Advanced versions of the V-2 rocket

Rob Arndt wrote:
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


Good thing I didn't expect you to be civil, isn't it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:07:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, Rob
Arndt made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


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?

Well, I guess that the atomic bomb was a failure, since the Axis
didn't have it.

Hey, the U.S. gave the Japanese a couple of atomic bombs.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
snip
If von Braun wanted to join the nazi fanatics he could

He did, he held the rank of major in the SS. No one forced it on him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rob Arndt wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:59?am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Rob Arndt" wrote in message

ups.com...
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?
Because they were busy building actual aircraft that could target better and
be re-used.

Let's see.. who won the war? Oh yeah right it wasn't the Germans.





Ken, you are a nutcase.
Rob- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yeah, let's see who killed the most people and altered the entire
postwar world- the Germans.

Let's see, gas chambers, starvation, mass shootings...um..yep, they
did kill a lot of people, mostly unarmed.

Who stole THEIR technology as the
foundations of postwar military and space programs? The Allies

Nothing was stolen. When lose a war the occupiers have the right to
all data they can collect.


Rob

p.s. The war was won by numerical superiority in manpower and machines
BTW as Germany was just a single nation.

You need to read your history. Germany had allies too. Remember
Romania, Finland, Italy, Switzerland...etc?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:08:17 -0500, in a place far, far away, Dan
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
snip
If von Braun wanted to join the nazi fanatics he could

He did, he held the rank of major in the SS. No one forced it on him.

Well, actually, they did. I'm sure he would have preferred to build
the rockets without having to be a major in the SS.

On Jul 22, 11:06?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jul 22, 10:27 am, Rob Arndt wrote:





On Jul 22, 9:59?am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"

wrote:
"Rob Arndt" wrote in message

oups.com...
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?

Because they were busy building actual aircraft that could target better and
be re-used.

Let's see.. who won the war? Oh yeah right it wasn't the Germans.

Ken, you are a nutcase.

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, let's see who killed the most people and altered the entire
postwar world- the Germans. Who stole THEIR technology as the
foundations of postwar military and space programs? The Allies

Sorry, wrong again! The German rocket scientist's elected
to use Ethyl Alcohol as fuel that makes a nice martini to
forget about the idiots in charge, nothing changes.

You're attempting to piggy back the genious Braun engineering,
disregarding Goodard and Russia's KT.

Rob

Ever hear of Oberth?

Rob

On Jul 22, 11:29?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hi Pat, normally I'm a lurker to this group, but I jumped
in on this thread. Enjoy reading the regulars though.

On Jul 22, 10:51 am, Pat Flannery wrote:





Ken S. Tucker wrote:
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.

And they made one of those, called the Rheinbote:http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rhenbote.htm
But accuracy was poor, and the warhead very small.
What makes Rheinbote fascinating is the insight it gives into how things
worked in Nazi Germany.
The government didn't know that Rheinmetall was developing it! In fact
they were against the development of solid-fueled bombardment rockets
because the used up propellants that were considered better used for
artillery and small arms ammunition.
So Rheinmetall did it all on their own and only revealed it when it was
finished.
One big problem with the multiple stages was that they would come
tumbling out of the sky at various points along its trajectory, which
meant that launching it over an area that had friendly troops in it
could be dangerous to them, as the spent stages descended over their heads.

Na, the chances are it lands on a farmer cow,
it's just a metal tube.





A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.

In most cases it only makes sense with a nuclear or at least
chemical/biological warhead on it, and if you are going to use a
conventional warhead of V-2 size, you are going to need a lot greater
accuracy for attacking a point target than a V-2 ever had. Scuds can be
used to attack targets with conventional warheads, and even in the
improved Scud B variant, CEP is around 450 meters, so point targets
with a single missile are out for it also.
(In the original Scud A variant, CEP was around 3,000 meters, but it had
a nuclear warhead.)http://www.missilethreat.com/missile...missile_detail...
Given the V-2s terrible accuracy, even a fairy small nuclear warhead may
not destroy the intended target all the time if it was armored or
underground.
With its conventional warhead, your first notice that you were under
attack might be a "whump" noise from several miles away.
This is fine for bombarding a city, but not good enough for strategic
attack on your enemy's military assets.
Pat

It doesn't matter whether you're using solid or liquid fuel
rockets, where guidance is concerned.
Fortunately the dumb-****ed nazi's didn't know that, the
a-holes where awd, in more ways than one.

Today we can target an outhouse at t=time when biden
laden is taking a ****, but what the nazi's failed to know
was that nobody would provide them with a guidance
system.
You can fin guide a re-entering warhead with a half-assed
guidance system even with chinnsy OBe, H2s type systems,
but the nazi's were out of their league, good thing nobody
told them how to do it, cuz the damn *******s could have
exploded bombs over our bases if they knew how.
Good thing most of the Germans were on our side.
Ken
PS: My reference is Hogan's Heroes!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your mentality is "Hogan's Heros".

Rob

On Jul 22, 11:32?am, Bill Shatzer wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:

-snip-

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?

The allies had nothing like the Bachem Ba.349 "Nadder", the V-3
ultra-long range gun, or the 100 ton "Maus" tank either.

Precisely because those concepts were equally ineffective as weapons of
war.

A "weapon" with a CEP approaching 17 kilometers is unlikely to
accomplish anything useful.

And the V-2 didn't.

Cheers,

What part of "Vergeltungs Waffe" (Vengeance or Revenge Weapon) do you
not understand? The V-weapons were terror weapons, not precision
military missiles. They were targeted at population centers until
Antwerp in 1945. Yet they were more advanced than anything the Allies
had by comparison.

Around 34,000 V-1s were produced by Fieseler, VW, and the Mittelwerke
and were very cost effective at 5000 Marks, even though only 20
percent reached their targets out of 18,000 launched. Still, 6,200
people were killed plus 18,000 injured. Compare this to 10,000 V-2s
produced of which 4,000 were fired and 90 percent hit their targets.
They killed over 4,000 people and wounded 22,000 more with extensive
damage to London and Antwerp.

10,200 killed plus 40,000 wounded and lots of city damage done doesn't
exactly make these weapons useless.

Had the V-3 become operational and rained down thousands of
projectiles per hour on London, it too would have terrified the
population b/c you could not intercept those either.

Rob

On Jul 22, 10:51?am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
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.

And they made one of those, called the Rheinbote:http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rhenbote.htm
But accuracy was poor, and the warhead very small.
What makes Rheinbote fascinating is the insight it gives into how things
worked in Nazi Germany.
The government didn't know that Rheinmetall was developing it! In fact
they were against the development of solid-fueled bombardment rockets
because the used up propellants that were considered better used for
artillery and small arms ammunition.
So Rheinmetall did it all on their own and only revealed it when it was
finished.
One big problem with the multiple stages was that they would come
tumbling out of the sky at various points along its trajectory, which
meant that launching it over an area that had friendly troops in it
could be dangerous to them, as the spent stages descended over their heads.

A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.

In most cases it only makes sense with a nuclear or at least
chemical/biological warhead on it, and if you are going to use a
conventional warhead of V-2 size, you are going to need a lot greater
accuracy for attacking a point target than a V-2 ever had. Scuds can be
used to attack targets with conventional warheads, and even in the
improved Scud B variant, CEP is around 450 meters, so point targets
with a single missile are out for it also.
(In the original Scud A variant, CEP was around 3,000 meters, but it had
a nuclear warhead.)http://www.missilethreat.com/missile...missile_detail...
Given the V-2s terrible accuracy, even a fairy small nuclear warhead may
not destroy the intended target all the time if it was armored or
underground.
With its conventional warhead, your first notice that you were under
attack might be a "whump" noise from several miles away.
This is fine for bombarding a city, but not good enough for strategic
attack on your enemy's military assets.

Pat

More bull**** from Pat Flannery. Rheinmetall-Borsig AG was testing
solid fuel powder rockets in 1939 BEFORE the war even started under
leadership of Direltor Kelin and Dr. Vullers. By 1942 Rheinmetall-
Borsig began the Rheintochtor 2-stage missile and also had the F.25
Feuerlilie in both subsonic form and the supersonic F.55 design under
development. After these, came Rheinbote which used solid fuel
diglycol powder engines, carried a 20 kg warhead, and arrived at Mach
5.5. None of these were a secret. Pat is full of ****.

By the end of the war, Rheinmetall-Borsig had also proposed a VTOL a/
c!
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/RHEINMETALL.htm

Rob

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:03:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, Rob
Arndt made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Around 34,000 V-1s were produced by Fieseler, VW, and the Mittelwerke
and were very cost effective at 5000 Marks, even though only 20
percent reached their targets out of 18,000 launched. Still, 6,200
people were killed plus 18,000 injured. Compare this to 10,000 V-2s
produced of which 4,000 were fired and 90 percent hit their targets.
They killed over 4,000 people and wounded 22,000 more with extensive
damage to London and Antwerp.

10,200 killed plus 40,000 wounded and lots of city damage done doesn't
exactly make these weapons useless.

Compared to a long-range bomber, or atomic bombs, or other potential
weapons that could have been built with the available resources, they
were.