MiG-9FS vs. Me-262A-1a - Printable Version
+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Announcements & General Discussions & Hyper Lobby (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=264)
+--- Forum: General Discussions. (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=298)
+--- Thread: MiG-9FS vs. Me-262A-1a (/showthread.php?tid=69630)
+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Announcements & General Discussions & Hyper Lobby (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=264)
+--- Forum: General Discussions. (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=298)
+--- Thread: MiG-9FS vs. Me-262A-1a (/showthread.php?tid=69630)
- TheGrunch - 18.04.2010
Oh dear...
- Thee_oddball - 18.04.2010
TheGrunch Wrote:Oh dear...
I am providing info and he is providing ...? I dont see why he has such a hard time admitting they were ahead of the curve in many ways,alot of what they were working on has changed the face of conventional warfare permanently, air to air surface to air wired guided missiles cruise missile...there type 21 sub was state of the into the 50's ...etc
- ACE-OF-ACES - 18.04.2010
Thee_oddball Wrote:I am providing info and he is providing ...?You really don't consider your opinion on what they might have done 'given more time' as proof do you?
Thee_oddball Wrote:I don't see why he has such a hard time admitting they were ahead of the curve in many ways,a lot of what they were working on has changed the face of conventional warfare permanently, air to air surface to air wired guided missiles cruise missile...there type 21 sub was state of the into the 50's ...etcWell mostly because most of it is a myth
Take the V2 as a perfect example
Ask most folks that get their info from the Hitler Channel.. I mean the history Channel who invented rockets and most of them will tell you the Germans
When the FACT remains that the Germans copied 20 of Robert Goddards patents from the 1920s and 30s to build the V2
As for cruise missiles
Another myth
In that lobbing a bomb like the V1 at a city with no real idea of where it is going to land is not what I would call a big leap in warfare
And far from guided
And the few other wire guided bombs pail in comparison to the US's radar guided glide bomb of WWII called the BAT
That was used to sink a few big ships in Japan before the end of the war
The BAT is a truly auto guided bomb and the real predecessor to todays cruise missiles
As for subs
Another myth
Not a sub expert but the US subs were far more advanced systems wise
As for the German ABOMB
Another myth
They tried to make an ABOMB and failed
Where as the US succeeded
Splitting atoms is a much harder task that sweeping a wing on a Me262 to account for the change in weight of the bigger than expected engines
And something else you forgot to mention
The B2 flying wing
A lot of Hitler channel types think that too was a copy of the Go229
Not even close!
Jack Northrop was building flying wings as long as if not longer than the Hortons
There was nothing to learn from the Go299 that he didn't already know
So now maybe you can understand why I don't agree with your assessment that the Germans were SO FAR AHEAD AND OR ADVANCED
In that from my point of view based on what I noted above
They were not
So is that 'put up' enough for you?
Also the Howard Hughes thing is a myth
If there was one guy in this world that didn't submit to peer pressure from anyone it was him
Just check out any of the senate hearing where he basically tells senators to step off!
Now this is the point where you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree
- Guest - 18.04.2010
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:no sorry only two options/choices
Well,you have to squeeze this one in because it is a fact ("Kurt Tank:Focke Wulf's designer and test pilot" by Wolfgang Wagner,Shiffer Publishing Ltd).
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Not a sub expert but the US subs were far more advanced systems wise
Could you elaborate a little?
And if Americans had everything better,why bother with collecting all those jets&documents,hunting scientists who copied stuff..and shipping them back to USA?...seems like Americans have wasted some big $$ on useless junk and a myth...
- ACE-OF-ACES - 18.04.2010
EnsignRo Wrote:Well,you have to squeeze this one in because it is a fact ("Kurt Tank:Focke Wulf's designer and test pilot" by Wolfgang Wagner,Shiffer Publishing Ltd).Neat but still only two choices
EnsignRo Wrote:Could you elaborate a little?What part of hands down better did you need me to expand on?
EnsignRo Wrote:And if Americans had everything better,why bother with collecting all those jets&documents,hunting scientists who copied stuff..and shipping them back to USA?...seems like Americans have wasted some big $$ on useless junk and a myth...Easy
To denie the russians the information
That and sadly Robbert Goddard died in 1945
Thus the next best choice was to capture the guy that was best at copying his work
- Thee_oddball - 18.04.2010
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Thee_oddball Wrote:I am providing info and he is providing ...?You really don't consider your opinion on what they might have done 'given more time' as proof do you?
not opinion..fact...my ONLY opinion/theory was about the 183
Thee_oddball Wrote:I don't see why he has such a hard time admitting they were ahead of the curve in many ways,a lot of what they were working on has changed the face of conventional warfare permanently, air to air surface to air wired guided missiles cruise missile...there type 21 sub was state of the into the 50's ...etc
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Well mostly because most of it is a myth
Take the V2 as a perfect example
Ask most folks that get their info from the Hitler Channel.. I mean the history Channel who invented rockets and most of them will tell you the Germans
When the FACT remains that the Germans copied 20 of Robert Goddards patents from the 1920s and 30s to build the V2
(sarcastic tone) all that work on the V2 was such a waste of time...thats why Wernher von Braun was chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:As for cruise missiles
Another myth
In that lobbing a bomb like the V1 at a city with no real idea of where it is going to land is not what I would call a big leap in warfare
And far from guided
you call a ramjet "lobbing"?? far from guided?? far from perfect but unguided...wrong! "gyrocompass based autopilot" myth? really?! In total, the V-1 attacks caused 22,892 casualties
"The United States reverse-engineered the V-1 in 1944 from salvaged parts recovered in England during June. By 8 September, the first of thirteen complete prototype Republic-Ford JB-2s, were assembled at Republic Aviation. The United States JB-2 was different from the German V-1 in only the smallest of dimensions. The wing span was only 2 1/2 inches wider and the length was extended less than 2 feet. The difference gave the JB-2 60.7 square feet of wing area versus 55 for the V-1
In the postwar era, the JB-2 played a significant role in the development of more advanced surface-to-surface tactical missile systems such as the MGM-1 Matador and later MGM-13 Mace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:And the few other wire guided bombs pail in comparison to the US's radar guided glide bomb of WWII called the BAT
The Bat was put into operation in May 1945, on Navy PB4Y-2 Privateer patrol bombers, maritime derivatives of the Consolidated B-24 Liberator. One Bat was carried under each wing. Privateers crews claimed many successes against Japanese shipping in the seas around Borneo, though some sources suggest they may have exaggerated the weapon's effectiveness. Bats with modified guidance systems were also used against ground targets in Burma and other Japanese-held areas; they simply homed in on the biggest target in their radar seeker.
The Navy tinkered with the Bat for a time after the war, successively renaming it "ASM-2" and then "ASM-N-2". However, its radar seeker was too easily spoofed and the weapon quickly faded into obscurity.
http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_04.html
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:That was used to sink a few big ships in Japan before the end of the war
and the Fritz X sank the battle ship Roma and damaged several others in 43.... the Bat and Fritz had there day but didnt make the cut...however those "few other wired guided bombs" as you put it there concepts are still in use today...there called TOW missile , Electrical wire guidance was first employed by the Germans during World War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire-guided_missile
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:The BAT is a truly auto guided bomb and the real predecessor to todays cruise missiles
Really? ...now remember the Jb2 is a reverse enginneed V1
JB-2 played a significant role in the development of more advanced surface-to-surface tactical missile systems such as the MGM-1 Matador . The Martin MGM-1 Matador was the first operational surface-to-surface cruise missile built by the United States,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:As for subs
Another myth
Not a sub expert but the US subs were far more advanced systems wise
Tench class American sub 1944 depth 400ft type XXI max depth 915 feet...
Type XXI, the general predecessor of modern submarines, in which the pressure hull was fully enclosed inside the light hull, but optimized for submerged navigation, unlike earlier designs that were optimized for surface operation.
After World War II, approaches split. The Soviet Union changed its designs, basing them on German developments. All post-World War II heavy Soviet and Russian submarines are built with a double hull structure. American and most other Western submarines switched to a primarily single-hull approach. They still have light hull sections in the bow and stern, which house main ballast tanks and provide a hydrodynamically optimized shape, but the main cylindrical hull section has only a single plating layer. The double hulls are being considered for future submarines in the United States to improve payload capacity, stealth and range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tench_clas ... s1-specs-2
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2 ... ot_xxi.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tench_clas ... s1-specs-2
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:As for the German ABOMB
Another myth
They tried to make an ABOMB and failed
Where as the US succeeded
Splitting atoms is a much harder task that sweeping a wing on a Me262 to account for the change in weight of the bigger than expected engines
In November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.
And i am glad they failed...but remember we are just VERY fortunate in that regard
At the end of the war, the Allied powers competed to obtain surviving components of the nuclear industry (personnel, facilities, and material), as they did with the V-2 program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuc ... gy_project
http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:And something else you forgot to mention
The B2 flying wing
A lot of Hitler channel types think that too was a copy of the Go229
Not even close!
Jack Northrop was building flying wings as long as if not longer than the Hortons
There was nothing to learn from the Go299 that he didn't already know
Hugo Junkers patented a wing-only air transport concept in 1910.
The flying wing configuration was studied extensively in the 1930s and 1940s, notably by Jack Northrop and Cheston L. Eshelman in the United States, and Alexander Lippisch and the Horten brothers in Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:So now maybe you can understand why I don't agree with your assessment that the Germans were SO FAR AHEAD AND OR ADVANCED
In that from my point of view based on what I noted above
They were not
Now this is the point where you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree
you gonna continue to beat this dead horse?
- Guest - 18.04.2010
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Neat but still only two choices
So you want to stick with fictional choices?
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:What part of hands down better did you need me to expand on?
Why were they hands down better than Type XXI?Performance,weapons...?
- ACE-OF-ACES - 18.04.2010
Thee_oddball Wrote:ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Thee_oddball Wrote:I am providing info and he is providing ...?You really don't consider your opinion on what they might have done 'given more time' as proof do you?
not opinion..fact...my ONLY opinion/theory was about the 183
Thee_oddball Wrote:I don't see why he has such a hard time admitting they were ahead of the curve in many ways,a lot of what they were working on has changed the face of conventional warfare permanently, air to air surface to air wired guided missiles cruise missile...there type 21 sub was state of the into the 50's ...etcACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Well mostly because most of it is a myth
Take the V2 as a perfect example
Ask most folks that get their info from the Hitler Channel.. I mean the history Channel who invented rockets and most of them will tell you the Germans
When the FACT remains that the Germans copied 20 of Robert Goddards patents from the 1920s and 30s to build the V2
(sarcastic tone) all that work on the V2 was such a waste of time...thats why Wernher von Braun was chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:As for cruise missiles
Another myth
In that lobbing a bomb like the V1 at a city with no real idea of where it is going to land is not what I would call a big leap in warfare
And far from guided
you call a ramjet "lobbing"?? far from guided?? far from perfect but unguided...wrong! "gyrocompass based autopilot" myth? really?! In total, the V-1 attacks caused 22,892 casualties
"The United States reverse-engineered the V-1 in 1944 from salvaged parts recovered in England during June. By 8 September, the first of thirteen complete prototype Republic-Ford JB-2s, were assembled at Republic Aviation. The United States JB-2 was different from the German V-1 in only the smallest of dimensions. The wing span was only 2 1/2 inches wider and the length was extended less than 2 feet. The difference gave the JB-2 60.7 square feet of wing area versus 55 for the V-1
In the postwar era, the JB-2 played a significant role in the development of more advanced surface-to-surface tactical missile systems such as the MGM-1 Matador and later MGM-13 Mace.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:And the few other wire guided bombs pail in comparison to the US's radar guided glide bomb of WWII called the BAT
The Bat was put into operation in May 1945, on Navy PB4Y-2 Privateer patrol bombers, maritime derivatives of the Consolidated B-24 Liberator. One Bat was carried under each wing. Privateers crews claimed many successes against Japanese shipping in the seas around Borneo, though some sources suggest they may have exaggerated the weapon's effectiveness. Bats with modified guidance systems were also used against ground targets in Burma and other Japanese-held areas; they simply homed in on the biggest target in their radar seeker.
The Navy tinkered with the Bat for a time after the war, successively renaming it "ASM-2" and then "ASM-N-2". However, its radar seeker was too easily spoofed and the weapon quickly faded into obscurity.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:That was used to sink a few big ships in Japan before the end of the war
and the Fritz X sank the battle ship Roma and damaged several others in 43.... the Bat and Fritz had there day but didnt make the cut...however those "few other wired guided bombs" as you put it there concepts are still in use today...there called TOW missile , Electrical wire guidance was first employed by the Germans during World War II.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:The BAT is a truly auto guided bomb and the real predecessor to todays cruise missiles
Really? ...now remember the Jb2 is a reverse enginneed V1
JB-2 played a significant role in the development of more advanced surface-to-surface tactical missile systems such as the MGM-1 Matador . The Martin MGM-1 Matador was the first operational surface-to-surface cruise missile built by the United States,
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:As for subs
Another myth
Not a sub expert but the US subs were far more advanced systems wise
Tench class American sub 1944 depth 400ft type XXI max depth 915 feet...
Type XXI, the general predecessor of modern submarines, in which the pressure hull was fully enclosed inside the light hull, but optimized for submerged navigation, unlike earlier designs that were optimized for surface operation.
After World War II, approaches split. The Soviet Union changed its designs, basing them on German developments. All post-World War II heavy Soviet and Russian submarines are built with a double hull structure. American and most other Western submarines switched to a primarily single-hull approach. They still have light hull sections in the bow and stern, which house main ballast tanks and provide a hydrodynamically optimized shape, but the main cylindrical hull section has only a single plating layer. The double hulls are being considered for future submarines in the United States to improve payload capacity, stealth and range.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:As for the German ABOMB
Another myth
They tried to make an ABOMB and failed
Where as the US succeeded
Splitting atoms is a much harder task that sweeping a wing on a Me262 to account for the change in weight of the bigger than expected engines
In November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.
And i am glad they failed...but remember we are just VERY fortunate in that regard
At the end of the war, the Allied powers competed to obtain surviving components of the nuclear industry (personnel, facilities, and material), as they did with the V-2 program.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:And something else you forgot to mention
The B2 flying wing
A lot of Hitler channel types think that too was a copy of the Go229
Not even close!
Jack Northrop was building flying wings as long as if not longer than the Hortons
There was nothing to learn from the Go299 that he didn't already know
Hugo Junkers patented a wing-only air transport concept in 1910.
The flying wing configuration was studied extensively in the 1930s and 1940s, notably by Jack Northrop and Cheston L. Eshelman in the United States, and Alexander Lippisch and the Horten brothers in Germany.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:So now maybe you can understand why I don't agree with your assessment that the Germans were SO FAR AHEAD AND OR ADVANCED
In that from my point of view based on what I noted above
They were not
Now this is the point where you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree
you gonna continue to beat this dead horse?
So what part of "Now this is the point where you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree" did you not understand?
- ACE-OF-ACES - 18.04.2010
EnsignRo Wrote:So you want to stick with fictional choices?Not fictional
Just you can not have your cake and eat it too
You and yours can not claim the German's JETS WERE FAR MORE ADVANCED that the rest of the world in one breath
Than in the nex breath say the German's NEEDED TO DESIGN NEW JETS
It is an either or case
Not an and
EnsignRo Wrote:Why were they hands down better than Type XXI?Performance,weapons...?Hey I noticed you had NO COMMENT with regards to my answer to your question
You know the one as to why the US captured German tech
The answer being they didn't need it
They just didnt want the russians to get it
Why didn't you bring that one up again?
See two can play that game!
- Thee_oddball - 18.04.2010
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:So what part of "Now this is the point where you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree" did you not understand?
you don't try to prove your point with statements of which half you didn't even bother todo research on and then offer a truce...you should have offered that first .
you want to agree to disagree we can do that..
- TheGrunch - 18.04.2010
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Not it's not! My previous post was directed at you, not Thee_oddball - you're presenting a false dilemma, ACE. There is no reason that Axis jet technology could not be far more advanced than Allied and still not require further development. Let's make a simple analogy - if I'm the man who decides to harness the potential of explosives for destruction rather than fireworks first (the Germans and their jets) and I want to destroy an army of my opponents with it (the US bomber formations), assuming I develop some form of hand-grenade (the Me 262) and I can only build a few of them, it doesn't matter what you say, I DO have more advanced explosive technology than anyone else - unless you want to see a fireworks display that is...The problem is, a hand-grenade will just kill a few men. So I would still want to try and make a better bomb. In simple terms that is the situation the Germans found themselves in. They needed a miracle weapon to defeat the numerical odds they faced. The 262 was more advanced and performed better than its opposition (including the disappointing Meteor and P-80), but it was still not good enough to decimate the US bomber formations in the limited numbers it could be produced in.EnsignRo Wrote:So you want to stick with fictional choices?Not fictional
Just you can not have your cake and eat it too
You and yours can not claim the German's JETS WERE FAR MORE ADVANCED that the rest of the world in one breath
Than in the nex breath say the German's NEEDED TO DESIGN NEW JETS
It is an either or case
Not an and
- Guest - 19.04.2010
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Not fictional
Just you can not have your cake and eat it too
You and yours can not claim the German's JETS WERE FAR MORE ADVANCED that the rest of the world in one breath
Than in the next breath say the German's NEEDED TO DESIGN NEW JETS
It is an either or case
Not an and
Sorry but I like cakes
...when new plane enters service,it's successor is already on the drawing boards...that's how it was and I'll stick with that .And if Tank and Messerschmitt make some improvements or a completely new better design,they should just ignore it?ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Hey I noticed you had NO COMMENT with regards to my answer to your question
You know the one as to why the US captured German tech
The answer being they didn't need it
They just didnt want the russians to get it
Why didn't you bring that one up again?
See two can play that game!
Ok
...so,if all that info and tech are inferior to American info and tech,why bother?Russians will make inferior planes with that....btw,you didn't prove that meteor is better than 262 ...
- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 19.04.2010
How can it not be better? It has a cooler name! Q.E.D. it must be! :lol:
- Thee_oddball - 19.04.2010
P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:How can it not be better? It has a cooler name! Q.E.D. it must be! :lol:
The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.
- ojcar - 19.04.2010
If F-15 is the best world fighter, undefeated by none, why spend a lot of money developping F-22?