The russians captured a lot of plans and blueprints, also some advanced prototipes and Mocke-ups like the DFS 346, the Me-263 , the Hs-132, the Ju-287, FW-Ta-183 ( luckily for us K.Tank saved some microfilms) etc… so they had his booty already.
And then, suppose to use that in your projects too, nobody knows
anything about it?. :arrow:
By the way, Panzerknacker, goods pics!!! :arrow:
Indeed Panzerknacker, they are wonderful pics!!! 
I know.
DFS 346 under Tupolev Tu-4 wing( soviet B-29 copy)
Lavochkin la-176…huhum
Tank Ta-183… :roll:
They made a advanced versions of the ramjet powered Junkers Ju EF126 for more check this Luf46 page.
http://www.luft46.com/junkers/juef126.html
And there is more but I have no time right now…i have to eat my dinner.
Keep surprise me!!
Mig 15 does not look like a little? :arrow:
I beg to differ. B-29 with a nuclear weapon in the bay is far more sophisticated and far more useful as a weapon system.
In space terms - the V-2 was a big step towards a useful launch vehicle. If the US got Von Braun and his work, and the Russians got broken urinals… yet the Russians still got there first… they’re Some broken urinals!
The Americans made some junky V-1 copy that never went into service along with a radio guided bomb used in less numbers than the Fritz X.
In fact their “guided” (perhaps I should say “unmanned”, as V-2 wasn’t exactly guided anyway) weapons programs were much more widespread than that. Many bearmore resemblence to “one-shot” UCAV’s than what are now thought of as missiles. So I suppose in a way it’s very much visionary, looking at what’s on the drawing boards at the moment. 
Can post links but that might stray out of topic.
No one had anything remotely resembling a surface to surface strategic missile.
Including the Germans, unless in this case you use “strategic” to cover anything that’s technically amazing but militarily and tactically useless without years more development and the marrying of the launcher to a nuclear warhead…
Given the overwhelming air superiority enjoyed by the Allies allowed strategic bombing, and the general ineffectiveness of the V-2 to act as much more than a distracting target for the Allies, it was perhaps a shrewd move for them not to move to a missile they had no hope in hell of guiding to useful targets. And unless the Germans could have eventually shoe-horned a nuclear warhead onto a V-2 or derivative, there was very little “strategic” about V-2. And if nuclear weapons are going to come into the equation, the Americans were there first anyway making the V-2 something of a moot point.
It’s something of a happy ending that the US made far more use of the V-2 than the Nazi’s did.
Panzerknacker- the DFS 346 was taken by the Russians who worked of it and with it but never breoke Mach 2 which is what they attempted.
Cpl condor- the MiG 15 was originally slated to have a 4,400 lb. thrust Junker Jumo 004H. They had captured quite a few and also copied them. If the British hadn’t had a lapse in good judgement and sent a 4,850 lb thrust Rolls Royce Nene turbine to Russia the MiG 15 would have a nothing. Their subsequent copies of the Nene yeilded the VK-1 and VK-2 with 5,953 lbs thrust and 6,750 lbs thrust with water injection.
There are some really critical differences between the two. Look particularly at the top of the tee-tail, wingtips, wing upper surfaces (note that the wing fences present in your picture are NOT present in any contemporary drawings or photos I have been able to find and so were probably added by a later photoshopper - yet are critical to controlling spanwise drift and hence making the aircraft vaguely flyable) and fuselage length.
Nose inlets were nothing new (see Gloster E.28-39 for instance) and while I suspect high tails weren’t either I can’t think of a cite right now for an earlier one.
Back on to the V-2… Posted in my Hendon thread ( http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1533 )but relevant here. Picture I took a couple of years ago on a visit to RAF Museum, Hendon… Yes ladies and gents: a sectioned V2!
There are some really critical differences between the two. Look particularly at the top of the tee-tail, wingtips, wing upper surfaces (note that the wing fences present in your picture are NOT present in any contemporary drawings or photos I have been able to find and so were probably added by a later photoshopper - yet are critical to controlling spanwise drift and hence making the aircraft vaguely flyable) and fuselage length.
Nose inlets were nothing new (see Gloster E.28-39 for instance) and while I suspect high tails weren’t either I can’t think of a cite right now for an earlier one.
Yea you arec orrect, the russian dont like the caracteristics at low speed of the barrel shaped Ta-183 but it give the inspiration for sure.
Going back to the V-2, Given that launching was stopped at Peendemunde a good few months prior to the Russians capturing I would guess that broken urinals is all they did get.
In that time the place would have been “cleansed”. If for no other reason than to make the people from there more important. Von Braun trogged them 50km, according to one source, to surrender to Americans (although that distance would still have them deep inside the British zone) so they want to be important. Their knowledge would make them so. But not if it was all backed up in Peenemunde, plus they could tell the yanks they had destroyed it to prevent the Russians getting it like the good people they now were.
In one of the links i have posted, it shows a V-2 was accidntally crashed in Sweden, who promptly passed it to the British for looking at. Although it was slightly different to a normal V-2 being a target drone for a SAM project it would have given the Brits no end of data. This was shared with the Russians and Americans at that time.
Also remember that the workers in the concentration camp would have had critical knowledge, some may even have been very intelligent types whose only crime was to be the wrong nationality, etc. They were captured by the Russians.
Peenemunde might have been gutted but it’s secrets were long since out in the open. The specialist (concentration camp) workers would give Russia quite an edge I feel in the space race.
Besides they must have done something right, 1st object (discounting the German V2 experiement), 1st animal (stray dog laika) and 1st Man in space (possibly first two).
Quite a hat trick.
If anyone would like to consider a program that cost hundreds of lives, drained resources in a country that could ill afford it and burned itself out early as successful compared to the US effort, go for it. BTW- how come Great Britain didn’t do something with the 12 V-2s they captured as a stepping stone to space?
Because we were absolutely positively skint post-war? A situation which was encouraged by the US to encourage “decolonialisation”.
Although they did have a rocket/missile programme, e.g. Blue Streak.
Given that the Russians are currently more able to put men into space safely than the US, I don’t know if Twitch can say that the Soviet space programme burnt itself out early at all. If there’s one thing the Soviet (then Russian) space program can boast, it’s stamina and longevity.
Without gloating, I think that NASA has a far higher fatality rate than the Russians. Two whole space shuttles is hard to top.
Thought to have been principly caused, by many, by the American government cutting funding. On the other hand the Russians are firmly entrenched in commercial launches and “space tourism” remembering that they also own most of the heavy lift launchers also.
The British tagged on to a number of space administrations, American and European. And have been able to carry out what they wished to do with out putting people up there.
(Why do Yanks always have to make out they are better than Britain when they detect even a slight insult in their heads? Iron man did the same. Remember all that drivel about why Britain hadn’t sent just 100,000 men to France in 1939 and he wouldn’t believe we had sent many more… or his why weren’t we in Korea… etc, etc. Get a grip.)
I would wager that the Russian fatality rate during their space programme was higher – they had several rockets explode on the launchpads taking much of the ground crew with them.
Get current folks. One debacle alone killed their rocket chief Korolyev and a couple hundred folks. They’ve lost more personnel on the ground than the US has lost in total.
Get current folks. One debacle alone killed their rocket chief Korolyev and a couple hundred folks. They’ve lost more personnel on the ground than the US has lost in total.
Currently the Russians have a viable manned space vehicle for putting people up to ISS.
The US has a grounded space shuttle.
Guys, please back to topic. Thanks!