OT: Drawings of the 1942 German V2 Rocket

[hamilton]

alert. How would you like working on electronics, with an M16 on your
back?

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.


So now we understand why your so "gung ho" military !!

hamilton

 

[[email protected]]

Four or five books, actually. And a bunch of other stuff.



https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Prox/Prox_Wagner/SFuse6.jpg

That sensationalistic tripe has its theory of operation wrong.

Your crummy proximity fuze was worthless without a gun to launch the projectile. If you want to read about *REAL* accomplishment, read what Chrysler went through to produce the Bofors, it exemplifies America's real strength at the time:
http://www.allpar.com/history/military/bofors.html
The story also dispels the myth that the military advances industry when the reality is industry has to step in and bail out the military time and time again.

 

[hamilton]

That sensationalistic tripe has its theory of operation wrong.

Your crummy proximity fuze was worthless without a gun to launch the projectile. If you want to read about *REAL* accomplishment, read what Chrysler went through to produce the Bofors, it exemplifies America's real strength at the time:
http://www.allpar.com/history/military/bofors.html
The story also dispels the myth that the military advances industry when the reality is industry has to step in and bail out the military time and time again.

Yes, industry is the tech arm of the military.

But the military has the money.

Industry will _not_ develop anything without a deep pocket it can see.

A good example: "cost plus"

hamilton

 

[[email protected]]

WWII was a different time. There are many examples of companies donating things,

or taking contracts for cost plus one dollar.

Yep, you got that right. These days they would be fleecing the government for all it was worth, dragging the build out for as long as they could, and eventually failing to deliver. On the government side they would have more worthless bureaucrats, parasites, and oversight subcontractors than Chrysler did actual workers.

 

[[email protected]]

What do you find wrong? Sounds right to me. I wouldn't expect a popular magazine

to use Maxwell's equations to discuss near-field and far-field electromagnetics.









Projectiles are worthless if they sail past targets or bury themselves

underground before they explode, as most dumb projectiles tended to do.

Care to explain how Doppler shift would change in the projectile approaching the ground scenario?

 

[[email protected]]

Doppler frequency sensing was used in some of the antiaircraft shells

to optimize the firing point. It was primitive, just a bit of analog

filtering ahead of the thyratron "Schmitt trigger" tube.

Looks like the original idea used by Allies was British, and the Germans had developed a superior version but abandoned it due to resource constraints. Starting to get the idea your American history sources are total BS yet???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze

 

[Fred Abse]

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

That's what the Russians did with the T34.

Arguably the most successful tank of WWII.

 

[Fred Abse]

The German V-weapons (V-1 and V-2) cost $3 billion

And cost many more lives in production than they did in deployment.

 

[[email protected]]

The development of the 20KG tubes, the circuits, and the PCB packaging was

mostly American. As was the manufacture of millions of working fuzes.

Eh, big f'ing deal, within a few years the Japanese would go on to make 100 million transistor radios of greater complexity than the VTFuzes...

 

[YD]

Late at night, by candle light, [email protected]
penned this immortal opus:

Eh, big f'ing deal, within a few years the Japanese would go on to make 100 million transistor radios of greater complexity than the VTFuzes...

Able to work after being shot out of a cannon and spinning at some
incredible rate?

- YD.

 

[T]

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.

But think about the descendents of that V2. The Saturn V can trace it's
roots directly to that rocket.

 

[T]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:52:49 -0700 (PDT),

mountainous radar cross-sections, were slow moving, and struggled to operate at altitude. SAMs would have brought the war to a standstill, that is if you believe air power played a significant role in winning the war, which it most certainly did.

Nobody on the planet had the resources to do that in the 1940's,
especially the Germans, who had primitive radar technology. And the
defense would be simple: chaff and jammers.

The Nazis respected big iron: guns and tanks. They weren't keen on
sissy technology, like electronics. In the USA, a few visionaries,
like Vannevar Bush, convinced the military that this stuff works.

Consider one of the biggest, the magnetron tube was developed in
Britain. Then of course brought to the U.S., refined and manufactured in
bulk.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

That's what the Russians did with the T34.

the Russians build ~50000 T34s, Americans build ~50000 M4s



-Lasse

 

[Martin Brown]

That is a description of Shire & Thompson's concept for the Doppler
proximity fuse which was first engineered by Curran & Butement (a New
Zealander) and then handed over to the US for manufacture as VT under
the auspices of the Tizard mission technology transfer programme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Curran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._S._Butement#Achievements_in_Great_Britain

Germans had a working design but didn't recognise its significance until
too late. It was intelligence about a German prox fuse and a sample
valve from it that triggered the British research and invention.

The development of the 20KG tubes, the circuits, and the PCB packaging was
mostly American. As was the manufacture of millions of working fuzes.

Of course the Brits developed a lot of weapons. They were at war before we were.
So were the Germans.

The fundamental design was *ENTIRELY* British I knew one of the two
inventors. He was my first year physics tutor. His Times Obituary read
somewhat strangely "Ed Shire - a device to destroy the flying bomb". If
you have access to the (chargeable) Times Archive you can verify this.
The US researchers only made a few trivial receiver improvements by
adding a valve and then *manufactured* it in bulk for us.

http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD/GBR/0014/SHRE

Is the only academic reference source I can find with free access.

You are forever rewriting history in a US-o-centric Hollywood style!

The US researchers cheekily grabbed a US patent for a British invention
that they were handed on a plate. At that time we were just glad of
having it manufactured in sufficient quantity to be useful in battle.

 

[Klaus Kragelund]

Not quite "handed over for manufacture." The 20G tubes had to be

developed, and a ton of engineering and testing had to be done. I

don't think the Brits ever built a working fuze that could be fired

from a gun.

That's speculation. The original idea was still from the UK, that's what matters, not that the US could copy and mass produce it.

[snip]

Which is why you aren't posting in German now.

You really think the Germans could hold the fort for 70 years?

Cheers

Klaus

 

[Martin Brown]

The three valve fundamental design and implementation was British. US
engineers added an extra valve to slightly improve receiver sensitivity
- enough of an improvement to convince USPTO to grant them a patent.

The first ones manufactured were clones of the 3 valve British design
with slightly improved hi-g valves in a stiffer wax binder.

So, any idea, without actual development lets them claim they
invented something? No wonder they had their asses kicked. If they had
built them, they would have leaked oil, all the way to their premature
explosion.

Having deployed working proximity fuses in surface to air weapons.
It beat tipping the wings of V1s as a means of bringing them down.
Amazing picture of that risky procedure on p126 of this article:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/f21d57c4_9913_5321_bb9830f0bb762b4e.pdf

The American team were handed it on a plate, just like with Randall &
Boot's high power cavity magnetron microwave and Whittles jet engine.

http://www.cap.ca/wyp/profiles/Redhead-Nov01.PDF

Britain had to trade all its scientific and engineering secrets in
return for additional manufacturing capacity in the US and Canada.

There is no limit to the amount of stuff that Americans like to pretend
they invented in WWII. The top secret Tizard mission to the US is
largely forgotten in your "patriotic" rewriting of WWII history.

 

[mueed]

Hi



Just stumbled accross the drawings of the WWII german V2 rocket drawings designed by Wernher von Braun. Quite a nice job for 1942 and the basis for the US rocket program that followed


Nice !
Original:



http://www.digipeer.de/index.php?static=52



Translated:



http://translate.google.com/transla...//www.digipeer.de/index.php?static=52&act=url



Cheers



Klaus

 

[Klaus Kragelund]

The three valve fundamental design and implementation was British.

And about 1000 times more energy and 5 times shorter pulses than the ones the US had designed at that time.

Cheers

Klaus

 

[[email protected]]

Europe had been at war, at roughly an 80% duty cycle but increasing violence,

for millenia before WWII. Making stuff to kill people was always a prime

European skill set. The US sensibly didn't want to get sucked into another World

War, and we had a minute defense establishment prior to Pearl Harbor. We did

pretty well, on all fronts, once we got in. Those American farm boys knewhow to

shoot.

Okay, you're getting so out to lunch with your fantasy misbeliefs, it's time to ask you to STFU because you don't have a hint in hell what you're talking about. The majority of U.S. infantry came from cities and not rural areas, and the shooting was surprisingly bad, and intentionally so. This has been well-publicized by the U.S. Army's own data collection and their efforts to overcome it, but the fact was the common fighting man on the ground ofthat period had no stomach for killing and would usually deliberately shoot to miss.
This is light reading and in line with the historical record:
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield

 

[Klaus Kragelund]

Okay, you're getting so out to lunch with your fantasy misbeliefs, it's time to ask you to STFU because you don't have a hint in hell what you're talking about. The majority of U.S. infantry came from cities and not rural areas, and the shooting was surprisingly bad, and intentionally so. This hasbeen well-publicized by the U.S. Army's own data collection and their efforts to overcome it, but the fact was the common fighting man on the ground of that period had no stomach for killing and would usually deliberately shoot to miss.

This is light reading and in line with the historical record:

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield

I read some of the articles some years ago, updated with the battlefield effectiveness of the other countries. The UK Army had equally bad percentage that would use a weapon, AFAIR about 15%. They would spend an enormous amount of time on breaks, having tea etc. The Germans were a lot better, had about 30-40% battle effectiveness (persons that would shoot). They were better soldiers on a man to man basis, but some of the reason for that was also attributed to the fact that they were defending their homeland and as such would fight harder.

Also the German divisions had death penalty for not obeying orders and theypracticed it shooting soldiers that did not fight. The US and UK did not.

The Germans excelled in another matter. The would only bog down 30% of the troops for support (transport, administrative personnel etc), whereas the US and UK troops would use up to 60& for support functions.

They learned a lot from WWII. The soldier of today practice and simulates the combat situation with realistic exercises, depending a lot on "muscle memory" which is exercises responding to the enemy and killing them, repeating the exercise many times over and when they are put in a real life combat situation, Muscle Memory takes over and the soldier is a lot more effective.. Scary stuff.

The downside is widespread PTSD, forcing soldiers to kill when they really do not want to.

Cheers

Klaus