Germans introduce V1 in 1940

[David Flin]

What is the cost of a V1 in comparison to a Me 109 and a Stuka ?

If I have the costs, it will be easy to prove how economically it is impossible for German economy to produce V1 in great numbers ?

That's not the correct equivalence.

The V1 is a one use explosive that, once launched, can't be recalled, redirected, or reused.

The bomber is reusable until shot down, can be redirected in mid operation, and can, should the situation warrant it, abort and return. Most importantly, it can be used on a second and third and fourth mission.

The correct equivalence to the V1 is an equivalent weight in bombs. Once dropped, these can't be redirected, recalled, or reused.

 

[ArtosStark]

Wiki lists
Almost 30,000 V-1s were made; by March 1944, they were each produced in 350 hours (including 120 for the autopilot), at a cost of just 4% of a V-2
...

Blitz	V-1
1. Cost to Germany
Sorties	90,000	8,025
Weight of bombs tons	61,149	14,600
Fuel consumed tons	71,700	4,681
Aircraft lost	3,075	0
Personnel lost	7,690	0
2. Results
Structures damaged/destroyed	1,150,000	1,127,000
Casualties	92,566	22,892
Rate casualties/bombs tons	1.6	1.6

Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain and the Republic-Ford JB-2 was being delivered by early 1945. After the end of the war in Europe it was in consideration for use against Japan. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and wood, in 2,000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[84]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA162646.pdf

View attachment 763946
View attachment 763947

The chart from Wikipedia on the V-1 page is immediately followed by this however:

The statistics of this report, however, have been the subject of some dispute. The V-1 missiles launched from bombers were often prone to exploding prematurely, occasionally resulting in the loss of the aircraft to which they were attached. The Luftwaffe lost 77 aircraft in 1,200 of these sorties.[83]

 

[TDM]

Actually, the proper comparison would need to involve "lifetime" operating costs and some measure of effectiveness. A Stuka would be more expensive to make, require trained aircrew, ground crew and infrastructure. The V1 would be cheaper to make but require an operational crew and infrastructure of its own. The Stuka has an expected use of X operations against a range of targets and is more accurate in its delivery of a smaller bombload per mission. while the V1 is single use and inaccurate.

So which delivers more (on target) bangs per RM invested? A pretty complex calculation though I'm sure somebody has done it.

Wiki lists
Almost 30,000 V-1s were made; by March 1944, they were each produced in 350 hours (including 120 for the autopilot), at a cost of just 4% of a V-2
...

Blitz	V-1
1. Cost to Germany
Sorties	90,000	8,025
Weight of bombs tons	61,149	14,600
Fuel consumed tons	71,700	4,681
Aircraft lost	3,075	0
Personnel lost	7,690	0
2. Results
Structures damaged/destroyed	1,150,000	1,127,000
Casualties	92,566	22,892
Rate casualties/bombs tons	1.6	1.6

Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain and the Republic-Ford JB-2 was being delivered by early 1945. After the end of the war in Europe it was in consideration for use against Japan. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and wood, in 2,000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[84]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA162646.pdf

View attachment 763946
View attachment 763947

What we really need is a RM per dropped ton, but like Finbarr the Fair said we have a different mix of costs and limiting factors.

e.g. Even if on balance planes were cheaper per dropped tone over their lifespan, if you don't have the crews to fly all the planes you could otherwise build through out all those lifetimes you can't realise the benefit. Plus dead crews are their own costs.

 

[Post]

e.g. Even if on balance planes were cheaper per dropped tone over their lifespan, if you don't have the crews to fly all the planes you could otherwise build through out all those lifetimes you can't realise the benefit.

Which (and fuel) actually was an issue for Germany in the last years of the war.

 

[TDM]

That's not the correct equivalence.

The V1 is a one use explosive that, once launched, can't be recalled, redirected, or reused.

The bomber is reusable until shot down, can be redirected in mid operation, and can, should the situation warrant it, abort and return. Most importantly, it can be used on a second and third and fourth mission.

The correct equivalence to the V1 is an equivalent weight in bombs. Once dropped, these can't be redirected, recalled, or reused.

I take your point but to be fair that's not correct either as the V1 does take our theorical pile of bombs and vaguely put them in a large target area hundreds of miles away i.e a V1 on it's launch ramp =/= an equal in weight pile of bombs in the hanger.

Sorry internet pedantry there I know

But you are right a plane =/= a V1 and has a different sets of capabilities and costs (and in terms of cost per ton dropped, reuse is big one)

 

[Questerr]

What is the cost of a V1 in comparison to a Me 109 and a Stuka ?

If I have the costs, it will be easy to prove how economically it is impossible for German economy to produce V1 in great numbers ?

It’s not just economic costs to look at. The Me-109 can do air superiority, interception, Bomber escort, even strafe and carry small bombs for ground attack.

The Stuka can do CAS, interdiction, precision strikes on targets like bridges, naval strikes.

The V-1 can only do one thing: terror bomb a very large city.

 

[marathag]

It’s not just economic costs to look at. The Me-109 can do air superiority, interception, Bomber escort, even strafe and carry small bombs for ground attack.

The Stuka can do CAS, interdiction, precision strikes on targets like bridges, naval strikes.

The V-1 can only do one thing: terror bomb a very large city.

SE England was far enough away from French bases, that Stukas were dead meat, despite the (limited) escort ability of the Me-109, and Medium bombers had to fly at night from high daytime losses(poor 109 ability, again), limiting accuracy to not much better than V-1
So V-1 frees up the medium bombers from the role of terror bombing London and such.
What to do with those idle medium bombers and crews during the Blitz?

 

[marathag]

Which (and fuel) actually was an issue for Germany in the last years of the war.

Back to the wiki table I posted, autopilot over poorly trained meatsacks, and much less fuel used for the random HE distribution over England for similar destruction.

 

[Garrison]

What is the cost of a V1 in comparison to a Me 109 and a Stuka ?

If I have the costs, it will be easy to prove how economically it is impossible for German economy to produce V1 in great numbers ?

That's not the comparison you should be making. It is how many V-1s would you need to equal the payload dropped by a bomber during its total number of sorties? And the two Aircraft you have picked are the worst options for comparison anyway, The Bf 109 is after all a fighter and the Stuka is a highly accurate close support aircraft, neither roles the V-1 could fulfill.
Let's take a more realistic comparison, the Ju 88, the bomber the V-1 would probably be displacing in terms of factory space and labour to produce. it could carry 1400kg internally or 3000kg on external racks. Lets do the math for 25 sorties and 100 sorties as the typical lifetime of an operational aircraft, purely to make the math easy, I'm sure the number is much higher. The payload of the V-1 was 850kg so:

25 x 1400 = 35000 = 41 V-1s(approx)

100 x 1400 = 140000 = 165 V-1s(approx)

25 x 3000 = 75000 = 88 V-1s(approx)

100 x 3000 = 300000 = 353 V-1s(approx)

And as I say those are almost certainly very low numbers and only for one aircraft. Lets add in that unlike the Ju 88 the V-1 needs specialist launch ramps, It can't just use a reasonably flat area of grass for forward operations. It can only hit targets aligned with those ramps. It has lousy range, so it can't hit the likes of Birmingham or Liverpool, unlike the Ju 88, and it can't be easily adapted for other tasks, its never going to make a night fighter for example. And of course the Lufwaffe developed techniques, Knickbein, X-Gerat, pathfinders, to improve bombing accuracy, none of which would be possible with the V-1, which had bad accuracy even compared to 1940 bomber raids.

So its not cheap as some have suggested, its not very effective and its definitely no substitute for a decent medium bomber. The V-1 is a weapon you build if you are flush with resources and can build it as well as everything else, like the Allies, or you are desperate, like the Germans. They built the V-1 because they were short on fuel, pilots, and metals such as Aluminium. Its never going to be more than a weapon of desperation for the Nazis.

 

[Post]

Lets do the math for 25 sorties and 100 sorties as the typical lifetime of an operational aircraft, purely to make the math easy, I'm sure the number is much higher.

You'd need to do the math for planes that were bombing London. I'm sure their typical lifetime was a lot less than a 100 sorties, and probably lower than 25.

 

[marathag]

You'd need to do the math for planes that were bombing London. I'm sure their typical lifetime was a lot less than a 100 sorties, and probably lower than 25.

Between August and December 1940, Luftwaffe bomber strength was down by 25%, despite replacements.

This was with the Night Bombing timeframe

I have 1237 Bombers as lost.
This doesn't count damaged, accidents or write-offs

 

[Garrison]

You'd need to do the math for planes that were bombing London. I'm sure their typical lifetime was a lot less than a 100 sorties, and probably lower than 25.

Not sure why you attached that quote to Questerr, or why you think the number of sorties would be less than 25, especially after they switched to night bombing.

 

[ric350]

How about a timeline like this, using some Wiki info with earlier dates, (ok and a bit of ”handwavium”). Still, history has often seen chance encounters, and timely conversations, having frequently turn into incredible results.

• 1935, Paul Schmidt and Professor Georg Hans Madelung submit a design to the Luftwaffe for a flying bomb. The Luftwaffe is intrigued, and due to relatively low costs, and very little strategic materials/components, fund initial research.
• 1936, While employed by the Argus Motoren company, Fritz Gosslau develops a remote-controlled target drone, the FZG 43.
• 1936, Argus proposes the Fernfeuer, a remote-controlled aircraft carrying a payload of one ton, that could return to base after releasing its bomb. Argus worked in co-operation with C. Lorenz AG and Arado Flugzeugwerke to develop the project.
• 1937, Schmidt and Argus began cooperating, integrating Schmidt's shutter system with Argus' atomized fuel injection. Schmidt is designated head of the design team. Under his leadership and foresight, the design team becomes a model of efficiency.
• 1937, Gosslau and Robert Lusser modify the design with the pulse-jet mounted above the tail.
• 1938, the first Fi-103 flys successfully. It is given the official code name Kirschkern“ (cherry stone). However the design team gives it the name “Kolibri“ (hummingbird). Over the year, successful test flights are the norm, not the exception. Word of the “robot jet bomb” reaches “higher levels” in Berlin, and interest outside of the Luftwaffe is piqued.
• 1938, during the test flights of the Fi-103, one crashes in Sweden, mostly intact. The Swedes allow the British to inspect the wreckage. While intrigued, the British are not overly impressed and dismiss it as either a testbed for the pulse engine (which is already understood and deemed as limited usefulness), or a scaled design prototype for a larger aircraft.
• 1938, a design flaw is corrected that allows the Fi-103 to continue powered flight during its terminal dive.
• 1939, Germany invades Poland.
• 1939, Poland is defeated. Post war analysis of aerial bombing effects on civilians, (especially Stuka attacks), is viewed with great interest by certain “higher levels” of the German government.
• 1939, Schmidt is ”requested” to go to Berlin to brief “higher levels” of the German government on the Fi-103, focusing on production rates, costs, and material.
• 1939, while Goering is not enthusiastic of the device, Himmler takes a keen interest (after salivating over all those reports on Polish civilians/Stuka attacks). The Fi-103 is to be brought into production without delay, under the control of the Wehrmacht. Schmidt is ordered to deliver a production schedule for the production of 2000 Fi-103s within 6 months. Any issues with allocation of resources should be directed by Schmidt to Himmler’s attention without delay. Himmler also requires the Stuka siren to be incorporated in the design, to only be triggered when the Fi-103 enters its dive.
• 1939, under the direct supervision of Himmler, a factory to produce the Fi-103 is built as part of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.
• 1940, it quickly becomes evident that the launch ramps used for testing will not be optimal in combat situations. Schmidt reports this issue in a briefing to Himmler’s staff. Within a month, the company WALTER, has a team developing a reusable rocket assist pod for the Fi-103 launch sled. This allows for a much shorter ramp to be used. Ultimately a mobile launch ramp (using two Panzer 1 chassis) is developed.
• 1940, France is invaded by Germany.
• 1940, the Fi-103 units are ready to be deployed in France. There first objective will be the “terror bombing” of Paris. Himmler states he will be there to launch the first missile in the barrage.
• 1940, France surrenders before any Fi-103s can be used. Himmler is furious!
• 1940, England refuses all entreaties to negotiate. The Battle of Britain is about to begin. Goering is giddy with anticipation of what his Luftwaffe will achieve. Not to be left out of the spotlight, Himmler convinces Hitler to use the FI-103s on London for nightly, indiscriminate, “terror” attacks on London.
• 1940, Chain Home operators are puzzled by very small, very fast, inbound contacts. Reports come in of a strange droning sound, and sights of fiery “meteors” in the night sky. These are soon followed by reports of massive explosions in London, that were preceded by an awful screeching sound. The British quickly figure out what these devices are, but are almost powerless to stop them. Only with luck is one brought down, and even fewer of these explode harmlessly in midair. However the population is now facing nights of no sleep, never knowing when or where, death will suddenly strike.
• 1940, The Fi-103s are used in daylight to supplement the Luftwaffe attacks (to Himmler’s delight and Goering’s chagrin). With military and civilian deaths rising, and around the clock attacks, the RAF, and Britain, are against the wall.

Ric350

 

[Cymraeg]

That's not the comparison you should be making. It is how many V-1s would you need to equal the payload dropped by a bomber during its total number of sorties? And the two Aircraft you have picked are the worst options for comparison anyway, The Bf 109 is after all a fighter and the Stuka is a highly accurate close support aircraft, neither roles the V-1 could fulfill.
Let's take a more realistic comparison, the Ju 88, the bomber the V-1 would probably be displacing in terms of factory space and labour to produce. it could carry 1400kg internally or 3000kg on external racks. Lets do the math for 25 sorties and 100 sorties as the typical lifetime of an operational aircraft, purely to make the math easy, I'm sure the number is much higher. The payload of the V-1 was 850kg so:

25 x 1400 = 35000 = 41 V-1s(approx)

100 x 1400 = 140000 = 165 V-1s(approx)

25 x 3000 = 75000 = 88 V-1s(approx)

100 x 3000 = 300000 = 353 V-1s(approx)

And as I say those are almost certainly very low numbers and only for one aircraft. Lets add in that unlike the Ju 88 the V-1 needs specialist launch ramps, It can't just use a reasonably flat area of grass for forward operations. It can only hit targets aligned with those ramps. It has lousy range, so it can't hit the likes of Birmingham or Liverpool, unlike the Ju 88, and it can't be easily adapted for other tasks, its never going to make a night fighter for example. And of course the Lufwaffe developed techniques, Knickbein, X-Gerat, pathfinders, to improve bombing accuracy, none of which would be possible with the V-1, which had bad accuracy even compared to 1940 bomber raids.

So its not cheap as some have suggested, its not very effective and its definitely no substitute for a decent medium bomber. The V-1 is a weapon you build if you are flush with resources and can build it as well as everything else, like the Allies, or you are desperate, like the Germans. They built the V-1 because they were short on fuel, pilots, and metals such as Aluminium. Its never going to be more than a weapon of desperation for the Nazis.

Can I just underline the reply above, because it says everything about the issues involved. V-1s couldn't use X-Gerat or any of the other navigation aids, were short-ranged, could only be used by pointing and shooting along their ramps.
It was a weapon of vengeance and desperation and only got funded once the Axis were losing the war. Why invest en masse in the late 1930's in a limited weapons platform of limited utility and range that cannot hit a military target like an airfield unless you are fantastically lucky?
I think that some people are putting more foresight into the collection of mad squabbling lunatics that were the Nazi leadership than is credible or realistic.

 

[nbcman]

Even if V1s were available, it took months to construct the launch sites and storage depots IOTL. Considering that construction couldn't begin in the pas de Calais region until mid June 1940 due to those pesky not-German troops being present, the V1s couldn't be launched until sometime in 1941. Unless we are going for a double magical acceleration of V1 technology by having HE-111 H6 aircraft available to air launch V1s when they were not in production until 1941 IOTL.

 

[Post]

Not sure why you attached that quote to Questerr, or why you think the number of sorties would be less than 25, especially after they switched to night bombing.

Earlier I meant to react on Quester's post, but didn't, his quote was still in the quickreplybox. Then something went wrong editing and I didn't notice.

I'm assuming daybombing, because the V-1s are build for a campaign in 1940 before nightbombing was a thing.* But even with nightbombing I think you'd be hardpressed to get 100 sorties per bomber, even if there are fewer losses from AA or nightfighters, because usually there are some operational losses. I can't easily find numbers, but wikipedia mentions in january 1941 on 1965 sorties there were 25 claims (3 by nightfighters and 22 by AA)**, and a lossrate of 1-2% in april and may 1941, before nightfighters became effective.

The Blitz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* the allied bombing campaign had, even with fighter escort, usually losses between 5 and 10% percent during the period when the sky in Germany was heavily contested, which means a lot less then 100 sorties per bomber on average. Obviously the Germans switched to nightbombing because daytime losses were to high.

** now claims don't necessarily means kilss, but there's also operational losses (like crashes by landing in night).

 

[Garrison]

Can I just underline the reply above, because it says everything about the issues involved. V-1s couldn't use X-Gerat or any of the other navigation aids, were short-ranged, could only be used by pointing and shooting along their ramps.
It was a weapon of vengeance and desperation and only got funded once the Axis were losing the war. Why invest en masse in the late 1930's in a limited weapons platform of limited utility and range that cannot hit a military target like an airfield unless you are fantastically lucky?
I think that some people are putting more foresight into the collection of mad squabbling lunatics that were the Nazi leadership than is credible or realistic.

Of course if you wanted genuine foresight and Germany looking at conserving strategic materials you could have them invest in something like the Ta 154 Moskito? Plausible, useful, but I guess it lacks the ability to be spun as some wonder weapon that will change the course of the war in Germany's favour.

 

[Garrison]

Earlier I meant to react on Quester's post, but didn't, his quote was still in the quickreplybox. Then something went wrong editing and I didn't notice.

I'm assuming daybombing, because the V-1s are build for a campaign in 1940 before nightbombing was a thing.* But even with nightbombing I think you'd be hardpressed to get 100 sorties per bomber, even if there are fewer losses from AA or nightfighters, because usually there are some operational losses. I can't easily find numbers, but wikipedia mentions in january 1941 on 1965 sorties there were 25 claims (3 by nightfighters and 22 by AA)**, and a lossrate of 1-2% in april and may 1941, before nightfighters became effective.

The Blitz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* the allied bombing campaign had, even with fighter escort, usually losses between 5 and 10% percent during the period when the sky in Germany was heavily contested, which means a lot less then 100 sorties per bomber on average. Obviously the Germans switched to nightbombing because daytime losses were to high.

** now claims don't necessarily means kilss, but there's also operational losses (like crashes by landing in night).

Fine but even if you push the numbers to the limit to make the V-1 look better, it still doesn't look good given its basically a one trick pony that requires the Nazis to cut other programs in the hopes they can bring Britain, the country they weren't planning to go to war with, to its knees by bombing London. Or build all those launch ramps blatantly aimed at Paris and hope that doesn't inspire the French to make a more determined advance in 1939, I mean it would be a bit embarrassing to say the least if the Saar offensive destroyed most of the launch ramps because they sucked up materials needed to build the Westwall. The V-1 is a desperation weapon for a nation that is losing badly or its an as well as for nations with a wealth of resources. It is not going to change the outcome of the war, however much that may disappoint some people.

 

[David Flin]

You'd need to do the math for planes that were bombing London. I'm sure their typical lifetime was a lot less than a 100 sorties, and probably lower than 25.

The flip side is that bombers can do things other than bombing targets that cover several miles; they can be used against naval targets (try pointing a V1 at a moving ship and see how much joy you get in hitting it), it can carry supplies to troops, and so on.

 

[David Flin]

1940, Chain Home operators are puzzled by very small, very fast, inbound contacts. Reports come in of a strange droning sound, and sights of fiery “meteors” in the night sky. These are soon followed by reports of massive explosions in London, that were preceded by an awful screeching sound. The British quickly figure out what these devices are, but are almost powerless to stop them. Only with luck is one brought down, and even fewer of these explode harmlessly in midair. However the population is now facing nights of no sleep, never knowing when or where, death will suddenly strike.

As one of the population who faced this in real life (albeit I was rather young at the time), you are projecting an attitude that simply didn't exist. The bolded sentence is, quite simply, a total and utter nonsense of what the period attitudes were.