WI - German V-1 ready in 1940?

Is that sort of guidance technology available though? And even then, it's not like it would be accurate enough to pinpoint a single city block, let alone building or factory.

BTW, I thought this thread was from a few months ago. It is from 11 months ago. Man does the time fly.
 
So the BAT was the first anti radiation weapon? Interesting. I always thought it was an active seeking weapon; was it guided by an operator who observed the transmitted active radar return and steered its control surfaces, or was it a true fire & forget weapon, pre-loaded with the target's radar signature? The latter would be extremely advanced for WW2 and explains the long development time. It'd be harder to jam the radar in the BAT itself in that case, rather than simply jamming the signal to the mother aircraft. I know the Felix was fire and forget infrared homing- the first heat seeking weapon, again science fiction technology just a couple years before.
 

Deleted member 1487

So the BAT was the first anti radiation weapon? Interesting. I always thought it was an active seeking weapon; was it guided by an operator who observed the transmitted active radar return and steered its control surfaces, or was it a true fire & forget weapon, pre-loaded with the target's radar signature? The latter would be extremely advanced for WW2 and explains the long development time. It'd be harder to jam the radar in the BAT itself in that case, rather than simply jamming the signal to the mother aircraft. I know the Felix was fire and forget infrared homing- the first heat seeking weapon, again science fiction technology just a couple years before.
Sorry, yes it was an active seeking weapon, not a passive radar homer. I guess the German BV glide bomb technically was one of the first if not the first passive homer (I don't know of any other projects, but could well be wrong). The Germans did have a number of passive detection devices for Allied airborne radar during the war, so that wasn't a difficult technology, it's more an issue of the guidance system.
 
Edit - it might have been possible in 1940 to adapt the V-1 to one of the beam riding navigation systems to improve CEP. Or maybe a command guidance system, if escorted.

The USN did that for the Loon copy in 1946, but the US was far ahead in ruggedized tubes, the Germans never got small tubes to survive a cannon launch for VT fuzes
 

Deleted member 1487

That the USAF tried to do precision. V-1s don't have that figleaf. they will be dropping HE everywhere.
Right, as I've always said it makes no sense for the Allies to use other than as an airborne standoff weapon in case a target is too heavily defended to try and bomb, which none really were. For the Germans though it made all the sense to use from France to London.
 
Since the thread is already using up sizeable quantities of handwavium, what's a little bit more, right?
There were proposals to launch V-1's from U-Boats as soon as the things were developed. Supposedly, inter-service rivalry between the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe made it a non-starter. Suppose, though, earlier 1940 use (and "success") convinces enough in the high command that a shotgun wedding is in order. Historically, the amount of time it took to develop a submarine launched Loon missile was about two years - in a post-war, low-priority environment. Put the right fire under that kettle, and maybe there are U-Boats with V-1's by early 1941.
This is still in the "Happy Time" for the Kriegsmarine, when nighttime surface operation wasn't a death sentence.
Now, the V-1 would be useless against shipping, period. Even with some clever pressurized containers for decktop storage, I can't see having a payload of more than four V-1's on a U-boat - and reloads would have been agonizingly slow. But, have a wolf pack of 10 or 20 boats launching a barrage from the North Sea towards Birmingham, Manchester, etc at dusk, only to then slink away towards Norway or Denmark to reload.
Maybe utilize the V-Boats to bombard St. Johns, Newfoundland to attempt to disrupt convoying
Once the US enters the war, the tactic could be used briefly against the Eastern Seaboard. I say briefly, because the first few barrages would stir up a huge hornet's nest. The V-Boat menace evaporates pretty quick for the same reasons it did IOTL - the advent of long-range patrols, radar, sonar, etc. But if the goals are to disrupt normal operations, divert energy and resources from other priorities, and panic populations...
 
The USN did that for the Loon copy in 1946, but the US was far ahead in ruggedized tubes, the Germans never got small tubes to survive a cannon launch for VT fuzes

They did have a proxy fuse for the V2, which was much bigger, to prevent the warhead going off underground when the rocket struck. The V1 itself was a lot bigger than a 5" shell, the Germans should have been able to cook something tough enough up.

Was the lack of industrial capacity to produce AA proximity fuses something Germany could overcome meanwhile? The British seemed to lack the capacity to make them too.
 
They did have a proxy fuse for the V2, which was much bigger, to prevent the warhead going off underground when the rocket struck. The V1 itself was a lot bigger than a 5" shell, the Germans should have been able to cook something tough enough up.

Was the lack of industrial capacity to produce AA proximity fuses something Germany could overcome meanwhile? The British seemed to lack the capacity to make them too.

No VT on the V2.
The Germans were looking into electrostatic, acoustic and photoelectric, that would not have worked on the V2.
Thats why despite its large warhead did far less damage than the V1.

Germany had a far smaller Electronics industry than the US, and also, a far less developed Storage Battery industry.
Making a battery that could sit for months, in the heat of the South Pacific or cold of the North Atlantic, and still work after being fired from a cannon was another challenge
 
Ah, it seems I've been misinformed about the V2's fuse. I have read that even without a warhead, the crater was significantly large and deep.

Electronics is one of several key industrial fields the Nazis could have focused on in the 30s, ostensibly to corner an European market which would doubtless prefer products from closer to home rather than importing from the US, however cheap economies of scale made the latter, whilst in reality preparing the nation for 20th century, first generation network centric warfare. The battery situation speaks for itself when it comes to U boats. More manufacturing capacity, better battery performance.

Today, Germany remains behind in electronics. None of the leading manufacturers are German, televisions, computers, cellular telephones... Even German cars are much tougher mechanincally than electronically. The first thing that breaks on a Mercedes is the window switches, whilst the engine will happily do hundreds of thousands of miles.

Seems none of the Nazi top brass were technophiles, aside Goebbels who knew the power of radio.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The V1 was a pretty unsophisticated weapon, from what I remember it took only unsophisticated methods to block it (barrage balloons, AAA, disinformation by turned agents, disturbing the airflow around the aircraft etc....) so I'm guessing after the initial shock the British response would be more or less the same as OTL , I would suggest however that the big difference in introducing the V1 in 1940 would be the British developing their own version to hit back with.
British electronic industry was not that big either. Only the US had a truly big one.

Today, Germany remains behind in electronics. None of the leading manufacturers are German, televisions, computers, cellular telephones
Same as the Brits, too.
 
Do you have a source for this?
I had a source, yes, some decades ago. I checked out a library book on the subject of gas warfare and it asserted that Hitler did issue the order for nerve gas use on the Soviet troops, but the generals and manufacturers "lost" the order, not acting to implement it nor was Hitler informed one way or the other.

But this book is not in my possession, I do not recall title or author, and my attempt to locate a quotable source on line recently to link to was not successful.

Call it a dubious claim if you like then; knowing the seriousness of the source at the time I read it, I believe it, but of course the author may have been misled by deceptive claims of former Nazis seeking to exonerate themselves, or what have you.

You have my personal word I did read it in a serious academic book on the subject of gas warfare.
 
Top