WW2 Article: Advanced German Technology

@Zhukov_2011:

The kill/loss ratio in the Wiki article is referenced to William Green’s “Warplanes of the Third Reich,” a fantastic and exhaustive compendium on German aircraft of WWII. I have a copy at home but I’ve always been skeptical of many of the figures he quotes in the chapters dealing with Germany’s jets. He hypes up the effectiveness of the Me-262 without going into much detail on whether these figures describe certain Schwalbe units (like JG/7 or JG/44) or the entire Me-262 fleet.

I did a little digging, and found another source which cites a 4:1 kill ratio for the Me 262. Every source I’ve seen has cited a kill ratio in the 4:1 - 5:1 range.

You mentioned that the Me 262’s fast closing speed was a disadvantage, in that there was little time to fire at enemy aircraft before the jet overtook them. However, a tactic was designed to counter that problem. The jet would first fly above the bomber formation, then would swoop below, and finally would pull up to the bombers’ level. That last maneuver would reduce the jet’s closing speed to allow more time to fire. Later, the problem of attacking bombers was considerably simplified when the jets were given R4M rockets (which had a much longer attack range than the 30mm cannon).

Also, I don’t know how much faith I would but in Hans Fey’s quote, considering he was a Luftwaffe instructor and has a bit of a bias.

That’s possible. On the other hand, an instructor’s primary objective should be to keep his students alive. You don’t achieve that by feeding them false information. In any case, the statements Fey made in that quote are confirmed by the following NASA website. In addition to confirming Fey’s statements about the Me 262’s turning characteristics, the NASA website indicated that, “The Me 262 seems to have been a carefully designed aircraft in which great attention was given to the details of aerodynamic design. Such attention frequently spells the difference between a great aircraft and a mediocre one.”

Why produce five for six models, as the E series called for, when the U.S.
and USSR were able to do fine with just one apiece (ok, the Soviets armored
divisions still relied on KV tanks in many battles, but these were largely
mothballed when the T34/85 appeared)?

It is incorrect to assert the U.S. had just one tank model. In 1944, the U.S. produced four light tank designs, three medium tank designs, and one heavy tank design. The plan with the German E-series had been to have one tank design per weight category. For example, the E-5 (the smallest of the E-series vehicles) was to be 5 tons in weight and serve as the basis for things like armored personnel carriers, reconnoissance vehicles, light tanks, and so forth. The vast bulk of Germany’s tank production would likely have been E-50 Standardpanzers and E-75 Standardpanzers.

I believe you may have explained why Germany (in at least my opinion) receives too much undeserved credit for its “technological superiority”: Germany, in her sheer desperation, researched dozens and dozens of supposedly “war-winning” weapons and in the process created the prototypes for some pretty cool looking hardware.  Allied innovations, which in my opinion were much more superior and effective than anything Germany produced or had near production, are often glossed over because they aren’t as cool looking as Schwalbes, Pzkw. VIIIs or Fritz flying bombs.

My view of the situation is different. The Axis was generally at a severe (2:1 - 4:1) disadvantage in terms of both military production capacity and manpower available for infantry. That numerical inferiority was why the Axis lost the war.

But the fact that the Axis war effort had been doomed by the Allies’ sheer quantity doesn’t mean we shouldn’t respect the technological innovations which occurred. One good measure of a technology’s worth is the extent to which it became the basis for postwar weapons or other innovations. Using that as the basis, the Allies made good technological progress during the war.

You mentioned the Essex class carrier as an Allied innovation. I’ll grant it was better than the German carrier under construction, or the Japanese carriers of the war. But how much of the superiority of the Americans’ design was the result of the fact that the U.S. could afford larger, more expensive, better carriers than could the Axis? In addition to the Essex carrier class, the Allies achieved innovations such as the following:

Wartime nuclear bomb–> postwar nuclear arms race
Wartime radar + sonar developments --> further developments postwar
Wartime computer technology --> postwar computer technology

It is worth noting here that the Axis, and especially Germany, achieved progress in all three of the above-mentioned areas. In addition, Germany achieved the below list of developments–developments which were significantly ahead of their time.

Wartime jets + axial flow jet engines --> postwar axial flow jet fighters.
Wartime advanced jet designs (Me 262 HG III) --> postwar efforts to break the sound barrier
Wartime stealth bomber design --> 1980s era B2 stealth bomber
Wartime type XXI U-boats --> postwar nuclear submarines
Wartime air-to-air missiles --> postwar air-mounted weaponry
Wartime guided air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles --> postwar guided missiles
Wartime cruise missile (V1)  --> postwar cruise missiles
Wartime V2 rocket --> postwar ICBMs
Wartime assault rifle --> postwar assault rifles
Wartime infrared vision equipment for tanks --> postwar night vision equipment
Wartime handheld anti-tank weaponry (Panzerfaust) --> postwar handheld anti-tank weaponry
Wartime Fritz guided bombs --> postwar smart bombs
Wartime Wasserfall surface-to-air missiles --> postwar SAMs

It is true that the Allies had made progress in some of the above areas. For example, the British had developed centrifugal flow jet engines (which are easier to design, but inferior to, the axial flow jet engines the Germans had designed). Nevertheless, the above list represents areas in which the Allies had either made no progress at all, or else were significantly behind the Germans. People are impressed with the late-war German research and weapons development not just because the weapons “looked cool,” but because it was clear that late-war Germany was in the midst of building a solid qualitative advantage over its enemies even as it was in the process of being destroyed. That is an impressive feat on a number of levels, especially considering the Allies’ advantage in population size and available funding.

@KurtGodel7:

But the fact that the Axis war effort had been doomed by the Allies’ sheer quantity doesn’t mean we shouldn’t respect the technological innovations which occurred. One good measure of a technology’s worth is the extent to which it became the basis for postwar weapons or other innovations. Using that as the basis, the Allies made good technological progress during the war.

You make a good point here, but the influence of Germany’s weapons on the post-war era is easily and often overstated, IMO.

Later, the problem of attacking bombers was considerably simplified when the jets were given R4M rockets (which had a much longer attack range than the 30mm cannon).

Practically useless against the opposing fighter planes of the time. Without knocking down the escorts, Germany was unable to even slightly weaken the Allied bombing campaign during the last years of the war. Perhaps the biggest aircraft-related RMA of WWII was that bombers by themselves do not win wars - they need escorts, and lots of them - and that escorts, with their ability to suppress enemy planes and other air defenses, were the true kings of the sky. But the reverse is also true - to attack the enemy’s bombing potential, you have to destroy his ability to escort those fighters. The Me-262 completely missed the mark as far as this military truism is concerned. With no ability to counter Allied escort fighters, the Luftwaffe was destined to lose the bomber campaign and any sliver of air superiority.

You mentioned the Essex class carrier as an Allied innovation. I’ll grant it was better than the German carrier under construction, or the Japanese carriers of the war. But how much of the superiority of the Americans’ design was the result of the fact that the U.S. could afford larger, more expensive, better carriers than could the Axis?

Well, if you grant this concession, you’ll be joining everyone else who knows anything about naval warfare in WWII. The German carrier, which if you’ll remember was never even completed, would have been a poor rival to the Essex and British Illustrious/Implacable classes, or for that matter, the Shokakus. Its aircraft complement would have been less than half of a fully loaded Essex, and in any case, what carrier-based fighters did Germany produce to compete against the Hellcats, Corsairs, and latest Seafires? The cruiser-caliber guns that would have armed the Graf and the associated role the Kriegsmarine envisaged for this carrier meant it probably would have ended up on the bottom of the ocean before too long.

Sure, the Essex was only made possible by America’s wealth in resources and labor, but you dismiss the technological feats apparent in the class’ design. With a speed of 30+ knots, the Essex could outrun almost any other warship. The C4ISR capabilities of this carrier were superior to any other combat ship of the war and set the way in design and tactics for future development of the U.S. Navy. The class survived until the early 1990s, testifying to the technological superiority and far-sightedness enjoyed by the U.S. during WWII (I apologize if far-sightedness is not a word, I couldn’t think of anything else!). The Essex is much more than a giant hunk of steel. It embodies the success of American society in producing and fielding the weapons that would win the war, from its able workforce and skilled designers to its first-rate scientists and to the competent sailors and fliers who were graduating from the world’s best military schools.

People are impressed with the late-war German research and weapons development not just because the weapons “looked cool,” but because it was clear that late-war Germany was in the midst of building a solid qualitative advantage over its enemies even as it was in the process of being destroyed. That is an impressive feat on a number of levels, especially considering the Allies’ advantage in population size and available funding.

It is wrong to assert that Germany had built any “solid” qualitative lead over the Allies. There were pockets of modernization but they were small and few between. By 1944 - the year in which Germany’s production capacity peaked - only one-tenth of the German army was mechanized. The rest were dependent on horses or by train, and were forced to fight a slightly refined version of the artillery and infantry battles of 1918. Germany’s efforts to introduce a new generation of aircraft (greatly stalled by Udet’s insistence that all aircraft - even four-engined planes - possess a dive-bombing capability) ended in a wasteful series of technical flops. The Luftwaffe was stuck throughout the war with proven but older planes. Allied planes only increased in sophistication and efficiency. I remember reading a famous order to German pilots to avoid any combat with the Russian Yak-3 because the Luftwaffe’s aircraft just couldn’t compete.

Germany developed some very sophisticated weapon systems (many of which were paralleled, though maybe not matched, by Allied research) but almost all were still in a stage of utmost infancy, despite tremendous allocations of resources and production. Many were second-rate and only marginally better than the systems they replaced, and in some cases were worse. The only reason many of these projects are even discussed is because they were thrown into combat, unfinished and untried, in a desperate attempt to clear the darkening clouds. Some German units were able to exploit the new systems to deadly use, but in most cases, the weapons were too underdeveloped to have any effect on the battlefield.

What is impressive to me is, during the second half of the war, how effective German soldiers could fight without support aircraft, short supplies, long marches on foot, a shortage of tanks and trucks, little ammunition and an enemy that only grew stronger.

@KurtGodel7:

. In addition, Germany achieved the below list of developments–developments which were significantly ahead of their time.

Wartime jets + axial flow jet engines --> postwar axial flow jet fighters.
Wartime advanced jet designs (Me 262 HG III) --> postwar efforts to break the sound barrier
Wartime stealth bomber design --> 1980s era B2 stealth bomber
Wartime type XXI U-boats --> postwar nuclear submarines
Wartime air-to-air missiles --> postwar air-mounted weaponry
Wartime guided air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles --> postwar guided missiles
Wartime cruise missile (V1)  --> postwar cruise missiles
Wartime V2 rocket --> postwar ICBMs
Wartime assault rifle --> postwar assault rifles
Wartime infrared vision equipment for tanks --> postwar night vision equipment
Wartime handheld anti-tank weaponry (Panzerfaust) --> postwar handheld anti-tank weaponry
Wartime Fritz guided bombs --> postwar smart bombs
Wartime Wasserfall surface-to-air missiles --> postwar SAMs

Ah I see. If Germans had something then it follows that all post-war development stemmed from them.
This is silly.The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable. It is long shown to be a history channel invention.
Let us take one example above. The claim Germany led in IR development.
Is that so? How then did the US develop and deploy a rifle with IR scope  when Germany failed?
IR was not a German invention and even the Soviets had a pre-1939 version.

Well alot of these failed because Germany lost the war. Also captured german equipment could be quite handy.

Germany did not fail to create  a IR Rifle, look up StG 44 Vampir…it was just the case that the equippment (battery + powerunit) must be kept in a backbag (tornister)
it was then a minus on your ability to be fast in combat but a plus to see and not to be seen…I would be interrested how the soviet version looked like…

@Lazarus:

Ah I see. If Germans had something then it follows that all post-war development stemmed from them.
This is silly.The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable. It is long shown to be a history channel invention.
Let us take one example above. The claim Germany led in IR development.
Is that so? How then did the US develop and deploy a rifle with IR scope  when Germany failed?
IR was not a German invention and even the Soviets had a pre-1939 version.

Haha! I almost thought that picture was fake! Thats crazy what those Germans could come up with.

Let me try and make it a bit simpler.
The German version never saw service.
It is claimed that some MIGHT have been used or POSSIBLY one or two saw action.
The US Sniperscope was issued to front line units in some quantity and used in the Pacific against the Japanese.
Let us recap
German version never saw production
US version has a production run and was  combat tested in WW2.

Anyway you look at it IR was NOT a German first.

IR was not a German secret weapon

Ok IR score one for the US Yeah! Score a whole **** more for the Germans for getting Jets, Assault Rifles, Rockets Etc.!!!

@Pvt.Ryan:

Ok IR score one for the US Yeah! Score a whole **** more for the Germans for getting Jets, Assault Rifles, Rockets Etc.!!!

The first jet to enter full Squadron Service was the Meteor……

Score what for an army  that to the end used horses for transport?

Not very good at this are you?

Forgive me but the term “first saw service” and “full squadron service” are two COMPLETELY different things. Also where in the name of George Patton did you come up with horses? Thats a horrible slam at the German army. Horses were pretty common and it didn’t help that the Americans bombed all the German factories. Please leave irrelevent things out of the conversation.

@Pvt.Ryan:

Please leave irrelevent things out of the conversation.

So sayeth the man who believes the Stealth Bomber was a German invention!

@Lazarus:

@KurtGodel7:

. In addition, Germany achieved the below list of developments–developments which were significantly ahead of their time.

Wartime jets + axial flow jet engines --> postwar axial flow jet fighters.
Wartime advanced jet designs (Me 262 HG III) --> postwar efforts to break the sound barrier
Wartime stealth bomber design --> 1980s era B2 stealth bomber
Wartime type XXI U-boats --> postwar nuclear submarines
Wartime air-to-air missiles --> postwar air-mounted weaponry
Wartime guided air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles --> postwar guided missiles
Wartime cruise missile (V1)  --> postwar cruise missiles
Wartime V2 rocket --> postwar ICBMs
Wartime assault rifle --> postwar assault rifles
Wartime infrared vision equipment for tanks --> postwar night vision equipment
Wartime handheld anti-tank weaponry (Panzerfaust) --> postwar handheld anti-tank weaponry
Wartime Fritz guided bombs --> postwar smart bombs
Wartime Wasserfall surface-to-air missiles --> postwar SAMs

Ah I see. If Germans had something then it follows that all post-war development stemmed from them.
This is silly.The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable. It is long shown to be a history channel invention.
Let us take one example above. The claim Germany led in IR development.
Is that so? How then did the US develop and deploy a rifle with IR scope  when Germany failed?
IR was not a German invention and even the Soviets had a pre-1939 version.

I’ll address your bolded statement first. I did not state nor imply that “If Germans had something then it follows that all post-war development stemmed from them.” I listed German “developments which were significantly ahead of their time.” Please do not misrepresent my statements.

Secondly, you wrote that “The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable.” You didn’t cite any source to support that claim. Germany developed a prototype of a flying wing bomber during WWII. Back when Germany was under the Versailles Treaty, prohibitions against powered aircraft caused a lot of German aeronautical talent to be diverted into gliders. The Germans learned a lot about aerodynamics as a result–learning which helped considerably with the subsequent invention of the Horten Ho 229’s flying wing design.

The shape of the Horten Ho 229 was not its only stealthy characteristic.

After the war, Reimar Horten said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves (radar), which he believed could shield the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home.[5] . . .

Northrop-Grumman built a full-size reproduction of the V3, incorporating a replica glue mixture in the nose section. After an expenditure of about US$ 250 000 and 2 500 man-hours, Northrop’s Ho 229 reproduction was tested at the company’s classified radar cross-section (RCS) test range at Tejon, California, where it was placed on a 15-meter (50 ft) articulating pole and exposed to electromagnetic energy sources from various angles, using the same three frequencies in the 20–50 MHz range used by the Chain Home in the mid-1940s. RCS testing showed that a hypothetical Ho 229 approaching the English coast from France flying at 885 km/h (550 mph) at 15–30 metres (50–100 ft) above the water would have been visible at a distance of 80% that of a Bf 109. This implies an RCS of only 40% that of a Bf 109, from the front at the Chain Home frequencies.

The Wikipedia article to which I’ve linked provides some pictures of the Horten Ho 229. (Though unfortunately, another picture of a complete Ho 229 is no longer included in the article.) But lest you continue to think that this aircraft was some fabrication of the History Channel, I suggest you examine a photograph of the aircraft from the Smithsonian Institute’s website. The Smithsonian also provides a longer description of the aircraft here.

I would also like to address your comment about the German Army’s reliance on horses. The German Army relied heavily on horses because horses don’t require gasoline, and Germany had no extra gas to spare. Using coal-powered trains to ship supplies most of the way toward their intended destinations, and horses for the remaining distance, was logical for a nation rich in coal and utterly lacking in oil.

I’ll let Kurt take over as he’s one of the forums history buffs but first I’d like to say this. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GERMAN INVENTION! THAT WAS KURT! If you can’t even argue with the right person then leave the forum! (I had a better response but the mods wouldn’t have agreed with me  :evil: )

@Pvt.Ryan:

I’ll let Kurt take over as he’s one of the forums history buffs but first I’d like to say this. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GERMAN INVENTION! THAT WAS KURT! If you can’t even argue with the right person then leave the forum! (I had a better response but the mods wouldn’t have agreed with me  :evil: )

If you want my help, you’ve got it! I’ll start with jets. Lazarus was inaccurate to state that the first jet was the Meteor. The Me 262’s first flight (with jet engines) was in July of '42. The Gloster Meteor’s first flight was in March of '43. The Me 262 was introduced in April of '44. The Meteor was introduced in July of '44.

Far more important than the minor differences in introduction dates is the fact that the German Me 262 used an advanced form of jet engine (axial flow jets), as opposed to the more basic and limited centrifugal flow jet engines employed by the Meteor. In addition, the Me 262’s design demonstrated a significantly more advanced understanding of aerodynamics than did the design of the Meteor (let alone the U.S. Shooting Star). A planned improvement to the Me 262–the Me 262 HG III–would have had wings swept back at a 45 degree angle.

@KurtGodel7:

Secondly, you wrote that “The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable.” You didn’t cite any source to support that claim. Germany developed a prototype of a flying wing bomber during WWII. Back when Germany was under the Versailles Treaty, prohibitions against powered aircraft caused a lot of German aeronautical talent to be diverted into gliders. The Germans learned a lot about aerodynamics as a result–learning which helped considerably with the subsequent invention of the Horten Ho 229’s flying wing design.

It seems I am not permitted to link anything so I can not give you the page where this was posted in National Geographic Magazine.

I  wrote a letter to a curator at the facility inquiring about the rumored stealth properties of the Ho 229 aircraft and received a detailed response: “I have examined the aircraft and many primary and secondary sources of information about the Hortens’ work, and I have found no reliable evidence to confirm this idea. Reimar Horten described these low RCS [radar cross section] techniques during the early 1980s as news reports began to appear that described the stealth qualities of the Northrop B-2 bomber. I have examined the Ho 229 V3 numerous times and found no evidence of a “mixture of charcoal and glue” applied to the skin that would lower the RCS. I believe Horten ‘invented’ the notion of the stealthy Ho 229 to draw attention to other interesting and innovative aspects of his work.”

.

@KurtGodel7:

If you want my help, you’ve got it! I’ll start with jets. Lazarus was inaccurate to state that the first jet was the Meteor

Oh dear. Fall at your first hurdle.
Please check back and tell me the dates the Meteor entered Squadron service and then give me the date for the first Me 262 Squadron.
Please do not confuse the issue by dragging other subjects in to it and just give the dates to prove I was wrong.

@KurtGodel7:

You didn’t cite any source to support that claim.

Just a note: though everyone appreciates the linking of sources, wikipedia articles don’t always provide the most accurate information and should invoke some skepticism.

@Pvt.Ryan:

Ok IR score one for the US Yeah! Score a whole **** more for the Germans for getting Jets, Assault Rifles, Rockets Etc.!!!

The subject really isn’t that exciting. You must understand that a points-based competition based on rival technologies means nothing when you factor in the grotesque and disastrous realities of that conflict.

If these supposed German technological “wonders” had any effect on the war, it was to postpone an already bloody and lengthy war and cause the deaths of many more on both sides, civilians and soldiers. That’s hardly worth any kind of points.

Thats a horrible slam at the German army. Horses were pretty common and it didn’t help that the Americans bombed all the German factories. Please leave irrelevent things out of the conversation.

Um, the Germans lost the war and in the process perpetrated the most evil, disgusting and unforgettable atrocities in all the long and brutal history of mankind. Who cares if someone “slams” the German Army? Good God, man. You don’t wish the Nazis had won the war, do you?

Lazarus’ point isn’t that irrelevant. The German Army can hardly be considered technologically superior to the Allies when 90 percent of its forces were dependent on horses. Understand that even horses were running short by the end of the war. The big German horses of North European descent faired very badly on the Eastern Front and over 750,000 died during the first six months of the war. That meant most German soldiers had to travel by foot.

Perhaps you should look into  Guy Sajer’s Forgotten Soldier, one of the best firsthand accounts of the German Army from 1942-on. The book details Sajer’s experiences fighting for the elite Grossdeutschland division on the Eastern and then Western Fronts. Sajer describes in great detail the desperation and material inferiority the German Army suffered during the second half of the war. When his unit surrendered to American GIs in 1945 and were forced to stand in the back of a deuce and a half, the American soldiers couldn’t understand why Sajer and his men were so happy. He eventually told them it was the first time he’d not been forced to march in a long time.

I’ll let Kurt take over as he’s one of the forums history buffs but first I’d like to say this.

I for one can say your infallible assertions will be missed.

@Lazarus:

@KurtGodel7:

Secondly, you wrote that “The claim that the stealth bomber is a german invention is laughable.” You didn’t cite any source to support that claim. Germany developed a prototype of a flying wing bomber during WWII. Back when Germany was under the Versailles Treaty, prohibitions against powered aircraft caused a lot of German aeronautical talent to be diverted into gliders. The Germans learned a lot about aerodynamics as a result–learning which helped considerably with the subsequent invention of the Horten Ho 229’s flying wing design.

It seems I am not permitted to link anything so I can not give you the page where this was posted in National Geographic Magazine.

I  wrote a letter to a curator at the facility inquiring about the rumored stealth properties of the Ho 229 aircraft and received a detailed response: “I have examined the aircraft and many primary and secondary sources of information about the Hortens’ work, and I have found no reliable evidence to confirm this idea. Reimar Horten described these low RCS [radar cross section] techniques during the early 1980s as news reports began to appear that described the stealth qualities of the Northrop B-2 bomber. I have examined the Ho 229 V3 numerous times and found no evidence of a “mixture of charcoal and glue” applied to the skin that would lower the RCS. I believe Horten ‘invented’ the notion of the stealthy Ho 229 to draw attention to other interesting and innovative aspects of his work.”

.

I had interpreted your earlier post to imply that you disputed the existence of the Horten Ho 229 itself. I now realize your earlier claim was far narrower; and that you are merely disputing whether charcoal dust had been mixed into the glue of the Horten Ho 229 for the purpose of reducing its radar cross section. I acknowledge that the evidence for the charcoal dust is weaker than the evidence for the existence of the flying wing German bomber itself. (The latter is beyond all reasonable dispute.)

Regardless of whether charcoal dust was or was not mixed into the Horten Ho 229’s glue, the aircraft still had stealthy characteristics. The flying wing shape produces a weaker radar signature than does a standard-issue aircraft shape. (Which is why the B-2 also employs the flying wing shape.) In addition, wood was used for a great deal of the Horten Ho 229’s construction; and wood is largely invisible to radar. Together, these two factors would have given this aircraft a stealthier radar profile than standard WWII aircraft, even without the charcoal dust. Understand here that “stealthier” does not mean completely invisible to radar–rather, it means the effective range for any given radar station would have been reduced when searching for this aircraft. It is also worth noting that the flying wing shape was chosen for aerodynamic reasons, not because of the desire to create a stealthy profile.

More important than the Horten Ho 229’s stealth characteristics is the fact that it met or came close to meeting Goering’s 1000/1000/1000 goal. Goering had demanded that any future twin-engined German bombers must be able to fly 1000 km/hour, and must be able to deliver a 1000 kg payload to a target 1000 km away. The Horten Ho 229 had a top speed of 977 km/h (607 MPH), compared to 703 km/hr (403 MPH) for a P-51 Mustang. It could deliver 1000 kg (2200 lbs) of bombs to a target 1000 km (620 miles) away. This aircraft therefore had strong potential as a fighter/interceptor, as well as a medium bomber that could deliver its payload without being shot down.

More important than the Horten Ho 229’s stealth characteristics is the fact that it met or came close to meeting Goering’s 1000/1000/1000 goal.

Goering was a fat, idiotic drug-addict. Those goals as you call them came about during some morphine-induced braggadoccio to Hitler to regain his favor after a number of Luftwaffe disasters. They don’t mean anything except tremendous amounts of diverted resources and another ultimately worthless design.

The Horten was no stealth bomber. Come on, the whole term is a misnomer even with today’s tech and is only used in the media and on history forums. In Air Force parlance, these type of aircraft (that is, B-2s, F22s and F117s - not Horten Ho 229s) are called low radar observance aircraft. We probably wouldn’t even be discussing this topic if everyone referred to the Horten as the Ho 229 low radar observance aircraft.

In any case, I suppose it should be mentioned again that Allied radar was supreme by the end of the war and would have easily and quickly detected the Horten despite and I guess because of its extraordinarily-modest ability reflect radar.

@Zhukov_2011:

More important than the Horten Ho 229’s stealth characteristics is the fact that it met or came close to meeting Goering’s 1000/1000/1000 goal.

Goering was a fat, idiotic drug-addict. Those goals as you call them came about during some drug-induced braggadoccio to Hitler to regain his favor after a number of Luftwaffe disasters. They don’t mean anything.

I also have a low opinion of Goering. His braggadocio and false promises were largely responsible for a number of German problems and defeats. At Dunkirk, Goering had promised Hitler that the British force could be destroyed by air. Hitler therefore elected to preserve the strength of his own army with the thought that the Luftwaffe could finish off Britain’s troops.

Slightly over two years later, the German Sixth Army had become encircled inside Stalingrad. The German Army had paid a high price for the conquest of Stalingrad in the first place: Soviet soldiers were considerably more successful in killing German soldiers in house-to-house fighting than in open field combat. Considering the heavy price which had been paid to acquire this crucial city, Hitler was highly reluctant to abandon it to the Soviets. He felt that if the German Army abandoned the city, it would have to pay another high price in blood when it retook the city later.

Goering told him this was unnecessary. The Luftwaffe, Goering promised, would use cargo transports to deliver all the supplies that were needed. The German force could remain in place until the Soviet encirclement was broken.

The Stalingrad force never received more than a fraction of the daily supplies Goering had promised. As wholly inadequate as the transport effort was early on, it grew steadily and significantly worse as the weeks continued. Bad weather, losses of cargo transport planes to Soviet anti-air guns and fighters, and other factors caused the daily tonnage arriving in Stalingrad to continue to dwindle. When the remnants of von Paulus’s Sixth Army finally surrendered, its soldiers were starving, and almost completely bereft of ammunition and medical supplies.

Goering’s incompetence and lack of credibility should not be allowed to obscure the achievements of Reimar. Meeting the 1000/1000/1000 goal was a remarkable accomplishment, regardless of whatever thoughts (if any) that may have been going through Goering’s head when he formulated that goal. A medium bomber that could fly over 150 MPH (nearly 300 km/h) faster than a P-51 Mustang could have been very useful to the German war effort.