V1 drones during the battle of Britain

Deleted member 1487

Of course rushing the V1 would had been a piece of cake...
Take it up with OP. Though given that the V-1 project was started in 1936 and slow walked until 1942 it is feasible to have started it earlier. A rushed British Jet response ready before 1944 would require a second POD of Whittle getting funding pre-war, not in 1940 after first encountering the V-1.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Interception_radar#Development_history

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


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


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.


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.

I believe I pointed out that AI MK. III was superceded, in short order, by the MK. IV and, latterly, by the centimetric sets beginning with the MK. VII & MK. VIII - all of which were in service before the US entry in the conflict. The MK. IV being very successful indeed, whilst still operating in the metre wavelength range. Nonetheless, the Mk. III, whilst limited (particularly by its minimum range) was far better than 'not really useful' as you suggest - indeed, the wiki entry you quote doesn't even mention the MK.III, does it??

The VT fuse was far from a 'laboratory only' model - they were field tested, with initial batches produced in the UK too. The valve (tube) design (by John Cockroft at Pye) was subsequently improved for mass production by Berkner & eventually incorporated into already extant valves (for hearing aids, no less) produced by Western Electric & RCA. Nothing here is beyond the technical capacity of the UK in a world where the priorities are different.

The purpose of the Tizard mission was primarily one of inducement (developmentally & politically), to better access the US industrial base. It did not consist of laboratory curiosities, but rather, viable, tested designs in addition to items already in production for service use.

I think you'll find that very few aircraft (much less those at the very cutting edge) are blessed with a perfect, trouble free development. In the case of the Meteor, none of the issues encountered were considered serious - and particularly not the compressibility associated with the original 'short' nacelle, that you seem to have latched on to. Furthermore, the Meteor would not require a 'rushed' development at all, merely one conducted at a normal pace. The development of the Meteor was very much secondary to that of those types already serving, and as such, was allocated none of the resources which could well have been brought to bear, had such a pressing need arisen.
 

Deleted member 1487

I believe I pointed out that AI MK. III was superceded, in short order, by the MK. IV and, latterly, by the centimetric sets beginning with the MK. VII & MK. VIII - all of which were in service before the US entry in the conflict. The MK. IV being very successful indeed, whilst still operating in the metre wavelength range. Nonetheless, the Mk. III, whilst limited (particularly by its minimum range) was far better than 'not really useful' as you suggest - indeed, the wiki entry you quote doesn't even mention the MK.III, does it??
The Mark IV was only successful in comparison to the Mk. III...the reason the MK. III is barely mentioned in that article is because it was only slightly better than using the MK. 1 eyeball.

The VT fuse was far from a 'laboratory only' model - they were field tested, with initial batches produced in the UK too. The valve (tube) design (by John Cockroft at Pye) was subsequently improved for mass production by Berkner & eventually incorporated into already extant valves (for hearing aids, no less) produced by Western Electric & RCA. Nothing here is beyond the technical capacity of the UK in a world where the priorities are different.
Do you have some source about the UK models? The wikipedia article does not say that the British models were ever developed into mass produceable units, only the American developments were.
Western Electric and RCA are American companies BTW. Kind of hard to make them just by themselves without American components...

The purpose of the Tizard mission was primarily one of inducement (developmentally & politically), to better access the US industrial base. It did not consist of laboratory curiosities, but rather, viable, tested designs in addition to items already in production for service use.
Yeah...no. The Tizard Mission was to actually turn British lab experiments into produceable weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizard_Mission
The objective of the mission was to cooperate in science and technology with the U.S., which was neutral and, in many quarters, unwilling to become involved in the war. The U.S. had greater resources for development and production, which Britain desperately wanted to use.
Development means turning a production from lab experiment into a mass produceable item. The research sent couldn't be properly developed due to a shortage of resources in Britain.

The Brits had done experiments with their VT fuze in rockets (as had the Germans) and were trying to work toward cannon fired models, but it was the US that actually made it a reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Production
First large scale production of tubes for the new fuzes[2] was at a General Electric plant in Cleveland, Ohio formerly used for manufacture of Christmas-tree lamps. Fuze assembly was completed at General Electric plants in Schenectady, New York and Bridgeport, Connecticut.[22]

I think you'll find that very few aircraft (much less those at the very cutting edge) are blessed with a perfect, trouble free development. In the case of the Meteor, none of the issues encountered were considered serious - and particularly not the compressibility associated with the original 'short' nacelle, that you seem to have latched on to. Furthermore, the Meteor would not require a 'rushed' development at all, merely one conducted at a normal pace. The development of the Meteor was very much secondary to that of those types already serving, and as such, was allocated none of the resources which could well have been brought to bear, had such a pressing need arisen.
If they weren't serious, why did they prevent deployment before 1944? They were utility to the aircraft prior.
 
The Mark IV was only successful in comparison to the Mk. III...the reason the MK. III is barely mentioned in that article is because it was only slightly better than using the MK. 1 eyeball.


Do you have some source about the UK models? The wikipedia article does not say that the British models were ever developed into mass produceable units, only the American developments were.
Western Electric and RCA are American companies BTW. Kind of hard to make them just by themselves without American components...


Yeah...no. The Tizard Mission was to actually turn British lab experiments into produceable weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizard_Mission

Development means turning a production from lab experiment into a mass produceable item. The research sent couldn't be properly developed due to a shortage of resources in Britain.

The Brits had done experiments with their VT fuze in rockets (as had the Germans) and were trying to work toward cannon fired models, but it was the US that actually made it a reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Production



If they weren't serious, why did they prevent deployment before 1944? They were utility to the aircraft prior.

No, the MK. III isn't 'barely mentioned' in the article - it isn't mentioned AT ALL. The MK. IV was not merely successful compared to the MK. III, it was successful, period. Also worthy of note, is that the first US contribution to the AI program was Western Electric's SCR720B, which appeared in December 1942 (one set, for trials)- over a year after the introduction of the solely UK designed & built, centimetric MK. VII.

You know, if you're going to rely on wiki for your attempted rebuttals, you really should take the trouble to read the article to which you so eagerly link first... If you'd done that, you'd realise that amongst the designs taken to the US as part of Tizard's mission, were such items as ASDIC (sonar), gyroscopic sights, self sealing fuel tanks, plastic explosives (various flavours), cavity magnetron etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that even the most simplistic account of the war will reveal that all these things were in service use before Tizard & co left these shores, so rather far from 'laboratory items' by any definition.

Regarding the VT fuse, and again invoking a wiki article you have raised yourself, I'll refer you to the following:

As early as September 1939, John Cockroft began a development effort at Pye Ltd. to develop tubes capable of withstanding these much greater forces.[14] Pye's research was transferred to the United States as part of the technology package delivered by the Tizard Mission when the United States entered the war.

The British ordered 20,000 special miniature tubes from Western Electric Company and Radio Corporation of America, and an American team under Admiral Harold G. Bowen, Sr. correctly deduced that the tubes were meant for experiments with proximity fuzes.[3] The details of these experiments were passed to the United States Naval Research Laboratory and National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) by the Tizard Mission in September 1940, in accordance with an informal agreement between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt to exchange scientific information of potential military value.[

As per your assertion that; 'The wikipedia article does not say that the British models were ever developed into mass produceable units' I would also point out that neither did I. To repeat, verbatim, what I actually said in my earlier post was:

'The VT fuse was far from a 'laboratory only' model - they were field tested, with initial batches produced in the UK too. The valve (tube) design (by John Cockroft at Pye) was subsequently improved for mass production by Berkner & eventually incorporated into already extant valves (for hearing aids, no less) produced by Western Electric & RCA. Nothing here is beyond the technical capacity of the UK in a world where the priorities are different.'

Now, the key point here is my final line in the above statement - 'Nothing here is beyond the technical capacity of the UK in a world where the priorities are different'. That is, where the priorities might differ in any alternate timeline, there is no reason - either of manufacturing or the science behind it, why Pye (or any other capable organisation, for that matter - of which there are many), should not produce VT fuses, albeit at the (disruptive) expense of another (presumably deemed less pressing & prescient in an ATL) product, or any other, understood technology as might be required.

Going back to the Meteor, you seem not to have taken on board what I said in my earlier post at all. 'Problems' (of any sort) did not prevent the aircraft reaching service release until 1944, rather, the perceived lack of need, OTL, did. The program was drip fed, if you will, on minimal resources (at least until the first Fi 103's start to appear OTL) simply because those types already in service were adequate (and with comfortably established production routines / tempos) for the then understood threat & operational needs.

Oh, and thanks for helpfully pointing out that both Western Electric & RCA are American concerns, I'd long wondered what 'Made in the USA' meant on the little labels stuck to the back of their products....
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Without heavy bombardment of German cities by Allied - of which there was almost none in 1940, there is no pretext for the V1/FZG-76, so Hitler won't divert resources to it.
 
'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...

As an emergency stopgap measure before the Meteor is available you could see a modest production run of the Gloster E28/39. Although purely experimental it was designed as a fighter with 4 x .303 so could be put into service in a crash programme.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
If they weren't serious, why did they prevent deployment before 1944? They were utility to the aircraft prior.

Because they weren't a priority, and didn't offer much of an improvement over piston-engined fighters.

Also the UK had huge factories producing thousands of reliable piston engines per week (and Napier Sabres) so jet engines were an unnecessary luxury.
 

Deleted member 1487

Because they weren't a priority, and didn't offer much of an improvement over piston-engined fighters.

Also the UK had huge factories producing thousands of reliable piston engines per week (and Napier Sabres) so jet engines were an unnecessary luxury.
So....why would they be rushed ITTL?
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
There was nothing on the scale of the V1 posing a sufficient threat. Typhoons and Spitfire XIIs were adequate to deal with Luftwaffe tip-and-run raiders (which were withdrawn to North Africa, where they were lost)
 

Deleted member 1487

There was nothing on the scale of the V1 posing a sufficient threat. Typhoons and Spitfire XIIs were adequate to deal with Luftwaffe tip-and-run raiders (which were withdrawn to North Africa, where they were lost)
Given that it would take less time to run up a Mosquito or Typhoon into defensive action than a Meteor from a mid-1940 start date, why wouldn't they focus on those for the reasons you said the Meteor wasn't made a priority IOTL?
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
It would take far longer to get a Mosquito into service, as it didn't fly until November 1940.

The prototypes of the Hawker Tornado and Typhoon crashed and disintegrated in mid-air respectively during 1940-1.

if there are V1s in 1940 (or 1941) there will be Metrovick F2 or Halford H1 powered Meteors/Supermarine 325s by 1942-3.
 
And in the interim, the employment of anything cannon armed which is capable of mounting a 'Diver' style interception profile (think Spit V etc).

Also, the Merlin 61 / 63 makes an earlier appearance.
 

Deleted member 1487

It would take far longer to get a Mosquito into service, as it didn't fly until November 1940.

The prototypes of the Hawker Tornado and Typhoon crashed and disintegrated in mid-air respectively during 1940-1.

if there are V1s in 1940 (or 1941) there will be Metrovick F2 or Halford H1 powered Meteors/Supermarine 325s by 1942-3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan-Vickers_F.2#F.2
Development of the F.2 turbojet progressed rapidly, and the engine ran for the first time in November 1941. By this point there were a number of engines in development based on the Whittle concept, but the F.2 looked considerably more capable than any of them. Flyable versions, the F.2/1, received its test rating in 1942 and were flown on an Avro Lancaster test-bed (the first prototype Lancaster, s/n BT308) on 29 June 1943, mounted in the rear fuselage. Production quality versions were tested on the F.9/40M (Gloster Meteor) s/n DG204/G which made its first flight on 13 November 1943.
First flight still means a while before production in mass and in service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Goblin#Design_and_development
The H-1 first ran on 13 April 1942 and quickly matured to produce its full design thrust within two months. It first flew on 5 March 1943 in the Gloster Meteor, and on 26 September in the de Havilland Vampire.[5]

The Vampire wasn't production ready until April 1945.
 
First flight still means a while before production in mass and in service.

The Vampire wasn't production ready until April 1945.

You really seem to be having a hard time understanding that these programs were neither as well resourced nor funded as would have been possible, as there was no need (perceived or real) to do so.

This does not mean that development cannot be accelerated, without serious impediment, should circumstance dictate otherwise. By 1940, there are no fundamental, development 'road blocks' likely to impede progress - all the technologies, and such things as might be required to implement them, are quite well understood.
 

Deleted member 1487

You really seem to be having a hard time understanding that these programs were neither as well resourced nor funded as would have been possible, as there was no need (perceived or real) to do so.

This does not mean that development cannot be accelerated, without serious impediment, should circumstance dictate otherwise. By 1940, there are no fundamental, development 'road blocks' likely to impede progress - all the technologies, and such things as might be required to implement them, are quite well understood.
You also seem not to understand that it takes time to develop technologies as advanced and unknown in the early 1940s as jet propulsion. Jet engine technology was not well understood, which is why the heavily resourced German jet engine project only appeared in 1944 and was clearly a rush job with serious reliability and safety issues.
So if you're presupposing a jet program that results in an even more unreliable and unsafe product than the Me262/Jumo 004B engine combo, then sure it could be done in 1943, but given OTL's Meteor's success rate at hunting V-1's it is liable to be more lethal to the pilots than successful at stopping V-1s.
 
I understand perfectly well. Power Jets ground ran the first of the WU series in early 1937. Development continued apace, and the first W.1 flew successfully in early 1941. Between W.1 & W.2 (Welland) development, the only real issue encountered in OTL was a lubrication problem which required a straightforward fix, and much later, an equally straightforward change in the alloy used in the compressor as power levels increased dramatically. Frankly, the W.1 was a safer proposition than the Jumo - in any flavour - by 1940. And that's with OTL funding which amounted to peanuts and no small degree of laissez faire . You must remember, one of the primary reasons behind developing centrifugal technologies before axial was precisely because the former was so well understood, as were the potential risks with the latter.

A more urgent need and better funding simply makes all this happen sooner. Again, by 1940, there are no likely impediments which cannot be surmounted by understood methods and practices.

I can only conclude that you're either being deliberately obtuse in claiming not to see this, or else you have an axe to grind for who knows what reason.

In either case, I fear you're running the risk of merely seeming, as we say up north, 'a bit dim' in persisting with this tack...
 
Obviously the answer would be a Jet powered Spitfire - 'The Jetfire'

29913349820_4e1809e705_b.jpg

29913345940_c139e5fd7a_b.jpg

29579903443_a3fac67ee0_b.jpg
 
Top