Page 2 of 2
RE: LW in 1946?
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 5:39 am
by Hard Sarge
roger TS
they had some interesting Ground to Air stuff, one hassle with the Germens, they kept wanted perfect, when, shoddy or decent would of been very nasty
but I was meaning the Air to Ground stuff they already had working
could you see what a 1000/2000 HE warhead set on a controlable rocket would of done ? (they were glide bombs, but they were powered, not sure they could of gotten the Height needed to have it glide into the formation, but...)
RE: LW in 1946?
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 8:13 am
by Dixie
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
Dixie
well, not so sure it was really a bad idea, the Idea itself is pretty good, getting it to work, now that was a different story
a small, light, cheap reuseable weapon, that wouldn't take much of a trained person to use, massive firepower, something that didn't really need to aimmed correctly, to have a chance to hit something
hassle is, it is a rocket, attached to a plywood frame, kind of ruff to have a good mission, when take off, tended to kill the pilot
(I think they tried to use some of those features in the F-104, that didn't work out too well either)
still don't understand why they never went with the air to ground missles they already had (of course, I would hate to be the guy in the He 177 or Do 217 trying to fire and guide one into a Bomber formation)
Not sure it's a bad idea? [X(][:D] What would you say if someone said they wanted to strap you into a SAM and launch you at a formation of enemy aircraft before you had to parachute to safety [:D] Assuming that you made it to height without your ride breaking up or the rocket motor playing silly buggers [:'(]
RE: LW in 1946?
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 1:51 pm
by Hard Sarge
well, again, is it the idea that was bad or getting it to work that was wrong ?
as I said, the US and Germens tried something of the same idea with the f-104, and had much of the same troubles, and that was a soild/good aircraft
I did say they had trouble keeping the pilot alive