Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?

"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

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.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"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

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.

Or demolish an apartment block in London. It may not have been a rational
decision, but it was certainly a human one.

"James Linn" wrote in message
...



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.


Trouble is it might also hit a chapel and kill 119 people, as
in fact happened at the Guards Chapel in Wellington Barracks

At the end of the day if you arent going to use the fighters
to defend your country why build them ?

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

At the end of the day if you arent going to use the fighters
to defend your country why build them ?

Not the question I was posing - and I said it was a tough call, not that I
had a firm opinion. I think its an interesting discussion.

The question isn't whether to use your fighters, but what to use them on -
V1s, ground attack, air defense. Are you better to try intercepting the
V-1s, or have the fighters escort bombers trying to knock out the V-1
launchers? Which one will help shorten the war? On a mission by mission
basis no way to tell.

James Linn

"James Linn" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

At the end of the day if you arent going to use the fighters
to defend your country why build them ?

Not the question I was posing - and I said it was a tough call, not that I
had a firm opinion. I think its an interesting discussion.

The question isn't whether to use your fighters, but what to use them on -
V1s, ground attack, air defense. Are you better to try intercepting the
V-1s, or have the fighters escort bombers trying to knock out the V-1
launchers? Which one will help shorten the war? On a mission by mission
basis no way to tell.

James Linn



Ultimately the only answer was to overun the area in France from
which they were being launched since the Germans were using
large numbers of mobile launchers.

In the meanwhile the British people would scarcely have tolerated
a situation in which RAF fighters were staying safely on the ground
while V-1's killed thousands of civilians.

Keith

In article , James Linn
writes
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.

The best results against V-1s were achieved when the AA guns were moved
from London to the South coast to shoot them down before crossing it. A
fighter 'no-go' area was created in front of the guns to give them the
ability to fire at anything (previously fighters had got in the way).
The fighters were then used to chase the bombs that passed the gun line.
The radar-proximity AA shell greatly improved the effectiveness of the
guns. There's footage somewhere of a V-1 being shot down, the first 3
shots each get closer than the previous one, the fourth nailed it.

--
John

"James Linn" wrote in message
...

"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

The V1 never was a *tactical* weapon, its only use was to try and to lower
the morale of the Brits, After the heavy bombing they had experienced the V1
or V2 did not have all that bigger impact on the population .

BMC

On the website for an AAA searchlight outfit they talk about an analysis
on the V-1. The conclusion there was that the V-1's cost the allies
about 3.5 times the damage as the cost to make them. Link:

http://www.skylighters.org/

Actual page:

http://www.strandlab.com/buzzbombs/index.html

Art,

recognize the B-26 under the Eifiel Tower?

--
Dana Miller