American Warplane’s Forgotten Nazi Past

[Bootie]

The A-10 has been the favorite plane of American grunts for decades. But it was one of America’s most fearsome enemies who helped inspire the design of the so-called Warthog.

The U.S. Air Force’s A-10 is an ugly, low-flying, slow-moving beast of an aircraft known affectionately by the troops as the Warthog. But even as the flying tank gets ready to shred ISIS terrorists to pieces over Iraq and Syria with its massive 30mm cannon—firing depleted uranium shells the size of a Coke bottle—it hides a dark secret: an unrepentant Nazi fighter pilot helped to develop the ungainly warplane.

Engineer Pierre Sprey, a former Pentagon procurement official who helped design the A-10, confirmed to The Daily Beast that none other than legendary Luftwaffe Colonel Hans-Ulrich Rudel was consulted to develop the Warthog.

Read More http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/12/american-warplane-s-forgotten-nazi-past.html

 

[Rico]

Well ... not really surprising ... US has long history of tapping into Nazi weapons, tactics and technology expertise ... Werner von Braun comes to mind.

 

[Rommel]

Well ... not really surprising ... US has long history of tapping into Nazi weapons, tactics and technology expertise ... Werner von Braun comes to mind.

So true...The M-60 machine gun.

 

[Rommel]

Hans Rudal... who could say more. What a Warrior.

Rommel-out

 

[Unknown]

That's an interesting background information.

I've also heard that the US intelligence interviewed German Eastern Front commanders and soldiers for to find out the secret why the common German soldier
did not give up the fight for so long in Stalingrad, allthough he was in a hopeless situaton. The US (and also the Russians and all others, I guess)
wanted to use this "secret" for their own soldiers.

And just for fun to prolong the list of " WWII Germany inspired" weapons ------->

 

[HOA_KSOP]

German contirbutions to the US weapons industry...

The F-111 can trace it's roots back to the German P.1101 project....a variable geometry wing fighter...

TV guided bombs...

Infrared night vision and sights on tanks...

Cruise missiles....

Ballistic missiles...

Modern assault rifles...

The Horten brothers prototypes...stealth bomber...

 

[Herroberst60]

Sadly the A-10 is being phased out and I don't think you will see them over Syria, Iraq as they have been retired. The USAF has never liked them (just like fighter pilots don't like ground support missions) because they are slow. They argue that F-16s, -15, -22s, -35s can deliver the ordnance on target just as well but the irrefutable fact remains that low and slow will more vulnerable can see and hit targets without necessarily haveing a ground team spottiing/lasing the target which the other planes are more or less dependent on (although you can also lase from the air IF you can see the target). Army generals were convinced by the Air Force at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan that they didn't need to use airlift to bring in artillery, that the AF would provide flying artillery... they quickly found out that wasn't true, the AF was not as responsive as their own artillery, or as accurate... In Iraq in 2003 we found during the advance to Baghdad, that artillery was always faster to respond than air so a wise commander ALWAYS wants to have his own artillery backing him. Shades of Goerings promises, some things never change You want "surgical" precision to avoid collateral damage, i.e. killing of civiliians, use a tank or a lased artillery round, not a 2,000 lb JDAM. The current debate rages on about winning wars just from the air, and AF pipedream, but one that politicians cozy too because they think they can avoid "boots on the ground." I guess the ground spotting teams are wearing flip-flops...

 

[Rico]

Sadly the A-10 is being phased out and I don't think you will see them over Syria, Iraq as they have been retired. The USAF has never liked them (just like fighter pilots don't like ground support missions) because they are slow. They argue that F-16s, -15, -22s, -35s can deliver the ordnance on target just as well but the irrefutable fact remains that low and slow will more vulnerable can see and hit targets without necessarily haveing a ground team spottiing/lasing the target which the other planes are more or less dependent on (although you can also lase from the air IF you can see the target). Army generals were convinced by the Air Force at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan that they didn't need to use airlift to bring in artillery, that the AF would provide flying artillery... they quickly found out that wasn't true, the AF was not as responsive as their own artillery, or as accurate... In Iraq in 2003 we found during the advance to Baghdad, that artillery was always faster to respond than air so a wise commander ALWAYS wants to have his own artillery backing him. Shades of Goerings promises, some things never change You want "surgical" precision to avoid collateral damage, i.e. killing of civiliians, use a tank or a lased artillery round, not a 2,000 lb JDAM. The current debate rages on about winning wars just from the air, and AF pipedream, but one that politicians cozy too because they think they can avoid "boots on the ground." I guess the ground spotting teams are wearing flip-flops...

That Air Force fairy tale of "winning a war by air power alone" goes all the way back to that circle of psychopaths including Bomber Harris, Curtis Le May and company ... the talk has just changed from wiping or burning out thousands of civilians to hi-tech precision bombing --- still offering very same outrageous promises...

 

[zaraza]

Well ... not really surprising ... US has long history of tapping into Nazi weapons, tactics and technology expertise ... Werner von Braun comes to mind.

Not just US, Russians also got their piece of cake...