Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The V-1 as an AAM

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by T. A. Gardner, Sep 10, 2008.

  1. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The envisioned usage calls for a total flight time of under two (2) minutes. This means that unlike V-1's launched against England that had flight times ten to twenty times or more longer than that a fighter would have to have extreme luck to be in the right place at the right time and additionally hope that the aircraft commanding detonation doesn't decide on an early triggering.
    Shoot downs on the whole would be purely luck and might be very dangerous.

    More likely is simply the failure to properly guide into the target. A half degree of inaccuracy at launch (this assumes no in-flight guidance) equates to a 200 yard error at 12 miles. One can see that the launch aircraft would have to be very careful in its launch accuracy to hit a bomber box.

    Not really. First, the 163 (and 263) are terribly dangerous, unstable aircraft in terms of their propuslion system. Accidents are very common from this problem. Second, both lack the range and portability to get where the bombers are most, if not virtually all, of the time. The V-1, or even the Natter, are much cheaper alternatives. The V-1 is very cheap. The Natter is semi-reusable and semi-mobile.


    I would agree. But, even just two or three successful operations using say a total of a dozen or so V-1 between them would have had better results than Galland's Big Blow 1000 fighter interceptions, the Sturmjäger units etc. Three accurately launched and detonated V-1 could potentially take down 27 to 36 bombers using just three launch aircraft and three fighter controllers at the terminal end.
     
  2. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    True. But, there is little the Germans can do to stop it. At least the V-1 plan requires few aircraft, few aircrew, and relatively little fuel to attempt.
     
  3. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    Instead of the V1 I'd build several dozen smaller FLAK rockets with the same labor and materials. These ground launched rockets could be detonated with ordinary tme fuzes, or some sort of trick command by radio signal. I suspose they could be launched from aircraft as well but ground lauch sounds simpler.
     
  4. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    Really!

    A book called "German Weapons of World War Two"

    Subsection "Hitler's Miracle Weapons"

    In it it parts describes the overall usage of the V-2 and the development of the proximity fuse, try as they might the boffins could not get the proximity fuse to work, the idea of the proximity fuse was that instead of the V-2 exploding on contact with the ground it would explode above ground causing far more extensive damage.

    Oh and by the way air detonation of large warheads are far more damaging than ground contact, just like the two atomic bombs, they were air detonated and not ground detonated. This also applies to the American Daisy Cutter bomb, have you heard of it.

    v.R:pzp:
     
  5. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    426
    I've probably known about The "Dasiy Cutter" longer then you have been alive LOL. And I'm fully aware of what airbursts were used for along with the fact that both Atomic bombs were airbursts. The fuze was used in Europe and the Pacific in AA and artillery and also in aerial bombs in the Pacific. Funny though how most references when it comes to the history of proximity fuzes have no mention of a German one(s). Especially in regards to the V-2. Just one so far that really isn't that informative. " and though the Germans investigated a number of "proximity fuze" schemes to allow an airburst instead they never got the technology to work properly." So far your source is the only reference you can find? I have been looking for another and have yet to find another one. Either online or in book form.
     
  6. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The only German attempt at a proximity fuze I know about is the Kranich acoustical fuze. It was never operationally tested and would have almost certainly been a failure but, it was out there.

    Ruhrstahl X-4 Air-to-Air missile Luft '46 entry
     
  7. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    426
    "The Kranich acoustical fuse (tuned to the pitch of the bombers propellers)". Since it was an acoustical fuse it wouldn't work in a V-2 though. Thats why I didn't metion acoustical fuses.
     
  8. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    According to some Books and websites, the C 2 Wasserfall missile was fired (50 units) and supposedly have to been very sucessfull. It carried a 100kg explosive warhead with an electronical fuse.

    Since I am not much into Wunderwaffen - I wouldn't be able to varify these sources.

    However the Germans used optical sensing for firing of their aircraft cannons whilst underflying bombers or enemy aircraft.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  9. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello Oberst,

    you sure would be correct on that one. However I was taking into account the prevailing air supperiority of the allies, and as such the land based and "hidden" Natter could have propably made it.

    AFAIK no V2 or at least no significant numbers were destroyed during the launch procedures.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  10. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
  11. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Wasserfall would have been too costly and too late. IMO only the Schmetterling had a realistic chance - forwarded to RLM already in 1941 by Henschel taking into account the knowledge gained through the Hs 293.

    Besides the surface-to-air missile there was also an air-to-air version.

    YouTube - Schmetterling Missile

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  12. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    Would the V-1 with is fighter-bait carrier be cheaper than Wasserfall? Discuss.
     
  13. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Far cheaper. The V-1 was by then current costing cheap as dirt to build. The engine was simple and required no strategic materials. The airframe was also a simple and easy to build item. Wood was used for many parts. This makes it overall a very cheap missile.
    The Wasserfall requires a far more complex guidance system. This in turn eats into an already overstretched electronics industry. It is vulnerable to jamming and the control system is not anywhere near reliable enough to ensure each missile controls to the target correctly. It also requires extensive ground equipment to operate.
    On top of this nitric acid is a key ingredient in explosives manufacture and in short supply in Germany. Using it for fuel is not a good thing.
    The carrier plane for a V-1 would require say, two metric tons of fuel for a flight at most. This is the equivalent of four Me 109s fully loaded. The V-1 only needs 2 or 3 minutes of fuel on board which is nothing.
    The other advantage of the V-1 model is that it is packing over a ton of warhead(s). This means that it doesn't have to be really accurate to achieve success. A miss is as good as a hit. I would estimate that missing by as much as 100 to 200 yards would still damage or bring down a bomber. Hence, this missile's potential for wiping out a whole box in one firing.
    So, fuel-wise it is about a wash. Accuracy-wise the V-1 has the advantage. It is also far more reliable. Its flight time is shorter making it as or more accurate. The lack of sophisticated guidance systems is another plus.
     
  14. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    So if per your hindsight it was such a bright idea why didn't the LW saw it's such an obvious potential at the time?

    For a similar weapon (albeit with a much lesser bang) how did those 21cm Stuka zum Füss rockets on several fighter models fare? Could these give an idea of how your Über-AAM 7 might work ?
     
  15. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Because, as you so aptly point out, 20/20 hindsight is easy to aquire compared to foresight. As for the use of the 21cm rockets; there are several well documented occasions where these broke up bomber boxes even if they casued no direct casualties. The boxes being scattered were left easy targets for fighters.
    But, given that a V-1 is carrying 50 times the explosives and has far more fragmentation effect than a 21cm rocket one can expect the former to be capable of not just breaking up a box but actually taking aircraft within it down.
     
  16. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    T.A is correct, hindsight is a wonderful thing if you have it.

    Just imagine this for instance, the Allied bombers fleets have been struck by these V-1 AAM attacks with catastrophic losses, some missions have up to 30 to 40 percent battlefield losses while hundreds of bombers are lost as ecconomical writeoffs. Not only that the bombers (and crews) are being lost in vast numbers the psychological impact of such attacks are hitting home, within a short time just the sight of the V-1 AAM delivery aircraft forces those in the lead groups to eject their bombloads and scatter leaving those bombers that have scattered vulnerable to individual interdiction by several fighters of the Ju-88 variety.

    The rot sets in, Allied bombing missions are breaking down, very few targets are being hit en masse giving valuable breathing space for the German arms industries time to recover. Also not only does this tactic work in the west it is also tried and tested in the east against Soviet bomber fleets.

    v.R
     
  17. Falcon Jun

    Falcon Jun Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    85
    Hmmm... I would have to say that T.A.'s idea certainly has merit.
    If it's used by the Germans as T.A. proposed, it most probably dent the Allied effort in the air.
    However, this would also spawn an allied response to counter this German move. And what would that response be?
    The first thing that came to my mind is a downscaling of Allied strategic bombing and putting more assets on improving Allied close air support.
    Another move could be accelerating the development of the atomic bomb but instead of being mounted on a plane, it would be mounted on a rocket as warhead because sending bombers to Germany is now an iffy thing. I see this happening because if the Germans were successful in hindering the Allied bombing effort, the war could have been extended to the point that Germany is still resisting attack when the A-bomb becomes operational.
    Still, as I've mentioned before, war is about action and reaction and the group who can't react properly or adapt to a new development is always put at a disadvantage. Of course, other factors are also at play and these serve to mitigate or worsen the situation for the group that's put in the disadvantageous position.
     
  18. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Could be a nice plan to try at least against the bombers.

    The Germans did try normal bombs from a higher level , don´t recall how big these bombs were, 500 kgs perhaps, but the result was not what they expected.

    Also Hitler might want to keep these "babies" reserved for the vengeance option that he was looking for all the while, but that´s another story.
     
  19. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello Falcon Jun.

    a lot of these "if''s", result in the conclusion of the A-Bomb. The question is - would it have worked against Germany?
    History shows that the US only had two with a third being projected into end of 1945.

    In case of an A-Bomb drop over Germany, I am sure that Hitler then would have agreed to use Gas and Biochemical weapons and propably ordering to murder every allied POW, using the V-2 as a real Vengance weapon. It would have resulted into a British counter using Bio weapons and in the end half of Europe would have been devastated and killed off.

    So I would be sure about ending these "if" always into an A-Bomb solution.

    Besides not developing the Schmetterling, T. A. Gardner's idea, of diverting the V-1 from a lost cause to an AAM, would IMO acctually have been making a far better use of the V-1, and it would have taken the Allies about 3-5 month to decrease the Bomber Pulks and increase the fighter cover to overcome this threat.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  20. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    Actually there were five ready for assembly before the end of the year, and between twelve and twenty scheduled for construction during 1946. There was one more ready for use vs Japan in August, but many more were being prepared in the US.

    Aside from that these antiaircraft weapons had very little effect on ground forces, or on the tactical air support of the Allied armys. all the Schmertilings in the world wont stop the Ruhr from being enveloped or Berlin being assualted.
     

Share This Page