What kind of POD would be required for the US to undertake a rocket program from the 30's? Preferably led by Goddard.
WW2 Goddard led rocket program
- Thread starter cloistered scholar
- Start date
The Germans are further along in their V-1 research leading to America investing in a competing weapon.
This timeline is about this exact subject.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ed-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-icbm.151287/
There was a Goddard led rocket program in WWI. The Army wanted a light cheap alternative to the French made 37mm Light Infantry Cannon, a regiment weapon. Goddard designed a small rocket motor to fit on the rifle grenade. It was fired from a shoulder held metal tube with a bipod. The rocket motor was fired electrically by the gunner. The war was over before it reached production & redesign shelved. In 1941 the plans were reworked into the Bazooka with a HEAT warhead replacing the HE of 1918. After that a larger rocket with a 128mm/five inch diameter warhead was designed and adapted as a field artillery and aircraft weapon.
A more charismatic Goddard. Probably with the backing of some other charismatic influencers like Charles Lindberg, Jimmy Doolittle or even Walt Disney.
I agree, it would require more than just Goddard. Dolittle is a interesting choice. His aviation engineering skills and problem solving ability were considerable. Through to 1941 his background was entirely in aircraft, aircraft engines and fuels. At any point rocketry would be a transition for him. Dolittle left active service at the end of the 1920s to work for a oil company. If the Army had continued a interest in rocket artillery post 1919 maybe Dolittle would have been transferred from the Army Air Corps to the Artillery Corps? Given his value first as a flight instructor, then as a test pilot and aircraft engineer in the 1920s it is unlikely, tho still possible.
Probably if the Soviets dont end up sending of of their rocket scientists of the newly centralized research department into the gulag. Thanks to some espionage they catch up with the Germans and by 44 they're shooting rockets at each other, the USA reacts to the development and gets its own missile program and put the most well known rocket scientists in charge of it.
An international treaty banning bomber airplanes, without discussing rockets. Army "long range artillery" becomes the weapon of choice for long-range bombardment, until the treaty is abandoned.
Alternatively, an earlier development of the atomic bomb, or of advanced guidance computers. Early ICBMs found little support in the US because the missiles could not actually drop an atomic bomb close enough to a target to guarantee a kill. This changed in the 1950s, due to superior guidance and bigger fusion bombs. If you can improve rocket GNC, the missiles become more desirable.
Alternatively, an earlier development of the atomic bomb, or of advanced guidance computers. Early ICBMs found little support in the US because the missiles could not actually drop an atomic bomb close enough to a target to guarantee a kill. This changed in the 1950s, due to superior guidance and bigger fusion bombs. If you can improve rocket GNC, the missiles become more desirable.
Remote guidance on winged rocket powered weapons might be viable with 1920s-30s technology.
There is some attraction to replacing heavy & relatively immobile large cannon, 20cm calibers & larger, with rockets. There is still a accuracy problem, but that might be overcome with enough money aimed at things like gyroscopes, submunition warheads, ect... Relatively heavy explosive packages in the 20 to 50 kilometer range are really useful and limited by the weigh of the cannon needed at those ranges.
Theres benefits to the lighter 6 to 15 cm caliber rocket artillery as well. Not so much as replacement but supplement to the lighter and medium weight artillery. Enough for a incentive to research the accuracy problem.
Unfortunately for American rocketry, Goddard's approach to revealing his technology appears patterned on the Wright Bros. Most of Goddard's patents were written to reveal little and protect all. Some however, dealing with concepts many years from any possible application (his turbo-rocket airplane, for example) were interesting and even made the covers of 'thirties Popular Science and Modern Mechanics magazines. While Charles Lindbergh succeeded in bringing in financial support, Goddard's actual rocket flight demonstrations were largely disappointing. All this is not to distract from Goddard's vision or technical competence- he needed a support staff of a few competent mechanical engineers, machinists and maybe consultation with someone who understood a Nyquist diagram.
What was really lacking was some spectacular achievement like Dr Jim Doolittle flying to an aircraft speed (or altitude) record boosted by a Goddard rocket, or a glitch free flight by one of his rockets to a significant altitude, which sadly never happened.
Dynasoar
What was really lacking was some spectacular achievement like Dr Jim Doolittle flying to an aircraft speed (or altitude) record boosted by a Goddard rocket, or a glitch free flight by one of his rockets to a significant altitude, which sadly never happened.
Dynasoar
I remember reading a item about interrogation of German rocket scientists. One or more of them mentioned how they found Goddards research really valuable in advancing their nazi sponsored projects. No specifics were included, but it suggests Goddards secrets may not have been very secret.
The US Army would have been happy with something that knocked down the Pee Dee river bridge. In the mid 1920s a new dam on the Pee Dee river was to inundate a modern steel & concrete highway bridge. The US Army tested cannon ammunition and 500lb aircraft bombs on the structure. They were disappointed to find even the aircraft bomb caused only superficial damage, unless placed less than a meter from the few critical stress points or support points. They'd been thrilled to have something that could drop a 1000kg explosive charge on a bridge.
Alternately the US Navy might have been buying. A aircraft launched rocket, with a range of a few thousand meters might have some advantages over a aircraft launched torpedo.
That's in the nature of rocket development as no one really knew what they were doing and how to achieve it, lots of trial and error and all was very costly. But if you can sell your rocket development to the government it goes very fast, here's the German program:
Aggregat 1: 1933, 1.4m long, 3kn thrust, no successful flight
Aggregat 2: 1934, 1.6m long, 3kn thrust, 3.5 km high flight
Aggregat 3: 1935, 6.7m long, 15kn thrust, 18 km high flight
Aggregat 5 (it comes before 4): 1938, 5,8m long, 15kn thrust, 12 km high flight
Aggregat 4: 1942, 14m long, 265kn thrust, 206 km high flight
Until A3 it's not really impressive, hobbyists do better today, but then it snowballed very fast, and after the war continued in the USSR and USA where they went from launching copy A-4s to better domestic designs capable of true space launches in just a few years.
Maybe an alternative treaty at the end of WW1 leads to the banning of bombers, so everyone focuses on rockets, at least until someone in Europe says "lol fuck that" and starts re-arming for what becomes *WW2. Maybe have someone developing bombers and using them (maybe in I dunno an alternate Spanish Civil War, or an Italian Civil War or someone uses them in Africa or something), and that is a catalyst for *WW2.
Exactly.
Similar artillery weapon would be useful for attacking supply/PoL sites, HQ, congested roads, ect...
Doesn't look as though it's been suggested yet but what about surface-to-air missiles? The saw about how "The bomber will always get through" could result in the Army looking at rockets as an alternative, both for performance and cost reasons, to artillery pieces. Realistically it wouldn't work without radar and proximity fuses but they wouldn't know that at the start.