PDA

View Full Version : gmeran Me262 rocket weapons



XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:14 PM
as faras I am aware, the germans tried out two different rocket weapon systems on the 262 during the war.

one was a rack of small rockets on each wing, that fired forwards in one volley.

the other was designed to fire upwards automatically by being linked to a photelectric cell. when the shadow of a bomber passed overhead it fired the weapon.

can anyone give me more information on them, what they were called, how many rockets there were etc?

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:14 PM
as faras I am aware, the germans tried out two different rocket weapon systems on the 262 during the war.

one was a rack of small rockets on each wing, that fired forwards in one volley.

the other was designed to fire upwards automatically by being linked to a photelectric cell. when the shadow of a bomber passed overhead it fired the weapon.

can anyone give me more information on them, what they were called, how many rockets there were etc?

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:25 PM
The upward firing rockets were actually mortars and were fitted on the Me163 Comet, I haven't heard of the mortars being fitted on the Me262 though.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:38 PM
RM-5 rockets were installed under wings. 12 rocket in 1 rack. It was very effective against large formations of bombers.
A "Turbo" with these rockets loosed only little ( 12kph I'm correct ) of it's speed.
Galland wrote in hi's book that usually when "Turbos" attacked ( 2 or 3 plane at a time) they didn't count the kills for themselves but for squadron only.

They used WGR-21 in some jets too. ( Or maybe they just tested them, not sure )
Anyway I have seen few pictures where there are a pair of WGR-21 installed under the nose of a 262.

Regards

SheerLuck Holmes

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:47 PM
These R5M rockets are included in FB, but they fired like Russian rockets.. allways two of them- it´s wrong and I real hope they will fix it.
In RL they were very "usefull" 24 Rockets where like a pumpgun shot, pilots reported one ore two hits everytime and mostly the hitted plane went down...

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif


Message Edited on 08/28/0304:04PM by Abbuzze

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:59 PM
Twelve Me.163Bs "Komet" and the Me.262D were fitted with this system, the SG 500 Jagdfaust.
This solution was adopted since the original two MK108 cannons of the Komet could deliver only a very short burst during the attacks of the Komet flying at >900 km/h against bombers at 400 km/h.

The SG 500 Jagdfaust consisted of five vertically mounted firing tubes in each wing root, each containing a 50 mm shell. The system fired in a salvo and was activated by the shadow of the target passing over a light cell (unfortunate if it happened to be your wingman) and the Me 163 merely had to fly at high speed beneath the bomber formation, when the armament was activated automatically. The Jagdfaust system was fitted to 12 Me.163B but, although these were not issued for operations, this unlikely weapon did manage to destroy one B-17 on ocassion.
No pictures, sorry!

<center>

http://www.goblins.net/immagini/Logo/tdglogo_eng.gif </p>

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 02:59 PM
Both of these, rather desperate, weapon systems highlight a fundamental weakness with German fighter design in the late war.

The problem the Luftwaffe faced was that high speeds were required to survive the defensive fighters screens accompanying bomber formations, and that these same high speeds made attacking the bombers difficult because of the high closing speeds. The low muzzle velocity of the 30 mm cannon also required the 262 and 163 to engage from within range of the bomber's definsive fire.

After the war this problem was solved by the development of guided and homing air-to-air missiles with ranges of several km, but the Luftwaffe did not appreciate the need for such weapons until too late and was unable to move any of them to successful deployment.

This is one of the reasons why I remain unimpressed by the Me 262. Many flight enthusiasts seem to see it as the high point of WWII military aviation. A more sober analysis sees an overcomplicated a/c with disasterous servicability problems, confined to operate from conspicuous concrete runways and armed with weapons that were unsuitable for its role.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 03:24 PM
Rockets that could be fitted

R100BS
X-4
Hs298
Wgr21
R4M - only this used operationally

The SG116 was only a proposal to mount 2 x 3 30mm Mk103 barrels in the fuselage.

What is a RM5 missle?

This German rocket - need more info

The Rocket 'Do'. This rocket was a very special rocket, especially for that time. It was developed to be launched out of a submarine. After some test launches this program was stopped

http://www.worldwar.nl/secretweapons/do_01.jpg


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 04:04 PM
It's interesting that the Luftwaffe had so many potentially good weapon systems in development, but didn't manage to deploy more than a few with effective numbers and quality. The explanation probably lies in the contrasting cultures in R&D between the Axis and Allied nations.

From what I've read, the Axis (really only the Germans) persued many different advanced development projects, but without a strong high-level guidance or selection and suffered a dilution of effort because of it. In contrast, the Allies carefully selected fewer projects and only those that could achieve deliverable results in reasonable time scales. This lead to less exciting or glamorous Allied projects (no rocket planes, for instance), but it proved very effective at delivering competant weapons in large numbers.

I'm reminded of a slogan from the very early days of British radar research, which was "the second best solution tomorrow", meaning that it was better to get something that worked reasonably well and could be deployed quickly than to extend the development and try to perfect a system if it meant significant delays in deployment.

I suspect that the contrasting fates of the B-24 and He-177 programmes are a nice illustration of these differences.

Regards,

RocketDog.




Message Edited on 08/28/0303:19PM by RocketDog

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 04:32 PM
RocketDog wrote:
-

- I suspect that the contrasting fates of the B-24 and
- He-177 programmes are a nice illustration of these
- differences.
-
-

Add jet engines to the list./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 05:00 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

- Add jet engines to the list

Yes indeed.

I don't know the history that well, but I suspect the Allied nations reasoned they could win the air war using existing aircraft technology without having to invest heavily in jet engine research. The Luftwaffe must have come to realise that the ONLY way it could win the air war was with jet engines and had to pursue their development and deployment on an uncomfortably accelerated timescale. The problems the Me 262s experienced with unreliable engines of short lifetime were a consequence.

The big Allied R&D efforts seem to have been applied to essential but strategic technologies like atomic weapons, radar, radio comms, code breaking, mass production and operational analysis. All projects without a serious equivalent in the Axis nations. This probably reflects the higher status allocated to scientists and engineers in the UK and USA in strategic decision making. In Germany, key decisions about the air war seem to have been made by people who had purely military backgrounds, and had little knowledge of science or engineering - Udet and Goring are the classic examples.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 05:01 PM
Abbuzze wrote:
- These R5M rockets are included in FB, but they fired
- like Russian rockets.. allways two of them- it´s
- wrong and I real hope they will fix it.


I remember reading somewhere years ago something along the same lines - 'cept it was for the R4M - that the R4M rockets were fired as one salvo into a flight of bombers to get multiple hits on several aircraft. The pilot couldn't launch them one at a time.

I also recall something about these rockets having some kind of a magnetic proximity relay so they didn't have to hit the target directly - just get real close.

Anybody able to verify either of these two claims? I told a squad mate about this and he thought I was completely off my rocker.

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 05:05 PM
R4m comments from Steinhoff:


"They could be let off 1,100 meters away from the target - and from this range continued until they represented a field of fire of over 30m x 14m. This meant that by releasing all his rockets at once against a close formation of bombers a pilot couldn't miss!"

Johannes Steinhoff

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 05:10 PM
RocketDog wrote:

-
- Yes indeed.
-
- [snip]

What I meant was the engine design - German went for axial, while US and GB went for the simple centrifugal design. Both the US and GB had axial engines in early 1940s.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 05:25 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

- What I meant was the engine design - German went for
- axial, while US and GB went for the simple
- centrifugal design. Both the US and GB had axial
- engines in early 1940s.

Ooops. Yes.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 05:32 PM
carbheat wrote:
- Abbuzze wrote:
-- These R5M rockets are included in FB, but they fired
-- like Russian rockets.. allways two of them- it´s
-- wrong and I real hope they will fix it.
-
-
- I remember reading somewhere years ago something
- along the same lines - 'cept it was for the R4M -
- that the R4M rockets were fired as one salvo into a
- flight of bombers to get multiple hits on several
- aircraft. The pilot couldn't launch them one at a
- time.
-
-
-

The R4Ms were ripple fired in pairs(some small fraction of a second between each pairs).

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg