\">I was assuming that anything developed reactively or for other purposes was mediocre. <\" Mediocre means second rate, not very good or ordinary, which clearly cannot apply to war winning weapons.

\">Really? Which ones? <\" German torpedos, US torpedos, Me262, V2, Rocket planes, Bismark (unable to shoot down a biplane - the swordfish- which subsequently disabled the pride of the German surface fleet), Tirpitz (designed as a convoy raider, how many convoys did it destroy?), XX1, Avro Manchester (reactively developed into the Lancaster), P51 Mustang (a good plane let down by a genuinely mediocre engine until it was reactively developed with a merlin powerplant), how many more do you want?
Re: German torpedo crisis, I understand that the defects were known at an early stage but the German command structure forbade uttering the unthinkable. An interesting analogy is the Spitfire, during latter stages of WW2 the wings were cropped and squared off to improve handling, initially this was directly contrary to Fighter Command instructions but ground crew at a RAF station (was it Duxford?) went ahead and modified the Spit successfully, Fighter Command subsequently approved wing mods to Spitfires. Successful reactive development.

\">The RAF had the Hurricane operational in 1939 and was introducing the Spitfire. <\" In 1939 the RAF were flying biplanes (and Hurricanes), In 1945 the RAF were flying jets. In 2001 the RAF were still flying jets.

\">The conventional U-boat was obsolete the moment radar showed up on escort ships and that was in 1940. <\" Obsolete does not mean ineffective, the conventional U-boat was still a potential war winning weapon in spring 1943 (In March 1943 Donitz\'s boats sunk more allied shipping than at any time throughout the whole war - over 627 000 tons). So much for obsolete. The real turning point was in May 1943, 41 U-boats sunk by Allied forces.

\">Anyone who believed that Britain was on the ropes in 1941 also believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy<\" As above, in March 1943 Donitz\'s boats sunk more allied shipping than at any time throughout the whole war - over 627 000 tons. Donitz was introducing new model Enigma with 4 rotors, further adding to the Allied codebreakers problems.

\">As we know, 1943 was too late to do anything. <\" The answer lay in combating the threat of Allied A/S planes, particularly over the Bay of Biscay, with long range JU88 (I am sure I\'ve mentioned this before); reduction in radio traffic by U-boats and use of FW Condor to locate the convoys. No electroboats required.

\">B-52 was a perfectly adequate <\" As you say, adequate (although more effective than any of it\'s \"successors\". )

\">These smart weapons were not developed reactively, but proactively.<\"
The smart weapons were developed reactively to address the existing problem of casualities amongst US forces (primarily in Vietnam)

\">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?<\" MARV and MIRV tech for ICBMs has been available since the early 1970s, Star Wars tech has been on the starting blocks for 20 years. I believe the Hustler has been withdrawn from service, although the B52 soldiers on; B-1 and B-2 have their uses but to drive Saddam out of Kuwait required B52s to carpet bomb the Iraqi forces (carpet bombing = old tech, see use of Allied tactical airpower in Europe 1944 - 45).

\">Are you not the Bulldog of the www.historychannel.com WWII forum?<\"
No, you mean there is another Bulldog?

Regards