Who had the better technology during the Second World War?

Answer 1

This is a very broad question, with a variety of answers in different fields, at different points in the war.

When the Germans invaded France in May 1940 they faced more and better tanks than were in their own panzer forces. The British army at that point was the only one in Europe which had effectively eliminated the use of horses (much German artillery was horse-drawn). The best overall tank in the world at the time of deployment was probably the Soviet T-34 (by very late in the war, some German Panthers were equipped with innovative infra-red sights, which was higher technology). The jet fighter was better developed in the German Me 262 than the British Meteor. Rocket technology was superior in Germany, but the allies developed nuclear weapons first.

Of all the possibilities, the most critical technology may have been that of mass production, where America was the pioneer, via Springfield and Ford.

------------------------------------------------------

Adding to above answer:-

An important question to answer is that of how much political and idealogical interference with existing development and technology and new inventions existed.

Germany was training for war and testing their weapons and tactics in the 1930's in the civil in Spain war; their navy was preparing for a short war to begin about 1941-42 because by then they would have had more and better submarines, and they planned accordingly. However, Hitler intervened and began it before they were ready.They began the war earlier than this, and fought most of the war with developments or variations of what they had started the was with.

For example, the Me 109 fighter: at the start of the war it was modern, but at the end it was obsolescent ; it was only kept in production because there was nothing else to replace it! Why? Because Hitler had stopped all research and development of existing planes because the war was going to be very short and they wouldn't be needed! By the time they began R&D again they knew they would always be behind playing 'catch-up' because the development of new fighters took up to about 5-7 years, and they had just surrendered their lead: they were winning the race, but then they stopped and were overtaken by rivals, and lost.

You have a beautiful parallel today with the Howard government of Australia (which was in power for 11 years until he lost the election in 2007) decided to give no incentives for Research & Development for Australian companies, but for them to buy what they want overseas instead and let others do the R&D, and like Hitler wasted resources on pet projects , his mates, and on pork-barreling because of ideology and short-sightedness and all the 'yes-men' telling him just what he wanted to hear.

Germany ceased R&D because they knew they would win the war . In contrast, Britain and her allies greatly increased R&D because they knew they would lose the war if they didn't.

Germany also had many separate bodies all doing their own thing - much of the (now re-commenced) R&D was duplicated, lacking direction, ideologically-driven , and was now behind that of their enemies. In contrast, Britain's R&D was co-ordinated with both precise tactical and strategic aims , and also the permission to go off at a tangent if necessary. Also, before the War started, Britain had listed all of its scientists and their fields of expertise, so that when war started they all knew who they would be working for and in what areas.

One of the things is that the allies, (especially while their 'backs were against the wall', but not so much later), had the overall aim of winning the war and not scoring points off others or showing how good they were. Sometimes the more important thing is not what was done, but why it was done, and this is a case in point because the consequences were so disparate.