It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Dallas
However B2 technology, in my opinion, had nothing in this technology areas accept the Rich's wooden V craft escaping radar.
Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I do think we can be pretty certain that the claims regarding nazi A-bombs are a total crock.
Even the BBC has given merit to these claims.
Hitler tested small atom bomb
A German historian has claimed in a new book presented on Monday that Nazi scientists successfully tested a tactical nuclear weapon in the last months of World War II.
Rainer Karlsch said that new research in Soviet and also Western archives, along with measurements carried out at one of the test sites, provided evidence for the existence of the weapon.
"The important thing in my book is the finding that the Germans had an atomic reactor near Berlin which was running for a short while, perhaps some days or weeks," he told the BBC.
"The second important finding was the atomic tests carried out in Thuringia and on the Baltic Sea."
Mr Karlsch describes what the Germans had as a "hybrid tactical nuclear weapon" much smaller than those dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
"It's clear there was no master plan for developing atom bombs. But it's also clear the Germans were the first to make atomic energy useable, and that at the end of this development was a successful test of a tactical nuclear weapon."
Read the rest (best part) : news.bbc.co.uk...
Originally posted by Zaphod58
The only problem with the B-2/German link is that the B-2 was based on the work that Jack Northrop did with flying wings, including the XB-35. There was no technology transfer as most of the work was done during the war, work on both the German and American flying wings were done seperately. When Northrop designed the B-2 they took a lot of the work Jack Northrop did and incorporated it into the design.
I said the initial work on flying wings was done during the war, as in WWII. I didn't say anything about a tech transfer for the B-2, and even if they DID visit the flying wing that Germany built, I really don't think they could have gotten much out of it to put into the B-2 that they didn't already know.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
was based on the work that Jack Northrop did with flying wings, including the XB-35. There was no technology transfer as most of the work was done during the war
The pair says the rough schematic does not imply that the Nazis built or even were close to building a nuclear bomb, but it shows they had progressed farther toward that goal than is conventionally thought.
The article appears in the June issue of the British monthly Physics World.
"I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
ICome on, seriously, what technology does the Ho9 share with the B2?
Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Originally posted by FredT
Both burn hydrocarbon based fuel. oooooooh both fly too
And the German bomb hype is just that!
Originally posted by Zaphod58
I said the initial work on flying wings was done during the war, as in WWII. I didn't say anything about a tech transfer for the B-2, and even if they DID visit the flying wing that Germany built, I really don't think they could have gotten much out of it to put into the B-2 that they didn't already know.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
was based on the work that Jack Northrop did with flying wings, including the XB-35. There was no technology transfer as most of the work was done during the war
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I have previously asked for any serious indication of this claimed "technology transfer" before and been met with a deafening silence.
Beyond a slightly similar (but not actually the same) shape, what tech transfer?
Come on, seriously, what, exactly, is the Ho9 technology that is "shared" with the B2?
This idea is actually very very funny.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another very funny idea is this current German bomb story.
Besides the actual detail not being quite as presented in many places (witness this context-less, undated and extremely laughable mere 'sketch' that has been inflated - beyond any serious historical credibility - into a 'schematic') it would appear that even the heros of this latest series of comments aren't listened to by the fan club and the 'wanna-believe' crowd either -
The pair says the rough schematic does not imply that the Nazis built or even were close to building a nuclear bomb, but it shows they had progressed farther toward that goal than is conventionally thought.
The article appears in the June issue of the British monthly Physics World.
www.abc.net.au...
It's also worth noting that although the absence of any credible actual German WW2 'A-bomb' has promoted stories of a 'radiological bomb' (the dirty bomb idea) - clearly just a coincidence that these follow on from the fears generated by 9/11 and fears of a possible terrorist use of such a 'weapon' (yeah right ), studies done indicate they are very likely to be extremely ineffective.
The fear of them being probably more effective than the reality.
Recent studies indicated people would have to stay around significant amounts of the major parts of radioactive debris for years to become ill - not necessarily die.
It is referred to in the short films 'The power of nightmares'; one of those interviewed on the film said -
"I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year.
www.guardian.co.uk...
So, if people want to go with the idea that the Germans planned an ineffective dirty bomb 'fuelled' with uranium oxide (nothing like sufficient on its own for an actual A-bomb), fine.
There's still almost nothing to back up such conjecture and again it would have had zero effect on the outcome of anything in the war.
Not that it'll stop the 3rd Reich fan club bleating away.
[edit on 25-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Recessed intakes and exhaust and RAM coating are necessary if you want to have stealth. If you don't have long intakes, the radar bounces off the turbine wheel. If you don't have long exhaust, you can't cool it, and end up with a huge IR signature.
Originally posted by Forschung
1. B-2--Horton9 shared flying wing design
recessed air intakes
recessed exhausts
RAM coating.
. B-2--Horton9 shared flying wing design, recessed air intakes, recessed exhausts, RAM coating.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Originally posted by Forschung
1. B-2--Horton9 shared flying wing design
- In vague shape only.
The wing-plan is nothing like the same, actually.
If the shapes were exactly the same you would have a point but the B2 wing shape is similar to the Ho 9 as it is the Northrop N9.
ie a very very loose similarity and nothing like "a shared flying wing design", the specific design is nothing like the same.
This idea that the Northrop B2 relates less to other Northrop designs (for some unspecified reason) just because the Ho 9 was a flying wing too is simply absurd.
The very idea is laughable, have you actually seen the shapes (not to mention the actual sizes being several magnitudes apart?)?!
recessed air intakes
- This is simply not true. Are you trying to conceal the truth or just ignorant of the facts?
Go look at the pictures.
The Horten Ho 9 showed the 2 jets' compressor faces clearly from the frontal aspect.
The jet engine itself is buried in the wing, so what? The 'faces' of the jet engines themselves were not concealed in any way and therefore cannot be reasonably considered to have any 'stealth' characteristics.
recessed exhausts
- Again this is simply not true, the jet engines exhausted plainly to the rear without any of the highly sophisticated shielding we can see on the B2 or F117 etc etc at all.
Are you simply trying to conceal the truth or just ignorant of the facts?
RAM coating.
- You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that the USAF's RAM (or any of it's stealth) technology came from the Ho9......nor that it was ever even assessed for its effectiveness or even investigated in any way at all by the Northrop people for the B2.
RAM was being applied to YF12/A12/SR71's in the early 1960's (which indicates a probable 1950's design.......and the 'iron ball paint' type usually referred to is again nothing like the charcoal, sawdust and glue 'matrix' the Germans used on the Ho9.
Try noting the references to the USA's own WW2 experiments and recognition regarding RCS and RAM, hmmm?
www.combat-diaries.co.uk...); clearly this is all long before the B2 - or the quick look around the interesting historical oddity that the Ho 9 represented.
Like I said, if there actually is any kind of German root to any of that it is most likely to be from the RAM mats U-boats clad their schnorkel masts with (but once again there no technical details as to how effective they were.....and there can be reasonable doubt as the Germans didn't even realise the allies had centimetric radar until mid 1943 whne the first 10cm H2S radar set was captured from a crashed pathpinder Sterling bomber), this all had nothing to do with the Ho 9.
Given that the best you can come up to show these so-called German 'roots' is a disputed story over a day or an afternoon's museum visit to look over the Ho9 sometime early in the B2's history (so late 1970's/early 1980's at the earliest) your claims are totally without credible foundation whatsoever.
- As for the fantasies about a Germanic A-bomb (of any realistic description) you carry on pal, knock yourself out with the UFO crowd, the anti-grav, the moon bases, the pyramid weapons and the antarctic bases.
Otherwise show me the explosion evidence and the specific 'signature' of it.
(and dodgy pictures in - your - typical single sources (yeah right yet again cue the obscure 'German language-only' book , just don't actually 'prove' anything, ok?
You are the one making the extravagently wild claims, therefore the onus is on you to support those claims, which you have singularly failed to do.)
[edit on 26-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]