# Which WWIIcountry is in the frontier of the aerospace?



## Chiron (Apr 27, 2005)

Germany or Britain?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2005)

Over all I would say Britian, but you would have to define technologies and specific aerospace sectors. Aircraft - I give to Britian, Helicopters, Germany. Space sciences - Germany, Eletronics - Britian. I could add others like composites, airframe construction, computer sciences related to aviation. Others?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 27, 2005)

I would vote for Germany. I would point to their advanced use of operational jet and rocket powered aircraft, guided rockets and understanding of aerodynamics as it applied to airfoils.


----------



## Jank (Apr 27, 2005)

Looks like youre asking which wWII country is curently in the frontier. I think that both England and Germany work together and share a lot on a lot of projects today. Hard to say.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2005)

Britain has the jet engine to their credit more than anything. It had the most powerful jet engine in World War 2 and was the forefront of many jet engine designs for decades after the war. And still is...


----------



## Glider (Apr 27, 2005)

As well as the engines where we are ahead in Europe, we should be adding the wings. I think I am right in saying that most of the international joint projects the UK have the design lead in wing design.

For military applications we should also add Ejector seats. Even the US Navy use our seats.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2005)

There are many things in the aeronautical world in which the British lead. The high-speed rotor blades on helicopters that allowed the Lynx to acquire the World Record for speed in a helicopter was British.


----------



## Chiron (Apr 27, 2005)

Actually I am focusing on WWII, because it seems German army came up with lots of INNOVATION in weapon design.

Of course, if you are talking about modern period, we live in a globalized world, its hard to separate each's contribution..


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2005)

The Jet engine was British plus Britain developed the most powerful engine of World War 2; the Rolls Royce Nene benchmarked at 5000 lbs thrust in October 1944.


----------



## Chiron (Apr 27, 2005)

Did British ever develop rocket in WWII?? something like V-1?


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 27, 2005)

Someone already mentioned the German's superior understanding of the fluid dymanics of swept wings and rocketry. Captured V-2's, guided by an advanced gyroscopic system that sent radio signals to aerodynamic steering tabs on the fins and vanes in the exhaust, literally paved the way for the American space program.

Aerospace? While the Brits were having tea time and perfecting the crumpet, The Krauts invented aerospace!


----------



## delcyros (Apr 28, 2005)

I disagree in the british superiority in the jet engine aspect.
The version of the Rolls Royce Nene, which was tested in november 1944 did not made full 5.000 lbs thrust. After all I read, it made some 4200 lbs thrust under overrew conditions. The 5000 lbs thrust have been achieved during benchmark tests in jule 1945 with an specificly upgraded engine. By the way, the Nene was not fitted into ANY ww2 operational aircraft and the Nene was a centrifugal flow engine, not an axial flow design like all but a very few (He-S -03, -08 and -011) german jet engines. Just look what have been fitted into the airframe and take the numbers into account and you will have a quite different view. The german jet engine development had a significant time advantage. They made during ww2:
the first axial flow engine (BMW-P3302)
the first jet engine with diagonal compressor (HeS- 011)
the first jet engine with dual flow and fan (DB-007)
the first jet engine with afterburner (Jumo-004 E)
the highest numbers of jet engines (~6000)
So they have been quite competitive to the british, or not? It must be denied, also, that the Nene ( or anything centrifugal else..) has anything to do with recent engines. In terms of construction and layout the Jumo-004 and DB-007 are the closest of ww2 to modern designs, not the british designs. (even if you take the axial designs, like ASX or F-2/1 into account) Also, the Nene was not ( in terms of power output) the most powerful jet engine of ww2 to work under prototype conditions. This goes to the BMW-018, an 11 stage axial compressor, three stage turbine (big) jet engine, from which two prototypes have been produced in mid 1944 for benchmark tests. While there are no sources left to record the output, there is strong evidence that the engines have been working quite good, since both should be build into a Hs-130 E testbed for flighttests. Unfortunately both prototypes have been destroyed by an air attack in late 1944. Poweroutput of the BMW-018 is rated in most sources with 7.700 lbs static thrust. I agree that the Rolls Royce Nene is on of the best engines in 1945 technically, since it weights not very much (742 kg, comparable to a Jumo-004 but it made twice that much power output), has a lower specific fuel consumption (1,08 lbs/thrust-lbs(hr))and was highly reliable. On the other hand, the Nene has a huge diameter, requiring a lot of space in the airframe (excluding the Meteor for it), that forced the british to develope a smaller version, Dervent V (in my view the best jet engineof 1945). I also agree that the concentration on centrifugal flow engines in the timeframe of 1942-1946 is the best solution, but the development of such engines is limited and the succesful post war axial flow jet engines (F-2/4 for example) benefitted much from the german axial flow designs. And without US producing methods (tooling devices and techniques) there would bee no hope for the british to build their engines in adequaete numbers.


----------



## Smokey (Apr 28, 2005)

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm
http://prototypes.free.fr/xf90/xf90-1.htm
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/moteurUS/moteurUS-1.htm


The Lockheed Model L-133, developed in 1940, is really impressive. The best features are *reaction thrusters for roll control* and *Nathan Price's axial flow turbojet engine, dating from 1937.*
I think I read somewhere that the XJ37 jet engine had an afterburner. Not good news if the war had gone on for a couple more months and the germans had perfected their heat seeking missile 

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/prototypes.com/*<----This site seems interesting*


----------



## delcyros (Apr 28, 2005)

Quite a very interesting paper project. However, your sources also underline that the L-100 axial flow engine never worked. They tried hard and the project was carried over from one manufacturer to the next until they found out that the engine will never work. They abandoned the project in the early 50´s without a single benchtest of a working L-100 axial flow jet engine.
Westinghouse made some contributions toward axial flow jet engine design, but even their engines didn´t got into operational conditions during ww2. 
The best US efforts in jet engines are the Westinghouse J-34 axial flow jet engine of 1945 (XF-85) which has a comparable power output as the HeS-011, but weights more and the General electrics J- 35 axial flow jet engine (XP-84, XP-86), which has a comparable performance to the late Jumo-004 E, but both are only partly developments of ww2. They belong moreso to the postwar era (1945-1950). The best US powerplant was in my mind the (british design based) Allison-General Electrics J-33 centrifugal flow jet engine. It was powerful, not that heavy, had an excellent reliability and an average fuel consumption. And it was choosen for mass production for the P-80A program.
The biggest mistake of the germans was the favouring of the complicated HeS-011 dual compressor engine, which lead to difficulties in breaking 3000 lbs. of thrust. The DB-007 of 1943 was capable to do that but was found to be very complicated for serial production (and to heavy). Plans of a second stage turbine (1944 but without interest of RLM) would turn this powerplant into the best of ww2, no doubt.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

ho so this is during WWII?? well we had the edge in electronic warfare............


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 28, 2005)

Electronic warfare? 

Not sure about WWII but I think you guys also have the edge in numbers of tabloid newspapers aka "print media warfare."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

yes electronic warfare, the use of systems to aid you or to jam your oponent's use of such systems, or even to jam your opponent's jamming of your systems..........


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

The Rolls Royce Nene was not fitted to any operational aircraft during the war, I know. Nor was the engine that was apparently giving out 7,700 lbs of thrust, not proven of course. 

However the Nene did see service after the war in the MiG-15, the fighter that gave the F-86 a lot of trouble in Korea. As well as being built in the Commonwealth, America, USSR and France. I would also like to see your source for the power output, in fact more than one source, because I've always read the Nene as being bench-tested in October 1944 at 22.3 kN (2,270 kg / 5,000 lb) thrust. 

If we're going into firsts as the idea of lead, then Britain wins hand down in the jet engine case. After all, the jet engine was patented by a Briton, Frank Whittle. 

If not for the British then America, Germany, Russia, France or anyone would never have had the jet engine [basing it off firsts as the only one with a clue]. 

The MetroVic F.2 was Britain's first axial flow engine, first bench-tested in December 1941. By November 1942 it was producing 8 kN (815 kg / 1,800 lb) of thrust. This lead to the F.9 Sapphire which was one of the most used engines of the 1950s. 

I will admit the British learnt a few things off the Germans during World War 2 in jet engine technology but the British were leading and lead for a very long time. In fact, I'll still say they lead now. That is why the US wanted Rolls Royce in on the F-35 engine. 

And on the final point, America had nothing to do with the design technology of German or British engine designs aside from the influence on Britain to become more powerful. Their economic advancements and massive economic strength have nothing to do with this design technology discussion.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 28, 2005)

I know what it is. I just view it as tangentally related to aerospace.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 29, 2005)

Umm, there is stuff to discuss.
I never disagreed that the Nene wasn´t a great engine. I stated it´s advantages over other engines. The RD 45 which drove the MiG-15 and the VK-1 which drove the MiG 15 Bis are based on this engine. But also are the soviet axial engines (beside of TR-1), from which a number are based on the BMW-018. So derivates of both engines have been used in the mid 50´s for combat aircraft. However, the Nene was capable to do 5000 lbs of thrust and the BMW-018 was capable to do 7.700 lbs (while it weights three times as much). Give me two days to submit a list of sources, which proove that the Nene developed 5000 lbs late in 1945 and not in 1944. I just have books mostly and don´t tend to source the net that frequently...
Frank Whittle wasn´t the first to patent a jet engine, this goes either to the french Lorin or to a rumanian. However, why do you think that Ohain was based on Whittle? Or that they have anything in common, regarding their efforts in jet technology? Both worked independently on engines. I am sure, that even without Whittle you would see the first jet driven plane in late 1939 (He-178), that´s why the germans had a time advantage, not the british. As for the F-2/1, which wasn ´t very statisfying (compared to centrifugal design of it´s days). The F-9 saphire is a good engine, but has nothing to do with this post. I do not denie that the british engine R&D was great (..and it is today, no doubt  ), just tried to outline that you cannot simplify it. 
And at least of course have industrial basics much to do with this topic. The US were years ahead in this. And Germany suffered in adaequate heat resistant alloys to overcome the shortcomings of their early designs.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 29, 2005)

The Germans were the leaders in Rocketry. 

However the first Jet engine flown was by a Frenchman named Conada in 1909 (I think). He was an experimeter not an avaitor so when it did start flying he put it down in a landing better described as a crash and destroyed the air craft.

In WWII I think the Germans were ahead in the engine department but behind in the metalurgy required to make reliable jets.

wmaxt


----------



## delcyros (Apr 29, 2005)

I agree in this absolutely, wmaxt.
By the way, there would be some barriers before space first (while the A-4 got pretty close to the frontier of space, knocking on it´s doors). First off there is the problem with breaking the sound barrier in a maned plane. I would vote either for the british Miles M.52 or the german DFS 346 to break Mach 1 in level flight.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2005)

The British were the lead in efficient engine design in World War 2 for the Nene alone. Even if it wasn't until April 1945 that it was bench-tested at 5000 lbs it still beat anything the Germans had on power save for this, 7,700 lbs thrust engine you mention. 
Even then the German engine had no chance of being fitted any aircraft as it was too big and remarkably inefficient. The F.9 has quite a lot to do with this discussion if we're stretching it beyond World War 2 but from WW2 development. The F.9 was one of the most widely used jet engines in the 50s, it was developed from the F.2 not any German engine design. 

There's no denying that the Germans were leaders in rocketry.


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 29, 2005)

The Germans were also ahead in their understanding of fluid dynamics and swept wing technology. That and their advancement in rocketry made them the clear leaders in aerospace.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2005)

Rocketry didn't develop into an aerospace project though. It became a space project. 

The swept wings I do give to the Germans but the swept wing only really takes any effect around Mach 1. I personally think the jet engine was the most influential thing on modern aerospace technology.


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2005)

There is one aerodynamic advance which the British were investigating during the war and that is the flying tail which was being flown in 1942 on I think was a Miles Master testbed. I mention this as the USA claimed credit for this advance many years later as it enabled them to break the sound barrier many years later.
I do admit though that we didn't put it on an operational aircraft.

An aside. There have been a number of comments about the lack of machine tools in the UK during the war which I can certainly believe. In 1973 I was being trained as an Articifer in the Royal Navy and we were using lathes ect which were clearly markd as 'Wartime tolarances only'. When asked, we were told that these were only used for training or on land based military equipment. 
When you hear how unreliable british armour was in WW2 you can believe it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 29, 2005)

An interesting fact that I knew nothing about.

Good to meet a fellow sailor.


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 30, 2005)

"Rocketry didn't develop into an aerospace project though. "

 

Yeah, I guess the rocket powered X plane projects were a big waste of time and money that added little useful knowledge to the field of aerospace engineering.  (The X-1, for instance was the first aircraft to break the sound barrier in controlled, level flight in 1947)
 
The early X projects borrowed heavily from German knowledge and added immensely to our knowledge in the aerospace field.

"I personally think the jet engine was the most influential thing on modern aerospace technology." 

Well, perhaps the British had "better" jet engines but the Germans and Americans did have jet engines. No one was utilizing swept wing technology except the Germans. No one else had anything resembling a operational guidance system for rockets which the Germans had. Finally, German rocket motors weren't just better but miles ahead of anyone else.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 30, 2005)

A word about rocketry. One of the pioneers that is often forgotten is Robert Goddard:

_Robert H. Goddard began his rocket experiments in 1915 with solid propellants but his calculations showed he could achieve much better performance using liquid propellants. He therefore switched to liquid propellants in 1921. He originally thought of pumps to pump in the propellants into the combustion chamber but he initially did not have success with these. He therefore sought to test a basic liquid propellant system to see if the principle worked, and if possible to achieve a flight.

Finally, on January 20, 1926, he successfully tested a liquid propellant motor in a static test in which the motor produced more thrust than the rocket's weight. He next set out to adapt the motor to a flight rocket. He wanted to cover the rocket with a streamlined cover and to include a parachute for the rocket's recovery but soon realized these features would add too much weight to the rocket and that it might not fly.

Goddard therefore left off the covering and parachute. On the day of the launch, Goddard was assisted by his wife, Esther, as the official photographer; Percy Roope, an Assistant Physics Professor at Clark University where Goddard also taught Physics; and Henry Sachs, a machinist at the University who had helped make the rocket.

Goddard and Sachs loaded the rocket while Sachs lighted the torch and ignited the pyrotechnic igniter. Goddard controlled the valves. At first, when the combustion was started, the rocket would not rise because the thrust was lower than the weight of the rocket. Then, when it exceeded the weight and reached an estimated 18 lbs, the rocket first climbed a few inches then shot up but but was not that stable. (In addition to proving that liquid fuel rockets can fly, Goddard also realized that his "nose-drive" design was inherently unstable and in his rockets the motor was placed at the base of the rocket.)

The historic flight of March 16, 1926 was not reported immediately. In fact it was not known to the general public for a decade. Since 1917, Goddard's experiments had been funded by the Smithsonian Institution though he did not wish the results to be publicized until he had achieved more substantial results. Thus, contrary to popular belief, Goddard's flight of March 16, 1926 did not immediately open up the way to the development of modern rocketry.

Rather, other rocket theorists and experimenters independently developed their own rockets without detailed knowledge of Goddard's work. In 1931, the German experimenter Johannes Winkler successfully flew a liquid-propellant rocket which was then believed to have been the first to fly, but this misconception was later corrected.

The development of modern liquid fuel rocketry was therefore the result of the work of several experimenters, many working independently of each other, though Goddard was afterwards recognized as technically the first to develop such systems.

Goddard's name was well known to the rocket experimenters of the 1920's-40's but due to his secretive nature and reluctance to share his work, which was very advanced for the times, his impact upon main developments was limited.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/dsh/artifacts/RM-RHG1926.htm
_


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2005)

The rocket didn't develop the aeronautical world, no. The only reason the X-1 had a rocket was because the jet engine wasn't powerful enough. The breaking of the sound barrier was little but an achievement to prove that we could do it. The technology that was required was already there, the only lacking thing was a jet engine powerful enough. 

Rocket powered planes are pointless and a waste of money. They have little control and are only for speed purposes. What's the point? The X-15 is to never fly again because all that can be done has been done, and little has developed from it. 

The Americans did actually have a limited idea on the swept wings but very little, and little testing but it was still there. Even then, the swept wing is only the revolution it was around Mach 1. The jet engine keeps on pushing the aeronautical world further and further. Aircraft would be no where near what they are today without the development of the jet.


----------



## delcyros (May 1, 2005)

I agree in the swept back wing. It takes postively effect at transsonic speeds, only. However, in the timeframe up to 1945, the germans developed more than this in the aerodynamic department:

deltawings 
area rule
leading edge slots
wing boundary layers
bell shaped lift distibution for a stable flying wing
negative swept wing
variable wing geometry
basic understanding of faster than the speed of sound flight

This is making them the leaders in aerospace aerodynamics technology in my mind. The powerplant department can be divided by rocketry (germans, the US had an advantage with Goddart in an earlier timeframe) and jet engines (debatable).If you argue, that the Nene alone will make the British leading, than you miss my point. The Nene was kind of pinnacle of centrifugal flow design. Not a bad configuration, but limited. The BMW-018 axial engine was planned for the powerplant for bombers (Ju-287 to be more concrete), there was well probability to fit it under it´s wings. However it did not came to this. You know it. The F-9 is a POST WAR axial design, which benefitted from german experiances (esspecially the combustion chambers and turbine blade design). While it is true that it is based on the F-2, it was impossible with the british technology to field reliable axial jet engines with enough poweroutput during ww2. Unlike the germans. They did it. Think of the Jumo-004, imagine it would lead to more advanced engines based on it´s design in the 50´s. This is no argument, as is the argumant of the F-9. On the other side the DB-007 and Jumo-004 E are the most modern jet engines of ww2. Technologically more advanced than even the Nene or Dervent-V. They just had not the same poweroutput.
The british centrifugal flow engines are excellent in the timeframe till wars end, but these designs are not as advanced as axial designs. By the way, no british jet engine, centrifugal or not, was nearly produced in the numbers of the german axial engines during ww2. And the german design was far beyond british capabilities (afterburner, dual flow, fan)You can easily show a race if needed:
W-2B/early Dervents -BMW-003/Jumo-004B up to 2000 lbs of thrust
D.H. Ghost -DB-007 up to 3000 lbs of thrust
Dervent V -Jumo-004 E/H up to 4000 lbs of thrust
Nene -(Jumo-022) up to 6000 lbs of trhust
-BMW-018 up to 8000 lbs of thust
and because you need more, ()=never left it´s drawing board:
(DB-016) up to 28.600 lbs of thrust
And keep in mind that post war designs benefitted from excamination of german axial jet engine designs and construction charts of planned designs. It is interesting that british often refer the RB-39 of 1945 as the worlds first jet engine with diagonal (axial AND centrifugal) compressor (which actually was the german HeS-011) and dual flow (which was indeed
the german DB-007). You can argue that the german designs are not reliable or that they faced big problems to hit even 3000 lbs, not to speak of 5000 lbs. All agreed, but they are under no circumstances BEHIND the british jet engine development during ww2. Indeed they have been more innovative in many ways.
Sources to Rolls Royce Nene:
www.tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/List of engine:
quote:
"...the "R.B. 41 Nene", which was first bench tested in november 1944 well making over 4000 lbs of thrust..."
Compare also the soviet development of Nene copies: RD 45 (based on UK sold Nene) and VK-1 (improved by means of better heat resistent materials) show a significant thrust difference. The development of Nene 1-10 surely not decreased fuel consumption, only. 
I will source the net for further sources, if needed. Additional articles supporting that the Nene in 1944 did not made (but was capable to) 5000 lbs of thrust: 
G. Norman, A comprehensive analysis of soviet post war jet engines up to the mid 50´s, in: L.H. Behrens, Probleme zur frühen Strahltriebwerkentwicklung, AVA (Stuttgart 1972), page 312-387.

P. le Goyet, Évolution de l´aviation entre 1939 et 1945, in: Revue d´histoire de la deuxieme guerre mondiale, Vol. 73 (Paris 1969), passim.

D. Richards/H.S.George Saunders, Royal Air Force 1939-1945, Vol. III (London 1953), page 56f.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

I will agree with you there. The Germans were quite influential on modern day jet designs and you can still see the influence in many aircraft today. The problem is that most of these designs were so far ahead of what they were able to produce that it would not have been possible during WW2.

As for the engines. I will say the German concept was quite advanced but the lack of metals they required made them behind the British and the US. Had the Germans had the proper metals they could have built some great engines and the 262 may have been more capable if it had had engines built with better metals hence not having a 10 hour life span.


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

Glider said:


> As well as the engines where we are ahead in Europe, we should be adding the wings. I think I am right in saying that most of the international joint projects the UK have the design lead in wing design.
> 
> For military applications we should also add Ejector seats. Even the US Navy use our seats.



No. The NACA was the world leader in airfoil design work. Unfortunately for the Allies, until the mid 1930's the fruits of this research were made public and utilized by virtually every nation. A book of aifoils shapes and the wind tunnel results of dynamic testing were published every year and made available at a very low cost.

Airfoil design really came down to the number of aero-engineers doing research and the windtunnels they had to work with. Only the USA had high atmosphere pressurized tunnels to do sub-scale research. In the 20 atmosphere tunnel a 1/20th scale airfoil facing a 20 mph free stream airflow gave the same results as a full scale model facing a 400 mph airflow in a 1 atmosphere tunnel - excepting mach effects. This tunnel, which began operation in the very late 1920's or early 1930's was used to develop most of the wing airfoils, and many of the prop airfoils, used by WWII aircraft.

Tables such as this:







with data such as this:






were made available to the world by the USA during the 1920's through the mid 1930's in the interest of advancing the world knowlege of flight. The wings of the Spitfire, FW190, Bf109, and many other planes all derived from NACA published data. Later the exhaust from this tunnel was used to drive first an 11" and later a 24" high speed tunnel. Some of that data was made public as well but much of it was kept secret as WWII approached.

In March 1936 the USA completed its 8 foot high speed wind tunnel, capable of free-stream airflows of up to 575 mph:






As you can see it was massive. Similarly massive was the 19 foot 2.5 atmosphere high-pressure tunnel which began operation in 1939:






These tunnels required a huge investment that only the USA was willing to make. And the giant 8,000 HP electric motors required to power them were exclusive to the USA, deriving from the locamotive industry. No other nation had windtunnels anything like this.

It should be noted that while research from about 1936 on was kept secret, the British were not excluded from access to the research results and British research requests were often granted, especially after the US entered the war.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2005)

The British developed the Delta Wing. In fact, the first flight of a delta wing aircraft was made by Britain not long after the war. That design became the Vulcan.


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2005)

And you're missing my point, the F.9 was developed from the F.2. The MetroVic F.2 being the first British axial-flow engine, bench tested in 1941.


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 1, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The British developed the Delta Wing. In fact, the first flight of a delta wing aircraft was made by Britain not long after the war. That design became the Vulcan.



 

How would class the Me163?


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2005)

Swept wing!





http://jnpassieux.chez.tiscali.fr/images/Me163_2.jpg






http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Vulcan.xh558.abingdon.750pix.jpg

That picture is of the wonderful Vulcan, a delta-wing bomber.


----------



## Glider (May 1, 2005)

To RG 
Sorry for any confusion. I was thinking of the modern era where there is no doubt that British Wings are generally used in most of the international developments in Europe. 
The latest airbus has British engines, wings and landing gear. As for the pre war, I agree with your statement but in the post war development of aerodynamics and other technical advances the sharing of information became a one way street and it wasn't from the USA to the UK. 
I don't blame or accuse the American People, it was the good old politics of business that got in the way to the detriment of both sides.
I also recognise that without the Marshall Plan all of Europe would have been economically stuffed. That must be the single most generous act ever.


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

I agree, the Marshall plan was the single most generous act by any nation in history.

It bothers me sometimes when I see people (mostly British - you know who you are) berate the USA for not having entered the war against Germany earlier. What they fail to understand is that Wilson tried to avoid WWII by a similar plan after WWI, but Britain and France would have none of it and insisted on reperations. The way the USA felt was that after bailing the Allied powers out of WWI we were ignored as to how the peace would be managed - and that caused WWII.

Anyway - don't get me started on how the EU is exporting unemployment through their subsidized Airbus... we been down that one before  

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

hey now wait a minute there RG........

firstly the Marshall plan wasn't simply you warm, kind hearted americans trying to help their fellow man, it was just as much to stop us falling to communism, it is not the single most generous act ever at all, more an attempt to keep some airbases in Europe open to you...........

and what do you mean you "bailed us out" in WWI?? your joining of the war made little impact to be honest, far less than you are implying, and as for you "feeling ignored" in the peace disscussions after WWI and that leading to WWII, well that's really pissed me off!! Wilson was there at the peace talks, he was one of the big three, how exactly are you feeling left out?? YOU WERE THERE!! then you decide to set up the league of nations, then it wasn't approved in america, it was the american people's fault that you didn't join!! then you have the absolute nerve to claim that if you were at the peace talks, which you were, you and you alone could have prevented WWII, that's complete shit and you know it...............

and the walls street crash, the fault of you americans might i point out RG, was just as much a cause of WWII than anything else...........


----------



## Glider (May 2, 2005)

Sorry Lanc but I am going to side with RG on the value of the Marshall Plan. Don't forget that the Americans paid a lot of money so that european companies could build european designs for european airforces. Yes there was an element of not wanting us to fall to the russians, but I have never heard of anyone complaining about it this side of the pond. Americans are not stupid and must have known that they were building business competition for the future as the UK and Germany alone were close to par on research and technical ability.
It would have been cheaper for the USA to churn out more aircraft and give them to our airforces and I doubt that we would have said no.

As for the Wall Street crash, the USA was a massive economy and no doubt made mistakes. However they learnt and dug themselves out of the hole faster than most other nations, including ours.

I am very proud of the UK and what we have achieved with few resources but its churlish and foolish not to recognise what others have achieved or done


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

yes america came out of the walls street crash better than most, that's not the point, the crash made the situation worse in germany, a chance which hitlet seized......


----------



## plan_D (May 2, 2005)

It was the tank that beat Germany in World War 2, not the US. The Allies out-numbered the German forces with armour and the Germans had no way of stopping tanks in World War 1. The US didn't bail the Allies out at all.

You can shut up about the Airbus anyway, since recently there has been accusations being thrown around the WTO about the US funding of Boeing. You just don't like to admit, your country does the exact same thing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

so you're with me than Pd??


----------



## plan_D (May 2, 2005)

I'm grateful of the US for the Marshal Plan but that doesn't mean I'm going to start bowing down and saying it's the most generous thing ever, no! It was to cover the US own back more than anything.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

exactly!!


----------



## Glider (May 2, 2005)

Well PD and Lanc we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Damn, I wish I had found this site some months ago


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

or would could just persuade you that you're wrong, which you are.........


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hey now wait a minute there RG........
> 
> firstly the Marshall plan wasn't simply you warm, kind hearted americans trying to help their fellow man, it was just as much to stop us falling to communism, it is not the single most generous act ever at all, more an attempt to keep some airbases in Europe open to you...........



Not hardly. The Marshall plan was under construction well before the end of the war, and before the "threat of communism" was signifcantly appreciated. If all the USA had wanted were air and naval bases in Europe, we could simply have insisted on them as part of the peace - who was going to say "no"? Certainly not Britain, who was more afraid of the "commies" than the USA at that time.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and what do you mean you "bailed us out" in WWI?? your joining of the war made little impact to be honest, far less than you are implying,



Then why in Spring 1918 did the British and French plea to the USA to enter the war and state that this was necessary to "bring the war to a successful conclusion"?



> May-June, 1918
> The Allies Appeal for American Assistance
> Final Report of General John J. Pershing, US War Department, September 1, 1919.
> General John J. Pershing opposed the French and British efforts to incorporate US into existing Allied Armies, noting that 'nothing in the situation justified the relinquishment of our firm purpose to form our own Army under our own flag.' In Document I below, the Supreme War Council agreed that there would be a fully US military contingent. Document II contains the manpower estimates prepared by the Ministers of Great Britain, France and Italy and confirmed by the Allied commander, General Ferdinand Foch.
> ...



As for not having had an impact....



> THE CONTEXT
> 
> In face of the urgency created by the German offensive on the 21st. March 1918, General Pershing placed all his forces then available in Europe at the disposition of General Foch. Amongst these units, the 1st. U.S. Division which, on the 5th. April had been positioned in the region North of Paris, received on the 27th. April, the responsability for a sector to the West of Montdidier, in the 6th. Corps of the French 1st. Army. This was the first time, on an active battle front, that an American Division took up position.
> 1ST. US DIVISION
> ...





> *LE POINT DE VUE DU GENERAL LUNDENDORFF SUR LES TROUPES AMERICAINES*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I suggest you study the impact of the US forces in 1918 before making such comments. It was unquestionably the US entry into the war that broke the back of Germany and resulted in an "Allied" victory. US forces came into the war and won victories where the British/French units would have lost or at best achieved stalemates!



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and as for you "feeling ignored" in the peace disscussions after WWI and that leading to WWII, well that's really pissed me off!! Wilson was there at the peace talks, he was one of the big three, how exactly are you feeling left out??



Wilson's 14 points were a large part of the basis for German surrender. From the diary of Col. Von Thaer:



> ...
> Therefore, the Supreme Army Command demanded of His Majesty the Kaiser and of the Chancellor that a proposal for the bringing about of peace be made to President Wilson of America without delay, for bringing about an armistice on the basis of his 14 Points.
> ...
> http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/thaereng.html



I suggest you look over the Treaty of Versailles, particulary sections 8-10, which are in direct conflict with President Wilson's 14 points. You should read the 14 points, and especially the paragraphs following the points themselves which make it clear that Germany was not to be crippled by reperations, and point V as it regaurds colonial possessions and the rights of their populations.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> YOU WERE THERE!! then you decide to set up the league of nations, then it wasn't approved in america, it was the american people's fault that you didn't join!! then you have the absolute nerve to claim that if you were at the peace talks, which you were, you and you alone could have prevented WWII, that's complete s**t and you know it...............



Oh, the USA was there. However it was virtually ignored. The British and French insisted on their pound of flesh after the German's had capitulated under the misbelief that the terms offered by Wilson would be honored. Both Britain and France wanted to continue to expand their colonial empires and basically go back to "business as usual". Once the war was won, the American position was of no interest or consequence to the British and French (or the Italian's for that matter).

And I do not claim that the USA alone could have prevented WWII, in fact quite the contrary. What it required was a unified act of enlightened self-interest - something the British and French agreed to in order to bring the USA into WWI. But once the USA was no longer "needed" neither the British nor the French were willing to honor their word. 



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and the walls street crash, the fault of you americans might i point out RG, was just as much a cause of WWII than anything else...........



Geeze Lanc - are you that desperate that you need to try to throw rocks even though you live in a glass house?

Sure the Great Depression was a big contributing factor to WWII, but the USA was not to blame. What you do not seem to know is that the only thing holding up the European economy in the 20's was US investment and US purchases of European goods. Great Britian was doing very poorly through this peroid because of its general loss of overseas markets and her refusal to devalue the pound, and was really in a depression well before the stock market crash. Germany was suffering from massive inflation which peaked in 1923 because of the war reparations Britain and more significantly France saddled it with after WWI. What prosperity there was in europe relied on American loans and American markets.

You are blaming the USA for having cut off loans and reducing its purchasing of European goods? Well, these things were only possible because of the extravagences of the 20's which in turn lead to the stock market crash in the first place. Had Europe, primarily the British and the French, run their economies in a responsible manner and not forced Germany into a severe depression in the 20's most likely the US stock market crash would have been a national problem of much smaller magnitude. A huge part of the US depression was the fact that the loans made to European nations turned out to be bad!

You seem to think the USA had some responsibility to prop up the British and French economies in the between wars years. And that's ludicrous!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

Well as for the US entering in WW1 I will agree that it had some impact. The US provided fresh troops which the French and the British did not have. On the other hand though you have to remember that at the same time the German army's moral was at an all time low also. There were even Navy mutinies going. (These however were just before the end of the war anyhow).

I am not trying to take away the US effort especially that of the 1st Infantry Division (Hell Yeah thats the division that I fly for!) but I would not say that the US bailed France and England out. Greatly influenced the outcome of the war yes, but single handendly won the war for the allies absoulutely not.


As for the whole Airbus thing, yeap this ones for you RG_Lunatic!

*GO AIRBUS!!!!!*


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well as for the US entering in WW1 I will agree that it had some impact. The US provided fresh troops which the French and the British did not have. On the other hand though you have to remember that at the same time the German army's moral was at an all time low also. There were even Navy mutinies going. (These however were just before the end of the war anyhow).
> 
> I am not trying to take away the US effort especially that of the 1st Infantry Division (Hell Yeah thats the division that I fly for!) but I would not say that the US bailed France and England out. Greatly influenced the outcome of the war yes, but single handendly won the war for the allies absoulutely not.



I never said "single handedly", simply that it was the addition of the US hand that pushed the German's over the edge.

And it was not just that US troops were fresh, it was also the US Army method of warfare. The USA had a different understanding of what war was about because of the Civil War. The idea that troops would be lost was accepted and the goal was to make those losses bear results, not to avoid them which of course does not work anyway (as the British and French losses can attest).

==================



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As for the whole Airbus thing, yeap this ones for you RG_Lunatic!
> 
> *GO AIRBUS!!!!!*



I'd be all for the Airbus if it weren't so heavily subsidized. Hell, they are giving them away for free just to employ Europeans and drive American aircraft workers into the unemployment lines.

It will be funny to see how the Europeans react when the USA decideds to subsidize Boeing!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Well as for the US entering in WW1 I will agree that it had some impact. The US provided fresh troops which the French and the British did not have. On the other hand though you have to remember that at the same time the German army's moral was at an all time low also. There were even Navy mutinies going. (These however were just before the end of the war anyhow).
> ...



I never said that you said the US single handedly won the war. Did I post this after one of your posts with a quote around it? No I did not there. There you go assuming the world is out to get you again. But if you wish to go there technically you did. But again I was not accusing you, go ahead and think I was if you wish. Again as stated in other posts I dont give a damn!

You said:



> The way the USA felt was that after bailing the Allied powers out of WWI





==================



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As for the whole Airbus thing, yeap this ones for you RG_Lunatic!
> 
> *GO AIRBUS!!!!!*



I'd be all for the Airbus if it weren't so heavily subsidized. Hell, they are giving them away for free just to employ Europeans and drive American aircraft workers into the unemployment lines.

It will be funny to see how the Europeans react when the USA decideds to subsidize Boeing! [/quote]

You got it RG, that is the plan of the whole of Europe to drive all of the US into unemployment. It is the whole reason that Airbus exists! The world is out to get the US and especially you RG!  

Decides to subsidize Boeing? I am pretty sure they already are. Bush runs one of the most corrupt governments the modern world has ever seen. Oh well the WTO will decide.


----------



## plan_D (May 2, 2005)

The WTO will decide as the accusation has already been made about the Bush administrations subsidies to US companies. 

The US did not tip the balance of World War 1. It ended it quicker. The Germans did not have a chance to bring that war to a successful conclusion without any kind of armoured force, or anti-tank defence. 
German armour numbers never even reached triple figures, the Allies were in the thousands.

America was a poor military force tactically! The troops still walked like the Allies did in 1914-15. Do you honestly believe that from 3 years of war the Allies hadn't learnt anything? The American Civil War was a bit over-shadowed in technology by the Great War, in fact it was a completely different kind of war. 
The Allies were willing to take losses, it had been for the past 3 years for god sake. The only thing that the US did was give fresh faces, it performed just as the Allies did in 1914-15 but now the enemy was already battered, bruised and broken from 3 years of war when America wasn't. 

Britain and France did constantly request America to join the war. Of course they would. They would be stupid not to. Why not try and provoke a potential ally to join the fight on your side!?!

And I'm okay with you defending the fact that America solely didn't start World War 2 but nor did France or Britain. It was the actions of the entire world that brought around World War 2. It's much more complicated than economic and land arguments. 
It's people like you, RG, that caused the tensions between Britain and America in World War 2. Those people that always believe, and probably still do, that all Britain is out for is to expand her empire and belittle America. Get over it, we had the biggest empire in history...not you. We like that fact, we weren't in World War 1 nor 2 trying to achieve anything other than our own survival 

And also, Britain saw the Communist threat long before naive America. Then who was more paranoid about Communists? I think you'll find America was much more frightened than Britain. Britain was reasonably fearful, it was prepared for a fight when it came...it knew what it had to do, it was the frontline along with W. Germany. America was executing people that *might* Communists. Red Fear!


----------



## delcyros (May 2, 2005)

8) 
There is no doubt that wing airflow design of NACA profiles influenced german design on a big scale. Just note the innumerous laminar flow copies.
RG, are you sure that "...no other nation was willing to pay expensive bills for a comparable windtunnel..."???
I recommend to double check your argument, since you ignore the german wind tunells, which have been much superior in terms of air flow, pressure and speed to the US one.
The 1939 wind tunnel of Adlershof made 2.000 kVA and allowed a max simulating speed of Mach 550 mp/h. In terms of size and performance it is only slightly less powerful than the US one. However, the basic technology was behind the US in my minds, since they used no computerization for the pressurepoints.
Complete new vakuum technology windtunnel have been made in Peenemünde. There a 8000 kVA windtunnel was made between 1940 and 1942 for Mach 3-4, allowing a max airflow speed of 1000 meters/second (2236 mp/h) at a channel of 30*40 cm. This resulted in the first supersonic windtunnel results. It proved to be vital for supersonic flow research (esspecially v. Brauns A-projects and supersonic missiles + planes)
Dr. Wegner even worked on a Mach-10 windtunnel for verification of Dr. Sängers ideas. He later became a key US aerodynamic for hypersonic airflow and their wind tunnels.
The most powerful european windtunnel was build 1940-1945 (not finished at all) in Ötztal/Tirol by Dr. Peters late in ww2. Driven by marine turbines it developed 110.000 hp (75.000 kVA!) and allowed an airflow of 15.000 cbm per second at an airchannel of 8 m diameter and 14 m length with effective 670 mp/h airspeed.There are SEVERAL SUPERSONIC airflow tests recorded by these tunnel for Lippish, Messerschmidt and (mostly) DFS.
After end of ww2, the french decided to take down the Ötztal windtunnel and rebuild this object in France. Renamed TLT it is still the most powerful windtunnel of europe. It proved to be vital for all Airbus projects. Till today.
Check out his book, RG:W.P. Wegener, The Peenemunde wind tunnels, (1998), passim.


----------



## delcyros (May 2, 2005)

Dear Plan_D,
I do see your argument of the F-9. But I am not convinced that this should count to ww2 technology in anyway but the preliminary studies made with the Metrolpolitan-Vickers F-2/-1 (and more reasonable the F-2/-4).
As for the Deltawing, it´s obviously false. Just look at Dr. Lippischs progress at DFS (DFS 39, DFS 40, Delta-I-Delta-IV), he made Deltawing based designs even prior to the outbreak of ww2. Not to speak of his DM-1 and supersonic projects (which never came to prototype stage). Not only this, he also paved the way for mathematical solutions of supersonic deltawings in 1943. There are several wind tunnel tests of his deltwing models up to Mach 4.4. His theoritical work also included biconvexal wing profiles.


----------



## plan_D (May 2, 2005)

My point with the F.9 is merely that it evolved from the F.2 which was an axial-flow engine, that was British. This is pointing out that the British had the axial-flow engine idea just as the Germans did. The British developed the most widely used engine, the F.9, in the 50s from their own F.2 not a German engine. That's my point. 

I never said that Germany did not have the idea behind the delta-wing in their grasp. They never made one fly though, did they?


----------



## delcyros (May 2, 2005)

Lets come to an overall agreed solution, Plan_D:
I agree that the british have been ahead in centrifugal flow engines 
as the germans have been in axial flow designs.
OK?
Lippisch made flying Deltawing designs Delta I-Delta-IV (..and Delta-V a flying wing design in 1940) 1936-1939.


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

Plan_D,

Your understanding of this period is so astondingly bad it's just not worth trying to correct all your false beliefs.

And just who got executed because we "thought" they were communists?


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

delcyros said:


> 8)
> There is no doubt that wing airflow design of NACA profiles influenced german design on a big scale. Just note the innumerous laminar flow copies.
> RG, are you sure that "...no other nation was willing to pay expensive bills for a comparable windtunnel..."???
> I recommend to double check your argument, since you ignore the german wind tunells, which have been much superior in terms of air flow, pressure and speed to the US one.
> ...



The Germans never had a high pressure wind tunnel, either 20 atmospheres or 2.5 atmospheres. The German "high-speed" wind tunnles were of what diameter?

What makes you think there was no "computerization" (i.e. automatic regulation) of the pressure points of the NACA wind-tunnels? The fact is the closed-loop design of the NACA tunnels required less regulation, but there was automated regulation where it was needed.

And I didn't even mention any US wind tunnels that became operational after the start of the war.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 2, 2005)

I'm glad you're not going to try and get involved (for once), RG. You astound me how amazing you think you are and how easily you manage to irritate people. It's quite a talent you have, well done. 

delcyros, I'll go with that. It wasn't soon after though that Britain became the world leader in axial-flow engines as well as centrifugal. The two major powers, USA and Soviet Union, both flew with direct British engines or copies of for a long-long time.


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

Plan_D,

Still waiting to hear some examples of those executed on suspicion of being communists. Or anyone who was executed just for being a communist for that matter.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

Be patient, pest. I have to question an American friend of mine who informed me long ago. Surely you can wait like I did for your tank reply...which I never got.


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Be patient, pest. I have to question an American friend of mine who informed me long ago. Surely you can wait like I did for your tank reply...which I never got.



At some point I will do a post on tanks. It's a big topic and it takes a lot of research to get the real details. For instance trying to figure out the actual cost of a tank is rather difficult given the accounting and labor systems in each nation - Germany and the Soviets both used slave and forced labor so their accountings of the costs do not reflect the actual resources utilized.

Identifying those you believe were executed because the US "thought they might be commies" should be easy. However, I think you are going to find this refrence applies to the Rosenburgs. If that is the case, your friend is mis-informed, they were not executed for being communists, they were executed for being traitors, and the evidence that they were in fact guilty was 100% conclusive and they deserved what they got.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

The reply I was expecting had nothing to do with the cost of the tank. It was on pure combat capability. Pz. Kpwf V Panther Ausf G Vs. T-34/85-I. 

To be a communist supporter is illegal in America? Please be so kind as to inform us all how much America feared the Red Threat. Socialists and Communists alike tried, questioned and interogated...some even executed. 

Tell me, does this insult you? "America, you're so fine. You're so fine you blow my mind, America"


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2005)

PD, the red scare happened years ago. That is not the case today. Those incidences happened during the McCarthey era and resulted in many people being blackballed from their jobs and career fields. I am not aware of anyone being executed for just being a communist, but the Rosenburgs were spies, not just communists. There is a big difference.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

I know it's not happening today, evan. Don't get me wrong on this, I find that the US were well within their rights to act on any sucsipions of spies from the Soviet Union. 
What I am pointing out with this is that the US wasn't sat there with a big grin on its face with absolutely no fear because in reality, it was crapping its pants just as much and in some cases even more than other Western nations.


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The reply I was expecting had nothing to do with the cost of the tank. It was on pure combat capability. Pz. Kpwf V Panther Ausf G Vs. T-34/85-I.



I did not take it to be simply combat ability, but also combat reliability, general servicability, and costs. Simply comparing the two tanks sitting face to face does not really compare their real combat worth.



plan_D said:


> To be a communist supporter is illegal in America? Please be so kind as to inform us all how much America feared the Red Threat. Socialists and Communists alike tried, questioned and interogated...some even executed.
> 
> Tell me, does this insult you? "America, you're so fine. You're so fine you blow my mind, America"



The only "executions" I'm aware of were the Rosenburgs - and they were caught red handed giving away nuclear secrets to the Russians. Espionage and high treason merit the death penalty in just about every nation!

Again, you are uninformed.


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I know it's not happening today, evan. Don't get me wrong on this, I find that the US were well within their rights to act on any sucsipions of spies from the Soviet Union.
> What I am pointing out with this is that the US wasn't sat there with a big grin on its face with absolutely no fear because in reality, it was crapping its pants just as much and in some cases even more than other Western nations.



Sure, because we were the ones taking on the Russians via MAD. We were the ones who were going to recieve the brunt of any nuclear exchange. It was the USA that faced down the Russians, not you Euro nations. All you did was protect yourselves with a great deal of our help.


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2005)

Okay, now it makes sense. Yes, McCarthy created a panic atmosphere with his House Un-American Committee. Unfortunately, some people were unfairly targeted as a result and forever blackballed.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

Compare the costs and maintence, be my guest. It will still prove the Panther has the most combat effective. It evens out it's cost by destroying more tanks before it itself is destroyed. 
The overall kill:loss ratio for the Germans on the Eastern Front being 4:1. That's not taking that most of those were T-34s killed but not most of those lost were Panthers. 

You are misinformed, RG, on the state of the Cold War. The US recognised that the brunt of the war would take place on European soil, not US soil. The Euro-nations would receive just as much a nuclear strike as the US would. We had nuclear weapons too, just in case you didn't know. 
The Soviet Union were going to strike through Germany and take over Europe before turning on the US. West Germany and Britain were the too frontlines. We were protecting the US just as much as the US was protecting us. That is what you don't understand, it was an alliance. Both the US and Europe had mutual interests to be in alliance. To protect one another! Why would the US pour men into Europe if it didn't think that Europe was any help? 

You're full of bull shit, RG. You think America saves the world. You think that only America can do anything. You probably salute the flag everytime you see it. Get insulted when one bad word about America is said. 

Europe was protecting itself and the US at the same time. The US was protecting itself and Europe at the same time. It's an alliance, you moron. If Europe fell the US was next. The same applied for World War 2, the US supported Europe for the sole reason that it was in the US interest to keep the combat on European soil. 

On top of that, the only aircraft that NATO had to reach the Soviet bombers before the Phantom was the EE Lightning. Amazing really because only Britain had that. How is that? Britain can't have anything decent, they're obviously inferior to America just like Europe is. We're all out to belittle America because we have inferority complex. Is that what your mind tells you, RG!?!   

The rest of the Americans on this site are mostly decent. It's easy to understand why though, because most of them have been in the military and know the world. They've been to Europe or met Europeans and talked as friends. And they UNDERSTAND what it means to have your friends on the field. 
You obviously don't, or you'd understand what the alliance in both the first, second and cold war was.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

RG said:


> It was the USA that faced down the Russians, not you Euro nations. All you did was protect yourselves with a great deal of our help.



do you make it your business to irritate people with you're simply mind bogoling ignorance?? dude you're full of complete shit!!!!

i'm 14, and even i know the situation better that you it would appear, what do you mean you faced down russia alone?? if you were the only ones to face them down, that means that you would be the only nation they were worried about, it would mean that russia wouldn't be in the least bit worried about the fact that, in the event of a russian nuclear missile strike on england, would could be dropping nukes all around russia within a few hours?? that wouldn't worry them at all??

of course if you were the only ones to face them down you would have done it solely by yourself, with no one elses help BANG!! there goes your bases in Europe, it's a long trip over the north pole to russia you know..........

and i'm confuzzled, how were we simply "protecting ourselfs", we were more than capable of striking back at Russia, and we'd be able to strike back a damn site quicker than you could..........



RG said:


> We were the ones who were going to recieve the brunt of any nuclear exchange.



in responce to this i'm not sure if i should laugh at your stupidity, or by you a rather large history book, and bash you round the head with it before making you do some heavy reading from it, as that is complete rubbish, bases in europe were always going to be attacked before america, why?? because you can launch a quicker counter attack from a base in Europe.............

and now we move on to the idea of an "allience", which is what Briton, America and many other nations had, just in case you'd forgotten which seems very likely, now then, when you're in an allience, you help each other, you respect each other, why?? because everyone has something to bring to the allience, say we didn't share things with our allies, well, that's what you did, we had to develop our own nuclear weapons, and you know, we came up with some pretty good stuff, but say, going back as far as WWI, we had no respect for each other, we were fighting for the same cause but not as allies, there go all your basesin europe, AGAIN!! looks like the american troops would be coming straigt off the ships from america into battle, but they didn't have to do that, why?? because they came to briton or france first, we also sent you back lots of nice ideas for planes, because yours sucked!! you see we respected you americans and i know you guys respected us by sending us food and other supplies, and we haven't forgotten that, but just imagine the war without that mutual understanding??

then we move onto WWII (oh no we haven't stopped yet), if we didn't respect you as an ally, again, there go your bases and lots of lovely new technology that we put your way, and again we'd have starved without your help, again there was a mutual understanding between two allies, yes that word again, that word that means respect baisically.........

you see, we need you guys, and weather you're mature enough to admit it or not, you need us too.............


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2005)

RG, that is a very one-sided view of the cold war. Europe was a very important part of the cold war strategy and were key to the prevention of the spread of communism.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

Take the view of evan, RG. He's a better American than you because while patriotic he recognises the aid of other nations towards America. 

One can love their nation without stupidity.


----------



## delcyros (May 3, 2005)

Actually it wasn´t the US, who won the thread. It was the SU, who lost (but was envisioned enough under the rule of Gorbatschov to recognize that they lost). By the way, not to downscale the importance of any other nation, especially Britain, but the two superpowers have been US and SU. Nobody mentioned the UK or China. And fact is that the US are the only remaining superpower. However, it´s obviously not that simple...
RG, I reffered that the GERMAN, not the US wind tunnels did not featured computerization for mesurements. And even the old Braunschweig high speed (transsonic) wind tunnel has a diameter of 8 meters. The supersonic ones are for models, exclusively, right. However, I do not have any datas about correct compression rates but the supersonic ones do compress the air more than 10 atmosspheres, you can prove it with basic maths. Not to speak of Ötztal, which makes even more. This one is, after all I know, superior to any US windtunnel in 1945. However, if you disprove this with good arguments I´m open to change my mind. 
You may say that Ötztal did not get online, agreed. But this was only a matter of time and you are still not factoring that the germans continued for 5 years with it´s construction. Unlike the US, under wartime circumstances, so after all I disagree with your opinion that no other nation was capable to do such a huge project and no other nation was willing to pay such expansive bills over years.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

The United States and Soviet Union were the two main players in the Cold War. Depending on opinion that could be a good thing for their history, or a bad thing. 
That certainly doesn't mean that no other nation was involved and certainly doesn't mean that the US was propping up a defenceless Europe. I know you understand this, delcyros, but there are just some that don't.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I'm glad you're not going to try and get involved (for once), RG. You astound me how amazing you think you are and how easily you manage to irritate people. It's quite a talent you have, well done.



Could not have said it better myself. Well done.



plan_D said:


> Be patient, pest. I have to question an American friend of mine who informed me long ago. Surely you can wait like I did for your tank reply...which I never got.



RG_Lunatic is right here though. The only ones were the Rosenburgs and they were executed for being traitors and they were cought red handed and deserve what they got.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Sure, because we were the ones taking on the Russians



If you really think you are as naive as you seem to be, but I am not going to get started on this one, its just plain ignorant. But thats okay.



RG_Lunatic said:


> All you did was protect yourselves



Read above, same thing! And this goes back to the other thread about the whole "Ugly American". Yes RG this is one reason why Europe and most of the world does not like Americans because of Americans who think like you. It seems like you send most of them to Europe in the military and they just show there ass like you do.



plan_D said:


> You're full of bull s**t, RG. You think America saves the world. You think that only America can do anything. You probably salute the flag everytime you see it. Get insulted when one bad word about America is said.



Very true what you say there about RG......*However*, in defence of the United States, America does do a lot of saving. Look at the Tsunami relief, look at Earthquake just as examples and they do not ask for anything in return.

As for saluting the flag, I salute it every day and where one on my shoulder and I am quite proud of it.  



RG_Lunatic said:


> do you make it your business to irritate people with you're simply mind bogoling ignorance??



Read way up top again please! 



RG_Lunatic said:


> RG, that is a very one-sided view of the cold war. Europe was a very important part of the cold war strategy and were key to the prevention of the spread of communism.



Very well said. Besides I remember during the Cold War having to do evacuation drills for when the Soviets invaded Germany through the Fulda Gap. But hell no Soviets would have stepped foot on German soil because they were not going to take any of the brunt. Yeah Right!

Wow I am going to completely leave this one up to the other posters here because it is more fun to read what other people have to say and because I am tired of the whole RG_Lunatic thing.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

America did send aid to South-East Asia in relief of the Boxing Day Tsunami but as did all the European nations. In fact, America had sent less than Britain before the EU had a go. Not putting down the men and women out there on the ships having to put up with those wiener do-gooders who do it all for the cameras. When in reality it's the military that do all the work...bastards  

Of course you do, but you're in the military.


----------



## delcyros (May 3, 2005)

Plan_D and Adler, please be kind to RG, I don´t think he is ignoring the benefits of the allies. Actually I do suspect him liking to take positions, which others would usually give less opportunity. This is a hard matter to do (requiring a lot of knowledge) and it always generates some kind of interesting discussion. And even a good discussion alone is a worthy matter, since we all get additional informations. I am glad to see someone doing this! Just take this as a method to point out a subject from a very distant (and yes, quite often US-centric...) view.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> America did send aid to South-East Asia in relief of the Boxing Day Tsunami but as did all the European nations. In fact, America had sent less than Britain before the EU had a go. Not putting down the men and women out there on the ships having to put up with those wiener do-gooders who do it all for the cameras. When in reality it's the military that do all the work...bastards
> 
> Of course you do, but you're in the military.



I am not taking away from what the other coutries did either, I am just saying that the US consistantly does this over and over.



delcyros said:


> Plan_D and Adler, please be kind to RG, I don´t think he is ignoring the benefits of the allies.



Dont worry I am not getting involved this time. It is getting old. I do think however that RG needs to think about how he words things sometimes because it really does make him look like an ass.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

> please be kind to RG, I don´t think he is ignoring the benefits of the allies



i do, he is making out that everything america has done has not only been done as a favour to us, but that they've saved the world single handedly without any help, which is simply not true, there are 7 year olds that know more about this subject than RG it would seem, you say it needs extensive knowledge, which he is obviously lacking...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I have to agree with Lanc on this one.


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Okay, now it makes sense. Yes, McCarthy created a panic atmosphere with his House Un-American Committee. Unfortunately, some people were unfairly targeted as a result and forever blackballed.



Forever? Ummm... this lasted a few years, then those targeted were, for the most part, un-blackballed. It is an unfortunate occurance in US history that this ever happened, but lets not make more of it than it was.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> evangilder said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, now it makes sense. Yes, McCarthy created a panic atmosphere with his House Un-American Committee. Unfortunately, some people were unfairly targeted as a result and forever blackballed.
> ...



Yea, but even though these folks were un-blackballed, they still paid a high price just for being accused as a communist. Its interesting though, one of McCarthy's good buddies was Joe Kennedy - That camp quickly distanced themselves when everyone realize the McCarthy was on a witch hunt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> evangilder said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, now it makes sense. Yes, McCarthy created a panic atmosphere with his House Un-American Committee. Unfortunately, some people were unfairly targeted as a result and forever blackballed.
> ...



Unfortunatly though, once they were black listed, it is hard to get ready of the stereotypes.


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

Yes, and once you have been labelled and blackballed from your iindustry, it is very difficult to get back in. You get labelled as a pariah or an outcast either way. Some of the people that were blackballed in Hollywood never worked in the industry again. So yes, some of them were permanently blackballed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2005)

This sort of thing happened though in just about every country at some point. Its sad but it happens.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

What is this, RG? Trying to hide the bad parts of US history? We can't let anyone else know that America has done wrong.


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

I'm not hiding anything at all Plan_D. Yes some people were unfairly "blackballed", mostly from Hollywood, in the mid 1950's. For some, this was the end of their careers, for others it was not. Being the fickle place that Hollywood is there is no telling how long their careers might have lasted anyway.

Lucille Ball's career was certainly ruined! And Sam Jaffe (Dr. Zorba on the "Ben Casey" TV series) never worked another day in Hollywood! Lee Grant (who later won two Oscars) was finished as an actress! 

My point is that while it is true that most who were blacklisted did not return to Hollywood, for many it is questionable how long their careers might have lasted. Most of the persecuted were screenwriters, not actors/actresses. Most "Hollywood Ten" certainly never made a comeback under their own names, but at least 3 of them continued to work under pseudonyms almost without a hitch and when the time came that they could have chosen to use their own names they chose not to.

Finally, once again you shoold observe your own house before throwing stones. When it comes to this kind of behavior, our's may be made of balsa-wood and paper but your's is made of glass.

If you'd followed my past comments you'd know your comment is ludcrous. I have pointed to Diego Garcia to identify a point of relatively modern US and British shame. You seem to think I think the USA is perfect, I certainly do not. But when you start making these idiot statements about how the USA should have gotten into WWII earlier and was immoral for not having done so... well i draw the line there...

Anyway, I have a response to your (and others) comments comming... so I'll leave it at that for now....

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

I have said the America was immoral for getting into World War II late, when? 

Glass is stronger than paper.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 5, 2005)

Plan_D,

I'll get straight to the point (no pun intended). Do you now play or have you ever played Gaystation 2?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

I'm going to start making them now, I have my parrot in many a pose that would work.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

Yea, and Eric might show up too


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I have said the America was immoral for getting into World War II late, when?
> 
> Glass is stronger than paper.



It was either you or Lanc or one of the Brits on this forum. I made my original statement in reply to that comment which kicked this whole thing off... 

A whole glass house can come crashing down from one stone. A wood and paper house can be damaged but is not likely to go entirely to peices.

My point was that both the USA and GB have ugly episodes in their pasts, however... if you want to get picky, Britain has far worse (they also have more history of being a major power). The French on the otherhand make us both look pure as the driven snow!  

I will certainly stand by the US record under its reign as superpower over that of Britain during its reign as superpower any day!


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

[quote="RG_Lunatic]It was either you or Lanc or one of the Brits on this forum. I made my original statement in reply to that comment which kicked this whole thing off... 
[/quote]

Don't you really think you should determine who you are making a point with, rather than to put all "the Brits" in one basket?

Once again, this is a forum for discussion of WWII aviation, not country bashing. You said that one should speak out against intolerance, well I am speaking now.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 5, 2005)

And I second it. Can it, fellas.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

Alright, I'll stop...as long as I can carry on bashing Canada.  

Only kiddin' NS.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 5, 2005)

Hey, bash away. It's not like we ain't used to it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

Well, in 18 and 14, we took a little trip....


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

Oy! Now that darn song is gonna be in my head all night! Thanks.  That was Jonny Horton, right?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

Throught careful study...  and typing on that, there, internet...  ...it has come to my conclusion Flyboy, that I should do this...


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

Yep, Johnny Horton, after the other post, just had to put it here. Remember, he also did "Sink the Bismark!" I think he wanted to keep things fair for our British Buddies! 8)


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

Could be. He was quite a hit for one of the morning stations here in LA for awhile.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Throught careful study...  and typing on that, there, internet...  ...it has come to my conclusion Flyboy, that I should do this...



  OK this is for you....

In May of l941 the war had just begun
The Germans had the biggest ship, they had the biggest guns
The Bismark was the fastest ship that ever sailed the sea
On her deck were guns as big as steers, and shells as big as trees.

Out of the cold and foggy night came the British ship, the Hood
And every British seaman, he knew and understood
They had to sink the Bismark, the terror of the sea,
Stop those guns as big as steers and those shells as big as trees.

We'll find that German battleship that's making such a fuss,
We gotta sink the Bismark cause the world depends on us. We'll hit the decks a-runnin' boys and spin those guns around
Yeah, and when we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down!

The Hood found the Bismark, and on that fatal day
The Bismark started firing fifteen miles away
"We gotta sink the Bismark!" was the battle sound
But when the smoke had cleared away, the Mighty Hood went down.

For six long days and weary nights they tried to find her trail.
Churchill told the people, "Put every ship asail,
For somewhere on that ocean, I know she's gotta be
We gotta sink the Bismark to the bottom of the sea!"

We'll find that German battleship that's making such a fuss
We gotta sink the Bismark cause the world depends on us
We'll hit the deck a-runnin' boys and spin those guns around
And when we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down.

The fog was gone the seventh day, and they saw the morning sun.
Ten hours away from homeland the Bismark made its run.
The admiral of the British fleet said, "turn those bows around,
We found that German Battleship and we're gonna cut her down!"

The British guns were aimed and the shells were coming fast,
The first shell hit the Bismark, they knew she couldn't last
That mighty German battleship is just a memory.
"SINK THE BISMARK!" was the battle cry that shook the seven seas!

We found that German battleship that was making such a fuss.
We had to sink the Bismark cause the world depends on us.
We hit the deck a-runnin' and we spun those guns around, yeah, and when we found the Bismark, we hadda cut her down!


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

evangilder said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > It was either you or Lanc or one of the Brits on this forum. I made my original statement in reply to that comment which kicked this whole thing off...
> ...



I did not put all the Brit's in one basket, I simply pointed out that it was one of the Brits - I think Lanc or Plan_D, that made the original comment that got me kinda pissed off. I tried to ingore it, but it kept nawing at me, so I made a comment in reply in a very general way. Finding the offending post amoungst all the threads that I follow would be very time consuming, but I guess I should do so.

Let me be clear, of all the other nations in the World I respect the modern Brtish the most, dating from about the time Churchill took over in 1940 onward. What I don't like is the attitude that a few of the Brits on this board have taken up, which amounts to nothing other than regular subtle jabs at America.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

I think the majority on this board would find that last statement hard to believe but okay. 

Nice song, by the way, Flyboy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

My pleasure! 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

What? This?   and this?


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

I just want to see that this place doesn't turn into a country bashing place. Disagreeing about things is fine, but things were starting to get personal, by several people.


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If not for the British then America, Germany, Russia, France or anyone would never have had the jet engine [basing it off firsts as the only one with a clue].



THAT IS ABSURD!

Hans von Ohain began his development of the tubojet engine in Germany in the early 1930's quite independantly of Frank Wittle's work at about the same time. 

It is the nature of technological development that when the conditions are right a thing is invented. Often this has resulted in the same thing being independantly developed in more than one place at almost the same time.

In the worst case, the jet engine would have been developed perhaps 10 years later even if Frank Wittle and Hans von Ohain had never been born. It was a rather obvious invention so it probably would have happpened sooner than that.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

You're a bit late, RG.  

Didn't you read delcryos reply to that?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 6, 2005)




----------



## delcyros (May 6, 2005)

A lot of local patritotism, here?

I agree with RG, the jet engine has independent roots. Some of them can be traced further back than the twenties (Lorin). To come to space (still part of the aerospace topic) you need more than jet engines anyway. Rocketry was far ahead in Germany than anywhere else in 1945. I always wondered, why the US did not keep up the good work done by Goddart in the early 30´s. I think he managed the very first transsonic speed of an object (bigger than a round, grenade or shell) in controlled level flight as well as important work in understanding of gyroscopic guidiance.


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

Goddard is kind of an enigma. He kept alot of his findings to himslef, claiming that he wanted better data. It could be that he saw the destructive capability and wasn't keen on that (purely a speculation on my part, not based on facts). Either way, his findings were promising but not very well known.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)

RG said:


> What I don't like is the attitude that a few of the Brits on this board have taken up, which amounts to nothing other than regular subtle jabs at America



you know the strangest thing just happened to me, a pot just came up to me and called me black.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

evangilder said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > It was either you or Lanc or one of the Brits on this forum. I made my original statement in reply to that comment which kicked this whole thing off...
> ...



I completely agree with you, thank you.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep, Johnny Horton, after the other post, just had to put it here. Remember, he also did "Sink the Bismark!" I think he wanted to keep things fair for our British Buddies!



Great song. I have it on an original vinyl record!



RG_Lunatic said:


> Finding the offending post amoungst all the threads that I follow would be very time consuming, but I guess I should do so.



Everyone else could probably do the same.  



RG_Lunatic said:


> What I don't like is the attitude that a few of the Brits on this board have taken up, which amounts to nothing other than regular subtle jabs at America.



The same can be said of you also in many of your comments about other countries. No I am not talking about military stuff but they way you talk about people from other countries.

That is why I agree with evengilder that this absolutly has to stop! 



By the way RG_Lunatic is right about the engine development. The Germans were developing one exactly at the same time the British were. So the British were not responsible for it.



> Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain (December 14, 1911-March 13, 1998) was one of the inventors of jet propulsion, along with Frank Whittle. Born in Dessau, Germany, he earned a Ph.D. in Physics and Aerodynamics from the University of Göttingen
> 
> After receiving his degree in 1935, Ohain became the junior assistant of Robert Wichard Pohl, then director of the Physical Institute of the University of Göttingen.
> 
> ...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)

yes i didn't want to put too fine a point on it but RG is being quite the hypocrit as he complains about our atitude towards americans, he thinks that america single handedly saved the world several times over, it's because of people like him that we have this attitude....


----------



## Glider (May 6, 2005)

As a Brit who received some adverse comments from other Brits for sticking up for the Marshall PLan. Plus some other comments from members of other countries for mentioning the Airbus
Can I ask that we stick to discussing aviation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

I wish we could Glider but you see will see how this happens as you stick with us longer.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 7, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2005)

man i wanna see that guy shot in the head............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2005)

Wouldnt be saying that if it was a British Army Officer would you...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2005)

no but a british officer wouldn't stand up in what could appear to be a combat situation like that.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2005)

Maybe its a training exercise


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2005)

maybe he's stupid....


----------



## Anonymous (May 7, 2005)

Maybe the area is secure because the enemy have all been roasted with napalm or otherwise blasted to hell. If you remember the scene, I think he then has the one guy go out surfing. They chose to hit that village to secure the beach because it had a "wicked break".


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2005)

I thought that was from a film but I cant think for the life of me which one. Wouldnt be Apocalypse Now would it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I thought that was from a film but I cant think for the life of me which one. Wouldnt be Apocalypse Now would it?



CHARLIE DON'T SURF!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 7, 2005)

Lanc, you want to see him shot in the head and you think he's stupid?






RG said,, 

" _Maybe the area is secure because the enemy have all been roasted with napalm or otherwise blasted to hell._"

That was good RG. Concise and cogent. 

Oh and Lanc,


----------



## Jank (May 7, 2005)

That was funny.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

Watch the movie, it wasn't blasted to hell. The combat was still going on but he got his man to go out there and surf to claim the beach. That battle scene is, in fact, the one where a Vietcong woman throws a hat with a grenade in it into a Medivac Huey and blows it to pieces. 
He doesn't say "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" until the US aircraft blow the crap out of the place while they're there. 

Awesome scene of them coming though. 

And lanc, an officer stood up in the middle of a battle shows a sign of courage and will often rally the troops in desperate situations. You don't want to see your commanding officer panicking like a little wimp. 

And it is from Apocalypse Now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> And lanc, an officer stood up in the middle of a battle shows a sign of courage and will often rally the troops in desperate situations. You don't want to see your commanding officer panicking like a little wimp.



NO - YOU WANT HIM TO TELL YOU TO SURF THE PIPE!


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

That's just rude Davidicus.


----------



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

yeah not only is that racist it's far too sexual..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> man i wanna see that guy shot in the head............



Its just a scene from an all time great War movie.

That guy though does remind me of the first Air Assualt we flew in Iraq though. It was with a CAV unit and when we landed to get the brief from them and brief them up on what we had to tell them, this Colonal comes out with his guys with a CAV hat on, a cigar hanging out of his mouth and a shot gun in his hand screaming "Wind em up boys, lets go get 'em!" It just reminded me of Appocolypse Now and the whole time to the LZ I was humming Flight of the Valkrye by Wagner just like when the helicopters are coming in in the movie.


----------



## Glider (May 8, 2005)

On the subject of officers in combat. My cousin was in the first Gulf War. They were moving up to the front when out of the middle of the desert this Iraqi jumped up and had a go at his truck with an RPG.
John was so angry he got out of the truck, chased him across the desert and beat him up using the empty RPG. He then left the Iraqi and went back to the truck. 
As he got in, his Sargent turned to him and said 'excuse me sir, why didn't you just shoot the f----r.
He told this to his officers before the second war to remind them that officers in combat who look as if they are being brave could well be just being stupid. Also, that the brave one was the Iraqi. He was all alone, behind the allied lines, had been plastered by planes and guns, run over by tanks and APC's and no one would have blamed him had he just surrendered. He warned his men not to underestimate the power of the individual.
Good advice as it turns out


----------



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

that's a nice story.........


----------



## evangilder (May 8, 2005)

Davidicus, I deleted that post with the picture. Let's keep it down a bit. That was over the edge.


----------



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

you admin now 

and now if you go back to where you deleted the post it now looks rather funny...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

I can not get my admin stuff to work for somereason, it does not show up.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 8, 2005)

Yeah ive asked about that. Hopefully horse will rectify the problem ASAP.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

Cool.


----------



## evangilder (May 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you admin now
> 
> and now if you go back to where you deleted the post it now looks rather funny...........



Yes, I have been for about a week now. 

I don't care if it does look funny with the post missing, it was not funny. It was over the top, so I deleted it.


----------



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

yes i know it was over the top i said it was myself.......


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 8, 2005)

I apologize. I'll keep the humor more subdued in the future.


----------



## evangilder (May 9, 2005)

This is the only time that it has been over the top. I am not going to raise a big stink about it, just a friendly reminder that we get all types of people from all over the world here.


----------



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

yes i mean could you imagine how offended we'd be of any of us had cocks!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 9, 2005)

"The other day I dreamed I was a chicken, all I could think about was eating and talking to other chickens."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

I think you need to see a doctor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 9, 2005)

I have, as a result he now requires psychiatric treatment


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

Now that I can believe.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2005)

Is it just me, or does anyone else want to kick someone in the head right now?


----------



## Chiron (May 10, 2005)

How about Japan?

How's Japanese R&D during WWII?

Did Japan make better planes than, say, Soviet?


----------



## Anonymous (May 10, 2005)

Hmm, that's very hard to say.

Japan had some excellent engineering, but they lacked materials and alloy technology and the machine tools technology necessary to build state-of-the-art aircraft, expecially near the end of the war. The Soviets also had some excellent engineers, and near the end of the war they recieved both machine tools and high-quality alloys from the USA via lend-lease.

Personally, I think the Ki-84 was as good as anything the Soviets produced during the war, though the La-7 would be competative for sure. On the otherhand, the Tu-2 was certainly superior to any bomber the Japanese produced. So overall, technology wise, I'd say they were pretty even. Production wise, the Soviets had them beat many times over.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2005)

The Japnese jumped onto the the bomber scene a bit late in my opinion. 

I will agree with RG that they had excellent engineering but lacked the recources.

As for the Soviets, I think they were just concentrating on building what they needed to survive and stop the Germans. The fact that Stalin had his fingers all over the Soviet R&D did not help, just as it did not help the Germans that Hilter was too involved.


----------



## Chiron (May 10, 2005)

"I will agree with RG that they had excellent engineering but lacked the recources. "

By the way, Germany was also lack of natural resources, but where they got their oil and mental from? I meant that Japan and Germany are overpopulated and almost no sustainable resources. But, why Germany was able to sustain much longer than Japanese did? and why Germany was much dangerous than Japan in WWII?


----------



## Anonymous (May 10, 2005)

Chiron said:


> "I will agree with RG that they had excellent engineering but lacked the recources. "
> 
> By the way, Germany was also lack of natural resources, but where they got their oil and mental from? I meant that Japan and Germany are overpopulated and almost no sustainable resources. But, why Germany was able to sustain much longer than Japanese did? and why Germany was much dangerous than Japan in WWII?



Well, first off Japan had much less land for about the same population and Germany/Austria. Germany/Austria/Poland/Rumania/Hungary/etc... is much richer in metals and other resources (including oil) than Japan. Germany/Austria proper also had relatively large supplies of coal which allowed them to produce "synthetic" fuel, Japan did not. And Germany was also more widely industrialized than Japan. Japan had to import almost all resources via ship, which were extremely vulnerable to US planes and submarines. Germany was able to use rail and truck transport, which until the very end of the war was still somewhat functional. Rail and truck transport can shutdown and hide during the day, ships en-route cannot.

Germany actually did a very poor job of managing its war economy. Japan did much better, but it had less to work with. Had Germany properly mobilized its economy for war before mid-1944 they might actually have won. However, the German people were bought off with the economic benefits provided by the Nazi's, and Hitler was unwilling to risk loosing their support by withdrawing this until it was far far too late.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (May 10, 2005)

Like the Italians, the Japanese had fine planes but rubbish engines to power them.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2005)

Germany got it's Iron Ore from Sweden via rail (Royal Navy blockaded North Sea) and got it's Oil from Romania (Ploesti Oil Fields). For a simple answer.


----------



## Chiron (May 11, 2005)

Why Japan failed to industrialize in pre-WWII in comparison with Germany?

Natural resources may played a role, but I dont think its a critical one. We know that Japan is the second most powerful economy after US now. And it is also one of the most technological advanced nation on earth; has more R&D than Germany and any European nation.

The problem that I dont understand is that why Japan was weak in terms of industrial capacity, but became such powerful economy in post-WWII era. I recalled my Political Science class last year that during 1980s and early 1990s, Japanese economy was so powerful that 10 of the world largest banks were Japaense and the real estate of Imperal Palace was equivalent to the real estate of whole California.

But, why Japan wasnt in such state prior and during WWII? It had already industrialized for over fifty years now afer Meiji revolution in late 19th century.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2005)

It lacked strategic resources, that makes a lot of difference in industrialisation. The world wasn't as close net as it is these days, Japan isn't self-sufficient. It relies heavily on raw materials from other nations. Those nations it relies on today, weren't it's allies back then. 

The U.S halted many important exports to Japan after it's invasion of China, for example. 

And I may be wrong on this but I thought Japan was the strongest economy on the planet, not the U.S.


----------



## Chiron (May 11, 2005)

"And I may be wrong on this but I thought Japan was the strongest economy on the planet, not the U.S."

During the Cold War, most of Economist experts forcasted that Japan would overtake US by early '90s. But, like the fall of Soviet Union, the Japanese economy was bubble burst in early 1990s.

Japanese ecnomoy was so powerful then that US government afraid that their corporations might absorbed by Japanese, such as Sony bought CBS etc. And of course, the famous battle and competition of supercomputer and semiconductor between Japanese and US researchers in 80s. I think it was like every two years, Japanese introduced new supercomputer. Japanese miracle impacted not only on American industries, but also on American perception of future; many sci-fic movies contained scenes of futuristic style of citeis that based on Tokyo, Blade Runner, or domination of Japanese corporations in Alien 3.

Of course, now, Detroit is losing battle against mighty Japanese auto makers, Toyota, Honda. I recalled that when asked which company BMW is most respecting in engineering, BMW replies: Honda (just looked at their engines technology and their unsurpassed robotic advancements).

But, I still dont understand why Japanese engineering was so poor prior and during WWII? I heard somone compare Japan with Italy in R&D, which is kind of exaggerating. Afterall Japan built the most powerful fleet in the beginning of war, whereas Italy had none of that.

Natural resources maybe a key, but Japan occupied Manchuria and other rich provinces of China in the beginning of war. 

In Political Science, both Germany and Japan are often comparing with each other as they have very similar path of economic and political developments prior and post WWII.

Germany was also a late comer in terms of industrialization and political modernization. Yet, with similar size of population in Japan, Germany had much advanced and scientific research as well as in industrial output.


----------



## Anonymous (May 11, 2005)

Chiron said:


> Why Japan failed to industrialize in pre-WWII in comparison with Germany?
> 
> Natural resources may played a role, but I dont think its a critical one. We know that Japan is the second most powerful economy after US now. And it is also one of the most technological advanced nation on earth; has more R&D than Germany and any European nation.
> 
> ...



Actually, it was the "Meiji _Restoration_", much more a coup than a "revolution". It resulted in the military achieving political dominance using the Emperor as (partly willing) puppet.

The issue comes down to one simple difference between pre-WWII Gemany vs. Japan - Education. Most of the Japanese people were uneducated by western standards. This was especially true under the Tokagawa Shoganate (which was highly isolationist), but was relaxed a little after the Meiji Restoration (1889 IIRC) and a little more after the Military came to fuller dominance around 1916, But still the Japanese were mostly farmers and general laborers. What education most Japanese did recieve had to do mostly with "punctuality", "obedience", and "repetition". Thinking processes were not a part of general education, and even reading skills were taught at only the most rudimentrary levels. Only the social elite were given any form of higher education, everyone else was expected to perform rote tasks either in the field, the factory, or the office. So the pool of talant to enact industrialization was somewhat limited.

Also, capital for industrialization was somewhat limited, since most of it had to be initially purchased from Western powers, and then duplicated. This often meant Japan's industrial technology was a full generation behind the Western powers as they were spending a decade to copy what was not even usually state-of-the art technology in the first place.

Finally, you have to consider the starting point. Japan had almost no "modern" industry at the time of the Meiji Restoration. Eurpean nations were already heavily industrialized for over 100 years, and the USA had become so during the Civil war. Japanese heavy industry growth was probably about as fast as their educated worker base and financial resources could accomodate in the period from 1900-1940. Still, it was far less than that of the USA, but probably approached that of most European nations by WWII.

Finally, Germany was bigger than Japan. The German population in 1939 was about 80.5 millon, where Japan had a population of only about 50 million. And remember, while Germany was not huge, Japan is only about the size of California.

As for Japan's rise after WWII - that can be summed up in three words "*The Marshall Plan*". Japan did not have to industrialize itself, we did it for them! And we even went so far as to build the best we could for them - for example both Germany and Japan got O2 injection smelters after WWII. This resulted in the "quality" of German and Japanese steel in car bodys being "superior" to that of US cars in the 60's and especially the 70's and 80's. About 65% of US smelters were of the old coal and coke type, and thus higher quality steel was more expensive in the USA than in the former Axis nations. As a result, American made cars were more subject to rust than German/Japanese cars.

=S=

Lunatic

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

Chiron said:


> "I will agree with RG that they had excellent engineering but lacked the recources. "
> 
> By the way, Germany was also lack of natural resources, but where they got their oil and mental from? I meant that Japan and Germany are overpopulated and almost no sustainable resources. But, why Germany was able to sustain much longer than Japanese did? and why Germany was much dangerous than Japan in WWII?



You have to take into account that Germany took over countries that had natural recourses. Japan mostly took over Islands that did not have much.


----------



## Anonymous (May 12, 2005)

Chiron,

Japan was not "similar" in population to German, it had only 3/5ths as many people. That is a huge difference.

Also, the number of Japanese with any kind of real education in Japan was tiny by comparison to Germany. Only about the top 5% of Japanese received more than what today would be considered a 5th grade education. A smaller number of well educated people means a smaller capacity for R&D.

And finally, Japan did not have the "best" navy in the world at the start of WWII. They managed to sink most of the US Battleships at Perl Harbor but if you look at the match-up before PH Japan was still inferior.

According to Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", in 1937 the war-making potential of the 7 major players in WWII was:





As you can see Japan's economy was only about a quarter as powerful as Germany's. And in 1937, the German economy was hot but the Japanese economy was super-heated from their war with China, so the German advantage is a little understated.

Japan was really a little power that got a big head and acted foolishly. This seems to be a common malady when a peoples decide they are innately superior to other peoples.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (May 12, 2005)

Keep also in mind that the area of both countries differs greatly.
While Japan has a nominal bigger size it incorporates 85% of its area as mountains. Only 15% of it´s area are suited for food production and habitable. Most cities are located there also, resulting in a further decrease of it´s area. Germany on the other hand has 82% fertile, habitable area. And lots of communication ways: railways, highways (Autobahnen, great ), river ways...
The japanese fleet was great in 1942 but if you factor 1940 or even early 1941 you could come to the solution that italy was not that far away to have a comparable one. (exclude the carriers, since their worth was widely recognized from 1941 on) In fact Italy did had the excellent Vittorio Veneto class battleships. The fleet of Italy was potentially able to rule the mediterranean, but the RN prevented that wisely.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

It sure did, with a handful of Swordfish.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

I would actually go to say that the Italians had possibly one of the best navies for a while, until the RN took care of them. The advantage the Japanese had was the Battleship situation after Pearl, and that did not last very long anyhow. The Japanese were not able to replace there losses like the US was able to do. For every US carrier lost there were 10 more being finished. The Axis powers as a matter of fact did not have the capabiltiy of replacing there naval losses anywhere near that of the allies.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

Well, as I've always said, how could they match the economy of the U.S.A, British Empire and Soviet Union combined?

How could they even hope, to match it. Well, actually, Germany didn't. It was recognised from the start, written down in Achtung! Panzer! by Guderian (1937), that Germany could not sustain a long drawn out war because of a lack of resources.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

which is why they used blitzkreig tactics.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

Which worked out of shock at first but soon slowed and died down.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

It didn't really rely on shock on the grandscale. The reason it slowed was purely due to massive tactical errors on the part of Hitler. He forgot what blitzkrieg was all about.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

That he did also.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would actually go to say that the Italians had possibly one of the best navies for a while, until the RN took care of them. The advantage the Japanese had was the Battleship situation after Pearl, and that did not last very long anyhow. The Japanese were not able to replace there losses like the US was able to do. For every US carrier lost there were 10 more being finished. The Axis powers as a matter of fact did not have the capabiltiy of replacing there naval losses anywhere near that of the allies.



The Italian Navy stayed in port most of the time, that's why it was defeated because the RN had the initaitive in going after the Italian Navy


----------



## Chiron (May 12, 2005)

"Chiron,

Japan was not "similar" in population to German, it had only 3/5ths as many people. That is a huge difference.

Also, the number of Japanese with any kind of real education in Japan was tiny by comparison to Germany. Only about the top 5% of Japanese received more than what today would be considered a 5th grade education. A smaller number of well educated people means a smaller capacity for R&D."

Thanks, Lunatic, especially your very helpful chart. I was surprised that even the combination of Germany, Japan, and Soviet can not rival the industrial capacity of US's. 

Ya, I agree totally, with such small portion of educated Japanese at that time, it became much difficult for Japan to develop and to advance their weaponary. But, despite of the shortage of enginners, Japan still developed some of best fighters of that time.

By the way, regarding your chart, does that corresponding to a state's investment in R&D? In other words, does it mean that US has much advanced science and technology than Germany because it had much powerful war making ability. Moreover, does Soviet had equal scientific research to that of Germany since Soviet was ranked equally to Germany according to that chart.

And also, I heard that Japan was well awared of potential of developing nuclear bomb, and Japan had actually experimented the nuclear program. (correct me if i am wrong). So, Japnese scientists were not that far behind of their European coutnerpart.


----------



## Anonymous (May 12, 2005)

Chiron said:


> Thanks, Lunatic, especially your very helpful chart. I was surprised that even the combination of Germany, Japan, and Soviet can not rival the industrial capacity of US's.
> 
> Ya, I agree totally, with such small portion of educated Japanese at that time, it became much difficult for Japan to develop and to advance their weaponary. But, despite of the shortage of enginners, Japan still developed some of best fighters of that time.
> 
> By the way, regarding your chart, does that corresponding to a state's investment in R&D? In other words, does it mean that US has much advanced science and technology than Germany because it had much powerful war making ability. Moreover, does Soviet had equal scientific research to that of Germany since Soviet was ranked equally to Germany according to that chart.



Click on the chart, it will take you to the page it comes from 

The figures represent the gross productivity of each nation in 1937. Therefore, they show Germany and Japan as being stronger than they really were, since their economies were already wound up producing war goods. They didn't have a lot more room for futher expansion, where the British, and especially the US economies were cold and thus had a lot of room for expansion. By the end of 1942 the picture was much different, the USA made up about 2/3rds of all Allied production and was still growing.



Chiron said:


> And also, I heard that Japan was well awared of potential of developing nuclear bomb, and Japan had actually experimented the nuclear program. (correct me if i am wrong). So, Japnese scientists were not that far behind of their European coutnerpart.



I really don't think they had any kind of nuclear program. The Germans were unable to create a stable atomic pile until the very last days of WWII and the Japanese didn't even try. At best, the Japanese were aware of the possiblity of a dirty bomb using material provided by the Germans near the end of the war (which never got their aboard the the uboat U-235 - is that number a coincidence?).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (May 14, 2005)

Cool thing with U-234.

It was originally a submarine long range mine layer, one of the largest fielded by the Kriegsmarine. After capitulation it was handed over to US controll while enroute to Japan. It´s cargo consisted of: One complete Me-262 jet fighter with all ground equippment, 1 ton of diplomatic material, 8 tons of construction charts for rocketry, jettechnology, submarine-technology, fuzes, guidiances and electronics (4mm radar wave technology!), mostly on microfilm, further material for guidiances and fuzes, 10 metal barrels containing 560 Kg of Uranium (there has been a discussion arisen if these material was Uraniumoxyd (which is most probable), metallic Uranium or even enriched ones (which seems to be unprobable). It was one of four boats to transfer technology from Germany to Japan, another boat (containing a Me-163) was sunken enroute.


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2005)

I find the cargo interesting in particular the Me262 as the Japenese had a jet fighter in test and to me it looks like a 262 but with a smaller rudder. It was called the Kikka or Navy 10-Shi type B local fighter (what a name). Only one was flying at the end of the war and the performance was I believe very low as the engines only produced 1,050 lb thrust. 
One interesting point. Lt Cdr Susumu Takaoka the Test Pilot reported that part of his preparation for the test flight was a review of the test pilot report on the American Bell P59!! Maybe the Jap secret service was better than I thought. Its a strange claim to make as he would presumably have had access to flight reports on the 262


----------



## Anonymous (May 14, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Cool thing with U-234.
> 
> It was originally a submarine long range mine layer, one of the largest fielded by the Kriegsmarine. After capitulation it was handed over to US controll while enroute to Japan. It´s cargo consisted of: One complete Me-262 jet fighter with all ground equippment, 1 ton of diplomatic material, 8 tons of construction charts for rocketry, jettechnology, submarine-technology, fuzes, guidiances and electronics (4mm radar wave technology!), mostly on microfilm, further material for guidiances and fuzes, 10 metal barrels containing 560 Kg of Uranium (there has been a discussion arisen if these material was Uraniumoxyd (which is most probable), metallic Uranium or even enriched ones (which seems to be unprobable). It was one of four boats to transfer technology from Germany to Japan, another boat (containing a Me-163) was sunken enroute.



The drums contained Uranium-Oxide powder. This has been confirmed by multiple sources. It was not enriched, though it was of very high grade.


----------



## delcyros (May 14, 2005)

....That´s what I believe in, too. 
However, the Navy archives for the cargo is not accesabble and therefore (as far as I know) not verfiable. The only source I know so far is C.P. Hydricks study "Critical Mass" from 1998, who analyzed material from the Navy archives. He involved some suspicious points in his second part, which descredited his work in the first part (just my opinion). 
Can you source outher sorces, RG? Would be fine


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

delcyros said:


> ....That´s what I believe in, too.
> However, the Navy archives for the cargo is not accesabble and therefore (as far as I know) not verfiable. The only source I know so far is C.P. Hydricks study "Critical Mass" from 1998, who analyzed material from the Navy archives. He involved some suspicious points in his second part, which descredited his work in the first part (just my opinion).
> Can you source outher sorces, RG? Would be fine



I really cannot give a reference for this - but I know those drums contained Uranium Oxide in a powdered form.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

It is kind of wiered that the name was U-235. I think it deffinatly was more than just a coincidence.


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Jan 5, 2020)

I'll go with the US as the frontier of aerospace, because the powered airplane, supersonic flight and hypersonic flight were born over southern California, even though Britain and Germany were the birthplace of the jet engine, rocket-powered plane, and jet aircraft.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 5, 2020)

The powered airplane...........what???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 5, 2020)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> I'll go with the US as the frontier of aerospace, because the powered airplane, supersonic flight and hypersonic flight were born over southern California, even though Britain and Germany were the birthplace of the jet engine, rocket-powered plane, and jet aircraft.



Vahe,

PLEASE PLEASE comb through all the old threads you want. BUT PLEASE take any questions you have, summarize them into ONE NEW THREAD and ask them there. ONCE people answer you PLEASE be polite and REPLY to them.

V/R,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2020)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> I'll go with the US as the frontier of aerospace, because the powered airplane, supersonic flight and hypersonic flight were born over southern California, even though Britain and Germany were the birthplace of the jet engine, rocket-powered plane, and jet aircraft.



Since when did the Wright Flyer perform its first flight in southern California?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2020)

So Cal?

Every air enthusiast know the first flight was made in Bridgeport CT in 1901.





First in Flight? Connecticut Stakes a Claim 

It is in the paper, it must be true

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2020)

Well things have certainly moved on since 2005, once we decide where the Wright brothers flew we can move on to other less serious issues of space exploration.


----------

