|
Pershing I vs. Pershing II ... which was the best!?
Simple poll, you decide which was the better!
J  Weight 4,655 kilograms (10,263 lb) Length 10.5 metres (34.4 ft) Diameter 1.02 metres (3.3 ft) Blast yield W50 nuclear warhead 60 kilotons of TNT (0.25 PJ) 200 kilotons of TNT (0.84 PJ) 400 kilotons of TNT (1.7 PJ) Engine First stage: Thiokol TX TX-174 115 kN (25,900 lbf) 38.3 s Second stage: Thiokol TX-175 85 kN (19,100 lbf) 39 s Operational range 740 kilometres (460 mi) Boost time 77.3 seconds Speed Mach 8 Guidance system Eclipse-Pioneer ST-120 inertial guidance Steering system Jet vanes, air vanes Accuracy 400 metres (1,310 ft) circular error probable Launch platform M474 transporter erector launcher Pershing II  Weight 7,490 kilograms (16,513 lb) Length 10.6 metres (34.8 ft) Diameter 1.02 metres (3.3 ft) Blast yield W85 nuclear warhead: 5 kilotons of TNT (21 TJ) to 80 kilotons of TNT (330 TJ) W86 earth penetrator (canceled) Engine Hercules, two-stage, solid propellant Operational range 1,770 kilometres (1,100 mi) Speed Mach 8+ Guidance system Singer Kearfott Inertial and Goodyear Aerospace active radar Steering system vector control system (steerable nozzle), air fins Accuracy 30 metres (100 ft) circular error probable (restrictions apply) Launch platform M1003 erector launcher Transport M1001 MAN tractor in Germany M983 HEMTT in the U.S. |
I always thought the Pershing I looked somewhat ungainly-- that LONG anteater nosecone and midbody fins, with the little delta fins on the rear stuck on as an 'afterthought'...
The Pershing II looked like a much sleeker, "meaner" looking missile, with its small delta forward fins and larger tailfins and stepped body transition... Plus the accuracy scared the hell out of the Soviets, which is why they went bigtime with the SS-20's to counter it numerically if not in outright performance... Later! OL JR :) |
I've always liked the looks of the 1A better, probably because my first exposure to any Pershing was from the Estes catalog and knowledge of the 2 came much later.
However, I'd have to think about it a while based on your criteria. Obviously, the 2 has much better capabilities, but this is more like the Military Channel's top ten shows where you rate it based on what else was available in comparison and how much impact it had at the time it was in service. |
Two is Better than One
History lesson guys and gals. The deployment of the Pershing II and the BGM-109G Gryphon Ground Lauched Cruise Missile (which I worked on) was what brought the then Soviet Union to the Intermediate Nuclear Forces table. Our missile systems were so accurate that they were willing to trade their S-20 tactical nuclear missile. The Pershing II question was not if they could hit the Kremlin, but which window.
I have a GLCM t-shirt that reads: BGM-109 Rocks Moscow hit after hit! Chas |
My response "kind of" agrees with Luke, definitely with tbzep ...
The 1A definitely looked ungainly, and I guess that was some of the appeal. Loved the long nose in black and white, on top of a green body. I never really knew much about the II until a trip the the Air and Space Museum, and saw one there. But the 1A was always an Estes model I wanted, and sadly never got. Love its great lines of the II certainly, but the nod still goes to the 1A. |
I would like to see Estes bring back the Pershing 1A Maxi-Brute, and add a Pershing II to the line. Make them part of their Pro-Series II.
|
If you worked on both, can you vote twice?
PII was a much better system than P1a - they really learned a lot from P1a and rolled the lessons into PII. Matt |
The Pershing 1A test missile had the best paint scheme of all time and mated with the ungainly large upper fins for steering in the upper atmosphere it was just plain FUGLY. It is a real treat to get up close to one see what was then high technology but now seems antiquated. Do you like the classic old 1965 Mustang or the Saleen models of the Big 80’s? Do you like the Beetles or Weird Science? This old fart will go for the classic every time. It is the only rocket I have ever launched where the paint scheme is universally loved by the men and despised by the ladies. MGM 31 ROCKS!
|
I have a small protest on this poll. It says I have already voted on this poll, but I have not. On the other hand the 1A is a 3 to 1 favorite at the moment and I'm pretty sure it is going to end up with a spread like this in the end.
I am not sure why people are comparing Real Life Performance with which one they would prefer to see as a kit but I guess everyone makes decisions based on difference reasoning. I know the performance of the M-50 Honest John was much better then the M-30 Honest John but I believe a poll on these two version would show the people prefer the M-30 version. John Boren |
Go back to Wikipedia and correct it. "Motor", not "Engine". :rolleyes:
Quote:
|
Quote:
John, I personally would be quite happy should Estes decide to kit either Pershing! |
The Pershing IA has an advantage over the Pershing II as a flying scale model: Having fins on both of its stages, it would lend itself to staging (either gap-staging or electronically-initiated staging). The body tube in the kit need not come in two sections for this to be done; interested modelers could cut the body tube into two sections to create the two stages.
|
Quote:
Ok... you COULD, but WHY?? I couldn't really see the point to this other than getting mission points in competition... and if you were REALLY interested in that, you could do the same with a Pershing II using flip-out clear fins on the second stage... Later! OL JR :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:rolleyes: :p ;) :chuckle: Later! OL JR :) |
Quote:
Nice meeting you at Burger King JR! (NARAM 53). I picked up Sandman's Pershing 1A at NARAM 53... I will make it into a two stager... it just looks DEADLY! :) Jonathan P.s. Sandman, please consider a Genie Air-to-Air nuclear missile ;) |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.