# 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:** 5
**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, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/81 "2014-07-04T14:48:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. 1. The [Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY7_Ohka), better known to American sailors as the Baka bomb was **not** a version of the V-1: > [@](#): > > The design was conceived by Ensign Mitsuo Ohta of the 405th Kōkūtai,[5] aided by students of the Aeronautical Research Institute at the University of Tokyo. Ohta submitted his plans to the Yokosuka research facility. The Imperial Japanese Navy decided the idea had merit and Yokosuka engineers of the Yokosuka Naval Air Technical Arsenal (Dai-Ichi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho, or in short Kugisho[6]) created formal blueprints for what was to be the MXY7. The only variant which saw service was the Model 11, and it was powered by three Type 4 Mark 1 Model 20 rockets. 155 Ohka Model 11s were built at Yokosuka, and another 600 were built at the Kasumigaura Naval Air Arsenal. 1. The Germans did experiment with thier own piloted suicide version of the V-1, the [Fieseler Fi 103R](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_103R_(Reichenberg)) but the project was cancelled. 3) None of this addresses why on earth the Germans would try to turn the V-1 into a wire-guided anti-ship missile, something it was completely unsuited for. Wire guidance out to more than a few kilometers in a missile is impractical simply due to the length of wire needed, and attempting to steer a Manual Command Line of Sight missile to its target gets progressively harder the further away the target is. This brings up the biggest problem with making the V-1 a wire guided anti-ship weapon: it would have to be launched within visual sight of the target ship. It would be completely useless in this role from a ground launch due to both the short range and the long preparation time required for launch. As an air-launched weapon it would be suicidal as it would require the heavily overloaded launch plane, presumably the He-111 which was used in this role, to attempt to approach within several kilometers of an Allied ship. The Ohka suffered heavy losses due to the carrier aircraft being easily shot down in this overloaded state, and it only had to approach to 37km before release. The Ohka was also able to avoid effective anti-aircraft fire due to its being able to reach a terminal speed of 650km/h in level flight or 1,000km/h in a dive. The V-1 with its pulse jet could only reach 640km/h, which combined with its low operational altitude made it quite vulnerable to anti-aircraft guns using [proximity fuzes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Anti-aircraft_guns): > [@](#): > > The development of the proximity fuze and of centimetric, 3 gigahertz frequency gun-laying radars based on the cavity magnetron helped to counter the V-1’s high speed and small size. In 1944, Bell Labs started delivery of an anti-aircraft predictor fire-control system based on an analog computer, just in time for the Allied invasion of Europe. > > These electronic aids arrived in quantity from June 1944, just as the guns reached their firing positions on the coast. Seventeen percent of all flying bombs entering the coastal ‘gun belt’ were destroyed by guns in their first week on the coast. This rose to 60% by 23 August and 74% in the last week of the month, when on one day 82% were shot down. The rate improved from one V-1 destroyed for every 2,500 shells fired initially, to one for every 100. The existing Fritz X would be better in almost every conceivable way to a V-1 modified as a wire guided anti-ship missile. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/82 "2014-07-04T20:52:24Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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.) I wonder how many times I’m going to have to [post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17513281&postcount=24) in this thread a reminder that the Germans had computers as good or better than the US and UK at the time the war started. They just failed to capitalize on them as much. But they had them and used them. A lot of the artillery advantage had to do with communication with spotters. Both sides had the same tech there, the US just exploited it better. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/83 "2014-07-04T21:04:22Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You’re confusing TV focusing on some German technologies where they were slightly ahead of the Allies with Germans being “light years” ahead technologically. > > There’s lots of things you’re missing from the complete picture: > > 1. German industry was actually primitive. In fact the entire world’s industry was primitive compared to that of the United States. (slight digression) Not incidentally, this and the wartime production increases set the stage for the post war economic boom of the US- we not only had the most advanced manufacturing techniques, but big undamaged factories set up to use them, plenty of manpower available, and a huge market for manufactured goods in Europe and Asia. ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/84 "2014-07-04T23:09:58Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Not incidentally, this and the wartime production increases set the stage for the post war economic boom of the US- we not only had the most advanced manufacturing techniques, but big undamaged factories set up to use them, plenty of manpower available, and a huge market for manufactured goods in Europe and Asia. We also had a good share of the world’s capital. We did institute Lend-Lease and similar programs to supply goods to other countries on credit. But we did this after they had spent all their money reserves buying goods from us. To illustrate the trend, the United States owned 24% of the world’s gold in 1913 and 70% of the world’s gold in 1947. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/85 "2014-07-05T00:59:11Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > 1. The [Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY7_Ohka), better known to American sailors as the Baka bomb was **not** a version of the V-1:2) I’m sorry for implying that it was a version of the V1 but both are similar in shape and size and were the precursors to the modern cruise missile. > [@Dissonance](#): > > 1. The Germans did experiment with thier own piloted suicide version of the V-1, the [Fieseler Fi 103R](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_103R_(Reichenberg)) but the project was cancelled. 3) None of this addresses why on earth the Germans would try to turn the V-1 into a wire-guided anti-ship missile, something it was completely unsuited for. Wire guidance out to more than a few kilometers in a missile is impractical simply due to the length of wire needed, and attempting to steer a Manual Command Line of Sight missile to its target gets progressively harder the further away the target is. This brings up the biggest problem with making the V-1 a wire guided anti-ship weapon: it would have to be launched within visual sight of the target ship. It would be completely useless in this role from a ground launch due to both the short range and the long preparation time required for launch. As an air-launched weapon it would be suicidal as it would require the heavily overloaded launch plane, presumably the He-111 which was used in this role, to attempt to approach within several kilometers of an Allied ship. The Ohka suffered heavy losses due to the carrier aircraft being easily shot down in this overloaded state, and it only had to approach to 37km before release. The Ohka was also able to avoid effective anti-aircraft fire due to its being able to reach a terminal speed of 650km/h in level flight or 1,000km/h in a dive. The V-1 with its pulse jet could only reach 640km/h, which combined with its low operational altitude made it quite vulnerable to anti-aircraft guns using [proximity fuzes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Anti-aircraft_guns):The existing Fritz X would be better in almost every conceivable way to a V-1 modified as a wire guided anti-ship missile. The V1 carried twice the payload and could drive into a ship at 400 mph. It was also designed to fly operationally from Heinkel He 111’s and over 1000 of them were launched that way. Since they already had a wire guided system for rockets it wouldn’t be much of an engineering feat to modify a V1. being able to launch a guided weapon with such a small foot print 2 miles out would be a difficult weapon to defend against. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/86 "2014-07-05T01:05:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > We also had a good share of the world’s capital. We did institute Lend-Lease and similar programs to supply goods to other countries on credit. But we did this after they had spent all their money reserves buying goods from us. > > To illustrate the trend, the United States owned 24% of the world’s gold in 1913 and 70% of the world’s gold in 1947. I’m not so sure capital is the word I’d use. We had a ridiculous amount of production capacity and natural resources. It was also almost impossible to attack these resources because of the distances involved. After the war we had 75% of the worlds production capacity because much of Europe and Asia was heavily damaged in the war. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/87 "2014-07-05T01:33:11Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I’m sorry for implying that it was a version of the V1 but both are similar in shape and size and were the precursors to the modern cruise missile. > > The V1 carried twice the payload and could drive into a ship at 400 mph. It was also designed to fly operationally from Heinkel He 111’s and over 1000 of them were launched that way. > > Since they already had a wire guided system for rockets it wouldn’t be much of an engineering feat to modify a V1. being able to launch a guided weapon with such a small foot print 2 miles out would be a difficult weapon to defend against. Small guided (“brilliant”, really) weapons with 2 mile range and 400 mph diving speed already existed. We just called them _kamakazes_. And while they were hell on picket destroyers, they didn’t do spectacularly against capital ships, USS Franklin, et al, aside. Wire guided weapons are a pain to use over seawater, FWIW. Ask the IDF, who had difficulties with TOW during IIRC, the Yom Kippur War, during cross-Canal shots. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/88 "2014-07-05T02:41:03Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Since they already had a wire guided system for rockets it wouldn’t be much of an engineering feat to modify a V1. being able to launch a guided weapon with such a small foot print 2 miles out would be a difficult weapon to defend against. You’re joking, right? I just explained the problem to you, but to repeat it: your “small footprint” is a heavily overloaded He-111 that you are expecting to get within 2 miles of an Allied ship. It’s going to be picked up on radar a hell of a lot further out than 2 miles. The Japanese suffered heavy losses trying to get heavily over laden G4Ms close enough to launch Ohkas, and they only had to get within 37km _and_ didn’t have to loiter trying to steer the Ohka via a command wire. The end result of all of this trouble is _still_ a weapon inferior to the Fritz X, which had a range of 5km, a speed of 770 mph and to top it off was designed to penetrate heavily armored targets such as cruisers and battleships, something the V-1 just wasn’t going to do. Just as an FYI, the [Hs 293](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293) was the companion of the Fritz X intended only for use on unarmored targets and had a range of 12km. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/89 "2014-07-05T02:57:22Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Small guided (“brilliant”, really) weapons with 2 mile range and 400 mph diving speed already existed. We just called them _kamakazes_. And while they were hell on picket destroyers, they didn’t do spectacularly against capital ships, USS Franklin, et al, aside. > > Wire guided weapons are a pain to use over seawater, FWIW. Ask the IDF, who had difficulties with TOW during IIRC, the Yom Kippur War, during cross-Canal shots. The Germans found it was too difficult for the ME-262 pilots to fly and operate the joystick. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/90 "2014-07-05T03:03:29Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > You’re joking, right? I just explained the problem to you, but to repeat it: your “small footprint” is a heavily overloaded He-111 that you are expecting to get within 2 miles of an Allied ship. It’s going to be picked up on radar a hell of a lot further out than 2 miles. The Japanese suffered heavy losses trying to get heavily over laden G4Ms close enough to launch Ohkas, and they only had to get within 37km _and_ didn’t have to loiter trying to steer the Ohka via a command wire. The end result of all of this trouble is _still_ a weapon inferior to the Fritz X, which had a range of 5km, a speed of 770 mph and to top it off was designed to penetrate heavily armored targets such as cruisers and battleships, something the V-1 just wasn’t going to do. Just as an FYI, the [Hs 293](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293) was the companion of the Fritz X intended only for use on unarmored targets and had a range of 12km. No I’m not joking. Better to launch 2 miles out then to fly close in with a torpedo. The Fritz X was a radio controlled bomb which could be jammed. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/91 "2014-07-05T08:26:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No I’m not joking. Better to launch 2 miles out then to fly close in with a torpedo. The Fritz X was a radio controlled bomb which could be jammed. You’re just not getting it; I don’t know how many more ways I can explain it. You are joking, you just don’t realize it. An He-111 carrying a V-1 was a sitting duck to any fighter that intercepted it, just like the G4M was a sitting duck when carrying an Ohka. It was extremely overloaded, slow, as maneuverable as a moving van and incidentally was externally carrying a bomb with an 850kg warhead with a motor that used highly unstable acetylene to start the pulse engine. **It wasn’t going to get within 2 miles to launch without extreme luck**. It was going to be picked up on radar far, far beyond two miles out and at that point a half blind syphilitic pilot flying a biplane could blow it out of the sky without much trouble. Yet again the Japanese had problems enough getting G4Ms close enough to launch Ohkas without becoming target practice for American pilots, and it only had to get within 37kms of a ship to launch and didn’t have to then loiter trying to guide the Ohka onto the target. It would in fact be far better to fly close in with a torpedo since carrying a torpedo didn’t turn the He-111 into flying target practice. The He-111 and Ju-88 were fairly successful as torpedo bombers, and incidentally the G4M Betty was excellent as a torpedo bomber. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/92 "2014-07-05T12:31:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No I’m not joking. Better to launch 2 miles out then to fly close in with a torpedo. The Fritz X was a radio controlled bomb which could be jammed. The Japanese Type 93 Torpedo, used during WWII, had an effective range of around 22 kilometers. Torpedoes were not an explosive bayonet for airplanes and submarines (unlike the Spar Torpedoes of the 19th century), they actually did have some standoff distance or they would never be effective against a ship armed with guns to defend herself. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/93 "2014-07-05T16:22:44Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > …(they’d revisit the idea in WWII with remote controlled bombers loaded to the gills with explosives)… Ah, [Operation Aphrodite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite). This shows just what the edge of technology was at the time. The list of mission failure after mission failure shows that remotely guided aircraft-bombs just wasn’t doable in that era. It also greatly affected later American politics: Joseph Kennedy, Jr. died during one mission bumping up Jack Kennedy in the family hierarchy. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/94 "2014-07-05T18:24:10Z")
> [@bardos](#): > > 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. Nah. The V-2 had a 1000kg warhead, bigger than the V-1, but was actually less effective than the V-1 because it dove into the ground at supersonic speeds, burying the warhead before it exploded. The V-1 exploded closer to the surface and caused destruction instead of making a crater. And that’s with HE. Incendiaries need to be on the surface (actually, on buildings) to do their job, which is kinda the opposite of what you got from V-2s. Incendiary bombs weighed only a few kilos but were broadcast in their hundreds over a large area. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Cashless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ad7895/32.png) [@Johnny\_Cashless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Cashless)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/95 "2014-07-05T20:02:30Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > 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. I’d add SONAR; the Battle of the Atlantic was so crucial and those U boat packs were very effective. Some argue the code-breakers shortened the war by two years. Given it was only a year from D-Day 'til the end, that’s quite the feat. ---
**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 5, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/96 "2014-07-05T20:14:11Z")
> [@Johnny\_Cashless](#): > > Some argue the code-breakers shortened the war by two years. Given it was only a year from D-Day 'til the end, that’s quite the feat. You are as shrewd as you are clever, sir. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/97 "2014-07-05T21:58:31Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > The Japanese Type 93 Torpedo, used during WWII, had an effective range of around 22 kilometers. Torpedoes were not an explosive bayonet for airplanes and submarines (unlike the Spar Torpedoes of the 19th century), they actually did have some standoff distance or they would never be effective against a ship armed with guns to defend herself. The Type 93 Torpedo was not steerable so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. Airplane launched torpedoes were very effective in WW-II. The Bismark was immobilized by an antique airplane carrying a torpedo and The Pacific fleet was severely damaged at Pearl Harbor due to aerial attack and torpedoes played a significant roll. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/98 "2014-07-05T22:33:05Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > You’re just not getting it; I don’t know how many more ways I can explain it. You are joking, you just don’t realize it. An He-111 carrying a V-1 was a sitting duck to any fighter that intercepted it, just like the G4M was a sitting duck when carrying an Ohka. It was extremely overloaded, slow, as maneuverable as a moving van and incidentally was externally carrying a bomb with an 850kg warhead with a motor that used highly unstable acetylene to start the pulse engine. **It wasn’t going to get within 2 miles to launch without extreme luck**. It was going to be picked up on radar far, far beyond two miles out and at that point a half blind syphilitic pilot flying a biplane could blow it out of the sky without much trouble. Yet again the Japanese had problems enough getting G4Ms close enough to launch Ohkas without becoming target practice for American pilots, and it only had to get within 37kms of a ship to launch and didn’t have to then loiter trying to guide the Ohka onto the target. It would in fact be far better to fly close in with a torpedo since carrying a torpedo didn’t turn the He-111 into flying target practice. The He-111 and Ju-88 were fairly successful as torpedo bombers, and incidentally the G4M Betty was excellent as a torpedo bomber. Wow, you’re still not getting it. Unlike a B-17 that has to be OVER the target, a stand off weapon is delivered out of range of the target. Of course it’s subjected to fighter attack, but unlike a bomber it doesn’t also have to defend against ground/sea attack. What do you think fighter aircraft are for? To defend other air assets. If you can use one plane to destroy one ship then you’ve gained a substantial advantage in resource management over your enemy. Thinking in terms of asset management look at a B-17. It’s a large complicated airplane with a crew of 10 requiring a fighter escort and they have to send waves of them to attack a target that they might (if they’re lucky) come within 1000 feet of hitting requiring much greater coverage for success. There is no defense against the ground flak. They have to fly through it. Now look at a Heinkel 111. A much smaller aircraft which means they can build more in relation to a B-17 using the same resources. A crew of 5 requiring less training and 2 less engines which means much less maintenance. Using a guided weapon they can attack a target without flying over it’s air defenses and while using the same fighter escort as a B-17. The difference is they can consistently deliver their ordinance directly to the target. It’s the difference between building a large expensive tank that’s hard to maintain or building 5 pretty good tanks that are easy to maintain. It’s resource management and Hitler sucked at it. ---
**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 5, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/99 "2014-07-05T22:48:10Z")
From my various readings, I’d have to submit that the Germans had a lot of innovative aircraft on the drawing boards or in prototype by the end of the war. They were the first to come up with swept wings. But timing was everything and they never had time to perfect them, let alone put them in to production and squadron use. And some of the designs wouldn’t have worked anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171/100 "2014-07-05T23:47:22Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The Type 93 Torpedo was not steerable so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. Airplane launched torpedoes were very effective in WW-II. The Bismark was immobilized by an antique airplane carrying a torpedo and The Pacific fleet was severely damaged at Pearl Harbor due to aerial attack and torpedoes played a significant roll. Type 93 was not a guided torpedo I guess you mean? It’s true it’s not a directly comparable weapon to guided torpedoes or missiles/glide bombs instead of torpedoes, but it’s relevant in another way to the thread topic. It’s an example of something Japan produced superior to that of any other country. No other torpedo of WWII remotely approached the Type 93’s speed/range capability. Germany produced more military items more advanced than those of other countries’ than Japan did. But I agree with the general consensus of the thread that post war interest in Germany’s technical capabilities has tended to obscure the pretty clear fact that Germany didn’t produce more such world leading items than the Anglo/Americans. Nuclear weapons are a gigantic exception that it’s rather strange German tech enthusiasts tend not to think of. But actually there were many other such areas. Even in antiship guided weapons the US Bat glide bomb was operationally used late in WWII and was conceptually more advanced than the German manual command to line of sight weapons (either radio or wire), being autonomously active radar guided, like post WWII anti ship missiles. In many cases it seems that the impression of great German advances is partly due to lack of familiarity with stuff which appeared in US hands late in the war or like a lot of German stuff wasn’t ready in time. It might be partly because British writers also aren’t as interested in late war US weapons developments outside the really big ones. That affects public knowledge because a lot of what’s written of the technical history of WWII is by British authors. These weapons didn’t appear in important roles in the European war the British were and remain much more focused on, and weren’t going to change the outcome of Allied victory if they did. Advanced German weapons OTOH did have at least the theoretical potential to reverse the war’s course, and that’s a reasonable explanation why they’ve generated more interest, especially to a British audience. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-german-technology-wwii/692171.md?page=6)