Discussion:
Earlier V-1 Guided Missiles In WWII
(too old to reply)
Byker
2019-12-19 18:23:46 UTC
Permalink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
“Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as it
forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25% of Combined Bomber Offensive's
bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon sites, often
ineffectively.[15] In early December 1944, American General Clayton
Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1 when
compared with conventional bombers.[49]
Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the
remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain. The result was the
creation of the JB-2 Loon. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army
Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and
wood, in 2000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[51] To
put this figure in perspective, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress cost about
1000 times more, and still about 100 times more when taking into account
its 10 times higher payload (20,000lb compared to 850kg for V-1)– payload,
which cost has to be added (while it is included in V-1 cost)– with the
additional drawback of requiring (and putting in danger) 11 flying crew
members (which generally are considered to cost far more than the aircraft
itself, with costs of recruiting, training, housing, feeding, pensions and
pay, equipment, etc.).”
Correct. For the cost of a motorcycle, you could deliver 2,000 lbs. of HE to
London. For cost-per-ton-of-explosive-delivered, nothing came even close...
Roger
2019-12-19 19:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
“Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as it
forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25% of Combined Bomber Offensive's
bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon sites, often
ineffectively.[15] In early December 1944, American General Clayton
Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1 when
compared with conventional bombers.[49]
Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the
remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain. The result was the
creation of the JB-2 Loon. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army
Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and
wood, in 2000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[51] To
put this figure in perspective, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress cost about
1000 times more, and still about 100 times more when taking into account
its 10 times higher payload (20,000lb compared to 850kg for V-1)– payload,
which cost has to be added (while it is included in V-1 cost)– with the
additional drawback of requiring (and putting in danger) 11 flying crew
members (which generally are considered to cost far more than the aircraft
itself, with costs of recruiting, training, housing, feeding, pensions and
pay, equipment, etc.).”
Correct. For the cost of a motorcycle, you could deliver 2,000 lbs. of HE to
London. For cost-per-ton-of-explosive-delivered, nothing came even close...
Except that it wasn't guided. It was a like a plane with an autopilot, and in those days an autopilot was nothing more than a pendulum linked to servos that kept the plane level.

They were launched from ramps pointed in the right direction and a little windmill on the front dove a mechanical counter. When the counter reached it's limit it pitched into a dive.

As you can imagine they were very inaccurate; that's why most landed in Croydon :D

They had no way of defending themselves; the Germans were well aware that the allies would quickly find ways to block them once they deployed, but their plan had been to stockpile them and deploy them en masse just before the German invasion that never happened!

When they did start deploying them they were a major headache for a few weeks. Some were shot down by fighters (and they were the only things ever shot down by Glostor Meteor jets in WWII), but newly invented doppler radar linked to AA batteries soon proved to be effective at intercepting most of them.

During the 50's and 6o's electonic guided missiles emerged with increasing accuracy, and these are now extensively used. However it appears that heavy bomber raids are still cost effective and are still used were there is a low risk of being shot down.

So maybe those numbers don't tell the whole story ;-)
Phi
2019-12-20 06:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
“Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as it
forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25% of Combined Bomber Offensive's
bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon sites, often
ineffectively.[15] In early December 1944, American General Clayton
Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1 when
compared with conventional bombers.[49]
Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the
remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain. The result was the
creation of the JB-2 Loon. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army
Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and
wood, in 2000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[51] To
put this figure in perspective, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress cost about
1000 times more, and still about 100 times more when taking into account
its 10 times higher payload (20,000lb compared to 850kg for V-1)– payload,
which cost has to be added (while it is included in V-1 cost)– with the
additional drawback of requiring (and putting in danger) 11 flying crew
members (which generally are considered to cost far more than the aircraft
itself, with costs of recruiting, training, housing, feeding, pensions and
pay, equipment, etc.).”
Correct. For the cost of a motorcycle, you could deliver 2,000 lbs. of HE to
London. For cost-per-ton-of-explosive-delivered, nothing came even close...
Except that it wasn't guided. It was a like a plane with an autopilot, and
in those days an autopilot was nothing more than a pendulum linked to servos
that kept the plane level.

They were launched from ramps pointed in the right direction and a little
windmill on the front dove a mechanical counter. When the counter reached
it's limit it pitched into a dive.

As you can imagine they were very inaccurate; that's why most landed in
Croydon :D

They had no way of defending themselves; the Germans were well aware that
the allies would quickly find ways to block them once they deployed, but
their plan had been to stockpile them and deploy them en masse just before
the German invasion that never happened!

When they did start deploying them they were a major headache for a few
weeks. Some were shot down by fighters (and they were the only things ever
shot down by Glostor Meteor jets in WWII), but newly invented doppler radar
linked to AA batteries soon proved to be effective at intercepting most of
them.

During the 50's and 6o's electonic guided missiles emerged with increasing
accuracy, and these are now extensively used. However it appears that heavy
bomber raids are still cost effective and are still used were there is a low
risk of being shot down.

So maybe those numbers don't tell the whole story ;-)


My dad used to shoot them down, I think the record was 4 in 90 minutes.
Andy Walker
2019-12-20 10:15:07 UTC
Permalink
[V1s] were launched from ramps pointed in the right direction and a
little windmill on the front dove a mechanical counter. When the
counter reached it's limit it pitched into a dive.
As you can imagine they were very inaccurate; that's why most landed in Croydon :D
I was [unreliably] informed that opposing the V1s and V2s was
an early example of the use of statistics in warfare. There were
newspaper reports of "gas main explosions" whenever one landed in NW
London, but silence about SE London. So the Germans deduced that
they were overshooting, and reduced the counter limit. As German
mathematicians weren't stupid, we couldn't just cut off half the
explosions, we had to create a believable distribution for those
that were reported. Towards the end, so few were reaching London
that it was almost impossible to maintain the deception, which could
have brought welcome relief for the beleaguered cows in Kent who bore
the brunt of the actual explosions.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Roger
2019-12-20 10:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[V1s] were launched from ramps pointed in the right direction and a
little windmill on the front dove a mechanical counter. When the
counter reached it's limit it pitched into a dive.
As you can imagine they were very inaccurate; that's why most landed in Croydon :D
I was [unreliably] informed that opposing the V1s and V2s was
an early example of the use of statistics in warfare. There were
newspaper reports of "gas main explosions" whenever one landed in NW
London, but silence about SE London. So the Germans deduced that
they were overshooting, and reduced the counter limit. As German
mathematicians weren't stupid, we couldn't just cut off half the
explosions, we had to create a believable distribution for those
that were reported. Towards the end, so few were reaching London
that it was almost impossible to maintain the deception, which could
have brought welcome relief for the beleaguered cows in Kent who bore
the brunt of the actual explosions.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Newspapers were told to report landings in North London and not the south. Two spies who had been turned had been asked to report were they were landing, and they gave false postions as well.
True Blue
2019-12-20 10:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Byker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
“Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as it
forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25% of Combined Bomber Offensive's
bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon sites, often
ineffectively.[15] In early December 1944, American General Clayton
Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1 when
compared with conventional bombers.[49]
Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the
remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain. The result was the
creation of the JB-2 Loon. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army
Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and
wood, in 2000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[51] To
put this figure in perspective, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress cost about
1000 times more, and still about 100 times more when taking into account
its 10 times higher payload (20,000lb compared to 850kg for V-1)– payload,
which cost has to be added (while it is included in V-1 cost)– with the
additional drawback of requiring (and putting in danger) 11 flying crew
members (which generally are considered to cost far more than the aircraft
itself, with costs of recruiting, training, housing, feeding, pensions and
pay, equipment, etc.).”
Correct. For the cost of a motorcycle, you could deliver 2,000 lbs. of HE to
London. For cost-per-ton-of-explosive-delivered, nothing came even close...
Except that it wasn't guided. It was a like a plane with an autopilot, and
in those days an autopilot was nothing more than a pendulum linked to servos
that kept the plane level.
They were launched from ramps pointed in the right direction and a little
windmill on the front dove a mechanical counter. When the counter reached
it's limit it pitched into a dive.
As you can imagine they were very inaccurate; that's why most landed in Croydon :D
They had no way of defending themselves; the Germans were well aware that
the allies would quickly find ways to block them once they deployed, but
their plan had been to stockpile them and deploy them en masse just before
the German invasion that never happened!
When they did start deploying them they were a major headache for a few
weeks. Some were shot down by fighters (and they were the only things ever
shot down by Glostor Meteor jets in WWII), but newly invented doppler radar
linked to AA batteries soon proved to be effective at intercepting most of
them.
During the 50's and 6o's electonic guided missiles emerged with increasing
accuracy, and these are now extensively used. However it appears that heavy
bomber raids are still cost effective and are still used were there is a low
risk of being shot down.
So maybe those numbers don't tell the whole story ;-)
My dad used to shoot them down, I think the record was 4 in 90 minutes.
Wow. What did he fly?
SolomonW
2019-12-20 09:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
“Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as it
forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25% of Combined Bomber Offensive's
bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon sites, often
ineffectively.[15] In early December 1944, American General Clayton
Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1 when
compared with conventional bombers.[49]
Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the
remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain. The result was the
creation of the JB-2 Loon. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army
Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and
wood, in 2000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[51] To
put this figure in perspective, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress cost about
1000 times more, and still about 100 times more when taking into account
its 10 times higher payload (20,000lb compared to 850kg for V-1)– payload,
which cost has to be added (while it is included in V-1 cost)– with the
additional drawback of requiring (and putting in danger) 11 flying crew
members (which generally are considered to cost far more than the aircraft
itself, with costs of recruiting, training, housing, feeding, pensions and
pay, equipment, etc.).”
Correct. For the cost of a motorcycle, you could deliver 2,000 lbs. of HE to
London. For cost-per-ton-of-explosive-delivered, nothing came even close...
It was one of the most cost/effective weapons of ww2.


https://www.wikiwand.com/en/V-1_flying_bomb

check the assessment out for the Blitz (12 months) vs V-1 flying bombs (2¾
months)

So we are talking of a Blitz that is at least five times bigger than the
OTL and it would last October 1944. I would think a lot more.
Roger
2019-12-20 10:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
“Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as it
forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25% of Combined Bomber Offensive's
bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon sites, often
ineffectively.[15] In early December 1944, American General Clayton
Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1 when
compared with conventional bombers.[49]
Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the
remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain. The result was the
creation of the JB-2 Loon. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army
Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and
wood, in 2000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[51] To
put this figure in perspective, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress cost about
1000 times more, and still about 100 times more when taking into account
its 10 times higher payload (20,000lb compared to 850kg for V-1)– payload,
which cost has to be added (while it is included in V-1 cost)– with the
additional drawback of requiring (and putting in danger) 11 flying crew
members (which generally are considered to cost far more than the aircraft
itself, with costs of recruiting, training, housing, feeding, pensions and
pay, equipment, etc.).”
Correct. For the cost of a motorcycle, you could deliver 2,000 lbs. of HE to
London. For cost-per-ton-of-explosive-delivered, nothing came even close...
It was one of the most cost/effective weapons of ww2.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/V-1_flying_bomb
check the assessment out for the Blitz (12 months) vs V-1 flying bombs (2¾
months)
So we are talking of a Blitz that is at least five times bigger than the
OTL and it would last October 1944. I would think a lot more.
V1's effectiveness had a limited lifespan, with a fixed flight path and no defence it was inevitable that means of beating would be found. I don't think it's really comparable.

V2's being ballistic were not so easily intercepted, but they were also pretty inprecise and as good as useless for destroying a specific target like a factory.

What is interesting is that despite all this stuff, the germans never got round to making more down to earth vehicles, in particular they never made heavy bombers.

The largest bombs used by the allies were up to 10 tons; such bombs were able to penetrate bunkers were weapons such as the V3 were being made, put railway tunnels permanently out of use, and destroyed submarine pens with 5M thick concrete roofs.

The largest bombs the germans could deploy were 2 tons.
True Blue
2019-12-21 09:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
“Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as it
forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25% of Combined Bomber Offensive's
bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon sites, often
ineffectively.[15] In early December 1944, American General Clayton
Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1 when
compared with conventional bombers.[49]
Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the
remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain. The result was the
creation of the JB-2 Loon. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army
Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and
wood, in 2000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[51] To
put this figure in perspective, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress cost about
1000 times more, and still about 100 times more when taking into account
its 10 times higher payload (20,000lb compared to 850kg for V-1)– payload,
which cost has to be added (while it is included in V-1 cost)– with the
additional drawback of requiring (and putting in danger) 11 flying crew
members (which generally are considered to cost far more than the aircraft
itself, with costs of recruiting, training, housing, feeding, pensions and
pay, equipment, etc.).”
Correct. For the cost of a motorcycle, you could deliver 2,000 lbs. of HE to
London. For cost-per-ton-of-explosive-delivered, nothing came even close...
It was one of the most cost/effective weapons of ww2.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/V-1_flying_bomb
check the assessment out for the Blitz (12 months) vs V-1 flying bombs (2¾
months)
So we are talking of a Blitz that is at least five times bigger than the
OTL and it would last October 1944. I would think a lot more.
V1's effectiveness had a limited lifespan, with a fixed flight path and no defence it was inevitable that means of beating would be found. I don't think it's really comparable.
V2's being ballistic were not so easily intercepted, but they were also pretty inprecise and as good as useless for destroying a specific target like a factory.
What is interesting is that despite all this stuff, the germans never got round to making more down to earth vehicles, in particular they never made heavy bombers.
The largest bombs used by the allies were up to 10 tons; such bombs were able to penetrate bunkers were weapons such as the V3 were being made, put railway tunnels permanently out of use, and destroyed submarine pens with 5M thick concrete roofs.
The largest bombs the germans could deploy were 2 tons.
Having said that, what would have been the overall effectiveness of the British bomber offensive, had half of the resources we used making Lancasters and Halifaxes, had gone into making Mosquitos? Put 100 Lancasters over a target at night and compare the results of 50 Mosquitos bombing the same target during the day and it's likely more bombs would have hit the target from the Mozzies than the Lancs.
True Blue
2019-12-20 12:48:17 UTC
Permalink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
Interesting stats - thanks for posting.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...