Besides anyone with knowledge knows that Kam. Pilots were all volunteers and only existed out of desperation.
WW2 Article: Advanced German Technology
-
Well alot of these failed because Germany lost the war. Also captured german equipment could be quite handy.
-
Germany did not fail to create a IR Rifle, look up StG 44 Vampir…it was just the case that the equippment (battery + powerunit) must be kept in a backbag (tornister)
it was then a minus on your ability to be fast in combat but a plus to see and not to be seen…I would be interrested how the soviet version looked like…Ah I see. If Germans had something then it follows that all post-war development stemmed from them.
This is silly.The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable. It is long shown to be a history channel invention.
Let us take one example above. The claim Germany led in IR development.
Is that so? How then did the US develop and deploy a rifle with IR scope when Germany failed?
IR was not a German invention and even the Soviets had a pre-1939 version.
-
Haha! I almost thought that picture was fake! Thats crazy what those Germans could come up with.
-
Let me try and make it a bit simpler.
The German version never saw service.
It is claimed that some MIGHT have been used or POSSIBLY one or two saw action.
The US Sniperscope was issued to front line units in some quantity and used in the Pacific against the Japanese.
Let us recap
German version never saw production
US version has a production run and was combat tested in WW2.Anyway you look at it IR was NOT a German first.
IR was not a German secret weapon
-
Ok IR score one for the US Yeah! Score a whole **** more for the Germans for getting Jets, Assault Rifles, Rockets Etc.!!!
-
Ok IR score one for the US Yeah! Score a whole **** more for the Germans for getting Jets, Assault Rifles, Rockets Etc.!!!
The first jet to enter full Squadron Service was the Meteor……
Score what for an army that to the end used horses for transport?
Not very good at this are you?
-
Forgive me but the term “first saw service” and “full squadron service” are two COMPLETELY different things. Also where in the name of George Patton did you come up with horses? Thats a horrible slam at the German army. Horses were pretty common and it didn’t help that the Americans bombed all the German factories. Please leave irrelevent things out of the conversation.
-
Please leave irrelevent things out of the conversation.
So sayeth the man who believes the Stealth Bomber was a German invention!
-
. In addition, Germany achieved the below list of developments–developments which were significantly ahead of their time.
Wartime jets + axial flow jet engines --> postwar axial flow jet fighters.
Wartime advanced jet designs (Me 262 HG III) --> postwar efforts to break the sound barrier
Wartime stealth bomber design --> 1980s era B2 stealth bomber
Wartime type XXI U-boats --> postwar nuclear submarines
Wartime air-to-air missiles --> postwar air-mounted weaponry
Wartime guided air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles --> postwar guided missiles
Wartime cruise missile (V1) --> postwar cruise missiles
Wartime V2 rocket --> postwar ICBMs
Wartime assault rifle --> postwar assault rifles
Wartime infrared vision equipment for tanks --> postwar night vision equipment
Wartime handheld anti-tank weaponry (Panzerfaust) --> postwar handheld anti-tank weaponry
Wartime Fritz guided bombs --> postwar smart bombs
Wartime Wasserfall surface-to-air missiles --> postwar SAMsAh I see. If Germans had something then it follows that all post-war development stemmed from them.
This is silly.The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable. It is long shown to be a history channel invention.
Let us take one example above. The claim Germany led in IR development.
Is that so? How then did the US develop and deploy a rifle with IR scope when Germany failed?
IR was not a German invention and even the Soviets had a pre-1939 version.I’ll address your bolded statement first. I did not state nor imply that “If Germans had something then it follows that all post-war development stemmed from them.” I listed German “developments which were significantly ahead of their time.” Please do not misrepresent my statements.
Secondly, you wrote that “The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable.” You didn’t cite any source to support that claim. Germany developed a prototype of a flying wing bomber during WWII. Back when Germany was under the Versailles Treaty, prohibitions against powered aircraft caused a lot of German aeronautical talent to be diverted into gliders. The Germans learned a lot about aerodynamics as a result–learning which helped considerably with the subsequent invention of the Horten Ho 229’s flying wing design.
The shape of the Horten Ho 229 was not its only stealthy characteristic.
After the war, Reimar Horten said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves (radar), which he believed could shield the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home.[5] . . .
Northrop-Grumman built a full-size reproduction of the V3, incorporating a replica glue mixture in the nose section. After an expenditure of about US$ 250 000 and 2 500 man-hours, Northrop’s Ho 229 reproduction was tested at the company’s classified radar cross-section (RCS) test range at Tejon, California, where it was placed on a 15-meter (50 ft) articulating pole and exposed to electromagnetic energy sources from various angles, using the same three frequencies in the 20–50 MHz range used by the Chain Home in the mid-1940s. RCS testing showed that a hypothetical Ho 229 approaching the English coast from France flying at 885 km/h (550 mph) at 15–30 metres (50–100 ft) above the water would have been visible at a distance of 80% that of a Bf 109. This implies an RCS of only 40% that of a Bf 109, from the front at the Chain Home frequencies.
The Wikipedia article to which I’ve linked provides some pictures of the Horten Ho 229. (Though unfortunately, another picture of a complete Ho 229 is no longer included in the article.) But lest you continue to think that this aircraft was some fabrication of the History Channel, I suggest you examine a photograph of the aircraft from the Smithsonian Institute’s website. The Smithsonian also provides a longer description of the aircraft here.
I would also like to address your comment about the German Army’s reliance on horses. The German Army relied heavily on horses because horses don’t require gasoline, and Germany had no extra gas to spare. Using coal-powered trains to ship supplies most of the way toward their intended destinations, and horses for the remaining distance, was logical for a nation rich in coal and utterly lacking in oil.
-
I’ll let Kurt take over as he’s one of the forums history buffs but first I’d like to say this. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GERMAN INVENTION! THAT WAS KURT! If you can’t even argue with the right person then leave the forum! (I had a better response but the mods wouldn’t have agreed with me :evil: )
-
I’ll let Kurt take over as he’s one of the forums history buffs but first I’d like to say this. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GERMAN INVENTION! THAT WAS KURT! If you can’t even argue with the right person then leave the forum! (I had a better response but the mods wouldn’t have agreed with me :evil: )
If you want my help, you’ve got it! I’ll start with jets. Lazarus was inaccurate to state that the first jet was the Meteor. The Me 262’s first flight (with jet engines) was in July of '42. The Gloster Meteor’s first flight was in March of '43. The Me 262 was introduced in April of '44. The Meteor was introduced in July of '44.
Far more important than the minor differences in introduction dates is the fact that the German Me 262 used an advanced form of jet engine (axial flow jets), as opposed to the more basic and limited centrifugal flow jet engines employed by the Meteor. In addition, the Me 262’s design demonstrated a significantly more advanced understanding of aerodynamics than did the design of the Meteor (let alone the U.S. Shooting Star). A planned improvement to the Me 262–the Me 262 HG III–would have had wings swept back at a 45 degree angle.
-
Secondly, you wrote that “The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable.” You didn’t cite any source to support that claim. Germany developed a prototype of a flying wing bomber during WWII. Back when Germany was under the Versailles Treaty, prohibitions against powered aircraft caused a lot of German aeronautical talent to be diverted into gliders. The Germans learned a lot about aerodynamics as a result–learning which helped considerably with the subsequent invention of the Horten Ho 229’s flying wing design.
It seems I am not permitted to link anything so I can not give you the page where this was posted in National Geographic Magazine.
I wrote a letter to a curator at the facility inquiring about the rumored stealth properties of the Ho 229 aircraft and received a detailed response: “I have examined the aircraft and many primary and secondary sources of information about the Hortens’ work, and I have found no reliable evidence to confirm this idea. Reimar Horten described these low RCS [radar cross section] techniques during the early 1980s as news reports began to appear that described the stealth qualities of the Northrop B-2 bomber. I have examined the Ho 229 V3 numerous times and found no evidence of a “mixture of charcoal and glue” applied to the skin that would lower the RCS. I believe Horten ‘invented’ the notion of the stealthy Ho 229 to draw attention to other interesting and innovative aspects of his work.”
.
-
If you want my help, you’ve got it! I’ll start with jets. Lazarus was inaccurate to state that the first jet was the Meteor
Oh dear. Fall at your first hurdle.
Please check back and tell me the dates the Meteor entered Squadron service and then give me the date for the first Me 262 Squadron.
Please do not confuse the issue by dragging other subjects in to it and just give the dates to prove I was wrong. -
You didn’t cite any source to support that claim.
Just a note: though everyone appreciates the linking of sources, wikipedia articles don’t always provide the most accurate information and should invoke some skepticism.
Ok IR score one for the US Yeah! Score a whole **** more for the Germans for getting Jets, Assault Rifles, Rockets Etc.!!!
The subject really isn’t that exciting. You must understand that a points-based competition based on rival technologies means nothing when you factor in the grotesque and disastrous realities of that conflict.
If these supposed German technological “wonders” had any effect on the war, it was to postpone an already bloody and lengthy war and cause the deaths of many more on both sides, civilians and soldiers. That’s hardly worth any kind of points.
Thats a horrible slam at the German army. Horses were pretty common and it didn’t help that the Americans bombed all the German factories. Please leave irrelevent things out of the conversation.
Um, the Germans lost the war and in the process perpetrated the most evil, disgusting and unforgettable atrocities in all the long and brutal history of mankind. Who cares if someone “slams” the German Army? Good God, man. You don’t wish the Nazis had won the war, do you?
Lazarus’ point isn’t that irrelevant. The German Army can hardly be considered technologically superior to the Allies when 90 percent of its forces were dependent on horses. Understand that even horses were running short by the end of the war. The big German horses of North European descent faired very badly on the Eastern Front and over 750,000 died during the first six months of the war. That meant most German soldiers had to travel by foot.
Perhaps you should look into Guy Sajer’s Forgotten Soldier, one of the best firsthand accounts of the German Army from 1942-on. The book details Sajer’s experiences fighting for the elite Grossdeutschland division on the Eastern and then Western Fronts. Sajer describes in great detail the desperation and material inferiority the German Army suffered during the second half of the war. When his unit surrendered to American GIs in 1945 and were forced to stand in the back of a deuce and a half, the American soldiers couldn’t understand why Sajer and his men were so happy. He eventually told them it was the first time he’d not been forced to march in a long time.
I’ll let Kurt take over as he’s one of the forums history buffs but first I’d like to say this.
I for one can say your infallible assertions will be missed.
-
Secondly, you wrote that “The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable.” You didn’t cite any source to support that claim. Germany developed a prototype of a flying wing bomber during WWII. Back when Germany was under the Versailles Treaty, prohibitions against powered aircraft caused a lot of German aeronautical talent to be diverted into gliders. The Germans learned a lot about aerodynamics as a result–learning which helped considerably with the subsequent invention of the Horten Ho 229’s flying wing design.
It seems I am not permitted to link anything so I can not give you the page where this was posted in National Geographic Magazine.
I wrote a letter to a curator at the facility inquiring about the rumored stealth properties of the Ho 229 aircraft and received a detailed response: “I have examined the aircraft and many primary and secondary sources of information about the Hortens’ work, and I have found no reliable evidence to confirm this idea. Reimar Horten described these low RCS [radar cross section] techniques during the early 1980s as news reports began to appear that described the stealth qualities of the Northrop B-2 bomber. I have examined the Ho 229 V3 numerous times and found no evidence of a “mixture of charcoal and glue” applied to the skin that would lower the RCS. I believe Horten ‘invented’ the notion of the stealthy Ho 229 to draw attention to other interesting and innovative aspects of his work.”
.
I had interpreted your earlier post to imply that you disputed the existence of the Horten Ho 229 itself. I now realize your earlier claim was far narrower; and that you are merely disputing whether charcoal dust had been mixed into the glue of the Horten Ho 229 for the purpose of reducing its radar cross section. I acknowledge that the evidence for the charcoal dust is weaker than the evidence for the existence of the flying wing German bomber itself. (The latter is beyond all reasonable dispute.)
Regardless of whether charcoal dust was or was not mixed into the Horten Ho 229’s glue, the aircraft still had stealthy characteristics. The flying wing shape produces a weaker radar signature than does a standard-issue aircraft shape. (Which is why the B-2 also employs the flying wing shape.) In addition, wood was used for a great deal of the Horten Ho 229’s construction; and wood is largely invisible to radar. Together, these two factors would have given this aircraft a stealthier radar profile than standard WWII aircraft, even without the charcoal dust. Understand here that “stealthier” does not mean completely invisible to radar–rather, it means the effective range for any given radar station would have been reduced when searching for this aircraft. It is also worth noting that the flying wing shape was chosen for aerodynamic reasons, not because of the desire to create a stealthy profile.
More important than the Horten Ho 229’s stealth characteristics is the fact that it met or came close to meeting Goering’s 1000/1000/1000 goal. Goering had demanded that any future twin-engined German bombers must be able to fly 1000 km/hour, and must be able to deliver a 1000 kg payload to a target 1000 km away. The Horten Ho 229 had a top speed of 977 km/h (607 MPH), compared to 703 km/hr (403 MPH) for a P-51 Mustang. It could deliver 1000 kg (2200 lbs) of bombs to a target 1000 km (620 miles) away. This aircraft therefore had strong potential as a fighter/interceptor, as well as a medium bomber that could deliver its payload without being shot down.
-
More important than the Horten Ho 229’s stealth characteristics is the fact that it met or came close to meeting Goering’s 1000/1000/1000 goal.
Goering was a fat, idiotic drug-addict. Those goals as you call them came about during some morphine-induced braggadoccio to Hitler to regain his favor after a number of Luftwaffe disasters. They don’t mean anything except tremendous amounts of diverted resources and another ultimately worthless design.
The Horten was no stealth bomber. Come on, the whole term is a misnomer even with today’s tech and is only used in the media and on history forums. In Air Force parlance, these type of aircraft (that is, B-2s, F22s and F117s - not Horten Ho 229s) are called low radar observance aircraft. We probably wouldn’t even be discussing this topic if everyone referred to the Horten as the Ho 229 low radar observance aircraft.
In any case, I suppose it should be mentioned again that Allied radar was supreme by the end of the war and would have easily and quickly detected the Horten despite and I guess because of its extraordinarily-modest ability reflect radar.
-
More important than the Horten Ho 229’s stealth characteristics is the fact that it met or came close to meeting Goering’s 1000/1000/1000 goal.
Goering was a fat, idiotic drug-addict. Those goals as you call them came about during some drug-induced braggadoccio to Hitler to regain his favor after a number of Luftwaffe disasters. They don’t mean anything.
I also have a low opinion of Goering. His braggadocio and false promises were largely responsible for a number of German problems and defeats. At Dunkirk, Goering had promised Hitler that the British force could be destroyed by air. Hitler therefore elected to preserve the strength of his own army with the thought that the Luftwaffe could finish off Britain’s troops.
Slightly over two years later, the German Sixth Army had become encircled inside Stalingrad. The German Army had paid a high price for the conquest of Stalingrad in the first place: Soviet soldiers were considerably more successful in killing German soldiers in house-to-house fighting than in open field combat. Considering the heavy price which had been paid to acquire this crucial city, Hitler was highly reluctant to abandon it to the Soviets. He felt that if the German Army abandoned the city, it would have to pay another high price in blood when it retook the city later.
Goering told him this was unnecessary. The Luftwaffe, Goering promised, would use cargo transports to deliver all the supplies that were needed. The German force could remain in place until the Soviet encirclement was broken.
The Stalingrad force never received more than a fraction of the daily supplies Goering had promised. As wholly inadequate as the transport effort was early on, it grew steadily and significantly worse as the weeks continued. Bad weather, losses of cargo transport planes to Soviet anti-air guns and fighters, and other factors caused the daily tonnage arriving in Stalingrad to continue to dwindle. When the remnants of von Paulus’s Sixth Army finally surrendered, its soldiers were starving, and almost completely bereft of ammunition and medical supplies.
Goering’s incompetence and lack of credibility should not be allowed to obscure the achievements of Reimar. Meeting the 1000/1000/1000 goal was a remarkable accomplishment, regardless of whatever thoughts (if any) that may have been going through Goering’s head when he formulated that goal. A medium bomber that could fly over 150 MPH (nearly 300 km/h) faster than a P-51 Mustang could have been very useful to the German war effort.
-
So only Germany had flying wings?
Northrop N-1M?
-
So only Germany had flying wings?
Northrop N-1M?
The Northrop N-1M was an experimental American flying wing design which first flew in 1941, and which had a top speed 1/3 that of the Horten Ho 229. Obviously that wasn’t good enough, so Northrop created another, slightly faster flying wing design in late '42. The N-9M was about 2/5 as fast as the Horten. By June of '46 Northrop had an experimental flying wing that was 2/3 as fast as the Horten. (The YB-35 had a much longer range and much larger payload than the Horten.)
By October of '47 Northrop had created a prototype jet version of its flying wing–the YB-49. This aircraft was 5/6 as fast as the Horten; while having a significantly longer range and much larger bomb load. But then
[In 1950], all Flying Wing contracts were cancelled abruptly without explanation by order of Stuart Symington, Secretary of the Air Force. . . .
[In] a 1979 videotaped news interview, Jack Northrop broke his long silence and said publicly that all flying wing contracts had been cancelled because Northrop Aircraft Corporation had refused to merge with competitor Convair at Stuart Symington’s strong suggestion, because according to Jack Northrop, Convair’s merger demands were “grossly unfair to Northrop.”.[3] A short while later, Symington became president of Convair upon leaving his post as Secretary of the Air Force.[4] . . .
[In] April 1980, Jack Northrop, now quite elderly and wheel chair bound, was taken back to the company he founded. There, he was ushered into a classified area and shown a scale model of the Air Force’s forthcoming but still classified Advanced Technology Bomber, which would become known as the B-2A; a sleek Flying Wing. Looking over its all-wing design, Northrop was reported to have said: “I know why God has kept me alive for the past 25 years.”[8]
German designers and engineers deserve credit for using the flying wing design to create what would have been a highly effective fighter/interceptor and medium bomber. Northrop deserves credit for using the flying wing design to create what could have been an effective postwar heavy bomber. The German design employed two jet engines; the Northrop jet design of late '47 used six. This illustrates that the German and American aircraft were intended for different roles: the Germans emphasized speed, maneuverability, and dogfighting ability, and the Americans focused on range and large bomb payloads.
-
If I had to rank the nations of WWII in order of their technological prowess, I would place them in the following order: the US, Germany, UK, USSR, Japan.
However, I wish to thank Lazarus for for pointing out the obvious discrepancy of the Germans utilizing both the most advanced form of transportation (V-2 and ME262) and the least advanced form (horses and feet) of all participants. Whereas the Allies, particularly the US, had a great deal of transporation, even to basic infantry, provided by gasoline powered vehicles such as the Jeep which gave the US and UK a very clear advantage of mobility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep
Jeeps were used by every division of the U.S. military and an average of 145 were supplied to every infantry regiment. Jeeps were used for many other purposes including cable laying, saw milling, as firefighting pumpers, field ambulances, tractors and, with suitable wheels, would even run on railway tracks.
This show the level of technology for the participating countries in WWII varied considerably both between nations and within individual nations.
One perfect example was the Jerrycan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JerrycanA simple, but effective technology that was eventually reverse engineered by the Allies. This alone might have enabled Rommel to do as well as he did in N. Africa as one of his big problems was a severe shortage of fuel. With the massive industrial production capabilities of the US and the clear need for this by the British colonies prior to the war, why didn’t either side develop an equivalent prior to the war as had the Germans? Its not as if this were a difficult thing to do.
I can point to dozens of similar accounts on both sides illustrating the spotty development of technology during the war. Why was the concept of drop tanks (greatly extending flight distance of fighters) developed so late in the war? Why did the Japanese, despite having perhaps the best submarines of the war, neglect to develop anti-submarine technology? Why were the Russian tanks, despite the low technology of the soviets (such as the poor quality of steel and poor erognomics and lack of radios) in many ways superior to the German tanks, such that the Germans copied the best features (such as sloped armor)? Why were the British, after having cracked the German enigma code, so lax in their own communications (they could have simply developed a similar code)?
Technological development for all sides was uneven and always in development such that the best technology was often obsolete before it could be mass produced . Not that mass production was always possible or even desirable. As an example of undesirable production, the German shortage of fuel precluded the use of “Jeeps” for infantry even had they decided to build these.
Note to Zukov; While I can appreciate wanting to use the best sources, I prefer to use wikipedia links (and other well known media sources) because these are fairly accurate and usually virus and spyware free. Some of the other links, while potentially better sources of information, are also not as secure and often of a more questionable quality than Wikipedia. If the link address looks odd, I generally won’t click on it…
Suggested Topics
