Author Topic: U-Boat + V2 (Read 6308 times)

straffo · « **Reply #75 on:** April 08, 2005, 07:46:56 AM »

Kurfürst if you add the "cost" of the slave lives the "cost" skyrocket in the instant.

GScholz · « **Reply #76 on:** April 08, 2005, 08:15:58 AM »

Slaves cost very little. The Germans made very accurate calculations on how many calories a man needs to work himself to death over a period of time.

straffo · « **Reply #77 on:** April 08, 2005, 08:54:22 AM »

I was not concidering the cost from a Nazi point of view.

GS you technocrat bastige forgot to put any smilley in your sentence !

GScholz · « **Reply #78 on:** April 08, 2005, 09:05:32 AM »

there you go.

Angus · « **Reply #79 on:** April 08, 2005, 10:29:45 AM »

I have somewhere the calories pr day, and estimated days of average survival.
Wicked wicked.
Also have describtion of a boot test, - i.e. how long boots will last.
Very wicked.
Will post if I find the book.

Pongo · « **Reply #80 on:** April 08, 2005, 11:45:28 AM »

"Cost of a V-2 was ca. 2000 US dollars.

Cost of a B17 was ca 250 000 US dollars.

A B-17 carried ca the same amount of HE onto the target, and calculating with a low 5% loss/sortie, it cost 0.05x250 000 = 12 500 USD.
"
so you contrast the V2 with the mechanisms of the US daylight bombing campaign(developed in 1935 I believe). Both heavy bomber campaigns were very wastefull almost fruitless enterprises. But both the British and the Americans had the resources and more to spend on such endevors, the Germans didnt.
Subtract from the cost of that b17 the belt of 88s and 105s that tied down a huge portion of the German Armed forces the decimation of the german fighter arm to try to stop it and the entire industrial base used to try to come up with weapons to oppose it.

But even then I wouldnt compare the V2 to the B17, I would compare it to the Mossie. The mossie could carry 4000 pounds accuratly(way more accuratly then the V2) and had I belive a 1% loss rate. We seem not to be able to aggree on what a v2 cost, but you would have to be a mad man to think its anything less then an order of magnitude more then the Mossie bombers at a 1% loss rate with the vastly increased accuracy of the mossie vs the v2.

GScholz · « **Reply #81 on:** April 08, 2005, 11:48:57 AM »

The way it was used it was a complete waste of time and resources.

Angus · « **Reply #82 on:** April 08, 2005, 01:44:41 PM »

The way of the V2 application you mean???

GScholz · « **Reply #83 on:** April 08, 2005, 03:55:38 PM »

Yes. Without a meaningful payload the V2 was pointless. Had they used gas or bio weapons they might have been worth the effort.

Angus · « **Reply #84 on:** April 08, 2005, 04:08:06 PM »

Mustard, wine and anthrax.

They would have been ordering 100 times the amount of the same, - which they actually did, with bombings.

The V2 would have been THE BADASS had it had one or more of the following qualities:

1. Being deployed like 2 years earlier
2. Being accurate to some 1km perhaps.
3. Being equipped with much heavier payload.
4. Being much more long ranged

Remember Gulf war I, scuds plonked off to the general direction of Israel? Terror, yes, moreso because of possible chemical weapons, but overall, nothing enough to win.
Apply terror bombing with out air superiority, and you are in deep doodly squat if you know what I mean.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #85 on:** April 08, 2005, 05:41:26 PM »

Quote

massive panic

Please relativate ur wet dream.

Yeah i like to keep it simple.
It just tells all.

talked to much already

GScholz · « **Reply #86 on:** April 09, 2005, 11:31:34 AM »

Yes Angus, but if the Germans could spread anthrax or saturate large parts of Britton with chemical weapons it would severely affect the allies war effort. Of course, it would only prolong the war ... Germany had already lost.

Angus · « **Reply #87 on:** April 09, 2005, 12:08:13 PM »

Hey Scholzie

I belive that both sides had enough mustard gas and anthrax as well as the capacity to deliver those (much more efficient cargo compared to normal explosives) from the beginning of the war.
The Germans were ahead in the development of nerve gas AFAIK.
Nothing could have countered something as wicked as that except massive usage of mustard gas and total firebombing on anything urban.
Anthrax works slower, and the effects are very hard to counter, - totally unusable on a country to conquer it.
AND.....borders don't stop anthrax so easily....

So, had the Germans reverted to this, things would have turned incredibly ugly, but I belive the outcome would have been rather the same.

Anyway, V2 was only effective to the London area.

Leayme · « **Reply #88 on:** April 09, 2005, 06:47:26 PM »

There are several ways to influence the outcome of a war and psychlogical warfare can be far more effective in the long run than all the bombs and bullets that you could ever fire or drop.

You convince the enemy that you are unstoppable and have super weapons and are able to show as evidence some spectacular victories and even though the enemy intelligence has proof that you put your pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else, the vast public at large will not be privy to that data and when they see evidence of a spectacular failure (Dunkirk etc) rumors start and with an active propaganda program working to undermine public confidence, you can cause people to lose heart and if people are not committed fully, then it becomes all that much harder to win.

The V2 and V1 projects were propaganda weapons (not without the potential to become something more effective), saying basically that you are not out of reach and if you think this is bad, just imagine what else we are preparing to throw at you. Mind Games if you will.

Could Nazi Germany have won the war if they had done things differently? Possibly, but thankfully they didn't and we are able to discuss/debate the miscues and oversights that lead to thier eventual defeat.

What If.........and you know the rest.