- Thread starter
- #161
Also along these lines, see http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/the-trunk-containing-britains-secrets-that-saved-the-world/
Zyzygie’s Mumbles and Rambles
- Thread starter Zyzygie
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Old Wizard
2nd Lieutenant
Shortround6
Major General
Hmmm, New York Post, an ex Rupert Murdoch newspaper that claims this as one of their best headlines.
Everything in that article may well be true but if the New York Post said the sun was going to rise in the east tomorrow I would want a 2nd opinion.
Everything in that article may well be true but if the New York Post said the sun was going to rise in the east tomorrow I would want a 2nd opinion.
- Thread starter
- #165
Sorry old chap, wrong banter. Who is your post directed at?
Shortround6
Major General
I tend to prefer facts that can be backed-up and/or checked.
Not sensationalism or conspiracy theories.
Not sensationalism or conspiracy theories.
As a British national I dont see the position of the Brits as much different to the Polish sharing their knowledge of enigma and other secrets. If the UK was over run in 1940 I would want anything that could help the USA and any other nation to carry on the fight to be handed over along with all the people involved. The USA may have profited from the war as a nation but there were thousands of American young men who shed blood in the battle, the same goes for Canada Australia New Zealand the whole of the commonwealth and other occupied nations.
- Thread starter
- #169
Good. We can agree.
I think we've otherwise got well off track.
The claim that the Me 262 couldn't bomb accurately is another myth that needs dispelling.
The Me 262 bombers were to be fitted with the TSA-2D toss bombing bomb sight. KG51 were evaluating them and they probably saw combat use. I've seen the test data from a series of trials conducted by two pilots.
There was also the two blind bombing systems the Luftwaffe used; EGON-I and ZYCLOPS both of which could be used with single engined fighter bombers. EGON-I used a modified Freya radar with a boosted Erstling IFF to fly a free form curved approach that was tabulated on cards, ZYKLOPS was a beam riding system that also used the boosted Erstling IFF to calculate the distance along the beam, in concept it was similar to the X-Geräte of the BoB night bombing campaign but the antenna was much smaller, two x two wheeled trailers. There was also the more accurate EGON-II that used two Freya's like the British Oboe and the unjamable Nachtfee system to communicate the course corrections.
The new Luftwaffe IFF system, that was replacing Erstling was called Neuling. It incorporated blind bombing capability as standard and some Me 262 were fitted.
To conduct an attack with the TSA-2D toss bombing sight the pilot lined up the target in a dive of any angle. The bomb sight computer took in data from a gyroscope, the altimeter and variometer. If a Fug 101a radar altimeter had been fitted that could be used instead. When the bombsight computer had acquired a bomb release solution the pilot received a flashing light and a buzz in his headphones. He then conducted a pull up up with his finger on the bomb release. As he did so a stop cock blocked of the chamber to the aneroid capsule of the altimeter to "record" it. From then on the altitude was tracked by integrating an accelerometer. The bombs were released automatically during the pull-up.
The bombsight actually worked better on the Me 262 than the Fw 190 because the piston engine on the latter disturbed the accelerometer slightly. Most of the bombs fell in a 20m x 70m area that was cross shaped and about half of that within half that distance. The bombsight also gave a little standoff range since it could toss the bombs upwards from the flight path.
There was an earlier TSA bombsight that worked on a similar concept but it was decided to wait for the TSA-2D. Probably a bad decision considering the bombsight would be needed for the invasion.
Apart from tossing SC250 bombs the Germans had cluster bombs with both hollow charge and anti personnel submunitions. The standard anti shipping attack involved the "turnip" method in which the bomb was given a 5.3 second time delay. If the bomb hit 20m ahead of the waterline of a ship it would travel under water to a point 20m below sea level below the ship, detonate and break the ship in two. Me 109s damaged battleships and cruisers this way.
The anti shipping weapon that was supposed to stop the allies was the BT series of Torpedo Bombs e.g. BT1000. These highly elongated weapons were meant to spear into the water and travel several hundred meters under water under the ships hull. A proximity fuse was to be fitted. It consisted of a two coil metal detector similar to that used on German torpedoes from 1943 onward would then detonate under the ship. I think the BT250 could fit on the Me 262. It's certainly shown in illustrations. Obviously a direct hit would be welcome. The ability to sink a ship even if the bomb hit 100m or so ahead of the waterline considerably enhances the pK.
If there were 1000 Fw 190 in France at the right time they might have caused some hurt especially if they had the TSA-2D and the BT250. With sufficient Me 262 bombers with this bombsight I'd say Hitler would have had his "Blitz Bomber" and it would have worked I argue.
The Jump 004 went through 3 versions.
Jumo 004B1 with solid tinidur blades used on Ar 234A which overflew Normandy without fault.
Jumo 004B4 with hollow air cooled tinidur blades from October November onwards.
Jumo 004B4 with hollow air cooled "nickel free" cromadur blades used concurrently from Feb 1945 onwards.
The development of the "acceleration valve" that measured airflow and adjusted fuel flow had been completed and mass production was to reach front line units in April 1945. The existing fuel control system used a centrifugal governor only and it tended to over and under dose. This was a big part of the Jumo 004 reliability problem.
Last edited:
The land lease war debt was essentially cancelled. Equipment that was leant and not returned was charged at about 10% of its production cost. If it was destroyed by enemy action the US charged nothing of course British could either return it or destroy it and pay nothing. Lend lease essentially gave Britain free weapons (lend) in return for the lease of some fairly unimportant Caribbean naval bases.
The UK did require US loans after WW2 and those debts were not forgiven. The UK did receive masses of Marshall aide, more than any other country and much more than Germany. Things were better in communist East Germany for people than in the western controlled west Germany. People were dying of lung infections, malnourished, living in cellers under bombed out buildings.
British rationing to some extent was designed to help alleviate hunger in Europe, including Germany.
The bigger part of the problem may simply have been the socialist style command economy in the U.K, class warfare.
Economically Germany did much better than Britain up untill recently. This was because the Germans had to float their currency and because they had a better industrial relations system and less class warfare.
Note also Britain had help from Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as other commonwealth nations.
A very complicated topic, the Marshall Plan. There were so many different schemes and systems involved that just looking at the raw numbers is pretty meaningless. I have tried to understand it, but I'm not an economist!
Cheers
Steve
You could say the same for every fighter bomber that flew in WW2, but that didn't make them useless as a weapon.
Aircraft are an expensive option, the only aspect of German war production that even came close to the cost of the Luftwaffe's aircraft (even briefly exceeding it in mid 1940) was the production of ammunition.
There are reasons that the German aircraft production consumed such vast sums, not least the need for aircraft to match US production. As early as May 1940, long before the USA were officially a belligerent, Roosevelt had put before Congress a plan to produce 50,000 aircraft per year, the sort of figure that would have made heads spin at the RLM. Nonetheless, aircraft are expensive and consumers of considerable resources.
Cheers
Steve
Or almost every bomber made. The British and USA invested massive resources in equipment to bomb Germany and the Axis nations mainly because there were few other options and the USA had the capacity to do it. It is a trade off between what it costs you and the damage it does to the enemy. An Me262 with its pilot represented a huge investment for Germany, using it to try to knock out tanks or other battlefield equipment was a waste. If you use its speed you decrease the chance of hitting the target if you dont use its speed it is extremely vulnerable to men with machine guns.
Shortround6
Major General
Fighter bombers rarely traded one fighter for one "ground" target destroyed. Sometimes you lost several fighters for not much result and other times a number of trucks, wagons, guns or railroad cars were destroyed without loosing any attacking aircraft. One might well quibble that railroad locomotives were not cheap either.
Attacking road or railroad bridges is also good cost benefit ratio.
Nobody's fighter bombers were actually much good against tanks so blaming the Me 262 for not being very good against them seems to be picking on it a bit.
The 262s speed does count against it a bit as with most fighter bombers, the faster you go the less time you have to aim or correct aim. This doesn't mean the jet is useless, see Korean war.
This varies with altitude, plane at 1000ft has more time to identify target and aim than a plane at 500ft. for instance.
Terrain also plays a part. Fighter that works well over flat land may have trouble trying to hit targets in valleys in rolling hills/low mountains.
Each type of aircraft needs a bit different attack profile to get the most out it.
However claiming that the 262 would have been a good bomber IF equipped with special bombsight XXX in large numbers (which never happened?) is pushing things too far the other way. Bomb-sights coming into use in late 1944/45 have very little to do with the decision to use the 262 as a bomber or fighter-bomber in late 1943 or early 1944.
Attacking road or railroad bridges is also good cost benefit ratio.
Nobody's fighter bombers were actually much good against tanks so blaming the Me 262 for not being very good against them seems to be picking on it a bit.
The 262s speed does count against it a bit as with most fighter bombers, the faster you go the less time you have to aim or correct aim. This doesn't mean the jet is useless, see Korean war.
This varies with altitude, plane at 1000ft has more time to identify target and aim than a plane at 500ft. for instance.
Terrain also plays a part. Fighter that works well over flat land may have trouble trying to hit targets in valleys in rolling hills/low mountains.
Each type of aircraft needs a bit different attack profile to get the most out it.
However claiming that the 262 would have been a good bomber IF equipped with special bombsight XXX in large numbers (which never happened?) is pushing things too far the other way. Bomb-sights coming into use in late 1944/45 have very little to do with the decision to use the 262 as a bomber or fighter-bomber in late 1943 or early 1944.
SR the point I was making wasnt just about tanks, the 262 had two jet engines that cost a fortune and lasted about 25 hours it used a lot of fuel and needed an expert pilot. If you take an M4 Sherman as a high value target, the USA made almost 50,000 of them dodge produced more than 250,000 light trucks, they were almost considered disposable anyway.
If present day re build costs are compared a big steam loco costs about the same as a WW2 fighter, I would think it was the same then, repair shops were full of damaged locos in 1944 France.. One might well quibble that railroad locomotives were not cheap either.
.
The Germans didn't think so, but then their choices were limited in a way which those of the Allies never were.
It was a question of meeting the greater threat, and, in the west, the greater threat was the D-Day landings, the air war had already been lost in any case. In order to use what air power was available against the invading forces, with no strategic bombing force, and no meaningful tactical/medium bombing force operational, meant that it was perfectly logical that the RLM should require ALL fighter aircraft to be capable of carrying a bomb load and operating in a 'jabo' role. It is often ignored that this requirement did not just pertain to the Me 262.
Cheers
Steve
soulezoo
Senior Airman
It's hard to tell for me, but that appears to be a B-26... if so, then it wins hands down for both altitude and combat radius!!we just have this as news
They reported that it had disappeared the following Sunday.
