Secret Anit Gravity Nazi Technology

[GIJOEJK]

http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=115167
After reading this thread I decided to expand on it with a new one. I
couldn't resist ;)

If WWII had started later or even lasted longer, Hitler/Germany would have probably won...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sABpGFzxebQ&mode=related&search=

Looks like these guys came back with something (Vimana technology?)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahnenerbe

"The ancient Indian texts on Vimanas are so numerous, it would take volumes to relate what they had to say.
The ancient Indians, who manufactured these ships themselves, wrote entire flight manuals on the control
of the various types of Vimanas, many of which are still in existence, and some have even been translated into English."
http://www.telugupeople.com/discussion/article.asp?id=2229


More craziness;
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=UFO+Secrets+of+the+SS+Occult&search=

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Interesting. The Germans were decades ahead of the allies in terms of much of the technology that they had under development in the Third Reich. It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

So many modern weapons system classes can be traced back to Nazi Germany:

Jet Fighter - Me262
Ballistic Missile - V2
Cruise Missile - V1
Assault Rifle - StG44
Modern diesel-electric sub - Type XXI Elektroboot
SAM - Wasserfall
IR missiles - the Germans invented those too.
Thermal sights were first used on the Panther tank, and so on.
Main battle tanks were a concept that sprang from the Panther (the best tank of WW2, IMO).
The Germans (as well as the Russians and later the British, i'll admit) pioneered the concept of the close-air support plane. The US later consulted Ju88G Kanonvogel pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel to help design the A-10.
Modern armored tactics were invented by Guderian. The seeds of victory in the Yom Kippur War and Desert Storm were sown in France, Poland and North Africa in 1939-42.

There was one area the allies vastly exceeded the Germans in: Nuclear research. Everything else was dominated by the Germans. Fortunately they never produced it in great enough amounts to affect the outcome of the war.

In fact, one could argue that the reason the US has been so dominant in the world militarily is because we took all their stuff at the end of WW2.

[Amethystfretchen]

Latest of the better books from this genre:
http://www.amazon.com/SS-Brotherhood-Bell-Nasas-Majic-12/dp/1931882614/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3933993-6014250?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183183309&sr=8-1

[PaulClift]

If WWII had started later or even lasted longer, Hitler/Germany would have probably won...


I disagree, it only would of lasted till August 1945, then he would of got the same treatment that Japan got.

[GIJOEJK]

I disagree, it only would of lasted till August 1945, then he would of got the same treatment that Japan got.

Think again....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EduXTy8EGLg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1lQ670I5HM

[GIJOEJK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nB_ipeQfpM

:)

[martinexsquaddie]

in a word BOLLOCKS
the nazi's may have had some wonder toys true but
they did'nt have the men or material for a sustained fight there economy was a con trick even britain was out producing them by 1943.
I'll see all your fancy toys and raise you bletchly park kind of difficult to obtain much suprise if one side can read your codes.
failing to finish the UK off was the end for the nazi's there was no way they could pull off an invasion. look how difficult d-day was
germany had no long range bombers or fighters no ablity to land tanks or heavy equipment and there navy could'nt protect any attempted landing.
after hitler attacked russia it was all over
panther or tiger with even night sights not much use against 20 t34s

[GIJOEJK]

in a word BOLLOCKS
the nazi's may have had some wonder toys true but
they did'nt have the men or material for a sustained fight there economy was a con trick even britain was out producing them by 1943.
I'll see all your fancy toys and raise you bletchly park kind of difficult to obtain much suprise if one side can read your codes.
failing to finish the UK off was the end for the nazi's there was no way they could pull off an invasion. look how difficult d-day was
germany had no long range bombers or fighters no ablity to land tanks or heavy equipment and there navy could'nt protect any attempted landing.
after hitler attacked russia it was all over
panther or tiger with even night sights not much use against 20 t34s

Yes, of course you are correct. The NAZIs were an exceptionally evil lot, and they got what they deserved. But, we are talking alternate history here.

[Thor]

they did'nt have the men or material for a sustained fight there economy was a con trick even britain was out producing them by 1943.
Source?

In 1940 Germany and Soviet Union had a similar industrial output, only beaten by the US.

Germany didn't switch to den totalen krieg until 1943, which of course was a mistake. And at no point was the other half of the population, the women, utilized in the production.


failing to finish the UK off was the end for the nazi's
What happened in the west had no real significance for the overall outcome. The war was lost in the east due to the massive human sacrifices of the russians.


there was no way they could pull off an invasion. look how difficult d-day was
I think they would have pulled it off (the Dover Strait is 34 km across) had not Göring managed to **** up the air war. One interesting question is if Churchill would have declared London an open city or not?


here navy could'nt protect any attempted landing.
Land-based artillery with additional Kriegsmarine elements would have been plenty.


after hitler attacked russia it was all over
A quick win in the east was a possibility for quite some time. But it was also the only chance of a win.

[mkenny]

Yes, of course you are correct. The NAZIs were an exceptionally evil lot, and they got what they deserved. But, we are talking alternate history here.

The trouble with 'Germany1946' scenarios is that they totaly ignore the 'Allies 1946' reaction. All this guff is just another excuse for true believers to whine they were 'cheated'. If only they had a few more months they could have won with all these PAPER project. If they were so technologicaly advanced how come it did not have much effect in 1939-45?

[martinexsquaddie]

op sealion would have been a castrophe for the germans invasion barges are not
landing craft no tanks no artillery tthe plan was to take an intact dock
never going to happen in iraq managed to deny the coalition the use of um qusar
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0713995661/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/103-8
wages of destruction on my list of books to read

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

One interesting question is if Churchill would have declared London an open city or not?

I doubt it. He was against Paris becoming an open city. I would expect he would have evacuated the civilians and fought block by block.

[kingreverent]

The germans were far behind the allied concerning nuclear weapons, because Hitler decribed nuclear science as a 'Jewish science'.
Good so!

[Amethystfretchen]

--> http://greyfalcon.us/Located%20near%20Ohrdruf.htm

[Wenegade]

The Germans actually where at quite the same level in nuclear Tecnology as the Americans. BUT there where two big differences.

1. German scientists made an error calculating the critical mass. They thought the critical mass had to be way bigger than the US scientists calculated.

2. Germany had not enough uranium, and no good sources to get more.

Edit:


The germans were far behind the allied concerning nuclear weapons, because Hitler decribed nuclear science as a 'Jewish science'.
Good so!

Nazis did everything to get war tecnology.. jewish or not.. didn't matter.

[Bia]

and they got what they deserved. But, we are talking alternate history here.

Oh... well in pretend world anything can happen....therefore it's all rather pointless.

We could add....
"What if Hitler could mind link with Dolphins" senerio.

[Shadow]

Wow that Anti-Nazi.. ehh Anti-Gravity Device is sooo freaking secret that you can find it on the internet. *applaudes*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahnenerbe
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forschungsgemeinschaft_Deutsches_Ahnenerbe_e.V.
Funny how the German Ahnenerbe Articel is shorter than the English one...

[oldsoak]

Lets not forget that the Allies did have access to advanced technology as well - our problem was that people like Whittle, etc were not treated as seriously as they should have been early enough in the war. With the exception of the V weapons, there wasnt really very much that the Germans had that we didnt have the equivalent of. Stuff like the US proximity fuse proved that we were ahead in some very useful areas.

[BloodyTalon]

This speculation should be reserved for videogames and comic books. Sure, there are some tech that the Nazi's were researching that would have been very lethal and effective had they been used en masse (see:the X-7 guided AT rocket, night vision systems, the Horten HO IX, the atomic bomb ), but at the same time their were a lot of projects that were a drain on resources that could have been better utilized (see: the Maus and Ratte tanks, the Silverbird, the P.1500), or just plain stupid (see: the Heliofly, Project C, Project Loedinge,).

[GIJOEJK]

This speculation should be reserved for videogames

NAZI invasion of the USA in the 1950s...

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/851/851207/imgs_1.html

[kingreverent]

Hitler named nuclear physics, "die Jüdische Wissenschaft",... the Jewish science. That's why they were lacking progress and failed to make the bomb.

[lt tahoe]

All this also supposes that German technology advanced at the same rate if they had waited to go to war...which is unlikely. War tends to be an excellent motivator for developing military technology. Would the Germans have fielded all these systems if they had waited to go to war? Doubtful.

[ase290406]

The Nazis had a lot of prototypes and such but they failed to choose, which one to concentrate on. As they never had the resources to finish all of them and continue the war. And I don't think they were the best in conventional tech either.
-The Brits had their Meteor up and running before the war ended.
-No one ever matched the US B-29.
-The Soviet T34/85 was a match for almost anything.
-The best heavy tank in the war was The Josif Stalin 2&3. It was better armed (122mm) and armored then the King tiger.
-The JS 3 even saw combat in the six-day war in 1967, and was still effective.

I think the Germans did have the best personal weapons. MG42 is still in service as the MG3. The Sgt-44 and Gewher-43 had no matches on the allied side. Also the German helmet looks allot like the modern day helmets worn by NATO soldiers.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

The Nazis had a lot of prototypes and such but they failed to choose, which one to concentrate on. As they never had the resources to finish all of them and continue the war. And I don't think they were the best in conventional tech either.
-The Brits had their Meteor up and running before the war ended.
-No one ever matched the US B-29.
-The Soviet T34/85 was a match for almost anything.
-The best heavy tank in the war was The Josif Stalin 2&3. It was better armed (122mm) and armored then the King tiger.
-The JS 3 even saw combat in the six-day war in 1967, and was still effective.

I think the Germans did have the best personal weapons. MG42 is still in service as the MG3. The Sgt-44 and Gewher-43 had no matches on the allied side. Also the German helmet looks allot like the modern day helmets worn by NATO soldiers.

The Me262 was superior to any allied jet fighter, including the Meteor and P-80.

The T-34/85 was a good tank, and the IS-2/IS-3 was the best tank of the war but they were developed to counter the King Tiger/Jagdpanther/Tiger et al.

[Pvt.Anderson]

Megaraptor;2612606']The Me262 was superior to any allied jet fighter, including the Meteor and P-80.

The T-34/85 was a good tank, and the IS-2/IS-3 was the best tank of the war but they were developed to counter the King Tiger/Jagdpanther/Tiger et al.

I have to disagree . In some parts the panther and tiger/kingtiger were better than the IS2/3 , one of them for instance are far superior sights .

[Lazy Lob]

Hitler named nuclear physics, "die Jüdische Wissenschaft",... the Jewish science. That's why they were lacking progress and failed to make the bomb.

So that's why...............learn something new every day.

[Lokos]

Source?


Re: Britain outproducing the Greater German Reich:

AFVs produced:

UK:

Matilda I - 140
Matilda II - 2,987
Valentine - 8,275
Churchill - 7,368
Tetrarch - 177
Cruiser - 665
Covenanter - 1,700
Crusader - 5,300
Cavalier - 500
Centaur - 900
Challenger - 200
Comet I - 1,186
Centurion I - 6

Total: 29,404

Germany:

Total: 46,936

Aircraft:

UK:

131,549

Germany:

119,871

Artillery:

Germany:

159,147

UK:

124,877

Mortars over 60mm (not included in arty):

UK:

102,950

Germany:

73,484

Trucks:

UK:

480,143

Germany:

345,914

Naval:

Carriers:

UK: 14
Germany: 0

Cruisers:

UK: 32
Germany: 0

Battleships:

UK: 5
Germany: 2

Destroyers:

UK: 240
Germany: 17

Submarines:

UK: 167
Germany: 1,337

Conclusion:

The competing sides produced great quantities of war materiel. Certain items were produced in greater quantity by the UK, and certain items by the GGR.

Source:

Milward, Alan S., "War, economy, and society, 1939-1945", University of California Press (1979).

Lokos

[Martel]

Last time I saw anti-gravity nazi technology and stuff like that, I was playing "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" ...

[Nephilim]

haha :) cool reads XD


well actually i think the match to the B-29 would have been the He-177/277Greif
http://www.panzergeneral.de/images/he177.jpgthe He-177 has tandem engines,so 2 engines per gondula, making 4 in total.
the 277er had 4 seperate gondulas as the 177er config caused a lot of problems.
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6200/he2777bh.jpg

this bird here would have carried the german atomic bomb to the east coast of the us
http://www.geocities.com/fireswarm86/Me_264_V1_545x284.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/fireswarm86/cockpit_Me_264_V1_339x237.jpg
Me-264 "Amerika Bomber"
resembles the B-29 to a bit doesnt it
actually one me-264 was caputed with a special installation that later turned out to be a pylon for an atomic bomb

however due obvious reasons they never got into action..
i actually wonder if the 177/277 and 264 ever made it into a combat mission and not just testflights

but to join the main discussion

yea the german technology was pretty much ahead of its time.
but hitler simply made the mistake to fight on several fronts
(east/west).
being a lousy tactician and surrounder by intimdated yes-sayers did the rest...

i actually wonder how the war would have ended if germany didnt broke up with the russians and having a clear back.
cause in the early years the war looked pretty grim for the uk :/
anyway

does anyone know when about the vampir nvg sight was introduced?

[number nine]

ase290406, wasn't Avro Lancaster pretty comparable to B-29?

[Lazuris]

Regardless of what Germany could have produced the one major Achilles heal of the German army was the man in charge Hitler. The German’s could have one the war at several different points, ergo kept the bombing campaign on Britain on military and supply targets versus shifting focus on population centers. Or Holding off the in invasion of Russia to a later date or not invading at all until Britain was taken. However, Hitler himself made foolish tactical decisions and altered the course of the war. He got pissed off that Berlin was bombed and he attacked London. He forced his army to fight a winter campaign and the Russians handed him his a$$. Had the generals run the war, Rommel, Heinz Guderian, and others the out come might have been different.

[number nine]

In 1941. before Moscow, those generals took a beating. And also, it was only a matter of time when US and Brits will land.

Only chance for Germany was big Russian mistake, something like Stalingrad, or Chinese defeat in 1940-1941. They could iverpower Russians only with Japanese help.

Look, during Battle of Stalingrad Russians actually had similar losses to Germans, but Germans never recovered. Not only Russian production was enough to replace losses, but new units were formed, while Germans were never able to bring their army to pre-Stalingrad strength. If you take into account civilian deaths, Russian losses were much higher.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

In 1941. before Moscow, those generals took a beating. And also, it was only a matter of time when US and Brits will land.


That was partly because Hitler directed them to expend resources to seize Kiev first. By the time they turned to Moscow it was too late.

[TheSteve]

Its funny how Hitler started the war, which led to some great victories, yet his major decisions caused him to loose it.

I kinda agree with the statement that the Germans lost the war at Dunkirk, Hitler ordered the halt of the 7th Panzer division. He would order more stupid decisions later too. But I don't like to do the "if" or "buts" of WW2, whats done is done, and that is how it is.

[MetroN]

The Nazis had that "quality over quantity" thing, hence the giant but all to few Tiger tanks.. and the list goes on.

The Allies (thinking of the US especially) had more of a comprimise; "quality and quantity" (or perhaps more quantity than quality in some areas). And that helped them win.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

The Allies (thinking of the US especially) had more of a comprimise; "quality and quantity" (or perhaps more quantity than quality in some areas). And that helped them win.

But it sure didn't help the Syrians and Egyptians in '67 and 73...

[number nine]

Sucessful war at that time meant good leadership and morale.

To some degree they are affected mutually. Under obviously poor leadership morale will suffer. Quality of equipment was secondary at that time, important, but not that much, unlike today when air force can win the war alone. Numerous cases exist to support what I said that morale suffered under poor leadership, and battles or even wars were lost due to poor leadership or morale.

Strength of Germany in WWII was leadership, not at highest level, but at level of regiments, divisions and corps.
That is the reason Germans had usually high morale. Allies were never able to reach efficiency of most German units, not even late in war. Also Germans had less problems with incapable leadership in the beginning of the war, because their use of mission tactics emphasized individual quality of commanders.

Better led France would not be swiftly defeated in 1940. and until Montgomery came to North Africa British were not much better at all. Soviets had enormous casualties in first part of the war because of poor leadership. And well led even Italians fought well in North Africa, and they had low morale throughout the war for other reasons too, but then until Rommel came to the desert their morale was extremely poor because Italian generals allowed Beda Fomm, maybe one of the most humiliating defeats in history of war.

[miguelencanarias]

Also the German helmet looks allot like the modern day helmets worn by NATO soldiers.True, but the M35 helmet (what we all know as Nazi helmet) was already outdated by 1939, and the Institut für Wehrtechnische Werkstoffkunde conducted extensive research to design a better helmet. Experimental helmets with impressive improvements over the old ones (60% balistic improvement over the M35) were presented to Hitler, who, although admitting they were better and cheaper/faster to produce, decided not to OK its production due to various reasons.

Those designs later evolved into the excellent DDR's M56 or VOPO helmet, justly considered in its time the best helmet in service.

[Lokos]

but Germans never recovered. Not only Russian production was enough to replace losses, but new units were formed, while Germans were never able to bring their army to pre-Stalingrad strength.

That's wrong. The Wehrmacht of July 1943 was both numerically and technically more powerful than that of September 1942. It was in 1943 when the Wehrmacht peaked.

1942 - 8.6m
1943 - 9.5m
1944 - 9.1m

Source: "The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich" by Richard Overy


Regardless of what Germany could have produced the one major Achilles heal of the German army was the man in charge Hitler.

That's rich. So why wasn't he the Achilles Heel when he made every correct strategic decision from 1939 until 1941? Or when he instructed the Heer to hold in Winter 1941, as opposed to retreating (and likely routing)?

The 'incompetence' of Hitler is a convenient excuse by Wehrmacht generals for their own mistakes.


Or Holding off the in invasion of Russia to a later date or not invading at all until Britain was taken

This is foolishness. Every day he didn't invade the Soviet Union was another day the SU had to reorganize, reinforce and redevelop the RKKA. Relatively, the RKKA was getting stronger. June 1941 was the best possible time to attack. With every advantage on their side, including complete strategic surprise (forced strategic surprise, rather), the Wehrmacht ultimately failed. This bespeaks Soviet strength and resilience, moreso than German weakness.


To some degree they are affected mutually. Under obviously poor leadership morale will suffer. Quality of equipment was secondary at that time, important, but not that much, unlike today when air force can win the war alone. Numerous cases exist to support what I said that morale suffered under poor leadership, and battles or even wars were lost due to poor leadership or morale.


Germany failed to win WWII with all every advantage of leadership and a consistently high morale.

French forces in 1940 weren't terribly led - nor did they have incredibly low morale. What they had, unfortunately, was a misdeployment of forces and a disastrous allocation of resources. The German ability to mass forces time and time again to batter down every French attempt at concentration... that's where their victory lay, in a nutshell.


But it sure didn't help the Syrians and Egyptians in '67 and 73...

On the other hand, the Syrians and the Egyptians weren't led competently, supplied efficiently and certainly did not have high tactical proficiency.


That was partly because Hitler directed them to expend resources to seize Kiev first. By the time they turned to Moscow it was too late.

Should they have left an 800,000 man Soviet force in their rear flank, then? One lateral movement, and they would have cut off much of AGC. Was it a flawed decision? Or one of two very difficult decisions, each fraught with potentially frightening consequences?


I kinda agree with the statement that the Germans lost the war at Dunkirk

That's one of the more foolish statements I've heard on this matter...

Let's say they eliminated the BEF. And? Does that mean the RAN or the RAF is gone?

Lokos

[OldRecon]

The germans were far behind the allied concerning nuclear weapons, because Hitler decribed nuclear science as a 'Jewish science'.
Good so!

Maybe that's also why he didn't give a green light to use of poison gas on the frontlines during WW-2.
Fritz Haber, the driving force behind chemical warfare researh in Germany during WW-2 after all had jewish origins and was forced to flee Germany when the nazis came to power in 1933. Nevertheless the SS was more than happy to use the Zyklon B, developed by a research team under his guidance - in a chemical weapons research programme disguised as "research for pesticides", as a means of killing concentration camp inmates on industrial scale.

[number nine]

That's wrong. The Wehrmacht of July 1943 was both numerically and technically more powerful than that of September 1942. It was in 1943 when the Wehrmacht peaked.

1942 - 8.6m
1943 - 9.5m
1944 - 9.1m

Source: "The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich" by Richard Overy


Hvala na ispravci - Thanks for correction. I should've said Soviet advantages in manpower in equipment became bigger after Stalingrad, and that Germany couldn't compensate.



Germany failed to win WWII with all every advantage of leadership and a consistently high morale.


Yes. But nowhere I stated good leadership alone can win the war. Allies negated that German advantages by numerical superiority and superior support in artillery and aircraft. I answered megaraptor, it's men who fight not weapons.



French forces in 1940 weren't terribly led - nor did they have incredibly low morale. What they had, unfortunately, was a misdeployment of forces and a disastrous allocation of resources. The German ability to mass forces time and time again to batter down every French attempt at concentration... that's where their victory lay, in a nutshell.


Deployment of most elite units next to border with Belgium, including most of strategic reserves? Yes, you are right.



On the other hand, the Syrians and the Egyptians weren't led competently, supplied efficiently and certainly did not have high tactical proficiency.


That was my point.

[Lokos]

Deployment of most elite units next to border with Belgium, including most of strategic reserves? Yes, you are right.


I meant the manner of the deployment of French forces (i.e. the DCR in particular), but there's deployment, and then there's deployment.

For example:


Some of the best units in the north had yet seen little fighting. Had they been kept in reserve they could have been used for a decisive counter strike. But now they had lost much fighting power simply by moving to the north; hurrying south again would cost them even more. The most powerful Allied division, the 1st DLM (Division Légère Mécanique, "light" in this case meaning "mobile"), deployed near Dunkirk on 10 May, had moved its forward units 220 kilometers (140 mi) to the northeast, beyond the Dutch city of 's-Hertogenbosch, in 32 hours. Finding that the Dutch had already retreated to the north, it had withdrawn and was moving to the south. When it reached the Germans again, of its original 80 SOMUA S 35 tanks only three were operational, mostly as a result of breakdown.


Lokos