Talk:V-2 rocket/Archive 1

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

Needs specification of length, gross weight, etc.

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

US launchers
All the US launcher are more or less descendant of the V-2. The jupiter-c is not a modified v-2 if you want to see what it looks like see http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/jupiter-c.htm Ericd
 * The Redstone rocket is a direct improvement on the A4/V-2, and was built by the same people who built the A4/V-2. The Russian next step was almost completely an indigineous development. Crusty007
 * The Redstone rocket is a direct improvement on the A4/V-2, and was built by the same people who built the A4/V-2. The Russian next step was almost completely an indigineous development. Crusty007

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Jupiter-C
"Jupiter-C, a direct descendant of the German A-4 (V-2) rocket..." is what the page says. It was also designed by the designer of the V-2...was it not a modified version? Chadloder 04:36 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
 * No the page doesn't say it was a modified version and the pictures show~s it wasn't a modified version.
 * The V-2 is a A-4 one stage of the Jupiter is a A-7 A-4 5 6 7, four generations

this is more than a modified version.
 * Ericd

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


 * In answer to 80.133.114.116's question above, the German site states Sehr viele Häftlinge, in der Mehrzahl Russen, Polen und Franzosen, überlebten die schweren Monate des Stollenausbaus nicht., so a better sentence would be: "The majority of the prisoners of war were Russian, Polish and French." However, the whole paragraph could be better:


 * V-2 mass production was conducted at the Mittelwerk tunnel system under the Kohnstein mountain, part of the Mittelbau-Dora slave labour camp complex, near Nordhausen, Germany. By late 1943 over 10,500 slaves were in Kohnstein and many died due to the conditions and heavy labour. For example, 2,900 died between October 1943 and March 1944, but others died during transfers and other work. The majority of the slaves were Russian, Polish and French, although there were also prisoners of war and Germans forced to compulsory work.

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

V-2 test launche picture, falls?
Hello I have a comment about the about the 3 picture in this article. In the comment under the picture we can read that it is a "US test Launch" I think that is not the holl story.

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

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

What do you think about the idea ?

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

Alternative pictures
There is an alternative picture of V2 rocket air & space museum

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

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


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

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

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


 * The Wehrmacht (Army) was in charge of Germany's rocketry program. Quicksilver 20:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ...and the Luftwaffe in charge of V-1 radek

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

Allied defenses against V2
From everything I read there were none. Unlike the V-1, for which the British used balloon barriers and the like they never developed any kind of defenses against the V-2. The most they could do is feed the Germans faulty intelligence as to where the rockets were hitting. Hence I think the sentence "Analysis of the captured equipment proved vital in improving the Allies anti-V-2 defenses." should be removed. radek


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

V2 engine in London Space museum
As far as I remember there's a V-2 engine and a complete V-2 on display at the Science Museum. Or is it only one in two parts ? Ericd 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Here it is, quick and dirty:

 Thanks to them, WW2 ended earlier...

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

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

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

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

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


 * It's from a Radio Audition and sort of heavy on Pathos. Also doesn't say that Roman was a Wermacht officer. I read about the Traeger's in Michal Wojewodzki's 'Akcja V-1, V-2' (Action V-1, V-2). I'm pretty sure Roman was an NCO in the Wermacht, not a scientist. Augustyn, the father might have been. I don't have the book with me right now so I can't double check though. radek 02:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the translation! My Polish is a bit rusty, you see... *Cough* :-) I took the liberty of readability-fixing the thing. If you or any others (Poles) feel like it, I guess a cursory article* on the Trägers could be made by rewriting the above in a more sober tone, and perhaps with some further info from the book you mention. We should probably get hold of definite information on the NCO/Wehrmacht issue before changing this article, though. --Wernher 10:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (* suggested name of article: Roman Träger; redirect also from Augustyn Träger, August Träger, Augustyn Sek-Träger, August Sek-Träger, and the corresponding Trager and Traeger variants for both men's names...)


 * Well, I took out the 'scientist' part as I'm pretty sure that's inaccurate (possibly it's confusing him with Antoni Kocjan). I've been wanting to do an article on the Tragers but the books with the relevant info are at my parents house far away, so it'd be from memory. Other than that it'll just have to wait.radek 08:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Unclear inf.
The lead says: "The V2 rocket became the first man-made object launched into space during test flights that reached an altitude of 189 km (620,000 ft)" But when was this achieved actually? Verifiable reference to a reliable source would be ideal. Cmapm 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is referenced - right there in the lead. To a book written by the military commander of rocket research station at Peenemunde, present at the launch, even. Also from our List of V-2 test launches: "V-4 October 3, 1942 58 190 P-VII Too steep, success (First rocket to reach outer space)" Rmhermen 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the date is provided in that reference? If yes, then can you provide respective exact citation from there on this talk page? Astronautix.com says on October 3 it reached 48 km altitude . As for 189 km launch Astronautix.com suggests it could take place somewhere in 1944 :
 * "Beginning of 1944. However during the war there were some vertical shots of the missile to test its stability and behaviour in a vacuum. On one such shot the missile reached 189 km altitude"
 * Cmapm 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I think 1944 is correct. However, you should have changed it to that instead of removing all mention of it. This immediately raises flags of historical revisionism. Rmhermen 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture caption
The "Frau im Mond" reference on the first picture seems like it should belong in a later trivia section instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.35.143 (talk • contribs).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Almost the entire paragraph containing that snippet is one huge quote, the tone of which is clearly unencyclopedic. Can you suggest a better way to word it? Does it really belong in the article at all? (sdsds - talk) 07:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The only relevant part of that paragraph is that it states that the V2 was a "last hope terror weapon" which is repeated later in the article. So I suppose it doesn’t belong in the article at all. Unless we are to add a section called "By the way Hitler was actually an asshole..." to any subject pertaining to World War 2, World War 2 contemporaries and all items/objects used during World War 2. Still I don't want to unilaterally remove parts from this page without more input. Bloody Sacha 6/13/2007


 * In my opinion, this whole section is unnecessarily prosy. Fine for an article in the New Yorker, but just plain weird in the middle of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.33.145 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ericd 15:50 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * The top altitude of the rocket was 80 km (50 mi). That is the thermosphere strictly speaking, but I don't know if there is a strict definition of what we mean by "space", some would probably say this is indeed space. --Nixdorf


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

(UTC)

V-2 in relation to V1
I assume the name V-2 is because it was a replacement for the V-1? Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, both because it seems a relevant piece of information and for historical context. I expect one of you lot will know better than me what the key information is. Harry R 23:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The V-2 was absolutely not a replacement for the V-1, these were complementary and totally different weapons developed by two different organizations but in the same geographical area. The numbers of the weapons were given, as you can read in the article, by the propaganda department and has little to do with any research order. Nixdorf 22:08, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * To put this into perspective, the V-1 was made partly of plywood and had an extremely simple engine that would essential fart a couple of dozen times a second. It would be launched from a simple ramp using solid rocket boosters. It's engine can be built by anyone in the world with even the simplest engineering degree. This engine also gave the V-1 it's nickname, because of the distinctive sound it made. Internal navigation consisted of a timer which would shutdown the engine at a predetermined time, hopefully somewhere over England. In contrast, the A4/V-2 was an extremely big,liquid fuel rocket, with an internal navigation system consisting of gyroscopes which basically had to be invented for the thing, a fuel pump and injection system which had to be invented for the thing, a ignition system which had never been done before, supercooled cryogenic fuels, hypergolic fuels, radio-guidance controls, high-temperature graphite rudder controls, the biggest combustion chamber in existence, etc etc. The difference is immense.Crusty007


 * More to the point, the V-1 was a Cruise missle, whereas the V-2 was a Ballistic missle. The V-1 used what is called a Pulse jet engine, and thus was NOT a ''Rocket at all. One of today's versions of the V-1 is the Exocet Missle, which is ineed a Rocket, but is operationally identical with the V-1-SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Just as a heads up, please sign your comments with four tildes (~), and there is no need to comment on your edits. Thank you. Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

A-4? V-2? I'm confused
The article goes from discussing one rocket to another. I could guess one is the production model of the other, but the article never comes out and says that. -- Kendrick7talk 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The A4 is the V-2. It's just that they are both different ways of calling the rocket.


 * Yes, basically there are two names for the same device, but they are quite different concerning origin and connotation. Since the beginning in 1938 (concept and construction) until nowadays this device is simply called by its technical term "Aggegat 4", often abbreviated as "A4"  ("A-4" seems to be weakly veryfied anyway). Much later (October 1944) "Aggegat" was partly replaced by the questionable propaganda-term "Vergeltungswaffe" or "V-Waffe",  which was introduced by a certain Mr. Joseph Goebbels.


 * As I see it, there are hardly any problems using the technical term "A4", when dealing with technical aspects of the device. In serious publications you won´t see "V-2" or V2" very often. But when you talk about the later military (ab)use of the rocket, you sometimes may find "Vergeltungswaffe" more appropriate, e.g. "V2-raid on Antwerp". -- Wasabi (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Potato
In one section of the article, it says that one V-2 requires 30 tons of potatoes. Is this vandalism or a fact. If it is a fact, maybe someone could tell more about it in the article. Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

V-2 used ethanol and this fuel was produced, from potatoes.Agre22 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

Oh, okay. Thanks for pointing that out. Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

References for Operational History section
Aside from Norwich, none of the target locations/numbers are referenced. I'm looking specifically for further information about the rocket that fell on Ipswich. Could anyone help out? 86.140.212.31 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

circular linking issue
Currently the countermeasures section of this article has the Operation Crossbow article as a main link. on the Operation Crossbow article the V-2countermeasures section has this article as the main link. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"first ballistic missile" statement should be clarified
The article states that the V2 was the first ballistic missile, where it should probably read "first rocket powered ballistic missile".

Technically a thrown rock is a ballistic missile, and certainly predates the V2. a ballistic missile is any object which flies through the air along a ballistic arc: the arc described by an unguided object such as the bolt fired by a roman Ballista, or siege crossbow.

I felt it better to get any responses before editing the article, and also to explain why I felt teh change was needed.


 * Yes, clarification of "rocket powered" is needed, but the Chinese had rocket weapons centuries earlier. Perhaps a link to sub-orbital spaceflight is required. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And Russian Katyusha rocket launcher also was before V series.--MathFacts (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Layout Problem
The "V-2 Radio Control" box overlaps part of the main text. Looks messy. Can someone fix this. I don't know how. 86.134.229.14 (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

drivel
Farley Mowatt is a lying windbag and whatever stupid story he made up doesnt belong in a supposedly serious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.105.44 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Error in technical Section of V-2 article
It says: "The rocket reached a height of 80 km (50 mi) before shutting off the engine.[20]" I'm pretty sure that in reality: "The rocket reached a height of 80 km (50 mi) after shutting off the engine.[20]

The nature of a ballistic trajectory to maximum range means that the rocket continues to rise after engine shutdown. After all, the rocket is travelling at approx 1,600 m/s (5,200 ft/s) that's nearly a mile a second. And much of that velocity is up!

This is first ever edit (woo!) so please be gentle with me. I hope it doesn't make the original reference ([20]) meaningless.

81.147.41.161 (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right. The [20] reference isn't online and isn't much help. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Targetting
There is no real explanation of how the weapon was targetted. It had no internal guidance in the modern sense as it was ballistic. Can someone more knowledgable than me (that will be all of you!) add something please? PointOfPresence (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In the technical details section the article mentions that the missile was gyroscopically controlled. MustaphaMond (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Worker Deaths
I don't see why these statistics should be in the lede to the article. They just seem extraneous to concise version of the article. Perhaps it should be mentioned that forced labor was used to construct them, but statistics themselves seem superfluous. MustaphaMond (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The real reason for concrete sites
Hitler loved grandiose projects particularly if they involved lots of concrete. The various officers and industrialists around him were perfectly well aware of this and regularly fed him grandiose ideas.

There was a story from Germany a number of years ago, that if anybody could get themselves involved in a grandiose plan that had the Fuehrers particular interest it was possible to avoid service on the deadly Russian Front.

These various massive concrete structures were of little real use for launching V2 rockets, the mobile stands were far more useful, but a massive construction with lots of concrete would ensure a degree of safety, well away from Russia for the builders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Production deaths - all or conventional weapons?
Hi. No offence meant but I reverted this change not because I think it is necessarily wrong - indeed, I really don't know - but because it seems quite a big change to make without discussion, since the word "conventional" in effect makes a statement about other deaths. Do we have a reference to support this? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

First use
Some sources claim the V-2 was launched against Paris on Sep 6, and first launched against London on Sep 8. The article says Paris was targeted on the 8th, which might be a mix-up. DonPMitchell (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How many V2s launched against the UK?
Hi. In this article, under "Operational history", we show 1,402 V2s launched against the UK. However, in the articles Vergeltungswaffe and The Blitz we show 1,115, which is from an Imperial War Museum source here. Indeed, someone's even left a comment in The Blitz to this effect, that they're using the IWM figures because they are verifiable. I'm not sure how to deal with this here, as changing it would clearly mess up the total derived from the cities attacked - but does it also have a verifiable source?? (Or am I perhaps missing the point entirely, in which case please enlighten me!) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

- This section under 'operational history' seems to cite David Irving's work as the means by which this total was arrived at. I'm pretty sure a better source needs to be found for this - as Irving's wiki page notes; "Irving's reputation as an historian was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 1996. The court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism,"  and that he had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."" So yeah, someone who knows more about editing wikipedia than me might want to give this bit a clean up and find some more reputable sources.86.180.187.203 (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Goddard and von Braun
Comments about Goddard's influence on the V-2 cites another wikipedia article, which in turn is not well written or cited. There was undoubtedly great interest in Goddard's work (the Germans spied on him), but the comments in the article are not well researched. DonPMitchell (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding that a substantial source of Goddard's work was obtained by sending 10 cents to the US patent office for a copy of his patent. This was the answer to the question posed to the German scientist after the war. DaleDe (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph
"In 1919, the Smithsonian Institution published Robert Goddard's groundbreaking work, A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes.[8] The report describes Goddard's mathematical theories of rocket flight, including his experiments with solid-fuel rockets.[8]  Along with Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's earlier work, The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices  (1903), Goddard's work influenced subsequent pioneers, Hermann Oberth and Sergey Korolev.[8]"

This has no relevance to the topic whatsoever. Goddard's work is a theoretical analysis, not a "How to build a WMD". This is as if the article about the Airbus A380 started with "In 18XX, the Royal British society published George Cayley's groundbreaking work ...".

If I don't get any objections, I will delete the paragraph same time next week.

Cheers --130.149.43.171 (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It has some relevance, but I agree that this article isn't the history of rocketry, just the V2. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Baxter
Raymod Baxter did not say HE fired at a V2 as it launched. He said his 'wingman' did! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.68 (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 not moved: speedy close, as current vote is 12:0. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

V-2 → V—2 &mdash; Should use dash, per standards. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Exactly what part of the relevant guideline indicates any sort of dash should be used in this case? Certainly not an — (emdash), which is what the move proposes, and I see no reason to use an – (endash) in this situation either. older ≠ wiser 17:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree that it would be interesting to see what standards motivated this request, but such appallingly ugly formatting can't possibly be good and is most unlikely to be common, so under WP:IAR we should reject the proposed move. If we can find out what the standards in question are, they may need some clarification. Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/query: I had a look at WP:HYPHEN but don't quite see what refers here - can anyone please enlighten me a bit? Thanks! DBaK (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No standard that I know of suggests that it should be an emdash. Link the one you think applies?( Hohum  @ ) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The hyphen seems correct. An emdash is most certainly not. PC78 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Hyphen is correct. Ucucha 02:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose all these things use hyphens. This is not a word, it is a code. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For one thing, how is the person looking for the article supposed to type the elongated dash? (True, there would be a redirect, but we'd like to have the user go directly to the article when possible). Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Herostratus. WikiCopter (radio • sorties •  images •  shot down) 05:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Emdashes are used on Wikipedia solely to indicate interruptions in a sentence (see MOS:DASH). There is no basis for their use as a replacement for a hyphen in a compound name. EyeSerene talk 09:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The hyphen is correct for thses types of designations. - BilCat (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per use of hyphen. Is this a case for "snowball clause" closure of discussion? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per all the above. I think we might be able to close this soon... Ranger Steve   Talk  10:33, 4 October 2010 (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.

30 tons of potatoes
Hi, I don't know how to edit Wikipedia at all, but I saw in the page somewhere that it claimed that the V-2 used 30 tons of potatoes. This doesn't seem correct, so can someone please revert it to whatever it was before... or just delete it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by174.252.131.182 (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Interesting point but actually the information cited does back it up so I have not removed it, but just tried to clarify it a bit using the reference. Note how immediately after the end of the sentence there's a reference number (40 as I write but that could change at any time). Click the number and it takes you to that particular reference at the end of the article; click the reference (if it's linked) and there's the source. This explains that, bizarre though it sounds, the Germans really were distilling fuel alcohol out of spuds, and that it took 30 tons to launch one missile. I mean blimey. (Personally I would have sued for peace and made chips to go with my currywurst, but sadly they did not consult me.) Hope this helps a bit, best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy
I've removed this claim (which is made twice): "with V-2s sometimes landing within meters of their target" as it is not supported by the source. The comment is in a webmasters addition (whatever that might mean in this context) not the text of the article referenced, which states "When launched against targets close to the operational range of the vehicle, the deviation between target and impact was normally 4 to 11 miles (7-17 km away from target). This made the rocket only suitable for use against widely populated areas". It goes on to say "At shorter targeting ranges, the accuracy of the A4 was improved" and that "The Leitstrahl-device was a "guiding beam" that improved accuracy of the A4 somewhat during the later days of the campaign. Less than one quarter of all A4 rockets were guided with the Leitstrahlstellung". (My italics). And the devastating hit on the New Cross Woolworths can only be described as "Accurate targetting" if the Woolies was the actual aiming point; otherwise it was just a lucky (or, depending on your viewpoint, unlucky) hit.Xyl 54 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A4 is the real name
I propose to move this article to A4 or A4 (rocket) (which exists already as redirect) because this is the official name that was given to the device and that was used in the vast majority of references to it. See also the german Wikipedia: de:A4_(Rakete) --Edoe (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Article titles fall under the article titles policy including its subsection, Common names. In general articles should not be converted to official names if another term is more common, and hence most people will search for what they want using that term. It's only a guess but I would say V-2 is by FAR the most often used designation of the rocket. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * V-2 is the overwhelmingly more commonly used name. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also oppose this move. It is already at the common name and explains that the official name was A4. No action needs to be taken on this. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. V-2 is the English-speaking world's name for the rocket. Nobody is missing out on getting to the article if they type in A4 (rocket) or even A4, where they can find this article listed among others. The redirects take care of the notional problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: V-2 is the common name in English; and an A4 is a steam locomotive (or a size of paper, or a road in Wiltshire....) Xyl 54 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose V-2 is the common name. Bidgee (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Solid propellant
In the paragraph covering the re-starting of the A4 programme it refers to a large liquid fuelled engine as being an essential precursor to the development of the V2. The article does not hint why, and the reference given seems not to cover the point. I am aware that the specific impulse of a liquid propellant is greater that that for solid propellant, but for the launch phase of a missile this seems immaterial. Also control was excercised by simply stopping the engine, not any complex throttling which would demand liquid propellant. As with the space shuttle, when a solid booster has done it's thing it is simply dropped - to the same effect as turning fuel off except that the V2re-entry vehicle would have consisted only of the warhead when the engine(s) were no longer attatched.

Was the technology of a solid device of this size beyond German technologists at the time? Bearing in mind that all production weapon ballistic rockets until A4/V2 had used solid propellant why was there this massive step forward in engineering complexity required? I note with interest that the USA has relied more and more on solids for launch thrust of big vehicles ever since Titan 3. Since the type of fuel seems to lie at the heart of the V2 programme, with the inherent complexity leading to significant delays and failures it is of interest why liquid fuel was considered a given.

Drg40 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert, but my belief is that with solid propellant, you can't switch it off - you have to let it burn out. This is probably incompatible with variable atmospheric conditions and target ranges. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Like the Space shuttle, you just let go when you've had enough. But, there must be something here I'm missing, for if were that simple why not separate the warhead from the A4/V2 instead of building "trousers" to protect the warhead from the tanks during re-entry? Drg40 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of deaths of construction workers.
I thought I'd bring to people's attention that an article in The Times today (20th April 2011) listed the death toll of the workers used to build the rockets as 20,000. Not having access to the book cited for the figure of 12,000 in this wikipedia article, I can't tell if the new figure would be helpful or should be ignored. 86.156.214.48 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Timewatch and targets
In the 1970s, the BBC 2 traced several of the German scientists who had gone to work for the Russians in 1945, including Gotrupps widow. One of the scientists was awarded the Order Of Lenin for his work. The senior professor reckoned that with world famous Russian scientists such a Kapitsa, the Germans had saved the Russians about a year, two years at most. Frau Gotrupp was mostly impressed by the sight of the damage and wreckage caused by the war as the special train travelled into Russia.

Does anyvody know where I can get a copy of this Timewatch as the BBC has never answered my enquiries.

One other point in the V2 story has long puzzled me. The V1 and V2 weapons were mostly used against the UK, much the junior Allied partner. Does anybody know why these weapons weren't used against Russia?AT Kunene (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

used by in info box
V2's were also tested after the war in Britian so the UK should be added (Fdsdh1 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC))

V-2 vs V2
It says "common usage" is to call it V-2, because it was misprinted in the US. They're called V2s in the UK and Europe so I don't think that counts as "common use".Gymnophoria (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's V2 in the UK. Given that the majority of V2s were directed at the UK, I think that the article should be renamed V2. --Nick Bell (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of where the majority of the missiles were aimed, the majority of printed sources refer to the weapon as "V-2". I can't recall any offhand that left out the dash/hyphen/whatsit. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion of the "V2" and "V-2" forms previously gave the impression that the hyphenated form resulted from a 1954 U.S. edition of a translated version of Dornberger's 1952 book. This was plainly not the case, because I've found the form "V-2" in use in U.S. publications such as LIFE magazine as far back as December 1944. I've added a note to that effect, with a citation of the example in LIFE, and since the editions of Dornberger's book are not relevant to the first usage of the form, I've removed the mention of them. As for why the hyphen was added, I've seen this sort of change before in alphanumeric designations and wonder whether it may have been intentional practice based on some aesthetic notion. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct name of proposed sea-launched missiles?
The current (Dec. 2011) text reads:

Hitler, in July 1944 and Speer, in January 1945, made speeches alluding to a campaign to have U-boats fire "robot" U-1 and U-2 bombs at the U.S.

This denotes the weapons as "U" instead of "V". Is this a misprint, or did the Germans denote a U-boat-launched weapon with the "U"?

Does anybody know? Thanks in advance.--Raymondwinn (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see it being anything other than a spelling mistake (that's been there nearly three years! well spotted!) There's nothing in the source about it. Anyway, the phrase was redundant, so I've jibbed it. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(Redirected from Aggregate 4)
"Aggregate" is plural, the singular Aggregat 4 is red. --91.10.6.230 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. Good catch! - The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

underwater launching
The technical difficulties of launching a V2 underwater make such an idea seem unlikely. It would need a large U boat to store a large missile and ten tons of liquid oxygen as a liquid. Then the fuel would have to be decanted into the rocket just before firing, safer on the surface but what a target.

All the submerged firings, such as Polaris, seem to be been with solid fuel rockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Kunene (talk • contribs) 13:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Why water in the alcohol?
Was it a combustion moderator of some sort, or have some other purpose. I can't see the answer here, in the previous archive, or in the main article. Thanks. 92.16.170.150 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A 75% ethanol/water mix was used both by the V-2 and the PGM-11 Redstone as fuel; according to this, the dilution of the alcohol was for the purpose of reducing temperatues in the combustion chamber. (Note that some sources refer to the V-2's fuel as "B-stoff", but that is also (more commonly?) applied to the Me 163's hydrazine hydrate fuel...) - The Bushranger One ping only 20:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dornberger stated in his book V-2 that alcohol was chosen as a fuel because of the petrol shortage and the dilution ratio was based on the maximum temperature that the combustion chamber and nozzle throat could sustain. When Navaho project funding was insufficient to support development of a new engine for the Navaho booster, Sam Hoffman at Rocketdyne agreed to use the V-2 engine as a basis for the original Navaho booster engine so long as Rocketdyne could throw out the multiple (18) small injectors on the V-2 engine and use an impinging jet injector of the Reaction Motors type instead. The Rocketdyne motor wound up being used on Redstone instead of Navaho. The engine was reliable but still low-performing, so Hoffman recommended a switch from alcohol to hydyne (60% dimethylhydrazine and 40% diethylenetriamine) fuel which was an energetic fuel which improved specific impulse by lowering the molecular weight of the combustion products rather than raising combustion temperature. This gave Redstone the performance for lofting the Explorer satellite into orbit in January 1958 and for sending astronauts Alan Shepherd and Gus Grissom on their suborbital hops into space. Navaho still needed a higher performing engine which led to a completely new engine design with a lightweight tube-bundle cooling system which was adapted to burning kerosene (RP-1) as fuel. Hoffman's indigenous Rocketdyne kerosene engine design got around the cooling problems but had little in common with the V-2 engine. Are you familiar with the website V2ROCKET.COM? It has a great deal of additional information on V-2 and its systems. Magneticlifeform (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The V-2 engine had trouble with cooling and was very heavy. Fuel flowed around the outside of the chamber, but the walls were thick steel and conducted heat poorly. Fuel was also sprayed through holes in the side to provide curtain cooling (how Goddard cooled his engines). The Russians pushed this technology pretty far, doubling its thrust and burning 90% alcohol. The Americans (mainly Rocketdyne) only briefly experimented with the V-2 engine, but looked at the flat injector plate with impinging stream atomizers, which the Germans developed for the small Wasserfall engine. The Germans were unable to get a larger engine to work on this design, due to combustion instability, but General Electric and Rocketdyne cracked that problem and redesigned the injector plate from scratch (you can find details about this in Sutton's book on the history of liquid fuel rocket engines). A breakthrough in cooling technology was made at Reaction Motors Inc, where they flowed fuel through tubes on the inside of the chamber rather than the outside. This conduced the heat into the fuel faster, and allowed the use of Kerosene fuel and high chamber pressures. DonPMitchell (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Forced labor
With this edit an editor expressed the opinion that the forced labor used to manufacture V-2 rockets is not approprate content for this article. That editor used the comment, "Developmental history:  removed irrelevant details on Mittelbrau-Dora concentration camp. The estimated number of deaths in this camp, is totally irrelevant to this page on the V-2 rocket." I reverted the change with the suggestion that it be discussed here first. Can we reach some consensus on this? Is it an "either/or" thing, or is there some middle-level of coverage that is appropriate? (sdsds - talk) 18:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the core concepts of an encyclopedia is that it provides background, analysis and context. Encyclopedias began as dictionaries -- simply entries that tell you what something is. Dictionaries became encyclopedias by adding information that shows how the subject relates to the rest of the world, where it fits in the big picture, where it fits in history. The point behind WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is that a good encyclopedia article is not merely a pile of meaningless facts. The goal is to have insight. That means that we need to know how the V-2 was made, not merely what the V-2 was and what it did. Add to that the fact that 12,000 workers were killed in order to launch 3,000 rockets which killed maybe 6,000 on the Allied side. This is extraordinary. How many weapons have such a high cost for so little effect?Note also that articles like iPod and iPhone tell us not just what the thing is, but the human costs and controversies around how it's made. The Featured Article Manhattan Project has details on the health and safety of the workers and how many deaths occurred. Little Boy describes the dangers to workers building and shipping the bomb. There is clearly broad consensus that this type of information belongs in article like this one, and in fact the more detailed version deleted here should be restored. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

V-2 → V-2 rocket – To match V-1 flying bomb and V-3 cannon. I'm not going to look through the disambiguation pages to see if there is really an issue with primary meaning in any of these cases, I just think the consistency looks better. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC). Relisted. Favonian (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC). Srnec (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. The WP:OTHERSTUFF is what needs to be moved from its non-standard disambiguation, not this. V-1 (flying bomb), V-2 (missile) and V-3 (cannon) would be correctly disambiguated titles, if none of them are WP:PRIMARYTOPICS (i.e. V-1, V-2, V-3). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose agree with The Bushranger--change the other articles. Rjensen (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Also agree with The Bushranger and his suggestion. Bidgee (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - V-1 and V-3 are now WP:PRIMARYTOPICs at undisambiguated titles. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved V-1 back to V-1 flying bomb as we've already had an RM discussion about this and after extensive discussion this was the title decided upon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * V-3 has been reverted to V-3 cannon considering that there are requested moves on here and another one happened at V-1, therefore discussion was necessary. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per the discussion at Talk:V-1 flying bomb. The hyphen is just not sufficient to disambiguate this term, particularly as it may also be seen written as V2, V 2 or V.2. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Two pages wrongly disambiguated don't make a right. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The first line of the article introduction states the following: The V-2 rocket (German: Vergeltungswaffe 2, i.e. retaliation weapon 2), technical name Aggregat-4 (A4), was a short-range ballistic missile .... Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose "rocket" is not part of the V-2's name, and hence presenting it as such is inaccurate, regardless of what other articles may use. If disambiguation is required it should be through the addition of "(rocket)" or "(missile)" per WP:RND, but since this is the primary topic it is not required, and per WP:OTHERSTUFF we shouldn't do something wrong here just to match other articles. Fix the other errors, don't proliferate the problem for the sake of convenience. -- W.  D.   Graham  19:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – a title is supposed to convey the subject of the article. A letter-number combination doesn't do so.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Support – It's referred to as "V-2 rocket" in various sources I've seen, at least on the first mention. And just "V-2" by itself seems somewhat vague, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support definitely mostly used as a set term "V-2 rocket" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very weak support. Normally, I'd say "use V-2". Per commoname, however, Volkswagen Beetle is preferred over the correct VW Type 1. It seems the same applies here, as it does to V-1.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - "V-2 rocket" is more common by far than missile, and the 'r' makes it clear that 'R' capital-R ocket isn't part of the title, and V-2 is highly ambiguous. So in sum no reason not to follow reasonably precise, reasonably accurate and very common name for title. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Except "V-2 rocket" is factually wrong. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. "V-2" is way too short to be meaningful among people with little or no detailed knowledge of the subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to long name. Google searches indicate that a natural disambiguation is used very frequently. I'm not too concerned whether it should be "rocket" or "missile". Google book search seems to favor "rocket" (33,300 hits) over "missile" (18,800 hits), which this n-gram confirms. On the other hand, the Britannica article is titled "V-2 missile". Favonian (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. More common usage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The trouble with "V-2 rocket" is that it might make you expect there was a "V-1 rocket" and possibly a "V-3 rocket". Also if you are familiar with the term and context, "V-2 rocket" might have a similar feel to it as saying "Supermarine Spitfire aeroplane" ("German V-2 ballistic rocket" and "British Supermarine Spitfire fighter aircraft" work though because its more description than title.) I suspect there is no ideal combination of disambiguation and consistency across the V-weapons but specific article names in each instance. For reasons I can't explain: "V-2" of itself seems right to me, but also "V-1 flying bomb" - possibly because I grew up with those names like that. Certainly for V-3 - which I only became aware of more recently in life - I have no feeling either way. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some people do refer to the V-1 cruise missile as a "rocket". Though a misnomer, V-1 rocket should redirect to the missile article. And the common misconception of the V-3 rocket is based on the A-10 rocket or the Sanger Amerika Bomber, so can be a disambiguation page based on common misconceptions. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, we don't disambiguate in the form proposed; V-2 rocket fails the Manual of Style, if a dab is needed then it should be V-2 (rocket). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We can just WP:IAR it, since it is a form commonly found in the world as a set term for this item. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I've proposed a move of V-1 flying bomb to V-1 (missile) here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I should point out that "V-2 rocket", in addition to the reasons that's an unsuitable title listed above, would also be entirely wrong? This isn't a rocket, it's a missile - we don't use WP:COMMONNAME when the 'common name' is factually erronious. (i.e. Turkey Vulture, not Turkey Buzzard.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Postscript
And thus does a page get a title that is fundamentally wrong ("rocket" has a very specific meaning when it comes to weaponry - and the V-2 is not one) on the grounds of "consistency" and "common useage". Well done. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you had cited evidence of it being wrong during the RM, we could have considered that; your assertion doesn't make it so. Usage certainly doesn't support you on this.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Rocket" does not seem wrong. Rocket #1-3 and Rocket engine seem to fit.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The terms rocket and missile are not mutually exclusive. If missile meant only "guided missile" then guided missile would not be 2 words. Likewise rockets can be either guided or unguided. Among fighter plane ground crews, it is "customary" to refer to unguided rockets as "rockets" but refer to guided missiles as "missiles". This is merely a matter of convenience so that single-word descriptions will distinguish between the two. In common usage rocket refers to both guided and unguided rockets and missile refers to any projectile whether guided or not and whether propelled by rocket engine, jet engine or a rubber band. Relax guys; there are no rocket-vs-missile police waiting to arrest you.Magneticlifeform (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Rocket" is what the Allies referred-to the V2 at the time and indeed the word "missile" may correctly be applied to any object thrown or propelled, e.g. a stone, a cannonball, a rocket.

Mostly London?
The article states: "...over 3,000 V-2s were launched as military rockets by the German Wehrmacht against Allied targets during the war, mostly London and later Antwerp and Liege." But if we have a look at the numbers a bit further in the article you can see that more V2's were fired at Antwerp than at all other cities combined. So shouldn't it be "mostly Antwerp" instead of "mostly London" then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.6.10 (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * London was a city at war with Germany whereas Belgium having surrendered in 1940, Antwerp was not, being merely fought over. And the V weapons were all developed for attacking London, which is why the Nazis called them 'Vergeltungswaffe' as they were intended as revenge for the British bombing of German cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ummm, that certainly doesn't address the point being raised by the OP. Who controlled the city at the time doesn't change the number of launches. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely was NOT this…
The lead states that "It was the progenitor of all modern rockets". It is not. This is abundantly clear in the historical record, so much so as to be absurd. For instance, was the V-2 the progenitor of the FFAR which predates it? Or how about the MLRS? Panzerfaust? CRV7? Oh, you mean ballistic missile? In spite of it not saying that, its not true anyway. While one can trace Rocketdyne to the V-2, you certainly can't do the same for anything mounting an LR series.

This is one of those overreaching statements that is only sort-of-true once you start adding numerous non-stated gotcha requirements and abusing terminology. It's inclusion is supported by a quote from Nova, which isn't exactly the more RS. Does anyone strenuously object to the claim simply being removed.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Simply remove it, please. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Or refine it to something true if you prefer. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello
The "events" column for July 26, claims 26 July 1944 to be the date for the first V-2 attack on England. The Wikipedia article states the date was 8 September 1944. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.151.176 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * July 26 refers to the UK. September 8 was on Paris. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to all sources, as well as our article, the Staverly Road/Epping V2s were also on the 8th. The July may have arisen form some confusion about the 28 July Lewisham Market V1 (which was close to site of the New Cross V2).  Regardless I am removing it form 26 July until and unless a ref can be found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

common battlefield weapons?
"...nuclear-armed descendants of V-2 missiles were common battlefield weapons...."

Is this really an accurate notion since there are no battlefields in which nuclear missiles were deployed?

For any place to be a battle field there has to be a battle and there has been no battle in which nuclear missiles have been "common".

Can anyone name even five battlefields in which nuclear missiles were as much as present? --23.119.205.88 (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2015

 * The following is a closed 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: Closed with no possibility for consensus in any direction as per the discussion below. This is closed without prejudice against another nomination to any title at any time. Red Slash 21:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

V-2 rocket → V-2 – This is a guided missile, not a rocket. Page should be moved to V-2, like all other missile articles with names that don't need disambiguation. BilCat (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC) for Arado (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose V-2, support V-2 missile Although this is unlikely to be supported, as WP generally sticks with the US Air Force distinction (which even the Air Force didn't use consistently) rather than the US Army distinction of missiles being guided, rockets unguided.
 * Contemporary British use favours rocket, but I don't see that as particularly rigid. Current British use could go either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm of the age where V-2 means the "rocket" as the primary topic. But if required to disambiguate I prefer the natural "V-2 noun" form rather than "V-2 (noun)". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Move back to V-2 - unnecessary disambiguation, and weak consensus to move in the first place. It also avoids the rocket/missile issue altogether, at least in the title. - BilCat (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to move the article, you need to follow the directions at WP:RM and open a proper move discussion. Otherwise the previous one will dominate this closed discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change without formal discussion. But adding anyway. - BilCat (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * BilCat is right, it should be moved to V-2. The simplest solution is often the best one.--Arado (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * V-2 needs disambiguation for engine layouts and for the T-34 tank's engine in particular. V-2 rocket, or V-2 missile is much better Andy Dingley (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Except that it already redirects here, making the rocket/missile the de facto primary topic already. - BilCat (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * BilCat, please don't ever make edits like this: to garner support for one rename, then to change the target you're looking to rename to and make it look as if people who've already expressed an opinion one way are now supporting your new idea, quite the opposite of what they'd intended. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was trying to help out Arado, and some things got confused in an edit conflict. Arado made some subsequent changes, so at that point I left it as-was. It wasn't intentional, but your tone makes it seem as if it was. So while you're telling me what to do, don't ever do that to me again. - BilCat (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Making an accidental mistake is one thing. Leaving it that way afterwards quite another. Especially when you change the structure of a poll, so as to deliberately mis-represent anyone who had already !voted. You've been here long enough to know better. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment it is a missile which is propelled in the form of a rocket and it is a rocket being used as a missile. As a missile, it was the first of its kind and as a rocket it possessed innovative features.  Of the two, I personally prefer the V-2 missile description as this, I interpret, better meets the requirements of WP:AT but this is despite a slight preference in books for V-2 rocket. My first reaction was support.  I have now thought that confusion might arise with the likes of V Festival and, come to think of it, the great many items at V (disambiguation).  I tend to Oppose.  GregKaye 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Procedural Oppose – the edit history of this section before and after turning it into an RM makes it clear that the above comments are uninterpretable. Please cancel this and start over with a clean proposal and new RM discussion if you think consensus has changed since the last one.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think this may be an attempt to introduce American bias, in Britain, which was actually hit by it, it tends to be regarded as a rocket. PatGallacher (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really that. It's much more common as V-2 rocket even in America.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment this is clearly a rocket, it is also a missile, but it is still a rocket. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure everyone knows that, and that it's not the issue. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <-- from the nomination -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Rocket" is appropriate historically. Also, this move discussion is fatally flawed because it was started by Arado with one target then changed by BilCat to another target. There's no way that consensus can be determined here. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2015 (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.

"guided"?
I'm pretty sure it does not count as guided under any definition. It was roughly aimed, then launched, and had no guidance.

Someone please fix it. I see the discussion over missle versus rocket--this is unrelated but someone with some experience here should make the change.

97.82.59.202 (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The article clearly mentions the control vanes and gyroscopes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It was a guided missile in that it had a gyroscopic guidance system. However, the system was fairly crude by modern standards, and the missile could not be aimed at a precise target.  Well, it could be "aimed" but it was very unlikely to strike the aiming point.  I B Wright (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

U.S. battlefield ballistic missiles other than Redstone were not derived from V-2
The notion that "V-2 was the progenitor" of all modern ballistic missiles is one of the more annoying fantasies of the "everything out of Germany" crowd. The only U.S. ballistic missile that shared a V-2 heritage is Redstone. The principal source of the key technologies for the other U.S. missile programs came from domestic sources. Nike and Corporal missile programs had roots in USAAF programs begun before the end of WWII, with Bell Labs and Western Electric being the originators of Nike and Aerojet, Reaction Motors, Caltech and Hercules Powder Company being the sources of the liquid and solid rocket propulsion systems. U.S. guidance contractors worked from aircraft autopilots which were also of domestic origin dating to well before the end of WWII. Just because U.S. companies "saw" German documentation following WWII does not mean they copied or needed to copy what the Germans had done. Reaction Motors, Inc. was founded in New Jersey, 16 December 1941 (just 9 days after Pearl Harbor) by four members of the amateur American Rocket Society. In California, Aerojet Engineering Company was formed 19 March 1942 by famed aerodynamicist Theodore von Karman and four of his Caltech students. The early government contracts for both companies were directed toward the development of Rocket Assisted Take-Off (RATO) of aircraft and both produced liquid propellant RATO units during the war. All of the U.S. liquid propellant strategic missile systems were powered by Rocketdyne or Aerojet liquid propellant tube bundle engines which were derived from the USAF Navaho XLR-83 Rocketdyne engine, not V-2. The only V-2 derivative engine Rocketdyne produced for a U.S. ballistic missile was the Redstone engine, which was then deemed unsuitable for Navaho, leading to a complete new engine development program under Sam Hoffman which lead to the XLR-83 that was nothing like the V-2 engine. While it has been stated by some that V-2 was the “obvious progenitor” of all modern rockets, by the time the Polaris subs went on patrol and the Minuteman ICBMs dotted the northern Great Plains, the war rocket had been totally re-invented. High-impulse-density solid rocket propellant, nuclear warheads, solid state electronics, GPS, levitated gyros, and nuclear submarines all bore little or no resemblance to anything associated with V-2. Nuclear submarines provide global reach and almost complete invulnerability for their missiles which are capable far beyond anything demonstrated with V-2. V-2 was no more a modern war rocket than it was a modern launch vehicle. It was neither. It was an early example of a large guided rocket at a time when the technology was not sufficiently developed for widespread practical applications beyond perhaps being a sounding rocket. As a war rocket V-2 was inaccurate and not cost effective. Arguably the first rocket to decisively influence the outcome of modern military confrontations was not V-2 but rather Honest John which was not even a guided missile. It was an unguided rocket large enough to hurl a primitive nuclear warhead far enough to “own” the battlefield. Its presence was sufficient to stalemate the confrontations between the U.S. and Soviets in Europe and between the U.S. and the combined Chinese and North Korean Communists in eastern Asia. V-2 was the first large guided rocket but the modern rocket still had a long way to go.Magneticlifeform (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with all your points. Please feel free to edit, but with good citations, especially anything that might seem controversial.  Smithsonian historian Roger Launius calls the thing you are complaining about the "Huntsville School" of rocket history, and to some extent it comes directly from Von Braun and his friends, who not only centered the narrative around German rocket scientists but around Von Braun personally.  DonPMitchell (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Allies?
This article states: "Two test launches were recovered by the Allies: the Bäckebo rocket which landed in Sweden on 13 June 1944 and one recovered by the Polish resistance on 30 May 1944[27] from Blizna and transported to the UK during Operation Most III." Sweden was an Allied nation during WWII? Thought they were neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The munition was nonetheless recovered by the Allies, "the valuable wreckage was exchanged with Britain by the Swedes for Supermarine Spitfires". Perhaps the prose could be sharpened up a little.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC).


 * At the time Sweden although neutral was discreetly pro-British, or at least as far as it was possible to be without provoking Nazi Germany.
 * they were very discrete indeed as they were shipping ores, manufactures and food to Germany (but not shipping anything but love to Britain). Rjensen (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ball bearings and Nils Bohr both left Sweden for the UK. :)
 * "In 1942 and 1943 Germany and Axis-controlled Europe took four-fifths of total Swedish exports of ball bearings." says Leitz (2000) http://books.google.com/books?id=147g760AE9cC&pg=PA83. Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Germany was in a position to invade Sweden. The British understood this and made allowances for Sweden's difficult international position. The Swedes were doing their best to not give Germany a reason to invade. As were the Swiss.


 * ... and Sweden was always most hospitable to escaped British POWS upon arrival there, and made arrangements with the British Embassy for them to be quickly sent home - usually courtesy of BOAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * RAF Lancaster crew overflying southern-tip of Sweden one night and observing flak bursting 5,000 feet below them, sees flashing Morse signal from ground;


 * "You are violating Swedish airspace".


 * .... and the bomber's crew flash back;


 * "Yes, we know" ...


 * .... followed by;


 * "You are aiming 5,000 feet too low".


 * The Swedes on the ground signal back;


 * "Yes, we know". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

'Air burst' link
I have removed the potentially confusing link to the 'Air burst' page under the 'Air burst problem' subheading. That page discusses air bursts as an intentional method of improving blast effects, whereas the V-2 problem was one of unplanned disintegration, rather than planned detonation. For All Seasons (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on V-2 rocket. 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/20131214234047/http://v2.x-factorial.com/ to http://v2.x-factorial.com/

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) 16:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Kammler
Document TICOM I-68 states that it was Kammler who ordered their use, in September 1st 1944. He was an SS obergrupperfuher. scope_creep (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wernher Osenberg
After WWII, the army issued a letter to a soldier named George Aumann, thanking him for his service interviewing former Nazi scientists. Prominently mentioned is a Werner Osenberg (the s is faded and might be a different letter), "Director of the 'Reichsforschungs Plan' and inventor of "V-2".

Can anybody explain this last name discrepancy?

Mr. Aumann said there was a name change at some point but this doesn't fit this article.

Steve Apologies for parallel posting in Wernher_von_Braun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweisberg (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * German Wikipedia has an article (de:Werner Osenberg) about this person. Apparently, he was a bureaucrat in charge of harnessing scientists for military research, but he was not an "inventor" of the V-2. Favonian (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Name
Vergeltungswaffe = Retribution weapon? I suggest "Revenge weapon", closer to the right tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.139.251 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in intro
The first sentence claims it was a short range missile, the second a long range one. Which is it ? Bomazi (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * at the time long range, in modern terms short. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The point of my remark was to get the article fixed, not to get a reply here. Bomazi (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And mine pointed out that there was no contradiction, there is even a footnote that uses the phrase "context of its time". And this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was more than a contradiction; it is incorrect to say that the V-2 "was" short range. Indeed, in the context of time, the V-2 was long range, now considered short range. Corrected.192.249.47.204 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is another contradiction: a 'ballistic' missile is by definition not 'guided'. 'Ballistic' means 'thrown'. A ballistic missile is 'thrown' in the right direction on launch, but its course cannot thereafter be altered, which is what 'guided' means. From the article, I judge the V-2 to be ballistic, not guided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD1:D655:0:4D92:564E:51B2:441 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Surviving V-2 examples and components
The Hermann-Oberth-Raumfahrt-Museum near Nuremberg exhibits a V-2 engine and other parts. IIRC they claim that they have one of the most complete assemblies of a V-2 in existence. Might be investigated and sourced further... --BjKa (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Cape Canaveral Preserved Engine
This article states that "One engine in the Exhibit Hall adjacent to the Blockhouse building on the Historic Cape Canaveral Tour in Cape Canaveral, Florida." A more precise name for the home of this engine is the U.S. Air Force Space & Missile Museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.187 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Original research
Please remember that WP:NOR is policy. Citing something to Life magazine with editorial content about magazines "such as" Life Magazine is original research not directly supported by the citation (so failing WP:V). We are meant to be conveying the knowledge found in reliable sources, not the thoughts/analysis of Wikipedia editors, so there is also a neutrality aspect here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

vergeltungswaffe translates better to “weapon of retaliation”, not “vengeance weapon”. The military retaliate (make an attack or assault in return for a similar attack) they don’t avenge like upset girlfriends :)

Megaroc should have its own page
there is enough information on the programme including its design and operational specifications as well as the reasons for its cancel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summer2002 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Directions are wrong
Cologne is not north of Hellendoorn. It's the other way around. The distance is also given as 165 kilometers not 40 kilometers. JRB-Europe (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"Targets" or "victims"?
Kortoso (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That would depend on the context, wouldn't it? - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Launch Sites -- Fixed Sites Missing
Shouldn't the "Launch Sites" section at least mention La Coupole and the Blockhaus d'Éperlecques? -- johantheghost (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad -- reading too fast. Still, given the huge effort that went into building, and then destroying, them, maybe the sites at Watten and Wizernes  could use a few more column inches.  -- johantheghost (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

guidance system
I found this while looking for the history of gyroscope. I cannot tell if this is interesting to add or not to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palinf (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)