Flight Capabilities of Hs293 glider-bomb

[rstern]

Sirs,
I have an account of the attack against USS Tillman (DD641) by three Do217Ks armed with Hs293 glider-bombs on 6 November 1943. One of the bombs passed in front of the destroyer and was seen to turn back before crashing close aboard. Was it within the capabilities of this bomb and its flight controls that it could be commanded to make a 180deg turn or was this simply a case of the bomb being damaged by AA fire and crashing out of control?

Any help on this greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[davebender]

German guided air to ground missiles/bombs
I don't think so. The above link contains quite a bit of information about the Fritz X and Hs293.

Both weapons employed a similiar guidance system. Joystick control with a marker flare in the weapon tail to make it easier for the operator to follow. Similiar to the Soviet AT-3 Sagger anti-tank missile. As with the AT-3, the the key to defeating the Hs293 is suppressive fire on the operator or his aircraft. You cannot guide the weapon and take evasive action at the same time.

 

[superkeith1872]

Dave had it right. I know the Germans had remote controlled bombs that they controlled from a chase aircraft or the aircraft that dropped it and the ones I recall were used against shipping targets to help negate the deadly anti aircraft barrage and other defenses that would meet you should you try to attack. The U.S. also had similar radio control bombs, which I attached a report on below. We also converted some bomber aircraft to use as the bomb itself, the pilots would bail out near the target and the chase aircraft would pilot the explosive laden bomb aircraft into it's target such as the submarine pens. I think one of the Kennedy sons was killed flying one of these remote control bombs, if my memory serves me right, they couldn't be sure of the cause but the first models of controls for this system could accidently be activated while trying to set it before they jumped out and it was either a b-17 or b-24 aircraft. Keith

 

[davebender]

X7 Rotkäppchen (Red Riding Hood) Anti-tank Missile
There's no technical reason Germany couldn't have their own version of the Sagger AT missile operational during mid 1943 since it employed the same guidance system as the Hs293 and Fritz X. Heer leadership just need to decide they need such a weapon and start funding the program around 1940.

The historical Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck were bad enough. Can you imagine what large scale use of X7 Rotkäppchen anti-tank missiles would do to T-34s and Sherman tanks during 1943 to 1945?

 

[Jabberwocky]

X7 Rotkäppchen (Red Riding Hood) Anti-tank Missile
There's no technical reason Germany couldn't have their own version of the Sagger AT missile operational during mid 1943 since it employed the same guidance system as the Hs293 and Fritz X. Heer leadership just need to decide they need such a weapon and start funding the program around 1940.

The historical Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck were bad enough. Can you imagine what large scale use of X7 Rotkäppchen anti-tank missiles would do to T-34s and Sherman tanks during 1943 to 1945?

Probably not that much.

Of the seven recorded test firings, four flew into the ground, two blew up on the way to the target and one hit the target at 500 m range.

At the time, AT guns were a more effective solution.

 

[davebender]

Tanks are the most effective AT weapon of all. But that misses the point. ATGMs such as the X7, Sagger, MILAN etc. can be carried by infantry or light vehicles yet allow tanks to be killed at long range. ATGMs are also relatively inexpensive so they can be issued in large numbers.

 

[Siegfried]

Probably not that much.

Of the seven recorded test firings, four flew into the ground, two blew up on the way to the target and one hit the target at 500 m range.

At the time, AT guns were a more effective solution.

The operators were no doubt still in a process of learning, a considerable expenditure in training rounds must be factored into bringing an operator up to an acceptable proficiency. I would say at least 4 (about the ratio used for Fritz-X). This is not that expensive considering the cheap cost of these simple missiles in addition experts need to establish correct opperating skills and procedures. The early generation of MCLOS Manual Command Line of Sight used what is now 'acceleration control' where the joystick deflects the control surface. To the operator the application of joystick deflection proportionately deflects a control surface and appears to generate an acceleration of the missile (up-down, left-right).

Many years after the war the British Vickers Valiant missile applied a new guidence system whereby 'velocity control' was used. In this system the missile launches and automatically turns in the direction of the target and dead reckons itself into the operators line of sight. At that point the operators joystick deflections appear to produce a velocity rather than a change in the missiles (up-down, left right) flight. If the operator releases the joystick the missile flying in the direction of the initial target (there is probably a moving average). This kind of missile is much eaier to fly but many post war missiles such as AS.11, As.12, Cobra etc successfully used the acceleration control method though they latter changed to the velocity control method vickers pioneered. Training and probably a simulator is vital. (there as such a thing for HS 293 and Fritz-X)

Hs 293 of course had and autopilot on board and was a little easier to fly. It leveled its roll plane out if the joystick was released or centered and I believe flew straight and level in the most recent direction.

The X-7 was of course acceleration control MCLOS. Two derivatives using pinsel and peipenkopf which used electro-optical methods. I believe the former used infrared signaling and infrared tracking of the missile to make the missile semi-automatic while the latter added a TV head.