delivered to the USA. Development began in September 1939 at Pye Ltd. to develop miniature tubes capable of withstanding the forces involved in firing a shell. Pye were unable to get their rugged pentodes to function reliably under high pressures. All the subsequent development and manufacture was done in the USA. A 'solid state' circuit was developed that did away with the miniature valves and was rugged and simple enough to mass produce.

[@Treblaine]

@@captainswoop8722 You cannot cherry pick prior research, as there's prior research from dozens of different places. It's like saying that Germany invented the Atomic Bomb because neutron induced fission was first discovered in Germany. That technological basis, that neutrons cause fission and fission release neutrons is the foundation to a nuclear chain reaction to make a bomb. But Germany didn't make the fist nuclear weapon, America did. Even though without that German discovery on the very eve of WW2 no one thought a nuclear bomb would even be possible. Even Einstein.

[@nickush7512]

Optics TIK. A friend of mine is into his optics. He has a pair of German reconnaissance binocculars, we can sit outside and clearly view cars and trucks on the move 20 miles away. Always a pleasure to be notified of a new video :)

[@Raskolnikov70]

The Japanese had pretty good optics too if I recall correctly. But not much of an advantage when your enemy (the US) is able to find you with over-the-horizon radar.

[@winstoneschwarzkopf1993]

The British invented 1st computer, the Americans invented 1st Abomb, the Soviets had gulags... i ❤ ur vids. Pls keep doing this history channel in entertaining form. Thank u

[@rcmrcm3370]

And the USSR weren't even original enough to create them. They were improved on Czarist Gulags by copying tricks from the Americans (used on natives of American and Philippine and the British (used in South Africa).

[@SilverFox-qr1ci]

Thanks TIK, very insightful.

[@AFGuidesHD]

On one hand you have nukes but on the other you have modern warfare with SAMs, jet aircraft, space rockets, assault rifles, cruise missiles, electric submarines, helicopters and more.

[@asasas9146]

Apparently Heisenberg was deliberately hindering the nuclear research as well, thats why they build a deuterium refinery in norway (blowed up btw), because Heisenberg wanted to make it as costly as possible, when graphite was equally useful and infinitely more cheaper. It was later discovered by random scientists (so apparently that calculus wasnt that difficult, its just that they got the wrong man in charge of the project), but by that point it was too late. Latter on captivity he accidentally revealed to the British that he also miscalculated on purpose the amount of uranium needed to make a bomb, and gave a suprisingly accurate one to the bomb builded by the Americans. I said apparently tough, because this is what Holy Wikipedia and one (however smart) KZbinr said, and im too lazy and uninterested to find empirical evidence, so take it with a grain of salt.

[@AFGuidesHD]

@@asasas9146 Plus the Germans didn't have the manpower to allocate the 100,000 men that the scientists requested. The German war machine instead diverted these men to other areas. The Allies on the other hand had the luxury of not fighting a major land war and being able to allocate 100k+ men to these projects.

[@richardvernon317]

Yanks built the most advanced missile in WWII. ASM-2 Bat. Active radar homing glide bomb that once locked on to the target and launched would home onto its target with no human input at all. The yanks also built the first guided weapon to be used in Combat, the Mk 24 Anti Submarine Homing Torpedo. They also had the first operational production Helicopter, the Sikorsky R-4.

[@AFGuidesHD]

@@richardvernon317 You're wrong with the helicopter bit, the first helicopter was the Focke-Wulf Fw 61

[@richardvernon317]

@@AFGuidesHD Did not enter operational service. only 2 built. R-4 production run was 131 machines built between 1942 and 1944. used operationally by the US Army in Burma and in the Pacific during 1944-45. Also used by the RAF and Royal Navy in 1945, but not operationally.

[@kaiserconquests1871]

Hey TIK. Thanks for the amazing videos, they are very well researched. I find this to especially be the case in your series on the Weimar Hyperinflation and am interested in many of the sources you have used. Do you know where I could find a pdf of Schacht's "Stabilisation of the Mark"?

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I got the PDF a while ago, so not sure where I got it from. Does it not come up on Google search? I think there's a copy on archive.org too if you can't find a PDF version

[@kaiserconquests1871]

​@@TheImperatorKnight I was able to find it. Thanks.

[@shadowghost181998]

Probably the most brilliant German piece of military hardware in WWII was the jerrycan. Cheap yet strong, it can carry various types of liquid, has handles that allow one or two people to carry it depending on weight, or one person can carry two in one hand if they’re strong and/or the contents are lightweight. Compact and easy to store, they’re strong so they can be stacked, and they’re designed to be poured and have every drop of liquid come out. It’s brilliant yet so simple.

[@douglasstrother6584]

And still in use.

[@jimbodimbo981]

Ours were called “flimsies”

[@DrAlbino]

Really love you and your vids, hope you get some rest as well. Its nice to know that not everyone does know about everything and everyone has their niche, after listening to your comment about the japanese not behind ahead of the Americans in aircraft technology at the start

[@faeembrugh]

The most obvious technological advantage was long-range airpower and the UK and USA were way ahead of their opponents in terms of deploying vast forces which overwhelmed the Germans and Japanese.

[@orclover2353]

To me it is the technology to build technology. The Americans produced 30000 sherman tanks in the last month of the war...more than the germans had produced in years.

[@--Dani]

Proximity fuse on shells for allies, huge advantage especially in Pacific for anti air. Huge advantage in Radar as well in Pacific.

[@haveraygunwilltravel]

The US army used it too. Many German officers after the war said it was frightening when used against infantry. It was the worst they ever faced because of accuracy and counter battery fire linked to radar.

[@samuelglover7685]

Ah yeah, I forgot about that. Yet another reason why, in any sane comparison, the Allies, particularly the western powers, were miles ahead of the Axis. All the Nazis managed to accomplish were some militarily useless "wonder weapons" that ended up draining far more time and resources than they were ever worth. But that's what happens when you listen to psychopaths.....

[@krzysztofsachmacinski9591]

Tough topic. Good opinion and I respect it. Keep on going kind sir!

[@sterlingayu]

Hi Tik, for over 20+ yrs of my life, I’ve always been a single voice when talking about a WWII what if scenario. As you’ve mentioned earlier abt the true adv of Germany over the Allie’s was primarily the earlier military mobilization, this was definitely true for the JPN invasions to China asides its superiority in military technology and total assets. My main point was: during the early stage of WW2, it merely took 2million of Germany’s army to counter most of Europe, but for the better part of that 8 yrs war between JPN and China, there were approximately 4M of JPN soldiers that were stuck in that part of mainland for both invasion and occupation. So, despite all of the negatives of Chiang Kai-shek (leader of the KMT and China), he did NOT surrender to the Japanese. Imagine had he surrendered during early 2-3 yrs into the war, and then if JPN was able to free up 1/2 of their military forces to joint attack Russia with Germany in a pincer fashion. Russia will fall way early in the war before the US could’ve mobilize in mass production. Has anyone ever in the past talked abt this theory with you or any of your previous researches? Thanks!

[@GamblingIo]

The Italian had some decent fighters and navy, that’s a start, as for the Romanians they had the IAR 80/81 and other variants of it which was a decent fighter until 1943 onward when they didn’t upgrade it anymore and lacked behind, and other smaller projects, tanks ( for example the tank maresal)and planes, in terms of ships Romania didn’t had a great deal of it, a few submarines and ships but mainly that’s it, Hungary had some tank variants which were somewhat decent at the beginning of the war like the Turan but later in the battle were crushed by the Russian t34 and kv’s and IS’s

[@dbassman27]

With respect to tanks, don't forget if you are building a tank in the US, it has to be able to fit on a railcar and be of a standard size to be able to go over bridges and go through tunnels. It then has to be able to be lifted on to ship in a harbour so it can be transported across the ocean. It then has to removed from the ship and transported to the battle front. So it can only weigh so much. When the Germans built the Tiger, they found that it was too wide for some railway tunnels and flatcars. So the tracks had to be removed and special set installed fr transport.

[@Raskolnikov70]

That's exactly why the US stuck with the M4 as long as they did. It was designed from the very beginning with the knowledge that it would have to be shipped somewhere before it went into combat. Once all the factories had been switched over from M3 production (and as long as the war stayed overseas) it made sense to keep churning them out in huge numbers and overwhelming the Axis instead of trying to match them tank-for-tank.

[@JayM409]

It was worse in the UK. Their smaller gauge railroad placed limits on tank widths and therefore turret rings.

[@wbertie2604]

@@JayM409 Initially, but it was dropped as a requirement from 1943, along with weight limits, allowing Centurion.

[@wbertie2604]

@@Raskolnikov70 More than that it's tactical mobility. It's no good having a 70 ton tank that can't go over bridges compared to a tank half that which can go over enough bridges. Fording and snorkelling is fine, but then you have to stop to prepare and have to hope that the riverbed isn't so muddy the tank gets stuck. And externally stowed gear - not good.

[@marioserraghini2119]

In WW2, Italy had good armoured cars, MAS (small boats very usefull to sink heavy ships), SLC-maiale (I don't know how to say in english), which was perfect to strike ships in harbours, radar "Gufo" (used too late) and Semovente da 90/53, a very good anti tank propelled gun .

[@yrooxrksvi7142]

The Beretta MAB 38 was also considered one of WW2's best submachine guns, but it was underused and by the time production was truly rolling, the Nazi got hold of most of them.

[@partygrove5321]

The Italian rifles, like all other rifles used in WW 2, were NOT single shot. They were box mag fed repeaters.

[@tommeakin1732]

The problem I have with so much of this "who is technologically superior" talk, is that so much stuff actually comes down to "who decided to push a concept into service first?" or "who went harder on a concept?". Things like the Tiger, the STG-44, Yamato and are not really technologically impressive for the time. They're impressive because someone actually decided to do it, and they stand in contrast with what else was around at the time. Anybody familiar with armour, firearms, or warships of the day would know these things could be achieved by any of the major powers *if they were motivated to pursue those avenues.* The examples of truly revolutionary, surprising, or genuinely difficult to achieve technologies are comparatively rare

[@samuelglover7685]

"The examples of truly revolutionary, surprising, or genuinely difficult to achieve technologies are comparatively rare" Yes, and they were all on the *Allied* side.

[@SanarySeggnete]

There were many projects similar to Tiger, STG-44, Yamato, Me 262 or etc from Allies side even before the Axis. Heavy tanks ? French developed them, British kind of developed heavy infantry support tanks but abandoned the project. Soviet ... KV series ... without KV series, i doubt German even bother with Tiger design, Panzer III and IV gave them almost everything they needed STG-44, I remember that U.S were the first one designed assault rifle, followed by Russian Empire (Not Soviet) Yamato ... Yeah, none talking about Sovetsky Soyuz-class, they were on pair with Upgraded Yamato class ... on paper, except they were only look good on paper or on Luftwaffe Bombsight ... (Yamato looked good on USN Bomber bombsight for sure ...) Jet fighter, Most of Major nation tried to develop them, most of them didn't bother with the idea, some prototypes were made

[@gon4455]

Semi auto rifle, German or I think Austrian invention, America armed EVERY SINGLE soldier with the garand, patton gleefully remarked at how this made us soldier superior in agile firepower. Anti air shells detonation time fuse, German concept and invention, mastered by brittain. Rocket launcher? Not sure if it's entirely American idea, for Russia had their concepts before the war but made nothing, bazooka totally American copied by the Germans who in turn made more powerful and advance concepts. Germany was good at marketing the superior tech but were in actuall effect equal with everybody else.

[@SanarySeggnete]

I checked the term of Assault Rifle and seem to be , at least according to Wiki and U.S Army, The battle rifles like Chauchat, BAR and Fedorov Avtomat were not Assault Rifle ... So me saying other nations developed assault rifle before German were wrong

[@silentbob5566]

Are they? Off the top of my head just during / short before WWII: British Colossus computer, magnetron / centimetric radar, Fw-190 radial engine cooling system that minimized drag, Mustang's high laminar flow wing, Polish "bomba" Enigma code decryption device, 1930s metallurgy for valves that could withstand higher temperature, American ability to produce 130/150 octane aviation gasoline, glycol, uranium isotope separation methods, implosion type nukes, electronic lamps, jet engines. "Even" understanding how to make wholly metal airplanes actually work was a long, hard, counter-intuitive slog lasting a decade or so. "Truly revolutionary or genuinely difficult" is only a function of time - right after the invention was made: "revolutionary! incredible", ten years on: "meh". ALL the technologies we use today were truly revolutionary, surprising and genuinely difficult to achieve. They only seem obvious in hindsight. Research on difficulty Frank Whittle had with having his research funded. The powers that be just didn't understand what they were doing and they still don't. Not before the fact. After the fact - well that's obvious! not really truly revolutionary!

[@Masra94]

The Allies could have been technologically superior if they wanted but they saved a lot of big innovations for after the war, (new tanks, aircraft, doctrine, etc.). The Americans were way beyond the Germans with the M1 Garand, which cost way more than the K98 or the Lee Enfield. The Sherman was an overall better tank than the Panzer IV and British and German aircraft were more or less on par. Naval comparison wasn't even a contest. Considering the biggest early wins were with Panzer IIs, IIIs, IVs with short barrels and tons of horse drawn equipment, it wasn't really technology which was the biggest factor.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

The sherman was a better tank becuase they kept upgrading it. They bassically stopped seriously upgrading the panzer 4 after the G, with the major upgrades (suck as engines, armour, turrets, guns, optics, suspensions, ufp, etc. All canceled because they instead put money into the panther) and the J was a downgrade... If we look at shermans vs panzer 4 at for example kasserine pass, we see the panzer 4 is infact the equal or superior tank to the sherman depending on compentnet/aspect. Making it an over all superior vehicle. Had they continued to upgrade it like the yanks did the sherman it would never have been left behind.

[@ParanoidAlaskan]

@Matthius Köenig the Panzer 4 couldn't be upgraded any more which is why it never got upgraded much after 43. You'd have to completely redesign the Panzer 4 to do more with it and at that point its just better to make a new tank entirely. Also a single battle where Shermans lost to Panzer 4s doesn't prove anything. Even at that time Shermans had better engines, armor, transmissions, a stabilizer, periscopes, and better suspension while being easy to repair.

[@silentbob5566]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 "If we look at shermans vs panzer 4 at for example kasserine pass, we see the panzer 4 is infact the equal or superior tank to the sherman depending on compentnet/aspect. Making it an over all superior vehicle." I'd disagree, not because Panzer IV lacked merit, but because it was a pre-war design. The upgrade potential of any design is not unlimited, and though P IV had plenty of it, it ran out late in war. The late model P IV with L48 cannon were front heavy so they tended to snake. You can't just offload upgrades forever onto the same chassis.

[@darklysm8345]

Its like saying the germans could have build the nuclear bomb but they wanted it after the war... its just cope

[@sirridesalot6652]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Another huge advantage of the Sherman was how easy it was to repair. Unbolt the transmission cover and you could access the transmission or with just a bit more work remove it completely. Ditto for the road wheels and bogies.

[@marvinjeske831]

hello Tik. I have been following your series for years because they are so good. I have quite a simple question. If Finland had not stopped short on the '41 continuation war drive to Leningrad would it have made a big difference around lake Ladoga and Murmansk on a strategic level.

[@bigdog517]

Excellent video Def do a video on the Enigma Code!

[@Irys1997]

I would bring up the heavy bomber advantage for the Allies. The fact is, Germany could not win a war against the two economic superpowers of the USA and USSR without the ability to damage their home base and industrial base. I think we could have eventually won the war entirely with nothing but B-29s at the massive scale they were being produced And no discussion of aircraft carriers, where again the Allies just went off the scale in terms of production vs anything the Axis could even dream of

[@Irys1997]

And I bring it up here because I think heavy bombers and aircraft carriers are effectively the apex of the technological pyramid, they both rely on thousands of other technologies to operate effectively. The Allies didn't just have to get these technologies superior, they had to get all the thousands of sub-technologies that these relied on to be produced in numbers at all

[@MrWattu]

Finland had Fire Correction Circle(Korjausmuunnin) that allowed finnish foward observers to utilize multiple batteries wihtout knowing themselves where the barrels were. This allowed finns to concentrace immence firepower. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Correction_Circle

[@lassenikulainen6722]

@@Dogpilot_NordKS PPD-34 and PPD-34/38 were performing almost as good as KP-/31 on technical level. The problem for Soviets were two fold: not enough of those guns and also their tactics and doctrines to deploy them sucked hard time. There is no huge difference in capability between any WWII SMG compared to another. Suomi KP is very nice but in large scale your troops do not perform any better or worse if they are armed with 10000 Suomis, PPD-34, MP40, Sten or Beretta M38 as long as the troops are well trained with the guns and tactics takes their strenghts and weakneses to account

[@douggosnell1465]

Good job keeping a straight face answering those questions.

[@utkarshtrivedi8870]

Proximity Fuze was the biggest game changer for the Allies. It destroyed 7 times more Kamikaze planes when used as anti aircraft and saved the Americans from being completely destroyed in the battle of Bulge where it was used as artillery shell exploding above the German troops slaughtering them en masse.

[@awesomehpt8938]

Germans arguably had superior submarines to the allies. As they were constantly making improvements and newer models.

[@BQD_Central]

And then you compare that to another video TiK made and realize that the Uboat-warfare really didn't matter in the end, as the tonnage sunk just wasn't enough to starve Britain. I'm not complaining about you, I'm just saying that even this superiority didn't really matter in the end.

[@localenterprisebroadcastin5971]

Superior tactics as well…so good in fact that the US sub fleet in the pacific pretty much copied the Germans against the Japanese

[@aasphaltmueller5178]

some of the Japanese Submarines had highly advanced elements, but their deployment concepts and tactics nullified that by and large

[@gon4455]

@@BQD_Central submarine warfare, Is extremely effective, Churchill feared the German submarines more then anything else. The german navy, submariners were highly praised by the fuhrer, hence Donnitz, head of the navy became supreme commander in the end.

[@awitcher5303]

@@gon4455 Himmler and Borman had more to do with that than Donitz

[@henrykissinger3151]

Hey Tik, I know you mentioned the main battle rifle, in the other end of the small arms spectrum you have a quite brilliant sub machine gun beretta m38. And I believe they were decently equipped in the naval department as well, with modern battleships, scubedivers etc, perhaps lacking aaa and radar.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Not heard much about the Beretta M38, so I'll look it up. The problem with the Italian ships was that they were stuck in port for most of the war due to a lack of fuel.

[@z3r0_35]

Italy's generally pretty good at making firearms that aren't machine guns, I've noticed. Their full-powered machine guns tend to be garbage though. There's a reason they more or less gave up on it post-war and just imported machine guns instead.

[@amshaegar7170]

@@TheImperatorKnight Look up the video from Forgotten Weapons on the Beretta 38. He concludes that it is probably the best submachinegun from WW2.

[@henrykissinger3151]

@@TheImperatorKnight A main point on technology would be the German night fighter radars on aircraft

[@henrykissinger3151]

@@TheImperatorKnight The Japanese long lance torpedo was also without a doubt the best torpedo than anything the allies had, given that the British torpedo was mediocre at best, and the American one didn’t work

[@rogerparkhurst5796]

Good discussion, and agree in general.

[@nnmmnmmnmnnm]

You forgot to mention the Italian naval tech. They had some superb modern ships like the Littorio class battleships. This does not change the overall argument though, so it doesn't really matter - just thought I would point it out (esp as the name on the front of the self propelled gun photo you used, was called Littorio as well). Great video.

[@Mattiniord]

The japanese Long Lance torpedo were probably the best torpedo of the war. And the allies suffered every time they failed to take them into considerations.

[@benedeknagy8497]

The allies had some cool advanced stuff for sure. Like the proximity fuse or the gyroscopic stabilizer for tank guns.

[@troopersteve2992]

I like this video but as someone who spends most of his spare time reading about the Italian army in wwII I will try and tackle two things. The first is a thing that most people dont know but the Italian Regio Marina or Royal Navy (I call it the Marina or Italian Navy to avoid confusion with the British) used a unique ship design for the era, it was a model that when hit instead of the common ship which was mostly built to protect and seal off and minimize damage received, the Italian boats where built to put pressure to a certain plate and flood specific rooms instead of minimizing the damage and worked fairly well with unless you hit a sweet spot it would not easily sink the ship and damages could easily be repaired compared sooner, there is a report that I cant remember all of the details of but is a example of what I mean, Littorio, the first of the class of the same name of battleships the Italian Marina had,was attacked during an escort mission by a British ship (I forgot what kind) and they hit it where they believed the ship was knocked out for good and the hull should sink and take the ship down or knock her out for a while, a month or so later after they repaired it Littorio was sent back out and sank the British ship that attacked it that was still operating in the same area, Only one time did the allies ever successfully damage a Littorio class where they hit a weak plate on the Vittorio Veneto and it was knocked out for almost a year, the Italians did have very good tech to combat the Allies a big problem they ran into though was scarcity of resources so they could not use many planes and battleships later on as Italia had been running low on oil and could not afford much newer aircraft or to drive the battleships which was a major problem. The other thing I aw is you said you dont know why the Italians went back to the old rifle but I believe I do based off of a lot of the stuff I have read and checked and can link but still feel free to look it up yourselves to double check me if im wrong. The Italians planned originally while they where developing these weapons for WWII to start in the 40's when we would of had more time to stock up on more equipment ready as we burned through more than expected in Abyssinia, Italy at the time was adapting the Carcano 38 the rifle you mentioned which had a different caliber than the old ones that was superior to the Carcano 91, the old models as well as a superior design, we also would have restocked on more equipment that was better for are soldiers and newer than what was in the reserves such as m33 helmets and better quality supplies like real leather boots, (Italia was known at the time for having a fake cardboard boots because of how expensive leather was and the low amount of good ones purchased.), Italia was also developing a rifle at the time called the Armaguerra rifle which was a semi auto, the believed plan and as you mentioned are tanks that where decent for 1940's standards where out by then and some of are aircraft that the Germans considered could rival their own if equipped with German guns and engines (from a review from a German officer of the Italian newer plane models.) would have been in production. The main believed plan would of had the old rifles pushed to reserves and smaller lines most likely while a decent amount of the Italian army could of had the new 38 rifle and better equipment while the Armaguerra would of been slowly introduced for possibly special units and German equipment that was going to be purchased over time would fill in the gaps still remaining for rifles and engines that where more powerful (Italy was slow on getting a good diesel engine which is why they made a different tank tier with light tanks that they classified as mediums and did not produce many of the mentioned tanks because they did not have the right engines.), as well as machine guns,( read about them is all I will say one of Italia's biggest fails was the Breda machine gun.) which would of made Italia a decent force to combat in North Africa. As we know though the war started in 1939 two years ahead of what Italy had planned and at that point whenever we declared war on the allies we where under equipped heavily and behind are plans, the new rifle had to be ditched because the Carcano 38 took a different caliber than the old ones and modernized versions of the old ones where put under production because Italy had stockpiles of the old one and switched back to it because of the amount in reserve Italy had. This is one of the reasons why Italy was so weak in wwII as we did not plan to fight and continue to heal from the Second Abyssian War for two more years, Mussolini was called by Hitler when he gave the order to invade Poland and it caught the whole Italian government by surprise as he promised he would not and did not know Germany needed to invade Poland. Had it not happened though and the war happened in mid to late 1941 as planned Italy would of been much better off prepared that it was. I hope this was helpful and I do have links to some of my sources if interested.

[@johnburns4017]

*There is a myth that the Germans were way ahead of the British in jet engines and planes in WW2, when the opposite is true.* The WW2 German jet engines were extremely unreliable with low performances and very high fuel consumption. The German *axial-flow* turbojets never worked properly being developed up to 1953 by the French to obtain a usable engine. The French lost a lot of time playing around with the German engines, instead of working with the British. The French and Soviets after WW2 attempted to improve the German axial-flow engines largely failing. The British in order to get a usable and reliable jet engine, with the technology of the time, went for a *centrifugal* design rather than the troublesome axial-flow design. This design produced less thrust than an axial-flow but was quicker to develop and reliable. It took 5 months to develop, while the first _reliable_ axial-flow engine was the 1950 Rolls Royce Avon, which took 5 years to get right. In 1945 the French made and tested some German designed turbo jets made with quality steel unavailable to German industry in WW2. They ran for 25 hours instead of 10 hours to the Germans engines that used poor quality steel. Not much better. The German axial-flow engines failed because of heavy design faults. The centrifugal compressor used by the first British Meteor plane was fine being much more reliable, but unable to reach high compression ratios. This limited performances. Centrifugal compressors were used up to the 1960s. In 1945 the team from the French ATAR laboratory plus some BMW and Junkers engineers, were engaged by the French SNECMA research bureau, with the objective to built a new reliable with performance axial-flow turbojet. The BMW 003/Jumo004 was considered unusable. It was tested on the first French jet aircraft, the 1946 So6000 Triton, overheating and exploding. The plane only flew with a Rolls Royce Nene centrifugal turbojet. The ATAR project took 6 years to produce the first acceptable axial-flow turbojet (ATAR 101 B1), produced in 1953. So eight years research & developments by the French using the German jet engines as the base. It was installed on the first French jet fighter, the Dassault Ouragan. The French lost a lot of time because the German jets had poor efficiency with some concept fails. Essentially in the combustion chambers and fresh air circulation to reduce the external temperature of the engine. The BMW jet was known for overheat problems which precluded fuselage installation. The question at the end of WW2 was what is the most efficient way to produce jet fighters. The answer is clearly not adopting the German design of engine and fuselage. The build costs for a jet engine were much higher than a piston engine, with the fuel consumption near 3x. The centrifugal compressor the British adopted in some planes was the best choice with 1944-45 technology, more compression pressure was not an advantage when the hot turbine was unable to resist higher temperatures. The German turbojets had big overheat problems as the engine would not work in an enclosed fuselage for single engined fighters. This defect was immediately noted by the French on the 1946 "SO 6000 Triton" prototype, and by the Soviets on the 1946 Mig 9. The Soviets quickly replaced the BMW 004B2 by the centrifugal Rolls Royce Nene which worked without problems, dismissing the BMW engine for fighter planes. The Rolls Royce Nene was copied to the last nut by the USSR being installed in the Mig 15 being used effectively in the Korean war. About 10 years ago the USSR eventually paid royalties to Rolls Royce. The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced. The 262 was slightly faster than the Meteor F3, but extremely unreliable. *The British would never put into the sky such an undeveloped plane as the me262.* the Me262 and Meteor were leagues apart in safety and reliability. The British could have had a jet fighter operational in 1941, but it would have been as bad as the me262. The Germans advanced R&D on jets after they interrogated captured British RAF men. They learned the British were advanced in jet technology actually flying prototype planes. Until then the Germans had no intention of mass producing jet planes. The rushed together Me262 started _claiming_ kills on 26 July 1944. However the supposed _kill_ was a Mosquito reconnaissance plane that had a fuselage cap blown off in a quick fast manoeuvre, which flew on landing in Italy. The Meteor claimed its first V1 kill a few days later on the 4 August 1944. *But the Meteor was a proper fully developed jet plane, not a thrown together desperate effort as the me262 was.* The me262 fuselage was similar to a piston plane with the pilot over the wings obscuring downward vision, while the Meteor was a proper new design fuselage specifically for jet fighters with a forward of the wings pilot position with superior vision, as we see today. The cockpit was very quiet. The high tail was not to impede the rear jet thrust. The sweptback wings of the me262 were to move the engines further back for better weight distribution, not for aerodynamic reasons as is thought the case. The 262 balancing problem would be exasperated when firing the guns as the weight of the bullets exiting suddenly made the the air-frame unbalanced. There were *five* turbojet engines in the UK under R&D in WW2: ▪ *Centrifugal,* by Whittle (Rover); ▪ *Centrifugal,* by Frank Halford (DeHaviland); ▪ *Axial-flow,* by Metro-Vick; ▪ *Axial-flow* by Griffiths (Rolls Royce); ▪ *Axial flow compressor, with reverse flow combustion chambers.* The ASX by Armstrong Siddley; Metro-Vick sold their jet engine division to Armstrong Siddley. The Metro-Vick engine transpired into the post war Sapphire. Most American engines in the 1940s/50s were of UK design, many made under licence. The US licensed the J-42 (RR Nene) and J-48 (RR Tay), being virtually identical to the British engines. US aircraft used licensed British engines powering the: P-59, P-80, T-33, F9F Panther, F9F-6 Cougar, FJ Fury 3 and 4, Martin B-57 Canberra, F-94 Starfire, A4 Skyhawk and the A7 Corsair. The US General Electric J-47 turbojet was developed by General Electric in conjunction with Metropolitan Vickers of the UK, who had already developed a 9-stage axial-flow compressor engine licensing the design to Allison in 1944 for the earlier J-35 engine first flying in May 1948. The centrifugal Rolls Royce Nene is one of the highest production jet engines in history with over 50,000 built.

[@GeneraalAmsel]

Thats explains a lot thanks. Still its impressive what the germans build in the late war. There situation in 44/45 was pretty bad.

[@johnburns4017]

@@GeneraalAmsel Well they were *way* behind in jet engine technology. Only the rockets, especially the V2 impressed me in what the Germans did technology-wise. But a weapon that can only hit a large city was rather silly.

[@GeneraalAmsel]

@@johnburns4017 they invented a lot of great concepts. I did some research on the jet engines. At the time it was better to use a centrifugal engine. Today everyone uses axial. Axial engines are unreliable at the time. But oeh they were powerfull. The me 262 was the first plane to brake speed of sound.

[@johnburns4017]

@@GeneraalAmsel The sound barrier was broken by the US Bell X1, which was the British Miles 52. The British handed over the complete project to the USA.

[@johnburns4017]

​@@GeneraalAmsel Centrifugal compressors were not obsolete being used in turboprops. Between a turbo jet and a turboprop, the only difference is the turbine, not the compressor. The last centrifugal compressor jet engine still in service on a handful of commercial aircraft like the Fokker 27, is the Rolls Royce Dart turboprop. A very reliable engine made in 27 versions, but with now high fuel consumption to modern engines. The Rolls Royce Dart Turboprop turbo jet engine was produced the longest, being a comparable design turbojet to the likes the Rolls Royce Nene. The rugged engine was produced from 1946 up to 1987. An axial flow engine was fitted to a Meteor airframe in 1943 producing high thrust, but dismissed as unreliable for service introduction, needing more R&D.

[@FreeloaderUK]

The allies had the proximity fuse which was a major advantage towards the end of the war.

[@hendriktonisson2915]

When it comes to WW2 firearms technology: Germany had the best machine gun - MG42, US had the best rifle - M1 Garand, Italy had the best SMG - Beretta M38A.

[@ZER0ZER0SE7EN]

What do you think of the USA M2 50 caliber machine gun? It was first used in WW1 and still used today. It was used on fighters, bombers, tanks, half tracks, truck, jeeps. They were used on ships to stop destroyers and smaller ships and as anti-aircraft weapons.

[@hendriktonisson2915]

@@ZER0ZER0SE7EN M2 is an excellent machine gun. The more practical way to use this weapon is to mount it on vehicles as it's a bit too heavy and bulky for mobile infantry warefare but if mounted in the right spot near a properly prepared infantry defensive position it can give the infantry a bunch of heavy firepower.

[@MrCr1spy1]

2:20 there is an argument that can be made by the Folgore and the IAR 80/81. As far as I know, they were fast, maneuverable and they had 20mm cannons. Yes, they weren't the best by the end of the war, but they were actually quite good during the early stages. Anyways, awesome video, TIK. Cheers

[@styx4947]

Tik, I love that you tried to keep a brave face on Italy..lol. Not to mention that the Axis didn't know how to fight a real 'coalition warfare ' nobody shared intelligence. They distrusted each other profoundly. Zero real strategic direction in common, more of an accidental alliance than a true unified coalition with achievable objectives formulated by communication all the way to the top. Imagine a "Yalta Conference" with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo,(or the God Emporor). lol. Just the picture in my head makes me laugh.

[@brucetucker4847]

The Emperor was far too exalted to take part in any such exercise. I like to think it would have gone like a Tarantino movie: Tojo sitting impassively for a few hours of Hitler's ranting until he had enough of the ill-mannered _gaijin_ and drew his katana and decapitated der fuhrer with one stroke while Mussolini laughed and said "You have NO idea how long I've wanted to do that!"

[@82dorrin]

Well, the Allies won, sooooo... Their tech did exactly what it was supposed to do. Was it all genius engineering and technologically marvelous? No. But the Allies, particularly the US, were VERY good at putting large numbers of "good enough" weapons in the field. If anyone thinks German tech was always superior, I would like to introduce you to the ME-163. A plane which literally dissolved its pilots alive.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

There was an Italian jet designed in or just before WW2 which had to fly with its canopy open because the heat from the engines would otherwise be too much for the pilots

[@82dorrin]

Also, it's a common and annoying misconception that the Sherman was inferior to all German tanks and only won because of greater numbers. They were very much a match for Panzer IIIs and in the right conditions could literally run circles around Tigers. They ran into trouble in hedgerow country largely because there was less room to maneuver.

[@z3r0_35]

To be fair, when the Me 163 worked properly, it was nigh untouchable...for all of eight minutes.

[@fh9123]

80 million Germans vs Russia, USA, France, UK and a bunch of other countries, yeah well they still had an amazing run for that population size and those few resources. Same thing for Napoleon, in the end France lost but man... it was pretty impressive.

[@82dorrin]

@@fh9123 The lesson here? Maybe don't go to war with nearly every other country in the world. It _will_ end badly, even if you put up and impressive fight.

[@Cragified]

Considering that ultimately what prevailed in WWII was logistics to back everything else up. Clearly the Allies mainly due to the U.S. were technologically superior in logistics and production thus had the technological edges that really mattered. Standardization and commonality of parts. Train scheduling to eliminate dead hauling and cross hauling as much as possible. The ability to produce and ship as much fuel and food to fight across two oceans and supply the allies while doing so AND keep track of it all.

[@olivercairncross9913]

And the ability to field service stuff. For example, germans would ship planes off the front lines for service meaning they were out of action for logner than necessary.

[@cptant7610]

100% allies. Both had areas they were ahead in, but the areas the Allies were ahead in were more impactful. -Nuclear bombs -Radar -Proximity fuzes -Decryption technology -Mass produced anti-biotics

[@jaypoole8056]

Crying wojak face: "But but...da Germans had the V1 and V2 rockets, ME-262 jet fighters, MG42, MP44, Elektroboots, Night-vision, and King Tiger tanks!" It really is amazing how the novelty weapons of the Germans far outweighed the practical and more useful technology of the Allies in the general eyes.

[@valenrn8657]

@@jaypoole8056 UK's mostly wooden Mosquito Fighter Bomber made it stealthy against German WW2 era radars.

[@mcamp9445]

Add sonar and encryption as well

[@MightyMagnusYT]

Hey TIK, I'm a long time viewer and fan of your channel, so first of all I hope you stay well and continue your great work. Since I'm not up for being called names on the internet tonight, I just wanted to add a small side note in the context of this video; The machines which cracked the enigma code, whilst certainly very impressive, are not 'real' and certainly not the first computer(s) due to them not being freely programable i.e. "Turing complete". Yes, even according to their own creator, they aren't real computers but "merely" complicated "electro-mechanical devices". The honour of creating the first freely programable ("Turing complete") computer goes to the german Konrad Zuse and his line of Z1, Z2, Z3 computers which operated fully automatic and digitally (with a staggering clockspeed of 5 - 10 hz). They saw limited practical use in calculating aero-dynamics for Luftwaffe engineers or calculating the trajectory of V2 rockets, something the British "Bomba" could have never done since is was built and designed to do one and just one thing, thus they can't be called "real modern computers". And even if they were, shouldn't the polish and Biuro Szyfrów/ Marian Rejewsk get that credit anyway ;) Not ment as critique just a historical fact that I think is worth being remembered the right way. I suggest everyone to take a look at Konrad Zuse and his life, interesting guy. Never joined the "Party" and spent his retirement days painting...

[@alansewell7810]

Hitler's Minister of Armaments Albert Speer wrote that the Allied bombing prevented Germany from getting its technologically advanced equipment to the fighting fronts: "Simply because of this [Allied bombing], in spite of the high level of the German electronics and optical industries, the supply of our frontline troops with modern equipment remained far behind that of the Western armies." Speer notes that the bombing did not necessarily stifle production of Germany's electronics and optical industries, but caused the diversion of approximately half the output to anti-aircraft defenses inside Germany. Anti-aircraft defense consumed tremendous quantities of guns and fire-control optics and electronics, as well as hundreds of thousands of mathematically-savvy gunners who had to compute 30-second leads (about 2 miles) into their analog computers in attempts to hit bombers flying 250 mph at 30,000 feet.

[@samuelglover7685]

Yeah, even though the postwar survey on the bombing campaign said that it was a wash, maybe not worth the effort, I've never really been able to buy it. Maybe it wasn't quite a "Second Front", but even aside from the actual bombing damage, surely the USSR's military burdens were substantially eased by all those 88's and fighters *not* making it to the East.

[@alansewell7810]

@@samuelglover7685 I believe the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, in which Albert Speer participated while an Allied prisoner, said that although the accuracy of high altitude bombing was often atrocious and too widely dispersed to cripple any single German industry, that nevertheless enough bombs were dropped to take between 1/3rd and 1/2 off the German Army's capability (the 1/2 estimate coming from Speer). The "bombing was useless" theory only developed in the 60s, when a couple pro-Nazi German propagandists colluded with American and British pacifists (Kurt Vonnegut among them) to paint the bombing as a crime against humanity that was useless militarily. The truth is best told by people who were directly involved in the war. As British Journalist Alexander Werth reported in RUSSIA AT WAR: I also remember a very revealing talk I had with [a Soviet] air force colonel during that week at Uman-revealing, because his attitude to the Western Allies-now in March 1944-was so much warmer than what one had found in the Red Army before. “The German air force is much weaker now than it used to be [said the Russian air force colonel]. Very occasionally they send fifty bombers over, but usually they don’t use more than twenty. There’s no doubt that all this bombing of Germany has made a lot of difference to the German equipment, both in the air and on land. Our soldiers realise the importance of the Allied bombings; the British and Americans, they call them ‘nashi’-that is ‘our’ people… A lot of the German fighters now have to operate in the west and we can do a lot of strafing of German troops, sometimes even without much air opposition.”

[@khairulhelmihashim2510]

Both Axis and Allies had different approach to technology. The Axis, realizing their small industrial capacity and limited access to raw material tend to seek qualitative advantage to offset numerical inferiority and attrition. The Allies, with bigger industrial capacity, favored the approach of producing weapon systems which were decent enough for combat and in sufficient quantity.

[@huntermad5668]

Not really, it is mostly because the earlier mobilization in Germany that gave them head start in development. In many areas like fighters, UK and US fighters were as good as German ones. Soviet fighters lagged behind early as they were expanding and modernizing the Red Army then The Nazi striked. By mid war, Lagg and Yak fighters were good enough. At late war, new versions surpassed German fighters.

[@valenrn8657]

UK's mostly wooden Mosquito Fighter Bomber made it stealthy against German WW2 era radars. UK's metal supply issue led to accidental low RCS fighter-bomber. Modern passive stealth combines shaping and material methods.

[@wbertie2604]

@@huntermad5668 In many areas the Allies were technically in advance of Germany, even the day war broke out. Examples would be in: power turrets for aircraft (UK and France, with the French technology continuing with Boulton Paul); radar; ASDIC; battle rifles; torpedos; motor transport engines; artillery; mechanical computers; electromechanical computers. The Axis had advantages in: aircraft engine fuel delivery; optics; missile control systems (just); electronic navigation aids; aircraft cannon (just); jet engines; rocket engines. In tanks at the start of WW2 you had the A13 Cruiser versus the early Pz III - not much to choose there and the CS version of the A13 would have been the equivalent of the early Pz. IVs if they'd made more of them and given them more HE shells, and a HEAT round. British tank development did go through a bad patch 1940-3. Many French tanks were strongly armoured but otherwise so-so.

[@huntermad5668]

@@wbertie2604 That is technological front, the army readiness was heavily in favor of Germany. Hitler had the army to invade Poland while France flail around to no effect against the token defense Germany left in the West. Even in the Battle of France, Allied forces were still in bad shape especially the French forces whose high command were old heroes who need to retire decades ago already. About battle rifle, Franc had good design but they managed to build like a few thousand before surrender

[@wbertie2604]

@@huntermad5668 Due to the way the French army was structured, there was no way it could mobilise in time. The big advantages Germany had was already being mobilised, unified control, and radios. The MAS-40 was semi-auto, but low clip capacity. It did end up effectively being the service rifle into the 1970s with an increased magazine.

[@enalb5085]

your channel is easily my favorite channel on youtube after watching your Battlestorm Stalingrad series

[@timmick6911]

Haven't watched the video yet but.... That thumbnail is brilliant! Brilliant! Perfectly captures that history is complicated and there are no simple answers to simple questions.

[@calvingreene90]

The Italian Navy optical range finding was arguably the best in the world with Japan being the rival for first place. The UK, USofA, and Germany went with some silly radio thing.

[@logandance4644]

You mean radar? If I remember right a tactic the US used against Japanese Naval optic range finders was to use smoke screens witch the Japanese couldn't see through, but the US radar easily could which caused many problems with the Japanese naval operations.

[@calvingreene90]

@@logandance4644 Yes and I don't think you meant magic user.

[@logandance4644]

@@calvingreene90 Magic user?

[@calvingreene90]

@@logandance4644 Witch instead of which.

[@mcamp9445]

I man maybe, there guns and wheels were so shit they never could prove that

[@bitplayer7092]

On breaking the Enigma machine, the important early computer at Bletchley park (Colossus), was used for breaking the Lorenz cipher, not Enigma. I think the confusion comes from Turing being involved in breaking Enigma (and not as involved in breaking the Lorenz cipher), and Turing's massive importance in the history of computing. The people who broke the Lorenz cipher deserve way more recognition than they get, and Tommy Flowers for building Colossus. I don't think it is right to call it the first computer, though it was an important part of computing history and a brilliant achievement. It was one of several important early computers. It didn't really operate as a Turing machine (though I think it would have been theoretically possible for it to have done), and there are much earlier things that can be called computers. The antikythera mechanism is one of the earliest. Here's a nice video on Lorenz for anyone interested kzbin.info/www/bejne/fXPWl4qJhrunj6M

[@olympiangod1008]

Good video as always TIK! I know this is probably out of your reach, since this is ww2 focused channel. But are you able to debunk the myths and legends, and conspiracy theories about the Avro Arrow that still perpetuate Canada to this day?

[@kimgosseye8588]

I just love the thumbnail :D

[@z3r0_35]

The British didn't invent the first computer during the war, a German (Konrad Zuse) did, and his work actually began prior to the war. The British definitely used their computers to a much greater degree than the Germans did though, as they largely treated Zuse's work as a curiosity until much of it was destroyed in bombing raids (I've heard apocryphal claims that the Z3 was used to run aerodynamic calculations for stuff like the V-2, however). Also, as for the bit with missiles VS nukes...ultimately they were two halves of what would be the ultimate strategic weapon of the second half of the century: the nuclear-tipped ICBM, the ballistic missile providing a delivery vehicle that was difficult to impossible to intercept, and the nuclear warhead providing the destructive punch necessary to justify a single-use delivery platform. Without the ballistic missile, you have to resort to the much slower strategic bomber, and what people forget about Japan is that they were basically already beaten, which was what made those raids without escort feasible. If you want an idea of what would've happened if the Japanese air forces were A, still able to fight, and B, weren't using obsolete equipment, look at what happened to the B-29s over Korea. Those B-29s were "silverplate" models just like the bombers used to drop the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...and they were SLAUGHTERED by North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet MiGs, even with escorts! Of course, it should be noted that the Germans weren't the only one with a wartime rocketry program. The Soviets developed a rocket-powered interceptor in 1941-1942 called the BI-1, which, as long as you didn't take it above around 780 km/h (above that speed it became uncontrollable, the loss of a prototype in a crash being what led to its cancellation) could outperform any aircraft in service for a short time until the first jets entered service in 1944, plus they had a guy named Sergei Koroliev, who would become the most important engineer in their early space program. As for a hypothetical "WWII without Germany"...tbh I think if it wasn't the Germans, it would've been the Soviets invading Europe (basically Red Alert but without time travel) with Italy as a potential ally, or perhaps a more limited war in the Far East with Japan. Hell, if they weren't fighting the Germans, the Allies might have responded to Soviet aggression in the Baltics and Finland with a declaration of war.

[@tomtom34b]

Yes, the Z1! 🙂

[@Tribun1211]

Thanks for clearing this with the first computer... its always annoying that the brits are claiming that they inveted it first only because they used it to break the enigma code...

[@ra8784]

Cool to hear about that German computer, never heard of that before. I think it's known almost for certain that Stalin was preparing an invasion force for europe, roughly for the late 40s early 50s. Apparently he wanted to start ww3 but died too soon. I don't know if their would be a Japanese-US war without the threat of Germany, and Japan's alliance with them. For example would Japan have targeted European colonial possessions without Germany? Doubtful. It's likely that the US would be less concerned with foreign policy in general. However we do know that Japan originally wanted eastern Siberia from the Soviets, before they looked southwards. If there was a Soviet lead WW2, perhaps Japan would invade from the east to gain favour with the allies, to be seen as their equals and to get some territory. Furthermore it's likely that Russia would start this hypothetical WW2 later than Germany and perhaps with more allies (France?, Spain? Italy?), giving Japan more time to tie up loose ends in China.

[@gonzoz1]

No, the Zuse Z1 can't be considered as the first computer any more than Babbage's's analytical engine. Zuse was a tireless self-promoter, and I think constructed post hoc stories about the Z1. Any theory behind the Z1 came from Helmut Schreyer, one of the boys from Brazil.

[@z3r0_35]

@@gonzoz1 I'm not talking about the Z1, I'm talking about the Z3. Colossus lacked some of the key features of being a "Turing Complete" computer, the Z3 could be with some minor "hacking", as demonstrated with a post-war replica (the first computer to be Turing Complete from the start was ENIAC, but that was post-war).

[@zacharylarue7939]

One thing I think TIK missed was the Japanese long lance torpedo. This torpedo was very much more advanced than the complete failure of the Allied torpedoes. It was much feared by the allies. Give the Japanese some love TIK! Also, the Zero deserves some love although the allies had much better success when they changed their tactics against it and there were allied pilots that felt the Wildcat was superior with the new tactics.

[@tastethecock5203]

Zero was outstanding performance and range wise for its time, and pretty advanced, however it felt behind quickly and didn't had much potential for modernization

[@brucetucker4847]

The problem with the American torpedoes wasn't that they were technologically obsolete, it was that they were too cheap to test them to get the bugs worked out. Once that was done they performed just fine.

[@bsaintnyc]

How is this even a question . Nuclear weapons , electronics , analog and digital computers from the allies completely outclassed the axis.

[@556deltawolf]

Also on the subject of Japan and tanks, Potential History did a great video on Japanese tanks of WW2 and the thing is, Japan wasn't too far behind in tank development. In fact Japan was experimenting with tanks and tank warfare tactics during the 1930s especially since they had China to use as their testing ground. And while the tanks they used like the Type 95 and the Type 97 were far from ideal, they actually could hold their own against the Panzers, T26s, and M3s used by the Chinese nationalist forces. However what ultimately prevented Japan from upgrading their armored forces was the Navy. When Japanese decided to go to war with the US after bombing Pearl Harbor, almost all the vital resources and materials immediately went to the Navy and war time production in Japan prioritized building ships and naval aircraft. By the time the Japanese government realized their Imperial Navy wasn't invincible and they needed to bolster their weapons and vehicles for their army, it was too late.

[@shellshockedgerman3947]

Yea, no shit the navy will get priority considering Japan is an island nation.

[@Kip7300]

@@shellshockedgerman3947 the Japanese prime minister at the time was also a puppet for the navy as the Japanese military had a thing for trying to assassinate them or perform a coup in order to get resource priority.

[@Colin-kh6kp]

On the one hand, Germany produced some fine examples of engineering for the time, on the other hand, the German infantry could depend upon only their feet and their horses’ hooves to get anywhere…

[@brucetucker4847]

That wasn't so much a technology issue as one of industrial capacity and natural resources. If they'd motorized their entire army they'd still have ended up turning to horses and boot leather when the fuel ran out.

[@cleanerben9636]

The Sentinelese master race. They don't even need fire! 0 losses in WW2!

[@Arizonakiller]

Great video again, thanks tik! If we talk tanks espacially german ones i think stug 3 deserves honorable mention. (Although it was technically assault gun). It was cheaper than panther,tiger etc. And had great track record.

[@alexbowman7582]

In late 44 the Americans began using artillery proximity fuses meaning anti aircraft flak was far more effective and enemy slit trenches were far less effective. They were extremely careful to avoid the technology falling into German hands via dud shells. The allies also had centrimetric RADAR small enough to fit into fighter bombers like the mosquitoes allowing accurate night fighting and submarine periscope detection.

[@AFGuidesHD]

I don't think there's ever a real answer to such a debate. The allies pioneered certain technologies whilst the Germans pioneered others. Had Germany not been in a major land war, or defeated the USSR early on. Then they would have been able to spare the 100,000 men that scientific projects required to be mass produced and effective. Instead of just a handful of dodgy but impressive prototypes.

[@jamessnee7171]

The question is way too broad. The technologies as a whole are not tank against tank on the first day of the war. Of course the German and Japanese build up and development of war technologies were timed to coincide with them starting the conflict so an obvious advantage. But technology as a whole? Now we are talking research and development capabilities tied into an engineering industrial base, right? Don't let the wonderweapons fool you. Half the German Army was riding a horse. Britain, Italy, Japan and maybe France lacked a big enough industrial base (or money) to take top spot. That leaves US v USSR.

[@AFGuidesHD]

@@jamessnee7171 No I know full well along with anyone who watches a TIK video that the German army wasn't fully equipped with jet aircraft and assault rifles (obviously). But the argument is that they had better technology. However I realize I mostly think in terms of the cutting edge futuristic technology without taking much into account of widely used technology such as Piston aircraft or tanks that were widely used.

[@justwhenyouthought6119]

@@jamessnee7171 Interesting argument but Britain's war production was on a par with Germany's, both were stronger in some areas than the other but overall similar. Examples such as Germany producing about 20k more tanks, Britain producing 150k more artillery pieces, Germany producing 400k more mortars, Britain producing 1.2m more vehicles. etc etc.

[@CombinatorialImplosi]

One bit of Japanese “kit” in WWII that was arguably superior to all its allied counterparts was the type 93 torpedo, AKA Long Lance. This provides a jumping-off point for my next point, that all the major combatants in WWII, the Germans, Italians, and Japanese on one side and the Americans, Brits, and Soviets on the other (I’m leaving China out because it had very little indigenous armament building capacity at the time that I’m aware of) were all on the same technological level. No mismatches here like the Brits vs. Zulu, where one side could produce weapons that the other side couldn’t match regardless of how much they might desire to do so. So the differences in weapon quality were largely down to the priorities of the specific nation. The Japanese imagined the US sailing its battleships across the Pacific to engage in a Mahan-esque decisive battle and felt they needed to offset the numerical advantage they envisioned the US having. The Type 93 was developed specifically to allow their destroyers and light cruisers to even the score with torpedo attacks prior to battle, this is also why the Japan got so good a night fighting early in the war. In like fashion, the US developed advanced 4-engined strategic bombers because they felt they needed to, if you are going to fight opponents a continent away, you need long range which is where 4-engined bombers excel. The Germans got good at rocketry because until Hitler abrogated it, the Treaty of Versailles limited the artillery Germany could possess, but said nothing about rockets I would extend this point by suggesting that a lot of the potentially revolutionary (but usually technologically immature) weapon systems Germany produced in small numbers were not so much down to technological superiority so much as Hitler’s increasingly frantic search for a “wonder weapon” which would once again tip the scales in Germany’s favor as the walls closed in. In this category I include things like the proto-PGMs (FritzX, homing torpedos, anti-aircraft missiles), the Type 23 U-boat, V-weapons and (more arguably) jet/rocket fighters and perhaps the Stg 44. It should be obvious that the side which is winning the war can afford a more measured approach towards fielding new weapons, what they’ve got is evidently working just fine.

[@lassenikulainen6722]

ironically Stg 44 was the "wonder weapon" that actually could have had impact if mass produced in 1942 or even earlier but it was delayed by Hitler many times. Actually he ordered the program be shut down multiple occasions but the engineers developed it with their spare time in secrecy until it was offially adopted in 1944. At that time there were no weapon on the world that could have done anything to win the war for Germany...

[@Raskolnikov70]

@Lex Bright Raven I think what he meant was that if Germany had the Stg44 at the outset of the war (Stg39???) it might have made a difference. The German infantry would have been far more effective in France and the USSR in the beginning stages of the war, and maybe - just maybe - could have pulled off the quick victory they were hoping for. But once Barbarossa failed and the war became one of attrition, it wouldn't have mattered a bit. Germany needed food and oil to win, not better weapons.

[@brucetucker4847]

The Japanese and Italians had a theoretical technological parity, but an inferiority in industry (methods as well as scale) meant the machines they were actually capable of turning out in useful numbers fell further and further behind as the war continued. Both had excellent fighter designs (the C.202 and Ki-84, for example) for which they couldn't produce engines, or in the latter case, engines that actually worked, in anything remotely like the numbers needed. The Italians got by with the engines they could persuade Germany to provide, the Japanese simply kept relying on planes like the A6M that were badly obsolete by 1945. F4U-4s vs A6M5s wasn't exactly Martini-Henrys vs. spears, but it wasn't technological parity either.

[@EstParum]

My fav video putting on to Drum n Bass while drinkin with the Lads

[@ToppaliniTube]

I mean this as a constructive criticism and in no way as disrespect because your videos, your research, and the sheer effort you put into them are amazing. I really love your videos, especially your animated and mega-detailed campaign videos. But man, if you want to make good historical content, you need to try to leave as much bias at the door as you can. I'm not just saying that in regard to this video but your content generally. Or at least try to disclaim your opinions from historical content as much as possible because it can really warp things if you let your opinions and preconceived notions drive your research and conclusions.