\">How can a winning weapon be a mediocre weapon?<\" Definitions. I was assuming that anything developed reactively or for other purposes was mediocre.

\">The majority of the weapons and tactics involving \"high tech\" developed proactively prior and during WW2 were found to be ineffective in the field and required quick reactive development.<\" Really? Which ones? If you are referring to the German torpedo crisis, then I can say the people who cleared those torpedoes for front use were incompetent and deserved their court martials. You do not release a new technology (magnetic pistol) for front use after TWO test shots, one of which failed. It was also malpractice to release torpedoes which here not test fired from submerged U-boats. The German torpedo crisis was self inflicted through gross negligence, if not sabotage. If they had done the job correctly, i.e. fired dozens of these torpedoes under simulated combat conditions, they would have uncovered the problems before sending their U-boat captains into combat with wooden rifles. BTW, I used to do product development. If I had released a product into the market with such inadequate testing I would have been fired and rightly so.

\">…a prime example is the RAF, 1939 = biplanes, 1945 = jets, 2001 = more jets.<\" Not so. The RAF had the Hurricane operational in 1939 and was introducing the Spitfire.

\">The U-boat 1939 - late 1942 was a very effective weapon and could not be described as mediocre (it should have won the Western conflict for the Germans, how can a war winning weapon be described as mediocre?).<\" The conventional U-boat was obsolete the moment radar showed up on escort ships and that was in 1940. Although it took until 1941 for a significant number of ships to have it.

\">The electroboat project was not started in 1941 because the Germans believed that victory in the West was imminent (and it would have been had all efforts been concentrated against the UK).<\" Anyone who believed that Britain was on the ropes in 1941 also believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but we have already established that German supreme leadership was incompetent.

\">Airborne radar was (probably) the most important element in turning the tide against the U-boats, particularly in mid-1943;…<\" That is quite true, but irrelevant to this discussion. The losses inflicted on surfaced U-boats at night by radar equipped escort vessels in 1941 was the last wake up call before disaster struck. That wake up call was heard by the men in the U-boats, but not by Doenitz. As we know, 1943 was too late to do anything.

\">Think tanks in the cold war could not improve substantially on the B52 in 50 years.<\" That is not quite accurate and not a subject for this forum. The B-52 was a perfectly adequate bomber for delivering large bomb loads to poorly defended targets. You do not need a B-1 or a B-2 to bomb some strip of jungle.

\">In some ways, conventional warfare requires higher tech than all-out nuclear, the latter form of conflict is not restricted by the need to reduce collateral damage. <\" Required is a bit strong. High tech weapons are nice to have, but they are not vital in a small war against an unsophisticated opponent. They do become important when the enemy is shooting down half your aircraft. But you are making my point. These smart weapons were not developed reactively, but proactively.

\">This is not proactive, it is exactly the mentality which delayed the development of electroboats.<\" Not so. You make it sound like the only strategic weapons delivery system the US had was the B-52. Have you never heard of IRBMs, ICBMs, the B-58 (I may have the wrong number, it was a 4 engine supersonic bomber called the Hustler), B-1 and the B-2? The B-52 was quite adequate and cost efficient for small wars with unsophisticated opponents. The others were there for more demanding missions.

\">Sounds interesting, where exactly?<\" Are you not the Bulldog of the www.historychannel.com WWII forum?

Regards,
SuperKraut