V1 drones during the battle of Britain

So people were thinking in that direction.

Ok from this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsejet

In 1934, Georg Madelung and Munich-based Paul Schmidt proposed to the German Air Ministry a "flying bomb" powered by Schmidt's pulsejet. Madelung co-invented the ribbon parachute, a device used to stabilise the V-1 in its terminal dive. Schmidt's prototype bomb failed to meet German Air Ministry specifications, especially owing to poor accuracy, range and high cost. The original Schmidt design had the pulsejet placed in a fuselage like a modern jet fighter, unlike the eventual V-1 which had the engine placed above the warhead and fuselage.

The Argus Company began work based on Schmidt's work. Other German manufacturers working on similar pulsejets and flying bombs were The Askania Company, Robert Lusser of Fieseler, Dr. Fritz Gosslau of Argus and the Siemens company, which were all combined to work on the V-1.[6]

With Schmidt now working for Argus, the pulsejet was perfected and was officially known by its RLM designation as the Argus As 109-014. The first unpowered drop occurred at Peenemünde on 28 October 1942 and the first powered flight on 10 December 1942.

The pulsejet was evaluated to be an excellent balance of cost and function: a simple design that performed well for minimal cost.[6] It would run on any grade of petroleum and the ignition shutter system was not intended to last beyond the V-1's normal operational flight life of one hour. Although it generated insufficient thrust for takeoff, the V-1's resonant jet could operate while stationary on the launch ramp."

Ok. I am starting to warm up to this. We could as POD in 1934 have:
a) The air ministry not care about the specifications (perhaps someone forward thinking champions its development based on future merits)
b) Have the original design put the engine above the fuselage

Even if we doubled the development time to 4 years, due to needs to refine the design we could have a production ready weapon in 1938. Perhaps with an additional POD of not messing up the Ju88 design, we have some spare aircraft production capability for this by 1940, end of May 40 major effort begins to produce large quantities of V1s as Germans plan for war with Britain after France falls.
 

trajen777

Banned
Assuming the POD

1. You have an inexpensive way to Bomb / Harass / Defeat (??? dont think so) GB. Unlike the POD i would suggest a foucs on havey bombing by V1 (gen 1 - 2 -3 - 4 etc)
2. The additional aircraft and pilots vs USSR would have made a substantial difference in 41 (or Egypt 40 -- if you solve the logistics situation)
3. I see the V1 being the Sealion alt in 40 with a whole new range of options for Germany in 40 - 41 (resource allocations in NA or USSR)
 
Assuming the POD

1. You have an inexpensive way to Bomb / Harass / Defeat (??? dont think so) GB. Unlike the POD i would suggest a foucs on havey bombing by V1 (gen 1 - 2 -3 - 4 etc)
2. The additional aircraft and pilots vs USSR would have made a substantial difference in 41 (or Egypt 40 -- if you solve the logistics situation)
3. I see the V1 being the Sealion alt in 40 with a whole new range of options for Germany in 40 - 41 (resource allocations in NA or USSR)

Its a way to keep Britain on her heels cheaply while the Germans are off preparing for and doing Barbarossa. (No traditional Battle of Britain means hundreds of extra bombers available for Barbarossa). If we can trigger 1944 responses from the Allies to launch bomb sites, production sites, the Germans can achieve favorable attrition ratios on the defense.
 
Say the V1 was used in the Battle of Britain over time it would be improved in accuracy, both sides would soon be using it, could it get to a stage in ww2 where it could be used tactically by either side?
 
On the V-1 and it's accuracy. The JU-88 could do 315 mph clean at max speed. The V-1 cruised at 400mph. But, if those two could be blended such that they could fly in formation, what if bombers over France launched V-1's en mass, with high speed JU-88's flanking the V-1 formation to either side. The JU-88's have two radio signals, one marking the left hand boundry of the V-1 formation and the other the right hand boundry. This causes the V-1s to remain between the two and be guided to the target. The third signal cuts the V-1 engines and/or blows their wings off. Could that concept herd V-1's to a city sized target accurately?
 
On the V-1 and it's accuracy. The JU-88 could do 315 mph clean at max speed. The V-1 cruised at 400mph. But, if those two could be blended such that they could fly in formation, what if bombers over France launched V-1's en mass, with high speed JU-88's flanking the V-1 formation to either side.

The Lorenz beams had big antennas to get that range
Lorenz_LFF_stanovi_t_.jpg

Ju-88s won't be going that fast with that TX array bolted on
 
On the V-1 and it's accuracy. The JU-88 could do 315 mph clean at max speed. The V-1 cruised at 400mph. But, if those two could be blended such that they could fly in formation, what if bombers over France launched V-1's en mass, with high speed JU-88's flanking the V-1 formation to either side. The JU-88's have two radio signals, one marking the left hand boundry of the V-1 formation and the other the right hand boundry. This causes the V-1s to remain between the two and be guided to the target. The third signal cuts the V-1 engines and/or blows their wings off. Could that concept herd V-1's to a city sized target accurately?

How do you get the V1s herded together and stop them bumping into each other. Its going to be a well spread out formation covering miles and miles.
 
Okay so I think what we have established is that

A) having V1s during the Battle of Britain would be a great force multiplier for attacking London and possibly smaller targets like Portsmouth
B) but are highly unlikely to have been able to design, build and deploy them for 1940

So as per the OP hand waving away B what do the British do?
 
Okay so I think what we have established is that

A) having V1s during the Battle of Britain would be a great force multiplier for attacking London and possibly smaller targets like Portsmouth
B) but are highly unlikely to have been able to design, build and deploy them for 1940

So as per the OP hand waving away B what do the British do?

Very good question. In 1944 the UK had the numbers, both in aircraft and AAA, to deal with any attacker. Not so in 1940...
 
How long before the RAF has its own robot bomber. Britain led the world before the war in remote control drones like the Queen Bee target drone

Gunnery target drone
In 1935, the DH.82 Queen Bee, a pilotless, radio-controlled variant of the Tiger Moth appeared, for use in training anti-aircraft gunners. Usage of the word drone, as a generic term for pilotless aircraft, apparently originated from the name and role of the Queen Bee (i.e. the word drone referred previously only to a kind of worker bee).[24][25] The DH.82 had a wooden fuselage, based on that of the DH.60 Gipsy Moth (with appropriate structural changes related to cabane strut placement) and the wings of the Tiger Moth II.[26] Queen Bees retained a normal front cockpit for test-flying or ferry flights, but had a radio-control system in the rear cockpit that operated the controls using pneumatically driven servos.

A total of 400 were built by de Havilland at Hatfield and a further 70 by Scottish Aviation.[27] There were nearly 300 in service at the start of the Second World War.

In 1939 Miles Aviation built a mock up of a robot plane capable of carrying a 1,000lb bomb to a range of 400 miles and return.

Miles Hoop-La

The Hoopla was designed for long range precision bombing guided to target by radio control. A radio-directed automatic control unit for the elevator and rudder was incoporated into the design and according to RAE calculations this weapon should have been able to operate with a reasonable degree of accuracy upto a range of 400 miles.

General Characteristics
Engine: 260 hp de Havilland Gipsy Six or Menasco C6S engine
Span: 27 ft 0 in
Length: 22 ft 0 in
Height: 4 ft 8 in
Wing Area: 95 sq ft
Empty Weight: 875 lb / 907 lb (de Havilland / Menasco)
Gross Weight: 2,477 lb / 2,509 lb (de Havilland / Menasco)
Fuel Weight: 480 lb
Oil Weight: 22 lb
Payload Weight: 1,100 lb
Maximum Speed at sea level : 220 mph / 240 mph (de Havilland / Menasco)
Maximum Speed at 20,000 ft : 200 mph / 220 mph (de Havilland / Menasco)
Maximum Speed at 25,000 ft : 168 mph / 174 mph (de Havilland / Menasco)
Stall Speed: 83 mph
Endurance: 3 hours

Source:

Miles Aircraft - The Wartime Years by Peter Amos (Air Britain) ISBN 978-0-85130-430-4
Miles-Hoopla-Projekt-01-730x514.JPG

Miles-Hoopla-Projekt-02-730x512.JPG

Miles-Hoopla-Projekt-05.JPG
 

Deleted member 1487

Okay so I think what we have established is that

A) having V1s during the Battle of Britain would be a great force multiplier for attacking London and possibly smaller targets like Portsmouth
B) but are highly unlikely to have been able to design, build and deploy them for 1940

So as per the OP hand waving away B what do the British do?
Depends on the POD. If early enough (the concept was proposed in 1934) it was possible, but then there is a zero sum issue and potentially greater expense depending on the pulse jet engine development level of 1940.

In terms of what the British do...probably try to soup up any fighter aircraft to try and intercept them; beyond that they have little recourse besides bombing the launch sites and that would be unsustainably expensive very quickly if their OTL bomber operations in 1939-41 demonstrated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Countermeasures_at_Antwerp
The historical 1944-45 defense of Antwerp doesn't really indicate that anything like AAA would do the job in 1940 due to the lack of 1944 US computer guided gunlaying systems.

In 1939 Miles Aviation built a mock up of a robot plane capable of carrying a 1,000lb bomb to a range of 400 miles and return.

Miles Hoop-La

The Hoopla was designed for long range precision bombing guided to target by radio control. A radio-directed automatic control unit for the elevator and rudder was incoporated into the design and according to RAE calculations this weapon should have been able to operate with a reasonable degree of accuracy upto a range of 400 miles.
The problem is the radio part of that. It could be jammed, like the German radio guidance systems. If using a pre-programmed course, then it is at least no more accurate than the V-1 or V-2 at best. The Germans had their own version of the radio guided V-1, but I don't know if it was ever successfully fielded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems that there are other targets.

Malta, it was close enough as it was?

With a V1, as an attractive target for Germany might be a limited spring offensive in 1942, to put Moscow in range, something that German could probably have done after the disastrous Russian defeat in the winter. In which case bombing assuming a similar timeline, the bombing would continue till Aug 1943 which means that Moscow role of a transport hub and major industrial center is greatly reduced? Possibly Russian troops would have to pulled out of Stalingrad.

Then there is Liverpool which was a vital port during World War Two, closing it would have had a disastrous effect on Britain.
 
How do you get the V1s herded together and stop them bumping into each other. Its going to be a well spread out formation covering miles and miles.

Herding a ground launch would be impossible, so it would have to be a mass air launch by bombers at altitude, with the V-1's flying at slightly different altitudes to minimize the chances of collision, (which may happen occasionally).
 
Okay so I think what we have established is that

A) having V1s during the Battle of Britain would be a great force multiplier for attacking London and possibly smaller targets like Portsmouth
B) but are highly unlikely to have been able to design, build and deploy them for 1940

So as per the OP hand waving away B what do the British do?

I think they just put up with the additional damage and concentrate on the historical countermeasures - the V-1's not having enough HE effect or accuracy to materially effect a strategic campaign?
 
It seems that there are other targets.

Malta, it was close enough as it was?

With a V1, as an attractive target for Germany might be a limited spring offensive in 1942, to put Moscow in range, something that German could probably have done after the disastrous Russian defeat in the winter. In which case bombing assuming a similar timeline, the bombing would continue till Aug 1943 which means that Moscow role of a transport hub and major industrial center is greatly reduced? Possibly Russian troops would have to pulled out of Stalingrad.

Then there is Liverpool which was a vital port during World War Two, closing it would have had a disastrous effect on Britain.


V1 Range is 160 miles it is pretty much limited to targets in the South of England - Liverpool and the Midlands is too far North - certainly later versions might have the legs but not the V1

Not sure it is viable to be brought forwards to get in range of Stalingrad? Stalingrad is smaller than London effectively a ribbon of Urban territory along the river and by the time 6th Army began its attack the LW had bombed it to Shit

Malta has a very high concentration of AAA and is much much smaller than London and vastly less urbanised - I would suspect that the majority of V1s would land in the sea and the balance of the rest would not hit anything useful.

Certainly their would be sucesses and it would be a cheap method of attacking the Island but I do not beleive that it would be an effective one.
 
while the V1 was notoriously inaccurate, there is always the 'golden BB' chance of hitting something important. So, what would be the most significant targets the V1s could hit out of sheer random bad luck?
 
V-1s equipped with simple RADAR homing receiver and tracking control would be ideal solution to Chain Home and subsequent fixed systems, including AA. Homing transmitters built into delayed action bombs dropped on a target by hit and run pathfinder aircraft could provide guidance to a group of (in flight) raiding V-1s. Hate the idea of targeting civilians while there are plenty of valid locations to hit.

Going back to my previous post about cheap plywood deltas (L/D similar to Fi 103) being an ideal configuration for a cruise missile, smaller RADAR cross section would be a beneficial unintended consequence. Hedy Lamarr's timed frequency switching fits in here as well for prelocated target homing.

Dynasoar
 

Deleted member 1487

V-1s equipped with simple RADAR homing receiver and tracking control would be ideal solution to Chain Home and subsequent fixed systems, including AA. Homing transmitters built into delayed action bombs dropped on a target by hit and run pathfinder aircraft could provide guidance to a group of (in flight) raiding V-1s. Hate the idea of targeting civilians while there are plenty of valid locations to hit.

Going back to my previous post about cheap plywood deltas (L/D similar to Fi 103) being an ideal configuration for a cruise missile, smaller RADAR cross section would be a beneficial unintended consequence. Hedy Lamarr's timed frequency switching fits in here as well for prelocated target homing.

Dynasoar
http://www.luft46.com/missile/bv246.html
 
Wiking,

While at Wright-Patterson, Dr Vogt, whom you referenced in the luft46 entry, was always an exponent of high aspect ratio wings (even those made of concrete as in the article). He led a range extension project for the B-36 involving fuel carrying jettisonable floating wing extensions which would have increased the outbound wing span to nearly 350 feet. This approach was also used in an early proposal for the North American WS-110A -later to become the B-70.

Dynasoar
 
Top