The Second World War.

[Fantazmaster]

Incredible thing about the V-2,is that the Germans had a project underway to launch these things from a U-boat,with the idea that this could be a means of
landing V-2s in the East Coast cities of the U.S. The project called "Prufstand XII" had produced a successful test launch of a V-2 from a U-boat,Allied intelligence picked up word of this threat and the U.S. Navy initiated an operation named "Teardrop" to intercept and destroy these V-2 armed U-Boats
before the V-2's could be launched against these East Coast cities.5 U-boats were destroyed as result of this April-May 1945 operation.However it was determined after post war records were examined,that none of these Teardrop destroyed U-Boats were V-2 equipped.

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by knobby109

My understanding is that the swept wing design was simply necessitated through the choice of jet engine, to achieve better balance the wings were redesigned.The result was an aircraft with an outstanding airframe.It had very poor engines though whereas the Meteor had a more traditional layout but reliable engines.However, the Meteor did officially clock over 600 mph in level flight just after the war.

Fair point knobby! It may have been a "happy accident" but I believe the Germans did understand some of the benefits of swept-wing design (which had appeared on other aircraft, even before WWI). In 1935, Dr. Adolf Busemann talked about the advantages of swept wings for high-speed aircraft, so there may have been some intent when it came to the design of the Me262.

Interestingly, the Jumo 004 engines used on the 262 had axial-flow compressors which is the norm these days, whereas the Derwents on the Meteor were of the centrifugal type which quickly went out of fashion. I'm pretty sure the Derwent didn't produce more thrust, but they were certainly more reliable. However, we mustn't forget that many of the slave-workers who built components for the Jumo 004's found ways of sabotaging the work which contributed to the overall poor reliability of the Jumo engines. Of course, many of those workers paid with their lives.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by squigg58

Fair point knobby! It may have been a "happy accident" but I believe the Germans did understand some of the benefits of swept-wing design (which had appeared on other aircraft, even before WWI). In 1935, Dr. Adolf Busemann talked about the advantages of swept wings for high-speed aircraft, so there may have been some intent when it came to the design of the Me262.

Interestingly, the Jumo 004 engines used on the 262 had axial-flow compressors which is the norm these days, whereas the Derwents on the Meteor were of the centrifugal type which quickly went out of fashion. I'm pretty sure the Derwent didn't produce more thrust, but they were certainly more reliable. However, we mustn't forget that many of the slave-workers who built components for the Jumo 004's found ways of sabotaging the work which contributed to the overall poor reliability of the Jumo engines. Of course, many of those workers paid with their lives.

I think the Germans hadn't either the metallurgy or the materials to produce the steel needed to withstand the temperatures and stresses in a jet engine.Neither did the Russians after the war - there's a story about a spy going round a Rolls Royce tour wearing thick crepe soled shoes and then they analysed the metal filings he'd trod on and which stuck to his soles.The Americans of course had access to the detais as we gave them away to them.

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by knobby109

I think the Germans hadn't either the metallurgy or the materials to produce the steel needed to withstand the temperatures and stresses in a jet engine.

Yup ... I'd forgotten about the good old Inconel alloys courtesy of the Wiggins Works in Hereford which were developed for the Whittle engine. I should have remembered as I've worked with the stuff and it's a sod to machine until you get used to it.

[tygrkhat40]

Originally Posted by dethtongue

I think the general concensus among WWII historians today is that WWI and WWII are essentially the same war with a 20 year pause while all the major participants took time to draw breath, rebuild their shattered economies, and restock their men-folk for new armies. Not saying it was a conscious conspiracy, but most of the same themes were prevalent with the same main players.

The problem with the end of WWI was that the Allies believed that they were victorious over the Germans and everything they did to achieve that "victory" was the right thing. In truth, everything the French and English did during the war led to stalemate. Only when the Americans arrived did the war begin to turn in the Allies favor. The Allied commanders saw the fresh American troops and thought they had fresh fodder for the trenches. But General John Pershing, who knew of the futility of trench warfare from his studies of the American Civil War, refused to let American troops be used in such situations. So ideas came up to get out of the trenches, coordinate attacks with infantry, cavalry, armor and airplanes which pushed the Germans out of their trenches and back toward Germany.

So when war started up again in 1939, the Allies had forgotten everything that they learned in the last year of WWI and were going to war thinking that this one would be like the last one. Because of the complacency of victory, the Allies ignored all the studies and models on the new type of warfare as outlined in books like Achtung, Panzer by Erwin Rommel.

A Polish boy born on November 11, 1918 would have been old enough to be killed in battle on September 1, 1939.

[scoundrel]

I am not sure that the Russians would have needed a spy wearing crepe soled shoes. Clement Attlee's administration, in a moment of breathtaking naivete, actually sold jet engines to Russia, ostensibly for civilian use. Some people are so stupid that you just can't help them.



Here is a book I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone who is interested in the air war in North West Europe between 1940 and 1944. Major James Goodson was a leading ace in the USAAF Fourth Fighter Group. The Fourth Fighter Group was created in 1942 out of the RAF's Eagle squadrons, ostensibly Canadian but well known to be a magnet for US citizens joining the war against the Nazis unofficially and against the express threat of the State Department to prosecute them whenever they came home again. I don't have much time for the US State Department, then or now, and Major Goodson ignored them as did many other American pilots posing as Canadians in the Eagle squadrons. The American pilots almost mutinied when ordered to change over to the USAAF; they were touchingly proud of their RAF wings. Also some of them had joined the RCAF because the USAAF had rejected them for pilot training as "lacking in intrinsic ability" and they strongly felt that they wanted nothing to do with the USAAF after being so falsely maligned. The King himself ordered them to transfer and so they obeyed; in return, the USAAF agreed that they could still wear their RAF wings, the only unit in the whole American army allowed to wear British insignia.

Goodson was shot down in 1944 and very narrowly escaped being shot as a spy. But the Luftwaffe claimed him out of Gestapo hands and he fell into the strange hands of Hans Scharff. Scharff is an acknowledged expert in interrogation who took great pride in never ever using violence, torture or the threat of either. His great strength was that he loved to talk and no matter how they tried, none of his USAAF "victims" succeeded in disliking him. Imagine Louis Thoroux in a Lufwaffe uniform. He was courteous and kind, always seeing to it that the prisoners relatives in the States or Britain had the earliest possible word that their loved one was safe and well as a prisoner. He relied a great deal on the captivity of the subject, seeming to tell a great deal and be very indiscreet himself, yet he was really careful not to go beyond what the Allied intelligence services already knew, just in case the prisoner were ever to escape. His goal was to break the wall of silence, to tempt the prisoner to want to join a fascinating discussion. Goodson related good humouredly how Scharff once attended a Fourth Fighter Group reunion. Scharrf sincerely admired the Fourth and had specialised in interrogating their captured men, so he was well known to that assemby. In a short after dinner speech, he invited all the men who had stated only their name, rank and serial number to show their hands, and not one hand went up. There was general laughter and a well deserved (probably rueful) round of applause. Just like Smith and Jones in the 1970s western series, Hans Scharff never hurt anybody.

In Goodson's case, he discussed modern history, politics, the merits of the USAAF selection systems, the personal qualities of the leading air aces on all sides. and also jet engines, something Goodson had never heard of then and couldn't avoid being interested by. Scharff showed Goodson Rolls Royce blueprints without bothering to explain how the Germans came by them, but explaining the thermo dynamics carefully so Goodson learned from his Luftwaffe interrogator exactly how jet engines work. To give an idea of how gifted an interviewer Scharff was:

Scharff: Are you interviewing me or am I interviewing you?
Goodson: Well, the trouble is, you never ask me any questions. I'm just making conversation

.

On the jet engine:

Scharff: Now, these ducts on this turbo are what interest us. These turbos rotate at speeds of up to 25,000 rpm. At those speeds, these little ducts are inclined to fly off, and this could cause imbalances which could result in the whole thing disintegrating. We believe the British have an alloy which handles this problem, and we'd like the formula. of course, we know that you pilots don't know anything about things like that, but that doesn't mean we don't learn a lot from you.

Scharff was captured by the Americans and lived in the USA after the war, where he achieved recognition as an artist creating acclaimed mosaics. He also lectured at staff college for the US Air Force and his techniques were incorporated into the curriculum at Intelligence colleges, including the FBI in Quantico. I am quite confident that he would have denounced extraordinary rendition, waterboarding and the like; he stubbornly resisted even the presence of Gestapo men when he served in the Luftwaffe and refused officer rank, serving the whole war as an Obergefreiter (Corporal) because he disliked the Nazi party, disliked Hitler and did not want to hold officer rank, although even as a Corporal he would have been forced to swear the Hitler oath. In fact as a known expert in psychology Scharff was personally picked by Goering who made him an offer he couldn't refuse, but allowed him to set the terms and conditions of his servitude. Goering wanted intelligence and was equally willing to torture or pamper prisoners, whichever worked. Scharff held out rather forlornly but with integrity in defence of a Germany with decency and honour which had already gone by the wayside; but that wasn't necessarily his fault.

[tygrkhat40]

Why is a 5-star general in the US Army called General of the Army? Because when George C. Marshall was the first man elevated to that rank, he refused to be called Field Marshal Marshall, the European equivalent of a 5-star general.

Slightly off-topic, but the highest rank in the US Army is General of the Armies, eqivalent to a 6-star General. The only two men to ever hold that rank were George Washington and John J. Pershing, although neither man wore 6-stars in their insignia. By an act of Congress, Washington is the supreme military commander in US History, meaning that if all the US Army officers were brought back to life and brought back for service at their highest rank, Washington is the highest ranking officer.

There is also a Navy equivalent rank, Admiral of the Navies, but no man has ever held it.

[haroldeye]

T-hat40 I think you need to read much more about WW1. The stalemate was caused by the rush to the sea and the consequent introduction of trench warfare. The British,French and to a lesser extent the Germans (they had a large chunk of France and so were not so interested in a breakthrough) explored all sorts of methods of breaking the stalemate and it was them that worked out the eventual methods. Pershing was very keen to use his troops in the trenches and anywhere he could. He refused to train with or take any note of the lessons learned by the British and French and as a result many a fine young American found himself a grave because Blackjack made all the same mistakes.
The all arms concept of warfare (the integration of infantry, cavalry, armour, artillery and air) was already well into development and had been so over a period of two years. The bloodbaths of the Somme and Paschendaele may have been vicious learning experiences but learn we did. Foremost amongst the men that worked out the answers were Plumer (British) Currie (Canada) and Monash (Australia). The chief advances in the realm of artillery were due very much to one man, Colonel Brooke (Ulster) later to become famous as FM Viscount Alanbrooke, the Chief of Staff in WW2 and the man who kept Churchill in the realm of practicality.
Pershing was right to state that the allies needed to destroy the German army and totally defeat the German people otherwise the Germans would not understand that they had been beaten. He did not appreciate the general war weariness of the Europeans or indeed the exhaustion that the protagonists had achieved. Pershing ordered his troops to keep on attacking until 1100 on the 11th November. Pointless slaughter but it got some officers noticed as thrusters.

During the inter-war years all the victorious allies stopped spending on defence. Most of the US spending went on providing the US with a first class Navy but a small army. Eisenhower was a Major in 1938 because the Army wasn’t that big. The Americans as much as the Brits ignored defence for a long time. The French maintained large forces but due to the losses in WW1 caused by ‘elan’ adopted a defensive mentality which led eventually to Vichy. The basic concepts about armoured warfare were expounded by JFC Fuller, a gentleman ignored by the British Government (who starved the forces of cash from 1918 to 1934) but adored by Guderian and his subordinate Rommel.

The British generals in 1939 didn’t think that the war would be the same as the last, after all the British Army was no longer horse drawn but fully mechanised (which set it apart from every other European army) but they were aware that the British Army was hugely deficient in trained staff officers , and armour. The BEF fought it’s corner well but had to withdraw to stop itself being outflanked due to the French collapse. By the time the Americans came into the war they had had two years to prepare but were really not much further forward than the Brits were in 1940.

[haroldeye]

Originally Posted by tygrkhat40

Why is a 5-star general in the US Army called General of the Army? Because when George C. Marshall was the first man elevated to that rank, he refused to be called Field Marshal Marshall, the European equivalent of a 5-star general.

Slightly off-topic, but the highest rank in the US Army is General of the Armies, eqivalent to a 6-star General. The only two men to ever hold that rank were George Washington and John J. Pershing, although neither man wore 6-stars in their insignia. By an act of Congress, Washington is the supreme military commander in US History, meaning that if all the US Army officers were brought back to life and brought back for service at their highest rank, Washington is the highest ranking officer.

There is also a Navy equivalent rank, Admiral of the Navies, but no man has ever held it.

I live not far from his fathers old house. Not bad for a Brit !!

[tygrkhat40]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

During the inter-war years all the victorious allies stopped spending on defence. Most of the US spending went on providing the US with a first class Navy but a small army. Eisenhower was a Major in 1938 because the Army wasn’t that big. The Americans as much as the Brits ignored defence for a long time. The French maintained large forces but due to the losses in WW1 caused by ‘elan’ adopted a defensive mentality which led eventually to Vichy. The basic concepts about armoured warfare were expounded by JFC Fuller, a gentleman ignored by the British Government (who starved the forces of cash from 1918 to 1934) but adored by Guderian and his subordinate Rommel.

The British generals in 1939 didn’t think that the war would be the same as the last, after all the British Army was no longer horse drawn but fully mechanised (which set it apart from every other European army) but they were aware that the British Army was hugely deficient in trained staff officers , and armour. The BEF fought it’s corner well but had to withdraw to stop itself being outflanked due to the French collapse. By the time the Americans came into the war they had had two years to prepare but were really not much further forward than the Brits were in 1940.

You're quite right harold that defense spending by the Allies in the inter-war period did go down. Part was due to the various arms and naval restriction treaties of the 20's and the world-wide economic depression of the 30's. And yes, the US Army, like their British counterparts, was starved by a congress who saw little need for a large standing army. If I'm not too far off, the US had a smaller army than Portugal in 1939. And the army was so rigid in it's policies that it was virtually impossible to dispose of not just obsolete but antiquated materials. One troop lost a mule on manuevers and the commander used it to get rid of a great deal of obsolete equipment and equipment that had been lost over the years. If the brass had looked closer at what the mule supposedly had been carrying, the mule would not have been able to walk.

And you're right on some not expecting the same war as before, but the French had broken up their armor units and the Brits were deficient in numbers of armor and my comment was more along the lines of the British and French general staffs not paying attention to the more advanced tactical thinkers like Fuller, Guderian and Rommel.