V1 drones during the battle of Britain

[FillyofDelphi]

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

I actually just finished listening to a documentary-on-CD on this subject, and the British actually had a fairly good intelligence counter to the V-1 in terms of their attacks on London. They used turned intelligence operatives that the Germans were using as spotters/observers to give accurate times of impact, but (fairly consistant in terms of margin of error) misinform on the exact location of impact. This caused the Germans to shift their aim so the flying bombs would hit the less densely populated suburbs of the city rather than its center.

 

[sonofpegasus]

The V1 was a relatively short ranged weapon. If it became available I 1940 them you would see some critical British institutions and industries moved whole sale out of range. The diversion of German resources to the V1 would have a knock on effect. To every move there is a counter move. Would this ATL win the BoB let alone the war, personally I think not. In reality the V1 in1944 was little more than a nuisance weapon. Yes it put the 'fear of God' into parts of the population but in practical terms that was about all.

 

[bernardz]

In reality the V1 in1944 was little more than a nuisance weapon. Yes it put the 'fear of God' into parts of the population but in practical terms that was about all.

In 1940 with German bombers active over Britain, with the long-term future in doubt, it would not be just a nuisance weapon. Plus assuming the war basically follows ww2, we are looking at continuous bombardment of Southern England till 1945. I think we could assume much of the population is moved out of range.

 

[James Ricker]

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.

It doesn't have to work, it only has to get the Luffwaffa to waste resources on it. I would trust the Allies to come up with a better guidance system, the fact that it isn't being built by slave labor would also improve its accuracy.

 

[yulzari]

I recall(?) a study that concluded that the He111 involved costs of production, airfields, fuelling, aircrew training, maintenance, replacement for operational and other losses and wear that made the V1 far cheaper per unit weight of bomb load delivered and it called upon industries other than those in key aviation, arms or vehicles production so it would be possible without greatly affecting existing output. Obviously they are not created from nothing but used less critical materials, machines and labour. Of course thy are even less accurate than Luftwaffe night bombing but they can target many areas on a 24/7 basis so there is let up within their range and increasing the range is no huge technical feat.

 

[Glenn239]

Is it practical make radio homing guidance in these weapons with 1940 or 1944 technology?

A guy with an ejection seat I think.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

For the allies purposes, the V1 would need to be dramatically modified to be launched from a plane ...

The JB-2 Loon as built by the US required only small modification. Air launched JB-2 were tested early in the program.

I'd put a proximity fuze on the tail. If a German interceptor got close enough to hit it the 1000kg charge would detonate in his face

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The JB-2 Loon as built by the US required only small modification. Air launched JB-2 were tested early in the program.

I'd put a proximity fuze on the tail. If a German interceptor got close enough to hit it the 1000kg charge would detonate in his face

Not really going to help; the British shot down hundreds of them outside of the blast range IOTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Interceptors

Between June and 5 September 1944, a handful of 150 Wing Tempests shot down 638 flying bombs,[35]

The next most successful interceptors were the Mosquito (623 victories),[36] Spitfire XIV (303),[37] and Mustang (232). All other types combined added 158. Even though it was not fully operational, the jet-powered Gloster Meteor was rushed into service with No. 616 Squadron RAF to fight the V-1s. It had ample speed but its cannons were prone to jamming, and it shot down only 13 V-1s.[38]

 

[andys]

With a range of 250km, ALL of south and western England from The Wash, through the Severn Estuary (including part of South Wales down to Land's End is in range of a V1 launched from the French coast. Starting in 1940 and developing the missile over the next year or two as operational experience expands, you'd have a very nasty weapon that the Brits would have to find a counter to. Longer range versions could be made by reducing the warhead size and increasing the fuel carried - an even less accurate weapon certainly but one that adds to the problem the defenders face, particularly if launched from aircraft over the North Sea. A simple device to randomly change the course of a missile would also add to the defenders problems, the OTL ones simply flew in a straight line and were thus easy-ish targets for AA and fighters. You could raise large formations of launch units to bombard large targets like London and smaller ones to attack other targets elsewhere, giving the British a much larger problem to deal with. With sufficient launches, there will inevitably be the occasional golden BB shot as well, a dam, a power station, a munitions factory/dump or a major bridge for example. All whilst putting none of your men at risk over England.

So earlier jet fighters, earlier AI radars and probably earlier proximity fuses as a minimum for the Brits. Much greater use of Bofors guns to counter these low-flying intruders and more barrage balloons would be brought into use in the early days as well. All of which would tend to divert resources from other forces. Part of the countermeasures would see the French rail network being seriously interdicted to disrupt supplies to the launch units, which would divert Bomber Command's attention from targets in the Ruhr. Additionally the RAF would suffer massive casualties whilst making those attacks over France into the bargain, as night-time attacks against point targets in 1940/41 wouldn't be very effective at all, so you'd have to go in by day.

The V1 still wouldn't be a war-winning weapon but it would probably prolong the war in the west. Absent large scale attacks on what would be by then, mobile launching units, the build-up for and thus the date of Overlord would be at risk from V1 attack as well. All of which moves the Iron Curtain how far westwards?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I actually just finished listening to a documentary-on-CD on this subject, and the British actually had a fairly good intelligence counter to the V-1 in terms of their attacks on London. They used turned intelligence operatives that the Germans were using as spotters/observers to give accurate times of impact, but (fairly consistant in terms of margin of error) misinform on the exact location of impact. This caused the Germans to shift their aim so the flying bombs would hit the less densely populated suburbs of the city rather than its center.

In 1940 the Germans did not have a effective spy network in the UK, and the Brits had not got the XX system operating. Initially air observation will be the primary return on accuracy.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

With a range of 250km, ALL of south and western England from The Wash, through the Severn Estuary (including part of South Wales down to Land's End is in range of a V1 launched from the French coast. Starting in 1940 and developing the missile over the next year or two as operational experience expands, you'd have a very nasty weapon that the Brits would have to find a counter to. Longer range versions could be made by reducing the warhead size and increasing the fuel carried - an even less accurate weapon certainly but one that adds to the problem the defenders face, particularly if launched from aircraft over the North Sea. A simple device to randomly change the course of a missile would also add to the defenders problems, the OTL ones simply flew in a straight line and were thus easy-ish targets for AA and fighters. You could raise large formations of launch units to bombard large targets like London and smaller ones to attack other targets elsewhere, giving the British a much larger problem to deal with. With sufficient launches, there will inevitably be the occasional golden BB shot as well, a dam, a power station, a munitions factory/dump or a major bridge for example. All whilst putting none of your men at risk over England.

Here were the historical guidance systems.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_103#Zielführung

Guidance
An integrated target search did not exist yet. For remote control, various methods have been used:
Kirschkern method
For navigation purposes, a simple MW transmitter " FuG 23 " with a towed antenna with a frequency range of 340 to 500 kHz was carried on board . This was followed during the flight by German Adcock subway stations ( Fremdpeilung ). The point of impact was then the location of the last bearing. The first V1 of a start series was therefore rather inaccurately started and only the subsequent with the help of the received bearing signals directed more accurately. This steering method had the alias "Kirschkern", in the style of the Kirschkern-Weitspucken . Range changes were set on the odometer, a small propeller on the bow, side deviations by setting on the gyro compass.
Fi-103 method
On suggestion of the C. Lorenz AG from the year 1943 the V1 was to be located in the flight by Kreuzpeilung and steered with Fernlenkkommandos at the radio measuring devices FuPeil A70h "Elektrola" then to the goal.
DFS-method
with different pulse sequences for direct remote control.
Ewald-sour cherry method
To counteract disruptive measures, the Fernlenkimpulse were emitted several times in succession. On board the Fi 103, the pulse control system "Mosel" was used. The pulses coming from the receiver were recorded on an endless magnetic tape. Only when the same impulse was applied to three read heads at the same time, the control command was passed to the oars. The expected accuracy was ± 2 kilometers to 400 kilometers battle distance.

So earlier jet fighters, earlier AI radars and probably earlier proximity fuses as a minimum for the Brits. Much greater use of Bofors guns to counter these low-flying intruders and more barrage balloons would be brought into use in the early days as well. All of which would tend to divert resources from other forces. Part of the countermeasures would see the French rail network being seriously interdicted to disrupt supplies to the launch units, which would divert Bomber Command's attention from targets in the Ruhr. Additionally the RAF would suffer massive casualties whilst making those attacks over France into the bargain, as night-time attacks against point targets in 1940/41 wouldn't be very effective at all, so you'd have to go in by day.

Not sure early jets necessarily would result given the lack of investment pre-war and the problems with the early British jets as it was. Maybe 1943 would be the earliest they could get the OTL flawed Meteor. The British really couldn't have early AI radar at that point; they got it remarkably quickly IOTL only because of things like the Tizard Mission and a lot of US help. When the BoB and night bombing started they went pretty hard into getting that operational and it would just take time.
Proxy fuzes could happen earlier, the US was the only country that perfected them for mass production IOTL, but their first prototype models weren't ready until mid-1942; they could conceivably have them in service defending Britain, albeit at great expense due to rushing them, in 1943 some time rather than mid-1944. The problem would then be how quickly they could rush the necessary high quality ground radar system that made them so accurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Anti-aircraft_guns

The development of the proximity fuze and of centimetric, 3 gigahertz frequency gun-laying radars based on the cavity magnetron helped to counter the V-1's high speed and small size. In 1944, Bell Labs started delivery of an anti-aircraft predictor fire-control system based on an analogue computer, just in time for the Allied invasion of Europe.

It is unlikely that they could get those advanced radar AND computing systems before OTL 1944 given the historical need for them anyway.
At a minimum the British and Americans could only rush the ground based countermeasures to about 1943 for some of them, and sometime in 1944 for the rest.

The Brits really only then have the option to rush the Spitfire III and soup-up their piston engine fighters to try and intercept. Effectively they will be unable to do much until 1942 or so, which is a LONG time to be unable to counter the V-1s effectively. Bomber Command was pretty much useless (100% casualties for some daylight missions in France in 1940-41) for inland bombing by day or night (they were effective at hitting the potential invasion ports in 1940 though) until May 1942, so they won't be able to shut down the launch sites or French infrastructure.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Are we waiving away the impetous to use this weapon against Warsaw, Rotterdam, Dunkirk, or perhaps Paris.

OTL no one in Germany was expecting to have launch sites that close. As late as 20 May Goering & his staff were assuming the German ground forces would not reach the coast, or even Ghent. It would be in their thinking to use even a few of these as soon as available.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Not really going to help; the British shot down hundreds of them outside of the blast range IOTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Interceptors

Actually your Wiki article does refer to the danger to the interceptor from detonation. Did many detonate when fit by cannon or MG rounds? I have read reports from the US 9th and 5th AF describing damage to their aircraft from bombs when attacking from 500 meters altitude. A 9th AF ordnance officer told me they used delay fuzes for low altitude attacks for this reason. The safety requirements I worked with on active service placed the EFC for a 500 lb bomb out beyond 700 meters.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Are we waiving away the impetous to use this weapon against Warsaw, Rotterdam, Dunkirk, or perhaps Paris.

OTL no one in Germany was expecting to have launch sites that close. As late as 20 May Goering & his staff were assuming the German ground forces would not reach the coast, or even Ghent. It would be in their thinking to use even a few of these as soon as available.

Depends on whether OP is saying the weapon is ready in time to use them in those cases; if they aren't ready until say June 1940 then there isn't really use for them otherwise. Probably this means the first use of the V-1 would be by aircraft launching them from standoff range. When French coastline is available then the option to ground launch them would be exercised.

Actually your Wiki article does refer to the danger to the interceptor from detonation. Did many detonate when fit by cannon or MG rounds? I have read reports from the US 9th and 5th AF describing damage to their aircraft from bombs when attacking from 500 meters altitude. A 9th AF ordnance officer told me they used delay fuzes for low altitude attacks for this reason. The safety requirements I worked with on active service placed the EFC for a 500 lb bomb out beyond 700 meters.

I'm sure there was shrapnel damage, aircraft attacking within 300m of an enemy aircraft often were hit with debris (Erich Hartmann was downed by debris multiple times from close attacks on Soviet aircraft). I don't know the specifics in regards to how many hits and at what range a V-1 could be shot down, just that the RAF took down over 1500 by fighter intercept. Granted they apparently lost some 350 aircraft in the process, but it is unclear what 'lost' means and what caused the loss:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Assessment

 

[bernardz]

I wonder if the allies could fire them from ships. Much of Italy then could then be hit by V1s. The other point is could U-boats be used to fire them?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I wonder if the allies could fire them from ships. Much of Italy then could then be hit by V1s. The other point is could U-boats be used to fire them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2#Postwar_testing

 

[Glenn239]

I wonder if the allies could fire them from ships. Much of Italy then could then be hit by V1s. The other point is could U-boats be used to fire them?

Probably best to mount nebelwerfer to submarines to go after coastal targets. The low accuracy of the V-1 coupled with the few carried on a submarine would mean next to complete uselessness as a weapons system.

 

[KACKO]

The other point is could U-boats be used to fire them?

Loon eas fired from ships as well as tested on submarine.

 

[KokkenKunten]

[QUOTE="wiking, post: 17139362, member: 1487"

Not sure early jets necessarily would result given the lack of investment pre-war and the problems with the early British jets as it was. Maybe 1943 would be the earliest they could get the OTL flawed Meteor. The British really couldn't have early AI radar at that point; they got it remarkably quickly IOTL only because of things like the Tizard Mission and a lot of US help. When the BoB and night bombing started they went pretty hard into getting that operational and it would just take time.
Proxy fuzes could happen earlier, the US was the only country that perfected them for mass production IOTL, but their first prototype models weren't ready until mid-1942; they could conceivably have them in service defending Britain, albeit at great expense due to rushing them, in 1943 some time rather than mid-1944. The problem would then be how quickly they could rush the necessary high quality ground radar system that made them so accurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Anti-aircraft_guns
[/QUOTE]

The RAF had AI MK.III operational (as in front line squadron use, rather than experimental) from May 1940. AI MKs IV (late 1940), VII (centimetric - mid '41) & VIII (centimetric - late '41) began to appear on squadrons shortly thereafter.

The proximity fuse (VT fuse) as used in WWII was a British invention,too.

Whilst true that the Tizard mission secured American manufacturing & support for these and other designs prior to the US entry into the conflict, a world where Fi 103's are falling all over the south east will see a redistribution of resources toward home manufacture & development of all systems appropriate to combating the threat.

'OTL flawed Meteor'... Where do I even begin with this? Yes, you certainly could see the Meteor in service in 1943, and very likely 1942 in a world where its qualities have a clear purpose & advantage. There's nothing stopping impetus to accelerate the program should a need (either militarily or political - likely both in this scenario) exist. I'd otherwise suggest you read up on the development of both the earlier Meteor MKs & the parallel development of the Halford & Welland powerplants. None of these programs encountered major issues that weren't readily resolved & in a world where an immediate need is perceived, you aren't going to have Rover dragging their heels with what became the Welland, because that contract is going elsewhere from the get - go...

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The RAF had AI MK.III operational (as in front line squadron use, rather than experimental) from May 1940. AI MKs IV (late 1940), VII (centimetric - mid '41) & VIII (centimetric - late '41) began to appear on squadrons shortly thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Interception_radar#Development_history

Starting in late 1939 the development team was asked to fit the existing Mk. III design, of limited use, to aircraft.

Yeah it was available, but not really useful, which is why it was replaced ASAP.

The proximity fuse (VT fuse) as used in WWII was a British invention,too.

And a German one too...both in laboratory only models, not production models. That required US improvements:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Improvement_in_the_US

Whilst true that the Tizard mission secured American manufacturing & support for these and other designs prior to the US entry into the conflict, a world where Fi 103's are falling all over the south east will see a redistribution of resources toward home manufacture & development of all systems appropriate to combating the threat.

The Tizard mission turned all sorts of British inventions from laboratory curiousities into mass manufacturable systems usable on the battlefield.
The British and US already had huge impetus to stop the Luftwaffe bombing Britain in 1940-44, but took until 1944 to get the right systems out to the field.

'OTL flawed Meteor'... Where do I even begin with this? Yes, you certainly could see the Meteor in service in 1943, and very likely 1942 in a world where its qualities have a clear purpose & advantage. There's nothing stopping impetus to accelerate the program should a need (either militarily or political - likely both in this scenario) exist. I'd otherwise suggest you read up on the development of both the earlier Meteor MKs & the parallel development of the Halford & Welland powerplants. None of these programs encountered major issues that weren't readily resolved & in a world where an immediate need is perceived, you aren't going to have Rover dragging their heels with what became the Welland, because that contract is going elsewhere from the get - go...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor
The early Meteor had a number of issues that weren't worked out until 1944 and even then some persisted, leading to the engine nacelle redesign. Rush the design and you'll run into a lot of issues with a 1943 service version.