WI No V-2 but more and better V-1's?

tallthinkev

The amount of time, money, effort and resources wasted on the V-2 program, was let's say not good. So lets say it was never started, or more likely closed down (early 44?) when it was known it wasn't going be anything like as good as when first thought.
Instead work is poured into upgrading the V-1. Better engines, (real jet engines?), and more importantly a better guidance system for a start.
Or course this isn't a war winner, but being able to hit channel ports, airfields and production, even one in ten time, hell make it one in twenty, is going to make life harder for the allies
Pros and cons of such a project, and maybe a few months longer of a war.

Type about this for a bit
 

Gunnarnz

I don't know if you need better engines - the pulse jets were adequate, and cheap and easy to make. Better guidance would be nice, but you're never going to get pinpoint accuracy out of them. If you could get them down to a CEP of about 5km, though, or better yet 2-3km, that would be a game-changer. That would let you hit area targets (like ports) with some reliability, especially if you were launching 50 or so at a time. None of this would help if your BDA consistently gave you the wrong results, mind you, but that's not something the missile system itself can deal with (the ISR issue is a different kettle of fish entirely).
It would be good if you could do something about the launch system - either speed up the launch cycle, or increase the number of sites, so you could launch larger numbers simultaneously. This would give you a better chance of overwhelming enemy AA defences - and make the enemy invest more heavily in them, if that's important to you.

Overall, I think this would be a good move. It requires less in the way of constrained resources, specialist manufacturing facilities, and expert staff, while massively increasing the difficulty of the enemy AA defence situation, and probably getting more explosives on target too. It isn't going to materially affect the war in the European theatre except perhaps lengthen it by a few months, though, as you say.

Drawbacks? By presenting fewer types of threat, it allows the enemy to concentrate on them. If they find a way of reliably knocking down the V-1s, or disabling the launch sites, then until you can overcome that you no longer have an offensive bombing capability (although you're still draining their resources as long as they want to maintain that situation). I can't really think of any others, though. What do other people think?
 

Peebothuhlu

At work.

I think I remember seeing a thread like this before. Not sure though.

One of the bottle-necks for the V-1 was the peroxide launch fuel and big, fixed "Come bomb me" ramps.

Like the later mobile V-2 equipment for the V-1 to be more 'Robust'. Possibly an earlier switch to air launching the things. .. Maybe off the 'Zwilling' version of the Heinkel?

Though now you're crimping an already inaccurate weapon even more.

Not much use bombing empty fields in England. Regardless of how cheap wooden rockets are.
As previously mentioned. Increasing accuracy should also be a priority.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

Peg Leg Pom

The best upgrade would be some sort of radio guidance system, perhaps a beam riding system. The V1 follows the first beam until it crosses the second and goes into its final dive. It will bring accuracy up from "It might hit Greater London" to "It should hit Westminster".
 

pattersonautobody

Development of the V1 could have started a year earlier in 1939. Perhaps butterfly away Werner Von Braun and make the V1 development a priority and it should be ready in numbers by June 1943. The PODs are pretty big. Much of the Allied air campaign is diverted away from Germany and to Northern France. Germany would have major problems keeping their launch cites intact, though they can pretty much center their air defense around these, perhaps forcing Allied planning for an invasion right towards the Pas de Calais. Allied fighters would be wasted chasing after these things. Plus, with less bombers over Germany and no V2s, production of V1s would be higher.

The V1 is not going to do anything remotely close to shut down the Allied war effort. However, it's shifting of Allied priorities will have interesting knock on effects, likely making the war bloodier and, at best, making Allied planning not as deceptive resulting in ATL Cobra being delayed by probably 3 months. Southern France would still fall as is. Blunders like Market Garden are butterflied. No Battle of the Bulge, these forces are probably sent to Hungary, make things more interesting there for a little while. Due to Allied forces reaching the German border from southern France at about the same pace as OTL, by Winter 1945 the Western Allies are really not behind schedule. The only difference is that the Germans get to enjoy one more fuller summer in Paris. Post war borders are no different. The war ends at practically the same time. The USSR, due to improved German production and Germans ground assets shifted east, likely experience at least 300 K more casualties. It does not end their war effort, but the long term knock on effect to Soviet social ills (300 K more broken families) cannot be calculated.

It's strange how such a POD can have a profound effect, but in a way that does not really change outcomes--other than another 300 K shattered families from a country which for the last 30 years has shattered so many dreams people had mostly got used to living with the sense of it.
 

Belisarius II

Better V-1's would cause more damage to the Allies, but have no serious effect on the outcome, or even when the war would end. No V-2 would have more important post war effects. It would slow the development of ICBM's, and space flight.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Peebothuhlu said:
One of the bottle-necks for the V-1 was the peroxide launch fuel and big, fixed "Come bomb me" ramps.
Click to expand...
From the current WWI Rocketry thread, the Perchlorate/Asphalt RATO Bottle would work fine, and you can do that zero length launch

or what the Navy did with their V-1 knock-off, the Loon
1634606791314.png


With a US Radio beam-rider Guidance system, had a 400m CEP
This is the Loon's Bottle setup
deliveryService

1634607172522.png
 
Aghasverov

Aghasverov

There's a rather grimdark way to improve the accuracy of the V-1.... Push the "Reichenberg" Fi-103R project earlier, and indoctrinate enough impressionable Hitlerjugend to volunteer for one-way trips for the greater glory of the Fatherland....
 

Ravinoff

The effects on WWII would probably be minimal - the V-weapons were all more of a nuisance than an actual threat, they were pure propaganda pieces. But postwar it changes everything, without the V-2 to go on, the development of ballistic missiles would have to take a completely different path. A more effective V-1 also means more interest in cruise missiles, so expect a lot more designs like the MGM-13 Mace, SM-62 Snark and especially the Regulus series. Which also puts the Soviets at something of a disadvantage, with the exception of the SS-N-3 Shaddock their early postwar cruise missile developments were more troubled than the American equivalents. Things butterfly hard from there with how this would affect the "bomber gap" and "missile gap" incidents, how other nuclear delivery systems evolve if ICBMs aren't available (I suspect NEPA/ANP would have gotten a lot further), what intercept and countermeasures get developed...
 

thaddeus

Donor
the book German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development by Kay several improvements to the pulse jet were highlighted, they found twin jets cancelled out most/all of the vibration issue (albeit they did not double the thrust) and a longer exhaust allowed higher altitude flight. (solving the vibration issue would have paved the way for manned versions, even historically the low cost prompted continued efforts)

other projects included fabricating parts of the fuselage out of explosive nipolit and a single use jet version.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
thaddeus said:
the book German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development by Kay several improvements to the pulse jet were highlighted, they found twin jets cancelled out most/all of the vibration issue (albeit they did not double the thrust) and a longer exhaust allowed higher altitude flight. (solving the vibration issue would have paved the way for manned versions, even historically the low cost prompted continued efforts)
Click to expand...
I've heart the opposite, they could get sympathetic vibration/resonance as often as cancelling out
 

Peg Leg Pom

Gunnarnz said:
Of course, but as was said earlier that significantly reduces the accuracy of an already inaccurate weapon.
Click to expand...
Which can be corrected with a beam riding guidance system that uses technology available in WWII to both sides and was used to as a navigation aid for bombers.
 

Richard V

Peg Leg Pom said:
Which can be corrected with a beam riding guidance system that uses technology available in WWII to both sides and was used to as a navigation aid for bombers.
Click to expand...
There was a proven countermeasure to beam navigation, using a powerful beam to disrupt it. Not sure how the Germans would overcome that, frequency hopping?

Zero length launch would be a big improvement. The Germans barely managed a dozen V-1 launches per day. If they can mass launch dozens in a few minutes it would be exponentially harder to intercept.

They were working on a jet engine to replace the pulse jet. This would’ve allowed higher altitude and fly over the AAA, which was the main killer of flying bombs. If this increased speed as well it may be impossible to intercept except with jets.
 

Gunnarnz

Peg Leg Pom said:
Which can be corrected with a beam riding guidance system that uses technology available in WWII to both sides and was used to as a navigation aid for bombers.
Click to expand...
Yep, it can. I just don't think you need to air-launch the weapons, because...
Richard V said:
Zero length launch would be a big improvement. The Germans barely managed a dozen V-1 launches per day. If they can mass launch dozens in a few minutes it would be exponentially harder to intercept.
Click to expand...
As mentioned earlier, an ashphalt/perchlorate RATO unit would let you volley-fire the things. There's a bit of an issue with the idea, though, because...
Richard V said:
They were working on a jet engine to replace the pulse jet. This would’ve allowed higher altitude and fly over the AAA, which was the main killer of flying bombs. If this increased speed as well it may be impossible to intercept except with jets.
Click to expand...
Normally it's better to have weapons your opponents can't intercept, but in this case I'm not sure it would work in favour of the Germans. If a weapon can't practically be intercepted, then your opponents don't need to bother trying, and instead can devote those resources to something else. Because the V-1s could be intercepted, they soaked up an awful lot of manpower and resources devoted to doing so.
The reason I keep going on about this is that the Germans need to get the most value they can from their investment in, well, anything. Blowing up a dockyard crane is good, blowing up a dockyard crane and also forcing your opponents to devote AA batteries, fighter squadrons, and hundreds of people to trying to defend said dockyard is even better. Every one of those guns, aircraft, and people is out of the "real" fighting just as much as if the V-1 had landed on them.
 

Peg Leg Pom

Gunnarnz said:
Yep, it can. I just don't think you need to air-launch the weapons, because...
Click to expand...
Air launching not only eliminates the vulnerable ground launch apparatus but greatly increases the range of the V1 and the number of available targets. In theory you could target the entire mainland of Great Britain rather than just the South East of England. You just have to get the launching aircraft close enough, which I admit is easier said than done.
 
Last edited:

Richard V

Gunnarnz said:
Normally it's better to have weapons your opponents can't intercept, but in this case I'm not sure it would work in favour of the Germans. If a weapon can't practically be intercepted, then your opponents don't need to bother trying, and instead can devote those resources to something else. Because the V-1s could be intercepted, they soaked up an awful lot of manpower and resources devoted to doing so.
The reason I keep going on about this is that the Germans need to get the most value they can from their investment in, well, anything. Blowing up a dockyard crane is good, blowing up a dockyard crane and also forcing your opponents to devote AA batteries, fighter squadrons, and hundreds of people to trying to defend said dockyard is even better. Every one of those guns, aircraft, and people is out of the "real" fighting just as much as if the V-1 had landed on them.
Click to expand...

If they were just using high explosive warheads, maybe it would be tolerated. But what if they used incendiary warheads to firebomb London? Surely every ground attack aircraft of the RAF would be tied up trying to suppress the launch area.
 

Capt Thunderbolt

tallthinkev said:
The amount of time, money, effort and resources wasted on the V-2 program, was let's say not good. So lets say it was never started, or more likely closed down (early 44?) when it was known it wasn't going be anything like as good as when first thought.
Instead work is poured into upgrading the V-1. Better engines, (real jet engines?), and more importantly a better guidance system for a start.
Or course this isn't a war winner, but being able to hit channel ports, airfields and production, even one in ten time, hell make it one in twenty, is going to make life harder for the allies
Pros and cons of such a project, and maybe a few months longer of a war.

Type about this for a bit
Click to expand...
The simplest thing to do is put a "jinkler" in it.

It's straight path was so predictable, it was easy to shoot down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top