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.

 

Hitler's Third Reich 'wonder weapons' finally put to the test.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Yes perhaps, but the fact still remains they had the largest volume of refined Uranium ( 1,235 pounds of 77 percent pure uranium oxide ) that was intercepted on a U-Boat heading to Japan.

Uh, 77% Uranium Oxide is pretty much Yellowcake, the stuff that's mined from the ground. You would need approximately 25,000 pounds of pure uranium oxide to make a nuclear weapon, assuming no losses. You would also need a facility to turn the Uranium Oxide into Uranium Hexaflouride for enrichment, an enrichment facility, a way to turn the Uranium back to its elemental form, then a way to build all the bomb components and the bomb itself. This generally leaves its mark (i.e. ORNL, LLNL, & LANL). Did all of this infrastructure exist in Germany (or Japan)? All your example tells us is that they may of been researching or perhaps developing Nuclear Weapons, but it does not suggest that they were anywhere close to achieving their goal. There is also no doubt the US obtained secrets from the Nazi's, however it was primarily the US that developed, built, tested, and used nuclear weapons - to deny that is to deny the entire Manhattan project.


Not before the Nazi's.

We hijacked it from the Nazi's by kidnapping their scientists during the end of the war.

Propaganda makes us believe that the US had it first.

You merely smear any history your skewed version of history disagrees with by calling it the 'official story' and 'propaganda'. Manhattan project was well underway before the end of the war, as was all the infrastructure in place to make nuclear weapons (e.g. B Reactor, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge... etc).

[edit on 3/4/2010 by C0bzz]




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

It would almost literally take a nuclear bomb to sink a super carrier...


Yup Battleships are unsinkable, but remember what a British nuclear submarine did to the Admiral Belgrano during the Falklands war.

And a nuclear armed torpedo or sunburn missile would make short work of your unsinkable carrier.

The small quiet diesel battery submarines of China, Russia, and Australia have ALL been able to get within hailing distance when they unexpectedly surfaced right along side of American aircraft Carriers, and have done so many times during exercises, when the carriers were at full battle readiness.

These days carriers are just expensive floating targets, useful only for carrying out strategic strikes on defenseless third world countries.

In a REAL war against a serious and determined technologically modern military, they are just floating steel coffins.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Because weight like that would sink into pretty much any substrate other than solid stone.

A unit of tanks like this would basically become the world's scariest trailer park the minute they rolled out.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Never heard of any of that before. I knew that the Germans were aware of the possability of an atom bomb and were developing heavy water in Norway/Sweden?


Yhea something like that, some RAF Mosquitoes (my all time fav aircraft!) had to do some precision bombing on the installation which I think was half way up a cliff in a fjord... Things could be very different today if Germany got the bomb back then.

The heavy water would of been essential for a breeder reactor which would produce uranium from plutonium I think.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Not so sure about that. Tracked vehicles can have relatively low ground pressure, it is why they are used in deep snow instead of wheeled vehicles.

Given sufficient track area the crawler launch structure for all the Apollo moon missions was mounted on tracks, and that weighed in at 6,000 tons.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 3/4/2010 by Silver Shadow]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Artist impression of the Landkreuzer Ratte P-1000 (Land Cruiser Rat P-1000)





[edit on 3-4-2010 by Mdv2]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanWhen we seized the Nazi patent archives, we carted off millions of pages of documents. We then sold them off to US industry (or kept them for covert development) and proceeding to dominate the world.


To the victor the spoils. However, the allies consisted of more than just the US. Britain, France, Canada and the Soviets benefitted from Nazi loot, as did the other nations who participated. The most high profile being the rocketry technology which informed the rocket programmes of the various nations - the US one being the most high profile with their public appointment of the ex-Nazi Wernher von Braun.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanOf course, as i mentioned before, this is hard to believe. The Nazi's were highly intellectual in every way. I cannot believe that they would mismanage their government to such a degree as to make their strength completely pointless.


You will just have to believe the fact that the Nazi's di not have a monopoly on intellect! The Nazi’s were soundly defeated. If they made mistakes it is because they were bettered in almost evey field. The most significant “war winning” developments were undertaken on the allied side. The Nazi’s did not have a monopoly on innovation.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan...Germany (and surrounding area) were responsible for most of the breakthroughs in the first half of the last century (Einstein, Heisenberg, Scharbauer, Von Braun, et al).


No, they were not. Germany clearly had their share of highly talented people (e.g. in physics), but I think you are wrong that they were “responsible for most of the breakthroughs in the first half of the last century”. Just look at the Nobel Prize lists as a hint.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanThere are tons more. You can start by looking at the Wunderwaffe. ...


Very, very few of these Nazi “wonder weapons” left the drawing board or were actually technically achievable. It is easy to draw a “super bomber to rain destruction on New York”, but actually designing the engines is another matter! Some Nazi designs may appear to be “years before their time”, but that is meaningless in the context of war. My son can do you a drawing of a wonder weapon if you like!


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanRockets
machines guns (Sturmgewehr, or STG)
night vision
they were the first in space
U Boats


Oh, the inevitable list of Nazi technology.

- The STG (StG 44) was merely an evolution of an infantry weapon. It may have ended up informing future firearm development, but that’s it.
- Night vision – Both sides strove to develop night vision apparatus with some success. The RAF used night vision binoculars, for example.
- U Boats – Were just submarines and all sides had submarines. Unfortunately for the Germans, the allies developed technology to counter them, so that by the end of the war the U Boat had become largely irrelevant, regardless of the imagination of Nazi builders.

I am not trying to diminish or demean the accomplishments of the Nazi scientists because the Nazi’s did produce some highly significant advancements. However, this has to be taken in context and with recognition that by the end of the war the Nazi archives became “public”, whereas the victors did not publish many of their advancements because the world was slipping in to the Cold War.

The Nazi technology is just hyped up for the "made for TV" generation

The Nazi’s lost. That’s what counts and their design for a 1,000 ton tank was silly and total fantasy.

Regards



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


There was also the heavy water plant at Vermok in Norway which the Germans took over after the invasion.


''In 1943, a team of SOE-trained Norwegian commandos succeeded in destroying the production facility with a second attempt, Operation Gunnerside. Operation Gunnerside was later dubbed by SOE as the most successful act of sabotage in all of World War II''


en.wikipedia.org...

The story is quite incredible. Many of the operatives were Norweigans who were top class skiers. If you get a chance you should read a book on the operation.

www.amazon.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I am reminded of 300 B-17's sent to bomb a target in Norway, the hydro-electric plant producing 'heavy water' 1,000 bombs were dropped, eighteen hit the target, that information is taken from an American air power TV program.
ME262 American pilots mostley had to wait for the 262 to land so they could shoot it down, and is it true an order was issued to shoot bailed out 262 pilots???
The MKB42h/mp43/mp44/StG series assault rifles, copied by America and Russian designers??
Radio controlled anti shipping bombs? used in the Mediterranean, wire guided anti-tank rockets? radar controlled quad 20mm guns, air to air rockets, stealth submarines, the Panther tank, best all round tank of WW 2 (crew comfort, 75mm main gun better than Tiger 88's, optics, armour, radio)
Mp40 led the way in machine pistol design, as did the MP18 after WW 1)
run out of room



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Regarding air ground co-operation, perfected by the Heer (German army) in 1939, look up 'Stuka' when you get a chance, In Italy, in 1944, the Allies had a lot of trouble with a twin jet engined 'spy-plane' called the Arado 232, the Americans sent over a few a their jet fighters, to try and catch it,none of the 232 were shot down.
Some facts of Luftwaffe aircraft, the first to have pressurised cabins, the first to experiment with ejector seats.
Building aircraft out of wood, look up DeHaviland Mosquito, a twin engined plane built by the British, the fastest twin engined propeller plane of the war.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Look at this 274 mm Houwitzer, the allied captured from the Nazi's..They were building them all right







Then you have the Atlantikwall, the France had similair fortifications at the Forts of Souville and Froideterre

p.s if people are curious about the US weapons back at that time, think about the Philadelphia project [which was "defeated eventually by the Manhattan project) and think about the consequences for propulsions, anti gravity etc.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Foppezao]

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Foppezao]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


True but they weren't used the same way. The Bismarck was designed to be in relatively up close gunfights, sink ships, take punishment and survive. It definitely was the Alpha hunter of the Atlantic with no real carriers to speak of.
Like I said, if you were a British ship, you didn't want to see the Bismarck coming towards you.

It probably would not have fared well in the long range carrier wars of the Pacific.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
'Rat tank is ridiculous! There were not even any roads that could support its weight!

Thats ok it would have just made its own. LOL

As to US super weapons, they stole a lot from the Germans after WW2. Just look at their rocket program. Stole what scientists they could & prosecuted, anyone who couldn't make the US money.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by acrux]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Imagine how much damage that thing would create just by it's tracks alone! Not the sort of thing you would want to drive around defending your home country, that's for sure.

Invading another country with it, however, would certainly result in a solid investment. You would make heaps charging them to help rebuild their country afterwards...




Originally posted by acrux

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
'Rat tank is ridiculous! There were not even any roads that could support its weight!

Thats ok it would have just made its own. LOL




Well at the least, it would prepare the base for a dual highway!



[edit on 3/4/10 by NuclearPaul]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


The Arado 232 was a four-engined, propeller driven transport aircraft.

I assume you mean the Arado 234 jet bomber which did see operational service. I would like to see your source that the US sent jets against it in Italy because I am sceptical. The 234 was a fast bomber / reconnaissance aircraft.

It was built in far too small numbers to have any worthwhile effect (c. 200 built of various variants and prototypes) and contrary to your assertion some were shot down in air-to-air and by AAA. Sources state that at least 12 were claimed by the 15th and 8th USAAF and doubtlessly the RAF bagged a few. Indeed, the last 234 destroyed is credited to Spitfire XIV’s of the RAF’s 350 (Belgium) Sqn on the 2 May 1945.

Regards


[edit on 3/4/2010 by paraphi]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


The USAAF sent, I think two P-80's to Italy in the spring of 45, none were used in combat. German jets were not invincible, no aircraft is.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
True but they weren't used the same way. The Bismarck was designed to be in relatively up close gunfights, sink ships, take punishment and survive...

... It probably would not have fared well in the long range carrier wars of the Pacific.


Actually, the Bismark did not fare well in the Atlantic either as she was sunk on her first operational sortie.

Someone earlier said that she was hit by a "lucky" torpedo! Eveything about war is good luck and bad luck. You can argue that she got in a "lucky" hit on HMS Hood and if HMS Prince of Wales (being worked up at the time) was in fact HMS XYZ she may never have got to the torpedo!

Bismark's sister the Tirpitz was sunk by the RAF. Let's not forget that in Europe land based planes caused havoc to naval power - look to the Mediterranean to see that fact.

Regards



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


I am aware of the history. It was a lucky hit, and yes war is full of those. Even then it took Two Battleships, 2 Cruisers and destroyers to unload almost everything they had and it still didn't sink till the Germans scuttled it. That all being said, I would take the Bismarck one on one vs any other ship that was in the Atlantic during WWII. It was a fine ship, but wars are won by Navies, not a ship.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OldDragger

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by spikey
 


Ha ha fair point, they would have created their own roads. Still with Allied air superiority this tank would have been subdued. If this had been avaliable along with the jet fighters before or by Kursk in 1943 it really could have swung the war in the German's favour.

Still the Allies (or at least the Americans) would have had the Atom Bomb.

It would have sunk under it's own weight, not to mention have an insane appetite for fuel. and what purpose would it serve that other practical weapons couldn't? It's a monument to Hitler's delusions, and the generaly inefficient German weapons development programs.

As for jets, it would have made a temporary difference only.
The f-80 was operational in May 1945, ( though did not see combat ), along with British jets. The f-84 was close to operational by wars end , and the f-86 Sabre was well under way. Any of these aircraft were able to outperform the high maintainance, relativly fragile 262.





As for jets, it would have made a temporary difference only.
The f-80 was operational in May 1945, ( though did not see combat ), along with British jets. The f-84 was close to operational by wars end , and the f-86 Sabre was well under way. Any of these aircraft were able to outperform the high maintainance, relativly fragile 262.



I take issue with the misleading quality of these comments.



The XP-86A was developed with the benefit of Nazi wind tunnel research captured in 1945 by Operation LUSTY. It was not a pure American design but one inspired by wartime Nazi technology and developed postwar by German engineers under operation Paperclip.

The first XP-86 was flown on October 1, 1947 and the first production P-86A aircraft did not emerge until after June 1948.

The so called Lockheed XP-80A was conceived as the De Haviland Halton with a maximum speed of 500kt. USA took the design and developed it as the Lockheed Shooting Star with a more powerful General Electric J-33 engine. The first of these did not emerge in service until the war was over.

The straight wing Republic XP-84 would not have been suited to dogfighting with the swept wing Me-262 and did not emerge in production until February 1947.

Meantime the Germans were close to the maiden flight of the first of 16 production Focke Wulf Ta-183 with wire guided X-T4 air to air missiles in May 1945.

The He-162 Salamander was already equipping Luftwaffe squadrons. It was superior to the XP-80A with a speed of 553 mph at sea level and 562 mph at 19,680 ft. The RN Fleet Air Arm test pilot Eric Brown thought very highly of the He-162 after testing it. Two fighter geschwaders were equipped with the He-162 by the end of the war and fuel shortages were the real issue.






edit on 22-6-2014 by sy.gunson because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OldDragger
reply to post by yellowcard
 


It would have been very quickly rendered useless by aircraft in WW2.
Top speed? not too quick I imagine!


The thing about the Rat is its large naval guns. With this in mind, I think the Germans were trying to advance their technology concerning mobile heavy artillery. They had giant cannons of similar size on railroads and were using them to decimate towns.

The problem was that it could only hit targets at a certain range from the railroad tracks. If I recall correctly, there were maybe 3 of these railway artillery cannons in operation, and I don't know if airplanes took them out, despite having only one path it could be on. The tank would solve that problem (while raising many other problems in the process).



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join