Which country really had the best tech in WWII?

[Vanoi]

and even they could bring out a terrifyingly good piston aircraft with the Zero

The Zeor was good, but it had its own weaknesses that were exploited.

[Stavroforos]

@OP

There was nothing fantastic about the T-34 beyond it's strategic value. Tactically it was vastly underperforming piece of equipment outclassed even by the M4.

T-34 was easily the best tank in the world in 1941 and 1942, so I wouldn't say it was vastly underperforming. Its main weaknesses were poor utilization in the early war and no radios.

Every country had their own strength of weaknesses, but the Japanese were probably the most behind in technology (excluding China) during the war.

Japanese did build the world's greatest battleship (at least if it had as good radar as US ships), but that doesn't really matter.

and even they could bring out a terrifyingly good piston aircraft with the Zero

Zero was a great plane for the early war but it was quickly outclasses. Japan built and designed some great new planes, but there simply wasn't the capability to produce them in large numbers.

[Cyclops]

"Best tech" is a pretty vague term. Are we talking reliable low cost tech that gives bang for buck? T34s ftw. At we talking insane cutting edge weapons with zero chance of winning the war that consume all available cookies but are uber cool? V1 and V2 take a bow.

The US had the tech and money to split the atom, once the international community supplied the theory. The UK and US nutted out myriad problems to make Overlord possible. The UK unscrambled Enigma with a mixture of intel and brilliance.

I think all nations applied their tech as best they could, but the US had the most schools, the most money and created more tech solutions than anyone else. They ran a two front war across vastly different theatres requiring heaps of innovation because they weren't ready for a lot of what happened and still pulled it off. I don't think of the US as a warlike nation, but they kicked serious arse in WWII and I think that's because they applied their tech to make unwarlike people into a military machine.

[Vanoi]

Japanese did build the world's greatest battleship (at least if it had as good radar as US ships), but that doesn't really matter.

The Japanese were innovative in some ways like still being able to make aircraft that could match even the best Allied aircraft, but largely their tech was old and obsolete. Or their designs was just poor, like their LMG that only has 30 rounds.

[hellheaven1987]

like their LMG that only has 30 rounds.

Your BAR only has 20 rounds.

[Vanoi]

Your BAR only has 20 rounds.

BAR was more of an automatic rifle. America also had the M1919 Browning. The problem with Japan's MGs wasn't also just its magazine size but the bullets that lacked penetration power as well.

[hellheaven1987]

America also had the M1919 Browning.

So did Japanese had Type 92.

[Caelifer_1991]

We've all heard this before; the layman's argument is that the Germans generally had the best tech in WWII due to some pretty flashy tanks, jet fighters, state of the art assault rifles, machine guns, and space age V-weapons. Except, upon further analysis, we know that during the Blitzkrieg for example, Jerry was still using horse and buggy!

Honestly, given who actually had developed radar, Katyusha rockets, assembly-lines, Japanese Zeros, Norton bomb-sites, enigma decoders, B-29s, T-34 tanks, or atomic bombs, I think most countries were actually probably pretty even in tech (except maybe for Italian bi-planes), where claiming Germany to have most of the advanced stuff is just flat out lazy history.

So, what's the real truth? We can separate this to land, air, and sea tech if need be, but I honestly don't believe the Germans ever had (flat-out) the best tech.

All I will say is that I agree with you, and that the layman's version of history is a lazy version of history indeed. The Germans were definitely ahead in my field of expertise though (rocketry), even if their early rocket program was infact really far more crude than most people would expect (their "ignition system" being that of some brave lad throwing a flaming rag into a hole and promptly running away before the pumps are activated comes to mind).

[DarthShizNit]

Or their designs was just poor, like their LMG that only has 30 rounds.

[Tankfriend]

Why did the magazine on the Bren end up on the top, anyway?

[SLN445]

The only thing i could find on the Bren having its magazine ontop was to allow the gunner to get down low on the ground.

[Hresvelgr]

So did Japanese had Type 92.

Which wasn't very good, although I want to point out that their LMG having 30 rounds wasn't a weakness either, it was based on the same gun as the Brits' Bren which was very effective in its role as a squad weapon. Regardless, the Japanese and the Italians made some very bad machine-guns throughout the war, though I think Italy's stand out as being the worst. On the other hand I've heard Italian aircraft were more advanced than Japan's and generally well-regarded throughout the world.

[Stavroforos]

Which wasn't very good, although I want to point out that their LMG having 30 rounds wasn't a weakness either, it was based on the same gun as the Brits' Bren which was very effective in its role as a squad weapon. Regardless, the Japanese and the Italians made some very bad machine-guns throughout the war, though I think Italy's stand out as being the worst. On the other hand I've heard Italian aircraft were more advanced than Japan's and generally well-regarded throughout the world.

Later Italian yeah definitely. Early war planes weren't that good, mid-war were good planes but poor armament, but later war planes were by all accounts pretty great, equal of the P-51 and such. The "5" series, the MC 205, Fiat G.55 and Reggiane R.2005

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

In my opinion Italy isn't given enough credit for their aviation (some fairly good planes like the Sagitarrio for instance). Italy is of course also known as a maritime power of that period despite much of their naval technology not actually being that good. Italy was also relatively decent at desert warfare and some of their light armour was quite good (such as the Sahariana).

[SLN445]

Whenever i think of Italy, their Bombers come to mind.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Whenever I think of Italy I think of aviation which spanned since their war with the Ottomans at the least. Not that Italy always put their air force to good use but I have to credit them with something. That and being one of the few countries to carry out extensive counter insurgency wars in the desert and putting tanks and planes to use in that capacity (the other ones being the French in Morocco and Syria and the British in the Middle East during and after WW1). It is interesting to note that most of the Italian planes in use during the Italian-Ottoman War were of German make and during WW1 they used mostly French planes. I'm really not sure when the Italians started to manufacture their own airplanes but I would make a guess that Fascism might have had a hand in pushing that.

[Tankfriend]

This is a toughie indeed. By the last year I'd definitely say UK/France (and Italy/Japan fighting for 3/4th place); they were the war winning models that everybody else adopted. Go back about a year orjust a few months and the Germans shoot up massively, possibly into the lead or at least the "Big Three" competing with Britain and France. Starting out I'd probably say it would be a fight between Britain and Germany with Japan as an honorable mention.

So ultimately I would probably have to say the UK, though against some very tense competition.

Which time period and war are you referring to here? Because citing France as one of the top dogs in technology for the last year of World War 2 doesn't make much sense.

Italy was also relatively decent at desert warfare and some of their light armour was quite good (such as the Sahariana).

Their self-propelled guns/tank destroyers - the Semovente models - were also pretty solid designs. Probably even the best AFVs that Italy had to offer out of all their designs.

[Stavroforos]

Which time period and war are you referring to here? Because citing France as one of the top dogs in technology for the last year of World War 2 doesn't make much sense.

Their self-propelled guns/tank destroyers - the Semovente models - were also pretty solid designs. Probably even the best AFVs that Italy had to offer out of all their designs.

Also, UK was definitely one of the most advanced countries, if not the most advanced country, when it came to high tech stuff, such as radar, radio, decryption, etc., and this was true throughout the war especially in the night bombing tit-for-tat with Germany.

[SPECTREtm]

T-34 was easily the best tank in the world in 1941 and 1942, so I wouldn't say it was vastly underperforming. Its main weaknesses were poor utilization in the early war and no radios.

Actually it's main weakness stems from the poorly designed 2 man turret that provided inferior FCS and situtational awareness compared to what the inferior German tanks had. This meant that the Germans could both get closer and fire more rounds at it, than it could return - with disastrous consequences. Between 1941 and 1942 the Soviets lost around 8800 T-34 (both operational and combat losses, with around half presumably to combat).

Sure, it had better armor (sloped), and a more powerful gun, but the system was so poorly designed that none of this actually gave it an advantage over the inferior, non-sloped, smaller gun German tanks. Interestingly more than 50% of T-34 combat losses were to the 50mm cannon.

Anyway I might as well direct you here:

[Stavroforos]

Actually it's main weakness stems from the poorly designed 2 man turret that provided inferior FCS and situtational awareness compared to what the inferior German tanks had. This meant that the Germans could both get closer and fire more rounds at it, than it could return - with disastrous consequences. Between 1941 and 1942 the Soviets lost around 8800 T-34 (both operational and combat losses, with around half presumably to combat).

Sure, it had better armor (sloped), and a more powerful gun, but the system was so poorly designed that none of this actually gave it an advantage over the inferior, non-sloped, smaller gun German tanks. Interestingly more than 50% of T-34 combat losses were to the 50mm cannon.

Anyway I might as well direct you here:

It was still a superior tank to the Pz II, III, and early IVs that were in the first phases of Barbarossa. It was by no means a perfect tank and as you say it had a very poor turret and operating layout. Combine this with the sorry state of Soviet leadership, tactics, and skills in 1941, then it becomes clear why the Germans were able to dominate them with their vastly superior training and coordination and better crew layout. The layout of the T-34 was a flaw, but I have no doubt that with German-caliber crews and radios it would have vastly outperformed the Germans. Don't forget that the many advantages of its designs were fully appreciated by the Germans, who quickly accelerated their own designs. I don't think anyone would say that the T-34 was the world's best tank from 1943 onwards, but it was certainly a contender early in the war.