Anti-ship missile

[dieseltaylor]

I was wondering who would hazard a guess as to the first one [and I do mean rocket not rocks from a catapult]

[JonS]

the kraut thingies?

[dieseltaylor]

Fritz X. Nope not that.

Its recorded earlier than WW2, any others wish to hazard a guess?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Congreve farted about with some.

But probably some Chinese did it first.

[dieseltaylor]

Correct.

It was a two stage missile with a range of about 1 mile.

[Affentitten]

I wouldn't really call that a missile in the modern sense because that denotes some sort of guidance system. Rocket, yes. But not a missile. Otherwise flaming arrows or balls of pitch from a catapult could be counted.

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

Here's some more info, including contemporary drawings and modern reconstructions. One episode segment of Discovery Channel's Super Weapons of the Ancients addressed this matter in considerable detail, to include successful live fire against a simulated infantry target array.

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/12673-ancient-chinese-winged-rocketflying-bomb/

ISTR there was also a very clever rocket propelled sea-skimming torpedo, which worked very well as a functioning scale model on smooth water. As I recall, that one looked like a dragon.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

I wouldn't really call that a missile in the modern sense because that denotes some sort of guidance system. Rocket, yes. But not a missile. Otherwise flaming arrows or balls of pitch from a catapult could be counted.

Yeah - I read the thread title and keyed on "missile". I overlooked that Deez changed it to "rocket" in his post.

rocket =/= missile

[dieseltaylor]

JonS

I wonder why people invented the term guided missile? : )

The link from JK is very interesting and forms a useful addition to the information I have.

Grenades?

Li Tseng-Po in1257 was lamenting the production of iron bomb-shells and writes then when he was in Chingchow they used to produce one or two thousand a month , and ship them at ten or twenty thousand a time to Hsiang-yang and Ying-chou.

Stalin Organs

Wheelbarrow mounted fire-arrows could reach to about 340yards maximum. Normal range 200. They were tested for the ability to penetrate thin planks of wood. In later times as many as 320 could be fired at once.

The sea skimming dragon. Bamboo 5 ft long with 4 rockets pointing down and back giving it a flying height of 3-4ft. When it is about to run out of puff it explodes and fire arows are launched to destry what is arround. Multiple warheads!

Flamethrower

About 905AD. The firelance was essentially a big roman candle that would be fired at the enemy for upto 5 minutes - and racks of them could be parked next to a defender on a wall. Apparently something similar is last recorded as being used at the siege of Bristol in 1643.

This evolved to firing at short range like a shotgun.

Gun

By the mid1200's they had the 3 ft firelance which made in high grade bronze fired an arrow 200-300paces and would pierce the heart or belly of any man or horse and could even transfix several persons at once.. Variations included one that fired three lead balls simultaneously.

Further developments gave multiple firing guns in a variety of forms.

In the 1400's a chinese battalion was recorded as having 40 cannon batteries, 3600 "thunderbolt shells", 160 "wine-cupmuzzle general cannon", 200 large and 328 small "continuous bullet" cannons firing grape shot, 624 handguns.300 small grenades. Together with 7 tons of gunpowder and 1,051,600 0.8 ounce bullets.

Amazing to think how much mediavel Europe copied from the Chinese.

[Affentitten]

So any record of these Chinese Exocets actually killing anything?

[Affentitten]

JonS

Amazing to think how much mediavel Europe copied from the Chinese.

Well yes. And while the Chinese spent 5 centuries coming up with the most beautiful dragon design for their 'multi-stage missiles', the Europeans had developed the Maxim gun.

[dieseltaylor]

Not in the book I have. But then I have no record for any of the devices specifically killing anyone but I work on the basis that to continue building them and expanding the arsenal suggests that most of the devices were worth the effort. : )

Well yes. And while the Chinese spent 5 centuries coming up with the most beautiful dragon design for their 'multi-stage missiles', the Europeans had developed the Maxim gun.

I put that down to coal and steel on a big scale - I cannot see much joy for any country prior to the later 1800's. As for 5 centuries perhaps we shall see what the world looks like in 2300AD and who is the butch power then.!!

And just in case you wondered:

Decimal system 14thC BC

A place for Zero 4thC BC

Pacal's triangle - 1100 AD

Watertight compartments in ships - 2nd century AD

Land sailing 550AD

Use of thyroid hormones 7thC AD

Block printing - 8thC AD

and much more : )

[JonS]

I wonder why people invented the term guided missile? : )

Because they're ignorant?

Seriously - per a dictionary (and the law?), a 'missile' can be almost any inanimate thing that is propelled through the air. However, conventional military usage is that 'missile' describes a powered, guided munition, whilst the word 'rocket' describes a powered, unguided munition. Unpowered, guided munitions are known as 'guided bombs'.

c.f. Mk.4 2.75in FFAR vs. AGM-65 Maverick vs. GBU-12 Paveway II

[JonS]

As to the other:

yes, even despite Menzies' delusions, the Chinese were clever and creative. Like every other civilisation. More interesting - I think - than the list of their discoveries is the story of why and how they managed to squander their technical/scientific advantage that they fell so abysmally far behind the West.

[Thomm]

More interesting - I think - than the list of their discoveries is the story of why and how they managed to squander their technical/scientific advantage that they fell so abysmally far behind the West.

Can't be Islam, can it?

Communism?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Stalins Organ]

No - more likely confucianism is to blame, not Islam, which barely made a scratch.

And china was behind long before communism was an itch in Engel's beard

[JonS]

Sorry, that probably implied that I knew the answer, and I'm sure I don't What I meant is that the 'why' question is much more interesting - to me - than simple pecker comparisons of shiny things.

It can't be Communism, though, since they Chinese had fallen so far behind that already by the 1800s they were Europe's b!tch (see: Boxer Rebellion).

Diamond, IIRC, posits something along the lines of centralised govt, coupled with easy travel /within/ China but difficult travel to more distant locales, which together consipred to rapidly diffuse innovations within China, but prevent new ideas coming the outside. Or sumfink like that (maybe: easy internal travel that fostered strong central govt which then limited external contact?).

Re: Islam, much the same thing can be said about them (to use a wildly inappropriate generalisation), since Islam was scientifically and mathematically head and shoulders above the Euros into the ... 1500s?, but then fell totally by the wayside.

[Affentitten]

Re: Islam, much the same thing can be said about them (to use a wildly inappropriate generalisation), since Islam was scientifically and mathematically head and shoulders above the Euros into the ... 1500s?, but then fell totally by the wayside.

A lot of the Islamic advancement in Maths and science though was not indigenous. It was acquired through conquest of neighbouring civilisations, like the Persians and Byzantines. When you really on acquisition for your advancements, you tend not to develop your own in-house designs.

[Boeman]

Diamond, IIRC, posits something along the lines of centralised govt, coupled with easy travel /within/ China but difficult travel to more distant locales, which together consipred to rapidly diffuse innovations within China, but prevent new ideas coming the outside. Or sumfink like that (maybe: easy internal travel that fostered strong central govt which then limited external contact?).

If I'm not mistaken, China itself wasn't a wholly consolidated nation as such but a landmass that was segmented into mini regions each with its own feudal warlord. Even after the conquest by the first emperor to unify the warring states, much of the establishment within the independent states remained as they originally were which became a hybrid of complex centralized bureaucracies. Provided that each feudal lord supplied the dynasty in power with tribute and manpower, they could remain in power within their given district.

Such circumstances were more likely to foster a static way of life that saw little need to extend beyond what was necessary for peasants to work the field.

Another problem, and one that persists to this day, is the different dialects in each province. The Qin dynasty established the basis for a universal script but spoken dialogue remained unchanged. This is unfortunate as only scholars, administrators and the nobility at the time were literate. Compounding matters further, was the measure to ensure stability, by putting to the torch any books which did not idolize the emperor.

Much like modern North America, China was an inward society that had little interest in anything beyond their own borders. In fact, after Marco Polo's visit, the Chinese established the first customs via a string of outposts where foreigners attempting to smuggle out silk worms were searched. More effort was expended on isolating China rather than seeking knowledge outside of its own territories.

The net effect of the miniscule amount of foreign trade would certainly slow the pace of scientific progress or, more importantly, assure numerous other applications of technology China had already invented such as combustable powder and the printing press were never fully realized.

Other scientific blunders could simply be attributed to mundane human nature. Supposedly, China had or was constructing a grand fleet of ships with plans to explore beyond her shores. However, a large argument erupted in the Emperor's court that resulted in the scrapping of the fleet.

In contrast to Europeans, who had the benefit of settling areas with a more temperate climate, lush forestry, vast mineral wealth and excellent farm land, it is something of a tribute to the Chinese civilization for the feats they have accomplished.

[JonS]

Another problem, and one that persists to this day, is the different dialects in each province.

Arguably, the same problem existed in Europe?

[Michael Emrys]

Arguably, the same problem existed in Europe?

Except that in Europe the competition between states spurred the development of military technology and government bureaucracy. Why it didn't do the same in China is still not clear to me. China certainly had a well-organized bureaucracy early on, but that bureaucracy seems to have focussed on suppressing innovation rather than encouraging it. Of course, all these comparisons are relative...

Michael

[Sergei]

Sometimes you just don't have a lot of need for innovation. Eg. ancient Romans had plenty of slaves that could be used to solve any problem at all. Should bigger problems arise, you go and capture more slaves. There wasn't a particular need for improved plough designs or such until middle ages.

[dieseltaylor]

It is an interesting question. I watched a film of Jared Diamond's Guns Steel and Germs recently and noticed how China seemed to escape his eye. The fact remains that effectively China has been beaten up for a comparatively short time - 1840's to 1945 by modern technology. I suppose you could also include the Mongols - but then they toughed up pretty much everyone and eventually were naturalised. A point made in last nights QI [ a program well worth watching] made a claim that because the Chinese had porcelain they never developed glass so could not devlop telescope, microscopes etc which lead to them falling behind. I am not sure I totally buy it. What is known is that with earthquakes, rebellions famines and disease some of their advances were lost. I think I side with the idea that the commercial and military rivalry of the fairly stable Western European countries was the crucial difference in accelerating technology. The flip side IS THAT the Chinese did turn inwards and reap little from their trading abroad. They traded with East Africa, India, and the rest of the East etc in the early 1400's. An early voyage had a fleet of 62 treasure ships and 27800 men. I thing Sergei's point about the Romans is also very valid as I think the Chinese had no need to react to outside threats so the impetus to develop was small. And of course it takes good government/rulers also - and China failed on this. One final point , which was valid 30 years ago also, when ruling a country as vast as China can you control change so that it does not tear the country apart. And of course the subtext is - can I remain in power. Perhaps the Chinese rulers in earlier times preferred the status-quo.

[Michael Emrys]

Perhaps the Chinese rulers in earlier times preferred the status-quo.

Of a certainty. Protection of the status quo is an idea that runs through Chinese thought from the earliest recorded times. Confucius systematized and enshrined it, but it had been around for a long time before he appeared on the scene.

Expanding a bit on some of the earlier posts, one of the reasons China got away with a slow rate of innovation is because they could. Europe developed so fast (in two large episodes, Classical times and after the Renaissance began) largely because of the location of the Mediterranean Sea. It meant that several cultures of radically different sorts were in contact with each other, trading, competing, often at war. There was a great deal of cultural cross-fertilizations including those that come with defeat and conquest. Although China went through periods of fragmentation, to a larger degree than the Mediterranean world it was one cohesive culture. There were factions, and they schemed and sometimes fought, but for the most part it was "all in the family". It isn't until China's isolation finally breaks down that it begins to undergo really revolutionary change.

Michael

[John Kettler]

diesletaylor,

Here's an Arabic rocket torpedo design, circa 1280. I think this is one they built a successful smallish working model of on Super Weapons of the Ancients. Image expands. Found it while looking for a Nebelwerfer rocket at same museum.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19762056000

More on the relevant technologies--Muslim rocketry.

http://english.voa-islam.com/news/hikmah/2009/12/01/312/muslim-rocket-technology/

Regards,

John Kettler