Bachem Ba 349 Natter

[T. A. Gardner]

The Natter, for all intents, was a manned SAM and nothing more. The pilot was substituted for a ground guidance system and proximity fuze. The plane would likely have seen heavy losses of life in use but it might have worked at least somewhat as a surface-to-air missile.

[ewest89]

Get the book by Brett Gooden. The Natter was a significant advance in manned flight.

https://mjamesmilitarybooks.com/product ... hird-reich

[T. A. Gardner]

Get the book by Brett Gooden. The Natter was a significant advance in manned flight.

https://mjamesmilitarybooks.com/product ... hird-reich

Not particularly, and I do have that book. What aspects of manned flight were significantly advanced by it?

[Cantankerous]

Get the book by Brett Gooden. The Natter was a significant advance in manned flight.

https://mjamesmilitarybooks.com/product ... hird-reich

Not particularly, and I do have that book. What aspects of manned flight were significantly advanced by it?

The Ba 349 was the first manned rocket-powered flying machine to be launched in vertical position. The X-20 Dynasoar manned military spaceplane likewise would have been launched vertically, in this case launched to orbit by a Titan booster. One proposal for the Fieseler Fi 166 fighter would have involved a jet fighter being vertically propelled to altitude by a rocket booster, so it utilized the same vertical launch principle as the Ba 349.

[T. A. Gardner]

The Ba 349 was the first manned rocket-powered flying machine to be launched in vertical position. The X-20 Dynasoar manned military spaceplane likewise would have been launched vertically, in this case launched to orbit by a Titan booster. One proposal for the Fieseler Fi 166 fighter would have involved a jet fighter being vertically propelled to altitude by a rocket booster, so it utilized the same vertical launch principle as the Ba 349.

Somehow I don't see that as some huge leap forward in manned flight.

[ewest89]

Get the book by Brett Gooden. The Natter was a significant advance in manned flight.

https://mjamesmilitarybooks.com/product ... hird-reich

Not particularly, and I do have that book. What aspects of manned flight were significantly advanced by it?

First, the first spacesuit as depicted on the cover. It was produced by the Dräger company (Drägerwerke).
Second, as Dr. Gooden points out in his introduction, documents related to the Natter have still not been declassified.
It was also seen being worn in the Horten Ho IX.
In the book Suiting Up For Space by Lloyd Mallan, 1971, he mentions a German pressure suit for altitudes above 40,000 feet.

[T. A. Gardner]

Get the book by Brett Gooden. The Natter was a significant advance in manned flight.

https://mjamesmilitarybooks.com/product ... hird-reich

Not particularly, and I do have that book. What aspects of manned flight were significantly advanced by it?

First, the first spacesuit as depicted on the cover. It was produced by the Dräger company (Drägerwerke).
Second, as Dr. Gooden points out in his introduction, documents related to the Natter have still not been declassified.
It was also seen being worn in the Horten Ho IX.
In the book Suiting Up For Space by Lloyd Mallan, 1971, he mentions a German pressure suit for altitudes above 40,000 feet.

If you read chapter 14 Flying the Natter and its medical aspects Gooden discusses these suits and even compares them to ones the US concurrently developed and tested. So?

As for stuff that's still classified, Goodman himself admits to a degree of speculation on that. That aside, what possible documents on what part of the Natter that may still be classified are relevant to anything in the aerospace industry from 1950 on? There's nothing to the plane or its systems that is still relevant, even in the 1950's.

[ewest89]

So and Nothing. You have built a wall for yourself. It's defined by NOTHING. The Germans contributed NOTHING. I'm starting to think that this kind of thinking helps you to ignore documents about things you don't accept. As i continue to do further research, more and more has appeared. Let me add one other thing about contributions by the Germans. Joachim Kuettner has a thin and questionable early history. It revolves around gliders. Yet he was brought in by von Braun for Project Mercury as an engineer. I have seen a photo from the 1950s that identifies him as such. He was involved in designing the space capsule.

[T. A. Gardner]

So and Nothing. You have built a wall for yourself. It's defined by NOTHING. The Germans contributed NOTHING. I'm starting to think that this kind of thinking helps you to ignore documents about things you don't accept. As i continue to do further research, more and more has appeared. Let me add one other thing about contributions by the Germans. Joachim Kuettner has a thin and questionable early history. It revolves around gliders. Yet he was brought in by von Braun for Project Mercury as an engineer. I have seen a photo from the 1950s that identifies him as such. He was involved in designing the space capsule.

The Germans contributed to a lot of technology. They were rarely the leaders from 1940 on. In some areas they were, others not so much. In virtually none did they hold some sort of commanding lead over other countries by 1945.

v. Braun and the other German rocket scientists and engineers were significant players in only a few US programs, most significant are Redstone and then at NASA with the moon program. They played virtually no role in US SAM or IRBM / ICBM development, nor in many other military missile programs. As but one example, the most successful US AAM, Sidewinder, owes exactly ZERO to German technology, nada, nothing, zip-point-shit.

Early US ATGM technology comes from a combination of US and French engineering, not German.

In many parts of US industry and research there was a smattering of German engineers and scientists, but their role overall wasn't dominant.

The argument YOU keep trying to make is that wartime German technology and then German engineers and scientists were the postwar catalyst for widespread technological advances in the West. That simply is not true. They made contributions, but they weren't the be-all-end-all of any technological advances.

[ewest89]

In order to dispel the idea that this idea appeared later, a few contemporary comments about German developments:

"The Germans were preparing rocket surprises for the whole world in general, and England in particular which would have, it is believed, changed the course of the war." U.S. Colonel Donald. L. Putt. As quoted in "Secrets by the Thousands" published in the October, 1946 issue of Harper's Magazine.

How about an article from the July, 1946 issue of the Army Air Force Review: "German Rocketeers. German rockets and guided missiles almost won the war for the Nazis."

So, answer the question: No need for von Braun and 500 others in the U.S. after the war, right?

[T. A. Gardner]

In order to dispel the idea that this idea appeared later, a few contemporary comments about German developments:

"The Germans were preparing rocket surprises for the whole world in general, and England in particular which would have, it is believed, changed the course of the war." U.S. Colonel Donald. L. Putt. As quoted in "Secrets by the Thousands" published in the October, 1946 issue of Harper's Magazine.

How about an article from the July, 1946 issue of the Army Air Force Review: "German Rocketeers. German rockets and guided missiles almost won the war for the Nazis."

So, answer the question: No need for von Braun and 500 others in the U.S. after the war, right?

Not particularly. They were icing on the cake, gravy on the potatoes. With or without them the US would have done more or less the same. The Soviets and French benefited most from German wartime programs and research as both had suffered the loss of most of their R&D programs during the war.

In terms of the US, exactly what did those German "rocketeers" produce for the US that was something the US wasn't already involved in or couldn't have done on their own?

[ewest89]

You have proven to me that your goal is to rewrite history to your liking. To minimize what was said about German rocket experts at the time.

You have no argument.

[T. A. Gardner]

You have proven to me that your goal is to rewrite history to your liking. To minimize what was said about German rocket experts at the time.

You have no argument.

That's nothing but an Appeal to the Stone fallacy. If their contributions, in the US, were so significant you should be able to easily list a few of them.

[ewest89]

I have, but true to form, you ignore them. Your goal of rewriting history to suit your views is not leading anywhere. Your comparing German rocket experts to gravy on the potatoes? Why would anyone need gravy? Your faulty logic is faulty.

[T. A. Gardner]

I have, but true to form, you ignore them. Your goal of rewriting history to suit your views is not leading anywhere. Your comparing German rocket experts to gravy on the potatoes? Why would anyone need gravy? Your faulty logic is faulty.

Because gravy makes the potatoes it's on better, to continue the metaphor. German engineering and rocketry played a role, not an omniscient one, in a few US missile programs postwar. They were never the be-all, end-all of US or British missile development. For the Soviets and French, German technology and personnel played a more significant role early on as both nations sought to catch up from their wartime losses of progress in this area.

Question: What was the highest priority missile development sector in the US in 1950? How much input did German technology and German engineering and research by German scientists play in that?