Too close for comfort? A greater appreciation for an Allied WW2 Victory - Page 2

RedFred · February 25, 2003, 02:44

The balloons sent over from Japan to cause forest fires in Western North America were never discussed much due to the the heavy censorship of the wartime regarding them. But it appears now that the original Japanese intent was to send over biological weapons to be dispersed over a wide area. The relatively low cost of sending balloons over such a long distance is something that no doubt causes Western gov'ts concern during the current war on terrorism.

I have been to museums in England and Germany and I have seen both the German jet aircraft and rocket aircraft. Both were smaller than I would have thought possible. By late in the war rubber was so scarce in Germany that many of these planes had metal skids instead of landing wheels. Remarkable that they could engineer such amazing craft with such severe material shortages.

David Floyd · February 25, 2003, 02:51

HTower,

Quote:

Russia would still have won out IMO, the massive reserves they were able to bring forward to keep fighting the germans just couldn't be matched.

Not in 1945. The Russians were out of manpower just as the Germans were.

Sava,

Quote:

Race to get the bomb. This point wasn't specifically talked about in these shows, but it's relevant to the discussion. The Nazis and Japanese were very close to developing an atomic bomb. In earlier shows like this, it was discussed that America only beat the Axis to having a working atom bomb by months.

Let me first dispense with the Japanese atomic project. There certainly was one, but it got no further than the preliminary stages. Japan just did not have the scientists or the resources to build an atomic bomb, and this only got worse as the war went along.

As to the German bomb, it's already been pointed out that their only heavy water plant in Norway was destroyed. Not only that, but Hitler wasn't all that interested in an atomic bomb, but rather in his jet bombers and V-rockets and super heavy tanks.

Quote:

2. Jet Engine technology in Japan. Japan did have working prototypes of a jet fighter and smaller, rocket fighter. I know the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan has been debated before on these forums, but the point was brought up that if Japan had enough time, an invasion of the Japanese islands in early '46 might have been repelled by jet torpedo planes and jet air superiority fighters.

Believe it or not, the early jets were not that great. If you look at the actual battles between P-51 Mustangs and Me-262 fighters, the P-51s actually had a better kill-loss ratio. Now, you might argue that if there were equal numbers of jets, they would have faired a lot better, and that's true to a point (altough the P-51s still had better maneuverability, turning rates, and the like). But the quantity and quality of pilots would have been a major problem as well, along with sufficient fuel.

These points apply not only to German jet programs, but also to the much less advanced Japanese ones.

Quote:

3. Helicopter technology in Japan and Germany. Japan had been experimenting with anti-submarine gyro-copters that had seen battle and had success!

These helicopters would necessarily have been of too limited range to make a difference. Now, if the Japanese could have deployed small carriers that carried these helicopters on ASW missions, it might have been significant. But the Japanese didn't have these carriers. They could have, I supposed, stopped submarines from coming too close to the coast of Japan, but what does that matter? I don't think that would be enough to break the blockade, especially the blockade preventing resources coming in from the "Southern Resource Area" (ie, rubber and oil).

Quote:

5. Guided air-to-air missiles. Yes, Germany did have this technology and had tested it in combat by August of '44. These new missiles would have been the weapons of the new Nazi jet fighters since they flew at speeds too fast for conventional cannons and machine guns of the day.

Sorry. These AAMs did not have good enough guidance to make them reliable long range weapons. If you want to make dumbfire AAMs, that's fine, but that's also pretty useless in combat. And remember, the P-51 still had superior maneuverability to the German jet fighters (or, at least, the Me-262), and in addition, the US had a jet almost ready for deployment too (the P-80 Shooting Star, plus the British had the Meteor).

Jaguar · February 25, 2003, 05:51

No matter how much technology the Axis developed, they were screwed by 1942.

Dis · February 25, 2003, 05:57

it was never that close.

'nuff said

Urban Ranger · February 25, 2003, 06:44

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not in 1945. The Russians were out of manpower just as the Germans were.

Even if that is true, the German forces tied up on the Western front was peanuts compared to the Eastern front.

Chemical Ollie · February 25, 2003, 07:45

I watched a TV documentary showing that some of the radioactive material used in the bombs was captured from a German sub that was on it's way to Japan to help them make the bomb. The sub commander handed the ship over to the Americans when his Admiral ordered him to surrender.

The material this sub carried shortened the time to finish the Manhattan project considerably. Ironic isn't it - the Japs being nuked with their own plutonium.

Sava · February 25, 2003, 08:32

UR, are you a History Channel hater or something? No offense, but I think they have a lot more resources than you.

Floyd: The kill rates of the Me-262 were due to the lack of a high-speed weapon. They had to slow down to use their machine guns and 20mm cannons. Also, Japan did deploy one converted transport as a carrier with these gyro-copters. The problem was that this was an endeavor by the Japanese army and the Navy was not being cooperative. I don't know where you got your info, but the jet fighters were much faster, much more maneuverable, and could fly in higher altitudes. I'm sorry, but they would have cleaned the American planes' clocks.

These are all what-if scenarios, but I think I'm going to trust the history channel. They are obviously more qualified to make such assessments than you guys.

Tingkai · February 25, 2003, 09:00

UR made some excellent points.

Another thing to consider is that the German tendency of constantly producing new weapons actually hampered its war fighting experience. Guderian makes reference to this in his book when he mentions that there were so many different versions of some tanks that it was difficult to keep tank units supplied.

A unit equipped with Panther B tanks might end up with spare parts that would only fit a Panther C. (I'm just making up the version name for argument sake). And neighbouring unit would often be using different type of tank so that rule out trading for parts. This was far less of a problem with the Allied armies.

The Germans were never able to achieve the efficiencies that come from mass production because they were building so many different tank, and that contribute to the lower number of German tanks produced.

The same would apply to aircraft.

The great advantage of the T-34 and Sherman is that they were standardised and quick to build.

David F is right in saying the P-51 could hold its own against the ME-262 if used correctly. The ME-262 could fly faster, but at high speeds it wasn't able to turn as quickly. This is true for all aircraft. You get far better turning rates at a lower speed (there is an optimum speed that combines high turn rates with relatively high speeds). So Allied pilots learned to turn into an attack forcing the ME-262 pilots to slow down.

Tingkai · February 25, 2003, 09:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
These are all what-if scenarios, but I think I'm going to trust the history channel. They are obviously more qualified to make such assessments than you guys.

Do you think the History Channel would ever play a bit with information to make it more dramatic so that they can attract more viewers?

KrazyHorse · February 25, 2003, 09:08

Quote:

OTOH, I do not know that Japan was trying to make it

They spent ~100 000$ on nuclear research in WWII. They had a few good physicists, but nothing in terms of resources.

The Allies spent 2 billion$

Even the Germans were at least 5 years away from a nuke, assuming they started spending on the American scale. I base this on the fact that the first reactor in the world was built at UChicago by Fermi in 1941. The Germans never even got that far.

David Floyd · February 25, 2003, 09:44

Quote:

Floyd: The kill rates of the Me-262 were due to the lack of a high-speed weapon. They had to slow down to use their machine guns and 20mm cannons.

But as I pointed out, a high speed AAM without advanced guidance is pretty useless in combat.

Quote:

Also, Japan did deploy one converted transport as a carrier with these gyro-copters. The problem was that this was an endeavor by the Japanese army and the Navy was not being cooperative.

The other problem was, Japan was almost out of merchant ships. And they were low on trained pilots. And there was a minor US submarines/fleet blockade issue (that is, even if the ASW choppers could get US subs, US carriers could get the Japanese ASW carriers easily). And Japan was about out of oil. Etc.

Quote:

I don't know where you got your info, but the jet fighters were much faster, much more maneuverable, and could fly in higher altitudes. I'm sorry, but they would have cleaned the American planes' clocks.

Not without pilots, fuel, or a decent AAM. Or a more advanced jet.

Sava · February 25, 2003, 10:03

The AAM that Germany was developing had an infa-red guidance system. They were also experimenting with radar guidance, pilot-controlled radio guidance, and variations of existing 20mm cannons suited for high speed arial combat.

Your stance is very valid, don't think I'm trying to discredit you. This is all just speculation and food for thought. I just think that the history channel has done their homework and they present an excellent case. Did you see the special, BTW?

David Floyd · February 25, 2003, 10:33

No, I didn't.

Often times, I've found that the History Channel is not the most reliable source. Granted, it's more credible than I am, but OTOH in many ways it does not really go into that much depth. I prefer reading books over WW2.

But I would be interested in learning more about the German AAMs...I don't know a whole lot about them.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 11:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I don't like being accused of lying, so this is all I shall post:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

-The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, July 1946

Boris, I refer you to the following article from The U.S. Army's professional journal Military Review . This article was written by Dennis Giangreco, the editor, in 1998:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review...sp8.htm#author

Following are two exerpts from this article:

Quote:

In Truman and the Hiroshima Cult, Robert P. Newman convincingly shreds the myths that have grown up around the use of nuclear weapons to end the Pacific War, such as the oft-repeated claims that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender when the bombs were dropped, and that their use was primarily aimed at intimidating Joseph Stalin.

Quote:

Newman, for example, demolishes the much-quoted Summary Report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, which came to the conclusion that the bombing campaign and blockade would have forced Japan's early surrender without resorting to the use of either atomic weapons or an invasion—conclusion that its authors reached before the survey had begun and is, in fact, countered by its own exhaustive investigations.

As you can see, the quote you posted earlier was based on a conclusion obtained before the evidence was in and was dispelled by its own investigation. I refer you to Newman's work for further details.

Once again, I did not mean to call you a liar, just merely to bring out the fact that you were using faulty evidence to obtain your conclusion.

Main_Brain · February 25, 2003, 11:56

Too many Superweapons..
Infrared, Jet Engine, AssaultRifle,Electric Subs, scary Tanks etc.
Yet the Programs were too widespread and thus underfunded.
Be glad that both sides had germans after the War.

Main_Brain · February 25, 2003, 12:04

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/arm/arm29.htm
The 'Ruhrstahl' AAM wireguided as most were at that Time.

Dauphin · February 25, 2003, 13:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
The Allies spent 2 billion$

I thought it was closer to $20 billion. Probably just a conversion difference to todays money value.

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Boris, I refer you to the following article from The U.S. Army's professional journal Military Review . This article was written by Dennis Giangreco, the editor, in 1998:

Thanks for the links, but until I could actually read the book in question, I won't take a review of it as gospel (I'd rather see quotes from the actual source). The author of the book had his own agenda for it (which is fine, most authors do), and the author of the article has his own as well. I'd like to see a compelling reason as to why the Survey would have approached the situation with such a foredrawn conclusion, which doesn't make sense to me.

But I'd also cite the numerous military and intelligence experts, including figures like Eisenhoweer and Adm. Leahy, who expressed the same opinion over the bombing. Other research outside of the survey has also supported its basic claim.

That's not to second-guess Truman's motives, necessarily. Maybe he really believed it was the only option--I don't know. But if it was actually necessary is the question about which I have grave doubts.

Anyway, I'd relinquish this threadjack for the other discussion.

Sava, the History Channel is a great resource for armchair buffs, but don't take it as gospel. They are, after all, a commercial enterprise. I can think of a couple of instances where their programs reported things that were actually wrong.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 14:52

Quote:

but until I could actually read the book in question, I won't take a review of it as gospel

Always a wise choice. Buying tonight myself. I am also interested inwhy they would have published a conclusion before the facts were in.

Quote:

Anyway, I'd relinquish this threadjack for the other discussion

Agreed.

Quote:

Sava, the History Channel is a great resource for armchair buffs, but don't take it as gospel. They are, after all, a commercial enterprise.

I have always thought of the History Channel as a teaser. Something to wet your appetite for a more in depth analysis. Definately not the gospel.

Ned · February 25, 2003, 15:15

Why was it that the US and the UK could produce large numbers of good pilots while the Germans and the Japanese could not.

I have often heard this as a decisive factor in both Theaters. They were not short of good planes. They were short of good pilots.

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Why was it that the US and the UK could produce large numbers of good pilots while the Germans and the Japanese could not.

I have often heard this as a decisive factor in both Theaters. They were not short of good planes. They were short of good pilots.

I recall reading that Hitler wasted most of Germany's best pilots in the Battle of Britain. After the loss of so many, there just weren't enough aces around to train the new pilots.

Still, Germany had some magnificent flyers, including the greatest ace of all time, Erich Hartmann.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 15:47

In the Pacific theater the Japanese lost the better part of their experienced pilots in rapid succession at Coral Sea and more particularly Midway. After these losses, they were unable to balance experienced trainers with combat operations as they were now on the defensive. Manpower in itself was not the grave issue, it was qualified and trained manpower that was their undoing. Also, during this time, Allied pilots were becoming more experienced and had not only closed the gap in fighter tech but surpassed the Japenese equipment. This double edged sword made it impossible to rebuild a cadre of talented and experienced pilots for the Japanese.

Main_Brain · February 25, 2003, 16:40

And at the Battle of Britain well British Pilots were usually rescued..
German Pilots.. well the Channel..
Yet I refrain from sayingone side had better Pilots.

Dauphin · February 25, 2003, 16:43

Many pilots in the BoB were from Nazi occupied territories and commonwealth nations.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html

Sava · February 25, 2003, 16:54

Yeah guys, don't think I rely on the History Channel for my knowledge... they just sometimes have thought-provoking programs that contain little-known info. And this thread was more about what-if-fiction than actual fact.

Ozz · February 25, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Yeah guys, don't think I rely on the History Channel for my knowledge... they just sometimes have thought-provoking programs that contain little-known info. And this thread was more about what-if-fiction than actual fact.

I like the real film footage and the WW2 movies (which
almost have nothing to do with reality) I get my facts from books.

I liked the Audey Murphy movie they put on lately

Ned · February 25, 2003, 17:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Main_Brain
And at the Battle of Britain well British Pilots were usually rescued..
German Pilots.. well the Channel..
Yet I refrain from sayingone side had better Pilots.

Yeah, but after 1941 the shoe was on the other foot, wasn't it. Americans and British pilots were shot down over German occuppied territory and were captured in large numbers.

Still the US and the UK continue to produce more good pilots.

The Germans seem to significantly underinvest in pilot training.

Ditto the Japanese.

molly bloom · February 25, 2003, 17:45

One of Nazi Germany's more intriguing air aces:

http://www.newsoftheodd.com/article1011.html

My partner (who is a glider pilot) has a love/hate attitude towards her- despises the politics, but recognises the commitment and courage. Flying experimental rocket aircraft with fuel sloshing around the cockpit....

Main_Brain · February 25, 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Still the US and the UK continue to produce more good pilots.

Personally I think the Fact that the Training Fields in Germany were quite dangerous played into this. I mean Gigantic US Bomber fleets.. doesnt sound like a fun place to learn Flying.
Also dont forget that the Us is *slightly* bigger ;=)

Hueij · February 25, 2003, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom
One of Nazi Germany's more intriguing air aces:

http://www.newsoftheodd.com/article1011.html

My partner (who is a glider pilot) has a love/hate attitude towards her- despises the politics, but recognises the commitment and courage. Flying experimental rocket aircraft with fuel sloshing around the cockpit....

Ah, Hannah Reitsch... The Lenie Riefenstahl of aviation...

IF Germany had build more Me 262's, and IF they had been used as fighters instead of fighter-bombers, then MAYBE... Good thing it didn't happen...