Advanced versions of the V-2 rocket

wrote:
The above are nothing but concentration camp records, records of a
system that was actually smaller than the Soviet Gulag system.

The style of writing is undignified, sensationalist. There is nothing
new.


No, but there's finally details on something old; we can now associate
the victims of the Holocaust with actual names and specifics of why they
were rounded up rather than just estimated numbers.
Once that all is gone through, we're going to learn a great deal about
what happened to 17 million people, person-by-person.
I can see why this has been kept under wraps for all this time, because
when you get this all tabulated, you can start generating graphs with
specific numbers attached to them. And that's going to be dynamite.
It was Stalin who said: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths
is a statistic."
And these papers are going to turn a statistic into several million
single deaths, each associated with a name.


Did you know they used computers to organize the Holocaust? Well, punch
cards and associated machinery. Made sieving for Jews a highly efficient
job: after the census in 1939 they had data of all German citizens on
punch cards, including "race". IBM delivered that, by the way.


There is absolutely NO evidence that punch cards (Hollerith IBM
machines) or German census data was used at all although it is a
common misconception that is deliberately spread and there is plenty
of credible evidence to refute this.

Well, that let's IBM off the hook.
But those typewriter ribbon manufacturers have a lot to answer for...

There was in fact a high degree
of privacy in the German census which was tabulated with these
machines and obtained demographic data.

The "holocaust industry' is like any other industry or charity; it
employs nearly 10,000 full time professionals in the USA alone and
they must be funded and fed.


Maybe if we put them in a camp somewhere, they could get more work done
while using less valuable supplies.
I think that debating whether people were rounded up via punch-cards or
via typewriters is somehow missing the point here; 17 million were
rounded up and sent to the camps; and saying "Well, Stalin did it too."
is hardly an excuse for it, as Stalin was one of the biggest butchers of
the 20th century, or for that matter, all time (I'd have to check, but I
think Mao is still in the lead by quite a ways with "The Great Leap
Forward" program).


Pat

OM wrote:

2 Using forced labour prevents the evolution of human ingenuity
ranging from better processes, automation etc. The Romans used steam
for gimicks such as opening temple doors but they never evolved to use
it as motive power for anything. Why should they: they had slaves and
immigrants.


...I can actually see someone trying to come up with a hybrid theory
that will explain the reason as to why the Roomba a) took so long to
show up and b) isn't 100% perfect is that domestic labor by illegals
is still so damn cheap :-)


It was the Greeks, not the Romans BTW, that did the steam temple doors.
I don't know about you, but I think we've run into a less crazy version
of Rob Arndt here.
Slowly, but surely, this is all going to start moving toward the
superiority of all things Nazi.
The problem is, this seems to be getting more-and-more common on the net
as time goes on.
A lot of it seemed to come from the end of the Cold War; Eastern
Europeans, freed from the Soviet Union's yoke, went looking for
something ultimately anti-communist to align with... and guess who and
what they found?

Pat

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:48:30 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

...I can actually see someone trying to come up with a hybrid theory
that will explain the reason as to why the Roomba a) took so long to
show up and b) isn't 100% perfect is that domestic labor by illegals
is still so damn cheap :-)

It was the Greeks, not the Romans BTW, that did the steam temple doors.

....Actually, there were a couple of Roman temples that had these
doors. It was more of a gimmick than anything else, sort of how
Chinese restaurants try to look like a cross between a pagoda and
Yoshiwara's, and yet contain modern facilities.

I don't know about you, but I think we've run into a less crazy version
of Rob Arndt here. Slowly, but surely, this is all going to start moving toward the
superiority of all things Nazi.

....As Spock put it, despite the despotism and the Holocaust, the Nazi
system *was* surprisingly efficient. Imagine where it could have gone
if Hitler had been a bit more sane, or if they hadn't eradicated those
millions and instead used their talents in more normal, rational ways.
But they weren't, and we need to never forget the lesson they taught
us about power corrupting.

A lot of it seemed to come from the end of the Cold War; Eastern
Europeans, freed from the Soviet Union's yoke, went looking for
something ultimately anti-communist to align with... and guess who and
what they found?

....Personally, once Hitler and the SS elite had been purged, I
seriously think Patton had the right idea: stick what was left in
charge of Germany so they could rebuild enough to keep the Russians
out, which is essentially what we did with Japan.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM wrote:
...As Spock put it, despite the despotism and the Holocaust, the Nazi
system *was* surprisingly efficient.

I would disagree with that; they sank tremendous amounts of money and
manpower into exotic weapons systems that didn't make sense. Here's some
quotes from Hogg's "German Secret Weapons Of The Second World War" book:

"The German system

They did things differently in Germany. I quote from one of the CIOS
reports:

'This device was made by a set of irresponsible inventors with no
manufacturing connections. They would have been shut down but for their
political connections.'

Or this, from an American report:

'Very definitely we believe that no other German proximity fuze is worth
following up: there were more crackpot notions getting political support
than we would have imagined.'

Or this, from the interrogation report of a senior German General:
'The Army ordered a new anti-tank gun; the Air Force ordered an
anti-aircraft gun; the Navy ordered a gun for attacking naval and air
targets. All three branches worked entirely independently of one
another, and generally in opposition to one another, and so it happened
that orders for the same thing might come from three different sources.
As every engineer has a different conception of the same thing, it came
to pass that three different equipments were introduced where one might
have done.'

There, in three nutshells, lies the clue to the failure of the German
secret weapons programme. There was no central authority with the
ability to assess, reject bad ones, allocate research facilities to good
ones, and organize production.Almost every field of activity could
muster five or six authorities all competing to be the supreme arbiter
in that particular branch of expertise. So, if an inventor failed to get
a hearing from the first, he could try the second or third and continue
to play one off against the other until he managed to get a foot into
one door. Alternatively, if an inventor could interest a manufacture,
and if the manufacturer had the ear of a party official, then all the
official bodies could be by-passed by a direct appeal to the Fuhrer or
Reichsmarschal
Goering or Himmler or some other similarly powerful figure.
And even the the most august figures were not adverse to extending their
empires, increasing their influence and thus binding themselves closer
to Hitler. As an example of this, once Himmler discovered the existence
of the V-2 rocket programme he never rested till he had the entire
control of it in his own hands and his nominees in all the positions of
authority."

If that sounds a bit familiar, it's because that's the way things worked
in the Soviet Union's space program also.
Here's Korolev, and here's Chelomei, and over there is Yangel, all
competing with each other to build a new rocket.
So that there is a constant squabble to get resources allocated going on
between them, and the whole space program suffers as a result.
This may be an endemic problem with dictatorships. By splitting up
Project Apollo between many aerospace firms, we not only "spread the
wealth", but allowed each of the companies to devote there best people
to the part of the project they were working on. (okay, we did have to
tell McDonnell-Douglas to cool it regarding their Lunar Gemini ideas,
but after that things went fairly smoothly regarding getting a huge
project done successfully on a time line.)
And now back to the book, to show another endemic problem, regarding
capitalism this time.
In this case the Hs-293 rocket-boosted guided glider bomb...this thing:
http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/mi.../pix/hs293.jpg
Which wasn't all that big, and wasn't all that complex looking either
but looks can be deceiving:

"In common with many German projects and weapons. one has to say that
the Hs-293 was over-engineered.The following extract from a postwar
report is illuminating:

'The whole weapon is characterized by robust construction apparently
greater than is required by aerodynamic considerations.
The wing had a tubular front spar which tapered from 3 3/8 inches to 2
1/2 inches, and a cast trailing edge which is the rear spar. The taper
on the trailing edge is about ten degrees, and there is a sweep-back of
about two degrees on the leading edge. The wing is almost square. The
trailing edge to a depth of 9.5 inches is formed by a single magnesium
casting of a mean wall thickness of about 0.3 inch, with cut-outs for
the ailerons an with lugs for five ribs and a strengthened triangular
root attachment.
Particular care is taken in machining the trailing edge and some 200
dial indicators are used during manufacture to maintain the very close
tolerances by the aerodynamics of the missile. The wing ribs, all the
same size, are attached to spars by eight screws. The wing section is
symmetrical and the thickness tapers from 5 inches at the root to 3.4
inches at the tip. The airfoil is standard profile with 12 percent
thickness 10 percent back from the leading edge. Although not designed
for it, the wing performed very well at high Mach numbers. The skin,
which is about 16 SWG (standard wire gauge), is in two pieces, inboard
and outboard, meeting at the centre rib of the wing, and each piece is
carried forward from the rear casting.'

A tubular front spar; a single magnesium casting; machining of such
precision that 200 dial indicators are needed to assure its accuracy;
all this on a throw-away weapon?"

So why would they make it that complex? Simple. the more complex it is,
the more it will cost to make, and the more the company can charge for
each one, meaning that all things being equal, its profits per missile
will be higher.
This also explains why our B-2's cost more than their weight in gold.
So what you've got going in Nazi Germany is inter-agency squabbling and
cronyism, combined with corporate gold-plating of projects to up profits.
That's not a terribly efficient way to run things.


Imagine where it could have gone
if Hitler had been a bit more sane, or if they hadn't eradicated those
millions and instead used their talents in more normal, rational ways.


The way he got the economy running again was to put it on a war footing,
and vastly increasing production of armaments of war. It wouldn't have
worked if he had decided to make a whole new type of Cuckoo clock that
would have taken the world by storm.
What finally pulled America out of the Great Depression was putting the
economy on a war footing, and vastly increasing production of armaments
of war.
And a lot of those autobahns were built by Hitler Youth without pay
beyond sustenance rations on a per-day basis, many of whom died in the
effort. So even pre-war, the concept of what was basically slave labor
was in place.
At least with FDR's public works programs the workers got paid something
for their efforts.
And jeepers! We're in a war again, and look at the economy!
Back in LBJ's days they had a poster you could get that said "Remember -
war is good for the economy and other growing things." :-D
But we need that spirit of patriotic voluntarism that the Hitler Youth
showed: http://www.americorps.org/
And look, you even get a cool insignia you can wear on your arm!
They seem to have backed off a bit on that advice to inform on anybody
whom you suspected of having anti-American sympathies, and making notes
on what the other tenants in your apartment building were up to.
Oh wait, that's another division: http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/
No, it's over he http://www.citizencorps.gov/
Hmmm... it appears Arabs have been replaced by Avian Flu as The Threat
To Our Nation.


...Personally, once Hitler and the SS elite had been purged, I
seriously think Patton had the right idea: stick what was left in
charge of Germany so they could rebuild enough to keep the Russians
out, which is essentially what we did with Japan.


And should have done in Iraq.

Pat

On Jul 12, 7:03 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Eunometic wrote:

Link didn't work.

Try these:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baika...tm/strbaik.htm
(Snip)

Yeah, but that leveled Tokyo without even using nuclear weapons, and
pummeled the Japanese war-making ability unto the ground.
London was still there and largely intact after the V-2 attacks.
The V-2 killed thousands of people, but other than that it had just
about zero influence on the progress of the war.

Becuase it was too late by about 6-12 months to
1 Have an impact in terms of production
2 achieve its technical potential.

Note that the B-29 and particulary the Lancaster (as the Manchester)
was crap in
it first year. The V1 never got the year.

You're forgetting one other factor he It was being built by slave
labor who were more than happy to do anything they could to sabotage it
during production if they though they wouldn't be caught doing it.
One technique was to urinate on the guidance system electronics. During
tests at the end of production this would pass fine; but within a few
days corrosion would set in that would make the unit unusable when the
missile was readied for launch.

That some forced workers were actively sabotaging V2 sub component
production
in some plants is something that the V2 shared with some other Nazi
era plants.

It doesn't say anything about the cost effectiveness or potential
cost
effectiveness of the V2. The V2, minus R+D costs, was much cheaper
to produce than an aircraft and even cheaper to opperate with less
risk
to personel.

Junkers only employed 2% of foreign workers and they were
generally well treated. Several aerodynamicists and test pilots were
jewish
for instance and they were clearly protected by Junkers personel.
(probably a left over from the Hugo Junkers days)
It had the among the highest productivity of German aircraft plants.

Heinkel on the other hand ended up with about 40% foreign workers with
Ernst Heinkel spending time in jail over this due to the harsher
conditions.

In part because they were told to stop He 111 and tool up for Me 210
production
when that program was a temporary disaster (because Willy
Messerschmitt had
shortened the tail and built fast tracked the tooling) and as a result
production
had to be shifted to the Ju 88. They would have been better of
building the He 219
which was efficient to mass produce.





I worked out the casualty figure per missile used years ago:
"They managed to spend a fortune of the Nazi's money (around 2 & 1/2
billion dollars in U.S. wartime dollars; including 2
billion for the A-4 and it's predecessors development alone between
1931-45) on a weapon that, in use, killed a average of around 1 & 3/4's
person per missile..
Out of curiosity, I looked up the facts and figures on casualties caused by
V-2's (or A-4's, for the purists) during W.W.II:
A total of approximately 3,170 V-2s were launched operationally at targets;
the vast majority at London, England and Antwerp, Belgium.
The V-2 attacks on England killed a total of 2,511 people.
The attacks on Belgium by both V-1's and V-2's killed a total of 6,448
people- assuming a breakdown of the type of weapons used to be the same as
the attacks on England, then around 44% of the deaths would be attributable
to V-2's; or around 2840 total.
If we include another, say, 200 deaths for other targets that came under V-2
attack, we come up with a total of around 5,550 total fatalities or a
average
of 1 and 3/4 killed per missile.
(Figures are from V-Missiles of the Third Reich, by Dieter
Holsken, Monogram Aviation Publications,1994, ISBN 0-914144-42-1)"

Those kind of statistics cut both ways.

Bomber command dropped about 1,200,000 tons of bombs
Killed about 450,000 civilians
lost 8,000 aircraft
killed 46,000 aircrew.

The V2 is actually more cost effective on that basis.

Ever read the numbers that died making it versus the number it killed in
combat? They were depriving themselves of more workers than the allies
of citizens.

So the idea is to bring up death camps or holocaust issues to distract
from the
argument as to whether the V2 could have been cost effective?

The Dora camp had 60,000 workers. The Nazi camp statistics
record 12,000 deaths whereas other statistics say 20,000.
The sources of those deaths we
1 Allied bombing.
2 Deaths of labourers foced to excavate the tunnels used to secure
production facilities.
3 Forced evacuations and marches as Soviet forces approached,
4 Deaths arising from intimidating people into producing would seem to
be
the least likely cause of deaths.

In other works there was nothing about V2 production, even when using
forced labour, that directly caused such heavy deaths.

In a relatively short time much of the production would have been
reduced
to series of automated operations as the designs and manufacturing
operations were productionised with large pressed or stamped parts
etc.

To put that in context:
"During the latter stages of World War II, Pforzheim, a town in south
west Germany was bombed a number of times. The largest raid, and one
of the most devastating area bombardments of the war was carried out
by the Royal Air Force (RAF) on the evening of February 23, 1945.
About one fifth of the town's population, over 17,000 people, were
killed in the air raid, and about 83% of the town's buildings were
destroyed."

Savagery develops where people are trying to survive themselves.


If you are going to use slave labor at least use it to make something
that you really can hope to change the war situation with.
They lost an estimated 20,000 slave workers at Mittlebau-Dora on V-1/V-2
production:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelbau-Dora
There's some info on bomber costs versus explosive delivered

hehttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/
The_Totalitarian_Temptation_in_Spac...

Here the claim is 6 V2's could be produced for the cost of one
Lancaster. That would be the upper cost of a V2, which was still and
immature weapon yet a very simple weapon once the technology was
developed. Halving production costs was a target. Unlike an aircraft
there were no elaborate fuel injection systems, carefully machined
cylinder for the engine.

The empty, warheadless weight, gives some indication of the cost.
The V2 weighed less than most WW2 fighters and about a 6th of a heavy
bomber.
Some 35% of the labour cost of a ww2 bomber was in the wings.
The v2 didn't have that nor did it have the complicated structural
connections
to allow wing attachment. Apart from the autopilot and fin/vane
servos it was quite a
simple device.



As for the V-2's economics, from another posting:
"As a weapon the V-2 sucked. Even using your figures, we come to a
figure of total dead of
9,202 for Britain and Belgium, plus whatever the malfunctions amounted
to (say 500) so taking 9,702 and dividing it by your total production
and launch figures

There were barely 3000 V2's ever launched. Counting another 6000
produced
but never completed or delivered or launched because they got caught
up
in the final month or two of the war is absurd.

we arrive at 1.6 deaths per V-2 produced; or 2.7
deaths per V-2 actually used- for a terror weapon it seems about as
efficient as a well-placed hand grenade.

It's as 'efficient' as any other bomber.

The tremendous amount of money
that was spent on them would probably have generated far more deaths if
it had been spent on other military weapons, or merely on thousands and
thousands more V-1s; which was a far more effective weapon from the cost
point of view- fromhttp://www.strandlab.com/buzzbombs/

The V1 was an effective weapon but it would have been countered
eventually and those
counter measures were bound to become cost effective. Hence the
decision to
produce both of them,

Improved versions of the
Fi.103 would have had midcourse guidance. (a minor course and range
update)
higher speeds and longer range (up to 400 miles) and potentially
could have
been made more difficult to intercept with radar altimeters to allow
low flights.
The range was to be extended by disposable turbojets (improving
guidence
accuracy due to less vibration as well) but with these features the
price
increases as well.




'Afterwards, the Allies acknowledged that the V-1 was a tactical
success. It was also a very cost-effective weapon:
From a strictly dollar point of view, the V-1 cost the Germans less to
build and to operate than it cost the Allies in damage and
defense. A wartime British study [concluded that] using the German costs
as unity . . . it cost the defenders 1.46 for damage and loss of
production, 1.88 for the bombing, .30 for fighter interception, and .16
for static defenses, for a total ratio of 3.80:1 [in favor of the
Germans.]'

How long would that last?


Mittelwerk production costs per V-1 were around 6,000 marks per
unit...so that 2 billion marks used on the V-2's would have built around
another 333,333 of them; even taking 1/2 that money and using it for
more launch sites as well as destruction of V-1's in airstrikes before
they were launched and you could have around 166,000 more V-1s heading
toward Britain and Belgium- using the total number of ground and
air-launched V-1s used against Britain as a guide- 10,492; and the total
that reached Britain itself after malfunctions, interceptions, and
anti-aircraft fire- 5,822- we come

The argument is ludicrous in that the amount of material needed to
build
166,000V1's just wasn't available. V2 production costs were likely
to
come down to RM50,000 and even RM28,000. The higher
costs of the V2 relate to a higher consumption of labour not so much
a higher consumption of material. Eventually costs are reduced to
the material
costs and in the V2 a large amounts of materials were being
substituted for
non strategic ones.


up with an overall success rate of around 45% of the flying bombs
launched successfully reaching enemy territory.
These resulted in a total of 6,184 killed in England, and a further
17,981 severely wounded; extrapolating from these figures we find a
average fatality rate of around .58 per V-1 launched, and a wounding
rate of 1.7 per same. Taking this in combination with our earlier
estimate of 166,000 extra V-1 launches by the nonexistence of the V-2
program, and we end up with a total of around 96,280 more dead, and
282,200 severely wounded by V-1 attack bringing our total V-weapon
casualties to around 100,000 killed and around 300,000 severely injured.
This contrasts sharply with the effects of the actual V-1/V-2 attacks
which caused a total of 15,324 killed and 37,189 severely
injured between Britain and Belgium. If the money that went into V-2
design and construction was spent on V-1s instead, then there could have
been around 84,000 fewer people alive at the end of W.W. II."
The other advantage of building hoards more V-1s is that they _could_ be
defended against.
A V-1 barrage of that intensity would have tied up huge air defense
resources in Britain, and might well have swamped their ability to
defend against them, and the ability of the London fire-fighting forces
to deal with their damage.

The V1 was not ready any earlier than the V2, the V1 would eventually
be countered
by jets etc and V1 launch sites could be successfully attacked
whereas v2 launch sites were never
ever found. The allies were bound to develop jets and intercepting a
V1 with a jet is a
relatively easy.




At 1 and 3/4 people killed by each rocket (and the vast majority of
those civilians, not military personnel), this was a pathetically inept
and unsuccessful weapon.

The records of Bomber Command and the 8th airforce are not better:
they killed mainly civilians. Infact their record is far worse.

At least at Hamburg and Dresden, it was their intention to cause as
much damage and as many casualties as possible in a terror campaign.
Which was also the intention of the Luftwaffe once the attacks on
British airfields switched to London during the Battle Of Britain, years
earlier in 1940.


The attacks on London were directed against docks (in support
of the u-boat campaigne against supply commerce) and against specific
areas such as refineries. There was never a Luftwaffe "dehousing"
campaigne.
The term "dehousing" was the British euphemisim for area bombardment
of
densely populated urban populations using a device (H2S) the USAF
bascially called "crap".
if anything was used at all.


On one occasion a lone He 111 strayed and
accidentally offloaded on london. This was to begin
the cycle of increasing violence you seem to approve of.




The attack on Coventry was made with the idea of pretty much wiping the
city off of the map in retaliation for a RAF attack on Munich.

Again that's not quite true. Conventry was the center of machine tool
production and had a Rolls Royce engine plant. These were the targets.

The Luftwaffe had accurate targeting aids. The X-garaet for instance
guided the bombers along a beam, an additional 3 intersecting beams
provided
the following functions, the first provided a warning the second
started a timer
and the third stopped the timer and initiated a calculation that
solved wind
speed and direction and then released the bombs. It was quite an
accurate
system. Although the claim is made that it was jammed it was rendered
ineffective
not by jamming (the German systems could hear through the jamming) but
by the
real danger of allied fighters roaming along the beam.

The RAF's conduct of its nighttime bombings was far more severe in
inflicting civilian losses as a matter of calculation rather than the
sum of extenuating circumstances.

The V2 was no worse. The lack of a firestorm probably would keep
civilian casualties down.



The big difference was that at the end of the war, attacks on London had
ceased and Germany had its rail infrastructure destroyed and its
petrochemical industry rendered useless.

As my calculations showed: 200 V2's with a CEP of
1km pretty much destroys an oil refinery in that area.
If the CEP is 2km then 800 missiles will be needed
though the destruction zone is wider.



So whatever else the V-weapons did, they didn't change the course of the
war, except for possibly slowing things up by a few weeks by having to
deal with defending against V-1s until their launch sites were bombed or
captured by ground forces. Indirectly the USAAF killed a lot of German pilots, who had come up
to
protect their civilian population and were thus unavailable to
protect
German forces.

A MG-34 machine gun probably killed more people on average than a V-2,
and cost far, far, far, less.
Plus it would be killing military personnel engaged in hostilities
against you.

Wasn't the WW2 statistic that about 90,000 bullets were required to
kill one person.

Yup, and I'm pretty sure that you could afford those bullets with the
money left over from that V-2 we're trading for a machine gun or two.

Factor in pilot and crew training, aircrew losses, navigation aids,
maintenance crews,
hospitals, and tools, spare parts, airfield protection and the need to
provide escorts
and jamming systems then that B-29,B-26, Lancaster, Ju 88 isn't so
cheap anymore.

Factor in all those potatoes going into alcohol production for V-2s
while the German populace was beginning to experience food shortages,
and it doesn't look so cheap either.

Ethanol could be produced by several means derived from
petrochemicals,
not just fermentation-distillation.

That's the last thing they would want to do given their oil situation
during the war.
The reason they fueled it with alcohol rather than kerosene was that
they didn't want to start using kerosene in the quantities that the V-2
offensive required, and could convert some of their distilled liquor and
industrial alcohol industry into making rocket fuel fairly easily.

You clearly aren't studied on the V2 or rocket motors.

Alcohol was chosen because
1 Although less energetic than kerosene it requires much less
oxidiser or LOX
and the liquid oxygen or peroxide or nitric acid is much less pleasant
to handle.
2 Alcohol doesn't breakdown and gum up the engine pumps and plumbing.

To use "kerosene" for rockets very special grades are required.



A lot of people overlook that a decided advantage of jets over
piston-powered aircraft in the Luftwaffe's eyes was that they didn't
need the the high octane gasoline the piston aircraft did, meaning more
usable aircraft fuel per barrel of crude oil or coal converted into oil.

Indeed, some Me 262 missions were flown with crude oil (from German
wells) or coal tar
that was refined by centrifugal impeller only. The fuel was preheated
and pumped in
hot. The whole process was helped by the fact that that the engines
were designed
to start on a separate fuel and then switch over to heavy fuel oil for
reasons of
economy and safety.



This was simply a good method of
decentralised production that didn't require a large and vulnerable
synthetic fuel plant.

You still needed the distillation plant. Somewhere I read the story of a
V-2 rocket fuel plant that was buried underground with a giant concrete
bombproof lid on it. This distilled alcohol and produced LOX in the same
facility... right up till the day that the LOX vapors mixed with the
alcohol vapors, and blew the whole plant clean out of the ground.


Perhaps. It was a war and greater risks were taken for all sorts of
things.
Fischer Tropsch invented catalysts for coal to alcohol production
before
coal to fuel synthesis.




Factor in all the fuel being used to move the V-2s from their assembly
area to there launch sites,

Minimal I'm sure. They mostly got their by train at night.

A lot of them in transport were parked in rail yards in daylight were
they were strafed by P-47s.
Gun camera footage of the warheads going off is most impressive.


Pointless since I doubt they make it to the front anyway.




and yet more valuable resources are wasted.

The real killer here is all the money that was lavished on this project
at Peenemunde prior to it becoming operational.

Perhaps, but I still doubt it was all that bad. Penemunde could have
been kept trickling along in
1940-1942 at a higher rate with little impact and the result would
have been
a cheaper more developed weapon available earlier instead of one
rushed into
production with wide ranging limitations that were costly to correct
at a late
stage.

They were spending a fortune on a weapon system that didn't make any
strategic sense right from its very inception.

The von Braun team fed the Wermacht a line of B.S. regarding the
missile's accuracy (100 meters from aim point), and the Wermacht should
have had some outside source check up on the math they were using and
laughed them right out of the office.

I've never heard of that,

Page 29 of Holsken's V-Missile book.
It was from a lecture Dornberger presented on December 14, 1939.
He stated that the A4 would be capable of launching from trains and
ships, have a range of 270 km and would only deviate from its target by
"some 100 m with regard to longitude and latitude"

It's been possible since the late 1950s to do that and
probably 500m was possible with the best technology of 1943/44



nevertheless von Braun, with Fritz Mueller,
(the inventor of the SG-66 and the PIGA accelerometer) achieved
300 yards CEP on the Redstone Missile in 1952 after a little
disruption and a move from penemunde to hunstville alabama. Thats
270 meters.

That's still to much from the viewpoint of using a conventional one ton
high explosive warhead against against a point target; and to do it the
Redstone had a separate warhead compartment that used hydrogen peroxide
steering jets go keep it stabilized outside the atmosphere and help it
to correct its reentry trajectory as it descended.


OK lets look at the SCUD system. SCUD A had a strapdown
inertial guidence system like the LEV-3 of the V2 and a CEP of 3km.
This
conisted of two x two degree of freedom gyroscopes with one
accelerometer measuring along the thrust line.

SCUD B had a gimballed system, like the V2's planed SG-66 or SG-72
with 3 single degree of freedom gyros plus multiple acceleromters:
one to take care of cross range
control and the other unit for velocity cutoff and downrange velocity
limiting. It achieved a CEP of 450m. This was without a detachable
warhead and without manouvering at re-entry. The Redstone, with
all of those features managed only a CEP of 270m.

Maneuvering at re-entry doesn't do much over these ranges and unless
extraordinarily accurate gyros and accelerometers are available it
makes
things worse.

Consider the V2's LEV-3 which had gyros with a drift rate of 10
degrees/hour.
(A very good rate for the day).

After 70 seconds of boost the drift has been 0.1944 degrees: about
1.2km
of error in a 330km flight. If left to go for a 10 minute flight the
gyros would
accumulate a 10 degree error and the acceleromters, also accumulating
an error
would only make that worse as the error is being accumulated in the
wrong
direction and the correction is in the wrong direction.

That was something way beyond V-2 technology as even the precise
dynamics of reentry in regards to heating and air drag were unknown at
the time.

That's not right to say either. The most knowledgeable people in this
area was
the A4 von Braun team. They had Mach 5 wind tunnels, they had
experience
of hypersonic re-entry. There is no doubt that they would have
developed the requisite knowledge eventually. Afterall the ST-80
guidence system of the
Redstone was not only a continuation of their work but actually WAS
their work.
It was von Brauns team who came up with the mechanical/analog
electronic
computer guidence system of the Redstone.

Ever heard of the Paris gun? The correolis effect was taken into
account not
only by the paris gun, the V2 but some FLAK/AAA guns in ww2 including
the
USN guns.

And as I've pointed out it doesn't require maneuvering at re-entry to
get 1km CEP or even 500m.

The WW2 penemunde team had analog computers both in the ground and in
the V2 that
could accurately add, subract, multiply, divide, square-root extract,
integrate or differentiate.
Using 3 dimensional cam profiles for ballistic data driven at a pre-
set speed by a motor was
something that came out of pre-war FLAK and AAA gun directors
and it was adaquete for inertial navigation calculations and re-entry
ballistics (you just have to get
the re-entry angle correct)


What gets overlooked a lot in examining secret weapons like the A9/A10
and Antipodal bomber is that until the captured V-2s and sounding
rockets started to get used after the war the upper atmosphere and how
it affected bodies entering it at hypersonic velocity were great
unknowns, which accounts for Sanger's antipodal bomber design with no
stabilization system to control it once it had exited the atmosphere on
its initial climb.

Nonsense; stabilisation systems were planed for Sangers proposal. The
aircraft was also tested in hypersonic wind tunnel.

On the first generation of V2, untill the SG-66/SG-72 guidence system
could be produced.
LEV-3 was used not only on the V2 but also on the first Redstone's
missiles due to its simplicity. Stabalisation system requires
gyroscopes and a basic computer as had been known on auto-pilots for
decades only acting through air jets or the peroxide system developed
in Germany for the V2 pumps and the Me 163A cold jet motor.

Sangers bomber included the following features:
1 heat resisting refractory steel body for resisting aerothemal
heating upon re-entry.
2 Wedge shaped wings (showing an excellent knowledge of hypersonic
wings)
3 A lifting body to get a good hypersonic glide ratio
4 The good glide ratio minimised the intensity of aerothermal peek
stresses.
5 the abillity to skip out of the atmosphere to 'cool off'
6 insulation and cooling system for pilot and delicate instruments.


He apparently though it could steer itself aerodynamically at over 100
miles altitude.


No he 'hoped' it could at one point in time.

Sending up missiles such as the
A4 and A4b would have provided plenty of data on the atmosphere.

The delusion seems to be that Sangers bomber would have been that it
would have been built straight of the plan without an incremental test
flight plan or sub scale models.


For the Germans, with a high loss rate, it looks a lot better than a
manned bomber.

Production cost too me looked like less than half the cost of a Fw
190.

And a Fw-190 at least had a chance to shoot down a allied bomber,
thereby helping the war situation in some material way
A extra 1,500 of those might wave been worth having.
Factor in the R&D that went into the whole A4/V-2 program, and you'd
have at least 3,000 more Fw-190's in place of the V-2.

All fw 190s were doing by late 1944 was killing 19 year old pilots on
their first combats.
Sending a boy with 20 hours of training up against someone with 300
hours was
equivalent to murder.

Yeah, but the A-4/V-2 program was going on during the whole war; that
money could have been supplying Fw-190s in 1942, when there were still
plenty of pilots to fly them.

Dornberger laments that the 1940-42 peride was a wasted time when much
progress could have
been made. This is believable since just about every German weapon
system from the
proximity fuse, microwave radar (except for the jet) were shelved if
they could not be ready in
6 months presumably in preperation for Barbarossa.



Unit costs were about RM120,000 (about the same

Unit costs were about RM120,000 (about the same as a BMW801 engine of
the Fw 190)
and the cost of RM50,000 looked achievable. (Cost of a Ju 88 in 1942
was RM400,000)

The V2 represented a realistic way for the Reich to deliver 1000/tons
a month
With veritable impunity. Hitler wanted 4500-5500 missiles per month.

The way it was built was just fine
for bombarding the city, and even bringing the CEP down to 1km is
pointless without a nuclear warhead. With its Amatol warhead the only
thing that was going to make any difference would be if you could
somehow bring CEP down to 100 m, not 1 km.

I did some basic CEP calculations. Assuming production rates of 1000/
month
One could easily deliver 200/missiles per week to a specific target.

With what CEP?
Accuracy was a ovoid around eight miles wide by twelve miles long.
The missile is going to blow a crater about 60 feet wide on impact, and
do blast damage (though not as much as a V-1, because the warhead buried
itself on impact) to an area of around 600-900 feet wide.
In a area as large as its CEP that's not a very high density of damage
overall.

Dornberger reckoned at least 4.5km, some others 4km. The figure of
17km CEP against London comes from the effect of the double cross
sysrtem (which functioned against both the V1 and V2).
"
In the case of the V2 impact points the British reported the correct
impact
times of the missiles but correlated them with partial/selective
impact points that
had the effect of shifting the aim points about 11-12 km out of
London.

From what I've read that was even after the double-cross system walked
them out of London; that was the average deviation from the selected aim
point, wherever the aim point happened to be.
Fromhttp://www.astronautix.com/lvs/v2.htm

No, read further on. CEP was 6km.


"What was the accuracy of the V-2? This question reduces to one of
philosophy - if a missile misses the aim point by half the range, does
that shot count against the missile's accuracy calculation or is it a
failure, counted in the reliability calculation? Tests of prototype
V-2's in 1943 indicated a 4.5 km CEP (circular error probable - the
radius within which 50% of the shots impact). 100% of the shots fell
within 18 km of the target. A radio beam guidance update system was
introduced in December 1944, which in tests produced a 2 km CEP. In
reality, in the campaign against Britain, 518 rockets were recorded as
falling in the Greater London Air Defence Zone of 1225 fired, implying
an average CEP of 12 km."

Of course you didn't bother to post the remainder of the article which
shows a CEP of 6km inclusive of the high missile failure rate which
put many V2 of course in their early deployment.

"Part of this lack of accuracy was attributable to a skilful British
disinformation campaign. Nazi agents in Britain were the only source
of information to the Germans as to where the missiles actually hit.
Most of these agents had been turned by British intelligence and were
sending back false reports as to the impact points of the rockets.
These false reports indicated that the missiles were going long and
impacting beyond London. As a result of corrections due to this false
information, the German average impact point moving farther and
farther east as the campaign went on. The average impact point for the
entire campaign ended up on the eastern edge of the Greater London Air
Defence Zone.

Had accurate post-attack reports been available to the Germans, the
CEP would have been more like 6 km, reinforcing Dornberger's claim
that by the end of the campaign the missile was close to achieving its
tested accuracy. Without the British disinformation campaign, the
number of the Allied victims of the V-2 would have been more than
doubled, demonstrating the effectiveness of that operation. However
even at its best accuracy made the V-2 was hugely cost-ineffective.
Its primary purpose could only be psychological, and in that it
suffered in comparison to the V-1."

Lying by ommision?



Even with the movement of the aim point outwards from the center of the
city, that's nothing to get excited about.
And that's only CEP; 49 percent of the missile were falling outside of
that area.
Given its range of 300 km, even if you are talking about an accuracy of
4.5 km, that means it is deviating 1.5% percent from the aim point.
Imagine shooting a rifle at someone 100 feet away and knowing your
bullet would have 51% chance of hitting within a foot-and-a-half wide
circle.

Canon get a CEP of 200 meters at 20km. Error accumulates with the
square of distance. For its range the V2 was good in comparrison to
massive guns.

Nevertheless I am arguing that the V2 was immature and clearly was
going
to be improved unless you think that German scientists and engineers
are congenitally incapable of that?

From our link'
# A key issue in obtaining missile accuracy was monitoring lateral
dispersion of the missile due to wind during ascent. Technical
approaches included a radio guide beam or accelerometers to measure
lateral motion. Both the accelerometer and radio cut-off systems were
used in the field, but the radio system was superior in accuracy. It
was found that a three-axis platform was needed to make the lateral
accelerometer work.

As I have pointed out the SG-66 system puts the gyros on a stable
platform thus not only allowing a cross range accelerometer to be
fitted but also dramatically reducing gyro drift rate.
This is because the gyros no longer experience the full movement of
the missile but null this out; reducing bearing and pickoff drag.
Combine that with better pickoffs and, gyros and a marked improvement
is to be expected. There was even provision for a down range ball
and disk integrator to feed into the compyter "Mischgaraete"


A rifle with tat accuracy would be considered not suitable for military
service.
If the 12 km figure is accepted then your bullet has a a 51% chance of
hitting inside of a four-foot-wide-circle.

It's fine if its a bazzoka or mortar and of course that bullet's
accuracy degrades with the
square of distance and is actually worse than the V2's at long range.


At this point I'm pretty sure I could throw rocks with more accuracy
than a V-2's CEP, and I can guarantee you a baseball pitcher could beat
it hands-down.

You seem to be arguing that no improvements in the v2 is possible.
Clearly there were improvements that were at a late stage of
development:
better gyros, better accelerometers and a more comprehensive control
system.


Like I stated earlier, what you've got here is a super siege mortar,
not a precision weapon.
And trying to up it's accuracy isn't going to up it enough to make it
capable of hitting a precise target, so it's not really worth doing,
given the extra time and expense it would entail.
In comparison CEP of B-17 bombing in WW II was 3,300 feet:http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29272
Or about 1 km. that's far, far, better than even the most optimistic
assessment of V-2 accuracy.


1km was, I asser achievable. double the accuracy of the gyros and
initial alignment, introduce cross range acceleromters and instroduce
a ball and disk integrator and 2km is a dead certainty and 1km CEP
achievable.


Correcting for the deception gets the CEP to 6km.

A 12 mile CEP is ludicrously bad.

Assuming the 1000m CEP then 50% of missiles would be within 1km, 43%
within the next
1-2km and 7% over 3km away.

Which is fine, but they never got that accuracy, so the mathematics is moot.

They got 6km. Getting rid of failures (a part of the inaccuracy was
failure) and then
getting rid of the manufacturing variation gets it down to about
4.5km. How long?
Given the outstanding progess (the penemunde team started to achieve
close to
100% reliabillity at one point) I would say it was only a matter of
weeks to months
to get CEP to 4.0-4.5km

This argument presupposes things that never happened, using a guidance
system that was never deployed.

Sure and the B-29 would have been ineffective without the eagle radar
or at least
H2X Meddo. Technology evolves and the technolgy of the V2 was being
volved like any other.

When we razed Tokyo, we did it from around 10,000 feet using no radar at
all; just flew right over it and dropped as many incendiaries as possible.



They knew the accuracy of the weapon before they put it into service
from all of their test launchings, and it was pretty awful.

1/ A 4km radius CEP from the interimLEV-3was achieved with series of
missiles so it was certainly possible.
2/ 2km by 3.7km elipse from the interim radio guidance system
for the SG-66 with its more comprehensive incorporation's and control
of parameters and higher precision components a doubling to
quadroupling of tollerance seems feasible.

The Redstone missile, if equiped with the juipeter system (ball and
disk intergrator as used in bomb sights) could probably have achieved
near 100m CEP.
Pershing certainly could.

Yeah, but again you are talking about missile from a decade later than
V-2, that had all the experience of the V-2 to look back on, plus a lot
better conditions to be constructed in.
Sort of like saying the P-26 could really have been something if it had
been equipped with a Merlin engine, or the P-35 with a Nene turbojet.

I'm talking about a missile guidance system test flown about 3 times
that would
have plugged into the same servo controls that LEV-3 would have.

Something along he lines of a super mortar than a field gun.
Of 1course at that point everyone involved in the program had their
collective foot stuck in the tar pit so deep that they had to keep
going, as if they admitted that the whole thing was a complete cock-up
from the word go, the Fuhrer would probably have them all shot as
traitors to the Reich, and point out that he hadn't liked the thing
until they talked him into it.

Stalin was capable of that behaviour, Hitler was not.

Yeah...right...Hitler was a really nice guy.
I'm pretty sure I could find you several million ghosts who might
disagree with that, starting with the population of Lidice.

Lidice was revenge for some kind of anthrax based assassination of
Heidger.
on Nazi orders, but carried out by Czech security forces (not Germans)
lackeys as they were. Probably very effective at preventing further
assassinations it had the effect of turning Czechs against the Germans
who
were trying to bring them on side. The is probably the reaction the
British
wanted.

Remember why Hitler didn't want them to build the V-2?
Because it might hit that sphere of ice that surrounds the Earth at
around 100 km altitude and all that water could fall in, like during
Noah's flood. Then the Moon might fall in next, the way that one did
that destroyed Atlantis.
That makes even Stalin look rational by comparison.

Hitler's intuition (and he lived by it) was right. SST's and rocket
launches damage the ozone layer. Quite seriously. It's a modern
concern.

Hitler didn't kill or execute randomly the way Stalin did. It's as
simple as that. Hitler was predictable.
He was egocentric, self centered and could be ruthless and exhibit a
temper but he was a vegetarian, had charm and good manners.
Unlike stalin he didn't kill large number of his own people.





Th only thing that would have made this weapon, at its accuracy,
worthwhile is either a nuclear or biological warhead.
Raining down a few hundred tons of anthrax spores on London could have
been quite effective.
Within six months of doing that, the Allies would have rained down
several thousand tones of anthrax spores on Germany, possibly making it
uninhabitable to the present day, but there is seldom big gain without
big risk.
Going beyond this is like speculating that they had concentrated on SAMs
instead of V-weapons right from the beginning of the war; you can take
guesses on what the effects that would have had on the bomber offensive
against Germany, but it's all guesswork, because they didn't do it.

Of those 100 within 1 km there would be
a slight tendancy
To cluster around the aim point. About 33 would be within 500m and 8
within 250m and
2 within 125m and 1 within 90 meters. That's enough to take out an
oil refinery, aircraft plant
And do a lot of production disruption expecially if the warhead
becomes more effective eg
With a reliable airbust fuse.

They couldn't even figure out how to do a radio proximity fuze for their
AA shells, much less for something coming out of the sky at 3,000 mph
with a red-hot nose on it.

No, A electronic proximity fuse using electrostatic principles was
built and
over 1000 succesfully fired by late 1944.

During the 1944 period the Germans fired some 1000 FLAK rounds of a
Rheinmetall-Borsig electrostatic proximity fuse mainly from 88mm guns
against aicraft targets simulated by cables. Success rate was over
85%
with detonation range finally reaching 10-14 meters. The devices did
include shock hardened thermionic vacuum valves. The results of these
tests are available in BIOS documents (British Intelligence Objectives
Sub-Committee). The German code name was KUHGLOCKEN.

Now, according to Ian Hogg's "German Secret Weapons Of The Second World War"
Kuhlglocke did get tested as a proximity fuze for _missiles_, not shells.
It relied on passing through the electrostatic field generated by a
aircraft due to its ionized exhaust.
Kuhlglockchen was a smaller version for artillery shells, and it never
left the drawing board.

Ian Hogg's book are old sources.

Igor Witkowski describes the shells as 88mm and 'firings' against
special
nets wired in a grid and that they were essentially ready for
production.


brought an end to development and production.

References are "Truth About the Wunderwaffen" by Igor Witowski who
cites "Proximity Fuse Development - Rheinmettal Borsig A.G.
Mullhausen. CIOS report ITEM nos 3 file nos XXVI -1 (1945)

I've also come across to other references
KUHGLOCKE, Electrostatic by Rhinemetall-Borsig. Intended for missiles.
Prototypes only.

KUHGLOCKEN, Smaller hardened version designed for AA shells.

Less risky methods that required far higher
levels of collateral damage
and clearly there were many on the allied side who made no bones over
the fact that they
were killing the civilian population or 'dehousing' them.
"Civilization" disappears fairly quickly.

I seem to remember a town called Guernica where this happened first.
Something comes to mind about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.

Guernica: is a complicated story: the Spanish didn't bother to let
the Germans
know it was historically significant city nor did they understand or
were they
informed of the the whole basque-spannish ethnic issue. Non of the
decision makers
survive. The target was either the cross roads where republican
forces were marshaling or
the small arms factor. Casualties: the 850 or so dead is an
exaggeration. The bottom
end of causality figures is about 80. About 300 is commonly accepted
as a maximum.
Von Richtoffen was rash in bombing the area but no one knows why
exactly. Subract
stories of pilots staffing little girls (strafing of civilians
invariably evaporates when
hunted down to specific incidents and witnesses) we have an tragedy
bordering on a deliberate
atrocity form which the communist side achieved much propaganda.
Appalling yes but
unique no. The ****up by two naive and hapless Dutch officers and
German officers over
the Rotterdam bombing over time zone differences and last minute
abort flares and
Guernica is of course an opportunity for those that developed
'dehousing' to point the finger.

If they are saying "Germany did it first" they are correct.
And this isn't the only time something happened like this; during WW I
Germany bombers and Zeppelins hit cities without much concern for
civilian casualties, and a group of German battlecruisers opened fire on
British east coast resort towns with no naval facilities in them with
the intention of causing as much fear in the populace as possible, so
that the Royal Navy would be forced to defend them, and divert some of
its ships from the blockade of the Baltic ports.

Yes and German soldier raped every Belgium woman and threw babies onto
Bayonets.

The targets of the Gotha raids were military or factories. The
reality is that bombers miss more often than they hit something. This
wasn't properly understood at the time.

The reality is that British q-boats attacked without a flag and then
machine gunned survivors in the water to the last man without mercy.
War is a savage thing.

Those baltic ports that were causing famin issues in Germany at them
time.







I don't recall the English being particularly pleasant to the Irish
well into the twentieth century
or the Scottish at Culloden.

They treated the Irish badly, but they didn't shove them into labor
camps to build weapons for them while they starved to death.


They disposseded them and shoved them into 1/2 acre farms into
subsistence and then starved them as soon as the only crop productive
enough for such a small area inevitably failed.

They opened up with guns when the demonstrations got too much for them
in this century.

They forced them to give up their language, the prevented them from
dancing. This is incidently when there is no war on.


Gas was used against Kurds by the
British after a sort of token warning
and Canadians regarded murderous American behavior towards its Indians
as disgraceful.
disgusting.

Well, we didn't shove them into labor camps to build weapons for us as
they starved to death.

They shoved Japanese, Italians and Germans and probably others into
camps and they made them work. Had conditions gotten hard enough they
would probably have forced them more and more to do harder work.


And nowadays, it's the white man who gets to walk the trail of tears in
many cases:http://www.indiancasinos.com/
As the cunning red man feeds him firewater, then takes his money and
gives him only brightly colored chips in return.

"Ha-ha.
Many White Man will be scalped in Tepee Of Chance tonight.
They leave without even shirt on back.
They come back though.
Soon all their houses shall be Indian land again, as prophecy foretold.
Ours forever, as long as roulette wheel spins and beer flows."

retards all of them,



I'm quite aware of moral posturing and its value and reasons and have
no illusions or much time for the nonsense.

It's sort of like two people in a fight when the cop shows up.
First question: "Who threw the first punch?"
And the London Blitz came well before Hamburg and Dresden.
You remarked on Stalin earlier.
Considering the Germany invaded Russia twice inside of thirty years, and
were responsible for getting 1,700,000 Russians killed the first time
around, and another 23,600,000 killed in WW II (over 13% of the
population; Hitler really did literally decimate the Soviet population)
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

The communists were rather good at blaming the Nazis for their
own crimes. Hides a certain demographic and statistical problem.

Incidentally Russia declared war on Germany the first time around and
I have not doubt
the Soviets, were going to do to Hitler what Hitler did to them first
only 1 year later.
As shakspere would say: pox on both your houses.


...I think Stalin showed incredible restraint in the way he dealt with
Germany after the war...I would have expected him to kill every man,
woman, and child in the the part of the country the Soviets occupied,
and salt the soil.

They considered doing as much but what good would that do to
Stalin? Random violence cemented in place Stalins power and
taught people fear. In addition the world was watching this time,
unlike the Ukranian genocide when only Mussolini and Hitler drew the
world attention to it and the New York times even refused to mention
it.

Certainly Hitler had something along those lines in mind for the
Russians, so it would only be turnabout of unfair play.

The policy was never implemented. Scorched earth was a traditional
policy of retreat that the Russians practised themselves and is how
they dealt with Napoleon and the Germans. So the Soviets implemented
it and the Germans did again on their own retreat.

Be thankfull for a body of water.

On Jul 22, 6:03 am, wrote:
On Jul 12, 7:03 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Eunometic wrote:

Link didn't work.

Try these:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baika...ran.ru/htm/str...
(Snip)

Yeah, but that leveled Tokyo without even using nuclear weapons, and
pummeled the Japanese war-making ability unto the ground.
London was still there and largely intact after the V-2 attacks.
The V-2 killed thousands of people, but other than that it had just
about zero influence on the progress of the war.

Becuase it was too late by about 6-12 months to
1 Have an impact in terms of production
2 achieve its technical potential.

Note that the B-29 and particulary the Lancaster (as the Manchester)
was crap in
it first year. The V1 never got the year.

You're forgetting one other factor he It was being built by slave
labor who were more than happy to do anything they could to sabotage it
during production if they though they wouldn't be caught doing it.
One technique was to urinate on the guidance system electronics. During
tests at the end of production this would pass fine; but within a few
days corrosion would set in that would make the unit unusable when the
missile was readied for launch.

That some forced workers were actively sabotaging V2 sub component
production
in some plants is something that the V2 shared with some other Nazi
era plants.

It doesn't say anything about the cost effectiveness or potential
cost
effectiveness of the V2. The V2, minus R+D costs, was much cheaper
to produce than an aircraft and even cheaper to opperate with less
risk
to personel.

The V2 was designed for a step into space exploration,
it was a crumby military rocket. A good cheap and fast
military missile would have used solid propellant, and
staging.
A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.
Ken
[snip rest, good stuff]

On Jul 22, 7:36?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jul 22, 6:03 am, wrote:





On Jul 12, 7:03 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Eunometic wrote:

Link didn't work.

Try these:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baika...ran.ru/htm/str...
(Snip)

Yeah, but that leveled Tokyo without even using nuclear weapons, and
pummeled the Japanese war-making ability unto the ground.
London was still there and largely intact after the V-2 attacks.
The V-2 killed thousands of people, but other than that it had just
about zero influence on the progress of the war.

Becuase it was too late by about 6-12 months to
1 Have an impact in terms of production
2 achieve its technical potential.

Note that the B-29 and particulary the Lancaster (as the Manchester)
was crap in
it first year. The V1 never got the year.

You're forgetting one other factor he It was being built by slave
labor who were more than happy to do anything they could to sabotage it
during production if they though they wouldn't be caught doing it.
One technique was to urinate on the guidance system electronics. During
tests at the end of production this would pass fine; but within a few
days corrosion would set in that would make the unit unusable when the
missile was readied for launch.

That some forced workers were actively sabotaging V2 sub component
production
in some plants is something that the V2 shared with some other Nazi
era plants.

It doesn't say anything about the cost effectiveness or potential
cost
effectiveness of the V2. The V2, minus R+D costs, was much cheaper
to produce than an aircraft and even cheaper to opperate with less
risk
to personel.

The V2 was designed for a step into space exploration,
it was a crumby military rocket. A good cheap and fast
military missile would have used solid propellant, and
staging.
A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.
Ken
[snip rest, good stuff]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That crummy military rocket killed thousands, wounded thousands of
others, destroyed many buildings, and inspired true terror as NOTHING
could intercept it. It was a terror weapon against population centers
and in that role was a success. It also was the world's first
Ballistic Missile and the origin of US and Soviet missile technology
postwar as well as space rockets which eventually put a man on the
moon.

And if it was such a failure, then why did the Allies (especially the
non-bombed continental US) have nothing like it? Where is your
British, US, or Soviet solid fuel rival?

Ken, you are a nutcase.

Rob

Rob Arndt wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:36?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jul 22, 6:03 am, wrote:





On Jul 12, 7:03 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Eunometic wrote:
Link didn't work.
Try these:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baika...ran.ru/htm/str...
(Snip)
Yeah, but that leveled Tokyo without even using nuclear weapons, and
pummeled the Japanese war-making ability unto the ground.
London was still there and largely intact after the V-2 attacks.
The V-2 killed thousands of people, but other than that it had just
about zero influence on the progress of the war.
Becuase it was too late by about 6-12 months to
1 Have an impact in terms of production
2 achieve its technical potential.
Note that the B-29 and particulary the Lancaster (as the Manchester)
was crap in
it first year. The V1 never got the year.
You're forgetting one other factor he It was being built by slave
labor who were more than happy to do anything they could to sabotage it
during production if they though they wouldn't be caught doing it.
One technique was to urinate on the guidance system electronics. During
tests at the end of production this would pass fine; but within a few
days corrosion would set in that would make the unit unusable when the
missile was readied for launch.
That some forced workers were actively sabotaging V2 sub component
production
in some plants is something that the V2 shared with some other Nazi
era plants.
It doesn't say anything about the cost effectiveness or potential
cost
effectiveness of the V2. The V2, minus R+D costs, was much cheaper
to produce than an aircraft and even cheaper to opperate with less
risk
to personel.
The V2 was designed for a step into space exploration,
it was a crumby military rocket. A good cheap and fast
military missile would have used solid propellant, and
staging.
A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.
Ken
[snip rest, good stuff]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That crummy military rocket killed thousands, wounded thousands of
others, destroyed many buildings, and inspired true terror as NOTHING
could intercept it. It was a terror weapon against population centers
and in that role was a success. It also was the world's first
Ballistic Missile and the origin of US and Soviet missile technology
postwar as well as space rockets which eventually put a man on the
moon.

And if it was such a failure, then why did the Allies (especially the
non-bombed continental US) have nothing like it? Where is your
British, US, or Soviet solid fuel rival?

Ken, you are a nutcase.

Rob

The Allies were busy winning the war. They had no need to develop
ballistic missiles at the time. They were perfectly willing to let the
Nazis waste their time and money on something that would have no effect
on the war.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Jul 22, 9:26?am, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:36?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jul 22, 6:03 am, wrote:

On Jul 12, 7:03 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Eunometic wrote:
Link didn't work.
Try these:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baika...ran.ru/htm/str...
(Snip)
Yeah, but that leveled Tokyo without even using nuclear weapons, and
pummeled the Japanese war-making ability unto the ground.
London was still there and largely intact after the V-2 attacks.
The V-2 killed thousands of people, but other than that it had just
about zero influence on the progress of the war.
Becuase it was too late by about 6-12 months to
1 Have an impact in terms of production
2 achieve its technical potential.
Note that the B-29 and particulary the Lancaster (as the Manchester)
was crap in
it first year. The V1 never got the year.
You're forgetting one other factor he It was being built by slave
labor who were more than happy to do anything they could to sabotage it
during production if they though they wouldn't be caught doing it.
One technique was to urinate on the guidance system electronics. During
tests at the end of production this would pass fine; but within a few
days corrosion would set in that would make the unit unusable when the
missile was readied for launch.
That some forced workers were actively sabotaging V2 sub component
production
in some plants is something that the V2 shared with some other Nazi
era plants.
It doesn't say anything about the cost effectiveness or potential
cost
effectiveness of the V2. The V2, minus R+D costs, was much cheaper
to produce than an aircraft and even cheaper to opperate with less
risk
to personel.
The V2 was designed for a step into space exploration,
it was a crumby military rocket. A good cheap and fast
military missile would have used solid propellant, and
staging.
A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.
Ken
[snip rest, good stuff]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That crummy military rocket killed thousands, wounded thousands of
others, destroyed many buildings, and inspired true terror as NOTHING
could intercept it. It was a terror weapon against population centers
and in that role was a success. It also was the world's first
Ballistic Missile and the origin of US and Soviet missile technology
postwar as well as space rockets which eventually put a man on the
moon.

And if it was such a failure, then why did the Allies (especially the
non-bombed continental US) have nothing like it? Where is your
British, US, or Soviet solid fuel rival?

Ken, you are a nutcase.

Rob

The Allies were busy winning the war. They had no need to develop
ballistic missiles at the time. They were perfectly willing to let the
Nazis waste their time and money on something that would have no effect
on the war.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yet the US copied the V-1 during the war and put it into production as
the Loon.

Forget that, Dan?

Rob

On Jul 22, 9:35?am, Rob Arndt wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:26?am, Dan wrote:





Rob Arndt wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:36?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jul 22, 6:03 am, wrote:

On Jul 12, 7:03 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Eunometic wrote:
Link didn't work.
Try these:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baika...ran.ru/htm/str...
(Snip)
Yeah, but that leveled Tokyo without even using nuclear weapons, and
pummeled the Japanese war-making ability unto the ground.
London was still there and largely intact after the V-2 attacks.
The V-2 killed thousands of people, but other than that it had just
about zero influence on the progress of the war.
Becuase it was too late by about 6-12 months to
1 Have an impact in terms of production
2 achieve its technical potential.
Note that the B-29 and particulary the Lancaster (as the Manchester)
was crap in
it first year. The V1 never got the year.
You're forgetting one other factor he It was being built by slave
labor who were more than happy to do anything they could to sabotage it
during production if they though they wouldn't be caught doing it.
One technique was to urinate on the guidance system electronics. During
tests at the end of production this would pass fine; but within a few
days corrosion would set in that would make the unit unusable when the
missile was readied for launch.
That some forced workers were actively sabotaging V2 sub component
production
in some plants is something that the V2 shared with some other Nazi
era plants.
It doesn't say anything about the cost effectiveness or potential
cost
effectiveness of the V2. The V2, minus R+D costs, was much cheaper
to produce than an aircraft and even cheaper to opperate with less
risk
to personel.
The V2 was designed for a step into space exploration,
it was a crumby military rocket. A good cheap and fast
military missile would have used solid propellant, and
staging.
A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.
Ken
[snip rest, good stuff]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That crummy military rocket killed thousands, wounded thousands of
others, destroyed many buildings, and inspired true terror as NOTHING
could intercept it. It was a terror weapon against population centers
and in that role was a success. It also was the world's first
Ballistic Missile and the origin of US and Soviet missile technology
postwar as well as space rockets which eventually put a man on the
moon.

And if it was such a failure, then why did the Allies (especially the
non-bombed continental US) have nothing like it? Where is your
British, US, or Soviet solid fuel rival?

Ken, you are a nutcase.

Rob

The Allies were busy winning the war. They had no need to develop
ballistic missiles at the time. They were perfectly willing to let the
Nazis waste their time and money on something that would have no effect
on the war.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yet the US copied the V-1 during the war and put it into production as
the Loon.

Forget that, Dan?

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In late 1944, the USAAF had plans to procure up to 75000 JB-2s with a
peak rate of several 100 per day. Eventually orders for 12000 missiles
were placed, to be used for mass attacks prior to the expected
invasion of Japan. The latter never materialized, and so all remaining
orders were cancelled at the end of the war after about 1400 JB-2s had
been built.

- astronautix.com

http://www.designation-systems.net/d...1/ltv-n-2.html

Blow it out your ass Dan.

Rob