"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
From: "James Linn"
Date: 7/9/03 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME
109?
From: "James Linn"
Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time

And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London.
And
an
ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land
come
back and do it again.

Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a
pretty
picture.

Your B26 carried the same load or more, and carried it farther, and
dropped
it more accurately. Your pilot adjusted for headwinds, crosswinds, and
bad
target intelligence. If it was a choice between sending your crew or a
V-1
against the same target - which would you chose?

The V1 was put into service because the Germans couldn't hope to get air
superiority over Britain by 1944.

The stats I read about how many hit their targets is pretty telling. 8
out
of 10 never made it, either because they were shot down, or missed their
target. Once they got the hang of where to place the guns, AAA was pretty
successful at shooting them down.

James Linn


I guess you are making a case for never sending fighters after V-1 at all.
Let
the flak do the job where needed and the rest won't hit anything important
at
all. Interesting analysis.

Not what I said at all. But if the choice is to take fighters needed at the
front(not necessarily the case by mid 44), it would be a tough call. At
first the AAA wasn't that effective. But later when the AAA got a good
percentage - you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive
and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against
something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the
target and land harmlessly in a field.

James Linn