V2 and warhead

Was the 1 ton warhead the biggest possible to use? Does anybody know whether the Germans were planning to make the next generation missiles to send bigger warheads or develope the V2 somehow to create bigger destruction? Or were they happy with the 1 ton warhead?

And was there a plan for a faster V1 as surely the Germans realized most V1´s were not getting through?

Thanx for any info!

 

I have not found anything on a larger warhead. I did find this on increasing the range of the rocket so that it would reach the US.

Hitler’s Missile - Pravda.Ru

 

Hi, the V2s official name was the A4 the Germans where in the development stages of th A9 / A10 a two stage ICBM that would reach the US, on 24th 0f January 1945 the A9 was successfuly tested at peenemund
the A10 was a single stage booster with 200 tons of thrust, this combined with th A9 second stage would have a range of 3,500 miles
The A10 booster was 1 thered the size of the saturn 5 boosters used on the Apollo 5 moon project
After ww2 von Braun (who was part of the devlopment team) work for the US on there rocket program

 

I always find these statements funny. The only way it would a be really successful test would be if it actually reached the US LOL.

 

Hi JC, yes I know its all therory as it was never done, but you must agree this guy new his stuff!!

 

I don't doubt that . It kind of reminds me of the Iranian missle test that was a "Success". It was able to hit a stationary undefended floating target a mile from launch LOL .

 

Yes, von Braun not only knew his "stuff", he knew whom he owed for the "stuff". He joined with Robert Goddard's widow and sued the people he was working for; first the NACA and then NASA to get them to pay royalties on the 214 Goddard patents he and they were using in their rocket program.

When he and Mrs. Goddard won the suit, it was the largest single governmental settlement toward a private person's estate in US history, and 1 million dollars in 1960 was a HUGE settlement. Transfered into today's dollars, multiply that by a factor of 16 or there-abouts.

 

The A9 and A10 never got "developed." They remained just paper projects and design theories. Neither actually was ever launched. In point of fact, there was virtually no chance that the Penneumunde establishment would ever actually cut metal on either simply because they were so far out of Germany's ability to finance they would not have been built.

As for the V-2 warhead: 1000 kg was about the limit with the design as it was. There were two limiting factors: Overall launch weight and the attendent loss of range with more weight added. The biggest single problem with the V2 was that the airframe was really, really badly designed. In a nutshell, it was old fashioned and unimaginative. It used what was then very conventional aircraft construction techniques. The entire missile was designed, and therefore constructed to take the stress, of reentry to impact. This was a big mistake.
Convair taking their point of departure in 1945 with their MX 774 missile based on an examination of V2 technology basically tossed out the entire airframe as pathetically badly designed. Charles Bossart the lead engineer on this project hit on a novel solution that revolutionized missile design and would become the standard thereafter for most rocketry. He eliminated the ribbed airframe and stressed skin plating with seperate fuel tanks inserted within it. He also eliminated much of the tank wall thickness as unnecessary for pressurization.
Instead, he built the tanks as part of the missile's airframe with the skin forming the sides of the tank itself. This allowed much more fuel in the same overall size missile. To make the missile rigid he pressurized the tanks to a point that stressed the outer skin to the required stiffness. By adding a warhead that seperated for reentry the missile itself could be built much more lightly using thin plating. Only the reentry warhead needed to withstand coming down.
In doing this he made a V2 that had triple the range and double the payload. Oh, Rocketdyne redesigned the captured V2 engine to use a swivelling nozzle, something von Braun wanted to do but couldn't get to work, instead of graphite vains in the tail. This and other tweaks produced about 20% more thrust right off.

As for von Braun's work in the US: If you look at the overall development of missiles and rockets postwar, von Braun and the Paper Clip scientists played a relatively minor role overall. von Braun's biggest contribution might have been as a "face man" for NASA's space program. He was quite the salesman.

 

Thanx for the answers, gentlemen, and especially TA, again!

So I guess even with the possible developments to the V2 the warhead could only be doubled, and thus only the number of missiles fired could be crucial to the destruction power as the revenge weapon, I guess. So the next step would have to be making the next generation missiles not developing the V2 further as it would not add to its previous damage power.

 

Hi Guys, well lots of good information, sorry to start it up again but here is a picture of an A4b or other wise known as A9, as you said though TA the A10 was never assembled
I said in an earlyer post that the A9 was succesfuly lanched, well it flew but a wing fell of so you can make your one mind up if thats a success or not, but bear in mind that only one launch was made how many V2s crashed or blew up during develpomet??
the A9 A10 project was called Amerika, so there can be no dout as to what the design specifications where.
After 1943 the A-9 and beyond projects were technically shelved for intensity on the A-4 but von Braun continued its research under the guise of the winged A-4b. In late 1944 work on the A-9/A-10 resumed under the code name Projekt Amerika

A9b






Check out these web sites

Google Image Result for http://www.combatsim.com/htm/2007/02/rocket-attack/a4_rocket.jpg

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...a10+rockets&start=20&gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&sa=N

I mainly study books I must admit I read this one a while ago so had to brush up on the subject a bit "Hitlers Rocket Sites" by P eter Henshall its full of techinnal spec and makes for a good read

 

That wing looks like photoshopped to me...

Why is it not aligned with the back fin? Why does it look too dark as compared to the rest of the photo?

Hmmmm...

 

Yes, one A4 with the wings was launched. The object of the wings was obstensively to allow the rocket on reentry to glide further increasing its range. Obviously, the lack of knowledge of supersonic flight, poor engineering and, a multitude of other poorly understood or overlooked problems caused its failure. The result was that the project was abandoned for the time. Given that post war no one resurrected it likely means that it was unworkable from the beginning but that fact was not recognized at the time due to lack of data.

As for the A10 intercontential ballastic missile:

Let's look at the US program post war to develop an ICBM. The US had a dual track program going by the USAF. One track was the Atlas missile by Convair. This was a stage and a half design. The other was the Titan missile, a true two stage design. The Atlas was considered an interm solution for most of its development.
In any case, both missiles required about 10 years to develop in peacetime. This might have been shortened to say, five in a war setting. Both had a large number of setbacks and in development issues that had to be resolved. Some of these issues were made apparent by previous missile developments like Corporal, Thor, Jupiter, Viking, and other designs that not only the USAF but US Army and USN were developing.
Concurrent with Atlas and Titan were a number of cruise missiles, long range SAMs and other missiles that were in development these too added to the knowledge base tremendously.

What I am getting at is that the US postwar missile development program literally dwarfed anything Germany could ever attempt on their own. They simply didn't have the knowledge base, population to draw on, economy or, much of anything else that would have allowed them to compete in an ICBM race.

 

Hi I see what you meen, it could be it dose look alittle darker than the rest of the missle but it could be painted black and there dose apper to be a shadow cast, but you could be right.
so heres a challenge for you all can any one find a picture of the A4b!!!
I did find another version with smaller fins around the center

 

Very likely photoshopped. Where is the wing on the other side? You should see it peaking out behind the trailer given the size and angle of tilt of the one you can see.

 

Yes, with that dihedral we ought to see it... but wait, the dihedral in the photo is several times bigger than in the drawing above!

And, Pegasus, it really must be some very absorbing black paint, it looks as dar if not darker than the back of those wheels in shade in the off side

So what conclusions should one extract from a fake photo?

 

Hi Again, yes on reflection a bad picture, check out these ones and the link





What conclusions should youtake from these?? scotch mist or an A4(b)


http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/a4b.htm

 

Ahhh, the photo above certainly is fake but this is much better ! I wonder why someone just gave himself the trouble.

Thanks Neil

 

Hi Za Rodinu, how about this one, come on guys am I the only one looking !! there must be more out there




LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe

Surely not another fake??

 

Neil, will you please pass the cloth to wipe that egg off my face?

 

Not intended my friend