WI:Germans produce R4M rockets earlier

Deleted member 1487

How does Germany come to this technology early? IOTL they experimented with larger rockets for bomber box busting before eventually hitting on the smaller folding fin rockets; it wasn't necessarily intuitive, as the Allies didn't develop it during the war and they had a larger research establishment available and large scale rocket use. So we need a POD, just as I was demanding from AdA in the French air superiority thread. It certainly would be much better for Germany to have these things in service by 1942-3 and it would help a great deal in lowering German losses while increasing Allied ones, but the issue is the how they get into early service, as AFAIK they were a response to the larger rockets and cannons being too draggy by 1944 thanks to Allied escort fighters taking advantage of that fact. Part of the issue is that the cannons were sufficient until 1944 and then it took until the end of the year (really early 1945) to get the R4M in service as a solution. What is the need earlier that stimulates the rocket to be in service sooner?

In terms of the effect they would enable the LW single engine fighters to bust up bomber boxes from outside their effective range and use their cannons to pick off individual bombers thereafter, which would enable them to drop the twin engine heavy fighters as part of bomber defenses. That means probably no Me410 in 1943 for daylight bomber killing. In fact the Me109 wouldn't really need to worry about fighting enemy fighters, so could just jump bombing on their own, rather than trying to cover the lagging FW190s that couldn't perform well at higher altitudes. In fact the Fw190s could stay low where they did well and let the Me109s with rockets handle the bombers on their own, while being able to mix it up with escorts on more equal footing, instead of using Bf110s and FW190 'Sturmböcke', which suffered badly at the hands of escorts. Even the Italians could use it to good effect with their new fighters like the Fiat G.55, provided they could get enough into service. It would certainly increase Allied bomber losses and require far less German investment of resources and keep more of their fighter pilots alive and more fighters in the sky; paradoxically this might well add to the malaise of Goering and Hitler vis-a-vis the bombing and need for more fighter production/training.

Still it can only really be said to be a major boon to the LW, as it will keep a lot more of their pilots alive in the air war and will be bad news for the Allies; they will have to wait until the P-51 shows up to tip the balance, then its up to the Me262 to get the R4M back into action.

As a side benefit if the Germans can get the R4M into early service, then they will most likely have the ground attack version ready earlier, so within a year of the introduction of the R4M; that makes the Fw190F/G much more effective in ground attack operations thanks to the much greater accuracy compared to Allied models of rockets, though they will still need a volley to hit even one target. The cheapness of these rockets for ground attack will make it much easier to shift from the Ju87G and Hs129 for tank busting, as the Fw190F/G was cheaper to make and had economies of scale, while also being much more survivable from 1943 on. Having R4M tank busting rockets for Kursk on later on will be a major help for the 'Schlachtstaffeln' in the East and probably in the West too.
 

hasdrubal barca

wiking said:
As a side benefit if the Germans can get the R4M into early service, then they will most likely have the ground attack version ready earlier, so within a year of the introduction of the R4M; that makes the Fw190F/G much more effective in ground attack operations thanks to the much greater accuracy compared to Allied models of rockets, though they will still need a volley to hit even one target. The cheapness of these rockets for ground attack will make it much easier to shift from the Ju87G and Hs129 for tank busting, as the Fw190F/G was cheaper to make and had economies of scale, while also being much more survivable from 1943 on. Having R4M tank busting rockets for Kursk on later on will be a major help for the 'Schlachtstaffeln' in the East and probably in the West too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comment you really know your stuff!

How effective do you see the Fw190 with the R4M being in the ground attack role? Better than the Stuka or Hs129?

I also like the R4M in the anti bomber role, because it can give relatively few planes massive firepower. According to a book i'm reading 6 German aircraft were able to fire 144 rockets into an Allied bomber formation, dealing it heavy damage,on 18th March 1945.
 
Last edited:

Delta Force

Banned
The R4M was the forerunner of the modern aerial rocket, and even without the advanced targeting systems of the 1950s it's still as deadly when it hits. I'm not sure how useful it would be against maneuvering targets, but rocket armed fighters could fire a salvos into bomber formations and be virtually guaranteed to inflict a few losses, all from a position of relative safety. Even if it can't be used against fighters (and it might be capable of doing just that), it would reduce the effectiveness of Allied bombers.
 

Deleted member 1487

hasdrubal barca said:
Thanks for the comment you really know your stuff!

How effective do you see the Fw190 with the R4M being in the ground attack role? Better than the Stuka or Hs129?

I also like the R4M in the anti bomber role, because it can give relatively few planes massive firepower. According to a book i'm reading 6 German aircraft were able to fire 144 rockets into an Allied bomber formation, dealing it heavy damage,on 18th March 1945.
Click to expand...

The Ju87 and Hs129 were better in that they were more accurate due to flying low and slow, but were vulnerable to enemy fighters and ground fire, which is why fighter-bombers were preferred by the Germans and Western Allies. The rockets were the best option for a fast weapon that they could get off without needing to aim at higher speeds, so it was ideal given the limitations of the Fw190 and Me262 for ground attack or bomber busting. By 1943 the slower attack aircraft were not viable anymore in combat due to the dangers of enemy defenses, so the Fw190F was the only option left. Also the R4M was too inaccurate and lacked penetrating power for ground attack, so the Germans developed a version specifically for air-to-ground missions.

So the Fw190 is simply the only option by late 1943 and the rockets made them more effective in that role. They were less draggy then bombs and required less aiming than cannons, so they were the perfect compromise weapon. As Germany was shifting to the 'Jabo' option IOTL anyway, having the rocket just makes Jabos more effective at tank busting and less vulnerable to enemy fighters (due to lower drag and weight). Still they were best when going after enemy logistics units on the march for which rockets help, but the 30mm cannon was useful too. The Me262 in ground attack could only hit anything with rockets due to their speed, but using the 262 in that role was a waste anyway.

As an anti-bomber weapon it was fantastic and would have made Allied bomber crews' lives hell. The problem is how to get it conceptually introduced earlier than it was; the technical issue is viable in the 1930s, but the conceptual one is the hard part; I'm not aware of a viable POD to get them earlier other than someone throwing it out there early on and getting funding somehow.
 

eltf177

Rockets are inaccurate but, fired in large enough salvos, some will hit. Their greatest effect will be to break up the bomber boxes, meaning that bombers will separate. No longer be able to cover each other, they will become easier targets...
 

MattII

Early missions proved that unescorted bombers were targets anyway, regardless of how many guns they carrier and regardless of how much cover fire they had. Close formations were also in greater danger of getting hit by flack, and sweeps rather than single engagements by the fighters tended to down enough aircraft anyway.
 

thaddeus

Donor
an earlier rationale for development could be the tank killer role. looking for an alternative to larger/newer tanks on German side?

of course once the rockets are being developed for tank killer role in USSR, they are available to use against Allied bombing campaign.

(my personal favored POD, helicopters are put in wide use earlier and they would need a lighter armament much more so than fighter aircraft. WWII era helicopters could carry 2 -4 R4M rockets?)
 
Alternate History Geek

Alternate History Geek

eltf177 said:
Rockets are inaccurate but, fired in large enough salvos, some will hit. Their greatest effect will be to break up the bomber boxes, meaning that bombers will separate. No longer be able to cover each other, they will become easier targets...
Click to expand...

Why would they necessarily be inaccurate?
 

Michele

Leaving aside the anti-tank use of rockets and only considering the anti-aircraft aspect, introducing these rockets in 1942 has little or no effect for lack of suitable targets, i.e. large formations of daylight bombers.

Introducing them in 1943 will have nearly no effect, either, in the area that is not covered by Allied escort fighters. We know from actual history that the USAAF attempted daylight unescorted bombing missions in this area - and gave these up relatively quickly, after facing enemy fighters without rockets. This tells us that the rockets would let the German reach the same level of slaughter in a shorter time - and the USAAF decision makers would react in the same way, i.e. they'll withdraw and reconsider.

What remains is 1944, and, in 1943, the area where Allied fighters could escort the bombers.

Now, in order to judge the effects in this space/time framework, we should not, I believe, consider the single rocket. As others have mentioned, our concept of its effectiveness actually depends upon a salvo of rockets. And, I will add, the weapon platform also counts. We mostly assess these rockets' performance on them being fired from a Me 262.

But that aircraft isn't ready. So, will its forced replacement provide the same salvo volume, and the same balance of effectiveness vs. not only the enemy bombers but also the enemy fighters? I suspect the answer is no.

The piston-engined fighters available would probably carry 12, not 24 rockets; and their speed would never compare to the Me 262's. They would achieve some significant success initially, by surprise, and then they would cause a bit more losses than historically. However, the Allied response would be by means of their escort fighters, by changing their engagement tactics. As always, change brings about change.

A final, boring issue is what the Germans are not producing, if they mass produce the Orkan. Are they getting less Panzerfäuste? or what?
 

Deleted member 1487

Michele said:
Leaving aside the anti-tank use of rockets and only considering the anti-aircraft aspect, introducing these rockets in 1942 has little or no effect for lack of suitable targets, i.e. large formations of daylight bombers.

Introducing them in 1943 will have nearly no effect, either, in the area that is not covered by Allied escort fighters. We know from actual history that the USAAF attempted daylight unescorted bombing missions in this area - and gave these up relatively quickly, after facing enemy fighters without rockets. This tells us that the rockets would let the German reach the same level of slaughter in a shorter time - and the USAAF decision makers would react in the same way, i.e. they'll withdraw and reconsider.

What remains is 1944, and, in 1943, the area where Allied fighters could escort the bombers.

Now, in order to judge the effects in this space/time framework, we should not, I believe, consider the single rocket. As others have mentioned, our concept of its effectiveness actually depends upon a salvo of rockets. And, I will add, the weapon platform also counts. We mostly assess these rockets' performance on them being fired from a Me 262.

But that aircraft isn't ready. So, will its forced replacement provide the same salvo volume, and the same balance of effectiveness vs. not only the enemy bombers but also the enemy fighters? I suspect the answer is no.

The piston-engined fighters available would probably carry 12, not 24 rockets; and their speed would never compare to the Me 262's. They would achieve some significant success initially, by surprise, and then they would cause a bit more losses than historically. However, the Allied response would be by means of their escort fighters, by changing their engagement tactics. As always, change brings about change.

A final, boring issue is what the Germans are not producing, if they mass produce the Orkan. Are they getting less Panzerfäuste? or what?
Click to expand...

Less big autocannons for twin engine fighters for one. Probably no airborne Werfer Granate 21s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werfer-Granate_21
None of the larger airborne rockets alone would be plenty for all the R4Ms the LW could use.
 

Horton229

In terms of concept what about as an addition to give machine gun armed fighters a light air-to-ground capability. Cannon equipped aircraft were 'rare' early in the war, and a machine gun with nothing but a kinetic energy projectile has to actually hit a target. And does little damage to tanks, pillboxes, buildings, even trucks.. Bombs are inaccurate (except maybe dive bombers), and maybe too heavy, so an aimed ground attack option would be a good reason to try this.

Not sure how much damage a 500g charge would do to a merchant vessel - enough to be worth it I suspect.
 

Michele

paulo said:
http://falkeeins.blogspot.pt/2012/06/r4m-rocket-toting-fw-190-dora.html
As you can see, FW190 can an do carry 26 R4M rockets IOTL.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, thanks. The reason why I wrote "probably" is the same reason why the bombers could and did - occasionally - carry a full bomb payload, but normally did not; i.e. the difference between maximum capability and actually practical capability.

For sure the FW 190 can carry 24 rockets. It will in all likelihood do that in its first missions against daylight bomber formations in 1943 in this ATL.

Then, as already mentioned, bomber formations beyond the range of Allied escort fighters will be no longer available.

So the FW 190s will carry 24 rockets against bomber formations operating within the range of Allied escort fighters. The bombers will take heavy losses, again, once or twice; then the Allies will change their fighter deployment tactics, and the FW 190s - loaded with those 24 rockets - will need, as the first thing, to get through enemy fighters in order to reach the bomber formations. They will be under orders not to waste rockets against fighters, of course. They will have to maneuver beyond the enemy escort fighters in order to be able to use those rockets. The most common early FW 190 versions already were no faster than a P-47, without having the additional weight and drag of the rockets.

That is when - probably - the Germans will decide that the FW 190s have to carry 12 rockets instead of 24.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top