Talk:V-2 rocket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the V-2 rocket article.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Under a proposal to clean up inconsistent disambiguation of rocket article titles, this article, V-2 rocket, may be moved to V-2.
At this stage, it is only a proposal at an early stage of discussion, but you are encouraged to contribute to the discussion, which is located here.


Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified V-2 rocket as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Tech description lacking

It lacks a technical description to be complete.

Currently the technical description is good. I merged two (!) 'technical detail' sections and added several extra details. The first technical detail section was sub-par and I moved the second technical detail section up to it's place. It could use more detail on the navigation controls (which were extremely advanced at that time) and it's self-ignition and turbo pump system.Crusty007

Needs specification of length, gross weight, etc.

[edit] Production numbers and launched numbers in general

More effort should be placed in accurately describing the produced and launched numbers. For one, I cannot find a number of 6000 outside the internet. In books the number is more like 4000. Also, the number of launched missiles is based on what came down at the other end. By the developers and engineers own reporting, At least 650 V-2's are known to be destroyed in mid-flight, most likely due to general defects and more specifically overheating of the nose cone section. Also, I think there were also some fired against the Dutch port of Rotterdam Crusty007


[edit] US launchers

All the US launcher are more or less descendant of the V-2. The jupiter-c is not a modified v-2 if you want to see what it looks like see http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/jupiter-c.htm Ericd

The Redstone rocket is a direct improvement on the A4/V-2, and was built by the same people who built the A4/V-2. The Russian next step was almost completely an indigineous development. Crusty007


[edit] Major UK rocketry?

"The UK did not set up a major rocketry program after the war." Huh? Tannin

I don't a lot of things about it but they are parts of British launchers at the Science Museum in London and one stage of the Europa rocket was British. Ericd 22:36 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

British Rocket programs, just a google away http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/rocketry.htm. Mintguy

Hihi we found the same reference, you were kicker than me.
Ericd

Maury - England and UK are not the same thing. Thanks. Mintguy

[edit] Missile tests down 'under

I have way too many projects going here at the same time, but I'm sure you guys will take care of it. :) The reason I was so surprised is that when I was at school in the 1960s, it was quite common to hear on the news that there was another missle test at Woomera today. Tannin

[edit] V-2s in Canada?

V-2 revival ? Look at this http://www.canadianarrow.com/. Ericd

[edit] Jupiter-C

"Jupiter-C, a direct descendant of the German A-4 (V-2) rocket..." is what the page says. It was also designed by the designer of the V-2...was it not a modified version? Chadloder 04:36 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

No the page doesn't say it was a modified version and the pictures show~s it wasn't a modified version.
The V-2 is a A-4 one stage of the Jupiter is a A-7 A-4 5 6 7, four generations

this is more than a modified version.

Ericd

[edit] Entering space

"when the rocket followed it's trajectory perfectly and landed 120 miles away, and became the first man-made object to enter space. " Did the V-2 really enter space or only high athmosphere ?

Ericd 15:50 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

The top altitude of the rocket was 80 km (50 mi). That is the thermosphere strictly speaking, but I don't know if there is a strict definition of what we mean by "space", some would probably say this is indeed space. --Nixdorf
The current definition of space, and the one that the X-prize was calling for, was 60 km altitude. Above that and you're in space, officially. However, the Germans also tested the A4 in non-trajectory tests, straight-up, straight-down. Because official records after 1943 were destroyed not a lot of details remain, but it is recorded by Dieter Huzel in his book Peenemunde to Canaveral, that one of these tests reached an altitude of 1874 kilometers. (Dutch 1965 translation, page 104-105). I have no reason to doubt the written record of one of the chief engineers on the project. Most likely it would be a test without a payload, as it's highly unlikely the A4 could reach that height under full operational weight.Crusty007
Not 60 km but 100 km see Boundary to space--Clawed 10:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Furthermore, according to Astronautix.com, on October 3, 1942 the rocket reached only 48 km altitude, not 80 km [1] Cmapm 18:25, 15 November 2006
Actualy i belive there were three tests with V2 that actualy passed the karmen line. Scoutshook (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(UTC)

[edit] POW slaves

"These slaves were mostly prisoners of war but many were French and Soviet." May somebody be so kind and explain this nonsense sentence?? Thank you!

In answer to 80.133.114.116's question above, the German site [2] states Sehr viele Häftlinge, in der Mehrzahl Russen, Polen und Franzosen, überlebten die schweren Monate des Stollenausbaus nicht., so a better sentence would be: "The majority of the prisoners of war were Russian, Polish and French." However, the whole paragraph could be better:
V-2 mass production was conducted at the Mittelwerk tunnel system under the Kohnstein mountain, part of the Mittelbau-Dora slave labour camp complex, near Nordhausen, Germany. By late 1943 over 10,500 slaves were in Kohnstein and many died due to the conditions and heavy labour. For example, 2,900 died between October 1943 and March 1944, but others died during transfers and other work. The majority of the slaves were Russian, Polish and French, although there were also prisoners of war and Germans forced to compulsory work.

But this looks like it belongs more in the Mittelbau-Dora article, and that looks like a lot of work. It's complicated because the complex was used for several purposes and prisoners were rotated through the various subcamps. -Wikibob | Talk 12:17, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

[edit] V-2 in relation to V1

I assume the name V-2 is because it was a replacement for the V-1? Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, both because it seems a relevant piece of information and for historical context. I expect one of you lot will know better than me what the key information is. Harry R 23:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

The V-2 was absolutely not a replacement for the V-1, these were complementary and totally different weapons developed by two different organizations but in the same geographical area. The numbers of the weapons were given, as you can read in the article, by the propaganda department and has little to do with any research order. Nixdorf 22:08, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
To put this into perspective, the V-1 was made partly of plywood and had an extremely simple engine that would essential fart a couple of dozen times a second. It would be launched from a simple ramp using solid rocket boosters. It's engine can be built by anyone in the world with even the simplest engineering degree. This engine also gave the V-1 it's nickname, because of the distinctive sound it made. Internal navigation consisted of a timer which would shutdown the engine at a predetermined time, hopefully somewhere over England. In contrast, the A4/V-2 was an extremely big,liquid fuel rocket, with an internal navigation system consisting of gyroscopes which basically had to be invented for the thing, a fuel pump and injection system which had to be invented for the thing, a ignition system which had never been done before, supercooled cryogenic fuels , hypergolic fuels, radio-guidance controls, high-temperature graphite rudder controls, the biggest combustion chamber in existence, etc etc. The difference is immense.Crusty007
  • More to the point, the V-1 was a Cruise missle, whereas the V-2 was a Ballistic missle. The V-1 used what is called a Pulse jet engine, and thus was NOT a Rocket at all. One of today's versions of the V-1 is the Exocet Missle, which is ineed a Rocket, but is operationally identical with the V-1-SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] V-2 test launche picture, falls?

Hello I have a comment about the about the 3 picture in this article. In the comment under the picture we can read that it is a "US test Launch" I think that is not the holl story.

In the picture you can cleary see that that the V-2 as has 2 stages. The first stage is, of course the V-2 itself. No doubt about it. But on top of the V-2 you can see a much smaller rocket that is stickt to the rocket.

If my information is correct that should be a "Wac Coporal" rocket. The Wac Coporal was a small rocket that was in at test by the USA during WW II. The "Wac Coporal" was constructed at the same place as where the captured V-2. I think Von Braun wanted to test the idea of a "2 stage" rocket by putting the much smaller "Wac Coporal" on top of the much bigger V-2.

What do you think about the idea ?

At second thought this should be a two stage Bumper-WAC rocket (V2 + WAC Corporal). The small WAC Corporal was I think the only experimental US rocket at the end of WW2. I din't notice when I found the photo I mainly was impressed by it's graphic quality. The NASA referenced this photo as a V-2 test launch. See : http://www.solarviews.com/eng/rocket.htm http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/bumper-wac.html Ericd 19:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative pictures

There is an alternative picture of V2 rocket air & space museum
[[Image:V2_rocket_at_Air_and_Space_museum.jpg|right|thumb||206px|V2 rocket on display at the [[National Air and Space Museum]] in Washington D.C.]]


Re picture of the "falling V-2s warning" leaflet near Blizna, Poland - given the ultrasecret nature of the project, no mention of ballistic rocket would be made to lay public at all, I am pretty sure. The leaflet apparently appeared in the areas where fighters would drop the exhausted or even full tanks during encounters with Allied aircraft (around industrial centres etc.). It was meant to avoid false alarms and call the bomb disposal teams, badly needed elsewhere, to handle the virtually harmless (just some residual petrol inside) jettisoned drop tanks. The tanks themselves usually carried a bold inscription Keine Bombe ("Not a bomb" in German).

[edit] Manned and winged variants

There were some manned and winged variants of the V2 proposed. Not sure if it should be put in here except as a link, but might be an article idea for creation. Any thoughts? Also, what would be a good name for a seperate article about them? - Chairboy 18:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

These were not V2 rockets but drafts on totally new devices by Wernher von Braun and colleagues. They were given experimental names in the "A" series (remember V2 was just a propaganda name for the A4 rocket). The names would be linked to something like A9 rocket, A9/A10 rocket and A9/A10/A11/A12 rocket if you want articles like that, see this link Nixdorf 16:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I have books that described some of the variants as actually being very close to the V2. For example, the A4b was a winged variant of the V2 that would extend the range by gliding. See this for more info. - Chairboy 16:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually there is now the article named Aggregate series. Nixdorf 17:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Re picture of the falling V-2s warning leaflet near Blizna, Poland - given the ultrasecret nature of the project, no mention of ballistic rocket would be made to lay public at all, I am pretty sure. The leaflet apparently appeared in the areas where fighters would drop the exhausted or even full tanks during encounters with Allied aircraft (around industrial centres etc.). It was meant to avoid false alarms and call the badly needed bomb disposal teams to handle the virtually harmless (just some residual petrol inside) jettisoned drop tanks. The tanks themselves usually carried a bold inscription Keine Bombe ("Not a bomb" in German).

[edit] Operator

Just wondering if anybody knows what branch of the German military operated them. Was the Luftwaffe, army, SS or some other unit in charge of them. I would guess luftwaffe, but am not sure and didn't see it in a quick scan of the article.

The Wehrmacht (Army) was in charge of Germany's rocketry program. Quicksilver 20:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
...and the Luftwaffe in charge of V-1 radek

Actually, the German Army is Heer. Wehrmacht was the defense force that consisted of the Heer, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe– this would have been equivalent to the US Department of War at the time.. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allied defenses against V2

From everything I read there were none. Unlike the V-1, for which the British used balloon barriers and the like they never developed any kind of defenses against the V-2. The most they could do is feed the Germans faulty intelligence as to where the rockets were hitting. Hence I think the sentence "Analysis of the captured equipment proved vital in improving the Allies anti-V-2 defenses." should be removed. radek

Good point. I checked a site or two and confirmed it - added a relevant new link to the article. So I've removed it, as you advocated, and taken the opportunity to add other relevant detail and subedit a bit. Oh! the power! Hope no one's offended. Folks at 137 21:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] V2 engine in London Space museum

As far as I remember there's a V-2 engine and a complete V-2 on display at the Science Museum. Or is it only one in two parts ? Ericd 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Träger

This is a small point in reference to the photo of Roman Träger and the caption. I don't think he was a scientist, rather he was an Austrian anti-Nazi serving as an officer in the Wermacht on Pennemunde who provided AK with intel.radek 06:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No small point, rather quite a significant one, I'd say! To help with updating the article, would you be able to translate the passage about Träger on the following web page: Archidiecezja Gnieźnieńska: Dzięki nim II wojna światowa trwała krócej... (the bottom paragraph)? If you can find an opportunity to do this, please supply the translation here on the talk page. --Wernher 13:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Here it is, quick and dirty:

Thanks to them, WW2 ended earlier...

On the wall of house no. 10 near the Cotton Market in Bydgoszcz a plaque was placed and blessed, in memory of Augustyn and Roman Trager. The intelligence work carried out by the father and son contributed to the Allied decision to bomb Peenemunde on the Baltic island of Uznam in 1943, where there was a German production and testing site of V-1 and V-2 rockets [sic] –- weapons which were supposed to change the course of the war. [...]

These plaques help to save the memories of heroic deeds. For a long time the official history of the People’s Republic of Poland never mentioned the contributions of the Tragers which led to delay of development of V-1 and V-2. Only at the start of the 70’s was this detail of one of the greatest feats of Polish intelligence during the WW2 examined. [...]

Augustyn Sek-Trager was from a mixed family. His father was an Austrian and his mother was Polish. Under the influence of his mother Augustyn devoted himself to the cause of Poland, torn apart by the partitions. (During WW1) He first served in the Austrian army, later joined Pilsudskis’ legions. Even back then he worked in the intelligence section.

In 1934 Augustyn moved into the house no. 10 near the Cotton Market in Bydgoszcz. Roman Trager during his stay at Peenemunde realized that the Germans had constructed a testing site for the V-1 and V-2 rockets on Uznam. In 1943, at a family Christmas Eve dinner he gave his father a hand drawn sketch of the military base, with the production sites marked. This report went to London. On the night of 17-18 of August 1943, RAF carried out a raid on Peenemunde – the Nazi laboratory of the ‘wunderwaffen’ ceased to exist.

Augustyn Trager died in 1957. His son, Roman in 1987. Only in an independent Poland did they get the recognition they deserved. Another ‘white hole’ in history was replaced by the truth, written on a plaque."

It's from a Radio Audition and sort of heavy on Pathos. Also doesn't say that Roman was a Wermacht officer. I read about the Traeger's in Michal Wojewodzki's 'Akcja V-1, V-2' (Action V-1, V-2). I'm pretty sure Roman was an NCO in the Wermacht, not a scientist. Augustyn, the father might have been. I don't have the book with me right now so I can't double check though. radek 02:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation! My Polish is a bit rusty, you see... *Cough* :-) I took the liberty of readability-fixing the thing. If you or any others (Poles) feel like it, I guess a cursory article* on the Trägers could be made by rewriting the above in a more sober tone, and perhaps with some further info from the book you mention. We should probably get hold of definite information on the NCO/Wehrmacht issue before changing this article, though. --Wernher 10:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
(* suggested name of article: Roman Träger; redirect also from Augustyn Träger, August Träger, Augustyn Sek-Träger, August Sek-Träger, and the corresponding Trager and Traeger variants for both men's names...)
Well, I took out the 'scientist' part as I'm pretty sure that's inaccurate (possibly it's confusing him with Antoni Kocjan). I've been wanting to do an article on the Tragers but the books with the relevant info are at my parents house far away, so it'd be from memory. Other than that it'll just have to wait.radek 08:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Weather

How did the Germans successfully launch rockets in a cold city such as Peenemünde (refer to the Challenger to see how cold weather affects rockets)? Captain Jackson 17:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New diagram

I create a new diagram of the V-2 and tried to more accurately represent the engine parts than the original one (which did not look anything like a V-2 engine), which is at Image:V-2 rocket diagram (with English labels).svg. Any suggestions about other ways to improve the diagram would be much appreciated, as I will be created a version with numbers for labels and a version without labels for other use, but only after I have finalized the English language one. If you have any comments about it, please feel free to leave them here or on my talk page. --Fastfission 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. One adjustment might be made; the square outer corner of the tail fin (not the trapezoid) is the air vane. The trapezoidal area on the inner trailing edge is a plastic fairing, the mount for antennae; the trailing edge is a strip antenna (for rx the combustion cut-off signal), and usually includes a streamlined protrusion for insertion of a rod antenna (for rx of the guidance beam). The air vane is important and should be indicated (accurately), the antennae mounting perhaps does not need to be indicated. If you think it should be, simply 'radio antennae fairing' or somesuch should suffice as the description. Dr Franger 11:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction; I have implemented it (by changing where the label was indicating). --Fastfission 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Gyroscope Photo

The photo of the "V-2 Gyroscope" in this article is actually an SG-66, an experimental device that was never flown in a V-2. The actual V-2 gyroscope was the LEV-3, which was a completely different device, not a stabilized platform at all, just a pair of gyros and an accelerometer fixed to the frame of the rocket. DonPMitchell 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the comment about the rocket being controlled by an "analog computer" is sort of true but very misleading. It was controlled by an electrolytic integrator, a relay that turned off the engine when a calibrated amount of silver was eroded off a cathode. This integrated the current from the gyroscopic accelerometer, so the engine was cut off at a particular velocity. DonPMitchell 03:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong name of the Rocket

The correct name of the V2 is A4 = Aggregat Vier (aggregate four). V2 was the the Propaganda name.


[edit] Missung the A-Series rockets

like A1,A2,A3,A4b,A5,A7,A4+Wac-Copporal and the planes of the Space Rockets A9 and A10. Please look here on this page. http://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/a4-2.shtml http://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/img/a-entwicklung.jpeg

[edit] Unclear inf.

The lead says: "The V2 rocket became the first man-made object launched into space during test flights that reached an altitude of 189 km (620,000 ft)" But when was this achieved actually? Verifiable reference to a reliable source would be ideal. Cmapm 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is referenced - right there in the lead. To a book written by the military commander of rocket research station at Peenemunde, present at the launch, even. Also from our List of V-2 test launches: "V-4 October 3, 1942 58 190 P-VII Too steep, success (First rocket to reach outer space)" Rmhermen 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure the date is provided in that reference? If yes, then can you provide respective exact citation from there on this talk page? Astronautix.com says on October 3 it reached 48 km altitude [3]. As for 189 km launch Astronautix.com suggests it could take place somewhere in 1944 [4]:
"Beginning of 1944. However during the war there were some vertical shots of the missile to test its stability and behaviour in a vacuum. On one such shot the missile reached 189 km altitude"
Cmapm 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think 1944 is correct. However, you should have changed it to that instead of removing all mention of it. This immediately raises flags of historical revisionism. Rmhermen 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture caption

The "Frau im Mond" reference on the first picture seems like it should belong in a later trivia section instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.35.143 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Frau im Mond was an influence on many of the V-2 designers, thus this isn't really trivial. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An article about the Meillerwagen

I have this evening submitted my first wikipedia article, about the Meillerwagen transporter/erector of the A4/V2. It deliberately neglects to mention such points as the A4 being a German WW2 weapon, since presumably this V2 article is the preliminary stop on a journey to my material (albeit a minor spur on the main line). If/when comments and discussion transform the content of the Meillerwagen material, I plan to include photos and drawings with a 'final' version of the text.

Dr Franger 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Meillerwagen is interesting. I've always considered the Pershing missile Pershing 1 erector launcher (less the M113 based transporter) to have many elements in common with the Meillerwagen. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Meillerwagen is often called a launcher/erector, but it is a transporter/erector. It is the final transport mode in a series which transports the A4 horizontally; the rail wagon, the Vidalwagen, the Meiller. The A4 ultimately needs to be vertical for launching, so the Meiller has a hydraulic lifting arm. The lifting arm can happily serve as the gantry for fuelling and tweaking prelaunch, but the A4's launch is, finally, standalone.

Some Meillerwagens were modified as launchers for the multistage SS missile Rheinbote. In this case, the Meillerwagen very much served as a launcher; the lifting arm was fitted with a launching rail, and was elevated to an angle to provide the weapon's range adjustment. A small amount of left/right traverse was also possible. This incarnation of the Meillerwagen is more of an ancestor to modern theatre missile launch vehicles, compared to the way the Meiller handled the A4. Dr Franger 10:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call of Duty

I saw it neccassary to also add that the video game Call of Duty also featured V 2 rockets.

[edit] Assessment section massively misleading

The "Assessment" section states the cost of the V-2 program as "approximately US$21 billion in 2005 dollars". This statement, and every other statement like it in the section, should be changed to give costs both in dollars and in lives of forced-labor workers. The costs of the V-2 program were 20,000 human lives and US$21 billion in 2005 dollars. (Sdsds - Talk) 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slightly antagonistic material

"He was too astute, perhaps too conscious of his dignity, to be impressed by mere noise." I believe this statement should also add that his experiences in World War 1 would also leave him considerably less impressed by noise. The statement thus far seems to subtly imply that Hitler was pretentious, which may very well be true (show me a source) but isn’t constructive in a encyclopedia environment. Bloody Sacha 6/13/2007

Almost the entire paragraph containing that snippet is one huge quote, the tone of which is clearly unencyclopedic. Can you suggest a better way to word it? Does it really belong in the article at all? (sdsds - talk) 07:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The only relevant part of that paragraph is that it states that the V2 was a "last hope terror weapon" which is repeated later in the article. So I suppose it doesn’t belong in the article at all. Unless we are to add a section called "By the way Hitler was actually an asshole..." to any subject pertaining to World War 2, World War 2 contemporaries and all items/objects used during World War 2. Still I don't want to unilaterally remove parts from this page without more input. Bloody Sacha 6/13/2007
In my opinion, this whole section is unnecessarily prosy. Fine for an article in the New Yorker, but just plain weird in the middle of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.33.145 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V-2 Technicians in the USSR

I edited the two paragraphs on this topic. Most of the Germans worked on the R-1, teaching the Russians how to build a rocket factory essentially. The Germans did not work on (or even know about) the R-2 and R-5 projects. The Scud (R-11) was more or less based on the Wasserfall missile, so I removed its mention.

Most of the Germans were sent home after the R-1 project. Groettrup and a few others remained, some as late as 1951. It is a matter of great controversy how much these Germans did for the Russians. One German historian (Przybilski) claims that they invented all the key technology behind the R-7/Sputnik rocket and engines, but that is extremely unlikely. They were considered a nuisance by Glushko and Korolev, but kept around by some of the Generals to hedge their bets.

There is a good discussion about this in Chertok's books "Rockets and People". Chertok was a friend to Groettrup and I believe he is honest and accurate about this matter.

I removed the short paragraph that discussed this, since it was speculative and also irrelevant to the history of the V-2. DonPMitchell 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Juarez Incident

I have heard the following story from two different engineers over the years and need some independent verification. It goes like this:

One of the V-2 rockets confiscated by the US Army and transported to White Sands Missile Range was test fired in the late 1940s but seriously malfunctioned. Instead of flying west, it supposedly flew south over the Mexican border into Ciudad Juarez, just south of El Paso. (NOTE: This was before the "self-destruct" mechanism now common on missiles had been perfected.)

However, nobody in Juarez was injured, let alone killed, because the V-2 rocket landed in the middle of the Juarez cemetery! However, the accident did create an enormous diplomatic stink at the State Department. Can anyone verify this story, or is it just another urban legend? Caracaskid 03:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW the launch in question was not of a captured V-2, but of a vehicle built in the U.S. as part of the same Hermes project that was launching the captured vehicles. See List of V-2 test launches#Launches of captured V-2 rockets in the USA after 1945. If you want to seek a citable source, NASA historians have recorded anecdotal stories about this, and transcripts of those are possibly available somewhere. (sdsds - talk) 07:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment of the V2 program

This is a really complicated topic, is it necessarily encyclopedic to have an assessment? Perhaps there should be a summary of the opposing views on the utility of the V2? It appears to me that the Wikipedia assessment is too supportive, but therein lies the problem. It is not a matter of absolutes but of the argument one accepts on the matter.

There appear to be two pro-V2 arguments. One is that had the Germans been able to sustain a V2 bombardment of the British Isles, from September 2 1944 onwards, for example if Operation Neptune failed, thereby allowing the V2 batteries to continue their attacks, then the British would have negotiated a peace. If one ignores all the potential 'what-ifs' and focuses on this, the argument can be considered extremely unlikely. Although Britain could not have stopped the V2 attacks (missile shields are not yet available 63 years after the event) V2s inflicted 7 000 casualties (September 44 - March 45) compared with the 43 000 in the Blitz (September 40 - May 1941). Is it believable that the British would cave?

The only other argument I've encountered is presented here, that V2s were crucial to German morale. Were they? Certainly some Germans believed, to the bitter end, that the Fuhrer's vengeance weapons would turn the Red Army back even when it was inside Berlin. But the argument of many historians, Antony Beevor and Peter FitzSimons among them, is that the German rank and file fought because they didn't want their country invaded, regardless of their support for Hitler. It seems unlikely that without Goebbels promising the enemy would be miraculously defeated, the majority would have just thrown in the towel earlier than they did. Is there any supporting evidence of this argument?

I cannot recall any other pro-V2 arguments, so to negative assessments. These are generally that the V2 program expended resources that could have been otherwise used to produce more conventional and practical weapons - Wikipedia claims 48 000 Panzer IV. I've read 15 000 Bf-109Gs, the source was "Cambridge Illustrated History - Warfare". Here lies the complexity of the argument: the figure of 48 000 Panzer IVs seems based on cost in Reichsmarks alone, whereas the 15 000 was the projected maximum figure based on resources in terms of the materials used and production facilities, et cetera. If the 'assessment' section were to use that figure, would it be necessary to mention that in 1944 Germany lacked skilled pilots, fuel, and ammunition. What would an extra 15 000 airframes really be worth? However, as the Bf-109s would have been arriving much earlier than V2 units activating, they may have been able to turn the air war in 1943, when the TAC policy of raiding aerodromes broke the Luftwaffe. The key issue the Luftwaffe had in 1944-5 was expertise, which once lost is exceedingly difficult to regain. If the expertise had been preserved in 1943, turning the TAC campaign into a costly debacle for the Allies, Operation Overlord would not have gone ahead, let alone succeeded, as Air Power was the crucial factor in 1944. The implications of the Luftwaffe remaining strong through 1943 due to increased attention by the German armaments ministry are far reaching. The V2 program can therefore be considered another of Hitler's costly follies that made a bad situation worse, not so much the final nail in the coffin as a mistake that accelerated the Third Reich's demise. Shouldn't the assessment reflect this? 59.167.130.145 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange comparison between number of dead in Mittelbau-Dora and number of people killed by V2

"As many as 20,000 slave labourers died constructing V-2s compared to the 7,000 military personnel and civilians that died from the V-2's use in combat." This sounds a lot like a stretched attempt to support the V2's ineffectiveness (the number of slave labourers killed was not really of strategic importance). And since a lot fewer had been killed, had they really cared about them or even just not actively sought to kill the slave labourers, its really not the correct number. Suggest we delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsHolmberg (talk • contribs) 10:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-4? V-2? I'm confused

The article goes from discussing one rocker to another. I could guess one is the production model of the other, but the article never comes out and says that. -- Kendrick7talk 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)