A9/A10 really would have worked ?

[miraglia]

My simulations show that the flight would be possible. Probably the materials of the time would not support the dynamic pressures and temperatures.
In my simulation, the launch of the bunker was located in France and New York target.
Ballistic trajectory is drawn in yellow. My software (simulation of launch vehicles) produces the trajectory charts directly in Google Earth.

Miraglia
www.edgeofspace.org

 

[Orionblamblam]

I do not believe that the A-9 would have flown a Sanger-like skip trajectory. Also, it woul not have carried a nuke, just a ton of high explosives.

 

[Avimimus]

Could this software be modified to show examples of a full nuclear exchange during the Cold War (using known target lists, battery locations and CEP of ballistic missiles)?

It is one thing to know that there were at least three missiles aimed at a target and what their CEP was - it is another thing to actually see examples of what a particular delivery would look like.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I do not believe that the A-9 would have flown a Sanger-like skip trajectory. Also, it woul not have carried a nuke, just a ton of high explosives.

I agree

 

[archipeppe]

I do not believe that the A-9 would have flown a Sanger-like skip trajectory. Also, it woul not have carried a nuke, just a ton of high explosives.

I fully agree.


In principle the A9/A10 combination would be launched in ballistic-like trajectory quite similiar to the A4's one, only longer.
After the A10 separation the A9 (or A4-b it depends by the sources) would take a very long supersonic glide.


Some author (like Kenneth Gatland) reports of skips like the Sanger Silbervogel but it is unclear if it was only a guess or there was some reference material around it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Some author (like Kenneth Gatland) reports of skips like the Sanger Silbervogel but it is unclear if it was only a guess or there was some reference material around it.
[/quote

In the early postwar years there seemed to have been a lot of confusion and conflation regarding the Sanger and A-10. Combine wartime/postwar confusion with partial data, misheard rumors, intentional disinformation and just flat-out amazement and disbelief over the sci-fi nature of things, it's not surprising that the skip trajectory of one exoatmospheric weapons system was mapped onto the gliding trajectory of another exoatmospheric weapons system.

What's truly annoying is long-post-war fiction - such as a-bombs on the A-9/10 - getting accepted as fact. The Germans were nowhere near a practical nuke, and what little verifiable info is available suggests early Germannukes would have been many-ton monsters. and the Nazis were masters at compartmentalization; the Peenemunde team would not have been informed of any a-bomb program and they certainly didn't have one of their own. So they would have armed the A-9 with what they knew... chemical explosives. and then there's THIS. Argh!

 

[carmelo]

I do not believe that the A-9 would have flown a Sanger-like skip trajectory. Also, it woul not have carried a nuke, just a ton of high explosives.

I agree

And a"dirty" atomic bomb?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers_Bombe

 

[miraglia]

The simulation shows a trajectory similar to Silverbird.
Follow the A9 some aerodynamic data used in the simulation that follows also some graphics.
It was very interesting result.

Miraglia

www.edgeofspace.org

 

[miraglia]

More graphics

 

[miraglia]

In Popular Science out. 1947

Miraglia
www.edgeofspace.org

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi
some wartime stuff here...

 

[Justo Miranda]

I do not believe that the A-9 would have flown a Sanger-like skip trajectory. Also, it woul not have carried a nuke, just a ton of high explosives.

I agree

And a"dirty" atomic bomb?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers_Bombe

or 1000 Kg of Zyklon-B? :-\

 

[Orionblamblam]

And a"dirty" atomic bomb?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers_Bombe

There's no good evidence that the Nazis were working on any such thing.

 

[Jemiba]

There's no good evidence that the Nazis were working on any such thing.

Indeed, and AFAIK, the theories of Rainer Karlsch were, at least partially already refuted.
And I don't think, a thread about a project, that in itself is subject for a debate should be
further burdened with just another discussion about the "German A-bomb", or maybe even
H-bomb, if you look at Karlschs statements ! :