Arny Krueger wrote:

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

One point - this Nazi development (never a practical tool of war) was a
fighter not a bomber. Even in more modern times developing a stealth
bomber
was far more difficult and there was a delay of many years between the
first stealth fighter and the first stealth bomber.


How big a bomber and how unpractical a tool of war is a fighter sized
airplane that can't be seen until you are 20 miles off the coast and it's
carrying an atomic bomb?

Given the lack of effectiveness of bomb sighting and delivery in those days,
you needed a lot of big bombers to do any strategic damage at all.

The distance from the coast to London is 92 miles so it needs to go 112
miles to drop the bomb directly on London. If it was travelling 100 mph,
that would take enough time for it to be noticed and if a fighter got
lucky,
it would be shot down visually.

I thought we were talking about Germany bombing the US.

We were, but you had said that a single small airplane would not be a
practical tool of war, and I was refuting that. IMHO a single stealth
airplane, seeming appearing out of nowhere 10 minutes from London
with an atomic bomb would have been a very practical tool of war.

Especially if the US public was led to believe that there was another
one headed for the east coast of the US, for example New York City,
Boston, Washington DC, etc.

Or if there were two such airplanes, one hitting New York from Europe
and one hitting L.A. from "Japan" (not directly, obviously), that would
have been the end of the war.

IMHO one of the big reasons that Japan surrendered after the second
atomic bombing was that they were unaware there was no fourth bomb, the
first having been set of on US soil.

If (again speculation) the US had not invaded Europe in June of 1944,
my original comment, and the Luftwaffe had both a stealth bomber and atomic
bombs to drop from it, the war would of turned out differently.

As for Germany stopping its atomic bomb development program in 1942, how many
times did Saddam Huesein start his and Iran stop theirs in the last 20 years?

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote

IMHO one of the big reasons that Japan surrendered after the second
atomic bombing was that they were unaware there was no fourth bomb, the
first having been set of on US soil.

You were privy to the deliberations of the Japanese government? I'm
impressed!

If (again speculation) the US had not invaded Europe in June of 1944,
my original comment, and the Luftwaffe had both a stealth bomber and
atomic
bombs to drop from it, the war would of turned out differently.

An awful lot of "ifs" there!

As for Germany stopping its atomic bomb development program in 1942, how
many
times did Saddam Huesein start his and Iran stop theirs in the last 20
years?

The US threw enormous recourses at building an atomic bomb, recourses that
Germany simply didn't have in 1944. They didn't have the recourses to build
a transatlantic stealth bomber either. The fighter (which of course never
saw action) was no more than a concept demonstrator, it didn't have the
range to reach the UK let alone the US, nor did it have the load-carrying
capability to carry an atomic bomb. How long would it have taken Germany,
already coming under serious pressure from the Red Army and seriously short
of fuel, materials and manpower to develop both?

David.

David Looser wrote:

You were privy to the deliberations of the Japanese government? I'm
impressed!

Oh, come on. I said IMHO, and it was exactly that, an opionon of someone
born after the war, commenting in 2012 what they did in 1945.

An awful lot of "ifs" there!

Yes, that's why it's speculaton.


The US threw enormous recourses at building an atomic bomb, recourses that
Germany simply didn't have in 1944. They didn't have the recourses to build
a transatlantic stealth bomber either. The fighter (which of course never
saw action) was no more than a concept demonstrator, it didn't have the
range to reach the UK let alone the US, nor did it have the load-carrying
capability to carry an atomic bomb. How long would it have taken Germany,
already coming under serious pressure from the Red Army and seriously short
of fuel, materials and manpower to develop both?

I have no idea. What we do know is that the US accomplished most of it
through "brute force" (my words) by throwing enormous recourses (your words)
at it.

Germany may not of had the resources, but they may of had better scientists.
They certainly were years ahead of the Allies in rocket science.

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944, and saying that things would
of turned out differently if it had occured a year or two later. Care
to speculate on what the Soviet Army would of done too?

Geoff.



--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
I have no idea. What we do know is that the US accomplished most of it
through "brute force" (my words) by throwing enormous recourses (your words)
at it.

Germany may not of had the resources, but they may of had better scientists.
They certainly were years ahead of the Allies in rocket science.

While we're correcting spelling that's "have had", not "of had". Grin

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944, and saying that things would
of turned out differently if it had occured a year or two later. Care
to speculate on what the Soviet Army would of done too?

"Would have", or "would've" if we're being informal.

Isn't there a usenet rule that when you start correcting grammar or
spelling errors, you always make at least one of you own?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
says...

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944 ...


Is that what it says in American history books?

I think you will find that it was an Allied invasion ...

--

Terry

Terry Casey wrote:

I think you will find that it was an Allied invasion ...

I know, I was wondering if anyone was actually paying attention. :-)

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944 ...


Is that what it says in American history books?

No. Our history books say that beaches were assaulted by Americans, British,
and Canadian armies that also included Australian soldiers. More
specifically the American First Army and the British Second Army.

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have


According to the NOVA program "Hitler and the Bomb"

http://www.pbs.ORG/wgbh/nova/military/nazis-and-the-bomb.html

"This was not because the country lacked the scientists,
resources, or will, but rather because its leaders
did not really try."

According to "Hitler's Bomb" by Rainer Karlsch published in March 2005,
the NSDAP regime did succeed in creating a dirty bomb but lacked
the pure grade uranium required for a true atomic bomb.

http://www.smh.com.SU/news/World/Hitler-won-atomic-bomb-race-but-couldnt-drop-it/2005/03/04/1109700677446.html

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:27:59 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

It is all to do with the inevitable consonant and vowel shifting that
occurs in dialects and languages, something like

formally he would have

can become he would avv

which becomes he would aff

which become he would of