And if the LW have R4M in 1943 ?

To judge from this pic

http://www.juniorgeneral.org/donated/2009/april24/fly1.png

the dimensions of the wing should allow it. But on the other hand, there must have been some powerful reason why historically only 12 and not 24 (or even 14, 16 or 18) rockets were used on the Fw-190A.

It's not as if the Luftwaffe had any inhibitions about over-gunning their planes to the point of barely being able to fly...

Aside from the characteristics of the wing, the Me-262 had tons more power to push around heavy weaponry than the Fw-190A. My take is that if it could have been done with reasonable performance remaining, it would have been done.
 
In the book Warplanes of the Luftwaffe 39-45, page 75, states that the FW190 F-8 can load 24 R4M.

Edited by Barnes & Noble
ISBN 0-7607-2283-8
 
In the book Warplanes of the Luftwaffe 39-45, page 75, states that the FW190 F-8 can load 24 R4M.

Edited by Barnes & Noble
ISBN 0-7607-2283-8

I have that book and can confirm.

This is most interesting - the difference between the wing of the Fw-190A and that of the Fw-190F is that the latter, as a ground attack aircraft had had its outboard 20mm cannon removed, presumably to make place (and capacity) to carry bombs and other ordinance. That is probably why the A version carried only 12 rockets.

Thus I deduce that while the F version could carry 24 R4M, the A version was limited to 12 because of its outboard wing cannon.
 
The R4M was a spam weapon. The Germans didn't have a particularly large amount of success with the larger version due to sheer inaccuracy even against densely packed Bomber defensive boxes

Plus it's range was very short; certainly not enough where the FW's could avoid engagement with escort fighters (its longer ranged than bomber defensive guns; but honestly those where not such a huge threat against high speed manuevering fighters)

The X4 rocket would have been more deadly since it was a semi guided weapon... but its the same problem, if you have to get within 1km of the bomber to use it which means you are going to be engaged by escort fighters and in the case of the X4, you have to fly slow and steady in order to guide the weapon which makes you easy pickings, plus it is damn complicated to fly and guide the rocket at the same time in a single engine fighter

The X-4 would have been lethal at night if properly developed... although that is pushing the technology envelope into the mid 50's and therefore pretty asb
 
BW, the POD is mid 43, one of the reasons is that at the time the number and quality of escort fighters is much lower than mid 44...
This to give the LW fighters one weapon capable to crack the boxes of b-17 / b-24 that don't have escorts ... and that without the need to change the planes - implementing the MK108 gun is a good thing against bombers but a very bad one against fighters later.
This way - is the question i placed to the forum - in 43 the USAAF take much more losses and the LW don't need to modify the fighters to bomber-killers that work worst against escorts later.
 
BW, the POD is mid 43, one of the reasons is that at the time the number and quality of escort fighters is much lower than mid 44...
This to give the LW fighters one weapon capable to crack the boxes of b-17 / b-24 that don't have escorts ... and that without the need to change the planes - implementing the MK108 gun is a good thing against bombers but a very bad one against fighters later.
This way - is the question i placed to the forum - in 43 the USAAF take much more losses and the LW don't need to modify the fighters to bomber-killers that work worst against escorts later.

It doesn't change that the R4M wasn't really a great weapon's system

The LW fighter force would still have to split... FW's acting as bomber destroyers being equipped with rockets and ME's being stripped down to tangle with escort fighters to keep them away

The LW deployed a 21cm version of the R4m in the ME-110 and the JU-88... like I said it was VERY inaccurate... it was more of a panic/fear weapon; especially at longer ranges

You would need to move the POD back probably to 1940 if not earlier; and for the system to be useful it has to be the X4 and not the R4M

BUT the X4 despite German attempts to pretend otherwise can't be successfully used by single engine fighters... you need a gunner to guide the rockets whilst the pilot flies; so that means bomber destroyer work would go to JU-88's and ME-110's

The allied response to higher losses from viable X4's is going to be dramatically increased escort ratio's plus introduction of the B-29 which flies considerably higher and faster than the B-17 which LW piston engine fighters of the era would have an extremely hard time intercepting through fighter escort

its just not a war winner
 

Bearcat

Banned
Well, Germany isn't winning the war. Period. That's a given.

The only question is, can they bloody the bombers, and slow down the Allied air campaign enough to delay the Second Front? If so, the Second Front is put off another year. To 1945.

Which means, likely, that the bomb is ready before Berlin falls.
 
BW is right. The Luftwaffe didn't even use rockets to destroy bombers; all they could do was break up the B-17s and B-24s from their combat box formations--they knew that they were inaccurate weapons. (Also, I don't know how historically accurate Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3 is, but it's very hard to score hits with R4M rockets.)
 
First, the 21cm is not even remotly related to the r4m.....
Second, the Wfr. Gr. 21 is very inaccurate (is a mod of a art rocket....)
Also is launcher add much drag...
For the differences of the two weapons....

Also, the Nebelwerfer 42-derived Werfer-Granate 21 (Wfr. Gr. 21) rockets fitted to Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Bf 110, and Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters, used to break up the USAAF combat box bomber formations, had launch tubes that were not only drag-producing, from their exposed five-strut under-wing mounting setup, but also from the fact that the launch tubes needed to be aimed upwards at some 15° from level flight, to counter the rocket's considerable ballistic drop after firing, adding to the already considerable drag the launch tube mountings created, as well as the Wfr. Gr 21's relatively slow projectile velocity of 1,150 km/h (715 mph).
The solution was to replace the underwing gun pods, and draggy large-calibre underwing rocket launch tubes, with a small diameter solid-fuel rocket engine-propelled projectile, mounting a warhead similar to that of the cannon shell. Although each "round" was heavier than the corresponding gun-fired shell, the lack of a gun reduced the overall weight considerably. The weight difference was so great that even a much larger and longer ranged rocket was still lighter than the guns it could replace.
The anti-aircraft version of the R4M used a large warhead of 55 mm with 520 g (17.6 ounces) of Hexogen explosive charge, nearly guaranteeing a kill with one hit. Each R4M weighed 3.2 kg and was provided with enough fuel to be fired from 1000 m, outside the range of the bomber's defensive guns. The main body of the rocket consisted of a simple steel tube with flip-out fins on the tail for stabilization. A battery typically consisted of two groups of 12 rockets and when all 24 were fired at once they would fill an area about 15 by 30 m at 1000 m, a density that made it almost certain that the target would be hit. The R4Ms were usually fired in four salvos of six missiles at intervals of 0.07 seconds from a range of 600 m, and would streak towards their target at a sixty percent higher velocity than the Wfr. Gr. 21's rockets would, at a speed of roughly 1,890 km/h (1,175 mph).
 
I still don't see what difference 12 rockets or 24 rockets or any technological toys the Germans could realistically have fielded in numbers actually make by this point in the war. In the worst case scenario, all the USAAF does is suspend operations for a while and then in early 1944 they spam the Luftwaffe with Mustangs. I'd even say that delaying the Second Front is probably not possible by that point; the weather in the Channel would be more of a factor in determining the timing of that than anything the Germans could realistically do.
 
I still don't see what difference 12 rockets or 24 rockets or any technological toys the Germans could realistically have fielded in numbers actually make by this point in the war. In the worst case scenario, all the USAAF does is suspend operations for a while and then in early 1944 they spam the Luftwaffe with Mustangs. I'd even say that delaying the Second Front is probably not possible by that point; the weather in the Channel would be more of a factor in determining the timing of that than anything the Germans could realistically do.

And i concur that is the best possible gain. Never say is a war winning weapon, LOL.
 
First, the 21cm is not even remotly related to the r4m.....
Second, the Wfr. Gr. 21 is very inaccurate (is a mod of a art rocket....)
Also is launcher add much drag...
For the differences of the two weapons....

Also, the Nebelwerfer 42-derived Werfer-Granate 21 (Wfr. Gr. 21) rockets fitted to Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Bf 110, and Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters, used to break up the USAAF combat box bomber formations, had launch tubes that were not only drag-producing, from their exposed five-strut under-wing mounting setup, but also from the fact that the launch tubes needed to be aimed upwards at some 15° from level flight, to counter the rocket's considerable ballistic drop after firing, adding to the already considerable drag the launch tube mountings created, as well as the Wfr. Gr 21's relatively slow projectile velocity of 1,150 km/h (715 mph).
The solution was to replace the underwing gun pods, and draggy large-calibre underwing rocket launch tubes, with a small diameter solid-fuel rocket engine-propelled projectile, mounting a warhead similar to that of the cannon shell. Although each "round" was heavier than the corresponding gun-fired shell, the lack of a gun reduced the overall weight considerably. The weight difference was so great that even a much larger and longer ranged rocket was still lighter than the guns it could replace.
The anti-aircraft version of the R4M used a large warhead of 55 mm with 520 g (17.6 ounces) of Hexogen explosive charge, nearly guaranteeing a kill with one hit. Each R4M weighed 3.2 kg and was provided with enough fuel to be fired from 1000 m, outside the range of the bomber's defensive guns. The main body of the rocket consisted of a simple steel tube with flip-out fins on the tail for stabilization. A battery typically consisted of two groups of 12 rockets and when all 24 were fired at once they would fill an area about 15 by 30 m at 1000 m, a density that made it almost certain that the target would be hit. The R4Ms were usually fired in four salvos of six missiles at intervals of 0.07 seconds from a range of 600 m, and would streak towards their target at a sixty percent higher velocity than the Wfr. Gr. 21's rockets would, at a speed of roughly 1,890 km/h (1,175 mph).


the r4m had the same problem with ballistic drop; and it's range wasn't long enough to give a meaningful advantage; it was basically an attempted pot shot outside the range of the bombers guns which where not that big of a threat anyway; its a honestly a very minor pod... you could have the germans develop better 20mm cannons that have a higher muzzel velocity and rate of fire and that might be more effective overall


the x4 since it was a guided weapon (it flew by wire allowing the operater to guide the missile to its target instead of shoot and pray) would have been considerably more effective and a much bigger threat than an area weapon
 
the r4m had the same problem with ballistic drop; and it's range wasn't long enough to give a meaningful advantage; it was basically an attempted pot shot outside the range of the bombers guns which where not that big of a threat anyway; its a honestly a very minor pod... you could have the germans develop better 20mm cannons that have a higher muzzel velocity and rate of fire and that might be more effective overall


the x4 since it was a guided weapon (it flew by wire allowing the operater to guide the missile to its target instead of shoot and pray) would have been considerably more effective and a much bigger threat than an area weapon

Maybe, but suggesting the X4 in 43 is a bit of ASB.... the R4M not... the success of the R4M possibly led to more research in the X4 and an early release of it also ?
Put the R4M in the single seat fighters and the X4 in the Ju-88 (188/388) / Me-410 ?
 
Maybe, but suggesting the X4 in 43 is a bit of ASB.... the R4M not... the success of the R4M possibly led to more research in the X4 and an early release of it also ?
Put the R4M in the single seat fighters and the X4 in the Ju-88 (188/388) / Me-410 ?

The US countermeasures are pretty easy though... the effective window is fairly small

Basically the escort ratio would be increased so that the LW can't get within missile range of the bombers

and the B-17 would be replaced with the B-29 which flies much higher and faster than the B-17reducing the missiles effective range and the LW's ability to intercept

The X4 is a very simple device actually, it mirrored several projects the Germans conducted for ground weapons (Goliath mine clearing vehicles) and naval units (submarine remote spotting aircraft)

It flies on a wire and the pilot can send signals via a joystick to alter the missiles trajectory and guide it to the target

It's horrifically wasteful of copper; although since the missions are over German territory its possible the wires could be recovered for reuse or the planes could be configured to reel in the wire after the missile detaches from the tip

with a pod of 1940 I don't think it would be too difficult to make the X4 combat ready provided it got good funding and the wasteful parallel projects where cancelled and merged with the X4...LW doctrine would evolve differently... the FW-190 and the ME-109 would stay stripped down to fight off enemy escort fighters and the heavy lifting would be done by ME-110's and JU-88's for bomber destruction... I would assume that a 110 or 88 could carry at least 8 x4 weapons which could carry a fairly high lethality rate assuming the single engine fighters can keep the escorts off them

again it would be MUCH more effective at night due to greatly decreased risk of interception, but using an x4 safely or reliably at night is asb till the mid 1950's
 
If the US suffers more post war it may give the navy impetus to claim resources as they 'slew' Japan and brought troops to Europe while the bombers had to ride on their shoulders.
 
Top