Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tech Plunder ~ Loot & Booty

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

  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    The plane shown is a DF-82C or G. It is a nightfighter conversion to a "Director" fighter. At the time the USAF was calling aircraft using guided missiles "Director Fighters." A DB-26B Invader was also fitted out for testing AAM's at this time.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    ^ I notice this is a gun-free F-51.
    That looks to have kept the pilot a bit busy, having to fly both the aircraft and the missile.
    Did they try this on the F-82?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...2_Twin_Mustang

    Slight footnote here. While text of the Wiki link has these being retired/withdrawn about 1951, I have distinct memory of seeing some flying over my hometown (Enumclaw, WA) about mid 50's when I was about primary school age. I didn't know enough at that age about aircraft to know what these were, only years later did I become aware of the F-82 and realize/recall this is what I must have seen. Probably about 4-6 flying by the Cascades in a fairly close formation. Enumclaw being about 20 miles or so NE of McChord.

    Ooohps, my bad. Closer look shows this is a P/F-82.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    While this is post war, the Ryan Firebird started life in late 1944 as an AAM. (on a P-82)



    This was to be a beam riding or semi-active radar guided missile.

    The comparable German tech is the X-4 Ruhrstal missile:



    It was to be wire guided (!) and controlled by a joy stick.


    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Bump

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    IIRC, a couple of examples of the technology competition and "plunder" during the war would be the occasion where a Brit Commando raid on Europe North Coast stole a "new" German radar so the Allies could gauge their current tech level.
    I suppose that's operation Biting, against the Bruneval radar station. It goes back to the notion I mentioned in post #45: the purpose of the operation wasn't gaining some technology the raiding party did not possess, but assess the enemy's version of it and come up with countermeasures (in this case, Window chaff, which the British already had, but the data from Bruneval confirmed its likely effectiveness).

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    IIRC, a couple of examples of the technology competition and "plunder" during the war would be the occasion where a Brit Commando raid on Europe North Coast stole a "new" German radar so the Allies could gauge their current tech level.

    Another item that comes to mind was the Japanese sending divers down to the wrecks of the Repulse and Prince of Wales to retrieve their radar equipment so that Japan could learn more on how to upgrade their systems.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Michele View Post

    Good point there.

    I was thinking about IR tech. The Germans, as always, developed it and fielded it, and I know the Allies were researching about it. But I don't know whether the Allies also fielded any actual device based on that, and I don't know if they captured and studied any German devices (such as the Vampir IR targeting devices). Can anybody shed any (IR or otherwise) light on this?
    German IR tech was initially copied to a limited degree by the US and Britain. However, most of it was found to be too coarse and short ranged to be effective. The big breakthrough was using liquid nitrogen to cool the seeker head. I think this was first done by Hughes (now Raytheon) about 1958 - 60 with the AIM 4 Falcon missile. The Sidewinder and British Firestreak followed suit soon afterwards.

    As noted, the Vampir IR system was copied more or less exactly in the US as the M1 IR sighting system used with the M3 Carbine. It was noted as very difficult to use both due to the bulkiness of the equipment as well as its relatively short range.


    http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/m1irsnip.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Britain put in a lot of effort between the wars looking at IR for use by night fighters but abandoned this in favour of radar development,

    British sources used the possibility of British deployment of IR as a means of disinformation. increases in in Coastal Commend strikes against surfaced U boats and other small craft such as E boats were the result of improved air borne radar. Sufficient information was 'leaked' so as to convince the Germans that it was due to the deployment of active IR devices. As a result they put a lot of effort into developing a paint containing minute glass balls that would break up any IR reflections and then repainting U and E boats in it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    One of the few clear items that most countries actually made use of postwar was the German Type XXI U-boat. The US commissioned two. Britain commissioned one. The Soviets commissioned at least a half dozen.
    Good point there.

    I was thinking about IR tech. The Germans, as always, developed it and fielded it, and I know the Allies were researching about it. But I don't know whether the Allies also fielded any actual device based on that, and I don't know if they captured and studied any German devices (such as the Vampir IR targeting devices). Can anybody shed any (IR or otherwise) light on this?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    One of the few clear items that most countries actually made use of postwar was the German Type XXI U-boat. The US commissioned two. Britain commissioned one. The Soviets commissioned at least a half dozen.

    With the US, they made extensive tests and trials with theirs. The GHG sonar was closely studied. The US Navy started the GUPPY program to upgrade US submarines to equal or better the Type XXI. The Soviets basically copied the design as the Whiskey, Zulu, and later Romeo class submarines. The Golf class ballistic missile boats were essentially Zulu class boats modified to carry three SLBM's.

    It is one of the few technologies that other nations put in service, and kept in service in some cases for years. The British didn't decommission their Type XXI until 1949. The US kept theirs in some degree of service until 1948. The Soviets until the early 50's.

    Leave a comment:


  • At ease
    replied
    The above is, of course, a short clip from the movie "The Battle of Britain" which, whilst not claiming to be 100% authentic, is known to have a very strong basis in fact.

    I can find a number of my postings here @ACG from earlier threads about "shortcuts" taken with RAF pilot training in the midst of the actual "Battle.....", if you wish to dispute this.

    e.g. :

    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...68#post2565768
    Last edited by At ease; 25 Sep 18, 11:09.

    Leave a comment:


  • At ease
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    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


    Do you think that the Luftwaffe was the first air arm to take shortcuts with pilot training where operational pressures demanded it?

    No.

    I don't think so.

    By your metric, the RAF was showing desperation by introducing Spitfires in an untimely manner.

    How many hours 'you done on Spits Simon?

    On Spits Sir, ten and a half.

    Well make it eleven before Jerry has you for breakfast.
    Last edited by At ease; 25 Sep 18, 10:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • At ease
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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...



    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X