I would like to point out that Great Britain had a jet-bomber in development in 1945 called the English Electric Canberra. Due to post-war cut-backs the first Canberra did not fly until May 1949, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that with war time spending the aircraft could have been flying much sooner. The first prototypes were in production in early '46 and the first flights proved the aircraft to be vice free - from prototype to service, the Canberra was extremely quick for a peace time development in post-war Great Britain.
players in a prolonged war
- Thread starter olbrat
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Davparlr,
Exactly in what way were the Allies ahead in the electronics according to you ??
If we're talking radar the Germans mostly fielded equal or better equipment, although not in anywhere near as large a scale.
The Germans were also far ahead when it came to homing devices infrared imaging amongst other things..
And regarding computers, well the Germans were also way ahead in this department being the first to ever have them and use them on a/c.
Exactly in what way were the Allies ahead in the electronics according to you ??
If we're talking radar the Germans mostly fielded equal or better equipment, although not in anywhere near as large a scale.
The Germans were also far ahead when it came to homing devices infrared imaging amongst other things..
And regarding computers, well the Germans were also way ahead in this department being the first to ever have them and use them on a/c.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
But Soren,
don't you thik that it would have been more effective to concentrate more on development of things like proimity fuze and gyro gunsignts as well as improved a/c guns and AA guns? Or starting work on the R4M much earlier.
ON the same vein it would have been better to concentrate on class I jet engines and not drop any working designs like they did with Heinkel. Class II engines were alitle too far ahead to be useful and class III+ were downright wasteful to develop.
don't you thik that it would have been more effective to concentrate more on development of things like proimity fuze and gyro gunsignts as well as improved a/c guns and AA guns? Or starting work on the R4M much earlier.
ON the same vein it would have been better to concentrate on class I jet engines and not drop any working designs like they did with Heinkel. Class II engines were alitle too far ahead to be useful and class III+ were downright wasteful to develop.
The proximity fuze was already available, but the German high command (AKA Hitler and his fat friend) didn't see its potential, surprise surprise.
Now as to how effective it would've been, well I'm not sure, but combined with the fact that the Geman AAA guns featured the best tracking system it would've undoubtedly proven more effective than it did in Allied use. But still it wouldn't have altered the course of the war much.
The best direction to be pointing attention to would've been first and foremost the proper deployment of the already ready to go jets at hand, instead of the mindless decision of appointing them the task of bombing.
Also allot more funds raw material should've been set aside to the jet engine programs as this would've ensured engines such as the Jumo 004D would've been available already in mid 44 if not earlier.
Now as to how effective it would've been, well I'm not sure, but combined with the fact that the Geman AAA guns featured the best tracking system it would've undoubtedly proven more effective than it did in Allied use. But still it wouldn't have altered the course of the war much.
The best direction to be pointing attention to would've been first and foremost the proper deployment of the already ready to go jets at hand, instead of the mindless decision of appointing them the task of bombing.
Also allot more funds raw material should've been set aside to the jet engine programs as this would've ensured engines such as the Jumo 004D would've been available already in mid 44 if not earlier.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The R4M would have been fine on the Fw 190 as well and the proximity fuze would have made it much more effective as well. And as mentioned previously, there is no technical aspect of the R4M that wouldn't have allowed it to be deployed by 1942 if not earlier. (it was quite a simple design) It's just that not much work hadn't been put tward development of such a weapon.
And don't forget the HeS-30. It might have been in production before the 004B if not for its cancellation. It wast the best class I engine, and possibly the best all around engine of the war.
And don't forget the HeS-30. It might have been in production before the 004B if not for its cancellation. It wast the best class I engine, and possibly the best all around engine of the war.
- Thread starter
- #66
You guys keep coming up with such interesting food for though that I've had to revise the outcome of WWII a few times already!
Hi Plan D -
I didn't know the Canberra was so close to production in 1945. I know the later models had a top speed of about 580 mph (933 km/h) at 40,000 ft. Were the early models comparable? If so, even though it was not a heavy bomber, it would be very useful for quick strikes. I would think it would be hard to protect against, even with jet interceptors. If they could delay initial contact/identification as long as possible, I would think they could stand a high percentage of survival and success in their attacks.
Would the Arado 234 have been considered comparable?
Ref German AAA -
If the 88's had to be almost vertical to reach the high flying bombers, did they have anything more effective to use (as far as artillery)? If not, I would think that they would almost HAVE to develop SAM's or Air-Air rockets to combat the high altitude aircraft.
I mentioned Air-Air rockets because I would think that due to their short time in the air, the intercepting jets would have to make as much damage as possible in one pass. Were the "point-and-shoot" type rockets accurate enough at that time to do the job? Out of curiosity, would the weight of rockets be less than the guns and cannons with ammo?
I know it's more complicated than this, but it sounds like (generally speaking)the biggest problem the Allies had was the Axis jet fighters and the biggest problem the Axis had was the Allied high-altitude bombers.
I'm also thinking that perhaps the Allies could have developed their jet fighter program faster than the Axis could develop a way to effectively combat masses of high altitude bombers.
Would the Allies have had to have bases in Europe to use their jets? Would they be able to offer jet escort duty from England, etc. with extra fuel tanks? Or would they still have to use piston-engined fighter escort?
Hi Plan D -
I didn't know the Canberra was so close to production in 1945. I know the later models had a top speed of about 580 mph (933 km/h) at 40,000 ft. Were the early models comparable? If so, even though it was not a heavy bomber, it would be very useful for quick strikes. I would think it would be hard to protect against, even with jet interceptors. If they could delay initial contact/identification as long as possible, I would think they could stand a high percentage of survival and success in their attacks.
Would the Arado 234 have been considered comparable?
Ref German AAA -
If the 88's had to be almost vertical to reach the high flying bombers, did they have anything more effective to use (as far as artillery)? If not, I would think that they would almost HAVE to develop SAM's or Air-Air rockets to combat the high altitude aircraft.
I mentioned Air-Air rockets because I would think that due to their short time in the air, the intercepting jets would have to make as much damage as possible in one pass. Were the "point-and-shoot" type rockets accurate enough at that time to do the job? Out of curiosity, would the weight of rockets be less than the guns and cannons with ammo?
I know it's more complicated than this, but it sounds like (generally speaking)the biggest problem the Allies had was the Axis jet fighters and the biggest problem the Axis had was the Allied high-altitude bombers.
I'm also thinking that perhaps the Allies could have developed their jet fighter program faster than the Axis could develop a way to effectively combat masses of high altitude bombers.
Would the Allies have had to have bases in Europe to use their jets? Would they be able to offer jet escort duty from England, etc. with extra fuel tanks? Or would they still have to use piston-engined fighter escort?
Hi Plan D,
>I would like to point out that Great Britain had a jet-bomber in development in 1945 called the English Electric Canberra.
Ah, good point - and I agree that it could have been made available earlier than 1949. Do you have a first flight date for the prototypes? Seems the Canberra and the B-45 might be contenders for the title of being the first Allied jet bomber ... thinking about it, it seems possible that in a prolonged war, both would have been used.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>I would like to point out that Great Britain had a jet-bomber in development in 1945 called the English Electric Canberra.
Ah, good point - and I agree that it could have been made available earlier than 1949. Do you have a first flight date for the prototypes? Seems the Canberra and the B-45 might be contenders for the title of being the first Allied jet bomber ... thinking about it, it seems possible that in a prolonged war, both would have been used.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Glider
Captain
Re the german proximity fuzes it is my understanding was that these were still being developed at the end of the war.
The US, UK and Germany all had very effective radar controlled AA systems by the end of the war, which was best I really wouldn't know.
As for the Canberra the contracts were signed in May 1945 but the first flight was in 1949. How much further they could have brought it forward is anyones guess, but had it been available during a conflict it would have been a formidable weapon.
The US, UK and Germany all had very effective radar controlled AA systems by the end of the war, which was best I really wouldn't know.
As for the Canberra the contracts were signed in May 1945 but the first flight was in 1949. How much further they could have brought it forward is anyones guess, but had it been available during a conflict it would have been a formidable weapon.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The R4M was a good interceptor weapon. Look at what the standard interceptor weapon was after the war: unguided folding fin airial rockets. These were largly based on the R4M And that was the only armament of the F-94C, and that was in the 1950's.
The F-89 and CF-100 were similar.
But the accuracy wasn't that great (particularly at realitively long range) and were dropped in favor of guided missiles in the late '50's. However they were still the best bomber killing weapon available until then.
The R4M was only realy good ar realitively close range (~300 m or less), like the Mk 108. But a single hit would usualy kill a heavy bomber. Also it had very similar trajectory as the Mk 108 so the aiming was the same.
The F-89 and CF-100 were similar.
But the accuracy wasn't that great (particularly at realitively long range) and were dropped in favor of guided missiles in the late '50's. However they were still the best bomber killing weapon available until then.
The R4M was only realy good ar realitively close range (~300 m or less), like the Mk 108. But a single hit would usualy kill a heavy bomber. Also it had very similar trajectory as the Mk 108 so the aiming was the same.
Glider
Captain
Been digging around and found that the Japanese had a proximity fuze in production at the end of the war which surprised me. Only just mind you with 12000 made but they were closer than I thought
Hi Olbrat,
>If the 88's had to be almost vertical to reach the high flying bombers, did they have anything more effective to use (as far as artillery)? If not, I would think that they would almost HAVE to develop SAM's or Air-Air rockets to combat the high altitude aircraft.
You are quite right - there was longer-ranged and higher reaching artillery, but it could not compete with SAMs in terms of efficiency.
The average amount of rounds necessary for one kill in WW2:
8.8 cm Flak 36/37: 16000 rounds
8.8 cm Flak 41: 8500 rounds
10.5 cm Flak 39: 6000 rounds
12.8 cm Flak 40: 3000 rounds
(From "Die schwere Flak" by Werner Müller)
If the 16000 rounds came at a price tag of 4 million Reichsmark, it meant that one round came at 250 RM. I'm sure the heavier calibres would have been more expensive, but even if they all came at 250 RM, the 12.8 cm Flak would have required the expenditure of 750000 RM to kill a heavy bomber - which would have bought you more than a hundred Wasserfall missiles.
>Were the "point-and-shoot" type rockets accurate enough at that time to do the job?
Certainly. After WW2, unguided rockets became standard interceptor armament and held that position for quite a few years.
>Would the Allies have had to have bases in Europe to use their jets? Would they be able to offer jet escort duty from England, etc. with extra fuel tanks? Or would they still have to use piston-engined fighter escort?
"Fighter Pilot's Heaven" by Donald Lopez is quite interesting in that regard as it reproduces the conclusions regarding the use of the F-84B as a combat aircraft.
"3. CONCLUSIONS
a. The F-84B does not perform satisfactorily any of the following missions:
(1) Fighter-Bomber.
(2) Escort-Fighter.
(3) Ground-support Fighter.
(4) Interceptor-Fighter.
b. Jet aircraft, as typified by the F-80 and F-84, have less utility of employment than conventional aircraft; i.e., excessive fuel consumption, especially at low altitudes, severely limits the tactical utilization of jet aircraft."
(I think the fact that the F-84 could break up in mid-air at fairly slight provocations had something to do with the bad ratings it received, so it wasn't all down to range.)
"d. Range and Combat Radius
(3) At 100% rpm, fuel consumption at sea level (approximately 810 gallons per hour) is more than twice the consumption at 30,000 feet."
"(5) The decrease in fuel consumption at altitude, coupled with the increase in most economical airspeed, gives a maximum range at 30,000 feet (clean configuration) which is approximately two and one-half times the maximum range attainable at sea level. ...
With a full ammunition and fuel load with external fuel tanks, the maximum radius of action at 35,000 feet was calculated to be 670 statue miles."
A graph gives the range example as
- 15 gallons used until beginning of climb
- 110 gallons used, 85 miles covered during climb to 35000 ft
- 370 gallons used, 525 miles covered at 35000 ft (610 miles total) until drop tanks are dropped
- 392 gallons used, 60 miles covered at 35000 ft (670 miles total) to farthest point
- 447 gallons used after 10 minutes of combat at farthest point
- 675 gallons used, 630 miles covered on cruise back
- 685 gallons used after descent to 5000 ft over base, 40 miles covered (670 total)
Reserve at landing is 80 gallons, fuel used is 705 gallons.
Now 675 miles is more or less equal to the P-51 combat radius - but the above mission profile really is not for a 675 mile escort mission, but rather for ten minutes of target cover 675 miles out.
Unfortunately, Lopez' book has no similar evaluation for the P-80, though I think at Eglin Field where he served, they'd have done just such a kind of operational suitability test for the P-80, too. Perhaps it's possible to calculate a comparable profile from a manual for the type?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>If the 88's had to be almost vertical to reach the high flying bombers, did they have anything more effective to use (as far as artillery)? If not, I would think that they would almost HAVE to develop SAM's or Air-Air rockets to combat the high altitude aircraft.
You are quite right - there was longer-ranged and higher reaching artillery, but it could not compete with SAMs in terms of efficiency.
The average amount of rounds necessary for one kill in WW2:
8.8 cm Flak 36/37: 16000 rounds
8.8 cm Flak 41: 8500 rounds
10.5 cm Flak 39: 6000 rounds
12.8 cm Flak 40: 3000 rounds
(From "Die schwere Flak" by Werner Müller)
If the 16000 rounds came at a price tag of 4 million Reichsmark, it meant that one round came at 250 RM. I'm sure the heavier calibres would have been more expensive, but even if they all came at 250 RM, the 12.8 cm Flak would have required the expenditure of 750000 RM to kill a heavy bomber - which would have bought you more than a hundred Wasserfall missiles.
>Were the "point-and-shoot" type rockets accurate enough at that time to do the job?
Certainly. After WW2, unguided rockets became standard interceptor armament and held that position for quite a few years.
>Would the Allies have had to have bases in Europe to use their jets? Would they be able to offer jet escort duty from England, etc. with extra fuel tanks? Or would they still have to use piston-engined fighter escort?
"Fighter Pilot's Heaven" by Donald Lopez is quite interesting in that regard as it reproduces the conclusions regarding the use of the F-84B as a combat aircraft.
"3. CONCLUSIONS
a. The F-84B does not perform satisfactorily any of the following missions:
(1) Fighter-Bomber.
(2) Escort-Fighter.
(3) Ground-support Fighter.
(4) Interceptor-Fighter.
b. Jet aircraft, as typified by the F-80 and F-84, have less utility of employment than conventional aircraft; i.e., excessive fuel consumption, especially at low altitudes, severely limits the tactical utilization of jet aircraft."
(I think the fact that the F-84 could break up in mid-air at fairly slight provocations had something to do with the bad ratings it received, so it wasn't all down to range.)
"d. Range and Combat Radius
(3) At 100% rpm, fuel consumption at sea level (approximately 810 gallons per hour) is more than twice the consumption at 30,000 feet."
"(5) The decrease in fuel consumption at altitude, coupled with the increase in most economical airspeed, gives a maximum range at 30,000 feet (clean configuration) which is approximately two and one-half times the maximum range attainable at sea level. ...
With a full ammunition and fuel load with external fuel tanks, the maximum radius of action at 35,000 feet was calculated to be 670 statue miles."
A graph gives the range example as
- 15 gallons used until beginning of climb
- 110 gallons used, 85 miles covered during climb to 35000 ft
- 370 gallons used, 525 miles covered at 35000 ft (610 miles total) until drop tanks are dropped
- 392 gallons used, 60 miles covered at 35000 ft (670 miles total) to farthest point
- 447 gallons used after 10 minutes of combat at farthest point
- 675 gallons used, 630 miles covered on cruise back
- 685 gallons used after descent to 5000 ft over base, 40 miles covered (670 total)
Reserve at landing is 80 gallons, fuel used is 705 gallons.
Now 675 miles is more or less equal to the P-51 combat radius - but the above mission profile really is not for a 675 mile escort mission, but rather for ten minutes of target cover 675 miles out.
Unfortunately, Lopez' book has no similar evaluation for the P-80, though I think at Eglin Field where he served, they'd have done just such a kind of operational suitability test for the P-80, too. Perhaps it's possible to calculate a comparable profile from a manual for the type?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The first prototype flew in May 1949, but began construction in 1946. During the post-war cooling off period the spending for new projects was reduced which led to the Canberra taking three years from beginning of construction to first flight. The production Canberra B.2 flew on 21 April 1950 and entered squadron service with 101 Sqdn. in May 1951.
I'm certainly not saying the Canberra could have been ready by the end of 1946. But it seems obvious that the Canberra could have been brought into service much sooner than 1951.
The Canberra B.2 was capable of 871 km/h and had a standard service ceiling of 47,000 feet with a payload of 3.6 tonnes. The Ar 234 would not be able to compare, in any sense. But that's not a 'fair' statement since the Ar 234 was flying in 1944 and no matter how much we debate an earlier Canberra entrance - in reality it did not fly until 1949.
I'm certainly not saying the Canberra could have been ready by the end of 1946. But it seems obvious that the Canberra could have been brought into service much sooner than 1951.
The Canberra B.2 was capable of 871 km/h and had a standard service ceiling of 47,000 feet with a payload of 3.6 tonnes. The Ar 234 would not be able to compare, in any sense. But that's not a 'fair' statement since the Ar 234 was flying in 1944 and no matter how much we debate an earlier Canberra entrance - in reality it did not fly until 1949.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Here's JoeB's pages on the P-80A and P-84B Lockheed P-80A Shooting Star Republic P-84B/F-84B Thunderjet
The P-80A had decently long range with 1440 mi with 2x wingtip droptanks. (range differed depending on what type and capacity tank was used, it could use the 165 us gal. as well as other P-38 tanks save for the largest 300 us gal. tanks, 230 US gal "Fletcher" -same as P-84- centerline tanks could also be used with modified clipped wing tips; in Korea some P-80's also carried 265 US gal. "Misawa" under tip tanks, but these wer non standard)
The early P-84's were neither reliable nor long legged, with only ~1,250 mi max. It wasn't 'til the D that they were combat ready and 'til the E that they had good range. The F-84E had internal fuel increased by 36 US gal and introduced underwing shackles that could carry drop tanks (in addition to the tip-tanks) allowing a ferry range of 1950 mi.
The P-80 would have been the only major player as far as US jets go. But lets not get into jet vs jet combat here, there are other threads for that.
The P-80A had decently long range with 1440 mi with 2x wingtip droptanks. (range differed depending on what type and capacity tank was used, it could use the 165 us gal. as well as other P-38 tanks save for the largest 300 us gal. tanks, 230 US gal "Fletcher" -same as P-84- centerline tanks could also be used with modified clipped wing tips; in Korea some P-80's also carried 265 US gal. "Misawa" under tip tanks, but these wer non standard)
The early P-84's were neither reliable nor long legged, with only ~1,250 mi max. It wasn't 'til the D that they were combat ready and 'til the E that they had good range. The F-84E had internal fuel increased by 36 US gal and introduced underwing shackles that could carry drop tanks (in addition to the tip-tanks) allowing a ferry range of 1950 mi.
The P-80 would have been the only major player as far as US jets go. But lets not get into jet vs jet combat here, there are other threads for that.
Hi again,
>Perhaps it's possible to calculate a comparable profile from a manual for the type?
Oh well, if no-one else volunteers, I'll do it myself:
Using the same profile as outlined by Lopez for the F-84B, the P-80 with two 165 gallon drop tanks can do 10 min of target cover at 510 miles out.
From a graph provided by Williamson Murray, that appears to be about equal to the P-38, though I'm not sure if the P-38 was calculated to the same "10 minutes over the target" profile.
Flying from English bases, it would seem to suffice for Schweinfurt, but not for München, Berlin - or Peenemünde.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Perhaps it's possible to calculate a comparable profile from a manual for the type?
Oh well, if no-one else volunteers, I'll do it myself:
Using the same profile as outlined by Lopez for the F-84B, the P-80 with two 165 gallon drop tanks can do 10 min of target cover at 510 miles out.
From a graph provided by Williamson Murray, that appears to be about equal to the P-38, though I'm not sure if the P-38 was calculated to the same "10 minutes over the target" profile.
Flying from English bases, it would seem to suffice for Schweinfurt, but not for München, Berlin - or Peenemünde.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
That doesn't seem right for the P-38, even with only the 165 gal tanks it could manage over 1,700 mi in combat configuration, though less if cruising above cruise power. (which would be likely)
See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-tactical-chart.jpg
Another thing to considder is that the P-80's would not have to fly faster than optimum cruise speed as the bombers would be slower reguardless. (even assuming B-29's or B-50's) Inless were talking Jet bombers... (which I doubt) But it would still be slow enough not to hve to waste fuel by doubling back all the time.
The early P-40A cruised 410 mph @ 30,000 ft iirc.
See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-tactical-chart.jpg
Another thing to considder is that the P-80's would not have to fly faster than optimum cruise speed as the bombers would be slower reguardless. (even assuming B-29's or B-50's) Inless were talking Jet bombers... (which I doubt) But it would still be slow enough not to hve to waste fuel by doubling back all the time.
The early P-40A cruised 410 mph @ 30,000 ft iirc.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Oh, and for those who didn't know, the USAF had Canberra licence built in the US as well. (though they did develop their own unique variants)
B-57 Canberra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
B-57 Canberra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi Kool Kitty,
>That doesn't seem right for the P-38, even with only the 165 gal tanks it could manage over 1,700 mi in combat configuration, though less if cruising above cruise power.
Well, you're invited to use the cruise chart you linked to establish the range according to the same mission profile as the two jets for perfect comparability
>Another thing to considder is that the P-80's would not have to fly faster than optimum cruise speed as the bombers would be slower reguardless. (even assuming B-29's or B-50's)
That's how I calculated range. The mission really is 10 minutes of target cover and no en-route protection at all. That would yield considerably shorter ranges due to the need to zigzag to stay in touch with the much slower propeller-driven heavy bombers.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>That doesn't seem right for the P-38, even with only the 165 gal tanks it could manage over 1,700 mi in combat configuration, though less if cruising above cruise power.
Well, you're invited to use the cruise chart you linked to establish the range according to the same mission profile as the two jets for perfect comparability
>Another thing to considder is that the P-80's would not have to fly faster than optimum cruise speed as the bombers would be slower reguardless. (even assuming B-29's or B-50's)
That's how I calculated range. The mission really is 10 minutes of target cover and no en-route protection at all. That would yield considerably shorter ranges due to the need to zigzag to stay in touch with the much slower propeller-driven heavy bombers.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
If the P-38 was cruising at max cont. power it would probably be both slower and shorter ranged than the P-80A operating at optimum cruise, with both at 30,000 ft.
At low altitude and ~200 mph cruise, the P-38 could certainly out range the P-38 by >2x, and with 2x 300 gal tanks it could out range any other Single seat fighter at optimum cruise, save maybe the P-47N. As mentioned in the report, the jets had ~2.5x the range at altitude tham SL.
At low altitude and ~200 mph cruise, the P-38 could certainly out range the P-38 by >2x, and with 2x 300 gal tanks it could out range any other Single seat fighter at optimum cruise, save maybe the P-47N. As mentioned in the report, the jets had ~2.5x the range at altitude tham SL.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The YB-49 could not make the trip one way with weapons. It had a ferry range of 3575 miles.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I am not sure this is correct. According to the book "Northrop, an Aeronautical History" (published by Northrop), "Early YB-49 flight testing turned up inadequate rates of yaw oscillation damping, a condition that is vital for a stable bombing platform. As a corrective action, a Minneapolis Honeywell Electronic Yaw Stabilization System, or "Little Herbert" was installed. This bombing autopilot made the YB-49 into a very stable platform."
According to the book, the exact cause of the crash of the YB-49 is not known. It is believed that "excessive positive acceleration as would occur in a severe gust, pull up, or pitch-up" caused the wing to fail. The aircraft was very clean and would accelerate rapidly (as would the B-2, which I have flown in the simulator) and over-speed followed by a pull-out could have been a factor. It also said that that wind tunnel test demonstrated that the wing would not tumble.
The wing had much potential as shown by the fact that the B-2 is almost the same size as the YB-49. Its cancellation is questionable and a couple of things stand out, first, why were all the aircraft scrapped (a travesty and it crushed John Northrop and ruined his health), and, the Secretary of the Air Force (Stuart Symington) joined Consolidated when he left government. The book mentioned none of this.
HoHun said:
But, these SAM systems would be facing a multitude and massive countermeasures and threats and would have to defeat all of them to be effective.
I think you can assume that both sides were, by this time adept at Radar and ECM and that there would be continuing cycles of success and counter success. One side would come out with a successful tactic, like SAMs, and the other side would endure losses until they would figure it out and provide effective countermeasures. This was the trait in WWII and would probably not have changed. But without high speed processors and sophisticated netting, I think the German air defenses by sheer volume and would be overwhelmed as they were in 44-45.
True. But this cycle occurred over and over during the war and losses were incurred and endured.
I think the B-17/24s would have been quickly replaced with B-29s and 32s and also, the B-50 would have been expedited (the XB-44 was flying in May 44). It is, as you say, tough hitting anything from above 30k, as the Allies found out bombing Japan, however, remember the saying "close only counts in horseshoes and atom bombs".
I didn't mean to imply that the SAMs were at their range limit, only AAA. I was just saying that acoustic and visual guidance proved out to not be effective, especially at high altitude
I don't have any EMC references, but googling came up with several radar jammers used by the Allies.
Airborne Grocer
Mandrel
Moonshine
As for countering chaff, since chaff is a valuable modern technique for defeating radar locks of very powerful radars, I some how doubt that the Germans figured out how to completely defeat it. Towed and dropped decoys would probably be very effective.
There was continuous hop scotching technologies. The Germans would be ahead, then the Allies, etc.
If it was reliable, I have one resource that said that only 25% of the Wasserfalls prototypes got past the crashing stage. It took many years to develop reliable SAMs after the war with much better radar and electronics and computers and propulsion. It's a long way from doing demos to fielding weapons systems, sometimes forever.
Soren said:
German radar was advanced at the beginning of the war, however, integration of radar into an effective defensive system was much further advanced with the British (they were more defense minded). I have heard that the French had better and more tanks than Germany did at the time of the invasion but didn't know how to use them. The Germans were in a simialar situation on radar. Later in the war, I think Allied radar technology was more advanced.
Yes, it seems that way.
Rudimentary stuff with no capability to process data necessary to integrate a large defensive system under the attack of 1000s of targets in a jamming and decoyed environment.
YES. If Germany had fielded a sufficient number of Me-262 in late 43, early 44, D-Day would have been a dicey situation. I do not believe that day bombing would have continued and I do not believe any Allied jets could have provided escort over Germany until bases in Europe, other than Britain, could be provided. It would have been a different war.
olbrat said:
I do not think any Allied jet could fly from England, fly to Germany, jettison fuel tanks (except the P-80 wingtip tanks), fly a combat mission, and return to England.
HoHun said:
None of these would provide a large footprint, if any, above 30k ft.
Thanks for the info. I had allways read and thought the flying wing design was unstable for larger aircraft designs until the advent of fly by wire technology.
