# Deadliest 'V' Series Weapon



## tbfighterpilot (Nov 8, 2011)

What was the deadliest 'V' series weapon. I don't know, but wouldn't choose the V-3 since it wasn't really used.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Nov 9, 2011)

The V-2. There was no defense against it, and no warning, since it travelled faster than the speed of sound. One second you were OK, the next you were dead. The V-1 was basically an unmanned airplane, although a fast one; it could be seen coming, it couldn't take evasive maneuvers, ergo it could be shot down by AAA or intercepted by regular fighters.


----------



## mikewint (Nov 9, 2011)

Easy, both were a waste of time, effort and money.
the V-2: 6,048 built at 100,000 reichmarks each or $3 billion US. (Manhatten project cost $1.9 billion and produced an atomic bomb). Originally designed for a 1 ton explosive warhead, lack of explosives meant that many were launched just with concrete. 100,000 reichmarks could have built a 4-engine bomber which was more accurate, had a longer range, carried more waheads, and could be reused. 1/3 of Germany's fuel alcohol production went into the V-2 program at a time when fuel was in very short supply. 30 tons of patatoes distilled for one launch at a time when food was in very short supply
all that to kill 2,754 civilians in London


----------



## Airframes (Nov 9, 2011)

Waste of money or not Mike, both caused problems for the Brit and US forces in the UK at the time. More importantly, the V2, as already mentioned, could not be countered (once launched), and announced its presence _after _it had exploded - with the double 'boom' of its sonic bang being heard seconds after it landed and exploded. In that respect, it was the most deadly, no matter how effective, or not, it could have been in the long term. 
More importantly, it was the first opening of a brand-new chapter of warfare - the missile - which was undetected and, even if detected, could not be neutralized. 
Ever since then, with this first 'sortie' into guided, targeted weapons, man has lived under the cloud of more 'developed' systems, which, don't just travel 200 miles from the launch site, in a tactical situation, but can travel across half the globe, with much more devastating results.
Thank Heavens von Braun and Dornberger spoke to the 'western' Allies first, after WW2 !!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 9, 2011)

"... Easy, both were a waste of time, effort and money. The V-2: 6,048 built at 100,000 reichmarks each or $3 billion US. (Manhattan project cost $1.9 billion and produced an atomic bomb). Originally designed for a 1 ton explosive warhead, lack of explosives meant that many were launched just with concrete. 100,000 reichmarks could have built a 4-engine bomber which was more accurate, had a longer range, carried more warheads, and could be reused. 1/3 of Germany's fuel alcohol production went into the V-2 program at a time when fuel was in very short supply. 30 tons of potatoes distilled for one launch at a time when food was in very short supply
all that to kill 2,754 civilians in London"

Interesting perspective.

MM


----------



## mikewint (Nov 9, 2011)

Terry, totally agreed. V-2 was another German high-tech weapons system (Tiger tanks, Me-262, ect) that were bleeding the Reich of needed money and material at a time when more effective conventional systems would have given "more bang for the buck". Additionally, the slave-labor used to produce the V-2 actually meant that more people died in the production of the weapon than in its deployment: total military and civilian losses - 7,250 Forced laborers - 12,000. Militarily about 2 deaths per V-2 hardly a deadily weapon
The effectivness (deadlyness) could have been increased with a more powerful explosive or an airburst but the German's lack of a proximity fuse prevented this limiting the effectiveness of the warhead. Also by the wars end the Germans had produced the nerve agents sarin, soman and tabun; however, they had never used any of them but one ton of any of these released in a large city would have produced heavy casualities
About the psycological aspects I totally agree and I would also agree that its novelty as a weapon set the stage for the next 50 years of ballistic military rocketry.
Interesting note: 12 V-2 rockets were disassembled placed on two U-boats and sent to Japan. they reached Djakarta in December 1944 and disappeared into history


----------



## davebender (Nov 15, 2011)

CDC | Facts About VX


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 15, 2011)

davebender said:


> CDC | Facts About VX



I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but VX is one of the most deadly of the nerve agents, but it's far from being the only one. Sarin (GB), Soman (GD), and Tabun (GA), are all nerve agents too.


----------



## stona (Nov 16, 2011)

The question was which was the deadliest and the answer is the V-1,by a factor of about 10.
My old chemistry tutor always impressed the need to read the question before giving an answer on us 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 16, 2011)

A better question might be deadlier to whom ?
The V1 and V2 might have been more effective at using up German resources than destroying allied resources.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2011)

My vote goes for the V-2, for several reasons: first of which, is that it was a truly terrifying weapon with no defenses against it once it was launched.

Another point is that the V-2 was a "crossroads" weapon that was intended to have been developed with larger and more powerful payloads and ended up being the Grandfather of all ballistic missiles. Considering the fact that the German leadership acted as though they had nothing but time on thier side to develop the "vengeance weapons" regardless of cost (both in material and human life), it's surprising that they were able to get as far as they did with it's production and deployment during the final years of the Reich.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 16, 2011)

The real question should be which one was most effective in meeting its war objectives. I would argue that neither weapon's primary purpose as a weapon system was to bomb England into the stone age. Rather, they were meant to instill terror in the populace, destroy morale and remove the will to fight. In that regard, I would say the V-1 was very effective. V-1 attacks consumed resources in tracking/detection, warfighters, hardware (planes, AA artillery, etc). V-1's instilled a unique fear, when at the time public perception of an unmanned weapon system out to kill them was psychologically unfathomable and it was easily embodied with the V-1 unique engine sound. And finally the explosive payload did kill and cause recognizable damage. Overall successful cost vs benefit? Likely not. But I would think the V-1 was MORE successful than the V-2. But then again, look at the technology spin-offs from the V-2...


----------



## riacrato (Nov 17, 2011)

As you say neither weapon was really expected to achieve any meaningful damage.

They were mere "revenge" weapons as the names say: meant to terrorize the enemies' populace and remind them, that the war was not won yet. They were also meant to show the Germans that the war was not as one-sided as it actually already was at that time, that Germany was still somewhat "on the offense", that it was not hopeless to keep up the fight whether in the field or on the home front.

In that the V-1 was somewhat effective. It also tied a lot of Allied resources for very relatively little own effort. The development that started with the V-2 together with the a-bomb shaped the world after the war more than anything else, but it still had a long way ahead of it before "breaking even". Let's just be glad Nazi Germany never had a chance to cash up on that investment.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 17, 2011)

Amen to that. A few more years, who knows what technology the Nazi's may have capitalized upon.


----------

