Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#1

Post by stg 44 » 18 Dec 2015, 01:57

If the V 1 missile had been invented early, say entering service in August 1942, which is before the VT fuse and advanced gunnery radar systems that later countered it in 1944 were in significant service, how much of the missile attacks could Britain handle before having to call it quits? Let's say to pay for it the Germans opt not to make the He 177 that they started producing in 1942. So from August on London is subjected to missile attacks during a period when Germany still has aerial recon capabilities during the day to gauge their accuracy, rather than having to rely on turned agents that misdirected fire historically. So these shots are accurately hitting London, RAF/USAAF bombing is much less than it would be later in the war, AAA defenses are much less developed and accurate, and an invasion of the continent isn't going to happen prior to 1944. So could Britain handle the missile strikes for over a year until AAA defenses and bombing could make a dent in the launches? What does Britain have to forego in the meantime to build up defenses? What is the British civilian reaction to the attacks and what is the tipping point that would topple Churchill and potentially convince Britain to exit the war? Also would the missiles change anything to do with Operation Torch?

IMHO the attacks would force a major dislocation of British resources, as they instead have to build up a large AAA and fighter defense against the attacks, while evacuating over a million people from London and forcing the RAF/USAAF to forego bombing Germany to try and shut down the rocket attacks, having even less success than bombing during Crossbow. I'm not sure if there is a tipping point for Britain to exit the war or that it would disrupt North African operations, but it would cause Churchill and Britain in general no amount of discomfort. Churchill might even face a vote of no confidence and lose if the missiles cannot be stopped quickly, especially as many more will get through and land on target, causing much more damage for the same effort than they did in 1944. It might well give the Germans a lot of leeway from bombing in 1942-43 as the RAF changes its focus.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#2

Post by Sheldrake » 18 Dec 2015, 03:51

The answer is no one knows or can know.

The V 1 was a cheap weapon to produce and expensive to stop. Early production of cruise missiles would have been an economic way to wage war.

As with a number of these counter factuals, it assumes that technology arrives two years for one side only.

The RAF did have aircraft capable of catching a V 1 in a dive. The Mosquito, P51A and Spitfire IX were all in service and the Griffon engines Spit XII optim ised for low altitude was about to enter service. Centremetric radar was available, but not in fuzes.

The British were worried by the effect on morale of the V 1 offensive in 1944,. but some of the dip in morale might be attributable to the knowledge that the war would be over and won.


User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#3

Post by stg 44 » 18 Dec 2015, 04:52

Sheldrake wrote:The answer is no one knows or can know.

The V 1 was a cheap weapon to produce and expensive to stop. Early production of cruise missiles would have been an economic way to wage war.

As with a number of these counter factuals, it assumes that technology arrives two years for one side only.

The RAF did have aircraft capable of catching a V 1 in a dive. The Mosquito, P51A and Spitfire IX were all in service and the Griffon engines Spit XII optim ised for low altitude was about to enter service. Centremetric radar was available, but not in fuzes.

The British were worried by the effect on morale of the V 1 offensive in 1944,. but some of the dip in morale might be attributable to the knowledge that the war would be over and won.
V 1 technology was nothing special, it just wasn't pursued before 1942. If the idea is pursued pre-war there is no reason it couldn't be in service in August 1942. The aircraft you mention of course would be used to buzz bomb hunt, but they'd have the serious issue of detonating it, which would knock them out of the air and in a dive tipping isn't an option.

Centimetric radar was available, but it was not in the form of the SCR-584 yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCR-584_radar

V 1 damage was greater historically than the Baby Blitz or anything after the regular Blitz stopped in 1941. That was with a short window where it was able to operate and with a lot of misses thanks to misdirection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Deception

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Early V-1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#4

Post by OpanaPointer » 18 Dec 2015, 08:18

I'm surprised they managed to hit England with the bloody things.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#5

Post by Sheldrake » 18 Dec 2015, 10:20

stg 44 wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:The answer is no one knows or can know.

The V 1 was a cheap weapon to produce and expensive to stop. Early production of cruise missiles would have been an economic way to wage war.

As with a number of these counter factuals, it assumes that technology arrives two years for one side only.

The RAF did have aircraft capable of catching a V 1 in a dive. The Mosquito, P51A and Spitfire IX were all in service and the Griffon engines Spit XII optim ised for low altitude was about to enter service. Centremetric radar was available, but not in fuzes.

The British were worried by the effect on morale of the V 1 offensive in 1944,. but some of the dip in morale might be attributable to the knowledge that the war would be over and won.
V 1 technology was nothing special, it just wasn't pursued before 1942. If the idea is pursued pre-war there is no reason it couldn't be in service in August 1942. The aircraft you mention of course would be used to buzz bomb hunt, but they'd have the serious issue of detonating it, which would knock them out of the air and in a dive tipping isn't an option.

Centimetric radar was available, but it was not in the form of the SCR-584 yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCR-584_radar

V 1 damage was greater historically than the Baby Blitz or anything after the regular Blitz stopped in 1941. That was with a short window where it was able to operate and with a lot of misses thanks to misdirection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Deception
#1 Lots of V 1s were shot down rather than tipped.
#2 It is perfectly possible to tip a wing after a dive. The pilot does not dive onto the target, but uses the "e" gained in the dive to fly fast in level flight.

There are a lot of other branches to this alternative history. The assumption that the Allies would simply fail to respond and do nothing while the Germans terrorized the British population is a fantasy on a par with Hitler's wilder dreams!

For a start, this version of history assumes that the Germans could perfect and mass produce V 1s by mid 1942, building launch sites and developing a launch organisation without the Allies noticing.

Historically the allied discovery of the V 1 was complicated by the parallel development of the V 2. Focus on the V1 might have made it easier to discover early. Even so there was about a year's notice of notice of the Germans developing winged pilot-less missiles. Here are some of the obvious counter measures:-

#1 expedited development of small centemetric radar.

#2 expedited development of jet engines amnd the Gloster meteor

#3 A decision to bomb transportation in France. This decision was not made historically until mid April 1944 and then very reluctantly. OP Crossbow in 1942-43 would have been within escorted fighter distance of the UK and the USAAF might have been spared schweinfurt, and brought the Luftwaffe to battle on more favourable terms than over Germany.

#4 A series of airborne and commando to raids to seize and eliminate the launch sites. An expedited development of Op Overlord in 1943.

#5 Allied cruise missiles to target Germany

#6 Expedited development of the atomic bomb

#7 Allied first use of chemical weapons on Germany
OpanaPointer » Today, 07:18I'm surprised they managed to hit England with the bloody things.
Very true. This highlights another issue. While the pulse jety was known, it took the Germans a while to develop a reliable gyro and control mechanism. One of the biggest delays in the V 1 programme occurred when the USAAF bombed the factory in Kassel by chance.
Last edited by Sheldrake on 18 Dec 2015, 18:40, edited 1 time in total.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#6

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 18 Dec 2015, 14:06

We just did this topic . I'll have to remember where. Earlier V 1 would not have mattered.
They were unreliable to even reach and hit a city sized target. And Allied AAA was highly effectively already , would have even go more effective and numerous. Plus the effect of scattered bomb hits is negligible compared to manned bomber raids and also to affect a country in any strategic way. They never would have been more than a nuisance no matter what.(double neg. oh well)

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#7

Post by stg 44 » 18 Dec 2015, 16:31

ChristopherPerrien wrote:We just did this topic . I'll have to remember where. Earlier V 1 would not have mattered.
They were unreliable to even reach and hit a city sized target. And Allied AAA was highly effectively already , would have even go more effective and numerous. Plus the effect of scattered bomb hits is negligible compared to manned bomber raids and also to affect a country in any strategic way. They never would have been more than a nuisance no matter what.(double neg. oh well)
I checked and couldn't find anything on search otherwise I wouldn't have posted this. In 1942-43 Allied AAA wasn't that effective, even in 1944 it took a while to build up enough of a AAA wall at huge expense to shoot down most of them; that too was a function of the D-day success, which started before the first launch even happened and forced the launches back into a narrower band of viable launch sites that enabled the defenders to concentrate their guns against. With a 1942 launch date and no invasion contracting the launch areas they have a much larger area to defend with less effective AAA.

Ultimately the threat only ended when the launch sites were overrun historically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flyin ... craft_guns
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... es_F_B.png

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#8

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 19 Dec 2015, 13:25

Sheldrake has the key point. The British are going to be as proactive here as OTL. A large scale bombing campaign is certain, and other measures are very likely to be accelerated in development & production.

It is even possible the US JB poject would be accelerated & combat use of a JB type weapon by the Allies occur much sooner than schedulded OTL

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#9

Post by stg 44 » 19 Dec 2015, 17:09

Carl Schwamberger wrote:Sheldrake has the key point. The British are going to be as proactive here as OTL. A large scale bombing campaign is certain, and other measures are very likely to be accelerated in development & production.

It is even possible the US JB poject would be accelerated & combat use of a JB type weapon by the Allies occur much sooner than schedulded OTL
Why would the bombing be any more effective in 1942-43 when the bomber force was much smaller than it was in 1944? Crossbow hit the launch sites hard, but they still kept going:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... g_priority

And how does the JB-2 do anything for the Allies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2
It wasn't used historically for a reason.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#10

Post by thaddeus_c » 19 Dec 2015, 22:00

if deployed earlier would GB be the only target?

they were already shelling Leningrad but possible the additional V 1s might allow closing out that front?

or target Tunis and Malta from Sicily to disrupt Allies? (and save LW losses trying to disrupt them)

(assuming earlier production might reach goal of 3,000 - 5,000 per month)

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#11

Post by stg 44 » 19 Dec 2015, 23:08

thaddeus_c wrote:if deployed earlier would GB be the only target?

they were already shelling Leningrad but possible the additional V 1s might allow closing out that front?

or target Tunis and Malta from Sicily to disrupt Allies? (and save LW losses trying to disrupt them)

(assuming earlier production might reach goal of 3,000 - 5,000 per month)
The V 1 was a lot more expensive than a similar weight of artillery shells. The V 1 wasn't accurate enough from Sicily to Tunis. Hitting London was far more rewarding in terms of the disproportionate Allied response and resources invested to counter them.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#12

Post by maltesefalcon » 20 Dec 2015, 00:04

There would certainly be more cumulative physical damage with the extra time. However this would still be dwarfed relative to conventional bombers.

The biggest impact (no pun intended) was psychological. The concept of a flying automaton exploding in ones back garden was very disquieting.

If the Allies could or did not react quickly, morale would suffer. They would need to pull out all the stops asap.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#13

Post by Sheldrake » 20 Dec 2015, 01:36

stg 44 wrote:
Carl Schwamberger wrote:Sheldrake has the key point. The British are going to be as proactive here as OTL. A large scale bombing campaign is certain, and other measures are very likely to be accelerated in development & production.

It is even possible the US JB poject would be accelerated & combat use of a JB type weapon by the Allies occur much sooner than schedulded OTL
Why would the bombing be any more effective in 1942-43 when the bomber force was much smaller than it was in 1944? Crossbow hit the launch sites hard, but they still kept going:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... g_priority

And how does the JB-2 do anything for the Allies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2
It wasn't used historically for a reason.
The Launch sites may have"kept going" but never delivered anything like the launch rates necessary for the V 1 campaign to have delivered the results Hitler needed. There is a different level of logistics needed to fire enough missiles to be a nuisance and enough to devastate and force a surrender.

Historically Op Crosbow illustrated wasted effort by the Germans and the allies. The Germans wasted vast efforts building concrete launch sites which ultimately functioned as decoys. The weakness of the V 1 and V 2 programme was the railway network - which was never attacked as part of Op Crosbow. In a single month in 1944 the allies wrecked the French and Belgian railway network. A sustained effort in 1942-43 would have eroded V1 supply routes.

The British were an ingenious bunch capable of developing all manner of cunning technological solutions under pressure. Barnes Wallis's Bouncing bomb and Tall boys good examples - the latter killing off the V 2 and V 3 installations in the Pas de Calais. By the end of the war they were looking for an ABM against the V 2.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#14

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 20 Dec 2015, 02:07

stg 44 wrote:[
I checked and couldn't find anything on search otherwise I wouldn't have posted this. In 1942-43 Allied AAA wasn't that effective, even in 1944 it took a while to build up enough of a AAA wall at huge expense to shoot down most of them; that too was a function of the D-day success, which started before the first launch even happened and forced the launches back into a narrower band of viable launch sites that enabled the defenders to concentrate their guns against. With a 1942 launch date and no invasion contracting the launch areas they have a much larger area to defend with less effective AAA.
The topic was embedded in http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1975157 _effectiveness of strategic bombing , you can look a few pages forward and backward


As to a 2 year earlier start, We only considered a reasonable/justifiable 6 months earlier (Jan 44). There was some reason for this "6 months" I forget why.

You go assuming some kind of 2 year earlier occurrence for anything in WWII, it just don't work. Give the USA the atom bomb 2 years earlier. You see? Yes, the V 1 being fairly "simple" and its original design was buried for several years, yes it could have been built earlier.


But a lot of things "could have been" . And in general most of these "could have beens" are outside the bounds of our "what if" parameters. As is almost always true for these "could been beens" they involve both having a time machine (and often a crystal ball), and the opposing side being stupid, and never reacting to any change, or being able to adjust to the other side having a time machine. :lol:

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Early V 1 missile, how much could Britain take?

#15

Post by thaddeus_c » 20 Dec 2015, 06:24

stg 44 wrote:
thaddeus_c wrote:if deployed earlier would GB be the only target?

they were already shelling Leningrad but possible the additional V 1s might allow closing out that front?

or target Tunis and Malta from Sicily to disrupt Allies? (and save LW losses trying to disrupt them)

(assuming earlier production might reach goal of 3,000 - 5,000 per month)
The V 1 was a lot more expensive than a similar weight of artillery shells. The V 1 wasn't accurate enough from Sicily to Tunis. Hitting London was far more rewarding in terms of the disproportionate Allied response and resources invested to counter them.
O.K. fair point. (though better comparison would be with aerial bombs)

however the Soviets couldn't throw up the same magnitude of air defense and closing out siege of Leningrad would have freed up large number of German troops, a military success for V 1 (if adding ? 100? per day to OTL shelling tipped the balance.)

did not say INSTEAD of GB, but whether that would have been the only target. also if earlier enough, and lacking chaos of 1944 production might reach goals of 3,000 to 5,000 per month.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”