Wooden bombs UL vector
Doug White
In article <4tgju5$cja$2...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
John Henry <76655...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
<A few months back there was some discussion of a story about a
<German WWII airfield with wooden decoy planes on it. The story
<was that a mission was sent over to bomb them with wooden bombs.
<
<It seemed unlikely to me at the time and still does. 1) Why would
<we let the Germans know we are onto their tricks? 2) Why would we
<waste, fuel, man hours etc not to mention the risk involved, to
<do something like this.
<
<I live near Roosevelt Roads Naval Station in Puerto Rico and
<often listen to the Armed Forces Radio station there. In stead of
<running ads, they have spots such as "Our Military Heritage". On
<one of these spots a week or two ago, they told this very same
<story. They told it as a *true* story.
<
<Personally, I still find it hard to believe, but would the
<military lie?
<
<(Does a bear........)
I heard a more recent story about the Russians using decoys. Supposedly,
our spy satellites had been carefully keeping track of the submarines in
the naval yard in some eastern Russina port. One day they got a nice
photo of one of the 'subs', which had apparently sprung a leak overnight,
and had deflated. This was supposed to have caused a great tizzy in the
US naval intelligence community, because it meant all of their estimates
of how many Russian subs were where was completely useless.
Doug White
John Henry
A few months back there was some discussion of a story about a
German WWII airfield with wooden decoy planes on it. The story
was that a mission was sent over to bomb them with wooden bombs.
It seemed unlikely to me at the time and still does. 1) Why would
we let the Germans know we are onto their tricks? 2) Why would we
waste, fuel, man hours etc not to mention the risk involved, to
do something like this.
I live near Roosevelt Roads Naval Station in Puerto Rico and
often listen to the Armed Forces Radio station there. In stead of
running ads, they have spots such as "Our Military Heritage". On
one of these spots a week or two ago, they told this very same
story. They told it as a *true* story.
Personally, I still find it hard to believe, but would the
military lie?
(Does a bear........)
John Henry
fastrada
squadron(s) of airplanes set in fake strategic locations in southern
Britain to (a) give bad estimates to German intelligence as to our
invasion strength, and (b) mis-direct German intelligence as to the
invasion location. For a fictional treatment, pick up "The Eye Of The
Needle", one of the all-time great spy novels.
Joseph J.
Ann Radnich
Well, I can't vouch for the vailidty of your story. It does sound
like something that could have happened, though. At the very least, it
sounds lika damn good story.
Anyway, prior to the D-Day invasion of Normandy, a huge "shadow"
army was set up across the channel from Pays-de-Calais (sp?). It
consisted of inflatable vehicles and artillery. I recall somwhere seeing
a picture of a single man holding a tank above his head. That was one
buff soldier! :)
Speaking of fake explosives, late in the war a B-17 bomber
returned from a mission with an unexploded flak shell in its fuel tank.
Upon closer inspection, the shell was discovered to contain a rolled up
note which said In Czhech "Sorry, this is the best we can do for now."
================================================================================
Daniel Jenkins "Spelling errors? Impossible... I have
rad...@scs.unr.edu an error correcting modem!"
================================================================================
DeeTee
<SNIP>
>I heard a more recent story about the Russians using decoys. Supposedly,
>our spy satellites had been carefully keeping track of the submarines in
>the naval yard in some eastern Russina port. One day they got a nice
>photo of one of the 'subs', which had apparently sprung a leak overnight,
>and had deflated. This was supposed to have caused a great tizzy in the
>US naval intelligence community, because it meant all of their estimates
>of how many Russian subs were where was completely useless.
>
There was an article in Discover or Scientific American a few years back that
showed modern decoys. It pointed out that at the high speeds used by today's
aircraft, it was damn easy to visually fool the pilots.
Over the years, decoys have become less and less realistic, going from full
mockups to silhouettes to even less. It turns out the main visual clue to an
aircraft on the ground is its shadow. Modern decoys take advantage of this.
They were just black outlines on the ground, not 3-D at all. In the photos
they looked perfectly like a real aircraft from aloft.
Presumably the same could be done with subs, missles, etc. Sounds like fun.
Dennis Thompson
Dean
Prior to the Normandy landings the Allies developed huge numbers of decoy
tanks, aircraft and landing craft and moved them around the East Coast of
England. I've seen pictures of the inflatable tanks being pushed around
by soldiers. These were decoys designed to convince the Nazis that the
invasion would come at Calais rather than in Normandy. I worked with a
man years ago who was a truck driver in the British Army and he told me
about driving with huge convoys of decoy tanks and other equipment all
over the east coast of Britain in the weeks before D-Day.
Dean in Fredericton.
RFCheshire
John Henry <76655...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>A few months back there was some discussion of a story about a
>German WWII airfield with wooden decoy planes on it. The story
>was that a mission was sent over to bomb them with wooden bombs.
>It seemed unlikely to me at the time and still does. 1) Why would
>we let the Germans know we are onto their tricks? 2) Why would we
>waste, fuel, man hours etc not to mention the risk involved, to
>do something like this.
>I live near Roosevelt Roads Naval Station in Puerto Rico and
>often listen to the Armed Forces Radio station there. In stead of
>running ads, they have spots such as "Our Military Heritage". On
>one of these spots a week or two ago, they told this very same
>story. They told it as a *true* story.
>Personally, I still find it hard to believe, but would the
>military lie?
>(Does a bear........)
Yes they do ..
>John Henry
I have read about this in a British library. According to the book I
read when the allies took photos of the airfield and realised it was a
fake they then bombed it with a wooen bomb. If I remember rightly it
was an RAF Mosquito which took the 'photos and bombed the airfield.
In a similar vein I should think the military are investigating
non-metal cased bombs as part of the stealth bomber programme.
It would seem foolish if they weren't as anybody with a decent radar
could follow a large bomb and work out roughly where the bomber was to
within a few square miles.
Ray
Robert Warinner
Dean (n7...@unb.ca) wrote:
: Prior to the Normandy landings the Allies developed huge numbers of decoy
: tanks, aircraft and landing craft and moved them around the East Coast of
: England. I've seen pictures of the inflatable tanks being pushed around
: by soldiers. These were decoys designed to convince the Nazis that the
: invasion would come at Calais rather than in Normandy. I worked with a
: man years ago who was a truck driver in the British Army and he told me
: about driving with huge convoys of decoy tanks and other equipment all
: over the east coast of Britain in the weeks before D-Day.
Well, yes and no. The dummy tanks and planes were a relatively minor
part of Allied deception plans. The Allies had daylight air supremacy
and allowed only a very limited number of German reconnaisance flights
over Britain. I think that less than 50 completed Germans flights
were made in the months before the invasion. German flights over
Britain were carefully limited to what the Allies wanted them to see.
The heart of the deception plan was the creation of a fictious army
group commanded Patton poised to invade the Pas de Calais but this was
done through the creation of a radio net busily passing fake messages
between phony headquarters and units.
See Michael Howard's "Strategic Deception in the Second World War"
(ISBN 0-393-31293-3).
Andrew "FORTITUDE SOUTH" Warinner
wari...@xnet.com
wari...@ttd.teradyne.com
http://www.xnet.com/~warinner
Visit the Sphinx's Nose Page: http://www.xnet.com/~warinner/sphinx.html
Hans Derycke
om...@dial.pipex.com (RFCheshire) cost the Net hundreds, if not
thousands of dollars by writing:
>In a similar vein I should think the military are investigating
>non-metal cased bombs as part of the stealth bomber programme.
>It would seem foolish if they weren't as anybody with a decent radar
>could follow a large bomb and work out roughly where the bomber was to
>within a few square miles.
Anybody with half a brain could probably figure out that the airplane
was wrapped tightly around the bomb. Or am I missing sonething here?
Half a brain, perhaps?
Hansje.
+--- Hans Derycke ---- us02...@interramp.com ----------------------------+
So Darlene, if you really believe that Boulder is ethnicly diverse, please
share with us whatever you're smoking. -- Wayne Laugesen, in co.general
Dave Wilton
In <4to70m$6...@soap.news.pipex.net> om...@dial.pipex.com (RFCheshire)
writes:
>In a similar vein I should think the military are investigating
>non-metal cased bombs as part of the stealth bomber programme.
>It would seem foolish if they weren't as anybody with a decent radar
>could follow a large bomb and work out roughly where the bomber was to
>within a few square miles.
While radar could conceivably reverse the track of a gravity bomb and
figure out where it was dropped from (given good atmospheric data you
could probably do it pretty accurately), what would be the point? The
US Army uses radar to locate enemy artillery by calculating the reverse
trajectory of the shells, but unlike howitzers, by the time the bomb
explodes, the plane is long gone. Also, many bombs (especially those
used by the Stealth which are almost exclusively "smart" bombs) are not
simple gravity bombs. They have guidance and steering systems and do
not necessarily follow a ballistic trajectory, so reversing the
trajectory would not give an accurate location of the release point.
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@ix.netcom.com
Adam Felson
: John Henry wrote:
: >
: > A few months back there was some discussion of a story about a
: > German WWII airfield with wooden decoy planes on it. The story
: > was that a mission was sent over to bomb them with wooden bombs.
Where wooden planes sent to drop those wooden bombs? :-D
James Linn
In article <4tolb9$g...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
dwi...@ix.netcom.com(Dave Wilton) wrote:
You could take the question to rec.aviation.military, but I'll save
RFCheshire the trouble.
Stealth assets are very rarely going to drop dumb bombs, if ever. The
percent kill is too low (Pk) to send expensive stealth assets out with
their small bombloads. If they want to use dumb bombs, they'll send a bomb
truck like the B52.
Guided munitions, like Laser Guided Bombs (LGB) or guided missiles pass
through turbulent atmosphere (wind) and make many compensating adjustments
en route. Calculating a starting point is nigh unto impossible, given
radars wouldn't be able to pinpoint the bombs flight that closely.
Also how long would it take for the calculation? Stealthy planes can still
travel at 600kts per hour, or 10 kts(a knot is longer than a mile)a
minute. After releasing the bomb, the plane could concevabley turn in any
direction 360 degrees horizontal and vertical or go straight. Assuming the
tracking and calculation takes 1 minute, that would give you a
20ktx20ktx20K ft. grid that you would have to search.It is true that the
plane would lose some speed turning and/or climbing, but could also
increase speed by diving, so it really a wash. Not a very good propect
especially if it is at night.
So in my humble estimation, even dropping dumb bombs from a stealth bomber
is no threat to the stealth from enemy radars.
James Linn
My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!
Don Erickson
afe...@rainbow.rmii.com (Adam Felson) wrote:
As a matter of fact, the de Havilland Mosquito that was reported to be
the "wooden bomber" elswhere in this thread _was_ constructed of wood.
I hope you didn't overwork your imagination too much for that one.
-Don 'jaw agape' Erickson
--
doing my part to raise the .sig to noise ratio
Bob Church
In article <31ffc0bb...@news.interramp.com>
us02...@interramp.com (Hans Derycke) writes:
> om...@dial.pipex.com (RFCheshire) cost the Net hundreds, if not
> thousands of dollars by writing:
>
> >In a similar vein I should think the military are investigating
> >non-metal cased bombs as part of the stealth bomber programme.
> >It would seem foolish if they weren't as anybody with a decent radar
> >could follow a large bomb and work out roughly where the bomber was to
> >within a few square miles.
>
> Anybody with half a brain could probably figure out that the airplane
> was wrapped tightly around the bomb. Or am I missing sonething here?
> Half a brain, perhaps?
Well, if the bombs stay tightly wrapped within the aircraft they aren't
a factor. Having an enemy get a momentary fix on you as the bomb leaves
the aircraft might be a problem though. Not only would the plane be in
danger, but the way new systems are being developed it's possible that
the ordnance might be targeted. Some of that stuff's getting pretty
fancy.
And expensive. In more ways than one.
Bob Church
Matthew Rabuzzi
: -Don 'jaw agape' Erickson
You mispelled "Jah love".
Matthew "pulling the wood over their eyes" "snood job" Rabuzzi
David Lesher
The decoy story I read [and need to re-locate..] involved
the dummy RAF airfields built during the Blitz.
The first problem was they were so good it was hard to keep the
Spitfire drivers from using them. Some scheme of colored lights
that changed nightly solved that.
Then there was the junior officer who called HQ from the shelter
one night:
Lt: Captain, we're under attack! The Huns are bombing us!
Brass: Good Show!
Lt: But sir... they're strafing us too!
Brass: Keep your head down, son.
Lt: But sir... They've destroyed 3 of my *best* decoys already..
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433
Chris Matthaei
om...@dial.pipex.com (RFCheshire) writes:
>I have read about this in a British library. According to the book I
>read when the allies took photos of the airfield and realised it was a
>fake they then bombed it with a wooen bomb. If I remember rightly it
>was an RAF Mosquito which took the 'photos and bombed the airfield.
>In a similar vein I should think the military are investigating
>non-metal cased bombs as part of the stealth bomber programme.
>It would seem foolish if they weren't as anybody with a decent radar
>could follow a large bomb and work out roughly where the bomber was to
>within a few square miles.
Why should you think this? By the time the bombs have been dropped and
observed on RADAR, it's too late anyway.
Chris
Lawrence Kubicz
James...@nortel.com (James Linn) wrote:
[snip some excellent observations on stealth]
>Also how long would it take for the calculation? Stealthy planes can still
>travel at 600kts per hour, or 10 kts(a knot is longer than a mile)a
>minute. After releasing the bomb, the plane could concevabley turn in any
>direction 360 degrees horizontal and vertical or go straight. Assuming the
>tracking and calculation takes 1 minute, that would give you a
>20ktx20ktx20K ft. grid that you would have to search.
"kts per hour" is redundant. A knot is a nautical mile (NM) per hour. A nautical mile is almost exactly 6000 feet. IIRC, it is defined as the length of one arc-minute of latitude, which comes out to 6000.<mumble> feet.
Larry "even pilots can navigate, to some degree" Kubicz
Walter Eric Johnson
RFCheshire (om...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: In a similar vein I should think the military are investigating
: non-metal cased bombs as part of the stealth bomber programme.
: It would seem foolish if they weren't as anybody with a decent radar
: could follow a large bomb and work out roughly where the bomber was to
: within a few square miles.
I thought that the radar was one of the targets they were trying
to take out. Turn the radar on to follow the bomb down and
the next bomb will be on the radar. For that matter, it would
be easy to build a bomb which homes in on the radar emissions.
Eric Johnson
Nick Spalding
.lku...@alycia.andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Kubicz) wrote:
>
> "kts per hour" is redundant. A knot is a nautical mile (NM) per hour.
> A nautical mile is almost exactly 6000 feet. IIRC, it is defined
> as the length of one arc-minute of latitude, which comes out to
> 6000.<mumble> feet.
>
International Nautical Mile.
--
Nick Spalding
Greg Limes
lku...@alycia.andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Kubicz) writes:
> James...@nortel.com (James Linn) wrote:
>
> >Also how long would it take for the calculation? Stealthy planes can still
> >travel at 600kts per hour ...
>
> "kts per hour" is redundant. A knot is a nautical mile (NM) per
> hour. A nautical mile is almost exactly 6000 feet. IIRC, it is
> defined as the length of one arc-minute of latitude, which comes out
> to 6000.<mumble> feet.
Actually, "kts per hour" would be a rate of acceleration; so,
a stealty plane travelling at 600kts per hour for an hour would
be travelling at a rate of 600kts (and have covered 300 nautical
miles) at the end of the hour.
I would expect most things would have higher acceleration rates than
a measly 600kts per hour. "0 to 60 in ten seconds" comes out to
(hmmm, (60mph/10sec) * (5280ft/m /6000ft/nm) * 3600sec/hr)
about 19008 kts per hour.
James Linn
In article <4u621k$i...@news.tamu.edu>, wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter
Eric Johnson) wrote:
Substitute "guided missile" for "bomb" and you've got it. Anti-radar
missles began in the 60s and continue development today. And since stealth
aircraft are relatively small (at least the F117 used in the gulf war),
they tend to use PGM (precision Guided Munitions) instead of bombs. And as
demonstrated in the Gulf War, one of the primary targets of stealth craft
are the command, communications and control centers (3C) and radar
qualifies as a control center, it is fair to conjecture that if you
suspected a stealth aircraft was in the area, and you saw a small missile
contact, you should probably turn off your radar quickly, instead of
trying to find the aircraft, and make yourself a nice target.
Tim Hollebeek
Walter Eric Johnson (wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
: RFCheshire (om...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: : In a similar vein I should think the military are investigating
: : non-metal cased bombs as part of the stealth bomber programme.
: : It would seem foolish if they weren't as anybody with a decent radar
: : could follow a large bomb and work out roughly where the bomber was to
: : within a few square miles.
Hmm, a less expensive method would be to watch for things blowing up,
and then assume there is a bomber within a few square miles :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University | email: t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
Bob Church
In article <James_Linn-06...@47.59.0.157>
James...@nortel.com (James Linn) writes:
> it is fair to conjecture that if you
> suspected a stealth aircraft was in the area, and you saw a small missile
> contact, you should probably turn off your radar quickly, instead of
> trying to find the aircraft, and make yourself a nice target.
That's probably the current situation, but technology spreads. When
Stealth Bombers have to start worrying about enemy Stealth Fighters in
the area, factors like the signature of the bomb or missile leaving the
aircraft could make all the difference.
Bob Church
Gabriel Rossman
In article <4tn1hh$17...@zen.hursley.ibm.com>, nob...@hursley.ibm.com wrote:
> "Several versions of this anecdote exist, the most reliable of which
> can be found in Major M. E. DeLonge's "Modern Airfield Planning and
> Concealment" (New York: Pitman, 1943), p 135"
>
> Unfortunately I don't have access to a copy of the cited reference, or
> a library remotely to hand that might. I'd be fascinated to hear what
> it has to say if anyone else *has*, however.
> - Ian Noble
Modern Airfield Planning and Concealment, p. 135
"However, the British have apparently tricked the Germans as well. It is
reported that in Holland the Germans spent many weeks carefully building a
dummy airdrome. Finally it was completed and the very next day the British
dropped a lone bomb on the field. The Germans must have been surprised
when they found the bomb was wooden."
The use of the words "apparently" and "reported" makes me think that Major
DeLonge heard this while drinking in the officers' lounge.
--
"I wanna decide who lives and who dies" -Crow T Robot
JR@The Big House
chu...@art.ohiou.edu (Bob Church) wrote:
->In article <31ffc0bb...@news.interramp.com>
->us02...@interramp.com (Hans Derycke) writes:
->
->> om...@dial.pipex.com (RFCheshire) cost the Net hundreds, if not
->> thousands of dollars by writing:
->>
->> >In a similar vein I should think the military are investigating
->> >non-metal cased bombs as part of the stealth bomber programme.
->> >It would seem foolish if they weren't as anybody with a decent
radar
->> >could follow a large bomb and work out roughly where the bomber
was to
->> >within a few square miles.
->
I am not completely familiar with all forms of radar, however I am
pretty sure that a radar can pick up a return on a non-metal object.
(i.e hotair baloons, clouds, etc.) I am also pretty sure that all
current stealth bombers/fighters in the US arsenal have internal bomb
racks to avoid such detection, and when they open the bomb doors, they
have powerful ECM jammers that create thousands of returns on enemy
radar to prevent detection on the "dirty" surface created by the open
doors.
Just a thought, I could be wrong.
Email all personal replys to:
J. Roberts (Florida Dept of Corrections)
ATQ...@prodigy.com
Public Email to:ebd...@pig.net
I Think therfore I stay out of prison!
Fred J. Drinkwater
: : non-metal cased bombs as part of the stealth bomber programme.
: : It would seem foolish if they weren't as anybody with a decent radar
: : could follow a large bomb and work out roughly where the bomber was to
: : within a few square miles.
: I thought that the radar was one of the targets they were trying
: to take out. Turn the radar on to follow the bomb down and
: the next bomb will be on the radar. For that matter, it would
: be easy to build a bomb which homes in on the radar emissions.
Been there, done that. High speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM).
Several tasty flavors available. Frequently used against Surface-to
Air Missile emplacements (SAMs).
On the previous topic, anybody have an idea what the radar cross-section
of a 500 pound iron bomb would be? Seems like it should be pretty damn
small, given the shape of the casing, but the box fins might reflect
pretty well.
Phil Gustafson
danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <32010933...@news.iol.ie> spal...@iol.ie (Nick Spalding) writes:
>
>>Probably yes. I believe it was the De Havilland Mosquito, which was
>>made of wood, which dropped them. The last one in flying order in the
>>UK crashed last week, killing pilot and navigator.
>>--
>
>This was the designed purpose of the Spruce Goose...
>--
No, the Spruce Goose was designed to carry troops and materiel. Howard
Hughes was certainly eccentric, but I don't believe he ever designed a
plane to kill its pilot and navigator.
Phil
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, drin...@adobe.com (Fred J. Drinkwater) said:
>Been there, done that. High speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM).
>Several tasty flavors available. Frequently used against Surface-to
>Air Missile emplacements (SAMs).
The British have something, don't know if it ever went past prototype phase.
It's like a HARM, you send in your SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences)
strike before the main strike, and they launch these missiles against the
enemy radar. If their radar operators are smart, they turn off the radars.
So the missile lofts itself thousands of feet in the air and deploys a baloon
or parachute. When the main strike package comes in, the radars turn back on.
The missile cuts lose its parachute, and attacks the radars.
>On the previous topic, anybody have an idea what the radar cross-section
>of a 500 pound iron bomb would be? Seems like it should be pretty damn
>small, given the shape of the casing, but the box fins might reflect
>pretty well.
Actually, the biggest problem they have with the F-117 is that when they open
the bomb bay doors, the inside of the bay becomes a nice corner cube reflector
and the plane lights up every radar screen around for a few seconds. I
believe the interior weapons bays of the F-22 will have some more stealthy
characteristics.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com)
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/">My home page</a>
"Cherokee 38290, Rochester Departure. Radar services terminated, frequency
change approved, have a nice day."
Lucas de Jonge
This actually sounds like a direct takeoff of a Goon Show script, where
cardboard tanks are made up to confuse the Germans, and the Germans bomb
them with cardboard bombs, thus allowing them to build more cardboard
tanks.
RFCheshire <om...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<4to70m$6...@soap.news.pipex.net>...
Robert Warinner
Lucas de Jonge (ldej...@acay.com.au) wrote:
: This actually sounds like a direct takeoff of a Goon Show script, where
: cardboard tanks are made up to confuse the Germans, and the Germans bomb
: them with cardboard bombs, thus allowing them to build more cardboard
: tanks.
Probably not.
I ran across another vector of the decoys bombed with wood bombs UL in
Martin Middlebrook's "The Berlin Raids" (Penguin Books, ISBN 0-14-008146-1):
Decoy fire sites were a feature of every German city, but Berlin is
believed to have had fifteen such sites, including one particularly
large one at Staaken, on the western approaches to the city, which was
based on the sets of a pre-war film studio. One wartime schoolboy
Flakhelfer ask me about the wartime rumor that one night several
bombers separated from the main stream and dropped some wooden bombs
on the Staaken decoy site!
(pp 27-28)
There are a couple of points that argue against this particular
incarnation of the story. First, Berlin was a heavily defended and
distant target. It would be unlikely that a mission to drop dummy
bombs would be a popular or actually attempted given the risks
involved. Second, if the decoy was known to the British, it is
unlikely that they would have let the Germans know of it as it would
obviously prompt the Germans to move the decoy site or improve their
decoy countermeasures.
The rumor may have some roots in the poor accuracy of British night
bombing raids. In the early years of the war, the Germans often had
some difficulty in determining the targets of British raids as they
often bombed over wide areas.
Andrew "your target for tonight" Warinner
wari...@xnet.com
wari...@ttd.teradyne.com
http://www.xnet.com/~warinner
Visit the Sphinx's Nose page: http://www.xnet.com/~warinner/sphinx.html
Joe Thompson
Paul Tomblin wrote:
> Actually, the biggest problem they have with the F-117 is that when they open
> the bomb bay doors, the inside of the bay becomes a nice corner cube reflector
> and the plane lights up every radar screen around for a few seconds. I
> believe the interior weapons bays of the F-22 will have some more stealthy
> characteristics.
From Tom Clancy's _Debt of Honor_:
"The opening of the weapons bay instantly made the Lightnings [F-22
Rapiers] about as stealthy as a tall building. Blips appeared on five
different screens..."
I know using a novel as a cite is kind of borderline, but Clancy's
research is usually pretty thorough. I think the only time I've caught
him messing up is once in an early novel (_Patriot Games_?) he referred
to "1679 hours" or some such thing.
Supposedly the Navy doesn't like him very well because of _Hunt For Red
October_, nor did _Red Storm Rising_ endear him to the Pentagon. -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Cornerstone Networks | "Mathematics, like chess,
requires
j...@cstone.net | Charlottesville VA | too direct and personal a
confron-
Technical Support | 804.984.5600 | tation to allow graceful
defeat."
Technical Writing | http://www.cstone.net/ | -- Alfred Adler
Brian Trosko
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@compass.xcski.com> wrote:
: Actually, the biggest problem they have with the F-117 is that when they open
: the bomb bay doors, the inside of the bay becomes a nice corner cube reflector
: and the plane lights up every radar screen around for a few seconds. I
: believe the interior weapons bays of the F-22 will have some more stealthy
: characteristics.
Probably limited to RAM on in the inside of the bays. I'm not sure how
much good it would do to have stealthy bays when the weapons inside those
bays will still be a huge radar beacon during the period of time after
the bays are opened but before the weapons are launched
I've got a friend in the Air Force, who's in intelligence, so he's a
wonderful vector for no-shitters. Anyway, he told me he was talking with a
few of the Roach pilots who went in over Baghdad. Apparently, they went in
sight unseen, got over their target, opened the bays, dropped 4,000 pounds
of peace, love, and understanding, and started bugging out. Unfortunately,
one of the bay doors stuck in the open position, and every single search or
tracking radar in the city swung over and illuminated them, since they were
the only visible target around.
After a few choice expletives, the bay closed up, and they dropped off the
scopes and went home.
Brian "New trousers" Trosko
Dave Wilton
>Supposedly the Navy doesn't like him very well because of _Hunt For
>Red October_, nor did _Red Storm Rising_ endear him to the Pentagon.
Actually, as a soldier stationed in Germany at the time of publication,
we howled with laughter at the glaring inaccuracies in _Red Storm
Rising_. Among other things, he placed V Corps up near Hamburg (in the
British zone no less), instead of down near Frankfurt--something that
even the most cursory research of unclassified sources would have
caught.
I tend to believe that any accuracy in _Hunt for Red October_ is due to
the Naval Institute Press editors (who pared a 1,000+ page manuscript
down to some 300 pages and produced his only readable book). Once
Clancy made the switch to Houghton Mifflin, he lost the sanity check on
his "facts."
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@ix.netcom.com
Hartmut Schmider
Robert Warinner <wari...@flood.xnet.com> writes:
rw> There are a couple of points that argue against this particular
rw> incarnation of the story. [...]
The main point speaking against the story is IMHO that it sounds just
too good to be true.
rw> [...] Second, if the decoy was known to the British,
rw> it is unlikely that they would have let the Germans know of it as
rw> it would obviously prompt the Germans to move the decoy site or
rw> improve their decoy countermeasures.
On this one point I would argue that an action like dropping wooden
bombs on wooden decoys brings with it a psychological advantage. If,
over a longer period of time, decoy sites were not bombed, whereas
surrounding areas were, the Germans would notice anyhow that their
attempt at fooling the Brits was unsuccessful. I find it half
plausible that the Brits would give up the advantage of having the
Nazis believe in the success of their decoys, for the benefit of
demoralizing them by telling them "you bozos don't fool us, we bomb
your real targets with real bombs and your bullshit with bullshit".
As I said, unless someone quotes a relevant military source for this,
I don't believe it ever happened. But I can see some rational in it
beyond a simple prank.
rw> The rumor may have some roots in the poor accuracy of British
rw> night bombing raids. In the early years of the war, the Germans
rw> often had some difficulty in determining the targets of British
rw> raids as they often bombed over wide areas.
Yes, but that also speaks against the story. The initial tactics was
precision bombing, but that was expensive and accompanied by great
losses. So they resorted to carpet bombing.
Hartmut "to knock out carpet factories" Schmider
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartmut Schmider, Kemisk Lab. B, DTU - 207, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark
e-mail ha...@kvant2.klb.dtu.dk
Auf die Autoritaet anderer oder aus eigener Ueberzeugung im
Systeme des Meinens und Vorurteils zu stecken, unterscheidet
sich von einander allein durch die Eitelkeit, welche der
letztern Weise beiwohnt. G.W.F. Hegel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Wilton
In <tzd90r4...@kvant2.klb.dtu.dk> ha...@kvant2.klb.dtu.dk (Hartmut
Schmider) writes:
>
>As I said, unless someone quotes a relevant military source for this,
>I don't believe it ever happened. But I can see some rational in it
>beyond a simple prank.
I recall (and this is recollection, the details may be misremembered or
I may have even hallucinated the whole thing) in the book _A Glorious
Way to Die_ by mumble, which is about the last days of the battleship
_Yamato_, a similar story.
The Japanese had drydocked the battleships _Hiei_ and _Kirishima_,
unable to sortie them for lack of fuel and repair materials. To
camouflage them, they covered them with cut trees and other debris. The
Americans subsequently overflew the shipyard and dropped leaflets
saying, in Japanese, "Its time to change the camouflage on the
battleships _Hiei_ and _Kirishima_; it is turning brown."
I seem to recall the source, a popularly published paperback, did
contain extensive notes and bibliography. So while perhaps it was not
the best history source, it was researched to a fair degree.
One problem I just noted was why anyone would use trees to camouflage
something in a shipyard (perhaps it occurred at an isolated
anchorage?).
Anyway, its a similar tale. Contemporary to the British/German one, but
half a world away.
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@ix.netcom.com
Hartmut Schmider
Dave Wilton <dwi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
dw> I recall [...] a similar story [...pacific-war story...]
dw> Anyway, its a similar tale. Contemporary to the British/German
dw> one, but half a world away.
Interesting, even if it didn't happen; because it could have happened.
It occured to me that WW-II was fought with such dogged obstinacy and
hatred that such "prank-like" activities could well have been thought
of as morale enhancing, in a strange way for both sides. In such
stories, one sees a humane quality shimmering through, which perhaps
never really existed (even in earlier wars), but certainly was lost
after twenty million deaths. It seems to me almost an act of
reconciliation to tease the enemy with "I saw your camouflage, I saw
your pants go down", as opposed to looking at them as Kamikaze
fighting robots or death-skull wearing mass murderers. Maybe they
needed that break.
Hartmut "toys R us" Schmider
Ken Rice
>As I said, unless someone quotes a relevant military source for this,
>I don't believe it ever happened. But I can see some rational in it
>beyond a simple prank.
The following is from the book "Masquerade: The Amazing Camouflage
Deceptions of World War II" by Seymour Reit, page 50, paperback published
by Signet in 1980, ISBN (?) 0-451-09120-5 (this number from the spline has
the format of an ISBN, but is not so labeled.)
Another enemy decoy, built in occupied Holland, led to a tale that has been
told and retold ever since by veteran Allied pilots. The German "airfield,"
constructed with meticulous care, was made almost entirely of wood. There
were wooden hangars, oil tanks, gun emplacements, trucks, and aircraft. The
Germans took so long in building their wooden decoy that Allied photo
experts had more than enough time to observe and report it. The day finally
came when the decoy was finished, down to the last wooden plank. And early
the following morning a lone RAF plane crossed the Channel, came in low,
circled the field once, and dropped a large wooden bomb.
The footnote for this is: Several versions of this anecdote exist, the most
reliable of which can be found in Major M. E. DeLonge's "Modern Aitfield
Planning and Concealment" (New York: Pitman, 1943), page 135.
Ken