wuzak
Captain
Could the Ruhrstahl X-4 be adapted for ground launch?
R4M FF Rocket. The ideal weapon for killing heavy bombers?
- Thread starter davebender
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Erich
the old Sage
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
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=15844
- Thread starter
- #24
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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.
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
Banned
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!
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!
- Thread starter
- #26
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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
2nd Lieutenant
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
Staff Sergeant
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.
Except that the Me-410 was an unstable gun platform and tended to land less hits on US bombers than any other German fighter.
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.
- Thread starter
- #30
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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
2nd Lieutenant
The Germans were years ahead of the USA and the UK in heat seeking research.
wuzak
Captain
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.
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
Staff Sergeant
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
Banned
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
Captain
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
Banned
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
Staff Sergeant
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.
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
Steve
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
Major General
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.
