860 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

About "weird Tanks":

 

 

 

The second one looks cool though... I want one in my parking!

[Fidite Nemini]

If we're looking at weird weapon designs, I think the allied pigeon guided missile and bat bombs top the scoreboard.

[bEVEsthda]

The Supermarine Spitfire is of course the most iconic fighter RAF used. The pilots flying this and the Hurricane must have been very good pilots as most other fighters at the time outperformed this one?

 

 

That's a lovely picture of a Mk IXc there.

 

"...must have been very good pilots as most other fighters at the time outperformed this one?"

 

I can only assume that you got this notion from comparing paper performance for one early Mark of the Spitfire and compared to paper performance of later versions of other fighters. In any way, it's false.

 

The Spitfire went through a very long journey of development through the war. But with the exception of a brief period after the Battle of Britain, when the Mk V went up against the newfangled FW 190A, the Spitfire mostly had the upper hand on German contemporaries. ...In terms of air combat performance. The very Mk IX you have above was a quantum leap in Spitfire performance and re-addressed the balance against the FW 190, for example. The Spitfire never again suffered in any contest. Like all European designs, it was short on range and endurance, of course.

[Fidite Nemini]

Like all European designs, it was short on range and endurance, of course.

 

That being one of the largest contributions to her fame, second only to the deserved fame of the allied pilots' skill (and no small part in turn coming from non-british/american pilots, like the remainders of the polish airforce that fled to the UK after their nations defeat).

 

Combined with Britain's advanced early warning system and interception vectoring management, they could field largely fresh aircraft with full tanks against invading german fighters that once over Britain usually only had about twenty minutes worth of fuel left before they had to break off to reach back home again.

 

The Spitfire was formidable, but it's largely thanks to the early warning system along the shores at the channel that enabled them to effectively place those Spitfires against the enemy.

 

 

That said, since we were already talking about wierd weapons (I'm taking this a my cue to jump to experimental weapons): behold the Horten Ho 229 (also often called the Ho IX or erroneously Gotha Go 229)!

 

 

*Click picture for a nice website with its design history and other facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This beauty was the first true stealth fighter before the concept was even invented as its build design and material composition made it nearly invisible to the british radar, whilst the final specs of the aircraft itself were nothing short of stunning: capable of outmanouvring fighters at high altitude dogfights, fast with an astonishing climb rate (that's what happens if you put up jet engines vs piston powered fighters, duh) and had enough fuel and weapons capacity to work effectively as a bomber that is not only nearly impossible to detect and catch up with, but could actually hold its own at dogfights too.

 

The jet engines though were unreliable and the build design had a flaw at the jet exhaust that could make the aircraft catch on fire if the engines didn't work flawlessly.

 

But there's no denying that this specific aircraft was decades ahead of its time. Really, its next true successer is the Northrop B-2 bomber, 45 years later. That's almost half a century of aircraft design that was simply skipped during WW2 (remember what I said about the arms race on metamphetamines, this is what I'm talking about!).

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

^ Ah... another stolen tech by Americans originally created by Germans!

I like its design anyway.

[bEVEsthda]

 

That said, since we were already talking about wierd weapons (I'm taking this a my cue to jump to experimental weapons): behold the Horten Ho 229 (also often called the Ho IX or erroneously Gotha Go 229)!

 

 

*Click picture for a nice website with its design history and other facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This beauty was the first true stealth fighter before the concept was even invented as its build design and material composition made it nearly invisible to the british radar, whilst the final specs of the aircraft itself were nothing short of stunning (capable of outmanouvring fighters at high altitude dogfights, fast with an astonishing climb rate (that's what happens if you put up jet engines vs piston powered fighters, duh) and had enough fuel and weapons capacity to work effectively as a bomber that is not only nearly impossible to detect and catch up with, but could actually hold its own at dogfights too.

 

The jet engines though were unreliable and the build design had a flaw at the jet exhaust that could make the aircraft catch on fire if the engines didn't work flawlessly.

 

But there's no denying that this specific aircraft was decades ahead of its time. Really, its next true successer is the Northrop B-2 bomber, 45 years later. That's almost half a century of aircraft design that was simply skipped during WW2 (remember what I said about the arms race on metamphetamines, this is what I'm talking about!).

 

Actually, there's a lot of denying to do. Sorry bout this. But I have to say it. Nothing personal.

Nor does Ho 229 have much in common with the B2, other than being a flying wing design.

 

While the Horten brothers had some reasons to hope for some stealthiness, that was never much of a design consideration.

And in fact it wasn't particularly stealthy, something the above documentary also correctly reveal, if you listen to the reported facts rather than the narrator, who clearly has an agenda of a 'journalistic' angle.

 

The de Havilland Mosquito was sort of stealthy, achieving some 60% reduction in radar signature and even much more on some German radar bands. The Germans were very much aware of this. This entirely because it was built of wood. The Ho 229 was also to be built from wood. Thus the Horten brothers had some reason to hope for a diminished radar signature. But that was not the reason for building it of wood. The reason was simply that the Horten brothers had only knowledge about wood design. They had no competence at all in all metal aircraft design. It went well with the situation in the time, lack of strategic materials and available builders. So it was planned that a coach and furniture builder, Gotha should build the thing.

 

While the shape, as such, is more stealthy than the conventional Mosquito, the Ho 229 failed because of its jet-engine intakes. These work pretty much as radar reflectors, and are responsible for most of the Ho 229's rather non-stealthy radar signature.

 

But the reason for the shape was not stealth. The Horten brothers' obsession was the flying wing, but for its assumed aerodynamic qualities. There were no computers at this time, and aerodynamics was a much unexplored science. The lure of the flying wing, is that it seems as if you could rid yourself of the wet drag from fuselage and stabilizing tail assembly. The only thing you need to fly is the wing, so why carry the rest along? Surely it must all be unnecessary drag?

This was why the flying wing was perceived as the holy grail. And many others were interested in the wing for exactly the same reasons. Jack Northrop, for instance. But "holy grail" is an apt analogy, because it was never achieved. It cannot be. Not in an aerodynamically stable design. A stable flying wing will always be less aerodynamically efficient than a conventional, tailed design!

We know that today, but there was no way of knowing that back in the days of WW2.

 

The point is though, that if the Horten brothers had made a conventional wooden design, and fitted it with the same jet-engines, it would have been a better performer. Speaking of performance, the performance usually quoted for the Ho 229 is entirely what was estimated before flight, by its designers at the time. So it's not particularly credible. The plane crashed and killed its pilot on the third test flight. Not much testing was done. I have in particular very hard to believe in the urban legend that it should have flown mock combat against a Me 262.

 

As a stable flying wing, the Ho 229 was likely a very competent design. The Horten brothers had spent more than a decade exploring flying wing designs. But in other ways I find the case of the Ho 229 much exaggerated and overstated. What is supposed to be the advanced technology in the Ho 229 that skipped 45 years? There's none. It's just a wooden flying wing fitted with early jet engines. That's all there is to it. In what way is it comparable to the B2? It's not. Other than it's also a flying wing. But the B2 is an unstable flying wing. That is the advanced technology of 45 years later, just as its true stealthiness.

[bEVEsthda]

^ Ah... another stolen tech by Americans originally created by Germans!

I like its design anyway.

 

What is supposed to be the stolen tech? Stealth technology? There is none in the Ho 229. And the fact that it's so inept as a stealth design, is the major reason it's not stealthy, because between its wooden construction and its shape it should have been.

 

Flying wing? Sorry, but it was invented like 1919, something, and the Americans were building much more thoroughly developed and advanced designs than the Horten brothers.

 

[Fidite Nemini]

I never said it was designed as stealth aircraft. I said it was the first stealth aircraft before the concept was invented. That alone means it was obviously not conceptionalized as stealth by design, though my wording was too ambigious to make that clear, so I apologise for that, I was obviously thinking one thing, but only spelt out a fraction of my thought process.

 

The stealth aspect of my post was meant to be a little trivia factoid, not the defining quality of the subject (though after the war, it was stated that a special paint mix was used to deflect radar emissions, though that claim is shaky). It however can be considered the first true stealth fighter as it was primarily meant to defeat the british, for which its coincidal stealth properties suited the operational paradigm perfectly. The mentioned Mosquito fighter for example was only made to be cheap, not to outperform an advanced early warning system like the entire aerodynamic package of the Ho 229 was supposed to (speed, high altitude performance, range and weapons load).

 

As for the B-2 analogy, I flat out derped in my history research. I should have simply looked up Wikipedia and it would have shown me the YB-36 and YB-49 ... pure error on my part, so I have to redact that particular statement.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

As for the B-2 analogy, I flat out derped in my history research. I should have simply looked up Wikipedia and it would have shown me the YB-36 and YB-49 ... pure error on my part, so I have to redact that particular statement.

 

It's either "think 2 or 3 times before speaking/writing" or "look up stuff in Wikipedia" which we forget to do and make us sorry.

[Aimi]

^ Ah... another stolen tech by Americans originally created by Germans!
I like its design anyway.

As a German, I have to say: good for them! Better the Americans than the Nazis; better somebody who can actually put it into production instead of making shoddy overengineered prototypes; better somebody who can refine the process to perfection instead of throwing a bunch of wood pulp at a wall to see what stuck.

[Fidite Nemini]

As a German, I have to say: good for them! Better the Americans than the Nazis; better somebody who can actually put it into production instead of making shoddy overengineered prototypes; better somebody who can refine the process to perfection instead of throwing a bunch of wood pulp at a wall to see what stuck.

 

To be fair, everyone did the same during that time. There's no shortage of brainfarts to be found wherever you look. Just in case I need to reiterate an earlier post of mine: pigeon guided missiles and bat bombs.

[Aimi]

To be fair, everyone did the same during that time. There's no shortage of brainfarts to be found wherever you look. Just in case I need to reiterate an earlier post of mine: pigeon guided missiles and bat bombs.

Oh sure. But nobody thought those ideas were worth 'stealing'.

[AutumnWitch]

I need to reiterate an earlier post of mine: pigeon guided missiles and bat bombs.

 

Sounds like a bad Batman comic book.

[Fidite Nemini]

Sounds like a bad Batman comic book.

 

 

Google it.

 

@Eirene:

Of course they only steal the good ideas

[Dermain]

Sounds like a bad Batman comic book.

 

No.

 

The United States went to behavioral psychologist, B.F. Skinner (who created operational/Skinnarian conditioning) with the idea of teaching pigeons to pilot a suicide missile. The pigeon was trained to peck certain areas in a cage with positive reinforcement (a food pellet). Every time it pecked the right areas, it would get a food pellet. The idea was that a pigeon would be trained through this technique to reliably pilot a missile, but I don't recall if it was ever successful.

 

The bat bomb was done by someone else, who's name I forget, but I think it may have been for WWI not WWII.

[AutumnWitch]

No.

 

The United States went to behavioral psychologist, B.F. Skinner (who created operational/Skinnarian conditioning) with the idea of teaching pigeons to pilot a suicide missile. The pigeon was trained to peck certain areas in a cage with positive reinforcement (a food pellet). Every time it pecked the right areas, it would get a food pellet. The idea was that a pigeon would be trained through this technique to reliably pilot a missile, but I don't recall if it was ever successful.

 

The bat bomb was done by someone else, who's name I forget, but I think it may have been for WWI not WWII.

 

I was joking....good lord. And it does sound like a bad plot out of a batman comic book.

[Fidite Nemini]

No.

 

The United States went to behavioral psychologist, B.F. Skinner (who created operational/Skinnarian conditioning) with the idea of teaching pigeons to pilot a suicide missile. The pigeon was trained to peck certain areas in a cage with positive reinforcement (a food pellet). Every time it pecked the right areas, it would get a food pellet. The idea was that a pigeon would be trained through this technique to reliably pilot a missile, but I don't recall if it was ever successful.

 

The bat bomb was done by someone else, who's name I forget, but I think it may have been for WWI not WWII.

 

 

They never adopted it, but during testing, the pigeons were found to be quick learners and very accurate during simulations.

 

The bat bombs in turn did not go as planned. The plan was to freeze down a couple bats to put them in hibernation (bats can survive long periods of that) and load them up with incendiary bomblets with timed fuses (bats can carry up to three times their weight in flight). The design was to put those hibernating bats into bombs, drop them over Japan where they'd awake and then shelter under the mostly wooden antics of the average japanese building, where the incendiary bomblet would ignite the easily burning wood structure.

 

Getting bats wouldn't have been an issue either, there's three easily accessed giant caves with hundred-thousands of bats.

[Dermain]

I was joking....good lord. And it does sound like a bad plot out of a batman comic book.

 

The bat angle does. I believe the fellow that came up with it was a bit nutty.

[bEVEsthda]

The stealth aspect of my post was meant to be a little trivia factoid, not the defining quality of the subject (though after the war, it was stated that a special paint mix was used to deflect radar emissions, though that claim is shaky). It however can be considered the first true stealth fighter as it was primarily meant to defeat the british, for which its coincidal stealth properties suited the operational paradigm perfectly. The mentioned Mosquito fighter for example was only made to be cheap, not to outperform an advanced early warning system like the entire aerodynamic package of the Ho 229 was supposed to (speed, high altitude performance, range and weapons load).

 

 

I have always assumed the Ho 229 mission was to shoot down American bombers (though there was also a much larger bomber project - in the stage of a pencil drawing). I think the mission profile that the Northrop personnel comes up with is bogus and mainly their invention, though obviously inspired by both Mosquito and FW 190 missions during the war, and certainly possible. The Ho 229 can hardly be called stealth. Its radar signature is in the ball park of normal. Anyway, the Germans had no idea at all, what kind of radar signatures @ what angles & @ what bands, the Ho 229 would have.

The Mosquito was more stealthy and indeed benefited from that feature.

 

Ho 229 as a "Stealth" fighter is a modern journalistic invention, made entirely because its shape resembles the B2, and given "substance" by the fact that the Horten brothers were aware of that they might get some radar reduction from the wooden construction, something the Germans were made aware of by the Mosquito. Finally, along comes the enthusiastic "secrets revealed" documentary which actually proves that the Ho 229 is not stealthy, though these facts seem to be cleverly hidden from most viewers by the heavily suggestive narrator, so succeeds in cementing the myth in peoples minds. <big sigh>

 

The only reasons for the wooden construction of both the Mosquito and the Ho 229, were the great availability of woodworkers and carpenters who weren't doing anything else, the availability of wood, and the wood design background of the designers. You could say that stealth figured more in the minds of the Horten brothers than in the minds of the Mosquito's designers though.

[Aimi]

Finally, along comes the enthusiastic "secrets revealed" documentary which actually proves that the Ho 229 is not stealthy, though these facts seem to be cleverly hidden from most viewers by the heavily suggestive narrator, so succeeds in cementing the myth in peoples minds. <big sigh>

That is basically the storyline of every documentary made about historical technology ever.

[Dermain]

That is basically the storyline of every documentary made about historical technology ever.

 

Insert documentaries about katanas here.

[Aimi]

Insert documentaries about katanas here.

and Damascus steel, and the 'Ulfberht' swords, and Heron's steam engine

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

 

Any fan of this here?

[Lotion Soronarr]

I've always liked the old FAMAS. Yes I know, its not such a great rifle but I still like it because its a bullpup with a slick look. 

 

 

 

May I suggest this then:

 

 

 

[bEVEsthda]

I have sort of taken upon me to mainly only post Icons, as in super-icons, beginning with capital letter. At least at this stage.

I didn't need to do the Spitfire or the Bf 109G, as other took care of those.

There is one comment I wished to make about the Spitfire though. And that is that, without it, - the second WW would have taken a different course. The Hurricane did bear the brunt of Battle of Britain, but it was the Spitfire which cracked the equation, by cracking the German fighters. The Hurricane simply wasn't good enough to do that alone. Without the Spitfire, Germany would have won air superiority and all the rest, after that, is open to wild speculations. So the Spitfire is likely the single most important weapon of WW2.

 

 

Germany would later prove to lack a correspondingly important fighter.

Anyway, here's another Icon.

 

 

 

This is the Focke Wulf FW 190. Just like the Spitfire, it's much admired for its shear beauty. It simply looks right.

A few years later design than the Bf 109, it was designed more to be a more practical and rugged fighter than the Bf 109, than being the next stage in performance.

And that is perhaps the tale of the both the success of the FW 190 and the failure.

 

It did succeed in being much easier to fly and fight in, much safer to land, and much more capable of carrying more weapons and fuel.

But apart from a period in late 1942, when it was king of the hill and generated its fame, and towards the end, when it - too late, too few - was married to the Jumo 213 engine, it failed to measure up to the sharply increasing performance demands of Western front air battle.

In particular, it failed to measure up at altitude.

The FW 190 was successful as a fighterbomber, and successful in '43 when it, carrying heavy extra-armament, attacked un-escorted American bombers. But - just like the Bf 109 - it was, in the end, not enough to be the fighter that Germany needed.