players in a prolonged war

Well we also have to remember that the Germans where very short on money.
For arguements sake lets take a 100 bomber raid for example. The Germans expend at least one missile for every bomber, maybe more. If thier is mabye 3 raids that day, thats at least 300 missiles. Then it happens once every day. In a week you've used 2100 missiles. That is alot of missiles for a failing German economy to make and deploy. This is why I don't think it would be that much of a problem.

Hi Flyboy,

>If thier is mabye 3 raids that day, thats at least 300 missiles. Then it happens once every day.

Well - on the other hand, look at what the missiles do to the USAAF. The first Schweinfurt raid did cost the 8th Air Force about 60 bombers. The second raid did cost about 60 bombers again. That was enough to basically stop the USAAF from bombing Germany for a while.

Now in 1944 and 1945, more bombers were available, but with - just multiplying Kopp's factor of eight with Speer's 900 V-2 per month - 7200 missiles produced per month, there was plenty of potential for really high bomber losses even if only a fraction of the rockets managed to kill a bomber.

On the average, it took the 88 mm upwards of 10000 rounds to destroy a bomber, by the way ... so switching from guns to rockets would also have relieved production demands.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Keep in mind that the person who would have to ok the change from V2s to SAMs, would have been Herr Hitler. His thought processes and sanity were very questionable toward the end, so would he have been able to be convinced? We will never know.

It would probably have been better if the time had been spet developing a good (reliable and produceble) proximity fuze for use with flack guns (and other cannon shells) and un-guided rockets. (making the already effective R4M much more so)

And as far as offensive weapons (which admitedly should hve been put on hold in a strateigic mindset) the V-1 was alot more cost effective and more effective overall than the V-2. And about as cost effective as German bombers had been. (and without the loss of crew when shot down) Plus the V-1 could be intercepted, thus forcing the enemy to use up resourses, palnes, and manpower on them. The V-2 could not. But, of course at this time in the war, ANY offensive weapons were not the main concern, or shouldn't have been.


The use of the R4M (had it been available earlier, which it easily could) on conventional interceptors (mainly Fw 190's) along with some early jets (He 280, maybe some Me 262's) could have stopped daylight bombing raids. The deployment of proximity fuzes for flack etc. would have a similar effect.

Exactly, if I was the Germans, I would have spent my time and resources developing proven technologies into something better instead of trying to develop new "Wonder weapons". By 1944 the bomber campaign was in full swing and with the introduction of reliable escorts like the P-51D, the Germans would have had to work pretty hard to derail it.
Mabye the best way to stop the bomber campaign would be to get more jets on line and load them up with the R4M and put the Go-229 into service.

I think that German SAMs would have been relatively easy to defeat with comparitively simple technology. Imagine a 1000 plane bomber strike with each plane pulling a simple reflector decoy and intermittantly dropping chaff, that's 2000 very noisy targets on one raid, intermix a few Brits jamming and meaconing German tracking and search radars and command links, and I think you have a nightmare for the relatively new and crude SAM weapons infrastructure. They would have been relegated to ballistic launches ala North Vietnam.

I don't think proximity artillery shells would have been much help. B-29s and B-44/50 (which undoubtable could have been available in '46-7) would have been flying at the max altitude of the 88, which would have had to fire almost vertically to reach those bombers, thus having almost zero area coverage.

Yeah, with chaff and eventually flares, the missiles would have been so confused that losses would have been minimal. So does that mean we can finally forget about SAM's and move on to talking about the aircraft, which I think the originator of this thread wanted us to do?
Please don't behead me if you disagree

Hi Davparlr,

>I think that German SAMs would have been relatively easy to defeat with comparitively simple technology.

Hm, I doubt it. The projected SAMs did not rely on a single guidance technology common to all, so it would have been difficult to jam them all. One of the most advanced sensors (for terminal guidance) worked on an acoustic basis. (Guess they got their inspiration from the submariners Hard to jam that! Some missiles were beam-riders, other were manually-controlled line-of-sight guided ... you don't even need a radar for that.

And the lessons learned the from 1973 war when Israeli-operated US technology fought Arab-operated Soviet technology was that you can only jam something after it has been used against you - which means only after you have taken losses. It has been claimed that this was one of the reasons stealth technology was developed - it was meant to eliminate the initial losses.

I'd certainly agree that the deployment of SAMs in WW2 would have started a new electronics arms race, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

And the R4M would have worked great on the Fw 190 and Fw 187 as well.

Personaly I think the Fw 187 coulh have been the best LW interceptor 'till the jets came along. With excelent speed, climb, and a heavy weapons load. (with DB 605 probably faster than any allied competition 'till late 1944)

Alot of this discussion fits more in the Mistakes in Aviation thread...

HoHun said:

Hi Davparlr,

>I think that German SAMs would have been relatively easy to defeat with comparitively simple technology.

Hm, I doubt it. The projected SAMs did not rely on a single guidance technology common to all, so it would have been difficult to jam them all.

Click to expand...

I am sure there were not a whole lot of variables here

One of the most advanced sensors (for terminal guidance) worked on an acoustic basis. (Guess they got their inspiration from the submariners Hard to jam that! Some missiles were beam-riders, other were manually-controlled line-of-sight guided ... you don't even need a radar for that.

Click to expand...

I don't think either of these proved to be effective against high flying bombers (30k+)since there were no follow-on designs. Acoustic had to get close, and that required radar, which could be messed up, and I don't think line-of-sight worked well, certainly not at night.

And the lessons learned the from 1973 war when Israeli-operated US technology fought Arab-operated Soviet technology was that you can only jam something after it has been used ag
ainst you - which means only after you have taken losses.

Click to expand...

This was only after the Russians learned a lesson when all their missiles in Vietnam were made useless by jamming. The Germans would have to learn this lesson first. In addition, the Brits had been playing this game for many years and proved to be quickly adaptable and effective.

Without Doppler radar, isolating a moving target against a chaff target or dropped decoy would have had to be done manually and I think this alone would be overwhelming and time consuming, and remember 50% of the moving targets that were identified would be decoys. There is a lot of difference between attacking a solo, unjammed drone with a single launch site and attacking thousands of jamming and decoying targets with hundreds of sites that are not fully integrated. I think the complexity of addressing this problem was very high and I don't think the Germans had the technology (high speed processors and fully integrated sites) to make this defense effective.

Flyboy2 said:

In late-war Germany the Horton brothers had designs for huge flying wing bombers which could have reached America.

Click to expand...

It took Northrop, with much more experience in flying wings, four years to develop the B-35, so, you can figure that it would take the Horton brothers at least that long to do the same. The plane could not be available till 1949. In addition, the wing would have to be conventionally powered. The B-35 was powered by four 3000 hp engines. The Germans had no engine of similar power (at least in a reasonable design) so the plane would need six engines, and would not be stealth. The jet powered version had no hope. The B-2 bomber, with much more efficient turbofan engines, much better aerodynamics, and superior material construction (light), would be hard pressed to make the round trip to Germany and back with 10,000 lbs of bombs (WWII A-bomb). In fact, a one way trip for the German plane would probably be impossible.

The YB-49 had the range and load capacity, but not the physical space for the huge girth of first gen fusion bombs. Though stability was a concern still (improved with the verticle stablizers) the major problem, which caused the total cancellation of the project, was structural problems in high speed maneuvering which resulted in structural failures with fatal results.

It also wasn't stealth, though it was aerodynamically efficient.

kool kitty89 said:

the major problem, which caused the total cancellation of the project, was structural problems in high speed maneuvering which resulted in structural failures with fatal results.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Capt. Edwards crash?

On May 28, 1948, the second YB-49 (42-102368 ) was turned over to the USAF. Only a few days later, tragedy struck. On the morning of June 5, 1948, 42-102368 crashed just north of Muroc Dry Lake. The pilot, Air Force Capt. Glenn Edwards, and all four other members of the crew were killed. What caused the crash is not known, but it was suspected that Capt Edwards managed to surpass the "red line" speed of the aircraft while descending from 40,000 feet, causing the outer wing panels to be shed and the aircraft to disintegrate in midair.

Dudes, the Northrop flying wings were killed because of political reasons not technical....The then Sec of Def wanted Northrop to merge with Consoladated-Vultee and Northrop refused......so the revenge continues..crappy contracts and screw jobs until the B-2 and now the tanker.

Actually the Horton Bros were probally way ahead of the Northrop in solving certain problems which were quickly borrowed once WWII ended. Horton's just didn't have the industrial base to build on, it doesn't help when your getting bombed constantly.


Loose the dogs....

krieghund said:

Dudes, the Northrop flying wings were killed because of political reasons not technical...

Click to expand...

True - but the crash and later engine fire didn't help their cause.

Northrop - crappy contracts and screw jobs?

F-89
F-5
T-38

I wish I had one half percent of the money made on those programs.

I'm not even including Northrop electronics and other divisions who over the years have done very well - and all this way before the Grumman merger.

On top of this do you know who built the fuslage for the 747?

Although Northrop is known largely as a military contractor -- 90 percent of its $5.7 billion in 1991 revenue came from the Pentagon -- it has a small presence in commercial aircraft manufacturing. Northrop has built fuselages for the Boeing 747 jetliner since the 1960's.

COMPANY NEWS; Northrop in Talks on a General Dynamics Unit - New York Times

No large flying wing designs were going to be seriously succesful until fly by wire technology came online.

Hi Davparlr,

>I am sure there were not a whole lot of variables here

As the saying goes - you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. The projected SAM systems were different enough to avoid localized vulnerabilities as requried for knock-out jamming.

Anyway, I don't think one can assum the Allies to be automatically superior in the electronic arms race that would follow a SAM deployment, and the time delay between deployment of a weapon and development of an effective counter-measure is inevitable.

Obviously, it would be the Allies who'd have to learn the first lesson ... how to jam SAMs. That's a lesson you can only learn under fire.

>I don't think either of these proved to be effective against high flying bombers (30k+)

Flying at 30000 ft was not common practice in 1945. The B-17s and B-24s might have changed these altitudes, but not without serious loss in operational effectiveness, which would have been a victory for the air defense, too. Even the B-29, which might have been deployed to Europe, had proven to be clearly more effective at altitudes below 30000 ft than at altitudes above ...

However, even the down-scaled Wasserfall C was demonstrated to an altitude of 12 km (39000 ft), so I don't know how you arrive at the 30000 ft limit. The original Wasserfall had been designed for 15 km altitude, and with the (also projected) two stage configuration, the sky was no limit. Remember that the V-2 rocket routinely far, far exceeded these altitudes with no problem at all.

>Acoustic had to get close, and that required radar, which could be messed up, and I don't think line-of-sight worked well, certainly not at night.

Radar "could" be messed up ... the question was, "would" it be messed up? I don't think there was much actual radar-jamming going on except for chaff decoying - for which the ground radars in 1945 had long been equipped with counter-counter-measures. The voice communications frequencies were routinely jammed, but radar?

>Without Doppler radar, isolating a moving target against a chaff target or dropped decoy would have had to be done manually

There was ECCM gear on the German ground radars for that, like for example "Würzlaus" for the "Würzburg" radar. (And from what I know, Doppler radar was actually used for controlling the V-2 trajectory, so it was within technological reach ...)

Oh, and I just found an interesting figure in Griehl's book ... the cost of killing a bomber with anti-aircraft artillery was 4 million Reichsmark in Flak shells alone. The Wasserfall would have cost 10000 RM in the initial production, 7000 RM at full-scale mass production. That means that even with a probability of kill of just 25%, the cost of shooting down one bomber would have dropped to one hundreth of what it had been before.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Ok mabye I got a little too excited about the Horton flying wings, they are pretty sick though.

Guys Northrop is one of the best aircraft manufacturers out their!! Seriously, Jack Northrop was amazing!

While as Adler pointed out, large flying wings wern't practical w/out fly-by-wire, smaller ones might have been woukable.

Look at all the powered flying wing experemental a/c the Horten brothers made, which were stable enough.

The Northrop N1-M and other early test craft worked, and the N9-M (scaled down B-35 test craft) did too, but the full sized thing didn't work out too well. The N9-M was saved by Planes of fame and was kept flying. (though, it was damaged in early '06 and I'm not sure if it's back yet)

Last I heard, the N9M was still not flying. It suffered an engine fire in one of the Franklins.