Military Review

Reich robot


75 years ago, 1 December 1942 of the year, the first test launch of the ground catapult of the Fieleler Fi-103 projectile aircraft (aka A-2, aka FZG 76, aka V-1), which is still the most widespread weapons This class, ever applied in hostilities. A total of about 25 thousands of such missiles were made, most of which the Germans managed to launch across London, Brussels, Paris, Liege and Antwerp. In London alone, 6184 people died from them, about 19 thousands more were injured and burned.

This was the first experience of contactless distance war. However, despite the excessive hopes pinned by the Germans on the robotic "miracle weapon", it did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the Second World War. However, for its time, the Fi-103 was a very sophisticated killing machine, combining simplicity and cheapness with a fairly high efficiency.

The purchase price of a serial V-1 was just 3,5 thousands of brands - almost 100 times the price of the average front-line bomber, not counting the cost of its ammunition and the cost of training the crew. And the labor costs for the production of V-1 did not exceed 350 working hours. It did not use any scarce materials - only wood and cheap steel. In this case, one ground launch team could launch from a single launcher to 15 projectiles at a distance of 170-200 kilometers per day.

And although less than half of the launched cruise missiles hit the targets (20% was denied for technical reasons, 17% were shot down by anti-aircraft guns and 25% were fighters), the rest were quite enough to cause great trouble to the British and Americans. It is no coincidence that in the middle of 1944, a significant part of the sorties of the Anglo-American bombers on the European theater of operations was directed against objects one way or another connected with the production or launch of "retaliation weapons."

Additional evidence of the appreciation given by the allies to German cruise missiles is that after the war in the USSR and the USA, attempts were made to copy them, which lasted until the end of the 1940-s.

Fi-103 with maintenance hatches removed in one of the American aviation museums.

Layout of the Fi-103 and a fragment of the starting ramp at the museum site in Peenemünde.

Fi-103 on the steam-gas catapult ramp, which in a second accelerated the projectile to 250 km / h. At this speed, the engine was turned on.

Anemometer spinner, counting the distance traveled before the automatic transfer of the rocket in a dive. On the right - tail tail and welded from steel sheets nozzle of a pulsating jet engine Argus As-14. The Fi-103 was the only large-batch aircraft equipped with a HRID.

Engine air intake grille and pneumatic steering gears that control elevator and heading.

Fuel pump, electric meter of the distance traveled and gyroscopic autopilot with pneumatic drive.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. solzh
    solzh 10 December 2017 15: 04 New
    And where is the Reich robot? Or is this a shell projectile a robot?
    1. Infinity
      Infinity 10 December 2017 15: 26 New
      Well, you can as an analogy. Now the robot = high technology and the future. And at that time, yes. High tech.
      And so, these are weapons of pure terror. They did not greatly affect the combat effectiveness of the same British. But the resources for the creation of the wunderwaffe were not small.
      The Third Reich, in general, had many projects to create "weapons of retaliation." Resources would be spent on more earthly goals, maybe history would be different. But, fortunately, history does not like the subjunctive mood ...
      and low cost with fairly high efficiency.
      That's why this is a controversial opinion for me. Yes, making this rocket cheaper than a bomber or other combat aircraft. But there is still some sense from the latter.
      1. apro
        apro 10 December 2017 16: 04 New
        I do not agree, but you count the resources that the Americans and the Angles spent on counteracting the cr.
        1. Kir
          Kir 10 December 2017 16: 30 New
          I fully support it, since the Main, or one of the main criteria of Cost-Efficiency, and according to it is more than a successful solution, even without taking into account the costs of shooting down these projectiles by the Allies.
          1. Alf
            Alf 10 December 2017 22: 46 New
            Quote: Kir
            even without taking into account the cost of the downing of these shells by the allies.

            By the way, knocking him down was not so easy. Not only did the rocket fly at high speeds, from 650 to 800 km / h due to fuel consumption, it also had to be fired at from a distance of at least 200 meters, because there was a ton of explosives on board. And the flight altitude from 100 to 1000 meters did not contribute to the sharp maneuvers of fighters. It was not in vain that such high-speed fighters as the Spitfire Mk-1 and Tempest were targeted at intercepting the FAU-14.
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 11 December 2017 10: 51 New
        I agree. In the form in which the fau number was used once, this weapon is exclusively terrorist. Now, if the Germans came up with a guidance system of greater accuracy - then yes - that would be a terrible weapon. Attacks, it hit Germany more painfully than the allies.
      3. robo spirit
        robo spirit 11 December 2017 20: 30 New
        The epic with V-1 cost Reich No. 3 cheaper than a single “coventing”. I think our admirals and other politicians have something to think about: there is a guided missile (not cheap), there is a carrier (even cheaper). Let's cross out the medium, huh? Fasten several algorithms for evading missile defense by winged contagion, launch from our territory further than the coveted 5500 km. I think that such a missile will be easier and cheaper to nurse than the Tu-160 armada or APKRK. It's just ... now they are trying to really impose an arms race on us. So why not accept what we can really do easier and cheaper?
        And what's the use of bombers? Their mass take-off, at least even as part of a link, will be tracked in advance by satellites and ZGRLS. That's just our Tu-160 periodically defiantly accompanied at a distance first by the British, then by amers. Probably, they show us that an aircraft carrier of this scale is already in sight, and not to show off horseradish?
        1. dSK
          dSK 12 December 2017 01: 38 New
          The United States intends to resume the program of flights to the moon. The directive on the resumption of flights to the Earth’s satellite was signed by US President Donald Trump. He also ordered NASA to have agency experts draw up a plan for a manned mission to the moon. It is noted that the decision to resume flights to the Earth’s satellite occurred 45 years after Apollo 17 mission". (The first Russian TV channel" Tsargrad "23:25., 11.12.17/XNUMX/XNUMX) (Performed by the FAA “captive” author, Von Braun.)
    2. shinobi
      shinobi 12 December 2017 11: 37 New
      Any mechanism running the program can be considered a robot. The term itself has taken root after the play by K. Chapek RUR
    3. Skay
      Skay 30 January 2018 13: 21 New
      And where is the Reich robot? Or is this a shell projectile a robot?

      It’s quite a BEAM robot according to modern classification.
  2. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 10 December 2017 15: 16 New
    Pneumatics and some electricity ..
    By the way, in the post-war USSR, large-scale plants installed pneumatic instrumentation and automation systems, which were quite advanced for their time, one might say "pneumatic electronics".
    1. robo spirit
      robo spirit 11 December 2017 20: 48 New
      Oh, yes, as an engineer I’ll say: back in the pre-war USSR, instead of pneumatics, they began to make automatic (on gears and clear, locked on the stops, movements of the executive links) automation systems. Alexandrov’s automatic lines, giving out millions of rounds of ammunition, could go without human intervention for a week.
      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 12 December 2017 18: 17 New
        I had a chance to work with pneumatics - START, USEPP, CENTER .. I had to delve into ..
        The extension of the brain was ..) But figured out)
  3. Old26
    Old26 10 December 2017 15: 20 New
    Quote: solzh
    And where is the Reich robot? Or is this a shell projectile a robot?

    They are
  4. san4es
    san4es 10 December 2017 15: 31 New
    Fi-103 on the ramp of the combined cycle gas catapult, which in a second accelerated the projectile to 250 km / h. At this speed, the engine turned on.

    Kamikaze Drone V1 Omaka 5th April 2015
    1. Gnefredov
      Gnefredov 10 December 2017 20: 33 New
      Thank you for the video hi
  5. WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 10 December 2017 16: 38 New
    It would be possible to seriously force V-1 and very simply: to make a swept wing (from 30 to 45 *) and tail, which would give an increase in cruising speed, you could also put two next to one pulsating engine .This, again, would increase the cruising speed by significantly hampering the actions of fighters and ZA. The fall in range could be compensated by the PTB and launching with He-111 in close proximity to the target. This is only a snap.
    1. opus
      opus 10 December 2017 17: 16 New
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      It would be possible to force V-1 seriously and quite simply: make an arrow-shaped wing (from 30 to 45 *)

      Maximum airspeed: 656 km / h (approx 0,53М) / full tanks, up to 800 km / h (approx. 0,65М) = almost empty.
      To the critical value of the Mach number, for the height v-1, oh, how far it is.
      Swept wing, meaningless. But they would lose in the coefficient of half-capacity (steam catapult, full tanks, separation speed 250 km / h)
      for the Tu-154 McR = 0,88 aircraft, and for the AN-24 McR = 0,7.
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      it would be possible to put instead of one pulsating engine two next

      PUVRD Argus As 014 with 2,9 kN (296 kG)
      Fuel consumption, l / km: 2,35
      Maximum flight distance, km: 286
      If TWO INSTALLED, then the range (taking into account the increased mid-point and frontal resistance) would be in the area of ​​100-150 km.
      "And who needs it?"

      Fi 103R with two PUHP Argus As 014 (concept)

      missile interceptor “Me-163” (speed about 1000 km / h )
    2. Alf
      Alf 10 December 2017 22: 53 New
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      The fall in range could be compensated by launching from He-111 in close proximity to the target.

      With the dominance of the Allied aviation over the Canal and France? I have no words.
    3. shinobi
      shinobi 12 December 2017 11: 39 New
      The engine was weak for this.
    4. rubin6286
      rubin6286 13 December 2017 11: 18 New
      Dear WapentakeLokki.!

      In order to “throw up” in this way, you need to know the basics of flight theory, aerodynamics and the design of aircraft of that period. Installing another engine in the rear will cause increased fuel consumption. This violates the longitudinal stability of the aircraft due to the displacement of the center of pressure relative to the center of mass. The aircraft will become statically unstable and, as the fuel in the tanks decreases, it will gradually collapse and fall. The tail unit will also become ineffective, so one will also have to face the transverse instability of the aircraft. The use of the swept wing and an increase in cruising speed will lead to tightening at the peak. In general, the author of the article, speaking about the "robot", should have dwelled in more detail on the control system of this aircraft.
      At that time, the control system on aircraft was rigid (cable). For Me-262, for the first time, power boosters (boosters) were used to reduce efforts on the control stick. At FAU-1 they are not at all. To realize your proposals, you first need to change the aircraft control system, and this will inevitably lead to changes in its design. The Germans did not immediately understand this either. They simply say: "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines, and walk on them ..."
  6. Taoist
    Taoist 10 December 2017 17: 04 New
    Well, for the sake of justice ... it is worth remembering that the "air torpedoes" were developed back in the 30x in the USSR - and even quite successfully. Another question is the accuracy of such weapons ... The Germans were more fortunate that they had such goals to use for which this "wunderwafel" made sense.
  7. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 10 December 2017 19: 39 New
    Chelomei fiddled with the PuVRD until the end of the 40s, nothing came of this scheme. Dead end. TsIAM veterans told in the 70's that the rumble from the PuVRD up to the 1949 of the year was heard in Moscow a couple of blocks from Aviamotornaya Street.
    1. opus
      opus 10 December 2017 21: 32 New
      Quote: Aviator_
      Chelomei fiddled with the PuVRD until the end of the 40s, nothing came of this scheme. Dead end.

      small aircraft, UAVs, aircraft models, ATGMs and so on.
      Where up to M <0,7 and cheapness (it costs a little more than pipes of the same diameter)

      1. M830 UAV “Whistle”

      2.T90 UAV (Т90-11) as part of the Smerch MLRS

      3. The E95M and E2T subsonic target, designed to simulate subsonic maneuvering targets such as “cruise missile”, “planning bomb” or “UAV”

      4.M850 "Astra", E-08 and E22 / E22M "Berta" air target for training calculations of air defense systems

      Currently, several large defense companies in the world are engaged in research in the field of creating highly efficient pulsating jet engines. In particular, the work is carried out by the French company SNECMA and the American General Electric and Pratt & Whitney

      6. Aviamodelizm. In the USA offers PuVRd a dime a dozen
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 10 December 2017 22: 20 New
        Modelism and targets for air defense training - maybe, but PuVRD roar so that UAVs are instantly detected. And ATGMs with a speed of 0,7 M - it’s generally just shoot at the camels.
        1. opus
          opus 10 December 2017 23: 41 New
          Quote: Aviator_
          but the pvrd roar so

          yes low frequency.
          but for kamikaze upla roll
          no moving parts, compressor, turbine, valves. The simplest PWRD can do without even the ignition system. This engine can work on almost anything: replace the propane tank with a gas canister and it will continue to pulsate and create cravings.

          Quote: Aviator_
          And an ATGM with a speed of 0,7 M is generally just shooting camels.

          Bassoon (9М111) = 183-240 m / s
          Competition-M (9М113М) = 208 m / s
          FGM-148 = 300м / с
  8. Nikolay R-PM
    Nikolay R-PM 10 December 2017 21: 45 New
    at my faculty in the showroom there was one pulsating engine from the V-1. The simplicity of the design was surprising, only straight-through is easier. The blinds of the input device from the time and a fair amount of curious students were battered - return springs have long lost their stiffness. Instead of a spark-plug of a fuel-air mixture, an ordinary automobile was screwed. A rough weld of the combustion chamber, which is a combination of cylinders and a cone, there were no animated transitions between them. Everything was simple, even clumsy, but once worked. So no one at the department could tell me the story of the origin of this engine, whether it was a trophy obtained during the seizure of a plant or a launcher, or transferred by the Allies, the roofing felts were simply made according to captured drawings for the purpose of studying. So he stands in front of the entrance to the demzal, keeping his story.
  9. Old26
    Old26 10 December 2017 21: 46 New
    Quote: Aviator_
    Chelomei fiddled with PuVRD until the end of the 40s, nothing came of this scheme.

    He just had some kind of option, EMNIP 16X with two engines, and not with one, like the FAU-1
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 10 December 2017 22: 14 New
      Well, I’m talking about the same thing, he seems to have started with 10X, finished 16X, the results are more than bad, a lot of money wasted. I remember Shirokorad wrote about this Chelomeevsky epic, I could not find a book now, otherwise I would give a link.
    2. opus
      opus 10 December 2017 22: 32 New
      Quote: Old26
      EMNIP 16X with two engines, and not with one, as in the FAU-1

      14X with two pulsating engines D-5
      Well, and 16HA “Surf” (2 x PuVRD D-14-4) of course

      this is only meaningless.
      PuVRD more or less to M <0,7 works (depending on height).
      and the midsection, gluttony and inability to use the pipe

      D-10 pulsating jet engine designed by V.N. Chelomea, Xnumx them on La Xnumx
  10. Old26
    Old26 11 December 2017 07: 23 New
    Quote: Aviator_
    Well, I’m talking about the same thing, he seems to have started with 10X, finished 16X, the results are more than bad, a lot of money wasted. I remember Shirokorad wrote about this Chelomeevsky epic, I could not find a book now, otherwise I would give a link.

    No, comrade, these funds were not wasted. Has been acquired AN EXPERIENCE, and it’s worth a lot.
  11. iouris
    iouris 11 December 2017 14: 02 New
    The material is very interesting, but the question arises of the legitimacy of the use of the term "robot" when the basis of the guidance system is the simplest autopilot and a rather crude electromechanical calculator of the distance traveled according to aerometric instruments. Since the drift rate was not taken into account, the pointing errors should be quite large. I read somewhere that the Germans tried to increase the accuracy of V-1 targeting with the help of two intersecting radio beams. In any case, the V-1 and V-2 are weapons of terror that were designed to undermine the morale of the British. This was not achieved, so this story did not make much sense.
    1. robo spirit
      robo spirit 11 December 2017 20: 59 New
      "Robot" - EMNIP, so in Czech (complete: "robot-nick", with emphasis on the first "o") was called a wordless pisant, which you say, it does. In Karel апapek’s play “Ruhr”, robots were precisely in the sense of the term “robot” = “slave,” that is, what should do the job, and at the same time not argue with the owner. If the manipulations to hold the rocket on the desired trajectory are performed by mechanisms without the participation of a human host, then - a robot!
      Have you tried to read the founder of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener? In my cadet times I heard a lot. So, in a broad sense, even a fucking ballpoint pen is a robot, because without your consent and any participation, it supplies ink to the ball. Just a pen is a very dumb robot with one single function.
      1. iouris
        iouris 14 December 2017 00: 10 New
        Not convinced. Capek did not develop a theory, he is a writer. Wiener et al. Developed a general theory of control without bothering with specific engineering problems.
        Autopilot "owner" does not "say" anything. This is a three-channel automatic controller (feedback system) and a program (temporary) mechanism (system without feedback).