Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Fongman on April 02, 2005, 10:16:27 PM
-
(http://www.collectrussia.com/sboot/launch2.jpg)(http://www.collectrussia.com/sboot/launch1.jpg)(http://www.collectrussia.com/sboot/v2plan3.jpg)(http://www.collectrussia.com/sboot/v2plan1.jpg)
-
Add A-bomb and it could have gotten really scary.
-
Stupidest thing Ive ever seen.
-
I'm confused -- that beast was a pain to prelaunch, and the fuel wasnt exactly the most stable stuff around. How did they load fuel, go through the prelaunch check, and keep everything OK while the missile was towed?
Are the photos operational, or were they done 20ft away from some off camera dock?
-
I bet that thing would have been too inaccurate even for a nuke.
-
Yep...this whole idea seems kind of pointless because there isn't really any means to guide the rocket. Seems like this would be more dangerous to the crew of the U-boat than the enemy.
But then again...you could modify the fuse and maneuver the U-boat underneath an enemy ship, then launch the rocket right into the hull of the ship, but that would most likely take out the U-boat too.
So yeah, not really any practical use for it.
-
Nah not really any use for it as far as the game goes. But i think its really amazing how many things you see the Germens pioneerd that are in similar use today. Such as Subs launching missiles and the B-2 etc , Jets... I wonder what the germans would have come up with if they had one ww2.
-
Originally posted by Dinky2003
Yep...this whole idea seems kind of pointless because there isn't really any means to guide the rocket. Seems like this would be more dangerous to the crew of the U-boat than the enemy.
But then again...you could modify the fuse and maneuver the U-boat underneath an enemy ship, then launch the rocket right into the hull of the ship, but that would most likely take out the U-boat too.
So yeah, not really any practical use for it.
Here you are again! Please stop spouting bullchit everywhere you post!
The A4 (V2) had an inertial navigation system. This missile had a top speed of mach 5, flew in space, re-entered the atmosphere, and regularly hit London all the way from Germany.
Your ship attack hypothesis is ridiculous. I hope it was a joke.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Add A-bomb and it could have gotten really scary.
Yeah, but as they didn`t have one, it was indeed completely stupid idea (and showed the future of ICBM subs coming at the same time).
Without a nuke, risking an U-boat with 50-60 man, sending it all accross the atlantic at the cost of hundreds of tons of diesel, just to lauch a single rocket that was questionable to hit even a city as big as NYC from the sea launch, and even if it`s hits the damage is negligable... not to speak that the whole mission fails if the sea is unkind, and the rocket is lost via transfer or simply impossible to be set up for lauch in the heavy seas...
But, as said, long live the pioneers.
-
hey , i have a idea, have the US design a super bomber and call it a B29 and then design a super bomb that would destroy a whole city.....nah,silly idea, americans too stupid to do anything like that.
-
Originally posted by john9001
hey , i have a idea, have the US design a super bomber and call it a B29 and then design a super bomb that would destroy a whole city.....nah,silly idea, americans too stupid to do anything like that.
Well ... how many of the A-bomb's designers were actually American by birth? How many were German?
-
How many were Hungarian? :D :aok
I heard it was Teller Ede the only smart enough of all of them to license what he made. Yep, he was paid huge license fees by all the warmongering superpowers busy building A-bombs! Smart guy.
-
U forgot most americans where formerly europeans :)
Also what country gave the opportunity and technology to make the bomb.
Its the Germans fault to terrorize and haunt the jewish scientists like Einstein out of the country either.
-
And if the germans had enough sense to focus on the practical, achievable producable tech --- they might have done MUCH better. As it was, they fragmented their production and research into so many channels that war changing techs (liek the jet, and the cheap, mass producable V1) werent available in time or in quantity to have an impact.
For the price of one -- the V2 project -- they could have had thousands of V1s launched months earlier from nearer bases. And each V1 had the same or slightly more payload than the intermediate range ballistic V2.
And how did that looney sea launch from a thermos bottle idea get past the doodle on a napkin stage?
USA did outproduce, but one reason was their hard headed emphasis on making it work....
-
So are you saying because of its INS this particular sea launch system was feasible? Or are you just defending the Nazis because they were geniuses but still lacked the ability to win the war regardless of their advanced technology.
Since you also bring up the A Bomb when exactly did Germany use their advanced atomic technology? If they had a working model why is it that they never used it?
-
Here you are again! Please stop spouting bullchit everywhere you post!
The A4 (V2) had an inertial navigation system. This missile had a top speed of mach 5, flew in space, re-entered the atmosphere, and regularly hit London all the way from Germany.
The V-2 didn't have the range to hit London from Germany, the ones fired at London were from launch sites in Belgium and the Netherlands.
As to the accuracy, the Germans launched 1,190 V-2s against London, the London air defence area, which was about 40 km by 50km, was hit by 501 of them.
That's just about good enough for a nuke, if you are prepared to waste about 50% of the bombs you build, but an absolute waste of a conventional ballistic missile.
I'm confused -- that beast was a pain to prelaunch, and the fuel wasnt exactly the most stable stuff around. How did they load fuel, go through the prelaunch check, and keep everything OK while the missile was towed?
Are the photos operational, or were they done 20ft away from some off camera dock?
No V-2s were test launched from U-boats or towed containers during the war. The photos at the start of this thread show the test firing of unguided 15cm artillery rockets from the deck of a U-boat, and have nothing to do with the plan to use them to launch V-2s, which never got further than a paper study.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
So are you saying because of its INS this particular sea launch system was feasible?
If the U-boat knew its own exact position when launching I see no reason for the missile to be any less acurate than a land launced one. Without an A-bomb however it is pointless.
Originally posted by Cobra412
Since you also bring up the A Bomb when exactly did Germany use their advanced atomic technology?
I think you missed the point.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Also what country gave the opportunity and technology to make the bomb.
I`d say it was the country of origin which allowed these geniuses to become what they were, a large part is also due to the research institutes and universities, as if you look all of these gentleman spent considerable time in Germany. And then of course the third one are the American value to grab the opportunity and sort out the problems with the vast resources that country can provide.
Its the Germans fault to terrorize and haunt the jewish scientists like Einstein out of the country either. [/B]
Indeed it was great loss for them, even though I doubt they would lack the intellectual capacity to make the bomb, there were dozens of German nuclear scientists still around, and the very basics were developed there. I think their setback was the leadership`s attitude to the programme, which never got the resources, nor the urge to get out something practical instead of theoretical research.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
As to the accuracy, the Germans launched 1,190 V-2s against London, the London air defence area, which was about 40 km by 50km, was hit by 501 of them.
That's just about good enough for a nuke, if you are prepared to waste about 50% of the bombs you build, but an absolute waste of a conventional ballistic missile.
Not quite, though the material damage was small, the effect on morale was huge. People could get use to the V-1s that you could as they approached, but the V-2 was a kind of evil, at 5 Mach it exploded in your garden and you were long dead before it gave any notice. People don`t like that, Churchill had to consider the evacuation of London due to the V-2 raids.
OTOH, the V-1 had the advantage of bogging down huge allied resources at a very cheap prize.
-
Oh dear.
The V-1 as well as the V-2 were completely pointless weapons for anything but urban bombings.
I can dig up some data on the V-1's, but it turned out to be a thing quite defendable. Off some hundreds launced over the north sea by he-111's (the launch sites in Holland were either being attacked or overrun) the ones hitting the London area actually were fewer than the launch aircraft lost! So, who's resources was it bogging down in that equation?
On the flip-side, the missions to strafe and bomb launch sites were very costly.
(hope I'm right, - from memory)
The V-2 was of course unstoppable. Since it had a very bad effect on morale in the UK, I think you could say that the Brits had little sympathy with the German urban areas as a return.
They bombed Germany very mercilessly in the last years of the war, the existence of these weapons only added to the toughness. Come to think of it, the Brits could have bombed urban areas very much more, had they started early enough.
-
Then Scholzie:
"Well ... how many of the A-bomb's designers were actually American by birth? How many were German?"
They were mostly of Jewish origin.
And then you must add Niels Bohr :D
-
So was the launching of V2s on London pointless also because they didn't have the A-Bomb on them?
I really don't care if the Germans were the first to put ink on a piece of paper thinking this up. The fact remains they never used one so it really doesn't matter if they were the original designers or not. If you can't deploy it then it's nothing more then a huge paper weight. You can brag all day about how bright they were but even with their highly advanced technology they still lost.
-
Amen, Cobra.
Just like all the "wonder" weapons of the Luftwaffe posted all over the Net, it was nothing more than an idea.
What I love to see are the "what if" websites that try to portray how "lucky" Allied airmen are that the war ended when it did.
Most show an artist's painting of some Ta-183's or other German jets just pillaging Allied bomber formations, with the caption somewhere on the page "This is what the Allies would have faced had the war continued into 1946..." or some other rubbish.
Wanna take a guess what the Allied would have faced had the war lingered into 1946?
Mostly empty skies, as the Luftwaffe was so short of fuel they would have been able to offer only token resistance.
Berlin? A wasteland. Nagasaki and Hiroshima would not have been the first cities to meet the atomic bombs had the European war dragged on. On second thought, I doubt the Allies would have dropped the A-bomb on Berlin, but you can bet one or two German cities would have gotten the "first nuked" honors.
The Germans did have a very basic understanding of how to make an atomic bomb, but.........that is one area in which they lagged far behind the Americans.......I seem to recall reading a book about their program, and they were anywhere from 6 to 10 years away from producing a workable weapon.
Yup, the Germans had no shortage of ideas, but unless you can take that idea from the drawings on paper and make it a reality, a working weapon, what good is it?
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
So was the launching of V2s on London pointless also because they didn't have the A-Bomb on them?
I really don't care if the Germans were the first to put ink on a piece of paper thinking this up. The fact remains they never used one so it really doesn't matter if they were the original designers or not. If you can't deploy it then it's nothing more then a huge paper weight. You can brag all day about how bright they were but even with their highly advanced technology they still lost.
You keep missing the point. The "German" bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-
You keep missing the point. The "German" bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
German????
More like a sub-human Jewish bomb. :) The uber German Arayan race could not make THEE bomb but the sub-human Jews could. :D
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
So was the launching of V2s on London pointless also because they didn't have the A-Bomb on them?
I wouldn`t say so. The V-2s were creating a huge panic in London, Chuchill lied for a while that all those explosions during the day were caused by accidents with the household gas systems... :rofl yeah, 20-40 house exploded into nothing because of this. Then he had to admit the enemy possess a weapon that they have absolutely no means of defense against. Public morale was such they even considered evacuating London - something they wouldn`t do in 1940... So I think even with a conventional warhead, the V-2s had unproportionally great effect on British morale. They could have outfitted them and the V-1s with other weapons of mass destruction, such as Tabun nerve gas, which would have devastating results, if the war goes ugly.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
German????
More like a sub-human Jewish bomb. :) The uber German Arayan race could not make THEE bomb but the sub-human Jews could. :D
Correct ;)
-
did the morale dropped when those citys in germany where bombed.
i guess not the only downside on V2 is that it is not interceptable.
Call it panic but the allied warmachine didnt suffer a little bit.
V1s and V2 where the last chicken attempts to hit england.
They just lacked an airforce strong enough to bomb england.
Even if they had wonder weapons the USA would hit back with more numbers and better weapons. Why just because they could develop them quite in a non attacked country.
Not to mention the feul problems and many more probs.
Oh and nice to tell Churchill had to lay down for a moment.
While that lunatic Hitler already digged himself into a Bunker.
-
Thank you for your very intelligent contribution. We all learned much. :aok
-
1+1 = 2 not 5
i Hate ur totally tubular attitude
-
Well, well Kurfurst showing his face.
It was lucky for the Germans actually that they didn't have so many V-2's.
Why?
Well, the planned countermeasure was utter BBQ of all German cities in range, and gas being considered as a measure.
Even today, there is hardly a way to stop a V-2.
There have been some successful ones tested, well today's V-2's are named Scuds.......
-
Intelligence is not search stuff and quote all it fits.
Ur work is just super boring i rather have an intelligent airduel in the MA.
U think ur quite something huh .
That also counts for all the maths and formula u throw here on the board.
I did have maths at school and most can be solved simply by 6 is 3 times 2.
Again that is boring
Its not interesting to me but that doesn´t shouldnt make u think i am a handsomehunk.
Again i have a family and a life and time i have is just to fly and not dive into books like a nerd dork etc.
intelligence is not theoretic thing like u think.
FU
-
What's gotten into you Bug? Please step out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat.
-
Originally posted by Slurpee
Nah not really any use for it as far as the game goes. But i think its really amazing how many things you see the Germens pioneerd that are in similar use today. Such as Subs launching missiles and the B-2 etc , Jets... I wonder what the germans would have come up with if they had one ww2.
Probly faster and better ways to exterminate people. Yeah, really amaizing the things the have done for humanity.
Metzger
-
So where exactly were the atomic bombs themselves made in Germany? Was it a high or low yield atomic weapon? What was the actual weight of their atomic bomb? What did the bomb housing itself look like? What airframes or launch vehicles was the weapon tested on? How many tests were conducted that actually detonated an atomic weapon?
Sorry but having a crude atomic pile does not equate to having an atomic bomb that is capable of being deployed.
-
Jesus, this is unreal.
-
Didn't think you could answer those questions. So much for those being German bombs used on Japan.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Jesus, this is unreal.
Even He cant help you here lol.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If the U-boat knew its own exact position when launching I see no reason for the missile to be any less acurate than a land launced one.
Major reason GScholz -- rock is stiffer than water. The launch "platform" at sea would be massively displaced by the rocket's thrust, throwing the tube out of line rapidly and irrevocably. Thus, there's NO WAY this baby could be aimed in even a general way. It's inconcievable to me that an engineer could even have put this idea to paper.....
Originally posted by GScholz
I think you missed the point.
Yeah, he did.
Cobra, Scholtz was saying that many of the important RESEARCHERS had originally come from GErmany. He didnt say that the Germans had the bomb.
-
the germans never got past "heavy water" in their a-bomb development.
some of you think that the germans or the russians invented everything and the americans were just a bunch of soda jerks that could not tie their own shoe laces.
be happy in your version of history.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Major reason GScholz -- rock is stiffer than water. The launch "platform" at sea would be massively displaced by the rocket's thrust, throwing the tube out of line rapidly and irrevocably. Thus, there's NO WAY this baby could be aimed in even a general way. It's inconcievable to me that an engineer could even have put this idea to paper.....
What part of "inertial navigation system" did you not get? The V2 was not a dumbfire rocket aimed at launch. The trajectory was even corrected in flight by a radio navigation system.
The V2 was one of the most complicated machines built during the war.
(http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/v2technic.jpg)
-
It has an alcohol tank in the nose.
What a waste!!!!!
-
Thank you Simaril for enlightening us. I'm very aware of GSs position when it comes to the Germans. The world would have just been hopeless when it comes to technology if it hadn't been for the Germans. :lol
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What part of "inertial navigation system" did you not get? The V2 was not a dumbfire rocket aimed at launch. The trajectory was even corrected in flight by a radio navigation system.
The V2 was one of the most complicated machines built during the war.
Short of the Manhatten project, prabably was the most complicated.
Inertial guidance is well and good, but the critical part of a ballistic launch is the low velocity initial climb. If there's torque or anything else that overtaxes the gyroscopic system, that puppy is toast. Think of all the very expensive, very tall explosive candles created early in the satellite era -- and that relied on the same core of scientists, imported from Germany, with the advantage of US resources and another generation of technology.
The enormous, sustained thrust required to lift the V2 monster would have exerted greater displacing force on the lighter partly submerged "trailer", driving it deep in the ocean and requiring proportionately more thrust to lift the unstable rocket. Meanwhile, that exhaust would have to be vented from the core without creating vortices or blowback around the rocket and up the sides of the silo -- made doubly difficult because the underwater platform couldn;t rely on lateral venting without losing watertight integrity. If the silo "roof" was driven below sea level, inflowing ocean water would have entered the mix.
IF the V2 could have achieved flight, the inertial system could have helped -- but I'm not convinced that 1940's tech could have compensated for teh massive destabilization that launch would have created.
And, BTW, what's with the attitude, Schultz? We're just talking, man....
-
Originally posted by Simaril
IF the V2 could have achieved flight, the inertial system could have helped -- but I'm not convinced that 1940's tech could have compensated for teh massive destabilization that launch would have created.
And, BTW, what's with the attitude, Schultz? We're just talking, man....
Look at the first post in this thread ... it flew.
Originally posted by Fongman
(http://www.collectrussia.com/sboot/launch2.jpg)(http://www.collectrussia.com/sboot/launch1.jpg)(http://www.collectrussia.com/sboot/v2plan3.jpg)(http://www.collectrussia.com/sboot/v2plan1.jpg)
And this is what's annoying me ... people that cannot follow a simple line of argument without having to be repeatedly reminded about the facts.
-
So GS, you're claiming that the V2 was sucessfully submarine launched?
I find that hard to believe.
-
Look at the first post in this thread ... it flew.
Those pictures are test firings of 15cm and 30cm artillery rockets from the deck of a U-boat. They are nothing whatsoever to do with the V-2.
See http://www.prinzeugen.com/V2.htm
Some sources claim a container for underwater transport and launching of a V-2 was built, but there's no evidence it. It certainly never got as far as the testing stage.
-
I think Simaril and GS are just not on the same wave length.
Yes, GS, the V2 flew. It did NOT, however, as I believe Simaril is trying to say, launch from a submarine.
And I'm not trying to insult your intelligence by pointing that out.
Sim, GS did point out that the 1940's technology was not sufficient for the task of guiding a sea launched V2. Or did I misinterpret that, GS?
That was what I got out of your statement.
C'mon guys, this is all theoretical stuff.
Sure, the Germans were pretty high up there on the technology side of things. After all, their leaders were planning on a war YEARS before anyone else was, so their minds were geared toward weaponry. They had almost a decade head start on the Americans alone. While the Germans and Nazis were gearing up for war, here in American, we were still struggling to recover from the Great Depression and military spending was just plain pathetic. But when the US geared up for war, we caught up REALLY fast, and surpassed anyone's expectations.
IMHO, yes, we do "owe" them some respect for coming up with the ideas for some of our modern day weaponry, but that is all.
Without Britain and the US and the victors of WW2, those ideas would not have become reality.
It took the resources and economies of the Allies to take the German ideas and make them into real, live weapons.
The Germans also contributed in other areas, such as the medical field, but the "means" of their contribution and research go beyond the limits of humanity and don't bear further discussion.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Those pictures are test firings of 15cm and 30cm artillery rockets from the deck of a U-boat. They are nothing whatsoever to do with the V-2.
If that is the case then I stand corrected.
Originally posted by eddiek
Sim, GS did point out that the 1940's technology was not sufficient for the task of guiding a sea launched V2. Or did I misinterpret that, GS?
As long as they could get it into the air without it toppling over it would be no more difficult to guide than its land launched brethren. The real trick is to get an accurate launch position for a U-boat at sea. A radio location system could be used, but accuracy would obviously be less than on land.
-
'Nuf said.
-
"Yup, the Germans had no shortage of ideas, but unless you can take that idea from the drawings on paper and make it a reality, a working weapon, what good is it?
"
The germans were actually more advanced as engineers then scientists. The nazis hated scientists. Hence the massive exodus of them.
Thier head start in the war was not as signifigant in their head start in educating their population and establishing higher education in thier country. They were far advanced in that and the nazis were taking advantage of leads that were established in the late 1900s.
So the germans didnt lack the engineering to make thier designs reality, they lacked the time and resources because of the effects of misguided procurment policies and mobilization policies and later because of severe shortages due to blockade and interdiction and the demands of the war effort.
Being in a desperate situation they came up with some desperate and brilliant ideas. Being bombed into the stone age and out numbered on every front they had severe problems in realizing the designs or producing them in any numbers. The absolute rarity of even a few alloys that the allies had in abundence was very signifigant in many of these programs.
Catch 22. Thier desperate situation and limited resources pushed them to devise excellent ideas for weapons. Thier desperate situation and limited resources ensured they would not deploy most of those weapons in any meaningful way and they increased the preasure their enemies felt to finish the germans off utterly.
The V2s were nasty weapons but anyone that thinks that they were going to be effective delivering 2000 pounds at a time into a general city area in changeing the effect of the war is misguided. And the resources used to make such weapons that deliver HE at 1000 times the cost of a bomber would really have been better spent on weapons like the type XXI Uboat that really had the capability to influence the war.
-
"The V2s were nasty weapons but anyone that thinks that they were going to be effective delivering 2000 pounds at a time into a general city area in changeing the effect of the war is misguided. "
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.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Cost of a V-2 was ca. 2000 US dollars.
Source? I'd call BS on this one, but I don't have any evidence to back it up.
-
the B17 was reusable.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the B17 was reusable.
Assuming the $$ values are correct (even tho $2000 seams awfully low)... you'd have to fly a B-17 125 missions to get the same value out of it.
-
Cost of a V-2 was ca. 2000 US dollars.
They had free labour and 100000 marks was worth about 1 dollar.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mora
Source? I'd call BS on this one, but I don't have any evidence to back it up.
How much do you expect for a single use rocket, compared to a 15 ton heavy bomber with a dozen machineguns, radios, navigational equipement, and four large volume 1000+HP piston engines? Not to say training costs for a crew. I haven`t even added fuel costs, how bout ca. 1000 gallon/sortie for a B-17? How much high octane aviation fuel costs compared to... uhm... industrial alcohol?
I hesitate to write that down, but.... a V-1 cost only 500 bucks.
-
The Spitfire costed 5000 quid :D
Anyway, if you assume that a P51 had similar costs, it would haul 2000 lbs further than a V-2 with very much more accuracy :D
Then look at the delivery records of some aircraft, i.e. the Mossie.
BTW, many many V-1's (hundreds) were destroyed in a single precision raid. Just stumbled across this.
-
The German government paid something over £6000 in 1945 terms for each V-2, that's without fuel, warhead, transportation or launching costs.
That's about the price of a Spitfire. (And the costs are not directly comparable, the Germans were using slave labourers and concentration camp inmates to build the underground factories are parts for the missiles.
RV Jones, who analysed German technology during the war for the British government, pointed out that the V-2 would never have been built in Britain because it offered so little in return for it's vast cost.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What part of "inertial navigation system" did you not get? The V2 was not a dumbfire rocket aimed at launch. The trajectory was even corrected in flight by a radio navigation system.
The V2 was one of the most complicated machines built during the war.
Uhhh....no.
Trajectory was NOT adjusted in flight. There was no radio navigation system deployed, and that's not even arguable. The radio on the V-2 sent a signal that told the engine to cut off at a predetermined point in flight. This was only used during testing, as the engineering team developed a replacement system that did the job based on altitude.
The V-2 used an inertial GUIDANCE system, which is very different from an inertial NAVIGATION system. The V-2 didn't know where it was when launched. The operators aligned the missile with the great-circle course to the target, spun it up, and launched it. At the altitude determined by the ballistic trajectory to the target, the engine cut off, and the missile travelled like an artillery shell to the target.
It was a very advanced piece of technology, but a waste of resources.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Uhhh....no.
Trajectory was NOT adjusted in flight. There was no radio navigation system deployed, and that's not even arguable.
Uhhh ... yes.
One very unique structure related to the Wizernes project is in the small French place of Roquetoire, about 8-9 km away from the small town Wizernes and southeast from St. Omer. In this fortress-like concrete structure (medium sized compared to other German works), there was established an ultramodern, ground-based, radio beam remote V2 guidance system. The system received the code name "Umspannwerk C" (transformer station C). This apparatus was conceived and built for guide-beam flight correction of the V2 rocket during launch. Thus, one can see the direct connection between the Wizernes and Roquetoire projects.
The Leitstrahlstellung radio beam at Roquetoire, for use specifically in conjunction with the firing bunker at Wizernes, was the only application of this concept put into action by the Germans. None of the other rocket-bunker projects were designed to use radio beam guidance. The bunker would have provided protection, support and supplies to the vehicles and crews operating the Leitstrahl equipment and vehicles. It would have been a safe place for storage and repair, and ease of deployment during operations. The use of the beam system was so secret, that only the planners and personel at the two facilities knew of its existance. It was shown that constant advances by the Allies in the use of "jammers" to break the German beams, could have easily countered the guidance signal. Even though the Leitstrahlstellung radio beam operation would last only about a minute during a V2 launch and any jamming attempts would have required a known frequency of the beam, the Germans still kept this device top secret. In fact, the allies never discovered this system.
To hit a target within a 250 meters radius and 250 km's away, the side deviation of the flightpath of the V2 had to be not bigger than 1:1.000, and a curve of some arc minutes. Deviations in the height corner of 45 degrees were of small influence but, the speed at burn stop had to be within 0.5 % exact. That is why, high criteria was required for the steering gear of the rocket. In practice, they could reach a corner of plus or minus 1 degree, so that, in a shooting distance of 250 km, at least 50% of the A4 fell in an line of 10 km wide. To enhance this they already started devoloping (during the first developing phase of the A4), the "Leitstrahl" and radio measurement to electronically adjust a V2 already in flight.
The development of the instruments was given to the navigations department of the firm "Lorenz". They delivered "Leitstrahl-(LS)-facheranlage Viktoria" appearing in Nov. of 1940 as a 500 watt adjusting transmitter for the UKW beaken. This transmitter had a frequency of 45 Mhz and was probably devoloped from a landing beaken. It was a "Phasedreiglieder" twice with a deflector contained a horizontal dipole antenna, that was set up at a distance of 8-15 km's behind the launchpad. One of the antennas was direct connected to the transmitter and the other was attached to a "drehkondensator" in a tastverhaltnis 1:1 and 30 times per minute changed in phase. You can see the opposing V2 rocket dipole attenna attached on later production V2 pictures, coming out of the trailing edge of the rocket fins. The plans for this bunker were drawn up in September of 1943.
Synchronous switching of the modulation tone was to take place between 5-7 kHz. Two fan-shaped signals, with different modulation tones, formed the beams of only 0.0125 degrees. These would overlap in places, resulting in an amplitude difference of the modulation of about 5%. The system had to be adjusted very exactly, since the strength of the main beam in relation to the inversly formed counter beam only amounted to 2 degrees.
http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deployment/leitstrahl.html
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The German government paid something over £6000 in 1945 terms for each V-2, that's without fuel, warhead, transportation or launching costs.That's about the price of a Spitfire.
The number I have seen for it is 40 000 Reichsmarks from memory. Hardly 6000 pounds. The V-1 cost from 2500 to 10 000 RM.
EDIT : Looked on the site and it`s states :
"For the V2 , 6967 kg raw materials was needed (without the explosives and devices) of which 3112 kg thin sheet metal (various thickness) e.g. the outer skin. Average price of a V2 was 119600 Reichsmark. "
40 000 RM was stated in various articles, and in 'Warfare of the 3rd Reich' though.
The cost of a Spitfire in 1940 was 45 000 USD, that`s hardly = ca 2500 US bucks.
RV Jones, who analysed German technology during the war for the British government, pointed out that the V-2 would never have been built in Britain because it offered so little in return for it's vast cost. [/B]
Maybe that`s Mr. Jones is a bit sorrow, and this is his way to tell Britain didn`t had the scientific capacity to develop such an advanced weapon.
Not to say the research put into it would pay out very well if the war would last longer, ie. given that the worlds first SAM AA rocket, the Wasserfall, was based on the V-2. With the Wasserfall, it`s not an exagrevation that the large bomber formations would disappear overnight.
EDIT : This is also from the site. I wish Mr. Jones would see it. :
"Some feel that this whole operation was as much about convincing the German rocket scientists to come to Great Britain and work for the the British in the development of a rocket programme, as it was about testing the V2 systems. The British and the Americans began fighting over the German scientists even before the wars end. The Americans had agreed to "lending" many of the top German rocket personnel for the Backfire tests. The Americans found that the British were trying to convince the Germans to stay after the tests. It took a considerable amount of prodding by the U.S. War Department to gain the return of many Germans to American custody. "
So dumb, fighting so hard for something they never wanted (as per Nashwan). :p
-
""if the war would last longer"" how many time have i heard that old song?
-
Maybe that`s Mr. Jones is a bit sorrow, and this is his way to tell Britain didn`t had the scientific capacity to develop such an advanced weapon.
Now you are ascribing your narrow nationalistic views to Jones. If he had been as blindly, fervently "patriotic" (you are Hungarian, not German, right?) as you, he'd have assumed the Germans couldn't build the rocket, or the blind bombing beams, or any of the other things they did build, and he'd have failed utterly at his job. As it was, he did his job rather well, and assesed German technology with a remarkable degree of accuracy.
EDIT : This is also from the site. I wish Mr. Jones would see it. :
"Some feel that this whole operation was as much about convincing the German rocket scientists to come to Great Britain and work for the the British in the development of a rocket programme, as it was about testing the V2 systems. The British and the Americans began fighting over the German scientists even before the wars end. The Americans had agreed to "lending" many of the top German rocket personnel for the Backfire tests. The Americans found that the British were trying to convince the Germans to stay after the tests. It took a considerable amount of prodding by the U.S. War Department to gain the return of many Germans to American custody. "
So dumb, fighting so hard for something they never wanted (as per Nashwan).
See, again your assumptions are leading you astray.
I pointed out that Jones said the V-2 was a waste of resources as a weapon. You first claim that's through blind prejudice, then imply it can't be true because the British tried to get German rocket scientists after the war.
You are overlooking the logical conclusion, that the British admired the rocket itself, without thinking it was a practical means of delivering less than a ton of HE.
In fact, Jones was not blindly prejudiced against the V-2 as you assumed. Here is what he has to say about it in his book, Most Secret War:
upper atmosphere will in itself be a major factor in experimental meteorology, and sooner or later someone will seriously try to reach
the moon—and succeed. Military applications are bound to be made, whatever the limits imposed by treaties, and we should do well to
keep an eye on the possibilities. If we were to allow ourselves more liberty of conjecture, we might consider using atomic fuels to
drive an exhaust of hydrogen molecules, or perhaps lighter particles, giving an entirely different order of performance.
It is an often stated requirement that a weapon of war should have a probable error comparable with its radius of destruction, so that
a few shots would ensure the obliteration of the target. Practical weapons seldom approach this ideal, although in the future it may
be attainable through homing devices. With a very long range rocket we may have to accept errors, and it may be easier to increase the
radius of destruction by the use of new types of explosive based on the fission of the uranium atomic nucleus. If such an explosive
becomes practicable, it will probably have a radius of destruction of the order of miles, and on this account alone it might best be
carried in some unmanned projectile, of which the rocket would be a particularly suitable type by virtue of its relative immunity from
interception and of its potentially better accuracy at long ranges compared with pilotless aircraft. Speculation of this kind is
fascinating, but can well wait for a paper at a later time when it is nearer realization. Reviewing therefore what we have seen to be
reasonable extrapolation from present practice, a two-stage rocket of about 150 tons starting weight could deliver a 1 ton warhead to
nearly 3,000 miles range, with a probable error of 10 miles in range and 3 miles in line. This might be a feasible weapon for
delivering a uranium bomb, should such a bomb become practicable. It would be almost hopeless to counter by attacks on the ground
organization, because the increased range would allow an almost unlimited choice of firing site, while the trajectory could be so
varied that the firing point could not be deduced without sufficient accuracy for countermeasures. Production would probably take
place underground. At the moment such a rocket could not be intercepted, but by the time it becomes a serious possibility it may
itself be a target for smaller defence rockets fitted with predictors and homing devices: but these would depend upon adequate
warning, and the defences might also be saturated by a salvo of long range rockets.
The protagonists for the development of very long range rockets would probably have, in Britain at any rate, to meet the criticism that it would not be worth the effort expended. The A4 has already shown us that our enemies are not restrained by such considerations and have thereby made themselves leaders in a technique which sooner or later will be regarded as one of the masterpieces of human endeavour when it comes to be applied to the exploration of Space. As it is mainly with our enemies that Intelligence is concerned, rather than with our own views on military economics, it suffices that the long range rocket can be developed much further. In the light of this fact, we must watch.
As you can see, Jones was looking very much to the future, to intercontinental missiles, moon landings, space exploration. He saw the V-2 as a hopeless waste of resources for lobbing less than a ton of explosives, and as you can see that wasn't based on a silly attitude that it must be bad because it wasn't invented here.
Jones saw the V-2 for what it was, a brilliant example of technical progress, a huge waste of resources in the use to which it was put.
Not to say the research put into it would pay out very well if the war would last longer, ie. given that the worlds first SAM AA rocket, the Wasserfall, was based on the V-2. With the Wasserfall, it`s not an exagrevation that the large bomber formations would disappear overnight.
Again, the technology was good, the application of it for throwing rather small bombs on London was a waste. Speer banned production of the Wasserfall whilst V-2 production continued, because there weren't enough resources for both projects.
The number I have seen for it is 40 000 Reichsmarks from memory. Hardly 6000 pounds. The V-1 cost from 2500 to 10 000 RM.
EDIT : Looked on the site and it`s states :
"For the V2 , 6967 kg raw materials was needed (without the explosives and devices) of which 3112 kg thin sheet metal (various thickness) e.g. the outer skin. Average price of a V2 was 119600 Reichsmark. "
As well as pure raw materials, you have to look at the electronics (Speer is on record as saying the U-boats and Luftwaffe were starved of electronics because the V-2 took so much of the electronic industry's production), the huge underground factory where they were built (also intended for an underground refinery, but the refinery had to be delayed until the V-2 production facilities were built), the huge consumption of liquid oxygen, the transport and launching costs.
I have yet to see any serious author sugest the V-2 was cost effective )as opposed to the V-1, which was)
-
source (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/v2.htm)
The V-2 ballistic missile (known to its designers as the A4) was the world's first operational liquid fuel rocket. It represented an enormous quantum leap in technology, financed by Nazi Germany in a huge development program that cost at least $ 2 billion in 1944 dollars. 6,084 V-2 missiles were built, 95% of them by 20,000* slave labourer in the last seven months of World War II at a unit price of $ 17,877. As many as 3,225 were launched in combat, primarily against Antwerp and London, and a further 1,000 to 1,750 were fired in tests and training.
20,000 deaths...Each V-2 cost 3 slave labor lives
-
Again, the technology was good, the application of it for throwing rather small bombs on London was a waste.
Well considering it caused a massive panic in Britain, certainly it paid of better than building heavy bombers at even larger cost in both material and human life, which failed to effect morale negatively (it lead to fiercer resistance from the Wehrmacht, though).
I pointed out that Jones said the V-2 was a waste of resources as a weapon. You first claim that's through blind prejudice, then imply it can't be true because the British tried to get German rocket scientists after the war.
Perhaps it would be a waste of weapon for Britain, which didn`t have the scientific resources to develop it, nor the industrial resources to produce it. I think it`s fairly typical British attitude, trying to downplay what they actually envy and can`t have. They had to rely completely on American shipments, after all.
Speer banned production of the Wasserfall whilst V-2 production continued, because there weren't enough resources for both projects.
You might want to find a source for that. It`s a very intersting claim in view that the Wasserfall was continously developed until the end of the war, ie. test launches were conducted in even February 1945, and that it`s costs were marginal compared to the V-2, being much smaller and using lower tech, cheap parts.
As well as pure raw materials, you have to look at the electronics (Speer is on record as saying the U-boats and Luftwaffe were starved of electronics because the V-2 took so much of the electronic industry's production),
Interesting claim again, source? As for raw materials, the V-2 required a 3 tons of steel, and given that Germany was the second largest producer of the steel at that time with 30 million tons per year, it hardly bothered them.
Never heard of the LW having problems with equipping electronics, ie. there were over 2000 Würzburg D radar sets around in 1945 only to guid the LW`s AA guns, U-boots wasn`t on short ever on active and passive radar sets etc. I can barely think of how would the low-tech electronics used in a few thousend V-2s effect the high-tech electronic industry utilized by the LW`s radar equipment.
Also of interest, that as per Ian Hogg, the total labour hours to produce a V-2 was 4000h, in comparision of 2000 required by the V-1... and no less than 2500 to manufacture just the wing of a Spitfire or 109.
the huge consumption of liquid oxygen, the transport and launching costs.
Huge costs? For like, getting a trailer in position with a few dozen man as crew? How do these cost relate to the supply train required by a heavy bomber?
I have yet to see any serious author sugest the V-2 was cost effective )as opposed to the V-1, which was)
Simple comparision of the much lower resources required by the V-2 compared to a conventional bomber show this. The V-1 which was cehaper, had also lower success rate (about half)
-
Neart technology no doubt, but basically useless as an explosive lobbing weapon in WW2.
Heck, even conventional SCUDs are pretty useless and they were basically highly developed descendants of the V2...
-
"Massive panic"?
LOL we are being melodramatic aen't we Barbarossa Isegrim. :rolleyes:
"which didn`t have the scientific resources to develop it, nor the industrial resources to produce it."
Bulldung. The Brits showed their practibility, again. They had axial jet engines running in 1940 but knew they could not be developed, unlike the Germans, as a useful engine before the war ended. They consentrated their industrial and scientific resources on reality, not some 'pipedream' fantasy world the Germans lived in, for winning the war.
Barbarossa Isegrim your bigoted ant-British bias is showing, again.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
They had axial jet engines running in 1940 but knew they could not be developed, unlike the Germans, as a useful engine before the war ended.
Very true. Britain had no hope of building a usuful axial jet (which Germany did), produce it in large numbers (which Germany did), and get it into operation in numbers (which Germany did).
The 'practical' way they followed with lower-tech centrifugal engines ensured that no British jet served any useful purpose during the war, except for chasing a few unmanouvering drones.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Very true. Britain had no hope of building a usuful axial jet (which Germany did), produce it in large numbers (which Germany did), and get it into operation in numbers (which Germany did).
Is that why ~8000 Jumo 004s were produced but there was less than 100 operational Me262s, and typically less, at any one time out of the ~1400 Me262s produced. One only has to look at a loss list for the Me262 and note the high number lost to engine related problems.
The 'practical' way they followed with lower-tech centrifugal engines ensured that no British jet served any useful purpose during the war, except for chasing a few unmanouvering drones.
Yet the Soviets used these 'low' tech engines in the MiG15 and MiG17 well into the '60s. Those low tech British engines were producing much more power than the 'high' disaster Jumo 004. The Brits were in touch with reality unlike the Germans who pinned there hopes of winning on their desperation 'pipe dreams'.
There was no real need for Allied jets as the mighty LW was being cleared from the skies by Allied piston engine.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Uhhh ... yes.
uhhhh....no. The Leitstrahlstellung system was a modified radio beacon that was intended to provide boost-phase guidance for the V2, but it was never put into use except in tests. Your source is the only one that makes that claim that I can find. All other sources state that the V2/A4 used a series of three gyroscopic inertial guidance systems, the first maintaining a vertical orientatition during the beginning of the boost phase, the second tipping the rocket onto its trajectory toward the target, and the third used as an accumulating accelerometer to send a cutoff signal to the engines when the pre-programmed speed was acheived.
If there had been an external signal, it would have been less accurate, since there were considerable variations in boost performance of the engines. The downrange impact point was set by the engine cutoff speed, not on the actual trajectory (although, in a perfect world, they would be the same). The crossrange impact point was determined by carefully aligning the rocket with the great-circle course to the target with an optical sight, just like a cannon or a howitzer is aimed.
Furthermore, there ARE NO STEERING CONTROL SURFACES ON THE ROCKET FINS. Steering was accomplished by a series of gyroscopically-controlled vanes in the exhaust path of the rocket motor. No motor, no steering. After motor cutoff, the V2 was a very expensive artillery shell. It was subject to the same wind and aerodynamic effects a bullet or shell undergoes during the reentry ad non-powered terminal phase of flight. That's one of the main reasons the suckers often missed by several miles.
-
quote:
The V-2 ballistic missile (known to its designers as the A4) was the world's first operational liquid fuel rocket. It represented an enormous quantum leap in technology, financed by Nazi Germany in a huge development program that cost at least $ 2 billion in 1944 dollars. 6,084 V-2 missiles were built, 95% of them by 20,000* slave labourer in the last seven months of World War II at a unit price of $ 17,877. As many as 3,225 were launched in combat, primarily against Antwerp and London, and a further 1,000 to 1,750 were fired in tests and training.
You're claiming that the construction cost of a V-2 is 2000, 4000, 6000, or whatever in USD. But hte development cost has to be counted, too. If the program cost 2 Billion USD, and 6084 were produced, then the development cost of each V2/A4 was 328,731 USD. The material cost is insignificant in comparison.
To put that 2 Billion USD into perspective, that is a bit more than the 1.8 Billion USD that were spent on the Manhattan project, which produced the atomic bombs used against Japan. The three bombs produced all worked perfectly, and the two launched against Japan effectively destroyed their targets.
Now, who got more bang for the buck? :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
20,000 deaths...Each V-2 cost 3 slave labor lives
Actually, it was more like 6 deaths/missile. The staff was 20,000, but the turnover was...large.
shubie
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Furthermore, there ARE NO STEERING CONTROL SURFACES ON THE ROCKET FINS. Steering was accomplished by a series of gyroscopically-controlled vanes in the exhaust path of the rocket motor. No motor, no steering.
I posted this image earlier in the thread, what part of "external contol vanes" do you not understand?
(http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/v2technic.jpg)
Here thay are labeled "air rudders"...
(http://www.v2rocket.com/start/makeup/v2_cutaway.jpg)
Also note the "Guiding-beam and radio control gear".
Here's a photo clearly showing the external control surfaces:
(http://www.v2rocket.com/start/makeup/markings-head.jpg)
I don't know what source you are using Shubie, but I'm afraid it sucks.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
quote:
The V-2 ballistic missile (known to its designers as the A4) was the world's first operational liquid fuel rocket. It represented an enormous quantum leap in technology, financed by Nazi Germany in a huge development program that cost at least $ 2 billion in 1944 dollars.
[/B]
Sorry, you won`t convince me about that number 2 BILLION USD is a vast amount, iirc something like 1/4-1/3 of the entire UK`s spending on war... Two billion USD would be something like 10 billion Reichmarks, now compare to that the Bismarck battleships were built for 200 million each...
Sorry, you won`t convince me that a development programme would ever cost the 50 Battleships... .
BTW, I just looked up Ian Hogg, and he states that an actual underwater launch of a V-2 from an U-boot was actually made on the Baltic.
-
Kurfürst if you add the "cost" of the slave lives the "cost" skyrocket in the instant.
-
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.
-
I was not concidering the cost from a Nazi point of view.
GS you technocrat bastige forgot to put any smilley in your sentence ! :p
-
;) there you go.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
The way it was used it was a complete waste of time and resources.
-
The way of the V2 application you mean???
-
Yes. Without a meaningful payload the V2 was pointless. Had they used gas or bio weapons they might have been worth the effort.
-
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.
-
massive panic
Please relativate ur wet dream.
Yeah i like to keep it simple.
It just tells all.
talked to much already
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.