# Best use for the V2 in WWII? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 14, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857 "2011-11-14T01:54:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/1 "2011-11-14T01:54:22Z")
used against london beginning september 1944, V2 attacts claimed 2,754 lives and injured around 6,000. that’s roughly two killed per missile. the vengeance project cost $3.0 billion (based on wiki, not sure if it’s in present-day terms) compared with $1.9 billion for the manhattan project. one V2 missile required distilling ethanol from 30 tonnes of potatoes. the entire V2 project used up one third of germany’s annual potato/alcohol production. how could a weapon this expensive be used as a weapon with strategic/tactical value? ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/2 "2011-11-14T01:59:36Z")
Well, given that the accuracy of the V2 was “100% within 18km” (11.2 miles) and 50% landed within 4.5km (2.8 miles), it has to be used again large targets like London. Aiming at a military base is not going to be very effective because of the very small chance of hitting a ship in port or a barracks building. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/3 "2011-11-14T02:02:50Z")
the general area where you have the deep-water harbor in normandy would have been ok (that’s what every war book says.) damage may not have been great but it would have been enough to disrupt port operations sufficient to keep the allies from breaking out. ---
**Author:** ![figure9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@figure9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/figure9)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/4 "2011-11-14T03:03:13Z")
Make it smaller. Make more of them. Load them with hi-explosives and launch them into allied bomber formations. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/5 "2011-11-14T03:06:44Z")
a smaller version of the v1 could be air-launched. it could make a useful air-to-air weapen against bomber formations. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/6 "2011-11-14T03:07:17Z")
Actually, more V2’s were used against Antwerp than London – more than half of all rockets launched. So the Germans had the right idea of using it against a port. The accuracy just wasn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/7 "2011-11-14T03:30:33Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > a smaller version of the v1 could be air-launched. it could make a useful air-to-air weapen against bomber formations. I believe the ME-262 could be armed with rockets. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/8 "2011-11-14T04:52:32Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > a smaller version of the v1 could be air-launched. it could make a useful air-to-air weapen against bomber formations. There was the [“Wasserfall” surface-to-air missile](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall), which was being tested by the end of the war. Albert Speer, for his part, notes in his memoirs that he later believed that Germany would have been much better served focusing on that missile rather than the V-2. My own tests of a simulated Wasserfall I built myself, I should say, actually resulted in much poorer performance for the missile than the specifications indicated…but to my surprise, they matched up _very_ well with the figures for a Soviet copy of the Wasserfall built after the war. Back to the V-2—changing the warhead to carry chemical weapons, such as Germany’s nerve agents which were unknown to the Allies, might make it more effective, although this would probably cause the Allies retaliate with their own chemical arsenal, which could be much more devastating. Churchill, in fact, [issued a memo in 1944](http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html) requesting a study on using chemical weapons against German cities, partially as retaliation for (conventional) V-weapon attacks. And even if they managed to hold out a few months longer by “going chemical,” Germany might only succeed in making themselves available for an Allied _nuclear_ retaliation! ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/9 "2011-11-14T06:25:47Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > There was the [“Wasserfall” surface-to-air missile](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall), which was being tested by the end of the war. Albert Speer, for his part, notes in his memoirs that he later believed that Germany would have been much better served focusing on that missile rather than the V-2. Probably Hitler’s meddling. He always wanted to focus on the offense and gave only lukewarm support at best to any defensive weapons. That’s why he went with the V2’s - they let him attack England even if the cost of the attacks was ridiculously high for the small amount of damage done. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/10 "2011-11-14T06:30:14Z")
To give an idea of how bad an idea a V-2 was, the payload of a V-2 was 2200 pounds of explosives. A B-17 on a long range mission could carry a 4500 pound bomb payload. And the B-17 could fly another mission afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/11 "2011-11-14T12:41:09Z")
The V-1 and V-2 were terror weapons, so the question becomes, how effective are terror weapons strategically? Historically, I believe, not very. In most cases they just harden the resolve of the terrorized citizenry, as was the case in WWII England. Here’s an informative [SDMB thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=551326&highlight=doodlebug) on the subject, which includes my parent’s up close and personal experience with the rockets. ---
**Author:** ![what\_do\_I\_type\_here](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a5b964/32.png) [@what\_do\_I\_type\_here](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/what_do_I_type_here)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/12 "2011-11-18T21:05:23Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > There was the [“Wasserfall” surface-to-air missile](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall), which was being tested by the end of the war. Albert Speer, for his part, notes in his memoirs that he later believed that Germany would have been much better served focusing on that missile rather than the V-2. Hitler stuck to the rivers and the lakes that he’s used to. That’s right, I bumped a thread to make a TLC reference. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/13 "2011-11-18T22:02:42Z")
It only made sense with a nuclear payload, so the intel people reckoned. Why would the Germans be wasting all that effort just to deliver a ton of high-explosive. The sinister silo-type constructions under way at Wizernes reinforced this view. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-use-for-the-v2-in-wwii/602857/14 "2011-11-18T22:48:36Z")
Chemical or biological payloads.