The V-1 as an AAM

Then I suppose your Über-AAM 7 would be made much more effective it were given the ability to drop a number of flares along the way "Here I come, time for some panic spreading "

 

Another very thought provoking WI thread, terry!
Good reading.

I would think the first counter would just be to just toss a couple extra fighter sweeps out in front of the first one. With three flights, 12-15 miles ahead of the next ones, the allies would be able to force the LW V-1 carriers to either launch from farther away and with far less chance of a hit, or to accept far greater losses reaching launch point.

Has anyone ever read about the artillery rocket that has large numbers of small bomblets? I wonder if a variation of that might not be of value for the V-1? As I recall, a small explosive charge is used to 'scatter' the small bomblets, and then each of them detonates (I have no idea how this works, but saw a video of it once upon a time).

I like the idea of the LW re-purposing the V-1, calls for so little in the way of resources....

 

The USSR had a aircraft bomb like that in WWII. the casing opened after release from the aircraft and several hundred bomblets scattered out. It was mostly used by light single & twin engine bombers for attacking German support units. Like artillery or forward logistics sites. the pilots would often patrol at night at medium altitide and watch for the muzzle flashes of the cannon, then cut their engine and make a steep glide approach to the release point hoping to catch the cannon crews by suprise. Road columns were also attacked with this weapon and technique.

 

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/22189-german-cluster-bomb-units.html

 

I never claimed it would work forever. I figure it would be good for at least 2 or 3 really effective strikes. This would buy support from Hitler who would then drive the program to absurd places in the hope of winning the air war.
The Allies would likely respond by shooting up every airfield in Germany in detail along with bombing the snot out of many of them too. Yes, I would expect sweeps in front of bomber formations. But, for the first 2 or 3 times this tactic could have had devastating effects if a dozen or so V-1 were launched against a bomber formation.

 

Good point. However depending upon when operational the interception may have been on the ground before getting to the proximity of the bombers or intereception by fighter CAP. Now if you're using an Arado 234c for your delivery platform that might give the Germans favorable odds but He-111 or He-177 and it would be less favorable.

.50s or 20mm/30mm 21cm rockets.....might be very dangerous on either business end.

True and more difficult for the aimer or pilot when discovered by interecepting fighters. They could just go after the mother ship and not bother with the V-1 AAM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herr Oberst
The Me 163 would be more successful nothing could get it on the way to target but coming home was a problem.

I agree the 163 had very unstable fuel issues...bounce, boom and burn.

I thought portability was one of the advantages of the Me-163 as it could take off near targets using non standard strips and then land elsewhere via glide after the op. Seem to remember reading that somewhere, imperial war museum lit comes to mind.

Some good points, thanks I'm enjoying this thread

 

Also correct but one draw back is that even allowing that the Allies do begin to attack in smaller formations as some have previously mentioned, that won't cut it, the whole strategic effort of the Allies was hit en masse over and over again some raids needed 1,200 bombers or more to deliver the results, to compensate for this the US would have to divert more fighters and fighter pilots from the Pacific Theatre.

No i see that the Allies had no option but to continue large scale deployment of bomber fleets, how could the Western Allies justify to Stalin that because a few hundred bombers are lost that they'll scale back attacks compared to what the Soviets have lost, Stalin would be beyond being angry.

Another issue is that until the Allies have a fighter capable of not only flying the bombers all the way there and back but also continually sweep the skies and then engage the fighter screens infront of the V-1 launch aircraft and then once the V-1's are launched try to intercept them and shoot them down, and on top of all that fend off fighter attacks all the way to and back from their target. Imagine a P-51 having to carry 10 tonnes of fuel.

v.R

 

Thanks for the insight, Kruska. As I read the other responses, I have to concede that there other more viable courses of action to handle this hypothetical situation.
VR also has a point. The massed bomber raids would've continued and a way would've been found to increase and improve fighter escort coverage.
TA is right. The modified V-1 could've put a dent on the Allied effort but only for the short term.

 

According to Wikipedia section called "History of Nuclear Weapons" there is a passage.

On August 6 1945, a uranium based weapon, "Little Boy", was let loose on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later the Plutonium based weapon, "Fat Man", was let loose on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. The Atomic Bombs killed at least 100,000 Japanese outright, most of them civillians, with the heat, radiation and blast effects, many tens of thousands would die later of radiation and related cancers (citation needed). Truman promised a "rain of ruin" if Japan did not surrender immediately, threatening to eliminate Japanese cities, one by one, Japan surrendered on August 15. (citation needed) Truman's threat was in fact a bluff, since the US had not completed more atomic bombs at the time.

So according to Wikipedia, and my own exstrpilation had Japan had not surrendered and decided to wait for Truman's threat they would have learned it was a bluff and the war might have dragged on for months.

v.R

 

What if ... (Duck) ...
say the Germans scrubbed the air launch and developed their C-Stoff/T-Stoff ... Starthife (start-help) program and added that to the V-1 as anti-aircraft but ground launched it from say.
.... Trucks (wagons, as the case may be) or simple racks, like a "Katyusha". Launch sites could be anywhere as somewhat easily hidden.
... Attacks could come from all directions, at any time, and the problem of having "Mother ships" on station would be avoided?
.... Bomber streams & fighters would see the launches (fear factor), but would not know how to react to many threats from no certain direction?

 

Here's a pic of the things I spoke of, except the ones I have on a video are smaller, and sorta looked like a whiskey jug. I'm sure they could've made a smaller version to lift a smaller vehicle the same as they made them bigger (or more of them) for larger ones. Jettisoning after use.

 

Sounds like a great idea, but as T.A has pointed out a degree here and a degree there could mean accuracy is lost. Not only is accuracy is lost but the element of timing, observer aircraft flying at lower levels coud see and report the incomming ground missiles and alert the bombers streams giving time for bombers to sideslip the missiles and also it might give fighters a chance to intercept them. And then there is the problem of guidance and detonation how would you address this.

 

Just a possible better way to get them in the air. Someone else will have to figure out the rest,

 

Hi, new here (but certainly not new to these types of forums )...

I've read through this thread with interest; my thoughts?

Why indeed would the Germans fail to capitalize on T.A.'s suggestion?...it's certainly a far better proposal for the utilization of an extremely economical weapon, already in widespread production...

My conclusion?

The Argus As.109-014 pulsejet (which powered the platform) was never successfully run above 3 km altitude! I have no paper sources to back this statement up (unfortunately)...information regarding the motor's altitude performance limitations are sketchy...here's what the most definitive source I managed to find, had to say about it:

Copied and pasted from pulse-jets.com

While far from definitive, these guys seem to know their stuff...they do build pulse-jet motors for fun and amusement, after all...

Sites with performance data for the Fi 103(R) seem to accord it a maximum ceiling of no more than 4 km (~12,700'); they give no source for the figure, however. Also note that engine performance (vis-a-vis thrust output), deteriorates rapidly with altitude, thus the reason that the Fi 103 operated in the denser air at low level.

Cheers, Ron

 

I had initially considered this but had no firm evidence that altitude was an insurmountable problem. A couple of fixes I could think of right off:

Add a RATO unit like say, a Schmidding 500 kg thrust booster as used on the Natter to build initial speed. Speed could then be maintained by the pulse jet.

Or, add more wing and use a glide slope approach to the target.

I'm sure there are other possibilities. Since flight time would be under two minutes in any case whatever is chosen doesn't have to work long. It just has to work for two minutes.

 

I was thinking about the height issue of the V-1 and it occured to me that as fuel was not an issue when it came to flight time of the V-1 AAM it could have a dedicated high pressure oxygen and normal air tanks be fitted within the V-1 as to overcome the high altitudes that they were intended to be used.

What happens is that as the V-1 is released the high pressure oxygen/air tanks feed high pressure oxygen/air mix as well as the fuel into the pulse jet, the total time of the high pressure burn could last 3 minutes giving plenty of time for flight and detonation.

I am not an engineer but i thought this might work, can anyone comment on this.

v.R

 

It does sound like a bunch of these could disrupt a box formation and give fighters a better chance, knock a bombing run off kilter, keep escort fighters busy, and generally screw up any plan.
It might have been a big difference in the long missions because the flight plan would've had fewer deviations.

 

If these were a success it not only would disrupt the bombers but the whole conduction of the air offensive by the USAAF and RAF.

v.R

 

The "rocket scientist" I quoted seems to make the distinction between adequate oxygen (for combustion) and adequate atmospheric pressure, at altitude, which a "valveless" pulse-jet requires to operate. While the "combustion air" issue could indeed be quite easily solved (as you point out), creating an artificial atmospheric pressure around the machine is another matter...

IMO, the best solution would be re-equipping the Fi 103 with a de-rated version of the Walter rocket motor being developed for use in the Me 163. While availability of T-Stoff (Hydrogen Peroxide) was always problematic, the fact that it was used with the Fi 103's (Walter developed) ground launch system should also be pointed out. If they could find the fuel for ground launches, they could easily re-allocate it for use in the above proposal. I would think that as the airframe has already been considerably "over engineered" (to deal with the pounding it takes from the operation of the 109-014 pulse-jet), it would be able to easily cope with the higher thrust output of a rocket motor with a minimum of modifications.

This may well have been a significant opportunity missed here...kudo's to T.A. for raising the initial idea.

Employment would have to be seen as the real "deal breaker" here, given the LW's track record of introducing such things piecemiel...

If this system was fully developed and tested, then employed en-masse (for example 50-60 weapons in a concentrated salvo) on a completely unsuspecting USAAF? The results would be horrific, even assuming a maximum 50-60% success rate for the total number of weapons launched...
Entire combat boxes being blown out of the air...? Ouch...

It would be a push to do it (timewise) but if this tactic would have been ready for employment against "Operation Argument" (aka "Big Week") in late-February, 1944, then (again, IMO) it has the potential to be decisive...
"Argument" marked the re-entry of the USAAF into full scale operations over Germany (for the first time since the events of "Bloody October")...getting thoroughly spanked in the first few of these missions would certainly force a re-appraisal upon the powers that be...

Cheers, Ron

 

I think perhaps the Germans considered your idea, and decided one V-2 was worth any number of Allied bombers. I.e., perhaps a waste of resources.
also the V-2 flew at less than 400 mph, when launched it could be immediately engaged by allied fighters or even the gunners on the bombers. Also as other people point out, allied fighters would make things very difficult for the German crew to aim the air-launched V2 remotely.