- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,318
- Reaction score
- 1,839
This is really just a quick muse and I am curious about other peoples opinions. In a moment of mind wander I considered that perhaps Germany could have increased the utility of the V1/V2 force by targeting the weapons against British south coast ports and later the Normandy peninsular following D-Day thus interdicting the allied invasion effort rather than aimlessly reducing London's housing stock. Whilst this would probably have still been a relatively un-influential exercise it seems to me that it would have made more strategic sense. There is of course at least one disadvantage to this idea:
1) V1/V2 accuracy limitations would have limited the overall effect of such a campaign to nuisance levels unless production could be brought up to the levels being achieved in early 1945 (800 V2's in February 1945)
However, there does also seem to be an advantage, especially for the V1:
1) With the motor cut-out occurring only over the south coast the RAF would have had significantly less warning time for interception and destruction- defence would be greatly complicated.
The campaign against Antwerp seems to have had, at least partially, an element of a more strategically minded motivation behind it in that it was intended to interrupt Allied use of that port. The campaign never achieved that and is thus demonstrative of the fact that this little musing of mine would have had minimal overall impact, maybe an interesting discussion point though?
Eisenhower had similar thoughts: 'It seemed likely that if the German had succeeded in perfecting and using these new weapons six months earlier than he did, our invasion of Europe would have proved exceedingly difficult, perhaps impossible. I feel sure that if they had succeeded in using these weapons over a 5 month period, and particularly if they had made the Portsmouth-Southampton area one of their principal targets, 'Overlord" may have been written off.' (Crusade in Europe)
Perhaps he overstated the case?
1) V1/V2 accuracy limitations would have limited the overall effect of such a campaign to nuisance levels unless production could be brought up to the levels being achieved in early 1945 (800 V2's in February 1945)
However, there does also seem to be an advantage, especially for the V1:
1) With the motor cut-out occurring only over the south coast the RAF would have had significantly less warning time for interception and destruction- defence would be greatly complicated.
The campaign against Antwerp seems to have had, at least partially, an element of a more strategically minded motivation behind it in that it was intended to interrupt Allied use of that port. The campaign never achieved that and is thus demonstrative of the fact that this little musing of mine would have had minimal overall impact, maybe an interesting discussion point though?
Eisenhower had similar thoughts: 'It seemed likely that if the German had succeeded in perfecting and using these new weapons six months earlier than he did, our invasion of Europe would have proved exceedingly difficult, perhaps impossible. I feel sure that if they had succeeded in using these weapons over a 5 month period, and particularly if they had made the Portsmouth-Southampton area one of their principal targets, 'Overlord" may have been written off.' (Crusade in Europe)
Perhaps he overstated the case?
