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

Which would make the Gloster Meteor and the Hawker Tempest more important
for the later war-effort...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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

Subject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
From: "alf blume"
Date: 7/7/03 8:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Which would make the Gloster Meteor and the Hawker Tempest more important
for the later war-effort...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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



Agreed.

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

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?

No - both pilots are doing their own critical duties. The crews I know that
hunted V-1s at night were also constantly on the lookout for German a/c and
dealt with them on occasion. Both pilots volunteered and fought the war the
way they were required to.

I know its not a popular view, but in my mind, Combat Wounded sets folks a rung
above their mates. "Being there" counts, regardless of what capacity you serve
- the entire military force could volunteer but it wouldn't change the fact
that without cooks and typists, there would be no bombs hitting the target.
Flyers owe their success, every bit of it, to the guy that feeds them and pours
oil in the engines. When flyers succeed, its because they are standing on the
shoulders of thousands of other that are serving with every bit as much heart -
and your ground crew, whose names are probably lost in time, have every reason
to be proud of their service. How many volunteered to fly but through some
failing of education or body kept them on the ground? Thousands. So they
served in other ways, in roles utterly without glory or acknowledgement. Three
years driving a tractor in the snow, rain, or sweltering heat in some forgotten
theatre of war isn't going to earn them a medal, but maybe in sixty or seventy
years, someone will appreciate that you built a runway for crippled bombers to
divert to.

v/r
Gordon

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.

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

"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

Subject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
From: "James Linn"
Date: 7/9/03 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


"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


I guess you are making a case for never sending fighters after V-1 at all. Let
the flak do the job where needed and the rest won't hit anything important at
all. Interesting analysis.

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
From: "James Linn"
Date: 7/9/03 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


"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


I guess you are making a case for never sending fighters after V-1 at all.
Let
the flak do the job where needed and the rest won't hit anything important
at
all. Interesting analysis.

Not what I said at all. But if the choice is to take fighters needed at the
front(not necessarily the case by mid 44), it would be a tough call. At
first the AAA wasn't that effective. But later when the AAA got a good
percentage - you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive
and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against
something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the
target and land harmlessly in a field.

James Linn

you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive
and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against
something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the
target and land harmlessly in a field.

Or demolish an apartment block in London. It may not have been a rational
decision, but it was certainly a human one.

"James Linn" wrote in message
...



Not what I said at all. But if the choice is to take fighters needed at
the
front(not necessarily the case by mid 44), it would be a tough call. At
first the AAA wasn't that effective. But later when the AAA got a good
percentage - you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive
and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against
something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the
target and land harmlessly in a field.


Trouble is it might also hit a chapel and kill 119 people, as
in fact happened at the Guards Chapel in Wellington Barracks

At the end of the day if you arent going to use the fighters
to defend your country why build them ?

Keith

In article , James Linn
writes
Not what I said at all. But if the choice is to take fighters needed at the
front(not necessarily the case by mid 44), it would be a tough call. At
first the AAA wasn't that effective. But later when the AAA got a good
percentage - you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive
and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against
something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the
target and land harmlessly in a field.

The best results against V-1s were achieved when the AA guns were moved
from London to the South coast to shoot them down before crossing it. A
fighter 'no-go' area was created in front of the guns to give them the
ability to fire at anything (previously fighters had got in the way).
The fighters were then used to chase the bombs that passed the gun line.
The radar-proximity AA shell greatly improved the effectiveness of the
guns. There's footage somewhere of a V-1 being shot down, the first 3
shots each get closer than the previous one, the fourth nailed it.

--
John