wiking85
Staff Sergeant
They are, the key is mini-tubes that can handle the G-forces. It is about specific components, what else does that benefit with WW2 tech?
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Major
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
I did and my question still stands. Microtubes don't really have knock on effects for overall radar miniaturization because microtubes are less overall powerful than normal sized vacuum power tubes. It is only useful for VT fuses or spy devices. Cavity magnetrons are what allow for powerful radar AND overall miniaturization; perhaps also Traveling Wave Tubes. Later of course there would be transistors but they aren't less powerful and in fact more energy efficient, though even they don't fully replace power vacuum tubes.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
They also imply smaller, lighter radio sets for airplanes. Those same micro-tubes also imply greater possibilities for guidance systems. You should also be aware that smaller tubes, with lesser current draw, also imply smaller support equipment such as batteries.
Transistors are irrelevant to this discussion as they are post-war.
I prefer tubes for my guitar amps over transistors, for their warmer tones. I prefer 6L6s for power tubes and 12AY7s for preamps, and 12AX7s for phase inverters. I have owned amps with smaller power tubes such as 6V6s and EL-84s. I know first-hand that smaller tubes result in smaller and lighter equipment. The potential impact of that on airplanes should be clear.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The thing is that the Proximity fuse needs to work over about a 20-70ft distance, not the 18,000ft or greater ranges that the Airborne interceptor radar needed.
Airborne radar has to work over a much longer range and used a lot of power, the British NK IV was up to 10kw, some airborne radars in WW II got up to 70kw (or more)
None of them had to stand up to the shock of firing or the rotational speeds.
I can't find the power of the transmitter but it can't have been much.
see Naval Gazing Main/The Proximity Fuze Part 1
for some simple circuit diagrams.
Airborne radar has to work over a much longer range and used a lot of power, the British NK IV was up to 10kw, some airborne radars in WW II got up to 70kw (or more)
None of them had to stand up to the shock of firing or the rotational speeds.
I can't find the power of the transmitter but it can't have been much.
see Naval Gazing Main/The Proximity Fuze Part 1
for some simple circuit diagrams.
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Only if the microtubes could generate similar levels of power output as regular sized ones. Otherwise the loss in capability removes their utility.
I only mentioned transistors as a counterpoint to the utility of reduced size; they achieve it only because of unique properties that microtubes do not possess.
Musical instruments aren't generating power outputs the way radio transmitters and radar are, which had to be effective for kilometers if not tens or even hundreds of KM.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Is that what you think? Some LW radios pushed as little as 7 watts, while others pushed 100. My current amp pushes 50 watts RMS, while I've owned two tube amps which output 100w. There's an old Marshall, the Major, that puts out 200w.
So no, this claim is factually incorrect, in that regard.
I'm desperately fighting the urge to post some gear porn.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Follow your muse.Is that what you think? Some LW radios pushed as little as 7 watts, while others pushed 100. My current amp pushes 50 watts RMS, while I've owned two tube amps which output 100w. There's an old Marshall, the Major, that puts out 200w.
So no, this claim is factually incorrect, in that regard.
I'm desperately fighting the urge to post some gear porn.
To this point, in the conclusions of Army Operational Research Group - Report No. 259 - Technical Review of AA Defences Against Flying Bombs;
The results achieved could never have been obtained without T98 fuzes. But what is important, and what is inclined to be overlooked, is that the T98 fuze could not have achieved what it did without the accuracy in prediction provided by the SCR 584 and the No 10 Predictor. It was the combination of SCR 584, No 10 Predictor and T98 Fuze that did the trick.
Emphasis in original.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Site's /img stuff is really wonky, but top to bottom:
Peavey VK212 100w behind my SG, 71 Fender Bassman 100w behind my Les Paul, and then Peavey 50w amp/speaker combo mounted in two cabinets I built myself. The one on the bottom is my current rig, alongside a 6w VHT Spec 6 with a different 12" speaker that isn't pictured:
Last edited:
The Germans had their Schräge Musik, but mount loudspeakers on those bombers playing Motörhead, and the Germans would have ran away screaming in terror.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,073
- Mar 26, 2007
