German rockets pictures

[Justo Miranda]

From "Secret weapons of the Third Reich"
by Leslie E. Simon
WE INC Publishers 1971

 

[Justo Miranda]

From "Secret weapons of the Third Reich"
by Leslie E. Simon
WE INC Publishers 1971
(Post-2)

 

[Justo Miranda]

From "Secret weapons of the Third Reich"
by Leslie E. Simon
WE INC Publishers 1971
(Post-3)

 

[Jemiba]

The photo N°6 could be a fanal to all admirers of a manned A-4/V2,
I think. It looks, as there is a hump on the nose, which could be interpreted
as a canopy .. ???

 

[Orionblamblam]

The photo N°6 could be a fanal to all admirers of a manned A-4/V2,
I think. It looks, as there is a hump on the nose, which could be interpreted
as a canopy .. ???

Unlikely. IF that is a canopy, rather than a blemish or some other mark, then the cockpit would intrude into the alcohol tank.

 

[Justo Miranda]

High resolution 600 and 1200

 

[gery]

Hi justo...many thank for sharing this "jewels" of reich...

 

[Michel Van]

most fascinating is the stuff on right next big A-4 Model
A Rocket with Ringwing !

there allot Rheinbote variants on right
can be this ring wing also a version of Rheinbote ?

 

[Justo Miranda]

High manoeuvrability device for Wasserfall similar to the "RAZON" american bombs

 

[Grzesio]

I'd say Roc, rather than RAZON.

Regards

Grzesio

 

[moin1900]

Hi everybody

The big thing in the background of the Enzian. What is it ? A flying wing ?
Escanear0003 and Escanear0001

Here the book
German research in world war II: an analysis of the conduct of research
Leslie E. Simon
http://books.google.com/books
Leslie Simon also shows some bombs (?models?) in his book ?
Maybe someone can show us these pictures ?

BTW I am also searching infos about these bombs: BT 1850, KC 1000 ,KC 1800 , AB 1800 Abwurfbehälter and SB 1800. Which was the biggest planned german bomb ? I only know the SC-5000.

Thanks a lot for help.

 

[Lauge]

BTW I am also searching infos about these bombs: BT 1850, KC 1000 ,KC 1800 , AB 1800 Abwurfbehälter and SB 1800. Which was the biggest planned german bomb ? I only know the SC-5000.

If you read German, a good place to start might be "Deutsche Abwurfmunition bis 1945" ("German air-dropped ordnance until 1945") by Wolfgang Fleischer, available from Amazon (http://www.amazon.de/Deutsche-Abwurfmunition-1945-Wolfgang-Fleischer/dp/3613022869/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256842810&sr=1-1). My own copy is still in a moving crate, though, so I can't check if there's info on any of "your" bombs.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[panzer1946]

this book is translated in English for a few years now and published by Schiffer

 

[moin1900]

Hi everybody
Thanks for the replies. Justo Lauge panzer1946
Sorry for my very late reply.

Google Books

German air-dropped weapons to 1945
Deutsche Abwurfmunition bis 1945: Sprengbomben, Brandbomben etc.
by Wolfgang Fleischer
The KC 1000, KC 1800 and SC-500RS were mentioned.
The AB-1800 and SB-1800 were not mentioned ?
Here BT-1850 data

LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe

Das Archiv über den Einsatz von Mensch und Material bei der Deutschen Luftwaffe im 2.Weltkrieg

www.luftarchiv.de

Many greetings

 

[thunaer]

Oh my, it’s the Amerika-Rakete in the left corner of image no. 6!

To me it looks like what’s usually referred to as Aggregat 9, i.e. the upper stage of the proposed suborbital ICBM intended to target New York. Note the prominent curved, bladelike fins running along the whole length of the rocket, much unlike any other design today. Of course it could be just a concept for a Wasserfall-sized AA-missile, or an idea for an A4/V2 variant. Yet this photograph clearly proves the image of the A9 prevailing today is based on a real wind tunnel model, and not just made up. The boxart example I‘ve inserted is from a Special Hobby kit. While I cannot spot the A10 (the lower booster stage) among the shapes, this picture is the first palpable historic trace of that design I’ve come across so far.

And I’ve really been looking for it! The other day I had an argument with a friend, after we walked to an old V2 launch pad in Westphalia. Today just an overgrown slab of concrete, partly destroyed when a rocket exploded on the site itself. In the vicinity a tree still shows the carvings of a guard stationed where the rockets were fueled on their Meilerwagen trailers. So I argued I could believe the Amerika-Rakete was a real conceptual design, something that actually existed on paper and in the scientists’ minds - be it manned or not. After all, later von Braun did build two-stage rockets once he had the means. My friend challenged me to provide a document, a picture, some sort of proof this is not just a modern myth. A popular scale model means nothing, and who says illustrators don’t just copy from one another? For example the text in my other picture claims to show a wind tunnel model, but it’s clearly just a drawing anyone could have made.

Well, I’m one step further now, thank you very much indeed!

 

[Orionblamblam]

That photo was first (to my knowledge) published in Simon's "German Research in World War II," 1947.

It appears to show a model of the "Gleiter A4 V13/e" configuration which truncated the strakes so that they didn't extend to the payload.

 

[thunaer]

Impressive - thanks a lot for sharing!

I was familiar with that designation from here:

http://www.v2werk-oberraderach.de/Irrtuemer/4-I.htm
http://www.v2werk-oberraderach.de/Irrtuemer/5-I.htm

That's why I referred to the rocket tentatively – it’s actually much more effective to look for the “wrong” names A9 + A10 when searching for pictures. I’m basically just looking for aviation art to decorate my desktop, and I enjoy finding out more about “Luftwaffe 1946” projects. From this board I got material which I've never seen before, and you can even name the source books. That’s very generous indeed.

Here you can find over 90 documents like the one you uploaded, though none of them seem to refer to the intercontinental weapon. The material is from the famous Deutsches Museum Munich and the text under “Bestandsgeschichte” scientifically explains why your drawing is so black – it’s a postwar copy made in the U.S. So your document seems to be the real thing!
http://www.digipeer.de/index.php?static=52

Here you have from the same source a diagram calculating a long range ballistic missile flight as early as 1933, before the Peenemünde efforts:
http://www.digipeer.de/index.php?static=32

And this is supposedly a genuine Nasa document:
http://de.scribd.com/doc/17489642/NASA-History-V2-A4-Rocket-Technical-Development-Data-1965
It shows a drawing of the two-stage Aggregat on page 52 (printed page number), but it uses the terms A9 / A10 again. Maybe this paper is a fake? Or they got things wrong in the 60s and thus started the whole trouble with the varying designations today? In my links at the top you can find the diagrams from Nasa page 54 that are supposedly illustrating the A9’s flight, but there they’re differently titled. At least the one reaching Glasgow doesn’t make sense for a two-stage ICBM, and my second link above seems to prove it’s rather meant for the “winged V2” often called A4b or A4 V12.

Anyway I don’t want to argue about who knows the designations better. That spearlike shape is so ingenious and elegant. It’s a real beauty! And the one other vehicle with a surrounding fin narrowing to the top that I can think of is – the space shuttle.

So the wind tunnel model and the black drawing of the “A9” are unique. I found them absolutely nowhere else. Does anyone have something similar of the lower stage, or the two combined? Because that would really prove the scale models and graphics of today are essentialy correct. Even so the material is marvelous. Thanks a lot!

 

[fredymac]

Found this 1945 British video on the V-2. Considering how soon this is after the end of WWII, it's interesting to see how much work they had already done in examining the technology.

 

[lippischh]

On this pdf : https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b815310.pdf, on page 20 there are grayscale photos of various V-2 rockets. I noticed that the same rockets were photographed once on a 'top' view and another time in a side view.
From Right to left we can recognize : two slightly different Xmas tree wings, the "Gleiter A4 V13/e", the doppeldecker design. Then, three similar ones with sharply swept wings. Their side view show that the wings have a dihedral angle and that there's another surface on the other side. Either a vertical stabilizer or another set of swept wings with an opposite dihedral.
I made a quick drawing in a 3D software and it turned out that it isn't possible for the other surface to be a pair of wings as they attach higher and would show up on the 'top' view. Therefore, It is in my opinion a Y-wing configuration.

 

[Grzesio]

Better quality...

 

[robunos]

On this pdf : https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b815310.pdf, on page 20 there are grayscale photos of various V-2 rockets. I noticed that the same rockets were photographed once on a 'top' view and another time in a side view.
From Right to left we can recognize : two slightly different Xmas tree wings, the "Gleiter A4 V13/e", the doppeldecker design. Then, three similar ones with sharply swept wings. Their side view show that the wings have a dihedral angle and that there's another surface on the other side. Either a vertical stabilizer or another set of swept wings with an opposite dihedral.
I made a quick drawing in a 3D software and it turned out that it isn't possible for the other surface to be a pair of wings as they attach higher and would show up on the 'top' view. Therefore, It is in my opinion a Y-wing configuration.

I disagree . . .
Looking at Grzesio's picture, look particularly at the tail fins of the models. In the top row, all the models' fins are lined up North/South, East/West. Looked at from the top, they would look like this :-
+ + + + + + +
Now, on the bottom row, the the three models on the right, the two 'christmas tree' and the gothic delta, have been turned through 90 degrees, to show a side view, but, the remaining four have only been turned through 45-50 degrees. This time, looked at from above, we would see :-
x x x x + + +
Thus, what we are seeing, is not a wing with large dihedral, and a ventral fin, but both wings, the far wing's root being obscured by the missile's body.

cheers,
Robin.

 

[lippischh]

On this pdf : https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b815310.pdf, on page 20 there are grayscale photos of various V-2 rockets. I noticed that the same rockets were photographed once on a 'top' view and another time in a side view.
From Right to left we can recognize : two slightly different Xmas tree wings, the "Gleiter A4 V13/e", the doppeldecker design. Then, three similar ones with sharply swept wings. Their side view show that the wings have a dihedral angle and that there's another surface on the other side. Either a vertical stabilizer or another set of swept wings with an opposite dihedral.
I made a quick drawing in a 3D software and it turned out that it isn't possible for the other surface to be a pair of wings as they attach higher and would show up on the 'top' view. Therefore, It is in my opinion a Y-wing configuration.

I disagree . . .
Looking at Grzesio's picture, look particularly at the tail fins of the models. In the top row, all the models' fins are lined up North/South, East/West. Looked at from the top, they would look like this :-
+ + + + + + +
Now, on the bottom row, the the three models on the right, the two 'christmas tree' and the gothic delta, have been turned through 90 degrees, to show a side view, but, the remaining four have only been turned through 45-50 degrees. This time, looked at from above, we would see :-
x x x x + + +
Thus, what we are seeing, is not a wing with large dihedral, and a ventral fin, but both wings, the far wing's root being obscured by the missile's body.

cheers,
Robin.

Yes, I agree. The clearer images show that I was mistaken.

 

[robunos]

No worries . . .
The question I have, in regard to these winged A-4 derivatives, is what method was to be used to ensure that the missile ended up in a wings level attitude after re-entry, in order to glide successfully ? Obviously, a manned version would have a pilot on board to perform this task, but what about an unmanned vehicle ?
Ironically, Lippischh's large dihedral concept should be successful in this task . . .

cheers,
robin.

 

[Grzesio]

what method was to be used to ensure that the missile ended up in a wings level attitude after re-entry, in order to glide successfully ?

A gyro autopilot.

 

[robunos]

So a similar system to the one used in the V-1 . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Grzesio]

Yes, but winged A 4 had its steering electrically driven. And so batteries had to be bigger than in a regular A 4 (due to longer time of flight) and servo motors stronger (due to enlarged rudders).