# Question about German technology WWII **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 2, 2014, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171 "2014-07-02T06:31:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/61 "2014-07-03T16:49:49Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Also, I always caveat discussions about tank superiority with the thought, “superior _for what purpose?_” The Tiger was significantly better at tank-vs-tank duels, but drastically worse at traversing muddy or snowy terrain at speed (for which you’d want the Soviet T-34) or for long-distance high-speed advance without breaking down (for which you’d want the US M-4 Sherman). And Shermans were plenty good at fighting infantry, bunkers, and anything that wasn’t a specialized tank-killer. One Tiger tank was superior to one T-34 or one Sherman. But 1,347 Tiger tanks were not superior to 64,549 T-34’s or 48,966 Shermans. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/62 "2014-07-03T16:55:16Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > And note that the whole point of the V1 and V2 was to drop a bomb on a city. They weren’t any more accurate than that. If you measure the success of a technology by how many bombs you can drop on a city, the V2 is nearly worthless compared to a B-17 or B-24. “High tech” is supposed to be an IMPROVEMENT on the old technology. If it costs more, doesn’t work as well, can’t be produced in the same numbers, and never gets to the front, then it isn’t a better weapon, it’s a worse weapon. If you had a choice between a factory cranking out V2s or a factory cranking out B-17s, you’d be an idiot not to choose the B-17s. Not if your planes can’t even make it to the cities (or only make it an average of once before being shot down.) Then, granted, you’d probably want to choose neither and devote your resources to something else entirely, but of the two I’d prefer the rocket. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/63 "2014-07-03T17:00:11Z")
One thing about the ME-262 I think you should remember is there were some political problems with it’s deployment. Hitler preferred offensive weapons over defensive weapons. Fighters are defensive weapons and bombers are offensive. So, before the ME-262 was deployed in any numbers, it’s role as a bomber or fighter was debated, re-engineered, re-built, several times before it’s need for bomber defense finally got through to the powers that mattered. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/64 "2014-07-03T21:28:39Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The greater availability of anti-tank guns. Tanks on the offensive may or may not have run into other tanks; they were certain to run into anti-tank guns. No nation in WWII ever had more than ~15% or so of its ground forces in tank/armored/panzer/motorized/mechanized/panzer grenadier or such mobile formations. The remaining 85% or so were infantry, whose primary anti-tank weapon was the towed anti-tank gun. How much cheaper were anti-tank guns, compared to tanks armed with an equivalent main gun? How about if we take the towing vehicle into account? Did each gun have a dedicated towing vehicle or did they share? Were anti-tank guns used on the offensive? It seems like they’d be rather slow and vulnerable compared to tanks. Were tank destroyers much cheaper than main battle tanks with an equivalent gun? This here: [http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZLPpYdJN3jUC&pg=PA1941-IA3&lpg=PA1941-IA3&dq=m10+tank+destroyer+cost&source=bl&ots=q\_skWSkHQ9&sig=YUb\_jFXpiTPwiAXK\_wTuNZBj5f8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e8u1U5yCKcPesATEw4H4AQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=m10%20tank%20destroyer%20cost&f=false](http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZLPpYdJN3jUC&pg=PA1941-IA3&lpg=PA1941-IA3&dq=m10+tank+destroyer+cost&source=bl&ots=q_skWSkHQ9&sig=YUb_jFXpiTPwiAXK_wTuNZBj5f8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e8u1U5yCKcPesATEw4H4AQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=m10%20tank%20destroyer%20cost&f=false) says an M10 cost 48K while an M4 cost 60K. The lower flexibility and protection of the M10 hardly seems worth the cheaper price, am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/65 "2014-07-03T22:34:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, it really wasn’t. It’s more like an example of confusing shininess for utility. A V2 could deliver a 1000 kg payload to a random target in England. Once. > > A B-17 could deliver a 2000 kg payload over a longer distance and drop it more accurately on a target. And it could keep doing it day after day. We were discussing technology not effectiveness. The V2 was way beyond anything the allies could produce and it had far fewer parts than a B17. Had Hitler stayed out of Russia they could have rained V2’s down on England indefinitely with virtually no possible defense. Given their TOW technology they could have adapted that to the V1 and used it as an anti-ship weapon. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/66 "2014-07-03T22:42:06Z")
> [@bardos](#): > > Most likely this question has been asked before. I have been watching a BBC series about the second world war, specifically about Germany. In the series it goes on and on about German technological advances before and during the war which far exceeded that of any other western nation at the time. Rocketry, cruise missiles, jet aircraft, smart bombs… to name a few, which have all subsequently been adopted by any modern country which wishes to have a viable military option. Way before their time. Remind me again who came up with radar. And computers (which allowed for a level of control of artillery the Germans could only dream of.) Sure, the V2 was cool. Radars were way, way more important, and the Allies were far ahead of the Germans in that regard. Other examples, like the Fido, have also been presented; the Allies were far better at developing the RIGHT technologies. In the end, the Wehrmacht was an army that still pulled most of its equipment with horses and was using mostly the same tech it did in 1939. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/67 "2014-07-03T22:57:12Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > How much cheaper were anti-tank guns, compared to tanks armed with an equivalent main gun? How about if we take the towing vehicle into account? Did each gun have a dedicated towing vehicle or did they share? > > Were anti-tank guns used on the offensive? It seems like they’d be rather slow and vulnerable compared to tanks. > > Were tank destroyers much cheaper than main battle tanks with an equivalent gun? > This here: [http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZLPpYdJN3jUC&pg=PA1941-IA3&lpg=PA1941-IA3&dq=m10+tank+destroyer+cost&source=bl&ots=q\_skWSkHQ9&sig=YUb\_jFXpiTPwiAXK\_wTuNZBj5f8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e8u1U5yCKcPesATEw4H4AQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=m10%20tank%20destroyer%20cost&f=false](http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZLPpYdJN3jUC&pg=PA1941-IA3&lpg=PA1941-IA3&dq=m10+tank+destroyer+cost&source=bl&ots=q_skWSkHQ9&sig=YUb_jFXpiTPwiAXK_wTuNZBj5f8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e8u1U5yCKcPesATEw4H4AQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=m10%20tank%20destroyer%20cost&f=false) > > says an M10 cost 48K while an M4 cost 60K. The lower flexibility and protection of the M10 hardly seems worth the cheaper price, am I wrong? Tank destroyers were virtually useless. Effort should have been made up-gunning regular tanks rather than building tank destroyers. Anti-tank guns were cheap, and they could be towed by damn near anything and operated by regular infantry with minimal training. You didn’t have to have an equivalent gun - you just had to have many _more_ guns. A Tiger becomes a rock when you blow off the treads. ---
**Author:** ![JEngelman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e79b87/32.png) [@JEngelman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JEngelman)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/68 "2014-07-04T01:29:38Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > While the Germans were working on fancy high tech weapons, the allies were producing lower tech, more dependable weapons in greater quantities. That is the difference. German advances in weaponry were too little, and usually too late to make much of a difference. The American M1 rifle was far better than the German Mauser. Our atom bomb project was way ahead of theirs. Their Tiger and Panther tanks were better than our Sherman tanks, but not better than the Soviet Stalin tanks. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/69 "2014-07-04T03:38:18Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We were discussing technology not effectiveness. The V2 was way beyond anything the allies could produce and it had far fewer parts than a B17. So? If you have a complicated machine and a simple machine and the simple machine does the job better, where’s the superiority of the complicated machine? Making things complicated just for the sake of complication isn’t an advance. The reason the Allies didn’t build rockets is because planes worked better. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/70 "2014-07-04T05:00:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So? If you have a complicated machine and a simple machine and the simple machine does the job better, where’s the superiority of the complicated machine? Making things complicated just for the sake of complication isn’t an advance. The reason the Allies didn’t build rockets is because planes worked better. The thread is about German technological advances before and during the war exceeded that of any other western nation at the time. There is absolutely no doubt that in rocketry they were far ahead of all other nations. If the Allies could have built rockets they would have. In fact, the V1 rocket was reverse engineered from parts recovered in England and put in production for the invasion of Japan (Republic-Ford JB-2). It wasn’t used because of the Atomic bomb. Both the V1 and V2 became the progenitors for surface to air missiles and long range ballistic missiles in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/71 "2014-07-04T05:00:39Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > One thing about the ME-262 I think you should remember is there were some political problems with it’s deployment. Hitler preferred offensive weapons over defensive weapons. Fighters are defensive weapons and bombers are offensive. So, before the ME-262 was deployed in any numbers, it’s role as a bomber or fighter was debated, re-engineered, re-built, several times before it’s need for bomber defense finally got through to the powers that mattered. And even after all that, it was still powered by temperamental engines that were known to set themselves on fire, and was unable to escape a Mustang chasing it in a dive. When an airplane’s engines are prone to destroying themselves, it will be terrible at whatever mission you put it into. And yeah, the Allies were light years ahead of the Germans in terms of bombers. The Germans had some excellent tactical bombers (the Stuka comes to mind), but the Americans and the Brits had been hard at work developing strategic bombers in the pre-war era, having worked through most of their lemons (such as the Boeing XB-15, America’s first attempt at a Superheavy Bomber) before the war started. In contrast, the Germans only produced a handful of lackluster strategic bombers and the Japanese barely produced any at all. On the note of synthetic fuel, the Germans had built several plants in secret to produce synthetic fuel for their war machine, but the secrecy was compromised due to Allied spies (including one, Eric “Red” EricKson, who evidently received Carte Blanche from Heinrich Himmler to tour the secret facilities unmolested so he could help them improve on them.) The synthetic oil plants became a focus of Allied bombing late in the war, taking them out of the equation. The V-1 and V-2 rockets, like any BVR artillery, are only as good as your spotters. Thanks to British counterintelligence efforts, Germany’s spies in England were giving them post-attack reports that allied the V-1 and V-2 rockets to accurately strike anything except their intended targets. This wouldn’t have been a problem if the Luftwaffe were capable of flying recon missions over London to look for themselves. Of course, if they could do that, they could probably just fly over the city and bomb it like the Allies were busy doing to Berlin and numerous other cities. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/72 "2014-07-04T05:41:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The thread is about German technological advances before and during the war exceeded that of any other western nation at the time. > > There is absolutely no doubt that in rocketry they were far ahead of all other nations. If the Allies could have built rockets they would have. I still disagree. You aren’t going far ahead when you’re proceeding in the wrong direction. And Germany was - rockets were just a bad idea in the forties because the technologies that would make them useful hadn’t been developed yet. So what Germany was doing was going down a dead end and falling further behind America and Britain every time it wasted money or manpower on rockets. Germany was pursing the wrong technology and having the most of it was not a plus. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/73 "2014-07-04T06:11:08Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > How much cheaper were anti-tank guns, compared to tanks armed with an equivalent main gun? Insanely cheaper, basically the cost of the gun and a carriage to mount it on. It’s not just the dollar cost though; it’s the ease of manufacturing. This also points to an advantage that a towed piece has over a self-propelled anti-tank gun or a tank; it is much lower to the ground and easier to conceal. All other things being equal, a self-propelled anti-tank gun or tank would be preferable to a towed anti-tank gun, but all other things weren’t equal. > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > How about if we take the towing vehicle into account? Did each gun have a dedicated towing vehicle or did they share? Usually they would each have their own towing vehicle, but again the cost was much less than a tank. In American and Commonwealth armies and those provided with weapons by them in the latter stages of the war the towing vehicle was usually a truck. In every other army, it was only a truck if they were lucky; it was more common in the German army for it to be horse-drawn. Believe it or not, the horse was the primary means of moving supplies and the prime mover for most German artillery in WW2. The German army used more horses in [WW2 than in WW1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II#Germany): > [@](#): > > The German Army entered World War II with 514,000 horses,[13] and over the course of the war employed, in total, 2.75 million horses and mules;[16] the average number of horses in the Army reached 1.1 million. > > Most of these horses were employed by foot infantry and horse-drawn artillery troops that formed the bulk of the German Army throughout the war. Of 264 divisions active in November 1944, only 42 were armored or mechanized (November 1943: 52 of 322). > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Were anti-tank guns used on the offensive? It seems like they’d be rather slow and vulnerable compared to tanks. Not really, and for just this reason. > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Were tank destroyers much cheaper than main battle tanks with an equivalent gun? > This here: [http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZLPpYdJN3jUC&pg=PA1941-IA3&lpg=PA1941-IA3&dq=m10+tank+destroyer+cost&source=bl&ots=q\_skWSkHQ9&sig=YUb\_jFXpiTPwiAXK\_wTuNZBj5f8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e8u1U5yCKcPesATEw4H4AQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=m10%20tank%20destroyer%20cost&f=false](http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZLPpYdJN3jUC&pg=PA1941-IA3&lpg=PA1941-IA3&dq=m10+tank+destroyer+cost&source=bl&ots=q_skWSkHQ9&sig=YUb_jFXpiTPwiAXK_wTuNZBj5f8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e8u1U5yCKcPesATEw4H4AQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=m10%20tank%20destroyer%20cost&f=false) > > says an M10 cost 48K while an M4 cost 60K. The lower flexibility and protection of the M10 hardly seems worth the cheaper price, am I wrong? This gets into the whole US doctrine of tanks and tank destroyers in WW2. Before getting into it, each of the three infantry regiments in a US infantry division had [18 M1 57mm anti-tank guns towed by 6×6 1½ ton trucks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_6_pounder#U.S._service), and many of the independent tank destroyer battalions in the US Army used the [towed 3 inch Gun M5](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3in_Gun_M5). US Army doctrine was that tanks weren’t supposed to be used in an anti-tank role, their function was to punch holes in enemy lines and exploit the breeches into the enemy rear areas. The role of dealing with massed enemy armor was supposed to be left to tank destroyers. This doctrine was drawn up before the US had entered the war in response to German blitzkrieg operations in Europe, and proved to not match up very well with the actualities of combat. The whole wiki article on [Tank destroyer battalion (United States)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer_battalion_(United_States)) covers the issue pretty well, and the section on the disbanding of the tank destroyer force immediately after the war explains why it was done [pretty well](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer_battalion_(United_States)#Tank_destroyer_forces_disbanded): > [@](#): > > The US Army finished the war with 63 active tank destroyer battalions, mostly self-propelled. > > While tank destroyers had proven their versatility and efficiency in combat, especially in secondary roles, their long-term utility was becoming doubtful by 1945 in light of changes to Army doctrine. Their primary role was to destroy enemy armor, but this role was being usurped by tanks, as had already happened in many other armies. The most powerful tank destroyer to be fielded, the M36, mounted a 90 mm gun; the same armament was carried by the M26 Pershing heavy tank, which was beginning to reach front-line units by the end of hostilities. The M26 was redesignated as a medium tank shortly after the end of the war, becoming the standard vehicle of armored units, and further reducing the need for any specialist anti-tank capacity. In effect, tank destroyers were used just like tanks in many cases. Study of ammunition expenditures shows that tank destroyers in Europe fired about 11 rounds of high-explosive (HE) ammunition for every round of armor-piercing (AP) ammunition, showing conclusively that they were used for general support duties far more often than as anti-tank assets. > > In addition, the Army was reducing its size very rapidly after the end of hostilities; the tank destroyer branch cost the equivalent of three or four full divisions, a definite luxury for a non-essential service. The 1945 General Board report “Study of Organization, Equipment, and Tactical Employment of Tank Destroyer Units” led to the disbandment of Tank Destroyer Battalions,[11] and on 10 November 1945, the Tank Destroyer Center was closed, effectively ending the long-term prospects of the force. The last battalion was de-activated in 1946. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/74 "2014-07-04T06:15:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I still disagree. You aren’t going far ahead when you’re proceeding in the wrong direction. And Germany was - rockets were just a bad idea in the forties because the technologies that would make them useful hadn’t been developed yet. So what Germany was doing was going down a dead end and falling further behind America and Britain every time it wasted money or manpower on rockets. Germany was pursing the wrong technology and having the most of it was not a plus. Germany failed to use most of it’s assets correctly because Hitler was a loon. If assets were well managed and military leaders were left alone it would have been a much bloodier war. If Germany did nothing but throw V2’s at England It would have been really ugly. You keep thinking in terms of the rocket as a single weapon when in reality it was a launch platform. They could have dropped 1000 lbs of incendiaries. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/75 "2014-07-04T06:48:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Given their TOW technology they could have adapted that to the V1 and used it as an anti-ship weapon. You are _again_ misusing the acronym TOW when you in fact mean wire-guided. TOW is not a technology, it is the specific name of a specific missile, the [BGM-71 TOW](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW) Anti-Tank Guided Missile. The acronym TOW stands for Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided. The X-4 wasn’t tube launched, and wasn’t optically-tracked in the same manner as the BGM-71, where the operator needs only keep the crosshairs on the target and the launch unit will automatically send guidance correction down the wire to direct the missile to its target. The Ruhrstahl X-4, had it actually ever entered service, would have used [MCLOS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCLOS), Manual Command Line of Sight where the operator needs to track both the target and the missile simultaneously and try to guide the missile onto the target. This is _not_ Optical-Tracking which uses [SACLOS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SACLOS), Semi-automatic command to line of sight where the operator needs only track the target, the launch unit tracks the missile and directs it to where the operator is pointing the crosshairs. Also, why on earth would the Germans try to adapt the V-1 to a wire guided anti-ship weapon, something it was remarkably unsuited for when they already had the [Fritz X](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X) glide bomb. And before you get all worked up about the Fritz X being light-years ahead of anything the Allies had, check out the [Azon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azon) and [GB-1](http://archive.today/rW9Ic) which were both used operationally and the [GB-4](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB-4) and [VB-6 Felix](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VB-6_Felix) which were in production in 1945 but the war ended before they saw use. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/76 "2014-07-04T07:11:25Z")
Plus, Anti-tank guns are good for more than just tanks. If the enemy is in a fortified position, you can use the guns to soften them up before you have to try and force your way in. If nothing else, you can use them to keep the enemy’s head down while you advance on their position. And whenever the V-1 is brought up, I do like to point out that it wasn’t a new idea. The Americans had been trying to get something vaguely similar working in the first world war, by rigging a biplane with an autopilot and a large explosive payload. The autopilot would fly the plane off on a certain heading, and after so much distance (measured with rotations of the engine, IIRC), the wings would separate, allowing the body of the plane to fall from the sky. The early examples weren’t really ready for prime time (they’d revisit the idea in WWII with remote controlled bombers loaded to the gills with explosives) so they were never used in combat. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/77 "2014-07-04T10:47:35Z")
The Allies were far and away more technologically advanced than Germany in several key areas. For example: The British more or less single-handedly invented modern cryptanalysis and computer science during the war. Breaking Tunny without even seeing an encryption machine has to be one of the greatest intellectual achievements of all time. Several cryptanalysis techniques developed in the 1940s are still classified today. By the time the war in Europe had ended, both low-level German traffic encrypted with Enigma and high-level German strategic traffic sent between high-command encrypted with Lorenz was vulnerable to cryptanalysis. We got so good at breaking German cyphers that men and convoys that we knew beforehand were subject to attack had to be sacrificed to maintain the pretence that German crypto-systems were still safe. Similarly, the Germans had an equivalent of Chain Home, the ground-based long range RADAR (though they never had a central command system to which all RADAR stations reported, unlike the British, as I understand it, making their system much less effective at tracking incoming planes and routing counter-attacks at their predicted targets). What they didn’t have was the high-frequency RADAR that the British were deploying in the Bristol Beaufighter and later then de Havilland Mosquito which made them effective night fighters. BAI-equipped Beaufighters and Mosquitos were so effective at countering Luftwaffe night raids that the intelligence services had to put around a rumour that RAF pilots were eating carrots to allow them to see in the dark. See also: atomic weapons, proximity fuzes, earthquake bombs, bouncing bombs, mathematics and operational research (extremely underappreciated: RAE operational research touched everything from developing camouflage patterns, to designing the ideal convoy which maximised its defensive capabilities, to reducing the number of artillery shells needed to shoot down a plane from 20,000 at the start of the war to just 4,000 at its end, American operational researchers doubled the accuracy of B-29 crews in the Pacific Theatre), and so on. Further, if it can be described as a “technology”, the Allies developed spying, counter-spying and disinformation to an art form. There wasn’t a single German spy operating in Britain that wasn’t turned or caught — out of 115 spies sent to Britain, 114 were captured, with one committing suicide before being apprehended. No German spy network also successfully established itself on American soil, neither, IIRC. German rocket attacks were made much less effective by double agents in Britain reporting inaccurate co-ordinates for where the rockets landed. Operation Mincemeat, and the “man who never was” had the Germans completely fooled. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/78 "2014-07-04T11:20:36Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > You are _again_ misusing the acronym TOW when you in fact mean wire-guided. yes, I tend to use TOW as a generic term for wire guided systems. Sorry. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Also, why on earth would the Germans try to adapt the V-1 to a wire guided anti-ship weapon, something it was remarkably unsuited for when they already had the [Fritz X](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X) glide bomb. And before you get all worked up about the Fritz X being light-years ahead of anything the Allies had, check out the [Azon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azon) and [GB-1](http://archive.today/rW9Ic) which were both used operationally and the [GB-4](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB-4) and [VB-6 Felix](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VB-6_Felix) which were in production in 1945 but the war ended before they saw use. Because one is a gliding bomb and the other is a high speed weapon. The Japanese used a manned version which was a rocket assisted glide to target weapon. Once dropped the pilot would aim for a ship and use the rocket to drive it home. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/79 "2014-07-04T12:56:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Pretty much, yeah, although the economics may be shifting toward it being more practical. It’s called the Fischer-Tropsch process, if you want to look into it. South Africa used the technology to deal with apartheid-era trade embargoes, since they had a lot of coal. We still use it today, 20 years after Apartheid ended. Most of our diesel and some petrol is F-T (although they use natural gas as well as coal for feedstock, nowadays) ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/80 "2014-07-04T14:42:31Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > The British more or less single-handedly invented modern cryptanalysis and computer science during the war. I’ll quibble a little bit. The Brits did monumental work in cryptography but it was based on work done by the pre-war Poles. The Poles were the ones who originally broke Enigma using, in part, proto-computers called [bombas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomba_(cryptography)). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171.md?page=5)