V1 drones during the battle of Britain

V1 was an incredible cost/effective weapon. It created as comparable damage to the Allies as the Blitz and ended out diverting more than 25 per cent of the allied bombs in July and August 1944.

Let us assume that the Germans had pushed development, and it was available in the Battle of Britain.

Okay, many changes now, the British are in a lot less of a position to shoot them down, which effectively doubles the damage plus the German pilots can report on the accuracy so the V1 will be much more accurate, which would increase the effect more.

Furthermore, there is no reason why something like the Blitz would slow down until late 1944 when the Allies finally overran much of the launch site assuming that ww2 continued as it did.

As a guesstimate assuming that the Germans put as much effort into V1 as they did ww2 and the allies did nothing we could be talking between half a million to two million British people plus a lot of damage. Of course, the Germans, if they saw it working, would do more and the Allies would do more to stop it too.

How do you think it would play out?
 
For the BoB as they're launching from Germany they will be well separated from the main attacks coming from France and will mainly be hitting at random on the East coast provided they can successfully cross the North sea.
They night have been of more use in the Battle of France where they would have relatively short flight times, and hence improved accuracy, against French communications hubs or if directed against Paris would divert more of the limited French air defences.
 
1940 you say?

Assuming that the war plays out pretty much as OTL otherwise....it would not be long before one falls into the hands of the allies

And given their superior industry they would better the lesson
 

Deleted member 1487

1940 you say?

Assuming that the war plays out pretty much as OTL otherwise....it would not be long before one falls into the hands of the allies

And given their superior industry they would better the lesson
To what end? They didn't have land based launch sites in range of Germany. Launched from the air they are a more inefficient way to drop bombs on area targets, only useful if the target is too well protected by AA defenses to attack directly and you have a lot to launch at a large target. So in 1940 exactly what is useless to Britain.
 

Oh I remember that...

The odd thing is that the AAA and interceptors used in 1944 don't really exist in 1940. So the British won't actually be able to do much about the V1s, meaning that the cost-effectiveness of it mostly disappears. All you're left with is a method of dumping HE in the general vicinity of London that's much less accurate and cost-effective than a manned bomber.
 

Deleted member 1487

Oh I remember that...

The odd thing is that the AAA and interceptors used in 1944 don't really exist in 1940. So the British won't actually be able to do much about the V1s, meaning that the cost-effectiveness of it mostly disappears. All you're left with is a method of dumping HE in the general vicinity of London that's much less accurate and cost-effective than a manned bomber.
The advantage is you can launch around the clock uninterceptable attacks that can land anywhere in the city and aren't being diverted due to Double Cross/aerial recon denial. The panic that caused in 1944 would be much worse in 1944:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/4...flying-bomb-that-menaced-Britain-70-years-ago
The government tried to disguise the horror of what was described only as "a serious incident" and even urged newspapers to spread the resulting obituaries over several weeks. But the public was no longer fooled.

Two weeks later, a V-1 landed in busy Aldwych. The blast sucked Air Ministry workers out of their office windows and killed a group of girls taking a break on the roof. Among the 46 dead and 200 seriously injured were shoppers in the street and passengers on buses.

The following day, July 1, the Daily Express captured the tense mood of the capital with a famous cartoon by Giles depicting Londoners listening with giant ears and captioned: "It's ridiculous to say these new flying bombs have affected people in any way!"

In his authoritative book Britain Under Fire, historian Charles Whiting wrote: "All London tensed daily now as they heard that first distant hum, growing to a louder harsh rattle, which either vanished as the 'buzz-bomb' flew on or stopped abruptly, followed a few seconds later by the roar of one ton of high explosive detonating.

"That 12 seconds silence between the engine cutting out and the blast of the explosion seemed to be the hardest part to bear - that tense, electric brooding silence when the same terrifying thought flashed through everyone's mind: has this one got my number on it?"

The missiles continued to cause enormous damage, with the east and south of London most seriously affected. V-1s fell on Croydon, where PC William Holloway rescued a distraught mother from a wrecked house in danger of further collapse. Still inside was her young daughter, Elizabeth Wagstaff. The brave policeman admitted to being "scared stiff" as the house threatened to cave in on him but he found the child.

He reported. "It was obvious her chest was crushed and I had seen death too many times not to realise the end was very near."

.....


In October 1944 Allied forces in France overran the last V-1 launch sites in range of Britain and the attacks ended as swiftly as they had begun. The capital's one million evacuees - women, children, elderly and the disabled - began to return home.

https://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/med...andsociety/bombing/THE_BOMBING_OF_BRITAIN.pdf
The most profound effect on Britain's war effort was produced by the demands of civil defence which not only tied down almost 2 million men and women, but necessitated a large economic commitment to the welfare, compensation and provisioning of the bombed population and the uniforms, vehicles and equipment of civil defence forces. The demands of air defence, both active and passive, placed a limit on how effectively the British economy and population could be mobilized for war work.
 
The Germans already had a method of launching uninterceptable attacks in 1940 - night bombing. The main difference, relative to the V1, was that night bombing was much more accurate and longer-ranged, enabling attack on small targets beyond London, as well as being capable of the concentration in time and space required to actually destroy urban areas, such as Coventry and the City.

Manned bombing, therefore, was capable of causing at least as great an evacuation and resource-diversion problem. For example, there were 1.37 million "official" evacuees from London in February 1941; including the unofficial ones took this to a quarter of London's population, around 2 million. Much of the shock of 1944 was because it had been believed that the Luftwaffe had been defeated and that the bombing threat to London was over. The arrival of the V1, therefore, came as a nasty shock.

Fundamentally, the 1940 V1 comes back every time to the twin problems of inaccuracy and inadequate range and the resultant superiority of manned night bombing in 1940's low-threat environment. It's a great weapon for attacking well-defended area targets, which is 1944 London, but very much not 1940 London.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Germans already had a method of launching uninterceptable attacks in 1940 - night bombing. The main difference, relative to the V1, was that night bombing was much more accurate and longer-ranged, enabling attack on small targets beyond London, as well as being capable of the concentration in time and space required to actually destroy urban areas, such as Coventry and the City.

Manned bombing, therefore, was capable of causing at least as great an evacuation and resource-diversion problem. For example, there were 1.37 million "official" evacuees from London in February 1941; including the unofficial ones took this to a quarter of London's population, around 2 million. Much of the shock of 1944 was because it had been believed that the Luftwaffe had been defeated and that the bombing threat to London was over. The arrival of the V1, therefore, came as a nasty shock.

Fundamentally, the 1940 V1 comes back every time to the twin problems of inaccuracy and inadequate range and the resultant superiority of manned night bombing in 1940's low-threat environment. It's a great weapon for attacking well-defended area targets, which is 1944 London, but very much not 1940 London.
That was much different than around the clock bombing; night attacks were not every night in all weather at all times of day, plus were concentrated. Manned attacks are much more expensive to launch and maintain, plus could be ridden out in a bunker.

IOTL inaccuracy for the V-1s was a function of Double Cross and lack of aerial recon ability in 1944/45, plus a shrinking launch zone due to Crossbow bombing and the Allied advance on land. That would not be the case in 1940, plus there would be plenty more time to improve the design and quality control of the weapon to enhance accuracy. It may not be a war winning weapon, but it is one that would make the situation in Britain much worse, especially if accuracy is improved enough to hit reliably smaller cities, like those along the coast, rendering all the population centers in Southern England at risk/
 

thaddeus

Donor
The Germans already had a method of launching uninterceptable attacks in 1940 - night bombing. The main difference, relative to the V1, was that night bombing was much more accurate and longer-ranged, enabling attack on small targets beyond London, as well as being capable of the concentration in time and space required to actually destroy urban areas, such as Coventry and the City.

wouldn't the advantage of earlier V-1 or even some other type weapon be that 24 hour per day bombing could be conducted? with night bombing by LW and daytime use of V-1?

historically they were not able to conduct bombing raids by time V-1 was ready.
 
If the Germans do launch numbers of V1’s in 1940 it is going to have a very dramatic on the direction of the RAF. There will be strong and increasing calls for bomber command to do something.

Daylight strikes will be soon show to be expensive. The Luftwaffe will be easily able to concentrate above/around the launch sites to attack the bombers and defending fighters with numbers and tactical advantage. The attrition of lost aircrew that the Luftwafe suffered in BoB will be forced unto the RAF.

If they resort to night bombing then it will be highlighted how woefully inadequate Bomber Commands night striking capacity is.

Does the RAF go for heavy well armed bombers aka B17 or a British analogue. Or are beaucoup funds put into development of night navigation and bombing aids?

What effect does an Luftwaffe unweakened by the BoB have on the Mediterranean and Barbarossa?

Does the Luftwaffe send daylight Frei-jagd raids of Bf109’s up to engage Foghtee Command coming up to engage the V1’s? Does Fighter Command even bother?
 
If the Germans do launch numbers of V1’s in 1940 it is going to have a very dramatic on the direction of the RAF. There will be strong and increasing calls for bomber command to do something.

....

If they resort to night bombing then it will be highlighted how woefully inadequate Bomber Commands night striking capacity is.

Does the RAF go for heavy well armed bombers aka B17 or a British analogue. Or are beaucoup funds put into development of night navigation and bombing aids?

I am sure that the British will start spending much bigger on fighters, balloons and AAA defences. But even with this available in 1944, about half the V1 got through. Conversely, as the Germans see it paying off they are going to spend big on improving the V1 plus as production numbers increases of the V1, the unit price drops.
 
wouldn't the advantage of earlier V-1 or even some other type weapon be that 24 hour per day bombing could be conducted? with night bombing by LW and daytime use of V-1?

historically they were not able to conduct bombing raids by time V-1 was ready.

Yes, just with the limitation that the daytime inaccuracy makes it into a type of nuisance raid on the Greater London area, rather than the intense and reasonably accurate night raids that could hit town-size targets
 
One problem with this idea was that the V1 programme was expensive in 1944, and it would be even more expensive in 1940, since bombs built in 1944 were largely made by slaves, whereas bombs in (say) 1939 would have to be made by German workers who would need to be paid, so the cost/benefit analysis would be much less favourable to Germany than in OTL. The question then arises: what do the Germans sacrifice to pay for this programme? They can't have their existing forces and get the flying-bombs in addition, so there would need to be serious cuts in the conventional forces - reducing the number of panzer divisions, scrapping most of the Kriegsmarine, or drastically reducing the size of the Luftwaffe - but in this case would Germany succeed in overrunning France?

Secondly, V1's in 1940 would have lower performance than V1's in 1944, because that's how technology works - instead of having speeds of 360-400 mph, they'd probably do 330-350 mph, and the RAF would certainly be able to intercept some of them. If the Germans could actually bring 1944 technology forward to 1940, then why not do it for the Bf109G, and win the BoB that way! In fact, it's possible that an earlier V1 campaign might be a long-term benefit for the RAF, since it's likely they'd go for the Spitfire III if the Mk V was proven to be inadequate for the task, and the Mosquito would probably not be subject to the same delay as happened in reality.
 

Deleted member 1487

One problem with this idea was that the V1 programme was expensive in 1944, and it would be even more expensive in 1940, since bombs built in 1944 were largely made by slaves, whereas bombs in (say) 1939 would have to be made by German workers who would need to be paid, so the cost/benefit analysis would be much less favourable to Germany than in OTL. The question then arises: what do the Germans sacrifice to pay for this programme? They can't have their existing forces and get the flying-bombs in addition, so there would need to be serious cuts in the conventional forces - reducing the number of panzer divisions, scrapping most of the Kriegsmarine, or drastically reducing the size of the Luftwaffe - but in this case would Germany succeed in overrunning France?

Secondly, V1's in 1940 would have lower performance than V1's in 1944, because that's how technology works - instead of having speeds of 360-400 mph, they'd probably do 330-350 mph, and the RAF would certainly be able to intercept some of them.
Pardon? The V-1 was ridiculously cheap, 1/6th the cost of the V2. Even with the OTL poor hit rate, they still killed more people per mark spent than the V-2 by a HUGE margin.
Paying German labor more isn't going to appreciably jack up the cost and will if anything improve quality, drop the failure rate, and improve accuracy due to improved quality.
The pulse jet used on the V-1 was ready in 1941 IOTL, so it shouldn't be any slower than IOTL if moved up by a year or so. The RAF is going to have a hard time keeping pace even at 350mph at 2-3000 meters. The Spitfire II of 1940 vintage only achieved a 350mph top speed at 5100 meters.

If the Germans could actually bring 1944 technology forward to 1940, then why not do it for the Bf109G, and win the BoB that way!
A Bf109F4 would be more than enough in 1940; a FW190A3 in 1940 would have been like the Luftwaffe clubbing baby seals.

In fact, it's possible that an earlier V1 campaign might be a long-term benefit for the RAF, since it's likely they'd go for the Spitfire III if the Mk V was proven to be inadequate for the task, and the Mosquito would probably not be subject to the same delay as happened in reality.
Which leaves Hurricane I's to fight the Luftwaffe in the BoB...which is like the Luftwaffe clubbing baby seals. The Mossie probably wouldn't be available any sooner, especially if all the Merlin engines are needed for upgraded Spits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If, in the interest of economy and conservation of critical material, the Germans had made their 1940 V-1 of expendable plywood, possibly using established Lippisch delta configuration for simplicity, would there be, inadvertently, a stealth cruise missile? Fly 'em in at night and an uninterceptable nuisance (exhaust visible from rear, but moving fast). The basic Argus pulsejet was available in 1940; subsequent modifications concentrating on producibility, reed life and unsuccessful attempts to boost low speed thrust.

Cross beam radio navigation combined with reports from active observation flights might steer them to justifiable targets.

Dynasoar
 
1940 you say?

Assuming that the war plays out pretty much as OTL otherwise....it would not be long before one falls into the hands of the allies

And given their superior industry they would better the lesson
The Allies did make a copy called the loon and were getting ready to hit Japan with them when the war ended.
If the Allies had gotten loons earlier they would have shot a few thousand into the Ruhr Valley. They would have caused damage but more importantly they would have diverted resources to counter them, something Germany couldn't afford to do.
 
If the Allies had gotten loons earlier they would have shot a few thousand into the Ruhr Valley. They would have caused damage but more importantly they would have diverted resources to counter them, something Germany couldn't afford to do.

For the allies purposes, the V1 would need to be dramatically modified to be launched from a plane. It would be alright for city bombing say something like Hamburg 1942, say a thousand bombers each launching a few V1 fired at short range into a city. The V1 could have a proportionally bigger payload as its going a shorter distance. The bomber would be safer as they are not actually going as deep into the Germany city defences. I am not sure how it would work in Ruhr where precision bombing was often required.
 
Top