V2 Rocket Warheads

Discussions on the equipment used by the Axis forces, apart from the things covered in the other sections. Hosted by Juha Tompuri
gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Reality?

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 30 Sep 2002 21:25

Dear Mark V (could I appellate you as "dear" without offence?)
I even thought more than a time that all this forum is synthetic, that a lot of people in it are "alter egos" of the host plus moderators and the finality of the forum had to be a complex psychological experiment. Sincerely I must say to you that your fascinating psichological behaviour reinforce in me this strange (how much is it?) feeling to be a mouse closed in a bottle where a psychologist is watching what ever and whenever he can about me...he is so busy! You feel "not defeated"....you abandon the threat because my replies are not satisfactory...it is a too much crazy situation to be real! I am here only to have the pleasure of debate with someone else having interests similar to my owns. End of pleasure of mine= end of interest of mine. This is not a private lesson and I am not your teacher: I am not able to teach and this is a fault of mine. If you feel no pleasure to debate with me or with other guys you must abandon the thread immediately. This is not an head-hunting, in my opinion, and I feel no pleasure in "defeating" a guy born in another nation that I have never seen before. My father was obliged to do it really and all the rest of his own life was fulfilled of pain. This is the true lesson of the war! But if you are still asking me something I am not able to give you, I don't understand what other thing I have to do for you. Please wait before abandoning the thread: if the thread is interesting for you and you don't like my presence simply tell me it and I will abandon. Better doing so than this strange feeling to be watched and judged thru the glass of a bottle!

Zygmunt
Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: 31 May 2002 19:50
Location: Wielka Brytania

Post by Zygmunt » 01 Oct 2002 12:18

Thanks for the appraisal of the relative suitablility of nerve gases for the Tokyo attack.

I guess the only thing for me to say on this thread is to say that "brotherkill", or when one warhead is damaged or rendered inoperable by the blast or EMP of another is usually rendered in English using the latin; "fratricide", eg "fratricidal effects of EMP..."

Of course, that is less of a problem if most of the re-entry vehicles are decoys, to confuse ABM defences, with a smaller number of actual warheads.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 01 Oct 2002 18:38

One other aspect of the Tokyo Sarin attack is that the nerve-agent was not dispersed properly and that is why the death-toll was so slight. Enough material was released to kill a lot of people.
:)

The pilot-plant in Germany for the production of 0.5 tons of Sarin during WWII...

Image

User avatar
Ando
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 05 Sep 2002 05:10
Location: Brisbane

Post by Ando » 02 Oct 2002 04:10

Image

Heres a photo of damage from a V2 rocket that landed in Sandringham road, near the end of the Second World War. Apparently the V2 had a 64m blast radius.

In regards to using chemical weapons I thought Hitler didnt want to use them on people he considered human because of his experiances in the trenches in WW1. I think even if the V2 could carry and distribute chemical weapons he wouldnt have used them on England.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 02 Oct 2002 05:22

Ando wrote:In regards to using chemical weapons I thought Hitler didnt want to use them on people he considered human because of his experiances in the trenches in WW1. I think even if the V2 could carry and distribute chemical weapons he wouldnt have used them on England.

Hitler did not want to use poison gas unless he considered the new nerve gas decisive, or his experts could assure him that the Allies could not retaliate effectively. They could not give him that assurance, according to Speer. At the end, only Goebbels (in his diaries) thought that they should be used anyway, as a last resort to defeat; the Allied gas-masks would have been ineffective, at least initially. But Hitler said NO.

I can hardly imagine Hitler being sentimental about the use of any weapon, but WWI clearly showed that unless poison gas was decisive, or the enemy could not retaliate in some effective way, a weapon of mass-destruction is only useful as a strategic-deterrent for possible retaliation. Arms control is always going to bow before military necessity.

Terrorists find such weapons intriguing because it is hard to retaliate militarily against guerillas which hide among the civilian population. That requires a network of police informants, where conventional force can be rapidly mobilized when necessary. It also requires vigilant foreign relations but not necessarily imperialism, IMHO.
:)

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

FALL OUT

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 02 Oct 2002 21:16

Enclosed a pic about a semplified "bell-alike" fall-out scheme regarding a A-bomb of unspecified power but having a 2500 ft radius of "zero spot" (round area in which there are casualties due only to thermal shock and sonic shock-wave if exploded at ground) It is an old sketch from D.Sette "Elements of thermodynamics" vol. V. This source is a std. for III year in physics of University of Rome. It shows how growing the ceiling of the nuke, the exposed area has to increase by mean of the fall-out. If the Hiroshima bomb had to explode at 18000 ft, probably the casualties in a time lasting more than 30 days could be doubled and only a few immediately. The bomb was parachuted, therefore its own down speed was much less than 100 mph while the B29's crew could excape at more than 300 mph by mean of a sudden dive, like they did. Consequently they were able to spark the bomb at that heigh ceiling. If they did not, it happened for the following probable reasons....
1-Scientists wanted measure destroying capability (..in corpore vivi..so our "latin lover" has been accomplished) due to the main shock-wave.
2-To be sure Paul Tibbets was far as much as possible during "spark".
3-As human pity: less the height less the mass-killings.
Make your choice. About fall-out, the same rule of the belt -shape could be easily applied for gases and powders. But the concentration has to be involved in calculating the effects, in the while radio-nuclides freeded by A-bomb could be lethal also in high dispersion. Thats enough about the bomb
in this thread...in my opinion.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: FALL OUT

Post by Mark V » 02 Oct 2002 22:06

gabriel pagliarani wrote: If the Hiroshima bomb had to explode at 18000 ft, probably the casualties in a time lasting more than 30 days could be doubled and only a few immediately.


Frightening and really convincing demonstration of power indeed. :lol:

Wonder why Americans didn't use that strategy to use their nukes.. X-number of additional cancer cases during next few decades, but only a handfull of casualties on day of bombing! :D --- God, are you joking gabriel? Should we really take this scenarion of yours seriously...

Japanese military leaders would have been convinced that nuclear bomb was a big bluff and nothing to be worried about.

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Laughs?

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 02 Oct 2002 23:36

Laugh Mark V, laugh as much you can. It' s from you that are coming only laughs and not only a fact or shareable ideas, as you said I did.
RISU INEPTO RES INEPTIOR NULLA EST (Catullus, Carmina 39-15)
For those about to rock...I'll salute you! :mrgreen:

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: Laughs?

Post by Mark V » 03 Oct 2002 06:11

gabriel pagliarani wrote:Laugh Mark V, laugh as much you can. It' s from you that are coming only laughs and not only a fact or shareable ideas, as you said I did.
RISU INEPTO RES INEPTIOR NULLA EST (Catullus, Carmina 39-15)
For those about to rock...I'll salute you! :mrgreen:


OK.

I am serious now.

Why don't you please tell us why in your opinion Americans should have exploded Fat Man at 18000 feet ??

I have told my opinion. At that altitude the effects of bomb would have been nearly nonexistant. Isn't that enough ??

About fallout: If detonated at such altitude (alltough bomb was 100% fission) most of radioactivity would have been carried high to atmosphere and alltough there would have been few additional cancer cases (not just in Japan, but in whole world) it would have been a total waste of perfectly good nuke.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Laughs?

Post by Logan Hartke » 03 Oct 2002 06:31

Mark V wrote:...perfectly good nuke.

I get the idea, but that might have been phrased differently.

Logan Hartke

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

I have just replied

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 03 Oct 2002 11:51

Mark V,
I have just replied. In my opinion it was an experiment: scientists had to watch what it could happen in the while an A-bomb was exploding at medium (Hiroshima)and low(Nagasaki) altitude. Probably if the war was not stopped as suddenly as fortunately happened, a third A-bomb had to be launched not before February 1946: in such a case, there were good chances it had to be fired at high altitude. But this is only "ucronical" Science Fiction. About the long-living light radio-nuclides dispersion (Cesium and Strontium high mid-life isothopes the 10% of the whole radioisotopes produced having mid-life time more than 30 days), I want remember you that "jet -stream" high ceiling winds in throposphere were discovered only during 50s just following the clouds of H-bombs Bikini tests...in 1945 there was no evidence of them and nobody could say where the clouds had to move towards. There was only a bit of experience about the relationship between cancer and nukes in 1945: Fermi was killed by a cancer to the stomach exactly like John Von Neumann and a lot of other scientist present at Trinity test. Or you are telling me they suicidates, or they were not confident as you are with rads.
Just a day before you said that a bomb exploding at 18000 ft had to kill nobody, and now the same explosion had to kill all the population of Japan plus the whole world...your opinions are variable as a flag in the wind. If I don't know how many kilotons (short, long or metric) has been rated Hiroshima's bomb (sincerely, I don't care of those numbers: if you want to kill me or someone else 30 grams of TNT are largely sufficient) you have an exaggerated confidence with those plain numbers. I said IF Hiroshima was 1kTon...if it was 1 MTon for me had no importance. Note that the data you have are not the same of Sir Smith. Who is wrong? Who cares of?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Logan,
no more fine toys to play for you? I have bought some fine flight-simulators but this fact don't let me to declare myself an expert as you pretend to be about aiplanes. Skilled about the bomb too?

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: I have just replied

Post by Mark V » 03 Oct 2002 18:20

gabriel pagliarani wrote:Mark V,
I have just replied. In my opinion it was an experiment: scientists had to watch what it could happen in the while an A-bomb was exploding at medium (Hiroshima)and low(Nagasaki) altitude.


Trinity was an experiment. Little Boy and Fat Man were weapons used in war. You are forgetting that at that time there was war waiting to be finished.

gabriel pagliarani wrote:Probably if the war was not stopped as suddenly as fortunately happened, a third A-bomb had to be launched not before February 1946: in such a case, there were good chances it had to be fired at high altitude. But this is only "ucronical" Science Fiction.


That doesn't hold water. Third bomb would have been ready for use by the latter part of August 1945. By February 1946 United States was capable to expend nearly 10 nukes per month. Nothing science-fiction about this estimate, just hard production statistics from Oak Ridge and Hanford.

Carey Sublette writes:

---------------------------start of extract:
The date that a third weapon could have been used against Japan was no later than August 20. The core was prepared by August 13, and Fat Man assemblies were already on Tinian Island. It would have required less than a week to ship the core and prepare a bomb for combat.

Production estimates given to Sec. Stimson in July 1945 projected a second plutonium bomb would be ready by Aug. 24, that 3 bombs should be available in September, and more each month - reaching 7 or more in December. Improvements in bomb design being prepared at the end of the war would have permitted one bomb to be produced for every 5 kg of plutonium or 12 kg of uranium in output. These improvements were apparently taken into account in this estimate. Assuming these bomb improvements were used, the October capacity would have permitted up to 6 bombs a month. Note that with the peak monthly plutonium and HEU production figures (19.4 kg and 69 kg respectively), production of close to 10 bombs a month was possible.
--------------------------end of extract




gabriel pagliarani wrote:About the long-living light radio-nuclides dispersion (Cesium and Strontium high mid-life isothopes the 10% of the whole radioisotopes produced having mid-life time more than 30 days), I want remember you that "jet -stream" high ceiling winds in throposphere were discovered only during 50s just following the clouds of H-bombs Bikini tests...in 1945 there was no evidence of them and nobody could say where the clouds had to move towards. There was only a bit of experience about the relationship between cancer and nukes in 1945: Fermi was killed by a cancer to the stomach exactly like John Von Neumann and a lot of other scientist present at Trinity test. Or you are telling me they suicidates, or they were not confident as you are with rads.


It is you that have said previously that crew of Enola Gay died because they were subjected to radiation, not me.

It is you that suggested that Fat Man should have been exploded at high altitude to spread radionuclides over larger are, not me.

IMO this is nitpicking. It is impossible to separate the cancer cases caused for example atmospheric nuclear testing before 1962 from those that were caused because some other enviromental (or self-inflicted) burden to human body. BTW During these test series totally different magnitude of radionuclides were released to atmosphere than from those 2 atomic bombs used in Japan. Effect of those 2 weapons is insignificant on global scale.


gabriel pagliarani wrote: and now the same explosion had to kill all the population of Japan plus the whole world...your opinions are variable as a flag in the wind.


I think you have serious problems with your english. Read my posts again and show me where i said anything like that. If you have problems to understand what i have written, ask. Don't make such silly claims.


gabriel pagliarani wrote:If I don't know how many kilotons (short, long or metric) has been rated Hiroshima's bomb (sincerely, I don't care of those numbers: if you want to kill me or someone else 30 grams of TNT are largely sufficient) you have an exaggerated confidence with those plain numbers. I said IF Hiroshima was 1kTon...if it was 1 MTon for me had no importance.


It is you that sprinkler numbers all over your posts. Our difference is that i post only those numbers that i feel are reliable. You on the other hand pull your numbers from the hat. For example your Little Boy = 1 kt, or Soviet megabomb = equivalent of 50000 Fat Mans.

gabriel pagliarani wrote:Note that the data you have are not the same of Sir Smith. Who is wrong?


Scotts and mine estimates both fit to commonly used lower and upper limits for yield.

It is your estimates that are out of chart.



Have a nice day.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 03 Oct 2002 18:24

Logan,
no more fine toys to play for you? I have bought some fine flight-simulators but this fact don't let me to declare myself an expert as you pretend to be about aiplanes.


Any day i would trust Logan much more than you about airplanes. You should read a bit more discussions in this forum.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Oct 2002 18:58

The literature on the atomic bomb is quite clear that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were airbursts in order to maximize damage from the blast and to minimize fallout, which is enhanced if dirt is mixed with the waste isotopes of the bomb and then falls over a wide area locally instead of being dispersed and diluted in the upper atmosphere.

Since it was difficult to predict the exact yield of the untested Little Boy bomb beforehand, a detonation altitude of 1500 feet was used, which was actually a little bit on the high side than was desired to maximize the blast for the smaller yield than was expected. As Gabriel's diagram shows, too little altitude and the blast will penetrate and be absorbed by the ground (also maximizing deadly fallout in the area), and too much altitude and the effects of the blast would be nil, although heat-radiation and fires would still be a factor up to at least 10,000 feet. I submit that a detonation-altitude of 18,000 feet wouldn't endanger anybody more than the Enola Gay crew itself--or anybody who was not looking at the blast, as some people unfortunately were since they were watching the silver plane in the sky.

The Trinity bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico was detonated from a tower and spread some fallout, but it was in a very remote region of the country. And prior to 1963, when above-ground nuclear tests were banned in the USA, the tests were never conducted when populated Las Vegas, Nevada was downwind. There is some controversial data that "downwinders" in Utah and other parts of Nevada have higher than normal cancer rates.

Also, I don't know how John von Neumann died, but IIRC, Robert Oppenheimer died from lung cancer in 1967 and he was a lifelong chain-smoker.
:)

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: I have just replied

Post by Logan Hartke » 03 Oct 2002 19:55

gabriel pagliarani wrote:Logan,
no more fine toys to play for you? I have bought some fine flight-simulators but this fact don't let me to declare myself an expert as you pretend to be about aiplanes. Skilled about the bomb too?

I play a lot of games on the computer, and the finest ones don't make you an expert on the subject. I have at least 8 games that simulate WWII ground combat on the Western Front. I do not glean any of my knowledge from them. It would be stupid to do so. Accurate as they are, they have flukes. In one of the best of the entire line (a Close Combat game), I had a Stuart destroy my Jagdtiger with a frontal shot. I've also had a BT-7M destroy my Tiger with a single shot to the glacis. The reason I don't bring my wargaming experience to the forum is because they are, no matter how accurate they are, not always right. I would begin to make incohent, unresearched statements like you if I did, and I'm not about to do that when it comes to equipment. When I do, I apologize. You do none of these. When you come back to the P6E topic and apologize and point out where you were wrong; then I may begin to give you credit. Until then, you have none of my respect, instead, you earn my criticism. When you gain the intestinal fortitude to return to the Heinkel/Curtiss topic, come back and apologize.

Until then...

Logan Hartke

Return to “Other Equipment”