The Top 40

Balls the size of Canada--that's what all of those pilots had. I read stuff like that and my legs go weak thinking of all the things that could go wrong. Cripes.

I just finished a book called "The Few" about Americans who flew for the RAF during the Battle for Britain. An excellent book in case anyone is interested. I was already aware of the bravery of all the pilots who flew for the RAF and that they took down V-1's however they could figure our how to do so.

Against overwhelming odds did the RAF prevail. They were and still are the 'dogs Bullocks'.

I just finished a book called "The Few" about Americans who flew for the RAF during the Battle for Britain. An excellent book in case anyone is interested. I was already aware of the bravery of all the pilots who flew for the RAF and that they took down V-1's however they could figure our how to do so.

Against overwhelming odds did the RAF prevail. They were and still are the 'dogs Bullocks'.

Sorry about the double post of my comment.

Eric Brown is/was an RAF pilot during the Big One. He was also a test pilot for England, during and after the war. He is often a figure shown in any of the various WWII programs you might see on TV or the net. He tells the story of him and others doing exactly this to V-1s.

I second PatriotUSA's recommendation of "The Few".

Dumb question, but couldn't they have fixed machine guns on the wings firing left or right and flown lateral to the V-1 and fired from a safe distance?

Slight correction: Eric Brown actually was a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy, not the RAF. But yes, he did a lot of test flying of the early jets. And had a big pair in a lot of areas--he holds the record for carrier landings at over 2,400. He's still hanging in there in his 90s, last I checked.

@Mumblix: Perhaps in theory, but I don't know that anyone ever tested the ballistics involved in flying parallel to a target and then trying to shoot it down. The gunsights of the day were barely adequate at computing deflection shots, but this is a very different problem set. The planes that could have fired that way--bombers with waist guns and flexible turrets--didn't have anywhere near the speed to catch a V-1.

In response to "Dumb question", really, really hard to take out a cylindrical object at 450 mph, with 50 cal bullets, factoring in weather, prop wash, trajectory, etc. I get your point but if you have ever shot a weapon you will now how hard it is to hit a moving target, especially laterally.

Regarding flying alongside a target and trying to shoot it down, the Germans tried something similar in some of their night fighters. They installed a row of guns, 20mm cannon, I believe, to fire up instead of left or right. The idea was to fly beneath the other aircraft, match speed, and then fire. It had some success against British bombers, but, like shooting down V-1s, it was also a pretty hairy proposition. I for one would not want to be under a bomb-laden Lancaster or Halifax when it started to disintegrate and go out of control. Luftwaffe pilots who tried it shared this opinion, and eventually went back to more conventional intercept tactics.