V2 Rocket

[Ack-Ack]

A guidance system?

The V-2 used a guidance system (LEV-3) that consisted of  two free gyroscopes (a horizon and a vertical) for lateral stabilization, and a PIGA accelerometer to control engine cutoff at a specified velocity.  Later, some V-2s used radio signals transmitted from the ground to navigate towards the target.

ack-ack

[Old Sport]

I support it's inclusion now that we have huge strats to lob them at.  They were notoriously inaccurate, so the bigger the target the better.  Of course then we would need the Meteor(hint hint).

Perhaps you were thinking of the V 1 ?

Deliveries of the Meteor F.Mk 1 began on June 1st, 1944 with RAF squadron No.616 becoming the first British RAF group to receive the type (numbering 14 examples - some sources state 12), achieving operational status on July 12th, 1944. ... The Meteor saw limited combat action in the Second World War, more so as a solution to the German V-1 flying bomb menace, its speed proving a perfect remedy to the elusive qualities of the German rockets. ... Meteors found some success in interception of these terror bombs though not often as intended - one such instance found a Meteor "tipping" a V-1 harmlessly off course after the aircraft's cannons had jammed (a common and reoccurring armament malfunction of early production Meteors). At least 13 V-1 flying bombs were intercepted by Meteor jet fighters in one month alone with a total of 14 V-1's accounted for. The first Meteor-versus-V-1 interception sortie occurred on July 27th, 1944.

Werner Von Braun's semi-biographical movie, "I am for the Stars (and often hit London)"

[Ack-Ack]

Perhaps you were thinking of the V 1 ?

Werner Von Braun's semi-biographical movie, "I am for the Stars (and often hit London)"

On average, the CEP (circular error probable) was around 12km for the V-2's accuracy.

ack-ack

[DannyS]

That's right! They HAD guidance systems during WWII.

[sandwich]

That's right! They HAD guidance systems during WWII.

For some reason I was thinking about some sort of gps guidance.

Forgot about the gyroscopic guidance.

[hibbie2]

I like the idea but u would need a point system to use them like if u got points for the 8" & 5" guns or field guns then u could use V-2's and we could get other special wepons like dam buster bombs or the Grand Slam bomb all of witch u would have to use points to use maybe even use points for some Sun glasses for those olnd missions staring at the sun lol

[Volron]

Well, I have heard more than a few people say that have a TON of perk points in stock.  I recall hearing someone say they had 10k fighter perks in the MA.  Whether it's true or not, maybe have it set to where it will use 100 perks from each group, Fighter, Bomber AND Vehicle.  The problem now is, if there are a lot of people sitting on a bunch of perks, how many times could you launch a game day?  I would say no more than 5 times for the V2.

While we are at it, what about the V1?  Half the price to launch a V2, and could be launched 2x more than the V2.  Yes, it is low and slow, but too close to it when it goes boom, and you too are just scattered remnants on the landscape.

[kvuo75]

Well, I have heard more than a few people say that have a TON of perk points in stock.  I recall hearing someone say they had 10k fighter perks in the MA.  Whether it's true or not,

oh I'm quite sure it's true.. I have over 7k fighter perks myself and only been playing 3 or 4 yrs..

[Lusche]

Well, I have heard more than a few people say that have a TON of perk points in stock.  I recall hearing someone say they had 10k fighter perks in the MA.  Whether it's true or not,

I make about 700-1000 fighter perks per tour, but have wasteful habit of spending them by flying 262's or simply throwing them away by changing my name. If I wouldn't I'd have at least 30k in fighter perks alone now. (Just looked it up: I lost perk planes with a theoretical total perk worth of 36K during my AH career  )


back on OP topic: I don't know why players would spend a "huge amount of perks" on a weapon that will almost never hit it's intended target.
And I really would hate to see completely unrealistic performance, rivaling the accuracy of a modern tactical missile.

[FLS]

So how would this work? If the rocket actually hit something you would get points for pushing the button? How about we just have a button you can push and you hear a rocket taking off, wouldn't that be 99% of the experience? I don't understand how this fits into a game/sim where people control aircraft and vehicles.

[Denholm]

The V-2 used a guidance system (LEV-3) that consisted of  two free gyroscopes (a horizon and a vertical) for lateral stabilization, and a PIGA accelerometer to control engine cutoff at a specified velocity.  Later, some V-2s used radio signals transmitted from the ground to navigate towards the target.

ack-ack

From what I read, radio-guidance was used during testing and was actually a false sense of hope for the British when they captured a V2 radio-controlled test model. The British figured jamming the radio signals would prevent the V2s from raining down on London. Quite a surprise when radio-jamming didn't prevent the hail of missiles. Do you mind sharing your source since it has me turning in circles?

[tassos]

Startfau dot command in WB

[hibbie2]

back on OP topic: I don't know why players would spend a "huge amount of perks" on a weapon that will almost never hit it's intended target.
And I really would hate to see completely unrealistic performance, rivaling the accuracy of a modern tactical missile.

This is totaly what I ment you would not get points unless u hit a target if you miss you losse points the fact that the missle is there and can be used would be cool the risk is lossing a lot of points. This would limit the use by most people and when used it could be shot down giving a pilot a chance for more perkies. There are other wepons as well like I said the Grand Slam bomb ect... also pilot things like sun glasses and stuff you could use . Just a thought of course

[Ack-Ack]

From what I read, radio-guidance was used during testing and was actually a false sense of hope for the British when they captured a V2 radio-controlled test model. The British figured jamming the radio signals would prevent the V2s from raining down on London. Quite a surprise when radio-jamming didn't prevent the hail of missiles. Do you mind sharing your source since it has me turning in circles?

Ironically, it proved to be that British counter-intelligence was far more effective in the fight against the V-2 than anything else the British could field against the rockets.  The Germans relied on spies in London to give them accurate damage and target accuracy reports but British counter-intelligence had turned almost all spies in Englad and they reported false information back to Germany.  The double agents would report back that the rockets were going long and impacting far beyond of London.  This caused the Germans to adjust the rocket launches which caused the rockets to start landing further east and as the campaign wore on, most of the rockets were impacting on the eastern edge of the Greater London Air Defence Zone.


ack-ack

[Denholm]

Ah, the article I read did not cover the topic, merely an overview over WWII and its influence on rocketry/missiles.