I doubt anyone would have the ballz to say something like that in the Third Reich.

__________________
Russisch Frauen über alles, über alles in der Welt - me

MkB42 (to all intents the same weapon/concept as was named Stg.44 later) Entered official service in March/April '43, and had seen limited troop-trials during 42.
Again, G43 was essentially the G41 as introduced in '41 and modelled off Russian weapons. Both problematic devices, and far from the panacea sometimes claimed.

So that puts at least part of the hypothesis back a year or two, and still the case for a technological solution to world domination isn't improved any.
As has been said by Vanir, a broad 'technological parity' would always exist in most cases. It's only very recently that technology itself has begun to have a real effect on tactical situations, and even then forces opposing hugely advanced battlefield systems begin to evolve and find different ways of sustaining the fighting.

Infrastructure often proves so much more important than the sharper & shinier end of war. Even if Germany had a higher level of technological gear earlier, she'd likely still have been carrying them by horse - immense extra effort in creating these flashy designs would surely mean an even more parlous support/supply situation.

As for true technological leaps in weaponry (as Adolf wasted so much time pursuing), with fast jets still not somehow bulletproof I'd think the main truly meaningful one of the period is indeed the Atomic bomb; America would get there first, game over.

How many other 'What If's' along these large-scale lines are derailed by consideration of the A-Bomb? Seems to be nearly all of 'em.
Maybe it should be in the forum heading...

"What If - Please bear in mind the Manhattan Project before entering this forum"

~A

No, Frank Whittle patented his centrifugal turbo jet engine before von Ohain did his for Germany. Mr. Whittle had to develop his without backing from either a large corporation (Heinkel backed von Ohain), or government funding. That may be why even though he started earlier, he finished later. It wasn't until that Italian jet flew and was announced that the British decided they had better "get in the game" and put funding into Whittle's project. the Heinkel jet flight was a year before the Italian jet flight, but kept so secret even the Italians didin't know of it. When Whittle's patent was published, von Ohain was still a college student, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that he read all of Whittle's papers and created his own engine design based on Whittle's work. Who learned from whom?

The V weapons were really just updated "ram jets" which had been first developed in France when the Lorin ramjet was invented in 1908 by the Frenchman René Lorin, this was the design which Paul Schmitdt modified in the war years to produce the pulse jet, it first flew at the end of 1942. The German improvement was the self regulating intake vanes which made it a "pulse jet", instead of a pure "ram jet". That is where the signature "putt-putt-putt" sound came from. The V-1 also borrowed and improved on the Kettering self guilding auto-pilot (American) which had been around since WW1, and used on small unmanned gas powered prop. biplanes. That was called the "Kettering Bug". Who leared from whom?

The German V-2 liquid fueled rocket used the American Robert Goddard's patents, including his gyroscopic guildance system, his high speed fuel pump designs, his gimbaled engine exhasts, his steering vanes, and his fuel mixture. Which he had patented in the twenties and thirties. Who learned from whom?

Also the first axial flow jets were designed and built in Britain, not Germany. Germany put axial flow jets into combat usage (Jumo 004), but they were poorly constructed due to alloy metal shortages, and had running life-spans measured in tens of hours. Centrifugal engines (Whittle) had life-spans measured in hundreds of hours. Von Ohain's first jet was a centrifugal type, and followed Whittles engine (centrifugal) by many years although the two men are recognized as "co-inventers" of the turbo jet engine. Von Ohain's engine wasn't used in the 262, that was a Wagner design, build by Jumo. Again, who leared from whom?

Robert Goddard's solid fuel rocket was the first improvement on solid rocket fuel since black powder, and he made it in WW1. It was never used in that war, but was the basis of the fuel for the American "Bazooka" anti-tank rocket. Both the Germans and the Soviets used the same fuel formula for their "Nebelwerffer", and "Katyuska" systems. Who learned from whom?

No way the allies would have jets and rocket? Oh please!

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

What? The British invented the jets! I am shocked,why not the British deploye the jets before germany did???
does not make sence!
Why does history protray the germans that was the first ones to ever have jets???
I don;t understand why on earth Briton would let this kind of technolghy fall in to germany hands!

I have to think twice about Briton,I am thinking that briton had all the right answers now in technolghy.

Kind wishes.

You might enjoy this time line:

Eventes

The British were first in a number of areas in jet technology, but in their cash strapped economy of the thirties they didn't invest in "new" stuff. Also it did "fall" into German hands, Whittle's work was published openly in scientific papers, and widely read all over the world. The Whittle patent on turbo jets had expired in 1935, and he didn't have the money, nor would the British government waive the fee to keep it valid. And believe it or not the British Gloster Meteor was deployed at squadron strenght in Britain a month or so before the first Me-262s were deployed. The Germans were first to deploy the jet in combat, not to have the first operational combat jet.

Many do not realize that the Gloster Meteor F.1 actually entered squadron service before the Me 262A. Although some Me 262As served with EK 262, an operational test squadron, from the early summer of 1944, the Me 262A didn't reach operational service until September 1944. The Meteor F.1, on the other hand, was operational with 616 Squadron, RAF, from July 1944 onwards. The Meteor saw considerable combat against V-1s, and as ground-attack aircraft.

It would also appear that the Meteor had the first jet kill, but only if you count an unmanned V-1 flying bomb as a kill. The Meteor's first V-1 kill came on August 4, 1944, by P/O "Dixie" Dean. That is however highly unlikely to be recognized as a "kill" by anyone really.

The earlier 262 claims were never confirmed since Leutnant Alfred Schreiber had claimed a Mosquito on July 26, but RAF records show that the aircraft, though damaged by the jet attack, managed to land safely at an Allied airfield in Italy. The first confirmed Me 262 kill came four days after the "Dixie" Dean shoot down of the V-1; on August 8, when Leutnant Joachim Weber shot down a Mosquito of No. 540 Squadron. So really Weber should get the credit for the first "kill".

The Meteor F.3 with RR Derwent engines (entered service in December 1944), was far better than the original Meteor F.1, and had a maximum speed of 493 mph, slightly slower than the Me 262A, but close. The Meteor handled better, and had more reliable engines, but the Me 262A still had superior performance.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

It apparently was circular. The US built over 1,000 copies of the "V-1" before the war ended although they didn't use any of them. See: Republic-Ford JB-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that it took ~3 weeks for US engineers to get a working copy of the engine and ~6 months to put the weapon into production.

Jack Northrop also got into the "unmanned" bomb stuff, late in the war, and only produced a couple of prototypes since the war was winding down. His flying wings were "ground breaking" in many areas, and actually produced in flying versions of his giant bomber, and not simply "drawing board" work like the Horten brothers.

He never produced a flying wing fighter, but his XP-79 jet powered craft (only in prototype) could possibly given the Luftwaffe or the Imperial Japanese a nasty surprise if the war had continued, and no atomics. As would the "flying flapjack" the Navy abandoned just as jet power came into being. The Vought version was beutiful. I'll find a link to a photo of it if anybody wants.

For Nortrop's stuff goto:

Northrop

and scroll down the entire set on the left, he had some remarkable designs.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

I wonder how this experimental craft would have faired with a "turbo prop" or jet power instead of standard piston power. It was only built in prototype and canceled as jets became more reliable.

Vought XF5U-1

Type: Fighter
Crew: 1 Pilot
Armament: six .50 cal machine guns
or four 20mm cannon
or two 1000-lb. bombs

Specifications:
Length: 28' 7.5"
Height: 14' 9"
Width: 32' 6"
Empty Weight: n/a
Gross Weight: 14,550 lbs
Max Weight: n/a

Propulsion:
No. of Engines: 2
Powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2000-7
Horsepower 1600 hp each
Prop diameter: 16'

Performance:
Range: 910 miles
Max Speed: 504 mph at 20,000 ft.
Climb: 3000 ft/min at sea level
Ceiling: n/a

Attached Images

	flapjack4.jpg (15.0 KB, 12 views)
	flapjack5.jpg (13.5 KB, 12 views)

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

I laugh at how you al say that the allies rockets were better. During wartime they were not better. After the war when the allies got ahold of the axis' rockets in masse and they tinkered with them they got better. Never during the war did the allies get in a dog fight or anyfight using a rocket plane. The Nazi's did use a plane to get within 30 miles of the new york coastline so it was realistic to say they could reach there with a little more adaptations.
I say the nazi's would never have had the tech in 1939 but i would say in 1943 if they had sped up some research they could have really hurt the Soviets and possibly held them in a stalemate and most likely assuming they could produce alot of the 262's have started a second battle of britain. What many people don't know is the allies first Nuclear submarine was actually the German's first they just refitted and named it. If they could have sped that research up and produced in masse they could have hurt the America's eastern seaboard.
Had the Nazi's produced the aircraft carrier and outfitted it in 1943 and had they saved the bismarck for latter in the war and a few more ships they could have in my opinion finished off britain. With V2 and V1 missiles constantly bombarding Britain and 262's cutting the RAF up and also hurting the USAF , meanwhile wrecking havok on the Allied supply lines and on the navy and troop shipments i believe they may have been able to subdue the allies and comintern possibly getting a treaty with the allies allowing them to relocate their resources to the eastern front. After russia entered they would have to fight to the death considering the russians wanted blood. If they could have bombed the Urals and bomb the food supplies i believe we would have a second ww1 and the russians would revolt part trying to sympathasize with the Nazi's hoping to end the starvation and suffering while the other part would remain loyal and try to fend off the Nazi Hordes.
Japan would have to be expelled from the axis and Rommel would have to take control of the Afrika corps one last time with the proper supplies and soldiers. And hitler would have to stay out of the Operations.. All of this combined would be too much to ask for Hitler would always ruin plans just because he was so egotisitcal and always right.... And the only real hope the nazi's had for an atom bomb really was no hope they may have had more heavy water then anyone else in the world and they may have had some of the most genius minds in nuclear science in the world but they were victims of sabatoge and a constant allied air raid prescense. If the Jet planes had stopped the air raids possibly they could have devolped an atom bomb. Not a HIROSHIMA but a radio active scud missile around the time that manhatten was finished i believe if the raids had stopped maybe in mid-to late 1946 they would have been close to getting the missile based on what i have read.
And for those that believe the allies had all of the technology that the Nazi's had take a look at the Horten Ho IX it looks familiar doesn't it. Its because the allies based one of their rstealth bombers off of after the war..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49

If you read the source you posted you would realize the first test didnt come until late very late 1944. Meaning they couldnt have been used in war. That test was reached by the nazis in 1940 and they didnt become a big use until much later. Granted the USA had a bigger industry they didnt have better tests

HAHAHA. Where to start with this?


[QUOTE=GutenUranverein;408007]perhaps you should look up the Gloster Meteor Gloster Meteor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Happy reading with that one.

Can you reference this?

Why does everyone always think that the Me262 was this amazing plane? Why don't you go look at the most overrated planes thread and see what is said about the 262 in all its awesomeness. More 262's would simply drain the economy of Germany even faster.Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

Again a reference?

Got first off the Graf Zeppelin was a terrible aircraft carrier and would never have been overly effective against anything, the Bismarck was not as powerful as it is made out to be (after all it was battered by swordfish aircraft). I would like to know where these 'few more ships' are coming from and even if they could produce more, how could they ever counter the RN and the RAF?

The V series rockets were from a military point of view a complete waste of time, they in reality did nothing were inaccurate and to few explosive power to be of any real use. They were for all purposes a terror bombing effort to simply terrorize the populace of Britian. As it has benn seen thorughout ww2 terror bombing did nothing. The 262 again would not simply 'cut up' the RAF as effectively as you think go and read more on the 262.

How would they this exactly?

I love the strategic thinking here, any idea how they would intend to starve Russia into submission.

What is with this view that the Germans were the most advanced? It is clearly not the case if you look back though there ww2 and see has what. Yes the Germans were great at tactics on the land, but were horrible at sea. Look at the so called technolgicial advanced weapons they employed on the land. The Pz I, II, the Marder, King Tiger, and so on. Most of the German units still employed en mass the Kar rifle. So I think we can dispense now with the "genius minds in nuclear science"

Anyone else. Next

__________________

simple math,
to many war fronts,minus to little fuel equals loss of war.
just my opinion.
also, I may be wrong, however, Japan prompted the US to get involved in the war.
we ( US) were not ,if i may, up to par on our weapons. many of our soldiers were still being inssued uniforms from WW1, so i do think technology played a very important part in the war,would these before mentioned weapons have made a difference,possibly.
would the outcome be the same, no. even if they still lost the war,how many more would be dead right now if they used these more advanced weapons from the beginning of the war, probably hundred of thousands if not millions. look what our advance weapons did ( a-bomb) what would have happened if we had and used this bomb against the japanese the day after pearl harbor ? probably would ( no,definatley would ) have saved alot of G.I.'s lives. not only american. again, just my thoughts...

The first is incorrect, the story about a Junkers Ju 390 flying to within 12 miles of the coast of New York was disinformation provided by a POW. It has been repeated ad nauseum in Wikipedia, with a proviso of "rumored" being added at one time.

"The fairy tale about the New York flight obviously started its tour through literature from England. It is first to be found in an intelligence report from August 11th, 1944, composed by the questioning of captured members of the German armed forces. A prisoner, who claimed having been photo assistant in Mont-de-Marsan, stated during his interview that 'a Ju 390 was with the FAGr 5 from January 6th, 1944, for about four weeks for trials. After some short-distance flights, a successful reconnoissance flight was made until a point in a distance of nearly 20 km off the American coast north of New York. Pictures were brought back, showing the coast in that distance.'"

Translation from German of a passage from Die großen Dessauer. Junkers Ju 89, 90, 290, 390. Die Geschichte einer Flugzeugfamilie by Karl Kössler and Günter Ott.

Recent research has shown both that the Ju 390 did not have the physical ability to make this flight, and that the single flying prototype was actually in Prague when the flight was supposed to have taken place.

The second is equally as false, the new American Spirit bomber owes its design and construction to the company which built it, Northrop. Remember Jack Northrop and the planes even Wiki mentions? His original flying wing bombers (which actually flew), both the propellor and jet driven models had nearly identical wing spans, and flight control systems which are now used on the B-2. None of the characteristics of the lame little Ho/Go-229. That thing only had rubberized paint on it to keep its wooden construction from melting in the rain. The fact that the surface was somewhat radar absorbant wasn't by design, but by chance.

The Northrop people did look at the surviving Ho-229 in storage, not the Horten "artists concept" of the Ho-IX, but what they took away from that inspection of the 229 was; "what NOT to do!", in that the thing may have aided we Americans. The path to avoid.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

I wouldn't say couldn't. If the US had seen the need they could quite easily have gotten them into play vs Japan if not Germany. However it does illustrate a point. The Germans felt the need to rush to put equipment that was really still in the developmental into combat. Especially towards the end of the war the allies felt little such need. The various German jets and rocket planes would never have been given to operational units at least among the western allies in the state they were in. Similarly the V-1 and V-2. The allies did make very extensive use of smaller more accurate rockets however.

Good posts Wolfy.
1. I agree, the Gw 43 was just a smallarms weapon.
2. Mp44 was good and probably something like a precursor to the AK47, but again, not a war-winning difference from the M1 and tommygun put together.
3. Tigger 2. If Germany couldn't produce many of them before they took over half of Europe (and that half's industrial power), then they sure couldn't produce them at the beginning of the war. Besides, it was much like the tanks of WW1. Slow, heavy, and though heavily armored, could be taken out by tanks and artillery.
4. 262. Would have done squat diddly if they didn't manage to increase the range. 1000 km makes this fighter a relatively DEfensive, not an OFFensive weapon. Keep in mind, the Mustang could go an impressive 2,700km and i'm not including the combat totals in either of these.
5. Comet. Couldn't have said it better myself, wolfy. That's why I'm not going to say anything about it.
So in general, military secret weapons were not the key to victory in the epic slogging match of WW2, it was industrial power at home. And in that, the Americans easily outstripped both the Japanese, Germans, maybe even the Russians (though i doubt that.).

__________________
To the German Commander-- Nuts.

-- The American Commander

The point was the US went from a captured rocket to full production in about 6 months.

All this talk of pinching German scientists yet not one mention of Von Braun. America won the space because of that guy, we cant deny the importance of his legacy. A legacy that the Americans did not have an equivalent for.

How many German scientists after the war found employment within the American sphere of influence in terms of Science, Military or space hardware ?

While he played a considerable role it's hardly accurate to say that he was instrumental in the US "wining" the space race. As for an equivalant I'd suggest Goddard.

I mentioned von Braun and Goddard in post #53, but didn’t include the part about von Braun teaming up with Goddard’s widow to sue the US government (NACA-NASA) for patent infringement, which was won in 1960 by the Goddard estate. The largest (to the moment) patent suit payment by the government, $1 million. They (and von Bruan) were using 214 of Goddard's liquid fueled rocket patents.

Here is that part in #53; The German V-2 liquid fueled rocket used the American Robert Goddard's patents, including his gyroscopic guidance system, his high speed fuel pump designs, his gimbaled engine exhausts, his steering vanes, and his fuel mixture. Which he had patented in the twenties and thirties.

This is in reference to the von Bruan team.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Actually the Russians used rockets before the Germans or the Western Powers.

Are you familiar with Katyusha? The Mig-3 also possessed air to ground missiles in its arsenal.



(Another German victory wet dream spoiled)

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

And what space did America win? Last time I checked the only "victory" America achieved in space was the moon landing, which only came after being in "second" for more than a decade.


And this was all accomplished thanks to these Scientist, neither of whom were of German origin.

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

Sergey Korolyov

Valentyn Glushko

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Or

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I still think that eventually Germany would lose. Russia and the USA had so many resources that Germany would never have, and they would have got their own advanced technologies.

The Americans and British would still have bombed factories so that the German industry would collapse, so in the end, Germany would not be able to make their advanced technologies.

It would have given Germany an edge, but they still would not have been able to win the war.

On wether or not at Luftwaffe aircraft ever flew within 12 miles of the US coast I couldn't find any evidence of it in "Luftwaffe Over America" by Manfried Griehl . I understand the author is pretty well respected and is German so assume no bias against the Luftwaffe.
On the broader subject of Germany having higher terchnologoes earlier one thing I think works against them is the fact that like in making tanks they used locomotive, heavy equipment and say large crane type firms while the US used their automotive industries to build tanks and even airplanes . One US manufactorer who made juke boxes before the war re-tooled to make carbines during the war. IMHO not only was Allied industry far larger then Germany's but also much more flexible .

That was six (6) moon landings, putting 12 men on the moon and safely returning them to earth.

It doesn't matter what place your team is in during the race. It only matters when the finish line is crossed.

__________________
On the Plains of Hesitation
lies the blackend bones of countless millions
who, at the dawn of victory sat down to rest,
and resting died....
(author unknown-I wish it was me)