Who were technologically superior? The Axis or Allies in WW2? 

Two things: 1, yes I’m knackered again. I’ve been working almost constantly since my last break in November, and the last three videos were difficult to make, so I’m behind with next week’s Stalingrad video. I needed a quick and easy video to do this week, so this one is what it is. 2. Also, I’ve got a second video coming out this week. It’s on a topic that impacts the history videos I’ve been making, and I’ve been meaning to talk about it for months, but kept putting it off. I think many of you will find it useful, and I could do with some answers to the questions I pose at the end of that video, so please let me know.

Japan did have a few technologies that outclassed their American counterparts at least in the beginning of the Pacific War. Their Type 93 torpedo (long-lance) and A6M Zero were better than the American Mark 14 (even if it worked properly) and the Wildcat respectively. However, their ships were largely equivalent or inferior in terms of technology but were initially superior in terms of training and command. Eventually the Japanese were outclassed in pretty much every aspect (I would say around mid 1943).

The Germans rushed out new weapons with minimal field testing and sorting out production issues. The US was much more conservative in deploying new weapons with comprehensive testing to ensure battlefield effectiveness. That's why Sherman tanks had a 90% readiness rate and the Panthers were lucky to have a 50% readiness rate.

Hungary had a pretty good "submachinegun" in the Danuvia 39/43 series. It was huge and fired a very powerful 9x25 round. I say submachinegun in quotes because it was basically more of a light automatic carbine than an SMG. The round was powerful enough that it had to incorporate a lever-delay system rather than being purely blowback. Apparently, it was very well liked by the troops who used it. Sadly, Hungary only started producing this weapon in 1942, despite having access to it since '39.

italy had some decent planes and some really good naval assets, their naval tech was pretty good. Japan probably had the best torpedo tech in ww2 and some really good planes and naval assets.

Without Germany, the navies of Europe (including the British Royal Navy) would have been able to face the Japanese operations in the Pacific. (Fighting for their colonies) This would have allowed the US to push them back much earlier, I expect.

One thing I might be able to add is that Japanese armour plates were much inferior to basically all others (I am talking about battleship thickness here, not sure about tanks). Their steel industry used methods used by the British prior to WW1. One thing the Germans excelled at were submarines. Yes, people talk alot about the type XXI, but you don't have to look that far. The type VII was the workhorse for basically all of the war, and it performed admirably well. It was only the mass deployment of aircraft that broke the German wolfpacks (arguably they were too few in number to make a huge impact but nevertheless, but on the tactical level, the uboat was still a respectable enemy, although not nearly as scary as in WW1) Even today, Germany builds the quietest submarines in the world.

Bletchly Park is one, massive, technological advantage the Allies had for most of the war in the ETO.

One can speculate what did they have, that was managed to be covered up.

sorry to tell we had the Z1 to Z4 computer series in ww2

I think one of the most impressive and overlooked bits of allied tech was the proximity fuze used on anti-aircraft shells. Before that, fuzes had to be preset to a certain height or timer. They used them very sparingly though since they were afraid of them being stolen by the axis. Also Italy doesn’t get enough credit for their ships. Overall great video!

No matter who has a technology advantage, that advantage is useless if you cut off access to the required resources. For example, squeeze bore AT guns requiring cobalt, Jumo production jet engines being built of inferior materials because they didn't have enough cobalt and nickel, or tank armor needing molybdenum to avoid the brittleness issues later German tanks had to face.

I've already seen proximity fuses, radar and some other things from the Allies (mainly British inventions though), but British anti-submarine technology is also a very worthy mention. By '43-'44 they started making German subs just about obsolete. Very impressive feat in the Atlantic.

@TIKhistory, the Italians dropped their new M38 Carcano rifle because of logistical issues. The new rifle used a larger bullet which they thought was deadlier and they were in the process of converting existing rifles to take the new ammunition. They weren't able to complete the transition by the time they joined the war so to simplify logistics they went back to the older type, meaning some units had both types and consequently two different ammunition types to supply. Forgotten Weapons made a video about that entire situation if you're interested.

I think even if the axis had the superior tech, they did not have the resources to both make and use, as you have shown

Obviously germans! Source: Diary of lord and saviour Manstein AKA miracle man.

One of the most amazing bits of tech at the tactical level, just from a geek perspective? The B-29's defensive fire control system. It was way beyond "remote control turrets". It was a "fly by wire" control system, a decade plus before the concept had even started to be experimented with for airplane flight controls. You had a central computer, that received electrical signals from "Selsyn" sychro units at the gunner's sight head. The gunner aimed his optical sight at the target and tracked it. The sight sent elevation/azimuth/range signals to the computer from the Selsyns. The computer applied a half dozen or so correction factor schedules, using mix of electronics and motors and cams, representing true airspeed, pressure altitude, temperature, sight-to-turret parallax error, bullet trajectory, lead, etc., and operated the turret to point the guns, electronically, where the COMPUTER decided they should be pointed. The guns were never actually aligned where the sight was pointed, as you would have with a simple remote control system, but where the computer worked out they needed to be pointed to place bullets where the sight was calling for bullets to be placed. The gunner provided target data to the computer, a "request", and the computer did the pointing. That's little different from fly-by-wire flight controls. Then there was the VT proximity fuse, which help defeat the V1 and the Kamikaze.

Nuclear weapons automatically win this argument for the allies. I've always found it interesting to hear people talk about how Germany could've avoided defeat in May 1945. To paraphrase Citino, Germany would have just been the first country to get nuked if it had stayed in the war a few more months.

Axis superior in propulsion and rocketry. Allies superior in combat medicine, cryptography, mass production and nuclear weaponry. Allies win.

The Japanese Army pioneered several amphibious invasion ships of various designs. Most had well decks for landing ships, some also had flight decks for aircraft and autogyros. These were considered top secret weapons at the time of their development and were typically made from converted civilian vessels. They used a shell company to acquire to avoid arousing suspicion. These design principles have endured to the present in the USN's LHA amphibious assault ships.

Haven't seen anyone mention it yet; but the allies had the proximity fuse. These fuses were a force multiplier of several magnitudes to anti-aircraft and air burst artillery.

I heard this argument and I like it: The common idea that Germany should have produced tons of Panzer IVs with long guns instead of "unreliable" Tigers and Panthers doesn't really hold up, because Germany didn't have the personnel to man all these extra vehicles. It actually made more sense to produce bigger and better tanks that would protect the crew more and gave them more to work with.

The Japanese I400 Submarine was incredible. A submersible aircraft carrier which could quickly launch aircraft which could operate in special attacks on specific targets is very impressive. More of a tactical capability than anything but they even had an anacoa coating which is a stealth technology.

Germans: WE HAVE WUNDERWAFFEN ROCKETS Americans: Haha, atom go split

The Italians stopped using their new rifle because it was designed to be used at 200 m (short barrel and sights fixed at 200 m) and they were fighting in Africa at greater ranges so they went back to the old rifle with adjustible sights and longer barrel that was more suited to the longer ranges.

It would be nice to include the economic aspects of technology in the discussion. For example, you could argue that the P-38 with the proper engine and propeller upgrades would have been superior to the P-51; however, you could build two Mustangs for the same cost as one Lightening. German technology has the reputation of being over-engineered and difficult to produce, which negates any technical advantage. Similar to the British favoring production of 2-pounders over 6-pounders for economic reasons. If it costs too much to build it, or if it breaks down quickly in the field, is it really superior technology?

In my opinion, the myth of German technological superiority was convenient for the Allies both to cover up political and strategical mistakes (both Britain and the Soviets had a disastrous start into the war) as well as to glorify the later mop-up operations against a clearly outmatched enemy. That said, Germany (or rather Central Europe) actually was a major science and technology hub - before Nazi rule and the mass exodus of both Jewish and non-Jewish intellegentsia. Just look at famous physicists of the early 20th century: General Relativity - Einstein Quantum Physics: Heisenberg, Schrödinger Nuclear Fission: Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner. Their famous papers were all written in German. And a lot of the scientists that were integral to the Manhattan project had emigrated from Axis occupied territories, Enrico Fermi probably being the most famous example. When famous mathematician David Hilbert was asked by the Nazi Reich Minister for Science, Education, and Popular Culture if the formerly world-leading mathematical institute of his had really suffered so much from the departure of the Jews and their friends, he famously said: "Suffered? No, it hasn’t suffered, Mr. Minister. It simply doesn’t exist anymore!" So to summarize, Hitler and his closed-minded fascist bunch certainly did not make Germany more technologically and scientifically advanced, on the contrary. Still, Germany was at the cutting edge of technological and scientific development in the early 20th century, but that position certainly had nothing to do with racial superiority and its proponents. Some of that advantage translated into wartime achievements, for example in rocketry. (And even in computer science, Germany made some advances: check Konrad Zuse's work).

Tik, I love that you tried to keep a brave face on Italy..lol. Not to mention that the Axis didn't know how to fight a real 'coalition warfare ' nobody shared intelligence. They distrusted each other profoundly. Zero real strategic direction in common, more of an accidental alliance than a true unified coalition with achievable objectives formulated by communication all the way to the top. Imagine a "Yalta Conference" with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo,(or the God Emporor). lol. Just the picture in my head makes me laugh.

Speaking of radios, the US SCR-300/SCR-536 combo made for a vastly better frontline radio net than what the Germans or Japanese were able to deploy. Also the US Army SCR-584 was an absolute world beater fire control radar.

When discussing German army tech development, we must always take into account that they were developed with the resource crisis in mind. So, Germany was "Theoretically superior" as they had some nice designs but couldn't build them to their full potential. I believe that the main cause of the Engine and final drive problems in the Panther and Tiger were due to the Germans having to produce machinery without access to many rare metals and chemicals, not because the Germans didn't know how to build an engine. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Britain was ahead of the Germans by about 2 years with air to air radar; with centimetric radar (the Germans eventually copied the magnetron but never deployed it); with alloys for jet engines. Oh and antibiotics. Japan had the Long Lance torpedo and the Zero ( a winner early on).

Guderian at a time had admitted that the T34 is probably the best design armor he ever witnessed ( directly in the field looking at a T34 wreck) with their excellent sloped armor. Who ever care about the importance of a sloped armor other the russian in 1940 ? Even the americans are not fully awared of the importance. They poorly / badly dismiss the genius cristy suspension so in the end the russian snatched the cristies suspensions that works very well compared the volute spring put on later sherman A3s. So i think the west is better for tank mobility, radar, submarine radar ( US and british subs are much better then the germans uboats in terms of this ), and excellent mass product items to kill the enemy like the excellent ppsh sub MG invented by the russian. So the russian invented the sloped armor, US creates a working factory mass production system and aircraft engines for the heavy bombers and the successfull P51 B and D airframe which eventually beats the axis both pacific and europe. And the most importantly as a blue ocean force the brits and US between 1941 and 1945 had better battleships and cruisers compared to german and italy ( with japan as an execption as their Navy is superior to US and brits at the beginning of WWII ) and i think better submarine then the germans uboat and italy's poorly made submarines (once again except the japs subs as japs subs is very powerful and large and much better then the west with a properly WORKING torpedoes unlike the poorly designed mark 14, ironicly they dont developed a good subs force as a major hunting force like the US did earlier in the war hence they were much successful and produce alot of sub aces like the germans did ). So as a whole the west is much more advance in terms of practicallity., ease of production, in some global tactics (more local approach imho ROMMEL wins on this, too brilliant then monty poor performance at every theatre with middle east and market garden as a DISASTER, and sacrificing the irish and scottish too much for his own ego ), radars, supplies, merchant shippings yard, and AIR supremacy ( who built the excellent C47s, willys jeeps, T34 robust light-weight alumunium block diesels engines, the reliable US cckw trucks, the best kontra-intelligences and Mosquitos the wooden wonder ), as a whole macro estetics the west wins. The only thing axis could fight this is because germans is at war, and they have Plus knowledge at rheinmetall how to make excellent gun barrels and breech system to produce high muzzle velocity to destroy aircraft at hights ( eventually beingused againts armor by coincidence ) and AT Guns....almost.everything with barrels. Lastly the human resources. Germans.wons this at the beginning of the war and lost it in mid 1942 on air, ground and sea to russia brits the US. Knights, do not forget the SUOMI sub machine guns from the Finns. Its as good as the Stg44 in all terms including long range accuracy. Because of this gun the russian were knocked out.

Hi TIK, just wanted to explain why the Italians went back to old bolt action M18/91 Carcano rifle instead of the new modern Carcano M19/38 ( which is considered one of the best bolt action rifles of the war) the reason is not surprising at all, Italy's poor industry. When the new rifle came out it used a brand new 7.35 x 51 mm rifle round while the old rifle used the 6.5 x 52 mm round, however the Italian industry was so bad that they literally couldn't produce mass quantities of the new round for the new rifles to replace the old ones (this also caused logistical problems due to units being equipped with old and new rifles), so after a couple of years the Italians were forced to abandon the rifle, although their was limited manufacturing of it.

Japan had arguably the best torpedo of the war. They did produce the Arisaka which was very good. And their cruisers and destroyers were pretty good. Their carriers were good in some respects and poor in others. I would say technologically they were fairly on par with the US and British, but had severe logistical and economic issues, ie raw materials for making steel and eventually fuel oil.

The Italian had some decent fighters and navy, that’s a start, as for the Romanians they had the IAR 80/81 and other variants of it which was a decent fighter until 1943 onward when they didn’t upgrade it anymore and lacked behind, and other smaller projects, tanks ( for example the tank maresal)and planes, in terms of ships Romania didn’t had a great deal of it, a few submarines and ships but mainly that’s it, Hungary had some tank variants which were somewhat decent at the beginning of the war like the Turan but later in the battle were crushed by the Russian t34 and kv’s and IS’s

*There is a myth that the Germans were way ahead of the British in jet engines and planes in WW2, when the opposite is true.* The WW2 German jet engines were extremely unreliable with low performances and very high fuel consumption. The German *axial-flow* turbojets never worked properly being developed up to 1953 by the French to obtain a usable engine. The French lost a lot of time playing around with the German engines, instead of working with the British. The French and Soviets after WW2 attempted to improve the German axial-flow engines largely failing. The British in order to get a usable and reliable jet engine, with the technology of the time, went for a *centrifugal* design rather than the troublesome axial-flow design. This design produced less thrust than an axial-flow but was quicker to develop and reliable. It took 5 months to develop, while the first _reliable_ axial-flow engine was the 1950 Rolls Royce Avon, which took 5 years to get right. In 1945 the French made and tested some German designed turbo jets made with quality steel unavailable to German industry in WW2. They ran for 25 hours instead of 10 hours to the Germans engines that used poor quality steel. Not much better. The German axial-flow engines failed because of heavy design faults. The centrifugal compressor used by the first British Meteor plane was fine being much more reliable, but unable to reach high compression ratios. This limited performances. Centrifugal compressors were used up to the 1960s. In 1945 the team from the French ATAR laboratory plus some BMW and Junkers engineers, were engaged by the French SNECMA research bureau, with the objective to built a new reliable with performance axial-flow turbojet. The BMW 003/Jumo004 was considered unusable. It was tested on the first French jet aircraft, the 1946 So6000 Triton, overheating and exploding. The plane only flew with a Rolls Royce Nene centrifugal turbojet. The ATAR project took 6 years to produce the first acceptable axial-flow turbojet (ATAR 101 B1), produced in 1953. So eight years research & developments by the French using the German jet engines as the base. It was installed on the first French jet fighter, the Dassault Ouragan. The French lost a lot of time because the German jets had poor efficiency with some concept fails. Essentially in the combustion chambers and fresh air circulation to reduce the external temperature of the engine. The BMW jet was known for overheat problems which precluded fuselage installation. The question at the end of WW2 was what is the most efficient way to produce jet fighters. The answer is clearly not adopting the German design of engine and fuselage. The build costs for a jet engine were much higher than a piston engine, with the fuel consumption near 3x. The centrifugal compressor the British adopted in some planes was the best choice with 1944-45 technology, more compression pressure was not an advantage when the hot turbine was unable to resist higher temperatures. The German turbojets had big overheat problems as the engine would not work in an enclosed fuselage for single engined fighters. This defect was immediately noted by the French on the 1946 "SO 6000 Triton" prototype, and by the Soviets on the 1946 Mig 9. The Soviets quickly replaced the BMW 004B2 by the centrifugal Rolls Royce Nene which worked without problems, dismissing the BMW engine for fighter planes. The Rolls Royce Nene was copied to the last nut by the USSR being installed in the Mig 15 being used effectively in the Korean war. About 10 years ago the USSR eventually paid royalties to Rolls Royce. The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced. The 262 was slightly faster than the Meteor F3, but extremely unreliable. *The British would never put into the sky such an undeveloped plane as the me262.* the Me262 and Meteor were leagues apart in safety and reliability. The British could have had a jet fighter operational in 1941, but it would have been as bad as the me262. The Germans advanced R&D on jets after they interrogated captured British RAF men. They learned the British were advanced in jet technology actually flying prototype planes. Until then the Germans had no intention of mass producing jet planes. The rushed together Me262 started _claiming_ kills on 26 July 1944. However the supposed _kill_ was a Mosquito reconnaissance plane that had a fuselage cap blown off in a quick fast manoeuvre, which flew on landing in Italy. The Meteor claimed its first V1 kill a few days later on the 4 August 1944. *But the Meteor was a proper fully developed jet plane, not a thrown together desperate effort as the me262 was.* The me262 fuselage was similar to a piston plane with the pilot over the wings obscuring downward vision, while the Meteor was a proper new design fuselage specifically for jet fighters with a forward of the wings pilot position with superior vision, as we see today. The cockpit was very quiet. The high tail was not to impede the rear jet thrust. The sweptback wings of the me262 were to move the engines further back for better weight distribution, not for aerodynamic reasons as is thought the case. The 262 balancing problem would be exasperated when firing the guns as the weight of the bullets exiting suddenly made the the air-frame unbalanced. There were *five* turbojet engines in the UK under R&D in WW2: ▪ *Centrifugal,* by Whittle (Rover); ▪ *Centrifugal,* by Frank Halford (DeHaviland); ▪ *Axial-flow,* by Metro-Vick; ▪ *Axial-flow* by Griffiths (Rolls Royce); ▪ *Axial flow compressor, with reverse flow combustion chambers.* The ASX by Armstrong Siddley; Metro-Vick sold their jet engine division to Armstrong Siddley. The Metro-Vick engine transpired into the post war Sapphire. Most American engines in the 1940s/50s were of UK design, many made under licence. The US licensed the J-42 (RR Nene) and J-48 (RR Tay), being virtually identical to the British engines. US aircraft used licensed British engines powering the: P-59, P-80, T-33, F9F Panther, F9F-6 Cougar, FJ Fury 3 and 4, Martin B-57 Canberra, F-94 Starfire, A4 Skyhawk and the A7 Corsair. The US General Electric J-47 turbojet was developed by General Electric in conjunction with Metropolitan Vickers of the UK, who had already developed a 9-stage axial-flow compressor engine licensing the design to Allison in 1944 for the earlier J-35 engine first flying in May 1948. The centrifugal Rolls Royce Nene is one of the highest production jet engines in history with over 50,000 built.

Frankly if you want to look at something Germany did REALLY well its sheet steel stamping. Complex machinery to take just a piece of stock sheet steel and make complex shapes in no time instead of milling away metal. Sturmgewehr stampings are beautiful and outclass the basic stampings on the peacetime made AK.

As an aircraft guy, I’d suggest that the Japanese Mitsubishi Zero was a very potent fighter in 1940 and would go so far to say that it would have presented a pretty big headache to the RAF in the Battle of Britain, had it seen service there. It might have lacked in armour protection when compared with later war German and Allied machines but people don’t tend to realise that in 1940, self sealing fuel tanks and heavy armour were fairly rare on contemporary types too. The Bf-109’s major weakness - range, was not a problem for the Zero and had the Luftwaffe operated Zeros during the BoB, their loiter time and ability to escort bombers over great distances would have been very difficult to counter. They could out-turn Spitfires and Hurricanes, had a respectable climb rate and a decent service ceiling, and they had both powerful armament and fairly plentiful ammunition. Its weakness lay in its lack of development potential and Japan’s inability to keep up with engine design and manufacturing was mostly to blame but in 1940, that wasn’t so much of an issue.

The answer isn't exclusive, each learnt to adapt from each other depending on circumstances including the Russians and Japanese. As one advanced the other learnt to combat the advantage whilst gaining their own different branch, which is then countered etc.

Amazing video, don't forget the British (mostly American produced) proximity fuse, massively useful in anti-aircraft and artillery warfare

With the case of the stg44 i would say the American M1 carbine is pretty similar in a lot of ways they have a similar practical effective range of around 300 yards, similar effects on soft tissue, similar weights and similar handling characteristics. While the STG was probably superior, there's a reason that the M1 carbine was still used in such large numbers so far after the end of WWII.

The Japanese A6M Zero fighter bomber was considered the best and more advanced carrier based fighter plane worldwide in the eatly stages of WW2. It had superior range, speed and maneuverability than any other fighter at the time. It was less armored and lacked self sealing tanks but had a superior design and was made of a top secret aluminum based alloy. Japanese pilots were instructed to destroy their fallen Zero planes to keep them from falling into enemy hands because they were considered top secret technologically advanced weapons...

In regards to your comments about the StG 44, there were quite a few produced, about 425,000. Not an enormous number by WWII standards, but small arms weren't going to win the war anyway. For comparison, about 400,000 MG 42s were produced. Speaking of which, the MG 34 and MG 42 were superior to anything the allies had for infantry base of fire. The MG 42 derived MG 3 is still in service today.

On one hand you have nukes but on the other you have modern warfare with SAMs, jet aircraft, space rockets, assault rifles, cruise missiles, electric submarines, helicopters and more.

I don't think there's ever a real answer to such a debate. The allies pioneered certain technologies whilst the Germans pioneered others. Had Germany not been in a major land war, or defeated the USSR early on. Then they would have been able to spare the 100,000 men that scientific projects required to be mass produced and effective. Instead of just a handful of dodgy but impressive prototypes.

Would also add that Japan had arguably the best infantry mortars and the Italian mini-subs and their Beretta SMGs were also top class.

The Allies get my vote. The cavity magnetron, variable time proximity fuzes, radar-controlled naval gunfire, Betchley Park, IBM "bombes", anti-submarine warfare, the atom bomb... ...but then there are more prosaic things. Like the explosion in mass food production science.

I would bring up the heavy bomber advantage for the Allies. The fact is, Germany could not win a war against the two economic superpowers of the USA and USSR without the ability to damage their home base and industrial base. I think we could have eventually won the war entirely with nothing but B-29s at the massive scale they were being produced And no discussion of aircraft carriers, where again the Allies just went off the scale in terms of production vs anything the Axis could even dream of

One of the great inventions of the Americans, with a major impact, was the radio proximity fuze.

The Allies were able to develop anti-submarine technologies much faster than the Germans were able to counter them. The Allies won the Battle of the Atlantic because of it, and, possibly, the War.

I very much agree that technological superiority during WW2 was a limited factor Simply making sure your mechanized, tank and aircraft units could resist breakdowns as much as possible, and simplifying their prodcution so they could be made relatively easy to repair and replace were also significant. (These are also innovations Germany notoriously failed to implement)

Finland had Fire Correction Circle(Korjausmuunnin) that allowed finnish foward observers to utilize multiple batteries wihtout knowing themselves where the barrels were. This allowed finns to concentrace immence firepower. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Correction_Circle

The problem I have with so much of this "who is technologically superior" talk, is that so much stuff actually comes down to "who decided to push a concept into service first?" or "who went harder on a concept?". Things like the Tiger, the STG-44, Yamato and are not really technologically impressive for the time. They're impressive because someone actually decided to do it, and they stand in contrast with what else was around at the time. Anybody familiar with armour, firearms, or warships of the day would know these things could be achieved by any of the major powers *if they were motivated to pursue those avenues.* The examples of truly revolutionary, surprising, or genuinely difficult to achieve technologies are comparatively rare

Hi Tik, for over 20+ yrs of my life, I’ve always been a single voice when talking about a WWII what if scenario. As you’ve mentioned earlier abt the true adv of Germany over the Allie’s was primarily the earlier military mobilization, this was definitely true for the JPN invasions to China asides its superiority in military technology and total assets. My main point was: during the early stage of WW2, it merely took 2million of Germany’s army to counter most of Europe, but for the better part of that 8 yrs war between JPN and China, there were approximately 4M of JPN soldiers that were stuck in that part of mainland for both invasion and occupation. So, despite all of the negatives of Chiang Kai-shek (leader of the KMT and China), he did NOT surrender to the Japanese. Imagine had he surrendered during early 2-3 yrs into the war, and then if JPN was able to free up 1/2 of their military forces to joint attack Russia with Germany in a pincer fashion. Russia will fall way early in the war before the US could’ve mobilize in mass production. Has anyone ever in the past talked abt this theory with you or any of your previous researches? Thanks!

Proximity fuse on shells for allies, huge advantage especially in Pacific for anti air. Huge advantage in Radar as well in Pacific.

Hey Tik, I know you mentioned the main battle rifle, in the other end of the small arms spectrum you have a quite brilliant sub machine gun beretta m38. And I believe they were decently equipped in the naval department as well, with modern battleships, scubedivers etc, perhaps lacking aaa and radar.

With respect to tanks, don't forget if you are building a tank in the US, it has to be able to fit on a railcar and be of a standard size to be able to go over bridges and go through tunnels. It then has to be able to be lifted on to ship in a harbour so it can be transported across the ocean. It then has to removed from the ship and transported to the battle front. So it can only weigh so much. When the Germans built the Tiger, they found that it was too wide for some railway tunnels and flatcars. So the tracks had to be removed and special set installed fr transport.

The last assumption about WW1 is a little bit short sighted, only the perspective of the winner one might say. To give you the ability to understand the german view on the situation I will give an easily prove able timeline of the events to give anyone the ability to argue and establish a base, even if they did not read Christopher Clarks book and many other on that topic. The best short timeline I can give for the Juli-Crisis: 28th June 1914: assassination in Sarajevo 1thJuli 1914: Chief of Staff of the K.u.K. Army von Hötzendorf and foreign minister Berchtold discuss the issue of retaliatory actions against Serbia and come to the conclusion that this is only possible if Germany would cover their back against Russia. 1st-4th Juli 1914: The K.u.K. tries to persuade the german foreign ministry that war is imminent and not avoidable if Germany wants the K.u.K. monarchy and Austria as an ally in the future. The german foreign ministry, especially the ambassador to Vienna Heinrich von Tschirschky, tried to avoid war between Vienna and Belgrade because he foresees the upcoming grand conflict and it's potential. 5th Juli 1914: Kaiser Wilhelm II. turns the situation around, when fully informed about the situation and the positions of his own ambassador. He sees the russian backed Serbia and the panslavismus as a source of danger to the integrity of Austria and notes down on the report from Vienna: „Tschirschky soll gefälligst den Unsinn lassen! Mit den Serben muss aufgeräumt werden und zwar bald!“ - "Tschirschky shell stop this nonsense! There is a need to clear up with the Serbs and that soon!" Consequently still on the 5th K.u.K. legate Alexander Hoyos is informed that Germany will support the course of action of Vienna. 7th Juli: one day after Hoyos returned to Vienna the decision to send an unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia is taken by the austro-hungarian council of ministers. 7th/8th of Juli: In meetings of german chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg it is noted that due to the growing military and economic power of Russia a war would rather be winnable in 1914 then later and if the serbian question is not addressed Austria might turn to the Entente. 20th-23rd Juli: The french prime minister Renè Viviani and president Raymond Poincarè visit St.Petersburg and assure Russia of their full support and that they will not yield an inch to the Central powers demands to Serbia. 23rd Juli: The austro-hungarian ultimatum is send Belgrade, giving them 48 hours to comply. 24th Juli: Russian council of Ministers decrees to support Serbia and that they'd mobilize if necessary. 25th Juli: Serbia declines the ultimatum. The german government anew pressure on their ally to immediate discuss („umgehender Aussprache“) a peaceful solution. 26th Juli: Russia starts with first mobilization measures, these are instantly noted by Germany and Austria-Hungary and give the till then diplomatic conflict a first touch of military escalation. 28th Juli: Emperor Franz Joseph signs the declaration of war against the Kingdom of Serbia. 29th Juli: Russia partially mobilizes despite the warning from the german chancellor that this will most likely lead to Germany doing the same and entering the conflict. Bethmann-Hollweg notifies the british ambassador that Germany is about to attack France through Belgium and offers to guarantee belgian and french territorial integrity in Europe after the war if Britain would stay neutral. The british harshly declined and stated that this would be cause for war. After that Bethmann-Hollweg together with Wilhelm II. tried a deescalating course in pressuring Vienna to hold the advance after taking Belgrade ("Halt-in-Belgrad"-Plan), that failed due to the self evolving nature of the conflict. 30th Juli: Zar Nikolaus II. issues the general mobilization of the russian army. 31th Juli: Germany sends the ultimatum to Russia to reverse the mobilization order till 1st August 12am. 1st August: at 5pm Wilhelm II. issues general mobilization and declares war on Russia. (If nessesary I can extend this to a later date but for my purpose it should be enough) The assessments made in Germany: In traditional german military thinking since the napoleonic wars it has always been emphasized that it would not be possible to win a long war on two fronts due to the amount of troops and resources necessary to facilitate such a long conflict. -> the assumption is that a long war on two fronts must be prevented Neither France nor Russia can be kept out of the conflict due to french-russian declaration of mutual assistens on 23rd of Juli. ->one of them must be rapidly defeated if a victory shell be possible Russia has vast territories and like in the napoleonic wars it is not possible to defeat them fast (Memel-Moscow ~1130km), France on the other hand will always capitulate when the troops only march to the atlantic coast (Metz-Bordeaux ~780km). -> France must be the main target and rapidly defeated To defeat France their forces must be broken where they are not entrenched and weakest, since France also massed forces along the direct German border the breakthrough can not achieved in that mountainous and hilly region, that is ideal for the defense. -> Moving around that area and in a rapid advance marching in the open fields of northern France is favorable The area of Northern France can only be reached by not being bottleneck in a small corridor between Metz and Sedan that would give the danger of being encircled between the french troops and the Belgian Border. -> An offensive blow against France is only possible by violating belgian territory Belgian neutrality is guaranteed since 1839 by all european powers, that means Britain would be definitely drawn into the war if belgian territory is violated. -> A way to keep Britain neutral must be found or the war so fast decided that Britain can not bring the full force of its empire to bear Can Britain be kept neutral with guarantees? ->Obviously not, look at the 29th of Juli. ---->If GB can not be kept out of the war, Germany must strike hard and deal deadly blows in a row to even forge a position of strength to have a chance to succeed in the long run. What would have been if Germany never attacked Belgium? Would the British have stayed out of the war? In Hindsight we know that a victory for Germany against Russia was more or less possible (more due to real inner instability than military defeat but still), what would change? Germany never attacking Belgium would most probably lead to a grind in the west with massive casualties like historically in Verdun. A slow but steady push in the West due to not being blockaded by Britain. The Highseas Fleet would have a much more manageable opponent in the french navy rather then heaving to fight the Royal Navy. Trade warfare with surface vessels against France would lead to a even faster decline in french combat abilities on land. But with rising strength of the Central powers and german dominance over mainland europe on the horizon Britain would have had no other choice then at first to try to mediate an armistice and favorable terms for the other Entente members or to directly join the war due to Germany being the only european country able to challenge Britain, their vital asset the royal navy and their global dominant empire, due to growing soft power and hard power. Especially when combining the naval production capabilities of France, Germany and the Baltic. Britain could and would never allow that. Edward Grey stated in the house of commons on the afternoon of 3rd of August 1914 that the defeat of France and the violation of belgian neutrality would be irreconcilable with british state interests, the parliament followed that assessment. (Luigi Albertini: part 3, London/New York/Toronto 1952, P. 484 ff.) So even if the Central Powers would have been about to win they would not have, Britain could not let that have happen. Just because that would have endangered them ruling the waves. It's like always in live if you want to stay on top you got to keep those beneath you in check or cut those you cant control down. (The Osman Empire wouldn't join the Central Powers either due to lack Opportunity for gains/regains against the common enemy, Great Britain) Three arguments why GB didn't involve itself in the franco-prussian war: 1st: historic friendship between Britain and Prussia (Anti-French till Bismark is gone) 2nd: France at the time was the bigger threat to GB ruling the world/setting the rules in the global world context 3rd: Prussia not yet an economic powerhouse with ambitions set on challenging GB (Change my mind!) 1914 the german navy at least was a local threat for british surface dominance in the home region, with an ambitious naval program and the control over french and Baltic/Russian ports Germany would have at least a reasonable chance of winning naval dominance. Hope I at least presented some understandable arguments and think about it, you are always in it to win it, especially if you think your nation and existence seems threatened. If the US-President would be killed today by an iranian drone boots would be on the ground within a week. Saying Germany is only one to blame for WWI is like saying the USA is at fault that 9/11 happened. I know some people will just ignore everything written here and say that I am a fanboy of some sort or something different, it is always easiest to dismiss the others and live in a bubble that you build yourself. Get well soon and keep on with your amazing work, the Stalingrad Series is so good it could be from another world if you compare it to well funded Series by big broadcasting companies. I am sorry for the long rant and if I made mistakes I will happily comply and change assumptions and conclusions if new information arises or is presented to my.

Hi TIK didn't the Germans invent the first computer? In 1936 in Dusseldorf i might be wrong about specifics but I believe this is essentially correct and the Germans had there on reprogrammable computer in the war in the form of the Z3

The most obvious technological advantage was long-range airpower and the UK and USA were way ahead of their opponents in terms of deploying vast forces which overwhelmed the Germans and Japanese.

Germans arguably had superior submarines to the allies. As they were constantly making improvements and newer models.

Well, the Allies won, sooooo... Their tech did exactly what it was supposed to do. Was it all genius engineering and technologically marvelous? No. But the Allies, particularly the US, were VERY good at putting large numbers of "good enough" weapons in the field. If anyone thinks German tech was always superior, I would like to introduce you to the ME-163. A plane which literally dissolved its pilots alive.

In the end of the day numbers win wars. Doesn't matter who has better technology if you are a relatively small country, you will lose eventually because you won't have any men left to field that technology. That's why Soviets could throw manpower at them on masses. They had 3 times the population (even more if you include all the soviet-occupied territories). Same applies to technology. Would you rather have 1 very good tank that takes the resources of 3 average tanks to build? Nah, no matter how you spin it, 3 average tanks is a better option because a good tank can still fire only one, 3 tanks can fire 3 times more. That was Germany's pitfall towards the later part of the war. Pouring in much needed resources into vanity projects that are good on paper but entirely inefficient in reality. Overengineered, overcomplex technologies that required too much maintenance, broke down quickly because nobody could operate them and the list goes on. Pz IV was arguably their best performing tank and was the sweet spot and had the best results on the battlefield. Tiger had the material and manufacturing cost to that of 3 Pz IV's and had much more drawbacks and had very limited use. They also were operated only by the most elite tank crews because average tankers simply broke them down, so not only does it have high resource and manufacturing cost but human cost aswell.

The Italian rifles, like all other rifles used in WW 2, were NOT single shot. They were box mag fed repeaters.

The Allies could have been technologically superior if they wanted but they saved a lot of big innovations for after the war, (new tanks, aircraft, doctrine, etc.). The Americans were way beyond the Germans with the M1 Garand, which cost way more than the K98 or the Lee Enfield. The Sherman was an overall better tank than the Panzer IV and British and German aircraft were more or less on par. Naval comparison wasn't even a contest. Considering the biggest early wins were with Panzer IIs, IIIs, IVs with short barrels and tons of horse drawn equipment, it wasn't really technology which was the biggest factor.

First "modern" computer was a German Z3 build in 1943, but designed as early as 1935. Fun fact after war captured Z3 was wrongly assambled and did not work, that made false assumption of UK machine beeing first one. But in the reality both sides were close in the race and Nazis can't produce that much of that advance and complicated machine. When Allied can produce much bigger numbers.

Hey TIK. Thanks for the amazing videos, they are very well researched. I find this to especially be the case in your series on the Weimar Hyperinflation and am interested in many of the sources you have used. Do you know where I could find a pdf of Schacht's "Stabilisation of the Mark"?

The British invented 1st computer, the Americans invented 1st Abomb, the Soviets had gulags... i ❤ ur vids. Pls keep doing this history channel in entertaining form. Thank u

2:20 there is an argument that can be made by the Folgore and the IAR 80/81. As far as I know, they were fast, maneuverable and they had 20mm cannons. Yes, they weren't the best by the end of the war, but they were actually quite good during the early stages. Anyways, awesome video, TIK. Cheers

Well the field where Italy was supiriour was their Mini submarines. their manned torpedos, both the British and the germans copyed them.

Optics TIK. A friend of mine is into his optics. He has a pair of German reconnaissance binocculars, we can sit outside and clearly view cars and trucks on the move 20 miles away. Always a pleasure to be notified of a new video :)

The Italian Navy optical range finding was arguably the best in the world with Japan being the rival for first place. The UK, USofA, and Germany went with some silly radio thing.

100% allies. Both had areas they were ahead in, but the areas the Allies were ahead in were more impactful. -Nuclear bombs -Radar -Proximity fuzes -Decryption technology -Mass produced anti-biotics

You forgot to mention the Italian naval tech. They had some superb modern ships like the Littorio class battleships. This does not change the overall argument though, so it doesn't really matter - just thought I would point it out (esp as the name on the front of the self propelled gun photo you used, was called Littorio as well). Great video.

When it comes to WW2 firearms technology: Germany had the best machine gun - MG42, US had the best rifle - M1 Garand, Italy had the best SMG - Beretta M38A.

First, Love ya TIK!

Probably the most brilliant German piece of military hardware in WWII was the jerrycan. Cheap yet strong, it can carry various types of liquid, has handles that allow one or two people to carry it depending on weight, or one person can carry two in one hand if they’re strong and/or the contents are lightweight. Compact and easy to store, they’re strong so they can be stacked, and they’re designed to be poured and have every drop of liquid come out. It’s brilliant yet so simple.

Lets, see, Germans had superior submarines, the first jet fighter in service, first effective cruise missile, first ballistic missile, first anti-ship missiles, first rocket interceptor, first helicopters, first air to air missiles, night vision, and better tanks. From a TECHNOLOGY point of view. The QUestion wasn't about numbers and who can produce cheaper stuff (T34 for example), but about technology.

The British didn't invent the first computer during the war, a German (Konrad Zuse) did, and his work actually began prior to the war. The British definitely used their computers to a much greater degree than the Germans did though, as they largely treated Zuse's work as a curiosity until much of it was destroyed in bombing raids (I've heard apocryphal claims that the Z3 was used to run aerodynamic calculations for stuff like the V-2, however). Also, as for the bit with missiles VS nukes...ultimately they were two halves of what would be the ultimate strategic weapon of the second half of the century: the nuclear-tipped ICBM, the ballistic missile providing a delivery vehicle that was difficult to impossible to intercept, and the nuclear warhead providing the destructive punch necessary to justify a single-use delivery platform. Without the ballistic missile, you have to resort to the much slower strategic bomber, and what people forget about Japan is that they were basically already beaten, which was what made those raids without escort feasible. If you want an idea of what would've happened if the Japanese air forces were A, still able to fight, and B, weren't using obsolete equipment, look at what happened to the B-29s over Korea. Those B-29s were "silverplate" models just like the bombers used to drop the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...and they were SLAUGHTERED by North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet MiGs, even with escorts! Of course, it should be noted that the Germans weren't the only one with a wartime rocketry program. The Soviets developed a rocket-powered interceptor in 1941-1942 called the BI-1, which, as long as you didn't take it above around 780 km/h (above that speed it became uncontrollable, the loss of a prototype in a crash being what led to its cancellation) could outperform any aircraft in service for a short time until the first jets entered service in 1944, plus they had a guy named Sergei Koroliev, who would become the most important engineer in their early space program. As for a hypothetical "WWII without Germany"...tbh I think if it wasn't the Germans, it would've been the Soviets invading Europe (basically Red Alert but without time travel) with Italy as a potential ally, or perhaps a more limited war in the Far East with Japan. Hell, if they weren't fighting the Germans, the Allies might have responded to Soviet aggression in the Baltics and Finland with a declaration of war.

One bit of Japanese “kit” in WWII that was arguably superior to all its allied counterparts was the type 93 torpedo, AKA Long Lance. This provides a jumping-off point for my next point, that all the major combatants in WWII, the Germans, Italians, and Japanese on one side and the Americans, Brits, and Soviets on the other (I’m leaving China out because it had very little indigenous armament building capacity at the time that I’m aware of) were all on the same technological level. No mismatches here like the Brits vs. Zulu, where one side could produce weapons that the other side couldn’t match regardless of how much they might desire to do so. So the differences in weapon quality were largely down to the priorities of the specific nation. The Japanese imagined the US sailing its battleships across the Pacific to engage in a Mahan-esque decisive battle and felt they needed to offset the numerical advantage they envisioned the US having. The Type 93 was developed specifically to allow their destroyers and light cruisers to even the score with torpedo attacks prior to battle, this is also why the Japan got so good a night fighting early in the war. In like fashion, the US developed advanced 4-engined strategic bombers because they felt they needed to, if you are going to fight opponents a continent away, you need long range which is where 4-engined bombers excel. The Germans got good at rocketry because until Hitler abrogated it, the Treaty of Versailles limited the artillery Germany could possess, but said nothing about rockets I would extend this point by suggesting that a lot of the potentially revolutionary (but usually technologically immature) weapon systems Germany produced in small numbers were not so much down to technological superiority so much as Hitler’s increasingly frantic search for a “wonder weapon” which would once again tip the scales in Germany’s favor as the walls closed in. In this category I include things like the proto-PGMs (FritzX, homing torpedos, anti-aircraft missiles), the Type 23 U-boat, V-weapons and (more arguably) jet/rocket fighters and perhaps the Stg 44. It should be obvious that the side which is winning the war can afford a more measured approach towards fielding new weapons, what they’ve got is evidently working just fine.

One thing I think TIK missed was the Japanese long lance torpedo. This torpedo was very much more advanced than the complete failure of the Allied torpedoes. It was much feared by the allies. Give the Japanese some love TIK! Also, the Zero deserves some love although the allies had much better success when they changed their tactics against it and there were allied pilots that felt the Wildcat was superior with the new tactics.

On the one hand, Germany produced some fine examples of engineering for the time, on the other hand, the German infantry could depend upon only their feet and their horses’ hooves to get anywhere…

The japanese Long Lance torpedo were probably the best torpedo of the war. And the allies suffered every time they failed to take them into considerations.

Both Axis and Allies had different approach to technology. The Axis, realizing their small industrial capacity and limited access to raw material tend to seek qualitative advantage to offset numerical inferiority and attrition. The Allies, with bigger industrial capacity, favored the approach of producing weapon systems which were decent enough for combat and in sufficient quantity.

Considering that ultimately what prevailed in WWII was logistics to back everything else up. Clearly the Allies mainly due to the U.S. were technologically superior in logistics and production thus had the technological edges that really mattered. Standardization and commonality of parts. Train scheduling to eliminate dead hauling and cross hauling as much as possible. The ability to produce and ship as much fuel and food to fight across two oceans and supply the allies while doing so AND keep track of it all.

It is an almost impossible question to Answer. To me the technology superiority came from the USA. Yes shock horror! But like all things it came down to a numbers game; Greater Germany had a population of 120,000,000, Italy maybe be 30,000,000. France; 40,000,000 people excluding its empire, Britain at the time had a population of 50,000,000 people excluding is empire (Add another 35,000,000 million Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders etc) and then a stagggering 300,000,000 Indian etc troops! And then we have the USSR; 190,000,000 people! And then we have the USA; who made a 4 engine Liberator Bomber in a Ford Manufacturing plant at the rate of 1 per hour. The US gave the Commies in the USSR 500,000 Ford and GM Troop Trucks, 35,000 tanks and jeeps, 30,00 aircraft, 1,000,000 field telephones (Which were better than the best soviet runners or Pigeons) and enough SPAM (Canned Meat) to feed the Commie Army; plus ammunition etc etc. The US kept the Commies in the war through the Battle of the Atlantic along with their British buddies! So the USA used the Ford Manufacturing Process to out muscle the Germans and Japanese, and Toyota copied the FMP and improved on it and Boeing etc have improved on it yet again as have all the great Manufacturing Companies in Japan, Germany, USA etc. There aren't too many Russian companies at the top of the list unless they make weapons!

Yeah, very interesting video. I just don't get why so many people think that Germany was technologically superior compared to the Allies/Soviets. I think these whole documentaries about "German Wonderweapons" play a huge role in the common thinking about Germany at that time. I don't think either, that Germany was that technologically superior than the other great powers at the time. You can say, it was leading here and there, but so were the Opponnents in other areas. Just as you said: England (and I think even the US) was already producing jet planes. And even though I would argue that the Kar98k, The MG42 and the StG44 were great weapons (or possibly the best) for their respective purposes, the Allies still had their own counterparts: as you said, the American Garand or the Soviet SVT-40. And although the Kar98k was arguably the best of the bolt-action rifles of that time, I have read the books of former soldiers and they say, that Germany was in fact having huge troubles at the front line: German infantry drastically lagged firepower, since the used their bolt-action rifes, while Americans and Soviets were already using self-loading rifles. I know Germany tried producing large quantities of G43 (and maybe G41. . .), but this shortage on good self-loading rifles was a steady factor for growing casualties on the Eastern Front. The three aspects I think where Germany was the technologically superior power were: 1. Medium (and maybe Heavy) tanks - I agree with you. 2. Rockets - again, I agree with you. 3. Submarines, especially the very last type ever built by the Germans in the Second World War. And I say Tanks and Submarines, because I heard that even after the war, the German Panther and Tiger tanks, as well as the late German Submarines of Type XXI (21) were pretty much ahead of their time, so other countries created their own tanks, based on knowledge taken from these vehicles

Also on the subject of Japan and tanks, Potential History did a great video on Japanese tanks of WW2 and the thing is, Japan wasn't too far behind in tank development. In fact Japan was experimenting with tanks and tank warfare tactics during the 1930s especially since they had China to use as their testing ground. And while the tanks they used like the Type 95 and the Type 97 were far from ideal, they actually could hold their own against the Panzers, T26s, and M3s used by the Chinese nationalist forces. However what ultimately prevented Japan from upgrading their armored forces was the Navy. When Japanese decided to go to war with the US after bombing Pearl Harbor, almost all the vital resources and materials immediately went to the Navy and war time production in Japan prioritized building ships and naval aircraft. By the time the Japanese government realized their Imperial Navy wasn't invincible and they needed to bolster their weapons and vehicles for their army, it was too late.

"Could you imagine WW2 without Germany?" Whitout Germany hindering it back, the Axis would win and the world would be divided between the Japanese Empire and the Roman Empire.

No German tank had a stablizer on their main gun but the Sherman did. Sherman also had an independent electric motor for turret traverse which gave it exceptional traverse rate. Panther & other German tanks tied turret traverse to the engine RPM and even at high RPM was still significantly slower than Sherman's. They also never did anything with protective ammo stowage.

17:22 The Stg-44 was certainly a rifle with significant advantages over most infantry rifles in WWII. However, consider that the US M1 Carbine had been in service since 1942. The M1 Carbine had similar advantages, including light weight, large magazine capacity and low recoil due to using an intermediate cartridge. The M2 Carbine was a selective fire variant and perhaps the second assault rifle to be put into service in 1945. One reason the US carbines aren't often compared with the Stg-44 is that they were only intended to be used defensively according to US doctrine. After WWII, the US would issue carbines more widely, but the assault rifle concept was resisted much longer than in Europe and the Soviet Union, which was ironic given that M1 and M2 carbines had been proven effective during WWII.

What's about the Zuse computer? Isn't the Enigma a computer in itself? Or just the first British Computer? The first jet engine was ready in 1937 in Germany from Heinkel HeS 3 engine in He 178. The allies really came close in the war, no doubt. That's just false information to say that Germany started World War I. 🤦 Especially when Russia and France mobilised against Germany (some Russian troops actually put steps into Germany already) before the declaration of war from Germany. And the same argument why Germany should have begun the First World War you have to recognise that the Allies started the Second World War then < that's your logic. Germany didn't have to declare war on France in the WWI. So they started it with that. GB and France didn't have to declare war on Germany in 1939, so they started it. 🤦

Japan was more advanced than most people think several of their aircraft were very good and a match for anything that the Allies could through at them It is also worth noting that tanks were not really viable in the land theatres in which they were involved. Certainly they were not much use in jungle situations. It was in the naval arena where Japan's advantages were clear. In particular the 'Long Lance Torpedo' which has been described as one of few true secret weapons at the beginning of WWII Also if anyone doubts the ability of the Japanese then they should consider the Nakajima 'Kikka' which was inspired by Me 262 Because in fact it was entirely a Japanese design.

Love your videos. I think there’s a few additional items in Germany’s favor. They were ahead in aerodynamics, swept wings vs straight wings, homing torpedoes, and guided bombs in addition to the items listed. Whether those technologies were sufficiently advanced and able to be produced in sufficient numbers is another question.

Hey TIK, I'm a long time viewer and fan of your channel, so first of all I hope you stay well and continue your great work. Since I'm not up for being called names on the internet tonight, I just wanted to add a small side note in the context of this video; The machines which cracked the enigma code, whilst certainly very impressive, are not 'real' and certainly not the first computer(s) due to them not being freely programable i.e. "Turing complete". Yes, even according to their own creator, they aren't real computers but "merely" complicated "electro-mechanical devices". The honour of creating the first freely programable ("Turing complete") computer goes to the german Konrad Zuse and his line of Z1, Z2, Z3 computers which operated fully automatic and digitally (with a staggering clockspeed of 5 - 10 hz). They saw limited practical use in calculating aero-dynamics for Luftwaffe engineers or calculating the trajectory of V2 rockets, something the British "Bomba" could have never done since is was built and designed to do one and just one thing, thus they can't be called "real modern computers". And even if they were, shouldn't the polish and Biuro Szyfrów/ Marian Rejewsk get that credit anyway ;) Not ment as critique just a historical fact that I think is worth being remembered the right way. I suggest everyone to take a look at Konrad Zuse and his life, interesting guy. Never joined the "Party" and spent his retirement days painting...

The Germans on the Eastern Front simply used the wrong technology. One item was POL(Petrol-oil-lubricant) most German aviation fuel, tank fuel, weapon lubricant froze at -18 to 20C Russians used POL usable up to -40 to -60C. An other simple technology was personal clothing (you may have the best gun if you are frozen) Russians had superior clothing compering Axis. Axis for example gave out boots for exact size while Russians gave one size bigger to accommodate footwraps at winter. However one of the main goals of technology from an economist point of view is anything that helps to produce faster, better and cheaper in that sense USSR simply outproduced Germany and it really helped to win the war.

I think it may be wrong to look at total products like tanks, subs or fighters. technological advantage is probably more at the margins and edges of things... like optics, shock absorbers, parts of an engine, parts of a radar-detection device, etc. AND also probably much related to the technology used in the machinery of the production chain....

The allies had some cool advanced stuff for sure. Like the proximity fuse or the gyroscopic stabilizer for tank guns.

Oh no. This could get spicy.

The Italians had one of the best submachine guns of WW2, the Beretta M38. But no technology will do you no good if you cannot field sufficient amounts of it (look StG44, Panther tanks, jet fighters etc).