Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Allied Missiles
64 views
Skip to first unread message
Shawn Wilson
Nov 17, 2011, 3:59:00 PM11/17/11
to
I was reading Cracked, and this came up. Suppose that the Allies had
picked up on the potentials of ballistic missile technology to the
extent the Germans had historically, and the Germans did not. How
would it have affected the war?
The Germans don't get V-1s or V-2s, but they have those resources to
use elsewhere, presumably on the Luftwaffe as you can't make tanks out
of aluminum.
The allies get V-1s and V-2s and whatever else they can invent (I can
see the US trying hard for a V-3, for instance), but the resources
come from somewhere, presumably heavy bomber programs.
How many V-2s could the British have gotten for what they spent (all
in all) on their heavy bombers? How about rhe US? How much would
V-3s have cost the US, and when could they have been available?
picked up on the potentials of ballistic missile technology to the
extent the Germans had historically, and the Germans did not. How
would it have affected the war?
The Germans don't get V-1s or V-2s, but they have those resources to
use elsewhere, presumably on the Luftwaffe as you can't make tanks out
of aluminum.
The allies get V-1s and V-2s and whatever else they can invent (I can
see the US trying hard for a V-3, for instance), but the resources
come from somewhere, presumably heavy bomber programs.
How many V-2s could the British have gotten for what they spent (all
in all) on their heavy bombers? How about rhe US? How much would
V-3s have cost the US, and when could they have been available?
Mark Sieving
Nov 17, 2011, 4:53:12 PM11/17/11
to
On Nov 17, 2:59 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How many V-2s could the British have gotten for what they spent (all
> in all) on their heavy bombers? How about rhe US? How much would
> V-3s have cost the US, and when could they have been available?
Neither the US nor the UK would have given up heavy bombers for
> How many V-2s could the British have gotten for what they spent (all
> in all) on their heavy bombers? How about rhe US? How much would
> V-3s have cost the US, and when could they have been available?
rockets.
David H Thornley
Nov 17, 2011, 11:49:11 PM11/17/11
to
Shawn Wilson wrote:
> I was reading Cracked, and this came up. Suppose that the Allies had
> picked up on the potentials of ballistic missile technology to the
> extent the Germans had historically, and the Germans did not. How
> would it have affected the war?
>
Cracked can be fascinating, but I don't think they run everything by
> I was reading Cracked, and this came up. Suppose that the Allies had
> picked up on the potentials of ballistic missile technology to the
> extent the Germans had historically, and the Germans did not. How
> would it have affected the war?
>
competent historians.
Heavy bombers are more accurate, more versatile, and more economical
than ballistic missiles. You use missiles when you can't send in
bombers, and that wasn't the position the Allies were in.
> The Germans don't get V-1s or V-2s, but they have those resources to
> use elsewhere, presumably on the Luftwaffe as you can't make tanks out
> of aluminum.
>
> The allies get V-1s and V-2s and whatever else they can invent (I can
> see the US trying hard for a V-3, for instance), but the resources
> come from somewhere, presumably heavy bomber programs.
>
not "ballistic". The V-2 was the A-4 rocket.
> How many V-2s could the British have gotten for what they spent (all
> in all) on their heavy bombers?
How about rhe US? How much would
> V-3s have cost the US, and when could they have been available?
>
and long-range escorts.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Nov 17, 2011, 11:50:31 PM11/17/11
to
bases and would only be of limited use.
Latter versions of the V1 and V2 were supposed to be much more
accurate and longer ranged.
The Ewald II/Sauerkirsche II guidance system for the V1 needed three
ground stations to trilaterate the V1 position in a single pulse sent
from the missile, one had been built, the 2nd and 3rd were under
construction. A coded correction was sent to the V1 which was
correlated by a 5 head tape recorder. Combined with the 420 mile
range versions it would be enough to strike at the Ruhr from the UK
with an accuracy of about 1km assuming a midcourse rather than over
target correction.
The V2 if equiped with the "Vollzirkel" beam riding system should have
an accuracy of 300m though this would likely degenerate to a km due to
re-entry winds. Its range of 240 miles was however still inadaquet.
A "winged V2" known as the A4b was undergoing testing at the end of
WW2 with one partilly succesfully stable and controlled re-entry that
failed due to aerothermal heating of a wing root.
Equiped with the "Wasserspiel" guidence system (a Wassermann radar
layed on its side using FuG 226 Neuling IFF) was supposed to update an
inertial guidance system based around the SG-66 (which was being test
flown at the time)
It should achieve a range of 470 miles and accuracy of 180m and be
capable of attacking Britain from German bases.
The 600 mile range A9 was supposed to do this job but it was a new
design, the A4b was merely a lengthened V2 with wings added.
A V2 from the 10000th required 4000 hours to build. Cost of the
1000th was RM38500 and 7500 hours.
It was about 1/2 the cost of a FW 190 fighte plus its engine
inclusive of basic LEV-3 guidance.
Late war V1s were achieving 495, uninterceptable, mph and cost around
280 hours to build.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Nov 18, 2011, 10:06:33 AM11/18/11
to
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:84ec4371-96ce-48f4...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Think Antwerp.
Now stand by for the regular announcement of the V weapons as enhanced,
not as actually built.
> Latter versions of the V1 and V2 were supposed to be much more
> accurate and longer ranged.
We rapidly move from reality to Eunometic versions.
> The Ewald II/Sauerkirsche II guidance system for the V1 needed three
> ground stations to trilaterate the V1 position in a single pulse sent
> from the missile, one had been built, the 2nd and 3rd were under
> construction. A coded correction was sent to the V1 which was
> correlated by a 5 head tape recorder. Combined with the 420 mile
> range versions it would be enough to strike at the Ruhr from the UK
> with an accuracy of about 1km assuming a midcourse rather than over
> target correction.
You see the idea here is to announce a wonder device, and of course
coupled to the vapourware 420 mile V-1 range. Next comes the great
announcement the V-1 would be flying so high a ground station could
communicate with it at 200 miles range. Think tens of thousands of
feet, throwing away a major V-1 advantage, low altitude.
Not to worry wonder weapons triumph physics every time.
> The V2 if equiped with the "Vollzirkel" beam riding system should have
> an accuracy of 300m though this would likely degenerate to a km due to
> re-entry winds. Its range of 240 miles was however still inadaquet.
Yes we have paper designs with accuracies not achieved but the
advertising brochures look so nice it must be a wonder weapon.
> A "winged V2" known as the A4b was undergoing testing at the end of
> WW2 with one partilly succesfully stable and controlled re-entry that
> failed due to aerothermal heating of a wing root.
Translation 2 shots, 1 failure, 1 failure on re-entry.
> Equiped with the "Wasserspiel" guidence system (a Wassermann radar
> layed on its side using FuG 226 Neuling IFF) was supposed to update an
> inertial guidance system based around the SG-66 (which was being test
> flown at the time)
Yes folks, the idea is to keep fleeing from wonder device to wonder
device, throw enough code names in the hope the reader will be
impressed, without mentioning the gap between what was actually
around and the code names. In essence anything including a doodle
on paper counts for Eunometic.
> It should achieve a range of 470 miles and accuracy of 180m and be
> capable of attacking Britain from German bases.
In short the idea here is the accuracy is going to be better than what
the post war missiles achieved.
> The 600 mile range A9 was supposed to do this job but it was a new
> design, the A4b was merely a lengthened V2 with wings added.
Try vapourware.
> A V2 from the 10000th required 4000 hours to build. Cost of the
> 1000th was RM38500 and 7500 hours.
The reality here is the carcass of a V-2 was not a lot of material, it
was mainly fuel when launched, so of course it is cheaper than a
fighter whose airframe weighed over twice as much.
> It was about 1/2 the cost of a FW 190 fighte plus its engine
> inclusive of basic LEV-3 guidance.
Whether the above figures included guidance depends on sources,
as do the various man hour calculations, and Eunometic prefers
selected numbers,
Of course the Fw190 was normally going to last longer than 1
sortie, indeed at 10% losses it would mean around 10 sorties.
And it could carry comparable loads of bombs.
> Late war V1s were achieving 495, uninterceptable, mph and cost around
> 280 hours to build.
Meantime it seems some test missiles managed around 495 mph, but
that is not surprising if no warhead was fitted, given the saving in weight.
Meantime in March 1945 some 100 V-1 were detected by the British
defences, with London the target, 57 were destroyed over the sea, 43
made it over UK territory, and 18 of them were destroyed over land,
11 hit the target area. Some 73 of the V-1 launchings were at night, 6
at disk, 6 at dawn.
The gap between Eunometic and reality, or probably late war is now
defined as after March 1945, after the V-1 campaign ended.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
news:84ec4371-96ce-48f4...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 18, 7:59 am, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was reading Cracked, and this came up. Suppose that the Allies had
>> picked up on the potentials of ballistic missile technology to the
>> extent the Germans had historically, and the Germans did not. How
>> would it have affected the war?
>>
>> The Germans don't get V-1s or V-2s, but they have those resources to
>> use elsewhere, presumably on the Luftwaffe as you can't make tanks out
>> of aluminum.
>>
>> The allies get V-1s and V-2s and whatever else they can invent (I can
>> see the US trying hard for a V-3, for instance), but the resources
>> come from somewhere, presumably heavy bomber programs.
>>
>> How many V-2s could the British have gotten for what they spent (all
>> in all) on their heavy bombers? How about rhe US? How much would
>> V-3s have cost the US, and when could they have been available?
>
> The V1 and V2 initially lacked the range to attack Germany from UK
> bases and would only be of limited use.
Actually they proved of limited use when in German hands.
>> I was reading Cracked, and this came up. Suppose that the Allies had
>> picked up on the potentials of ballistic missile technology to the
>> extent the Germans had historically, and the Germans did not. How
>> would it have affected the war?
>>
>> The Germans don't get V-1s or V-2s, but they have those resources to
>> use elsewhere, presumably on the Luftwaffe as you can't make tanks out
>> of aluminum.
>>
>> The allies get V-1s and V-2s and whatever else they can invent (I can
>> see the US trying hard for a V-3, for instance), but the resources
>> come from somewhere, presumably heavy bomber programs.
>>
>> How many V-2s could the British have gotten for what they spent (all
>> in all) on their heavy bombers? How about rhe US? How much would
>> V-3s have cost the US, and when could they have been available?
>
> The V1 and V2 initially lacked the range to attack Germany from UK
> bases and would only be of limited use.
Think Antwerp.
Now stand by for the regular announcement of the V weapons as enhanced,
not as actually built.
> Latter versions of the V1 and V2 were supposed to be much more
> accurate and longer ranged.
> The Ewald II/Sauerkirsche II guidance system for the V1 needed three
> ground stations to trilaterate the V1 position in a single pulse sent
> from the missile, one had been built, the 2nd and 3rd were under
> construction. A coded correction was sent to the V1 which was
> correlated by a 5 head tape recorder. Combined with the 420 mile
> range versions it would be enough to strike at the Ruhr from the UK
> with an accuracy of about 1km assuming a midcourse rather than over
> target correction.
coupled to the vapourware 420 mile V-1 range. Next comes the great
announcement the V-1 would be flying so high a ground station could
communicate with it at 200 miles range. Think tens of thousands of
feet, throwing away a major V-1 advantage, low altitude.
Not to worry wonder weapons triumph physics every time.
> The V2 if equiped with the "Vollzirkel" beam riding system should have
> an accuracy of 300m though this would likely degenerate to a km due to
> re-entry winds. Its range of 240 miles was however still inadaquet.
advertising brochures look so nice it must be a wonder weapon.
> A "winged V2" known as the A4b was undergoing testing at the end of
> WW2 with one partilly succesfully stable and controlled re-entry that
> failed due to aerothermal heating of a wing root.
> Equiped with the "Wasserspiel" guidence system (a Wassermann radar
> layed on its side using FuG 226 Neuling IFF) was supposed to update an
> inertial guidance system based around the SG-66 (which was being test
> flown at the time)
device, throw enough code names in the hope the reader will be
impressed, without mentioning the gap between what was actually
around and the code names. In essence anything including a doodle
on paper counts for Eunometic.
> It should achieve a range of 470 miles and accuracy of 180m and be
> capable of attacking Britain from German bases.
the post war missiles achieved.
> The 600 mile range A9 was supposed to do this job but it was a new
> design, the A4b was merely a lengthened V2 with wings added.
> A V2 from the 10000th required 4000 hours to build. Cost of the
> 1000th was RM38500 and 7500 hours.
was mainly fuel when launched, so of course it is cheaper than a
fighter whose airframe weighed over twice as much.
> It was about 1/2 the cost of a FW 190 fighte plus its engine
> inclusive of basic LEV-3 guidance.
as do the various man hour calculations, and Eunometic prefers
selected numbers,
Of course the Fw190 was normally going to last longer than 1
sortie, indeed at 10% losses it would mean around 10 sorties.
And it could carry comparable loads of bombs.
> Late war V1s were achieving 495, uninterceptable, mph and cost around
> 280 hours to build.
that is not surprising if no warhead was fitted, given the saving in weight.
Meantime in March 1945 some 100 V-1 were detected by the British
defences, with London the target, 57 were destroyed over the sea, 43
made it over UK territory, and 18 of them were destroyed over land,
11 hit the target area. Some 73 of the V-1 launchings were at night, 6
at disk, 6 at dawn.
The gap between Eunometic and reality, or probably late war is now
defined as after March 1945, after the V-1 campaign ended.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Nov 19, 2011, 10:32:26 AM11/19/11
to
On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
wrote:
> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
effective weapons.
These weapons were rushed into production a few months ahead of
refinements that would have increased their accuracy 10 fold and costs
by a fractor of 3.
CEP of the V2 would be in the order of 1km, better than H2S/H2X by a
factor of 8 and as good as high altitude daylight bombardment on good
days and better than poor days. The vollzirkel (full circle) guidance
system kept the V2 confined withing a pencil like beam of less than
0.05 degrees in 3 dimensions irrespective of cross and head/tail
winds. It also accuracy measured the missile velocity via doppler and
missile distance via transponder. When missile cutoff occured in the
rarefified atmosphere the missiles position and velocity had been as
previsely controlled as any modern missile.
The final V1's from about March 1945 were averaging 795kmh/492mph and
in fact a high proportion of the test missiles were achieveing 815kmh/
505mph. This is faster than a P-80A at sea level or a Meteor III.
The Ewald II/Sauerkirsche II guidance system worked by the missile
sending out a single predetermined pulse which was trilatterated by 3
base stations. It was expected to provide the mid course correction
to keep the missile on target within about 1 km or so at 400km. The
V1 cost a mininal 280 hours to make and was getting cheaper. Jamming
would have been nearly impossible since the pulse frequency would not
be known.
The V2's materials were being substituted by non strategic materials
and the costs going down to less than 4000 hours. About 1/2 as
expensive as a single seat fighter to build it was much cheaper to
opperated.
Late war V1's were launched from He 111 which had navigated their way
to Schwan radio marker buoys placed by EG-ON blind bombing system out
to sea, it was not a particularly accurate method and the advanced V1
were not yet getting the the front nevertheless we know that the high
speeds were achieved.
It's customary to disparage these two weapons as a way of disparaging
Nazis or Germans but this is not objective In fact the weapons were
in the process of being transformed into very cost effective weapons
of equal accuracy to Bomber Command and the 8th airforce; two forces
with their own severe failings.
wrote:
> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
effective weapons.
These weapons were rushed into production a few months ahead of
refinements that would have increased their accuracy 10 fold and costs
by a fractor of 3.
CEP of the V2 would be in the order of 1km, better than H2S/H2X by a
factor of 8 and as good as high altitude daylight bombardment on good
days and better than poor days. The vollzirkel (full circle) guidance
system kept the V2 confined withing a pencil like beam of less than
0.05 degrees in 3 dimensions irrespective of cross and head/tail
winds. It also accuracy measured the missile velocity via doppler and
missile distance via transponder. When missile cutoff occured in the
rarefified atmosphere the missiles position and velocity had been as
previsely controlled as any modern missile.
The final V1's from about March 1945 were averaging 795kmh/492mph and
in fact a high proportion of the test missiles were achieveing 815kmh/
505mph. This is faster than a P-80A at sea level or a Meteor III.
The Ewald II/Sauerkirsche II guidance system worked by the missile
sending out a single predetermined pulse which was trilatterated by 3
base stations. It was expected to provide the mid course correction
to keep the missile on target within about 1 km or so at 400km. The
V1 cost a mininal 280 hours to make and was getting cheaper. Jamming
would have been nearly impossible since the pulse frequency would not
be known.
The V2's materials were being substituted by non strategic materials
and the costs going down to less than 4000 hours. About 1/2 as
expensive as a single seat fighter to build it was much cheaper to
opperated.
Late war V1's were launched from He 111 which had navigated their way
to Schwan radio marker buoys placed by EG-ON blind bombing system out
to sea, it was not a particularly accurate method and the advanced V1
were not yet getting the the front nevertheless we know that the high
speeds were achieved.
It's customary to disparage these two weapons as a way of disparaging
Nazis or Germans but this is not objective In fact the weapons were
in the process of being transformed into very cost effective weapons
of equal accuracy to Bomber Command and the 8th airforce; two forces
with their own severe failings.
Alan Nordin
Nov 19, 2011, 12:24:51 PM11/19/11
to
On Nov 19, 10:32 am, "eunome...@yahoo.com.au" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
> These weapons were rushed into production a few months ahead of
> refinements that would have increased their accuracy 10 fold and costs
> by a fractor of 3.
"10 fold" doesn't mean 10 times, it means 2 to the 10th power or 1,024
times.
Do you really mean 1,000 times better? Frankly, 10 times better is
already quite unbelievable.
I also find it extremely hard to believe the Germans would sacrifice
the accuracy you allege for a three month jump in production without
making plans to upgrade production in the near future. Any group that
has the amazing technical ability you give them credit for would
surely posess the maufacturing and planning expertise to make the
necessary changes with a minimal impact on production numbers.
Alan
wrote:
> These weapons were rushed into production a few months ahead of
> refinements that would have increased their accuracy 10 fold and costs
> by a fractor of 3.
times.
Do you really mean 1,000 times better? Frankly, 10 times better is
already quite unbelievable.
I also find it extremely hard to believe the Germans would sacrifice
the accuracy you allege for a three month jump in production without
making plans to upgrade production in the near future. Any group that
has the amazing technical ability you give them credit for would
surely posess the maufacturing and planning expertise to make the
necessary changes with a minimal impact on production numbers.
Alan
William Black
Nov 19, 2011, 8:19:36 PM11/19/11
to
On 19/11/11 15:32, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> wrote:
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
> effective weapons.
>
Compared to heavy bombers?
> On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> wrote:
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
> effective weapons.
>
They're a one shot weapon, of course they cost more than a bomber.
Perhaps you're not counting the cost of guarding, feeding, murdering
and burying the slaves who you kill while building them...
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
Don Phillipson
Nov 19, 2011, 8:20:49 PM11/19/11
to
"Alan Nordin" <alan_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:93bb12cd-5958-4065...@o5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> "10 fold" doesn't mean 10 times, it means 2 to the 10th power or 1,024
> times.
This seems a simple error. Tenfold always means ten times, threefold means
three times, and so on.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:93bb12cd-5958-4065...@o5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> "10 fold" doesn't mean 10 times, it means 2 to the 10th power or 1,024
> times.
three times, and so on.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Nov 19, 2011, 8:23:30 PM11/19/11
to
On Nov 20, 4:24 am, Alan Nordin <alan_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 10:32 am, "eunome...@yahoo.com.au" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > These weapons were rushed into production a few months ahead of
> > refinements that would have increased their accuracy 10 fold and costs
> > by a fractor of 3.
>
> "10 fold" doesn't mean 10 times, it means 2 to the 10th power or 1,024
> times.
>
> Do you really mean 1,000 times better? Frankly, 10 times better is
> already quite unbelievable.
H2X/H2S (3cm version) 8 mile CEP; that's 12.8km.
> On Nov 19, 10:32 am, "eunome...@yahoo.com.au" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > These weapons were rushed into production a few months ahead of
> > refinements that would have increased their accuracy 10 fold and costs
> > by a fractor of 3.
>
> "10 fold" doesn't mean 10 times, it means 2 to the 10th power or 1,024
> times.
>
> Do you really mean 1,000 times better? Frankly, 10 times better is
> already quite unbelievable.
Ewald II/Sauerkirsche expected to be 1-2km. The guidance update was
midcourse so there would be wind drift after that, otherwise the
system would be far more accurate. I suppose it would be possible to
give a correction only a few km from target to increase accuracy.
So its likely to be 5-10 times more accurat.
>
> I also find it extremely hard to believe the Germans would sacrifice
> the accuracy you allege for a three month jump in production without
> making plans to upgrade production in the near future.
The V2 guidance systems were:
1 Inertial: LEV-3 upgrade path to SG-66 or SG-70 with stable platform
and cross wind compensating accelerometers. Same connections into
autopilot.
2 Radio guidance: Viktoria-Hawaii (lateral only beam) with doppler
speed cutoff used in 25% of launches to halve longitutional
dispersion. The upgrade for this was the vollzirkel which had a
tighter beam in 3 dimensions, doppler cuttoff with range also part of
the cuttoff equation.
The V1 headed in a compass direction and some had a becon to track
progress. Latter versions could fly a dog leg course.
The final version was supposed to have the midcourse update.
Bomber Command was "carpet bombing" german cities, ie "area
bombardment/ dehousing /demoralising". This is what Lindemann talked
Churchill into doing.
The early V1 and V2 were just tit for tat vengence for that and it was
hopped might even lead to a negotiation of cessation of the allied
campaign.
These systems required time to perfect, in the meantime simple systems
would do for the purpose of "dehousing, demoralising and area
bombardment" campaign of their own.
Early versions of Vollzirkel had some problems with ground plane
interference in the beam that required re-engineering for higher
frerquencies and compensating techniques.
> Any group that
> has the amazing technical ability you give them credit for would
> surely posess the maufacturing and planning expertise to make the
> necessary changes with a minimal impact on production numbers.
systems would simply be upgrades to the V2 when they became available
perhaps 6 months after the start of the campagin. In the meantime
production would have built up, efficiency would have built up and
reliabillity would have built up.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Nov 19, 2011, 10:10:13 PM11/19/11
to
On Nov 20, 12:20 pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Alan Nordin" <alan_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
If your making filo pastry and you fold it 10 times you get 1024
layers. It's knit picking and I don't even know if this is 'accepted
usage' certainly in the case of samuri swords and of course Germanic
and Celtic pattern welded swords (which predate the Japanese stuff)
> "Alan Nordin" <alan_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
layers. It's knit picking and I don't even know if this is 'accepted
usage' certainly in the case of samuri swords and of course Germanic
and Celtic pattern welded swords (which predate the Japanese stuff)
William Black
Nov 19, 2011, 10:10:44 PM11/19/11
to
On 20/11/11 01:23, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>
>> Do you really mean 1,000 times better? Frankly, 10 times better is
>> already quite unbelievable.
>
> H2X/H2S (3cm version) 8 mile CEP; that's 12.8km.
That's a lie.
>>
>> Do you really mean 1,000 times better? Frankly, 10 times better is
>> already quite unbelievable.
>
> H2X/H2S (3cm version) 8 mile CEP; that's 12.8km.
> Bomber Command was "carpet bombing" german cities, ie "area
> bombardment/ dehousing /demoralising". This is what Lindemann talked
> Churchill into doing.
>
> The early V1 and V2 were just tit for tat vengence for that and it was
> hopped might even lead to a negotiation of cessation of the allied
> campaign.
Mario
Nov 19, 2011, 10:11:42 PM11/19/11
to
Alan Nordin, 18:24, sabato 19 novembre 2011:
> "10 fold" doesn't mean 10 times, it means 2 to the 10th power
> or 1,024 times.
Really?
--
H
> "10 fold" doesn't mean 10 times, it means 2 to the 10th power
> or 1,024 times.
--
H
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Nov 19, 2011, 11:52:26 PM11/19/11
to
On Nov 20, 12:19 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/11/11 15:32, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:> On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
defences, runways, extensive navigation systems, casualities.
>
> Perhaps you're not counting the cost of guarding, feeding, murdering
> and burying the slaves who you kill while building them...
>
Manhours of worker prisoners was counted; they were a resource that
had to be optimally utillised afterall.
> On 19/11/11 15:32, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:> On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> > written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
> > effective weapons.
>
> Compared to heavy bombers?
>
> They're a one shot weapon, of course they cost more than a bomber.
7-10 highly paid and trained crew members, escort fighters, air field
> >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> > written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
> > effective weapons.
>
> Compared to heavy bombers?
>
> They're a one shot weapon, of course they cost more than a bomber.
defences, runways, extensive navigation systems, casualities.
>
> Perhaps you're not counting the cost of guarding, feeding, murdering
> and burying the slaves who you kill while building them...
>
had to be optimally utillised afterall.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Nov 19, 2011, 11:56:01 PM11/19/11
to
William Black <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/11/11 15:32, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> > written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
> > effective weapons.
> Compared to heavy bombers?
> They're a one shot weapon, of course they cost more than a bomber.
> Perhaps you're not counting the cost of guarding, feeding, murdering
> and burying the slaves who you kill while building them...
Probably about the same as if they'd been building bombers instead, though.
> On 19/11/11 15:32, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> > written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
> > effective weapons.
> Compared to heavy bombers?
> They're a one shot weapon, of course they cost more than a bomber.
> Perhaps you're not counting the cost of guarding, feeding, murdering
> and burying the slaves who you kill while building them...
Mike
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Nov 20, 2011, 1:03:11 AM11/20/11
to
On Nov 20, 3:56 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
A lot of those people 'forced to work' lived longer and better for
being usefull to the Reich.
A classic case is a friend of mines brother who was caught handing out
anti-german leaflets in Yugoslavia.
With a partisan insurgency going on that involced decapitating and eye
guaging out captured Germans solddiers
this was not going to go down well. When he was nabbed he ended up
being forced to work on a German farm
essentially making up for German men that had been drafted.
Others with skills might have ended up in a small factory (likely
good) or a large factory (could be bad conditions).
Women from Eastern Europe, or Italians might have ended up as
indentured workers, pressured into it by being a refugee
inducements and at times intimidation, they generally had the run of
the village, within say 5km.
Immagining that all the 'forced labour' was some kind of Jew taken
from a death camp and worked to death completely misses
the character of the bulk of the system. The mythology of the
holocaust consumes all.
Others were completely voluntary: like a dutch friend who did his
apprenticeship as a baker in Germany since
no German boys would be available for such things. A pastry cheff was
likely to be directing a FLAK battery
or opperating a Wurzburg.
> William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
A lot of those people 'forced to work' lived longer and better for
being usefull to the Reich.
A classic case is a friend of mines brother who was caught handing out
anti-german leaflets in Yugoslavia.
With a partisan insurgency going on that involced decapitating and eye
guaging out captured Germans solddiers
this was not going to go down well. When he was nabbed he ended up
being forced to work on a German farm
essentially making up for German men that had been drafted.
Others with skills might have ended up in a small factory (likely
good) or a large factory (could be bad conditions).
Women from Eastern Europe, or Italians might have ended up as
indentured workers, pressured into it by being a refugee
inducements and at times intimidation, they generally had the run of
the village, within say 5km.
Immagining that all the 'forced labour' was some kind of Jew taken
from a death camp and worked to death completely misses
the character of the bulk of the system. The mythology of the
holocaust consumes all.
Others were completely voluntary: like a dutch friend who did his
apprenticeship as a baker in Germany since
no German boys would be available for such things. A pastry cheff was
likely to be directing a FLAK battery
or opperating a Wurzburg.
William Black
Nov 20, 2011, 10:40:22 AM11/20/11
to
On 20/11/11 06:03, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> On Nov 20, 3:56 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>> William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/11/11 15:32, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>>> On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
>>>> written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
>>>> effective weapons.
>>> Compared to heavy bombers?
>>> They're a one shot weapon, of course they cost more than a bomber.
>>> Perhaps you're not counting the cost of guarding, feeding, murdering
>>> and burying the slaves who you kill while building them...
>>
>> Probably about the same as if they'd been building bombers instead, though.
>>
>> Mike
>
> A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
Of course it does, they were built by slaves.
> On Nov 20, 3:56 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>> William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/11/11 15:32, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>>> On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
>>>> written in poor, biased histories. The V1 and V2 could have been cost
>>>> effective weapons.
>>> Compared to heavy bombers?
>>> They're a one shot weapon, of course they cost more than a bomber.
>>> Perhaps you're not counting the cost of guarding, feeding, murdering
>>> and burying the slaves who you kill while building them...
>>
>> Probably about the same as if they'd been building bombers instead, though.
>>
>> Mike
>
> A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
> A lot of those people 'forced to work' lived longer and better for
> being usefull to the Reich.
whose charge they were in.
>
> A classic case is a friend of mines brother who was caught handing out
> anti-german leaflets in Yugoslavia.
> With a partisan insurgency going on that involced decapitating and eye
> guaging out captured Germans solddiers
> this was not going to go down well. When he was nabbed he ended up
> being forced to work on a German farm
> essentially making up for German men that had been drafted.
of German soldiers.
However condemning someone to eternal slavery for handing out leaflets
is more than a little despotic.
And you reckon these were the 'nice' Germans?
> Others with skills might have ended up in a small factory (likely
> good) or a large factory (could be bad conditions).
> Immagining that all the 'forced labour' was some kind of Jew taken
> from a death camp and worked to death completely misses
> the character of the bulk of the system. The mythology of the
> holocaust consumes all.
> Others were completely voluntary: like a dutch friend who did his
> apprenticeship as a baker in Germany since
> no German boys would be available for such things. A pastry cheff was
> likely to be directing a FLAK battery
> or opperating a Wurzburg.
>
Geoffrey Sinclair
Nov 20, 2011, 10:41:38 AM11/20/11
to
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:ba905ff8-9bdb-4035...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
Mainly because more people died while building the V-2 than died
when it was used as a weapon. The fact this is noted is considered
degeneration by Eunometic.
> A lot of those people 'forced to work' lived longer and better for
> being usefull to the Reich.
Ah yes, note the quotes around forced to work, presumably
Eunometic prefers to believe they were volunteers. And of
course a lot in this case is maybe 1 person, that is all Eunometic
needs.
Eunometic is of course not going to volunteer for the work program,
and of course when the alternative is instant execution and people
were from Ghettos where conditions were really bad the living
longer and better is rather easy to achieve. The reality the SS
was working people to death as an aim is being ignored.
Stand by for friends of Eunometic who had a great time in Nazi
Germany. It is somewhat hard to imagine Eunometic associates
with those who did not.
> A classic case is a friend of mines brother who was caught handing out
> anti-german leaflets in Yugoslavia.
And the age and date of the arrest? Let me guess, early and under age.
> With a partisan insurgency going on that involced decapitating and eye
> guaging out captured Germans solddiers
> this was not going to go down well.
Apparently handing out anti German leaflets is that hideous a crime,
as opposed to being too young for military service. And good to
know the atrocities done by German soldiers therefore allow
atrocities by the other side.
> When he was nabbed he ended up
> being forced to work on a German farm
> essentially making up for German men that had been drafted.
So in other words forced labour. Farm work was one of the better
options.
> Others with skills might have ended up in a small factory (likely
> good) or a large factory (could be bad conditions).
Translation Eunometic is firmly of the belief forcing people to work
for Nazi Germany is an essentially humane system, with people
flocking to the recruiting stations. Not put onto trains at gunpoint.
> Women from Eastern Europe, or Italians might have ended up as
> indentured workers, pressured into it by being a refugee
> inducements and at times intimidation, they generally had the run of
> the village, within say 5km.
So an open prison, at least if people believe the Eunometic
defined distance.
Ah yes, back to the agricultural communities, but it is all a might
have been, millions of people recording bad experiences do not
count versus Eunometic's beliefs. An idea about how the workers
were treated can be seen in a higher than average death rates in
air raids, the foreigners were in the lesser shelters, or none.
You see the systematic rounding up of people, forcing them into
Germany is going to be ignored. Certainly the women forced into
brothels to serve the Germans will be. I like the way so many
countries where the Nazis took labour from are ignored. It is
amazing how the Nazis had to forcibly take people when the
inducements are supposed to be so good.
People have noted the tiers of forced labour, with the concentration
camp prisoners the worst and so generally called slave labour. They
were to be worked to death in place of using the gas chambers.
Germany needed the manpower, the SS needed the money.
> Immagining that all the 'forced labour' was some kind of Jew taken
> from a death camp and worked to death completely misses
> the character of the bulk of the system.
Ah yes, Eunometic cannot help but put quotes around forced
labour when the Nazis do it, for most people would mean because
it was really slave labour, but Eunometic tends to prefer volunteer.
The Nazis did not keep 7.5 million people they called Jews in
work in Germany, they rounded up lots of people from occupied
Europe to work in Germany. It is well known but Eunometic needs
to pretend people do not know this.
Given the number of people killed versus the number of foreign workers
in Germany of course rather puts holes in the "bulk of the system" claim,
but everyone knew that of course, bulk can be 1 out of millions here.
Foreign workers, including Prisoners of War, in Germany totalled some
7.5 million people in October 1944, the Nazi killing program murdered
around 12 million people, about half for being Jewish.
> The mythology of the holocaust consumes all.
The Eunometic version tends to happy little Nazis hurt by big bad
foreigners.
> Others were completely voluntary: like a dutch friend who did his
> apprenticeship as a baker in Germany since
> no German boys would be available for such things. A pastry cheff was
> likely to be directing a FLAK battery or opperating a Wurzburg.
Yes folks, as long as Eunometic can announce someone in Germany was
doing well the slave labour stories must be discounted. We are back at
boys again, not noted as especially aware of much of the world.
Heard about the people who did well under Stalin? Must have been
a worker's paradise.
By the way in November 1916 the Germans tried to fix a labour shortage
by forcing 60,000 Belgian men to work in Germany at gunpoint. It took
about 3 months for the Germans to stop the program, the international
outcry, and more importantly the refusal of most of the men to work,
despite bribes and threats, were the reasons. Most of the men were
allowed to go home, unlike WWII.
Without the Belgians the Germans turned to Russian PoWs who were
about as bad, the result was "strict regimen" to force them to work.
WWI was in so many ways a template for WWII.
news:ba905ff8-9bdb-4035...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
when it was used as a weapon. The fact this is noted is considered
degeneration by Eunometic.
> A lot of those people 'forced to work' lived longer and better for
> being usefull to the Reich.
Eunometic prefers to believe they were volunteers. And of
course a lot in this case is maybe 1 person, that is all Eunometic
needs.
Eunometic is of course not going to volunteer for the work program,
and of course when the alternative is instant execution and people
were from Ghettos where conditions were really bad the living
longer and better is rather easy to achieve. The reality the SS
was working people to death as an aim is being ignored.
Stand by for friends of Eunometic who had a great time in Nazi
Germany. It is somewhat hard to imagine Eunometic associates
with those who did not.
> A classic case is a friend of mines brother who was caught handing out
> anti-german leaflets in Yugoslavia.
> With a partisan insurgency going on that involced decapitating and eye
> guaging out captured Germans solddiers
> this was not going to go down well.
as opposed to being too young for military service. And good to
know the atrocities done by German soldiers therefore allow
atrocities by the other side.
> When he was nabbed he ended up
> being forced to work on a German farm
> essentially making up for German men that had been drafted.
options.
> Others with skills might have ended up in a small factory (likely
> good) or a large factory (could be bad conditions).
for Nazi Germany is an essentially humane system, with people
flocking to the recruiting stations. Not put onto trains at gunpoint.
> Women from Eastern Europe, or Italians might have ended up as
> indentured workers, pressured into it by being a refugee
> inducements and at times intimidation, they generally had the run of
> the village, within say 5km.
defined distance.
Ah yes, back to the agricultural communities, but it is all a might
have been, millions of people recording bad experiences do not
count versus Eunometic's beliefs. An idea about how the workers
were treated can be seen in a higher than average death rates in
air raids, the foreigners were in the lesser shelters, or none.
You see the systematic rounding up of people, forcing them into
Germany is going to be ignored. Certainly the women forced into
brothels to serve the Germans will be. I like the way so many
countries where the Nazis took labour from are ignored. It is
amazing how the Nazis had to forcibly take people when the
inducements are supposed to be so good.
People have noted the tiers of forced labour, with the concentration
camp prisoners the worst and so generally called slave labour. They
were to be worked to death in place of using the gas chambers.
Germany needed the manpower, the SS needed the money.
> Immagining that all the 'forced labour' was some kind of Jew taken
> from a death camp and worked to death completely misses
> the character of the bulk of the system.
labour when the Nazis do it, for most people would mean because
it was really slave labour, but Eunometic tends to prefer volunteer.
The Nazis did not keep 7.5 million people they called Jews in
work in Germany, they rounded up lots of people from occupied
Europe to work in Germany. It is well known but Eunometic needs
to pretend people do not know this.
Given the number of people killed versus the number of foreign workers
in Germany of course rather puts holes in the "bulk of the system" claim,
but everyone knew that of course, bulk can be 1 out of millions here.
Foreign workers, including Prisoners of War, in Germany totalled some
7.5 million people in October 1944, the Nazi killing program murdered
around 12 million people, about half for being Jewish.
> The mythology of the holocaust consumes all.
foreigners.
> Others were completely voluntary: like a dutch friend who did his
> apprenticeship as a baker in Germany since
> no German boys would be available for such things. A pastry cheff was
> likely to be directing a FLAK battery or opperating a Wurzburg.
doing well the slave labour stories must be discounted. We are back at
boys again, not noted as especially aware of much of the world.
Heard about the people who did well under Stalin? Must have been
a worker's paradise.
By the way in November 1916 the Germans tried to fix a labour shortage
by forcing 60,000 Belgian men to work in Germany at gunpoint. It took
about 3 months for the Germans to stop the program, the international
outcry, and more importantly the refusal of most of the men to work,
despite bribes and threats, were the reasons. Most of the men were
allowed to go home, unlike WWII.
Without the Belgians the Germans turned to Russian PoWs who were
about as bad, the result was "strict regimen" to force them to work.
WWI was in so many ways a template for WWII.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Nov 20, 2011, 10:42:40 AM11/20/11
to
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:8d18f278-2257-48fa...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Ah yes, once again none of my words make it to the reply, which
again shows how correct I have been.
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> written in poor, biased histories.
Translation the Eunometic versions are basically vapourware so time
to delete anything that shows up the fiction.
> The V1 and V2 could have been cost effective weapons.
The V-1 was cost effective, everyone agrees on that. It did not come
in a hyper fast hyper accurate and/or long range Eunometic version.
The V-2 was not cost effective, the allies spent lots of effort hunting
down V-1s and their sites, the RAF allocated 3 or 4 squadrons of
British based Spitfires to do strikes against V-2 systems, not
bothering much with launch sites. The allied air forces in general
ignored the V weapons post September 1944, apart from trying
to intercept the He111 and the V-1s heading for England.
Makes a difference.
> These weapons were rushed into production a few months ahead of
> refinements that would have increased their accuracy 10 fold and costs
> by a fractor of 3.
It is all understood that mass production can cut costs, in particular by
investing in more machinery to build the item and of course a more
experienced work force. The V-2 production facilities killed more
people than the V-2 weapon. Hard to end up with an experienced
work force that way.
As for the 10 fold increases in accuracy they remain the Eunometic
dreams, fanned by codenames, sketches on paper, ideas, some
basic trials and so forth, all accuracy claims believed, or if not
believed it is because they surely would do better than advertised.
> CEP of the V2 would be in the order of 1km, better than H2S/H2X by a
> factor of 8 and as good as high altitude daylight bombardment on good
> days and better than poor days.
We have been here before, and as usual the accuracy of the V-2 is
being adjusted up and the allied bombing results are of course the
worst possible results of the least accurate system.
> The vollzirkel (full circle) guidance
It is amazing how searching on the above term keeps coming back
to Eunometic, not sources. Not really surprising for vapourware.
> system kept the V2 confined withing a pencil like beam of less than
> 0.05 degrees in 3 dimensions irrespective of cross and head/tail
> winds.
Yet another amazing system that was not used.
> It also accuracy measured the missile velocity via doppler and
> missile distance via transponder.
Paper systems are so wonderful.
> When missile cutoff occured in the
> rarefified atmosphere the missiles position and velocity had been as
> previsely controlled as any modern missile.
Yes folks, the idea here is the V-2 wonder guidance systems could be
slipped into a modern missile and improve performance.
> The final V1's from about March 1945 were averaging 795kmh/492mph and
> in fact a high proportion of the test missiles were achieveing 815kmh/
> 505mph. This is faster than a P-80A at sea level or a Meteor III.
You see the idea here is to announce wonder results, but totally ignore
the idea test shots are not the same as reality, and of course people
are left to wonder where exactly was a good V-1 test range in 1945.
Given the territory still under Nazi control. The 495 mph appear to
be trials, the 505 mph seem to be hope and of course with no
warhead weights change.
Finally the P-80A managed 558 mph at sea level as Eunometic has
been told many times, but that does not fit the fiction.
Hence the actual V-1 results from March 1945 against England have
to be ignored, most were shot down.
> The Ewald II/Sauerkirsche II guidance system worked by the missile
> sending out a single predetermined pulse which was trilatterated by 3
> base stations. It was expected to provide the mid course correction
> to keep the missile on target within about 1 km or so at 400km.
You see unless the V-1 was high then at 200 km any transmission from
the missile is not arriving direct, which is not a good thing when one is
trying to measure distance, but the Eunometic wonder device does not
need to worry about that.
Of course the 400 km V-1 was another weapon not used.
> The
> V1 cost a mininal 280 hours to make and was getting cheaper.
As noted Eunometic picks what look like good figures and ignores
the many problems in calculating such a figure and what exactly is
counted as a V-1.
> Jamming
> would have been nearly impossible since the pulse frequency would not
> be known.
Yes of course, it is a German wonder weapon, no one can stop it.
> The V2's materials were being substituted by non strategic materials
> and the costs going down to less than 4000 hours. About 1/2 as
> expensive as a single seat fighter to build it was much cheaper to
> opperated.
You see things that are only used once tend to be cheaper than things
that last for weeks and are used several times.
> Late war V1's were launched from He 111 which had navigated their way
> to Schwan radio marker buoys placed by EG-ON blind bombing system out
> to sea, it was not a particularly accurate method and the advanced V1
> were not yet getting the the front nevertheless we know that the high
> speeds were achieved.
This is becoming quite funny, EGON is supposed to be wonder accurate,
the buoy system so good trans Atlantic refuelling stops can rely on it, but
under a hundred miles from Germany it is not accurate enough.
I like the way we are supposed to know high speeds were achieved but
no proof is offered.
To put back the data,
Meantime in March 1945 some 100 V-1 were detected by the British
defences, with London the target, 57 were destroyed over the sea, 43
made it over UK territory, and 18 of them were destroyed over land,
11 hit the target area. Some 73 of the V-1 launchings were at night, 6
at disk, 6 at dawn.
Not exactly hyper accurate hyper fast wonder weapon eluding the
defences and hitting the target is it?
> It's customary to disparage these two weapons as a way of disparaging
> Nazis or Germans but this is not objective
You see when Eunometic is in trouble time to bring out the world hates
Germans speech, as opposed to the world thinks the Eunometic versions
of German hardware are jokes.
I have yet to see anyone disparage the V-1 as a weapon, it was cost
effective and about as accurate as the Luftwaffe night bombers over
England but subject to intelligence bias which shifted the aiming point.
> In fact the weapons were
> in the process of being transformed into very cost effective weapons
Translation Antwerp remained open shipping hundreds of thousands of
tons of supplies a month, despite being at point blank range.
The Eunometic enhanced versions of course would have pushed the allies
back across the channel.
> of equal accuracy to Bomber Command and the 8th airforce; two forces
> with their own severe failings.
The two seem to have turned out more accurate than the Luftwaffe at
strategic bombing, not surprising as they did it for longer.
In February/March 1945 Bomber Command analysis of night bombing
photographs found in good weather 99% within 3 miles of the target,
in moderate weather 94%. The rise of the electronic aids being used
by dedicated crews who then marked the target, which therefore
remained visible through the dust and smoke.
Of course Eunometic prefers to compare against the 1941 night bombers,
or day bombers through total cloud cover, the only way to make the
V-2 look good.
news:8d18f278-2257-48fa...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Ah yes, once again none of my words make it to the reply, which
again shows how correct I have been.
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> written in poor, biased histories.
to delete anything that shows up the fiction.
> The V1 and V2 could have been cost effective weapons.
in a hyper fast hyper accurate and/or long range Eunometic version.
The V-2 was not cost effective, the allies spent lots of effort hunting
down V-1s and their sites, the RAF allocated 3 or 4 squadrons of
British based Spitfires to do strikes against V-2 systems, not
bothering much with launch sites. The allied air forces in general
ignored the V weapons post September 1944, apart from trying
to intercept the He111 and the V-1s heading for England.
Makes a difference.
> These weapons were rushed into production a few months ahead of
> refinements that would have increased their accuracy 10 fold and costs
> by a fractor of 3.
investing in more machinery to build the item and of course a more
experienced work force. The V-2 production facilities killed more
people than the V-2 weapon. Hard to end up with an experienced
work force that way.
As for the 10 fold increases in accuracy they remain the Eunometic
dreams, fanned by codenames, sketches on paper, ideas, some
basic trials and so forth, all accuracy claims believed, or if not
believed it is because they surely would do better than advertised.
> CEP of the V2 would be in the order of 1km, better than H2S/H2X by a
> factor of 8 and as good as high altitude daylight bombardment on good
> days and better than poor days.
being adjusted up and the allied bombing results are of course the
worst possible results of the least accurate system.
> The vollzirkel (full circle) guidance
to Eunometic, not sources. Not really surprising for vapourware.
> system kept the V2 confined withing a pencil like beam of less than
> 0.05 degrees in 3 dimensions irrespective of cross and head/tail
> winds.
> It also accuracy measured the missile velocity via doppler and
> missile distance via transponder.
> When missile cutoff occured in the
> rarefified atmosphere the missiles position and velocity had been as
> previsely controlled as any modern missile.
slipped into a modern missile and improve performance.
> The final V1's from about March 1945 were averaging 795kmh/492mph and
> in fact a high proportion of the test missiles were achieveing 815kmh/
> 505mph. This is faster than a P-80A at sea level or a Meteor III.
the idea test shots are not the same as reality, and of course people
are left to wonder where exactly was a good V-1 test range in 1945.
Given the territory still under Nazi control. The 495 mph appear to
be trials, the 505 mph seem to be hope and of course with no
warhead weights change.
Finally the P-80A managed 558 mph at sea level as Eunometic has
been told many times, but that does not fit the fiction.
Hence the actual V-1 results from March 1945 against England have
to be ignored, most were shot down.
> The Ewald II/Sauerkirsche II guidance system worked by the missile
> sending out a single predetermined pulse which was trilatterated by 3
> base stations. It was expected to provide the mid course correction
> to keep the missile on target within about 1 km or so at 400km.
the missile is not arriving direct, which is not a good thing when one is
trying to measure distance, but the Eunometic wonder device does not
need to worry about that.
Of course the 400 km V-1 was another weapon not used.
> The
> V1 cost a mininal 280 hours to make and was getting cheaper.
the many problems in calculating such a figure and what exactly is
counted as a V-1.
> Jamming
> would have been nearly impossible since the pulse frequency would not
> be known.
> The V2's materials were being substituted by non strategic materials
> and the costs going down to less than 4000 hours. About 1/2 as
> expensive as a single seat fighter to build it was much cheaper to
> opperated.
that last for weeks and are used several times.
> Late war V1's were launched from He 111 which had navigated their way
> to Schwan radio marker buoys placed by EG-ON blind bombing system out
> to sea, it was not a particularly accurate method and the advanced V1
> were not yet getting the the front nevertheless we know that the high
> speeds were achieved.
the buoy system so good trans Atlantic refuelling stops can rely on it, but
under a hundred miles from Germany it is not accurate enough.
I like the way we are supposed to know high speeds were achieved but
no proof is offered.
To put back the data,
Meantime in March 1945 some 100 V-1 were detected by the British
defences, with London the target, 57 were destroyed over the sea, 43
made it over UK territory, and 18 of them were destroyed over land,
11 hit the target area. Some 73 of the V-1 launchings were at night, 6
at disk, 6 at dawn.
defences and hitting the target is it?
> It's customary to disparage these two weapons as a way of disparaging
> Nazis or Germans but this is not objective
Germans speech, as opposed to the world thinks the Eunometic versions
of German hardware are jokes.
I have yet to see anyone disparage the V-1 as a weapon, it was cost
effective and about as accurate as the Luftwaffe night bombers over
England but subject to intelligence bias which shifted the aiming point.
> In fact the weapons were
> in the process of being transformed into very cost effective weapons
tons of supplies a month, despite being at point blank range.
The Eunometic enhanced versions of course would have pushed the allies
back across the channel.
> of equal accuracy to Bomber Command and the 8th airforce; two forces
> with their own severe failings.
strategic bombing, not surprising as they did it for longer.
In February/March 1945 Bomber Command analysis of night bombing
photographs found in good weather 99% within 3 miles of the target,
in moderate weather 94%. The rise of the electronic aids being used
by dedicated crews who then marked the target, which therefore
remained visible through the dust and smoke.
Of course Eunometic prefers to compare against the 1941 night bombers,
or day bombers through total cloud cover, the only way to make the
V-2 look good.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Nov 20, 2011, 2:19:03 PM11/20/11
to
euno...@yahoo.com.au <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 3:56 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 19/11/11 15:32, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> > > > On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> On Nov 20, 3:56 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 19/11/11 15:32, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> > > > On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > > They're a one shot weapon, of course they cost more than a bomber.
> > > Perhaps you're not counting the cost of guarding, feeding, murdering
> > > and burying the slaves who you kill while building them...
> >
> > Probably about the same as if they'd been building bombers instead, though.
> > > Perhaps you're not counting the cost of guarding, feeding, murdering
> > > and burying the slaves who you kill while building them...
> >
> > Probably about the same as if they'd been building bombers instead, though.
> A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
Well, you know, there was that whole "slave labor" thing the Nazis were
famous for.
> A lot of those people 'forced to work' lived longer and better for
> being usefull to the Reich.
lungful of poisonous gas.
Not a high bar, though.
> A classic case is a friend of mines brother who was caught handing out
> anti-german leaflets in Yugoslavia.
> With a partisan insurgency going on that involced decapitating and eye
> guaging out captured Germans solddiers
> this was not going to go down well.
popular at the time.
> Women from Eastern Europe, or Italians might have ended up as
> indentured workers, pressured into it by being a refugee
> inducements and at times intimidation, they generally had the run of
> the village, within say 5km.
> Immagining that all the 'forced labour' was some kind of Jew taken
> from a death camp and worked to death completely misses
> the character of the bulk of the system.
let your imagination run wild on what the Germans mightive done, but
there's no reason to branch out into imagining what people have written,
since it's all easily retreivable from your newsreader.
>The mythology of the holocaust consumes all.
> Others were completely voluntary: like a dutch friend who did his
> apprenticeship as a baker in Germany since
> no German boys would be available for such things. A pastry cheff was
> likely to be directing a FLAK battery or opperating a Wurzburg.
labor, buy somehow manage to bring the word "mythology" into it.
Facile. Not useful, but quite facile.
Mike
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Dec 3, 2011, 7:31:50 PM12/3/11
to
> However condemning someone to eternal slavery for handing out leaflets
> is more than a little despotic.
You are incredibly hyperbolic. The British and Americans intered or
> is more than a little despotic.
imprisoned people for less. The Germans were using a range of people
as forced labour including insurgents such as the suicidal Primo Levi
etc. They weren't condenmed to eternal slavery but only so till the
duration of the war.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Dec 3, 2011, 7:33:15 PM12/3/11
to
On Nov 21, 2:42 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
wrote:
> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
are not fully costed.
With V2's at 4000 hours each, with accuracy down to around 1km or and
with all of the strategic materials replaced a workforce of 20 could
if they worked 6 days by 8 hours produce 1 missile/month. 20,000
could produce 1000/month and 80,000 could produce 4000 month.
These costs are not excessive by WW2 standards.
The accuracy claimed was quite achievable: beam riding systems (eg the
1950s seaslug) if fired in a salvo of 2 often scored direct hits
followed by a hit on debris. WW2 radar achieved the kind of tracking
accuracy required.
The V2 was ingenious but it was not implicitly expensive; unlike an
aircraft there was no wings to produce whereas the engine was simply
pressed metal, no machining required.
Whether the Germans produced 1000 month or 4000 per month of something
in between this weapon, which would have become more accurate than H2S
raids (and consistantly so irrepesctive of weather) would have been
very effective at destroying ports, factories and in devastating
British cities.
The early LEV-3 guided versions were simply that: an early version
with an inrefined guidance system set to be greatly improved.
> the allies spent lots of effort hunting
> down V-1s and their sites, the RAF allocated 3 or 4 squadrons of
> British based Spitfires to do strikes against V-2 systems, not
> bothering much with launch sites.
Translation: They never found a single one because they couldn't.
wrote:
> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:8d18f278-2257-48fa...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> Ah yes, once again none of my words make it to the reply, which
> again shows how correct I have been.
>
> >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> > written in poor, biased histories.
>
> Translation the Eunometic versions are basically vapourware so time
> to delete anything that shows up the fiction.
>
> > The V1 and V2 could have been cost effective weapons.
>
> The V-1 was cost effective, everyone agrees on that. It did not come
> in a hyper fast hyper accurate and/or long range Eunometic version.
>
> The V-2 was not cost effective,
The costs of the V2 are exaggerated while the costs of other 'systems'
> news:8d18f278-2257-48fa...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> Ah yes, once again none of my words make it to the reply, which
> again shows how correct I have been.
>
> >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
> > written in poor, biased histories.
>
> Translation the Eunometic versions are basically vapourware so time
> to delete anything that shows up the fiction.
>
> > The V1 and V2 could have been cost effective weapons.
>
> The V-1 was cost effective, everyone agrees on that. It did not come
> in a hyper fast hyper accurate and/or long range Eunometic version.
>
> The V-2 was not cost effective,
are not fully costed.
With V2's at 4000 hours each, with accuracy down to around 1km or and
with all of the strategic materials replaced a workforce of 20 could
if they worked 6 days by 8 hours produce 1 missile/month. 20,000
could produce 1000/month and 80,000 could produce 4000 month.
These costs are not excessive by WW2 standards.
The accuracy claimed was quite achievable: beam riding systems (eg the
1950s seaslug) if fired in a salvo of 2 often scored direct hits
followed by a hit on debris. WW2 radar achieved the kind of tracking
accuracy required.
The V2 was ingenious but it was not implicitly expensive; unlike an
aircraft there was no wings to produce whereas the engine was simply
pressed metal, no machining required.
Whether the Germans produced 1000 month or 4000 per month of something
in between this weapon, which would have become more accurate than H2S
raids (and consistantly so irrepesctive of weather) would have been
very effective at destroying ports, factories and in devastating
British cities.
The early LEV-3 guided versions were simply that: an early version
with an inrefined guidance system set to be greatly improved.
> the allies spent lots of effort hunting
> down V-1s and their sites, the RAF allocated 3 or 4 squadrons of
> British based Spitfires to do strikes against V-2 systems, not
> bothering much with launch sites.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Dec 3, 2011, 7:41:14 PM12/3/11
to
euno...@yahoo.com.au <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > However condemning someone to eternal slavery for handing out leaflets
> > is more than a little despotic.
> > However condemning someone to eternal slavery for handing out leaflets
> > is more than a little despotic.
> The Germans were using a range of people
> as forced labour including insurgents such as the suicidal Primo Levi
Well, yes, he confessed to being Jewish.
> as forced labour including insurgents such as the suicidal Primo Levi
That only meets the definition of "suicidal" under the whacky definitions
of Nazi Germany.
But please, what "forced labor" did he take part in, Eunuc?
> etc. They weren't condenmed to eternal slavery but only so till the
> duration of the war.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Dec 3, 2011, 7:42:40 PM12/3/11
to
> These costs are not excessive by WW2 standards.
And the results were doodly poop by any standards.
> > down V-1s and their sites, the RAF allocated 3 or 4 squadrons of
> > British based Spitfires to do strikes against V-2 systems, not
> > bothering much with launch sites.
> Translation: They never found a single one because they couldn't.
Problem solved.
Mike
William Black
Dec 3, 2011, 10:43:00 PM12/3/11
to
On 04/12/11 00:31, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>> However condemning someone to eternal slavery for handing out leaflets
>> is more than a little despotic.
>
> You are incredibly hyperbolic. The British and Americans intered or
> imprisoned people for less.
They seem to have worked very few to death.
>> However condemning someone to eternal slavery for handing out leaflets
>> is more than a little despotic.
>
> You are incredibly hyperbolic. The British and Americans intered or
> imprisoned people for less.
The Germans were using a range of people
> as forced labour including insurgents such as the suicidal Primo Levi
> etc.
They weren't condenmed to eternal slavery but only so till the
> duration of the war.
>
They were imprisoned by decree for a time without limit.
Carey
Dec 3, 2011, 10:43:45 PM12/3/11
to
On 12/03/2011 04:33 PM, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
....
Here is a picture of a V-2 engine:
http://www.v2rocket.com/start/makeup/trieb_a4.jpg
Just pressed metal?
All the pumps, valves, injectors, regulators, etc., etc.?
That they could mass produce such a complex piece of high-tech at all
that late in the war is impressive. It was a very expensive way to
deliver the equivalent of one 3 ton bomb payload.
....
> The V2 was ingenious but it was not implicitly expensive; unlike an
> aircraft there was no wings to produce whereas the engine was simply
> pressed metal, no machining required.
This is a remarkable deviation from reality.
> aircraft there was no wings to produce whereas the engine was simply
> pressed metal, no machining required.
Here is a picture of a V-2 engine:
http://www.v2rocket.com/start/makeup/trieb_a4.jpg
Just pressed metal?
All the pumps, valves, injectors, regulators, etc., etc.?
That they could mass produce such a complex piece of high-tech at all
that late in the war is impressive. It was a very expensive way to
deliver the equivalent of one 3 ton bomb payload.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Dec 4, 2011, 2:09:19 PM12/4/11
to
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:d6cf77a4-a477-4701...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
just under a 1 ton warhead. The allies could not intercept them and they
devoted only a small effort into attacking the V-2 launch systems. Unlike
the V-1 where there were lots of day and night fighters in 1944, plus lots
of AA guns in 1944 and 1945, plus night fighters in 1945. Add the anti
V-1 bombing campaign in 1944 as well.
The RAF contribution to the anti V-2 operations was 3 to 4 squadrons of
Spitfires based in England, attacking areas in Holland that were associated
with the V-2, generally supply and storage.
The V-2 running costs are after the major research program to basically get
to the V-2 as a weapon.
The "other systems" Eunometic prefers are the allied heavy bombers, with
range and bomb loads well above that of the V-2. The comparable aircraft
are of course the fighter bombers, much cheaper but with comparable
range and bomb loads.
In any case while Eunometic likes to mention the cost of the allied V-1
defences, when the V-2 is compared to allied heavy bombers the cost
of the German defences is not counted.
> With V2's at 4000 hours each, with accuracy down to around 1km or and
> with all of the strategic materials replaced a workforce of 20 could
> if they worked 6 days by 8 hours produce 1 missile/month. 20,000
> could produce 1000/month and 80,000 could produce 4000 month.
Now firstly we start with the joke accuracy, then we move onto the joke
time and labour study, as if man hours were all that was required. The
historical launch rate was causing problems when it came to finding fuel.
Then comes oxygen supply which may have been worse.
Next I note the 20 man work crew will be working 25 eight hour days
a month to obtain the 4,000 work hours. There will of course be no
work hold ups, people will not need to do reporting, personal
requirements breaks, etc. during these 8 hours.
Next of course if the fact figures like 12,500 man hours for a V-2 are
in the literature. Which is about twice that to produce a Bf109G at
around the same time and even at 4,000 man hours is way more than
a V-1
The V-2 airframe with engine came in at about 3 tons, about the same
as the Fw190A-8.
> These costs are not excessive by WW2 standards.
You see the idea is to imagine manpower is the only constraint, not the
12 tons of material and fuel needed per ton of warhead, then subtract
the launch failures, the disappeared and of course the misses.
The fuel supply was going to be a limit, no 4,000 missiles a month, 3
times the historical firing rate of around 500 a month would require
all of Germany's alcohol supply and alcohol had other war uses.
> The accuracy claimed was quite achievable: beam riding systems (eg the
> 1950s seaslug) if fired in a salvo of 2 often scored direct hits
> followed by a hit on debris. WW2 radar achieved the kind of tracking
> accuracy required.
Of course we will have an anti aircraft missile, with proximity fuse, with
range of around 18 miles compared to a V-2 trying for 10 times that
distance. Ignore the proximity fuse in terms of hits and the warhead
was 200 pounds, and what that means in terms of lethal radius.
By the way the system was developed in the 1950's and deployed in
1961, the County Class destroyers were built around the missile.
As for that sort of tracking required consider the fact speeds had
increased, the Seaslug of the 1950's was still subsonic, under 700
mph, the mid 1960's mark II version doubled the speed. The V-2
was faster still and strangely enough that matters in terms of radar
accuracy. Hence why shooting down ballistic missiles is cutting edge.
So as for tracking accuracy Eunometic enhancements are required.
> The V2 was ingenious
As people can see it is a classified wonder weapon, mainly because
the Germans used it and no one else bothered, not because of what
it did to targets like Antwerp.
Fundamentally it was a waste of resources, extra V-1 and AA missiles
made much more sense.
> but it was not implicitly expensive;
Yes it was, but being a wonder weapon costs will be fudged.
> unlike an
> aircraft there was no wings to produce whereas the engine was simply
> pressed metal, no machining required.
Since the Germans could not make a 25 ton thrust rocket motor with
one combustion chamber the result was 18 combustion chambers with a
common exhaust. Somewhat complex.
I really like the fun idea the rocket engine was all pressed metal. I also
note how wings are now a problem on aircraft but will not be a problem
on the wonder A-4b, you know that winged version which had two shots,
one failed, the other had a wing break off.
For the record that plan was the A-4b would have a 13.5 square metre
wing area, versus 16.1 for the Bf109K and 18.3 for the Fw190A.
Essentially Eunometic works backwards from today's preferred conclusion,
so the longer range V-2 is wiped, it will be resurrected at a later date as
proof you can strike England from Germany.
> Whether the Germans produced 1000 month or 4000 per month of something
> in between this weapon, which would have become more accurate than H2S
> raids (and consistantly so irrepesctive of weather)
As has been repeatedly pointed out H2S was more accurate than the V-2,
except in the worst of weather. So on average it was better, even for the
8th Air Force which was the least accurate (by late 1944) of the 3 air
forces
when using the system. In any case by 1945 it was the older system on the
way out. The V-2 against London 50% accuracy was around 6 km, the
8h Air Force in total cloud cover in the final 4 months of 1944 put 39.8%
of bombs within 3 miles, or 4.8 km, and 58.5% within 5 miles or 8 km.
For 8 or 9/10 cloud the 8th Air Force Figures become 57.4% and 82%
respectively.
Of course the idea is allied 1943 technology is going to be compared to
German 1945 technology, and only when the allied device produces its
worst results, the German technology is also enhanced. In any case at
V-2 range the allied air forces had the much more accurate ground based
aids to use.
Currency comparisons are just as bad as manpower ones, especially when
slave labour is involved but a V-2 cost around a third of a P-51 in 1945.
> would have been
> very effective at destroying ports, factories and in devastating
> British cities.
Does anyone else have visions of someone leaning over a large scale map
of England, pounding their fist on the map and shouting variations on kill
and burn out loud? Then the medicators arrive?
And as noted more V-2s were shot at Antwerp than at London. Antwerp's
pre war population was around 275,000. It was a point blank shot, the
port stayed open. Total casualties from the effort of firing around 5,600
V-1
and V-2 were 3,700 killed, 6,000 wounded in the province of Antwerp
(2,867 square km). About half the incoming V-1 were shot down by the
AA guns.
Around 100 V-1 and 100 V-2 actually hit Antwerp, or about 1 in 16 of
the V-2 fired, and around 1 in 40 of the V-1. Take out the V-1 lost to
the defences and the accuracy looks about the same, the AA guns were
sited to shoot down V-1 heading for Antwerp, not the ones off course.
> The early LEV-3 guided versions were simply that: an early version
> with an inrefined guidance system set to be greatly improved.
The improvements were nowhere near as ready, nor as accurate, as
the Eunometic versions.
>> the allies spent lots of effort hunting
>> down V-1s and their sites, the RAF allocated 3 or 4 squadrons of
>> British based Spitfires to do strikes against V-2 systems, not
>> bothering much with launch sites.
>
> Translation: They never found a single one because they couldn't.
Ah yes, the RAF allocated 3 or 4 squadrons of British based Spitfires to
close to the front line, useful as the V-2 initially did a vertical take
off.
Easy enough to figure out where the launch sites were and the way
they were varied.
The Germans, for some strange reason, decided to do lots of launches
at night and in bad weather, then run away quite quickly. You know
quite sensible tactics. The allies knew this.
Simply put the allies did not try to stop V-2 launches by operating
standing patrols in large numbers over the known launch areas, in
good enough weather, which would be what was required to try
and hit a launch site just after a launch. The V-2 was not rated as
important enough.
The V-2 campaign basically took place in Autumn and Winter.
Instead the allies tried low scale interdiction.
news:d6cf77a4-a477-4701...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 2:42 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> wrote:
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8d18f278-2257-48fa...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes, once again none of my words make it to the reply, which
>> again shows how correct I have been.
>>
>> >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> > Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
>> > written in poor, biased histories.
>>
>> Translation the Eunometic versions are basically vapourware so time
>> to delete anything that shows up the fiction.
>>
>> > The V1 and V2 could have been cost effective weapons.
>>
>> The V-1 was cost effective, everyone agrees on that. It did not come
>> in a hyper fast hyper accurate and/or long range Eunometic version.
>>
>> The V-2 was not cost effective,
>
> The costs of the V2 are exaggerated while the costs of other 'systems'
> are not fully costed.
No, the costs are understood, nearly 12 tons of fuel and airframe to deliver
> wrote:
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8d18f278-2257-48fa...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 19, 2:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes, once again none of my words make it to the reply, which
>> again shows how correct I have been.
>>
>> >> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> > Much of what your write is a regurgitation of inobjective opinions
>> > written in poor, biased histories.
>>
>> Translation the Eunometic versions are basically vapourware so time
>> to delete anything that shows up the fiction.
>>
>> > The V1 and V2 could have been cost effective weapons.
>>
>> The V-1 was cost effective, everyone agrees on that. It did not come
>> in a hyper fast hyper accurate and/or long range Eunometic version.
>>
>> The V-2 was not cost effective,
>
> The costs of the V2 are exaggerated while the costs of other 'systems'
> are not fully costed.
just under a 1 ton warhead. The allies could not intercept them and they
devoted only a small effort into attacking the V-2 launch systems. Unlike
the V-1 where there were lots of day and night fighters in 1944, plus lots
of AA guns in 1944 and 1945, plus night fighters in 1945. Add the anti
V-1 bombing campaign in 1944 as well.
The RAF contribution to the anti V-2 operations was 3 to 4 squadrons of
Spitfires based in England, attacking areas in Holland that were associated
with the V-2, generally supply and storage.
The V-2 running costs are after the major research program to basically get
to the V-2 as a weapon.
The "other systems" Eunometic prefers are the allied heavy bombers, with
range and bomb loads well above that of the V-2. The comparable aircraft
are of course the fighter bombers, much cheaper but with comparable
range and bomb loads.
In any case while Eunometic likes to mention the cost of the allied V-1
defences, when the V-2 is compared to allied heavy bombers the cost
of the German defences is not counted.
> With V2's at 4000 hours each, with accuracy down to around 1km or and
> with all of the strategic materials replaced a workforce of 20 could
> if they worked 6 days by 8 hours produce 1 missile/month. 20,000
> could produce 1000/month and 80,000 could produce 4000 month.
time and labour study, as if man hours were all that was required. The
historical launch rate was causing problems when it came to finding fuel.
Then comes oxygen supply which may have been worse.
Next I note the 20 man work crew will be working 25 eight hour days
a month to obtain the 4,000 work hours. There will of course be no
work hold ups, people will not need to do reporting, personal
requirements breaks, etc. during these 8 hours.
Next of course if the fact figures like 12,500 man hours for a V-2 are
in the literature. Which is about twice that to produce a Bf109G at
around the same time and even at 4,000 man hours is way more than
a V-1
The V-2 airframe with engine came in at about 3 tons, about the same
as the Fw190A-8.
> These costs are not excessive by WW2 standards.
12 tons of material and fuel needed per ton of warhead, then subtract
the launch failures, the disappeared and of course the misses.
The fuel supply was going to be a limit, no 4,000 missiles a month, 3
times the historical firing rate of around 500 a month would require
all of Germany's alcohol supply and alcohol had other war uses.
> The accuracy claimed was quite achievable: beam riding systems (eg the
> 1950s seaslug) if fired in a salvo of 2 often scored direct hits
> followed by a hit on debris. WW2 radar achieved the kind of tracking
> accuracy required.
range of around 18 miles compared to a V-2 trying for 10 times that
distance. Ignore the proximity fuse in terms of hits and the warhead
was 200 pounds, and what that means in terms of lethal radius.
By the way the system was developed in the 1950's and deployed in
1961, the County Class destroyers were built around the missile.
As for that sort of tracking required consider the fact speeds had
increased, the Seaslug of the 1950's was still subsonic, under 700
mph, the mid 1960's mark II version doubled the speed. The V-2
was faster still and strangely enough that matters in terms of radar
accuracy. Hence why shooting down ballistic missiles is cutting edge.
So as for tracking accuracy Eunometic enhancements are required.
> The V2 was ingenious
As people can see it is a classified wonder weapon, mainly because
the Germans used it and no one else bothered, not because of what
it did to targets like Antwerp.
Fundamentally it was a waste of resources, extra V-1 and AA missiles
made much more sense.
> but it was not implicitly expensive;
> unlike an
> aircraft there was no wings to produce whereas the engine was simply
> pressed metal, no machining required.
one combustion chamber the result was 18 combustion chambers with a
common exhaust. Somewhat complex.
I really like the fun idea the rocket engine was all pressed metal. I also
note how wings are now a problem on aircraft but will not be a problem
on the wonder A-4b, you know that winged version which had two shots,
one failed, the other had a wing break off.
For the record that plan was the A-4b would have a 13.5 square metre
wing area, versus 16.1 for the Bf109K and 18.3 for the Fw190A.
Essentially Eunometic works backwards from today's preferred conclusion,
so the longer range V-2 is wiped, it will be resurrected at a later date as
proof you can strike England from Germany.
> Whether the Germans produced 1000 month or 4000 per month of something
> in between this weapon, which would have become more accurate than H2S
> raids (and consistantly so irrepesctive of weather)
except in the worst of weather. So on average it was better, even for the
8th Air Force which was the least accurate (by late 1944) of the 3 air
forces
when using the system. In any case by 1945 it was the older system on the
way out. The V-2 against London 50% accuracy was around 6 km, the
8h Air Force in total cloud cover in the final 4 months of 1944 put 39.8%
of bombs within 3 miles, or 4.8 km, and 58.5% within 5 miles or 8 km.
For 8 or 9/10 cloud the 8th Air Force Figures become 57.4% and 82%
respectively.
Of course the idea is allied 1943 technology is going to be compared to
German 1945 technology, and only when the allied device produces its
worst results, the German technology is also enhanced. In any case at
V-2 range the allied air forces had the much more accurate ground based
aids to use.
Currency comparisons are just as bad as manpower ones, especially when
slave labour is involved but a V-2 cost around a third of a P-51 in 1945.
> would have been
> very effective at destroying ports, factories and in devastating
> British cities.
of England, pounding their fist on the map and shouting variations on kill
and burn out loud? Then the medicators arrive?
And as noted more V-2s were shot at Antwerp than at London. Antwerp's
pre war population was around 275,000. It was a point blank shot, the
port stayed open. Total casualties from the effort of firing around 5,600
V-1
and V-2 were 3,700 killed, 6,000 wounded in the province of Antwerp
(2,867 square km). About half the incoming V-1 were shot down by the
AA guns.
Around 100 V-1 and 100 V-2 actually hit Antwerp, or about 1 in 16 of
the V-2 fired, and around 1 in 40 of the V-1. Take out the V-1 lost to
the defences and the accuracy looks about the same, the AA guns were
sited to shoot down V-1 heading for Antwerp, not the ones off course.
> The early LEV-3 guided versions were simply that: an early version
> with an inrefined guidance system set to be greatly improved.
the Eunometic versions.
>> the allies spent lots of effort hunting
>> down V-1s and their sites, the RAF allocated 3 or 4 squadrons of
>> British based Spitfires to do strikes against V-2 systems, not
>> bothering much with launch sites.
>
> Translation: They never found a single one because they couldn't.
do strikes against V-2 systems, not bothering much with launch sites.
As for couldn't locate them the allies tracked the launches with radars
close to the front line, useful as the V-2 initially did a vertical take
off.
Easy enough to figure out where the launch sites were and the way
they were varied.
The Germans, for some strange reason, decided to do lots of launches
at night and in bad weather, then run away quite quickly. You know
quite sensible tactics. The allies knew this.
Simply put the allies did not try to stop V-2 launches by operating
standing patrols in large numbers over the known launch areas, in
good enough weather, which would be what was required to try
and hit a launch site just after a launch. The V-2 was not rated as
important enough.
The V-2 campaign basically took place in Autumn and Winter.
Instead the allies tried low scale interdiction.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Dec 4, 2011, 2:09:34 PM12/4/11
to
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:f813b4a2-d8cf-4467...@13g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
> The British and Americans intered or
> imprisoned people for less.
So what crime was less than handing out anti occupier letters, that deserved
a prison term for a minor?
> The Germans were using a range of people
> as forced labour including insurgents
Essentially the Germans conscripted people from all the populations
they controlled.
You see the idea here is to pretend the relatively better working conditions
given to people from western Europe apply universally, rather than becoming
worse the further east the person originally lived. Of course the slave
labour
system is ignored.
The original work detail for Birkenau was 10,000 Soviet PoWs, many
were commissars, they started work with few tools and the usual poor
rations in October 1941, essentially they were building their own winter
accommodation, that was not possible, so by end February 1942 all
were dead.
> such as the suicidal Primo Levi etc.
Anything to do with him being Jewish?
> They weren't condenmed to eternal slavery but only so till the
> duration of the war.
You see the idea here is Eunometic really believes the Nazis, post war,
would let all those sub humans go off and live their lives, instead of
ending up as second or third class citizens in the new social order.
No concept that the forced labour would continue, say a variation on
South Africa's Apartheid labour laws for example.
At Auschwitz I.G. Farben were building a gigantic combined synthetic
rubber and fuel plant. They decided to eliminate the 4 miles march from
the SS camp by building and running their own sub camp, Monowitz.
The company was responsible for food and health care, the former to
try and avoid typhus arriving with food shipments from other camps.
Rations and work conditions were comparable to the SS run ones.
Of the 3,800 inmates of the camp at the end of 1942, some 1,500 were
still alive at the end of February 1943. The death rate was comparable
to the SS camps and continued through the lifetime of the project.
This did not stop the managers of the site complaining to head office
about a lack of manpower and materials. No thought was given to
actually doing the basics to keep the work force they had alive.
"Free" workers from western Europe had been ordered to the work
site, they received the same food, but in marginally larger proportions,
the same wooden clogs, but ones that usually fit, similar accommodation
to the prisoners, but not as crowded, they could obtain some new
clothing from confiscated stock from incoming prisoners. They also
saw the violence handed out to the prisoners. Farben found the "free"
workers not very responsive, sent some back in 1942 while about a
quarter deserted, to keep the remainder working they were threatened
with becoming prisoners.
Meantime the Farben managers lived in well built houses with good
food, heating and basics like soap.
news:f813b4a2-d8cf-4467...@13g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>> However condemning someone to eternal slavery for handing out leaflets
>> is more than a little despotic.
>
> You are incredibly hyperbolic.
So when was the release date of the child?
>> is more than a little despotic.
>
> You are incredibly hyperbolic.
> The British and Americans intered or
> imprisoned people for less.
a prison term for a minor?
> The Germans were using a range of people
> as forced labour including insurgents
they controlled.
You see the idea here is to pretend the relatively better working conditions
given to people from western Europe apply universally, rather than becoming
worse the further east the person originally lived. Of course the slave
labour
system is ignored.
The original work detail for Birkenau was 10,000 Soviet PoWs, many
were commissars, they started work with few tools and the usual poor
rations in October 1941, essentially they were building their own winter
accommodation, that was not possible, so by end February 1942 all
were dead.
> such as the suicidal Primo Levi etc.
> They weren't condenmed to eternal slavery but only so till the
> duration of the war.
would let all those sub humans go off and live their lives, instead of
ending up as second or third class citizens in the new social order.
No concept that the forced labour would continue, say a variation on
South Africa's Apartheid labour laws for example.
At Auschwitz I.G. Farben were building a gigantic combined synthetic
rubber and fuel plant. They decided to eliminate the 4 miles march from
the SS camp by building and running their own sub camp, Monowitz.
The company was responsible for food and health care, the former to
try and avoid typhus arriving with food shipments from other camps.
Rations and work conditions were comparable to the SS run ones.
Of the 3,800 inmates of the camp at the end of 1942, some 1,500 were
still alive at the end of February 1943. The death rate was comparable
to the SS camps and continued through the lifetime of the project.
This did not stop the managers of the site complaining to head office
about a lack of manpower and materials. No thought was given to
actually doing the basics to keep the work force they had alive.
"Free" workers from western Europe had been ordered to the work
site, they received the same food, but in marginally larger proportions,
the same wooden clogs, but ones that usually fit, similar accommodation
to the prisoners, but not as crowded, they could obtain some new
clothing from confiscated stock from incoming prisoners. They also
saw the violence handed out to the prisoners. Farben found the "free"
workers not very responsive, sent some back in 1942 while about a
quarter deserted, to keep the remainder working they were threatened
with becoming prisoners.
Meantime the Farben managers lived in well built houses with good
food, heating and basics like soap.
William Black
Dec 4, 2011, 4:08:08 PM12/4/11
to
On 04/12/11 00:33, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> With V2's at 4000 hours each, with accuracy down to around 1km
I assume we're still talking about the weapon that routinely missed London?
>
> With V2's at 4000 hours each, with accuracy down to around 1km
In which case the accuracy certainly wasn't 'around 1km'...
Carey
Dec 4, 2011, 5:43:50 PM12/4/11
to
On 12/04/2011 01:08 PM, William Black wrote:
> On 04/12/11 00:33, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>
>> With V2's at 4000 hours each, with accuracy down to around 1km
>
> I assume we're still talking about the weapon that routinely missed London?
>
> In which case the accuracy certainly wasn't 'around 1km'...
>
To be fair, we should distinguish the precision of the V-2 system
> On 04/12/11 00:33, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>
>> With V2's at 4000 hours each, with accuracy down to around 1km
>
> I assume we're still talking about the weapon that routinely missed London?
>
> In which case the accuracy certainly wasn't 'around 1km'...
>
itself, its ability to come down close to its set aimpoint, to its
operational accuracy where the Germans were systematically misled about
where the missiles were actually hitting, causing the Germans to aim
them at Kent.
In the fantasy world where simply by supplying more slave labor, the
production rate could be boosted to 4000 V-2s a month (instead of
needing to expand the entire V-2 production base), the Germans would
have abandoned there PIGA inertial guidance system for an unjammed beam
riding system where the missiles would be directed to the actual desired
aimpoints.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Dec 5, 2011, 3:00:41 PM12/5/11
to
On Dec 4, 2:43 pm, Carey <carey...@gmail.com> wrote:
sub chambers to ensure flame stabillity.
Yes it was only pressed.
By the end of 1942 the final engine configuration had to be frozen for
production. The 18 preburners were retained, but a lightweight nozzle
throat was developed, using film cooling and glass wool insulation
instead of double-walled regenerative liquid cooling.
Walter Thiel deserved much of the credit for development of the V-2
engine. His death in the bombing raid of 17 August 1943 was a big
loss. If he had lived, the Peenemuende team could have succeeded in
completing development of the Mischduese injector plate engine. This
had combustion instability problems that could not be overcome before
the end of the war. As a result the complex 18 injector 'basket-head'
design had to be put into production instead.
Wasserfall engine testing finally led to success with the injector
plate and a single combustion-chamber motor. The equivalent A4 engine
redesign was initially sidetracked by the urgency to get the missile
into mass production.
>
> Just pressed metal?
>
> All the pumps, valves, injectors, regulators, etc., etc.?
>
Clearly you think these simple devices cost billions of Reichs Marks
and are worth their weight in Gold.
Just compare their complexity to the cost of a dozen or more pistons
and cylinders 48 or more valves, crankshaftsm carbutrators, fuel
injection, super charger gears and impellors, intercoolers, magnetos
etc.
The cutting steel and machine tool time of the V2's engine is minimal
in comparison.
> On 12/03/2011 04:33 PM, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> ....
>
> > The V2 was ingenious but it was not implicitly expensive; unlike an
> > aircraft there was no wings to produce whereas the engine was simply
> > pressed metal, no machining required.
>
> This is a remarkable deviation from reality.
>
> Here is a picture of a V-2 engine:http://www.v2rocket.com/start/makeup/trieb_a4.jpg
The intitial 'basket head' of the combusion chamber consisted of 18
> ....
>
> > The V2 was ingenious but it was not implicitly expensive; unlike an
> > aircraft there was no wings to produce whereas the engine was simply
> > pressed metal, no machining required.
>
> This is a remarkable deviation from reality.
>
> Here is a picture of a V-2 engine:http://www.v2rocket.com/start/makeup/trieb_a4.jpg
sub chambers to ensure flame stabillity.
Yes it was only pressed.
By the end of 1942 the final engine configuration had to be frozen for
production. The 18 preburners were retained, but a lightweight nozzle
throat was developed, using film cooling and glass wool insulation
instead of double-walled regenerative liquid cooling.
Walter Thiel deserved much of the credit for development of the V-2
engine. His death in the bombing raid of 17 August 1943 was a big
loss. If he had lived, the Peenemuende team could have succeeded in
completing development of the Mischduese injector plate engine. This
had combustion instability problems that could not be overcome before
the end of the war. As a result the complex 18 injector 'basket-head'
design had to be put into production instead.
Wasserfall engine testing finally led to success with the injector
plate and a single combustion-chamber motor. The equivalent A4 engine
redesign was initially sidetracked by the urgency to get the missile
into mass production.
>
> Just pressed metal?
>
> All the pumps, valves, injectors, regulators, etc., etc.?
>
and are worth their weight in Gold.
Just compare their complexity to the cost of a dozen or more pistons
and cylinders 48 or more valves, crankshaftsm carbutrators, fuel
injection, super charger gears and impellors, intercoolers, magnetos
etc.
The cutting steel and machine tool time of the V2's engine is minimal
in comparison.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Dec 5, 2011, 3:26:16 PM12/5/11
to
On Nov 21, 2:41 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
wrote:
> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
its labour input.
Many of the losses related to excavation work at Dora for the under
ground construction of the missile, another big factor was allied air
raids which killed many prisoners. The forced evactuation marches to
evade the Allied advance clamied more.
Few seem to have died in the manufacture of the missile.
But again this is not relevant in terms of the production cost merrits
of the V2.
It is legal to compell non officer POW to work under the Geneva
conventions. The Soviets categorecally refused to signe the Geneva
conventions leaving the tenuous claim that the weaker Hague
conventions signed by the Tsar covered Soviet POW.
Soviet POW were often killed under Stalin ideological Commisars for
having shown weakness of potential ideological contamination.
wrote:
> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:ba905ff8-9bdb-4035...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
>
> Mainly because more people died while building the V-2 than died
> when it was used as a weapon. The fact this is noted is considered
> degeneration by Eunometic.
This is not relevant to the cost effectiveness of the V2 in terms of
> news:ba905ff8-9bdb-4035...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
>
> Mainly because more people died while building the V-2 than died
> when it was used as a weapon. The fact this is noted is considered
> degeneration by Eunometic.
its labour input.
Many of the losses related to excavation work at Dora for the under
ground construction of the missile, another big factor was allied air
raids which killed many prisoners. The forced evactuation marches to
evade the Allied advance clamied more.
Few seem to have died in the manufacture of the missile.
But again this is not relevant in terms of the production cost merrits
of the V2.
It is legal to compell non officer POW to work under the Geneva
conventions. The Soviets categorecally refused to signe the Geneva
conventions leaving the tenuous claim that the weaker Hague
conventions signed by the Tsar covered Soviet POW.
Soviet POW were often killed under Stalin ideological Commisars for
having shown weakness of potential ideological contamination.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Dec 5, 2011, 3:29:48 PM12/5/11
to
>
> In February/March 1945 Bomber Command analysis of night bombing
> photographs found in good weather 99% within 3 miles of the target,
> in moderate weather 94%. The rise of the electronic aids being used
> by dedicated crews who then marked the target, which therefore
> remained visible through the dust and smoke.
>
so you are saying that in a situation of bomber command opperating
> In February/March 1945 Bomber Command analysis of night bombing
> photographs found in good weather 99% within 3 miles of the target,
> in moderate weather 94%. The rise of the electronic aids being used
> by dedicated crews who then marked the target, which therefore
> remained visible through the dust and smoke.
>
with the benefits of
1 being withing Oboe range.
2 with total air dominance at the end of the war
3 at night and in clear weather could get 99% of its bombs within 3
miles of target.
A standard Rayleigh distributioon (2D Gausian) gives that A CEP of 1
mile 50% of bombs within one ststure mile), followed by 43% within 1-2
miles and 6% between 2-3 miles and 1% outside of that.
This is worse than the beam riding V2 which could control bearing,
elevation, speed and down range cutoff sufficiently to achieve re-
entry within 300m of target. Wind on reentry and some tumbing would
degrade that somewhat.
You claim of '12 tons of materials' to deliver 1 tons of warhead
exaggerates the issue. Liquid Oxygen LOX is the bulk of this weight
and early extracted from air. Ethyle alchahole can be easily
synthesised via a Fischer Tropsch reaction.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Dec 5, 2011, 3:30:22 PM12/5/11
to
>
> > The final V1's from about March 1945 were averaging 795kmh/492mph and
> > in fact a high proportion of the test missiles were achieveing 815kmh/
> > 505mph. This is faster than a P-80A at sea level or a Meteor III.
>
> You see the idea here is to announce wonder results, but totally ignore
> the idea test shots are not the same as reality, and of course people
> are left to wonder where exactly was a good V-1 test range in 1945.
> Given the territory still under Nazi control. The 495 mph appear to
> be trials, the 505 mph seem to be hope and of course with no
> warhead weights change.
All V1 ware tested with warheads or dummy warheads, the missile would
> > The final V1's from about March 1945 were averaging 795kmh/492mph and
> > in fact a high proportion of the test missiles were achieveing 815kmh/
> > 505mph. This is faster than a P-80A at sea level or a Meteor III.
>
> You see the idea here is to announce wonder results, but totally ignore
> the idea test shots are not the same as reality, and of course people
> are left to wonder where exactly was a good V-1 test range in 1945.
> Given the territory still under Nazi control. The 495 mph appear to
> be trials, the 505 mph seem to be hope and of course with no
> warhead weights change.
be unstable without it.
You seem to have 'guessed' this. Please provide a cite.
>
> Finally the P-80A managed 558 mph at sea level as Eunometic has
> been told many times, but that does not fit the fiction.
>
speeds only in december 1946 with modified narrow noses, no armament,
clipped wings and neqarly two years of post war development.
In 1945 to 1946 they could generally not break 500 mph at sea level.
You pesist on comparing the 'unguided' V1 accuracy with the accuracy
of electronically guided RAF bombers.
I have repeatedly pointed out that the V1 when equiped with a simple
electronic midcourse guidance system was going to achieve accuracies
as good as if not better than RAF Bomber command. Every V1 would be
guided was opposed to carpet bombing incediary markers or attempting
to used the statistically proven (by opperations reseatch) blured and
inaccurate H2S radar 'mapping' system.
William Black
Dec 5, 2011, 4:02:42 PM12/5/11
to
On 05/12/11 20:00, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> Just compare their complexity to the cost of a dozen or more pistons
> and cylinders 48 or more valves, crankshaftsm carbutrators, fuel
> injection, super charger gears and impellors, intercoolers, magnetos
> etc.
> The cutting steel and machine tool time of the V2's engine is minimal
> in comparison.
>
But you often get to use an aircraft engine more than once...
>
> Just compare their complexity to the cost of a dozen or more pistons
> and cylinders 48 or more valves, crankshaftsm carbutrators, fuel
> injection, super charger gears and impellors, intercoolers, magnetos
> etc.
> The cutting steel and machine tool time of the V2's engine is minimal
> in comparison.
>
No V2 was ever used twice...
William Black
Dec 5, 2011, 4:07:30 PM12/5/11
to
On 05/12/11 20:26, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2:41 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> wrote:
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ba905ff8-9bdb-4035...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
>>
>> Mainly because more people died while building the V-2 than died
>> when it was used as a weapon. The fact this is noted is considered
>> degeneration by Eunometic.
>
>
> This is not relevant to the cost effectiveness of the V2 in terms of
> its labour input.
>
Oh yes it is.
> On Nov 21, 2:41 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"<gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> wrote:
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ba905ff8-9bdb-4035...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
>>
>> Mainly because more people died while building the V-2 than died
>> when it was used as a weapon. The fact this is noted is considered
>> degeneration by Eunometic.
>
>
> This is not relevant to the cost effectiveness of the V2 in terms of
> its labour input.
>
Dead people can't make stuff.
The Germans spent so a staggering amount of money and resources
murdering innocents when they could have used them to fight the war.
William Black
Dec 5, 2011, 4:07:48 PM12/5/11
to
Which never flew operationally, so we don't actually know.
Remembering that the standard V2 couldn't actually hit London reliably
this statement needs taking with the proverbial pinch of salt.
Remembering that the standard V2 couldn't actually hit London reliably
this statement needs taking with the proverbial pinch of salt.
William Black
Dec 5, 2011, 4:12:49 PM12/5/11
to
On 05/12/11 20:30, euno...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> I have repeatedly pointed out that the V1 when equiped with a simple
> electronic midcourse guidance system was going to achieve accuracies
> as good as if not better than RAF Bomber command.
Well, except it never flew so we have to assume that Allied total
> I have repeatedly pointed out that the V1 when equiped with a simple
> electronic midcourse guidance system was going to achieve accuracies
> as good as if not better than RAF Bomber command.
mastery of the electromagnetic spectrum and their utter domination of
secure communications means that the mid course correction signal is
almost certainly going to be hijacked by more intelligent Allied scientists.
<There, I've even put it into your terms>
careysub
Dec 5, 2011, 5:12:56 PM12/5/11
to
On Dec 5, 12:00 pm, "eunome...@yahoo.com.au" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
No, I think they cost about 100,000 RM to build, and delivered one
1000 kg of HE in a short range mission.
The Avro Lancaster could deliver 4000 kg of HE in one mission (using
an HC 12000 lb blockbuster), and flew an average of about 40 missions,
so could deliver the payload of 160 V-2 strikes. The cost of a
Lancaster was 40,000 pounds, so unless the purchasing power of the RM
was 400 times cheaper than the pound (the data I see suggests a 10-1
ratio) the Lancaster was far more cost effective. I suggest a ratio of
40-1. If Germany had money to burn, i.e. a far larger economy than the
Allies, then this might fly, but the reverse is true.
>
> Just compare their complexity to the cost of a dozen or more pistons
> and cylinders 48 or more valves, crankshaftsm carbutrators, fuel
> injection, super charger gears and impellors, intercoolers, magnetos
> etc.
> The cutting steel and machine tool time of the V2's engine is minimal
> in comparison.
And so you agree that claiming the engine was just pressed metal is
nonsense,
wrote:
1000 kg of HE in a short range mission.
The Avro Lancaster could deliver 4000 kg of HE in one mission (using
an HC 12000 lb blockbuster), and flew an average of about 40 missions,
so could deliver the payload of 160 V-2 strikes. The cost of a
Lancaster was 40,000 pounds, so unless the purchasing power of the RM
was 400 times cheaper than the pound (the data I see suggests a 10-1
ratio) the Lancaster was far more cost effective. I suggest a ratio of
40-1. If Germany had money to burn, i.e. a far larger economy than the
Allies, then this might fly, but the reverse is true.
>
> Just compare their complexity to the cost of a dozen or more pistons
> and cylinders 48 or more valves, crankshaftsm carbutrators, fuel
> injection, super charger gears and impellors, intercoolers, magnetos
> etc.
> The cutting steel and machine tool time of the V2's engine is minimal
> in comparison.
nonsense,
Geoffrey Sinclair
Dec 6, 2011, 1:36:07 PM12/6/11
to
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:e6ef935f-0757-4379...@z17g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
As usual most of my text has been deleted, the Eunometic claims
about working conditions in Nazi Germany cannot cope with reality.
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ba905ff8-9bdb-4035...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
>>
>> Mainly because more people died while building the V-2 than died
>> when it was used as a weapon. The fact this is noted is considered
>> degeneration by Eunometic.
>
> This is not relevant to the cost effectiveness of the V2 in terms of
> its labour input.
Yes it is, the work force was nowhere near optimal, it could not work
as well as healthy people, nor could it build experience.
> Many of the losses related to excavation work at Dora for the under
> ground construction of the missile,
Then add the steady losses for the work force building the V-2s.
> another big factor was allied air
> raids which killed many prisoners.
By all means detail the allied air raids on the wonder secret underground
factory that the allies did not attack. Along with losses by the prisoners,
given how they were largely kept underground.
Should not be hard given so many losses.
> The forced evactuation marches to
> evade the Allied advance clamied more.
The death toll relates to the people at the factory, not afterwards,
in any case the fact people were killed afterwards is still relevant.
> Few seem to have died in the manufacture of the missile.
Actually the reverse seems to be the case.
> But again this is not relevant in terms of the production cost merrits
> of the V2.
Actually it is, slave labour tends to have different wages, and different
work conditions. Then add the uncertainty about estimates of costs.
For example in all those man hour figures, are the guards counted?
> It is legal to compell non officer POW to work under the Geneva
> conventions.
And this has what to do with the SS slave labour system, where the
aim was to work the slaves to death?
I mean it is fairly obvious change of subject.
> The Soviets categorecally refused to signe the Geneva
> conventions leaving the tenuous claim that the weaker Hague
> conventions signed by the Tsar covered Soviet POW.
And this has what to do with Germany's treatment of Soviet prisoners,
and the slave labour system?
In any case Germany had signed the Geneva convention, and was
obliged to treat prisoners accordingly, regardless of what other
countries chose to do. The Germans ignored this. So any tenuous
claim about protection is being made by the Germans.
> Soviet POW were often killed under Stalin ideological Commisars for
> having shown weakness of potential ideological contamination.
Ah yes of course, "often", no numbers of course, and certainly the fact
over a million Soviet prisoners died in German custody is going to be
ignored.
The SS ran a slave labour system working people to death, the German
military allowed hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners to die and
handed more over to the SS who tended to work them to death.
The fact the Soviets decided not to follow the Geneva conventions does
not excuse German behaviour, but Eunometic is desperate, so a person
killed by Stalin balances more than one killed by the Germans.
news:e6ef935f-0757-4379...@z17g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
As usual most of my text has been deleted, the Eunometic claims
about working conditions in Nazi Germany cannot cope with reality.
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ba905ff8-9bdb-4035...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > A V weapon thread inevitably degenerates into a slave labour thread.
>>
>> Mainly because more people died while building the V-2 than died
>> when it was used as a weapon. The fact this is noted is considered
>> degeneration by Eunometic.
>
> This is not relevant to the cost effectiveness of the V2 in terms of
> its labour input.
as well as healthy people, nor could it build experience.
> Many of the losses related to excavation work at Dora for the under
> ground construction of the missile,
> another big factor was allied air
> raids which killed many prisoners.
factory that the allies did not attack. Along with losses by the prisoners,
given how they were largely kept underground.
Should not be hard given so many losses.
> The forced evactuation marches to
> evade the Allied advance clamied more.
in any case the fact people were killed afterwards is still relevant.
> Few seem to have died in the manufacture of the missile.
> But again this is not relevant in terms of the production cost merrits
> of the V2.
work conditions. Then add the uncertainty about estimates of costs.
For example in all those man hour figures, are the guards counted?
> It is legal to compell non officer POW to work under the Geneva
> conventions.
aim was to work the slaves to death?
I mean it is fairly obvious change of subject.
> The Soviets categorecally refused to signe the Geneva
> conventions leaving the tenuous claim that the weaker Hague
> conventions signed by the Tsar covered Soviet POW.
and the slave labour system?
In any case Germany had signed the Geneva convention, and was
obliged to treat prisoners accordingly, regardless of what other
countries chose to do. The Germans ignored this. So any tenuous
claim about protection is being made by the Germans.
> Soviet POW were often killed under Stalin ideological Commisars for
> having shown weakness of potential ideological contamination.
over a million Soviet prisoners died in German custody is going to be
ignored.
The SS ran a slave labour system working people to death, the German
military allowed hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners to die and
handed more over to the SS who tended to work them to death.
The fact the Soviets decided not to follow the Geneva conventions does
not excuse German behaviour, but Eunometic is desperate, so a person
killed by Stalin balances more than one killed by the Germans.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Dec 6, 2011, 1:36:32 PM12/6/11
to
Ah yes, bulk deletion of text, Eunometic is generating noise to
drown out the truth.
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1f3d76ca-f111-48d2...@i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
to test shots. Think in terms of needing to displace things for the
test electronics for example.
>> Finally the P-80A managed 558 mph at sea level as Eunometic has
>> been told many times, but that does not fit the fiction.
>
> Experimental P-80A,
Yes folks, time to downgrade allied technology, Lockheed built around 500
of that experimental P-80A, production ending in December 1946.
> really proto P-80B/C were achieving these sorts of
> speeds only in december 1946 with modified narrow noses, no armament,
> clipped wings and neqarly two years of post war development.
No, they were achieving it in standard configuration, and the B and
C models had more powerful engines.
> In 1945 to 1946 they could generally not break 500 mph at sea level.
This seems to be the wish and hope rather then reality.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80.html
Which is interesting given the different engines with the same ratings
giving
different speeds and of course top speed varied according to air
temperature.
Plus wartime emergency power.
The J-33-GE-11 and the J-33-A-9 were the standard P-80A engines.
> You pesist on comparing the 'unguided' V1 accuracy with the accuracy
> of electronically guided RAF bombers.
I really like this, given the V-1 as used did not use radio guidance
in WWII, but hey, it would have if Eunometic wishes very hard.
> I have repeatedly pointed out that the V1 when equiped with a simple
> electronic midcourse guidance system was going to achieve accuracies
> as good as if not better than RAF Bomber command.
You see the idea is a big lie if repeated often enough can sometimes
be mistaken for the truth. Eunometic is proof, mistakes all over the
place. As for simple the claim is 3 stations would be required and
either the V-1 was going to be at high altitude or the stations were
going to have to cope with dealing with signals reflected from something,
then send their result to a central area, then broadcast the result.
The claimed electronic aid was a mid course correction, but the standard
guidance system was still in use. And the idea is to fit the electronics to
a long range version, so mid course is about as far from the target as
London was from France in 1944. So the missile is supposed to know
where it is with less precision at the same range when the 1944 V-1 knew
exactly were it was, on the launch catapult.
> Every V1 would be guided
None were, the system Eunometic wants to believe in is not going to
produce precision.
> was opposed to carpet bombing incediary markers or attempting
> to used the statistically proven (by opperations reseatch) blured and
> inaccurate H2S radar 'mapping' system.
You see Eunometic has to keep shouting out the fact that the 8th Air
Force using H2X in 10/10 cloud, at ranges beyond anything the V-2
could reach, was slightly less accurate than the V-2 was. If there
were a few breaks in the cloud the bombers were more accurate, and
kept increasing their accuracy as the weather improved.
Hence rather than deal with reality we jump back to operational research
and claims the H2X system was inaccurate, but of course the V-2s were
less accurate on average, but they are called precision, or they will be
with
Eunometic enhancements, you know, modern missiles still cannot match
the E-2 and if they dare the E-2 will simply be upgraded and transported
in time.
As usual theory is compared to reality according to the predetermined
conclusion.
drown out the truth.
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1f3d76ca-f111-48d2...@i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> > The final V1's from about March 1945 were averaging 795kmh/492mph and
>> > in fact a high proportion of the test missiles were achieveing 815kmh/
>> > 505mph. This is faster than a P-80A at sea level or a Meteor III.
>>
>> You see the idea here is to announce wonder results, but totally ignore
>> the idea test shots are not the same as reality, and of course people
>> are left to wonder where exactly was a good V-1 test range in 1945.
>> Given the territory still under Nazi control. The 495 mph appear to
>> be trials, the 505 mph seem to be hope and of course with no
>> warhead weights change.
>
> All V1 ware tested with warheads or dummy warheads, the missile would
> be unstable without it. You seem to have 'guessed' this. Please provide a
> cite.
See that V-1 and V-2 book you have been quoting when it comes
>> > The final V1's from about March 1945 were averaging 795kmh/492mph and
>> > in fact a high proportion of the test missiles were achieveing 815kmh/
>> > 505mph. This is faster than a P-80A at sea level or a Meteor III.
>>
>> You see the idea here is to announce wonder results, but totally ignore
>> the idea test shots are not the same as reality, and of course people
>> are left to wonder where exactly was a good V-1 test range in 1945.
>> Given the territory still under Nazi control. The 495 mph appear to
>> be trials, the 505 mph seem to be hope and of course with no
>> warhead weights change.
>
> All V1 ware tested with warheads or dummy warheads, the missile would
> be unstable without it. You seem to have 'guessed' this. Please provide a
> cite.
to test shots. Think in terms of needing to displace things for the
test electronics for example.
>> Finally the P-80A managed 558 mph at sea level as Eunometic has
>> been told many times, but that does not fit the fiction.
>
> Experimental P-80A,
of that experimental P-80A, production ending in December 1946.
> really proto P-80B/C were achieving these sorts of
> speeds only in december 1946 with modified narrow noses, no armament,
> clipped wings and neqarly two years of post war development.
C models had more powerful engines.
> In 1945 to 1946 they could generally not break 500 mph at sea level.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80.html
Which is interesting given the different engines with the same ratings
giving
different speeds and of course top speed varied according to air
temperature.
Plus wartime emergency power.
The J-33-GE-11 and the J-33-A-9 were the standard P-80A engines.
> You pesist on comparing the 'unguided' V1 accuracy with the accuracy
> of electronically guided RAF bombers.
in WWII, but hey, it would have if Eunometic wishes very hard.
> I have repeatedly pointed out that the V1 when equiped with a simple
> electronic midcourse guidance system was going to achieve accuracies
> as good as if not better than RAF Bomber command.
be mistaken for the truth. Eunometic is proof, mistakes all over the
place. As for simple the claim is 3 stations would be required and
either the V-1 was going to be at high altitude or the stations were
going to have to cope with dealing with signals reflected from something,
then send their result to a central area, then broadcast the result.
The claimed electronic aid was a mid course correction, but the standard
guidance system was still in use. And the idea is to fit the electronics to
a long range version, so mid course is about as far from the target as
London was from France in 1944. So the missile is supposed to know
where it is with less precision at the same range when the 1944 V-1 knew
exactly were it was, on the launch catapult.
> Every V1 would be guided
produce precision.
> was opposed to carpet bombing incediary markers or attempting
> to used the statistically proven (by opperations reseatch) blured and
> inaccurate H2S radar 'mapping' system.
Force using H2X in 10/10 cloud, at ranges beyond anything the V-2
could reach, was slightly less accurate than the V-2 was. If there
were a few breaks in the cloud the bombers were more accurate, and
kept increasing their accuracy as the weather improved.
Hence rather than deal with reality we jump back to operational research
and claims the H2X system was inaccurate, but of course the V-2s were
less accurate on average, but they are called precision, or they will be
with
Eunometic enhancements, you know, modern missiles still cannot match
the E-2 and if they dare the E-2 will simply be upgraded and transported
in time.
As usual theory is compared to reality according to the predetermined
conclusion.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Dec 6, 2011, 1:36:45 PM12/6/11
to
Ah yes, almost all my text has to be deleted, the truth is really hurting.
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:05624339-fe2a-45a1...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>> In February/March 1945 Bomber Command analysis of night bombing
>> photographs found in good weather 99% within 3 miles of the target,
>> in moderate weather 94%. The rise of the electronic aids being used
>> by dedicated crews who then marked the target, which therefore
>> remained visible through the dust and smoke.
>
> so you are saying that in a situation of bomber command opperating
> with the benefits of
> 1 being withing Oboe range.
No, since the majority of raids did not use Oboe.
In short tonnage terms 18,340 using H2S, 13,417 using Oboe at night,
28,867 using night visual, ignoring attacks on Berlin.
Try again.
> 2 with total air dominance at the end of the war
And this has relevance to what?
> 3 at night and in clear weather could get 99% of its bombs within 3
> miles of target.
Hey a correct statement.
> A standard Rayleigh distributioon (2D Gausian) gives that A CEP of 1
> mile 50% of bombs within one ststure mile), followed by 43% within 1-2
> miles and 6% between 2-3 miles and 1% outside of that.
Ah yes of course, Eunometic has to learn to count before doing
mathematics. I do like the way the Rayleigh is chosen, given it is
asymmetric. In a random distribution the bombs should be in a
pattern around the aiming point.
Unlike the V-2 the distribution of the bombs is not some simple
mathematical Gaussian, or Normal, or whatever distribution, there is an
aiming point which biases the result, especially if the targets or markers
remain observable
For example the 8th Air Force put 91.3% of its bombs within 3 miles of
the target in the final 4 months of 1944 using visual bombing in good
weather.
That translated to 30% within 1,000 feet, 64.3% within half a mile and 82.4%
within 1 mile. So much for distributions.
You see the allied bombers actually aimed at things, the V-2s followed
a random distribution. However Eunometic will generously allow the
allied bombers to be random, even though that still makes the historical
V-2 accuracy worse. So stand by for super V-2.
> This is worse than the beam riding V2 which could control bearing,
> elevation, speed and down range cutoff sufficiently to achieve re-
> entry within 300m of target. Wind on reentry and some tumbing would
> degrade that somewhat.
Ah yes of course, firstly decide the allied bombers are random like
the V-2, then immediately move to the Eunometic version of the
V-2 because the real V-2 was such a joke and Eunometic wants
to make an even bigger joke, so time for super accurate guidance
that was never used but claims about accuracy are going to be
considered correct.
Now, given the beam guidance, how far away from the launch site
was the beam going to be? Given beam guidance is easiest when
the launch and control sites are co-located.
> You claim of '12 tons of materials' to deliver 1 tons of warhead
> exaggerates the issue.
Ah, so I am correct.
> Liquid Oxygen LOX is the bulk of this weight
> and early extracted from air.
You see "easily" (not early, you need to visit one of the outer planets
for oxygen to freeze out at night) is added to the fact 1,000 V-2s required
4,900 tons of liquid oxygen, not compressed oxygen but liquid, kept at
around minus 220 Celsius, and transported around without significant losses.
Strangely enough it is not free air, it takes effort.
A V-2 when ready to launch had around, in tonnes, 4.9 oxygen, 3.77
alcohol, 0.16 other fuels and 0.975 warhead, the rest of the 12.9
tonnes was airframe, engine and electronics
Oh yes, and 4.9 out of 11.9 means oxygen is claimed to be the bulk
of the weight, which really should mean 6 tons or more, oxygen was
the biggest single weight but wonder weapons cannot cope with reality.
> Ethyle alchahole can be easily
> synthesised via a Fischer Tropsch reaction.
You see the idea here is to wish away the fuel requirements for V-2s,
everything is easy, rather than takes effort. And to back up a large
V-2 program Germany needed to expand alcohol and oxygen
supplies. It was not like people were using lots of liquid oxygen, nor
were they requiring bulk alcohol as fuel, until the oil supplies started
running out of course.
Fundamentally the V-2 as used required a third of Germany's alcohol
production. If making fuel was so easy there should have been lots
more of it.
Ethanol for the V-2 program came from things like potatoes, so
Germans went hungry post war to feed wartime V-2s, 30 tons of
potatoes per V-2.
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:05624339-fe2a-45a1...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>> In February/March 1945 Bomber Command analysis of night bombing
>> photographs found in good weather 99% within 3 miles of the target,
>> in moderate weather 94%. The rise of the electronic aids being used
>> by dedicated crews who then marked the target, which therefore
>> remained visible through the dust and smoke.
>
> so you are saying that in a situation of bomber command opperating
> with the benefits of
> 1 being withing Oboe range.
In short tonnage terms 18,340 using H2S, 13,417 using Oboe at night,
28,867 using night visual, ignoring attacks on Berlin.
Try again.
> 2 with total air dominance at the end of the war
> 3 at night and in clear weather could get 99% of its bombs within 3
> miles of target.
> A standard Rayleigh distributioon (2D Gausian) gives that A CEP of 1
> mile 50% of bombs within one ststure mile), followed by 43% within 1-2
> miles and 6% between 2-3 miles and 1% outside of that.
mathematics. I do like the way the Rayleigh is chosen, given it is
asymmetric. In a random distribution the bombs should be in a
pattern around the aiming point.
Unlike the V-2 the distribution of the bombs is not some simple
mathematical Gaussian, or Normal, or whatever distribution, there is an
aiming point which biases the result, especially if the targets or markers
remain observable
For example the 8th Air Force put 91.3% of its bombs within 3 miles of
the target in the final 4 months of 1944 using visual bombing in good
weather.
That translated to 30% within 1,000 feet, 64.3% within half a mile and 82.4%
within 1 mile. So much for distributions.
You see the allied bombers actually aimed at things, the V-2s followed
a random distribution. However Eunometic will generously allow the
allied bombers to be random, even though that still makes the historical
V-2 accuracy worse. So stand by for super V-2.
> This is worse than the beam riding V2 which could control bearing,
> elevation, speed and down range cutoff sufficiently to achieve re-
> entry within 300m of target. Wind on reentry and some tumbing would
> degrade that somewhat.
the V-2, then immediately move to the Eunometic version of the
V-2 because the real V-2 was such a joke and Eunometic wants
to make an even bigger joke, so time for super accurate guidance
that was never used but claims about accuracy are going to be
considered correct.
Now, given the beam guidance, how far away from the launch site
was the beam going to be? Given beam guidance is easiest when
the launch and control sites are co-located.
> You claim of '12 tons of materials' to deliver 1 tons of warhead
> exaggerates the issue.
> Liquid Oxygen LOX is the bulk of this weight
> and early extracted from air.
for oxygen to freeze out at night) is added to the fact 1,000 V-2s required
4,900 tons of liquid oxygen, not compressed oxygen but liquid, kept at
around minus 220 Celsius, and transported around without significant losses.
Strangely enough it is not free air, it takes effort.
A V-2 when ready to launch had around, in tonnes, 4.9 oxygen, 3.77
alcohol, 0.16 other fuels and 0.975 warhead, the rest of the 12.9
tonnes was airframe, engine and electronics
Oh yes, and 4.9 out of 11.9 means oxygen is claimed to be the bulk
of the weight, which really should mean 6 tons or more, oxygen was
the biggest single weight but wonder weapons cannot cope with reality.
> Ethyle alchahole can be easily
> synthesised via a Fischer Tropsch reaction.
everything is easy, rather than takes effort. And to back up a large
V-2 program Germany needed to expand alcohol and oxygen
supplies. It was not like people were using lots of liquid oxygen, nor
were they requiring bulk alcohol as fuel, until the oil supplies started
running out of course.
Fundamentally the V-2 as used required a third of Germany's alcohol
production. If making fuel was so easy there should have been lots
more of it.
Ethanol for the V-2 program came from things like potatoes, so
Germans went hungry post war to feed wartime V-2s, 30 tons of
potatoes per V-2.
0 new messages