XPost: alt.history.what-if, uk.politics.misc, alt.history

"Ed Stasiak" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb

“Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as it forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25% of Combined Bomber Offensive's bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon sites, often ineffectively.[15] In early December 1944, American General Clayton
Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1 when
compared with conventional bombers.[49]

Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the
remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain. The result was the creation of the JB-2 Loon. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army
Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and
wood, in 2000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[51] To
put this figure in perspective, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress cost about
1000 times more, and still about 100 times more when taking into account
its 10 times higher payload (20,000lb compared to 850kg for V-1)– payload, which cost has to be added (while it is included in V-1 cost)– with the additional drawback of requiring (and putting in danger) 11 flying crew members (which generally are considered to cost far more than the aircraft itself, with costs of recruiting, training, housing, feeding, pensions and pay, equipment, etc.).”

Correct. For the cost of a motorcycle, you could deliver 2,000 lbs. of HE to London. For cost-per-ton-of-explosive-delivered, nothing came even close...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.history.what-if, uk.politics.misc, alt.history

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:23:46 -0600, Byker wrote:

"Ed Stasiak" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb

“Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as it >> forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25% of Combined Bomber Offensive's
bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon sites, often
ineffectively.[15] In early December 1944, American General Clayton
Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1 when
compared with conventional bombers.[49]

Wright Field technical personnel reverse-engineered the V-1 from the
remains of one that had failed to detonate in Britain. The result was the
creation of the JB-2 Loon. General Hap Arnold of the United States Army
Air Forces was concerned that this weapon could be built of steel and
wood, in 2000 man-hours and approximate cost of US$600 (in 1943).[51] To
put this figure in perspective, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress cost about
1000 times more, and still about 100 times more when taking into account
its 10 times higher payload (20,000lb compared to 850kg for V-1)– payload, >> which cost has to be added (while it is included in V-1 cost)– with the
additional drawback of requiring (and putting in danger) 11 flying crew
members (which generally are considered to cost far more than the aircraft >> itself, with costs of recruiting, training, housing, feeding, pensions and >> pay, equipment, etc.).”

Correct. For the cost of a motorcycle, you could deliver 2,000 lbs. of HE to London. For cost-per-ton-of-explosive-delivered, nothing came even close...

It was one of the most cost/effective weapons of ww2.


https://www.wikiwand.com/en/V-1_flying_bomb

check the assessment out for the Blitz (12 months) vs V-1 flying bombs (2¾ months)

So we are talking of a Blitz that is at least five times bigger than the
OTL and it would last October 1944. I would think a lot more.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)