Best Jet of the War? (1 Viewer)

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

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

If you want to argue with the world that the Germans weren't technically superior, be my guest but you're going to be beaten at every corner.

Really? All I have to that say is:

1) A-bomb

2) VT fuse

3) Battleships (especially the fire control systems)

4) Code breaking computers

5) A working turbo-supercharger

All technologically beyond the Germans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=S=

Lunatic

 

[plan_D]

Germans above the U.S -

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[evangilder]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[/i]

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[evangilder]

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

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

Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle are both recognized as being the co-inventors of the jet engine. Each worked separately and knew nothing of the other's work. Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine. Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930. Hans von Ohain was granted a patent for his turbojet engine in 1936. However, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly in 1939. Frank Whittle's jet first flew in in 1941.

Sir Frank Whittle was an English aviation engineer and pilot, the son of a mechanic, Frank Whittle joined the Royal Air Force or RAF as an apprentice. He joined an RAF fighter squadron in 1928 and became a test pilot in 1931. The young RAF officer was only 22 when he first thought to use a gas turbine engine to power an airplane. While often regarded as the father of modern jet propulsion systems, the young Frank Whittle tried without success to obtain official support for study and development of his ideas. He had to persist his research on his own initiative and received his first patent on turbojet propulsion in January 1930.

With private financial support, he began construction of his first engine in 1935. This engine, which had a single-stage centrifugal compressor coupled to a single-stage turbine, was successfully bench tested in April 1937; it was only a laboratory test rig, never intended for use in an aircraft, but it did demonstrate the feasibility of the turbojet concept. The modern turbojet engine used in many British and American aircraft is based on the prototype that Frank Whittle invented.

The firm of Power Jets Ltd., with which Whittle was associated, received a contract for a Whittle engine, known as the W1, on July 7, 1939. This engine was intended to power a small experimental aircraft. In February 1940, the Gloster Aircraft Company was chosen to develop the aircraft to be powered by the W1 engine - the Pioneer. The historic first flight of the Pioneer took place on May 15, 1941, with Flight Lieutenant P. E. G. Sayer as pilot.

Doctor Hans Von Ohain was a German airplane designer who invented an operational jet engine. Hans Von Ohain obtained his doctorate in Physics at the University of Göttingen in Germany and then became the junior assistant to Hugo Von Pohl, director of the Physical Institute at the University. German aircraft builder, Ernst Heinkel asked the university for assistance in new airplane propulsion designs and Pohl recommended his star pupil. Hans Von Ohain, was investigating a new type of aircraft engine that did not require a propeller. Only twenty-two years old when he first conceived the idea of a continuous cycle combustion engine in 1933, Hans Von Ohain patented a jet propulsion engine design similar in concept to that of Sir Frank Whittle but different in internal arrangement in 1934.
Hans Von Ohain joined Ernst Heinkel in 1936 and continued with the development of his concepts of jet propulsion. A successful bench test of one of his engines was accomplished in September 1937. A small aircraft was designed and constructed by Ernst Heinkel to serve as a test bed for the new type of propulsion system - the Heinkel He178. The Heinkel He178 flew for the first time on August 27, 1939. The pilot on this historic first flight of a jet-powered airplane was Flight Captain Erich Warsitz.

Hans Von Ohain developed a second improved jet engine, the He S.8A, which was first flown on April 2, 1941.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljjetenginehistory.htm

 

[evangilder]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[evangilder]

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

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

Here are the specs on the He-178

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My comment:
The really interesting thing - except that it could have been operational short after Me262´s maiden flight - is its maneuvrability. The Me262 was
designed for top speed, yes, even more speed than useful (with 150km/h twice as much speed advantage than necessary for dogfight superiority).
It wasn´t usual to curve in a Me262 with more than a 45° angle (usual around 80°!), its acceleration was low, its Mk108 armament was especially
good for destruction of medium to heavy bombers at close distance only and it had a 50% higher weight and wing load.
The Me262 shot down some fighters like P-51D, but in the hands of aces like Galland!
The He280 instead had similar maneuverability like the Fw190A (wingload 4125kg : 21.5m2 = 191kg/m2, less than Fw190D!) and was
with its speed advantage and good armament most probably the best dogfighter of World War 2, especially in hit-and-run tactics.
The HeS08 and BMW109-003 engines had better handling and provided better acceleration than the Jumo109-004.
http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/he280.htm

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[Anonymous]

Germans above the U.S -

1) Radar

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

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

2) Tank design

Given.

3) Rockets

A waste of precious resources, especially engineering talent.

4) Night Vision

I've no idea on this one.

5) Gyros

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

6) Electronics

How do you figure?

7) Aerodynamics

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

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

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

Ill trained raw recruits that kicked Nazi and Imperial ass!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

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

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

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

 

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=S=

Lunatic

 

[plan_D]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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