players in a prolonged war

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>The problem with SAMs is that it they will be unreliable and even if they do work they cost as much in time and effort as the bomber they are trying to destroy.

So what did a German SAM cost in 1945? I'm really amazed how quickly you must have figured that out ...

>Early missiles were unreliable and there is no reason to assume that German ones would be any better.

No reason at all, and none to rely on German help to get to the moon ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Flyboy2]

Yeah, early SAM's where extremely unreliable. This is why they weren't used in Korea. Mostly they would have been semi-guided rockets like the ones already in use. Also the Allies had already developed chaff which could have easily fooled early German SAM's
Even though the Germans had alot of advanced concepts, I don't think they had enough industrial might to put them into production. The war would have progressed like it had been for the past five years. Alot of variations of aircraft already in service with a few technological inovations.
The Allies would have but aircraft such as the P-51H, FJ-1 and P-80 into service and the British would have used all those Spitfire and Typhoon upgrades.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboy,

>Yeah, early SAM's where extremely unreliable. This is why they weren't used in Korea.

Would you please quote some statistics on the reliability of Korean War era SAMs so that I can understand how you arrive at your conclusions? Thanks in advance ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Flyboy2]

Hey sorry! I was just thinking since their wasn't widespread use of SAM's in Korea they weren't very reliable, or else we would have used them, right?
I think in Geometry that type of logic is called the Transitive property :}

 

[kool kitty89]

Assuming the guidance of the missile would be IR (heat seeking) you have to remember that piston engines have a much lower and less concentrated heat sinature than a jet engine.

Plus there still wasn't a reliable proximity fuse available for it iirc...

Traditional interceptors (and jets as well) would likely have been more cost effective. Plus there was the R4M, which could have been available much sooner than it was.

 

[bigZ]

I know the prototype P.1101 could vary the wings sweep before flight, but was the production version intended to have inflight variable sweep.

 

[Glider]

A couple of quotes

The Terrier was a development of the Bumblebee Project, the Navy's effort to develop a surface-to-air missile to provide a middle layer of defense against air attack (between carrier fighters and antiaircraft guns). It was test launched from USS Mississippi (AG-128) ex (BB-41), and operationally first deployed on the Boston class cruisers, USS Boston (CAG-1) and USS Canberra (CAG-2). Its designation was SAM-N-7 until 1963 when it was redesignated RIM-2.

Initially, the Terrier used radar beam-riding guidance, wing control, a conventional warhead, had a top speed of only Mach 1.8, and a range of only 10 nautical miles (19 km), it was useful only against subsonic targets
RIM-2 Terrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On May 1, 1960, Gary Powers' U-2 was shot down while flying over the testing site near Sverdlovsk, although it took 14 missiles to hit his high-flying plane and a Soviet MiG-19 was also destroyed in the action by mistake
S-75 Dvina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Probably the best air to air missile, the Sidewinder was also horribly unreliable for a number of years as many pilots found to their cost in Vietnam.

To work on the basis that the Germas were 15 years ahead of the rest of the world in this field is a big assumption.

I am willing to be proved wrong. How many targets were shot down by German missiles under test? Also how were they to be detonated without a proximity fuze.
The USA proximity fuze was very effective as proved a number of times including in the defence of the UK against V1 bombs is well known. All I am suggesting is that the Germans would be better off with a similar fuze. Tightly packed US day bombers would be slaughtered, an absolute dream target.

From personal experience on HMS Tiger I have seen how effective her 6in guns were against aircraft. It wasn't often that a County Class with her Sea Slug missiles beat her in accuracy or speed of destruction of the target.

No, go with the Proximity fuze, its smaller, cheaper and far more flexible in the speed of its deployment.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

You know that the U-2 is not a 1945 plane, and you also know that the Sidewinder was not designed as a SAM.

Why do you even care to mention them? That hardly strikes me as a fair comparison ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Flyboy2]

I think it is possible that the Germans may have used some type of SAM, but maybe not the type that we are familiar with. If I would guess, it would be a type of Semi-guidance missile. You aim it at the target and it has very limited guidance capabilities. It would kinda be like guided flak. This type of semi-guided missile would be devestating, but not a wonder weapon that an aircraft like the Go 229 and Do 335 would have been.

 

[evangilder]

You do realize that long range bombers capable of reaching America and making it back to Germany was a very tall order. With that kind of distance, the best they could have hoped for would be the east coast of the US, in which case, you pick up the factories and move them westward, out of range. Plus flying that far with any effective bomb load is going to burn a LOT of fuel, which Germany didn't have a lot of.

The Germans definitely had some great minds working on some visionary projects, but SAM missiles with any amount of accuracy or reliability? I doubt it. They might get a few planes with it, but I don't see it being the wonder weapon to end daylight bombing. Intelligence would figure out where the SAMs were and the formations would spread out for less effectiveness. I can guarantee you there wouldn't be any fighters in the vicinity of that.

 

[kool kitty89]

What theyneeded to do was focus on defensive projects earlier on. (the BoB being a major turning point)

Again I'll mention the R4M. Effective using low tech impact fuze. Much better if prox fuze was available. Though an impact fuze with a time fuze as well would work well. (gauge it for ~1 sec for ~300 m, so those that miss will still detonate and cause damage to near by targets) It also had the same trajectory as the MK 108. (so same sighting) The Fw 190 could easily have carried them.


And though mostly inferior to the Me 262, the He 280 was small enough to use underpowered (550-700 kp) engines and could likely have been feilded earlier, particularly if substitutions were made. (ie large diameter 590 kp HeS 6 engines could be used, mid-wing mounted ala Meteor, these were tested in late 1939 as a follow on to the HeS-3 engines with improved thrust/weight and fuel consumption; abandoned due to weight and diameter, but still a good intrim measure and at ~40 in diameter smaller than Wittle's W.1 and W.2 designs) The 280 could have carried R4M as well and though only 3x 20 mm cannons were fitted, 2x 30 mm MK 108's could likely have been fitted. (maybe even 3x 108, or 2x Mk 103)

 

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboy,

>I think it is possible that the Germans may have used some type of SAM, but maybe not the type that we are familiar with.

Here is an interesting article on German missile technology:

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-MS-1006.pdf

I don't see any radically different in the German approach, though of course the technology of the era didn't allow the development of shoulder-launched SAMs like the infamous Stinger

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[HoHun]

Hi Eric,

>Intelligence would figure out where the SAMs were and the formations would spread out for less effectiveness.

Like Flak, the SAMs would be concentrated around the most valuable targets. Griehl's book features a map showing a deployment plan designed to protect 70 German cities with SAM sites. The biggest concentration appear to be in the Ruhr area, around Frankfurt and in the Leuna area.

Most SAM projects were intended to have the capability to hit individual aircraft, so spreading out the formations would not have helped. I think it was only Enzian that had a warhead large enough to destroy several bombers at once, a scheme which would have obviously required formation targets.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[evangilder]

But they would still develop tactics to minimize the time in range to the SAMs, much like they did with Flak coverage areas. They would do their best to go around those areas on their way to the target and select a route with the minimum amount of flak, if possible.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Eric,

>But they would still develop tactics to minimize the time in range to the SAMs, much like they did with Flak coverage areas.

Absolutely, I agree. But the gaps are narrow, and SAMs are mobile ... you might find the gap "plugged" with a couple of SAM batteries now and then, and that might make your raids prohibitively costly - on the average.

By the way, the map of the planned SAM positions looks more like it's designed to counter the USAAF attack than the RAF attacks ... the biggest gap is the route to Berlin over the North German plains. I wonder if this allows the conclusion that the American attacks on industrial targets were seen as the greater threat?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[olbrat]

Forgive my ignorance, but when you refer to the lack of accuracy for the SAM's, are you refering to the lack of ability to strike a selected aircaft, or the lack of ability to reach a designated area?

I know it's simplistic, but if you could reach a designated area, you could have the SAM explode at a certain height, instead of trying to get an individual aircraft. I would think if you knew the bomber formations altitude and direction, you could get a SAM in to intercept them. You could pack a large warhead with schrapnel to damage as many aircraft in the area as possible. If the bombers spread out their formations, you could turn them over to the Ta-152, etc. to pick them off individually.

Please correct me if off-base in my thinking.

 

[evangilder]

If the SAMs were mobile, adding mobility to something that is already complex will increase the chances of a failure to a complex system during transit. We had radios in the 80s that would work fabulously, until you moved them. These were radios that were designed to be mobile too. I really don't see it being much more effective that flak guns for a couple of reasons. I don't think they could have made enough of them to have made a difference due to manufacturing constraints and new technologies require time to get developed, train the crews to use them and then get them deployed.

Not off-base, Olbrat, but using shrapnel and height for taking out bombers is something that flak guns were already doing. Why spend time and money to redesign something that is already in use and widely deployed.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Eric,

>If the SAMs were mobile, adding mobility to something that is already complex will increase the chances of a failure to a complex system during transit.

Well, the V-2 was a mass-produced mobile missile system, so I don't think the difficulties would have been overwhelming. I believe mobile radars had been in routine use with Flak units anyway, so it was not new technology, after all.

>I don't think they could have made enough of them to have made a difference due to manufacturing constraints and new technologies require time to get developed, train the crews to use them and then get them deployed.

Albert Speer believed that the Wasserfall missile - which was directly based on V-2 technology - might have stopped the Allied bombing offensive. He noted that they actually achieved a monthly production output of 900 long-range V-2 rockets. Kopp quotes the projected Wasserfall price at 7000 - 10000 Reichsmark, and the man-hours at 1/8 of that of the V-2. The potential for the production of several thousands of SAMs per month definitely was there.

With regard to training and man-power, the Flak organization was huge, and they were the organization that had the expertise concerning radio, radar and electronic warfare. No doubt that they couldn't have achieved full effectiveness immediately, but I see no reason to assume that anything would have kept them from achieving strategical effectiveness rather quickly.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[evangilder]

The "mobile" system of the V2 required a convoy of about 30 trucks. Hardly an effective use of manpower, IMO. The potential for production is pure speculation. How much manpower was available to make them? How much money, raw material, resources, etc. There wasn't an unlimited supply of any of these. What would have had to suffer to make everything available to make these SAMs? And the key is that Speer said it might have stopped the allied bombing. Might? That's a pretty big risk to pull resources off of other war programs.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Eric,

>The "mobile" system of the V2 required a convoy of about 30 trucks. Hardly an effective use of manpower, IMO.

It was not effective because the V-2 rockets themselves were not effective (strategically). Contributing towards strategically important objective - such as stopping the Allied bombing campaign - use of the same manpower would have been effective.

>The potential for production is pure speculation. How much manpower was available to make them?

Actually, it's not. V-2 rockets were built in large numbers, Wasserfall basically was just a smaller version of the same rocket. Kopp quoted the manpower requirement per Wasserfall missile to be 1/8 of the V-2. Multiply the number of V-2 rockets produced by 8, and you have a fair estimate of the potential.

>What would have had to suffer to make everything available to make these SAMs?

The strategically ineffective V-2 program, in the first place. (Note that the cost of not stopping the Allied bombing offensive was considerable, too.)

>And the key is that Speer said it might have stopped the allied bombing. Might? That's a pretty big risk to pull resources off of other war programs.

The words were mine, not Speer's. Unfortunately, I don't have Speer's "Erinnerungen" here to verify the verbatim quote, but I believe he expressed more confidence in the SAMs than you read out of my words.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)