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

"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

On 07 Jul 2003 13:51:54 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any single
ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher esteem?

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

No, I don't think so. During the BOB was a Spitfire or Hurricane pilot
held in more esteem because he shot down a bomber rather that an
escort fighter? I don't know, but I wouldn't think so. Granted, the
bomber was the more important target because it could do more damage.
Actually the bomber was probably more dangerous than the V-1, it was
more accurate. Either could do more damage, if they hit their target,
than a 109.
It was a job that had to be done, and some one had to do it.
It was their turn in the barrel.

Walt


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

It was a job that had to be done, and some one had to do it.
It was their turn in the barrel.

Walt

Absolutely. And a whole lot of people on the ground were sure relieved that
they learned the skills necessary to defeat the "Doodlebugs", but only after a
painful time for those within V-1 range.
In the other thread, I noticed that folks disagreed that V-1 chasing was combat
- I am interested in that idea, but I feel it should count as combat, if not in
the actual "victory" totals for the pilots leading to ace status. Its like
Frank Luke and the barrage balloons - the balloons themselves didn't shoot back
and were usually abandoned prior to the attack, but there were inherent dangers
associated with attacking them.
Same for the V-1s, in my mind.

The guys that hunted V-1s did so in a war zone, filled with every danger that a
fighter pilot facing a more traditional opponent would provide. Add to it the
near certainty that a successful attack would include a detonation of about a
ton of torpedo-grade explosive within a couple hundred yards of the nose of
your straining, flat-out racing fighter - as someone else reported, more than
one defending fighter was lost several severely damaged in the attempt. At
night, it was worse - German fighters were in the air at times that the
interceptions were underway, and GCI was hard pressed to sort the friendlies
and ghosts during the V-1 raids due to their low altitudes and fast inbound
tracks. Its a mess for airborne IFF at night and there were definite losses
due to friendly fire as a result. That's aerial combat to me, my friend!

v/r
Gordon

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
esteem?

Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In article , IBM
writes
Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage

And when it did explode, the fighter was flying towards the explosion at
400mph+.

and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Yes, although the idea was not to come in contact (aircraft aluminium
and V-1 steel wings don't mix very well), just disturb the airflow over
the wing, then get out of there before it rolled towards the fighter.

--
John

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:



A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
esteem?



Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

--mike


IBM

_________________________________________________ _____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source




--
Michael J. Dargan
http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~dargan

Mike Dargan wrote:

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:



A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
esteem?



Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

Neither. The recommended procedure was for the fighter to fly parallel to the V-1 and
place the fighter's wingtip several inches to a couple of feet under the V-1's
wingtip. The airflow would cause the V-1 to roll AWAY from the fighter, tumbling the
gyro. It was sometimes necessary for the fighter to bank slightly away from the V-1 to
bring the wings into close enough proximity, but physical contact was not intended.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

Mike Dargan wrote:

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:



A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
esteem?



Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

Neither. The recommended procedure was for the fighter to fly parallel to the V-1 and
place the fighter's wingtip several inches to a couple of feet under the V-1's
wingtip. The airflow would cause the V-1 to roll AWAY from the fighter, tumbling the
gyro. It was sometimes necessary for the fighter to bank slightly away from the V-1 to
bring the wings into close enough proximity, but physical contact was not intended.

Guy

That sounds reasonable, Mike's 'method' sounds sort of
'self-defeating' (big time) to me.
--

-Gord.

Subject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
From: LesB
Date: 7/14/03 8:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time

The favoured method was shooting the thing down. Bee says they would

That way they would bring back GSAP footage to show to their grandkids. (grin)

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