This makes sense, unless the POD is that the Germans lose Battle of Britain so instead of the blitz, deploy V1s and pursue a Mediterranean strategy. Maybe the Luftwaffe takes Malta (and its sort of a Crete situation, very disastrous and tons of casualties). The butterflies may lead to Crete not falling honestly.
Germans introduce V1 in 1940
- Thread starter SunilTanna
- Start date
What about a stripped down P-38? Maybe just 2 20mm cannons, no armor, etc. Maybe put Merlin engines on it? No idea if that’s even possible, not a plane person.
The V1 got faster as its fuel was expended, over Dover they were much slower than they were over London, where its maximum speed was achieved
Over Southern Kent they would be very likely able to be intercepted by the fighters of the day and how long would it take for low level versions of the Spitfire to be modified for maximum speed at 1000 odd meters?
You seriously think the Nazis weren’t logical when it came to deciding what weapons to build during the early war period?
marathag
Banned
Going fast at low level is hard. Most of the high speed listed for late war fighters is at higher altitudes
Spitfire
Flight Test Engineering Branch
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
15 June 1945
Flight Tests on the North American
P-51D Airplane, AAF No. 44-15342
Summary
| Fuel consumption and speed data listed in the flight operation instruction chart have been spot checked by duplicating in the test program some of the power settings shown in the T. O. By comparing the results obtained with the T. O. figures, a quick estimate of the validity of the T. O. may be made. High speed and climb performance have been obtained on this airplane at a take-off gross weight of 9760 pounds. Performance was obtained up to an altitude of 35,000 feet in increments of 5000 feet in a clean configuration. The clean configuration included one external bomb rack on each wing. Additional configurations were flown at 5000 and 15,000 feet including two 110 gallon tanks, two 500 pound bombs, and two 250 pound bombs. The principal results are as follows: A. Clean Configuration (with bomb racks). |
| 1. | Maximum speed at critical altitudes | ||
| High Blower | |||
| War Emergency power (3000 RPM and 67") 26000' | 442 MPH | ||
| Military power (3000 RPM and 61") 28000' | 439 MPH | ||
| Normal Rated power (2700 RPM and 46") 29400' | 420 MPH | ||
| Low Blower | |||
| War Emergency power (3000 RPM and 67") 10000' | 417 MPH | ||
| Military power (3000 RPM and 61") 13200' | 413 MPH | ||
| Normal Rated power (2700 RPM and 46") 16200' | 387 MPH | ||
| 2. | Maximum speed at sea level | ||
| War Emergency power (3000 RPM and 67") | 375 MPH | ||
| Military power (3000 RPM and 61") | 364 MPH | ||
| Normal Rated power (2700 RPM and 46") | 323 MPH |
Not always no, the He-177 is a perfect case in point, a waste of time and resources for a plane that couldn't enter service until after the Allies had won total air superiority and made it pretty much useless.
The order to make all bombers dive bombers in the early war years is another.
Unless of course if the production of V-1s butterflies the fall of France.
What's the difference between an aggressive fighter and a defensive one, and why wouldn't the Spitfire be suited for either role?
By that definition, every power in WW2 was irrational because they all had dud equipment enter service and had shit doctrinal requirements at one point or another.
I mean, the British let the Treasury dictate aircraft design so that they wouldn’t have to pay for new hangers.
A list of dumb mistakes made for what looked like a good reason at the time could be interesting and likely would fill up a lot of pages even without repetition and discussion (eg treasury and hangars).
A list of bad decisions made because the alternatives were even worse could also be illuminating.
A list of bad decisions made because the alternatives were even worse could also be illuminating.
Up to a point, but the Kettering Aireal Torpedo was ready for production in 1917.
marathag
Banned
And the Germans had tried some postal delivery by rocket.
And some didn't even explode on launch!
That question was examined in post # 20. In simple terms if two Fi103 could be built for the resources & labor of one piloted aircraft, then reducing total aircraft production from mid 1940 to the end of 1941 -18 months by 25%, then up to 15,000 could be built. That would leave enough manned aircraft production to replace operating and combat losses, but little or nothing for expansion. In April of 1940 the Luftwaffe peaked for the year at 2,800 combat aircraft in the operational groups, and next to nothing in reserve. These V weapons and better force the Brits to terms. OTL Brit aircraft production outpaced German by a hefty margin in 1941 & 1942, and pilot training by a even wider margin.
The logic would be that they understand pre war that they have a fair chance of beating France but invading Britain is dubious option so the V1 is put into production ready to answer the Britain question.
Garrison
Donor
The problem is that Britain, USA, and USSR had the resource base to absorb hideous mistakes like the Covenanter tank without derailing their war effort, Germany didn't. So the disastrous development of the He 177 is a much bigger deal for the Luftwaffe as don't have any effective alternatives to turn to. Also the decision making in Nazi Germany was somewhat worse overall as it tended to come down to whoever had Hitler's ear, which was a particular problem in the aircraft industry and probably another reason why putting the V-1 into production earlier is unlikely. It would not Messerschmitt very happy, or probably Goering for that matter and he had enough influence over the war economy at that stage to stifle the project.
If Germany is building V1s then they're not building some other aircraft which means there's going to be less air support for the Blitzkrieg into western Europe, how do they beat France and the UK in France and the Low Countries without air support to put themselves in a position to be able to use the V1s?
marathag
Banned
If the Sickle Cut fails, massed V-1 attack on Paris is also a solution for 1940 stagnation. There was a fear of a WWI replay
Garrison
Donor
Except that means yet more expenditure on launch ramps and infrastructure that would useless if they won in France. Also if Sickle Cut fails I don't think a V-1 blitz on Paris can address the scale of the disaster such a failure would be for Germany.
My point was in responce to the post that implied that Germany did everything it did OTL. The Battle of France, and the Blitz and that the V-1 is just in addition. Well sorry but Germany barely pulled off the Blitz. if they are going to build thousands of these V1. Germany produced about 7800 aircraft in 1940.
If you use the 2 for 1 estimate and we assume an average build of 10 per day or 3650 a year (less the 10% of the OP suggestion) then you are looking at about 1800 aircraft that dont get built.
It is estimated that during the BoB Germany losty 1700 aircraft. This was enough of a lose that Germany pulled back from the battle. And we are looking at cutting approximately. that many Aircraft in order to build these 3600 V1s.
If germany was running short of Aircraft after losing 1700. So logically if Germany goes into August already 1800 behind OTL numbers i am thinking you are not getting the BoB as we know it.
So i am thinking you can get a LOT of V1s OR you can get the Aircraft we had OTL you cant have both, And without those Aircraft you are not doing everything you did OTL. and adding in the V1s as a “bonus”.
WW2 was for everyone (to one degree or another) a mater of choosing this vs that. the USSR and Italy are probably the hardest pressed on the abuilty to build and supply thier military. But Germany and Japan are not a whole lot better. GB is restricted but not as much as the others as it has the Empire/commonwealth. to help. And the US is frankly in a league of its own.
Of these probably only the US could produce thousands of V1s and not have to noticeably cut back something else important. And even the US will notice that big of an effort.
If you use the 2 for 1 estimate and we assume an average build of 10 per day or 3650 a year (less the 10% of the OP suggestion) then you are looking at about 1800 aircraft that dont get built.
It is estimated that during the BoB Germany losty 1700 aircraft. This was enough of a lose that Germany pulled back from the battle. And we are looking at cutting approximately. that many Aircraft in order to build these 3600 V1s.
If germany was running short of Aircraft after losing 1700. So logically if Germany goes into August already 1800 behind OTL numbers i am thinking you are not getting the BoB as we know it.
So i am thinking you can get a LOT of V1s OR you can get the Aircraft we had OTL you cant have both, And without those Aircraft you are not doing everything you did OTL. and adding in the V1s as a “bonus”.
WW2 was for everyone (to one degree or another) a mater of choosing this vs that. the USSR and Italy are probably the hardest pressed on the abuilty to build and supply thier military. But Germany and Japan are not a whole lot better. GB is restricted but not as much as the others as it has the Empire/commonwealth. to help. And the US is frankly in a league of its own.
Of these probably only the US could produce thousands of V1s and not have to noticeably cut back something else important. And even the US will notice that big of an effort.