London Blitz vs V1

"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

"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

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.

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

"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".

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

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

"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.

..

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

(Eugene Griessel) writes:


IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings
a bell) on the ski-sites?

This was used against the V2 underground factory, as I recall.
"Operation Aphrodite" killed JFK's older brother, Joe Kennedy Jr.

Using such against a ski ramp would be like using a M60 to kill a
fly....

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433