4th Cumulative WW2 Quiz
- Thread starter Knight-Dragon
- Start date
BEHIND_THE_MASK
A Liar... A Cheat...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,840
wow... I didn't expect to get it right, I dont have any questions in mind.
I suppose the first one of you guys to post a question can take my place.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
Necrophilia.... 
I kinda miss this thread - so let's see if it can be revived....
The famous German V2 rocket (technically called the A4) was technologically ahead of its' time and formed the basis of both the American and Russian space programs. It was unstoppable by any military means of the time and, while inaccurate by today's standards, performed its' task as a terror weapon (comparable to the bombing of civilians by conventional bombers) very well.
a) Why could one say it hurt the Axis more than the Allies, then? In terms of lives lost?
b) Why was it less effective than the previous V1, though technologically superior?
c) Both the V1 and V2 were the precursor of modern weapons systems - which?
I kinda miss this thread - so let's see if it can be revived....
The famous German V2 rocket (technically called the A4) was technologically ahead of its' time and formed the basis of both the American and Russian space programs. It was unstoppable by any military means of the time and, while inaccurate by today's standards, performed its' task as a terror weapon (comparable to the bombing of civilians by conventional bombers) very well.
a) Why could one say it hurt the Axis more than the Allies, then? In terms of lives lost?
b) Why was it less effective than the previous V1, though technologically superior?
c) Both the V1 and V2 were the precursor of modern weapons systems - which?
The answer I am about to give is probably wrong. But anyway.
You could say that the loss of life in the creation of the rocket at forced labour camps (Dora) was a greater loss for the Axis than the Allies, who were largely untouched by the rockets, de to faulty intelligence. But then again, losing concentration camp inmates isn't really a big loss.
Another answer could be that the diversion of resources by German industry towards the largely futile rocket program meant that cutbacks had to be made in other areas, reducing the power of Germany for little, if any, gain, thereby harming the Axis more than the Allies.
It didn't hit any targets, making it completely useless. Faulty intelligence led the rockets to be fired into the British countryside. I dunno whether this was different for V1 and V2, though.
Missiles
Necrophilia....
I kinda miss this thread - so let's see if it can be revived....
The famous German V2 rocket (technically called the A4) was technologically ahead of its' time and formed the basis of both the American and Russian space programs. It was unstoppable by any military means of the time and, while inaccurate by today's standards, performed its' task as a terror weapon (comparable to the bombing of civilians by conventional bombers) very well.
a) Why could one say it hurt the Axis more than the Allies, then? In terms of lives lost?
b) Why was it less effective than the previous V1, though technologically superior?
c) Both the V1 and V2 were the precursor of modern weapons systems - which?
The resources it cost the Germans to make the V2 exceeded the damage it did to England. It wasn't an effective trade off. The V1 was built in much larger quantity and used for a longer period of time. Was cheaper, and diverted Allied resources to try and stop it. Near the end of the war some of the very fastest UK fighters were tied up trying to intercept it. All cruise missiles and all ballistic missiles respectively.
a-I'd have to say because the allies killed so many germans trying to take out the rockets in bombing runs and, after d-day, with a push towards the rocket sites.
b-bit of a guess-the v2 was less reliable and accurate, so it could only really be used against urban areas rather than specific targets.
c-cruise missiles like, say, the tomahawk
b-bit of a guess-the v2 was less reliable and accurate, so it could only really be used against urban areas rather than specific targets.
c-cruise missiles like, say, the tomahawk
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
You guys don't make it easy - 3 answers and each has a part of the answer!
a) Camikaze more or less got this one: while not true that the V2s all hit the countryside - many of them did indeed hit London and Antwerpen (the main harbor used to resupply the invasion) - it actually is true that more inmates of the forced labor camps died building the missiles than were killed where they impacted: some 38000 inmates vs. about 30000 killed by the impacts (mostly civilians).
b) Cutlass got most of this one. the V2 was technologically better, because it could not be intercepted - but this was actually more of a problem than an advantage, though that wasn't really appreciated at the time. Large amounts of resources were committed to trying to stop the V1 'buzz-bombs': flak batteries, barrage balloons and, as Cutlass said, some of the fastest fighter squadrons.
Nothing of the kind for the V2 - nothing could be done about those, so no resources were tied up!
In terms of people killed (a macabre calculation, to be sure!) V1 and V2 were about equally effective (some 30000 each), but the V2 cost several times as much as the V1 and didn't bind any enemy resources, to boot.
c) Cutlass answered this one best: the V1 was the ancestor of today's cruise missiles, while the V2 was the same for the ballistic missile.
I'm going to give this one to Cutlass, as he got more of the answer than Camikaze - but it was close.
Cutlass has the floor!
a) Camikaze more or less got this one: while not true that the V2s all hit the countryside - many of them did indeed hit London and Antwerpen (the main harbor used to resupply the invasion) - it actually is true that more inmates of the forced labor camps died building the missiles than were killed where they impacted: some 38000 inmates vs. about 30000 killed by the impacts (mostly civilians).
b) Cutlass got most of this one. the V2 was technologically better, because it could not be intercepted - but this was actually more of a problem than an advantage, though that wasn't really appreciated at the time. Large amounts of resources were committed to trying to stop the V1 'buzz-bombs': flak batteries, barrage balloons and, as Cutlass said, some of the fastest fighter squadrons.
Nothing of the kind for the V2 - nothing could be done about those, so no resources were tied up!
In terms of people killed (a macabre calculation, to be sure!) V1 and V2 were about equally effective (some 30000 each), but the V2 cost several times as much as the V1 and didn't bind any enemy resources, to boot.
c) Cutlass answered this one best: the V1 was the ancestor of today's cruise missiles, while the V2 was the same for the ballistic missile.
I'm going to give this one to Cutlass, as he got more of the answer than Camikaze - but it was close.
Cutlass has the floor!
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
To b): nope, the V2 was far more accurate than the V1 - to a few hundred yards rather than the 'couple of kilometers' of the V1.
Both were inaccurate enough, though, that they were used for area bombing, mostly of London and Antwerp.
Fr8monkey
Deity
Billy Fiske died on the August 17 1940 when fighting with the RAF.
Fr8monkey
Deity
Didnt really have a true WWII question, but here is a good one...
Which country, allegedly, was the second country to explode an atomic weapon before hostilities officially ended in Sept. 1945?
Which country, allegedly, was the second country to explode an atomic weapon before hostilities officially ended in Sept. 1945?
Fr8monkey
Deity
Nope, that was in '52.
Fr8monkey
Deity
I guess your the closest. It is possible Japan was only 2 weeks from having a functional atomic weapon when we nuked Hiroshima.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
I guess your the closest. It is possible Japan was only 2 weeks from having a functional atomic weapon when we nuked Hiroshima.
Interesting!
But seems your question was misleading, then - even if Japan truly was 'only 2 weeks from having a functional atomic weapon', how does that make them the 2nd country to explode one? Nothing in that link says they actually exploded one!
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I guess your the closest. It is possible Japan was only 2 weeks from having a functional atomic weapon when we nuked Hiroshima.
I'd hardly consider one officer's anecdote to be proper historical evidence.
