finally real pics of NAZI UFOs!, page 5

Originally posted by Long Lance
let me introduce the KSK, because, frankly all we got is photos and the KSK is therefore just as credible as the rest:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

It's not nearly as credible as the moment they started shooting at American Bombers the odds that would become aware would increase exponentially. The fact that it does not seem the case suggest at the very least that the simply lacked the weaponry to affect the outcome of the battle at the time they were deployed. There are other reasons but i find this one to be the most logical.

formed cascade oscillators that were connected to a long barrel-shrouded transmission rod wrapped in a
precision tungsten spiral, or coil to transmit a powerful energy burst suitable to pierce up to 4 in (100 mm) of enemy armor. The heavy gun installation, however, badly destabilized the disc and in subsequent Haunebu models lighter MG and MK cannon were supposedly installed.

Frankly i don't know what to make of such speculation as i simply have not 'studied' the topic ( if reading such can be called studying) and am not aware of German research into DEW technology.

even without such a toy, the ability to land anywhere would make targetting them a bit harder than destroying jet fighters on the airfield,

But landing anywhere means nothing if you can not resupply or in fact get in the air again. There are numerous reasons why aircraft must operate from airfields and the more advanced they have become the more care they have required. To suggest that such a technological breakthrough could have so quickly broke ALL the rules ( can just fly from anywhere needing no resupplying) is in my opinion a leap of faith that makes the leap of faith to German Anti-grav technology seem quite tame in comparison.

comparable to targetting V2 vs. V1 sites, and i don't understand why you brush that off as if it was a minor difference.

I did not directly compare it to that and made it quite clear that technologies such as these were unlikely to just work without serious and persistent effort from dedicated ground crews.

putting bombs on target will necessarily cripple any opponent, the reson why strategic bombing generally sucked was its poor accuracy combined with concealed or sheltered high value targets (in europe at least ).

The reason strategic bombing sucked was simply due to the fact that bombers were massively expensive in terms of not only materials but also in the number of trained crew required. You could build at least four fighters for the resources a heavy bomber required and it takes quite less fighters to bring down such a heavy bomber. The fact that the bombing were largely massively inaccurate again even the most obvious of targets ( with the crews trained as well as they could be expected to ) did not help and best explains why the allies lost 22 000 four and two engined bombers.

the fact that germany did not rely much on ships did not help a lot either because chasing locomotives is much harder to boot and they normally don't *sink* (unless they fall off a river bridge), and can therefore be retrieved and restorred with comparable ease.

The Germans did rely on shipping in the North ( Swedish iron) and on it's rivers and the British hatched some interesting schemes to attempt shutting down the traffic on the major rivers... Locomotives may not 'sink' but if blown up they must be 'towed' ( when suitably repaired) to the nearest marshaling yard so that traffic may resume... Bombing trains was a very good way of interrupting the flow of goods as that was the only remotely efficient way to move goods between theaters of war.

if you honestly believe the B29 did not make much of a difference, you are missing an important detail, aside from transporting the a-bombs to target, of course: aerial mining.

I am not saying that it did not make a difference but that the Germans were dealing with the difference in a generally 'effective' way that threatened to halt the entire campaign by mid late 1943.
Had the Germans realised that the Allies really could just keep making bombers at that rate i know what they would and could have done.

on a side note: US subs sank more ships with mines than with torpedoes, at a fraction of the cost and at minimal danger to themselves...it's just not sexy and therefore seldom told.

In the Coastal waters of Japan, yes, but mostly due to the fact that the Japanese apparently lacked the temperament ( if not just plainly the equipment) and training to fight submarines even thought they have relative large numbers of destroyer class ships. Laying mines is always dangerous and doing so so far from home ( they take the space of torpedoes) is certainly so. Frankly US destroyers had little to fear from the IJN and they probably used the mines due to the fact that the torpedoes were so ineffective ( malfunctioned VERY frequently) during the first two years.

as for the 'no economy' comment, d'uh well they orderd their navy at the nearest hardware store, right,

They actually spent a few decades building it up to those levels and frankly they could not have done it any other way. The US ordered the ships that would defeat the IJN before the war even started and there wasn't much Japan could do but but win the opening battle's and then keep winning for the next two years; something they obviously failed to do.

and their notorious lack of fuel had nothing to do with sunk tankers.

They saved up fuel for a long time and frankly they had fuel stores in good numbers and certainly enough to win the war in the pacific which turned against them far faster than it really should have. The battle of Midway was a fluke and i can well imagine a war in the Pacific that includes the Japanese capture of Midway after their overwhelming victory in a less unlikely outcome to the original battle of Midway. A Pacific war that stretches out well into 1947 or 1948 is not in my opinion that hard to imagine if one assumes just a few 'should have been' Axis victories. Few people realise just how massive and effective the IJN of 1941 was and what kind of upset Midway in fact was.

i'm not debating whether they could have won the war, they had no chance

Combined with a the war in the East, that Hitler could have won, and a then fully split American effort to save Britain and the ME the IJN was more than strong enough to hold it's own given time to exploit it's massive resource gains in the East. Had Japan wanted to win badly enough suicide bombing would have started at the battle of Coral Sea and largely prevented Midway taking place robbing the USN of a early chance to stage a very unlikely upset at Midway. If you study the Pacific war in enough depth a effective fighting IJN in 1945 is not a strange idea at all.

but they could have commited more forces provided their merchant shipping had worked as advertised.

Their Merchant shipping were expanding up to about the end of 1943 or middle 1944, as i recall, and it was the IJN that lost the war and not their basic ( not including pilot training or ship construction or for that matter fuel oil supplies) logistical services in the merchant marine.

there is no way to guard targets scattered around the globe against an *aircraft*, in the widest sense, with global reach, you can't protect every ship with fighters (as if they could do anything against a UFO with the cited capabilites)

Well you can protect ships with fighters ( read about the Catupult launched fighters installed on merchant ships) and while that may not be effective against a ufo with the stated capability it can be done. Do we know if these Ufo's had to be stationary to fire their weaponry or if they had effective means to aim it or enough of whatever the weaponry required to do much damage to anything? Last i checked we simply do not have anything remotely detailed on any of these questions.

and ships are a weak link when you're fighting on one end of the world, producing tons of war material on the other and shipping just as many desperately needed resources in between.

How would they find the convoys when massive numbers of submarines had trouble doing so? How was the visibility from these Ufo's and what kind of range did they have? Were the 'fuel' easy to produce or what kind of energy requirements were there to maintain the anti-gravity 'drive' ( ugh)?

i'm just trying to make some sense of the scenario.

So am i but i don't believe as you do that the existence of a few experimental anti-gravity craft means ANYTHING in a strategic sense even if they could be made to carry crude ineffective guns that could not hit a damn thing on a good day.

I don't see why the lack of operational deployment ( in the sense that they were affecting the outcome of the war) PROVES in some way that they did not exist and all i am doing is attempting to point out the, in my opinion, illogical nature of such arguments.

the bottom line is that such tech remained unused, for all we know, and if it was used sporadically, it happened on a miniscule scale only.

It apparently quite clearly did unless someone wants to attempt explaining the slow Allied advances in this manner.

the most plausible reason is that this stuff never existed, of course,

I think there is more than enough date to prove that the Germans did serious anti-gravity research and that they had at least some, if marginal, success...