Re: Aren't and his claims of German U2 invention

[Wayne Allen]

Radar scattering paint on the U2? I hope they got their money back
because it sure didn't work.


"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Aren't recently made this claim:
>
> "Laugh this off Tex. The US captured the DFS 228 rocket recon sailplane
> in 1945 and took it back home. The aircraft was designed to fly at
> (wait for this)... 80,000 ft and carry two Zeiss cameras (IR types
> too).
> So you think the U-2 came from US sources... uh, no. The funny thing
> is the DFS even had a pressurized escape pod, something the U-2
> to give maximum range.

[robert arndt]

(Wayne Allen) wrote in message >...
> Radar scattering paint on the U2? I hope they got their money back
> because it sure didn't work.
>
>
> "Hobo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert Aren't recently made this claim:
> >
> > "Laugh this off Tex. The US captured the DFS 228 rocket recon sailplane
> > in 1945 and took it back home. The aircraft was designed to fly at
> > (wait for this)... 80,000 ft and carry two Zeiss cameras (IR types
> > too).
> > So you think the U-2 came from US sources... uh, no. The funny thing
> > is the DFS even had a pressurized escape pod, something the U-2
> > to give maximum range.

The US Ironball paint was made to counter radars of that time period,
not the radars of 1944/45. The German paint was loaded with carbon and
equally applied to all vunerable areas of the aircraft. Ironball was
just what the description means- embedded little iron bbs in a carbon
based paint mixture. You're absolutely right, Ironball was applied
AFTER Powers was shot down and it WASN'T very effective against
post-WW2 radar.
The German type applied to the Go-229 was, however, highly effective
and even more so since the Go-229 was constructed of wood too with the
advantage of a flying wing configuration the U-2 didn't have.
The DFS 228 (had it flown) would not have needed any radar-absorbing
paint since it would be too high for anything in WW2 to shoot it down
and it was to be powered by a rocket motor.
What is so hard to understand about all this? The US got the DFS 228
and copied the idea for a high-flying sailplane. After Powers was shot
down they tried the German idea for the paint, but it failed in their
case due to the difference in technology of the time period.

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>
After Powers was shot
>down they tried the German idea for the paint, but it failed in their
>case due to the difference in technology of the time period.
>
>Rob

Prove it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Boomer]

the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to overfly
unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only way to
achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the Germans
invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in WWII, I
guess they were stolen from Germany too.

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >
> After Powers was shot
> >down they tried the German idea for the paint, but it failed in their
> >case due to the difference in technology of the time period.
> >
> >Rob
>
> Prove it.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[robert arndt]

"Boomer" > wrote in message >...
> the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to overfly
> unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only way to
> achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the Germans
> invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in WWII, I
> guess they were stolen from Germany too.
>
Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does it?
Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for a
year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
Slingsby T-44 concept):

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html

Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.

Rob

[Mike Zaharis]

robert arndt wrote:

> "Boomer" > wrote in message >...
> > the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to overfly
> > unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only way to
> > achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the Germans
> > invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in WWII, I
> > guess they were stolen from Germany too.
> >
> Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does it?
> Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for a
> year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
> Slingsby T-44 concept):
>
> http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html
>
> Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.
>
> Rob

Rob, let me be the first to defend you. Here's the original aircraft that proved to the world
that high aspect ratio wings are good - and it's Nazi-era German!

http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goe3.htm
http://www.hobbyclub.com/Gal-minimoa.htm

[Boomer]

LOL! you guys REALLY believe the DFS 228 looks like the U-2? what you been
smokin ?! Yes the U-2 fusalage was based on the F-104, confirmed and spoked
about by Kelly Johnson many times. Bifurcated intakes, mid mount wing,
cockpit position all the same as F-104. The nose isnt pointed because it
didnt need to be. They didnt use the "T" tail of Starfighter but few other
fighter sized planes did either. Your DFS 228 bears more resmblance to a
DC-3 (also German no doubt) than to a U-2.

"Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> > "Boomer" > wrote in message
>...
> > > the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to
overfly
> > > unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only way
to
> > > achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the
Germans
> > > invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in
WWII, I
> > > guess they were stolen from Germany too.
> > >
> > Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does it?
> > Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for a
> > year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
> > Slingsby T-44 concept):
> >
> > http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html
> >
> > Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.
> >
> > Rob
>
> Rob, let me be the first to defend you. Here's the original aircraft that
proved to the world
> that high aspect ratio wings are good - and it's Nazi-era German!
>
> http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goe3.htm
> http://www.hobbyclub.com/Gal-minimoa.htm
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> > "Boomer" > wrote in message
>...
> > > the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to
overfly
> > > unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only way
to
> > > achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the
Germans
> > > invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in
WWII, I
> > > guess they were stolen from Germany too.
> > >
> > Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does it?
> > Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for a
> > year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
> > Slingsby T-44 concept):
> >
> > http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html
> >
> > Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.
> >
> > Rob
>
> Rob, let me be the first to defend you. Here's the original aircraft that
proved to the world
> that high aspect ratio wings are good - and it's Nazi-era German!
>
> http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goe3.htm
> http://www.hobbyclub.com/Gal-minimoa.htm

Gosh, Arndt is right! After comparing his DFS 228 and the above to the U-2,
I can see where he gets the idea that the U-2 bears a "strong resemblence"
to the German design, other than of course the different wing, fuselage,
tail, cockpit, and engine layouts... they both have wings, right?

Brooks
>

[Boomer]

Xactly
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > robert arndt wrote:
> >
> > > "Boomer" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to
> overfly
> > > > unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only
way
> to
> > > > achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the
> Germans
> > > > invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in
> WWII, I
> > > > guess they were stolen from Germany too.
> > > >
> > > Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does it?
> > > Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for a
> > > year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
> > > Slingsby T-44 concept):
> > >
> > > http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html
> > >
> > > Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > Rob, let me be the first to defend you. Here's the original aircraft
that
> proved to the world
> > that high aspect ratio wings are good - and it's Nazi-era German!
> >
> > http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goe3.htm
> > http://www.hobbyclub.com/Gal-minimoa.htm
>
> Gosh, Arndt is right! After comparing his DFS 228 and the above to the
U-2,
> I can see where he gets the idea that the U-2 bears a "strong resemblence"
> to the German design, other than of course the different wing, fuselage,
> tail, cockpit, and engine layouts... they both have wings, right?
>
> Brooks
> >
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> > "Boomer" > wrote in message
>...
> > > the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to
overfly
> > > unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only way
to
> > > achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the
Germans
> > > invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in
WWII, I
> > > guess they were stolen from Germany too.
> > >
> > Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does it?
> > Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for a
> > year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
> > Slingsby T-44 concept):
> >
> > http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html
> >
> > Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.
> >
> > Rob
>
> Rob, let me be the first to defend you. Here's the original aircraft that
proved to the world
> that high aspect ratio wings are good - and it's Nazi-era German!
>
> http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goe3.htm
> http://www.hobbyclub.com/Gal-minimoa.htm
>

Do you seriously think high aspect ratio wings werent invented
until 1936 ?

Francis Herbert Wenham at the Aeronautical society in London
built a wind tunnel and demonstrated the advantages of high
aspect wing ratios for gliders in 1871

This was understood by most of the aviation pioneers including Lillienthal

Keith

[Michael Zaharis]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>robert arndt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Boomer" > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
>>>>the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to
>
> overfly
>
>>>>unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only way
>
> to
>
>>>>achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the
>
> Germans
>
>>>>invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in
>
> WWII, I
>
>>>>guess they were stolen from Germany too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does it?
>>>Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for a
>>>year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
>>>Slingsby T-44 concept):
>>>
>>>http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html
>>>
>>>Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.
>>>
>>>Rob
>>
>>Rob, let me be the first to defend you. Here's the original aircraft that
>
> proved to the world
>
>>that high aspect ratio wings are good - and it's Nazi-era German!
>>
>>http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goe3.htm
>>http://www.hobbyclub.com/Gal-minimoa.htm
>>
>
>
> Do you seriously think high aspect ratio wings werent invented
> until 1936 ?
>
> Francis Herbert Wenham at the Aeronautical society in London
> built a wind tunnel and demonstrated the advantages of high
> aspect wing ratios for gliders in 1871
>
> This was understood by most of the aviation pioneers including Lillienthal
>
> Keith
>
>

Maybe I should have included the HTML commandes and .

[Michael Zaharis]

Boomer wrote:

> LOL! you guys REALLY believe the DFS 228 looks like the U-2? what you been
> smokin ?! Yes the U-2 fusalage was based on the F-104, confirmed and spoked
> about by Kelly Johnson many times. Bifurcated intakes, mid mount wing,
> cockpit position all the same as F-104. The nose isnt pointed because it
> didnt need to be. They didnt use the "T" tail of Starfighter but few other
> fighter sized planes did either. Your DFS 228 bears more resmblance to a
> DC-3 (also German no doubt) than to a U-2.
>
> "Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
>


Maybe I should have included the HTML commandes and .

[Michael Zaharis]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>robert arndt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Boomer" > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
>>>>the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to
>
> overfly
>
>>>>unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only way
>
> to
>
>>>>achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the
>
> Germans
>
>>>>invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in
>
> WWII, I
>
>>>>guess they were stolen from Germany too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does it?
>>>Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for a
>>>year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
>>>Slingsby T-44 concept):
>>>
>>>http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html
>>>
>>>Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.
>>>
>>>Rob
>>
>>Rob, let me be the first to defend you. Here's the original aircraft that
>
> proved to the world
>
>>that high aspect ratio wings are good - and it's Nazi-era German!
>>
>>http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goe3.htm
>>http://www.hobbyclub.com/Gal-minimoa.htm
>>
>
>
> Do you seriously think high aspect ratio wings werent invented
> until 1936 ?
>
> Francis Herbert Wenham at the Aeronautical society in London
> built a wind tunnel and demonstrated the advantages of high
> aspect wing ratios for gliders in 1871
>
> This was understood by most of the aviation pioneers including Lillienthal
>
> Keith
>
>
Maybe I should have included the HTML commandes and .

I just thought that, if Mr. Arndt was going to focus on a high-aspect
wing (which is the only thing that the DFS 228 and the U-2 have in
common, other than being spy aircraft), I'd give him an even better
example. I thought that a recreational glider would be ridiculous
enough, and I just remembered the Minimoa being one of the more
beautiful long-winged pre-war German gliders.

I guess that with all the tinfoil hat wearing here, and people making
ridiculous statements (not you, Keith, but others), most peoples'
facetiousness sensors are set with a pretty high threshold.

[robert arndt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > robert arndt wrote:
> >
> > > "Boomer" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to
> overfly
> > > > unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only way
> to
> > > > achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess the
> Germans
> > > > invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in
> WWII, I
> > > > guess they were stolen from Germany too.
> > > >
> > > Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does it?
> > > Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for a
> > > year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
> > > Slingsby T-44 concept):
> > >
> > > http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html
> > >
> > > Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > Rob, let me be the first to defend you. Here's the original aircraft that
> proved to the world
> > that high aspect ratio wings are good - and it's Nazi-era German!
> >
> > http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goe3.htm
> > http://www.hobbyclub.com/Gal-minimoa.htm
>
> Gosh, Arndt is right! After comparing his DFS 228 and the above to the U-2,
> I can see where he gets the idea that the U-2 bears a "strong resemblence"
> to the German design, other than of course the different wing, fuselage,
> tail, cockpit, and engine layouts... they both have wings, right?
>
> Brooks
> >

The DFS 228 was examined by the US Air Technical Intelligenece Unit
and other US aviation companies (hint:Lockheed) long before the Cl-282
proposal. Although it doesn't use a rocket engine nor escape capsule
the U-2 is still a high flying recon SAILPLANE with a ceiling the DFS
would have had in 1945 if the Walter engine would have been installed.
I could care less what Mr. Johnson claims or the Skunk Works. Lockheed
was well aware of German technology from the technical analysis of
wartime documents. BTW, the CIA was founded with the original SS spy
documentation on the Soviet Union. Funny how they ALSO got into the
disc aircraft programs too, which were SS controlled. Coincidence?
Never.

Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > robert arndt wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Boomer" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > the U-2 was little more than an F-104 with high aspect wings to
> > overfly
> > > > > unfriendly airspace. Not much of a "concept" there, just the only
way
> > to
> > > > > achieve that kind of altitude with the tech of the day. I guess
the
> > Germans
> > > > > invented the F-104 as well. There were "big wing" recon planes in
> > WWII, I
> > > > > guess they were stolen from Germany too.
> > > > >
> > > > Gee, the U-2 bears a rather strong resemblence to the F-104, does
it?
> > > > Let's look at the DFS 228 captured by the US in 1945 and studied for
a
> > > > year before being given to the British to evaluate (which led to the
> > > > Slingsby T-44 concept):
> > > >
> > > > http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html
> > > >
> > > > Yeah right, the DFS 228 has NOTHING to do with the U-2. Get real.
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > >
> > > Rob, let me be the first to defend you. Here's the original aircraft
that
> > proved to the world
> > > that high aspect ratio wings are good - and it's Nazi-era German!
> > >
> > > http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goe3.htm
> > > http://www.hobbyclub.com/Gal-minimoa.htm
> >
> > Gosh, Arndt is right! After comparing his DFS 228 and the above to the
U-2,
> > I can see where he gets the idea that the U-2 bears a "strong
resemblence"
> > to the German design, other than of course the different wing, fuselage,
> > tail, cockpit, and engine layouts... they both have wings, right?
> >
> > Brooks
> > >
>
> The DFS 228 was examined by the US Air Technical Intelligenece Unit
> and other US aviation companies (hint:Lockheed) long before the Cl-282
> proposal. Although it doesn't use a rocket engine nor escape capsule
> the U-2 is still a high flying recon SAILPLANE with a ceiling the DFS
> would have had in 1945 if the Walter engine would have been installed.
> I could care less what Mr. Johnson claims or the Skunk Works. Lockheed
> was well aware of German technology from the technical analysis of
> wartime documents. BTW, the CIA was founded with the original SS spy
> documentation on the Soviet Union. Funny how they ALSO got into the
> disc aircraft programs too, which were SS controlled. Coincidence?
> Never.

You have definitely gone round the bend. I guess next you will be telling us
that the US got the atomic bomb from Germany, huh? Germany surrendered in
May '45, Trinity did not take place until July...yep, sounds like conclusive
proof to me! LOL! Seek help, Arndt/Adler (or whatver moniker you are using
today)--quickly, before the men in the white coats with that wonderful new
jacket come for you.

Brooks

>
> Rob

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>You have definitely gone round the bend. I guess next you will be telling us
>that the US got the atomic bomb from Germany, huh?

<snip>
>
>Brooks
>

Teuton has already made that claim in another thread. According to him the
Nazis built and tested two atomic bombs.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Krztalizer]

>
>Teuton has already made that claim in another thread. According to him the
>Nazis built and tested two atomic bombs.
>

The bad news is that these nuclear weapons were lauched by Soviet-era ballistic
missiles, and were only rated for 89 seconds of thrust before they
"successfully self-liquidated". :)

G
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Keith Willshaw]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >You have definitely gone round the bend. I guess next you will be telling
us
> >that the US got the atomic bomb from Germany, huh?
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Brooks
> >
>
> Teuton has already made that claim in another thread. According to him the
> Nazis built and tested two atomic bombs.
>

To be fair that was demented Denyav

Keith

[Boomer]

wasnt replying to you specifically MZ, just to the utter nonsense being
spewed by these guys.

The "Master Race" isnt doing too well is it lol

"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Boomer wrote:
>
> > LOL! you guys REALLY believe the DFS 228 looks like the U-2? what you
been
> > smokin ?! Yes the U-2 fusalage was based on the F-104, confirmed and
spoked
> > about by Kelly Johnson many times. Bifurcated intakes, mid mount wing,
> > cockpit position all the same as F-104. The nose isnt pointed because it
> > didnt need to be. They didnt use the "T" tail of Starfighter but few
other
> > fighter sized planes did either. Your DFS 228 bears more resmblance to
a
> > DC-3 (also German no doubt) than to a U-2.
> >
> > "Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
>
>
> Maybe I should have included the HTML commandes and .
>

[B2431]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 2/20/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>>
>> >You have definitely gone round the bend. I guess next you will be telling
>us
>> >that the US got the atomic bomb from Germany, huh?
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >Brooks
>> >
>>
>> Teuton has already made that claim in another thread. According to him the
>> Nazis built and tested two atomic bombs.
>>
>
>To be fair that was demented Denyav
>
>Keith
>
I stand corrected.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 2/20/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >> >You have definitely gone round the bend. I guess next you will be telling
> us
> >> >that the US got the atomic bomb from Germany, huh?
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >Brooks
> >> >
> >>
> >> Teuton has already made that claim in another thread. According to him the
> >> Nazis built and tested two atomic bombs.
> >>
> >
> >To be fair that was demented Denyav
> >
> >Keith
> >
> I stand corrected.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Gee Dan, how nice of you. BTW, I think you were confusing what I said
in another thread. What I said is that Germany had two radiological
weapons under development at the end of WW2, not Atomic bombs.
In Feb 1945 the Sanger Silverbird project was reactivated. The bombs
for that Germany-to-New York mission (which had no chance of
succeeding) would have been radiological spheres contained within an
SC-series bomb casing. Two were under construction and captured by the
Allies and destroyed. The Sanger Silverbird never was built but the
mock-up was under construction at Lofer. In 1945 there was also the
planned A-9/A-10 ICBM which the A-9 had flown and the Prufstand XII
towed submarine missile containers under construction in Stettin.
Three were completed, but no missiles for them nor subs. The Hortens
also started small scale construction on the Ho XVIIIA flying wing
bomber. Only the tubular steel framework for the central section was
begun.
It was apparent that an effort was being made for some type of "strike
NY" attack but all efforts failed.

Rob