Talk:V-2 rocket

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| 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)

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)

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)

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 *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', 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| 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. Wikt:Rocket #1-3 and Wikt: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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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. (non-admin closure) 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: [1] 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)

This is a guided missile, not a rocket. <-- 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)