WWII Myths

[simon]

Inspired by something I was picked up on myself on this very board... (Fieslet Storch being the last plane out of Berlin C. Spring 1945... [:I])

What other enduring myths are out there that people, historians, experts or otherwise now believe or know to be false?

An awful lot seems to have survived the war, and in the repeating is now assumed to be true, anyone got any pet favourites?

[PMN1]

Does this count - its on the Tanks in WW2 board.

'An interesting story I was told by a friend, however I can't vouch for its accuracy.

A Luftwaffe bomber got lost attempting to bomb the Belfast shipyards by night, so set a course roughly for home and jetissoned its bombs, the story went that it was actually over Eire (The Republic of Ireland) at the time and by fluke the bombs hit and destroyed (Of all things) a synagogue!

Now for the nice irony, as Eire was a neutral, and the Nazis were at various stages of the war courting the IRA and vice-versa, the niceties of international law meant that Germany was obliged to pay for the damage to the neutral country. So the Nazis had to pay to have the synagogue rebuilt.

As I said, this was recounted by a friend, I have seen or found no corroborating evidence, but it's a fun story if true.'

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=508&start=40

(last topic on this page)

[simon]

Well, unless anyone else knows of this I don't know whether it can count as a WWII myth as such, I wonder who this other poster could have been though... :D ;)

[robert]

This excellent site gives details on all bombing raids on Eire during WW2, but doesn't specifically mention such an incident (which doesn't mean it didn't happen):

http://www.csn.ul.ie/~dan/war/bombings.html

[B-24WillowRun]

Is it a myth or true that when the Japanese invaded Alaska they had thought of trying to keep going? It sould like a myth or flat lie, but I give it to the ponderment of you all. :)

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Well, unless anyone else knows of this I don't know whether it can count as a WWII myth as such, I wonder who this other poster could have been though... :D ;)


Some people get EVERYWHERE!!!:D

[GregP]

One persistent WWII myth is a Navy story. It goes something like this:

Pearl Harbor, some time after the attack, a tender is patrolling around the entrance to Pearl Harbor in a dense fog. They see a vagure shape in the mist and send out a quick signal,

"Identify yourself or be blown out of the water!"The answer comes back over a signal light, "U.S.S. Missouri, fire when ready."

I cannot confirm this as a myth, but also cannot confirm it as real. SO, myth seems MUCH more likely.

[ickysdad]

Another navy story...
Sometime in late '43,early '44 the USN became larger than the RN ,so one day a USN cruiser passes an RN Cruiser and sends the signal "Greetings from the Largest Navy in the world to the 2nd. largest". Not to be outdone the RN vessel replies " Greetings from the best navy in the world to the 2nd. best".

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

One persistent WWII myth is a Navy story. It goes something like this:

Pearl Harbor, some time after the attack, a tender is patrolling around the entrance to Pearl Harbor in a dense fog. They see a vagure shape in the mist and send out a quick signal,

"Identify yourself or be blown out of the water!"The answer comes back over a signal light, "U.S.S. Missouri, fire when ready."

I cannot confirm this as a myth, but also cannot confirm it as real. SO, myth seems MUCH more likely.


Actually, this one is pretty easy to disprove, because the USS Missouri wasn't even commissioned until June 11, 1944, two-and-a-half years after the Japanese attacked Pearl harbor.

[simon]

I guess that depends on what you count as "some time after", afterall 2+ years is still "some time" later.;)

I admit though I consider this one unlikely.

[B-24WillowRun]

That one about the Largest navey to the 2nd is great. I would agree that the RN was better for a while. The USN had a lot of growing pains to go through.[:p]

[simon]

I don't know whether anyone can fill in the blanks, but what about the myth of Memphis Belle?

Aided more than a little by Hollywood (And a highly fictionalised account!), Memphis Belle is still widely believed to be the first B-17 to complete her 25 mission tour, as claimed by contemporary propaganda. Infact I understand from a couple of books I've read that she was the second, another B-17 had completed her tour slightly earlier.

Still, the myth lives on... I would guess almost all of us would know what Memphis Belle was whereas I at least can't even remember the name of the actual plane to achieve this first!

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by simon

I don't know whether anyone can fill in the blanks, but what about the myth of Memphis Belle?

Aided more than a little by Hollywood (And a highly fictionalised account!), Memphis Belle is still widely believed to be the first B-17 to complete her 25 mission tour, as claimed by contemporary propaganda. Infact I understand from a couple of books I've read that she was the second, another B-17 had completed her tour slightly earlier.

Still, the myth lives on... I would guess almost all of us would know what Memphis Belle was whereas I at least can't even remember the name of the actual plane to achieve this first!


Hell's Angels, a B-17F of the 358th BS, 303rd BG was the first 8AF B-17 to complete 25 missions, the 25th being flown on May 14, 1943.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by simon

I don't know whether anyone can fill in the blanks, but what about the myth of Memphis Belle?

Aided more than a little by Hollywood (And a highly fictionalised account!), Memphis Belle is still widely believed to be the first B-17 to complete her 25 mission tour, as claimed by contemporary propaganda. Infact I understand from a couple of books I've read that she was the second, another B-17 had completed her tour slightly earlier.

Still, the myth lives on... I would guess almost all of us would know what Memphis Belle was whereas I at least can't even remember the name of the actual plane to achieve this first!


I have seen clips of the real Memphis Belle on her 25th mission and its nothing like the film (surprise surprise) - from what I saw, not a scratch which means they were an extremely lucky crew.

From what I've heard, film crews were put on board to film the mission - made me wonder if they volunteered or were told 'You ARE going'

[PMN1]

I know its not WW2 and it not aviation but its got to be said.

Any WW2 US carriers mistake a lighthouse for a ship, apparently thats what one of the USN's Nimitz class did a few years back.

The story goes the US carrier (USS Roosevelt from memory) warned the offending light to get the hell out of the way several times as there was a carrier and its battlegroup bearing down on it before the lighthouse came back 'This is a lighthouse - you're move'

Generated much ammusment in my old local - used to be owned by an ex RN stoker.

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

I know its not WW2 and it not aviation but its got to be said.

Any WW2 US carriers mistake a lighthouse for a ship, apparently thats what one of the USN's Nimitz class did a few years back.

The story goes the US carrier (USS Roosevelt from memory) warned the offending light to get the hell out of the way several times as there was a carrier and its battlegroup bearing down on it before the lighthouse came back 'This is a lighthouse - you're move'

Generated much ammusment in my old local - used to be owned by an ex RN stoker.


This one definitely is a myth, one that never really happened - a excellent summation of the story (with examples going back many years) can be found at:

http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm

The US navy itself has a page which debunks the story:

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/questions/litehuse.html

[simon]

"The Belle flew to England in late September and departed on its first bombing mission on Nov. 7.

In the next six months, the Belle flew missions over France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. She was struck by flak, 20mm cannon shells and machine gun bullets. Every major part of the plane was replaced at least once, including the engines (nine times), both wings, tails and main landing gears. Four of the plane's crew of 10 died during combat."

From: http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=206&sid=5cb670802f2474d0c29da0e6dec59b02

"I have seen clips of the real Memphis Belle on her 25th mission and its nothing like the film (surprise surprise) - from what I saw, not a scratch which means they were an extremely lucky crew"

Bet they don't seem quite so lucky now... It looks like about the only thing the film got right was that the plane was a B-17 and she was called Memphis Belle!

BTW, the link above is to a eulogy for Bob Morgan, the Captain of the Memphis Belle, who sadly died recently. Our thoughts go to his family at this sad time.

[andyo2000]

I was reading a book a while ago about the Memphis Belle and basically, it said that the reason it was known as the first B-17 to complete a tour was because of the AAF's PR department. See, the first B-17's crew was rather hard to handle. According to the book, a few were rather ugly, one was an alcoholic, at least one had a criminal record, etc. And this was a major event for the Public Relations Dept. They wanted to send the plane all over America, which they did with the Memphis Belle. So they basically played down the original first B-17 finisher, and waited. They knew the Memphis Belle was about to finish or die, so they reportedly waited to see if they could get a more public-friendly crew to parade around.

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

I was reading a book a while ago about the Memphis Belle and basically, it said that the reason it was known as the first B-17 to complete a tour was because of the AAF's PR department. See, the first B-17's crew was rather hard to handle. According to the book, a few were rather ugly, one was an alcoholic, at least one had a criminal record, etc. And this was a major event for the Public Relations Dept. They wanted to send the plane all over America, which they did with the Memphis Belle. So they basically played down the original first B-17 finisher, and waited. They knew the Memphis Belle was about to finish or die, so they reportedly waited to see if they could get a more public-friendly crew to parade around.


The other crew did name their plane Hell's Angels - truth in advertising, perhaps?

[Ricky]

quote:Is it a myth or true that when the Japanese invaded Alaska they had thought of trying to keep going? It sould like a myth or flat lie, but I give it to the ponderment of you all.
The Japanese invaded Alaska?
I know they took over several of the Andelusian (spelling...) islands - I assume that's what you mean.

Weren't they the islands that the Canadians invaded to reclaim, only receiving light casualties - mainly because the Japanese had already left!

[B-24WillowRun]

Well the B-17 'Memphis Belle' was more hollywood and propaganda then the real thing. Though I would say having all the parts replaced like that is not uncommon to survive 25 missions.;)

[Ricky]

I don't know if this qualifies, but according to my 'Flypast' magazine (at least I'm pretty sure it was Flypast - it is an edition from several years ago, so I might be wrong...) the P-47 Thunderbolt was not, as is popularly believed, nicknamed the 'Jug' during WW2. It was nicknamed 'Juggernaught', but the shortened 'Jug' did not come into common usage until after the war's end.

[simon]

Yeah, I'd say that qualifies.

Another one which seems to be repeated again and again, is that the Fw190 was in Luftwaffe service before the war, one poster on another forum recently went so far as to claim that the Fw190 preceded the Spitfire! Interesting claims for an aircraft that didn't see action until September 1941...

I think the protracted development of the type and a general confusion over when prototypes are first commissioned, first flown when the first production models start arriving at squadrons, and when these become operational all contribute to this myth, but it has to be said this is one of the ones I find most irritating.

I even had one person wanting to use a Fw190A-8 in a Battle of Britain wargame once because he'd read that the Fw190 first flew in 1940, so it must have been available then!!!

[Trexx]

My Favs:

1) Howard Hughes designed the Japanese Zero.

2) The Third Reich almost developed an atomic bomb.

3) Strategic Bombing succeded in destroying the ability of the Germans to build weapons

4) The Germans stole rocket technology from Dr. Robert Goddard

5) The United States stole rocket technology from Dr. Von Braun

6) Germans developed flying saucers that could exceed 1,200 miles per hour

7) Hitler was a military genius

8) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in on the Pearl Harbor Attack

9) The Allies delayed their advance into Germany and certain territories because the "Final Solution" was known to them and they were anti-semetic.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

1) Howard Hughes designed the Japanese Zero.


This is a view perpetuated by Mr Hughes himself. He claimed that the Zero was a direct copy of the H-1 racer - granted, there are similarities. He also claimed that the P-38 design was stolen from him by Lockheed, copying the D-2.


quote:Originally posted by Trexx

5) The United States stole rocket technology from Dr. Von Braun

Whilst the US didn't "steal" rocket technology from von Braun, he was heavily involved in the postwar development of US rocket technologies.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

1) Howard Hughes designed the Japanese Zero.


This is a view perpetuated by Mr Hughes himself. He claimed that the Zero was a direct copy of the H-1 racer...


...

I'd love to see documentation on that.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

1) Howard Hughes designed the Japanese Zero.


This is a view perpetuated by Mr Hughes himself. He claimed that the Zero was a direct copy of the H-1 racer...


...

I'd love to see documentation on that.


That he made the claim?

[Wuzak]

Howard Hughes, from Howard Hughes Aviator In His Own Words,http://www.library.unlv.edu/hughes/pages/aviator.html

quote:Now regarding the Japanese Zero . . . The Japanese Zero was a shock of the utmost magnitude to the United States because it had been thought up to that time that the Japanese were far inferior mechanically, I should say in point of aircraft design and mechanical aptitude, to the United States and nobody expected the Japanese to have an airplane that would be at all competitive. Well, in any event, when one of these Japanese Zeros was finally captured and studied and analyzed it was quite apparent to everyone that it had been copied from the Hughes plane which has been discussed earlier here. That is the only relationship between the Japanese Zero and the Hughes H-I design. I had no dealings with the Japanese or any other foreign government for the plane and to the best of everyone's knowledge the Japanese had no other access to it except through whatever espionage they may have had or through seeing photographs of it which naturally were published all over the world.

The next comments is interesting:

quote:Bill Utley: (attending the meeting as the Hughes company publicist, recounts how before the war a delegation of Japanese air force generals had seen the H-1 in a hangar in New Jersey) "They were late for a banquet in New York where they were being toasted and they saw your airplane and I have been told by Al Ludwick I think, that they couldn't drag them away from it, that they climbed all over it, that they examined it from head to toe, and that was the start of their interest in your airplane"


I must say that the H-1 is quite a nice, neat looking plane. It may have made a good persuit aircraft given a bit of development and a more powerful moto.

[ChrisMcD]

We probably need some input from Red Admiral.

The Japanese were adept at licensing or 'copying' technology, but I suspect Howard Hughes was more concerned with heading off accusations that he illegally sold technology during his famous senate hearings than anything else.

Getting back to the basic myth that the Japanese stole all their technology. I know Aichi and Kawasaki had a lot of dealings with German firms (Heinkel for dive bombers, BMW and later Daimler Benz for engines).

I am not at all sure about Nakajima and Mitsubishi. I think by 1940 they were just starting on their own indigenous designs.

But, the Zero's Nakajima Sakae belongs to an earlier era. It was a licensed version of the Gnome Rhone 14K, so owed it's ultimate parentage to Bristol. It was a very nice compact twin row radial with good economy and light weight, but had just about reached the end of it's development potential.

I believe the Zero's propellor was an American license (Hamilton Standard?) and that a lot of the ancillaries were based on international models.

Getting back to the myth that the design of the Zero was nicked from Howard Hughes.

The Japanese studied a lot of building techniques and I doubt if Jiro Horikoshi owed any debt to Howard Hughes in particular( I have never heard of him being held up as a master of metal design like Jack Northrop) and remember that Jiro designed the A5M Claude. So he was already a leading fighter designer and an expert on lightweight design.

I would say that this myth is not proved!

[Red Admiral]

Given the paranoid nature of Howard Hughes I'm inclined to very much doubt it. Just simply looking at the aircraft can tell you otherwise. Apart from both being single-engined radial aircraft of conventional configuration theres basically no similarity. Massively different wing and fuselage. If its more to do with the concept, i.e. a long range fighter aircraft then that's pretty much the logical extension of the requirement. To fly from coast to coast, and to fly for long distances over the Pacific. After reading a bit more into it I'm just more and more convinced that the man was a real loon. His comments about Lockheed copying the P-38 design from his D-2 are quite stunning given that the D-2 was designed years afterwards.

On Japanese technology; everyone licenced other countries's designs. Stealing is a lot easier when you consider the chances of legal recourse against a company in another country at that time. The Japanese had some good ideas but were not able to exploit them due to inferior materials technology. Reading through various historical advances has greatly impressed on me the need for material and manufacturing improvements to push the boundaries. A favourite example are the high speed series of aircraft produced by the UK in the 60s and 70s for speeds over the Mach 2.3 limited by Aluminium alloys. Stainless steel was to be used with much better kinetic heating properties. Of course steel is much heavier than aluminium (strength/density is similar in simple bending) but the improved manufacturing techniques to be used were to cut the structural weight in half.

[Trexx]

No proof that Howard Hughes made the claim has been presented because it's a myth.

Excellent comments!

Personally, I think Howard Hughes was very cool dude. He loved airplanes.*
I'll even field the idea that he practically, single handedly saved the aviation industry in the United States whilst in it's death throngs during the Great Depression. Most assuredly his investments in the field poised it for being a leader at a later date instead of languishing and ending up being a Johnny-come-lately in the international arena. He was a bit of nut... AN AIRPLANE NUT! Thank gawd!

*I won't even go into his harem of babes! [:0]

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

strength/density is similar in simple bending

Regular steel and aluminium are very similar in their strength/density properties. In a component subject to axial tension, a component made in steel of the same weight as its aluminium counterpart wiil experience a higher stress level, but it can cope with it. Both components will fail at a similar loading.

The advantage conferred by using lighter aluminium is that you can make bigger beams, and the like. Whilst a smaller steel beam (same weight) will cope with the stresses just as well the aluminium version will have improved deflection characteristics.

For aircraft skins steel could be made thinner to cope with the loads - shear and axial loads due to bending will be ok, but the thinner skin will be more prone to local buckling where there is no support.

Of course both Aluminium and steel come in a variety of grades, with much higher tensile strength than their normal versions.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

strength/density is similar in simple bending

Regular steel and aluminium are very similar in their strength/density properties. In a component subject to axial tension, a component made in steel of the same weight as its aluminium counterpart wiil experience a higher stress level, but it can cope with it. Both components will fail at a similar loading.

The advantage conferred by using lighter aluminium is that you can make bigger beams, and the like. Whilst a smaller steel beam (same weight) will cope with the stresses just as well the aluminium version will have improved deflection characteristics.

For aircraft skins steel could be made thinner to cope with the loads - shear and axial loads due to bending will be ok, but the thinner skin will be more prone to local buckling where there is no support.

Of course both Aluminium and steel come in a variety of grades, with much higher tensile strength than their normal versions.


That's all fine and good, but everybody knows the A6M was made of bamboo and rice paper! [:o)]

[Romantic Technofreak]

Trexx's Favs and my shortest comments:

1) Howard Hughes designed the Japanese Zero.
The Zero is a further development of the Vought V-143 that was sold to Japan (it will take decades until I can write a GOT topic about it, given my speed of proceeding at the moment[:I][:I][:I])

2) The Third Reich almost developed an atomic bomb.
Wrong. Germany was years away to obtain an amount of material suitable to form a critical mass.

3) Strategic Bombing succeded in destroying the ability of the Germans to build weapons
It contributed, not more. Germany's military economy did not collapse before January/February 1945, when the last stockpile of Rumanian oil was consumed.

4) The Germans stole rocket technology from Dr. Robert Goddard
Fellow scientists use to know each other, Goddards results surely were known in Germany. If stolen, copied, or ignored, because the own efforts were already ahead, I don't know.

5) The United States stole rocket technology from Dr. Von Braun
They "stole" von Braun as well!

6) Germans developed flying saucers that could exceed 1,200 miles per hour
A myth. The myth-builders use to say around 30 German submarines and hundreds or thousands of scientists disappeared at the end of WWII because the fled to a secret base in Antarctica. But here, nobody misses them.

7) Hitler was a military genius
He was a total military fool.

8) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in on the Pearl Harbor Attack
On which side? Did he fly the first Zero coming in or the first P-40 to take off?[:0]

9) The Allies delayed their advance into Germany and certain territories because the "Final Solution" was known to them and they were anti-semetic.
Before proved, this is a malevolent insinuation. It is true that the Allies knew what was going on in Auschwitz and they could have bombed the camps or the rails to them but they did not. It is also true that the trains to the extinction camps could have carried military supplies instead, so also the Shoah was a drawback to German military strains.

Regards, RT

[gruad]

Similar to the anti-semitic Allies holding up their advance to allow the Gas Chambers to do their job, was the myth that the racist Allies did not use the bomb against Germany because the victims would have been white.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

Trexx's Favs and my shortest comments:

1) Howard Hughes designed the Japanese Zero.
The Zero is a further development of the Vought V-143 that was sold to Japan (it will take decades until I can write a GOT topic about it, given my speed of proceeding at the moment[:I][:I][:I])

2) The Third Reich almost developed an atomic bomb.
Wrong. Germany was years away to obtain an amount of material suitable to form a critical mass.

3) Strategic Bombing succeded in destroying the ability of the Germans to build weapons
It contributed, not more. Germany's military economy did not collapse before January/February 1945, when the last stockpile of Rumanian oil was consumed.

4) The Germans stole rocket technology from Dr. Robert Goddard
Fellow scientists use to know each other, Goddards results surely were known in Germany. If stolen, copied, or ignored, because the own efforts were already ahead, I don't know.

5) The United States stole rocket technology from Dr. Von Braun
They "stole" von Braun as well!

6) Germans developed flying saucers that could exceed 1,200 miles per hour
A myth. The myth-builders use to say around 30 German submarines and hundreds or thousands of scientists disappeared at the end of WWII because the fled to a secret base in Antarctica. But here, nobody misses them.

7) Hitler was a military genius
He was a total military fool.

8) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in on the Pearl Harbor Attack
On which side? Did he fly the first Zero coming in or the first P-40 to take off?[:0]

9) The Allies delayed their advance into Germany and certain territories because the "Final Solution" was known to them and they were anti-semetic.
Before proved, this is a malevolent insinuation. It is true that the Allies knew what was going on in Auschwitz and they could have bombed the camps or the rails to them but they did not. It is also true that the trains to the extinction camps could have carried military supplies instead, so also the Shoah was a drawback to German military strains.

Regards, RT


Just to be perfectly clear:

"The entire list I put together are myths."

You're comments are appreciated, however.

My declaration of about the Zero has commenced a real-debate it seems. Cool. :)
I'm quite sure that you are incorrect about it's origination.
[B)]

[ChrisMcD]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

Trexx's Favs and my shortest comments:
6) Germans developed flying saucers that could exceed 1,200 miles per hour
A myth. The myth-builders use to say around 30 German submarines and hundreds or thousands of scientists disappeared at the end of WWII because the fled to a secret base in Antarctica. But here, nobody misses them.
Regards, RT

Just to be perfectly clear:

"The entire list I put together are myths."

You're comments are appreciated, however.


Don't be too sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_gravity_control_propulsion_initiativ e

Not all the mad scientists have been run to ground

Or is this one of those wikipedia spoofs

[Red Admiral]

Chris, both those pages are serious. There was something about Heim's theory in New Scientist last year that made me look into the details a bit more. Its not completely hare-brained.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi RM,

I got it off Ken MacLeod's book; 'The Execution Channel'

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Execution-Channel-Ken-MacLeod/dp/1841493481/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199786695&sr=8-1

His science is usually sound - if a bit off the edge!

[conrad]

About the Zero again. In the late 1930's in response to the air ministry specifiction that produced the Hurricane and Spitfire Gloster Aircraft co produced a lightweight radial engined fighter design remarkably similier to the Zero. Only a few prototypes were made and after 2 test flights in 1937 the idea was dropped. Gloster didn't even give the plane a name. But this has led to a myth that the Zero was based on a British design.

[merlin]

Re: Zero origins
I do remember reading a book many years ago about the aircraft industry of Australia. The guy in charge (packet as I recall) was offered the Vought fighter to build at the Fishermens Bend Factory, and with that to recall when he first saw a Zero - exclaimed it's a Vought.

But the trouble with such stories, is that if an aircraft has a similar spec., a similar (radial) engine - it will look similar!

Another myth
During the Battle of Britain the RAF use De Wilde incendiary ammunition.
Wrong, the name was retained to full the Germans - the Swiss 'designers' were even paid (to ensure thir silence). Their shell was hand made - they didn't quantitfy the ingredients, so it could not be re-produced - let alone mass produced!
The shell that was used was designed & tested by Captain Dixon. The aim was to go through the outer skin of an aircraft and explode inside. This was tested by firing at a can of petrol the other side of a sheet of aliminium - he only found the right ingredients just in time.
The 'shell' was also part of reverse 'lend-lease' to the US.

[conrad]

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

Trexx's Favs and my shortest comments:

9) The Allies delayed their advance into Germany and certain territories because the "Final Solution" was known to them and they were anti-semetic.
Before proved, this is a malevolent insinuation. It is true that the Allies knew what was going on in Auschwitz and they could have bombed the camps or the rails to them but they did not. It is also true that the trains to the extinction camps could have carried military supplies instead, so also the Shoah was a drawback to German military strains.
Regards, RT

The real reason the Allies delayed their advance in to Germany and certain territories was the Roosavelt was duped by Stalin, and agreed to let him get all he wanted in Eastern Europe. It was a pity for the East Europeans that FDR didn't die a few months earlier, since Trueman saw through Stalin instantly. He wouldn't have agreed to delay the Allied advance to help him.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by conrad

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

Trexx's Favs and my shortest comments:

9) The Allies delayed their advance into Germany and certain territories because the "Final Solution" was known to them and they were anti-semetic.
Before proved, this is a malevolent insinuation. It is true that the Allies knew what was going on in Auschwitz and they could have bombed the camps or the rails to them but they did not. It is also true that the trains to the extinction camps could have carried military supplies instead, so also the Shoah was a drawback to German military strains.
Regards, RT

The real reason the Allies delayed their advance in to Germany and certain territories was the Roosavelt was duped by Stalin, and agreed to let him get all he wanted in Eastern Europe. It was a pity for the East Europeans that FDR didn't die a few months earlier, since Trueman saw through Stalin instantly. He wouldn't have agreed to delay the Allied advance to help him.

They also ran out of petrol. Petrol was road transported from Normandy throughout 1944. This lack of resources led to arguments between the Allied commanders, each wanting the juice whereas the others would have to stand still. The Allies had got the port of Antwerp but the Germans controlled the approaches through the Schelde estuary so it was useless.
A long time admirer of Truman I now recognise, with the release of documents, that many of his policies poisoned relations with the UK and fuelled Stalin's paranoia (that you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!). The USSR had just been through a major war, had lost around 10% of its population and most of its industrial base. The harsh treatment of civil uprisings in Eastern Europe in the 1950s are explicable when you realise this was seen as another round of a battle fought between the same people, deep in Russia, and only 10 years earlier ... Moves by the western allies to overturn agreements solemnly drawn up earlier in the war when the USSR was doing almost all the fighting would have triggered problems in 1945. The US public for one wouldn't have accepted war against the USSR in 1945. Churchill would have been in favour but the British public wouldn't.

[conrad]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by conrad

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

Trexx's Favs and my shortest comments:

9) The Allies delayed their advance into Germany and certain territories because the "Final Solution" was known to them and they were anti-semetic.
Before proved, this is a malevolent insinuation. It is true that the Allies knew what was going on in Auschwitz and they could have bombed the camps or the rails to them but they did not. It is also true that the trains to the extinction camps could have carried military supplies instead, so also the Shoah was a drawback to German military strains.
Regards, RT

The real reason the Allies delayed their advance in to Germany and certain territories was the Roosavelt was duped by Stalin, and agreed to let him get all he wanted in Eastern Europe. It was a pity for the East Europeans that FDR didn't die a few months earlier, since Trueman saw through Stalin instantly. He wouldn't have agreed to delay the Allied advance to help him.

They also ran out of petrol. Petrol was road transported from Normandy throughout 1944. This lack of resources led to arguments between the Allied commanders, each wanting the juice whereas the others would have to stand still. The Allies had got the port of Antwerp but the Germans controlled the approaches through the Schelde estuary so it was useless.
A long time admirer of Truman I now recognise, with the release of documents, that many of his policies poisoned relations with the UK and fuelled Stalin's paranoia (that you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!). The USSR had just been through a major war, had lost around 10% of its population and most of its industrial base. The harsh treatment of civil uprisings in Eastern Europe in the 1950s are explicable when you realise this was seen as another round of a battle fought between the same people, deep in Russia, and only 10 years earlier ... Moves by the western allies to overturn agreements solemnly drawn up earlier in the war when the USSR was doing almost all the fighting would have triggered problems in 1945. The US public for one wouldn't have accepted war against the USSR in 1945. Churchill would have been in favour but the British public wouldn't.


But it was Roosavelt who made the agreements.There was a documenary on the BBC last year which revealed how Roosavelt was happy to give Stalin everything he wanted in Europe. Pattons army could have been in Prague before the Russians, but Roosavelt ordered him to stop on Stalins intervention. The US army occupied Leipzig, but had to pull back. Indeed FDR was more suspicious of the British than he was of Stalin.
Trueman was more down to earth. As soon as he met Stalin he reminded him of The gangsterish boss of Kansas City where he started out in politics. Rightly not a man to be endulged or trusted.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by conrad
But it was Roosavelt who made the agreements.There was a documenary on the BBC last year which revealed how Roosavelt was happy to give Stalin everything he wanted in Europe. Pattons army could have been in Prague before the Russians, but Roosavelt ordered him to stop on Stalins intervention. The US army occupied Leipzig, but had to pull back. Indeed FDR was more suspicious of the British than he was of Stalin.
Trueman was more down to earth. As soon as he met Stalin he reminded him of The gangsterish boss of Kansas City where he started out in politics. Rightly not a man to be endulged or trusted.

But the agreements were made at a time:
a) the USSR was fighting the Germans, and except for a sideshow in Africa nobody else was
b) the western allies had yet to even start the air campaign against Germany
c) there was a real fear in the west that Hitler and Stalin would come to their senses and work out they were in a no-win situation and they might settle (they had come to an agreement over Poland in a few weeks in 1939)

[Nick Sumner]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon
A long time admirer of Truman I now recognise, with the release of documents, that many of his policies poisoned relations with the UK and fuelled Stalin's paranoia.

Which ones do you mean? Or are you thinking of Roosevelt?

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon
A long time admirer of Truman I now recognise, with the release of documents, that many of his policies poisoned relations with the UK and fuelled Stalin's paranoia.

Which ones do you mean? Or are you thinking of Roosevelt?

Truman! The cheating of the Brits over the nuclear agreements and numerous niggles of the Russians - Richard Rhodes 'Dark Sun' documents numerous episodes. The President's closest allies in the US Senate were really pursuing a policy of US dominance and humiliation of other powers. Especially dumb move as they didn't know what to do with the pre-eminence they already had.
Remember it was Brit and Canadian uranium, the brits provided the critical initial calculations on critical mass and on gaseous diffusion, they were kept out of plutonium, but they provided the implosion breakthrough. And in 1946 the US Senate shut them out of the control circuit and from nuclear information. With the world rightly grateful to the US for its role in WW II the goodwill was blown so fast even if people smiled in public.

[boofhead]

What about this? It clearly shows German superiority in flying saucer technology......
Could not get the photo in the reply. I have it on disk only, cannot remember where it came from. How can I post a picture? (the picture looks authentic but it might be from a movie and not real. It shows a large flying saucer in Nazi colours. This one is also shown in other documents and was named the Haunebu II. The picture I have shows it constructed and you can clearly see the size. It was big.).

[Kutscha]

It is understandable curmudgeon that the UK was shut out by the Americans as the British Public Service, some in very high positions, were Soviet spies. Canada was not free of Soviet spies either but not as bad as the British.

[Red Admiral]

quote: What about this? It clearly shows German superiority in flying saucer technology......

You just have to wonder why the Nazis moved to Antarctica when they had flying saucers capable of interstellar travel...

For posting pics, get a free account with photobucket or imageshack that allows direct linking.

[conrad]

[/quote] Truman! The cheating of the Brits over the nuclear agreements and numerous niggles of the Russians - Richard Rhodes 'Dark Sun' documents numerous episodes. The President's closest allies in the US Senate were really pursuing a policy of US dominance and humiliation of other powers. Especially dumb move as they didn't know what to do with the pre-eminence they already had.
Remember it was Brit and Canadian uranium, the brits provided the critical initial calculations on critical mass and on gaseous diffusion, they were kept out of plutonium, but they provided the implosion breakthrough. And in 1946 the US Senate shut them out of the control circuit and from nuclear information. With the world rightly grateful to the US for its role in WW II the goodwill was blown so fast even if people smiled in public.
[/quote]

The blowing of goodwill with the British had one very bad result. The new Atlee government gave the Soviets British jet engine technology when they asked for it. The Soviets had got nowhere with it, and couldn't make sense of the captured German technology. Without it no Mig 15's etc. They all had Rolls Royce engines.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

It is understandable curmudgeon that the UK was shut out by the Americans as the British Public Service, some in very high positions, were Soviet spies. Canada was not free of Soviet spies either but not as bad as the British.

The shut out occurred before any 'fellow-travellers' had been identified and was purely to secure a US monopoly on nuclear weapons. And for what it's worth 'Canoe/Venona' found quite enough Americans to justify McCarthy ... and while 'Venona' was a US breakthrough Brit efforts were essential to the exploitation of the material.
During the Great Depression and in WW II politics were different from what they became during the Cold War.
Wrt to Truman add the frequent (weekly, sometimes daily) and very provocative penetrations of Russian airspace (like overflying Vladivostok city and port (and some accounts 'booming' them), bit hard to miss) ... incursions were often 100s of km over land. A recent air history magazine records how many, if not most, Sabre victories over Migs took place over airfields on the other side of the Yalu ... Essentially (read 'By Any Means Necessary') the US Govt lied to the US people. The Russians knew what was going on.
The documents are showing things were a damn sight more complicated than what I was brought up to believe.

[GregP]

The US government lied to us?

No WAY! Ha!

As a U.S. citizen, methinks Mr. Bush has told more lies than Truman ever did. I might be wrong, Dubya doesn't seem to know the difference between the truth and a lie. He can't even formulate a STRAIGHT answer to a simple question, much less discern complicated nuances such as truth or falsehood.

The average U.S. citizen has viewed the UK, Canada, and Australia as "friends" for as long as I have been alive. We hope the average citizen in these good countreies fell teh same about us. If the good fellings are not returned, then maybe we have been wrong all this time. Persoanlly, I'm inclined to believe that there ARE good feelings there between citizens.

Between governments there may be other concerns. Not being a democracy (we are a representative republic), we have very little voice in the policies of our elected officials. If they elect to NOT do what they said in the election campaign, the police take a dim view of it if we lych the candidates after their term of office has completed.

So ... we try to elect someone who SAYS he (or she) will balance the damned budget, keep our friends friendly, slow crime down, and all the good things politicians promise. When they don't deliver (shock!), we have little recourse except maybe to elect someone who promises to not make a mistress of his intern. Sometimes I wish we had the right to challenge the President to a boxing match ...

My bet is that people in the UK, Canada, Australia, Russia, Turkey, Germany, Japan, Romania, Tibet, China, and everywhere ELSE sometimes feel the same about their own governments.

If I had MY way, I doubt if everyone would agree with ME, either. SO maybe Mr. Bush isn't alone in having detractors. Still, I believe you are correct when you say we wanted to keep the atomic bomb for ourselves. It simplifies the potential list of people you must defend against if you don't give away your super weapons.

Most people in the U.S. government were simply not sure that anything we gave to the UK in the way of secrets would remain secret. Hence ... the situation at the time was ... delicate.

Looking back on it now, I suppose we all have our own opinions.

[ChrisMcD]

Truman is an interesting SOB. And one never afraid to take hard decisions. As a Brit, I cannot say that I am over fond of his policy to speed up the dismemberment of the old empire. You can make a good case that more haste was less speed, but it had to be done.

Also it is noteworthy that the closest he came to assassination was at the hands of a home grown Puerto Rican anti-imperialist - so there was more than a touch of hypocrisy. But Truman took it in his stride, apparently in another attempt his bodyguards had to pull Truman off his would-be assassin before he killed him!

Keeping tight hold of the A bomb is right there in the middle of the 'Pax Americana' ethos. Roosevelt may have been soft on Stalin, but Truman trusted him not at all and probably didn't go a bomb on the socialist Atlee government in the UK either. As he said earlier in 1941; "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."

Finally, his comments on MacArthur are priceless "I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail."

So an SOB - but our SOB

[Nick Sumner]

quote:[The blowing of goodwill with the British had one very bad result. The new Atlee government gave the Soviets British jet engine technology when they asked for it. The Soviets had got nowhere with it, and couldn't make sense of the captured German technology. Without it no Mig 15's etc. They all had Rolls Royce engines.


Just to clarify, I don't think those issues were directly related - Clement Attlee was an innocent when it came to foreign policy and I think he genuinely believed that post-war the world was going to be all peace and love and that the Soviets were our friends. With the exception of Churchill and a few others who were considered alarmist very few people in the British or American governments realised the true nature of the Communist threat. He didn't handover Rolls-Royce engines to the Russians because he was grumpy with the Americans he did it in what he believed was a spirit of goodwill.

I also don't think the Soviets had any difficulty understanding the German technology - certainly their metallurgists were able to solve problems the Germans had tremendous difficulties with (in part because of the limited resources in a Germany under blockade) it's just that the British jet engines were better than anything the Germans had designed.

[Nick Sumner]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

The US government lied to us?

The average U.S. citizen has viewed the UK, Canada, and Australia as "friends" for as long as I have been alive. We hope the average citizen in these good countreies fell teh same about us. If the good fellings are not returned, then maybe we have been wrong all this time. Persoanlly, I'm inclined to believe that there ARE good feelings there between citizens.



I think you'll find that generally speaking the average British Canadian or Australian citizen feels the same way about Americans but speaking only about the British government I feel that (and I'll admit this is 20/20 hindsight) there was a fundamental failure to understand the outlook of American foreign policy both during the Second World War and in the immediate post-war era. It is a complicated subject but I don't think that it is an oversimplification to say that while America viewed Britain as an ally Britain viewed America as a friend - this of course is not the same thing and the failure to grasp this crucial difference in outlook meant that the British failed to ‘fight their corner’ effectively when dealing with America and in consequence were often disappointed by the Americans.

(Stalin gave the British the perfect object lesson in how to deal with America during the lend - lease era)

Truman, and the rest of the US administration, did the best they could do for their own people but I think it's fair to say that in America, politics is an extension of business (was it Calvin Coolidge who said ‘the business of America is business’) and the American view of other countries is that they are other businesses that are potential rivals.

This was very much Britain’s outlook until the mid-19th-century triumph of the academic middle-class over the commercial middle-class and the paradigms shift (horrid phrase, sorry!) Meant that the British government instead of viewing the national polity as a business saw it more as a family and in consequence they saw other countries as family units and their dealings with other countries became dealings between families rather than dealings between businesses.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

The US government lied to us?

No WAY! Ha!

As a U.S. citizen, methinks Mr. Bush has told more lies than Truman ever did. I might be wrong, Dubya doesn't seem to know the difference between the truth and a lie. He can't even formulate a STRAIGHT answer to a simple question, much less discern complicated nuances such as truth or falsehood.

The average U.S. citizen has viewed the UK, Canada, and Australia as "friends" for as long as I have been alive. We hope the average citizen in these good countreies fell teh same about us. If the good fellings are not returned, then maybe we have been wrong all this time. Persoanlly, I'm inclined to believe that there ARE good feelings there between citizens.

Between governments there may be other concerns. Not being a democracy (we are a representative republic), we have very little voice in the policies of our elected officials. If they elect to NOT do what they said in the election campaign, the police take a dim view of it if we lych the candidates after their term of office has completed.

So ... we try to elect someone who SAYS he (or she) will balance the damned budget, keep our friends friendly, slow crime down, and all the good things politicians promise. When they don't deliver (shock!), we have little recourse except maybe to elect someone who promises to not make a mistress of his intern. Sometimes I wish we had the right to challenge the President to a boxing match ...

My bet is that people in the UK, Canada, Australia, Russia, Turkey, Germany, Japan, Romania, Tibet, China, and everywhere ELSE sometimes feel the same about their own governments.

If I had MY way, I doubt if everyone would agree with ME, either. SO maybe Mr. Bush isn't alone in having detractors. Still, I believe you are correct when you say we wanted to keep the atomic bomb for ourselves. It simplifies the potential list of people you must defend against if you don't give away your super weapons.

Most people in the U.S. government were simply not sure that anything we gave to the UK in the way of secrets would remain secret. Hence ... the situation at the time was ... delicate.

Looking back on it now, I suppose we all have our own opinions.


AT least there is the facility to impeach the US president - even though it happens rarely (once?) and I doubt any current politician has the guts to make that stand (is it the Senate that can impeach?).

A lot of the technology that was developed in the US was only possible because of technologies or expertise from other countries - principally Great Britain. The Tizard Mission in 1940 basically handed over some of the world's most advanced technologies - including RADAR and jet engine technology. The A-bomb research owed a lot to British research and the input of many non-American physicists.

Anyway, whatever your views on Communism, I am glad the Russians got the bomb. I fear what would have happened if one country (ie the US) had such an advantage over the rest of the world.

[curmudgeon]

The BIGGEST myth of the war was that the allies were a unified group of nations, cooperating selflessly in ensuring the defeat of Hitlerite Germany ... they all scammed each other. The British may have been relatively the most honest with the US, but that was when they were broke and dependent on US food, arms and fuel. And they resented that enforced honesty.
Allegedly the contest within the US between the Army and the Navy was fought with fewer scruples than the contest against Germany or Japan ...

[conrad]

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

quote:[The blowing of goodwill with the British had one very bad result. The new Atlee government gave the Soviets British jet engine technology when they asked for it. The Soviets had got nowhere with it, and couldn't make sense of the captured German technology. Without it no Mig 15's etc. They all had Rolls Royce engines.


Just to clarify, I don't think those issues were directly related - Clement Attlee was an innocent when it came to foreign policy and I think he genuinely believed that post-war the world was going to be all peace and love and that the Soviets were our friends. With the exception of Churchill and a few others who were considered alarmist very few people in the British or American governments realised the true nature of the Communist threat. He didn't handover Rolls-Royce engines to the Russians because he was grumpy with the Americans he did it in what he believed was a spirit of goodwill.

I also don't think the Soviets had any difficulty understanding the German technology - certainly their metallurgists were able to solve problems the Germans had tremendous difficulties with (in part because of the limited resources in a Germany under blockade) it's just that the British jet engines were better than anything the Germans had designed.


from memory an account of ther jet givaway said that relations with the US were bad at the time. Itmight just have been that the normal dim wittedness of the British establishment. Remember they are the people who are prepared to trust the French and the Arabs, enough said.
About the German jets I think they were very complicated. The Germans had chosed a very advanced design which was difficult to make work properly. The British had a simpler and more practical system. Not having German engineering expertise the Russians would have found it difficult to make their designs work.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by conrad

About the German jets I think they were very complicated. The Germans had chosen a very advanced design which was difficult to make work properly. The British had a simpler and more practical system. Not having German engineering expertise the Russians would have found it difficult to make their designs work.

Another myth - check out the Metrovick F-2, which powered the 3rd Meteor prototype (Nov, 1943) - 9 stage axial flow ... but not proceeded with in WW II as the centrifugal flow engines were easier to engineer, easier to get into production and easier to maintain. The Allies got that right.
The Germans were limited by their lack of access to minerals to make appropriate alloys ... the Russians weren't. Axial engines took over about 1950 as thrusts rose and a range of little problems were solved in the axial engines (esp in stator design I think).

[ickysdad]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon
A long time admirer of Truman I now recognise, with the release of documents, that many of his policies poisoned relations with the UK and fuelled Stalin's paranoia.

Which ones do you mean? Or are you thinking of Roosevelt?

Truman! The cheating of the Brits over the nuclear agreements and numerous niggles of the Russians - Richard Rhodes 'Dark Sun' documents numerous episodes. The President's closest allies in the US Senate were really pursuing a policy of US dominance and humiliation of other powers. Especially dumb move as they didn't know what to do with the pre-eminence they already had.
Remember it was Brit and Canadian uranium, the brits provided the critical initial calculations on critical mass and on gaseous diffusion, they were kept out of plutonium, but they provided the implosion breakthrough. And in 1946 the US Senate shut them out of the control circuit and from nuclear information. With the world rightly grateful to the US for its role in WW II the goodwill was blown so fast even if people smiled in public.


Ok but who provided almost all the industrial infrastructure ,money and such to develop the bomb? The US did have Uranium just not as good a grade as what Canada had. It was truly an international effort. One just has to look at the sheer size of the Manhatten Project

[ickysdad]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by GregP

The US government lied to us?

No WAY! Ha!

As a U.S. citizen, methinks Mr. Bush has told more lies than Truman ever did. I might be wrong, Dubya doesn't seem to know the difference between the truth and a lie. He can't even formulate a STRAIGHT answer to a simple question, much less discern complicated nuances such as truth or falsehood.

The average U.S. citizen has viewed the UK, Canada, and Australia as "friends" for as long as I have been alive. We hope the average citizen in these good countreies fell teh same about us. If the good fellings are not returned, then maybe we have been wrong all this time. Persoanlly, I'm inclined to believe that there ARE good feelings there between citizens.

Between governments there may be other concerns. Not being a democracy (we are a representative republic), we have very little voice in the policies of our elected officials. If they elect to NOT do what they said in the election campaign, the police take a dim view of it if we lych the candidates after their term of office has completed.

So ... we try to elect someone who SAYS he (or she) will balance the damned budget, keep our friends friendly, slow crime down, and all the good things politicians promise. When they don't deliver (shock!), we have little recourse except maybe to elect someone who promises to not make a mistress of his intern. Sometimes I wish we had the right to challenge the President to a boxing match ...

My bet is that people in the UK, Canada, Australia, Russia, Turkey, Germany, Japan, Romania, Tibet, China, and everywhere ELSE sometimes feel the same about their own governments.

If I had MY way, I doubt if everyone would agree with ME, either. SO maybe Mr. Bush isn't alone in having detractors. Still, I believe you are correct when you say we wanted to keep the atomic bomb for ourselves. It simplifies the potential list of people you must defend against if you don't give away your super weapons.

Most people in the U.S. government were simply not sure that anything we gave to the UK in the way of secrets would remain secret. Hence ... the situation at the time was ... delicate.

Looking back on it now, I suppose we all have our own opinions.


AT least there is the facility to impeach the US president - even though it happens rarely (once?) and I doubt any current politician has the guts to make that stand (is it the Senate that can impeach?).

A lot of the technology that was developed in the US was only possible because of technologies or expertise from other countries - principally Great Britain. The Tizard Mission in 1940 basically handed over some of the world's most advanced technologies - including RADAR and jet engine technology. The A-bomb research owed a lot to British research and the input of many non-American physicists.

Anyway, whatever your views on Communism, I am glad the Russians got the bomb. I fear what would have happened if one country (ie the US) had such an advantage over the rest of the world.


On radar though did the UK really invent radar? If you look hard enough you'll find alot of parrallel development amongst nations in things like radar or jet engines . Sometimes it's just a matter of which country's scientists get funding & such. There's also the issue of one country being able to mass produce cetain technologies in war like quantities .

[Red Admiral]

The UK didn't invent radar, work was going on concurrently around the world, but what they had was considerably in advance of the US. The US scientists themselves said that the first help from the UK gave them a tenfold advance on what they had before.

For jets, I think the German axial design caused most of the problems. Material failure can be countered by proper maintenance proceedures. Better turbine materials would allow for more power to be produced from the same engine but thats about it (only by around 100-150lbf through). The axial compressor offered better efficiency. In fact what was produced had a inferior efficiency to the UK centrifugal types, was much longer and heavier, and gave a lower pressure ratio (which mostly accounts for the poorer fuel consumption). The axial compressor also had much poorer surge characteristics which made the German engines more unreliable.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On radar though did the UK really invent radar? If you look hard enough you'll find alot of parrallel development amongst nations in things like radar or jet engines . Sometimes it's just a matter of which country's scientists get funding & such. There's also the issue of one country being able to mass produce cetain technologies in war like quantities .


No, but the British were well advanced in RADAR, more so than the US. And Britain was more advanced than the US in the area of jet propulsion.

Apparently what happened with the RADAR was that the British took German reserach and advanced it further. The Germans had hit a brick wall where the signal from their magnetron was unstable, so that a RADAR using it would be next to useless. British scientists clevelrly sidestepped the issue of making the signal stable, and thus made a far more useful RADAR. One piece of the luggage in the 1940 Tizard mission was the magnetron.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

The UK didn't invent radar, work was going on concurrently around the world, but what they had was considerably in advance of the US. The US scientists themselves said that the first help from the UK gave them a tenfold advance on what they had before.

For jets, I think the German axial design caused most of the problems. Material failure can be countered by proper maintenance proceedures. Better turbine materials would allow for more power to be produced from the same engine but thats about it (only by around 100-150lbf through). The axial compressor offered better efficiency. In fact what was produced had a inferior efficiency to the UK centrifugal types, was much longer and heavier, and gave a lower pressure ratio (which mostly accounts for the poorer fuel consumption). The axial compressor also had much poorer surge characteristics which made the German engines more unreliable.


Because of the lack of suitable materials much work was done in Germany on air cooled turbine blades. By using cooling they were able to use more standard materials at higher temperatures.

The RLM was sort of in control of the gas turbine projects during WW2. It wa sthem who basically killed the axial compressor turbine in Germany at the time. Von Ohain and Heinkel were keen to continue down that path (their original turbojet had a centrfifugal compressor and radial flow turbine), but were basically discouraged from that. Instead, as a compromise, the RLM allowed the use of a "diagonal compressor" - a cross between axial and centrifugal flow and not as useful as either.

German developments also had problems with harmonics set up in compressor blades, many problems with turbine blade attachment, construction and associated breakages. Many of them struggled with burner shapes and nozzles, making them work over a wide variety of situations.

Anyway, BMW had a particularly handy altitude testing facility, into which the British placed one of their turbojets for testing. After a few hours of testing the engine was shut down. The German technicians asked which components would need replacing. The British replied that none did, and continued to test the engine up to about 200 hours before anything on the engine was touched. The Germans found that a bit shocking!

[ickysdad]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On radar though did the UK really invent radar? If you look hard enough you'll find alot of parrallel development amongst nations in things like radar or jet engines . Sometimes it's just a matter of which country's scientists get funding & such. There's also the issue of one country being able to mass produce cetain technologies in war like quantities .


No, but the British were well advanced in RADAR, more so than the US. And Britain was more advanced than the US in the area of jet propulsion.

Apparently what happened with the RADAR was that the British took German reserach and advanced it further. The Germans had hit a brick wall where the signal from their magnetron was unstable, so that a RADAR using it would be next to useless. British scientists clevelrly sidestepped the issue of making the signal stable, and thus made a far more useful RADAR. One piece of the luggage in the 1940 Tizard mission was the magnetron.


But what I'm saying is that there was alot of parrallel development going on around the world. Tweek things things a little with the US(or any other country for that matter if they have it) putting far more effort & money into it and things could be quite different. Another thing did thje UK have those magnetrons/radars under mass production? I'm asking because it's one thing to develop it in the lab but can be quite another to serial produce it.

[ChrisMcD]

I think the British contribution to a lot of projects was summarised by Watson Watt's moto "second best tomorrow"

British radar was technically inferior to German sets - but was fully developed and integrated into a defence system by 1940 in time to win the BoB

Whittle used a centrifugal compressor because he thought it would be easier to get to work - and he was right. All the axial compressors (AFAIK) took a while to develop and some (ie the Avon) took longer than others!

The Merlin was technically nothing special, it had just been developed to a high level by the time that it was needed.

The cavity magnetron is probably the exception. That I think that really was unique.

[Red Admiral]

Cost doesn't effect things as much as you think just as long as you have the right ideas. Cost helps in being able to build a lot them very quickly. The Italian radar program consisted of a couple of people being paid to work on it during their spare time. The Italian government spent $5500 over 5 years and ended up in 1941 with an end product of similar capability to everyone else. The UK was quite well set up for large production volumes of radar equipment because it had started from back in 1936. Making a cavity magnetron isn't difficult, you need a cylinder of metal and a drill.

The relative merits of centrifugal or axial flow compressors depends on their specific speed which is a number relating to pressure ratio, flow rate and rpm. For the low thrusts generated at the time, the centrifugal compressor is better. Going to a bit more thrust (say around 2000-4000lbf) the mixed-flow compressor is superior, and then for higher still, the axiail-flow type takes over.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad
Ok but who provided almost all the industrial infrastructure ,money and such to develop the bomb? The US did have Uranium just not as good a grade as what Canada had. It was truly an international effort. One just has to look at the sheer size of the Manhatten Project

Yep, but who then grabbed the prize?
Actually because of secrecy the US Senators and even Truman weren't actually aware of who did what, when ... but the upper end bureaucrats and service politicians did.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On radar though did the UK really invent radar? If you look hard enough you'll find alot of parrallel development amongst nations in things like radar or jet engines . Sometimes it's just a matter of which country's scientists get funding & such. There's also the issue of one country being able to mass produce cetain technologies in war like quantities .


No, but the British were well advanced in RADAR, more so than the US. And Britain was more advanced than the US in the area of jet propulsion.

Apparently what happened with the RADAR was that the British took German reserach and advanced it further. The Germans had hit a brick wall where the signal from their magnetron was unstable, so that a RADAR using it would be next to useless. British scientists clevelrly sidestepped the issue of making the signal stable, and thus made a far more useful RADAR. One piece of the luggage in the 1940 Tizard mission was the magnetron.

Actually the magnetron was a British invention, enabling the Allies to move to centimetric radar. The British CH radar (of Battle of Britain fame) was long wavelength transmitters using direction-finding technology to locate the illuminated targets ... much inferior to then current German technology but robust and it served the purpose.

[ickysdad]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad
Ok but who provided almost all the industrial infrastructure ,money and such to develop the bomb? The US did have Uranium just not as good a grade as what Canada had. It was truly an international effort. One just has to look at the sheer size of the Manhatten Project

Yep, but who then grabbed the prize?
Actually because of secrecy the US Senators and even Truman weren't actually aware of who did what, when ... but the upper end bureaucrats and service politicians did.


And just who put the vast majority of money and materials into the project? Look at rockets when Dr. Braun was interviewed after the war he stated that alot of his research/work/inspiration came from Charles Goddard. On radar and the Tizard mission the UK definately need the electronics producing capacity of the US to get enough radars.

[Ricky]

I'm reminded of the whole 'cracking Emigma' thing.

The Poles did the initial hard work, and designed the first 'Bombe'

The British refined it, got it working

The Americans mass-produced it (and refined it some more)


So who made the biggest contribution?

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

I'm reminded of the whole 'cracking Emigma' thing.

The Poles did the initial hard work, and designed the first 'Bombe'

The British refined it, got it working

The Americans mass-produced it (and refined it some more)


So who made the biggest contribution?

Probably the Poles ... they proved solutions were possible and that hopes of breaking the system weren't just dreams. The Germans never broke TypeX or Sigaba which were only slightly (but significantly) more advanced. Once the feasibility of breaking the code was recognised then the project was worth the resources. The Brit effort fell over on the QWERTZU which (with lateral thinking - how would you assemble and repair these machines in numbers) turned out to be the most obvious permutation of key connections.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On radar and the Tizard mission the UK definately need the electronics producing capacity of the US to get enough radars.


Sure, mainly because all British resources at the time were being devoted to defending itself.

The British had been trying to set up manufacturing and research agreements before the Tizard mission, but the official US government policy of isolationism made things difficult. The only way the British made any headway was to basically give away all their secrets.

[ickysdad]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On radar and the Tizard mission the UK definately need the electronics producing capacity of the US to get enough radars.


Sure, mainly because all British resources at the time were being devoted to defending itself.

The British had been trying to set up manufacturing and research agreements before the Tizard mission, but the official US government policy of isolationism made things difficult. The only way the British made any headway was to basically give away all their secrets.


Have you ever read "A Radar History of World War Two" by Louis Brown? It seems the so-called technological edge of the UK over the US( or any other nation for that matter) has been well over-stated which is entirely my point. To me a good example is the A-Bomb every nation knew it was theoretically possible and knew basic rationale behind it . In rockets Germany was considered in advance of anybody BUT they got alot of thier headstart from Robert Goddard of the US. Dr. Goddard once asked for $2,000,000.00 for additional research and was phsyically thrown out of the office . Now imagine if the US would have put up money for him to conduct further research. You can possibly say the same for jets and radar. In Proximity fuses the UK did develop the first ones for bombs & rockets however it was the US that was able to get them to work in projectiles which is an entirely different league compared to getting them to work in rockets or bombs.
If you go back and read what Red Admiral wrote about the Italian radar(though it wasn't very reliable) development anybody will understand that most major nations were pretty much at the same level technologically wise in the mid to late 30's it was just a matter of applying the proper resources.

[ChrisMcD]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon
Actually the magnetron was a British invention, enabling the Allies to move to centimetric radar. That's what I thought - but apparently it was the Czech's and good old General Electric who came up with the first one trying to get around someone else's pattent!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetron

But - with true British aplomb; Randal and Boot develop a much more powerful one by whittling away at a block of copper and plumbing it for water cooling, they then develop a 'workaround' to cope with it's frequency wandering and come up with the most powerful radar in the world.

Meanwhile those technical supremos the Germans decide that 'frequency drift' is unacceptable and spend most of the war making do with klystrons.

So - to summarise!

A Central European genius comes up with it.

The Americans make it work as a legal dodge.

The Germans decide that it is technicaly not perfect.

And the Brits make it work.

Sometimes truth and stereotypes do seem to coincide!

[Red Admiral]

quote:To me a good example is the A-Bomb every nation knew it was theoretically possible and knew basic rationale behind it .

Sort of, it depends very much on when. The ex-German scientists in Britain were the first to come up with a workable method for a device. Mainly in reducing the size from many tons of Uranium to a few pounds. As for knowing it was theoretically possible, you get the impression from the period documents that whether it would actually work as intended was very doubtful.

quote:Sometimes truth and stereotypes do seem to coincide!

Have you ever seen Cockerill's prototype hovercraft? It was made from a baked bean can and hair drier. The larger prototypes weren't much more advanced.

[conrad]

It's funny how the techically sophisticated Germans lost out through overcomplicating matters while the British improvisation approach came up trumps.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by conrad

It's funny how the techically sophisticated Germans lost out through overcomplicating matters while the British improvisation approach came up trumps.

Read R.V. Jones on the, at the time extraordinary, stability of German radar ... tell ours from their's ... if it's stable it's their's.

[conrad]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by conrad

It's funny how the techically sophisticated Germans lost out through overcomplicating matters while the British improvisation approach came up trumps.

Read R.V. Jones on the, at the time extraordinary, stability of German radar ... tell ours from their's ... if it's stable it's their's.

I don't know who R V Jones is but the Germans ended up far behind in Radar. The British approach led to centimetric radar. There is a story that in late 1942 a shot down Allied bomber was found to have it's radar system intact. On the system was a radar street map of Berlin. When they told Hitler he had a look of total shock.

[ChrisMcD]

quote:Originally posted by conrad
I don't know who R V Jones is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Jones
effectively the first Electronic Intelligence Expert.

His autobiography is a very well balanced account of the radar war (IMHO) and shows that the German radar was definitely superior till 1940 at least.

It would be nice to think that the British approach led to Centimetric radar.
AFAIK there was a general search for a means of generating more powerful radio waves at the the shortest possible wavelengths, in part driven by a need to get the minimum possible distance for airborne interception.

To give Boot his due, he achieved a quantum leap in power, but I have never been sure whether he knew exactly what he was doing or just got lucky!

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by conrad

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by conrad

It's funny how the techically sophisticated Germans lost out through overcomplicating matters while the British improvisation approach came up trumps.

Read R.V. Jones on the, at the time extraordinary, stability of German radar ... tell ours from their's ... if it's stable it's their's.

I don't know who R V Jones is but the Germans ended up far behind in Radar. The British approach led to centimetric radar. There is a story that in late 1942 a shot down Allied bomber was found to have it's radar system intact. On the system was a radar street map of Berlin. When they told Hitler he had a look of total shock.


The version I read was when the Germans managed to get the set working again it displayed a map of Berlin.

[conrad]

Does it make any difference? The point is that Hitler was badly shocked by how advanced Allied radar had become.

[Trexx]

OK, ok... I've read somewhere. I think it was "The American Magic" by Ronald Lewin, it's mentioned that the British swerved into the magnatron breakthroughs not because they were trying to solve problems with radar, but because they were trying to develop a "Death Ray" weapon.

Eh, anybody?

[Red Admiral]

Not really. There were a few experiments in the 1930s to create a high frequency death ray but the research by Randall and Boot created a cavity magnetron by working from first principles.

[ChrisMcD]

HI Trexx, RA

AFAIK there was a story that a British detection committee was asked to look at 'death rays' yet again and Watson Watt asked one of his scientists to calculate the amount of power required to boil blood. He got the answer that it was way above anything that they could generate - but that it was possible to generate sufficient power to get an 'echo'.

At which point the committee carried out the 'Daventry' experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson-Watt

I think that the critical aspect of the development of Radar is that only the British at that point had a clear and pressing need for long range detection and were going about it in a methodical manner ('methodical' meaning that they were expecting to be attacked from France when they were our ally, but old habits persist!).

So, we Brits can certainly claim to have been the first people to have been saved by radar - even if claims to invent it are a bit iffy.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

HI Trexx, RA

AFAIK there was a story that a British detection committee was asked to look at 'death rays' yet again and Watson Watt asked one of his scientists to calculate the amount of power required to boil blood. He got the answer that it was way above anything that they could generate - but that it was possible to generate sufficient power to get an 'echo'.

At which point the committee carried out the 'Daventry' experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson-Watt

I think that the critical aspect of the development of Radar is that only the British at that point had a clear and pressing need for long range detection and were going about it in a methodical manner ('methodical' meaning that they were expecting to be attacked from France when they were our ally, but old habits persist!).

So, we Brits can certainly claim to have been the first people to have been saved by radar - even if claims to invent it are a bit iffy.

A point to make is that Chain Home 'radars' were not like modern radars (cf the German efforts, British naval and airborne efforts). CH 'radars' involved a series of high power radio transmitters and a separate series of receivers using DF techniques to pick up the reflections from the transmitters ... This was the major reason the 1939 Zeppelin spy flights didn't pick them up - they were looking for pulsed HF transmissions and they detected a lot of radio noise modulated at at 50Hz (national grid frequency)and synched throughout the British coast. This was interpreted as noise from the national electricity grid.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Curmudgeon,

I am sure that you are right. As I remember, one of the early problems was that if the receiver was sensitive to detect the 'return echo' it was very prone to being 'burnt out' by the transmitter signal. The obvious solution was to turn it off, but with valves that was not easy. While they were trying to resolve the 'duplex switching' problem Watson Watt simply separated them.

AFAIK there were a number of receivers to help with directional location.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Home

Also, I gather the Germans eventually realised that they could piggyback on the transmissions as well with the Kleine Heidelberg Parasit!

[conrad]

[/quote]
The version I read was when the Germans managed to get the set working again it displayed a map of Berlin.
[/quote]

The puzzling thing is that having captured a centimetric radar set in working order the German technical bods couldn't have taken it apart and seen how it worked. Then it should have been a short step to duplicating it. How come they never did?

[Lightning]

Hi All,

The real story behind centimetric RADAR is that the Brits were hard at work developing the microwave oven so that they could heat their tea in minimum time when they suddenly realized that the magnetron had other, almost-as-important, uses. :D

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

And then the Americans saw how good it would be for boiling water for their cups of coffee.[:p]

[ChrisMcD]

quote:Originally posted by conrad
The puzzling thing is that having captured a centimetric radar set in working order the German technical bods couldn't have taken it apart and seen how it worked. Then it should have been a short step to duplicating it. How come they never did?


AFAIK they moved very fast to get centimetric radar detectors (Naxos etc.) up and running.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxos_radar_detector
Airborne AI took a bit longer FuG 240 Berlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenstein_radar

I think a lot of it was tactics. By this stage in the Radar War, the Germans just had to find the bomber stream and they could do that by homing in on all the emissions - then they just attacked using the Mk1 eyeball (and Schräge Musik)

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

And then the Americans saw how good it would be for boiling water for their cups of coffee.[:p]


I'm certain it was for hot-dogs, not beverages...[:o)]