“Weapon of retaliation” - the V-1 projectile, also known as the V-1

32
“Weapon of retaliation” - the V-1 projectile, also known as the V-1
V-1 rocket during transport


On June 13, 1944, Nazi Germany first used the Fieseler Fi 103, also known as the V 1, missile. On that day, several of these missiles were launched towards London with the aim of causing maximum damage and terrorizing the population. The missile launches continued, and by the end of March 1, the Germans troops spent at least 15-16 thousand flying bombs. This weapon caused noticeable damage, but its real effectiveness turned out to be extremely limited, and opponents were quickly able to find means and methods of counteraction.



Development and preparation


The future V-1/A-2/Fi-103 ground- or air-launched missile/cruise missile has been developed since the mid-thirties with the participation of a number of German organizations. Work on the final version of the project began in June 1942, and the first flight of the prototype rocket took place in December. Flight testing and development of the product lasted about a year and a half.

The new weapon was supposed to be used primarily against Great Britain. In this regard, in the first half of 1943, in the north-west of occupied France, at a minimum distance from the British Isles, construction began on a large number of launching positions for the new rocket. In addition, an option was being developed to launch missiles from converted He-111 bombers.

The plan called for the construction of four fully protected bunkers with launchers, as well as about 100 "light" positions, practically devoid of protection. To operate these facilities and use the missiles, the 1943th Special Forces was formed in November 65. army body.


Work on the V-1 topic was quite difficult and took a lot of time. First of all, this was due to the overall complexity of the project and the need to develop a number of new units and mechanisms. In addition, in May 1943, the anti-Hitler coalition learned about the existence of a certain promising project and corresponding construction, and took action. Since the end of summer, the Peenemünde test site, where missile development and testing took place, as well as launch positions under construction in France, have been regularly subjected to aviation blows.

Due to the overall complexity and active opposition of the enemy, Germany was able to bring its new “miracle weapon” to a state of operational readiness only by the summer of 1944. The planned positions were built, mass production of projectile aircraft was established, and other measures were carried out.

Against Great Britain


The first combat launches of V-1 missiles took place on June 13, 1944. On this day, only 10 missiles were launched from “light” complexes in France. London was chosen as their target. Five products crashed immediately after launch or during flight. Probably the same thing happened with the sixth one, but there is no exact information about it. Three more fell on British soil, and only one reached the capital. The ammunition fell in the Benthal Green area and destroyed or damaged several buildings. 6 people died. and 9 were injured.

A few days later the second launch took place; this time, 294 missiles were sent to Great Britain within a few hours, incl. 244 to London. About a hundred products did not even reach the British coast. However, of the remaining 73 fell within the capital and its suburbs, killing several dozen people.

Subsequently, V-1 launches became regular. With a frequency of no more than a few days, German troops launched dozens of projectile aircraft. Some of these products reached their destinations - London and other large cities. At the same time, a significant part of the missiles did not reach due to technical reasons or due to the impact of British air defense.


Rocket layout - British diagram for reference

It should be noted that the combat use of V-1 missiles began after the landing of allied forces in Normandy. Moving deeper into French territory, the Allies gradually captured or destroyed launch sites for missiles. As a result, the intensity of missile use dropped sharply in the fall of 1944. At the same time, German troops began to more actively use air-launched cruise missiles. The last launches of this kind were noted at the end of March 1945.

Over the entire period, approx. 10,5 thousand projectile aircraft - approx. 8,9 thousand ground-based and only 1,6 thousand air-based. Only 3,2 thousand rockets fell on or near British cities, i.e. about a third of those launched. The main target of the attacks was London, which reached only 2,4 thousand missiles. They destroyed approx. 23 thousand buildings and killed up to 6,2 thousand people. With all this, there was no talk of hitting specific targets and objects - the missiles accidentally hit different areas and buildings.

On the continent


German troops tried to stop the advancing Allied forces by all available methods. In October 1944, the existing V-1 missiles began to be used for this purpose. With their help, they again planned to inflict various damage in the rear, and also counted on damaging strategic objects.

The main target for the projectile aircraft was the Belgian city of Antwerp, whose port was of particular importance for Allied logistics. Until March 1945, more than 2,4 thousand missiles were launched at it. As in the case of Great Britain, most of the products did not reach their target, and the rest fell on one or another area of ​​the city. At the same time, the port, which was the main target, received minimal damage, and its work practically did not stop.

French cities within range were also subject to missile attacks. The Nazis were going to disrupt logistics, hit troops or their command and control agencies, etc. In addition, there were banal revenge and attempts to somehow harm a superior enemy.


Clearing rubble after a German rocket crash. London, 1944

Launches against targets on the territory of continental Europe were carried out over a wide range of ranges, up to the maximum. At the same time, shorter ranges made it possible to improve accuracy to some extent, although in this case it was only about hitting a target the size of a city. In general, the percentage of missiles that flew and fell on cities, as before, remained insignificant.

Technical limitations


From a design point of view, the V-1 product was a projectile aircraft with a torpedo-shaped fuselage 7,75 m long, a straight wing with a span of 5,3 m and a take-off weight of 2,16 tons. The rocket was equipped with an Argus As 014 pulsating air-breathing engine and developed speed up to 700-800 km/h. The maximum flight range was 286 km. Combat load – up to 1 ton.

The rocket received an original autopilot based on gyroscopes and a magnetic compass. He kept the rocket on a given course with the required pitch. There was no roll control. There was a mechanical range counter that determined the moment of transition to a dive on the target. The actuators were made on the basis of pneumatics.

The V-1 project was not perfect - both the rocket as a whole and its individual devices. The result was limited product reliability, low accuracy and vulnerability to various influences. Thus, one of the main causes of accidents at launch and in flight was an imperfect thruster. Some of the engines did not start during the initial acceleration of the rocket, while others could stall in flight.


British pilots study new threat

The control system added problems. According to calculations, it should have given a CEP of no more than 900-1000 m at maximum range. However, the imperfection of instruments, external conditions, etc. led to greater deviation. As a result, an aircraft projectile, both in theory and in practice, could only hit a target the size of a city - of course, if it reached it.

Countermeasures


Faced with a new threat, the UK armed forces began to look for measures to counter it. This problem was solved, and further practice showed the high efficiency of the solutions found. As they were introduced, the share of missiles that did not reach their targets reached the level of 75-80 percent.

First of all, they continued to use and improve the ground-based air defense system built during the Battle of Britain. Existing and newly developed guns were deployed in dangerous areas and equipped with newly developed radar fire control systems. In addition, during that period the introduction of artillery shells with radio fuses began. According to known data, air defense guns account for approx. 1,85 thousand intercepted V-1 missiles.

Ground artillery was supplemented with barrage balloons. For all their simplicity and objective limitations, they were able to shoot down more than 200 flying projectiles.


V-1 at an exhibition of captured equipment. Paris, 1945

Fighter aircraft made a significant contribution to the fight against missiles. It accounts for about 1,8-2 thousand V-1s destroyed. If possible, the missiles were hit by fire from a safe distance - the pilot had to damage the target, but not touch its warhead. They also practiced picking up the wing of a rocket with the wing of a fighter, giving the latter a roll. The imperfect control system could not bring the projectile out of the turn, and it ended its flight on the ground.

With low efficiency


Thus, Nazi Germany used V-1 cruise missiles for 10 months, and during this time spent at least 15-16 thousand of such products. At the same time, no more than 20-25 percent reached their goals. launched projectiles, while the rest fell along the way or were shot down by artillery and aircraft. However, the incoming missiles caused significant damage and killed several thousand people.

However, in general, the combat use of German V-1 projectile aircraft cannot be called successful. The overall imperfection of the design and countermeasures from adversaries seriously limited the percentage of missiles that managed to at least hit the intended city. At the same time, there are known calculations according to which the V-1 had acceptable cost and efficiency indicators, and in these indicators it was superior to V-2 ballistic missiles or bomber aircraft. In addition, Great Britain and other countries had to spend resources and effort on organizing defense. However, the overall result is well known - the V-1 projectile did not become a “miracle weapon” and did not save Germany from defeat.
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  2. +1
    13 June 2024 05: 00
    It is not difficult to set up the production of such wunderwaffles. If you use more modern technologies, such as gluing the fuselage, wing, and gas tank from fiberglass, then only the jet engine will reflect radio waves, and the visibility will be no more than that of a hail missile. And if you make the cross-section of the engine not round, but, say, hexagonal, visibility will further decrease. Naturally, the control system should be based on GPS or GLONASS, this will make the accuracy sufficient for almost 1000 kg of warhead to take out a target such as a specific building in the city. Such a control system will also be much lighter and smaller than the original German one, and the resulting savings in volume and weight can be used for either additional fuel or explosives. As a result, a completely usable cruise missile with a range of 500 km and a ton warhead is several times cheaper than the Caliber.
    1. +5
      13 June 2024 05: 28
      Only the jet engine will reflect radio waves, and the visibility will be no more than that of Grad missiles.
      You forget about the infrared waves that will give out a flying rocket with its head. And that wonderful design that you described looks very much like a UAV
      1. -1
        13 June 2024 23: 18
        The mass nature of the salvo, the casing with a radiator on the engine will reduce visibility in the IR range. This thing, when mass produced, will be cheaper than an air defense missile.
      2. 0
        14 June 2024 06: 13
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        waves of the infrared range, which will give out a flying rocket with its head
        Infrared radiation will not help an air defense system using a radar. And for missiles with an IR homing head to lock onto a target, they must be at least approximately directed towards the target. If it is painted with dark matte paint, go and notice a silhouette against the night sky moving at 600 km/h at an altitude of 200-300m. Well, unless you put batteries of searchlights to cover objects, like during the Second World War.
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        And that wonderful design that you described looks very much like a UAV
        Whatever you call it, the main thing is that it delivers the warhead to the right place.
    2. 0
      13 June 2024 08: 53
      Quote: Nagan
      GPS or GLONASS

      Well, it’s as if we now install both at once Yes For the Kyrgyz Republic, protection is a low flight altitude (the FAU did not seem to suffer from this, which is why it was shot down). Because the speed is subsonic - it is now an easy target for missile defense/air defense, even quite old models. And they can also jam the assholes - therefore, a television seeker + terrain maps combined with inertial ones will be orders of magnitude more reliable - we don’t have a desert in 404. And ramjet engines are not the best option IMHO. Its advantage is only in its simplicity and cheapness, but subsonic ones have extremely low efficiency (I don’t remember exactly, but at 0.8mach - about 10%+-) + you need a TT accelerator or launch from a carrier. Well, perhaps - if a supersonic ramjet request - but here my knowledge is excised. Maybe my colleagues can give me some advice? recourse
      1. +6
        13 June 2024 18: 37
        she is an easy target now for missile defense/air defense
        A semi-homemade flying machine for $3000 will require a rocket costing almost a million.
        1. -1
          13 June 2024 18: 45
          Colleague, in general we were not talking about a flying machine, but a flying machine - which carries a ton of TNT....
          Quote: Bolt Cutter
          will require a rocket costing almost a million

          Even a pack of 3 patriots doesn’t cost that much feel Well, maybe they are on sale, but not worth it
          1. +3
            13 June 2024 18: 48
            https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68901820

            each missile costs nearly $4m. A million is still cheap.
            1. 0
              13 June 2024 18: 51
              I added there, but didn’t have time... I’ll explain... for example, for myself with 3 iPhones $169 in 2008 - on sale at the exit emnip $999... debit minus credit = balance in your pocket. I think you got the idea. wink
              1. +4
                13 June 2024 18: 52
                Their cost price is also not that of an iPhone - it’s very a high-tech product. And the manufacturer will not sell them at cost.
      2. 0
        14 June 2024 06: 00
        Quote from Enceladus
        Ramjet engines are not the best option IMHO. Its advantage is only in simplicity and cheapness, but subsonic ones have extremely low efficiency
        The advantage is that if you do not change the contours and alignment, the airframe and engine do not need to be tested - it has already been tested by the Germans and it is known that it flies 500 km with this particular engine. All that will need to be tested is the guidance system, and even here you can not reinvent the wheel, but modify the existing one, well, say, from Geranium.
        And if Zelensky is delivered a ton of explosives to the remaining power plants once a day, he will be very happy.
        Quote from Enceladus
        need a TT accelerator
        The main engine from the decommissioned 5B27 will cope quite well. Or something similar - you never know what has been lying around in warehouses since Soviet times, there will be something suitable.
    3. 0
      22 August 2024 14: 54
      . Only a jet engine will reflect radio waves

      Fiberglass and plastic also break well and reflect radio waves. Due to the difference in dielectric constant with air.
    4. 0
      28 August 2024 19: 54
      the production of such wunderwaffles is not difficult

      This is certainly how they are developed and tested, if a satisfactory price/quality ratio is obtained, we will hear them and this is a disadvantage. Subsonic speed and high noise level.
  3. 15+
    13 June 2024 05: 14
    Alas, nothing is said about the legendary Erhard Fisiler, WWI pilot, aircraft designer, developer and owner of the company where the FAA was created. There is nothing about the pulsating jet engine, which was the “cherry on the cake” in this design and its talented creator, engineer Schmidt. The author simply went over all the known facts
    1. +4
      13 June 2024 07: 43
      I agree.... fortunately somewhere recently there was an article about all the fau here on VO - look for it Yes . There seemed to be a technical part for sure.
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      The author simply went over all the known facts
      1. +2
        14 June 2024 15: 03
        https://topwar.ru/233718-poslevoennoe-ispolzovanie-nemeckih-krylatyh-raket.html
        hi
    2. 10+
      13 June 2024 07: 49
      The author simply went over all the known facts
      One cannot expect anything else from this author.
  4. +3
    13 June 2024 08: 25
    What a strange title of the article: “Weapon of retaliation” - the V-1 projectile aircraft, also known as the V-1.
    The expression “he” is placed before other names of the same thing: before other surnames and first names, nicknames or nicknames. Writing a foreign name or title in a different alphabet or in another language does not apply to this: “fau” is the spelling in Russian letters of the name of the letter “v” in German. Therefore, the title should be like this: “Weapon of retaliation” - the “V-1” (“V-1”) projectile aircraft.
  5. +4
    13 June 2024 09: 30
    You need to read the text after the auto-translator - “...take-off weight 2,16 kg,” otherwise it turns out to be nonsense.
  6. +3
    13 June 2024 11: 41
    It turned out that a large number of VVs were launched from aircraft. There is little information about this. What was the platform - He-111 or Ar-234?
    1. +2
      14 June 2024 18: 29
      And He.111N-22 (under the left or under the right wing), and Arado.234-B and C, the latter are experimental
  7. 0
    13 June 2024 12: 46
    The V-1 was apparently the most effective technology for hitting a "city-sized target." The very need to work towards such goals and spend resources on such strange weapons is questionable.
    1. +1
      13 June 2024 14: 21
      Initially it was designed for a chemical or atomic warhead. Even just with “chemistry”, its effectiveness would be several times, or even orders of magnitude, greater
  8. 0
    13 June 2024 14: 00
    A useless weapon of terror. Like any bombing aimed at intimidating the population.
  9. -1
    13 June 2024 18: 44
    Initially, an idiotic idea - firing non-guided missiles with such accuracy is insanity, especially with missiles with such technical reliability
  10. +3
    13 June 2024 19: 10
    There is an opinion that the V-1 is an effective weapon of war of attrition - the fight against it diverted a lot of forces and resources, including the latest tempests and spits mod 14, the sprint modification of the R-47M, the additional creation of a defense belt of anti-aircraft guns equipped with the latest radar fire control systems, dozens thousands of US Bomber Command and 8th VA missions against launch sites, etc.
  11. +2
    13 June 2024 23: 34
    Quote: Nagan
    It is not difficult to set up the production of such wunderwaffles.

    It will be quite suitable as decoys for air defense for some time.
  12. 0
    14 June 2024 08: 24
    Quote: Nagan
    If you use more modern technologies, such as gluing the fuselage, wing, and gas tank from fiberglass, then only the jet engine will reflect radio waves, and the visibility will be no more than that of a hail missile.


    Quite enough for confident detection.


    Quote: Nagan
    Naturally, the control system will be based on GPS or GLONASS,


    Which will make it sensitive to counteraction from electronic warfare systems.

    Quote: Nagan
    As a result, a completely usable cruise missile with a range of 500 km and a ton warhead is several times cheaper than the Caliber.


    And many times less effective. Since initially this “waffle” is not capable of flight mode taking into account the terrain at ultra-low altitudes, like modern missile launchers.
    About half of the V-1s fired at England were intercepted by piston fighters. For a modern interceptor, it is simply a flying target.
  13. +3
    15 June 2024 15: 58
    With low efficiency. At the same time, no more than 20-25 percent reached their goals. launched projectiles, while the rest fell along the way or were shot down by artillery and aircraft.

    1. Just the opposite. This is a very effective weapon. The cost of one Fieseler 103 is 3500 district marks!
    For comparison, one Me-109 fighter costs 86 thousand Reichsmarks, a Mustang costs 200 thousand Reichsmarks, and a B-17 bomber costs more than a million Reichsmarks.
    2. These 25% who reached the goal are approximately 5 thousand tons of explosives. The loss was very painful not only for London, but also for the port of Antwerp. An evacuation was carried out in London, and the working hours of the industry were reduced due to the constant attacks.
    3. To fight the V-1, they created a huge group of anti-aircraft artillery and spent a colossal amount of expensive ammunition. Fighter aviation made tens of thousands of flights and lost hundreds of aircraft and pilots.
    The V-1 is an excellent example of a very simple, cheap and effective weapon.
    Today the same thing can be done incomparably better and more efficiently.
  14. +2
    15 June 2024 16: 12
    Quote: Illanatol
    Since initially this “waffle” is not capable of flight mode taking into account the terrain at ultra-low altitudes, like modern missile launchers.
    About half of the V-1s fired at England were intercepted by piston fighters. For a modern interceptor, it is simply a flying target.

    They could be made to fly faster and higher than fighters. But they did the opposite. The speed beat the vibram so that the fighters have a chance to intercept. Thus they distracted thousands of the best air defense aircraft and pilots and caused them the pain of loss. When this target exploded, it often carried away both the fighter and its pilot.
    The flight altitude was adjusted so that it hit the ceiling of the MZA and very low for the SZA. Therefore, the ZA not only worked ineffectively, but often knocked down targets so that they fell on the protected object.
    Due to the reduction in characteristics, the V-1 turned out to be very cheap.
  15. +1
    17 June 2024 02: 25
    Quote: Nagan
    The advantage is that if you do not change the contours and alignment, the airframe and engine do not need to be tested - it has already been tested by the Germans and it is known that it flies 500 km with this particular engine. All that will need to be tested is the guidance system, and even here you can not reinvent the wheel, but modify the existing one, well, say, from Geranium.

    There is a Soviet analogue of Chelomey's R-10. The design bureau is located in the Moscow region and is still alive, as are its archives. In addition, they can be thrown out in cassettes with the already existing cargo parachute system from the Il-76 over the Black Sea and in this way will greatly relieve missile-carrying aircraft from worries and burden the Ukrainian air defense.
  16. +2
    5 August 2024 21: 23
    There was also a manned version called "Reichenberg", essentially a German version of the Japanese "Oka" for you know who :)