# Best Jet of the War?



## cheddar cheese (Oct 18, 2004)

This has been asked before, but it was a while ago and the homepage needs a new poll.  We need some heated debates and arguments as well, conversation has been a bit lacklustre round here recently.

I say Me-262 8)

I think I've covered the main 4 anyways, If ive missed something tell me 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 18, 2004)

I go with Blitz.


Only dropped once, (I think, personal opinion) a better _Nachtjager_ than the '262, on account of its size, although the platform seemed to be more flexible.


Also much more effective as a recce and bomber, on account of better frontal view for bombing and better camera storage.


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 18, 2004)

He 280,

Wing-loading a LOT better than the 262, more manouverable, better fighter. The 262 would have made a much better interceptor.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 19, 2004)

The He-280 came a lot before the others as well, did it not?



Yeah I see where you're coming from GrG. It was a tricky choice for me, but because the 262 was actually used a lot, lot more it just swung me towards it.

In terms of favouritism though, the Blitz runs away with it for me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 19, 2004)

i'm temped to go for the meteor because it's a great plane, but if i say it's the best i know i'll get proved wrong................


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 19, 2004)

well the hornot fighter never saw combat but if it was intredused i would go for it but its not. id stick with the 262.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 19, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'm temped to go for the meteor because it's a great plane, but if i say it's the best i know i'll get proved wrong................



Too damn right.

The Germans kinda got the whole jet thing sorted...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 19, 2004)

I think the -280 was a better jet fighter than the -262....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 19, 2004)

The Hornet was a super Mossie, a piston plane.

Unless you mean the F-18...

That has nothing to do with WW2 at all, and so doesn't count.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 20, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> The Hornet was a super Mossie, a piston plane.
> 
> Unless you mean the F-18...
> 
> That has nothing to do with WW2 at all, and so doesn't count.


damn not the hornot sorry i mean the horton.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 20, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> I think the -280 was a better jet fighter than the -262....



I dont know much about the He-280. If it was a better fighter than the Me-262, then how come you dont hear about it as much?


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 20, 2004)

it crashed on its 2\3 test flight


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 20, 2004)

the horton fiighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 20, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > i'm temped to go for the meteor because it's a great plane, but if i say it's the best i know i'll get proved wrong................
> ...



but after the war the meteor became one hell of a fighter, the first to break the 600mph in level flight mark and the backbone of the RAF's day and night fighting capibilities, you can't say it wasn't a good fighter, it just never really got a chance to prove itself in WWII.................

and the germans started their jet program earlier, we didn't really show much interest in the concept early in the war, it was only due to whittles tireless work that the meteor came into service when it did...............


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 20, 2004)

The me-193 was a rocket plane right ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 20, 2004)

if you mean the komet then yes it was, and it sucked anyway.............


----------



## evangilder (Oct 20, 2004)

The Komet was an Me-163, not 193.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 20, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



I agree that the Meteor was formidable _after_ the war, but that isnt _during_ the war is it?

And who knows, the early versions of the Meteor might have been shit in combat. They probably wouldnt have been though.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 20, 2004)

yep.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 22, 2004)

what are you agreing to NH??



> And who knows, the early versions of the Meteor might have been s**t in combat. They probably wouldnt have been though.



but if it saw combat against the 262 you have to remember the 262 wasn't exactily the most manouverable plane was it?? and the meteor didn't have fuel and acceleration probelms on the same scale as the 262................

and if it's manouverable enough to take on a V-1 (which if your gonna tip with your wingtip needs a very agile plane) it can't have been that bad...............



> but that isnt during the war is it



and it might have been, it never got a chance to prove itself in combat though so alas, we'll never know................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 22, 2004)

IT WASN'T ALLOWED TO PROVE ITSELF IN COMBAT!


It couldn't even fly over Germany until the war was over!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 22, 2004)

at the end of the war meteor F.IIIs were based in belgium and germany and carried out ground strafing missions, so it did overfly germany...........


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 22, 2004)

Actually He-162 was quite nifty too!

Kiwimac


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 23, 2004)

the ardo 234 was a jet ?


----------



## Erich (Oct 23, 2004)

yes the Ar 234 was a jet and one of the best a/c in the recon role


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 23, 2004)

ok. thanks, i saw 2 modles 1 with jet engines and 1 with props.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2004)

props?? are you sure this was the blitz??


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 23, 2004)

yeah i saw it on a search in google, cant remmber on what subject.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2004)

you sure it wasnt the Ar-232? 

It probably wasnt a 234, NH.


----------



## Erich (Oct 23, 2004)

yes the Ar 234 was a jet with two underslung engines. First as a recon and then to a bomber. Limited success but quick, very few were brought down by Allied air action.

my friend and ace of the US 352nd fg Don Bryan described to me in full details of his 4 Arado encounters and on one of these missions he brought down one just beyond the Remagen bridge which it bombed

v/r

E ~


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 24, 2004)

it looked the same as the ar-234 but i only saw it from the front, i dont know could be.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

> the Ar 234 was a jet with two underslung engines



i believe there was also a 4 engined varient??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

There probably was, I doubt it entered service though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

it did, i've seen it.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Then show me.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 24, 2004)

Ar234C


Four BMW 003 instead of two Jumo 004...


Something like that, at least.



No operational service.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 25, 2004)

it carried 2 1000kg bombs under the engines no ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Ar234C
> 
> 
> Four BMW 003 instead of two Jumo 004...
> ...



See lanc, i was right  Just because they built it, doesnt mean it entered service


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

damn, i saw it on the front of a model box, that's what i based my argument on


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

Hey, works for me


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 26, 2004)

There was a concorde type jet developed by the US _ before pearl harbour_!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

Really? Are you sure...

Any information to back it up?


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 26, 2004)

your kidding right ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

Yeah, another 5 months till all fools day mate


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 26, 2004)

well show a proof. give some info.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2004)

yeah, we want proof, before we turn into an angry mob.............


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 26, 2004)

or a hungry mob.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

Or the Anthill mob


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 27, 2004)

Allright... This is from the Septmber issue of flypast, advocating a DVD called "Planes that never flew". It says, and I quote:
Heard about the British Rocket plane based on secret Nazi technology? Or the Nuclear bomber that could fly for months without landing? What about America's own version of the _ Concorde or the supersonic jet fighter planned before Pearl Harbour_... (then continues on with its little spiel on the DVD...)
Wowee!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

Wow 

But then it probably goes on to say:

"No, of course youve never heard of them, because they never existed" 

*jk*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

well coming up with the idea is nowhere near making it, man's been dreaming about flying since the beggining of our existance, didn't happen till 100 years ago...............


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 27, 2004)

100 years have past and we are allready flying in mach 8.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

over mach 30 i think in space shuttles, i know they need to do at least 17,500mph to escape the atmosphere...


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 28, 2004)

Allright, maybe they didn't exist. But wouldn't it be funny to see on of these thing in a WWII airshow!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

Back to the poll now me thinks...


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 28, 2004)

I cant figure out how did the germens lose WW2.they where exellent in every thing they did.exept beeing cannon fodder(the russians where good in thet).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

They started running out of resources.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 28, 2004)

If you ask some one who won WW2 ?? he will proberly say the USA.
Thet is wrong, americans had allmost unlimited resources,there country wasent attacked by the germens,now britin was attacked they fought and won,russia was attacked and they won.thanks to american resources of coures.so the only good thing the americans did in ww2 was providing huge amounts of troops, and veichels, if the USA was attacked by the germens they wouldent last 1 month.am i right????(proberly not i am never right).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

No you are not right. The Japs were busy attacking the USA you fool  Why would Germany attack the USA as well as Britain and Russia? That would just be plain stupid. Both the Americans had the Russians had huge numbers of resources, but towards the wars end the Russians were running out.

If you want to continue this discussion however, please post it in the WW2 General forum so we can continue on topic here please. 

The poll is as I predicted, although I didnt expect the He-280 to be doing so well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2004)

i still haven't voted.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

It goes without saying, that.

Perhaps you should vote for the Blitz, I wish I did...


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 29, 2004)

I went for the ME-262. Did you hear about another german one called the 'Salmander'? It was developed in 10 WEEKS (!!!) and they used members of the Hitler Youth to fly it. (And that was only after basic training in a glider!)


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 29, 2004)

He 162 = Salamander.

Just a note folks. Try to keep on topic and try to treat each other gently 

I know that sometimes it isn't easy but... We are all here because we love aircraft and because we want to share that. Calling each other names is NOT a good way to build community even WITH smileys! 

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

Where was we calling each other names? 


What I find interesting about the He-162 was that it was consructed primarily of balsawood  Not what you would call _entirely_ practical for a jet  

There was also another plane that looked almost identical to the Heinkel He-162; and that was the Henschel Hs-132. However unlike the He-162, the Hs-132 was designed to be a dive-bomber and not a fighter. It was also the worlds first jet dive-bomber.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 29, 2004)

is it me or is thet plane is small


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

For a jet it probably is quite small, but about the same size as a 190A or Spit I reckon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2004)

it's small because the pilot lays in the prone posistion, partailly to reduce the frontal area of the plane but it also helps the pilot withstand the huge G-forces...................


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 29, 2004)

soon there wont be no pilot in a plane.damn thets gona sux. goodbye goold old dogfight days.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

You're a bit late with your farewell mate.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 29, 2004)

Those ended after the end of Korea...

Oh yeah, pilots will never be phased out, but robots will go where no human should in a bit...


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 29, 2004)

No modern pilot wants to get in to a dogfight, but its possibul.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2004)

most modern fighters are designed to outmanouver a missile so they're still quite manouverable................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2004)

Go back to props and good ol' cannons, get rid of Computer Technowizardry.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2004)

what advantages would old technology bring??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2004)

None, but it would be more entertaining to watch


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2004)

good point, i'd rather watch the ol' stuff flying round than the modern jets, far to noisey.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

Unless you're flying a plane with diesel engines.


----------



## Erich (Oct 31, 2004)

guys the Hs 132 never flew operations. There were no German jet dive bombers as the Me 262 and Ar 234 were basically a dive and fly flat before dropping types. The He 162 was a death trap as I mentioned from previous postings; the JG 1 unit hated it but this is what the Fw 190's were being traded in for by wars end so they had no choice. Even the kills of the unit cannot be 100 % confirmed

E


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

> guys the Hs 132 never flew operations.



I know, but its still the first ever jet that was specifically intended for dive-bombing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2004)

although acording to "Aircraft Anatomy World WarII" which is a book i have, the blitz was sometimes fitted with a dive bombing periscope................


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 31, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Unless you're flying a plane with diesel engines.


try flying a steam powerd plane ROFL.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

Steam is quieter than diesel.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 31, 2004)

But it makes the plane much more visible, especially at high altitudes


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2004)

The Germans did experiment with diesel powered engines though. We have a diesel powered radial engine in storage at the museum, although it's in pretty poor shape. Check out Diamond Aircraft, they have a diesel powered plane for sale now.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 1, 2004)

A diesel powered plane... What is this world coming to.......

Anyways, Ill be gone for the next week..... Home for the weekend, then back outta town... Have a good week boys and gals.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 1, 2004)

You too 

Yup, I believe the Blohm und Voss Bv-222 ran on diesel engines  (Incidentally the Bv-222 was the largest operational flying boat of the war, and the second largest of the war  )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2004)

the germans had a couple of diesel engined sea planes..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 1, 2004)

Yup. I believe they were a wee bit slow though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 2, 2004)

well all sea planes are.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 2, 2004)

Toshaé


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 2, 2004)

Not the Martin Seamaster or Convair Sea Dart....


8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 3, 2004)

But they arent WW2 are they...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 3, 2004)

Or that Saunders-Roe jobby...

That was WW2, it just was never ordered after or during the war, but it was ready...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2004)

Hmmmmmm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 5, 2004)

well if it was never ordered it's not a WWII plane..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2004)

Indeed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

well come on CC, how the hell am i supposed to reply to that...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 7, 2004)

You're not, you're supposed to not reply. You werent supposed to ask a spam question which will, undoubtedly, lead into a spam conversation.

Thats the annoying thing about this site, theres only so much about WW2 you can talk about, so after a while we all turn corrupt. 

I can say get back on topic all I like, but there isnt really much point, it will only stray away again. It always does.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2004)

well a newbie in here would liven it up a bit...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 8, 2004)

We never have any *arguments* anymore, people only make *statements* and *opinions*.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 9, 2004)

which are strongly debated................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 9, 2004)

No they aint, There hasnt been any great arguments on here recently. The days of bronzewhaler82 are what we need back, plan_D was a good arguer but he seems to have gone, and all the topics have been exhausted.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2004)

apart from the mossie/P-38 thread, even though we've exausted it we still argue...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 14, 2004)

Yup. Its only a matter of time before that dies as well though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2004)

i think one of us will have to leave before that happens.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)




----------



## Gandalf002 (Nov 18, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 18, 2004)

Ummmmmmmmm....right ok


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2004)

ah, to be a newbie again..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2004)

Yeah you'd lose all your posts


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

none of you guys would remember but there was a time when 5 posts a nite was a huge total!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Hell I think I remember...

The other day I was looking back through I the posts I made, and in my early days of the ste they were spread out over a few days, one or two one evening, then a few days later another couple...then they got closer together, then Hot Space came and got me adddicted to spam


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Easily the Me-262 and the Ar-234. Nothing comes close and dont tell me the Meteor. I think it was overated. The only thing that could have been better would have been the Gotha Ho-229.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

I totally agree. The Ar-234 was somewhat underated I think. It never gets the recognition it deserves.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Thats probably because other than on a few cases it was not really known for any daring bombing raids or large scale bombings.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

Shouldn't the He-162 and maybe the P-80 be in this poll?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

I dont think the He-162 should be in the poll. It was inovative but was the "Salamander" really a great jet aircraft?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

I forgot to put that in...it was rubbish though so it doesnt really matter.

The P-80 never saw combat either so it cant be in the poll.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

Yeah I dont think either aircraft did or could have made an impact or be counted as the best.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

I do think that with development the He-162 could have been a potent force...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

The He-162 was more buildable than the Me-262, since it required only one engine. Since building engines was such a serious problem for Germany, the 262's need for two of them was a real issue. Niether jet could dogfight with a P-51, their value was in making realatively fast high-speed passes on bombers. The He-162 could have done this job just as well as the Me-262.

Two P-80's were flying patrol over Rome in the last months of war in Europe. No enemy aircraft entered their patrol area, and they were under strict orders not to cross the sea for fear of the plane falling into Russian hands. So, this is a combat mission, though I agree it never saw combat. But it is a WWII era jet.

The Meteor never engaged in aireal combat, so is it a legitimate WWII combat aircraft?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

I dont think so, not with the engine mounted on the top of the fuselage, it would have restricted the pilots view.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

Im positive that the P-80 didnt even see service. From what I heard it was due to set off for Europe but the armistice was called. 

The -162 was also extremely unstable and it had no good pilots because only the Hitler youth were availiable to fly it, and they had virtually no training.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Yes I have read something about that about the 162


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

they had only had training in gliders, a jet aircraft is a bit more of a step up............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

A lot of the early German pilots started the same way, they were members of flying clubs and flew only gliders because after WW1 Germany was not allowed to build an airforce. They did recieve more extensive training though ofcourse at the beginning of the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

yes but for the hitler youth pilots there was no inbetween step, they started on gliders then went straight onto the -162...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

It was tough. It says a lot for a generation of youth that are willing to do something like that for there country. I am sure they recieved some kind of training though just to fly the plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

well yeah but it was in the -162 so it was still in the 162...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

that is correct


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

The He-162 was a decent plane in the hands of an experianced pilot - Germany just didn't have many left by that point in the war. The pilot had to use care about hard manuvers, but this was also true for the 262, though less so.

The Hitler youth would have fared badly in the 262 as well.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

> The design had some clear weaknesses, of course, such as its short endurance and the fact that the position of the engine left the pilot almost completely blind to the vital rear "six" position. Some sources also state that the back-mounted engine made the aircraft logitudinally unstable, rendering any maneuvers that "threw the aircraft around" unsafe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

I believe the engine on the top of the fuselage would probably have been its worst setback as for the untrained pilots I dont think it matters what kind of aircraft they were flying, if you had no experience in combat flying you did not have much of a chance. I am sure there were execptions but not for the most part.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

Blind spot to the rear does not matter much if your plane is 100 mph faster than the enemies.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yes but you have to realize that jet aircraft hardly ever fly at top speeds, they are mostly using there cruising speed, which is significantly lower. A Spitfire or P-51 diving from the rear of a Salamander could have gotten him without the pilot even knowing what hit him.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

And even if it did see him, it would be able to turn and evade very well because of the unstable flight characteristics.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Do you mean unable to evade?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah sorry - I always miss the suffix off of woulds like that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

No prob just wanted to make sure I was understanding you right.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but you have to realize that jet aircraft hardly ever fly at top speeds, they are mostly using there cruising speed, which is significantly lower. A Spitfire or P-51 diving from the rear of a Salamander could have gotten him without the pilot even knowing what hit him.



These jets would have been flying at high speed right to the target bombers, and at close to top speed in the area of expected combat, just like the 262's did. Even crusing speeds were over 400 mph.

A P-51 maybe, a Spitfire doubtful (the spitfire's performance at the top of its flight envelope was not very good). But to achieve this the P-51 would have to be in near perfect position. Even in a maximum dive of about 525 IAS, the P-51 pilot would only have about a 50 mph speed advantage on the He 162. As he leveled out he'd quickly loose this advantage and fall behind, so he would have at best one quick shot at the He162. Just like with the 262, the best chances for intercept would be when the jet was taking off or landing.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> And even if it did see him, it would be able to turn and evade very well because of the unstable flight characteristics.



That unstablity applies even more to the attacking prop plane than the jet it is attacking. At such high speeds, most prop planes (like the spitfire) were buffeting badly. Even the P-51 would be difficult to put the guns on target at over 500 mph.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Yes, but it was just said that Jets cruised at roughly the same speeds as the fighters, and at that stage the P-51/Spit/P-47 had the upper hand. The advantage could only be gained by the 162 if it could the speed in time, but with a surprise attack from the rear there is only one way to describe the Salamander pilot - mullered.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yes but that does not take from the fact that the Salamander was a bad design with the engine being above the fueslage the way it was and overall was not a very good jet fighter. It was inovative and many good design features but was overall a poor jet fighter.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Yup.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yes, but it was just said that Jets cruised at roughly the same speeds as the fighters, and at that stage the P-51/Spit/P-47 had the upper hand. The advantage could only be gained by the 162 if it could the speed in time, but with a surprise attack from the rear there is only one way to describe the Salamander pilot - mullered.



I think the jets (262 and 162) cruised at about the top speeds of the prop fighters. Combat cruise that is, not best-fuel economy cruise. (A combat cruise is to preserve the engine).

And I agree it was not a particularly great "fighter", but neither was the 262. The 162 had the advantage of being cheap and only needing one engine. For the job it was designed to do, intercept bombers, it was sufficient.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

The 262 was MUCH better at intercepting bombers though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

The 262 may have had some problems but it was still the best jet fighter of the second world war. The 162 does not even come close.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

It's behind all the other lpanes in the poll at least.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

It just was the best, in all catagories.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

exept perhaps manouverability......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Go on then, what jet was better than the 262 at manoevering... *sigh*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

the glostor meteor................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

And what makes you say that?


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the glostor meteor................



The P-80. Perhaps the Metor.

The 262 was not a plane that could roll well at all. The engines were so far apart and so heavy...

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2004)

I really dont think the Meteor was all that great of an aircraft. Explain to me how it was please. From what I have read it lagged in all areas against other jet aircraft. Now maybe later varients of the Meteor were pretty good but they came in too late in the war so in my opionion they dont count. The P-80 the same way it may have been a good jet aircraft but certainly not the best. Every aircraft has areas that it is weak in but overall if you take all areas to be considered, the 262 was the best of them all.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 27, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I really dont think the Meteor was all that great of an aircraft. Explain to me how it was please. From what I have read it lagged in all areas against other jet aircraft. Now maybe later varients of the Meteor were pretty good but they came in too late in the war so in my opionion they dont count. The P-80 the same way it may have been a good jet aircraft but certainly not the best. Every aircraft has areas that it is weak in but overall if you take all areas to be considered, the 262 was the best of them all.



The Meteor was probably a better "dogfighter", but it was not as fast by a significant margin, and it was even more underpowered. But it could roll and this is a huge factor in fighter-vs-fighter combat.

The P-80 was more of a traditional fighter. It had an excellent roll rate and rate of climb, and was much more of a dogfighter than the 262, and of comparable speed. Its big drawback was a defective fuel cap which would come off in flight and result in disaster.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2004)

I agree with what you said there. The 262 was a far better interceptor than a "fighter" in that sense.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

you're right, the -262 was a better all round fighter than the meteor, but combat against V-1s proved the meteor to be very manouverable.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Why would that prove it manoeverable, V1's are unmanned so they dont try and evade enemy aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

V-1 were very slow targets and easy to shoot down.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

The Meteor wasnt really necessary dring the war, as thats all it done, and that was a job which could be done just as well by existing planes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

The Meteor did not have more extensive combat action?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Nope, thats all it was used for. It wasnt allowed to be sent out to Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

Were they afraid that the Germans might capture one and study it or something. I think that if you are going to build an advanced fighter you might as well use it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

I think it was some sort of political situation; the war was won and the Spits and 'Stangs were doing fine so I dont think they thought it was necesseary to send it out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

That might be too.


----------



## Darkstalker (Dec 11, 2004)

The Me 262 was the best fighter even it was built and redisigned a lot of times during its competition against the He-280. The -178 was the first jet plane to fly, and it made it 1 day before Germany invaded Poland. The He-280 was one of the most promising designs of the Luftwaffe, it included the first launchable sit and the 3rd wheel of the gear was in the nose and not in the tail, the engine of this plane was designed by Ohan and could reach the speed of 758 k/h but needed a lot of fuel and could only fly a 3rd of time than the Me 262, the 280 could solve this problem with bigger engines but this meant more fuel


----------



## Darkstalker (Dec 11, 2004)

Meanwhile the 262 had 2 Jumo 004 engines built by BMW that could give more speed even 945 km/h and less fuel use. The only problem with these engines was that the change of speeds at high speed could blow them.But the new Luftwaffe strategies solve this problem and made flying strategies designed only for jet fighters. The Jg44 had a score of 50 enemy planes shot down in a a very short operative time.
Also this plane can be used as bomber like the Ju-87, night fighter, fighter and was completely operative before the Meteor.
Thats why it is considered the best jet fighter of the war.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 11, 2004)

Nice painting!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Indeed!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

I agree with you that the Schwalbe was the best jet fighter built in WW2 however it was plagued by fuel problems and was not the most maneuverable aircraft even less maneuverable then some later piston aircraft. It was highly vunderable when taking off and landing as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

But I do think it was the best.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

manouverability was the main advantage the Meteor had over the -262, and don't forget the fact that the -262's engines needed to be replaced every ten hours............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Another point the He-280 had better wing loading the the Me-262.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

The thing the Me-262 had going for it was the its speed. It was still a quite remarkable achievment for its time.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Yup.


----------



## Darkstalker (Dec 12, 2004)

That painting is the last flight of Adolf Galland, the whole painting shows a group of Marauders ( one of them shot down by Galland), being attacked by him, a few feet above the Me 262 a Thunderbolt is racing after him.


----------



## Darkstalker (Dec 13, 2004)

The advantage of the Me 262 was that was conceibed as a jet fighter and that the engines were designed for the plane.
Instead of the He 280, that they had to built a plane for the engine Ohain designed still thinking of the traditional piston planes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2004)

but the munufactures couldn't get hold of the proper metals so the engines had to be made of metals that meant the engines were unreliable
and constantly needed changing..............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 14, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but the munufactures couldn't get hold of the proper metals so the engines had to be made of metals that meant the engines were unreliable
> and constantly needed changing..............



That is not true. Germany outright lacked the necessary metalurgy technology to build reliable engines, and more than that, they lacked the machine tool capability to mass produce them. Even with no materials shortages at all, they could not have done much better in terms of jet engine quality and reliability.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

> Even with no materials shortages at all, they could not have done much better in terms of jet engine quality and reliability.


I dont believe that... If Goering was able to neutralize the bombing threat to Germanys industrial heart, many things would have advanced further along than what they did, including jet engines and other technologies...

U know what happened when they bombed a manufacturing facility flat??? They killed off all the engineers and designers and high level production people.. They are'nt easy to replace.... It definatly took its toll on the future productivity of Germany...

HATS OFF to the brilliant Allied planners!!!!!!!


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 14, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> > Even with no materials shortages at all, they could not have done much better in terms of jet engine quality and reliability.
> 
> 
> I dont believe that... If Goering was able to neutralize the bombing threat to Germanys industrial heart, many things would have advanced further along than what they did, including jet engines and other technologies...
> ...



But that's not the nature of the German problems in mass producing jet engines. This was not something that was going to be solved in the short term, it required a widening of their industrial base, and that takes more than just a few years, it takes a decade. Germany lacked O2 injection smelters and the other basic alloying technologies needed to make the better metals you are refering to. The USA was just barely comming online with this technology at the time, and it had a 10 year lead in such techniques.

Likewise, the whole nature of the German machine tool industry simply didn't support the mass production of things like jet engine turbines. They would have needed to completely change how they did things, and completely rework their machine tooling, something that would have taken a minimum of 10 years, probably more, even if they weren't in a war. Being that they were in a war, they simply could not do it, it would have meant shutting down too much of their war industry for far too long.

As for the future productivity of Germany, after the war under the Marshall plan, the USA built O2 injection smelters for both Germany and Japan. Then, in the 60's and 70's (and beyond) the US Steel industry was reeling because about 70% of the US steel industry still used the old Bessemer process, which generates inferior steel, and they could not compete with German and Japanese steel quality.

Relatively few engineers, scientists, and "high level production people" were killed by Allied bombing. Those kinds of people do not generally need to be in the plants where the products are actually made. Even the workers in the plants suffered relatively light losses (ever heard of a bomb shelter?). 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Darkstalker (Dec 14, 2004)

The main problem was that, in the time the Me 262 was built, Germany had a lack of materials and the Me 262 wasn't a priority. And Hitler was dissapointed of jet fighters, so he ordered that the German industry had to build bombers despite of the lack of resources.
And for that time the Luftwaffe (mainly for Goerings fault) had lost all chance to keep clear from allied aircraft Germany's skies. So we just can wonder what would had happened if they had the time and resources to solve all the problems that the marvelous plane faced.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 15, 2004)

Darkstalker said:


> The main problem was that, in the time the Me 262 was built, Germany had a lack of materials and the Me 262 wasn't a priority. And Hitler was dissapointed of jet fighters, so he ordered that the German industry had to build bombers despite of the lack of resources.
> And for that time the Luftwaffe (mainly for Goerings fault) had lost all chance to keep clear from allied aircraft Germany's skies. So we just can wonder what would had happened if they had the time and resources to solve all the problems that the marvelous plane faced.



The whole argument that Hitler's demand for bombers significantly hurt the 262 program has been prooven to be a myth. This accounts for at most, about 100 fewer fighter versions of the 262 seeing action in WWII. It is well established that in WWII something around 300 262's saw action, perhaps 400 might have seen action if the directive for the bomber version had not been issued, but even this is in doubt because those diverted 262's are probably counted in that 300 figure. The problem was a lack of engines - at least 1500 262 airframes were completed, and there is good evidence the number was more on the order of 2500, but engines were the bottleneck - 400 pairs of engines was the best they could do (plus test engines and many many engines that failed to pass inspection, and of course a relatively small number of engines that went into other jet types).

Study it in detail and you will find that the materials problem went deeper than that. Germany just didn't have the kind of hi-temp titanium alloy steel needed for jet engines. This is why the 262 has the engines in the wings, putting the engines on the centerline would have overheated the tail section too much. You really have to get pretty deep into the history of metallurgy to see that the truth is that in WWII, only the USA had the kind of metallurgy technology necessary to make such alloys, and even in the USA, these resources were quite limited. In 1944 the USA was shipping steel and other alloys to the Soviets that surpassed those available in Germany. Germany had some very excellent steel armor out of the Krupps company, but that was the limit of their metallurgy tech in WWII. And even this was more a matter of understanding what to make than the technical ability to make it. USA class A armor was actually more pure and harder than Krupps armor, but as it turned out this was not really desirable in such armor, and the class B armor which was softer was found to be superior for most Naval applications.

As I've said before, this kind of technology derives from the techno/industrial base of a nation, not from the top of the technology pyramid. German end products (the top of the pyramid) were very good, but in general their base technology was well behind. They simply could not broaden that base to be anything close to what was available to the USA given that they had only about 10 years to ramp it up for WWII and Germany was only about half the size of America. US base industrial technology was at a high point because of the huge US buildup of both rail and shipping from the Civil war through WWII.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2004)

just like everything else the germans did, right?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

> But that's not the nature of the German problems in mass producing jet engines.


It was one of the problems.... There wasnt one big problem like ur stating... It was multiple problems that added up to the shortage of engines......


> Germany lacked O2 injection smelters and the other basic alloying technologies needed to make the better metals you are refering to.


Specific smelters were ONE of the reasons for it.... Not the only....


> US base industrial technology was at a high point because of the huge US buildup of both rail and shipping from the Civil war through WWII.


Also the fact that we didnt have anyone bombing our technology back to the stone age either.....

So far all I have seen out of u RG is the ability to point out specific problems for broad issues... And in the process, say that other people are wrong.. U do not have all the answers, as do none of us....


> Relatively few engineers, scientists, and "high level production people" were killed by Allied bombing.


Thats a lie.... I have read and seen alot of documentation and it was a fact.... Germany lost some of its best people during bombing raids......


> Even the workers in the plants suffered relatively light losses (ever heard of a bomb shelter?).


Ever hear of a big bomb that destroys bomb shelters??? The Allies used them u know.... I dont know where u got that info, but to say that regular workers suffered lightly is a joke... They were expendable items that Nazi Germany could have cared less about.... Thousands died....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

> ever heard of a bomb shelter



yes, ever heard of the tallboy??


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

My point exactly Lanc....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 15, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > ever heard of a bomb shelter
> 
> 
> 
> yes, ever heard of the tallboy??



And a good point it is!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 15, 2004)

> U do not have all the answers, as do none of us....



I do...















...All the wrong ones


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 15, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> > But that's not the nature of the German problems in mass producing jet engines.
> 
> 
> It was one of the problems.... There wasnt one big problem like ur stating... It was multiple problems that added up to the shortage of engines......


Yes, one of many problems which made the jet engines impossible to mass produce. I never said this was the main reason. The biggest reason was the shaper based machine tooling common to Europe at this time. Without more modern milling type machines, mass production of jet engines was nearly impossible.



lesofprimus said:


> > Germany lacked O2 injection smelters and the other basic alloying technologies needed to make the better metals you are refering to.
> 
> 
> Specific smelters were ONE of the reasons for it.... Not the only....



Again, I didn't say it was the only reason. But lack of the ability to refine pure steel with a controlled carbon content was a huge problem in creating the metals alluded to. Without this technology, the smelting process introduces impurties into the resulting steel which create weak spots in product derived from it.



lesofprimus said:


> > US base industrial technology was at a high point because of the huge US buildup of both rail and shipping from the Civil war through WWII.
> 
> 
> Also the fact that we didnt have anyone bombing our technology back to the stone age either.....



No, that is exactly my point. The bombing really didn't have that much to do with it. We are talking about a tiny amount of material needed for the rear fan of the tubojet engines in question. No amount of Allied bombing was responsible for this materials shortage. It was simply beyond their technology to produce the quality of alloys needed in anything but labratory quantities.



lesofprimus said:


> So far all I have seen out of u RG is the ability to point out specific problems for broad issues... And in the process, say that other people are wrong.. U do not have all the answers, as do none of us....



No I've pointed out two huge specific problems faced by the Germans in building thier jet engines in WWII; lack of the necessary metalurgy technology and lack of the kind of machine tool industry needed. There may indeed have been others.



lesofprimus said:


> > Relatively few engineers, scientists, and "high level production people" were killed by Allied bombing.
> 
> 
> Thats a lie.... I have read and seen alot of documentation and it was a fact.... Germany lost some of its best people during bombing raids......


Sure, they lost some of their scientists and engineers in the bombing. Mostly in the last few months of the war. But by far more survived. Messershmit, Tank, Heisenburg, Von Braun, all survived. You make it sound like some huge % of German scientists and engineers were killed in the bombing early in the war, when the fact is that a small % were killed, mostly very late in the war by the huge British firebombing raids of late 1944 and 1945.



lesofprimus said:


> > Even the workers in the plants suffered relatively light losses (ever heard of a bomb shelter?).
> 
> 
> Ever hear of a big bomb that destroys bomb shelters??? The Allies used them u know.... I dont know where u got that info, but to say that regular workers suffered lightly is a joke... They were expendable items that Nazi Germany could have cared less about.... Thousands died....



If you look at the figures, the numbers of war industry workers that died was lower than that of the average residents in the cities that were bombed. You are totally wrong in your assertion that the average German was considered totally expendable to the Nazi's. They were willing to sacrifice citizens but they took serious action to protect them. Had they had the disregard you imply, there would have been far fewer 88's defending German cities and far more on the E. Front. War factory workers in particular were valued and bomb shelters were readily available in most cases.

Sure sometimes a bomb shelter might have been destroyed, but it was uncommon. Again you make it sound like this was commonplace. And furthermore, when it came to scientists and engineers, which was the original group being discussed, shelters were very good. Those that did die probably died because they were at home during an attack and could not reach a shelter.

The biggest loss of German scientific and engineering talent was self inflicted - they were Jews. Aside from this, losses of such talent were very small throughout the war, as these people were prized and well protected, and tended to work in places very well protected from or not likely to be the subject of allied bombing.

In each instance you want to treat the rare case as if it were the usual case. That is not how it was.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2004)

I will agree that some of the biggest losses to German engineering were with the Jews however being bombed all the time did not help the problem. The Germans were not behind the allies in most areas of technology, infact they were ahead in many of there designs. I think given a few years they could have worked out all the kinks and there would not have been these problems. Like everything there are problems in the beginning, the Germans lacked time. They had to push the products out to fight the oncoming allies. Given time I am sure they would have made superior versions to the jet aircraft they already had and even more better aircraft than they already had.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2004)

One problem was the fact that the failure of Germany to reserve a source of Chromium, necessary in blade alloy to prevent the fan blades stretching. This gave German jet engines a short life.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 16, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will agree that some of the biggest losses to German engineering were with the Jews however being bombed all the time did not help the problem. The Germans were not behind the allies in most areas of technology, infact they were ahead in many of there designs. I think given a few years they could have worked out all the kinks and there would not have been these problems. Like everything there are problems in the beginning, the Germans lacked time. They had to push the products out to fight the oncoming allies. Given time I am sure they would have made superior versions to the jet aircraft they already had and even more better aircraft than they already had.



I am not disagreeing with that. I'm trying to point out that while German designs were quite innovative, their industrial base was simply not competitive with that of the USA. Design of end products is at the top of the industrial pyramid, and at this level the Germans excelled over their 10 years of development. But materials sciences (amoung others) are derived from the base of the pyramid and there was no way the Germans could compete with the USA in this respect.

Putting this in simple terms, the if the German industrial base was 100 units wide, the US industrial base was at least 300 units wide. Therefore, the highest the German's could get was (again in simple arbitrary terms), lets say, 50 units high at the top, but the USA could potentially reach up to 150 units before having to widen the base.

The German scientists and Engineers did the best they could with what they had to work with, and created some very advanced weapons. But in the end, the USA (with a lot of British input) far outpaced the Germans. The Germans started their war effort and especially their war R&D in 1935, and over 10 years the most advanced weapons they were able to create were more than matched by the USA's 3.5 year effort. This was not because the German scientists and engineers were stupid, it was because it was simply harder for them to progress beyond a certain level given the respective industrial bases.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

And that all comes down to time though. The US scientists had time to conduct tests and properly put out the best product they could, the German scientists were always on a short string having to develop at the shortest posible time. This was because Hitler wanted output, he wanted to see finished products in a matter of no time, which was a major downfall. Also the fact that the Germans were fighting a losing battle did not help the fact. I will agree with you on most of what you posted there.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 17, 2004)

how come nobody put the P-80 to vote 4?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Didnt see enemy action...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 17, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And that all comes down to time though. The US scientists had time to conduct tests and properly put out the best product they could, the German scientists were always on a short string having to develop at the shortest posible time. This was because Hitler wanted output, he wanted to see finished products in a matter of no time, which was a major downfall. Also the fact that the Germans were fighting a losing battle did not help the fact. I will agree with you on most of what you posted there.



I disagree. The Germans started war level R&D in about 1935, they had 10 years to develop war technology. The USA did not get serious about such R&D until 1942, giving them just 3.5 years of development time.

Take the Jet programs for instance. The German jet program began in 1937 and generated their first flying jet, the He178, first flew on August 27, 1939. The Junkers company had been working on jet turbines as early as 1936 and had a prototype in 1938. Messerschmitt started work on project 1065 in 1938 and submitted the Me262 proposal to the RLM in May 1940. And on July 18, 1942 the first prototype (the -V3) flew. It was not until June 1944 that the plane actually entered combat, with the first operational units going into action in October. I will agree had politics not interfered it might have entered combat a few months earlier. But the point is from first flying prototype to first combat ready production units was at least 4.5 years, with 2+ years of prior R&D on the engines.

Now compare this to the USA's effort. Let's cancel out the 2 years of pre first flight engine development by the Germans with the British contribution of the initial jet engine tech supplied from the Meteor project to the USA and just compare from first flight. The YP-59 first flew on Oct 1st/2nd of 1942, the first YP-80 flew on January 8, 1944, and the first 45 production units of the P-80 were deployed in very early 1945. Less than 2.5 years from first flight to delivery. The P-80 was withheld from combat for strategic reasons, but had the war gone differently, lets say holding off the Soviets and defeating the D-Day invasion, there would have been more P-80's flying by end of summer '45 than 262's. Had the 262's been rolling off the production line in early 1943 (including working reliable engines) the German's would have dominated the air-war by the middle of that year. By the time the Allied jets arrived, Germany would have had something on the level of the Mig-15.

The argument that Allied bombing was a big part of the hold up on the 262 development does not really hold up because Allied bombing did not significantly interfere with German industry until 1944, and even that contention is disputable (there is good evidence that Allied bombing had little effect in 1944). The real issue was simply the scale of the two industries and to a lesser but significant degree the way they were managed.

I agree time was an issue. But for any technical project, the USA was likely to complete the project 2-3 times faster than the Germans depending on the level of focus. It was just a matter of industrial scale, US industry was many times larger than Germany and had more qualified engineers to work on projects and they genrally had more advanced facilities and better materials to work with. Germany's lack of focus also helped the Allies. Remember Germany didn't "get serious" and go into a "total war economy" until 1944, after it was all but over.

Germany was also hurt by its decisions as to what kinds of projects to undertake. The V1 and V2 projects were uselss, neither was going to win the War for Germany w/o nuclear weapons, and they had no reason to expect such weapons would be available until 1947 or beyond. The super tanks and Me262 were likewise not going to win the war. Neither of these weapons had the ability to take the war to the enemy, both were defensive. In general, the wonder weapons were more about making lots of reichmarks for the right Germans - such projects were high profit projects assuming the riechmark was going to have long term value.

The Germans failed to produce the weapon they really needed, the VT fuse. Had they been able to produce a working proximity fuse (they tried hard but failed) Allied bombing would have been defeated and the Luftwaffe' would have been freed to pursue more offensive operations. German artillary would have been twice as effective and they could probably have held off the Soviets. To me, the VT fuse and of course the A-Bomb were the two "super weapons" the Germans needed but did not succeed in creating.

So I think the argument that the Allied scientists had more time to work with than did the German scientists is incorrect, the German scientists and engineers had more time.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

I will agree with you that the V-1 and V-2 took up needless time and effort and Hitler was stuck on having his vengence weapons. So I will agree with you that Germanys desisions did hurt the Jet projects. I will also agree with you that US industy was larger. And if you look at the fact that the Germans were working on jet engines in 1936 then yes I would agree that time was not a factor, however what I meant by German scientists not having time is that basically politics put a time limit on how long it took for them to put out a working product. They did not have the sufficient time to put out better products. In the latter parts of the war Germany was putting out inovative designs that just were not quite ready yet and that was because Hitler wanted them in the air immediatly. Now if they had had sufficient time would these products have helped their war effort? Probably not. I do however think that given sufficient time they could have turned out aircraft of great value as you said like a Mig-15 type of aircraft. For example just look at the Ho-229.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 17, 2004)

Something the should also be taken into account was the slave labor that was used in Germany was also "helpful" when they worked on, assembled, transported these aircraft. To much of that kind of help could ruin your whole day!


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 17, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will agree with you that the V-1 and V-2 took up needless time and effort and Hitler was stuck on having his vengence weapons. So I will agree with you that Germanys desisions did hurt the Jet projects. I will also agree with you that US industy was larger. And if you look at the fact that the Germans were working on jet engines in 1936 then yes I would agree that time was not a factor, however what I meant by German scientists not having time is that basically politics put a time limit on how long it took for them to put out a working product. They did not have the sufficient time to put out better products. In the latter parts of the war Germany was putting out inovative designs that just were not quite ready yet and that was because Hitler wanted them in the air immediatly. Now if they had had sufficient time would these products have helped their war effort? Probably not. I do however think that given sufficient time they could have turned out aircraft of great value as you said like a Mig-15 type of aircraft. For example just look at the Ho-229.



Well, I think it is true that the engineers and scientists of all sides were under great pressure to make accomplishments quickly. The stress upon the Manhatten project team was increadible. Nervous breakdowns and heart-attacks were not uncommon on all sides.

What amazes me however, is the degree to which inter-service politics were allowed to hurt both the German and Japanese war efforts. For example, in about 1941 or so Von Braun's team had developed a very nice system for launching rocket bombardments from U-Boats. However the German Navy rejected this as it was an "Army project". These bombardments, directed against key US and British ports and shipyards, could have had a significant impact on the Allied war effort.

Likewise, in several instances the IJN refused to cooperate with the IJA. If such things had happened to such a significant degree with the British or American forces, heads would have rolled quickly. Can you imagine if the USN had refused to conduct the Doolittle raid because it was an Army operation?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Darkstalker (Dec 18, 2004)

Another thing that we sometimes forget, is that Germany couldn't develop in an open way because of the Versailles Treaty, so they started looking for new strategies and techonlogies that will help them in a new war.
But they lacked of materials and manufacturing places to create and develop designs with resources as the Allies did. Thats why there are a lot of designs of weapons and aircfraft that today will look ridiculous and with no future, but in that time were worth of taking a chance and try to develop the best of them with a limited quantity of resources and time.
And despite of their efforts to develop serious weapons and strategy programs they could never match the Allies, mainly the Americans that had a lot of resources, and time to develop and fix all the projects and problems that this showed.
They had with huge industrial and technological structure, that had more resources to work with and that never faced a post war evironment like Germany did.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 18, 2004)

Germany pretty much openly ignored the Treaty of Versailles from about 1935 on (after Hitler assumed full power). About the only part they did honor was the limits to gun size on their ships, as they were concerned the British might enforce the treaty by having the RN shell their shipyards. Even so, the turrets were designed to allow the guns to be upgraded to 15" at a later date.


----------



## Erich (Dec 18, 2004)

ah did we not all agree some months ago the jet that was the best was the one best suited for it's task; whether it be a fighter, bomber killer or recon version ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

can't remeber


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

I think I recall. 

Erich, you think the Blitz was the best dont you?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

The Versailles Treaty really was a joke. Mostly because the Allies allowed Hitler to openly ignore it. The problem with sides not taking up projects because it was an "army project" or something like that was a major problem. Had the infrastructure been set up differently many of the German X-planes as some people like to call them may have gotten off the ground and many other projects may have been completed like the U-Boot rockets and soforth. So yes that was a problem. And yes I will say with Erich the Ar-234 Blitz was an awesome aircraft. I dont think the best but awesome.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Well it was a very good jet at multi-roleing


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

I think it was a quite remarkable aircraft and very ahead of its time.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Yep. Good speed, a decent payload and for a jet of that time, a very good range. Worked as a recon machine and a light bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

Yeap and she was attractive looking too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

A real beauty 8)


----------



## Erich (Dec 18, 2004)

I cannot compare the blitz with the schwalbe since they provided two differnet types of acitivites. The Arado was superior in the recon role, the 262 as a fighter against bombers if flown in threes

E


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

loving the looks of the blitz myself......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Yeah you can not compare the Blitz with the Schwalbe because they were too different types of aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

both looked good................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Yeah that is about the only way one can compare them to one another.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Junkers Ju-287 was a novel jet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Yes it was.

Type: Heavy Bomber
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerks AG
Model: V1 to V3
Crew: V3: Three
First Flight:
Ju 287 V1: August 16, 1944
Ju 287 V2: 1947 by Soviet Union
Number of Flights: V1: 17
Number Produced: 2, (V3) not completed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Ju 287 V1 V2:
Model: Junkers Jumo 004
Type: Turbojets
Number: Four Thrust: 1,980lb (900kg)
Note: Four 2,645lb (1,200kg) thrust Walter 501 takeoff
assistance rockets also mounted.

Ju 287 V3:
Model: BMW 003A
Type: Turbojets
Number: Six Thrust: 1,760lb (800kg)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Span: 65 ft. 11¾ in. (20.11m)
Length:
Ju 287 V1: 60 ft. 0½ in. (18.30m)
Height: N/A
Wing Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 12,510kg
Loaded: 20,000kg
Performance:
Maximum speed:
Ju 287 V1: 560km/h (348mph)
Ju 287 V3: 865kn/h (537mph)
Range with max. bombs (est.):
Ju 287 V3: 1585km (985 miles)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Two MG 131 in remote control tail barbette.

Bombs: Ju 287 V3
8,818 lb. (4000 kg)

Comments:
One of the strangest Luftwaffe aircraft to ever claw it's way into the air was the Junkers Ju 287. Begun in early 1943, the Ju 287 incorporated many advanced aerodynamic concepts, the most striking being the swept forward wings. This design feature was deemed radical enough to warrent the construction of a testbed aircraft, pictured above. This testbed flew on August 16, 1944. The aircraft was a Frankenstien's monster, pieced together from several diffent aircraft. Included were the nosewheels from two B-24 Liberators, the fuselage of an He 177, mainwheels off a Ju 352, and the tail was constructed of Ju 388 parts.
17 test flights proved the concept to have excellent handling characteristics and would have proven a problem had not the allies overrun the testing airfield, capturing the the V1 and the nearly complete V2. The V2 was flown by the Soviet Union in 1947. The V3 failed to get off the drawing board and would have had several improvements.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2004)

are those figures proven??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2004)

That I can not tell you. I know only what I have read about it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> are those figures proven??



Probably, seen as it did fly.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 20, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > are those figures proven??
> ...



It is hard to tell with late war German figures. Often, because of the difficulties and dangers of actual test flights, data is "estimated" based upon what little actual test data there was. This is especially true of things like speed at altitude or range. So it has to be taken with a big grain of salt.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I believe the Ju-287 can be proven and taken seriously. The V-3 version which had the best performance was actually test flown by the Russians in 1947. The Russians trying to get there Jet program up and running would have tested this aircraft and any other they got there hands on to fullest extent.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 21, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I believe the Ju-287 can be proven and taken seriously. The V-3 version which had the best performance was actually test flown by the Russians in 1947. The Russians trying to get there Jet program up and running would have tested this aircraft and any other they got there hands on to fullest extent.



Sure but we would not have access to this test data. What there is is almost certainly captured German data, and as I pointed out, often this was estimated later in the war.

Do you have any access to the Russian info? If not, I have a couple of buddies in Russia who I can ask and see if they have anything.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

No I do not. Could you do that, that would be great.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 21, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I do not. Could you do that, that would be great.



Certainly, but there is no gaurantee that info is available to them either. But it might be. I'll send off an email now.

(edit: emails have been sent)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

Yeah it might be hard to get info. The Russians were just a secretive especially after the war.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 21, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah it might be hard to get info. The Russians were just a secretive especially after the war.



Yes that is true, but it is also amazing how much old stuff they have opened up for public viewing in their libraries since the fall of the Soviet Union.

For example:

Soviet Fighter Tactics

These pages are a fairly good translation (I've confrimed this as one of my Russian contacts, who is a flight simulator programmer and an experianced aerobatics pilot, has read the orginal) of some of the pages from this book, which was "classified" until about 1992.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I was always amazed at how backwards they seemed sometimes. I went to East Germany in 1987 and then to Moscow in 1992 and it was just amazing how they seemed to be so far behind every one else socially. I have always been fascinated in Russia and so forth.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 21, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was always amazed at how backwards they seemed sometimes. I went to East Germany in 1987 and then to Moscow in 1992 and it was just amazing how they seemed to be so far behind every one else socially. I have always been fascinated in Russia and so forth.



What I always found interesting about Russian's that I've dealt with is how materialistic they are. I guess if you don't have something, you obsess on it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I am going to have to make another trip to Moscow and St. Petersburg when I get out of Iraq. For some reasom the people and the country just fascinate me. Especially when I was growing up in Germnay during the Cold War. The whole aspect of it amazed me. I always wanted to work in the US Embessy in Moscow when I was a kid. I thought it would be fascinating the whole cat and mouse stuff that went on.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 21, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> What I always found interesting about Russian's that I've dealt with is how materialistic they are. I guess if you don't have something, you obsess on it!



Considering that they lived under communism for over seventy years, it's really not so surprising.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 21, 2004)

I love the Rusians too DerAdler, they have a fascinating culture and country.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I agree with you. When I was in Highschool I was on the rifle marksmanship team and my coach was an olympic shooter, she learned to speak Russian so that she could comunicate with her Soviet counterparts and she tried to teach me but I gave up after only 6 weeks it was just too hard for me. Now I wish I had not quit and I hope to still learn it someday.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 21, 2004)

Russian is the #1 language id like to learn. Followed by Italian.

Its a shame that my school only has the option of French and Spanish (Im doing French). We dont even have German which is a language id like to learn.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I have always been fascinated with languages I try to atleast learn a little bit of every language I can. Russian would be great to finish though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 21, 2004)

I'd be happy right now to just learn French. Maybe I'll get Maestro to give me lessons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I dont like the French language. To me it is just a bit prissy.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 21, 2004)

I find some of the people that way. From France that is, not Québéc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I pretty much agree with you.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> I'd be happy right now to just learn French. Maybe I'll get Maestro to give me lessons.



Why not me? 

I quite like the French language, its fairly simple to learn.

Its the French accent that rather annoys me. Except the French Canadian accent, that is one of the greatest accents in the world


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 22, 2004)

That's it. Suck up to Maestro.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Im not


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

I prefer the harsh languages. I loved learning German (well it was sort of my first language) but I enjoyed Russian before I gave up and I wish to continue trying to learn it. One that I was always fascinated with is the very early English spoken a very long time ago. I dont really know what to call it but it was original languag spoken in Beowulf. I had to learn that story when I was school and it just fascinated me.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 23, 2004)

Most people just call it Old English.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

What, "Ye olde" and all that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

No it was really harsh sounded more like German than anything. It was spoken in early England.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 23, 2004)

It was probably a form of old Danish or Swedish.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

It was really interesting whatever it was.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No it was really harsh sounded more like German than anything. It was spoken in early England.



You mean Gailic (spelling?) ?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Gaelic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 23, 2004)

Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. Duh!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Yeah I am pretty sure that was it. I can never remember but it was awesome.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah I am pretty sure that was it. I can never remember but it was awesome.



Then you will like the song "larks tounges in aspic" - King Crimson.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Never heard it. Sorry.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

The Welsh language is extraordinarily strange.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2004)

As I am sitting here in my tent over in Tikrit, Iraq I just opened a Christmas card from a little girl back in the states and in the card there was a story. I know this has nothing to do with WW2 aviation but I wish to post this story in honor of all the soldiers no matter what country they come from who are away from there families during this holiday season.

A Soldiers Christmas Story

Twas the night before Christmas, He lived all alone, in a one bedroom house, made of plaster and stone. I had come down the chimney with presents to give, and too see who in this house did live. I looked all about a strange sight did I see, no tinsel, no presents, not even a tree. No stocking by the mantel, just boots filled with sand, on a wall hung pictures of far distant lands. With medals and badges, awards of all kinds, a sober thought came through my mind. For this house was different, it was dark and dreary, I found the home of a soldier, once I could see clearly. The soldier lay sleeping, silent, alone curled up on the floor in this one bedroom home.

The face was so gentle, the room in disorder, not how I pictured a United States soldier. Was this the soldier of whom I had just read? Curled up on a poncho, the floor for a bed? I realized the families that I saw this night owed there lives to these soldiers willing to fight. Soon round the world, the children would play, and grownups would celebrate a bright Christmas day. The all enjoyed freedom each month of the year, because of these soldiers, like the one laying here. I couldn't help wonder how many lay alone, on a cold Christmas eve in a land far from home. The very thought brought a tear to my eye, I dropped to my knees and started to cry. The soldier awakend and I heard a rough voice, :Santa don't cry, this life is my choice; I fight for freedom, I do not ask for more, my life is my God, my Country, My Corps." The soldier rolled over and drifted to sleep, I couldn't control it, I continued to weep. I kept watch for hours, so silent, so still, and we both shiverd from the cold nights chill. I didn't want to leave on that cold, dark, night, this guardian of honor so willing to fight. Then the soldier rolled over, with a voice soft and pure, whispered, "Carry on Santa, its Christmas day, all is secure." One look at my watch, and I knew he was right. "Merry Christmas my friend, and to all a good night."


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

Evidently info is quite limited even in Russian, but here is what he's found so far:



> On 287 I have found info (looking well, but I don't know is it very reliable):
> 
> Ju.287-V1:
> type: two-seater flying laboratory (assigned for low-speed measurements)
> ...



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2004)

Cool thanks for the info the 287. The Lippisch aircraft was an interesting design. I dont know whether the design would have been very good but it was an interesting German design.

Lippisch Dm-1

Type: Single-seat test airframe
Origin: Lippisch
Models: DM-1
First Flight: -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine: None

Dimensions:
Wing span: 6.00m
Length: 6.32m
Height: 3.25m
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Weights:
Empty Weight: 375 kg.
Flying Weight: 460 kg.
Performance:
Climb Rate: N/A
Max. Speed: 560 kph*
Landing Speed: 72kph*
*Calculated.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2004)

yes....well....erm.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2004)

Interesting though huh.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2004)

yeah.................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2004)

Well anyhow you all have a good night and enjoy the hollidays.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2004)

have a great christmas everyone!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2004)

Well you are online tonight, how was your Christmas?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 25, 2004)

well it's only 16:44 here, but not brilliant, i got IL-2FB but it rins upside down............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2004)

runs upside down?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 25, 2004)

yes, as in not the right way up.................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2004)

is it a game or a RC plane I dont get it. sorry


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 25, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well it's only 16:44 here, but not brilliant, i got IL-2FB but it rins upside down............



What graphics card do you have? What drivers are you running? Is the version of DX you are running compatible with the program?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2004)

Yeah I guess that all could have something to do with it. My laptop is so old it can not handle games like that. Just hope it will last another couple of weeks and then I am going to have to get a new one when I get home.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

I remember a while back in this thread there was something about Meteors downing V-1s. I don't know if any information was gained on it, and I cannot be bothered to look but on 4th August 1944, Flight Officer JK Roger flying a Gloster Meteor of 616 Sqd. was the first pilot to shoot down a V-1 by cannon-fire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2004)

I am not sure I am trying to research it myself but here is what I found so far.

In daylight, V-1 chases were chaotic and often unsuccessful until a special defence zone between London and the coast was declared in which only the fastest fighters were permitted. Between June and mid-August 1944, the handful of Tempests shot down 638 flying bombs. (One Tempest pilot, Joseph Berry, downed fifty-nine V-1s, another 44, and Wing Commander Beaumont destroyed 31.) Next most successful was the Mosquito (428), Spitfire XIV (303), and Mustang, (232). All other types combined added 158. The still-experimental jet-powered Gloster Meteor, which was rushed half-ready into service to fight the V-1s, had ample speed but suffered from a readily jammed cannon and accounted for only 13. 

Now if you go to: http://www.redtwo.demon.co.uk/616/Welcomehist.htm
it has a history of the 616th and ti also says that on the 4th he was the first to shoot down a V-1 "diver" with a Meteor. From what I can tell Tempests shot down more even before the Meteor. I may be wrong but this is just from what I can gather.

F/O J.K.Rodger sighted a Diver at 1640 hrs. near Tenterden on course of 318° at 3000 ft speed 340 mph. Attacking from astern Rodger fired 2 bursts of 2 seconds and saw the Diver crash and explode, 5 miles N.W. of Tenterden.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 26, 2004)

By "diver" could it mean a V1 that had begun its decent?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2004)

It seems that most of the downings were not by cannon but by getting the V-1 to dive into the ground by getting your wing just under the V-1's small wing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2004)

At the website it says that "diver" is what the Brits called them, not a flying bomb or a V-1.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

The British called them Doodlebugs, mostly. So, from that we can gather that the Meteor didn't really do much in World War 2 except save a few lives with those 13 V-1s downed. 

Random fact on the V-1 - Approx. 7000 were launched at Britain which accounted for just over 6000 deaths.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > well it's only 16:44 here, but not brilliant, i got IL-2FB but it rins upside down............
> ...



don't get me wrong the program runs perfectly, i even tried flying the -262 and it worked, it's just upside down...................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 26, 2004)

I think what he's driving at is if you're running the wrong version/type of software with your graphics card, funny things may happen.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2004)

could just be the disk.............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 26, 2004)

Well that'd be a new one, on me. I've never heard of _that_ before!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2004)

parhaps if i put the disc in upside down...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2004)

The V-1 (also known as a flying bomb, buzz bomb or doodlebug) was a pilotless monoplane that was powered by a pulse-jet motor and carried a one ton warhead. They were launched from a fixed ramp and travelled at about 350mph and 4,000ft and had a range of 150 miles (240km). It was 8 metres (25 feet) long and had a wingspan of about 5.5 metres (20 feet).

Germany launched its new weapon from Pas-de-Calais on the northern coast of France, on 12th June, 1944. The first ten failed to reach the country but on the following day one landed in Essex. Over the next few months 1,435 hit south-east England. These attacks created panic in Britain and between mid June and the end of July, around one and a half million people left London. 

Germany fired 9,521 V-I bombs on southern England. Of these 4,621 were destroyed by anti-aircraft fire or by RAF fighters such as the new turbojet fighter, the Gloster Meteor. An estimated 6,184 people were killed by these flying bombs. By August only 20 per cent of these bombs were reaching England.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 26, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Random fact on the V-1 - Approx. 7000 were launched at Britain which accounted for just over 6000 deaths.



Pretty darn expensive way to kill civilians huh?

Historical note: The USA copied the V-1 under project MX544, designating it the JB-2 (USAAF)/KUW-1 (USN) with some minor changes.



> USAAF JB-2 / JB-1
> 
> Despite the V-1's limitations, the US military was very interested in it. In contrast to the bumbling American efforts in radio-controlled flying bombs such as the BQ weapons, the German V-1 looked pretty good, and in July 1944 captured V-1 components were shipped to Wright-Patterson Field in Ohio for evaluation. Within three weeks, the USAAF and American industry had built their own V-1, which was designated the "Jet Bomb 2 (JB-2)".
> 
> ...



The intent was to use these to deliver nerve gas and/or anthrax if Japan refused to surrender by the intended invasion date (Jan 1946?). There are numerous small islands around Japan which would have brought almost the whole country within the 200 mile range of these weapons.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2004)

SPECIFICATIONS 
Span: 17 ft. 8 in. 
Length: 27 ft. 1 in. 
Height: 4 ft. 8 in. 
Weight: 5,023 lbs. loaded 
Armament: 2,100 lb. high-explosive warhead 
Engine: Ford PJ-31-F-1 of 900 lbs. thrust (copy of German Argus-Schmidt pulse-jet) 

PERFORMANCE 
Operating speed: 375-400 mph 
Launching speed: 220 mph 
Range: 150 miles 
Operating Altitude: 2,000 to 4,000 ft.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 26, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> SPECIFICATIONS
> Span: 17 ft. 8 in.
> Length: 27 ft. 1 in.
> Height: 4 ft. 8 in.
> ...



Actual US studies indicated the range could be extended to 200 miles - perhaps at a lower speed.

It's not very easy to find, but there is substantial evidence that the intended warheads would be chemical/biological. In fact, it was Churchill's intent to drop Anthrax on Germany in 1944, but the US dragged its feet on providing him with the bombs.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2004)

Anthrax a nasty bio weapon.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

And there's the firing platform for the Loon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2004)

interesting though, how the V-1 pretty much paved the way for the cruise missiles that we use today.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

And the V-2 (and Von Braun - member of SS and technology director of the Nazi party) paved the way for ICBMs and space travel.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2004)

I wonder how an HWK rocket motor from the Me-163 would do in the V-1 if they were to be used as short-range battlefield artillery...


The mind boggles...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

What's the point, they used the Nerbel-Werfer instead...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2004)

True, true...


Had forgotten the "Fog-Thrower!"

Still, I think it could be a good rocket delivery motor, at least when dropping airborne, like for a large anti-ship or armor rocket, coupled with a big warhead...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

Anti-shipping would have been its best role, certainly.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2004)

Yep, the speed of the weapon coupled with a large warhead with a shaped charge would pierce armor well!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

If you're air-launching it then drop down to just above sea-level and fire straight into the ships side, it wouldn't stand a chance. Although, it is dangerous with that engine...that tended to explode...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2004)

They could always create a fuse mechanism...


That way, when dropped in a dive, the rocket would drop, a fuse would be struck, and while a safe difference from the mothership, it would automatically light...


Something like that - Clever those Germans were, they'd figure something out...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

I'm sure they would, that does actually sound like a good idea. You'd have been a good use to the German war machine. 

They did still have the Henschel Remote Bombs though, that did quite a bit of damage. Or you could have a Stuka dive on the ship with a SC1000...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2004)

Stuka = Junk...


He-177, Ju-188/288, or Do-217 would make a good launch platform, I feel...


Though the Henschel bombs and torpedos were effective...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

The Stuka comment was more of a joke, although it did sink a few Russian ships. 

The remote bombs were probably the best used, there wasn't an AWFUL lot of torpedo usage by the German aircraft...was there?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2004)

Actually, I meant glide and remote control torpedos...


But no, they didn't use "fishes" much...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Stuka = Junk...
> 
> 
> He-177, Ju-188/288, or Do-217 would make a good launch platform, I feel...
> ...



Tiny Tim's could be fired from any Med. bomber or the Corsair could carry 2. These were easily strong enough to sink a destroyer, and could probably have badly hurt a light cruiser.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

But I'm not talking about Tiny Tims, we were hypothesizing about a fictional, I repeat, fictional, German air-to-surface missle using the HWK motor from the Me-163...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> But I'm not talking about Tiny Tims, we were hypothesizing about a fictional, I repeat, fictional, German air-to-surface missle using the HWK motor from the Me-163...



Why fictional?



> The beginning ideas that were to evolve into the Henschel Hs 293 appeared as early as 1939. In 1940 an experimental model having the shape of a glider was built. The goal was to develope a remote-controlled air-to-surface missile against shipping.
> 
> Development proceeded even though no suitable rocket motors were available. The experimental model used a standard SC 500 bomb with extra wings and tail unit but no rudder. A propulsion system was finally developed and the liquid-fueled rocket was fitted under the main missile body. An 18-channel radio system was used for control.
> 
> ...



The Hs293 used hydrogen peroxide + sodium permanganate liquid fuel, I think (without looking it up) this is the same fuel as used on the Me163?

Other Hs293 links:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs293.html
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/dsh/artifacts/RM-Hs293.htm
http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/missiles/hs293.htm

The following link gives a list of a variety of surface to air and other German WWII "secret weapons":

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/Secweap.htm

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

The Me-163 used an HWK 109-509, I know of no missles that used that; the Hs293 used a HWK 109-507...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> The Me-163 used an HWK 109-509, I know of no missles that used that; the Hs293 used a HWK 109-507...



Well, it would be silly to put such a large rocket engine on a air-to surface "missile" since there were no guidance systems at the time that could operate at anything close to the range that would provide. The rocket engine has to be scaled down to fit the purpose right?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

Large? I think not...

http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/ato/me262i.htm


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

You're missing the point. Why put a rocket engine with the ability to provide thrust to drive the missile more than maybe 30 seconds? Well within that time, the missile will either have hit the target or be beyond controller range. Also, because it does not need to lift the missile, you do not need so much thrust.

These factors dictate a smaller rocket engine on such a weapon. Anything as large as the engine on the Me163 is just a waste of materials and fuel. And finally, yes that is a fairly large rocket engine as compared to the size of the missiles that could be reasonably carried on a plane. For an aircraft carried missile, you want it as small as possible right?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2004)

Missiles and Rockets of the Luftwaffe.

The A-4 (V-2) ballistic weapon carried a one ton warhead 200 miles (320 km) in less than five minutes and impacted at speeds faster than sound. It was a frightening weapon against which there was no defense and no warning. It was also a technological marvel and a grim vision of the future, foreshadowing the inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) of the cold war era.

Under the direction of Wernher von Braun development of this revolutionary weapon took over ten years. Progress greatly accelerated in 1937 when the whole research team was moved to the remote baltic island of Peenemunde. The first test of a complete A-4 was on June 13, 1942 when the missile toppled over and exploded at launch. The second A-4 launch on August 16 made the V-2 the first missile to exceed the speed of sound. The third test flight on October 3, 1942 was a complete success. The weapon landed within 2.5 miles (4 km) of its aiming point after flying 118 miles (190 km.) Hitler ordered mass production of the rocket as the Vergeltungswaffe 2 V-2 on December 22, 1942. A total of thirty-one test launches were made out of 50 orginally planned. 

The warhead was 2,006 lb (910 kg) of Amatol chosen for its tolerance to high temperatures since the thin steel of the nose reached 600 degrees Centigrade (1,112 degrees F) due to atmospheric friction. 

The huge engine was supplied with propellants from high-capacity Walter turbo-pumps driven by turbines on C-stoff and T-stoff and generating 730 hp. Readied for launch the V-2 weighed 28,000 lb ( kg ) most of this being LOX (liquid-oxygen) and Ethyl alcohol. The rocket engine generated 56,000 lb ( kg ) of thrust rapidly sending the missile on its way. 

Flight control was achieved by using graphite vanes in the exhaust, as speed increased aerodynamic rudders on the four large fins exerted more control over flight trajectory. 

Before launch the A-4 was precisely lined in azimuth with the great circle direction of the target. Thereafter guidance was maintained by a system of pendulums creating a stable platform, two LEV-3 gyros and an integrating accelerometer. This guidance package used electro-hydraulic actuators to move control surfaces on the fins thereby modifing the missile's angle of flight. A maximum height of 60 miles (96 km) was reached before the weapon started to arc down towards its target. 

Preliminary production began in a new plant south of Peenemunde in late '43 but mass production took place at Mittelwerke, a huge underground facility that used 50,000 slave laborers to build the giant rockets under horrible conditions. Nervertheless 300 A-4s were constructed in the month of April '44 reaching a peak of just over 1,000 rockets during October of '44. 

Total production of V-2 rockets exceeded 10,000. 

The V-2 campaign opened up on September 6, 1944 with more than 1,800 missiles stockpiled with army units. 836 Artillerie Abteilung was the unit responsible for the offensive and started with two poorly aimed shots at Paris, France. P> Two days later the V-2 offensive began with missiles fired from heavily concealed and camoflaged sites near Wassenaar, Holland. 

1,120 were launched against England (1,050 actually impacting the ground in that country ) 

About 4,320 V-2 rockets were fired by March 27, 1945 with another 600 expended in training which mainly took place near Blizna, Poland

The A-4 (V-2) ballistic weapon carried a one ton warhead 200 miles (320 km) in less than five minutes and impacted at speeds faster than sound. It was a frightening weapon against which there was no defense and no warning. It was also a technological marvel and a grim vision of the future, foreshadowing the inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) of the cold war era.

Under the direction of Wernher von Braun development of this revolutionary weapon took over ten years. Progress greatly accelerated in 1937 when the whole research team was moved to the remote baltic island of Peenemunde. The first test of a complete A-4 was on June 13, 1942 when the missile toppled over and exploded at launch. The second A-4 launch on August 16 made the V-2 the first missile to exceed the speed of sound. The third test flight on October 3, 1942 was a complete success. The weapon landed within 2.5 miles (4 km) of its aiming point after flying 118 miles (190 km.) Hitler ordered mass production of the rocket as the Vergeltungswaffe 2 V-2 on December 22, 1942. A total of thirty-one test launches were made out of 50 orginally planned. 

The warhead was 2,006 lb (910 kg) of Amatol chosen for its tolerance to high temperatures since the thin steel of the nose reached 600 degrees Centigrade (1,112 degrees F) due to atmospheric friction. 

The huge engine was supplied with propellants from high-capacity Walter turbo-pumps driven by turbines on C-stoff and T-stoff and generating 730 hp. Readied for launch the V-2 weighed 28,000 lb ( kg ) most of this being LOX (liquid-oxygen) and Ethyl alcohol. The rocket engine generated 56,000 lb ( kg ) of thrust rapidly sending the missile on its way. 

Flight control was achieved by using graphite vanes in the exhaust, as speed increased aerodynamic rudders on the four large fins exerted more control over flight trajectory. 

Before launch the A-4 was precisely lined in azimuth with the great circle direction of the target. Thereafter guidance was maintained by a system of pendulums creating a stable platform, two LEV-3 gyros and an integrating accelerometer. This guidance package used electro-hydraulic actuators to move control surfaces on the fins thereby modifing the missile's angle of flight. A maximum height of 60 miles (96 km) was reached before the weapon started to arc down towards its target. 

Preliminary production began in a new plant south of Peenemunde in late '43 but mass production took place at Mittelwerke, a huge underground facility that used 50,000 slave laborers to build the giant rockets under horrible conditions. Nervertheless 300 A-4s were constructed in the month of April '44 reaching a peak of just over 1,000 rockets during October of '44. 

Total production of V-2 rockets exceeded 10,000. 

The V-2 campaign opened up on September 6, 1944 with more than 1,800 missiles stockpiled with army units. 836 Artillerie Abteilung was the unit responsible for the offensive and started with two poorly aimed shots at Paris, France. P> Two days later the V-2 offensive began with missiles fired from heavily concealed and camoflaged sites near Wassenaar, Holland. 

1,120 were launched against England (1,050 actually impacting the ground in that country ) 

About 4,320 V-2 rockets were fired by March 27, 1945 with another 600 expended in training which mainly took place near Blizna, Poland

A-4b Winged Version of V-2
Flying tests 
Structure: steel, internally isolated by fibre-glass 
Cladding: Riveted steel plate 
Wings: Similar construction to the fuselage and supersonic profile (a piloted version with movable ailerons was foreseen) 
Tail unit: Movable tail fins activated by electrical controls and nozzle rudders with electrohydraulic controls 
Powerplant: EMW with a thrust of 27,500 kg (60,500 lb.) and a maximum acceleration of 6 G. 
Propellants: A-Stoff (5,533 kg) and M-Stoff (4,173 kg) 
Pressurizer: T-Stoff (172 kg) and Z-Stoff, delivered by a turbopump of 730 HP, as well as nitrogen and pressurized air bottles 
Equipment: LEV-3 gyroscopic plant, integrated accelerometers (I-Gerdt) and radio control equipment (a piloted version was planned with flying controls) 
Length: 14.03 m ( 46 ft. 3/8 in. ) 
Span: 6.2 m ( 20 ft. 4 1/8 in. ) 
Tail unit's span: 3.99 m ( 13 ft. 1 1/8 in. ) 
Maximum diameter: 1.68 m ( 5 ft. 6 1/8 in. ) 
Launch weight: 13,000 kg ( 28,600 lb. ) 
Maximum speed: 2,900 km/h ( 1,566 mph ) 
Time of propelled flight: 68 seconds 
Ceiling: ( top ) 95,000 m ( 311,600 ft. ) 
Range: 600 km (324 nm) 


A 9 ( first version ) 
Structure: steel 
Cladding: Riveted steel plate 
Tail unit: movable tail fins controlled by electrohydraulic controls 
Powerplant: EMW with a thrust of 25,000 kg ( 55,000 lb. ) 
Propellants: "Visol" ( compound of vinylic ethers ) and "Salbei" ( 98% nitric acid. ) 
Pressurizer: T-Stoff ( 186 kg/260 lb. ) and Z-Stoff, actuating a turbopump of 730 HP. 
Equipment: gyroscopic plant, integrated accelerometers, and radio control equipment. 
Warhead: 1,000 kg ( 2,200 lb. ) of Amatol 60/40 
Length: 14 m ( 46 ft. ) 
Span: 3.5 m ( I I ft. 7 in. ) 
Maximum diameter: 1.7 m ( 5 ft. 6 7/8 in. ) 
Launch weight: 13,000 kg ( 28,660 lb. ) 
Maximum speed: 2,800 m/sec. ( 9,200 ft./sec. ) 
Ceiling: (top) 160 km ( 86.4 nm ) 
Range: 5,000 km ( 2,699 nm ) 

A 9 ( piloted version ) 
Structure steel 
Cladding Riveted steel plate 
Tail unit movable tail fins controlled by electrohydraulic controls 
Powerplant EMW with a thrust of 25,400 kg (55,880 lb.) 
Propellants "Visol" and "Salbei" 
Pressurizer: T-Stoff and Z-Stoff actuating a turbopump of 730 HP 
Equipment: cartographic radar, gyroscopic plant, ejectable seat, oxygen, and pressurized cockpit. 
Warhead: 2,200 lb ( 1,000 kg ) Amatol 60/40 
Length: 14.2 m (46 ft. 7 in.) 
Span: 3.5 m (I I ft. 7 in.) 
Maximum diameter: 1.7 m (5 ft. 6 7/8 in.) 
Launch weight: 16,260 kg (35,850 lb.) 
Maximum speed: 2,800 m/sec. (9,200 ft./sec.) 
Ceiling: (top) 86.4 nm (160 km) 
Range: 2,699 nm ( 5,000 km ) 


A 10 ( first version ) "Projektil Amerika"
Stage Project Structure steel Cladding riveted steel plate Tail unit with internal shock absorbers and fixed surfaces Powerplant six EMW with a thrust of 27,500 kg leading into a common Venturi nozzle and able to make a differential control at low speed by means of an automatic system of power adjustment connected to an inertial plant. Consumption rate 1,237 kg/sec. (2728 lb./sec.) Propellants A-Stoff and M-Stoff with a total weight of 61,490 kg (136,700 lb.) Pressurizer T-Stoff and Z-Stoff with a total weight of 1,032 kg (2270 lb.) and controlled by six turbopumps of 730 HP Length: ( with an A 9 ) 25.8 m ( 84 ft. 7 3/4 in. ) Span: 9 m ( 29 ft. 6 1/4 in. ) Maximum diameter: 4.3 m ( 14 ft, 5 in. ) Launch weight: 99,960 kg ( 219,912 lb ) ( with an A 9 ) Maximum speed: 1,200 m/sec. ( 3,937 ft./sec. ) Ceiling 24 km (13 nm) 

A 10 ( second version ) 
Stage Project Structure steel Cladding riveted steel plate Tail unit with internal shock absorbers and with fixed surfaces Powerplant EMW with a thrust of 200,000 kg (440,000 lb.) and nozzle vanes electrohydrauli- cally controlled Consumption rate 1,012 kg/sec. (2,231 lb./sec.) Propellants "Visol" and "Salbei", with a total weight of 50,560 kg (111,232 lb.) Pressurizer T-Stoff and Z-Stoff with a total weight of 1,500 kg, controlled by several bombs of unknown design and power Length (with an A 9) 25.8 m (84 ft. 7 3/4 in.) Span: 9 m (29 ft. 6 1/4 in.) 
Maximum diameter: 4.3 m ( 14 ft. 1 115 in.) 
Launch weight: 85,320 kg ( 187,704 lb. ) ( with an A 9 ) 
Maximum speed: 1,200 m/sec. ( 3,940 ft./sec. ) 
Ceiling 24 km (13 nm) 

Another operational procedure was envisaged for the A-4 in order to reach the North American continent: firing from sea at a short distance off the coast, where the missile should be transported in submersible contain-ers towed by the new Tupe XXI submarines. This project of Wolfsburg-Volkswagen (Test Stand X11) is dated at the end of 1944 and it wasn't made effective when future performances of the A 9/A 10 were known. In January 1945 the "Test Stand XII" was canceled when several containers had been already built and tested in the Vulcan-Stettin dockyards. 

Hs 293 Guided Missiles


The Hs 293 was based on a normal 500 kg ( 1,102 lb ) bomb with wings and fins added and an engine suspended from the main body. The Hs 293V-4 and C-1 were guided by radio, like the Fritz-X, but after the Germans found that the Allies were capable of interferring with the control signals to the missile wire guidance was adopted. The C-3, C-4, and A-0 versions of the Hs 293 relied on a wire guidance.

During the bomb's fall, two wired coils on the wing tips unwound, so maintaining the link with the launch plane and allowing the transmission of electrical impulses for guidance. Models "A" possessed an ogival armor piercing head. Models "C" had a conical shape to cleanly pass through the sea surface, close to broadside, and strike under the water line. A model "D" was also built, which transmitted television images of the target to the controller, and a model "H", which was supplied with an acoustic/magnetic detector to attack bomber formations. 

Operational Development The Fritz-X and Henschel Hs 293 A-1 were the only ones used in combat with great success. They really meant a step forward to the new age of "smart" weapons. 18 Dornier Do 217 E-5 from the experimental unit II/KG 100 attacked an Allied naval formation with the Hs 293 on August 1943, sinking the sloop "Egret" and seriously damaging the "Athabascan" in the waters of Biscay Bay. They were used a little afterwards in the Atlantic by the III/KG 40, who usually flew the He 177 A-5 and Fw 200 C-4 against merchant convoys. They damaged several of these merchants and the destroyer "Jervis". In the Mediterranean they operated with the II/KG 40 (He 177 A-5), sinking the destroyers "Inglefield", "Boadicea", "Intrepid", "Culverton", and "Vasilissa Olga", as well as the battleship "Valiant". Some transports were also seriously damaged. This success eased the way to the development of the heavy versions, Hs 294 and Hs 295. 

Bat Guided Missile

Undoubtedly the most sophisticated winged missile ever used in warfare prior to 1967, this self-homing anti-ship missile and the first to have an Army/Navy missile designation. Its genesis lay in Dragon, begun in January 1941 by RCA who used their TV expertise to devise a TV-guided aerial torpedo for use against surface ships, with airframe by NBS (National Bureau of Standards). By late 1942, when the airframe had flown, the U-boat menace caused a change in direction. Dragon became Pelican and the payload a depth charge steered by semi-active radar homing, the radar being in the launch aircraft. By mid 1943 the U-boats had been defeated, and Pelican was again reorientated as an anti-ship misssile, enlarged to carry a 2,000 lb (907 kg) general purpose bomb and RHB radar homing. 

In 1944 the fourth and final fresh start resulted in Bat like a bat it sent out pulses and listened to the reflections. Using the sarne NBS airframe Bat carried a Western Electric pulsed radar in the nose and homed on the reflections from the target ship. Like Gorgon it had four small windmill-driven generators, and the autopilot servos drove the tailplane ( with fixed fins ) arid wing elevons. In the centre was a 1,000 lb (454 kg) GP bomb. Bat was developed at the Navy Bureau of Ordnance in close collaboration with MIT whose Hugh L. Dryden won the Presidential Certificate of Merit for it. The PB4Y-2 Privateer carried two Bats on outer-wing racks, and from May 1945 off Borneo took in increasing toll of Japanese ships, including a destroyer sunk at the extreme range of 20 miles (32 kin) - range being a function of release altitude. With modified radar several Bats successfully homed on bridges in Burma and other Japanese-held areas. 


Length: 11 ft, 11 in (3.63 m) 
Span: 10 ft, 0 in (3.05 m) 
Launch Weight: 1,880 lb (852.7 kg) 
Warhead: 1,000 lb (454 kg) HE 
Range: Depends on launch altitude with 20 miles (32 km) being maximum 
Flying Speed: 300 mph (483 km/h) 
Guidance: self homing using on board radar 
Radar: Western Electric pulsed radar 

Henschel Hs 298

This was the worlds first air-to-air missile to be developed and built. The First launch of a Hs 298 occured on December 22, 1944 from a Junkers Ju 88 A-4. More than 300 Hs 298 missiles were fired during extensive testing at Karlshagen from Ju 88G, Ju 388L, and Fw 190A aircraft. A wire guided version (Hs 298 V2) with a much larger warhead of 105.8 lb (48 kg) was also developed and briefly tested before wars end. This weapon never reached Luftwaffe units.

Name Hs 298 
Country Germany 
Manafacturer Henschel 
Wing structure Wood coating with ailerons 
Fuselage Light alloy coating with double nose containing the proximity fuse and the electric generator 
Length 6 ft, 63/4 in ( 2.003 m ) 
Max. Diameter 16.34 in (415 mm) 
Span 4 ft, 23.4 in ( 1.29 m ) 
Launch Weight 209.5 lb (95 kg) 
Warhead Weight 55 lb (25 kg) 105.6 lb (48 kg) HE 
Guidance Wire guided FuG 203 "Kehl"/FuG 230 "Strassburg" ( FuG 512/FuG 530 "Kogge" ) 
Powerplant Schmidding SG32/109-543 solid propellant rocket 
Max. Speed 455 mph ( 842 km/h ) 
Range 5,248 ft (1600 m) 

RK 344 X-4

RUHRSTAHL-KRAMER X4 The first guided missile with air to air capability successfully used during the Second World War. Developed by Dr. Kramer's team to be launched from high performance day fighters against American bomber formations from a safe distance. Basic design (at the beginning of 1943) was fitted with straight wings, but the final version for serial production had arrowed wings to decrease air resistance when the missile was carried by jet planes. The X4 was wire guided from the carrier fighter to the target proximity, where it automatically exploded by means of an acoustic fuse. At the end of the War, 1,300 missiles had been manufactured. Most of them never received their engines since the BMW factory in Stargard, where they were produced, had been seriously damaged by the Allied bombers. A great part of the test flights were made during the second half of 1944, using X4 missiles provisionally equipped with solid propellant Schmidding engines. Junkers Ju 88G and Ju 188L, as well as three Focke Wulf 190 F-8 and a FW 190 V69, were used as evaluation launch planes. Their operational use by the most advanced day version of the Me 262 was foreseen. It is believed that during the last weeks of war in Europe, several launches, included in the test program, were made against enemy bombers. The X4 was never delivered to the Luftwaffe. 
Name X-4 
Country Germany 
Manafacturer - 
Wings structure Plywood 
Fuselage structure Aluminum coating 
Tail unit structure Aluminum coating 
Length 6 ft, 63/4 in ( 2.001 m ) 
Max. Diameter 8.74 in ( 0.222 m ) 
Span 2 ft, 45/8 in ( 0.725 m ) 
Launch Weight 132 lb (60 kg) 
Warhead Weight 44 lb (20 kg) HE with proximity fuses "Dogge" and "Meise" activated by the noise of target bombers 
Guidance Wire guided by the system FuG 5 10 with "Dusseldorf" transmitter and "Detmold" receiver. The guidance wires were lodged in two coils fixed to wing tips and automatically unwound in flight. 
Powerplant BMW 548 of liquid propellant with a thrust between 308 lb to 66 lb ( 140 kg to 30 kg ) 
Propellants Tonka 250 ( 1.6 kg/3.5 lb ) and S-Stoff ( 6.4 kg/1.41 lb ) 
Fuel tank spiral, installed around the engine and with a piston actuated by compressed air running through it 
Pressurizer Compressed air 
Max. Speed 482 mph ( 893 km/h ) 
Range 10,496 ft ( 3,200 m ) 
- - 
- - 


Designed by Dr. Max Kramer of Ruhrstahl Allgemeine Gesellschaft ( A.G. ) the X-4, also known as the RK 344, was the first practical air-to-air missile and a revolution in the technology of air combat. The missile had four wings arranged symmetrically around the body with four smaller control fins further back. 

After launch from a Me 262 jet fighter or a Focke-Wulf 190 the missile accelerated to 520 mph ( 840 km/h ) with a BMW 109-448 rocket motor. Burning Tonka 250 fuel ( 57 percent xylidine and 43 percent triethylamine ) and nitric acid oxidizer the X-4 had a maximum burn time of thirty seconds. Two guidance wires unrolled from spools on the wings as the weapon flew toward its target. Control signals reached the X-4 along these wires from a "joystick" type controller in the launch plane. Maximum range was about 3.4 miles ( 5.47 km ) with the effective range being more like 1.5 km ( 4,900 ft. ) 

The missile used a Kranich proximity acoustic fuze tuned to the B-17 engine's frequency. The noise of the B-17's engines would cause the fuze to detonate the 44 lb ( 20 kg ) warhead within about 23 ft (7 m) of the aircraft. The X-4 was first test launched in August of 1944 from a FW 190. Large scale production commenced with some 1,300 missiles built by January of 1945. In February 1945 the allies bombed BMW's Stargard factory where the production motors were being built, destroying all except 250 experimental motors in other factories. The program was cancelled as a result. 

Ruhrstahl X-4 

Fin Span: 2 ft, 45/8 in ( 0.725 m ) 
Maximum diameter: 8 ft, 5/8 in ( 0.222 m ) 
Length: 6 ft, 6¾ in (2 m) 
Launching weight: 132lb (60 kg) 
Warhead: 44 lb (20 kg) 
Propulsion: BMW 109-448 rocket motor 
Maximum speed: 520 mph / 452 kt ( 840 km/h ) 
Max Range: 3.4 miles ( 5.47 km ) 
Effective Range: 4,900 ft ( 1.5 km ) 

Number Built / Converted: 1,300


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

And if the German's could have traded it all for the VT fuse they'd have done so in a heartbeat!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2004)

pretty crazy atleat the thoughts huh


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2004)

And they probably should have.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And they probably should have.



If they could have it would have made a huge difference for their war effort. Germany tried but failed to develop their own proximity fuse during WWII, they just could not make it small enough and shock resistant enough to work in a reasonable sized shell.

The VT fuse would have put an end to Allied heavy bombing missions. It also magnified the effectiveness of HE artillery rounds by an order of magnitude by setting the fuses to cause airbursts as the shells approached the ground.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2004)

You know the Germans were working on VT (proximity fuses) as early as the early 1930's. The concept was not new, I wonder why they could not get it to work.



> British scientists were working on proximity fuze devices for rockets and bombs at least as early as 1939. Captured documents indicate that German work on proximity fuze development had begun in the early 1930's, and was still in process when hostilities ended in the European Theatre.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

Actually no, the point is for the missle to be large.

Why?

That way it can carry more explosives and of varying types, as well as possible targeting and/or guidance equipment and a shaped warhead charge to pierce ship armor well...


Mainly as a weapon to attack capital ships (like the deck of a carrier), not outlying DDs...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You know the Germans were working on VT (proximity fuses) as early as the early 1930's. The concept was not new, I wonder why they could not get it to work.
> 
> 
> 
> > British scientists were working on proximity fuze devices for rockets and bombs at least as early as 1939. Captured documents indicate that German work on proximity fuze development had begun in the early 1930's, and was still in process when hostilities ended in the European Theatre.



Again, it was a matter of where their base industrial technology was at the time. The British could not get such a thing working either. When the problem was taken up in earnest by the USA (with the advantage of recieving all the British research notes and some British researchers), the wide base of the US electronics industry was able to supply the needed skills and construction methods. There was just a lot more diversity of research and industry to be applied to solving this problem. Sylvania was working on minature glass tubes, and focuesed on making these strong enough to withstand initial acceleration. At the same time, RCA began developing metal tubes in case Sylvania's efforts failed (which were abandon when Sylvania succeeded). Germany and Britain simply could not afford to undertake such multiple path research, they would instead try the most promising path first, then if that did not succeed, they would try another or give up. 

Let me explain what I mean by the industrial/research base. Prior to WWII the USA already had companies like Sylvania, GE, RCA, Raytheon, Eastman Kodak, and Hytron (and some others) competeing in electronics and vacuum tube industry. When the VT fuse project was undertaken the skills and techniques and engineering talent of all these (and many more) companies which had previously been working as competitors along different lines of thought were able to be drawn upon to develop a working fuse. 87 firms using 110 factories were utilized to develop and produce the VT fuse, neither Germany nor Britain had this kind of diversity or depth to draw upon within their national electronics industries.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Actually no, the point is for the missle to be large.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



But they didn't have any guidence systems that could work beyond a few miles. And also the planes to carry them had limits to the size of the rocket that could be carried. The engine on the Me163 could carry that thing 50+ miles after climbing to altitude, it would have been able to carry a ship based missile with no climb even further. They might have eventually tried something bigger than the Hs293, but something as large as the rocket on the Me163 was just unneeded.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

You seem to not have gotten the point...


It could have been dropped by an He-177, a jet bomber, or anything that could carry it...

As it is indeed a rocket, more so than a missle, it could be released at a dive, in a roughly 45 degree angle to pierce a ship's top armor, though I am saying it could be used to mount a guidance system due to its size...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

Finally someone has mentioned the A-10 apart from me. Although missing the vital fact that it was the worlds first ICBM, or maybe that was said and I didn't read it. 

Well done to RG for being one of the first Americans in history to mention the British when discussing something the Americans achieved that used British notes on the subject. 

And who said this fictional missile had to have a guidance system? Bombs didn't have guidance systems, so this missile could have been dropped while the mother ship is pointing it at the ship. Turn away and go home with the tail gunner laughing as the ship explodes. Needs to be bigger for a bigger explosion to bring down Aircraft Carriers.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> You seem to not have gotten the point...
> 
> 
> It could have been dropped by an He-177, a jet bomber, or anything that could carry it...
> ...



That was not the intent of the weapon. An He-177 trying to attack an Allied ship as you describe would likely be a dead plane, it would have to get too close. And from such a range, why would it need a rocket motor giving 6 minutes of thrust?

The idea of these weapons was to release them outside of enemy AAA range and then guide them into the target. For that, perhaps 45 seconds of thrust is more than enough. Because the weapon is going to be in decent the whole way to the target, it does not need the thrust to lift it 30,000 feet into the air in 3 minutes, so this dicates the motor should be smaller as well.

The Hs292 weighed about 3000 lbs. The Me163 weighed about 9000 lbs. To justify using the Me163 engine on a larger scale Hs292 type missile, the missile would have had to weigh something on the order of 20000 lbs or more, and no German bomber could carry such a weapon.

The He177 could carry two Hs292's, so it might be able to carry a weapon weighing about 10000 lbs - maybe. Put the Me163 engine on that, and it would go so fast the person operating it would have almost no chance to actually guide it into the target, and it would have enough fuel to go 50+ miles to a target, but it would be out of the operators range within 5 miles. What's the point of that?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

BECAUSE THE ROCKET WOULD GO BLOODY FAST!


Also, provided it was fairly well sized and broke the sound barrier, the boom would scare the hell out of the sailors on board, just like the sirens on the Ju-87!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

I'm liking the fear thinking there.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Finally someone has mentioned the A-10 apart from me. Although missing the vital fact that it was the worlds first ICBM, or maybe that was said and I didn't read it.
> 
> Well done to RG for being one of the first Americans in history to mention the British when discussing something the Americans achieved that used British notes on the subject.
> 
> And who said this fictional missile had to have a guidance system? Bombs didn't have guidance systems, so this missile could have been dropped while the mother ship is pointing it at the ship. Turn away and go home with the tail gunner laughing as the ship explodes. Needs to be bigger for a bigger explosion to bring down Aircraft Carriers.



A lot of British ideas were perfected in the USA during WWII. The VT fuse and computing gunsights are two good examples.

It kind of defeats the purpose of a liquid fueld rocket to use it in a direct fire weapon like you describe. For this purpose, solid fuel rockets would have done the job just fine and much much safer. The problem with solid fueled rockets is they have no thrust control and endurance was typcially limited to 30 seconds or less (usually much less). A liquid fueled rocket allowed the thrust to be controlled and gave more powered flight time, which was what was needed for a manually guided standoff weapon.

If all you want is a big rocket to shoot at ships, not a guided missile, something like the "tiny tim" made a lot more sense.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

I know - it would make other sailors think there were twice the rockets, scaring them to hell and demoralizing them most likely, kinda like the Gau-8 Avenger, the shell hits before you hear the burst!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

Could a 'Tiny Tim' bring down a Carrier? 

Really though, if you've got a V-1 sized rocket blowing this ship apart there'd be no point in scaring them. But then, I'm sadistic so I'd want to scare them before killing them.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> I know - it would make other sailors think there were twice the rockets, scaring them to hell and demoralizing them most likely, kinda like the Gau-8 Avenger, the shell hits before you hear the burst!



P-51's and P-47's used to use the speed of sound effect for ground attack all the time. They'd come in near the target at high speed at about 8,000 feet and head away from it, then sweep around into a steep dive and come back at it. The enemy would think they'd passed them by, but when they realized the sound was not actually still going away from them, they had only seconds before the fighters were on top of them. Often the rockets were exploding just as they started to "look up".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

Good man!

When you bring that up, as it being V-1 sized, that means an He-11 could likely carry it...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Could a 'Tiny Tim' bring down a Carrier?



Who's carrier and what size? Japanese - maybe but unlikely. British - probably not. American - extremely unlikely.

But the Tiny Tim 11.75" HVAR was only 10' long 1285 lbs in weight with a 550 lbs warhead. Increase that to 5,000 lbs with a 2000 lbs warhead and yes, it probably could take out most CV's.

But US CV's were very hard to take down with a single hit even with 2000 lbs bombs. They were very well compartmentalized and had lots of damage control systems, and very well trained crews.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

Quite simply, the first line could have been a no then. Dragging it out well beyond needs...

British carriers had damage control systems as did the Japanese. And was it only the US carriers that had well trained crews, I think not.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

American carrier crews were better trained for damage control, and US ships in general were better setup for damage control and had much superior internal armor.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2004)

plan_D said:


> And who said this fictional missile had to have a guidance system? Bombs didn't have guidance systems,



Actually there were bombs that were "guided" atleast somewhat:



> PC 1400 FX "Fritz X" Guided Bomb
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Over-All Length: 130 in.
> Length Of The Control Unit Housing: 16 in.
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > You know the Germans were working on VT (proximity fuses) as early as the early 1930's. The concept was not new, I wonder why they could not get it to work.
> ...



Makes sense


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

OK, German remote control glide bombs were 'guided' but I was refering to iron bombs - just dropped.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2004)

alright fair eneogh


----------



## Erich (Dec 27, 2004)

a cheap colourized imitation of JG 7 a/c........... interesting though


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2004)

It should have been left black and white.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

I left out the free fall guided bombs. USA had them too. USA also had remote control B-17's that "suicided" into the target. JFK's older brother died in one arming it before he was to bail out.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

We all know that the Germans were the leading experts in most technologies though. And thank god one of the Kennedys died before they became politicians, saves him being assassinated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

The Germans were leading in technologocal designs but they did lack the resources and the time to finish most of there research. Given more time they could have been devastating. As said in other posts by other people I agree that the US had the better resoarces and industry in place.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 28, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I left out the free fall guided bombs. USA had them too. USA also had remote control B-17's that "suicided" into the target. JFK's older brother died in one arming it before he was to bail out.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



That was project Aphrodite. Joe Kenedy died in a B-24 Aphrodite airplane, not a B-17. That is a common misconception. We actually had a visitor at our museum that photographed several Aphrodite aircraft and missions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

Thats interesting project that I did not know about until know. I only the thought the Germans toyed around with that idea called the Mistel.



> Radio Controlled Bomber Drone. Project Aphrodite. The idea was to pack an aged bomber with 10 tons of explosives and fly it into the impregnable submarine pens on the French coast. A pilot was required to get the bomber airborne and trimmed so that a controlling plane could fly it to the target. The first plane exploded over England before the pilot had bailed out. The pilot was Navy Lt Joseph Kennedy, eldest son of that family, who was being groomed for the presidency, a post later held by the second son, John F. Kennedy.
> Sep 3, 1944 --A pilot took off in a torpex-laden drone Liberator from an airfield in England, set radio control and parachuted to the ground. The PV controlling the Liberator's flight, sought to hit submarine pens on Helgoland Island; however, he lost view of the plane in a rain shower during the final alignment and relying only upon the drone's television picture of the terrain hit the barracks and industrial area of an airfield on nearby Dune Island.
> http://www.ww2pacific.com/ideas.html


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 28, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Germans were leading in technologocal designs but they did lack the resources and the time to finish most of there research. Given more time they could have been devastating. As said in other posts by other people I agree that the US had the better resources and industry in place.



It wasn't just more resources and industries, it was more base level technology. The machine tools were more advanced, the basic metalurgy was more advanced, plastics were more advanced, and the cutting edge electronic components were more advanced. As a plane designer (for example) you can only work with the alloys, machine processes, electronics technology, plastics, etc... that the base industry can provide. German engineers did as much as they could with what they had, but Germany was in no position to expand the base and this limited what could be realistically built. Consequently Germany spent a lot of resources on weapons systems they really could not realistically build.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

I agree with you somewhat. I think they wasted a lot of resources not on what they could not build but on things that should not have been built. Things that were a waste of time or could not change the outcome of the war.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 28, 2004)

I always wonder how Hitler could take his Army into WWII using a bolt action rifel as the standard infantry arms.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2004)

dude we used bolt actions, a highly trained soldier could fire 25 aimed rounds per minute (that was the figure before WWI, i know the standard of training was never the same after that...........)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

The Bolt Action rifle was the standard at the beginning of the war for all countries including the US. 

Standard Infantry Weapons 
French: Fusil d'Infantrie Modele 1886 
Germany: Mauser Karabiner 98k 
England: Lee-Enfield 
USA: Springfield M-1903

All of these Bolt Action rifles that were standard infantry issue. Later on they were replaced by other rifles and semi automatic like the M-1 Grand (which only held a 8 round clip)

Other non bolt action rifles that became standard weapons
Germany 
Gewehr 43 semi-auto rifle
MP40 submachine gun 
Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle 

England
Bren light machine gun 

USA
Thompson M1 
M3 SMG 
M1 Garand rifle
M1 Carbine


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

And the Mauser Karabiner 98k was actually an excellent weapon especially for snipers. I own several of them in my Third Reich artifact collection and they shoot very accurate and well.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2004)

Really? Cool!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

They shoot very smooth and accurate. I enjoy shooting them. I have not done so in a very long time though do to the fact that I can find anyone who will ship me the ammo to Germany to shoot it, and the ammo is very hard to get in Germany with the strict gun laws. I used to get it from www.manions.com in the US which is also were I buy my Third Reich uniforms. I dont even know if manions sells ammunition anymore. For anyone interested in collecting 3rd Reich uniforms www.manions is the best place I can think of.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2004)

Nice dress tunic! 8) Thanks for the link!


----------



## Erich (Dec 28, 2004)

the ammo is inert from them and I have picked up several 2cm M rounds from them although the shell casings did not match the rounds.

Manions is a pretty good plae but also too you need to know your stuff as they have carried fakes and many overpriced depnazified items in the past. the web has huge stock loads of militaria sites with wonderful items so please do not limit yourslef to one spot where you have to bid agasint another bidder..........guess you could go to ebay


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

I try to buy a new unifrom, helmet, headgear, flag, anything really about every 3 months. The great thing about it, is that it is an auction and you can bid the minimum and get things fairly cheap. As a collector I try to go for quality over quanity and price though. Currently I am bidding on a Waffen SS panzer wrap around tunic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

Erich said:


> the ammo is inert from them and I have picked up several 2cm M rounds from them although the shell casings did not match the rounds.
> 
> Manions is a pretty good plae but also too you need to know your stuff as they have carried fakes and many overpriced depnazified items in the past. the web has huge stock loads of militaria sites with wonderful items so please do not limit yourslef to one spot where you have to bid agasint another bidder..........guess you could go to ebay



I know what you mean. I have been a collector for about 14 years now and I study everything there is to know about it so that I dont run into fakes. I have seen many Americans at US gun shows buying what they think is real but really is a fake. The best example being a Spanish made helmet that looks just like a German M-42 but was never used by the Germans and they sell it for high prices telling people that it is a German M-42.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

So the ammo is inert now that they sell. I have not bought anyfrom them since I lived in North Carolina back in 1994. Another good place to get ammo though is the Gun Shows that they have back in the US.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 28, 2004)

Even with Americas huge economy, the Germans were still more advanced. The Americans achieved most things with notes from the British scientists, especially the atom bomb. As Britain was the first country to start researching the destructive power of splitting the atom. In 1939 moving all it scientists and research to America, with the German threat looming over them. 

The Germans were well ahead in many things, and not far behind in those areas that they were. The main problem with the Americans (and British) on the ground was that they never designed things to get the edge over the enemy, only to catch up to them. Meanwhile the Germans and Russians were constantly striving to be one step ahead of one another, that's why their equipment just kept raising the bar when Western equipment (save electronical warfare - Britain was also raising the bar on that) was always trailing behind, trying its best to catch up. 

And no one was even anywhere near the ability of the German rockets.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> dude we used bolt actions, a highly trained soldier could fire 25 aimed rounds per minute (that was the figure before WWI, i know the standard of training was never the same after that...........)



Sure... now try that while running.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

You try firing the M1 Garand effectively while running, and you'll see they're in the same trouble. The Garand, as all rifles in those days, kicked like a mule - you aren't going to be getting accurate shots off while running with anything. And the Brits (starting with the Chindits) could fire the Bren from the hip, if they really need a looney running and shooting randomly. In the jungles, it was required.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Even with Americas huge economy, the Germans were still more advanced. The Americans achieved most things with notes from the British scientists, especially the atom bomb. As Britain was the first country to start researching the destructive power of splitting the atom. In 1939 moving all it scientists and research to America, with the German threat looming over them.
> 
> The Germans were well ahead in many things, and not far behind in those areas that they were. The main problem with the Americans (and British) on the ground was that they never designed things to get the edge over the enemy, only to catch up to them. Meanwhile the Germans and Russians were constantly striving to be one step ahead of one another, that's why their equipment just kept raising the bar when Western equipment (save electronical warfare - Britain was also raising the bar on that) was always trailing behind, trying its best to catch up.
> 
> And no one was even anywhere near the ability of the German rockets.



Many Americans were involved in the development of the A-Bomb, along with a few British and a few German Jews (in key positions). Germany was no where close to a working fission bomb.

Again, I point to the M1 Garand as an example where the USA was ahead on weapons, not "catching up". And German aircraft really weren't that great, certainly aside from the Me262 they were not "ahead" of US designs. Take away the range requirement from the US planes and they were certainly better than their German counterparts. As it was, they were roughly equal. And Germany had no VT fuse despite a huge lead in trying to produce one.

The difference is that the USA was trying to win a war. Germany was trying to put money in the pockets of the right Germans. This dictated pursuing hi cost projects without regaurd for their tactical or strategic usefulness. Rockets are an example --- they were useless wastes of resources. Hitler and the Nazi's just didn't believe they could actually loose the war to "mongrels" until it was already lost.

If the USA had entered the war at the start of 1942 and had no Japanese enemy to fight, the war would have been won by mid 1944 if not earlier. Think of the huge part of the US industry that was building ships!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

Thank you for pointing out the huge economic base that everyone already knows that America had. Which is why it was able to carry out the war, because of its economy - not its technological superiority. 

If you want to argue with the world that the Germans weren't technically superior, be my guest but you're going to be beaten at every corner. The M1 Garand, what's so good about that? The Germans had the Stg. 44. 

The German aircraft not so good? Is that why American bombers were being blown out of the sky, left, right and center throughout the war? Even when they had fighter escort? The Fw-190 could dogfight better than all the American aircraft, except the P-38 in certain situations. 

The Rockets were not a waste of time, they were given the go ahead too late. They could have been ready by 1942, if full funding was given. You think the Allies would have not been bothered that they were being hit by V-2s throughout the war? Or that Russia would have not cared as their strike force across the Volga was getting splattered by these brilliant designs. 

The Germans were reaching a conclusion on their complicated nuclear bomb, until the British and Norweigans blew it sky high. 

And nice to see you missed out the tanks there, where America ALL the way through was designing to keep up. The Sherman to catch the IV F/2 - the Sherman improvements to try and counter Tigers and Panthers (failing) and finally the Pershing - still trying to catch the Tiger...and failing, although nearing equal in a straight shooting match.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

plan_D said:


> You try firing the M1 Garand effectively while running, and you'll see they're in the same trouble. The Garand, as all rifles in those days, kicked like a mule - you aren't going to be getting accurate shots off while running with anything. And the Brits (starting with the Chindits) could fire the Bren from the hip, if they really need a looney running and shooting randomly. In the jungles, it was required.



I have an Enfield, an M1 Carbine, and an M1 Garand. Yes the M1 kicks hard, and I never meant you could actually fire it "while running". My point is you can easily run with it, take up a position, fire off 2-3 rounds, and then run to a new position, and fire again. You cannot do that with the Enfield.

Also, when operting the enfield, each time you fire you must then operate the bolt, then reaquire the target and take your next shot, then operate the bolt, reaquire the target.... With the M1 you can fire, fire, fire. Target aquisition time is tremendously lower.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Thank you for pointing out the huge economic base that everyone already knows that America had. Which is why it was able to carry out the war, because of its economy - not its technological superiority.
> 
> If you want to argue with the world that the Germans weren't technically superior, be my guest but you're going to be beaten at every corner.



Really? All I have to that say is:

1) A-bomb

2) VT fuse

3) Battleships (especially the fire control systems)

4) Code breaking computers

5) A working turbo-supercharger

All technologically beyond the Germans.



plan_D said:


> The M1 Garand, what's so good about that? The Germans had the Stg. 44.



A handful of them late in the war. Meanwhile, almost every US infantryman in WWII carried an M1 Garand. It was a huge improvement over bolt action rifels.



plan_D said:


> The German aircraft not so good? Is that why American bombers were being blown out of the sky, left, right and center throughout the war? Even when they had fighter escort? The Fw-190 could dogfight better than all the American aircraft, except the P-38 in certain situations.



And just which German bombers were better than US bombers? The fact is that any bombers were easy for fighters to "blow out of the sky".

As for the FW-190, it was about an even match for a P-51 or late model P-47, and certainly outclassed by the F4U-4. Just how do you come up with this?



plan_D said:


> The Rockets were not a waste of time, they were given the go ahead too late. They could have been ready by 1942, if full funding was given. You think the Allies would have not been bothered that they were being hit by V-2s throughout the war? Or that Russia would have not cared as their strike force across the Volga was getting splattered by these brilliant designs.



It would have hastened their defeat. These weapons were far too expensive for what damage they were able to inflict. Without a precision guidance system, or a WMD warhead, they were a waste of resources, pure an simple.



plan_D said:


> The Germans were reaching a conclusion on their complicated nuclear bomb, until the British and Norweigans blew it sky high.



They were not even close. They were wasting thier time working with heavy water as a moderator when it wasn't even necessary. They barely had their first Atomic pile going in 1945. If they'd have had 3 or 4 more years they might have been able to build an A-bomb, but probably not.



plan_D said:


> And nice to see you missed out the tanks there, where America ALL the way through was designing to keep up. The Sherman to catch the IV F/2 - the Sherman improvements to try and counter Tigers and Panthers (failing) and finally the Pershing - still trying to catch the Tiger...and failing, although nearing equal in a straight shooting match.



I'll get to tanks at some future date, I am still waiting for some info on this issue. However, remember that the USA had to not only build the tanks, but ship them across the ocean. This meant that there was a realistic limitation on how big they could be. Germany had no such issues to deal with. Tanks were clearly a German strong point, except they made them so expensive (in terms of resources) to build that they could not build that many of them. In just 3 years the USA built more Sherman's than the Germans built tanks of all types during the whole war. And Sherman's were reliable, late mode German tanks were not. 

The USA should have had a better tank than the Sherman, but lack of experiance at the point of designing the tank resulted in some bad choices. However, this is kind of a non-argument, as it was not a lack of ability to make a better tank that was the issue, it was simply a lack of understanding that a better tank needed to be built. Until June 1944, the USA thought the Sherman was as good as German tanks.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

Germans above the U.S - 

1) Radar
2) Tank design 
3) Rockets
4) Night Vision
5) Gyros
6) Electronics
7) Aerodynamics


The M1 Garand is something all Americans seem to love. Patton loved it too, maybe that makes you all love it. The fact of the matter is, it wasn't that good. It had less stopping power, accuracy and range than the Lee-Enfield, and the Lee-Enfield had less range than the Kar-98. Single-aimed shots fired with a bolt-action are more likely to hit. I admit, the M1 was good for the US army - a bunch of ill-trained raw recruits. 

German technological supremecy in air power? Easy to finish this one - Me-262, Ta-152 and Go-229. The Go-229 was designed and ready to fly by the wars end...technologically superior to anything the Americans ever had. In fact, it took the US another 60s years to get a flying wing to work in the B-2. 

A waste of resources, I think not. You obviously do not realise the destructive power and effectiveness these things could have had on a battlefront. Imagine counter-battery fire well out of the enemies artillery range, hundreds of miles out of their range. The first successful flight of the V-2 landed within 400 metres of its target area, which was 125 miles away. 

You'll probably find the Germans had researched and began developing ideas for an atom bomb. It would not have taken another 3-4 years to get one ready. It would have when the place was blown up. 

On the armour issue, waiting for information is nice. Hurry up. The Sherman was inferior, the US realised it in Sicily and Italy. America developed the M26 Pershing as their grand tank, well within shipping limits. This was their best tank design of the war and it was ALMOST a fair fight in a straight shooting match with a Tiger. 
The fact that Germany, more Hitler, was so insistant on building many different kinds of heavier and heavier tanks does not take away the fact that German tanks were technically superior. Had production been limited to Pz. IVs and Panthers then production numbers would have been much-much higher. US Armoured divisions would have still been given a beating too. 
Plain and simple, whatever the US would have designed after the Pershing would have been to catch up to the Germans. The Russians almost managed to keep with the Germans, and sometimes moved ahead - by May 7th 1945 they were ahead with the IS-3. The US (and all West) were nowhere near, the best the West had on D-Day was the Sherman Firefly - an American tank with a British modification. After that it was A34 Comet for the British and M26 Pershing (and the single M26E4 Super Pershing) for the US.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

plan_D said:


> In fact, it took the US another 60s years to get a flying wing to work in the B-2.



That is simply not correct. They were flying wing aircraft in the 50s. But the original American flying wing design goes back to 1941!!! Look up the Northrop XB-35. The scale model used for XB-35 testing is the Northrop N9M, which I have posted pictures of here.

From Joe Baugher's site:
_In August of 1941, slightly more ambitious requirements were again submitted to Northrop. The flying wing bomber project (designated NS-9 by the company) received approval for an initial start from the USAAC in September of 1941, following a visit to the Northrop plant by Assistant Secretary of War Robert Leavitt, General Henry H. Arnold, and Major General Oliver P. Echols. The order was confirmed on October 30, 1941. The contract included a purchase order for engineering data, model tests, plus a 1/3-scale flying mockup known as the N9M. On November 22, a contract for a single XB-35 prototype and an option for a second was signed. The option for the second XB-35 was exercised on January 2, 1942. According to the terms of the contract, the first XB-35 was to be delivered in November 1943, with the second following in April of 1944. 

Detailed design work on the XB-35 began in early 1942, and the XB-35 full-scale mock-up was approved on July 5, 1942. On December 17, 1942, 13 YB-35 service test aircraft were ordered. 

Two more N-9M flying scale models were ordered in early 1943, with a fourth being ordered in mid-1943. _

The XB-49 program followed that, using jet engines. If you see the movie "War of the Worlds" (the original), the B-49 was used in that movie.

If you want to continue with your comments how Americans had/have no technology or innovation, feel free, but at least get your facts straight before you sound off like that. 

Additionally, RADAR may not have been invented by Americans, but an American commander was the first to use it for command and control, during the Battle of the Bulge. From my presentation material from last month:
_General Quesada innovated with the technology. He built an entire command and control structure using radar and radio intercept. He used the Microwave Early Warning (MEW) radar for area control and long-range alert and the SCR-584 for close range, precision targeting. Using this, Quesada accomplished something that had never been done before; using aircraft for ground support in bad weather. The radar was used to help direct fighters to target areas and assist them in finding their home bases. They could also validate targets by correlating ground locations with current fighter positions. The radar could also be used to bomb through the clouds. Using radar to attack ground targets was devastating to the Germans while keeping friendly fire casualties to a minimum. This new technique became a decisive factor in using air power to control the battle._


[/i]


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

I have to agree with Plan_D on this. The Germas were not lacking in technology what they lacked mostly in was time and yes they lacked in many resources. But there technology was not lacking and was superior in many areas. As for the Mauser it too can cary a clip like the M-1 Garand (only 5 rounds though so yes not as much as the M-1), the Stg44 was such a good weapon that it was used as the basis for AK-47. German aircraft designs were also not lacking. They had many innovative designs that were years ahead of the allies or atleast just as good. Examples: Me-262, Arado Ar-234, Gotha Ho-229, Dornier Do-335, Junkers Ju-287, Me-264, Hs-132, Fw-190, Ta-152, Ta-183, He-280, Lippisch Dm-1, Me-163, Me-263, P.1101. As for the rockets like the V-1 and V-2, they were too late in the war to make an impact but Werner von Braun was on the right track and many years ahead of the allies. His V-2 was a remarkable design and based of this he started the whole ballistic missle program for the US. The US was so impressed by the V-1 design that they copied it. They did not design there own they copied it. As for ships the Germans deffinatly did not lack in designing there ships. There range finders were just as good and just look at the Bismark it was a remarkable ship. Yes it served a very short life but it was a very advanced and technological design and was at the time the most capable capital ship in the Atlantic. Look how it scared the British to the point that Churchill put all his resources to stop it. As for the tanks no one can argue that German tanks especially the Tiger and Panther were the most advanced tanks of WW2. The completly changed the way people designed tanks and no one ever cought up with them. The closest was the Russian T-34. A Tiger could take out a Sherman before the Sherman was even in range. So one can argue that German engineering and technology was very advanced but I will agree with you Lunatic that time and resources played a large role.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

I am not arguing that the US was on the low end of the technological scale, they too were very advance and more advanced than the Germans in many areas but I would not say that the German technology was less than that of the US. As for the Radar it was the British that perfected it and used it to find out where the Germans were coming from.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Agreed. I am not saying that the German technology was not good. But I cannot let major inaccuracies slip by. Apparently, there are a few things that some need to learn about American technology. Alot of people think the P-80 was America's first jet. That is also wrong. The first American jet flew in 1942! The Bell P-59 was the first jet, and it was more than a prototype or 2. They built 66 of them. It first flew only one years after the first Me-262 flight. Besides, the patent for the jet engine was awarded to a Brit, not a German.

Yes, America was behind the rest of the world in the late 1930's but once American industry kicked in, they caught up fast. Technology and innovation was there. Americans had the luxury of time to test things longer before putting into battle than the Germans did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

I agree with you fully. The funny thing about the Jet engine is that a Brit was developing one as well as a German but independently at the same time. 



> • It was Frank Whittle, a British pilot, who designed the first turbo jet engine in 1930. The first Whittle engine successfully flew in April, 1937. This engine featured a multistage compressor, and a combustion chamber, a single stage turbine and a nozzle
> • The first jet airplane to successfully use this type of engine was the German Heinkel He 178 invented by Hans Von Ohain. It was the world's first turbojet powered flight.
> • General Electric for the US Army Air Force built the first American jet plane. It was the XP-59A experimental aircraft.
> 
> ...


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Cool pics. I sure would like to have an original signed copy of that top one. Interesting main gear configuration on the He-178.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

I agree with you fully. I wish I could have spoken to them and learned how they came up with there individual designs. I think the landing gear design was pretty neat on the 178. Definatly different from contempary designs but neat.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

By the way, here is a shot of the Bell P-59 airacomet. Here are its specs:
SPECIFICATIONS 
Span: 45 ft. 6 in. 
Length: 38 ft. 10 in. 
Height: 11 ft. 11 3/4 in. 
Weight: 10,532 lbs. loaded 
Armament: One 37mm cannon and three .50-cal machine guns 
Engines: Two General Electric I-16s of 1,650 lbs. thrust each 
Serial number 44-22650 

PERFORMANCE 
Maximum speed: 450 mph. 
Cruising speed: 320 mph. 
Range: 440 miles 
Service Ceiling: 43,400 ft. 

While the performance wasn't much to be desired, it paved the way for future development.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

Yes the P-59 did pave the way for further US designs and it was refined in the P-80. Back to my other post about German technology another example is the U-Boots. They were years ahead of allied designs. The type XXI was the first "true" submarine and led to later designs by the US and British. I know it was late for that post but I just felt like posting it.

Here are the specs on the He-178

Type: Experimental jet
Origin: Ernest Heinkel AG
Models: V1 and V2
Production: 2 prototypes

Engine:
HeS 3B turbojet
Thrust (Early): 992 lb. (450kg)
Thrust (Later): 1,102 lb. (500kg)

Dimensions:
Wing span: 7.20m (23 ft. 3½ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 7.48m (24 ft. 6½ in.)
Height: 2.10m (6 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 1620kg (3,572 lb.)
Loaded: 1998kg (4,405 lb.) 

Performance:
Maximum Speed (at sea level): 435 mph (700 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (at sea level): N/A
Initial Climb: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Notes:
This little aircrafts primary claim to fame was that it was the aircraft, designed from the outset as a jet, to fly under jet propulsion. A private venture of Heinkel, the He 178 had a dural fuselage and a wooden wing. The powerplant, primarily designed by Hans-Joachim Pabst von Ohain, initially burned gasoline but later switched to diesel J2. The first flight was a short hop on August 24, 1939 followed three days later by a second flight. This second flight proved to be somewhat exciting when a loss of thrust was experienced after a bird was ingested in the intake. The V1 flew again on November 1, 1939 for the RLM (including Udet and Milch) at Marienehe but did not generate much interest. The V1 flew a couple more times and was eventually destroyed in the Berlin Air Museum by Allied bombers. The V2, which was supposed to have larger wings, was never flown.

Another aircraft that helped pave the way was the He-280

Origin: Ernest Heinkel
Type: Single-seat fighter
Engines: two 1,852lb (840kg) thrust Junkers Jumo 004A turbojets
Dimensions: Span 12m; Length 10.20m; Height 3.19m
Weights: Empty 7,386lb (3350kg); loaded 11,465lb (5200kg)
Performance: Maximum speed 508mph (817km/h); Range 382 Miles (615km)
This interesting fighter often goes unnoticed in the annals of flight, eclipsed by its more successful and glamorous brother the Me 262. The He 280 is however, a remarkable aircraft. It was the first jet combat aircraft, the first twin-jet aircraft and the first jet aircraft to go beyond prototype stage. The He 280 first flew under jet power on April 2, 1941 and eventually eight of these beautiful aircraft were built, but, even after a mock dogfight was arranged between the He 280 and a Fw 190, which the jet won easily, there was little interest in the jet. If the He 280 had ever reached combat, it was most likely to have been armed with three 20mm MG 151 cannons.



> A german turbojet fighter, the first of all that could have been operational. Maiden flight on april, 5th, 1941. Heinkel, always interested in high speed aircraft, sponsored quite early the turbojet development of von Ohain and had because of this advantage the first experimental turbojet plane (He178) in flight. The He280 was a twinjet fighter developed for two He S8 (also called He109-001) radial turbojet engines. It had a modern bow-wheel landing gear (conventional ones caused problems with lifting up the tail without the propeller air stream on the horizontal fins) and an ejection seat. The german ministry of aviation (RLM) was quite upset of Heinkel´s private initiative and set up its own turbojet program, favoring competitors (that were´nt so far advanced) concerning both engine and airframe development (BMW, Jumo and Messerschmidt). This had as major result that the He S8 hadn´t enough development priority, and that´s why the heavier but stronger Jumo109-004 and BMW109-003 engines and the Me262 fighter (by far not as maneuvrable as the He280, which outmaneuvred a Fw190 in a mock dogfight, and in 1941 with conventional wings and landing gear). The He280 was a fighter, the Me262 just a heavy interceptor that could slip through the escorts. Nine prototypes, no others.
> 
> My comment:
> The really interesting thing - except that it could have been operational short after Me262´s maiden flight - is its maneuvrability. The Me262 was
> ...



This aircraft was truely remarkable, fortunatly the Germans did not pursue it for political reasons or what not.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

I think the He-178 is an extremely modern looking plane. Indeed the first time I ever saw a picture of it I thought it was a German development towards the end of the war. I was surprised to find it was a Jet pioneer.

Here is the Britsh Jet pioneer, the appropriately named Gloster E.28 "Pioneer".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

Yeap it was definatly a pioneer, and it was quite impressive what it did for an experimental aircraft. Heinkel was very good at developing high speed aircraft. High speed aircraft are what he was most fascinated in.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2004)

there's allot of mystery around the designation of that plane CC, some call it the E.28/39, the E.28 "Whittle", the E.28/39 "Whittle", the E.28 "Pioneer", the E.28/39 "Pioneer" are just a few, it has never been given a true name, it was merely left as the E.28/39, which is what i like to call it....................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

I dont know but for somereason I was never impressed by its performance. I am still impressed with it though because it was one of the first jet aircraft and that says a lot.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Germans above the U.S -
> 
> 1) Radar



That's just wrong. US radar tech was great in WWII. The radar employed by the USN was the best in the world. The British were ahead of the Germans in radar tech throughout the war. The USA passed them in about 1943.

Also the VT-fuse was "radar" technology. And this was beyond German engineering.



plan_D said:


> 2) Tank design


 Given.



plan_D said:


> 3) Rockets


A waste of precious resources, especially engineering talent.



plan_D said:


> 4) Night Vision


I've no idea on this one.



plan_D said:


> 5) Gyros


Depends on the application. For rockets and missiles probably so. For gunsights and more importantly shipboard fire-control computers the USA had the edge.



plan_D said:


> 6) Electronics


How do you figure?



plan_D said:


> 7) Aerodynamics


That's almost funny considering German engineers were basing their designs NACA airfoils.

You must mean the swept wings. The USA also had swept wing research planes going, but had not yet produced a plane capable of utilizing them. As for the 262 as an example - it's a poor one as the P-80 was both faster and more manuverable than the 262.



plan_D said:


> The M1 Garand is something all Americans seem to love. Patton loved it too, maybe that makes you all love it. The fact of the matter is, it wasn't that good. It had less stopping power, accuracy and range than the Lee-Enfield, and the Lee-Enfield had less range than the Kar-98. Single-aimed shots fired with a bolt-action are more likely to hit. I admit, the M1 was good for the US army - a bunch of ill-trained raw recruits.



Ill trained raw recruits that kicked Nazi and Imperial ass!

I have both the Enfield and the M1 Garand. Yes the Enfield is a little more accurate, but not very much so. As for stopping power, both have pleanty. Both will fully penetrate a redwood 4x4 at 200 meters, so that's a silly statement. In terms of the ability to lay down suppressive fire, the M1 stands an order of magnitude above the Enfield. For realistic infantry combat usage the M1 Garand can do anything the Enfield or Mauser can do but it can also lay down suppressive fire. Even the German's realized their mistake and this lead to the Gew 41 project and eventually to the MP44.



plan_D said:


> German technological supremecy in air power? Easy to finish this one - Me-262, Ta-152 and Go-229. The Go-229 was designed and ready to fly by the wars end...technologically superior to anything the Americans ever had. In fact, it took the US another 60s years to get a flying wing to work in the B-2.



As stated before, the Jets were really beyond Germany's technical capability. They could design them but they could not mass produce them. Like other German "super weapons", these were a waste of resources and hurt Germany more than they helped them.

The Go-229? LOL - the prototype flew 3 or 4 times and crashed, and was then rushed into series production anyway with no units every being produced? We simply do not know how well this mostly wooden plane would have done, but the odds were very much against its success.

As for the 262, it was matched by the P-80. Other German jets were on their way down the pipe, but this was true for the USA as well. The F-84 was not that far off and had war-time pressure been in play it would probably have been ready for action by mid 1946. And unlike Germany, US industry could actually produce its designs.

And then there is the famous Ta-152. How do you figure this plane was better than the P-51H, the P-47M, or the F8F? It was certainly not better than the F4U-4 at realistic combat altitudes.



plan_D said:


> A waste of resources, I think not. You obviously do not realise the destructive power and effectiveness these things could have had on a battlefront. Imagine counter-battery fire well out of the enemies artillery range, hundreds of miles out of their range. The first successful flight of the V-2 landed within 400 metres of its target area, which was 125 miles away.



What? *The accuracy of the V1 at 200 miles was 11 miles!* That's right, it could hit anywhere within an 11 mile radius of the "target". This meant that it was only useful against large cities, if you can even call it useful. It was a "terror weapon", nothing more. And approximately 1 in 4 of them failed on launch, often with disasterous effect.

The idea of these weapons being used for counter-battery fire is rediculous. It's estimated that if it had been mass produced the minimum cost of the V2 would have been about $50,000 (1944 $), though actual cost per unit (even using slave labor) was much higher. Ignoring the HUGE R&D costs this project sucked up and figuring a unit cost of $50,000 each (which is unrealistic), even if it would have worked, it would be silly to fire a $50,000 missile to destroy a $1,000-$2000 artillery battery, don't you think?

I doubt that test result of 400 m, but it really doesn't matter. The fact is against real targets the V2 was horribly ineffective. Approximately 1115 V2 rockets were fired against Britain killing 2754 and serious wounding 6523 civilians. Additionally, some 2917 servicemen were killed and another 1939 were wounded by V weapons (both V1 and V2).

Neither V weapon was particularly accurate. They were good at creating fear, but of no real strategic or tactical value. Again, given the costs involved in the projects, these weapons did not help the German war effort, they hurt it.



plan_D said:


> You'll probably find the Germans had researched and began developing ideas for an atom bomb. It would not have taken another 3-4 years to get one ready. It would have when the place was blown up.



Back up your argument. Provide some credible sources showing that the German A-bomb project was closer than 4 years from producing a working fission bomb.

I've already shown on this board that the Germans were far from producing a working fission bomb. They'd have been lucky to get one going in 4 years. They were totally on the wrong track and even though they started their A-Bomb project years before the USA did (I believe 1936 or 37), at the end of the war they were not even as far along as the USA was at the end of the first year of the Manhatten project. They still had no means to refine/enrich U-235, they had no idea how much was needed to create a critical mass (they believed it would take over a ton), and they didn't even know plutonium existed!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

Yes you are correct in some aspects like with the radar and the vt fuse.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Neither V weapon was particularly accurate. They were good at creating fear


True they were not that accurate but just the capability of the V-2 was amazing. Its technology led to the US ballistic weapons probram and the space program. It was the fastest rocket produced during WW2. With a little work it could have become more accurate. As for the V-1 yes it too was not that accurate but some one in the US liked it they copied it. 

As for other areas, the technological "know how" was there and the Germans were not behind anyone in there designs or ideas or "know how". The Germans had the capability of building jets that could outfly anything out there if there R&D was just given time. The excelled in aircraft design, tank design, U-Boot design and even there capital ships were just the equal, atleast until the later part of the war when they could no longer build capital ships. You can not say that the German technological "know how" did not exsist or was behind that of the allies. Yes I will agree that they did waste a lot of resoarses, and that they did not have the industy in place to keep it going but they certainly had the brains and the ideas to do it.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes you are correct in some aspects like with the radar and the vt fuse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But, my point is that those "end product" designs and ideas really do not define where a nation is in terms of technology. What defines this is the base technologies. Can they make the necessary alloys? Can they make the necessary chemical compounds? Can they make the necessary electronic components (and make them small enough for the job)? Can they mass produce the things they design?

Today, lots of "designers" can create feasible designs for a mannd mars mission. I'm sure there are pleanty of people in many nations that could do this. However, when it comes to building one, only the USA, and perhaps Japan, have the base technology to really accomplish such a thing. Any other nation trying to do so would have too many base technological hurdles to overcome. Britain, France, Germany, or Russia could still put something together and give it a try, but it would be much more limited and much less likely to succeed.

Designers have to work within the technological capability of the industrial base from which they can draw from. Otherwise it is just fantasy. When they try to make fantasy into reality, what they get are expensive failures. This does not mean that "impressive" things cannot be accomplished. But war is not about impressing people, it's about killing them effectively and efficiently, and the V weapons certainly failed to achieve this.

Please don't take this as my saying the German scientists and engineers were not as smart as their US counterparts. But German scientists and engineers could only work with the resources they had, and even when they did accomplish technical marvels, they were often beyond the German capacity to actually meaningfully produce.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2004)

Jesus christ, this is going to be a lot to answer. 

Evan, I meant a flying wing that would have worked effectively. That US one wasn't going to be very effective, was it? The Go-229 is globally recognised (except with RG) as being an excellent design that could have cut up bomber formations along with fighters, with ease. It was far beyond anything else the world had. 

I also knew about the American jets from the early '40s. They were far advanced and for all of about 3 months had the most powerful jet engine in the world, even surpassing British designs. Although, we all know the Jet engine was a credit to the British in the first place. November 1941 the worlds most powerful engine, the Rolls Royce Nene engine at 5000 lbs thrust was produced. Nothing matched that for years to come, and it was used in the MiG-15. 

I'm glad someone can see sense. I never said that the US was far behind in technology. They got hold of a lot of ideas and pumped a lot of money into them, that's what America could/can do with idea and nearly always get it to work. You'll probably find that most of the research teams in the US had A) British scientists B) German Jews C) British notes or D) All of the above. The Manhattan Project is proof of that. 

RG, how is the RADAR comment wrong? Don't bring the British into this, it's German technology against US technology pure and simple. I've already said in the past that Britain advanced beyond Germany in the RADAR war. Although it did take the capture of the RADAR at Bruneval to get that far. 
And it took the US until 1943, and I'm sure British notes, to get beyond Germany. Not until late in the war, when Germany was dying did the US get the upper hand. 

If it's a waste of resources, why was America trying so badly to achieve a crediable rocket design? And failing, might I add. If this is a technology debate then why bring in resources? If the US had got the V-2, then you wouldn't say "It's a waste of resources". It's like if the US built the Tiger, no one would say it was complicated to build because Americas economy would still be able to churn out thousands. 
Techonlogically, the Germans were far advanced than anyone in rocket design. So much so that Von Braun, technology director of the Nazi party and member of the SS, had his past erased taken to America to design their rockets that led to ICBMs and Saturn-5, carrying US astronauts to the moon on the Apollo-11 mission. Remember the 1964 interview with Von Braun where they asked him if he truly thought it possible to reach the moon? Hard to believe he had a black SS uniform. 

You had no idea? That's unfortunate. Go ask whoever you are about tanks about the 'Sperber' unit - consisting of Five Panther Ausf Gs and supporting infantry equipped with night vision equipment that saw combat just after the Bulge. 

There's no probably about it. They were far advanced in missile stablisers. More importantly shipboard firing systems? No, not more importantly. The Germans fire-control systems on the Bismarck were more than adequete, it says a lot when a rookie crew manages to sink the Flagship of the Royal Navy. 

That's funny, when the Germans designed the Go-229. And that the Americans used German scientists on designing planes after the war because of ideas such as swept back wings. I should just add helicopters in here seeing as they were more advanced in that area too. And the 50s, Anton Flettner was working for the US in designing helicopters...

The -262 still carried the technology. If the war had carried on to allow the P-80, then the Go-229 would have been in the sky too. 

That was some raw Yank arrogance there, thank you. Made me laugh. Did you just forget that it was a World War and that it wasn't just the Americans fighting the Germans and Japanese? All those British, Canadian, Indian, Russian, Ukrainian, New Zealand, Australian, French, Belgian, African, Indonesian, Malayan, Burmese etc. etc laid down their lives to fight Germany and Japan, and you forget them all? 

How did the Americans beat the Germans anyway? By swamping them, that's how. In fact, that's why they were beaten by being out-numbered. I have a lot of respect for ALL those on the ground that fought but lets face it, the Germans were superior in tactics and training - on top of their unbreakable spirit. They lost but took on the world for 6 years. 

German jets a waste of resources? Of course, these -262s didn't shoot down over 300 heavies in a few months or anything. They would have badly hurt the Allied bombing campaign if they came in earlier. What you don't realise is that the technology was there, it was flying but there were also 10 million Soviets running straight towards Germany, as well as the 2 million + Western Allies. Germany was dying, it's resources were not being eaten away by super weapons...they were being captured. If the -262 would have been left behind and -190s given priority, you think the out-come would change? We're talking technology, not war situation. 

The Go-229 was far beyond anything else in the world. One of the prototypes crashed, yes. A lot of experimental aircraft have crashed - the US F-104 was crashing even when it was in service - that doesn't make it a bad design. It probably would have taken until 1946 to perfect the design but the Go-229 was being built and luckily for the Allies - US troops overran the factory to discover these things in production. 

And exactly how many P-80s were within 1000 miles of Berlin in May 1945?
War pressures would have put other German aircraft out there. America, as everyone was, were using the German equipment as something to match. That certainly says something for the Germans, in most peoples mind...  

Using $50,000 to kill civilians could be seen as silly. And I didn't say 200 miles  I said 125 miles, and it was 400 metres...they got lucky, it still happened. 
Fear is an effective weapon in war, everyone knows that. The V-2 was pointless in 1944 when it finally was allowed to exist. Von Braun wasn't supposed to be researching it at all, if given full funding it would have been there in 1942. Launching at Britain in 1942...I think that might have changed the war, and then launching at Stalingrad...technology put to good use. And then another 2 years for perfection and the A-10 ICBM launching at New York if the US got involved. German techonological supremecy...yes, of course. 

 The Germans started in 1937, the British in 1935. And don't give me that crap that America started after Germany seeing as it was using British scientists and notes from 1935. 
If Germany didn't have any clue about nuclear weapons, why did Britain even bother blowing their plant up. Next you'll be saying US stealth technology is pure American technology...

You still failed to mention the gryo-stabilisers on American tanks, that no one else had. (Although the 'Schmal' turret being designed for the Panther F had one) Or the worlds first computer sighted AA gun by the US...but oh well....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 30, 2004)

Unfortunately, politics played a big role in the cancellation of the flying wing projects. They were very different from other airplanes (obviously) and often unusual designs get undue pressure or scrutiny. The BV-141 is a good example of a good plane that scrapped because of it being so unorthodox.

Comparing the B-35 and B-49 to the Go-229 is not necessarily a good comparison. The Go-229 was designed to be a fighter while the Northrop designs were to be a bomber. Obviously these differences are exaggerated with size, range and payload. The biggest problem with the Northrop models were the engines. Couple this with the multiple smaller bomb-bays versus the humungous bays of the B-36 and it was apparent that the B-36 was going to get the contract. But it was later shown that there was no way that the B-36 could defend itself or outrun Soviet fighters.

The advent of the B-47 and B-52 put the final nail in the B-49 project coffin. 

I will not deny that the Go-229 was a very advanced aircraft and given the time, it could have been one heck of a fighter. Maybe I misread your message and took it the wrong way. My apologies.

There was an amazing amount of technological advances happening in that timeframe for everyone.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 30, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Jesus christ, this is going to be a lot to answer.
> 
> Evan, I meant a flying wing that would have worked effectively. That US one wasn't going to be very effective, was it? The Go-229 is globally recognised (except with RG) as being an excellent design that could have cut up bomber formations along with fighters, with ease. It was far beyond anything else the world had.



This is not true. The same instablity problems found in US flying wing designs, involving the same engineers who worked on the Go-229, would have cropped up for the G-229. Flying wings were not very feasible until fly-by-wire technology came into existance. This does not mean they could not fly, but their usefullness in combat is questionable given lateral stability and center of balance issues.



plan_D said:


> I also knew about the American jets from the early '40s. They were far advanced and for all of about 3 months had the most powerful jet engine in the world, even surpassing British designs. Although, we all know the Jet engine was a credit to the British in the first place. November 1941 the worlds most powerful engine, the Rolls Royce Nene engine at 5000 lbs thrust was produced. Nothing matched that for years to come, and it was used in the MiG-15.
> 
> I'm glad someone can see sense. I never said that the US was far behind in technology. They got hold of a lot of ideas and pumped a lot of money into them, that's what America could/can do with idea and nearly always get it to work. You'll probably find that most of the research teams in the US had A) British scientists B) German Jews C) British notes or D) All of the above. The Manhattan Project is proof of that.



Yes there were many European scientists involved in the Manhattan project. However, of the key scientists in the project, only two were actually German's who'd fled the Nazis, James Franck and Rudolph Peierls, and three more who'd fled German control, Leo Szilard (Hungarian), Edward Teller (Austria-Hungarian), Otto Frisch (Austrian).
Albert Einstien (German) was living in the USA (California) since before Nazi's came to power in 1933 and officially immigrated in 1934. Paul Wigner (Hungarian) - immigrated to USA in 1930 and John von Neumann (Hungarian) in 1929.

Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Arthur Compton, Ernest Lawrence,
Eric Jette, and many other Americans were also involved, as well as many British and a few French, Irish, and even New Zealand scientists. Of all the team, probably Robert Oppenhiemer was the most significant, followed closely by Leo Szilard.

To argue that "German" scientists were the key to the Manahattan project is silly - if anything it would be legitimate to say that Hungarian Jewish scientists were key to the project, but they arn't Germans! No actual German (or Austrian) born scientist was crutial to the project.

However, this all misses the point I'm trying to make. Without the base technologies available in the USA, it would have been nearly impossible to actually develop the Atomic bomb.

Here's a very telling comment on the status of the German A-Bomb:



> Towards the end of World War II, many of Germany’s nuclear scientists were captured and brought to Farm Hall in England. Recently declassified documents suggest that under a wiretapped environment, much was learned about the German’s effort to build the bomb, including new evidence that Heisenberg tried his hardest to develop nuclear weapons and failed. The largest piece of evidence was that Heisenberg had miscalculated the critical mass needed to achieve an atomic bomb, and thus still believed that tons of U-235 was necessary to create the bomb. When hearing from Farm Hall the news of a fission bomb being dropped in Hiroshima, _Heisenberg was quoted as saying “Some dilettante in America who knows very little about it has bluffed them. I don’t believe it has anything to do with uranium.” _[4] Among other things, the Farm Hall transcripts establish that the Germans on August 6, 1945 did not believe the Allies had exploded an atomic bomb over Hiroshima that day; _they never succeeded in constructing a self-sustaining nuclear reactor_; they were confused by the differences between an atomic bomb and a reactor; they did not know how to correctly calculate the critical mass of a bomb; and they thought plutonium was probably element 91.
> http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/anv/Why the Germans Failed.html






plan_D said:


> RG, how is the RADAR comment wrong? Don't bring the British into this, it's German technology against US technology pure and simple. I've already said in the past that Britain advanced beyond Germany in the RADAR war. Although it did take the capture of the RADAR at Bruneval to get that far.
> And it took the US until 1943, and I'm sure British notes, to get beyond Germany. Not until late in the war, when Germany was dying did the US get the upper hand.



The USA started {wartime development} later than Britian and Germany. The main radar program was already quite advanced before that point, and even thougn the USA was not putting much focus on it US radar technology was every bit as good as British radar technology in 1940.

You seem to think it was a one way street, with technology flowing only from Britain to the USA. This is hardly the case. Arthur Samual of Bell labs made critical contributions to British and US long band radar in the mid 30's through his invention of the high-frequancy triod vacuum tube. This technology was shared with the British and was key to most of their early (Battle of Britain) radar systems. While the British did discover/create the magnetron, the USA discovered/created the much more significant "klystron" (Sigurd and Russell Varian at Stanford University). Again the US invention was shared with the British, allowing Randel and Boot created the "cavity magnetron", largly by accident in their research on detection of microwaves.

The fact is the British did not "give their radar technology to the USA" as you claim. Instead, they turned to the USA for help in developing it, under the recommendations of Sir Henry Tizard after he'd heard there were many American scientists who wanted to help defeat Hitler. In 1940 he got the go-ahead from Churchill and in Sept. they shared the cavity magnetron with the US scientists at "Rad-Lab" (MIT). All core short wave radar technology advances for both the British and the US came out of Rad-Lab, which mostly involved American scientists but was fully shared. By 1942, the USA was far ahead of anyone in radar technology, with the introduction of the Centimetric ASV system developed for ASW purposes. By the end of 1942 the USA was far ahead.

In the meantime, Bell labs had continued the development of long-wave and short-wave radars, almost totally independant of British "help", and by 1942 these too were "best in the world", for USN use. In Oct. 1942 the Mk. 8 Fire Control radar system was in production by Western Electric.

So you're implication that the British were essential to US radar research and development is clearly not the case. The klystron was the the key component, and this was American technology shared with the British. The "cavity magetron" had already been invented by Aurthor Samual of Bell labs years before but the British generally get the credit because they "contributed" it to the Rad-Lab team first. Had the US formed the Rad-Lab w/o the British as team members, this invention would still have been present and US radar technology would have proceeded just fine, but British radar technology would not have.

Once the USA focused its attention on radar, it was only going to take it about 18 months to take the lead because the USA was the only nation to have the indsutrial and scientific base to support its rapid development.



plan_D said:


> If it's a waste of resources, why was America trying so badly to achieve a crediable rocket design? And failing, might I add. If this is a technology debate then why bring in resources? If the US had got the V-2, then you wouldn't say "It's a waste of resources". It's like if the US built the Tiger, no one would say it was complicated to build because Americas economy would still be able to churn out thousands.



America only became interested in long range missiles when it had nuclear weapons to deliver with such weapons. In WWII, the USA was not very interested in such technologies for winning WWII. The USA only became interested in the V1 when they started considering using it to deliver nerve gas and antrhax on Japan. As a conventional delivery system, it was just beyond even US technology to develop such a weapon in time for WWII, and the US knew it.

If the USA could have built a tank like the Tiger in numbers, sure. But that is not really the argument. The argument is would the US slow production of the Sherman to produce a small number of tanks like the Tiger, and the answer to that is a resounding no. The Pershing was produced in parallel to the Sherman.

You are the one trying to turn this into a "technology debate". My position all along has been that the Nazi's wasted resources pursuing non-viable technologies and this hurt their overall war effort.



plan_D said:


> Techonlogically, the Germans were far advanced than anyone in rocket design. So much so that Von Braun, technology director of the Nazi party and member of the SS, had his past erased taken to America to design their rockets that led to ICBMs and Saturn-5, carrying US astronauts to the moon on the Apollo-11 mission. Remember the 1964 interview with Von Braun where they asked him if he truly thought it possible to reach the moon? Hard to believe he had a black SS uniform.



Not really. I've read Von Braun's autobiography and a couple of other bio's on him. He was a member of the Nazi party but was pretty clearly non-political. He just loved rockets and found someone who'd fund his play.

I agree, the Germans were far ahead in liquid fueled rocket technology. So what? It was not viable as a weapons delivery system in WWII. The only way the German's could have made this technology effective would have been to deliver nerve gas with it. Had they done so, within 72 hours Germany would have been a ghost land.



plan_D said:


> You had no idea? That's unfortunate. Go ask whoever you are about tanks about the 'Sperber' unit - consisting of Five Panther Ausf Gs and supporting infantry equipped with night vision equipment that saw combat just after the Bulge.



Again, so what. Even before that US radar systems were advanced enough to see specific targets on the ground, and this was used in the ETO, though it was more used in the PTO.



plan_D said:


> There's no probably about it. They were far advanced in missile stablisers. More importantly shipboard firing systems? No, not more importantly. The Germans fire-control systems on the Bismarck were more than adequete, it says a lot when a rookie crew manages to sink the Flagship of the Royal Navy.



Who were also "rookies". But really, are you seriously comparing the Bismark to its American counterparts? The USS North Carolina would have slaughtered the Bismark even though the Bismark outweighed her. After 1943, the North Carolina could have gone up against the Bismark and the Tirpitz and it would easily have sunk them both.



plan_D said:


> That's funny, when the Germans designed the Go-229. And that the Americans used German scientists on designing planes after the war because of ideas such as swept back wings. I should just add helicopters in here seeing as they were more advanced in that area too. And the 50s, Anton Flettner was working for the US in designing helicopters...



Again, I've never said that Germany didn't have good scientists and engineers. You keep missing the point which is that German industrial science - the base which limits all else, was not nearly as advanced in Germany as it was in the USA. They could design things, but they could not produce them.

And what makes you think the German's were more advanced in Helicoptor technology in WWII? Both the USA and Germany had choppers flying in WWII, but the US choppers were more advanced. The German Flettner FL 282 Kolibri (32 produced through the whole of WWII) was clearly inferior to US designs:

*Flettner FL 282 Kolibri*






The Fa-223 Drache (~20 built) was much better, and had some advantages, but again I really don't think you can call it "more advanced"  

*Fa-223 Drache *





The Sikorsky R-4, R-5, and R-6 were "state of the art" in helecopter design.

*Sikorsky R-4*




First unit delivered Oct. 16, 1943. At least 130 were produced during WWII, 35 going to the USAAF, 20 to the USN, and 45 to the RAF and RNAS, and the rest to the US Coast Gaurd. http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/USNair.html

*Sikorsky R-5*




This model was flying in 1943 but did not see combat related action.

*Sikorsky R-6*




The R-6 was the first helicopter to see action with the USAAF in May 1945. It also saw action with the USN and the by British. 225 produced in 1944 and 1945.



plan_D said:


> The -262 still carried the technology. If the war had carried on to allow the P-80, then the Go-229 would have been in the sky too.



And they still wouldn't have been able to make engines for them.



plan_D said:


> That was some raw Yank arrogance there, thank you. Made me laugh. Did you just forget that it was a World War and that it wasn't just the Americans fighting the Germans and Japanese? All those British, Canadian, Indian, Russian, Ukrainian, New Zealand, Australian, French, Belgian, African, Indonesian, Malayan, Burmese etc. etc laid down their lives to fight Germany and Japan, and you forget them all?
> 
> How did the Americans beat the Germans anyway? By swamping them, that's how. In fact, that's why they were beaten by being out-numbered. I have a lot of respect for ALL those on the ground that fought but lets face it, the Germans were superior in tactics and training - on top of their unbreakable spirit. They lost but took on the world for 6 years.



If they'd have been half as good as you think they'd have won WWII. Their spirt was no stronger than anyone elses. In fact, if someone is to be given recongition for "unbreakable spirt", I'd say it would have to be the Brits, not the Germans.



plan_D said:


> German jets a waste of resources? Of course, these -262s didn't shoot down over 300 heavies in a few months or anything. They would have badly hurt the Allied bombing campaign if they came in earlier. What you don't realise is that the technology was there, it was flying but there were also 10 million Soviets running straight towards Germany, as well as the 2 million + Western Allies. Germany was dying, it's resources were not being eaten away by super weapons...they were being captured. If the -262 would have been left behind and -190s given priority, you think the out-come would change? We're talking technology, not war situation.



As I've shown before, total Jet kills were under 300, including fighters. 

You are talking about "end technology". The whole point I'm making is that the end technology (jets for example) is totally limited by the base technology (alloys and machine capabilities). Germany had topped out around 1943, beyond that point it took tremendous effort and resources to make minimal ground. The USA still had not topped out in 1945 and had already caught or passed the German's in every area they attempted to do so.



plan_D said:


> The Go-229 was far beyond anything else in the world. One of the prototypes crashed, yes. A lot of experimental aircraft have crashed - the US F-104 was crashing even when it was in service - that doesn't make it a bad design. It probably would have taken until 1946 to perfect the design but the Go-229 was being built and luckily for the Allies - US troops overran the factory to discover these things in production.



No, "One of the prototypes" did not crash - THE ONLY PROTOTYPE CRASHED! They rushed it into production anyway. Anything about the Go-229 is pure speculation, we just don't know if this plane would have been sucessful or not. But one thing we do know - the German's lacked the industrial technology to produce viable engines, and without these the Go-229 is useless.



plan_D said:


> And exactly how many P-80s were within 1000 miles of Berlin in May 1945?



Four. Two in Italy and two in England.



plan_D said:


> Using $50,000 to kill civilians could be seen as silly. And I didn't say 200 miles  I said 125 miles, and it was 400 metres...they got lucky, it still happened.



Well, I sure cannot find anything to document that. Can you provide a reference?

It does not matter though - the accuracy was an 11 mile radius from the target point. It would still be horribly inaccuate at 125 miles, perhaps an 8 mile radius.



plan_D said:


> Fear is an effective weapon in war, everyone knows that. The V-2 was pointless in 1944 when it finally was allowed to exist. Von Braun wasn't supposed to be researching it at all, if given full funding it would have been there in 1942. Launching at Britain in 1942...I think that might have changed the war, and then launching at Stalingrad...technology put to good use.



Again, wild speculation. There is no solid evidence that had the project recieved "full funding" that it would have generated a working V2 by 1942. Often research can only progress so fast regaurdless of the level of funding, expecially for new fields like liquid rocket research. But even if it had been completed in lets say, mid-1942, it still would have been delivering a 1 ton warhead into an 108 square mile area and would have been ineffective for anything but trying to scare the enemy.

And for every V2 you can scratch off one German fighter, two V2's you can scratch one Panther or Tiger tank, for every three V1's a Henkel Bomber, etc.... And 25% of those V2's blew up before reaching the target!



plan_D said:


> And then another 2 years for perfection and the A-10 ICBM launching at New York if the US got involved. German techonological supremecy...yes, of course.



And their industry would still have been in tatters.

Hmmm... given the state of their guidance systems... being generous and assuming a linear relationship between distance and accuracy... an A-10 fired at NYC would land somwhere within a 220 mile radius. Half of them would fall in the sea. The other half would be landing randomly anywhere from Maine to South Carolina. That'd be effective!

Besides, I doubt Germany could actually build the A-10. They were at the summit of their industrial capability to build the V2, materials failures and other issues would probably have made this project so difficult that it would have taken them another 10 years to accomplish it, if they focused resources on developing the base technologies to overcome the problems they encountered.

But lets say they had done so, and started hitting NYC and Washington in 1945. This would mean that Germany would not have been doing quite so badly in 1944, and the B-29 would have been deployed to Europe, and then Germany would have been in total ruins by 1945 in any case. If they had then started firing "vengance" weapons on the US civilian population, the USA would have started bombing with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible. In a month or two there'd have been nothing left. And this assumes the USA didn't drop Anthrax on them (as Churchill wanted to do in 1944 and which was totally possible by the end of that year but was veto'd by FDR).



plan_D said:


> The Germans started in 1937, the British in 1935. And don't give me that crap that America started after Germany seeing as it was using British scientists and notes from 1935.



I assume your back to the Radar topic. I've already covered this. US radar technology was not nearly so dependant on British "notes and scientists" as you seem to think.



plan_D said:


> If Germany didn't have any clue about nuclear weapons, why did Britain even bother blowing their plant up. Next you'll be saying US stealth technology is pure American technology...



Because the British conducting the raid didn't know the status of the German nuclear program. It was better to destroy the facility just in case they were further along that believed. Those high enough up in the Manhattan project to understand just how far behind the German's really were were not communicating any information down the chain.



plan_D said:


> You still failed to mention the gryo-stabilisers on American tanks, that no one else had. (Although the 'Schmal' turret being designed for the Panther F had one) Or the worlds first computer sighted AA gun by the US...but oh well....



Tanks are not my thing. I've read a bit about the gyro stabalizers, but I'm not really convinced they were "cutting edge" technology.

Again you miss the point. It is not the end-product that determines a nations techology standing, it's the base technology available to draw on, and the USA stood far beyond Germany in this respect so its end-product developers could go further before hitting the technology cieling.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2004)

So, against the majority of people in the world that know about the Go-229. You're going to argue it was crap?  

Where in there did I say Germans were crucial to the Manhattan Project. It was British notes that got it started off seeing as Britain was the first to start researching it. 

Again, you've brought the British in which were - as everyone knows - advanced beyond any other. The only ones that could effectively fight at night. It took the capture of the Bruneval Radar to keep British radar going, a German radar site. 

Actually, the Americans were trying to develop rockets during World War 2. They failed badly and just stole Von Braun afterwards to do their dirty work. 

Clearly not political, and part of the SS - Ok. If you want this to be about German resource wasting techniques, there's plenty that I can bring out but you just seem unable to admit your country wasn't as good in most design technologies than Germany. It's a shame, really. 

What's a radar going to tell a bunch of Panthers in the field? "There's a tank about 200 yards to your left, he's moved behind you" No, that's silly isn't it. This unit could fight effectively in the dark because they could see in the dark. You have a tendency to try and shrug things off by not going into detail or saying they weren't important. 

I never said I was comparing the US Battleships to German. LG and I had a could discussion on this a few months ago - that was actually interesting. I'm saying the Bismarcks fire control systems were perfectally adequete for combat. 
The HMS Hoods crew weren't a rookie crew. And you seem to think that because something is statiscally better, it's automatically going to win. That's not the real world. 

Did you just try and state that Sikorsky was American?     Igor Sikorsky was Russian...  
And still, the Germans flew the first helicopter stable enough to fly indoors. As they did in Berlin Arena in 1937. If Anto Flettner was such a poor designer, why did America steal him. Why did the Chinook come from one of his early twin rotary designs?

The Germans were certainly better troops than anyone else on the field. If you think otherwise, quite frankly you're a moron. There are several reasons they lost - Hitler can be blamed the most for their loss. Quickly followed by the massive numbers they had to fight. Even then they almost brought Russia to the end of its man power in 1942. 
You obviously cannot understand how hard a war like that is. But then, you seemed to think only the US beat Germany.  The British also had unbreakable spirit being British it's really easy for me to recognise that. Also, I can recognise Germanys supremecy in the field. I bet you'd get really angry if you read Max Hastings (An American author) book about Normandy. 
 
Under 300, when JG-7 claimed 426 aircraft. Which is quite widely recognised. 

If the US had caught or topped Germany, why is that EVERYONE still says that Germany was technically superior? Germany wouldn't write that, they're not allowed because they lost. So who did? 

Yet they still built some engines for the Go-229.  

And these four, were doing what exactly?

A lot of things are pure speculation in history but are still widely recognised as being more than likely. Again, scaring the enemy is very effective. 

And what's the US flattening Germany got anything to do with technology?  

No, that isn't the radar topic at all. 

Tanks are not your thing - so, we'll leave German tank supremecy out of it then. And the US gryo stabilisers were quite cutting edge, seeing as they had to bring it down from ship to tank size and it allowed tanks to fire much more effectively on the move. 

There is always natural resources and economy that restrict technology. This doesn't make the design technology of Germany any less viable. If Germany had Americas wealth then it probably would have been more advanced. We'll never know but if you want to have this a case of the US had better resources to design with, then yes it did.


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

the 262 has tons more votes than the 280 , im sure i read somewhere than the He-280 was supposed to be more manuverable than the 262 , and wasnt it supposed to be a bit faster ( though it laked the fire power the 262 had )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

wow i STILL haven't voted.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

U never vote, so stop stating the obvious....


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 31, 2004)

plan_D said:


> So, against the majority of people in the world that know about the Go-229. You're going to argue it was crap?



No, I say it was an unknown quantity and that what we know of flying wing designs from the post-war is that w/o fly-by-wire they were found too unstable to be useful.



plan_D said:


> Where in there did I say Germans were crucial to the Manhattan Project. It was British notes that got it started off seeing as Britain was the first to start researching it.



The British were not very far along, and most of their "notes" were public knowlege having been published prior to the war. You really should study the Manhattan project in detail some before drawing such erroneous conclusions about how much the British contributed to the project.



plan_D said:


> Again, you've brought the British in which were - as everyone knows - advanced beyond any other. The only ones that could effectively fight at night. It took the capture of the Bruneval Radar to keep British radar going, a German radar site.



Again, I point out that the USA was at the same stage of long-wave radar technology as the British in 1940. When it came to short-wave development, the British made no irreplaceable contributions. The biggest thing the British did was to encourage the USA to focus on developing radar technology because they wanted it ASAP.



plan_D said:


> Actually, the Americans were trying to develop rockets during World War 2. They failed badly and just stole Von Braun afterwards to do their dirty work.



Please document some significant US liquid fueled rocketry efforts during WWII.



plan_D said:


> Clearly not political, and part of the SS - Ok. If you want this to be about German resource wasting techniques, there's plenty that I can bring out but you just seem unable to admit your country wasn't as good in most design technologies than Germany. It's a shame, really.



Rocketry is not most, it's one area. And it was a wrong path to follow w/o WMD warheads. Aside from that, for every advanced German weapons system you've presented, I can point to a US system that was equally advanced and more singificant.



plan_D said:


> What's a radar going to tell a bunch of Panthers in the field? "There's a tank about 200 yards to your left, he's moved behind you" No, that's silly isn't it. This unit could fight effectively in the dark because they could see in the dark. You have a tendency to try and shrug things off by not going into detail or saying they weren't important.



The radar was accurate enough to direct artillery fire onto such targets from ranges of several miles.



plan_D said:


> I never said I was comparing the US Battleships to German. LG and I had a could discussion on this a few months ago - that was actually interesting. I'm saying the Bismarcks fire control systems were perfectally adequete for combat.



The fire control system on the SD class battleships was far better than that on the Bismark. The Bismark fire control system was only good to the horizon, and questionable at ranges beyond about 15 miles, and only during the day in clear weather. The North Carolina on the other hand, had radar aimed guns. It could aim accurate fire beyond the horizon even in 1941, at night, and in bad weather. In 1943, its improved fire control system could put accurate fire on a target beyond the horizon while the ship was in full evasive manuvers. Given this difference, the Bismark's fire control systems were adequate for battle against other optically sighted ships of the line, but not against US battleships.



plan_D said:


> Did you just try and state that Sikorsky was American?     Igor Sikorsky was Russian...
> And still, the Germans flew the first helicopter stable enough to fly indoors. As they did in Berlin Arena in 1937. If Anto Flettner was such a poor designer, why did America steal him. Why did the Chinook come from one of his early twin rotary designs?



He was American when he designed the R-4, R-5, and R-6. I didn't say German helicopter designs were crap, I said they were no more advanced than those of the USA.



plan_D said:


> The Germans were certainly better troops than anyone else on the field. If you think otherwise, quite frankly you're a moron. There are several reasons they lost - Hitler can be blamed the most for their loss. Quickly followed by the massive numbers they had to fight. Even then they almost brought Russia to the end of its man power in 1942.



Well, I disagree. British and American troops were every bit as good as German troops in 1944. German tanks were better, but the USA/British had a lot more tanks, air superiority, and much superior artillery, and were much more mechinized/mobile. The German's did very well agains countries like the Soviet Union and Poland when they had modern weapons and their opponents did not. They did very well agains the Brtish and French mostly because of incompetance in 1940. But once they faced a foe which also had modern weapons, they faulterd and lost the initiative and never regained it.



plan_D said:


> You obviously cannot understand how hard a war like that is. But then, you seemed to think only the US beat Germany.  The British also had unbreakable spirit being British it's really easy for me to recognise that. Also, I can recognise Germanys supremecy in the field. I bet you'd get really angry if you read Max Hastings (An American author) book about Normandy.



No I don't think the USA beat Germany by itself. However, the USA did contribute hugely to its defeat, both in direct military operations and through supplying both the British and the Soviets. Without American support the British would have capitulated and the Soviet's might have.



plan_D said:


> Under 300, when JG-7 claimed 426 aircraft. Which is quite widely recognised.



Who cares about "claims". I posted every 262 kill, I think it totals 253. I think it was even in this thread.



plan_D said:


> If the US had caught or topped Germany, why is that EVERYONE still says that Germany was technically superior? Germany wouldn't write that, they're not allowed because they lost. So who did?



Who is "everyone". I sure don't hear it. The Germans had some superior technology, espeically earlier in the war, but they lost most of that edge by the end of the war. The most important aspects of German technology were inferior - machine tool capability, metalurgy, chemistry, and physics.



plan_D said:


> Yet they still built some engines for the Go-229.  [/qute]
> 
> Some does not matter. You don't seem to grasp that what can be done in lab conditions does not count for warfare, you must be able to produce it or it is meaningless. All through the jet project, there were a few somewhat workable jet engines pretty much hand made by the designers and their assistants, and there were production engines which for the most part did not work. One hundred, or even 500, jet engines was not going to change Germany's fate or make a significant difference in the air-war.
> 
> ...



Well, this is sort of my point. But it goes further than this. In the pre-war years, the US industrial base was much broader than that of Germany. This gave US designers more fundimental technology to apply to their designs, which meant that more could be achieved. Germany did very well with what it had, but it had hit the technology cieling by 1942 or 1943, after that, progress was very slow.

As examples, the USA had nylon and teflon, O2 injection smelters creating superior steel and alloys not possible for the German metalurgists. It had electronics technologies like the klystron. It had automatic milling machines vs. Germany's "shaper" based machine tools, and the Thompson Centerless Grinder which Germany had no equivalent. It had automated "gang of saws" tools to cut fins into engine heads and cylinders which allowed the use of forged parts providing far more efficient cooling than that available to the Germans (which were limited to casting and filing). This base technology is the real measure of where a country is, not the end designs you keep refering too.

You seem to think that I think Americans were smarter than Germans. Well, I suppose that's true, but not in the way you think. You see, I believe all peoples are smart, be they American, British, German, Russian, Japanese, Chineese, Hungarian, Jewish, etc... Where the German's were stupid was in not realizing this, and only allowing "Arians" and in particular "good Nazi's" to contribute to thier nations R&D war effort.

In the end, the Nazi persecution of the Jew's cost them over 2 million combat soldiers (including those spent gaurding and killing jews), and robbed them of some of the brightest minds that might have served them. Likewise, they did not provide openings for expatriots from other nations to help their war effort. But Hitler needed a scapegoat to justify his "ruling with an iron fist" and to stave off hyper-inflation while he prepared for war - it just cost him far more than he ever knew.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

I agree with alot of what u have to say RG..... I feel the Germans would have been better off not producing Rockets and Jets and others that took away from the main war effort..... They couldnt back up their efforts and designs with quality materials... They didnt have the backbone structure to do so....

Imagine this What if.......

Hitler came to power in the USA and it became Nazi America..... Would we have become World Dominators with all our resources and technology???


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 31, 2004)

I'm thinking yes! And the first stop on the path to world domination? Canada!
We're right next door!


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 31, 2004)

Actually such thoughts are not so far fetched. Had the German's not pulled back on their support of the Bund in the USA, they might have been able to keep the USA out of the war.

And remember, FDR's 2nd VP, Henry A. Wallace, was a Soviet agent (or at the very least a sympathizer). That's really scary!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

U didnt answer the question.....


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

I have to say Wowwwwwwwww , that post was so long it must have got you 100 confirmed kills     

so thats how they do it ...........


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

Yes it is....


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

hmmmi think i might like mr quote button


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 31, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> U didnt answer the question.....



Who's the ? directed too? Me?

Ummm... Seems we're on that path now... ???

{added}
As for the US dominating the world as the initial agressor state in WWII, it would have been extremely difficult without an ally in Europe. It would probably have been extremly difficult even with Britain as an ally (very hard to invade a unified continent). However, the USA probably would have focused on North and South America first, then used the A-bomb to enforce its will on the rest of the world in the late 40's and 50's. Of course this would probably have induced a more unified Europe which likely would have had their own A-bomb so...

It is very hard to force your will upon large foriegn populations in the first place. The further away you have to go to do it, the harder it gets.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 1, 2005)

Yeomanz said:


> the 262 has tons more votes than the 280 , im sure i read somewhere than the He-280 was supposed to be more manuverable than the 262 , and wasnt it supposed to be a bit faster ( though it laked the fire power the 262 had )



Some have asked through the thread why the P-80 isnt on the poll and the reply has always been that it did not see combat. This is true to an extent, however the P-80 was in operational service in the Mediterranean before the end of the war. Although it didn't ever enter a combat situation simply because nothing came around to fight it. I believe it would've been a better choice for the poll.

I don't see why the 280 is even on here, they're were only 9 ever built and although designed to be a fighter it never fought in combat and never made it to operational service.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2005)

i think CC made the poll, which explains it...............


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 1, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Yeomanz said:
> 
> 
> > the 262 has tons more votes than the 280 , im sure i read somewhere than the He-280 was supposed to be more manuverable than the 262 , and wasnt it supposed to be a bit faster ( though it laked the fire power the 262 had )
> ...



well then it should've been in the poll then , but couldnt see it get many votes .......


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 1, 2005)

Nice to see the Anglo/American rivalry still going strong.


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 1, 2005)

i love to argue


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2005)

There's no anglo/American rivalry. I was trying to keep Britain out of it. 

RG, if all that was about what you said at the end. Then fine, that's true - Germany did have less base technology than America. Which gave America the edge in a lot of technologies. 
The German scientists were still advanced in rocket design, night vision (directing artillery, and conducting close-combat are different things), tank design and aerodynamics. You're still not going to admit it. If the US was ahead of Germany in aerodynamics, why did they steal scientists and put them straight to work on the US aircraft industry? If the Germans were behind why is it that the F-86 and MiG-15 look remarkably similar - by luck? No, it's because a team of German scientists had designed them.

The only thing that let Germany was down was Nazism. I know that, I understand that more than most people - much beyond 'Nazis are evil' - Hitler disallowed 400,000 Russians to fight for him in 1941 after the initial stages of Barbarossa due to his hate. 

The Germans were not technologically superior in 1940-1941. The opposite is true. The Germans were TACTICALLY superior throughout the war. I fail to see how you can make the claim that the US were better fighting troops when they won, in their areas, by weight in numbers. The only two US divisions I can see as being on par or better than an early war German division is 101st and 82nd Airborne. 
You have to remember that many late war German divisions were under-equipped security divisions - not made for open war. Still, the 11th and 21st Panzer were the most experienced on the battlefield and when equipped could rarely be beaten. 
The Allies gained air superiority, not by Germany tactical failures on the ground. So, I don't know how you bring that into the equation. 

The British cannot be commented on as a whole. In Burma they were remarkable in command after the initial shock of 1941. In France 1940, they fought well but a dying war. In N. Africa again, the troops brave but the command flawed until Monty. Europe 1944, 2nd Army did a lot but a perfect show of how brilliant the Germans were was Caen. And how long it took the Allies to take the place. 
I hope you know about the US 5th Army in Italy getting its butt-kicked while out-numbering the Germans, and almost evacuating until the British 8th Army struck at the Germans from the south. If the Germans were as poor as you say they were, they wouldn't have held off the world for 6 years. 

America contributed a lot but did not secure victory. Britain would not have fallen by German military action. The only way it would have fallen would have to been starved out, which would have taken a long time. Get off your typically American high-horse and get down to the basics of the war, Germany were the better fighting unit for what they achieved...weight in numbers and Nazism defeated them, not Gung-ho America. 

And Sikorsky was Russian, end of story. 

I do apologise to other Americans but when someone seems to claim only one nation won the war it is extremely annoying.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 2, 2005)

I know I never made the claim that America was the only nation to win the war. MANY nations were involved and all of them contributed to final victory. 

Rocket design was something that America did have some advances as well. Look at Robert Goddard and his achievements: _
First explored mathematically the practicality of using rocket propulsion to reach high altitudes and even the moon (1912);

First proved, by actual static test, that a rocket will work in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against; 
First developed and shot a liquid fuel rocket, March 16,1926;

First shot a scientific payload (barometer and camera) in a rocket flight (1929, Auburn, Massachusetts); 

First used vanes in the rocket motor blast for guidance (1932, New Mexico); 

First developed gyro control apparatus for rocket flight (1932, New Mexico);

First received U.S. patent in idea of multi-stage rocket (1914);

First developed pumps suitable for rocket fuels;

First launched successfully a rocket with a motor pivoted on gimbals under the influence of a gyro mechanism (1937)._

I only point these out in case you weren't aware of the contributions that Goddard made. I am not taking anything away from Von Braun. He was also a great pioneer in rocketry and space flight.


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

plan_D said:


> There's no anglo/American rivalry. I was trying to keep Britain out of it.
> 
> RG, if all that was about what you said at the end. Then fine, that's true - Germany did have less base technology than America. Which gave America the edge in a lot of technologies.
> The German scientists were still advanced in rocket design, night vision (directing artillery, and conducting close-combat are different things), tank design and aerodynamics. You're still not going to admit it. If the US was ahead of Germany in aerodynamics, why did they steal scientists and put them straight to work on the US aircraft industry? If the Germans were behind why is it that the F-86 and MiG-15 look remarkably similar - by luck? No, it's because a team of German scientists had designed them.
> ...



Wow , you can argue !  8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

ah we've had some classic arguments on the site...................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2005)

Scratching, hair pulling, it's all good!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

but some of them were on somewhat random and pointless topics.........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 2, 2005)

Like that spit of land we know as Belgium...


Anywho, wasn't Goddard part-Russian?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 2, 2005)

Goddard was born in Worcester, Massachusetts. He may have had Russian heritage, but he was born in the US and attended school in the US.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 2, 2005)

Thought so...


I've read things about him, but not much and it was a while ago.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If the Germans were behind why is it that the F-86 and MiG-15 look remarkably similar - by luck? No, it's because a team of German scientists had designed them.



Actually, that is technically incorrect. The F-86 design was done in 1944, before the war was over. The original design had a straight wing like the Mustang in the original design though. The main engineers used the swept back wing design after seeing some of the German test data after the war. Keep in mind though that the German test data was a huge collection of tests, some of which would seem ridiculous designs today, but they tried everything, orthodox and unorthodox. To say the F-86 was a German design is not correct. The addition of a swept wing design later could be attributed to earlier German engineering, but not completely a German design.

I don't know enough about the MiG-15 to state with any authority, it could have been a German design, but it could also have been designed by the Mikoyan design bureau after seeing the same post-war data the Americans had. Why are the 2 designs so similar? Could be coincidence, could be good spies.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

I do know of the US contribution to many things. Von Braun was, as you know, the pioneer to liquid fuel rocket technology - first flying them in 1931. 

I was refering to the swept wing designs on the F-86. It would have not been such a great aircraft had it had straight wings. 
The MiG-15 was a through and through German design, with a British engine. 

"After the war, the Ta 183 story continued. The Soviets found a complete set of plans for the Ta 183 in Berlin at the RLM offices, and began construction of six prototypes in March 1946 by the MIG design bureau. On July 2, 1947, the first Soviet-built Ta 183 took to the air powered by a British Rolls-Royce "Nene" turbojet. They discovered that the original Ta 183 design needed either automatic leading edge slots or wing boundry layer fences to alleviate low-speed stalling. Also, as a compromise between high-speed and low-speed flying, the horizontal stabilizer was moved approximately one-third down from the top of the vertical tail. The modified Ta 183 first flew on December 30, 1947 and in May 1948 was ordered into production as the MIG 15." 







Kurt Tank also designed an Argentinian fighter off the Ta-183 - the Pulqui II - but this failed due to a change in the wing configuration.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 3, 2005)

I think the best jet fighter of ww2 is either the Go-229, 




or the Heinkel He-129


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

None of them saw service, and the second one is a He-162. The -129 was a piston night fighter.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 3, 2005)

Interestingly, they did test the original F-86 with a straight wing and the results were what we would expect today; top speed performance below expectations. The idea for swept wings came about after looking at the German test notes, which by the way were a large, loose collection of charts and other data in no particular order and obviously in German. I am sure that it took quite some time to go through all of that.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2005)

ME262


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

It wouldn't have been very hard to translate the German, as they did capture German scientists. The Russians seem to do okay with German scientists and the Ta-183 design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I do know of the US contribution to many things. Von Braun was, as you know, the pioneer to liquid fuel rocket technology - first flying them in 1931.
> 
> I was refering to the swept wing designs on the F-86. It would have not been such a great aircraft had it had straight wings.
> The MiG-15 was a through and through German design, with a British engine.
> ...



Here is some more info on the Ta-183



> In late 1942, Focke-Wulf engineer Hans Multhopp headed up a design team that started aerodynamic studies for a new turbojet fighter. This culminated in 1945 as a fighter project known as "Huckebein" (a cartoon raven that traditionally makes trouble for others).On Febuary 27 and 28, 1945, the Emergency Fighter Competition conference was held by the OKL (High Command of the Luftwaffe), and the Ta 183 was chosen to be developed and produced. There were to be sixteen Versuchs (experimental test series) aircraft: the Ta 183 V1-V3 to be powered by the Jumo 004B turbojet, pending delivery of the He S 011 jet engine, the Ta 183 V4-V14 as 0-series preproduction aircraft and V15-V16 as static test aircraft. The maiden flight of the first aircraft was planned for May/June of 1945. The first production aircraft were scheduled to be completed by October 1945, but no examples of the Ta 183 were completed because on April 8, 1945 British troops captured the Focke-Wulf facilities.
> 
> After the war, the Ta 183 story continued. The Soviets found a complete set of plans for the Ta 183 in Berlin at the RLM offices, and began construction of six prototypes in March 1946 by the MIG design bureau. On July 2, 1947, the first Soviet-built Ta 183 took to the air powered by a British Rolls-Royce "Nene" turbojet. They discovered that the original Ta 183 design needed either automatic leading edge slots or wing boundry layer fences to alleviate low-speed stalling. Also, as a compromise between high-speed and low-speed flying, the horizontal stabilizer was moved approximately one-third down from the top of the vertical tail. The modified Ta 183 first flew on December 30, 1947 and in May 1948 was ordered into production as the MIG 15.
> http://www.combatfs.com/~rr5/ta183.htm



Origin: Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau GmbH
Models: N/A
Type: N/A (Assumed fighter)
Engine: N/A
Dimensions:
Wing Span: 10.00m
Length: 9.4m
Height: N/A
Wing Area: 22.52 Sq M
Weights:
Empty: 2,830 kg
Loaded: 4,300 kg
Fuel: 1,250 kg
Ammunition: 120 kg

Performance:
871 km/h (541 mph) At Sea Level
955 km/h (593 mph) At 22,960 Feet
Initial Rate Of Climb: 4,020 Ft/min
Take Off Distance: 2,160 Ft.
Landing Speed: 102 mph
Landing Distance: 1,665 Ft.
Ceiling: 45,920 Ft.
Range:N/A
Armament: N/A


As for the He-162 it was innovative but was not the best thing to be built and was not really a match for late war allied piston aircraft. As for the Gotha Ho-229. Yes it was quite a design and I personally think it could have been unstoppable in the skies but it did not reach service by wars end so it certainly was not the best aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

I was keeping the Ta-183 information to the MiG-15 story...as I do know about the Ta-183 but thank you anyway.


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 3, 2005)

*plan_D Wrote:*


> I bet you'd get really angry if you read Max Hastings (An American author) book about Normandy.


He's British you dummy


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 3, 2005)

Dummy?! My God, the language!  
Wash your mind out immediately!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

Yeah wow what trash talking. How old are you, what 10. Atleat thats what my 10 year old nephew says "Dummy!".


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

Yes, he is British. He lives in West Berkshire. I was incorrect. What type of dummy am I?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 3, 2005)

I was just joking, btw.  
I'm trying to break the habit. Sorry.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 3, 2005)

why a plane needs to c action b4 its good?
the go-229 was developed in war times, its just that the war was over b4 it could ce real action.
if it had seen action it would hav been the best one. so i'll stay on that opinion


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

That is probably true, you do have a point. However, many aircraft were developed during World War 2 which did not see action. The Ta-183, Canberra, F-86...shall we count them in?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

I agree with you on that Archangel. I believe that the Gotha Ho-229 would have been better than anything in the sky. But it only flew one time and it crashed so there were no more tests done on it. So pretty much any info on it is just speculation, and that makes it hard to say it was the best jet and put it in this poll.

Origin: Gothaer Waggonfabrik AG. to Horten design (see note below)
Type: Single seat fighter/bomber

Engines:
Two Junkers Jumo 004B turbojets
Thrust: 1,980lb (900kg)

Dimensions:
Span 16.75m
Length 7.47m
Height 2.80m

Weights:
Empty: 10,140lbs (4600kg)
Max. loaded: 19,840lb (9000kg)

Speed:
607mph (977km/h)
Ceiling:
52,500ft (16,000m)

Range:
1,970 miles (3170km) at 393mph (635km/h) with two drop tanks

Armaments: Planned
Four Mk 103 or Mk 108 cannon
Plus
Two 1,000kg bombs



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
First flown in January 1945, the Ho 229 was the innovative design of Walter and Reimar Horten, both former Luftwaffe officers. The test programme showed the 229 to have outstanding speed and handling characteristics but developement was halted when US troops overran the research facility. Some dispute has arisen over whether the 229 should be classified as the Go 229 or Ho 229. Since Gothar was supposed to build 229 and didn't really design it, I'm arbitrarily going with the Ho 229 designation in honor of the designers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That is probably true, you do have a point. However, many aircraft were developed during World War 2 which did not see action. The Ta-183, Canberra, F-86...shall we count them in?



Also a very good point. There were many aircraft on all sides that could have been. But they were too late or never fully developed. The list would probably number the thousands.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

I have to agree completely, the Ho/Go-229 would have certainly ruled the skies going on it's tests. We will never know though but even if it had failed as a fighter, the design technology alone was beyond brilliant.


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 3, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah wow what trash talking. How old are you, what 10. Atleat thats what my 10 year old nephew says "Dummy!".



That's what i like about forums with many nationalities..It blows away the many stereotypes...Take you for example, a German with a sense of humor and who likes talking about the war....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

Actually I happen to be a German with US citizenship. As for talking about the war, I happen to have a love for history and aviation and I will talk about anything pertaining to it.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 3, 2005)

I really doubt that the Ta-183 was ever flown (in the SU).
There is simply no evidence for this claim! Try to find a prototypes picture and I will change my mind. Yes, the russians did completed or copied some german planes and projects (Me-263, DFS 346 and Ju-287 for example) but I tried to get all informations about russian Ta-183 projects and....failed. A myth? (even in russian documents you have no notice about it) There is truly influence in sewpt back wing design, as it was in La-15 and F-86. Thats nearly all, landing gear configuration and main compartments layout are different (Ta-183 bears fuel above the jet engine, the MiG didn´t). 
Some interesting points about the Ho-229: It is said, that it was an unstable design, as all flying wing design (such like B-2) need fly-by-wire controls, but here I doubt. It depends more on the bell shape lift distribution of the wing to make the design stable in flight conditions. Thats what the Northrop designs missed. I have some good informations about people who did fly the Ho-III flying wing glider (and the Ho-IIIf motorglider) and they indeed had good stability. Anyway, even some Luftwaffe pilots doubted the stability of such a design (W. Späthe to name one), but none of them did fly a Horten design. -delcyros-


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I really doubt that the Ta-183 was ever flown (in the SU).
> There is simply no evidence for this claim! Try to find a prototypes picture and I will change my mind. Yes, the russians did completed or copied some german planes and projects (Me-263, DFS 346 and Ju-287 for example) but I tried to get all informations about russian Ta-183 projects and....failed. A myth? (even in russian documents you have no notice about it) There is truly influence in sewpt back wing design, as it was in La-15 and F-86. Thats nearly all, landing gear configuration and main compartments layout are different (Ta-183 bears fuel above the jet engine, the MiG didn´t).
> Some interesting points about the Ho-229: It is said, that it was an unstable design, as all flying wing design (such like B-2) need fly-by-wire controls, but here I doubt. It depends more on the bell shape lift distribution of the wing to make the design stable in flight conditions. Thats what the Northrop designs missed. I have some good informations about people who did fly the Ho-III flying wing glider (and the Ho-IIIf motorglider) and they indeed had good stability. Anyway, even some Luftwaffe pilots doubted the stability of such a design (W. Späthe to name one), but none of them did fly a Horten design. -delcyros-



You are partially correct. The Germans never flew one but the Russians used the plans of it and built a modified version of it and flew it.



> On Febuary 27 and 28, 1945, the Emergency Fighter Competition conference was held by the OKL (High Command of the Luftwaffe), and the Ta 183 was chosen to be developed and produced. There were to be sixteen Versuchs (experimental test series) aircraft: the Ta 183 V1-V3 to be powered by the Jumo 004B turbojet, pending delivery of the He S 011 jet engine, the Ta 183 V4-V14 as 0-series preproduction aircraft and V15-V16 as static test aircraft. The maiden flight of the first aircraft was planned for May/June of 1945, and was to test both the Design II and Design III tail configuration. The first production aircraft were scheduled to be completed by October 1945, but no examples of the Ta 183 were completed because on April 8, 1945 British troops captured the Focke-Wulf facilities.
> After the war, the Ta 183 story continued. The Soviets found a complete set of plans for the Ta 183 in Berlin at the RLM offices, and began construction of six prototypes in March 1946 by the MIG design bureau. On July 2, 1947, the first Soviet-built Ta 183 took to the air powered by a British Rolls-Royce "Nene" turbojet. They discovered that the original Ta 183 design needed either automatic leading edge slots or wing boundry layer fences to alleviate low-speed stalling. Also, as a compromise between high-speed and low-speed flying, the horizontal stabilizer was moved approximately one-third down from the top of the vertical tail. The modified Ta 183 first flew on December 30, 1947 and in May 1948 was ordered into production as the MIG 15.
> 
> Meanwhile, Kurt Tank (head of the Focke-Wulf design department) had left Germany to go to Argentina in 1947 at the invitation of President Juan Perón. There Tank was to build a tubojet powered fighter for the Argentine Air Force, and he decided to build the Ta 183. Tank made several changes to Multhopp's original design, mainly the wing being changed to a shoulder mounted position. The first flight of the "Pulqui II" was made on June 27, 1950. Although the flight was without mishap, test pilot Captain Edmundo Weiss did not like it's flight characteristics. Changing the wing location disturbed the wing-lift aerodynamics, and after six aircraft were completed, the Pulqui II program was canceled in 1954.
> http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2005)

do you fink i break the cornish stereotype??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2005)

No.



You look like one but your accent isnt Cornish, and youre also quite clever


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

Corny Cornish


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

In more ways than one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

Thats alright us Dieters can be quite corny also.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I really doubt that the Ta-183 was ever flown



What's this then?


----------



## delcyros (Mar 8, 2005)

I did noticed that Luft´46 site. It is qouted often. What is the source for that claim? You can trace it back to some Schiffer books and Myrha. They are not that reliable. And they do not proof (the picture of a Ta-183 prototype in Luftwaffe markings is actually a model photo). Ta-183 prototypes build under russian control? Possible. They did it with the Ju-287, DFS 346, Me-262 and others. The russians did not hide german designs (Mig did copied the Me-263=MiG I 270, you can read it everywere), and there is no russian source to verify this claim. And look closer to the MiG 15, there are similarities of course (middle wing layout, swept back), but there are great differences, too: First of all, the MiG-15 was designed around a Rolls-Royce Nene engine, the Ta-183 wasn´t. The landing gear retracts into the wing (and not into the fuselage, like the Ta-183 design), the Ta-183 has a completely different section compartimentation, the Mig-15 bears all components (like fuel, weapon, cockpit, engine) behind each other (space is defined by the dimensions of the Rolls Royce Nene engine), how different looks the Ta-183! (it has no circular hull design, it even bears fuel tanks above and parts of the landing gear under its engine!) Even the wing is another design: 35 degrees swept back wing (Mig-15) with -2 degrees anhedral against 40 degrees swept back wings without anhedral. We are talking about serious design differences, which you cannot simply declare with modifications. Kurt Tank later build the Pulqui-II for Argentinia, which is much more close to the original Ta-183 and turned out to be nothing special, beeing by far inferior to the Mig-15. It is a myth that the soviets did hide that plane to today because it was part of an super secret project, it´s laughable (cold war propaganda). On no russian sources you can find a hind to it (I tried for years), you can qoute me on that. Even with the problem of a proof from the negative in mind, it´s absency in MiG-related sources is remarkeble or isn´t it?


----------



## delcyros (Mar 8, 2005)

Of course, if you can submit a photo or any original russian source I will change my mind....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

CC, someone knows Photoshop or another graphic program.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

From all sources that I know the Ta-183 never flew but was built as a modified version by the Russians. And yes the modified version of the Ta-183 is the Mig-15 which does look different.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

Now one aircraft that did fly was the Messerschmitt Me P.1101. It was an advanced fighter design and was flown by the Americans who captured it right before it was scheduled to test flight.



> On July 15, 1944, the RLM submitted Proposal 226/II to Germany's aircraft manufacturers. This "Emergency Fighter Competition" specified the following requirements (although these were later to change several times) for the second-generation of jet-powered fighters for the Third Reich:
> 
> powered by a single Heinkel-Hirth He S 011 turbojet
> level speed of 1000 km/h (621 mph) at 7000 meters (22966 feet)
> ...


----------



## delcyros (Mar 9, 2005)

Adler,

"...one plane did fly..."

Yes, the Me-P.1101 is one of the most advanced planes build in 1945. But Your source does also underline that id did NOT fly anytime. It couldn´t have flown thanks to the damages and the worse general shape (fauling was extremely dangerous to the surface quality and structural integrity of the wing, you can it see on some pictures of 1946, at which that plane is shown modified with an american jet engine) due to the bad conditions it had to face outside when it was displayed to GI´s. It was also never completed: "...it proved to be impossible, due to the fact, that most of the design documents were now in France..." It did influence the Bell X-5 design, surely. But the Bell X-5 was also a new development beeing more advanced than the Me P.1101, it could sweep it´s wings during flight (which was impossible vor the Messerschmidt) and it did bear a much better jet engine. The Me-P.1101 however, was scrapped without ever having a maiden flight...
(and again, there is simply no independent source to confirm that the Ta-183 had to do anything, except from it´s general fighter layout, with the MiG-15...)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2005)

I am sorry you are completly correct, I misread my info on it. I also went back and read some excerts from a book that I have on it and it said the same thing.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 10, 2005)

Never mind, Adler.

I have digged out some nice information of both designs (Me-P.1101 and Ta-183). You would find it interesting that the Messerschmidt design was probably much better than the Tank design. I´m not sure in all details but my calculations show that Tanks wingdesign was somewhat "risky". High degree (40) of swept back wing without anhedral together with an even higher aspect ratio (and no boundary layers or leading edge slots) compared to the Messerschmidt wing would seriously affect the low speed handling of the Ta-183. it would also result in a higher stall speed and even worse stall behavior. Tank wanted to push the critical mach speed beyond 0.94, but his wing layout sacrified much to reach such a high mach speed. I do belive that there would have been a very high probability of accidents during the first flights with the early Ta-183 V-prototypes, even with the lower wingload in mind. Messerschmidt´s wing designs, however, were more balanced in general. The wingload was higher, but he used leading edge slots to increase lift at slow and stalling speeds (very much like the Me-262), that would result in much better low speed handling. The wing was an excellent design, proven in the Me-262, and critical Mach speed would also have been at around 0.92-0.94.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

Interesting analysis and some good info thanks. I am always interested in learning new things. Thanks.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 12, 2005)

Thanks a lot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

Rock On


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 28, 2005)

I voted for the me262. The Gloster Meteor was an ok jet but it was so 

damn hard to look out of!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I also went for the Me-262. She was not flawless as all aircraft are but she clearly was the path to the future.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2005)

why do you think the meteor's so hard to see out of?? if it is it's because you're too short


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

Yeah I am also wondering that. This does not look like it was hard to see out of.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2005)

No in visibitly terms it apperas ok. Maybe a little hampered rearward but nothing shocking.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

To me it looks like great visability, infact it looks better then the Me-262 in that point.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2005)

yeah especailly as the cockpit's so far forward.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

That is what I was thinking. I dont know I have never heard of it being a bad view from there.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 3, 2005)

The forward cockpit bears some advantages, esspeccially the visibility to the ground. Another bad point on the Me-262 is the heavy blinding of the upper nose mounted 30 mm guns. This makes prolonged aiming quite difficult, but it´s enough for bombers, I think.


----------



## Erich (Jul 3, 2005)

there is no blinding flash of the Mk 108 except at night. this was a concern in the Bf 110G-2 for NJG 5 who had the upper two 3cm's replaced by long rod 2cm weapons in some instances......


----------



## Erich (Jul 3, 2005)

excuse me my hands are crap today due to caperal tunnel.....

it should read Bf 110G-4 not the day fighter G-2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

Interesting stuff Erich, I did not know that about the 30mm. Now for the cockpit of the Meteor, I would think it would make it better for ground attack roles.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2005)

she did do a bit of ground attack based from belgium later in the war.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

That is all she did in the War besides take out some V-1's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2005)

hey, she...ummm...scared lot's of people that didn't know planes could fly without propellers!!


----------



## delcyros (Jul 5, 2005)

I always thought the MK-108 would blind a lot, esspeccially in case of the Me-262, since the angle of view between the nose mounted guns and the Revi / EZ-42 is very narrow. (e.g. the spacial difference between line of sight and line of fire) It doesn´t cost much flashing to disrupt the line of sight temporarly. If you take the gaz effects into consideration, it´s going to be even more worse.
Interesting, Erich!


----------



## Erich (Jul 5, 2005)

if true then the K-4 would not have had the nose mounted unit nor some of the G-6 and G-10 variants either. it had been already proven at night also with sufficient jamming that the Mk 108 mechanisms had to be replaced or at least lubed almost every mission.

the overall increase in speed to target meant very few seconds, like 1-2 for a Me 262 to fire and bank through a B-17 formation so a cannon with blinding effect would not be tolerated in the least bit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hey, she...ummm...scared lot's of people that didn't know planes could fly without propellers!!



By that point eneogh people had seen the Me-262 I think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 6, 2005)

no i mean in britian, when the Gloster E.28/39 flew for the first time the air ministry actually recieved phone calls from locals that had seen her, reporting a plane that was flying without a propeller, it was like black magic to them!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Sort of like when people see wierd shit out in the middle of the desert of Nevada.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no i mean in britian, when the Gloster E.28/39 flew for the first time the air ministry actually recieved phone calls from locals that had seen her, reporting a plane that was flying without a propeller, it was like black magic to them!



They were behind the times, the Germans and the Italians were used to that  The Campini-Caproni C.C.2 was the fist jet to make a public appearance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Are you sure about the C.C.2. I am not saying you are wrong but I just would have thought that it would have been either the Heinkel He-178 or the Gloster E28.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 6, 2005)

Public appearence of the early jets was a worrisome experiance. I read reports of jet engines mounted under Bf-110 test planes late in 1938. At least one time those powerplants ended up in the fields, scaring the farmers a lot.
I personally have great respect for the Gloster E 28/39, It was so advanced for it´s time: air intake in the nose, landing gear with nose mounted gear, very flat wings, good visibility and so on.
With enleghtened fuselage, structural reinforcement and more powerful engines (I think of a Goblin I or Dervent I / IV) this design would have made an excellent jet fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Wonder why they left it and went for the Meteor design.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you sure about the C.C.2. I am not saying you are wrong but I just would have thought that it would have been either the Heinkel He-178 or the Gloster E28.



Yep positive. The He-178 flew first, with the C.C.2 following just days afterwards. The C.C.2 made the first offical public appearance of a jet though, before the E.28/39 even flew.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Hmm that I did not know. Didn't the C.C.2 barely break 200mph. Again I may be wrong.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 7, 2005)

Nah it only done about 250mph. Strictly speaking it wasnt a fully fledged jet though, it used a radial engine to drive the turbine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Ah now that is something that I did not know. I did not know that it used a radial engine.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 7, 2005)

Like a gun, which 'reacts' with a quick backward movement (i.e. the recoil) when a projectile is shot forward at high speed, a jet engine derives its thrust by reaction to its high-speed ejection of combustion products, and by the expansion of heated air, which is pushed out at a higher speed than when the air is drawn in. (After all, ordinary propellers work in a similar way. They accelerate backwards the air mass that moves through their rotating blades.) These introductory remarks are meant to help our visitors gain an insight into the workings of Ing. Campini's thermojet. It is, in effect, to be considered more as a hybrid than as a jet engine proper. An internal combustion engine characterized by reciprocating motion of pistons in its cylinder - in our case, a 900 hp Isotta Fraschini L. 121/R.C. 40 engine - drove a compressor incorporating 2 ducted propellers and a propeller designed to direct the flow and minimize the breakdown of the smooth airflow. A ring of injectors (i.e. the burners) introduced kerosine, whose combustion increased the volume of the thermojet and the exhaust velocity. 

It was an interesting application, albeit structurally different from German turbojets - like those fitted to the Messerschmitt Me 262 aircraft - which, in place of the reciprocating engine, featured a turbine-driven air compressor. The turbine was to be found past the blast chamber, and the air under pressure was heated not through the injectors, but through several blast chambers that heated the air by conduction. Which was a more effective solution. What's more, the higher the altitude and speed, the better the performance of turbojets. On the other hand, endothermic reciprocating engines - like the one used by Ing. Campini - attain top efficiency at sea level, while they call for an extra compressor to operate at high altitude where the air is rarefied. 

The engine designed by Ing. Campini had many other drawbacks. That is, it was heavy and bulky, the type of engine used to drive the compressor was rather complex, the efficiency of the burner was low - although it came close to the best possible performance of the day -, and maximum power was considerably limited. This is why the German design - which came into use when World War II was drawing to an end, and was partly due to the British research work carried out in parallel - is the forerunner of the modern jet engines, while the Italian version has a purely historical value.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Still great stuff. That truely is somethign that I never knew. Thanks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 7, 2005)

Welcome.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

So what else can you tell me about it, like how did they decide to use that kind of propulsion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2005)

The development of the turbine section of early axial flow turbine engines were the challenge because of the high heat the turbine section would be subjected to, finding the right materials so the turbine would have some type of durability, and last development and lubrication of bearings in both turbine and compressor sections that could stand the high heat and function at 20,000 rpm.

I thought I also read somewhere that the designers of this engine knew they could of use a turbine section to drive the compressor but went with this concept as a "quick solution" based on the challanges just posted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

So basically it was a quick way to make a jet aircraft?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So basically it was a quick way to make a jet aircraft?



That's what I believe!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2005)

Just trying to get on the map then.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2005)

Yep - remember El Duce wanted the world to know Italy was a world leader in aviation.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 12, 2005)

Well to be honest, and im not being biased here, they did make some great aircraft prior to the war. They did so during to war too, they just didnt have a powerful engine to put in anything until the Germans came to the rescue.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Well to be honest, and im not being biased here, they did make some great aircraft prior to the war. They did so during to war too, they just didnt have a powerful engine to put in anything until the Germans came to the rescue.



Agree!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 12, 2005)

Yep! 50p voucher to anyone who can name 1 good Italian engine


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 12, 2005)

Fiat RA 1050 R.C.58 8)

Now wheres my voucher?


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 12, 2005)

It might be a while- I still need to buy 500 more packs of Tesco value cornflakes


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 12, 2005)

I want my voucher!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 12, 2005)

Sorry, I might have it in about 5 years


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 12, 2005)

Can I not just have 50p? if I name another one can a have £1?


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 12, 2005)

Sorry, terms and conditions say 1x50p voucher


----------

