Allied V1 flying bomb? - Development of the 'BUG'

Looseheadprop

This is a POD in which the allies develop a V1 style weapon. Interestingly the original idea for a flying bomb was developed by a french lieut in the great war, using a belgian patent of the ramjet. Also there was the american pilotless craft the bug

essentially the Bug was a pilotless aircraft developed by the americans towards the end of the first world war, but the war ended and it was never put into action. it would be set to fly for a certain set of revolutions of the propellor and then it would fall to the ground and explode. it was intended as a method for attacking into germany in 1918. it cost about $400 and could carry a 300 pound bomb load. it was a much cheaper alternative to manned bombers who carried a lower payload at much greater cost.

in 1939 a development of the ww1 bug was test flown in the USA. this was larger and had radio control.

according to the commander of the US Air Force, General Arnold, for the price of 1 flying fortress (with a payload of 6000 pounds) 500 bugs could have been produced each with a 800 pound pay load, thats 400,000 pounds of explosive. for a flying fortress to reach that deliver that it would have to fly 66 missions, an unlikely feat.

however the project was never followed through, but imagine the possibilities. it would certainly be something useful for Britain with its lack of man power and productive capability. It could even be used tactically to knock out targets in battle.

any ideas?
 

Atreus

Intriging. However, ensuring you hit the right target would be hard. And as for tactical support; I wouldn't trust the WWII United States Army Air Corps to hit anything it was aiming at. I would say that they were waging war against the United States Army itself, but there accuracy was to good for that. :D

I know, it sounds harsh. But I can think of a half dozen allied generals who were strafed or killed by the USAAC. And then there were things like Dresden. And these weapons will be even less predictable in where they go. And, all things considered, the British, especially early in the war, were just as bad.
 

aktarian

V-1 was developed as an alternative to bombers when germany had little of them and no chance of hitting targets due to lack of air superiority (or something close to it). Wallies had it and so had no need for it. Taking out hard targets (used in way bombers packed with explosives and flown there were used) wouldn't be practical due to low accuracy.

But I see navy being more interested in it. Have ships packed with them close in on enemy shore, launch them and targets then withdraw. Either purely bug-equipped ships or hybrid plane/bug ships.

Looseheadprop said:
according to the commander of the US Air Force, General Arnold, for the price of 1 flying fortress (with a payload of 6000 pounds) 500 bugs could have been produced each with a 800 pound pay load, thats 400,000 pounds of explosive. for a flying fortress to reach that deliver that it would have to fly 66 missions, an unlikely feat.
Click to expand...

Which ignores the basic differences between them. Bugs can be produced cheaply but they are less accurate, can't be retargeted in flight and only useful against area targets.
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

the USA had something lowtech version of V-1 in world war 1 !

a small unmanned aircraft with explosive and Clockwork

launch by catapult it fly until clockwork reach it time
trigger a mechcanic who lose the wing and engine from the bomb.
how falles on emermy line

why not used advance version for WW2 ?
 

carlton_bach

Michel Van said:
why not used advance version for WW2 ?
Click to expand...

Where's the need exactly? Artillery does better in frontline support, bombers deliver better targeting and contemporary guidance systems suck. What good exactly is a weapon that delivers a middling powerful boom to a random place in enemy territory?
 

Markus

Banned
Looseheadprop said:
in 1939 a development of the ww1 bug was test flown in the USA. this was larger and had radio control.

any ideas?
Click to expand...

I´ll have the US Navy showing interest in this flying bomb as a stand-off anti-ship weapon. Dive bombes are fine against anything smaller than a BB or a CV(with decent damage control), but to kill the big ships you need torpedos. Unfortunately that requires you to fly slow and low and drop the "fish" from a distance within the range of a 20mm gun. This is a good way to get yourself killed and to make bad things worse the relatively slow speed of the torpedo allows the target to aviod it by changing the course.

A flying bomb offers a sollution: it can be fired from a longer range, it closes in to the target much faster and it´s flight path can even be adjusted.
 

Hierophant

If the US Army hadnt underestimated Robert Goddard, we would have had spy sats by the end of the second world war.

I mean Goddard really broke the mold. The V-2 itself as well as alot of German research done by German scientists was stolen from his work.
 

SunilTanna

I read in Downfall (IIRC) that the US Navy planned to use V1s in the bombardment preparatory to the invasion of Japan.
 

bouscher

The V1 bomb itself is a low tech missile, cause basically it has a small propeller at the front which rotates a string which goes back to the rear of the missile where there is a time measurement device. eventually when the string rotates enough, the device cuts it and locks the missile's flaps downwards, thus causing the missile to drop. The distance it would pass during flight was calculated, but since the accuracy was poor, it could only hit large targets such as the city of London. I do Believe that the US could have developed such means of fighting due to the simplicity, however they didn't make such serious advance till the end of the war.
 

Looseheadprop

bouscher said:
The V1 bomb itself is a low tech missile, cause basically it has a small propeller at the front which rotates a string which goes back to the rear of the missile where there is a time measurement device. eventually when the string rotates enough, the device cuts it and locks the missile's flaps downwards, thus causing the missile to drop. The distance it would pass during flight was calculated, but since the accuracy was poor, it could only hit large targets such as the city of London. I do Believe that the US could have developed such means of fighting due to the simplicity, however they didn't make such serious advance till the end of the war.
Click to expand...


the thing is, the V1 was developed in 2 years by the Germans, it was comissioned in 1942 and was first used in 1944. America had the weapon in 1918 and again in 1939, given the leaps made by the germans in 2 years (the first V1's kept turning around and flying back towards the launch sites!) there is the possibility of a very useful weapon to be developed here. Also the brits had better radar than the germans and that could have been put to use

plus i really like the idea of an anti ship weapon. one hypothesised use was to ram them into bomber planes. Also they could be controlled by a command plane flying to their rear, which would add a greater degree of accuracy
 

aktarian

Markus said:
I´ll have the US Navy showing interest in this flying bomb as a stand-off anti-ship weapon. Dive bombes are fine against anything smaller than a BB or a CV(with decent damage control), but to kill the big ships you need torpedos. Unfortunately that requires you to fly slow and low and drop the "fish" from a distance within the range of a 20mm gun. This is a good way to get yourself killed and to make bad things worse the relatively slow speed of the torpedo allows the target to aviod it by changing the course.

A flying bomb offers a sollution: it can be fired from a longer range, it closes in to the target much faster and it´s flight path can even be adjusted.
Click to expand...

how are you going to steer it? It's one thing to use them against cities or other big targets that don't move and you don't aim at particular spot but against small targets that move and shoot back.....
 

pacifichistorian

Banned
So what about this? A "small"-diameter (15-16") weapon with fin-stabilization able to be launched from standard 21" destroyer torpedo tubes, max range maybe 20nm, speed around 400mph, steerable by r/c, pulsejet power. Credible? My only Q is exactly how the pulsejet is fitted: rear-mount internal, with "elephant ear" intakes? 2 small external pipes, a bit like V-1? something else?
 

wkwillis

A pulse jet powered bomb doesn't have the range of one with an internal combustion engine because pulse jets aren't as efficient at internal combustion engines. The Germans could use them because the Germans were much closer to enemy cities than the British were, because the Germans had bases in France.
Up till mid 1944 and the destruction of the German air force, the Allies couldn't hit anything smaller than a city, either, with a standard bomber. The low level attack bombers and the dam busters had to be suicidally close to hit something if it was defended by antiaircraft positions.
It was truly pathetic.
 

gtrof

Since guidance seems to be one of the bigger problems, what about using a TV system for guiding in the bomb? I know there was some work by the US into TV guided bombs during the war. although this would probably require a chase plane to follow the bomb to the target. Unless you could relay signals from the flying bomb to a plane out of sight but still within communication range, to the bomb controls.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Precisely this happens in Bobby Hardenbrooke's Shattered World TL, along with the development of TV-guided glide bombs as mentioned above.
 

pacifichistorian

Banned
gtrof said:
Since guidance seems to be one of the bigger problems
Click to expand...
Presuming a ship-launched system, with guidance something like Felix makes most sense to me. It could be independent of an operator, able to home on a ship's IR signature (as intended OTL). PJ's lack of efficiency isn't an issue, with range only 20nm or so; simplicity & reliability is, especially given the nervousness a novelty like a guided missile is liable to produce in '42-4... My question remains, tho: how to fit PJ propulsion into a 21"-diam package...
 
juanml82

juanml82

But even if it isn't accuarate, they could still use it to hit cities and leave bombers to (try to) hit more specific targets like airbases or factories. Or even use them just as a decoy: The Germans would need to shoot them down, and even if it's a lot easier, they would still need the additional AAA and fighters to do so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top