Strange air war against a strange enemy

52
Strange air war against a strange enemy

Much has been said about the battles of the RAF pilots with the Luftwaffe aces in "Battle of Britain", and the battle was dismantled piece by piece. Now we will talk about one episode of the "Battle of Britain", which took place a little later, from June 13, 1944 to March 17, 1945.

Probably, many have guessed that this episode should be understood as that part of the Second World War, when Hitler decided to "take revenge" on the British for raids on the Reich with the help of Fi / 103 / V-1 aircraft-shells.



New weapon demanded the creation of new tactics. And today we will talk about it, about the tactics of dealing with jet projectile aircraft, because the tactics were very different from the fight against piston aircraft.

It was necessary to use not only the aircraft that were best suited for the mission to combat the V-1, but also the pilots who could cope with the interception and destruction of the V-1 in the best way.

During the air attacks on Britain, from June 1944 to March 1945, the Germans fired 10 V-668 shells. Of this huge number, about 1 missiles penetrated the British defense system. The bulk of the shells did not reach British cities. Some lost their course or got into network barriers, some were shot down by air defense artillery fire, 2 aircraft-shells were chalked up by British fighter pilots.


Meanwhile, it was very difficult to shoot down the V-1. More precisely, it is much more complicated than it might seem at first glance. On the one hand, it would seem, what is difficult in catching up and shooting down a target that flies in a straight line and does not dodge?

Let's take a look at some of the flight characteristics of the V-1.


Length, m: 7,75
Wingspan, m: 5,3
Fuselage diameter, m: 0,85
Height, m: 1,42
Curb weight, kg: 2 160

It becomes clear that the goal is very small. We go further, further the most important thing.

Maximum flight speed: 656 km / h, the speed increased as fuel was used up to 800 km / h.
Maximum flight distance, km: 286
Service ceiling, m: 2700-3050, in practice V-1 rarely flew above 1500 meters.

Small but very fast target. Moreover, in the final section of the trajectory it moves at a speed that was inaccessible to the planes of that time. Accordingly, it was worth intercepting the plane the sooner the better.

So, on the night of June 13, 1944, the first bombardment of London V-1 took place. True, in the first salvo, the Germans were able to launch only 9 projectile aircraft, none of which even flew to the coast of Great Britain. Of the 10 shells of the second salvo, 4 reached Britain, and one hit London.

Then things went better for the Germans, we know the results. V-1s claimed the lives of more than 6 British and nearly 20 were injured.


What could the British V-1 oppose? Considering that the V-1 flew day and night, they had to fight around the clock.

"Mosquito" FB Mk.VI


Maximum speed km / h: 611
Cruising speed, km / h: 410
Maximum rate of climb, m / min: 870
Practical ceiling, m: 10 060
Crew, prs: 2
Armament:
- four 20mm British Hispano cannons
- four 7,7 mm machine guns
Bomb load up to 1820 kg.

"Mosquito" NF Mk.XIX, night fighter


Maximum speed km / h: 608
Cruising speed, km / h: 475
Maximum rate of climb, m / min: 822
Practical ceiling, m: 9 530
Crew, prs: 2
Armament:
- four 20mm British Hispano cannons

Spitfire Mk.XIV


Maximum speed km / h: 721
Cruising speed, km / h: 674
Maximum rate of climb, m / min: 1 396
Practical ceiling, m: 13 560
Crew, prs: 1
Armament:
- two 20-mm cannons (280 rounds)
- two 12.7 mm machine guns (500 rounds)

"Tempest"


Maximum speed km / h: 686
Maximum rate of climb, m / min: 966
Practical ceiling, m: 11 125
Crew, prs: 1
Armament:
- four 20mm wing cannons

Spitfire Mk.IX


Maximum speed km / h: 642
Cruising speed, km / h: 607
Maximum rate of climb, m / min: 1390
Practical ceiling, m: 12 650
Crew, prs: 1
Armament:
- two 20-mm cannons (280 rounds)
- two 12,7 mm machine guns (500 rounds)

Mustang Mk.III


Maximum speed km / h: 708
Cruising speed, km / h: 582
Rate of climb, m / min: 847
Practical ceiling, m: 12 800
Crew, prs: 1
Armament:
- four 12,7 mm Browning M2 machine guns in the wings

These planes had to take over the fight against the planes-shells of the Germans. They have something in common: high speed, which allowed them to catch up and intercept the V-1, which was very difficult.

The Tempest became the most productive type of interceptor: about 800 victories over the V-1.
In second place are the nightly Mosquitoes: about 500 victories.
The third were the Spitfires Mk.XIV with the Griffon engine: about 400 victories.
The Mustangs were fourth in terms of scoring, about 150 wins
The fifth were the Spitfires Mk.IX., which shot down V-100 in the vicinity of 1.

Of course, the number of aircraft deployed to combat the V-1 played a role. At different times, different units were involved in the "hunt".

There was a certain difficulty in terms of weapons. By 1944, all fighters (except the American Mustang) were armed with 20mm cannons. This caused problems. Hit a small po with a cannon aviation In terms of the aircraft, it was not easy.

Here, if so, it would be more appropriate to use the retired batteries of 7,7-mm machine guns on the Hurricanes. A cloud of bullets erupting from the barrels would have hit the V-1, which, of course, was not armored. But I had to use what was, and this gave rise to very interesting maneuvers.

In general, interceptors usually adhered to the tactics of patrolling near the zone of action of their anti-aircraft artillery. If a V-1 was found, it was possible, if necessary, to transmit the coordinates of the area to the anti-aircraft gunners and have a fallback in case of an unsuccessful attack, or vice versa, so that the air defense observation calculations would inform the fighters "upward" about the V-1 detection.

They acted as follows: at high altitude, they watched the appearance of the V-1 and in case of such a dive began in order to catch up with the projectile and be behind it in an attack position. We went to level flight and opened fire.

It was worth remembering that as the fuel depleted, the V-1 increased its speed and the closer to the target, the more difficult it became to catch up with the projectile, because the speed under 800 km / h was practically inaccessible to piston aircraft.

This was followed by two options for the development of events. You could get into the engine, and the V-1 would immediately start falling to the ground. Since the engine was not protected by anything, one 20-mm projectile would be enough for this. The disadvantage of this method was that when the V-1 warhead fell, it exploded and smashed everything in the range. 1000 kg of ammotol is serious, and given the overcrowding of settlements in the UK, there was a high probability of destruction and loss of life on the ground.

The second option is to get into the warhead. It was more difficult, since the warhead was in the nose. It was decided to take a position slightly above or to the side of the V-1. The disadvantage of this method was the very explosion of the warhead in the air, which often damaged the attacking aircraft. British fighters landed with torn and charred wing and tail plumage.

In general, in order to maximize the safety of the population below, it was necessary to come closer and shoot the warhead of the V-1. And then also to survive the explosion.

British fighters very often returned to airfields burned and damaged by explosions of the warhead. There were also aircraft losses and even casualties.


It is worth mentioning here the ram, which was performed in the best traditions of our pilots by a French pilot.

Captain Jean-Marie Maridor fired at the Fau in the skies over Kent on August 3, 1944. The engine stalled and the projectile began to fall on the city. The warhead did not detonate. By coincidence, the V-1 began to fall on the hospital, which the French captain managed to notice. The hospital was distinguished by the symbols of the Red Cross on the roofs of buildings. Captain Maridor aimed his plane at the falling V-1 and caused the warhead to explode on impact. The brave Frenchman was killed in the explosion.

In general, wing cannons, with their projectile dispersion, were not the best weapon for dealing with V-1s. Yes, a single projectile was enough to confidently hit the projectile plane, but the main thing was to hit.

Therefore, over time, the method of destroying the "Fau" became widespread, which was invented by a colleague of Captain Maridor from the 91st squadron, flying officer Kenneth Collier.

In one of the sorties, he unsuccessfully shot all the ammunition and did not get hits. After that, Collier came up with an interesting idea: to make a ram without a ram. He brought his plane to the V-1 "wing-by-wing", brought the wingtip of his fighter under the wing of the V-1.

Then Collier abruptly gave the control stick in the opposite direction to flip the projectile "on its back" with the wing. The first attempt did not work, but the second attempt was successful: the V-1 gyroscope and the primitive autopilot did not cope with the problem of leveling the apparatus, and it eventually fell to the ground.


Unfortunately, there is no accurate and intelligible statistics on the V-1 destroyed in this way. There is only evidence that Flight Lieutenant Gordon Bonham, who flew on Tempest on August 26, 1944, shot down only one V-1 from his fighter's cannons, having spent all the ammunition on the projectile. And then he "dropped" three more V-1s in this way, flipping the projectile with his wing.

There was another way. The plane took up a position above the flying V-1 and the pilot abruptly took the control stick over himself. The air flow from the propeller simultaneously pushed the projectile downward, disrupting the gyroscope and simultaneously "choking" the engine. But this method was safer, albeit less effective, so the pilots preferred the method of turning the V-1 "on its back".

Victories over V-1s were counted according to the same rules as downed aircraft, but were counted separately from them. On the one hand, this is true, on the other hand, it is also not an easy task to shoot down a vehicle, small by aviation standards, flying in a straight line at high speed.


The best V-1 destroyer, Joseph Berry, who flew the Tempest, shot down 59,5 shells, 28 of them at night. And Berry shot down only one conventional planes.

The second number of the rating, a Belgian volunteer in the service of the RAF, Flight Lieutenant Remy Van Lierde, won only six victories over aircraft and 40 over V-1. Van Lierde also flew the Tempest.

They were followed by a dozen pilots who shot down 20 to 30 Fau.

Interestingly, it wasn't just the UK that was targeted by the V-1. In October 1944, on Hitler's personal order, the bombing of Dutch Antwerp began, which became the supply center for allied troops on the continent, and a number of other cities in Belgium and Holland.

In total, the Germans fired 11 cruise missiles at Antwerp, Brussels and Liege. This is even more than in the UK, but less success has been achieved. The allies were able to establish a clear work of air defense, covering the cities, and the fighter units were not even involved in capturing the V-988.

Of course, if the Allied pilots saw the V-1, they naturally attacked it. But the main role in the destruction of aircraft-shells was taken by the air defense of the allies. And she coped with this task.

Unconventional tasks require unconventional solutions. It is a fact. The use of V-1 projectiles by the Germans, which became the prototype of modern cruise missiles, necessitated the rapid development of counteractions. I must say that the tactics used by the Royal Air Force of Great Britain turned out to be quite effective. Including because the Air Force had aircraft that were the best suited for the tasks of destroying the V-1. And pilots with equally valuable qualities.
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    19 June 2021 06: 40
    The best V-1 destroyer, Joseph Berry, who flew the Tempest, shot down 59,5 projectile aircraft
    and how did he knock down half of Fau? recourse
    1. +26
      19 June 2021 07: 06
      Quote: Olgovich
      and how did he knock down half of Fau?

      He shared the victory with a colleague. Simple practice.
      1. +3
        19 June 2021 08: 58
        Quote: professor
        Quote: Olgovich
        and how did he knock down half of Fau?

        He shared the victory with a colleague. Simple practice.

        those. and 0,33 and 0,25 are possible ...
        1. +12
          19 June 2021 09: 42
          Quote: Olgovich
          Quote: professor
          Quote: Olgovich
          and how did he knock down half of Fau?

          He shared the victory with a colleague. Simple practice.

          those. and 0,33 and 0,25 are possible ...

          I've never met less than 1/2.


        2. +8
          19 June 2021 20: 12
          those. and 0,33 and 0,25 are possible ...

          In practice, yes, many will take part in the "landing", but in reality the trophy will be recorded for two at most.
          And the main thing here is not who and how many knocked down, the main thing is whether the task has been completed.
          Therefore and "The best V-1 destroyer, Joseph Berry, who flew in the Tempest, shot down 59,5 shells, 28 of them at night. And Berry shot down only one conventional aircraft." worthy of no less respect than those who landed the Hering flyers.
          For he saved the lives of ordinary people.
        3. 0
          23 June 2021 10: 38
          even 0, 01 is possible ...
    2. 0
      19 June 2021 09: 51
      Hitler decided to "take revenge" on the British for the raids on the Reich with the help of Fi / 103 / V-1 aircraft.


      the combat effectiveness of these flying bombs was low due to the predictability of their use, therefore, the seriousness of Hitler's intentions in relation to England, which he had already forgiven twice, when he allowed evacuation to the island and when he opened a second front against the USSR, leaving behind a strong enemy, raises doubts.
      1. +4
        19 June 2021 10: 16
        Quote: Bar1
        the combat effectiveness of these flying bombs was low due to the predictability of their use,

        what does “predictability of application” mean?
        1. +1
          19 June 2021 10: 23
          Quote: Maki Avellevich
          Quote: Bar1
          the combat effectiveness of these flying bombs was low due to the predictability of their use,

          what does “predictability of application” mean?


          not. The predictability of the application causes low efficiency.
          1. +8
            19 June 2021 10: 46
            Quote: Bar1
            not. The predictability of the application causes low efficiency.

            the predictability of the American bombing raids in Berlin in 1945 was very high. efficiency did not suffer from this as Berlin stands still and cannot be maneuvered anywhere
            1. -5
              19 June 2021 11: 58
              Quote: Maki Avellievich
              the predictability of the American bombing raids in Berlin in 1945 was very high. efficiency did not suffer from this as Berlin stands still and cannot be maneuvered anywhere


              do not compare the capabilities of the allies of the United States and England. which robbed the whole world and the modest capabilities of Germany, the Germans could not arrange massive raids of their faus in HUNDREDS of pieces, like the Entente, BUT at the same time the American bomber fleet had heavy losses from air defense and messers / fokers.
              The Americans simply BREAKTHROUGH to the targets, to the cities and losing their bombers, as they could carry out combat missions.

              About 4750, or one third, of the B-17s were lost in action.


              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress

              in this case, talking about efficiency is the timely replacement of losses.
              And besides, bombers bombed AIMED, and flying bombs fau - wherever God put it on your soul.
              Therefore, it is not correct to compare aircraft bombing and unmanned FAUs.
              1. +2
                19 June 2021 15: 20
                Quote: Bar1
                do not compare the capabilities of the allies of the United States and Britain. who robbed the whole world and the modest capabilities of Germany

                let's go without lyrics. discussing military action and not the ethics of ways to obtain the resources of war.
                Quote: Bar1
                the Germans could not arrange massive raids of their faus in HUNDREDS of pieces, like the Entente

                Yes. that is what we are discussing. could not. point.
                Quote: Bar1
                The Americans simply BREAKTHROUGH to the targets, to the cities and losing their bombers, as they could carry out combat missions.

                and it is true. above and it was pointed out by me that the fact of the high predictability of the American bombing raids in Berlin in 1945 did little to help the Third Reich to resist them.
                Quote: Bar1
                And besides, bombers bombed AIMED, and flying bombs fau - wherever God put it on your soul.

                bombers at that time and from those heights were far from aiming. took the amount. the British, for example, regarded a 5-mile diameter as a lucky bomb hit.
                but I also wrote about Fau, I will give it again:
                Fau could become an argument only if it became possible to hit targets more or less accurately as - shipyards, ports, military factories.
              2. +2
                20 June 2021 09: 00
                So the humble Germans killed my grandfather and grandmother, many of my relatives died during the war.
    3. 0
      23 June 2021 10: 37
      With a wingman ...
  2. +11
    19 June 2021 07: 44
    Well ... against the KR FAU-1, the Britons organized, in the end, a "massive", highly organized missile defense! The missile defense was 3-echelon: 1. Aviation (fighters); 2. Anti-aircraft artillery; 3. Barrage balloons (VZ) ... The best anti-aircraft guns turned out to be 90-mm and 94-mm guns ... This was also facilitated by anti-aircraft projectiles with proximity radio fuses (NRV), which were easier to create for large caliber projectiles! Since the beginning of the massive use of anti-aircraft missiles with NRV, the number of downed FAU-1 has increased 3 times! The use of radars turned out to be very effective! The airborne balloons also played a role ... 231 KR died on such obstacles ...

    During the war, the British used anti-aircraft missiles and developed missiles ... (Moreover, the degree of readiness of some samples was very high! the British hastened to abandon it!
    1. +10
      19 June 2021 08: 32
      Usually, historians attribute the V-1 to an ineffective weapon. But, in my personal opinion, the CD turned out to be a belated type of weapon. Had it appeared two or three years earlier, the losses of the British would have been much more significant.
      1. +8
        19 June 2021 09: 19
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        P turned out to be a belated weapon. Had it appeared two or three years earlier, the losses of the British would have been much more significant.

        Certainly! The CD turned out to be a "belated" weapon, not a "wabche", but the fact that they appeared at the Germans too late! The Germans had the opportunity to create the FAU earlier; but, as often happens, "underestimated ... delayed ..." If the FAU had appeared in Germany a couple of years earlier, then in the period described the Germans would have used more advanced CD and the losses of the British would have been more significant ... this, even, it could affect the pliability of the Brit ...
        1. +7
          19 June 2021 10: 16
          That is why I respect you, Nikolayevich - for balanced and sensible comments, devoid of any bias.
          1. +4
            19 June 2021 15: 23
            Well what are you! feel I am so often "criticized" explicitly and implicitly that I perceive almost any "kind word" as a catch! wink And now ... I will not fall asleep right away ... I will drink konya ... valerian and meditate! what
        2. +7
          19 June 2021 10: 19
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          If the FAU had appeared in Germany a couple of years earlier, then during the described period the Germans would have used more advanced CR and the losses of the British would have been more significant ... this, even, could affect the pliability of the Britons ...

          Suppose that in this case 2 or 4 times more civilians would be killed in London, would that make England surrender? I don't think so.
          Fau could become an argument only if it became possible to more or less accurately hit targets like - shipyards, ports, military factories.
          1. +1
            19 June 2021 10: 35
            Quote: Maki Avellievich
            it became possible to hit targets more or less accurately

            Uh-huh. ZhePeS or flight on a 3D map of the area, which is scanned by the radar in the rocket.
          2. +4
            19 June 2021 12: 55
            Quote: Maki Avellievich
            Suppose that in this case 2 or 4 times more civilians would be killed in London, would that make England surrender? I don't think so.

            And if not "2 or 4", but 20 ... 40 times? 1. You completely did not pay attention to my next words: if the FAU appeared earlier, then the Germans would have had more (!) Perfect (!) CRs for the events described! At that time, managed (!) Were developed in Germany, incl. and with seeker, planning bombs and missiles! As in the case of the FAU, sometimes such weapons were developed according to the "leftover principle" or according to the "second order rules"! Therefore, in these cases, too, it often turned out ...: "delayed ... too late"! Earlier "early" adoption and production of missile launchers ... "timely" identification of "priority" shortcomings would accelerate other developments related to missile technology: guidance systems (including the GOS), engine building, new materials and fuel ... It cannot be ruled out 100% that the FAU with swept wings and turbojet engines with a television guidance system and IK.GSN would not have appeared in the "terminal" area! For the Germans had all this "separately" ... and the CD would have turned out to be the "weight" that united and accelerated the disparate developments!
            2. And yet ... it's not about the "absolute numbers of physically destroyed ..."! The point is the appearance of an altered mental "mass" state of the population in large territories! "In a change in the mood and thinking of the population, the emergence of protest moods ... Nobody says that England would surrender then! We can talk about somewhat different" vesches "... for example, the decrease in the military activity of the British troops (and the troops of the "commonwealth" ...) in Europe, either involuntarily or by secret agreement!
            Quote: Maki Avellievich
            Fau could become an argument only if it became possible to more or less accurately hit targets like - shipyards, ports, military factories.

            And on this topic I wrote above ... about the CD "with telecontrol and GOS"!
          3. Alf
            +4
            19 June 2021 19: 14
            Quote: Maki Avellievich
            Suppose that in this case 2 or 4 times more civilians would be killed in London, would that make England surrender? I don't think so.

            But the chief-breaker of the Reich, Goebbels, in his PERSONAL, not for print, diary wrote that because of the massive missile strikes in Britain, problems began in industry. Alarms were announced, production was stopped. Especially when the V-2 rained down on Britain.
          4. 0
            22 June 2021 19: 59
            I agree that the experience of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many other cities shows that bombing civilian targets is clearly not enough to win.
        3. 0
          19 June 2021 10: 34
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          even, it could affect the pliability of the brits ..

          If the V-1 killed 10 times more British, their losses in WWII would not have been 380, but 440 thousand people. No, it doesn't convince.
          1. +2
            19 June 2021 13: 03
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            If the V-1 killed 10 times more British, their losses in WWII would not have been 380, but 440 thousand people. No, it doesn't convince.

            Well .... your arguments are pretty ... unpretentious! By the way, so that I don't write 2 answers, I'll say that the answer is Maki Avellievich concerns you too ... Yes
            1. +4
              19 June 2021 13: 34
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              If the V-1 killed 10 times more British, their losses in WWII would not have been 380, but 440 thousand people. No, it doesn't convince.

              Well .... your arguments are pretty ... unpretentious! By the way, so that I don't write 2 answers, I'll say that the answer is Maki Avellievich concerns you too ... Yes

              Mass casualties among civilians usually do not become a factor of compliance - quite the opposite. hi
              1. +4
                19 June 2021 13: 51
                Quote: Krasnodar
                Mass casualties among civilians usually do not become a factor of compliance - quite the opposite.

                Anything can happen ... different times, different countries, different political forces, different impacts ... But "losses among the peaceful" is only one of the "components" of the history of the possible development of events! There may be other "components" ... as, for example, Maki Avellievich put it:Fau could become an argument only if it became possible to more or less accurately hit targets like - shipyards, ports, military factories ... To which I answered him:It cannot be 100% ruled out that the FAU with swept wings and turbojet engines with a television guidance system and IK.GSN would not have appeared in the "terminal" section! For the Germans had all this "separately" ... and the CD would have turned out to be the "weight" that united and accelerated the disparate developments!
                1. +7
                  19 June 2021 14: 14
                  CD as a factor of progress in the defense industry, influencing the course of the war and in general? Quite possible hi
                  1. +5
                    19 June 2021 15: 12
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    CD as a factor of progress in the defense industry, influencing the course of the war and in general?

                    Something like that.... Yes
                2. 0
                  19 June 2021 19: 16
                  that the FAU would not have appeared with swept wings and turbojet engines
                  - PuVRD is good because it is cheap. And yes, it accelerated to 800 km / h. And the turbojet engine was not enough for manned aircraft, and the Germans did not have swept wings on serial aircraft. And the V-1, during development and serial production, faced a considerable number of difficulties, so it is unlikely that it would have appeared much earlier, and even more so it would hardly have appeared for them with a turbojet engine and swept wings. They had a V-2, which did not need a turbojet engine or swept wings.
                  with a television guidance system and IR.GSN at the "terminal" site!

                  With that level of technology development, there was no way TV or IR guidance could work at the range of the V-1. About homing and so it is clear. The top of what the Nazis thought of was to place radio beacons in New York that the A9 / A10 were supposed to aim at, and that seems to be a fake.
                  In general, if the Germans spent the funds spent on these "wunderwales" were directed to the development and construction of aircraft, tanks, submarines - it would help them more.
                  1. +4
                    20 June 2021 00: 00
                    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                    With that level of technology development, TV or IR guidance could not work at the range of the V-1. About homing and so it is clear.

                    I don’t know, and I won’t ask what you understand, but during WW2 in Germany and other "leading players" they actively worked on the creation of new technical systems for that time for use in military affairs ... In a number of cases, such systems were created, but they did not have time to apply; since often, developments were activated in the middle of the war, and not in the 30s or early 40s ... In some cases, "new products" were used during the war, but they did not have time to "deploy"; the war ended. But in WW2, military television equipment and GOS appeared: first of all, infrared and photocontrast and even radio-frequency semi-active and active ... (USA) The problem of long-range guidance could be solved with the help of repeaters, both on manned aircraft and on "drones" (FAU-repeater)
                    About "beacons" in New York ... Well, it's generally pointless to discuss (!) ... "Where are you, sir, to the devil?!" (M. Boyarsky)
                    During the war, the use of turbojet engines on the CD was also considered ... and even prototypes were created ... And the Germans had swept wings! (Focke-Wulf Ta-183)

                    But the main thing, alas, you did not grasp the essence of my comment, unlike Krasnodar! request
                    1. 0
                      22 June 2021 06: 53
                      Quote: Nikolaevich I
                      the Germans had swept wings! (Focke-Wulf Ta-183)
                      Were on paper, but in the air?
                      16 experimental aircraft were ordered for construction. Ta.183V1-V3 were to be equipped with Jumo 004B engines. Ta.183V4-V14 - pre-production machines, with numbers V15 and V16 - for static tests. The first flight of the fighter was planned in May-June 1945., and with both configurations of the tail, and the beginning of mass production in October of the same year.

                      For your information:
                      "For more than a quarter of a century, scientists have calculated, modeled and, finally, created a wing shape, which they called" Gothic ", although the birthplace of this form is Soviet Russia, the place of registration is the city of Voronezh, the year of birth of this form is 1933. The godfather is twenty-nine years old Voronezh aircraft designer Alexander Moskalev .... "- N.S. Rybko, Honored Test Pilot, Hero of the Soviet Union

                      September 1937 years
                      These were the tests of the world's first airplane with a delta wing of low aspect ratio (L = 0.975). The matter remained only for supersonic flight speeds.
                      In our country, however incredible it may seem, someone will strive to destroy all information about Strela and its successful test in the air in 1937without stopping before brushing the priority of our Motherland in the discovery of the most promising wing layout for supersonic and orbital aircraft back in 1934.
      2. +5
        19 June 2021 20: 52
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        Usually, historians attribute the V-1 to an ineffective weapon.

        As far as I remember, exactly the opposite. Historians claim that the FAU-1 was the most effective means of attacking England available to Germany. The cost price of this pulsating engine is scanty. But the funds deployed by the British to intercept at least part of these embryos of the CD turned out to be huge. The burden on the British economy from the interception of the FAU-1 far exceeded the burden on the German economy. In the case of the FAU-2, it was the other way around.
    2. Alf
      +2
      19 June 2021 19: 11
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      1. Aviation (fighters)

      Which would be very useful above the front line. So the efficiency of the fau is indirectly high.
    3. +2
      19 June 2021 20: 48
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      The airborne balloons also played a role ... 231 KR died on such obstacles ...

      Out of 10 thousand? And how many tens of thousands of balloons did you have to deliver?
      1. +3
        20 June 2021 04: 07
        Quote: Saxahorse
        Out of 10 thousand? And how many tens of thousands of balloons did you have to deliver?

        Well, why take it so ... just? Why did these 10.000 surrender to you, if most of them were "short"? If, in general, less than 3000 "pieces" reached London? VZ balloons were also intended against the Luftwaffe ... and there were losses ... plus a change in the bombing altitude, in order to reduce the bombing accuracy ... And there were about 2000 of these "erostats" ... and 231 CR destroyed ! And how many anti-aircraft shells were spent on one downed plane? How many sorties are there?
        1. +2
          20 June 2021 20: 14
          I admit that a bubble on a string is also a way to spoil the mood of the enemy. And an inexpensive way. However, relying on them as an effective means of air defense is probably not worth it. The Germans had a global problem with the guidance system of these FAU-1s. That is why so few flew. Otherwise, you can simply fight the balloons by diving the RC at a given point. I suspect that missiles have gotten themselves into them, which have already lost their way long ago and badly.
  3. -1
    19 June 2021 11: 10
    Much has been said about the battles of the RAF pilots with the Luftwaffe aces in the "Battle of Britain", and the battle was disassembled.


    The main thing was not said - the "battle for Britain" is a figment of the imagination of British propagandists. The British "battle" narrative directly contradicts Hitler's directives to wage war against England and deliberately distorts their meaning. And the detailed analysis of air battles was intended to hide this distortion. "Researchers" immerse themselves in the analysis of tactical episodes, expert accounts and lists of losses and as a result do not notice that they have 2 + 2 = 5 in their axioms.
    All these "bzb", "siege of Malta" and so on, these are attempts to create a heroic epic out of nothing

    Regarding dozens of individual "victories" over V 1. The difference between V 1 and an airplane is that its return is not provided for and its flight in any case had to end with a fall and an explosion
  4. +5
    19 June 2021 11: 56
    The use of anti-aircraft anti-aircraft guns of Britain against the FA was almost useless until President Roosevelt authorized the export to Britain of remote radio fuses for anti-aircraft missiles. In this case, the fau got lost even if the anti-aircraft projectile passed close and did not hit the plane.
  5. +8
    19 June 2021 13: 51

    Here, on August 16, 1944, in North East London (Walthamstow area), a V-10 crashed at almost 1 am, blowing to shreds Hitchman's dairies. 22 people were killed, 122 people were injured. After clearing, the place stood empty for a long time, and then a social housing was built there. I pass by him every day.
    1. +2
      20 June 2021 17: 42
      122 people were injured.

      According to the sign - 144
  6. +1
    19 June 2021 15: 26
    The Japanese would have put the gunner-radio operator, and that's it.
    1. 0
      19 June 2021 19: 03
      can all the same pilot ??? and such an idea was implemented in the Alt story in the Sea Wolf series - Tolstoy Vladislav wrote the alt to the side of the Northern Tsunami .. that's where the Japanese just used controlled V-1 ..
  7. Alf
    +2
    19 June 2021 19: 08
    The picture shows a very infrequently visible Tempest Mk-II.
    wing cannons with their projectile dispersion were not the best weapon for dealing with V-1

    But the machine guns of the British fighters also had a wing arrangement.
  8. 0
    19 June 2021 21: 12
    Interesting article, thanks!
  9. +3
    20 June 2021 08: 29
    In the last photo in the article, the mechanic of the 315th Fighter Squadron draws another landing on the plane "Mustang" III PK-G FB166 by Captain Evgeniusz Gorbachevsky




    Here is another photo of this plane.
  10. +2
    21 June 2021 16: 25
    1. There is no information about the loss of fighters and pilots in the fight against V-1. And they beat a lot.
    The Germans could have easily intercepted the V-1 with little or no chance for the fighters, but they deliberately slowed down and thus forced the British to divert hundreds of their aircraft for air defense.
    2. The height of the flight also hit the vibrana above the effective fire zone of automatic small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery and below for medium-caliber ones.
    3. V-1 is a very cheap and economically efficient weapon. The cost of the product is less than 1,5 thousand dollars (the Mustang P-51 fighter cost 58 thousand). The engine is the cheapest thing without bearings and consumes low-quality fuel. Warhead surrogate amatol.
    The ratio of enemy damage / cost to production and use for the V-1 is a record.
    With the best use of resources, you can rivet and use at least another 100 thousand V-1 in place of several hundred heavy bombers He-177, for which at the end of 1944/45 neither pilots nor fuel were hit.
  11. 0
    22 June 2021 10: 32
    It's good that these rackets only had conventional B / h ... hi
  12. Lew
    0
    24 June 2021 12: 55
    English warriors could only fight with a straight-line flying and non-firing blank
  13. 0
    24 June 2021 16: 20
    Not a very fair tactic. It is fair to fight only against the living: infantry in the field, tankers in tanks, pilots in airplanes. And these missiles should be equated with artillery shells: just as a fired artillery shell can no longer be shot down, so these missiles are recognized as indestructible and do not try to counteract them.
  14. 0
    8 July 2021 08: 15
    In fact, the unmanned aerial vehicle of distant years, fau1, whether they won the battle for Britain if there was no eastern front of Germany is a big question, and it remains a mystery why Hitler stopped at Dunkirk (On the Dunkirk operation - sea evacuation carried out by Britain), allowed the British to take out the troops.