That's not altogether true. V-2s were fueled by ethanol, which was made from potatoes... a lot of potatoes. Those crops were therefore not available for people to eat. Food was always a concern for the Reich, and it got much worse as the war wore on. Turning potatoes into rocket fuel was a major sacrifice.
WI No V-2 but more and better V-1's?
- Thread starter tallthinkev
- Start date
But we can’t compare the proportional costs because the situation is not the same and never could be. US is under no threat of invasion, bombing or damage that would interfere with its ability to do whatever it pleases. Britain was secured long ago by this point with Luftwaffe neutered to the point that even trying to fight over England would be suicide. Germany has an oil shortage. It’s so bad that they’re cutting pilot training time and sending inexperienced people to die. They’re able to organize a single offensive in late 44 whose sole goal is to reach Antwerp and seize allied oil stocks.
Would Germany be in a better situation if it were able to fuel its planes and be competitive in the air and able to use tens of thousands of strategic bombers? Yes. But it’s never gonna be in that situation. Bombers are not an option not only due to lack of fuel but also lack of training and absolute air domination by Allied forces. V2s use oil that is not on shortage. It can be produced by slaves. It requires no pilots. It requires no large airports and massive preparations. There’s no stopping it once launched.
Yes it’s inaccurate. So is a single strategic bomber. They often had trouble hitting anything. It’s why thousand bomber offensives were organized. Yes it’s impact is limited. So would a single strat bombers be.
That said I absolutely don’t mind and fully agree that Germany lost and would always lose, that V2s will not change anything strategically or tactically but neither would anything else. Even having a Nuke in 44-45 would be of doubtful use due to inability to deliver it. Thinking of German bomber dropping one on London or Moscow is a pipe dream. What bothers me is just statements that can be pointed at almost any combat system used by combatants in WW2 and victor bias in regards to technology as well as ignoring the strategic situation of respective combatants.
In any case, the relevant comparison here isn't the V-2 versus the Lancaster or B-17, it's the V-2 against the V-1. The V-1 was even cheaper than the V-2 and, critically, tied up a lot of resources (in terms of fighters and AA guns) trying to intercept them, whereas the V-2 was impossible to effectively intercept and so had no secondary impact of that sort. Probably spending the resources that were put into the V-2 on the V-1 would have been better for Germany (in the sense that it would have slightly delayed their loss) than their OTL strategy, even if they didn't actually change the V-1 in any way.
That really just means we have to compare the proportional costs and the wider content of both side trying to realise weapons programmes.
i,e. teh wallies were not only able to massively out spend and resource Germany but were able to do so in manufacturing bases safe from attack.
I pretty much agree with this and have said much of it in my own posts
1). my posts have been all about the strategic situation,
2). The V1 & V2 were both designed with that strategic situation in mind i.e. Germany went with V1 & V2 when they plane based bombing strategy failed. As an aside the facts the higher echelons liked to describe this as rendering old tech obsolete with advanced new stuff is more about them trying to make virtue of necessity (hence the various Hitler quotes)
3). even when we boil it down to just abstractly looking at the tech side by side all larger context removed, i.e looking at your single B17 to single V2 you are basically wrong in your analysis (see my post)
Last edited:
Do we tho? Money doesn’t mean a thing in 44. For all it matters they could “spend” a trillion reichsmarks on a project. Either they win or they lose in either case it doesn’t matter. They’re not connected to the world market.
Objectively what is the best hope for Nazi Reich to survive the war by 44 or 45? Entering Moscow or London? Never gonna happen. Invading mainland US? Not gonna happen. Stopping the Soviets? Not gonna happen. Kicking the western allies from Europe? Not gonna happen. Their only hope was to force some kind of negotiated peace. Hence the need to apply any kind of pressure on the enemy and bring the war to their civilians in order to apply pressure on civil government to end the war. Was that ever gonna work? Never in a million years. But Germans would rather Hail Mary and than admit defeat.
And it’s not just about abstract tech. It’s about both technology and context. Can you actually use the technology even if you make it. How long does it take to produce enough before you can use it. What counters does an enemy have in regards to it. How does it impact your own strategic resource reserves.
It’s what frustrates me about tech discussions. Battleship ha Carrier. Well answer is obvious. Even Italians who had airbases covering every section of the sea should have built some and used in Mediterranean. Stupid Germans with their tactical bombers and assault aircraft. Should have built B17 equivalents for the blitz. Stupid Germans should have built 10000 submarines before 1939 to win the war.
Honestly I'm not sure what you are contesting in my post?
(resources and costs is more than just money though)
And it was you putting up a single B17 against a V2 and saying look the B17 is 11.5x more expensive, in an abstract way?
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
Following that line of logic, the tactical or semi-tactical use of the V1 might, just possibly, delay the inevitable by a very modest amount.
On the other hand, the terror effect of the V2 might (in a Nazi fantasy) damage civilian morale and bring the WAllies to a negotiated peace. OK, not going to happen, but if the objective is to bring the war to their civilians, you need something that has the range to do so.
That's why I said in my first sentence that whatever they do, it's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
That's a given but the alternative is surrender which is totally non-viable so ...
The one ton DID do something and it was a tangible effect in tying up assets. The "problem" was that by that point the Allies had more assets so the overall effect was negligible but the "effect" was still there. It pretty much keeps coming down to the Germans needed to make some non-obvious 'early' decisions for 'some reason' to have any actual effect on the outcome and even THEN it's unlikely. But in context had the V1 program had more funding earlier and more focus earlier, (keep in mind the V2 program took "millions" in just basic research through the late 30s and early 40s BEFORE it became a priority program) it's possible a lot of 'advanced' work that was being done at the end of the war could have been more viable earlier. Possibly enough to have some effect. A 'war winner'? Highly unlikely I'd say but enough to have have an effect.
Randy
Garrison
Donor
Which begs the question what effect do you see this having? Unconditional surrender is not going away and Germany is still going to be carved up into the various Allied control zones, so what will all these extra V-1s actually achieve in your opinion?That's a given but the alternative is surrender which is totally non-viable so ...
The one ton DID do something and it was a tangible effect in tying up assets. The "problem" was that by that point the Allies had more assets so the overall effect was negligible but the "effect" was still there. It pretty much keeps coming down to the Germans needed to make some non-obvious 'early' decisions for 'some reason' to have any actual effect on the outcome and even THEN it's unlikely. But in context had the V1 program had more funding earlier and more focus earlier, (keep in mind the V2 program took "millions" in just basic research through the late 30s and early 40s BEFORE it became a priority program) it's possible a lot of 'advanced' work that was being done at the end of the war could have been more viable earlier. Possibly enough to have some effect. A 'war winner'? Highly unlikely I'd say but enough to have have an effect.
Randy
In just about every context the overall effect is pretty much nothing, but I'll admit that's both in hindsight and without the 'currency' that would have been around at the time
But the Germans saw it as a way to 'strike back' and even initially it was seen as a method to hit the enemy at an arguably 'affordable' cost to Germany. (And it keeps "the Boss" off your back a bit
) That really doesn't change in background and given more time and development efforts the V1 had some potential. So did some of the technology associated with it*. The US put some serious work into their version (and different versions) of the V1 for use against Japan so they obviously saw 'some' advantage and utility.In general deploying it in greater numbers will have bit deeper outcome in keeping the Allies focused on defending against the threat just like OTL and it will be a threat the Allies HAVE to address in some manner just as it was OTL.
*= As an example the V1 was originally supposed to use a valve-less pulsejet but the Argus was used not because it was really 'cheaper' (the valve-less was shown post-war to be cheaper but harder to get working) but because it was faster to develop and simpler to get working. Messerschmitt after the war kept a low-level development program going and in the mid-50 actually developed a hybrid pulsejet/ramjet engine that could have been developed during the war with more funding and effort.
Randy
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
Of course, using them against worthwhile targets might have made them marginally more useful.
Aiming them in the rough direction of London to do a bit of random creation of brownfield sites for post-war housing construction is inevitably going to achieve very little. You might draw in some Allied resources to try and intercept, but since the Allies have resources literally* coming out of their ears, one might say: "Big Deal"** What was it that was said about Britain at this time? It was only the barrage balloons keeping the island afloat under the weight of all the material that had been gathered.
Where the Allies did have a problem was in getting the material from the Ros Bif side of the Channel to the Land of Many Cheeses.
If you've got V1 weapons, then you shouldn't be aiming at London or hop fields in Kent. The big bottleneck the Allies faced were the ports on the French coast. That's what should be targeted. Block up the ports, and the logistic flow to the Allied forces in France becomes harder.
It's still not going to make much difference, but it might delay the inevitable by a couple of weeks.
* For a non-dictionary definition of literally.
** Although given that I was born in the rough target area, it's possible the very young me might have a different perspective.
Not every discussion of WW2 Germany should be judged based in Germany winning WW2. Doing so results in all pods being pointless. But the fact that an improved V1 or more V1s doesnt win the war does not mean that A) it couldnt be done or B) it is not worth doing in and of itself.
If we take the fatalistic view then no POD about the cold war equipment is worth having as no equipment it changing the outcome
If we take the fatalistic view then no POD about the cold war equipment is worth having as no equipment it changing the outcome
Hence what the Germans REALLY need to do is equip those extra V1's with cable cutters! That will show them!
Randy