Complete German wartime V-2 Rocket found off British coast.

Run_to_da_hills

Nice find, probably one of the worlds first ever ballistic missile.

They killed thousands in the final months of the Second World War, fired from occupied Europe at the cities and ports of the south-east. But one of Hitler’s terrifying V-2 flying rockets is still lying unexploded in the mud just off the coast of East Anglia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122370/Evacuation-fears-15-000-people-complete-German-wartime-V-2-Rocket-British-coast.html

johngalway

"I took a policeman out in a boat to investigate the next day, but he fell backwards into the mud and I had to drag him out and recover his boots."

muppetkiller

Why are they hitting it with Hammers in all the photos lol

tac foley

Antwerp in Belgium was one of the most heavily-hit city ports in Europe by the V2. The Germans thought that bringing the dock facilities to a halt would slow down the allied effort to support the effort moving into Germany.

My Belgian Warrant Officer's entire family [sixteen men-women and children], apart from his parents [obviously] died in the onslaught aimed mainly at the port area.

It was not only the South-east of mainland UK that suffered.

tac

Stovepipe

One of the biggest losses of life to a V2 occurred when a full cinema was hit, killing an estimated 500 persons.

regards
Stovepipe

Elmer Blooker

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Nice find, probably one of the worlds first ever ballistic missile.

They killed thousands in the final months of the Second World War,

So did the bombing of Dresden kill thousands in the final months of the Second World War. Think about it.

TerrorFirmer

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

So did the bombing of Dresden kill thousands in the final months of the Second World War. Think about it.

Most V2s fell off target. Technical marvels, they were not the war winning weapon the Germans intended them to be upon conception. They fired a lot at Antwerp, where most fell harmlessly, and intelligence directed a lot of them towards the country in England, and overall, the V2 programme claimed a fraction of what the single event raid on Dresden did throughout the war.

Ultimately, like the likes of the Me262, it was a technical marvel that appeared far too late to have even the remotest baring on the war.

Tony EH

They weren't supposed to be "war winning" weapons though. There was never going to be enough of them to fullfill that desire and Germany knew that all too well.

The idea of the Vergeltungswaffen was to make Britain think twice about indescriminately bombing Germans cities, towns and villages.

That didn't work either.

Stovepipe

Now, now Tony EH, don't be drifting down that road about British indiscrimate bombing of civilians, towns and villages as we are all well aware that the Germans had opened the book on that tactic in Guernica and continued to do so in WW II. They even invented a word for it; to Coventrate, in memory of their systemic destruction of the centre of Coventry. There is also no comparison to what they did to Warsaw, with the exception of what the Russians did to Berlin...With regard to Allied indiscrimate bombing, sure, they were no better, morally, but at least they waited until 1943/44 before they unleashed the fighters (Big Week) with orders to strafe anything that moved, but then the Luftwaffe had been strafing refugee columns with abandon since 1940.
With regard to the V2, it was successful because it scared the **** out of it's targeted population, because they couldn't see it until it was too late and their defences were useless against it.
Personally, if the Germans had spent more time building good panther tanks instead of V2s, they'd have either prolonged the war or ended it on their terms.

regards
Stovepipe

Tony EH

Regardless of the hyperbole and cliché exhibited above, the fact still remains that the Germans employed the V weapons in attempt to steer the British away from their policy of indiscriminate bombing.

My opinons on Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry are here. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66218712

I've yet to read, hear or see anything to re-evaluate.

BlaasForRafa

Stovepipe wrote: »

Now, now Tony EH, don't be drifting down that road about British indiscrimate bombing of civilians, towns and villages as we are all well aware that the Germans had opened the book on that tactic in Guernica and continued to do so in WW II. They even invented a word for it; to Coventrate, in memory of their systemic destruction of the centre of Coventry. There is also no comparison to what they did to Warsaw, with the exception of what the Russians did to Berlin...With regard to Allied indiscrimate bombing, sure, they were no better, morally, but at least they waited until 1943/44 before they unleashed the fighters (Big Week) with orders to strafe anything that moved, but then the Luftwaffe had been strafing refugee columns with abandon since 1940.
With regard to the V2, it was successful because it scared the **** out of it's targeted population, because they couldn't see it until it was too late and their defences were useless against it.
Personally, if the Germans had spent more time building good panther tanks instead of V2s, they'd have either prolonged the war or ended it on their terms.

regards
Stovepipe

It sounds like you've swallowed the script of a Pathé news serial or something.

senordingdong

Startling that it was known about for 68 years and nothing was done.

IrishGeordie

Sounds fascinating lads!

tac foley

Uh, I'd just like to point out at this juncture that the British were not alone in bombing Germany.

I seem to recall that the United States 8th Army Air force was quite active
in that area of operations, as were the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans.

That's why it was called the 'Allied Bombing offensive'.

tac

Stovepipe

Dear Tony EH,
I had a read of your link to your opinion on the bombing of the named cities and I found your defence of the bombing of Rotterdam amusing; they were only aiming at the docks and they only dropped a limited tonnage. Well, lucky ol' Dutch, is all I can say. They must have been mighty curious as to why (a) the germans were targetting them at all (b) why the Germans felt the need to destroy so many houses, along with the cranes and wharves. Given that this was before the days of the accurate Lofte sight, they might as well have been using monocles for accurate bomb-aiming. They knew perfectly well that they'd be killing civilians that day, because they knew perfectly well how their bombs flew and they knew that not all of them would fall exactly on the docks. So they made the same mental and moral adjustment as every bombaimer before and since has; there's the enemy.Bombs away!
The V2 launch controllers knew full well that they hadn't a hope of stopping the mass bombing of Germany, they knew full well how indiscriminate a weapon it was and they still fired it.Same moral adjustment as their brothers in the 1940 Heinkels.

regards
Stovepipe

Tony EH

tac foley wrote: »

Uh, I'd just like to point out at this juncture that the British were not alone in bombing Germany.

I seem to recall that the United States 8th Army Air force was quite active
in that area of operations, as were the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans.

That's why it was called the 'Allied Bombing offensive'.

tac

Bomber Command, however, had a stated mission of bombing civilians. The 8th and 9th US Airforces at least made attempts (ostensibly anyway) to actually target facilities.

The British (and her above dominions) simply tipped as much HE and incendiaries onto the centre of civilian areas. Anything of military value that was destroyed was a matter of secondary or tertiary concern.

Tony EH

Stovepipe wrote: »

Dear Tony EH,
I had a read of your link to your opinion on the bombing of the named cities and I found your defence of the bombing of Rotterdam amusing; they were only aiming at the docks and they only dropped a limited tonnage. Well, lucky ol' Dutch, is all I can say. They must have been mighty curious as to why (a) the germans were targetting them at all (b) why the Germans felt the need to destroy so many houses, along with the cranes and wharves.

Complete bunkum.

The fact is that the Germans attacked Rotterdam with just 50 odd Heinkels (KG54), if that, and they were carrying loadouts of SC50 and SC250s, with no incendiaries. JUST over 90 tons of bombs. The fact, also, is that they were trying to target the docks area because the allies had been landing supplies there.

Vegetable oil stores on the docks were hit by bombs and burned fiercely, which spread fire over the city over the next few days. The resulting fires that spread across the city surprised the Germans as much as it did the Dutch considering the miniscule bombload. Fire-fighting facilities in Rotterdam were woefully ineffective, hence the fires had become uncontrollable for the unfortunate Dutch and spread with impunity.

I wonder what the Dutch made of the FAR more devastating allied bombings of Rotterdam, carried out in 43 and 44, which destroyed much more of the city, than the German attack of 1940.

But, I suppose that was ok, cos the "good guys" were doing the killing that time.

Of course, the British made great propaganda out of the attack, claiming an absurd 30,000 dead and is responsible for some peoples coloured perceptions on the matter to this day. The reason for such British "outrage" was because they were looking for a free pass to bomb German cities. A goal which had been desired since day one of hostilities.

The myth of the "Rotterdam blitz" is easily exposed by the facts.

Stovepipe

I see. The Germans were surprised by how fiercely the wooden, antique, densely packed private and public housing burned and how the wooden, antique, densely packed warehousing burned? Are you kidding? Their own dockyard workers lived in the same kinds of dockside housing themselves. They knew perfectly well that 90 tons of HE would start fires and those fires would be sustained by the fuel of the buildings and all the flammables in dockyard warehouses, including potential military supplies. If they truly wanted to shatter the docks, why would they use small bombs, a small overall tonnage and no incendiaries to guarantee fires? As you have no doubt read, it takes a huge effort to make docks truly unusable, especially given the scale of Rotterdam's docks. You only have to look at the German efforts in 1944 to deny Antwerp and the Schelde.

regards
Stovepipe

Tony EH

Wrong.

You need a considerable amount of incendiary to cause large scale fire damage.

And you CERTAINLY need CONSIDERABLY more than 90 tons of bombs if you are intending to wipe out a city, or even part of a city.

Time for you to get back to the books, I'm afraid.

The Germans were surprised at how fiercely the fires spread across the city considering the limited nature of the attack.

As for using small bombs, you'll need to read up on the Heinkel's payload limitations, before making wild assumptions. When you've educated yourself in that, then you'll understand better why the results of the attack on Rotterdam caught everyone by surprise.

If the Gerries had the knowledge and ability to destroy cities with just a few Heinkels and mickey-mouse payloads, the war would have been over in a week. :rolleyes:

Stovepipe

Hi there
I'm aware of the He-111's bomb load limitations (having seen one 3 years ago in London and having Nowarra's work to hand) so I know that a standard load was SC50s or SC250s or a mix of both or an external load of SC500s. I also know and understand how and why they work and I know, as you do, that an SC50 isn't much cop for smashing reinforced concrete docks but it'll smash and ignite a wooden house or a wooden warehouse nicely. It'll also smash the standard Dutch barge, itself not unalike the standard German barge.
Either way, the attack was indiscrimate because it couldn't be accurate enough in the first place and it had the potential to kill the dock workforce and intimidate the rest of the Dutch population.The Germans knew exactly what they were doing.
regards
Stovepipe

Tony EH

Stovepipe wrote: »

Either way, the attack was indiscrimate because it couldn't be accurate enough in the first place and it had the potential to kill the dock workforce and intimidate the rest of the Dutch population.The Germans knew exactly what they were doing.

Nonsense.

The attack discriminated on the dock area along the Mass, because the allies were landing supplies there and there were concentrations of Dutch troops. The group leader even took his aircraft very low, in order to actually hit his assigned target and had orders to ONLY attack within the permitted triangle. It was completely the opposite of an indiscriminate attack. The Luftwaffe couldn't afford an indiscriminate attack because results of such attacks are often useless and their own troops were very close to the target area.

In fact, the attack was wholly in accordance with the Kampfgeschwader's main role, that of support of the land army. The purpose it was designed for. In this case the troops waiting to move on Rotterdam (9th Panzer) and the troops that were within the city already.

Stovepipe

Then it begs the question, why didn't they use Stukas and Ju88s, if they wanted pinpoint accuracy combined with heavy weight of ordnance?
regards
Stovepipe

Tony EH

KG54 were only an hour or so away.

There was also a heavy haze in the afternoon over the target area, so perhaps that lent weight to the decision to use level bombers. The Stukagruppen had had some nasty experiences with haze and fog during dive bombing attacks in Poland in 1939.

More than likely, it was because the secondary target was large concentrations of British divs in Antwerp. Lackner, approaching from the East and Höhne, coming from the South west, were aware that a call-off of the attack was a possibility and that they were to watch for signals. That also ties in with the use of a HE only loadout too.

In any case, both groups flew extremely low to hit their targets. Below 3000 ft. That further rules out the idea that the Luftwaffe attack on Rotterdam was of an indiscriminate nature.

Stovepipe

Well done.I can't fail but to admit defeat and acknowledge the quality of your answers.

regards
Stovepipe

Tony EH

Hey, it's not a competition Stovepipe. There's lots of good info floating around this forum for everyone to use. I used to have the same view about the Rotterdam raid, until I discovered what actually happened, which changed the game considerably.

Apologies too, if I came across a bit snippy...but I've been having this argument for years.