Effect of the V1 missile available in 1943?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
You get 23 (actually closer to 24, I rounded down), but thats specifically London Boroughs not UK and excludes casualties in Antwerp for example.

There is a 22.xx number in Bissel's table but he is writing in Washington in December 44 and unlikely to be in full possession of the facts, and he was arguing to make a point - V1 were better than bombers.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Air defence performance per defending gun/fighter is likely to be worse that OTL with these, on the other hand there are more AAA and many more fighters available. All those AA regiments and tactical air forces OTL in Normandy in 44 and AA command is bigger in 43 that 44 anyway.

Given the serious view taken OTL of the threat it is likely that the 43 Bomber offensive would prioritise V1 launch sites, and the infrastructure to support them. Arguably that would be a more productive use of the 8th than bouncing bombs off U boat pens.

Any serious defence of the sites puts the defending fighters in range of the entire, larger, better equipped allied fighter inventory and probably hastens the destruction of the Luftwaffe fighter force.

Agreed. And we have too big issues. What is Goering likely to do? And what is wise to do? The wise path is probably to defend with moderate levels of flak, build about 3 dummy sites for each real one, and intercept with fighters about every 10th to 20th bombing raid. Mostly to get allies to always sends lots of fighters with each raid to wear down men and machine. Goering/Hitler is much more likely to throw the weight of fighter command into the battle, and has a risk of breaking the LW before OTL. One can really write this two ways. Small Allied gain. Small German gain. And with small Allied gain, it stays that way since I don't think we can move D-Day up to say March/April 1944 due to other issues with the landing.

We talk about the cheap cost of the rockets. How much does it take to build a site? Compared to resource used to destroy site? And is site destroyed, or just temporarily taken out of service?
 
The cost to destroy a site depends on how much money you got.

in 43 the Wallies have the OTL CBO forces available and for the US at least the target is the Luftwaffe arguably destroying german kit, or specific infrastructure (and dummy kit still costs) is a more productive use of heavies than OTL.

The German problem is they are stony. While the western allies in particular can throw kit at every issue the Germans have to balance any increase in production of what is in effect a marginal strategic weapons system against the loss of actual production in use in ground fighting in the USSR and 42/3 North Africa.

I would say putting resources into a pinprick 'strategic' offensive against London is of itself a big loss for Germans powers of resistance and has the potential to be quite catastrophic.
 
Yes and in the extra year surely the Germans will manage to get a handful of recce sorties over London and spot where the real damage is, as opposed to where the turned agents were telling them it was, thus bringing their credibility into doubt at the very least?
Unlikely, With Chain Home and a much stronger RAF the Germans aren't seeing anything the British don't want them to.

On area bombing: The British didn't do much better in terms of accuracy. It was like celebration if they at least hit the right country.

So, comparing a much more intensive V1 campaign could be closer to comparing British bombng raids prior to 1944 at least.

Killing civilians was sort of the accepted strategy at least also from Harris insofar as acuracy was out the window anyway.

The major problem would be the launch sites, but with an additional year before the US gets into the stride of things and daylinght bombing becomes an option (P-51's as escorts) could provide Germany with a chance to develop it much further.

Could Germany develop a real cruise missile in a year from the V1? maybe not, but any major improvements could mean a lot.

If Germany could develop and build enough of V1 release 2.0, could they overwhelm the defence? yes, I think so. After all, it did not require a lot of resources, surely less than building 4-engine bombers.

[quote[Hurling 500 V1's with a marginal better accuracy at Coventry would have made an impact.
Only if they'd been able to reach, Coventry could be out of range of normal V-1s from even Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer, and from Dunkirk it's more than 300 km, probably just a bit of a stretch even for the (less destructive, due to a smaller warhead) long-range ones.
 
The effects of an earlier V1 might have been significant. The first point is that it will be hard to stop V1s in 1943. The guns have worse radar and no proximity fuze and none of the aircraft that were successful against the V1 were in service a year earlier. Germany will also gain because they will not waste aircraft on operation Steinbock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Steinbock.

The biggest effect might occur if the V1 bombardment started before a definitive Anglo-American decision had been made to invade Sicily and Italy. OTL, the British pressed for the Mediterranean Campaign while the USA was more willing to consider a 1943 invasion of Northern France. Might the V1 have changed the balance and led to an attempt to land in France in 1943?
 

Deleted member 1487

The effects of an earlier V1 might have been significant. The first point is that it will be hard to stop V1s in 1943. The guns have worse radar and no proximity fuze and none of the aircraft that were successful against the V1 were in service a year earlier. Germany will also gain because they will not waste aircraft on operation Steinbock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Steinbock.

The biggest effect might occur if the V1 bombardment started before a definitive Anglo-American decision had been made to invade Sicily and Italy. OTL, the British pressed for the Mediterranean Campaign while the USA was more willing to consider a 1943 invasion of Northern France. Might the V1 have changed the balance and led to an attempt to land in France in 1943?

What effect would a barrage of cruise missiles have had on an invasion fleet at anchor in Channel ports?
 
The effects of an earlier V1 might have been significant. The first point is that it will be hard to stop V1s in 1943. The guns have worse radar and no proximity fuze and none of the aircraft that were successful against the V1 were in service a year earlier. Germany will also gain because they will not waste aircraft on operation Steinbock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Steinbock.

The biggest effect might occur if the V1 bombardment started before a definitive Anglo-American decision had been made to invade Sicily and Italy. OTL, the British pressed for the Mediterranean Campaign while the USA was more willing to consider a 1943 invasion of Northern France. Might the V1 have changed the balance and led to an attempt to land in France in 1943?
Interesting question if the civilian casualties are higher in 43 than OTL and for reasons you've already stated I believe they would be. The British might go along with the US. and support a N.France campaign in 43.
 
What was the CEP of the V1? How many constitute a "barrage"? And are they launched simultaneously or in small numbers continuously?
 

Deleted member 1487

What was the CEP of the V1? How many constitute a "barrage"? And are they launched simultaneously or in small numbers continuously?

Historically it the CEP was 8 miles. Each launch site could do about 12-15 a day sustained fire (so continuous fire), so it really is limited to how many sites you have. Barrage is a relative term here, so even hitting a port city packed with equipment, men, and material that are being loaded with 50 missiles per day, they would have a disruptive effect, especially if, as Mostlyharmless stated, the means of defense are ineffective (in that it would take lots more effort than IOTL to shoot them down, while the aircraft that could 'tip' the missiles were not available until 1944). Also if you are shooting at targets that are closer and won't have a defended approach, like London did where massed AAA could try and shoot down the V1s before they approached London, but won't have that opportunity for Channel port cities, as the approaches are water.

Also reaction time won't have very much because the range was so short and the missiles flew under 1000 meters, which was the Chain Home radars' limit out to 100+ miles. Below that is CHL, which only had a range of 30 miles and the missiles flew at 400mph...which means they would be detected only 4.5 minutes before they would land. That's not enough time to report to airfields and get aircraft to target and maybe barely enough time to warn AAA stationed in the Channel ports to get ready.

Don't think it would have much of an effect due to the V1s inaccuracy.
Even a 25% hit rate of 50 missiles a day is 12.5 hits with 850kg of explosives. In cities packed with ships, men, and material over a week something is going to get hit of importance. Plus even with misses no one knows if the missile flying toward you is going to hit, so you need to take cover every time. Even if only 40 of those 50 flies to or by the target, that's 40 times a day you need to take cover when your fleet is trying to get loaded up...and if it hits something important like explosives then cleanup from the damage just delays you all that much more.
 

Cook

Banned
Might the V1 have changed the balance and led to an attempt to land in France in 1943?
The decision to invade Sicily and the Italian Peninsula was taken because the strength of German forces defending France was considered too great for an invasion there to succeed; that equation does not change.
 
Any launch site that is firing 12-15 missiles per day isn't long for this world. It'll be quickly detected and sent a high explosive present of its own - most likely killing/wounding the operations staff too.

As for 50 missiles. With a CEP of 8 miles, that means that half of them are falling more than 8 miles from the aim point already - effectively write them off as a generic export scheme for German explosives to British farmland.

In fact you're probably looking at (with a 50 round barrage) no more than 5 or so coming within coo-ee of the docks etc. A much more managable threat - especially with standing patrols over the likely approaches.
 

Deleted member 1487

Any launch site that is firing 12-15 missiles per day isn't long for this world. It'll be quickly detected and sent a high explosive present of its own - most likely killing/wounding the operations staff too.

As for 50 missiles. With a CEP of 8 miles, that means that half of them are falling more than 8 miles from the aim point already - effectively write them off as a generic export scheme for German explosives to British farmland.

In fact you're probably looking at (with a 50 round barrage) no more than 5 or so coming within coo-ee of the docks etc. A much more managable threat - especially with standing patrols over the likely approaches.

Right then. London was 30 miles wide (over 600 square miles), so its best to keep striking that because its harder to miss. Not sure if Luftwaffe recon was still over Britain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BlondieBC

Banned
What effect would a barrage of cruise missiles have had on an invasion fleet at anchor in Channel ports?

Americans attacked much longer distances in the Pacific. If not very accurate, the Allies accept some losses of ships in ports. If more accurate, they pull back to ports out of range. It is not ideal, but coming from say Liverpool will work. There is a longer window to be detected, so the major impact on some ATL might be the invasion fleet is detected. And I guess one needs to look at the weather reports for D-Day and before. Ike has to make the call many hours earlier, so the invasion may not be in June. But these are really small butterflies that only in retrospect can be big items. I guess you could write a TL where the invasion is in August and the Germans have 24 hours very clear warning. The sure impact is the USA likely makes up losses in ships from the Pacific, so we get a little slower Pacific operation. Assuming by June 1944 the USA can't just boost production a little or has some spare ships/landing crafts in reserve.
 

Cook

Banned
Nothing, V1's were easily interceptable...
Century-of-flight said:
When the V-1 raids began, the only effective direct defence was interception by a handful of very high-performance fighter aircraft, especially the Hawker Tempest.
Century-of-flight said:
Anti-aircraft gunners found that such small, fast-moving targets were difficult to hit. At first, it took, on average, 2500 shells to bring down a single V-1. The average altitude of the V-1, between 2,000 and 3,000 feet (610 and 915 m), was in a narrow band between the optimum engagement heights for light and heavy anti-aircraft weapons. These low heights defeated the rate of traverse of the standard British QF 3.7 inch mobile gun, and static gun installations with faster traverses had to be built at great cost.
Barrage balloons were also deployed against the missiles, but the leading edges of the V-1's wings were equipped with balloon cable cutters and fewer than 300 V-1s are known to have been destroyed by hitting cables.

The V-1 was also nearly immune to conventional air-combat techniques because of its design, which eliminated the primary "one-shot stop" points of pilot, life-support and complex engine.
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/v1.htm

their launch sites blaringly obvious which just screamed 'BOMB ME NOW!'
The fact that 10,000 V-1 missiles were fired at England, at a time when the Luftwaffe couldn’t even provide effective air defence for Germany let alone the Pas de Calais, is a reasonable indication that the launch sites were neither easy to locate nor easy to destroy.

The Germans also had the option of air launching them:
Century-of-flight said:
Although most V-1s were launched from static sites on land, the Luftwaffe did, from July 1944 to January 1945, launch a number of V-1s from Heinkel He 111 aircraft flying over the North Sea.
and they would waste precious resources Germany does not have.
Century-of-flight said:
The missile was a relatively simple device with a fuselage constructed mainly of sheet metal, and could be assembled in around 50 man-hours.
'The V-1 only cost the same a a small Engish sports car.'
- Hitler's Rockets by Norman Longmate.
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
Even a 25% hit rate of 50 missiles a day is 12.5 hits with 850kg of explosives. In cities packed with ships, men, and material over a week something is going to get hit of importance. Plus even with misses no one knows if the missile flying toward you is going to hit, so you need to take cover every time. Even if only 40 of those 50 flies to or by the target, that's 40 times a day you need to take cover when your fleet is trying to get loaded up...and if it hits something important like explosives then cleanup from the damage just delays you all that much more.

I think you math is off. Looking at Portsmouth, it looks like 2 miles by 3 miles so 6 square miles. Taking an 8 CEP radius gives me 200 square miles (8X8X3.14). So 3% of missiles even hit the port area, so 1 or 2 hits per day. You need someone who understands how many bombs it takes to make people abandon a port, but 1-2 per day seems way too low. Surely the ports used by Germans got hit more often than this on average, at least in many months. So you are limited basically to targets that are 16 miles in diameter. Only London is this big. If you get the CEP to say 3 for a 6/27 chance of hitting, you are getting closer. Get it to a CEP of 2 for 6/12, it shuts down the ports. And most of the misses will hit the surrounding cities.

Based on this, I would say you might shoot 10% (5 or so V-1) at none London targets to try to get the Allies to spread out more resources and the rest at London. But with a CEP of 8, I doubt the English can even figure out the target if you shoot 5 missiles at something one day.



Portsmouth google.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=sate...KsQLy6fGQCg&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CDYQ8gEwAA
 
V1s in 1943 probably mean no "Mini-Blitz" in early/mid 1944.

If no "Mini Blitz" is conducted, the Luftwaffe bomber force is considerably stronger, when Overlord is launched.
 

Deleted member 1487

V1s in 1943 probably mean no "Mini-Blitz" in early/mid 1944.

If no "Mini Blitz" is conducted, the Luftwaffe bomber force is considerably stronger, when Overlord is launched.

And no Mini Blitz in 1943 either.
 
What effect would a barrage of cruise missiles have had on an invasion fleet at anchor in Channel ports?

If the Germans have more bombers then perhaps a duel bombardment of V1s by day and aircraft by night against the ports would be the way to go.

V1's are notoriously inaccurate, which is why they were fired at London because it was such a huge target and even still they could miss and crash into the countryside. They're margin for error was HUGE (we are talking dozens if not hundreds of miles) and trying to barrage them at a single target was not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination. If I recall correctly, 1/3 would not even land anywhere remotely where the Germans intended. Aiming for the ports is not simple by any strech of the imagination, they are going to need to fire A LOT of missiles to have a major impact.

The other problem a barrage would require launch sites firing continuously over several hours. They are going to be detected and destroyed. By the time the Allies were preparing to invade, they had huge air coverage and they are going to shift their focus to eliminating any threat to the fleet at anchor.

At best they damage or sink a few allied vessels before the RAF and USAF hunt down the sites and they would have gained virtually nothing. It's not a war winning weapon. They're were terror weapons to scare civilians. They were basically useless at everything else.
 
Top