Your idea for Bomber killing weapons in WWII

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

A rather unorthodox approach was considered in 1944.
A radio guided and unmanned Ta-154 packed full with high explosives
should be maneuvered into a combat box before detonation. The destructiveness was based entirely on the blast effects.
A number of them was build as Ta-154+Fw-190 Mistel combination but none used in this capacity.
 
Why bother with that tho when they had the wasserfall, it would likely have devastated bomber formations better than interceptors since escorts would have been able to do little about it.
 
All these weapons (area effect bombs, early ground to air rockets) involve technology that imo wasn't ready back then or are simply impractical.

So for me, dumbfire R4M in salvos from every fighter attacking.
 
Its interesting that both the British and Germans came up with the same solutions to the bomber problem, the British solutions coming around 1940/41 for the BoB and the German ones later in 1944/45 when the Allied bomber offensive had taken off.

As an example, the Ram pilotless interceptor from 1935. A small propeller driven aircraft laden with high explosives that would be guided into a bomber formation by two other aircraft (for elevation and position). It used the same radio control system as the Queen Bee drone. A further development added radio direction finding equipment to home in on radar emissions.

Later on there were a whole host of ground launched missiles with various guidance methods, photoelectric being the simplest, up to various beam riding types. By the end of the war the focus was on providing protection to ships and the missiles eventually became Sea Slug.

I'm not optimistic about the effectiveness of wartime SAM projects given that it took until the mid 1950s to field actual weapons. Its easier to hit a box of B-17s flying at 200mph and 25,000ft than a single aircraft at 500mph and 40,000ft, but its probably still a jump too far.

An air launched Hs 293 was trialled, carried dorsally on a Do 217. The main problems were low speed of the missile, manual guidance, large size and large weight making a very vulnerable platform.

My favourite is the British Artemis air to air missile which was a semi-active radar guided missile. It had an offset seeker and either thrust vectoring or aerodynamic controls and would follow a looping trajectory to the illuminated target. The main advantages are it's small size, low weight and simplicity as it was based on the 3" UP rocket. Stand off about 1500-2000yds back and launch a couple at a time.

R4M unguided rockets and more effective gun armament are easier solutions though.
 
HellToupee said:
Why bother with that tho when they had the wasserfall, it would likely have devastated bomber formations better than interceptors since escorts would have been able to do little about it.
Click to expand...

I guess because none of them worked, practically speaking, except for cannon fire (flak or fighters) - until the very end when R4M's were introduced.
 
KrazyKraut said:
All these weapons (area effect bombs, early ground to air rockets) involve technology that imo wasn't ready back then or are simply impractical.

So for me, dumbfire R4M in salvos from every fighter attacking.
Click to expand...

Well in the case of the wasserfall it would have been using technology that was proven, using guidance similar to that of the hs293, and it was far more practical investment than the various rocket interceptors.


Well they still only had to hit a slow moving large box of bombers, well atleast in the case of the wasserfall which was just a guided V2, massive warhead. Guidance was only simple manual control vs the more complicated self guiding and radar guided types post war.
 
Wasserfall's target is moving slower and at lower altitude than the postwar SAMs but still presents a difficult target to hit as you've got to lead the target by quite a way. The manual guidance system is worse than postwar beam riding and radar homing weapons. As it is far easier to jam. And what happens when it's cloudy and can't see the target?

It was hardly using proven technology given the large number of rocket failures. A 40% failure rate even before you've come close to hitting a target does not make an effective weapon.
 
birdstrikes and lots of it

no i would like to say a kind of clusterbomb filled with timed nades with shrappnel and those attached to fighters wich drop them above an infront of the bombers and wait till they go off and finish the job.
 
Large rockets such as something similar to the USN "tiny tim", set to airburst phosphorous tipped shrapnel could be effective possibly.
 
P-38L "Super strafer" mod. 8x .50cal in the nose and 4 podded under the wings.
That should work.
 
well the US tryed something of the sort agaist the V3 the mega gun made to lay waste to london
 
I'm not sure it it was ever used, but the IJNS Yamato's 18" had some type of a special round that could be used against aircraft. IIRC it would explode in a middle of a formation.
 
That was funny Njaco...

My idea:

Take a Ju 88. Redesign her with a solid. pointed nose, and streamline her cockpit to a teardrop. No rear gunner, only a radio operator facing rearward to warn of attacks.

Put 8 (YES, EIGHT) Mk 108 in the nose. This will make the plane nose heavy. Counterbalance it by putting a HUGE solid rocket motor into a redesigned tail.

Put in the most powerful engines available.

Protect the 88 Uber Zestorer with a cloud of 109s till it gets into position above and behind the box.

Now point your nose at the box, redline your engines, open up the rocket, and DIVE!

The momentary speed of your heavy aircraft, redlined engines, and rocket boost should shoot you past the escorts and give the defensive gunners a very hard target to aim at.

With that speed you will have only about four seconds to fire when you get into range.

But with eight Mk 108, four seconds is more than enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

I'm looking for information and more
Replies
1
Views
620
mjfur
M
Z
Sweet spot sizes for AA guns
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
The last surviving RAF SABS bombsight in existence?!
Replies
8
Views
1K
WATU
W
W
Ware Sunderland simple bombsight - looking for images
Replies
0
Views
583
WATU
W
Gun camera accuracy video for 37mm Stuka, 40mm Hurricane
Replies
0
Views
750
taly01
Menu
Log in
Register