London Blitz vs V1

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.


Eugene Griessel





--
A terrorist kills for publicity.

24th saying of Bernard

Bernardz wrote in message news:MPG.1a5aa8ed3b4d2ccc9897f3@news...

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.

The flying bomb offensive, from 12th June 1944 to 1st September 1944
cost Britain almost 48 million pounds in lost production alone. In a
report by the Air Ministry dated 4th November 1944 it is stated: "The
main conclusion is that the results of the campaign were greatly in
the enemy's favour, the estimated ratio of our costs to his being
nearly four to one." Move this back 18 months when the Allies had no
fighters fast enough to shoot down these weapons and no effective
low-level AAA and a grim picture begins to emerge. I'm not saying
that the campaign would have brought the allies to their knees but
speculation is that D-Day would have been postponed for at least a
year and costs and casualties would have been high. If the A4 project
had been abandoned and the flying bomb project given top priority it
would have meant more than 30000 of these beasts arriving over Britain
a month - with Britain largely impotent to stop them. A fearful
thought.

In article ,
says...
Bernardz wrote in message news:MPG.1a5aa8ed3b4d2ccc9897f3@news...

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.

The flying bomb offensive, from 12th June 1944 to 1st September 1944
cost Britain almost 48 million pounds in lost production alone. In a
report by the Air Ministry dated 4th November 1944 it is stated: "The
main conclusion is that the results of the campaign were greatly in
the enemy's favour, the estimated ratio of our costs to his being
nearly four to one." Move this back 18 months when the Allies had no
fighters fast enough to shoot down these weapons and no effective
low-level AAA and a grim picture begins to emerge. I'm not saying
that the campaign would have brought the allies to their knees but
speculation is that D-Day would have been postponed for at least a
year and costs and casualties would have been high. If the A4 project
had been abandoned and the flying bomb project given top priority it
would have meant more than 30000 of these beasts arriving over Britain
a month - with Britain largely impotent to stop them. A fearful
thought.



This is very similar to a fictional work that I am in process of
writing.

Draft version 1 is available at

www.BERNARDZ.20m.com

Note there are quite a few mistakes that I am currently fixing in
version 2.


--
A terrorist kills for publicity.

24th saying of Bernard

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.
There are a few things I don't get with these figure either, the
numbers I get
from British sites claim only over 1000 homes destroyed, a difference of
over a
multiple of a thousand!
I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in
defense. Lost
how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives
(weekend-spoiler)
what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty
misprint or
criminal negligence.
Anyone have a contact or copy of the original report?



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

Wayne Allen wrote:

snip
I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in
defense. Lost
how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives
(weekend-spoiler)
what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty
misprint or
criminal negligence.

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

--
regards
jc

John Campbell wrote in message .. .
Wayne Allen wrote:

snip
I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in
defense. Lost
how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives
(weekend-spoiler)
what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty
misprint or
criminal negligence.

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.

"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

David Lesher wrote in message ...
(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.

IIRC Joe was killed in a remote controlled B24 Liberator during August
1944, flying from Wingfarthing-Fersfield in Norfolk and the intended
target was a suspected rocket launching site in Heligoland.

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

Ski ramp? The ski sites took their name from the large concrete
ski-shaped bunkers used to store V1s. Those were the intended
targets.