|
Petiloup -> RE: 1 vs 1 Round3 MrQuiet vs Forwarn45 (8/5/2007 5:41:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrQuiet
The ss I was trying to get when mouse died showed the insane allied steals in tec.
The ones against Germany I can understand he did invest heavily in Spies, but I do feel Japan should start with Higher security for 2 reasons.
1) They cant afford to spend precious supply on security.
2) I think the US would have a very difficult time getting someone on the 'inside' of Impeiral Japan
Just my 2 cents
I don't think spies did play so much of a role during WW2 at stealing technologies. Jets were developped by each side on their own but maybe Japan getting Me-262 plans via UBoats. Radar tech was not stolen by Germany from British source but developped on their own as well. Not speaking about Tank technology that Germany developped from seeing Russian T-34 and Kv-1 in action and having plenty of captured one to develop the Panther while the Tiger was more a German typical idea. Same as the Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck developed from the Bazooka after first contacts in North Africa and not stolen from US research facilities. The whole concept of calling this spying is historically wrong. So I decided to look at this more as research/production effort against specific countries to fill a gap in technology by information received from battlefield contact/captured material/reports/... or whatever.
The huge capacity of the US to invest in research because not most of the population in age of fighting was on the frontline can be well represented by this "spying" concept. Not to forget that at the end of the War the US were not that far behind in technology compare to Germany and even in advance in some areas. Germany had an impressive list of wonder weapons from jets to rockets to electric UBoat but they did so much research because loosing the war and trying to find ways to change that while at the beginning of the War they didn't do much research at all. Not to forget the Stuka was still the main TAC bomber till 1942 and even after, tanks in 1941 were far inferior than Russian model and only because the US went for quantity compare to quality that the Sherman was never replaced but slowly at the end of the war. Would the Allies have seen a need to invest in technology they could have done so as well but by 1944 they were winning so the need was not so great anymore.
Not speaking of Japan whose technology was a lot behind to anyone but maybe in planes quality by the end of the war.
Even against France in 1940 Germany technological advance was not further than the French or the British. German tanks were for most but a few Panzer IV no match against the British Matilda or the French B1-Bis or Somua. The Me-109 was a bit better than the British Hurricane and most of the French model but the Dewoitine 520. What did changed it all was tactics with German Tanks spearheads while France was still using tanks to support infantry like in 14-18. German Luftwaffe was in close support to the ground troops while French air force was not.
This is the historical results of the air campaing against France, you can't consider the German losses very light but they were able to replace most of it because of the pilot training program. "The Luftwaffe virtually destroyed the Armée de l'Air during the campaign and inflicted heavy losses to the RAF contingent that was deployed. It is estimated the French lost 1,274 aircraft destroyed during the campaign, the British suffered losses of 959 (477 fighters). The battle for France had cost the Luftwaffe 28% of its front line strength, some 1,428 aircraft destroyed. A further 488 were damaged, making a total of 36% of the Luftwaffe strength negatively effected"
Not to mention the human side problem as you might produce jets but you still need trained pilots which were very scarce supply in 1944/1945 for Germany and Japan.
Only slowly picking up this new Blitzkrieg concept that the Russian armies and the Allied did manage to gain advantage then of course quantity of material and man did the rest.
|
|
|
|
