What if the V-1 was used like this?

You were fast in posting, I had just updated those numbers, used a wrong set.
All I have done is do a rough calculation based upon existing military records.
These numbers may not reflect reality, only retesting V-1's from the time could do this.
But nothing here refers to any appreciable V-1 modification, other than launching at close targets.

 

I had just logged back on, and what this seems to be devolving into is turning the V-1 into something it never could achieve. It wasn't a cheap 'saturation" weapon like the under 4 mile truck mounted "Stalin's Organ" (Katuskha), I still fail to see it being used with any degree of success in this scenario. It isn't cheap enough to use like the Soviet unit, it isn't accurate enough to be used like the other "guided missiles" of the Nazi regime. It is shot off the launcher with an "assumption" of target. It may or may NOT get to anywhere near that target, but it still (cheap as it was) too expensive to use as a true "shotgun" weapon on the off chance it might hit something. Hitting London was iffy, hitting a ship in even a port was even less possible as an expected outcome.

 

Here's my motivation, in the battle of Normandy there was only one unused asset.
At least in Normandy, though it played its role indirectly by sucking up air assets over England.
But this was the only large scale asset Hitler had left. Everything else was committed and used best as it could be.
I'm not even implying this would have been a decisive factor. I too think it probably wouldn't.
It's just following out the thought to the end. Use the best data you can find, and get some estimates(however crude) of what the weapon could do if used for this purpose.

 

Therein lies the flaw, it wasn't ready for use (even against large targets like cities) until after the Normandy operation was well under way. To make a diversion to an entirely different operational usage is out of the realm of possibility.

If it had been designed from the get-go to do this task, that might be a possible use. To alter the design philosophy after it was finally operational inside of that time-frame is a non-starter. There is no way to provide "data" for something the unit was incapable of doing, or not doing. This isn't what it was designed for, and changing direction of use cannot be done in the small time-frame of its going operational, and using it against a target it wasn't designed to attack.

 

That was recognized, and there was a post on it, but I'll repost what I said.
The V-1 first started working in mid June, those were the first shots that hit London.
It began to do 'better' by July. It was the July time frame I had in mind.
But that can get confusing in a long thread.
But it wasn't until July that Hitler(and a number of his generals) began to consider that Normandy was the main invasion.
Mostly because they believed that the Normandy area could not support logistics for an operation of this size.
So it's not realistic to think that the allied presence could be pushed out at this time.
I like war gaming(or used to). I think having a V-1 weapon as part of the mix would be interesting. Provided that the V-1 is represented realistically.

 

If the Germans had been capable of sending V1's against Normandy I would have assumed that hitting warships would have been a low priority. Much more important to hit the Mulberrys, Beach Stores, Transport ships all of which were not armoured.

The Germans did have A/S weapons like the Fritz X and Henschel HS 293 which were used to quite good effect initially but suffered from the Allies being able to jam them later on. Then you have the Mistel's contraption which were not very successful.

I believe the HS 293 and Mistel's were used against forces around Normandy in 1944.

 

View attachment 13925


I would have used the "Tornado Sprengboot" speed 46knts human "pilot" to guide the thing somewhere near the target & then be controlled via radio, after the pilot bails out & then onwards into the target.
SPRENGBOAT "TORNADO", Aproject of the KRIEGSMARINE (CIRCA 1944). Consisting of a VI engine stuck onto two JU52 floats. AFAIK I'm not certain anything other than a "mock-up" was done

One of the more interesting craft to come from the closing days of WWII. Designed to break the keel of ships this craft would be laden with two charges. One to sink the craft below the hull of the Allied ship and the other, greater charge, to detonate and break the back (keel) and destroy the ship. Little documentation is easily available on these craft so not a lot is known. Pieced together from leftover components, floats from Ju-52's, jet engines from the aircraft factories and plywood comprise the main components of these interesting watercrafts. Packed with explosives and the most basic radio equipment and you have the expendable and potentially very dangerous weapon.
Land targets well the V1 was not accurate enough, yes each one hit the ground 100% success rate there, but 0% hit where anyone wanted it too.
also another site had this yrs ago.Google Translate
see I tolds ya's, I am a know it all

 

Typical German complicating of a simple solution.

Why bother with remote control at all? Since, it can be jammed or otherwise spoofed. It would be better just to stay with the old tried-and-true method of the pilot pointing the boat at the target, locking the rudder, and going overboard.

Still, the jet engine was very noisy, so it has a zero chance of surprise, and at night the engine plume would act as a beacon for defenders.

From what little has been printed, the prototype was an utter failure and it was quickly dropped in favor of more conventional propulsion types.

 

glad to see the thread is still kicking a bit
i find this topic way too interesting

leccy1, i agree the mulberries would have likely been the preferred targets
the ships was just a different thought if a 'cruise' capability was available

i will update one interesting finding, there was a low altitude altimeter technology available at the time
the FUG-101 was a deployed system for aiding in auto landings(?) which seemed to work in the altitude range that would have enabled the V-1 to operate down low
now how well this would have worked over water, that's not too clear yet
but this would have been a major modification, it would have taken time

 

thanks for the link ynot, very interesting indeed
so there was some consideration given to the V-1 in a anti-shipping role
kind of hard to draw to many conclusions from the scant information, i'll have to read that over more closely

 

Yes, read that more closely. It was the pulse engine, not the V-1 itself which was considered. Of course as others have pointed out that would be even less "good/desirable" than a normal piston engine on a sea-craft for ship interdiction.

 

for stealth, no
for a cheap, effective power plant - better
either probably would have 'worked', guidance was the trick

 

There are too many flaws in the engine for it to be used in this locus. First, it had to be launched above 200 mph to function itself, one could make it "run" on stand by forcing air into the intake, but it wouldn't run on a static or low speed placement. The thing was just a lump of tubing until it was at speed, a boat's speed couldn't make it function.

Hence some sort of fantasy or something in this laughable application.

 

i wasn't really endorsing this 'plan', more of a polite response to someone who took the time to post some information
a few manners seldom kills anyone

 

brndirt1,

Your thinking of a ramjet, the Argus was a resonant jet, aka pulse jet.

The Argus functioned at no, or low speeds, however it had a much higher thrust output at higher speeds. IIRC, static thrust was some 500lbs and around 800lbs at speed. Thus, unless you had a really long runway, the easiest way to get the V-1 into the air and up to speed, was by catapult.

So, yes, it could be mounted and operated at low speeds.

While the subject may be fantasy, it is not laughable.