A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question about the Arado...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13  
Old July 26th 03, 06:14 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(robert arndt) writes:
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
. com...

Why didn't it have an internal bomb-bay? It certainly looks like it had

the
capacity. The only photos I've ever seen have it hauling two bombs
underwing...




To enable the original recon machine loaded with fuel to outrun enemy
fighters at 461 mph. But at least the Ar-234 has one small claim to
fame. In March 1945 B-2s repeatedly hit the Remagen bridge with 2,000
lb bombs until it finally collapsed. The Germans had tried everything
from frogmen to V-2s to collapse the bridge but failed until the
Arados did the job.


Bob,
The Ar 234s never hit the Remagen Bridge, although they attacked it
on a number of occasions. They sure as shootin' couldn't carry
2,000# (or more tp the point, 1,000 lg/2200# bombs.) - there just
wasn't enough clearance between the racks & the ground. The Ar
234 wasn't a very big airplane - it's about 2/3 the size of a P-38
or Me 110.
Heavywieght 234s could cary 3 500 kg/1100# bombs, one
under each nacelle, and one semi-recesses under the fuselage, but
I've seen no credible evidence that they were ever used on
operations.

What brought down the Leudendorff Bridge was the ground shock of an 8"
Gun equipped Field Artillery Battery, firing in support of the
U.S. advance. (That's 8" gun, not 8" Howitzer, btw. The 8" Gun
was the U.S. Army's long range contribution to the Superheavy
Artillery category. It was a companion piece to the 240mm How,,
much like the relationship of the 155mm Gun and 8" How.. The 8"
Gun/240mm How was transported in sections, and every battery had
the equivalent of a Heavy Engineer Company, with cranes and D-8
class Bulldozers to dig the emplacements. (THey had to be mounted
in special pits, with ballasted bases about the size of a swimming
pool) Artillery of this size turned out to be not so very useful,
and was essentially discontinued after WW2, as tactical airpower
was more flexible, could deliver a heavier load, and was more
accurate. (It's no use firing against a target 20 miles away if you
can't observe the target or the splash)
Guns of this size, emplaced in that way, deliver a serious
sharp-edged shock to the local tarrain. (In fact, one of the
location means developed during WW 1 was seismographs. The
Ludendorff Bridge had stood up to many demolition attempts,
ranging from teh emplaced charges to, as you mention the jet and
V-2 attacks, and had been
carrying a lot of heavy traffic. The artillery was enough to
finally push it over.
Not that it really mattered. By hte time the Ludendorff Bridge
fell, we'd already built 2 or 3 other bridges at that site, since
the Ludendorff couldn't handle the volume of traffic.
When the German General Staff cursed those "verdammt Engineers". it
wasn't just for blowing things up, it was for making mobility for
the Allied troops, by building roads, bridges, and railroads,
possible on a scale that the Germans couldn't imagine.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 04:51 PM
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
A question on Airworthiness Inspection Dave S Home Built 1 August 10th 04 05:07 AM
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question jlauer Home Built 7 November 16th 03 01:51 AM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 01:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.