Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Operation Steinbock is pretty revealing about the state of the Luftwaffe by the end of the war and its ability to strike at Britain.

Assuming Hitler's mania for destroying London pencils it in as target number one, that means hoping an He 177 is going to get through, bombing at night. Accuracy during Steinbock was mixed, some success was seen using Ju 88S as pathfinders, but the early raids were inaccurate.

Even assuming a best case scenario, that the He 177 gets through the night fighter and AA defences and drops its bomb (which works), and that the drop is accurate and falls somewhere near or on Westminster to have a chance of destroying the main governmental heart the effects would not be terminal. London is a big target and military and political headquarters are scattered all over the city and outlying areas. By 1944 the state structure is decentralised to some extent and there are Allied military commands all over the country.
Destroying London does not stop a couple of thousand USAAF and RAF bombers heading out to deliver retribution the next day and night and carrying on the bombing campaign relentlessly. And if D-Day has already taken place, it has no impact on the land campaign as long as Allied resolve holds. Public morale may have slumped depending on the scale of the devastation and if the PM and Royal Family are killed plus the effect of unconfirmed rumours and false stories if the BBC and national press is unable to function in the immediate aftermath. But the counter is the desire for revenge that may have balanced this morale loss. Britain (or the USSR) in 1944 or 1945 is not in the same position same as Japan in 1945, who was industrially, logistically and militarily crippled and unable to take any decisive counter-action.

I think that if London had been destroyed by nazi "dirty" atomic bomb, Germans would be now a species extinct.
2

Out of curiosity, would WWII have ended in at least Germany's favor if they made nuclear weapons operational first?

I remember someone on...a very politically incorrect imageboard...stating that it's a miracle the USA didn't tell everyone after they nuked Japan "Hey guys, I got nukes, everyone bow down to me or else!", because if they did the world would have belonged to them and them only, never mind their former allies in Britain and the USSR. I doubt Germany would've been that conservative after vaporizing a city with such a newfangled weapon.

(For the record, I don't go there anymore and don't plan to ever again)

I have read that the German "atomic" scientists captured by British Army and spied by microphones were completely stunned after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nazist Germany  were behind USA in atomic bomb development.
So,if at a certain point the war had gone a little better for Germany,war in Europe would be over in august 1945 with a atomic mushroom over Berlin (or another couple of German city).
3
Army Projects / Re: Modern halftracks?
« Last post by cluttonfred on Today at 07:39:11 am »
That's an interesting point of view, thanks for sharing the quote, but I wonder about the logic behind it.  I have always understood half-tracks to be less complex than tanks both mechanically and in terms of driver training.
4
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Burnelli Projects
« Last post by hesham on Today at 07:22:14 am »
P
Dear Lark directed me to this link http://www.jitterbuzz.com/MAN_1939_12.html
with a Burnelli design which is not famous: CB-34.
The related patent is at http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=RaxEAAAAEBAJ&dq=patent:2286341
In the Putnam book “Canadian aircraft since 1909” page 170 (CCF/Burneli CBY-3 Loadmaster entry) I read :
The Canadian Car and Foundry company did not build the UB-14 but in 1938 proposed building the CB-34. It was considerably larger than the UB-14 and was to be powered by three Wright GR-1820-G100 Cyclone engines and was to have a loaded weight of 33,000lb (14,982kg). Have it been built it would have been the only trimotored Burnelli aircraft, but it was not proceeded with almost certainly because of the British orders for Hawker Hurricanes.”

And from the book- Справочник по иностранным самолетам 1940,

here is a Model for CB-34.
5
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Abrams Strato-plane "Explorer" P-2
« Last post by Boxman on Today at 06:09:26 am »
Here is British Pathe footage of the Abrams Explorer (reg. NX19897) on YouTube.

YouTube - British Pathé: "America Prepares For Attack On Stratosphere Aka United States Stratosphere (1938)"

6
Aerospace / Re: HAL Tejas
« Last post by TomcatViP on Today at 05:54:19 am »
Not a great piece but a good summary. I like the chart at the bottom of the 2nd page showing clearly (something I kept repeating) that nearly everybody  tried during the last 20y to build a new Mirage 2000... Except Dassault.
7
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Flying Flapjacks
« Last post by hesham on Today at 05:45:46 am »
From Ai\li Nuove 5/1952,

here is a Zimmerman X.50 ?.
8
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Mirage 4000
« Last post by Deltafan on Today at 05:15:23 am »
Interesting insert page 59 of the article. Saudi Arabia was ready to buy 300 Mirage 4000 if France built at least 5 pre-series planes. The new French Government of François Miterrand did not want to build these 5 pre-series planes and the project did not go further…

 
9
Space Projects / Re: Virgin Galactic's orbital plans
« Last post by FighterJock on Today at 05:09:46 am »
The Virgin Galactic plane has pushed the Unity spaceplane (can we call Unity a spaceplane?) higher and faster than the last flights flying at over 90,000 feet before gliding back to Earth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47336617
10
From Ailes 11/1947,

I think I discovered a Projects,from Mr. Arnault,and he designed AA-1 and AA-2,a single and two
seat high wing light monoplanes.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10