Anything you can do with a searchlight, you should also be able to do with an x-ray. A surface-based x-ray weapon might have potential in land combat or as an anti-aircraft gun.
X-rays have a much shorter wavelength than visible light and are much more penetrating (which is why they’re used for medical imaging). Making a parabolic reflector for light is easy – simple aluminum or silvered glass will do the job nicely – but I suspect (while admitting that this isn’t my field of expertise) that devising a parabolic reflector for X-rays (made of heaven knows what material) would be a more tricky proposition…assuming it’s even possible. I think that the US fooled around in the 1970s with the concept of building satellites armed with X-ray lasers (intended for use in shooting down incoming enemy ICBMs), and as I recall the proposed design was essentially a one-shot weapon in which the X-ray laser beam would be generated by a nuclear detonation that would destroy the satellite as it fired.
One of the odd things about radiation-based weapons is that they don’t function in the same way against human targets as they do against, let’s say, a missile. Humans consist mostly of water, which has a different heat-absorption capacity that metal – so in principle a conventional infra-red laser that can punch through a sheet of steel might simply have the effect of giving a person a painful but superficial burn rather than drilling through him. (A much simpler and lower-power anti-personnel use of lasers is to use an optical laser to dazzle or blind enemy soldiers.) As for ionizing radiation (such as X-rays), its battlefield practicality would depend on whether a large enough dosage could be delivered to kill or incapacitate an enemy soldier instantly. Zapping him with enough sieverts to kill him in years, months or days would be of little tactical use, and even lethality within hours would be inadequate if the tactical requirement is to take out the guy who’s in the process of spraying your squad with machine gun fire.
@CWO:
Anything you can do with a searchlight, you should also be able to do with an x-ray. A surface-based x-ray weapon might have potential in land combat or as an anti-aircraft gun.
X-rays have a much shorter wavelength than visible light and are much more penetrating (which is why they’re used for medical imaging). Making a parabolic reflector for light is easy – simple aluminum or silvered glass will do the job nicely – but I suspect (while admitting that this isn’t my field of expertise) that devising a parabolic reflector for X-rays (made of heaven knows what material) would be a more tricky proposition…assuming it’s even possible. I think that the US fooled around in the 1970s with the concept of building satellites armed with X-ray lasers (intended for use in shooting down incoming enemy ICBMs), and as I recall the proposed design was essentially a one-shot weapon in which the X-ray laser beam would be generated by a nuclear detonation that would destroy the satellite as it fired.
One of the odd things about radiation-based weapons is that they don’t function in the same way against human targets as they do against, let’s say, a missile. Humans consist mostly of water, which has a different heat-absorption capacity that metal – so in principle a conventional infra-red laser that can punch through a sheet of steel might simply have the effect of giving a person a painful but superficial burn rather than drilling through him. (A much simpler and lower-power anti-personnel use of lasers is to use an optical laser to dazzle or blind enemy soldiers.) As for ionizing radiation (such as X-rays), its battlefield practicality would depend on whether a large enough dosage could be delivered to kill or incapacitate an enemy soldier instantly. Zapping him with enough sieverts to kill him in years, months or days would be of little tactical use, and even lethality within hours would be inadequate if the tactical requirement is to take out the guy who’s in the process of spraying your squad with machine gun fire.
Good post.
I noticed an error in one of my earlier posts: the Germans and Japanese had been working together to create a microwave-based death ray; and not (as I’d incorrectly stated) a death ray based on x-rays. Microwaves have a longer wavelength than visible light. If (as you implied above) the shorter-than-visible-light wavelength of x-rays would give them a more constrained range than searchlights; then presumably microwave-based weapons would have a longer effective range.
Brain tissue is very sensitive to changes in temperature. You can kill insects almost instantly by using hot water to heat their brain tissue. Human brain tissue is even more vulnerable to heat. If you could microwave a pilot’s brain, you could kill both him and the aircraft he was flying.
Best weapon systems of world war II:
Germany: MG42 machine gun
USSR: T34 tank
Japan: bayonette
USA: Garand semi-automatic rifle
China: pitchfork
UK: funny helmets
Italy: the terrain
ANZAC: more funny helmets
France: maginot line
oh man. where to start…
USS Enterprise: Yorktown Class Aircraft Carrier. She was the most renown and most decorated ship of WWII. She was constantly thought by the Japanese to be sunk and was always a thorn in their side. She fought the Japanese navy single handed at one point in the Pacific War. Iowa/Montana are close seconds
HMS Illustrious was a fine carrier for the British and helped save Malta a few times if I remember correctly. Plus shes a beauty to look at.
t-34…what can i say? it won the war for the USSR
Magiont line? i mean it was formidable but essentially useless when war broke out in Europe, the Germans just went around it.
7th infantry for the Aussies. Total Badasses
Japanese nighttime naval tactics and pioneering of naval air power/usage of carriers was probably one of the most significant things of the war. the US learned quite a bit by studying their tactics.
German blitzkrieg tactics and armored warfare doctrine was also very feared and renown at the same time by the allies. again, studied greatly by the allies.
Italian Battleship Vittorio Veneto was Italy’s Iowa in a way. it was their prettiest ship, it was their best ship, and most advanced ship. it also was let down by the Italian high command. they didn’t want to hurt their beautiful ships so they rarely sailed, even though they could have seriously harassed the British.
Italian Battleship Vittorio Veneto was Italy’s Iowa in a way. it was their prettiest ship, it was their best ship, and most advanced ship. it also was let down by the Italian high command. they didn’t want to hurt their beautiful ships so they rarely sailed, even though they could have seriously harassed the British.
I enjoyed this paragraph. Good writing.
I agree with your points.
Now for a really unconventional choice: the Allied codebreakers who deciphered both the Japanese and German codes. Last year around the anniversary of the Midway battle, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I shared a ride to the USS Arizona with one of the originals who broke the Japanese code, Rear Admiral (then ensign) “Mac” Showers. http://vimeo.com/34531133 and https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.400758056633152.86706.108793245829636&type=3 Unfortunately he passed away a few months later on Oct. 19, 2012.
In one fell swoop the Midway engagement broke the back of the IJN. A smaller, inferior U.S. force destroyed the elite fleet air corps of the IJN in a single battle. This decisive victory was made possible only because of the intelligence coup of breaking the current Japanese naval code.
@wittmann:
Italian Battleship Vittorio Veneto was Italy’s Iowa in a way. it was their prettiest ship, it was their best ship, and most advanced ship.
And I think she and her sisters ships were, after the Iowas, the second-fastest battleships ever built.
Did not know that. I have never had much interest in ships.
Will look in up later. Am still at work.
I just like pretty ships and I think German ones and the Vittorio Veneto were pretty.
@wittmann:
Did not know that. I have never had much interest in ships. Will look in up later. Am still at work. I just like pretty ships and I think German ones and the Vittorio Veneto were pretty.
Yes, the Italians have a flair for building elegant machines, sports cars being a good example. (Another one is the French-Italian GOCE satellite , whose sleek design caused it to be described as the “Ferrari of space”.) In one of my books on the Iowa class battleships, the author mentions the contemporary foreign battleship classes and says that the “the Italian ships were, not surprisingly, handsome vessels.” He likewise expresses admiration for the elegant lines of the Iowas (whose long, slender hulls were intended to give them a high speed, but which as a side-effect gave the ships a graceful appearance). He says that, by contrast, the Bismarck and KGV classes had the blocky, solid look of heavyweight boxers – adding that, of course, naval architects are in the business of designing weapons of war rather than works of art.
The Zara class cruisers were some fine cruisers and good looking ones that that, they just had the great misfortune of having the Warspite intercept the at night when the crew was at rest and blind from having no radar.
Think you for that information Worsham.
I have just read about them and the 4 ships’ history: interesting (and sad).
@ABWorsham:
In your opinion what was each country’s finest weapon system during WWII?
The U.S. - Airplanes, including each type and Ships, including all on surface Watervessels
The U.K. - Airplanes in Specific Fighters and Strategic Bombers
Italy - Ships and light Tanks
The S.U. - Infantry Mortars, secondary Tanks and Fighter Airplanes
France - Defensiv lines and methods
Finnland - Knifes and Skiings
The Reich - Tanks, followed later on by Submarine both were called Elite
Here’s what I want:
A Japanese battleship that can launch German V2 rockets loaded with American A-bombs. After annihilating the enemy cities with my atomic rockets I will sail in and land my British soldiers equipped with Russian T34-85s to finish the extermination.
