Re: launching V-1s from an aircraft carrier

[Gordon]

Setting the gyros would be the difficult part. The V-1 took quite a while to
set and ship's movement would cause a real problem.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Dave Kearton]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
| Setting the gyros would be the difficult part. The V-1 took quite a while
to
| set and ship's movement would cause a real problem.
|
| v/r
| Gordon
| <====(A+C====>
| USN SAR Aircrew
|
|



This is the 'wooden hammer' concerto ?


Always amused me, beating a flying bomb with sticks, has a certain
'duck & rabbit season' feel to it.




Cheers

Dave Kearton

[robert arndt]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...
> Setting the gyros would be the difficult part. The V-1 took quite a while to
> set and ship's movement would cause a real problem.
>
> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
> "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
> "Nothing but my forehead, sir."


Not overly complicated. Several test V-1s were actually fired from
U-boats in the Baltic late in the war. After the war both the US and
USSR developed cruise missiles based on the V-1 that could be launched
from both subs and aircraft carriers (see Regulas).
Here's some other info on Germany's U-boat rocket plans:
http://www.prinzeugen.com/V2.htm

Rob

[Cub Driver]

Glen Edwards was involved in a test at Wendover in the summer of 1945,
in which two V-1s were fired from underwing mounts on a B-17. This was
part of the run-up to the invasion of Japan, like the preparations for
the Twin Mustang (with which he was also involved).

So it would seem that stand-off missiles a heavy bomber was the
direction in which the USAAF was looking.

(Northrop was at that time building its own version of the V-1.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Ignoring the political, economic, and strategic issues around the matter,
> what would have been the technical problems involved in launching V-1s
from
> a completed CV Graf Zeppelin?
>

Mostly keeping the ship afloat, the RN and RAF would make a
maximum effort against such a target.

> I assume one would be limited to city-sized targets; would the sort of
> catapult fitted to GZ have been capable of hefting a V-1 into the air?
>

It wouldnt need one, the ship was large enough to mount a
launching ramp on.

Of course it wouldnt have been able to hit anything worth a
damm unless very well stabilised.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Glen Edwards was involved in a test at Wendover in the summer of 1945,
> in which two V-1s were fired from underwing mounts on a B-17. This was
> part of the run-up to the invasion of Japan, like the preparations for
> the Twin Mustang (with which he was also involved).
>
> So it would seem that stand-off missiles a heavy bomber was the
> direction in which the USAAF was looking.
>

The Luftwaffe launched V-1's from He-111's during the war
and the US was already developing stand off weapons such
as the Bat Bomb

Keith

[Simon Robbins]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Yep, although if the UK had been removed from hostilities, it might just
> about have been feasible to get a GZ into position to launch some sort of
> Doolittle-type sneak raid on the USEC.

I saw a documentary that said the Germans were building a submersible
trailer for a U-boat that could launch a V-2. Plan being to tow hem across
the Atlantic and launch into the United States.

Si

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

In the 1950s we regularly launched the Regulus missile from
aircraft carriers, cruisers or submarines. The Regulus had
the same turbojet engine as did the T-33 [T-2V] advanced
pilot trainer of the 1950s and carried a nuclear warhead. It
was command controlled from either the launching ship or
from our FJ-3D carrier based fighter planes.

WDA

end



"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Ignoring the political, economic, and strategic issues
around the matter,
> what would have been the technical problems involved in
launching V-1s from
> a completed CV Graf Zeppelin?
>
> I assume one would be limited to city-sized targets; would
the sort of
> catapult fitted to GZ have been capable of hefting a V-1
into the air?
>
> --
> Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
> De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
> De quelles loques ce turqe coin.
> Et ne d'anes ni rennes,
> Ecuries des cures d'Oc.
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Blue Max" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > Yep, although if the UK had been removed from hostilities, it might just
> > about have been feasible to get a GZ into position to launch some sort
of
> > Doolittle-type sneak raid on the USEC.
>
> I saw a documentary that said the Germans were building a submersible
> trailer for a U-boat that could launch a V-2. Plan being to tow hem across
> the Atlantic and launch into the United States.
>
> Si
>

Yeah I've seen the reports too, the Nazis were full of great ideas to waste
invaluable resources and u-boats, I suppose we should be thankful
they didnt get round to sensible projects like actually training enough
pilots
for all the planes they built.

Keith

[vicky89]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message >...
> "The Blue Max" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > Yep, although if the UK had been removed from hostilities, it might just
> > about have been feasible to get a GZ into position to launch some sort of
> > Doolittle-type sneak raid on the USEC.
>
> I saw a documentary that said the Germans were building a submersible
> trailer for a U-boat that could launch a V-2.

They quite possibly did. According to reports in 1944, three U-boats
U-24, U-9 and U-19 equipped with rocket launchers were allegedly
deployed against Soviet harbor facilities and moored ships during the
German retreat. If this is true it was the first combat use of a
submarine-launched missile.

[Blinky the Shark]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "vicky89" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
> >...
>> > "The Blue Max" > wrote in message
>> > s.com...
>> > > Yep, although if the UK had been removed from hostilities, it might
> just
>> > > about have been feasible to get a GZ into position to launch some sort
> of
>> > > Doolittle-type sneak raid on the USEC.

>> > I saw a documentary that said the Germans were building a submersible
>> > trailer for a U-boat that could launch a V-2.

>> They quite possibly did. According to reports in 1944, three U-boats
>> U-24, U-9 and U-19 equipped with rocket launchers were allegedly
>> deployed against Soviet harbor facilities and moored ships during the
>> German retreat. If this is true it was the first combat use of a
>> submarine-launched missile.

> It would have to be a dammed small missile.

> Those were type IIb boats and at only 140 ft long and displacing
> around 300 tons they didnt have a lot of disposable space.

> If they fired anything bigger than a Panzerschreck I'd be amazed.

Some interesting info here:

http://www.prinzeugen.com/V2.htm

--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
Spam: The Boulder Pledge http://snurl.com/bpledge
Digest: Best of Internet Oracularities http://snurl.com/dig_oracle

[Keith Willshaw]

"Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:

>
> > Those were type IIb boats and at only 140 ft long and displacing
> > around 300 tons they didnt have a lot of disposable space.
>
> > If they fired anything bigger than a Panzerschreck I'd be amazed.
>
> Some interesting info here:
>
> http://www.prinzeugen.com/V2.htm
>

So they jury rigged a small tactical rocket launcher
on the decks of three small coastal submarines, an act
born of desperation no doubt since all 3 boats were destroyed
when the Soviets overran Konstanza in August/Sept 1944

U-9 was sunk by aircraft at Konstanza
U-19 was scuttled off Turkey in Sept 1944
U-24 was scuttled at Konstanza

Keith

[robert arndt]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message >...
> "The Blue Max" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > Yep, although if the UK had been removed from hostilities, it might just
> > about have been feasible to get a GZ into position to launch some sort of
> > Doolittle-type sneak raid on the USEC.
>
> I saw a documentary that said the Germans were building a submersible
> trailer for a U-boat that could launch a V-2. Plan being to tow hem across
> the Atlantic and launch into the United States.
>
> Si

Yes, Prufstand XII of which one was actually constructed plus two
others nearing completion at Stettin. Russians built some of the towed
missile launchers after the war.

Rob

[Tuollaf43]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> > > If they fired anything bigger than a Panzerschreck I'd be amazed.
> >
> > Some interesting info here:
> >
> > http://www.prinzeugen.com/V2.htm
> >
>
> So they jury rigged a small tactical rocket launcher
> on the decks of three small coastal submarines, an act
> born of desperation no doubt since all 3 boats were destroyed
> when the Soviets overran Konstanza in August/Sept 1944
>
> U-9 was sunk by aircraft at Konstanza
> U-19 was scuttled off Turkey in Sept 1944
> U-24 was scuttled at Konstanza
>
> Keith

Well the rockets launchers certainly seemed to be larger than a
Panzerschreck.
Now we come to the important part - were you amazed (as you said you
would be) when you read that?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
m...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> <snip>
> > > > If they fired anything bigger than a Panzerschreck I'd be amazed.
> > >
> > > Some interesting info here:
> > >
> > > http://www.prinzeugen.com/V2.htm
> > >
> >
> > So they jury rigged a small tactical rocket launcher
> > on the decks of three small coastal submarines, an act
> > born of desperation no doubt since all 3 boats were destroyed
> > when the Soviets overran Konstanza in August/Sept 1944
> >
> > U-9 was sunk by aircraft at Konstanza
> > U-19 was scuttled off Turkey in Sept 1944
> > U-24 was scuttled at Konstanza
> >
> > Keith
>
> Well the rockets launchers certainly seemed to be larger than a
> Panzerschreck.
> Now we come to the important part - were you amazed (as you said you
> would be) when you read that?

Yep , its always nice to learn something new.

Keith

[Tuollaf43]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> Yep , its always nice to learn something new.
>
> Keith

Well thats a relief. You know you were in great danger of becoming an
Hermoine Granger there.

You always seem to have a opinion on every subject. Backed by three
references. And whats worse is, you'd be right most of the time.

[Guy Alcala]

Tuollaf43 wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> <snip>
> > Yep , its always nice to learn something new.
> >
> > Keith
>
> Well thats a relief. You know you were in great danger of becoming an
> Hermoine Granger there.
>
> You always seem to have a opinion on every subject. Backed by three
> references. And whats worse is, you'd be right most of the time.

Well honestly, if you devoted as much attention as Keith does to reading "The Standard Book of Flying (Grades 1 through
7)," "Rec.Aviation.Military: A History," "Aerobatics Through the Ages," and "Fantastic Bombers and Where to Find Them,"
among others, you'd know nearly as much as Keith does ;-)

Guy

[Gordon McLaughlin]

To judge from the types of aircraft developed for the Graf Zeppelin, the
catapults should have been able to launch a V1 unless it weighed much more
than, say, a Ju87.

What does the French quotation at the end of your message mean? Is it in
the Languedoc dialect? Where is it from?

Gordon McLaughlin

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Ignoring the political, economic, and strategic issues around the matter,
> what would have been the technical problems involved in launching V-1s
from
> a completed CV Graf Zeppelin?
>
> I assume one would be limited to city-sized targets; would the sort of
> catapult fitted to GZ have been capable of hefting a V-1 into the air?
>
> --
> Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
> De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
> De quelles loques ce turqe coin.
> Et ne d'anes ni rennes,
> Ecuries des cures d'Oc.
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Gordon McLaughlin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > To judge from the types of aircraft developed for the Graf Zeppelin, the
> > catapults should have been able to launch a V1 unless it weighed much
more
> > than, say, a Ju87.
>
> That's what I figure, as long as there's no compelling other reason (like
> setting up the compass, for instance).
>
> My reason for asking was that I'm programming an old PC wargame to
simulate
> a Doolittle raid on New York in about 1943-4 by a pair of German CVs. The
> assumptions are that the Commonwealth and USSR have capitulated in
> succession, the IJN is in need of a diversion, and the two German CVs,
which
> can't fight a US CV, are instead launching the most irritating raid
possible
> that's sure to force the USN to pull carriers out of the Pacific.
>

If the commonwealth has capitulated why arent you launching attacks
from Canada ?

> Assuming they can do 25 to 30 knots for 10 hours or so and the V-1s can
fly
> about 250 miles, they could presumably approach during daylight, launch at
> dusk, and retreat, thus ensuring that they're out of range of effective
> land-based air throughout.

Hardly. Virtually any land based twin or 4 engined bombers could
reach them with escort from P-38's. The catalina's would pick them
up a long way out.

> All they have to worry about is submarines, so I
> figure one carries a normal air group and the other the V-1s. Ideally, if
a
> V-1 could be fired without reconfiguring the whole flight deck, they both
> would. I'd imagine you could flat-pack a V-1 quite small.
>

Why dont they have to wonder about the US Atlantic fleet ?

Keith

[The Blue Max]

"Gordon McLaughlin" > wrote in message
...
> To judge from the types of aircraft developed for the Graf Zeppelin, the
> catapults should have been able to launch a V1 unless it weighed much more
> than, say, a Ju87.

That's what I figure, as long as there's no compelling other reason (like
setting up the compass, for instance).

My reason for asking was that I'm programming an old PC wargame to simulate
a Doolittle raid on New York in about 1943-4 by a pair of German CVs. The
assumptions are that the Commonwealth and USSR have capitulated in
succession, the IJN is in need of a diversion, and the two German CVs, which
can't fight a US CV, are instead launching the most irritating raid possible
that's sure to force the USN to pull carriers out of the Pacific.

Assuming they can do 25 to 30 knots for 10 hours or so and the V-1s can fly
about 250 miles, they could presumably approach during daylight, launch at
dusk, and retreat, thus ensuring that they're out of range of effective
land-based air throughout. All they have to worry about is submarines, so I
figure one carries a normal air group and the other the V-1s. Ideally, if a
V-1 could be fired without reconfiguring the whole flight deck, they both
would. I'd imagine you could flat-pack a V-1 quite small.

> What does the French quotation at the end of your message mean? Is it in
> the Languedoc dialect? Where is it from?

You have to read it aloud.

> > Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?

hickory, dickory, dock

> > De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.

the mouse ran up the clock

> > De quelles loques ce turqe coin.

the clock struck one

> > Et ne d'anes ni rennes,

and down he ran

> > Ecuries des cures d'Oc.

hickory dickory dock.

[The Blue Max]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote

> If the commonwealth has capitulated why arent you launching attacks
> from Canada ?

I'm assuming the commonwealth is neutral, like Vichy France..

> > Assuming they can do 25 to 30 knots for 10 hours or so and the V-1s can
> fly
> > about 250 miles, they could presumably approach during daylight, launch
at
> > dusk, and retreat, thus ensuring that they're out of range of effective
> > land-based air throughout.
>
> Hardly. Virtually any land based twin or 4 engined bombers could
> reach them with escort from P-38's. The catalina's would pick them
> up a long way out.

The operative word is "effective".

> > All they have to worry about is submarines, so I
> > figure one carries a normal air group and the other the V-1s. Ideally,
if
> a
> > V-1 could be fired without reconfiguring the whole flight deck, they
both
> > would. I'd imagine you could flat-pack a V-1 quite small.
> >
>
> Why dont they have to wonder about the US Atlantic fleet ?

How many CVs did it consist of? Not much else is going to catch them.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"The Blue Max" > writes:
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
>
>> If the commonwealth has capitulated why arent you launching attacks
>> from Canada ?
>
> I'm assuming the commonwealth is neutral, like Vichy France..
>
>> > Assuming they can do 25 to 30 knots for 10 hours or so and the V-1s can
>> fly
>> > about 250 miles, they could presumably approach during daylight, launch
> at
>> > dusk, and retreat, thus ensuring that they're out of range of effective
>> > land-based air throughout.
>>
>> Hardly. Virtually any land based twin or 4 engined bombers could
>> reach them with escort from P-38's. The catalina's would pick them
>> up a long way out.
>
> The operative word is "effective".
>
>> > All they have to worry about is submarines, so I
>> > figure one carries a normal air group and the other the V-1s. Ideally,
> if
>> a
>> > V-1 could be fired without reconfiguring the whole flight deck, they
> both
>> > would. I'd imagine you could flat-pack a V-1 quite small.
>> >
>>
>> Why dont they have to wonder about the US Atlantic fleet ?
>
> How many CVs did it consist of? Not much else is going to catch them.

In late '43->'44, a bucketload, if you're willing to count CVEs.
There were quite a few ASW Hunter-killer groups that were all over teh
Atlantic. Not 30 kt ships, but perfectly capable of carrying and
launching strike aircraft. A typical CVE airgroup was a Squadron of
FM-2s, and a Squadron of TBMs, about 35 aircraft in all. They did
carry weapons for Anti-ship as well as Anti-sub combat, and had their
own Destroer Flotilla attached.
V-1s, BTW, didn't make their first operational shots until mid '44.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[The Blue Max]

"William Hughes" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:23:44 GMT, in rec.aviation.military "The Blue Max"
> > wrote:
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
> >
> > >
> > > Why dont they have to wonder about the US Atlantic fleet ?
> >
> > How many CVs did it consist of? Not much else is going to catch them.
>
> During WWII, Atlantic Fleet only had one full time fleet carrier (sort
of) -
> CV-4 RANGER. CV-5 YORKTOWN moved to the Pacific in December '41. CV-7 WASP
was
> there until early 1942, when she transferred to the Pacific. The rest of
the
> U.S. carrier presence in the Atlantic consisted primarily of the SANGAMON
and
> BOGUE class escort carriers, with a few CASABLANCA and COMMENCEMENT BAY
class
> ships.

That's what I figured. The USN didn't acquire really huge numbers of CVs
till late 43 / early 44 IIRC, which is why the appearance of two in the
Atlantic would have been such a pain.

In fact Germany contemplated 9 CVx at various times, but if they'd actually
built them I suspect the USN would have noticed and done something about
it...


--
Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
De quelles loques ce turqe coin.
Et ne d'anes ni rennes,
Ecuries des cures d'Oc.

[William Hughes]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:22:43 -0400, in rec.aviation.military
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

> In late '43->'44, a bucketload, if you're willing to count CVEs.
> There were quite a few ASW Hunter-killer groups that were all over teh
> Atlantic. Not 30 kt ships, but perfectly capable of carrying and

SANGAMON - 18 knots
BOGUE - 18 knots
CASABLANCA - 19 knots
COMMENCEMENT BAY - 19 knots

> launching strike aircraft. A typical CVE airgroup was a Squadron of
> FM-2s, and a Squadron of TBMs, about 35 aircraft in all. They did

SANGAMON - 30 aircraft
BOGUE - 28 aircraft
CASABLANCA - 28 aircraft
COMMENCEMENT BAY - 33 aircraft

At the time, naval aircraft squadrons usually numbered 18 aircraft. CVE air
groups were split approximately 4:6 (fighters:torpedo planes/bombers), resulting
in a composite squadron (VC) of 12 fighters and 18 torpedo planes/bombers.

> carry weapons for Anti-ship as well as Anti-sub combat, and had their
> own Destroer Flotilla attached.

Three to six assorted destroyers and destroyer escorts, usually. When CVE-60 USS
Guadalcanal captured U-505, her escort consisted of DE-133 USS Pillsbury, DE-134
USS Pope, DE-135 USS Flaherty, DE-149 USS Chatelain and DE-665 USS Jenks. Her
air group was Composite Squadron Eight (VC-8).

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
>
> > If the commonwealth has capitulated why arent you launching attacks
> > from Canada ?
>
> I'm assuming the commonwealth is neutral, like Vichy France..
>
> > > Assuming they can do 25 to 30 knots for 10 hours or so and the V-1s
can
> > fly
> > > about 250 miles, they could presumably approach during daylight,
launch
> at
> > > dusk, and retreat, thus ensuring that they're out of range of
effective
> > > land-based air throughout.
> >
> > Hardly. Virtually any land based twin or 4 engined bombers could
> > reach them with escort from P-38's. The catalina's would pick them
> > up a long way out.
>
> The operative word is "effective".
>

B-25's were very effective in the Solomons

> > > All they have to worry about is submarines, so I
> > > figure one carries a normal air group and the other the V-1s. Ideally,
> if
> > a
> > > V-1 could be fired without reconfiguring the whole flight deck, they
> both
> > > would. I'd imagine you could flat-pack a V-1 quite small.
> > >
> >
> > Why dont they have to wonder about the US Atlantic fleet ?
>
> How many CVs did it consist of? Not much else is going to catch them.
>

The Ranger, Yorktown and Wasp as of Dec 7 1941

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "William Hughes" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:23:44 GMT, in rec.aviation.military "The Blue
Max"
> > > wrote:
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why dont they have to wonder about the US Atlantic fleet ?
> > >
> > > How many CVs did it consist of? Not much else is going to catch them.
> >
> > During WWII, Atlantic Fleet only had one full time fleet carrier (sort
> of) -
> > CV-4 RANGER. CV-5 YORKTOWN moved to the Pacific in December '41. CV-7
WASP
> was
> > there until early 1942, when she transferred to the Pacific. The rest of
> the
> > U.S. carrier presence in the Atlantic consisted primarily of the
SANGAMON
> and
> > BOGUE class escort carriers, with a few CASABLANCA and COMMENCEMENT BAY
> class
> > ships.
>
> That's what I figured. The USN didn't acquire really huge numbers of CVs
> till late 43 / early 44 IIRC, which is why the appearance of two in the
> Atlantic would have been such a pain.
>

You are making several false assumptions here, the biggest of these
is that the USN would have the same dispositions in your
fantasy world as in real life. It emphatically would not, as its
history show it reacts to the threats posed. In 1941 because
the Kriegsmarine was largely contained it was able to strip
many units from the Atlantic fleet to bolster the Pacific, indeed
even the Brtish carrier Victorious was temporarily attached to the
Pacific carrier force in 1942.

Keith


> In fact Germany contemplated 9 CVx at various times, but if they'd
actually
> built them I suspect the USN would have noticed and done something about
> it...
>
>
> --
> Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
> De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
> De quelles loques ce turqe coin.
> Et ne d'anes ni rennes,
> Ecuries des cures d'Oc.
>
>
>
>

[The Blue Max]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote

> In late '43->'44, a bucketload, if you're willing to count CVEs.
> There were quite a few ASW Hunter-killer groups that were all over teh
> Atlantic.

Presumably in view of the U-boat campaign, which I have here assumed isn't
happening.

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
>
> > > The operative word is "effective".
> > >
> >
> > B-25's were very effective in the Solomons
>
> Not at 400 miles against CVs, they weren't.
>

400 miles is beyond the range of a V-1, at 200 miles they'd
be very effective. Consider the Battle of the Bismarck Sea of early March
1943.

USAAF B-17's and B-25s along with Australian Beauforts and Beaufighters took
part in coordinated and repeated attacks on a Japanese convoy headed from
Rabaul to reinforce their forces based at Lae, with P-38s and P-40s flying
top cover.

Out of the original convoy of eight destroyers and eight cargo vessels that
had
departed Rabaul, all the transports and four of the destroyers were sunk or
beached.

> > > How many CVs did it consist of? Not much else is going to catch them.
> > >
> >
> > The Ranger, Yorktown and Wasp as of Dec 7 1941
>
> 2 years earlier than I'm thinking.
>

They didnt evaporate in the meantime and a **** load of CVE's
were built in the meantime.

> I'm not suggesting this woudl have happened. I'm just interested in what
it
> would have taken to ensure any such raid would fail. My guess is a minimum
> of 6 CVs plus a lot of land-based air, which would be a useful deduction
> from the PTO from the IJN's perspective.
>
> V-1s make more sense than a conventional raid because your CVs don't have
to
> loiter waiting for the strike force to return. They just launch and
retreat.
> Any hits on New York get you lots of victory points.
>
>

And almost certainly lose both carriers. The Doolittle raid was possible
because the Japanese didnt have effective Ocean surveillance aircraft
equipped with radar. The USA did have such assets in 1943, moreover
they had bases in Iceland and Greenland.

Keith

[The Blue Max]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote

> 400 miles is beyond the range of a V-1,

The V-1's range was presumably somewhat fungible depending on how far from
the target it started.

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/WWII/v1/v1_info/vi_info.htm

suggests that the empty weight was 815kg, the warhead was 850kg, and the
total laden weight was 2180kg. I am assuming that the 515kg difference
between the empty and warhead-inclusive weights was the fuel; and that the
standard as-used flying bomb starts out fully-fuelled and flies till empty.
Keeping things nice and simple, that 515kg of fuel was enough to fly an
average weight of 1923 kg (mean of launch and 'landing' weights) about 200
miles, historically.

If the warhead can be halved in weight and the saving applied to increase
the fuel load, this roughly doubles the weapon's range (unless the fuel is a
lot bulkier than the HE warhead). I make this assumption because if 515kg of
fuel would fly 1923kg 200 miles, 940kg of fuel should fly 1710kgs 400 miles
because you have ~83% more fuel and ~11% less weight.

50 or so 425kg warheads arriving in Manhattan are still going to royally
**** off US public opinion.

Assuming the 2 CVs can do 25 knots in north Atlantic weather for 10 to 12
hours without mishap, and that the night lasts that long, then at dusk (1800
say) they'd be 500 miles from NY. They advance at flank speed until 2200, at
which point they're in range. They launch the V-1s pronto and reverse course
just as the first ones are landing. The search planes start looking for them
ASAP but they have no realistic chance of picking them up until dawn. By
then the retreating CVs are 500 miles away again.

Any outbound strike from the US mainland is looking at a tail chase. Even if
the PBY (or whatever) spots them at daybreak, doesn't get shot down, and
vectors (eg) B25s directly onto them, the bombers are only going to overhaul
them at a net 200 knots. This means a 2.5 hour pursuit, i.e. the target will
be probably 600 miles away even if everything goes exactly right for the
pursuers. Even then, I'd be really surprised if 2 CVs would be much troubled
by whatever a B-25 could deliver at 600 miles; or even 400 miles, assuming
standard-range V-1s.

> at 200 miles they'd
> be very effective. Consider the Battle of the Bismarck Sea of early March
> 1943.

I'm aware of the Bismarck Sea. I see little in common between that action,
against a 9-knot convoy with no organic air cover in the weather,
visibility, and sea state conditions of the PTO, with the above.

> They didnt evaporate in the meantime and a **** load of CVE's
> were built in the meantime.

In the original timeline, yes. I'm assuming that Germany reaches terms with
Britain in 1940. The latter withdraws from Iceland as there's no U-boat
campaign, and German-occupied Denmark would probably insist. Germany then
defeats Russia and has no need to suspend work on her 2 CVs, which have
until 1943 or 1944 to work up in the Baltic. The V-1 programme proceeds
unhindered by Allied bombing and is ready by late 1943.

At this point the IJN is in need of a diversion to buy time. Germany
provides this via the above. No U-boat campaign and thus no need to deploy
or even build CVEs to the Atlantic. Obviosuly Germany would be stupid to
attack the USA, but doing it per the above is arguably less stupid than what
she actually did, i.e. declare war while still fighting the Commonwealth and
USSR.


--
Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
De quelles loques ce turqe coin.
Et ne d'anes ni rennes,
Ecuries des cures d'Oc.

[steve gallacci]

Allied bombings had little to do with delays in getting V-1s
operational, so presuming an early debut of them is unrealistic. (same
thing with jets, buggy and immature technology combined with limits in
the industrial base kept them delayed) Then, the things were terribly
inaccurate. At their extreme range, hitting greater New York, even less
Manhattan, would have been iffy. Any attack would have been a dramatic
propaganda blow, but serve no useful military purpose. And finally, you
would not need a carrier to launch them. Any moderate size ship could be
fitted with simple fold out launch rails, they would only need to extend
about 15 ft away from the hull and only need to handle a couple of tons,
a simple installation. But by '43/'44, the Atlantic was an Allied lake
and any German surface types wouldn't have a chance. I love "what if"
scenarios, but let's keep a little realism to it.

[Keith Willshaw]

"steve gallacci" > wrote in message
...
> Allied bombings had little to do with delays in getting V-1s
> operational, so presuming an early debut of them is unrealistic. (same
> thing with jets, buggy and immature technology combined with limits in
> the industrial base kept them delayed)

More to the point the project wasnt even sanctioned until June 1942
and then only as a result of the unsustainable losses that had forced
the Luftwaffe to abandon its air attacks on the UK

The bombing of Peenemunde didnt happen until August 1943
so it hardly be claimed that it would have been in service earlier
had it never happened. Indeed bereft of the need to build a
weapon to attack London its hard to imagine it would have
ever been built at all.

Keith

[The Blue Max]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote

> More to the point the project wasnt even sanctioned until June 1942
> and then only as a result of the unsustainable losses that had forced
> the Luftwaffe to abandon its air attacks on the UK

The weapon still flew by December 1942.


--
Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
De quelles loques ce turqe coin.
Et ne d'anes ni rennes,
Ecuries des cures d'Oc.

[The Blue Max]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote

> It is and changing the C of G by putting the fuel that far forward in
flight
> would likely overwhelm the flight control system as the c of g
> changed. In any event fuel was far from being the only limit on
> the Fi-103's range. The supply of compressed air for the flight
> control system was limited as was battery power and the engine
> shutters on the pulse jet engiine.

Interesting. Sounds like adding range would have been tricky.

> The fact that the Germans reverted to firing these weapons from
> aircraft rather than modifying them as you suggest after the launch
> sites were overrun further points to the impracticality of the notion

I think they had other things on their mind at that point. V-1s did perform
a useful task, even in small numbers, in tying down air defence assets which
would have been more useful elsewhere...which is what my what-if is
exploring.

> The USN and USAAF had radar equipped aircraft operating 24/7
> as well as suface ships and submarines, they could no more expect
> to be undetected than Bismarck was

They don't necessarily need to be undetected. They just need to be
underestimated as a threat at the range in question.

> The US occupied Iceland and Greenland in 1941

Would they have done that if there were no Battle of the Atlantic going on?

> Trouble she couldnt beat Russia

Another thread...

> and there's no reason whatever to assume
> Canada would stop fighting, particualrly with the US in the war

Only against Japan. I am assuming that the Commonwealth as a whole would
have accepted sufficiently generous terms. AFAIK there was a substantial
lobby in Britain post-France to do just that.

> most important of all you have assumed the US would not react to
> such events. a poor asumption IMHO

No, I'm just assuming they'd underestimate or misapprehend the precise
threat posed by 2 German CVs and would be geared to meet air attacks on
shipping, rather than a long-range raid on a militarily useless target. The
raid would be unrepeatable but the idea is to tie down forces to make sure
of that.


--
Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
De quelles loques ce turqe coin.
Et ne d'anes ni rennes,
Ecuries des cures d'Oc.

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
>
> > It is and changing the C of G by putting the fuel that far forward in
> flight
> > would likely overwhelm the flight control system as the c of g
> > changed. In any event fuel was far from being the only limit on
> > the Fi-103's range. The supply of compressed air for the flight
> > control system was limited as was battery power and the engine
> > shutters on the pulse jet engiine.
>
> Interesting. Sounds like adding range would have been tricky.
>
> > The fact that the Germans reverted to firing these weapons from
> > aircraft rather than modifying them as you suggest after the launch
> > sites were overrun further points to the impracticality of the notion
>
> I think they had other things on their mind at that point. V-1s did
perform
> a useful task, even in small numbers, in tying down air defence assets
which
> would have been more useful elsewhere...which is what my what-if is
> exploring.
>
> > The USN and USAAF had radar equipped aircraft operating 24/7
> > as well as suface ships and submarines, they could no more expect
> > to be undetected than Bismarck was
>
> They don't necessarily need to be undetected. They just need to be
> underestimated as a threat at the range in question.
>

The USN NEVER underestimated a carrier group after Pearl Harbor

> > The US occupied Iceland and Greenland in 1941
>
> Would they have done that if there were no Battle of the Atlantic going
on?
>

Yes , it was an obvious staging point for a transatlantic raid and an
invaluable air base.

> > Trouble she couldnt beat Russia
>
> Another thread...
>
> > and there's no reason whatever to assume
> > Canada would stop fighting, particualrly with the US in the war
>
> Only against Japan. I am assuming that the Commonwealth as a whole would
> have accepted sufficiently generous terms. AFAIK there was a substantial
> lobby in Britain post-France to do just that.
>
> > most important of all you have assumed the US would not react to
> > such events. a poor asumption IMHO
>
> No, I'm just assuming they'd underestimate or misapprehend the precise
> threat posed by 2 German CVs and would be geared to meet air attacks on
> shipping, rather than a long-range raid on a militarily useless target.
The
> raid would be unrepeatable but the idea is to tie down forces to make sure
> of that.
>

The chances of the USN underestimating the threat posed by the
Kriegsmarine, especially equipped with carriers is precisely zero.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
>
> > More to the point the project wasnt even sanctioned until June 1942
> > and then only as a result of the unsustainable losses that had forced
> > the Luftwaffe to abandon its air attacks on the UK
>
> The weapon still flew by December 1942.
>

A prototype flew , sort of, in December 1942 but not very far.

It was a LONG hard slog to get from that to a deployable weapons
system. The flights consisted of one failure after another as weapons
crashed shortly after launch and mass production didnt start until April
1944

Keith