If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Bernardz" wrote in message news:MPG.1a5aa8ed3b4d2ccc9897f3@news... In article , says... Bernardz wrote in message news:MPG.1a593408a1392c869897ea@news... In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which argued strongly in favour of the V1. The following is a table he produced Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months) ----------------------------------------------------- 1. Cost to Germany ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1 Sorties...................90,000.................8 025 Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons Aircrafts lost............3075....................0 Men lost..................7690....................0 2 Results Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000 Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892 Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2 3. Allied air effort Sorties......................86,800............44, 770 Planes lost..................1260...............351 Men lost.....................805...............2233 For the cost of 1 uncrewed, unrefuelled and unbombladen Lancaster the Germans were getting more than 300 V1s. Furthermore they made little demand on skilled labour or strategic materials. On the negative side they had all the inherent problems of a fairly slow unaimed weapon. Of around 10000 launched at Britain only about 2400 reached the vague proximity of their target area. And many fell fairly harmlessly - aided by British manipulation of intelligence. But as an economic weapon they made much sense and if they had arrived on the scene some months earlier in far greater numbers, when proximity fuzed, radar guided AA was not yet available they would undoubtedly have had a proportionately much larger effect on the prosecution of the war. Agreed. By the way I am in the process of writing a fictional story based on such a scenario WWW.bernardz.20m.com Thanks to Hitler's intervention this did not happen. I am not so sure Hitler was wrong! The V1 could probably have come on- line in 1943 only at a terrific price and a very limited target - Britain. At that time Britain was a minor part of the war. The major war was in the East and he needed resources against Russia. Before 1943, when it looked like Hitler could win the war those resources required could be far better spent on things that mattered like tanks and planes. After 1943, he needed to gain time for a miracle. Maybe the Allies would split. To do that he needed to give the German people hope and vengeance that they could still fire back. That is what these weapons provided. The term "V" used in the "V" weapons was firstly so as to confuse alllied intelligence. The term "V" meant "Veruchs" or experimental. Thus when the Germans made a new aircraft type eg the Arado 234 they might have a V1,V2,V3...V20.... to represent the prototypes and test vehicles 9for variuous engines and armanments) similar to the way the United States uses the term X for its experimental designations. The official RLM (Reichs Luftfahrts Ministerium) designation for the V1 was Fi 103. (A4 for the V2) When the term Vertiedigung was applied it represented the word "Reprisal or Retaliation" rather than the more emotional "Vengence". It has to be remembered that the Germans regarded the bombing of their cities as "Terror bombing" and it was the term they used. Few would rationaly argue against it since the bulk of the casualities were civilian women,children or seniors. W.G.Sebald in his book "on the natural history of destruction" mentions that the allies destroyed records and photogrpahs of the effects of phosphorus because they were so horrific. The Germans also began development of a turbojet engine RLM designation 109-005(TL) for the Fi 103 (V1). The Chief Engineer was Dr Max Adlof Mueller (who had designed succesfull torbojets at junkers and heinkel) and Porsche was given the contreact. With this engine the range of a V1 with full sized warhead was extended from 240km to 700km and speed and altitude also increased. The range of the V1 variant with the smaller warhead was also expected to increase proportionatly out to 1000km or so I expect. Speed and altitude also improved. Such an engine would not have been expensive at all as the engine only needed to opperate for 1.2 hours so alloy steel with a high refractory alloy content would not be required. The normal Argus 109-014 pulse-jet was continiusly tweeked by Argus and would have been capable of 494 mph if its final form if they had of been fitted and would have been harder to destroy. With the fall of France and launch positions the turbojet was needed since air launch of V1s by German bombers was very dangerous due to interception and becuae it was inaccurate. There appear to have been efforts to develop guidence systems for flying bombs: one based in comparing strips of film with a image of the ground using basic TV and electro-optical and electro-mechanical methods. The Germans also succesfully tested a long range air launched glide bombs (BV246) with a radar homing warhead http://www.luft46.com/missile/bv246.html and I wonder if they would have fitted it to the V1? (Probably not the BV246 is a better platform as it is stealthy) I suspect when the Germans began opperations of their jet bombers and jet reconaisence over the British Isles they would have increased V1 accuracy. One of the big problems the Germans had was that they could not opperate succesfull reconaisence over the British Isles untill they had jet aircraft so they could not check they accuracy of their V1s. The German jet bombers (eg Ar 234 ) were capable of using accurate computing bomb sights such as the Lofte 7 and the Egon blind bombing system. So in any future bombing campaigne I think the V1 would have been an area bombing (OK terror weapon) and irritation weapon with the jet bombers being used where accuracy was required. The most sensible use of the Jets however would have been to harras RAF bombers all they way back to their bases. The 466mph Ar 234B was capable of opperation over the UK and could avoid interception (just) but versions such as the Ar 234C (4 x BMW003A engines in lieu of the 2 x jumo 004B4) was capable of 566mph (mach not thrust limited) and thus beyond anything that could reasonaly intercept the aircraft including a F80 starfighter or developed meteor . The other versions with Jumo 004D, BMW003C, BMW003D or HeS 11 engines were also difficult to intercept. Eugene Griessel -- A terrorist kills for publicity. 24th saying of Bernard |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message om... Bernardz wrote in message news:MPG.1a593408a1392c869897ea@news... In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which argued strongly in favour of the V1. The following is a table he produced Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months) ----------------------------------------------------- 1. Cost to Germany ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1 Sorties...................90,000.................8 025 (error: 8892) Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons Aircrafts lost............3075....................0 (error: 80, from air launches) Men lost..................7690....................0 2 Results Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000 Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892 (error: figure is dead plus wounded, based on 6,184 dead/correction to 12,000 dead= close to 29,000 total) Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2 3. Allied air effort Sorties......................86,800............44, 770 Planes lost..................1260...............351 Men lost.....................805...............2233 Any comments! 34,000 V-1s were produced by Fiesler, Volkswagen, and the Mittelwerke. Unit cost was RM 5000. Of all those produced only around 5000 found their targets in the UK and Belgium. That makes it 20% effective of those launched, the remaining number found stockpiled. It was a cost effective weapon compared to a Mark IV tank (RM 100,000) but militarily of little value. It was of the same miliary value as the city flattening population targeting raids of Bomber Command. (I know that the RAF had the possibility of accuracy due to H2S etc latter in the war however the amount of collateral damage, the million plus killed and the type of munitions gives these the character of city flattening raids ) A V1 however did not (yet) have the possibility of accuracy which required a more developed guidence system. No doubt that sort of system would evenutally have evolved, several systems were under consideration, and these would been used for special missions. As a psychological/nuisance weapon it did well but did not in any way deter the Allies from bombing Germany and grabbing land. There were several points of technical decision which may have won Germany the war, at least untill the atomic bomb. 1 Not abandoning their microwave and magnetron research team which had produced low power but stable magnetrons. Even if they failed to produce a full powered radar the team would have rapidly been able to respond to the discovery of the British Magnetrons. Hell the Japanese beat the Brtish to multicavity magnetrons by 1 year (but failed to realise the significance or tell the Germans) 2 The Type XXI u-boat needed to be advanced by at least 1 maybe 2 years. This is not inconceivable since officers had warned Doenitz directly from the dangers of radar to submarines in 1934 when experimental radars had detected u-boat conning towers. At this point a focus on tactics and technology to produce greater underwater emphasis on subamarines could have been undertaken. The older u-boats were designed to attack on the surface and use their underwater abilities to hide. The type XXI had the speed and range to penetrate convoys and retreat almost unnoticed. Its passive sonar allowed it to track and range targets and evade hostile destroyers. While opperating its creeper motors at 6 knots it was effectively undetectable. 3 The jet engine needed to be advanced by 6-12 months. This is a little more hard to immagine as the German Jet engine program was fairly well thought through (in the sense that unlike the British they had one) however they did spread their resources rather thinly at heinkel. 4 When their "Duppel" or chaff experiments showed the vulnerability of German radar to foil strips "Window" they could have stared countermeasure work and dispersed their frequencies immediatly rather than get obsessively secret and thus prevent the development of jam resistance. The Germans would have done better to replace the amatol warhead with a radiological warhead. London and Antwerp would have then been contaminated and abandoned. I doubt it. That assumes that the Germans or Nazis did not have any moral or ethical limitations which they did. In anycase such actions would have lead to reprisals: the Germans would have assumed that the allies were capable of delivering similar attacks either immediatly or given a few months time and the Grmans were capable of working this out. The germans had nerve gas but did not use it. Rob |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article MPG.1a5bef243ceb08659897f9@news,
Bernardz wrote: In article , ex401 @freenet.carleton.ca says... Afternoon all, I've been trying to do a little research on this General Bissel and his paper on the V1 attacks, I have to admit defeat so-far. Does anyone have any information on him? I take it this is not the American General because the name is incorrect and he would have had his hands full out in the Asian Theater at the time. Major General Clayton Bissel had become head of Military Intelligence in Europe by March of 1944. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
When the term Vertiedigung was applied it represented the word "Reprisal or Retaliation" rather than the more emotional "Vengence". Thanks for that! When I was working in Germany in 1958, as an American involved in an automobile accident I didn't go through the other guy's insurance company to get reimbursed. Instead I applied to what I remember as the: Amtfeurvertiedigungslassen Which is to say: Bureau for Reparations Payments (again, that's approximate). How pleasant to think that I was getting money from the nephew of the buzz bomb all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"The Enlightenment" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... When the term Vertiedigung was applied it represented the word "Reprisal or Retaliation" rather than the more emotional "Vengence". The term applied to the V-weapons was Vergeltung which indeed means "reprisal" or "retaliation". Verteidigung translates to "defense". |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
It was an "Amt für Verteidigungslasten" ("bureau for defense costs"). Being
part of a local authority, it's main task is to reimburse civilians for damage caused by Allied or German forces (in a maneuver for example). "Cub Driver" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... When the term Vertiedigung was applied it represented the word "Reprisal or Retaliation" rather than the more emotional "Vengence". Thanks for that! When I was working in Germany in 1958, as an American involved in an automobile accident I didn't go through the other guy's insurance company to get reimbursed. Instead I applied to what I remember as the: Amtfeurvertiedigungslassen Which is to say: Bureau for Reparations Payments (again, that's approximate). How pleasant to think that I was getting money from the nephew of the buzz bomb all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
It was an "Amt für Verteidigungslasten" ("bureau for defense costs"). Being part of a local authority, it's main task is to reimburse civilians for damage caused by Allied or German forces (in a maneuver for example). By golly, you're right. It was a U.S. Army truck that came across the autobahn median strip. Funny I'd forgotten that detail, while remembering (more or less) the Amt that paid the damage. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Eugene Griessel" wrote in message om... From early 1944 onwards there was a concerted effort to knock out the launching sites which required precision bombing ie medium/low/dive bombing. The flak did the rest IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings a bell) on the ski-sites? A vast effort was expended trying to knock these out and perhaps an even greater one on the modified sites. Something over 60000 bombing sorties and over 100000 tons of bombs. I'm speaking from a poor memory now - that may include the bombing of the concrete V2 bunkers and even the V3 site. Interestingly enough the Brits also seem to have developed the first AWACS a/c (a converted Wellington with a fixed GCI radar and plotting system on board) to support Mosquito night fighters that were out hunting He 111s launching V1s. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
..
From early 1944 onwards there was a concerted effort to knock out the launching sites which required precision bombing ie medium/low/dive bombing. The flak did the rest IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings a bell) on the ski-sites? Aphrodite program. A vast effort was expended trying to knock these out and perhaps an even greater one on the modified sites. Something over 60000 bombing sorties and over 100000 tons of bombs. I'm speaking from a poor memory now - that may include the bombing of the concrete V2 bunkers and even the V3 site. There was more than one V-3 site other than the one in France. The Germans fired two successful smaller-version V-3s from a railway line as well as the test gun at Misdroy. Antwerp was the target of the railway guns and could not respond to the shelling from 40+ miles. Rob |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1982 "The Molson Golden London International Air Show" Commemorative Pin | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | April 21st 04 06:33 AM |
French block airlift of British troops to Basra | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 202 | October 24th 03 06:48 PM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |
PFC Lynch gets a Bronze Star? | Brian | Military Aviation | 77 | August 2nd 03 11:15 AM |