Johnny Reb
True that there is a 'fanboy' mentality in regards to German WW2 equipment. I suppose the same mentality could be said for American (or any other countries') equipment as well.
I would not argue that there is much of a fanboy following for WWII US equipment on most modeling websites. At least not that I’ve come across. Certainly not US armor, nor really for many other subject areas as well.
Johnny Reb
Myself, I love it all, but I have much respect for the German weapons of that period; probably because in large part, so much of their arsenal was so incredibly advanced over the rest of the world, including America.
Honestly I would argue that not much of their Arsenal was incredibly advanced over the rest of the world. Their artillery was at best on par with any of the Allied forces from 1941 onwards. On an individual level, their soldiers weapons certainly were not way advanced over anybody else’s. Their armor was more advanced over Wetern tanks in 1944 due to the Darwinian cauldron of the Eastern Front. The KV and T-34 were superior to anything the Germans had in 1941. Only superior training and doctrine allowed them to have the success that they did. Not to mention the damage done to the Red Army’s officer corps during Stalin’s purges of the late 1930s. The Western Allies experienced no such need for armor development until Normandy. And in a similar fashion, they were fielding advanced design one year later in the form of the Centurion, Pershing, Comet, Chaffee, etc. at the time of VE Day.
Johnny Reb
If Germany would have had the industrial might that America had, along with a more competent political system, then the outcome of that war would have been very different. And I think for this reason, there lies a certain intrigue for the weapons that it produced. At least, it does for me.
Well that was never possible. Germany would have had to have had an industrial base far larger than it ever could possess geographically to even begin to make that come true. Even with the addition of the industrial capacities of occupied countries, they could not match US production outputs. Then if the output of the British Commonwealth is added... and the German political system was the whole cause for the war.
Johnny Reb
Among other things, Germany's jet and rocket technology was so far advanced and superior to America's that, upon Germany's surrender, many of it's top scientists were 'acquired' by the U.S. and brought back to the States to employ those scientists for their services in regards to the advancement of America's own military technology. This endeavor was known as "Operation Paperclip". Google it. Perhaps the most well known scientist of this group of former Nazi members employed by the U.S. was Dr. Werner Von Braun; he was the key figure in the develpoment of the much feared V2 German rocket ( the allies had absolutely nothing that could come even close) and he was one of the major influences in the NASA program that sent America to the moon.
Yes and no. The rocket technology, ballistic missile wise, was without peer in the world. But the V-2 was really a waste of resources. At least when delivering a one ton conventional warhead. It could only hit a city size target. The Allies really needed nothing that could fill the same role. While it certainly was a superb base to build off of for space flight, it was not a weapon of much true use. With a chemical or nuclear warhead it would have had far more effect. But German nuclear research was well behind that of the Western Allies, and had chemical warfare been initiated by the ***... well, an ugly war would have been even uglier. And again, the Germans lagged in radar fusing equal to the US VT radar proximity fuse that would have made an air burst chemical warhead more effective.
And I am quite familiar with the efforts to acquire as much R&D and scientists from the Germans as possible. One to help your own side, and two, to prevent the Soviets from getting their hands on it. A similar effort was made in Japan.
US jet technology in WWII was all based off British work. And the RAF had the Gloster Meteor in Squadron service at the same time that the Germans were fielding the Me-262. At most there was a three month lead by the 262 into service. And had Lockheed & Kelly Johnson been approached first, instead of Bell aircraft, the P-80 could very much have been operational in time to see actual combat in the ETO, instead of arriving as the was was in its final weeks.
I think that both sides were quite innovative in most of their research and development. But Germany threw developing technologies into battle sooner, mostly due to needing something to try to hold or delay the Allies. Had the roles been reversed, more than likely it would have been the other way around. The US was developing TV guided and radar homing air dropped/launched weapons during the war. Yet neither type of weapons system guidance would not see actual combat until two decades later in Vietnam. Just like the Surface to Air guided missile, which Germany was beginning to develop.