Slashdot Mirror


Hitler's Stealth Fighter

DesScorp writes "Aviation Week reports on a television special from the National Geographic Channel on what may have been the world's first true stealth fighter, the Horten Ho 229, a wooden design that was to include a layer of carbon material sandwiched in the leading edge to defeat radar. Northrop Grumman, experts at stealth technology from their Tacit Blue and B-2 programs, have built a full-size replica of the airframe and tested it at their desert facilities where they determined that the design was indeed stealthy, and would have been practically invisible to Britain's Chain Home radar system of WWII."

111 of 582 comments (clear)

  1. Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What DIDN'T Hitler Do?

    1. Re:Man by cool_story_bro · · Score: 5, Funny

      What DIDN'T Hitler Do?

      make friends as a child?

      --
      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
    2. Re:Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What DIDN'T Hitler Do?

      Succeed as an artist?

    3. Re:Man by bytethese · · Score: 5, Funny

      Win the war, thankfully.

    4. Re:Man by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm glad that Indiana Jones was able to destroy this thing in Egypt, before it got off the ground. Otherwise, who knows how the war would have gone?

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    5. Re:Man by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get into college?

    6. Re:Man by Lakitu · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm guessing you haven't seen Hitler's artwork.

  2. Best Photos by samtihen · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Best Photos by chrb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The development of stealth technology is one of those secretive fields that has an instant fascination. I quite enjoyed reading Ben Rich's autobiography. Also Hitler's plan to atom bomb New York and The Real Heroes of Telemark were both quite interesting, casting two sides of the same global battle from very different perspectives. German scientists were some of the best in the world (not that they are so bad today..). Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.

    2. Re:Best Photos by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.

      Not hardly, as Jacob McCandles would have said. The Germans biggest problem in the war wasn't their technology, it was their production. The USA built enough tanks that they could afford to give away more than the total German tank production. The Soviets built more tanks than the USA.

      Airplanes, the USA built enough to give away more than the Germans made. The Soviets didn't build more than the USA, but they built nearly as many.

      The USA built more ships than everyone else combined, much less the Germans.

      And on and on like that. Nothing the Germans could have done would have mattered a hill of beans, really - the only way they could have won that war was if they'd started building up their industry to USA/USSR levels in the 20's.

      And even then, their chances would have been slim at best - they didn't have the manpower to operate industry at our level and put 20 million men in the field at the same time.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Best Photos by ijakings · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think albert einstein proved this correct when he travelled back in time and killed hitler.

    4. Re:Best Photos by fprintf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Everyone kills Hitler their first time.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    5. Re:Best Photos by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.

      Mostly because you've bought into the hype surrounding WWII German VunderVeapons. In reality, Germany never had an atom bomb (they weren't even close), let alone a plane capable of delivering it over strategic distances (they weren't even close), let alone a plan to use these non existent bombs and aircraft to attack New York. Sure, they had enough bits and pieces that with enough hype and lack of journalistic integrity one could create the illusion of such things for entertainment value... But such entertainment should not be confused with a documentary.

    6. Re:Best Photos by MariusBoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some parts of the world got unlucky. The Soviets and Americans winning the war was not good for everybody.

    7. Re:Best Photos by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But one German tank could shoot down ten Russian ones. So the count alone is not the point.
      Besides, Hitler's advantage was the Blitzkrieg. He was too fast. That was all.
      And in the end, that killed him too, because the army was spread to much, and they could not hold the areas behind the fronts anymore.
      If he had just stopped at one point, where he could still hold it, he might have had a chance.
      Then wait a generation, for people to get used to it. And expand again. Like breathing.

      Of course, being evil to everyone but a small group was not doing him any good anyway. I would have done it like the Chinese did, up to the 13th century.
      They came with a *huge* army. Like 10 times what the others had. And much more advanced. But they did come not with kills, but with gifts. So much, that nearly everybody gave in, and joined their empire. It was nearly a win-win.
      They nearly came to Europe with this tactic. But some retard thought that now China had to capsule itself off from everyone. So they stopped and shrunk.

      I wonder how it would have ended, if they continued that method until now. Eurasia as one Chinese country, without communism, but with a democracy instead. America found by Columbus, the Spanish-Chinese. became independent too, but in a much bigger war, which could have been called World War I.
      Or would the have been fallen into pieces, like any giant Empire ever (Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, Nazis, UDSSR, USA?, Arabic Union?)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:Best Photos by delt0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      German scientists were some of the best in the world..

      Yep, and were a little to Jewish or otherwise and left Germany and then ended up in the Manhattan project. Define Irony.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    9. Re:Best Photos by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, because people were generally stupid then.

      Other astounding inventions from tree-dwelling tailhangers in the first half of the 20th century: nuclear power, transistors, purified penicillin, and television.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:Best Photos by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Besides, Hitler's advantage was the Blitzkrieg. He was too fast

      Umm, no. The Blitzkrieg was dead by 1943. Alas, it couldn't function well without air superiority. Which the Germans didn't have anywhere after 1942.

      Guderian wrote a book on Panzer warfare in the early 30's. It included a really insightful table listing engine production by the major powers, which Guderian considered to be the most obvious metric by which one could assess a nation's ability to fight effectively using AFVs properly.

      He made the point that, at that time, Germany was comparable to its hypothetical enemies (UK, France, USSR, Germany, all had about 5% of the world's engine production at that time). But he also pointed out that the USA made 75% of the engines in the world....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:Best Photos by forgetmenot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Beautiful photos... I was surprised by the swastika banners in the background of the last one though.

      I'm not offended. I've got absolutely nothing against swatikas per se, whether in the context of the nazis, general history, or otherwise and I loathe the kind of censorship that bans their display.

      Still, I'm not the general public and given the sensitivity of segments of the general public to this symbol I think it's intriguing that someone would go through the trouble of a) creating the banners, b) getting on a ladder and hanging them in a hanger bay, and c) taking a "romanticised" photo of the whole thing. From the perspective of documenting a piece of technology it was unnecessary though it does add to the artistic aesthetic of the photo.

      Is it a brave decision? An insensitive one? Maybe the swastika simply doesn't hold the kind of meaning it did 60 years ago? I just find it somewhat peculiar.

    12. Re:Best Photos by Azarael · · Score: 2, Informative

      But one German tank could shoot down ten Russian ones. So the count alone is not the point.

      Don't see the Russians short. Their tanks may not have been as technically advanced as the Germans' were, but they were designed for the terrain where the battles were taking place (snow, cold, mud pits) and they were easier to repair and manufacture. I think that if we looked at what happened in these battles, you wouldn't see the lopsided a result you're claiming.

    13. Re:Best Photos by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In other words, you've bought the hype. But what those books and TV shows about Enigma don't tell you about is HUFF-DUFF, traffic analysis, radar, sonar (ASDIC), the ASW patrols in the Bay of Biscay, the large numbers of convoy escorts built, the CVE/CVL (light carriers) programs, hedgehog, leigh lights, etc... etc...
       
      Enigma was very important, of that there is no doubt. But it was only one arrow in a large and well stocked quiver.

    14. Re:Best Photos by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      You forget the USA wasn't at war at first. Had England been overcome in the early stages, it is unlikely the USA would ever have had the guts to take on Germany. As for Russia, they barely held on also, and probably wouldn't have without aid from the Allies (which wouldn't have existed at that point if England had been successfully invaded). True that Russia had some sweet tanks at the time, but they didn't have any good leaders. Stalin had purged the army and everyone from the grunt to the general were green.

      Truly, if it hadn't been for England holding on in the Battle of Britain AND the Soviets holding on at Stalingrad, things might have been very different.

      Stalingrad happened in the winter of 1942-43. USA was in the war by then.

      In addition, Roosevelt had bent our neutrality laws out of shape before the USA entered the war, to the point that we were supplying both the UK and USSR with material long before we started shooting.

      And note that Hitler had no real hope of invading England successfully. Examine the force required to invade France sometime. It's fairly safe to assume that the Germans would have required at least that much force to invade the UK (at least, since the Luftwaffe was not designed to provide the level of aerial support that we used, nor was the Kriegsmarine capable of providing the firesupport we provided with our Navy (much less what the Royal Navy brought to the Table for D-Day)), and there is no way in hell they could have built the ships required, much less the rest of it, unless they'd started in the early 30's.

      Finally, it must be noted that lack of "guts" isn't why we didn't enter the war earlier. Lack if interest in what was, essentially, yet another European war was the issue. The assumption that the USA should have cared about border re-alignments in Europe for their own sake is just silly....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  3. If it were only in the leading edge by Canazza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They'd only see the plane leaving, not arriving, which is quite an interesting compromise, as every other stealth programme goes with the notion that it has to be invisible at all times.

    This was designed so that, once it passed Britains coastal radar, they wouldn't be able to scramble fighters fast enough once they did detect them. Rather ingenious.

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    1. Re:If it were only in the leading edge by icebrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      every other stealth programme goes with the notion that it has to be invisible at all times.

      Not exactly. You will never be invisible, and stealth technology/employment is a lot more complicated than "we'll just be invisible". Even today, remaining undetected until past the threat is a fairly well-used technique. Just look at the F-22. And even if your airframe isn't fully-LO, you see a lot of emphasis on reducing frontal RCS. The B-1, Typhoon, Rafale, and Super Hornet all use some degree of RCS reduction, which buys them that much more time to get in close. Modern cruise missiles use the same principle.

      Interestingly enough, raw speed can buy you some of the same advantages. Go fast enough and high enough, and the defenses just won't have enough time to react, even if you're lit up like a billboard.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    2. Re:If it were only in the leading edge by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Interesting

          That sounds like the SR-71 plan. Fly really high and really fast, and nothing will get you. :) I've read reports of missiles being fired at SR-71's. The SR-71 can simply outrun them without trying too hard. Of course, at over Mach 3, your travel time to anywhere is substantially reduced. :) I would imagine something like that even if it showed up on radar would look like an error. "We have a blip here. No, we have a blip there. No, it's gone, it was nothing." :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:If it were only in the leading edge by quanticle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, ICBMs are pretty predictable, but, as the grandparent points out, intercepting something coming in at near-orbital velocity is hard even when you know where its going to be. And, of course, this is ignoring MIRVs, decoys, etc.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    4. Re:If it were only in the leading edge by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Funny
      Stealth bombers have one fundamental design problem - none have equally stealthy bomb bay doors, when open.

      The Japanese would have solved this by not having any bomb bay doors in the first place.

    5. Re:If it were only in the leading edge by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't make those SR-71 pilots too cocky or they'll rub it in to the other airplane pilots.

    6. Re:If it were only in the leading edge by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Interesting

          I've seen 61-7972 at the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Center, Dullas Airport, Virginia and 61-7958 at Warner-Robbins AFB, Georgia. Apparently I've been near a few others, but didn't know they were there (Like California, Arizona, Texas, Louisana, and Florida). When I get a chance to start traveling again, I'm going to make a serious effort to see the rest of them.

          I have a sneaky suspicion that they may end up un-mothballed again. The two I've seen, I noticed were in perfect condition with fresh tires and all. Looking in the intake and exhaust they still had their engines. Lots of decommissioned aircraft have the engines removed. Lots of times, you'll see the hollow space inside where an engine should be, or a well repainted (or overpainted) things that shouldn't have paint if they need to fly again. I didn't notice any of that on these. They didn't look like they were decommissioned to live out life in a museum. They look like they were being stored in a nice climate controlled environment for future use. I asked at one of them, and was told "It wouldn't be the first time they were pulled out of the museums for active duty".

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  4. not so fast by queequeg1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe that the advances in detection technology would always have allowed the allies to hear a Horton Ho.

    1. Re:not so fast by Canazza · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd be more certain that the plane would pick up local BBC Radio chatter

      meaning that maybe, Horton heard Dr Who...

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  5. NSFW by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    what with swastika flags and all. I'll be in trouble if someone has overseen my screen just then, being a german living in Britain.

    1. Re:NSFW by mdm-adph · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tell them you were reminding yourself about just how bad a person Hitler was. And then chomp down on a big banger while saluting a picture of the queen to let them know how much you love England.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    2. Re:NSFW by Kuroji · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've got mod points, but I can't find anything that matches +1 Frightful Police State.

    3. Re:NSFW by 13bPower · · Score: 5, Funny

      In America, we call it a sausage in the mouth.

    4. Re:NSFW by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Europe learned a lesson from the fascists. Curtailing free speech was a powerful aid in keeping those regimes in power.

      Therefore, in order to completely disavow that era, European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good. If you are a European government minister, this makes complete sense.

      It's important to bear in mind that free speech has never had the same value or application in Europe that it has in places like the US. In the US, its a sacred right, the Most Holy First Amendment. In Europe, it's just considered a pretty good idea, as long as it doesn't get overly inconvenient or embarrassing for the government. Just because they invented the concept doesn't mean that they have fully implemented it.

    5. Re:NSFW by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or by it's "unofficial" name - Lance Bass.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    6. Re:NSFW by Eternauta3k · · Score: 4, Funny

      what with swastika flags and all. I'll be in trouble if someone has overseen my screen just then, being a german living in Britain.

      Speaking of which (and paraphrasing The Extras), where did these people get those huge swastikas?

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    7. Re:NSFW by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's just demonstrating that it's perfectly possible for a German to have a sense of humour.

      Unlike some of the replies...

    8. Re:NSFW by spartacus_prime · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, in America, we just call it a sausage.

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
    9. Re:NSFW by 4D6963 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm French but I must agree. The US can suffer criticism for a lot of reason, but when it comes to free speech and its protection we can shut up. And it's not just legal, if you make a joke of dubious taste about the Jews then not only will you get prosecuted and fined but you'll get publicly crucified on television even after you're done flatly apologising.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  6. So no one hears a Horton Ho? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's kind of scary all the truly advanced tech Germany was working on at the end of the War. They're rocket scientists were disturbingly advanced compared to anything on the Allied side. It took Korolyov YEARS just too replicate Von Braun's V-2 in Russia, and that was working *with* Von Braun's own assistant, Helmut Gröttrup.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:So no one hears a Horton Ho? by British · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure in 20 years we'll find German plans to make ray guns, giant mech fighers, etc. Castle Wolfenstein game plots seems less & less like fiction as the years go on. :)

    2. Re:So no one hears a Horton Ho? by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, and it would have happened a lot quicker if Helmut hadn't signed those Non-Disclosure Agreements.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  7. Re:The German's are doing it. by Duradin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The British de Havilland Mosquito was also very hard to detect with radar due to its wooden construction. It served in fighter (day and night) and fighter-bomber roles amongst others so they did see action against the P-51's contemporaries.

  8. Re:Control surfaces? by socrplayr813 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not exactly. It is possible to build a flying wing type aircraft that is stable. They're generally not as easy to fly as more traditional designs, but it's possible. Also keep in mind that aircraft of that era flew much slower. Part of the difficulty with modern designs is with the insane speeds they can reach. The aerodynamics of very fast (ie. supersonic) craft are much different from slower craft.

    --
    The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
  9. Hehe by mewsenews · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the article (yeah I know, Slashdot, not supposed to, etc)

    If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?

    IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets.

    1. Re:Hehe by eln · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Germans were doomed as soon as they opened up a second front against Russia. The Japanese getting the US involved obviously didn't help, but once Hitler decided to split his forces and assault Russia, his days were numbered. A technology like this may have been effective in the Battle of Britain, but it came too late for that, and stretching the timeline enough to allow for a rebuilding of the Luftwaffe and mass production of these planes, even ignoring the US completely, is not a realistic scenario given the events on the Eastern Front.

      According to Wikipedia, this design was proposed in 1943, at which point the Battle of Britain was already lost and a good portion of the German army had just been defeated at Stalingrad. Even without the US or Normandy, it's highly unlikely the Germans could have lasted long enough to produce these things in large enough numbers to make any difference.

      This design is one of a number of things the Germans could have accomplished that might have made a difference had they not been so eager to go to war in the first place. The French and British policies of appeasement, and their policy of rearming only in accordance with the provisions of Versailles while allowing the Germans to break that treaty at will without consequence, meant that before the war time was on the Germans' side. Had they waited until 1942 or 43 to attack Poland, as most of the Generals were suggesting, the outcome of the war might have been very different.

    2. Re:Hehe by afabbro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe, maybe not.

      Obviously this is all speculation, and doesn't matter much when you're comparing it to a real timeline... Yes, the United States developed an atomic bomb... But the Germans were also working on one. So if you extend the timeline to allow the Germans to develop this stealth jet, would they have had time to develop their own atomic bomb as well?

      Albert Speer (who as minister of armaments after '43 was in a position to know) wrote that the Nazi atomic program was in its infancy in 1943. When Hitler was informed that an atomic bomb would probably not be produced until the 1950s, he downgraded the priority of the research.

      The Nazis' were hampered by Hitler's view of technology. The Me-262 (first jet fighter) was outfitted as a light bomber, for instance, because Hitler saw more value in bombing than in defending airspace (in 1945!). The V-2 rocket was pushed hard, even though a single B-17 raid carried more explosives than the entire V-2 production. Anti-aircraft missiles were ignored and naval armaments were always given a low priority.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
  10. Re:The German's are doing it. by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Still, what fool in a wooden plane would mess with the P-51 Mustang?

    Doesn't matter what the plane is made out of as long as it's faster, accelerates faster, and climbs faster than than what the other side has.

  11. Minor mistake in the heading by downix · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Horton was a bomber, not a fighter. It was part of Hitlers 1000,1000,1000 goal. 1000kg of bombs 1000km at 1000km/hr.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  12. Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement by McGiraf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, it's the best explanation I read so far.

  13. Re:I like the decoration by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you aren't mature enough to look at a swastika in a relevant place (we're talking about Nazi Germany here) you shouldn't be on the internet. Let me guess, you are also for the elimination of the flag of the Confederate States too? Please, show some maturity, if you can't handle seeing a swastika, perhaps you shouldn't be looking up information on Nazi Germany.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  14. Bah, another crappy science article in NG by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This article is utterly bogus. Not that National Geographic has ever been known for quality writing on highly technical topics.

    The Ho 229 was built as it was specifically to meet the "1000-1000-1000" bomber contract. This called for an aircraft that could fly 1000 km at 1000 km/h while carrying a 1000 kg warload. And it had to be built of wood, because all of the aluminum, and metalworkers, were accounted for in current projects.

    The only way to possibly meet the speed requirement was through jet engines. However, jet engines of the era were extremely inefficient, especially German ones where poor alloys limited exhaust temperatures in the turbine. So in order to get the range while keeping the speed, you needed to cut drag to an absolute minimum.

    And that's why the 229 looks like it does. It lacks the profusion of surfaces that conventional designs had, and minimized wetted surface due to the almost non-existent fuselage. This thing is all wing, which means you're losing all the parasitic drag.

    ANYTHING else, including these "stealth" features, were utterly secondary.

    Moreover I have a very serious problem with the claims that this plane is stealthy. Compressor disks in the engines are an extremely effective radar mirror. This is why the F-117 has "blinds" over the inlets, or why the F-22 has a S-shaped intake system. As you can see in the pictures, in the 229 the compressor face is directly exposed to the front.

    Sure, the CH radars were longwave and wouldn't have been good against this aircraft, but that would be true of any small jet of the era. They were extremely good against targets a few meters in size, like a propeller, but anything smaller would be difficult to see.

    Claiming this plane was developed _as a stealth plane_ is like claiming the DC-3 was a swept-wing design. Accidental features do not indicate design intent.

    Maury

    1. Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative

      And that's why the 229 looks like it does. It lacks the profusion of surfaces that conventional designs had, and minimized wetted surface due to the almost non-existent fuselage.

      You are going on about the shape, which wasn't even claimed to be for stealthiness. The claimed stealth feature was the layer of carbon material sandwiched into the leading edge of the plane to reduce its radar signature. Thus, it was the first plane to incorporate design features specifically for stealth. Nothing you said even addresses that. Whether stealth was considered of secondary importance, or whether all the components were designed for stealth, is irrelevant.

    2. Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

      > Whether stealth was considered of secondary importance, or whether all the components were designed for stealth, is irrelevant.

      Except that it's called a "Stealth Fighter", not a "jet bomber with some stealthy features". The implication is clear, and you're take seems widely off the mark.

      > Northorp Grumman says their tests proved the stealth value of the aircraft

      And NG didn't put engines in the thing. So it's basically worthless.

      Maury

  15. Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's remarkable that we had in our hands a German aircraft that contained within it a very important lesson that we flat out ignored. Building a stealth plane in 1943 meant the Germans had learned something it would take us another 30 years to figure out. Stealth is essential in aircraft.

    Instead, we had the likes of unstealthy aircraft flying over Vietnam and getting shot down with rather significant losses to surface to air missiles.

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

    More than 1700 US aircraft were shot down. That's a catastrophe. It was in response to that that the US Stealth fighter program was initiated in the early 1970s. But, just imagine if we had thought, geez, the Germans had came up with a way to evade radar, we have the plane, newer technology...

    You have to wonder, what if?

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam by icebrain · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be fair, the utterly stupid and ridiculous rules of engagement forced on US forces by the civilian leadership for most of the war prevented them from doing anything against those air defense sites except in reaction to being fired upon. It's kinda like fighting while handcuffed.

      Also, the German technology was mostly serindipitous. Radar cross-section is much more a function of airframe shaping than materials; it just happened that flying wings tended to be better-shaped than traditional aircraft. But all of this was a trial-and-error process. We learned some from this, and incorporated those lessons into the B-70 proposal and the SR-71. However, it wasn't until the F-117 program (and its contemporaries) came along that we had

      A. The theoretical base on which to reliably compute radar reflections (ironically enough, most of that was developed by the Soviets and seemed to be largely ignored by them for a while).

      B. The computational power to work out reflections over even a simple faceted shape.

      C. The control technology to make such shapes flyable.

      And even then, the result was a flat-faceted, ungainly monstrosity. It took a little longer before we could compute reflections of curved surfaces, and develop something like the B-2.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  16. Re:Old News by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I was flying this in BF1942 Secret Weapons of WWII in 2003.

    Hand in your geek card, youngster. I was flying this in "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" from LucasArts.

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

  17. The Germans build nice stuff... by zerofoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Technical sophistication is one advantage on the battlefield, but manufacturing capacity is also important.

    The Germans choose technical complexity over quantity believing that superior machines could beat the vast numbers of inferior machines the allies built.

    The Germans were wrong.

    As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own". A stealth aircraft or two may have been pretty trick, but if you have thousands of targets to bomb, you better have hundreds if not thousands of aircraft (and pilots) to do the job.

    -ted

    1. Re:The Germans build nice stuff... by Archimonde · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You actually didn't show that their strategy wasn't bad at all. On the contrary, prima facie their argument can seem reasonable because the germany had limited number of material, pilots, engineers and workers in general, so it is natural to expect to go high tech to combat the mass numbers of allies.

      Moreover, they didn't have much problem with the technology by the end of the war, they had extremely large problem of material and fuel supplies. This is one of the reasons the horten (which was build at the end of the war) from the article had wooden wings. That problem would be even more pronounced if they went with large numbers. So they weren't "wrong" as you excitedly exclaim in that sense. They did lost the war and air superiority, but not because of going with the high-tech route.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    2. Re:The Germans build nice stuff... by mike2R · · Score: 2, Informative

      And by this point in the war, the desperate need was for advanced fighter aircraft to stop the allied bombing offensive. I'm sure there is a bit in Speer's book, or maybe one of his interviews, about trying to convince Hitler to switch all jet production to fighter aircraft, but Hitler (who's grip on reality was seriously slipping by this point) wanted bombers to attack Germany's enemies.

      Speer was of course a liar about many things.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
  18. Re:The German's are doing it. by Quantos · · Score: 2, Informative

    The production version of the Ho-229 was designed to have four 30mm-MK-108 cannons and could carry two 500-kilogram bombs.

    --
    Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
  19. Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by StCredZero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hitler wasn't some demonic bad-ass bad-guy. He was a crazed political genius at the right place and right time. His downfall: he wasn't a real geek! He lost because of technical cluelessness! He didn't have the technical knowledge to realize the value of the wonder-weapons until late in the war when the 3rd Reich got desperate, and then it was too late. His right-hand man Goering didn't have a complete grasp of the importance of good intelligence and command and control. (He would have won the Battle of Britain, but he didn't know that he should've continued his campaign against the sector stations.) Even Hitler's understanding of economic warfare was that of an enthusiastic amateur.

    We won not because our geeks were better, though they were darn good. We won because we *listened* to them!

    The Secret History of Silicon Valley. (How geeks won WWII and the Cold War, and how that led to Silicon Valley.)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ

    1. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hitlers single, fatal mistake was taking on the Soviet Union without first ensuring that Britain and the rest of the Allies were out of the war for good. Had Hitler not committed to the Eastern Front, he could have easily have prevented an Allied invasion, and indeed have triumphed in North Africa.

      Hitlers basic failure was greed. He wanted the Soviet Union as well, when there was no possibility he would have won that war due to the sheer size of the USSR. He had no heavy strategic bombers, nothing to interfere with Soviet production facilities once they were moved further east, and that doomed him to lose.

    2. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by mog007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hitler didn't make a single ultimate mistake. He made several. Launching into an unneeded second front when he broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was a huge mistake. He also diverted a lot of supplies for his war effort into his political posturing bullshit about the purity of the Aryans. If he'd been like a real politician and just said what he had to, instead of actually following through with it, his trains could have been hauling soldiers and firearms to the front, instead of Jews and homosexuals to death camps.

      So remember kids: if you want to eradicate people who look a certain way and you also want to become ruler of the planet, it's best to take over everything first, then you can genocide to your heart's content. Also, don't get involved with war in the winter in Russia.

    3. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by eln · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, that was his second fatal mistake ;). This is one of the things that makes WWII so interesting from a military perspective...there are many points where you can find mistakes by Hitler and his cronies, and you can debate endlessly if the avoidance of that particular error might have turned the tide of the war.

      Had Hitler waited, he might have had the air power to definitively defeat Britain, which might have allowed him to take on the Soviets. In my opinion, even with Britain defeated, it would have taken several years of armament production before Hitler could have realistically taken on the Soviets, and it may have never really been possible, but it certainly wasn't possible with the state of his armies in 1941, particularly when he still had to heavily defend the Western Front.

    4. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by MariusBoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The eastern front was not an inevitable defeat for the Germans. It was won not only because of the material advantages of the USSR but also because of the surprising determination of its soldiers. The war was lost (or won) at Stalingrad and that was a battle were determination to win counted most of all.

    5. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think Hitlers underestimation, if he even did, of Britain and Frances wish to fight for Poland was damaging at all - by the middle of 1940, Germany had caused France to capitulate and thrown the British army out of Europe. Had Germany won the Battle of Britain that year and not invaded the USSR, then in all probability Europe would still be in the hands of the Third Reich.

      Without Britain as a staging post, the US, Canada and Australia would have had no firm base to launch an invasion of Europe. With Britain out of the war, Hitler would have held North Africa as well, preventing the Allies from using that as an invasion staging post. Basically, the Allies would have lost any easy gateway into Europe, and with that went any hope of liberation.

    6. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He was under enormous economic pressures to continue the process at that point (much of which was his own fault - while Germany's economy had, of course, been trashed after WW1, there were new economic problems from the occupations themselves - Austria wasn't too bad, a bit over budget, but Czechoslovakia cost much more than projected and return benefits were much, much lower. You could compare it to the US claims circa 2002 that the Iraq war would cost 40 Billion total and oil production would be fully restored within 9 Months, although the Reich's predictions weren't that far off.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    7. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative
      would seem likely that he only signed the non-aggression pact to lull Stalin into a false sense of security

      And Stalin was possibly doing the same. I've heard the hypothesis that Germanys initial success during the invasion was partly due to catching the Soviet Union while they were preparing for attacking instead of maintaining a defensive position.

    8. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      He wanted the Soviet Union as well, when there was no possibility he would have won that war due to the sheer size of the USSR.

      So, don't get involved in a land war in Asia. Got it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by xelan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think there is a lot to suggest that may have been the case. In addition, I've read documents stating that Stalin was in shock for a few days after the initial German offensive, but upon recovering he quickly ramped up for a massive counter offensive. I think Stalin did have a time frame for attacking Hitler, but I think Hitler took him by surprise by moving up the time frame that Stalin had in mind.

    10. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hitler's primary, and ultimately fatal, mistake was underestimating the French and British will to fight for Poland. ... and so went for Poland before his war machine was fully ready.

      Germany's war machine was not full geared up, true. But Britain's and France's were in worse shape. And given that both countries had more production capability, it would have worked against Germany to wait.

      In fact, it is sometimes seen as a British blunder to get involved as early as they did, as a few more years of prep would have helped them out dramatically.

      The top three German mistakes were (in chronological order):

      1. Letting the British escape at the Battle of the Bulge (Hitler overriding his commanders).
      2. Attacking Russia before dealing with Britain.
      3. Allowing Japan to attack the US, and get involved. That was a miscalculation of the highest order.

      I've also seen on the list (although I'm not sure of it's veracity) that they could have carpet-bombed England into submission a lot faster, possibly before the US got involved, if Hitler had authorized a yet more deadly air campaign. There are all kinds of reasons (irrational love of the British?) posited as to why he did not.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Prior to Hitler invading the USSR, remember that they were allies themselves - why would the USSR have allowed the US et al to attack Germany through them? My scenario above assumes no invasion of the USSR at all - it assumes Hitler and Stalin kept their pact to parcel up the eastern states between them.

    12. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by eln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That presupposes the Battle of Britain could have been won, when in fact it had already been lost by the end of 1940. After the defeat at the Battle of Britain, Hitler was convinced he needed to take care of the Soviets, thereby freeing all of the resources that were at the time defending his Eastern border against a possible Soviet attack, before he could re-engage Britain.

      Of course, the Soviet attitude at the time was that no invasion by Germany could be expected until 1942, and the Soviets themselves were certainly not in any mood to go on the offensive, so Germany likely could have pulled some of the resources in the East to take care of Britain, but they didn't. Even if they had, the British victory had convinced America that Britain may actually be able to survive after all, whereas before the prevailing American opinion was that Britain was doomed. The idea that Britain could survive led the US to step up its support of Britain significantly, so a subsequent campaign in Britain would have been much more difficult for Hitler in any case.

    13. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by eln · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you mean Dunkirk, not the Battle of the Bulge, which came much later and well after the war had been decided. Regarding Britain, Hitler was convinced for much longer than was rational that Britain had no appetite for a battle to the death, and all that was needed was to bombard them enough to get them to sue for peace. He vastly underestimated the British will to see the conflict through to the end.

    14. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, he lost because he over extended himself into Russia.
      No weapon at the time wold have stopped the russians once the begain moving toward Germany.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As to the value of so-called 'wonder weapons', you should really read Arthur C. Clark's short story 'Superiority'. And before everyone says "it's just a sci-fi story, it has no bearing on real life" you should keep in mind that this story has been required reading at the US military colleges for almost 40 years.

      It's not just the time and effort that goes into R+D; it's building up a manufacturing base, getting the necessary raw materials, training your soldiers on new equipment, adapting strategies to the new technology (often a forgotten step), shipping the new technology out into the field. Then, you've got a new, fragile, and rushed technology being subjected to the worst conditions imaginable and having people's lives rely on it.

      The only obvious exception is the A-bomb, and even that was a fluke. The US was safe from invasion and damage, didn't have to worry nearly as much as Germany about having the whole project ruined in a bombing raid. You only need a few A-bombs to make a huge difference in the war, not true of most Germany's pet projects (except, obviously, their own A-bomb research). Since you only need a few, it's much easier to training, deployment, and maintenance are much simpler than a mass produced weapon.

    16. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Besides, where would we have entered it from?

      Sarah Palin's house.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    17. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Basilius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One other issue that eventually doomed the German war effort was their abject refusal to commit their industrial resources to "total war."

      Allied factories were running around the clock. Not the German. They actually hamstrung their own industrial capacity by not doing this almost as much as the allied bombing efforts did.

      Of course, by not taking Britain out of the war before Barbarossa, the allies were eventually able to deny Germans access to resources, and the German industrial capacity eventually wore out.

    18. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by DarthVain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pretty sure Hitler's problem was that he was a idiot (strategically at least anyway).

      Trying to take over the Soviet Union. Ha! That really worked out well.

      People point to D-Day and this and the other thing as his downfall.

      Cold War BS aside, it was Russia that brought them to their knees, and Hitler's unending pursuit in Russia.

      I am sure all his aides were like "Dude this is such a bad idea!" and "Man this is so not working out!" at least in their heads anyway...

      For the grunt on the ground, hearing he was being sent to the Russian front must have been like a death sentence.

    19. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by rainer_d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forget one thing (and this - being German - is where I'm glad that things went the way they went): the US had several thousand people working on the A-bomb.
      There is no doubt that its primary target was Berlin - and only the initially slow progress and the fast defeat at the end made its use there unnecessary.
      Had Germany not been defeated by May 1945, later that year in August we might have seen Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Munich, and the area around the "steel-belt" being turned into smoldering, radioactive ash-trays.
      That is the way things would have turned out. Nothing else.

      Some of the (Jewish) scientists working on project Manhattan consequently refused to continue to work on the project at first, after they learned that Hitler was dead and Germany defeated.
      But the bomb had already taken a life on its own....

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    20. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Tycho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Add to that the fact that after Hitler rose to power he and his cronies politicized academia and government research, and determined by their own whims which scientists were to be fired and which projects to fund, starving certain potentially useful research project of money. This resulted in many scientists leaving Germany and moving to Allied countries. This obviously ended up giving the Allies and the US in particular additional talented scientists. The Germans developed plenty of potentially effective weapons in World War II, but Hitler was afraid to use some like chemical weapons due to unfounded fears of potential Allied retaliation with chemical weapons. Some weapon systems were not practical to deploy, and by the time other practical designs were capable of being put into mass production it was 1944 or 1945, too late to make a difference due to lack of production facilities and resources in Germany.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    21. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by arevos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Had Germany won the Battle of Britain that year and not invaded the USSR, then in all probability Europe would still be in the hands of the Third Reich.

      Germany never had much chance of invading Britain. Even if Germany had continued bombing British airfields, the British airforce was pretty evenly matched against the Luftwaffe, and had all the homefield advantages in terms of fuel and being able to parachute out onto friendly soil. The main problem the British had was not loss of equipment, but loss of skilled pilots; however, this was also a problem for the Luftwaffe.

      If the Luftwaffe had somehow succeeded, the Germans still needed to get a large number of men across a heavily mined and defended channel, and they didn't have the equipment to do that. D-Day was tricky enough for the Allies to pull off, and they had a much better navy and more coastline to land on. For Operation Sealion to be a success, Germany would have to pull off a much more ambitious feat against Britain.

    22. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by jalefkowit · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Germans had their own scientists (including the brilliant Werner Heisenberg) working on an atomic-energy project. They never developed an actual bomb, though historians are split as to whether that was because of lack of resources, mismanagement/wasting time and effort on research dead-ends, or active sabotage by the German scientists involved.

      Thomas Powers' book Heisenberg's War is a fascinating history of the German atomic project.

    23. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by jalefkowit · · Score: 2, Informative

      As to why Brittan wanted to fight for Poland, beats me.

      In his book The Origins of the Second World War historian A.J.P. Taylor argued that the British didn't particularly want to fight for Poland; or, at least, their leaders didn't. But they were painted into a corner by decisions they'd made in response to earlier crises.

      British Prime Minister Chamberlain believed that he had "appeased" Hitler at the Munich Conference by giving him part of Czechoslovakia, but Hitler went on to then conquer the rest of that country anyway. This left Chamberlain convinced that appeasement had been a failure and a hard line was needed against Germany to prevent further aggression.

      As part of that new hard line, the British issued a guarantee of Poland's independence. This treaty set forth that any aggressive act against Poland by any power would trigger a declaration of war on that power by Great Britain.

      The British thought this would deter Hitler from moving on Poland, but it didn't; and the British were then confronted with the fact that if they ignored or disavowed the guarantee, the reliability of all their other treaty obligations would be called into question. So the British ended up in a war they didn't want on behalf of a country they could do nothing to protect.

    24. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by bitrex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's likely that when the history books are written 100 years from now, World War 2 will be viewed as a great war between the two conflicting ideologies of fascism and communism, with the majority of the text being devoted to the Eastern front confrontation between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Quantitatively speaking, the amount of men and material devoted to that aspect of the conflict makes the war on the Western front look like little more than a sideshow, with the other players falling in line behind one of the aforementioned two. The battle of Kursk, for example, had more divisions engaged in battle than were engaged on the Western front during the entirety of the Allied campaign.

      It's a chestnut about as old as the war itself, but it has been said that the Allies defeated German Fascism to make the world safe for Soviet Communism, but it bears repeating. For example, much is said about the Nazi atrocities in the concentration camps during the war, but it is little noted that by the German defeat in May of 1945 the Soviets were operating the largest concentration camp in Europe, and the "liberation" of the camps in Poland that came under Soviet control after the war was less a liberation and more of a corporate restructuring. A "Under New Management" sign was metaphorically put on the gates, and similar atrocities were committed; only the admission requirements had changed.

    25. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by phantomcircuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Army Group B would have easily destroyed the entire Russian force if they had been allowed to fight in the open instead of in Stalingrad during the winter as Hitler insisted on.

      The advantage the Russians had was that of numbers and winter clothing, in urban combat numbers mean more than technology and firepower, in open country technology and firepower are the deciding factor. This is also why the US is having trouble fighting in urban environments to this day, force multipliers basically do not work in urban combat.

      Thankfully Hitler's ego wouldn't allow him to withdraw from the namesake city of the Russian's leader.

    26. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by mvdwege · · Score: 2, Informative

      Erm. The Germans did come up with planes like the Fw-190, the Ta-152 and even the Me-262 (although that one was too late to make a difference). Also, the Bf-109K is a rather different plane than the Bf-109E used in the Battle of Britain.

      In terms of performance, the comparatively fewer German types could hold their own against the Allies until early 1944. After that, the sheer numerical advantage of the Allies began to tell, and after losing much of their basing capacity, the Germans were basically forced to revert to just-in-time interceptions from bases in Germany. Which, aside from the numerical inferiority, also left them at a distinct tactical disadvantage, as they had to climb up to the fight. The few times they did manage to get a Geschwader up before the Allies arrived, they still managed to hit the Allied bomber streams hard.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    27. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Hubbell · · Score: 2, Informative

      You fail to mention one thing. 1 panzer could take out 5 shermans, 1-2 tigers could EASILY take out 10+ shermans barring their getting totally surrounded. German tech/weaponry was vastly superior on the ground, but it was honestly like in starcraft with a game of protoss vs zerg. One squad of zealots is a badass wrecking machine...but when those 12 zealots are faced with 200 zerglings they're gonna lose.

    28. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by Nutria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1 panzer could take out 5 shermans, 1-2 tigers could EASILY take out 10+ shermans

      Sure. And it's gasoline engine was why tankers called it the Ronson.

      They certainly would have been heavier if we, like Jerry, could have run a railroad line from the factory to near the front line..

      German tech/weaponry was vastly superior

      Except it was overly complicated, and thus time-consuming to manufacture, and hard/impossible to field-repair.

      A lot, sadly, like modern American weapons.

      barring their getting totally surrounded.

      Nothing so drastic needed. "Just" a flanking maneuver, which was aided by the fact that Shermans were faster and their turrets traversed much faster.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    29. Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd by ross.w · · Score: 2, Informative

      In one on one combat against the Tigers they were almost useless - until the Tiger broke down or got stuck somewhere.

      Shermans got the nickname "the Ronson Lighter" because they would light up at the first strike. There were tales of Shermans firing at a Tiger at short range only to see the shell bounce off.

      Sheer weight of numbers did win in the end though - and the fact they could be field repaired.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  20. tech vs manpower by jlebrech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's quite an amazing feat of the German scientists, if they hadn't scapegoated the jews to get into power they may have also had the atom bomb but years before the usa.

    The allies only won the war because they just threw a lot more bodies than there were German bullets for the invasion of normandy.

  21. Re:The German's are doing it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone in a plane that could out-run it.

    The P-51 Mustang had a top speed of between 400 and 440mph. That's close to the upper limit for a propeller-driven aircraft. This thing was intended to be capable of 600mph. Granted, that's an estimate made by the plane's designers, so they may not have been able to achieve it, but the Me 262 (German jet figher) was capable of 580mph already. No Allied figher could keep up with an Me 262 anyway.

    Presumably, the plan was to hide from radar detection until over the coast. At this point, the aircraft would travel the 80 miles or so to London in around 8 minutes. It would have to do this unescorted - German fighers would be detected on approach, and wouldn't be able to keep up anyway. By the time the RAF got some fighters in the air, it'd be too late for them to intercept, assuming they could even catch up. Drop bombs over London, turn around, and run like hell. Hope to evade the fighters, which are now directly ahead of you, and return home.

    Getting back home would be the tricky part.

  22. Re:Wow by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Informative

        It just took quite a few years for us to make a plane that looked like a Horton. :) Actually, there were quite a few developed and some manufactured. They simply weren't as popular as "conventional" aircraft. I would suspect part would be due to the difference in manufacturing cost, and some to do with customer faith. "I know an airplane with wings and a tail can fly. Why should I believe something like that can?". Maybe the long gap in development of flying wing aircraft wasn't. It was just classified. What do you think they do at Area 51 (among other secret facilities), store alien bodies and reverse engineer wormhole technology? :)

        I love aviation, and have been amazed with Horton's aircraft. There were several similar aircraft. I saw one in person at the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles. There's a Horton Ho IIIf on display (hanging from the roof), part of a Horton Ho IIIh, and I found reference to a Horton Ho 229 being restored for display there. If I remember correctly, you'd go straight in the front door, and to the left behind the SR-71, but before the room with the Space Shuttle Enterprise. They have some beautiful aircraft there. It's worth the visit if you like aviation.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  23. "Superiority" required reading at West Point! by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was a short story written by Arthur C. Clarke titled "Superiority" that discussed this. Of course, it being science fiction, the weapons were very interesting (matter annihilators, space distortion systems). Also, since it was written (in the 50s?) some of the vocabulary is quaint (I think the term "torpedoes" refer to what we would call missiles).
    Still I didn't know (according to Wikipedia) that it was (once?) required reading at West Point! (For those not from the U.S., that is one of the premiere military academies).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story)

  24. Re:You know what the fellow said - by zarzu · · Score: 2, Informative

    i am sorry what? 500 years?

    until the end of the 15th century the eidgenossenschaft was fighting the habsburg, throughout the 16th and 17th century there was religous civil war all over switzerland. at the end of the 17th century france essentially conquered switzerland and started the helvetic republic. the last fights on swiss territory were in 1847 and there is only democracy since the 19th century.

  25. Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Very darwinistic view of the world that man has. If he's right, the tactics in life are the same as in quake. Anything that moves and isn't obviously on your side, shoot it. Anything that doesn't move, shoot it anyway because it's probably thinking about moving and killing you as soon as you turn your back.

    Why are you making this out to be his worldview? That these were the tactics of the majority of humans for the majority of history is just a matter, of, well, history. Wars between nations, strong tribes subjugating weak ones, nation-states subjugating non-centrally-organized peoples, this actually happened and none of the people doing it read Diamond's book.

    In fact, I can't recall him ever discussing it in terms of tactics or intent. The question he asked and attempted to answer was not "why did the Spanish come to the Americas to crush the Inca, Aztec, and Mayan empires." The question he asked was "when they came to the Americas with this intent, why were they able to succeed so handily?"

    I mean he does discuss the success of European countries in terms of them being sizable enough to take advantage of specialization, but small enough and with enough similarly-sized and hostile neighbors that they couldn't afford to eschew some technology or tactic for cultural reasons -- the kind of every-wary shoot-first-ask-later strategy you are talking about. I don't think he ever hypothesized that a nation-state's neighbors must be hostile, or that the nation-state must subjugate those weaker than itself. That's just the reality of the situation in Europe.

    But I could be wrong. It's been a few years since I read it.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  26. Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Funny

    You're saying Quake doesn't teach Ammo Conservation?

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  27. Re:Goodwin's Law! by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Goodwin's Law: The longer a thread gets, the higher the chance someone will misspell 'Godwin'.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  28. How is this News? by cenc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anyone familiar with WWII and aviation history knows about this. The U.S. also had a stealth flying wing bomber. The idea was patented in 1910, and by early 30's was being kicked around for stealth usage. Basically stealth aircraft designs where around before radar, or at least developed alongside radar.

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

  29. Hitler-Stalin by KingAlanI · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's true, the non-aggression pact.
    However, would Stalin have necessarily kept to it?
    Especially with the stark ideological divide between fascism and communism, probably not.

    Was it an uneasy alliance to begin with? Maybe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:Hitler-Stalin by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its a difficult one, but its likely Stalin knew that the western powers disliked the Soviet Union anyway, so there was little in it for Stalin to help the Allies invade Germany from the East.

      If such a thing had occurred, it would have been very unlikely that any ground gained could be occupied by the USSR - the gains made in WW2 were solely due to the fact that the USSR was the sole army making those gains from the East, handing most of Germany and Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union. Its highly unlikely the USSR would have ended up with those same gains with a fully mixed Allied army involved.

      In all likelihood, the pact between the USSR and Germany would have held, but remained uneasy. Thats not to say Hitler wouldn't have tried something later, but he might have been in a better position to press home any attack.

  30. Nice children's book by motherpusbucket · · Score: 2, Funny

    The name sounds like a Dr. Seuss book. Horten hears a Ho.
    That's funny on a couple of levels.

    --
    "You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
  31. What Killed the Stealth fighter design? by cenc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can not find it now, but I remember encountering an article several years ago in a local Las Vegas newspaper that described how the stealth fighters could be detected easily. In places like Nevada where there are secret military bases all over the place, there are hobby stealth watchers and they had discovered that there are so many cell phones in use all over the world that stealth fighters get lit up like a x-mas tree from the ground based signals emanating from the cell phones. Even amateur stealth watchers could track them flying around the Western United States. It was not long after that article the military officially started dropping all plans for future production related to designs based primarily on right angles and radar.

    Can anyone find the article or info on this?

    1. Re:What Killed the Stealth fighter design? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The military couldn't drop what they didn't have... The F-117 was all angles because the computation required to design a smoother shape were essentially impossible to accomplish at that time. The cost of computation dropped greatly between the F-117 and the B-2, and thus the flat/angular stealth scheme vanished into history. Cell phones had fuck-all to do with it since they wouldn't become common until a decade after this happened.

  32. Early cloaking technology by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reminds me of early attempts to cloak planes to the naked eye by putting a row of lights around the edges. It was reasonably effective on a bright overcast day.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  33. Stretching Credibility by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "RCS testing showed that an Ho-229 approaching the English Coast from France flying at 550 mph at 50 to 100 feet above the water would not have been visible to Chain Home radar."

    The flying wing was a hugely unstable design. The sole Ho IX V2 crashed on 18 February 1945, after only two hours of flight time. On 5 June 1948, Northrop's YB-49 (their second attempt to build a flying wing after the B-35 was cancelled due to insurmountable technical issues) crashed, killing its pilot and co-pilot Daniel Forbes and Glen Edwards, for whom Forbes and Edwards airforce bases are named. It took until the 80s for them to figure it out and make a success of the B2.

    So, so long as a pilot could buzz the waves at an altitude that would make most pilots of conventional fighters of the era nervous, at the high end of speeds for the era (a good 100mph faster than a P-51 Mustang), before flitting up over the cliffs of southern England (the famed white cliffs of Dover reaching up to 106m, a good 70m over the 100 feet the plane was flying across the channel at), then it could have been invisible to British radar of the time.

    One can only imagine, if production had worked out, the teenagers Germany was strapping in to planes at the time (having lost most of its experienced pilots by that point in the war) would have been doing this on a daily basis.

  34. What really happened by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Informative

    The flying wing was a hugely unstable design. The sole Ho IX V2 crashed on 18 February 1945, after only two hours of flight time. On 5 June 1948, Northrop's YB-49 (their second attempt to build a flying wing after the B-35 was cancelled due to insurmountable technical issues) crashed, killing its pilot and co-pilot Daniel Forbes and Glen Edwards, for whom Forbes and Edwards airforce bases are named.

    There were indeed technical issues with Northrop's flying wing designs, but they were in no way considered insurmountable. Northrop's wings were killed by the USAF not on technical merits, but from political scheming. The Air Force wanted Northrop to merge with Convair, and Jack Northrop refused. As punishment, his wing designs were canceled and the prototypes ordered destroyed, and in a particularly petty and sadistic twist, Northrop employees were made to watch as USAF officials literally took buzzsaws to the YB-49 prototypes. The intent was to send a message to Jack Northrop... go along to get along, or else.

    Young Air Force officers that were involved were ashamed of the whole affair, and as they became older (and reached General Officer ranks) became advocates of Northrop's old flying wing designs. Its been reported that when some of these now-older officers showed Jack Northrop a model of the then-secret B-2 flying wing design in 1979, Northrop wept. It took 30 years, but he'd finally been vindicated.

    Here's a copy of a Los Angeles Times interview with Northrop in 1980, where he revealed what really happened. Aviation Journalists like Bill Sweetman (as well as many NASA engineers and Wright-Pat and Edwards test people) had heard rumors of what really happened to the YB-49 back in the 70's.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  35. I do, they lost ok? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh they lost.

    Even in ancient times when country "A" conquers country "B", "A" often takes people from "B" back to "A" to do stuff for them. That does not mean "B" won. Far from it.

    Plus Hitler died and stayed dead. That's not normally considered winning.

    When you eat bacon does that mean the pig won? I doubt it.

    Germany did well after the war and so did the USA. So that's a win-win, but Hitler and the Nazis most certainly did lose.

    --