R4M ...............

Discussion in 'Weapons Systems Tech.' started by Erich, Dec 9, 2009.

  1. Erich

    Erich the old Sage
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    13,090
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Platonic Sphere
    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
     
  2. Crimea_River

    Crimea_River Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    25,177
    Likes Received:
    961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Calgary
    Cool!

    Should post in Weapon Systems Tech.
     
  3. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thanks, Erich.

    The years of watching German TV channels via sat TV are paying back :)
     
  4. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  5. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Did the wooden racks drop away when the rockets were gone, restoring aircraft performance to normal?
     
  6. Erich

    Erich the old Sage
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    13,090
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Platonic Sphere
    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
     
  7. Aaron Brooks Wolters

    Aaron Brooks Wolters Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    15,723
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Auto Restoration
    Location:
    Abingdon, VA.
    Very interesting Erich!! Thank you for sharing!!:thumbleft: :cool:
     
  8. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  9. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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:
    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
     
  11. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Probably made specifically for shooting at a B-17 bomber box. That's a job for a shotgun rather then a rifle.
     
  12. bobbysocks

    bobbysocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,811
    Likes Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    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.
     
  13. Erich

    Erich the old Sage
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    13,090
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Platonic Sphere
    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
     
  14. bobbysocks

    bobbysocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,811
    Likes Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    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...
     
  15. Erich

    Erich the old Sage
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    13,090
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Platonic Sphere
    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 !
     
  16. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  17. Erich

    Erich the old Sage
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    13,090
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Platonic Sphere
    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.
     
  18. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    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.
     
  19. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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 ...

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    ... I wonder if an attack from the top might not be the best. Or from behind would be easier to aim.

    Kris
     
  20. Erich

    Erich the old Sage
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    13,090
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Platonic Sphere
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page