The Origins of Surface-to-Air Guided Missile Technology: German Flak Rockets and the Onset of the Cold War

E

edwest4

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
8 November 2007
Messages
4,450
Reaction score
3,355
I just spoke to a representative from Casemate who informed me that this book has been cancelled. No reason was known to this person. Does anyone, perchance know anything more? I was rather looking forward to this one. Amazon UK is still showing a release date of 15 October.

 
I just received a message from Casemate. It turns out that this book is not cancelled. It has been given a new ISBN, which
is 9781636242774. It is now due out in November.
 
I'll buy a copy, but I'm not holding my breath that it'll be worth it. I hope I'm proven wrong. It'll be at my house in a few days so, I'll post my review on it--considering I'm in the middle of writing a concise history of SAM development from 1940-ish to 1955, and have seriously good documentation on how pathetic the whole German SAM program was and how it had next to ZERO input into postwar SAM development, particularly in the West.
 
I have the book. The author provides a comprehensive overview, including post-war exploitation.
 
Maybe because German experimens actually weren't that important? Both USA and Britain have their own SAM programs by the end of the war, which were much more influential for their subsequent development than German ones. USSR started with the attempts to make Wasserfall workable, but eventually realized that it's hopeless - the missile was so badly designed, that it was simpler to just start from scratch. The S-25 Berkut have literally zero German influence in it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'll buy a copy, but I'm not holding my breath that it'll be worth it. I hope I'm proven wrong. It'll be at my house in a few days so, I'll post my review on it--considering I'm in the middle of writing a concise history of SAM development from 1940-ish to 1955, and have seriously good documentation on how pathetic the whole German SAM program was and how it had next to ZERO input into postwar SAM development, particularly in the West.
Click to expand...
Same on the East, actually. Yes, USSR was initially quite interested in German surface-to-air missiles, and experimented with them (about 30 R-101 missiles, the development of Wasserfall, were launched in 1949-1950) but the results were far from promising.
 
Pages 201 through 204,

"In 2010, Krag, citing German sources, discussed the technical development of these two missiles and a number of subsequent derivations in the Soviet Union. It is therefore not necessary to duplicate Krag's account other than to mention that tests with the Soviet versions of the Wasserfall, designated R-101, and the Schmetterling, designated R-102, continued in the Soviet Union until 1951 and 1950 respectively, and formed the basis for further experimental designs of surface-to-air guided missile systems which eventually led to the first and second operational Soviet systems, the S-25 and S-75."

"According to one source, the design of the guidance and control system of the S-25 was also assisted by German expertise."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
edwest3 said:
"In 2010, Krag, citing German sources, discussed the technical development of these two missiles and a number of subsequent derivations in the Soviet Union. It is therefore not necessary to duplicate Krag's account other than to mention that tests with the Soviet versions of the Wasserfall , designated R-101, and the Schmetterling, designated R-102, continued in the Soviet Union until 1951 and 1950 respectively, and formed the basis for further experimental designs of surface-to-air guided missile systems which eventually led to the first and second operational Soviet systems, the S-25 and S-75."
Click to expand...
(grumbling) I wonder, when the American authors would finally learn to work with Russian sources, when they talk about Soviet missiles?

edwest3 said:
"According to one source, the design of the guidance and control system of the S-25 was also assisted by German expertise."
Click to expand...
Oh well, at least this is better than usual...
 
The author is a graduate of Monash University, Australia, where he received his doctorate.
 
Dilandu said:
(grumbling) I wonder, when the American authors would finally learn to work with Russian sources, when they talk about Soviet missiles?
Click to expand...

edwest3 said:
The author is a graduate of Monash University, Australia, where he received his doctorate.
Click to expand...
As American as Mom, apple pie and drop bears.
 
In the US there was next to ZERO interest in pursuing anything Germany did on SAM development in WW 2. Project Hermes, run by GE, was to examine such German technology. GE launched a total of 6 Wasserfall, most heavily modified, at White Sands before the program for SAM development was dropped as worthless and the Douglas / Bell Nike program was the one that move forward entirely free of German technological input.
The USN was running Lark and Bumblebee (Talos and also Terrier / Tartar) completely independent of any German input.
In Britain there was Brakemine and Stooge followed by LOPGAP then Seaslug, Bloodhound, and Thunderbird all of which had zero reliance on WW 2 German SAM research.
The Russians tried to get Wasserfall to work and eventually dumped it. In fact, all of the wartime German programs at NII 88 pretty much were dead ends by 1955 and had been superseded by Russian developments that at most used basic German research (like say rocket fuel combinations) to supplement their own R&D.
(Oh Dilandu, I have a lot of Russian original stuff on SAM's now--the internet is wonderful in translating it into Engrish--and really appreciate the Russian viewpoint on things. The awful politics of the Stalin era are apparent as is the brilliance of many Russian engineers working on a shoestring budget and threat of the gulag)
 
edwest3 said:
The author is a graduate of Monash University, Australia, where he received his doctorate.
Click to expand...
Did he study under Dr. Carlo Kopp there? Just curious. Kopp has written a number of articles I have on SAM and related subjects, and I'm not impressed.
 
edwest3 said:
Pages 201 through 204,

"In 2010, Krag, citing German sources, discussed the technical development of these two missiles and a number of subsequent derivations in the Soviet Union. It is therefore not necessary to duplicate Krag's account other than to mention that tests with the Soviet versions of the Wasserfall, designated R-101, and the Schmetterling, designated R-102, continued in the Soviet Union until 1951 and 1950 respectively, and formed the basis for further experimental designs of surface-to-air guided missile systems which eventually led to the first and second operational Soviet systems, the S-25 and S-75."

"According to one source, the design of the guidance and control system of the S-25 was also assisted by German expertise."
Click to expand...
Well, that's just blatantly wrong. Wasserfall was tried in several 'improved' versions by the Russians with German engineering help by NII 88 from 1945 to about 1950 before it was recognized the missile just wasn't going to work. A that point the workable bits were kept and a new design by SB-1 (run by Sergo Beria, son of Lavrentiy Beria head of the KGB) and other bureaus was forwarded for development sans any German input. That resulted in the S-25 Berkut. NII - 88 the bureau that used German scientists and engineers was kicked to the curb by SB-1 and pretty much left out of future developments by 1955 with all or most of the Germans techs being deported back to East Germany.
Because the Berkut system was so grossly, ungodly, expensive, cheaper solutions were sought, along with an increased interest in an ABM, resulting in missiles like the B-1000 and B-400 Dal with Lavochikin's design bureau becoming the leader in missile design.
These systems resulted in the S-75 Dvina (SA-2 NATO La-400 in house) system.
While the S-75 certainly had limitations, it was both mobile and cheap enough to mass produce.
 
I knew a bloke who was attached to the RAE at Farnborough when they were testing German kit in 1945/6. I asked him why the British (and Americans by default) didn't adopt what appeared to be good German equipment. He looked at me as if I was daft and said 'We beat them. Couldn't be that good.'

Chris
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Did he study under Dr. Carlo Kopp there? Just curious. Kopp has written a number of articles I have on SAM and related subjects, and I'm not impressed.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt it given Carlo Kopp is a Computer Science Lecturer at the Monash University. Agree in not being impressed BTW.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
(Oh Dilandu, I have a lot of Russian original stuff on SAM's now--the internet is wonderful in translating it into Engrish--and really appreciate the Russian viewpoint on things. The awful politics of the Stalin era are apparent as is the brilliance of many Russian engineers working on a shoestring budget and threat of the gulag)
Click to expand...
Thank you) And yes, our engineers managed to get work done despite the whole arimes of Party bureaucrats trying to making their lives miserable in their political infighting. Not all they designed was efficient, of course - for example, the S-25 "Berkut" (first and only multi-target capable SAM in the world for decades) was an engineering masterpiece... but a military & economical nightmare, since the limitation of technology required very drastic solutions. Still, they managed to generally become on pair with the high-tech giants like USA (and considering how far behind was Soviet electronic industry just after war... it was nothing short of miracle)
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the US there was next to ZERO interest in pursuing anything Germany did on SAM development in WW 2. P
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, France initially was the quite eager about utilizing German developments - viewing it as a "shortcut" in technological and economical terms - but after initial enthusiasm faded, French engineers concluded that very few of German projects were worthy of further development (or workable at all).
 
Dilandu said:
T. A. Gardner said:
In the US there was next to ZERO interest in pursuing anything Germany did on SAM development in WW 2. P
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, France initially was the quite eager about utilizing German developments - viewing it as a "shortcut" in technological and economical terms - but after initial enthusiasm faded, French engineers concluded that very few of German projects were worthy of further development (or workable at all).
Click to expand...
France and Russia both thought that initially. Both quickly discovered just how poor German technology really was and both dumped it almost entirely by 1950. The US tried some German tech out right after the war but quickly discarded almost all of it as poor or unworkable.
 
Okay, I got the book and read through it. It's really a mixed bag. The research Mills did was good, the biblo and such are worth it if you want more places to look for information. On the other hand, his discussion of this subject is spotty, and his conclusions are often in contradiction to his thesis.

That is, he often inadvertently proves German research was not a driver of postwar technology in SAM (and related) development even as he tries to make tenuous connections between what the Germans were doing and developments in other countries, often started and advanced before the war ended.

On the whole, it's not a bad book, but it's not a good one either. It really doesn't help that it's done in the academic style with a multitude of end notes and such. Yeah, I get the guy's a PhD, and it's to be expected, but it makes the writing style dry, so-to-speak.

That could possibly be the reason it was cancelled. If it got reviewed right before release and others found what I did, that could be a reason for retraction given, again, Mills being an academic.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom