WI WALLIES launched V-1 like missiles towards Germany?

[Wimble Toot]

They launched V-1s from a He-111, an aircraft that was completely obsolete by 1944. Carrying a bulky and heavy V-1 under the wing degraded further He-111 performance (I even wonder how could they lift off). Because the aircraft was so vulnerable, they had to fly by night, otherwise the RAF would have massacred them (nightfighters actually did).

Beaufighters would have been sufficient to intercept He111H-22 launchers, freeing up Mossies to do more important work, say with 100 Group Bomber Command.

A B-17 could at least carry two V-1s

Would have been useful decoys in 8AF raids.

 

[Gunnarnz]

A B-17 could at least carry two V-1s (snip) Would have been useful decoys in 8AF raids.

Why? We had another thread proposing a German use of V-1s as decoys, and the conclusion was that their flight profile was too different to a bomber to be a useful decoy. Presumably the Germans are also familiar with the flight characteristics of the V-1, so they are equally unlikely to be deceived.

 

[Wimble Toot]

Presumably the Germans are also familiar with the flight characteristics of the V-1, so they are equally unlikely to be deceived.

They don't need to be deceived, they just have make a command decision to split their forces and send fighters after the bombers formation, OR after the missiles some of them have just launched.

Missiles exploding at random anywhere in the Third Reich and killing the Volk would displease Herr Hitler, I would imagine.

 

[Gunnarnz]

They don't need to be deceived, they just have make a command decision to split their forces and send fighters after the bombers formation, OR after the missiles some of them have just launched.

Missiles exploding at random anywhere in the Third Reich and killing the Volk would displease Herr Hitler, I would imagine.

Sure, but why would they try to intercept the missiles? It was a difficult task to intercept the V-1, and their accuracy was so poor that it really wasn't worth the effort from a strictly utilitarian point of view. Missiles exploding at random across the Third Reich will indeed displease Hitler, and anyone else nearby I imagine! But compared to the much more concentrated destruction the bombers rain down, they're by far a lesser threat. Why would the Luftwaffe defence controllers not send the fighters after the bombers which are a) more dangerous and b) easier to intercept?

 

[Wimble Toot]

Why would the Luftwaffe defence controllers not send the fighters after the bombers which are a) more dangerous and b) easier to intercept?

Because Hitler orders Göring to do just that.

You make the mistake of imagining a Third Reich run by rational, sensible and competent people.

 

[sloreck]

As nutty as the Nazi leadership is, even Hitler would realize that "V-1s" landing on open farm fields is annoying, the same missile coming down on a city is more of an issue.

 

[DerWonderWaffles]

And here we go again, the V-1 as the wonder weapon. The thread that never dies.

The V-1 is a wonder weapon and a practical one that is.

The problem is its potential has to be realized and it has to be produced in greater numbers, along with understanding how to counter the countermeasures against it.

The difference between this and an existing weapon is the obvious one, the V-1 is unmanned. Having a 24 hour round the clock bombardment would be psychologically damaging toward the enemy. No breaks could cause panic.

 

[DerWonderWaffles]

On cost.

If memory serves, the V-2 cost about as much as the Manhattan Project.

The V-1s were cheaper, cents to the dollar really, but the math problem remains.

Given a choice between continuing in the late war years to build out a bomber fleet in which most of the planes come back from any given mission, versus a drone fleet that is DESIGNED to suffer 100% losses on every sortie, I know which one I would consider more cost-effective.

Let's be realistic here. The only time it's remotely cost-effective to put your munitions on cruise or ballistic missiles is when (a) you're going after very specific targets with very precise weapons, or (b) you're going after large strategic targets with extremely powerful bombs, i.e. nuclear bombs.

A V-1 style program was neither of these. It was delivering small bombs against large targets. The math does not add up.

Possibly someone knows the CEP for a V-1 versus Allied bombing ca. 1944-1945? I don't.

Not to double post, but you're forgetting the extra cost of training the pilots and the maintenance of those planes. Plus remember, the V-1s used no strategic materials(plywood and super low grade steel, which was plenty in europe), so throwing them over would not be a waste on materials.

So the V-1s would be more cost effective while saving human lives to be potentially used as labor to build the V-1s.

Yes, there are data concerning air-launched V1s.
Their accuracy was even poorer than that of ground-launched V1s.
Yes, there were errors.

I guess that makes any Allied attempt to use V-1s against Germany almost futile since their accuracy is much worse along with the even farther range it would have to sustain, making the Allies question whether they should use strategic materials or not to use unmanned missiles to reach Germany.

 

[Archibald]

The V-1 is a wonder weapon and a practical one that is.

The problem is its potential has to be realized and it has to be produced in greater numbers, along with understanding how to counter the countermeasures against it.

The difference between this and an existing weapon is the obvious one, the V-1 is unmanned. Having a 24 hour round the clock bombardment would be psychologically damaging toward the enemy. No breaks could cause panic.

Well, the answer is biased from the beginning. Which is hardly surprising considering your member name.

This won't change my opnion, by the way... NO. It is neither a wonder weapon, nor practical, for a start.
As for 24 hour round the clock bombardement... what happened in Hamburg, July 1943 ? Not only did the British bombed the shit out of the town in the night, BUT the 8th air force re-bombed it in daylight only hours after.
If that's not hell on Earth... by comparison, V-1s falling here and there all over the place won't really bother those poor Hamburg inhabitants.
I think they would happily trade the roaring, massive and deadly bombers for stupid robots with small explosive warheads falling in Hamburg countryside.
The 1944 V-1 campaign against London was bad, but the ravages and loss of morale it caused hardly compare with the sheer horror of the 1940-41 London blitz (and Coventry).

 

[Nick P]

What would be the point? I don't know the numbers, but I would imagine that the weight of explosives dropped by the RAF or the USAAF in a single raid on Germany in 1944/45 amounted to more than the entire weight of explosives carried by all the V- rockets fired by Germany during the war.

The heaviest bombing raid of WW2 was on Dresden over the 14th/15th February 1945. The RAF and the USAAF dropped 3600 tons of explosive from 1300 aircraft in 3 waves.
The first RAF 'Thousand Bomber Raid' on Cologne in May 1942 dropped 1455 tons of bombs.

Google says there were around 9000 V-1 attacks during WW2. Each rocket had an 850kg warhead, that makes for 7650 tonnes of high explosive.
Some 3000 V-2s were launched in anger, each carrying a 1 ton warhead.
Let's say 10,500 tons in all. This is roughly three Dresden raids or seven Thousand Bomber raids.

 

[Anaxagoras]

The heaviest bombing raid of WW2 was on Dresden over the 14th/15th February 1945. The RAF and the USAAF dropped 3600 tons of explosive from 1300 aircraft in 3 waves.
The first RAF 'Thousand Bomber Raid' on Cologne in May 1942 dropped 1455 tons of bombs.

Google says there were around 9000 V-1 attacks during WW2. Each rocket had an 850kg warhead, that makes for 7650 tonnes of high explosive.
Some 3000 V-2s were launched in anger, each carrying a 1 ton warhead.
Let's say 10,500 tons in all. This is roughly three Dresden raids or seven Thousand Bomber raids.

Interesting. Rather more than I thought.

 

[Archibald]

Hmmm... interesting numbers. Except that the strategic bombing campaign started in 1942, intensified in 1943, peaked in 1944 and 45.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress
And the REAL number is that one

Of the 1.5 million tonnes of bombs dropped on Nazi Germany and its occupied territories by U.S. aircraft, 640,000 tonnes were dropped from B-17s.

1.5 million tonnes of bombs. How many V-1s does that take ? Note: British not included, which makes even more million tonnes of bombs.

 

[DerWonderWaffles]

Well, the answer is biased from the beginning. Which is hardly surprising considering your member name.

This won't change my opnion, by the way... NO. It is neither a wonder weapon, nor practical, for a start.
As for 24 hour round the clock bombardement... what happened in Hamburg, July 1943 ? Not only did the British bombed the shit out of the town in the night, BUT the 8th air force re-bombed it in daylight only hours after.
If that's not hell on Earth... by comparison, V-1s falling here and there all over the place won't really bother those poor Hamburg inhabitants.

Wow, really you're going to judge my post by my username? Nice ad hominem right there. Also, my username is a sarcastic take on Germanys "wonder weapons" in that a majority did suck.

The V-1 isn't flashy or cool looking. Very few werhaboos on the net even talk about. The one that gets overblown is the the V-2 rocket, which has every right to be dismissed as a crappy weapon.

I am not here to convince anyone but showcase the facts as they are.

The british bombed the town for a couple days, not for a whole year. If that was the case, you might have a point.

Those Hamburg residents will be in shock when they see falling aircraft from the sky along with no enemy casualties.

I think they would happily trade the roaring, massive and deadly bombers for stupid robots with small explosive warheads falling in Hamburg countryside.

The 1944 V-1 campaign against London was bad, but the ravages and loss of morale it caused hardly compare with the sheer horror of the 1940-41 London blitz (and Coventry).​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Assessment

Too bad statistics show the V-1 did more damage than the Blitz did.

In a 2 and 3/4 period, the V-1 damaged roughly the same structures the Blitz did in a 12 month period. A V-1 barrage would damage four times as much structures increasing homelessness, cost to rebuild and greater fear for Londoners to flee the city.

In a hypothetical 12 month period where a V-1 barrage is going on based on its results in a 2.75 period, it would create more casualties than the blitz did.

Hypothetical V-1 barrage: (12 / 2.75) * 22,892(original casualties) = 99, 892 casualties

99,892 casualties vs the Blitz 92,566 casualties

Now keep in mind this a Germany that is constantly bombed out preventing production from increasing, a Germany which has nowhere near the recon gathering as it did in 1940-41 and a Germany throwing most of its slave laborers toward working on the V-2 rocket(in which conditions were brutal and most of them died.)

Now if you're not convinced, I don't mind, I respect your opinion.

BUT if you're going to tell me something isn't as good as you think it is, please give me a source, or your argument doesn't much credibility.

My source may be from Wikipedia, but it does cite a December 1944 report by American general Clayton Bissell, leading to the page of the book(rons, Roy (2003), Hitler's Terror Weapons: The Price of Vengeance, p. 199)

Now, do you have a source to counter my statement? ​

 

[Archibald]

Well, you didn't answered my question either. How many V-1s to match the tonnage of bombs dropped by the RAF and the Air Force ? plus the abysmal accuracy of 10 miles or more ?

 

[Archibald]

I'm sorry to have angried you. I got the joke (waffe / waffles). Maybe I should avoid all these threads about wunderwaffes (not waffles) I tend to over-react. @Michele is doing a far better job than me.

 

[Byzer Bob]

Wow, really you're going to judge my post by my username? Nice ad hominem right there. Also, my username is a sarcastic take on Germanys "wonder weapons" in that a majority did suck.

The V-1 isn't flashy or cool looking. Very few werhaboos on the net even talk about. The one that gets overblown is the the V-2 rocket, which has every right to be dismissed as a crappy weapon.

I am not here to convince anyone but showcase the facts as they are.

The british bombed the town for a couple days, not for a whole year. If that was the case, you might have a point.

Those Hamburg residents will be in shock when they see falling aircraft from the sky along with no enemy casualties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Assessment

Too bad statistics show the V-1 did more damage than the Blitz did.

In a 2 and 3/4 period, the V-1 damaged roughly the same structures the Blitz did in a 12 month period. A V-1 barrage would damage four times as much structures increasing homelessness, cost to rebuild and greater fear for Londoners to flee the city.

In a hypothetical 12 month period where a V-1 barrage is going on based on its results in a 2.75 period, it would create more casualties than the blitz did.

Hypothetical V-1 barrage: (12 / 2.75) * 22,892(original casualties) = 99, 892 casualties

99,892 casualties vs the Blitz 92,566 casualties

Now keep in mind this a Germany that is constantly bombed out preventing production from increasing, a Germany which has nowhere near the recon gathering as it did in 1940-41 and a Germany throwing most of its slave laborers toward working on the V-2 rocket(in which conditions were brutal and most of them died.)

Now if you're not convinced, I don't mind, I respect your opinion.

BUT if you're going to tell me something isn't as good as you think it is, please give me a source, or your argument doesn't much credibility.

My source may be from Wikipedia, but it does cite a December 1944 report by American general Clayton Bissell, leading to the page of the book(rons, Roy (2003), Hitler's Terror Weapons: The Price of Vengeance, p. 199)

Now, do you have a source to counter my statement? ​

Those figures don't make sense
For example 1,127,000 buildings or structures damaged/destroyed for 8,025 sorties equals 140 buildings per sortie and that's not taking into account any failures at all

 

[Dan]

Each V1 cost around $2000 to build, (about $213k today), building on something mentioned earlier about a B17 being able to carry 2, any reason you couldn't load them with chaff and set them to airburst ahead of the bomber stream, or have them fired as a diversion?

 

[Dan]

And additional thought, a V1 cost 1/10th of that of a B-17 and carried 1/8 the payload. Sounds great, no flight crew required, except once you've done 8 trips in a B-17, the tonnage tips in the B-17's favour as the V1 is single use, and from mission number 11, the B-17 is more economic option.
The only question is can the Germans inflict enough crew losses on the USAAF to make the V-1 a viable option?

 

[Michele]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Assessment

Too bad statistics show the V-1 did more damage than the Blitz did.

​

To be precise, wikipedia statistics do that. In the best case, assuming the wikipedia compiler is correct, Bissell's statistics do that.

OTOH Dr. Alfred Price, the historian as to this sort of things, says (Britain's Air Defences 1939-1945) that the V-1s launched at Britain were just over 10,000 (vs. the 8,025 mentioned, allegedly, by Bissell). Thus the ratio of casualties per tons of ordnance would drop to 1.2 for the V-1s.

Also, there are various figures for the casualties, but crucially, about half of the casualties in the Blitz were dead, not wounded (I've seen a figure of 38,000 dead civilians). The V-1s were more likely to wound than to kill: Price says that the civilians killed were 6,184.

If the above discrepancies are any indication, I'd like to see a differentiation between buildings destroyed and damaged. In the Blitz, the worst damage, and a pretty extensive one, was caused by the fires originated by the bombing, and the fires tended to destroy buildings completely; if not, they made them decisively useless barring long and costly renovation. OTOH, V-1s seldom caused fires, and I wouldn't be surprised if "destroyed or damaged" includes a couple of broken windows or a few fallen roof tiles.​

 

[Cook]

Also consider their limited accuracy. On a good day they could devastate a suburb but rarely hit the factory they were aiming for

So your solution is to fire a weapon whose inaccuracy was such that it could seldom hit the largest city in Europe?