🚀 go-pugleaf

"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:41771151.128655677@news.west.earthlink.net...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:44:50 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
> Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcomSPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> Not in the slightest.  The rocket weapons were very much
> >> ineffective and an inefficient use of resources.
> >
> >
> >This is in fact debatable. Thye V-2 had the range and destructive power
> >of a medium bomber, and cost 1/10 as much. By the end of the war, the
> >effective lifespan of a German medium bomber was something like 3
> >missions. So, 3 V-2's would do as much damage as 1 Dornier, but at 3/10
> >the cost, and without losing the crew.
>
> But the Dornier would have had at least somewhat more precision...

No it wouldn't. During Operation Steinbock in early 1944 the Germans had
difficulty finding the city of London. They got around 30% or fewer hits on
London. The V2 hit London Civil Defence Region about 38% of the time a year
later, when the Germans had lost Northern France.
 The RAF had the same type of problem in 1941 over Germany.
This is why countries like Syria try to buy or build Scud missiles - you
can't bomb accurately in the face of enemy air superiority, even if
"accurately" means hitting a large city.

Murray Anderson