Bad ideas in war

[theprestige]

The US had already designed and built long range, tv guided assault drones, the Interstate TDR-1
They were used in action against the Japanese.

View attachment 73225
View attachment 73224

See? Great idea in war.

I really don't get the whole "Germany lost, so everything they tried was stupid" mindset on display here. Guided bombs are objectively a good idea in war, even when you lack the resources to really make it work.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Also the The ASM-N-2 Bat, a radar guided, automated glide bomb. release and forget.
First used operationally in April 1945.




Also the The VB-6 Felix, a precision-guided munition It used an infrared seeker to attack targets. Designed for use against factories and steelworks.


There was also the GB-4 used a television guidance system with the weapon being steered by a TV bombardier operating a joystick in the launch aircraft. Produced in early 1944 and used over Europe but was never completely reliable.
While it needed the launch aircraft to loiter and guide bomb like the Fritz-X, it's TV system meant it didn't have to keep direct line of sight on either the bomb or the target.

 

[Andy_Ross]

See? Great idea in war.

I really don't get the whole "Germany lost, so everything they tried was stupid" mindset on display here. Guided bombs are objectively a good idea in war, even when you lack the resources to really make it work.

Not everything they tried was stupid in and of itself, but they were stupid when you look at their production capacity and resources.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Anyway, enough, you will just take the opposite view whatever .

 

[theprestige]

Not everything they tried was stupid in and of itself, but they were stupid when you look at their production capacity and resources.

Their production capacity and resources were inadequate the moment the US entered the war.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Their production capacity and resources were inadequate the moment the US entered the war.

They were inadequate when they started the war.

 

[theprestige]

They were inadequate when they started the war.

See what I mean? The limitations of the Fritz X had nothing to do with it being a bad idea, because it wasn't a bad idea.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Deleted

 

[SpitfireIX]

Well, here's one: the Fritz X guided bomb.

I know some would say, but Hans, it was the first guided anti-ship bomb! It was genius! And it sunk the RM ROMA!

But hear me out the idea was indeed great. The execution... eh... not really.

The bomb required the plane to fly in a straight line for a rather long time, while the bombardier remote controlled the missile. Guess what ships had by then? AA guns. Speaking as an AA guy, guess what idea we LOVED the most? Planes flying in a straight line at constant speed. Guess what fighter planes love? The same.

Anyway, the Roma was the ONLY ship it ever sunk, and she wasn't exactly gunning back. And there was one other non-fatal hit. Any other plane carrying one got pwned with prejudice by AA and/or fighter planes. HUNDREDS of them. Being sent to drop one was just a tiny bit safer than being "volunteered" as kamikaze in Japan, but not by much, and with significantly less chances of achieving anything with your death.

Actually, there were several ships that were directly hit by Fritz X. In addition to Warspite as mentioned, other victims included Roma's sister ship Italia, USS Savannah, which lost over 200 men and was put out of action for over a year, and HMS Uganda. Several other ships were damaged by near misses, including Savannah's sister ship Philadelphia, and the destroyer HMS Loyal.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

So just like every torpedo and dive bomb in use at the time?

Just like every other naval strike bomber that had to fly in a straight line for an uncomfortable amount of time, in the teeth of anti-aircraft fire and fighter intercepts?

One of the problems bomber forces faced in WW2 was that conventional bombers could fly above most AA, but their payloads of dumb bombs were spectacularly inaccurate against moving naval targets. As an attempt to solve that problem, while not incurring the risks faced by dive bombers and torpedo bombers, hardly sounds like a bad idea to me.

I swear, this thread has the weirdest takes.

Not REALLY, now. For a start torpedoes needed you to fly low, while the Fritz X needed you to fly high, and along the ship's axis. Etc.

But really, the results just speak for themselves. Torp bombers sunk many ships. I mean, hell, they're probably what sealed the Yamato's fate. Fritz X sunk exactly one ship, and did minor damage to another, out of literally hundreds of attempts. Every single other attempt just got the plane shot down.

As I was saying, if you were gonna throw your life away, being a Japanese kamikaze had a higher payoff rate.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually, there were several ships that were directly hit by Fritz X. In addition to Warspite as mentioned, other victims included Roma's sister ship Italia, USS Savannah, which lost over 200 men and was put out of action for over a year, and HMS Uganda. Several other ships were damaged by near misses, including Savannah's sister ship Philadelphia, and the destroyer HMS Loyal.

So ok, I stand corrected... but... still just one sunk, 3 ineffective hits, and a couple of near misses? At the cost of hundreds of planes lost, and twice as many airmen?

Yeah, I still think the kamikaze program had more to show for itself, but that might be just me

 

[jimbob]

Not everything they tried was stupid in and of itself, but they were stupid when you look at their production capacity and resources.

Yup. For example the USS Nimitz isn't a bad idea, but that doesn't make the Kuznetsov a good idea for Russia

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yup. For example the USS Nimitz isn't a bad idea, but that doesn't make the Kuznetsov a good idea for Russia

Or the PoW and QE a good idea for the Royal Navy.
Three new improved Invincibles would have been much better.

 

[erwinl]

Or the PoW and QE a good idea for the Royal Navy.
Three new improved Invincibles would have been much better.

I don't know about that.
With the extra size of the F35 as opposed to the Harrier, the need for more operational endurance (for the aircraft including modern weapons), I think that the present PoW and QF are about what you'd expect an improved Invincible to look like.

Now, the wisdom of procuring 2 of these ships and only enough aircraft to not even fill up one of them for complete war duty is another question.
Although it is according to the time honored British 'Fitted for, but not with'.

I do think going more to the French approach and concentrating on a single ship (*), would have been more prudent, but the ships themselves, I have no problem with.

(*), yes there would be times when a single ship would be unavailable for duty, but seen in an European connection, either the French or the British ship would most likely be available for duty, given a bit of mutual planning.

 

[jimbob]

I don't know about that.
With the extra size of the F35 as opposed to the Harrier, the need for more operational endurance (for the aircraft including modern weapons), I think that the present PoW and QF are about what you'd expect an improved Invincible to look like.

Now, the wisdom of procuring 2 of these ships and only enough aircraft to not even fill up one of them for complete war duty is another question.
Although it is according to the time honored British 'Fitted for, but not with'.

I do think going more to the French approach and concentrating on a single ship (*), would have been more prudent, but the ships themselves, I have no problem with.

(*), yes there would be times when a single ship would be unavailable for duty, but seen in an European connection, either the French or the British ship would most likely be available for duty, given a bit of mutual planning.

As I understand it, three or four ships are generally the minimum for full availability of at least one.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I don't know about that.
With the extra size of the F35 as opposed to the Harrier, the need for more operational endurance (for the aircraft including modern weapons), I think that the present PoW and QF are about what you'd expect an improved Invincible to look like.

Now, the wisdom of procuring 2 of these ships and only enough aircraft to not even fill up one of them for complete war duty is another question.
Although it is according to the time honored British 'Fitted for, but not with'.

I do think going more to the French approach and concentrating on a single ship (*), would have been more prudent, but the ships themselves, I have no problem with.

(*), yes there would be times when a single ship would be unavailable for duty, but seen in an European connection, either the French or the British ship would most likely be available for duty, given a bit of mutual planning.

My replacement Invincible would have been a bigger ship than the originals but not thr size of the ridiculous things that were built.

 

[jeremyp]

But it wasn't sunk and was still a serviceable ship.

It needed significant repairs. A ship being repaired is out of action.

Even if Warspite and other ships had been sunk it would have made no difference to the Salerno landings.
The Fritz X was like a lot of the German 'wunderwaffe' a waste of resources.

A guided weapon that could sink a battleship would have been very useful earlier in the war. It's not that the Fritz-X was a bad concept, it was just a waste at the stage of the war where it could make no difference due to the overwhelming odds.

 

[jeremyp]

Not REALLY, now. For a start torpedoes needed you to fly low, while the Fritz X needed you to fly high, and along the ship's axis. Etc.

But really, the results just speak for themselves. Torp bombers sunk many ships. I mean, hell, they're probably what sealed the Yamato's fate. Fritz X sunk exactly one ship,and did minor damage to another, out of literally hundreds of attempts. Every single other attempt just got the plane shot down.

As I was saying, if you were gonna throw your life away, being a Japanese kamikaze had a higher payoff rate.

This is not true. See the post right above yours.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As usual Drachinifel provides

 

[jeremyp]

So ok, I stand corrected... but... still just one sunk, 3 ineffective hits, and a couple of near misses? At the cost of hundreds of planes lost, and twice as many airmen?

Yeah, I still think the kamikaze program had more to show for itself, but that might be just me

They weren't ineffective hits.

Italia was seriously damaged but was probably already superfluous to the Allies needs. She saw no more active service during the war.

Savannah was out of action for eight months

Uganda was out of action for more than a year

Warspite was out of action for nine months.