If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article , robert
arndt writes Bernardz wrote in message news:MPG.1a593408a139 2c869897ea@news... SNIP Any comments! 34,000 V-1s were produced by Fiesler, Volkswagen, and the Mittelwerke. Unit cost was RM 5000. Of all those produced only around 5000 found their targets in the UK and Belgium. That makes it 20% effective of those launched, the remaining number found stockpiled. It was a cost effective weapon compared to a Mark IV tank (RM 100,000) but militarily of little value. As a psychological/nuisance weapon it did well but did not in any way deter the Allies from bombing Germany and grabbing land. The Germans would have done better to replace the amatol warhead with a radiological warhead. London and Antwerp would have then been contaminated and abandoned. Rob The Germans conducted many nuclear experiments with minimal shielding, so they would probably have not considered it a useful weapon. But if they did consider it viable, could they have laid their hands on enough material to use it in warheads? Even if they had been able to, I don't think the allies would have abandoned these cities - ignorance of radiation sickness reigned supreme until the long-term effects of it were found some time after the Hiroshima raid. Not to say there had not been some good opportunities to find out: People used to drink Radium cocktails for the alleged benefits in the 1920/30s, but the only person who was known to have suffered the horrific effects was an American millionaire who used to drink about a pint a day. He simply disintegrated. Pierre Curie handled so much Radium in his life that his hands began to look like reptilian claws. Miners in areas with rocks bearing a high fissile content often developed lung cancer due to the Radon. But still no-one sounded the alarm bells. If any muck had been dropped on these cities the people would have been advised to wear gas masks when passing an impact area, and if no gas mask available a damp handkerchief would do... Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bernardz wrote in message news:MPG.1a5aa8ed3b4d2ccc9897f3@news...
I am not so sure Hitler was wrong! The V1 could probably have come on- line in 1943 only at a terrific price and a very limited target - Britain. At that time Britain was a minor part of the war. The major war was in the East and he needed resources against Russia. Before 1943, when it looked like Hitler could win the war those resources required could be far better spent on things that mattered like tanks and planes. The flying bomb offensive, from 12th June 1944 to 1st September 1944 cost Britain almost 48 million pounds in lost production alone. In a report by the Air Ministry dated 4th November 1944 it is stated: "The main conclusion is that the results of the campaign were greatly in the enemy's favour, the estimated ratio of our costs to his being nearly four to one." Move this back 18 months when the Allies had no fighters fast enough to shoot down these weapons and no effective low-level AAA and a grim picture begins to emerge. I'm not saying that the campaign would have brought the allies to their knees but speculation is that D-Day would have been postponed for at least a year and costs and casualties would have been high. If the A4 project had been abandoned and the flying bomb project given top priority it would have meant more than 30000 of these beasts arriving over Britain a month - with Britain largely impotent to stop them. A fearful thought. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
34,000 V-1s were produced by Fiesler, Volkswagen, and the Mittelwerke.
Unit cost was RM 5000. Of all those produced only around 5000 found their targets in the UK and Belgium. That makes it 20% effective of those launched, the remaining number found stockpiled. It was a cost effective weapon compared to a Mark IV tank (RM 100,000) but militarily of little value. As a psychological/nuisance weapon it did well but did not in any way deter the Allies from bombing Germany and grabbing land. The Germans would have done better to replace the amatol warhead with a radiological warhead. London and Antwerp would have then been contaminated and abandoned. Rob The Germans conducted many nuclear experiments with minimal shielding, so they would probably have not considered it a useful weapon. But if they did consider it viable, could they have laid their hands on enough material to use it in warheads? Actually, the Germans were constructing two such spherical devices in 1945 which relied on spaced uranium plates, a detonator held in a crushing mechanism, and the entire sphere filled with kerosene. The idea was to place the radiological sphere inside an SC-series bomb and drop it from the Sanger bomber (a project which was reactivated in Feb '45). Upon impact the crusher would force the detonator material into the smashed plates of uranium and cause fission while the kerosene blew the fission material all over the place. The target was NYC. This could have also been placed in a V-2 launched by a Type XXI sub-towed Prufstand XII launch container of which 3 were completed by war's end. But the war ended before any of these plans came to anything. The French captured the two radiological weapons under construction and destroyed them. The Prufstand XII containers were discovered at Stettin. And the Sanger bomber was discovered at a plant in Lofer in the bare mock-up stage. A more advanced radiological weapon would have been detonated over the target cities making the weapon more effective. See Schiffer's book on the Sanger bomber for more details. Even if they had been able to, I don't think the allies would have abandoned these cities - ignorance of radiation sickness reigned supreme until the long-term effects of it were found some time after the Hiroshima raid. The Allies weren't completely ignorant on the dangers of fission material. The US constructed a giant collector called the "Dumbo" to collect plutonium debris in case the test A-bomb blew up in NM. I think "Dumbo" still survives. If NYC was hit similar large Dumbo-type containers would have been used to collect the debris and the radiation levels would have been studied. I think the cities would have been abandoned because we would have investigated any attack against us more thouroughly and intensely than those conducted in Japan after Aug 6/9. Rob |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Correction to last post. I mentioned the US has a fission materials
container called "Dumbo". It was actually "Jumbo" and can be seen he http://www.nps.gov/whsa/adhi/fig39.jpg Rob |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Wayne Allen wrote:
snip I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in defense. Lost how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives (weekend-spoiler) what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty misprint or criminal negligence. From early 1944 onwards there was a concerted effort to knock out the launching sites which required precision bombing ie medium/low/dive bombing. The flak did the rest -- regards jc |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
John Campbell wrote in message .. .
Wayne Allen wrote: snip I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in defense. Lost how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives (weekend-spoiler) what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty misprint or criminal negligence. From early 1944 onwards there was a concerted effort to knock out the launching sites which required precision bombing ie medium/low/dive bombing. The flak did the rest IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings a bell) on the ski-sites? A vast effort was expended trying to knock these out and perhaps an even greater one on the modified sites. Something over 60000 bombing sorties and over 100000 tons of bombs. I'm speaking from a poor memory now - that may include the bombing of the concrete V2 bunkers and even the V3 site. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... Bernardz wrote in message news:MPG.1a5aa8ed3b4d2ccc9897f3@news... I am not so sure Hitler was wrong! The V1 could probably have come on- line in 1943 only at a terrific price and a very limited target - Britain. At that time Britain was a minor part of the war. The major war was in the East and he needed resources against Russia. Before 1943, when it looked like Hitler could win the war those resources required could be far better spent on things that mattered like tanks and planes. The flying bomb offensive, from 12th June 1944 to 1st September 1944 cost Britain almost 48 million pounds in lost production alone. In a report by the Air Ministry dated 4th November 1944 it is stated: "The main conclusion is that the results of the campaign were greatly in the enemy's favour, the estimated ratio of our costs to his being nearly four to one." Move this back 18 months when the Allies had no fighters fast enough to shoot down these weapons and no effective low-level AAA and a grim picture begins to emerge. I'm not saying that the campaign would have brought the allies to their knees but speculation is that D-Day would have been postponed for at least a year and costs and casualties would have been high. If the A4 project had been abandoned and the flying bomb project given top priority it would have meant more than 30000 of these beasts arriving over Britain a month - with Britain largely impotent to stop them. A fearful thought. This is very similar to a fictional work that I am in process of writing. Draft version 1 is available at www.BERNARDZ.20m.com Note there are quite a few mistakes that I am currently fixing in version 2. -- A terrorist kills for publicity. 24th saying of Bernard |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article , ex401
@freenet.carleton.ca says... Afternoon all, I've been trying to do a little research on this General Bissel and his paper on the V1 attacks, I have to admit defeat so-far. Does anyone have any information on him? I take it this is not the American General because the name is incorrect and he would have had his hands full out in the Asian Theater at the time. Bissel was an American general. Part of the report from which this table was taken is available in a book. Hitler's terror weapons http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...007112629/qid= 1072775679/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4381301-5271121?v=glance&s=books There are a few things I don't get with these figure either, the numbers I get from British sites claim only over 1000 homes destroyed, a difference of over a multiple of a thousand! I just quoted the figures as stated. The figure quoted was damaged or destroyed. It more then likely that this figure is heavily inflated. Part of the reason is that the British government gave money to people who put claims in for damages. So people put in claims. Another issue is that a V1 tends to explode on the roofs of houses. So the explosive force is shot in the air and comes down on many other houses. This may cause many more houses to be hit superficially. I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in defense. Lost how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives (weekend-spoiler) what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty misprint or criminal negligence. It seems very large. I am wondering if that includes the allied bombers trying to blow up the V1 and V2. Anyone have a contact or copy of the original report? Yes please! The report itself was done in 1944. I am sure that better figures are available now. In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which argued strongly in favour of the V1. The following is a table he produced Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months) ----------------------------------------------------- 1. Cost to Germany ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1 Sorties...................90,000.................8 025 Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons Aircrafts lost............3075....................0 Men lost..................7690....................0 2 Results Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000 Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892 Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2 3. Allied air effort Sorties......................86,800............44, 770 Planes lost..................1260...............351 Men lost.....................805...............2233 -- A terrorist kills for publicity. 24th saying of Bernard |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
paper on the V1 attacks, I have to admit defeat so-far. Does anyone have any information on him? I take it this is not the American General because the name is incorrect and he would have had his hands full out in the Asian Theater at the time. Clayton Bissell, beloved of the Flying Tigers? He became Marshall's intelligence officer toward the end of the war, and postwar the air attache in London, so it's possible that he had something to do with a V-1 study. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1982 "The Molson Golden London International Air Show" Commemorative Pin | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | April 21st 04 06:33 AM |
French block airlift of British troops to Basra | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 202 | October 24th 03 06:48 PM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |
PFC Lynch gets a Bronze Star? | Brian | Military Aviation | 77 | August 2nd 03 11:15 AM |