# What If......



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

or forgot to pull the plane out of the dive as they were plummeting to the ground because they took the hands off the controls


----------



## apotheosis (May 14, 2004)

Umm, I know this is a bit late, but just in reply to a post stating "pity they didn't put sights on the 3.7 in aa gun", they did. 

Middle east sights were fitted to 3.7" aa guns for use in an AT role. 

http://discussions.playnet.com/viewtopic.php?t=70550&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

No, I said pity they didn't manual sights, and my comment was about the original production 3.7 inch AA cannons.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

welcome to the site, apotheosis


----------



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

i'm willing to bet that'll be their only post...............


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

cccccccccccoooooooooooooolllllllllllllllllll


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

and me, but it gives me an excuse to post something


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

and me, but it gives me an excuse to post something


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

.....................TWICE! brad, when you use the code to type smileys, you have to have a space between the word and the code. example: cccccccccoooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllll
 cccccccccoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooollllllllll
(not an insult, just pointing something out)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

here's a what if, if we didn't have the spit in the BoB and just another 11 squadrens of hurricanes, would we have won it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

i still think so, yes 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

is it just me or are we just focusing our what ifs around the BoB?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

If the Germans had made the same mistakes (ie not attacking the Home Chain stations and RAF fields) then I think the BoB would still have been won with the Hurricane, but the cost would be higher.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I agree, we would have. 

'What if' we dropped bombs instead of leaflets in 1939 when Germany was still in Poland, do you think we could have ended it then? (Including an assault as well, not just dropping bombs)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

No. I don't think so. In 1939, there wasn't an army in the world equipped or trained to be capable of handling the Germans. So I don't think the Germans could have been stopped by strength in 39. Now, had the Allies taken more resolve in their condemnation of the assault of Poland (or the annexation of Hitler's liebenstraum even earlier) the Germans might have backed down. I don't know that they would have but it's possibly the Allies could have bluffed their way outta war but they wouldn't have beaten the Germans in a straight-up fight.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

hows about this 8) "what if" the manchesters engines werent so prone to exploding and were as reliable as any other engines, would avro still have built the lancaster


----------



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

yes, we needed a true heavy....................


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I actually think we could have won it in 1939, the German army was all in Poland, a large flank attack with 4 times as many troops could have ended Germany, it had no effective defence. 

I think they still would have built the Lancaster.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

but the manchester was somewhere in between the 2, im not sure avro would have felt the need to build another bomber if their current one was doing just fine, it woud have just been the halifax and the sterling 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

They would have wanted better and better bombers.


----------



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

1) it wasn't up the avro to decide if they needed a better bomber, the government asked for it
2) the use of halifax's and stirlings would show the need for a better bomber...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

we could have just used more wimpy's


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Exactly.


----------



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

no, we couldn't have won it with wimpys, we needed some thing that would dent the enemy..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

im dumb but i is learning...


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I was saying exactly to the Lanc comment, we needed the Lanc.


----------



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

ah, yes, i couldn't imagine anything else with an upkeep or grand slam, especily not a wimpy.............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

That'd be funny though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

sure would


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The thing was, the RAF considered the Manchester to be a heavy bomber. If the engines had worked I don't think neither Avro nor the British government would have considered installing the four engines to make the Lancaster. Even if the British government decided they needed a better heavy bomber, I doubt it would had the appearance of the Lanc. It probably would have been something else all together.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

I think they would have, knowing British military mentallity, they do stick to a good design when it's needed, and they are also trying to cut costs (even in war time), designed off something that is already there benefits them, greatly.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

Possibly, the British did develop some outstanding aircraft out of some flops. But I'm not sure they would have taken a good aircraft (the Manchester if the engines worked) and try to substantially improve it. Assuming the Vultures worked I think the RAF might have tried mounting four of them and producing a bomber of B-29 type proportions.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

yup, meaning there would have been a better plane than the lancaster built by avro 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

But all of that would have depended upon Rolls Royce managing to make a reliable engine out of the Vulture.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

I think we could trust Rolls Royce to make a brilliant engine, even from scratch.


----------



## bader (May 19, 2004)

If we didn't have the spit in the BOB i think the battle would have been lost


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

The Vulture WAS a Rolls Royce engine, so was the Peregrine, were they "brilliant?" It is true that Rolls Royce had two brilliant success with the Merlin and the Griffon, but they (like most every company) had as many flops as well.


----------



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

well if Mrs. Banks is to be belived the spit could take both.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

the spit could take anything according to mrs banks, including the title of best biplane fighter


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Did he nearly call Rolls Royce a crap engine company, when it's the BEST in the world, it was then, and it is now. Peregrine would have been good if they gave it more attention, but the government ignored them and told them to stay on the Merlin. 
And the Merlin wasn't just 'good' it made the Allied Air Force. Even the last production (Built by Spain) 109s had Merlins in them. And in fact the very first prototype 109 had a Rolls Royce engine in it. 

So, I'll say again, I think we could trust Rolls Royce to make BRILLIANT engine, even from scratch.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

I stated that the Merlin and the Griffon were both fantastic engines (that's a COMPLIMENT you know). But EVERY company had it's bad moments. For Rolls-Royce the Peregrine, and the Vulture (I noticed you negelected to defend it) were too bad moments. Rolls-Royce still makes excellent engines today, but their position is probably being challenged by GE and P&W and even the Russians have started to produce some quality engines.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

you could say that the merlin was the rolls royce of all engines


----------



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

oh you so stole that off me 



> And in fact the very first prototype 109 had a Rolls Royce engine in it.



however on the bad side, the prototype stuka had a Rolls-Royce in it too................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

sure i did lanc


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Both the prototype Ju-87 and the prototype 109 flew with a Rolls-Royce Kestrel. And I think some of the post-war 109s ended up using Merlins.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Why would I defend the 'Vulture' engine? Even then Rolls Royce is still the top engine builder, Boeing have said they prefer to work with Rolls Royce than P&W. Boeing 747s engines used to be P&W soon replaced by Rolls Royce engines. 

The Spanish built Ha-1112 (Hispano 109s) had the Rolls Royce Merlin in it. And the last one rolled off the production line in 1958, 23 years and 33,000 109s later than the first.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

I was talking about in the military market for engines. I'm not aware of any Rolls-Royce design that can compare with the P&W F-119.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2004)

> P&W F-119.



what planes are this engine used in??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

It is going to be used in the F-22 Raptor and a modified version will be used in the upcoming F-35.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2004)

what engines are used in the JSF??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

The F-35 is the JSF.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2004)

ah, sorry, it's just i've never heard it called that before.......................

back to "what if"s, what would have happened if the germans had a succesfull heavy bomber early in the war..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2004)

it would have been the P.108 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Well, against Britain it was the bomber tactics that hurt the Germans rather than bomber size (ie, attacking London rather than RAF fields). If the Germans had continue to attack the RAF, the Heinkels, Junkers, and Dorniers would have been more than equal to the task. Dropping more bombs on London, however, was unlikely to change anything. A true heavy bomber would have been of more use attack Soviet industry on the other side of the Urals.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

It's not a P&W that is going in the JSF. That's a Rolls Royce engine as well, it has been from the start. Why do you think it is called a Joint Strike Fighter? It's going to be an American design, based around a British Rolls Royce engine. Of which, they have not yet named.
And most of the P&W designs were either copies of Rolls Royce engines, or later development. Even Boeing (who make military equipment as well) and Lockheed have admitted they would rather have Rolls Royce build them an engine than any other.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

Well, whatever may be going in the British JSF, the test models are flying with a modified P&W F-119 with the GE F-120 designated as an alternate.


----------



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

so rolls royce are the rolls royce of engines??

sorry, couldn't resist...............


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

Someone has already said that, Lanc. 
LG, the JSF is flying with P&W engines because the Rolls Royce aren't yet ready, but the production models will be using RW engines. The idea of the whole engine exhaust pointing down to lift the plane was a RW design.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

yeah lanc, stop copying me


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

yeah lanc, stop copying me


----------



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

1) stop doing doubles
2) i said the thing about the engines first at school, but C.C. copied it.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

industrial espionage lanc, you have poor defences against it


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

I don't know why you are trying to defend it, it's dead, the RW thing I mean.


----------



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

it's a matter of pride, i can't have people thinking C.C. came up with that........................


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

so


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

but it was i who used the initiative to type that, not you 8)


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

sooo


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

The new Sig looks great CC!


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

Look, the RW thing wasn't even that good at the start, just stop. 
The Sig is good, a little too big, but good.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

im hoping this sig will provoke lanc in to changing his ancient one to a mossie


----------



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

but why would i change my siggy when it's so dominating..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

because it isnt dominating for a couple of reasons.

1) the pic's too small
2) low angle shots are more dominating
3) youve had it for so long the original dominatingness of it has all gone.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

The pic is a nice size, any larger and it would be annoying not dominating.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

also it shows too much of the plane.


----------



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

how's that a bad ting, besides, it gets the point across...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

mine does it more truthfully


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

lanc a change of siggy is in order


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

thankyou brad 8) youve had that since day one and it is getting a little tiresome


----------



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

ah, not true, i haven't had it since day one, besides, it's only gonna get replayed by another pic of a lanc....................


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

Replace it with another Lanc picture then, that picture is getting boring.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

put up a halifax, no-one will tell the difference


----------



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

but there are obvious differences............


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

lanc put up another lanc even if you dont change the writeing


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

i was being sarcy lanc


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

was you


----------



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

i'll find another pic for my siggy.............


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

Thank you. I'll be looking forward to a new, interesting pic, Lanc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

how about this one?


----------



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

what, and deny you guys the privilege of being able to use it, and BTW, the new siggy's on it's way.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

"its a siggy not a round the world boat race, how longs this gonna take?"


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

Give it time C.C, as long as it happens.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

i know, it was a joke as the lanc said the same thing to me in another thread


----------



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

touché..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

8)


----------



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

does anyone have a "what if"..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

nope


----------



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

oh, i got one, what if some one came up with a what if??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

then we would actually be able to post productively, not spam


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

What if the Channel wasn't mined, and more resources got through to the BEF in May 1940?


----------



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

they'd still have had to have been evacuated...........


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

Why do you think that? A lot of the British units didn't have any ammo for their tanks, morters or artillery. And the British were the only ones that effectively fought against the Wehrmacht.


----------



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

yes but 350,000 against the entire might of the german war machine............


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

Not quite correct, it wasn't the full might of the Wehrmacht. A lot though, your numbers comment makes a good point. However as Heinz Guderian noticed in August 1914 the attacking force must have something special, a new novelty, to overcome the defensive force, even if it is a lower number. 

Plus, the British holding on might have encouraged the French to hold on.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 30, 2004)

The French were in a postion technologically to hold one. They were totally outclassed. And as much as you will not want to here this, at the time I still don't think the RAF was a match for the Luftwaffe. Many of the advantages that turned the Battle of Britain (radar, fighting over home territory, etc.) weren't so available over the Low Countries and France. Even if more supplies got through to the BEF, the Luftwaffe still makes the difference.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2004)

If the BEF was covered with more in the way of aircraft, by the French air force and more squadrons from Britain I believe that they could have held on. The French countered with supporting aircraft at times but were not successful, and not because of their aircraft. 
The French and British tanks were superior to the German tanks. Maj.Gen.von Mellenthin the author of Panzer Battles praises the Infantry Tank Mk.II for having superior armour and superior weaponary to the main German tank of the time the Pz.kpfw III Ausf F. 
The S.35 Samoa of the French Army was also superior to the German tanks. And the Allies certainly outnumbered the Wehrmacht.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

Airpower would have been the key. The tanks of the Allies may have been superior to the German tanks at the time but the Germans did have superior tactics and situational awarness/communication due to their extensive use of radios. That was another huge advantage for the Germans.


----------



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

all this depends on where they're trying to defend from, if they still have a large part of france with airfields, they had a chance, but if you mean defending from the beachead, not a chance.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

Certainly no chance then. The RAF did a splendid job in just buying enough time for the Dunkirk evacuation to work. Now if the Wermacht had been allowed to continue their attack . . .


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Even with German tactics the British already counter-attacked but were ordered to withdraw because of lack of supply. 
When it got to Dunkirk we had already lost most of our artillery and cannon due to lack of supply so we didn't have a chance. If they were supplied they still could have held on...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

I doubt it. If they had been properly supplied and showing signs of continued resistance, Hitler could have simply allowed the Wermacht to continue its assault.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

If the British were properly supplied the Wehrmacht would have never got as far as Dunkirk. Plus the fact the Germans didn't completely stop at Dunkirk, you can ask the people in 6th Colstream Guards at Dunkirk about that...

If the British had a decent supply base the Wehrmacht would have been completely dependant of the Luftwaffe. If the British had more squadrons in France the Luftwaffe would have been hard pressed.


----------



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

> If the British had more squadrons in France the Luftwaffe would have been hard pressed.



But because they had "home advantage" the luftwaffe would have defeated the RAF, leaving us fewer fighters and pilots for the BoB, they saw we couldn't hold our posistion, so they withdrew the remaining fighters out there, a good move IMO...............


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

You took it out of context. I was saying if the British were better supplied, which would give them a better hold at the original stages of the invasion more squadrons from the RAF would have provided enough air cover for the ground forces. 
And since France was on the defensive the RAF would have had the home advantage.


----------



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

as both Germany and France were fighting close to each other, wouldn't both have home advantage??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon . . .


----------



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

i don't get it....................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

If two football grounds are close together...wouldn't both have home advantage? (Language a Brit understands)


----------



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

ah, i see................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

interesting.....


----------



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

very............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

here we go, what if the P-80 Shooting Star had ever seen action against a Go-229, which whould have been the victor?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

Go-229. Hands down. Faster and better armed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

but the people flying the 229 would have had very little experience


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

nor would the people in the P-80...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

yes but there could be experienced pilots, you keep saying youself lanc how there was no-one to fly the He-162 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

If the Germans could have gotten the Go-229 into service they would have put the best available pilots into it, just the they did with the 262 with JV 44 and Kommando Nowenty (however you spell).


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2004)

Kommando Nowotny;JV 44; Kommando Schenck; JG 7 I believe were all Me-262A-1a wings.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

And were the most elite pilots left in the Luftwaffe. If the Germans were smart (and they usually were) they would have given these pilots the Go-229 when it became available.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 4, 2004)

They certainly would, and they wouldn't have just thrown them in it. Kommando Nowotny was originally EKdo 262, a training wing. I imagine you would have heard of EKdo 229 before the full G--229 wings came about.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

it's the same in the pacific, when the shiden came along, the japs gave it to all their best pilots.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

It would depend on the situation of the war. If the Go-229 came into service before the Germans were not yet completely desparate, there would have been the usual conversion process. As it was, most likely the Go-229 would have only made it into action in the very last days when it probably would have been thrown into the fight without the usual niceties.


----------



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

even if you have a great plane like the 229, as i kep saying, it would have come in to late to do anything, the germans didn't have the pilots or fuel to use it much................


----------



## cls12vg30 (Jun 6, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's the same in the pacific, when the shiden came along, the japs gave it to all their best pilots.................



I assume you mean the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden:






This aircraft never made it to operational service, making its first test flight on August 3, 1945. The prototype made two flights, for a total time of about 45 minutes. Before any further flights could be completed, the war ended.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2004)

No, he means the Kanawishi N1K1 Shiden.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 6, 2004)

The Shinden saw no service during the war. And I hope you were refering to the N1K2-J Shiden as the N1K1 had another of very real problems. That being said, the pilots given a chance to fly the Shiden were the very best the Japanese had left including Sakai and Nishizawa.


----------



## cls12vg30 (Jun 7, 2004)

Oh, the "George". My bad. I'm not used to seeing it called Shiden, that's why I thought it was a typo. 

But the Shinden would probably have been pretty good if it had made it into action. I find the various canard pusher fighter designs pretty interesting, like the Shinden, the American XP-55 Ascender, and the German Henschel Hs P.75


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

I'm not familiar with the Hs. P.75 but the XP-55 Ascender was junk. The J7W Shinden also had some very real problems with vibration and extreme engine torque but the Japanese were hoping to cure both problems my installing a jet engine.


----------



## cls12vg30 (Jun 7, 2004)

Yeah they had their problems, but I still find the idea interesting. As for the Hs P.75, here's some pics and info from www.luft46.com, a great source for German aircraft designs that may have made it into combat had the war dragged on longer.

"This 1941/1942 design was for a single seat fighter built around a single 2200 hp Daimler Benz DB 610 engine, which was actually two DB 605 engines joined side-to-side. In order to accommodate the unusually long powerplant, a forward canard/rear wing planform was designed. Counterrotating pusher propellers were to be centrally mounted aft. Swept elevators at the nose served as elevators, while the vertical stabilizer was mounted below the rear of the fuselage. Landing gear was of the retractable tricycle type. Projected armament was to be four MK 108 30mm cannon mounted in the forward fuselage."






Model photos of the plane:
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/seymour/32/hsp75mp.html

And some fantastic paintings:
http://www.luft46.com/aoart/aop75.html


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 7, 2004)

Well with an attack from france it could have happend


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

I've never been a fan of coupled engines. Just look at how well the worked on the He-177. That pictures is pretty neat though it looks like the pilots view towards the rear would have been absolutely horrible.


----------



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

it wasn't great on many planes without a bubble canopie.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

the brewster buffalo had great all-round visability 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

Well the visibility on this thing would have been worse than your average fighter because of all of that wing blocking visibility to the rear.


----------



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

view to the rear was always pretty bad in most planes however.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

True. But not THAT bad. The pilot would have been completely blind to anything from the entire rear quarter. And that would mean poor rear visibility for the entire flight. At least with most planes if you can't see directly behind you your wingman can.


----------



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

i hear that due to the shape of the fusilage the rear view in a spit was quite good??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

It would have been pretty good for a plane without a bubble canopy and the clear panels behind the cockpit would have helped, but the armor plating behind the pilot would still cause vision difficulties (but that was true even of aircraft with bubble canopies).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2004)

one question, how much use were the rear view mirriors?? i mean how much could you see??


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 11, 2004)

In IL-2, not a lot. And these mirrors are the same shape and size as the real thing, so in other words, I'm guessing they wouldn't help THAT much in real life either. (C.C. and Crazy, you two most likely don't have mirrors because you have to assign a button to the function; I use Shift+M and Ctrl+M for my setup)


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 11, 2004)

Yeah well I heard that wingmen where there to cover your rear


----------



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

but your wingmen can't be there all the time, especily if they've all been shot down.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 12, 2004)

Field of vision in a rear view mirror was pretty limited but it wasn't possible to look directly back in an airplane. Even aircraft with bubble-canopies usually had armor plating directly behind the pilot. So the rear-view mirror was better than nothing and provided very little penalty in the way of weight or drag.

Lanc, it was the duty of wingmen to be there ALL the time. And the element leader was responsible for the protection of his wingman was well. I read about one German pilot who never lost a wingman in over 1,000 missions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

> Lanc, it was the duty of wingmen to be there ALL the time



but they can't be there if they're involved in their own dogfight or they've been shot down................


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 13, 2004)

Yeah well they could have put mirrors in the planes....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

they did, that's what we're talking about.....................


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 13, 2004)

yo what if hitler were never born???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

another dictator might have taken over................


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 13, 2004)

Na I reckon Stalin would have took most of europe


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

Lanc, read ANY tactics manual from the time and you will find that it was the duty of the wingman to stay with his leader at all times. I know that they were often separated but that was usually due to the wingman failing to remain with his leader.


----------



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

i know the wingmen had to stay with the leader, but they'll struggle to do so if they're going down in flames................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

Which is why the leader bore equal reponsibility for covering the wingman. It was for MUTUAL protection meaning each aircraft was protected by the other. By using tactics like the Thatch Weave or the Lufberry Circle, two planes or more planes could protect each other.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2004)

Okay but where were you going to get the troops from? There is no way the allies would have been able to stop the Germans in 1939. The needed to build. You have to forget that the American were not in the war in 1939 and would not have enterered under there foriegn policy at the time. I am not trying to say the Brits could not have done it with out the US but lets face it the US played a very large role. The german army was far better equipped at the time also.


----------



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

to be honest i've forgotten what the that post was about.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

Then why dont you go back and have a look...


----------



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

you kiddin me...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2004)

Hell no


----------



## germanace (Nov 24, 2004)

How about this "What" if germany had had the Me 262 in 1942 and the Me-163 hadnt sucked


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 24, 2004)

We would of lost the war  

Hot Space


----------



## germanace (Nov 25, 2004)

defenaly


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

I dunno, if their jets were earlier then ours probably would have been too 8


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

I still dont think Germany would have one the war even if they had the 262 operational in 1942. It would have made the war a lot different from what we know it today but win no. The key for Germany was to take England and not attack Russia. If they had taken England the US would have had no location to place there bombers and to stage there troops. After England had fallen then the Germans could have turned there full attention to Russia and probably would have defeated them too.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

A good point 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

England was the key.


----------



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

as we allways are............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

I dunno about that...

How many "New posts since last visit" this time then?  500? 600?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

England was vital. Whoever controled the Britisch Isles controled the North Atlantic, and would have not given the US a place close eneogh to stage there troops from. It also would have made it a one front war.


----------



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

108......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

What exactly was the advantage of the dambusters raid?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

I dont know too much about the raid however destroying a damn can take care of several things. One is if the damn was used for electrical power then you can ellimante a major soarce of power, the damn being destroyed could also be used to flood major areas of land and it can also be destroyed if the damn was hiding other things. But I dont know eneogh about the raid itself, I have read many books on the subject but do not recall much about it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Thanks 8)

But as far as I can see it didnt do much to hurt Germany's war effort. I seem to recall it was a propaganda stunt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

It might have been.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Im sure the lanc will know.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

Maybe it would be interesting to know, if I were back home I would pull out some of my books off the shelf and look it up. That is the problem there are a lot of things that I am not sure of but I could go into my little library and look it up to make sure of what I am saying, but I will have to wait a while before I can do that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

How long before you get back? Or dont you know?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

Still dont know when they let us go I guess. They dont ever tell us anything.


----------



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

well it depends what you mean by what the effects were, in the long term no, it didn't do much to hurt germany's war industry, the germans had an amazing ability to recover from bombing raids and despite the uniqueness of this raid, it was no different, within 48 hours the germans had tens of thousands of workers at the site, the dams were returned to operational status within a couple of months, in the meantime industry in the ruer (can't spell) slowed dramatically in the first couple of days, after that they managed to get enough electricity. However the raid had huge effects on the moral of both nations involved, for Britian it gave the higher powers faith in what they were beggining to see as a useless bomber command, it was also used to phnominal effect to bost the moral of the people, the fact that RAF bombers managed to destroy a target deep in germany that was thought to be indestructable was amazing, however it was having exactily the opposite effect in germany, the censors tried to keep it out of the papers as much as possible however you can't hide the fact that two of the country's biggest dams have been destroyed..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

So basically it was a propaganda stunt....


----------



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

absolutely know, Dr. Barnes Wallis did genuinely believe it could end the war, it wasn't pure propaganda but it was used extensively for it...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Was er...was ol' Wallace on the drink?  Win the war indeed


----------



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

well i could see where he was coming from, the Ruer (can't spell) contained most of germany's industry, if they could take that out, they'd be stuck..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

But they werent...

*Ruhr


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2004)

yes they were taken out.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

But they werent stuck, you said they were back up and running again within a week, I dont call that being stuck...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2004)

I am going to have to go and read up on this one because I dont know eneough about the attack to make any kind of educated statement.


----------



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

god luck, you'll find it's absolutely facinating, happy reading.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

Whats with the 'god' speak all the time lanc?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2004)

I think he mean good luck not god luck


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Me too - but he keeps typing god


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 7, 2004)

sorry, just my typing............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Its a frequent occurance


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2004)

no worries mate as your british would say


----------



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

wow your british is getting good


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

I cant speak British


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2004)

oh excuse me english english style


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 11, 2004)

Oh, like Gaol -> Jail?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 11, 2004)

Australian English: _Matilda=hand bag_
British English: _fag=cigarette_
American (and Canadian) English: _fag=fag_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2004)

Yeah it shocked me the first time I went to England and my girlfriend's brother asked me if I had a fag!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 11, 2004)

Yeah, the same sort of thing happened to me.  
I was like: "What did you just say?!"


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 11, 2004)

It's a similar story when my friend's wife said that she got drunk once at a party and slipped on her fanny. 

There was this long silence, and a piece of tumbleweed blew past. 

It don't mean here what it means there!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2004)

What does it mean there. I know when I was dating that British girl, everytime I said I was going to put my pants on she would laugh because she said that pants were underwear there. Its wierd I guess.


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 11, 2004)

Urmmm..... Well, put it this way, over here, only the girls have fannys.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2004)

Ah okay


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 11, 2004)

Another one I didn't know!


----------



## redcoat (Dec 11, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What does it mean there. I know when I was dating that British girl, everytime I said I was going to put my pants on she would laugh because she said that pants were underwear there. Its wierd I guess.


Its even worse  
Pants is the term normally given to womens underwear, mens are referred to as underpants


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 11, 2004)

My 'Brit' is even rustier than I thought! Oy!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Why is this in old threads?

I shall have to move it back.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

What a thread about Brit English? LOL


----------



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

> Urmmm..... Well, put it this way, over here, only the girls have fannys.



just over here?? what do girls in other parts of the world have??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

You mean they dont have the same thing we do? OH man my parents lied to me! LOL


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

Or maybe I just married the wrong woman? Naw she is great. I hope she does not find out about this website and read this I will be in the dog house for a while.


----------



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

that must make your love life interesting to say the least................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

I would not have married her if she was not 100% woman


----------



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

are we talking about your wife or the Bf-109??


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 12, 2004)

CC, the thread is dead and the topic is no longer in use....... When a topic is so far off topic and just contains dribble and conversations about slang words, its time to move it.... If a topic gets to the point that its not about Aviation, it should be moved outta the Aviation Section....

BTW, im NOT the one who originally moved it..... But it should be in old threads, not aviation anymore...


----------



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

hang on, how long have you been a mod, i missed summit there...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

I would not move the thread. At some point the convo will get back to aviation related, it just needs someone to spark it back it up.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 12, 2004)

I was a mod at another site for over a year.... For 2 pages now the topic has been lost... Talking about fannys aint aviation.. I coulda be moved to old threads.... Makes sense to me.. Kinda ran its course anyways....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

cool


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

To be moved to old threads, it needs to be unposted in for about 6 months.


----------



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

that's most of this forum then................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

No it isnt, I moved the offending threads the other day.


----------



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

ah, well i aint been on for a few days so that explains it.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

No, I mean like last weekend.


----------



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

oh well


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeah so I guess this thread is dead. Last posted 12 Dec. I would have thought this would have been one of the more exciting ones.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

It used to be. OH well, 6 months of dereliction will send it to the old threads forum.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Well lets try and get it going again.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Yep. I got nothing in my head in the moment, what about you?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2005)

Nope. Just a lot of air.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeah pretty much here. I still think this could go back to being pretty interesting though. I would not count it dead just yet. Maybe just Maybe something can pop into my head.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

Hmmm, What if...something popped into Adler's head?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Now that is a good What If...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

hehe I couldn't resist!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

It was a good question because I can not think of anything at all. What makes that wiered is there should be hundreds if not thousands of What ifs....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

There was a news article years ago where they interviewed a WWI veteran who, in the closing days of WWI lowered his gun and decided not to fire on a wounded German corporal. That wounded corporal was none other than Adolph Hitler! What if he HAD fired? 

Of course, with the choking demands of the Versaille Treaty, Germany was ripe for an extremist with good charisma. Would there have been a similar group to the Nazis, or maybe the Socialists would have taken over. It does pose an intersting What If.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

That is a good one. I think that if Hitler had been killed, the Versaille treaty as we all know it would still have strangeled Germany but I dont think a Nazi party would have taken power. I think the communists would have. The thing is the German people were going to follow anyone who gave them the quickest and easiest way out of the quagmire they were in. If not for Hitler it would have been the next and I think that would have been the Communists. Also for a while in the 1920's the Communist party had a following among the German people. Not for long but just eneough.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2005)

From what I understood, the communists were most popular in Bavaria. Perhaps there would have been a civil war. Or maybe the German nation would have reverted back into multiple independent states?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

Good point. Hitler's brownshirts did quite a number on the communists. The Reichstag fire conveniently put an end to the communists. I agree that it is likely that they would have taken power. It surely would have made Europe look a lot different.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

I think the Communist would have taken power and eventually it would be allied with the Soviet Union and Europe as we know it today would be completely different. Its kind of scary actually. Maybe everything does happen for a reason. The Reichstag Fire conveniently put an end to all parties other than the NSDAP or the Nazis as we know of them.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

Had Germany Allied itself with the Soviet Union I feel the war would have continued. The Western powers probably would have simply continued their drive to the East (Patton wanted to anyway).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

That is true but in that case I believe the war would have dragged on for many many more years. The Russian soldiers resolve was great and they were hard to beat, just as any German soldier who fought on the East front. There seemed to be an endless number of Russian Soldiers.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

Tell those troops on the Eastern front during Kursk that there was an endless supply of Russians. There's reports of captured children and old men, and a lot of commanders actually said that Russia was reaching its limits. Little did they know Kursk would be lost...and the war. 

The Western Allies would have been able to bring down Germany and Russia with an extra few million dead but air power alone would have sealed it. The only problem on the ground, was the Russian IS-3 that made a lot of Western commander soil themselves during the May 7th Parade.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

What I mean by the endless supply is that even the women and children would have stood up and fought it is just like if the allies had invaded Japan. Women and Children would have come down to the beaches and fought with whatever they had. The Russians were fighting for there homeland and no matter how crazy and backwards they were they were very proud and patriotic people.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

And would have been slaughtered like proud and patriotic people, like they were in June 1941. I imagine some Russians would have joined the Allies in a fight against Stalin anyway.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

I believe so too, there were a lot of people that saw Stalin as the ruthless tyrant that he was. Something that I find amazing is how Stalin was really no better then Hitler. He oppressed millions of people and killed millions also. That shows that the Victors always write the History books and that no one judges the side that wins.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

Yeah, all the Allied war crimes have gone unpunished. I always like reading books written from a German point of view, it at least gives them a chance to have their say.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

Not to say that the German war crimes were not uncommen but there were crimes committed on both sides. Not as many as the Germans committed. I just hate it how innocent lives are wasted. My wife always says that the best place to be in a war is in the military because atleast you are trained for it and not subjected to the horrors as an innocent bystander.


----------



## Udet (Jan 5, 2005)

Pland D just made a very strong point.

While there is no doubt the massive human resources available for the USSR played a vital role on soviet victory, I also agree, from what I have read so far, as well from the accounts of veterans, that the USSR, by the time of the German surrendering, was an exahusted and bled to death nation.

That their human resources were massive has never implied they were endless; no nation on earth, no matter how big it might be and how large its population is, can take what the USSR took during WWII without paying a very high cost.

During Operation Bagration (June 1944), the massive summer soviet offensive which pushed the Germans out of the USSR for good, there were countless reports from the frontline troops, informing on how bizarre the red army was becoming.

Along with the large numers of T-34s, self propelled artillerie regiments and massive artillery barrages, the soviets were sending big numbers of children, women, elder and impaired people; lots of them were hardly armed and countless were barefoot!!

I recall reading on several books, General Erhards Raus (commanding a Panzer Korps -forgot the number-) during the summer of 1944, reported that among the soviet prisoners captured were women who did their laundry only a few weeks ago in Minsk.

This seriously contradicts the commonly accepted version of a "totally new, fresh, lavishly equipped Red Army, with renewed tactis to destroy the Wehrmacht" emerging from the USSR during 1944.


History has managed to depict the soviet union recovered from the utterly brutal and nightmarish defeats of 1941/1942, just like if coming back from a series of "minor" setbacks and mishaps.

Indeed, after WWII the USSR was a world power. But the price and the consequences of WWII on its people have hardly been assessed so far.

This, alongside, with other elements, comprises the overall notion on how helpless the USSR would have been without foreign/allied help.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 5, 2005)

You are all overlooking one very important thing. The atomic bomb. America had it. The Soviet Union didn't. Granted this is an atrocious senario, but had the war progressed it most likely would have been used (especially since the Soviets had no deterent force in 1945).


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2005)

America really didn't need to use it on the Soviet Union. The Germans had already brought them to their knees, the Western Allies just needed to give them one good kick in the head and it'd all be over.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

I will agree with you on that then, if the Soviets were already at there knees they would have not been able to fight much longer if the allies had gone into the USSR. Who knows if this had happened what would the world be like today. There would not have been a Cold War. If there had not been a Cold War what would have happened to the Axis countries Germand and Japan. How much would the allies have helped to rebuild them?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Hard to say. Japan wasn't expected to help very much through the Cold War. Their new constitution limited the military to a purely self defense force and yet America contributed greatly to rebuilding Japan. The process had even started well before the Cold War got into high gear. I imagine the situation in Germany would have been some what similar.

And I wasn't saying that the atomic weapons would have been needed but they were there and represented a dramatic shift in balace of power towards America and her allies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Good points, I just wonder if they would have placed so much emphasis on rebuilding them especially Germany. It is something that has always intrigued me.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 7, 2005)

This worked and materialised?








Projekt 'Schwimmweste' - Schiessen mit der A4 von See aus

Direktor Lafferenz von der Deutschen Arbeitsfront hatte durch praktische Versuche nachgewiesen, dass ein U-Boot bis zu drei größte tauchfähige Schwimmkörper schleppen konnte. Mit U 1063 wurde der Unterwasserschlepp erprobt und zeigte nur minimale Probleme. Dadurch entstand die Frage, ob es möglich sei, in diesen Schwimmkörpern A 4-Raketen mitzuführen. Der Gedanke war, diese Raketen aus den Tauchbehältern zu starten. So entstand 1943 ein weiteres Projekt. Die Transport- und Verschussbehälter sollten eine Länge von 37 m und einen Durchmesser von 5,5 m haben. Bei der Größe sprach man von der enormen Wasserverdrängung von 500 Tonnen. Nach Erreichen des Zieles wäre das Heck geflutet worden und der Schwimmkörper hätte senkrecht gestanden und ca. 5 Meter aus dem Wasser geragt. Auf einer kreiselstabilisierten Plattform wäre das A 4 betankt und überprüft worden. Die Stromversorgung sollte durch das U-Boot erfolgen. Kurz vor dem Start hätte die Bedienermannschaft den Behälter verlassen. Das Startsignal wäre vom U-Boot aus gegeben worden. Auf dem Startweg innerhalb des Schwimmkörpers beabsichtigte man das A 4 in Schienen zu führen und den Gasstrahl über eine Schurre um l80° umzulenken, so dass er nach oben austreten konnte. Für die Fahrt über den Atlantik berechnete man bei 12 Seemeilen Geschwindigkeit zum geplanten Ziel (USA) etwa 30 Tage. Vorgesehen waren die sog. Elektro-U-Boote vom Typ XXI. Die Antriebstoffe wie flüssiger Sauerstoff und Äthylalkohol hätte man in den Schwimmkörpern neben der Rakete mitgeführt. Der Verlust an flüssigem Sauerstoff währen der Anfahrt wäre durch entsprechend große Tankbehälter auszugleichen gewesen. Das Projekt sollte in Verbindung mit der Stettiner Vulcanwerft erarbeitet werden. Noch am 9. Dezember 1944 fand bei der Waffen-Prüfabteilung 10 (Raketen) des Heereswaffenamtes eine Umfangreiche Besprechung statt. Bis Ende März 1945 sollten dann die Voruntersuchungen abgeschlossen sein. Im Februar 1945 wurde Peenemünde aber bereits geräumt. Auch die von der Werft begonnenen Muster konnten nicht mehr fertig gestellt werden.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 7, 2005)

Babel Fish Translation 

In English:
Project 'Schwimmweste' - shooting with the A4 von See out Director Lafferenz of the German work front had proven by practical attempts that a submarine up to three could drag largest dipable flotation chambers. With U 1063 underwaterdrag tested and showed only minimum problems. From the question resulted whether it was possible to carry in these flotation chambers A 4-Raketen. The thought was to start these rockets from the dipping containers. Thus 1943 a further project developed. The transportation and firing container should have a length of 37 m and a diameter of 5,5 m. With the size one spoke of the enormous water displacement of 500 tons. After reaching the goal the tail would have been flooded and the flotation chambers would have perpendicularly confessed and approx.. 5 meters risen up out of the water. On a gyro-stabilized platform A 4 would have been refuelled and examined. The current supply should take place via the submarine. Briefly before the start the operator crew would have left the container. The starting signal would have been given from the submarine. On the start distance within the flotation chamber one intended to lead A 4 in rails and to return the gas jet across a Schurre around l80°, so that he could withdraw upward. For the travel over the Atlantic one computed about 30 days with 12 nautical miles speed to the planned goal (the USA). Were intended sucked. Electrical submarines of the type XXI. One would have carried the drive materials like liquid oxygen and ethyl alcohol in the flotation chambers beside the rocket. The loss at liquid oxygen starts by according to large tank container lasts to be adjusted had. The project should be compiled in connection with the Stettiner Vulcanwerft. Still on 9 December 1944 an extensive discussion took place at the weapon test department 10 (rockets) of the office for army weapon. To at the end of March 1945 then the preliminary investigations should be final. In February 1945 Peenemuende was however already vacated. Also of did not throw samples begun could any longer be finished placed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

The theorie was correct however it never made it to operational status. If it had I dont think it would have caused anything more than fear in the United States. It is however the beginnings of the Submarine Ballistic Missile program and much of the work here started the US's.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

And has continued to be perfected here in the US.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

however we have some of the finest balistic missile subs in the world...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> however we have some of the finest balistic missile subs in the world...........



Well, I can vouch for the crews. RN submariners know their game, there's no question!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

what can i say, the team works............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

Yes you do. Using American designed missles and reactors based off of American designs. And as fine a boat as the Vanguard is, it still is inferior to the Ohios.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 8, 2005)

And once again, the gauntlet is cast.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

The old english speakers of the world anonymous rivalry has flared up again! You have to love it, when this happens I just want to sit back and watch. Its great. Quite amusing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

it happens allot on this site, question is, who threw down the gauntlet??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 8, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The old english speakers of the world anonymous rivalry has flared up again! You have to love it, when this happens I just want to sit back and watch. Its great. Quite amusing.



I agree. Let's watch!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

Im selling tickets.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

LG threw down the gauntlets..... Lets see if The Lanc picks em up....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

is it just me Vs. LG??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

No most of the time it is a lot of people versus LG.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

I think America is at the forefront of submarine weapons and control systems, as well as submarine technology..... I got LG's back on this one....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

Same here.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

I also forgot to mention that the British SSN force relies upon America for its land-attack capability, i.e. Tomahawks. The British have an excellent submarine force and some very capable commanders, but in terms of equipment, they do take a second seat to America.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 8, 2005)

I'm certainly not one to knock America's equipment, but I _can_ tell you this about the personnel of the Royal Navy: They make excellent use of what they have (which, for the most part, is of great quality in it's own right.).

The USN submariners are good, but IMO (I've had the opportunity to work with both) the RN submariners are better.
Put British crews in American boats, and you'll have a submarine force that won't be stopped!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

That I will agree with also. The Royal Navy has always had a reputation for the best crews in the world.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

i'll agree with all that has been said here (please note that was not me saying that britian aren't world leaders in a particular field, it's just that the americans are leading thw world more than we are, i'm still a patriot, reall i am.......)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

Sure you are, but its not fun when you dont argue the for the British. No I am just kidding. I happen to believe that in the Naval world (what does this have to do with the topic) the US Navy has the best ships but I would agree mostly out of tradition and respect for the Royal Navy that Her Magesty has the best Naval crews.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'll agree with all that has been said here (please note that was not me saying that britian aren't world leaders in a particular field, it's just that the americans are leading thw world more than we are, i'm still a patriot, reall i am.......)



I think a lot of people miss the main point of the British/American relationship. It goes both ways ie., Radar, Carrier steam catapults and other items have come from the Brittish and improved in the US market place. Sometimes it goes the other way, which makes it work. 

As Partners we rule!  Apart we'd suck wind in a lot of areas. I'm glad we are Partners!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

Me too! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

Cheers another round on me!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 9, 2005)

I would agree with that. Personally I am somewhat surprised Plan_D hasn't weighed in on this discussion.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Thanks, LG!!!  

In fact, I agree with everything that's been said. I just hate it when Americans get too full of themselves as a super-power. There's British who do it too, I just do it when provoked.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

but we have the right to boast some times, we did have the biggest empire the world's ever seen..............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Of course we do. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

and i won't let anyone forget it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 10, 2005)

Forget what?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

That Britain had the largest Empire in history.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 10, 2005)

Hmmmmm....I see you failed to get the joke...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

Emphasis on had . . .  

And I would do my best to let everyone know how we whooped ya'll twice . . .


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Twice? When was the second time then? I would like to point out how we whooped Americas ass in 1812-15. Tried to take Canada...and FAILED!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

Yorktown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (with a little help from the French)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 10, 2005)

Ahhh, ya wouldn't have wanted Canada anyway! Too cold! Make do with Alaska!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

Canada: The best at....being north of the United States! No really I am just kidding. I think Canada is beautiful.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

The US thought it was beautiful too and found Englands war with France (Napoleon) a perfect time to try and take it...did I mention they failed?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Canada: The best at....being north of the United States! No really I am just kidding. I think Canada is beautiful.



Hey buddy, no arguments here!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

Well anyhow I really do like Canada, I am not just saying that in the hopes of not offending anyone. I seem to love the northern cold areas like Canada, Sweden, Norway, and such.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2005)

Scotland??


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2005)

I was born in Scotland, Dundee. Another random fact of the day.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

Personally from the United Kingdom just from the land point of view I like Scottland and Ireland the best. The highlands I think are just amazing and Ireland is just beautiful. I cant wait to go back and visit them again.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 12, 2005)

Ive never been to Scotland or Ireland but the landscapes are supposed to be beautiful. Although one person once told me that the best road in Scotland was the one leading out


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

No I think they are great. Whoever said that must still be on that English and Scottish lets kill each other trip.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 12, 2005)

Ireland has some nice scenery, if you like green rolling hills.
I've never been to Scotland, but my father loved it there when he visited years ago. Supposedly some great country, up north. Then there are the lochs, as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

You can do some great hiking in Scotland. I think it is just awesome.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 12, 2005)

And the Loch Ness monster, ooooo scary! 

I might be going to Scotland this year, some friends of ours just bought a house there outside Edinburgh...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

You definatly should go, you will enjoy it, great sig though by the way. I need to learn how to do those.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2005)

Very easy to do... I like the blurryness of that one CC... Gives it a little flair...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

How exactly do you do it, just edit a photo in a photo editor or something.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2005)

Yes.. Set the pic size setting for like 450-500 width, and crop and resize what u want... Then add the text and tada.......

You have a siggy u can be pround of....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2005)

Thats Erich Hartmanns ride BTW....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 12, 2005)

"ride"


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

Just imagine Hartmann now "I'm gonna blast me some commies in ma' ride"  Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2005)

Heres a Ride song by a cool little British Band......

The Vines... Ride


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 12, 2005)

Aussie, actually...


But yes, they are cool!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2005)

Didnt know they were Aus..... Cool.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Take a slow ride, Take it easy!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

"Hold me, roll me, gotta to get your lover one more time" Foghat...oh, I love that song. 'Slow Ride'


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Hell yeah that song rules!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Fan of Foghat, or just that song? I first heard it on Dazed and Confused, which is a great movie. The song is sweet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

I like most of there songs. I am a huge rock fan. Mostly Heavy Metal like Metallica but I love Classic Rock. To me it is where it all started with bands like Foghat, Cream, etc...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

Thanks, plan_d for making me feel old! I remember hearing that song on the radio when it was a hit. I used to have "Fool for the City" on vinyl. That was a great one!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

I have it on vinyl! I collect vinyl records and I pick them up at German flew markets for like 2 euros. I just recently bought an original Guns and Roses Appetite for Destruction with the limited printed rape over before the censors got a hold of it and made them change the cover for only 1 euro when I was home on leave. Its good stuff. I have like 300 vinyl recoreds. My fav is probably the Iron Butterfly one I got.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Nice one on the Guns n Roses! 8) I would buy more vinyls if I had a record player...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah mine is broke right now, I need to get a new diamond needle for it.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Aw, c'mon evan at least I've heard of it. A lot of people these days don't even know who foghat were, I love them. I'm a huge rock fan too, Adler. Mostly 90s Seattle stuff, but there's got to be some 60s and 70s in there too it's what inspired the Grunge scene. Creedance Clearwater Revival, Led Zep etc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Oh I like grunge too, but nothing beats the 80's and early 90's metal scene, Metallica, Pantera, Iron Maiden, Slayer, Megadeth, stuff like that.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Give me Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam so on and so forth, that's where my taste lies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam are awesome.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I heard the 1st US Marines playing AiC 'Grind' during that siege of Fallujah...as well as AC/DC 'Hells Bells'.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah the Iraqis hated it.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

US Forces have a good taste in music. I've realised that though. It'd have been more amusing if they'd have started to rock out...but then, they listen to...well - Allah halkash blah blah lots of random noise crap.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah it would have been funny.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

You're right, Plan_d, at least you have heard of it. 

Adler, you brought up some names I haven't heard in awhile! I saw Iron Maiden on their Killers tour. It was insane, and LOUD! I also was at the Black Sabbath/Blue Oyster Cult show in Milwaukee years ago with the riot. That was nuts. Black Sabbath showed up late, which got the mob whipped up into a frenzy. When they finally came up, some numbskull threw a Yukon Jack bottle and hit Geezer Butler in the eye. They walked off the stage and the place erupted into a riot. The guy that through the bottle got pummeled nearly to death. It was crazy, and the management thought they could calm the crowd by shutting off the lights. That was a huge mistake as people lit fires to see. I felt very fortunate to get out of there that night. Now THAT was a concert!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

I love concerts. Seen Metallica 6 times, Iron Maiden 2, I even saw Black Sabbath on there Reunion Tour, saw Guns N Roses, back in 88 went to Monsters of Rock and saw Deep Purple, Quiet Riot, and other great bands. I love concerts. I go every year to Rock Im Park in Nurnberg Germany. Iron Maiden and Kiss along with 85 other well known bands are playing there this year for the 20th anniversary festival. It is going to be a blast.
www.rock-im-park.de


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I love Black Sabbath and Deep Purple, Guns 'n' Roses are okay, I'm not really a fan of Axel singing...I love Velvet Revolver, but I think that's more 'cos I'm a huge fan of Stone Temple Pilots and Scott Weiland.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Bah, Velvet Revolver...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Bah, Velvet Revolver...



They rock man, how can you not like them? Oh yeah you listen to Christina Aguilera!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah, he's a Brit...no taste in music.  Obviously you don't appreciate the genius of Weiland.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Weiland is great, I think he needs to get his head on straight but he is a great musician


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah, the damn fool hasn't learnt the lesson from losing Andrew Wood or Layne Staley.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

my god all the topics have been taken over with music conversations!!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Actually the other one was about looks...in music.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

well i take it back, that makes it perfectly acceptable........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Doesn't it just?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah we have gotten way off topic but hey sometimes you just have to say what is on your mind.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

That's right, and seeing as no one REALLY complains too often...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

true true


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

so, should we get back now???


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

That ship has sailed...

...unless...

What if we never left topic?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

I can't believe I am going to make a post this far off topic but . . . 

The original G 'n' R was awesome. Slash is among the greatest rock guitarist ever and his rifs are awesome.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Erm...what? He's good, I can't deny that. Very good...I don't like Axel's singing though...and they were over the top...plus, Cantrell and Mcready are both better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I can't believe I am going to make a post this far off topic but . . .
> 
> The original G 'n' R was awesome. Slash is among the greatest rock guitarist ever and his rifs are awesome.



Agreed. I think the Guns are a love or hate band; like Marmite.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

LG, hang your head in shame........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

What exactly would you know about rock, lanc? Girls aloud isn't rock you know?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

and i meant for posting off topic..............

and you shouldn't go round shattering people illusions like that


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2005)

Guns was one of the best of all times. Axl was an ass but the music was great!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Hell yeah, that i will agree with! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

So heres a WHAT IF! What if GNR got back together? No really I am just kidding, I am not going to get this thread anymore off topic.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Going by the title of the thread, that IS on topic! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

i think it should be more aircraft related though..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Im sure GNR went on a plane at some stage in their career...thats a tenuous enough link for me


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

I've been on planes too. Let's talk about me!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

No, we cant have the site going down for the second time in 2 weeks


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

Well...okay.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Also, im sure the Geneva Convention bans conversation about you after that flower arranging accident you were involved in back in 2004


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

I only ate five!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Yes, but little Jimmy now lives in an orphanage in Vladivostok as a result and survives off raw bear fat...I hope you can live with yourself


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

Of course I can! I love me!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Help, doctor! He's delirious again!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

Alright well here is a What if senerio. What if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor? What do you think about that. What do you think the US may have done in WW2 or how long it would have taken the US to enter the war?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

That is a very interesting though, Adler. The US was very isolationist at the time. I would assume that there would be some other event that would have eventually triggered the US entry into the war. I could only speculate on what that would be, but I am thinking it would likely have been something in the Pacific as the Japanese were quickly working their way across the Pacific. It would have only been a matter of time before we bumped heads.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

I think Roosevelt was just looking for the right excuse to come to Britain's aid anyway, it was just a matter of convincing congress and the American public at large. Like you said evan, the US was very isolationist up until then. Pearl Harbor provided that "excuse" in spades!

Perhaps Hitler would have eventually declared war on the US anyway, due to the unofficial aid America was giving Britain and the USSR in supplies and, to a point, convoy escorts.
Likely, again like you say, the US would undoubtedly have locked horns with Japan anyway, probably in the Philippines or Marshall Islands area.


----------

