Who had the best intelligence of WW2?
Who had the best R&D?
Who had the best ass?
>>687682
>Who had the best intelligence of WW2?
Undoubtedly the Brits, the only issue was that it was full of Soviet spies, which is probably the only reason Soviet intelligence was half decent
best spy arriving
>>687682
The allies did.
/thread
>>687682
>British Intelligence had Ian Fleming
Automatically best.
>>687711
>using /thread on your own post
Not how it works, faggot.
> muh red orchestra
>>687725
You must have started on this board
>>687742
Oh look! A response! See? The thread is hardly over. Please, faggot, try and defend your arrogance some more so we can keep it going even further!
>>687682
>Who had the best intelligence of WW2?
British
>Who had the best R&D?
Americans.
America has no intelligence of any kind
>Intelligence
British
>R&D
German
>inb4 ur just memeing
First jet plane concept, AK prototype assault rifle, Tiger tank, V2 rockets and basis of latter rocketry and unmanned missiles, they pumped out a ton of shit, almost to a fault wasting their time on fruitless technology
>>687809
Actually, the first jet plane concept was Italian; the first operational jet was German.
>, AK prototype assault rifle
The STG 44 was in no way an AK prototype.
>Tiger tank
Junk.
>V2 rockets and basis of latter rocketry and unmanned missiles, they pumped out a ton of shit, almost to a fault wasting their time on fruitless technology
Which is why I'd say the Americans win the R&D game, what with turning out numerous actually practical innovations during the war: The Bazooka, the Jeep, the modern naval engine, the storage system for CVP that let you pack in far more planes per hull, the damage control systems, the practical and self-defending 4 engined bombers.
They were 8 months behind the Germans on jets, and never did get the rockets, but they were ahead in just about every other field of endeavor, culminating with those fuckhuge bombs they dropped on Japan., the ones that wound up changing warfare forever.
>>687809
Ok but allies introduced computers, nukes, radar, ASDIC, M&Ms and a host of small arms/aviation innovations.
And on the development side, they were able to outproduce equipment which was either superior or only marginally inferior to the Germans on a massive scale. And whats more, they backed it up with better supply management.
The Germans focused on meme technology which only became feasible after the war.
>>687843
>STG 44 was in no way an AK prototype
Wrong, it was. It was also the first of what we've come to know as "assault rifles" and was hugely influential. It was developed too late in the course of the war to make a large impact.
>Junk
no
>
Which is why I'd say the Americans win the R&D game, what with turning out numerous actually practical innovations during the war: The Bazooka, the Jeep, the modern naval engine, the storage system for CVP that let you pack in far more planes per hull, the damage control systems, the practical and self-defending 4 engined bombers.
No, German scientists were developing rocketry way beyond its time, they went on to help NASA and Russian cosmonaut program immensely
Germans would have had the atomic bomb but quite literally couldn't procure Uranium
further
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
it's not that American R&D was bad, they just didn't top the German output during the war, and they frankly didn't need to
The Abwehr was the best Intelligance Service.
It was so good, Wilhelm Canaris fucking knew Hitler was bullshit from the very begining, not only plotted to kill him if the Czech crisis got bad, but he helped win the war for the Allies by letting his agents be turned by the Brits and plotting to fuck Hitler over at every turn, from convincing Franco not to let Hitler march through Spain to get Gibraltar to trying to assassinate the Austrian cocksucker.
In the end the SS fucks finally figured it out but it was far too late, and Canaris went happily to his hangman's noose, his only regret was not seeing his wife one last time.
>>687843
>Tiger tank was junk
Overengineered, expensive, and arguably not the best way to use resources? Yes.
Junk? Definitely not.
>>687861
>Wrong, it was. It was also the first of what we've come to know as "assault rifles" and was hugely influential. It was developed too late in the course of the war to make a large impact.
https://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5803690
>no
By any reasonable metric, the Tiger was crap. It was fat, it was slow, it didn't have much of a better gun than the Panther, it's 1st design had worse armor, it was mechanically unreliable, it was unsuited for German doctrine of tanks as breakthrough vehicles, and to top it all off, it's combat record was mediocre at gunnery duels.
It was junk.
>Germans would have had the atomic bomb but quite literally couldn't procure Uranium
Go look up Heisenberg's farm hall transcripts. His estimations of the critical mass of uranium were off by an order of magnitude. His speculation as to how the fast neutrons would propagate are quite simply wrong. Germany never reached the point where America was in 1942.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
Paperclip started after the Trinity test you twit. The Americans didn't need help getting the A-bomb, they were interested in how far along the Germans were, and especially how much help said Germans could give the Soviets.
>it's not that American R&D was bad, they just didn't top the German output during the war, and they frankly didn't need to
They quite literally did. The P-80 was a better jet than the Me-262, they were enormously ahead on every class of naval vessel, on computers, on small arms, and on pretty much everything except the rockets. You're repeating meme answers that aren't backed up in anything resembling reality.
>>687874
It was pretty junky. I mean for fuck's sake, even if the shells didn't penetrate, the first encounter of Tigers in North Africa got stopped by 57 mm British guns, which wedged shots in the turret ring. And its inability to maneuver without half of the force breaking down meant it could have no part in mobile operations
>>687874
It depends on the view you take.
1v1 against a Sherman, all other things being equal? No question.
1v6 against Shermans and M10s with air superiority? Without replacement parts, sufficient fuel, or enough warm bodies?
Germans took a narrow view and worked on developing superior equipment. Allies focused on winning the war.
>>687874
>"Hitler overestimates the importance of technology. As a result, he will count on a mere handful of assault-gun detachment or the new Tiger tanks to restore situations where only large bodies of troops could have any prospect of success." -Eric fucking von Manstein
Every military man in the Reich worth a damn wanted a cheap mass produced, competitive tank, trucks and planes. They had no time for the technology meme when they were fighting for their lives. Anything else was a waste of dwindling resources.
>>687861
in what way was it an AK prototype?
>>687906
>The P-80 was a better jet than the Me-262
Except for the part where the development of the P-80 only started when the Me-262 was already being built. It was simply too late to be relevant.
>>688093
The P-80 was operational in 1944. It was quite literally rejected by the USAAF board on the basis of it being impractical for the sorts of operations that were in place. It had a shorter flight range than the p-51, making it inferior for long distance strikes. And far more often than not, the U.S. planes were escorting bombers, making an ultra-fast interceptor less of a priority than it was for the Germans. The added maintenance and fuel costs would have been a bitch to deal with, and quite simply, it wasn't needed, pretty much everything the Germans put up in the air was getting shot down.
It wasn't that it was built too late, it's that the advantages of a jet over a prop hadn't fully matured in the timeframe of WW2, and making the switch carried an enormous number of costs. Germany was desperate and needed a superweapon, the U.S. wasn't and didn't.
>>688118
>The P-80 was operational in 1944
Nonsense. At that stage it was still prone to failure and frequently killed its pilots. It only matured to being used after the war.
>U.S. planes were escorting bombers, making an ultra-fast interceptor less of a priority than it was for the Germans
And this is the primary reason.
>pretty much everything the Germans put up in the air was getting shot down.
Indeed. The B-17 was the most dangerous aircraft of the time.
>>688133
>Nonsense. At that stage it was still prone to failure and frequently killed its pilots. It only matured to being used after the war.
Complete bullshit. They were being shipped out to combat units in February of 1945, and were tested out before that.
>Indeed. The B-17 was the most dangerous aircraft of the time.
In 1943 when they're flying unescorted, not by the time Me-262s are making appearances.
>>688158
>The P-80 testing program proved very dangerous. Burcham was killed on 20 October 1944 while flying the third YP-80A produced, 44-83025. The Gray Ghost was lost on a test flight on 20 March 1945, although pilot Tony LeVier escaped. Newly promoted to chief engineering test pilot to replace Burcham, LeVier bailed out when one of the engine's turbine blades broke, causing structural failure in the aircraft's tail. LeVier landed hard and broke his back, but returned to the test program after six months of recovery. The top-scoring World War II USAAF ace Major Richard Bong was also killed on an acceptance flight of a production P-80 in the United States on 6 August 1945. Both Burcham and Bong crashed as a result of main fuel pump failure. Burcham's death was the result of a failure to brief him on a newly installed emergency fuel pump backup system, but the investigation of Bong's crash found that he had apparently forgotten to switch on this pump, which could have prevented the accident. He bailed out when the aircraft rolled inverted but was too close to the ground for his parachute to deploy.
Not to mention:
>After the war, the USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star
Also the Me-262 was not threatened by the conventional propeller aircraft of the time while in the air, most of them were either shot down by bomber fire or during take-off / landing.
>>688190
P-80 didn't have 20 hour expiration date.
>>688213
Obviously due to the war going on materials and standards in Germany at that time had severely deteriorated. That doesn't change the general specs of the aircraft though.
>>688226
It's a pretty critical spec.
>>688249
Which has a lot to do with the aforementioned aspects. This is more a matter of a war being lost and the resulting conditions rather than the aircraft itself.
>>688226
>Obviously due to the war going on materials and standards in Germany at that time had severely deteriorated.
What is so obvious about this? None of Germany's other equipment had such shit reliability. Their other aircraft were excellently built despite the war going on. Even the early Panther was not as deeply flawed as the Me 262. The only other German equipment that compares to Me 262 in how shitty it was, was the Type XXI submarine, which leaked water.
>>688256
Didn't the Gloster Meteor have similar issues?
I think it's just an early jet aircraft thing. That would explain why the logistics conscious US military machine didn't adopt them.
>>688190
That's quite the oddity, given that those are at variance with what the specifications themselves dictate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star#Specifications_.28P-80C.2FF-80C.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262#Specifications_.28Messerschmitt_Me_262_A-1a.29
Which put the shooting star as both faster and more maneuverable, and lighter besides.
>Also the Me-262 was not threatened by the conventional propeller aircraft of the time while in the air, most of them were either shot down by bomber fire or during take-off / landing.
Pretty much every fighter was destroyed in greater numbers on the ground than in the air. The LRDG destroyed more German aircraft in North Africa than the RAF did, and the Blitz was as successful as it was because German bombers kept hitting RAF planes on the ground. It's nothing specific to jets, it's an artifact of them being operated in a time when Allied air presence over Germany was more or less continuous, so everything was getting smashed on the ground, or on takeoff and landing, jet and prop plane alike. The relative few planes that were hurt flying openly speaks more to the difficulty any of them had getting off the ground in the first place than any invincibility of the Me-262.
>>688264
>What is so obvious about this? None of Germany's other equipment had such shit reliability.
None of Germany's other equipment were jet engines.
>Their other aircraft were excellently built despite the war going on.
No. Especially the later Bf109 variants were severely lacking. Also, engines in regular aircraft were frequently exchanged as well.
>Me 262 in how shitty it was
Most of the German pilots found it was a formidable aircraft.
>>687961
are you serious?
>>688270
>Which put the shooting star as both faster and more maneuverable, and lighter besides.
I'm more willing to trust hands-on experiences of WW2 pilots than a list of specs.
>Pretty much every fighter was destroyed in greater numbers on the ground than in the air.
Yes, but the Me262 was still a lot harder to shoot down while in the air than other fighters.
>>688282
>An assault rifle looks like an assault rifle
Well gee
>>688276
>None of Germany's other equipment were jet engines.
I guess since Germany only ever had material shortages in jet engine, it makes sense for Meme 262 to be such shit useless plane, while nothing else suffered as much. It couldn't possibly have been a design flaw, of course.
>No. Especially the later Bf109 variants were severely lacking. Also, engines in regular aircraft were frequently exchanged as well.
They were not lacking in reliability. Their non-Meme 262 planes did not require a new engine every 20 hours.
>Most of the German pilots found it was a formidable aircraft.
Did they find that it did not require an engine-rebuild every 20 hours?
>>688285
you just made my point
>>688282
Are you the same people who think in terms of baby killing assault weapons?
Because there's a pretty big difference between short stroke piston and long stroke piston.
The operating system of the AKM actually has more in common with an M1 Garand than an Stg 44.
>>688291
It's like saying a car is based on a train because they both have wheels and an engine.
>>688269
>Didn't the Gloster Meteor have similar issues?
No.
>I think it's just an early jet aircraft thing.
No, it's an Me 262 thing.
>That would explain why the logistics conscious US military machine didn't adopt them.
It did.
>>688294
thanks /k/
>>688297
it's like saying the model-t didn't influence car design
>>688290
>Meme 262 to be such shit useless plane
I can only repeat: most of the German pilots found it was a formidable aircraft. Definitely superior to anything else that was flying around at the time.
>while nothing else suffered as much
If you're an idiot who does not understand that jet engines are a whole lot more fragile than other types of equipment then I can't help you.
>Their non-Meme 262 planes did not require a new engine every 20 hours.
It was by no means out of the ordinary for an engine to be replaced after a mission. So I don't know what your issue with that is. 20 hours is enough to fly a mission.
>Did they find that it did not require an engine-rebuild every 20 hours?
A pilot is not bothered since he's not the one who has to replace the engine. And as I said before: replacing engines was common. Do you think a Bf109 pilot would have flown with the same engine after putting it through enormous stress during combat? No, of course not. It would have been replaced.
>>688317
>hat jet engines are a whole lot more fragile than other types of equipment then I can't help yo
Did you just seriously post this?
>>688269
>I think it's just an early jet aircraft thing.
Yes, it pretty much was. And it's a jet aircraft thing in general. Jet engines are even today much more vulnerable than piston engines and more frequently replaced.
>>688317
>Do you think a Bf109 pilot would have flown with the same engine after putting it through enormous stress during combat? No, of course not. It would have been replaced.
No you moron, an aircraft's engine was not replaced after every sortie. Unless the said aircraft was Me 262.
>>687682
>Who had the best intelligence of WW2?
British
>Who had the best R&D?
Murrica. There is no disputing both these answers.
>>688322
One of the technologies that I most fantasize about bringing back in time is valveless pulsejets.
Sure, they're less efficient than turbofans, but they're about the most mechanically simple engine you can have without just being a ramjet, and a ramjet needs to be sped up by something else before it produces thrust efficiently.
>>687874
>>688326
>No you moron, an aircraft's engine was not replaced after every sortie.
That would depend on how much stress it underwent. Replacing an engine is cheaper than training a new pilot. And again: this was not uncommon. In fact, it was fairly common. If you pushed your engine to the limit, then it would likely be replaced later.
>>688317
>Me 109 G:
"The service intervals were: 12.5h, 25h and 50h. Later on the interval was increased to to 100h or to 110h providing that the engine had been running smoothly. "
-Esko Laiho, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"
Note, service intervals, not replacements.
>>688346
>providing that the engine had been running smoothly
And a pilot who actually saw air combat and had to push his engine to the limit would have certainly had his engine replaced.
In any case, it's not the pilots fucking business whether they're replacing his engine or not.
>>688321
Yes, that's what I said. A jet engine is a more delicate piece of equipment than the barrel of a tank gun or something. And if you have to rely on inferior materials and inferior means of production then it's likely that it's not going to be of service for very long.
>>688362
>And a pilot who actually saw air combat and had to push his engine to the limit would have certainly had his engine replaced.
[citation needed] It certainly runs counter to the first part of his statement where the service intervals (again, not replacement) ran up as high as once every 50 hours of flight time, even when it's not "running smoothly"
>>688362
Also it should be considered: the Me262s used in the defence of the Reich would have pretty much always seen combat when they sortied. These weren't relaxing missions, they had to push their engines to the limit in order to survive.
>>688393
I'll have to look it up, but I'm fairly certain I've read it in a thread on A2A forums in regards to their P-47 sim and under which conditions pilots would have been using emergency power and what the consequences would have been. They're generally to be trusted in that regard and they even own a bunch of WW2 aircraft.
I see whether I can find another source.
The point remains however: if you're participating in a combat mission and if you're pushing the engine past its safe operational limit, then the engine is likely going to be replaced. Especially in case of the allies who never had any shortage when it came to such equipment. Replacing an engine is cheaper than replacing a pilot. Anything else would be utterly retarded and makes little sense.
Best tank coming through.
Also the AK rifles had more in common with the M1 Garand than the STG 44 and if you disagree it's probably because you don't know shit about guns
>>688426
The sabot ammunition was hideously inaccurate and the turret was way, way too cramped.
Easy 8 for life, nigger.
>>688426
You know, while not hte best tank of the war from an engineering perspective, if you go with the tank of "Won the biggest victories, was most important for its nation's advances", I'd probably have to go with the PZIII.
>>688393
>>688425
In regards to Merlin engines:
>A negative quality of the Merlin was the absence of a two-speed supercharger, which reduced the ceiling [altitude range] of the engine. The engine broke down after 50–60 hours of use, after which it was necessary to change out the piston rings, along with other assemblies: hydraulic systems, fuel pumps, and air compressor. The water pump was very complex in its design and, as a rule, broke during use.
Allison engines:
>These first Allisons did not deliver even one-half of the recommended engine hours. 50 hours was its limit, and frequently less. Normally 10—15 sorties if they were in combat.
>It is true that because of our unforeseen operating regime the engines had a limit of about 50 hours, and often less. Normally an engine might last 35 hours and then it was replaced.
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/western-engine-reliability.35560
Certainly, these improved over time, but a 20 hours cycle for an early jet engine that is being put under much greater stress doesn't seem that far fetched.
>>688449
Also a patrician choice I'll grant you
Who had the best R & R?
Are people literally reposting forum posts as source itt?
Why hasn't Hiroshima deleted /his/ yet?
>>688459
Nah m8, T-34. Lack of competition does not a great tank make
>>688550
The forum posts are citing literature. Rather than pretending to have the source at hand and be quoting from it you might as well link to the forum post itself where said literature is being quoted.
>>688573
But the t-34 wasn't really that important, certainly not for Soviet early performance, as their shit-tier tank doctrine robbed them of any benefit they might have gotten from the pre-war tanks, and the ones built after the factories relocated tended to be awful, not because the design was bad, but because untrained labor isn't great for making tanks, especially not quickly.
Meanwhile, if you suddenly make every PZIII vanish, it's really hard to see how Fall Gelb and Barbarossa could have possibly worked to the wildly successful extents that they did.
>>687809
Jet engine was patented in 1930 in Britain and most of the post war American and Russian jets were based on British jet engine designs, not German ones.
The Germans were never ahead of the Allies in terms of technology. It just appears so because they were more desperate to put experimental designs into combat and because most of their R&D projects were made public after the war while Allied efforts were shrouded in secrecy.
>>690541
fun fact, british gloster meteor jet fighters flew their first mission literally just a day after the me262 had first engaged enemy aircraft
>Who had the best intelligence of WW2?
Britain
>Who had the best R&D?
Britain
inb4 muh nukes
>>687711
>amerijuan intelligence
wew lad
>>687682
I've heard that NKVD and later KGB have the best intelligence but they try to keep it secr-
>>687809
>First jet plane concept
developed at the same time as brits...
> AK prototype assault rifle
Was already addressed by /k/ommando.
>Tiger tank
Outdated when it came out. The fact that Panther was more or less the same as this when it comes to performance(just as unreliable, better gun, worse side armour, better front armour) and weights 10 tons less says everything you have to know about Tiger.
>V2 rockets and basis of latter rocketry and unmanned missiles
Yep.
Meanwhile they were behind when it came to electronics(no wonder, they haven't used their surface vessels much after the last Bismarck raid so fire control wasn't that much of an issue for them and it was the driving force behind electronics R&D), not counting Z2 which was golden(but generally speaking the whole thing was underfunded when compared to similar British or US projects).
Their jet planes, outside of ME262 were all mediocre at best, their only attempt at long range bomber was a disaster and some of their wunderwaffe(like that rocket fighter) were plain stupid.
It's not that allies didn't made things like that they've just kept it secret.
>>687945
Mannstein was pollack kike like Rosa Luxembourgh and Angela Merkel.
Their common point is that they all wanted to destroy Germany, typical for pollack jews.
>>688093
>Too late to be relevant
So was the 262.
>>687906
>they were enormously ahead on every class of naval vessel
the exception to that I'd say was the type XXI U-boat. They have one rigged up as a museum boat in Bremerhaven and its damn impressive. Sure it has the same problems of other german secret weapons in that it was an absolute black hole of resources for a weapon which could never turn the tide on its own, but that thing is the first modern submarine.
>>687682
Britain had the best intelligence, and depending on how you look at it the best R&D. I say 'depending on how you look at it' because the Manhatten project was a pretty fucking spectacular achievement. But certainly, Britain's was better than Germany's - they were in direct competition and Britain always came out on top. Britain won both the battle of Britain and the battle of the Atlantic (two theatres of war which have been grossly underrated by history, particularly the battle of the Atlantic) by staying one step ahead technologically.
Despite all the memes about German engineering, German R&D was a mess. Research was actually scaled back for a year after the fall of France because Hitler believed it was no longer necessary (even though he was planning a war against the USSR), and the way it functioned was a jumble of competing departments and un-coordinated production facilities. Panzers like the Tiger may look impressive on paper, but there's really no point in designing a tank that you don't have the logistics to support in the field.
>>691264
>Outdated when it came out.
Tiger tank was deployed from 1942 when the Americans were rolling out Grants and Lees.
>>691280
>but that thing is the first modern submarine.
Nazi Germany was ded before XXI was completed.
The ones they did "deploy" had an annoying habit of not being water-tight.
