Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Naudet on June 27, 2002, 09:20:28 AM
-
Here are two pictures showing a D9 with R4M wooden launch rails mounted to its wings.
As far as i could research it should have been 13 missilies on each rack. And before any LW folks claim the R4Ms as standard equitment, i just want to point out that such outfited Doras were very rare.
(http://donaldgranger.home.att.net/images/190D_W1_RealPhoto_1.JPG)
And here the close-up of the launch rails.
(http://donaldgranger.home.att.net/images/190D_W1_RealPhoto_R4M.JPG)
-
Those didn't burn the wings at all?
On the 262 they used a much different launch device didn't they?
Just curious, I thought only the 262 used it with a specialized launch rack.
Dora would be a better platform for 'em, IMO, because you have a lower approach speed and could traverse them across the formations much easier... or am I just talking out my ass?
-SW
-
IIRC, the launch rails/platform was made out of wood, at least it was on the 262. I thought that it would catch fire too, but think about all the factors involved, and it would be very difficult to set the thing on fire. The relative airspeed, the time exposed to the heat and exhaust of the rocket, etc. Also, when I finally saw a technical drawing of the launching system, it became even more apparent that the chances of any fire starting was slim. When I get home, I will scan and post the drawings that I have from my 262 series.
BTW, I think this is something that needs to be added to the AH 262, even more so with the incoming BUFF formation changes.
-
maybe the wood was treated w/ some sort of flame retardent
-
R4M rails were made of wood even on Me-163s. Got a book about Me-163s written by a pilot (Mano Ziegler - ISBN 80-85831-01-5) where he describes flight tests and operational use of those planes... Interesting read as he describes all the good and also the bad sides of the plane.
Anyway Im pretty sure that after the introduction of multibuff formations we might find some use for this one...
-
About the rails they were 1 use only so no matter if they got a bit burned or not anyway I think that the burn duration of the R4M rocket motor was not long enuff to cause the rails to catch fire....
-
And the fw-190 f8 dont forget:eek:
-
Here are some R4M pics if you are interested. The top one is the type that was mounted on the planes. The lower one is the type used by ground forces.
-
Here is a general image of an R4M with the fins popped out and warhead removed.
-
Here is the first schematic. It is of the rocket itself with the different warheads.
-
This is the schematic of the launch rails and how the rockets were mounted.
-
According to Robert Forsythe's mammoth work on JV44, the Operational evaluation of the R4M was undertaken by JG10 at Redlin, near Parchim.
The wooden rack carried 12 rockets. Test firings were from a static 190 (Wonder if that's your bird?)
First operational use of the R4Ms were by the 262s of 9 JG7 that were based near Parchim. They used them in action for the first time on March 20, 1945 when they fired 144 missles against a 8th AF raid against Berlin. That was from the 6 262s they were able to get airborne.
JG10 supervised the equipping of JV44 with the R4M in Early April 45 although it also states that the total number of 262s listed with JV44 was 18 with only 7 serviceable on April 9th. of 13 262s delivered straight from the factory, 11 were then destroyed on the ground by allied bombing.
Point being the R4M was a small footnote on the airwar. Way too little and way too late.
Where did the photos come from btw? The mounting looks much flatter then the one used operationally on the 262
Dan
-
Here a few additons:
The plane is an operational one, its "White 1" II./JG26
and according to reports from the end of the war, the racks carried 13 missiles each.
Not 12 as on the ME262 and not 14 as mentioned in FW documents.
Three D9 were captured by the allies that had R4M and all had 26 missiles, 13 under each wing.
And the planes were the following:
Fw 190D-9, W.Nr. 210 954, 2 x MG 151, 26 rockets
Fw 190D-9, W.Nr. 400 619, 2 x MG 131, 2 x MG 151, 26 rockets (Identified here as "Weisse 1", 5./JG 26)
Fw 190D-9, W.Nr. 210 069, 2 x MG 131, 2 x MG 151, 26 rockets
And this may the reason why the launch rails look a bit different to the ME262 as they have 13 missiles.
-
More details here :
http://www.stormbirds.com/experten/products2addendum1.htm
-
Did a little research if R4M were really just a footnote of the airwar in WW2.
So far it seems that 20000 R4M were ordered, 12000 delivered and up to the end of the war more than 500 kills were achieved by using R4M rockets.
I won't say 500 kills are just a "footnote"!
-
there's plenty of planes & weapons w/ well over 500 kills that are not in the game yet
-
Naudet,
Where did you find the claims of 500 kills. That would suggest that from the end of March to May 8th their were 500 Allied bombers shot down? I find it hard to believe they were shooting down fighters with rockets.
Using Roger Freeman's "The Mighty 8th War Diary" as the source, I added up the number of losses (both fighter and bombers) from the 8th from the beginning of March 45 til the end of the war. It totalled 178 to enemy action.
Accepting that March 15th was when the final approval for use of the R4M was given(From Forsyth's book) takes 58 of those losses off the number so you are down to 120 8th AF craft lost to enemy action. Not all of those were bombers and that doesn't take into account losses to Flak and to fighter guns.
Now I know that the 15th AF was operating out of Italy and the 9th was providing tactical support in France and Germany, and that the RAF was still flying Heavies as well as 2 TAF in a tactical role. And of course there was Russia, but I would imagine they were flying tactical support too.
Attacking fighter bombers and escort fighters with the R4M was hardly what it was designed for right? It was for knocking down bombers.
I find it hard to believe however that in the time frame the R4M was first used operationally to the end of the war that it claimed 500 kills since I don't think the Allies lost 500 bombers in that time to all causes
I'd be curious as to your source on the R4M kills.
Quoting Johannes Steinhoff "We had at last, the means not only of combating these hithero almost unassailable formations, but of destroying them. And the escorting enemy fighters could do nothing about it. Two bombers would be hit, lose control, collide and disappear downwards. Over Nurnberg, over Augsburg, over the Alps were were clawing them out of the skies almost without risk of retalliation. BUT and it is a big 'BUT'-it was five minutes to twelve, in other words early April before we got the rocket armament and then only enough to equipp a few aircraft."
His point being "too little too late".
Dan
-
It's from a book called "Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-45".
It gives the number of 500 kills, and mentions two missions directly. One is of a Me262 flight dowing 25 B17 with R4M out of a formation of 800 Fortresses.
The other is 24 FW190 equitment with R4M dowing 40 Bombers.
As i am no weapons specialist, this is the only R4M related source i know.
-
Thanks for the info.
For what it's worth. There is a book called "The Last Flight of the Luftwaffe- by Adrian Weir.
It's mainly about the Schulungslehrgang Elbe pilots and the ramming attacks on the 8th AF on April 7, 1945
But it does mention that from December 1944 only 8 missions flown by the Allies suffered losses of more then ten bombers. One of these was December 24, 1944 when over 1800 bombers flew. Only 12 were lost.
19 were lost on March 24, 1945 in support of the Rhine Crossing. 1714 bombers were in the air.
On April 7, 1945 the books lists the 21 bombers lost by the Allies in that last gasp attack. He has details of how they were lost. 10 were rammed, one to flak, and the rest to fighter attack. No mention of Rockets in any of the attacks. But if you want to believe that all of the others went down to rocket attacks, that means 10 bombers total in the last big gasp, and I don't for a minute believe all 10 were to rockets.
Bottom line is there are no missions that I see that have anywhere near those kinds of losses to the bombers from all attacks not just rockets. And that's for the time period covering back to December 1944 long before the R4Ms made any kind of operational debut.
Does the book give dates of the two missions you mention?
Dan
-
The book states that till March '45 60 ME262 were outfitted with R4Ms.
The FW190 mission took place in April '45.
Btw, might those losses be part of the 9th tactical and 15th USAAF combat losses?
-
Doubt it would be attacks on tactical aircraft aka the 9th AF or that the 15th was seeing these attacks. I've done a lot of digging into the 15th AF heavies and their losses were single digits if that by that time in the war. They were not seeing enemy fighters much at all. Flak was the stuff doing the damage. The R4M was for breaking up large formations. No way they could have been aiming them at fighter bombers down on the deck. They didn't have that kind of accuracy.
You also didn't see tactical formations of 800 bombers. The A20s, 26s B25s and B26s would have been operating in smaller formations at lower altitudes hitting specific tactical targets not the deep penetrations of the 17s and 24s.
You also have to keep in mind that outfitting 60 Me262s didn't mean they were all flying at one time. You'd be talking of small flights of maybe 5-6 aircraft as they were under constant attack on the ground by Allied aircraft.
As the JV44 book mentions, they had 18 aircraft on strength in April 45 but only 7 servicable. Of the 13 delivered from the factory, 11 were destroyed on the ground by Allied bombing.
I wish the book you saw had more specific dates to check the claims. The info is out there and I'm sure not seeing anything that corresponds with those high of losses to all causes on a mission much less nothing but rockets.
I'm enjoying the discussion btw. It's making me learn more about this particular subject.
Thanks
Dan
-
The problem of my sources is that they are aircraft orientated books.
So anything about weapons, engines etc. is more or less just an appendix.