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

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by tracks in the receiver (gun housing), as the barrels turn the bolts move back and forth and the firing pin is withdrawn against it's spring and held back as the bolt goes forward until the barrel reaches the firing position at which point a gap in the track (groove) allows the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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Major General

Captain

2nd Lieutenant

Major General

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

the old Sage

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads