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

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.

On the website for an AAA searchlight outfit they talk about an analysis
on the V-1. The conclusion there was that the V-1's cost the allies
about 3.5 times the damage as the cost to make them. Link:

http://www.skylighters.org/

Actual page:

http://www.strandlab.com/buzzbombs/index.html

Art,

recognize the B-26 under the Eifiel Tower?

--
Dana Miller

"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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

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

Not the question I was posing - and I said it was a tough call, not that I
had a firm opinion. I think its an interesting discussion.

The question isn't whether to use your fighters, but what to use them on -
V1s, ground attack, air defense. Are you better to try intercepting the
V-1s, or have the fighters escort bombers trying to knock out the V-1
launchers? Which one will help shorten the war? On a mission by mission
basis no way to tell.

James Linn

"James Linn" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

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

Not the question I was posing - and I said it was a tough call, not that I
had a firm opinion. I think its an interesting discussion.

The question isn't whether to use your fighters, but what to use them on -
V1s, ground attack, air defense. Are you better to try intercepting the
V-1s, or have the fighters escort bombers trying to knock out the V-1
launchers? Which one will help shorten the war? On a mission by mission
basis no way to tell.

James Linn



Ultimately the only answer was to overun the area in France from
which they were being launched since the Germans were using
large numbers of mobile launchers.

In the meanwhile the British people would scarcely have tolerated
a situation in which RAF fighters were staying safely on the ground
while V-1's killed thousands of civilians.

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

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

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?

Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In article , IBM
writes
Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage

And when it did explode, the fighter was flying towards the explosion at
400mph+.

and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Yes, although the idea was not to come in contact (aircraft aluminium
and V-1 steel wings don't mix very well), just disturb the airflow over
the wing, then get out of there before it rolled towards the fighter.

--
John

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:



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?



Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

--mike


IBM

_________________________________________________ _____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source




--
Michael J. Dargan
http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~dargan

Mike Dargan wrote:

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:



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?



Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

Neither. The recommended procedure was for the fighter to fly parallel to the V-1 and
place the fighter's wingtip several inches to a couple of feet under the V-1's
wingtip. The airflow would cause the V-1 to roll AWAY from the fighter, tumbling the
gyro. It was sometimes necessary for the fighter to bank slightly away from the V-1 to
bring the wings into close enough proximity, but physical contact was not intended.

Guy