How the R4M Rockets increased Me-262’s Lethality by a factor of 3.3 

True, but it's not the manufacturing capacity alone: German oil production in WWII (meaning Axis, counting Romanian oil production, which effectively was German) was 2% of US output. The USSR was also 2 or 2.5%, Japan was 1%... The UK on its own equalled German output.

The ability of the Allies to train good pilots and other aircrew is also important. Both the Germans and Japanese ran out of good fighter pilots long before they ran out of aircraft. In fact, the Germans were hurting for good fighter pilots after just a few weeks of combat over Britain.

@@pacificostudios That also played a role, but by far the biggest issue for the Japanese Navy and the Luftwaffe, and especially for Eastern Front 109 pilots, is they were clinging far too long to the tactical doctrine of using speed and hit and run. Century Eastern Luftwaffes aces with 136 kills, like Weber, would get killed on their very first Western Front mission (7th June '44) because they would refuse to turn, this while Western Front newbies with few or no kills (who survived the war) were literally PLEADING in their ears for them to turn... The Japanese Navy was even more obsessive with speed and hit and run, only conceding to maneuvers vertically (the Hineri-Komi), and this never changed right through to the end on N1K2s. The Zero was widely noted all the way through the War for avoiding turns like the plague (but not loops), from Chinese 1940 pilots right through P-51pilots in 1944, and statements to the contrary are largely based on US evaluations of captured Zeros, NOT how they were typically used in actual combat. Incredible I know, but don't get me started on boomer historians, and their reluctance to scour original intelligence archives... See the Drachinifeld channel video interview of Justin Pyke at the 1 hour mark on "A6M: Zero or Hero?".

​@@pacificostudiosNot really, the only reason the allies won was numerical advantage.

@@hashteraksgage3281 Yes, including a numerical advantage in experienced aircrew. Adolph Galland's memoir makes that clear.

Yeah. none of that 'reality TV" false drama & mood setting sound effects/music. Overly animated over acting by the vid makers is tacky IMO. WWII US Bombers channel is as no nonsense as the military documents he cites & sources.

...and NO silly clickbait required! Bravo! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Chiming in to say the same. Simple, straighforward, informative. And I really appreciate how the creator does NOT put up a thumbnail of himself mugging idiotically, which seems to be the style of way too many RU-vid producers.

The low muzzle velocity of the rounds meant the pilot had to get REAL close to be effective--and the speed of 262 gave the pilot a very short time to shoot. Even more hazardous, the best way to attack was from the rear. The rate of closure gave the pilot time to shoot accurately, but also gave tail gunners a pretty clear shot, too.

The Mk108 was designed to be as simple and light as possible. The designer also opted for a high rate-of-fire so as to put as much explosive in the air as possible within the short engagement time of air-to-air combat. The downside of these choices was a low muzzle velocity, leading to shorter range and bad ballistics (being slower, the rounds are more affected by gravity during flight and follow a much less flat trajectory). The 262 was a day fighter, meaning it's target was B17s armed with 50-cal machine guns. The Luftwaffe reckoned that spending any significant time within 900 metres of a bomber box would be fatal without heavy armour. And if you had heavy armour, then speed would be severely affected and the escorting fighters would eat you alive. Even for the Me262 it was a tricky needle to thread.

The Germans face a number of problems The slipstreams behind a formation of US heavies was so great that turbulence meant that long range aiming was ineffective anyway. The Me 262 had to approach fast to get through the escorst screen and then slow to aim and shoot. The tactical solution was to approach from below and pull up to wash of speed. A air brake was not provided. (Maybe if they listen to Hitler and developed trhe bomber they'd have an air brake). Meteor I had no air brake, Meteor III received it.

@@nickmitsialis Low 30 mm Mk 108 velocity was indeed a major issue. But a bigger problem was that WWII guns in general did not like high speed differences, which is why hit and run ALWAYS required an unaware target, and firing at point-blank range (not just the 30 mms). That is why prolonged turn fighting gradually returned in 1944-45: Turning broke diving attacks and "trapped" targets at a steady distance, allowing long firing windows: Unlike what people imagine in their minds, reversing a turn, once engaged, meant instant death...

@@wrathofatlantis2316 All you say is true; that being said, it's been also reported that the vast majority of times the victim didn't even know his opponent was there, until the tracers start flying by.

gun-equipped aircraft continued long after the war ended. Undoubtedly, the data was taken into account, but in military organisations, technical facts are not always the dominant factor. Look, for example, the deployment of the B-36 in the 1950's. This was a monstrous slow ponderous bomber that would survive German war-time flak easily, but had no chance against Russian SAM's. Or consider aircraft carriers. In World War 2, aircraft carriers were tough war-winning vessels, but once accurate variable target ICBM's were developed in the 1960's, extremely vulnerable. But the USN still occasionally has one built. Why? Because carriers provide lots of career-advancing opportunities for captains and admirals, and lets the top admirals build their empires. The USN's threat & discouragement to potential enemies of the USA lies in it's submarines, not its carriers. Since the way promotions inherently occur usually means that the top ranks are older men close to retirement, you get considerable conservatism - any proposal to change something is viewed with suspicion, no matter how strong the data.

I would assume they had access to the data, but even if not they figured it out for themselves, leading to arming bomber interceptors with rockets instead of guns.

​​@@keithammleter3824largely due to data being a skewable source for justification of just about anything by just about anyone, hence the hesitancy toward putting all eggs into one basket! Something that's possibly well understood by more seasoned people who on the surface may seem only stubborn, but may have seen a thing or two 😎

@@mamarussellthepie3995 ; yeah, good point. As the saying goes, lies, damn lies, and statistics.

@@keithammleter3824 lol right? 😁

This video shows conclusively that if it had been, a lot more USAAF men would have been killed, but Germany would still have lost the War. And once Hitler decided to invade the USSR, the sheer area and might of the USSR meant Germany would loose no matter how many Me-262's it had, rockets or no rockets. And if the Me262 had appeared earlier and in greater numbers, the technical ingenuity of the USA would likely have come up with something to nullify it. All of the wartime US bombers had an upper limit of just over 30,000 feet - because that was all they needed. The Me262 because of the limitations of its first-generation jet engines, had an upper limit of 38,000 feet. It would not be too hard to develop piston engines to go above 40,000 feet. Or use rocket engines for emergency boost. Or other things I can't think of.

@@keithammleter3824😂 yeah ok 👌🏻

There there, no need to be afraid of nazi super weapons, the war ended 80 year ago.

​@@guaporeturns9472If Germany had kept on fighting they would have gotten nuked. Germany could not win WW2 no matter what.

Bear in mind also the cost and difficulty to produce of these rockets, far greater than an equivalent load of gun ammunition and not especially accurate, so they had to be fired in large volleys. It's a similar problem to the V1 and V2 rockets - yes, you can get a couple of strikes in, but the 'bang per buck' ratio is weak. Of course in the late stages of the war, any kind of damage was acceptable for the Luftwaffe.

I was about to post a comment asking the same thing...👍

Yes it is important, everyone who's always harping on about cannons vs the .50 cals that US fighter's used during the war are just basing everything on the old "bigger is better" mentality and they're completely ignoring other factors like rate of fire. While the .50 cal didn't shoot explosive shell's it was shooting armor piercing .50 cal ammo, I've shot the slower firing M2 .50 cal in the Army, I can assure anyone that 6 or 8 .50's that are firing at 1½ times the rate each of the single one I was firing and with armor piercing ammo on top of that is basically a buzz saw ripping through things, there's plenty of gun camera footage from WW2 US fighter's that show wings, tails and all kinds of parts coming off of German and especially Japanese aircraft, those things really came apart like tin cans, and usually tin cans full of gasoline at that, the white phosphorus charge in each one of those .50 cals that pops off when it strikes something worked very well at igniting flammable liquids on enemy aircraft, the Germans had a pretty decent self sealing fuel tank system it seems like but once again when you're getting peppered with that many rounds there's a good chance those white phosphorus charges are going to hit fuel lines, oxygen lines or the oil tank or lines and ignite things, the Japanese planes were famous for just bursting into flames because even their more advanced fighter's like the Frank that had the self sealing fuel tanks that the Zero didn't still burst into flames because the Japanese never did make a decent self sealing tank, they might as well have left the extra 400 lbs off the plane so it'd have had that much more performance because turned into fireballs the way the Zero's did anyway. Another aspect people disregard when they're harping on about cannons is firing time, that's also very important, what's the use of sending fighter's after aircraft that only have enough firing time to down 2 or 3 aircraft compared to one's with enough firing time to down 5 or 6, the US had plenty of "Ace in a day" pilots because their guns had enough firing time to pull it off. I was an air defense gunner in the Army, which is about as close as you're get to get to this without being a pilot, most aspects are the same, fast moving targets you don't have a lot of time to align your gun sights with, rate of fire being a factor along with firing time, my weapon was a General Electric M61 20mm Vulcan cannon that fired 3,000 rounds per minute, so these concepts aren't something that's wasted on me nor do I only have video games to make comparisons to, the same exact M61 cannon that was on my land based vehicle gets cranked up to 6,000 rounds per minute when they're in fighter's like the F4 and F14, because like the 6 or 8 .50 cals firing at 800 rounds per minute each in the wings of a WW2 US fighter the whole idea is to saturate the area that aircraft is going to be in by the time your rounds get there.

It also depended on the target. The Germans had to worry about B-17s, B-24s, B-25s and so on. They were all pretty tough birds as well as the P-47 and IL-2. The US really only needed to worry about Me-109s, Me-110, JU-88s, and Fw-190s, and so on. Japan had it even worse because they had to face F4Fs, F6Fs, and F4Us on top of all the planes the Germans faced. The .50 had a higher rate of fire than most cannons but not as fast as a 303. The .50 was lighter than most cannons but heavier than the 303. For the US it was a very good compromise weapon. Even the RAF must have thought so since later Spitfires had 2 20mm cannons and 2 .50 caliber machine guns. Thank goodness the ME-262s didn't get the R4M earlier or what would have been worse would have been for the Germans to swap out the 30mms for higher velocity, higher rate of fire guns such as the MG-131 or the MG-151. After using the rockets to attack the bombers the guns would have been effective at taking on the escorts. Had the ME 262 had tied up the escorts then the older types would have been more effective at attacking the bombers. It is a good thing they never figured that bit out during the war.

The .50 cal BMG is a uniquely American weapon system. Others had similar calibers but not as good or light enough or whatever. Italy had an aircraft 12.7mm right? Any one know if it was any good? I do know that the American .50s could be improved on too. the "New" SLAP & Raufoss Mk 211 ammo we have now, overseas take the performance of the gun to it's max level, imo. And yes I was one of the guys on the butterflies. These could have prolly been in WW2 if the R&D had been put in. Or the Caliber 13.2 mm, FN Browning M. 1939, mostly the same gun but has an explosive round, made it into WW2 but only in very limited numbers. Heck even a quick change barrel mod for the ground guns. It's only taken the US military almost 100 years to adopt it. Other nations had retired their head space & timing keys last century. The M-2 was even a sniper rifle in the hands of a certain US Marine in the Nam, rig a little 2.5x scope and utilize the single shot feature. Hands down one of the best weapon systems ever.

@@DavidSiebert .303's were already obsolete on aircraft the first day of WW2 and the British paid for the mistake of still using them the day it started, not just on their fighter's but also as the defensive guns on their bombers, it was their lack of defensive fire power on their bombers more than anything else that drove them to night bombing almost immediately after starting their bombing campaign, any US losses on their worst days was nothing compared to the losses the RAF suffered when they first attempted daylight bombing and it was because of using .303's as defensive guns, and even worse not having enough. The maximum effective range for the .303's (except for the tail gun) defensive guns on their bombers was 400 yards, the Germans may have been a lot of things but stupid wasn't one of them, they very quickly realized that with their 700 yard range cannons on their fighter's all they had to do was break off before 400 yards and they could attack RAF bombers with impunity. However attacking a B17 box with their .50 cal defensive guns was something far more horrifying to them then dogfighting other fighter's. This is a quote from a German ace in a letter he'd written back to a friend of his in the east who'd racked up one of those ridiculously high scores in the east before getting sent to the west to deal with US bombers; (I'm paraphrasing a little); "I remember dogfighting back there, it was kind of fun, sometimes we'd shoot them down and sometimes they'd shoot us down, but the first time I turned into a B17 box every sin I ever committed in my life flashed before my eyes, even worse is the horror of ordering the young men beneath me to do it also". There's also 2 German fighter pilots here on RU-vid that when ask by their interviewer what it was like attacking a B17 box one of them said; "If there was one or two of you it was virtually suicide, you had a very slim chance of making it through their formation". It was even worse for the Japanese in the Pacific attacking B29's, it's computer augmented remote control defensive guns gave the B29 a kill to loss ratio against enemy fighter's of 11 to 1, that actually a higher kill to loss ratio of the P51 which was 10.2 to 1. A post war USAAF report determined that the use of P51's as escort aircraft in the Pacific had been a waste of fighter resources that could have been better used elsewhere, and that was because of the B29's .50 cal defensive guns. Had victory in Europe not already been a forgone conclusion by the time the B29's were getting straightened out and becoming operationally successful they'd have wound up sending some B29 units to Europe and the German fighter's trying to attack them would have suffered just as badly as the Japanese did. "

@@dukecraig2402 thank you for taking the time to explain something , really interesting and things I was always curious about. What’s the old saying “a lucky shot can kill the devil”. Therefore putting a lot of projectiles in the direction of a target increases the chance of making contact. I had read stories about Vietnam war aircraft being brought down with small arms fire. Funny film scene at start of “Air America”, A farmer takes a pot shot at passing plane and smoke starts pouring out a couple minutes later. I’ve read many accounts, from well know WW2 US pilots describing signifiant destruction a short burst from 6 or 8 .50’s. When you consider that 1 x .50 cal. AP will penetrate an engine block, and 100-150 rounds per sec. Increased chance of a hit. I haven’t see notes that the .303 Brit. AP will penetrate and engine block, but I’m sure it does signifiant damage. For hunting birds I know for a fact that “shot patterns” are the most important thing, and not the size of shot. I guess it really is that clear cut, and those WW2 guys knew it, high rate of fire machine guns are an excellent solution for aerial combat. Thanks for sharing your experience!

Except that piston-engined fighters were significantly slower than jet-propelled aircraft, making them immediately more vulnerable to Allied escort fighters, and when the drag and handling penalties of external stores are added to that, the piston-powered fighters become even more vulnerable.

What he said. Plus, the probability of a hit of any kind decreased with the decrease in size of the target, AND it's agility. Bombers don't maneuver, and since the rockets ripple-fire, they would only get one volley on each side.

@@primmakinsofis614 But the drag largely disappears when the R4Ms rockets are fired, which was not the case with the 210 mm mortar tubes... They key part to understand is that period guns were ineffective at high crossing speeds. Which is why, contrary to widespread assumptions, Hit and Run tactics were limited to point-blank fire on cooperating targets [meaning flying straight and unaware]. Point blank fire against a box of bombers bristling with guns was basically impractical... The low effectiveness of short firing windows at high speeds is why turning tactics at lower speeds were becoming more and more prevalent between fighters by 1944, because a prolonged turn "trapped" the target for long firing windows at a steady range. Reversing the turn was nearly always a fatal mistake. (Despite this, the Imperial Japanese Navy never let go of its huge doctrinal preference for speed and Hit and Run, and Me-109 pilots were also very late in letting it go. This was so extreme that Century Me-109 aces (100+ kills) coming in from the Eastern Front would often get killed on their first Western Front mission, despite Western newbies pleading on the radio for them to turn...) The reason why R4M rockets might(?) have been such a revolution, in this context, is that these rockets allow for an INSTANT impact, without resorting to slowing down for prolonged peppering, or requiring the expedient of diving fast but firing at suicidal point-blank ranges. In other words, the instant impact IS your margin for both speed and distance. But I doubt Me-109Gs or FW-190s could have carried much more than 12-14 without degrading their speed in a dive, when the 262 could carry 24 and still be fast.

​@@primmakinsofis614 Not just vulnerable to the figher escorts but also more vulnerable to the defensive guns of the bombers. And there's one more angle to the whole "too little too late/thing's would have turned out differently if they'd have fielded them X months earlier", it's not like the Germans were making advances in thing's but everyone else was sitting on their hands, in the closing months of the war the US had just started to field the P80 Shooting Star, it was a jet that in every regard I know of out performed the ME262, if Germany had started fielding something like those 6 months earlier the US simply would have pressed the P80 into service even quicker and in any meantime simply have dealt with thing's. Even if Germany had started fielding this 6 months earlier than they did it wouldn't have changed anything except maybe pushed the surrender date by a month, they were done at that point and nothing was going to change that.

@@wrathofatlantis2316 _But the drag largely disappears when the R4Ms rockets are fired_ Yes, but the drag and handling penalties are in place from take-off onward, including all the time spent climbing to interception altitude and maneuvering into firing position. Remember, the Allies had daytime air superiority at that time, meaning a German aircraft could be attacked at any time. The Me 262, with its significant speed advantage, could avoid such potential attacks. (Until, that is, the Allies realized the Me 262 was very vulnerable coming in to land, and thus prowled around known Me 262 airbases, looking to catch the jets when they were low and slow.)

BUT the Germans did NOT invent the proximity fuse that the US used so effectively. If those 88s had a proximity fuse like US 40mm, 3", and 5" AAA guns 8th Air Force might have had a very different war.

Lmao insecure or hurt? He was not talking about anything you said. Why is that you boomers always have to bash any German accomplishment. You are probably old and retired and still not an mature adult

British aircraft used rockets from the early war period and were later used by the US. They were used against ground and naval targets because they’re strictly fire and hope when used against other aircraft. The Germans started using them because they were desperate.

-The German folding fin rockets were rather unique and set the standard for practicality and accuracy and were adopted by everyone after WW2. -The Germans were not impressed by the accuracy of fin stabilized rockets for tank busting and proffered to use time delay bombs slid into tanks from an Fw 190F but I think they became impressed latter as standoff ranges needed to be increased as AAA become more powerful and developed larger fin stabilized rockets more on the Russian pattern but instead of a unitary single warhead they dispersed 8 or 22 SHL 2 cluster submuntions. -The R4M Orkan Air to Air Missile really needed to be fired in conjunction with the EZ44 gyro computing gun sight. Equipped with the FuG 248 ranging radar and Elfe computer this aircraft would have been a total monster.

The First A-A rocket kill was a ki-27 shot down by a I-16, the first rocket to get an A-A kill was a soviet rocket

@@tu7765 there were some World War I kills by French and British rockets. These admit, designed primarily to attack zeppelins. I think the shootdown by an I 16 would’ve been close to a flus. The rockets were not designed for air to air.

The rate of fire of the 30mm MK108 autocannon wasn't really that slow compared to other machine guns and autocannons of that period, it's just that the muzzle velocity of the projectiles were drastically slower

Thanks for the channel super thanks donation. The contribution is appreciated.

They did, but it was too late, Japan had them too, again, it was too late

According to different sources, Germany was developing 30-50 different proximity fuzes. The british intelligence was able to recieve one of these fuzes in 1939. But luckily for us these never saw service nor mass production. I would gues they would've been a real gamechanger and might've seriously hampered the bombing efforts similar to how the VT-Fuzes sent to Britain basically made the V-1 a waste of ressources.

Sounds like bullshit. By doing that you would lose all your speed and be an easy target for the escorts.

@@TobiasHinz1992 It is bullshit. I can't think of a single book on the ME262 I've read where they've talked about this tactic. German night fighters did something similar the above described tactics against British night bombers prior to the advent of the upward firing cannons.

True, but its about the rocket factor here. Those early jet strikes were also flown by expert pilots without them. The R4m would also help unexperienced pilots in combat as well.

And rapidly learnt they were of no value.

As a defensive fighter type, the rocket plane is actually a pretty good fit for the time. It should still be made landeable as a glider though, or even have an auxilary motor that can just about keep the plane aloft for a landing. Being able to respond quickly and climb close to vertically to get a fast intercept would make it much easier to get in and out.

@@ravener96 Landing it as a glider was the ME-163's big weakness. The Natter was to be launched like a missile at the bomber formation and then it would not take a super-skilled pilot to point the machine at a field and bail out after simply lining up a bomber in a sight and pulling the trigger.

Because US raids at the time were spread out, often over several hundred kilometers with different bomb divisions attacking different parts of Germany, and the different bomb groups within the bomb divisions attacking different targets. US fighter escorts generally had to patrol a large area to cover the widely dispersed bomber groups. It is for this reason the FW190 Sturmbock were able to annihilate some bomber groups in the autumn of 1944 despite being "outnumbered", because they were only attacking a small part of a highly dispersed formation. When the ME262s did attack, they were only biting at a fraction of the US forces. They literally were not flying into 1200 bombers and 900 fighters. Rather it was often a combat wing or two with a few squadrons of P51 escorts, supposing they didn't first run into a fighter sweep by roaming US fighters patrolling in front or on the flanks of the operational area.

Post war U.S. weapon test of a guided missile. The B-17 drone was on remote control.

Thanks! My first reaction to your info is relief that no one was killed. Funny thing is that the video sure wasn't labeled as a test!@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

1/2 of the channel’s viewers are from the US.

It's because he used the wrong plane. That aircraft is a model of a Me-263, a development of the 163 that was in prototype development, but (AFAIK) never flew

The ethnic diversity in europe could have been greatly reduced, one imagines.