Shipbucket

also, taking into consideration that an single spitfire could kill it (by simply hitting one of the V-1's the entire ship goes boom) and it will give large flashes during the attack.... while you are attacking, which will take at least an hour.....
not to forget that this rebuild looks larger then using the ship as an seaplane carrier or full carrier............
no, I am not sold on design, concept, and usefulnes.

The reason that US ballistic missiles were so much more accurate than their Soviet counterparts wasn't that they were had better target information, it was that they had better launch point information. The missiles were more accurate because they knew, down to a few yards, the point where they were being launched from, which made it far easier to determine the proper course to their target.

The V-1 had a guidance system which basically consisted of 'Ok, I'm pointing this way- so I go this way!'
If you don't know exactly where you are at the time of launch, it would be absolutely impossible to fire one and hope to hit a reasonably sized county.

You would be right. If this wasn't the V1M. It is signifcantly faster (about 100 km/h) than its landbased predecessor. And it can be guided by radio signals. So a well hidden agent or submarine would guide the missile on their last mile.
Sure, the signals can get disturbed, the guiding agent or sub could be found. The british services will find out about the new weapon etc etc etc.
This is the first time operation of the V1M in wartime. So a little surprise might be.
Does it make sense now?

Well, I know for certain that my remarks still count, so, IMO, no.

Another reason for the increased accuracy was becasue the Americans had the German scientist working for them, the Soviets had the blueprints. Now guess which is better.

Is this version of the V1 powered by a pulse jet like the earlier model?

Ashley wrote:You would be right. If this wasn't the V1M. It is signifcantly faster (about 100 km/h) than its landbased predecessor. And it can be guided by radio signals. So a well hidden agent or submarine would guide the missile on their last mile.
Sure, the signals can get disturbed, the guiding agent or sub could be found. The british services will find out about the new weapon etc etc etc.
This is the first time operation of the V1M in wartime. So a little surprise might be.
Does it make sense now?

No. The missiles would either have to home in on the radio signal, in which case you'd have to hide the transmitters on board the individual ships or they'd have to be remote controlled which means that the hidden controller will have to know which missile will respond to which frequency, be in a position to see their approach and their target, seek out and perform terminal guidance on a new target every two or so and he'll have to remain undetected for at least 2½ hours while he's radiating for all to see.
And that completely ignores the fact that the Brits were very good at shooting down V1s. Certainly, the extra 100km/h is going to be handicap for them, but since they have two minutes to shoot each one down in I doubt it'll be enough.
In addition, if the war last a year longer then the Gloster Meteor F.4 will be available in substantial numbers.

Karle94 wrote:Another reason for the increased accuracy was becasue the Americans had the German scientist working for them, the Soviets had the blueprints. Now guess which is better.

There's so much wrong with that statement.

Ashley wrote:The concept was well tested with the cruiser Passau and the mobile airfield was the ideal source for a successful conversion.

Speaking of the Passau, I took the liberty of updating the old design a bit, I hope you don't mind:

My opinion is that the Passau is more plausible from the previous V1M cruiser.

Neither are workable. They have the same problems, but in the Passau's case it's aggravated by a small ammunition supply. And when you have a CEP measured in tens of miles on a windless day you're going to need a lot ofrounds to hit anything.