ADOLF HITLER HAD NO IDEA - History of course

[italoc]

You guys might have already seen this, but being new to me I think worthwhile to be shown to
anyone interested in flight, history and historic events.
Sorry if it is not concerning simulation matter but ..... wonderful History (with capital letters) and flying amazing machines matter:

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/15654030/1604819366/name/bomber_plant.wmv

Italo

[Helldiver]

It's a typical "Rah Rah" film usually used to boost peoples morale. It was pretty bad at the beginning of the war. Usually it was shown at movie theatres after which was a pause for a war bond drive.
After a faulty start, the Ford plant did produce a bomber every hour for a short period of time.

[TeaSea]

Actually, at peak production it produced 25 units a day, more than one an hour.

There were problems getting that kind of production going as Helldiver says, however that's to be expected with an airframe that contained almost 500,000 parts and multiple major components, many being assembled at other locations and requiring "just in time" delivery (seems the Japanese didn't invent that after all).

The key point here, which we aren't seeing because it's so blatantly obvious to us now, is that in the U.S., armaments production was turned over to manufacturers who specialized in the assembly line process. The U.S. Aircraft industry became the largest industry in the world during the war, totaling some 16 Billion dollars by 1946.

This was not the case in either Germany or Japan.

[Bushpounder]

If you want to research something interesting, check out the ties between the Nazi government, Ford (U.S.A.), and Ford of Germany during the 30's and 40's. Very interesting stuff.

Don

[gera]

If you want to research something interesting, check out the ties between the Nazi government, Ford (U.S.A.), and Ford of Germany during the 30's and 40's. Very interesting stuff.

Don
Agree......many won believe it. Ford sure made a lot of money from Hitler. Lots....

[TeaSea]

So did Rolls Royce...who sold Nazi's the Kestrel Engine for the -109, many of which ran quite well in the Spanish Civil War.

Later of course the Germans abandoned the Kestrel for the more powerful and fuel-injected Junkers and Daimler-Benz engines, but oddly enough.....the Merlin was the powerplant of choice for the Spanish after the fall of Germany.

[peter12213]

Sorry but a Wellington in 23hours 50mins wins! We Brits did it faster!

[Ian Warren]

Sorry but a Wellington in 23hours 50mins wins! We Brits did it faster!
Peter :salute: I have the brilliant doco on the Vickers , made me go and buy the First Class Simulation model , thanks for the link Italo , i really enjoy these historical WWII films whether it a Lib or Welly or any other . :wavey:

[peter12213]

Good show old boy! :salute:

[Paul K]

So did Rolls Royce...who sold Nazi's the Kestrel Engine for the -109, many of which ran quite well in the Spanish Civil War.

Later of course the Germans abandoned the Kestrel for the more powerful and fuel-injected Junkers and Daimler-Benz engines, but oddly enough.....the Merlin was the powerplant of choice for the Spanish after the fall of Germany.

Not really. In 1935 Rolls Royce traded four Kestrel VI s for a Heinkel 70, which was used by RR for flight testing of aero engines.

The very first Me-109 had a Kestrel when it flew, but subsequent development prototypes were powered by the Jumo 210A. The prototype Stuka also used one the same year, but again it was developed using German engines. Certainly no aircraft of the Condor Legion were fitted with Kestrels.


Yes it was ironic that the Hispano Buchon was fitted with a Merlin but it wasn't really odd.

In 1942 the Spanish intended their license-built 109s to have the Daimler Benz 605A engine, but Germany couldn't spare any. Consequently, they employed Hispano Suiza engines. It was only the final variant of the Spanish 109 ( the Buchon of 1954 ) that used the Merlin, and by that year the Merlin 500-45 wasn't so much the 'powerplant of choice' as the powerplant of 'what other inline engine is there still around that will fit'. :)

[gera]

Great Historical thread, I appreciate this.......:salute:

[TeaSea]

Actually Paul, I have to call you on that....

Willy Messerschmidt did indeed want the Jumo 210, but they were not available. This was a key point in the development of the -109 and he could not let the aircraft wait. He chose the Kestrel because Rolls Royce agreed to sell several hundred of the engines to Germany, in which they made a tidy profit. I cannot tell you how many exactly were installed in -109's, but there were hundreds available. Of course later the prime powerplant for the -109 is the Daimler-Benz.

The sale was controversial enough to make the floor of the House of Commons and Churchill mentions it specifically in his "The Second World War".

Now, I wouldn't dare compare this to any interaction Ford had with the Nazi's....which was perhaps more extensive than Ford today would like known....but my point is lots of industries did business with the Axis powers, often to their own detriment later.

Incidentally, my comment earlier about how the armaments industries were farmed out is more basic. Germany handed major armaments production to heavy industries manufacturing. The U.S. gave it to the car companies.

[peter12213]

Everyone knows the DB engine was more advanced that early Merlins, the supercharger was better and it was lighter, but the Merlin was less complicated, more adaptable and had more torque thus why it won the war well when it was supercharged at least!

[Paul K]

TeaSea, according to my references, the Reich Air Ministry obtained four Kestrels because the German engines were not ready, and they were traded for a Heinkel 70.

Prototype Me109, carrying the German civilian registration D-IABI, had its engine mountings modified to take the Kestrel, but the second prototype was fitted with a Junkers 449 kW (600 hp) Jumo 210A engine. The lack of more engines actually delayed the flight of the third prototype till October 1935, which obviously wouldn't have been the case if the Germans had had hundreds of Kestrels available.

Only the prototype Me-109, with its modified engine mountings flew with the Kestrel engine. All subsequent prototypes, development and service aircraft flew with Junkers and Daimler Benz engines.

[huub vink]

According to my information Paul is correct here. The Rolls Royce Kestrel was only used as "ersatzmotor" (replacement engine) on the prototype V-1. The V-2 prototype was already equipped with a Jumo 210A engine. Although several sources state the Kerstel engine used was a II S version however it is more likely that the engine used was the later V version as other sources mention.

All production aircrafts from the early A series (only 20 built) to the D series were equipped with different versions from the Jumo 210 engine. (Although there are some sources which state some D-version Bf109s were already equipped with the Daimler Benz DB600A engine.

I'm not sure how the engines were obtained, as various sources give different information. But it is clear that more than one engine was delivered. Most likely a batch from 10 engines were bought by the German government for a price of just over 20,000 pounds. Which was an awful lot of money in those days! But as Paul said other sources state that a Heinkel Blitz was traded for 4 Kestrell engines. The Blitz was considered a brilliant design in those days and I can very well imagine the British would desperately like to have one. According some the design of the Spitfire was heavily influenced by the knowledge obtained from research of the Blitz. (Ever looked at the wing shape of the Blitz?) A Blitz was used by the British as a testbed for Rolls-Royce engines (Registered G-ADZF), but the military version of the He60 used in the Spanish Civil war used a BMW VI engine.

The RLM (German Aviation Ministry) did not intend to rely on British build engines for obvious reasons. Therefore it is very unlikely that any other Bf109 than the V-1 prototype was equipped with the Kerstrel engine.

A less know fact is that the Junkers Ju87 StuKa prototype was also powered with a Kestrel engine as well (most likely from the same batch). This prototype was not even build by Junkers but by AB Flygindustry in Sweden.

I considered myself "well informed" on German military aviation in and before the second world war (Not an real expert as I need to rely too much on research be others) however I must confess I don't know much about Mr Churchill had said or hasn't said, but I can imagine he had to use some strong language when the public found out that two the prototypes of the most iconic aircraft from the opponent had been powered by British designed engines. And in my experience not everything said by politicians is true. However remember at the moment the British supplied the Kestrel engines to the Germans, the Kestrel engine (first built in 1927!) was at the end of its possibilities and they already knew its successor the very successful Merlin was already on its way!

Always keep in mind that when you discuss history, you look from a different viewpoint. Now you can wonder why Ford, Rolls-Royce the Germans did these things. But when the engines was supplied nobody knew what we know how. Later enemies where still potential enemies or even potential allies.
To translate it into our times: You could wonder whether the weapons would have been supplied to Iran (Persia in those days) and Irak when we had our current knowledge in those days.

But thanks for posting the link to the movie Italoc. Like Helldiver mention it is typically propaganda, but it is nice to see how people thought and were influenced in those days and it makes you think (well at least it did that to me;)).

Cheers,
Huub

[TeaSea]

Gentlemen,

If I'm incorrect here then I apologize. This sticks in my mind because of the legislative side of authorizing the sale....and as I said, it was at a critical time for development of the -109. I will run back to my histories and see if I can find it (Churchills memoir is 4 volumes...none of them short). If I cannot produce a reasonable reference then I will bow to your more extensive knowledge and concede the point.

I too enjoy that particular film, and like Helldiver said, it was a bit of propaganda, but the feat is nonetheless amazing. Especially if you take into account the huge amount of production in other areas. No one in the West could do that now...but then again, no one simply dumps their scrap oil and grease and other nasty stuff in a pit out back either.....

[huub vink]

No need to apologise. You just used one source, I simply used a few others. Neither of us is able to verify which source is right.

Huub

[MM]

Just a bit of applause for Huub on his (longer) commentary. All too often, we assess events with full historical hindsight. (And we update that hindsight to fit our current sense of justice.)

Especially interesting is Hubb's suggestion that we look at events from the perspective of those living at the time. We can learn a great deal about how so very difficult it is to understand the future--or the present!

[TeaSea]

Oh absolutely MM......

One of my pet peeves is something that's becoming known as "presentalism". The view of history from the present rather than from the past.

[Paul K]

You don't have to apologize for anything, TeaSea.

I once swore on my mother's life that the Colossus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, used at Bletchley Park to crack German Enigma codes, was designed by Alan Turing. I was politely informed that it was in fact the brainchild of Tommy Flowers, an engineer with the Post Office.

You're probably dead right that Churchill raised the issue of the Kestrels in the Commons, as he was quite vociferous in his warnings about Hitler and the threat of German rearmament. At that time however, he was merely a backbench MP and one who was rather out of favour with the establishment.

:ernae:

[TeaSea]

Well now I'm embarrassed....

I thought Alan Turing designed it too......

[Helldiver]

I've heard all the stories, how Ford made a wealth of money out of Ford Germany, how Shell oil tankers were fueling up Nazi subs at sea, the Rolls Royce Kestral is news to me, but like a lot of "rumors" there are no basis in fact. Hitler took over the Ford plants during the war and Ford had no say about it. No proof of disloyalty was found in any company.
Old Henry thought Hitler was a nut.

[MudMarine]

Oh absolutely MM......

One of my pet peeves is something that's becoming known as "presentalism". The view of history from the present rather than from the past.

Very correct! I've spent many years working with the National Park Service at many historical sights. Almost to a person, people always try to place present values on historical events. They also discount the flip side of the coin; the we're always right idea and the other guy is wrong. Historical events aren't very often black and white.

[TeaSea]

Very correct! I've spent many years working with the National Park Service at many historical sights. Almost to a person, people always try to place present values on historical events. They also discount the flip side of the coin; the we're always right idea and the other guy is wrong. Historical events aren't very often black and white.

Then you'll appreciate this.....I was taking a staff ride some time back with some fairly high ranking officers from a joint military course. We were on Little Round Top in Gettysburg and one of the officer's made a remark to the effect that Lee and Longstreet were nuts to attempt to take the hill, that anyone standing on that hill looking into the Devil's Den could see how difficult it would be to assault it.

One of the Park Rangers standing nearby said "Er, uh sir, no one from the other side ever stood on this hill."

Helldiver is correct. There was an attempt some time ago to dislodge the Ford Foundation from several key boards that allocated funding for various philanthropic efforts. As part of that effort, the "Ford was a Nazi" flag was run up and articles were written about the "conspiracy" to make money off both sides of the war. Like all conspiracy theories, there's always an element of truth, but it was a considerable stretch to make the case, and while there was lots of innuendo, there was precious little fact.

There was also massive "presentism" in the allegations and the motivation of those making them was sorely in question