If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:17 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |