Germany invented it. We shot it down

[ArtKramr]

Nuff said.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Nuff said.
>
>

Or bombed it :)

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 2/19/04 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> Nuff said.
>>
>>
>
>Or bombed it :)
>
>Keith
>
>

Yeah. I forgot about that part. (grin)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mycroft]

Yep eventually everything German went bang even Hitlers gun lol, shame it
did not happen 5 years earlier.

Myc


"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 2/19/04 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Nuff said.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Or bombed it :)
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
>
> Yeah. I forgot about that part. (grin)
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: "Mycroft"
>Date: 2/19/04 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Yep eventually everything German went bang even Hitlers gun lol, shame it
>did not happen 5 years earlier.
>
>Myc
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>> >Date: 2/19/04 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Nuff said.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Or bombed it :)
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yeah. I forgot about that part. (grin)
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>
Yeah. Woulda saved me a lot of trouble

..

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[B2431]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 2/19/2004 10:21 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> Nuff said.
>>
>>
>
>Or bombed it :)
>
>Keith
>

Or laughed at it after the war. They really should have mass produced the
piloted version of the V-1. Just think, we could have killed more pilots that
way, the Nazis would have wasted money and material and, most imporantly, put
them in the air flying a straight line and making an easy target.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[steve gallacci]

> Or laughed at it after the war. They really should have mass produced the
> piloted version of the V-1. Just think, we could have killed more pilots that
> way, the Nazis would have wasted money and material and, most imporantly, put
> them in the air flying a straight line and making an easy target.
>
Actually they did build a bunch (some estimates say as many as 250) but
it seems that Nazi ideology got in the way of implementing operations,
as they could not decide on targets sufficiently valuable to sacrifice
Aryan blood for.

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
ArtKramr > wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>>Date: 2/19/04 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>> Nuff said.

>>Or bombed it :)

>Yeah. I forgot about that part. (grin)

Or (giving credit where due) the Russians (also "us" for the purposes of
this particular discussion) parked a tank on it.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

[robert arndt]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> Nuff said.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

The Luftwaffe shot down 120,000 aircraft of its own :)

Rob

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nuff said.
> >
> >
>
> Or bombed it :)
>
> Keith

And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing
Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar. So glad Germany
cost Britain its superpower status and robbed them of developing the
A-bomb first (Tube Alloys).
:)

Rob

[robert arndt]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 2/19/04 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Nuff said.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Or bombed it :)
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
>
> Yeah. I forgot about that part. (grin)
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Senility will do that to ya Art.

Rob

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 2/19/04 5:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>> >Date: 2/19/04 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Nuff said.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Or bombed it :)
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yeah. I forgot about that part. (grin)
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>Senility will do that to ya Art.
>
>Rob


Do you know what Germany looked like in 1945? Most kids like you have no
idea.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 2/19/04 5:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> Nuff said.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>The Luftwaffe shot down 120,000 aircraft of its own :)
>
>Rob

Blow your nose. It's running.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[David E. Powell]

"steve gallacci" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Or laughed at it after the war. They really should have mass produced
the
> > piloted version of the V-1. Just think, we could have killed more pilots
that
> > way, the Nazis would have wasted money and material and, most
imporantly, put
> > them in the air flying a straight line and making an easy target.
> >
> Actually they did build a bunch (some estimates say as many as 250) but
> it seems that Nazi ideology got in the way of implementing operations,
> as they could not decide on targets sufficiently valuable to sacrifice
> Aryan blood for.

Between planes like Mistel, commandos like Skorzeny, and sheer number of
targets, perhaps there were other reasons. And they didn't institute direck
Kamikaze style attacks as a policy. One of the amazing things to me about
German aircraft projects in WW2 was how fragmented things often were,
multiple teams and such, and so many projects competing for resources. Then
they often had problems with leadership interfering with use of weapons (A
la the Me-262.) In the end, it was not just allied productivity but the
organization of their companies, labor and project bureaus that helped their
airmen at the front. Examples like Ford converting to aircraft production
and improving things on some planes, etc. Plus the sharing of the Merlin
engine by the British and high-test gas by the USA. Russia also got stuff
like the DC-3 design. And of course the US/UK Manharttan Project. The Allied
organization helped immensely to get scientists, designers and workers the
stuff they needed and prioritise things.

One of the things applicapable to this thread was the US taking the
conventional V-1 design and producing weapons with the idea of using them
against Japan, but they never did, the war ending before they could be used.

DEP

[David E. Powell]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Nuff said.
> >
> > Or bombed it :)
> >
> > Keith
>
> And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing
> Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar. So glad Germany
> cost Britain its superpower status and robbed them of developing the
> A-bomb first (Tube Alloys).
> :)
>
> Rob

Well, the expense of WW2 screwed everybody up for a while. But given the
choice of fighting or losing everything, the French and British probably
would feel today the cost was worth it. As it was, Hitler did in Germany as
bad as anyone. I feel for the Germans for what they went through due to
having that regime leading them.

As for Britain losing superpower status and the bomb, Britain got the A-Bomb
under the terms of the Manhattan Project cooperation. As for Superpower
status, Britain is still one of the great powers, and as influence go they
are still up there, if just for language and culture. I flip on news
broadcasts around the world, and most gov'ts hire english speaking people
with english accents to do their news broadcasts. Not to knock Germany,
though, the influence they have and the potential there are significant,
given their position in Central Europe and their Economy. Germany could also
be a nuclear power if they wanted, but they see no need at the time, and as
the US and UK are their allies now, things should be OK for them defensively
for some time to come.

As for the European colonies being lost, that decline started after WW1. Due
again to expense.

DEP

[Eunometic]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 2/19/2004 10:21 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Nuff said.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Or bombed it :)
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
> Or laughed at it after the war. They really should have mass produced the
> piloted version of the V-1. Just think, we could have killed more pilots that
> way, the Nazis would have wasted money and material and, most imporantly, put
> them in the air flying a straight line and making an easy target.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


The Reichenberg was a effectively a near suicide weapon but the
Germans did take care that it wasn't a forgone conclusion. Unlike the
Japanese Baka in which the pilot was sealed in his cockpit it did have
an escape system: parachute, terminal autopilot and a two seat two
cockit versions were made to train pilots presumably with a simulated
escape.

The As 014 pulse jet was continiously tweeked to improve its speed.
With a slightly lightend warload (like the latter buzz bombs) and the
tweeked engines which had shown themselves to work at 495mph I expect
a speed of 495mph would have been possible or at least necessary for
the Reichberg to work. Enough to evade interception. Dodging radar
directed guns with proximity fuses might have been more difficult but
even there the weapon would have been capable of some degree of
weaving. Still such a weapon if it can be made survivable enough for
say a 33% or more hit rate and the targets are chosen carefully IT is
a mathematically sensible use of resources if it destroys and kills
more than it costs. Me 109s in the last stages of the war had an
attrition rate of 30%. It takes balls to get in the air in that
situation and in some ways their missions would have been almost more
pointless than a suicide mission.

If it ever got down to the wire do you think the allies would be
capable of producing the men for this kind of mission? Sure WWII
aircrew had around the 50% chance of completing a tour of duty (about
the same as Ed Rasimus had flying thuds over Vietnam). but to face
odds like that or like 95% on a single mission? Today I don't you
could find such people.

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

>
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Nuff said.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Or bombed it :)
>>
>> Keith
>
>And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing
>Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar. So glad Germany
>cost Britain its superpower status and robbed them of developing the
>A-bomb first (Tube Alloys).
>:)
>
>Rob
>
Now the truth comes out, you are proud of your country's slaughter of innocent
men, women and children. I bet you are also proud of the 6 million Jews and the
6 million non Jews you guys killed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 2/19/2004 7:18 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> Nuff said.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>The Luftwaffe shot down 120,000 aircraft of its own :)
>
>Rob

I know as a German you have a hard time with English grammar, but what you said
was the Luftwaffe shot down 120,000 of their own aircraft.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: "David E. Powell"
>Date: 2/19/04 6:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>Between planes like Mistel, commandos like Skorzeny,

You might be interested in visiting my website and reading about the day I had
lunch with Skorzeny. Just click on:

Lunch With SS STURMGRUPENNFUHRER OTTO SKORZENY



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Brian Colwell]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Nuff said.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Or bombed it :)
> >
> > Keith
>
> And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing
> Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar. So glad Germany
> cost Britain its superpower status and robbed them of developing the
> A-bomb first (Tube Alloys).
> :)
>
> Rob

Obviously a *quote* ? by someone who has never been "Harms way"

[Eunometic]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> Nuff said.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

The Me 262 seems to have shot down 150 aircraft for the loss of 100 of
their own. Mostly shot up on landing or takeoff when they were even
more vulnerable to this problem than piston enginer aircraft due to
their slow throttle response. (A problem partially solved by the
better control systems on latter engines like the Jumo 004D as opposed
to jumo 004B4.)

This loss rate is a dismal record; it wasn't that the 262 wasn't a
good weapons system: it was simply outnumbered and heavily targeted by
the allies and also and quite a few losses were experienced on the
first missions due to the tactic of slowing down to take aim. It
wasn't untill tactics were worked out to solve this that effectiveness
improved.

In technolgy the Germans and allies were closely matched. Both sides
produced major breakthroughs and both sides had areas where they fell
embarrasingly far behined.

The Germans were perhaps forced to focus on Break throughs because
resources were massively against them after 42 but in the end the odds
were against them. I do suspect that the breakthroughs would have
broken up the superiority of the allies in some areas. Jet aircraft
gave them a fresh start that would have equalised them where the
allies ahd piston engined superiority in quantity and quality. Sure
the allies would also have had jets but their existing technolgy would
have had its value wiped out and would have made useless almost all
piston engined aircraft: B26,A26,P47, B17,B24,B25 etc but they never
got enough of their jets going in time.

I don't like the "Allies Invented Everyting" nor do I like the
"Germans Invented Everyting" attitude. Anyone who knows how
technology advances should realise what one man can do another will
replicate almost immediatly. One of the mistakes of the Germans in
the Radar war was to put so much secrecy on their radar vulnerability
that they failed to develop effective countermeasurews to windows
jamming becuase the requise people weren't involved.
It should have been obvious that the British, who were behined in
Radar at the time would soon catch up.


Alexander the Great however with 50,000 men once defeated Darius's
army of 2-3 million with boldness and clever tactics.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> They really should have mass produced the
> piloted version of the V-1.

Large amounts of industrial migraines for the pilots.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing
> Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar.

Any idiot can break something.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Eunometic) writes:
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
>> Nuff said.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
> The Me 262 seems to have shot down 150 aircraft for the loss of 100 of
> their own. Mostly shot up on landing or takeoff when they were even
> more vulnerable to this problem than piston enginer aircraft due to
> their slow throttle response. (A problem partially solved by the
> better control systems on latter engines like the Jumo 004D as opposed
> to jumo 004B4.)

It has little to do with throttle responce, and a lot to do with the
Thrust/Power relationship. It's a bit too late for me to type it all
in again tonight - but please do some googling in r.a.m. on the
subject.

>
> This loss rate is a dismal record; it wasn't that the 262 wasn't a
> good weapons system: it was simply outnumbered and heavily targeted by
> the allies and also and quite a few losses were experienced on the
> first missions due to the tactic of slowing down to take aim. It
> wasn't untill tactics were worked out to solve this that effectiveness
> improved.

And placed into service long before it should have been. Some
problems, like poor asymmetric handling at low speeds (One Engine out)
were endemic to the design. But there were other problems - high
speed snaking, and some rather ugly transonic behavior that should
have been resolved before service pilots were turned loose in it.
The Me 262 Pilot's Handbook has about 3 pages of handling
limitations. The F-80A Pilot's handbook has 2 flight limit entries.

You know, it's rather interesting that for all the work on high-speed
aerodynamics that the Germans actually did perform, they never seemed
to be able to translate it into the aircraft they built. The German
Aviation Military/Industrial Complex's solution to
compressibility/controllability problems in their airplanes was to put
a Big Red "Thou Shalt Not..." notice in the Pilot's Handbook. Compare
this to the work done in the U.S> and Britain to sort out the
transonic problems that were occurring - the developmetn of the DIve
Recovery Flap (Which isn't a Speed Brake), improved control surface
geometries, and, for that matter, the inclusion of Speed
Brakes.

> In technolgy the Germans and allies were closely matched. Both sides
> produced major breakthroughs and both sides had areas where they fell
> embarrasingly far behined.
>
> The Germans were perhaps forced to focus on Break throughs because
> resources were massively against them after 42 but in the end the odds
> were against them. I do suspect that the breakthroughs would have
> broken up the superiority of the allies in some areas. Jet aircraft
> gave them a fresh start that would have equalised them where the
> allies ahd piston engined superiority in quantity and quality. Sure
> the allies would also have had jets but their existing technolgy would
> have had its value wiped out and would have made useless almost all
> piston engined aircraft: B26,A26,P47, B17,B24,B25 etc but they never
> got enough of their jets going in time.

It's not that simple. There were a lot of factors - the most telling
of which were evident in 1936, when the Luftwaffe, and the other
German Armed Forces, cut back on armament production because they
didn't have enough raw materiels to use the factory capacity they
already had.
One of the other things they should have done was build up a better
training organization. A big limit was the lack of properly skilled
pilots. By late 1944, there weren't enough fully capable pilots to
make a differece, even if they were flying Mr. Arndt's Disks and
herding around Reptilicus. There's no point in making jet airplanes
if you have nobody who can fly them.

> I don't like the "Allies Invented Everyting" nor do I like the
> "Germans Invented Everyting" attitude. Anyone who knows how
> technology advances should realise what one man can do another will
> replicate almost immediatly. One of the mistakes of the Germans in
> the Radar war was to put so much secrecy on their radar vulnerability
> that they failed to develop effective countermeasurews to windows
> jamming becuase the requise people weren't involved.
> It should have been obvious that the British, who were behined in
> Radar at the time would soon catch up.

That is a rather good example of the German's arrogance about their
own technology, and their "Mirror-Imaging" of how a particular
technology would be used. In 1939, and 1940 the Germans had the best
high-frequency radar around. Their main thrust for it, however, was
to use it to bulwark existing systems, specifically Antiaircraft and
Naval Fire Control. And they did this well.Once they'd figured out
that the long-wave pulsed signals that they were receiving was some
sort of radar, they absolutely knew that they were far ahead of teh
British, and didn't need to worry about it. What they missed,
however, was that those primitive, inaccurate long-wave radars were
part of an integrated Cammand and Control system that allowed RAF
Fighter Command to concentrate their forces with an efficency not seen
in aerial warfare before that time.
That same blindness - that belief that the German stuff was superior
because it was German, effected them in all areas.

> Alexander the Great however with 50,000 men once defeated Darius's
> army of 2-3 million with boldness and clever tactics.

Uhm, I don't think that ther were 2-3 million people in the entire
Persian Empire. Subsistance farming doesn't give you that sort of a
reserve.

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

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 2/19/2004 10:23 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
>> They really should have mass produced the
>> piloted version of the V-1.
>
>Large amounts of industrial migraines for the pilots.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
The hard part would be recuiting once they saw the same percentage of them
dropping off the end of the ramp as with the V-1. The rest would probably go
boom long before hitting any target, you know kinda like"skeet." Sounds like a
perfectly good plan from the Allied point of view.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Nuff said.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Or bombed it :)
> >
> > Keith
>
> And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing

Mass murder isnt considered a matter of pride by sane people


> Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar.

In point of fact Britain had taken the desision to grant its colonies
independence long before the war. Australia , New Zealand and
Canada were already independent and the Imperial conference
of 1936 had set out the process for India and South Africa.

Britain did remain indpendent and whole , unlike Germany.

> So glad Germany
> cost Britain its superpower status and robbed them of developing the
> A-bomb first (Tube Alloys).
> :)
>

Of course they tube alloys project was merged into the manhattan
project and they at least knew how to build a bomb. Something
Heisenberg and Co never managed to achieve.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...

>
> If it ever got down to the wire do you think the allies would be
> capable of producing the men for this kind of mission? Sure WWII
> aircrew had around the 50% chance of completing a tour of duty (about
> the same as Ed Rasimus had flying thuds over Vietnam). but to face
> odds like that or like 95% on a single mission? Today I don't you
> could find such people.

Of course you can. Young people can always be manipulated by
cynical propaganda and its disturbingly easy to turn idealism
into fanatacism. Thats how they recruit suicide bombers fer
crying out loud.

As for WW2 there were many missions flown by allied aircrew
where they didnt expect to come back

The Swordfish aircrew who attacked the Italian fleet at Taranto
expected to take 90% losses, those who attacked S&G
during the Channel Dash kniew their chances of survival were
essentially nil

Keith

[The Enlightenment]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Nuff said.
> > >

>
> Well, the expense of WW2 screwed everybody up for a while. But given the
> choice of fighting or losing everything, the French and British probably
> would feel today the cost was worth it.

In 50 years there won't be any significant number of French, English or
European descended Americans to think that it was worth it.

[eunometic]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Eunometic) writes:
> > (ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
> >> Nuff said.
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
> > The Me 262 seems to have shot down 150 aircraft for the loss of 100 of
> > their own. Mostly shot up on landing or takeoff when they were even
> > more vulnerable to this problem than piston enginer aircraft due to
> > their slow throttle response. (A problem partially solved by the
> > better control systems on latter engines like the Jumo 004D as opposed
> > to jumo 004B4.)
>
> It has little to do with throttle responce, and a lot to do with the
> Thrust/Power relationship. It's a bit too late for me to type it all
> in again tonight - but please do some googling in r.a.m. on the
> subject.

Yes ofcourse I understand; the T/W ratio was effectively low. The aircraft
was fast because its jet powerplant didn't drop of in 'thrust' at higher
speeds like a piston engined aircraft did.

Still a proper controll system should allow the pilot to slam the throttle
back (it went backward in german aircraft apparently) and the eingine should
spool up while the control system took care of fuel and nozzle postion so
that tubine temperature stayed constant.


>
> >
> > This loss rate is a dismal record; it wasn't that the 262 wasn't a
> > good weapons system: it was simply outnumbered and heavily targeted by
> > the allies and also and quite a few losses were experienced on the
> > first missions due to the tactic of slowing down to take aim. It
> > wasn't untill tactics were worked out to solve this that effectiveness
> > improved.
>
> And placed into service long before it should have been.

Erhard Milch wanted it on service by 1943. This was one of the few weapons
that could have changed the course of the war if it entered service early
enough.


> Some
> problems, like poor asymmetric handling at low speeds (One Engine out)
> were endemic to the design. But there were other problems - high
> speed snaking, and some rather ugly transonic behavior that should
> have been resolved before service pilots were turned loose in it.

They likely would have eventualy debugged these; both the Meteor and F80 had
problems upon entry into servive but I agree the Germans jumped this
aircraft into service more prematurly than the allies for obvious reaons
while the me 109 had to soldier on.

The appearence of the aircraft looks like it would snake however. It is my
understanding that the original location of the engines was mounted next to
the fuesleage under the wings and that this was changed when the dimensions
of the engine increased and presumably turbulence issues arose. There were
versions using the He S11 engine in this position (models availble as is to
be expected) Presumbly the fact that thrust was closer to the centerline
would have improved stability.

Also I recall a Quantas engineer telling me that the Beoing 707 had a
snaking motion and a damper was fitted to the trim tab on the rudder that on
the basis of an accelerometer (or possible gyro?) counter acted any snaking.
It was I believe an all mechanical/hydraulic system.


> The Me 262 Pilot's Handbook has about 3 pages of handling
> limitations. The F-80A Pilot's handbook has 2 flight limit entries.

I may have seen this handbook but I don't know if we are talking the same
thing. Most of the limitations from what I can see relate to engine
handling of the jumo 004B1 and Jumo 004B4. This was mostly caused by the
crude fuel delivery and metering system system (the BMW003 was better and
the Jumo 004D matched it). Also the use of J2 Diesel fuel (or K2 heavy fuel
in an emergency) for reasons of safety, economy and its ease of synthesis
meant that the engine was started on a parafinic gasoline and then switched
over to the J2 again complicating starting. finally starting consisted of a
small 2 stroke motor which itself had to be started and then only when the
air was thick enough at lower altitides. The lack of duples injectors mad
high altitude flameout easy and relights hard.

Better control systems and duplex injectors helped solve all of these so the
restriction may have enventually disappeared. As I understand Helmuth
Schelp began to favour a central generating faciltiy and individual electric
starters possibly to eovercome this and also for the larger jets like the
8000llb thrust BMW 009-016 a gas turbine starter so that a single fuel could
be used.

>
> You know, it's rather interesting that for all the work on high-speed
> aerodynamics that the Germans actually did perform, they never seemed
> to be able to translate it into the aircraft they built.

Lets face it they never got much outside the Me 109 in service and its was
to old to grow gracefully anymore though I presume the Ta 152C and Ta 152H
had good high speed handling.


> The German
> Aviation Military/Industrial Complex's solution to
> compressibility/controllability problems in their airplanes was to put
> a Big Red "Thou Shalt Not..." notice in the Pilot's Handbook. Compare
> this to the work done in the U.S> and Britain to sort out the
> transonic problems that were occurring - the developmetn of the DIve
> Recovery Flap (Which isn't a Speed Brake), improved control surface
> geometries, and, for that matter, the inclusion of Speed
> Brakes.

Was this flap ever used?

>
> > In technolgy the Germans and allies were closely matched. Both sides
> > produced major breakthroughs and both sides had areas where they fell
> > embarrasingly far behined.
> >
> > The Germans were perhaps forced to focus on Break throughs because
> > resources were massively against them after 42 but in the end the odds
> > were against them. I do suspect that the breakthroughs would have
> > broken up the superiority of the allies in some areas. Jet aircraft
> > gave them a fresh start that would have equalised them where the
> > allies ahd piston engined superiority in quantity and quality. Sure
> > the allies would also have had jets but their existing technolgy would
> > have had its value wiped out and would have made useless almost all
> > piston engined aircraft: B26,A26,P47, B17,B24,B25 etc but they never
> > got enough of their jets going in time.
>
> It's not that simple. There were a lot of factors - the most telling
> of which were evident in 1936, when the Luftwaffe, and the other
> German Armed Forces, cut back on armament production because they
> didn't have enough raw materiels to use the factory capacity they
> already had.
> One of the other things they should have done was build up a better
> training organization. A big limit was the lack of properly skilled
> pilots. By late 1944, there weren't enough fully capable pilots to
> make a differece, even if they were flying Mr. Arndt's Disks and
> herding around Reptilicus. There's no point in making jet airplanes
> if you have nobody who can fly them.

They weren't intending to fight a long war of attrition which they would
eventually loose I suppose. This training issue, why was it mucked up?
They must have had their reasons? Or were those with sensible arguments
suppresed?


>
> > I don't like the "Allies Invented Everyting" nor do I like the
> > "Germans Invented Everyting" attitude. Anyone who knows how
> > technology advances should realise what one man can do another will
> > replicate almost immediatly. One of the mistakes of the Germans in
> > the Radar war was to put so much secrecy on their radar vulnerability
> > that they failed to develop effective countermeasurews to windows
> > jamming becuase the requise people weren't involved.
> > It should have been obvious that the British, who were behined in
> > Radar at the time would soon catch up.
>
> That is a rather good example of the German's arrogance about their
> own technology, and their "Mirror-Imaging" of how a particular
> technology would be used. In 1939, and 1940 the Germans had the best
> high-frequency radar around. Their main thrust for it, however, was
> to use it to bulwark existing systems, specifically Antiaircraft and
> Naval Fire Control. And they did this well.Once they'd figured out
> that the long-wave pulsed signals that they were receiving was some
> sort of radar, they absolutely knew that they were far ahead of teh
> British, and didn't need to worry about it. What they missed,
> however, was that those primitive, inaccurate long-wave radars were
> part of an integrated Cammand and Control system that allowed RAF
> Fighter Command to concentrate their forces with an efficency not seen
> in aerial warfare before that time.
> That same blindness - that belief that the German stuff was superior
> because it was German, effected them in all areas.

God bring me an arrogant enemy. (to be fair there are pleny of people on
these NGs who would underestimate an enemy)

An Integrated air defense system makes sense for the British on their
island. For the landlocked Germans, who had no channel, a philosophy of
avoiding a war of attrition and winning the frist battles so as to avoid
fighting on German soil prevailed. Very little was devoted to defense it
was thought best to devote it to attack and support of the Army and this
probably starved the development of such systems eg IFF. Also who would
run it? Kammhuber was regarded with suspicion for his large line of radar
defese stations.

The over confidence was there, Georings rash statements prove it, but there
was more behined it I think.

>
> > Alexander the Great however with 50,000 men once defeated Darius's
> > army of 2-3 million with boldness and clever tactics.
>
> Uhm, I don't think that ther were 2-3 million people in the entire
> Persian Empire. Subsistance farming doesn't give you that sort of a
> reserve.

It wasn't subsistance farming: they had huge cities.

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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"eunometic" > writes:
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> (Eunometic) writes:
>> > (ArtKramr) wrote in message
> >...
>> >> Nuff said.
>> > The Me 262 seems to have shot down 150 aircraft for the loss of 100 of
>> > their own. Mostly shot up on landing or takeoff when they were even
>> > more vulnerable to this problem than piston enginer aircraft due to
>> > their slow throttle response. (A problem partially solved by the
>> > better control systems on latter engines like the Jumo 004D as opposed
>> > to jumo 004B4.)
>>
>> It has little to do with throttle responce, and a lot to do with the
>> Thrust/Power relationship. It's a bit too late for me to type it all
>> in again tonight - but please do some googling in r.a.m. on the
>> subject.
>
> Yes ofcourse I understand; the T/W ratio was effectively low. The aircraft
> was fast because its jet powerplant didn't drop of in 'thrust' at higher
> speeds like a piston engined aircraft did.
>
> Still a proper controll system should allow the pilot to slam the throttle
> back (it went backward in german aircraft apparently) and the eingine should
> spool up while the control system took care of fuel and nozzle postion so
> that tubine temperature stayed constant.

It still wouldn't have made any difference. The spool-up times would
have been the same nontheless, whether it was teh pilot or teh fuel
control moving the feed valve. The spool-up time has a lot more to do
with the compressor/turbine spool's mass, and the turbine's ability to
turn hot gas into torque.

It ought to be noted here that you can't just jam the throttle open in
most high-powered recips at low speeds, either. The torque reaction
(Well, Torque, P-Factor, and gyroscopic precession) will snap you
right over, and if the speed's low enough, you'll stall one wing &
spin in.

>> > This loss rate is a dismal record; it wasn't that the 262 wasn't a
>> > good weapons system: it was simply outnumbered and heavily targeted by
>> > the allies and also and quite a few losses were experienced on the
>> > first missions due to the tactic of slowing down to take aim. It
>> > wasn't untill tactics were worked out to solve this that effectiveness
>> > improved.
>>
>> And placed into service long before it should have been.
>
> Erhard Milch wanted it on service by 1943. This was one of the few weapons
> that could have changed the course of the war if it entered service early
> enough.

What Milch wanted, and what teh German aircraft industry could
deliver, were two very different things. The German jet engines took
an incredibly long time to go from prototypes to something tht could
be marginally reliable enough to be placed on an airplane. Some of
this was due to the shortage of what would now be called Strategic
Materials, but a lot of it was trying to sort out the compressor,
combustor, and turbine aerodynamics. The materiels problems weren't
new - they'd been a factor in German industry since the mid 1930s.
The other problems were the sort of thig that happen when you're
trying to do R&D on something that's totally new. You don't know what
problems are going to pop up, and how long it'll take to fix them.
Of course, once they got the engines sorted out, they would have to
deal with the airframe. And they had big problems there, as well, suc
as the blanketing of the tailplane due to the choice of a conventional
landing gear. That required a redesigned wing structure, and a new
fuselage. The in-service date slipped nearly a year, despite the high
priority of the work being performed, and there was nothing that could
be done about it.


>> Some
>> problems, like poor asymmetric handling at low speeds (One Engine out)
>> were endemic to the design. But there were other problems - high
>> speed snaking, and some rather ugly transonic behavior that should
>> have been resolved before service pilots were turned loose in it.
>
> They likely would have eventualy debugged these; both the Meteor and F80 had
> problems upon entry into servive but I agree the Germans jumped this
> aircraft into service more prematurly than the allies for obvious reaons
> while the me 109 had to soldier on.
>
> The appearence of the aircraft looks like it would snake however. It is my
> understanding that the original location of the engines was mounted next to
> the fuesleage under the wings and that this was changed when the dimensions
> of the engine increased and presumably turbulence issues arose. There were
> versions using the He S11 engine in this position (models availble as is to
> be expected) Presumbly the fact that thrust was closer to the centerline
> would have improved stability.
>
> Also I recall a Quantas engineer telling me that the Beoing 707 had a
> snaking motion and a damper was fitted to the trim tab on the rudder that on
> the basis of an accelerometer (or possible gyro?) counter acted any snaking.
> It was I believe an all mechanical/hydraulic system.

The snaking had to do more with flow separation on the vertical fin &
rudder, and the length of the nose destabilizing the airplane in yaw,
than anything else. It was a problem, to some degree or another, with
just about all of the early jets.
As for the 707, That wan't snaking, that ws Dutch Roll, and is a
result of the dihedral effect of a moderatly-highly swept wing. They
also added a ventral fin under the aft section of teh tailcone, as
well. It first cropped up on the B-47, BTW.

>
>> The Me 262 Pilot's Handbook has about 3 pages of handling
>> limitations. The F-80A Pilot's handbook has 2 flight limit entries.
>
> I may have seen this handbook but I don't know if we are talking the same
> thing. Most of the limitations from what I can see relate to engine
> handling of the jumo 004B1 and Jumo 004B4. This was mostly caused by the
> crude fuel delivery and metering system system (the BMW003 was better and
> the Jumo 004D matched it). Also the use of J2 Diesel fuel (or K2 heavy fuel
> in an emergency) for reasons of safety, economy and its ease of synthesis
> meant that the engine was started on a parafinic gasoline and then switched
> over to the J2 again complicating starting. finally starting consisted of a
> small 2 stroke motor which itself had to be started and then only when the
> air was thick enough at lower altitides. The lack of duples injectors mad
> high altitude flameout easy and relights hard.
>
> Better control systems and duplex injectors helped solve all of these so the
> restriction may have enventually disappeared. As I understand Helmuth
> Schelp began to favour a central generating faciltiy and individual electric
> starters possibly to eovercome this and also for the larger jets like the
> 8000llb thrust BMW 009-016 a gas turbine starter so that a single fuel could
> be used.

Many of teh entries are engine handling entries, certainly. But by
the same token, the U.S. and Brit jets don't have most of these
limitations. Or the limitations on flight. (No negative G flights,
etc.) Soem of this is due to the relative maturity of the
technologies - The P-80 and Meteor III wre using second-generation jet
engines, developed wit the lessons of the first engines in mind, and
already in production before the Germans had soerted out their first
generation jets. Part of that is systems design. The Me 262 should
have had better fuel, electric, pleumatic, adn hydraulic system than
it did.

>
>>
>> You know, it's rather interesting that for all the work on high-speed
>> aerodynamics that the Germans actually did perform, they never seemed
>> to be able to translate it into the aircraft they built.
>
> Lets face it they never got much outside the Me 109 in service and its was
> to old to grow gracefully anymore though I presume the Ta 152C and Ta 152H
> had good high speed handling.

109s could, and did, have compressibility problems. The Germans lost
a Rechlin Test Pilot in 1937-38 during high-speed dive tests, for
example. Fw 190-derived shapes also had problems. But there wasn't
much effort put into exploring these issues, and dealing with them.
As for the Fw190D and Ta-152 (Basically the same shape) Not really no.
No better than a Mustang, and certainly not as well as a Spitfire.

>> The German
>> Aviation Military/Industrial Complex's solution to
>> compressibility/controllability problems in their airplanes was to put
>> a Big Red "Thou Shalt Not..." notice in the Pilot's Handbook. Compare
>> this to the work done in the U.S> and Britain to sort out the
>> transonic problems that were occurring - the developmetn of the DIve
>> Recovery Flap (Which isn't a Speed Brake), improved control surface
>> geometries, and, for that matter, the inclusion of Speed
>> Brakes.
>
> Was this flap ever used?

Absolutely. It was a standard fit on late model P-38s, P-47s, and F8F
Bearcats that I know of. The P-51 didn't need one, and the jets had
Speed Brakes that could not only slow them below the critical speeds,
but could be rigged to give a nose-up pitching mement to help dive
recovery.

One of the nastier "Own Goal" Amicide incidents WW II was when a
Canadian Spitfire pilot mistook the C-54 carrying the first 200 Dive
Recovery Flap kits for ETO-based P-38s for an Fw 200 Kondor, and shot
it down.

>>
>> > In technolgy the Germans and allies were closely matched. Both sides
>> > produced major breakthroughs and both sides had areas where they fell
>> > embarrasingly far behined.
>> >
>> > The Germans were perhaps forced to focus on Break throughs because
>> > resources were massively against them after 42 but in the end the odds
>> > were against them. I do suspect that the breakthroughs would have
>> > broken up the superiority of the allies in some areas. Jet aircraft
>> > gave them a fresh start that would have equalised them where the
>> > allies ahd piston engined superiority in quantity and quality. Sure
>> > the allies would also have had jets but their existing technolgy would
>> > have had its value wiped out and would have made useless almost all
>> > piston engined aircraft: B26,A26,P47, B17,B24,B25 etc but they never
>> > got enough of their jets going in time.
>>
>> It's not that simple. There were a lot of factors - the most telling
>> of which were evident in 1936, when the Luftwaffe, and the other
>> German Armed Forces, cut back on armament production because they
>> didn't have enough raw materiels to use the factory capacity they
>> already had.
>> One of the other things they should have done was build up a better
>> training organization. A big limit was the lack of properly skilled
>> pilots. By late 1944, there weren't enough fully capable pilots to
>> make a differece, even if they were flying Mr. Arndt's Disks and
>> herding around Reptilicus. There's no point in making jet airplanes
>> if you have nobody who can fly them.
>
> They weren't intending to fight a long war of attrition which they would
> eventually loose I suppose. This training issue, why was it mucked up?
> They must have had their reasons? Or were those with sensible arguments
> suppresed?

Call it a blind spot on the part of the German General Staff. (It was
around long before Hitler, and pervaded all of the Germans' Strategic
Thinking from 1871 on.)
They believed well and truly that they were the Jedi Knights, so
expert in, and devoted to the Art of War that nobody eith would stand
against them, or if they did, could stand against them for long.

The lesson that they learned from World War I was that they didn't try
hard enough, and that they didn't get the total support from teh
civilian side of the Kaiser's Government that they needed. (The whole
"Stab in the back thing. Of course, teh Civilians felt the same way,
which left a political climate ripe for a replay of teh War, to show
what they could really do. Stuff like Moltke the Younger's inability
to be, say, flexible enough to actaully follow the Kaiser's Orders to
not mobilize against France, and when mobilized to not automatically
attack France, (Through a neutral country) allowing the situation to
cool off, was sept under the rug.)

So, they got surprised when the war continued. They had no plans for
an extended conflict, for such a thing was unthinkable.
There were also significant shortfalls in the numbers of Flight
Instructors, and non-fighter or bomber pilots. This was a
double-edged blade (More like a toggle-head harpoon, actually) in the
trainig effort. When it became necessary to launch the airborne
invasion of Crete, and, later, to attempt the resupply of Stalingrad
and Tunisia, they stripped the flight schools of instructors to
provide the transport pilots. They suffered catastrophic losses in
these campaigns, and the training effort never recovered.
The policy of leaving pilots in units for the duration didn't help,
either. Combat pilots were never able to get any (relative) repite,
and pass the lessons that they'd learned on to the new trainees.
Instructors knew that they'd be instructing for their entire careers,
unless they got drafted off to be thrown into another set of failures.
That setup doesn't produce good pilots.
When you add in the fact that they had no training frounds that, after
mid 1943 weren't vulnerable to attack by Allied fighters, and teh
uncooperative German weather, there was no way that they'd be able to
produce anything like the number of Stick Actuators that they'd need.

>> > I don't like the "Allies Invented Everyting" nor do I like the
>> > "Germans Invented Everyting" attitude. Anyone who knows how
>> > technology advances should realise what one man can do another will
>> > replicate almost immediatly. One of the mistakes of the Germans in
>> > the Radar war was to put so much secrecy on their radar vulnerability
>> > that they failed to develop effective countermeasurews to windows
>> > jamming becuase the requise people weren't involved.
>> > It should have been obvious that the British, who were behined in
>> > Radar at the time would soon catch up.
>>
>> That is a rather good example of the German's arrogance about their
>> own technology, and their "Mirror-Imaging" of how a particular
>> technology would be used. In 1939, and 1940 the Germans had the best
>> high-frequency radar around. Their main thrust for it, however, was
>> to use it to bulwark existing systems, specifically Antiaircraft and
>> Naval Fire Control. And they did this well.Once they'd figured out
>> that the long-wave pulsed signals that they were receiving was some
>> sort of radar, they absolutely knew that they were far ahead of teh
>> British, and didn't need to worry about it. What they missed,
>> however, was that those primitive, inaccurate long-wave radars were
>> part of an integrated Cammand and Control system that allowed RAF
>> Fighter Command to concentrate their forces with an efficency not seen
>> in aerial warfare before that time.
>> That same blindness - that belief that the German stuff was superior
>> because it was German, effected them in all areas.
>
> God bring me an arrogant enemy. (to be fair there are pleny of people on
> these NGs who would underestimate an enemy)
>
> An Integrated air defense system makes sense for the British on their
> island. For the landlocked Germans, who had no channel, a philosophy of
> avoiding a war of attrition and winning the frist battles so as to avoid
> fighting on German soil prevailed. Very little was devoted to defense it
> was thought best to devote it to attack and support of the Army and this
> probably starved the development of such systems eg IFF. Also who would
> run it? Kammhuber was regarded with suspicion for his large line of radar
> defese stations.

Just so.

>
> The over confidence was there, Georings rash statements prove it, but there
> was more behined it I think.

As you said before, it was a reflection of their philosophy. They wer
the War Gods, and nobody could stand before them, so they didn't need
to work on defence.

>> > Alexander the Great however with 50,000 men once defeated Darius's
>> > army of 2-3 million with boldness and clever tactics.
>>
>> Uhm, I don't think that ther were 2-3 million people in the entire
>> Persian Empire. Subsistance farming doesn't give you that sort of a
>> reserve.
>
> It wasn't subsistance farming: they had huge cities.

A huge city then would have been about 30-40,000 people.
Even allowing for the exaggeration that occurs in the contemporary
accounts, that number is rediculaous. Armies travelled on their
stomachs, especially then, foraging for their food as they went. Even
if you had that number of troops, you couldn't feed them.

And think about it - how do you bring 50,000 men, with bows, spears &
swords, into contact with that large a number? You don't. If such
numbers were true, Darius would have angaved Alexander's army with a
paltry 250,000 or so troops, holding it in place (Even if the Greeks
slice them to fishbait) while the other 2,750,000 guys go take their
enemie's homelands.

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

[robert arndt]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >Date: 2/19/04 5:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
> >...
> >> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
> >> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >> >Date: 2/19/04 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Nuff said.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Or bombed it :)
> >> >
> >> >Keith
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yeah. I forgot about that part. (grin)
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
> >Senility will do that to ya Art.
> >
> >Rob
>
>
> Do you know what Germany looked like in 1945? Most kids like you have no
> idea.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Of course I do. Several of my dad's friends were in the occupation of
Germany and had scrapbooks full of the war damage. I have also seen it
on video. One of the best accounts is the video "Berlin 1945" which is
a documentary on the Russian advance into the Nazi capital with all
the footage live. Berlin looks shattered and the Reichschancellory,
Reichstag, and Brandenburg Gate grounds look like a lunar landscape.
Its surreal to say the least.
However, the Germans are a resourceful, well-organized, industrious
people and survived to rebuild the city and the nation, same for
reunification.

Rob

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
>
> >
> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Nuff said.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Or bombed it :)
> >>
> >> Keith
> >
> >And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing
> >Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar. So glad Germany
> >cost Britain its superpower status and robbed them of developing the
> >A-bomb first (Tube Alloys).
> >:)
> >
> >Rob
> >
> Now the truth comes out, you are proud of your country's slaughter of innocent
> men, women and children. I bet you are also proud of the 6 million Jews and the
> 6 million non Jews you guys killed.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Of course not, just responding in kind to that UK-US arrogance over
winning the war attitude. Are YOU proud of US history of the
transatlantic slave trade that killed millions of Africans or the
displacement and destruction of the Amerindians? What about the KKK
and southern segregation, with all the murders that came from that?
How about US abortion at 1.6 babies murdered per year?
Seems like you only care about German atrocities. Try looking in the
mirror pal and think about what the US has done historically, not to
mention other nations. The colonial powers killed millions. Stalin
killed 30 million of his people (and the Poles, Gypsies, Jews, etc...)
and China under Mao killed 50 million. Ever heard the atrocities in
Cambodia, in South America, in Africa, in the Balkans, and the
Australian slaughter of Aboriginals?

Rob

Rob

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >Date: 2/19/2004 7:18 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
> >...
> >> Nuff said.
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
> >The Luftwaffe shot down 120,000 aircraft of its own :)
> >
> >Rob
>
> I know as a German you have a hard time with English grammar, but what you said
> was the Luftwaffe shot down 120,000 of their own aircraft.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Now you're just being stupid. 120,000 of their "own" kills against Allied aircraft.
Clear enough for you now?

Rob

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 2/20/04 7:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>> >Date: 2/19/2004 7:18 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> Nuff said.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Arthur Kramer
>> >> 344th BG 494th BS
>> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>> >
>> >The Luftwaffe shot down 120,000 aircraft of its own :)
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> I know as a German you have a hard time with English grammar, but what you
>said
>> was the Luftwaffe shot down 120,000 of their own aircraft.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Now you're just being stupid. 120,000 of their "own" kills against Allied
>aircraft.
>Clear enough for you now?
>
>Rob

Dan is right. You write gibberish.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 2/20/04 7:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>>
>> >
>> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Nuff said.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Or bombed it :)
>> >>
>> >> Keith
>> >
>> >And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing
>> >Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar. So glad Germany
>> >cost Britain its superpower status and robbed them of developing the
>> >A-bomb first (Tube Alloys).
>> >:)
>> >
>> >Rob
>> >
>> Now the truth comes out, you are proud of your country's slaughter of
>innocent
>> men, women and children. I bet you are also proud of the 6 million Jews and
>the
>> 6 million non Jews you guys killed.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Of course not, just responding in kind to that UK-US arrogance over
>winning the war attitude. Are YOU proud of US history of the
>transatlantic slave trade that killed millions of Africans or the
>displacement and destruction of the Amerindians? What about the KKK
>and southern segregation, with all the murders that came from that?
>How about US abortion at 1.6 babies murdered per year?
>Seems like you only care about German atrocities. Try looking in the
>mirror pal and think about what the US has done historically, not to
>mention other nations. The colonial powers killed millions. Stalin
>killed 30 million of his people (and the Poles, Gypsies, Jews, etc...)
>and China under Mao killed 50 million. Ever heard the atrocities in
>Cambodia, in South America, in Africa, in the Balkans, and the
>Australian slaughter of Aboriginals?
>
>Rob
>
>Rob


And that is how you justify 55 million dead by German aggression in WW II? .
SWINE.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 2/20/04 6:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>> >Date: 2/19/04 5:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>> >> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>> >> >Date: 2/19/04 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Nuff said.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Or bombed it :)
>> >> >
>> >> >Keith
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Yeah. I forgot about that part. (grin)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Arthur Kramer
>> >> 344th BG 494th BS
>> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>> >
>> >Senility will do that to ya Art.
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>>
>> Do you know what Germany looked like in 1945? Most kids like you have no
>> idea.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>Of course I do. Several of my dad's friends were in the occupation of
>Germany and had scrapbooks full of the war damage. I have also seen it
>on video. One of the best accounts is the video "Berlin 1945" which is
>a documentary on the Russian advance into the Nazi capital with all
>the footage live. Berlin looks shattered and the Reichschancellory,
>Reichstag, and Brandenburg Gate grounds look like a lunar landscape.
>Its surreal to say the least.
>However, the Germans are a resourceful, well-organized, industrious
>people and survived to rebuild the city and the nation, same for
>reunification.
>
>Rob


The Marshall plan did it all for them.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Michael Zaharis]

Oh, Oh, Oh, may I please respond?

robert arndt wrote:

> Of course not, just responding in kind to that UK-US arrogance over
> winning the war attitude. Are YOU proud of US history of the
> transatlantic slave trade that killed millions of Africans or the
> displacement and destruction of the Amerindians?

That's why we don't brag about it!

> What about the KKK
> and southern segregation, with all the murders that came from that?

See above! We brag about the END of it! I don't see you cheering about
VE day.

> How about US abortion at 1.6 babies murdered per year?

BTW, doesn't Germany have a pretty liberal abortion policy?

> Seems like you only care about German atrocities.

Only when people wax poetic about that period and place.

> Try looking in the
> mirror pal and think about what the US has done historically, not to
> mention other nations. The colonial powers killed millions.
> Stalin killed 30 million of his people (and the Poles, Gypsies, Jews,
> etc...) and China under Mao killed 50 million. Ever heard the atrocities in
> Cambodia, in South America, in Africa, in the Balkans, and the
> Australian slaughter of Aboriginals?
>
> Rob
>

Who around here is defending Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Hutus, so on, so
forth?

[B2431]

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

>> >And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing
>> >Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar. So glad Germany
>> >cost Britain its superpower status and robbed them of developing the
>> >A-bomb first (Tube Alloys).
>> >:)
>> >
>> >Rob
>> >
>> Now the truth comes out, you are proud of your country's slaughter of
>innocent
>> men, women and children. I bet you are also proud of the 6 million Jews and
>the
>> 6 million non Jews you guys killed.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Of course not, just responding in kind to that UK-US arrogance over
>winning the war attitude. Are YOU proud of US history of the
>transatlantic slave trade that killed millions of Africans or the
>displacement and destruction of the Amerindians? What about the KKK
>and southern segregation, with all the murders that came from that?

Unlike you I will express shame over my history where shame is due as in your
examples.

>How about US abortion at 1.6 babies murdered per year?

You are off by about 1,500,000.

>Seems like you only care about German atrocities.

YOU were the one bragging about what you did during the war. In this thread
you brag about "laying waste to Europe and Russia." In another thread you
boasted of how many people died to bring your country down.

Try looking in the
>mirror pal and think about what the US has done historically, not to
>mention other nations. The colonial powers killed millions. Stalin
>killed 30 million of his people (and the Poles, Gypsies, Jews, etc...)
>and China under Mao killed 50 million. Ever heard the atrocities in
>Cambodia, in South America, in Africa, in the Balkans, and the
>Australian slaughter of Aboriginals?
>
>Rob
>

What has that to do with your bragging about your country's slaughter of tens
of millions and your concentration camps? You Germans started that war. All
your boasting about wonder weapons and what others learned from them can't
change that.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Brian Colwell]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (B2431) wrote in message
>...
> > >From: (robert arndt)
> >
> > >
> > >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > Nuff said.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Or bombed it :)
> > >>
> > >> Keith
> > >
> > >And Germany laid waste to Europe and Russia not to mention costing
> > >Britain, France, and Belgium their colonies postwar. So glad Germany
> > >cost Britain its superpower status and robbed them of developing the
> > >A-bomb first (Tube Alloys).
> > >:)
> > >
> > >Rob
> > >
> > Now the truth comes out, you are proud of your country's slaughter of
innocent
> > men, women and children. I bet you are also proud of the 6 million Jews
and the
> > 6 million non Jews you guys killed.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Of course not, just responding in kind to that UK-US arrogance over
> winning the war attitude. Are YOU proud of US history of the
> transatlantic slave trade that killed millions of Africans or the
> displacement and destruction of the Amerindians? What about the KKK
> and southern segregation, with all the murders that came from that?
> How about US abortion at 1.6 babies murdered per year?
> Seems like you only care about German atrocities. Try looking in the
> mirror pal and think about what the US has done historically, not to
> mention other nations. The colonial powers killed millions. Stalin
> killed 30 million of his people (and the Poles, Gypsies, Jews, etc...)
> and China under Mao killed 50 million. Ever heard the atrocities in
> Cambodia, in South America, in Africa, in the Balkans, and the
> Australian slaughter of Aboriginals?
>
> Rob
>
> Rob
And the new African nations, having got out from under the *scourge of
colonialism *? Now kill their fellow citizens by the millions ! Freedom is
great !!!!

BMC

[Ron]

>
>550,000 of the 11 million slaves brought across the Atlantic came to the
>US. Indians are 3% of the US population, so they were not wiped out. And
>Indian reservations account for 4% of the US land mass so they have more
>land per person than most Americans. If you think that all this adds up
>to anything like what Europe has done you are insane. The Belgians alone
>have done worse.
>

The Dutch West Indies got the same amount. Brazil got 4 million. Yes
according to the reparations movement and those like Jesse Jackson, you would
think everyone of them was sent to the US. They decline to mention that the
slaves were often sold by other African tribes, and that slavery still exists
in Africa today.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[M. H. Greaves]

Japan also had a version of the V1 it was piloted though, sorry cant
remember the name they gave it.
"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "steve gallacci" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > Or laughed at it after the war. They really should have mass produced
> the
> > > piloted version of the V-1. Just think, we could have killed more
pilots
> that
> > > way, the Nazis would have wasted money and material and, most
> imporantly, put
> > > them in the air flying a straight line and making an easy target.
> > >
> > Actually they did build a bunch (some estimates say as many as 250) but
> > it seems that Nazi ideology got in the way of implementing operations,
> > as they could not decide on targets sufficiently valuable to sacrifice
> > Aryan blood for.
>
> Between planes like Mistel, commandos like Skorzeny, and sheer number of
> targets, perhaps there were other reasons. And they didn't institute
direck
> Kamikaze style attacks as a policy. One of the amazing things to me about
> German aircraft projects in WW2 was how fragmented things often were,
> multiple teams and such, and so many projects competing for resources.
Then
> they often had problems with leadership interfering with use of weapons (A
> la the Me-262.) In the end, it was not just allied productivity but the
> organization of their companies, labor and project bureaus that helped
their
> airmen at the front. Examples like Ford converting to aircraft production
> and improving things on some planes, etc. Plus the sharing of the Merlin
> engine by the British and high-test gas by the USA. Russia also got stuff
> like the DC-3 design. And of course the US/UK Manharttan Project. The
Allied
> organization helped immensely to get scientists, designers and workers the
> stuff they needed and prioritise things.
>
> One of the things applicapable to this thread was the US taking the
> conventional V-1 design and producing weapons with the idea of using them
> against Japan, but they never did, the war ending before they could be
used.
>
> DEP
>
>

[M. H. Greaves]

They may not have used pure aryan blood for these missions, but they did
have many fanatics from the western U.S.S.R. i'm sure they would have been
willing!
"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> (B2431) wrote in message
>...
> > >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> > >Date: 2/19/2004 10:21 AM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >
> > >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Nuff said.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Or bombed it :)
> > >
> > >Keith
> > >
> >
> > Or laughed at it after the war. They really should have mass produced
the
> > piloted version of the V-1. Just think, we could have killed more pilots
that
> > way, the Nazis would have wasted money and material and, most
imporantly, put
> > them in the air flying a straight line and making an easy target.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> The Reichenberg was a effectively a near suicide weapon but the
> Germans did take care that it wasn't a forgone conclusion. Unlike the
> Japanese Baka in which the pilot was sealed in his cockpit it did have
> an escape system: parachute, terminal autopilot and a two seat two
> cockit versions were made to train pilots presumably with a simulated
> escape.
>
> The As 014 pulse jet was continiously tweeked to improve its speed.
> With a slightly lightend warload (like the latter buzz bombs) and the
> tweeked engines which had shown themselves to work at 495mph I expect
> a speed of 495mph would have been possible or at least necessary for
> the Reichberg to work. Enough to evade interception. Dodging radar
> directed guns with proximity fuses might have been more difficult but
> even there the weapon would have been capable of some degree of
> weaving. Still such a weapon if it can be made survivable enough for
> say a 33% or more hit rate and the targets are chosen carefully IT is
> a mathematically sensible use of resources if it destroys and kills
> more than it costs. Me 109s in the last stages of the war had an
> attrition rate of 30%. It takes balls to get in the air in that
> situation and in some ways their missions would have been almost more
> pointless than a suicide mission.
>
> If it ever got down to the wire do you think the allies would be
> capable of producing the men for this kind of mission? Sure WWII
> aircrew had around the 50% chance of completing a tour of duty (about
> the same as Ed Rasimus had flying thuds over Vietnam). but to face
> odds like that or like 95% on a single mission? Today I don't you
> could find such people.

[M. H. Greaves]

Another factor in the Me 262 was hitlers intervention; he wanted it to be a
bomber, NOT a fighter! which caused many aproblem, and even willy
Messerschmitt had to be summoned.
Hitler did that to many projects, he did it to the Fi103 (the doodlebug,
V1), he also had reservations about the A4 (the V2) and it was only in the
later stages of the war that he let it go into production because he knew he
was losing the war and wanted revenge weapons (vergeltungswaffe), as a form
of payback to the allies.




"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Eunometic) writes:
> > (ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
> >> Nuff said.
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
> > The Me 262 seems to have shot down 150 aircraft for the loss of 100 of
> > their own. Mostly shot up on landing or takeoff when they were even
> > more vulnerable to this problem than piston enginer aircraft due to
> > their slow throttle response. (A problem partially solved by the
> > better control systems on latter engines like the Jumo 004D as opposed
> > to jumo 004B4.)
>
> It has little to do with throttle responce, and a lot to do with the
> Thrust/Power relationship. It's a bit too late for me to type it all
> in again tonight - but please do some googling in r.a.m. on the
> subject.
>
> >
> > This loss rate is a dismal record; it wasn't that the 262 wasn't a
> > good weapons system: it was simply outnumbered and heavily targeted by
> > the allies and also and quite a few losses were experienced on the
> > first missions due to the tactic of slowing down to take aim. It
> > wasn't untill tactics were worked out to solve this that effectiveness
> > improved.
>
> And placed into service long before it should have been. Some
> problems, like poor asymmetric handling at low speeds (One Engine out)
> were endemic to the design. But there were other problems - high
> speed snaking, and some rather ugly transonic behavior that should
> have been resolved before service pilots were turned loose in it.
> The Me 262 Pilot's Handbook has about 3 pages of handling
> limitations. The F-80A Pilot's handbook has 2 flight limit entries.
>
> You know, it's rather interesting that for all the work on high-speed
> aerodynamics that the Germans actually did perform, they never seemed
> to be able to translate it into the aircraft they built. The German
> Aviation Military/Industrial Complex's solution to
> compressibility/controllability problems in their airplanes was to put
> a Big Red "Thou Shalt Not..." notice in the Pilot's Handbook. Compare
> this to the work done in the U.S> and Britain to sort out the
> transonic problems that were occurring - the developmetn of the DIve
> Recovery Flap (Which isn't a Speed Brake), improved control surface
> geometries, and, for that matter, the inclusion of Speed
> Brakes.
>
> > In technolgy the Germans and allies were closely matched. Both sides
> > produced major breakthroughs and both sides had areas where they fell
> > embarrasingly far behined.
> >
> > The Germans were perhaps forced to focus on Break throughs because
> > resources were massively against them after 42 but in the end the odds
> > were against them. I do suspect that the breakthroughs would have
> > broken up the superiority of the allies in some areas. Jet aircraft
> > gave them a fresh start that would have equalised them where the
> > allies ahd piston engined superiority in quantity and quality. Sure
> > the allies would also have had jets but their existing technolgy would
> > have had its value wiped out and would have made useless almost all
> > piston engined aircraft: B26,A26,P47, B17,B24,B25 etc but they never
> > got enough of their jets going in time.
>
> It's not that simple. There were a lot of factors - the most telling
> of which were evident in 1936, when the Luftwaffe, and the other
> German Armed Forces, cut back on armament production because they
> didn't have enough raw materiels to use the factory capacity they
> already had.
> One of the other things they should have done was build up a better
> training organization. A big limit was the lack of properly skilled
> pilots. By late 1944, there weren't enough fully capable pilots to
> make a differece, even if they were flying Mr. Arndt's Disks and
> herding around Reptilicus. There's no point in making jet airplanes
> if you have nobody who can fly them.
>
> > I don't like the "Allies Invented Everyting" nor do I like the
> > "Germans Invented Everyting" attitude. Anyone who knows how
> > technology advances should realise what one man can do another will
> > replicate almost immediatly. One of the mistakes of the Germans in
> > the Radar war was to put so much secrecy on their radar vulnerability
> > that they failed to develop effective countermeasurews to windows
> > jamming becuase the requise people weren't involved.
> > It should have been obvious that the British, who were behined in
> > Radar at the time would soon catch up.
>
> That is a rather good example of the German's arrogance about their
> own technology, and their "Mirror-Imaging" of how a particular
> technology would be used. In 1939, and 1940 the Germans had the best
> high-frequency radar around. Their main thrust for it, however, was
> to use it to bulwark existing systems, specifically Antiaircraft and
> Naval Fire Control. And they did this well.Once they'd figured out
> that the long-wave pulsed signals that they were receiving was some
> sort of radar, they absolutely knew that they were far ahead of teh
> British, and didn't need to worry about it. What they missed,
> however, was that those primitive, inaccurate long-wave radars were
> part of an integrated Cammand and Control system that allowed RAF
> Fighter Command to concentrate their forces with an efficency not seen
> in aerial warfare before that time.
> That same blindness - that belief that the German stuff was superior
> because it was German, effected them in all areas.
>
> > Alexander the Great however with 50,000 men once defeated Darius's
> > army of 2-3 million with boldness and clever tactics.
>
> Uhm, I don't think that ther were 2-3 million people in the entire
> Persian Empire. Subsistance farming doesn't give you that sort of a
> reserve.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Keith Willshaw]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> Another factor in the Me 262 was hitlers intervention; he wanted it to be
a
> bomber, NOT a fighter! which caused many aproblem, and even willy
> Messerschmitt had to be summoned.


This is an urban legend. The fact is that the Me-262 was delayed because
of aerodynamic problems and engine production issues. Hanging
a bomb rack and release mechanism on a fighter is just not
that big a problem.

> Hitler did that to many projects, he did it to the Fi103 (the doodlebug,
> V1), he also had reservations about the A4 (the V2) and it was only in the
> later stages of the war that he let it go into production because he knew
he
> was losing the war and wanted revenge weapons (vergeltungswaffe), as a
form
> of payback to the allies.

No sir he did not, the Fi-103 and V-2 were delayed from entering into
production by technical problems. Neither were ready for mass production
until Summer 1943 and production was authorised immediately but in
August 1943 the RAF destroyed the planned production facility at
Peenemunde with a massive air raid

Both projects had a priority close to that enjoyed by the Manhattan
Project in the USA. Vast amounts of slave labour and resources
were poured into their production in the underground Nordhausen
concentration camp.

Keith

[M. H. Greaves]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Another factor in the Me 262 was hitlers intervention; he wanted it to
be
> a
> > bomber, NOT a fighter! which caused many aproblem, and even willy
> > Messerschmitt had to be summoned.
>
>
> This is an urban legend. The fact is that the Me-262 was delayed because
> of aerodynamic problems and engine production issues. Hanging
> a bomb rack and release mechanism on a fighter is just not
> that big a problem.
>
> > Hitler did that to many projects, he did it to the Fi103 (the doodlebug,
> > V1), he also had reservations about the A4 (the V2) and it was only in
the
> > later stages of the war that he let it go into production because he
knew
> he
> > was losing the war and wanted revenge weapons (vergeltungswaffe), as a
> form
> > of payback to the allies.
>
> No sir he did not,
YES HE DID! I have read the book by General Walter Dornberger, and although
technical issues did have a major part to play in it, Hitlaer did not
initially back it!
the Fi-103 and V-2 were delayed from entering into
> production by technical problems. Neither were ready for mass production
> until Summer 1943 and production was authorised immediately but in
> August 1943 the RAF destroyed the planned production facility at
> Peenemunde with a massive air raid
>
> Both projects had a priority close to that enjoyed by the Manhattan

> ONLY because hitler gave them that status and only later in the war after
peenemunde had been bombed!
> Project in the USA. Vast amounts of slave labour and resources
> were poured into their production in the underground Nordhausen
> concentration camp.
>
> Keith
>
>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"M. H. Greaves" > writes:
> Another factor in the Me 262 was hitlers intervention; he wanted it to be a
> bomber, NOT a fighter! which caused many aproblem, and even willy
> Messerschmitt had to be summoned.

A common legend, but there's no truth to it. The only difference
between a Fighter Me 262, and a Bomber 262 (Actually, a Jagdbomber -
Fighter-Bomber) was the addition of the removable pylons. Withoug the
bombs on board, there was no difference in the performance of the
airplane. Since that was the case, it made plenty of sense to add the
pylons & the release wiring on the production line. It didn't
actually delay the service introduction of the jet one bit. What did
delay its introduction was the poor reliability and low production
numbers for the engines. The 262 was suppoed to go into service in
very early 1944. The powerplant problems delayed that by a half a
year. Note that in early 1944, everybody in the German command loop
knew that the Western Allies were going to be invading, and invading
as soon as it was practicable. They also knew that theere would be a
massive blanket of air cover, and that they stood no realistic chance
of successfully attacking the invasion beaches, and more importantly,
the ships supplying them, with the airplane types they had in 1943.
GIven that set of conditions, having an airplane that could make
strikes that couldn't be easily countered on the invasion beaches and
the invasion fleet would have the effect of drawing a significant
amount of those resources into protecting the beaches, rather than
interdicting the Heer as is moved to counter the invasion. In fact,
it really didn't matter if they were able to bomb accurately or not -
the threat itself would have been sufficient. The delays in being
able to supply adequate engines, however, made the whole concept
irrelevant.

So, what we have is what was actually a rather sound decision that was
negated by the technical problems causing the in-service date to slip.

> Hitler did that to many projects, he did it to the Fi103 (the doodlebug,
> V1), he also had reservations about the A4 (the V2) and it was only in the
> later stages of the war that he let it go into production because he knew he
> was losing the war and wanted revenge weapons (vergeltungswaffe), as a form
> of payback to the allies.

The A4 had problems with Guidance and Control, and, as was dicovered
fairly late into the program, with the airframe of teh rocket breaking
up on descent. These problems, and the need to set up the proper
infrastructure to produce and transport massive quantities of Liquid
Oxygen had much more to do with delaying its use.

The F1 103 (V-1) also had problems with launching and inflight
stability. Those had to be sorted out, and the launching sites in
France had to be prepared. Germany, for reasons unkown, took a rather
luxurious path with the launching sites, with large amounts of
permanent construction and massive fixed facilities.

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

[William Donzelli]

"eunometic" > wrote in message >...

> An Integrated air defense system makes sense for the British on their
> island. For the landlocked Germans, who had no channel, a philosophy of
> avoiding a war of attrition and winning the frist battles so as to avoid
> fighting on German soil prevailed. Very little was devoted to defense it
> was thought best to devote it to attack and support of the Army and this
> probably starved the development of such systems eg IFF.

The German IFF systems (FuG 25 and FuG 25a were the aircraft
transponders) were actually pretty good. Their coding system was
extremely flexible, and it did not use a wide swept-band system like
the Allied Mk III IFF kludge. So technically, they were on the ball,
as far as IFF systems are concerned.

William Donzelli

[William Donzelli]

(Eunometic) wrote in message >...

> One of the mistakes of the Germans in
> the Radar war was to put so much secrecy on their radar vulnerability
> that they failed to develop effective countermeasurews to windows
> jamming becuase the requise people weren't involved.

Effective countermeasures simply were not possible with 1945
technology. Even in 1950, Window was a hard jam to get around. The
Germans had some success with Windows ECCM, but it was not too much
fun (apparently it took much practice to get the system working
properly).

Frankly, if the tables were reversed, and the Germans used Window on
Allied systems, we would be in a lot of trouble. Allied radars had no
effective Window anti-jam systems.

William Donzelli

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: (William Donzelli)
>Date: 2/22/04 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>Frankly, if the tables were reversed, and the Germans used Window on
>Allied systems, we would be in a lot of trouble. Allied radars had no
>effective Window anti-jam systems.
>
>William Donzelli

In my experience I never saw German flak penetrate the window streams. From
that I can only conclude that the Germans had no such sytem either.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[David E. Powell]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
> >From: "David E. Powell"
> >Date: 2/19/04 6:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >Between planes like Mistel, commandos like Skorzeny,
>
> You might be interested in visiting my website and reading about the day I
had
> lunch with Skorzeny. Just click on:
>
> Lunch With SS STURMGRUPENNFUHRER OTTO SKORZENY

Dear sir: I had checked out your site, and that was one of the reasons that
I mentioned the fellow. It is a very well written account (As they all are)
and my best to you regarding it.

DEP

> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: "David E. Powell"
>Date: 2/27/04 11:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>> >From: "David E. Powell"
>> >Date: 2/19/04 6:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id:
>>
>> >Between planes like Mistel, commandos like Skorzeny,
>>
>> You might be interested in visiting my website and reading about the day I
>had
>> lunch with Skorzeny. Just click on:
>>
>> Lunch With SS STURMGRUPENNFUHRER OTTO SKORZENY
>
>Dear sir: I had checked out your site, and that was one of the reasons that
>I mentioned the fellow. It is a very well written account (As they all are)
>and my best to you regarding it.
>
>DEP
>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>


Thank you for the kind words. Stay tuned more to come. The website has 47,000
plus hits as of this morning and growing. You are welcome back any time.

Best Regards,

Arthur



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Jan]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> Nuff said.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Talk it over with your caregiver.

Perhaps you take a look here:
http://www.alz.uci.edu

There's always hope....even for you. So if you try hard you might
consolidate your mental state. It's breaking my heart to see a man of
your age making a fool of himself.

Best wishes for your recovery from Germany!

Jan Fuhrmann

[Mike Marron]

> (Jan) wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Nuff said.

>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

>Talk it over with your caregiver.

>Perhaps you take a look here:
>http://www.alz.uci.edu

I'm no shrink, but in addition to the URL you referred him to above
maybe he should also seek professional help for his Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (NPD)...

* An inflated valuation of oneself (exaggeration of talents and
achievements, demonstration of presumptuous self-confidence);
* Interpersonal exploitation (uses others to satisfy his needs and
desires, expects preferential treatment without undertaking mutual
commitments);
* Possesses expansive imagination (externalises immature and
non-regimented fantasies, "prevaricates to redeem self-illusions");
*Displays supercilious imperturbability (except when the narcissistic
confidence is shaken), nonchalant, unimpressed and cold-blooded;
*Defective social conscience (rebels against the conventions of common
social existence, does not value personal integrity and the rights of
other people).

>There's always hope....even for you. So if you try hard you might
>consolidate your mental state. It's breaking my heart to see a man of
>your age making a fool of himself.

>Best wishes for your recovery from Germany!

>Jan Fuhrmann

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (Jan) wrote:
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Nuff said.
>
> >>Arthur Kramer
> >>344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
> >Talk it over with your caregiver.
>
> >Perhaps you take a look here:
> >http://www.alz.uci.edu
>
> I'm no shrink, but in addition to the URL you referred him to above
> maybe he should also seek professional help for his Narcissistic
> Personality Disorder (NPD)...

If only Art's dad had flown an airplane. :)

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Germany invented it. We shot it down
>From: (Jan)
>Date: 3/7/04 3:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> Nuff said.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>Talk it over with your caregiver.
>
>Perhaps you take a look here:
>http://www.alz.uci.edu
>
>There's always hope....even for you. So if you try hard you might
>consolidate your mental state. It's breaking my heart to see a man of
>your age making a fool of himself.
>
>Best wishes for your recovery from Germany!
>
>Jan Fuhrmann

Das is sehr nett von ihnen zu sahgen und fur das ich bedanke mich leiber kind.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer