1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 722
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by thaddeus_c » 22 Aug 2019 03:03

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Aug 2019 21:07
T.A. Gardner wrote:I think a better way than an FAE would be go big on the missile thing. For example, a V-2 rocket would reach 25 to 30 thousand feet in about 8 to 10 seconds give or take. That's quick. You set these up, modifying them so they can be shot with reasonable accuracy into a bomber box, possibly with more of a slant range and slightly longer flight time, say 15 to 20 seconds. Add a command detonation fuzing system to them and you have a 2000 lbs. + warhead (given you need far less fuel) that detonates close to or within the box. With added fragmentation that takes down the whole box pretty much, and if it doesn't it would be a hell of disruption to surviving aircraft.
This is an interesting idea. So far it seems more realistic than your V1 idea because I'm not sure the V1 could operate at altitude - wing and thrust are probably too small given the thinner air.
Using something like the V2, you could use one ~$13,000 rocket (1945 V2 production price) instead of $100,000 of shells plus the cost of arty tubes etc.
One problem is the V2 can't wait around fueled-up: the fuel corrodes the rocket. Plus it's a deadly target if hit by a marauding Mossie.
Was it primarily the less-corrosive fuel issue that delayed the Wasserfalle?
my understanding it was the guidance issue for the Wasserfall, plus Operation Hydra delayed all their rocket programs?

my speculation is always that the Wasserfall and the smaller Elektroboot Type XXIII were actually better prospects for development along with being more feasible? but the desire was for a missile that could strike UK and u-boat viable in the middle of the Atlantic.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by T. A. Gardner » 22 Aug 2019 07:34

With regard to German SAM projects.

The Germans started a number of SAM projects during the war. These focused primarily on developing a suitable missile for this use, and little was really done on development of a fire control and guidance system to go with them. For the most part, the Germans focused on using CLOS using the same control system used with the HS 293 guided ASM and Fritz X guided bomb.

Wasserfall is usually held to be the most promising. It wasn't. Wasserfall had serious, fatal flaws in design that couldn't be fixed. The proof of that is the Soviets tried for nearly a decade to get it to work before abandoning it. In the US just three (3) Wasserfall were launched as part of Project Hermes in the late 40's before the missile was abandoned as worthless.

http://www.astronautix.com/w/wasserfall.html

The biggest failure of Wasserfall was the Germans (and Soviets) didn't recognize you needed 'all-flying' control surfaces for supersonic missiles.

If you look at the first two successful SAM missiles, the US and Soviets came to similar conclusions. These missiles were Nike Ajax and the S-25 Berkut and later S 75 Dvina.

In both cases, the missile was two stage. The first was a solid fuel booster to get it quickly off the launcher and at an altitude and range the tracking system could gather and control the missile. The second stage was liquid fueled.

The Soviets chose to go with a missile that made a straight approach to the target. The US went with a ballistic trajectory with the missile falling on the target.

Both used several radars associated with their missile. The S-25 used the very unusual Yo-Yo track-while-scan and guidance radar. The US went with a three radar system. A powerful search set to find the target at long range, one to track and guide the missile into it's final position, and a tracking radar for the target. Burn-through and high power was customary to avoid noise jamming. Doppler was used to avoid chaff.

The big weakness at the time were the very slow electro-mechanical computers being used.

The Germans never came close to any of that. Most of their SAM's were subsonic. They never even tested a really decent fire control director system for any of them.

I suspect had the Germans focused on a subsonic SAM they could have gotten one in service. To do so, they needed to focus on a control system and lose their paranoia about Allied jamming.

blau977
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 29 Mar 2019 21:12
Location: Zagreb

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by blau977 » 22 Aug 2019 13:49

Hi,
you said : "Most of their SAM's were subsonic"
so, how about Feuerlilie ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feuerlilie
"With the completion of the development of the F-25, the main interest in the LFA focused on the F-55. This was a remote-controlled 2-stage supersonic missile (first stage: solid and level flight: liquid). Launching the device was made from an oblique ramp, later also on a modified 88-mm anti-aircraft gun launch pad. The first production of the F-55 was completed in April 1942."

you said "The big weakness at the time were the very slow electro-mechanical computers being used"
How about analog electronic computer employed in V2 missile from 1942 onward?
James E. Tomayko, Helmut Hoelzer's Fully Electronic Analog Computer; In: IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 227–240, July–Sept. 1985, doi:10.1109/MAHC.1985.10025

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by T. A. Gardner » 22 Aug 2019 16:24

blau977 wrote:
22 Aug 2019 13:49
Hi,
you said : "Most of their SAM's were subsonic"
so, how about Feuerlilie ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feuerlilie
"With the completion of the development of the F-25, the main interest in the LFA focused on the F-55. This was a remote-controlled 2-stage supersonic missile (first stage: solid and level flight: liquid). Launching the device was made from an oblique ramp, later also on a modified 88-mm anti-aircraft gun launch pad. The first production of the F-55 was completed in April 1942."
Enzian, Feuerlilie, Schmetterling Rhinetochter, were all high subsonic missiles while Wasserfall supersonic. All except Enzian were initially to be guided by CLOS from the ground.


you said "The big weakness at the time were the very slow electro-mechanical computers being used"
How about analog electronic computer employed in V2 missile from 1942 onward?
James E. Tomayko, Helmut Hoelzer's Fully Electronic Analog Computer; In: IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 227–240, July–Sept. 1985, doi:10.1109/MAHC.1985.10025
The V-2's guidance system is only useful for a ballistic missile. What you need is a computing system that can take inputs from multiple tracking radar inputs (at a minimum one tracking the target, one tracking the missile) do a proportional differentiation and integration calculation and then transmit course corrections to the missile. Basically, you need something on the order of the a flak fire control computer that has the capacity to track two targets simultaneously and do it at speeds on the order of double or more of existing ones.

This is what the US Army was using with Nike Ajax, the world's first operational SAM:

Image

The missile and target tracking radars would have to be powered and controlled by the computer rather than manually operated so they could lock on their respective target and keep it locked. They would also have to transmit data on range, bearing, altitude, etc., back to the computer for calculating course corrections. It took three operators to guide the missile to a target.

This is a problem that's orders of magnitude greater in difficulty to solve than simply keeping a missile on a ballistic trajectory.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 722
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by thaddeus_c » 23 Aug 2019 16:45

T. A. Gardner wrote:
22 Aug 2019 16:24
Enzian, Feuerlilie, Schmetterling Rhinetochter, were all high subsonic missiles while Wasserfall supersonic. All except Enzian were initially to be guided by CLOS from the ground.
like the advantage of the huge warheads in Enzian and your speculative V-1, they would also share the advantage of air launch (if desired)

when/if nipolit produced much of their fuselages could be fabricated from that for even more lethality?

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by maltesefalcon » 23 Aug 2019 17:40

blau977 wrote:
22 Aug 2019 13:49
Hi,
you said : "Most of their SAM's were subsonic"
so, how about Feuerlilie ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feuerlilie
"With the completion of the development of the F-25, the main interest in the LFA focused on the F-55. This was a remote-controlled 2-stage supersonic missile (first stage: solid and level flight: liquid). Launching the device was made from an oblique ramp, later also on a modified 88-mm anti-aircraft gun launch pad. The first production of the F-55 was completed in April 1942."

you said "The big weakness at the time were the very slow electro-mechanical computers being used"
How about analog electronic computer employed in V2 missile from 1942 onward?
James E. Tomayko, Helmut Hoelzer's Fully Electronic Analog Computer; In: IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 227–240, July–Sept. 1985, doi:10.1109/MAHC.1985.10025
Subsonic speed need not be a deal breaker when dealing with WWII era aircraft. AA warheads are not kinetic in nature. They don't kill by direct impact, rather by explosive energy and shrapnel caused by the air burst. In theory at least an AA shell would actually have zero velocity at maximum range.

Missiles on the other hand start out at zero velocity and rapidly accelerate. More important than actual top speed was the power to weight ratio and the resultant climb rate. To be effective, the missile needed to rapidly reach 20-25000 feet before the target flew out of useful range.

The fact that missiles could also be steered in powered flight was the (eventual) game changer.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by T. A. Gardner » 23 Aug 2019 22:46

thaddeus_c wrote:
23 Aug 2019 16:45
T. A. Gardner wrote:
22 Aug 2019 16:24
Enzian, Feuerlilie, Schmetterling Rhinetochter, were all high subsonic missiles while Wasserfall supersonic. All except Enzian were initially to be guided by CLOS from the ground.
like the advantage of the huge warheads in Enzian and your speculative V-1, they would also share the advantage of air launch (if desired)

when/if nipolit produced much of their fuselages could be fabricated from that for even more lethality?
You need either a blast fragmentation warhead or an expanding / continuous rod one. The later is a post WW 2 invention. There are several ways to enhance that. Both the US and Soviets in early SAMs used several charges along the missile totaling several hundred pounds. The theory was to spread the blast and fragmentation along the flight path of the missile to increase the chances of fatal damage. The warheads were large so a near miss was as good as a hit.

The earliest US SAM, the JB-3 Tiamat used a 500 lbs. warhead for the same reason. You only had to get close. Initially, these were ground launched so they have quite a bit in common with the Enzian design. The US went for a zero length launch too, like the Germans.
So, if you air launched the Enzian using an altimeter to maintain the cruise height, firing it into a bomber box in salvos of say two or more simultaneously launched from a larger plane at a range of say 10 to 15 km, the missile basically flies in a straight line covering that distance in say 10 to 15 seconds (about 620 mph or about Mach .8 or so), you really don't need much in the way of course correction. Detonation could be by a crude proximity fuze or command. The later only requires a directional antenna on the tail of the missile that points towards the launch plane to make it relatively un-jammable. For a proximity fuze, you could use a simple radar circuit in the missile that requires a largely non-directional return of some predetermined strength to set it off. The missile would be big enough that fitting it should be easily accomplished.

This would ease the control problem to minimal levels. You could still use CLOS if you wanted but it might really not be necessary. A few 250 kg warheads going off inside the box with heavy fragmentation would be quite dangerous enough.
The V-1 model simply upsizes everything to even more massive explosions and fragmentation.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by T. A. Gardner » 25 Aug 2019 07:13

This is a ground launched JB-3 Tiamat with a 7 solid rocket booster stage attached being launched in mid 1945 from Wallops Island Virginia.

Image

These launches were unguided as the intent was to test the stability of the missile in flight. So, at that point the US was about at the same place in developing a SAM or AAM as the Germans were.

blau977
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 29 Mar 2019 21:12
Location: Zagreb

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by blau977 » 27 Aug 2019 08:20

Hi,

Enzian, Feuerlilie, Schmetterling Rhinetochter, were all high subsonic missiles while Wasserfall supersonic. All except Enzian were initially to be guided by CLOS from the ground.

But, as it was said, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feuerlilie), Feurlilie 55 was supersonic and 2 stage missile, repeating - 2 stage missile! And strikingly similar to Ayax what could be just a coincidence - maybe, you could find something similar in previous history of US rocketry ..... . But it looks very much like a Dvina missile, too - just another coincidence.....maybe one too much....


The V-2's guidance system is only useful for a ballistic missile. What you need is a computing system that can take inputs from multiple tracking radar inputs (at a minimum one tracking the target, one tracking the missile) do a proportional differentiation and integration calculation and then transmit course corrections to the missile. Basically,.....

I think you are drifting away and teaching some basics ... the original statement I was referring to, was that the most early guidance systems used electro mechanical computer - which happens not not to be true - at least for a German side...
I guess, you did not hear about Helmut Hoelzer previously , isn't it - but, Helmut Hoelzer is quite a great man in the history of American rocketry...

Regards

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3372
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by stg 44 » 28 Aug 2019 14:43

Lars wrote:
20 Aug 2019 19:26
I belive the tracer shells was a psychological weapon and not really designed to bring down planes.
Tracer was to deal with the base bleed to improve speed at range by reducing parasitic drag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_bleed
Base bleed is a system used on some artillery shells to increase their range, typically by about 20–35%.

Most (50–60%) of the drag on an artillery shell comes from the nose of the shell, as it pushes the air out of its way at supersonic speeds. Shaping the shell properly can reduce this drag but it is difficult to remove.

However, another powerful source of drag is the low-pressure area left behind the shell due to its blunt base. Base bleed can reduce this drag without extending the base of the shell. Instead, a small ring of metal extends just past the base, and the area in the rear of the shell is filled with a small gas generator. The gas generator provides little to no thrust, but simply fills the vacuum in the area behind the shell with an inflow of gas, dramatically reducing the drag.
Of course that is more with a conventional shell (see Gerald Bull's work on improving artillery range), but was workable with a sabot-ed 'arrow' shell like with the Green Mace; however the improved drag effect would be significantly less due to the smaller cross section. That said the tracer material as a fuse would be helpful (though potentially expensive, you might just want to use a cheaper combustible 'fumer' material that acts like a dynamite fuse yet still fills the void behind the shell).
Lars wrote:
20 Aug 2019 19:26
If we are talking about alternate weapons I believe that the most promising would be derived from the fact that you only need a 50 mm grenade to hit the plane anywhere and it goes down.

So find a way to get a 50mm grenade fast and high enough up and the problem is solved. The Pennemunde Pfeilgeschoss or a 50 mm sabot fired from say a 88, 105 or 128 mm gun or design a new 50mm Flak-gun.
This was what the British did by developing the PPfG post-war into the Green Mace:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Mace
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... mace.1334/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/c ... moothbore/

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by T. A. Gardner » 30 Aug 2019 04:46

blau977 wrote:
27 Aug 2019 08:20
Hi,

But, as it was said, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feuerlilie), Feurlilie 55 was supersonic and 2 stage missile, repeating - 2 stage missile! And strikingly similar to Ayax what could be just a coincidence - maybe, you could find something similar in previous history of US rocketry ..... . But it looks very much like a Dvina missile, too - just another coincidence.....maybe one too much....
The Feuerlilie 55 was single stage, and looked nothing like a Nike Ajax.

Feuerlilie 55:

Image

Nike Ajax:

Image

The Feuerlilie 55 was fired one time using solid fuel motors to a speed of mach 1.25 but never successfully launched using the intended liquid fuel engine, the one launch with it being unsuccessful.
Nike Ajax used a very large solid fuel booster rocket (the green part of the missile) and a liquid fuel sustainer engine. Nike Ajax owed exactly ZERO to German wartime missile development. The guidance system was wholly a US design and the intercept system chosen was one shared with the Navy's Talos missile in that the approach was ballistic and from above the target rather than a direct point-of-intercept course.

The S 25 Berkut, the Soviet's first successful SAM, was single stage and vertically launched. While the missile itself was a Russian design, much of the rocket motor was derived from the Wasserfall. The Sovet Yo Yo radar V-200 was of a unique design

Image

Image

http://bobrowen.com/nymas/defendingthekremlin.htm

In fact, what really crippled the German SAM development program was a fixation on developing a viable missile without any real consideration to the need for a working fire control and detection system. In those areas, the Germans weren't even on the drawing board in 1945.
The V-2's guidance system is only useful for a ballistic missile. What you need is a computing system that can take inputs from multiple tracking radar inputs (at a minimum one tracking the target, one tracking the missile) do a proportional differentiation and integration calculation and then transmit course corrections to the missile. Basically,.....

I think you are drifting away and teaching some basics ... the original statement I was referring to, was that the most early guidance systems used electro mechanical computer - which happens not not to be true - at least for a German side...
I guess, you did not hear about Helmut Hoelzer previously , isn't it - but, Helmut Hoelzer is quite a great man in the history of American rocketry...
The system the US used for early ballistic missile guidance was also a wholly designed and developed US one. This started with project MX 774 Hiroc in 1945. The system developed, was Hughes' Azusa. It used a ground based computer and tracking radars with telemetry on the missile. The missile through the boost stage was guided from the ground by this system via a radio link. The missile itself contained just the minimum radio and control systems to guide the missile successfully. This meant all the really expensive guidance equipment was on the ground and reusable.

This system was later used in the Atlas missile and for Redstone launches by NASA as well as in their military versions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZUSA

As for great people in American rocketry, probably the least known and most important was Charles Bossart of Convair. His biggest contribution was the design of the Hiroc missile to use the skin of the vehicle as the wall of the fuel tanks, eliminating most or all internal stiffening and using pressurization of the tanks to maintain rigidity. That idea has been used in missiles ever since and still is today. It is the idea that makes modern soda and beer cans work.

https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/r ... ehicle.pdf

Post war in the US there were three semi-independent missile programs going on, one by the USAF, one by the USN, and one by the Army. The USAF wanted to develop either an intercontinental ballistic or cruse missile (or both) alone with an air-to-air missile. The USN was concerned with developing a ballistic IRBM for ship launch, along with a SAM system for ship air defense, and with air-to-air missiles. The US Army was looking at SRBM's for battlefield use and a SAM.
Of the three, ex-German scientists in this field were almost all in the development of a US Army SRBM-- that became Redstone. The USAF and USN programs made little use of those guys, and the same goes for much of their research.

blau977
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 29 Mar 2019 21:12
Location: Zagreb

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by blau977 » 02 Sep 2019 13:13

"The Feuerlilie 55 was single stage, and looked nothing like a Nike Ajax"

sorry, my fault, but you could guess that it was a Rheintochter missile which looks like Nike Ayax - both were built by the very same company - Rheinmetall-Borsig.
This striking similarity could be a pure coincidence - I know that US specifications from 1945. called for "A supersonic rocket missile should be vertically launched" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-3_Nik ... evelopment).
But, at this time, US intelligence was more than aware of German rocket programs, for example - and even more, during 1944, V-1 was reverse engineered and produced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2. So ,the existence of German SAM projects were not a secret for US intelligence.

After the war, a huge amount of data was collected and thousands od scientists were brought intentionally to the USA - and were not used for - except mainly "for US Army SRBM-- that became Redstone". That is a bit hard to believe in and would be just a gigantic waste of money...

Shall we go back at some facts - you mentioned three US WW2 project (Gorgon, Tiamat,...) - so which of these were SAM (which is a thread title) and what of these three projects resemble any similarity with Nike Ayax?

"The missile itself contained just the minimum radio and control systems to guide the missile successfully. This meant all the really expensive guidance equipment was on the ground and reusable."

This is why was "pushing" you to read article about Helmuth Hoelzer - that was a true revolution - computer guidance system was developed to lower the cost of traditional guidance system - and, actually, quite dramatically. Computer guidance system eliminated, for example, the need for electro- mechanical rate gyros - velocity was computed by using electronic elements (trough electronic integration of acceleration data). The cost of V-2 guidance system was like a few dollars compared to thousands for mechanical gyro systems...


Best regards

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by T. A. Gardner » 04 Sep 2019 02:19

blau977 wrote:
02 Sep 2019 13:13
"The Feuerlilie 55 was single stage, and looked nothing like a Nike Ajax"

sorry, my fault, but you could guess that it was a Rheintochter missile which looks like Nike Ayax - both were built by the very same company - Rheinmetall-Borsig.
This striking similarity could be a pure coincidence - I know that US specifications from 1945. called for "A supersonic rocket missile should be vertically launched" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-3_Nik ... evelopment).
But, at this time, US intelligence was more than aware of German rocket programs, for example - and even more, during 1944, V-1 was reverse engineered and produced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2. So ,the existence of German SAM projects were not a secret for US intelligence.
Actually, the two look nothing alike. The US missile that looks most like a Rheintochter is probably the US Navy's Lark.

Image

The Lark was the USN's first dedicated SAM. It uses a cruciform fin configuration and has a solid booster with box tail on it, much like Rheintochter. From there, the two differ greatly. Lark was being designed as a SAM system. The USN contracted with Fairchild Aircraft, Convair Aircraft, and Raytheon (Hughes) to develop guidance systems for this missile. Of the three, Raytheon's was the one found best. It used a continuous-wave pulse doppler radar with velocity gate tracking to home on the target and allowed for calculating a collision course intercept.
Fairchild was contracted in March 1945 to manufacture 100 missiles for testing. The US Army picked up the missile as Lacrosse for use as a tactical battlefield missile as well.
After the war, a huge amount of data was collected and thousands od scientists were brought intentionally to the USA - and were not used for - except mainly "for US Army SRBM-- that became Redstone". That is a bit hard to believe in and would be just a gigantic waste of money...
Most of the data collected from the Germans duplicated stuff the US had already done. For example, variously ORDCIT, GALCIT, and the Guggenheim Lab had developed every rocket fuel the Germans had and several they didn't do like RNFA and Gasoline-- most likely because of the shortage of gasoline in Germany. Another was a rubber based solid fuel. Again, shortages in Germany probably prevented it being tried.
Shall we go back at some facts - you mentioned three US WW2 project (Gorgon, Tiamat,...) - so which of these were SAM (which is a thread title) and what of these three projects resemble any similarity with Nike Ayax?
On the Navy side of things, there were three big programs going:

Gorgon, or more correctly Project Gorgon, was basically a missile testing program for a variety of types of missile using varied propulsion and configurations. These were for air-to-air, surface-to-air, and air-to-surface. The program really never got beyond testing a bunch of different designs for their suitability.

Image

The Gorgon series was about testing missiles at a time when these were still very immature and uncertain in performance, etc.

The next program was really a two-in-one. There was Project Typhoon and Operation Bumblebee. Both sought to develop a SAM missile along with a integrated system to find targets and control the missiles as part of what was envisioned as a fleet defense system. It might be thought of as the great, great, grandfather of the AGEIS system today.

Typhoon was to develop a long range, compact (eg., ship usable) SAM. It began with a series of tests by John Hopkins University and the Marquardt Corporation. Marquardt was the US's leading developer and manufacturer of ramjets in the 40's and 50's. These tests started out as "Burner Test Vehicles" under a program called Cobra beginning in 1944. By October 1945, John Hopkins was firing an unguided ramjet missile to speeds of around 1400 mph and altitudes of 20,000 feet. These were boosted to speed by a bundle of solid fuel boosters, then the ramjet took over.
The tests would lead to Marquardt eventually designing and building the ramjet that would be used on the SAM-N-6 Talos missile.

The earliest designs of Talos look a lot like a Rheintochter too.

Image

This version never got beyond the design stage, but the similarity is clear.

Lark was the other USN SAM program. The SAM-N-2 Lark was designed to get a working SAM as soon as possible into service. This was to deal with the Kamikaze threat. The two most useful parts of Lark were the guidance system and proving that zero-length launch was possible from a ship.

Image

Interestingly, the Lark was the first SAM to successfully intercept an airborne target in testing anywhere in the world.
"The missile itself contained just the minimum radio and control systems to guide the missile successfully. This meant all the really expensive guidance equipment was on the ground and reusable."

This is why was "pushing" you to read article about Helmuth Hoelzer - that was a true revolution - computer guidance system was developed to lower the cost of traditional guidance system - and, actually, quite dramatically. Computer guidance system eliminated, for example, the need for electro- mechanical rate gyros - velocity was computed by using electronic elements (trough electronic integration of acceleration data). The cost of V-2 guidance system was like a few dollars compared to thousands for mechanical gyro systems...
Best regards
I did read what I could find on Hoelzer. It appears what he wanted to do was create a system similar to the Hughes Azuza system but he never got very far into doing so. Hughes and Ford (Hannibal Ford not Henry Ford) had between them developed well before 1945 very advanced electro-mechanical computing systems that could track and calculate for fire control on ships and aircraft. The B-29 system was a tour de force of this.







Hoelzer was a long way from even that getting in testing or service. What he envisioned took until the 60's to really become a reality.

blau977
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 29 Mar 2019 21:12
Location: Zagreb

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by blau977 » 05 Sep 2019 10:45

"Actually, the two look nothing alike. The US missile that looks most like a Rheintochter is probably the US Navy's Lark"

Please, I really don't want to push it, but just for the sake of discussions - you see canards on Nike and on Rheintochter, but not on Lark. And canards are main control surfaces..... Wings on Lark are not swept, but straight.. And early model of Nike with clustered JATOs were a bit different than production model....
And still, there is a question of Soviet - S-25 (which is very Wasserfalski) and S-75 (which is very Rheintochterski) also deploy canards.....
Actually, if you are interested in, the concept of Rheintochter was more developed thought,
http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv ... umente.htm
It is only in german, but there is a lot of drawings and data....

"Hoelzer was a long way from even that getting in testing or service. What he envisioned took until the 60's to really become a reality."

Just the opposite, just the opposite - please read the full article (Helmut Hoelzer's Fully Electronic Analog Computer by James E. Tomayko) on
https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/pd ... 12-400.pdf
The system based on electronic computer was actually working in every single V-2 rocket built, there was also fully electronic simulator working in the war and after the war.. It is a truly amazing engineering story....
Best regards

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Post by Destroyer500 » 05 Jun 2022 13:34

After many hours i managed to read almost the entire 14 pages of the AA thread whose link you provided and i cant really say that you people reached a conclusion.First contact fuses were deemed good then bad then good again and the same went on with timed fuses.Rockets didnt get a warm welcome and that is understandable since SAM systems were really in their infancy and unless they cared to make a SAM system from as early as 1930-1933,or as soon as the new government took power,then they wont be operational before 1950(a SAM system like that would get priority only if they switched to a defensive doctrine like that implied in the Mega defense thread).The wire guided plane missile is a joke and the rest of the systems were barely functional.
Getting a kill on a bomber or a fighter is what matters because its not that much the machines that win the war but the men using them so losing experienced pilots and crew means that even if you have the best possible weapons the users skills will be lacking.For example the men lost at Stalingrad were some of the best Germany had to offer and their loss was never truly "absorbed".Had Germany broken those 300k out of Stalingrad but lost all its vehicles it would matter but far less than if it lost both.Britain used its "aces" smarter than Germany by sending them back to training camps in between missions to give tips to cadets and new pilots,then gave them a few days rest and then resent them to a mission.The experience was passed on and could be further used(and the pilot got some rest).Germany threw its aces to battle almost immediately and either lost them or "made them better" and this led to a big skill gap.Im going of topic though,lost or captured men cannot be replaced so a kill is all that matters,whatever the weapon that kills should be used be more.
I was thinking of a bigger than a V2 (or even a standart V2) missile being thrown to the bomber formations and then exploding near them with some sort of time fused fragmentation warhead.There was also that thing called Langer Gustav
Capture (1).PNG
that had a massive range of 190km,according to wiki,range and if made for some kind of AA,could definitely be fired vertically to reach bomber height.Give this bad boy a fragmentation missile-shell with a good quality time fuse and you have very good anti bomber gun.Even the railway guns with the sabot shell mentioned in the AA thread,or even a standart time or even contact fuse could do the trick since the caliber is turly massive.What do you think ?

I will post this both in the Flak Alone Blasts Allies out of the Sky and in my German mega defense thread so dont be confused if you see it 2 times
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “What if”