Reich Ministry commissions surface to air missiles in 1941

In radar the horizontal polarization and (vertical polarization) matter's less then the grazing angle's,

Any radar can be used to measure the range to a target and it's direction determination as long as it can detect the target at the given range and (height) in side the radar's horizon,

As It doe's not need to be directly linked up to the central fire control room like most highly sophisticated dedicated purpose built advanced fire control radar's are,

To be used for the ranging of target's and there direction determination a primitive radar from 1939 is almost as good as a highly sophisticated dedicated purpose built advanced fire control radar from 1945 for that purpose,

Primitive radar's in 1939 had a range accuracy that was accurate to within 100-260 meter's or 50-130 +/- meter's of the true range of the target with a direction determination of 1-4 degree's or 0.5-2 +/- degree's of it's true direction determination,

This was good enough to straddle a target vessel on the first salvo but you still needed target speed and target course as well as sea and weather condition's and any other atmospheric interference's to complete the firing track solution,

And if you'r crew down in the central fire control room can do all that at night then you'r vessel has radar assisted and or radar directed blindfire capacity,

Highly sophisticated dedicated purpose built advanced fire control radar's of 1945 had a range accuracy that was accurate to within 15-25 meter's or 7.5-12.5 +/- meter's of the true range of the target,

With a direction determination of 0.1-0.3 degree's or 0.05-0.15 +/- degree's of it's true direction determination,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cavity magnetron radar's befor 1952 required at least forty five minute's or more to warm up before functioning correctly where as grid modulation radar's such as seetakt (freya) ect only required thirty second's warm up before functioning correctly,

Cavity magnetron's required rare earth element's from (eurafrasia) with the battle's of the atlantic driving up the cost and in (1940-1943) a cavity magnetron radar set would cost most of the time more then a gato class fleet boat,

And with the complexity of the cavity magnetron in 1942 a m4 sherman medium tank could be built in less time than it took to build a cavity magnetron,

When production of the first generation of cavity magnetron's ended in the defense cut back's of (1946-1948) the cost of a new 1948 first generation cavity magnetron radar set was more then the projected cost of a tank platoon of six (m46 patton's).
I can only tell you the German shipborne radar was only surface, and air search, with no blind fire capability. The RN & USN could engage in long range night fire, while the Germans couldn't. Duke of York had a decisive advantage over Scharnhorst in their arctic night action. Scharnhorst didn't even know Duke of York was there until she fired on her. At Surigao Strait West Virginia hit the battleship Yamashiro at 22,800 yards at night on the first salvo. By early 1943 AA fire control radar was highly effective. At the Battle of the Philippine Sea the USN fast battleships were placed in a forward group, so they could use their long range AA guns to engage Japanese air groups heading toward the fast carriers.

Even in 1945 only 1/3 of 5" shells had proximity fuses but by late 1942 it was nearly suicidal for Japanese aircraft to launch conventional attacks. Radar directed fire was far more effective then with optical tracking alone. The Germans were never able to engage Allied ships, and aircraft so effectively. Admittedly Radar wasn't the only factor, but it was critical.
 
Last edited:
Motorola Radio with Handie-Talkie plus M1 and BAR > Kar98k/MP40/MG42 combo, as C3 over the fine C2 the Germans had, was a huge force multiplier
"The business of America is Talking."
Let's Active in Waters Part
(A good Let's Active song even is Sara Romweber had already left.)
 
Many people deride British Radar of chain home as being technically obsolete, inefficient and generally second best.
What these critics fail to understand is that the British made a deliberate decision to 'go now' with what could be achieved in the shortest time rather than wait for the best technical solution.
That was why in 1939 Britain had a working Radar based air defence system which by the summer of 1940 was mature enough to be crucial to the outcome of the Battle of Britain.
The Germans never caught up with the allies application of radar technology.
Whilst Britain fielded new technologies that worked the Nazis chased technological rainbows and never found their pot of gold, just spending it instead.
Which is of course one reason why Arthur C. Clarke wrote Superiority after the war as a satirical tale. Rather than a German writing a similar story as a boast.
 
Oh god MCLOS heavy sams makes the blowpipe look like a good idea. In short, this would be horribly ineffective.
 
Last edited:

Garrison

Donor
Which is of course one reason why Arthur C. Clarke wrote Superiority after the war as a satirical tale. Rather than a German writing a similar story as a boast.
I read that story many years ago, long before I was acquainted with the full history of WWII and only reading your post now do I get the point.
 
I read that story many years ago, long before I was acquainted with the full history of WWII and only reading your post now do I get the point.
AIUI Clarke worked on the British WW2 team developing Ground Control Radar for guiding planes to land in bad visibility. [1] And then served in a junior capacity on the British technical team examining German wartime projects, be it prototypes or Napkinwaffe . Which sshould put him a good place to judge the merits of the German approach as compared to the British and other Allies. Especially the Soviet Union, who might have been the model for the enemy in Superiority.

Although he and we might be forgetting the prime reason for many (all?) the Wunderwaffen projects. Keeping the designers, technicians and others involved away from the Eastern Front. In this at least they were very successful. 😀

That they wasted raw materials, machine tools and labour was a bonus. For the Allies.

[1] His novel Glide Path is based on this experience. Being a very light hearted account. Which i hope is inaccurate, but YNK with WW2 Britain
 
IMHO if a notional Allied Army had a decent self loading rifle to go along with Bren Guns they would have likely done very very well given a reasonable doctrine.

A squad equipped with M1 Garands and Bren Guns (preferably all firing the same type of ammo) would likely have been a better all round combination than the Kar98, MG34 / 42 IMHO. But I suppose if you are stuck with bolt action rifles, then having an MG42 at squad level makes sense..
The Bren Gun was a great LMG, but the Americans for various reasons stuck with the BAR. In an earlier thread on the BAR vs. Bren Gun it was pointed out there was a FN BAR version that was much lighter, with a pistol grip and quick change barrel. I can't find any info on the model right now, but it would've been a much better weapon then the one the army settled for. They were in a hurry for rearmament, so they decided to limit any redesign work to modifications that could be retrofit to existing BAR models.

Similarly, the design of the M-1 Carbine was intended to be auto select fire, but to get it into production sooner it was only semi-auto. With a few more months work they could've had an M-2 type weapon to replace or supplement the heavy Thompson SMG. We didn't get the M-2 Carbine till the last months of WWII. I don't think it ever saw combat in Europe. When you're pressed for time, you have to settle for what you can get right now.
 
Last edited:
The Bren Gun was a great LMG, but the Americans for various reasons stuck with the BAR. In an earlier thread on the BAR vs. Bren Gun it was pointed out there was a FN BAR version that was much lighter, with a pistol grip and quick change barrel. I can't find any info on the model right now, but it would've been a much better weapon then the one the army settled for. They were in a hurry for rearmament, so they decided to limit any redesign work to modifications that could be retrofit to existing BAR models.

Similarly, the design of the M-1 Carbine was intended to be auto select fire, but to get it into production sooner it was only semi-auto. With a few more months work they could've had an M-2 type weapon to replace or supplement the heavy Thompson SMG. We didn't get the M-2 Carbine till the last months of WWII. I don't think it ever saw combat in Europe. When your pressed for time you have to settle for what you can get right now.
Mmmm, I have seen an video from Forgotten Weapons that you could turn an M2 carbine with 1 or 2 extra parts and some wood chisseling in to an Full auto M3 carabine
 
Mmmm, I have seen an video from Forgotten Weapons that you could turn an M2 carbine with 1 or 2 extra parts and some wood chisseling in to an Full auto M3 carabine
I think he was talking about making a semi-auto M-1 into a full auto, like the M-2. The M-3 Carbine was just an M-2 with an infrared scope. The Army's next Carbine was the M-4 in wide use today. Unfortunately, many semi-auto weapons can be easily converted into a full auto weapon.
 
Looking at the numbers of SAMs in the 80s and the promised kill ratio of the manufacturers…

all planes of all nations in a WW3 scenario would have been down hours into that conflict. Yet both sides (knowing the other side had far more SAMs then the own side had planes) continued to build planes and train pilots.

Conclusio: I am somewhat sceptical if it comes to claims from SAM manufacturers about the kill ratio.
 
Conclusio: I am somewhat sceptical if it comes to claims from SAM manufacturers about the kill ratio.
Those are specified for the proper usage parameters for the missile (altitude, range, relative velocity and vector of target, atmospheric conditions etc) which if they are achieved, well its the pilots own damn fault. Sam dodging is very much its own thing but the primary takeaway is that yeah there are certain ranges and altitudes where the numbers provided by the manufacturer certainly apply. They do however not apply to the maximum stated range of the missile for example. Most AA and sam missiles have "max ranges" and "certain kill ranges" and if you are within the latter then you are very much in heaps of trouble.

The thing is that pilots very much have the advantage when it comes to avoiding them altogether. Sams tend to be static objects with limited range and you as a pilot are very much not.

Dug up some translations on french A2A missiles as an example:

"- LL1 (Limite longue sans évasive), the furthest DLZ limit in French planes, is defined
as the range at which the missile can still hit if the target performs a 5G maneuver. To
translate what French documentation says about it: "This extra energy allows in
practice to counter a 30 ° evasive after the shot if there is no final evasion".
- LLX (Limite longue avec évasive - eq. to NEZ) is the firing distance below which the
missile has enough energy to counter a 90 ° evasive at launch coupled with 7G
maneuver during final approach.
"
 
Last edited:
There is actually an excellent German technology of WW2 that very few people talk about: the Panzergranate 39 pattern of APCBC-HE ammo.

It was a more efficient projectile than American or Soviet full bore ammo (don't know as much about the British, but they seem to be comparable to Pzgr 39), to the point where both countries extensively studied the German round to develop better projectiles postwar. Far less shatter-prone and better against RHA at decent angles.

To give you an idea, with the same penetration criteria, 15 lb projectile weight and 2600fps velocity, the 75mm Pzgr 39 shot out of a PaK 40 penetrated some 10-15% more than 76mm M1A2 shooting M62A1 APC.
 
Top