Talk:V-1 flying bomb/Archive 1

statiatsics
could be argued that mcnamara's devotion to such numbers caused the vietnam war failures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.240.48 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of V-1's produced
From the entry: ''Almost 30,000 V1s were manufactured. 9,521 were fired at England''. I have another figure: V1's launched against England, not including the V1's that landed short of their targets or fell into the sea = 10,753. It's doubtful that both are right. Can anyone provide a reasonably certain estimate?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannin (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 January 2003 (UTC)

Engine sound recording
The sounds stops, I suppose when the engine shuts off, but I do not hear the impact. This gives a feeling of the sample being a bit uncomplete. How long does that take? Perhaps too long for including that? - Patrick 11:38 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have a more complete recording but. I think it takes a long time before the impact (several minutes). But size of the file would not be a problem Ogg/vorbis is very good in compressing silence :). Ericd 11:46 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * So the good thing is that you have time to look for cover, the bad thing that you may not hear it coming at all if you are near the place of impact. - Patrick 12:26 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * The time delay wasn't that long, perhaps 10-15sec, from what I've read & heard. People uniformly heard it (I understand it was pretty loud, louder {or more piercing} than an aircraft engine); what was frightening was to hear it cut, since that meant it was about to hit. Trekphiler 07:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Typically, they flew at about 1500 feet, but their behaviour was pretty unpredictable after the engine cut out. Some seemed to dive or even drop ballistically for about 7 - 10 seconds, while others would continue on their way losing height while gliding down to earth. I saw one cut out and then circle round the R. N. Hospital at Chatham for many minutes (it seemed like hours!) as it spiralled down. Fortunately, it missed the Hospital. By the look of them, they should not have been able to glide without power at all, but glide they did. Fenton Robb 17:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's great to have the sound recording here, but it's in a format that (it seems reasonable to presume) few people will be able to play. My system (Windows 2000, Media Player 6.0 and RealPlayer both installed) doesn't know what to do with it, and despite a lifetime spent working with computers, Ive never heard of .ogg files. (I don't play with sound much these days, I grant you. Stll, it seems like a reasonable random sample system.) Now sure, I could spend a few minutes and track the format down via a search engine, or ask around at the office and get a pretty fast answer, but I shouldn't have to do that. Wikipedia should make itself as easy to use as possible. Anyone want to add something like this:


 * Media Files : [[media:V1sound.ogg|V-1 engine sound]] (Sound help)

(Linking, of course, to an appropriate page, which would link to a suitable download.)

Yes - Just what you asked for is in The Lambeth Archives with a lot of detailed information about where the bombs fell. I have added a 'external link' at the bottom of the article. Fenton Robb 17:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Ogg file are a full free software alternative to MP3, they seems accepted as the standard for Wikipedia. I will start an help page and upload the codec. Ericd 15:09 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi Tannin is the sound OK now ?
 * Ericd 15:53 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ltspkr.png]] - hope that helps. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 00:34, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Added to WP:Brilliant prose
I added this page to Brilliant prose

Waoooh my visage turns red ! Ericd 15:51 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * Having contributed a fair slab of it myself, I can only completely agree with you that it is indeed "brilliant prose". :) Tannin 15:43, 11 April 2003 (UTC)

von Braun at Peenemünde
Wasn't Wernher von Braun also involved in some way at Peenemünde ? -- Kim Bruning


 * Indeed, almost all the time, but not at all with the V-1. Rockets proper were von Braun's endeavour; see V-2 rocket. --Wernher 20:15, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good wiki process example!
This page is a really good example of the wiki process at its best. Lots of contributors, and over time it has turned into a really comprehensive article. It could perhaps use a very gentle copyedit to make it flow more smoothly (this is what always happens to multi-author documents - they get disjointed), but overall ... great work, team! Tannin 14:16, 5 February 2004 (UTC)

'V-2' hyphenated, 'V1' not?
I just wonder about the title of this article vs the V-2 one. In the three books on the subject that I possess, the usage seems to be the hyphenated version for both 'Vergeltungs'-weapons. I actually think this is more typical of German language usage as well. Therefore, if no one objects carrying convincing arguments, I will rename this (the V-1) article (by moving it) to 'V-1 flying bomb'. --Wernher 22:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, as I've not got heaps of (negative) comments so far, I'll ask an admin to fix the move (renaming) to 'V-1 flying bomb' (couldn't myself due to a redirect already bearing that name). Now's your last chance to speak up... --Wernher 23:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * And now it's too late (this time around), i.e., the move is done. A new discussion will have to take place if someone thinks otherwise than keeping the current name. Also please see the thread on my talk page concerning this issue. --Wernher 00:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be consensus in the sources I've seen; hyphen or no seems to be based on the author's preference. Hyphenated seems to go to the convention used in aircraft, as in P-38 (pursuit 38). My own bias is for hyphenated. Trekphiler 07:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the description of the guidance system correct?
My great-uncle gave me a set of books about WWII and (being a tech geek even when I was a kid) I was fascinated by the diagrams and description of how the V-1 knew when it was over its target. Here's the way the book explained it:

There was a small propeller on the nose, connected to a long screw thread going back inside the missile. On this thread was a washer, and at the back end of the thread were two electrical contacts.

As the missile flew the airflow turned the prop and hence the threaded shaft; the washer would be wound along the shaft as it turned. When it reached the electrical contacts it would make a circuit, which energized a solenoid attached to a small guillotine. This guillotine would cut through the fuel lines, stopping the engine, and the missile would then dive.

At the launch site the engineers would preset the starting position of the washer on the shaft according to the known distance to the target and an estimate of the headwind. It sounds very rough-and-ready but it was accurate enough.


 * The description's pretty accurate - the only error is the often-quoted part about the guillotine cutting the engine's fuel lines to stop the engine. Actually the guillotine was used to cut the elevator control cable (there was only the one cable as the elevator was spring-loaded to the down position, i.e. to give 'up' elevator the cable pulled and to give 'down' the cable was slackened) and when the air-log propeller fired the guillotine it was this control cable that was cut - the sprung-elevator then went into the fully-down position which put the V-1 into a sudden dive. The abrupt negative-G then caused the fuel flow to cease which stopped the engine. Ian Dunster 11:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * On reading this article, I found myself asking "but how did they control when the bomb should dive??". So I've created a section about the guidance system, based on what you've written above. Hope this is okay! Mikecron 00:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"although not always with the device buried deep enough to increase the effect of the blast."
Long ago, I read that the V1 was more effective than the V2 because the blast area was not reduced by its being buried. It did not usually hit hardened targets.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by David R. Ingham (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Spotting
The article claims the pulsejet was audible @16km; @night, I'd say the visibility of the exhaust plume was more important, N? How far was it visible from? Trekphiler 07:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Development
Not sure if it belongs here, but... Loon inspired trials of Regulus I (aboard Tunny & Barbero) & Regulus II (Grayback & Growler, making Grayback first purpose-built SSG). Halibut would have been first SSGN, but Regulus II was cancelled, first. Trekphiler 08:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Casualties due to V1
According to the Polish Wiki, the V1 was responsible for 5500 deaths and 16,000 wounded in London. I don't know what the source for these stats is, but thought it might be good to include'em.radek 08:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * An article on the BBC website fits with those rough figures, but a source should be found.GraemeLeggett 10:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

R.V. Jones in Most Secret War page 423 quotes the Official History “The Defence of the United Kingdom” as 8617 bombs launched, 2340 reached London Civil Defence Region causing casualties of approx. 5,500 killed & 16,000 seriously injured. He says the deception saved up to 50% say 2,750 more killed & up to 8,000 seriously injured, by estimating that while on the first 24 hours of the main campaign (June 1944; 2200 hours 15th to 2200 hours 16th) about 30 of the 90 plotted fell inside built-up areas, if the pattern was shifted NW by about 4 miles then about 45 or +50% would have fallen in built-up areas. Hugo999 08:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of V1 falls
Is there a definitive list of all the sites where V1s (and V2s for that matter) fell anywhere ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooler (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

rv: vandalism
Apparently some anonymous bright-butt decided to edit the page as follows:

"The codename Flak penis Gerät 76 was somewhat successful in disguising the nature of this device and it was some time before references to p3n15 were tied to the V83 pilotless aircraft (an experimental V-1)".

The vandalism occured at 12:30, July 6, 2006 by 82.110.219.14.

Page reverted to previous state, since no changes happened inbetweeen vandalism and the current state. --Stealth 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Harmonised 20mm cannons
I was reading this, and I was wondering, what does it mean to harmonise cannons to 300 yards? The aircraft left wing cannons and the right wing cannons arc of fire crosses 300 yards in front of the plane --Denniss 17:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if that explanation was in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.211.118 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cruising Height?
Need to specify consistent Cruising height - The V-1 has several heights given, Under:
 * Description - 100 to 1000 m (300 to 3000 ft) – it would not cruise at 100m???
 * Countermeasures - 600 to 900 m (2000 to 3000 ft)
 * Specifications - 3050 m (10,000 ft) Is this a max not cruising height? As 10,000 ft is a rounded figure it should be converted to 3000 m. Hugo999 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Spies
I remember hearing that German spies controlled by the British sent misleading reports which put the V-1's aiming off. This should be included in the countermeasures if anyone knows enough about it. See Double_Cross_System. Man with two legs 11:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

V1 mole
CNN web is saying construction workers just found an unexploded V1 in London while digging foundations for a new office building, many blocks are cordoned off due to hazard. Wonder if it will be exploded in situ to get rid of it or defused and put on museum display?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.68.145 (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Doodlebug
I'm an Australian and I'm doubtful that the Doodlebug was named after an Australian insect. It seems more likley it was named after antlion, which is of worldwide distribution.--Grahamec 11:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or conceivably after the woodlouse, the only other arthropod mentioned on the doodlebug dab page. No Australia insects listed there at all.  Doing some google-grade research, the best stab at the origin of this nickname I can find is this.  "Doodlebug, the vehicle, combines the "aimless" sense of dawdle and the "off-the-road" character of bugs.  It can refer to any small or stripped-down car, truck, or airplane."  Either way, we should cite this, or remove it.  In any case, we can probably lose the amazingly ugly piped-bold-quoted link back to the dab.  Alai (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment section
The source used for this section seems of questionable value - a report which was written by an Allied officer in December 1944 clearly couldn't have had access to German records and probably wasn't based on the final assessment of the damage done to Britain. Is a post-war assessment available? --Nick Dowling 12:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferry range of a V1 compared with conventional aircraft
Pulsejets are inefficient. I have estimated the fuel consumed as pounds per 100 miles, expressed as a fraction of the gross weight of the aircraft. This method standardizes the figures, allowing the comparison of fuel consumed by aircraft of different weights.

The edit page of Wikipedia does not like tables, so I will present the figure differently.

Range, miles: V1 160; Spitfire 1140; Hellcat 1530; Thunderbolt 1800

Fuel, pounds: V1 1110; Spitfire 1260; Hellcat 3110; Thunderbolt 7250

Fuel consumed, lbs/mile: V1 6.9; Spitfire 1.1; Hellcat 2.0; Thunderbolt 4.0

Gross weight, pounds (GW): V1 4750; Spitfire 6600; Hellcat 12600; Thunderbolt 17500

Fuel per 100 miles, as a % of GW: V1 14.6; Spitfire 1.7; Hellcat 1.6; Thunderbolt 2.3

On the last measure, a Spitfire is 8.7 times as good as a V1, a Hellcat is 9.1 times, and a Thunderbolt 6.3.

It was difficult to find reliable figures for fuel capacity for the conventional aircraft, because some of these aircraft could use drop tanks. I took the figures for ferry range, a one-way trip, carrying nothing except pilot and fuel. I then estimated fuel carried as gross weight less empty weight, which I realise might not be an accurate estimate of fuel actually carried. I allowed 250 pounds for the weight of the pilot, his clothes, boots and parachute. Figures from Wikipedia.

I found figures for the V1 from zenza.se and fighterfactory. Fuel capacity 150 gallons, presumably Imperial, or 1110 pounds, and a range, one-way of course, of 160 miles. The gross weight of the V1 was 4750 pounds, warhead 1870 pounds, and fuel 1110 pounds, leaving an empty weight of 1770 pounds. The available load is 2980 pounds, and the mix of bomb load and fuel will vary with the desired range.

A manned version of a V1 would have an available load of 2730 pounds after allowing 250 pounds for the pilot. At 6.9 pounds of fuel per mile, the ferry range would be 394 miles.

David Erskine 58.168.27.1 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment section error
The last line of the table in the assessment section states that the allies lost 351 planes but 2233 men to the V1s compared with 1260 planes and 805 men to the Blitz. Surely that figure of 2233 seems very high as it doesn't include civilian losses. Why so high? Is the original source correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.30.132 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenation
Both V1 and V-1 seem used in the references and literature; the article should consistently use one for style. V-1 is in keeping with aircraft designation and the title of the article (as discussed above), and was more used in the article, so I've converted all uses to that.

When quoting or naming references that use V1, we should use V1, else use V-1; sound good?

Nbarth (email) (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The meaning is "vengeance weapon (number) one", in accordance to a "vengeance weapon number two" and so on. I think it´s not appropriate to shortcut the meaning of "number" by a "-". "V1" feels more common than "V-1". 84.138.49.166 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Price
On the V-2 and Wasserfall page, it gives the price of the weapon. But there's not price here. Is any price known for the V1? -OOPSIE- (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The german Wikipedia says 3,500 Reichsmark (while the average worker´s income was 160 Reichsmark per month). 84.138.49.166 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

V-1 not the first guided missile. . .even according to wikipedia's other articles
Look up the Fritz-X or HS-293 in this encyclopedia. The statement at the start of the article "The first guided missile" is misleading, without reference to these others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.220.146 (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Found this Resource
Some good stuff here we can use to improve the article, including a sound recording and some technical details. SkipSmith (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Countermeasures
...the Germans relied in part on reports from their agents to determine if the range settings in the guidance system were correct.

In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XiRkk4zYtU&feature=related which seems genuine to me, it´s been told, that a descent number of V1s had been refitted with a wire-antenna, which sent an impulse immediate before impact. This impulse was tracked by two or more radio-stations and the impact location could be verified. But since I´m foreigner, I do not know how to put it into the right words for the article. Maybe someone can help? 84.138.49.166 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Guided?
The introduction describes the V-1 as an early guided missile. Given that it was merely pointed in the general direction of its target and recieved no further directional input after it was launcehd (save for the timed "fall out of the sky" signal), I don't see how anyone could call it "guided." I am editing the text accordingly.165.91.64.162 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)RKH


 * It´s been kept on target direction via multiple monitor-systems. And it wasn´t simply pointed onto it´s target, it followed the direction that´s been programmed in it´s steering control system, regardless of the starting direction. For example if it´s programmed to follow the heading 282°, you could fire it at an horizontal angle between 222° and 342° and it would head itself to 282° after launch and would permanently correct it´s path to keep 282° and the given altitude.
 * Call it guidance or not, it´s far more than a dumb rocket. In fact, it isn´t a smart rocket, because it couldn´t get data of the current position and do corrections according to it. 84.138.51.14 (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In March, 1945 we found a V-1 landed without explosion in the pastures between Tilburg and Goirle, The Netherlands. Static equilibrium had been achieved by 6 rolled issues of the German propaganda magazine 'Signal' in the left wing spar [tubular steel]. I have added this discovery to the article. Desertfax (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistancy w.r.t. Barrage Balloons
There's a statement: "half of those (3,876) landed in the Greater London area. An almost equal number were shot down or intercepted by barrage balloons." ... implying 3000+ hit by destroyed. Yet, later we have, when talking baout barrage balloons ... "and fewer than 300 V-1s are known to have been destroyed by hitting cable."

Anyone have a definitive answer? I suspect the latter is, but don't know. --Anonymous


 * The prose might be somewhat unclear. According to this report, "although guns and fighters destroyed most of the V-1 bombs (1,878 and 1,846, respectively), balloons were credited with 231 'kills'." Thus the first of the statements you're referring to should be more like "An almost equal number were downed by the combination of fighters and barrage balloons." --Wernher 13:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added your link as an official reference in two articles. -- Ken g6 04:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened when a V-1 hit a balloon or cable? Did it explode in the air (that would mostly neutralize it I suppose) or did it then fall and explode (basically just changing its impact point) ? Friendly Person (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

'Simple device': incl engine?
"simple device" "constructed in around fifty man-hours of mainly sheet metal" -- does that include the engine?
 * It was a very simple engine - so quite possibly, yes. Mind you' I'm only guessing that. Tannin
 * Can't say for sure, either, but the V-1 engine was little more than a stovepipe with a valve on the front, a fuel injector, & a sparkplug. Trekphiler 21:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * German Wikipedia says, it´s been 280 man-hours. 84.138.58.226 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I added the shutters to the description. But I wondered about the rate of firing, said to be 100/sec. That certainly would produce a buzz - but despite its name, it actually uttered a sound much more like that of a fast two stroke engine, a puttering sound, and I wondered if /sec should have been /min? Help would be appreciated.

Fenton Robb 12:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard recordings (though I can't remember where and I can't vouch for it being a real recording and not a simulation), and 100/sec sounds right. I would think that 100/min would be way too slow; the craft would have time to start falling between pulses. KarlBunker 16:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivial point. When one went over my head it sounded like two frequencies; a low rumble and a puttering noise. I would desribe it more as a growl. The Germans made a bad mistake when they made it power into the ground, the sudden silence as the damned thing pitched over and then the long pause before the almighty wallop was nerve shredding. 80.58.205.51 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Credits
The article puts Berry's score at 59; I've seen 60 (somewhere...). Also, who were the others, & what squadrons were they? Trekphiler 07:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Worth remembering that Churchill reprimanded his Minister for Air for claiming too much success against the V1 on behalf of the RAF. Churchill's view was that the lions share of any congratulation belonged to the AA gunners. The remonstration is recoded verbatim in (I think) the 4th volume of Churchill's "History of the Second World War".

It might also be of interest to know that in the missile industry it was long rumoured that only one V1 was tipped over and that the much hyped photograph reproduced in the article is a fake.

80.58.205.51 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Guidance System
The Article has a section which starts:

"An odometer driven by a vane anemometer on the nose determined when target area had been reached, accurately enough for area bombing. Before launch the counter was set to a value that would reach zero upon arrival at the target in the prevailing wind conditions. ..."

I have seen a sectioned V-1, and the small nose propeller didn't seem to do anything as remotely complicated as that. As I recall, it operated a crude mechanism with a couple of wires coming from behind the propeller area. I can think of several ways this could be easily achieved without the complication of an odometer. I will have to try and have another look. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[Ff]lying [Bb]omb capitals?
Shouldn't "V1 flying bomb" be written as "V1 Flying Bomb", since it's used grammatically as a proper noun, like De Havilland Mosquito? Or not? I get confused about this (see my talk page) ( 09:06, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In any case the article title is inconsistent with usage within the article ( 09:06, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It's ambiguous, since "flying bomb" is a generic term that describes many similar weapons (see flying bomb), but the term was first used in English to describe this particular weapon. Most usually in English, the weapon is simply called the "V-1" (or V1 or V 1...), and in this sense, "flying bomb" is not a proper name. Since the original (German) term for the weapon doesn't even have a name, I think that "flying bomb" is more appropriate --Rlandmann 09:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * In the title, it should definately have capitals.--Kurtle (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Diversion & casualties
It's widely believed XX Committee's efforts led to fewer casualties (I even believed it), but I read recently (I wish I could recall where...) diversion moved avg p.o.i. from rich parts of Lon to poor ones, & losses didn't change. (Given greater pop density in poor ones, it might even be they went up; the source didn't suggest it.) It's N a settled ish... Trekphiler 07:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

See R.V. Jones in Most Secret War page 422; they decided to ignore Herbert Morrison’s instruction, while he was chairing cabinet, that the deception/diversion would be an interference with Providence (his constituency was Lambeth, and Morrison thought it was an attempt to keep the V-1s away from the rich civil servants in Mayfair etc). But Jones worked out it would save lives, even though it was moving the mean point to South London esp. Dulwich where his parents and old school were. He later calculated that the deception saved 2750 more killed & up to 8000 seriously injured. Will add this to the section soon. Hugo999 07:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deception

With the publication of "Defence of the Realm", the authorized history of MI5, there are a few minor details that need tidying up in the Deception para. Does the author wish to do this? Drg40 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I believe that Fieseler Fi 103R (Reichenberg) should be merged into this article. The stories of the two types of aircraft are intertwined, the 103R being an important, but minor variant; in addition, all the various "Fiesler Fi 103" pages redirect to here, not there. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Against - The Reichenberg article is sufficiently long to warrant its own spin-off page. To re-introduce it into the V-1 page just makes that page even longer. How minor a variant it is isn't important; more whether the amount of detail the article contains is enough. The current redirections are also irrelevent - thats just a Wiki 'error' that some bot can probably fix. The Yeti (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, I think the Fiesler is different enough to have its own article. Geoff B (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, same reasoning as above - I don't feel it's trivial/stublike enough to merge. Should this still be open after all this time? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)