stuart
1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky
-
lazybather
- Member
- Posts: 861
- Joined: 22 Aug 2005, 19:47
- Location: London
-
zeitmeister
- Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 24 Mar 2006, 19:07
- Location: england
Don't know for sure but at 55mm caliber I would imagine the warhead might be the same as the ammo fired by the Mk112 55mm aircraft cannon.......and you could get away with using factory seconds that were not quite machined to tolerances needed for firing from cannon......I think that sort of thing is what the russians used to use for their katuskya warheads.....but then that could be a myth. 
-
Kristian S.
- Member
- Posts: 225
- Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 11:20
- Location: Germany
The FW 190F-8 had an armarment of two MG-131 machine guns, two 2cm MG-151 cannons and according to Uffz. Fritz Kreitl of I/SG 2, it could carry either 24 R4M-Raketen or 14 55mm-Panzerblitz-Raketen.Lkefct wrote:The panzer blitz2 version of the R4M was deployed on 190 F's on the eastern front to destroy tanks. they used batteries of 6 rockets I believe.
Source: "Die großen Luftschlachten des Zweiten Weltkriegs"; by Aerospace Publishing Ltd.
-
Kristian S.
- Member
- Posts: 225
- Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 11:20
- Location: Germany
Hello Lars.Lars wrote:Ok. The site says the warhead is less than 1 kg. 4 kilos overall seems sensible then.
The warhead contained 530 grams of high explosive...
Translation:[...]An diesem Tag erproben die Me 262 erstmalig eine neue Waffe, die R4M - Rakete, 4 kg, Minenkopf. Diese Rakete war unter den Flügeln zu 12 Stück auf einem Rost montiert. Durch einen Intervallschalter wurden je 6 Raketen gleichzeitig gestartet. Der Gefechtskopf mit einem Kaliber von 55 mm enthielt ca. 530 g Sprengstoff HTA, eine Mischung der Sprengstoffe Hexogen, TNT sowie Aluminium, genügend, um einen viermotorigen Bomber auf mehr als 400 m Entfernung zu bekämpfen und zum Absturz zu bringen.[...]
[...]At this day the Me 262 tested a new weapon for the first time, the R4M-rocket, 4kg, mine (war-)head. Of this rocket 12 were assembled underneath each wing on a rack. 6 rockets were started at a time by an interval fuse. The warhead with a caliber of 55 mm contained 530 g HTA explosive, an mixture out of hexogen, TNT and aluminium, enough to engage an four engined bomber from 400 m away and take it out.[...]
Source:
http://www.forgottenplaces.de/luftkriegse.htm
regards
-
Tony Williams
- Member
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 05:31
- Location: UK
- Contact:
No, because you have to factor in the cost of designing, building and running (and replacing) the aircraft to carry the missiles, plus all the ground crew to maintain them. I don't have figures, but I believe that this would be far more than the cost of the AA gun, which will just about last for ever.lazybather wrote:Air to air is going to be flexible than fixed ground units, yes each missile is going to be more expensive, but you'd use less of them than loads of 88cm flak ammunition....so the cost would in the long term, be lower?
Aircraft are more flexible in one sense, in that they can cover a wider area. But if you're interested in defending a specific site then the AA guns are OK because the bombers have to come to you. And, as I've already pointed out, guns can keep chugging away at night as well as in the day, and in bad weather if they're radar guided.
A comprehensive WW2 defence system needs day fighters, night fighters and AA guns. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Most important of all is, of course, the detection, tracking and control system used to inform and command those defences.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
-
T. A. Gardner
- Member
- Posts: 3568
- Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
- Location: Arizona
The R4M is probably the way to go. Flak alone is not going to be effective in stopping a bomber campaign. Several obvious reasons not already given include:
* When the Allies think that flak is becomming too effective they simply sic their fighter bombers on the sites. Since the majority of the bomber killers would be heavy flak guns this would now require their being protected by light flak guns and the cost of their employment rises expotentially.
* Jamming is relatively effective. The US estimated their jamming efforts against Würtzburg reduced their losses by about 300 aircraft alone. The US also had an effective VT fuze jammer available in mid 1944. It was tested against 90mm AA fire by a rather brave 6 man crew using a B-17 in live fire! experiments at Wright Field in Ohio.
* Since cloud cover is often present, in part or in whole, optical aiming of AA fire is often not an option. German fire control radars while sufficent for barrage fire are too inaccurate to allow aiming at a single aircraft; moreso in the face of jamming. Who knows, the Allies might have even begun to employ smoke when clouds were not present if optical fire was a big enough threat.
* The Allies could also, as was noted deploy the B-29. This reduces the Germans to the 128mm gun as a possible defense. Both the 105 and 88 barely can reach normal operational altitudes for the B-29. This means their window of engagement given slant ranges can be measured in seconds rather than minutes. This effectively puts them in the useless category pretty quickly (this is the major reason the major powers all went to SAMs post war).
* The eventual solution is an effective SAM to the whole problem. Only a SAM can cheaply and realistically shoot down aircraft at or above 35,000 feet.
As for the R4M it would have been a real threat. Bomber boxes as used by the US would be untenable in the face of massed rocket fire. The X-4 Ruhrstal missile is an absolute joke by comparison. Wire guidance using a joy stick makes it virtrually worthless as a guided weapon. One need only look at the low hit rates of first generation wire guided anti-tank missiles where the operator can devote his entire attention to guiding the weapon while looking through telescopic sights to see a single seat fighter plane of marginal stability being flown while the pilot tries to guide the missile using nothing more than a standard optical gun sight to show how ridiculous this concept was. IR guidance was nearly a decade away due to the insensitivity of the equipment available.
One can see from the option of the similar FFAR and HVAR US rockets and similar British systems that the R4M was recognized for the potential it really had by the Allies post war. The R4M would have been equally effective at night in massed fires from a night fighter. In fact, in all probability it would have made gun attacks in this situation all but obsolete for the Germans.
Now, one thing the Germans could have done more effectively with heavy flak is what the US did with the 90mm M2 system. This system had powered mounts that were automatically slaved to the fire control system meaning the entire battery automatically tracked in train and elevation the selected target. Fuzing was automatic and a power rammer increased the rate of fire substancially. Of course, this would have greatly increased the manufacturing cost and complexity of these guns so there is a down side here too.
* When the Allies think that flak is becomming too effective they simply sic their fighter bombers on the sites. Since the majority of the bomber killers would be heavy flak guns this would now require their being protected by light flak guns and the cost of their employment rises expotentially.
* Jamming is relatively effective. The US estimated their jamming efforts against Würtzburg reduced their losses by about 300 aircraft alone. The US also had an effective VT fuze jammer available in mid 1944. It was tested against 90mm AA fire by a rather brave 6 man crew using a B-17 in live fire! experiments at Wright Field in Ohio.
* Since cloud cover is often present, in part or in whole, optical aiming of AA fire is often not an option. German fire control radars while sufficent for barrage fire are too inaccurate to allow aiming at a single aircraft; moreso in the face of jamming. Who knows, the Allies might have even begun to employ smoke when clouds were not present if optical fire was a big enough threat.
* The Allies could also, as was noted deploy the B-29. This reduces the Germans to the 128mm gun as a possible defense. Both the 105 and 88 barely can reach normal operational altitudes for the B-29. This means their window of engagement given slant ranges can be measured in seconds rather than minutes. This effectively puts them in the useless category pretty quickly (this is the major reason the major powers all went to SAMs post war).
* The eventual solution is an effective SAM to the whole problem. Only a SAM can cheaply and realistically shoot down aircraft at or above 35,000 feet.
As for the R4M it would have been a real threat. Bomber boxes as used by the US would be untenable in the face of massed rocket fire. The X-4 Ruhrstal missile is an absolute joke by comparison. Wire guidance using a joy stick makes it virtrually worthless as a guided weapon. One need only look at the low hit rates of first generation wire guided anti-tank missiles where the operator can devote his entire attention to guiding the weapon while looking through telescopic sights to see a single seat fighter plane of marginal stability being flown while the pilot tries to guide the missile using nothing more than a standard optical gun sight to show how ridiculous this concept was. IR guidance was nearly a decade away due to the insensitivity of the equipment available.
One can see from the option of the similar FFAR and HVAR US rockets and similar British systems that the R4M was recognized for the potential it really had by the Allies post war. The R4M would have been equally effective at night in massed fires from a night fighter. In fact, in all probability it would have made gun attacks in this situation all but obsolete for the Germans.
Now, one thing the Germans could have done more effectively with heavy flak is what the US did with the 90mm M2 system. This system had powered mounts that were automatically slaved to the fire control system meaning the entire battery automatically tracked in train and elevation the selected target. Fuzing was automatic and a power rammer increased the rate of fire substancially. Of course, this would have greatly increased the manufacturing cost and complexity of these guns so there is a down side here too.
-
Tony Williams
- Member
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 05:31
- Location: UK
- Contact:
I never said it would. See my post above - you need a layered air defence system to achieve the best effect, within which both aircraft and AA guns play important roles.T. A. Gardner wrote:The R4M is probably the way to go. Flak alone is not going to be effective in stopping a bomber campaign.
They won't be able to do that at night. Nor will the R4M be an effective weapon then. During the day, when the Allies think that the air-launched missiles are becoming too effective, they sic their fighters onto the planes carrying them, and their airfields (as historically happened).Several obvious reasons not already given include:
* When the Allies think that flak is becomming too effective they simply sic their fighter bombers on the sites. Since the majority of the bomber killers would be heavy flak guns this would now require their being protected by light flak guns and the cost of their employment rises expotentially.
Jamming of the radar defence network is also effective in hindering the command and control system necessary to ensure that your missile-carrying fighters are in the right place at the right time.* Jamming is relatively effective. The US estimated their jamming efforts against Würtzburg reduced their losses by about 300 aircraft alone.
During the day (which is what you seem to be focusing on, even though the night campaign was just as damaging) the US bombers attacked in tight formations, so the gunners aimed at the formations, not at individual planes.* Since cloud cover is often present, in part or in whole, optical aiming of AA fire is often not an option. German fire control radars while sufficent for barrage fire are too inaccurate to allow aiming at a single aircraft; moreso in the face of jamming.
Yes, they could have done. But the B-29 was vastly more complex and expensive than the B-17 or B-24, so even if it had been possible to make enough of them for both the Pacific and European theatres, there would have been significant resource implications.* The Allies could also, as was noted deploy the B-29.
Agreed. But the package of control and fuzing mechanisms necessary for this to work was not available in WW2.* The eventual solution is an effective SAM to the whole problem. Only a SAM can cheaply and realistically shoot down aircraft at or above 35,000 feet.
Only true of the bombers were unescorted (in which case they were in dire trouble anyway). Escorting fighters would have broken up any mass attacks before they could form up.As for the R4M it would have been a real threat. Bomber boxes as used by the US would be untenable in the face of massed rocket fire.
Agreed.The X-4 Ruhrstal missile is an absolute joke by comparison. Wire guidance using a joy stick makes it virtrually worthless as a guided weapon.
They went through a brief phase of popularity but were never tested in combat, and were seen as an interim measure until guided AAMs could be developed.One can see from the option of the similar FFAR and HVAR US rockets and similar British systems that the R4M was recognized for the potential it really had by the Allies post war.
I disagree. There were no mass bomber formations at night, there was a stream of individual planes which had to be located and hunted individually by the night-fighters, one-on-one. The bombers were usually not even visible until the fighters were very close, and they needed visual sighting to aim. The most effective weapon by far was Schräge Musik, which enabled the fighters to attack where the bombers were most vulnerable - and without warning them that they were under attack.The R4M would have been equally effective at night in massed fires from a night fighter. In fact, in all probability it would have made gun attacks in this situation all but obsolete for the Germans.
True.Now, one thing the Germans could have done more effectively with heavy flak is what the US did with the 90mm M2 system. This system had powered mounts that were automatically slaved to the fire control system meaning the entire battery automatically tracked in train and elevation the selected target. Fuzing was automatic and a power rammer increased the rate of fire substancially. Of course, this would have greatly increased the manufacturing cost and complexity of these guns so there is a down side here too.
In conclusion, I'm not saying that the R4M was useless, it would have provided another weapon in the defence armoury, another headache for the bombers, which is always a good thing. But please note that post-WW2 AA guns continued to be developed in the way you describe above, and were eventually replaced (about a decade later) by SAMs - not by fighters carrying missiles.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
-
lazybather
- Member
- Posts: 861
- Joined: 22 Aug 2005, 19:47
- Location: London
If FLAK guns were more effective than missiles, why does the modern miitary still not use the FLAK 88cm gun?
Surely its obvious that they are an advancement in anti-aircraft defence, because Krupp hasn't got a queue of goverments lining up to buy 88cm FLAK guns!
Even the 88cm had to have its barrels changed regulary, or they'd fail!
Costs of development were borne by the companies involved, the german military just paid for the end product and mark for mark that was surely cheaper than 88cm flak guns and crews..............
one man in a plane v a what 12 man crew inc observation team...........?
And if the allied airforce gets too.........overwhelming...........you just 'bomb' every allied air base in the SE with Tabun....knock then out in one day.............
stuart
Surely its obvious that they are an advancement in anti-aircraft defence, because Krupp hasn't got a queue of goverments lining up to buy 88cm FLAK guns!
Even the 88cm had to have its barrels changed regulary, or they'd fail!
Costs of development were borne by the companies involved, the german military just paid for the end product and mark for mark that was surely cheaper than 88cm flak guns and crews..............
one man in a plane v a what 12 man crew inc observation team...........?
And if the allied airforce gets too.........overwhelming...........you just 'bomb' every allied air base in the SE with Tabun....knock then out in one day.............
stuart
-
Tony Williams
- Member
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 05:31
- Location: UK
- Contact:
-
Tony Williams
- Member
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 05:31
- Location: UK
- Contact:
A couple of afterthoughts:
The Germans were working on subcalibre and rocket-assisted Flak shells at the end of the war, which would have significantly improved the altitude performance. Even without those, the 8.8 cm Flak 41 had an effective ceiling of 35,000 feet (maximum 49,000 feet). As a matter of interest, the British 3.7 inch Mk VI (in service from 1943 until 1956) had an effective ceiling of 45,000 feet and a maximum of 59,000 feet.
The 1950s use of a barrage of unguided air-to-air missiles for attacking bombers was based on a sophisticated firing system, consisting of radar linked to a ballistic computer which worked out where to aim the missiles for a beam attack (the most effective use of such a weapon, as the aircraft present the largest targets). Not possible in WW2.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
The Germans were working on subcalibre and rocket-assisted Flak shells at the end of the war, which would have significantly improved the altitude performance. Even without those, the 8.8 cm Flak 41 had an effective ceiling of 35,000 feet (maximum 49,000 feet). As a matter of interest, the British 3.7 inch Mk VI (in service from 1943 until 1956) had an effective ceiling of 45,000 feet and a maximum of 59,000 feet.
The 1950s use of a barrage of unguided air-to-air missiles for attacking bombers was based on a sophisticated firing system, consisting of radar linked to a ballistic computer which worked out where to aim the missiles for a beam attack (the most effective use of such a weapon, as the aircraft present the largest targets). Not possible in WW2.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Kurt,
I guess that your intial question whether a 1943 ME 109 could have carried the R4Ms can now be answered. Let´s run the revised maths: The R4M did indeed only weigh 4 kilos each. So with 12 under each wing this sums up to 48 kilos. Then comes the wooden rack which perhaps weighed the same, maybe 50 kilos. All in all, 100 kilos or so under each wing. The added weight for each aircraft would then be 200 kilos for carrying 24 R4M rocket. A 1943 ME109 could easily have carried this without mcuh loss of speed.
Then comes the added drag which also reduces speed but it can´t be much as the racks were fitted parralel to the wings which reduced the drag.
All in all, a 1943 ME 109 would have had a speed penalty of - what ? - 20 kilometers less per hour - and be a little less nimble. Nothing which would seriously hamper the ME 109 until Allied long range fighters turned up in the spring of 1944.
I guess that your intial question whether a 1943 ME 109 could have carried the R4Ms can now be answered. Let´s run the revised maths: The R4M did indeed only weigh 4 kilos each. So with 12 under each wing this sums up to 48 kilos. Then comes the wooden rack which perhaps weighed the same, maybe 50 kilos. All in all, 100 kilos or so under each wing. The added weight for each aircraft would then be 200 kilos for carrying 24 R4M rocket. A 1943 ME109 could easily have carried this without mcuh loss of speed.
Then comes the added drag which also reduces speed but it can´t be much as the racks were fitted parralel to the wings which reduced the drag.
All in all, a 1943 ME 109 would have had a speed penalty of - what ? - 20 kilometers less per hour - and be a little less nimble. Nothing which would seriously hamper the ME 109 until Allied long range fighters turned up in the spring of 1944.
-
lazybather
- Member
- Posts: 861
- Joined: 22 Aug 2005, 19:47
- Location: London
Hi Tony, I was thinking of this passage from your earlier posting when I wrote my posting earlier today:
No, because you have to factor in the cost of designing, building and running (and replacing) the aircraft to carry the missiles, plus all the ground crew to maintain them. I don't have figures, but I believe that this would be far more than the cost of the AA gun, which will just about last for ever.
I disagree, cause FLAK gus don't last forever, they wear out..........and adding together the crews, observation teams, fixed installations....the aircraft with missle probably is cheaper in the long run, especially if it does the job more accurately.........the ends justifys the means kind of thought.............
SAM's were in their infancy during WWII, but that's why I think I'm saying.....that air to air is better and more accurate.......cause you remove all the technical stuff that FLAK guns bring with them, (even missiles like the enzion and wasserfall were complicated in their own way).
I wasn't being arsey with you Tony, I had eight pints of guinness last night, an I was a bit er...........under the weather shall we say
But its true to say, that if the german military hadn't of been so lazy and moribund, they would have had missile technology on the battlefield a lot earlier in the war.....but being arrogant, they thought "were winning, we don't need all this flash gordon stuff!"
I'm with you Lars, the Me109 could have carried them!
STUART
No, because you have to factor in the cost of designing, building and running (and replacing) the aircraft to carry the missiles, plus all the ground crew to maintain them. I don't have figures, but I believe that this would be far more than the cost of the AA gun, which will just about last for ever.
I disagree, cause FLAK gus don't last forever, they wear out..........and adding together the crews, observation teams, fixed installations....the aircraft with missle probably is cheaper in the long run, especially if it does the job more accurately.........the ends justifys the means kind of thought.............
SAM's were in their infancy during WWII, but that's why I think I'm saying.....that air to air is better and more accurate.......cause you remove all the technical stuff that FLAK guns bring with them, (even missiles like the enzion and wasserfall were complicated in their own way).
I wasn't being arsey with you Tony, I had eight pints of guinness last night, an I was a bit er...........under the weather shall we say
But its true to say, that if the german military hadn't of been so lazy and moribund, they would have had missile technology on the battlefield a lot earlier in the war.....but being arrogant, they thought "were winning, we don't need all this flash gordon stuff!"
I'm with you Lars, the Me109 could have carried them!
STUART
To think that the germans could have relied on just one solution is pure rubbish. They were so badly outnumbered that it would have taken many differnt appraoches to cause enough casualties total to get the Allies to rethink their bombing campaign.
If we think about modern air defenses the missle is clearly the way to go. Large, dense formations, tightly packed targets, moving much slower then the missle. Sitting ducks is the word for it. But back in ww2 where electronics are not very relaiable, and germany missing many of the key componenets for the ever important proximity fuse, they are not a sure thing.
Flak suprpession was not impossible back in ww2, but given the amount of ammo expended, why would you have bothered. Even at the greatly improved loss rate, is it worth sending the fighter bombers down low where they will take very heavy losses. It still take a long time for the Flak to take down a bomber. They just get a much better return on their investment. I don't think anyone seriously thinks it has the potential to drive the bombers out of the sky. It does have the potential to make the Allied bomber barons make some uncomfortable choices. Fly higher to reduce losses, but also reduce the accuracy which is already poor. Supress the flak guns, but lose a lot of fighter bombers to light flak and ground fire. Fly loser formations, you will be less vulnerable to flak, but you are more vulnerable to fighters. From the German perspective, it is always preferable to making them react to you, then the other way around.
R4M give the luftwaffe fighters a chance to carry a lot of disposable firepower. I don't think I buy the idea of them being vollied at long range. The key would be to get relatively close for most pilots. The big advtange is that once a couple of planes knock out some bombers, then they can still continue to close in with their guns. Other 21 cm rockets they are just too slow, although those rockets are much more effective in a round to round sense. The R4M gives the average fighter pilot a chance to spray very lethal rounds into a formation and have the real chance of success. I can't help but try to visualize the US bombers in 1943, particaly when the germans where fond of the head on attacks. Suddenly they ahve a chance to volley rockets at individual planes at longer ranges head on, knock gapping holes in the formations, and still have time to turn away. In addition, if they hold their fire to a couple of hundred meters, the rockets have a very real chance to hit planes behind the leaders. Any single hit giving an excellent chance of killing a bomber.
None of these alone is going to do all that much to win the air war for gemany. But all of those things together gives them a slim chance of being able to pull things out, if for no other reason then it forces the allies to respond to the german tactics, rather then being the germans always reacting to allied.
If we think about modern air defenses the missle is clearly the way to go. Large, dense formations, tightly packed targets, moving much slower then the missle. Sitting ducks is the word for it. But back in ww2 where electronics are not very relaiable, and germany missing many of the key componenets for the ever important proximity fuse, they are not a sure thing.
Flak suprpession was not impossible back in ww2, but given the amount of ammo expended, why would you have bothered. Even at the greatly improved loss rate, is it worth sending the fighter bombers down low where they will take very heavy losses. It still take a long time for the Flak to take down a bomber. They just get a much better return on their investment. I don't think anyone seriously thinks it has the potential to drive the bombers out of the sky. It does have the potential to make the Allied bomber barons make some uncomfortable choices. Fly higher to reduce losses, but also reduce the accuracy which is already poor. Supress the flak guns, but lose a lot of fighter bombers to light flak and ground fire. Fly loser formations, you will be less vulnerable to flak, but you are more vulnerable to fighters. From the German perspective, it is always preferable to making them react to you, then the other way around.
R4M give the luftwaffe fighters a chance to carry a lot of disposable firepower. I don't think I buy the idea of them being vollied at long range. The key would be to get relatively close for most pilots. The big advtange is that once a couple of planes knock out some bombers, then they can still continue to close in with their guns. Other 21 cm rockets they are just too slow, although those rockets are much more effective in a round to round sense. The R4M gives the average fighter pilot a chance to spray very lethal rounds into a formation and have the real chance of success. I can't help but try to visualize the US bombers in 1943, particaly when the germans where fond of the head on attacks. Suddenly they ahve a chance to volley rockets at individual planes at longer ranges head on, knock gapping holes in the formations, and still have time to turn away. In addition, if they hold their fire to a couple of hundred meters, the rockets have a very real chance to hit planes behind the leaders. Any single hit giving an excellent chance of killing a bomber.
None of these alone is going to do all that much to win the air war for gemany. But all of those things together gives them a slim chance of being able to pull things out, if for no other reason then it forces the allies to respond to the german tactics, rather then being the germans always reacting to allied.
-
lazybather
- Member
- Posts: 861
- Joined: 22 Aug 2005, 19:47
- Location: London
