V-3???

I watched the History Channel's program on the death of Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. in the explosion of an explosives-filled Navy Liberator bomber. Knowing the History Channel's reputation for accuracy (they said the plane was a PBY-4, not a PB4Y), I thought I had better ask some questions. The program said that the objective of the mission was for the pilot and co-pilot to bail out and the plane to fly, radio- controlled, into a V-3 site in France. The V-3 was a long-range gun. I've never heard of a V-3, but a quick web search turns up some references that agree with the program, including that the gun was used (from another site) in December 1944 and inflicted some damage on a church in Luxembourg. Also that the site that was Kennedy's target had been hit by 617 Squadron's Tallboy bombs the month before the mission. Is this all true, including the existence and use of the V-3 gun? And...why did the plane need a crew to take off; why not take off and fly the entire mission under radio control? Taking off is much easier than making a controlled crash into a small target, so why risk the crew's lives by having them on board for the takeoff? Thanks for any help... Merlin Dorfman

The V-3 was a long-range

The V-3 existed. It was never fired, but a smaller version of the weapon became operational, and was used in IIRC December 1944. There was one battery of four IIRC, and they fired about 100 shells.

Dirk Lorek posted an excellent summary of this a few months ago, which I was sure I saved but can't find now, of course.

The plane was heavily loaded with explosives, probably loaded to max takeoff weight.

Takeoffs are _not_ easy. There are various odd conditions which affect the stability of a plane when it is close to the ground.

A plane taking off is stopped and has no lift to begin with.

It speeds up going down the runway.

At some point it exceeds 'stall speed'. If, at that moment, the wing flaps are down, the plane will lift off.

But the pilot has to be careful. Putting the flaps down increases lift at the expense of speed; if the plane has insufficient speed, it may stall, and thump back on the runway, losing yet more speed.

And the plane _must_ get off the ground and clear of any obstacles _before_ reaching the end of the runway.

Furthermore, the plane is almost certainly not perfectly stable in roll and yaw. A pilot, sitting at the controls, will feel a change in roll or yaw and compensate at once.

A remote pilot, watching from a distance, will not not notice such changes till they are much larger, and his reaction will be delayed. The plane could easily roll or yaw out of control.

For instance one wing could dip, causing the landing gear on that side to touch. That in turn puts drag on that side of the plane, causing the plane to yaw to that side. The plane, fully, loaded, weighs about thirty tonnes. Once that mass starts pivoting, it's hard to stop.

At the same time, it's moving down the runway at 100-150 kph. So the plane is going to be moving slaunchwise. Say the right wing dips, the right wheels touch, the plane yaws to the right. The left wing, elevated by the roll to the right, is to the front, creating lift that will roll the plane further.

I think you see the problem.

Merlin Dorfman pustulated:

PB4Y, the Navy's version of the B-24, one of the wartime twin rudder models, noty the late- and post-war single finned 'Privateer'

This part has an extraordinary reek of bullshit. The unmanned bomber program was developed to strike V1 or V2 sites, IIRC (and I can't remember which of the two the Kennedy flight was after, but the substantial concrete ramp structure used by the V1 seems more likely, since the V2 required only a pad, and the a/c was used because of its short range load factor, a substantial amount of explosive.

While taking off in some unmanned a/c's a simple evolution, B- 24/PB4Ys fully loaded required strong arms and strong legs and good judgement. I suspect, however, t'weren't the takeoff that was the problem, but the idea of a very large bomb (controlled only by a relatively undependable radio link) tooling about over Southern England, potentially losing its radio link at any moment, and possibly falling upon Canterbury Cathedral, Dover castle or some minor public scholl with a large thump. Robotics in 1944 had not quite reached today's level.

Brownshoe aviators, especially JGs and LTs, were cheaper and in greater supply than cathedrals or even minor public schools.

After all, I do recall witnessing a USNavy 'DASH' losing command link in about 1963 (better command guidance than '44) and smartly attacking a large aircraft carrier....

As a pilot of however limited experience, I doubt that 'Taking off is much easier than making a controlled crash into a small target.'

Taking off a fully loaded bomber is a significant task of human skill. Pilots with only single-engined experience would probably fail, being unprepared for significant differences of a heavy 4-engined a/c.

So making an electric 'black box' capable of taking off reliably (adjusting for bumps in the tarmac and gusts of wind) would be a significant technical task

The Allied intelligence had gotten wind of several German projects, some of which never got out of the design stage. The opbjectives for Aphrodite were a pair of bunker complexes that had bombed and bombed but seemed to still be operational.

That's the key, TM - Seemed. Ditto with the intel - it wasn't fact, but they didn't KNOW that.

The bunkers, as it turned out, were heavily damaged and abandoned by the 617 SQ attacks, but the Germans made quick, COSMETIC repairs and the bunkers LOOKED operational and untouched. Hence, Aphrodite.

Play more with Claymore! V-Man

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.

I'm not sure of the source for this, but 617 Squadron's records and Cheshire's memiors both mention observation of 1 direct and 4 very near misses (the most effective kind) which caused the concrete roof over the V3 gun to cave in over an area of 100 square metres. It doesn't seem likely that the RAF would ignore this and ULTRA evidence and in fact no more attacks by BC were ever made on Mimoyeques, as they certainly would have been had the War Cabinet thought that this 'secret weapon site' was still operational.