Some Nazi "wonder weapon" is developed by WW2

V-1s could be launched around the clock, they were dirt cheap, they were hard to shoot down before the investment of vast resources to defend London and the introduction of the proximity fuse shell and late model gunnery radar. London was the major rail hub of the country and an endless series of rockets falling on the city would put it under major strain. 1000 bomber raids didn't come frequently until 1944 against one of the worst police states in history and were effectively one off events vs. round the block bombing. There is a reason the Wallies put huge efforts into shutting it down IOTL (along with the V-3 gun).

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

I'm not convinced , Germany was heavily bombed even before 1944 and rockets are one shot weapons. In the best case scenario you shoot off a rocket, it lands somewhere and explodes and it contains all of one warhead. The rocket is now gone.

In the best case scenario a bomber takes off, drops a whole bunch of bombs, comes back and can do so again. V1s would do some damage, it wouldn't knock GB out of the war. It might or might not slow things down enough Germany instead of Japan gets nuked or it could wind up being such a waste of resources that Germany loses by '44. It doesn't win the war for them.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm not convinced , Germany was heavily bombed even before 1944 and rockets are one shot weapons. In the best case scenario you shoot off a rocket, it lands somewhere and explodes and it contains all of one warhead. The rocket is now gone.

In the best case scenario a bomber takes off, drops a whole bunch of bombs, comes back and can do so again. V1s would do some damage, it wouldn't knock GB out of the war. It might or might not slow things down enough Germany instead of Japan gets nuked or it could wind up being such a waste of resources that Germany loses by '44. It doesn't win the war for them.
A V-1 cost about 4% of a He-111 air frame without engines, equipment, fuel, crew, bombs, or defensive weapons. There are no pilots at risk, fuel cost per kilo of explosives is far less, loss of the rocket without reaching the target is minimal, the ground component of the launch is far less than maintaining and airfield, ground crew, and doing maintenance on a bomber, it had a better chance of getting through than a bomber by 1943-44, and one can be launched every 15 minutes from one of the dozens of launch sites and be kept up around the clock. Even the Allies determined it was far more cost effective than mounting a bombing campaign.
 
In the best case scenario a bomber takes off, drops a whole bunch of bombs, comes back and can do so again. V1s would do some damage, it wouldn't knock GB out of the war. It might or might not slow things down enough Germany instead of Japan gets nuked or it could wind up being such a waste of resources that Germany loses by '44. It doesn't win the war for them.

did you bother to read the thread?
a V1 is only slightly more expensive to build than a bomb of the same size (it cost 5000 reichsmark).
Triplex for the , the jet engine is extremely simple construction.
a V1 that is perfectioned pre-war means it has it main bugs ironed out (like target precision), and have a much lower failure rate.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~ksievert-07/v1rocket.html

interesting article that suggests that every $ put into a v1 caused $4 in damage. now imagine a perfected v1, it very likely would improve a lot on that figure

this 5000RM equates to 2008$ (1938) (which compares to about 30-70K$ 2014 depending what converter you use, this puts it in the price range of a 2000lb Paveway III laser guided bomb)
to put things in perspective a Me109 cost 56000RM
the He111 mentioned by wiking cost 265.650 RM (interestingly a Fw200 condor costs about the same)

A V-1 cost about 4% of a He-111 air frame without engines, equipment, fuel, crew, bombs, or defensive weapons. .
from what i can see, the V1 was even cheaper at only 1,88% of a He-111
 
Last edited:
Not a single country surrendered solely because of airpower in WWII. Not Italy, not Germany, not Japan or France. To beat GB Germany has to put boots on the ground in GB, something it is unable to do.
 

Deleted member 1487

did you bother to read the thread?
a V1 is only slightly more expensive to build than a bomb of the same size (it cost 5000 reichsmark).
Triplex for the , the jet engine is extremely simple construction.
a V1 that is perfectioned pre-war means it has it main bugs ironed out (like target precision), and have a much lower failure rate.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~ksievert-07/v1rocket.html

interesting article that suggests that every $ put into a v1 caused $4 in damage. now imagine a perfected v1, it very likely would improve a lot on that figure

this 5000RM equates to 2008$ (1938) (which compares to about 30-70K$ 2014 depending what converter you use, this puts it in the price range of a 2000lb Paveway III laser guided bomb)
to put things in perspective a Me109 cost 56000RM
the He111 mentioned by wiking cost 265.650 RM (interestingly a Fw200 condor costs about the same)


from what i can see, the V1 was even cheaper at only 1,88% of a He-111
I believe that cost you cite for the He-111 is not just the air frame.
 
I believe that cost you cite for the He-111 is not just the air frame.

complete plane, so including engines, so you are right
but to be honest, i have never seen a plane fly without engines (not for long at least) ;)
flyaway cost is a better comparison i think, since the planes needed infrastructure, and the V1 also needed infrastructure, so that will mostly cancel each other out (except the most scarce item, the pilots)
Not a single country surrendered solely because of airpower in WWII. Not Italy, not Germany, not Japan or France. To beat GB Germany has to put boots on the ground in GB, something it is unable to do.
true, but that is not the point, the v1 is not a war winning weapon, but it can make the whole thing very expensive for the uk, to the point that peace might become a better option.
from the start the uk was not the main enemy of germany, the main target always was the ussr. so getting the uk to agree to a peace, that would mean germany could concentrate on russia.
 
None of which changes the issue that lobbing a bunch of (highly inaccurate) missiles at London is not going to break British morale.

Kill some civilians? Sure. Knock the British out of the war? Not remotely. Nations don't surrender solely due to aerial bombardment. Not Britain, not Germany, not Japan, not North Vietnam, not Iraq. Arguments about cost don't change that.
 

Deleted member 1487

None of which changes the issue that lobbing a bunch of (highly inaccurate) missiles at London is not going to break British morale.

Kill some civilians? Sure. Knock the British out of the war? Not remotely. Nations don't surrender solely due to aerial bombardment. Not Britain, not Germany, not Japan, not North Vietnam, not Iraq. Arguments about cost don't change that.
It creates a major public opinion problem that requires vast investment of resources to counter in terms of AAA, defensive fighters, offensive bombing of V-1 infrastructure that then doesn't focus on Germany, and disrupts British industry in London as well as cause over 1 million people to evacuate (as per OTL). Its a very low cost weapon for Germany to get major outsize benefits in forcing Wallied countermeasures (much like the Wallied strategic bombing sucked in like 40-50% of German military spending).
 
It creates a major public opinion problem that requires vast investment of resources to counter in terms of AAA, defensive fighters, offensive bombing of V-1 infrastructure that then doesn't focus on Germany, and disrupts British industry in London as well as cause over 1 million people to evacuate (as per OTL). Its a very low cost weapon for Germany to get major outsize benefits in forcing Wallied countermeasures (much like the Wallied strategic bombing sucked in like 40-50% of German military spending).

Will the Brits have to spend money defeating it? Yes Knock it out of the war? No
That is the point. It may or may not delay Germany's defeat but it isn't going to win the war for them.
 

Deleted member 1487

Will the Brits have to spend money defeating it? Yes Knock it out of the war? No
That is the point. It may or may not delay Germany's defeat but it isn't going to win the war for them.
If the pain becomes too much they could negotiate an armistice. Just because it didn't happen IOTL just means the pain wasn't enough. Something like the V-1 in 1941-42 wouldn't really be able to be countered by existing technology and suck in a huge part of British defense resources while not really being able to stop the attacks. The end result then is enduring 24 hour rocket attacks on the capital that cannot be stopped. No nation ever suffered 24 hour constant attacks on the capital, especially a city as large and important as London, so with that it may not be acceptable to continue the war.
 
If the pain becomes too much they could negotiate an armistice. Just because it didn't happen IOTL just means the pain wasn't enough. Something like the V-1 in 1941-42 wouldn't really be able to be countered by existing technology and suck in a huge part of British defense resources while not really being able to stop the attacks. The end result then is enduring 24 hour rocket attacks on the capital that cannot be stopped. No nation ever suffered 24 hour constant attacks on the capital, especially a city as large and important as London, so with that it may not be acceptable to continue the war.

Doubtful, the British will simply disperse its production and population as they are neither weak nor cowardly and the war goes on. Germany needs actual boots on British soil and V rockets will be unable to do that.
 

Deleted member 1487

Doubtful, the British will simply disperse its production and population as they are neither weak nor cowardly and the war goes on. Germany needs actual boots on British soil and V rockets will be unable to do that.
They can, but the rail system is not set up to handle that dispersion. At a certain point its just too much to liquidate London and build up northwest England instead.
 
They can, but the rail system is not set up to handle that dispersion. At a certain point its just too much to liquidate London and build up northwest England instead.


They aren't incapable fools either. If they need to they simply build it. After 1941 or so it will almost certainly be too late. Once the US comes in it is all over. They don't have to produce much of anything themselves as the US can make it all, if need be.
 
Top