HS-117 successes?

Did the HS-117 ever have any accredited kills? I know it wasn't used
operationally, but after a number of test launches the Germans must've tried
it against a 'live' drone of some kind? I wonder how accurate a radio
controlled SAM could be if the operator is staring through a telescopic
sight at a target that's no more than a dot 20,000ft away in the clouds?

How effective do you think a fragmentation warhead on one of these would be
against a tightly-packed formation of B-17s? Pretty ghastly I'd imagine.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/dsh/...s/RM-Hs117.htm

Jim Doyle

I don't know about the effects of a frag warhead against a B-17, but I can say
for sure that command-guided SAMs are still in use even today. For example,
the SA-3 has a backup optical link to guide the missile to the target. The
gunner (what else do I call him?) keeps a telescope pointed at the target and
the correction signals are automatically transmitted to the missile. Maximum
range is claimed to be 20 km against bomber sized targets.

Vivek Thomas

"Vivtho87700" wrote in message
...
I don't know about the effects of a frag warhead against a B-17, but I can
say
for sure that command-guided SAMs are still in use even today. For
example,
the SA-3 has a backup optical link to guide the missile to the target.
The
gunner (what else do I call him?) keeps a telescope pointed at the target
and
the correction signals are automatically transmitted to the missile.
Maximum
range is claimed to be 20 km against bomber sized targets.

Vivek Thomas

I was just thinking since a formation of B-17s or B-24s would be very
tightly packed for mutual fighter protection, a formation would be very
susceptible to a shot-gun style frag warhead on such a missile.

If the HS-117 was deployed operationally to protect Germany from large scale
bombing raids, how'd you defend against such a missile with '45 technology?
I guess the allies - Americans on their day raids most likely - would've had
to revise their heavy bombing strategy quite seriously.

Interesting about the SA-3, how successful was this backup system?

Jim Doyle

"Jim Doyle" wrote in message ...
"Vivtho87700" wrote in message
...
I don't know about the effects of a frag warhead against a B-17, but I can
say
for sure that command-guided SAMs are still in use even today. For
example,
the SA-3 has a backup optical link to guide the missile to the target.
The
gunner (what else do I call him?) keeps a telescope pointed at the target
and
the correction signals are automatically transmitted to the missile.
Maximum
range is claimed to be 20 km against bomber sized targets.

Vivek Thomas

I was just thinking since a formation of B-17s or B-24s would be very
tightly packed for mutual fighter protection, a formation would be very
susceptible to a shot-gun style frag warhead on such a missile.

If the HS-117 was deployed operationally to protect Germany from large scale
bombing raids, how'd you defend against such a missile with '45 technology?
I guess the allies - Americans on their day raids most likely - would've had
to revise their heavy bombing strategy quite seriously.

Interesting about the SA-3, how successful was this backup system?

Jim Doyle

I suspect the lack of an efficient proximity fuse would likely have
been a serious limitation.

With the conventional fighter force of the Luftwaffe largely negated
by shortages of fuel and experienced pilots, to say nothing of the
overwhelming numerical superiority of the allied air forces, there was
relatively little real need to maintain tight formations, at least for
defence against fighter aircraft.

Robert Inkol

In article ,
(Vivtho87700) writes:
I don't know about the effects of a frag warhead against a B-17, but I can say
for sure that command-guided SAMs are still in use even today. For example,
the SA-3 has a backup optical link to guide the missile to the target. The
gunner (what else do I call him?) keeps a telescope pointed at the target and
the correction signals are automatically transmitted to the missile. Maximum
range is claimed to be 20 km against bomber sized targets.

Well, there's Command-Guided SAMs, and Command Guided SAMs. The
Wasserfall and Schmetterling were basically radio-controlled model
rockets (Well, big model rockets), with all tracking and guidance
taking place in the Missile Pilot's head, and with the Missile Pilot
steering the missile directly. The SA-3, and similar systems are
quite different. In those cases, the missile is guided by commands
sent by a computer fed by a tracking system. That tracking system may
be an autotracking radar, a manually tracked radar, or an
Electro-Optical system (TV camera, either normal, Low-Light, or IR).
The missile is tracked by a radar beacon in the missile itself, which
is usually powerful enough to burn through any jamming. The computer
takes the tracking info, compares the missile position to its intended
trajectory, and sends the necessary steering commands to the missile.
The only humans in the loop are those manning the tracking system.
Command systems, in general, can thus work on only Azimuth/Elevation
data for the target, rather than the ideal Azimuth/Elevation/Range
data. That is, as long as you have a reliable proximity fuze on your
missile. That's a lot harder than it looks. U.S. Nike Ajax and Nike
Hercules missiles, and the Soviet SA-2 (At least) and
Wasserfall/Schmetterling used a detonation signal from the ground to
trigger the warhead. (The Germans were never able to dope out a
workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!). This is
pretty much workable with radar tracking in range, and a
fast-responding automatic system to send the warhead command
(Milliseconds are priceless) Human reaction times for manual
triggering are much, much too slow.

Sort of an Apples and Pomegranates comparison.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(The Germans were never able to dope out a
workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!).

The Germans had every type of proximity fuse under development at the
end of the war including: radio, EM, IR, electo-optical, and your
favorite- acoustic! Ever heard of Kranich? The X-4 aam used it:

http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html

Rob

From: (robert arndt)
Date: 1/26/2004 1:23 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(The Germans were never able to dope out a
workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!).

The Germans had every type of proximity fuse under development at the
end of the war including: radio, EM, IR, electo-optical, and your
favorite- acoustic! Ever heard of Kranich? The X-4 aam used it:

http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html

Rob

So they had them "under development" and had more on the way. The U.S., U.K.
and the Soviets had all kinds of stuff "under development" at the end of the
war. Big deal. Your hero blew his brains out before anything came of these
developments.

The Third Reich was a failure in every sense of the word.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote in message ...
From: (robert arndt)
Date: 1/26/2004 1:23 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(The Germans were never able to dope out a
workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!).

The Germans had every type of proximity fuse under development at the
end of the war including: radio, EM, IR, electo-optical, and your
favorite- acoustic! Ever heard of Kranich? The X-4 aam used it:

http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html

Rob

So they had them "under development" and had more on the way. The U.S., U.K.
and the Soviets had all kinds of stuff "under development" at the end of the
war. Big deal. Your hero blew his brains out before anything came of these
developments.

The Third Reich was a failure in every sense of the word.

Except that it took 6 years to defeat them with a deluge of men &
material approaching 11-to-1 in 1945. Also, the war cost 60 million
lives, laid waste to most of Europe, cost Britain it's world power
status, Britain, France and Belgium their colonies, established the US
and USSR as superpowers, and furnished both with weapons that
radically changed the way we fought postwar... not to mention
advancing aviation greatly and starting a space race that produced
satellites and the eventual landing of a man on the moon.
Other than that, you're right Dan.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rob

p.s. If the Germans didn't have any working proximity fuses then
please explain their technology transfer via U-boat to Japan in 1945.
Kranich worked and thats just one fuse. Do you want a partial listing
of the others?

Bad/Baz55A/Fuchs/Isegrimm/Kakadu/Kugelblitz/Kuhglocke/Lotte/Marabu/Marder/Meise/Paplitz/Pinscher/Pistole/Roulette/Stimmgabel/Trichter/Weisel/Zunder-19

There's 19 more for you, making 20 overall.

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,

The above wrote:-


Well, there's Command-Guided SAMs, and Command Guided SAMs. The
Wasserfall and Schmetterling were basically radio-controlled model
rockets - - (The Germans were never able to dope out a
workable proximity fuze. Acoustic? Don't make me laugh!). This is
pretty much workable with radar tracking in range, and a
fast-responding automatic system to send the warhead command
(Milliseconds are priceless) Human reaction times for manual
triggering are much, much too slow.

Sort of an Apples and Pomegranates comparison.


From Andrew Sanders


I have beside me copy 11 of the C.I.O.S. Report dated 30-5-45:
"Investigation of Group 2 Targets in Nordhausen Area" by Team 163.

This may be of assistance to those reading this thread who are more
interested in the original question, rather than arguing about the
virtues (or otherwise) of Facism.

Regarding "Wasserfall", and under "sources", the report refers to
those (independently) interrogated, being: Dr Rees (no.2 to von Braun
on research, and later no.2 to von Braun in NASA); Dr. Groettrop,
Herr Riedel III, Herr Tomesvary, Herr Genegelbach, Herr Kagerer, all
senior members of EW (the Peenemunde establishment). The report states
"In no case was the evidence of the above contradictory, except in
small details".

"Wasserfall" details:

Total weight: 7700lbs
Weight of warhead: 520lbs
Weight of fuel: 4100lbs

Length 25` 7"
Diameter (body) 3` 0"
Dia. over fins: 8` 2 1/2"

Max range: 29000 yds
Max height 58000 feet

The propulsion system developed 17500lbs using self a self igniting
combination of liquid fuels. These had been tested for 6 months
storage (an important improvement on the A4/V2 which took approx two
hours to fuel before launch. Final velocity was stated (by above
witnesses) to be 2500 - 3000 ft/sec; (say 4000 mph but check).
Report states "- passage through the sonic barrier will therefore be
very slow, but it was stated emphatically no trouble had been
experienced".

Control system used four small bi-convex wings at COG and four
stabilisers at rear; four further stabilsers in gas stream (these
similar to the A4 system using graphite fins to aid initial slow
take-off).

"The missile is roll-stabilised, and ground control is used".

Reasons: a) the equipment is simpler, cheaper, more suited to
handling by ground troops. b) experience with the A4 showed beam
control in azimuth to be badly affected by stray reflections by A/C.

During early trials optical manual control was used with a small
joystick similar to that used in HS117. Operationally it was intended
to have one beam locked on the projectile, and another on the target
and to arrange by manual control for these beams to be made to
co-incide. Eventually this control would be automatic although two
beams would always be used. The wave length intended was 25 cms.
(Note, a serious weakness of German technical development was the
inabilty to develop short wave radio tubes, as well as short wave
radar).

The report goes on to discuss the servo systems used, culminating in
the development of all-electric servos rather than the hydraulic and
electro hydraulic systems origianlly used (these improvements were
also under development for the A4)

Launching was to be vertical, with an immediate control move in the
direction of the target, whilst velocity was still low; maximum
lateral acceleration was stated to be 4.4g. Minimum height to engage
a staionary target was, at 60 degrees Q.E, 3300 feet. With fast
moving targets min effective range, 3 miles. "For long range weapons,
the above launching method appears very satisfactory".

Warhead: originally planned 320 lbs; had been increased to 520 lbs.
It was intended to distribute HE throughout the projectile, to reduce
damage on the ground.

Fuzing: "it was intended to use a radio proximity fuze set to operate
at a distance of 80-160 feet from the target, the exact distance to be
determined later by trials. This fuze was stated to be not yet
reliable"

"Wasserfall"`s development had been held back by the priority given to
the A4 series, and this was later regarded as a mistake. The serious
effects of allied bombing/degradation of the LW, in defending the
Reich, were of far more significance than the rather muted results
from the V2 programme.

The latter was estimated to have cost the 3rd Reich the equivalent of
$3 billion, which was 50% higher than the Manhattan atom bomb project.
In short, Germany could not afford this wastage.

In his interrogation (notes also here) Albert Speer declared that the
A4 project originally had his support; when he appreciated the level
of resources it consumed, he changed his view; the earlier
development of "Wasserfall" which might have otherwise been possible,
could have changed the whole course of the Allied bombing offensive.

"Wasserfall" was the best bet the Germans had at the time, although
there were a number of other weapons under development.

These included:

HS 117 or 8-117 (formerly HS297) "Schmetterling"; a 570 lb, 13 foot
long AA missile, with a slant range of 24000 yards, max height 35000
feet. Sub-sonic, radio-controlled. Storable liquid fuel.

(Source: Prof Wagner, interrogation 7/5/45). Conceived 1941, but
turned down. Authority to proceed with development given August 1943,
apparox 140 rounds produced, but many without propulsion unit. Prof
Wagner thought only 15-20 rounds ever fired; no target ever used.
Propulsion unit originally developed by Dr. Sbirowski of BMW,
replaced by Dr Conrad on Wagner`s advice. Injection system an
ingenious method designed to give Mach 0.75 using "Tonka 250" fuel - a
mixture of 57% m-xylidine and 43% triethylamine; self-igniting.
Wagner preferred the nitric acid/hydrocarbon fuels since they
interfered less with radio control, and could be stored indefinitely,
unlike peroxide.

Radio control was manual, using 6m wavelength, although it was hoped
to reduce this to 40cm. Guidance similar to HS 293, but Prof Wagner
hoped to go to a 25cm beam complete with homing device.

Warhead. etc. Not finalised, but 55lb planned.

Fuzing, not decided, but options, radar, electrostatic,
acoustic,photo-electic, were under consideration. Of these, approx 30
types of radar fuzes contemplated, of which the most promising we

"Kakady" - (Donag, Vienna)
"Marabu" - (Siemens)
"Vox" - (A.E.G)
"Kugelbliz" - (P.V.G.)

Electro-static fuzes required dry weather; acoustic fuzes were under
development by Dr Kramer, but still experimantal; Photo-electrical
fuzes (developed by the Reichspost), appeared satisfactory, and due
to the fact that their operation depended on a change in both
intensity, AND frequency of light, they were not affected by direct
sunlight.

Clearly HS 117/297 was far from being an operational weapon in 1945.

Other members of the HS family we

HS 294; a development of HS 293, but larger, and designed to have an
underwater trajectory. The wings broke off on striking the sea.
Optimum diving angle 22 degrees, fuzed to detonate on impact, or after
underwater run of 45 metres.

HS 295; as HS 294, but no underwater run. Only a few exp versions
made.

HS 296; as 295, but with armour piercing head - exp only.

HS 297; another name for HS; 117/8-117.

Hs 298; Air to air weapon, same size/shape as HS 117, but smaller.
Designed by Prof Wagner, and manufactured at Warnsdorf. Weight 220
kg, warhead 50 kg. Control system as HS 117, but wire control option;
latter tested successfully to 18 kilometers. Expected to increase to
30 kilometers.

OTHERS

"Enzian"; liquid fuel, sub-sonic, short/fat 3300lb with 1200lb
(claimed) warhead. No useful further details.

"Rheintochter"; liquid fuel, sub-sonic, abandoned 1944 in favour of
"Schmetterling".

"Feuerlilie"; solid fuel; range of sizes; no evidence ever used.

"X7" A ground launched anti tank misslie. Wire guided, hollow charge
head.

"Taifun" 43lb ground/air missile, not guided, 1.4lb warhead,
developed by Dr Scheuffelen. 2,000,000 ordered through Figge, but
only a few hundred delivered. Successfully tested.

Data:

Length: 6 feet
Weight 42.6 lbs
Dia 4"
Max height 46000- 52000 feet
Velocity 3500 feet/sec
Warhead 1.37lbs.
Fuzing Contact
Fuel Liquid
Launching 60 barrel mortar.

This one might have been just what the 3rd. Reich needed; perhaps
even more so, if used air to air. Refer Heinz Knoke memoir.

Hope the above is of some interest, and let`s please lay off the good
guys/bad guys stuff, which makes trying to understand History so
childish.


Sincerely.


Andrew Sanders