Talk:Wasserfall

Picture not of Wasserfall

The photo used says in the description that it is an American missile being tested in the desert, and that is what the photo looks like. So why is it being used here? Ryuinfinity (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And? It's a fake of the german one, it looks the same, who cares?

Holy late response, Batman, the picture has long since been removed and replaced with one of an actual Wasserfall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasserfall and Nike

Maury, why did you delete where it said Wasserfall inspired Project Nike? Was that factually inaccurate? -- Cabalamat 19:31, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering if this could be the reason for the naming of the rocket.

"Lt Vincent Waterfall, the first British pilot to be shot down, and his navigator Lt Charles George Gordon Bayly (both 5 Sqn RFC) are buried this day; their Avro 504 (serial 390) was shot down by German ground fire."

I've deleted the reference to the Nike system; asserting that Nike was derived from Wasserfall is factually incorrect. Neither the Nike system nor the Ajax or Hercules missiles used with it were related to Wasserfall in any shape, manner or form. The two are completely separate developments (see Bruce-Briggs "Shield of Faith") for more information on this. Stuart Slade 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong statement

What is the reference for this excerpt "Wasserfall was essentially an anti-aircraft development of the V2 rocket, sharing the same general layout and shaping. Since the missile had to fly only to the altitudes of the attacking bombers, it could be much smaller than the V2, about 1/4 the size. The Wasserfall design also included an additional set of fins located at the middle of the fuselage to provide extra maneuvering capability"? The german wikipedia contains a review in the wasserfall article stating it used different techniques (like the engine and guidiance) and had another shape... so it wasn't further development of the V2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.71.146 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Unlike the V2, the Wasserfall was constructed in sections. The middle-section behind the warhead contained the navigation-calculator and the servo-engines for the empennage. These conducted the Wasserfall from its straight-upright launching position onto its attack-vector. The tail-wings were only used for stabilising the missile. This resulted in a very simple warhead- and engine-section that could be manufactured decentralised in small factorys and were not espinage-sensitive, while the navigation-section was hi-tech and top secret. The Wasserfall literally was a well constructed field-weapon, while the V2 was very difficult and (with its liquid oxygen) dangerous to handle. The V2 had to be operated by many well trained specialists, using heavy crane/liquid-gas-tankers etc., and could not be used under battle-conditions (under air-attack). Next a V2 was neither suitable for waiting "battle-ready" on its stand for the next air-raid nor being made battle-ready within some minutes after an air-alarm... Slashatdot (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slashatdot (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

First launch

Was the first successful launch in February or March 1944? Drutt (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"essentially a much scaled-down version of the V-2 airframe"

The form factors appear to have differed, even if the aesthetic was similar: Statistics given in each article suggest that Wasserfall was not only smaller, but a more lissom airframe, at 9.086:1 compared with V2's stouter 8.485:1. So the airframes seem to have been rather more than just a scaling-down of the one to achieve the other's form. Can we rephrase in a less misleading manner? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:80E5:45F6:A2F8:23FD (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)