| Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951... |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Nomen Nescio... |
 Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=AD0841188
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD841188&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
This report covers the progress of the LTV-N-2 (LOON) (US V-1) test program
from 1 March 1949 to 1 September 1951. During this period, 46 LOON missiles
were launched from shore launchers, 38 from submarines, and 3 from the
USS NORTON SOUND. Significant progress was made in accomplishing
the objectives of the assigned problem details. Completed problem
details include tests of the quick- detachable electronics nose mount,
dual- and single-JATO launchings, assistance to the NORTON SOUND, tests
of the Summers gyro servo control system, acceptance checks of
contractor-modified missiles, and Radioplane Recovery System tests. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mholt at (no spam) ohiohills.com... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 2, 5:23 pm, Nomen Nescio <nob... at (no spam) dizum.com> wrote:
[quote:e23cc5d91f]US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
[/quote:e23cc5d91f]
Add to that the missile handbook and images of everything, and we have
enough to build our own:
http://www.zenza.se/vw/index.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rick Jones... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
[quote:ef8ab1d14d]The V-2 was the flip side of that...gawdawful expensive to produce,
doing a lot less damage from a economic sense per missile launched than
the production costs of the missile, and since there was no way to
defend against it once launched, not diverting any Allied resources to
the defense of its targets.
[/quote:ef8ab1d14d]
I thought though that capturing V-2 launch sites were a top priority
and so diverted offensive attention from other, perhaps more promising
areas of the front? Or did I just read too much into the dialog of
"Patton?-)"
rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... 
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Alan Jones <alanvj at (no spam) nospam.mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote:7c5e233539]True, but Hitler made a lot of bad decisions, mostly from being over
ambitious. The V-2 was not about cost effective killing. It was a
propaganda weapon. In more contemporary terms, it would be called a
"shock and awe" weapon. With the exception of threatening to drop a
third nonexistant nuclear bomb on Tokyo,
[/quote:7c5e233539]
That would be "an tenth or eleventh (and nonexistent) nuclear bomb on
Tokyo. The truck convoy that was to convey the components of the
third weapon that weren't either already in place or in transit was
formed up with the keys in the ignition when the word of the Japanese
surrender came down - and more weapons were in the production
pipeline.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rick Jones wrote:
[quote:80e5e00214]Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
The V-2 was the flip side of that...gawdawful expensive to produce,
doing a lot less damage from a economic sense per missile launched than
the production costs of the missile, and since there was no way to
defend against it once launched, not diverting any Allied resources to
the defense of its targets.
I thought though that capturing V-2 launch sites were a top priority
and so diverted offensive attention from other, perhaps more promising
areas of the front? Or did I just read too much into the dialog of
"Patton?-)"
[/quote:80e5e00214]
Unlike the V-1, which needed its fixed catapult for launching, the V-2
could be launched from any site within a few hours once it had been
surveyed to determine its exact longitude and latitude - as the whole
launching infrastructure was road-mobile. So the only way to stop
attacks on England by it was to capture all territory that would have
allowed it to get in range of its targets (its range was 234 miles).
The V-1 sites were a target for allied ground forces to grab in France,
but I don't know if the V-2 sites mentioned in the movie were a
confusion with those.
There's info on the mobile V-2 operations here:
http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deployment/mobileoperations.html
And where they were fired from at various cities here:
http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deployment/mobile_front.html
Pat
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dean... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 4, 10:27 am, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
[quote:a4d20a64de]Rick Jones wrote:
Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
The V-2 was the flip side of that...gawdawful expensive to produce,
doing a lot less damage from a economic sense per missile launched than
the production costs of the missile, and since there was no way to
defend against it once launched, not diverting any Allied resources to
the defense of its targets.
I thought though that capturing V-2 launch sites were a top priority
and so diverted offensive attention from other, perhaps more promising
areas of the front? Or did I just read too much into the dialog of
"Patton?-)"
Unlike the V-1, which needed its fixed catapult for launching, the V-2
could be launched from any site within a few hours once it had been
surveyed to determine its exact longitude and latitude - as the whole
launching infrastructure was road-mobile. So the only way to stop
attacks on England by it was to capture all territory that would have
allowed it to get in range of its targets (its range was 234 miles).
The V-1 sites were a target for allied ground forces to grab in France,
but I don't know if the V-2 sites mentioned in the movie were a
confusion with those.
There's info on the mobile V-2 operations here:http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deployment/mobileoperations.html
And where they were fired from at various cities here:http://www.v2rocket..com/start/deployment/mobile_front.html
Pat
Pat
[/quote:a4d20a64de]
Quite a few V-1s were also airlaunched from carrier aircraft. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rick Jones... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Joseph Nebus <nebusj- at (no spam) -rpi-.edu> wrote:
[quote:246c8d49b2]I seem to have a faint memory of attempted V-2 launches from
the decks of carriers, at least in the postwar experimental project,
although these were not wholly successful owing to the action of the
waves on the propellant. Or have I started imagining corners of
space history again?
[/quote:246c8d49b2]
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=145100
rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joseph Nebus... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dean <damarkley at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote:6a285fa730]On Sep 4, 10:27=A0am, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
Unlike the V-1, which needed its fixed catapult for launching, the V-2
could be launched from any site within a few hours once it had been
surveyed to determine its exact longitude and latitude - as the whole
launching infrastructure was road-mobile. So the only way to stop
attacks on England by it was to capture all territory that would have
allowed it to get in range of its targets (its range was 234 miles).
Quite a few V-1s were also airlaunched from carrier aircraft.
[/quote:6a285fa730]
I seem to have a faint memory of attempted V-2 launches from the
decks of carriers, at least in the postwar experimental project, although
these were not wholly successful owing to the action of the waves on the
propellant. Or have I started imagining corners of space history again?
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rick Jones... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
[quote:f887887fbb]No they did indeed launch a V-2 off of a carrier (the Midway), they
did it only once as it was very unstable on launch, and another test
where a fully-fueled V-2 was purposely exploded on a section of
simulated aircraft deck put them off on the idea of liquid fueled
rockets on Navy ships.
[/quote:f887887fbb]
Aren't solids purported to have less "gentle" failure modes than
liquids?
rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dean wrote:
[quote:cca804d630]Quite a few V-1s were also airlaunched from carrier aircraft.
[/quote:cca804d630]
I've got a 1/48th scale model of one of those by Revell Monogram.
It's a He-111 H-22, and is a really nice kit.
Accuracy on the air-launched ones was really bad, to the point where the
British couldn't figure out what the intended target city was in some cases.
The V-1s also sometimes exploded while being carried or at launch,
destroying the carrier aircraft.
There's footage of one being launched starting at the 1:45 part of this
video (the first part is the Hs-293 rocket-boosted glide bomb):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcFmagrdgI4
As you can see, the V-1 oscillates quite a bit after launch as the gyro
tries to get it on course and stabilized into level flight.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Joseph Nebus wrote:
[quote:e5f4644b3e] I seem to have a faint memory of attempted V-2 launches from the
decks of carriers, at least in the postwar experimental project, although
these were not wholly successful owing to the action of the waves on the
propellant. Or have I started imagining corners of space history again?
[/quote:e5f4644b3e]
No they did indeed launch a V-2 off of a carrier (the Midway), they did
it only once as it was very unstable on launch, and another test where a
fully-fueled V-2 was purposely exploded on a section of simulated
aircraft deck put them off on the idea of liquid fueled rockets on Navy
ships.
Video of Operation Sandy, the V-2 carrier launch, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDkh8Gz3W70
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
[quote:594b013fe4]One attempt (Operation Sandy [1]), which was successful.
[/quote:594b013fe4]
I don't know if having it come off the pad at around a 60 degree angle
would be "succesful".
At least it didn't skid straight into the deck island.
[quote:594b013fe4]However, the
results of Operation Pushover [2] convinced the Navy that they wanted
no further part in having big liquid fueled rockets shipboard.
[/quote:594b013fe4]
Imagine that on a wooden carrier deck, like out of WW II.
Oh, that would have been something to see.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rick Jones wrote:
[quote:5cffd39bf1]Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
No they did indeed launch a V-2 off of a carrier (the Midway), they
did it only once as it was very unstable on launch, and another test
where a fully-fueled V-2 was purposely exploded on a section of
simulated aircraft deck put them off on the idea of liquid fueled
rockets on Navy ships.
Aren't solids purported to have less "gentle" failure modes than
liquids?
[/quote:5cffd39bf1]
Once ignited they sure can blow up, but the advantage is that they don't
need a LOX plant on the ship if you are using either alcohol or kerosene
as fuel, or going up when their hypergolic propellants leak like on the
K-219 Soviet submarine. Storage of a solid-fueled missile on a ship or
sub is a lot like storing a vastly scaled-up artillery shell as far as
safety goes.
One of the things that "Pushover" test resulted in was getting the idea
of putting Jupiter IRBMs on surface ships canceled, and converting the
sub-based Jupiter concept to a solid-fueled form, which led to the
smaller Polaris once thermonuclear warhead size decreased.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| OM... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:15:33 -0500, Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com>
wrote:
[quote:c1e15b33fa]One of the things that "Pushover" test resulted in was getting the idea
of putting Jupiter IRBMs on surface ships canceled, and converting the
sub-based Jupiter concept to a solid-fueled form, which led to the
smaller Polaris once thermonuclear warhead size decreased.
[/quote:c1e15b33fa]
....And based on the way things went with "Pushover", that probably
saved a LOT of lives in the long run.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
