possibly real and effective weapons and strategies that were unexplored in real world

[yamato2cz]

along with making of my mod for hoi, i want opinions of as many people on this. not really opinions but any actual info. with references if possible.

examples could be "push-pull" twin engines. Dornier 335 used two engines, one in front pulled the plane, one in back pushed the plane. test flights were around 750 km/h. in real world not really explored idea, while it seems pretty on paper, and even prettier in those few actions it had.

or ironclad airships. basically instead of fabric, thin layer of metal would be used as armor protecting against rifle and light machinegun fire. 4 airships of such type were build, 2 collapsed on themselfs other 2 actually flew. however, idea remained unexplored.

another example-underwater battleship. french experimented with submarine with one turret carrying 2x200mm guns. there were some problems but "undersea cruiser" was eventually build and saw service in ww2 but due to certain situation that british and french had between themselfs, british didnt use the sub. no more of such subs were build and concept was not explored.

last example-US nuclear powered aircraft project, namely, plane called "Convair NB-36H". plane succesfuly flew with active reactor for 89 hours. project was scrapped by Kennedy in late 1960s

does the community knows about any more of such interesting projects? it would be great for my mod to add such little things, even tho most people will go for no brainers.

 

[Ming]

Are you only interested in world war 2 timeframe?

Is the submerisble cruiser you are referring to the Surcouf?

 

[Culise]

Well, for the examples given:

1. The push-pull engine system requires either a second engine (highly unlikely for reasons soon apparent) or a long driveshaft (used in the Do335), both of which increase weight penalties. The rear engine is not operating in a smooth airflow, but rather in the wake of the fuselage and the forward engine, reducing its efficiency significantly compared to a dual-push or dual-pull engine system. It can introduce rotation problems as well during take-off, and on the ground will also typically yield clearance difficulties that must be designed around, making this design more common on seaplanes than land-based craft. Finally, and most critically in military applications, the rear prop plays merry havoc with pilot ejection should the plane be shot down; the Do335 required a specialized ejection seat (and additional weight penalties imposed by that) along with explosive charges on the rear prop in order to attempt to secure pilot safety. That said, it's important to remember that the best push-pull plane was not the Do335, but the Cessna O-2 Skymaster; the more-modern Adam A500 ran into its own issues, not all of which were due to the engine configuration.

2. Ironclad airships fall foul of two historical trends: that which killed the airship and that which killed armored airplanes. Basically, armor is heavy, and airships are slow. When speed became the king of protection in the air, that brought it to a close.

3. This also fell prey to historical trends, this time that which "killed" the surface battleship. Air power was already devastating to both surface and submersible warships; a submersible battleship loses the air protection of, say, the Iowa-class ships' retrofitted AA guns while also losing the range and ability to fire without surfacing of the torpedo.

4. Nuclear-powered aircraft raise a host of potential containment issues in the event of mission loss. Again, though, nuclear reactors are heavy, especially in the 70s. It's important to distinguish between a single prototype and a successful combat design.

That said, if you want awesome and impractical, we can go one further on the nuclear-powered aircraft by mounting the nuclear engine directly into a ramjet. Project PLUTO, the nuclear ramjet, was effectively an environmentalist nightmare, spraying radioactive waste behind them as they propelled a nuclear. The idealization of the design would have been a massive set of MIRV missiles in the stratosphere, permanently flying, which if triggered would release their warheads on targets, loitering to salt the earth as they did, before propelling themselves into a final target as well.

 

[krieger11b]

Well there was a particularly diabolical plan to use bats with small incendiary bombs on them to drop on Japanese cities. They were to be released in the air and hopefully hide in their usually dark cool places, like under the overhang on a roof. Supposedly the nuclear bomb replaced the idea. I really do not see the advantage of using bats over regular incendiary bombs to begin with though.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Lazer Dolphins, obvs.

 

[Imgran]

Well there was a particularly diabolical plan to use bats with small incendiary bombs on them to drop on Japanese cities. They were to be released in the air and hopefully hide in their usually dark cool places, like under the overhang on a roof. Supposedly the nuclear bomb replaced the idea. I really do not see the advantage of using bats over regular incendiary bombs to begin with though.

Heh. Reminds me of something from Russian history/mythology, Olga of Kiev's war on the Derevlians, where she repordedly used pigeons to accomplish much the same thing. She demanded a tribute of a pigeon from each household, which the Derevlians paid, those terms being reasonable to avoid getting pillaged in those days. She then released those piceons with burning something-or-other tied to them by a string. The idea being, the pigeons fly home under the roofs of each Derevlian household and set everything on fire all at the same time, so there was no way the people could save enough houses to live through the winter, then sacked the rest of the town and made captives, slaves or heavy tributaries of the rest of the Derevlians.

Sounds harsh. But they'd killed her husband at parley and tried to force her into a marriage that would have resulted in the death of her son Sviatoslav, to clear the way for the offspring of the Derevlian prince to become the heir to Kiev, and she took that rather personally as one might expect.

 

[Ming]

Well, if you know about the metal ridged airships you surely know about the USS Macon and Akron, long range airships that carried parasite fighters. Their patron died in a crash so the project lost funding.

Along similar lines there's the Zveno Project. (Russian parasites launched from a Tupolev long range bomber.)
and the Arado E.381, rocket parasites launched from a Jet bomber.

Helicopters flew in WW2 and could have been developed earlier by both sides.

Also, fanwing rotor aircraft such as cyclogyros and flettner craft were developed in the 20s and 30s but never went anywhere due to difficulties in contemporary modeling and the advance of fixed wing aircraft. Those could be developed.

 

[DoomBunny]

Well there was a particularly diabolical plan to use bats with small incendiary bombs on them to drop on Japanese cities. They were to be released in the air and hopefully hide in their usually dark cool places, like under the overhang on a roof. Supposedly the nuclear bomb replaced the idea. I really do not see the advantage of using bats over regular incendiary bombs to begin with though.

Because bats spread out and set off with a delay. They're also almost guaranteed to hit something (whereas incendiaries can get dumped anywhere). Effectively one could start a series of fires around a city all around the same time, without warning, and with great accuracy. That's the theory at least.

IIRC they cancelled it because some of the bats got out and set fire to the fuel storage at the airbase they were testing them on. Then the nuclear bombs came along and took over.

 

[kaoss]

Flying wings:

And Autogyos:

 

[dragoon9105]

Flying wings are in operation today as the B2 Bomber. As for why they weren't put into Service in WW2 they are insanely difficult to control and make terrible fighters for a multitude of reasons.

Why turrets haven't made a return to bomber and CAS aircraft with the advent of computer guidance is an interesting question. In theory a CAS Jet with a turret under the nose could keep fire on target without being forced to make a predictable attack run like a helicopter can while still having the speed of a Jet fighter.

 

[Imgran]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet

Rocket powered fighters

THe prototype was a flying coffin, but it had some small potential. The problem for rocket fighters was by the time they were thought of prototype jet fighters like the Me262 were already in development and looked like a much more mature and stable technology, which in fact they were.

 

[gagenater]

The Japanese submarine aircraft carriers. If developed earlier, or by a power with a better industrial base it could have been an incredibly useful thing. Particularly if combined with the German developed wire guided or camera guided missiles for precision strikes, you would be looking at a weapon system that could get to a critical target undetected, cause major damage and then slip away to some other location to repeat the process.

 

[yamato2cz]

The Japanese submarine aircraft carriers. If developed earlier, or by a power with a better industrial base it could have been an incredibly useful thing. Particularly if combined with the German developed wire guided or camera guided missiles for precision strikes, you would be looking at a weapon system that could get to a critical target undetected, cause major damage and then slip away to some other location to repeat the process.

things like this are the droids i'm looking for.

 

[keynes2.0]

The Japanese submarine aircraft carriers. If developed earlier, or by a power with a better industrial base it could have been an incredibly useful thing. Particularly if combined with the German developed wire guided or camera guided missiles for precision strikes, you would be looking at a weapon system that could get to a critical target undetected, cause major damage and then slip away to some other location to repeat the process.

If you have guided missile technology, why not just put them on a long range bomber for much faster deployment? Sure a bomber cant carry as much as a submarine but the submarine launched missile needs to power itself upwards before going into it's long range cruise mode. A B-29 bomber could drop a 9000 kg payload, had a ceiling of 9 kilometers, had a range of 3000 km and had a max speed of 574 kph. So your guided missile gliding in from a bomber would be able to carry a far bigger payload then any V2 style missile that launches itself from a submarine.

Bombing was dangerous and the inaccuracy made it of little effectiveness. If a bomber could stay 30 km away from the target and have a high chance of hitting it would have been a war winning weapon.

 

[Kovax]

The Akron and Macon were tested as flying aircraft carriers, but the slipstream around the dirigible envelope (not well understood at the time) made it all but impossible to land the little Goblin fighters that were designed to latch onto arrester hooks on the airship. Both airships were destroyed in storms.

Note that their predecessor, the Shenandoah, was destroyed by wind shear in a severe storm, breaking into 3 separate pieces. I believe there was one fatality, and the rest of the crew survived by riding the still somewhat buoyant sections to the ground. At that point, no conventional winged aircraft were capable of surviving the kinds of forces in such storms, so the airships were sometimes used to gather data in conditions that they should have gone out of their way to avoid.

As pointed out, an airship makes a BIG, slow target (although not that slow: the Hindenburg managed an average of 75 knots on one trip), and improvements both in weapons and in conventional aircraft since WWI made them militarily non-viable. The UK public in particular remained paranoid about another airship bombing campaign against London, as in WWI, so the UK pressured the US into withholding Helium from Germany, resulting in the Hindenburg disaster when the ship was forced to substitute flammable Hydrogen gas (which had already been considered in its design). Note that Germany immediately broke up the remainder of its airship fleet at the start of WWII for the aluminum alloy to build more conventional aircraft.

On the topic of unexplored strategies, there were suggestions in the US to bomb Germany's electric grid, but those were quickly dismissed as not likely to be effective. As pointed out, using the domestic US power grid as an example, it was easy enough to reroute power around almost any individual trouble spot. After the war, it was discovered that Germany's electrical grid and power generation capabilities were bottlenecked at several points, and taking out only a handful of locations would have shut down electrical power to most of Germany.

 

[gagenater]

If you have guided missile technology, why not just put them on a long range bomber for much faster deployment? Sure a bomber cant carry as much as a submarine but the submarine launched missile needs to power itself upwards before going into it's long range cruise mode. A B-29 bomber could drop a 9000 kg payload, had a ceiling of 9 kilometers, had a range of 3000 km and had a max speed of 574 kph. So your guided missile gliding in from a bomber would be able to carry a far bigger payload then any V2 style missile that launches itself from a submarine.

Bombing was dangerous and the inaccuracy made it of little effectiveness. If a bomber could stay 30 km away from the target and have a high chance of hitting it would have been a war winning weapon.

Long range bombers able to cross the pacific ocean were beyond the technological capacity of WWII era aircraft - the B 52 and others of it's ilk developed in the mid to late 50's were the first generation of bombers which could have this capacity. But most critically they require large secure air bases prepared in advance to be utilized. they (the bombers) can also be detected, and countered well before they get the chance to do serious damage. The construction of air bases within range of the enemy is blatantly obvious, and the airbases are obvious targets early in a war as well as obvious places to watch/spy on to determine if a strike will be carried out. The missiles don't launch from the submarine - the submarine carries short ranged bombers (with a large payload) to a point close to the target - then the bombers launch, take the target out, and return to the submarine. And I agree - using only 'dumb bombs' the amount of damage the aircraft can do makes the whole concept pointlessly expensive. That's why to be truly effective it would have to be paired with guided air launched missiles, or some other form of highly effective ordinance - like torpedoes (also guided and incredibly effective in WWII but only for naval targets) or in some instances incidiaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

 

[Imgran]

Long range bombers able to cross the pacific ocean were beyond the technological capacity of WWII era aircraft - the B 52 and others of it's ilk developed in the mid to late 50's were the first generation of bombers which could have this capacity. But most critically they require large secure air bases prepared in advance to be utilized. they (the bombers) can also be detected, and countered well before they get the chance to do serious damage. The construction of air bases within range of the enemy is blatantly obvious, and the airbases are obvious targets early in a war as well as obvious places to watch/spy on to determine if a strike will be carried out. The missiles don't launch from the submarine - the submarine carries short ranged bombers (with a large payload) to a point close to the target - then the bombers launch, take the target out, and return to the submarine. And I agree - using only 'dumb bombs' the amount of damage the aircraft can do makes the whole concept pointlessly expensive. That's why to be truly effective it would have to be paired with guided air launched missiles, or some other form of highly effective ordinance - like torpedoes (also guided and incredibly effective in WWII but only for naval targets) or in some instances incidiaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

Honestly that sub would be less useful in combat or ground attack than it would be as long range recon. Covert recon using scout aircraft from a submersible carrier could have given a lot of information very quickly with a reasonable chance to avoid detection of the sub itself.

 

[yamato2cz]

The Akron and Macon were tested as flying aircraft carriers, but the slipstream around the dirigible envelope (not well understood at the time) made it all but impossible to land the little Goblin fighters that were designed to latch onto arrester hooks on the airship. Both airships were destroyed in storms.

Note that their predecessor, the Shenandoah, was destroyed by wind shear in a severe storm, breaking into 3 separate pieces. I believe there was one fatality, and the rest of the crew survived by riding the still somewhat buoyant sections to the ground. At that point, no conventional winged aircraft were capable of surviving the kinds of forces in such storms, so the airships were sometimes used to gather data in conditions that they should have gone out of their way to avoid.

As pointed out, an airship makes a BIG, slow target (although not that slow: the Hindenburg managed an average of 75 knots on one trip), and improvements both in weapons and in conventional aircraft since WWI made them militarily non-viable. The UK public in particular remained paranoid about another airship bombing campaign against London, as in WWI, so the UK pressured the US into withholding Helium from Germany, resulting in the Hindenburg disaster when the ship was forced to substitute flammable Hydrogen gas (which had already been considered in its design). Note that Germany immediately broke up the remainder of its airship fleet at the start of WWII for the aluminum alloy to build more conventional aircraft.

On the topic of unexplored strategies, there were suggestions in the US to bomb Germany's electric grid, but those were quickly dismissed as not likely to be effective. As pointed out, using the domestic US power grid as an example, it was easy enough to reroute power around almost any individual trouble spot. After the war, it was discovered that Germany's electrical grid and power generation capabilities were bottlenecked at several points, and taking out only a handful of locations would have shut down electrical power to most of Germany.

airships were used by military alot in ww2. they were excelent convoy defenders. would just fly above convoys and protect them from subs. about 300 airships of this designation were used in ww2

 

[Imgran]

airships were used by military alot in ww2. they were excelent convoy defenders. would just fly above convoys and protect them from subs. about 300 airships of this designation were used in ww2

And by "protect" here we basically mean "help spot subs for the destroyer escort." I'm sure they had some weaponry to actually take potshots at subs but their real utility was vision.

Airships could have had a place in both military and commercial aviation, but the fixed wing aircraft simply stole their thunder.

 

[dragoon9105]

those Airships cant exactly take potshots, they can drop depth charges.

And Airships could have been developed as an alternative to the Helicopter. Since they are both just as vulnerable and can serve the "Area Air support" role well. Helicopters are generally smaller and are more maneuverable and after WW2, Big and Slow were exactly the things modern military design was trying to avoid, So the Helicopter won out instead of Jet Engine equipped armored airships.