Best Jet of the War?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont know but for somereason I was never impressed by its performance. I am still impressed with it though because it was one of the first jet aircraft and that says a lot.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Germans above the U.S -

1) Radar

That's just wrong. US radar tech was great in WWII. The radar employed by the USN was the best in the world. The British were ahead of the Germans in radar tech throughout the war. The USA passed them in about 1943.

Also the VT-fuse was "radar" technology. And this was beyond German engineering.

Originally Posted by plan_D

2) Tank design

Given.

Originally Posted by plan_D

3) Rockets

A waste of precious resources, especially engineering talent.

Originally Posted by plan_D

4) Night Vision

I've no idea on this one.

Originally Posted by plan_D

5) Gyros

Depends on the application. For rockets and missiles probably so. For gunsights and more importantly shipboard fire-control computers the USA had the edge.

Originally Posted by plan_D

6) Electronics

How do you figure?

Originally Posted by plan_D

7) Aerodynamics

That's almost funny considering German engineers were basing their designs NACA airfoils.

You must mean the swept wings. The USA also had swept wing research planes going, but had not yet produced a plane capable of utilizing them. As for the 262 as an example - it's a poor one as the P-80 was both faster and more manuverable than the 262.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The M1 Garand is something all Americans seem to love. Patton loved it too, maybe that makes you all love it. The fact of the matter is, it wasn't that good. It had less stopping power, accuracy and range than the Lee-Enfield, and the Lee-Enfield had less range than the Kar-98. Single-aimed shots fired with a bolt-action are more likely to hit. I admit, the M1 was good for the US army - a bunch of ill-trained raw recruits.

Ill trained raw recruits that kicked Nazi and Imperial ass!

I have both the Enfield and the M1 Garand. Yes the Enfield is a little more accurate, but not very much so. As for stopping power, both have pleanty. Both will fully penetrate a redwood 4x4 at 200 meters, so that's a silly statement. In terms of the ability to lay down suppressive fire, the M1 stands an order of magnitude above the Enfield. For realistic infantry combat usage the M1 Garand can do anything the Enfield or Mauser can do but it can also lay down suppressive fire. Even the German's realized their mistake and this lead to the Gew 41 project and eventually to the MP44.

Originally Posted by plan_D

German technological supremecy in air power? Easy to finish this one - Me-262, Ta-152 and Go-229. The Go-229 was designed and ready to fly by the wars end...technologically superior to anything the Americans ever had. In fact, it took the US another 60s years to get a flying wing to work in the B-2.

As stated before, the Jets were really beyond Germany's technical capability. They could design them but they could not mass produce them. Like other German "super weapons", these were a waste of resources and hurt Germany more than they helped them.

The Go-229? LOL - the prototype flew 3 or 4 times and crashed, and was then rushed into series production anyway with no units every being produced? We simply do not know how well this mostly wooden plane would have done, but the odds were very much against its success.

As for the 262, it was matched by the P-80. Other German jets were on their way down the pipe, but this was true for the USA as well. The F-84 was not that far off and had war-time pressure been in play it would probably have been ready for action by mid 1946. And unlike Germany, US industry could actually produce its designs.

And then there is the famous Ta-152. How do you figure this plane was better than the P-51H, the P-47M, or the F8F? It was certainly not better than the F4U-4 at realistic combat altitudes.

Originally Posted by plan_D

A waste of resources, I think not. You obviously do not realise the destructive power and effectiveness these things could have had on a battlefront. Imagine counter-battery fire well out of the enemies artillery range, hundreds of miles out of their range. The first successful flight of the V-2 landed within 400 metres of its target area, which was 125 miles away.

What? The accuracy of the V1 at 200 miles was 11 miles! That's right, it could hit anywhere within an 11 mile radius of the "target". This meant that it was only useful against large cities, if you can even call it useful. It was a "terror weapon", nothing more. And approximately 1 in 4 of them failed on launch, often with disasterous effect.

The idea of these weapons being used for counter-battery fire is rediculous. It's estimated that if it had been mass produced the minimum cost of the V2 would have been about $50,000 (1944 $), though actual cost per unit (even using slave labor) was much higher. Ignoring the HUGE R&D costs this project sucked up and figuring a unit cost of $50,000 each (which is unrealistic), even if it would have worked, it would be silly to fire a $50,000 missile to destroy a $1,000-$2000 artillery battery, don't you think?

I doubt that test result of 400 m, but it really doesn't matter. The fact is against real targets the V2 was horribly ineffective. Approximately 1115 V2 rockets were fired against Britain killing 2754 and serious wounding 6523 civilians. Additionally, some 2917 servicemen were killed and another 1939 were wounded by V weapons (both V1 and V2).

Neither V weapon was particularly accurate. They were good at creating fear, but of no real strategic or tactical value. Again, given the costs involved in the projects, these weapons did not help the German war effort, they hurt it.

Originally Posted by plan_D

You'll probably find the Germans had researched and began developing ideas for an atom bomb. It would not have taken another 3-4 years to get one ready. It would have when the place was blown up.

Back up your argument. Provide some credible sources showing that the German A-bomb project was closer than 4 years from producing a working fission bomb.

I've already shown on this board that the Germans were far from producing a working fission bomb. They'd have been lucky to get one going in 4 years. They were totally on the wrong track and even though they started their A-Bomb project years before the USA did (I believe 1936 or 37), at the end of the war they were not even as far along as the USA was at the end of the first year of the Manhatten project. They still had no means to refine/enrich U-235, they had no idea how much was needed to create a critical mass (they believed it would take over a ton), and they didn't even know plutonium existed!

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes you are correct in some aspects like with the radar and the vt fuse.

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Neither V weapon was particularly accurate. They were good at creating fear

True they were not that accurate but just the capability of the V-2 was amazing. Its technology led to the US ballistic weapons probram and the space program. It was the fastest rocket produced during WW2. With a little work it could have become more accurate. As for the V-1 yes it too was not that accurate but some one in the US liked it they copied it.

As for other areas, the technological "know how" was there and the Germans were not behind anyone in there designs or ideas or "know how". The Germans had the capability of building jets that could outfly anything out there if there R&D was just given time. The excelled in aircraft design, tank design, U-Boot design and even there capital ships were just the equal, atleast until the later part of the war when they could no longer build capital ships. You can not say that the German technological "know how" did not exsist or was behind that of the allies. Yes I will agree that they did waste a lot of resoarses, and that they did not have the industy in place to keep it going but they certainly had the brains and the ideas to do it.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yes you are correct in some aspects like with the radar and the vt fuse.

True they were not that accurate but just the capability of the V-2 was amazing. Its technology led to the US ballistic weapons probram and the space program. It was the fastest rocket produced during WW2. With a little work it could have become more accurate. As for the V-1 yes it too was not that accurate but some one in the US liked it they copied it.

As for other areas, the technological "know how" was there and the Germans were not behind anyone in there designs or ideas or "know how". The Germans had the capability of building jets that could outfly anything out there if there R&D was just given time. The excelled in aircraft design, tank design, U-Boot design and even there capital ships were just the equal, atleast until the later part of the war when they could no longer build capital ships. You can not say that the German technological "know how" did not exsist or was behind that of the allies. Yes I will agree that they did waste a lot of resoarses, and that they did not have the industy in place to keep it going but they certainly had the brains and the ideas to do it.

But, my point is that those "end product" designs and ideas really do not define where a nation is in terms of technology. What defines this is the base technologies. Can they make the necessary alloys? Can they make the necessary chemical compounds? Can they make the necessary electronic components (and make them small enough for the job)? Can they mass produce the things they design?

Today, lots of "designers" can create feasible designs for a mannd mars mission. I'm sure there are pleanty of people in many nations that could do this. However, when it comes to building one, only the USA, and perhaps Japan, have the base technology to really accomplish such a thing. Any other nation trying to do so would have too many base technological hurdles to overcome. Britain, France, Germany, or Russia could still put something together and give it a try, but it would be much more limited and much less likely to succeed.

Designers have to work within the technological capability of the industrial base from which they can draw from. Otherwise it is just fantasy. When they try to make fantasy into reality, what they get are expensive failures. This does not mean that "impressive" things cannot be accomplished. But war is not about impressing people, it's about killing them effectively and efficiently, and the V weapons certainly failed to achieve this.

Please don't take this as my saying the German scientists and engineers were not as smart as their US counterparts. But German scientists and engineers could only work with the resources they had, and even when they did accomplish technical marvels, they were often beyond the German capacity to actually meaningfully produce.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

Jesus christ, this is going to be a lot to answer.

Evan, I meant a flying wing that would have worked effectively. That US one wasn't going to be very effective, was it? The Go-229 is globally recognised (except with RG) as being an excellent design that could have cut up bomber formations along with fighters, with ease. It was far beyond anything else the world had.

I also knew about the American jets from the early '40s. They were far advanced and for all of about 3 months had the most powerful jet engine in the world, even surpassing British designs. Although, we all know the Jet engine was a credit to the British in the first place. November 1941 the worlds most powerful engine, the Rolls Royce Nene engine at 5000 lbs thrust was produced. Nothing matched that for years to come, and it was used in the MiG-15.

I'm glad someone can see sense. I never said that the US was far behind in technology. They got hold of a lot of ideas and pumped a lot of money into them, that's what America could/can do with idea and nearly always get it to work. You'll probably find that most of the research teams in the US had A) British scientists B) German Jews C) British notes or D) All of the above. The Manhattan Project is proof of that.

RG, how is the RADAR comment wrong? Don't bring the British into this, it's German technology against US technology pure and simple. I've already said in the past that Britain advanced beyond Germany in the RADAR war. Although it did take the capture of the RADAR at Bruneval to get that far.
And it took the US until 1943, and I'm sure British notes, to get beyond Germany. Not until late in the war, when Germany was dying did the US get the upper hand.

If it's a waste of resources, why was America trying so badly to achieve a crediable rocket design? And failing, might I add. If this is a technology debate then why bring in resources? If the US had got the V-2, then you wouldn't say "It's a waste of resources". It's like if the US built the Tiger, no one would say it was complicated to build because Americas economy would still be able to churn out thousands.
Techonlogically, the Germans were far advanced than anyone in rocket design. So much so that Von Braun, technology director of the Nazi party and member of the SS, had his past erased taken to America to design their rockets that led to ICBMs and Saturn-5, carrying US astronauts to the moon on the Apollo-11 mission. Remember the 1964 interview with Von Braun where they asked him if he truly thought it possible to reach the moon? Hard to believe he had a black SS uniform.

You had no idea? That's unfortunate. Go ask whoever you are about tanks about the 'Sperber' unit - consisting of Five Panther Ausf Gs and supporting infantry equipped with night vision equipment that saw combat just after the Bulge.

There's no probably about it. They were far advanced in missile stablisers. More importantly shipboard firing systems? No, not more importantly. The Germans fire-control systems on the Bismarck were more than adequete, it says a lot when a rookie crew manages to sink the Flagship of the Royal Navy.

That's funny, when the Germans designed the Go-229. And that the Americans used German scientists on designing planes after the war because of ideas such as swept back wings. I should just add helicopters in here seeing as they were more advanced in that area too. And the 50s, Anton Flettner was working for the US in designing helicopters...

The -262 still carried the technology. If the war had carried on to allow the P-80, then the Go-229 would have been in the sky too.

That was some raw Yank arrogance there, thank you. Made me laugh. Did you just forget that it was a World War and that it wasn't just the Americans fighting the Germans and Japanese? All those British, Canadian, Indian, Russian, Ukrainian, New Zealand, Australian, French, Belgian, African, Indonesian, Malayan, Burmese etc. etc laid down their lives to fight Germany and Japan, and you forget them all?

How did the Americans beat the Germans anyway? By swamping them, that's how. In fact, that's why they were beaten by being out-numbered. I have a lot of respect for ALL those on the ground that fought but lets face it, the Germans were superior in tactics and training - on top of their unbreakable spirit. They lost but took on the world for 6 years.

German jets a waste of resources? Of course, these -262s didn't shoot down over 300 heavies in a few months or anything. They would have badly hurt the Allied bombing campaign if they came in earlier. What you don't realise is that the technology was there, it was flying but there were also 10 million Soviets running straight towards Germany, as well as the 2 million + Western Allies. Germany was dying, it's resources were not being eaten away by super weapons...they were being captured. If the -262 would have been left behind and -190s given priority, you think the out-come would change? We're talking technology, not war situation.

The Go-229 was far beyond anything else in the world. One of the prototypes crashed, yes. A lot of experimental aircraft have crashed - the US F-104 was crashing even when it was in service - that doesn't make it a bad design. It probably would have taken until 1946 to perfect the design but the Go-229 was being built and luckily for the Allies - US troops overran the factory to discover these things in production.

And exactly how many P-80s were within 1000 miles of Berlin in May 1945?
War pressures would have put other German aircraft out there. America, as everyone was, were using the German equipment as something to match. That certainly says something for the Germans, in most peoples mind...

Using $50,000 to kill civilians could be seen as silly. And I didn't say 200 miles I said 125 miles, and it was 400 metres...they got lucky, it still happened.
Fear is an effective weapon in war, everyone knows that. The V-2 was pointless in 1944 when it finally was allowed to exist. Von Braun wasn't supposed to be researching it at all, if given full funding it would have been there in 1942. Launching at Britain in 1942...I think that might have changed the war, and then launching at Stalingrad...technology put to good use. And then another 2 years for perfection and the A-10 ICBM launching at New York if the US got involved. German techonological supremecy...yes, of course.

The Germans started in 1937, the British in 1935. And don't give me that crap that America started after Germany seeing as it was using British scientists and notes from 1935.
If Germany didn't have any clue about nuclear weapons, why did Britain even bother blowing their plant up. Next you'll be saying US stealth technology is pure American technology...

You still failed to mention the gryo-stabilisers on American tanks, that no one else had. (Although the 'Schmal' turret being designed for the Panther F had one) Or the worlds first computer sighted AA gun by the US...but oh well....

[evangilder]

Unfortunately, politics played a big role in the cancellation of the flying wing projects. They were very different from other airplanes (obviously) and often unusual designs get undue pressure or scrutiny. The BV-141 is a good example of a good plane that scrapped because of it being so unorthodox.

Comparing the B-35 and B-49 to the Go-229 is not necessarily a good comparison. The Go-229 was designed to be a fighter while the Northrop designs were to be a bomber. Obviously these differences are exaggerated with size, range and payload. The biggest problem with the Northrop models were the engines. Couple this with the multiple smaller bomb-bays versus the humungous bays of the B-36 and it was apparent that the B-36 was going to get the contract. But it was later shown that there was no way that the B-36 could defend itself or outrun Soviet fighters.

The advent of the B-47 and B-52 put the final nail in the B-49 project coffin.

I will not deny that the Go-229 was a very advanced aircraft and given the time, it could have been one heck of a fighter. Maybe I misread your message and took it the wrong way. My apologies.

There was an amazing amount of technological advances happening in that timeframe for everyone.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Jesus christ, this is going to be a lot to answer.

Evan, I meant a flying wing that would have worked effectively. That US one wasn't going to be very effective, was it? The Go-229 is globally recognised (except with RG) as being an excellent design that could have cut up bomber formations along with fighters, with ease. It was far beyond anything else the world had.

This is not true. The same instablity problems found in US flying wing designs, involving the same engineers who worked on the Go-229, would have cropped up for the G-229. Flying wings were not very feasible until fly-by-wire technology came into existance. This does not mean they could not fly, but their usefullness in combat is questionable given lateral stability and center of balance issues.

Originally Posted by plan_D

I also knew about the American jets from the early '40s. They were far advanced and for all of about 3 months had the most powerful jet engine in the world, even surpassing British designs. Although, we all know the Jet engine was a credit to the British in the first place. November 1941 the worlds most powerful engine, the Rolls Royce Nene engine at 5000 lbs thrust was produced. Nothing matched that for years to come, and it was used in the MiG-15.

I'm glad someone can see sense. I never said that the US was far behind in technology. They got hold of a lot of ideas and pumped a lot of money into them, that's what America could/can do with idea and nearly always get it to work. You'll probably find that most of the research teams in the US had A) British scientists B) German Jews C) British notes or D) All of the above. The Manhattan Project is proof of that.

Yes there were many European scientists involved in the Manhattan project. However, of the key scientists in the project, only two were actually German's who'd fled the Nazis, James Franck and Rudolph Peierls, and three more who'd fled German control, Leo Szilard (Hungarian), Edward Teller (Austria-Hungarian), Otto Frisch (Austrian).
Albert Einstien (German) was living in the USA (California) since before Nazi's came to power in 1933 and officially immigrated in 1934. Paul Wigner (Hungarian) - immigrated to USA in 1930 and John von Neumann (Hungarian) in 1929.

Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Arthur Compton, Ernest Lawrence,
Eric Jette, and many other Americans were also involved, as well as many British and a few French, Irish, and even New Zealand scientists. Of all the team, probably Robert Oppenhiemer was the most significant, followed closely by Leo Szilard.

To argue that "German" scientists were the key to the Manahattan project is silly - if anything it would be legitimate to say that Hungarian Jewish scientists were key to the project, but they arn't Germans! No actual German (or Austrian) born scientist was crutial to the project.

However, this all misses the point I'm trying to make. Without the base technologies available in the USA, it would have been nearly impossible to actually develop the Atomic bomb.

Here's a very telling comment on the status of the German A-Bomb:

Towards the end of World War II, many of Germany’s nuclear scientists were captured and brought to Farm Hall in England. Recently declassified documents suggest that under a wiretapped environment, much was learned about the German’s effort to build the bomb, including new evidence that Heisenberg tried his hardest to develop nuclear weapons and failed. The largest piece of evidence was that Heisenberg had miscalculated the critical mass needed to achieve an atomic bomb, and thus still believed that tons of U-235 was necessary to create the bomb. When hearing from Farm Hall the news of a fission bomb being dropped in Hiroshima, Heisenberg was quoted as saying “Some dilettante in America who knows very little about it has bluffed them. I don’t believe it has anything to do with uranium.” [4] Among other things, the Farm Hall transcripts establish that the Germans on August 6, 1945 did not believe the Allies had exploded an atomic bomb over Hiroshima that day; they never succeeded in constructing a self-sustaining nuclear reactor; they were confused by the differences between an atomic bomb and a reactor; they did not know how to correctly calculate the critical mass of a bomb; and they thought plutonium was probably element 91.
http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee4...%20Failed.html

Originally Posted by plan_D

RG, how is the RADAR comment wrong? Don't bring the British into this, it's German technology against US technology pure and simple. I've already said in the past that Britain advanced beyond Germany in the RADAR war. Although it did take the capture of the RADAR at Bruneval to get that far.
And it took the US until 1943, and I'm sure British notes, to get beyond Germany. Not until late in the war, when Germany was dying did the US get the upper hand.

The USA started {wartime development} later than Britian and Germany. The main radar program was already quite advanced before that point, and even thougn the USA was not putting much focus on it US radar technology was every bit as good as British radar technology in 1940.

You seem to think it was a one way street, with technology flowing only from Britain to the USA. This is hardly the case. Arthur Samual of Bell labs made critical contributions to British and US long band radar in the mid 30's through his invention of the high-frequancy triod vacuum tube. This technology was shared with the British and was key to most of their early (Battle of Britain) radar systems. While the British did discover/create the magnetron, the USA discovered/created the much more significant "klystron" (Sigurd and Russell Varian at Stanford University). Again the US invention was shared with the British, allowing Randel and Boot created the "cavity magnetron", largly by accident in their research on detection of microwaves.

The fact is the British did not "give their radar technology to the USA" as you claim. Instead, they turned to the USA for help in developing it, under the recommendations of Sir Henry Tizard after he'd heard there were many American scientists who wanted to help defeat Hitler. In 1940 he got the go-ahead from Churchill and in Sept. they shared the cavity magnetron with the US scientists at "Rad-Lab" (MIT). All core short wave radar technology advances for both the British and the US came out of Rad-Lab, which mostly involved American scientists but was fully shared. By 1942, the USA was far ahead of anyone in radar technology, with the introduction of the Centimetric ASV system developed for ASW purposes. By the end of 1942 the USA was far ahead.

In the meantime, Bell labs had continued the development of long-wave and short-wave radars, almost totally independant of British "help", and by 1942 these too were "best in the world", for USN use. In Oct. 1942 the Mk. 8 Fire Control radar system was in production by Western Electric.

So you're implication that the British were essential to US radar research and development is clearly not the case. The klystron was the the key component, and this was American technology shared with the British. The "cavity magetron" had already been invented by Aurthor Samual of Bell labs years before but the British generally get the credit because they "contributed" it to the Rad-Lab team first. Had the US formed the Rad-Lab w/o the British as team members, this invention would still have been present and US radar technology would have proceeded just fine, but British radar technology would not have.

Once the USA focused its attention on radar, it was only going to take it about 18 months to take the lead because the USA was the only nation to have the indsutrial and scientific base to support its rapid development.

Originally Posted by plan_D

If it's a waste of resources, why was America trying so badly to achieve a crediable rocket design? And failing, might I add. If this is a technology debate then why bring in resources? If the US had got the V-2, then you wouldn't say "It's a waste of resources". It's like if the US built the Tiger, no one would say it was complicated to build because Americas economy would still be able to churn out thousands.

America only became interested in long range missiles when it had nuclear weapons to deliver with such weapons. In WWII, the USA was not very interested in such technologies for winning WWII. The USA only became interested in the V1 when they started considering using it to deliver nerve gas and antrhax on Japan. As a conventional delivery system, it was just beyond even US technology to develop such a weapon in time for WWII, and the US knew it.

If the USA could have built a tank like the Tiger in numbers, sure. But that is not really the argument. The argument is would the US slow production of the Sherman to produce a small number of tanks like the Tiger, and the answer to that is a resounding no. The Pershing was produced in parallel to the Sherman.

You are the one trying to turn this into a "technology debate". My position all along has been that the Nazi's wasted resources pursuing non-viable technologies and this hurt their overall war effort.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Techonlogically, the Germans were far advanced than anyone in rocket design. So much so that Von Braun, technology director of the Nazi party and member of the SS, had his past erased taken to America to design their rockets that led to ICBMs and Saturn-5, carrying US astronauts to the moon on the Apollo-11 mission. Remember the 1964 interview with Von Braun where they asked him if he truly thought it possible to reach the moon? Hard to believe he had a black SS uniform.

Not really. I've read Von Braun's autobiography and a couple of other bio's on him. He was a member of the Nazi party but was pretty clearly non-political. He just loved rockets and found someone who'd fund his play.

I agree, the Germans were far ahead in liquid fueled rocket technology. So what? It was not viable as a weapons delivery system in WWII. The only way the German's could have made this technology effective would have been to deliver nerve gas with it. Had they done so, within 72 hours Germany would have been a ghost land.

Originally Posted by plan_D

You had no idea? That's unfortunate. Go ask whoever you are about tanks about the 'Sperber' unit - consisting of Five Panther Ausf Gs and supporting infantry equipped with night vision equipment that saw combat just after the Bulge.

Again, so what. Even before that US radar systems were advanced enough to see specific targets on the ground, and this was used in the ETO, though it was more used in the PTO.

Originally Posted by plan_D

There's no probably about it. They were far advanced in missile stablisers. More importantly shipboard firing systems? No, not more importantly. The Germans fire-control systems on the Bismarck were more than adequete, it says a lot when a rookie crew manages to sink the Flagship of the Royal Navy.

Who were also "rookies". But really, are you seriously comparing the Bismark to its American counterparts? The USS North Carolina would have slaughtered the Bismark even though the Bismark outweighed her. After 1943, the North Carolina could have gone up against the Bismark and the Tirpitz and it would easily have sunk them both.

Originally Posted by plan_D

That's funny, when the Germans designed the Go-229. And that the Americans used German scientists on designing planes after the war because of ideas such as swept back wings. I should just add helicopters in here seeing as they were more advanced in that area too. And the 50s, Anton Flettner was working for the US in designing helicopters...

Again, I've never said that Germany didn't have good scientists and engineers. You keep missing the point which is that German industrial science - the base which limits all else, was not nearly as advanced in Germany as it was in the USA. They could design things, but they could not produce them.

And what makes you think the German's were more advanced in Helicoptor technology in WWII? Both the USA and Germany had choppers flying in WWII, but the US choppers were more advanced. The German Flettner FL 282 Kolibri (32 produced through the whole of WWII) was clearly inferior to US designs:

Flettner FL 282 Kolibri


The Fa-223 Drache (~20 built) was much better, and had some advantages, but again I really don't think you can call it "more advanced"

Fa-223 Drache

The Sikorsky R-4, R-5, and R-6 were "state of the art" in helecopter design.

Sikorsky R-4

First unit delivered Oct. 16, 1943. At least 130 were produced during WWII, 35 going to the USAAF, 20 to the USN, and 45 to the RAF and RNAS, and the rest to the US Coast Gaurd. http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/USNair.html

Sikorsky R-5

This model was flying in 1943 but did not see combat related action.

Sikorsky R-6

The R-6 was the first helicopter to see action with the USAAF in May 1945. It also saw action with the USN and the by British. 225 produced in 1944 and 1945.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The -262 still carried the technology. If the war had carried on to allow the P-80, then the Go-229 would have been in the sky too.

And they still wouldn't have been able to make engines for them.

Originally Posted by plan_D

That was some raw Yank arrogance there, thank you. Made me laugh. Did you just forget that it was a World War and that it wasn't just the Americans fighting the Germans and Japanese? All those British, Canadian, Indian, Russian, Ukrainian, New Zealand, Australian, French, Belgian, African, Indonesian, Malayan, Burmese etc. etc laid down their lives to fight Germany and Japan, and you forget them all?

How did the Americans beat the Germans anyway? By swamping them, that's how. In fact, that's why they were beaten by being out-numbered. I have a lot of respect for ALL those on the ground that fought but lets face it, the Germans were superior in tactics and training - on top of their unbreakable spirit. They lost but took on the world for 6 years.

If they'd have been half as good as you think they'd have won WWII. Their spirt was no stronger than anyone elses. In fact, if someone is to be given recongition for "unbreakable spirt", I'd say it would have to be the Brits, not the Germans.

Originally Posted by plan_D

German jets a waste of resources? Of course, these -262s didn't shoot down over 300 heavies in a few months or anything. They would have badly hurt the Allied bombing campaign if they came in earlier. What you don't realise is that the technology was there, it was flying but there were also 10 million Soviets running straight towards Germany, as well as the 2 million + Western Allies. Germany was dying, it's resources were not being eaten away by super weapons...they were being captured. If the -262 would have been left behind and -190s given priority, you think the out-come would change? We're talking technology, not war situation.

As I've shown before, total Jet kills were under 300, including fighters.

You are talking about "end technology". The whole point I'm making is that the end technology (jets for example) is totally limited by the base technology (alloys and machine capabilities). Germany had topped out around 1943, beyond that point it took tremendous effort and resources to make minimal ground. The USA still had not topped out in 1945 and had already caught or passed the German's in every area they attempted to do so.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Go-229 was far beyond anything else in the world. One of the prototypes crashed, yes. A lot of experimental aircraft have crashed - the US F-104 was crashing even when it was in service - that doesn't make it a bad design. It probably would have taken until 1946 to perfect the design but the Go-229 was being built and luckily for the Allies - US troops overran the factory to discover these things in production.

No, "One of the prototypes" did not crash - THE ONLY PROTOTYPE CRASHED! They rushed it into production anyway. Anything about the Go-229 is pure speculation, we just don't know if this plane would have been sucessful or not. But one thing we do know - the German's lacked the industrial technology to produce viable engines, and without these the Go-229 is useless.

Originally Posted by plan_D

And exactly how many P-80s were within 1000 miles of Berlin in May 1945?

Four. Two in Italy and two in England.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Using $50,000 to kill civilians could be seen as silly. And I didn't say 200 miles I said 125 miles, and it was 400 metres...they got lucky, it still happened.

Well, I sure cannot find anything to document that. Can you provide a reference?

It does not matter though - the accuracy was an 11 mile radius from the target point. It would still be horribly inaccuate at 125 miles, perhaps an 8 mile radius.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Fear is an effective weapon in war, everyone knows that. The V-2 was pointless in 1944 when it finally was allowed to exist. Von Braun wasn't supposed to be researching it at all, if given full funding it would have been there in 1942. Launching at Britain in 1942...I think that might have changed the war, and then launching at Stalingrad...technology put to good use.

Again, wild speculation. There is no solid evidence that had the project recieved "full funding" that it would have generated a working V2 by 1942. Often research can only progress so fast regaurdless of the level of funding, expecially for new fields like liquid rocket research. But even if it had been completed in lets say, mid-1942, it still would have been delivering a 1 ton warhead into an 108 square mile area and would have been ineffective for anything but trying to scare the enemy.

And for every V2 you can scratch off one German fighter, two V2's you can scratch one Panther or Tiger tank, for every three V1's a Henkel Bomber, etc.... And 25% of those V2's blew up before reaching the target!

Originally Posted by plan_D

And then another 2 years for perfection and the A-10 ICBM launching at New York if the US got involved. German techonological supremecy...yes, of course.

And their industry would still have been in tatters.

Hmmm... given the state of their guidance systems... being generous and assuming a linear relationship between distance and accuracy... an A-10 fired at NYC would land somwhere within a 220 mile radius. Half of them would fall in the sea. The other half would be landing randomly anywhere from Maine to South Carolina. That'd be effective!

Besides, I doubt Germany could actually build the A-10. They were at the summit of their industrial capability to build the V2, materials failures and other issues would probably have made this project so difficult that it would have taken them another 10 years to accomplish it, if they focused resources on developing the base technologies to overcome the problems they encountered.

But lets say they had done so, and started hitting NYC and Washington in 1945. This would mean that Germany would not have been doing quite so badly in 1944, and the B-29 would have been deployed to Europe, and then Germany would have been in total ruins by 1945 in any case. If they had then started firing "vengance" weapons on the US civilian population, the USA would have started bombing with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible. In a month or two there'd have been nothing left. And this assumes the USA didn't drop Anthrax on them (as Churchill wanted to do in 1944 and which was totally possible by the end of that year but was veto'd by FDR).

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Germans started in 1937, the British in 1935. And don't give me that crap that America started after Germany seeing as it was using British scientists and notes from 1935.

I assume your back to the Radar topic. I've already covered this. US radar technology was not nearly so dependant on British "notes and scientists" as you seem to think.

Originally Posted by plan_D

If Germany didn't have any clue about nuclear weapons, why did Britain even bother blowing their plant up. Next you'll be saying US stealth technology is pure American technology...

Because the British conducting the raid didn't know the status of the German nuclear program. It was better to destroy the facility just in case they were further along that believed. Those high enough up in the Manhattan project to understand just how far behind the German's really were were not communicating any information down the chain.

Originally Posted by plan_D

You still failed to mention the gryo-stabilisers on American tanks, that no one else had. (Although the 'Schmal' turret being designed for the Panther F had one) Or the worlds first computer sighted AA gun by the US...but oh well....

Tanks are not my thing. I've read a bit about the gyro stabalizers, but I'm not really convinced they were "cutting edge" technology.

Again you miss the point. It is not the end-product that determines a nations techology standing, it's the base technology available to draw on, and the USA stood far beyond Germany in this respect so its end-product developers could go further before hitting the technology cieling.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

So, against the majority of people in the world that know about the Go-229. You're going to argue it was crap?

Where in there did I say Germans were crucial to the Manhattan Project. It was British notes that got it started off seeing as Britain was the first to start researching it.

Again, you've brought the British in which were - as everyone knows - advanced beyond any other. The only ones that could effectively fight at night. It took the capture of the Bruneval Radar to keep British radar going, a German radar site.

Actually, the Americans were trying to develop rockets during World War 2. They failed badly and just stole Von Braun afterwards to do their dirty work.

Clearly not political, and part of the SS - Ok. If you want this to be about German resource wasting techniques, there's plenty that I can bring out but you just seem unable to admit your country wasn't as good in most design technologies than Germany. It's a shame, really.

What's a radar going to tell a bunch of Panthers in the field? "There's a tank about 200 yards to your left, he's moved behind you" No, that's silly isn't it. This unit could fight effectively in the dark because they could see in the dark. You have a tendency to try and shrug things off by not going into detail or saying they weren't important.

I never said I was comparing the US Battleships to German. LG and I had a could discussion on this a few months ago - that was actually interesting. I'm saying the Bismarcks fire control systems were perfectally adequete for combat.
The HMS Hoods crew weren't a rookie crew. And you seem to think that because something is statiscally better, it's automatically going to win. That's not the real world.

Did you just try and state that Sikorsky was American? Igor Sikorsky was Russian...
And still, the Germans flew the first helicopter stable enough to fly indoors. As they did in Berlin Arena in 1937. If Anto Flettner was such a poor designer, why did America steal him. Why did the Chinook come from one of his early twin rotary designs?

The Germans were certainly better troops than anyone else on the field. If you think otherwise, quite frankly you're a moron. There are several reasons they lost - Hitler can be blamed the most for their loss. Quickly followed by the massive numbers they had to fight. Even then they almost brought Russia to the end of its man power in 1942.
You obviously cannot understand how hard a war like that is. But then, you seemed to think only the US beat Germany. The British also had unbreakable spirit being British it's really easy for me to recognise that. Also, I can recognise Germanys supremecy in the field. I bet you'd get really angry if you read Max Hastings (An American author) book about Normandy.

Under 300, when JG-7 claimed 426 aircraft. Which is quite widely recognised.

If the US had caught or topped Germany, why is that EVERYONE still says that Germany was technically superior? Germany wouldn't write that, they're not allowed because they lost. So who did?

Yet they still built some engines for the Go-229.

And these four, were doing what exactly?

A lot of things are pure speculation in history but are still widely recognised as being more than likely. Again, scaring the enemy is very effective.

And what's the US flattening Germany got anything to do with technology?

No, that isn't the radar topic at all.

Tanks are not your thing - so, we'll leave German tank supremecy out of it then. And the US gryo stabilisers were quite cutting edge, seeing as they had to bring it down from ship to tank size and it allowed tanks to fire much more effectively on the move.

There is always natural resources and economy that restrict technology. This doesn't make the design technology of Germany any less viable. If Germany had Americas wealth then it probably would have been more advanced. We'll never know but if you want to have this a case of the US had better resources to design with, then yes it did.

[Yeomanz]

the 262 has tons more votes than the 280 , im sure i read somewhere than the He-280 was supposed to be more manuverable than the 262 , and wasnt it supposed to be a bit faster ( though it laked the fire power the 262 had )

[the lancaster kicks ass]

wow i STILL haven't voted.............

[lesofprimus]

U never vote, so stop stating the obvious....