So, it's 1943 and the Germans are busy...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

kikkthecat

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
1,181
Location
West Yorkshire
Car
2011 Viano 2.2 CDi Ambiente
Building this ???

1943 770K

Can anyone explain to me how, at the height of the war, Mercedes were still producing stuff like this ?

It came up for auction in August and didn't sell but at the same venue these 2 did

1928 Boat tail Speedster $3,740,000

1937 540K $2,145,000
 
It doesn't look right without the SS plates and the flags. At least it's in black and white I guess which looks familar...
 
I read somewhere here that during the war Hitler gave MB unlimited budget to develop whatever they wanted - as a way to demonstrate German technological superiority to the world.
 
I read somewhere here that during the war Hitler gave MB unlimited budget to develop whatever they wanted - as a way to demonstrate German technological superiority to the world.
You would be correct :thumb:
 
I read somewhere here that during the war Hitler gave MB unlimited budget to develop whatever they wanted - as a way to demonstrate German technological superiority to the world.
Their technical superiority didn't do them much good at Stalingrad.
 
I give full credit to Nazi Germany for it's technological superiority - a lot has been said about it before, e.g. fuel-injected BF109 vs carburetted Spitfires, Diesel Panzers vs Petrol Shermans, etc etc. What the outcome of WW2 has proven, however, is that technological superiority by itself is not enough to win a battle or indeed a war... 'The Tank is Only Metal'.
 
I give full credit to Nazi Germany for it's technological superiority - [/I].

Bit of a myth there I think.
In truth the Germans relied on capacity for power, the British blazed the trail with forced induction, allowing smaller frontal area for their planes and superior performance. So large were the engines on some German aircraft that when the landing gear was configured with a tail wheel, the pilots had no visibility of the runway as they began take-off and a number of planes were lost to crashes as a consequence.

The fuel injection used is only revered as a consequence of Mercedes adopting it for their motor racing effort. The British engines by Rolls-Royce, Napier and Bristol needed no further promotion to achieve their fame.
The Rolls-Royce Merlin is the classic engine of WW2.

Further, the Germans couldn't build their equipment fast enough - even with slave labour. By contrast the British and Americans led the way in production engineering.

Germany is accredited with rocket power, but which has been more useful to man-kind in general? The somewhat crude rocket propulsion or sophisticated jet power as Pioneered by Whittle?

And as for what the Germans did learn from the Turks....
 
Bellow, you concentrate on the first part of my post and in that respect you may very well be right.

As for the latter part of my post... I believe it stands by itself.
 
Bit of a myth there I think.
In truth the Germans relied on capacity for power, the British blazed the trail with forced induction, allowing smaller frontal area for their planes and superior performance. So large were the engines on some German aircraft that when the landing gear was configured with a tail wheel, the pilots had no visibility of the runway as they began take-off and a number of planes were lost to crashes as a consequence.
In fairness several allied fighter aircraft, Spitfire and Hurricane included, also had to zigzag when taxiing and also had zero visibility of the landing strip whilst in the initial stages of take-off. Plenty of german aircraft also used forced induction, the 109 was turbocharged.:dk:
 
And let's not forget that the Spitfre engine stalled in a vertical dive because of fuel starvation whereas the 109 kept power right through the dive. As a result the 109s just zoomed off into the distance when a spitfire followed them into a dive.
 
I just watched a very interesting documentary about the HO 229 - a stealth fighter produced towards the end of WWII , designed to elude the British radar , and of which one prototype flew before the end of the war , eventually crashing due to engine flame-out . A second prototype was captured by the Americans and still exists . It used the same jet engines as the Messerschmitt 262 . A larger version , designed to attack the USA was also being planned .

Due to be repeated on More4 in the early hours of the morning .
 
Your referring to the HORTEN X-wing
Of which the US Stealth Fighter is a direct descendent

Of further interest--The US A-10 'Tank Buster' was very much influenced by the Stuka and the F-86 Sabre (of Korean War fame) by the Me-262

Think as you will ---- but if it hadn't been for German mistakes during the Dunkirk era,(chance to wipe out British Army missed) German cockups during the 'Battle of Britain' (a late switch to bomb cities instead of airfields) and US industrial output along with their covert assistance to Britain long before Pearl Harbour ----- we'd prob all be fluent German speakers now!! ---- and therefore able to tell Mercedes exactly what we think!

Cheers
Vic
 
....Dunkirk era,(chance to wipe out British Army missed) German cockups during the 'Battle of Britain' (a late switch to bomb cities instead of airfields) and US industrial output along with their covert assistance to Britain long before Pearl Harbour ----- we'd prob all be fluent German speakers now!! ---- and therefore able to tell Mercedes exactly what we think!

Cheers
Vic


True... but the Brits did a few mistakes as well... this is the nature of wars (and many other things), so trying to see what it would have looked like if one side made no mistake at all is interesting but probably not realistic...
 
Your referring to the HORTEN X-wing
Of which the US Stealth Fighter is a direct descendent

Of further interest--The US A-10 'Tank Buster' was very much influenced by the Stuka and the F-86 Sabre (of Korean War fame) by the Me-262

Think as you will ---- but if it hadn't been for German mistakes during the Dunkirk era,(chance to wipe out British Army missed) German cockups during the 'Battle of Britain' (a late switch to bomb cities instead of airfields) and US industrial output along with their covert assistance to Britain long before Pearl Harbour ----- we'd prob all be fluent German speakers now!! ---- and therefore able to tell Mercedes exactly what we think!

Cheers
Vic

You forgot Hitlers single most biggest mistake, invading Russia, he then had to fight the war on two fronts.
Though Whittle started developing the Jet engine it took the Germans to get it in a plane, and they were responsible for the first mass produced jet engine the Jumo. Though it was troubled with lack of specific metalls to produce the fan blades, which cause the engine to need rebuilding after only very very few hours of flight, this engine was also fitted to the worlds first jet fighter (German).
The Germans had superior equipment available to them in every aspect of the conflict, tanks, planes, Radar, artillery, machine guns etc. They just did,nt have enough of them.
They could not compete with the manufacturing might of the American's and the Russian's, though the equipment was in general inferior, it out numbered the amount the Germans could produced.
 
yip--i think your 100% correct Andy
Russia proved the biggest mistake in the long run -- but it was a gamble that very nearly paid off
The Germans could actually see Moscow and i read that some German soldiers even bought tickets from outlying stations for the Moscow Metro
Its an accepted fact that German equipment was overall too good!
 
But never forget the part played by Bletchley Park and double agents like Eddie Chapman in the fall of Germany. The cracking of Enigma and the false information given to the Germans almost certainly massively aided their defeat. In many ways the Germans underestimated the allies, to their cost...
 
Bellow, you concentrate on the first part of my post and in that respect you may very well be right.

As for the latter part of my post... I believe it stands by itself.

And I made no comment on the second part of your post so scarcely need to be picked up on comments I didn't make.

And let's not forget that the Spitfre engine stalled in a vertical dive because of fuel starvation whereas the 109 kept power right through the dive. As a result the 109s just zoomed off into the distance when a spitfire followed them into a dive.

Will happily be corrected on this... But wasn't that later cured? (''Miss Shillings thing''?)
 
And I made no comment on the second part of your post so scarcely need to be picked up on comments I didn't make.



Will happily be corrected on this... But wasn't that later cured? (''Miss Shillings thing''?)

Hi,
''Miss Shillings thing'' did go someway to cure the fuel starvation issue on the Merlin engined planes (Spitfires, Hurricanes, Lancaster's etc), but it was,nt till 1943-44 the problem was solved completly by which time the P51 Mustang was taking more and more of the now outdated Hurricane, and Spitfire roles due to its extended range (also merlin engined though it was built by Packard and was had been further improved by a different supercharger).
 
Of further interest--The US A-10 'Tank Buster' was very much influenced by the Stuka and the F-86 Sabre (of Korean War fame) by the Me-262

LOL: If the Ju87 had any influence on the A-10 it was at the end of a long list of more important aircraft.

The Sturmovik Il-2, Typhoon, Hurricane, A1 Skyraider just to name a few.

But the Stuka makes a good story on documentaries because the audience are more likely to know about it and it looks dramatic.

Think as you will ---- but if it hadn't been for German mistakes during the Dunkirk era,(chance to wipe out British Army missed) German cockups during the 'Battle of Britain' (a late switch to bomb cities instead of airfields) and US industrial output along with their covert assistance to Britain long before Pearl Harbour ----- we'd prob all be fluent German speakers now!! ---- and therefore able to tell Mercedes exactly what we think!

You're overrating the Germans at the start of WW2 and underestimating the British.

The British already had programmes in place for strategic bombers years before the war started. They had better control of their air forces and managed to maintain much better ongoing pilot quality and strength in the RAF right from the start.

Meanwhile the Germans got a bit carried away at the start. The Luftwaffe was a very effective tactical airforce that didn't develop strength in depth of aircraft or sustain pilot quality. The early successes were based on bringing the air power close to the front - eg. Britain bombed Germany from Britain, the Luftwaffe bombed the UK from forward bases in occupied territory.

It wasn't a matter of getting Britain lucky in the BoB - the RAF was stronger than the general myth lets on. The Luftwaffe wasn't properly prepared for the offensive compared with UK preparation for the defensive.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom