# R4M FF Rocket. The ideal weapon for killing heavy bombers?



## davebender (Sep 17, 2012)

The R4M rocket


> The new Weapon received its baptism of fire on March 18, 1945, six aircraft of 9.Staffel, each with twenty-four R4M rockets beneath the wings, attacked enemy aircraft over Rathenow. The pilots were Lt. Schnörrer, Oblt. Seeler, Ofhr. Windish, Fhr. Ehrig and Ofhr. Ullrich. Leading the formation was Oblt. Wegmann.
> 
> The impact of the rockets, which were launched from about 400meters was devastating. “Shattered fuselages , broken-off wings, ripped out engines, shard of aluminium and fragments of every size wirled through the air” stated one of the participating pilots, “it looked as if someone had emptied out an ashtray”



1940. 
Diglycol propellant introduced for 15cm Nebelwerfer artillery rockets.

Summer 1942. Paustpatrone developed (i.e. first model of Panzerfaust).
The projectile employed folding fin stabilization.

1943 Germany had the two key technologies (diglycol propellent, FF stabilization) necessary for production of R4M rockets. 

IMO getting the R4M FF rocket into mass production by the end of 1943 would do Germany more good then all their jet aircraft programs combined and at a much lower cost. If Me-262s can launch FF rockets from a distance of 400 meters then so can ordinary Me-109s and Fw-190s.

As a bonus, R4M rockets with HEAT warhead were also effective against WWII era tanks. It's an ideal weapon for Fw-190F CAS aircraft.


----------



## bobbysocks (Sep 17, 2012)

i agree.... A2A missles would have been a measure they should have explored further. the might have even been able to encorporate the fritz x wire guided technology....perhaps from a smaller 2 place ac. the only advantage the 262 has over the 190 that i can see is it can get to altitude much faster. so rearming and returning to battle may have been a quicker turn around.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 17, 2012)

And anti-aircraft missiles would have been a better place to spend resources than the V-2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2012)

wuzak said:


> And anti-aircraft missiles would have been a better place to spend resources than the V-2.



That I agree with. 

I just question weather they would have been accurate enough at that point in time to make much of an impact.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 17, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I just question weather they would have been accurate enough at that point in time to make much of an impact.



I guess that depends on the development of effective guidance systems and proximity fuses.

Some of the anti-aircraft rockets were unguided, but some had remote guidance from an operator. Also I believe there was some work done on heat seaking guidance systems.


----------



## Balljoint (Sep 17, 2012)

Heat seeking may have been a problem. IR-transparent lenses are not common. Table salt works but of course would have strength and water solubility issues. I did some support work at Kodak on the Redeye lens in the 60’s. Even then the tech was a challenge.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 17, 2012)

Ok, it is from Wiki.

The Luftwaffe found the R4M missiles to have similar trajectory to the 30 mm MK 108 cannon in flight, therefore the standard Revi 16B gunsight was utilized effectively. (curvature of trajectory, of over 41 meters at 1,000 meters range.)


----------



## bobbysocks (Sep 17, 2012)

what would something with the explosive power if a v2 do if detonated near a bomber box??


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 17, 2012)

bobbysocks said:


> what would something with the explosive power if a v2 do if detonated near a bomber box??



Several times bombers blew up with their entire bomb load in the middle of the formation, sometimes it damaged, and even downed other aircraft. But that's several times more than the explosive power of one V2 warhead.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> The R4M rocket
> 
> 
> 1940.
> ...



Without getting giddy over this, recall that FW 190A-8s were devastating from 400 yds in with Sturm attacks. The issue wasn't firepower, it was getting through escort fighters to make the attack.

The 1952-1953 era F-86D basically used the same (US version) in the 24 rocket tray - good for One bomber. I personally like the 20mm/30mm choice better.


----------



## Erich (Sep 18, 2012)

slight deviation Bill actually the 3cm was only really effective from 100 yds and closer, re: why the 3 Sturmgruppen pilots got in as close to within 50 feet of Allied bombers to ensure as much damage as possible with both 2cm and 3cm weapons and the use primarily of Minengeschoß rounds, both HE and HE/I, same could be said of later war LW night fighters, again using both weapons systems.

back to the R4M the AT rocket had the 8.8cm Panzerschreck head fitted and actually some of the F-8's of the Schlachtgeschwader had 3 panzerschreck tubes under each wing........overburndened and quite non-exact in firing and scoring so it was a mass rocket fire to hit a Soviet tank, per wing.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 18, 2012)

By the late stages of the war Germany was too deep in the do-do, too low on fuel and skilled pilots to be able to exchange one Russian tank per sortie.

Even though one R4M was powerful enough to destroy a tank, they were not dependable accurate, you had to ripple fire the whole load to ensure a hit.

Even our own later 2.75in.FFAR, a almost direct copy of the R4M, and 20 years of developement, had a 20-25% wild flight rate. The solid fuel in the motor had to be perfectly cast, no fissures, cracks, or voids in the propellant, or you'd have uneven thrust, resulting in a erratic flight.


----------



## Erich (Sep 18, 2012)

how do you know this for certain ? we don't have any late war unit histories on individual Schlachtgruppen to assume anything claims/kills or percentages of destroyed or damaged Soviet armor, but must say if you read anything on the 6 Battles of Kurland this should give you some idea of the air pressure on the Soviet armor forces trying to break into the Kessel and the roads westward. what I have read which is scant on JG 7 Me 262's was the R4M was fired of by wing and not a whole broadcasted stage against Soviet armor of all sizes, and from reading further the rocket was deadly in this capacity and this was just one unit which also contended with US bomber formations to the west.


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2012)

So do I provided your pilots are well trained. That doesn't apply to most WWII era mass produced pilots.

Buckshot works well for inexperienced deer hunters. R4M FF rockets are "B-17 shot" for rookie fighter pilots.


----------



## Erich (Sep 18, 2012)

for rookies you say think you better read up on the history of III./JG 7 then Dave, as their were plenty of experienced fighter pilots initially flying on prop-jobs before transferring to the 262. as to the ground attack pilots you had at least 6 different rocket set-ups not just R4M's in their line-up, it is covered in much details on the LEMB web-site with German official documentation


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2012)

You cannot dent the massive Allied bombing campaign with a single well trained fighter Gruppe. Every German Jagdgeschwader stationed in western Europe should be equipped to use R4M rockets.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 18, 2012)

400 m is very short range when attacking a bomber box, whether using guns or rockets. 1000 m was a much more typical range to start an attack. On average, 50% of all rounds in a German fighter attack on a US heavy bomber were fired beyond 580 m. Just 24% were fired under 400 m. 

In 1943-44, the average German fighter pilot opened fire on a bomber box at about 950 m. Average firing distance for a Bf-109 was out at about 1120 m, for a FW 190 about 855 m (sitting behind a large radial engine has its advantages). 

At about 1000m, there was less than a 0.1% chance of any single round hitting. With a firing run of 400-500 m and 165-180 rounds fired, a FW 190 would score an average of 5-6 hits, a Bf-109 an average of 1-2.

When a pilot opened fire at 400 m and ran in to 200 m or less, the odds of a hit improved dramatically. At 400m, single shot hit probability is about 8%, at 200 m its about 12%, at 100 m its about 18%. Firing from 400 m to 200 m, a FW pilot would typically score 20 hits, enough to almost guarantee destruction of a US heavy bomber. A 109 pilot would typically score about 12 hits.

What Germany needed was better combat training and firing drills, rather than the R4M which, if fired at typical ranges, would have as little chance of hitting as a 30 mm attack launched from the same range.


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2012)

I agree but that's not going to happen without more aviation fuel. So they need a weapon that will kill bombers even when employed by green pilots.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 19, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree but that's not going to happen without more aviation fuel. So they need a weapon that will kill bombers even when employed by green pilots.



I partially agree with you, but the example you provided shows an attack from 400 m, conducted by experienced pilots in Me-262s. A far cry from the average pilot in a piston powered aircraft.

400 m is an unlikely distance for an untrained pilot to attack from. Furthermore, the link you provided states the R4M had an effective range of 500-600 m, well outside the range that a typical German pilot fired at in 1943-44, mostly because of fear of defensive fire.

Unfortunately, there is no statistical evidence to back up the notion that the R4M was any more (or less) effective than the 30 mm MK 103 or MK 108. That the rocket had greater destructive potential than a cannon round is undeniable, a 400 gram HE charge will guarantee that. However, given the scarcity of the weapon and its use, its hard to tell if it was actually a better weapon than cannon against bombers. 

Does anyone have any statistics on accuracy, dispersion, flight time ect? 

You could argue that something like the Ruhrstahl X-4 would be a better weapon.


----------



## stona (Sep 19, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> You could argue that something like the Ruhrstahl X-4 would be a better weapon.



Except that in the limited trials carried out the Luftwaffe established that the system couldn't be operated from a single seater as the pilot couldn't control the missile and his aircraft at the same time. That means putting at least two seat,twin engined aircraft within a few kilometres of the bombers. That maybe out of range of the bombers' defensive armament but it is well within the range of the escort fighters which would inevitably go after the missile launching aircraft. The results would have been even faster attrition of the Luftwaffe's twin engined fighter force.

No single weapon system will nullify the effect of Allied numbers and eventually total air superiority.

As an ex-chemist I would be very uncomfortable with the fuels used in that system too.They require special handling and handling materials,containers etc. I believe that there were plans for a more sensible solid fuel version but time ran out.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Sep 19, 2012)

Could the Ruhrstahl X-4 be adapted for ground launch?


----------



## stona (Sep 19, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Could the Ruhrstahl X-4 be adapted for ground launch?



They were developing the "wasserfall" SAM system.

Steve


----------



## Erich (Sep 19, 2012)

there are two threads with incredible documentation I am posting one of them here, but you must first login and join LEMB boards if you haven't :

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=15844


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2012)

Why?

The R4M is a shotgun, not a rifle. You cannot hit a single fighter aircraft from 400 meters but firing 24 FF rockets at a slow moving (i.e. 180 mph) bomber box is a different matter. If the weapon pattern is good you are bound to hit something. Just like shooting at a flock of ducks.


----------



## DonL (Sep 19, 2012)

To me it is the question, was the R4M as effective as a Mauser MG 213 / MK 213?

Or would be both weapons in one a/c the ultimate goal?.

I agree with your statement that the R4M would be possible technical earlier available as history had shown.

To me the ultimate Bomber Killer would be a Me 262 equipped with R4M rockets and 3 or 4 x MG 213 or MK 213.
That would be a hell of a bomber killer with absolute superior fire power!


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2012)

> To me the ultimate Bomber Killer would be a Me 262 equipped with R4M rockets and 3 or 4 x MG 213 or MK 213.
> That would be a hell of a bomber killer with absolute superior fire power!


MG213 revolver cannon plus EZ 42 gyro gunsight could probably hit 180mph B-17s from a distance of 1,000 meters. No need for FF rockets with 500 meter effective range.


1935. German development of gyro gunsights begin. RLM assigns a low priority.
Summer 1942. RLM increases priority for gyro gunsight development.
.....Seven years development at low priority.
July 1944. First 3 EZ 42 gunsight prototypes delivered. 30 more built.
Aug 1944 to March 1945. 770 production model EZ 42 gunsights delivered.
.....Approximately 200 installed in Fw-190 and Me-262 aircraft before war ends.

Would EZ 42 gunsight development proceed faster if the program is given top priority from 1935 onward?

During 1943 and 1944 most Me-410s were pressed into service as bomber interceptors. Install an EZ 42 gun sight plus a pair of high velocity 3cm Mk 103 cannon under the fuselage. Now you can reach out and touch B-17s with 3cm mine shells from 1,000 meters.


----------



## johnbr (Sep 19, 2012)

That was tested but the date was lost in a train fire. For me I would look at making the R4m heat seeking or use a pair of gating guns.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 19, 2012)

davebender said:


> MG213 revolver cannon plus EZ 42 gyro gunsight could probably hit 180mph B-17s from a distance of 1,000 meters. No need for FF rockets with 500 meter effective range.



RAF combat tests with GGS in 1944 and 1945 showed about a 30% chance to hit a target at 700 yards (640 m). This was a marked improvement on the less than 10% chance with a normal reflector sight, but still a far cry from reliably being able to hit reliably at 1000 m.



> During 1943 and 1944 most Me-410s were pressed into service as bomber interceptors. Install an EZ 42 gun sight plus a pair of high velocity 3cm Mk 103 cannon under the fuselage. Now you can reach out and touch B-17s with 3cm mine shells from 1,000 meters.



Except that the Me-410 was an unstable gun platform and tended to land less hits on US bombers than any other German fighter.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 19, 2012)

johnbr said:


> That was tested but the date was lost in a train fire. For me I would look at making the R4m heat seeking or use a pair of gating guns.



You'll have to wait for the F-104 Starfighter if you want to shoot down B17's with Gatling guns and heat seeking missiles. But I'm sure the Germans were only days away from creating creating it.


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2012)

The German Army air service experimented with 7.92mm revolver guns during WWI so I don't doubt they could make a 20mm version during WWII. However the Luftwaffe has never favored that type weapon.


----------



## johnbr (Sep 19, 2012)

The Germans were years ahead of the USA and the UK in heat seeking research.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 19, 2012)

I think that SAMs would have been better than guided or unguided A2A missiles.

As mentioned before, guided A2A missiles tended to require larger twin engine aircraft with at least two crew - one to pilot the plane, and the other to guide the missile. These would be extremely vulnerable to escort fighters. 

Unguided missiles can be carried by s/e fighters and/or single seat fighters, but are less accurate and results wouldn't necessarily be that great. But it may have some psychological effect on the enemy.

There were some unguided Germans SAMs IIRC. But there were also guided missiles - often a simple radio guidance with visual tracking. But I believe there were some developed with radar assistance (manually operated, using the radar scope to guide rather than visual tracking). Surely it wouldn't have taken too much to guide the SAM automatically from a ground based radar? Heat seeking was under development, probably not mature enough at the time. I read something about acoustic devices, but that may have been regarding proximity fuses.

A surface to air missile could be made large enough to effect a number of bombers in formation. It could have the effect of scattering the formation, such that the defending fighters can pick them off and still have a chance against the escorts. Or smaller ones could be made for a more direct method of bringing bombers down.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 19, 2012)

johnbr said:


> The Germans were years ahead of the USA and the UK in heat seeking research.



Not really. The UK and the US were roughly level pegging of the Germans in development of infrared technology. 

Neither Germany nor the Allies managed to get a working infrared guided weapon working during the war, although the US probably came closer than anyone with the Dove and Felix projects, both IR seeking glidebombs. The Germans had the Enzian surface to air missile, although as far as I know only 16 were successfully launched with guidance systems and less than a third of those operated successfully.


----------



## DonL (Sep 20, 2012)

pinsog said:


> You'll have to wait for the F-104 Starfighter if you want to shoot down B17's with Gatling guns and heat seeking missiles. But I'm sure the Germans were only days away from creating creating it.


 


Rubbish you should do some research, the R4M rocket was WWII combat proven and at the end of April 1945 the Mauser MG 213 was ful developed. The Mauser 213 MG is the mother of every Nato a/c Gattling Gun. We are talking about summer/autum about a Me 262 with R4M rockets and the Mauser 213 and not 5 years later!
Your statement is absurd.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2012)

DonL said:


> Rubbish you should do some research, the R4M rocket was WWII combat proven and at the end of April 1945 the Mauser MG 213 was ful developed. The Mauser 213 MG is the mother of every Nato a/c Gattling Gun. We are talking about summer/autum about a Me 262 with R4M rockets and the Mauser 213 and not 5 years later!
> Your statement is absurd.



Wasn't the Mauser a _revolver_ type cannon with a single barrel and multiple chambers? I believe it was the basis for the Aden series of cannons. This is distinct from the multi-barrel Vulcan and Avenger Gatling type cannons developed in teh US.

Also, wasn't the R4M a fin stabilised but still unguided rocket?


----------



## DonL (Sep 20, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Wasn't the Mauser a _revolver_ type cannon with a single barrel and multiple chambers? I believe it was the basis for the Aden series of cannons. This is distinct from the multi-barrel Vulcan and Avenger Gatling type cannons developed in teh US.
> 
> Also, wasn't the R4M a fin stabilised but still unguided rocket?


 

You are correct that the R4M is an unguided missle.

The Mauser 213 is the mother of the ADEN (GB), the M39 (USA), DEFA (France), the NR.30 (UdSSR) and the Gatling guns from Oerlikon and Hispano Suiza.
It is correct that the Mauser MG 213 is a revolver type with single barrel.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 20, 2012)

DonL said:


> You are correct that the R4M is an unguided missle.
> 
> The Mauser 213 is the mother of the ADEN (GB), the M39 (USA), DEFA (France), the NR.30 (UdSSR) and the Gatling guns from Oerlikon and Hispano Suiza.
> It is correct that the Mauser MG 213 is a revolver type with single barrel.



The MG/MK 213 is the parent of the various post-war revolver cannon. As you state, the ADEN and DEFA in 30 mm and the M39 in 20 mm are descendents of the design.

However, the NR 30 is not a revolver cannon, but a short recoil linear action weapon.

I'm not sure why you chose to mention Gatling guns, as the basic design for the weapon dates back about 80 years prior to the invention of the revolver cannon and its a completely different operating principle. 

Oerlikon did develop revolver cannon post-war, notably the ground based 35 mm system, but I'm not familiar with any Hispano Suiza revolver cannon.


----------



## stona (Sep 20, 2012)

The Germans developed acoustic proximity fuses for their missiles. The theory was that at a range of several kilometres an operator would be able to estimate direction but not range. He would fly the missile at the target and when close the warhead would automatically detonate. It sounds simple!
Steve


----------



## pinsog (Sep 20, 2012)

DonL said:


> Rubbish you should do some research, the R4M rocket was WWII combat proven and at the end of April 1945 the Mauser MG 213 was ful developed. The Mauser 213 MG is the mother of every Nato a/c Gattling Gun. We are talking about summer/autum about a Me 262 with R4M rockets and the Mauser 213 and not 5 years later!
> Your statement is absurd.



Everyone had rockets, the Germans, the British and the Americans all had rockets. An unguided rocket is a far cry from a heat seeking missile. Even after stealing all the German research and combining it with all of the British research and our own research, it peace time conditions, with unlimited money and support, it still took another 10 years or so for heat seeking missiles to become ready for combat. It is a bit like saying the Germans had the V2 so they were only a year away from putting a human into orbit. As far as Gatling guns go, I believe US engineers took an original Gatling gun and put a pulley on the handle and hooked up an electric motor to it. Again, that was early 1950's.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> The German Army air service experimented with 7.92mm revolver guns during WWI so I don't doubt they could make a 20mm version during WWII. However the Luftwaffe has never favored that type weapon.



Unless this was another secret project the German multibarrel gun from WW I _WAS NOT_ a Gatling gun or a revolver gun. The WW I gun was an interesting idea but basically useless. 

Just because a gun has multiple barrels arranged in a circle does not make it a Gatling gun. Gatling guns use a breechblock (bolt) and firing pin for every barrel. The movement of the bolts and firing pins are controlled by tracks in the receiver (gun housing), as the barrels turn the bolts move back and forth and the firing pin is withdrawn against it's spring and held back as the bolt goes forward until the barrel reaches the firing position at which point a gap in the track (groove) allows the firing pin to snap forward. Some 20mm guns have replaced the firing pins with electric contacts. 
If it does not have a separate firing mechanism for each barrel it is not a Gatling gun. 
Gatling guns are externally powered. They need a hand/arm to turn the crank, or an electric motor or hydraulic motor. Some late versions achieved "self power" by taping gas of the barrels to power a motor of some sort but that option leaves several questions. Like how do you get it started? and how long does it take to spool up to full rate of fire? 

You also have to feed high rate of fire guns and that can be as much trouble (or more) than getting the gun mechanism to function that fast. The Americans had trouble with the .50 cal in a lot of applications which were often solved by using electric motors and sprockets to help the belts along. The electric motors have to be in sync with guns though. Feeding too fast can be as much trouble as feeding too slow.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 20, 2012)

I would say that "used in combat" (especially in the spring of 1945) and "combat proven" are not exactly the same thing. 

While research and development slacked off for a few years after the war, the cold war (especially after the Soviets exploded an A-bomb) tended to open the coffers and accelerate weapons development again. 

With A-bombs, shooting down a good proportion of the attackers wasn't good enough, losses 5 times the Schweinfurt raids would not be good enough. 100% (or maybe 99%) of the attackers had to be destroyed BEFORE they reached their targets, not on the way home. 

And yet it took years for the allies, with large sums of money, many engineers, not being bombed and with the help of German engineers to finish developing and put into production weapons that were only weeks away from combat in Germany in 1945? 

Granted the Allies weren't using A-bombs so maybe the Germans only needed a weapon that worked 75% of the time?


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 20, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Unless this was another secret project the German multibarrel gun from WW I _WAS NOT_ a Gatling gun or a revolver gun. The WW I gun was an interesting idea but basically useless.
> 
> Just because a gun has multiple barrels arranged in a circle does not make it a Gatling gun. Gatling guns use a breechblock (bolt) and firing pin for every barrel. The movement of the bolts and firing pins are controlled by tracks in the receiver (gun housing), as the barrels turn the bolts move back and forth and the firing pin is withdrawn against it's spring and held back as the bolt goes forward until the barrel reaches the firing position at which point a gap in the track (groove) allows the firing pin to snap forward. Some 20mm guns have replaced the firing pins with electric contacts.
> If it does not have a separate firing mechanism for each barrel it is not a Gatling gun.
> ...




All the Gatlings, and miniguns take a fraction of a second to spool up to their normal rof, but with the hydraulic motor on the 20mm, and electric motors on the smaller miniguns, they accelerate up to their maximum rof so quick you can't tell it.
The self-powered Army Gatling had the gas tapped from 3 barrels, one 20mm round has sufficent power to start rotating the barrels, though you can hear the acceleration in the rof by that distinctive growl. It starts out at a coarse growl and goes higher pitched when heard from a distance.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 20, 2012)

Would that WW1 gun be the 12 barreled motor driven gun of the Fokker-Waffenfabrik?


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 20, 2012)

The Gatling's creator first put a electric motor on the Gatling, in 1893.


----------



## davebender (Sep 20, 2012)

Fokker-Leimberger minigun - Gun Wiki


> This very sensible memorandum spawned up a series of engine operated aircraft weapons from the companies of Siemens, Autogen, Szakatz-Gotha, Fokker and some startingly good ideas. None of the guns became operational during the war except the Siemens example which was tried on the Western Front with a victory using it during air combat. There is little doubt that these weapons became effective had the war lasted into 1919.


In addition to multiple German weapons, Austria-Hungary had a two barrel weapon that was produced by WWII era Hungary.

If the new Luftwaffe were interested in a 7.92mm mini gun or 20mm rotary cannon I assume they would use the best features from the various WWI era weapons.


----------



## johnbr (Sep 20, 2012)

Just think what a 20mm rotary canon would do to B17 or a B24.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 20, 2012)

In the case of the Fokker-Leimberger gun I have to ask, _what good features_?

There is some excuse for this gun in 1916, anybody seriously proposing it's use in 1940 should have been put against a wall and shot as a saboteur.

Gatling/rotary guns cannot be synchronized, they cannot be installed in a WW II fighter wing without some rather large bulges and a bit of trickery with the main spar. ( you want _HOW BIG a HOLE through the spar?)_ If you want them to fire through a prop the entire gun has to be behind the engine, no hiding the barrel/s in the engine block making for a good distance between engine and cockpit. 

And as mentioned above, you have to feed the thing/s and you have to do it at 5-6+ "G"s and 2-3 negative "G"s.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Gatling/rotary guns cannot be synchronized, they cannot be installed in a WW II fighter wing without some rather large bulges and a bit of trickery with the main spar. ( you want _HOW BIG a HOLE through the spar?)_ If you want them to fire through a prop the entire gun has to be behind the engine, no hiding the barrel/s in the engine block making for a good distance between engine and cockpit.



I suppose that a layout like the P-39/P-63/P-75 could work, though a large propeller hub and drive shaft would be required.

What about a revolver type? Could that fit between the vee in a ww2 single seater?


----------



## johnbr (Sep 20, 2012)

How about in the Me 410 or Me 110 or He 219.My favorite is the HE 280 you could put a pair of them in it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 20, 2012)

TO fire though a prop shaft in a case like the P-39/P-63/P-75 it should work in theory. Gatling guns always fire the barrels from one position. It can be arranged some what depending on customers preference. Say 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock. Just arrange the gun so that that position lines up with the prop shaft. And pray you don't get a hang fire  

A revolver cannon could put the barrel in the VEE of a WW II engine that could take a regular cannon. This may be why the Germans were attracted to the revolver cannon. 

While the variety of German guns seems to give a lie to it, most ordnance departments tried to build the fewest number of different guns possible. There is a huge investment to be made in the training of gunners, armorers training materials, schools and spare parts. This was the whole idea behind the MG 34 and 42, one gun that could do the jobs of several machine guns even though not ideal for any one role. But cheaper due to numbers built, and cheaper for spare parts and training. 
Building special guns to be used only on certain aircraft is poor economy unless the results can be achieved no other way. Do you want to be the only squadron on the Russian front within 300km using the XXX wunder gun and needed some parts even as simple as firing pins?


----------



## Gixxerman (Sep 21, 2012)

If it could be fitted made to work - and there was space enough for the big ammo bin - there's still the issue of damage and/or jams.
Even aircraft with the power size they are today carry just one.
I wouldn't fancy relying on late 30's - early 40's tech to supply one reliable enough to be my sole weapon in a fight.

I don't think it's an accident it took until the Vulcan Cannon of 1959 for it to be gotten well on the way to being right (and even then wiki reports ammo link/feed problems)


----------



## pinsog (Sep 21, 2012)

johnbr said:


> Just think what a 20mm rotary canon would do to B17 or a B24.



and think of what the Mustang/Thunderbolt/Lightning escort would and did do to the twin engine fighter it would take to carry it


----------



## Greyman (Sep 21, 2012)

How does history look upon the American continuation of the R4M school of thought - bomber interceptors armed with large numbers of 2.75-inch rockets (F-89 Scorpion, CF-100 Canuck, etc.)?


----------



## DonL (Sep 21, 2012)

pinsog said:


> and think of what the Mustang/Thunderbolt/Lightning escort would and did do to the twin engine fighter it would take to carry it


 

The FW 190 D9; Ta 152 H or C and a Me 262 could carry a MG 213 revolver gun without problems. The MG 213 was able to shoot through the prob, because the ignition was electric. The MG 213 weights 40 kg more then the MK 108, but that isn't the world for this a/c's, you are not in need for a twin engine fighter to carry this gun!

And by the way the MG 213 was full developed at spring 1945.

To me the argument isn't counting how long allied engineers needed to make a proper copy!
When I look at for example at the M60 as a direct copy to the MG 42, or the needed redesign of the F86 after german aerodynamic development from Messerschmitt and Heinkel, I don't by this argumentation unseen for undeveloped german weapons, because some allied states need a lot of work to get it proper function.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 21, 2012)

DonL said:


> The FW 190 D9; Ta 152 H or C and a Me 262 could carry a MG 213 revolver gun without problems. The MG 213 was able to shoot through the prob, because the ignition was electric. The MG 213 weights 40 kg more then the MK 108, but that isn't the world for this a/c's, you are not in need for a twin engine fighter to carry this gun!
> 
> And by the way the MG 213 was full developed at spring 1945.
> 
> ...



You need to go back to some primary sources on you claim that the M60 is a direct copy of the MG42. Just a quick look at the parts breakdown will tell you that isn't true.
The M60 did copy the feed mechanism of the MG42, but the bolt and locking system of the FG42.
Though the M60 probably would have been a better weapon if it was just a copy. I've fired both the M60, a lot, and the MG3 (modern 7.62mm version of the MG42) some, I was very impressed by the MG3's accuracy even at it's higher rof, and it had a better reputation for reliabity.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2012)

DonL said:


> And by the way the MG 213 was full developed at spring 1945.
> 
> To me the argument isn't counting how long allied engineers needed to make a proper copy!
> When I look at for example at the M60 as a direct copy to the MG 42, or the needed redesign of the F86 after german aerodynamic development from Messerschmitt and Heinkel, I don't by this argumentation unseen for undeveloped german weapons, because some allied states need a lot of work to get it proper function.



The Allies had German engineers helping them make these "proper" copies so either something wasn't quite right with the "full developed at spring 1945" or the allies (France, England and the US ) had different expectations of gun life, parts breakage, allowable jams and other performance parameters than the Germans did in 1945. The allies were pretty much not constrained by material shortages either. 

The M-60 was hardly a copy of the MG-42 and anybody who says so doesn't know much about guns, The M-60 used the feed system of the MG-42 (the pawls that pulled the belt and linkage from the bolt to the feed pawls) but the M-60 was gas operated and not recoil and used a different locking system. The bolt and locking system were copied from the FG 42, most of the more dubious attributes of the M-60 can be laid at the feet of the American designers. Barrel change is not copied from either German gun.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 21, 2012)

I was just coming back to add that the M60 was gas operated, and the MG42 by recoil. Funny how much you can forget over the years.

I remember when I was in Germany in the early 70s, and saw how fast a Bundeswehr crew could change the barrels on a MG3, and even I could do it in under 10 seconds the first time, I felt cheated with the M60.


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2012)

how about forgetting cannons and getting back to the original topic header ? you guys are just spider-webbing all over the place


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 21, 2012)

Greyman said:


> How does history look upon the American continuation of the R4M school of thought - bomber interceptors armed with large numbers of 2.75-inch rockets (F-89 Scorpion, CF-100 Canuck, etc.)?



There is the story of the 2 F-89s sent to intercept a runaway Hellcat drone, in the 50s I think. Several passes, expended all rockets, set various brush fires, scared the hell out of a lot of civilians, but never hit the Hellcat. It everntually ran out of gas.


----------



## davebender (Sep 21, 2012)

Hitting a single F6F is a lot more difficult then aiming at a B-17 box cruising @ 180 mph. You still need a cannon for self defense against enemy fighter aircraft serving as bomber escorts.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2012)

Getting back to the original question rockets have several things going for them and several things against them. 

On an individual basis they are cheap, and they are light. 

However, they are also less accurate than a gun. they use much more propellant for weight of warhead delivered. The rocket tube, while made of low grade steel, is much heavier than a cartridge case of of nearly equivalent ballistics. At what point the weight and cost of the rocket tubes exceeds the weight and cost of an equivalent gun and cartridge cases I don't know but it happens at some point. 500 rounds or 2500 rounds? 

Germans stopped most development of recoilless guns because of propellant shortages. A recoilless gun needed about 4 times the propellant of a normal gun. Rockets face a similar problem. When used in mass they consume an awful lot of propellent and raw materials for the weight of warheads delivered. Fin stabilized rockets are also rather susceptible to cross winds. They will tend to weather ****, that is they will turn into the direction the wind is coming from. 

The French, British, Russians all used ( or tried to) folding fin rockets as air to air armament in the 1950s in addition to the Unites States. Both French and British tried using build in pods/trays like the US and Canada. All lasted just a few years. Even primitive guided missiles seemed preferable although I think both the rocket systems and early missiles were over sold.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> Hitting a single F6F is a lot more difficult then aiming at a B-17 box cruising @ 180 mph. You still need a cannon for self defense against enemy fighter aircraft serving as bomber escorts.



F-89s had a rather sophisticated radar set up for the time and a "computer" that was supposed to figure out a collision course intercept solution _AND_ fire the rockets at the proper time. Taking the pilots reaction time out of the equation. 

There is also an awful lot of empty space in a B-17 bomber box.

Try looking up "the Battle of Palmdale"


----------



## pinsog (Sep 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree but that's not going to happen without more aviation fuel. So they need a weapon that will kill bombers even when employed by green pilots.



There is no wonder weapon that a green pilot could be given that would magicly swat B17 and B24's from the sky. Not gonna happen. Once escort fighters appeared in numbers, Germany was done, period. And she was ground into the dirt by B17's and B24's flying, during the day with escort fighters and by the RAF at night. We didn't even bring in the ultimate bad boy bomber of the time, the B29. We took on arguably the best defensive air force in the world at the time, with some of the best pilots int the world, and completely destroyed it. If we did that to the best, most experienced pilots in the world, no wonder weapon is going to help the 19 year old children with 20 hours of flight time reverse that. Nothing short of a nuclear tipped air to air missile.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> Hitting a single F6F is a lot more difficult then aiming at a B-17 box cruising @ 180 mph. You still need a cannon for self defense against enemy fighter aircraft serving as bomber escorts.


 For once I agree with you. But we're talking about 2 F-89Ds, with 104 rockets each, 208 rockets fired, and not one hit.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 21, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> For once I agree with you. But we're talking about 2 F-89Ds, with 104 rockets each, 208 rockets fired, and not one hit.



Good point. The target wasnt trying to avoid them, and it wasn't shooting back either. There also wasn't a giant swarm of P47's and P51's trying to shoot down the F89's as they lined up the F6F.

And anyone who thinks you can kill ducks by shooting blindly into a flock of ducks hasnt donee much duck hunting


----------



## DonL (Sep 21, 2012)

> There is no wonder weapon that a green pilot could be given that would magicly swat B17 and B24's from the sky. Not gonna happen. Once escort fighters appeared in numbers, Germany was done, period. And she was ground into the dirt by B17's and B24's flying, during the day with escort fighters and by the RAF at night. We didn't even bring in the ultimate bad boy bomber of the time, the B29. We took on arguably the best defensive air force in the world at the time, with some of the best pilots int the world, and completely destroyed it. If we did that to the best, most experienced pilots in the world, no wonder weapon is going to help the 19 year old children with 20 hours of flight time reverse that. Nothing short of a nuclear tipped air to air missile.



This isn't completely the truth, some of this issue also came up in the thread Germany's ideal late war fighter!
The backbone of the LW and especially the defending of the Reich was broken by a mix of reasons, but it was broken mid of 1943 till beginning 1944.

Pilot training, too less fuel, much too less high quality fuel and to my opinion the most important reason near one and a half year (beginning 1943 till introduction of the FW 190 D-9) no *state of the art equipment (fighter a/c)*. The Bf 109G (6) could only comnpare to the P 38 without Gondulas and the FW 190A was only comparable till 6000m.

To me the lack of an equal fighter a/c at 1943 and most of the year 1944 is a decisive point, not only the arrival of the USAAF escort a/c's.

About all german equipment developed later then 1943 is the *headline too late*.

Anyway I stay to my point that a Me 262 equiped with R4M air to air rockets and the Mauser MG 213 would be a hell of a bomber killer even for a B29. 
With every *very* new technical introduction (here three different very new technical introductions, Jet, revolver cannon and air to air rockets) you will have problems, but if all three are functioning it is very superior at 1945 from a technical viewpoint.


----------



## davebender (Sep 21, 2012)

P-47D-25 with range to escort bombers to Berlin began deliveries to combat groups during May 1944. P-51D arrived in Europe around the same time.

By May 1944 Germany was done because the Red Army was rolling west in huge numbers, steam rolling most of the Wehrmacht along the way. American heavy bombers and fighter escorts had little to do with it.

None the less, Allied heavy bombers were inflicting much misery on the European population so the Luftwaffe had to stop them. Hence the need for R4M rockets and other such bomber killing weapons.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> P-47D-25 with range to escort bombers to Berlin began deliveries to combat groups during May 1944. P-51D arrived in Europe around the same time.
> 
> By May 1944 Germany was done because the Red Army was rolling west in huge numbers, steam rolling most of the Wehrmacht along the way. American heavy bombers and fighter escorts had little to do with it.
> 
> None the less, Allied heavy bombers were inflicting much misery on the European population so the Luftwaffe had to stop them. Hence the need for R4M rockets and other such bomber killing weapons.



You seem to have conveniently forgot that those fighters defending Germany were not stopping Russians, and the destruction that the Allied bombing did to oil production, factory output, and transportation hurt the Wehrmacht on all fronts.


----------



## stona (Sep 22, 2012)

I think someone already posted the ranges at which most Luftwaffe pilots opened fire. This is not entirely just due to a lack of willingness to close the range,though the defensive fire of a bomber box must have been a deterrent factor. The RAF discovered in 1940 that its pilots were badly underestimating the range at which they were opening fire. Pilots were up to three times further away than they thought they were.Some of the earliest gun camera footage showed pilots opening fire at 1500 yards! They also proved incapable of accurately estimating deflection,typically underestimating by half.
What the Luftwaffe needed was a weapon effective against bomber formations when fired or released at a range approaching 1000m and none of the above meet that criteria.
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2012)

The problem with an aircraft mounted weapon "aimed" at a bomber formation is that there is an awful lot of empty space inside a bomber formation. 







Flak batteries targeted formations but then Flak batteries are firing tons of ammunition per engagement. It took hundreds of flak shells at best ( and several thousand on average) to bring down one bomber. I doubt an airborne weapon employing "area fire" is going to do much better.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 22, 2012)

DonL said:


> This isn't completely the truth, some of this issue also came up in the thread Germany's ideal late war fighter!
> The backbone of the LW and especially the defending of the Reich was broken by a mix of reasons, but it was broken mid of 1943 till beginning 1944.
> 
> *Disagree. The 'West' defense was dominantly JG2 and JG26 in mid 1943 with some backup from BthMitte with elements of JG3 and JG1. The East and South started the transfer of many units in summer 1943, peaking in February, 1944. The 8th, not including RAF, were credited with 173 German day fighters destroyed through September 1943. In October -December, 1943 the 8th was credited with 271. In Jan-March, 1944 the8th and 9th AF were credited with 1038 and from April through June, 1944 credited with 1477. In June the RAF contributed heavily against the LW to add to 8th and 9th - but the majority of the LW fighter pilots in first six months of 1944 were LF Mitte/Reich in defense of Germany. LF Reich lost more fighter aircraft and pilots during Big Week (2/20-2/25/1944) than the LW lost to the entire USAAF daylight campaign from August 17, 1942 through August, 1943*
> ...



Agree.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 22, 2012)

davebender said:


> P-47D-25 with range to escort bombers to Berlin began deliveries to combat groups during May 1944. P-51D arrived in Europe around the same time.
> 
> *The P-51B was the difference maker scoring 85% of the long range victory credits from Big Week to D-Day. P-47s stayed from Brunswick back to Holland/France. Even the P-38 until the -25J was limited to Berlin (max) and could never go to do target escort for the Schweinfurt, Brux, Stettin missions. It was only in July that the 38 even made Leipzig/Merseburg.*
> 
> ...



The D-25 had better range but still short of Berlin. It wasn't till October/November 1944 that the 56th, 78th, 353rd and 356th went as far as Leipzig/Magdeburg/Steinhuder Lake and the 353rd and 356th were converting to Mustangs.


----------



## DonL (Sep 22, 2012)

@ drgondog

I think we mostly agree.

I can see your aruments to 1944.


> gasoline was part of the issue but complacency by German High Command regarding needs to pull experienced pilots out of the front for training - and Devoting higher allocations of fuel to training - was what killed the LW in winter 1943 through D-Day.



Very good summary, to my opinion this issues were starting early mid 1943 with the given results.



> Agree - with a qualifier. Both the Me 109G and FW 190A (with exception of Gondola equipped 109 and Sturm 190) were equivalent in general performance with the Mustang, P-47, P38 and Spit IX - each having advantages and disadvantages against each other.



Ok, but I think the disadvantage was higher, well "much" higher as BoB. It is very difficult for a rookie to be successfull and stay alive without state of the art equipment. And the Bf 109 G was a bitch to fly (at high speed and 100%), especially at high speed.

Speed and altitude were the main parameters which were absent for the german fighters (thats one of the main reasons why I'm this hardcore fan of the Fw 187). For the experts which can fly their a/c to 100% it is easier but as we saw some stayed alive but many of them died through the advantage of the allied a/c's. The FW 190A was much better for the rookies (because much easier to fly at high speeds), but lagged massive performance at altitude.


----------



## stona (Sep 23, 2012)

I'm with you too,though you could pedantically argue that the stripping of training schools of qualified staff started even earlier,certainly at the time of "Torch" in late 1942.

I think that the Luftwaffe was doomed to lose the air war in Europe in 1943/4 by the losses (men and materiel) suffered between July 1940 and December 1941 and the lack of any coherent policies to deal with them. The game was up far earlier than is often appreciated. There were no miracle weapons for the Luftwaffe that could possibly have saved the day in 1944/5. 

We're getting a long way from rockets though 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Erich (Sep 23, 2012)

may I ask all of you to go back to the origins of the thread - rockets and not talk about the Mauser Mk 213 for thw what if's how about several of you get into research of the Br 21 and talk of the beginnings to the end of the war on air to air rocket/missile development, also the link I provided a couple pages back may help you guys out. think all of you during research instead of reading way old books with way old news scour the internet as there are some beneficial links that will give everyone insight ..............


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 23, 2012)

The origional question was if the R4M was the best weapon the Luftwaffe had for bringing down bombers. Doesn't that naturally lead to someone putting forth their opinion of what might be better?


----------



## davebender (Sep 23, 2012)

Lots of things would be better then folding fin rockets. 

What else can Germany reasonably expect to have in mass production by the end of 1943?


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 23, 2012)

At the end of 1943 the Luftwaffe probably though that they weren't doing too bad against the daylight bomber offensive, ans what they already had in their plans for future weapons would cover whatever the allies would come up with.
They didn't have a crystal ball that would tell them the bombs dropped over Germany in daylight in 44 would be over 8 times more than 43, and those bombers would be escorted by fighters that could take on the best they had.


----------



## davebender (Sep 23, 2012)

> didn't have a crystal ball that would tell them the bombs dropped over Germany in daylight in 44 would be over 8 times more than 43


You don't need a crystal ball to count B-17 and B-24 bomber production. And it's safe to assume most of those B-17s and B-24s will be in Europe a few months after rolling off the assembly line.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 23, 2012)

davebender said:


> You don't need a crystal ball to count B-17 and B-24 bomber production. And it's safe to assume most of those B-17s and B-24s will be in Europe a few months after rolling off the assembly line.


Production numbers weren't exactly public knowledge, and even when the figures were shown to the upper echelons in the 3rd Reich, the ones that mattered didn't believe them.


----------



## davebender (Sep 23, 2012)

> when the figures were shown to the upper echelons in the 3rd Reich, the ones that mattered didn't believe them.


Leaders who ignore problems rather then seeking solutions are heading for disaster. The heavy bomber steamroller of 1944 to 1945 should have been predictable by the end of 1942.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 23, 2012)

That easy to say now.

I've forgot which 3rd reich bigwig said it, but one leader said American industry were good at making refrigerators.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 23, 2012)

The conversation was between Goering, Hitler and Speer when Goering dismissed America's ability to make war weapons, dismissing US for being famous for movies and razor blades. Speer allegdly pointed out that the steel tonnage in razor blades and automobiles was enormous.


----------



## bobbysocks (Sep 24, 2012)

i dont think rockets were better off being used by rookies. that is unless you have a huge supply of them and your tactic is to "spray and pray"...shoot'em all off then bug out to live another day. you may get "experienced" pilots like that but experienced at what exactly? like any other weapon further you are away from the target the more exaggerated the degree of angle of the path of the projectile is. so for the rookie to be successful they are going to have to get in close either way. barring heat seeking ( fire and forget ) capability...or some sort of proximity fuse...which didnt seem to be prevelant. the only thing you gain is a direct hit accomplishes more damage. so the toll of the us bombers would have been higher. but to a degree that it would be a deterant and stop daylight bombing like had happened in fall 43? i dont think so. by then us fighter tactics had changed and they were not solely on escort duty. while some squadrons were on protection others were out hunting. that may have changed and the fighters brought back up to the bombers. and you are back to square one...contending with us fighter escorts. like as been said before germany would have had to have been able to put something up in mass that could have inflicted considerable damage for it to be effective. they needed more rockets.....unless you are fielding a thousand planes with them.


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2012)

the LW needed to go beyond the EZ 42 gunsight of which they were working on and as Bobbysocks mentioned en-mass attack but not from the rear in which the R$M's were fired but from the sides/flanks in staffel strength like the old Bf 110G-2's of the ZG gruppen in fall of 43 early 44 with the outdated br 21cm. and of course we know what would of happened to twin or S/E LW craft lining up from the sides via US Mustang escorts..... use the 262 or Arado's ? maybe but again would have to just literally fill the skies with masses of flying arms ~ 50 rockets per craft to make the point


----------



## davebender (Sep 24, 2012)

That's what rookie pilots do no matter what weapon they are firing. So you might as well give them a weapon designed for that purpose.


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2012)

the spray attitude was done in staffle strength by Bf 110G-2 units as well as later Me 410a/B ZG's so NO not just rookies.


----------



## davebender (Sep 25, 2012)

With cannon, or were they firing modified 21cm Nebelwerfer rockets (Werfer-Granate 21)?


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2012)

there were a minimum of 3 LW T/E attacking at once up to staffel strength the idea was to give a broadside unless the CO of the particular operation order a full rear attack which was going to go nowhere with the twin Br 21cm under each wing. of course a full broadside being much more effective to just let it go 600-1000 thousand yards out and then come in within reason with the 2cm if the upper nosed 110G-2's had the 3cm Mk 108's then closer but they were usually fired too far out of range until the S/E Fw's of the Stumgruppen came into play in July of 1944 but by this time tactics had changed to engage 4-engines. am not sure on the rockets if they could be fired one wing at a time or a full salvo of 4.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2012)

The 21cm rockets and the R4M had a somewhat different goal didn't they?

If a 21cm rocket managed a hit so much the better but they had time fuses and were supposed to burst in the formation like a giant flak shell. I may be misunderstanding the tactic but wasn't it to help break up the bomber formations so the fighters could make gun attacks with less danger from supporting fire by other bombers in an "tight" formation? 

The R4M needed the direct hit and while formations may have broken up when under it attack that may not have been the goal/mission of the rocket?


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2012)

correct on the former the R4M and it depended on what type of rocket-armed head was on the missile whether explosion on impact or the bararge type of system blown up at a pre-conceived distance


----------



## bobbysocks (Sep 25, 2012)

i would hate to be on the ground below when all those unexploded salvos of rockets came raining down. especially if its over a city...kind of helping the allies bomb your own country....


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2012)

I believe there was supposed to be self destruct fuses or arrangements of some kind. Pretty standard for AA ammunition even down to 20mm and for some air to air ammunition as well. 

How well it worked might be another story as the Battle of Palmdale showed. Rockets/fuses built in peacetime by well paid defense workers?


----------

