HS-117 successes?

[Jim Doyle]

Did the HS-117 ever have any accredited kills? I know it wasn't used
operationally, but after a number of test launches the Germans must've tried
it against a 'live' drone of some kind? I wonder how accurate a radio
controlled SAM could be if the operator is staring through a telescopic
sight at a target that's no more than a dot 20,000ft away in the clouds?

How effective do you think a fragmentation warhead on one of these would be
against a tightly-packed formation of B-17s? Pretty ghastly I'd imagine.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/dsh/artifacts/RM-Hs117.htm

Jim Doyle

[Vivtho87700]

I don't know about the effects of a frag warhead against a B-17, but I can say
for sure that command-guided SAMs are still in use even today. For example,
the SA-3 has a backup optical link to guide the missile to the target. The
gunner (what else do I call him?) keeps a telescope pointed at the target and
the correction signals are automatically transmitted to the missile. Maximum
range is claimed to be 20 km against bomber sized targets.

Vivek Thomas

[Jim Doyle]

"Vivtho87700" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know about the effects of a frag warhead against a B-17, but I can
say
> for sure that command-guided SAMs are still in use even today. For
example,
> the SA-3 has a backup optical link to guide the missile to the target.
The
> gunner (what else do I call him?) keeps a telescope pointed at the target
and
> the correction signals are automatically transmitted to the missile.
Maximum
> range is claimed to be 20 km against bomber sized targets.
>
> Vivek Thomas

I was just thinking since a formation of B-17s or B-24s would be very
tightly packed for mutual fighter protection, a formation would be very
susceptible to a shot-gun style frag warhead on such a missile.

If the HS-117 was deployed operationally to protect Germany from large scale
bombing raids, how'd you defend against such a missile with '45 technology?
I guess the allies - Americans on their day raids most likely - would've had
to revise their heavy bombing strategy quite seriously.

Interesting about the SA-3, how successful was this backup system?

Jim Doyle

[Robert Inkol]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in message >...
> "Vivtho87700" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't know about the effects of a frag warhead against a B-17, but I can
> say
> > for sure that command-guided SAMs are still in use even today. For
> example,
> > the SA-3 has a backup optical link to guide the missile to the target.
> The
> > gunner (what else do I call him?) keeps a telescope pointed at the target
> and
> > the correction signals are automatically transmitted to the missile.
> Maximum
> > range is claimed to be 20 km against bomber sized targets.
> >
> > Vivek Thomas
>
> I was just thinking since a formation of B-17s or B-24s would be very
> tightly packed for mutual fighter protection, a formation would be very
> susceptible to a shot-gun style frag warhead on such a missile.
>
> If the HS-117 was deployed operationally to protect Germany from large scale
> bombing raids, how'd you defend against such a missile with '45 technology?
> I guess the allies - Americans on their day raids most likely - would've had
> to revise their heavy bombing strategy quite seriously.
>
> Interesting about the SA-3, how successful was this backup system?
>
> Jim Doyle

I suspect the lack of an efficient proximity fuse would likely have
been a serious limitation.

With the conventional fighter force of the Luftwaffe largely negated
by shortages of fuel and experienced pilots, to say nothing of the
overwhelming numerical superiority of the allied air forces, there was
relatively little real need to maintain tight formations, at least for
defence against fighter aircraft.

Robert Inkol

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Vivtho87700) writes:
> I don't know about the effects of a frag warhead against a B-17, but I can say
> for sure that command-guided SAMs are still in use even today. For example,
> the SA-3 has a backup optical link to guide the missile to the target. The
> gunner (what else do I call him?) keeps a telescope pointed at the target and
> the correction signals are automatically transmitted to the missile. Maximum
> range is claimed to be 20 km against bomber sized targets.

Well, there's Command-Guided SAMs, and Command Guided SAMs. The
Wasserfall and Schmetterling were basically radio-controlled model
rockets (Well, big model rockets), with all tracking and guidance
taking place in the Missile Pilot's head, and with the Missile Pilot
steering the missile directly. The SA-3, and similar systems are
quite different. In those cases, the missile is guided by commands
sent by a computer fed by a tracking system. That tracking system may
be an autotracking radar, a manually tracked radar, or an
Electro-Optical system (TV camera, either normal, Low-Light, or IR).
The missile is tracked by a radar beacon in the missile itself, which
is usually powerful enough to burn through any jamming. The computer
takes the tracking info, compares the missile position to its intended
trajectory, and sends the necessary steering commands to the missile.
The only humans in the loop are those manning the tracking system.
Command systems, in general, can thus work on only Azimuth/Elevation
data for the target, rather than the ideal Azimuth/Elevation/Range
data. That is, as long as you have a reliable proximity fuze on your
missile. That's a lot harder than it looks. U.S. Nike Ajax and Nike
Hercules missiles, and the Soviet SA-2 (At least) and
Wasserfall/Schmetterling used a detonation signal from the ground to
trigger the warhead. (The Germans were never able to dope out a
workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!). This is
pretty much workable with radar tracking in range, and a
fast-responding automatic system to send the warhead command
(Milliseconds are priceless) Human reaction times for manual
triggering are much, much too slow.

Sort of an Apples and Pomegranates comparison.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[robert arndt]

(The Germans were never able to dope out a
> workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!).

The Germans had every type of proximity fuse under development at the
end of the war including: radio, EM, IR, electo-optical, and your
favorite- acoustic! Ever heard of Kranich? The X-4 aam used it:

http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 1/26/2004 1:23 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>(The Germans were never able to dope out a
>> workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!).
>
>The Germans had every type of proximity fuse under development at the
>end of the war including: radio, EM, IR, electo-optical, and your
>favorite- acoustic! Ever heard of Kranich? The X-4 aam used it:
>
> http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html
>
>Rob

So they had them "under development" and had more on the way. The U.S., U.K.
and the Soviets had all kinds of stuff "under development" at the end of the
war. Big deal. Your hero blew his brains out before anything came of these
developments.

The Third Reich was a failure in every sense of the word.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >Date: 1/26/2004 1:23 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >(The Germans were never able to dope out a
> >> workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!).
> >
> >The Germans had every type of proximity fuse under development at the
> >end of the war including: radio, EM, IR, electo-optical, and your
> >favorite- acoustic! Ever heard of Kranich? The X-4 aam used it:
> >
> > http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html
> >
> >Rob
>
> So they had them "under development" and had more on the way. The U.S., U.K.
> and the Soviets had all kinds of stuff "under development" at the end of the
> war. Big deal. Your hero blew his brains out before anything came of these
> developments.
>
> The Third Reich was a failure in every sense of the word.

Except that it took 6 years to defeat them with a deluge of men &
material approaching 11-to-1 in 1945. Also, the war cost 60 million
lives, laid waste to most of Europe, cost Britain it's world power
status, Britain, France and Belgium their colonies, established the US
and USSR as superpowers, and furnished both with weapons that
radically changed the way we fought postwar... not to mention
advancing aviation greatly and starting a space race that produced
satellites and the eventual landing of a man on the moon.
Other than that, you're right Dan.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rob

p.s. If the Germans didn't have any working proximity fuses then
please explain their technology transfer via U-boat to Japan in 1945.
Kranich worked and thats just one fuse. Do you want a partial listing
of the others?

Bad/Baz55A/Fuchs/Isegrimm/Kakadu/Kugelblitz/Kuhglocke/Lotte/Marabu/Marder/Meise/Paplitz/Pinscher/Pistole/Roulette/Stimmgabel/Trichter/Weisel/Zunder-19

There's 19 more for you, making 20 overall.

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>> >Date: 1/26/2004 1:23 AM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >(The Germans were never able to dope out a
>> >> workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!).
>> >
>> >The Germans had every type of proximity fuse under development at the
>> >end of the war including: radio, EM, IR, electo-optical, and your
>> >favorite- acoustic! Ever heard of Kranich? The X-4 aam used it:
>> >
>> > http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> So they had them "under development" and had more on the way. The U.S.,
>U.K.
>> and the Soviets had all kinds of stuff "under development" at the end of
>the
>> war. Big deal. Your hero blew his brains out before anything came of these
>> developments.
>>
>> The Third Reich was a failure in every sense of the word.
>
>Except that it took 6 years to defeat them with a deluge of men &
>material approaching 11-to-1 in 1945. Also, the war cost 60 million
>lives, laid waste to most of Europe, cost Britain it's world power
>status, Britain, France and Belgium their colonies, established the US
>and USSR as superpowers, and furnished both with weapons that
>radically changed the way we fought postwar... not to mention
>advancing aviation greatly and starting a space race that produced
>satellites and the eventual landing of a man on the moon.
>Other than that, you're right Dan.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Rob
>

I still can't understand why you adore the Nazi sewage that started that war.
Even if they hadn't started the war Nazi Germany would have been a major flop
in the long run.

On the anniversaty of Adolph "hey, look at all the fools who think I am Aryan"
Hitler's birthday do you stand out side like a good Nazi and yell "six million
more?" It would not surprise me in the least.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (B2431) wrote in message
>...

>
> Except that it took 6 years to defeat them with a deluge of men &
> material approaching 11-to-1 in 1945. Also, the war cost 60 million
> lives, laid waste to most of Europe,

Most people consider mass murder a bad thing. Given that they had
essentially all the resources of western and central Europe at their
disposal in 1940/41 they mismanaged things horribly.

Only the Nazis could have so rapidly turned the Ukranians
and ByeloRussians who welcomed them as liberators in
1941 into the partisans who die rather than surrender.

Only the Nazis would pursue the development of a rocket
weapon that killed more of their own workers than the enemy
and cost more to develop and build than the value of
the damage caused when it landed.

We know that some 21,000 civilians died in London under the
V-2 attack but at least 30,000 workers at Dora and Peenemunde
died building the bloody things. Given that Germany was
critically short of manpower and materials this was mismanagement
of the worst kind.

Then again these are the same idiots who took 3 divisions
of half jewish Germans out of the front line in Russia
and sent them to concentration camps in late 1943
while the Russians wer elunching a major offensive.


> cost Britain it's world power
> status, Britain, France and Belgium their colonies, established the US
> and USSR as superpowers, and furnished both with weapons that
> radically changed the way we fought postwar... not to mention
> advancing aviation greatly and starting a space race that produced
> satellites and the eventual landing of a man on the moon.
> Other than that, you're right Dan.
> >
>
> p.s. If the Germans didn't have any working proximity fuses then
> please explain their technology transfer via U-boat to Japan in 1945.
> Kranich worked and thats just one fuse. Do you want a partial listing
> of the others?
>

Kranich was an accoustic system using doppler shift of the
sound of aircraft engines and its performance was
medicre at best. It was a poor substitute for the VT
fuze adopted by the western allies.

Keith

[Andrew Sanders]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in message >...
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: (robert arndt)

Above wrote:-

"Nazism may indeed have spread through Europe during a peaceful
forties, it
certainly had a foot hold in all European nations in '39 (Mosley's
Brown
Shirts for instance). Who's to say? I would certainly be interested to
see
why you think they were destined to be a major flop."

Mosley`s man were called Blackshirts. They were certainly a flop.

The Brownshirts were Rohm`s S.A - Hitler got rid of them when he had
no further
use for them; like most others he considered possible competition.
Whether they were a flop or not depends preumably on whose side you
were on at the time.

I don`t see what these points have to do, anyway, with the original
question; see elsewhere in this thread.

AS

>
> Before anyone kicks off on this - I'm certainly no Nazi.
>
> Jim Doyle

[Jim Doyle]

"Andrew Sanders" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
>...
> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >From: (robert arndt)
>
> Above wrote:-
>
> "Nazism may indeed have spread through Europe during a peaceful
> forties, it
> certainly had a foot hold in all European nations in '39 (Mosley's
> Brown
> Shirts for instance). Who's to say? I would certainly be interested to
> see
> why you think they were destined to be a major flop."
>
> Mosley`s man were called Blackshirts. They were certainly a flop.
>
> The Brownshirts were Rohm`s S.A - Hitler got rid of them when he had
> no further
> use for them; like most others he considered possible competition.
> Whether they were a flop or not depends preumably on whose side you
> were on at the time.
>
> I don`t see what these points have to do, anyway, with the original
> question; see elsewhere in this thread.
>
> AS
>

These comments were in response to something Dan (B2431) said:

'Even if they hadn't started the war Nazi Germany would have been a major
flop in the long run.'

I was interested to hear why this was mooted. These comments were part of my
suggestion that within a peaceful Europe of some alternate 1940s, Nazism
would have a basis in each and every country - far from 'collapsing slowly
like a flan in a cupboard' - it certainly had the potential to flourish. The
quality of life in Germany (...for the none persecuted that is...) had
inarguably improved under the Nazis; more so than in any other European
country emerging from post '29 economic depression. I grant that you are
quite right about the Black/Brown Shirts, perhaps the Spanish Civil War
would be a better example of Fascism's gains within Europe?

As far as the relevance of my comments to the original thread, it's just the
way the conversation turned briefly in a few posts.

Anyway, by the logic of rec.aviation.military - I started the thread so I
can bloody well post what I like! :o)

Jim D


> >
> > Before anyone kicks off on this - I'm certainly no Nazi.
> >
> > Jim Doyle

[Andrew Sanders]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,

The above wrote:-


> Well, there's Command-Guided SAMs, and Command Guided SAMs. The
> Wasserfall and Schmetterling were basically radio-controlled model
> rockets - - (The Germans were never able to dope out a
> workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!). This is
> pretty much workable with radar tracking in range, and a
> fast-responding automatic system to send the warhead command
> (Milliseconds are priceless) Human reaction times for manual
> triggering are much, much too slow.
>
> Sort of an Apples and Pomegranates comparison.


From Andrew Sanders


I have beside me copy 11 of the C.I.O.S. Report dated 30-5-45:
"Investigation of Group 2 Targets in Nordhausen Area" by Team 163.

This may be of assistance to those reading this thread who are more
interested in the original question, rather than arguing about the
virtues (or otherwise) of Facism.

Regarding "Wasserfall", and under "sources", the report refers to
those (independently) interrogated, being: Dr Rees (no.2 to von Braun
on research, and later no.2 to von Braun in NASA); Dr. Groettrop,
Herr Riedel III, Herr Tomesvary, Herr Genegelbach, Herr Kagerer, all
senior members of EW (the Peenemunde establishment). The report states
"In no case was the evidence of the above contradictory, except in
small details".

"Wasserfall" details:

Total weight: 7700lbs
Weight of warhead: 520lbs
Weight of fuel: 4100lbs

Length 25` 7"
Diameter (body) 3` 0"
Dia. over fins: 8` 2 1/2"

Max range: 29000 yds
Max height 58000 feet

The propulsion system developed 17500lbs using self a self igniting
combination of liquid fuels. These had been tested for 6 months
storage (an important improvement on the A4/V2 which took approx two
hours to fuel before launch. Final velocity was stated (by above
witnesses) to be 2500 - 3000 ft/sec; (say 4000 mph but check).
Report states "- passage through the sonic barrier will therefore be
very slow, but it was stated emphatically no trouble had been
experienced".

Control system used four small bi-convex wings at COG and four
stabilisers at rear; four further stabilsers in gas stream (these
similar to the A4 system using graphite fins to aid initial slow
take-off).

"The missile is roll-stabilised, and ground control is used".

Reasons: a) the equipment is simpler, cheaper, more suited to
handling by ground troops. b) experience with the A4 showed beam
control in azimuth to be badly affected by stray reflections by A/C.

During early trials optical manual control was used with a small
joystick similar to that used in HS117. Operationally it was intended
to have one beam locked on the projectile, and another on the target
and to arrange by manual control for these beams to be made to
co-incide. Eventually this control would be automatic although two
beams would always be used. The wave length intended was 25 cms.
(Note, a serious weakness of German technical development was the
inabilty to develop short wave radio tubes, as well as short wave
radar).

The report goes on to discuss the servo systems used, culminating in
the development of all-electric servos rather than the hydraulic and
electro hydraulic systems origianlly used (these improvements were
also under development for the A4)

Launching was to be vertical, with an immediate control move in the
direction of the target, whilst velocity was still low; maximum
lateral acceleration was stated to be 4.4g. Minimum height to engage
a staionary target was, at 60 degrees Q.E, 3300 feet. With fast
moving targets min effective range, 3 miles. "For long range weapons,
the above launching method appears very satisfactory".

Warhead: originally planned 320 lbs; had been increased to 520 lbs.
It was intended to distribute HE throughout the projectile, to reduce
damage on the ground.

Fuzing: "it was intended to use a radio proximity fuze set to operate
at a distance of 80-160 feet from the target, the exact distance to be
determined later by trials. This fuze was stated to be not yet
reliable"

"Wasserfall"`s development had been held back by the priority given to
the A4 series, and this was later regarded as a mistake. The serious
effects of allied bombing/degradation of the LW, in defending the
Reich, were of far more significance than the rather muted results
from the V2 programme.

The latter was estimated to have cost the 3rd Reich the equivalent of
$3 billion, which was 50% higher than the Manhattan atom bomb project.
In short, Germany could not afford this wastage.

In his interrogation (notes also here) Albert Speer declared that the
A4 project originally had his support; when he appreciated the level
of resources it consumed, he changed his view; the earlier
development of "Wasserfall" which might have otherwise been possible,
could have changed the whole course of the Allied bombing offensive.

"Wasserfall" was the best bet the Germans had at the time, although
there were a number of other weapons under development.

These included:

HS 117 or 8-117 (formerly HS297) "Schmetterling"; a 570 lb, 13 foot
long AA missile, with a slant range of 24000 yards, max height 35000
feet. Sub-sonic, radio-controlled. Storable liquid fuel.

(Source: Prof Wagner, interrogation 7/5/45). Conceived 1941, but
turned down. Authority to proceed with development given August 1943,
apparox 140 rounds produced, but many without propulsion unit. Prof
Wagner thought only 15-20 rounds ever fired; no target ever used.
Propulsion unit originally developed by Dr. Sbirowski of BMW,
replaced by Dr Conrad on Wagner`s advice. Injection system an
ingenious method designed to give Mach 0.75 using "Tonka 250" fuel - a
mixture of 57% m-xylidine and 43% triethylamine; self-igniting.
Wagner preferred the nitric acid/hydrocarbon fuels since they
interfered less with radio control, and could be stored indefinitely,
unlike peroxide.

Radio control was manual, using 6m wavelength, although it was hoped
to reduce this to 40cm. Guidance similar to HS 293, but Prof Wagner
hoped to go to a 25cm beam complete with homing device.

Warhead. etc. Not finalised, but 55lb planned.

Fuzing, not decided, but options, radar, electrostatic,
acoustic,photo-electic, were under consideration. Of these, approx 30
types of radar fuzes contemplated, of which the most promising were:

"Kakady" - (Donag, Vienna)
"Marabu" - (Siemens)
"Vox" - (A.E.G)
"Kugelbliz" - (P.V.G.)

Electro-static fuzes required dry weather; acoustic fuzes were under
development by Dr Kramer, but still experimantal; Photo-electrical
fuzes (developed by the Reichspost), appeared satisfactory, and due
to the fact that their operation depended on a change in both
intensity, AND frequency of light, they were not affected by direct
sunlight.

Clearly HS 117/297 was far from being an operational weapon in 1945.

Other members of the HS family were:

HS 294; a development of HS 293, but larger, and designed to have an
underwater trajectory. The wings broke off on striking the sea.
Optimum diving angle 22 degrees, fuzed to detonate on impact, or after
underwater run of 45 metres.

HS 295; as HS 294, but no underwater run. Only a few exp versions
made.

HS 296; as 295, but with armour piercing head - exp only.

HS 297; another name for HS; 117/8-117.

Hs 298; Air to air weapon, same size/shape as HS 117, but smaller.
Designed by Prof Wagner, and manufactured at Warnsdorf. Weight 220
kg, warhead 50 kg. Control system as HS 117, but wire control option;
latter tested successfully to 18 kilometers. Expected to increase to
30 kilometers.

OTHERS

"Enzian"; liquid fuel, sub-sonic, short/fat 3300lb with 1200lb
(claimed) warhead. No useful further details.

"Rheintochter"; liquid fuel, sub-sonic, abandoned 1944 in favour of
"Schmetterling".

"Feuerlilie"; solid fuel; range of sizes; no evidence ever used.

"X7" A ground launched anti tank misslie. Wire guided, hollow charge
head.

"Taifun" 43lb ground/air missile, not guided, 1.4lb warhead,
developed by Dr Scheuffelen. 2,000,000 ordered through Figge, but
only a few hundred delivered. Successfully tested.

Data:

Length: 6 feet
Weight 42.6 lbs
Dia 4"
Max height 46000- 52000 feet
Velocity 3500 feet/sec
Warhead 1.37lbs.
Fuzing Contact
Fuel Liquid
Launching 60 barrel mortar.

This one might have been just what the 3rd. Reich needed; perhaps
even more so, if used air to air. Refer Heinz Knoke memoir.

Hope the above is of some interest, and let`s please lay off the good
guys/bad guys stuff, which makes trying to understand History so
childish.


Sincerely.


Andrew Sanders

[WaltBJ]

FWIW back to the original thread - the SA-2F had an optical mode
wherein the search radars remained silent until seconds from the
target. I know a B66 ECM operator who swears the SA2's radar came up
about 3 seconds before the missile went through the wing between the
fuselage and an engine. He landed in the Gulf and was picked up by the
Navy. He had an 86 1/2 mission patch as a result. Also BTW the SA2 was
a development of a German SAM system project. The search and track
scanning az-el radars are the same type mechanism.
Walt BJ

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> These comments were in response to something Dan (B2431) said:
>
> 'Even if they hadn't started the war Nazi Germany would have been a major
> flop in the long run.'
>
> I was interested to hear why this was mooted. These comments were part of
my
> suggestion that within a peaceful Europe of some alternate 1940s, Nazism
> would have a basis in each and every country - far from 'collapsing slowly
> like a flan in a cupboard' - it certainly had the potential to flourish.
The
> quality of life in Germany (...for the none persecuted that is...) had
> inarguably improved under the Nazis; more so than in any other European
> country emerging from post '29 economic depression. I grant that you are
> quite right about the Black/Brown Shirts, perhaps the Spanish Civil War
> would be a better example of Fascism's gains within Europe?
>

You are incorrect, Britain had largely emerged from the worst of the
depression by 1938. Between 1936 and 1938 some 2.6 million jobs
had been created, real wages had risen and the economy was growing
at an annual rate of 5% and unemployment was down to around 8%
and falling.

The German economy was fragile however, they had been living on
capital looted from the Jews and they were not included in unemployment
statisitcs so when were thrown out of their jobs and replaced by others
unemployment officially went down. Working hours had been raised
to the extent that employers could legally enforce working hours
of up to 72 hours per week and of course strikes were banned.
Even with these draconian measures German productivity was
growing at only 1.3% per annum, half the rate of Britain.

By 1939, Germany imported 33% of its required raw materials
Government income in 1939 stood at 15 billion but government
expenditure was over 30 billion and the balance of trade was heaviliy in
the
red.

Germany had expended most of its gold and foreign currency
reserves by late 1939.

Annual food consumption in 1937 had fallen for wheat bread,
meat, bacon, milk, eggs, fish vegetables, sugar, tropical fruit and
beer compared to the 1927 figures. The only increase was in rye
bread, cheese and potatoes.

The Nazi 'economic miracle' was on the verge of collapse in
1939 which is one of the reasons Hitler went to war earlier
than he had promised his military.

Keith

[Jim Doyle]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > These comments were in response to something Dan (B2431) said:
> >
> > 'Even if they hadn't started the war Nazi Germany would have been a
major
> > flop in the long run.'
> >
> > I was interested to hear why this was mooted. These comments were part
of
> my
> > suggestion that within a peaceful Europe of some alternate 1940s, Nazism
> > would have a basis in each and every country - far from 'collapsing
slowly
> > like a flan in a cupboard' - it certainly had the potential to flourish.
> The
> > quality of life in Germany (...for the none persecuted that is...) had
> > inarguably improved under the Nazis; more so than in any other European
> > country emerging from post '29 economic depression. I grant that you
are
> > quite right about the Black/Brown Shirts, perhaps the Spanish Civil War
> > would be a better example of Fascism's gains within Europe?
> >
>
> You are incorrect, Britain had largely emerged from the worst of the
> depression by 1938. Between 1936 and 1938 some 2.6 million jobs
> had been created, real wages had risen and the economy was growing
> at an annual rate of 5% and unemployment was down to around 8%
> and falling.
>
> The German economy was fragile however, they had been living on
> capital looted from the Jews and they were not included in unemployment
> statisitcs so when were thrown out of their jobs and replaced by others
> unemployment officially went down. Working hours had been raised
> to the extent that employers could legally enforce working hours
> of up to 72 hours per week and of course strikes were banned.
> Even with these draconian measures German productivity was
> growing at only 1.3% per annum, half the rate of Britain.
>
> By 1939, Germany imported 33% of its required raw materials
> Government income in 1939 stood at 15 billion but government
> expenditure was over 30 billion and the balance of trade was heaviliy in
> the
> red.
>
> Germany had expended most of its gold and foreign currency
> reserves by late 1939.
>
> Annual food consumption in 1937 had fallen for wheat bread,
> meat, bacon, milk, eggs, fish vegetables, sugar, tropical fruit and
> beer compared to the 1927 figures. The only increase was in rye
> bread, cheese and potatoes.
>
> The Nazi 'economic miracle' was on the verge of collapse in
> 1939 which is one of the reasons Hitler went to war earlier
> than he had promised his military.
>
> Keith
>

I like a good post with good numbers!

I see what you are saying here. My post was based on information which - I
would guess - did not account for the drain on German reserves as a result
of the economic surge forced through by the Nazis (Luftwaffe a/c into
service for example). Your post proves interesting reading, and I shan't
argue with it.

Unusual for this ng, I know! :o)

Jim D

[Andrew Sanders]

"> > Mosley`s man were called Blackshirts. They were certainly a
flop.
> >
> > The Brownshirts were Rohm`s S.A - Hitler got rid of them when he had
> > no further
> > use for them; like most others he considered possible competition.
> > Whether they were a flop or not depends preumably on whose side you
> > were on at the time.
> >
> > I don`t see what these points have to do, anyway, with the original
> > question; see elsewhere in this thread.
> >
> > AS
> >
>
> These comments were in response to something Dan (B2431) said:
>
> 'Even if they hadn't started the war Nazi Germany would have been a major
> flop in the long run.'

Not sure; they damn nearly did win the war, although the "what if"
re. USA joining in is on a different group. If half way competent,
Hitler and his associates might well have prevailed; they had
Europe`s economy from the Pyreness to the Dnieper under control. But,
the typical gauleiter was not an efficient entrepreneur, just a nasty
little bully with inadequate education. The Brits ran India, with
larger eventual economic potential, with around 30,000 professional
administrators/officers (plus a lot of local volunteers).

They were not unpopular with the masses because they administered
justice fairly.

But all empires contain the seeds of their own destruction, if there
is no popular consent; in the end people will revolt; not the
peasants/working class, but there is the inevitable development of
an indigenous middle class with aspirations. They are usually
articulate. American/French/Russian revolutions follwed this pattern.
Maybe the nazis could have prevented this in Eastern Europe, but in
time the principle would have developed. The Congress Party in India
was hardly a popular movement.
>
>
> As far as the relevance of my comments to the original thread, it's just the
> way the conversation turned briefly in a few posts.
>
> Anyway, by the logic of rec.aviation.military - I started the thread so I
> can bloody well post what I like! :o)

Us too?

AS
>
> Jim D
>
>
> > >
> > > Before anyone kicks off on this - I'm certainly no Nazi.
> > >
> > > Jim Doyle

[B2431]

(Andrew Sanders)

>>
>> These comments were in response to something Dan (B2431) said:
>>
>> 'Even if they hadn't started the war Nazi Germany would have been a major
>> flop in the long run.'
>
>Not sure; they damn nearly did win the war,

Define "damn near did win the war."

The pigs had nowhere near enough naval capacity to invade the U.K. and nowhere
near enough air cover to support any landings. Do a little research on
Operation Sealion.

So what did the dummies do when they realized they couldn't take England? They
went east against the Soviet Union who were prepared to sacrifice huge numbers
of people while withdrawing their industrial strength out of reach of the pigs.
Even without U.S. support the Soviets would have eventually bled the pigs dry
just through attrition. Do a little research on Operation Barbarosa.

In both cases the Nazi pigs would have had to develop long range heavy bombers
to prolong the war. There is no way they could have won the war without
Stalin's swinery quitting followed by a prolonged rest and recupperation before
taking on the UK again.

None of this addresses the fact that the murderers would have run out of Jews
to extract gold teeth from to sell to the Swiss. The Nazi economy was on life
support throughout the war. They only lasted as long as they did because they
could capture gold and sell it to the Swiss collaborators.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Paul F Austin]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> (Andrew Sanders)
>
> >>
> >> These comments were in response to something Dan (B2431) said:
> >>
> >> 'Even if they hadn't started the war Nazi Germany would have been a
major
> >> flop in the long run.'
> >
> >Not sure; they damn nearly did win the war,
>
> Define "damn near did win the war."
>
> The pigs had nowhere near enough naval capacity to invade the U.K. and
nowhere
> near enough air cover to support any landings. Do a little research on
> Operation Sealion.
>
> So what did the dummies do when they realized they couldn't take England?
They
> went east against the Soviet Union who were prepared to sacrifice huge
numbers
> of people while withdrawing their industrial strength out of reach of the
pigs.
> Even without U.S. support the Soviets would have eventually bled the pigs
dry
> just through attrition. Do a little research on Operation Barbarosa.
>
> In both cases the Nazi pigs would have had to develop long range heavy
bombers
> to prolong the war. There is no way they could have won the war without
> Stalin's swinery quitting followed by a prolonged rest and recupperation
before
> taking on the UK again.
>
> None of this addresses the fact that the murderers would have run out of
Jews
> to extract gold teeth from to sell to the Swiss. The Nazi economy was on
life
> support throughout the war. They only lasted as long as they did because
they
> could capture gold and sell it to the Swiss collaborators.

The Nazis were unspeakable ****s. That said, they had several opportunities
to_win_the war. The first opportunity failure was the pause outside the
British perimeter around Dunkirk. The second and third (these are related)
are failures to mobilize German industry in 1940-41 and the failure to
integrate conquered Europe industrially to support German war production.
The fourth was in attacking the USSR and having done_that_bit of idiocy,
driving the Ukrainians and European Russians back into Stalin's arms.

Opportunity number 1 (prevent the Dunkirk evacuation) would have likely
tilted the British War Cabinet into coming to terms with Germany. Lord
Halifax (Foreign Secretary) was pushing hard for a negotiated "peace" after
the collapse of the Battle of the Frontiers. According to George Lucacs, the
Cabinet stood on a knife-edge on the subject and Churchill's leadership plus
the successful evacuation were enough to sway the decision to fight.

Opportunity 2 is not widely known. German industry wasn't fully mobilized
until Speer was appointed Minister of Armaments in February 1942 to do just
that. The two biggest industrial complexes in Germany, the Volkswagen and
Adam Opel plants were only doing incidental war production until late in
1942. German war production was hopelessly toy-shop, with production runs of
a few tens or hundreds before the design was "improved" and a new few tens
or hundreds produced with different spares and training required. As an
example, when the German Army crossed the start line into the USSR, it
operated no less that 400 different truck types and 600(!) different
motorcycle types. You have experience in the Air Force, imagine the
logistics nightmare.

We know how beastly the Germans were to the Jews. They treated Slavs as
badly, giving the Russians and Ukrainians no choice but to fight for Stalin.
He might (and probably would) have you shot for taking a step backwards but
he wasn't machine-gunning villages and burning barns with people inside
(that week). Stalin was so evil that he was a tough act to top. The Germans
managed by heroic efforts at beastliness.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> The Nazis were unspeakable ****s. That said, they had several
opportunities
> to_win_the war. The first opportunity failure was the pause outside the
> British perimeter around Dunkirk.

Even had they wiped out the entire force (unlikely) that hardly
guaranteed victory.


> The second and third (these are related)
> are failures to mobilize German industry in 1940-41 and the failure to
> integrate conquered Europe industrially to support German war production.

This again was scarcely guaranteed to win the war


> The fourth was in attacking the USSR and having done_that_bit of idiocy,
> driving the Ukrainians and European Russians back into Stalin's arms.
>

The entire war was baout Lebensraum, the battle of France was
just a sideshow to secured German's western border

> Opportunity number 1 (prevent the Dunkirk evacuation) would have likely
> tilted the British War Cabinet into coming to terms with Germany. Lord
> Halifax (Foreign Secretary) was pushing hard for a negotiated "peace"
after
> the collapse of the Battle of the Frontiers. According to George Lucacs,
the
> Cabinet stood on a knife-edge on the subject and Churchill's leadership
plus
> the successful evacuation were enough to sway the decision to fight.
>

Again even a British settlement doesnt win the war, the focal point
for that struggle lay to the east. Its a matter of record that even as
the Wehrmacht was driving through France Hitler and his staff
had begun drawing up the plans for Barbarossa


> Opportunity 2 is not widely known. German industry wasn't fully mobilized
> until Speer was appointed Minister of Armaments in February 1942 to do
just
> that. The two biggest industrial complexes in Germany, the Volkswagen and
> Adam Opel plants were only doing incidental war production until late in
> 1942. German war production was hopelessly toy-shop, with production runs
of
> a few tens or hundreds before the design was "improved" and a new few tens
> or hundreds produced with different spares and training required. As an
> example, when the German Army crossed the start line into the USSR, it
> operated no less that 400 different truck types and 600(!) different
> motorcycle types. You have experience in the Air Force, imagine the
> logistics nightmare.
>

It scarcely mattered how many trucks they had since the petrol
wasnt available to fuel them

> We know how beastly the Germans were to the Jews. They treated Slavs as
> badly, giving the Russians and Ukrainians no choice but to fight for
Stalin.
> He might (and probably would) have you shot for taking a step backwards
but
> he wasn't machine-gunning villages and burning barns with people inside
> (that week). Stalin was so evil that he was a tough act to top. The
Germans
> managed by heroic efforts at beastliness.
>

Sure but that 'beastliness' was at the heart of the reason they went to war.
Without it there would have been no conflict.

Keith

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Paul F Austin" > writes:
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
>> (Andrew Sanders)
>>
>> >>
>> >> These comments were in response to something Dan (B2431) said:
>> >>
>> >> 'Even if they hadn't started the war Nazi Germany would have been a
> major
>> >> flop in the long run.'
>> >
>> >Not sure; they damn nearly did win the war,
>>
>> Define "damn near did win the war."
>>
>> The pigs had nowhere near enough naval capacity to invade the U.K. and
> nowhere
>> near enough air cover to support any landings. Do a little research on
>> Operation Sealion.
>>
>> So what did the dummies do when they realized they couldn't take England?
> They
>> went east against the Soviet Union who were prepared to sacrifice huge
> numbers
>> of people while withdrawing their industrial strength out of reach of the
> pigs.
>> Even without U.S. support the Soviets would have eventually bled the pigs
> dry
>> just through attrition. Do a little research on Operation Barbarosa.
>>
>> In both cases the Nazi pigs would have had to develop long range heavy
> bombers
>> to prolong the war. There is no way they could have won the war without
>> Stalin's swinery quitting followed by a prolonged rest and recupperation
> before
>> taking on the UK again.
>>
>> None of this addresses the fact that the murderers would have run out of
> Jews
>> to extract gold teeth from to sell to the Swiss. The Nazi economy was on
> life
>> support throughout the war. They only lasted as long as they did because
> they
>> could capture gold and sell it to the Swiss collaborators.
>
> The Nazis were unspeakable ****s. That said, they had several opportunities
> to_win_the war. The first opportunity failure was the pause outside the
> British perimeter around Dunkirk. The second and third (these are related)
> are failures to mobilize German industry in 1940-41 and the failure to
> integrate conquered Europe industrially to support German war production.
> The fourth was in attacking the USSR and having done_that_bit of idiocy,
> driving the Ukrainians and European Russians back into Stalin's arms.

In Re: The Germans mobilizing their industry further, earlier:
I really don't think that this would have had any effect. The
limiting factor in German industrial prosuction was access to raw
materiels. They didn't have enough, and anything that was going to be
imported from anywhere other than the Soviet Union, (After the
Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact) would have had to get past the Royal
Navy. Yes, they could have grubbed Coal out of the ground in the
Ruhr, and Iron from Czechosovakia, and a bit of Nickel, but any
Bauxite/Aluminum, Cobalt, Molybdenum, Chromium, Rubber, or any of
ampty-zillion other materials needed for 1940s Industry had to come
from somewhere else. And they couldn't get it, even if, say, someone
in South America wanted to sell it to them. They didn't have the
Merchant Marine to haul it, or the Navy to escort it.

The Germans had been cutting back on arms production since about
1936. They just didn't have the feedstocks. They were able to make
improvements, when things started getting desparate. Some of that was
in the area of reducing wastage in teh manufacturing processes - the
Germans had a habit of over-machining stuff that just didn't need to
be spit-polished, and their rough castings needed to have a lot of
metal removed to make finished parts. Material quality was dodgy, at
best. For example, metallurigal tests on the glacis (Front Slope)
armor of Panthers recovered in Normandy revealed that the actual
protection value of the aormor plate varied by about 30%. (ANd you
can't tell teh difference by looking at them.) Not a Good Thing, if
you happen to be one of the crews issued a lemon.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster