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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

when the figures were shown to the upper echelons in the 3rd Reich, the ones that mattered didn't believe them.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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....
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Axis Strategic Heavy Bombers?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
German heavy bombers
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
D
"Self-inflicted" heavy bombers damages in 8th Air Force
Replies
2
Views
1K
Daniel BASTIEN
D
Hornet Deck Load for the Doolittle Raid
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
SaparotRob
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
Menu
Log in
Register