I've been running across a number of reports that say that the AR 234 and the Me 262 were too fast for the mechanical turrets and AA guns to track. Major complaints from gunners of B17 turret gunners and gunners trying to defend the Bridge at Remagen from bombing attacks, state that they were too fast for the mechanically driven guns to track. Any thoughts from our panel of experts?
for Remagen yes but for the jet pilots traveling at their high rate of speed at low altitude did not make them effective twin engine bombers. yes except for the tail gunners position who had the best chance to knock out a 262 from the rear position where the 262's first engaged, having the longer range of the .50 when the 262 pilot had to fly in close and with only possibly 4 seconds of firing time with the pop-gun 3cm cannons, on many ops the jets simply overflew the bomber groups.
The tail position was the easiest because the 17s speed was subtracted from the 262..making a slower approach...Again, we had a discussion about the tracking and firing rate of a Bofors 40mm-42mm? And i made the point then that it depends on the distance to target as to how fast one has to track...the farther away the slower the track.
there was concentrated bomber fire from waist positions within the heavy bomber formations into the upper centre of the bomber stream but not in a careless fashion firing on neighboring A/C, the jets had to pass through to the front before climbing or trying to dive away from the waiting US escort fighters; was checking the JG 7 war diaries of several individuals and they admit the jets were not impervious from the .50's in this close approximation. After climbing all over the Recee version of the 262 at the Chno museum years ago it's a wonder that more jets were not torn to shreds the armor plating is thin enough the protection for the jet engines is close to nil.
Head on coming in a low level attack at AR 234 top speed possible while spewing napalm tanks. I just read a post about the electromagnetic computer in the B29 being unable to track the Mig 15. Was this the same computer type that was used in the AA systems at the end of WWII?
are you confusing this weapon with the rocket boost take-off system as the AR 234 never carried any jel-type substance bombs in fact it's bomb load was quite small overall.
It carried 1000lb worth of bombs at Ramagen. But that's not the point. Imagine a plane coming at you spewing death and destruction traveling at speeds you've never even imagined and the mechanical systems of your AA gun can't even track it fast enough. In it's wake are bomblets or other kinds of anti-personnel ordinance.
The Arado 234B-2 was designed with a 3300lb bomb load in mind. One 1100lb bomb externally on the centerline and one under each engine nacelle. However, I doubt they never carried more than two at any one time or perhaps more likely, two 550lb bombs under the nacelles or one 1100lb bomb on the centerline . Each bomb (either HE or bomb clusters) would have slowed the acceleration to high speed just by their weight alone and with each bomb came extra drag. There were successful expiriments with two rauchgerate "power eggs" outside of each nacelle which would have helped initial acceleration. With a bomb load its level flight speed made it vulnerable to piston-engined fighters above it. In the recon version it was much less vulnerable and few of the recon versions were shot down. It was equipt with two bomb sights: the Lofte 7K tachomentric bomb sight was for bombing in level flight and according to Wm. Green, "...enabled a high degree of accuracy under good conditions." The other sight was the RF2C perescope tied into the BZA-1 bombing computer and was used for bombing in a shallow dive. Assuming its pilot was well trained, the degree of accuracy would have been good. As for it being too fast to track; as CAC pointed out, the farther away they were, the easier they were to track. However, the real problem for say a 40mm Bofors was that while the jet could be tracked, it was in and out so fast that only a few rounds could be fired before it was out of range which would have made the gunner's job very difficult. The same would be true with quad-50s. The same speed that made the ME-262 so hard to track by bomber gunners, made it equally hard for the pilot to set up a proper attack, aim and fire. For many pilots, by the time they got behind their target, got set up and properly aimed, it was time to break off to avoid a collision. Many 262 pilots shot past their intended victims before they could even aim. Jet pilots had to rev up their reaction time quite a bunch to be successful. Some pilot like Heinz Baer (16 victories with a 262) could do it, but many struggled. So speed was a double edged sword. Perhaps it would have been easier to sneak up below and behind a Mustang or Spit (that was the only way to get a piston engined fighter) because the closing speed would have been slower than with a lumbering B-17 or 24.
Never underestimate the power of ground fire, particularly small arms, against a jet. A lot of ex-Pow's from the Vietnam war can confirm that. And consider that since WWII jets were about as maneuverable as a brick, it would only be a matter of time and experience before air gunners knew where to begin leading them in the sky, where the jet would fly through a stream of 50 cal.
actually the LW chaps preferred tro drop down on the US opponents-fighters if possible and trhen flat out spped away, prob being as they drove harder to reach their AF guess who was waiting in numbers ? no bomb clusters on the AR 234 for anti-personell work, the raids on Remagen bridge were a joke for both types of jets. bomb loads were normally two bombs. The Ar of course excellend in the Recee roll something it did with great efficiency.
>Imagine a plane coming at you spewing death and destruction traveling at speeds you've never even imagined and the mechanical systems of your AA gun can't even track it fast enough. < If it is "coming at you" then there is no tracking neccessary!! Just point AT the aircraft as it grows larger in your sight. If it is NOT coming at you, what's the worry??
