The most secret weapon of the Luftwaffe

parsifal said:

Germany too, whilst enjoying an impressive R&D base for the technology never came close to the application of radar as the allies did. Sonar for example, the allies managed to solve its blind spot problems by 1943, which married to the ahead throwing technologies developed in the mid war period, really went a long way to defeating the U-Boats

Click to expand...

The active sonar that the German navy equipped its destroyers with never had a blind spot problem, it was significantly superior. The passive sonar was vastly superior, they used a phased array to point the beam.

parsifal said:

For both radar and asdic, it was not the invention itself that was the secret. Both sides knew of it, and in some respects the germans were technologically superior to the allies. The secrets were the manner and ways that these devices were used, and put simply the allies just put the hammers dowen and were never seriously challenged in either of those fields. Japan and italy, for example,. were about 5-10 years behind the allies in the development of radar, mostly because of an under-developed electronics industry.

Click to expand...

The Germans invented radar first not the British. Clearly though the British developed theirs independently. In the key milestones they were ahead of the British by 1 year to a month. Mention should also be made of a pulse echo radar altimeter the USA had developed and demonstrated in 1925 that would have detected aircraft and that once the US had the idea its General Electric SCR270/268 radars were more useful than Chain Home and based entirely on US technology.

If the following is used as the determinant it was the Germans that first detected and found the range to an aircraft (rather than just measure its presence as Watson Watt did a few months later as his proof of concept) and they were the first to detect a seaborn target some time before. All dates in Harry von Krogge's "GEMA, Birthplace of radar".

Radar was an invention of the German Navy. It was the brainchild of Freiherr von Kunhold an Admiral and the Physicist in charge of the signals Branch of the German Navy. After finding fundamental physical limitations in using sonar for blind fire control his idea is to extend the pulse echo techniques in sonar to the radio frequency field.

After being somewhat insolently rejected by Dr Runge of Telefunken (which would cause future problems) he approached two companies "Tonograqphie" that produced sound recording equipment for training sonar operators and that when incorporated became the GEMA that produced Seetakt and a company called Pintsch.

Pintsch produced a 13.5cm microwave radar that eventually grew to 0.6W output power and could detect a destroyer at about 1km. It used microwaves but the Barkhausen-Kurz vacuum tube was incapable of higher power outputs. No suitable magnetrons existed anywhere in the world at the time that could operate at centimetric frequencies. The value of microwaves was understood by some in Germany but the only tube that could generate them anywhere in the world was the Barkhausen-Kurz.

Tonographie initially used a commercially available 50cm split anode magnetron from Philips soon replaced by a more powerful Telefunken unit producing 4kW. This could range ships and aircraft to about 10km. The Germans could even use lobe switching in 1936 to 0.05 degrees for blind fire but the idea was rejected as too complex at the time.
When the Germans entered the war they had a radar that could fit on a destroyer with a narrow beam width that could detect and accurately locate a periscope or submarine conning tower. It took the British 2 years to come up with something as capable. It required microwave radar.

Instead of persisting with the 50cm split anode magnetrons of they changed to pair of acorn valves with a resonator printed on a ceramic printed circuit board operating at (tunable 70cm to 90cm) because 50-60 was reserved for FLAK radar.

Allied radars created their pulse by dumping a huge 'spark' like an automotive ignition coil into the tube. The Germans turned the tube on and off via its control grid and so were able to precisely control frequency and phase which was locked with a oscillator. They had less power but could get the same range an accuracy and some other information to boot such as Doppler.


Allied radar pulled ahead only after early 1943 and by late 1944 the German had caught up.

The active sonar that the German navy equipped its destroyers with never had a blind spot problem,[/B] it was significantly superior. The passive sonar was vastly superior, they used a phased array to point the beam.

Click to expand...

ah nope. British submarines operated in the confines of the European shallow waters of which 19 were lost to the Germans. 10 of these, give or take were lost to mines. germans built 200 dedicated ASW platforms, principally their type 1935 MSWs and derivatives and about the same number or R bootes, plus well over 250 trawler conversions, to protect about 3.5 million tons of german and captured shipping.

Im not going to undertake a breakdown of sinkings attributable for the entire war by the RN. But in 1940-41, the entire detection and sinking campaigns really did rest on the ability of the RNs ASW fleet and the ASDIC it was using. In 1940 there was an average of 220 escorts available, whilst in 1941 this figure rose to just over 400 ships. The majority were still extemporised trawler conversions and the like, and air power really wasn't all that decisive until 1942. In that period, whilst defending over 30 million tons of shipping (not all that successfully to be honest) along supply lines vastly longer and more exposed than those of Germany, the surface escorts managed to sink 56 enemy subs, of which about 45 were from the depth charges or the guns of the escorts.

There were an average of around 40 British subs in enemy northern European waters during the war, whilst the average daily availability for the DKM Uboat arm in 1940-41 was just 18 boats....by any measure you want to apply, the efficiency of the allied escorts at finding and sinking Uboats was heavily in favour of the British.....

The Germans invented radar first not the British. Clearly though the British developed their independently. In the key milestones they were ahead of the British by 1 year to a month. Mention should also be made of a pulse echo radar altimeter the USA had developed and demonstrated in 1925 that would have detected aircraft and that once the US had the idea its General Electric SCR270/268 radars were more useful than Chain Home and based entirely on US technology.

Click to expand...

Okay, but the germans were not able to match the radar performance of their uboats against that of their opponents in the critical years 1941-45. much of the time, the uboats had no radar at all, when they did finally start to receive it, it was mismanaged by faulty doctrine, and always found inferior to those fitted to the escorts they were ranged against. to be fair they didn't need to be. A uboat closed up and operating with conning tower only able the waves is a much more difficult target to find than a surface escort. even so, its a lay down mezzaire. by 1943, both surface escorts and airborne radars were easily outperforming those of the uboats, and that's the test that matters.


Radar was an invention of the German Navy. It was the brainchild of Freiherr von Kunhold an Admiral and the Physicist in charge of the signals Branch of the German Navy. After finding fundamental physical limitations in using sonar for blind fire control his idea is to extend the pulse echo techniques in sonar to the radio frequency field.

After being somewhat insolently rejected by Dr Runge of Telefunken (which would cause future problems) he approached two companies "Tonograqphie" that produced sound recording equipment for training sonar operators and that when incorporated became the GEMA that produced Seetakt and a company called Pintsch.

Pintsch produced a 13.5cm microwave radar that eventually grew to 0.6W output power and could detect a destroyer at about 1km. It used microwaves but the Barkhausen-Kurz No other vacuum tube was incapable of higher power outputs. No suitable magnetrons existed anywhere in the world at the time that could operate at centimetric frequencies. The value of microwaves was understood by some in Germany but the only tube that could generate them anywhere in the world was the Barkhausen-Kurz.

Tonographie initially used a commercially available 50cm split anode magnetron from Philips soon replaced by a more powerful Telefunken unit producing 4kW. This could range ships and aircraft to about 10km. The Germans could even use lobe switching in 1936 to 0.05 degrees for blind fire but the idea was rejected as too complex at the time.

Click to expand...

Okay....and in the words of my son....'and then what'?

When the Germans entered the war they had a radar that could fit on a destroyer with a narrow beam width that could detect and accurately locate a periscope or submarine conning tower. It took the British 2 years to come up with something as capable. It required microwave radar.

Click to expand...

No DKM DD was fitted with radar until midwar, and just one RN submarine was ever definitively located and destroyed by radar location at the hands of the Kriegsmarine. No british submarine was ever lost to attack from aircraft guided solely by ASV. There was just one example of an airborne kill (the cachalot from memory) , which relied on crypto-analysis work done just after April 1940

If the germans had superior DD and airborne ASV radars they sure didn't know how to use it.......

Instead of persisting with the 50cm split anode magnetrons of they changed to pair of acorn valves with a resonator printed on a ceramic printed circuit board operating at (tunable 70cm to 90cm) because 50-60 was reserved for FLAK radar.

Click to expand...

okay if you say so. Don't really care unless it can be demonstrated by operational results that it made any difference. it doesn't does it......

Allied radars created their pulse by dumping a huge 'spark' like an automotive ignition coil into the tube. The Germans turned the tube on and off via its control grid and so were able to precisely control frequency and phase which was locked with a oscillator. They had less power but could get the same range an accuracy and some other information to boot such as Doppler.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but whereas the Allies achieved an impressive kill ratio of German submarines, the Germans did not achieve the same in revers, despite having a HIGHER density of escorts, and more opportunities to combat the allied submarine effort. During the Norwegian campaign, it is a little known fact that the british subs sank more than 40% of the available german Merchant marines. Despite quite massive densities of escorts to shipping for a time they could not prevent this.

In the med, the Italians relied on german supplied ASDIC gear, although the Germans I believe did not provide them with enough radar to make a difference. Here the results were even less satisfactory. Similalry, in the Pacific the floundering Japanese efforts at development of radar was meant to be helped by the germans so called "advanced" radar system. None of it measured up operationally. Suggest to me the original suppliers weren't as 'advanced as its "ra ra" squad would have us believe.

Germany never produced an ahead throwing ASW technology, because its radar and sonar was either non-existent, or not up to the task.

Allied radar pulled ahead only after early 1943 and by late 1944 the German had caught up.

Click to expand...

In theory.........

Koopernic said:

When the Germans entered the war they had a radar that could fit on a destroyer with a narrow beam width that could detect and accurately locate a periscope or submarine conning tower. It took the British 2 years to come up with something as capable. It required microwave radar.

Click to expand...

Yaaaawnnnn Luft46 Bullcr*p Yaaaawnnn.

If only the the Germans had done something to something and built something at the something factory then they would have had Hypersonic swing wing sub orbital fighters with 500 megawatt Disrupters and fire and forget Photon Torpedoes.

Seriously where do you get this S**t from tell me which Destroyers had this wonder radar which was obviously way better than anything NATO had in the 1950s when the USN and the RN struggled to detect a Snort mast in anything other than a flat calm.

The IAe.33 Pulqui II is NOT a Ta 183 (yeah, finger problems). It is a similar design but different. The test reports from the time do not specify the issues that prevented production. I have a feeling the engine was part of it, but not all.

The IAe. 33 was not the only good-looking design from Argetine development efforts. The IAe.30 Namcu was solidly rooted in WWII design, despite being first flown in 1950.



Looks like an improved metal mosquito derivative, doesn't it? And it wasn't alone. They also flew some neat flying wings transports and some other rather innovative designs.

GregP said:

The IAe.33 Pulqui II is NOT a Ta 183 (yeah, finger problems). It is a similar design but different.

Click to expand...

Indeed GregP, it was by the same guy who designed the Ta183 but later (presumably with the benefit of all the then research then some) - and still it wasn't exactly the most amazing fighter design of the times.
I'm not knocking anyone or anything but the regard some hold these 'Luft 46' possibilities in seems to me to be very exaggerated deeply suspect.

Gixxerman said:

I'm not knocking anyone or anything but the regard some hold these 'Luft 46' possibilities in seems to me to be very exaggerated deeply suspect.

Click to expand...

I agree some of the proponents of these VunderVeapons seem to be a bit too keen on the Master Race. If they want to wear SS brand underpants thats fine by me it takes all sorts to make the world but trumpeting fantastic weapons that exceeded the capabilities of 1960s or 70s weapons is just daft. Anyway I am sure some of these fantasies came about because there was a choice for the designer, design a 1,000 ton flying tank or pick up your rifle and pack and start marching to Russia.

GregP said:

The IAe.33 Pulqui II is NOT a Ta 183 (yeah, finger problems). It is a similar design but different. The test reports from the time do not specify the issues that prevented production. I have a feeling the engine was part of it, but not all.

The IAe. 33 was not the only good-looking design from Argetine development efforts. The IAe.30 Namcu was solidly rooted in WWII design, despite being first flown in 1950.

View attachment 305625

Looks like an improved metal mosquito derivative, doesn't it? And it wasn't alone. They also flew some neat flying wings transports and some other rather innovative designs.

Click to expand...

That Port Aileron looks a bit odd. Bird strike or FOD possibly?

Gixxerman said:

Indeed GregP, it was by the same guy who designed the Ta183 but later (presumably with the benefit of all the then research then some) - and still it wasn't exactly the most amazing fighter design of the times.
I'm not knocking anyone or anything but the regard some hold these 'Luft 46' possibilities in seems to me to be very exaggerated deeply suspect.

Click to expand...

One of the problems with the Pulqui II, was that it's development was hurried on a limited budget and then cut short before any real maturing of the engine/airframe could be worked out. So in a twist of irony, the Pulqui II followed in the footsteps of it's WWII predecessor.

The Ta183 design III did have merit and many second generation jets used design features that the Huckbein had.

I find it a little amusing that many of the "luft 46" detractors fail to realize that several of the maturing projects were influential in future aircraft design. And while they're laughing away, they forget Japan, the U.S., Britain, Italy, the Soviet Union and other aircraft producing nations had a great deal of whimsical, ridiculous and in some cases: downright stupid designs, of their own...

GrauGeist said:

I find it a little amusing that many of the "luft 46" detractors fail to realize that several of the maturing projects were influential in future aircraft design. And while they're laughing away, they forget Japan, the U.S., Britain, Italy, the Soviet Union and other aircraft producing nations had a great deal of whimsical, ridiculous and in some cases: downright stupid designs, of their own...

Click to expand...

I am not laughing at any Luft 46 designs even though some make Grimms fairytales seem like modest real life tales. German designs in certain areas were miles ahead of anything outside of Germany particulary in Transonics, Rocketry and Chemistry. The Me262, Ar 234, Electroboote, STG44 and on and on were brilliant designs that were well ahead of equivalent Allied efforts and I respect the designers and engineers that did such brilliant ground breaking work.

I just feel like headbutting the keyboard when people ascribe performance that sometimes took 20 years and a Cold War to acheive in a repeatable manner. Claiming that Germany had a Radar capable of accurately spotting and ranging on a periscope ready for fitment to Destroyers in 1939 is just barking mad, I used to be a Lifeboat volunteer and on joint RAF/RNLI excersises with a Lifeboat with millimetric band switching radar and a Helicopter with Anti Submarine Radars we used to have real actual hard times (not fairystories) spotting a volunteer man overboard in a survival suit and a radar reflective helmet. Thats with 2000s solid state Radars that used computer generated Algorithms to spot anomalies.

A 1939 radar that used crude Magnetron generators, Vaccum tubes and miles of comparitively high oxygen content copper wires would be lucky to spot a Sub on the surface amongst all the ground returns.

I hear you in that regard.

I've had people actually tell me that the German "1946 fantasy" designs are a product of delusional people and "fortunately, the Allies had better designs" and so on...

I will be the first to admit that a great deal of the German "paper projects" were completely asinine and defied logic. However, there was a percentage of those that were either in the works or on the drawing board that held a great deal of merit.

But we can also take a look at the Allied "Luft 46" designs and there were a great deal of them that rivaled the German's designs for the "idiot of the day" award. And some of these were actually built! (see the Whacky Allied Projects thread)

GrauGeist said:

But we can also take a look at the Allied "Luft 46" designs and there were a great deal of them that rivaled the German's designs for the "idiot of the day" award. And some of these were actually built! (see the Whacky Allied Projects thread)

Click to expand...

Since this is an aviation forum I feel bound to point out that the whole idea of flight and especially heavier than air flight was at one time considered not only whacky but almost a sign of insanity. The best military operations are always those that one side considers whacky and the other side figures out a way to perform.

Hi Gixxerman,

I said the Ta-183 was possible to produce. I didn't say it would be successful. In fact, the design is suspect in my mind. It has a horizontal stabilizer, but no elevator. The pitch trim was from the wing control surfaces. I don't know if the Ta-183, as designed, would have been a success or not. Since the later IAe.33 was not, I suspect the Ta-183 of being another failure or semi-failure, but have no opinion one way or the other.

Wartime development is NOTHING like peacetime development, and many planes that were abandoned in peacetime might have made formidable opponents in wartime by virtue of intensive "problem solving," otherwise known as "development."

parsifal said:

ah nope. British submarines operated in the confines of the European shallow waters of which 19 were lost to the Germans. 10 of these, give or take were lost to mines. germans built 200 dedicated ASW platforms, principally their type 1935 MSWs and derivatives and about the same number or R bootes, plus well over 250 trawler conversions, to protect about 3.5 million tons of german and captured shipping.

...

Click to expand...

British sonar was not better and an operational advantage in radar did not develop till early 1943 and then only in certain areas. German active sonar lacked a blind spot and had a beam that could locate the target in 3 dimensions. The low losses of british subs relates to their different use.

The microwave radar you so proudly speak of was not deployed on British submarines till the dying days of the war.
For instance the Type 291W radar of the T class submarine operated at 1.4m (twice the wavelength of seetakt). A microwave set the type 267W was not introduced on Royal Navy subs until the very end of the war though the US subs hand something a little earlier.

Here is the truth about submarine radar. Submariners were scared to use it and rightfully so since both side had detectors. The only folks who dared were the Americans with 3cm radars at the end of the war with the Japanese as the Japanese seemed to lack detractors, their own 10cm radar could detect the US 9cm radar but not 3cm.
The German sub radar was
1942 Seetakt FuMO 29, forward pointing phased array for detecting targets ahead
1943(early) Seetakt FuMo 30, rotating antenna for all round scanning, retracted pneumatically.

Equipment - Radar of German U-Boats

Above: U-643 (type VIIC) showing her FuMO 30 antenna. On the port side of the conning tower you can see the
UAK symbol given to the boats built in the Blohm Voss yard)

1944 Hohtenweil U FuMo 61 rotating 50cm radar with PPI, automatically retractable in conning tower
1944 (late) or early 1945 Berlin FuMo 84 microwave radar in sealed lenticular antenna could operate while under water.
1944 (late) or early 1945 FuMo 391 Lessing, single whip aerial could clear the area for 30km around the U-boat in a single undetectable pulse prior to surfacing.
1945 a automatic trscking microwave anti aircraft radar was tested called ballspeil on a U-boat.

In terms of the low number of British submarine losses, this is due to their lower number and different employment

1 German U-boats had to operate on the surface a high percentage of the time. The indiscretion ratio, the ratio between time on the surface recharging and that underwater on electric power was very high. This was because of the high speed required to approach a convoy.

2 British submarine was used for ambushes in coastal shipping, reconnaissance. For instance a T class submarine could charge its batteries as fast as possible, in say an hour and a half, and then spend the next 2-3 days submerged cruising at say 2 knots.

3 While allied anti sub warfare resources were concentrated the Germans had to disperse theirs.

When U-boats operated in shallow coastal waters again at the end of the war their losses dropped since it was possible to hide on the bottom.

There were of course far fewer British submarines, a rare case of the Germans not being out numbered.
****

From 1943 the deployment of microwave radar gave the allies an advantage in a limited number of areas.
1 Ground mapping radar, eg H2S
2 Air to surface vessel microwave radar was slightly better than metric and produced by broadening the beam of H2S. Certainly better around a convoy. It took the Germans about 6 months to produce a detector called Naxos.
3 The 1943 introduction of SCR-584 gave the allies their first FLAK radar. Its big advantage was jam resistance.
4 About 1944 microwave radar made possible low drag installations of radar in night fighters.

It took the German about 1.5 years to catch up, you can argue 2 but one must remember their industry was being seriously disrepute by bombing just as they were planning deployment.

The Germans were surprisingly slow to adapt their radar for ASV search but did so by early 1943. Hohtenweil on Fw 200 and Ju 290 could detect a convoy at 150km, a periscope at 6km and a life raft at about 10. It could detect individual ships and see aircraft taking of from aircraft carriers at 100km.

The allied advantage between mid 43 and late 1944 was crucial as the lack of microwave made it easy for the allies to jam the German FLAK and AI radars.

Much of that had to do with German resource shortages and bombing that the allies did not face. Nevertheless they did catch up.

GregP said:

Hi Gixxerman,

I said the Ta-183 was possible to produce. I didn't say it would be successful. In fact, the design is suspect in my mind. It has a horizontal stabilizer, but no elevator. The pitch trim was from the wing control surfaces. I don't know if the Ta-183, as designed, would have been a success or not. Since the later IAe.33 was not, I suspect the Ta-183 of being another failure or semi-failure, but have no opinion one way or the other.

Wartime development is NOTHING like peacetime development, and many planes that were abandoned in peacetime might have made formidable opponents in wartime by virtue of intensive "problem solving," otherwise known as "development."

Click to expand...

The Ta183 had full control surfaces, both in the mainwing and in the horizontal stab surfaces...



The Pulqui II

The Ta 183 did NOT have elevators. The plan you posted is design III, which was so far along in the design as to be irrelevant. Design II was already not going to be produced.

Go read about it. It was a flying wing with a stabilizer for more than 75% of its lifetime, which was short in any case.

The Pulqui II was never a Ta 183. It was a modified design with shoulder wings, elevator, and other changes. Evolutionary? Yes. Same design? No ... and it failed.

Here's a quote: " In late 1942, Focke-Wulf engineer Hans Multhopp headed up a design team that started aerodynamic studies for a new turbojet fighter. This culminated in 1945 as a fighter project known as "Huckebein" (a cartoon raven that traditionally makes trouble for others), also known as Project V (Project VI in some references) or Design II at Focke-Wulf and later to be given the designation Ta 183. The Ta 183 had a short, squat fuselage with the air intake passing under the cockpit and proceeding to the rear where the single He S 011 turbojet was located, although the first three prototypes were to be powered by Jumo 004B jet engines. A provision was made in the early studies for the aircraft to be equipped with a 1000 kg (2205 lbs) thrust rocket engine to assist interception duties, with the fuel for a 200 second rocket burn being located in underwing drop tanks. The wings were very thin, swept back at 40 degrees and were mounted in the mid-fuselage position. A tapered main wing spar constructed of two duraluminum I-beams with steel flanges formed a torque box, with the attachment at the fuselage consisting of a single bolt. The wing structure was completed by adding bonded wooden ribs with a plywood covering. Each wing panel contained six fuel cells totaling 1565 liters (345 gallons). The huge fin was swept back at 60 degrees, with the tailplane mounted on the top of the fin. The tailplane also exhibited considerable dihedral. Wing elevons and the rudder provided control, the tailplane control surfaces only being used for trimming."

It's from here: Focke-Wulf Ta 183 Luft '46 entry

But I have virtually the same quote from more than 5 sources.

When the Ta183 concept was first put on paper (design I), it was proposed, the design II is what was given the "Ta183" designation (as described in the quote) however, it was design III that was the final product.

In any case, design II AND design III had full control surfaces. I've read several sources that contradict Luft46, and while I appreciate that website for their enthusiasm, I prefer to rely on credible publications

Ta183 Design II

No ... it didn't. Ta 183 was without elevators in ALL primary documentation. Not Luft crap; I used it as an example only. Go look at the design documents that are NOT post war Luft-o-file stuff. No control surfaces on the tail. ALL of them say that. The tail was a trimmer only.

And I don't claim it could have changed the war. I said only that it could have been built at the time.

I don't have time to effin' argue with you, Greg...

But I'll tell you what, I'll sh!tcan all of my books and from now on, I'll use you as a reference, if you don't mind...since you're such a pillar of absolute knowledge

Thanks Graugeist, you've always been gracious, if nothing else.

I don't think a proposed redesign of a design that was never built in the first place is all that significant in any case.

The one with the low-set horizontal tail plane was WAY late in the effort and was ... again ... paper only, with no metal ever cut. By the time Kurt Tank got to Argentina, he had gone over the original design by Hans Multhopp and had revised almost everything including wing placement, tailplane, internal layout of major components, and landing gear.

It had potential, but Argentina was unwilling to pursue it. Since it flew, one has to wonder why. History doesn't record the reasons for not proceeding with it, but money is probably at or near the top of the list. I DID see one report that was critical of the flight characteristics, but the source was not very apparent and the report did not elaborate on it. I tend to distrust any document without a document or report number that can be corroborated independently.

I'm sure you agree, at least with that part.

The wind tunnel models the German tested were all design number one, as far as I can tell. I only see designs number 2 and 3 in drawings, perhaps all post war ... no pics of even test models; just un-numbered drawings with vague references to Germany. You can Google the images as easily as I can.

Why not post facts?

Actually, I'd post pics but my new PC is Windows 10 and every single pic I try to post from the web creates an error (thanks Microsoft!). I have to download it and save to CAD as a JPG and THEN post it. It isn't worth the trouble. Too easy to find on your own.

I know nothing about aerodynamics or aircraft design but the Ta183 in whatever variant looks wrong. Its not an opinion based on anything but there must be a reason why no one built anything similar.