The V-1 as an AAM

What if the Luftwaffe had had a flash of potential brilliance and produced the V-1 as an AAM? In this use the configuration would be a roughly 2500 lb blast fragmentation warhead (or several smaller warheads spread along the length of the missile) and fuel reduced to just 2 minutes of flight time. The missile would now be balanced to fly steadily throughout its short mission time.
The warhead would be detonated by radio control using a highly directional antenna in the tail of the missile to prevent easy jamming. Either the launch aircraft or a second spotter aircraft (a fighter) could have been used to command detonation.
The mission profile would be to have a He 111, Ju 88, Do 217, or other suitable aircraft carry the missile to altitude. The launch aircraft would then be vectored from the ground to a position about 12 to 15 miles ahead of a US bomber formation and put at the same or slightly higher altitude.
The V-1 would then be launched towards the formation based on its current flight path and altitude such that the missile was approaching from head on. The closing speed would be on the order of 750 mph taking about 1 minute to cover the interval between the formation and launch aircraft. As the missile entered the formation it would be detonated.
Given the size of the warhead and a decent fragmentation effect it would likely destroy or damage every plane in a 9 or 12 plane "box." Several such missiles would have had very disasterous effects on a large formation if they worked properly.
Such a weapon would be less effective against the British bomber streams of 1944 but, even one or two real successes where say several dozen US bombers go down from these weapons would have had a real effect on German morale and forced the US to reconsider its tactics.

Counters obviously include trying to intercept and shoot down the launch planes. This might be difficult if cloud cover is available as the launcher could fire from inside a cloud and have a second fast fighter do the detonation.
Jamming the detonation signal is a possibility if it can be identified.
Opening up the formations would also work but then it increases vulnerability to conventional fighter attack and reduces bombing effectiveness.

 

what's the speed of a b-17 compared with a ju-88? can't the bombers just break the box, disperse and evade? it's like trying to run after someone and blow a soap bubble on the back of his head.

better to have a fighter guide it up close. the bomber should be miles away. give the v-1 a rocket booster to give it a longer stand-off range like today's AARMs. it will climb to around 40,000 feet and then dive unpowered towards the bombers under radio guidance from a figher.

 

Just engaging the command aircraft would cause problems. The launch would also likely be fairly visible and if the aircraft maneuvered at all the V-1 would probably not come anywhere near the formation.

 

What if the US command detaches one or two P-51 units as an avant garde, looking out for isolated He 111, Ju 88, Do 217s with an ubderslung V-1, and shoot this to Valhalla before it releases it's deadly load? And even if it does, how steady does it have to be to be able to maintain control of the dastardly Verweltungswaffe while the aforesaid P-51s add some 0.50" perforations?

 

A couple of clarifications:

The command aircraft need only signal the missile to detonate. It doesn't need to control its inbound flight. A high speed fighter need only approach the bombers at the last minute as the missile is closing. Once it detonates the plane can dive away to escape.
The reason for this is the intent is that the V-1 be fired on a reciprocal course to that of the bombers at the same altitude. It needs no guidance to the target. It simply flies straight ahead at the same altitude. All that is needed is a signal to detonate it. A VT fuze would be better but the Germans don't have one; so command detonation will be necessary.
A launch from 12 to 15 miles closes at a combined speed of about 750 knots (275 for the bombers and 475 for the missile). A two minute flight would launch from about 25 miles out. This makes catching the launch plane difficult. Until the US recognizes that head on or tail on strikes are necessary knowing where to look isn't going to be easy. This makes this system good for at least a few favorable attacks. If these used several missiles each it could be very bad for the US.
It isn't a perfect system. Some coordination is necessary for it to work. But, in 1944 the Germans were desperate. This would have worked better than Wasserfall or even the Natter or Me 163. Everything is available and requires few modifications to existing equipment. It looks doable.

 

Hmm, how long would the half-life be of the usual V-1 carriers when this scheme were to be implemented?

​

MUSTANG MAYHEM

YouTube - P-47 strafing ground targets

 

This sounds like a winner on several pointers

1, Almost impossible to intercept by fighters in the time frame.

2, Obsolete aircraft can be used, all they need to do is just get up and aim, thus allowing new aircraft to be used on the air fronts.

3, Training of crews would not be so extensive, just take off get to the height point and shoot and detonate.

4, Also high cost rate in USAAF aircraft, say we have 40 or 50 such weapons launched at a bomber stream allowing for factors we could assume say 300 to 400 bombers to be lost.

But there are the drawbacks

1, Fuel is always brought up as an issue, can the Wehrmacht sustain the consumption of fuel.

2, Fighter screens pushed forward to 12 to 25 miles ahead of the bomber formations.

3, Reliablity of warheads and radio equipment to detonate.

But as i believe if this worked and on each mission the USAAF had substantial losses of say up to 500 bombers per mission then after a while it may have altered the air war

I have read somewhere that this method could have been used can't remember at the mo' but in the end just the sight of approaching aerial launchers caused the bombers to drop their loads and scatter thus effecting not only morale but the whole bomber offensive.

But in the end it sounds great, good work T.A Gardner.

v.R

 

I think its a good idea, and have one additional question.

If memory serves, there were proximity fuses in service on torpedoes of the day. Why not set up a proximity fuse to work on your AAM? Then no remote detonation is required and the launchers can turn tail immediately after firing ("fire and forget"). Worked pretty well for MiG-17s running GCI intercepts in Nam.

 

Better yet, put a radar in a miniaturized V-2 and use it as a SAM.

 

IIRC the only proximity fuzes were used by the Allies. For AA and Artillery.

 

Nuts.

 

They also tried to develop one for the V-2 but it was a failure.

v.R

 

"They also tried to develop one for the V-2 but it was a failure.

v.R"

Really? What use would there have been for a proximity fuze for a surface to surface missile? What good would be an airburst for such a innaccurate missile? What source do you have for this?

 

The V-2 as SAM is actually the much smaller Wasserfall missile. This was to be command guided from the ground using a joystick and visual reference. It proved a total, adject failure. The US post war under project Hermes got a few of these missiles but after just two launches concluded they were a waste of time just as the Germans did.

One problem with the V-1 SAM concept would be ensuring that it was properly aimed when launched. At 12 miles even a half degree error in aim is enough to potentially miss the target. This might require the firing aircraft to visually Id the formation for launch. In a multiseat aircraft this shouldn't be too hard to do as a crew member could use powerful bionoculars or a telescope for this purpose.

 

Were you thinking of a variant of the Henschel Hs 293 but for AAM?

Fragmentation instead of 500kg bomb?







or perhaps this....

Fritz X from a higher altitude operational aircraft such as this.....





possibly if they were developed and operational by late 1942.

but Za brings up a good point the Germans had difficulty in 1944 protecting the Me 262 on take off because of enemy fighters and drop tanks.
So getting these things up would be problematic. Also the P-51s could rival the operational ceiling of the Ar 234c. Loaded climb rate perhaps another.

The Germans would have been better off using resources to build and make operational many TA -152s earlier or not deciding to sideline their heavy water experiments, but even given priority they would probably not have had enough fissionable material or if they got the reactor to work.

Interesting thread though.

 

No, the V-1 "buzz bomb." The problem here is that any AAM or SAM of this period is going to be horribly inaccurate. Whatever the guidance is it is unlikely to actually hit a target unless it is rather indiscriminate in its action.
The V-1 fits the bill. You launch one or two into a bomber box and detonate them. With nearly a ton of explosives and about another half ton of steel for fragments it is going to take down every aircraft within three or four hundred feet of its detonation and damage those severly within about a thousand.

This is a paradigm shift in tactics and technology. A better conventional fighter or a jet are just improved weapons systems using the same tactics. The Allies can react faster to that than something that forces a complete reconsideration of their current tactics and equipment.

When it comes to weapons or tactics in warfare what you search for are these paradigm shifts. In WW 1 the Germans invent and implement the Stroßtruppen tactics. They nearly win the war with them even coming from a position of weakness. The atomic bomb is a paradigm shift in techology. Ships are completely redesigned to cope. Tactics on land, on sea, and in the air are changed to accomidate the reality of nuclear war. It changes everything.

A V-1 that blows most of a bomber box out of the sky would have the same effect. The Allies are forced to make a major shift to cope. This may be easy. It may not be. But, it forces the shift. That is what wins wars.

 

I understood you meant the V-1 but Operation Crossbow, Operation Hydra.....you familiar with these? P-51s, Spitfires did intercept V-1s. If this was operational the Allies would just bomb the facilities flat.
So I get back to waste of resources theme.

I don't agree that's why I mentioned similar possibilities.

For example Operation Diver I believe....

I mean you could look at other source but..... "Overall, 4,261 V-1s were destroyed by fighters, anti-aircraft fire and barage balloons. Of the fighters, Tempests accounted for 638, Mosquitos for 428, Spitfires for 303, and Mustangs for 232. A further 158 were shot down by other fighters."

The Me 163 would be more successful nothing could get it on the way to target but coming home was a problem. Perhaps the Me263 if developed and operational earlier?

I don't agree, I think the Allies reacted quickly to things like the Uboat which could be paralled to your paradigm shift with things like the depth charge and sonar. The same would be true to the V-1 AAM and then the Germans would be at a loss for resources better used. I think if the Germans could make something work and could see the feasibility they would have brought it to fruition.

Thanks

 

I think the only thing that comes close to the envisaged V-1 AAM would have been the Natter. A crude weapon with an almost Kamikaze style attitude required by the pilot, but it could have worked for a certain time.

Regards
Kruska

 

In general terms, the Natter was a much more dangerous version than the Me 163 regarding interception or perhaps I should say return.

 

There was this slight objection too...