Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Live V1 Uncovered in Holland

Discussion in 'WWII Today' started by GRW, Sep 20, 2018.

  1. GRW

    GRW Pillboxologist WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    20,815
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Location:
    Stirling, Scotland
    The original article is in Dutch; I just used Google translate for the gist.
    No idea why it's taken them over a year to get around to clearing it.
    "ZUTPHEN - The Explosives Clearance Service Defense (EOD) started Monday with the removal of a German V1 from the Second World War. The remains of the 'flying bomb' are in the Tichelbeeksewaard and were found in July last year.
    In recent weeks, the EOD has made preparations to ensure that clearing is as smooth as possible. Previously, the detonators of the bomb were defused.
    The V1 was an unmanned flying bomb with more than 800 kilos of explosives on board. Probably the found copy was fired during the war years in the vicinity of Zutphen and the guidance system did not function properly. That's why the bomb came down in the Tichelbeeksewaard.
    The remains were discovered during the construction of a cycle path through the flood plains."
    www.omroepgelderland.nl/nieuws/2323923/Ruiming-Duitse-V1-bom-in-Zutphen-begonnen
     
  2. JJWilson

    JJWilson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    456
    Location:
    Arizona U.S.A
    It would be considerably more nerve racking if it was a V-2.............but a V-1 is no joy to come across either on your morning walk.......
     
  3. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    A V-2 would almost assuredly be in many pieces so not as bad.
     
    JJWilson likes this.
  4. JJWilson

    JJWilson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    456
    Location:
    Arizona U.S.A
    Very good point.......:D
     
  5. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm not sure I would have realized it but in the discussions of chemical weapons in WWII. Someone usually suggests V-2's as being good delivery vehicles for nerve gas. One of the problems is given their impact velocity they are likely to either go off to high to disperse a useful level of gas at ground level or more likely leave a fairly heavily contaminated hole in the ground. If they have much fuel left maybe not even that.
     
    JJWilson likes this.
  6. JJWilson

    JJWilson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    456
    Location:
    Arizona U.S.A
    I never even thought of that! I would think that if such a chemical attack would take place, they would use aircraft, or maybe even the Dora Rail gun?
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Aircraft would either have to use bombs which again had dispersal issues or spray which would require them to fly pretty low. Artillery shells would have similar issues to the V2. Hard to time them so they go off at just the right altitude.
     
    JJWilson likes this.
  8. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Interesting about the unexploded V1 - I don't recall one ever being discovered in the UK . They all seemed quite effective at exploding, even if often off-target. Their blast effect was terrific and overall, they were far more 'cost-effective' in terms of damage caused than the V-2.

    Interesting point about the nerve gas. It was certainly feared among the higher echelons of Allied command that, in 1945, Germany may have 'got the (atomic) bomb' and if so, would almost certainly have used the V-2 to deliver same against the UK.
     
  9. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm pretty sure the V-2 couldn't carry either of the two US designs.
    Wiki at:
    V-2 rocket - Wikipedia
    Has the V-2 with a 1,000kg warhead.
    Looking at Little Boy (the Uranium bomb) at wiki:
    Little Boy - Wikipedia
    It weighed in at 4,400Kg
    Looking at the illustration of the V-2 on that page Little Boy wouldn't have fit in the warhead area either.
     
  10. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    From what I recall the B-29 project was actually more expensive than the Manhattan Project and it took a specially modified B-29 to carry the bomb. Although a modified Lancaster might have been able to as well.
     
  11. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    You're right - technically, with the knowledge available at the time, it could never had happened. But there was certainly, at the time, a fear that it might. Hitler's 'wonder weapons' rhetoric fooled many on both sides.
     
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    They wouldn't have known all the stats on the V-2 either or how quickly it could be scaled up. For that matter how small the bomb could be. The US went for a sure thing I think I've read that they could have used significantly less uranium and had a smaller device. Modern ones are certainly smaller. So being worried wasn't at all unreasonable indeed it was very prudent.
     
  13. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Yes, the B-29 program cost roughly $3 billion to the Atomic bombs $2 billion...But, that was for the entire production run of B-29s.

    Borrowing a few British Lancasters was looked at briefly, when the B-29 was still experiencing it's teething problems.

    Two major factors argued against using British Lancs.
    1. There was no bomb bay access for the crew...The Lancaster would have had to take off with it's Atomic Bomb armed. The crew would have had no way to to insert the powder charges and last piece of fissile material in Little Boy, or replacing the arming plugs on Fat Man.
    2. At the time, there were many questions on whether the Lancaster would be able to survive the blast wave since it did not fly as high or as fast as a B-29. Although this would be mooted in 1945 with the introduction of the Lancaster IV(later renamed Lincoln I).
     

Share This Page