When you talk of prototypes, you make me laugh, if I was to say allies had good prototypes I could mention the Sea Hawk of Britain, the p-80, the vampire and more, the german protoypes were in fact, mostly paper projects that never got off the drawing board, and if built would have probably never gotten off the ground. Plus, all generations of future tanks, for example borrowed heavily from russian, not german designs, why the germans blew up the MAUS prototypes is beyond me since there was no way the allies would be dumb enough to copy and build such a worthless monstrosity.
The me 262 was fast but thats just about where the advantages end, the quad 30mm cannons were high calibre but inaccurate, low velocity and short ranged, not to mention that they had a tendency to jam, it completely lacked maneuverability and its engines tended to give out or blow up in mid air, the me262 didn't even have a 1-1 kill rate it was probably more like 1 allied plane-1.5 me262's. By the way, where you're getting your stats is beyond me, since the amount of kills your mentioning in one night never occurred.
Fun fact:in 1938-39 the british tested the hurricane against a sopwith camel in a maneuvering mock fight, the camel won.
The Do 217 was mediocre when it appeared but other then as a glide bomb transport, it had no use or niche of usefulness.
And yeah the me110 was something the allies wished all germans were equipped with, because it was a piece of crap, it wasn't maneuverable, it was slow, not very well armed and in day fighting they were getting whooped, at night they did little better but were still getting massacred by intruder mosquitoes. The german airfields were soon a very dangerous place due to the mosquito night fighters that disabled landing and taking off fighters with ease. Plus the air war went something like this, 1939 luftwaffe dominates, 1940 luftwaffe gets whooped by the RAF, 1941 focke wulf 190 appears, the luftwaffe owns the sky, 1942 spitfire IX appears, the luftwaffe never again rules the skies.
The pershing was as heavy as a panther but had armor and a weapon equal to a tiger I and was slightly faster and more reliable. A churchill was slower and less well armed then a tiger but far lighter, more reliable and better armored, not to mention that it was far better suited to the infantry support purpose it was built for.
One shot from a tiger can kill most allied tanks in the 5-40 ton category but it would have trouble killing a churchill VII or crocodile, a perching could stop its shot as could a IS-2's armor. Also, the german armor on tanks while thick was extremely brittle and low quality after 1944 making it far easier to penetrate. The 88 also wasn't a particularly good weapon against ground targets and they never had really more modern turrets. plus the weapons that could kill it with HE, the ISU-152's gun for example had a huge shell that would shake the armor off, kill the crew with shell shock or flying splinters or even rip the turret off. Also, the british were known for great AT weapons from the 2lb to the 17lb cannons that devastated german tanks.
Plus there are no records of a wirbelwind doing such damage, the allies lost 10,000 troops and the germans lost 9,000 and afterwards the allies consistently inflicted more damage then they received. the afrika korps was not so outnumbered until El Alamein and on the eastern front the russians only started gaining a numerical advantage in 1943. The germans didn't help their situation either since the citizens of conquered countries became determined to eliminate their tyrannical reign.
The british conquered many nations but I wouldn't describe most of them as peaceful or weaker, they didn't always ask others for help and fought courageously and were usually outnumbered.
The nazis used a tremendous amount of propaganda and lies and though they inspired their people to fight they were plain evil, Hitler was a hopeless leader and all his successes can be credited to his generals who disliked him or his enemies inability to fight back. I don't see why someone should be proud of killing 6 million jews, 6 million Poles, 15-20 million russians, nearly a million British, american and commonwealth peoples, not to mention millions in yugoslavia, soviet territories, and western europe, is that something to be proud of. they shot women, children and even infants without reason, that isn't heroism, thats barbarism, I am not saying allied bombing of germany was any better but its purpose was to destroy industry and it wasn't as destructive.(Though still not good)
British propaganda, while exaggerated was generally true and the luftwaffe was having a tough time against the RAF throughout the whole war. The typhoon was good and the tempest was pure amazing, it was fast, maneuverable had 4 20mm cannons and was a great v-1 and me 262 interceptor not to mention that like its predeccesor the typhoon, it could carry up to 16 rockets on double racks or 2000 pounds of bombs. The brits also soon replaced dive bombers with far more adaptable fighter bombers starting with the amazing little whirlwind.
The lancaster was amazing, it could carry up to 26,000 pounds of bombs was resilient, had good defense armament and when in the hands of the elite they sank the tirpitz, wrecked U-boat pens and shattered several dams and rail tunnels.
Stukas were only accurate as long as the enemy didn't fight back and they weren't so devastating either. the rear gun was a mere 7.92 or 7.62 and could only defend it against an angry pigeon. Speed is far more important then maneuverability and the dauntless was just as good as anything, compared to a val it was equally fast, no less maneuverable, more heavily armed and armored and had a better payload. one pilot gunner pair shot down 3 zeros in a single engagement.
Also, if maneuverability is as important as your making it out to be, then explain to me the devastating japanese defeats at midway an onward.
Neither the raiden nor zero, nor any other japanese plane could match the corsair or hellcat, brave or not, plus most japanese aces scored their kills against undertrained chinese not americans or british. plus the 12-1 kill rate was in the early parts of the war. stop bragging about how great japanese fighters were when history shows that american planes smashed them all from oscars to raidens, just look at the charts and you see the difference not to mention that the japanese never got a jet fighter. the p-40's of the US AVG massacred zeros and not to mention that both the hellcat and corsair had a 6 .50 cal battery, I implore you get your historical facts straight. the Yamato didn't survive much considering its size and the fact that the allies swarmed it long after it was sinking, it had a cruiser and several destroyers for escort which is not large but not small either. want an answer to why most japanese aces scored on it, because they had nearly nothing else
.
When a plane starts smoking or burning it means its engine or fuels been hit in which case its end is rather predictable, also when I said biplane I meant the planes on the Yamato. The successes you listed for the kamikazes are pretty much their only big successes and if a kamikaze hit a british carrier it wouldn't do anything. the judy was not as good as your making it out to be and there are multiple lone aircraft successes based more on luck then actual skill for example the wildcat that sunk a destroyer at wake island.
The problem with the 7.7 is that it can't penetrate the self sealing fuel tanks or armor which the .50 cal can do with ease, the wildcats quad .50 cals were more then enough for un armored japanese planes.
At austrelitz napoleon was fighting russia and austria, russia would in fact eventually help defeat him, also, at waterloo the combined british-prussian force numbered barely 180,000 against napoleons 270,000, the victory was achieved in two phases, the 90,000 strong british halted napoleons troops before bluchers 90,000 prussians arrived fresh for battle to finish napoleons forces off.
realize that the bastions of france like the maginot line didn't fall and the allies only feared tigers if they were untrained or unprepared.
The amerika bomber was never built and the jets were never good enough for everything, war is not based on theoretical bull but on real field work and in real life jets and tigers just weren't good enough no matter what theory says.
british battle cruisers sacrificed armor for speed and heavy weaponry and were equal to their german counterparts, the germans didn't maintain such air superiority and the red baron, while legendary, was barely better then other allied aces.
the tanks were unreliable but induced fear and could be quite dangerous considering the fact that the germans had nothing to fight them. The sturmtruppen were good but compare them to a british rifleman, the brit riflemen could shoot 20 rounds a minute while having to reload their ammo clip at least 4 times. in the revolutionary war the british did not get as badly beaten as claimed and what happened in palestine
, they withdrew in 1948 and with that everything fell apart in that area. churchill was brave had fought in previous wars and inspired the people of britain to great deeds, the bombing of britain only strengthened the peoples will to fight on. The germans fought to the death in berlin not out of bravery but out of the hope that the western allies would conquer them and not the russians. the british have many things to be proud of in their long history.
The panzer III had a decent gun, and better armor then light tanks but it was too heavy to be a light tank, the valentine, weighing in at a mere 16 tons was just as good in firepower but had worse speed and far better armor. The 88 could take out a sherman and cromwell and cruiser true, but the cruiser a13b light armor was no worse then the early panzer III's and IV's it faced. Also the lee was a decent tank and I have never heard it described as amongst the best tanks, it only served for about a year, which is nowhere near to what your claiming was the length of time it served. the only place it served long was in the pacific because against the japanese, it was near immune to all their weapons while packing enough punch to kill bunkers and all japanese tanks.
before you blame the british for wasting money on diamonds, realize that the future queen Elizabeth served in the auxiliary territorial service during WW2. Also, with the exception of their 1942-1944 tanks the british were very well equipped.
Also before you offend their tanks realize that the british comet was probably the best medium tank of the war, it had a gun powerful enough to take on any german tank, it weighed a mere 30 tons, had 4 inches of armor 360 degrees around its turret and could reach speeds past 35mph.
here are some comparisons for you on the topic of AT and infantry weapons
in the late war the standard british AT gun was the 17lb and 6lb, the german standard was the pak 40, the british guns are better in penetration.
infantry weapons are No.4 rifle which is better then the kar98, the bren which has no comparable german counterpart, the sten which is slightly worse then the mp40, the piat versus the panzerfaust and panzerschreck, the piat has less penetrative power but can be reloaded, is far lighter and can be shot from a building.
the bismarck sank the hood and was sunk in turn, making it a british victory since the bismarck was more modern, heavier and better then the Hood.
the bofors had good range, good penetrative power and decent HE shot, and good rate of fire relatively cheap
the 20mm had mediocre range, decent penetrating power, poor HE shot and a great rate of fire cheap
the bofors is better in general.
I see you still make several false claims and incorrect information, please get everything right and realize that history showed the allies were better armed and equipped then the axis, no matter what statistics may show.
@ hakegura-the allies lost many of the first battles due to being under equipped. the japanese tanks were also markedly inferior to allied designs, when they fought against russia, they suffered terrible defeats due to russias better tank arm, yet they didn't learn the lesson, the american sherman crew were known to arm themselves with only HE rounds due to how vulnerable japanese armor was.
In my opinion the matilda was the best jungle combat vehicle, it had a gun or flamethrower that was good enough to destroy all japanese equipment and was immune to nearly anything the japanese could throw at it.
I wouldn't say the phillipines was such a failure for the allies, considering the low quality of the troops stationed their, singapore was more of a failure but once the japanese started encountering more british, american and australian regulars they got beat up pretty bad, Wake Island was a nice victory for the americans, who sank 2 destroyers and shot down many aircraft despite the disparity in numbers.
