MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
My thoughts exactly! In the 60's it was still a Big Thing.
What is one plane that is underappreciated for how effective it was in combat?
- Thread starter Venomstick121
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
While I partially agree with this, it was effective in deterring Allied fighter strength, but in the short term that hardly interfered with the implementation of Overlord and the recapture of Occupied France, which was happening when the first waves of V 1s were launched. As for successful, that's debatable. Statistically speaking, the V 1 didn't fare too well as only a quarter of the total number launched fell on their intended target areas. That's not a good rate of success by any measure. Not only that but by late 1944, some 80 percent of V 1s tracked by the British were successfully destroyed in flight before they reached their targets.
What is interesting to note about the Fi 103 was that the technology that went into it was quite primitive and could have easily been replicated by any country's aircraft industry, even the pulse jet engine. Its stability system was two gyros driven by compressed air that controlled the elevators and rudder. Every modern aircraft of the time had such things installed in their cockpits driving gyro stabilised instruments. Its guidance system worked on distance/speed/time calculations and the wee propeller on the nose spun until a set number of revolutions were achieved at the known speed the thing travelled at that ticked over a veeder counter, at which point the fuel line to the engine was severed and two tiny spoilers were deployed under the tailplane to put it into a dive. It was aimed in the general direction of its target. Nowt complex about the engine at all, either. It was a crude air pump that let air in, which was sprayed with fuel and ignited, flapper valves preventing forward flow of the gases, which were directed rearwards. The remarkable thing about it was the combination of these known and readily applied technologies into a single application, but successful it wasn't.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
It was very lucky they were made so small, as if they had been just a little bigger (bigger engine and more fuel) they would have not been interceptable.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
You are forgetting completely the massive effort mounted by the RAF and USAAF to destroy the V-weapons sites, which resulted in a very considerable amount of capability being diverted away from preparing the battlefield for the invasion as well as supporting the invading forces after 6 Jun 44. It was a good thing we had lots extra on hand.
And the fact was, the V-1 did far more damage to the U.K. and tied up more RAF and USAAF capabilities than anything else the Luftwaffe was capable of doing in that time frame; it was successful in that sense. It was not "successful" in the sense of stopping Overlord but it is hard to even imagine anything else that would have been in practical terms.
Admiral Donitz concluded that the U-Boat campaign was not going to stop the Allies in 1943, but he could not stomach the idea of the Kreigsmarine sitting out the war (as their battleships pretty much did) while German soldiers were slaughtered in ground combat and German cites being bombed into rubble. So he sent the U-boats out right up to the last day of the war, just so the surviving Navy could hold their heads high (and some escape to Argentina). The Japanese did the same thing when they sent the Yamato and its escorts out to die and even sent the last Kamikaze raid out after the surrender had been agreed to. The V-1 gave the Luftwaffe a much better option. There is an old saying, "It takes a lot to win a war but it takes everything you have to lose one." The V-1 saved a lot of Luftwaffe lives, if nothing else.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Interesting point! However, the salient feature of German WWII propulsion capabilities was how limited they were due to materials shortages. Turbosupercharged aircraft were very rare in the Luftwaffe (the B-17 probably was the most notable example), while the US built tens of thousands. The German jet engines were marvels of design but their TBO was around 25 hours due to their severe lack of nickel alloys. The V-2 engine was years ahead of anyone else, but used H2O2 to run the turbine due to lack of suitable high temperature alloys, something the US virtually had abandoned by 1960 but the Russians copy to this day.
The V-1 pulsejet did not need much in the way of high tempertaure alloys, apparently only for its fuel injector nozzles. Those nozzles degraded steadly with time and I do not know much margin the V-1's had, how much further a typical missile could have flown before the engine wore out, but more powerful pulsejet engines would have meant more use of those materials. Given that the V-1 guidance system would embrass a drone bought at Walmart, I am not sure a fewer number of larger, faster, and deadlier missiles would have done much good. Unless they had human pilots.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
I've been up and down State St over the years and never knew that. Thanks!
It's a good point but I dont think the Germans were fools. The V1 as it was had a very short range because the pulse jet consumed a lot of fuel. Wouldnt a bigger more powerful engine need more fuel and pose more problems getting launched in an engineering tail chasing exercise?
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
I think the v1 guidance system was a lot better than the craters suggest. The British fed back fake intel reports on the hit locations via the double cross system so the Germans kept adjusting the range in the wrong direction.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
I don't think so because weight does not scale to drag, I expect they just had an engine ready and in 1942ish when it was being considered probably was un interceptable in speed. When it was finally in service very much later than hoped for it wasn't quite cutting edge any more
stug3
Staff Sergeant
A-36
Ditto for all Allison engined Mustangs.
The fact that effort by the Allies did not hinder their efforts in successfully invading speaks otherwise. Deterring resources is only an effective deterrent if the enemy cannot function with those resources being diverted. The Allies could, and with the USA's production capabilities, in no way can this be counted as a win for the V 1.
Still not a measure of success. The entire campaign was a resounding failure because of when it was conducted as much as anything. If it had been done in 1940 (impossible but what if), the timing would have been terrible for Britain, but by 1944, the Allies could and did get the better of it. It is worth remembering that between the Blitz in 1941 and the V 1 campaign, the German effort against Britain directly was hardly a sustainable effort that Britain couldn't cope with, so the V 1 was definitely a threat, but in hindsight, because the British air defence network had been bolstered in that time and was capable of dealing with the threat - remember, 80 percent of all detected Fi 103s over Britain were shot down, that's a pretty impressive statistic - it turned out to be a failure. The effort to contain the V 1 threat was huge, but the British could spare the resources to do so by that time.
It might have been but its beauty was in its simplicity as originally conceived. Once radio guidance was added, accuracy improved, but the initial system was far too inaccurate to be useful against specific targets. It was a terror weapon only and could only ever be used as such in its initial guise. There was no way that a campaign of "aim it at London and hope for the best" could ever be used to achieve favourable strategic outcomes.
Shortround6
Major General
You just need to devote a lot more resources to it. An awful lot more. And a lot more time.
Not really, the problem was its inaccuracy, but remember that the British, the Germans and the Americans had radio direction capability that offered as near as precision capability - the Luftwaffe as far back as 1939/1940, so it wouldn't have taken long at all if the time and resources warranted it. The Germans didn't have time or resources however. The idea behind the V 1s and V 2s was terror, not a strategic campaign, so accuracy wasn't necessary. If it had been, the V 1 at least could have easily been converted. Radio guidance was adopted in production aircraft, the Germans had the technology.
Interesting that the V1 carried 850kg of amatol and weighed in at 2,150 kg (4,740 lb)
while the V2 carried not much more at 910kg amatol while having an all up weight of 12,500 kg (27,600 lb).
This highlights the tradeoff required for more speed although V2 hits tended to create more casualties.
while the V2 carried not much more at 910kg amatol while having an all up weight of 12,500 kg (27,600 lb).
This highlights the tradeoff required for more speed although V2 hits tended to create more casualties.
Willi_S
Recruit
You mean the Henschel Hs-123, I suppose?
The biplane that meant to be the predecessor of the Ju 87 Stuka, but fought on with great success at the eastern front till the end of the war.
Regards
Willi
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
