Well you might be right about the bombing accuracy as I haven’t read the bomber preformance of it. However, I do know that the Me-262 had excellent handling at all altitudes and it’s cannon fire and rockets would’ve made quick work of planes or vehicle on the ground.
As for the bomber vs. interceptor argument, I would still use the Me-262 as an interceptor. However, if I was Hitler I would’ve at least listened to both sides of the argument instead of using putting all my efforts in a Me-262 bomber program.
He-280. Yeah I remember reading information of that plane before. The He-280 wasn’t as good as the Me-262, but it would’ve been ready in the shortest amount of time. The He-280 first flew in April 2, 1941.
Combat data for the He-280 was great. It could defeat the deadly Fw-190 with apparent and had a top speed of over 500 mph. It’s a good thing that Heinkel was never intended to make more then 18 of these craft.
It was a good thing that nazi high command ignored it! The Me262 would of been an excellent fighterbomber, but just like the FW190, it should of first served its fighter role, then be adjusted to other things.
I like the Me-262 as a interceptor to against American Flying Fortress, but I think the application of the Me-262 would’ve been as a radar equipped night fighter. You wouldn’t have to worry about those 1000+ Allied Escorts bothering you all the way to your landing spot. The only drawback I would see is the bright plume of fire coming from the Me-262’s turbojets, but who cares when you can easily outrun any Allied craft?
Yay! Reached the 400 post mark! I finally reached the limit that my role model Erich Hartmann couldn’t break. I think I celebrate my victory with a much needed vacation. :smile:
Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-31 11:40 ]
vacation? be careful i’m catching up on you!
Ha still 200 more post to go! :smile: Maybe I might even beat Yanny to 500 though I doubt it.
nah…his vacation is over!
Well maybe I’ll set my standards higher and go for 550…
you do that…
Yeah, you’re right. But as my quote says, I only have so little time in which to do so much.
as my quote says, i’m n the mossad :smile:
Havent read down this far in the thread, but 500 is mine!
Uh what’s a Mossad? I heard of them before. But I can’t quite attach a definition to the word.
the israeli CIA…in a way…just a lot more ruthless and effective.
Oh, that’s right. Now I remember. I don’t care what other people say, but Israel has by far one of the great intelligence branches especially considering the size of the country.
oh no one questions the effectiveness of the mossad, but by the means they get it.
A very nice guy once emailed me a while back, seeing my name in achtungpanzer.com’s guest book. I used the name “HortenFlyingWing” and he asked me to proofread an article about it. (remainder snipped)
Very good post–and definitely worthy of a bump. I encourage anyone who hasn’t yet read the first post in this thread to go ahead and do so! Definitely bump-worthy. (It’s been a few days since the last time someone posted in this thread.)
(It’s been a few days since the last time someone posted in this thread.)
its been a decade
A couple of comments on the original article:
“Although It is obvious that The first operational A-bomb was dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima, the U.S. found it desirable to imply that the Germans were far from being close to having an atomic weapon at the end of the war in 1945. Recently revealed information shows that this was not true and helps to explain why the Reich ordered the fighting to continue even into the streets of Berlin when it seemed obvious to everyone there simply was no hope. Its not a stretch to say that the top-secret project was actually only weeks away from completion, and even a casual study of Hitler shows he would not have hesitated to use it.”
The three links posted in that part of the article don’t work, so I couldn’t check the sources, but I wonder abour the statement that “its not a stretch to say that the top-secret project [to have an atomic weapon at the end of the war in 1945] was actually only weeks away from completion.” As far as I know, Germany never even got as far as having an operational nuclear reactor, let alone manufacturing enough fissionable material for an atomic bomb. The U.S. devoted massive resources to its Manhattan Project (whereas Germany did not), and even then it took America about two-and-a-half years to get from the first operational reactor to the first operational atomic bomb.
“For example, the battleship Bismark was sunk by a torpedo dropped by a biplane left over from WW I.”
The Bismarck had its rudder damaged by a Swordfish biplane. The damaged rudder delivered the Bismarck to the British fleet, but it didn’t sink the Bismarck. It took gunfire from the British battleships KGV and Rodney and some torpedoes from the British cruiser Dorsetshire to sink her…and even today, there is some dispute about whether it was battle damage or scuttling which ultimately finished her off. The Swordfish, by the way, was designed in the 1930s; it was not a WWI leftover.
@CWO:
A couple of comments on the original article:
“Although It is obvious that The first operational A-bomb was dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima, the U.S. found it desirable to imply that the Germans were far from being close to having an atomic weapon at the end of the war in 1945. Recently revealed information shows that this was not true and helps to explain why the Reich ordered the fighting to continue even into the streets of Berlin when it seemed obvious to everyone there simply was no hope. Its not a stretch to say that the top-secret project was actually only weeks away from completion, and even a casual study of Hitler shows he would not have hesitated to use it.”
The three links posted in that part of the article don’t work, so I couldn’t check the sources, but I wonder abour the statement that “its not a stretch to say that the top-secret project [to have an atomic weapon at the end of the war in 1945] was actually only weeks away from completion.” As far as I know, Germany never even got as far as having an operational nuclear reactor, let alone manufacturing enough fissionable material for an atomic bomb. The U.S. devoted massive resources to its Manhattan Project (whereas Germany did not), and even then it took America about two-and-a-half years to get from the first operational reactor to the first operational atomic bomb.
“For example, the battleship Bismark was sunk by a torpedo dropped by a biplane left over from WW I.”
The Bismarck had its rudder damaged by a Swordfish biplane. The damaged rudder delivered the Bismarck to the British fleet, but it didn’t sink the Bismarck. It took gunfire from the British battleships KGV and Rodney and some torpedoes from the British cruiser Dorsetshire to sink her…and even today, there is some dispute about whether it was battle damage or scuttling which ultimately finished her off. The Swordfish, by the way, was designed in the 1930s; it was not a WWI leftover.
You are right about the Swordfish. As you correctly pointed out, even though it was a biplane, the British did not put it into production until 1936.
Like you, I was unable to check the links about the German nuclear program which had originally been cited. But after some digging I was able to find this. If the claims cited in the article are correct (which is far from certain), Germany was very close to developing a nuclear device. (I.e., something a lot less powerful than the nuclear bombs the U.S. used to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but a lot more powerful than a conventional weapon.) A full-fledged nuclear bomb would have required a far greater amount of industrial capacity than Germany was in a position to allocate.
This being said, HortenFlyingWing wrote, in his original post, “don’t mind mis-spellings, and some errors here and there.” As IL pointed out, it’s been ten years since this thread has last been active. So that means that Horten and his friend have had plenty of time to correct those errors and come up with a better article! :) I liked the original article, but I’d like an error-free article even more.
