Your idea for Bomber killing weapons in WWII
- Thread starter Amsel
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #42
Use a selection of jets to perform hit and run attacks on the US airfields in Britain. Attack the aircraft as they are on the ground and forming up to attack. If your lucky they can return re-arm and refuel and fight again over the skies in Germany. Its a long shot yes
After reading about He-177 and further development, the He-277 armed with guided anti-ship missiles would've been a nice asset. Flying well above 40Kft, and on the top of the bomber stream, the material and moral impression would've been devastating for Fortresses upon hitting them with Fritz-X or Hs-293/294 from above.
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
"...The "best" bomber-killing weapons I've seen were the air-to-air bombs developed by the Japanese at the end of WWII, especially the Type 5 No 25 Mk 29 bomb, which weighed 551 lbs. and contained 102 lbs. of phosphorus incendiary material and 1,100 pellets. The attacking a/c could actually stand off from a reasonable distance (approx. 100m+) and lob the bomb at an approaching bomber formation..."
This has given me an idea.
Why not have an AAA gun than can fire a shell that has that warhead?
And Germany did have such guns well before 1944. In fact, they had 18 of them...
What were they?
The 11 inch guns of the Scharnhorst and Gniesau.
And by late 1942, both ships were useless to Germany for any practical warlike purposes.
What if...
In early 1943, an experiment was done in Germany with the shells having the warhead as described above. It shows that a 100 meter square cube could be made into a 'death zone' for bombers when the shell explodes.
The germans demobilize the two ships, and modify the guns for high angle fire. The heavy shells and the powerful muzzle velocity of the huge cannos result in a time to 10,000 meters faster than even the model 1941 88 or even the powerful 128 flak gun, which simplifies the firing solution. The germans group the guns in four gun coordinated batteries for maximum effect.
Controlled by radar, assisted by searchlights, each four gun battery creates a 'death zone' roughly (my wild guess) five miles square. This 'death zone' of course refers to the daylight bomber box, although these guns couls also be very, very dangerours against single British bombers flying in a night stream as well. 16 guns in four batteries create a death zone ten miles square, or a hundred square miles. The germans produce another 46 guns, for a total of 64, to create a protected zone of 400 square miles...or, in short, nearly the entire Ruhr.
Not all bombers entering a death zone will perish, of course - but I suspect the combination of that gun and that ammo would break up the boxes, inflicting an average loss rate of at least one bomber killed and two crippled for every shell bursting inside the box. As that 11 inch gun could fire 3.5 times a minute, and probably more if the germans modified it, and as that gun had a tremendous range and shell momemtum, I suspect any box wandering in its range would get at least three shells from it. Multiply by four in the battery. Each battery will take a toll of at least twelve or ten bombers killed and twice that number crippled, and a crippled bomber is a bomber that will die soon. A box would probably fly over two batteries in its bombing run. So each box could have at least twenty bombers killed and forty crippled...terrible losses!
Of course, all this is guesswork on my part, based on my imperfect knowledge of artillery. Who here has an intimate knowledge of artillery, especially naval artillery, and can make comments on this?
This has given me an idea.
Why not have an AAA gun than can fire a shell that has that warhead?
And Germany did have such guns well before 1944. In fact, they had 18 of them...
What were they?
The 11 inch guns of the Scharnhorst and Gniesau.
And by late 1942, both ships were useless to Germany for any practical warlike purposes.
What if...
In early 1943, an experiment was done in Germany with the shells having the warhead as described above. It shows that a 100 meter square cube could be made into a 'death zone' for bombers when the shell explodes.
The germans demobilize the two ships, and modify the guns for high angle fire. The heavy shells and the powerful muzzle velocity of the huge cannos result in a time to 10,000 meters faster than even the model 1941 88 or even the powerful 128 flak gun, which simplifies the firing solution. The germans group the guns in four gun coordinated batteries for maximum effect.
Controlled by radar, assisted by searchlights, each four gun battery creates a 'death zone' roughly (my wild guess) five miles square. This 'death zone' of course refers to the daylight bomber box, although these guns couls also be very, very dangerours against single British bombers flying in a night stream as well. 16 guns in four batteries create a death zone ten miles square, or a hundred square miles. The germans produce another 46 guns, for a total of 64, to create a protected zone of 400 square miles...or, in short, nearly the entire Ruhr.
Not all bombers entering a death zone will perish, of course - but I suspect the combination of that gun and that ammo would break up the boxes, inflicting an average loss rate of at least one bomber killed and two crippled for every shell bursting inside the box. As that 11 inch gun could fire 3.5 times a minute, and probably more if the germans modified it, and as that gun had a tremendous range and shell momemtum, I suspect any box wandering in its range would get at least three shells from it. Multiply by four in the battery. Each battery will take a toll of at least twelve or ten bombers killed and twice that number crippled, and a crippled bomber is a bomber that will die soon. A box would probably fly over two batteries in its bombing run. So each box could have at least twenty bombers killed and forty crippled...terrible losses!
Of course, all this is guesswork on my part, based on my imperfect knowledge of artillery. Who here has an intimate knowledge of artillery, especially naval artillery, and can make comments on this?
Although I rate WW2 planes much more then AAA, the 21cm rocket used by field artillery and Me-110/410 might have a nice punch. The rocket's engine needs to be of double or triple length in order to achieve necessarry ceiling.
The Lexikon der Wermcht site claims that warhead was effective (against infantry?) up to 100m, so the multiple launchers with 15-20 missiles each would've had a pretty good effect against bomber streams. Plus the much sofer launching of a rocked (compared with firing a cannon shell) would make usage of a proximity fuse an easier task.
The Lexikon der Wermcht site claims that warhead was effective (against infantry?) up to 100m, so the multiple launchers with 15-20 missiles each would've had a pretty good effect against bomber streams. Plus the much sofer launching of a rocked (compared with firing a cannon shell) would make usage of a proximity fuse an easier task.
Out of curiosity, would it be possible (or even desirable) to mount one of the larger calibre anti-aircraft guns underneath an aircraft like the JU-88 (like the anti-tank guns). You could have a group fly at high altitude and attack the bomber boxes in a shallow dive attack from further away. I imagine it would be more effective than shooting from the ground and you could also mess with the escort fighters. Your fighter cover could then clean up.
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
Alas, the problem with rockets of that time is that they were INHERENTLY wildy inaccurate....and that is without adding into the problem that is endemic to all finned weapons such as mortars and rockets: CROSSWIND DEFLECTION. At 20,000 feet your basic WWII rocket could easily be 2-3000 feet off target!
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
That will work better with proximity fuzes, the biggest problem I see with the high caliber guns is the low, very low in the case of a 28cm , rate of fire.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
An aerial version of a "Daisy Cutter".
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
It is true that big guns have a low rate of fire - the 28 cm is rated at firing one shell in 17 seconds.
Aganist that, however -
In WWII the us navy found a way to make an 8 inch naval rifle fire 10 shots a minute. That's half the rate of the much smaller 88 model 41! *These are the guns fitted to the Des Moines class heavy cruisers*
Perhaps the Germans could have done something similar?
And against the lower firing rate could be balanced the far greater tange, so that the big guns could begin shooting far earlier and continue shooting far longer.
And a proxmity fuze - there's much more room for things like that in the nose of a big shell. A bigger weight allowance, too.
Aganist that, however -
In WWII the us navy found a way to make an 8 inch naval rifle fire 10 shots a minute. That's half the rate of the much smaller 88 model 41! *These are the guns fitted to the Des Moines class heavy cruisers*
Perhaps the Germans could have done something similar?
And against the lower firing rate could be balanced the far greater tange, so that the big guns could begin shooting far earlier and continue shooting far longer.
And a proxmity fuze - there's much more room for things like that in the nose of a big shell. A bigger weight allowance, too.
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
Note: found the gun.
It's the US Navy's 8/55 RF Mk 16.
It's the US Navy's 8/55 RF Mk 16.
Even back in WW2, people knew how to measure the wind direction and speed. Not to mention that German rockets of 15, 21, 28 and 32cm were SPIN stabilized.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
By late 1942, the twins were quite important -Scharnhorst been deployed in Norway and Gneisenau sheduled for refitting with 15in twin turrets.
However, 28cm guns would always be "ortsfeste s-Flak" - immobile installation heavy AAA.
This indeed was considered for large calibre guns such as the 24cm ortsfest s-Flak under development from 1941. It was to fire a 200 kg projectile with a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s, containing a decent bursting charge of 75 kg high explosive (165 lbs). It was expected to develop a death zone beeing 130m (430 ft) in diameter at altitudewith a burst full of splinters. (btw, the 28cm wouldn´t have been able to create a death zone of 1 mile diameter)
The twin turret should weight in 300 metric tons and was to be provided with full RPC and a firecontroll gear assisted by radar with cyclic a rate of fire asking for 15 sec. including all ammo transfers.
The project was abandoned because it was realised that SAM missiles offered more economical solutions to the same problem. They could deliver larger warloads to higher altitudes in rapid waves. The launching platforms wouldn´t need to be immobile, too.
In my mind, the 12,8cm L61 Flak 40 was as deadly as Flak could be. And it had a very decent rate of fire when power assist was installed, as was in Flak towers: 15 to 19 rounds per minute. It was to fire Rheinmetall-Borsig build proxy fuses ("Kuhglöckchen") by mid 1945, too.
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
Um, I think I expressed myself poorly there, Delcyros. The death zone for aircraft I referred to was the sum of shell burts death zone multiplied by effective range of the gun at - say - 8000 meters (26,500 feet). So an aircraft approaching within four miles of a four gun battery of 28 cm guns flying at 240 miles per hour would need one minute to cross that four mile death zone. Within that time the battery would fire three shells from each gun, or a total of 12 shells.
12 huge shells means 12 chances of a kill, and with each shell having a death zone of over 100 meters, it is highly unlikely for that bomber to escape.
This system would, of course, be uneconomical for SINGLE bombers entering in that 16 square mile (4 x 4 miles) zone, since while the big guns were concentrating on one bomber a dozen or more would be slipping through! But I believe it makes excellent sense for BOXES of bombers, like the 54 bomber combat box used by the USAAF, entering that zone. Since the bombers are packed so tight to defend against fighter attacks, any huge shell exploding in their midst would kill or cripple not one but multiple bombers in a single explosion. The Luftwaffe could then pick off the cripples at leisure.
Delcyros, does this sound plausible on a cost/benefit basis? You have much more knowledge than me here.
12 huge shells means 12 chances of a kill, and with each shell having a death zone of over 100 meters, it is highly unlikely for that bomber to escape.
This system would, of course, be uneconomical for SINGLE bombers entering in that 16 square mile (4 x 4 miles) zone, since while the big guns were concentrating on one bomber a dozen or more would be slipping through! But I believe it makes excellent sense for BOXES of bombers, like the 54 bomber combat box used by the USAAF, entering that zone. Since the bombers are packed so tight to defend against fighter attacks, any huge shell exploding in their midst would kill or cripple not one but multiple bombers in a single explosion. The Luftwaffe could then pick off the cripples at leisure.
Delcyros, does this sound plausible on a cost/benefit basis? You have much more knowledge than me here.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The death zone is relative to the max altitude/range combination, where a gun could place projectiles. For comparison purposes, I use 40.000ft. altitude (12.1km) as comparison criterium to describe the effective radius of action for a AAA placement. Altough one might find this limit arbitrary and artificial.
For the 8.8cmL78 long barreled AAA: 7.8km
For the 8.8cmL76 long barreled AAA: 7.3km
For the 10.5cmL65 heavy AAA: 10km
For the 12.8cmL61 heavy AAA: 12.3km
For the 24cmL60 "ortsfest" AAA: 18.6km (theoretically)
For the 28cmL54 "ortsfest" AAA/Scharnhorst / Gneisenau: 23.4km (theoretically)
immobile AAA installations are not cost effective, they will be bypassed soon by large bomber streams. The rate of fire is way to low and the logistic train is difficult to sustain.
I think the max. possible heavy AAA would have been the 15cmL55 or 15cmL60 experimental AAA made by Krupp and Rheinmetall, respectively. It´s not to large and still may be used in a mobile installation. The 15cm guns do also have a decent rof (the triple turreted guns on the CL-Nürnberg were semi automatic with a cyclic rate of fire of 5 to 6 seconds, including all ammo transfers -basically early rapid fire mounts).
The 12.8cmL61 is already an excellent gun. Shift production to this gun and concentrate around the hydroplants near Leune would have been a more reasonable idea.
The most cost effective AAA was the 8.8cmL78.
For the 8.8cmL78 long barreled AAA: 7.8km
For the 8.8cmL76 long barreled AAA: 7.3km
For the 10.5cmL65 heavy AAA: 10km
For the 12.8cmL61 heavy AAA: 12.3km
For the 24cmL60 "ortsfest" AAA: 18.6km (theoretically)
For the 28cmL54 "ortsfest" AAA/Scharnhorst / Gneisenau: 23.4km (theoretically)
immobile AAA installations are not cost effective, they will be bypassed soon by large bomber streams. The rate of fire is way to low and the logistic train is difficult to sustain.
I think the max. possible heavy AAA would have been the 15cmL55 or 15cmL60 experimental AAA made by Krupp and Rheinmetall, respectively. It´s not to large and still may be used in a mobile installation. The 15cm guns do also have a decent rof (the triple turreted guns on the CL-Nürnberg were semi automatic with a cyclic rate of fire of 5 to 6 seconds, including all ammo transfers -basically early rapid fire mounts).
The 12.8cmL61 is already an excellent gun. Shift production to this gun and concentrate around the hydroplants near Leune would have been a more reasonable idea.
The most cost effective AAA was the 8.8cmL78.
Last edited:
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
THANKS Delcyros...as usual your vast knowledge has come to the rescue!
A question. Even if immobile guns could be evaded by bomber streams, weren't there some high value targets that bombers HAD to approach? Wouldn't it make sense to put at least some super heavy guns there?
Second question. Does your death zone take into account also the time of flight by a shell to height? Let's say an 88 could shoot a shell to a height of 40,000 feet 5 km away from it in 50 seconds. And a 128 could do the same thing in 20 seconds, and a 28 cm could do the same thing in 13 seconds. Wouldn't the faster climb make for a higher kill probability? And if so, would it not offset, at least partially, the slower rate of fire?
Rate of fire for 28 cm - one shell every 17 seconds. l
A question. Even if immobile guns could be evaded by bomber streams, weren't there some high value targets that bombers HAD to approach? Wouldn't it make sense to put at least some super heavy guns there?
Second question. Does your death zone take into account also the time of flight by a shell to height? Let's say an 88 could shoot a shell to a height of 40,000 feet 5 km away from it in 50 seconds. And a 128 could do the same thing in 20 seconds, and a 28 cm could do the same thing in 13 seconds. Wouldn't the faster climb make for a higher kill probability? And if so, would it not offset, at least partially, the slower rate of fire?
Rate of fire for 28 cm - one shell every 17 seconds. l
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The problems with big guns is that they typically have a fixed loading angle. The elevation for the 28.3cm gun was +2 degrees. This is second order (but not insignificant) when engaging surfaced targets but against aerial target You NEED a high elevation. The barrels could be moved at 7.2 deg per second. The 17 sec. cyclic rate of fire is relative to the loading angle and does not include time for elevating and depressing the barrels. For the 28.3cmL54.5 guns (such as installed into turrets of Schanrhorst Gneisenau) firing at 75 deg. this would add 20 sec. just for moving the barrels up down! Not very economical by any standart and this should be kept in mind.
Theoretically, You could redesign the whole turret arrangement to allow firing at any angle (such as in Richelieu) but this was untypical for german turret design practice and would require not just new turret designs but also a fully new concept for the turret revolving structure.
High velocity is indeed a very important factor for AAA guns.
Theoretically, You could redesign the whole turret arrangement to allow firing at any angle (such as in Richelieu) but this was untypical for german turret design practice and would require not just new turret designs but also a fully new concept for the turret revolving structure.
High velocity is indeed a very important factor for AAA guns.
