PDA

View Full Version : "Amerika" bombers



TipsyTed
10-01-2011, 08:07 AM
There was many Amerika bomber projects in Nazi Germany - with intention of bombing eastern coast of US from mainland Europe, Africa, Great Britain (had it been occupied) or Atlantic islands (Azores).

Ignoring the many seemingly impossible technical issues, there's one obvious tactical question however I can't find an answer to. How did these people expect those piston powered, unescorted, high flying and thus early detected bombers not to get minced by US land based interceptors, namely P-47s?

It's hard to imagine huge and expensive projects like Me 264, He 277, Ta 400,... would have been running wihtout answering such an obvious question.

Thoughts?

Luno13
10-01-2011, 01:28 PM
I guess surprise would have something to do with it. Didn't one of the proposed designs have a parasite fighter too? I guess in desperate times, anything seems like a good idea.

arthursmedley
10-01-2011, 05:24 PM
Look at it another way. At the same moment as Germany was considering plans for Amerika bombers the US, at great expense, built up the 8th. Airforce in England. It too used slow, high flying, piston powered aircraft and for at least the first twelve months of operations they got minced by LW land based interceptors.

Aircrew, along with other combatants, were expendable.

Luno13
10-02-2011, 12:54 AM
But the philosophy at the time was that "the bombers would always get through". I don't think crews were sacrificed with malicious intent from those in command.

TipsyTed
10-02-2011, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Luno13:
But the philosophy at the time was that "the bombers would always get through".

I thought the Germans got the lesson during BOB.

Bremspropeller
10-03-2011, 06:24 AM
The most promising "Amerika Bomber"-design:
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/AE/A4b910.jpg

TipsyTed
10-03-2011, 08:18 AM
^ diving after that might prove a challenge even for a P-47! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

horseback
10-03-2011, 11:25 AM
Early and pre war plans were based on the fact that radar was either non-existant, or that it was in its infancy and had short range & scattered deployment. Covering the 1500 odd miles of the US East Coast with radar was almost impossible for most of the war; large gaps discernable to a good ECM operator would be easy to exploit.

Add in the limited capability for IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) even well after WWII, and raids by individual long range bombers coming in over the Atlantic seaboard could very easily have been very disruptive, if only in terms of the numbers of men and materials required to counter them.

Assuming that the Gemans had aircraft capable of making the round trip with a useful bombload, they could easily have tied down a half million men (or more) in ships, radar stations and air bases along the coasts from Florida to Maine (and what about the Canadian coasts?) with less than 200 bombers and the men required to support them...

That's a pretty good investment from their point of view.

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
10-03-2011, 11:43 AM
Sure HB, but with limited ressources avaliable, this would have been a logisticas-nightmare.

Even more so when considering the nav-aids availiable at the time.
The "Amerkia"-bombers couldn't have done better than any other bomber during the time at finding the target.
Nuisance-bombing in Southern England worked well, because it took little effort and dien't cut-off ressources too much.

Flying accross the Atlantic only to bomb aunt Marge's empty barn would have been kind of heart-attack bait for people like Speer or Milch...

horseback
10-03-2011, 01:27 PM
Actually, from Chesapeake Bay north to Boston(from Norfolk Virginia to Boston Massachussetts), there were and still are many, many industrial and transportation hubs that would be hard to miss, even at night with a blackout.

Of course, the Germans were operating on a shoestring by 1943, so they may not have been able to support the effort. However, the return on the investment might well have been over a thousand to one in terms of Allied manpower and assets diverted from direct assault on German interests to defend against irregular bombing raids over the US coasts, not to mention the propaganda advantages and political problems it would cause FDR...

cheers

horseback

WTE_Galway
10-03-2011, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
... not to mention the propaganda advantages and political problems it would cause FDR...


The Reich bombing civilian targets in the US would actually have been a propaganda boon for FDR.

horseback
10-03-2011, 06:56 PM
Not if he assigned it the priority it actually deserved--as I said, you'd need at least 1,000:1 manpower ratio to make it too costly for the LW to make cross Atlantic raids.

A few desultory shellings by IJN submarines on the West Coast led to massive panics and the rounding up & imprisonment of all Japanese Americans (hold the Bill of Rights and give me an extra side order of oppression). Dropping a few tons of HE on crowded harbors or train stations up & down the East Coast on a weekly or biweekly basis would lead to all kinds of unrealistic demands by the electorate.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
10-03-2011, 07:25 PM
The Amerika bomber program as I understand it was intended to deliver Germany's atomic weapons not conventional bombs.

Frequent_Flyer
10-03-2011, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Actually, from Chesapeake Bay north to Boston(from Norfolk Virginia to Boston Massachussetts), there were and still are many, many industrial and transportation hubs that would be hard to miss, even at night with a blackout.

Of course, the Germans were operating on a shoestring by 1943, so they may not have been able to support the effort. However, the return on the investment might well have been over a thousand to one in terms of Allied manpower and assets diverted from direct assault on German interests to defend against irregular bombing raids over the US coasts, not to mention the propaganda advantages and political problems it would cause FDR...

cheers

horseback

I think Germany says "Hello" to FDR's little friend " Fat Boy " .

MB_Avro_UK
10-04-2011, 09:02 AM
Wasn't Fat Boy originally intended for Berlin?

Bremspropeller
10-04-2011, 10:40 AM
Who is Fat Boy?

horseback
10-04-2011, 12:37 PM
Brems, I believe that "Little Man" and "Fat Boy" were the code names assigned the first two atomic bombs.

On the reasoning behind the Amerika bomber, I was not aware that Germany's AF think tanks or their equivalents in the mid-late 1930s (which would be when the planning or theories would have to have been instigated) were aware that there was an atomic weapon planned or in the works.

One other possible motive would have been the existance of the XB-15, which Boeing built before the B-17; it was theoretically capable of a roundtrip mission over the Atlantic with a 'useful' bombload (or what would have been considered useful in 1938 or thereabouts).

Planning a response to what your potential enemies are capable of is a basic part of military doctrine. If the Americans could mount cross-Atlantic bombing raids on the Reich (or it's subject territories) the LW would have been well-advised to at least have something on paper to show the Fuhrer...

cheers

horseback

berg417448
10-04-2011, 12:55 PM
Little Boy = uranium device that destroyed Hiroshima.

Fat Man = plutonium bomb that destroyed Nagasaki

Wildnoob
10-04-2011, 02:22 PM
The idea of bombing the Soviet industry as the war happened seems to be more rational to me. It would drag more men from the Soviets as well, and they were the main treat to Germany.

Bremspropeller
10-04-2011, 02:29 PM
The difference between bombing Russia and bombing the US would have been that the US was a democracy where people could "de-elect" the current government, while ole Joe in Moscow sat pretty firmly in his saddle...

It's exactly like the difference between german terror-attacks on southern English towns and burning-down half of Germany:
One governemt is gonna go away by disgruntled voters - the other one won't.

Wildnoob
10-04-2011, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The difference between bombing Russia and bombing the US would have been that the US was a democracy where people could "de-elect" the current government, while ole Joe in Moscow sat pretty firmly in his saddle...

It's exactly like the difference between german terror-attacks on southern English towns and burning-down half of Germany:
One governemt is gonna go away by disgruntled voters - the other one won't.

Really Brems. But still, being able to reach the larger Soviet industrial plants could have generate a tremendous strategical impact. The Soviets probably would need to disperse their industry, like Germany, were results in the reduced production ratio would still be welcomed. Also, such an extremely long range bombing force for the time, would surely be used against both the US and the USSR. But the problem, of course, was Hitler. He underestimate the USSR, that decisively cost him the war, as well as the US and Britain.

Frequent_Flyer
10-04-2011, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
... not to mention the propaganda advantages and political problems it would cause FDR...


The Reich bombing civilian targets in the US would actually have been a propaganda boon for FDR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Organizationally Germany was not likely to have been able to manage such a project to fruition.
When all substanitive decesions were deceided by a Bi-polar drug addict. With no engineering or managerial training who acheived the rank of corporal. You only need to examine the bungling of a simple project as the Me-262. Or his decesion making process behind developing a 71 ton tank destroyer by a nation who could not produce enough fuel to keep its floundering military moving. Nor a european road/bridge system that could support the movement of a 71 ton vehicle. Hitler knew nothing of economics, engineering and logistics. Yet he had the ultimate say in nearly every battle plan and weapons development. As a very wise man once said, The difference between Genius and ignorance is; Genius has its limits.

Wildnoob
10-05-2011, 06:59 AM
I don't know who said this, but Hitler was the best General the Allies could had. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

horseback
10-05-2011, 08:29 AM
The issue is really moot, since the LW’s doctrine was primarily tactical instead of strategic; at some point in the middle-late 1930s, the decision was made to emphasize the cheaper & less capable twin engine bombers over the longer range and higher flying four engine types analogous to the B-17, which was already flying with the USAAC. The histories I have read make it sound like a political decision by Hitler or Goerring, based on the perception that the crowds at the big Nazi rallies would be more impressed by a flyover of bigger flights of twins than they would be by one half or one third the number of four motor bombers.

There was probably more to it than that, including the fact that the LW was dominated by former Army officers who had not accepted or comprehended the strategic gospel as preached by Balbo or Billy Mitchell.

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
10-05-2011, 09:02 AM
I would say, history proved those "political" decisions right:

Germany never envisioned a US-involvement or actually fighting the RAF for a prolonged timeframe.

What Germany planned for was basicly the war in the East: tactical warfare where the air-force is destinctively used as a long-range artillery.

The strategic capabilities of tactical aircraft (interdiction-missions flown over the Reich and northern Italy) was never quite understood or even evaluated.

You can't blame Hitler or Goering for something they didn't plan to happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Frequent_Flyer
10-05-2011, 08:56 PM
Although initially Hitler gauged the reaction to his mudering the peaceful population of Europe correctly.... Europe would do nothing.

Had he continued East into Russia rather than wage war with Britian he would not have had the US involvement so soon.

Luftw4ffe
10-06-2011, 05:56 AM
If i could present my limited knowledge on the subject. i think bombing the US, a mix of industrial and civilian targets, would have hindered the US's fighting ability (if only a fraction) tied down vital US resources to counter the threat and may have caused them to make a tactical mistake (similar to the Germans mistake at the BoB)

horseback
10-06-2011, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I would say, history proved those "political" decisions right:

Germany never envisioned a US-involvement or actually fighting the RAF for a prolonged timeframe.

What Germany planned for was basicly the war in the East: tactical warfare where the air-force is destinctively used as a long-range artillery.

The strategic capabilities of tactical aircraft (interdiction-missions flown over the Reich and northern Italy) was never quite understood or even evaluated.

You can't blame Hitler or Goering for something they didn't plan to happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I’m not sure I agree here; had the Luftwaffe been able to choke off or destroy the Soviet industrial capacity before they were able to move most it east, a lot of Lend Lease to the USSR would have been rendered useless. The Soviets built the great majority of their own weapons & ammo, for example, and destroying or greatly diminishing that production before it got to the battlefield would have been greatly appreciated by the Wehrmacht (well, at least the Infantry).

German artillery was supposed to be pretty good, but it was used a bit sparingly compared to Allied artillery. It strikes me that using aircraft & bombs in place of less expensive artillery might not have been the best way to put your tax deutschemarks to work.

As for blaming Hitler and Goerring for something they didn't plan, I disagree. It is the responsiblity of a leader to anticipate or at least react effectively when things don't go as planned. Similarly part of the blame must go to the military leaders who didn't have viable alternatives available when the politicians' plans went into the toilet.

Ground minded officers in the Army should have been offset by air minded officers in the Luftwaffe, but the senior officers in the LW were just as ground minded as their peers in the Wehrmacht.

cheers

horseback

WTE_Galway
10-06-2011, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by horseback:


As for blaming Hitler and Goerring for something they didn't plan, I disagree. It is the responsiblity of a leader to anticipate or at least react effectively when things don't go as planned. Similarly part of the blame must go to the military leaders who didn't have viable alternatives available when the politicians' plans went into the toilet.


+1

Hitler, despite the bad press after the fact, was in fact a great tactician on the OFFENSIVE thinking laterally and encouraging innovative commanders like Rommel and Guderian. ( A case in point was the plan he approved to capture the massive Dutch fortifications at Fort Eben-Emael. The 1000 man fortress was taken by just 78 paratroopers who landed on top of it in type DFS 230 gliders. )

However Hitler's huge failing was a tendency to consistently over-reach and a refusal to have contingency plans for setbacks and problems seeing them as defeatist.

In the Wehrmacht's defense, the more experienced conservative generals regularly disagreed with Hitler and offered sound alternative advice (at least early in the war) but it was usually ignored.

Bremspropeller
10-07-2011, 10:06 AM
I’m not sure I agree here; had the Luftwaffe been able to choke off or destroy the Soviet industrial capacity before they were able to move most it east, a lot of Lend Lease to the USSR would have been rendered useless. The Soviets built the great majority of their own weapons & ammo, for example, and destroying or greatly diminishing that production before it got to the battlefield would have been greatly appreciated by the Wehrmacht (well, at least the Infantry).

That wouldn't take a complete different mindset on the soviet side into account.
I don't think Stalin would have just sat there and watched the show, had Germany had any kind of strategical firt-strike capability.
He was too much of a paranoid for being that stupid.

And this doesn't take navigation-problems into account that would doubtlessly arise, had the Soviets put their factories farther east. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Wildnoob
10-07-2011, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
As for blaming Hitler and Goerring for something they didn't plan, I disagree. It is the responsiblity of a leader to anticipate or at least react effectively when things don't go as planned. Similarly part of the blame must go to the military leaders who didn't have viable alternatives available when the politicians' plans went into the toilet.


+2



Originally posted by Bremspropeller: That wouldn't take a complete different mindset on the soviet side into account.

Yes. In the same way people think Germany could have achive peace with Britain and proceed with a certanly historical effective Barbarossa startup. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


And this doesn't take navigation-problems into account that would doubtlessly arise, had the Soviets put their factories farther east.

Can you detail such problems, Brems?

Bremspropeller
10-07-2011, 04:50 PM
The first issue arises out of the need for reinforced runways that can support heavyweight aircraft.

Next comes the question of how to fix the navigation-problems:
There are no ship-bourne or land-bourne nav-beacons that would allow bombing relocated (behind the Ural-mointains) factories and strategic targets of other kind.
Forget the allied bombing-raids on Germany - this is something totally different (no Knickebein or any other gadgets, no nav-radar, no precise long-range weather-forecast service that could predict enroute-winds or target-weather, etc)
The Luftwaffe wasnt the USAAF that could support all those services at once.
Not enough people around for that kind of party!

Deblin-Irena to Moscow is about 1100km (comparable to an attack on Berlin from the Liverpool Area); the distance doubles when attacking Ufa, just southwest of the Ural mountains.


There was no way the german aircraft-industry could have managed fielding enough heavy bombers to really defeat the Soviet-Union on a strategic basis (by bombing alone).

Wildnoob
10-07-2011, 05:04 PM
I understand. I wasn't done for nothing. But still, Hitler really belived in the racial superiority stuff, and that the Soviet system would "fall like a castle cards", as Goebbels said. I belive this was the main reason Germany didn't entered in full war mobilization until the horrible defeat in Stalingrad.

Bremspropeller
10-08-2011, 05:24 AM
Well, the success of summer '41 gave hin partially right (not on the racial-issue, of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif )!

Had they attacked a couple of weeks earlier, they could possibly have achieved a different outcome.

It wasn't so much the Red Army that killed the Wehrmacht in '41 and '42 - it was ole "General Winter" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
10-08-2011, 05:47 AM
Well, the Soviet Army fought in the same conditions. They were up to it, the Wehrmacht wasn't.

Wildnoob
10-08-2011, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, the success of summer '41 gave hin partially right (not on the racial-issue, of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif )!

Partially. Well said.


Had they attacked a couple of weeks earlier, they could possibly have achieved a different outcome.

With all the mud still drying? This is a popular myth. The Barbarossa couldn't have started earlier than it did. And just because this.


Originally posted by JtD: Well, the Soviet Army fought in the same conditions. They were up to it, the Wehrmacht wasn't.

And in part because uncle Joe took the situation in the most serious way. While Hitler did it in the opposite way.

Bremspropeller
10-08-2011, 03:23 PM
They were up to it, the Wehrmacht wasn't.

Yep, they were equipped for some cold weather - ze Germans weren't.

The old "we'll be home by Christmas"-syndrome - and they weren't the last to suffer from that trap...


With all the mud still drying? This is a popular myth. The Barbarossa couldn't have started earlier than it did. And just because this.

I'd be quite surprised if two weeks (no pun intended) had made a difference in the mud's dryness.

TipsyTed
10-09-2011, 02:39 AM
It's also worth looking at Yugoslavia and Greece as contributors to the delay of Barbarosa, since they posed an unexpected problems for Hitler in April 1941.

Yugoslavia joined Axis powers on March 25th 1941, but this move of the Prince Paul of Yugoslavia was met with an utmost opposition of domestic public and military and two days later coup d'etat followed during which Prince Paul was overthrown by King Peter II. Hitler took this as a personal insult and demanded Yugoslavia be burned to the ground as quickly as possible before Soviet Union is invaded.

Wermacht invaded Yugoslavia on April 6th 1941, war ended on April 17th 1941 with unconditional surrender of Royal Yugoslavian Army forces (despite its aviation having, for example, about 250 very modern aircraft in its arsenal, Bf 109 Es, Do 17s, SM 79s, Blenheims, Hurricanes, IK-3s among others).

Greece on the other hand had already defeated Italians and pushed them back into Albania in october 1940 when Hitler still had his hands full with the British, so now he saw the need to help his Italian comrade not for as much for any prestigious reason as for the preventing the British to establish military presence in Greece. Wermacht invaded Greece simultaneously with Yugoslavia - on April 6th 1941. Only after 30th April 1941 when Greece succumbed, could Hitler begin final preparations for Barbarosa.

I'm not saying Yugoslavia and Greece were the sole reason for the Barbarosa to start late, but in my humble opinion one of the major ones.

Bremspropeller
10-09-2011, 06:08 AM
One should also pay attention to old Bennito's failed safari in Northern Africa, which definately stole assets originally planned for use in the Soviet Union.

Bennito wasn't exactly Hitler's best friend after that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

WTE_Galway
10-09-2011, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
One should also pay attention to old Bennito's failed safari in Northern Africa, which definately stole assets originally planned for use in the Soviet Union.

Bennito wasn't exactly Hitler's best friend after that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

With an army of illiterate conscripts from the southern farms led by officers chosen on aristocratic heritage rather than ability and supplied with obsolete equipment (the result of corruption and protectionist economics back home) the Africa exercise was bound to be a disaster for Italy.

Not necessarily for the Germans though, a more sustained effort in Africa to take the middle east oilfields may have changed the direction of the war.

Bremspropeller
10-11-2011, 01:44 PM
Capturing stuff is easy - holding it is an art.

At this place I always like to come up wit the anlogy of the "too short blanket".
They just didn't have the manpower for doing that kind of stuff without sacrificing other theatres.

Col_SandersLite
10-12-2011, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I'd be quite surprised if two weeks (no pun intended) had made a difference in the mud's dryness.

I would have said that same thing a couple of years ago, but I read a fairly hefty article on the development of railroads in russia that actually countermands that entire school of thought. Apparently, traditionally, the roads in russia where closed like 6 months out of the year due to washouts, show, mud, etc and then it took another 2-3 months to get them fixed again. The primary method of moving pretty much anything between the main cities in russia before the rail system was developed was by canal or river, and even that had some severe limits. Sure, we're talking about a more modernized and industrialized russia during WWII, but the point still stands that you're asking your army to fight in prohibitively bad terrain on a huge front. I wish I could remember what exactly the article was called so I could send you that way, as it's quite enlightening, but I frankly just can't.

The main point I'm trying to get accross is that these things made logisitics in russia a nightmare for the people who lived and did business there. It would be much worse for a foreign invader to deal with.

Dtools4fools
10-12-2011, 07:23 AM
- How did these people expect those piston powered, unescorted, high flying and thus early detected bombers not to get minced by US land based interceptors, namely P-47s?

Same goes for the B-36 - and yet the Americans build kit.

horseback
10-12-2011, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
- How did these people expect those piston powered, unescorted, high flying and thus early detected bombers not to get minced by US land based interceptors, namely P-47s?

Same goes for the B-36 - and yet the Americans build kit. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the original studies on the subject were done in the 1930s, when radar was unperfected even if the theory was ‘sort of’ understood in some scientific circles (and in much smaller military circles).

Even by 1945, the Atlantic coast of the US and Canada (a distance of around 3500km from Miami to Nova Scotia) were incompletely covered by radar or fighter patrols, and you have to appreciate that in the absence of a decent IFF system, every blip on the screen lacking an appropriate IFF response would require an eyeball appraisal; a difficult task in view of the fact that most ‘long range’ radars of the period would have been 2-D (bearing & distance), and have only a cursory means of gauging a target’s altitude.

That means that an interceptor would have to find an approaching bomber through clouds, differentiate it from possibly dozens of nearby innocent aircraft and search a volume of airspace several thousands of feet deep and wide and constantly expanding as the ‘target’ continues moving and is lost and re-acquired by the ground stations. Add a factor of 7-10km of altitude and a speed of around 400kph/250mph and an interceptor’s range becomes a factor as well as its ability to intercept before the bomber reaches its target. The key factor would be how much of a head start the bomber would have over its potential interceptors; their speed advantage is offset by the time it takes to climb to alt and the fuel it burns off while pinpointing the target aircraft or formation—if you have enough of a distance advantage, you can stay beyond their weapons’ range before they run out of fuel and are forced to return to base (and this would have made Mustangs or P-38s preferable to P-47s because both had better climb and range capabilities).

The problem for the Soviets was even more acute, because cancelling out ‘ground clutter’ was a major problem in the early days of long range search radars; coastal stations had a clearer picture because the ocean is reasonably flat and doesn’t reflect back much of your search pulse, but over land, every tree, telephone pole, building and hill will reflect your powerful RF pulse back into your (extremely sensitive) receiver, blanking out more distant air contacts. The B-36 concept was originally planned with Germany or Japan in mind; having the Soviet Union still within range from the continental USA was a bonus (although the Soviets would not have needed radar to detect one; it was by far the loudest aircraft I have ever been exposed to—you could easily hear one 7000m up from the ground).

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
10-12-2011, 12:05 PM
(although the Soviets would not have needed radar to detect one; it was by far the loudest aircraft I have ever been exposed to—you could easily hear one 7000m up from the ground).

You can hear most jets (even relatively quiet hi-bypass engined airliners) from the gound. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
10-12-2011, 01:01 PM
Having grown up on Air Force bases around the world, I'm quite aware of that fact, Brems. However, the prop-driven B-36 dwarfed the noise generated by anything else I have heard in my 58 years.

It had to be very loud; I remember it clearly from a limited exposure while my father was stationed at Mountain Home AFB in Idaho well before my sister was born (at risk of life and limb, I will reveal that she is 54; a bit less than 4 years younger than I am). Those behemoths made a strong impression on me at a very early age.

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
10-12-2011, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller: Capturing stuff is easy - holding it is an art.

This also applies to Moscow.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
Sure, we're talking about a more modernized and industrialized russia during WWII

But were also are talking about the Heer with 70% of it's logistic made of wagons. Just like in the ancient times.

Bremspropeller
10-16-2011, 02:17 PM
I'm not *quite* sure, but I think there was a (British?) system for early-warning based on HEARING the incoming Tu-95s (and ther versions...), when they still were very far out above the North Sea.

Their prop-noise was so energetic and characteristic that they could be heard (amplyfied audio, of course..) from hundreds of miles away.

Those large turboprops... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


The B-36 gotta be every airport noise-pollution activist's wet dream:
Six large turboprops coupled with four turbojets.
Calls for lots of new friends when arriving at night http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

horseback
10-16-2011, 06:15 PM
Turboprops aren't particularly noisy; it was the counterrotating props that made all the racket.

One could be passing overhead at 25,000 ft and it sounded like it was taxiing past your front door if you were in the house.

Of course Air Force housing in the fifties was nothing to write home about.

cheers

horseback

repoman11
10-16-2011, 07:55 PM
The B-36 had six R-4360s.

Treetop64
10-17-2011, 10:57 AM
Yes. R-4360s. No Turboprops. So it would have been even noisier!

Bremspropeller
10-17-2011, 11:06 AM
You're right, no turboprops on the B-36, my bad.

Some TPs are quite noisy, however.
It largely depends on the blade-geometry.
Some TPs are very distinct (RR Dart and it's very distinctive whistle) in their sound and easy giveaways of the aircraft-type in-flight.

Woke_Up_Dead
10-17-2011, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I'm not *quite* sure, but I think there was a (British?) system for early-warning based on HEARING the incoming Tu-95s (and ther versions...), when they still were very far out above the North Sea.


A lot of countries had acoustic early-warning systems before the war, they were discontinued because of radar and because other soldiers would laugh hysterically at the sight of the acoustic machine operators:

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/ear/czech%20horn%202a.jpg

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/ear/bolling%20field%201921%20a.jpg

http://ccgi.ajg41.plus.com/wp-content/uploads/nl-waalsdorp-listening-214x300.gif

http://intense-zone.com/wp-content/uploads/Acoustic_Radars_16-300x283.jpg

Ba5tard5word
10-17-2011, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Who is Fat Boy?

Angry German Kid maybe?

WTE_Galway
11-01-2011, 11:30 PM
Then there was the volks-waffe ...

<span class="flash-video"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
height="315"
width="420"
><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DwlbCLX7aZk?version=3&hl=en_US"
name="movie"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed wmode="transparent"
allowScriptAccess="never"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
height="315"
width="420"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DwlbCLX7aZk?version=3&hl=en_US"
/></object></span>