Technology and Science from 1901 to 1945

[Soren]

M_Kenny is once again mistaken, and the source for my information has never been the site Achtung Panzer, so again just lies from M_kenny. I will post the link once more, sources for the info is listed below:
Nightfighting Panthers

Incase M_kenny misses it again:

Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle "Der Panzer-Kampfwagen Panther und seine Abarten" Motorbuchverlag 5. Auflage 1999

S. Hart, R. Hart "Deutsche Panzer im Zweiten Weltkrieg" Gondrom Verlag 1998

Thomas L. Jentz "Der Panther - Entwicklung, Ausführungen, Varianten, Charakteristische Merkmale, Kampfwert" Podzun-Pallas Verlag 1997

Thomas Anderson and Vicent Wai "ARMOUR AT WAR SERIES 7006 PANTHER" published by Concord

 

[Soren]

Further facts:
Some operational account remains for April 21, 1945: Being lead by Sd.Kfz.234/1 recon vehicles the last 10 of the tanks approched the US AT position by Weser/Elber canal (76mm AT Gun M-2) First assault started at 2 AM. The Americans were alerted and flares were launched. The lead Panther was hit and fell into a ditch. IR Panthers took their turn, which located the AT guns and fired some 20 rounds, destroying the pakfront. The opposing artillery men and supporting personnel fled in panic. IR Panthers went into persuit and destroyed several trucks and support vehicles. The attack was a success which demonstrated the tremendous potential of IR technology.

 

[Soren]

Seems M_kenny's sources are not reliable and frequently mistake one 'Kompanie' for another.

We are also still waiting for sources on the 1,000 infrared detectors claimed to be near the Rhine.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

Now you are just scooting around the facts, so I will ask you again, what does a video game have to do with your claim. You brought it up, do not back out of it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

That is a rather childish thing to do in my opinion. If both of you would just resort to an adult discussion instead of resorting to insults (which is what both of you do), then that would not be necessary.

Ah who am I am kidding. I am tired of this ****. I have recieved PM's from members of the forum complaining about you guys ruining threads with your bullshit. You both are going on a vacation. When you return, maybe you can act like adults.

 

[Soren]

Well Adler I know M_kenny from the Axis history forum and nomatter how many facts you bring forth he will never accept them, he only believes his own fantasies. And I have grown tired of it a very long time ago.

So to prevent this thread from becoming ugly closed I have chosen to just ignore him permanently from now on. And that is not being childish, just considerate.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Damage is already done. When both you and M_Kenny return from your vacation, if you can act like adults you may continue to post here.

 

[parsifal]

I have a copy of RV Jones' book "Most Secret War", I read all the references to IR research and development, and if the contents of Jones' book are to be believed, they were ay least equal to the germans in IR Research. Certainly in airborne research the british possessed a technological lead, however they abandoned this in favour of Radar R&D. The research that had been done, appears to have been passed onto the Army, the Navy, and the Americans, who did develop IR technology very successfully, and utlized it extensively on Okinawa, where approximately 30% of the casualties inflicted on the japanese by small arms were attributed to these specialised pieces of equipment.

In England, the idea of using IR radiation to undertake attacks at night was first mooted in 1916. AB Wood undertook experiments in 1927, on airborne detection, with unpromising results. Official government sponsored research began at the end of 1934. By October 1935, an experimental IR aircraft detection system had been developed to a functional, but experimental state, by Jones and Anderson. A report to the air ministry at the end of 1935 was that the apparatus was functional, but had disappointing performance.

The main problem at the time was that the IR emissions from the engine were rapidly absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as airborne water vapours. The detection devices available at that time (1935) did not have the power to detect IR signatures at more than very short ranges. Despite the problems reported by Jones, he was directed to continue research by the air ministry,

Work on the IR detectors continued into 1936, under the overall direction of Tizard. This R&D effort led to the development of a workable electronic amplifier. By June 1936, the equipment was able to detect the aircraft in flight, but the big drawback as noted by Jones, in all IR systems (Allied or Axis) was its inability to determine ranges accurately.

April 1937 an airborne IR detection device was successfully tested. The equipment had been tested and developed to the point that even damped and screened engines could be detected...suggesting a considerable development of the technology. The sensitivity of the equipment was such that it could even detect the heat being emitted from the wing fuselage leading edges of the test aircraft...

In December 1937, a partial breakthrough occurred with the ability to determine ranges, using optical pulses. Methods were also found at about this time to reduce scatter in the lower atmosphere and in humid or damp conditions.

July 1937, the air defence subcommittee recorded in a report to the MOD "considerable progress has been made in the IR development work.....(and) should continue in view of the possibleapplication to other problems". Given subsequent diversification to a joint services research committee, it seems that the british even at this early stage were considereing parallel uses at sea and on land for the technology

In March 1939, the air ministry work was halted, temporarily, as a result of pressure from Watt (who wanted AI radar to be concentrated on). However, after the promotion of Watt, this decision was reversed, and the research taken up by an Interservice group, with the work to be undertaken at the Admiralty Research Labratory at Teddington

After this Jones account is silent, because he was transferred out of the project.

He later served on a special Intelligence gathering group, dedicated to analysing German progress on various filds of research. The only other reference to IR I could find in the book was that in 1942, a breakthrough on german research into IR revealed that they were at about the same level of devbelopment in 1942, as the British had reach at the end of 1938

I believe that the germans were the world leaders in tank design, but the claim that they led in all manner of electromagnetic radaition research is just not supported, at least in the area of IR research.

 

[parsifal]

Damage is already done. When both you and M_Kenny return from your vacation, if you can act like adults you may continue to post here.

sorry, made my preceding post without having read this last development in the thread

 

[TempestMKV]

Now you are just scooting around the facts, so I will ask you again, what does a video game have to do with your claim. You brought it up, do not back out of it.

Il2 just teaches me how many factors involved in fighter comparation, such as level accelaration, min. circle radius/time ,stall speed,,max WEP time, high speed handling, roll rate @variuos speed,engine reliability, firepower, and output/weight ratio including max. speed, dive, climbe rate .However,in 1946's P80 vs Me262 report, many factors are absent. Actually I've only saw a "paragraph" instead of a detailed comparation.

 

[Matt308]

Well then. Sounds like good sources of engineering validation.

 

[Glider]

I have found this interesting snippet relating to Infra Red Homing Gear used by British Special Forces. Anyone know anything about it?

After being taken to within 3 or 4 miles(5 or 6km) of the coastline by submarine(or sometimes small craft such as MLs or MTBs) the two-man canoes were paddled to about 200 yards( ) offshore. From here the No.1s swam, leaving the No2s or paddlers to remain anchored or carry out an offshore reconnaissance. Naval and military personnel had their own special functions but whenever possible were cross-trained. Navy concerns were related to the approach to the beach, such as rocks or shoals, minefields, tides, beach gradients, conditions of surf and positioning of markers. The Army members of the team would look at the beach itself in detail- whether it could handle armour or not, obstructions, exits- as well as defences and landmarks. When those ashore had completed their tasks withdrawal was by a well-rehearsed plan and use of infra-red or other homing devices. When piloting an assault landing COPPists would flash their torches and infra-red beacons from submarines and canoe, while other members were in the leading landing craft.

 

[parsifal]

Whilst it would still be an approximation, and still open to opinion I thik it is possible to devise a points system to establish which country had the overall lead in technologyFirstly, you would need to come up with a list of development categories that you wanted to include in your analysis. For example, this list might includ:

Battle Tanks
Light Tanks and recon
Specialized armour (eg airborne, amphib etc)
SPGs
ATGs
AA
Field artillery
Heavy artillery
Light artillery/mtn artillery/jungle artillery
small arms
personal kit
Hvy MT
Medium MT
Light MT
APCs and Half tracks
Ground based Radar
Airborne AI Radar
ASV Radar
Surface and fire control radar
airborne and seaborne passive detection
Carriers
Heavy Ship
Light Ship
Aubmarines
ASW escorts
ASW detection
ASW weapons
Merchant ships
Logistics
amphibious tech
and so on

For each category, you would subdivide the item into subcategories....eg, for main battle tanks, you would probably have the categories of offense, defense, mobility, simplicity/produceability, communications, reliability

You would then assign a value from from 0 to 7 for each category, with a point (or part of a point awarded to a nationality for each year that they held an adavantage in that particular area. For example, the Germans in the area of offensive firepower for their MBTs might score in the firepower category as follows:

'39: 0.25
'40: 0.25
'41: 0.3
'42: 0.4
'43: 1.0
'44: 1.0
'45: 0.8

1.0 is the maximum that a nationality could achieve in a given year for each category. It is of course subjective what value you might assign for a given year, but it breaks the problem down into biteable, more easily digested chunks.

In the example I have given, the Germans appear to have scored 4.0 out of a possible 7, in the firepower stakes. I wont show my working out, but using this method, I rated the British at 3.3,

This process would be repeated for easch of the items on the list, and for each subcategory applicable to that item. At the end there would be a number, that could then be compared with all the other nationalities , with the natioonality with the highest value the technological leader of the war. It would not eliminate all of the subjectivity in the poll, but it would make people at least think about all the element6s of a superior technogy

 

[evangilder]

While your effort to reign in this thread is an interesting one, parsifal, I really don't see the point in saying that this country or that country was the best in X. There has been a lot of personal opinion in this thread and the level of emotions has also risen high. So the Germans did have some technological advances over the allies, as the allies had some over the axis. In the end, whatever technological edge the Germans had was not enough.

 

[parsifal]

agreed, but watching intelligent people run around thumping the tub and getting nowhere in the discussion is very frustrating. I suppose in a discussion like this, all you can manage is your own point of view....perhaps thats the lesson

 

[evangilder]

yup.

 

[Njaco]

Wow, such entertainment! Who said this thread was silly? Give him a cigar!

After reading through these 12 pages or so I have found:

The USA supported/financed/elected Hitler. Maybe Roosevelt did start WWII!
A GameStop gift card is better than a pilots license.
Russian tanks were more fearsome than anybody's. No wonder Eisenhower didn't want to take Berlin!
Proof is in the opinion.
It doesn't matter when comparing contemporaies in weapons - P-80 vs Me 262? hell, why not Fokker Dr I vs F-86!

and not for nothing......

from Soren;

"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.

Don't know why this was posted because the claim was for 1944, right?

Parsifal's bold post said it best. This topic has been beat to death in countless over posts - so much so its like a virus.

But I have to vote flyboy's lone post as the nugget of the thread.

 

[parsifal]

This thread looks like a train wreck right now.......its hard to see anything useful coming out of a topic like this when all people want to do is talk at each other, and not to each other.

We lost two forum members from this thread....smart people with a dumb attitude

 

[Waynos]

double post, sorry.

 

[Waynos]

The following is my opinion,

I know the Germans developed swept wings and knew all about the advantages they conferred (NACA were also aware of this as were the RAE - but both of those made less progress in this area than the Germans) but during ww2 Germany did not get to fly one single aeroplane that was designed to take advantage of these speed benefits. The Me 262 had its wing very modestly swept back because of the cg, but was more advanced than the Meteors thanks to its low drag, short chord design, NOT its angle. In one way the 262 trailed behind UK jet design as the Germans still put the pilot on the cg with its attendant limitation on visibility etc whereas the British put the pilot in the nose right from the start, Britain was also quicker to adopt the tricycle undercarriage for its jets than the Germans were. The Me 163 swept wing was entirely for aerodynamic control in the absence of a horizontal tail, similarly to the Westland Pterodactyl series of aircraft from the 1920's 30's, not for speed reasons, however the P.1112 did boast a higher sweep angle to allow a higher speed, but this was not built. And what was so advanced about the He 162? Nothing as far as I can tell. It was small, light, simple and cheap. Not advanced.

Also Britain was actively building an afterburning jet powered supersonic prototype before the war ended, to a design which was later proven to be entirely successful in its aims. This was fitted with ultra thin straight wings rather than swept, an idea the US also proved to work and a modern incarnation of which concept can be found today on the F-18.

The Germans were scientifically advanced, but more than everyone else, in every sphere? Thats just daft.