Erich
the old Sage
thought I would share this all with you, you'll need to know some basic German but you will all get by with the wealth of material on the site
R4M Rakete Orkan
R4M Rakete Orkan
R4M ...............
- Thread starter Erich
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Crimea_River
Marshal
Cool!
Should post in Weapon Systems Tech.
Should post in Weapon Systems Tech.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Nice to know that the speed loss with the wooden holder with 24 rockets was 18 kmh.
And that the RA 55 could fire 600 R4Ms a minute, though weighing only 25 kg itself, and it would probably have lead to the cancellation of the 55mm Flak.
Kris
And that the RA 55 could fire 600 R4Ms a minute, though weighing only 25 kg itself, and it would probably have lead to the cancellation of the 55mm Flak.
Kris
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Did the wooden racks drop away when the rockets were gone, restoring aircraft performance to normal?
- Thread starter
- #6
Erich
the old Sage
that would be a negative at least on JG 7 Me 262A's as they were reused, in fact at least on two missions III. gruppe returned to base and stocked up again with R4M's and went looking for US targets if they had not already been engaged by the US escorts
Aaron Brooks Wolters
Brigadier General
Very interesting Erich!! Thank you for sharing!!
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Erich is probably right. But the document specifically says that the rack was dropped automatically after the last two rockets were fired.
I suppose that hadn't been implemented yet.
Kris
Wouldn't matter dave seeing how much faster the Me262 was compared to the opposition. The top speed of the aircraft varied between 870 to 900 + km/h depending on the performance of the specific batch of engines used. A loss of 18 km/h was of exactly zero importance.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Was reading through that site again and noticed that there were plans to replace the wooden holders. Either by some kind of a jettisonable tube, either a central homeycomb like on the Ba 349 Natter, either by a Siemens 55mm 600rpm gun/launcher, either by Einzelschienen (individual rocket holders).
Also interesting is the following:
And a bit further one reads
But it seems to me that the first part states that this firm deliberately made the rockets disperse? I am not really sure about this as the accuracy from 300 m seems much better. ??
Kris
Also interesting is the following:
So the 24 rockets were placed in such a way that from a distance of 1230 m a hitting area of 320 m2 was achieved. From a distance of 300 m it would be 2.9 x 4.4 m.
And a bit further one reads
or a deviation of maximum 1.2 m from a distance of 100 m.
But it seems to me that the first part states that this firm deliberately made the rockets disperse? I am not really sure about this as the accuracy from 300 m seems much better. ??
Kris
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Probably made specifically for shooting at a B-17 bomber box. That's a job for a shotgun rather then a rifle.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
they also tried a special bomb with a timed or altimeter detonator that was dropped from above the bomber formations...kind of flak from above. given more time and money for developement these could have done a lot of damage.
- Thread starter
- #13
Erich
the old Sage
D ~ the idea was first introduced by II./JG 11 109G's in 1943.
as for further development of the R4M it was to be on a light weight aluminum rack with 24 rockets under each wing of course slavo'd off en-masse one wing at a time to make a huge impact within a heavy bomber pulk, sequential guidance, the firing of individual rockets was being worked up before the war ended
as for further development of the R4M it was to be on a light weight aluminum rack with 24 rockets under each wing of course slavo'd off en-masse one wing at a time to make a huge impact within a heavy bomber pulk, sequential guidance, the firing of individual rockets was being worked up before the war ended
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
i'll hand it to them...they had some interesting weapons and were always thinking outside the box so to speak. one of the other interesting systems IIRC was a rocket tube (or perhaps a canon) mounted almost vertical in the fuselage of the of an ac. that way they would dive through the bomber stream and shoot straight up...or sneak up as night fighters and do the same. dont know if it ever got off the drafting table...
- Thread starter
- #15
Erich
the old Sage
yes the cannon idea was tested with a Me 163 Komet with one so called recorded downing of a B-17.
the LW night fighters already had 2cm and 3cm angled cannons to fie in the underneath of Allied bombers since August of 1943 till wars end. can you imagine rockets firing upward.............yikes !
the LW night fighters already had 2cm and 3cm angled cannons to fie in the underneath of Allied bombers since August of 1943 till wars end. can you imagine rockets firing upward.............yikes !
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
yeah the Jaegerfaust...
but if you are going to fire 24 or 48 rockets at a bomber box from a km away would you
- make them all go directly to the same target to ensure at least that kill and maybe hit another one due to the inherent accuracy of the rockets
- or make them scatter all over the box, or in other words, to rely on this inaccuracy in order to hit more than one bomber.
The second one makes sense but what if the bomber box is small or depleted?
When firing from behind and from a distance of 770m the hitting area was around 320 m2. That would mean 1 or 2 rockets for each 10 m2. This works well for an entire bomber box but if you're trying to shoot down smaller formations it seems the chances of actually hitting the target seems smaller. Also, a single hit does not necessarily mean the bomber will be destroyed.
Kris
but if you are going to fire 24 or 48 rockets at a bomber box from a km away would you
- make them all go directly to the same target to ensure at least that kill and maybe hit another one due to the inherent accuracy of the rockets
- or make them scatter all over the box, or in other words, to rely on this inaccuracy in order to hit more than one bomber.
The second one makes sense but what if the bomber box is small or depleted?
When firing from behind and from a distance of 770m the hitting area was around 320 m2. That would mean 1 or 2 rockets for each 10 m2. This works well for an entire bomber box but if you're trying to shoot down smaller formations it seems the chances of actually hitting the target seems smaller. Also, a single hit does not necessarily mean the bomber will be destroyed.
Kris
- Thread starter
- #17
Erich
the old Sage
Kris you would of had to ask the LW ground techs and the p;pilots at the time I would think just fire them all off but this could not be done in the normal jet attack way but would have to be done on the flanks to be effective.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Then you attack normally using cannon.
As I understand it B-17s flying separately or in small groups were relatively easy to kill. Hence breaking up a bomber box was the first step towards killing the bombers.
As I understand it B-17s flying separately or in small groups were relatively easy to kill. Hence breaking up a bomber box was the first step towards killing the bombers.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
True ...
But what if you are flying in a fighter formation of let's say 12 fighters. They all carry 48 rockets. They will fire their 500+ rockets in the centre of the bomber box. Even though the rockets are designed to stray they will still hit harder in the center. So wouldn't this be overkill for the bombers in the middle? Wouldn't it be better to have the rockets fire as straight as possible and let the fighters shoot according to their position in their own unit? (as fighter on the left will aim for the bombers at the left)
I know I am nagging about this, I'm just trying to think what the best option is. I also have my doubts about the efficiency of these rockets. Not that I really think they were not effective but I am thinking how it can be proven by simple maths and logic.
I am also thinking about what Erich said about the bombers being best attacked from the flanks. I suppose what is meant is that that way the bombers form a more solid target...
But if I look at the formations ...
... I wonder if an attack from the top might not be the best. Or from behind would be easier to aim.
Kris
But what if you are flying in a fighter formation of let's say 12 fighters. They all carry 48 rockets. They will fire their 500+ rockets in the centre of the bomber box. Even though the rockets are designed to stray they will still hit harder in the center. So wouldn't this be overkill for the bombers in the middle? Wouldn't it be better to have the rockets fire as straight as possible and let the fighters shoot according to their position in their own unit? (as fighter on the left will aim for the bombers at the left)
I know I am nagging about this, I'm just trying to think what the best option is. I also have my doubts about the efficiency of these rockets. Not that I really think they were not effective but I am thinking how it can be proven by simple maths and logic.
I am also thinking about what Erich said about the bombers being best attacked from the flanks. I suppose what is meant is that that way the bombers form a more solid target...
But if I look at the formations ...
... I wonder if an attack from the top might not be the best. Or from behind would be easier to aim.
Kris
- Thread starter
- #20
Erich
the old Sage
JG 7 jet attacks were from behind and off to one side perfect for the latter and the R4M's
when the Br 21 rocket mortar was used ZG gruppen found it best to attack from the flanks and just fire off like multiple cannon shots once the explosions occurred then you closed with the bombers using heavy cannon, rockets in the case were just to create one big ball of havoc but the same be said for the R4M in 1945.
when the Br 21 rocket mortar was used ZG gruppen found it best to attack from the flanks and just fire off like multiple cannon shots once the explosions occurred then you closed with the bombers using heavy cannon, rockets in the case were just to create one big ball of havoc but the same be said for the R4M in 1945.