V1 Buzz Bomb Aces....

[nuuumannn]

Both techniques were used. Flt Sgt Paul Leva, a Belgian flying a Spitfire XIV with 350 sqn brought down a V1 by tipping it off course using his wing tip, but this invariably resulted in damage to the Spit, as Leva's wing tip required replacing once he had landed.

There was a crazy idea of someones - not sure whom - wasn't Supermarine's as far as I am aware, where a hinged arm fitted with a spike at the end of the arm was attached to the wing tip of a Spit, which would swing down and engage into the wing of a V1, then the Spitfire pilot would turn his aeroplane around and release the arm, which would send the V1 hurtling away in the opposite direction.

 

[stona]

There was a crazy idea of someones - not sure whom - wasn't Supermarine's as far as I am aware, where a hinged arm fitted with a spike at the end of the arm was attached to the wing tip of a Spit, which would swing down and engage into the wing of a V1, then the Spitfire pilot would turn his aeroplane around and release the arm, which would send the V1 hurtling away in the opposite direction.

Good luck with that

A penny to a pound says that whoever came up with that idea was not an operational pilot!

Cheers

Steve

 

[Airframes]

There was one V1 turned back, which exploded on the French coast, possibly on, or near, its own launch site!
It was fired on, at night, by Mosquito over the Channel (I'd have to check the details of the Squadron, crew and date). Instead of exploding, it slowed down and turned 180 degrees, flew past the bemused crew, who then saw it explode on French soil !

 

[Greyman]

How common was tipping the V 1 over with a fighters wing tip? Was it a wide spread method of destroying them or a method of last resort? It seems pretty dangerous to be flying in close formation with a 1 ton bomb at 370mph.

bit of a list here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/flying-bombs-v-allied-fighters-29084-2.html#post1080529

 

[GregP]

If he put his wing OVER the V-1's it would turn into him. They put the wing under the V-1 wing and banked away from it. See below:

 

[mhuxt]

There was one V1 turned back, which exploded on the French coast, possibly on, or near, its own launch site!
It was fired on, at night, by Mosquito over the Channel (I'd have to check the details of the Squadron, crew and date). Instead of exploding, it slowed down and turned 180 degrees, flew past the bemused crew, who then saw it explode on French soil !

Russ Bannock and Bob Bruce, 418 Squadron, 12/13 August '44.

"Up 2227, time down unclear - 41. At 2255 hours 5 Divers were seen heading out from the Dieppe area. At 2300 hours attacked one in position 50'43N 00'32E, course 340'M at 2,000 feet. Fired all cannon from approximately 500 yards astern. Strikes were seen and Diver slowed up, dropping right wing several times then righting itself. Just before reaching the gun belt the Diver turned onto 120' and flew back into France, and crashed on land near Boulogne."

edit - Hmm, strange smiley. Should read 0"ex"41, as in "ex" the letter, standing for unknown.

 

[Airframes]

If he put his wing OVER the V-1's it would turn into him. They put the wing under the V-1 wing and banked away from it. See below:

View attachment 262661

The procedure was to put the wing tip over the wing of the V1, to disrupt airflow, preventing lift, causing the wing of the V1 to stall sufficiently to upset the gyro. Once done, the Spitfire/Tempest/Mustang immediately banked away. This procedure is recorded in a number of accounts, and was 'issued' as the 'approved' method of 'tipping', as a last resort.
However, there are also a number of recorded instances of Spitfires, in particular, actually 'tipping' a V1 by putting the wing tip under the wing of the missile, which invariably caused damage to the Spitfire's wing tip, and there is an example of a badly bent Spitfire wing tip in a museum on the south coast of England.

 

[Juha]

Another interesting fact was that a V1 shoot down missions was not credited toward a "tour" the same as was a mission over enemy territory. I forget the ratio but it might have been that they counted for .5 missions toward a tour. Someone might correct me on that.

Are you sure? In the Allied AFs but BC and US heavy bomber crews the tour lenght was based on operational flight time not the number of sorties. It might well be that V1 sorties were not counted as combat sorties but surely they were operational sorties and so added operational flight time of the participating pilot. In princible flight times outside range of enemy fighters, e.g. convoy escort flights along the Yorkshire coast, without enemy contact might well be counted only as half times but I'm a bit doubtful that sorties during which V1(s) was/were shot down were compared to those convoy protection flights but of course that is possible if RAF high command were worried of the number of combat capable fighter jockeys available to them in summer 1944. In the middle of the page The lengths of the RAF operational tours - Juhan Sotahistoriasivut
there is a part of a docu describing the tour system of the British and Commonwealth AFs in late 1944.

Juha

 

[GregP]

I've never heard of putting the wingtip over the V-1's wing ... it has always been under in the accounts I've read. If the wing toward the Spitfire stalled, it would roll INTO the Spitfire ... surely a thing to be avoided.

All of the pics I've seen of the encounters clearly show the Spitfire wing UNDER the V-1's wing and the only two former RAF pilots I've heard speak who described the procedure at the Planes of Fame also put their wings under the V-1 wings and banked away to tumble the gyros.

Can you post a link to an account of the over-the-wong technique?

 

[stona]

I've never heard of putting the wingtip over the V-1's wing ... it has always been under in the accounts I've read. If the wing toward the Spitfire stalled, it would roll INTO the Spitfire ... surely a thing to be avoided.

All of the pics I've seen of the encounters clearly show the Spitfire wing UNDER the V-1's wing and the only two former RAF pilots I've heard speak who described the procedure at the Planes of Fame also put their wings under the V-1 wings and banked away to tumble the gyros.

Can you post a link to an account of the over-the-wong technique?

I've also read that putting the wing tip of the fighter over that of the missile was the approved method. I'm not at home so I can't rummage for the reference.

The photo posted in this thread is the only one I've ever seen or heard of in which a Spitfire is captured in the act of 'tipping' a V-1.

Most accounts would indicate that shooting down the missiles by gun fire was a much more commonly adopted procedure. From memory all the top Tempest aces in a list published elsewhere in this forum used gun fire

Cheers

Steve

 

[Greyman]

The procedure was to put the wing tip over the wing of the V1, to disrupt airflow, preventing lift, causing the wing of the V1 to stall sufficiently to upset the gyro. Once done, the Spitfire/Tempest/Mustang immediately banked away. This procedure is recorded in a number of accounts, and was 'issued' as the 'approved' method of 'tipping', as a last resort.
However, there are also a number of recorded instances of Spitfires, in particular, actually 'tipping' a V1 by putting the wing tip under the wing of the missile, which invariably caused damage to the Spitfire's wing tip, and there is an example of a badly bent Spitfire wing tip in a museum on the south coast of England.

I can't find any examples of the former method - every anecdote I can find at the moment describes gently making contact under the V1's wing, then pulling up sharply.

 

[nuuumannn]

Haven't seen any anecdotes about it either, but a number of books state that it was used, but by whom is not normally specified.

 

[stona]

A victory over a V-1 is not counted as an aerial victory by the RAF.

July 5th 1944 squadrons on anti-diver operations were notified that a V-1 shot down over the sea would count as one enemy aircraft destroyed and that one shot down over land would count as a half.

The 1/2 is how V-1 aces like Sqn.Ldr. Bannock of 418 Squadron (Mosquitos) arrived at the seemingly odd score of 18 1/2. It is not a shared kill giving the odd half but a V-1 shot down over the UK.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Greyman]

July 5th 1944 squadrons on anti-diver operations were notified that a V-1 shot down over the sea would count as one enemy aircraft destroyed and that one shot down over land would count as a half.

The 1/2 is how V-1 aces like Sqn.Ldr. Bannock of 418 Squadron (Mosquitos) arrived at the seemingly odd score of 18 1/2. It is not a shared kill giving the odd half but a V-1 shot down over the UK.

A V1 shot down over land would count as one V1 shot down maybe, still not--as GregP is saying--a victory against an aircraft. And even then I don't think this half-V1-kill-over-land business is the case. Any more information on this? Every V1 ace I've looked into doesn't seem to have any half-land-kills.

I can't find specific details on Bannock's half kill (over-land or shared). Some sources give him 18 V1 kills, some 18.5 and some 19.

EDIT: interesting - after looking for it specifically I'm coming across what you described, stona. Perhaps what has tended to happen post-war is that historians/authors/etc. have begun to award the fighter pilots their rightful number of V1 kills - as the wartime incentive system is no longer needed.

Might as well give the pilots their proper scores. I'll bet this is where we're seeing discrepancies these days.


EDIT 2: Including Russ Bannock and Bob Bruce's scoreboard because, wow.

 

[Juha]

According to Shores' and William's Aces High Bannock's total score was 9 destr, 4 dam, 2 destr on the ground, 18 and 1 shared V-1s. All but 2 of his accepted V-1 claims mentioned in the book (19 altogether) were shot down over the Channel, the exceptions were shot down over Hastings and Boulogne. I were a bit doubtful of the Stona's claim in the message #33, but because in the list there is no shared V-1s and out of 19 mentioned only one was shot down over GB, it might well be true.

Juha

 

[stona]

Do you guys think I'm making it up for heaven's sake?
That was an official notification given to ALL anti diver squadrons on that date. A V-1 (destroyed over the sea) counted as "one enemy aircraft destroyed." It can't be any clearer than that. It doesn't say one missile, one unmanned aircraft or one flying bomb. It doesn't qualify the victory in anyway. One enemy aircraft destroyed could be a Fw 190, a Ju 88, a V-1 or any other enemy aircraft.
The notification is referenced in several publications. I read it recently in Sharp and Bowyer's definitive tome on the Mosquito.
Cheers
Steve

 

[GregP]

About counting V-1's as victories, what is your source for that Steve?

Everything I have says they were counted, but not as normal aerial victories, and that includes the officials British rules for counting aerial victories. V-1's are not specifically mentioned, but one of the criteria for being awarded an aerial victory was that the aircraft had to be piloted, airborne, and of a type normally considered to be armed.

Rather obviously the V-2 wasn't piloted.

 

[stona]

It's an RAF notification of 5th June 1944. I last saw it quoted in the book above. It might also be quoted in Mason's Typhoon and Tempest book but I haven't checked. I've definitely read it elsewhere which is why I made the original comment way back up this thread. It was sent to all anti-diver squadrons. It makes it perfectly clear that a V-1 downed into the sea qualified as an enemy aircraft destroyed (without qualification) and over land (presumably meaning the UK) would count as a half.
Cheers
Steve

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In Wiki there is a list of WC Branse Burbridge's kills, the V-1s aren't listed.

 

[GregP]

Hi Steve,

If that were true for the entire war, the top British Ace would be a V-1 killer, but he's never quoted as the top guy. So, I'm left with a rather distinct impression that they didn't follow that rule.

I can say this, I'd support changing it for modern times when they deploy UCAV's designed for air-to-air combat, but not until such time. The V-1's. while armed, were not air-to-air combat vehicles and should not count the same as a victory over an armed, manned aircraft of the time and technology.

Just my two cents worth, and I'll abide by it, but I won't try to convince anyone else to change his or her views. It isn't worth a debate to me, I'll just take the official British (US, etc.) scores ... assuming I can find them anywhere "official." To date, Johnnie Johnson is usually the top quoted ace.

One great source is: http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/gb-ww2.html