|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Rick Jones wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote: The V-2 was the flip side of that...gawdawful expensive to produce, doing a lot less damage from a economic sense per missile launched than the production costs of the missile, and since there was no way to defend against it once launched, not diverting any Allied resources to the defense of its targets. I thought though that capturing V-2 launch sites were a top priority and so diverted offensive attention from other, perhaps more promising areas of the front? Or did I just read too much into the dialog of "Patton?-)" Unlike the V-1, which needed its fixed catapult for launching, the V-2 could be launched from any site within a few hours once it had been surveyed to determine its exact longitude and latitude - as the whole launching infrastructure was road-mobile. So the only way to stop attacks on England by it was to capture all territory that would have allowed it to get in range of its targets (its range was 234 miles). The V-1 sites were a target for allied ground forces to grab in France, but I don't know if the V-2 sites mentioned in the movie were a confusion with those. There's info on the mobile V-2 operations he http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deploy...perations.html And where they were fired from at various cities he http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deploy...ile_front.html Pat Pat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
On Sep 4, 10:27*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Rick Jones wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: The V-2 was the flip side of that...gawdawful expensive to produce, doing a lot less damage from a economic sense per missile launched than the production costs of the missile, and since there was no way to defend against it once launched, not diverting any Allied resources to the defense of its targets. I thought though that capturing V-2 launch sites were a top priority and so diverted offensive attention from other, perhaps more promising areas of the front? *Or did I just read too much into the dialog of "Patton?-)" Unlike the V-1, which needed its fixed catapult for launching, the V-2 could be launched from any site within a few hours once it had been surveyed to determine its exact longitude and latitude - as the whole launching infrastructure was road-mobile. So the only way to stop attacks on England by it was to capture all territory that would have allowed it to get in range of its targets (its range was 234 miles). The V-1 sites were a target for allied ground forces to grab in France, but I don't know if the V-2 sites mentioned in the movie were a confusion with those. There's info on the mobile V-2 operations hehttp://www.v2rocket.com/start/deploy...perations.html And where they were fired from at various cities hehttp://www.v2rocket..com/start/deplo...ile_front.html Pat Pat Quite a few V-1s were also airlaunched from carrier aircraft. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
(Joseph Nebus) wrote:
I seem to have a faint memory of attempted V-2 launches from the decks of carriers, at least in the postwar experimental project, although these were not wholly successful owing to the action of the waves on the propellant. Or have I started imagining corners of space history again? One attempt (Operation Sandy [1]), which was successful. However, the results of Operation Pushover [2] convinced the Navy that they wanted no further part in having big liquid fueled rockets shipboard. [1] http://www.cv41.org/photos/gallery/m...2_itemId=17451 & http://www.postwarv2.com/usa/sandy/os.html [2] http://www.cv41.org/photos/gallery/m...2_itemId=17459 D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Joseph Nebus wrote:
I seem to have a faint memory of attempted V-2 launches from the decks of carriers, at least in the postwar experimental project, although these were not wholly successful owing to the action of the waves on the propellant. Or have I started imagining corners of space history again? http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...d.php?t=145100 rick jones -- web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour... these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Dean wrote:
Quite a few V-1s were also airlaunched from carrier aircraft. I've got a 1/48th scale model of one of those by Revell Monogram. It's a He-111 H-22, and is a really nice kit. Accuracy on the air-launched ones was really bad, to the point where the British couldn't figure out what the intended target city was in some cases. The V-1s also sometimes exploded while being carried or at launch, destroying the carrier aircraft. There's footage of one being launched starting at the 1:45 part of this video (the first part is the Hs-293 rocket-boosted glide bomb): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcFmagrdgI4 As you can see, the V-1 oscillates quite a bit after launch as the gyro tries to get it on course and stabilized into level flight. Pat |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Joseph Nebus wrote:
I seem to have a faint memory of attempted V-2 launches from the decks of carriers, at least in the postwar experimental project, although these were not wholly successful owing to the action of the waves on the propellant. Or have I started imagining corners of space history again? No they did indeed launch a V-2 off of a carrier (the Midway), they did it only once as it was very unstable on launch, and another test where a fully-fueled V-2 was purposely exploded on a section of simulated aircraft deck put them off on the idea of liquid fueled rockets on Navy ships. Video of Operation Sandy, the V-2 carrier launch, he http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDkh8Gz3W70 Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Derek Lyons wrote:
One attempt (Operation Sandy [1]), which was successful. I don't know if having it come off the pad at around a 60 degree angle would be "succesful". At least it didn't skid straight into the deck island. However, the results of Operation Pushover [2] convinced the Navy that they wanted no further part in having big liquid fueled rockets shipboard. Imagine that on a wooden carrier deck, like out of WW II. Oh, that would have been something to see. Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Pat Flannery wrote:
No they did indeed launch a V-2 off of a carrier (the Midway), they did it only once as it was very unstable on launch, and another test where a fully-fueled V-2 was purposely exploded on a section of simulated aircraft deck put them off on the idea of liquid fueled rockets on Navy ships. Aren't solids purported to have less "gentle" failure modes than liquids? rick jones -- firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Rick Jones wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote: No they did indeed launch a V-2 off of a carrier (the Midway), they did it only once as it was very unstable on launch, and another test where a fully-fueled V-2 was purposely exploded on a section of simulated aircraft deck put them off on the idea of liquid fueled rockets on Navy ships. Aren't solids purported to have less "gentle" failure modes than liquids? Once ignited they sure can blow up, but the advantage is that they don't need a LOX plant on the ship if you are using either alcohol or kerosene as fuel, or going up when their hypergolic propellants leak like on the K-219 Soviet submarine. Storage of a solid-fueled missile on a ship or sub is a lot like storing a vastly scaled-up artillery shell as far as safety goes. One of the things that "Pushover" test resulted in was getting the idea of putting Jupiter IRBMs on surface ships canceled, and converting the sub-based Jupiter concept to a solid-fueled form, which led to the smaller Polaris once thermonuclear warhead size decreased. Pat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Rick Jones wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote: No they did indeed launch a V-2 off of a carrier (the Midway), they did it only once as it was very unstable on launch, and another test where a fully-fueled V-2 was purposely exploded on a section of simulated aircraft deck put them off on the idea of liquid fueled rockets on Navy ships. Aren't solids purported to have less "gentle" failure modes than liquids? That's for in flight failure modes - in storage, solid fuels have the overwhelming advantage that they don't leak, outgas, collect ice, eat their way through the walls of the tank, etc.. etc.. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ÐÂÎÅ:¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡News,Antique (1912-1949) Porcelain Teapot 528 Chinaware 400,Invitation Visit! | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | November 1st 07 03:03 AM |
¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ‡ø´É²è‰Ø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þ£¬ÑûÕˆÓ^Ùp£¡Antique (1912-1949) Porcelain Teapot 528 Chinaware 400,Invitation Visit ! | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | October 12th 07 06:46 AM |
¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þ£¬ÑûÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡Antique (1912-1949) Porcelain Teapot 528 Chinaware 400, Invitation Visit! | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | September 24th 07 05:23 AM |
¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡Antique 1912-1949 Porcelain teapot 528 chinaware 400 invitation visit | xjx588[_3_] | SETI | 0 | September 17th 07 09:11 AM |
¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ´ÉÆ÷400¼þ£¬ÑûÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡Antique(1912-1949)Porcelain Teapot528 Chinaware400,invitation visit! | 456 | Misc | 0 | September 17th 07 03:06 AM |