WOW! Do I understand, it reached mach 2 in 2.4 seconds? Must have been incredible to see a whole rack launched.

The intent of this comment is to express appreciation for digging up these forgotten rockets. No really, thank you for digging deep through these old archives and discovering stuff like this. I've never even heard of this design before

This analysis of unusual weapons keeps me coming back to this channel 👍

Imagine a Taifun with a proximity fuse. Yikes! I noticed the Natter mentioned as a cancelled program. Kermit Weeks has a modern Natter copy in his museum in Florida. It was built from original drawings and was manufactured by a French furniture maker that built Natters during the war.

@durbeshpatel3047

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for this tip i literally live 30 mins from there and have never been, now im going.

@JK-rv9tp

3 ай бұрын

The Sunderland with the pax interior and 747 style lounge was a treat. I took a German chum who worked for Lufthansa there while in FLA at a conference in Orlando. He was amazed to see German a/c with swastikas on them, the symbol being banned in Europe. I said, "It looks how it looked. Means nothing beyond that."@@durbeshpatel3047

@zhoufang996

2 ай бұрын

The warhead is too small. The 5/38 AAC shells had a 3kg explosive fill, these are about a sixth of that.

@frostedbutts4340

2 ай бұрын

>He was amazed to see German a/c with swastikas on them, the symbol being banned in Europe. ...Europe is not one country. In fact it's not even illegal in Germany, there are WW2 aircraft on display with the spicy cross. @@JK-rv9tp

@larrybedouin2921

15 күн бұрын

​@@zhoufang996 FYI, the 40 mm bofors used a proximity Fuze.

A proximity fuse on this would have been excellent for this AA Rocket.

@Tuberuser187

4 ай бұрын

Was thinking that myself, if they had the Proximity Fuzes the Allies used and with some fragmentation effects they might have been terrifying for the Bomber fleets.

@Br1cht

4 ай бұрын

Yeah, kinda common lnowledge by now and they were working on it.

@brendanpells912

4 ай бұрын

If they had developed a proximity fuse they could have fitted it to artillery shells, then you wouldn't need the rockets.

@janvesely6353

4 ай бұрын

Yeah, just the warhead is on a smaller side already even without fragmentation casing and complex electronic fuze, so perhaps this would need to be boosted up a bit to keep significant effect on large bombers. But conceptually it's no brainer.

@TheRealNeill

4 ай бұрын

Well, the Germans never got one into service. Also, unlike an artillery shell, it didn't have a fragmentation effect, so with such a small explosive charge it would have to be extremely close to do any damage. I suppose had the Germans had a working proximity fuse, they may have designed a bigger rocket with a larger warhead to take advantage of it.

The tank in a tank design is clever so long as the fuel can be similar temperatures. It helps structural stiffness and simplifies plumbing.

Again, you have demonstrated that you have the most informative channel on the site. I am constantly impressed by the use of obscure primary documents and your presentation in explaining German "wonder weapons" and tactics of American air power. Thank you for your superlative work!

I'm happy the Allies kept those special fuses a secret so long! Thanks for your channel!

@juslitor

4 ай бұрын

Considering the state of german raw materials after 1943, it is doubtful the germans would have been capable of reverse engineering and mass producing the fuzes even if some had fallen into german hands in -44

Just love this channel. Hopefully someday it can be put into a book format, like the secret horsepower race by Calum Douglas, a great book.

Great video thanks! The reason for the exceptional accuracy is the 14 second flight time & the 6 revs per second spin rate. The issue is targeting - if they had developed proximity fuses & built more of these the impact on US bombers would have been huge.

Another excellent presentation! The design of the rocket shows a stark contrast with some of the overly complex devices of the German war. It would be nice to see this line of design extraoolated in an alternative history. Thanks again!

Wow looks so much like the sidewinder missile!

" .. accuracy = excellent .. " Amazing, i never would have thought an unguided missile could be so accurate.

@MrZazzles94

4 ай бұрын

Unguided rockets can be superbly accurate with enough design effort. It is often the case though that rockets are cheap and mass produced and that results in an area weapon.

@annoyingbstard9407

4 ай бұрын

If I was a German engineer given the chance of a life in the US I’d probably make similar claims.

@ambisinisterengineering5242

4 ай бұрын

loki at +/- 4 mills is approximately one minute of angle for 66% or 2/3 shots pretty reasonable if they achieved that roughly 2/3 rockets hitting a 32 inch target at 3000 yards

@johnwatson3948

4 ай бұрын

haha - yes of course it wasn't - this claim is not explained

@trekkie1701e

4 ай бұрын

@@ambisinisterengineering5242 that's a great way to put it into perspective, that's insanely accurate. Trying to imagine hitting my computer monitor from 2.7km away.

This channel is invaluable

Learn something new pretty much every video.

What is not being stated is that, by this point, Germany was fundamentally on her back foot. When you have to fight defensively for that long against a foe with essentially unlimited resources, it doesn’t matter much what you’re developing.

Thank you. Never knew this was being worked on and preparing for service. But as you said, it was too late. Wasting resources on "Vengeance" weapons instead of something that could actually greatly aid in the air defense of Germany.

@juslitor

4 ай бұрын

The austrian painter had very peculiar priorities.

It also would have been easier to fit with a proximity fuse than a shell (due to lower acceleration), although that might have required a larger warhead.

Another awesome production. Great job ( as usual )!!

Another very well done video. Thank you.

I wonder how much WWII might have changed if these rockets had been put into service a year earlier.

I love your channel! Subscribed the minute i saw it. I never knew about these rockets... Thank you. I think I've seen all your vids by now... excellent work

Very interesting description, again. Thanks. This serie opens the important side of planning and developing equipments during the WW2. History books tell only about politics and active war cases. Still all the military equipment for soldiers must have been: planned, designed, tested, prodeced, brought to war fronts with preplanned strategics and tactics. Without this essential design the solder is on the front "with a stone from the ground without knowledge to know which direction to throw his stone".

Great video as always. I was wondering if you could someday do a video on the likelihood of .50 caliber rounds setting fires to enemy aircraft. I know that there are countless variables to consider so it may be an impossible question to answer but it would be interesting to

great stuff, thank you

These vidos are always such a treat!

An excellent video.

The Natter is on the list of rocket programs. That was a vertical launch with a pilot for guidance and firing the salvo of rockets in the nose. Parachute recovery was supposed to work.

@i-a-g-r-e-e-----f-----jo--b

4 ай бұрын

The test pilot broke his neck.

Good stuff.

fantastic

9 miles = 47,520 feet = 14,484 meters!

The British used rockets on ships and airfields... I think they were only quite short range and not very successful or common

Basic wage for a german soldier was 35rm a month to give an idea of the 250rm cost of the rocket.

Over mach 2 is pretty impressive. Taifun would have made an impact for sure if fielded.

I wonder if maybe some were used in operational trials. According to the 100th BG website, on Feb 3 1945, it was observed that AC # 44 8379 (Maj Rosenthal onboard as Command Pilot) was struck by a ground to air rocket just before bomb run on Berlin - if not a Taifun what else could it have been?

@WWIIUSBombers

2 ай бұрын

I'll be addressing this issue in my next video. I've noticed the contradiction. Germany never deployed anti-bomber operational ground to air rockets in WWII. I believe the witness was mistaken. MoTA should have researched German SAM programs and not shown them in the clip.

@mrgnr-smith387

2 ай бұрын

@@WWIIUSBombers Your follow up video is excellent, of course, but surprisingly you've identified a second aircraft, 42-102958, that may have been hit by a ground to air rocket as well on 3 Feb 45. The missing air crew report for this aircraft mentions more than one observer see something like an air to ground rocket hit the right wing of the plane, causing a fire. They dove steeply to try and put it out, before doing a split S and losing control. This wasn't the plane Maj Rosenthal was on though and only 2 crew survived from this aircraft. The MACR for Maj Rosenthal's plane, 44-8379, isn't that clear as to where it got hit by something, at least one observer said it looked like a ground to air rocket. Unlike the other aircraft, this one just banked off to the right out of formation after being hit, but then there were signs of fire onboard, engine 3 caught fire, but most were able to bail out before the plane lost control I think MoTA certainly got it wrong on how it would've looked if Taifun rockets were used that day, in any case. At least the series has renewed interest in the bravery of the crews and their accomplishments in such adversity, and channels like yours are greatly appreciated for calling out what they got wrong, while pointing us in the right direction to find more accurate sources.

what about the rocket launcher that was captured at remagen

Bravo!

I don't know. FLAK had an altitude detonation and shrapnel to enlarge it's 'kill' radius, while this is just a PD round. So it falls into the old "Big sky - little bullet" theory to aircraft survival. Perhaps, with a time delay fuse, shrapnel, and perhaps a 'VT" fuse, along with the PD fuse, it's advantage is leading targets (speed) would have made it formadable. But based on the presentation here, I think it was a poor substitute for the 88.

@keithammleter3824

4 ай бұрын

The idea seems to be this: by mounting 30 rockets on a launcher, the rate of fire is vastly improved compared to a flak gun. so instead of launching a low number of shells that each have a high kill rate (due to air burst shrapnel), a high number of rockets would be launched so that one out of a large number hits th enemy plane. Also, the Taifun was effective at high altitudes where flak became ineffective. Never-the-less, it seems to be another example of Germany getting desperate.

@JanoTuotanto

4 ай бұрын

Shrapnel did not do decisive damage to a large unpressurized aircraft. A heavy contact detonating charge was needed to cause catastrophic failure.

@keithammleter3824

4 ай бұрын

@@JanoTuotanto : You are misinformed. Air bursting charges is how both British and German flak was very effective. When the shrapnel hit engines or fuel systems, it thus stopped engines. You can't fly without engines. It also frequently caused fires, and fires caused catastrophic airframe and wing failure. Aluminium burns really well. Shrapnel flying through aircraft often injured crew, incapacitating them. An aircraft won't fly without a healthy pilot - especially British bombers as they flew with no co-pilot - the RAAF decided before the War they could not afford to train enough pilots, so their aircraft had no copilot position. USAAF heavy bombers were much less affected by flak due to being able to fly and bomb accurately at much higher altitude, and they had copilots who could take over if the pilot was hit be shrapnel, or assist him with the heavy workload that could arise due to aircraft damage.

Man, those dudes *really* didn't want their major cities bombed! Weird.

@Eric-kn4yn

4 ай бұрын

Would you

@chamonix4658

4 ай бұрын

yeah turns out the british didnt really like it too

Seems like all of the Germans were missing was proximity fuses for this concept.

@thefrenchbaguette919

4 ай бұрын

If they had proximity fuze the bombing campaign might have failed

@jmd1743

4 ай бұрын

@@thefrenchbaguette919 Did they invent the proximity fuse?

@thefrenchbaguette919

4 ай бұрын

@@jmd1743 no sorry gonna correct that mistake

@jmd1743

4 ай бұрын

@@thefrenchbaguette919 I think of the most coolest AA systems of WW2 was the 120 mm Gun M1 when linked up with many guns and a computer radar directed gun. The Type 5 15 cm AA gun had a lot potential as well.

@thefrenchbaguette919

4 ай бұрын

@@jmd1743 maybe

LDV Corporal Jones field tested his own anti-aircraft rocket system but with less than optimal results.

Japan had anti aircraft rockets as well. Do you have any information on the Japanese rockets?

Bienenkorb is misspelled in the intelligence report. thats kinda funny

Wow! Good thing the war ended before these were fielded! It seems Hitler's intent to make vengeance weapons might have influenced Germany to focus on the V weapons vs these that could then help protect German cities.

👍✌

Now a thought, how close could the Germans have been to launching a satellite? V-2 with smaller rocket 2nd stage say, even make the 2nd stage rocket part of the satellite like the US Explorer. They really were on the rocket/missile game at this time.

@briancavanagh7048

4 ай бұрын

Checked google got this answer: The V2 rocket, with 1000kg warhead, could reach only speed of about 5760 km/h (3580 mph). In order to get to the orbit, velocity of about 28000 km/h, or 17450 mph is required. So, about 5 times higher velocity would have required. This 5 times greater velocity means 25 times greater kinetic energy would be required.

@briancavanagh7048

4 ай бұрын

Another google answer: The US Jupiter missile was basically an improved German A-4 (a.k.a. V-2), designed by exactly the same scientists and engineers wo designed the A-4. The Jupiter engine had several incremental improvements that let it use hydine* as fuel instead of ethyl alcohol and water*, as the A-4 used. The better fuel delivered more power, which allowed them to “stretch" the design with bigger fuel tanks. In 1954 Project Orbiter was proposed. The idea was to use a Jupiter missile as a first stage, with fifteen cut-down solid-fueled Sergeant rockets as three upper stages. The second stage would be a ring of eleven Sergeants, with an inner ring of three as a third stage. The satellite would be attaced to the single Sergeant fourth stage. There was no guidance for the solid rockets, so the whole contraption (the satellite and the fifteen Sergeants) was mounted on a turntable and spun at high speed for spin stabilization. Some work was done, but the project was cancelled in 1955. However, the rocket, called Jupiter-C (for “composite") was developed to test warhead reentry designs. After the Soviets launched the first satellite and a US Vanguard satellite launch attempt spectacularly failed very publicly, Project Orbiter was revived. In the meantime the Jet Propulsion Lab of CalTech had prepared a satellite for Project Orbiter on their own, just in case. So on January 31, 1958, a Jupiter-C, which was basically an improved A-4 with a bunch of solid rockets on top, launched Explorer-1, the US' first satellite. *Hydine is 60% (by weight) unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine and 40% diethylenetriamene. **Yes, water. Straight alcohol made the engine burn to hot. That is what drove all thise incremental engine improvements.

@5co756

4 ай бұрын

Well Werner von Braun helped the US with their rocket and space programm , just a matter of time and the Germans would be on the moon .

If it had had a proximity fused warhead, it would have been much deadlier. Why they couldn't reverse engineer that fuse is a mystery? They never found a dud or captured any munitions one can assume, or their ability to manufacture it was lost by that time.

@charlesjames1442

4 ай бұрын

As i understand it, the VT fuses were initially confined to naval antiaircraft so that the design would likely not fall into enemy hands and have just that occur. I think all VT fuses had a self-destruct fuse built in, and when that proved to be reliable, the fuses were given to ETO AA batteries in Britain shooting at V-1 flying bombs. By the Ardennes Offensive, 105 and 155 mm artillery guns were using them to hammer German infantry with very effective and grim results. As with most weapons, the Germans were independently working on their own version but never got the kinks worked out.

@Eric-kn4yn

4 ай бұрын

​​​@@charlesjames1442 give germans secret weapon they have to find resources to manufacture a pathfinder went down in germany 1943 centrimeteric radar discovered germans developed and produced in 1945 too late

@basilb4733

4 ай бұрын

There were many different proximity fuze systems in development, but because of several reasons not yet in production. Btw, Germany was the first country to have a prototype of such a fuze in 1939 - see the Oslo Report.

Fuming nitric acid. I guess they had nitric acid shortages too.

it seems to be another example of Germany getting desperate. It would only be effective if fired in vast numbers. And it is a defensive weapon only. To win an all-out war, you have to take the fight to the enemy's territory.

@juslitor

4 ай бұрын

By the late stage of the war, when this rocket was designed and tested, germany was very much gearing into defensive warfare. Had it been deployed, it would have been fired from tens, if not hundreds, of launchers positioned around high value targets. Germany did take the fight to the enemy´s territories, basically occupying the whole of europe, parts of scandinavia and africa.

@keithammleter3824

4 ай бұрын

@@juslitor ; In World War 2, the European countries were not enemies of Germany - they were merely countries conquered and subdued by Germany. None of them had declared war on Germany before being subdued. Neither was North Africa an enemy. The enemies of Germany were essentially three: Britain, who had declared war on Germany, and which Hitler was compelled to address, the USSR, who was attacked by Germany but fought back and was not subdued or conquered, and the United States, who came in on the side of Britain as a result of Japan attacking Pearl Harbour while being a signatory of the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy. Various British Commonwealth countries eg Australia also declared war on Germany and assisted Britain, but their lands were well out of range of any German attack. Germany did attack a small part of the USSR with land and air forces, but attacked Britain only weakly due to not planning for it and thus not having an adequate heavy bomber fleet, and never attacked the USA mainland as it did not have the capability. To actually win WW2, Germany would have had to take the fight to the actual enemies in the west, that is, Britain and the United States, dropping sufficient bombs on them both and destroying their industries. That was never going to happen.

@2true359

4 ай бұрын

Desperation that led to better weapons......

@keithammleter3824

4 ай бұрын

@@juslitor You need to take the fight to your enemy's territory, not the third party countries you have already captured and subdued. For Germany that meant taking the fight to England, which they did only weakly, and to the USSR which they could not subdue, and to the USA, which they could not reach.

@juslitor

4 ай бұрын

seems you missed reading about the battle of britain. Had germany kept up the pressure one more month, Britain would have ran out of planes and pilots@@keithammleter3824

Thank you for this great video, I would build a 1/35 scale model of this launcher. I will start gathering information to do so. Please, more great videos.

25$. That's a good price.

Another successful weapon mismanaged strategically. Responsibility can only rely on Hitler ultimately for mismanagement. Exactly what the allies wanted a leader who could not manage his best resources

When you reference documents in your videos, please make the small additional effort to provide links to them in the video description. That's one of the factors that differentiate a good channel from an excellent one and NOT providing them is one of my pet peeves.