Newsgroups: sci.space.history
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: First into space? V2 or A4
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:16:57 GMT

In article <91si0u$o6a$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <harald.kucharek@gmx.net> wrote:
>I never heard about a V3...

The term was sometimes applied to the Hochdruckpumpe project, which was
trying to build an ultra-long-range artillery system using very long
barrels with multiple chambers.  It had persistent technical problems
(partly because competent artillery people got involved in it only rather
late), and the Allies bombed the site being prepared for it at Mimoyecques
(in the belief that it was a V-1 launch site).  The concept was viable,
though -- a 20mm prototype worked quite well.  Ian Hogg writes:

  "There can be little doubt that, had Coenders had the assistance of
  the Army Weapons Development staff at the beginning of his project
  (and assuming they could have been persuaded to take it seriously,
  for this invention had been popping up at intervals since 1880), the
  full-sized weapon at Mimoyecques could have been in action early in
  1944 and would have made things very unpleasant for the population of
  London..."
--
When failure is not an option, success  |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
can get expensive.   -- Peter Stibrany  |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.space.history
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: First into space? V2 or A4
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:54:23 GMT

In article <c1.2b8.2YgTDc$02E@blackadder.ucalgary.ca>,
Rob Wheatley <rwheatle@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>>The term was sometimes applied to the Hochdruckpumpe project...
>
>In Most Secret War by R.E. Jones, Jones says "development of the scheme
>was pursued enthusiastically in Germany but, fortunately, it hit a basic
>snag:  above 3300 feet per second the projectile became unstable and
>'toppled', and thus fell badly short.  This fact was only discovered after
>twenty thousand shell had been partly manufactured."

See my comment about incompetent developers.  Hogg says this problem *was*
solved when competent ballistics people were brought in... but by then it
was too late for any serious application.

>The flaw with this scheme seems to be that it required a large concrete
>structure - an object that was an open invitation for allied bombs.

Hogg says that they built a couple of smaller rail-mobile versions later,
but those couldn't reach London from the firing sites available by that
time, so there wasn't much point.
--
When failure is not an option, success  |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
can get expensive.   -- Peter Stibrany  |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)