Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dieseltaylor

Technology in WW2

Recommended Posts

I could build a functional airburst fuze for a bomb at home from a plastic drink bottle and two pieces of wire. That fuze certainly wouldn't work, though, as the fuze for an artillery round (be it AA or field).

I am glad John realises the difference between a bomb and a shell.

Really? Do you think he does? I don't. To be fair, though, his uber-source - Baldwin - clearly also doesn't know the difference between a bomb and a shell. So it's no surprise that Kettloon comes to cr@p conclusions, since he's relying on cr@p sources. That still makes him - Kettloon - a cr@p "analyst" though. It's really no surprise he gotr fired from his uber-sekrit job for the DoD ... assuming he ever actually had an uber-sekrit job at the DoD, and didn't just imagine the whole thing. Frankly, given his ongoing record of deception, lies, credulity, and generally sloppy thinking I'm strongly incling to the view that it's just another facet of his fantasy world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ironbar,

If you actually read the hydrogen peroxide therapy article, it clearly states it must be diluted to 3% concentration, not drunk at full strength!

Stalin's Organist and JonS,

I see I had a brain interrupt and inadvertently botched the quote. The corrected quote should actually read "...although the Japanese did develop a proximity fuze for shells and successfully dropped one bomb on Saipan."

So, Baldwin, a Section T insider who first worked AA applications for VT and later was instrumental in getting the VT fuze successfully introduced into ground warfare, has independently confirmed the Japanese had proximity fuzed shells--in addition to proximity fuzed bombs. The quote previously given from page 64 is correctly stated. As for the point raised by Affentitten, Iwo Jima was invaded February 19, 1945 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima , and Baldwin says the loss of Iwo Jima prevented any further attacks on B-29 bases. B-29s were on Saipan by October 12, 1944 and flying combat missions on October 28, 1944 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress Fully loaded, the Saipan field alone could hold 180 B-29s. A juicy target, to be sure! Thus, the Japanese had a window of almost four months in which to mount the referenced attack, but I do not know when the Japanese VT bomb first went operational. The delivery aircraft, the P1Y Ginga, went operational in 1945, cutting the window to a bit less than two months in which the mission could've been flown from Iwo.

JonS,

More namecalling, I see, followed by more untruths. I never worked for the DoD, but for Hughes and Rockwell, as even cursory search would've shown. The second lie is that I was fired, when the truth is that I resigned. This has also been discussed. And, yes, I do know the difference between a shell and bomb.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the point raised by Affentitten, Iwo Jima was invaded February 19, 1945 ... B-29s were on Saipan by October 12, 1944 and flying combat missions on October 28, 1944 ... Thus, the Japanese had a window of almost four months in which to mount the referenced attack.

Very good, Kettliar. Now explain this previous lie:

In June, 1944, the Japanese bombed an airbase on recently captured Saipan, with a single1700 pound proximity bomb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JK put forth:

I see I had a brain interrupt and inadvertently botched the quote. The corrected quote should actually read "...although the Japanese did develop a proximity fuze for shells and successfully dropped one bomb on Saipan."

And the following bit about the bfuses being fitted to bombs?

And as has already been stated, this "evidence" is an uncorroborated statment - we have no idea what the writer's source of the information was, and the veracity of the person as an "independant scientist" is irrelevant unless we can check them.

It remains an unsupported conclusion - no better then conjecture. Indeed as far as I am concerned is is worse than conjecture - at least with conjecture you usually have some trail of verifiable evidence, "A, and B, so C, and I wonder if D...." - you can evaluate A, B and C, and have a discussion about the likelihood of D.

Your position of "someone said it so it must be true" is unscientific, unsound, illogical, specious, doesn't follow, irrational and doesn't hold up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stalin's Organist,

Baldwin's first book had no footnotes at all, which makes running down the data challenging, to say the least. Almost two decades later (1999), he wrote THEY NEVER KNEW WHAT HIT 'EM, an expanded version of THE DEADLY FUZE. The good news here is that the second book does have footnotes; the bad news is that this book was self-published and seems to suffer accordingly. Of proximity fuzes for bombs, Baldwin has this to say (Fair use)

"During the war, Japan also worked on proximity fuzes of the non-rugged kind. One of the foremost and imaginative of Japanese scientists, Dr. Tsunesaburo Asada, (2) put major efforts into the development of a proximity fuze for bombs. Only one bomb with such a fuze was used in combat. One of Japan's most advanced long-range bombers, the Ginga, carrying a single seventeen hundred pound bomb, had flown to Saipan and attacked out main base. The fuze had operated properly, thirty-five feet above the airfield, and scores of parked B-29s were destroyed or damaged.

But Japan could not repeat the performance because its base in Iwo Jima was soon in American hands and the round trip to Saipan from Japan was outside the bomber's sixteen-hundred-mile range.

The Japanese Navy ordered 20,000 fuzes to be manufactured; 12,000 were eventually produced. Many were fitted to bombs and stored secretly on Kyushu for use in the expected American invasion..."

If Dr. Baldwin got his citation right, footnote 2 is to Walter Dornberger's book V-2, The Viking Press, 1954, p.222. I don't have the book, so can't readily check.

As long as a given VT fuze can fit the fuze pocket, and the application doesn't exceed its design strength, it can be used on multiple munitions. A non-rugged fuze, for example, could also be used on an aircraft rocket, a glide bomb, etc. Similarly, a rugged fuze, suitable for use in AAA and field artillery, could be and was adapted to a variety of shells, as seen in page 159 of the second book.

(Fair use)

"Teas was assigned the job of writing specifications for drilling out the TNT in the 90-mm and 3.7-inch shells so that the short, new VT fuzes could be used. Replacement ammunition, of course, would come with a proper cavity and a cardboard-covered TNT filler plug so that they could he (sic) be used with either Pozit or conventional fuzes."

Likewise, p. 90 of that same book shows how the T-76 fuze group nicely accommodated the 155mm, 8" and 240 mm.

Regarding Dr. Asada, I found this (Fair use)

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/tomwitts/active/chap7.htm

Excerpt is from here: From 'Ruin From The Air' by Gordon Thomas & Max Morgan Witts

"On Kyushu, airplane bombs would be fitted with proximity fuzes similar to the ones being perfected at Los Alamos. When the Americans came, it was planned that the bombs would be exploded at mast height above the warships and landing craft, so as to cause maximum casualties.

The fuze had been developed by Dr. Tsunesaburo Asada, possibly Japan's most imaginative scientist. Asada had also worked on atomic research until it was decided that it would take ten years to produce atomic weapons because Japan did not have the essential raw uranium. Now Asada was at work on a death ray, a machine designed to project an invisible beam that would pluck an aircraft out of the sky either by shattering its propellers or killing its crew, but the device was only in the experimental stage. "

There's lots more online about this heavy hitter in Japanese and global scientific circles.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do so love the way you deliberately strip things of context in order to mallet them into conforming to your bullsh!t 'analysis'. For example

Similarly, a rugged fuze, suitable for use in AAA and field artillery, could be and was adapted to a variety of shells, as seen in page 159 of the second book.

3.7-in and 90mm IS anti aircraft. Modifying the rounds so it will accept the fuze designed for it is NOT a startling example of adapting the fuze :rolleyes:

But that's the way it goes with you, isn't it Kettliar? Black is white, white is black - whatever it takes to sustain your myriad mental diseases and deficiencies.

Dr. Tsunesaburo Asada, ... worked on atomic research ... a death ray, a machine designed to project an invisible beam that would pluck an aircraft out of the sky either by shattering its propellers or killing its crew, but the device was only in the experimental stage."

Experimental stage. Heh. That's a rather generous interpretation. Black is white. White is black. And the Kettliar rolls on it's merry lying way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JS: Do you think JK would actually read that book tho? I mean...

Unlike some of the sensationalized books about Japanese secret weapons, Walter Grunden provides a very scholarly, heavily footnoted, factual examination of the subject without resorting to speculation and hysteria.

Not exactly his forte, is it!

JK - yes a fuse can be fitted to anything - I have no doubt that a VT fuse for a shell could be fitted to a bomb and work just fine.

Trouble is you haven't actually shown that there was a VT fuse for a shell at all.

the only VT fuse you have shown is one we know about already - it is for bombs, it was used on bombs.

When your source says 12,000 fuses were fitted to bombs I am pretty certain that those were bomb fuses that they fitted...because a bomb fuse existed, and a shell one did not AFAIK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JS: Do you think JK would actually read that book tho? I mean ... Not exactly his forte' date=' is it![/quote']

No, of course he won't read it! He is an intellectually dishonest liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JonS,

Neither shell was designed to take the VT fuze listed. That is why the basic shells were modified. FYI, the 90 mm gun could be and was used in ground combat, as seen in the Wiki under the M2 version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_mm_Gun_M1/M2/M3

M2

"A complete redesign to make the gun dual role, functioning as an anti-tank gun as well as an anti-aircraft gun. The ammunition feed was upgraded and an automatic fuze setter/rammer the M20 was added. This enabled the rate of fire to reach up to 24 rounds per minute. Elevation was improved with the gun able to depress to −10 degrees. To protect the crew a large metal shield was added. The M2 was the standard weapon by May 13, 1943. From the march it could fire from its wheels in 3 minutes, and from a fully emplaced position in 7 minutes. In 1944 the weapon was enhanced with the addition of proximity fused shells."

Likewise the British 3.7 inch gun was also used as field artillery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7_inch_AA_gun I note the Wiki author seems utterly ignorant that VT was released for land warfare December 18, 1944 and was used in the Po River Campaign in Italy. The 3.7 inch was fitted with the No. 45 VT fuze in this role, same as for AA.

"The guns were used in the field artillery role quite extensively in the second half of the war in Italy, NW Europe, Burma and the SW Pacific. Batteries were issued with the necessary fire control equipment. Counter-battery or counter-mortar fire was the usual role. However, their HE ammunition seems to have always been fuzed for airburst, this means maximum ranges were limited to 9,200 yards with No 199 fuze and 16,200 yards with No 208."

Stalin's Organist,

Until today, I hadn't heard of the Grunden book, but it is now of considerable interest to me, not just for the VT fuze matter, but because I have an article in mind and am hoping to find some additional info in this book on the weapon I'm researching. That said, I did look up a review of the book here. http://www.springerlink.com/content/0872325438564410/ The reviewer's notes that most of Grunden's emphasis is negative regarding Japanese scientific-technical developments and cites sources used as a major contributor to the problem. Please note that the HTML version of the book review doesn't work, so it's PDF or nothing.

The publisher is a bit more effusive in its writeup. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/grusec.html

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither shell was designed to take the VT fuze listed. That is why the basic shells were modified.

No sh!t sherlock. The point here, of course, is that the shells were modified to fit the fuze, not the other way round. You should take it as read that everybody else on the planet can read, comprehend, and analyse better than you can.

Also; shell != bomb

FYI, the 90 mm gun could be and was used in ground combat

No sh!t sherlock. It is still an AA gun being used in a ground role. You should take it as read that everybody else on the planet - and certainly everyone on this forum - has a deeper knowledge of WWII than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JonS,

I you read the two Baldwin books listed, you'll also find it clearly stated that adapting VT fuzes to howitzer shells forced considerable redesign because the spin rates were much lower for the latter, as were the setback forces, both mechanisms of which were integral parts of the fuze's Safe and Arm functions. Lower G forces required changing the setback fuze, while lower spin rates affected when the fuze would arm and forced the batteries to be redesigned as well, since the batteries were activated at firing but couldn't function until the separately stored electrolyte was spun by rotational forces between the plates. Numerous reworks of all manner of components were required to adapt the VT fuze to some of the conventional ground artillery, especially the slow stuff with low spin rates compared to AA guns.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a need for a different battery in the lower velocity howitzer fuses - but to describe this as a "considerable redeisgn" seesm like a silly exageration.

Development of various VT fuses is described in this document - there were all sorts of problems....but none of them were particularly serious as far as I can tell - just logical responses to various problems encountered, and none of them unique to artillery as opposed to AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stalin's Organist,

I've been meaning to get back to you on this for quite some time, but if you read the two Baldwin books (was there and was instrumental in getting VT into field artillery), it was no simple fix, for the fundamental operating conditions for the fuze had changed, and everything designed to work in the extreme G and sideslap environment of an AA gun had to change to reflect this, not just batteries. For example, spin rate affected the Safe & Arm function, necessitating changing out special sintered porous metal cups and replacing them with a new design allowing electrolyte to flow at the proper rate into the battery. Inadequate setback meant redesigning the setback fuze to accommodate much lower Gs. Basically, the setback fuze stopped working, there not being enough G to trigger it. And the list goes on from there. Getting VT to the filed artillery was a nontrivial problem requiring careful analysis, lots of rethinking and redesign, then producing fuzes for weapons ranging from a 75mm howitzer up through a a 240 mm howitzer, and special fixes being required for some of the British ammo.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were no "fundamental" changes to operating conditions - the shells still accelerated fast, and spun. Certainly the parameters changed, but that is not fundamental John, and setting up the system to respond to different parameters does not, IMO, constitute a "special fix" - it is, as I said, a job of resetting parameters.

nontrivial? Yeah - sure. Somehow magical and evidence of anything other than another problem to be worked through and solved? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stalin's Organist,

May I respectfully request you read the two Baldwin books and then get back to me? There, you can read the facts for yourselves, look at many of the device specs, vet the sources, etc. Baldwin is a primary source himself, since he was directly involved in and key to this effort. If the above approach doesn't work for you, then let's just agree to disagree.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...