PDA

View Full Version : The Nazis had JETS! How did they loose?



Afromike1
04-05-2009, 05:58 PM
If the Nazis were the only ones to successfully invent jets during ww2 how could they have lost the war? They should have one every aerial victory. Its like having one guy with a machine gun fighting 100 with knives.

ElAurens
04-05-2009, 05:59 PM
Time for more research little one.

Actually it was more like one guy with a pistol fighting 100,000 guys, also with pistols.

na85
04-05-2009, 06:00 PM
Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.

Choctaw111
04-05-2009, 06:33 PM
Maybe this guy doesn't really know.
There were too few jets to make a difference. Too little fuel to even keep the jets flying and a few other logistic things.

danjama
04-05-2009, 06:41 PM
1)Their Jets were primitive and needed cover for landing and takeoff as they took a long time to get up to speed. Also as said they were not in large enough numbers, or used in their correct role.

2)The meteor was also invented during WW2 but never saw combat ops.

I_KG100_Prien
04-05-2009, 06:42 PM
Because they weren't being flown by Ninjas. Guitar Wielding Ninjas..

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb244/gerekeh/ninjaswithguitars.jpg

WTE_Galway
04-05-2009, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
2)The meteor was also invented during WW2 but never saw combat ops.

Actually Meteor's shotdown quite a few V1's and a squadron with the improved Derwents was operational in Belgium before the end of the war, and in theory could have seen air to air combat if Luftwaffe fighters had been in the area - it just never happened.

danjama
04-05-2009, 07:44 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 danjama:
2)The meteor was also invented during WW2 but never saw combat ops.

Actually Meteor's shotdown quite a few V1's and a squadron with the improved Derwents was operational in Belgium before the end of the war, and in theory could have seen air to air combat if Luftwaffe fighters had been in the area - it just never happened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected, thanks for the info.

mortoma
04-05-2009, 07:49 PM
The US had jets by 1943 but the P-59 Airacomet did not perform well enough. And of course we should all know by now the US had a few YP-80s in Italy that never saw action against the enemy.

CarlingWood
04-05-2009, 07:53 PM
Because too few jets at that time that could of affected the outcome on the ground.

Its like have 1 adult going in to beat up a group of 100 12 year old kids.

X32Wright
04-05-2009, 08:49 PM
The Me-262's engines had to be serviced every 24 hours of flight time. It wasn't very reliable due to limited resources and bad alloys used. Also Hitler mandated that the Me-262 be used as a Bomber instead of as a fighter. This lead to the Me-262 being deployed almost 1 year late to be an effective interceptor vs fighters and bombers.

Their used as a fighter came late when Adolf Galland finally ignored Hitler's instructions. Remember that making the Me-262 as a bomber is pretty stupid considering that the Do-335 Pfeil carried more bombs and flew faster and more reliably. In the end they were deployed too little (not enough planes made) too late (deployed late in the war to be effective).

The He-162 also had engine problems and the pilots who flew them had almost no flight experience.

Probably the only effective jet plane that the nazi's had was the Arado Ar-234 which were used effectively as reconnaisance aircraft.

Zeus-cat
04-05-2009, 09:44 PM
They lost because the famous German weapons were poor designs. The Me-262, the Tiger tanks, the V-1 and V-2, etc.

From an engineering standpoint they were very interesting and if they would have been developed properly and refined they might have made a difference. But these weapons were put into production because they were fascinating to Hitler and not because they were what Germany needed.

As has been stated the 262 was initially made into a bomber instead of being used as a bomber interceptor where its huge speed advantage would have been very useful in boom and zoom attacks.

The tiger tanks were very impressive, but they were incredibly complicated and expensive to build and fielded in small numbers. They were also too wide to be transported easily by rail which was an unforgivable mistake by the designers.

The V-1 and V-2 were huge wastes of manpower and resources for the small amount of military damage they caused.

just so you don't think I slamming German engineering; some of their weapon designs were excellent. The MP40, the Panzerfaust and Panzershreck are great examples of weapons that were developed exactly for what the Germans needed them to be.

M_Gunz
04-05-2009, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Afromike1:
If the Nazis were the only ones to successfully invent jets during ww2 how could they have lost the war? They should have one every aerial victory. Its like having one guy with a machine gun fighting 100 with knives.

I think that the British and the Germans both had invented jet engines before the war actually started.
You could really benefit from even a History Channel show about those jets in the war.
Custer's boys had a Gatling and better rifles at Little Bighorn and they still got stomped.

At close range, one with a knife can beat one with a machinegun. Win one, won....

VW-IceFire
04-05-2009, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Afromike1:
If the Nazis were the only ones to successfully invent jets during ww2 how could they have lost the war? They should have one every aerial victory. Its like having one guy with a machine gun fighting 100 with knives.
Wrong on pretty much every account...sorry. The Gloster Meteor and Lockheed's P-80 were also "successfully" invented. The Meteor started combat operations against V-1s in 1944. The YP-80 was deployed to Italy and production P-80s were deployed to the Pacific but neither deployment saw action as the war had already been won.

Loosing a war often has very little to do with the specific equipment on hand and much more to do with the circumstances. The bigger things like resources, industrial capacity, organization, and so forth play an even bigger role.

Nazi Germany was surrounded on all sides by the time the Me-262 and Ar-234 came into operation. So they were stuck fighting a multi-front war and three of the opponents individually had more industrial capacity and weren't significantly far behind technologically.

Plus early jets weren't that much faster than prop fighters and were slow to accelerate. Not to mention that the axial flow system that the Germans were using wasn't reliable enough yet and engines had to be replaced after a very short period of operation.

Jets and winning or loosing WWII had very little to do with it.

jannaspookie
04-05-2009, 10:47 PM
Not all Germans were Nazis during WWII, you know. Me smells a troll...

WTE_Galway
04-05-2009, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
The MP40, the Panzerfaust and Panzershreck are great examples of weapons that were developed exactly for what the Germans needed them to be.

Well lets not forget the MP42 which post war became the standard design for a light machine gun for NATO and was stolen for use in the US in a modernised form as the M-60! AFAIK the German Army continues to use a version of the MG42 as their standard light machine gun 70 odd years after it was first developed.

Bartman.
04-06-2009, 12:05 AM
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 Zeus-cat:
The MP40, the Panzerfaust and Panzershreck are great examples of weapons that were developed exactly for what the Germans needed them to be.

Well lets not forget the MP42 which post war became the standard design for a light machine gun for NATO and was stolen for use in the US in a modernised form as the M-60! AFAIK the German Army continues to use a version of the MG42 as their standard light machine gun 70 odd years after it was first developed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you lose a war it's hardly stollen it's confiscated! ... you start a war then lose it it's pay up time , it's always been the way you don't get let off scot free .

Bartman .

Waldo.Pepper
04-06-2009, 12:52 AM
"The terrific advantage enjoyed by jets against piston-engined fighters was probably given its best demonstration on April 7th. That day the Luftwaffe, under the operations code-name " Wehrwolf", directed its attack, not as usual against the bombers, but against their fighter escort. Without appreciable loss to itself, JG 7 alone claimed as many as twenty-eight of them. On the other hand 183 Me 109s and Fw 190s were hunted to death by the Mustangs. According to the war diary of I Air Corps the day saw the loss of no less than 133 of them, with seventy-seven pilots killed. Thus on this occasion the claim of the American fighter groups to have shot down over 100 German fighters, though held by their command to be an exaggerated one, was in fact perfectly correct. Unfortunately the American Army Air Forces history, though recording the loss of seven bombers, makes no mention of the Mustang losses incurred in this last great air battle of the war.
Only three days later, however, the German jets paid the penalty. Formations totalling 1,200 bombers entered the Berlin area and devastated their bases at Oranienburg, Burg, Brandenburg-Briest, Parchim and Rechlin-Larz by carpet-bombing. Though the jets knocked down ten of them, they themselves were obliged, with their airfields gone, to withdraw to others as far distant as Prague.

Apart from a few isolated actions, that marked the end of the Me 262 confrontation. No longer were a few stout-hearted German pilots, however superior their planes, in a position to challenge the Allied sovereignty of the air.

Developed already before the war, for years neglected and even banned by Germany's supreme military director, and then thrown into the struggle at the eleventh houróGermany's jet fighter remains a tribute to German inventiveness even at a time of crisis. Its effect on the outcome of the war was, however, negligible."

From the Luftwaffe War Diaries p. 360.

Xiolablu3
04-06-2009, 01:07 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor

http://de.geocities.com/glupscherle/gloster-meteor.jpg

http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/1944/meteor31024.jpg

Xiolablu3
04-06-2009, 01:11 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire

http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/1946_1949/vampire11024.jpg

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/images/historic_gallery/wallpaper/vampire.jpg

Feathered_IV
04-06-2009, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by Afromike1: Its like having one guy with a machine gun fighting 100 with knives.

More like having one guy with an empty machine gun, fighting 1000 guys with knives.


Better yet, look at it this way - Sid Snot discussing a motorcycle with David Essex:

David: How many miles does it get to the gallon?
Sid: I dunno.
David: Whadda you mean you don't know?!
Sid: Well, I never had a whole gallon in it...

geddit now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

AllorNothing117
04-06-2009, 04:25 AM
It's also worth considering that the gap between hte last propelor planes and earliest jets was not so big. If you fly a later mustang and then an early ME-262 you can apretiate that they are not so far apart in terms of speed, and the mustang is far more manuverable and accelorates quicker. There's a big gap between the first Jets and the ones you see today(60+ years!), but very few people now much about it, me included. Consider the first propeler planes and then the later ones, it's the same principle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hope that helped.

DKoor
04-06-2009, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
It's also worth considering that the gap between hte last propelor planes and earliest jets was not so big. If you fly a later mustang and then an early ME-262 you can apretiate that they are not so far apart in terms of speed, and the mustang is far more manuverable and accelorates quicker. There's a big gap between the first Jets and the ones you see today(60+ years!), but very few people now much about it, me included. Consider the first propeler planes and then the later ones, it's the same principle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hope that helped. At best speed altitude (curiously, roughly same for both aircraft 6500m alt) difference between Mustang Mk.III (best perf Mustang in the game) and Me-262 is 140kph, while at deck difference is 200kph in Me-262's favor.
Gap between the common Mustang variant, the P-51D and Me-262 is even higher in 262's favor.

Considering that breakup speed difference is 110kph we can say without doubt that Me-262 is significantly superior performance aircraft. Practically in the same manor the Bf-109F is superior to the I-16.

killersquad1960
04-06-2009, 04:58 AM
Hitler was very good with his blitz screens(maybe spelling it wrong) short time he ruled but he couldn't do the long haul of a war.He didn't listen to his generals and was getting attacks on all fronts. If I had been Hitler I would had Japan and me as Hitler combine our forces with other axis powers.Instead he was alone, had they planned this better they might of won.But it shows you,that when you don't listen to people
and exchange ideas you cant win.He was a madman
and insane.Its like i go throw a rock to break your glass window and runaway. Plus you had people trying to kill him from within his own commanding officers.His rockets were a failure
missed their targets most of the time,his fighting men didn't believe in Hitler.
Many things go into play why he lost and thank god he did.On the topic of jets, jets were at the early stages of development, they weren't much faster than the propeller planes.Some missions I tried with a jet usually end up dead, engine over heat.

From my high school days I read a book on adolf hitler, I've studied world war 2 off and on for 30 years, I was in in the USMC. I been inside tanks(not much room to move in) we trained officers for amphibious landings pretty cool stuff.

Maybe most fighters we had (USA) maybe wasnt as fast as a zero or germany fighters but I use a P-40 and shot down many zero's I was patient.
I never attacked the first plane of a squad I go for the plane in the back of a squad and me
and my wingman shattered him to pieces.Its the way you attack a plane, they may had more speed
but you use common tactics,I like to use game chicken.

Hitler just underestimated his enemy, London was
a rubble of a city but Winston Churchill never gave up.Hats off to RAF, I trully respect them and the Russians on the eastern front.

When your getting attacked on all fronts
its very difficult to win,he was a coward killed himself.

DKoor
04-06-2009, 05:18 AM
Good posthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.

eindecker
04-06-2009, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
They lost because the famous German weapons were poor designs. The Me-262, the Tiger tanks, the V-1 and V-2, etc.

From an engineering standpoint they were very interesting and if they would have been developed properly and refined they might have made a difference. But these weapons were put into production because they were fascinating to Hitler and not because they were what Germany needed.

As has been stated the 262 was initially made into a bomber instead of being used as a bomber interceptor where its huge speed advantage would have been very useful in boom and zoom attacks.

The tiger tanks were very impressive, but they were incredibly complicated and expensive to build and fielded in small numbers. They were also too wide to be transported easily by rail which was an unforgivable mistake by the designers.

The V-1 and V-2 were huge wastes of manpower and resources for the small amount of military damage they caused.

just so you don't think I slamming German engineering; some of their weapon designs were excellent. The MP40, the Panzerfaust and Panzershreck are great examples of weapons that were developed exactly for what the Germans needed them to be.

The above is largely true. The V-2 project was of no military
value and did nothing but train engineers for the American and
Soviet space programs.
Jet engines were running under their owm power by mid 1936 in Britian
and early 1937 in Germany. There is no clear title to "invented here"
as a jet is nothing but a gas turbine and was invented in Norway in 1903
by Egidius Elling.
The error of building a tank that could not be transported by rail was laughable in the 1940s!
Few today realise that there was little in the way of autobahns or other
large good roads to transport heavy equipment on.
That the Germans were ahead technologically is 100% myth.
The Germans fielded a number of weapons that the Allies
either failed to take seriously or simply ignored.
British RADAR tech was not to be equaled although largely built in the USA.
Germany never developed a RADAR proximity fuse as the Brits and Americans did.
Germany failed to take nuclear weapons seriously. (technologically ahead?)
Germany did however see the value in Dr. Robert Goddard's liguid fueled rockets
and happily stole his ideas. Yes folks, the German liquid fueled rocket program
was built on stolen American tech.
Electronic Computers...ENIAC and Collosus, American and British, no German or AXIS equal to be seen.

Eindecker

Flight_boy1990
04-06-2009, 06:09 AM
Just to add a note to what killersquad said for the USSR.

So,i'm living in an ex.communist coutry.Through i haven't been borned when the communists rulled Bulgaria (and i'm happy for that),but i still know a lot from my grandmother and grandfather (he was a commander of a garnizon by the time of WW2).
And all i want to say for the "comrades",is that there is nothing more cruel than the communists (well,of course the nazis are right up with them).They're both heartless animals.

Just for the note:
1-Stalin was killing jews too,in Sibir.
2-Sending unarmed and unqualified personal to hold the front (basicly being slaughtered,trying to hold the front),untill they invented more advanced weapons like the La-5 FN in aviation,and the T-34 in the armed divisions,that can compare with what the germans got by the time.
3-Bulgaria was not in war with the USSR,but still,we even didn't shot a single bullet to the russians,mainly because we're both Slavian countries and have the same roots.But anyway,after the war,when the winners of the war were sitting to the big table and were discussing who won and who lost,when they've came along to Bulgaria...USA,UK,France,gave the word to USSR,because Bulgaria actually switched sides...And went to war with Germany (after September 1944)all the way,untill the end,bulgarian soldiers fought weapon to weapon with the russian soldiers...
So guess what the russian's said..."Bulgaria lost the war",a fuc**** load of ****.So many bulgarian pilots,soldiers died on the battlefield to help the russians go closer to Germany,and then they said we've lost...
But yes...All the world knows for the "Heroic Victory of Mother Russia over the cruel Nazi Germany",and nobody knows of who actually helped them...
And all this,because the communists wanted so much Bulgaria as a communist country.
So,i hate both Nazi's and Communists.They both handicaped our country (and not only our).

Those are just few of the things that i can citate for the communists...
I'll leave anyone here to make his own opinion,on who was the "good guy".

slipBall
04-06-2009, 06:34 AM
I think what the German's were hoping for, was the incredable rate of climb that those early jets/rocket planes such as me-163 had, to somehow ward off the endless stream of allied bombers. It was a case of too little, too late, for the jet stockpile at hand.

CUJO_1970
04-06-2009, 07:36 AM
eindecker:


Wow, how many alias' have you had over the years? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...just keep clucking away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

DKoor
04-06-2009, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">eindecker:


Wow, how many alias' have you had over the years? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...just keep clucking away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Something looked familiar to me too... not only by the content, but by the form also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

R_Target
04-06-2009, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Something looked familiar to me too... not only by the content, but by the form also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

I spotted this a while back. The rhetoric always gives them away.

na85
04-06-2009, 11:17 AM
Who do we think eindecker is?

Bremspropeller
04-06-2009, 11:31 AM
Germans know that losing despite hax weapons is kewler.

You get all the hawt chix n'stuff...

M_Gunz
04-06-2009, 11:44 AM
Germans were the first by years to take nuclear weapons seriously. Ask Herr Heisenberg.
They had mass production of heavy water going even though between sabotage and bombing it was made useless.
Sure they never put the budget into it that the Manhattan Project had but they simply could not.
That doesn't mean they had no serious effort going.
In the US it took over a year and Albert Einstein to get through to FDR that the Germans did have an effort
and just how serious the threat was or there never would have been a Manhattan Project at all. It is said
that the knowledge of that was the big reason why FDR pulled the stops on getting into the war and putting
first priority on stopping Germany even after Pearl Harbor. It was such a deep secret that a lot of people
were upset with the man and stayed that way. They didn't know and even after the bomb they didn't look back.

Zeus-cat
04-06-2009, 05:34 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 Zeus-cat:
The MP40, the Panzerfaust and Panzershreck are great examples of weapons that were developed exactly for what the Germans needed them to be.

Well lets not forget the MP42 which post war became the standard design for a light machine gun for NATO and was stolen for use in the US in a modernised form as the M-60! AFAIK the German Army continues to use a version of the MG42 as their standard light machine gun 70 odd years after it was first developed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MG42; I knew I was forgetting a really obvious one when I posted this. Thanks for mentionin it WTE_Galway.

Daiichidoku
04-06-2009, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Something looked familiar to me too... not only by the content, but by the form also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

I spotted this a while back. The rhetoric always gives them away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it was clear right away from his first post, as all his alaises are

i never bothered to call him out then, as he has been incredibly quiet and not his usual....well, his usual self

Daiichidoku
04-06-2009, 06:29 PM
and, as ALWAYS, any jet-related thread neglects the He-280, how conveeeenient

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

eindecker
04-06-2009, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Germans were the first by years to take nuclear weapons seriously. Ask Herr Heisenberg.
They had mass production of heavy water going even though between sabotage and bombing it was made useless.
Sure they never put the budget into it that the Manhattan Project had but they simply could not.
That doesn't mean they had no serious effort going.
In the US it took over a year and Albert Einstein to get through to FDR that the Germans did have an effort
and just how serious the threat was or there never would have been a Manhattan Project at all. It is said
that the knowledge of that was the big reason why FDR pulled the stops on getting into the war and putting
first priority on stopping Germany even after Pearl Harbor. It was such a deep secret that a lot of people
were upset with the man and stayed that way. They didn't know and even after the bomb they didn't look back.

Heavy water in of itself is only an indicator that one or
more of the Hydrogen atoms on the water molecule is Deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen).
Atoms of heavy hydrogen and helium (tritium) are the fuel in a fusion bomb.
To generate the heat and pressure needed to trigger a fusion reaction you need a fission bomb.
A fission bomb uses the splitting of Uranium and or plutonium to release energy.
Heavy water is of itself a dead end.
Germany had neither the resources or technology needed to develop a nuclear weapon
with the state of the art 1940's technology especially after murdering oe exiling
the scientists that could have pulled it off. Einstein did every one a favor by exaggerating the threat.

Eindecker

na85
04-06-2009, 08:38 PM
Heavy water is really only useful if you're building a nuclear reactor.

And even then, if your reactor is a breeder for producing weapons-grade fissile materials, you don't usually use heavy water as a moderator.

eindecker
04-06-2009, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Heavy water is really only useful if you're building a nuclear reactor.

And even then, if your reactor is a breeder for producing weapons-grade fissile materials, you don't usually use heavy water as a moderator.

True in part. A few thousand gallons of the stuff as a moderator
can allow one to have U-238 start a fission reaction
without refining the unstable isotope U-235. It has been done in recent years.
But it was way beyond the capability of any one in 1945.
I agree that heavy water moderated reactor would be a poor choice
for creating plutonium.
Heavy water is the primary source for Deuterium.

Eindecker

X32Wright
04-06-2009, 09:43 PM
heavy water from norway wasn;t enough for Heisenberg to build a nuclear bomb for the 2nd 'Uranverein'. They were still testing the reactor when the Allies rounded up the Physicists.

Hitler did test a small nuclear device:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348497.stm

M_Gunz
04-06-2009, 10:36 PM
Good thing that Heisenberg didn't have the benefit of hindsight that you all have.
Effort is the not the same as succeed.
The Germans made a real effort with making atomic bombs as the goal in mind.
Barrels of the heavy water sunk while in transport have been recovered and it was still very rich.
Werner Heisenberg was the first to split the atom, that was in 1939.

eindecker
04-07-2009, 05:49 AM
First scientificly proven splitting of the atom was at Cavendish Laboratory, by
Walton and Cockroft, in the 1930's. It was not the first time at all, but the first to
be proven. Atoms are split and fused constantly in nature.
Check your "facts" M_Gunz

With all due respects mr Wright that "test" has
been proven to be not even worthy of the label "myth".
Independant tests at the supposed site show nothing above normal background radiation
and there is zero credadibility to there having been a operational German reactor during WWII.

Eindecker

X32Wright
04-07-2009, 06:06 AM
Go read:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hydro/close.html

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/688696

http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p11.htm

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3034

http://www.mphpa.org/classic/M.../bohr_heisenberg.htm (http://www.mphpa.org/classic/MP_Misc/Bohr_Heisenberg/bohr_heisenberg.htm)

BTW my post didn't have the word 'operational' and I avoided using that word because it wasn't 'operational' but it was being tested and they came really close.

waffen-79
04-07-2009, 12:12 PM
Why are you guys arguing about who invented the A-bomb?

if the V-weapons(v-1, v-2) were widely labeled coward weapons

the a-bomb is in another cowardly ligue, not something to be proud of

Hookecho
04-07-2009, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Afromike1:
If the Nazis were the only ones to successfully invent jets during ww2 how could they have lost the war? They should have one every aerial victory. Its like having one guy with a machine gun fighting 100 with knives.

Herr Hitler was a fracking idiot........thats why

Brain32
04-07-2009, 01:14 PM
Wow this place is really happier without me, a bit brainwashed because you guys always agree over everything like "the Borg" but happier...

*retires back to the shadow but keeps watching you muahahhhaaha* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

iL2fan
04-07-2009, 02:11 PM
Why would you WANT the Germans to win anyway? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Jaws2002
04-07-2009, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by eindecker:

Eindecker

How many times did this Sergio get banned?
Will he ever understand that we don't really want his crap? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

blairgowrie
04-07-2009, 03:24 PM
Jwas m8. Please check your pm.

Bobbo_Tabor
04-07-2009, 03:40 PM
Time to get this back on topic and away from "whose nuke is bigger?"

I thought the German jets were ineffective due the the tight leather shorts the Germans were wearing at the time. Just too much chaffing on the tender bits for high speed jet combat. That's why the world had to what for Korea and the widespread adoption of elastic waist bands in underwear for the first jet verses jet combat.

New inventions just need the right time and place to be effective.

jamesblonde1979
04-08-2009, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by Hookecho:


Herr Hitler was a fracking idiot........thats why

Hitler was anything but an idiot.

Misguided and delusional, surely, but not an idiot.

Romanator21
04-08-2009, 04:35 AM
So guess what the russian's said..."Bulgaria lost the war",a fuc**** load of ****.So many bulgarian pilots,soldiers died on the battlefield to help the russians go closer to Germany,and then they said we've lost...
But yes...All the world knows for the "Heroic Victory of Mother Russia over the cruel Nazi Germany",and nobody knows of who actually helped them...
And all this,because the communists wanted so much Bulgaria as a communist country.
So,i hate both Nazi's and Communists.They both handicaped our country (and not only our).

Those are just few of the things that i can citate for the communists...
I'll leave anyone here to make his own opinion,on who was the "good guy".
I agree with you there. I am Ukrainian by birth, although now I am a US citizen. I despise "comrade" Stalin and "Communism". He was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people. Hitler was insane, but Stalin was purely evil. He swept away lives like one sweeps dust off a shelf. From every nation, people were slaughtered outright, or faded out of existence in the Gulag. My own Great Grandfather risked his life to save hundreds from death and imprisonment from the Nazis by hiding them in his hospital. For his efforts he was sent to one of those camps in Siberia. Stalin brutally assaulted Poland, and then offered her people up as cannon meat before his own troops made the final push into Germany. Communism wrecked Ukraine as well. For a time inflation incredible. I have in my collection a 1,000,000 rouble coin, that at the time could barely buy you a loaf of bread. To even have a small hope of getting a piece of cheese, or some milk, my mother had to stand in line for hours before the store opened. That's ultimately why we came here. With 75$ we made a new life in the US, and I a realize just how little a future I would have if we remained there. To this day, Ukraine is struggling under poverty, corruption, etc. I have a friend from Romania, and he has also told me about the great sacrifices and great losses of his own family and several others under the communist regime there.

But, when I think about the USSR, I think about the spirit and the will of its people, toiling and sacrificing for nothing, and sometimes worse than nothing. When I visit and I see those ghastly sleeper towns, or the long rows of uniform grey lifeless apartments I am haunted and awed. I find it hard to believe that people still live in those dark, dirty, and sometimes dangerous dwellings. Recently when I was at a war museum, I felt inspired by the great deeds of our people, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Polish, Romanian, and all, and at the same time deeply bitter with how greatly poisonous communism was for all of us.

I have a CCCP shirt I wear sometimes when I think about the people, their deeds and sacrifices. But, it's too easily taken as meaning that I'm just a commie, or a compatriot of Lenin, so I guess I'll stop wearing it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Flight_boy1990
04-08-2009, 05:50 AM
Thanks for sharing this Romanator,very well said!
Your Grand Grandfather was a hero!

The communists were criminals,they took the country rulling by force,with a coup/riot (not sure if this is the right meaning of it in english),executing the whole Tsar Nicolas II's familly (as far as i remember,this was the last Tsar if Russia) ...Their censore from 1917 untill 1989 is hiding even today a lot of the horrors that the communists made.
This was the darkest time of the european history in my opinion.
They were just the same bunch of ****** like the Nazi's,even worst,but with another name.
That brings me the memory that the disaster in Chernobyl NPP was caused again guess by who...The communists.But i'm sure you know way better than me all the info behind that story. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
So,two days after the explosion and letting loose of so many radiation gases in the air,there was an insane acid rain over Bulgaria.A lot of the cars parked outside were crippled,trees died...
I even think that fromm all those years of communist rulling,the number of all the innocent people that were kiled or executed by various communist secret services,and not only,is bigger than what the nazi's had.But i don't know how true this is.
They're both awful to me anyway.
Both had sick leadership.

Many people think that the communists were heroes for beating the nazi's,and were the "good guys",but only few here i'm sure,are knowing the real face of the communisme.

whoopy1952
04-08-2009, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hookecho:


Herr Hitler was a fracking idiot........thats why

Hitler was anything but an idiot.

Misguided and delusional, surely, but not an idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry,but this is where i would like to react.
You realy give to mutsh credit to the man,something i will never do.
I can perfectly understand that some peaple call Hitler an idiot,the man made some very stupid mistakes,to say the least,so sometimes i woulden't hesitate to call him an idiot myself.
You whant some examples???
Let's start with the B.O.B.
Who ordered to change the target from the airfields,and the destruction of the RAF,to London and other citys ???
Not very smart was it.
This explaines Hitler in all his complexity.
He was clearly very tromatised by his experiences in WW1,and most of all by the treaty of Versailles.
From there one,there's one obsession,REVENGE,RETALIATION
This explaines allso why Hitler whants plaines to carry bombs,even if thy haven't been designd for that,just as it explaines the V1 and V2.
But ther's mutsh more:who alawed the Bismarck to go to sea with only one cruser to suport here,and face the whole British Navy,that was pure nonsens !!!
And who forbid Von Poulus to withdraw from Stalingrad to straighten his frontline,afther he repeatedly warned Hitler of what was gooing to happen???
Who refused to let the tank reserves to be used in the first houres afther D-Day ???
Who was responseble for the Ardennes offencieve???
That was sheer madness,as all the troops,and most of all the tanks who where used,and lost there,should have been on the east front,that was in a state of collapse.
It is true that Hitler was ill adviced !!!
But who was responseble for puthing these advisers in thair respective funktions.
Who let Goering become the head of "the luftwaffe"???
And Von Ribbentrop minister of forein affairs,the man was uncapable and untrustworthy.
And Dr Todd,minister of armament,he was even less capable then Von Ribbentrop !!!
Non of them would have been in that funktion without the aproval of "The Great Dictator" !!!!
So,i realy don't know what you need more to call Hitler an idiot.
It's nonsens to blame someone else,HE was in charge.
I could have said mutsh more,but it would bring us to far,so i will stop here now,and i hope you can understand my way of seeing this.

x6BL_Brando
04-08-2009, 07:24 AM
Perhaps we could simplify this by saying that totalitarian regimes are just doomed to failure, and that democracy, with all its faults, is still the most civilised form of government that mankind has devised?

Dictators will always become socio-paths given the unbridled power which they assume over the people they claim to represent - and if they have psychopathic tendencies then this power is always enough to tip them over the edge and take the rest of us with them. But just to say that one person was an idiot or another was evil personified is just too simplistic. It's necessary to look at the person's history and social environment and take into account the history and social environment of their world as well.

deepo_HP
04-08-2009, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by eindecker:
First scientificly proven splitting of the atom was at Cavendish Laboratory, by
Walton and Cockroft, in the 1930's. It was not the first time at all, but the first to
be proven.
Check your "facts" M_Gunz


maybe you check your facts as well...
cockroft and walton haven't 'split' a nucleus, but transmuted/changed a nucleus of one atom to a different one by bombarding it artificially.
that is, especially in regard of nuclear energy, somewhat different to what hahn and strassmann did 1938 by discovering nuclear fission.

M_Gunz
04-08-2009, 11:17 AM
It was what Heisenberg had succeeded in doing in 1939 that had Fermi and others very upset and trying
to tell FDR. They were blocked until they got Einstein to approach which took until 1941. After that
FDR knew but could not tell openly why Germany had to be stopped.
Heisenberg did send a paper on the possibility of a uranium bomb to the German War Department in Dec. 1939.

It is not about who had the bomb first and yet it was very much about just that, so much of what was done.
The whole direction that the US took from the time that FDR was told onwards was shaped by exactly that.
The US project budget alone was enormous at a time when everything else was needed as well, ~$10 billion.
A lot of WWII histories and almost all written from then don't mention any of this and often the authors
ask questions or note how decisions "didn't make sense" for lack of knowing about it.

WTE_Galway
04-08-2009, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hookecho:


Herr Hitler was a fracking idiot........thats why

Hitler was anything but an idiot.

Misguided and delusional, surely, but not an idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


People have trouble separating his military achievements and failures from the ideology.

There is also a tendency to let his deterioration into madness and loss of touch with reality late war overshadow the achievements early in the war.

If you are doing an unbiased assessment of the man its important not to forget the brilliant tactics early war like the glider attack on the supposedly impregnable Fort Eben Emael in Belgium.

na85
04-08-2009, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:

People have trouble separating his military achievements and failures from the ideology.

There is also a tendency to let his deterioration into madness and loss of touch with reality late war overshadow the achievements early in the war.

If you are doing an unbiased assessment of the man its important not to forget the brilliant tactics early war like the glider attack on the supposedly impregnable Fort Eben Emael in Belgium.

Hang on though. At the early stages of the war I was under the impression that Hitler did very little actual tactical planning and left it up to his generals, and that it was only towards the end of the war, when he started getting involved in micromanaging, that things went truly downhill.

WTE_Galway
04-08-2009, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:

People have trouble separating his military achievements and failures from the ideology.

There is also a tendency to let his deterioration into madness and loss of touch with reality late war overshadow the achievements early in the war.

If you are doing an unbiased assessment of the man its important not to forget the brilliant tactics early war like the glider attack on the supposedly impregnable Fort Eben Emael in Belgium.

Hang on though. At the early stages of the war I was under the impression that Hitler did very little actual tactical planning and left it up to his generals, and that it was only towards the end of the war, when he started getting involved in micromanaging, that things went truly downhill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true ... the more radical plans that caught the allies by surprise, like Fort Eben Emael, where all the direct result of Hitler's personal involvement.

What is significant is that early war, on the attack, when bold opportunistic risk taking paid off, Hitler's personal involvement helped, however late war when a more conservative defensive strategy was required Hitler's involvement was detrimental.

ImpStarDuece
04-08-2009, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:

Well lets not forget the MP42 which post war became the standard design for a light machine gun for NATO and was stolen for use in the US in a modernised form as the M-60!

Actually, it was the FG42 that the M-60 was based around (NOT copied or "stolen"), not the MG42.

WTE_Galway
04-08-2009, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:

Well lets not forget the MP42 which post war became the standard design for a light machine gun for NATO and was stolen for use in the US in a modernised form as the M-60!

Actually, it was the FG42 that the M-60 was based around (NOT copied or "stolen"), not the MG42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said that not zeus cat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually i had the impression the m60 incorporated features from both the MG42 and the FG42.

Waldo.Pepper
04-08-2009, 08:40 PM
Actually i had the impression the m60 incorporated features from both the MG42 and the FG42.

Quite correct there Galway.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/m60.jpg