Talk:V-1 flying bomb/Archive 2

Are the Clayton Bissel statistics reliable?
There is something wrong with the Bissel casualty statistics, because they are hugely at varience with other Wiki entries. They even contradict earlier statements in the V1 article. I know there is a sentence following the Clayton Bissel statistics saying they are the subject of dispute but it does not elaborate. If you look at the Wiki page on the Blitz the second paragraph in the introduction states "more than 40,000 civilians were killed, almost half of them in London". That would tend to suggest that over 20,000 Londoners were killed in the Blitz. Bissel claims 92,566 were killed in the Blitz (there is no geographical breakdown) and that V1 "flying bombs" accounted for 22,892 casualties. Surely that cannot be possible? If the Bissel statistics are wrong it should certainly say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.46.47 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The column for the V1 is inaccurate on at least two counts. The warhead of the V1 was 850 kg, so 8025 V1s had a total bomb load of 6800 tons. So many V1s were shot down, by anti aircraft fire or by aircraft, that the tonnage that reached the target was only a small fraction of 6800 tons. Furthermore, the bombing accuracy of manned aircraft was not good, and the accuracy of flying bombs worse, so one would expect the ratio of structures destroyed per ton of explosive to be much the same for manned bombers and for flying bombs, and the same for casualties per ton of explosives. DavidJErskine (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

V-1 firing video clip pointer
Survival Research Labs is a performance art group in the San Francisco Bay area that uses a V1 in some of their shows. They have a 24 MB mpg video accessible from their website where you can see and hear the engine. The clip ends with an amusing visit from the fire department. Mark Pauline, the leader of SRL, explains in the video how they replaced some broken valves on the V1 by following the original German design, except using nickel valves instead of stainless valves. I was at a show in Berkeley tonight where they fired it. Email me if you want to see any of the video I shot with my little Canon S400 camera. RobertStewart 05:50 Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I posted edited versions of the videos I mentioned above on my blog quite a while ago, but forgot to update this page. Let me know if you want a copy of the original. My email address can be found on my website. RobertStewart 08:11 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Assessment section
There seems to be some confusion developing in the Assessment section. Under "Cost to Germany" the fourth section's label has been changed between "Aircraft lost" and "V-1s lost". In fact, it should be "Aircraft lost", as it has been for a long time, and I'm reverting it to that, but I wanted to explain why.

Firstly, it's obvious. Germany did not lose any V-1s during the Blitz, so it can't be that, so it must be about aircraft - something they did lose plenty of then. It's not possible to construct any explanation of what the table is trying to say if you have "V-1s lost" there.

Perhaps more important than that is what the source says. Here, back in March 2007, is the table being added and here is the Irons ref being added. Now, that editor is no longer active but it's clear that when he added it, it said "aircraft". I am trying to get hold of the source, so I can check it myself. When I do, I will report back here. But pending that I think it needs to go back to "aircraft" as was intended and (presumably) is what the source said. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your action. Regarding the wording: the largest interpretation of aircraft includes both piloted aircraft and unpiloted winged flying weapons such as the V-1. I offer that we should work to remove the ambiguity based on what the source says, likely piloted aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. To be honest I'm not sure that there is that much ambiguity to remove, since you can't meaningfully say anything about V-1 losses in the Blitz. Having said that I suppose the recent edits are evidence that the potential for confusion is there in some form. Maybe from the source we can get something that helps nail it properly but for now perhaps some alternative form of words like "piloted aircraft", "crewed aircraft", "conventional aircraft" etc might help. Although I object slightly in principle to disambiguating something which I feel is already unambiguous, it might be worth it just to save future editors from having to defend this position again! So I suggest that one of has a go at editing it now, and once the source is available we can see if we can refine it. How does that sound? Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry about that, I'd missed where it was originally changed. 'Aircraft lost' is certainly the correct item! The only confusion is from me doing a sleepy revert, so no worries! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, thanks! Nevertheless I'll have my nasty grasping little hands on the book quite soon, I hope, and when I do I shall see if I can clarify it to maybe help out future editors. I don't think you should be apologizing - I think it's one of those things that's perfectly clear once it is clear, and can be clear as mud before you've "clicked" to the meaning. If we can maybe cut down future readers' and editors' click-time then that's a good result anyway! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Countermeasures
Anti-V-1 sorties by Allied aircraft were known as "Diver patrols" because of the tactic used. Wasn't it because the British code name for the a V1 was a 'diver'?


 * Quite correct - see here; Glossary of RAF code names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved to V-1 flying bomb per discussion. While we don't have a complete consensus, there seems to be agreement that removing the parentheses is an improvement. - GTBacchus(talk) 12:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

V-1 (flying bomb) → V-1 – No actual naming conflict. I think these are actually better known as buzz bombs no? I'll support either. Marcus  Qwertyus   07:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The addition of a hyphen doesn't really disambiguate it from other articles with V1 in the title. The term "buzz bomb" isn't actually that common, as far as I know (probably only military slang). Commonly called V-1s or flying bombs. The commonest term is probably flying bomb. But V-1 is widely known as well (one dropped on my grandmother's house and she used both terms, both widely known by British civilians during the war), so I think keeping it at the current title is the best option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even capitalization is considered sufficient disambiguation. Since V-1 primarily/only refers to the bomb just as F-16 primarily refers to the fighter so V-1 can be redirected here. However this would leave V-1 (flying bomb) as unnecessary disambiguation and so this step can be skipped entirely and V-1 (bomb) can be de-disambiguated. Marcus   Qwertyus   08:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that this is sufficient disambiguation, I'm afraid. Particularly since we might see the flying bomb written as V-1, V1, V 1 or V.1, depending on who's writing about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that would affect whether V-1 (bomb) was the primary topic for V-1 is if something else was also called V-1. Marcus   Qwertyus   14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of alphanumeric designations like this, the presence or absence of a hyphen is simply not a reason not to disambiguate. It's not a case of primary topic, but of unambiguous naming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it when V-1 (bomb) is the only topic with an article. The V.1, V-1, and V1 pages share a page because it is far better to centralize the terms. If one of the terms has primary topic then that term should redirect to the relevant article. To point users to the relevant disambiguation page, a hatnote is added to the primary topic article just like at F-16 Fighting Falcon. Marcus   Qwertyus   15:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't the only topic with an article. There are at least two more V1s at V1 with an article. That's the point. The hyphen doesn't make it unique, since most alphanumeric terms may or may not be written without a hyphen, depending on the writer. It quite possibly should be the primary topic, with the others at V1 (disambiguation), however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am no longer suggesting that V-1 (bomb) be moved to V-1. I am just saying that V-1 (not V1) should redirect to the weapon. Just as capitalization allows us to keep two articles with the same name (MAVEN vs Maven, Red meat vs Red Meat), hyphenation can also fulfill the requirements for disambiguation. Marcus   Qwertyus   15:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - V1 and V-1 and V.1 are considered equal (compare with U2). Comment: I believe this article might once have been at "V-1 flying bomb" which I would argue is a more common name than "V-1". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was moved in May 2010 by Bushranger. V-1, V-1, and V.1 may be considered the same for disambiguation pages but for differentiation purposes in titles they are not. Marcus   Qwertyus   09:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with GraemeLeggett. V-1 flying bomb is the best title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Nominator is correct, and we frequently have articles with completely different content whose titles differ by only capitalization, punctuation, diacritics, etc. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give examples, particularly where a primary topic is concerned?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said MAVEN vs Maven, Red meat vs Red Meat also canon vs. cañon (redirect to canyon). The relevant policy is WP:PRECISE (last paragraph) or some other obscure policy in the WP:disambiguation namespace. Marcus   Qwertyus   19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * MAVEN was moved from MAVEN (spacecraft) a couple of weeks ago, and by you. Canon is a disambiguation page and without looking it up I can't even type type ñ ("enye") into a search box. So I'm not convinced that those two examples are comparable to this instance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and the relevant capitalization policy is at Pages that differ by capitalization. This revision of the Article titles policy (although the author did not take care to make sure where the links actually targeted) makes it pretty clear that hyphens are acceptable forms of disambiguation. Marcus   Qwertyus   21:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A10 is a disambiguation page but A-10 redirects to Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. It is similar case here, especially if the name stays V-1 (flying bomb) or V-1 flying bomb. In any case, there is no need for V-1 to redirect to V1 as there is no ambiguity. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A-10 has bounced around back and forth over the years from a redirect to the plane to one to the disambiguation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are equivalent examples, like F16 versus F-16. I think the hatnote that says ""F-16" redirects here. For other uses, see F16." is the best way to handle the situation. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment as this was the first cruise missile, perhaps V-1 (cruise missile) would be better? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just (missile) is better as missile is as precise as it needs to be and it was also not technically a cruise missile. Marcus   Qwertyus   06:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a guided missile that uses aerodynamic sources to produce lift for extended flight, and is not a ballistic missile... so cruise missile. Several authoritative sources also call it the first cruise missile. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "cruise missile" was never applied to the V-1 in its day. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, being the first, they had no term for it at the time. That doesn't mean it isn't one. Just as early landmines were called torpedoes doesn't mean they aren't landmines. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Missiles are guided weapons. (rocket) would be good except rockets must be powered by a rocket motor. Military parlance is strange. Marcus   Qwertyus   05:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the part of the article that says "guidance system". 65.94.47.63 (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A pendulum and a simple gyroscope do not constitute a 'guidance system' in the same sense that a modern missile is guided. At the time it was considered a flying bomb both by the people that launched it and by the people it dropped on. To rename it a cruise missile would be an utter nonsense. At the very most all that is warranted is a passing mention within the article that it could be considered a crude historical forerunner to modern cruise missiles. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 11:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could say the same thing about two-element optics of primitive telescopic sights, versus motion stabilized 21-element optics; or you could say that a WWI biplane is not a real plane either, in comparison to a modern F-22. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to V-1 flying bomb. The parentheses are not needed in this case. The term "cruise missile" is anachronistic for this weapon. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that based on COMMONNAME, rather than the use of parentheses in disambiguation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. I acknowledge that there are other common names, but I think one of them should be used in addition to just V-1. The following sources use the common name "V-1 flying bomb": Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the original Fieseler Fi 103 redirect page it went to 'V-1 flying bomb'. That is by far the most common name but we deal with aircraft types by naming them by manufacturer and type (Fieseler Fi 103 in this case). To put a stick in the works I think it should be at Fieseler Fi 103 with 'V-1 flying bomb' with all variations of that redirecting to it (making sure that it's mentioned clearly in the lead). The hatnotes could go as there would be no confusion. Nimbus  (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That suggestion is reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Using Fieseler Fi 103 is sensible, it just needs an WP:IAR to override WP:COMMONNAME. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Next to nobody has heard of Fieseler. Stick to V1 or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Move to V-1 with a hatnote that says something like "This article is about the flying bomb. For other uses see V1." The title V-1 is precise and the hatnote disambiguates.  Rejectwater (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * V-1 flying bomb is acceptable- we should at the very least remove the parentheses. Rejectwater (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * Not to whale on the horse carcass, but "V-1 flying bomb" is a-bomb-able (bad-dum-tish) to my eyes. "flying bomb" wasn't part of the name, it's a disambiguation - V-1 (flying bomb) was, IMHO, much better than V-1 flying bomb. however, I would really think just plain old V-1 would be the much preferred title - the only other "V-1" with the dash is Vultee V-1, not a disambiguation problem... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Colloquially known in Britain
"and Buzz Bomb, also colloquially known in Britain as the Doodlebug" What makes "Buzz Bomb" any less colloquial than Doodlebug? Dispute the the statement of "colloquially" doodlebug has been used as the title of books on the subject as a Google book search shows:
 * The doodlebugs: the story of the flying-bombs, by Norman Longmate - 1981
 * Bombs, Stinging Nettles and Doodlebugs, Maurice Goymer - 2006
 * Air-launched doodlebugs: the forgotten campaign, by Peter J. C. Smith - 2006
 * V-1 Flying Bomb 1942-52: Hitler's Infamous "doodlebug", Steven Zaloga - 2011

I suggest just dropping the comment "also colloquially known in Britain as the" and so the sentence would be ",Buzz Bomb or Doodlebug". -- PBS (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to put in a new section header (now done). I am not referring to the title of the article but to the wording in first sentence in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest a Section 2-3. There should be a section discussing the warhead, capacity, and the potential for damage infliction. The current text describes the delivery system but not the bomb itself, potential damage area, or most notable strikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangverse (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Manned V-1
In the late 1960s, Shuttleworth had a V-1 on display that included a seat for a pilot. I was told that this was a later version of the device, and that the seat was so that a pilot could fly it to where it should be set off; he could start the device decending and then get out and use a parachute to get to the ground safely.

I think that it had a later designation than V-1, but it's a long time ago. I can find no mention of it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllStretton (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Fieseler Fi 103R Reichenberg is what you are looking for. I remember the V1 parked outside at the Shuttleworth Collection, it was a replica made for the Operation Crossbow film. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Too anglocentric
Given the numbers of V-1's fired at Antwerp (among other places), the article seems to me to be far too anglocentric.--172.190.10.226 (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, they only got fired at Antwerp through an accident of history. They were developed for the sole purpose of gaining some sort of revenge for the British bombing of German cities. That's why they were called 'Vergeltungswaffe', and why they - the V-1, V-2 and V-3 - were all developed for attacking London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

V-1 flying bomb → V-1 (missile) – "V-1 flying bomb" is not the actual name of the subject of the article (that would be "Fiesler Fi 103" or "V-1" depending on who was referring to it), and it is, I don't believe, the WP:COMMONNAME either - that would likely be "Doodlebug" for early sources, then "Buzz Bomb", and then simply "V-1". Checking Google Books gives the following, bearing in mind that some are Wikimirrors and others adding a descriptor, rather than a name:


 * "V-1 flying bomb": 2,470 gBooks hits, 107,000 ghits.


 * "V-1"+"flying bomb": 6,400 gBooks hits, 130,000 ghits.


 * "V-1 buzz bomb": 4,240 gBooks hits, 282,000 ghits.


 * "V-1"+"buzz bomb": 2,940 gBooks hits, 44,300 ghits.


 * "V-1 Doodlebug": 111 gBooks hits, 147,000 ghits.


 * "V-1"+"Doodlebug": 2,370 gBooks hits, 56,900 ghits.


 * "V-1 cruise missile": 434 gBooks hits, 96,400 ghits.


 * "V-1"+"cruise missile": 4,050 gBooks hits, 57,400 ghits.


 * "V-1"+"missile"+"Germany": 17,000 gBooks hits, 587,000 ghits.

So it's clear from the above that the current title is not clearly the WP:COMMONNAME as was argued in the RM that resulted in it being moved to that title. If it's an insufficently WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to be simply at V-1 (which seems to be agreed above), V-1 (cruise missile) would be accurate but also somewhat anachronistic; V-1 (missile) seems to be the most commonly used term; it would also fit the MOS standards for disambiguation pages, WP:NCDAB, and WP:RND. The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * V1 flying bomb and doodlebug are the two most used terms used in the country this weapon was used on. It has been moved already hasn't it? As long as redirects are in place it doesn't really matter, I would prefer to see it named like all the other weapons, MDN (Fieseler Fi 103) for project standardisation and stability. Google doesn't replace known historic colloquial use. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Prefer V-1 buzz bomb, alternately Fieseler Fi 103 or V-1 (cruise missile) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment in any case, these redlink titles from this 2013 move request and the 2011 move request should exist as redirects -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternate disambiguations should not be redirects, only commonly used names. Buzz bomb is a redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose – why not look at the hits for "V-1 missile"? "V-1 buzz bomb" would be a plausible alternative, but "V-1 flying bomb" seems OK.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - current title is doing the job fine and avoiding parenthetical disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Sorry, but I'm not keen on those google searches. Most books and pages likely deal with V-2s as well, which explains the massive use of the word missile. Try doing the searches but with V-2 removed and the results are significantly different. V-1 flying bomb is by far the most common name in Britain (the second most relevant country for this subject after Germany) and also the most descriptive. 'Flying bomb' immediately explains what the V-1 is, which doodlebug and buzz bomb fail to do. Ranger Steve   Talk  09:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Who on earth calls it a missile? It's always called a flying bomb. This is effectively revisionism, using a term that just wasn't used at the time and still isn't for this particular item. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per common usage. Example such as Osprey Publishing's New Vanguard No. 106 V-1 Flying bomb 1942-1945 (subtitled Hitler’s infamous "doodlebug") GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cite unbiased sources
"22,892 casualties (almost entirely civilians)." .....fact? Sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.188.89 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a general rule we don't cite sources in the lead when they are cited in the body of the article. Having said that, the source cited lower down the article (which is itself perhaps a little weak) makes it a UK total of 24,165 which seems to give the lie to the 22,892 to which you refer and which does not appear to be UK-specific. In the light of that, I'm taking that sentence out until someone can produce something better. So, thank you for your point: that said, it would be even better if it came with a suggestion for improvement rather than just a somewhat unspecific complaint ... makes me work too hard! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:APPENDIX
From the edit history
 * 16:57, 21 January 2014‎ Nimbus227 (Undid revision 591710291 by PBS (talk) Unexplained change to established style (see WP:APPENDIX)

It was not an unexplained change to an established style, as the style is neither established in this article or condoned in WP:APPENDIX: "Citations" may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; 'Bibliography' may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography". At the moment inside the References section there are notes that are neither long or short citations. -- PBS (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

When I cleaned up the citation with this series edits I change the names of the sections to avoid the complications mentioned above. Those changes were altered with this edit which was not a cleanup. -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just checked that the changes you made and both versions look fine to me, but I must say, Homonyms exsist, deal with it. There is no way "'Citations' may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; 'Bibliography' may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography" in this context. Both versions (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V-1_flying_bomb&oldid=591710291, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V-1_flying_bomb&oldid=590019764) are readable. It seems like change for changes sake which in my opinion is bad. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite, WP:APPENDIX is clear that there is no fixed or compulsory style. The edit was unexplained as it was red-linked to a guideline with no pointer to the relevant part of it (which there isn't anyway), the screenshot image there is just an example, not the style to be followed. We have had a spate of editors doing this across the aircraft project and it has been thrashed to death. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So what is the advantage of your preferred version which uses Biography for things other than books (which makes it a confusing name) and embeds notes into a references section, when both can be clean up by using separate [Foot]notes and References? -- PBS (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't need to be an advantage per se, styles vary across Wikipedia and in some areas a consistent style has built up. If the style is acceptable under Wikipedia-wide policy and guidelines, then there is no problem with leaving it alone. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "some areas a consistent style has built up" most articles overlap many areas (if such a thing as an area exists (the mind tends to order patterns even when none exist -- see Martian canals). What is the point of using a style in this article which has clear errors and can cause confusion when another "style" can be used which is the example style used in both Cite and Footnotes? -- PBS (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because not everyone agrees that there are "clear errors" or any "confusion" whatsoever. And I don't see how martian canals are relevant to "the area of articles that are about aircraft". - The Bushranger One ping only 08:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The clear error structuring the appendix in such a way that note which are not references come under a section called references. The confusion is using the term Bibliography which can be taken to mean that only books can be place in there (which implies that the reflist should contain long citations for media other than books) this then brings in inconsistency with the use of long and short citation styles. -- PBS (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

definition lists
I fixed the false  markup per Help:List. The semicolon markup should only be paired with a colon when used to create definition lists. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti Aircraft Defence
It is worth pointing out that anti aircraft defence against flying bombs was easier than against manned aircraft. Flying bombs followed a fixed course at a fixed height, so observers with the right equipment could determine the bearing and height and telephone the data to anti aircraft batteries further north. I understand that anti aircraft guns were positioned on the cliffs overlooking the English Channel, and could see the flying bombs approaching. The approximate speed was known, and anti aircraft batteries would learn by experience when to fire rounds into the path of the flying bomb. DavidJErskine (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The factor that did the most to make the V-1 ineffective was the introduction of the proximity fuze and the movement of almost the entire London anti-aircraft gun force down to the south east coast on the orders of Frederick Pile, where they had a free hand to shoot at the intruders without the risk of shooting down Allied fighters. These fighters where then able to be used as 'back stops' inland for any doodlebugs that got through the AA 'Diver belt' coastal defences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I accept the importance of the proximity fuze, but an anti aircraft round fitted with a proximity fuze still has to pass close to the target. My point is that firing at a V1 with known height and speed, and an unvarying course, allows anti aircraft fire to be accurate. This combination of accuracy and proximity fuzes was devastating for flying bombs. DavidJErskine (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The V-1 was much smaller than any manned combat aircraft and very, very fast - aside from the Meteor Mk.3, nearly everything else flying had to dive at full power to build up a similar speed and the number of aircraft that could be used to intercept it was very small with late mark Spitfires, Meteors, Tempests and Mustangs being pretty much it for operational aircraft. This reduces the already narrow window during which an AA battery would have a chance of getting a hit regardless of size, and being a much smaller target than normal, it would have been even harder to hit, and ground based AA fire is notoriously poor at achieving hits to begin with. Having a good warning network, as many AA batteries as possible (increasing the chances one of them would get a hit), and proximity fuses (increasing the chance of any single shell causing damage), combined with the V-1s flying straight and steady would all have been factors in making it possible to down even as many as they did. Take any one element out and the kill rate would have dropped a lot. There is another factor in the AA being sited where they were - namely that everything that goes up, must come down, and if the AA is being fired in a rural area, there will be a lot less property damage. Every raid in which AA fire is used, results in significant damage from the AA shells and fragments returning to the ground, in addition to the damage from the bombs.NiD.29 (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Engine quenched--what is that?
What does this mean, exactly?

"It could be seen that the aerodynamic flip method was actually effective when V-1s could be seen over southern parts of the Netherlands headed due eastwards at low altitude, the engine quenched. In early 1945 such a missile soared below clouds over Tilburg to gently alight eastwards of the city in open fields."

Is the first part saying that flipping the V-1s stalled the engine on the V-1? And is the second part saying that on one occasion a "quenched" V-1 landed instead of stalling and falling to earth hard enough to detonate its charge?

And of the ~9,000 V-1s did they only manage to "flip" sixteen of them?? Fotoguzzi (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding why flipping the V-1s 1) "quenches" the engine, and 2) apparently, by the Tilburg example, disables the arming mechanism. I suppose the answer to 2) is that upsetting the gyrocompass also upset the sequence of events required to arm the warhead. If so, perhaps that can be stated. Fotoguzzi (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Another possible interpretation is that upsetting the gyros disrupted the arming sequence and the V-1 flew along until it expended its fuel and then glided to earth. That seems different than "quenching," but perhaps that is what is meant.Fotoguzzi (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe the fuel system relied on a carburetor type float that could be disturbed if the V-1 was tipped off the horizontal - choking off the fuel supply? Just a guess. Can the statement be traced to a source that might be more illuminating? I was under the impression that the V-1 tipping simply messed up the control gyros, and that the engine ran until the timer shut it off. NiD.29 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fuel system relied on gas pressurisation of the tank and the fuel outlet was fixed at the lower rear of the tank. So if fuel slopped to the front of the tank and exposed the outlet, the supply ran dry. When it entered the final dive, this is what cut off the fuel supply and thus the engine. A similar thing happened if it was upset. The engine, BTW, couldn't re-start, even at full airspeed – at launch there was an externally supplied acetylene burner and electric spark for ignition.
 * Mostly though the tipping attack upset the gyro and put the airframe into a stall and spin. I'm not sure if the gyro tumbled as such (they probably did, and this is what's usually reported) as the effect of the attack was really to put the aircraft into an unrecoverable attitude. It was only a very simple control system.
 * A difficulty with cannon attack was that the warhead and certainly the fuel tank and pressure bottles were likely to explode – so pilots were reluctant to do this with the unavoidable tail-chase attacks. A problem with tipping is that the warhead fuze was still armed and it would explode on a crash landing just as well as it was intended to (although making a smaller, deeper crater as the V-2 did). It's obvious which one pilots would choose, if they could fly it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Page move
This is the earliest generation cruise missile, so page should be moved to V-1 (missile)--Arado (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The common name used for this device by academics and scientists, at the time and since, is V-1 flying bomb. Parenthetical disambiguation is only called for in article titles when needed to avoid a high probability of confusion with one or more other articles with the same or nearly the same name.  With what other article could this article be confused based on its title?   Dwpaul   Talk   19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, see the same proposal just above, which was soundly rejected. What has changed since 2013?  Dwpaul   Talk   19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * oppose as above for common name. Also it's not the first cruise missile. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I see little distinction between the concept of a flying bomb (a self propelled missile)) and a cruising missile (a self propelled bomb). The main difference is in the wording that was chosen at various times.  GregKaye 10:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds of Commonname. What is new for this suggestion to change previous concensus?GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Commonname. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Commonname and IIABDFI per just above. DBaK (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – see last RM discussion above; same reason. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Dates
There is a contradiction in the text. The intro says that no V1s reached the UK after October 1944, but later in the article it says that one fell in Datchworth, Herts., on 29 March 1945. This latter event is recorded elsewhere (as are two others that day, at Swanscombe and Orfordness), so I imagine the information in the introduction is simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.207.40 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on V-1 flying bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928191415/http://coalhousefort-gallery.com/V1-flying-bomb-Vengance-weapon-site-Hazebrouck to http://coalhousefort-gallery.com/V1-flying-bomb-Vengance-weapon-site-Hazebrouck

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Operation 'Martha'

 * "For example, during Operation "Martha", KG 3's He 111H-22s fired 45 V-1s at Britain in a single concerted strike on Christmas Eve 1944, with just one missile getting through to hit a target."

According to The Last Year of the Luftwaffe: May 1944 to May 1945 by Dr Alfred Price, during Operation 'Martha' "some fifty Heinkels fired their missiles", "thirty flying bombs crossing the coast", and "Eleven bombs came down within fifteen miles of the centre of Manchester, but only one impacted within the city limits." While you can justifiably say that only one V-1 hit the target, the quote from the article implies that this is an example of "increasingly effective defence tactics" when it seems to me that the V-1 just wasn't a particularly reliable or accurate weapon. This strike was air-launched, against a new target, presumably smaller than London, and 11 of 50+ bombs managed to hit within 15 miles of the target. If you include those "near misses", this strike was approximately 20% successful at reaching its destination, which is near the success rate of the entire V-1 campaign against London. In fact, according to the same source above, this strike "forced the redeployment of anti-aircraft guns from the south of England, to provide continuous cover of the east coast", which would make this a particularly poor example of "effective defence tactics", since at least one part of the defence wasn't actually in place to counter this attack. I will remove this misleading example from the article, pending review. --74.136.159.24 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Volkswagen - not mention
The VW article on the English Wikipedia mentions that they manufactured the V-1 in Fallersleben, Wolfsburg. Should this not be added to this article - I can't find any mention of where it was manufactured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group#1937_to_1945 86.161.48.63 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the pulsejet had been continued with :: imagine the noise at a modern airport where all the airliners are pulsejet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Launch mechanism
The article says the V1 was "catapaulted," in a manner similar to aircraft carrier launches. I've read this in other publications, as well as in David Irving's comprehensive book about the German rocket effort "The Mare's Nest." However, every film clip on the internet which shows a V1 being launched clearly shows what looks like a spent rocket canister falling off the V1 right after launch. Since the fuel for the rail launching mechanism was hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate, hypergolic fuels similar to those used in the Me 163 rocket fighter, I suspect that the V1 was not catapaulted, but rather used a rocket-assisted launch, discarding the spent canister after launch. I've not been able to confirm this anywhere. Has anybody found documentation of the specific launch mechanism for the V1, other than secondary sources? Any German engineering drawings, launch specifications, etc.?74.178.173.15 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that what you are seeing falling off after launch is the piston from the steam catapult as shown in this photo. The explanation could do with clarifying. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    17:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on V-1 flying bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210045539/http://www.verzet.org/content/view/419/29/1/6/ to http://www.verzet.org/content/view/419/29/1/6/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430081034/http://www.planesoffame.org/airshows/2009/schedule.php to http://www.planesoffame.org/airshows/2009/schedule.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on V-1 flying bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090811141942/http://www.ballofdirt.com/entries/19861/272421.html to http://www.ballofdirt.com/entries/19861/272421.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Effects on Morale
There is almost no mention about the effects it had on the civilian population except for a passing mention of their nickname and a sentence in the "assessment" section. How did the people feel? How did they cope? Viciouspiggy (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Theer should be something, & I'm sure there are sources. My late mother, who lived in Sarf London during the war, said they were particularly unnerving because of the interval between the engine cutting out & the explosion.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

There was no effect on morale. The first doodlebugs only arrived a week after D-Day, when everyone knew the war was won, and people had been through far worse in the Blitz of 1940-41. Those who had somewhere to go and stay outside London went and stayed there. Those who remained got used to taking cover when they heard that nasty 'motorcycle running rough' noise cut out, which meant the 'robot' was beginning its dive. About 5,500 Londoners were killed by 9,000 V-1 launches, which was not a very good return for the enemy's investment in the project. Although the V-1 diverted Allied bomber forces into attacking the Pas de Calais launch sites, and then Allied fighter forces into shooting the things down over Kent and Sussex, the Allies had such vast reserves of air power that it didn't really matter. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No offence, but that is a ridiculously callous and blasé comment. There is no doubt that they had an effect on morale.  The effect may not have been great, but there would have been an effect.  Boscaswell   talk  09:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It depends what you think morale is, and whether you've spent much time speaking to people who lived through that summer. Or you can, of course, consult Richard Overy, The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945, Penguin, London, 2014, ISBN 978-0-141-00321-4, pp.192-3, where Professor Overy tries to find all the evidence for the morale effect of the V-1 offensive. And it's pretty thin. In fact Professor Overy has to scrape the barrel a bit. One government report, 'Flying Bomb Attack on London' by the Regional Information Office (whatever that was) on 12 July 1944, when the flying bombs were still quite new and unfamiliar, said, 'The incongruous effect was a greater disturbance of morale by a form of attack that caused fewer casualties.' But this simply refers to the unnerving novelty of the V-1, its uncanniness as a mindless robot, and the fact that the missiles arrived all day and all night at irregular intervals. Of course people did not like that, but morale in wartime is a matter of determination; it does not mean everyone is cheery and chipper and whistling a happy tune.


 * Overy goes on to cite a Ministry of Information report, 'Effect of the Flying Bomb on Industrial Workers,' and says, 'Local firms in London reported a rise in absenteeism and evidence of fatigue, which it was claimed "undermined the tonic effect of D-Day." In one company in Battersea, an area in the path of the new weapon, morale was thought to be "at the lowest in the history of this war", with 50 per cent decline in production.' That's the only thing resembling a fact that Professor Overy gives us, and, as we don't know how big this Battersea firm was, or what it actually did, or over what period a '50 per cent decline in production' was claimed, or who claimed it, or what the actual figures were, it doesn't mean anything. At all. (By comparison, a major BMW aero-engine plant in Germany really did lose half its planned 1944 production due to absenteeism caused by Allied bombing. Bit more serious, that.) People like to grumble, and Whitehall warriors (as they were called at the time) liked to make their reports sound consequential, so as to make their own jobs sound consequential. It is significant that Overy does not cite any government figures showing any appreciable drop in output. Because as far as we know there aren't any. Because there was no significant effect on morale. And bombing can cause absenteeism for reasons other than morale: notably disruption of transport and damage to housing. If people are busy finding alternative accommodation, salvaging belongings or tidying a damaged house so that builders can carry out repairs, there's going to be absenteeism. Overy goes on, citing a British Institute of Public Opinion survey in the third week of August 1944 (only a week before the main V-1 offensive ended as our troops overran the ski-sites in the Pas de Calais), 'Opinion polls found that exactly half of respondents found the new bombs harder to bear than the Blitz.' This, of course, means that half of respondents, presumably the less thick half, didn't. A present threat will always tend to appear subjectively worse than a past threat, because a past threat can't kill you, but half of the Londoners surveyed were not that overawed by the novelty of the V-1 and were perfectly well aware that they'd got through worse.


 * If you want to know how bombing really did affect morale, which in Germany it very much did, you can consult Jorg Friedrich, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945, Columbia University Press, New York, 2006, ISBN 0-231-13380-4, pp.431-4: 'There were immediate outbursts of delirious joy in response to the Wehrmacht report of June 16, which announced attacks on southern England and London with an innovative explosive device... In early July the euphoria leveled off a little. The V1 needed some time to have an effect... After three weeks of V1 firing, nothing tangible had changed. Between July 11 and July 19 the US [Army] Air Force dropped more tonnage on Munich alone than the V1 did over England in three months. Bomber Command dropped roughly the same amount in four raids on Stuttgart and Brunswick... The blind optimism subsided; "what good is reprisal if the air war continues?" The housewife quoted by the SS put it well: "I expected more from it." ...In Duisburg the sirens never stopped wailing. "I lost the desire to live. The smut and the dirt covered everything and it was impossible to keep anything clean... Life was no longer beautiful." There was no time any more between the warning and the full alarm... People could not go to work any more because of their nerves. "Bunker-fever drove them into the run-down concrete dungeons"... "People were crying and praying. They said that we had to thank our Fuhrer for this."' There is no sign at all that anything remotely like that happened in London due to the V-1 offensive. People just grumbled a bit. In 1943 the government had feared panic in the face of German secret weapons, but by summer 1944 the Cabinet knew that this fear was unfounded. The V-1s (like the later V-2s) could not start large fires, the effect of each strike was highly localised and all in all, with a population hardened by five years of war, it amounted to 'business as usual.' Meanwhile, Friedrich notes (p.113): 'Most of the casualties of the reprisal weapons did not die from the weapons themselves but from their production. The pharaonic brutality of the slaveholders in the underground production sites in the southern Harz mountains worked roughly twenty thousand concentration camp prisoners and forced laborers to death.' The V-weapons did more harm to the Reich than they ever did to England.


 * Word to the wise: don't falsely accuse me of being callous or blase about the experience of my parents and their generation. I might take really quite serious exception to that. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)