What about the Bat bomb? Had the USAAF been able to prefect the technology, we could have seen both RAF and USAAF heavy bombers ranging over Europe at night, dropping bomb-laden bats over Axis cities and industrial areas.
Dilvish,
There is no way to "perfect" that particular weapon.
I know it is a favorite for speculation, but even a cursory examination of the idea, it's difficulties, and the results gained in testing show it to be on par with Japan's attempts to create massive wildfires in the Pacific Northwest with trans-oceanic balloons.
There are too many other far cheaper, far easier, and far more effective ways to deliver incendiaries to a target.
Bill
I forgot to add the smilies; I assumed people would read it as a joke, in line with other posts in this thread.
Mindless Luft'46 fanboys... drolling over some half-baked back-of-envelop sketch that never even made it to the drawing board.The Luft 46 fanboys have orgasms over Nazi wonder weapons, whether or not they those weapons ever made it off the drawing board, but what about Allied wonder weapons?
Developed and deployed in the form of the Gargoyle series radar guided glide bombs.Air to Surface Guided Missiles
Several under development during the war in OTL (the Yanks' Little Joe was ready for use a matter of months after the end of the war while the Lark entered testing in 1946).Surface to Air Missiles
Why are you so down on the Bat Bomb? It was a smart bomb tailored for the Japanese environment. The idea was the bats would fly themselves into wooden Japanese buildings, thus far smaller and fewer incendiaries would be used. One B-24 would carry a million bats. The whole operation could be carried out by a handful of B-24s operating out of Alaska. Of course by the time you had B-29s flying out of the Marianas the game changed.Dilvish,
There is no way to "perfect" that particular weapon.
I know it is a favorite for speculation, but even a cursory examination of the idea, it's difficulties, and the results gained in testing show it to be on par with Japan's attempts to create massive wildfires in the Pacific Northwest with trans-oceanic balloons.
There are too many other far cheaper, far easier, and far more effective ways to deliver incendiaries to a target.
Bill
What exactly defines an assault rifle? Would the M1918 BAR or M2 carbine count? The M2 was capable of fully automatic fire...
In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[1][2][3]
------
- It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
- It must be capable of selective fire;
- It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
- Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
- C. Taylor The fighting rifle – A complete study of the rifle in combat, ISBN 0-87947-308-8
- F.A. Moyer Special Forces foreign weapons handbook, ISBN 0-87364-009-8
- R.J. Scroggie, F.A. Moyer Special Forces combat firing techniques, ISBN 0-87364-010-1
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
They're battle rifles. If you class them as assault rifles, then there's no such thing as a battle rifle.I'm not sure I'd agree with that point. Most people class the FAL and G3 as assault rifles and they fire full power ammunition.
Why are you so down on the Bat Bomb?
It was a smart bomb tailored for the Japanese environment.
The idea was the bats would fly themselves into wooden Japanese buildings, thus far smaller and fewer incendiaries would be used.
One B-24 would carry a million bats.
The whole operation could be carried out by a handful of B-24s operating out of Alaska. Of course by the time you had B-29s flying out of the Marianas the game changed.
Tallwingedgoat,
Perhaps because I've read about the actual test program and don't believe the many internet legends?
That's one internet claim. In the projects lone operational test, the bats burned down an untended "base" built specifically for that purpose. Japan had one of the world's most effective fire fighting organizations at the time. A few dozen, widely spread house fires will not have the same effect as tons of incendiaries dropped in relatively tight patterns.
That's another internet claim. Did you know that over half the bats used in testing froze to death aboard the bombers before being dropped? Or that many others were too disoriented after being dropped to do much but flop around on the ground for a few hours?
A million? Try a few orders of magnitude lower.
Among many other things, the idea was logistically absurd. (Yes, I know, logistics.) You'll need to capture the bats, attach incendiaries to the bats, plus feed, water, and house them after capture, after being armed, during transport to forward airbases, and while waiting for bombing missions. I'm not even going to touch upon the disease issues your bat handlers will face.
Then, after this industrially sized zoological effort, your bombers will end up pelting Japan with frozen dead bats, disoriented bats, and a few bats that actually do what the project assumed they would do. The incendiaries attached to the dead and disoriented bats will tip the Japanese off to the incendiary part of the program, kicking off a widespread bat hunt.
Finally, if B-24s can carry bats with incendiaries attached to them from Alaska to the Home Islands, they can make the same trip carrying incendiaries alone.
The bat program was just as useless, silly, and wasteful as the Soviets anti-tank program involving dogs and satchel charges.
Bill
Do you have a link?Tallwingedgoat,
Perhaps because I've read about the actual test program and don't believe the many internet legends?
My understanding was the unintentional blaze was at a US Army base. The weapon was later tested on a mock up Japanese town and the Army observers certified it as an effective weapon. If Japan's fire fighting skills were that impressive, why was the firebombing of Tokyo so effective? We're talking not dozens, but thousands of fires spread out through a large area, making coordinated fire fighting all but impossible.That's one internet claim. In the projects lone operational test, the bats burned down an untended "base" built specifically for that purpose. Japan had one of the world's most effective fire fighting organizations at the time. A few dozen, widely spread house fires will not have the same effect as tons of incendiaries dropped in relatively tight patterns.
Sounds to me like a solvable environmental control issue. No weapon works perfectly during development.That's another internet claim. Did you know that over half the bats used in testing froze to death aboard the bombers before being dropped? Or that many others were too disoriented after being dropped to do much but flop around on the ground for a few hours?
I may have misread. According to Wikipedia:A million? Try a few orders of magnitude lower.
It's much simpler than many other WWII wunderwaffen projects. Certainly a shoestring budget compared with the Manhatten Project.Among many other things, the idea was logistically absurd. (Yes, I know, logistics.) You'll need to capture the bats, attach incendiaries to the bats, plus feed, water, and house them after capture, after being armed, during transport to forward airbases, and while waiting for bombing missions. I'm not even going to touch upon the disease issues your bat handlers will face.
But that mission would be nowhere as effective. The incendiary bombs would not be carried by bats into buildings. The Bat Bomb was designed to start small fires in places like attics and grainaries that would go unnoticed long enough to build into a major fire. The incendiaries used timers to ignite after the bombers had left the scene, and after the fire brigade had stood down.Finally, if B-24s can carry bats with incendiaries attached to them from Alaska to the Home Islands, they can make the same trip carrying incendiaries alone.