TCM ran the movie "Operation Crossbow" today and it had some interesting rocket misinformation. The movie showed some pretty hokey shots of V2 launches but most intriguing was the mention of the "New York" rocket with a cluster of 4 engines. It was supposedly being developed to hit New York (or maybe London from Berlin) Is there any fact to it?
Ron H.
The Germans were working on a two stage rocket (V2 as second stage.) that could reach New York. Obviously never completed.
Also, there were plans to launch V2's at NY, from surfaced U boats, off the east coast of the U.S..
Yes. The A-9/A-10 combination. The A-9 was a V-2 (EMW designation A-4) with wings; two of these were launched, unsuccessfully, after having been redisgnated as A-4b's. The A-10 was a much larger first stage for under the A-9; it had a single large rocket engine, though there were early thoughts to clustering V-2 engines.
The projects was serious, but obviously the A-10 was never built.
If you do a search on it, the drawings and representations you willprobably find are for a very early version of the A-9/A-10, with used strake-like wings on the A-9. Wind tunnel testing showed that this design would not fly. That's why the later A-4b's had more conventional wings.
Postwar, von Braun said that they had under consideration the A-11, which would go under the A-10, and put a V-2 into orbit; and the A-12, which would go under the A-11, and put a winged A-10 into orbit. There is serious doubt as to whether there really was any wartuime consideration of such rockets, apart from perhaps bull sessions. But it sure made von Braun look impressive to the US Army. The only known artists impression of the A-11 was made in 46 or 47 at White Sands.
In any event, the A-12 eventually morphed into the Collier's Ferrty Rocket.
The "operation Crossbow" rocket *design* is not based on anything other than the moviemaker's imagination, IIRC.
Considering the technology of the day, I'd think that would have been more feasible.
Randy
The rockets were to be transported in a waterproof cylinder, towed behind the sub. At launch time, using floats, the cylinder would be pointed vertically, at which time the cylinder was opened and the rocket would be fueled and prepped, the same as ground based v2s.
Hmmm...., that sounds like a rather lengthy surface operation with lots of radar-equipped aircraft and ships on patrol.
That was the "idea" anyway.
Sounds like a good way to lose submarines to me.
But kamikaze attacks could inflict great damage at little cost to the Japanese. Trying to launch a towed missile from the Atlantic was likely to cost the Germans a perfectly good submarine before the weapon could be launched.
The Germans failed to produce a fission device, but they did produce a good quantity of uranium oxide for use in a "dirty bomb". As the war in Europe ended a German transport submarine was carrying a supply of the material to the Japanese who intended to use it against San Francisco.
They probably would have used the infamous balloon bombs, for that job.
If they only had more time.....
Actually it was to be delivered by submarine-borne seaplane. Target date for the attack was August 17th, I believe.
Just a little more time....
Still, had the war dragged on and had such an attack been attempted, Germany would have been the first recipient of a nuclear greeting. Launching a liquid fueled rocket from a sea based platform would be daunting today, back then it would have been nye on to impossible. The plain fact is that the Bohemian Corporal lack any real military genius and we can all thank God for it. Balloon bombs would not have been successful either. A quick glance at any prevailing winds chart will show you why, the winds simply do not flow east to west in that area. The Nips could do it because the wind flow was in their favor and even with that, their balloon bombs never amounted to much. Hitting a city with one would be a matter of luck, nothing more. That's my $.02 worth any way. '
But they weren't able to do something technologically superior to us. The US could have launched a satellite well before Sputnik. It wasn't done for political reasons. Satellites by necessity operate over the sovereign territory of other nations, how would those nations (primarily the USSR) react to this violation of their "airspace"? None of these issues had been worked out at that time. With the launching of Sputnik it became moot. The Russians couldn't very well object to US satellite overflights of their territory then.
So is SeaLaunch using llquids or solids?
Liquid.
Well, was there actually a "US" during the war for independence?
Attack on the US mainland during the Spanish-American War? I don't think so. I believe you're referring to the burning of the White House and other buildings in Washington by the British during the War of 1812.
War of 1812
The Germans did have a plan for this. A friend of mine has an original copy of the plan. I should say it is the english translation of it. After the war the report was translated to english and studied by our people. I forget the name of the report but it is fairly well known. This plan was to send a rocket to the upper atmosphere and come down on New York. It is pretty weird to see a bull eye on New York. The report has all the math laid out on how they could do it. This launch was to come from Europe and not a sub. I'm sure they could do it.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.