No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

[At ease]

.

[Takao]

And yet, you referenced a youtube video in the following post in September:

Post #9 of this thread(parts of which have been removed to reduce the amount of reading needed):

viewtopic.php?p=2428726#p2428726


What a massive hypocrite you are.

....
A part of this reply was deleted at it had comment that violated the rules of AHF. please behave!

Georg / Admin

The video I referenced
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T9WMSxV6lMs
is a TELEVISION COMMERCIAL.

You apparently neither watched the video, nor read through the thread.

Thus, you are Captain Hancock of the USS Montana, and I am the Lighthouse.

Disgraceful.

I will again be hypocritical...
Link removed, behave!

[At ease]

Here is another time Takao referenced a youtube video:

viewtopic.php?p=2168338#p2168338

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywf8iwmCyMQ

It looks like a reasonable video.

But so are those from the "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" site.

It encapsulates two of my most enduring areas of interest, being combat aircraft and performance cars.

I, like many others, consider Greg's site to be 1st class.


You adopt the policy of:

One rule for thee, but not for me.

I could go on.

I have already found other instances.

[Takao]

Here is another time Takao referenced a youtube video:

viewtopic.php?p=2168338#p2168338

You adopt the policy of:

One rule for thee, but not for me.

I could go on.

I have already found other instances.

"Removed remark on a member / Georg"

Plain Old Dave said they made a movie of Captain Fluckey of the USS Barb and his MoH mission, I responded...


No major movies that I know of...Although, there were three TV shows.

Navy Log
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwvPNtp3bJY

The Silent Service
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywf8iwmCyMQ

Smithsonian Channel: Hell Below(S2E2) Sabotage Submarine
https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/show ... 08/3461468

NOTE: These YouTubes are not being referenced as statements of fact.


Your problem is you are just forum searching for my use of "YouTube".

You are not reading the thread, or looking at the context of the material.

Does this not constitute an I-D-10T Error on your part.

[Takao]

Here is another time Takao referenced a youtube video:

viewtopic.php?p=2168338#p2168338

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywf8iwmCyMQ

It looks like a reasonable video.

But so are those from the "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" site.

It encapsulates two of my most enduring areas of interest, being combat aircraft and performance cars.

I, like many others, consider Greg's site to be 1st class.


You adopt the policy of:

One rule for thee, but not for me.

I could go on.

I have already found other instances.

So, I presume that "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" is nothing other than a TV commercial, like the USS Montana VS Lighthouse...you know, the YouTube I referenced.

By all means, continue your fishing expedition.

[Takao]

I'll save you the time...

Here is another YouTube I used.
Professor Wikipedia
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY

Perhaps, if you watch it, you might gain a little more understanding on the matter.

[At ease]

Here is another time Takao referenced a youtube video:

viewtopic.php?p=2168338#p2168338

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywf8iwmCyMQ

It looks like a reasonable video.

But so are those from the "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" site.

It encapsulates two of my most enduring areas of interest, being combat aircraft and performance cars.

I, like many others, consider Greg's site to be 1st class.


You adopt the policy of:

One rule for thee, but not for me.

I could go on.

I have already found other instances.

So, I presume that "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" is nothing other than a TV commercial, like the USS Montana VS Lighthouse...you know, the YouTube I referenced.

By all means, continue your fishing expedition.

About Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles
Greetings, this is Greg,

Welcome to my Patreon. My youtube channel is heavily focused on aircraft from the world wars, and the technology they used. I generally use only factual and verifiable data from official sources in my videos, and when I deviate from that formula I make it clear when information is simply my opinion, or someone else's.

My channel's format is far from ideal for youtube because I won't whitewash or omit things just for the sake of conforming to today's politically correct standards. I put my effort into research, not into retouching historical photos to omit offensive symbols.

Patreon supporters will get access to most videos before they go public. I'll also put up some Patreon only videos. These are generally travel related, for example, a tour of some castle ruins in Germany, or an automobile dealer in Japan. I appreciate every supporter and with the early release of videos it enables me to insure that I don't miss any comments or questions from supporters.

Thanks for reading this,
Greg

https://www.patreon.com/GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

[Takao]

Here is another time Takao referenced a youtube video:

viewtopic.php?p=2168338#p2168338

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywf8iwmCyMQ

It looks like a reasonable video.

But so are those from the "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" site.

It encapsulates two of my most enduring areas of interest, being combat aircraft and performance cars.

I, like many others, consider Greg's site to be 1st class.


You adopt the policy of:

One rule for thee, but not for me.

I could go on.

I have already found other instances.

So, I presume that "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" is nothing other than a TV commercial, like the USS Montana VS Lighthouse...you know, the YouTube I referenced.

By all means, continue your fishing expedition.

https://www.patreon.com/GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

So, it is a commercial...and not meant to be taken seriously.

Thanks for the head's up, now I know to avoid it.

[At ease]

Here is another time Takao referenced a youtube video:

viewtopic.php?p=2168338#p2168338

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywf8iwmCyMQ

It looks like a reasonable video.

But so are those from the "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" site.

It encapsulates two of my most enduring areas of interest, being combat aircraft and performance cars.

I, like many others, consider Greg's site to be 1st class.


You adopt the policy of:

One rule for thee, but not for me.

I could go on.

I have already found other instances.

So, I presume that "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" is nothing other than a TV commercial, like the USS Montana VS Lighthouse...you know, the YouTube I referenced.

By all means, continue your fishing expedition.

https://www.patreon.com/GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

So, it is a commercial...and not meant to be taken seriously.

Thanks for the head's up, now I know to avoid it.

He is entitled to earn a living, just like everybody else.

Greg's site is orientated towards the pilot community.

You would not be able to comprehend the maths.

[Georg_S]

As this thread have evolved into a battle between two posters I am forced to lock this thread. I advice you to read the rules and behave. If this continues I am forced to use the ultimate tool we have, which means ban!

Georg

[Georg_S]

This thread is now unlocked. But I warn you all , behave or I lock it again

/Georg

[T. A. Gardner]

This thread is now unlocked. But I warn you all , behave or I lock it again

/Georg

Thank you Georg.

[T. A. Gardner]

I found this in The Air Force and the National Guided Missile Program 1944-1950 by Max Rosenburg. This is an Air Force monograph on the subject.

On Pg 96 is the following:

There is another striking feature that becomes apparent from this monograph and that is the very limited input from German technology into the Air Force programs. Over the years, a veritable industry has grown up describing the "advanced technology" allegedly developed by the Germans at the end of World War Two. Within this industry it is an article of faith that these alleged German developments "laid the foundation for all existing guided missile technology and ICBM delivery systems." The Air Force and The National Guided Missile Program 1944-1950 reveals just how false this picture is. Certainly, the operational use of the German V-1 and V-2 missiles did stimulate the post-war surge in interest in guided missiles but in technological terms, German input to the U.S. Air Force programs was so minimal as to be insignificant. The explosion of missile development in the late 1940s and early 1950s was purely an American achievement.

I'd add that the exact same holds true of US Navy guided missile development, and with the exception of the US Army's ballistic missile program is equally true for the US Army. It is also true for British guided missile development.

That's a pretty damning indictment of how little German wartime technology in this area, one that is usually credited heavily to German technology.

[T. A. Gardner]

Just got this book.



Mills tries, almost desperately, for 200 pages to show that German engineering in this field had a significant impact on postwar technology and development only to prove himself wrong repeatedly. It was a self-defeating effort to take a widely accepted premise and prove it.
Don't get me wrong here. Mills provides some good information in his book, but the overall thesis that German technology had a big impact on postwar development of SAMs falls flat on its face.

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

Mr. Max Rosenberg's quote is VERY interesting - inasmuch as it is a very nuanced view
of what happened after WW2. He states :

.........The Air Force and The National Guided Missile Program 1944-1950 reveals
just how false this picture is. Certainly, the operational use of the German V-1 and V-2
missiles did stimulate the post-war surge in interest in guided missiles but in technological
terms, German input to the U.S. Air Force programs was so minimal as to be insignificant.
The explosion of missile development in the late 1940s and early 1950s was purely an
American achievement.

Read this quote carefully: Rosenberg states that the German input to the U.S. Air Force
program was so minimal as to be insignificant.

BUT.... Von Braun and his team did NOT work for the U.S. Air Force - They worked for
the U. S ARMY ! They were at Redstone Arsenal, in Huns-Ville, Alabama, building the
Redstone IRBM for the Army - and for the first half of the 1950s, the Strategic Air Command,
and the rest of the Bomber Barons who ran the USAF after VJ Day wanted NOTHING to do
with ICBMs ! They were fully invested in the Mannned Bomber program, first with the
B-36, then with the B-47 and B-52, and finally with the B-58 and B-70 programs.

Then the U.S. got intelligence about the Soviets working on the R-7 Rocket, and the USAF
had the sudden realization that the Soviets were creating a ' Missile Gap '- and suddenly
the USAF decided that, if they didn't get off the stick and get some missiles, their bright,
shiny jet bombers would be sitting ducks to a Soviet First Strike with R-7 Rockets !

So, the USAF began to fund missiles - but the Army had the Germans, so the USAF had to
make do with American Talent. And we got some good missiles. But, it must be remembered,
the first U.S. Balistic Missile in service was NOT the Atlas which was developed for the
USAF, but rather the Redstone, which was developed for the U. S. ARMY.

As for the Atlas : Here is an excellent passage from the much maligned Wikipedia :

The Atlas's complicated, unconventional design proved difficult to
debug compared with rocket families such as Thor and Titan which used
conventional aircraft-style structures and two stage setups and there were
dozens of failed launches during the early years. After watching Atlas Serial
7D explode shortly after its nighttime launch, Mercury astronaut Gus Grissom
remarked "Are we really going to get on top of one of those things?" The
numerous failures led to Atlas being dubbed an "Inter County Ballistic Missile"
by missile technicians, but by 1965 most of the problems had been worked
out and it was a reliable launch vehicle. Nearly every component in the Atlas
managed to fail at some point during test flights, from the engine combustion
chambers to the tank pressurization system to the flight control system, but
Convair engineers noted with some pride that there had never been a repeat
of the same failure more than three times, and every component malfunction
on an Atlas flight was figured out and resolved. The last major design hurdle
to overcome was unstable engine thrust, which caused three Atlas missiles
(Serial 51D and 48D in 1960 and Serial 27E in 1961) to explode on their
launching stands.

Read that carefully! The Atlas wasn't debugged until 1965 ! And, the American Engineers
were PROUD of the fact that no component ever had the same failure more than
three times !!

In other words, Convair would blow up three Atlas's due to a component or design failure, and then
they would finally get around to fixing the problem !


Inter County Ballistic Missile.


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward