Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tech Plunder ~ Loot & Booty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Michele View Post

    Meaning in context that they operated far more in desperation than the USA (and the Allies).

    That's a key consideration to keep in mind. Yes, the Me 262 went into combat earlier than the Meteor. The main reason is exactly that consideration: the British were winning the war and could afford the time to work out the Meteor's teething problems, the Germans couldn't afford that time, since they were desperately losing.

    So boasting about the Germans who fielded the first jet aircraft in combat amounts to boasting that the Allies were defeating the Germans.

    <SNIP>
    This erroneous understanding has been countered @ACG before.

    From the "most significant/influential multi-role aircraft" thread:

    Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    [.....]
    The Me 262 wasn't the first jet to fly, it wasn't even the first practical jet to fly, and by the time it did enter service there were contemporary jets in service with other nations.

    At least those jets the US and Britain flew were reliable planes even if their performance was pedestrian. But, the US and Britain had the luxury of taking their time developing them as they were not pressed with defeat.


    The US and Britain could afford to withhold from combat less than good designs because they were winning. Germany couldn't.
    Earlier post #103 in that thread 03 February 2016 by "At ease"

    Speaking of Meteors(and later, Shooting Stars):

    from pp 79-80 of Heaton:

    [.....]
    However, Allied intelligence was aware of these facilities. The previous information passed to the British in Bern in July 1943 was supplemented by more critically valuable intelligence over the next year. The Enigma intercepts also clearly told the British that the Luftwaffe had been selecting the best-qualified pilots for the jet programs, including all of the information on the creation, staffing, and location of Kommando Thierfelder at Lechfeld. The information regarding the location and exact purpose of the Augsburg factory was smuggled out by French conscripted workers. One French laborer, Lucien Pericaud, had managed to smuggle out the technical data on the jets flown, weight, and power displacement information along with schematics. He was arrested and sent to a concentration camp, probably Dachau, and his fate is, as of yet, undetermined. In fact, what the British had learned later in the spring and summer of 1944 alarmed them to the point that Air Ministry ordered 120 Gloster Meteors to be delivered as soon as possible. This was an impossible order to fulfill for several reasons, not the least of which was the incomplete assembly of a functional Whittle engine, as stated by Group Captain John Cunningham*: “I had been a test pilot, fighter pilot, and night fighter pilot, and I was very much in the information circles regarding the Meteor. I knew that there would be no possible way that the RAF could field even a dozen operational jets by the end of 1944, let alone an air fleet capable of combating the German jet threat. It was not going to happen.”8
    [.....]
    * John "Cats Eyes" Cunningham of Beaufighter night fighter fame.
    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...04#post4204804

    Source reference to the book by Colin Heaton here in post #102 of the earlier thread:

    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...82#post4204782

    Post #105 quoting ww2aircraftperformance.org gives the, very low, numbers of Meteors actually available for squadron service @16 March 1945.


    http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-16march45.pdf
    Last edited by At ease; 24 Sep 18, 07:59.
    "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
    "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

    "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
    — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

    Comment


    • #32
      Following on from the above - slow production schedule hence limited availability of the P80 Shooting Star in ETO
      (only 2 on hand in ETO as of VE Day)
      explained here in post #104 of the earlier thread:

      Very slow production tempo of P80 Shooting Stars in 1945 -

      from pp46 of

      Captured Eagles: Secrets of the Luftwaffe (General Military) free ebook download

      Frederick A. Johnsen

      The USAAF weighed a gamble in January 1945, as intelligence specialists predicted the war could be won with existing conventional US fighters if Germany could be defeated by the end of June 1945. But if Germany had any ability to last longer than that, a very real possibility existed that Luftwaffe jet fighters would be available in sufficient quantity to throw Allied air supremacy into jeopardy.27 Even as European USAAF commanders clamored for new P-80 Shooting Star jets to counter the German jet threat, in February 1945 Lt Gen Giles told Lt Gen Spaatz that the production tempo of P-80As would increase from one aircraft in that month to 39 by December. Giles predicted the first 30 P-80As would be needed for testing and training in the United States; beyond that number, Spaatz and Eaker should expect Shooting Stars for the ETO and the MTO. The P-80 now enjoyed the same high-level priority for production as the B-29 Superfortress, which was viewed as the implement vital to winning the air war with Japan. Meanwhile, tests were underway to see if a piston-engined P-51 could be fitted with an internal JATO (jet-assisted takeoff)* unit to provide intermittent thrust as high as 540 mph at 24,000ft. This hybrid would not meet the test of war; standard P-51s would remain the top fighter at the end of hostilities with Germany.28
      https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...20#post4205120
      Last edited by At ease; 24 Sep 18, 08:02.
      "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
      "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

      "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
      — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by At ease View Post

        This erroneous understanding has been countered @ACG before.
        ]
        It's not erroneous and it's not countered by anything that you write.

        #616 Squadron received its Meteors in July 1944. Save a brief employment against V-1s - which was combat, yes, but against an enemy that couldn't maneuver or fire back - these few Meteors were judiciously employed to train USAAF crews in facing enemy jet fighters.

        Can we imagine Nazi Germany having a Wunderwaffe and using it for defense against the least dangerous opponents, and then leisurely employing it for training rather than thrusting it straight onto the most decisive battlefield?
        No, because by 1944 the Germans just weren't behaving this way. Not even in 1943.

        Or observe the fact that when #616 Squadron was finally judged ready for true operational deployment, the Squadron had already discarded the initial version of the aircraft, to move on to a later version, which was judged better and more reliable. By comparison, already in 1943 the Germans were sending Panther Ds in the field, even though their engines' problems were entirely well known.

        What you quote shows the British were in a hurry as to the initial development of a jet aircraft. I was talking about its combat use; which is another thing. That's why what you write is irrelevant. The Germans used the Me 262 in battle as soon as they could; the British did not use the Meteor in battle as soon as they could. They didn't need it as a last-minute war-winning wonder weapon.
        Michele

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Michele View Post

          On a separate note, 3 Panzerfäuste 30 would weigh 33 lbs.; one 2.36" Bazooka and three rounds for it would weigh 26 lbs. 2.5 rounds fired is already the break-even point, when weight is a factor, for the Bazooka.
          Maybe that's another consideration worth making, when it comes to the question, why didn't the post-war US troops use a US version of the Panzerfaust?
          The bazooka also had a "proving ground" range of 600 yards, and could easily be fired to 300 yards in service conditions, about 30 times as far as a Panzerfaust. The bazooka was also reloadable meaning one could fire multiple rounds, whereas the Panzerfaust was one-shot and disposable. I'd also say that the bazooka is much more accurate.
          The bazooka was also held at company level normally and both it and the ammunition had the availability of a truck or jeep for transport normally as a result.
          Given the range, the bazooka also could be used as an anti-material weapon against buildings and objects other than AFV making it useful for secondary purposes. A panzerfaust would have been more like hauling up a large grenade given its short range.

          Comment


          • #35
            The Me 262 might have deployed from six months to a year earlier. Depends on how one wants to gauge the development problems versus Hitler's direction to make and use it as a "fast bomber".
            EXCERPTS;
            ...
            The Messerschmitt Me 262, nicknamed Schwalbe (German: "Swallow") in fighter versions, or Sturmvogel (German: "Storm Bird") in fighter-bomber versions, was the world's first operational jet-powered fighter aircraft. Design work started before World War II began, but problems with engines, metallurgy and top-level interference kept the aircraft from operational status with the Luftwaffe until mid-1944. The Me 262 was faster and more heavily armed than any Allied fighter, including the British jet-powered Gloster Meteor.[5] One of the most advanced aviation designs in operational use during World War II,[6] the Me 262's roles included light bomber, reconnaissance and experimental night fighter versions.
            ...
            While German use of the aircraft ended with the close of World War II, a small number were operated by the Czechoslovak Air Force until 1951. Captured Me 262s were studied and flight tested by the major powers, and ultimately influenced the designs of post-war aircraft such as the North American F-86 Sabre and Boeing B-47 Stratojet.[6] Several aircraft survive on static display in museums, and there are several privately built flying reproductions that use modern General Electric J85 engines.
            ....
            In mid-1943, Adolf Hitler envisioned the Me 262 as a ground-attack/bomber aircraft rather than a defensive interceptor. The configuration of a high-speed, light-payload Schnellbomber ("fast bomber") was intended to penetrate enemy airspace during the expected Allied invasion of France. His edict resulted in the development of (and concentration on) the Sturmvogel variant. It is debatable to what extent Hitler's interference extended the delay in bringing the Schwalbe into operation;[20][21] it appears engine vibration issues were at least as costly, if not more so.[15]Albert Speer, then Minister of Armaments and War Production, in his memoirs claimed Hitler originally had blocked mass production of the Me 262, before agreeing in early 1944. Hitler rejected arguments the aircraft would be more effective as a fighter against the Allied bombers destroying large parts of Germany, and wanted it as a bomber for revenge attacks. According to Speer, Hitler felt its superior speed compared to other fighters of the era meant it could not be attacked, and so preferred it for high altitude straight flying.[22]
            ...

            Flyable reproductions





            Me 262 (A-1c) replica of (A1-a), Berlin air show, 2006.

            In January 2003, the American Me 262 Project, based in Everett, Washington, completed flight testing to allow the delivery of partially updated spec reproductions of several versions of the Me 262 including at least two B-1c two-seater variants, one A-1c single seater and two "convertibles" that could be switched between the A-1c and B-1c configurations. All are powered by General Electric CJ610 engines and feature additional safety features, such as upgraded brakes and strengthened landing gear. The "c" suffix refers to the new CJ610 powerplant and has been informally assigned with the approval of the Messerschmitt Foundation in Germany[91] (the Werknummer of the reproductions picked up where the last wartime produced Me 262 left off – a continuous airframe serial number run with a near 60-year production break).

            Flight testing of the first newly manufactured Me 262 A-1c (single-seat) variant (Werknummer 501244) was completed in August 2005. The first of these machines (Werknummer 501241) went to a private owner in the southwestern United States, while the second (Werknummer 501244) was delivered to the Messerschmitt Foundation at Manching, Germany. This aircraft conducted a private test flight in late April 2006, and made its public debut in May at the ILA 2006. The new Me 262 flew during the public flight demonstrations.[92] Me 262 Werknummer 501241 was delivered to the Collings Foundation as White 1 of JG 7; this aircraft offered ride-along flights starting in 2008.[93] The third replica, a non-flyable Me 262 A-1c, was delivered to the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in May 2010.[94]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

            Static restoration model for sale;
            http://www.platinumfighters.com/me262

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Michele View Post

              . The Germans used the Me 262 in battle as soon as they could; the British did not use the Meteor in battle as soon as they could. They didn't need it as a last-minute war-winning wonder weapon.
              Indeed it can be argued that the Germans put the 262 into service before adequate training was in place for jet pilots. This is evidenced by the high accident rate due to fighter pilots new to the aircraft and without instrument training flying into the ground coming out of low cloud at speeds too high to pull up in time. . However so lacking in resources was Germany by this stage that there was no possible way to give such training to existing pilots in adequate numbers. The fact that Germany hurried this new weapon into service in such circumstances is evidence of desperation
              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                The bazooka also had a "proving ground" range of 600 yards, and could easily be fired to 300 yards in service conditions, about 30 times as far as a Panzerfaust. The bazooka was also reloadable meaning one could fire multiple rounds, whereas the Panzerfaust was one-shot and disposable. I'd also say that the bazooka is much more accurate.
                The bazooka was also held at company level normally and both it and the ammunition had the availability of a truck or jeep for transport normally as a result.
                Given the range, the bazooka also could be used as an anti-material weapon against buildings and objects other than AFV making it useful for secondary purposes. A panzerfaust would have been more like hauling up a large grenade given its short range.
                Of course, I was taking all of that for granted. After all, Panzerfaust 30 meant just that. It was an effective, but last-ditch self-defense solution.
                The weight comparison, OTOH, is one you seldom see... at least that I know of.
                Michele

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Michele View Post

                  Of course, I was taking all of that for granted. After all, Panzerfaust 30 meant just that. It was an effective, but last-ditch self-defense solution.
                  The weight comparison, OTOH, is one you seldom see... at least that I know of.
                  Not to mention the awkwardness of each soldier having to carry one themselves.



                  As a rule, infantrymen try not to carry heavy awkward things that have marginal (infrequent) utility. Lugging what amounts to a second rifle (about 10 lbs) with you so you might have a single chance of taking out an enemy tank if it gets close enough to run you over, is not what I'd call "User friendly."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by RLeonard View Post
                    Sure they could, as long as no one piece has dimensions no larger than 2 ft x 2 ft x 2 ft. So, what part of their cargo and which passengers do you think should have been bumped for the fantasy. You may have ". . . some experience in making and assembling aircraft parts . . ." but that has nothing to do with wrestling said parts down hatchways and through passageways in a vessel as cramped as a WWII submarine.

                    And of course, the point is they did not . . . "since no parts of the aircraft or its propulsion units had been sent to Japan, nor was there in Japan any German specialist who could provide the necessary assistance." As written in the end of the last paragraph of the MIS report.

                    Since so many people on the internet think the Germans were oh, so, much smarter than everyone else would it not stand to reason that the Germans were probably smart enough to figure out that the entire concept of shipping airplanes by submarine was a non-starter. [ Ha, ha, 'smarter than everyone else,' sure they were; can you say the words "Graf Zeppelin" and "aircraft carrier" without laughing? ]

                    So here we are in 2018 with this nonsense still being propagated on the internet, falling into the general category of "if you repeat it enough times it will eventually be true."
                    Hey, I already conceded you made valid point there was no actual aircraft (or major parts, engines) on board.

                    BTW; 2'x2'x2', means rather small crew members and torpedoes carried aboard as well.

                    FWIW, this was a TypeXB, not your usual combat U-Boat;
                    .....
                    Type X (XB) U-boats were a special type of German submarine (U-boat). Although intended as long-range mine-layers, they were later used as long-range cargo transports, a task they shared with the Type IXD and Italian Romolo-class submarines.
                    ....
                    A total of eight Type XB boats were produced, which replaced the mine chamber of the projected Type XA with six vertical wet storage shafts in the forward section of the hull. Up to 18 mines could be carried in these shafts, with an additional 48 mines in a series of 12 shafts set into the saddle tanks on each side. They only had two torpedo tubes, both at the stern.[1] When used as cargo-carrying submarines they carried freight containers in the mine shafts (or had the freight containers welded on top of the lateral shafts, preventing their use for mines).
                    ....
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_X_submarine

                    BTW, above Wiki link claims among cargo was "... two Me 262 jet fighters, and 10 jet engines."

                    This link page has a drawing showing where the mine/cargo stowage shafts were.
                    https://uboat.net/types/xb.htm
                    Last edited by G David Bock; 24 Sep 18, 13:47.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      The Me 262 might have deployed from six months to a year earlier. Depends on how one wants to gauge the development problems versus Hitler's direction to make and use it as a "fast bomber".
                      L]
                      Hitler made a lot of bad decisions but the one to use the 262 as a schnellbomber may not have been amongst them. At the time Germany knew that a massive Allied invasion force would be arriving somewhere along the Atlantic Wall and that it would be covered by large numbers of Allied fighters flying from British airfields. The Luftwaffe's bomber fleet was wholly inadequate to do much about this - much of it equipped with obsolescent aircraft. What was needed was an attack bomber that would be able to penetrate the clouds of Spitfire IX and Mustangs in some numbers and hit the invasion fleet and the beachheads. There is no evidence that he thought of the 262 Sturmvogel as a revenge weapon as some 1960s authors have claimed. The 262 V10.prototype had already been tested with high speed bomb pylons. As it turned out conversion of Shwalbes into Sturmvogel was not completed in time for D day but the effect if it had is a moot point (and probably one to be discussed in another ACG forum) It might have turned the day.. Hitler made many reckless and stupid gambles but trying to have a force of jet fighter bombers to meet the invasion might have been a reasonable bet
                      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                        Hitler made a lot of bad decisions but the one to use the 262 as a schnellbomber may not have been amongst them. At the time Germany knew that a massive Allied invasion force would be arriving somewhere along the Atlantic Wall and that it would be covered by large numbers of Allied fighters flying from British airfields. The Luftwaffe's bomber fleet was wholly inadequate to do much about this - much of it equipped with obsolescent aircraft. What was needed was an attack bomber that would be able to penetrate the clouds of Spitfire IX and Mustangs in some numbers and hit the invasion fleet and the beachheads. There is no evidence that he thought of the 262 Sturmvogel as a revenge weapon as some 1960s authors have claimed. The 262 V10.prototype had already been tested with high speed bomb pylons. As it turned out conversion of Shwalbes into Sturmvogel was not completed in time for D day but the effect if it had is a moot point (and probably one to be discussed in another ACG forum) It might have turned the day.. Hitler made many reckless and stupid gambles but trying to have a force of jet fighter bombers to meet the invasion might have been a reasonable bet
                        Interesting Mark, something that I knew very little about. lcm1
                        'By Horse by Tram'.


                        I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                        " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          Not to mention the awkwardness of each soldier having to carry one themselves.



                          As a rule, infantrymen try not to carry heavy awkward things that have marginal (infrequent) utility. Lugging what amounts to a second rifle (about 10 lbs) with you so you might have a single chance of taking out an enemy tank if it gets close enough to run you over, is not what I'd call "User friendly."
                          And if it came to 'Hand to hand' you could use it as a club!!!
                          'By Horse by Tram'.


                          I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                          " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by lcm1 View Post

                            And if it came to 'Hand to hand' you could use it as a club!!!
                            So, the question is which would make a better weapon... A Panzerfaust or...

                            A Cricket paddle...



                            or an American style baseball bat...



                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Michele View Post

                              It's not erroneous and it's not countered by anything that you write.

                              #616 Squadron received its Meteors in July 1944. Save a brief employment against V-1s - which was combat, yes, but against an enemy that couldn't maneuver or fire back - these few Meteors were judiciously employed to train USAAF crews in facing enemy jet fighters.

                              Can we imagine Nazi Germany having a Wunderwaffe and using it for defense against the least dangerous opponents, and then leisurely employing it for training rather than thrusting it straight onto the most decisive battlefield?
                              No, because by 1944 the Germans just weren't behaving this way. Not even in 1943.

                              Or observe the fact that when #616 Squadron was finally judged ready for true operational deployment, the Squadron had already discarded the initial version of the aircraft, to move on to a later version, which was judged better and more reliable. By comparison, already in 1943 the Germans were sending Panther Ds in the field, even though their engines' problems were entirely well known.

                              What you quote shows the British were in a hurry as to the initial development of a jet aircraft. I was talking about its combat use; which is another thing. That's why what you write is irrelevant. The Germans used the Me 262 in battle as soon as they could; the British did not use the Meteor in battle as soon as they could. They didn't need it as a last-minute war-winning wonder weapon.
                              You are quite correct in saying that it was not anything I wrote.....

                              .....True, because I did not write the passages or source documents I quoted.

                              They were written by a notable author(Colin Heaton et.al.) on the subject of the Me262, quoting a very well known RAF Group Captain who shortly after the war became a test pilot for DeHavilland's(being Chief Test Pilot of the Comet jet airliner),and the source document being prepared by the RAF itself.

                              Then there is a source quoting very senior USAAF commanders Giles(no relation) and Spaatz.

                              I'm not sure what higher authorities than these that you require.

                              Are the British immune from introducing equipment not necessarily fully combat ready under ideal circumstances?

                              Does Prince of Wales v Bismarck ring any bells?

                              51yEZANd53L._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
                              Last edited by At ease; 25 Sep 18, 11:19. Reason: Add author name
                              "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                              "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                              "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                              — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Leaving aside irrelevant diversions and going back to the issue of tech looting and exploiting, I think we should draw a distinction between two different perspectives. The first is the "in this war" perspective. Especially during the first half of the war, the powers at war tried to grab useful tech from the enemy with a view to using it as soon as possible, say in the next six months or year, against that same enemy. However, within this perspective, I think the immediate notion wasn't "let's build our version of this gadget", but rather "now that we know how this gadget works, let's build something that can counter it". Only later could "our version of this gadget" become interesting.

                                By the second half of the war, the winners were in a "in the next war" perspective. At this point, fielding a copy of the gadget or a counter for it were secondary objectives; it was more important to work on the concept and to come up with a better, mature version of the gadget and counter-gadget, having in mind that it might be necessary after the war.
                                Michele

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X