WWII Quiz

[Doppleganger]

Correct Dean! Over to you.

 

[Dean]

Thank-you, Doppelganger...

Ok, then here we go. In late 1943, the British were finally beginning to fight back against the Japanese in South East Asia. Things did not go well until early 1944, when the British and their allies finally won their first victory over the Japanese. What was the name of the battle, where was it fought, and how did it get it's name?

 

[perseus]

Dean

Was it the 'Battle of the Boxes', by the 1st Queen's in the Arakan?

Units were ordered to hold their ground and form defensive boxes, 7th Division headquarters box became known as the Admin Box. The remainder of the Battalion formed the Braganza Box.

I think this was more of a defensive victory with a follow up, resulting in heavy Japanese casualties

 

[Dean]

Oh, man, you are more than half right. The battle has become known as the Battle of the Admin Box, but the name had nothing to do with the defensive boxes. How did it get the name?

 

[perseus]

The Japanese concentrated on 7th Division's Administrative Area, defended mainly by service troops.

 

[Dean]

Yes indeed. The area that the 7th division was defending was notated on the maps simply as the admin box, as the divisional adminstrative area was there. The Japanese attacked it without worrying about their rear areas, whick cost them dearly when they were attacked by the 5th Indian division, which inflicted heavy casualties and forced the Japanese to withdraw.

Go for it, Perseus.

Dean.

 

[perseus]

A number of nations were investigating in-flight refuelling techniques during the war, including Germany which conducted successful trails during 1944.

What aircraft were being considered (bomber + refueller) and what was the intended mission or target?

Why was the idea abandoned?

As a bonus what alternative unconventional method of extending aircraft range was attempted in Germany?

 

[perseus]

As a matter of interest 600 Lancaster's were converted to tankers for the long range bombing of Japan. These were not necessary though due to the subsequent advance of US forces.

Here is an unusual picture of a Lancaster!

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/google-earth-appears-have-encountered-t26330.html

 

[MontyB]

A number of nations were investigating in-flight refuelling techniques during the war, including Germany which conducted successful trails during 1944.

What aircraft were being considered (bomber + refueller) and what was the intended mission or target?

Why was the idea abandoned?

As a bonus what alternative unconventional method of extending aircraft range was attempted in Germany?

Ok I will go with a Ju390 as the tanker and the Ju290 as the bomber (although there is talk of the Me264) and the mission was to bomb targets on the east coast of the USA (some say to deliver an atomic bomb).

Oddly enough though I cant find a definitive answer as to why the program was abandoned but 2 reasons seem to be listed:
1) Lack of fuel and resources.
2) A refocusing of Germany's research and resources into figter development and Reich defence.

As a bonus what alternative unconventional method of extending aircraft range was attempted in Germany?

Well although there were several unconventional options for extending range from flying wings to piggy backed aircraft I will go with Dr. Eugen Sänger's "Silverbird" a manned, winged vehicle that could reach orbit.

http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger

I realise this is not a complete answer and I am sure someone will come up with a more concise one but hopefully this will get the ball rolling.

 

[perseus]

Monty

You have probably answered most of the question(s) and am tempted to accept you answer.

All the aircraft types mentioned are correct, (the Me 264 was indeed considered as well) was this a guess?

The target was (according to my source) New York, although I suppose other east coast targets were considered.

Your alternative method was not quite what I had in mind (although the US used a fuel glider called the Cornelius XGG-1 ). How was the tank used in conjunction with a conventional aircraft.

Economic and more pressing factors may have played a role in abandoning the project, but there was a specific practical reason, which you could possibly work out. Any ideas?

 

[MontyB]

Monty

You have probably answered most of the question(s) and am tempted to accept you answer.

All the aircraft types mentioned are correct, (the Me 264 was indeed considered as well) was this a guess?

Oddly enough the Me264 was to be my original answer and then the Ju290/390 combo came into the picture, the hard part was determining which was to be the bomber and which the tanker, that sorted itself out though as the Ju390 was designated a heavy transport (this was from a book on KG200). Incidently KG200 information also spoke of the He177 also being a contender and it was apparently being prepared to carry a German A-Bomb if it had been completed (the A-bomb that is, the plane was built to prototype status).

The target was (according to my source) New York, although I suppose other east coast targets were considered.

Yes most of the information I had said New York as well but then there were also rumours of a dirty bomb to be used on Washington so I switched to "east coast" as a sort of cover all.

Your alternative method was not quite what I had in mind (although the US used a fuel glider called the Cornelius XGG-1 ). How was the tank used in conjunction with a conventional aircraft.

Economic and more pressing factors may have played a role in abandoning the project, but there was a specific practical reason, which you could possibly work out. Any ideas?

The most logical reason I can think of is that by the time they "may" have been ready they would have already lost sizable chunks of France and their most westerly bases. But as I said originally my answer isnt complete and this was the reason for that, I can find nothing on specifically why the project was abandoned.

 

[Dean]

I do not remember the name or the model number of the aircraft, but I remember a piggyback concept that passed the design phase. It consisted af a very large mother circraft that would take off and fly out over the Atlantic until it was relatively close to the US coast. It that time, it was supposed to drop a smaller bomber, which would continue on and bomb the target.

Dean.

 

[MontyB]

Yeah there were all sorts of weird ideas, one involved float planes being refuelled by submarines off shore another was submarine launched V1 and V2s.

 

[perseus]

The reason for abandoning the project was due to a specific technical difficulty, it was nothing to do with the land available. Think about the difficulties involved in refuelling every 3-6 hrs or so over the period of a day or several days without modern aids.

The alternative method of boosting range was very similar to the refuelling concept itself, in fact almost identical.

 

[The Other Guy]

I do not remember the name or the model number of the aircraft, but I remember a piggyback concept that passed the design phase. It consisted af a very large mother circraft that would take off and fly out over the Atlantic until it was relatively close to the US coast. It that time, it was supposed to drop a smaller bomber, which would continue on and bomb the target.

Dean.

Yes, a descendent of the Mistel project. This was in some ways the entire reason the Mistel Project got off the ground. They wanted to use it as a small step to a larger attack.

 

[redcoat]

I do not remember the name or the model number of the aircraft, but I remember a piggyback concept that passed the design phase.

The British Short company a famous maker of float planes
had a piggy back design which actually flew in 1938

 

[perseus]

In the interests of moving on, I shall provide the full answer

The refuelling was by a 6 engined Ju390 transport as a tanker for a Ju 290A or Me264

New York was the target

the alternative method was a towed winged fuel tank used tried with the Me262 and Ar234C

The reason why the project was abandoned was due to having to refuel at night


Your turn Monty

 

[MontyB]

Actually I will pass it back to you, we never really answered the question so technically its still your turn.

Besides I am somewhat restricted on my net usage at the moment as well.

 

[perseus]

Name at least 4 out of 5 (fundamentally different) methods investigated for dispersing fog near runways in WW2, which method was eventually adopted, what was its name and its disadvantages?

 

[Dean]

1. The most novel method was the "Fog Intensity Dispersal Of' or FIDO that involved the burning of gasoline along the sides of the runway to lift the fog. The British first used FIDO during the war when 157 Lancaster bombers landed at Heathrow during zero/zero weather. The simplest method consisted of burning the fuel in open trench es alongside the runway. The best results were obtained by burning from pressurized nozzles positioned every 50 ft. down the runway edge. Unfortunately, it took 20,000 gals. to sufficiently raise the fog for each landing. Gasoline cost alone was $15,000 per landing -- plus an additional $10,000 per landing for the system's maintenance. Not only was the cost prohibitive, but the system only worked on 150-ft. wide runways. When used on 200-ft. wide runways, the fog merely lifted from the sides and settled onto the center.

2. In January and February, 1944, tests were conducted at Sandburg, California on Sonic methods for dispersing fog. Although a 50 percent increase in the visibility was obtained (from 200 to 400 feet) the method did not appear practical for Aleutian fogs.

3. I am not sure if this is what you are referring to, but there were a number of different burners that worked basically in the same way. They were the Slot, Haigill, Haifox, and PWD (referred to above) and the Sonic method. Of all of them, the US used a diesel fueled version of the PWD, and the Brits used the gasoline burning version.