WWII German Wire Guided Air-to-Air Missile, the X-4
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- In summer 1943 the Germans started development of a wire guided liquid fueled standoff air-to-air missile. The missile’s purpose was to destroy allied bomber formations. By 1945 they were testing the X-4 missile. The missile was to be launched from a mothership, like the Me-262 jet. Although testing showed promise the program was canceled prior to any operational deployments. The missiles may drawback was the dangerous liquid fuel system. It also required the host pilot to fly his aircraft while scanning for escorts, and targeting the bombers with the rocket powered missile by way of a joystick mounted in the cockpit. Flight signals were sent to the missile’s control surfaces by insulated wires spooling out from the missile. A wire guided missile is not susceptible to jamming.
![โฮ่ง! (SUGOI) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nFp4zjAARFs/mqdefault.jpg)
I know it’s nowhere near an actual simulation of the act, but attempting to fly your aircraft and control the X-4 in IL2 1946 was fantastically difficult.
fun fact: none of the planes in il-2 1946 that can equip the RX-4 where or would have been greenlit to use it. the single test done with fw190 planes resultet in a order that only two seaters could carry the rocket meaning that the heinkel lerche would have been out of consideration at all. basicaly if it had a night fighter version with radar it could also carry the rocket. this also means that the me262 would have been one of the planes in this list.
MCLOS was only an interim guidance system to get these missiles operational and in production. Self homing was expected in good time.
This is correct; see also Dr. Runge's Report in this video from 7:38 onwards, last paragraph.
@@williamzk9083 the system was already done successfully with torpedos so adapting was likely to happen here.
@@Irobert1115HD They had an acoustic homing system that worked on a Me 262 quite well. Exhaust Popper Valve Noise of a 3000 RPM Merlin is 300 Hertz and Propeller Noise from a 1500 RPM 3 blade prop about 75 Hertz plus you would have a beat frequency of 187.5 Hertz. Jet engine frequencies are 30 times higher. I suspect a band pass filter between 50Hz and 300Hz would cover all piston aircraft which of course are extremely noisy.
As usual top notch content.
My grandfather was a Luftwaffe pilot, flying bombers and transport aircraft.
He told me a story about a French navy vessel being commandeered from its port on the South of France heading to North Africa.. he was ordered to sink it with a special, very large bomb which would penetrate the ships deck.
As they were approaching the fleeing vessel, an order come over the radio to abort the mission and return to base. They had to drop the bomb off the coast as it was too heavy and dangerous to land with. They dropped it into the water.
After landing he wanted to know who gave the abort order and no one could give him an answer. Turned out that this was an act of sabotage.
damn partisans
@@scarecrow559fresno I doubt it was the Resistance, but could be.
Although my grand dad was a Nazi, he knew then that the war was over., this was in 1942 I believe, He would go on to fly the Ju-52 to Stalingrad to medevac the wounded. Another experience which put a dent in his world view.
@@dirkbogarde7796 do not hate your legacy
He shouldn't hate the fact that his family helped a madman in his attempt to whipe billions off the face of the earth in a bid for world domination??
The intent of this comment is to say I was at the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin recently where I saw a R4M, an X-4 and some other missiles which I am sure will be on this channel soon. It is a great museum and well worth a visit if you are in the city. Their aircraft engines are particularly good, including a cutaway Jumo 004
Max Kramer (German developer of the X-4) relocated to the US Army to the United States after the war as part of the controversial "Operation Paperclip", where many nazi scientists were hired by the US Government. From 1947 to 1952 he worked for the Pilotless Aircraft Laboratory at the Naval Air Development Station in Johnsville, Pennsylvania conducting research on autonomous air vehicles and missiles and building upon his research on the X-4. He later went to work with private firms working on ways to make ocean vehicles with less drag, with limited success. He diesd in 1986.
Few human endeavors produce such creativity as weapon design...
yup, priorities i guess
I raise you: mathematicians’ hatred of applied math
Your content is top notch sir... No BS, just concise, well sourced information...
Agree, in particular the yellow highlighting and discussion starting at 3:50 is particularly easy to follow. Top notch work.
More about the X-4 in a few minutes than I've ever known. Wow!
You have an incredible talent for taking primary sources and pulling them together into highly informative videos on a subject. I really appreciate your work.
I see the mention of the "commutator" in the report, but still, getting a spinning rocket to respond to wire guidance was pretty amazing.
Firing that thing from a propeller driven aircraft must have been terrifying.
Thought about that for a moment. Given how thin the wires were, I don't see a problem with tangling a propeller; they would have been chewed up instantly by hundreds of pounds of metal driven by 2,000 hp.
I think they would be more of a problem if ingested into one of the early axial flow jet engines, which were temperamental in their reliability to begin with.
I do wonder how combat effective a manual commanded air to air missile would be considering the launching platforms would be single seat fighters.
Controlling such missiles is already a bit challenging on its own, as shown by the combat record of the early anti tank missiles like the Sagger. Having to do so while flying a plane seems a bit overwhelming on the pilot.
Probably more effective than unguided rockets. The Bullpup missile was widely used by the U.S. in Vietnam. It had mixed results, but you need to compare those results to those of unguided weapons.
@@gort8203 Read Ed Cobleigh account of his time in Vietnam in the Book "War For the Hell of It: A Fighter Pilot's View of Vietnam". He describes the weapon system as thus. "In the 1950s the USAF developed a command-guided missile, the Bullpup. It was launched with its own rocket motor from a fighter and was steered by a fighter pilot through the magic of radio control. A tiny joystick was installed next to the launch jet’s throttles to command the missile. The hapless pilot had to fly his own jet with his right hand on the big aircraft control stick and simultaneously fly the rapidly departing missile with the small control stick in his left hand. This was akin to rubbing your head while patting your stomach. Eighty-seven percent of pilots are right-handed, flying anything with a left hand is tough. Needless to say, this feat of manual dexterity was beyond the skill level of most jocks."
MCLOS guidance systems are mostly shit when the operator only has to steer the missile!!!
Yea and the ME262 was notoriously already a handful to fly when attacking bombers due to the closing speed.
This thing looks basically like an air to air version of the air to ship Fritz-X, that being the case the US could have done the same thing with an air to ship missile it had that was better than the Fritz-X being a fire and forget weapon via radar lock, I can't remember it's name for sure although it might have been called the Sea Whiz.
This thing and the Fritz-X both require someone to fly the missile all the way to the target, like a TOW missile on a helicopter the big disadvantage is that the aircraft that fired it is vulnerable the whole time, but with the Sea Whiz once it gets it's radar lock and it's fired the aircraft can turn around or perform whatever kind of evasive maneuvering it needed to including selecting another target and firing on it while the first missile is still in flight, I'm sure had they the need they could have adapted the Sea Whiz to an air to air application, but the USAAF really didn't have a need for it because of having air superiority and not having to shoot down large formations of bombers, however had the ME262 been pressed into service earlier it could have countered it being fired from propeller driven fighter's.
@@dukecraig2402 ASM-2 Bat is the US Navy Weapon you are thinking off.
I think the french also had some wire guided AAMs in the 50s and 60s. Would have to look at the training data for those.
Just Amazing....!!!
Using acoustic homing instead of radar proximity fusing is an interesting approach.
The Germans were also testing acoustic detection and homing for their night fighters, including the Me262.
"The photograph at the bottom of [p.185 of Dan Sharp's book] depicts the Baldrian twin microphone antenna for acoustic location of prey. This system had originally been tested in the Me 262 V1. Testing in Me 262 w-n 170079 were surprisingly successful with the pilot being able to follow the cockpit display easily."
@@gort8203 And its would have not worked!!! British and US dumped that line of research in 1940!!
@@gort8203 Acoustic location obviously works well as aircraft engine sound can be heard from very far away.
In the case of jet aircraft the engine frequency is well over 4000Hz whereas piston aircraft between 75 Hz for the propellers and about 300 Hz for the exhaust poppet valves. That's far enough apart for the sound of to be filtered out. A rocket also doesn't have propeller noise or poppet valve noise.
The Germans certainly had some ideas, luckily they didn't usually have the means to mass produce them. It sort of illustrate why the proximity fuse was one of the war winning devices, for the Allies.
From your explanation of this missile system it seems rather obvious how much the development of these missiles drew from existing torpedo technology. It's not a connection that you would necessarily have expected to exist, but the design lineage does certainly appear to be there and is indeed something that makes perfect sense when you think about it.
Indeed. If memory serves, some of the first generation torpedoes even used wire guidance.
future TOW missile
Imagine if they’d put it into ground combat use in north africa early rather than in the air over berlin late
They also developed smaller X7 ATGM with a similar design to the X4. It also apparently saw combating the East but that’s kinda open.
As a bit of a wehraboo myself, i have not seen enough evidence to think the x7 was actually a real thing.
Fun fact: the X-4 missile was test launched from Fw 190s, and even without the third problem with using the system, ie having to avoid enemy return fire, not a single pilot was able to hit a bloody thing with it.
Cool, solche Informationen findest Du in Deutschland selten! Danke! 😊👍
Amazing work as always. Have you considered writing a reference or history book on the bomber subject?
Yes, very good suggestion. With TH-cam's audience, he would have no trouble getting a producer. But, most of his videos, are covering things that would be boring to read about. And for me to say this is not a criticism but an observation of a person that has read many thousands of books on many different subjects including studying Latin and Hebrew for fun.
@@sjb3460 it certainly wouldn’t be everyday reading, but as a reference resource it could be very handy. I look at the success The Tank Museum has had in republishing Tigerfibel, and Miliary Aviation History and Military History Visualized have had with their Stuka manuals and see a potential small run market.
Good luck to a pilot having to concentrate and fly in a straight line for twenty odd seconds while he fired this thing in the middle of an attack. 😂
If the airplane is trimmed up he can just let go of the stick for 20 seconds.
It's curious to note that the X4 trials used an FW190 as the launch aircraft from and under-wing pylon. How it managed not to become entangled in the propeller is a mystery.
-The wire was basically piano wire with electrical motor insulation over the top. It was flaked out from the inside of hollow bobbins. I would immagine once launched the Fw-190 would make a mommentary climb manouver and from then on the wire was below and behined the aircraft making a sort of U shape.
-There was a radio control option for the X-4.
The FuG 510/FuG 540 Kogge/Brigge High Frequency 1200Mhz/25cm radio control system.
It impulse modulated using directional polyrod antenna was to be the core of a
number of German guided missiles with development starting in 1944.
It was designed to be very immune to jamming. .
Kogge/Brigge simply replaced the wire bobbins and was a drop in
replacement for the wire guidance on the X-4 and X-10. This system
was very important as it was to be the uplink of a number of surface
to air missiles.
@@williamzk9083 the TV guided X-7 must have presented a challenge with limited bandwidth.
@@andrerousseau5730 The Tonne-Seedorf initially used 400 x 400 line TV at 25Hz then switch to 200 x 200 at 50Hz because the higher scan rate was found more important. The missile TV was to be strapped onto the nose of misiles such as the Hs 293.
X-7 and X-10 were to get a SACLOS system called Steinbok that racked a infrared flare on the missile Pfeifenkopf or Pinsel were further developments.
The Zielsuchgerät ("target
acquisition device"). By using an image recognition device (TV camera
tube) called Ikonoskop the missile was to seek its target through it's
own optical sensor that compared the image data from the aiming device
with the data it received from its own optical sensor. (there were
actually some other optical contrast homing systems under development
by the Germans in WW2 basically designed to home onto ships being
developed by the German TV companies as well as the US. )
Were i in the Luftwaffe, dealing with concentrated nitric acid as a rocket engine oxidant would be enough to make me try to transfer to the infantry XD
Nitric Acid, Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen Peroxide were all equally dangerous.
Amazing
Hell Yeah -Facts, numbers sources!
I wonder how the joystick would work if the missile was constantly rotating? Maybe some pre-launch gyro something so the missile could maintain an initial reference? I guess if they had circuitry advanced enough to home on engine noise, that wouldn't be too hard.
If I recall correctly, many postwar ATGMs (SS.11, 9M14 and the likes) did use a method similar to the one you describe.
Considering the X-4 was a predecesor of this missiles they probably inherited that feature too.
Yep, wondered the same thing. The control surfaces would have to be in constant movement. For example, if the pilot wants to steer the missile left, the tab is only moved to the left of its own axis for a very brief portion of a second before having to transition to what would then be considered right of its own axis, and would have to be neutral at the 1/4 and 3/4 rotations of the missile, with both tabs moving oppositely in relation to each other.
Perhaps it was similar to the control functions of helicopter blades which face the same issue?
For the ground lanched versions X-7 and X-10 There was a single vertically aligned gyroscope that kept track of 'up'. Slip rings and a cummudator directed the signals to the correct control surface. Control surfaces were only on/off. The gryo was spun up before launch by a gunpowder charge. I immagined that would need to be changed to an electric motor or pneumatic vacuum motor for an airborn version or else the pilot would need to fly level for a few seconds while the gyro spun up. In these a tiltmeter (pendulum with microswitches) is used to power a small torgue motor that levels the gyro. It's very weak torgue so that vibraion and manouvering averages out. It seems they worked out a way to just spin up before launch.
@@williamzk9083 Thank you. So, were the control tabs in constant motion per joystick inputs?
@@williamzk9083 Thanks! It's fascinating to think of how many technologies were right on the verge of being more mature - like guided missiles, better radars, heat seeking missiles, all sorts of things, especially once semiconductors started to appear.
A two seat, side by side 262 could have ued this somewhat effectively. But there is still the matter of flying straigth and level in a sky infested with escort figthers.
And their land was infested with jews, they couldn't catch a break
great work
what is amazing in this case is that germany at this point in the war was frequently using untested systems but not this one...
this is rad, thank you
we are so lucky that the thousand (12) year régime
*didn't* have another year to develop all the things they
had in the pipeline.
If they held out for a few months they would have been introduced to a real wunderwaffe
@@stikfigz true that.
The US army still uses TOW wire guided anti-tank missiles. Have to wonder if a 37mm motor cannon firing through the prop hub in the Soviet style would have been the most efficient heavy bomber killer. At least till better more refined air to air missiles & rockets. The post war Mig-15s with a 37mm over Korea made short work of the American B-50s they went up against. B-50 was the up engined B-29.
TOW has a Semi Active Guidance System. Operator just has to keep the sight on target and the computer steers the missile onto the target.
@@richardvernon317 What does the "W" stand for in TOW? Will the missile stay on track if it snaps? Wires are so 1960's it's not even funny.
@@michaelbizon444 The wire is the link!! not the device that generates the steering Command!! You have never worked on a Missile System and you don't have a clue what you are talking about!!! Wire guided missiles do have their advantages and most TOW's and other wire guided missiles that have failed due to wire breaks have failed because the missile was fired at targets outside of its maximum range. Anyhow this missile was built in the mid 1940's!!!
@@richardvernon317 TOWs were built in the 40's?!? You are off by a few decades. Any how wire guided is old tech. And has severe limitations. And FYI no the missile will not hit the target if the wire breaks.
Fire & forget is the newer & much better fire control. So the gunner does not have to be exposed while he tracks a 12 second flight time max effective range. Plenty of time for a tank turret to see the back blast, swing 180 degrees and blast the gunner & launcher vehicle. You were never a crew man on a TOW system it seems. Also the Wire Guided missiles can't be fired on the move. Make large tracking adjustments an the wire snaps. Even rain can screw up the wires.
I agree that a single hi velocity 37 mm cannon plus machine guns as back-up would be more effective than 4x MK-108. German fighters needed to stay out of range of the B-17 protective fire which was at least 600 meters.
Fantastic video. I wonder if the scientists involved were brought over under a Project Paperclip program and if it influenced the development of air to air missiles. With wire guidance it seems like that was revived later for anti-tank missiles like the TOW , SS-11 and Sagger
Does anyone know any reason that liquid fueling for rockets was so prevalent in ww2 German tech? I would think small, unitised rockets like this that don't need to be throttled would benefit far more from being solid fueled.
Why did the Vikings not use aircraft carriers?
Didn´t have the tech yet.
-The X-4 was actually meant to receive a liquid propellant motor but
eneded up with a solid propllant.
-The factory producing the BMW developed bipropellant liquid
rocket motor was hit damaging several hundred of these motors, as a
result a backup solid propellant motor was selected as a substitute.
This motor was no longer smokeless though it was more economical.
-By this time the Germans had a lot of experience with guided rockets.
-One very important factor that influnced the selection of propellant is
that solid propellants tend to block radio and radar signals strongly.
The USN had a lot of problems with its "Thumper" SAM system of 1945
from the solid propellants blocking radio commands. The Germans had been
through these problems earlier.
@TheRealNeill X-4 was supposed to transition to radio controlled. The scaled down ATGM variant called X-7 used a two pulse solid rocket motor basically a central propellant charge and a outer annual one.
-The reason the X-4 was no used in 1944 was that the BMW rocket motors (nearly 1000 of them, were lost in a bombing raid so the decision was made to switch to solid propellants. The Germans did have dyglycol rockets but could not afford the propellant production. Both Nitirc Acid and H2O2 were easy to produce.
-I have a book by Nowra on German guided missiles, I think it was methoned there but its well known in books. The internet is hopeless.
It’s a good thing that the Allies defeated Germany when they did. Can you imagine if Germany had had enough time to develop a “fire and forget” air to air missile, along with the A bomb and the V-2, as well as other weapons systems they had in the works?
I wish we didn't bomb them as fast,
Like I would have really wanted to know how they would have gotten the X-4 to work and not just be a total loss
A lot of the reason why people know about and remember the Nazis for their advanced weaponry has as much to do with Nazi propaganda and post-war tensions with the Soviets as anything else. Yes, some of the achievements the Nazis made were remarkable, though many had as much war winning potential as project Interstate TDR did for the US (WW2 US had a bit of thing for FPV drones, some things never change). The V2 was a remarkable vehicle, the first man-made object to pass the Carmen line and the first ballistic missile. It also cost an absolute fortune to shoot off, was inaccurate to the point that hitting a city could be a genuine challenge, and took just a little less in terms of GDP/dev money than the Manhattan project. And the fact that people can’t shut up about one of these glorified lab experiments, and hardly anyone even knows about the other says everything I need to know. And that’s without going into the Nazi pipe dream that was making the bomb. They never even made it as far as making a stable reactor, let alone a Uranium refinery.
@@chamberlane2899 You truly must be English.
@@peppertrout American born overseas, but thank you.
@@chamberlane2899 Not meant as a compliment.
Excellent content as ever - thank you!
Another great video. Interesting what might have happened if war was extended into 46 or 47.
Guess you'd need to repel the invasions of Italy and Normandy, prevent nuclear weapons from working, and give the Germans victories at Stalingrad and Moscow. Would certainly be interesting.
@@BishopStars In an ideal world where Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh's "America First" movement (not to be confused to catboi Nick Fuentes's modern day organization by the same name) was successful here in America, and we never had entered the war in the European theatre, that may have very well been possible. General Patton was very much so against fighting the Germans, particularly after he saw the German people/military first hand while in Germany... Patton realized the propaganda being peddled was nonsensical, downright fiction, or as he put it himslf at a Frankfurt civil conference "If what we are doing to the Germans is liberty, then give me death; I can't see how Americans can sink so low, it is semitic and I am sure of it." Patton was very outspoken in wanting to join the Germans in their fight against jewish bolshevism/communism. It is possible that if Patton would not have been in that so called "car accident," he would have been able to garner support for joining the Germans in their fight against the Soviets/bolsheviks. What Patton saw being done to the German people disgusted him, as did the semitic propaganda coming from within his own press and government; these things disgusted Patton so very much that he stated that he planned to resign, and then run for office back in America in order to rid America of the bolshevik's stranglehold on our media, banks, and politiciand. Here is a great youtube video that contains some of Patton's little known, and quite taboo (for obvious reasons) personal writings and speeches... th-cam.com/video/9Y0UVt6uzkA/w-d-xo.html Any thinking person musk ask themselves why this aspect of Patton has been covered up so well in mainstream history??? Patton has had several books and movies written/made about him; he's an American hero, yet very few know this side of Patton, as it has been intensionally concealed...
@@BishopStars War would have ended in August 1945.
To fire the X-4 the attacking fighter would have to fly slow ,to not overtake the bombers and stright and level. Not smart when allied escort fighters were around.
X-4 was a bad little dude.
How do you steer a spinning missile? As it spins its control axes change. What was up is now sideways or down.
It had a mechnical breaker that changed the steering pulses depending on rotation.
THere is actually a really good explanation video on youtube, given the topic tho, its a bit ibscure.
I can't seem to download your video, I've tried 7 times each with a different URL and still nothing,
fantastic again
Good video, great subject! It would be even better if the quality of the sound would be better. The sound of your voice is good. Maybe you could buy a more professional microphone or/and record the sound in another environment/room, with sound insulation for example. I miss the deep tones and definition in the sound. It would definitely add some more quality to your great videos.
Is there a specific place or archive to view the unclassified documents mentioned in this video?
This should be an option on high BR Rank V versions of the Me-262 in War Thunder...
if the missile rotates, then there's no constant "up/down/left/right", so how does the pilot control it's direction?
He mentioned gyro stabilization.
Excellent video as always.
War focuses the mind..look at the rapid development of drones in Ukraine. They can now recognise a target and lock onto it unguided in a "follow him home/blow his knob off" mode.
Why bother with a 1 revolution per second spin? That does not seem like enough to usefully stabilize a projectile and it needlessly complicates the flight control system.
1 rev per second, not minute.
@@mfrsrYes, I mistyped. I think 1 rev per second does not seem like much.
Its to even out aerodynamic tolerances so that the missile flies straight even if fins or rocket motor are out of alignment. Its not gyro stabilization.
Liquid fuel was not a good choice for an AA missile. With a solid fuel, they would have been able to massively simplify the design. Such a weapon really needed a two-seater plane to use properly you simply can't use this and fly at the same time. I'm sure there were a few 2 seater trainer versions of the FW190 or ME262 that could be modified but numbers would be super limited as only a handful of Me 262 B1a and B1a-U1's were built. As for the acoustic fuse that would be useless in most conditions as the microphones of the period had major issues with fidelity (hence why all broadcasts of the period sound a little off) such a device would be very easily jammed just like the acoustic torpedoes of the day could also be overloaded and jammed.
Making a manually guided missile spin seems needlessly complicated. What was there reference for "up", left and right?
This was a common system in early wire guided missiles. See the French SS.10.
The Gyro would interpret the command signals and translate them into the appropriate direction of control.
They were Germans, why make it simple?
@@JimmySailor That's correct. They had a single vertically aligned gyro to maintain an up reference. A commutatar on the missile axis would then switch the up/down/left/right signals to the control surface at the correct instance. In fact the ground launched X-7 needed only a single control surface with a solenoid to control all 4 directions so it saved a lot of money. Spinning the missile greatly reduces costs as it reduces manufavuring tollerances. Guided missiles need a gyro to be effective anyway.
I wonder how many times the guide wire got wrapped up in the prop of an FW190?
I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING
With the rotation of the missile how would the pilot then accurately control it?
A gyro system in the missile compensated. But I don't see the need for that slow spin and that attendant complication.
@@gort8203 The slow spin ensured the missile flew in a stable linear direction as it evened out missile tolerances.. It also meant a signle control surface could control or 4 directios by opperating at the correct time.
The Germans are scary 😨good engineers and scientists
Woah new info 👍🤙
Engaging!
Pretty expensive weapon to deploy on a single bomber
Not just targetting one bomber, but breaking up the 'box'.
At that time literally no one in Germany cared about cost anymore.
Talk to any German that was old enough to know what was going on at the end of the war and then you understand why money wasn't a problem.
When Allied aircraft bomb you day and night and when you think that defeat is perhaps worse than death then you stop caring about cost.
Money represents resources like labor and materials. Germany was desperately low on resources.
Wow, almost.
Experimental desperation
Best kind because you get to see some crazy shit
I don't see how the pilot can use a joystick to control a missile that is rotating. If you want it to go right, say, half a second (ie a half revolution) later, the same movement will make it go left. It sounds impossible, but e idently the Germans had a solution, or it would not have got that far.
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
3:13 not 'spin' stabilized (a rare misspeak) but merely fin stabilized. I greatly enjoy these videos though. Oops!!! at 4:22 it is clearly spin stabilized, as stated by the video author.
That was very interesting. If the Germans had mass produced these with the 262 it could have changed the outcome of the war
No, it was impossible. No such wonderweapon was missing for the germans. They lacked logistics.
It wouldn‘t have changed the outcome, but it would have made the late-war strategic bombing a good deal more costly
I think the 7.7 pounds R4M unguided rockets (550 m/s in 200 m) could have appeared earlier on prop fighters, and would have been equally effective, even with their short 0.8 second burn time... It is the one low tech weapon that could have appeared earlier and completely changed the air war in my opinion.
@@KING_LIRI1They lacked petrol, which they were producing at just 2% of US output. An alliance with the Soviets would only have totalled 4-4.5 %. Despite this, mere Soviet neutrality would easily have prolonged the War several years, until Atom bombs became prevalent.
Shocking German technology from 1945~!
It was a waste of time and money!!!
@@richardvernon317 Don't think that every major country (USSR UK and America) did not steal that tech so no it was not a waste of time and money.
@@2true359 US and UK Tech electronics were miles ahead of anything in Germany by 1945.
@@richardvernon317 Riigghhtt maybe you should look up Operation Paperclip. Now back under the rock with ye
@@2true359 Paperclip was to get info on German Aerodynamics, Rocket motors, synthetic fuels and chemical weapons. These were the only major fields where the Germans had an advantage over Allied Tech.
Gaijin please add
Wasn't massed produced so they won't
But they probs will add another Russian tank that basically didn't exist
@@7ThePrimagenthey added vk 3002 m in tech tree
@@CCP-Lies there were two prototypes for that
o7
Same design of lancet Russian design
First!