Jump to content


What Ideas were taken from the Axis Germany?

As far as you know

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
75 replies to this topic

ll SkagPipe ll #21 Posted 29 April 2017 - 01:03 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16196 battles
  • 3,154
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    03-01-2015
STG44 and M16 would start jamming if you just walked past a pile of sand.  You could pour sand in the AK receiver, give it a shake, and it'll keep firing.

SirDerp-a-lot #22 Posted 08 May 2017 - 09:58 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 57249 battles
  • 8,454
  • [GER_1]
  • Member since:
    05-15-2016

View PostBig Yeash, on 21 March 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

View PostTWISTED METAL V, on 20 March 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

But at least Abrams uses a 12cm(120mm) gun from the Leopard 2

 

This isn't quite the story of how the Abrams got its 120mm gun

 

In what way was your story contradicting his?



SirDerp-a-lot #23 Posted 08 May 2017 - 10:01 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 57249 battles
  • 8,454
  • [GER_1]
  • Member since:
    05-15-2016

Elektroboote

 

Block Quote

After the war, several navies obtained XXIs and operated them for decades in various roles, and almost every navy introduced new submarine designs based on them. These include the Soviet Whiskey-class submarinesUS Tang-class submarines, and the UK Porpoise-class submarines, all of which were based on the XXI design to some extent. The design remains the basis for diesel-electric submarines.

 

  • First U-Boat class with extended range while submerged (340 miles instead of < 100 miles like the most common German type VIIC.)
  • First U-Boat class with submerged speed higher than surface speed.
  • Dedicated engines for silent running.


Comjam1998 #24 Posted 10 May 2017 - 04:03 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 5342 battles
  • 2,048
  • [6THPD]
  • Member since:
    03-23-2014
Fun fact, the Germans developed the first ATGM in the form of the X-7 anti-tank missile. Contrary to initial claims by historians, the X-7 was actually used in the Battle of Berlin in small numbers, and was found to be able to take out a Soviet IS-2 heavy tank with ease.

Edited by Comjam1998, 24 July 2017 - 04:28 PM.

signature.png

KanonFyodor #25 Posted 21 May 2017 - 08:05 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5065 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-07-2016

View Postkorbendallas-01, on 08 May 2017 - 05:01 AM, said:

Elektroboote

 

 

  • First U-Boat class with extended range while submerged (340 miles instead of < 100 miles like the most common German type VIIC.)
  • First U-Boat class with submerged speed higher than surface speed.
  • Dedicated engines for silent running.

 

The basis for modern diesel-electric subs, maybe. Subs had been using electric engines dedicated for silent running since the diesel-electric Holland VI built in New Jersey in 1896 and all subs from then through WW2 were diesel-electric.

WPCatfish #26 Posted 27 May 2017 - 12:59 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19307 battles
  • 239
  • Member since:
    08-27-2016
Ich Luge bullets...they only pierce the skin.

Erkwounder #27 Posted 30 May 2017 - 08:42 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22862 battles
  • 125
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013
tiger 1 using elecric engine at least that porche versio. fuel engine rotating generator which make electric. todays cars using samekind tecnology.

Vinners96 #28 Posted 30 May 2017 - 10:35 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5285 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
Shock troops maybe, weapon designs etc

Vinners96 #29 Posted 30 May 2017 - 10:36 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5285 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View Postll SkagPipe ll, on 29 April 2017 - 01:03 AM, said:

STG44 and M16 would start jamming if you just walked past a pile of sand. You could pour sand in the AK receiver, give it a shake, and it'll keep firing.

M16 really didn't jam much. Ask my grandpa. He fought in Bam



Assassin3Fox #30 Posted 30 May 2017 - 10:38 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28717 battles
  • 826
  • Member since:
    04-05-2014

Inertial navigation System pioneered on the V2.  The basis of this work eventually made its way over to gun stabilization as well as navigation and cruise missile guidance systems. Also used in the moon shots in the 60s.

The first ICBMs for that matter were exactly what they envisioned working towards with the V1 and V2 rockets.

 

First man portable AT weapon (panzerfaust).

They used the first mechanized logistics train although I am unclear if that was the first of its kind since many military's employed this in WW2.

 

I would agree that they pioneered the assault rifle and the AK47 does appear to rob many of the external features of their weapons. (clip fed, gas operated, adjustable sights, ring mounted bayonet, one man operation, etc.) Most of the man portable automatics of the day used a pistol cartridge up to that point (Thompson was the most popular American weapon but it was classified as a carbine if I remember correctly). The American BAR and 50 caliber almost had to be emplaced on a tripod or braced in some manner to be used on the move; the Bar could be used on the move but was effectively a crew served weapon requiring an ammo bearer and assistant gunner.  Thing is there were some French, British and American repeaters from WW1 that could be used in the offense but they were very poor and unwieldy. There was a French rifle in particular that used a disc type clip on top that made an impression on me but I can't remember the name.

 

Optical Range finder used binocular focusing and mechanical angles.

Employed Close Air Support or the first time in the opening phases of WW2 with the Stuka. (this actually turned out to be a bit of a bad thing since arty is more all weather than the air support; although as has become clear in the American Military, Arty and CAS are not fast enough to keep up with modern ground forces once the front is broken on the offense or the defense).

First Rocket propelled aircraft.

I believe they also had the first rocket assisted take off rig as well but unclear.

 

I always found it ironic that both the US and the USSR employed a doctrine of numbers with their mechanized forces while the Germans invested a huge number of resources into a limited number of vehicles and platforms (talking specifically about the cost of the panthers and Tiger tanks). Then in the immediate postwar the US started to work towards fewer and more expensive platforms with greater and greater protection. By the time the 80s came around we were following the German mindset to a much greater degree than the mindset we used to win WW2.

 

The torsion bar suspension was first used in a Swedish tank...but it was actually designed by a french auto maker in the mid 30's.

 

Germans appear to have the general idea of stealth but many of the documents are unclear.

 

 

 



Matthew J35U5 #31 Posted 14 June 2017 - 12:28 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostTWISTED METAL V, on 20 March 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

WWII ends, atrocious acts aside(I'm looking at you Russia)

What.

 

I hope I'm misinterpreting this, because it sounds like you're saying Russia's atrocities were the most notable of WWII. 

View PostMudRaker227, on 20 March 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

The black batwing Horten 229 of early 1945 had recently been proven to be capable of partial radar cross-section attenuation, basically the world's first operational stealth fighter. It had 40% of the frontal rcs of a BF109, allowing it to get 25% closer before being spotted on radar scopes. And at a speed of 620 mph, that would have allowed it to get disasterously close in on target. Another swept-wing design proposal basically amounted to a Mig 15 prototype.

 

Allied designs were not even close to being in the same league..... :trollface:

No-one copied the Ho229. The B2  is unrelated to that museam piece. 

 

View PostErkwounder, on 30 May 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

tiger 1 using elecric engine at least that porche versio. fuel engine rotating generator which make electric. todays cars using samekind tecnology.

I doubt it, electric cars dont's seem to spontaneously burst into flames as frequently as Porche's engine.

 

Fun fact, the USSR actually did copy the engine used in the Ferdinand to power one of their IS projects.

 

After it burst into flames within 30 m of its starting point, they gave up on the idea.  

View PostAssassin3Fox, on 30 May 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

First man portable AT weapon (panzerfaust).

 

 

I always found it ironic that both the US and the USSR employed a doctrine of numbers with their mechanized forces while the Germans invested a huge number of resources into a limited number of vehicles and platforms (talking specifically about the cost of the panthers and Tiger tanks). Then in the immediate postwar the US started to work towards fewer and more expensive platforms with greater and greater protection. By the time the 80s came around we were following the German mindset to a much greater degree than the mindset we used to win WW2.

 

 

14.5 mm AT rifle is man-portable, and precedes the Panzerfaust. )))

 

Spoiler

 

The post WWII strategic framework the US was working in was absurd. Not only were they hugely outnumbered in Europe, but the USSR had superior tanks (T-64, T-72) until the mid 80's. They adopted the thinking of former wehrmacht officers because they had no better option. 

 

To make things even worse, the USSR had every intention of using chemical & nuclear weapons in the event of a war with NATO (tactical ones at least), which would have both hampered NATO's air superiority, and weakened their 'plan' for a static defence of Germany. The USSR had a more pragmatic view that a) if nuclear weapons were to be used, best to have reserves, and b) best to have those nuclear weapons used on someone else's territory. 

 

Of course, having a defensive doctrine which mandated a big standing army and immediate offensive action in the event of a war, was not exactly good for a country with a stagnant economy.


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


BusiedBat306 #32 Posted 28 June 2017 - 01:47 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13678 battles
  • 368
  • [MCGS]
  • Member since:
    02-07-2014

Not sure what has and hasn't been mentioned, so I will just throw in my two cents. The things in my list are all the first examples of their kind. (To my knowledge, though after 7 years of studying this I feel fairly confident.)

 

- Stg 44 (Lead to assault rifles.)

- V2 Rocket (First man made object into space, and made possible the rockets used by NASA and RU.)

- VW Beetle (One of the first cars designed specifically for the average citizen.)

- Me 262 (First jet aircraft in genera to be used, and first fighter jet to be used in combat.)

- Vampir System (First example of night vision technology, used by infantry and mounted on Panther tanks late in the war.)

- Autobahn (First highways, now used globally.)

- Blitzkrieg and Armored Warfare (Introduced a whole new era of warfare.)

 

Policies:

- Anti-smoking (First time employed on a national level.)

- Environmental Protection (First time employed on a national level.)

 

Most of this is straight from my head after 7 years of research, if any of this is in question I am more than happy to find sources.


              Want help/advice with the Tiger 1? PM me.

"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning." - Erwin Rommel

 

Clan Recruitment:

[MCGS] Shmitz Recruiting: We Want You! (XBOX)


BusiedBat306 #33 Posted 28 June 2017 - 02:15 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13678 battles
  • 368
  • [MCGS]
  • Member since:
    02-07-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 13 June 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

What.

 

I hope I'm misinterpreting this, because it sounds like you're saying Russia's atrocities were the most notable of WWII. 

No-one copied the Ho229. The B2  is unrelated to that museam piece. 

 

I doubt it, electric cars dont's seem to spontaneously burst into flames as frequently as Porche's engine.

 

Fun fact, the USSR actually did copy the engine used in the Ferdinand to power one of their IS projects.

 

After it burst into flames within 30 m of its starting point, they gave up on the idea.  

14.5 mm AT rifle is man-portable, and precedes the Panzerfaust. )))

 

Spoiler

 

The post WWII strategic framework the US was working in was absurd. Not only were they hugely outnumbered in Europe, but the USSR had superior tanks (T-64, T-72) until the mid 80's. They adopted the thinking of former wehrmacht officers because they had no better option. 

 

To make things even worse, the USSR had every intention of using chemical & nuclear weapons in the event of a war with NATO (tactical ones at least), which would have both hampered NATO's air superiority, and weakened their 'plan' for a static defence of Germany. The USSR had a more pragmatic view that a) if nuclear weapons were to be used, best to have reserves, and b) best to have those nuclear weapons used on someone else's territory. 

 

Of course, having a defensive doctrine which mandated a big standing army and immediate offensive action in the event of a war, was not exactly good for a country with a stagnant economy.

 

While Russian atrocities are not the most notable, that has no correlation with the actual severity of said atrocities. IMO, the number of people killed out weighs the method used to kill them, especially when the difference is by over 10 million by some accounts. IMO the value of human life is not something that can be changed, a life is a life. (If you do not know what I am talking about, feel free to use google or talk to a professor about Russian actions.)

 

Whether or not the Ho229 was copied by the US is irrelevant as it still represents the first in its class, and no doubt inspired future projects.

 

While the electric engine did not meet the high standard for military use, it worked and did in fact serve as the basis for future designs. (You seem to forget the fact that prototypes are not perfect, especially when it is something completely revolutionary.) 

 

The Panzerfaust was far more effective than the Bazooka with regard to penetrating capability, and could be manufactured in much higher numbers. Additionally, when making their design for the Panzerschrek, the Germans made a fundamental improvement over their American counterpart with the addition of a spring operated system instead of a battery, removing the need for recharging.  

 

Side note: The PIAT sucked and was feared by the men using it.

 

Perhaps the US employed German strategy (and still does today) because Russian strategy of the time involved a violent frontal attack that often resulted in casualties 3 times higher than enemy losses? Perhaps they felt that Germany should have some freedom regarding its military? Perhaps (unlike you) they were capable of realizing the value of the contributions made by Germany both militarily and scientifically? Regardless of "who was the bad guy."

 

Edit: Just noticed the TTC fire reference on your profile, that's hilarious. We seriously need better service. (Fellow Canadian)


Edited by BusiedBat306, 28 June 2017 - 02:21 PM.

              Want help/advice with the Tiger 1? PM me.

"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning." - Erwin Rommel

 

Clan Recruitment:

[MCGS] Shmitz Recruiting: We Want You! (XBOX)


Matthew J35U5 #34 Posted 22 July 2017 - 04:09 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostBusiedBat306, on 28 June 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

 

While Russian atrocities are not the most notable, that has no correlation with the actual severity of said atrocities. IMO, the number of people killed out weighs the method used to kill them, especially when the difference is by over 10 million by some accounts. IMO the value of human life is not something that can be changed, a life is a life. (If you do not know what I am talking about, feel free to use google or talk to a professor about Russian actions.)

 

Whether or not the Ho229 was copied by the US is irrelevant as it still represents the first in its class, and no doubt inspired future projects.

 

While the electric engine did not meet the high standard for military use, it worked and did in fact serve as the basis for future designs. (You seem to forget the fact that prototypes are not perfect, especially when it is something completely revolutionary.) 

 

The Panzerfaust was far more effective than the Bazooka with regard to penetrating capability, and could be manufactured in much higher numbers. Additionally, when making their design for the Panzerschrek, the Germans made a fundamental improvement over their American counterpart with the addition of a spring operated system instead of a battery, removing the need for recharging.  

 

Side note: The PIAT sucked and was feared by the men using it.

 

Perhaps the US employed German strategy (and still does today) because Russian strategy of the time involved a violent frontal attack that often resulted in casualties 3 times higher than enemy losses? Perhaps they felt that Germany should have some freedom regarding its military? Perhaps (unlike you) they were capable of realizing the value of the contributions made by Germany both militarily and scientifically? Regardless of "who was the bad guy."

 

Edit: Just noticed the TTC fire reference on your profile, that's hilarious. We seriously need better service. (Fellow Canadian)

 

Flying wings:

https://en.m.wikiped.../wiki/Dunne_D.5

https://en.m.wikiped...i/Northrop_N-1M

 

Panzerfaust/schreck:

Thread topic had nothing to do with respective merits of particular weapons, it was about technology adapted from the Germans by their opponents. The concept of man-portable AT weapons can't be copied from the Germans if all of their opponents already had them, and even the specific device (i.e. A HEAT grenade launcher) was invented contemporaneously by the Americans. (And I guess the British...)

 

Soviet strategy:

I suppose examples of that might be Operation Bagration, which resulted in perhaps a 3:2 ratio of irrecoverable losses in the USSR's favour. Or the Vistula-Oder Offensive, which resulted in a 10:1 ratio of irrecoverable losses in the USSR's favour (allegedly anyway). Or the Berlin offensive, which resulted in a 6:1 ratio of irrecoverable losses, in the USSR's favour. 

 

Oh wait. 

 

Seriously though, memetic as the USSR's performance was in the first half of the war (in a bad way...), in the later half of the war, they were quite competent. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was an impressive feat, even considering the perhaps anemic Japanese resistance, just due to the theatre scale. 

 

 

Russia & atrocities:

The OP was refering rather explicity to WWII. I'm unaware of the part of WWII where Hungary, Romania, and Germany suffered 1.67 million, 5.2 million, and 7.2 million civilian casualties due to Soviet occupation, whereas Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia did suffer that many civilian casualties due to German occupation. I'm also clearly unaware of when the USSR tested biological weapons on German civilians, as the Japanese did on the Chinese. I could go on, and mention the Germans attempting to starve a city of 3 million to death (Leningrad), the destruction of the 628 Belorussian villages, and the Germans starving 5 million + PoW's because they couldn't be bothered to feed them. But I'll just recommend War of Annihilation: Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941, by Geoffrey P. Megargee instead. 

 

Anyway, I suspect you're referring to the entirety of Stalin's reign, I actually wouldn't mind if you would pm me what you think is the most accurate estimate of his murderousness, I often see it claimed that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more people than Hitler, but I haven't been able to work out the numbers myself. Ty.

 

I guess all inhabitants of the GTA can be brought together by our dislike of the TTC. <3 

 

View PostBusiedBat306, on 28 June 2017 - 08:47 AM, said:

- Vampir System (First example of night vision technology, used by infantry and mounted on Panther tanks late in the war.)

I believe this picture is from 1941 or so.


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


FlukenJager #35 Posted 24 September 2017 - 06:18 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 18174 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    01-19-2015
Germans developed light sensitivity triggers.
Their early jets flew so fast and had such a high stall speed they couldn't effectively engage bombers.
So they had cannons fixed on the wings to fire up, as the jet flew through the shadow of the bomber, the guns would fire.

Same technology used today to automatically turn on your headlights when it gets dark.

My great uncle was shot down by one of those "shadow jets"

Ogre4Hire #36 Posted 25 September 2017 - 02:45 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7388 battles
  • 302
  • Member since:
    03-14-2016
The Panzerfaust's true innovation was that it was the first discardable infantry deployed anti-tank weapon.

Edited by Ogre4Hire, 25 September 2017 - 02:46 AM.

Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?


KanonFyodor #37 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:16 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5065 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-07-2016

View PostOgre4Hire, on 24 September 2017 - 09:45 PM, said:

The Panzerfaust's true innovation was that it was the first discardable infantry deployed anti-tank weapon.

 

Perhaps, but I think even that is a stretch. Isn't any man-portable weapon disposable, more or less? The person that originally mentioned the panzerfaust got their facts a little backwards, so the rest of this is directed more at him. The actual panzerfaust entered service in the summer of 43, the same as the PIAT, incidentally. It's predecessor began design the previous summer, at least a month after the M1 rocket launcher, the original bazooka, entered service. It is impossible that anyone used german technology to design their own infantry AT weapons because they didn't exist yet. Additionally the panzerfaust is technically a grenade launcher while the bazooka fires a rocket. The difference, in regards to technology, is that the panzerfaust's projectile is unpropelled while the bazooka's rocket is much more advanced. Regardless, grenade launchers were not new and it was the rocket launcher design that was carried forward. Finally, the Panzerschrek was copied from captured bazookas, well perhaps "inspired by" is a better way to say it, and not the other way around. I don't find either the panzerfaust or schrek to be inspirational designs or copied by other nations.

Edited by KanonFyodor, 29 September 2017 - 11:19 AM.


begbeee_svk #38 Posted 05 October 2017 - 11:04 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16476 battles
  • 960
  • Member since:
    01-24-2016

View Postll SkagPipe ll, on 29 April 2017 - 01:03 AM, said:

STG44 and M16 would start jamming if you just walked past a pile of sand. You could pour sand in the AK receiver, give it a shake, and it'll keep firing.

 

Reliability of AK-47 is becoming truly overrated. It has it´s own faults and generally was outdated since late 70s.

Ogre4Hire #39 Posted 12 October 2017 - 04:33 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7388 battles
  • 302
  • Member since:
    03-14-2016

View PostKanonFyodor, on 29 September 2017 - 03:16 AM, said:

 

Perhaps, but I think even that is a stretch. Isn't any man-portable weapon disposable, more or less? The person that originally mentioned the panzerfaust got their facts a little backwards, so the rest of this is directed more at him. The actual panzerfaust entered service in the summer of 43, the same as the PIAT, incidentally. It's predecessor began design the previous summer, at least a month after the M1 rocket launcher, the original bazooka, entered service. It is impossible that anyone used german technology to design their own infantry AT weapons because they didn't exist yet. Additionally the panzerfaust is technically a grenade launcher while the bazooka fires a rocket. The difference, in regards to technology, is that the panzerfaust's projectile is unpropelled while the bazooka's rocket is much more advanced. Regardless, grenade launchers were not new and it was the rocket launcher design that was carried forward. Finally, the Panzerschrek was copied from captured bazookas, well perhaps "inspired by" is a better way to say it, and not the other way around. I don't find either the panzerfaust or schrek to be inspirational designs or copied by other nations.

 

The Panzerfaust was a preloaded launcher that fired a single anti-tank grenade.  Unlike the Bazooka (which fired rocket grenades), it only needed one soldier to operate (the Bazooka needed a crew of two) and was intended to be discarded upon firing rather than reloaded.  This made it much lighter and easier to carry and use than other infantry anti-tank weapons being used at the time.  It was also found to be more effective vs armor than the Bazooka, resulting in some American forces making extensive use of captured Panzerfaust stockpiles.

Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?


Panthergraf #40 Posted 12 October 2017 - 05:54 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 37520 battles
  • 1,516
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
Fanta.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users