Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
No. The CIOS report that dealt with guided missile research is No. XXXII-84. GERMAN HIGH SPEED AERODYNAMIC and GUIDED MISSILE RESEARCH.
A9 Amerika rocket
- Thread starter jetboy
- Start date
I gave you the location of the document I mentioned in my post.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Give me the document, or at least direct link on it. Otherwise it's of zero value. I could say that MNV TREMP 18/1543 BIOS XXIX-216 is named "RESEARCH INTO CAT PURRING IN RELATION TO QUALITY OF MILK", you know.
The V-1 missile was to be used in Pulkzerstörer (formation destroyer) against enemy bomber streams steered by a new DFS radio-command from a Fw 190 pilot.
In 1943 it was proposed to build a television-guided version to compete with the Henschel Hs 293D missile, but in 1945 the Allies electronic technology was so advanced that they could interfere any German radio-control system.
Only those who could be fitted with primitive wire-guidance devices, like the flying bomb Henschel Hs 293 A, the air-to-air missile Rhursthal Kramer X4 or the X7 antitank rocket of the same firm survived. But the results achieved in combat using these systems were not too good; sometimes the cable broke or lacked the necessary length to avoid the effects of the naval AA, with the dangerous disadvantage that the launcher plane was forced to fly on a straight line while guiding the missile.
After the failure of the Messerschmitt Me 328 schnellbomber, the Germans realized they lacked the means to stop the Allied invasion that they expected would take place in the sector of Calais by mid-1944. In May of that year the first Mistel composite-bombers entered service, but they could only be used against static targets because during their final dive they were controlled by an automatic pilot only.
The Axis only possibility was using suicide pilots.
By mid-1943, Hanna Reitsch, who had participated in the testing program of the Messerschmitt Me 328, piloting one of the prototypes and was greatly affected by the bombing of German cities, met with Otto Skorzeny and Erich Lange to support his idea of using a piloted version of the V-1 as a last-ditch weapon.
In August 1942, a group of former glider pilots of the Sturm Abteilung Koch meeting in a Berlin Flying Club had conclude that the Ballistikfrei piloted glider-bombs were the only weapons that could guarantee the German victory. Known unofficially as Reichenberg Commitee, this group of radical ideas that was represented before the Führer by Hanna Reitsch was gaining influence with each defeat of the Wehrmacht in Russia and Africa, with each U-Boat sunk in the Atlantic and with the devastation of Hamburg by Allied bombers.
In November 1943 the S.O. concept was discussed by technicians, scientists and Luftwaffe officers during a secret conference at the Akademie der Luftahrtforschung, under the leadership of Adolf Baeumker.
Nope. Put up or shut up. And you'll need more than some brief reference to "the A-12 was built." You'll need something that and actual reasonable person would consider not just evidence but *good* evidence. Remember, post war intelligence reports said that the Nazis had plans for a "sun gun" when they didn't, or had some idea on how to build practical A-bombs when they didn't.
The Germans were *really* good at blowing sunshine not only up their leaderships asses, but also up the Allies asses. Because that's how you get and keep a job.
The A11 and A12 rockets were never built nor developed, remaining only on paper. The concepts are real however, albeit I do not know at what point in time they originated. I found close to no information on the A13 and A14, and am inclined to believe that they are purely fictional.
The A11 and A12 would have been additional stages for the A9/A10 in order to reach orbit. Not much calculations (if any) have been done to my knowledge, so whether or not the concept was realistic is unknown.
All evidence points to them originated in the mind of von Braun *after* the war. Perhaps within minutes of him deciding to surrender to the Americans; they were a way for him to pad his resume and get a job. All known illustrations of them are post-war.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Exactly. Von Braun doubted that his A4 knowledge would be enough - there were hundreds of other German rocket engineers who could explain everything about A4, after all - so he needed some kind of unique knowledge, that would attract American interests. The A4b didn't work, the A8 ("super V-2" on storable fuel) wasn't impressive enough, so he invented the A11/A12 concept.
Thing is, just resting on his laurel probably would have been enough.
Double thing is, the US might well have done better had we decided to pass on WvB, or at least pass on making him the Rocket King in the US. Had we instead relied on our own native rocket programs such as the Aerojet, Martin and NAA HATV effort, we *might* have gained an early lead in more advanced rocket tech like LOX/LH2.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Yes, but he wasn't sure of that. The stakes for him were much higher than for the most of German rocket engineers; Von Braun was a wanted war criminal, and it was not exactly unbelievable (at least from his point of view) that Americans could surrender him to British if they decide that his knowledge is not impressive enough to validate the damage from such association.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Agreed. The proto-Atlas ideas were actually much ahead of anything Von Braun have in immediate post-war years.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
The common German joke of 1930-1940s was that NSDAP means "Na, suchst du auch Pöstchen?" - "Ah, you also want to hold a (government) office?"
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,790
- Reaction score
- 9,210
I plugged DSIR 23/15145 into The National Archives (TNA) website.
It doesn't give the BIOS reference but the title is the same. It's not digitised so you'd have to go to Kew to read it.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Okay, this is an argument that at very least the document exist.
A pointless reply. I'm not talking about post-war intelligence reports released shortly after the end of hostilities. The spread of assumptions over decades has led to them becoming facts in the minds of the public.
Stupid "that's how you keep your job" stupidity is stupid. You either did work actual scientists could evaluate or you were let go for other duties. Or deported.
Near the end of the war, SS General Hans Kammler was named plenipotentiary over all German secret weapon projects. He was the third most powerful man in Germany after Hitler and Speer. No one could refuse his orders. When the war ended, rumors circulated that he had died by suicide in Bohemia. That was not true. He ended up in American custody. He was shielded from prosecution by U.S. military intelligence. What did he have that was so valuable?
The common post-war mythology that Germany ended its atomic bomb program sometime in 1943 is fiction. Researchers in Germany have located all relevant documents. The Deutsches Museum has those relevant documents. But everything is in German. Oh, but I can't read German. The book Physics and National Socialism provides a good overview. Translated from German, it provides other names. The names of other scientists involved in the German atomic bomb program, along with expenditures. Not Heisenberg. Other names. Kurt Diebner and Manfred von Ardenne. The Russians seized the latter's laboratory equipment, including his plasma-ionic separation device. He was taken to Russia to continue his work there.
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 2,714
There are references to the same document in these two papers:
What they actually cite it for is, lamentably, behind a paywall.
Yes, your reply is pointless. You claim that extraordinary rockets were not only designed, but built. Yet you *insist* on providing zero evidence for that claim.
Yammer all you want, you could *easily* buttress your claims by simply providing actual evidence. If there were any. But there isn't.
You can yammer on as well. I provided the formerly classified CIOS Report and the article published in the Army Air Force Review which, while not providing specific details, puts to rest the decades-long fiction that the Germans were at no point, about to win the war.
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 2,714
You provided a title and archival reference number, not what the document actually says, with the full context to allow proper interpretation.
I thought you weren't talking about 'post-war intelligence reports released shortly after the end of hostilities'?
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
You provided nothing. Merely the reference to the document, which you have no access to.
That is not a - as you call it - post-war intelligence report. It is an admission by the United States that Germany almost won the war due to rockets which they had at the time.
I have access to all documents. I have seen the original CIOS Report.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Then... well, I actually not sure how to say it to you... WHERE IS IT? WHERE THE REPORT? Frankly, I'm rather tired of your clumsy games and baseless declaration. Either you would produce the report, or I would stop consider anything you say to be of any value, except potential entertainment.
Prove it.
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 2,714
That was your line when dismissing the (equally unsupported) claims of a 'sun gun'.
But the line you quote from the Army Air Force Review isn't an intelligence report, you're right. It's not an admission of anything. It's a line written by a journalist - one in uniform, perhaps, but all the same not nearly subject to the same standards of veracity as an intelligence report.
Let me add to that with a quote from August 2020:
@edwest4, do you have a copy of the report you are citing, which you have been citing for over four years, and of which you strongly implied you had a copy?
If so, please share the full section which you are citing, or preferably the entire report, so that the context of the claim can be understood.
