You got me curious. I found this: What is the heat signature of a piston engine, relative to a jet engine?
Best WW2 plane for Ukraine today?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
I wish that posters who insert articles would actually read them themselvesLots of pervasive myths about the V-2, it's inaccuracy being one of them.
To learn more about what the V-2 was actually capable of, read here:
The Myth of V2 Inaccuracy and Ineffectiveness
soc.history.war.world-war-ii.narkive.com
Also, I'm going to think that if the V-2 were used today, there is a good chance that it's guidance system may be modern.
This thread is about WWII weapons being used in a current war setting. If we want to talk about accuracy and discounting a particular aircraft (or weapon system) on that basis, then the B-17, B-29, etc. must be ruled out, too.
Compensating for the British deception (the author is simply guessing in regards to the deception factor, since he shows no sources in regards to the deception factor)
brings a CEP of about 6 km for the V2. B-17 with the Norden Bomb sight had a CEP of 1km
Meaning the bomb drop by a B-17 was 6 times more accurate than a V2.
The article is clearly lopsided due to the author trying to promote the V2, e.g. quote:
……In accuracy and collateral damage high altitude bombing was not much better in accuracy than the V2
Comment by a reader of this article:
The evidence of the Bombing Survey is there: A CEP of 1000m as obtained by Norden equipped B-17s and B-24 over Europe as compared to the V2's theoretical of 4.5km-6km
As I mentioned, I had served in a Bundeswehr Pershing1 unit - therefore we had also studied the Redstone and V2 rockets history.
Regards
Jagdflieger
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
My point exactly.I wish that posters who insert articles would actually read them themselves
The citations used for the OP:
(webmasters note: It is generally believed that the A4/V2 was not an
effective weapon because it was not accurate enough to hit an exact
target. While pinpoint accuracy was not associated with the V2, it was
much more accurate than generally reported. Not every batterie received
or installed the Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus, which, was crucial to
the greater accuracy of the weapon. In the later stages of the war the
accuracy improved greatly, sometimes to within meters of the target.)
In WWII, a B-17 with the Norden Bomb Site had a 3,300' circular error
of probability (CEP), which means to absolutely guarantee a target kill
you had to drop 9,000 bombs from 1,000 bombers...which put more than
10,000 airmen at risk. In Korea, an F-84F had a 1,000' CEP, which means
to absolutely guarantee a target kill you had to drop 1,100 bombs from
550 fighters...which put 550 airmen at risk. In SEA, an F-4 had a 400'
CEP, which means to absolutely guarantee a target kill you had to drop
176 bombs from 30 fighters...which put 60 airmen at risk.
In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the
Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a
fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could
have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17
bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96
per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a
German power-generation plant.)
VOL. 4, NO. 3 J. GUIDANCE AND CONTROL MAY-JUNE 1981
History of Key Technologies AIAA 81-4120
1981 Developments in the Field of Automatic
Guidance and Control of Rockets
Walter Haeussermann
The Bendix Corporation, Huntsville, Ala.
AIAA 2001-4288
The Pendulous Integrating Gyroscope
Accelerometer (RIGA) from the V-2 to
Trident D5, the Strategic Instrument of Choice
R.E. Hopkins
The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.
Cambridge, MA
Dr. Fritz K. Mueller, Dr. Walter Haeussermann
Huntsville, AL
Also, the OP stated that the original guidance system did not allow for a tight CEP radius whereas later systems were improved considerably.
But we better not discuss the V-2 anymore, because aparently this thread is only for piloted aircraft (so no V-2, V-1 or TDR-1 talk...)
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
....But we better not discuss the V-2 anymore, because apparently this thread is only for piloted aircraft (so no V-2, V-1 or TDR-1 talk...)
Agreed since the accuracy of the V2 has already been clarified 4.5 -6km, compared to 1km by a B-17 dropping bombs
Regards
Jagdflieger
Agreed since the accuracy of the V2 has already been clarified 4.5 -6km, compared to 1km by a B-17 dropping bombs
Regards
Jagdflieger
- Thread starter
- #45
Admiral Beez
Major
Now I've thinking assault gliders. Mostly wood without any engines, it's a close to undetectable as we can get. Of course there is the matter of the the tow plane….
Last edited:
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Wooden Mossies! and their advantage in regards to radar evasion.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Unless the Mossies were powered by wooden Merlins, and were carrying wooden-shell bombs, there was no radar evasion...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Wood is horrible to repair, let alone in the field with questionable maintenance facilities. The Mossie will still emit a radar signature as mentioned by Tomo
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not enough to make a difference unless you're using WW2 technology radar
Thank you, it's something I wondered about.
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
I did say advantage - not 100% radar evasion.
And of all WW II aircraft's the Mossie would most likely have the lowest radar cross section.
Regards
Jagdflieger
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
As long as the Mosquito's props weren't turning...
special ed
1st Lieutenant
- 7,086
- May 13, 2018
Way back in 1960 I spent a week aboard the USS Hancock. A Chief gave us the info on the Sidewinder and when opened. he showed us the filters used ahead of the sensor. Without filters installed, the seeker would follow his cigarette lighter heat source. The normal filter combo installed tracked jet exhaust. The filters could be changed to track recip engines. He showed us a combination which would track a diesel engine at night, presumably a truck although no one asked why a Sidewinder would be fired at truck at night. Without the proper filter combination, the missile would track the hottest source, the sun, which they often did if the target flew between the missile and the sun as an evasion. The filters reminded me of large format camera filters. During a similar visit to Strategic Air Command, we learned a Sidewinder would track the hottest engine on a B-52 although no one asked how they knew.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Maybe if you're considering a dedicated combat aircraft. These aircraft, used in WW2 in a combat zone would probably have a lower RCS
Fi-156
L-4
L-5
PO-2
Ki-76
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Fa330 might be a candidate, except that it's rotor area was about 450 square feet.
Then there is also the small issue of the U-boat towing it...
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Off course I am considering a combat aircraft - I don't think that a Fi-156 is going to help a lot
Regards
Jagdflieger
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Sure it will - great STOL aircraft, can carry small bombs which a person in the gunners position can hurl out of the aircraft, and can be easily hidden, but then again, all the other aircraft can probably fulfil the same role.Off course I am considering a combat aircraft - I don't think that a Fi-156 is going to help a lot
Regards
Jagdflieger
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
Fit wooden blades to the Ukrainian Москітний instead of the normal hollow metal (steel?) blades, and reduce the fore&aft radar signature by ~90%. (There were some operational Mossis fitted with wooden blades early-war, but it was a relatively small number.) Whether this would make a significant difference I will leave upto otheres to debate.
In the late 1980s, AIM-9L acquisition range vs a shrouded exhaust (ie no direct view of the exhaust manifold) "high power" aircraft piston engine was ~25% of that for a "typical" jet powered aircraft in Military power. Note that for long range acquisition the AIM-9L seeker used the exhaust plume of a jet engine. At shorter ranges it might not matter as much even if the missile is looking at a much cooler exhaust plume from a piston engine - plus the missile might be able to pick up the hot metal bits as/more easily. Contemporary MANPADS were generally significantly less capable than a missile like the AIM-9L and similar AAMs, but since the ranges would be shorter during the Москітний's attacks it might not matter?
In the late 1980s, AIM-9L acquisition range vs a shrouded exhaust (ie no direct view of the exhaust manifold) "high power" aircraft piston engine was ~25% of that for a "typical" jet powered aircraft in Military power. Note that for long range acquisition the AIM-9L seeker used the exhaust plume of a jet engine. At shorter ranges it might not matter as much even if the missile is looking at a much cooler exhaust plume from a piston engine - plus the missile might be able to pick up the hot metal bits as/more easily. Contemporary MANPADS were generally significantly less capable than a missile like the AIM-9L and similar AAMs, but since the ranges would be shorter during the Москітний's attacks it might not matter?
