Assuming Germany could have even produced any of their proposed super weapons...

Assuming Germany could have even produced any of their proposed super weapons, would any have them made a significant difference in the war, or been at all practical?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 133K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_H.XVIII
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage
twitter.com/AnonBabble

no

I suppose they would have made great target practice for CAS.

One AA gun wouldn't be enough. And even if they magically cleared the sky of all planes, artillery would've BTFO it

No. More tech doesn't help with the lack of fuel and Hitler's retarded micro management.

Why did you make this thread?

We have this question asked daily, sometimes multiple times a day.

Fuck off.

Attached: 1490489530329.jpg (425x301, 27K)

what happens when it gets to a river? also concur, OP is a faggot

oh look another antifa bait thread

Are you sure about that?
Pretty sure that such thing would have had very thick side and top armor.

Even the retarded japs could nig rig armor piercing bombs, it's not gonna be more armored than a battleship.

>the lack of fuel
Literally by the time fuel became an issue, all the war-losing mistakes had already been made

All of them

>Assuming Germany could have even produced any of their proposed super weapons, would any have them made a significant difference in the war, or been at all practical?
Significant difference: Germany loses earlier because they run out of high quality plate much earlier

>"survives" getting hit by heavy artillery shell or light bomb
>spends next 11 months stuck in spot having a full company of engineers replacing the damaged tracks

Might be bit difficult to hit that with anything that can pierce it. Maus had mostly 100mm top armor and that looks like a battleship turret, so likely 130mm = 5.1inch. The guns could be taken out much easier though.
Is that thing supposed to be a "mobile" coastal artillery or what?

Attached: armor penetration by bombs.jpg (1175x937, 296K)

Yeah that literally is the tirpirtz turrets sans 1 gun.

>Run over 5 mines
>Lose one of your inner tracks and running gear
>Spend a week getting towed back to base
>2 months in the depot getting the running gear fixed
>Tank gets bombed while it sits around

Blast effect does nasty things to stuff attached to and behind heavy armor. A 500lb bomb is going to fuck up one of those things whether it penetrates or not.

Everybody here is wrong, they had a nuclear program. It was basically impossible for them to have produced a nuclear weapon, but it was also impossible for them to build their retarded Land-Bismarck. So yes, if they could magically complete some of their super weapons, they could be effective.

>It was basically impossible for them to have produced a nuclear weapon
No it wasn't, they had access to uranium, trained lab personnel, large chemical industry and enough power to run the equipment

Also Soviet nuclear project was done with major help from captured German scientists

Soviets got their nuke 10 years early because the Rosenbergs leaked the fucking Mannhattan project, they had made next to no progress with the German scientists because the German scientists had made no progress with nuclear weapons.
Unless you count Einstein and Oppenheimer as Germans

Attached: IMG_0013.jpg (4032x3024, 3.07M)

Scary to look at for the land forces, but a good target for CAS

Look up where soviets got the uranium for their first bombs :)

Me 262s' could have made a difference in sufficient numbers at least early on in the air war over mainland Europe. Ho 229s' utilized as a fighter bomber to take out Chain Home Radar Stations along the southern English coast would have swung the Battle of Britain in favor of the Nazis overnight. Let's not forget the scaled up Horten H.XVIII en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_H.XVIII potentially dropping a nuclear weapon on D.C. or New York.

Unless they had found a massive and reliable source of oil, which was the Achilles' heel of the Reich, they would have been totally useless.
But even then a war like ww2 isn't decided by weapon systems, but by the industrial output of each alliance and the ability to keep it's military running.

Had the germans tom bomb first, there wouldn't be this question because as much as they did pursue stupid grandiose projects a few nuclear bombs would have basically halted the war, even just them nuking Britain and the US would have effectively halted the war as the shock and hell unleashed those bombs would have severely shook both powers. Now had the Germans dedicated more resources to the U-Boats alone and cut off Britain the war would have eventually turned to their favour, as they would never have had a Western front and just would have focused on the East and the Soviet Union would have fell.

Agreed if they had managed to knock Britain out of the war with the U-Boat blockade the Western Front would not have materialized. The United States would have had to defeat the Japanese first and then cross the entire breadth of Eurasia to even consider an invasion of Germany.

LOOK UP WHERE THE SOVIETS FOOUND OUT HOW TO MAKE ONE

the maus would have been impossible the transport long distances, would have been impossible to retrieve if it fell into a ditch, would have destroyed any road it used, would have used up so much fuel that it would basically be tethered to a pipeline, and would simply be bypassed encircled or destroyed at leisure if it ever met its enemy

and it would have displaced fuel, metal, and labor you could have spent on stugs or panzer IVs, vehicles that can attack as well as defend and can easily be transported by rail

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage

depends what you see as "super weapon".
crap like Ratte or Maus were just a waste of ressources and wouldn't have changed anything.
Then there were things that could have made life significantly worse for the allies if they would have been build in larger numbers / build at all:
Infrared devices for weapons/tanks, guided missiles like X7, Wasserfall AA rocket, Type XXI submarines, etc.
The only thing that MIGHT have altered the war is imho the A10 long range rocket, i don't know what the Americans would have done if confronted with rockets able to reach their cities on the east coast and which they couldn't intercept with the technology available back then. Also, compared to the "America bombers", those rockets would need less ressources and no crew while the bombers would have been in danger of being shot down by US planes / AA guns.

Short answer: no
Long answer: hell the fuck noooooooooooooooooo

No, the Ratte would have been the perfect sitting duck for enemy medium and heavy bombers, artillery or even fucking battleships if it got anywhere near the shoreline.

>Literally by the time fuel became an issue, all the war-losing mistakes had already been made
1940?

>LOOK UP WHERE THE SOVIETS FOOUND OUT HOW TO MAKE ONE
Fucking russian absolute brainlet, the hardest part of making the bomb is the actual act of separating the uranium, not figuring out what you need for a bomb

FpBp

>gets divebombed by something with a 250 kg bomb