3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksA contributor here has expressed an opinion concerning German military advances in WWII. Were the efforts a waste of time? Support your opinion with detail please.
June 1st, 2013, 08:12 AM
A contributor here has expressed an opinion concerning German military advances in WWII. Were the efforts a waste of time? Support your opinion with detail please.
You think it's an opinion?
You don't think that the resources and effort put into developing weapons that never got into service (and which, in many cases wouldn't have worked as advertised even if they had reached the front line) was a waste of time?
You don't think that the effort spent on designing and prototyping the numerous aircraft of, for example, the Jägernotprogramm (at least 5 different types) could/ should have been spent on, say, ensuring that the types (e.g. Me 262) they did have actually worked?
You don't think that developing the Maus was a waste and things would have been better (for Germany) if they'd ignored the ridiculous contraption in favour of workable tanks?
A country that is on the defensive and obviously losing needs materiel on the front line now, not speculative Wunderwaffen three years down the line.
Didn't the US hire former Nazi Werner von Braun and put him to work designing US spacecraft?Originally Posted by Josey
As Tom Lehrer sang:
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
Not sure how you are qualifying waste of time. The entire war effort by the Germans turned out to be a waste of time after all.
In that it produced nothing of any direct value to the war effort, and in fact reduced (by diversion) capabilities.
This kind of sounds like homework, but anyway just look at it this way most countries in the world have priorities of which they devote their resources to. Many of the worlds countries are also run under capitalist free market system. So what you have is countries doing whatever they consider most important and most of the people doing whatever is most profitable. Under these conditions it's pretty unlikely that military advancement could ever progress as fast during WW2 when the entire German economy was turned over to supporting it's miltary campaign.
This being said Hitler actually held up the development of many of the "Wonder Weapons" that would be seen towards the end of the war in favour of more conventional weapons. We should also consider though that the technologies designed by the Germans didn't just serve a function during World War 2 but indeed would go on to provide the core of both the Russian and American Space Programs, and the development of all of the worlds ICBM's, which many still argue have been responsible for preventing any further world wars because of the thread of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).
Generally thoughout history wars have spawned new technologies and the Second World War is certainally no exception here, scientists from all over Europe were brought together to work on miltary projects, if indeed WW2 hadn't have happened there wouldn't have been any such requirement for so many scientists working on military advancements.
Yes without Wernher von Braun, it's doubtful the US would have even had a space program. But it's also true much of the Russian space program was also based on German rocket technology. Whilst the Americans got their hands on some of the key scientists like von Braun at the end of the war the Russians managed to capture the main centre, for German rocket technology, at Peenemünde.Didn't the US hire former Nazi Werner von Braun and put him to work designing US spacecraft?
As Tom Lehrer sang:
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
Wernher von Braun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peenemünde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And ironically, they ended up not funding their development of nuclear weapons very well - which *could* have turned the tide of the war.
My impression has been that most of the R&D projects were begun at a time when Germany was winning, and then simply didn't get the plug pulled when Germany was on the defensive. Possibly out of a (misplaced) hope that they might make a difference if they could be completed.
Once it's clear that your existing arms are certainly not going to be enough, the only spark of hope left is that some new invention will do it. Tell the troops they're fighting to buy time for the doom's day device. They'll fight harder than if you tell them they're just fighting to delay the inevitable (or in other words... if you tell them the truth.)
Early in the war, Germany produced armaments at a glacial pace, Hitler seemingly convinced his wonderful Aryan soldiers only needed good morale to vanquish the enemy. The panzer I tank, for instance, had never been intended to be used as anything but a training vehicle, but constituted more than half of the german armored force in the Poland invasion. After operation Barbarossa stalled on the Russian steps, the German war industry finally geared up to produce weapons and vehicles in large numbers, but it was mostly too few of the wrong things too late. Hitler never had a realistic view of the numbers and types of weapons needed, and crippled his war industry by constant ill-conceived interference. At first, mostly just keeping the numbers down so he could point to the prosperity of the civilian economy as a political lever. Then later, when the Germans were in trouble, seizeing on a seemingly endless series of pipedream programs that accomplished little. When the rare wunderwaffen program produced something useful, he like as not would impose senseless restrictions on the new weapon that made it useless, as when the Me-262 came out Hitler insisted it be developed as a bomber, regardless of the fact that it had too little range and payload to be useful as a bomber.
It wasn't so much that Germany's high tech weapons were a waste of time as Hitler's clueless interference and the poor management culture he established crippled the entire German armament industry.
Germany didn't switch to a war production footing until mid '43, almost two years after Barbarossa started.
And it's doubtful as to what effect Hitler's insisting the 262 be a schnellbomber actually had given the the other difficulties with the type.
Um:It wasn't so much that Germany's high tech weapons were a waste of time
seemingly endless series of pipedream programs that accomplished little
I wonder if the whole "bigger and better" mentality affected Hitler's sexual life?
That was only in effect when he moved to Argentina and became a latin lover.
Well, it was a stupid decision for the Nazi's, but it benefited the victors a few years down the line. If it was not for Nazi Germany and their eccentric obsession with their wonder weapons, we would be years lss advanced in terms of
Rocketry: German scientists who worked on the V1 & V2 also got people to the Moon and other missions through NASA
Fusion: Germans were much further ahead in terms of Fusion energy, which still is not functional, but was helped by discoveries from Nazi scientists
Some others should be here but I forget...
Huh?
My Mother lived through the Nazi's and the Communists as a young girl in Slovenia.
She bears the consequences of that life.
Her entire prospective of life was changed.
The insensitivity
sorry out of this one
German scientists were incredibly innovative back in the day! From the development of jet-technology to early forms of autonomous weapons (V2). I feel like much of their time was mis-allocated however. V2's were not accurate and consumed a huge amount of time and resources like man-power, precious fuel, and design time. Instead, they could have been focusing more on radar like the British or even more so on their nuclear program.
Their huge railroad guns were engineering marvels but utterly useless as well!
So, innovative, but came up with nothing new?
yeah...you are right Sir Ducky, Genocide and torture among other things...really wasn't new.....serious here, NOT FacetiosSo, innovative, but came up with nothing new?
I believe I recall reading somewhere that German scientists were directed into fields such as ballistic missiles by the Fuehrer's disapproval of the "Jewish" sciences of Quantum Theory and Relativity. Which probably didn't help them when it came to trying to work on an atom bomb. And of course we may never know whether or not Heisenberg dragged his feet deliberately in that project.....
So you're saying that jet-technology wasn't new? The Germans greatly expounded upon it and created the first operational jet engine thanks to German engineer Hans Von Ohain. Von Braun. Or the V-2 which is referred to as the "first ballistic missile".So, innovative, but came up with nothing new?
If you disagree that is fine but you will have to provide some factual basis for it, otherwise you're interjecting your opinion which does not equate to truth.
Cheers!
well I have many things to discuss on this... but I will better not start it...
Jet technology wasn't new, nor were the Germans in the lead.
Whittle developed and built the first working jet engine (1928 submission, 1930 patent, April 1937 first running prototype). Von Ohain managed an externally-driven gas turbine (i.e. not a jet engine), his actual jet engine came later (1933 conception, September 1937 first running prototype of a complete engine - but running on hydrogen, not a practical fuel for the time).
Or even Maxime Guillaume - 1921: first patent for using a gas turbine to power an aircraft.
(Henri Coanda: ducted fan 1910).
Yes, the Germans flew a jet-powered aircraft first. And then the RLM cancelled it as having no worth in the coming war.
The British, on the other hand, spent time and effort making a reliable militarily useful engine before fielding it (typical example: the German engines that did go into service had a life of approximately 15 hours - and suffered from a number of problems, British ones were Type Tested for 100 hours of reliable operation before being approved for use).
Again, not new, only the size/ application. Tsiolkovsky. Goddard. Hales. The Chinese! Rockets had been a weapon of warfare, on and off, for centuries.Von Braun. Or the V-2 which is referred to as the "first ballistic missile".
The V-2 was the first long range ballistic missile.
As opposed to, say, the factual basis you've provided here?If you disagree that is fine but you will have to provide some factual basis for it, otherwise you're interjecting your opinion which does not equate to truth.
You clarified numerous examples in your reply but managed to leave a number of things out.Jet technology wasn't new, nor were the Germans in the lead.
Whittle developed and built the first working jet engine (1928 submission, 1930 patent, April 1937 first running prototype). Von Ohain managed an externally-driven gas turbine (i.e. not a jet engine), his actual jet engine came later (1933 conception, September 1937 first running prototype of a complete engine - but running on hydrogen, not a practical fuel for the time).
Or even Maxime Guillaume - 1921: first patent for using a gas turbine to power an aircraft.
(Henri Coanda: ducted fan 1910).
Yes, the Germans flew a jet-powered aircraft first. And then the RLM cancelled it as having no worth in the coming war.
The British, on the other hand, spent time and effort making a reliable militarily useful engine before fielding it (typical example: the German engines that did go into service had a life of approximately 15 hours - and suffered from a number of problems, British ones were Type Tested for 100 hours of reliable operation before being approved for use).
Again, not new, only the size/ application. Tsiolkovsky. Goddard. Hales. The Chinese! Rockets had been a weapon of warfare, on and off, for centuries.Von Braun. Or the V-2 which is referred to as the "first ballistic missile".
The V-2 was the first long range ballistic missile.
As opposed to, say, the factual basis you've provided here?If you disagree that is fine but you will have to provide some factual basis for it, otherwise you're interjecting your opinion which does not equate to truth.
The Germans developed their jet technology independent of the innovations of anyone else. If you go here Jet engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia look under the history title, it explains how Von Ohain developed the engine independent of Whittle i.e. without knowledge of Whittles designs. This doesn't take credit away from Whittle, but neither does it strip Von Ohain of the credit he deserves.
You're also probably familiar with the ME 262 or Ar 234. Both of which This is basic information provided on a quick Google search, I'm not even trying here.
Von Braun was a genius, no one could compare to him. You compared the worlds first Ballistic missile to Russian and Chinese rockets which is not even close to being a good comparison. Those rockets were dummy rockets, launched for short range purposes. The V-2's were ballistic missiles with guidance systems of which nothing else existed anywhere else in the world at the time.
Also, your statement reflecting the life-expectancy of the German jet engines is only applicable to the Jumo type engine, not the BMW 003 type engines. On the Jumo engines, one engine was enough to fly on, though not desired.
This can all be found with a simple Google search!
Cheers!
So what?
It still doesn't make the jet "new".
Back to my earlier comment about innovation not being an exclusively, nor particularly, German trait.
And your point here would be... what?You're also probably familiar with the ME 262 or Ar 234.
IOW a refinement of pre-existing technologies.Von Braun was a genius, no one could compare to him. You compared the worlds first Ballistic missile to Russian and Chinese rockets which is not even close to being a good comparison. Those rockets were dummy rockets, launched for short range purposes. The V-2's were ballistic missiles with guidance systems of which nothing else existed anywhere else in the world at the time.
Oh good, it had a longer service life (the average life span of production engines was 25 hours). Reliability of the 003 was still a problem. E.g. Jumo 004 being only marginally more reliable than the BMW 003.Also, your statement reflecting the life-expectancy of the German jet engines is only applicable to the Jumo type engine, not the BMW 003 type engines. On the Jumo engines, one engine was enough to fly on, though not desired.
Wow,So what?
It still doesn't make the jet "new".
Back to my earlier comment about innovation not being an exclusively, nor particularly, German trait.
And your point here would be... what?You're also probably familiar with the ME 262 or Ar 234.
IOW a refinement of pre-existing technologies.Von Braun was a genius, no one could compare to him. You compared the worlds first Ballistic missile to Russian and Chinese rockets which is not even close to being a good comparison. Those rockets were dummy rockets, launched for short range purposes. The V-2's were ballistic missiles with guidance systems of which nothing else existed anywhere else in the world at the time.
Oh good, it had a longer service life (the average life span of production engines was 25 hours). Reliability of the 003 was still a problem. E.g. Jumo 004 being only marginally more reliable than the BMW 003.Also, your statement reflecting the life-expectancy of the German jet engines is only applicable to the Jumo type engine, not the BMW 003 type engines. On the Jumo engines, one engine was enough to fly on, though not desired.
I have been looking over your posts and notice a clear pattern with you: anytime you're wrong on a point you a) ignore it b) say something along the lines of "so what" or c) "your point is"... that is not how a discussion goes bud.
I'll see how long you hang on here for before you get lost again:
So regarding the ME 262 and the Ar 234... anyone that knows anything about WW2 history is very familiar with the significance of these aircraft! Anyways, the ME 262 was the worlds first jet-powered aircraft. Read this Messerschmitt Me 262 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to become more familiar with it. Basically, the 262 had no equals. The British couldn't put up anything to rival it! The British were still confused as to what they should do with jet technology, how to apply it, and it wasn't until after the war the British discovered just how advanced German jet technology was!
The engineers who developed the 262 also developed the iconic swept back wing design. They were so fast the allies were dumbfounded! Pretty incredible would compared to the rest of the worlds aircraft!
And my point that you quickly dismissed regarding the German jet engines, wasn't that jet technology was new. Actually no... it was still new! The fact that they developed it by themselves is as great a feat as the British development of their engine!
You clearly have no knowledge of WW2 history! Your response to ballistic missiles was pretty much your nail in your own coffin! I was going to write something well-thought out but instead I am going to reply with the following: The Germans were developing ballistic missiles while the British were doing... what exactly? The British made no advances in rocket technology that can compare!
Cheers!
Examples please.
Or, just maybe, I'm asking what the point of the comment made is supposed to be.b) say something along the lines of "so what" or c) "your point is"... that is not how a discussion goes bud.
Bullshit.Anyways, the ME 262 was the worlds first jet-powered aircraft.
The He 178 was the world's first.
And before you try a different tack, the Me 262 wasn't even the world's first jet fighter.
Arrant nonsense.The British were still confused as to what they should do with jet technology, how to apply it
The British had been planning a jet fighter more or less since Whittle came up with the idea.
The first jet-powered aircraft we came up with was the Gloster E.28/39 - which was specified to be an armed fighter prototype - so clearly we didn't know what to do.
Also incorrect.and it wasn't until after the war the British discovered just how advanced German jet technology was!
They were surprised at the aerodynamic advances, but German jet technology was generally lagging.
Except that the Me 262 wasn't a swept-wing design. Any "sweep" was solely based on CofG considerations - Although the Me 262 is often referred to as a "swept wing" design, the production Me 262 had a leading edge sweep of only 18.5°, too slight to achieve any significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number.[19] Sweep was added after the initial design of the aircraft, when the engines proved to be heavier than originally expected, primarily to position the center of lift properly relative to the center of massThe engineers who developed the 262 also developed the iconic swept back wing design.
Speed wasn't everything.They were so fast the allies were dumbfounded! Pretty incredible would compared to the rest of the worlds aircraft!
Reliability counts for a lot, too.
Okay, so it was new to the Germans.And my point that you quickly dismissed regarding the German jet engines, wasn't that jet technology was new. Actually no... it was still new! The fact that they developed it by themselves is as great a feat as the British development of their engine!
Evidently more than you given your ridiculous assertions here.You clearly have no knowledge of WW2 history!
Do you know why?The Germans were developing ballistic missiles while the British were doing... what exactly? The British made no advances in rocket technology that can compare!
Because we didn't need them.
Therefore we didn't put any effort into it.
What did the V-2 achieve?
Anything?
Anything at all?
The V-1 did more damage, for less cost.
With regard to the Ar-234: the "so what?" was based on this: what did they do that other aircraft couldn't? Okay, they managed a couple of recce missions.
You're continuing to gain angular velocity into a chasm of insanity!Examples please.
Or, just maybe, I'm asking what the point of the comment made is supposed to be.b) say something along the lines of "so what" or c) "your point is"... that is not how a discussion goes bud.
Bullshit.Anyways, the ME 262 was the worlds first jet-powered aircraft.
The He 178 was the world's first.
And before you try a different tack, the Me 262 wasn't even the world's first jet fighter.
Arrant nonsense.The British were still confused as to what they should do with jet technology, how to apply it
The British had been planning a jet fighter more or less since Whittle came up with the idea.
The first jet-powered aircraft we came up with was the Gloster E.28/39 - which was specified to be an armed fighter prototype - so clearly we didn't know what to do.
Also incorrect.and it wasn't until after the war the British discovered just how advanced German jet technology was!
They were surprised at the aerodynamic advances, but German jet technology was generally lagging.
Except that the Me 262 wasn't a swept-wing design. Any "sweep" was solely based on CofG considerations - Although the Me 262 is often referred to as a "swept wing" design, the production Me 262 had a leading edge sweep of only 18.5°, too slight to achieve any significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number.[19] Sweep was added after the initial design of the aircraft, when the engines proved to be heavier than originally expected, primarily to position the center of lift properly relative to the center of massThe engineers who developed the 262 also developed the iconic swept back wing design.
Speed wasn't everything.They were so fast the allies were dumbfounded! Pretty incredible would compared to the rest of the worlds aircraft!
Reliability counts for a lot, too.
Okay, so it was new to the Germans.And my point that you quickly dismissed regarding the German jet engines, wasn't that jet technology was new. Actually no... it was still new! The fact that they developed it by themselves is as great a feat as the British development of their engine!
Evidently more than you given your ridiculous assertions here.You clearly have no knowledge of WW2 history!
Do you know why?The Germans were developing ballistic missiles while the British were doing... what exactly? The British made no advances in rocket technology that can compare!
Because we didn't need them.
Therefore we didn't put any effort into it.
What did the V-2 achieve?
Anything?
Anything at all?
The V-1 did more damage, for less cost.
With regard to the Ar-234: the "so what?" was based on this: what did they do that other aircraft couldn't? Okay, they managed a couple of recce missions.
First: I never said the ME 262 was a swept wing design.
Second: I omitted two words regarding the ME 262: "operational" and "fighter"
Third: The V-2 is never dismissed by anyone who understands WW2 history as quickly as you dismissed it. The V-2 technically achieved its goal(s):
1) Make it to England
2) Strike London
3) Detonate
4) Instill fear
By all measurements, the V-2 accomplished all these objectives... did it not?
The Gloster is an interesting case and I was waiting for you to bring it up. It was actually under-powered and completely outmatched by its German rival, the ME 262. Just look at the Wiki article of both! Or just the 262!
Thanks for bringing up the HE, yet another achievement on the German side!
Cheers!
Ah, okay.
You're still wrong. Busemann developed swept wings. He didn't work on the 262 that I'm aware of.
Meh, it depends on how you meant "operational": it was the first in combat - with a TEST (Erprobungskommando) unit.Second: I omitted two words regarding the ME 262: "operational" and "fighter"
The Gloster meteor was the first jet fighter taken into squadron operational service.
Assumption on your part. Again.Third: The V-2 is never dismissed by anyone who understands WW2 history as quickly as you dismissed it.
"Quickly"? You have no idea...
So what you're saying is, is that the goal of the V-2 was to cost ridiculous amounts of money, cause relatively little damage and generally not do much.The V-2 technically achieved its goal(s):
1) Make it to England
2) Strike London
3) Detonate
4) Instill fear
By all measurements, the V-2 accomplished all these objectives... did it not?
Fair enough.
"The cost of the development and manufacture of the V-2 was staggering, estimated by a post-war US study as about $2 billion, or about the same amount as was spent on the Allied atomic bomb program. Yet the entire seven-month V-2 missile campaign delivered less high explosive on all the targeted cities than a single large RAF raid on Germany. While such a massive expenditure might have been justified if it had had a military impact, the V-2 accomplished nothing of significant military value."
"In terms of actual damage, the V-1 was a more effective weapon than the V-2"
Both from the previously-named book, page 36.
Fear?
"Finally, the V-1 had a far greater psychological effect on civilians since its eerie sound could be heard over a very wide area, contributing to an unofficial mass evacuation of London in the summer of 1944."
Same, page 38.
Oh dear.The Gloster is an interesting case and I was waiting for you to bring it up. It was actually under-powered and completely outmatched by its German rival, the ME 262. Just look at the Wiki article of both! Or just the 262!
Of course it was outmatched: it was a first-off prototype - not intended for combat but merely to establish the principle.
The 262 however was (at least) a THIRD iteration/ attempt at a jet fighter design.
Apples and oranges...
Last edited by Dywyddyr; October 13th, 2013 at 01:55 AM.
Saying "meh" means you have no intelligible thing to say. It's akin to "ooh ooh ah ah"! Look at the Wiki article I have listed below and view the very first paragraph.Ah, okay.
You're still wrong. Busemann developed swept wings. He didn't work on the 262 that I'm aware of.
Meh, it depends on how you meant "operational": it was the first in combat - with a TEST (Erprobungskommando) unit.Second: I omitted two words regarding the ME 262: "operational" and "fighter"
The Gloster meteor was the first jet fighter taken into squadron operational service.
So what you're saying is, is that the goal of the V-2 was to cost ridiculous amounts of money, cause relatively little damage and generally not do much.Third: The V-2 is never dismissed by anyone who understands WW2 history as quickly as you dismissed it. The V-2 technically achieved its goal(s):
1) Make it to England
2) Strike London
3) Detonate
4) Instill fear
By all measurements, the V-2 accomplished all these objectives... did it not?
Fair enough.
"The cost of the development and manufacture of the V-2 was staggering, estimated by a post-war US study as about $2 billion, or about the same amount as was spent on the Allied atomic bomb program. Yet the entire seven-month V-2 missile campaign delivered less high explosive on all the targeted cities than a single large RAF raid on Germany. While such a massive expenditure might have been justified if it had had a military impact, the V-2 accomplished nothing of significant military value."
"In terms of actual damage, the V-1 was a more effective weapon than the V-2"
Both from the previously-named book, page 36.
Fear?
"Finally, the V-1 had a far greater psychological effect on civilians since its eerie sound could be heard over a very wide area, contributing to an unofficial mass evacuation of London in the summer of 1944."
Same, page 38.
Oh dear.The Gloster is an interesting case and I was waiting for you to bring it up. It was actually under-powered and completely outmatched by its German rival, the ME 262. Just look at the Wiki article of both! Or just the 262!
Of course it was outmatched: it was a first-off prototype - not intended for combat but merely to establish the principle.
The 262 however was (at least) a THIRD iteration/ attempt at a jet fighter design.
Apples and oranges...
You never provided a link for Buseman so I will provide for you: Messerschmitt Me 262 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Look towards the bottom, first paragraph under "High-speed research". And yes, he did work on the ME 262.
In regards to the V-2, I never mentioned cost or even the weapons value (anyway you want to measure it) relative to its costs. All I said was that it succeeded in its goals.
Also, what book are you using? I am curious because I have the internet at my fingertips and also the most famous recorded history of the Nazis and Hitler next to my bed, called "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. I haven't begun to quote that yet.
You're last paragraph simply proved my point again.
Cheers!
Saying "meh" followed by what I wrote, is an indication that you may be using "operational" in a different sense than I use it.
From the Wiki page:
On 19 April 1944, Erprobungskommando 262 was formed at Lechfeld just south of Augsburg, as a test unit.
Also from the same page:
By January 1945, Jagdgeschwader 7 (JG 7) had been formed as a pure jet fighter wing
Meteor:
No. 616 Squadron RAF was the first to receive operational Meteors, ... on 12 July 1944.
So he worked on proposals for an upgraded (never-built) 262. Okay.You never provided a link for Buseman so I will provide for you: Messerschmitt Me 262 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Look towards the bottom, first paragraph under "High-speed research". And yes, he did work on the ME 262.
So you don't think the cost of a weapon comes into it?In regards to the V-2, I never mentioned cost or even the weapons value (anyway you want to measure it) relative to its costs. All I said was that it succeeded in its goals.
You don't think that the money spent on V-2 could have used to develop and field a weapon that actually was militarily effective? (I note that you seem to have ignored the highlighted section of the quote).
Osprey New Vanguard V-2 Ballistic Missile 1942-52 (sorry previous quotes were in a different thread).Also, what book are you using?
Oh good. A 50 year-old non-technical book that hasn't got the latest findings in it.I am curious because I have the internet at my fingertips and also the most famous recorded history of the Nazis and Hitler next to my bed, called "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. I haven't begun to quote that yet.
How exactly does my last paragraph make your point for you?You're last paragraph simply proved my point again.
Or maybe you're claiming that a German prototype would have matched a British 3rd attempt?
I never said the cost of a weapon had nothing to do with it. I was looking at it from a purely objective standpoint. Literally! The objectives of the V-2 were met. Did it take a lot of money, resources, and lives? Yes it did! Results are results!
That 50 year old book is still used today! Pretty incredible!
Cheers!
So presumably you're of the opinion that the objective was to come up with a weapon that was essentially militarily useless.
In which case I'd agree.
"The V-2 missile program was a technical marvel from an engineering standpoint, but a spectacular flop as a weapon."
"The decision to proceed with the mass production of the V-2 was premature on a variety of technical and tactical grounds."
Both, page 36.
"All in all the V-2 program was not too little too late as is so often claimed, but too much too soon."
Page 38.
You're answering your questions.So presumably you're of the opinion that the objective was to come up with a weapon that was essentially militarily useless.
In which case I'd agree.
"The V-2 missile program was a technical marvel from an engineering standpoint, but a spectacular flop as a weapon."
"The decision to proceed with the mass production of the V-2 was premature on a variety of technical and tactical grounds."
Both, page 36.
"All in all the V-2 program was not too little too late as is so often claimed, but too much too soon."
Page 38.
I said the V-2 met its objectives and it did.
Also, the V-2 was the first ballistic missile ever made so there are bound to be problems with anything that is the first of anything. The V-2 proved that a missile could be built which is capable of hitting long-range targets. It was an engineering marvel for its time as nothing else quite like it was in existence. I have never stated anything beyond this, yet you're managing to create your own version of discussion that is outside reality.
The engineering was so incredible that the concepts and math behind the development and use of the V-2 that the U.S. (among several nations including Britain) would later use those as a foundation for building several of their missiles and launch vehicles such as the Atlas rocket and submarines' Inertial Navigation System.
Lastly, several of the engineers behind the creation of the V-2 were later exonerated of any possible crimes against humanity and used to create new systems, weapons, and launch vehicles for several other nations around the world. The most famous of these men of course, was Wernher von Braun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
Cheers!
LOL absolutely not, Remember me, the guy who is willing to spend 5000 dollars on a single bullet.
Nice to know your from brittain, Go UK.
Don't we make the best Sniper Rifles?
| « Questions: Self-loading Rifle Gas System | New fighter plane-- madness? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
