What if the V-1 was used like this?

I believe that the problem here is that a proximity fuse explosion might simply "disable" if not explode the V-1's warhead. In either case, the mission of the weapon is a failure, and the contact detonation warhead is a "dud" until it hits the sea. I'm only referring to the "over the sea" in a ship basin environ.

 

I appreciate the replies. At this point, I'm fuzzy on what happens to the V-1 warhead in the case of the proximity fused shell bringing a V-1 down. So some further reading is in order.

 

Reading over the proximity fuse and radar information and the V-1, here is what I see.
The great success in shooting down the V-1 by AA/proximity fuse was largely due to the use of the scr-584 gun laying radar.
This was deployed just around the time that the V-1 appeared(fortuitously). Other systems were used, but were not close into the effect of this system.
It is not clear to me is there was a naval equivalent at the time. There were of course other systems in use. But it was the scr-584 that produced the accuracy that the actual bulk of V-1 kills were credited with

edit - I'm referring to the Royal Navy at the time, which was the target area I was thinking of.

 

That may be true as reported, but the USN had been using the radar (acoustic fuse) in the PTO for then entire year before the Normandy invasion. Not the Royal Navy, the USN. They were reluctant to share it with anyone; "land based" AA of any service, including their own until after 1944 in the ETO.

In the unlikely event that the V-1 could have surmounted all of its other intrinsic weaknesses, flaws, and expenses I don't doubt that that AA proximity fuse for all weapons on the USN wouldn't have been shared with our allies as well. It wasn't needed, it wasn't shared. Sometime "proprietary (RCA)" inventions have a "life" of their own.

 

That is likely true, but all tactics have a limited 'surprise' time. New tactics evolve in response.
So let us say we launch a V-1 swarm at the Royal Navy presence. I don't believe it would have taken long for supplies of proximity shells to be given.
But I was primarily referring to the gun laying radar. That probably could not have been remedied quickly.
I don't believe the radar equivalent was yet incorporated int the American navy at that time.
Again, thanks for the thoughtful replies.
I've had this odd 'itch' for a while on how well this could have worked. Each detail fleshes it out a bit more.

 

I'll just post another piece of errata on this topic, the V-1 was a bitch to shoot down.
It really needed to have a close hit to take it out.
This came from a Wiki(link Operation Diver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

The V-1 was also nearly immune to conventional air-combat techniques because of its design, which eliminated the primary "one-shot stop" points of pilot, life-support and complex engine. A single hit on the pilot or oxygen system can force an abort or cause the destruction of a normal plane, but there is no pilot in a cruise missile. The reciprocating engines of WWII aircraft and the turbojet engines of today's fighters are also vulnerable, as a tiny nick in a quarter-inch oil line or one small shell fragment can destroy such engines. However, the Argus pulsejet could be shot full of holes and still provide sufficient thrust for flight. The only vulnerable point was the valve array at the front of the engine and the only one-shot stop points on the V-1 were the bomb detonators and the line from the fuel tank, three very small targets buried inside the fuselage. An explosive shell from a fighter's cannon or anti-aircraft artillery was the most effective weapon, if it could hit the warhead.

 

Not much of a surprise there, since the .50 & .303 did not have explosive shells.

Also, as usual, Wiki contradicts Wiki, from V-1 flying bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the claims are true, than aircraft shot down roughly 20% of the some, 10,000 V-1s that were fired at London.

The V-1 was hard to shoot down because it was faster than most types of fighters and it presented a very small target.

 

I'd tend to credit the 2nd Wiki in this respect. Those are relatively easily verified claims.
The 2 don't completely contradict, the 1st one doesn't give hard numbers, just a qualitative explanation of the V-1's characteristics in this regard.
I was thinking more in the vein of its vulnerability to AA. The advanced 584 radar(at that time) could do it, but that's not what the ships had.

 

For the RN destroyers, you would have to see which destroyers were present at Normandy. The main calibers on the RN destroyers were 4-inch, 4.5-inch, and 4.7-inch. Of those calibers, the only one I am certain that had a VT fuse was the 4.5-inch gun. The 4.5-inch VT fuse began production in quantity late in 1943, but priority was was given to the 4.5s on the British carriers.

Most of the 4.7 mounts were restricted in elevation and were not dual purpose guns. IIRC, the 4-inch was to small to fit the early VT fuses. Meanwhile the 5.25-inch guns of the larger ships had to wait until sometime in 1944 for their VT fuse, because the early VT fuses did not function reliably enough in the larger shell.

 

Could the V-1 possibly have been used to lay naval mines instead?

 

Definitely an interesting thought, sneaky. As is, I would think the high speed would be a problem.
On the other hand, thinking about a 'ribbon chute' which brakes at high speed, then the more conventional chute. That seems possible. Of course, the development time would have taken a while.

 

That is some fine information, thank you for posting that. From that perspective, you begin to limit the amount of available AA that would have be optimal for this kind of defense.
There is some more Wiki info on the link I posted(again, I know Wiki isn't perfect) that showed the much lower rate of success with the more conventional AA of the time.

 

I still think something like the motobomba would be the best compromise warhead, even a few of the things crruising in the mooring area of an invason convoy are going to casue a lot of disruption. At 350Kg it was well within the V1 theoretical carry capability and as it was already designed for parachute drop.
Motobomba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
as for CEP you have to assume at least 50 miles but more reasonably 100 miles range if you want the launch sites outside the high intensity air operations zone, handling that fuel with enemy fighters circling above is a very bad idea.
IMO the biggest limitation of the V1 for this use was the ramp, that forced a sequential launch with a long interval between missiles, not a problem when attacking a city but a big limitation against a fleet, 50 missiles arriving at the same time are a very different proposition than the same number or weapons arriving over several hours, the first may paralyze operations the second will not even if they cause similar amounts of actual damage.

 

The mine post by MineRex got me thinking in those lines. Thanks for those details.
I guess it's conceivable that could be done with a relatively quick modification.
A torpedo in the water in the vicinity of ships is a big jump in the hazard. Even if it is running in a random direction, the likelihood of a hit goes up a lot. Not to mention the increased damage.

On the CEP and distances, I think that is info we partly have. I believe I have seen lamp locations that were operating within the 50 mile range of the Royal Navy. These were actively launching, and taking them out was not easy for the allies. They were getting some, but the rate of launches on London stayed about the same. New aim point shouldn't change the detection rate.

I had been talking about shoving ramps closer to get a 30 mile distance. I think that has merit within limits. Too big a concentration, and I think you're right. Increased risk of being found.

On the whole, this is a disturbing thought(from the allied point of view). I would tend to think a few months of effort would have produced a working system, even if it was crude. And if you can drop torpedoes, you can probably drop mines too(as MikeRex suggested). I believe the Germans had parachute dropped mines.

 

curious2 & TiredOldSoldier,

You do realize the V-1 was quite capable of being air-launched from a He-111. Still, even though it was likely to be dropped while over friendly territory, a strong fighter escort would be highly recommended.

Considering the missile was cruising at some 400mph, I would think the biggest problem would be getting the torpedo from the missile to the water. Considering the V-1's steep final descent, the torpedo would likely be demolished when the V-1 impacted with the ocean. So, for this to work, the torpedo would need to be released at altitude and the float down by parachute.

The two possibilities I see are a medium altitude approach and release, with a drogue parachute release once sufficient airspeed has been lost by the torpedo. The other would be a final "pitch up" instead of the usual "pitch down" of the V-1. That way, airspeed could be reduced while the torpedo was still attached to the V-1. Once sufficient airspeed had been lost, explosive bolts could be used to free the torpedo, with a static line attached from the torpedo to the missile to deploy the parachute.

A possible problem with the "pitch up" would be fuel deprivation to the motor, which is what happened when the missile would pitch down for it's final descent. A possibly remedy would be to reverse the tanks and have them draw fuel from the front instead of the back.

As always, this is all academic without a better targeting mechanism than "by guess and by God." Even though the Italian torpedo could circle out to some 4 kilometers, the V-1 could drop the torpedo 10s of kilometers away from it's intended target.

 

Takao,

Yeah, I had seen that V-1 capability with the air launch. It could bring the rocket closer to the target area, but with increased risk to the bomber. On the other hand, you're probably getting a much better payoff with your naval targets. That's my thought anyhow.

When I get on these kicks, it's tough to stop, so thanks for helping me with my current obsession. And I took a look at the more standard German air dropped torpedo of the time, the F5. This could be dropped from a height up to 390 feet, and a speed of 220 MPH.

If you have the V-1 set just to stop the fuel and go into glide, I'm thinking that gives very friendly numbers to that torpedo. So trip off the fuel, and a timed delay to drop the torpedo. Possibly very small modifications. I look to small mods as they seem much more plausible in the conditions of the time.

The F5 had a max range of about 4 miles and very powerful warhead. A V-1 that reaches the proper target area is going to be oriented properly. A blind shot, but a shot towards an area with a lot of ships. Drop such a setup within 1 mile, I'm thinking you probably would get some hits.

 

I'll answer my own post(partly my own) on fitting a torpedo to the V-1.
It doesn't look too likely, at least not with out major modifications.
The nose contained the compass, so inserting a torpedo where the warhead was would require that major change.
You couldn't have the torpedo slung underneath with catapult launches.
Mounting on top is conceivable, but would appear to be a poor location to launch from.
Of course the basic idea could have been done, i.e. design the V-1 around the torpedo. But the German's had plenty of torpedo projects in the pipeline. Another would have been a tough sell, to put it mildly.

 

Some interesting reading, an account of a LST crew during the Normandy operation.
Some large swarms of V-1's were seen on occasion. And the real interesting bit.
Damage to 2 LST's from a V-1, or glider bomb. Here's some excerpts.

On June 26th in convoy back to England from Utah Beach a flying German aerial bomb (V-1 “buzz bomb”) exploded 2 miles off LST 494`s port bow.


On July 7th a ship ahead of LST 494 in convoy hit a mine. Also on that day, V-1 “buzz bombs” passed over LST 494 for many hours. One passed 300 feet over LST 494. The crew of LST 494 saw American fighter planes shoot down a number of the aerial bombs.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]During the Normandy Campaign, 11 LSTs were damaged by enemy action:
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 289 - April 28 -Torpedoed by German motor torpedo boats in Lyme Bay, England (Operation Tiger)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 538 - June 11 - Torpedoed by German submarine
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 280 - June 14 - Torpedoed by German submarine
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 2 - June 15 - By German coastal defense guns
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 266 - June 15 - By German coastal defense guns
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 307 - June 15 - By German coastal defense guns
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 331 - June 15 - By German coastal defense guns
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 360 - June 15 - By German coastal defense guns
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 133 - June 15 - By mine off Normandy
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 312 - July 8 - By V-1 or glider bomb
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USS LST 384 - July 8 - By V-1 or glider bomb
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

You probably should mention that LSTs 312 & 384 were docked at Deptford, England at the time they were struck.

While it is an incredible hit, the V-1 fell several kilometers short of it's intended target of London. If anything, this points to the need for a much improved targeting mechanism needed for the V-1 to actually hit it's intended target.

 

Good catch. I was looking at it in a different way.
That the concussion warhead could do some damage to the LST's in the Normandy area. I would guess this was 1 rocket, and probably not a direct hit. The blast effect was still potent over a distance.
This was a fluke of a shot, a 'one of' deal.
Also that a lot of V-1's had gone overhead where LST-494 was. That gives me the impression that if the distance counter had been turned back, you could have seen some mayhem in that area.