Type IX/D2

[Rockin Robbins]

So it is as I said. There WAS NO GERMAN PLANE to copy, just a bunch of wind tunnel tests on models and some drawings.

That is a pretty snazzy drawing But other than that it has swept wings, that short, fat pig of a plane with no apparent operational purpose bears no resemblance to the MIG 15 or Sabre. If you're correct he Russians built the MIG 15 and we copied the general layout of the planform from the RUSSIAN, not a German plane.

At no time were either the Russians or Americans playing catch-up to some infinitely better German plane and having to copy it. In fact there was no plane to copy other than the ME 163 explode on landing "superplane" and the ME 262, accelerate so slowly that conventional planes have to fly CAP over airfields so the sitting ducks don't get shot down, superplane. With superior planes like that the Germans didn't need help losing the war from a counterproductive fleet of submarines. At least the U-Boats worked.

The Germans could have done much better by shutting down wasteful U-Boats and "superplanes" and just building a gazillion FW 190s. And what's the deal with building escorts and not building long range bombers with payload capacities that at least beat our P-47 Thunderbolt. They launched the Battle of Britain and could only overfly a third of Britain! How stupid was that? You know, everybody is entitled to one fatal mistake. The Germans in WWII made dozens of fatal mistakes. Any ONE of them would have spelled defeat. Guess they just wanted to make sure.

Important edit: Guess it was mostly He wanted to make sure. The average German wasn't consulted or there might not have been a war to begin with.

[Torplexed]

Well...when it comes to the issue of copying technology where did the Germans get the idea for the submarine snorkel?

From the Dutch navy, after overrunning their country and picking through their shipyards. So much for originality. When it comes to warfare, expediency rules over national pride.

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by The Fishlord

Sorry, just had to say it. The Soviets captured the wind tunnel prototypes and schematics for it, progressed up to the MiG15, then the Americans copied that for the Sabre.

Yes, and I'm sure you know the tests revealed the Ta 183, in the design state in which it was captured, was in no aerodynamic shape to be put into production.

What's next, are you going to tell us the Americans got their flying wing technology from the Ho 229?

[martes86]

About this plane discussion, both the US and USSR first jets were influenced by german designs. I can't say to what extent or if they were just copies, but it is clear that the designs and research materials the germans possesed were clearly a source of inspiration for the allied forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86_Sabre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15


I speak after having a look at those two links... and both models have a resemblance bewtween themselves, and with the 262. You might also notice that these allied models were first implemented/tested after the war ended, giving a hint of how was their respective research speeded up. Shapes might not resemble the german model in a drastic way, but one can clearly conclude that there was a great influence, even if later changes were introduced.

As for the fleet boats and german boats worse or better, well, each side had its advantages. US people shouldn't go into hard patriotism so quickly as their tin cans weren't able to do deep dives for instance, and torpedoes were duds for a large part until the problem was detected (and not too soon). But kaleun fan boys shouldn't go as far as claiming U-Boote to be invincible, as their sensor technology was crap, based only on passive sonars until very late war, and radars were not precisely top notch.


And replying Soniboy, the only things of interest to the US when capturing that U-Boot were:

- The attack periscope optics and mechanics.
- The enigma machine and code books.

[Hitman]

Any U-Boat fans around here writing targeting tutorials for fleet boats? I thought not.

LOL I did one ... 3.341 downloads so far http://files.filefront.com/Simplifie.../fileinfo.html

But I'm admittingly both a U-Boat and a Fleet boat fan

Nevertheless, I don't 100% agree with what you said, RR, with most yes but not with everything.

First of all, anybody who has studied the matter in depth knows that US and german submarines were simply not always comparable. Different machines for diferent purposes AND different enemies and enemy technology. IMHO the only fair comparison can be done between a 1943 Type IX/D2 and a 1943 Balao. And pound by pound of metal, the Balao wins hands down, the only advantage of the U-Boat (And that more theoretical than practical) being a claimed superior maximum dive depth.

Second, it must be recognized that germany suffered the limitations of the Versailles Treaty and hence their U-Boat fleet was built basically upon a reworked WW1 design (The UB-III) with some improvements, so I don't think that WW2 U-Boats represented in any way the pinnacle of submarine technology, nor were it pretended to be that. The US had no limitations and could improve and refine their fleet boat concept as much as they did, the only problem getting in their way being the incredible incompetency of the Bureau of Ordnance to deliver a reliable and good pistol for their main weapon. HOR engines were also a fiasco of monumental proportions.

Where I don't agree completely with you is in that germany should have never started a U-Boat campaign and should have concentrated instead in their Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht. In your views you tend to forget the political situation before WW2, when Britain was the main enemy for Germany (Aside from the Soviet Union, but they planned to take that one on later) and all plans and political considerations called for a only-european war. Britain is an Island nation, and as the experience with Japan shows, a naval blockade is the only effective means of waging war against it, specially if you have a much inferior navy -as was the german case-. Had Dönitz had at the outbreak of the war 300 front ready U-Boats with well trained crews (Instead of the KM having expended huge amounts of resources in building pocket battleships and manning them), a naval blitzkrieg operation of blockaed would have been possible against Britain. In September 1939 Britain clearly had not enough escort ships to protect his convoys, nor had extended radar equipment for all of them, or enough patrol airplanes. A sudden strong blockade by wolfpacks with 100 U-Boats any time in the theater of operations would have effectively strangled Britain in a few months, making it impossible to react on time. It also could have probably caused Britain's surrender before the US public opinion was ready to accept entering another war, and long before Japan decided his Pearl Harbor attack. When the US entered the war, germany was finished. Sooner or later they would be. Period. So any strategy that had defeated Britain before that, would have been a winner.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Hitman

LOL I did one ... 3.341 downloads so far http://files.filefront.com/Simplifie.../fileinfo.html

Cool! I should have known that if anyone would, you'd be the one. Glad to have some company in the "likes U-Boats and Fleet Boats and supports both" club!

Originally Posted by Hitman

A sudden strong blockade by wolfpacks with 100 U-Boats any time in the theater of operations would have effectively strangled Britain in a few months, making it impossible to react on time.

Change "would have" to "could have" (never underestimate the Nazi regime's ability to shoot itself in the foot!) and I'll give you agreement there. Good thing Hitler was loony tunes. I'm not 100% sure his generals could have won anyway. I think more likely they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

The funny thing is that if you read Mein Kampf and some other Nazi pre-war propaganda, their main target was Russia, not England. The main plan was to be Britain's ally, this stifled in 1936 with the abdication of King Edward because he was willing to throw in with the Nazis and remake Britain in Germany's image. Churchill and compatriots even set up a secret government in exile in the US to prepare for that eventuality. Had it been discovered it would have resulted in the impeachment and conviction of President Roosevelt, who was quite willing to sacrifice his reputation and presidency to save the free world.

That the Germans chose to attack a nation that they were not prepared to defeat, which they had sympathy for and had no need to antagonize is just one of the more bizzare features of WWII.

[martes86]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

That the Germans chose to attack a nation that they were not prepared to defeat, which they had sympathy for and had no need to antagonize is just one of the more bizzare features of WWII.

What's new about that? The human race has credit for doing dumb unpredictable things, so...

[Hitman]

The funny thing is that if you read Mein Kampf and some other Nazi pre-war propaganda, their main target was Russia, not England. The main plan was to be Britain's ally, this stifled in 1936 with the abdication of King Edward because he was willing to throw in with the Nazis and remake Britain in Germany's image. Churchill and compatriots even set up a secret government in exile in the US to prepare for that eventuality. Had it been discovered it would have resulted in the impeachment and conviction of President Roosevelt, who was quite willing to sacrifice his reputation and presidency to save the free world.

That the Germans chose to attack a nation that they were not prepared to defeat, which they had sympathy for and had no need to antagonize is just one of the more bizzare features of WWII.

Hitler expressed his admiration and sympathy for Britain on many occasions, his target was Russia and the "Drang nach Osten" (Push to the East) his main policy to ensure the "Lebensraum" for his 1000 years Reich. Had Britain not moved a finger for Poland, Hitler would have never engaged Britain or France, but only Russia. And Hitler was until the last moment convinced that Britain would not enter the war, then that it would accept a peace once Germany gave guarantees that Britain was not a target. That partially explains his naval strategy -mainly regarding the U-Boats- because if Britain was not to be the potential enemy, but a land nation like Russia, then of course U-Boats were not a priority.

But Hitler made here his greatest miscalculation, (This one politically, not military) in that he failed to recognize that Britain would never tolerate -as they hadn't in the past 3 centuries- another power as strong as theirs in the continent. Historically Britain engaged in many wars where they had no apparent direct interest, but that were done with just the purpose of preventing any european nation to be powerful enough to challenge them. A 300 years long policy was not going to change just because that little bastard nazi wanted it, and so it all happened again as in WW1. King Edward was just, well, a british King, and that means the most ancient and refined parlamentary monarchy in Europe, or if you prefer it, a monarchy where the King had less to say than the parliament and the government. To further worsen things, Hitler left the job unfinished against Britain after the failed Battle of Britain, and engaged the USSR before being able to call "Britain is finished!" and of course the Empire stroke back.

I have readed recently a very interesting essay about the british empire by Niall Ferguson, but despite his efforts to present Britain as willing to risk their empire for preserving democracy and stability in Europe by engaging germany in WW2, the fact is that the true reasons were less prosaic. Britain knew well that allowing germany to grow too much and become powerful would sooner or later mean a direct confrontation with them, so better to act before they are too strong. The apeacement policy by Chamberlain was just a mirrage, a result of the horrors of WW1 in the public opinion of Britain. But their heartly policy of standing alone in the supremacy of Europe, leaving others disupte while Britain's position remained untouched, was at the heart of what happened after Poland was invaded.

So in fact Hitler did not engage or attack the british, it's them who reacted and said "Enough!" and Hitler was forced to wage war against them.

Oh, and BTW the tutorial for the fleet boats was created using pure german WW2 U-boat tactics for AOB and speed not coincidentally -and as the ONI report of captured U-570 suggests- german UBoats were highly mechanized and had lots of devices to allow rather unexperienced crews man them, so you generally have more gadgets and simplified things aboard an U-boat.

[Kapitan Soniboy]

You can't say that the allies had much better jet designs than the germans. Altough the need for raw materials during the last days of the war made it hard to make a me262. In speed and design, the germans were far ahead.

"What if" Germany had all its troops on the western front instead of 2/3 on the eastern front, don't you think the germans would have won the war? I'm just saying.

[Rockin Robbins]

The Russians would have attacked them and they would have lost. If Stalin was willing to take over eastern Europe at such great cost as he had to pay, don't you think he would have picked it up for free if he could?

It doesn't matter anyway because Hitler's primary goal was the defeat of Russia and his secondary aim was revenge on the French and if necessary the British for the humility they suffered in World War I and under the Treaty of Versailles. No matter what, his battle plan ended up to lash out in all directions until his lines were thin and weak, at which point they would be consumed and die. He had no concept of strategy, only of tactics. Limited, attainable victory was not on his menu. Had it been, there were many opportunities to present a fait accompli, stop the fighting and declare peace.

Of couse, he would have defined peace as a short period of preparation for the next stage. But such measured use of force was beyond his ability or comprehension. Force which cannot be restrained is useless. The power of force comes from its disciplined and restrained use.

[Hitman]

The Russians would have attacked them and they would have lost. If Stalin was willing to take over eastern Europe at such great cost as he had to pay, don't you think he would have picked it up for free if he could?

Actually if Hitler had simply built up his Army and waited until Stalin decided to invade Poland or eastern Europe himself, it is highly possible that Britain would have supported Hitler against Stalin. Such ironies are in life...

But despite the usual thought that Russia itself was preparing to make his own expansion in Europe, and that Stalin was going to invade it, from many books I have readed I would say that this was actually a very remote possibility. Russia was still recovering from their internal revolution, and the recent small war against japan had proved many wrong concepts in their army. No, I don't think that they would have done anything else except may be trying to recover Finland and other territories that had historically been under the power of the tsarist Russia. But taking on Germany (Specially such an armed and aggressive one as Hitler's was), certainly not IMO because Stalin was a far better strategist than Hitler and he knew that Britain would probably support Germany and use it as a efficient tool to indirectly confront Russia and stop their expansion. Historically, Russia and Britain had already been about to go to war recently (And they had been at war in the past, think f.e. about the Crimea war) because of the will of the Tsars to continue expanding his empire towards the Middle East and India.

Oh, but we were talking about the IX U-Boat did we??

[Rockin Robbins]

When we start inventing moral equivalency between Britain and Germany we're on shaky ground indeed. Where Germany was looking for war, Britain certainly was not. Britain was in no mind to attack anybody or to join in anyone else's attack. Britain was not only full of Nazi sympathizers, but full of Communist "idealists" too in the 1930's. No, Britain was not spoiling for a fight. To them communism was a grand and glorious experiment.

Stalin, for all his bloodthirstiness, and for the Communist ideology's central focus on world domination, was certainly a cautious and prudent expansionist. He was simultaneously much more dangerous than Hitler because he was cruel but not insane, and less dangerous because his moves could be anticipated as they were based in logic.

Aside: we're responding directly to a question from the OP, who has the ability to hijack his own thread here. I think.... Maybe.

No Hitler, no war. Once the war started, Russia's aim, if they were not attacked, would be to pick up cheap gains, as they did in the Pacific. I'm sure in the spirit of cooperation with Germany and helping to "guard their back" Stalin would have gobbled up what he could and pushed the limit, carefully gaging how much gobbling would distract Mr Hitler enough to shove some panzer divisions east. Then he would backpedal enough to keep that from happening. Each crisis in the West would be a new opportunity to play Pacman again.

But this is pointless speculation because Hitler WAS going to attack Russia. What, including Africa, didn't he attack if he could reach it? He merely attacked everything on all sides until the point of exhaustion and defeat. Just another great German strategy from World War II: self-defeat. It must have been terrible to be a professional military man in Germany, watching all your might and ability be squandered by that fool in an unnecessary war with no good end possible.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

It must have been terrible to be a professional military man in Germany, watching all your might and ability be squandered by that fool in an unnecessary war with no good end possible.

At least one true point in this thread. Just think of operation Valkyrie. Many people had in mind to stop him ...

kr morph

[ichso]

Originally Posted by RR

Stalin, for all his bloodthirstiness, and for the Communist ideology's central focus on world domination, was certainly a cautious and prudent expansionist.

Ouch.
There never was any communism in this world as it was intended, was it ? I mean, all there was were some cruel dictatorships that tried to establish themselves a relationship to Marx' theories without acting in any way in the sense of the idea of communism (which was neither world domination nor supressing the own people).

I think you need to re-read the things I've written. My contention is that the American fleet boats were a little better in most respects than U-Boats, although there were aspects of U-Boats that were better than fleet boats. I have said that the Americans could have won the Pacific with a fleet of Type IXs. I've said the Germans could have lost the Atlantic with a fleet of fleet boats, even though they were demonstrably incrementally better boats.

True. What often gets lost in such discussions is whether to focus on pure technical issues or whether to take the situation into account to.
The fleet boats were better in most regards. Radar technology was an overall allied advantage and their greater size also allowed for things like more fuel, tubes and torpedo reserves. I don't know about the engines though, whether they were also just bigger or also better in terms of engineering.
If taking the war situation into account, one should consider that in the atlantic the fleet boats might not have been able to play out all of their strengths. Imagine a Gato submarine travelling only a few hundred kilometers to attack a convoy, getting damaged by heavy ASW protection and having to return to port soon in order for repairs. They probably would have carried half their fuel reserves around the sea all the time without ever using it. And their harbour approachings would have been just as frequent as the ones of the U-boats, no matter how much more fuel and torpedoes they could carry.
The U-Boats doctrine was more one of being undetected as much as possible, and smaller size maked them harder to spot, harder to ping by sonar and harder to detect by radar (although that wasn't an issue when the VII's desing was first layed out). And you could save resources by putting as much firepower as possible into as small vessels as possible.

And besides all the tech and war geek talking, I'm just glad that the war turned against germany. I don't want to say that the _good_ guys won, but surely the _right_ side had ended it. A prolonged nazi regime would be the worst thing the world would have faced in it's entire history until today.

[Marinesko]

Ok first off, the main influence that the ME-262 had on post war jets was simply the swept wing design. This was a crucial thing; British and Ameican straight-wing jets got owned by Migs in the Korean war. To give the Germans credit, you have to remember that the ME-262 technology was available in 1939- it could have easily been put in production and in the air around 1942, maybe earlier.

That being said- if you want to understand the main reasons they lost, they are twofold:

1. They decided to start a world war with an army that was largely, as much as 90%, horse-driven. They would remain mostly horse-driven for the entire war. One of the reasons why Sea Lion was called off was due to the fact that their navy had no fleet of landing craft, and an invasion would mean finding a way to ship thousands of horses across the channel.

2. Hitler, having that then popular right-wing attitude that "will conquers all", had a nasty habit of attacking countries that had much higher production than Germany, as in the USSR(which was producing more planes and tanks as early as 1939), and declaring war on the USA when Rooseveldt would have been hard pressed to get the American people behind a war on Germany and Italy.

The Germans were only so victorious because of their manipulating skill, widespread fear of Communism(which created a lot of discreet, if not sometimes open sympathy toward the Third Reich and Fascist regimes), and once the war began, boneheaded mistakes of their opponents. As early as 1938-39, there were a dozen differnet ways the entire German military could have been dealt a death blow in relatively little time.