Favourite abandoned world war projects.

Thande

Donor
My favourite has to be the planned German sonic arsenal.
Originating from the Austrain Dr. Zippermeyer whose response to the ferocious Allied air bombardment of the Reich was to experiment with both wind and sound as potential anti-aircraft weapons.



One such device was the Windkanone or ‘Whirlwind Cannon’, which was meant to produce artificial ‘whirlwinds’ by generating explosions in a combustion chamber and directing them through specially designed nozzles at the target. Experiments with a small cannon supposedly shattered planks at 200-yard (183m) range, and a full-size one was built. Fortunately for British and American aircraft, the effect was impossible to reproduce at high altitudes and the project was scrapped. The huge hulk of the ‘Whirlwind Cannon’ itself, though, was discovered rusting and abandoned by bemused Allied forces on the Artillery Proving ground at Hillersleben in April 1945.

That's interesting, because I remember reading that there were rumours in Britain about an "airblast gun" being developed which were apparently a complete hoax, but perhaps not...
 
That's interesting, because I remember reading that there were rumours in Britain about an "airblast gun" being developed which were apparently a complete hoax, but perhaps not...

For some reason, this reminded me of the mine gas bomb that was intended to reproduce the same sort of explosion one can get down a mine.
 
oh yes....

Then there was Gloster's 1941 Jet bomber design, very similar to the Arado Ar 234.

8GLOSTER_.jpg
7GLOSTER_.jpg


The Arado had a wing span of 46 ft 4 ins and a length was 41 ft 6 ins against the Gloster’s 84 ft wing span and 65ft 6 ins length. The Gloster was penned on12/8/41, a little later than the Arado. A case of great minds think alike?
oh yes.... taken from http://flitzerart.com : wonderful ! :D:D
 
Great Britain
Ground Attack
Whether the Amstrong Whitworth Aw 49, Boulton Paul P.99 or P.100, these similar in concept aircraft with heavy canon armament would have made a very interesting impact on a battlefield.

Heavy Bombers
Howabout the Boulton Paul P.90 instead of the Short Stirling - its service ceiling of 35,000ft was certainly better. At the initial Design Conference in '36 it was placed second after Vickers - with Shorts last!

But given that the Stirling did go ahead, then why not improve it with the 'Super Stirling'? 'Bomber' Harris was not in favour - lost production and slower rate for the new version. Yet the current one was getting shot out of the sky!

Dear merlin,
I have seen the illustrations of the Boulton Paul P.99 and Boulton Paul P.100 at flitzerart, but I can't find any information on the net about the other alternate British aircraft you mentioned, the Boulton Paul P.90 (bomber?) or the Armstrong Whitworth Aw 49 (ground attacker?).
Could you kindly provide links or information about these planes? I would appreciate that very much.

Thank you very much in advance!

AMF
 
AMF - Info request no problem.

Source - British Secret Projects Fighters & Bombers 1935 - 1950 by Tony Butler.

Armstrong Whitworth AW.49
It had twin booms and a pusher engine, a Merlin X or Sabre IV, three 40mm canon were housed in the nose and two 20mm in the wing roots, and two 500lb bombs would be carried under the wings; options were given on different mixes of the canon armament. Max range for the Sabre variant was 1,010 miles.

Heavy Bombers
Specification B.12/36

Boulton Paul P.90
Bomb load was either 28 500 lb or 250 lb bombs, or seven 2,000 lb bombs. Cruising speed at 15,000 ft was 248 mph, max 290 mph, with a service ceiling of 35,000 ft, powered by either 4 Kestrels or Napier Daggers. Dimensions: - span 100 ft., length 77.3 ft., wing area 1,450sq. ft., and max weight 47,922 lbs.
 
I still say the Habbukuk could have won the war. It was, after all, indestructible. Just pull three into the Baltic, each one covering the other and start bombing Berlin 24/7 from a hundred miles away.

How about thermite or napalm? Could they burn through the ice to the sea?
 
About getting rid of Habakkuk: It is effectively unsinkable by anything short of a hydrogen bomb. Anything smaller (like the Crossroads test with the USS Saratoga) would leave something which wasn't a ship but was still definitely afloat.

However, Habakkuk is effectively a somewhat portable island- an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the mould of Malta. Therefore, it can be neutralised. Cratering the flight deck (probably with large quantities of thermite bombs) would definitely qualify as a mission kill, at least until more Pykrete can be sprayed to repair the damage. In summer, the refrigeration gear (which for thermodynamic reasons has to be outside the vessel) is another good target- by aircraft if it is on one of the towing barges*, or by torpedo or midget sub if it uses the sea as a heat sink. Perhaps the most intersting idea would be landing airborne troops on board the Habakkuk (paratroops or gliders) to capture it- the thing is big enough for aircraft to land without arrestor wires, and therefore without the consent of the crew. An Me-321 glider landing on Habakkuk would be like a modern COD flight scaled up 20 times. The Germans could then use it for various purposes- although Hitler would probably insist it be refitted as a battleship with batteries of 80cm guns!

*One early Habakkuk plan had the iceberg itself contain only the hangar and flight deck, plus AA batteries. Motive power and refrigeration were provided by a small fleet of very powerful tugs.
 
Top