Technology and Science from 1901 to 1945

[GrauGeist]

Tempest, you're beating a dead horse here...

Half of the stuff you're using as props for your "argument" are flawed as hell, like the British Nene engine...it was a problematic design, and they shelved it after a short life in favor of the Avon.

Comparing the deliberate swept angle of the Me262's wing to the Douglas' wing is like comparing the Space Shuttle to the Zepplin...it does nothing to support your argument but rather illustrates how little you seem to know about these things.

Also comparing the F-80 to the Me262 would have to place the timeline in an accurate perspective, when both the F-80 and Me262 were in service and the F-80's performance was deplorable (and often fatal to it's pilots) at that time, and wasn't improved until later, when the Me262 (and Germans) were no longer at war.

The conspiracy theorists are always saying garbage like Ford and Wall Street supporting the Nazis...And it was true BEFORE the war, where American interests were active in Germany as well as the rest of Europe. This is why the Germans had Ford manufactured vehicles and American backed banks an so on...

From a technological point of view, I don't think any single nation had a monopoly. There were great aircraft designs being offered by the British, Germans, Americans, French, Dutch, Japanese and Italians who All had learned thier lessons from the same sources, as World War I was the great educator for the new technology called flight. As World War II broke, the science of powered flight was still being learned and the designs from all the nations was still developing. The winner of the air war in WWII was not so much who designed the best wing or engine, but who could make the MOST of them.

This is the most important technology, mass production and supply. So even though the King Tiger was for all intents and purposes, the most powerful tank in the known solar system during it's career...it was the mass-produced M4 Sherman tanks that won the war. And mass produced bombers, trucks, ships, c-rations, rifles, fighters, cigarettes, and anything else under the sun.

The Ability of the United States to mass produce a machine, and transport it to one of it's two fronts anywhere in the world in such a short time is why the war was won, and subsequently, the world, changed.

You cannot overlook that as the ultimate state-of-the-art technology that will never win a Nobel prize or be the focus of many arguments, but is absolutely guarenteed to win a war.

 

[Juha]

Hello Glider
Compton-Hall's book is a very good analytical study on many aspects of WWII submarine war.
Blair's books are extensive chronological blow-to-blow history of Germany's U-boat arms WWII operations, 800+900 pages. It is operational history not design and development history.

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:" I think Blair and his opinion on the Type XXI has been discussed on these boards already, and rather throughly debunked too."

Maybe, I cannot recall. And it is always critical to know by whom. By some submarine specialists who had seen the USN and RN evaluation reports or some self-claim "specialists". I'll keep open mind on XXI until I'll see a thorough study on it which has used German, USN and RN material on the boat. Now I can only say that IMHO Compton-Hall's opinion sounds more balanced.

Quote:" Overall, I'd venture saying that this thread is extremely silly."

I partly agree, I would say that the tread is rather silly. As I wrote earlier "Usually technological development is rather complicated, ideas pop up in different countries. With reasonable education system and some industrial base countries could design and develop world class products if they put resources on that sector. Nothing new or surprising in this."
Nations put resourches where they saw need. For ex. British put much resources in late 30s to built up integrated air defence system, Germany to navigational aids for bombers. In late WWII RAF could photo areas they wanted over Europe, was it Berlin, Baltic coast or Auschwitch so they didn't have any urgent need for jet PR planes, Germany had problems to get photos over GB so…Japan built A6M, Germany Bf 109, GB Spitfire and USA P-38. Japan and USA needed long range fighters, European nations interceptors.

Juha

 

[pbfoot]

Half of the stuff you're using as props for your "argument" are flawed as hell, like the British Nene engine...it was a problematic design, and they shelved it after a short life in favor of the Avon.

.

What are you saying the T33 with the Nene wiped out any other version of the T33 /F80 and it the nene was in use until the 90's if not still

 

[Glider]

Tempest, you're beating a dead horse here...

Half of the stuff you're using as props for your "argument" are flawed as hell, like the British Nene engine...it was a problematic design, and they shelved it after a short life in favor of the Avon.

The rest of your posting was very good but to call the Nens a problematic design quickly shelved is a little far off the mark.

It was quickly replaced by the Avon but in its time was used by the Sea Hawk, some Vampires, Canadair T33, Grumman Panther (as the J42), the Mig 15, Mig 17, Il28 (as the Klimov RD45 then developed into VK1) Meteor (Derwent which was derived from the Nene).

Not a bad track record for a problematic engine.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41 of WWII vintage indeed saw limited use, according to Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II. This would be the RB.41-1.

Granted, there were variants that were made by Pratt Whitney and Klimov and I agree that the T-33 used the (Orenda) RB.41-10. However, the overall usage of the RB.41 was limited, as the Avon was tested in 1947 and produced in 1950, seeing a tremendous amount of applications over the Nene's because of it's superior performance.

My reference was to the original Nene, because of Tempest's statement:

Although Me262 wing has a swept angle, it's NOT swept design.

With regard to F80 v Me262, F80 can outturn and outroll Me262, F80's engine's reliability is better than Me262's.

Climb rate and level accelaration are roughly equal.

Me262's Dive/speed advantage is not obvious.

F80's engine could be ungraded to higher performance than Me262's because of excellent UK engine tech such as Nene in 1946.

So I prefer F80 to Me262 without hesitate.

And in that light, I would be under the impression that he was referring to the original Nene (RB.41-1) and not any of it's later versions.

According to testing done by the USAAF in 1946, the Me262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration and speed. It also possesed a higher critical Mach number from a drag standpoint. It was also tested against the Gloster Meteor, and found to be faster as well.

This was the basis for my Nene comment

As a footnot, I'll add some Nene stats for everyone. Please notice how many are using the RB.41-1 engine:

Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-1 Meteor, Vampire F.2, XP-80, SO 6000

Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-2 Canberra B.1, I.Ae.33

Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-3 Mk.101 Attacker F.1/FB.1, Sea Hawk prototype, Br.960-1 Vultur prototype

Hispano-Suiza Nene RB.41-3 Mk.101 Br.960-1 Vultur prototype

Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-6/21 G.82

Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-10 CT-133 Silver Star

Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.102 Attacker FB.2, Sea Hawk F.1/F.2/FB.3/FGA.4, Ouragan A, Mystère I prototype

Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.103 Sea Hawk FB.5/FGA.6

Hispano-Suiza Nene Mk.103 Br.960-2 Vultur prototype

Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.104 Sea Hawk FGA.6/FGA.50/Mk.100/Mk.101

Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.104B Ouragan B, Mystère IIIN prototype

 

[Glider]

At least you seem to be agreeing that it wasn't a problematic design quickly shelved.
More a good solid design capable of growth and use across the world in a number of designs. After all, not many engines can claim to have been built in the UK, USA, Soviet Union, Canada, France, Australia and Canada

 

[GrauGeist]

Oh, I'll definately agree with you and Pb about the Nene as a whole, Glider.

I can't think of anything made by Rolls-Royce that wasn't a good performer.

I think the problem with the RB.41-1, was that they tried to rush it into service and that's where it's issues became aparent. If I remember right, it went from design to testing inside of 6 months.

 

[TempestMKV]

According to testing done by the USAAF in 1946, the Me262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration and speed. It also possesed a higher critical Mach number from a drag standpoint. It was also tested against the Gloster Meteor, and found to be faster as well.

This was the basis for my Nene comment.

As a WWII air combat fan with 3000+ hours of flight simulation on PC, just like many mumbers of this forum such as Kurfust, I'd like to say that US report in 1946 is far from an all-round view.

There are two accelarations: level accelaration and dive accelaration. Climb rate is bound up with level accelaration.

It dosn't matter if the opponent has marginal speed/dive advantage while we can outturn/outroll it besides same climb rate.

It took only 1.5 years for german to come up with USSR T34/Kv1 tanks, so nobody believe USSR tank tech was better than german. This principle is suitable to allied jet plane too. It would only take allied 1.5years to come up with german jet planes if WWII continues, so nobody will believe german jet tech is better than allied.

Check the performance of vampire and F80B in 1946 plz, I am very sure of that german jet plane will lose high altitude mastery AGAIN in jet era: in Korean war, strypped-down of Nene garanteed Mig15's higher service ceiling over F86.

UK Vampire could fly higher than any german 1946 jet plane, and UK lightning in 1950s can easily intercept US U2 spy plane above 20000m.

Even with elite of german jet experts' help after WWII, US still got behind of UK in jet enigne tech untill 1960.

 

[GrauGeist]

As a WWII air combat fan with 3000+ hours of flight simulation on PC, just like many mumbers of this forum such as Kurfust, I'd like to say that US report in 1946 is far from an all-round view.

Well, that's all the proof we need!

Never mind that the United States Army Airforce was conducting the tests, and came to the conclusion that the former enemy's aircraft was out-performing thier own machine.

In the future, I'll run a combat simulator to validate an aircraft's performance instead of referring to hard data provided by an authority!

Seriously, I've been active in WWII combat flight simulations since the mid-90's, though I've never logged my time, I can well imagine I've accrued some "hours" along the way. But I would NEVER compare any simulator's aircraft performance against hard data, even AVHistory 1% aircraft models.

I enjoy a good debate, but at least bring real data to the table to discuss...really...

Until then, I think I'll run some IL-2 and start taking notes...

 

[parsifal]

Tempest


The basis for your position is not well founded. There are people on this forum who are actual flyers, others who are considered world authorities on a particular subject.

I wont say that time in a gaming flight simulator is totally irrelevant, however, it is not a good basis to make such strong statements as you have.

My advice is that you retract the statement that you have, and listen to the more experienced guys here. You should also conduct more serious research than you have, and be just a little more careful when making the statements like you have

 

[TempestMKV]

Well, that's all the proof we need!

Never mind that the United States Army Airforce was conducting the tests, and came to the conclusion that the former enemy's aircraft was out-performing thier own machine.

In the future, I'll run a combat simulator to validate an aircraft's performance instead of referring to hard data provided by an authority!

Seriously, I've been active in WWII combat flight simulations since the mid-90's, though I've never logged my time, I can well imagine I've accrued some "hours" along the way. But I would NEVER compare any simulator's aircraft performance against hard data, even AVHistory 1% aircraft models.

I enjoy a good debate, but at least bring real data to the table to discuss...really...

Until then, I think I'll run some IL-2 and start taking notes...

In 1946, US report of F80 vs Me262 didn't mention the maneuverability such as roll rate, turning ability and high speed handling which are compulsory in an all-around comparation. So that report can't convince me.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As a WWII air combat fan with 3000+ hours of flight simulation on PC, just like many mumbers of this forum such as Kurfust, I'd like to say that US report in 1946 is far from an all-round view.

Another one who bases fact on video games...

So that report can't convince me.

But video games do...

 

[TempestMKV]

Another one who bases fact on video games...



But video games do...

I've read many comparation reperts of different a/c, the 1946 P80vMe262 report is just suspicious(that's XP80, not P80A?).

Information in this thread will be helpful, where FLYBOYJ, a real pilot of T33, commented that P80 is a better fighter.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/me262-vs-p-80-a-562.html

I'm not sure where Soren is getting this info on the 262's agility, and that comparison he sites is insubstanciated and possibly a comparison to the original Goblin-(under)powered XP-80 (2,400 lbf); a completely different design (the L140) of which only one prototype was made (now at the NASM adjacent to a Me 262 and FH Phantom), the XP-80A (L141) was a drastic improvement in aerodynamics (more streamlined with rounded wing and tail tips and thin "knife edge" wings), technology, and performance. Pluss that "comparison" he sites doesn't even say the 262 is more maneuverable, only faster and with better acceleration, climb, and crit. Mach number. (which it certainly would compared to the XP-80 which barely broke 500 mph and had fairly thick wings and low thrust/weight)

Considering that the "1945" ME-262 was basically an interceptor, snaked in the air, and had very unreliable engines, I think I would take the "1945" P-80A any day although admittedly I may be prejudiced considering I've flown a T-33 and just loved it. I think in an outright dogfight the P-80 can easily exploit the 262s weaknesses in maneuverability and actual combat performance. Although there were test conducted in the US that alleged that the 262 was better, I think that was used as a case to continue military turbine engine and aircraft development....
-----FLYBOYJ

BTW,Me262 has 4 mk108, but two pairs guns alternately shoot, which means only 2Xmk108 firepower.

 

[Soren]

Tempest it's time to cut your losses and admit defeat, all you have said has been thuroughly disproven. So stop making stuff up and deal with the reality of things.

The Germans were well ahead in technology, their jets were far more advanced than anyone elses, they designed and built the most advanced a/c, tanks, guns, smallarms submarines of the war. They were the first to use IR equipment and fielded by far the best IR imaging equipment of the war, which was used with great success in action (First April 45. Yes M_kenny, you should actually read the books, not just look at the covers). They were the first and only ones with high fidelity sound equipment. They were the first to field helicopters and and use them on the battlefield. They fielded the first best homing devices. They fielded self guided rockets missiles. They fielded self guided accoustic homing torpedoes far more advanced than anyon elses. They were the first to split atoms. They were the first with a nuclear reactor. Heck they knew that smoking gave cancer. Christ I could go on and on.

Fact is that the Germans had been ahead in science technology since the mid 1800's because of a government emphasize in this area which made sure it was the most well funded. The French were perhaps the closest to the Germans by the beginning of the war, but still not quite on the same level. Sometimes their tanks are used as examples of them being on the same level as the Germans, but fact of the matter is that the German tanks were faster, more agile, more reliable and more advanced than the French tanks. The French tanks featured heavy armour, but their design was outdated, as so thuroughly demonstrated on the battlefield.

 

[Soren]

I've read many comparation reperts of different a/c, the 1946 P80vMe262 report is just suspicious(that's XP80, not P80A?).

Information in this thread will be helpful, where FLYBOYJ, a real pilot of T33, commented that P80 is a better fighter.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/me262-vs-p-80-a-562.html






BTW,Me262 has 4 mk108, but two pairs guns alternately shoot, which means only 2Xmk108 firepower.

We have discussed this matter on the forum before, and it was proven that the Me-262 is a far superior fighter. Fact is that the Me-262 is faster, turns better, climbs faster accelerates faster than the P-80. And I'm pretty sure FLYBOYJ will agree with that.

Also you should be glad the comparison was with the XP-80, cause it was actually faster than the P-80A which only did some 790 km/h.

 

[Soren]

Btw, here's a good clip of the Fa-223 Drache:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0flSwzjnMA

 

[m kenny]

. They were the first to use IR equipment and fielded by far the best IR imaging equipment of the war, which was used with great success in action (First April 45. Yes M_kenny, you should actually read the books, not just look at the covers).

What book?
What page?
Have you a problem with giving enough information so that you can actualy source your claims?
Once you are pinned down to an actual event then we might be able to correct your errors.

Name the book................

which was used with great success in action

Where in action?
Which Unit did the tanks belong too?
Which Allied unit suffered at the hands of these IR tanks?

The best description I have heard about this IR Equipment is it would be like going sniping at night-but using a torch to find your target!
The Allied IR Detectors would give any of these Uber-Panzers away as soon as they lit up.
The Germans recognised the problem and FORBADE its use in the West. Yet still we have those who claim they were wrong because it was a war-winning weapon.

 

[Soren]

Lol, M_kenny read the link I gave, it hs actually got quotes from the books.

"One SPERBER squad including their Panthers was transfered to STUHLWEISSENBURG (Hungary) in early 1945 with 6th SS-Panzerarmee, intended to support the german counterattack to secure the area of Budapest. The rest of the Kompanie followed, but without nightfighting equipment. In 1945 the Wehrmacht planned to form 5 SPERBER Kompanies, but this concept proved to be illusory. 2 SPERBER squads joined the spontanuous formed Panzerdivision "CLAUSEWITZ", which was formed in spring 1945 on the western front. On 21st of april, these 2 squads ran down an american ambush, which has been set up at the WESER-ELBE-KANAL, and by this ensured the only documented action of the nightfighting concept SPERBER.

In march 1945 the Panzerdivision "MÜNCHEBERG" received one fully equipped Kompanie of 10 SPERBER capable Panthers and one SPERBER capable Panzer Grenadier Kompanie. The Division took part in the last fights during the battle of BERLIN. If this Division used the SPERBER concept isn´t documented.

The armoured forces school at FALLINGBOSTEL developed an even more mature solution called "LÖSUNG B - solution B" to make use of the FG 1250 device. Since the system SPERBER had the critical drawback that only the tankcommander had nightvision and therefore had to direct the driver and the gunner, experiments were made with some Panther As and Ds which were equipped with an infrared-searchlight and image converter for the driver and a periscope for the gunner. This way 3 crewmembers obtained nightfighting ability. In April 1945 some of the solution B equiped Panthers were ordered to the Division "CLAUSEWITZ". In mid april these Panthers saw their only doctumented action near UELZEN, where they destroyed a full platoon equipped with the brandnew british Comet tanks."


Now where were these Allied IR detectors you speak of ?

 

[Soren]

Hey wait, wasn't I supposed to ignore M_kenny ? *Pushing ignore button*

 

[m kenny]

Lol, M_kenny read the link I gave, it hs actually got quotes from the books.

Then why do you not give us the name of the books?

]"One SPERBER squad including their Panthers was transfered to STUHLWEISSENBURG (Hungary) in early 1945 with 6th SS-Panzerarmee, intended to support the german counterattack to secure the area of Budapest. The rest of the Kompanie followed, but without nightfighting equipment.

Which of course is a long winded way of saying No IR Panthers..............

In 1945 the Wehrmacht planned to form 5 SPERBER Kompanies, but this concept proved to be illusory. 2 SPERBER squads joined the spontanuous formed Panzerdivision "CLAUSEWITZ", which was formed in spring 1945 on the western front. On 21st of april, these 2 squads ran down an american ambush, which has been set up at the WESER-ELBE-KANAL, and by this ensured the only documented action of the nightfighting concept SPERBER.

And yet the following makes no mention of IR Panthers:

I look through the photocopied pages of R.Stoves "History of the 22.,25.,27.,and 233.Res Pz Divs." In the chapter covering Pz.Div Clausewitz, (which is largely based on Gen. Martin Unrein's study on the Div. "Einsatz der Pz. Div Clausewitz 11 Apr. bis 21 Apr '45"), makes no mention of this 'fictional' engagement (BTW. Gen.Unrein was the Kdr. of the Div.) The part of the Div that 'would' have had those supposed IR Panthers, was a K.Gr. of Gen.Decker who on the night of Apr 20/21 '45 was retreating along the Weser/Elbe canal in the direction of Fallersleben hoping to capture a bridge to cross, in order to facilitate their retreat. The group caught an American supply column out in the open, and ambushed and destroyed it. Later, the same night the group was suprised by a few US anti-tank guns, and the group loss a few AFVs. 2 Panthers assisted in destroying these US 'Pak'. By, Apr 22 '45, the K.Gr. was wiped out.
The commanding officer of KG UHU, during integration in June 1945, said an order existed from Guderian that I/R was not to be deployed in the west

So then a few US trucks were destroyed and some AT guns knock out German tanks BUT NO MENTION OF IR Panthers in the Unit History!!!!!

In march 1945 the Panzerdivision "MÜNCHEBERG" received one fully equipped Kompanie of 10 SPERBER capable Panthers and one SPERBER capable Panzer Grenadier Kompanie. The Division took part in the last fights during the battle of BERLIN. If this Division used the SPERBER concept isn´t documented.

That is further confirmation that there is no record IR Panthers being used.

The armoured forces school at FALLINGBOSTEL developed an even more mature solution called "LÖSUNG B - solution B" to make use of the FG 1250 device. Since the system SPERBER had the critical drawback that only the tankcommander had nightvision and therefore had to direct the driver and the gunner, experiments were made with some Panther As and Ds which were equipped with an infrared-searchlight and image converter for the driver and a periscope for the gunner. This way 3 crewmembers obtained nightfighting ability. In April 1945 some of the solution B equiped Panthers were ordered to the Division "CLAUSEWITZ". In mid april these Panthers saw their only doctumented action near UELZEN, where they destroyed a full platoon equipped with the brandnew british Comet tanks."

Solution B never saw service. From the Achtung Panzer site
Achtung Panzer! - German Infrared Night-Vision Devices!
which is the SOLE source for all your claims:

Solution B - Second more complicated arrangement / solution was "Biwa" (Bildwandler), which provided driver (installed on the front hull), gunner (installed on the mantlet in front of the gun sight) and commander (as in Solution A) each with one 30cm infrared searchlight (with range of 600m) and image converter. Various variants of Panthers were converted and mounted with "Biwa". It was reported that tests were successful, but there is very few combat reports from the Eastern or Western Front. Due to the lack of evidence, existence of Solution B is still questionable and even considered a hoax.

The Comets were never destroyed.

The Royal Armoured Corps official vehicle returns (June 1945) report the RAC lost a total of 26 Comets during WWII. By examining the published histories of the 7th and 11th Armoured Divisions, the 4th and 29th Armoured Brigades, and finally all the various Comet regiments you can find every vehicle accounted for.
Having read through that lot, the loss of 4 Comets in a single night action (or any other tank at this stage of the war) would have been worth a book on its own. The highest single loss of Comets at any point (in 1945) occurred (in April) to the 23rd Hussars when 2 Comets where hit in the engine compartment by A/T gunfire, around morning teatime.


Obviously I was prepared for the 'maybe they weren't Comets' argument, I have spent considerable time in the Bovington library examining the war diaries of:
7AD, 11AD, Grds AD, 8AB, 29AB, 33AB, 34TB, 8 Corps, 12 Corps, 30Corps and the 21st Army group as well as the Canadian, Czech and Polish AD's.
And nobody lost 4 tanks in a night encounter with German AFV's in April 1945 at a time when all losses are recorded. Its that simple

You use a claim about a non existent Solution B IR set up that claims to have destroyed a number of Comets-a claim that can also be shown to be fabrication.

Now where were these Allied IR detectors you speak of ?

10,000 in store near the Rhine, ready to be issued upon the first use of IR equipment. Obviously as IR was never used there was no need to issue them!