SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Exactly.
US Coastal Air Defences in WW2
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #42
wuzak
Captain
And they were able to fill up with fuel for the return journey.
Not an option for a bomber in time of war to fill up at enemy air field!
- Thread starter
- #43
wuzak
Captain
What about using V-1 flying bombs as a sort of cruise missile?
The flight to the US east coast would be reduced by a little, but it would enable to bombers to launch from 100-150 miles away, giving some level of protection from ground based interceptors (or at least, give them extra time).
The chances of hitting something vital would be small. But the chances of getting close enough to bomb directly on a target were also very small.
So long as the bombs don't land in the sea, they would achieve about what any Amerika bomber mission would - maybe scare a few people.
The flight to the US east coast would be reduced by a little, but it would enable to bombers to launch from 100-150 miles away, giving some level of protection from ground based interceptors (or at least, give them extra time).
The chances of hitting something vital would be small. But the chances of getting close enough to bomb directly on a target were also very small.
So long as the bombs don't land in the sea, they would achieve about what any Amerika bomber mission would - maybe scare a few people.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I'm sure they were possible, but I did New York to Teheran on a 747, 19 hours aloft, as passenger. I sure would not want that flight in a piston-engined plane pulling 200 IAS.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I've read the Germans were trying to mate that with U-boats for precisely your reason, but cannot speak to the accuracy of those claims.
...to non-existent. The V-1 had a rudimentary guidance system based on a Veeder counter, basically it was pointed in the direction of where it needed to go, the counter through revolutions of the propeller at the front wound down until it stopped at which time, calculated as to the time it would take from flying from its departure point to the target area, would cut the fuel lines to the engine and deflect spoilers under the hori-stab to push it into its terminal dive. A two-gyro stabilisation system that actuated the rudder and elevators kept it the right way up.
During the V-1 Blitz, they ended up all over the place across England. I can't remember the statistic but I vaguely remember reading that around 60 percent of those that crashed and were not shot down missed London all-together.
Actually even less than 40 percent made it to London, just looked on the 'net:
"In total, 10,492 V1s were launched against Britain, with a nominal aiming point of Tower Bridge. 4,261 V-1s had been destroyed by fighters, anti-aircraft fire and barrage balloons. Approximately 2,400 V-1s landed within Greater London, inflicting 6,000 fatalities and 18,000 serious injuries."
The V-1 was essentially a cruise missile, a very rudimentary one, but a cruise missile nonetheless.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #47
wuzak
Captain
I think that as long as the bombs made land, and blew up somewhere that they were seen by people, it would achieve as much as the bomber flying over US soil and dropping a couple of bombs.
Some of that can be credited to British double agents, who fed incorrect landing positions for the bombs. These reports said that the bombs were over-shooting London, so the Germans adjusted the range. The result was that V-1s were falling short.
Yup, very much so, but the outcomes were very small taking even this out of consideration. The V-1 was terribly inaccurate thanks to its basic guidance system. Radio guidance didn't improve matters and the double agent scenario aided in inaccuracy of the radio guidance system because the Germans believed their British sources rather than the radio signals.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
A Luftwaffe attack on the east coast would be along the same lines as the Doolittle said.
It wasn't meant to be a crippling blow, militarily, it was to show the people (and their military) it could be done.
The Japanese planned to use their I-400 class subs in a similar fashion, but they took too long and were never able to realize their full potential.
However, a smaller carrier sub did attack the U.S. by air, I-25 bombed the forest of southern Oregon (with the intention of starting forest fires) with it's E14Y, which was a wast of effort.
It wasn't meant to be a crippling blow, militarily, it was to show the people (and their military) it could be done.
The Japanese planned to use their I-400 class subs in a similar fashion, but they took too long and were never able to realize their full potential.
However, a smaller carrier sub did attack the U.S. by air, I-25 bombed the forest of southern Oregon (with the intention of starting forest fires) with it's E14Y, which was a wast of effort.
There was the Qantas "Double Sunrise" flights across the Indian Ocean from 1943.
The Double Sunrise - Wikipedia
By mid-1945 160 squadron with Liberator GR.V were regularly flying from Ceylon on missions exceeding 19 hours. They had one that lasted 24 hrs 10 mins in July IIRC.
Experiments with in-flight refuelling had begun in the 1920s in the US and expanded to France and Britain. Alan Cobham set up Flight Refuelling Ltd in 1934 and by WW2 was regularly refuelling trans-Atlantic Empire flying boats. So the technology wasn't a big secret. And by 1944 it was being considered for the RAF's Tiger Force.
Aerial refueling - Wikipedia
Surprisingly I've never heard of the Germans thinking of employing this technique.
Early in the war, a German raid could have been worthwhile if it resulted in aircraft being diverted from hunting U-boats to coastal patrol. Late in the war, the Allies had enough aircraft to cover all possible missions.
- Thread starter
- #52
wuzak
Captain
Two different type of aircraft?
Hunting U-boats required long range maritime patrol aircraft, like the B024.
Coastal patrol by fighter types?
First they have to be able to do it, which the Germans couldn't really. In Germany's case it's a bit of a red herring in its impact given that from 1943 its cities are being rained on by day and night. I doubt the propaganda value of one aeroplane dropping a few bombs aimlessly over the USA will have much impact on the German people being subjected to the likes of the Hamburg raids, but I get your point, Dave.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Battle of Los Angeles is a good example of civic paranoia!
The Battle of Los Angeles is a good example of civic paranoia!
True that. On the subject of paranoia, have you read about the Battle of Barking Creek?
It's a little known fact that the first combat victim of the Supermarine Spitfire was a Hawker Hurricane...
Even Hurricane pilots were claiming they were being shot down by Spitfires!
Thinking long range, long endurance patrols off the coast so that the short range fighters could be alerted.
- Thread starter
- #58
wuzak
Captain
There was always radar.
Shortround6
Major General
None made it past my relatives on the Maine coast either
But my Grandfather was too busy making gyroscopes for Norden bomb sights to man watch towers
Despite this enterprise of strategic importance (with 4 employees ) being right of the "front lines" No German aircraft tried to raid it and any U-boats in the area remained oblivious to it's presence and no rubber boat raids/landings seem to have been attempted.
Maybe they couldn't find it the fog?
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,661
- May 13, 2018
George Gobel used to say while he was an instructor in the USAAC, no Japanese plane got past Tulsa.
