Luftwaffe Cannons & Machineguns.

World War II German Military
#241

Agreed as regards ejecting the links: very unwise, and unnecessary.

The Me.262 variant shown in your post is just about my favourite.
Imagine one of these, with the jettisonable rocket booster pack HW 105-109 of the Me.262 C2.
Very good Interceptor would result, at comparatively little development cost.

Some sources claim two, some three, and some four of this version were constructed.
Often recorded is that when the aircraft was in firing trials against a ground target some 150 ft wide by 10 ft tall, this Me.262 variant scored 27 out of 30 hits: a very high success rate, that would be difficult to achieve even today.

The Americans retain one of these aircraft in storage at the Smithsonian (V 83, nicknamed “Wilma-Jeannie”) but in all truth I no-longer recall what happened to the other 3 of this subtype.

Many many Thanks for this fine picture, PK my friend, Uyraell.

#242

Yea, 2 or 3 was all of that Subvariant, one of these was flown operationally in the JV 44 by the night fighter ace Willy Herget, Herget attacked bomber formations in early 1945 twice but luckily for the american aviators didnt score any hit.

#243

I’m very interested in JV 44, a relative of mine flew with them, though it was very late in my childhood before I was told who that relative was.
His book doesn’t much reference the men he flew with at that stage, I think mainly because he did not want to create the impression he was in any way speaking for them, in the book.

As is often the case with any Me.262 variant, the entire history of the aircraft is threaded with ignorance on the part of the RLM and higher authorities, inept decisions, and lack of production resources to best develop and employ the aircraft, even with its’ ongoing but increasingly minor flaws.

Herget would have been lauded had he scored against an American bomber or three, but that success would have then hindered the operational development of the other Me.262 variants as higher authority began to devote increased resources to the variant Herget employed. And the resources were not by that stage really there because they were steadily shrinking.
Which means the other variants would have suffered increasingly by lack of proper development.

It would be interesting to re-examine the engine issues, though that too has been done in other threads.

Armament issues are being very well examined in this thread, and I’m very much enjoying the discussion.
Better things could have been done, for example, with the RZ65 you showed some posts above.
More could have been done with the x4 missile.
The Bordkanon in the variant we discuss above could have been improved.

All these examples are of systems requiring improvements that were small, but relatively simple to achieve.
Usually, either lack of resource, or lack of time killed them, and where it wasn’t that, ignorance and lack of foresight on the part of higher authorities doomed the weapon systems just as effectively.

((Post Script:
Panzerknacker my friend, if you have guessed the identity of my relative, please do not mention his name in open forum. I’m quite happy to discuss the matter in private message. I keep the matter rather private, as you can appreciate.))

Kind and Respectful Regards Panzerknacker my friend, Uyraell.

#244

Hehe, no worry, I wont. The armament question is several times a forgotten part of teh aviation history. I like to do this amendments because god, fresh information come out every day ( thanks god)

Herget would have been lauded had he scored against an American bomber or three, but that success would have then hindered the operational development of the other Me.262 variants as higher authority began to devote increased resources to the variant Herget employed. And the resources were not by that stage really there because they were steadily shrinking.
Which means the other variants would have suffered increasingly by lack of proper development.

Is probably, but aniway it was so late in war, every german mistakes about the Me-262 was already made so I dont think that would made a lot of difference.

#245

Basically I agree with you my friend.

What’s in my mind in saying as I did above about the variant Herget flew, is that it was, over-all one of the more successful ones, as far as I can tell, and certainly less of a technological stretch than some of the proposed alternative armament schemes, and in some ways a rational decision when German authorities were — lacking —in rationality.

And again, add the C2 variant booster pack for interceptions, and that looks very viable, very fast. Since the pack itself was bolt-on, blow-off, the only major change in the cockpit is the plumbing for the throttle and the wiring for the explosive bolts once the booster is empty. All completely technologically proven, and thus feasible.

But, overall, as you say, most of the huge errors had already been made, and there was not going to be the chance to recover from those errors.

Kind and Respectful Regards Panzerknacker my friend, Uyraell.

#246

As you probably Know the JATO bottles used by the luftwaffe were a bit too heavy for a fighter. There were some experimetation with solid propellant rockets for take-off boosting, but the manufacturing went mostly to assault gliders for brake attachments.

#247

Correct. :slight_smile:
However, the Me.262 C2 did not employ jato/rato as a solid propellant booster system.
The Me.262 C1 had an HWK 109-509 (liquid fueled rocket, same as employed to power the Me.163 B series) installed in the rear fuselage, and the fuels for it stored in the space usually occupied by the fuel tank behind the cockpit tub.
The Me.262 C2 variant simply suspended the HWK 109-509 rocket and fuel tanks below the fuselage of the aircraft. Once the rocket fuels were exhausted, the rocket motor and tanks could be jettisonned.
The C1 made a climb to 38000+ feet in just under 4 minutes from start. There is no reason to think C2 could not have achieved a similar result.

Which is where I thought fitting the C2 rocket booster pack to the Herget variant might have provided a very useful interceptor.

Small Question, Panzerknacker my friend:
Over the years, I have seen the Herget variant labelled as both the Me.262 D and Me.262 E.
Have you confirmation of which ( D or E) designation was applied to that airframe series as flown by Herget?

I’ve always called it “D” because “E” seems to have been variously a multiple rocket launching platform with rockets in the nose as in Ba349 Natter, or Wgr 21 in a cluster of 6 tubes arranged as in Hornisse B2-(U4?), or a cluster of 20x 50 mm rocket tubes as in RZ65.

However, since I’ve seen the “long-gun” Hertget variant captioned as both “D” and “E”, I’ve long questioned which is in fact the correct designation, and have sought confirmation either way for years.

Kind and Respectful Regards Panzerknacker my friend, Uyraell.

#248

However, the Me.262 C2 did not employ jato/rato as a solid propellant booster system.
The Me.262 C1 had an HWK 109-509 (liquid fueled rocket, same as employed to power the Me.163 B series) installed in the rear fuselage, and the fuels for it stored in the space usually occupied by the fuel tank behind the cockpit tub.
The Me.262 C2 variant simply suspended the HWK 109-509 rocket and fuel tanks below the fuselage of the aircraft. Once the rocket fuels were exhausted, the rocket motor and tanks could be jettisonned.
The C1 made a climb to 38000+ feet in just under 4 minutes from start. There is no reason to think C2 could not have achieved a similar result.

Aaaaahhh, you mean the Heimatschüzter ( homeland protector) Me 262 with a tail rocket , yes that is definately a worthy variant for interception.

The 50mm gunned Me-262 is known as Me-262A-1/u4, honestly is that the only designation I know for that aircraft.

An nickname for that rare variant was “Pulkzerstörer”, formation destroyer, a nickname wich was used also by other antibomber projekts like remote guided explosive filled aircraft and missiles.

hello all,
Am using this opportunity to introduce myself to the community.My name is Calvin and I,m the new kid on the bloc hoping to find my way around your community to meet some nice and interesting people with fresh ideas.Hope we find a common path to tread.

Hello calvin , in off-topic you got a section for the introduction of new members.

#249

Many Many Thanks , Panzerknacker my friend for the long-gun designation.
Apologies for my delayed reply.

I greatly appreciate your help with that designation, because I’ve seen the one you give mis-used elsewhere, for a 6-gun variant of the Me.262 with 2x Mk108’s, 2x Mk103’s (both 30 mm) and 2x 20mm MG151’s. Of course the correct designation for the 6-gun variant is Me.262 A-1a/U1.

Kind and Respectful Regards Panzerknacker my friend, Uyraell.

#250

In my opinion the best gun for the Me 262 Heimatjäger interceptor was the Rheinmetall MK 112, far more fast firing than this Mauser monster ( 300 rpm compared with 160), far more lighter and carring enough explosive punch in his 55mm mine ammmunition to bring down a B-17 with one shot.

A classical operational profile for that would be an alarmstart climb ( using the rocket alll the way of course) to a 9000 meters, 2 o 3 passes on the bomber pulk ( it is stimated the standar Me-262 could carry a MK 112 with 30 rounds) and go back to base to refuel and rearm.

Fortunately for the USAAF the german lost it with his excessive love for prototypes.

The Six-gun Me-262 carried a heavy punch but harmonizating and feeding the guns of 3 different calibers must take a lot of work.

#251

I’m in agreement, regarding the Rheinmetall Mk112, though I’m not certain more than 4 were made to production standards, with perhaps another 3 virtually hand-made examples as pre-production weapons.
While the MK112 definitely had a better ROF, the MK214(?)/BordKanon
was at least available in greater numbers, which is why I suspect it would have been used, despite the MK112 being a better weapon.

The interception profile you suggest would certainly have been the most likely to have been employed operationally.

With regard to the 6-gun variant, I always thought that to be a case of simple opportunism: “Let’s see what we can fit in to it.”
I agree that harmonizing and loading 3 different weapons would have been a waste of time and resources.

Many Thanks for the HJ II pic in your post, I greatly enjoyed seeing it.

Kind and Respectful Regards Panzerknacker my friend, Uyraell.

#252

If you like that you should like this as well, work of the italian Illustrator Gabriele Sabattini:

http://www.luft46.com/dsart/ds262hg.html

There was another Heavy Mauser proposed for high power interceptors, the MaschinenKanone MK 412, a combined gas-recoil operated 55mm gun made in collaboration with Daimler Benz.
Daimler Benz planned to install that between the banks of an DB 609/DB 613 V24 ( double V actually) 2500 hp engine.

Near zero info has survived about this gun projekt so I cant add more on it.

#253

[QuotePK] If you like that you should like this as well, work of the italian Illustrator Gabriele Sabattini: [/Quote]

Many Thanks for that link, my friend, I enjoyed that site very much :slight_smile:

I had only ever heard of the MK412 cannon you show above, never even seen a hint of a schematic drawing as you so kindly posted.
What an absolute delight to see it !

Many Many Thanks to you PK, Muchas Gracias! :slight_smile:

Kind and Respectful Regards Panzerknacker my friend, Uyraell.

#254

Find a little more about the MK 412.

It was designed to fit beween the V24 engine in this aircraft also.

Daimler Benz DB Jäger This Daimler Benz aircraft project was basically designed around an engine that was being developed at that time. The Daimler Benz Jäger (not its official name) was of a conventional layout with the exception of the propellers location. The engine was mounted in the fuselage nose, with an annular radiator in front. The wings were unswept and exhibited no dihedral and were mounted below the fuselage. The tail was of a conventional design, with its single fin and rudder. Because of the propellers arrangement, a tricycle landing gear had to be used. A single pilot sat in the cockpit that was located towards the rear, just ahead of the contrarotating propellers.
Where the Daimler Benz Jäger differed from most aircraft was its unusual propeller placement. The Daimler Benz DB 609 development began in September 1942, and it was to be an in-line, 16 cylinder injection-type aircraft engine. It was to develop 2700 horsepower, although this could be increased in later version to 3400 horsepower. Allowance was made for fitting a four-stage supercharger, and with its inverted V design, the DB 609 would have been ideal for a large caliber cannon installation, such as the MK 103, MK 108, MK 212, MK 412 cannons.
Although a mockup of the forward fuselage was built (as far back as the propeller location), and because of this engine’s long development time (actual delivery wasn’t schduled to begin until April 1947), the RLM cancelled its development in May 1943. And, along with the DB 609 cancellation, so went the Daimler Benz Jäger project.

It might look ugly but it was an ellegant design, check this views.

The source Luft46, does not mention any secundary armament. it interesting to realize that if ever built this aircarft would need and eyector seat or at list explosive propeller blades to ensure pilot scape without being grinded.

#255

I saw a replica of the Rheinmettal in one of our local museums here in Canada… :smiley:

#256

Wich one ? there are several Rheinmetall designs for the Luftwaffe.

#257

Nice job panzerknacker, many, MANY, tanks. Keep 'm coming 'n good luck

#258

[QUOTE=Panzerknacker;103373]Me-410 in combat with BK 5:

Browsing the page http://www.luftarchiv.de I ve found some interesting information of the use of this weapon in the me-410A-1/U4.

My german is poor, but the thing that I can understand here is that a heavy Fighter group was equipped with 53 Messers 410A-1/u4.

In the time period between 22 th february and 11 th april those carried out 6 separate missions and destroyed…129 B-17 Flying Fortress and 9 B-24 Liberators :shock:, with only nine own losses ( Me-410 destroyed by bombers or escort fighters)
9 Fortress were destroyed with shots at 800 meters in 9th april and 11th april.

The number seems high to me but if true is pretty amazing.

This could be truth (maybe 10% overrated), t translation is also correct, i’ve read similar things, i forgot where.
this lineup (Me410 with BK5) looks awesome and did nasty things with bombers.
Sorry for t bit late reply (only 4 years:-) but i just joined this nice site. Greetings stano666

#259

Sorry for t bit late reply (only 4 years:-) but i just joined this nice site. Greetings stano666

No problem, the BK 5 was capable of that of course, the thing that still amazed me is the fact those me-410 could aim at 800mm undisturbed by the fighter escort…:?:

#260

PK , my friend, I really think you intended to type 800m in your post.

At at distance of 800mm a pilot, I assure you, would NOT be “aiming” He’d be preparing to become part (however briefly) of the aircraft he was targetting, or for sitting on the hitherto unsuspecting lap of the pilot of said aircraft! At the airspeeds involved, no sane person would have the opportunity to “aim” from a distance of a mere 800mm. :mrgreen::lol:

Kind and Respectful Regards PK my friend, Uyraell.