Damn germans still occupying the beach
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17562465
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 23:51
|
|
One of Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun's finest.
|
An interesting find - I read it earlier on today and was impressed that the original eye-witness' account was vindicated and that the guy was still alive to enjoy his "moment".
Having a good working knowledge of WW2 history and the V weapons I didn't realize that so many were built and fired. German technology but not in a good way considering all the foreign slave workers that died in making them.
|
>>but not in a good way
>> considering all the foreign slave workers that died in making them.
>>
and not in a good way, considering they'd have made the Blitz look like a tea party had there been enough of them.
|
|
Still a remarkable capability in what was effectively a siege economy, 3000 made and fired. Antwerp suffered particularly badly. There would have been no effective counter measure, a dumb bomb by today's standards but a real terror weapon.
|
Yep - re-read Michener's Space the other day, which gave an albeit-fictionalised account of the development.
|
They weren't that accurate, but London is quite a big target.
The thing that scared people was that the V2 arrived unannounced at three times the speed of sound. Made the V1 with its barking ramjet seem almost homely and cuddly. When the barking stopped, you waited and hoped it wasn't going to land too close. Or so everyone said.
|
The thing that scared the Government was that there was no defence against them. So scared in fact that they publicly denied they existed, yet diverted large numbers of troops from rolling up the german armies, and moved them to disrupting the launch sites and logistics, at least pushing them out of range of the UK.
About 6 months too late, they could have turned the war.
|
Can they get this up without blowing it up?
Must be lots more find them find them all !!
|
>> Can they get this up without blowing it up?
>>
>> Must be lots more find them find them all !!
If you want to see one there are a few around. There is one hanging on the ceiling at the Imperial War museum, seem to recall seeing one at Cosford or Duxford.
Cosford is a really good visit.
|
|
Seen one at Duxford been there many times there's one up north at Eden Camp i think either v1 or 2.
|
Off on a tangent - raed somewhere once about how German technology - and bad planning - played a big part in their defeat.
Apparently they upgraded a lot of their weapons so often that front-line troops and pilots were taken off the lines to train on the new models, and ditto with the technicians and machanics.
As history has shown, the ME262 could have been a war-winner - or at least a way to stop daylight bombing - had they not kept reassigning its roles.
|
|
Their hi-tech was overwhelmed by the Russians who proved that using unsophisticated but reliable kit (the T34) could outfight the Tigers by sheer weight of numbers. The other error was not building heavy bombers that could have been a war winner.
|
Thanks R.P (and Zero)
Obviously the Sturmovik also fitted the bill.
I recall some doccie where they said the T34 had an oil change at 150kms - and there's be 1 kilo of metal shavings in the filter!
But they were only designed to fight for a week, so what the hell...
|
>> Off on a tangent - raed somewhere once about how German technology - and bad
>> planning - played a big part in their defeat.
>> Apparently they upgraded a lot of their weapons so often that front-line troops and pilots
>> were taken off the lines to train on the new models, and ditto with the
>> technicians and machanics.
>> As history has shown, the ME262 could have been a war-winner - or at least
>> a way to stop daylight bombing - had they not kept reassigning its roles.
Mostlyt the Germans ( read Hitler) were too obsessed with hi tech, hi complexity, and specialised.
Subsequently they could never produce simple killing machines in very large numbers
They considered that the Russian T34 tank to be crude and inferior. Tens of thousands of them promptly crushed the German Army,.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 30 Mar 12 at 19:36
|
>> Apparently they upgraded a lot of their weapons so often that front-line troops and pilots
>> were taken off the lines to train on the new models, and ditto with the
>> technicians and mechanics.
>>
That also happened during the cold war technology race, I went to research establishments to be trained by the boffins who were inventing equipment, and bypassed the military training system. After operational use of certain kit we would train the instructors but they never kept up with the front line equipment. I went through the analogue to digital processing and frequent hardware and software development period.
|
>> The thing that scared the Government was that there was no defence against them. So
>> scared in fact that they publicly denied they existed, yet diverted large numbers of troops
>> from rolling up the german armies, and moved them to disrupting the launch sites and
>> logistics, at least pushing them out of range of the UK.
>>
>> About 6 months too late, they could have turned the war.
>>
IIRC from a book I read they were know as 'flying gas mains' for a while, as the government would blame unexplained explosions (from V2 hits) on 'gas leaks'.
The same book also points out that although they were indeed a 'great' terror weapon, their destructive potential was fairly limited (biggest fatality figure for a V2 landing was "only" 100 odd) and they were hugely resource intensive to build. So they weré never going to win the war.
An incredibly impressive engineering achievement for the time and conditions.
|
|
They didn't have to be accurate - they were to terrorize the local populations in the South East - didn't have to be surgical and as you say appearing to arrive from out of nowhere was enough. The V1 did have some effective counter-measures in the shape of the Hawker Tempest and other aircraft as well as AAA sites. But they were a proven design and could be built in bulk...
|
|
Just as well they were unable to create snow. Now that would be a real terror weapon for the SE.....
|
>> When the barking stopped, you waited and hoped it wasn't going to land too close.
>> Or so everyone said.
>>
It's true.
|
>> One of Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun's finest.
Or not, as the case here proves. It never went off!
|
>> >> One of Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun's finest.
>>
>> Or not, as the case here proves. It never went off!
Guess your right, It didn't even reach land.
|
Probably more Von Braun's "Value" than "Finest".
It just dawned on me how profoundly sad it is that man spends so much money, effort and intellect on killing his fellow man.
|
>> >> One of Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun's finest.
>>
>> Or not, as the case here proves. It never went off!
>>
>>
Hasn't gone off, yet!
|
>>Guess your right, It didn't even reach land.
It would appear to have been aimed at Harwich docks, so not far off.
>>It never went off!
They're assuming it didn't, but a bang was heard, perhaps a sonic boom?
|
>> They're assuming it didn't, but a bang was heard, perhaps a sonic boom?
If it did go off it wouldn't be there to fond.
I have the same feeling as I had about the Mary Rose. When they brought the Mary Rose to the surface, the hype had made me expect a complete Elizabethan (not mock) gunship complete with Sails, rigging, flags, cannons drooping lazily over the side. All that came up was a muddy steel frame.
I am now expecting a sleek sharp pointed rocket complete with fins to appear from the mud, shades of the green and brown camouflage still visible.
I think I am about to be disappointed again.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 09:49
|
>>green and brown camouflage still visible.
Were they painted in camouflage? Why? I thought they were stored out of sight until brought to launch and once launched camouflage would be pointless.
IIRC, Raymond Baxter gives an amusing account of a pilot colleague firing at one as it's launched.
|
>> >>green and brown camouflage still visible.
>>
>> Were they painted in camouflage? Why? I thought they were stored out of sight until
>> brought to launch and once launched camouflage would be pointless.
No they were fired in the field from mobile launch sites. Sometimes stored on lorries.
Launch sites were the Achilles heel, permanent ones were attacked. Pushing the possible launch sites back from the coast and out of UK range by military on the ground was the defeat of them.
|
160 killed and 108 seriously injured in one explosion on 25 November 1944 in mid-afternoon, striking a Woolworth's department store in New Cross, south-east London.
After that, British intelligence told porkies implying that the rockets were over-shooting their London target by 10 to 20 miles. It worked and for the remainder of the war most landed in Kent.
Wiki.
|
|
Funny how things change/stay the same and how the Intelligence Services lied about Iraqi capabilities a lifetime later, when all they had was a handful of the V2's cousin, the Scud.
|
History is written by the victors.
|
Hitler's megalomaniac obsession with big and high-tech was shared to some extent by Dr Porsche. Hitler made him design an enormous tank, called 'der Maus', which carried a very big howitzer as well as other artillery. Naturally it was heavily armoured, and driven like most of the Professor's military efforts by a hybrid drivetrain with electric motors driving wheels or tracks and the juice supplied by a diesel generator.
At least one prototype was built. Hitler insisted, and would have ordered the money and productive capacity to be made available. The army hated the thing on sight. It was far too huge to hide like a normal tank and would obviously have attracted air attacks. Anyway it cost a fortune and couldn't be made quickly in large numbers.
|
|
Of course the V2 could have made a greater impact if the conventional warhead had been changed for a chemical one, or when the next bigger version of the V2 came online would have had the much flaunted (if never actually constructed) nuclear warhead.
|
|
I've been to Peenemünde (not many people know that) I've been to Rügen too (not many people know that either).
|
A better example than the Maus was the Tiger Tank and the King Tiger. Expensive to produce and incapable of mass production when the US was producing the far inferior Sherman in vast numbers - approx 40k in WW2.. the Tiger output was 1,937 - T34 production was 1,300 a month.
Even the German medium Panther tank saw less than 6,000 produced.
The Panzer 1V saw output less than 10,000 (9,870 est)
|
The classic example of Hitlers obsession with big was the ME 321/3 GIGANT A huge folly indeed.
Crew: three
Capacity: 130 troops
Length: 28.15 m (92 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 55 m (180 ft 5 in)
Height: 10.15 m (33 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 300 m² (3,228 sq ft)
Empty weight: 12,400 kg (27,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 34,400 kg (75,800 lb)
Drawn up in only 14 days, the massive Messerschmitt Gigant was designed as an assault glider for the invasion of Russia. The original Me 321 version needed rocket boost and three Me 110 tow planes to get airborne and dropped its take-off dolly to save weight and drag. This complicated arrangement led to many accidents, including one where all four crew and 120 troops were killed. ( the dolly bounced back up off the ground and snapped the tail off). To simplify, things, a powered version, the Me 323 was developed using the cheapest and puniest engines available and adding an eight-wheeled undercarriage. This reduced the carrying capacity greatly but improved practicality.
Used on several fronts, the Me 323 Gigant (Giant) proved vulnerable to attack from fighters and even medium bombers, and several massacres occurred with whole fleets of the lumbering transports shot down with heavy loss of life. The biggest of these occurred on 22 April 1943, when 16 Me 323s of Transportgeschwader 5 , fully laden with supplies of fuel for the Afrika Korps, were caught off Cape Bon, Tunisia, by two squadrons of RAF Spitfires and four squadrons of South African Air Force Kittyhawks. Fourteen Me 323s were shot down and destroyed, along with 240 tons of fuel, and of the 140 aircrew of TG5, only 19 survived.
|
>> The classic example of Hitlers obsession with big was the ME 321/3 GIGANT A huge
>> folly indeed.
Video of said beast..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OvyOeXnW0k
|
i think bomber command had a lot to do with the destruction of the v1 v2 launch sites
|
|
if you google earth peenemunde you can still see the launch rail device they used when they lit the blue touch paper all those years ago
|
>> i think bomber command had a lot to do with the destruction of the v1
>> v2 launch sites
A little, but Sir Arthur Travers "Bomber" Harris, 1st Baronet GCB OBE AFC was opposed to anything that diverted his forces from his avowed intention to bomb the heartland of Germany back to the dark ages.
Also they were not very good at it. Field launch sites were small and hard to target. Plus they failed to destroy Peenemünde, managing to kill most of the slave labour but nothing else of note.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 20:02
|
|
And to think that these days it could be done with half a dozen bombs and in as many seconds, scary eh?
|
It would be scary if Bomber Harris had his finger on the trigger.
To be fair, at one time he was all we had to carry the fight to Germany.
|
>> It would be scary if Bomber Harris had his finger on the trigger.
>>
Our politicians worry me at times. They are not the most responsible people.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 20:26
|
|
Absolutely - The RAF and the Navy gave a consistently good account throughout the war and Bomber Command was a huge tool. It appeased the Russians whilst the Army sat on its hands.
|
>> It would be scary if Bomber Harris had his finger on the trigger.
>>
>> To be fair, at one time he was all we had to carry the fight
>> to Germany.
>>
You think Adolf would have taken his foot off the throttle - as it were - had the Blitz worked?
Sorry Zero, those who've seen the horror of warfare have no qualms about allowing the powers-that-be to do their damndest to stop the war, thus stopping the killing.
Area bombing? Right on. Hiroshima? Go for it. Napalm? Pile it on. If it saves ONE life on your own side, then it is justified.
|
>> >> It would be scary if Bomber Harris had his finger on the trigger.
>> >>
>> >> To be fair, at one time he was all we had to carry the
>> fight
>> >> to Germany.
>> >>
>> You think Adolf would have taken his foot off the throttle - as it were
He did. Following the fall of France. Had he followed us across the channel after Dunkirk, Great Britain was ripe for the taking.
>> - had the Blitz worked?
>>
>> Sorry Zero, those who've seen the horror of warfare have no qualms about allowing the
>> powers-that-be to do their damndest to stop the war, thus stopping the killing.
The "Area Bombing Directive" authorising the bombing of Civilian Targets - note that Civilian - was designed to prolong the war and buy time.
Arthur "Bomber" Harris, Air Officer Commanding Bomber Command, described Lübeck as "built more like a fire-lighter than a human habitation." He wrote of the raid that "[Lübeck] went up in flames" because "it was a city of moderate size of some importance as a port, and with some submarine building yards of moderate size not far from it. It was not a vital target, but it seemed to me better to destroy an industrial town of moderate importance than to fail to destroy a large industrial city"
>> Area bombing? Right on. Hiroshima?
Do you know why Hiroshima was bombed? When a negotiated surrender of Japan was possible? To spook the Russians.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 20:42
|
>> Do you know why Hiroshima was bombed? When a negotiated surrender of Japan was possible?
>> To spook the Russians.
>>
Yep, but also saved a fair few US and Empire lives.
That chap Alfred Coppel wrote a story about what the invasion of the Home Islands would have been like had the bomb not been dropped.
GM Fraser also wrote of the fanaticism shown by starving nips right up to the order to surrender.
Having lost a fair few relatives in the wars, and having an uncle who was in the frontline in the Burma campaign, I may see things a tad differently than many others.
|
Lost my share in the wars too. But the point is that the "fighting hand to hand island by island to invade the home islands" would never have been required. The Japanese were beaten - no airforce, no navy, no resources, and were already putting out feelers for surrender.
The Russians were a worry, wanting to pour across China and grab most of Asia and chunks of Japan. That was also the very worry of the Japanese. The Americans needed to test the bomb and scare the Russians back. Hundreds of thousands of dead civilian Japanese political Guinea Pigs was the result.
Don't get me wrong, I know had Hitler or Tojo had the bomb they would have used it, but lets not try to justify it as a good thing. In the cold light of day we were no better than them.
|
I "get" the concept of capital punishment. Especially, exclusively in fact, if the recipient has without any shadow of a doubt committed such a heinous act or acts as to deserve it.
I "get" the concept of members of armed forces killing each other if their governments require them to, particularly if they are volunteers. At the point of doing so they made a decision which not only committed them to loyalty to their side but to the possibilty of being retaliated against. I still fail to see much "glory" in it but that's from a position of never having had to make those choices.
I do though have a major problem with tactical and deliberate killing of innocents. No matter what the "other side" has done.
|
>> I do though have a major problem with tactical and deliberate killing of innocents. No
>> matter what the "other side" has done.
>>
How do you define "innocent", are the people who drive the tankers that deliver the fuel to the guys who distribute the food to the people who run the supermarket that feeds the factory workers who make the bombs that kill your family "innocents"?
|
>> >> I do though have a major problem with tactical and deliberate killing of innocents.
>> No
>> >> matter what the "other side" has done.
>> >>
>> How do you define "innocent", are the people who drive the tankers that deliver the
>> fuel to the guys who distribute the food to the people who run the supermarket
>> that feeds the factory workers who make the bombs that kill your family "innocents"?
Their kids certainly are, or are they considered a legitimate target?
But hey this brings us right round in a complete circle. The V2 was an indiscriminate weapon developed for and aimed at Civilians.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 21:14
|
|
At that sort of level of removal, then yes they are innocent. Otherwise you get into chaos theories driven by butterflies flapping their wings on the other side of the world.
|
|
Following ON's logic - this would make, say the Square Mile a legitimate target for the Taliban ?
|
|
I think you'll find they think that as well.
|
>> Following ON's logic - this would make, say the Square Mile a legitimate target for
>> the Taliban ?
>>
If they could do it do you think they would miss the opportunity?
|
>> At that sort of level of removal, then yes they are innocent. >>
Sorry Humph, it doesn't work like that when war is declared.
|
|
Most civilian populations are unwilling participants in their nation's unwanted war - from what I've read a significant number of Germans in WW2 fell into this category.
|
Quote from Werner von Braun:
How do you know when you have made a good rocket?
When the launch site is safer than the target.
|
|
Not disputing your view ON. Just, I suppose, expressing concern, maybe even regret that those who claim righteousness are still of a mind to accept such things as inevitable. We still have a way to go as a species don't we? Let's hope we still have something worth fighting for by the time the penny, rather than the bomb, drops.
|
>>
>> He did. Following the fall of France. Had he followed us across the channel after
>> Dunkirk, Great Britain was ripe for the taking.
>>
Not sure it would have been possible at all. A huge undertaking for the germans, there has been some research into it looking at the reports from then. Having looked at them the chances of them being successful and invading this country were pretty slim. They would have got some men ashore but it would have been a disaster for them.
|
|
There was no way he could have done at that time - the truth is France fell far quicker than the Germans anticipated and was as much of surprise to them as anyone, their supply lines were stretched to breaking point. They didn't have air-superiority let alone supremacy, they didn't have any cross-channel capability, the RN still dominated the Channel - they would have been slaughtered by the RN and RAF.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 21:39
|
>> - they would have been slaughtered by the RN and RAF.
Debatable. The RAF and Luftwuffe would have been comparable fighting over shipping in the channel. The Navy for sure would have had a hard time from the German fly boys.
The German navy was pretty badly balanced tho, far too capital ship intensive for close in stuff like that and the U-boats would have had trouble in shallow water.
|
|
There were some grievous tactical/strategic errors by Churchill as well that might have contributed to capitulation - he should have left the fighting to the uniform boys.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 21:49
|
|
comparable wouldn't have cut it. You need to be in total control for something like that. Unbalanced you can say that again. The germans hadn't put any real thought into invading the uk. They only had a fraction of the shipping and a lot of those were flat bottomed river barges. To say the german army weren't impressed would be an understatement!
|
|
They were also too "unmechanized" heavily dependent on horses at that stage of the war - my considered belief is that they never would have pulled it off.
|
|
i've little doubt personally either. Some of the solutions were unlikely to work to say the least. They couldn't move even half the men they needed. The more i read about the more i thought it was nothing more than a pipe dream.
|
>> comparable wouldn't have cut it. You need to be in total control for something like
>> that. Unbalanced you can say that again. The germans hadn't put any real thought into
>> invading the uk. They only had a fraction of the shipping and a lot of
>> those were flat bottomed river barges. To say the german army weren't impressed would be
>> an understatement!
Have you studied the invasion of Crete? look at how the German invaded, sorry correction, look how the British allowed that happen, and apply some of those tactics to getting a foot hold on the uk.
|
|
i have but the situations aren't really that comparable. Have you studied the practice landings of the germans in belgium in 1940? They were a tiny dry run of the proposed operation. All known problems magnified of which there were many. They couldn't knock a plan up in a couple of months and all 3 arms of the german forces knew it.
|
>> i have but the situations aren't really that comparable. Have you studied the practice landings
>> of the germans in belgium in 1940? They were a tiny dry run of the
>> proposed operation. All known problems magnified of which there were many. They couldn't knock a
>> plan up in a couple of months and all 3 arms of the german forces
>> knew it.
The Battle of Fort Eben-Emae is the key. A variant was used on Crete, would have been easy to do the same at Manston and Hawkinge. and Tangmere.
|
|
that's a possible. But when you can only move between 30 and 50% of the men you need. Plus a whole host of far larger problems, knocking out a couple of fighter stations isn't going to be of great concern.
|
|
the key to such ops is surprise and keeping the upper hand till the main force turns up, since the chances of that are remote it doesn't count for a great deal.
|
A larger force lands out at the now captured airfields and moves to take dover from the rear.
|
|
So how did they fly there in the face of a strong RAF presence with a very well organized defence...?
|
How did the Bombers get through to london
The RAF had no night fighter capability.
|
|
theres a difference from dropping bombs on london and a glider assault force landing at night to take an raf station.
|
|
your larger force in this context comes by sea not air. Which is highly unlikely to come.
|
|
It is if Manston, Tangmere and hawkinge now have german fighters on.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 23:29
|
|
you mean operate from there? Now your just being daft.
|
>> you mean operate from there? Now your just being daft.
It happened in crete, its a perfectly feasible plan you need to hold an airfield for 48 hours max to gain a strong foot hold. there was no british army to prevent it.
Its only part of a plan. probably considered too. Like the V2 defence, you push the defence back from the coast.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 31 Mar 12 at 23:39
|
|
you need to hold it for 48 hours why? Because they are lightly armed and require a large follow on force. In this case by sea. As we know now, this was highly unlikely to happen for a whole host of reasons. So talk of capturing airfields is a means to an end not an end in itself. So it doesn't really change the outcome. They can't get enough manpower and kit across the channel this we know now.
|
>> >>
>> >> He did. Following the fall of France. Had he followed us across the channel
>> after
>> >> Dunkirk, Great Britain was ripe for the taking.
>> >>
>> Not sure it would have been possible at all. A huge undertaking for the germans,
>> there has been some research into it looking at the reports from then. Having looked
>> at them the chances of them being successful and invading this country were pretty slim.
>> They would have got some men ashore but it would have been a disaster for
>> them.
That - the would it have worked - of course is, as they say, the 64 million dollar question. We can be sure that right after the fall of Dunkirk was the best chance, it was quite a long window too. But he didnt, he looked east and at that moment sowed the seeds of the fall of the Third Reich.
|
|
Not much doubt at all really. More like the 2 buck question.
|
|
well lets say HM gov thought it a serious problem, They were really not at all laid back about it.
|
|
They didn't have the full picture as we do now.
|
|
At the end of the day, I would have taken my chance across the Channel rather than across the Steppes!
|
|
That would have been a no-brainer - we didn't have any T34 factories !! If they hadn't gone east the whole Adler Tag thing would have gone the other way...and if Hitler hadn't turned his attention to the bombing of civvi targets and not finished off the airfields first.
|
|
The UK didn't win the war - it was simply on the winning side, and this was despite Churchill and despite the British Army.
|
|
In any conflict, from playground to world-wide, destroying the will to fight is more important than destroying the capability to fight.
|
v2 find - Zero
