dieseltaylor Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Following on from the query on engine technologies I was reading an excellent book on air combat and it mentioned the gyroscopic sights which basically made average pilots as lethal as good pilots. So trying to restrict it to WW2 action/possible use Brits Radar Gyroscopic sights Asdic/Sonar [astonishingly early] Hedgehog Jet engine AWACs Window chaff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28countermeasure%29 HFDF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipsqueak#Pipsqueak Germans Rockets Jet engines good Bazookas Chaff US Bazooka site of the work on the atom bomb Italians midget subs? I am sure the US did invent new war technologies - what were they 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 24, 2010 Author Share Posted August 24, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Inn_%28codename%29 automatic radar controlled plane turret 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 US-napalm, cheap synthetic rubber, VT fuses. France: pre-packaged cheeses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 British: Jet engine. Integrated air defence system? Magnetic mine sweeping. US-napalm, cheap synthetic rubber, VT fuses. France: pre-packaged cheeses. Invented by the British, developed by the US. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 I'm not sure that I'd call what the Italians had midget submarines. They were more like rideable torpedos. The Japanese had true midget submarines and later the British did too. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 There's radio control of missiles by both the Germans and US - German glider bombs, Fritz-X & AA missile (Wasserfall?), and US Azon USA & UK - digital computers (Colossus & ENIAC respectively) Germany was also devbeloping them - see Konrad Zuse....but wasn't using them AFAIK. UK: 4, 6 and 10 ton bombs HESH Germany: Swept wing Air-independant propulsion for subs Helicopter Acoustic torpedo Wire guided AT missile IR sights AA mssile "Assault rifle" concept Invented here & Developed there: Bazooka - US & Germany VT Fuses - UK & USA Radar: UK & everyone 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 The US also developed and fielded IR devices, the Sniperscope and the Snooperscope. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Cool - I had no idea the US had IR too - thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Following on from the query on engine technologies I was reading an excellent book on air combat and it mentioned the gyroscopic sights which basically made average pilots as lethal as good pilots. Some would hold the view that there were only a few good fighter pilots. The rest just made up the numbers and provided the kill scores for the good pilots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 IR: Ah thats the kind of info we are looking for : ) as for helicoptors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_helicopters_used_in_World_War_II thats one hell of a list for Germany. An example of undirected "planning"? floating tanks DUKW - US PLUTO Funnies Dozer tanks APDS Airportable tanks - USSR? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Airportable tanks - USSR? The Locust 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 British - the mulberry harbour? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 The Locust Late, and not nearly sexy enough...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Late' date=' and not nearly sexy enough...... So the Soviets developed the "Theoretically airportable tank, assuming we had an aircraft capable of delivering it". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 You should have read the whole article, and not just the bit about the glider tank. The Tetrach wasn't actually designed to be an airborne tank - it was just something that was light enough to fit into a Hamilcar glider! By that definition the M1 is an airborne tank now there are aircraft capable of transporting it! The US M22 Locust was actually designed to be an airborne tank 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 The US M22 Locust was actually designed to be an airborne tank That's why I linked to it. Are you back on the drugs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Nah - I just usually don't bother reading your posts due to lack of actual content. Just like you apparently don't bother reading all of wiki once you've identified the first picture Of course if you are looking for "theoretically airportable tanks if only we had the aircraft to carry them" then the French start thinking about it in the 1930's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Just like you apparently don't bother reading all of wiki once you've identified the first picture . The bit where they strap "tankettes" under the bombers? ie. not tanks. Just the crappy Soviet equivalent of a Bren carrier. Or you mean the bit where they have to ditch the actual tank because of the drag? Tank lands safely of course. Yes, I read that. The tank that even to get it up in the air they have to strip it of "armament, ammunition, headlights and leaving a very limited amount of fuel". So they are gliding in a mobile metal box. Once. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 The bit where any tank light enough to be carried in , under, or towed behind an aircraft is Airportable. Like the M1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Here's another one I'm sure you'll love - Christie from 1932..... If you can find a copy of Lt Col Glantz's 1984 study "The Soviet Airborne Experience" online, he has TOE's for Airborne Brigades that include 11 T-38's or T-40's as part of the air landable component in 1940 (Table 4, page 21) - the Brigade had 3 groups - a parachute group & a glider group that weer identical, and an "Air landing" Group that included the light tanks. Sadly there is no mention of just where the gliders or transports for them were to come from! the Airborne Corps of 1941 had 50 light tanks (Table 5) - later reduced to 32 - presumably due to a dearth of transports! Actually that's a little unfair - the lack of transports is acknowledged, and efforts were apparently underway to get them...but this was in early June 1941, and things were about to get out of hand with the development of transport aircraft losing some its priority! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Well I am a little bit biased, because I had a relative in the 1st Airborne (Arty). But I think about one of the worst jobs in the world must have been crash landing a Hamilcar glider into a field with 7 tonnes of tank strapped below and behind you. Ditto a Horsa with a jeep or howitzer behind your head and only plywood as protection. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 And we shouldn't forget German innovations like anti-matter generators, flying discs with Panther turrets etc. Serious Brit contributions would also have been some of the specialised ordnance like the earthquake bomb concept for penetrating hardened structures. Also Penicillin. At least that one was about saving lives! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Aff - hell being any sort of airborne troops was pretty damned hazardous in WW2 (althought I think not as bad as submarine or heavy bomber crews!)- so your rellie has my sympathy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 so your rellie has my sympathy! Unfortunately the Nebelwerfers were not as sympathetic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 27, 2010 Author Share Posted August 27, 2010 Slightly off topic - but as I cam across it researching this thread ... http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/flying%20wings/europe_interwar.htm Some seriously weird shapes! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.