This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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.22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
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. 126.96.36.199 (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 hydrazinehydrate fuel...) - The BushrangerOne 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)
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)
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. -- 188.8.131.52 (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)
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" -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:21, 25 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)
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)
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. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:25, 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 BushrangerOne 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.
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 BushrangerOne 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)
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (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 22.214.171.124 (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)
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 ArticleManhattan 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)
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.
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 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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)