Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: Drawings of the 1942 German V2 Rocket

That's why the government then proceeded to pry lots of scientists out

of post-war Germany. The book "Operation Paperclip" is a very

interesting read.



--

Regards, Joerg



http://www.analogconsultants.com/

America was technologically backward at the time, it was good at brute force automotive and machine industry stuff, but as for anything cutting edge scientific it was a joke.
 
K

Klaus Kragelund

Jan 1, 1970
0
yes it was a huge project, even with todays advanced tech available to

everyone as far as I know no amateurs (or very very few) have managed

to get a rocket into space that says something



but imagine being told: design a tank build a factory and make me 40,000

and then manage to do it in a few years

Certainly a daunting task. Just keeping track of progress and coordinating all the sub assemblies must have been a task for a project manager with extraordinary insight. As I read some of the pages on the Museum pages, it is however apparent that some of the items went through a lot of revisions, but who haven't tried that? :)

Cheers

Klaus
 
L

Lasse Langwadt Christensen

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 23/07/2013 17:20, Joerg wrote:
Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 23/07/2013 08:03, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
Just stumbled accross the drawings of the WWII german V2 rocket
drawings designed by Wernher von Braun. Quite a nice job for 1942and
the basis for the US rocket program that followed
That's a bit late, Klaus. Seventy years ago and you could have made a
lot of money.
Now don't go off and build one of those in the garage, ya hear! :)
The remarkable thing about those is how big they are (there are partsin
the Science Museum in London), how many the Germans made in so short a
time and how much it cost.
[A bit thin on actual numbers there, but you get the picture.]
keeps amazing me how so many different airplanes, tanks, weapons,
etc. were designed and build in huge number during those ~5years



A lot of cool stuff. Radar probably changed the war, but in general war is good for if nothing else to push technology forward



As a Dane, I am embarrassed about the policy of the Danish government, turning the other cheek and only resisting when the war obviously would turn out for victory for the allied coalition. At least we had some good guys, Niels Bohr is one of them that was working on the Manhattan project as one of the top scientist.



Regards



Klaus

It was just realism, the outcome wouldn't have been different had they
resisted, just more dead soldiers and more destruction, much much bigger countries were run over

luckily we had some the brave men and women that earned us a seat on the
winning side when it was all over

-Lasse
 
K

Klaus Kragelund

Jan 1, 1970
0
America was technologically backward at the time, it was good at brute force automotive and machine industry stuff, but as for anything cutting edge scientific it was a joke.

Yeah. In the beginning of the war the US play hide and seek and had for example horses to move the artillery.

Meanwhile, the Germans was performing blitz krieg, highly mobilized units and revolutionized warfare much as Napoleon had done many years before.

Cheers

KLaus
 
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc



jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Not interested in your crap propaganda. The FACTUAL history was that the Dept of War at the time was an even bigger and more incompetent cesspool thanit is today. Another less publicized FACT is that the US was rife with spies and saboteurs, and the black market in rationed goods comprised a full 25% of the economy.
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
Phil said:
There was one that landed someplace like the Santa Cruz Mountains that
killed a group of children on a Sunday school picnic, along with the
minister's wife.

And the press was told to shut up about it so the Japanese would think none
of the balloon bombs reached North America, and the press complied (!) and
the program was cancelled.
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:33:41 -0700 (PDT),


Wiki specs their range as 200 miles.
Could have been intercontinental, all they had to do was conquer Russia
all the way to the Bering Strait.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
Wiki specs their range as 200 miles.





--



John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc



jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com



Precision electronic instrumentation

Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser drivers and controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

The wiki article on ICBMs:
"The development of the world's first practical design for an ICBM, A9/10, intended for use in bombing New York and other American cities, was undertaken in Nazi Germany by the team of Wernher von Braun under Projekt Amerika.The ICBM A9/A10 rocket initially was intended to be guided by radio, but was changed to be a piloted craft after the failure of Operation Elster. Thesecond stage of the A9/A10 rocket was tested a few times in January and February 1945. The progenitor of the A9/A10 was the German V-2 rocket, also designed by von Braun and widely used at the end of World War II to bomb British and Belgian cities. All of these rockets used liquid propellants. Following the war, von Braun and other leading German scientists were relocatedto the United States to work directly for the U.S. Army through Operation Paperclip, developing the IRBMs, ICBMs, and launchers."

This A9/A10 was just some simple extension of the V2. Why would they use a weapon with 5500 km range against a target 300 km distant.

As for the alternative forms of air power:

"The United States Army Air Forces incurred 12% of the Army's 936,000 battle casualties in World War II. 88,119 airmen died in service. 52,173 were battle casualty deaths: 45,520 killed in action, 1,140 died of wounds, 3,603 were missing in action and declared dead, and 1,910 were nonhostile battle deaths. Of the United States military and naval services, only the Army Ground Forces suffered more battle deaths. 35,946 non-battle deaths included 25,844 in aircraft accidents, more than half of which occurred within the Continental United States.[76] 63,209 members of the USAAF were other battle casualties. 18,364 were wounded in action and required medical evacuation, and 41,057 became prisoners-of-war.[76][77] Its casualties were 5.1% of itsstrength, compared to 10% for the rest of the Army.[78][n 38]

Total aircraft losses by the AAF from December 1941 to August 1945 were 65,164, with 43,581 lost overseas and 21,583 within the Continental United States.[79] Combat losses of aircraft totaled 22,948 world wide, with 18,418 lost in theaters fighting Germany and 4,530 lost in combat in the Pacific.[80] The AAF credited its own forces with destroying a total of 40,259 aircraft of opposing nations by all means, 29,916 against Germany and its allies and 10,343 in the Pacific.[81]

The cost of the war to the AAF was approximately $50 billion,[n 39] or about 30% of the cost to the War Department,[78] with cash expenditures from direct appropriations between July 1942 and August 1945 amounting to $35,185,548,000."
 
K

Klaus Kragelund

Jan 1, 1970
0
There were a lot of Japanese in Alaska, too.



The V2 was a very inaccurate weapon. Alaska is BIG. It could hit somewhere in or

around London but wouldn't be very good against a military base. It was really a

terror weapon, not very effective militarily.



The Brits deflected most of the V2s from London by leaking reports to the

Germans that their missiles were overshooting by 20 miles. The Germans

obligingly retargeted, hitting less populated areas. That shows how inaccurate

the Germans believed their own missiles to be.



The V2 was not a very effective weapon. It was insanely expensive, inaccurate,

and had a small explosive payload. It detonated on contact, at mach 4 or

something, so made a nice underground explosion and a moderate crater.

The V1 was actually a better weapon, but the psycological effect of the V2s sonic boom and silent approach until detonation and no way to shoot it down had great effect on the public. AFAIK the british (and dutch) feared the V2 more than the V1.

Cheers

Klaus
 
Old draftsmanship was sometimes wonderful. It took a lot of skill and experience

to do that with, often, ink on vellum or starched linen.



I actually took two semisters of engineering drawing, which nobody much liked

but was really valuable. Lots of kids nowadays know how to drive Autocad but not

how to draw. I still design with pencil on vellum.





--



John Larkin Highland Technology Inc

www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com



Precision electronic instrumentation

Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer

Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

You're not seriously suggesting that drawing that way was advantageous I hope. We can draw a whole ship inside and out now and show it in virtual reality - much better and faster.
 
U

Uwe Hercksen

Jan 1, 1970
0
Klaus said:
The V1 was actually a better weapon, but the psycological effect of the V2s sonic boom and silent approach until detonation and no way to shoot it down had great effect on the public. AFAIK the british (and dutch) feared the V2 more than the V1.
Hello,

the english spitfire pilots found a way to destroy a flying V1 without
any bullets. They only tipped with the end of one wing to the wing of
the V2. The V2 crashed to the ground, the automatic steering was not
able to react, there was no roll control.

Bye
 
K

Klaus Kragelund

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin schrieb:







Hello,



they only worked out some plans. It should look like this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A9_A10_(3D-cutoff).jpg

It was planned as a two stage rocket.

Work began as early as 1940 on this and it was deemed impossible to guide to the target unless it was piloted (To bad for the guy that would have to test that). So it would not have hit cows, but would have inflicted a lot ofdammage (depending on how hard it is to hit a city when a human is guidingit)

Cheers

Klaus
 
K

Klaus Kragelund

Jan 1, 1970
0
Klaus Kragelund schrieb:





Hello,



the english spitfire pilots found a way to destroy a flying V1 without

any bullets. They only tipped with the end of one wing to the wing of

the V2. The V2 crashed to the ground, the automatic steering was not

able to react, there was no roll control.

You mean the V1, right? (the V2 was supersonic)
 
D

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Jan 1, 1970
0
Snipped retarded long lines posted by some dope who has no clue about
Usenet
I think what JL is getting at is that there is drawing, & then there is
design drawing.


When was the last time you saw surface finish marks on a drawing or
surface finishing details for say hard anodizing? Hell, any anodizing.
It is all chem film these days.

A lot of things became assumed in the CAD realm, and industry evolved
too.

I hand drew standard dimensioning, but I like the CAD style of single
point of reference dimensioning, and the CAM machines and computers like
it too.

They give more for less everywhere these days.
 
The V2 was not a very effective weapon. It was insanely expensive, inaccurate,

and had a small explosive payload. It detonated on contact, at mach 4 or

something, so made a nice underground explosion and a moderate crater.

Really? You might get a clue that is was initially deployed while still in the developmental stage. Germany was out of time and resources. For such a worthless weapon, the U.S. put quite a lot of money and work into using it to advance the state of the art of missile technology.
 
Could have been intercontinental, all they had to do was conquer Russia

all the way to the Bering Strait.

Nonsense, that so-called A4 airframe was a planned component of the A4/A10 combination that was definitely long range.
 
Top