Author Topic: me 163  (Read 1057 times)

Offline glock89

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2269
me 163
« on: August 15, 2008, 12:30:44 AM »
I was looking in a book and saw a pic a of 163 with rockets. Any 1 know if it saw any action?
 
Fear and death in the wings, in thrall of those fallen from grace
Petty is as petty does, witness the mass disgrace.

Offline thedudee95

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
Re: me 163
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2008, 03:57:51 AM »
i dont think so. I know the Me262 had air to air rockets ( held 24 of them), but i dont think the me163 was strong enough to hold them.

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10687
Re: me 163
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2008, 04:10:04 AM »
I was looking in a book and saw a pic a of 163 with rockets. Any 1 know if it saw any action?
 
Post it?

Offline Geary420

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: me 163
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2008, 04:17:29 AM »
I was looking in a book and saw a pic a of 163 with rockets. Any 1 know if it saw any action?
 

You sure it wasn't a Gnatter?

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23933
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: me 163
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2008, 05:36:03 AM »
I was looking in a book and saw a pic a of 163 with rockets. Any 1 know if it saw any action?
 

Most probably you saw this one:



This is a ME 163A, not a the operational 163B we have in game. It was used for testing purposes only.

As far as I know there were no R4M equipped 163B flying any sorties.

i dont think so. I know the Me262 had air to air rockets ( held 24 of them), but i dont think the me163 was strong enough to hold them.

You didn't need any particular "strong" airframe to scarry 8lbs rockets, or to shoot them. Actually it's one primary advantage of rockets that they, being recoilless, put much less stress on an airframe than guns.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 05:39:06 AM by Lusche »
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline VansCrew1

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2377
Re: me 163
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2008, 09:26:37 AM »
dogfights.

 :aok
Tour 79
Callsign: VansCrew


"The Ringer"

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: me 163
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2008, 11:20:56 AM »
You didn't need any particular "strong" airframe to scarry 8lbs rockets, or to shoot them. Actually it's one primary advantage of rockets that they, being recoilless, put much less stress on an airframe than guns.
Yep. Lusche definitely knows his stuff. :aok There's no recoil per se, but a "hold back" load that has to be overcome at launch. Think of it as a very small negative recoil.

Lusche, you and Widewing seem to be the keepers of all the obscure data. Do you have any idea how many allied planes were downed with R4M's?
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23933
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: me 163
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2008, 11:33:23 AM »
Do you have any idea how many allied planes were downed with R4M's?

Not really.
The number "500" can be frequently encountered in books and on the web, but I have yet to see any reasonable and reliable source for it. Actually they all seem to go back to the same author, Heinz J. Nowarra, who's not exactly one of the most reliable sources on such matters.

Keep in mind that the R4M was build, delivered and, most important, used in the last weeks of the war under very chaotic circumstances, so I would take any numbers with a grain of salt.

But maybe someone has better documents on that matter ;)
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: me 163
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2008, 12:02:07 PM »
Naudet, or T. Williams?  Ol' Brady might too.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
Re: me 163
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2008, 03:20:46 PM »
Lusche, you and Widewing seem to be the keepers of all the obscure data. Do you have any idea how many allied planes were downed with R4M's?

But the effect of R4M rockets was not only in its immensely destructive power.
A cloud of rockets bursting, damading planes and scattering formations was a powerful side effect.
After a rocket attack the bomber formation could be devastated, planes flying singly, vulnerable to attacking fighters... What if bomber was damaged, lost its place in formation, flew homewards singly, perhaps coming down from the damage. Just forcing the bomber back wounded was a mission kill.

So we can't think of just direct kills by the rockets, their "side effects" were as important as their power to destroy a heavy bomber.

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: me 163
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2008, 03:42:22 PM »
Ive never heard of a rocket equipped 163 used in combat either. I had thought only 262s and some 190s were so armed.

The 163s were used under very chaotic conditions as well. Imagine the guts it took to strap into one of those things and take it up against the terrible Allied air forces in the last months of the war? As Germany was disintegrating? Those German boys also showed great courage in that bomber war.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: me 163
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2008, 03:44:18 PM »
There was also a variant of the R4M used for ground attack.


Offline glock89

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2269
Re: me 163
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2008, 07:09:38 PM »
Most probably you saw this one:

(Image removed from quote.)

This is a ME 163A, not a the operational 163B we have in game. It was used for testing purposes only.

As far as I know there were no R4M equipped 163B flying any sorties.

You didn't need any particular "strong" airframe to scarry 8lbs rockets, or to shoot them. Actually it's one primary advantage of rockets that they, being recoilless, put much less stress on an airframe than guns.
ya that the 1 i saw
Fear and death in the wings, in thrall of those fallen from grace
Petty is as petty does, witness the mass disgrace.

Offline valad94

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: me 163
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2008, 08:23:24 PM »
the 163 did see action and did shoot down some bombers but the plane was a failure

ch05
Proud member of ROLLING THUNDER

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: me 163
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2008, 10:56:10 PM »
the 163 did see action and did shoot down some bombers but the plane was a failure

ch05

Not the question asked.  :aok