WI WALLIES launched V-1 like missiles towards Germany?

Your posts. The ones about firestorms. You brought them up, I said they weren't important to my argument, you then seemed to agree with me because you said (and I agree) they never happened in Britain. I think that's it?

Air defences. While weaker air defences would indeed have made 1940 V1s more effective relative to 1944, because fewer would have been intercepted, the absolute increase in effectiveness is not great, because even with zero air defence V1s are not capable of concentrating ordnance in time and space, and are much less likely to hit a target such as the London docks. It it thus relatively easy for civil defence to manage, making V1s an inefficient use of tonnage.

However, the weaker air defences in 1940 make bomber attacks feasible, as OTL showed, whereas they were not in 1944. If we accept that the key to effectively inflicting damage is concentration of ordnance in time and space, overwhelming local civil defence, then, since bombers are capable of concentrating ordnance in this fashion whereas V1s are incapable, it stands to reason that, if air defence is as inadequate as it was in 1940, then bombers are more effective.

You mention navigation and attrition, but the record of the Blitz shows that the Luftwaffe was readily capable of finding London, aided hugely by the Thames, that attrition was low, and could be concentrated in time and space. Whereas the V1s of 1944 could not be.

If we want to quantify this theory then we could start adding in attrition rates, accuracy, precision etc., damage per ton per square kilometre per hour, but I think we'd be missing the forest for the trees. We can identify the dominant factors in the equation by reviewing the historical record of what made strategic bombing effective, when it was effective.
 
Actually, I'm now very confused, having read the first page of this thread where you say:

...your overall point is right that there is no point making super expensive guided bombs when they were able to drop heaps of dumb bombs with their existing bomber fleet.

Ignoring the mistype of "guided" for "unguided", this appears to be exactly pertinent to the context of a 1940 Blitz via V1s or bombers.
 

Deleted member 1487

Actually, I'm now very confused, having read the first page of this thread where you say:



Ignoring the mistype of "guided" for "unguided", this appears to be exactly pertinent to the context of a 1940 Blitz via V1s or bombers.
For the Allies. With 15,000 strategic bombers operating in Europe and Germany being out of ground based cruise missile range from Britain the V-1 or JB-2 makes no sense for them. For the Germans it was a more efficient use of resources than using their limited bomber fleet, because they were within cruise missile range from France of Britain's capital while their bomber fleet in 1940 and in 1944 was insufficient for the task assigned to it.
 
Come on. If the Luftwaffe's 1940 bomber fleet is inadequate, then a comparable V1 offensive will be less adequate, because it is less accurate and less capable of concentrating ordnance in time and space.

Sorry to be blunt, but it seems that you don't understand why strategic bombing was and was not effective. Please engage me on the point I keep repeating about concentration in time and space.
 
Come on. If the Luftwaffe's 1940 bomber fleet is inadequate, then a comparable V1 offensive will be less adequate, because it is less accurate and less capable of concentrating ordnance in time and space.

Sorry to be blunt, but it seems that you don't understand why strategic bombing was and was not effective. Please engage me on the point I keep repeating about concentration in time and space.

But in 1940, I don't believe the OP was angling for V-1 only attack in 1940, but both cruise missile attack 24/7 and daytime strategic
 

Deleted member 1487

Come on. If the Luftwaffe's 1940 bomber fleet is inadequate, then a comparable V1 offensive will be less adequate, because it is less accurate and less capable of concentrating ordnance in time and space.

Sorry to be blunt, but it seems that you don't understand why strategic bombing was and was not effective. Please engage me on the point I keep repeating about concentration in time and space.
No, you just seem locked in a thought pattern and can't think outside that box. Concentration in time and space is necessary to achieve a firestorm, it is not necessary to inflict substantial damage. The V-1 was plenty accurate enough to make London uninhabitable provide it is properly directed (i.e. not misdirected by Double Cross and denial of aerial recon). To that end in fact the lack of concentration in place and time is actually a a boon, as it means no place in the city is safe since they are dropping all over it and they can arrive at any time, not just during a raid. It is the reason the Brits tried so hard to shut down the V-3 before it could be completed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon

There was more than one way to achieve the objective of terror bombing and the V-1 did so more cost efficiently than a massive fleet of bombers.

But in 1940, I don't believe the OP was angling for V-1 only attack in 1940, but both cruise missile attack 24/7 and daytime strategic
Well OP was talking about the Allies using a version of the V-1 against Germany. We got sidetracked into whether the V-1 was effective or not at all, and the point that I'm making is that it was contextual and a cost effective weapon for Germany and attacking London around the clock, but not for the Allies given their geographical position and objectives. Plus given their virtually unlimited material advantage they could leverage their massive bomber fleet to focus on damage inflicted as quickly as possible and as accurately as possible without any thought to the cost or casualties taken in pursuit of that goal.
 
My thoughts are based on historical fact. The entire history of WW2 shows that terror bombing didn't work. At most it achieved an ephemeral panic, but the survivors recovered and adjusted, mainly because terror bombing made them reliant on the local authorities. And stop talking about firestorms! I said they're not relevant, you've said they're not relevant! We agree here, stop talking about them!

The historical record shows that the V1 could not be adequately directed, nor could it render anywhere uninhabitable. It was adequate only for random bombardment of a 200 square mile area, making it militarily worthless, unlike manned bombers, which could, given the right conditions, concentrate ordnance in time and space to meaningful effect - a fact that you still do not seem to appreciate. V1s lacked the concentration in time and space to be anything other than a weapon of terror only and history shows that terror bombing did not work.

marathag - the other thread did indeed argue for a mix of strategic bombing and V1s. My argument was that adding the V1s was a waste of effort, as the bombing campaign would be much more effective. I base this assertion on the feeble AA defences on 1940, together with the historical accuracy of bombers relative to V1as, which would make it more efficient, in a 1940 context, to divert the resources being used to produce V1s to produce bombers. By 1944 things change, albeit with the recognition that V1s are effective only if they cause diversion of resources that would otherwise have been allocated to the front, since they will have almost zero military effect on ground targets.
 
For the Allies. With 15,000 strategic bombers operating in Europe and Germany being out of ground based cruise missile range from Britain the V-1 or JB-2 makes no sense for them. For the Germans it was a more efficient use of resources than using their limited bomber fleet, because they were within cruise missile range from France of Britain's capital while their bomber fleet in 1940 and in 1944 was insufficient for the task assigned to it.

It would make sense in hindsight as an effective terror weapon in 1940 but like the Blitz itself it's not going to bring the British to the table and is going to be far less effective in terms of actual damage caused to strategic targets or in incendiary fire damage

And in OTL Op crossbow was eventually very effective in shooting down the majority of V1s before they reached London (granted they were assisted by proximity fused shells and the then 1944 leading edge of Bell labs built gun laying directors) but they would still I think knock down the majority of V1s - but in 1940-41 diver patrols are going to have difficulty as the V1 is just slightly faster than the then operational AC - although I would imagine that a low level stripped down Spitfire special will soon be developed and the early Mossie would be tasked as well.

As you say it makes sense from a German POV but not for the Allies
 
The V-I speed was 400mph and flew at 1km altitude . The best the Spitfire II could manage @ 1km was 300mph, while the Mk-V could only manage 325mph at the same altitude. Yes you can try to bounce these rockets from medium altitude boosting the top speed by 50-70mph , but you better get it right on the tiny window, cause the speed won't last . There is a reason why V-I were 8 times harder to intercept.
 
Top