What plane do you wish had sawservice

[cheddar cheese]

Simple but effective

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

very effective, watch your keyboards people (not everyone will remember waht i'm talking about)

 

[mosquitoman]

Hows about a Manchester with 2 Merlins, that would hav been good to see in service

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

tough call, we would still have had to develop a 4 engined heavy so i dunno, what does everyone else think??

 

[cheddar cheese]

We had the Stirling...

 

[mosquitoman]

good point, if only they'd have made the wings bigger

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

which sucked!! and the halibag was only around in the Mk.I form, which wasn't anything to write home about, bomber command was still on the hunt for it's ultimate weapon.........

 

[mosquitoman]

Yes, the Mossie

 

[cheddar cheese]

I was thinking more along the line of the Whitley, but hey, there you go

 

[mosquitoman]

The Whitley's good aswell

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yeah I like the Whitley.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

still not bomber command's ultimate weapon though was it........

i am now expecting an extremely witty reply from one of you.........

 

[cheddar cheese]

Bomber commands ultimate weapon was either Brylcream of the kettle.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

It was a joke, believe what you wish. I really dont give a damn! 8)

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.

My whole point is that it was possible in a what if type thread, not that it was likely which I never stated.

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.

Read above, and this still does not change the fact that I have seen a flying drone shot down using video guided weapons from a UAV. Who said the drone was fast moving anyhow? To be honest I dont know the speed of the drone that was shot down.

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?

Read above again! Did not say it was likely or that the Germans would have been able to do it.

 

[delcyros]

Adler, I think, RG is right.
While it is true that TV-guidiance are technically possible, it was (as far as I know) never even considered a solution for the SAM-guidiance. Esspecially if you keep the C-2 or R-III speeds (1720 resp. 932 mp/h) in mind.
The C-2 was launched vertically and climbed up to the target by passive radar directioning (ground based) . At shorter distances the infrared "Hamburg" device took controll and locked on heat signatures until it hit (or its fuze allow approximation destruction) the target. operational range was around 16 static miles (up to W-6). Later versions used a gyroscopecly directed vertical launch to 55.000 ft (60.000 ft in case of the R-I/R-III) until it burned all fuel and redirectioning by passive radar and the same infrared controll device (another tested infrared controll device is the "Madrid" system). This method had some advantages over the first:
1.) Without active burning it was not possible to detect the missile by means of optical solutions (still supersonic). Also, it will come from above, not from the ground, this would probably make investigations more difficult.
2.) The parabel like flightpath greatly increased the operational range (at tests to over 60 static miles in case of C-2 and 25 miles for the R-I /28 miles for the R-III).
However this flightpath will exclude the use of any TV-based guidiance system, as you see ( just try to find a bomber if you see clouds and earth on TV, no sky).

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Read above, and this still does not change the fact that I have seen a flying drone shot down using video guided weapons from a UAV. Who said the drone was fast moving anyhow? To be honest I dont know the speed of the drone that was shot down.

And you also do not know if it included a proximity detonator do you? Or what other guidance assisance was invovled for that matter. For all you know, the operator was just watching the weapon fly into the target under computer guidance, perhaps based upon the video feed, perhaps not.

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?

Read above again! Did not say it was likely or that the Germans would have been able to do it.

But you very clearly implied that you thought they could. Go back and read what you originally wrote.

 

[KraziKanuK]

Picked this up on another board.

Schmetterling Hs-117 was another matter. It was already in production at the end of the war and post war soviet tests revealed it worked like a charm reaching all its design goals.

Its said to have out manuevered anything in the sky at that time. Given that it was simple radio guided , optically tracked system with a speed of around 600 mph , this should not come as a surprise. Soviets dropped this model too [R-105] due to the threat moving from piston bombers at 250-350mph and 25-32,000 ft right up to supersonic fighters and bombers flying at 50-60,000 ft, which Hs-117 could not deal with.

 

[Anonymous]

That is what I would expect - an optically guided (from the ground) radio controlled missile.

Again though, if it had a kill radius of only 100 feet, it would be very hard to detonate it within that distance against a single target, though it would be effective if used in mass against formations.

And... that is not a very good source.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[KraziKanuK]

And... that is not a very good source.

=S=

Lunatic

Granted, but is a lead to any who want to do further research.

 

[Anonymous]

Granted. That is acceptable lets just not be crediting this particular source as "valid until disproved", as we might a website with references.

=S=

Lunatic