German A-bomb Tests were SHL-600 FAE?

[Rob Arndt]

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/SHL_6000_FAE.jpg

The alleged A-bomb used at Rugen in October 1944 and at Ohrdruf in
March 1945 was most likely an extra large version of the German FAE
known as the SHL-6000. This bomb weighed 6,000kg and was 2.4 metres by
3.9 metres intended for He-177 operations. Said to have a huge
destructive radius. It was said to use coal dust and uranium-oxide as
part of it's explosive mix.

Rob

[Eunometic]

The warhead was to replace the nose of the He 177 which was to be
flown by a "misteln" arrangment ie a piggy back fighter controls the
bomber. Upon release a 3 axis autopilot flies the aircraft to
target. Intervention via command line of sight radio control was
possible for "Mistel" aircraft but not considered neccesary.

One target was soviet dams: opperation "Eisenhammer" (Iron Hammer)
the other was British Battleships.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Dec 31, 12:42 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
It was said to use coal dust and uranium-oxide as
> part of it's explosive mix.

Uranium oxide would serve no purpose in an explosive device.

[Keith W]

I can only assume this was some weird attempt to produce the least effective
explosive device in history. They may as well have used beach sand as
uranium oxide, both are chemically inert but sand is cheaper.

The reality of German FAE design is rather simpler. Doctor Mario
Zippermayr was working on AA weaponry at the Doberitz proving grounds
near Berlin.

Pure FAE explosives using coal dust were attractive on cost grounds
but proved ineffective. A variant using 60% liquid O2 and 40% powdered
coal was found to be more effective and could cause damage to
light structures within a 600 m radius.

A larger (600 kg) device was known to be in development at
Nordhausen. These were not true FAE or thermobaric weapons
as they carried their own oxidiser in the form of liquid O2

This made them rather 'challenging' to actually deploy in wartime.

The SHL-6000 was of course NOT a FAE or thermobaric weapon.
Your drawing is clearly that of a large hollow charge weapon
which is Hohlladungsbombe in German

As Thomas L. Nielsen of Denmark posted elsewhere

<Quote>

Wolfgang Fleischer's excellent book "Deutsche Abwurfmunition bis 1945"
(roughly: "German air-dropped munitions until 1945"), ISBN 3-613-02286-9

contains the following

"A further development [of the SHL-4000, for the Ju-88 Mistel] was the
SHL-6000, intended for use with an enlarged Mistel composite (Heinkel He 177
and Focke-Wulf Fw 190). There were plans to use the SHL-6000 during
Operation Eisenhammer ["Operation Iron Hammer"], an attack on the power
stations of the Russian armaments industry [somewhere beyond the Urals]"

</Quote>

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

<scottl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:883e118c-c712-4243...@j1g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 31, 12:42 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>It was said to use coal dust and uranium-oxide as
> part of it's explosive mix.

-Uranium oxide would serve no purpose in an explosive device.

Uranium METAL powder would because it's pyrophoric:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophoricity
Magnesium or Zirconium powder makes more sense unless they had no better use
for the Uranium.

jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:71818e85-1cb1-4bb9...@l16g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 31, 6:42 pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/SHL_6000_FAE.jpg
>
> The alleged A-bomb used at Rugen in October 1944 and at Ohrdruf in
> March 1945 was most likely an extra large version of the German FAE

> known as the SHL-6000. ...
-One target was soviet dams: opperation "Eisenhammer" (Iron Hammer)
-the other was British Battleships.

They would be no more damaging to a battleship than the muzzle blast from
its own salvos.

jsw

[Rob Arndt]

There were several designations for various warhead mounts for the
He-177 Misteln. I had never heard of a larger warhead and am well
aware of Herr Zippermayr's work with the Firedamp weapon which was a
60/40 coal dust+ LOX mix. However, the SS added a reagent that is yet
unknown that caused tremendous damage. That is why there is no trace
of radiation at Ruegen or at the Thurigia site. The massive flash and
explosive effect is there as it killed many prisoners as well as
several hundred SS that were too close (via eyewitness reports of the
detonations). Talks of vaporization are common and this has led to a
hypothetical German mini-nuke which is linked to actual a/c fittings
for the so-called SO Bf 109s (Special Operations K-4s) to drop a 440
kg weapon. The fitings were delivered in 1945, but the SS supposedly
had to move the few devices when the LW went to pick them up to attack
the Soviets with them. So the LW got nothing.

Hitler, for his part had allowed Tabun artillery shells to be stored
on a barge on one of Germany's lakes, but it was never ordered to any
location to shell the Soviets. It was captured intact and unloaded.
Goering would later testify at Nuremburg that he prevented the
development of a "molecular bomb" leading to postwar specualtion that
Germany was working on an atomic or hydrogen weapon. In Argentina at
Huemel, bizarre work was carried out by Germans and Argentines on some
form of device that required a lot of electricity. it was a claimed
fusion weapon but later called a failure. Some believe it was
continued testing of the Bell Device which may have been many things
(among them, a claimed seperation reactor). Remains unknown and would
not explain why it was tethered in its original location unless it was
an anti-gravity device or as some venture to say- a Zeitmaschine
(plasma tunneler type).

Germany had FAEs in WW2 but the LW never used any AFAIK. They were to
be dropped into Allied bomber streams and detonated. SIGNAL posted
drawings of the effect in one of their magazines. It was under a LB
designation, not SHL... and what bomb containers were found were
empty...

Rob

[Jim Wilkins]

-"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d00a29d-9ed8-4d75-9fab-
...
-There were several designations for various warhead mounts for the
-He-177 Misteln. I had never heard of a larger warhead and am well
-aware of Herr Zippermayr's work with the Firedamp weapon which was a
-60/40 coal dust+ LOX mix. However, the SS added a reagent that is yet
-unknown that caused tremendous damage. That is why there is no trace
-of radiation at Ruegen or at the Thurigia site. The massive flash and
-explosive effect is there as it killed many prisoners as well as
-several hundred SS that were too close (via eyewitness reports of the
-detonations). Talks of vaporization are common and this has led to a
-hypothetical German mini-nuke which is linked to actual a/c fittings
-for the so-called SO Bf 109s (Special Operations K-4s) to drop a 440
-kg weapon. The fitings were delivered in 1945, but the SS supposedly
-had to move the few devices when the LW went to pick them up to attack
-the Soviets with them. So the LW got nothing....
-Rob

Subsequent research showed that plain old propane is about as good as
anything for an FAE. The original FAE was flour dust stirred up in a silo
and ignited by static.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion

These are more of an industrial hazard (the reason I know) than a promising
weapon since they burn progressively rather than detonating and don't create
nearly the destructive overpressures of high explosives. They are like
tornado winds.

You've shown no evidence of having enough understanding of science,
engineering and mathematics to distinguish fact from garbled rumor or
deceptive propaganda.

jsw

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 31, 9:05 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

Oh, I did not know that, I had heard Plutonium was (In a Clancy novel)
but not Uranium stuff. Definitely a smart move to have something like
that, over complicated switches and igniters. Today htey have the
switches and igniters but you use what you've got or can make....

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 31, 2:33 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:

And as much as I hate to double respond, I just thought that this
would be a great explanation for the "German A-Bomb" rumors. A really
powerful bomb test, that could be confused with a small, tactical
nuclear weapon, and people at the time hearing that Uranium was in the
bomb, and after Hiroshima, what would someone who just knew these two
things think?

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 31, 8:31 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/SHL_6000_FAE.jpg
>
> > The alleged A-bomb used at Rugen in October 1944 and at Ohrdruf in
> > March 1945 was most likely an extra large version of the German FAE
> > known as the SHL-6000. This bomb weighed 6,000kg and was 2.4 metres by
> > 3.9 metres intended for He-177 operations. Said to have a huge
> > destructive radius. It was said to use coal dust and uranium-oxide as
> > part of it's explosive mix.
>
> > Rob
>
> I can only assume this was some weird attempt to produce the least effective
> explosive device in history. They may as well have used beach sand as
> uranium oxide, both are chemically inert but sand is cheaper.

Agreed, I could see coal dust, which is known to be explosive in
mining accidents and makes sense in the time contest, being already a
fine powder and not having to be "misted" as much as a liquid fuel
would. Uranium seems a bit over the top, and if an oxidizer was needed
as with Thermite there are other substances.

> The reality of German FAE  design is rather simpler. Doctor Mario
> Zippermayr was working on AA weaponry at the Doberitz proving grounds
> near Berlin.
>
> Pure FAE explosives using coal dust were attractive on cost grounds
> but proved ineffective. A variant using 60% liquid O2 and 40% powdered
> coal was found to be more effective and could cause damage to
> light structures within a 600 m radius.

Liquid Oqygen? They'd need a well-insulated bomb for the long flight,
and be careful handling it....

The overpressure effect sounds about right, pretty powerful bomb.

> A larger (600 kg) device was known to be in development at
> Nordhausen. These were not true FAE or thermobaric weapons
> as they carried their own oxidiser in the form of liquid O2
>
> This made them rather 'challenging' to actually deploy in wartime.

I agree, pretty fascinating that they were thinking along those lines
then, though. Always figured FAE was much newer.

> The SHL-6000 was of course NOT a FAE or thermobaric weapon.
> Your drawing is clearly that of a large hollow charge weapon
> which is Hohlladungsbombe in German

Yes, unless the plate was to direct an FAE shock, there isn't much
reason for it, and it would add a lot of weight.

> As Thomas L. Nielsen of Denmark posted elsewhere
>
> <Quote>
>
> Wolfgang Fleischer's excellent book "Deutsche Abwurfmunition bis 1945"
> (roughly: "German air-dropped munitions until 1945"), ISBN 3-613-02286-9
>
> contains the following
>
> "A further development [of the SHL-4000, for the Ju-88 Mistel] was the
> SHL-6000, intended for use with an enlarged Mistel composite (Heinkel He 177
> and Focke-Wulf Fw 190). There were plans to use the SHL-6000 during
> Operation Eisenhammer ["Operation Iron Hammer"], an attack on the power
> stations of the Russian armaments industry [somewhere beyond the Urals]"

They needed something to be able to hit such targets, the range was a
problem throughout the war. I could see maybe He-177s dropping them,
unless the FW-190 waited until just before release of a Mistel plane
to start her own engines, the 190 might not be able to make it back
from a mission that far out.

One of the things a "German Mosquito" might have been good for, a long
range bombing attack. A German "Proto-FAE" bomb with coal dust would
be devastating, the question is how to get it there past the Urals
effectively.

> </Quote>
>
> Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote
-...In Argentina at
-Huemel, bizarre work was carried out by Germans and Argentines on some
-form of device that required a lot of electricity. it was a claimed
-fusion weapon but later called a failure. Some believe it was
-continued testing of the Bell Device which may have been many things
-(among them, a claimed seperation reactor). Remains unknown and would
-not explain why it was tethered in its original location unless it was
-an anti-gravity device or as some venture to say- a Zeitmaschine
-(plasma tunneler type)....
-Rob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_mirror_telescopes
Uses rotating mercury, only points straight up, can't be moved when
operating.

A 40 Megawatt (peak input) mercury-anode X-ray tube.
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/1737/1/129_1?isAuthorized=no
Mercury spreads and dissipates the heat better than most other anode
materials and doesn't permanently pit where the electron beam strikes it.
Tungsten or molybdenum would serve but they were too vital for machine tool
bits and jet engines, and not nearly as easy to secretly shape into a
parabolic mirror.

While a Death Ray based on these ideas wouldn't actually work,
unsophisticated party hacks could easily be conned by cleverly faked demos
such as using the mercury mirror to project a narrow carbon-arc searchlight
beam onto the clouds directly overhead.

jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e64c9aa3-7e89-4d28-aaca-

> Oh, I did not know that, I had heard Plutonium was (In a Clancy novel)
> but not Uranium stuff. Definitely a smart move to have something like
> that, over complicated switches and igniters. Today htey have the
> switches and igniters but you use what you've got or can make....

-And as much as I hate to double respond, I just thought that this
-would be a great explanation for the "German A-Bomb" rumors. A really
-powerful bomb test, that could be confused with a small, tactical
-nuclear weapon, and people at the time hearing that Uranium was in the
-bomb, and after Hiroshima, what would someone who just knew these two
-things think?

Do you understand that the uranium would simply burn to its oxide like
magnesium flash powder? There is no nuclear reaction involved.

The Japanese test explosion at Konan in North Korea has been confused with a
nuclear test. I bought the Wilcox book "Japan's Secret War: Japan's Race
Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb" and quickly realized that he
didn't have a clue about physics or chemistry, or enough material to justify
a book. From his own description of the evidence it sounds like a fuel-air
bomb, such as Japan initially claimed we had dropped on Hiroshima.

jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote

>...

>Liquid Oqygen? They'd need a well-insulated bomb for the long flight,
>and be careful handling it....

A common glass Thermos bottle (not corked) will hold it for many hours.
Evaporation of a small amount cools the rest.

We carried liquid nitrogen around in styrofoam coffee cups.

jsw

[Keith W]

Unobtanium strikes again.

There is a fixed limit on how much energy can be extracted
by the combustion of Carbon in an Oxygen atmosphere

Ye canna break the laws of physics captain.

Keith

[Dan]

Every so often aren't trots this fantasy out. She used to tell us how
it would generate plasma and lightning. The "reagent" she described as
"wax like" has never been discovered. When pushed she drops the subject.

Aren't hasn't a clue about basic chemistry or physics so she is
easily impressed by things she doesn't understand as long as they are of
German origin. The scientific method and logic escape her.

Remember when she told us about space aliens helping the Nazis? She
never did explain why they didn't help the Nazis win.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 31, 3:31 pm, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in message

> news:e64c9aa3-7e89-4d28-aaca-
>
> > Oh, I did not know that, I had heard Plutonium was (In a Clancy novel)
> > but not Uranium stuff. Definitely a smart move to have something like
> > that, over complicated switches and igniters. Today htey have the
> > switches and igniters but you use what you've got or can make....
>
> -And as much as I hate to double respond, I just thought that this
> -would be a great explanation for the "German A-Bomb" rumors. A really
> -powerful bomb test, that could be confused with a small, tactical
> -nuclear weapon, and people at the time hearing that Uranium was in the
> -bomb, and after Hiroshima, what would someone who just knew these two
> -things think?
>
> Do you understand that the uranium would simply burn to its oxide like
> magnesium flash powder? There is no nuclear reaction involved.

Exactly. I am just thinking of how it could be misinterpreted by
people like the Italian newspaper guy who have promulgated the rumor
that the Germans had a Nuclear fission weapon. It would have been
nothing of the kind, but people hearing rumors or witnessing a test
from nearby could have been mistaken. Any mention of uranium back then
would have fired people up too, with the isotope or grade or use in
question getting lost in the mix. Uranium would be a word that would
draw attention especially just after WW2 and into the Cold War period.
I'm thinking of how a layman type could become confused.

> The Japanese test explosion at Konan in North Korea has been confused with a
> nuclear test. I bought the Wilcox book "Japan's Secret War: Japan's Race
> Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb" and quickly realized that he
> didn't have a clue about physics or chemistry, or enough material to justify
> a book. From his own description of the evidence it sounds like a fuel-air
> bomb, such as Japan initially claimed we had dropped on Hiroshima.

This could also be the case, I recall some book years back about a
Japanese "F-Go" program and it could have been a similar thing where
one program got taken for being something else after the war due to a
combination of secrecy, rumors, and the U.S. Bombs that ended the war
in the Pacific grabbing the imagination. Add the Atomic Age of the
late 40s and 50s and all kinds of stuff coming out of Japan and
Germany as far as rumors, etc. and the ingerdients were there.

> jsw

[vaughn]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:80dadaa7-2e1c-4e75...@m20g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

>Uranium would be a word that would
>draw attention especially just after WW2 and into the Cold War period.
>I'm thinking of how a layman type could become confused.

Nobody who understands the scale of the industrial installations necessary to
produce fissionable material in the 1940's could possibly have be deceived.
Those installations were absent in both Germany and Japan, and couldn't possibly
have been missed postwar. However, your above comment stands because that
knowledge couldn't have been common in the early postwar years due to government
secrecy .

Today, however, that knowledge is available to anyone who wishes to open their
eyes and look. There is no longer reason for any thinking person to believe
that the axis powers could possibly have had any type of nuclear criticality
weapon.

Vaughn

[Eunometic]

On Jan 1, 3:35 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

You think that a 6000kg shaped charge warhead would leave a battleship
unscathed.

The 4000kg version SHL 4000 sank some captured french battelships

[Jim Wilkins]

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:b2ffd07c-9a81-43b6...@h37g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

According to Arndt it was an FAE, not a shaped charge.

jsw

[Moramarth]

On Jan 1, 1:53 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> The 4000kg version SHL 4000 sank some captured french battelships

Cite, please...

Moramarth

[Moramarth]

On Dec 31 2011, 8:31 pm, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you understand that the uranium would simply burn to its oxide like
> magnesium flash powder? There is no nuclear reaction involved.

Having seen the firework display caused by a DU long-rod penetrator
hitting a test armour plate, I can imagine DU providing a very
efficient igniter for an FAE.
>
Cheers,
>
> jsw

Moramarth

[Eunometic]

> things think?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There was some work by Klaus Diebner and Erich Schumann of the HWA
into powefull implosive neutron sources forseen as a way of initiating
fission and fusion explosions. Little boy had a small version of this
kind of device added in the month before it use, it was referred to as
an 'urchin'.

Basically you can generate neutrons by bombarding a material such as
berylium with particles such as electrons from an electron gun or even
vacuum tube, alpha particles from say radium or poloniumm, or beta
particles from some other radiation source or via hydrogen nuclei
accelerate via an atom smasher or cylotron. Anything that pentrates
to the nucleous.

Schumann and Diebner, who were hollow charge explosive experts,
simply used hollow charges to accelerate lithium nuclei to generate
the flash of neutrons.

Blow one of those babies up and you would get a physical explosion
plus a large flash of neutrons.

[Eunometic]

Opperation Eisenhammer almost got underway in the final days of the
war.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Eisenhammer (German; in English Operation Iron Hammer) was a
planned strategic bombing operation against power generators near
Moscow and Gorky in the Soviet Union which was planned by Nazi Germany
during World War II but eventually abandoned.

The plan of the operation was created in 1943 by Professor Heinrich
Steinmann (1899–1969), an official at the Reich Air Ministry. A
bombing raid was to destroy twelve turbines in water and steam power-
plants near Moscow, Gorky, Tula, Stalinogorsk and under the Rybinsk
Reservoir, as well as to attack certain substations, transmission
lines and factories. If the attack were to succeed in destroying just
2/3 of the turbines it would have knocked out about 75% of the power
used by the Soviet defence industry. Only two smaller energy centers
behind the Urals and in the Soviet Far East would have been left
intact. At this time the Soviet Union had no turbine manufacturing
capabilities and the only repair facility (in Leningrad) had been
heavily damaged.

To accomplish the goal Mistel long range bombers were to be employed.
To destroy water turbines special floating mines called Sommerballon
("summer balloon") were to be dropped into the water and then pulled
by the current straight into the turbines.

Due to the shortage of bombers and fuel, technical problems with the
floating mine and the Soviet Army overrunning advance bases, the plan
was postponed repeatedly. In February 1945 however Eisenhammer was
resurrected and Kampfgeschwader 200 assembled scout planes and about
100 Mistels near Berlin and waited for favourable weather to attack
the plants around Moscow. After a US air raid on the Rechlin
Erprobungstelle military aviation test facility, which destroyed 18
Mistels the plan was postponed again and shortly afterwards finally
dropped.

[Keith W]

Name one

The only French 'Battleship' to be hit by a Mistel was the Courbet
off Normandy. The problem was that at the time she had been
scuttled as part of the Mulberry Breakwater.

I have always found it rather amusing that faced with the largest
invasion fleet in history the Luftwaffe chose to attack a hulk with
no weapons, engines or boilers that was already sitting on the
sea bed.

Keith

[Keith W]

Pure self delusion.

The Luftwaffe was quite incapable of mounting the sort of sustained
attack that would be required to achieve this. Their efforts to
attack power generating capacity in Britain were feeble to
say the least. The chances of doing this to targets at extreme
range were non existent.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wtYLq.222411$cr3....@newsfe03.ams2...
> Eunometic wrote:
>> ...

> The only French 'Battleship' to be hit by a Mistel was the Courbet
> off Normandy. The problem was that at the time she had been
> scuttled as part of the Mulberry Breakwater.
>
> I have always found it rather amusing that faced with the largest
> invasion fleet in history the Luftwaffe chose to attack a hulk with
> no weapons, engines or boilers that was already sitting on the
> sea bed.
>
> Keith

The British unfairly duped them by flying a large, tempting Free French flag
on it.

jsw

[David E. Powell]

On Jan 1, 9:35 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message

WIki said she was also hit buy minisubs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Courbet

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Courbet>

Maybe she was just easiest to get to, and looked like a ship from
above, though the missing main turrets would definitely be noticed
from the air.

Not sure how she'd look from a minisub....

[Keith W]

Bloody hard to sink

"Mein Kaptain hit her mit 10 torpedoes we haff and the ship
does not even list. "


Keith

[David E. Powell]

LOL! "What kind of secret armor is this?" etc.... ;)

Followed by a priority message to concentrate everything on the
unsinkable battleship of course.

> Keith

Happy New Year Keith!

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <c97b1010-b573-471b...@k22g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,

Eunometic <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> To accomplish the goal Mistel long range bombers were to be employed.
> To destroy water turbines special floating mines called Sommerballon
> ("summer balloon") were to be dropped into the water and then pulled
> by the current straight into the turbines.

which wouldn't have worked. all good hydro plants have grates at the head of the
penstock to capture potentially damage debris

[Eunometic]

> > Steinmann (1899�1969), an official at the Reich Air Ministry. A

> > bombing raid was to destroy twelve turbines in water and steam power-
> > plants near Moscow, Gorky, Tula, Stalinogorsk and under the Rybinsk
> > Reservoir, as well as to attack certain substations, transmission
> > lines and factories. If the attack were to succeed in destroying just
> > 2/3 of the turbines it would have knocked out about 75% of the power
> > used by the Soviet defence industry.
>
> Pure self delusion.
>
> The Luftwaffe was quite incapable of mounting the sort of sustained
> attack that would be required to achieve this. Their efforts to
> attack power generating capacity in Britain were feeble to
> say the least. The chances of doing this to targets at extreme
> range were non existent.
>

> Keith- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

This is a sweeping statement without justification. The Mistelm and
their shaped charge warhead were quite capable of carrying out the
opperation. Weather, allied attacks and the soviet advanced delayed
the attack.

[vaughn]

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:atlas-bugged-A34A...@news.solani.org...

> which wouldn't have worked. all good hydro plants have grates at the head of
> the
> penstock to capture potentially damage debris

Well yes, but first the canny devils would have used the super-secret grate
buster bomb.

Vaughn

[Eunometic]

On Jan 2, 9:27 am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <c97b1010-b573-471b-b9a7-2483e90ab...@k22g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > To accomplish the goal Mistel long range bombers were to be employed.
> > To destroy water turbines special floating mines called Sommerballon
> > ("summer balloon") were to be dropped into the water and then pulled
> > by the current straight into the turbines.
>
> which wouldn't have worked. all good hydro plants have grates at the head of the
> penstock to capture potentially damage debris

These were small devices which achieved neutral bouyancy. They were
small enough to get through larger grates or to be dropped in large
numbers behined them. If they didn't get through diretly to the
turbine they would detonate via time dalay and shock near the inlet,
presumably to send a shock down to the turbine.

The basic idea was to break the dam and some of its tubine
infrastructure through the use of these large hlllow charge warheads.

[Dan]

>>> Steinmann (1899�1969), an official at the Reich Air Ministry. A

>>> bombing raid was to destroy twelve turbines in water and steam power-
>>> plants near Moscow, Gorky, Tula, Stalinogorsk and under the Rybinsk
>>> Reservoir, as well as to attack certain substations, transmission
>>> lines and factories. If the attack were to succeed in destroying just
>>> 2/3 of the turbines it would have knocked out about 75% of the power
>>> used by the Soviet defence industry.
>>
>> Pure self delusion.
>>
>> The Luftwaffe was quite incapable of mounting the sort of sustained
>> attack that would be required to achieve this. Their efforts to
>> attack power generating capacity in Britain were feeble to
>> say the least. The chances of doing this to targets at extreme
>> range were non existent.
>>
>> Keith- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> This is a sweeping statement without justification. The Mistelm and
> their shaped charge warhead were quite capable of carrying out the
> opperation. Weather, allied attacks and the soviet advanced delayed
> the attack.

Are you serious? The mistletoe aircraft were flying targets. To use
them long range required air superiority at least locally. That couldn't
be maintained all the way to the targets.

[Eunometic]

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

A night flight combined with suprise should have no problems
penetrating soviet defenses, they lacked radar equiped night fighters
and the Germans could
use FuG 101a radar altimeters.

[Eunometic]

On Jan 2, 12:29 pm, "vaughn" <vaughnsi...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote in messagenews:atlas-bugged-A34A...@news.solani.org...

>
> > which wouldn't have worked. all good hydro plants have grates at the head of
> > the
> > penstock to capture potentially damage debris
>
> Well yes, but first the canny devils would have used the super-secret grate
> buster bomb.
>
> Vaughn

They were to aggregate near the inlet from the turbine inlet weak
current. They would arm themselves at around the same time: one would
detonate first and thereby trigger the others.

[Keith W]

History justifies it.

> The Mistelm and
> their shaped charge warhead were quite capable of carrying out the
> opperation. Weather, allied attacks and the soviet advanced delayed
> the attack.

Excuses always with the excuses

If only ...
It should have worked ...
They cheated ....

Whine away , as a strategic force the Luftwaffe was incapable
of doing significant damage to targets on the other side
of the North Sea much less those beyond the Urals.

Between mid 1940 and mid 1941 they had large air fleets
based in Denmark and Norway and opposite them were
the critical war industries of the Tees and Tyne easily found
along the banks of the river with minimal defenses

Guess how much damage the Luftwaffe inflicted on them ?

Answer - very little

They were too busy bombing civilians in city centres

Keith

[Keith W]

Which would do NOTHING to help them guide the Mistel
on to its target which relied on visual guidance.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:jUgMq.223120$cr3....@newsfe03.ams2...
> Eunometic wrote:
>> ....>

> Which would do NOTHING to help them guide the Mistel
> on to its target which relied on visual guidance.
>
> Keith

If the Russians saw or heard bombers mining the reservoirs they could
immediately deploy their top secret fishnets to sweep them.

jsw

[vaughn]

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:4918bc5e-e8de-42ac...@t14g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

>They were to aggregate near the inlet from the turbine inlet weak
>current. They would arm themselves at around the same time: one would
>detonate first and thereby trigger the others.

On the outside of the grate, the extra bombs would do little more than throw
more water into the air.

Vaughn

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <eb89f301-968a-4507...@x34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,

even at best you would only damage the penstock, not the turbines. which do you
think is easier to fix?