Which country really had the best tech in WWII?

[Vanoi]

So did Japanese had Type 92.

Which still didn't have as many rounds as the .30cal nor was portable for infantry on the ground like the Browning .30cal.

30-rounds MGs are worthless in my opinion. There is a reason after the war the Soviet Union and America went on after to develop MGs like the RPD, RPK, and the M60. 30 rounds isn't enough.

[Turtler]

@Tankfriend

I feel like a moron, because it was late at night and I thought this said "of WWI." So nevermind me.

Anywaaaay.... on the subject of the real WWII, I'd say by the end it's a tug of war between the Americans, British, and Soviet Union, but I would almost certainly give it to the US by dint of the sheer magnitude of what they did and were doing across all the areas (the Shermans were on the verge of obsolescence, they had built up a navy that would rival/overturn the Royal Navy, et cetera). Every combatant had undergone some kind of transformation before the end, but I legitimately doubt any had done it as thoroughly as the American war machine in just about every single way; while it wasn't necessarily the best in every single way (in particular it was at a disadvantage against the Red Army in terms of armor until it got its' own heavies/Main Battle Tanks online and in Europe/etc after the war) it Was a competitor in every single way. Including a monopoly on the Atomic bomb

Which says something. And since the Western Allies had people ride each others' coattails in order to help catch up, almost all of the other Western Allied forces clung onto it

Starting off, I would say the Germans, British, French, and Japanese were the main competitors;while yes the Italians were innovators in both air, sea, and desert warfare time was passing them by due to their failure to upgrade equipment Which Heavily disqualifies them from the subjects of this thread. The Japanese were the oddballs of the lot, since they were innovating in a lot of ways but not necessarily innovating in a lot of ways that were *Actually Good or Effective.*But two of the most obvious places where they were was simple: seapower and airpower. While the Japanese doctrine and approach to both was somewhat quirky it worked very well in the early war, easily the equal of any other power in technological shipbuilding and with an airpower approach that was both competent and experienced. There were major, glaring flaws with both areas of design but they wouldn't be fully exploited until later, and at the time Japan entered the war and somewhat after it was still quite industrious about it. Their intel work also deserves props.

But everywhere else, their approach is a lot more dubious. Starting with the fact that their intel gathering was a lot better than their intel protection and going from there (as the story of Pacific Theater cryptography shows). They were still innovating in the small arms department but they were doing it in a rather incremental and dubious way that did not in any way deal with the core problems: their small arms were Bleeepping underpowered and massively overcomplicated. And the attempts to make upgrades to what they had fell apart over Imperial Japanese Military infighting. The same can be said for their artillery and other material. Logistics was outright terrible for them, since they lacked not only trucks and APCs but even the sophisticated approach to animal transport the main WWI powers had developed (like Germany, Britain, etc).

In terms of armor it... honestly isn't that damning for the early war. The tanks they had were fast fading into obsolescence and were already leaning towards being underpowered in the early war era much like the Italians. But in terms of what they were facing (the Chinese) they fit the purpose they were meant to do. The big problem is that the Japanese didn't just plan to use these to crush Chinese resistance; they planned to use them in their greater imperial wars with the USSR and the West. That was not kosher, and the Soviets gave a great demonstration of it by smashing their armor multiple times. So like the Italians of WWII, the machines were passable for the time but going fast, and there wasn't corresponding research to deal with it.

What was worse was their lack of *capacity* for technological R&D, whether through inability to do it or refusal. Which is why they're only worth talking about in the early war because afterwards their technological standing drops like a rock and never gets back.

The British and French are two I believe people really underestimate technologically in the interwar/early war period. Yes, much of it was based off of what they already had and yes it was based around a retake of WWI to a large degree, but that didn't make them backwards; their main weakness by far was doctrinal, tactical, and leadership. Not technological. Their main armor were the equals of the Germans (if not better) in most respects, their arms ranged from decent (the Lebel...) to excellent (most of the British infantryman's kit, the 1897 Cannon, etc). And so on. Technologically, I do think their biggest weakness was inertia; they developed a lot of bad designs or obsoletes and they just let them hang around without cycling them out or otherwise making room for more adequate equipment their limited manpower could use. Which was why the French armored forces included both the excellent Char B1 series and the horrendously obsolete FT-17s.

That coupled with a horrid misreading of their enemies, dovish approach to war, and equipment that amplified the non-technological flaws was what really did them in. And after the Fall of France the pace and capaibility for them to technologically advance on their own got crippled, making them lean more and more on American industry.

The Germans are probably the poster boy for early war technological edge, and with some good reasons. But I do think their crucial advantages came through the doctrine, tactics, and leadership; but they still couldn't have done that if their technology was bad. Still, it's worth noting that the Germans suffered from many of the same kinds of problems their enemies did in terms of designing and above all assigning technology; they were just able to handle them better on the whole starting out. In terms of infantry weapons their gear was excellent, from the passable/above average Kar98k, the excellent MG34, and the decent stick grenade onwards. The top tier of their armor (the Panzer IVs and IIIs) were at least good, and their air designs saw a lot of promise as support craft. And the pioneering they did in submarines remained.

But what many people overlook is just how fundamentally handicapped the Heer was in many ways. Their vaunted armor corps in particular ahd most of its' tanks be vastly underpowered for most of the pre-war and interwar periods. Most of their best tanks in the 1938-39 area had to be stolen wholesale from the Czechs, and the vaunted Panzer III they expected would sort out their problems turned out to be too underpowered and impossible to upgrade by the time it came. Meaning it wasns't until they shifted the Panzer IV to the center of their doctrine that they rectified that. The air force was pigeonholed into being a pure support role for the ground forces, making it weak if it tried/had to go it alone. And the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet- for all of its' novel innovations- proved to be an expensive white elephant.

They were able to overcome these problems- tot he extent they did- through better leadership and adaptability; they were happy to outright steal better designs when they saw them, they identified and tried to fix problems, and they largely played to their own strengths for the early part of the war. They were also the main Axis power to actually retain independent R&D capability . But that didn't change the fact that they were fundamentally weakened.

The Poles get an honorable early war mention for their cryptography, but that was more or less it in terms of technological advances.

As the midwar dragged in, the Soviet Union restarted its' climb to technical competence, the Japanese started out strong but plummeted, the US had to get a running start from more or less nothing and joined Britain and Germany. Who kepttrying to one up each other. With the latter probably being stronger in straight up military R&D, but the Anglo-Americans had a very strong edge in the other areas. Intelligence gathering, mass production, combined arms firepower, and logistics. Which more or less gave us the main powers for the majority of the war.

But as time went on the growth of the Germans stagnated for various reasons, and that of their enemies- especially the US- ballooned astronomically even given Germany's focus. So overall I would probably still say the US.

[Markas]

30-rounds MGs are worthless in my opinion. There is a reason after the war the Soviet Union and America went on after to develop MGs like the RPD, RPK, and the M60. 30 rounds isn't enough.

Well the Bren was manufactured for seventy years or so and is still has some use despite belt-fed MG's being available, so it must be doing something right. In the Malaya emergency they were preferred over the GPMG as they were lighter, easier to set up and rugged, which helped in the jungle conditions, and 40 commando during the Falklands had them in addition to a GPMG due to the former's accuracy.

[Stavroforos]

Well the Bren was manufactured for seventy years or so and is still has some use despite belt-fed MG's being available, so it must be doing something right. In the Malaya emergency they were preferred over the GPMG as they were lighter, easier to set up and rugged, which helped in the jungle conditions, and 40 commando during the Falklands had them in addition to a GPMG due to the former's accuracy.

If they're using them for their accuracy, I'm assuming they're using them more as an assault rifle. In-fact, given it's slow rate of fire and high accuracy, this would make sense, would it not?

[Markas]

If they're using them for their accuracy, I'm assuming they're using them more as an assault rifle. In-fact, given it's slow rate of fire and high accuracy, this would make sense, would it not?

In the Falklands the FN FALS of the British did not have an automatic fire selection (unlike the Argentinians, who did have the auto version), so the Bren added some needed RoF. I'd say it was still in it's LMG role in that conflict at least.

[SPECTREtm]

It was still a superior tank to the Pz II, III, and early IVs that were in the first phases of Barbarossa.

Yes, on paper it was a superior tank. Yet this superior tank did suffer losses on a scale that makes it ridiculous to suggest that it was all down to difference in crew and tactics - not design philosophy.

[Hresvelgr]

Which still didn't have as many rounds as the .30cal nor was portable for infantry on the ground like the Browning .30cal.

30-rounds MGs are worthless in my opinion. There is a reason after the war the Soviet Union and America went on after to develop MGs like the RPD, RPK, and the M60. 30 rounds isn't enough.

30-round MGs were perfectly adequate in the context of WW2, when used properly. There was at least one Bren-gunner to every squad whereas the medium machine guns you're comparing them to would've been distributed roughly one to a platoon IIRC. The Brits had the Vickers serve that role and it was belt-fed and served about as well as the Browning and so on. The Type 92 was pretty bad in that it was a rather large and heavy machine gun that had only 30 rounds, but even worse it had a low rate of fire and was prone to jamming, so rounds were oiled up which made them collect dirt and sand and grime and make it even more prone to jamming. For some reason Japanese and Italian machine-guns in general had that problem. The Italians' medium machine gun in that war had the same problems as the Type 92 but exaggerated in some regards, it was fed from a 20-round strip and was even more tedious to both load and unload the gun, as the spent casings were unloaded back into the clips and the gunner's assistant had to pick them out.

[Thorn777]

Germany. Even had remote controlled Dynamite tanks. They sunk in the marches of Leningrad though.

[Wulfburk]

^ Which were completely useless and a waste of resources and tech.

[Hresvelgr]

Germany. Even had remote controlled Dynamite tanks. They sunk in the marches of Leningrad though.

Soviets had full-size remote control tanks. There really isn't any legitimate reason to believe Germans were the most high-tech people in the war, it's all a bunch of pop-cultural nonsense that reinforces itself. The vaunted German nightvision wasn't unique either, both the Americans and Soviets had it and the Americans used nightvision in combat on just as large a scale if not larger than Germany. Even their esoteric superweapon blueprints fell a bit flat. Germans were obsessing over how to build bigger cannons. Americans split atoms to unleash the power of nuclear fission.

[Tankfriend]

^ Which were completely useless and a waste of resources and tech.

Like the Soviet suicide dogs...

Americans split atoms to unleash the power of nuclear fission.

The Germans also had a nuclear program. Even though they didn't get anywhere near as far as the US did, the US weren't the only ones to try.

[Hresvelgr]

The Germans had a nuclear program because they belatedly realized we were on to something, they initially rejected nuclear physics altogether as a "Jew science", in addition to driving away many of the scientists who'd contribute to the American program. The Japanese probably made just as much progress on the nuke as the Germans did and yet nobody calls them the most technological nation of the 1940's.

[conon394]

The Germans had a nuclear program because they belatedly realized we were on to something, they initially rejected nuclear physics altogether as a "Jew science", in addition to driving away many of the scientists who'd contribute to the American program. The Japanese probably made just as much progress on the nuke as the Germans did and yet nobody calls them the most technological nation of the 1940's.

The Germans and Japanesss did not colaborate much to the extent they did it harmed Japanese efforts. The Germans were confident thay were in the lead and also had a really poor theoretical basis for building a A-bomb. Like I said they did really share with Japan expect they were convinced that it could not be done any realistic time frame and even than not be weaponized easily. As such Japan which had some good people and ideals never funded their program at at anything above a shoestring level and than its key labs and scientists got incinerated in Tokyo in 43/44 if I recall corectly.

[Vanoi]

^ Which were completely useless and a waste of resources and tech.

I'll point out that the world was dividing up Germany's scientists after WW2 for a reason.

[humble]

I'll point out that the world was dividing up Germany's scientists after WW2 for a reason.

Yes. The reason was German was totally defeated.

[Mangalore]

I would say in the western Hemosphere any technological advance had always been temporary and elusive for more than 200 years. Germany wasn't more or less advanced but in the end there were plainly more people and resources stacked against her and the Nazis did manage to drive away a lot of smart people draining her own capacities. Building a jet or a nuke was more a question of resources assigned to it than the theoretical knowledge about it or the underlying engineering necessary to build it.

To me something like the Me262 is mainly interesting in that it was a platform capable to shred a four engine bomber to bits because it could carry heavier armament. That might have been the way it might have changed the air war. Not because it was completely superior to other fighters but because it became easier to deal with those sturdy and resiliant bombers flying in massive formations simply because it could get the speed and armament together that gave it a better chance than prior fighters which had to trade capabilities to fight.

[Vanoi]

Yes. The reason was German was totally defeated.

Yes i am sure it had nothing to do with the extensive knowledge German scientists had on rocket technology.

[Enros]

I'll say the Western Allies, simply because they were the only ones who accepted what the scientific method told them without question. The USSR and several Axis nations suppressed many fields of science on ideological grounds, and closely monitored the science they did produce to make sure it conformed to the national ideology. In a total war where 100% of national resources are supposed to be devoted to defeating the enemy, this kind of ideological self-harm was insane.

[Stavroforos]

Yes i am sure it had nothing to do with the extensive knowledge German scientists had on rocket technology.

I bet you can't even name one rocket scientist who was instrumental in the US rocket program!

[humble]

Yes i am sure it had nothing to do with the extensive knowledge German scientists had on rocket technology.

Correct. It had nothing to do with any sceintific superiority and everything to do with the total defeat of every arm of the German military. Wunderwaffen X, Y and Z all failed to stave off defeat.