Talk:V-1 flying bomb

V-1 firing video clip pointer

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

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

Assessment section

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

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

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 Now, that editor is no longer active but it's clear that when he added it, it said "aircraft".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

I appreciate your action. Regarding the wording: the largest interpretation of aircraft includes both piloted aircraft and unpiloted winged flying weapons such as the V-1. I offer that we should work to remove the ambiguity based on what the source says, likely piloted aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. To be honest I'm not sure that there is that much ambiguity to remove, since you can't meaningfully say anything about V-1 losses in the Blitz. Having said that I suppose the recent edits are evidence that the potential for confusion is there in some form. Maybe from the source we can get something that helps nail it properly but for now perhaps some alternative form of words like "piloted aircraft", "crewed aircraft", "conventional aircraft" etc might help. Although I object slightly in principle to disambiguating something which I feel is already unambiguous, it might be worth it just to save future editors from having to defend this position again! So I suggest that one of has a go at editing it now, and once the source is available we can see if we can refine it. How does that sound? Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that, I'd missed where it was originally changed. 'Aircraft lost' is certainly the correct item! The only confusion is from me doing a sleepy revert, so no worries! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! Nevertheless I'll have my nasty grasping little hands on the book quite soon, I hope, and when I do I shall see if I can clarify it to maybe help out future editors. I don't think you should be apologizing - I think it's one of those things that's perfectly clear once it is clear, and can be clear as mud before you've "clicked" to the meaning. If we can maybe cut down future readers' and editors' click-time then that's a good result anyway! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Countermeasures

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

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

---

V-1 (flying bomb) → V-1 – No actual naming conflict. I think these are actually better known as buzz bombs no? I'll support either. Marcus Qwertyus 07:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The addition of a hyphen doesn't really disambiguate it from other articles with V1 in the title. The term "buzz bomb" isn't actually that common, as far as I know (probably only military slang). Commonly called V-1s or flying bombs. The commonest term is probably flying bomb. But V-1 is widely known as well (one dropped on my grandmother's house and she used both terms, both widely known by British civilians during the war), so I think keeping it at the current title is the best option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Even capitalization is considered sufficient disambiguation. Since V-1 primarily/only refers to the bomb just as F-16 primarily refers to the fighter so V-1 can be redirected here. However this would leave V-1 (flying bomb) as unnecessary disambiguation and so this step can be skipped entirely and V-1 (bomb) can be de-disambiguated. Marcus Qwertyus 08:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would disagree that this is sufficient disambiguation, I'm afraid. Particularly since we might see the flying bomb written as V-1, V1, V 1 or V.1, depending on who's writing about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• The only thing that would affect whether V-1 (bomb) was the primary topic for V-1 is if something else was also called V-1. Marcus Qwertyus 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• In the case of alphanumeric designations like this, the presence or absence of a hyphen is simply not a reason not to disambiguate. It's not a case of primary topic, but of unambiguous naming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• How can it when V-1 (bomb) is the only topic with an article. The V.1, V-1, and V1 pages share a page because it is far better to centralize the terms. If one of the terms has primary topic then that term should redirect to the relevant article. To point users to the relevant disambiguation page, a hatnote is added to the primary topic article just like at F-16 Fighting Falcon. Marcus Qwertyus 15:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• It isn't the only topic with an article. There are at least two more V1s at V1 with an article. That's the point. The hyphen doesn't make it unique, since most alphanumeric terms may or may not be written without a hyphen, depending on the writer. It quite possibly should be the primary topic, with the others at V1 (disambiguation), however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am no longer suggesting that V-1 (bomb) be moved to V-1. I am just saying that V-1 (not V1) should redirect to the weapon. Just as capitalization allows us to keep two articles with the same name (MAVEN vs Maven, Red meat vs Red Meat), hyphenation can also fulfill the requirements for disambiguation. Marcus Qwertyus 15:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - V1 and V-1 and V.1 are considered equal (compare with U2). Comment: I believe this article might once have been at "V-1 flying bomb" which I would argue is a more common name than "V-1". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, it was moved in May 2010 by Bushranger. V-1, V-1, and V.1 may be considered the same for disambiguation pages but for differentiation purposes in titles they are not. Marcus Qwertyus 09:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with GraemeLeggett. V-1 flying bomb is the best title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Nominator is correct, and we frequently have articles with completely different content whose titles differ by only capitalization, punctuation, diacritics, etc. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you give examples, particularly where a primary topic is concerned?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said MAVEN vs Maven, Red meat vs Red Meat also canon vs. cañon (redirect to canyon). The relevant policy is WP:PRECISE (last paragraph) or some other obscure policy in the WP:disambiguation namespace. Marcus Qwertyus 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

MAVEN was moved from MAVEN (spacecraft) a couple of weeks ago, and by you. Canon is a disambiguation page and without looking it up I can't even type type ñ ("enye") into a search box. So I'm not convinced that those two examples are comparable to this instance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

...and the relevant capitalization policy is at Pages that differ by capitalization. This revision of the Article titles policy (although the author did not take care to make sure where the links actually targeted) makes it pretty clear that hyphens are acceptable forms of disambiguation. Marcus Qwertyus 21:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A10 is a disambiguation page but A-10 redirects to Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. It is similar case here, especially if the name stays V-1 (flying bomb) or V-1 flying bomb. In any case, there is no need for V-1 to redirect to V1 as there is no ambiguity. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A-10 has bounced around back and forth over the years from a redirect to the plane to one to the disambiguation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There are equivalent examples, like F16 versus F-16. I think the hatnote that says ""F-16" redirects here. For other uses, see F16." is the best way to handle the situation. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment as this was the first cruise missile, perhaps V-1 (cruise missile) would be better? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just (missile) is better as missile is as precise as it needs to be and it was also not technically a cruise missile. Marcus Qwertyus 06:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's a guided missile that uses aerodynamic sources to produce lift for extended flight, and is not a ballistic missile... so cruise missile. Several authoritative sources also call it the first cruise missile. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• The term "cruise missile" was never applied to the V-1 in its day. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• True, being the first, they had no term for it at the time. That doesn't mean it isn't one. Just as early landmines were called torpedoes doesn't mean they aren't landmines. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Missiles are guided weapons. (rocket) would be good except rockets must be powered by a rocket motor. Military parlance is strange. Marcus Qwertyus 05:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you missed the part of the article that says "guidance system". 65.94.47.63 (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• A pendulum and a simple gyroscope do not constitute a 'guidance system' in the same sense that a modern missile is guided. At the time it was considered a flying bomb both by the people that launched it and by the people it dropped on. To rename it a cruise missile would be an utter nonsense. At the very most all that is warranted is a passing mention within the article that it could be considered a crude historical forerunner to modern cruise missiles. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• You could say the same thing about two-element optics of primitive telescopic sights, versus motion stabilized 21-element optics; or you could say that a WWI biplane is not a real plane either, in comparison to a modern F-22. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Move to V-1 flying bomb. The parentheses are not needed in this case. The term "cruise missile" is anachronistic for this weapon. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that based on COMMONNAME, rather than the use of parentheses in disambiguation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I acknowledge that there are other common names, but I think one of them should be used in addition to just V-1. The following sources use the common name "V-1 flying bomb": [1][2][3] Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking back at the original Fieseler Fi 103 redirect page [4] it went to 'V-1 flying bomb'. That is by far the most common name but we deal with aircraft types by naming them by manufacturer and type (Fieseler Fi 103 in this case). To put a stick in the works I think it should be at Fieseler Fi 103 with 'V-1 flying bomb' with all variations of that redirecting to it (making sure that it's mentioned clearly in the lead). The hatnotes could go as there would be no confusion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That suggestion is reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Using Fieseler Fi 103 is sensible, it just needs an WP:IAR to override WP:COMMONNAME. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Next to nobody has heard of Fieseler. Stick to V1 or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Move to V-1 with a hatnote that says something like "This article is about the flying bomb. For other uses see V1." The title V-1 is precise and the hatnote disambiguates. Rejectwater (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

V-1 flying bomb is acceptable- we should at the very least remove the parentheses. Rejectwater (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

colloquially known in Britain

"and Buzz Bomb, also colloquially known in Britain as the Doodlebug" What makes "Buzz Bomb" any less colloquial than Doodlebug? Dispute the the statement of "colloquially" doodlebug has been used as the title of books on the subject as a Google book search shows:

• The doodlebugs: the story of the flying-bombs, by Norman Longmate - 1981
• Bombs, Stinging Nettles and Doodlebugs, Maurice Goymer - 2006
• Air-launched doodlebugs: the forgotten campaign, by Peter J. C. Smith - 2006
• V-1 Flying Bomb 1942-52: Hitler's Infamous "doodlebug", Steven Zaloga - 2011

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

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

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

Manned V-1

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

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

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