Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if the V-1 was used like this?

Discussion in 'Wonder Weapons' started by curious2, Jul 1, 2011.

  1. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    It is also not out of the realm of possibility that those two had been "disrupted" in their flight path by Meteors or Typhoons or something, and just happened to fall in the general area of the ship basin. The V-1 distance counter was too crude to even hit a city the size of London with any reliability, hitting a ship basin was far beyond their ability.

    I like your persistence in this, but I still believe it is a non-starter with the tech of the time.
     
  2. curious2

    curious2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm nothing if not persistent. The very bad accuracy at the distance of London was I think some function of the extreme range for the weapon.
    Again in that excerpt I posted, it was mentioned 'Also on that day, V-1 “buzz bombs” passed over LST 494 for many hours.'.
    That sounds like a fairly tight 'aiming corridor'.
     
  3. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    By this time you'll be seeing radar on everything down to PT boats in the USN. Furthermore they have been aclibated mass air attacks in the Pacific.
    Here's a page listing some of their stats. Note that all were being issued in 43:
    HyperWar: U.S. Radar: Operational Characteristics [Ship Fire Control Sets]
    and here:
    HyperWar: The Capabilities and Limitations of Shipborne Radar [Chapter 3]
    and:
    Information on USA Radars of WWII
    Note that some of these will control weapons down to 40mm as well as the 5"/38.
     
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    This runs rather counter to reason they started "tipping" them. From what I've read the warhead tended to detonate which was not good if you were in a fighter rapidly approaching the point of detonation. Damage could also affect accuracy to a considerable extent. Also hits that pentrate the bomb casing can prevent it from going high order.
     
  5. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    One of the things to consider however is that in the area of the invasion force you have a lot of allied tacair and for that matter spotter planes over the area during daylight hours. Indeed it's going to be pretty well saturated. Furthermore when there is a launch there's a very good chance that someone's radar will pick it up and allow aircraft to be direted towards the launch ramps.
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    You also loose significant accuracy with an air launch I believe. Again the area over the invasion beaches was swarming with allied aircraft so a bomber's going to be lucky to survive to get to the launch point. I'd think if you wanted to do this night attacks with glide bombs would be more likely to get hits. Probably very hard on the bombers as well though.
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Only in level flight. The idea was to have the CAP orbiting above the aircraft to be intercepted so additional speed could come from diving.
    But you are correct if the launch in that if the launch is only 30 miles from the target then getting the fighters on the V-1 will be difficult after launch. I do wonder just how stable the V-1 was early in launch and how well it maintianed altitude. Plus or minus a couple hundred feet isn't a problem if you are at several thousand. It's a huge problem if you are trying to fly at 100. Also wasn't the altitude of flight set at launch? If so I'm not sure that you could launch it and count on it getting anywhere if your launch point was above the altitude you wanted it to fly at.
    This depends on whether you are hopeing for an impact during the cruise phase or simply wanting it to fall on an unlucky target. In either case I suspect AA will decrease the p(H) a considerable amount. Indeed some of the V-1s that may have overshot will likely drop in but the've got a pretty low p(H) anyway. And don't forget others that might have dropped in will hit the ocean before they get to the ships.
    I'm not sure how it being over open water is going to make it any more accurate. The shorter range will help with some errors but it may hurt with others. For instance the off axis dispersion is a linear function of range and it will decrease considerably at the shorter ranges. However the range accuracy may actually decrease as it is a function of time and an error of a few seconds that is almost unnoticable at long range may be significant at shorter ranges. Likewise a change in wind conditions may produce errors that can't be compenstated for in the short flight.
     
  8. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    However in the case of the invasion force the target area is mostly empty ocean where in the case of London a hit in a nearby city or town can still do considerable damage.
     
  9. curious2

    curious2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    lwd, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful answers!

    I believe I may have learned a bit as this topic has progressed. I think I can differentiate on the naval targets to some extent now.

    At this point, I'd look at naval as being the 'deep' naval, with the large ships well off shore. And the 'shallow' naval that was operating up to the shore.

    The points raised here indicate the big ships off shore would have been poor targets. And I believe this would have been recognized by the Germans as well. Idea is to have the most plausible scenario.

    Let us say we have the target point as the shoreline. The V-1's should be as likely to drop within the landing areas as they would out in the shallow water. Where the LST's and other more vulnerable shipping are. The one case I saw where a V-1 hit near some LST's did show those could be hurt quite severely. That was pure luck of course.

    Now let us say the launches are coming from the same launch points. The only change is the distance. You should see no more shoot downs than you did before. A lot less since they would not be going over the deadly AA of England. Unless there is an increase of use of fighters for the task. Which would be a big deal, that's stealing air resources from other missions.
     
  10. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ok but this essentially abondons your 100 foot flight profile does it not? For one thing wouldn't that put it over most of the traffic in this area? For another wouldn't it mean a fair number of impacts priot to reaching the coast? Looking at V-1 flying bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there are some other problems. For one the warhead was deisgned not to arm until it reached a range of ~37 miles. But even more problematic is that the range accuracy was dependent on a combination of meterological information and a rather primative airspeed indicator.
    Then there's the question of when you start this campaign. D-day perhaps through D-day+3 would seem to be the time when the area is most crowded. However getting things set up for D-day would be very difficult and shorts could potentially hit friendlies. Even getting it set up by D-Day+3 could be very much a problem because tac air and the resistence were making operational movement in the area rather problematic. After that I suspect you will find the density of troops dropping off close to the waterline ashore and likewise the number of ships close to shore.
     
  11. curious2

    curious2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, that is true, the 'cruise missile' idea is not well founded on the actual information available. The lower possible height I saw posted was 2000 feet. The usual height used seemed to be 3000 feet. But their were lower outliers. Some missiles ran low as can be seen from the accounts. That is what gave me the idea.

    There is no presumption that this would have worked. It's more of what would be the most likely outcome if it was tried. I can't picture it happening before July. Mostly because of the opinion in the German ranks(including Hitler) Normandy had to be a diversion. But as we get into July, thoughts were changing. Eventually, some more armored resources were permitted to move south away from Calais.

    I would this would be the most likely time for this to happen. Probably not optimal, since earlier is usually better. But there were some advantages that appeared. The V-1's began to hit London hard. The system worked to some extent, and the German's knew this. Moving the armored resources was a hard decision. Hitler hated to do it.

    The bombardment of some Normandy areas could had been suggested as being a short term trial. The ramps could be re-pointed relatively easily, much easier than moving armored divisions south.

    Given the picture at that point in time, the British beaches are the most packed with targets. I believe the extent inland was less that 10 miles. Based on the existing data, I believe about 1000 V-1s could have been launched over the course of a week.
     
  12. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    The main problem with "repositioning" the ramps, is the use of them makes them targets and easily destroyed ones at that. It wouldn't take many P47s to make this a non-starter as well. The allies didn't just have air superiority over France's coast and interior at the time, they had virtual air supremacy. The ramps aren't easily dismantled and relocated in truth, and the steam catapult is a sort of "delicate" instrument itself, it doesn't work well under duress.

    Remember the only saving justification for the slower, pilot less bomb was its cheapness and ease of production. They were a shot gun approach to a rifle problem, and only marginally successful in the only role they could fill.
     
  13. curious2

    curious2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re-positioning was a missed word, I actually meant re-pointing. A simple change in direction. I believe that most of the V-1 ramps in use were the mobile kind.

    There were fixed ramps, but many of those had been taken out by allied air attacks. The fixed ramps did badly. They had been targeted well before the start of the V-1 campaign. The German's had figured this out to some extent. That is why the V-1 campaign persisted. They weren't easy to find.
     
  14. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I still hold they were a cheap shot-gun approach to a rifle problem. Here is a decent page on the V weapons, all three of them, which contains this section.

    By spring 1944 the war was going badly for Germany. The first V1 "doodlebugs" were not launched until June 13th - a few days after the D-Day landings. Their long launching ramps were hidden in forests, but easily spotted from the air, so were rapidly bombed. The Germans switched to mobile ramps, which they moved around the Pas-de-Calais area.

    Almost 9,250 V1's were fired against London, but less than 2,500 reached their target. In flight they were almost as vulnerable as their ramps: about 2,000 were destroyed by anti-aircraft gunfire; 2,000 by fighter planes, and almost 300 by barrage balloons.


    Goto:


    German vengeance weapons 1942-45

    Getting back to the original premise, that using the V-1 at low level flight against shipping was possible; I still fail to see how this could be attained in the time-frame of the weapon's existence, with instrumentation that could be wasted on a "one off" bomb, and the unlikely event that it could or would make any difference in the war.

    Look at the dismal success rate the thing had against an area the size of Great Britain! Hitting a ship is totally a pipe-dream as a goal, it might happen by chance, but war changing weapons cannot depend on chance.
     
  15. curious2

    curious2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    No argument with hitting the ships. I rethought that premise, and agree it would be a poor use. It was thought that didn't pan out from the data. I did mention that a few posts back. But the thread grows, and it does begin to take a lot of reading.

    Shotgun is not a bad characterization, it is 'nasty'. Even if I take out some of my own soldiers(this is Hitler).

    Here's a link to the map of where operations occurred: V-1 flying bomb (facilities) : Map (The Full Wiki)

    When you see the launching locations, you understand why there were so many whizzing overhead on the Normandy beaches. You only needed to 'dial down' the distance from those spots.
     
  16. curious2

    curious2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    So I'll do a summary of some key advantages that I think would occur with Normandy beach targets.
    If there are responses, I'll reply. Otherwise, I'll leave it as it stands.

    1. London launches have poor observation data. If Normandy targets are done, ground based observation is possible for the bulk of the flight path. There was also more aircraft observation available. Better observations give better results.

    2. Wind data is available for the Germans over nearly the total flight path in this scenario. Not the case once a V-1 hits the channel.

    3. Shorter flight, less error. How much is open to debate, but you have 1 and 2 as part of the mix.

    4. Less operational losses. I see a good 40% of the V-1's taken down over England.

    5. Psychology. The German soldier was getting ground down. Minimal Luftwaffe support and feeling doomed. Audible/visual detonations behind enemy lines may boost morale for a while.
     
  17. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    The V-1 campaign vs Antwerp may be a better comparison than the one against London. I'm not sure however there would be more aircraft observation though. Allied fighters kept the beachead area pretty well sanatized. The linear nature of the target also works against you in a case like this.
    While that is correct you are also firing to a large extent down a coast line. The combination of ocean, shore, and the topography in the immediate area I suspect would create rather irratic wind patterns. This could potentially more than offset the data. There's also a question of whether or not they had a mechanism for recieving data along the flight path.
    The attacks vs Antwerp may help answer this one.
    That's possible but if they start to endanger the invasion their target priority may go up. This also may be near the point where a lot of naval assets were freed up so if they are in range of naval fire support their pre launch losses could well go up, indeed give the allied air supremacy moving them into the range you were suggesting would be risky in and of itself.
    At this point could the Germans observe or hear these impacts?
     
  18. curious2

    curious2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good comments/questions lwd. I had been reading up on the Antwerp V1 attacks, and found some good information.
    For London attacks, a 10 mile CEP is bandied about quite a bit. I'd like to dig into the raw data on that. But for the moment, I'll take that as a 'good' number. The launch distances vary a bit, but 150 miles seems a rough estimate.

    Now there was some good info on Antwerp at this link, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD733387
    This was a thesis by an American military officer. The Antwerp attacks seem have been mostly from 100 miles away. A useful difference from London, but still pretty long range.
    The interesting quote that I saw in the paper was 6 miles mean deviation for every 100 miles traveled. I think I'll see if I can reconcile these 2 data points.

    Posts get a bit long, so I'll just stick to this item. Your other topics have merit, but this seemed to be the most interesting.
     
  19. curious2

    curious2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    The link posted has some hard values derived from the US military defense of Antwerp of the V-1.
    The ranging error was given to be 6 miles per 100 miles traveled.
    The lateral drift was given to be 6 miles per 100 miles traveled.
    I find this to be a bit of a coincidence.
    Furthermore, it stated the autopilot had an error of 1/2 degree, which is quite good.
    Much better than 6 miles drift per 100 miles traveled. Perhaps that includes aim error/wind error?
    In any event, these are some hard numbers. You work with what you have.

    I've chosen some 'close in' miles, 10, 20 and 30.
    There is the issue of the safety mechanism which armed the V-1 at 38 miles.
    From the launch records, this seemed not to have worked. If a V-1 crashed after takeoff, it detonated.
    Also, this was a simple mechanical counter. It could have been advanced by hand.

    The reality was the allies had very poor results in taking out V-1 launch sites.
    For a time, 20% of all allied air assets were being used to target V-1 sites.
    The V-1 launch rate was not affected by that campaign, rate stayed 100 per day.
    This is a thought experiment, not 'this would destroy the allies in Normandy' statement.

    These are rough calculations using the 6 miles of error per 100 miles traveled.
    At 30,20,10 miles, most V-1's should land in a 6.4, 2.8, and 0.7 square miles respectively.
    For comparison, the B-17's Circular Error Probability is often given to be about 3 sq miles.
     
  20. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I suppose the only way to actually compare these (or other errors) is to include both speed, altitude, and distance. The little V-1 was really pretty fast when it got going, and its ability to correct per hundred miles has to be factored in. If it was flying a short distance, its ability to correct would be next to nill. The high altitude bombing in daylight by the Norden bomb sight, was only really decent in the hot, dry, still air of the bomb ranges in southwestern America. Over Europe or Asia it was a relative loser, different air temperatures, wind gusts at different levels, all sorts of thing influenced free fall "dumb" bombs, and still do.

    I refuse to accept any postulation in which the primitive V-1 system could be used effectively in its existing time-frame; realistically as proposed at low level short range against shipping. If we are going to go completely into "what if" fantasy, why not include Star Trek's Romulan disrupters and invisibility cloaking devices in the mix? They are nearly as likely.
     

Share This Page