# Technology and Science from 1901 to 1945



## TempestMKV (Nov 30, 2008)

> The Germans were ahead in most scientific fields from the start of WW2 and to the finish. The fields of science where the Germans were clearly ahead until the very end were aerodynamics (And physics in general actually), chemistry electronics.
> 
> Germany had actually been the leader in technology since way before WW2, and continued to be so until the end of WW2, after which it still continued to be the leader in many areas right up till today actually.
> 
> ...



Soren's statement surprised me a bit, I admit that he is quite familar with axis weapons, but what he need is to learn more about allied.

What's the essence of WWII and WWI? 

World wars are contention for leadership of the world, that is, German empire wanted to take the place of English speaking countries which are mainly UK/USA , and which held nealy 60% industry, 60% sea power and 60% technology/science of the whole world.

Therefore, the challenger's destiny is doomed, hopeless unless the Martian intervene the earth. LOL


There is a article called <<A Thousand Years of Science and Scientists:988 to 1988>> written by Davies, Mansell. and which is worthy of reading by us.

Here is the address (from Harvard Uni?).
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...IEW&data_type=PDF_HIGH&send=GET&filetype=.pdf


UK and USA technology/science outcome account for 56.3% of the whole world, and 3 times as many as Deutsch 2nd Reich and 3rd Reich.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

You need to get better educated about European history through the last 300 years Tempest.


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> You need to get better educated about European history through the last 300 years Tempest.



Good, here are 350 years history in Europe.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

Err, what is it you're trying to prove with those figures Tempest ??


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

Do I need to point out that Germany could boast with being home to roughly half of the entire world's nobel prize winners by the start of WW2 ?


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> Err, what is it you're trying to prove with those figures Tempest ??



weapon development background.

Do you believe China can produce the 1st-class weapons in recent 300 years?

Definitely, you DON'T believe, neither do I.  Because Chinese tech/science outcomes were so few in recent centuries.

And here is another article about 3rd Reich weapon-developement background, called <<WALL STREET AND
THE RISE OF HITLER >> where the author demonstrated the enormous capital and tech/science transfer from UK/USA towards Nazi German after WWI.

Note that capital and tech/science are the most important factors in weapon developement.

WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER, by Antony C. Sutton


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

There's a reason the Germans were fielding better more advanced aircraft, vehicles, guns, smallarms, Uboats electronics than everybody else


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> weapon development background.
> 
> Do you believe China can produce the 1st-class weapons in recent 300 years?
> 
> ...



You don't seem to understand what you're using as reference.

The US aided German financially before WW2, NOT scientifically, and also provided a lot of natural resources. (As the case with IG Farben) Infact the US paid for German technology, funding Hitler's war production. The Germans were way ahead when it came to the science of synthetic fuels, and the US oil companies payed millions to get the technology from them.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

Check this out:
IG Farben - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_IG Farben scientists made fundamental contributions to all areas of chemistry. Otto Bayer discovered the polyaddition for the synthesis of polyurethane in 1937.[25] Several IG Farben scientists were awarded a Nobel Prize. Carl Bosch and Friedrich Bergius were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1931 "in recognition of their contributions to the invention and development of chemical high pressure methods".[26] Gerhard Domagk was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1939 "for the discovery of the antibacterial effects of prontosil".[27] Kurt Alder was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (together with Otto Diels) in 1950 "for his [their] discovery and development of the diene synthesis".[28]_


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 30, 2008)

1)Nobel Prize is not everything, there are some other important awards such as Ruska, Gardner, Wolf, filtz and Turing. 

2) UK/USA Nobel prize winners are as many as german. For exmaple, from 1901-1945, both UK and german had 10 physics Nobel prize winners; UK has 1 more medical Nobel prize than german. German had more chemical Nobel than UK/USA. Howver, if u acount all Nobel prize winners from 1901-1945, u will find that UK+USA had more.

3)Although Nobel prize is the most important award, it concerns more about science than technology while weapon is a technology,in my opinion.

4)The turnning point is 1920/WWI. The statistics said that USA chemical outcomes exceeded german from 1920 although german had more chemical Nobel winners at that time. Note that after WWI, about 2000 german/austria scientists immigrated to USA.

5)BEFORE hitler's rise in 1933, BEFORE many jew scientists were forced to leave germany, the tech/science level of USA had already exceeded germany. The turning piont is 1918-1920. 

If you need proof, I'll post them.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

Tempest there is no proof to your claims, they're ridiculous. 

Also science technology go hand in hand, those who lead the way in one also lead the way on the other.

And the lists you have provided we have no way of saying how reliable they are or what how many fields of science they incorperate into their final count, and so they're worth nothing at all in our debate.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

Btw, plz downsize the pictures you uploaded.


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> You don't seem to understand what you're using as reference.
> 
> The US aided German financially before WW2, NOT scientifically, and also provided a lot of natural resources. (As the case with IG Farben) Infact the US paid for German technology, funding Hitler's war production. The Germans were way ahead when it came to the science of synthetic fuels, and the US oil companies payed millions to get the technology from them.




CHAPTER FOUR: Standard Oil Fuels World War II

In December 1929 the new company, Standard I.G. Company, was organized. F.A. Howard was named president, and its German and American directors were announced as follows: E.M. Clark, Walter Duisberg, Peter Hurll, R.A. Reidemann, H.G. Seidel, Otto von Schenck, and Guy Wellman.

The majority of the stock in the research company was owned by Standard Oil. The technical work, the process development work, and the construction of three new oil-from-coal plants in the United States was placed in the hands of the Standard Oil Development Company, the Standard Oil technical subsidiary. It is clear from these contemporary reports that the development work on oil from coal was undertaken by Standard Oil of New Jersey within the United States, in Standard Oil plants and with majority financing and control by Standard. The results of this research were made available to I.G. Farben and became the basis for the development of Hitler's oil from-coal-program which made World War II possible.
The Haslam article, written by a former Professor of Chemical Engineering at M.I.T. (then vice president of Standard Oil of New Jersey) argued — contrary to these recorded facts — that Standard Oil was able, through its Farben agreements, to obtain German technology for the United States. Haslam cited the manufacture of toluol and paratone (Op-panol), used to stabilize viscosity of oil, an essential material for desert and Russian winter tank operations, and buna rubber. However, this article, with its erroneous self-serving claims, found its way to wartime Germany and became the subject of a "Secret" I.G. Farben memorandum dated June 6, 1944 from Nuremburg defendent and then-Farben official von Knieriem to fellow Farben management officials. This yon Knieriem "Secret" memo set out those facts Haslam avoided in his Petroleum Times article. The memo was in fact a summary of what Standard was unwilling to reveal to the American public — i.e., the major contribution made by Standard Oil of New Jersey to the Nazi war machine. The Farben memorandum states that the Standard Oil agreements were absolutely essential for I.G. Farben:

_The closing of an agreement with Standard was necessary for technical, commercial, and financial reasons:technically, because the specialized experience which was available only in a big oil company was necessary to the further development of our process, and no such industry existed in Germany; commercially, because in the absence of state economic control in Germany at that time, IG had to avoid a competitive struggle with the great oil powers, who always sold the best gasoline at the lowest price in contested markets; financially, because IG, which had already spent extraordinarily large sums for the development of the process, had to seek financial relief in order to be able to continue development in other new technical fields, such as buna.8_

The Farben memorandum then answered the key question: What did I.G. Farben acquire from Standard Oil that was "vital for the conduct of war?" The memo examines those products cited by Haslam — i.e., iso-octane, tuluol, Oppanol-Paratone, and buna — and demonstrates that contrary to Standard Oil's public claim, their technology came to a great extent from the U.S., not from Germany.
On iso-octane the Farben memorandum reads, in part,

_By reason of their decades of work on motor fuels, the Americans were ahead of us in their knowledge of the quality requirements that are called for by the different uses of motor fuels. In particular they had developed, at great expense, a large number of methods of testing gasoline for different uses. On the basis of their experiments they had recognized the good anti, knock quality of iso-octane long before they had any knowledge of our hydrogenation process. This is proved by the single fact that in America fuels are graded in octane numbers, and iso-octane was entered as the best fuel with the number 100. All this knowledge naturally became ours as a result of the agreement, which saved us much effort and protected us against many errors._

I.G. Farben adds that Haslam's claim that the production of iso-octane became known in America only through the Farben hydrogenation process was not correct:

_Especially in the case of iso-octane, it is shown that we owe much to the Americans because in our own work we could draw widely on American information on the behavior of fuels in motors. Moreover, we were also kept currently informed by the Americans on the progress of their production process and its further development.

Shortly before the war, a new method for the production of iso-octane was found in America — alkylation with isomerization as a preliminary step. This process, which Mr. Haslain does not mention at all, originates in fact entirely with the Americans and has become known to us in detail in its separate stages through our agreements with them, and is being used very extensively by us._

On toluol, I.G. Farben points to a factual inaccuracy in the Haslam article: toluol was not produced by hydrogenation in the U.S. is claimed by Professor Haslam. In the case of Oppanol, the I.G. memo calls Haslam's information "incomplete" and so far as buna rubber is concerned, "we never gave technical information to the Americans, nor did technical cooperation in the buna field take place." Most importantly, the Farben memo goes on to describe some products not cited by Haslam in his article:

_As a consequence of our contracts with the Americans, we received from them, above and beyond the agreement, many very valuable contributions for the synthesis and improvement of motor fuels and lubricating oils, which Just now during the war are most useful to us; and we also received other advantages from them. Primarily, the following may be mentioned:

(1) Above all, improvement of fuels through the addition of tetraethyl-lead and the manufacture of this product. It need not be especially mentioned that without tetraethl-lead the present methods of warfare would be impossible. The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce tetraethyl-lead is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans had presented us with the production plans, complete with their know-how. It was, moreover, the first time that the Americans decided to give a license on this process in a foreign country (besides communication of unprotected secrets) and this only on our urgent requests to Standard Oil to fulfill our wish. Contractually we could not demand it, and we found out later that the War Department in Washington gave its permission only after long deliberation.

(2) Conversion of low-molecular unsaturates into usable gasoline (polymerization). Much work in this field has been done here as well as in America. But the Americans were the first to carry the process through on a large scale, which suggested to us also to develop the process on a large technical scale. But above and beyond that, plants built according to American processes are functioning in Germany.

(3) In the field of lubricating oils as well, Germany through the contract with America, learned of experience which is extraordinarily important for present day warfare._

In this connection, we obtained not only the experience of Standard, but, through Standard, the experiences of General Motors and other large American motor companies as well.

_(4) As a further remarkable example of advantageous effect for us of the contract between IG and Standard Oil, the following should be mentioned: in the years 1934 / 1935 our government had the greatest interest in gathering from abroad a stock of especially valuable mineral oil products (in particular, aviation gasoline and aviation lubricating oil), and holding it in reserve to an amount approximately equal to 20 million dollars at market value. The German Government asked IG if it were not possible, on the basis o fits friendly relations with Standard Oil, to buy this amount in Farben's name; actually, however, as trustee of the German Government. The fact that we actually succeeded by means of the most difficult negotiations in buying the quantity desired by our government from the American Standard Oil Company and the Dutch — English Royal — Dutch — Shell group and in transporting it to Germany, was made possible only through the aid of the Standard Oil Co._


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

You should read this:
A People’s History of the United States


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 30, 2008)

> Ethyl Lead for the Wehrmacht
> 
> Another prominent example of Standard Oil assistance to Nazi Germany — in cooperation with General Motors — was in supplying ethyl lead. Ethyl fluid is an anti-knock compound used in both aviation and automobile fuels to eliminate knocking, and so improve engine efficiency; without such anti-knocking compounds modern mobile warfare would be impractical.
> 
> ...




Both B4 and C3 fuel have Ethyl Lead, I can't image how DB601/605 work without Ethyl Lead.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

But before going any further it is pointless to debate the oil industry as thise has nothing to do with weapons technology or technology in general.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

The fact of the matter is that Germany was ahead in most areas of science technology during WW2, as demonstrated in their fielded material. Now as to how much they were ahead, well, that's debately, but they were far ahead in some key areas including aerodynamics engineering. 

But to make myself a bit clearer: The Germans were flying sophisticated jet aircraft when everyone else were flying propeller aircraft. The Germans were using auto pilots and engine management computers in their a/c, something nobody else had. The Germans were using guided bombs missiles when everyone else knew either squat in this field or were just experimenting with the idea. The Germans were seeing clearly in the night when everyone else either had no clue how to achieve this or were having a very hard tme trying to achieve the same.

And like I said the German advantage in technology was clearly demonstrated in the equipment they fielded, the below being unrivalled in their field:

*Aircraft:*
Me-262A-1a, best fighter of WW2 
Ta-152H C, best piston engined fighter of WW2
He-162A-2, ranks alongside the Me262
FW-190 D-12 13, second to the Ta152
Ar-234B-2, best recon a/c of WW2
Ar-232, best transport a/c of WW2
Ju-388, best nightfighter of WW2

*Vehicles:*
Pzkpfw.VI Tiger Ausf.E B, most advanced, powerful and best heavy tanks of WW2
Pzkpfw.V Panther, overall best tank of WW2
JagdTiger, most powerful TD of WW2
JagdPanther, best TD of WW2
etc etc..

*Smallarms:*
MG-42, the best machinegun of WW2 and all time.
MG-34, the second best machine gun of WW2.
FG-42, one of the most advanced smallarms of WW2, a supurb LMG.
StG.44, THE best smallarm of WW2.
M98, the best bolt action rifle of all time.

*Aircraft armament:*
30mm Mk-108
30mm Mk-103
15mm MG151

*Big guns:*
128mm KwK/PaK 44 L/55 L/61, the most powerful AT gun of WW2.
88mm KwK/PaK 43 L/71, the best tank AT gun of WW2.
75mm KwK/PaK 42 L/70, the second best tank gun of WW2.
170mm K-18, the best heavy artillery piece of WW2.

*Naval:*
Type XXI Uboat, best uboat of WW2
Type XXIII, ranks alongside the XXI

*Other:*
V-1 V-2 self-guided ballistic missiles
Fritz-X, guided bomb
X-4, guided Anti Air missile

And the list goes on and on and on...


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 30, 2008)

> This was the company enthusiastically embraced by Standard Oil as well as other major American corporations like Du Pont and General Motors. I do not, however, state that Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis simply because I.G. Farben was its second largest shareholder. In fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. *The planes that made up the Luftwaffe needed tetraethyl lead gasoline in order to fly. At the time, only Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors had the ability to produce this vital substance.* In 1938, Walter C. Teagle, then president of Standard Oil, helped Hermann Schmitz of I.G. Farben to acquire 500 tons of tetraethyl lead from Ethyl, a British Standard subsidiary. A year later, Schmitz returned to London and obtained an additional 15 million dollars worth of tetraethyl lead which was to be turned into aviation gasoline back in Germany.



let's talk about weapons. At first I have a queation: in 1940 when USSR tanks T34 outperformanced german III/IV, who believe the tech/science level of USSR was above German? 

Almost nobody.

In 1943 when german tanks(Panzer Tiger) outperformanced allied tanks(M4), who believe the the tech/science level of German was above allied?

Some people believe.

That's the point, weapon development need capital, tech/science and military requirment time.

In 1940, german had enough capital&tech in tank field, but the requirment for panzer/tiger, the time needed for developement were not available, so USSR tanks outperformanced german's in 1940 to early 1941. 


Same for allied, after D day, in 1945,the requirment for better tanks and developement time were available, so pershing and centurion came out.


With regard to tank/aa guns, I've posted some data, the british 17pdr gun is as good as kwk42.
BTW, kwk42 is a tapered-bore gun. High-wear tapered-bore technology was old and had no future. The L70 long barrel costs more than 17pdr's L58.

German 128mm AA gun(later 128mm kwk44) in 1942 was outperformanced by USA 120mm M1 AA gun in 1940.


USA L70 90mm T15E1/T18 gun (fixed ammo post war)was as good as kwk43.

USA 90mm M3 gun was as good as german kwk36.

USA optics in pershing was as good as panzer's, note that pershing had a stablizer.


Geman weapons in WWII were very good, but so were allied.


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> With regard to tank/aa guns, I've posted some data, the british 17pdr gun is as good as kwk42.
> BTW, kwk42 is a tapered-bore gun. High-wear tapered-bore technology was old and had no future. The L70 long barrel costs more than 17pdr's L58.



But that is not true Tempest, the KwK42 is not a tapered bore gun.



> German 128mm AA gun(later 128mm kwk44) in 1942 was outperformanced by USA 120mm M1 AA gun in 1940.



Nope. Check the figures for both guns, weight included. The 120mm M1 AA gun weighed some 5.5 tons more than the 128mm FlaK40, yet the FlaK40 fires a heavier shell at 880 m/s to a higher ceiling of some 17,600 m. 

The 88mm FlaK41 L/71 has a ceiling of 15,000 m.



> USA L70 90mm T15E1/T18 gun (fixed ammo post war)was as good as kwk43.



No it wasn't, it was heavier, slower less accurate compared to the KwK43. 



> USA 90mm M3 gun was as good as german kwk36.



And note when it was fielded, some 3 years later.



> USA optics in pershing was as good as panzer's, note that pershing had a stablizer.



Again that is completely untrue Tempest. The optics in the Pershing weren't anywhere near as good as those the German panzers featured. German tanks were from the start of WW2 and to the end fitted with the best optics in the world, nothing came close, and that's a fact.

Now please, before making more claims, check your sources!


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 1, 2008)

You need tons of knowledge of allied weapons, Soren.

British Jet planes developement was as good as german.

April 12, 1937 Frank Whittle successfully bench-tests the world's first gas turbine engine designed for aircraft.

Anyway,the jet plane tech was far from maturaity in WWII, applying such tech in a hurry can only prove how despotare 3rd Reich was. Me262 just can't pass the production standard of allied. BTW, Gloster meteor came into service 8 days ealier than M262, although early meteor was outperformenced by Me262.

British jet engine was second to none from 1930s to 1960s, in 1946, Nene engine was far better than german's and USSR/USA was behind british in this field even in 1960.

I admit that german tech had some advantages but allied also had their own.

F80 is as good as me262.

21lbs boost Spitfire XIV outperformanced Ta152 and Dora.

Pershing outperformanced tiger, as good as panzer.

JagdTiger was most powerful TD of WW2 in service, because JSU130 had a more powerful gun.

Both Su100 and JagdPanther are best TD of WW2

Browning .50 is the best heavy mechine gun, better than Mg131.
M1 is the best semi-automatic.

USSR B20 and UK Hispano was as good as, if not better than Mg151/20.

170mm K-18, the best heavy artillery piece of WW2???? Don't forget USSR 203mm.

allied had "television-directed" in WWII, and P61 the best night fighting a/c.

Note that allied had advantages in Radar, computer.

etc..

It's piontless to list advantages here. Let's discuss some technical issues, for example, the aviation piston engine.


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> You need tons of knowledge of allied weapons, Soren.
> 
> British Jet planes developement was as good as german.



Nope.



> British jet engine was second to none from 1930s to 1960s, in 1946, Nene engine was far better than german's and USSR/USA was behind british in this field even in 1960.


¨
Wrong. The Germans were ahead. Check out the HeS.011 engine.



> F80 is as good as me262.



Nope, the Me-262 was far better.



> 21lbs boost Spitfire XIV outperformanced Ta152 and Dora.



Again nope, the Ta-152 Dora-13 easily outperformed the Spitfire XIV.



> Pershing outperformanced tiger, as good as panzer.



Once again, no. The Panther Tiger were both more reliable (Yes, the Pershing featured absolutely 'horrible' reliability, worse than the Tiger II) and better mobility and equal to better firepower protection. The Tiger Ausf.B features far superior firepower protection than the rest though.



> JagdTiger was most powerful TD of WW2 in service, because JSU130 had a more powerful gun.



JSU130 ??? You just pull it all out from your sleeve dont you?



> Both Su100 and JagdPanther are best TD of WW2



No, the SU100 isn't even close to being as good as the JagdPanther. The JagdPanther features much better optics, mobility, protection firepower.



> Browning .50 is the best heavy mechine gun, better than Mg131.
> M1 is the best semi-automatic.



Ok for once we agree, the .50 cal M2 HMG was the best HMG of the war, agreed. And the M1 Garand is the best semi automatic rifle of the war as-well, agreed.



> USSR B20 and UK Hispano was as good as, if not better than Mg151/20.



No.



> 170mm K-18, the best heavy artillery piece of WW2???? Don't forget USSR 203mm.



The 170mm K-18 is far superior.



> allied had "television-directed" in WWII, and P61 the best night fighting a/c.



So did the Germans. And as for the P-61, the Ju-338 flies higher faster. 



> Note that allied had advantages in Radar, computer.



Again that is completely untrue, the Germans were far ahead in terms of computers and were one the same level in regards to radar technology.


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> But that is not true Tempest, the KwK42 is not a tapered bore gun.
> 
> Nope. Check the figures for both guns, weight included. The 120mm M1 AA gun weighed some 5.5 tons more than the 128mm FlaK40, yet the FlaK40 fires a heavier shell at 880 m/s to a higher ceiling of some 17,600 m.
> 
> ...



Perhaps there are some errors in my resource.

US 120mm M1 gun is 2 years eralier than 128mm and it's the ancestor of US T34 heavy tank, M103, UK conqueror and chieftain. 



> 12.8 cm FlaK 40
> 
> The eventual solution was to simplify the firing platform, based on the assumption it would always be securely bolted into concrete. The total weight of the system reached *26.5 tonnes*, making it practically impossible to tow cross-country



12.8 cm FlaK 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 1, 2008)

No, the SU100 isn't even close to being as good as the JagdPanther. The JagdPanther features much better optics, mobility, protection firepower.
---------------------

Bad quality of JagdPanther leads to same protection as SU100, kwk43 apcbc's penetration is same as D10T's.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2008)

Tempest, I hate to disappoint you, but the British did not have the best jet engine in WWII.

The British engine was bulky and troublesome compared to the jet engine that Hans von Ohain developed and tested shortly before Frank Whittle.

The first jet powered aircraft to fly under it's own power was the Heinkel He178, on 27 August 1939 and the He280 followed shortly afterwards, being the worlds first armed jet aircraft. That was on 30 March 1941, by the way, two years before the Gloster Meteor flew.

Also of interest regarding the He280, it was capable of out-performing piston powered aircraft of the day, and it was designed as a fighter, unlike the Me262, which was an interceptor.

The He280 never made it to production and the Me262 was plagued with problems and that made it appear on the front far too late to stem the tide of Allied bombers. The engines needed raw materials that were no longer available as Germany's sources fell to the Allied armies.

The technology of the Me262, however changed the face of aviation history.

The British on the other hand weren't having the same success, the first Meteor flew in 1943 and revised models didn't enter service until 1944 and the only enemy aircraft they destroyed were on the ground. As far as the Gloster E.28/39 was concerned, it did fly in 1941...but was underpowered and relegated to various tests and never considered as worthy of production. The DeHavilland Vampire was under development, but the war ended before it reached service and would have been the only British jet to support your claim.

The P-80 Shooting Star was a sturdy aircraft, but seriously flawed, and cost the lives of a number of pilots, including U.S. ace Major Bong in it's early days, which were the closing days of the war in Europe.

The Germans also had a large number of jets entering production, or near the production phase, and the list is a long one. You find that these later jets heavily influenced the next generation of combat jets, such as the F-86 Saber and the MiG-15, to name a very few of many examples.

The Japanese had their jets, but they weren't able to enter those into the war before it's conclusion in the Pacific. Most notably, the Kikka and the Ki-201 (Karyu).

I'm not sure where you're gathering your information from, but it seems to be gathered more from speculation than statistical facts.


----------



## Juha (Dec 1, 2008)

Soren
Quote:” But to make myself a bit clearer: The Germans were flying sophisticated jet aircraft when everyone else were flying propeller aircraft. The Germans were using auto pilots and engine management computers in their a/c, something nobody else had. The Germans were using guided bombs missiles when everyone else knew either squat in this field or were just experimenting with the idea. The Germans were seeing clearly in the night when everyone else either had no clue how to achieve this or were having a very hard tme trying to achieve the same.”

Never heard Gloster Meteor?
Allied didn’t have auto-pilots?
Guided missile tests began late WWI/immediately after WWI, others thought that they were not worth of effort, Germans found out that they needed better anti-shipping weaponry. Hs 293 and Fritz X had a short period of glory before their control systems were jammed.
Now first British AI radar kill was achieved in July 1940 when LW got its first?

Agree with Me 262, Ar 234 and maybe also Ar 232 but
according to Brown Ta 152H and latest Allied fighters were very near each other, He-162 was delightful airplane especially in rolling axis but not very effective as practical warplane and it killed almost exclusively only those who flew it.
Ju 388, how many kills were achieved by pilots flying it?

On small arms I agree with reservation that there is different opinions around which was the best military bolt action rifle.

Was 15mm MG 151 or 30mm Mk 103 unrivalled?

Was JagdTiger unrivalled or waste of resources?

I’d not say that 75mm KwK 42 was unrivalled, 17 pdr had more or less same performance and 
while Pak 42 had only limited production run 17 pdr was the main heavy A/T gun of British army.

X-4 wasn’t very practical solution when allied used escort fighters and V-1 wasn’t ballistic missile.

Juha

Ps
Quote:
USSR B20 and UK Hispano was as good as, if not better than Mg151/20. 
”No.”

Look at Table 2 Column Gun Efficiency at WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

Quote:” the Germans were far ahead in terms of computers”

Why they didn’t see that Enigma code was possible to break by using computers if they had far better computers than Allied powers?


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 1, 2008)

In 1945 late, meteor and vampire were capable of nearly 900km/h.
In 1946 Birtish Nene engine was far better than Jumo004.
In 1950s, English Electric Lightning was the first aircraft capable of supercruise in the world, even superpower such as USSR and USA can't achieve that. 

English Electric Lightning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BTW, USA had its own swept tech before VE day, North America Co. can't represent all US aviation companies. After all, Buzeman's swept wing idea had been released publicaly in 1935.

The core of The Third Technological Innovation of Human Being are Computer,nuclear and semiconductor technologies which were developed better in USA BFFORE VE DAY. And those tech have changed the world completely.


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 1, 2008)

> <<FOCKE-WULF FW190>> by Manfred Griehl
> 
> acknowledgement
> In producing this profile specail thanks is due to Flugkaptaen Hans Scander, the former chief pilot of the Focke-Wulf company, for his extensive help, as well as to Joachim Dressel, Franz Selinger, Willy Radinger and many others with an interest in the history of the fw190.....
> ...



Do you believe that Fw190D9 had no intercooler at all?

The importance of intercooler is below:


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> Bad quality of JagdPanther leads to same protection as SU100,



You couldnt be more wrong. Check your sources.



> kwk43 apcbc's penetration is same as D10T's.



Nope, the KwK43's penetration with the APCBC projectile is far greater than that of the 100mm D10T, and there are both German, US USSR test results to back that up.

So again check your sources.


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> Perhaps there are some errors in my resource.
> 
> US 120mm M1 gun is 2 years eralier than 128mm and it's the ancestor of US T34 heavy tank, M103, UK conqueror and chieftain.



And the 128mm FlaK40 is still lighter more powerful.



> 12.8 cm FlaK 40
> 
> The eventual solution was to simplify the firing platform, based on the assumption it would always be securely bolted into concrete. The total weight of the system reached 26.5 tonnes, making it practically impossible to tow cross-country
> 
> 12.8 cm FlaK 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Do you at all understand what you're reading ? Why are you taking small phrases out of context and using them to prove your claims ??

If you'd care to read the whole article you'd notice that the gun weighed 12 tons in its firing position. And when on a mobile rig it weighed 17 tons. When on a large travel rig it weighed 27 tons, or the prototype did.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 1, 2008)

I don't see the point in this discussion. Germans were ahead in one field and behind in others. I don't see the Germans being either far ahead or far behind the Allied powers. Allied powers, especially Russia only had the tendency to use a pragmatic aproach, ease of building and numbers being more imported then slight technological advatages. The (slight) inferiority of Allied weapons had thus nothing to do with lagging science. Germans tended to over design and had thus problems in maintenance, replacement, manufacturing etc. I would say one of the reasons of German defeat is the lack of practical thinking on their part.
While allied weapons were on one-to one comparisment possibly slightly inferior, on the battlefield this didn't make any difference as they still won.
Look at it this way, what good does it do when you have the best tank (Tiger) when it is overwhelmed by great masses of (inferior) T34's?


----------



## Juha (Dec 1, 2008)

I broadly agree with Marcel
More broadly, the effectiveness of combat formation is more than the sum of its sub-units because the good co-operation with different arms is usually the key to success. Single arm alone isn’t usually enough.
If we look the Eastern front, Germans got at the gates of Moscow when their tanks were qualitatively in worst position vs Soviet tanks. T-34, KV I and II were great shocks to panzer crews but with good team work, better communications and training and good co-operation with artillery and Flak they overcame the quality problem.
Same in late summer early autumn 43, this time Soviet tanks were qualitatively in worst position vs German tanks but anyway managed to push Germans from Donets to Dnepr over open Steppe which clearly favoured Panzers with their better firepower.
Or when at the beginning of 43 when Hitler imagined that one Tiger battalion (503) would have been able greatly help to stabilize the Southern part of Eastern front.
Or in west in Autumn 44 when in series of encounter battles GTL Langlade/2nd French Armoured Div and CCs/4th Armor Div smashed the PzBrs sent against them, even if the M4s of Allied formations were almost exclusively armed with 75mm cannon and main tank of PzBrs was Panther Aufs G.

Juha


----------



## fly boy (Dec 1, 2008)

what is this a fourm to find all the crap that never would have been usefull now or ever?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I don't see the point in this discussion. Germans were ahead in one field and behind in others. I don't see the Germans being either far ahead or far behind the Allied powers. Allied powers, especially Russia only had the tendency to use a pragmatic aproach, ease of building and numbers being more imported then slight technological advatages. The (slight) inferiority of Allied weapons had thus nothing to do with lagging science. Germans tended to over design and had thus problems in maintenance, replacement, manufacturing etc. I would say one of the reasons of German defeat is the lack of practical thinking on their part.
> While allied weapons were on one-to one comparisment possibly slightly inferior, on the battlefield this didn't make any difference as they still won.
> Look at it this way, what good does it do when you have the best tank (Tiger) when it is overwhelmed by great masses of (inferior) T34's?



I agree.

Now having said this. I see no point to this thread.

This is all that is going to happen in this thread:



> Tempest: Soren, you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Soren: Tempest, you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> ...



In the end, no facts that actually prove anything will be posted by either side. It will be nothing more than the usual speculation by both sides, as well as the use of opinions as facts (which is what happens 90% of the time).

In the end, the thread will be closed and both sides will probably take a forced vacation. 

I will however leave it open, and give everyone a rope long eneogh to hang themselves.


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2008)

Adler I can provide sources for every single fact I have presented here, Tempest on the other hand is but speculating which is made clear by all the false information he has provided. 

Anyway moving on...

It is quite clear that Germany held a technological edge throughout the war, emphasizing quality over quantity at every corner. This is also a part of the reason they lost the war. They spend a lot of labour on very advanced designs just to get a few out of the factory each week. And this is clearly seen in the equipment they fielded, they were constantly raising the technology bar higher. By the end of the war the Germans were fielding the best and most advanced aircraft, tanks, smallarms uboats in the world: 

*Aircraft:*
Me-262, He-162, Ta-152, Ar-234 Ar-232. 

*AFVs*
Pzkpfw.V, Pzkpfw.VI Ausf.E B, JagdPanther, JagdTiger, SdKfz. 234 etc etc

*Large Guns:*
128mm KwK/PaK44 L/55 60, 88mm KwK/PaK43 L/71, 75mm KwK/PaK42 L/70, 88mm KwK36 L/56, 105mm LeFH 18(M), 150mm K-18, 173mm K-18 210mm K-18.

*Smallarms:*
StG.44, Mauser 98, MG-42, MG-34, FG-42 S-18/1100.

*Naval:*
Type XXI Type XXIII

*Other:*
Infrared equipment (Vampir etc.), X-4, V-1 V-2, Fritz X, Wasserfall, Rheinbote, Enzian, Various computers Kommandogeräts incl. engine management control computers, autopilots and the Z-1/2/3 4 programmable computers in WW2 (Z-4 digital computer was demonstrated at the aerodynamic test facility in Göttingen in 45), Würzburg Radar etc etc...


The Western Allies took to concentrate on the middle ground, producing lots of good quality equipment while the Soviets emphasized quantity over anything else and went for highest mass production. Put together this was too much for the Germans to overcome.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 2, 2008)

ah, the old chestnut surfaces again...we were beaten by quantity, and nothing else.......err suffice it to say that is opinion hotly contested by many.

And sorry, but what you are presenting is opinion pieces only, as is that presented by this other fellow. 

In my opinion this thread has a predictable and rapid demise heading its way


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2008)

parsifal said:


> ah, the old chestnut surfaces again...we were beaten by quantity, and nothing else.......err suffice it to say that is opinion hotly contested by many.
> 
> And sorry, but what you are presenting is opinion pieces only, as is that presented by this other fellow.
> 
> In my opinion this thread has a predictable and rapid demise heading its way



Aah but you are so wrong, it is not opinions it is facts, but you are welcome to try and contest any of them. Which one shall we take first ? Can you find an equal to any of them ?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 2, 2008)

VT fuses
Magnetrons
ship borne fire control radars
amphtracs
Hedgehog
Mousetraps
Mulberrys
Jungle webbing
Mountain guns
Sonars
Radar modulation
Valenkiys,
Fur Lined winter gear
Russian winter ponies
Jeeps
Chev Trucks

to name just a few

If you want to expand the discussion and look and produceability as well as the sharp end techniology issue, I would add the following

Garand rifles
Sten Guns
PPSH
Degtarev
Sherman Tanks
T-34 Tanks
Fletcher and Gearing Class DDs
LCT
LST
Liberty Ships
C-47s
Flower Class Frigates
Escort Carriers


etc etc



In poor weather German weapons were unreliable. We have had this discussion before, and once again I referred the matter to a person that would know better than either of us. My Step father served on the eastern front in the 343rd ID, as a machine gunner. He just happens to also be a toolmaker by trade, with more knowledge on machining tolerances etc under his fingernails than either you or i will ever have. His verdict, German weapons were technically better, but suffered reliability issues because of the excessively tight tolerances to which they were built. Consequently they suffered much more frequent stoppages in the freezing Russian conditions than their equyivalent counterparts in the Russian snow and mud...thus your statement about the Russians relying only on quantity is only half true. They were simple, and crude, but more reliable.

But I am not even going to discuss this with you, to be honest. I have learnt that "discussions" with you are a complete non-event, and in fact are more lectures than anything even remotely approaching a discussion

These arent my words., these are the opinions of a true expert, and not from someone who relies on bullsh*t book learning and opinions to "prove their statements.


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2008)

Hehe, regarding the German smallarms, I believe it was me who explained that German guns were prone to jamming in the Russian winter because of the fact that the Germans built their guns to extremely tight tolerances. A new type lubricating oil was however introduced which partially solved the issue.

And as for sonar, ever heard of the S-unit ?

Oh and tell me, what do you make of the below:

















































For more: german prime movers

And as for winterclothing, the Germans had plenty of that (Although Hitler made sure it wasn't sent in 41), ever heard of the Wintertarnanzug Sumpfmuster-44 (Padded Parka Padded Trousers).

And as to Proximity fuzes:
The German proximity fuse.

And anti radar sonar technology:
U-Boat Anti Sonar Coating - Alberich, Tarnmatte

And as for jungle webbing, what makes you think that the Germans didn't have this ? Oh and in terms of technology I really don't think it has a place.


----------



## Juha (Dec 2, 2008)

Soren

On amphibious tractors LVT4 with its real-loading ramp and armed with 4 mgs (US use) or 3 mgs and 20mm automatic cannon (British) was clearly more practical vehicle in amphibious warfare. And for extra amphibious load carrying there was DUKWs, ie amphibious lorries.

Even if Schwimmwagen is my favourite WWII vehicle there were more amphibious Jeeps around, which was better I don’t know.

Mountain artillery, You might well have point here, IIRC German mountain arty pieces were first class, but I must admit that my knowledge on Allied mountain arty pieces is very limited.

Lorries, if one has studied Eastern front battles from Autumn 43 to Spring 44 one must have came across German complains how their lorries and cars became stuck into sticky Ukrainian mud but Soviets on their 2½ tons and 1½ tons LL trucks ploughed around their flanks. So lorries/trucks definitely Allied supremacy.

Proximity fuzes, now Allied were at least 2½ years AHEAD Germans. 

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Dec 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Adler I can provide sources for every single fact I have presented here,



You said the following in another thread and I asked you for for 'sources'. You have yet to reply so I thought I would post it here because you may have missed it and it is all part of the same claim:



Soren said:


> Germany was also the leader in radar infrared techonology, producing the best infrared imaging and being the first to deploy infrared equipment on smallarms AFV's a good number of vehicles (Inclduing the Pzkpfw.V Panther) being equipped with this in late 44 on the western front and enjoying amazing success.



I have provided information (twice now) that shows you that the USA was the first to field IR small arms in WW2.
I asked you for sources that confirm '_a good number of vehicles (Inclduing the Pzkpfw.V Panther) being equipped with this in late 44 on the western front and enjoying amazing success_
Why have you not been able to do this?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 2, 2008)

Soren

Just to simplify the issues, I will deal with one issue per post, if that is okay

Looking at the LVT issue, I have attached a table, which compares the main US LVTs to the LWS prototypes you are posting as superior. The LWS was not superior at all. It was higher, presenting a larger target. It was unarmed, and it was unarmoured. It could not load or transport vehicles or heavy loads of cargo, except with the aid of a cumbersome and impractical floating trailer that was abandoned as a development and research project in 1942

I have attached the main data that I have on these vehicles for your consideration


----------



## Glider (Dec 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Adler I can provide sources for every single fact I have presented here, Tempest on the other hand is but speculating which is made clear by all the false information he has provided.
> 
> Anyway moving on...
> 
> ...



And to a large degree, all of it supported by a logistics trail that depended on horses. A small fact that is often forgotten


----------



## timshatz (Dec 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> And to a large degree, all of it supported by a logistics trail that depended on horses. A small fact that is often forgotten



An excellent point.


----------



## bigZ (Dec 2, 2008)

For me the most important technolgies from 1901 to 1945 where all invented by the Brits or the Americans:-

Aeroplane
Radio
Telivision
Sliced bread
Band Aid
Cellaphane
Polio jab
Scotch Tape
Cats Eye Reflector
Choc Chip Cookies
Radar


----------



## Marcel (Dec 2, 2008)

bigZ said:


> For me the most important technolgies from 1901 to 1945 where all invented by the Brits or the Americans:-
> 
> Aeroplane
> Radio
> ...


Who told you the Radar was invented by the British or American?


----------



## bigZ (Dec 2, 2008)

Re-reading the thread I noticed I had missed the point. As the argument revolves around Military Tech 1936 to 45. In that case the Germans get an A grade the allies a A-. But I will be drinking a toast to celebrate the fact no matter how good the German Tech was it just wasn't good enough.


----------



## Glider (Dec 2, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Who told you the Radar was invented by the British or American?



For millitary purposes the invention is almost a draw between the UK and Germany. 
But for the first use of the Radar PRINCIPLES then the shout goes to the USA.

In the Summer of 1926, the Americans Breit and Tuve became the first to use the principles of radar to measure the returning echo of the earth's ionosphere


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Adler I can provide sources for every single fact I have presented here, Tempest on the other hand is but speculating which is made clear by all the false information he has provided.



Where, I have not seen anything but opinion from either of you.

Like I said, this thread is common recipe for a downward spiral.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> For millitary purposes the invention is almost a draw between the UK and Germany.
> But for the first use of the Radar PRINCIPLES then the shout goes to the USA.
> 
> In the Summer of 1926, the Americans Breit and Tuve became the first to use the principles of radar to measure the returning echo of the earth's ionosphere



Nope, ever heard of Christian Hulsmeyer?
Christian HÃ¼lsmeyer â€“ Wikipedia
It's in german but at the bottom you'll find an English pdf. This was in 1904.


----------



## Glider (Dec 2, 2008)

Yes, I have and if you want to play the date game, then the first demonstration of electronic waves being reflected by metal objects was in 1886 by one Heinrich Hertz at the Unversity of Karlsruhe.
However neither of these were developed or more importantly used. Developers of all sides had enough trouble in the late 30's-early 40's with reliability, it would have been impossible to have a reliable system in 1904.

I did say the first practical use was in 1926. Theory is one thing, use another.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 2, 2008)

You could be right, but the principle was not invented by the Americans and Christian even made a working instrument.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 2, 2008)

I think the biggest technological breakthrough was by a Serb called Nikolai Tesla whose invention of Alternating current which allowed every breakthrough to occur with the availability of electricity over long distances .


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 2, 2008)

To Soren and Tempest - _does it matter who had the "most advanced" kit?_. Technological prowess didn't allow the Germans to win, after all. The Allies won and the Axis lost, end of story. German technology was not sufficient to stand up to Allied (especially Russian) production. The relative _quality_ of military equipment is a relatively minor factor in victory and defeat, even today. Me262s might have been very high tech, but stupid production priorities meant that there weren't enough of them in the right roles and places to make a difference. By comparison, Yaks were primitive... _but there were thousands of them_. The result was inevitable, really


----------



## parsifal (Dec 2, 2008)

The Schwimwaggen

Cant see any clear advantage for either side here, but remeber it is Sorens contention that the Schwimwagen (and a whole lot of other bits and pieces) were superior to anything that the other participant possessed. Everyone who has see that statement, and knows differently, have pointed out that the supposition is opinion based only. The intent of this analysis is to present the facts, as far as possible to disprove the supposition that german equipment was superior in every category (Sorens position)


This post is analysing the Schwimwaggen (sorry if I mispelled it), with the Willys SEEP (literally Sea Jeep). To be honest, I cant see any appreciable difference between the two vehicles in terms of capability


German Type
Over-all length (with propulsion unit in
land-travel position)	140 in.
Over-all width	58 in.
Over-all height (with top up)	62 in.
Tread width, center line to center line	48 in
Wheel base	78 in.
Ground clearance (unloaded)	11.5 in.
Approx. depth of immersion when floating	30 in.
Freeboard (loaded)	13 in.
Payload	958 lb.
Weight empty	2,002 lb.
Engine capacity	1,131 cc.
HP	25
Max Overland Speed	50
Max water speed	6.1
No Produced	4625

American Type

Over-all length (with propulsion unit in
land-travel position)	182
Over-all width	64
Over-all height (with top up)	67
Tread width, center line to center line	52
Wheel base	84
Ground clearance (unloaded)	12.2 (approx)
Approx. depth of immersion when floating	??
Freeboard (loaded)	16 in
Payload	795 lb
Weight empty	3665 lb
Engine capacity	2195 cc
HP	54
Max Overland Speed	50
Max water speed	5.5
No Produced	12600

Judge for yourselves, but to me, there is lilttel or no difference in capability....and there are so many more of the American type.....


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 2, 2008)

BombTaxi said:


> To Soren and Tempest - _does it matter who had the "most advanced" kit?_. Technological prowess didn't allow the Germans to win, after all. The Allies won and the Axis lost, end of story. German technology was not sufficient to stand up to Allied (especially Russian) production. The relative _quality_ of military equipment is a relatively minor factor in victory and defeat, even today. Me262s might have been very high tech, but stupid production priorities meant that there weren't enough of them in the right roles and places to make a difference. By comparison, Yaks were primitive... _but there were thousands of them_. The result was inevitable, really




All I want to say is that: 3rd Reich was beaten by *both quantity and quality.* Overall, 3rd Reich had no tech advantage in WWII compared with allied.


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2008)

Parsifal said:


> Cant see any clear advantage for either side here, but remeber it is Sorens contention that the Schwimwagen (and a whole lot of other bits and pieces) were superior to anything that the other participant possessed.



Complete and utter bollocks, I never said anything which would even imply such a notion. It was YOU who brought forth a list which YOU claimed featured material the Germans did not possess, I thuroughly debunked that by presenting you with German technology within nearly all of those fields.

And as for the SchwimmWagen, well as far as I can see it was pretty much unmatched.

Now as to what I've been saying from the start, the Germans held the edge in terms of technology and science, that is just fact. But I never said that everything the Germans made was unrivalled or superior to anything the Allies made, which is what you claim Parsifal. That is something you need to get straight.



TempestMKV said:


> All I want to say is that: 3rd Reich was beaten by *both quantity and quality.* Overall, 3rd Reich had no tech advantage in WWII compared with allied.



That however is completely untrue.


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Where, I have not seen anything but opinion from either of you.
> 
> Like I said, this thread is common recipe for a downward spiral.



Ok, here you go:

Thomas L. Jentz
Lorrin R. Bird
Peter R. Senich
Robert D. Livingston
Dietmar Hermann
Robert Bruce
Ian V. Hogg
Joachim Engelmann
Herbert Jager


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2008)

Soren

I quote the relevant part of your Post 34

_It is quite clear that Germany held a technological edge throughout the war, emphasizing quality over quantity at every corner._

Your next post, directed at me gave a long list of equipment pieces. Am I now to believe that the two consecutive posts are not related to each other in any way, and that you will say one thing in one post, and then change your position (without giving any notice to that effect) in the very next post?????????


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> _And as for the SchwimmWagen, well as far as I can see it was pretty much unmatched_.
> 
> 
> An opinion, yet again, based on nothing except your opinion. Look at the performance comparison I have posted and you will see virtually no difference in the performance of the two vehicles.
> ...


----------



## m kenny (Dec 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> , I thuroughly debunked that by presenting you with German technology within nearly all of those fields.



Well you did write this:



Soren said:


> Germany was also the leader in radar infrared techonology, producing the best infrared imaging and being the first to deploy infrared equipment on smallarms AFV's a good number of vehicles (Inclduing the Pzkpfw.V Panther) being equipped with this in late 44 on the western front and enjoying amazing success.



I want you to 'debunk' me (as I say your claim is total fabrication) by giving me 

a) Sources showing that German IR sights were in production and use before the US issued their version in the Pacific.

b) Examples where _"a good number of vehicles (Inclduing the Pzkpfw.V Panther) being equipped with this in late 44 on the western front and enjoying amazing success."_
Again I say these claims are fiction and that you made it up.
If of course you have nothing other than your imagination to back it up please feel free to ignore this challenge to your credibility (for 4th time)


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Soren
> 
> I quote the relevant part of your Post 34
> 
> ...



Oh you're so good at making stuff up about me and my posts Parsifal, it's hilarious.

That the Germans emphasized quality over quantity at every corner doesn't translate into that all they made was better Parsifal, don't be ignorant.

And as for the list I provided, it was filled with superior equipment, yes, but as you should know it is far from everything the Germans fielded, and not everything they fielded was a success (Although you'd like everyone to think that I am of that opinion)

So stop fabricating stuff about me and what I think, thank you.


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2008)

m kenny said:


> Well you did write this:
> I want you to 'debunk' me (as I say your claim is total fabrication) by giving me
> 
> a) Sources showing that German IR sights were in production and use before the US issued their version in the Pacific.



Sure, the US Infrared sights were first in use during the Battle of Okinawa in may 1945, and the infrared imaging these devices provided was no where near as good as that provided by German infrared equipment. The Germans had been experimenting with IR equipment since 1936 and infrared equipment was fielded starting in 1943 on vehicles early 44 on smallarms (Read 'German Assault Rifle by Peter R. Senich)



> Again I say these claims are fiction and that you made it up.



Except I didn't make up squat, and I never have. You on the other hand I am not so sure about. 



> If of course you have nothing other than your imagination to back it up please feel free to ignore this challenge to your credibility (for 4th time)



Challenge was accepted and accomplished. 

Now crawl back into that hole you came from plz. (Yes I can be rude as-well)


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2008)

Btw, I was recently searching for German radio equipment on the net and I stumbled upon this: 
GERMAN, WWII, WW2, Lichtsprechgerät 80/80



Pretty darn advanced for its time.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Sure, the US Infrared sights were first in use during the Battle of Okinawa in may 1945, and the infrared imaging these devices provided was no where near as good as that provided by German infrared equipment. The Germans had been experimenting with IR equipment since 1936 and infrared equipment was fielded starting in 1943 on vehicles early 44 on smallarms (Read 'German Assault Rifle by Peter R. Senich)



Falls way short of what you were asked. Perhaps it was not made plain to you. Can you give me details (presumably in the book you mention) of where the German small-arms IR set-up was issued to the troops and dates for same.

Whilst at it could you also provide the details where we can confirm your (made up) claim that _"a good number of vehicles (Inclduing the Pzkpfw.V Panther) being equipped with this in late 44 on the western front and enjoying amazing success."_
Where did this happen because there is not the slightest mention of such an event anywhere ( an old outdated Achtung Panzer site claim is not a source:
Achtung Panzer! - German Infrared Night-Vision Devices!)




> Yes I can be rude



It would be better if you were factual instead.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ok, here you go:
> 
> Thomas L. Jentz
> Lorrin R. Bird
> ...



No everything you have presented is just opinion. Nothing else...

Do you know the difference between opinion and fact? Do not take me wrong, I do not think anyone here has presented anything but opinion.

Its a downward spiral for everyone. It is rather entertaining however, watching people pack for vacation. I predict this thread has 5 more posts left in it.


----------



## Juha (Dec 3, 2008)

Hello Adler
IMHO Parsifal presented facts when he typed specs for SEEP and Schwimmwagen plus he had added a table of LVTs and LWS specs in one of his messages.
My humble contribution was the info that LVT4 had rear loading ramp and that it has armament. Plus German complains on their lorries/trucks vs LL Studebaker 2½ ton 6x6 trucks. Of course I could have added that most Opel Blitz were 4x2 type and that Studebaker's had appr 50% more powerful engine than Blitz.
And because I think we all know when WWII ended in Europe I didn't mention that it was in Jan 43 when CL USS Helena made first shoot downs with VT fused AA shells.

Juha


----------



## timshatz (Dec 3, 2008)

Just drop in for a second on this back and forth, I think Soren may have a point with the IR sights on Panzers in 1944. I recall reading that US Armor in the Battle of the Bulge ran into some Panthers (if memory serves me) that were IR equipped and the Panthers chewed them up. 

Not sure if it was an passive sight with an IR Searchlight on the tank or just a passive sight, but I am almost positive the Wermacht used IR on their tanks in the West in the Late 1944 offensive. 

Another trick they used was firing flares behind the US Tanks and opening up when they were silhouetted. Again, the Panzers chewed the US Tanks up, big time. Think it happened Southwest of Bastone.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 3, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Just drop in for a second on this back and forth, I think Soren may have a point with the IR sights on Panzers in 1944. I recall reading that US Armor in the Battle of the Bulge ran into some Panthers (if memory serves me) that were IR equipped and the Panthers chewed them up.



As Soren will find out (if he bothers to check) there were no IR equiped Panthers operating ANYWHERE in the West for 1944. There were Panthers that had the *attachments* for the IR equipment but that is not the same thing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello Adler
> IMHO Parsifal presented facts when he typed specs for SEEP and Schwimmwagen plus he had added a table of LVTs and LWS specs in one of his messages.
> My humble contribution was the info that LVT4 had rear loading ramp and that it has armament. Plus German complains on their lorries/trucks vs LL Studebaker 2½ ton 6x6 trucks. Of course I could have added that most Opel Blitz were 4x2 type and that Studebaker's had appr 50% more powerful engine than Blitz.
> And because I think we all know when WWII ended in Europe I didn't mention that it was in Jan 43 when CL USS Helena made first shoot downs with VT fused AA shells.
> ...



You are correct, and I should not have lumped everone in the same boat...


----------



## Hop (Dec 3, 2008)

I honestly don't seem how anyone can claim a German lead in electronics with a straight face.

As Goering said:


> In the field of radar they must have the world's greatest genius. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops ... The British would have never dared use the metal foil here if they had not worked out 100% what the antidote it. I hate the rogues like the plague, but in one respect I'm obliged to take off my cap to them. After the war's over, I'm going to buy myself a British radio set, as a token of my regard for their high-frequency work



I believe it was prompted by the German capture of a H2S radar, which was so beyond German radar scientists it took them months to work out what it was.

As regards infrared, the British had a hand held amplifier the size of a water bottle in use in late 1942. See Appeals for Help 
for an example.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Oh you're so good at making stuff up about me and my posts Parsifal, it's hilarious.
> 
> That the Germans emphasized quality over quantity at every corner doesn't translate into that all they made was better Parsifal, don't be ignorant.
> 
> ...



Soren

I am not fabricating the words that you used....your exact words from post number 34 are there, and very clearly said that at every corner the Germans fielded superior equipment, not that they opted for the technological edge. Your exact words are there for everyone to see......

The photographic list I assumed was a list of some of the equipment items that you consider to be superior, judging from the above post.....where you say.... "as for the list I provided, it was filled with superior equipment"...

Have you looked at the performance specs I posted so far. They show that the LWS was inferior to its allied counterparts, whilst the Type 166 Schwimmwaggen was about the same as the Allied equivalent. Yet subsequent to that information being made available you have stated words to the effect that the Type 166 was unique (I assume you mean in a positive way by that statement), and later, as indicated above, that your list was a list of superior items for my consideration. 

I am waiting for you to provide evidence to the contrary on the two items I have analyzed so far, namely the Type 166 and the LWS amphibian. You should not rely by opinion, but by evidence, preferably by a comparison of the design specs that you may have, or to analyse what I have posted. Or you might want to analyse their operational histories. That would be okay, but hard to verify. But i think the time for you to stomp your feet, abuse people and simply say that it is superior without any supporting information is counterproductive at this point.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

m kenny said:


> As Soren will find out (if he bothers to check) there were no IR equiped Panthers operating ANYWHERE in the West for 1944. There were Panthers that had the *attachments* for the IR equipment but that is not the same thing.



Bollocks. You can't prove that ridiculous claim of yours at all. 

I trust the experts on this subject, one of which you are not. 

I have provided the facts, you have but provided opinions claims, claiming the US used IR equipment before the Germans, which has been proven they did not. 

Anymore claims you'd like to come up with ?


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No everything you have presented is just opinion. Nothing else...
> 
> Do you know the difference between opinion and fact? Do not take me wrong, I do not think anyone here has presented anything but opinion.



So all the authors which I have quoted are opinion based in your opinion ??? 

I'm sorry but that's far fetched Adler. 

You know I can provide the names of all the books by the authors I listed which I used as reference.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Just drop in for a second on this back and forth, I think Soren may have a point with the IR sights on Panzers in 1944. I recall reading that US Armor in the Battle of the Bulge ran into some Panthers (if memory serves me) that were IR equipped and the Panthers chewed them up.
> 
> Not sure if it was an passive sight with an IR Searchlight on the tank or just a passive sight, but I am almost positive the Wermacht used IR on their tanks in the West in the Late 1944 offensive.
> 
> Another trick they used was firing flares behind the US Tanks and opening up when they were silhouetted. Again, the Panzers chewed the US Tanks up, big time. Think it happened Southwest of Bastone.



Roger that Timshatz.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello Adler
> IMHO Parsifal presented facts when he typed specs for SEEP and Schwimmwagen plus he had added a table of LVTs and LWS specs in one of his messages.



So providing unsourced specs is providing facts ?? Hmm... Allow me to best that by providing spec figures for all the equipment I listed then in my next post.


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2008)

Re Sorens List of items. Whilst I would argue that some of the items on it don't deserve to be there, there can be little doubt that in a number of areas the Germans were ahead of the rest of the world.

Aerodynamics leading to the Me262, He162, Arado 234 is one obvious area.
In some cases aircraft design not forgetting the Fw190 which was a quantum leap in performance when it was introduced into service.

Tank Design, the Pz III, PzIV, Tigers and Panthers were all ahead of the rest of the field in their day and were the tanks everyone measured their own tanks against.

In Submarines no one would doubt that the Type XXI and Type XXIII were a generation ahead.

In small arms the Germans had some advanced ideas.


There are other examples in the list but equally there is no doubt that the vast majority of the examples, it was a case of too little too late.

That doesn't detract from the design teams. The one area where Germany fell behind was the war of Logistics. I mentioned on an earlier thread flipantly that they relied on the horse which sums up their weakness.

Can anyone imagine what would have happened if the German designs had been matched with the economic power of the USA?

As I said at the start I would question some of the items on Sorens list but that isn't the point, generally speaking in a number of key areas, the Germans were ahead.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

You make good points Glider. But that some of their material was horsedrawn to the battlefield wasn't really the problem. The main logistical problem which plagued the German army was the magnitude of different caliber guns smallarms, engines, yes even the clothing it fielded, making it a nightmare to organize the logistics properly. The Allies opted instead to more or less standardize their fielded equipment, making it far easier to organize the logistics.

So logistics was one area where the Germans could improve, most certainly yes.

Also like others have already pointed out, the German obsession with engineering perfection and state of the art technology had its' obvious downsides = Greatly reduced production rate. And it cost the Germans in the end.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 4, 2008)

Glider said:


> Tank Design, the Pz III, PzIV, Tigers and Panthers were all ahead of the rest of the field in their day and were the tanks everyone measured their own tanks against.



The invasion of Russia was a wake-up call to Germany. The T-34 and KV series totally outclassed every German tank in service. They also found that their standard A/T weapon (37mm) was obsolete. Overnight they found that they were not the top tank designers and a crash program was institiuted to reverse this disadvantage. The Panther and Tiger helped but the Soviets played their usual game and brought in the IS series. This was roughly comparably to a Tiger but at a much lower cost. Everyone waffles on about 1946 German Uber-Panzers that MIGHT have got into service but completely overlook the IS-3 (which was in production and not an airy fairey soon to be finished prototype).
Of all the WW2 combatants nobody got more bang for their buck than the Russians. Not for them over-engineered tanks with a predicted track life of 5 years (useful when your tank has a combat life of 6 months) but simple cheap and deadly designs that could swamp the 6 or seven Tiger II's spread over a 100 mile front!



> In Submarines no one would doubt that the Type XXI and Type XXIII were a generation ahead.



Well we can becuase they never actualy proved themselves. They were supposed to be in service from early 1944 but they were full of faults that stopped their safe use. Devotees ovelook this awkward fact.



> The one area where Germany fell behind was the war of Logistics. I mentioned on an earlier thread flipantly that they relied on the horse which sums up their weakness.



They had other bigger shortcomings. Their intellegence service was comprehensively penetrated and their most secret code was being read right from the beggining. I can't understand how a nation that STARTS a war against the 3 biggest powers on the planet expected to win the war. It was the most idiotic course of action and nothing but suicide. You can't praise their small scale success whilst ignoring these stupid strategic decisions.


----------



## Juha (Dec 4, 2008)

Hello
Usually technological development is rather complicated, ideas pop up in different countries. With reasonable education system and some industrial base countries could design and develop world class products if they put resources on that sector. Nothing new or surprising in this. 
If we look Type XXI and XXIII submarines they were not in fact so revolutionary as some thinks.
In fact the idea of submarines optimized for underwater operations was not new. First to see combat were British R-Class hunter-killer submarines near very end of WWI, they had under water speed of 14knts, single screw, sensitive hydrophones in the bulbous bow as well as 6 bow torpedo tubes. So in theory very modern concept but too much ahead its time and difficult to control while submerged because of their high speed. Next which I can recall was in late 30s IJN Vessel Number 71 (submerged speed 21 knts) and very late in the WWII Japanese also built I-200 Class submarines which had underwaterspeed of 19knts.

Soren 
I have good info on LVTs and SEEP and at least reasonable on LWS and Swimmwagen so because the specs Parsifal gave sounded familiar I had no reason to ask sources.

Juha


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 4, 2008)

> I can't understand how a nation that STARTS a war against the 3 biggest powers on the planet expected to win the war. It was the most idiotic course of action and nothing but suicide. You can't praise their shortcomings whilst ignoring these stupid strategic decisions.


Gotta agree with u Kenny 100%....


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

That's a lot of untrue claims in one post M_kenny.

The Type XXI didn't suffer any serious faults, the thing that delayed their entrance into full service was the obligatory crew training period which could take several months.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bollocks. You can't prove that ridiculous claim of yours at all.
> 
> I trust the experts on this subject, one of which you are not.



It is sad when someone knows they are wrong but stupidly carries on in the hope they can bluff their way out of the corner they painted themselves into.
I repeat no Panthers with any form of IR set-up served in the Bulge. Not only that none of these Panthers served anywhere in the West.
You say _'prove they didn't'_ The easy option would be for you to give the names of '_the experts on this subject_' who say they did.
List them for me and the book/page numbers.
Is that a problem?




> I have provided the facts, you have but provided opinions claims, claiming the US used IR equipment before the Germans, which has been proven they did not.



There you go again. What facts did you provide about German small arms IR? -Oh yes you said Germany was 'devolping' it. I was asking about combat issue and usuage and strangely you have failed to provide a single source.
Why is that?


> Anymore claims you'd like to come up with ?



This. You will not find a single credible source for your claims about IR Panther in 1944.



Soren said:


> You know I can provide the names of all the books by the authors I listed which I used as reference.



Then why do you not do it in the case of IR Panthers?

Where does Jentz mention it?
Where does Speilberger state it?
Trojca have any info?

Unit, date, results and documented references please.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello
> Usually technological development is rather complicated, ideas pop up in different countries. With reasonable education system and some industrial base countries could design and develop world class products if they put resources on that sector. Nothing new or surprising in this.
> If we look Type XXI and XXIII submarines they were not in fact so revolutionary as some thinks.
> In fact the idea of submarines optimized for underwater operations was not new. First to see combat were British R-Class hunter-killer submarines near very end of WWI, they had under water speed of 14knts, single screw, sensitive hydrophones in the bulbous bow as well as 6 bow torpedo tubes. So in theory very modern concept but too much ahead its time and difficult to control while submerged because of their high speed. Next which I can recall was in late 30s IJN Vessel Number 71 (submerged speed 21 knts) and very late in the WWII Japanese also built I-200 Class submarines which had underwaterspeed of 19knts.
> ...



Juha it wasn't the Type XXI's underwater speed which made it revolutionary, it was all the new technology packed into it, including the hull design and at the time highly advanced creep engine. The hydraulic reloading system, new sonar, accoustic listening devices, highly advanced weapons (The torps were the most advanced best in the world) And because of its' carefully designed shape the Type XXI was virtually undetectable by any Allied sonar radar equipment of the war. The battery lifetime was also taken to a whole new level, and the air cleaning filter system was state of the art.

Nothing came close to the Type XXI sub, it was by far the best most revolutionary submarine of the war. And luckily for the Allies it didn't get into service in early 44, something which could've spelled disaster for the Allies.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Type XXI didn't suffer any serious faults, the thing that delayed their entrance into full service was the obligatory crew training period which could take several months.



You live in a dream world. There are a number of books on the subject that list theses serious faults. Hitler was told they would be in service in early 1944 when in fact they never appeared untill a 15 months later. 
Why so? 
15 months (min) is normal for 'crew training'?

You are confusing potential with practicality-a trap most of the '1946 Uber-Weapon' believers fall into. They believe a weapon system falls fully proven and succesful straight from the drawing board and into action with 2 weeks of the blueprints being passed. Reality never dents the enthusiam of the true believer.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> Juha it wasn't the Type XXI's underwater speed which made it revolutionary, it was all the new technology packed into it, including the hull design and at the time highly advanced creep engine. The hydraulic reloading system, new sonar, accoustic listening devices, highly advanced weapons (The torps were the most advanced best in the world) And because of its' carefully designed shape the Type XXI was virtually undetectable by any Allied sonar radar equipment of the war. The battery lifetime was also taken to a whole new level, and the air cleaning filter system was state of the art.
> 
> Nothing came close to the Type XXI sub, it was by far the best most revolutionary submarine of the war. And luckily for the Allies it didn't get into service in early 44, something which could've spelled disaster for the Allies.


Nuclear Depth Charges would soon settle that


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

m kenny said:


> It is sad when someone knows they are wrong but stupidly carries on in the hope they can bluff their way out of the corner they painted themselves into.



Ah but that can only be refering to yourself, cause I have brought forth only facts supported by well respected sources, facts you have been unable to disprove. You have on the other hand just spewed out a lot of untrue claims, including that the US fielded IR equipment before the Germans, that however has been thuroughly disproven not alone because you ofcourse have failed to bring forth any reliable sources to support your ridiculous claims. 

So in a foreseen desperate attempt to try an guide the discussion away from the above facts you want me to bring forth sources cause YOU cannot present any yourself.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2008)

Guys

If you want to keep this discussion thread open, then I suggest you all take a step back and cool it just a little

There is no need to get abusive with each other just because that person has a different point of view

For the record, my main referrences for this thread so far have included the following:


The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II: The Comprehensive Guide to Over 1,500 Weapons Systems, Including Tanks, Small Arms, Warplanes, Artillery, Ships and Submarines, By Chris Bishop, Published by Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 2002

An article on the German Schwimmwagen from the December 1944 issue of the Intelligence Bulletin...which is available online at Lone Sentry: German Light Amphibious Car (U.S. WWII Intelligence Bulletin, December 1944), WW2 Volkswagen

I also relied on several other books from my library, notably "German War Economy - The Motorization Myth" The USSBS Vols 77 78

I also have a few bits and pieces that deal with specific items here and there, but honestly cant be bothered to post them at this point


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

m kenny said:


> You live in a dream world. There are a number of books on the subject that list theses serious faults. Hitler was told they would be in service in early 1944 when in fact they never appeared untill a 15 months later.
> Why so?
> 15 months (min) is normal for 'crew training'?
> 
> You are confusing potential with practicality-a trap most of the '1946 Uber-Weapon' believers fall into. They believe a weapon system falls fully proven and succesful straight from the drawing board and into action with 2 weeks of the blueprints being passed. Reality never dents the enthusiam of the true believer.



You're good at describing yourself, I'll give you that.

And as for the books on the subject, well you obviously haven't read any of them cause then you'd know how big an impact the Allied bombing had on the project and that the subs actually could have been made ready in early to mid 44 if it hadn't been for the mentioned bombing. Allied bombing forced the production to be split up into inland companies with little experience in shipbuilding, and thus a whole array of fixes had to be made by the the experienced personnel at the Shipyards, which is where the assembled sections arrived for final assembly.

So do us all a favor and leave your imagination at home next time Mkenny. 

But anyway congratulations, you have earned your way to my ignore list.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Nuclear Depth Charges would soon settle that


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2008)

m kenny said:


> The invasion of Russia was a wake-up call to Germany. The T-34 and KV series totally outclassed every German tank in service. They also found that their standard A/T weapon (37mm) was obsolete. Overnight they found that they were not the top tank designers and a crash program was institiuted to reverse this disadvantage. The Panther and Tiger helped but the Soviets played their usual game and brought in the IS series. This was roughly comparably to a Tiger but at a much lower cost. Everyone waffles on about 1946 German Uber-Panzers that MIGHT have got into service but completely overlook the IS-3 (which was in production and not an airy fairey soon to be finished prototype).
> Of all the WW2 combatants nobody got more bang for their buck than the Russians. Not for them over-engineered tanks with a predicted track life of 5 years (useful when your tank has a combat life of 6 months) but simple cheap and deadly designs that could swamp the 6 or seven Tiger II's spread over a 100 mile front!


I don't disagree with you when you say that the T34 and KV1 were a wake up call for Germany its a point I have made myself, but the PzIII 50mm L60 was a good match for the T34 but the problem was that only a handful were built in 1941. The problem was that Germany lacked the production facilities to equip the 1,650ish 50mm L42 tanks built in 1941 with the L60 gun. 
The KV1 was a tougher nut to crack but the long 75 could breach it. Again there was no reason why the PzIV's of 1941 could not have been built with the L43 instead of the L24. In both these cases it was too late.


> Re Type XXI and Type XXIII, Well we can becuase they never actualy proved themselves. They were supposed to be in service from early 1944 but they were full of faults that stopped their safe use. Devotees ovelook this awkward fact.


There were some build quality issues with the first one but training was the biggest drawback. To say they were not advanced because they didn't prove themselves is a bit shortsighted. The facts speak for themselves. It wasn't just the speed and depth it was the technology they were equipped with, that made the difference. They were a complete package. Japan had vessels that could match the speed and the USA in a number of areas matched the technology, but Germany put the two together.





> They had other bigger shortcomings. Their intellegence service was comprehensively penetrated and their most secret code was being read right from the beggining. I can't understand how a nation that STARTS a war against the 3 biggest powers on the planet expected to win the war. It was the most idiotic course of action and nothing but suicide. You can't praise their small scale success whilst ignoring these stupid strategic decisions.



Have to agree with this. German Intellegence was basically dreadfull with a couple of exceptions.


----------



## Juha (Dec 4, 2008)

Hello Soren

I didn’t say that XXI wasn’t important. Was it “was by far the best most revolutionary submarine of the war.”? Answer is in USN evaluation reports on XXI and I-200 Class, I haven’t seen them.

Underwater speed was important, because speeds over 16knts meant that enemy needed new type escort vessels and sonars.

I agree with highly advanced creep engine. Highly advanced weapons, yes, but how effective they would have been. Germans had had too high expectations on their earlier new torpedoes, effects of acoustic torpedoes and FAT had been much less than Germans had expected. And as I wrote even R-Class had advances hydrophone system which allowed tracking of U-boats while totally submerged.

And on hull shape, the single screw stemlined spindle-shaped hull of circular section with bulbous bow of R-Class is the modern hull type not that of that of XXI

Juha


----------



## timshatz (Dec 4, 2008)

m kenny said:


> As Soren will find out (if he bothers to check) there were no IR equiped Panthers operating ANYWHERE in the West for 1944. There were Panthers that had the *attachments* for the IR equipment but that is not the same thing.



Guess we need a definition on this one Kenny. Clarification. What is the difference between IR equipment and IR attachments? Need to know before I go looking for the book that I read it in.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> 
> I didn’t say that XXI wasn’t important. Was it “was by far the best most revolutionary submarine of the war.”? Answer is in USN evaluation reports on XXI and I-200 Class, I haven’t seen them.



Well we know what the tests concluded Juha, that the Type XXI was far ahead of its time.



> Underwater speed was important, because speeds over 16knts meant that enemy needed new type escort vessels and sonars.



No'one said it wasn't important Juha, it most cerainly was, but it wasn't its' speed which made the Type XXI revolutionary.



> I agree with highly advanced creep engine. Highly advanced weapons, yes, but how effective they would have been. Germans had had too high expectations on their earlier new torpedoes, effects of acoustic torpedoes and FAT had been much less than Germans had expected.



Well most designs in history have their most troublesome time at the beginning of their entrance into service. By late 1944 the German accoustic torps had been perfected to the degree that they couldn't be "jammed" so to speak as they went for a large variety of sounds.



> And as I wrote even R-Class had advances hydrophone system which allowed tracking of U-boats while totally submerged.



There's no comparison Juha, the hydrophones on the Type XXI were state of the art.



> And on hull shape, the single screw stemlined spindle-shaped hull of circular section with bulbous bow of R-Class is the modern hull type not that of that of XXI
> Juha



I don't see that Juha but despite this it doesn't detract from the fact that the Type XXI was undetectable for any Allied sonar radar equipment used during he war. And this would undoubtedly have proven a decisive advantage.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 4, 2008)

This is not a subject that can be described as 'opinion'.
Soren said:
_"a good number of vehicles (Inclduing the Pzkpfw.V Panther) being equipped with this in late 44 on the western front and enjoying amazing success."_

This is simply untrue. IR equiped Panther never served anywhere in the West. 
Here we have someone who is completely rewriting history to suit his fan-boy mentality.
For the life of me I do not know why he believes this lie and all attempts to get him to source his claim are ignored.

I did a quick check on the books I had to hand and there is not a single scrap of evidence for any IR Panther usuage in any of them.
Try:









































































31 titles in total.
I just stuck to dedicated Panther books as I do not think encylopedic volumes covering every tank would have the same depth of information. The above constitutes the bulk of published work over the last decade or so. Kindly give me the page numbers where I can read verifiable facts about 1944 Western Front use of IR Panthers.
I take the subject very seriously and feel very strongly about those who distort the facts to suit a prejudice, I also would not like casual viewers to be led astray by these IR Pipe dreams-this is an histirical borad after all.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 4, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Guess we need a definition on this one Kenny. Clarification. What is the difference between IR equipment and IR attachments? Need to know before I go looking for the book that I read it in.




Metal brackets to hold the IR Equipment. Not the IR sights/lights themselves


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2008)

I hate doing this, but one area that the germans did excel, was in Tank design. Nobody could approach them when it came to innovation in that field. However, for a nation so industrially challengedd as Nazi Germany, it made no sense to design and produce the most expensive and complicated tanks in the world. Just to give it some perpective, it cost roughly six times the cost to produce a Tiger Tank as it did a Sherman. A Panther was roughly four times the unit cost of the Sherman. The Panther forces are estimated to have ddestroyed about 3.5 enemy tanks for eeach tank lost, whilst the Tigers accounted for about 5.5 tanks for each tank lost. In anyones book the results are impressive (particulalry since many of the Tiger losses were due to breakdowns and fuel shortages) .

As far as IR equipped Panthers are concerned, I did find this link. On the basis of the Link alone (which I dont know is true or not, but the lack of evidence by either of you guys for such entrenched and acrimonious positions is breathtaking) 

I found that there is evidence of IR equipped tanks, but equally these articles also say that there was a conspicous lack of success with the equipment. It appears to very much be the case that the fitments were highly experimental, and incomplete in terms of their development. Cant prove that, but that appears to be the case.

Anyway, aftger you guys stop venting, perhaps you would like to read the attached article

Achtung Panzer! - German Infrared Night-Vision Devices!

Nightfighting Panthers

Nightfighting Panthers


----------



## m kenny (Dec 4, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I hate doing this, but one area that the germans did excel, was in Tank design. Nobody could approach them when it came to innovation in that field.



Quite simply not true. French tanks in particular were ahead of the German designs. Grermany still won but not because their tanks were superior. Once they got into Russia they found out exactly how out of date their designs were. They instituted a crash programe to re-arm and produced the Panther. This held the lead until the IS series came out. Once that happened it was all even again with Russia.


> The Panther forces are estimated to have ddestroyed about 3.5 enemy tanks for each tank lost, whilst the Tigers accounted for about 5.5 tanks for each tank lost.



Not true. If anyone has data that leads them to believe this claim then it is up to them to produce it. There simply were not enough Allied tanks produced to give a 3:1 or 5:1 ratio. It is an old chestnut but it has no connection to reality.




> As far as IR equipped Panthers are concerned, I did find this link.



The Achtung Panzer article is full of errors and supposition. It even ends by mentioning none of its 'facts' are confirmed. There was no Platoon of Comet tanks destroyed by IR Panthers. The second link is a retelling of the Achtung Panzer story so is of no value.
The third link plainly states that none of the IR Panthers saw action in the Bulge. 



> On the basis of the Link alone (which I dont know is true or not, but the lack of evidence by either of you guys for such entrenched and acrimonious positions is breathtaking)



Perhaps you could tell me how I can produce 'evidence' that no IR Panthers served in the West in 1944? Would it not be much much easier for those saying they did to name the Units, dates and results of any such usuage?



> I found that there is evidence of IR equipped tanks, but equally these articles also say that there was a conspicous lack of success with the equipment. It appears to very much be the case that the fitments were highly experimental, and incomplete in terms of their development. Cant prove that, but that appears to be the case.



It is not disputed that IR equipment was being developed by both sides. The problem is that this experimental work is mentioned as if it was on a large scale and widely used in the German Army. It was not for one simple reason. The Germans knew the Allies had their own IR kit. The first time it was used the Allies would have issued their own IR detectors that they had stockpiled for just such an eventuality. Then any of these Uber-Panzers that dared switch on the war-winning weapon (aren't they all?) would immediatley give its location away and be blasted into scrap metal. It would stand out by virtue of its own light! They did not use it because they knew that the Allies would use thier own IR equipment and beat them with it. They realised that they could not keep the advantage so CHOSE not to use it.


]


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2008)

Thanks for the reply. I wont take the issue further, simply because I dont consider myself an expert on Tanks. Lets see what Soren has to say. Hopefully it will be more insightful than the previous posts


----------



## timshatz (Dec 4, 2008)

m kenny said:


> Metal brackets to hold the IR Equipment. Not the IR sights/lights themselves



Ok, so we're going with an add as opposed to it being an integral part of the sighting equipment. Got it. 

Gonna take a while (have to find the book) and I honestly don't remember if it was one or the other. But I'll look around.

Get back to you in 2 years...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2008)

Glider said:


> Re Sorens List of items. Whilst I would argue that some of the items on it don't deserve to be there, there can be little doubt that in a number of areas the Germans were ahead of the rest of the world.
> 
> Aerodynamics leading to the Me262, He162, Arado 234 is one obvious area.
> In some cases aircraft design not forgetting the Fw190 which was a quantum leap in performance when it was introduced into service.
> ...



Very good points. The Germans certainly were ahead in some areas, but to say that the Germans were ahead of the allies in every catagory (as some people like to think, you know the whole uber complexity) is ignorant and completely false.



Soren said:


> Ah but that can only be refering to yourself, cause I have brought forth only facts supported by well respected sources, facts you have been unable to disprove.



Then do as he asked!

Fricken list them, author, title, page number...

As others have said, it is not that hard for someone who has all the facts.



parsifal said:


> Guys
> 
> If you want to keep this discussion thread open, then I suggest you all take a step back and cool it just a little
> 
> There is no need to get abusive with each other just because that person has a different point of view



*Everyone should listen to this man!*


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2008)

Kenny

Ive given this some further thought, and have some suggestions as to how you need to organize your rebuttal



_Not true. If anyone has data that leads them to believe this claim then it is up to them to produce it. There simply were not enough Allied tanks produced to give a 3:1 or 5:1 ratio. It is an old chestnut but it has no connection to reality._


Well, even though you say the sources provided are not credible, they are still sources. You need to find sources that either prove the sites that mention these ratios are not credible, or provide evidence that of itself disproves the claim, for example, the numbers of Allied tanks lost to the numbers of German tanks lost, or something similar 

_The Achtung Panzer article is full of errors and supposition. It even ends by mentioning none of its 'facts' are confirmed. There was no Platoon of Comet tanks destroyed by IR Panthers. The second link is a retelling of the Achtung Panzer story so is of no value.
The third link plainly states that none of the IR Panthers saw action in the Bulge. _ 

It might have errors, I agree, but its a source. If you want to expose the innaccuracy of the Achtung Panzer site, you need to provide better source material that shows that



_Perhaps you could tell me how I can produce 'evidence' that no IR Panthers served in the West in 1944? Would it not be much much easier for those saying they did to name the Units, dates and results of any such usuage_?

The site I have produced does say what you are looking for, but then you simply dismiss its credibility by saying it is not accurate. That is not a proper rebuttal at this stage, all that can be said is that it is an opinion. As I said above, you need to find a source that contradicts the claims being made in the German sourced material, and then demonstrate its superior credibility

Regards

Parsifal


----------



## m kenny (Dec 4, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Well, even though you say the sources provided are not credible, they are still sources. You need to find sources that either prove the sites that mention these ratios are not credible, or provide evidence that of itself disproves the claim, for example, the numbers of Allied tanks lost to the numbers of German tanks lost, or something similar



Forgive me but you just said there was a 3:1 or 5:1 ratio of losses. You gave a ratio without a single figure to back it up nor any source where you say this ratio is mentioned. Thus you have not provided anything for me to rebut. 
What numbers would you like?
The Normandy loss totals were some 3000 Allied v 2000 German. Is that good enough?




> It might have errors, I agree, but its a source. If you want to expose the innaccuracy of the Achtung Panzer site, you need to provide better source material that shows that



Perhaps one way would be to point out that claims a whole platoon of Comet tanks were destroyed by IR Panthers is fiction. As the Comet was quite new at the time all the losses are well documented. Only 26 were knocked out in the entire war. The option now is open for any believer in the IR Panthers to provide the confirmation for these Comet losses and destroy my credibility.
I urge you to heed the words of caution contained in this very same article: 

_"One combat report is by a veteran of 1st SS Panzer Regiment of 1st SS Panzer Division "LSSAH", who states that few Panthers equipped with infrared night-vision devices possibly from 116th Panzer Division were used in 1944/45 during the Ardennes Offensive. In April of 1945, Panthers equipped with IR equipment (solution B) joined Panzer Division Clausewitz and in mid April near Uelzen destroyed entire platoon of British Comet cruiser tanks. Also on April 21st of 1945, same Panthers overran an American anti-tank position on the Weser-Elbe Canal.*Most of those reports can't be confirmed and are questionable. *_

Remembering the above you can compare:
_"One combat report is by a veteran of 1st SS Panzer Regiment of 1st SS Panzer Division "LSSAH", who states that few Panthers equipped with infrared night-vision devices possibly from 116th Panzer Division were used in 1944/45 during the Ardennes Offensive._"

With this from another of the links you provided:

_"*Nightfighting Panthers in Action*

In summer 1944 the Panthers of 3.Kompanie, 24th Panzerregiment, 116th Panzerdivision, were equipped with UHU on the battle/excercise-area BERGEN, and actually trained the use of the night fighting concept SPERBER. Hitler planned the mission of this Kompanie to be during the Operation WACHT AM RHEIN (Battle of the Bulge) and actually some squads were transferred to the western front, *but never saw action there.*_" 





> The site I have produced does say what you are looking for, but then you simply dismiss its credibility by saying it is not accurate.



I simply tell you that this source (that admits it is 'questionable') is exactly that, questionable. I then use one of the other sources you provide to show that these claims are indeed questionable-or to put it bluntly wrong.



> That is not a proper rebuttal at this stage, all that can be said is that it is an opinion. As I said above, you need to find a source that contradicts the claims being made in the German sourced material, and then demonstrate its superior credibility



It is proper. I say that the story about a platoon of Comets being destroyed is false. I put my neck on the line by saying this. You can be sure there are people reading that who would love to discredit me. All they have to do is find confirmation of the Comet losses and I am busted.

I say no IR Panther served anywhere in the West in 1944. Again it must be fairly simple to find info on the Units and actions of these phantom IR Panthers and again I am busted. 
So far the proponent of this fiction has failed to find anything to confirm his claims and has simply stopped replying. I am sure that is not a coincidence.


----------



## Juha (Dec 5, 2008)

Hello Soren
Quote:"Well we know what the tests concluded Juha, that the Type XXI was far ahead of its time."

Well, I don't claim that you are wrong, but who are we all? I haven't see the test reports, from where you have read them? And Clay Blair, who had served in US submarines and had been insideat at least one XXI just after the war and had wrote books on US and German submarine wars wasn't very impressed on XXI. Not saying that Blair's opinion was right but at least he is a professional who had much studied the subject.

Quote:"There's no comparison Juha, the hydrophones on the Type XXI were state of the art."

Now from where you has read on R-Class hyprophones so that you can make the comprasion or in fact claim that there's no comparision? Now R's system was state of the art on its time, technology goes ahead, but that submarine has state of the art hydrophones isn't in itself revolutionary thing. XXI wasn't the first submarine equipped with state of the art hydrophones.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2008)

Well I don't know about being 'all' but I consider the Type XXI to be far ahead of its time. A number of post war submarines were based on the type XXI design and its principles including the first nuclear submarine Nautilus.
This link may help.
German Type XXI submarine Summary


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 5, 2008)

Glider said:


> Well I don't know about being 'all' but I consider the Type XXI to be far ahead of its time. A number of post war submarines were based on the type XXI design and its principles including the first nuclear submarine Nautilus.
> This link may help.
> German Type XXI submarine Summary




Well I don't know about being 'all' but I consider the antisubmarine weapon of allied to be far ahead of its time. A number of post war antisubmarine weapon were based on the WWII allied design and those principles including today's weapons.


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> Well I don't know about being 'all' but I consider the antisubmarine weapon of allied to be far ahead of its time. A number of post war antisubmarine weapon were based on the WWII allied design and those principles including today's weapons.



Totally agree with you. British RN anti Submarine weapons were well ahead of most nations with Limbo and Squid seeing service before the end of the war. That said, it doesn't stop the Type XXI being the best Submarine.


----------



## Juha (Dec 5, 2008)

Hello Glider
Well the text to which You gave the link begin "Type XXI U-boats, also known as "Elektroboote", were the first submarines designed to operate entirely submerged, rather than as surface ships that could submerge as a temporary means to escape detection or launch an attack. "

Now R-Class from 1918 was already designed to operate mostly underwater and was optimized for underwater speed and because of that it wasn't very good surface boat. Of course it lacked the later Dutch innovatio, the schnorkel, but the idea was same. But the main reason I’m not so sure on how revolutionary XXI was is that I know very little on I-200 Class. I shall find more on that when I’ll have time, maybe after retirement. 

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2008)

The Type XXI was more than just a design for high underwater speeds. It had the latest technology was capable of firing blind at targets based on its sensors. Active and passive radars that could be raised alowing the submarine to stay underwater.
Its torpedo's could be reloaded automatically alowing it to fire all its torpedos in 20 mins (I think).
The Japanese had submarines that had similar performance to the Type XXI and the USA had technology that could match the Type XXI in some areas but the Germans put the two together in one package.

The R Class were designed for a similar role but if I recall were difficult to control. Had they worked then I would have expected the design to continue into WW2. It didn't which tends to support the idea that it was an idea ahead of its time.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

I don't think most scientifically literate people (of whom I am - barely - one) would argue that germany was not tremendously advanced in both pure science and technology during the period.

However, when it comes to war, and especially industrial war, I would like to point out that economic, efficient and swift production is ALSO a technology...and, perhaps, THE technology to have in an industrial war.


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 5, 2008)

Glider said:


> The Type XXI was more than just a design for high underwater speeds. It had the latest technology was capable of firing blind at targets based on its sensors. Active and passive radars that could be raised alowing the submarine to stay underwater.
> Its torpedo's could be reloaded automatically alowing it to fire all its torpedos in 20 mins (I think).
> The Japanese had submarines that had similar performance to the Type XXI and the USA had technology that could match the Type XXI in some areas but the Germans put the two together in one package.
> 
> The R Class were designed for a similar role but if I recall were difficult to control. Had they worked then I would have expected the design to continue into WW2. It didn't which tends to support the idea that it was an idea ahead of its time.




1)science/technology
2)requirement
3)capital and time

These are the most important factors in weapon developement, since axis and allied tech were nearly on same level, either of sides could produce 1st or super weapons ahead of its time which were most needed and worthy of investment.


With regard to submarine and antisubmarine weapons in WWII, both side had the their own advanced equipments. I believe UK and USA would had manufactured revelutionary sub if they attained as much importance to submerine as germans, vice verse.


Therefore, Type XXI proved nothing, this can't be the proof of so called "overall axis technology advantage" which didn't exist at all in WWII.


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 5, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> I don't think most scientifically literate people (of whom I am - barely - one) would argue that germany was not tremendously advanced in both pure science and technology during the period.



I don't think most scientifically literate people (of whom I am - barely - one) would argue that germany was tremendously advanced in both pure science and technology during the period.

Please see my post in 1st page.

So called germany tremendously tech/science advantage could only mislead those people who are lack of science.

In my opinion, after WWII, the Financial Oligarch of UK and USA just fabricated the germany tech advantage in order to cover their collaboration with Nazi before WWII.
They controlled the media, and suceeded in distorting history in some way.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2008)

whoa

Hold up there trigger....allied collaboration with the axis before wwii????As I recall, it was the Russians who allied themselves with the enemy in 1939, with their nonaggression pacts during the collapse of Poland. And this was not a passive collaboration, as events such as Katyn, the occupation of Moldovia, the occupation of the baltic States, and the war with Finland all demonstrate.

The allies were guilty of appeasement with Germany, but it is a bit rich to say that appeasement is equivalent to collaboration.

In the case of China, her very survival depended on the continued support of the Allies during the pre-1941 period. The Russians here provided the bulk of aid, but significant amounts were also being delivered by the westrern allies as well


----------



## timshatz (Dec 5, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> In my opinion, after WWII, the Financial Oligarch of UK and USA just fabricated the germany tech advantage in order to cover their collaboration with Nazi before WWII.
> They controlled the media, and suceeded in distorting history in some way.



Dude, that is way out there. I mean one step away from "little green men abducted me" stuff. While capitalist nations are interconected via a financial system, finance is just one part of the structure. 

Did the US and UK collaborate with Germany before WW2? Yes, that is part of Western Economies and their interdependence. But not to the extent the Soviet Union did. And the SU was never part of any financial oligarchy. Further, far more testing and training was done with the SU than was ever even dreamed of with the West. 

Germany was more technically advanced in plenty of ways, but not all. Plenty have been listed on this board. Jet Power, Anti-Tank Weaponry, Assalt Rifles were all ahead of the Allies. Sonar, Radar, RDF, Heavy Bomber, were not. Germany needed to fight and win a short war. It did not have the resources, much like Japan, for a long one. 

But to think the West made up this story to cover some kind of greedy capitalist co-op is a fairytail. Banking is an industry as susceptable to the rules of free markets as any other industry. The only difference is the commodity they work with is cash.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Dang, I posted a long reply to Tempest...and I lost the connection and had to log in again, and so lost my post...

Just to say, briefly, that if you look at the financial history of the Nazi Party, especially in the period 1930 to 1933, you will see that it was all done with GERMAN capital - over 95%. 

'nuff said!


----------



## Juha (Dec 5, 2008)

Hello Glider
my point is that Type XXI maybe wasn’t SO revolutionary than some think because of if there had not been Types XXI and XXIII I-200 and Ha-200 Classes would anyway have changed the submarine design same way as happened after WWII. Those Japanese classes were also designed to operate underwater long time, having snorkels for ex, and had high underwater speed. IIRC USN fleet boats had masthead radars, freezers and probably even a shower and very good sonar etc. The most important thing in XXI and I-200 Class was the idea, which in fact was return to the roots, Holland type submarines were optimized for underwater performance but very soon submarines development went towards boats which had better and better surface performance .

On R-Class, yes it was difficult to control at high underwater speed because its controls were purely mechanical, IIRC. IIRC there were some discussion in RN in 30s to build an improved version but nothing came on that. Probably because British remembered the problems and as RN wrongly concluded that with ASDIC in hand it could handle U-boats as just a guess they also concluded that there would not have been much use of dedicate hunter-killer sub.

Juha


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

IMHO the type XXI was highly evolutionary, but not revolutionary. Much of her new designs were either taken from other designs, or a natural outgrowth of existing design. Now an angled deck for a carrier, or turbines instead of pistons to power battleships...THAT would be revolutionary!


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> .
> 
> In my opinion, after WWII, the Financial Oligarch of UK and USA just fabricated the germany tech advantage in order to cover their collaboration with Nazi before WWII.
> They controlled the media, and suceeded in distorting history in some way.



Hi Tempest
Are you seriously saying that the Me262, to take a good example wasn't far more advanced than anything the British or Americans had?

It wasn't Media that designed and built the Me262.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 5, 2008)

Glider said:


> It wasn't Media that designed and built the Me262.



It was the Financial Oligarchy! Those guys do everything!


----------



## Marcel (Dec 5, 2008)

Glider said:


> Hi Tempest
> Are you seriously saying that the Me262, to take a good example wasn't far more advanced than anything the British or Americans had?
> 
> It wasn't Media that designed and built the Me262.



I would not say far. The Meteor was maybe less advanced but not that much far behind and earlier in service. The only innovative of the Me262 over the Meteor was the swept wing IMHO.


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I would not say far. The Meteor was maybe less advanced but not that much far behind and earlier in service. The only innovative of the Me262 over the Meteor was the swept wing IMHO.



Again I agree with you. The engines were similar but its the lack of a swept wing that made the Meteor a dog in Korea when coompared with the F86 and Mig 15.


----------



## Juha (Dec 5, 2008)

Hello Glider
did some checking, Commander Compton-Hall, then Director of the Submarine Museum at Gosport and ret submarine skipper in his The Underwater War 1939-1945 (1982) p. 153 on Type XXI “This excellent submarine did not emerge in time to affect the course of the war and it is now known that its sonar and weapon system would not have enabled fully submerged attacks to have been carried out as effectively as hoped.”
And Blair’s opinion on XXI is harsher than I remembered. In Hitler’s U-Uboat War The Hunters, 1939 -1942 (1996) pp. x-xi ”In the classified report they [American evaluators on U-2513, a XXI] sent to the Chief of Naval Operations, dated July 1946, they wrote that while the Type XXI had many desirable features that should be exploited (big battery, snorkel, streamlining etc), it also had many grave design and manufacturing faults. The clear implication was that owning to these faults, the XXI could not have made a big difference in the Battle of Atlantic.” The list of faults can also be find in the second volume, The Hunted, 1942 – 1945 (2000) pp. 709-710.

On Meteor
one bad problem in Meteor was its poor ailerons.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2008)

Holy moly this thread has advanced since I was here last!


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2008)

Some things you guys should know about M_kenny is that he is a hardcore Allied tank fan and will therefore disagree with the fact that German tanks were far superior to Allied tanks. I know him from the Axishistory forum.

And, btw, posting book covers doesn't prove squat and m_kenny should know that. Fact of the matter is he can't disprove that Panthers were equipped with IR equipment and used it in combat. So what does he do ? He chooses the easy route and denies it ever happened.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2008)

Some facts:
Nightfighting Panthers


----------



## m kenny (Dec 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Some facts:
> Nightfighting Panthers




Oh dear. The site linked above says this :

_In summer 1944 the Panthers of 3.Kompanie, 24th Panzerregiment, 116th Panzerdivision, were equipped with UHU on the battle/excercise-area BERGEN, and actually trained the use of the nightfighting concept SPERBER. Hitler planned the mission of this Kompanie to be during the Operation WACHT AM RHEIN (Battle of the Bulge) and actually some squads were tranfered to the western front, *but never saw action there.*_

It seems the source serves only to confirm that there was no use of IR Panthers!


----------



## m kenny (Dec 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> posting book covers doesn't prove squat



But it does prove I have the books and have read them (thats why I stacked them in 1'S 2's and 4's, I knew you would try this) There is no mention of IR Panther usuage in the West during 1944. 



> Fact of the matter is he can't disprove that Panthers were equipped with IR equipment and used it in combat.


I think it is highly significant that though you have spent 2 days trying to find a reply this is the best you could come up with!



> So what does he do ? He chooses the easy route and denies it ever happened.



And Soren, who says he has facts and references in spades, failed to find one single author or book to back his fan-boy claim about IR Panthers.

Try here for a 8 year old demolition of the destruction of the Comets myth.

Axis WWII Discussion Group: Exploding Comets, and myths.

Extracts:

_The Royal Armoured Corps official vehicle returns (June 1945) report the RAC lost a total of 26 Comets during WWII. By examining the published histories of the 7th and 11th Armoured Divisions, the 4th and 29th Armoured Brigades, and finally all the various Comet regiments you can find every vehicle accounted for. 
Having read through that lot, the loss of 4 Comets in a single night action (or any other tank at this stage of the war) would have been worth a book on its own. The highest single loss of Comets at any point (in 1945) occurred (in April) to the 23rd Hussars when 2 Comets where hit in the engine compartment by A/T gunfire, around morning teatime._


_Obviously I was prepared for the 'maybe they weren't Comets' argument, I have spent considerable time in the Bovington library examining the war diaries of:
7AD, 11AD, Grds AD, 8AB, 29AB, 33AB, 34TB, 8 Corps, 12 Corps, 30Corps and the 21st Army group as well as the Canadian, Czech and Polish AD's.
And nobody lost 4 tanks in a night encounter with German AFV's in April 1945 at a time when all losses are recorded. Its that simple._

_I look through the photocopied pages of R.Stoves "History of the 22.,25.,27.,and 233.Res Pz Divs." (Thank you Herr.Block!) In the chapter covering Pz.Div Clausewitz, (which is largely based on Gen. Martin Unrein's study on the Div. "Einsatz der Pz. Div Clausewitz 11 Apr. bis 21 Apr '45"), makes no mention of this 'fictional'engagement (BTW. Gen.Unrein was the Kdr. of the Div.) The part of the Div that 'would' have had those supposed IR Panthers, was a K.Gr. of Gen.Decker who on the night of Apr 20/21 '45 was retreating along the Weser/Elbe canal in the direction of Fallersleben hoping to capture a bridge to cross, in order to facilitate their retreat. The group caught an American supply column out in the open, and ambushed and destroyed it. Later, the same night the group was suprised by a few US anti-tank guns, and the group loss a few AFVs. 2 Panthers assisted in destroying these US 'Pak'. By, Apr 22 '45, the K.Gr. was wiped out. (I don't know if I read it write, as my German is terrible, but I don't see any IR or Comets or Brits in this account!)_


_The commanding officer of KG UHU, during integration in June 1945, said *an order existed from Guderian that I/R was not to be deployed in the west.* The officer did not know the reason for this but one reason put by the evaluation team is the likelihood the Germans knew about the British possessing I/R (which of course they did). Professor R V Jones confirms this in his 'Most Secret War' book._

The IR Panther myth is always trotted out by the Uber-panzer followers but it is always the same, vague unsourced claims. The story about the Comets is easily exposed as a fabrication but that does not seem to deter the true believers


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2008)

M-kenny

Ive got Jones' book. Its been many years since ive read it, so I would ask that you give the page reference for this talk about IR equipment of its tank forces. He has a whole chapter on British IR development, and other references to it all through his book, but this concentrates on airborne and seaborne IR (or lack of it, since it wasa deception that caused the Germans to expend huge amounts of time and money trying to develop IR resistant paints for their U-Boats). I am not doubting the contents and claims made, I just want to see for myself


----------



## m kenny (Dec 5, 2008)

My copy of 'Most Secret War' is not to hand right now and I will be away most of tomorrow but I will check it myself (the above is from the ML site rather than my words) so you may find it before me!
I hope you all realise the significance of Soren's claim. He says that IR Panthers enjoyed considerable success in the West and I can assure you this is big news indeed. There are no documents confirming this explosive new revalation and no other author has had sight of the sources Soren used to make the claim. How did he find what everyone else missed? I can understand his reluctance to share his sources- he probably thinks Jentz will steal his information and claim it for his own!


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2008)

*Soren M-Kenny

If you guys cannot refrain from the personal attacks that lace all of your posts, you are going to get this thread closed. I'll say it again, please back off and cool off for a bit. 

You both have considerable knowledge on this topic, but neither of you do any credibility to your reputations or to the reputation of this forum by engaging in this purile behaviour

If you dont stop this now this thread is going to be closed, nothing surer, and that means that all the rest of us are going to suffer because you two idiots cant control your tempers

If I see one more personal outburst from wither of you, I am going to PM one of the Mods and ask that you be restrained from further comment on this thread. I doubt that they will agree to that (the standard here is that the thread gets closed), but I am going to try nevertheless, for the sake of the other contributors of this thread

Thankyou *


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello Glider
> did some checking, Commander Compton-Hall, then Director of the Submarine Museum at Gosport and ret submarine skipper in his The Underwater War 1939-1945 (1982) p. 153 on Type XXI “This excellent submarine did not emerge in time to affect the course of the war and it is now known that its sonar and weapon system would not have enabled fully submerged attacks to have been carried out as effectively as hoped.”
> And Blair’s opinion on XXI is harsher than I remembered. In Hitler’s U-Uboat War The Hunters, 1939 -1942 (1996) pp. x-xi ”In the classified report they [American evaluators on U-2513, a XXI] sent to the Chief of Naval Operations, dated July 1946, they wrote that while the Type XXI had many desirable features that should be exploited (big battery, snorkel, streamlining etc), it also had many grave design and manufacturing faults. The clear implication was that owning to these faults, the XXI could not have made a big difference in the Battle of Atlantic.” The list of faults can also be find in the second volume, The Hunted, 1942 – 1945 (2000) pp. 709-710.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info. I don't have that book but Christmas is on the way!!!

Re the manufacturing problems I do know that the early boats had a problem in this area (hardly unexpected considering the situation at the time) but thought that these had been resolved. Design issues I don't know about but will do what I can to look into that area.

Thanks again


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 6, 2008)

Glider said:


> Hi Tempest
> Are you seriously saying that the Me262, to take a good example wasn't far more advanced than anything the British or Americans had?
> 
> It wasn't Media that designed and built the Me262.



Me262 was NOT far more advanced than anything the British or Americans had in WWII.

Me262 had NO swept wing because its wing shape is for gravity balance.

Vampire and F80 is as good as Me262 in WWII, and they wound be rubbish in korean War because 5 years had passed since WWII.

The comparation report of P80 vs Me262 after WWII is an unilateral analysis. P80 had its own advantage over Me262.

Adolf Galand said " UK jet engine+ german aerodynamics=best jet fighter " after he flew meteor in Agentina.


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 6, 2008)

Glider said:


> Again I agree with you. The engines were similar but its the lack of a swept wing that made the Meteor a dog in Korea when coompared with the F86 and Mig 15.



Me262 is also a rubbish in Korea when coompared with the F86 and Mig 15. 

Check the data,plz.


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 6, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Dang, I posted a long reply to Tempest...and I lost the connection and had to log in again, and so lost my post...
> 
> Just to say, briefly, that if you look at the financial history of the Nazi Party, especially in the period 1930 to 1933, you will see that it was all done with GERMAN capital - over 95%.
> 
> 'nuff said!




CHAPTER SEVEN: Who Financed Adolf Hitler?

We know exactly who contributed, how much, and through what channels. It is notable that the largest contributors — I.G. Farben, German General Electric (and its affiliated company Osram), and Thyssen — were affiliated with Wall Street financiers. These Wall Street financiers were at the heart of the financial elite and they were prominent in contemporary American politics. Gerard Swope of General Electric was author of Roosevelt's New Deal, Teagle was one of NRA's top administrators, Paul Warburg and his associates at American I.G. Farben were Roosevelt advisors. It is perhaps not an extraordinary coincidence that Roosevelt's New Deal — called a "fascist measure" by Herbert Hoover — should have so closely resembled Hitler's program for Germany, and that both Hitler and Roosevelt took power in the same month of the same year — March 1933


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> Me262 had NO swept wing because its wing shape is for gravity balance.


No swept wing eh





And wing shape for gravity balance? You are using wiki as source, don't you. But then you should quote all of it, not just the part that suits you:


> The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."[30]


 from the same wikipeadia article. So the Americans considered the Me262 superior to the P-80 according to wiki.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 6, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> CHAPTER SEVEN: Who Financed Adolf Hitler?
> 
> We know exactly who contributed, how much, and through what channels. It is notable that the largest contributors — I.G. Farben, German General Electric (and its affiliated company Osram), and Thyssen — were affiliated with Wall Street financiers. These Wall Street financiers were at the heart of the financial elite and they were prominent in contemporary American politics. Gerard Swope of General Electric was author of Roosevelt's New Deal, Teagle was one of NRA's top administrators, Paul Warburg and his associates at American I.G. Farben were Roosevelt advisors. It is perhaps not an extraordinary coincidence that Roosevelt's New Deal — called a "fascist measure" by Herbert Hoover — should have so closely resembled Hitler's program for Germany, and that both Hitler and Roosevelt took power in the same month of the same year — March 1933



I read the article you attached, and it merely confirms that the multi-national companies that existed at the time made contributiuons to Hitlers campaigns leading up to his elections. big deal, that is standard practice for multi-nationals wishing to do business with the new regime.

Its also true that many European firms like Renault and puegot collaborated with the Germans, and that the Ford Motor Company in Germany produced large amounts of trucks for the regime. None of this points to a collaboration as such. They were companies within the territorial limits of the regime. They had no real choice other than to work for their new masters.

Multi-nationals and industry generally does not, as yet, formulate policy. They provide the means, but decisions on how that means is used, was the perogative of the regime itself


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 6, 2008)

Marcel said:


> No swept wing eh
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Although DC-3 wing has a swept angle, it is NOT swept desgin.






Although Me262 wing has a swept angle, it's NOT swept design.

With regard to F80 v Me262, F80 can *outturn and outroll *Me262, F80's engine's reliability is better than Me262's.

Climb rate and level accelaration are roughly equal.

Me262's Dive/speed advantage is not obvious.

F80's engine could be ungraded to higher performance than Me262's because of excellent UK engine tech such as Nene in 1946.

So I prefer F80 to Me262 without hesitate.


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 6, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I read the article you attached, and it merely confirms that the multi-national companies that existed at the time made contributiuons to Hitlers campaigns leading up to his elections. big deal, that is standard practice for multi-nationals wishing to do business with the new regime.
> 
> Its also true that many European firms like Renault and puegot collaborated with the Germans, and that the Ford Motor Company in Germany produced large amounts of trucks for the regime. None of this points to a collaboration as such. They were companies within the territorial limits of the regime. They had no real choice other than to work for their new masters.
> 
> Multi-nationals and industry generally does not, as yet, formulate policy. They provide the means, but decisions on how that means is used, was the perogative of the regime itself



What a excuse ! 

CHAPTER ELEVEN: Wall Street-Nazi Collaboration in World War II



> Top American industrialists and financiers named in this book are covered by the categories listed above. Henry Ford and Edsel Ford respectively contributed money to Hitler and profited from German wartime production. Standard Oil of New Jersey, General Electric, General Motors, and I.T.T. certainly made financial or technical contributions which comprise prima facie evidence of "participating in planning or carrying out Nazi enterprises."
> 
> There is, in brief, evidence which suggests:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 6, 2008)

Juha said:


> And Blair’s opinion on XXI is harsher than I remembered.



I think Blair and his opinion on the Type XXI has been discussed on these boards already, and rather throughly debunked too. 



TempestMKV said:


> Me262 had NO swept wing because its wing shape is for gravity balance.



Of course it had swept wings and all the advantages stemming from that fact during high speed flight.

Wheater the reason for that was gravity balance or aerodynamic considerations is immaterial to the fact. Note though, that the advantages swept wings at high speed were well known to the Germans and Messerschmitt, so suggesting it was only a matter of 'lucky coincidence' is _very_ reaching.

PS: Overall, I'd venture saying that this thread is extremely silly.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> Although DC-3 wing has a swept angle, it is NOT swept desgin.


 good one, didn't see that coming.




Kurfürst said:


> Wheater the reason for that was gravity balance or aerodynamic considerations is immaterial to the fact. Note though, that the advantages swept wings at high speed were well known to the Germans and Messerschmitt, so suggesting it was only a matter of 'lucky coincidence' is _very_ reaching.


Yes, it is no coincedence that the Me163 had them as well.



Kurfürst said:


> PS: Overall, I'd venture saying that this thread is extremely silly.


Agreed


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Judging by the tone of Tempest MK V's posts, I think it would be better if we just split off the "who was behind hitler" parts of this thread, and set them up in a separate thread in the Politics section!


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 6, 2008)

Tempest, you're beating a dead horse here...

Half of the stuff you're using as props for your "argument" are flawed as hell, like the British Nene engine...it was a problematic design, and they shelved it after a short life in favor of the Avon.

Comparing the deliberate swept angle of the Me262's wing to the Douglas' wing is like comparing the Space Shuttle to the Zepplin...it does nothing to support your argument but rather illustrates how little you seem to know about these things.

Also comparing the F-80 to the Me262 would have to place the timeline in an accurate perspective, when both the F-80 and Me262 were in service and the F-80's performance was deplorable (and often fatal to it's pilots) at that time, and wasn't improved until later, when the Me262 (and Germans) were no longer at war.

The conspiracy theorists are always saying garbage like Ford and Wall Street supporting the Nazis...And it was true BEFORE the war, where American interests were active in Germany as well as the rest of Europe. This is why the Germans had Ford manufactured vehicles and American backed banks an so on...

From a technological point of view, I don't think any single nation had a monopoly. There were great aircraft designs being offered by the British, Germans, Americans, French, Dutch, Japanese and Italians who All had learned thier lessons from the same sources, as World War I was the great educator for the new technology called flight. As World War II broke, the science of powered flight was still being learned and the designs from all the nations was still developing. The winner of the air war in WWII was not so much who designed the best wing or engine, but who could make the MOST of them.

This is the most important technology, mass production and supply. So even though the King Tiger was for all intents and purposes, the most powerful tank in the known solar system during it's career...it was the mass-produced M4 Sherman tanks that won the war. And mass produced bombers, trucks, ships, c-rations, rifles, fighters, cigarettes, and anything else under the sun.

The Ability of the United States to mass produce a machine, and transport it to one of it's two fronts anywhere in the world in such a short time is why the war was won, and subsequently, the world, changed.

You cannot overlook that as the ultimate state-of-the-art technology that will never win a Nobel prize or be the focus of many arguments, but is absolutely guarenteed to win a war.


----------



## Juha (Dec 6, 2008)

Hello Glider
Compton-Hall’s book is a very good analytical study on many aspects of WWII submarine war.
Blair’s books are extensive chronological blow-to-blow history of Germany’s U-boat arms WWII operations, 800+900 pages. It is operational history not design and development history.

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:” I think Blair and his opinion on the Type XXI has been discussed on these boards already, and rather throughly debunked too.”

Maybe, I cannot recall. And it is always critical to know by whom. By some submarine specialists who had seen the USN and RN evaluation reports or some self-claim “specialists”. I’ll keep open mind on XXI until I’ll see a thorough study on it which has used German, USN and RN material on the boat. Now I can only say that IMHO Compton-Hall’s opinion sounds more balanced.

Quote:” Overall, I'd venture saying that this thread is extremely silly.”

I partly agree, I would say that the tread is rather silly. As I wrote earlier “Usually technological development is rather complicated, ideas pop up in different countries. With reasonable education system and some industrial base countries could design and develop world class products if they put resources on that sector. Nothing new or surprising in this.”
Nations put resourches where they saw need. For ex. British put much resources in late 30s to built up integrated air defence system, Germany to navigational aids for bombers. In late WWII RAF could photo areas they wanted over Europe, was it Berlin, Baltic coast or Auschwitch so they didn’t have any urgent need for jet PR planes, Germany had problems to get photos over GB so…Japan built A6M, Germany Bf 109, GB Spitfire and USA P-38. Japan and USA needed long range fighters, European nations interceptors.

Juha


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 6, 2008)

GrauGeist said:


> Half of the stuff you're using as props for your "argument" are flawed as hell, like the British Nene engine...it was a problematic design, and they shelved it after a short life in favor of the Avon.
> 
> .


What are you saying the T33 with the Nene wiped out any other version of the T33 /F80 and it the nene was in use until the 90's if not still


----------



## Glider (Dec 6, 2008)

GrauGeist said:


> Tempest, you're beating a dead horse here...
> 
> Half of the stuff you're using as props for your "argument" are flawed as hell, like the British Nene engine...it was a problematic design, and they shelved it after a short life in favor of the Avon.



The rest of your posting was very good but to call the Nens a problematic design quickly shelved is a little far off the mark.

It was quickly replaced by the Avon but in its time was used by the Sea Hawk, some Vampires, Canadair T33, Grumman Panther (as the J42), the Mig 15, Mig 17, Il28 (as the Klimov RD45 then developed into VK1) Meteor (Derwent which was derived from the Nene).

Not a bad track record for a problematic engine.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 6, 2008)

The Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41 of WWII vintage indeed saw limited use, according to _Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II_. This would be the RB.41-1.

Granted, there were variants that were made by Pratt Whitney and Klimov and I agree that the T-33 used the (Orenda) RB.41-10. However, the overall usage of the RB.41 was limited, as the Avon was tested in 1947 and produced in 1950, seeing a tremendous amount of applications over the Nene's because of it's superior performance.

My reference was to the original Nene, because of Tempest's statement:


> Although Me262 wing has a swept angle, it's NOT swept design.
> 
> With regard to F80 v Me262, F80 can outturn and outroll Me262, F80's engine's reliability is better than Me262's.
> 
> ...



And in that light, I would be under the impression that he was referring to the original Nene (RB.41-1) and *not* any of it's later versions.

According to testing done by the USAAF in 1946, the Me262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration and speed. It also possesed a higher critical Mach number from a drag standpoint. It was also tested against the Gloster Meteor, and found to be faster as well.

This was the basis for my Nene comment 

_As a footnot, I'll add some Nene stats for everyone. Please notice how many are using the RB.41-1 engine_:


> Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-1 Meteor, Vampire F.2, XP-80, SO 6000
> 
> Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-2 Canberra B.1, I.Ae.33
> 
> ...


----------



## Glider (Dec 6, 2008)

At least you seem to be agreeing that it wasn't a problematic design quickly shelved.
More a good solid design capable of growth and use across the world in a number of designs. After all, not many engines can claim to have been built in the UK, USA, Soviet Union, Canada, France, Australia and Canada


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 6, 2008)

Oh, I'll definately agree with you and Pb about the Nene as a whole, Glider.

I can't think of anything made by Rolls-Royce that wasn't a good performer.

I think the problem with the RB.41-1, was that they tried to rush it into service and that's where it's issues became aparent. If I remember right, it went from design to testing inside of 6 months.


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 6, 2008)

> According to testing done by the USAAF in 1946, the Me262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration and speed. It also possesed a higher critical Mach number from a drag standpoint. It was also tested against the Gloster Meteor, and found to be faster as well.
> 
> This was the basis for my Nene comment.




As a WWII air combat fan with 3000+ hours of flight simulation on PC, just like many mumbers of this forum such as Kurfust, I'd like to say that US report in 1946 is far from an all-round view.

There are two accelarations: level accelaration and dive accelaration. Climb rate is bound up with level accelaration.

It dosn't matter if the opponent has marginal speed/dive advantage while we can outturn/outroll it besides same climb rate.

*It took only 1.5 years for german to come up with USSR T34/Kv1 tanks, so nobody believe USSR tank tech was better than german. This principle is suitable to allied jet plane too. It would only take allied 1.5years to come up with german jet planes if WWII continues, so nobody will believe german jet tech is better than allied.*

Check the performance of vampire and F80B in 1946 plz, I am very sure of that german jet plane will lose high altitude mastery AGAIN in jet era: in Korean war, strypped-down of Nene garanteed Mig15's higher service ceiling over F86.

UK Vampire could fly higher than any german 1946 jet plane, and UK lightning in 1950s can easily intercept US U2 spy plane above 20000m.

Even with elite of german jet experts' help after WWII, US still got behind of UK in jet enigne tech untill 1960.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 7, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> As a WWII air combat fan with 3000+ hours of flight simulation on PC, just like many mumbers of this forum such as Kurfust, I'd like to say that US report in 1946 is far from an all-round view.



Well, that's all the proof we need!

Never mind that the United States Army Airforce was conducting the tests, and came to the conclusion that the former enemy's aircraft was out-performing thier own machine.

In the future, I'll run a combat simulator to validate an aircraft's performance instead of referring to hard data provided by an authority! 

Seriously, I've been active in WWII combat flight simulations since the mid-90's, though I've never logged my time, I can well imagine I've accrued some "hours" along the way. But I would NEVER compare any simulator's aircraft performance against hard data, even AVHistory 1% aircraft models.

I enjoy a good debate, but at least bring real data to the table to discuss...really...

Until then, I think I'll run some IL-2 and start taking notes...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 7, 2008)

Tempest


The basis for your position is not well founded. There are people on this forum who are actual flyers, others who are considered world authorities on a particular subject. 

I wont say that time in a gaming flight simulator is totally irrelevant, however, it is not a good basis to make such strong statements as you have.

My advice is that you retract the statement that you have, and listen to the more experienced guys here. You should also conduct more serious research than you have, and be just a little more careful when making the statements like you have


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 7, 2008)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, that's all the proof we need!
> 
> Never mind that the United States Army Airforce was conducting the tests, and came to the conclusion that the former enemy's aircraft was out-performing thier own machine.
> 
> ...



In 1946, US report of F80 vs Me262 didn't mention the maneuverability such as roll rate, turning ability and high speed handling which are compulsory in an all-around comparation. So that report can't convince me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> As a WWII air combat fan with 3000+ hours of flight simulation on PC, just like many mumbers of this forum such as Kurfust, I'd like to say that US report in 1946 is far from an all-round view.



     

Another one who bases fact on video games...



TempestMKV said:


> So that report can't convince me.



But video games do...


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 7, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Another one who bases fact on video games...
> 
> 
> 
> But video games do...



I've read many comparation reperts of different a/c, the 1946 P80vMe262 report is just suspicious(that's XP80, not P80A?).

Information in this thread will be helpful, where FLYBOYJ, a real pilot of T33, commented that P80 is a better fighter.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/me262-vs-p-80-a-562.html


> I'm not sure where Soren is getting this info on the 262's agility, and that comparison he sites is insubstanciated and possibly a comparison to the original Goblin-(under)powered XP-80 (2,400 lbf); a completely different design (the L140) of which only one prototype was made (now at the NASM adjacent to a Me 262 and FH Phantom), the XP-80A (L141) was a drastic improvement in aerodynamics (more streamlined with rounded wing and tail tips and thin "knife edge" wings), technology, and performance. Pluss that "comparison" he sites doesn't even say the 262 is more maneuverable, only faster and with better acceleration, climb, and crit. Mach number. (which it certainly would compared to the XP-80 which barely broke 500 mph and had fairly thick wings and low thrust/weight)






> Considering that the "1945" ME-262 was basically an interceptor, snaked in the air, and had very unreliable engines, I think I would take the "1945" P-80A any day although admittedly I may be prejudiced considering I've flown a T-33 and just loved it. I think in an outright dogfight the P-80 can easily exploit the 262s weaknesses in maneuverability and actual combat performance. Although there were test conducted in the US that alleged that the 262 was better, I think that was used as a case to continue military turbine engine and aircraft development....
> -----FLYBOYJ




BTW,Me262 has 4 mk108, but two pairs guns alternately shoot, which means only 2Xmk108 firepower.


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

Tempest it's time to cut your losses and admit defeat, all you have said has been thuroughly disproven. So stop making stuff up and deal with the reality of things.

The Germans were well ahead in technology, their jets were far more advanced than anyone elses, they designed and built the most advanced a/c, tanks, guns, smallarms submarines of the war. They were the first to use IR equipment and fielded by far the best IR imaging equipment of the war, which was used with great success in action (First April 45. Yes M_kenny, you should actually read the books, not just look at the covers). They were the first and only ones with high fidelity sound equipment. They were the first to field helicopters and and use them on the battlefield. They fielded the first best homing devices. They fielded self guided rockets missiles. They fielded self guided accoustic homing torpedoes far more advanced than anyon elses. They were the first to split atoms. They were the first with a nuclear reactor. Heck they knew that smoking gave cancer. Christ I could go on and on.

Fact is that the Germans had been ahead in science technology since the mid 1800's because of a government emphasize in this area which made sure it was the most well funded. The French were perhaps the closest to the Germans by the beginning of the war, but still not quite on the same level. Sometimes their tanks are used as examples of them being on the same level as the Germans, but fact of the matter is that the German tanks were faster, more agile, more reliable and more advanced than the French tanks. The French tanks featured heavy armour, but their design was outdated, as so thuroughly demonstrated on the battlefield.


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> I've read many comparation reperts of different a/c, the 1946 P80vMe262 report is just suspicious(that's XP80, not P80A?).
> 
> Information in this thread will be helpful, where FLYBOYJ, a real pilot of T33, commented that P80 is a better fighter.
> 
> ...




We have discussed this matter on the forum before, and it was proven that the Me-262 is a far superior fighter. Fact is that the Me-262 is faster, turns better, climbs faster accelerates faster than the P-80. And I'm pretty sure FLYBOYJ will agree with that.

Also you should be glad the comparison was with the XP-80, cause it was actually faster than the P-80A which only did some 790 km/h.


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

Btw, here's a good clip of the Fa-223 Drache:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0flSwzjnMA_


----------



## m kenny (Dec 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> . They were the first to use IR equipment and fielded by far the best IR imaging equipment of the war, which was used with great success in action (First April 45. Yes M_kenny, you should actually read the books, not just look at the covers).


What book?
What page?
Have you a problem with giving enough information so that you can actualy source your claims?
Once you are pinned down to an actual event then we might be able to correct your errors.

Name the book................



> which was used with great success in action



Where in action?
Which Unit did the tanks belong too?
Which Allied unit suffered at the hands of these IR tanks?

The best description I have heard about this IR Equipment is it would be like going sniping at night-but using a torch to find your target!
The Allied IR Detectors would give any of these Uber-Panzers away as soon as they lit up. 
The Germans recognised the problem and FORBADE its use in the West. Yet still we have those who claim they were wrong because it was a war-winning weapon.


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

Lol, M_kenny read the link I gave, it hs actually got quotes from the books.

_"One SPERBER squad including their Panthers was transfered to STUHLWEISSENBURG (Hungary) in early 1945 with 6th SS-Panzerarmee, intended to support the german counterattack to secure the area of Budapest. The rest of the Kompanie followed, but without nightfighting equipment. In 1945 the Wehrmacht planned to form 5 SPERBER Kompanies, but this concept proved to be illusory. 2 SPERBER squads joined the spontanuous formed Panzerdivision "CLAUSEWITZ", which was formed in spring 1945 on the western front. On 21st of april, these 2 squads ran down an american ambush, which has been set up at the WESER-ELBE-KANAL, and by this ensured the only documented action of the nightfighting concept SPERBER. 

In march 1945 the Panzerdivision "MÜNCHEBERG" received one fully equipped Kompanie of 10 SPERBER capable Panthers and one SPERBER capable Panzer Grenadier Kompanie. The Division took part in the last fights during the battle of BERLIN. If this Division used the SPERBER concept isn´t documented. 

The armoured forces school at FALLINGBOSTEL developed an even more mature solution called "LÖSUNG B - solution B" to make use of the FG 1250 device. Since the system SPERBER had the critical drawback that only the tankcommander had nightvision and therefore had to direct the driver and the gunner, experiments were made with some Panther As and Ds which were equipped with an infrared-searchlight and image converter for the driver and a periscope for the gunner. This way 3 crewmembers obtained nightfighting ability. In April 1945 some of the solution B equiped Panthers were ordered to the Division "CLAUSEWITZ". In mid april these Panthers saw their only doctumented action near UELZEN, where they destroyed a full platoon equipped with the brandnew british Comet tanks."_


Now where were these Allied IR detectors you speak of ?


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

Hey wait, wasn't I supposed to ignore M_kenny ? *Pushing ignore button*


----------



## m kenny (Dec 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> Lol, M_kenny read the link I gave, it hs actually got quotes from the books.



Then why do you not give us the name of the books?



> ]"One SPERBER squad including their Panthers was transfered to STUHLWEISSENBURG (Hungary) in early 1945 with 6th SS-Panzerarmee, intended to support the german counterattack to secure the area of Budapest. The rest of the Kompanie followed, but* without* nightfighting equipment.



Which of course is a long winded way of saying No IR Panthers..............



> In 1945 the Wehrmacht planned to form 5 SPERBER Kompanies, but this concept proved to be illusory. 2 SPERBER squads joined the spontanuous formed Panzerdivision "CLAUSEWITZ", which was formed in spring 1945 on the western front. On 21st of april, these 2 squads ran down an american ambush, which has been set up at the WESER-ELBE-KANAL, and by this ensured the only documented action of the nightfighting concept SPERBER.



And yet the following makes no mention of IR Panthers:

_I look through the photocopied pages of R.Stoves "History of the 22.,25.,27.,and 233.Res Pz Divs." In the chapter covering *Pz.Div Clausewitz,* (which is largely based on Gen. Martin Unrein's study on the Div. "Einsatz der Pz. Div Clausewitz 11 Apr. bis 21 Apr '45"), makes no mention of this 'fictional' engagement (BTW. Gen.Unrein was the Kdr. of the Div.) The part of the Div that 'would' have had those supposed IR Panthers, was a K.Gr. of Gen.Decker who on the night of Apr 20/21 '45 was retreating along the Weser/Elbe canal in the direction of Fallersleben hoping to capture a bridge to cross, in order to facilitate their retreat. The group caught an American *supply column out in the open, and ambushed and destroyed it.* Later, the same night the group was suprised by a few US anti-tank guns, and the group loss a few AFVs. 2 Panthers assisted in destroying these US 'Pak'. By, Apr 22 '45, the K.Gr. was wiped out. 
The commanding officer of KG UHU, during integration in June 1945, said an order existed from Guderian that I/R was not to be deployed in the west_ 

So then a few US trucks were destroyed and some AT guns knock out German tanks BUT NO MENTION OF IR Panthers in the Unit History!!!!!



> In march 1945 the Panzerdivision "MÜNCHEBERG" received one fully equipped Kompanie of 10 SPERBER capable Panthers and one SPERBER capable Panzer Grenadier Kompanie. The Division took part in the last fights during the battle of BERLIN. If this Division used the SPERBER concept isn´t documented.



That is further confirmation that there is no record IR Panthers being used. 



> The armoured forces school at FALLINGBOSTEL developed an even more mature solution called "LÖSUNG B - solution B" to make use of the FG 1250 device. Since the system SPERBER had the critical drawback that only the tankcommander had nightvision and therefore had to direct the driver and the gunner, experiments were made with some Panther As and Ds which were equipped with an infrared-searchlight and image converter for the driver and a periscope for the gunner. This way 3 crewmembers obtained nightfighting ability. In April 1945 some of the solution B equiped Panthers were ordered to the Division "CLAUSEWITZ". In mid april these Panthers saw their only doctumented action near UELZEN, where they destroyed a full platoon equipped with the brandnew british Comet tanks."



Solution B never saw service. From the Achtung Panzer site 
Achtung Panzer! - German Infrared Night-Vision Devices!
which is the SOLE source for all your claims:

_Solution B - Second more complicated arrangement / solution was "Biwa" (Bildwandler), which provided driver (installed on the front hull), gunner (installed on the mantlet in front of the gun sight) and commander (as in Solution A) each with one 30cm infrared searchlight (with range of 600m) and image converter. Various variants of Panthers were converted and mounted with "Biwa". It was reported that tests were successful, but there is very few combat reports from the Eastern or Western Front.* Due to the lack of evidence, existence of Solution B is still questionable and even considered a hoax.* _

The Comets were never destroyed. 

_The Royal Armoured Corps official vehicle returns (June 1945) report the RAC lost a total of 26 Comets during WWII. By examining the published histories of the 7th and 11th Armoured Divisions, the 4th and 29th Armoured Brigades, and finally all the various Comet regiments you can find every vehicle accounted for. 
Having read through that lot, the loss of 4 Comets in a single night action (or any other tank at this stage of the war) would have been worth a book on its own. The highest single loss of Comets at any point (in 1945) occurred (in April) to the 23rd Hussars when 2 Comets where hit in the engine compartment by A/T gunfire, around morning teatime.


Obviously I was prepared for the 'maybe they weren't Comets' argument, I have spent considerable time in the Bovington library examining the war diaries of:
7AD, 11AD, Grds AD, 8AB, 29AB, 33AB, 34TB, 8 Corps, 12 Corps, 30Corps and the 21st Army group as well as the Canadian, Czech and Polish AD's.
And nobody lost 4 tanks in a night encounter with German AFV's in April 1945 at a time when all losses are recorded. Its that simple_

You use a claim about a non existent Solution B IR set up that claims to have destroyed a number of Comets-a claim that can also be shown to be fabrication.




> Now where were these Allied IR detectors you speak of ?


10,000 in store near the Rhine, ready to be issued upon the first use of IR equipment. Obviously as IR was never used there was no need to issue them!


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

M_Kenny is once again mistaken, and the source for my information has never been the site Achtung Panzer, so again just lies from M_kenny. I will post the link once more, sources for the info is listed below:
Nightfighting Panthers

Incase M_kenny misses it again:

Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle "Der Panzer-Kampfwagen Panther und seine Abarten" Motorbuchverlag 5. Auflage 1999

S. Hart, R. Hart "Deutsche Panzer im Zweiten Weltkrieg" Gondrom Verlag 1998

Thomas L. Jentz "Der Panther - Entwicklung, Ausführungen, Varianten, Charakteristische Merkmale, Kampfwert" Podzun-Pallas Verlag 1997

Thomas Anderson and Vicent Wai "ARMOUR AT WAR SERIES 7006 PANTHER" published by Concord


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

Further facts:
_Some operational account remains for April 21, 1945: Being lead by Sd.Kfz.234/1 recon vehicles the last 10 of the tanks approched the US AT position by Weser/Elber canal (76mm AT Gun M-2) First assault started at 2 AM. The Americans were alerted and flares were launched. The lead Panther was hit and fell into a ditch. IR Panthers took their turn, which located the AT guns and fired some 20 rounds, destroying the pakfront. The opposing artillery men and supporting personnel fled in panic. IR Panthers went into persuit and destroyed several trucks and support vehicles. The attack was a success which demonstrated the tremendous potential of IR technology. _


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

Seems M_kenny's sources are not reliable and frequently mistake one 'Kompanie' for another.

We are also still waiting for sources on the 1,000 infrared detectors claimed to be near the Rhine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> I've read many comparation reperts of different a/c, the 1946 P80vMe262 report is just suspicious(that's XP80, not P80A?).
> .



Now you are just scooting around the facts, so I will ask you again, what does a video game have to do with your claim. You brought it up, do not back out of it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> Hey wait, wasn't I supposed to ignore M_kenny ? *Pushing ignore button*



That is a rather childish thing to do in my opinion. If both of you would just resort to an adult discussion instead of resorting to insults (which is what both of you do), then that would not be necessary.

Ah who am I am kidding. I am tired of this ****. I have recieved PM's from members of the forum complaining about you guys ruining threads with your bullshit. You both are going on a vacation. When you return, maybe you can act like adults.


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

Well Adler I know M_kenny from the Axis history forum and nomatter how many facts you bring forth he will never accept them, he only believes his own fantasies. And I have grown tired of it a very long time ago.

So to prevent this thread from becoming ugly closed I have chosen to just ignore him permanently from now on. And that is not being childish, just considerate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2008)

Damage is already done. When both you and M_Kenny return from your vacation, if you can act like adults you may continue to post here.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2008)

I have a copy of RV Jones' book "Most Secret War", I read all the references to IR research and development, and if the contents of Jones' book are to be believed, they were ay least equal to the germans in IR Research. Certainly in airborne research the british possessed a technological lead, however they abandoned this in favour of Radar R&D. The research that had been done, appears to have been passed onto the Army, the Navy, and the Americans, who did develop IR technology very successfully, and utlized it extensively on Okinawa, where approximately 30% of the casualties inflicted on the japanese by small arms were attributed to these specialised pieces of equipment.

In England, the idea of using IR radiation to undertake attacks at night was first mooted in 1916. AB Wood undertook experiments in 1927, on airborne detection, with unpromising results. Official government sponsored research began at the end of 1934. By October 1935, an experimental IR aircraft detection system had been developed to a functional, but experimental state, by Jones and Anderson. A report to the air ministry at the end of 1935 was that the apparatus was functional, but had disappointing performance. 

The main problem at the time was that the IR emissions from the engine were rapidly absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as airborne water vapours. The detection devices available at that time (1935) did not have the power to detect IR signatures at more than very short ranges. Despite the problems reported by Jones, he was directed to continue research by the air ministry,

Work on the IR detectors continued into 1936, under the overall direction of Tizard. This R&D effort led to the development of a workable electronic amplifier. By June 1936, the equipment was able to detect the aircraft in flight, but the big drawback as noted by Jones, in all IR systems (Allied or Axis) was its inability to determine ranges accurately. 

April 1937 an airborne IR detection device was successfully tested. The equipment had been tested and developed to the point that even damped and screened engines could be detected...suggesting a considerable development of the technology. The sensitivity of the equipment was such that it could even detect the heat being emitted from the wing fuselage leading edges of the test aircraft...

In December 1937, a partial breakthrough occurred with the ability to determine ranges, using optical pulses. Methods were also found at about this time to reduce scatter in the lower atmosphere and in humid or damp conditions.

July 1937, the air defence subcommittee recorded in a report to the MOD "_considerable progress has been made in the IR development work.....(and) should continue in view of the possibleapplication to other problems_". Given subsequent diversification to a joint services research committee, it seems that the british even at this early stage were considereing parallel uses at sea and on land for the technology 

In March 1939, the air ministry work was halted, temporarily, as a result of pressure from Watt (who wanted AI radar to be concentrated on). However, after the promotion of Watt, this decision was reversed, and the research taken up by an Interservice group, with the work to be undertaken at the Admiralty Research Labratory at Teddington

After this Jones account is silent, because he was transferred out of the project. 

He later served on a special Intelligence gathering group, dedicated to analysing German progress on various filds of research. The only other reference to IR I could find in the book was that in 1942, a breakthrough on german research into IR revealed that they were at about the same level of devbelopment in 1942, as the British had reach at the end of 1938

I believe that the germans were the world leaders in tank design, but the claim that they led in all manner of electromagnetic radaition research is just not supported, at least in the area of IR research.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Damage is already done. When both you and M_Kenny return from your vacation, if you can act like adults you may continue to post here.




sorry, made my preceding post without having read this last development in the thread


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 8, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now you are just scooting around the facts, so I will ask you again, what does a video game have to do with your claim. You brought it up, do not back out of it.



Il2 just teaches me how many factors involved in fighter comparation, such as level accelaration, min. circle radius/time ,stall speed,,max WEP time, high speed handling, roll rate @variuos speed,engine reliability, firepower, and output/weight ratio including max. speed, dive, climbe rate .However,in 1946's P80 vs Me262 report, many factors are absent. Actually I've only saw a "paragraph" instead of a detailed comparation.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 8, 2008)

Well then. Sounds like good sources of engineering validation.


----------



## Glider (Dec 9, 2008)

I have found this interesting snippet relating to Infra Red Homing Gear used by British Special Forces. Anyone know anything about it?

_After being taken to within 3 or 4 miles(5 or 6km) of the coastline by submarine(or sometimes small craft such as MLs or MTBs) the two-man canoes were paddled to about 200 yards( ) offshore. From here the No.1s swam, leaving the No2s or paddlers to remain anchored or carry out an offshore reconnaissance. Naval and military personnel had their own special functions but whenever possible were cross-trained. Navy concerns were related to the approach to the beach, such as rocks or shoals, minefields, tides, beach gradients, conditions of surf and positioning of markers. The Army members of the team would look at the beach itself in detail- whether it could handle armour or not, obstructions, exits- as well as defences and landmarks. When those ashore had completed their tasks withdrawal was by a well-rehearsed plan and use of infra-red or other homing devices. When piloting an assault landing COPPists would flash their torches and* infra-red beacons *from submarines and canoe, while other members were in the leading landing craft._


----------



## parsifal (Dec 9, 2008)

Whilst it would still be an approximation, and still open to opinion I thik it is possible to devise a points system to establish which country had the overall lead in technologyFirstly, you would need to come up with a list of development categories that you wanted to include in your analysis. For example, this list might includ:

Battle Tanks
Light Tanks and recon
Specialized armour (eg airborne, amphib etc)
SPGs
ATGs
AA 
Field artillery
Heavy artillery
Light artillery/mtn artillery/jungle artillery
small arms
personal kit
Hvy MT
Medium MT
Light MT
APCs and Half tracks
Ground based Radar
Airborne AI Radar
ASV Radar
Surface and fire control radar
airborne and seaborne passive detection
Carriers
Heavy Ship 
Light Ship
Aubmarines
ASW escorts
ASW detection
ASW weapons
Merchant ships
Logistics
amphibious tech
and so on

For each category, you would subdivide the item into subcategories....eg, for main battle tanks, you would probably have the categories of offense, defense, mobility, simplicity/produceability, communications, reliability

You would then assign a value from from 0 to 7 for each category, with a point (or part of a point awarded to a nationality for each year that they held an adavantage in that particular area. For example, the Germans in the area of offensive firepower for their MBTs might score in the firepower category as follows: 

'39: 0.25
'40: 0.25
'41: 0.3
'42: 0.4
'43: 1.0
'44: 1.0
'45: 0.8

1.0 is the maximum that a nationality could achieve in a given year for each category. It is of course subjective what value you might assign for a given year, but it breaks the problem down into biteable, more easily digested chunks.

In the example I have given, the Germans appear to have scored 4.0 out of a possible 7, in the firepower stakes. I wont show my working out, but using this method, I rated the British at 3.3, 

This process would be repeated for easch of the items on the list, and for each subcategory applicable to that item. At the end there would be a number, that could then be compared with all the other nationalities , with the natioonality with the highest value the technological leader of the war. It would not eliminate all of the subjectivity in the poll, but it would make people at least think about all the element6s of a superior technogy


----------



## evangilder (Dec 9, 2008)

While your effort to reign in this thread is an interesting one, parsifal, I really don't see the point in saying that this country or that country was the best in X. There has been a lot of personal opinion in this thread and the level of emotions has also risen high. So the Germans did have some technological advances over the allies, as the allies had some over the axis. In the end, whatever technological edge the Germans had was not enough.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 9, 2008)

agreed, but watching intelligent people run around thumping the tub and getting nowhere in the discussion is very frustrating. I suppose in a discussion like this, all you can manage is your own point of view....perhaps thats the lesson


----------



## evangilder (Dec 9, 2008)

yup.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 10, 2008)

Wow, such entertainment! Who said this thread was silly? Give him a cigar!

After reading through these 12 pages or so I have found:

The USA supported/financed/elected Hitler. Maybe Roosevelt did start WWII!
A GameStop gift card is better than a pilots license.
Russian tanks were more fearsome than anybody's. No wonder Eisenhower didn't want to take Berlin!
Proof is in the opinion.
It doesn't matter when comparing contemporaies in weapons - P-80 vs Me 262? hell, why not Fokker Dr I vs F-86!

and not for nothing......

from Soren;


> "One SPERBER squad including their Panthers was transfered to STUHLWEISSENBURG (Hungary) in early 1945 with 6th SS-Panzerarmee, intended to support the german counterattack to secure the area of Budapest. The rest of the Kompanie followed, but without nightfighting equipment. In 1945 the Wehrmacht planned to form 5 SPERBER Kompanies, but this concept proved to be illusory. 2 SPERBER squads joined the spontanuous formed Panzerdivision "CLAUSEWITZ", which was formed in spring 1945 on the western front. *On 21st of april, these 2 squads ran down an american ambush, which has been set up at the WESER-ELBE-KANAL, and by this ensured the only documented action of the nightfighting concept SPERBER*.



Don't know why this was posted because the claim was for 1944, right? 

Parsifal's bold post said it best. This topic has been beat to death in countless over posts - so much so its like a virus.

But I have to vote flyboy's lone post as the nugget of the thread.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 11, 2008)

This thread looks like a train wreck right now.......its hard to see anything useful coming out of a topic like this when all people want to do is talk *at* each other, and not *to* each other.

We lost two forum members from this thread....smart people with a dumb attitude


----------



## Waynos (Dec 11, 2008)

double post, sorry.


----------



## Waynos (Dec 11, 2008)

The following is my opinion,

I know the Germans developed swept wings and knew all about the advantages they conferred (NACA were also aware of this as were the RAE - but both of those made less progress in this area than the Germans) but during ww2 Germany did not get to fly one single aeroplane that was designed to take advantage of these speed benefits. The Me 262 had its wing very modestly swept back because of the cg, but was more advanced than the Meteors thanks to its low drag, short chord design, NOT its angle. In one way the 262 trailed behind UK jet design as the Germans still put the pilot on the cg with its attendant limitation on visibility etc whereas the British put the pilot in the nose right from the start, Britain was also quicker to adopt the tricycle undercarriage for its jets than the Germans were. The Me 163 swept wing was entirely for aerodynamic control in the absence of a horizontal tail, similarly to the Westland Pterodactyl series of aircraft from the 1920's 30's, not for speed reasons, however the P.1112 did boast a higher sweep angle to allow a higher speed, but this was not built. And what was so advanced about the He 162? Nothing as far as I can tell. It was small, light, simple and cheap. Not advanced.

Also Britain was actively building an afterburning jet powered supersonic prototype before the war ended, to a design which was later proven to be entirely successful in its aims. This was fitted with ultra thin straight wings rather than swept, an idea the US also proved to work and a modern incarnation of which concept can be found today on the F-18.

The Germans were scientifically advanced, but more than everyone else, in every sphere? Thats just daft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2008)

parsifal said:


> We lost two forum members from this thread....smart people with a dumb attitude



They only have a week ban. They have the opportunity to return, if they can act like adults.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 11, 2008)

Lets hope they think about why things happened as they did


----------



## m kenny (Dec 12, 2008)

In 1995 Feist and Culver published their Panther book





the following 2 claims are made on pages 169 and 170:
*1*
_One action took place on the 21st of April 1945. The last ten
tanks of "Clausewitz", followed by a Puma 20 mm (Sd.Kfz.
234/1) recce vehicle, approached a US antitank-gun position
(76 mm AT gun M2) at the Weser/Elbe Canal. This first attack
took place at 2 o'clock in the morning. The Americans were
alert and fired illumination rounds. The leading Panther was
then hit and slipped into a ditch, the attack halted. Then the IR
Panthers moved into cover and after a short time located the
guns and fired some twenty rounds. The entire position was
destroyed, the crews and the accompanying infantry company
escaping in somewhat of a panic. The IR Panthers followed
up, destroying some lorries and further support vehicles.
This attack was a success, revealing the enormous possibili-
ties of the IR technology. It is not known, whether the IR
Panthers of "Clausewitz" were used a second time._

*2*
_Some reports tell of a last action of thus equipped IR Panthers
when they met a British armored division. A British platoon
equipped with Comet tanks was engaged in April 1945 (at 
night) by some Solution B IR Panthers. In a short, one-sided
and fierce firelight the entire platoon was annihilated.._

These claims are repeated in their 1998 Panther book




they are also picked up in the 1996 Concord book ( page 66) and they match so closely they must be sourced in Culver and Feist






These 2 sites repeat the claims
Nightfighting Panthers
Achtung Panzer! - German Infrared Night-Vision Devices!
but they are so worded as to be obvious repeats of the Culver and Feist claims.

This indicates that there is only the one source, Culver and Feist.

It is interesting that though the Culver and Feist books mention a photograph of a solution B Panther in their 1995 book it is only printed in the 1996 Anderson book.





Unfortunately this photo turned out to be a fake and thus completely demolished the claim for a Solution B Panther.
Axis WWII Discussion Group: IR Panther KOed in Falaise

In this thread the author(Thomas Anderson) explains how he was duped.
Axis WWII Discussion Group: Fine Scale modeler: IR panther solution B thoughts?

The way I see it then we have the claim for the use of 2 IR Panthers on the night of 21st April 1945.
I found this
After Action April 1945

and the report for 21/4/45 states:
_On 21 April, the Division attacked north from a line of departure DAHRE - SALZWEDEL with CCA on the left and CCR on the right. Just prior to the attack, CCA was counter-attacked by elements of Division "Clausewitz". Artillery fire was placed on the attacking forces and they broke and dispersed into the woods to the north.

CCA attacked against a determined enemy who had set up make shift defenses in the woods along the combat command's routes of advance. An increase in the use of anti-tank mines was observed, and fire from nebelwerfers and artillery pieces slowed the advance to some extent. At 2100, the 46th Amrd Inf Bn (married) was assembling for the night in the vicinity of GADDAU. The married "C" companies (46th Armd Inf Bn and 34th Tank Bn) went into position with the CCA CP near KLENZE and the 34th Tank Bn (married) assembled in the vicinity of BERGEN .

CCR was held up in its attack until 1500. The reason for this was that the resistance in front of CCA was such that the two combat commands could not parallel each other's advance, and thus a threat existed to the flank of either, if one was held up and the other moved too rapidly forward. After CCA had cracked the resistance in its sector, CCR attacked with the 47th Armd Inf Bn (married) advancing north on the SALZWEDEL - LUCHOW road and the 10th Tank Bn (married) attacking on the left to clear the pockets in the woods near BOMBECK. The 47th met a good deal of resistance along its route, and mines were found strewn on the road with a minefield near SAASSE. Road blocks defended by AT guns, nebelwerfers, mortars, and infantry, were encountered all along the route and at 2000, heavy fire from LUCHOW, and vicinity, prompted the force to abandon its further advance that night. The battalion went into a security position near SAASSE. In the meantime, the 10th Tank Bn was attacking in the BOMBECK area. The woods in this vicinity had been reported to be a strong-point of enemy armor and infantry. The positions had been sealed off on the north and east by CCA's attack in the early part of the day. The attack was made with one married tank-infantry company moving south from SEEBEN to the railroad and holding there while the balance of the 10th attacked north from the south edge of the woods. 

A quantity of enemy personnel was trapped and captured and material loss for the enemy was large. Three (3) tanks were known to have escaped the trap and these moved northwest into the CCA sector. The 10th Tank Bn secured for the night near GR GERSTEDT.

CCB, with the 85th Cav Rcn Sq Mecz attached, continued its clearing at the KLOTZE FORST. Many burned out enemy vehicles were found along with others which apparently had been abandoned. The combat command also maintained its road blocks on the western boundary of the sector in the WITTINGEN - ZASENBECK RADENBECK area, and kept contact with the 29th Inf Div to the north. An advance Division CP was established at SALZWEDEL and Division operations were directed from there.

(NOTE: Div Arty accomplished its usual efficient mission in a supporting role, and the disorganization and dispersal of enemy units attested to the accuracy of the artillery fire.)

Enemy losses were reported as follows:

personnel, PW's six hundred fifty (650), killed, one hundred fifty nine (159),

material captured or destroyed,

fourteen (14) tanks,
four (4) armored cars,
nine (9) half-tracks,
two (2) SP guns (1-75mm, 1-105mm),
two (2) 88mm AT/AA.guns,
four (4) 105mm guns,
two (2) 20mm flak guns,
seventy-two (72) miscellaneous cycles,
one (1) fuel-lubricant dump containing one hundred fifty (150) 50 gal drums of fuel._

There is no mention of 'panic' nor is there anything about IR Panthers. Why were they not noticed? The report also lists the 5th AD losses for the whole of April and only 1 57mm A/T gun was written off.
Perhaps the US Soldiers would not have known about IR and thus might have missed the signs?
A little further down the same page ( 6. COMMENTS: Section II - Intelligence Matters)
it says:
_Two, apparently new and highly secret weapons of the enemy were captured during the period.

At STENAL, Germany a German research technician was taken prisoner. This technician had in his possession and installed on his automobile, Infrared equipment which he was removing from the vicinity of BERLIN and the ultimate danger of capture by the Russians. This equipment was designed for installation on tanks for the purpose of night fighting. The entire equipment, plus the technician was turned over to Enemy Equipment Intelligence Service, NINTH Army. A secret report has been subsequently rendered on this equipment and a copy of the report is on file at this Headquarters._
So it seems they did have the ability to recognise the importance of IR Equipment after all.

Lastly we have the claim about the Comets being 'wiped out.
The following links makes short work of this claim
Axis WWII Discussion Group: Exploding Comets, and myths.

It seems the two actions always quoted as proof of IR Panther success have serious problems of credibility


For info on Allied IR:
http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/Tabby02.pdf

An article that appeared in Wheels And Tracks Magazine had details of IR night-driving set ups on Churchill and Cromwell tanks from 1943 . If no one has it I can post it here.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2008)

welcome back M-Kenny. An excellent post, and please do post your material up on Allied IR equipped tanks. Jones hints at it, but is just a little tantalizingly vague to confirm anything. I did stumble across a webpage giving some broad based information on US usage of man-portable IR used on Okinawa in 1945. I'll see if I can find it.

Whilst Jones is vague about the land based IR, he does give a pretty good summary on IR research up to 1939, and some comparison to the German state of reseach. It is pretty clear from Jones' book entries that the British were more advanced in their research (but I am not sure about development), than the Germans. Perhaps the Germans were at a higher state of development, but were using cruder research and theory in their equipment development???


----------



## Glider (Dec 12, 2008)

Can I second Parsifal's post and ask for the details of the Infra Red lamps on Churchill and Cromwell tanks


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2008)

A summary of US man portable IR equipment

Fight at Night: U.S Army Night Vision 1945-1980

On the T120 Snipewrscope and M2 Snooperscope

M1 Carbine Information, M1 Carbine Reference Articles - FindTarget Reference

Relevantly it makes the following performance appraisals

The M3 carbine (a selective-fire M2 with the M1 infrared night sight or sniperscope) was first used in combat by Army units during the invasion of Okinawa. For the first time, U.S. soldiers had a weapon that allowed them to visually detect Japanese infiltrating into American lines at night, even during pitch blackness. A team of two or three soldiers was used to operate the weapon and provide support. At night, the scope would be used to detect Japanese patrols and assault units moving forwards. At that point, the operator would fire a burst of automatic fire at the greenish images of enemy soldiers. The M3 with the M1 sight had an effective range of about 70 yards (limited by the visual capabilities of the sight). Fog and rain further reduced the weapon's effective range. It is estimated that fully 30% of Japanese casualties inflicted by rifle and carbine fire during the Okinawan campaign were caused by the M3 carbine and its M1 sniperscope.


----------



## Juha (Dec 12, 2008)

Hello Parsifal and Glider
with a little imagination using m_kenny's link I found this http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/Tabby01.pdf
it's on British systems

Juha

And Thanks m_kenny for the excellent message and links.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2008)

Juha

Excellent find. I read that document very quickly. It appears that the Brits were utilising passive and active IR detection systems, in which case they were even further ahead than I had first thought. Passive IR systems are3 generally conside3red to be "2nd generation", whereas active systems are associated with 1st generation. The main problem with active systems are their tendencey to give their own positions away.

I will go back and have another look


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2008)

Juha
Once again I would second parsifal's comments. The only ones I had heard of were the ones fitted to RAF bombers and nightfighters. The bombers were often those few aircraft fitted with the type D turret with its built in radar. The gunners often had a radar reading before they could see anything but if they fired on the radar, then it was too often another bomber that they shot at.
I had no idea that infra red was so widely issued from so early on in the war.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2008)

The German Vampir Zielgerät 1229 system was in use, though not wide-spread, on both the western and eastern fronts late in the war. While it's development goes back a number of years, for some reason, it was never fully utilized.

Same goes for the FG 1250 system, which was part of the Vampir "Infrarot-Scheinwerfer" design. The intention was to have the IR equipped Panther (or other large panzer) deploy along with the SdKfz 251 "Uhu" on the battlefield. Aparently, only 50 Pzkfw V Panthers ever got the FG 1250, and those were deployed both to the eastern front and the western front. Also equipped, was the Marder II and various other armored vehicles, as the FG 1250 with it's 60cm searchlight was easily mounted.

Having the equipment is one thing, actually surving to use it was another. I would have to question some of the "stories" that involve the IR equipped tanks, but I have no doubt that there were IR equipped men and machines engaged in battle during the war.

Sdkfz 251 Uhu:


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2008)

Brilliant, went to preview, and submitted instead...

Also wanted to post a drawing of the FG 1250 and a photo of the rifle-mounted 1229 unit...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2008)

I dont think there are too many folks here saying the equipment wasnt avilable to the germans. There are three points of contention, however. The first was that it was used operationally on the western front. The second was that it was effective (specifically that it shot up an American AT unit, and a British unit of Comets). The third point of contention is that it was superior technologically to anything opposed to that German equipment

M-Kenny has produced some fairly solid evidence to suggest that either the germans did not use the equipment, or, if it was, it was not effective. 

The technological development is either inconclusive as to who held the lead, or suggests that the allies in fact held the technological edge in this field


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2008)

I would surmise that the German leaders treated the Vampir system as a second thought over more conventional technology, as they did in a number of cases, until it was too late in the war to make a difference.

As far as the superiority aspect, I would venture to say that the IR systems on both sides would have been comparable technology, with the Germans only having the noteriety of developing it first.

If I remember right, the unit of IR equipped (FG 1250) Panthers that trained for operation Wacht Am Rhein (Battle of the Bulge), were never deployed in that action. FG 1250 equipped Panthers did see some (very limited) action in Hungary though, and more notably, in the defense of Berlin during the night attack on the Soviet's Reitwein lines (April 1945) along with Vampir equipped PanzerGrenadiers.

One of the problems with the vehicle mounted system, was it's inability to handle shock, and when mounted on the Panther, suffered infra-red pollution by the Panther's exhaust. To add to that problem, the short range of the searchlight (600-700m) would have limited it's ability to engage at a safe range in a running battle.

I would imagine that the Allied IR equipment would be comparable in this respect, seeing as how the technology was still new, and hadn't had much time for working out bugs.

It would be interesting to see the environmental conditions of the two battles where IR was supposedly used (involving U.S. AT and British Comets) on the western front. If there were a full moon on those evenings, perhaps that would have led to the Panther's crews being able to effectively engage at night as they did have excellent optics.


----------



## Soren (Dec 13, 2008)

parsifal said:


> He later served on a special Intelligence gathering group, dedicated to analysing German progress on various filds of research. The only other reference to IR I could find in the book was that in 1942, a breakthrough on german research into IR revealed that they were at about the same level of devbelopment in 1942, as the British had reach at the end of 1938



Well that is incorrect I'm afraid. The Germans fielded much better IR imaging equipement, the excellent image quality making it suitable for use on AFV's, the FG-1250 for example providing clear imaging out to 600m while other versions provided two or six times greater range (These were used on a/c). Allied IR equipment could only be used at ranges of 30 to 50m, rendering it useless for use on AFV's and other any purpose demanding greater visibillity range.

Furthermore the Germans were the first to field their better IR equipment, equipped units seeing action in 1944. The Allies first fielded their IR equipment in May 45 on Okinawa. But that's not all, the Germans also fielded IR equipment on their a/c, like the Spanner I-IV: Pauke, Pauke! » Spanner I-IV

Bf-110 with Spanner (Searchlight mounted under nose, detector in front windscreen):





Do-17Z10 with Spanner (Searchlight in nose, detector in front windscreen):













And then there was the FuG280 "Kiel" developed by Zeiss. Operating using lead sulphite photocells amplified in a vision screen, it provided a clear imaging range of 4000m, while weighing only 42 kg.

Also note that the Germans had working IR equipment in 1936.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren
Would I be right in saying that those pictures are of experimental/test examples. The Do17 is clearly an early aircraft and that 110 looks like an early version to me.
I have never seen an operational version in use in the front line or on any photo of a Ju88 or 110G.

If this is the case and they were not deployed (and I could be wrong) why wasn't this equipment deployed if it was so good?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 14, 2008)

Welcome back soren.

The British in fact had an airborne operational IR unit from early 1939. This is according to Jones, who worked on the equipment. Jones, in his Book, "Most Secret War" makes the point that British IR technology was clearly superior to anything the Germans were working on. I dont know that I can fully subscribe to that, but just given the fact that the British had their IR technology functional (1934-5) at a time that the Germans had not even really begun their research for military purposes (According to WIKI, they commenced military research into the physics in 1936) suggests that the British had a lead in the Research side of the Technology. What is not clear, is who held the lead in the development side of the technology, namely, thye conversion of the theoretical, or the experimental, to the operational. Jones does make the passing observation in his book that in 1942, certain discoveries made concerning the state of German research in 1942 was at about the same level as the British had been in 1937

The British were the only ones who apparently found even a theoretical answer to the chief problem to IR technology at the time namely, the ability to estimate range. They achieved this prewar by puksed emissions

I cant actually prove it, but just looking at the diagrams for the respective technologies, it looks to me that the Brits had some wartime equipment that used image enghancement, that is it uses a passive light source rather than an active light source. If this is the case, the British were reaching into what is referred to as "2nd generation" technology with IR.

On the other hand, and in support of the Germans, the Germans seem to have reached a higher stage of development over the allies......allied sets claim maximum ranges out to 400metres, for ground based systems, whilst the German FG 1250 had a maximum range out to 600metres. Allied effective ranges were roughly 1/3 that listed as the maximum rangese foir their ground based systems, I dont know the "effective" range for the FG 1250, but clearly if its maximum range is 600metres, its effective range is going to be less. I have not seen any ground based equipment used or developed in the wartime eera, that bettered the FG 1250. You say that there was equipment 4 times more effective than that, we'd better have a look at it if you can be more specific please

Lastly, US equipment was operational from 1943, not 1945, whilst the British had operational (but non-combat Night Vision equipment for land based applications, from 1941. Churchill was unwilling to commit the technology to battle until it could be iontroduced on a large scale for all battlke fronts. This goes a long way to explaining why evidence of British applications are so tantalizingly hard to find. 

My opinion, based on the above is that it cannot be stated unequivocally that the germans held the lead. In terms of Research and theory, I think it was the Allies who were ahead, however in terms of military application, it may well be the Germans who held the lead at the end of the war


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

Glider said:


> Soren
> Would I be right in saying that those pictures are of experimental/test examples. The Do17 is clearly an early aircraft and that 110 looks like an early version to me.
> I have never seen an operational version in use in the front line or on any photo of a Ju88 or 110G.
> 
> If this is the case and they were not deployed (and I could be wrong) why wasn't this equipment deployed if it was so good?



It was deployed Glider.


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

> I cant actually prove it, but just looking at the diagrams for the respective technologies, it looks to me that the Brits had some wartime equipment that used image enghancement, that is it uses a passive light source rather than an active light source. If this is the case, the British were reaching into what is referred to as "2nd generation" technology with IR.



The FG-1250, Spanner, FuG-280 etc etc all used passive light sources and accurate range estimation was one of their advantages, and finally versions of them were operational in 42. So Spooner doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.



> On the other hand, and in support of the Germans, the Germans seem to have reached a higher stage of development over the allies......allied sets claim maximum ranges out to 400metres, for ground based systems, whilst the German FG 1250 had a maximum range out to 600metres. Allied effective ranges were roughly 1/3 that listed as the maximum rangese foir their ground based systems, I dont know the "effective" range for the FG 1250, but clearly if its maximum range is 600metres, its effective range is going to be less. I have not seen any ground based equipment used or developed in the wartime eera, that bettered the FG 1250. You say that there was equipment 4 times more effective than that, we'd better have a look at it if you can be more specific please



Parsifal the Germans list the ranges up to which all is clearly visible, the max range was longer. The Allied IR sets only provided a 40 to 50m clear visibility range, not 400m which was the absolute max range of the aparatus. The FG-1250 had a clear visibility range of 600m, and the a/c equipment like the Spanner I-IV had four to six times as long a clear visibility range, the FuG-280 for one providing a 4000m clear visibility range.

The Germans were well ahead in this area.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 14, 2008)

Can you produce your sources for the claims that you make in the above posts. 

A passive system is a system that can rely on the ambient light sources. If the Sperber was a Passive system, why then does it have this 200mm lamp included in the drawings, as are all the other systems that you have illustrated.

With regards to the range claims that you are making you need to show documentation to support those claims, rather than just making the claims. There is far better body of information produced to this point within this thread to support the counterargument against you than the claims that you make.

In other words, it is just not adequate for you to make the claim....the evidence at this point that has been presented simply underscuts whatever claims you are trying to make....you need to start producing the evidence.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

I have been looking into it and as I understand it Spanner I was only deployed in a handfull (not all) of the Do217 nightfighters which in themselves were only in service for a short time, and a couple of experimental Me110D aircraft.

If it was any good it presumably would have been used in the Ju88 and 110G nightfighters which formed the backbone of the nightfighter forces.

So you are correct in that it was deployed but so were a number of other devices on both sides, but wasn't a success like so many ideas. 

Spanner I didn't use passive light and Spanner II which did, was never used or produced.
FUG - 280 did use passive light but only a handfull were built right at the end of the war
FG-1250 didn't use passive light, in fact, I believe it was an Infra Red Searchlight/scope the total opposite of what you claim.
So on this basis the only passive equipment the Germans used were the handful of FuG-280s built at the end of the war.

I could of course be wrong on the above and if you could quote your sources to support your statements it could get interesting.

If it helps the following site gave me the info the the Spanner I/Spanner II as well as the FuG 280
Skylighters, The Web Site of the 225th AAA Searchlight Battalion: Radar in WW II
The following gave me the description of the FG-1250
Nightfighting Panthers


----------



## m kenny (Dec 14, 2008)

Issue 53 of 'Wheels And Tracks' magazine






















As has been stated many times IR Technology was not a war-winning German invention but something every major nation had. As it is a spin-off from Television technology then it was widely know about before the war.
Everyone seems to have had an IR night driving system. The Germans went one further and tried to use it in combat situations. This was not practical given the state of play. Any tank going into action with an active IR source might as well have had a sign on it saying kill me. A simple cheap IR detector (which the Allies had ready and waiting) was the answer and for this reason the use of German IR was forbiden in the West. There is no documented information about IR Panther usuage in 1945 and certainly no IR use in The Bulge. It seems this Bulge claims overlooks one of the problems with IR-it does not work in the snow!
If you read the links that mention the capture of the German IR Training Unit it becomes obvious why it was never used in action. The first shot knocked all the sighting systems out of alignment and thus negated the IR advantage.
A blessing really becuase it saved the crews from certain destruction when their lights gave their position away.
Reading of the US 5th AD account of the claimed IR Panther attack confirms that no IR Panthers were involved and the other IR claim about the destruction of the Comets is equaly suspect. 
The whole of the claims about IR Panther usuage in 1945 rest on 2 unsourced and demostrably faulty reports in the Feist and Culver 1995 book. There is not even an unsourced claim saying they saw use in 1944.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 14, 2008)

One site I found

Nightfighting Panthers

Relevantly, the site makes the following point:

_Admittedly the searchlight range wasn´t more than 600 metres, limiting the long range advantage of the excellent KwK42 75mm/L70._

Thats a maximum range not a maximum effective range in my book, because as Jones makes very clear in his book, the performance of the IR systems was downgraded very badly by the atmospherics and other factors

The site also includes a drawing of the FG-1250, which has already been reproduced on the site. It clearly shows the system as a relying on a searchlight system, therefore it cannot be considered a passive detection system

The Germans were developing a 600mm searchlight IR system (the "UHU mounted on a halftrack. This did have a theoretical maximum range of 2500 metres, buts use was only ever projected. Moreover the size of the searchlight and equipment are such that I am very doubtful that the airborne versions deployed by the germans (which still relied on active light sources) could have an effective range of 2400 metres.....the light emitters on the a/c are simply too small to have that range capability.

Admittedly one site claims that the airborne IR detection system was a passive system.....and then promptly disproves that by providing an illustration of an aircraft with a device incorporating an IR searchlight.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 14, 2008)

Glider said:


> Soren
> Would I be right in saying that those pictures are of experimental/test examples. The Do17 is clearly an early aircraft and that 110 looks like an early version to me.
> I have never seen an operational version in use in the front line or on any photo of a Ju88 or 110G.



From what I have read the IR devices were indeed used on the early nightfighters over Germany, but with the appearance of radar sets, which were overall more effective, replaced them.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 14, 2008)

parsifal said:


> The British in fact had an airborne operational IR unit from early 1939. This is according to Jones, who worked on the equipment. Jones, in his Book, "Most Secret War" makes the point that British IR technology was clearly superior to anything the Germans were working on.



I wouldn't put much faith in the comments Jones use to make regarding German progress, I have seen references to his 'conclusions' about German recce flights over England, concluding _there was none since 1940_, because they found 1940ish recon photos with V-1 launching units. Of course there were numerous recon flights, of which perhaps Jones did not know about (which OTOH shows how little insight he had into those things), but its a good example of how wishful sometimes Jones and generally, intelligence can be. I have some of these wartime air intelligence reports and their quality is appealing - either they are panicking at some non-existent enemy boogeyman technology, or having this pompous assurance of total superiority over the sorry enemy. Jones strikes me generally as being a specimen of the latter approach.



parsifal said:


> I cant actually prove it, but just looking at the diagrams for the respective technologies, it looks to me that the Brits had some wartime equipment that used image enghancement, that is it uses a passive light source rather than an active light source. If this is the case, the British were reaching into what is referred to as "2nd generation" technology with IR.



Perhaps they were using passive sets, but wheter they were usable at all is another matter - many generations of post-war tanks of the NATO and the USSR relied on active IR sets, with huge IR search lights mounted on the tanks, so obviously the passive technology was simply not mature for field use long after the war.

As for passive application, I understand the Germans had developed their own passive devices meant to locate enemy IR signitures if used on the battlefield, but never seemed to have used them, which would point to the fact that there were no substantial Allied IR use either. But overall, passive IR as a technology wasn't anything 'secret', there are for example several (German)IR photographs of British Chain Home towers published in Wood and Dempster's 'Narrow Margin', and those are fairly good quality, ie. IR sensitive film existed back then already.



> My opinion, based on the above is that it cannot be stated unequivocally that the germans held the lead.



Agreed. Personally I would very much doubt that any of these IR sets saw much use during the war, and I have certainly not seen evidence of that. There are a few examples on both sides, but these would appear on either the experimental, or very small scale.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> From what I have read the IR devices were indeed used on the early nightfighters over Germany, but with the appearance of radar sets, which were overall more effective, replaced them.



Again you certainly could be right Kurfurst and it makes sense. What I was expecting was that early Ju88 and Me110's would have been fitted with them but they don't seem to have been.
It could have been little more than a experimental installation or trials unit


----------



## parsifal (Dec 14, 2008)

It appears that the majority view on IR technology was that there was no clear advantage for wither side. Some may disagree with that, but it seems a reasonable enoug conclusion to make, considering the extremely limited contribution the teechnology made on the war as a whole. IR technology post war has had a huge impact on the nature of warfare...no longer is it a safe option, to "use the cover of darkness".

I think the majority view on this subthread is that there is no clear advantage by either side. Perhaps we should move onto another area of technology for discussion....


----------



## parsifal (Dec 14, 2008)

If we are going to move on, it seems to me that a useful exercise would be to think about the parameters of successful technology. IMO there are a number of factors to consider including

Combat Effectiveness, Produceability, Serviceability, Reliability, Development costs.

Are these agreed parameters? Any other factors we should include?


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

That the detector was passive doesn't mean that a searchlight wouldn't be of benefit though. 

But the ZG-1229 Vampir was indeed active, not passive. As for Spanner, there were four versions, Spanner I was active, the rest were passive. 

As for FG-1250, a searchlight is present, but it could be both. I rembered it as passive. But the 600m clear visibility range and 1,000m max range was a clear advantage over any of the Allied sets.

The Germans were clearly ahead in this field, which ironically is also stated on the pages M_Kenny has provided.


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

parsifal said:


> If we are going to move on, it seems to me that a useful exercise would be to think about the parameters of successful technology. IMO there are a number of factors to consider including
> 
> Combat Effectiveness, Produceability, Serviceability, Reliability, Development costs.
> 
> Are these agreed parameters? Any other factors we should include?



Does combat effectiveness cover the performance/capability of the technology ? The reason I'm asking this is because many things which aren't related to the capability/performance of the material at all can have a dramatic effect on how effective said material proves in combat.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> That the detector was passive doesn't mean that a searchlight wouldn't be of benefit though.


Can I ask you to explain this?



> But the ZG-1229 Vampir was indeed active, not passive. As for Spanner, there were four versions, Spanner I was active, the rest were passive.


Spanner II was passive but not built or issued as for III and IV I have no idea as I have found no trace of them. Can I ask you to supply something to support your statement. I am pretty sure that if they had been deployed then something would have shown up on my enquiries. 
Be fair, I did supply the sources that I found, they may well be wrong or incomplete but at least you have the basis of my points. All I ask is that you do the same.



> As for FG-1250, a searchlight is present, but it could be both. I rembered it as passive. But the 600m clear visibility range and 1,000m max range was a clear advantage over any of the Allied sets.


I don't think it could be both. None of the sources I have seen mention that it was both. They only link the searchlight with the viewer, one is part of the other.
Again I would ask you to supply sources to back up your claim. 

Generally, neither side seem to have a technical advantage, the allies concentrated on practical equipment to assist with driving and produced thousands of working sets deployed to a number of types of unit.
Germany on fighting equipment produced in very small numbers.


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

Glider said:


> Can I ask you to explain this?



Sure. The searchlight sends out infrared light, illuminating what'ever surfaces it hits with infrared light which in turn is detectable by the IR detector. The passive detectors are more sensitive than the active sets, allowing them to be used without a searchlight. But like using light to clear something up for ourselves to see, the searchlight can be used the same with passive IR detectors, lighting up objects far away otherwise not visible.

But pure active devices have a clear disadvantage in that the light from the needed searchlight can be easily spotted by other IR detectors, just like you can see if someone is using a flashlight in the dark. Therefore the military was vary of using it, and instead opted for passive sets which only need the surrounding light to form an image. However one clear advantage of the active systems is the clearer image, the passive sets tending to be abit blurry, and therefore the military today combines the two, a passive IR detector IR searchlight (Like the Germans did), using the IR searchlight to illuminate objects which the passive detectors otherwise couldn't see properly and providing a clearer image. However since, like I said, that the light from the IR searchlight can be seen by other IR detectors, it is very seldom used when outside. However when there is very little to no natural IR light available, like when entering a windowless building at night, the searchlight is essential. That is why soldiers today carry the passive IR detector IR searchlight combination.



> Spanner II was passive but not built or issued as for



Oh Spanner II was certainly built, and also issued, I even have pictures of it.

Spanner II in Bf-110:







> III and IV I have no idea as I have found no trace of them. Can I ask you to supply something to support your statement. I am pretty sure that if they had been deployed then something would have shown up on my enquiries.
> Be fair, I did supply the sources that I found, they may well be wrong or incomplete but at least you have the basis of my points. All I ask is that you do the same.



See picture above, Spanner III IV were but improved versions of the Spanner II.



> I don't think it could be both. None of the sources I have seen mention that it was both. They only link the searchlight with the viewer, one is part of the other.
> Again I would ask you to supply sources to back up your claim.



When I say it could be both I mean it could be either active or passive, and according to memory it is passive. But it might very well be active. But like I said, a passive detector may be coupled with an IR searchlight to provide longer clearer imaging, like we do today.



> Generally, neither side seem to have a technical advantage, the allies concentrated on practical equipment to assist with driving and produced thousands of working sets deployed to a number of types of unit.
> Germany on fighting equipment produced in very small numbers.



I disagree, and so does every expert on the subject it seems, atleast all my sources. Fact is that the German detectors were more sensitive and provided better imaging, giving them a much longer usable range, and that's a clear advantage in my book.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren
_re I disagree, and so does every expert on the subject it seems, atleast all my sources. Fact is that the German detectors were more sensitive and provided better imaging, giving them a much longer usable range, and that's a clear advantage in my book_.

All I am asking is what are your sources? One untitled un attributed photo of something in an early 110 doesn't cut it.


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

Glider my sources are as follows:

_*History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-45*_ by Gebhard Aders
_*Die deutschen Funkmeßverfahren bis 1945*_ By Fritz Trenkel
_*Die deutschen Funkführungs-und Funk-navigationsanlagen*_ By Fritz Trenkel
_*Handbuch Luftfahrt 6, Infrarot-Nachtjagdgerät "Spanner"*_ By Karl Pawlas

Btw, small correction, Spanner III was an active device.

And here's a picture of the improved FuG280 Kiel III being tested on a Ju-88 (From: _Die deutschen Funkmeßverfahren bis 1945_)


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

According to my sources the Germans were esp. ahead because of their electron multiplier design which was used to increase the sensitivity of their IR detectors to an unpresidented lvl that the Allies didn't even come anywhere close to during the war. The design was copied by the British right after the war.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren are you using a site that lists those books as its sources?
Have you read any of those sources or are you just repeating a list given on a site?

Is any of the info you gave available on a site that we can see?

I ask this because in a previous answer to me you gave a similar list of sources that turned out to be a list of sources that you had seen on a site rather than sources you had.


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

Go get the books if in doubt, that's all I have to say to you m_kenny.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 14, 2008)

I think I found it

Infra-red equipment - Luftwaffe Experten Message Board

Sample:

_Spanner II and derivates a-e, passive device, detecting only IR-emitting targets, such as exhaust flames. As such it was also tested on Fw 190 A. All Spanner II devices were found to be very insufficent. Spanner II was developed to "Katze" and was tested as FuG 280 "Kiel Z" in conjuction with FuG 220.

I found these details in:
• Gebhard Aders, Geschichte der deutschen Nachtjagd
• Fritz Trenkle, Die deutschen Funkmeßverfahren and Die deutschen Funkführungs- u. Funknavigationsanlagen
• Karl Pawlas, Handbuch Luftfahrt, Bd.6, Infrarot-Nachtjagdgerät "Spanner" (Evaluation reports on Spanner I, II, III and Katze)_


----------



## Juha (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren
Aders in his book on page 39 gives rather negative conclusion on Spanner
and on page181 gives some rather operationally restrictive facts on FuG 280 Kiel Z.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

Same books, nearly atleast.

I have the english version of Gebhard's book.


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> Aders in his book on page 39 gives rather negative conclusion on Spanner
> and on page181 gives some rather operationally restrictive facts on FuG 280 Kiel Z.
> 
> Juha



True, Spanner proved to be insufficient compared to the new radar sets being
available. The range of the Spanner was simply too short for it to be of much use in a/c. The ranges at which a/c were spotted in the air was simply too great, radar having much longer ranges.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 15, 2008)

Just to put the mention of Electron Multiplier into laymans terms. It is part of a TV set, first developed by Baird himslef in the early 1930's. It is the method used by early TV technology to amplify electon images. TV works by passing an Electron stream past a small aperture. The continous but varying electron flow brought into action at this point is handled by an electron multiplier which amplifies the minute electrical impulses (all bearing an exact relation to the number of electrons received originally from the photo-electric plate. 

The particular form of the multiplier, or cold valve, as it is sometimes called, does vary, but it is not a uniquely German invention, unless Baird and his company are German.

Cold Valves were first used by the British in their airborne IR systems in 1938. After the war, the British did copy the German ground based assembly, but not for reasons relating to its its cold valve technology. I am not sure why they copied the mount, but some sources seem to suggest it was because the Germans had taken off the shelf technology, and developed its ground based technology in this field to a high level. The actual research however, was more primitive than the level that had been reached pre-war by the british at Oxford, Teddington and other research establishments

An electron multiplier is simply a filamentless valve capable of amplyfying a given signal thousands of times. That is to say, it is capable of taking the place of a multi valve amplifier with the advantage that it will not burn out as it has not filament

My source for this information is _"Television-An Early History"; Stephen Herbert, _. I also spoke to my brother, who is an electronics engineer .


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2008)

Soren
So my posting no 200 was pretty close. The only effective passive equipment was the FuG280 produced in very limited number at the end of the war.
One question about the Ju88 shown in your picture, where did they plan to put the guns?


----------



## Juha (Dec 15, 2008)

Hello Glider
all Ju 88Gs carried their forward firing cannon in underfuselage gunpack

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2008)

Thanks, I should have remembered that, my mistake.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2008)

This subthread appears to have petered out. Any suggestions on what we should discuss next. Sorens list to me included trucks as an area that the Germans held a technological lead. Anyone want to make a starting comment, or are there other areas that someone would like to raise as an area for debate


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2008)

In an earlier posting I mentioned that there were a number of items that Soren listed that shouldn't really be there and a number of people have mentioned the obvious that for any one nation to claim that it was in advance of all others would be rash to say the least. That said there is little doubt that in some key areas Germany did have a significant lead, submarines with the Type XXI, Aerodynamics, Tanks and some small arms being mentioned as examples.

However if we were to try to debate exactly in which area any country was ahead or behind then I believe there is a significant danger that it would quickly turn into a bad tempered thread.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2008)

as it did????


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2008)

I agree Glider.

Parsifal,

I don't think I said the Germans fielded better trucks, I just made a list in response to someone's claim that the Germans didn't have use amphibious vehicles of all sorts when infact they made some of the best.


----------



## Dufleuve (Jan 22, 2009)

Hello all,

I would like to find/read the Pawlas handbook:

Handbuch Luftfahrt 6, Infrarot-Nachtjagdgerät "Spanner" By Karl Pawlas

Anybody has a copy or knows where I can find it ?

I'm lucky to have a working SpIIa and looking for any info on it.

Thanks


----------

