Modified "Wasserfall" Flak-Raketen - Artillery Missiles

M

moin1900

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
28 January 2008
Messages
875
Reaction score
1,061
"Wasserfall" surface-to-surface missile projects 1944 - 1945

November 24, 1944

1.) New Projects for Long-Range Artillery Purposes

a.) EW 2201 Dr. Steuding conducted a dispersion estimation for a "Wasserfall" missile, but without cruciform-wing and without air rudders, using a 3-axis control system based on the Aggregat 4 control system with a J-Gerät 1. The LEV-3 is planned as the guidance system.

EW 214 (Roth) is developing a project drawing for such a missile and determining its weight, performance, and maximum range.

b.) EW 2201 is conducting a dispersion estimation for a missile like the "Wasserfall", but as a planar-wing missile with a trajectory similar to the A-4b rocket. The wing and rudder shapes are taken from the original Wasserfall design. The LEV-3 is also planned as the guidance system. However, the guidance system which functions as a horizon, would have a modified base adjustment for the glide program. Crash command via time program, no radio connection.

Dispersion estimation for the same device, but with the use of a newly developed small stabilized platform "Stabipla" with transverse and longitudinal J-Gerät according to Dr. Schlidt.

EW 214 is developing a project drawing for such a missile and determining its weight and maximum range.

c.) EW 214 is developing a design for a small liquid-fuel missile based on Visol-Salbei propellant with additional solid fuel rocket boosters. Launch is similar to that of the "Schmetterling" missile, using a traversable launcher. It will have no guidance system, but will include a J-Gerät (Schlidt?) for engine cut-off. Spin is permitted, possibly via small, adjusted spin fins. The spin frequency will be similar to that of the X4 rocket. The range is 100 km. The explosive charge is the same as that of a 28 cm projectile. Only standard solid fuel rocket boosters are suitable.

d.) EW 214 is developing a design for a small liquid-fuel rocket without solid fuel rocket boosters but with high initial velocity. This rocket is similar to an enlarged "Taifun" rocket. It will be launched from a rail. The propellant will be Salbei-Visol. The range is 100 km. No guidance system. The explosive charge will be the same as that of a 28 cm projectile. Engine cut-off can be achieved with or without the J-Gerät.

These designs and the dispersion calculations must be submitted by December 10, 1944, in order to clarify the further tasks as quickly as possible. The complete results of EW 2201 and EW 214 are to be presented by EW 214 in a summary report, which can be submitted to Waffenprüfamt 10.

Source: Bundesarchiv
Signatur: RH 8/1928

Direct Link:
https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/2961b7f4-0e41-42f0-a382-4f8367e39f78/


Here are the drawings that "probably" belong to the projects mentioned above.

Sk 541 Wasserfallgleiter, 1:10, December 1944
Sk 542 Wasserfallgeschoss, 1:10, December 1944
Sk 543 C2/K4/L15/F15/R21/O°, 1:25, 1:12,5, December 1944
Sk 544 Flak-Rakete mit Starthilfe, 1:10, December 1944
Sk 545 Projekt Taifun II, 1:10, December 1944

Source: Bundesarchiv
Signatur: RH 8/4082K

Direct Link
https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/a143c440-1bdf-41ff-820d-090cf15d0711/
 
Thank for sharing Moin!

We live in fascinating but frustrating times, as a lot of typed documents have been digitised and put on line by the archive. But these tend to have very few drawings in them. The drawings are vital to help interpret what's being said. But, for me anyway, the links to drawing in the archive never have a "digitised document" link.

If you know of a way to get to the drawings Moin, please say. It would change so much with regard to research the HVP/HAP/EW at Peenemunde.

If not we will just have to wait or visit the archive :)

I'm not complaining. I'm devoting my retirement to converting the scans of the typed documents into text files, translating them into English and then trying to build up a coherent interpretation of what they tell us about Wasserfall... Thanks for making this possible Moin!
 
BernardQuatermass21 said:
Thank for sharing Moin!

We live in fascinating but frustrating times, as a lot of typed documents have been digitised and put on line by the archive. But these tend to have very few drawings in them. The drawings are vital to help interpret what's being said. But, for me anyway, the links to drawing in the archive never have a "digitised document" link.

If you know of a way to get to the drawings Moin, please say. It would change so much with regard to research the HVP/HAP/EW at Peenemunde.

If not we will just have to wait or visit the archive :)

I'm not complaining. I'm devoting my retirement to converting the scans of the typed documents into text files, translating them into English and then trying to build up a coherent interpretation of what they tell us about Wasserfall... Thanks for making this possible Moin!
Click to expand...
What I see is I wade through 10 or 15 of them and there's one paragraph in one document that actually is valuable. All the rest is fluff and technical quibbling over details, or it's pie-in-the-sky fantasy by some project manager who doesn't want the program cut.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
What I see is I wade through 10 or 15 of them and there's one paragraph in one document that actually is valuable. All the rest is fluff and technical quibbling over details, or it's pie-in-the-sky fantasy by some project manager who doesn't want the program cut.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You didn't struggle with the differences between modern and 1940s German missile terminology. Or the acronyms. Or the evolution of thinking and nomenclature as the project progressed. Or the maths. Or the lack of drawings.

But what you saw confirmed your preconceptions. On the plus side it saves you the effort of reading any more.
 
BernardQuatermass21 said:
Interesting. You didn't struggle with the differences between modern and 1940s German missile terminology. Or the acronyms. Or the evolution of thinking and nomenclature as the project progressed. Or the maths. Or the lack of drawings.

But what you saw confirmed your preconceptions. On the plus side it saves you the effort of reading any more.
Click to expand...
This really isn't much different than I've encountered with US primary documents on their SAM systems. It's the same thing. There are lots and lots of mundane documents that really aren't all that relevant to the "Big Picture." The math is usually of technical interest, and yes, I can almost always understand it, but isn't highly relevant to a good, general, understanding of the system.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom