US Rockets

[Carl Schwamberger]

During the Great War Robert Goddard was developing some bits of rocket ordnance for the US Army. A shoulder held tube with a small rocket motor & explosive charge was the primary concept Goddard was working on.

Post war the US Army spent a fair ammount of its thin 1920s R & D funds on artillery development. WI Goddards contracts had been extended and the Ordnance Dept had included development of several sizes of 'rocket guns' as well?

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Tim Smith]

You're suggesting this may have made the bazooka available up to two years earlier?

If the US had the bazooka in production by late 1940, would they give it to the British and Soviets in 1941 via Lend-Lease? Or would they be too worried about the Germans copying it and using it against US tanks in the future, and prefer to keep it a secret until the US entered the war?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Could not say at this point.

Other weapons developed in the 1920s, the M1 Garand, the M1 105mm howitzer and other artillery weapons, went into limited production and issue through the 1930s, so its possible the shoulder fired rocket and any other rocket weapons would be in production from 1940-41, perhaps sooner, if like the M1 Garand or the howitzers the Army wished to train its 'experimental' division with the rocket weapons. If the thing was ready for production in the 1920s it is even possible the Germans & others would have qccquired it then. Udet purchased US built dive or 'strike' bombers in the 1920s & no one said boo about it then.

[Tim Smith]

Could not say at this point.
Udet purchased US built dive or 'strike' bombers in the 1920s & no one said boo about it then.

On the other hand, the US went to great lengths to prevent anyone (even its allies) getting their hands on the turbo-supercharger designed for the P-38 and P-39 fighters, and supplied versions of those fighters to Britain and the USSR with only less powerful single-stage superchargers, much to Britain's anger and disgust. Without the turbo-supercharger, both fighters were crap at high altitude. Britain gave the useless Lightning I's back to the USA, which converted them to advanced trainers, and also gave away the almost equally useless Airacobra I's to the USSR and USA (the latter became the P-400, which only saw front-line service because the Allies were so short of fighters in the Pacific in early 1942.

So I think the US were happy to export equivalent technology to that which European countries already had, but were not willing to export technology which the US had and no-one else did. Much like today, with the US unwilling to export the F-22. I think the game-changing bazooka would fall into that category - it was a far superior weapon to the PIAT, for example.

[Carl Schwamberger]

I've no idea how far back that sort of secrecy went. There may have been a difference between 1928 & 1938.

To change the inquiry a bit. Assume the Army has also paid for test rockets with ranges of 10 - 50 km carrying explosive charges up to 200Kg. Accuracy of free flight or ballistc rockets at longer ranges or 20+ Km would be unsuitable for anything but the largest area targets. Would the early aircraft auto pilot type technology of circa 1940 allow for economical guidance of 'heavy' rocket artillery? Or is that pushing beyond the limits? And, would such a system keep the probable error from aim point within 200 - 400 meters radius?

[wm]

I believe OBOE could do it (CEP 110m. I suppose, it is a state of the art CEP even today, anything better requires a television camera on board), but jamming of OBOE was easy. Fortunately the flight time would be short making the jamming a little harder.

[Tim Smith]

To change the inquiry a bit. Assume the Army has also paid for test rockets with ranges of 10 - 50 km carrying explosive charges up to 200Kg. Accuracy of free flight or ballistc rockets at longer ranges or 20+ Km would be unsuitable for anything but the largest area targets. Would the early aircraft auto pilot type technology of circa 1940 allow for economical guidance of 'heavy' rocket artillery? Or is that pushing beyond the limits? And, would such a system keep the probable error from aim point within 200 - 400 meters radius?

I suppose it's possible that the US, with an early start in 1935, might be able to produce a rocket with better accuracy than the V-2 before 1945. Probably not a whole lot better though, certainly not something accurate enough to hit a specific building in a city as opposed to anywhere within city limits.

For short range artillery work, the US would be able to produce a weapon system equivalent to the Russian Katushya. Unlikely to be much more accurate, though, the rockets are too small for proper gyroscope guidance systems.

[Carl Schwamberger]

No, I was not refering to a V2 range weapon. Something under 100 or even 50Km, that might serve in the same role as a 17 or 20 cm cannon, but without the 8,000 kilo tube & carriage. The other advantages would be a larger explosive charge vs a cannon projectile, and a bit more range.

"? believe OBOE could do it (CEP 110m. I supposes), "

Was that one practical back then? The gyro stabilisers of the era were reliable in aircraft applications, but I dont know if they could hold up to rocket acceleration, or provide the necessary accuracy.

[wm]

I believe it would be possible but I'd be wary of so much electronic equipment in a missile (OBOE was based on radio technology), the reliability might be low.

As to gyroscope guidance systems, the gyroscope is only useful for the lateral deviation correction, can do nothing for the range error correction.