KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
mosquitoman said:
Why did not the Mossie knock out all the German radar sites? There were less of these than there would have been of mobile SAM sites.
What plane do you wish had sawservice
- Thread starter Mosin
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why did not the Mossie knock out all the German radar sites? There were less of these than there would have been of mobile SAM sites.
A
Anonymous
Guest
delcyros said:
That kind of system is much more reasonable. However, the radar signal is fairly easily defeated with chaff or towed reflector strips, and the infra red would be very easily defeated using flares. Also, a homing missile/bomb to attack those radar sights would have been very easy to develop because of the focused nature of the beam.
My point is simply that I do not think this technology was going to put much of a dent into the 1000+ bomber raids of 1945.
=S=
Lunatic
evangilder
"Shooter"
One thing you have to think about though is that for the first few encounters, the guidance systems and technology of the enemy are unknown. It takes time to get that information before counter measures are developed. How many aircraft would be destroyed before the counter measures are developed?
A
Anonymous
Guest
By the same token, with such a complex weapon, getting it working effectively in actual combat conditions would take time. During that time countermeasures would be developed. And in this case the countermeasures are much simpler than the weapon they are countering, so most likely they would be developed quickly.
Remember, it took the British something like two years to develop their radar bombing systems such as Oboe and H2S, and the German's only about 2-4 months to defeat it.
=S=
Lunatic
Remember, it took the British something like two years to develop their radar bombing systems such as Oboe and H2S, and the German's only about 2-4 months to defeat it.
=S=
Lunatic
RG_Lunatic said:
And here again you let my whole point blow right over your head. What I was saying is that with tv guided missles (saying that is what they used) it was technically possible and not as hard and difficult to intercept and shoot down an aircraft as you claim it to be.
Wheee right over your head again or in the left ear and out the right.
evangilder
"Shooter"
RG_Lunatic said:
Agreed, it takes time to develop the weapon, but there were weapons that were introdiuced by the Germans that the allies had never seen before they were used in combat. My point is, yes, counter measures can be developed, but it takes time to figure out what the technology being used in the new weapon is. Then the counter can be developed. A few months time maybe? That's little comfort to the poor bastards that have to face the new threat. If the weapon is severe enough, it can put a serious dent in your operational plans while a counter is developed.
The bomber groups were still taking serious losses towards the end. There comes a point when commanders have to look at the losses and determine if it is viable, or a meat grinder. Even crudely guided, inaccurate missiles can have a serious effect on morale.
A
Anonymous
Guest
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
No it is you who is missing the point. Just because today's tv guided weapons could do this kind of thing (and that is questionable) does not mean that such a weapon was within the reasonable reach of WWII Germany. Modern TV is many many generations more developed than what was available in 1945 Germany. It includes computer enhancment and both gyro and digital image stabalization that were not even dreamed of at that time.
Do you realize how much more complex a TV signal is than an audio signal? Transmitting such a signal more than 5 miles clean enough from a relatively small missile to give a good picture would be very difficult using the technology of the time which would have been very fragile, and supplying sufficient power would require huge batteries or a separate generator.
And then there is the issue of vibration. The camera on the missile is going to be subject to tremendous vibrations, greatly limiting its reliability to work at all and distorting the image.
Finally, TV is 2 dimensional, so it gives NO DEPTH PERCEPTION. The cathode ray tubes of 1945 were tiny. So the ability of someone to even see the target from anything beyond close range on a tiny black and white screen with very poor contrast would be extremely limited. Just finding an enemy target that is not trying to let you hit it by flying exactly where you want them when you want them too would be difficult.
Then, let's assume the missile is going 500 mph strait up and the target is going 250 mph level. This gives a combine velocity of 560 mph, or 821 fps. Since the weapon has to be detonated within about 100 feet of the target to be successful, this means the operator would have detonate the thing within the right approximately quarter second window. And that would be almost beyond human capability even using modern high resolution computer enhanced equipment - it was virtually impossible given what they had!
So don't give me this "Wheee right over your head again or in the left ear and out the right." condescension when it is clear it is you who does not understand what you're talking about!
=S=
Lunatic
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
A
Anonymous
Guest
Gemhorse said:
These "wonder weapons" were a big part of how Hitler "stuffed it for them". To win the war you had to produce proven weapons in large quantities, not unproven wonder weapons that don't work or work poorly in small quantities. New and better technology was of course desirable, but not at the cost of sufficent quantities of existing weapons that are sufficient to the task.
=S=
Lunatic
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and believe they worked out that, one average, only one londoner was killed per V-1 launched (most didn't even reach london)...........
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I see the discussion is going on. There are a few points to reply for me:
The V-1 was -as stated above- not that a bad weapon. Military effectifness by secondary effects (enforced defense), for comparably low costs.
The whole discussion is just a "what if", nothing else, this has to be underlined. However, it is based on Speers statements, so it has a considerable probability.
The possibility to relocate SAM-sites is quite high, in fact it is even more difficult in terms of weight and mobility to transfer a 10.5 cm Flak gun than a C-2W. The Schmetterling or R-III SAM is even more mobile (because they don´t use fluid oxygen), the C-2W provides more range and performance. Esspecially the two stage R-I and R-III, from which specimen have fallen into soviet hands at test sites of the baltic coast is suspect to be the base of mobile SU SAM developments of the 50´s.
To argue that low level fighters could easily deal with the whole SAM thread is kind of nonsense, since the SAM are not divided from the FLAK, and even light 2 cm quad Flak provides some defense against low level fighter. To think all SAM sites could be destroyed is rather dreaming than anything else, for such duties you need specialized units, like the Wild Weasels, with more promising technology. Do you think the destruction of a few SAM-sites would justify the losses of Mosquitos+crewman, which had to fly those missions?
The destruction capabilities of SAM are different. The Schmetterling has around 23 Kg HE (51 lbs) average and max. 60 Kg (132 lbs) HE (M-Kopf). The F-25 had 17 Kg HE (38 lbs) and the F-55 138 Kg HE (304 lbs). The Rheintochter usually had around 25 Kg HE (55 lbs). C-2W is stated above. This should make calculations easyer, if needed. Keep in mind that an C-2W explosion in 100 ft distance would ensure destruction of a B-17 (ground tested) this makes a global kill zone with around 300 ft. diameter (because of the airplanes size) and a B-17 in it´s centre. Flying in very tight formations with this thread in mind is kind of suizide.
Counter mesures against SAM (resp. their radarsites) are possible, and would have surely taken into effect after some time. However this would generate some kind of "race" as we can see in the technological "race" between nightfighter and nightbomber. It is speculation to name a winner in this race. And it cannot be denied that SAM would make it much more difficult for the heavy bombers. The technology of some SAM is proven by means of test units, not on a larger base. However, if you compare the V-2 (A-4) and SAM-projects, you could come to the clue that the mass production of tens of thousends SAM is more reasonable than the mass production of A-4. To be more concrete in terms of costs and manpower: To build a single C-2W you need between 7.000 RM and 10.000 RM and between a third and a fourth of the construction time of a single A-4. A single 10.5 cm Flakshell costs around 100 RM, only. But if you calculate that you need an average of 4.000 Flakgrenades to hit a B-17 and an average of 4 C-2W to hit it, you could see the benefit. Even if it needs 20 instead of 4 C-2W (you can take any other SAM, since the C-2W is the most expensive and complicated one) to hit a bomber you save 50% costs and manhours. On the other hand, of course, a 10.5 cm can be directed against other targets, also...
The V-1 was -as stated above- not that a bad weapon. Military effectifness by secondary effects (enforced defense), for comparably low costs.
The whole discussion is just a "what if", nothing else, this has to be underlined. However, it is based on Speers statements, so it has a considerable probability.
The possibility to relocate SAM-sites is quite high, in fact it is even more difficult in terms of weight and mobility to transfer a 10.5 cm Flak gun than a C-2W. The Schmetterling or R-III SAM is even more mobile (because they don´t use fluid oxygen), the C-2W provides more range and performance. Esspecially the two stage R-I and R-III, from which specimen have fallen into soviet hands at test sites of the baltic coast is suspect to be the base of mobile SU SAM developments of the 50´s.
To argue that low level fighters could easily deal with the whole SAM thread is kind of nonsense, since the SAM are not divided from the FLAK, and even light 2 cm quad Flak provides some defense against low level fighter. To think all SAM sites could be destroyed is rather dreaming than anything else, for such duties you need specialized units, like the Wild Weasels, with more promising technology. Do you think the destruction of a few SAM-sites would justify the losses of Mosquitos+crewman, which had to fly those missions?
The destruction capabilities of SAM are different. The Schmetterling has around 23 Kg HE (51 lbs) average and max. 60 Kg (132 lbs) HE (M-Kopf). The F-25 had 17 Kg HE (38 lbs) and the F-55 138 Kg HE (304 lbs). The Rheintochter usually had around 25 Kg HE (55 lbs). C-2W is stated above. This should make calculations easyer, if needed. Keep in mind that an C-2W explosion in 100 ft distance would ensure destruction of a B-17 (ground tested) this makes a global kill zone with around 300 ft. diameter (because of the airplanes size) and a B-17 in it´s centre. Flying in very tight formations with this thread in mind is kind of suizide.
Counter mesures against SAM (resp. their radarsites) are possible, and would have surely taken into effect after some time. However this would generate some kind of "race" as we can see in the technological "race" between nightfighter and nightbomber. It is speculation to name a winner in this race. And it cannot be denied that SAM would make it much more difficult for the heavy bombers. The technology of some SAM is proven by means of test units, not on a larger base. However, if you compare the V-2 (A-4) and SAM-projects, you could come to the clue that the mass production of tens of thousends SAM is more reasonable than the mass production of A-4. To be more concrete in terms of costs and manpower: To build a single C-2W you need between 7.000 RM and 10.000 RM and between a third and a fourth of the construction time of a single A-4. A single 10.5 cm Flakshell costs around 100 RM, only. But if you calculate that you need an average of 4.000 Flakgrenades to hit a B-17 and an average of 4 C-2W to hit it, you could see the benefit. Even if it needs 20 instead of 4 C-2W (you can take any other SAM, since the C-2W is the most expensive and complicated one) to hit a bomber you save 50% costs and manhours. On the other hand, of course, a 10.5 cm can be directed against other targets, also...
RG_Lunatic said:
No again you are missing my point. All I was saying is that it was possible. I did not say that it was likely. Second of all this is still What if type of convo and that is what is being covered, if you do not like BUD OUT!. You really do have a hard time understanding and seeing what people are trying to say because it goes against anything that you could ever possibly believe.
Third you say because today's tv guided weapons could do this kind of thing (and that is questionable) . Well actually I have a friend who I used to fly with and now he is a UAV pilot and I actually stood behind him and watched him shoot down a drone from his UAV using TV guided weapons. So you know what it is possible and you do not know what you are talking about!
RG_Lunatic said:
Before you go around and try and insult me you fricken LUNATIC! Read up on your own stuff. I have seen it happen. You know a hell of a lot less about what you are talking about. Dont accuse me or insult me again. I am not going to get into another argument again, so if you are not going to act like an adult (which for you is questionable) please take your convo some place else!
=S=
Lunatic[/quote][/i]
A
Anonymous
Guest
You are a trip Adler. First you insult me, then when I insult you back you get upset.
You said:
That is not the same thing at all. You just don't get it. First off, the system he used would have had a high resolution digitally enhanced imaging system with gyro stabalization - not available in 1945 Germany. Secondly, it would have had a proximity fuse to detonate the weapon when it to the minimum distance from the target. Third, it would probably have had a more effective charge than the German SAM's of WWII. Fourth, the target was probably not flying at 250 mph nor conducting any kind of evasives or counter measures.
Unless you are specific about exactly what it was you saw your personal observation is meaningless. Most likely, you saw something but did not really understand what it was you were seeing.
Yes this is a "what if" thread, but that does not mean I cannot dispute unreasonable assertions.
You said:
That is not the same thing at all. You just don't get it. First off, the system he used would have had a high resolution digitally enhanced imaging system with gyro stabalization - not available in 1945 Germany. Secondly, it would have had a proximity fuse to detonate the weapon when it to the minimum distance from the target. Third, it would probably have had a more effective charge than the German SAM's of WWII. Fourth, the target was probably not flying at 250 mph nor conducting any kind of evasives or counter measures.
Unless you are specific about exactly what it was you saw your personal observation is meaningless. Most likely, you saw something but did not really understand what it was you were seeing.
Yes this is a "what if" thread, but that does not mean I cannot dispute unreasonable assertions.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Smokey said:
Have you looked at how ineffective the early sidewinder was?
Yeah, I read that the Sidewinder (and the Sparrow) were quite crap in Vietnam, but if massive resources had been invested by the Luftwaffe into this project early in the war, then it may have led to an IR heat seeking missile which was effective against relatively large, slow and clumsy aircraft like the B17, B24, Lancaster, Halifax, B29 etc rather than the slightly more agile MiG 17s, 19s and 21s seen over Vietnam.
It could have been carried by Me262s.
It could have been carried by Me262s.
RG_Lunatic said:
First of all I was making a joke about the blowing past your head crap, if you cant take one that is fine but dont insult me!
RG_Lunatic said:
With all this crap you just wrote again what dont you understand that I am saying that it was technically possible and not as difficult as you made it out to be. I never said that it was likely to happen in WW2. Nor did I say the Germans would have been capable of it. So where do you get off, telling me that I dont know what I am talking about nor that what I have seen is meaningless?
Second dont tell me what I dont understand about what I have seen. All I said is that what I saw shows that it is possible. You said it was questionable and I said it was possible and that I have seen it.
LASTLY NOTHING AND I REPEAT NOTHING THAT ANYONE POSTS ON HERE ABOUT PERSONAL OBSERVANCE IS MEANINGLESS! You really have a way of pissing people off. Sometimes you can really post some great things and then other times you just need to get off of you high horse!
Now lets stop this personal argument here, it is not necessarry to take up space argueing here in a thread.
If you can not do so, then please take it some place else.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I am totally willing to drop the "insults", however you cannot claim your comment about blowing past my head or in one ear and out the other was a joke and not an insult.
As for the technical possiblity, sure it is possible. It is also possible that if you shoot a 22 strait up into the air that it will come down and hit you on the head and kill you - but that does not make such a shot a reasonable method of suicide.
As I showed you with the math, using a purely video based system the operator would have to trigger the weapon within about +/- 1/8th second of its minimum distance from the target to achieve a kill, unless he actually hit it. Not only that, but assuming the missile were to miss the target by 50 feet that time would be cut in half. This is beyond human capacity even with perfect modern video which of course is far far better than what was available in WWII Germany. Such an aiming system was reasonable against a large slow moving ship where the problem is reduced to two dimensions, but it was totally impracticle against an fast moving aircraft target where the problem is 3 dimensional.
You keep saying you are not arguing that it was a workable system in WWII, but if that is the case what is/was your point to begin with?
As for the technical possiblity, sure it is possible. It is also possible that if you shoot a 22 strait up into the air that it will come down and hit you on the head and kill you - but that does not make such a shot a reasonable method of suicide.
As I showed you with the math, using a purely video based system the operator would have to trigger the weapon within about +/- 1/8th second of its minimum distance from the target to achieve a kill, unless he actually hit it. Not only that, but assuming the missile were to miss the target by 50 feet that time would be cut in half. This is beyond human capacity even with perfect modern video which of course is far far better than what was available in WWII Germany. Such an aiming system was reasonable against a large slow moving ship where the problem is reduced to two dimensions, but it was totally impracticle against an fast moving aircraft target where the problem is 3 dimensional.
You keep saying you are not arguing that it was a workable system in WWII, but if that is the case what is/was your point to begin with?
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
surely it's easier to just shhot yourself directly??
cheddar cheese
Major General
Yeah, I mean ive tried shooting straight up but it never hits me... 
