It's not a sailing canoe but it does have wings and a rocket...

[Sam F]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lk31Lmkz170

Even today it's more than a bit radical.

[Sam F]

If anyone has ever watched the move Rocketeer, there is a captured German movie within the movie with a strikingly similar animation style. Someone did his homework on that one.

[paladin]

The Rocketeer was based on the early 1950's serial Rocketman, same theme.....

[Sam F]

The Rocketeer was based on the early 1950's serial Rocketman, same theme.....

And believe it or not, I remember that serial from when I was a very little tike. Only saw a few of them and would like to have seen them all.
But the ME 163 is no fiction.
It may not have been a very effective weapon (it probably killed more Germans than allies) but it's sure nuff out there on the edge.

[Sam F]

Btw, there was one modification that potentially could have transformed the ME 163 into a potent bomber killer. It involved the mounting of panzerfaust (sp?) anti-tank RPGs aimed upward. All it took was for a ME 163 to fly under a bomber and it's shadow would automatically fire (by way of a "magic eye") upwards into the plane.
The one time it was used the bomber disintegrated. Lucky that little trick came too late!

[The Bigfella]

Dad saw the ME 163s in action from the prisoner of war camp. He said they would shoot down a bomber on the climb, flame out, then shoot another on the way down.

Great film - but its sort of like the performance of an 18 year old with the endurance of an 88 year old, isn't it.

[Sam F]

Dad saw the ME 163s in action from the prisoner of war camp. He said they would shoot down a bomber on the climb, flame out, then shoot another on the way down.

Quite an experience I'm sure. Though I've read that as a whole the project killed more Germans than allies. Not the sort of math I'd want to invest in. There were instances of ME 163s landing OK but in the process sprung had a leak - by the time the ground crew arrived, the pilot had been dissolved.


Great film - but its sort of like the performance of an 18 year old with the endurance of an 88 year old, isn't it.

Yeah when endurance is measured in minutes you're talking about a weapon of limited effectiveness.

[Keith Wilson]

Wow! Thanks, Sam that's a great film. I think the Me163s killed about twice as many German pilots as bomber crews. They were something of an evolutionary dead end, unlike the jets, but it's facinating to see the original footage.

[George.]

Lucky that little trick came too late!

Lucky for whom? :(

[Sam F]

Lucky for whom?

Luck for the allies. Flying (and surviving) a ME163 was challenge enough. The plane's speed, combined with the (relatively) slow firing gun it was equipped with, left very little margin for pilot error. The short endurance made second tries unlikely.
For instance, the favored mode of attack was to approach the target from the rear since that slowed down the relative speed of the two planes.
Attack from head on was out of the question since there was simply no time to get hit the target.
A panzerfaust equipped ME 163 had only to fly under the target. The "magic eye" did the rest.
Had that been available earlier it may well have lengthened the war and would certainly have killed a lot more allied air crews.

[Sam F]

Wow! Thanks, Sam that's a great film. I think the Me163s killed about twice as many German pilots as bomber crews. They were something of an evolutionary dead end, unlike the jets, but it's facinating to see the original footage.

There are a few more videos on Youtube. Do a search on "ME 163" and you'll find them. Some are of flying models btw.

[George.]

Had that been available earlier it may well have lengthened the war and would certainly have killed a lot more allied air crews.

Right. Preventing the Nuremberg firestorm would have lengthened the war. :rolleyes:

[Sam F]

Right. Preventing the Nuremberg firestorm would have lengthened the war.

Perhaps you mean Rostock, Cologne, or Dresden. I don't know of a fire storm at Nuremberg.

I would however, call your attention to several statements I've made here on this Forum concerning area bombing and my views on that particular strategy.
If you think I approve of that tactic you could not be more wrong.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Actually, the main beneficiary of the Me163 may have been the United States. Its designer, having been translocated to the USA, found himself working for Convair, designing the first delta winged aircraft to fly.

[George.]

Dresden. Although Nuremberg didn't fare too well either.

If you don't approve of area bombing, then hats off to you, Sam. It is as cruel and unnecessary as any war crime, although few Anglo-Americans are brave enough to face the facts.

[Sam F]

...If you don't approve of area bombing, then hats off to you, Sam.
Don't approve is an understatement.



...It is as cruel and unnecessary as any war crime, although few Anglo-Americans are brave enough to face the facts.

Where were you when I needed help on that one?

[Sam F]

Actually, the main beneficiary of the Me163 may have been the United States. Its designer, having been translocated to the USA, found himself working for Convair, designing the first delta winged aircraft to fly.

That's not all. The US benefited from the Nazi rocket program in getting the space program up and running.
Of course the Russians did the same...

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The UK's shot at an Me 163 derivative was the Saro SR 53, of 1957.

The idea was the same as the Me163; very rapid response to an incoming bomber, detected on radar at the last minute.

It just about worked, getting to Mach 2 and 50,000 feet on the rocket, in two minutes and odd seconds, then cruising on it's jet engine, but the need for it vanished with further-out looking radar. Its main drawback was that it was rather inclined to blow up, due to the use of high test peroxide rather than lox in the rocket motor.

Britain's defence forces had a brief spell of interest in high test peroxide, brought about (I almost wrote "fuelled"!) by finding out what Germany had been up to with "T-stoff", during the 1950's, including a submarine christened "HMS Exploder" by the Royal Navy, whose commanding officer was decorated for bravery for his persistence in going to sea in her. In the end it was given up as hopelessly unstable and unsafe for practical use.

Russia seems to have continued an interest in "T-stoff", since the sinking of the Kursk was apparently due to a high test peroxide fuelled torpedo exploding on board.

[Sam F]

Andrew, the name I recall is the Saunders-Roe, a mixed power fighter (jet + rocket). Is that the same plane?

The Russian also experimented both before WWII and after with rocket fighters but with no success.
Range, or lack thereof, was always the insurmountable problem.

And T-stoff is not nice stuff.
IIRC the Russian also used a peroxide powered sub that had excellent performance - it gave the Pentagon quite a scare at the time. But going to sea in such a vessel was just plain nutz. It's too dangerous even for a Kamakazi!

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Yes, indeed, Sam - Saro = Saunders - Roe, a firm based in Cowes, Isle of Wight, that was really bets known for its flying boats (and which incidentally produced a flying boat jet fighter - now there's a concept for you!)

The plane was developed against a Government tender spec. One other company offered a design as well, but it never flew before the project was cancelled under the 1958 White Paper, which announced that in future Britain's air defences would consist of missiles and the RAF would have no more manned fighters (49 years on, we still seem to have plenty!).

The reason for the Government's interest was the limited range of the radar sets then available, in relation to the much higher speed of jet bombers - there was a fear that jet interceptors would not have time to get to attack altitude in the time between the order to scramble being given and the incoming bomber formations reaching their target.

[Sam F]

Yes, indeed, Sam - Saro = Saunders - Roe, a firm based in Cowes, Isle of Wight, that was really bets known for its flying boats (and which incidentally produced a flying boat jet fighter - now there's a concept for you!)...

No Way! This I've got to see. Do you know of any photos of this thing? I can't even imagine what such a plane would look like.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Certainly! Follow the link to SR A/1 here:

http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/index.html

While looking at Saro, see also the Princess flying boat.

Saro were an inventive bunch; they are, in a sense, still in business; they produced the world's first hovercraft, went into hovercraft and military helicopter building and got taken over by Westland, who still build military helicopters.

[The Bigfella]

Can you just imagine taking a greenie over the bow of that one?

http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/pictures/sra1.jpg

[The Bigfella]

Wow - that led to some interesting reading,



The bomber version of the Mosquito could deliver the same bomb-load to distant targets as the four-engined Boeing B-17.


http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Mosquito.htm

So - these guys back in WW2 had a 400+ mph twin engined bomber with a crew of two, but they chose to send off crew of 10 in a four engined bomber crusing along at under 200mph (max of 287mph) to do the same job -ie deliver the same bomb load in Germany?

That was a brilliant use of men and materials eh?

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/images/saro_col.jpeg

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/sr_53_177.php

Airfix used to make a kit - I built it as a small child - Long Long ago.
It can still be found on Ebay (http://cgi.ebay.com/AIRFIX-Saunders-Roe-S-R-53-Type-3-Bag_W0QQitemZ130085110812QQihZ003QQcategoryZ50297Q QcmdZViewItem)
I think I paid 2/9 for mine.

[George.]

I understood that Mosquitoes were used mainly to come in at low altitudes and drop flares to mark the "target" - i.e., a blacked out German city. They had the navigation equipment and the speed necessary. The rest of the (slow) bomber waves then came in at high altitude and did "precision bombing" from 20000 feet.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Real shortage of "mainly" for moquitoes.
http://www.aviation-history.com/dehavilland/mosquito.html

SWMBO's cousin bought one back in the late 1980s.

[George.]

Mosquitoes weigh the same as a duck! :D



Had it not been that the Mosquito used "non-strategic" molded plywood (http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/plywood.htm)for its construction, it might well never have been reinstated.

[The Bigfella]

So, if it could carry 4,000lb of bombs to Berlin with a crew of two and using two engines (both critically important resources) and still outperform the German fighters, why did we persist in sending slow craft with four scarce engines and ten scarce crew to do the same job?

My uncle flew them when his squadron converted from Beaufighters to Mosquitos. He shot down one Ju88 over the Bay of Biscay and got a probable on another. He was keen on them. This is a painting of him in the Australian War Memorial.

http://cas.awm.gov.au/TST2/ump.retrieve_uma?surl=1054313584ZZXQUDFJBCHP&parm1=UMO_ID&parm2=398930&parm1=DISPLAY_TYPE&parm2=RAW&parm1=DISPLAY_WHAT&parm2=MASTER&parm1=LOGIN_TYPE&parm2=PROFILEG&parm1=AID&parm2=2000

and with his plane:

http://cas.awm.gov.au/TST2/ump.retrieve_uma?surl=1054313584ZZXQUDFJBCHP&parm1=UMO_ID&parm2=442853&parm1=DISPLAY_TYPE&parm2=RAW&parm1=DISPLAY_WHAT&parm2=MASTER&parm1=LOGIN_TYPE&parm2=PROFILEG&parm1=AID&parm2=2000

[Presuming Ed]

I understood that Mosquitoes were used mainly to come in at low altitudes and drop flares to mark the "target" - i.e., a blacked out German city. They had the navigation equipment and the speed necessary. The rest of the (slow) bomber waves then came in at high altitude and did "precision bombing" from 20000 feet.

Pathfinders. Theres's a bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(RAF)

IIRC from the history of 617 Squadron (the Dambusters), later on in the war they started pathfinding using Mustangs - or at least Leonard Cheshire did.

[CK 17]

Several years ago, I attended an airshow in Nashua NH. Not much of a show outside. However, inside a talk was being given by Ruty Opitz. He made a few flights in the me 163. It was a nice surprise.

[The Bigfella]

SamF



Perhaps you mean Rostock, Cologne, or Dresden. I don't know of a fire storm at Nuremberg.

I would however, call your attention to several statements I've made here on this Forum concerning area bombing and my views on that particular strategy.
If you think I approve of that tactic you could not be more wrong.


I was interested to read today that it was the Germans who started this in Spain in 1937.

[stevebaby]

The Brits did some pioneer work on this in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1920/30s. They used Hawker Harts to bomb "Proscribed Areas", but they had the decency to drop leaflets warning the population a couple of days before they bombed.
I don't know what language the leaflets were written in though.

[George.]

The Italians started it in Lybia in 1911, I think.

All the Great Powers build big bomber fleets and made plans to bomb the enemy's cities in the 1930s.

Germany started it in WWII, with the bombings of Polish cities and Rotterdam. And Britain did the first intentional "area bombing" of a city. Some say Churchill was grateful when this resulted in the Germans retaliating upon London, shifting focus from the RAF airfields and radars.

Since WWII, the bombing of civilian areas has become an Anglo-American "specialty". I believe only Saddam and Israel have done it as well.

[The Bigfella]

Germany certainly did it in a big way it in Guernica in April 1937.

The wiki article gives a bit of info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica

[peb]

SamF,

I don't know if Nuremburg was firebombed, but I am pretty sure it was bomb pretty heavily. Most German cities were.

Difficult question as to WWII. The bombing of German and Japanese cities was definitely a terror campaign. Very hard to justtify from a military standpoint. In Germany, one reason we bombed cities because we were so ineffective bombing military industrial sites. Germany peaked in production of planes, tanks, and subs in 1944.

The only excuse I have come across, and this is really weak, was that the Prussian culture was so militaristic, the entire populace had to feel the pain so that we would change the culture once and for all. Maybe in hindsight. It was definitely not the goal at the time. The goal at the time was to terrorize (and that word was used) the populace so as to hinder the German warmaking capacity indirectly. Same arguments apply to the Japanese theatre.

WWII was a just war, no doubt about it. But it was not always fought in a just manner. And as to the typical response: well no war is fought in a just manner, I don't buy into that. It shows a misunderstanding of the idea of a just war.

[George.]

the Prussian culture was so militaristic, the entire populace had to feel the pain so that we would change the culture once and for all


That is simply too close to the way Islamists justify attacks on Western civilians.