"Schrage Muzik"
CANDYNOW
Can anyone tell me who was the actual inventor of this weapon? It was a
8mm cannon mounted at an oblique angle on Luftwaffe night-fighters.
Operated by the pilot but re-loaded by the observer, it was originaly
fitted on JU-88s and ME 110s. It allowed the night-fighter pilot to
approach a bomber from underneath and out of sight of the rear-gunner. The
cannon was fired into the wing between the outer and inner engines thus
causing the fuel to ignite.
Martin Middlebrook interviewed numerous ex-nachtjaeger pilots who belived
that the weapon was designed to destroy an enemy bomber while at the same
time permitting the crew to escape unharmed. Prior to "schrage musik" the
favoured tactic was to attack from behind with forward-firing cannon thus
disabling the rear and mid-upper gunners.
I believe that it was the Canadians who first twigged to this new weapon
and they began to install belly-turrets on their Lancasters. This practice
however, was not followed throughout Bomber Command. Scrage Musik would
not have been much use against the Fortress or the Liberator for obvious
reasons and was not, to my knowledge, ever employed against the USAF on
daylight raids.
I haven't found any references that name the inventor of the upward-firing
cannon so if anyone knows, please drop me an e.
Thanks
Mark Dunning
Chris Morton
>Forgive me if I have spelled the title incorrectly.
>Can anyone tell me who was the actual inventor of this weapon? It was a
>8mm cannon mounted at an oblique angle on Luftwaffe night-fighters.
>Operated by the pilot but re-loaded by the observer, it was originaly
>fitted on JU-88s and ME 110s. It allowed the night-fighter pilot to
>approach a bomber from underneath and out of sight of the rear-gunner. The
>cannon was fired into the wing between the outer and inner engines thus
>causing the fuel to ignite.
I think you mean 20mm cannon. 8 (or 7.92)mm is rifle caliber, thus a
machinegun.
"The Ki.45-KAIc and KAId embodied a number of internal refinements,
and featured a more pointed nose. Many of these were adapted for the
night-fighting role with two fixed 12.7-mm machienguns or two 20-mm.
cannon installed aft of the pilot and firing forward and upward at an
angle of 30deg. This mounting, which was devised by Colonel Yasuna
Kozono of the Japanese Navy's 251st Air Corps, and introduced on the
Toryu in 1944, was extremely successful, and was adopted by the
Luftwaffe, by whom it was known as "Schrage Musik". - War Planes of
the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Three - William Green -
Doubleday 1964
It is apparent that the reference to "Col." Kozono is a typo,
considering that the Ki.45 was an Air Force plane and that the
appropriate naval rank would have been Captain. I also don't believe
that the Imperial Navy used the term "Air Corps", though I could be
wrong.
*** ***
If the Nazis were serious about their eugenic
philosophies, they'd gas THEMSELVES.
*** ***
Mike Rowles
wrote:
> I haven't found any references that name the inventor of the upward-firing
> cannon so if anyone knows, please drop me an e.
>
I think it was the Japanese
--------------------------
Wanted Old Slot Cars
HO, 1/32nd & 1/24th Scales
mro...@minn.net
mike....@tclbbs.com
--------------------------
George G. Hopp
CANDYNOW (cand...@aol.com) writes:
> Forgive me if I have spelled the title incorrectly.
>
> Can anyone tell me who was the actual inventor of this weapon? It was a
> 8mm cannon mounted at an oblique angle on Luftwaffe night-fighters.
> Operated by the pilot but re-loaded by the observer, it was originaly
> fitted on JU-88s and ME 110s. It allowed the night-fighter pilot to
> approach a bomber from underneath and out of sight of the rear-gunner. The
> cannon was fired into the wing between the outer and inner engines thus
> causing the fuel to ignite.
>
> that the weapon was designed to destroy an enemy bomber while at the same
> time permitting the crew to escape unharmed. Prior to "schrage musik" the
> favoured tactic was to attack from behind with forward-firing cannon thus
> disabling the rear and mid-upper gunners.
>
> I believe that it was the Canadians who first twigged to this new weapon
> and they began to install belly-turrets on their Lancasters. This practice
> however, was not followed throughout Bomber Command. Scrage Musik would
> not have been much use against the Fortress or the Liberator for obvious
> reasons and was not, to my knowledge, ever employed against the USAF on
> daylight raids.
>
> cannon so if anyone knows, please drop me an e.
>
>
>
>
> Mark Dunning
Rudolf Schoenert, felt by many to have been the first to adapt the upward
firing weapon capability to night fighters by converting three Do 17s to
this configuration, cited the use the similar weapons during World War I
as being his inspiration--remember those over the wing mounted Lewis guns
on aircraft like the SE5 and the Nieuport 17? I think that is what he is
referring to. In addition, the Japanese were doing the same thing
independently at about he same time. And you see these on the Nick and the
Irving, the night-fighting Zero and others.
does this help? Probably not, but hopefully it will give you some
directions to check out.
Best wishes
George Hopp
Peter Bjoern
cand...@aol.com (CANDYNOW) wrote:
>Martin Middlebrook interviewed numerous ex-nachtjaeger pilots who belived
>that the weapon was designed to destroy an enemy bomber while at the same
>time permitting the crew to escape unharmed. Prior to "schrage musik" the
>favoured tactic was to attack from behind with forward-firing cannon thus
>disabling the rear and mid-upper gunners.
Do you mean the fighter crew escaping unharmed ?
If you mean the bomber crew, I think any such weapon would
be designed with one thing in mind only: To destroy the
bomber as effectively as possible, the fate of the crew
being of no concern at all.
Regards
Peter
Maury Markowitz
> Can anyone tell me who was the actual inventor of this weapon? It was a
> 8mm cannon mounted at an oblique angle on Luftwaffe night-fighters.
There were many versions of this system, which refers to the concept not
a single weapon. The 7.9's were uncommon to my knowledge, most used 20mm
guns, some used a variety of more exotic systems including modified
mortars. The Japanese had at least one similar system installed on a
Zero, I'm not too sure how they did the intercepts.
> I believe that it was the Canadians who first twigged to this new weapon
> and they began to install belly-turrets on their Lancasters. This practice
> however, was not followed throughout Bomber Command. Scrage Musik would
> not have been much use against the Fortress or the Liberator for obvious
> reasons and was not, to my knowledge, ever employed against the USAF on
> daylight raids.
In A Thousand Shall fall, the author mentions testing out B-17's that
were used by the RAF for radar jamming. They decided to remove the ball
turret because no one could effectively see anything out of it - although
no indication of why this is was mentioned. Basically the ball turrets
were of no use at all as far as these people were concerned, and they were
flying them.
Maury
Charles K. Scott
In article <4r1vj6$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
cand...@aol.com (CANDYNOW) writes:
> I haven't found any references that name the inventor of the upward-firing
> cannon so if anyone knows, please drop me an e.
In the book "Luftwaffe Diaries" is a reference to an obscure armaments
fitter who may have been the first to attempt the installation. He did
it without official permission but it was so successfull that he was
fully employeed installing others as well as teaching more people how
to do it.
The information for the book is:
Author: Berenbrok, Hans Dieter, 1924-
Title: The Luftwaffe war diaries. [by] Cajus
Bekker.
Translated and edited by Frank Ziegler.
[1st ed. in the
U.S.]
Imprint: Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1968 [c1966]
Location: Baker Stacks D/787/B413/1968
Corky Scott
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Though i'm not sure, I thought the Germans had "schrage muzik" before the
Japanese developement mentioned in an earlier post. Though it is
possible, the chronology sounded off.
P. Wezeman
On 3 Jul 1996, CANDYNOW wrote:
> No, I meant the bomber crew escaping unharmed. Strange as it may sound,
> one Luftwaffe night-fighter pilot who scored notable successes against the
> RAF bomber streams actually stated that the fate of the enemy airmen did
> concern the Luftwaffe crews and that they used the upward-firing cannon to
> give the British flyers every chance of bailing out.
>
In the account I read a German night fighter pilot described how he
used the Schrange Muzik cannon to shoot Lancasters through the wing spar,
destroying the plane almost instantly but not setting off any of the
bombs. It would seem to be very difficult to bail out under these
circumstances. Of course, there is no reason why every night fighter
crew for the entire time period in question should use the same tactics.
Monetary value of comments V=2.0 x 10(e-2) dollars (U.S.)
Peter Wezeman
CANDYNOW
No, I meant the bomber crew escaping unharmed. Strange as it may sound,
one Luftwaffe night-fighter pilot who scored notable successes against the
RAF bomber streams actually stated that the fate of the enemy airmen did
concern the Luftwaffe crews and that they used the upward-firing cannon to
give the British flyers every chance of bailing out.
The quote appears in "The Nuremberg Raid" by Martin Middlebrook.
Regards
Mark
CANDYNOW
Many thanks for your posting. I have received a lot of mail about this,
all of it quite useful and well-presented.
You are quite correct - it was a 20mm cannon and not 8mm. I was not aware
that the Japanese were using this particular weapon but my research
suggests that the upward-firing cannon was employed by the Luftwaffe in
early 1944 and possibly late 1943 during the "Battle of Berlin".
Thanks again
Mark
Dirk Lorek
'Already 1938, flight lieutenant Thiede proposed the oblique armament
he had used in 1917/18 to the German Air Ministry (RLM), but met no
interest. During the same time, the Japanese had successfully experimented
with this weapon-system and they reported this to the RLM but still there
was no interest.
The fist trials with 'Schraege Musik' started in Germany in early 1943
at the 3./NJG 3 (Do 217 J). The first German air victory (with 2 oblique
MG FF) was achieved by a Bf 110 from the II./NJG 5 in May, 43.'
From Heinz J. Nowarra
Die deutsche Luftruestung 1933 - 1945
Dirk
_______________________________________________________________________
What am I, Life ? A thing of watery salt, held in cohesion by unresting
cells, which work they know not why, which never halt, myself unwitting
where their Master dwells. - John Masefield -
> cm...@nwohio.com (><4r449b$2...@paper.toledolink.com>...
> cand...@aol.com (CANDYNOW) wrote:
>
> >Forgive me if I have spelled the title incorrectly.
>
> >Can anyone tell me who was the actual inventor of this weapon? It was a
> >8mm cannon mounted at an oblique angle on Luftwaffe night-fighters.
Charles K. Scott
In article <4r449b$2...@paper.toledolink.com>
cm...@nwohio.com (Chris Morton) writes:
> "The Ki.45-KAIc and KAId embodied a number of internal refinements,
> and featured a more pointed nose. Many of these were adapted for the
> night-fighting role with two fixed 12.7-mm machienguns or two 20-mm.
> cannon installed aft of the pilot and firing forward and upward at an
> angle of 30deg. This mounting, which was devised by Colonel Yasuna
> Kozono of the Japanese Navy's 251st Air Corps, and introduced on the
> Toryu in 1944, was extremely successful, and was adopted by the
> Luftwaffe, by whom it was known as "Schrage Musik". - War Planes of
> the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Three - William Green -
> Doubleday 1964
I think the chronology is a bit off. The Germans developed this weapon
in 1943 at the latest and I'd be REAL surprised to hear that the
Japanese had even one single successful attack using this type of
weapon. For the most part, bombing operations against the Japanese
consisted of daytime missions, not mass night bombing raids. Why fly
night bombing missions agains the Japanese when daytime raids were so
much more accurate and effective? Besides, the Japanese were not able
to inflict the kind of battle losses the Germans managed during daytime
bomber operations so the need to bomb at night did not exist. There
was lots of night reconnaisance but this was single airplane operations
which made interception very difficult without accurate radar and the
Japanese had notoriously poor radar, when they had it.
Corky Scott
Mark Bivens
P. Wezeman (pwez...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
: On 3 Jul 1996, CANDYNOW wrote:
:
: > No, I meant the bomber crew escaping unharmed. Strange as it may sound,
: > one Luftwaffe night-fighter pilot who scored notable successes against the
: > RAF bomber streams actually stated that the fate of the enemy airmen did
: > concern the Luftwaffe crews and that they used the upward-firing cannon to
: > give the British flyers every chance of bailing out.
: In the account I read a German night fighter pilot described how he
: destroying the plane almost instantly but not setting off any of the
: bombs. It would seem to be very difficult to bail out under these
: circumstances. Of course, there is no reason why every night fighter
: crew for the entire time period in question should use the same tactics.
I read the other evening of another Luftwaffe NJ in Me 110s (I'm at work
and I can't recall the details off hand) who always went for the engines
to give the crew a chance to get out.
On the Schrage Muzik thread; I have April 96 Air International (my
lunchtime read!) here, in the Fighter A-Z column, there's the Westland
F.29/27 monoplane which has a 37mm COW gun with it mounted just forward
of the cockpit at a 55 degree angle. First flew Dec 1930.
--
"The race is not always to the swift, nor the fight to the strong, but
firepower and cunning seldom go wrong"
Mark Bivens: Psychologist, Modeller, and (all) round nice guy.
GSmith9805
In article <4rj6ol$r...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>I think the chronology is a bit off. The Germans developed this weapon
>in 1943 at the latest and I'd be REAL surprised to hear that the
>Japanese had even one single successful attack using this type of
>weapon. For the most part, bombing operations against the Japanese
>consisted of daytime missions, not mass night bombing raids. Why fly
>night bombing missions agains the Japanese when daytime raids were so
>much more accurate and effective?
Corky,
Not to nit-pick too severely, but the US did have several mass night
raids
towards the end of the war. The B-29 daylight raids were fairly
ineffective against
the dispersed Japanese industry, so LeMay ordered the 29s to go in at
night, at
low level, using incendiaries...thus the truly nasty firebomb raids in
late 44-early 45.
Glenn Smith
Fredfaxx
Subject: Re: "Schrage Muzik"
From: mbi...@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Mark Bivens)
Date: 5 Jul 1996 20:18:47 +0800
Message-ID: <4rj177$fct$1...@perth.DIALix.oz.au>
Mark Bivens wrote:
: In the account I read a German night fighter pilot described how he
: used the Schrange Muzik cannon to shoot Lancasters through the wing
spar,
: destroying the plane almost instantly but not setting off any of the
: bombs. It would seem to be very difficult to bail out under these
: circumstances. Of course, there is no reason why every night fighter
: crew for the entire time period in question should use the same tactics.
Many accounts exist of RAF bombers continuing to fly on long after being
hit by the Schrage Muzik cannon. One theory being that pilots would often
not realise how badly their aircraft had been hit. This is substantiated
by Luftwaffe pilots who reported following their quarry for a considerable
time after firing and remarking that no return fire was forthcoming
although none of the shells had struck the gun-turrets. The German pilots
also commented on how surprised they were to note that not many of the
bomber crews made any attempt to parachute.
:
>I read the other evening of another Luftwaffe NJ in Me 110s (I'm at work
>and I can't recall the details off hand) who always went for the engines
>to give the crew a chance to get out.
Yes. This appears to corroborate what I have been saying.
>On the Schrage Muzik thread; I have April 96 Air International (my
>lunchtime read!) here, in the Fighter A-Z column, there's the Westland
>F.29/27 monoplane which has a 37mm COW gun with it mounted just forward
>of the cockpit at a 55 degree angle. First flew Dec 1930.
Was this a private venture by Westland or an RAF/MOD project?
Mark
John Phillips
My understanding is that with a loaded bomber the fire was into the
bomb bay and the explosion was violent. The reason that it took the
British so long to learn about the technique was that there were never
any survivors to tell the tale.
John Phillips
Buffalo
pet...@inet.uni-c.dk (Peter Bjoern) wrote:
>cand...@aol.com (CANDYNOW) wrote:
>Regards
>Peter
Regards,
John Phillips
Superintendent of Power
Niagara Power Project
New York Power Authority
work e-mail phil...@ip3gate.usa.com
David Gillon
In article <4rkhn5$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, From fred...@aol.com
(Fredfaxx), the following was written:
>> On the Schrage Muzik thread; I have April 96 Air International (my
>> lunchtime read!) here, in the Fighter A-Z column, there's the
>> Westland F.29/27 monoplane which has a 37mm COW gun with it mounted
>> just forward of the cockpit at a 55 degree angle. First flew Dec
>> 1930.
>
> Was this a private venture by Westland or an RAF/MOD project?
F.29/27 is an Air Ministry requirement, to which Westland's aircraft was
one proposal. The requirement was for a high performance single seat
fighter armed with one 37mm Coventry Ordnance Works (COW) Gun to engage
bombers approaching at 150mph and 20,000ft. The gun was to be aimed
upwards at at least 45 degrees and 50 rounds were to be carried. Seven
manufacturers were approached, three responded, one of the others being
Bristol with the Type 112. The COW gun fighter was at Farnborough for a
couple of years after delivery, but the RAF lost interest in the concept
and switched to multiple small calibre weapons instead.
David
Fredfaxx
The shells from an upward - firing cannon into the loaded bomb-bay would
destroy both fighter and bomber. Most "experten" preferred to get as close
as possible to their prey before firing thus ensuring a kill rather than a
"possible." The Luftwaffe were notorious for making sure that pilots could
positively claim a kill before it counted.
Fredfaxx
Interesting. The Whirlwind might have served as a good platform for this
type of weapon.I'm really surprised that it took the RAF such a long time
to figure out that the Luftwaffe was using this type of weapon against the
bombers.
I'll look into this further.
Thanks
Mark
David Gillon
Fredfaxx wrote:
> The Whirlwind might have served as a good platform for this
> type of weapon.
I'd have said the Whirlwind had too small a fuselage to take an angled
cannon - a Welkin, Mosquito or Beaufighter would have been better
suited. But, you still needed to find the target and when we faced the
major German bomber threat during the Blitz AI radar was very much in
its infancy. Later, when we switched to intruder missions the targets
were enemy nightfighters, not bombers, so a forward firing armament was
more appropriate.
> I'm really surprised that it took the RAF such a long time to figure
out > that the Luftwaffe was using this type of weapon against > the
bombers.
Given that RAF night bombers didn't have belly turrets they had no way
to know what had attacked them, for all they knew they had been hit by
Flak.
David
Charles K. Scott
In article <4r5i0b$f...@news.uni-c.dk>
pet...@inet.uni-c.dk (Peter Bjoern) writes:
> Do you mean the fighter crew escaping unharmed ?
> If you mean the bomber crew, I think any such weapon would
> be designed with one thing in mind only: To destroy the
> bomber as effectively as possible, the fate of the crew
> being of no concern at all.
>
> Regards
> Peter
You are right, of course, the object was to bring the bombers down.
However, Martin Middlebrook quotes several interviewed night fighters
as being of the opinion that the Schrage Muzik allowed the bomber crew
more time to get out because the typical attack involved a careful aim
and just a few shells fired into the fuel tanks which began a fire.
The fire was visible to the crew and normally gave them time to exit
the airplane before the spar burned through or the flame spread too
much. This didn't happen all the time of course, sometimes the bomber
blew up instantly which often engulfed the fighter as well in the
fireball but normally the attack only had to start a fire and then the
fighter could pull out of the way and observe the results.
If I remember correctly, the night fighter pilots specifically thought
that the Schrage Muzik was more humanitarian than the alternative which
was to ease up behind and blast away will all guns raking the fuselage.
That kind of attack almost surely wounded many in the crew right away.
By the way, I also understand that exiting the Lancaster and other
bombers was never an easy task, even in broad daylight and that getting
out at night was so difficult as to seem almost criminal now.
Corky Scott
Charles K. Scott
In article <4rohf9$2...@buffnet2.buffnet.net>
phil...@buffnet.net (John Phillips) writes:
> My understanding is that with a loaded bomber the fire was into the
> bomb bay and the explosion was violent. The reason that it took the
> British so long to learn about the technique was that there were never
> any survivors to tell the tale.
>
> John Phillips
> Buffalo
Well that's not what the night fighter pilots interviewed during his
book (below) said.
Author: Middlebrook, Martin, 1932-
Title: The Nuremberg raid, 30-31 March 1944.
Collation: xv, 369 p. illus. 23 cm.
Imprint: [London] Allen Lane [1973]
Notes: Bibliography: p. [360]
Material Type: Book
Language: english
Subjects: Nuremberg -- Bombardment, 1944.
World War, 1939-1945 -- Aerial
operations, British.
LCCN: 74-159389
ISN: 071390612X
They claimed that they aimed carefully at the fuel tanks, not the bomb
bay. Hitting the bomb bay wasn't considered a smart thing to do
because it might set off the bombs which could and did easily engulf
the attacker in the resultant explosion. The Germans wanted to live
through the attack and they discovered that setting the fuel tanks on
fire allowed them enough time to get out of the way while the fire
grew. It often took several minutes for the fire to spread which gave
the crew time to bail out.
Not all the crew were obliterated in explosions but since the attack
was almost always over enemy territory, very few escaped capture to
tell about what happened. Those who did return often had no idea how
they got shot down because of the nature of the attack.
Corky Scott
David Brown
The primary reason the German nightfighters developed the technique of
firing into the wings and between the engines was strictly self
preservation. The forward firing gun caused the fighter to fly through
the exploding wreckage. The oblique cannon fired into the fusealge
caused the fighter to fly through the wreckage. Firing into the wing
usually resulted in a fire that slowly (usually) consumed the fire.
I have read accounts of German fighter pilots who say they did this to
allow the bomber crew a chance to escape. I'm not so sure that I beleive
it.
Dave Brown <David...@uwoadmin.uwo.ca>
David Brown
Fredfaxx
Not so. Some Canadian squadrons acted on the information that was provided
by air-gunners who had witnessed attacks on other bombers by "Schrage
Muzik" equipped fighters. The Canucks installed belly-turrets on their
Lancasters and Halifaxes although this practice was not followed
throughout Bomber Command.
Mark
Charles K. Scott
In article <4rjttn$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
gsmit...@aol.com (GSmith9805) writes:
> Corky,
> Not to nit-pick too severely, but the US did have several mass night
> raids
> towards the end of the war. The B-29 daylight raids were fairly
> ineffective against
> the dispersed Japanese industry, so LeMay ordered the 29s to go in at
> night, at
> low level, using incendiaries...thus the truly nasty firebomb raids in
> late 44-early 45.
>
> Glenn Smith
You're right, the B-29's did do mass raids on Japan. I didn't say it
properly but I was relating the information to the years 1942 and 43
when the Germans developed and deployed the Schrage Muzik. The
implication was that the Japanese developed it first and I was trying
to point out the implausablility of such a scenario because of the
nature of the air war against Japan at that time.
The Germans developed the weapon because they discovered that the
British bombers did not have any gun turrets in the belly so they could
safely sit underneath them and blast away without fear of return fire.
Mass night raids, up until the initial Tokyo mission, had not occured
until 1945. Or at least I'd not read of any. So my feeling is that
the Schrage Muzik is purely a German invention and, if anything, copied
by the Japanese. But I'm also suggesting that the Japanese had neither
the opportunity nor the aircraft with enough performance to use it
against the B-29's
Corky Scott
Fredfaxx
>You're right, the B-29's did do mass raids on Japan. I didn't say it
>properly but I was relating the information to the years 1942 and 43
>when the Germans developed and deployed the Schrage Muzik. The
>implication was that the Japanese developed it first and I was trying
>to point out the implausablility of such a scenario because of the
>nature of the air war against Japan at that time.
I didn't think that there was any concerted effort by the USAAF against
Japan in 1942-43. My understanding is that there was an explicit decision
taken by Churchill and Rooseveldt to concentrate the main war effort
against Germany.
>The Germans developed the weapon because they discovered that the
>British bombers did not have any gun turrets in the belly so they could
>safely sit underneath them and blast away without fear of return fire.
Some Canadian squadrons affixed belly turrets to their Lancasters and
Halifaxes to counter "Schrage-Muzik". I can't be more specific but a
couple of authors have mentioned it. One air-gunner that was interviewed
by Middlebrook stated that witnessed shoot-downs by fighters firing from
underneath the target plane. He saw tracer arcing upwards at an acute
angle. It was not flak as the bombers' altitude precluded that.
>Mass night raids, up until the initial Tokyo mission, had not occured
>until 1945. Or at least I'd not read of any. So my feeling is that
>the Schrage Muzik is purely a German invention and, if anything, copied
>by the Japanese. But I'm also suggesting that the Japanese had neither
>the opportunity nor the aircraft with enough performance to use it
>against the B-29's
>Corky Scott
I'll concur with you on this one Corky.
Mark
R.Horrocks
Charles K. Scott wrote:
>
> In article <4rohf9$2...@buffnet2.buffnet.net>
> phil...@buffnet.net (John Phillips) writes:
>
> > My understanding is that with a loaded bomber the fire was into the
> > bomb bay and the explosion was violent. The reason that it took the
> > British so long to learn about the technique was that there were never
> > any survivors to tell the tale.
> Then Corky said
> Not all the crew were obliterated in explosions but since the attack
> was almost always over enemy territory, very few escaped capture to
> tell about what happened. Those who did return often had no idea how
>
> Corky Scott
I would also point out that the we (the Brits) should have worked out
the tactic beacause a simular idea was used by some Defiant
nightfighters crews (when they found anything at all) as a way to best
utilise the Defiant's firepower. Sneak up behind and below, fly
underneath and rake the aircraft with the four brownings in the turret.
Not as effective as cannon but still effective. Mind you the RAF never
was good at listening to crew...
Richard
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>You're right, the B-29's did do mass raids on Japan. I didn't say it
>properly but I was relating the information to the years 1942 and 43
>when the Germans developed and deployed the Schrage Muzik. The
>implication was that the Japanese developed it first and I was trying
>to point out the implausablility of such a scenario because of the
>nature of the air war against Japan at that time.
>
>British bombers did not have any gun turrets in the belly so they could
>safely sit underneath them and blast away without fear of return fire.
>
>
>until 1945. Or at least I'd not read of any. So my feeling is that
>the Schrage Muzik is purely a German invention and, if anything, copied
>by the Japanese. But I'm also suggesting that the Japanese had neither
>the opportunity nor the aircraft with enough performance to use it
>against the B-29's
You-all forget ther were all kinds of other night missions throughout the
PTO/CBI theaters. The first Gekko (sp? or "Irving") night kill was against a
B-17 out in the islands and there were undoubtedly many kinds of other
night missions for the Japanese to work up counters to.
Dirk Lorek
> fred...@aol.com (Fredfaxx) wrote in article <4s16nd$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
>
> Some Canadian squadrons affixed belly turrets to their Lancasters and
> Halifaxes to counter "Schrage-Muzik". I can't be more specific but a
> couple of authors have mentioned it. One air-gunner that was interviewed
> by Middlebrook stated that witnessed shoot-downs by fighters firing from
> underneath the target plane. He saw tracer arcing upwards at an acute
> angle. It was not flak as the bombers' altitude precluded that.
According to what I've read, the Germans deliberately didn't use tracers
in the Schraege Musik, it would have revealed that 'secret weapon'.
Could it be that the tracers were coming from a Canadian belly
turret firing downwards instead ?
Fredfaxx
>I would also point out that the we (the Brits) should have worked out
>the tactic beacause a simular idea was used by some Defiant
>nightfighters crews (when they found anything at all) as a way to best
>utilise the Defiant's firepower. Sneak up behind and below, fly
>underneath and rake the aircraft with the four brownings in the turret.
>Not as effective as cannon but still effective. Mind you the RAF never
>was good at listening to crew...
>Richard
I wasn't aware that a Defiant's turret could rotate so that the guns faced
forward. And didn't the German Heinkels and Dorniers carry belly-gunners?
Mark
Fredfaxx
>You-all forget ther were all kinds of other night missions throughout the
>PTO/CBI theaters. The first Gekko (sp? or "Irving") night kill was
against a
>B-17 out in the islands and there were undoubtedly many kinds of other
>night missions for the Japanese to work up counters to.
Yes but the night operations over Germany were massive, involving a
thousand plus aircraft at one time. The Japanese may have tooled-up the
odd night-fighter to counter US nighttime operations but again, the B-17
had a belly-gunner which deprived the upward-firing cannon of its required
element of surprise.
Mark
R.Horrocks
Well, the Defiant could not fire directly forward as there was a cut out
to prevent the gunner blowing away the prop, pilot etc but the guns
could operate faceing forward but at an angle up of, at a guess, 45 deg.
I understand the tactic used however was to slip below the bomber,
slightly to one side so the guns would have been used in the 1o'clock to
5 o'clock high area say.
On your second point, yes the Dorniers,Heikels etc did have a belly
gunner but first he's got to see you and then he normally only had one
MG to fire back with which had a poor arc of fire in most cases. The
crew position was not popular on cold nights over the UK and I believe
was not always manned (not that the nightfighter crews knew this of
course)
The 'seeing' bit is most important. Even with upward facing guns the
fighter, German or Brit, has to get in position. Normally this would
mean an approach from behind and below which brings you into the field
of vision of the tailgunner on Brit heavies. To be quite truthful
getting the hell out of the way was a dam sight more important than
fireing back so a belly gun turret on a Lanc would have cost far more
in weight penalties than its worth. A simple 'watching' position would
have been better. My uncle, a tail gunner on a Lanc, assured me that
they would rather fly higher than carry more guns. Some aircraft removed
the nose armament altogether. Often another crew member, if available,
would be set to assist watching below and behind. Also not popular in
the cold!
Richard
Dirk Lorek
fred...@aol.com (Fredfaxx) wrote:
>
>
>Yes but the night operations over Germany were massive, involving a
>thousand plus aircraft at one time. The Japanese may have tooled-up the
>odd night-fighter to counter US nighttime operations but again, the B-17
>had a belly-gunner which deprived the upward-firing cannon of its required
>element of surprise.
>
I believe a belly gun would not be a decisive countermeasure against
Schraege Musik. Even before the Germans used this weapon, most
bombers were shot down without seeing the nightfighter. Normally,
the visibility was very poor at night, when it was really bad the
nightfighters had to close as near as 30 m before firing their
weapons. Because aiming at the fuselage could bring the bombload
to explosion and put the fighter in danger, already before SM the
favoured aiming point were the wings with their fuel tanks. Flying
underneath the bomberwings with SM gave the Germans a much larger
target area than trying to hit the wings with a stern attack. I think
this was the real advantage of the SM and not the fact that the bomber
lacked defensive armament beneath. It seems also that it was easier
(but still hard) to attack bombers executing the cork-srew manoeuvre
with SM.
Dirk
Bob Jones
Dirk Lorek (dirk....@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
: fred...@aol.com (Fredfaxx) wrote:
: Schraege Musik. Even before the Germans used this weapon, most
: bombers were shot down without seeing the nightfighter. Normally,
: the visibility was very poor at night, when it was really bad the
: nightfighters had to close as near as 30 m before firing their
: weapons. Because aiming at the fuselage could bring the bombload
: to explosion and put the fighter in danger, already before SM the
: favoured aiming point were the wings with their fuel tanks. Flying
: underneath the bomberwings with SM gave the Germans a much larger
: target area than trying to hit the wings with a stern attack. I think
: this was the real advantage of the SM and not the fact that the bomber
: lacked defensive armament beneath. It seems also that it was easier
: (but still hard) to attack bombers executing the cork-srew manoeuvre
: with SM.
: Dirk
Very interesting thread on, what is to me, an obscure weapon. Could any
Germanophiles out there translate "Schrage" or "Schraege"? I think the
"Musik" part is self-explanatory.
Thanks,
Bob
--
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
At eve the day is to be praised...a sword after it is proved; a maid after
she is married; ice after it has passed away; beer after it is drunk.
- The Viking Edda
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <4s3qm1$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Fredfaxx <fred...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>You-all forget ther were all kinds of other night missions throughout the
>
>>PTO/CBI theaters. The first Gekko (sp? or "Irving") night kill was
>against a
>>B-17 out in the islands and there were undoubtedly many kinds of other
>>night missions for the Japanese to work up counters to.
>
>thousand plus aircraft at one time. The Japanese may have tooled-up the
>odd night-fighter to counter US nighttime operations but again, the B-17
>had a belly-gunner which deprived the upward-firing cannon of its required
>element of surprise.
You're missing the point. There were plenty of Allied night ops for the
Japanese to worry about and develope defenses against long before the
massive B-29 raids. Jeez! Read the posts and think in context.
Fredfaxx
Dirk Lorek (dirk....@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
: fred...@aol.com (Fredfaxx) wrote:
: Schraege Musik. Even before the Germans used this weapon, most
: bombers were shot down without seeing the nightfighter. Normally,
: the visibility was very poor at night, when it was really bad the
: nightfighters had to close as near as 30 m before firing their
: weapons. Because aiming at the fuselage could bring the bombload
: to explosion and put the fighter in danger, already before SM the
: favoured aiming point were the wings with their fuel tanks. Flying
: underneath the bomberwings with SM gave the Germans a much larger
: target area than trying to hit the wings with a stern attack. I think
: this was the real advantage of the SM and not the fact that the bomber
: lacked defensive armament beneath. It seems also that it was easier
: (but still hard) to attack bombers executing the cork-srew manoeuvre
: with SM.
"Jazz Music" is the only translation that I have ever heard.
Mark
Fredfaxx
>I believe a belly gun would not be a decisive countermeasure against
>bombers were shot down without seeing the nightfighter. Normally,
>the visibility was very poor at night, when it was really bad the
>nightfighters had to close as near as 30 m before firing their
>weapons. Because aiming at the fuselage could bring the bombload
>to explosion and put the fighter in danger, already before SM the
>favoured aiming point were the wings with their fuel tanks. Flying
>underneath the bomberwings with SM gave the Germans a much larger
>target area than trying to hit the wings with a stern attack. I think
>this was the real advantage of the SM and not the fact that the bomber
>lacked defensive armament beneath. It seems also that it was easier
>(but still hard) to attack bombers executing the cork-srew manoeuvre
>with SM.
>Dirk
You make some good points here. Prior to the introduction of Schrage
Muzik, the attacks were made from the rear with forward-firing armaments.
Although the RAF bombers were lightly armed, it would still have presented
a great danger to any attacking fighter if he had to fly in close to the
rear-gunner's position. As another member of this group pointed out, the
gunner was more of a lookout than anything else. A bomber would never
fight it out with a JU-88, preferring to evade attack by executing a
corkscrew maneuver on the gunner's command.
Luftwaffe pilots preferred to press home their attacks with the element of
surprise in their favour. Many have gone on record as stating that if
their quarry spotted them, they would break off and seek another bomber
elsewhere in the stream.
Schrage Muzik brought the attacking fighter underneath and slightly astern
of the bomber. Unless the bomber pilot frequently exercised banking
maneuvers, the gunners could not see into this area - the blind spot. A
belly gunner however, would be an extra pair of eyes and would certainly
reduce the effectiveness of the Schrage Muzik. It would reduce the element
of surprise.
You mention visibility as being a factor and I agree entirely. 30 meters
is awfully close, especially behind a speeding Lancaster. The slipstream
would buffet the fighter around perhaps tossing it above the horizon and
into view of the gunners. Against a veteran bomber crew, these tactics
would be useless. Darkness and poor visibility favoured the RAF not the
Luftwaffe, at least not until SN-2 came along.
RAF policy sacrificed armaments for bomb-carrying capacity. A belly-turret
on a Lanc would reduce the size of the bomb-bay, especially if the bomber
carried the H2-S radar pod. It would involve employing an extra crew
member. Although some ABC Lancasters carried eight men, most carried
seven.
Although Bomber Command's losses were horrendous, no concerted
counter-measures were enacted and as yet, nobody in an official capacity
has given a satisfactory explanation as to the reason why.
Mark
Ulrich Kenter
fred...@aol.com (Fredfaxx) wrote (12 Jul 1996 11:14:56
-0400):
>Dirk Lorek (dirk....@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
>: fred...@aol.com (Fredfaxx) wrote:
[...]
>: It seems also that it was easier
>: (but still hard) to attack bombers executing the cork-srew manoeuvre
>: with SM.
During the cork-skrew maneuvre the german nightfighter were
lucky to follow the bomber. It was nearly impossible to hit
the bomber during that phase of rapid and abrupt movements,
especially not with the "Schraege-Musik"-cannons. Those guns
were only used, if the nightfighter was able to sneak up
below the bomber, wich had to be in straight forward level
flight.
> "Jazz Music" is the only translation that I have ever heard.
That's the origin I've heard here in Germany, too.
So long, Ulrich
--
Ulrich Kenter, Limnology, University of Konstanz,
PO-Box 5560, D-78434 Konstanz, Germany
Tel. 0049-(0)-7531-883105, Fax 0049-(0)-7531-884136
Email: ulrich...@uni-konstanz.de (PGP)
David E. Brown
Schrage Muzik: The pure, literal translation is "oblique" or "slanted
music". This was the closest German language designation / approximation
which was created for the English term 'jazz music' when first encountered
by them in the 1920s.
If I'm not mistaken, the full story of the creation of this weapon system
and it's first operational usages is described in great detail by Wilhelm
Jonhen in his book "Duel Under the Stars" ("Deul unter der stern",
William Kimber, 196?). This book also appeared in paperback (UK) in the
1970's. If I got time, I'll dig it out my copy and pass on the details.
It may also have appeared elsewhere.
By the way, it is interesting to note that during the RAF's disasterous
Nuremberg Raid, the highest scoring ace that night (Oblt., later Hptm.
Martin Becker, RK, NJG 6), scored all 7 victories via the old tried and
true "unter und hinter" method (behind and below) using his forward-firing
cannons. He preferred this method right to the end of the war, and in Feb
'45 shot down a record 9 RAF heavy bombers in a single mission, one of
them falling to the MGs of his rear gunner! Total score for the war was
58 heavy bombers, all at night. He survived the war and recently
celebrated his 80th birthday with his spouse and former crew mates.
Bottom line: The success of any weapon system is due to in large part to
the crew behind it, and hence all factors which create a cohesive and
effective team. All that, and of course, luck.
Cheers und Horrido,
David
Dirk Lorek
> rjo...@netcom.com (Bob Jones) wrote in article <rjonesDu...@netcom.com>...
> Very interesting thread on, what is to me, an obscure weapon. Could any
> Germanophiles out there translate "Schrage" or "Schraege"? I think the
> "Musik" part is self-explanatory.
>
'Schraeg' has a double meaning, it can both mean 'oblique' and 'hideous'
(schraeger Typ = suspect, criminal), both terms that apply to the weapon.
Jazz music was also called Schrage Musik, but I think that's a coincidence.
Dirk
Dirk Lorek
> ulrich...@uni-konstanz.de (Ulrich Kenter) wrote in article
> <31e68...@news.uni-konstanz.de>...
>
>
> During the cork-skrew maneuvre the german nightfighter were
> lucky to follow the bomber. It was nearly impossible to hit
> the bomber during that phase of rapid and abrupt movements,
> especially not with the "Schraege-Musik"-cannons. Those guns
> were only used, if the nightfighter was able to sneak up
> below the bomber, wich had to be in straight forward level
> flight.
>
Alfred Price cites in 'Battle over the Reich' (Luftschlacht ueber
Deutschland is the German title) Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer (121 air
victories) and Hans Krause (28 victories). Schnaufer said that if
the bomber executed a not so violent cork-screw, it was possible
for a *good* pilot *with* SM to place the fighter again underneath
the bomber and continue the attack, Schnaufer claims that he did
shoot down 3 bombers this way, Krause remembered 6.
P. Wezeman
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, R.Horrocks wrote:
> Fredfaxx wrote:
> >
> > >I would also point out that the we (the Brits) should have worked out
> > >the tactic beacause a simular idea was used by some Defiant
> > >nightfighters crews (when they found anything at all) as a way to best
> > >utilise the Defiant's firepower. Sneak up behind and below, fly
> > >underneath and rake the aircraft with the four brownings in the turret.
> > >Not as effective as cannon but still effective. Mind you the RAF never
> > >was good at listening to crew...
> >
> > >Richard
> >
> > I wasn't aware that a Defiant's turret could rotate so that the guns faced
> > forward. And didn't the German Heinkels and Dorniers carry belly-gunners?
> >
> > Mark
>
> Well, the Defiant could not fire directly forward as there was a cut out
> to prevent the gunner blowing away the prop, pilot etc but the guns
> could operate faceing forward but at an angle up of, at a guess, 45 deg.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that when the Defiant's turret was
pointing exactly forward synchronizing gear could be used to fire
through the propeller arc. The bullets would be traveling to the right
and left of the pilot, which seems to be putting a lot of faith in your
machinery. Am I mistaken, or was this one of those gimmicks that don't
work in practice, or what?
Of course, this is irrelevant to the tactic under discussion.
Monetary value of comments V=2.0 x 10(e-2) dollars (U.S.)
Peter Wezeman
Dirk Lorek
> ulrich...@uni-konstanz.de (Ulrich Kenter) wrote in article
> <31e68...@news.uni-konstanz.de>...
>
> During the cork-skrew maneuvre the german nightfighter were
> lucky to follow the bomber. It was nearly impossible to hit
> the bomber during that phase of rapid and abrupt movements,
> especially not with the "Schraege-Musik"-cannons. Those guns
> were only used, if the nightfighter was able to sneak up
> below the bomber, wich had to be in straight forward level
> flight.
>
You seem to imply that SM was a weapon difficult to use and that
it required a special tactic. I think the opposite is true.
According to what I've read, the younger and inexperienced
pilots relied solely on SM, so I figure it must have been easier
to use than the conventional stern attacks.
If I understand it right, 'all' you had to do was to *pass* the
bomber underneath and pull the trigger, a kind of upward strafing
There was no need to dwell on the position under the bomber or to
be perfectly aligned with the bombers heading. You shot the bomber
literally 'on the fly' (I'm sure it was not so easy in reality,
you had to avoid hitting the fuselage, but you get my meaning).
This reminds me on another weapon, also very easy to use, the
SG 500 Luftfaust. It too was developed with the more inexperienced
pilots in mind. 'All' you had to do was to pass the bomber under-
neath with your Me 163, a photocell then triggered a set of upward
firing rockets. The system came late and was not used often,
but it seemed very effective. I think SM worked in the same
way.
You are right that the corkscrew was almost impossible to counter.
But with an easier weapon system like SM, it was a little less
impossible.
Dirk
_______________________________________________________________________
What am I, Life ? A thing of watery salt, held in cohesion by unresting
cells, which work they know not why, which never halt, myself unwitting
where their Master dwells. - John Masefield -
>
>
Fredfaxx
Anonymous wrote:
>You're missing the point. There were plenty of Allied night ops for the
>Japanese to worry about and develope defenses against long before the
>massive B-29 raids. Jeez! Read the posts and think in context.
Fuck you dickhead. It's you that is unable to think in context. You
haven't got the balls to even print your name so fuck off back under
whatever rock you crawled out from under.
Mark
Fredfaxx
>If I'm not mistaken, the full story of the creation of this weapon system
>and it's first operational usages is described in great detail by Wilhelm
>Jonhen in his book "Duel Under the Stars" ("Deul unter der stern",
>William Kimber, 196?). This book also appeared in paperback (UK) in the
>1970's. If I got time, I'll dig it out my copy and pass on the details.
>It may also have appeared elsewhere.
Yes, please post the details of this book. If it's translated into
English, so much the better.
>By the way, it is interesting to note that during the RAF's disasterous
>Nuremberg Raid, the highest scoring ace that night (Oblt., later Hptm.
>Martin Becker, RK, NJG 6), scored all 7 victories via the old tried and
>true "unter und hinter" method (behind and below) using his
forward-firing
>cannons. He preferred this method right to the end of the war, and in
Feb
>'45 shot down a record 9 RAF heavy bombers in a single mission, one of
>them falling to the MGs of his rear gunner! Total score for the war was
>58 heavy bombers, all at night. He survived the war and recently
>celebrated his 80th birthday with his spouse and former crew mates.
Who ended up as the Luftwaffe's top-scoring nightfighter pilot? I seem to
remember that it was Prinz Wittgenstein (forgive me if my memory is
playing tricks with me) who was eventually killed in action.
>Bottom line: The success of any weapon system is due to in large part to
>the crew behind it, and hence all factors which create a cohesive and
>effective team. All that, and of course, luck.
Same for the bomber crews. Those crews who workd well as a team and who
remained alert and took all possible precautions survived - providing
their luck was in.
Cheers und Horrido,
David
Regards
Mark
Fredfaxx
>Alfred Price cites in 'Battle over the Reich' (Luftschlacht ueber
>Deutschland is the German title) Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer (121 air
>victories) and Hans Krause (28 victories). Schnaufer said that if
>the bomber executed a not so violent cork-screw, it was possible
>for a *good* pilot *with* SM to place the fighter again underneath
>the bomber and continue the attack, Schnaufer claims that he did
>shoot down 3 bombers this way, Krause remembered 6.
Yes. There were many skillful German pilots who could anticipate the
evasive moves that would be taken by a bomber. The initial move, as
executed by an experience RAF pilot would be extremely violent, giving the
rear-gunner no chance to open fire but throwing off the attacker's aim.
Novice crews, whose pilots perhaps were afraid of throwing the Lancaster
around like a Spitfire, might not execute the evasive maneuver with the
same vigour.
By the way. I was mistaken about the field of fire that a Lancaster's
rear-gunner had. I read some accounts by German pilots which stated that
during the "Schrage Muzik" attack, no return fire from the rear turret was
noted. If the attacking pilot expected to be fired at, then the gunners
must have had the means by which to do it.
Mark
Fredfaxx
> I seem to remember reading somewhere that when the Defiant's turret
was
>pointing exactly forward synchronizing gear could be used to fire
>through the propeller arc. The bullets would be traveling to the right
>and left of the pilot, which seems to be putting a lot of faith in your
>machinery. Am I mistaken, or was this one of those gimmicks that don't
>work in practice, or what?
I'm not sure if it was possible to sync four Browinings to fire through
the prop arc. I would be a bit leery about letting a gunner try it if I
happened to be a Defiant pilot.
When used in daylight operations, the Defiant was at first mistaken for a
Hurricane by the attacking 109's. The rear gun turret soon disabused them
of that notion. However, it didn't take the Luftwaffe long to figure out
that the Defiant did not employ any forward-firing armaments. That would
suggest that the synchronised gun theory did not work ( at least at that
point in time).
Mark
Larry Doering
In article <rjonesDu...@netcom.com>, Bob Jones <rjo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Very interesting thread on, what is to me, an obscure weapon. Could any
>Germanophiles out there translate "Schrage" or "Schraege"? I think the
>"Musik" part is self-explanatory.
"Schraeg", according to my Oxford pocket German dictionary, means
"oblique, slanting, sloping, transverse, diagonal." (The word is
spelled with an a-umlaut - "ae" is the accepted substitute if
no umlauts are available in your character set.) Therefore,
"schraege Musik" (the "e" on the end is because the adjective
modifies "Musik", a feminine noun in German) literally means
"slanted music". The term has a double meaning - the cannon in
the aircraft installation were tilted upwards at an angle, and
"schraege Musik" was also German slang for jazz.
ljd
Chris E. Becht
Just to get back to the origins of the Schrage Musik setup, and
the debate over it being a German copy of the Japanese or vice versa.
I draw your attention to the armament of the Sopwith Dolphin,
which included a pair of MGs mounted at a 45 deg. upward angle on either
side of the pilot.
The idea, I believe, was to avoid the tail gunner by trailing
low. Granted this might not have worked against a few of the two-seaters
with an aft gun-well, but that was the tactic. Probably balloon busting as
well, where it would be safer to be below the >WHOOMP<.
In any case, unless anyone else can cite an earlier reference, I
think we can settle it as a British invention that was rediscovered by
both of the axis powers.
--
Life is like a cow.
You get out of it what you put in. cali...@crl.com
But, umm... different somehow.
Dirk Lorek
I've thought a little about what I've wrote below and found that
'hideous' might be a too strong word. The other meaning of 'schraeg'
(or better, a wider one) is more like 'wrong' or 'fishy'.
For that reason, also Jazz was called for 'Schraege Musik' (by those
who didn't like it).
So, the new armament was oblique, wrong (unconventional) and fishy
(for the enemy), the designation 'Schraege Musik' was a common one (for
Jazz), and so they used it.
Dirk
_______________________________________________________________________
What am I, Life ? A thing of watery salt, held in cohesion by unresting
cells, which work they know not why, which never halt, myself unwitting
where their Master dwells. - John Masefield -
> Me, myself and I <DiL...@pobox.com> wrote in article
> <01bb7019.090d9900$6f79...@Swipnet.mailbox.swipnet.se>...
>
> > rjo...@netcom.com (Bob Jones) wrote in article <rjonesDu...@netcom.com>...
>
> > Very interesting thread on, what is to me, an obscure weapon. Could any
> > Germanophiles out there translate "Schrage" or "Schraege"? I think the
> > "Musik" part is self-explanatory.
> >
>
Paul J. Adam
In article <4s95kv$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Fredfaxx
<fred...@aol.com> writes
>Fuck you dickhead. It's you that is unable to think in context. You
>haven't got the balls to even print your name so fuck off back under
>whatever rock you crawled out from under.
Cut back on the coffee, and don't watch so many Tarantino movies, would
be my advice.
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Ulrich Kenter
cali...@crl.com (Chris E. Becht) wrote (13 Jul 1996
23:10:41 -0700):
> Just to get back to the origins of the Schrage Musik setup, and
>the debate over it being a German copy of the Japanese or vice versa.
> I draw your attention to the armament of the Sopwith Dolphin,
>which included a pair of MGs mounted at a 45 deg. upward angle on either
>side of the pilot.
> The idea, I believe, was to avoid the tail gunner by trailing
>low. Granted this might not have worked against a few of the two-seaters
>with an aft gun-well, but that was the tactic. Probably balloon busting as
>well, where it would be safer to be below the >WHOOMP<.
> In any case, unless anyone else can cite an earlier reference, I
>think we can settle it as a British invention that was rediscovered by
>both of the axis powers.
I don't know any details about the origin of the *idea*
"Schraege Musik" and, excuse me, the idea itself isn't that
great to come up only once ...
Afaik the initiative for the german "Schraege Musik" came
from one pilot or a small group of man at one airbase. There
was no "offical" background or an order, it was a real front
project with no egg-heads involved. There is a quite
detailed description given in one german source, perhaps I
can find it.
So long, Ulrich
GSmith9805
In article <4sa311$j...@crl3.crl.com>, cali...@crl.com (Chris E. Becht)
writes:
> In any case, unless anyone else can cite an earlier reference, I
>think we can settle it as a British invention that was rediscovered by
>both of the axis powers.
>
>
There were much earlier uses of "tilted guns" than the Dolphin.
Almost all
Allied non-pusher types before the synchonization gears came into common
use
<Neuports, Sopwiths, etc..> used upper wing mounted Lewis guns that could
be
trained up at an angle.
I'm sure this was more to facilitate reloading than as an approved
tactic though.
I think the Neuport 11 Bebe wins the toss as the "first", so give the nod
to the
French.
Glenn Smith
Charles K. Scott
In article <01bb709c.518b18a0$0c6a...@Swipnet.mailbox.swipnet.se>
"Dirk Lorek" <DiL...@pobox.com> writes:
> According to what I've read, the younger and inexperienced
> pilots relied solely on SM, so I figure it must have been easier
> to use than the conventional stern attacks.
>
> If I understand it right, 'all' you had to do was to *pass* the
> bomber underneath and pull the trigger, a kind of upward strafing
> There was no need to dwell on the position under the bomber or to
> be perfectly aligned with the bombers heading. You shot the bomber
> literally 'on the fly' (I'm sure it was not so easy in reality,
> you had to avoid hitting the fuselage, but you get my meaning).
That's not exactly how I understood it. All the descriptions of
attacks using Schraege Muzik I've read involved careful stalking and
painstaking aim so that a minumum of weapons firing was necessary.
maybe all the night fighter pilots who used this weapon did not do it
that way but all the literature I've read so far explains it in that
fashion.
A typical attack would involve being guided to the target bomber by the
onboard radar unit. Upon visual sighting, the pilot took over and
dropped down beneath the bomber and slowly matched speed and position.
Once underneath, the fighter edged up to the distance at which he was
most comfortable and carefully sighted through the gunsight on the
canopy roof. When he was positive he was on target, he'd pull the
trigger briefly and let off a several second burst. It did not take
much of a burst to blow open the fuel tanks and start a fire going. At
this point, if a fire was observed, the pilot would pull rapidly off to
one side to avoid being hit by any falling debris or bodies bailing out
and observed the doomed bomber to confirm it's destruction.
Corky Scott
Ulrich Kenter
doe...@xrayspex.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Doering) wrote (13 Jul
1996 22:54:31 GMT):
[...]
>The term has a double meaning - the cannon in
>the aircraft installation were tilted upwards at an angle, and
>"schraege Musik" was also German slang for jazz.
Correct. Another aspect:
"Schraege Musik" or Jazz was surpressed by the Nazis,
"Jazz" was called often "Negermusik" (nigger-music, later
the same expression here was used for Rock'n Roll ...). They
tried to press any kind of music into a perverted "german
music" orientated at (some) principles of classic music. So
the german musicians of modern and popular music (swing
f.e.) in the 1930's (later in the occupied areas, too) had a
lot of rules to look at, if they wanted to play Jazz. There
rules like "it has to be harmonic" or "no extended solos"
and often there was secret police in the room to control the
musicians.
The word "Jazz" itself wasn't "truely" german, too, but a
lot of people loved to hear the Musik! So the german
description "Schraege Musik" had to be used and the Nazis
propaganda claimed that this "Schraege Musik" was a kind of
"higher developed" entertainment, not that much "dangerous"
for the "cultural health" like Jazz.
For a lot of young people "Schraege Musik" was one of the
prefered methods to rebel against authorities. Often it
wasn't directed against the Nazi-Ideologie, it was a kind of
"global protest" against the totally conventional and
regulated living in Germany at that time.
The young rebels very quick had to become soldiers, but
the music preferences didn't changed, so there too "Schraege
Musik" was sometime a valve, a little sign of protest.
Some very good impression of this aspect one can find (in
one of?) the best novels about a fighter pilot written in
Germany:
Rudolf Braunburg "Der verratene Himmel" (engl. translation
published afaik as "The betrayed skies")
bgr...@tpgi.com.au
Charles K. Scott wrote:
C At this point, if a fire was observed, the pilot would pull rapidly C
off to one side to avoid being hit by any falling debris or bodies C
bailing outand observed the doomed bomber to confirm it's destruction.
Which means that when a He-219 can destroy something like 7 Lancasters
in 15 minutes, the bombers either blow up fast, or the destruction isn't
carefully monitored??
Ulrich Kenter
> Just to get back to the origins of the Schrage Musik setup, and
>the debate over it being a German copy of the Japanese or vice versa.
[...]
Again a few words on that topic, but now backed up by a real
printed source!
I found some hints on that topic in THE book about german
nightfighters (technics, tactics, strategy), the only
disadvantage of the book is the lack of an register to find
a detail in that moutain of facts and data, I hope there
will be a second edition:
Gebhard Aders "Geschichte der deutschen Nachtjagd",
(History of the german nightfighters)
Motorbuchverlag Stuttgart, 1977, ISBN: 3-87943-509-X
At the pages 110 ff there are given some details. The main
"power" behind the "Schraege Musik" was Hauptmann (rank in
sommer 1942, i.e. Captian) Schonert, a night-fighter pilot
prefering the Do217, where the vertical guns were easy to
build in without aerodynamic problems. "Schraege Musik" is
called (in brackets) "his inventention", but in the next
sentence there given some hints on the origins of the
weapon.
In WWI several (german?) pilots build in slanted guns, and
in 1938 a former WWI Lt. Thiede told the
Reichsluftfahrministerium (RLM, ministry of aviation) about
his expiriences, but he found no interest. The Japanese sent
a report to the RLM, too, again it was ignored. In 1941 the
above cited Schonert wanted to build in a vertical firing
guns, because he though it was much easier for a average
pilot to pass the bomber below with higher speed (so here
might be the origin of the "strafe tactic" cited somewhere
elsein this threat).
The german standard tactic using the front guns at that
time was developed by the nightfighter Becker (see picture
in the book p.67). The nightfighter detected the bomber by
radar and / or by visual contact. Now he was several hundred
meters behind and normally a bit below the bomber. The pilot
positioned his fighter 300-600 m exactly below the bomber,
having the same speed. He started to climb and ca. 100m
below the bomber he raised the nose of the fighter, lost
speed and the bomber went into the firing range of the front
guns but the fighter still wasn't in range of the bombers
defensive weapons.
So far the theorie, that tactic needed a GOOD pilot to be
performed well. Good pilots were rare, so the germans
thought about alternatives. In 1942 Schonert was decorated
with the "Ritterkreuz" (knights cross), and as a "hero" he
again came in for experiments with vertical guns. The
Luftwaffe-experimental-site at Tarnewitz at that time made
experiments with vertical guns, too. So it was ordered to
use 3 Do217J for experiments. The nightfighter testpilot
Olt. von Lossberg made several flights with the result, that
vertical build in guns only were useful if bomber and
fighter both had exact the same direction. So they lowered
step by step to angles of 65-70 degress. With those weapons
a pilot was able to aim for a target curving with 8 degrees
/ second.
The "official" use of the Schraege Musik started in early
1943 with 4 or 6 (!) slanted 20mm-guns build in Do217 in
Schonerts former nighterfighter squadron 3. /NJG3. Schonert
himself was commander of a Me110-group and his
weapon-sergeant build in the Schraege Musik to a Me110,
ignoring the military regulations. Soon the slanted weapons
were so successful, that from mid-1943 the Ju88C-6
officially got Schraege Musik, too. The Me110-pilots had to
help themselves with irregular field-constructions much
longer, but they were successful, too.
That's it, hope it helps,
Dirk Lorek
> Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) wrote in article
> <4se44i$c...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
>
> That's not exactly how I understood it. All the descriptions of
> attacks using Schraege Muzik I've read involved careful stalking and
> painstaking aim so that a minumum of weapons firing was necessary.
> maybe all the night fighter pilots who used this weapon did not do it
> that way but all the literature I've read so far explains it in that
> fashion.
That could be right. Another possibility is that you described the
'by the book' approach. I'm not sure that the more 'careless' way
I described was more common, but I still think that the fact that SM
attacks were preferred by inexperienced pilots is right. Maybe, just
maybe, a new pilot had more difficulties or not the nerves to do it by
the book. OTOH, just the opposite can be true and it was the only approach
he had trained and knew of.
>
> A typical attack would involve being guided to the target bomber by the
> onboard radar unit. Upon visual sighting, the pilot took over and
> dropped down beneath the bomber and slowly matched speed and position.
> Once underneath, the fighter edged up to the distance at which he was
> most comfortable and carefully sighted through the gunsight on the
> canopy roof. When he was positive he was on target, he'd pull the
> trigger briefly and let off a several second burst. It did not take
> much of a burst to blow open the fuel tanks and start a fire going. At
> this point, if a fire was observed, the pilot would pull rapidly off to
> one side to avoid being hit by any falling debris or bodies bailing out
> and observed the doomed bomber to confirm it's destruction.
>
If we compare this with what I've read about the conventional way of attack with
forward armament:
First all the radar guiding stuff you described. Then, even here, the fighter
would pass the bomber underneath, pull up a bit, and fired *all* his weapons
at a point in front of the bomber so that the bomber would eventually fly through
this line of fire, preferably with its wings.
Provided that this indeed was the general approach, at least this type of
attack seems a bit more sloppy (relatively speaking when compared to the careful
stalking and painstaking aiming you described). IMO it lacked also the consideration
taken to save ammo. Actually, only the ammo-point you have read of makes no real
sense to me, I think that the environment was not that target rich, so I wonder
if preserving ammo was an important factor, with or without SM.
And, provided that it is true that SM was preferred by inexperienced pilots,
the SM-approach should have been easier than the conventional approach.
The way you have read of seems harder to me.
Well, there are a lot of 'ifs' and speculations in my argumentation.
And that the conventional attack was a bit 'careless' does not implicate that the
SM-attack was 'sloppy' too.
Dirk
Dirk Lorek
> gsmit...@aol.com (GSmith9805) wrote in article <4selfn$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
>
> There were much earlier uses of "tilted guns" than the Dolphin.
> Almost all
> Allied non-pusher types before the synchonization gears came into common
> use
> <Neuports, Sopwiths, etc..> used upper wing mounted Lewis guns that could
> be
> trained up at an angle.
>
> I'm sure this was more to facilitate reloading than as an approved
> tactic though.
> I think the Neuport 11 Bebe wins the toss as the "first", so give the nod
> to the
> French.
Somehow I think we should restrict SM-like systems to fixed mounted guns.
Otherwise, almost all defensive backward armament like the one in the Bf 110
could be called Schraege Musik. Hm, this makes me wonder, was this gun
ever used offensively against nightbombers ? Poor caliber, I know, but against
a 'fire friendly' early Wellington, I should have given it a try.
Dirk Lorek
Lee Griffin
Yeah, pretty much. The British bombers flamed pretty easily evidently.
Once a wing fire was started, I reckon the odds were heavily against
them. Why wait around when you pretty much know the heavy is doomed?
Maybe it's been pointed out already, but the poor fellows in the British
bombers were blind underneath in most instances. A stalk from underneath
had just about zero chance of detection. A stalk from the rear at least
gave the rear and mid-upper gunners a chance to spot the night fighter.
It was a while before the British even knew the true cause of many of
the Schrage Muzik shootdowns because there were few witnesses returning
to England.
Lee
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, ulrich...@uni-konstanz.de (Ulrich Kenter) says:
>> Just to get back to the origins of the Schrage Musik setup, and
>>the debate over it being a German copy of the Japanese or vice versa.
-snips-
>In WWI several (german?) pilots build in slanted guns, and
Actually, British most likely. The slanted, upward firing
guns was a common arrangement on aircraft used for anti-zeppelin
duties. As the German 'high-flyers' often flew at or above
stall altitude for the intercepting fighters, they could neither
get above the zeppelins for a diving attack nor even nose up
to attack the zeppelins with the normal forward firing machine
guns. Thus, an attack from below with upward firing guns from
a straight and level aircraft was often the only means of
engaging the airships.
Cheers,
--
Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org
"There are not enough Indians in the country to whip the Seventh Cavalry!"
-George Armstrong Custer-
David Gillon
Several of the major nightfighter aces had up to eight kills in a single
night, with ammunition the limiting factor. Hosing your ammunition about
only invites a corkscrew from your target, or retribution from his
gunners.
David
!^NavFont02F01460004HH47659C
Dirk Lorek
>
> Finally, Bekker notes that the first use of this weapon occurred during
> the famous Peenemuende Raid. Perhaps readers could review Martin
> Middlebrook's book on this raid and search for additional information on
> its use at the time. Knowing how thorough Middlebrook is, he surely must
> have commented on this. If affirmative, a posting of the relevant
> sections would be appreciated.
Middlebrook writes in his 'The Bomber Command War Diaries':
"This [Peenemuende] was the first night on which the Germans used their
new schraege Musik weapons...Two schraege Musik aircraft found the bomber
stream flying home from Peenemuende and are believed to have shot down
6 of the bombers lost on the raid."
funkraum
>Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) wrote:
[...]
>By the way, I also understand that exiting the Lancaster and other
>bombers was never an easy task, even in broad daylight and that getting
>out at night was so difficult as to seem almost criminal now.
>
If I remember correctly, the main wing spar of the Lancaster came
through the fuselage in a way which severly constrained movement
across it. It was awkward to get across it with the aircraft on the
ground and next to impossible with the aircraft plunging earthwards in
darkness.
David E. Brown
I have to apologize to the group for an error I made in a previous post
regarding the "schraege Muzik' weapon system. I originally claimed that
an account of its development was presented in Wilhelm Johnen's
autobiography, but upon reviewing it such is not the case. However, a
rather nice overview of this weapon and related methods of attack,
including a useful figure, is given in Martin Middlebrook's book "The
Nuremberg Raid" (1974, p. 70-74).
Anyway, the reference which contained the account I was searching for is
found in Cajus Bekker's "The Luftwaffe War Diaries" (1966), and the story
he relates is as follows:
"As for the 'schraege Muzik', this weapon was invented entirely in the
field, and though a number of distinguished night-fighter pilots -
including Helmut Lent, Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, and the two flying
princes, Lippe-Weissenfeld and Sayn-Wittgenstein - have been credited with
fathering the idea, the man who really did so was an N.C.O. armourer
called Paul Mahle.
"While passing through the weapons test centre at Tarnewitz, Mahle had
noticed a Do 217 bomber equipped experimentally with oblique-firing guns
to defend it from enemy fighters. The idea germinated in his mind and
left him no peace. If he could only mount cannon like these in the roof
of an Me 100, it could attack the enemy four-engined bombers from below in
their blind spot without any fear of meeting counter-fire. Though the
approach was usually made from below already, the Me 110 could only make
the ultimate attack by lining up astern and bringing its fixed,
forward-firing guns to bear. By doing so it entered the field of fire of
the enemy's quadruple tail guns. From below, moreover, the bomber
presented a much larger target and also no armour-plating. Its broad
wings carrying the heavy engines and bulky fuel tanks could be set on fire
with a minimum of hits.
"Improvising with such resources as he could find, Mahle set to work. He
anchored two 20-mm MG FF on a platform of hardwood, and mounted the
reflector sight on the roof of the cockpit. The pilots of II./NJG 5 at
Parchim, to which Mahle then belonged, at first viewed the proceedings
with distrust, but then agreed to try out the idea on operations. During
the raid on Peenemuende, on the night of August 17/18, 1843, the first two
enemy bombers were shot down by this means by Corporal Hoelker of 5.
Staffel/NJG 5. He was followed by Lieutenant Peter Erhardt of 6. Staffel,
with four victories inside thirty minutes. On October 2nd the Kommandeur,
Captain Manfred Meurer, wrote in his report: "To date II./NJG 5, using
the experimental oblique armament, has achieved eighteen victories without
loss or damage to themselves...."
"The news soon spread among other units. It seemed that a kind of life
insurance had been invented, and Paul Mahle became a much sought-after
man. He reports: "I soon had many well-known night-fighters amongst my
clients, all wanting me to fit the 'schraege Musik' to their kites."
"The inspiration of an armoury flight sergeant had led to the birth of a
new and vital weapon, whose production was finally taken over under the
auspices of the Reich Air Ministry itself. Mahle received a written
testimonial and 500 Marks as an inventor's fee. By 1944 there were few
night-fighters still flying without the weapon, and the tally of enemy
bombers that suddenly burst into flames without their crews knowing what
had hit them constantly mounted. (pp. 338-339)
Obviously, Bekker had access to primary source documents as well as the
personal recollections of flight crews and others. No doubt that such a
story was well known within the Nachtjaegern, and it is quite probable
that it was published in the Luftwaffe's own magazine "Der Adler". Can
anyone confirm this?
Finally, Bekker notes that the first use of this weapon occurred during
the famous Peenemuende Raid. Perhaps readers could review Martin
Middlebrook's book on this raid and search for additional information on
its use at the time. Knowing how thorough Middlebrook is, he surely must
have commented on this. If affirmative, a posting of the relevant
sections would be appreciated.
(Special thanks to Steve Slade for dusting the cobwebs out Dad's memory!)
Cited References:
Bekker, C., 1966: "The Luftwaffe War Diaries", Macdonald & Company, Ltd.,
London, 399 p. (First published in the German language in 1964 under the
title "Angriffshoehe 4000" by Gerhard Stalling Verlag, Hamburg. Also
published in paperback in 1969 (and later?) by Ballantine Books, Inc. New
York (Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-19007)).
Johnen, Wilhelm, 1957: "Duel Under the Stars", William Kimber & Company,
Ltd., London, 202 p. (reprinted in 1969). (SBN 7183-0401-2)
(Also published in paperback by Corgi Books, England, 197?).
Middlebrook, M., 1974: "The Nuremberg Raid", William Morrow & Company,
Inc. New York, 369 p. (ISBN: 0-688-02873-X)
Cheers und Horrido,
David
Ulrich Kenter
bgr...@tpgi.com.au wrote (Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:04:43 +1100):
>Charles K. Scott wrote:
>>C At this point, if a fire was observed, the pilot would pull rapidly C
>>off to one side to avoid being hit by any falling debris or bodies C
>>bailing outand observed the doomed bomber to confirm it's destruction.
>Which means that when a He-219 can destroy something like 7 Lancasters
>in 15 minutes, the bombers either blow up fast, or the destruction isn't
>carefully monitored??
Nightfighters tried to hit the wing-tanks or the motors,
usually resulting in a burning plane, very good to see and
visual to follow at night. It was reported, that the burning
planes sometime were to detect over 30 km in clear nights.
The crash of the burning bomber usually happend very fast,
the poor boys inside were lucky if the plane was in level
flight long enough to bail out.
The bomber usually came down on german (occupied)
territories, so the ground crews could easily verify the
claimes.
So long, Ulrich
Charles K. Scott
In article <01bb732e.cbba61a0$3565...@Swipnet.mailbox.swipnet.se>
"Dirk Lorek" <DiL...@pobox.com> writes:
> First all the radar guiding stuff you described. Then, even here, the fighter
> would pass the bomber underneath, pull up a bit, and fired *all* his weapons
> at a point in front of the bomber so that the bomber would eventually fly through
> this line of fire, preferably with its wings.
I disagree. My opinion, based on what I've read over the years is that
the German night fighters flew at virtually the same speed as the
bomber and lifted the nose and aimed meticulously. They simply did not
have the ammo to just shoot in front of the airplane and rake the
bomber from stem to stern. They posessed the capability and gunsight
to manage to aim and hit what they were aiming at without spraying
rounds generally all over.
> Actually, only the ammo-point you have read of makes no real
> sense to me, I think that the environment was not that target rich, so I wonder
> if preserving ammo was an important factor, with or without SM.
Not target rich? How many bombers do you have to see in one place
before you consider the target environment to be "rich"? The British
massed 800 to 1000 bombers and more during late 1943 and 1944 and
attempted to send them through the Kammhuber belt in as densely packed
a group as was physically possible in order to overwhelm the
intercepters and the flack belts. With that many bombers in the sky,
you don't think that was a target rich environment? It was the most
bombers put into the sky for several years until the US managed it in
late 1944. Maybe I'm missunderstanding your point?
Corky Scott
Miles or Lorraine Constable
In article <01bb735f.275cc860$206c...@Swipnet.mailbox.swipnet.se>,
DiL...@pobox.com says...
>> I'm sure this was more to facilitate reloading than as an approved
This actually has little to do with SM, but just to be picky the French
did not invent the Foster mount that allowed the pulling down of a Lewis
gun mounted over the top wing of a Nie.11, The Foster Mount was invented
by an Englishman (named Foster, oddly enough).
Just to keep the record straight.
One English company (Gloster possibly) did try to build a dedicated
anti-bomber aircraft between the wars using an upward pointing 30 mm COW
gun (I don't recall what COW stands for, it isn't related to bovine). The
plane was a pusher and has to be the ugliest on record. It wasn't built,
but it shows that some of the English hadn't forgot their lessons from
WWI.
Miles Constable
mcon...@access.awinc.com
Dirk Lorek
> Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) wrote in
> article <4siomg$6...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
>
> Not target rich? How many bombers do you have to see in one place
> before you consider the target environment to be "rich"? The British
> massed 800 to 1000 bombers and more during late 1943 and 1944 and
> attempted to send them through the Kammhuber belt in as densely packed
> a group as was physically possible in order to overwhelm the
> intercepters and the flack belts. With that many bombers in the sky,
> you don't think that was a target rich environment? It was the most
> bombers put into the sky for several years until the US managed it in
> late 1944. Maybe I'm missunderstanding your point?
No, you don't. Your mentioning of the Kammhuber line actually is a
good example.
You forget that it was dark. The nightfighter was blind. British
bombers could not defend each other, because no one saw nothing. And
a bomber stream was not really a kind of formation, its size
was still about 240 x 10 km.
Without radar guiding the fighter saw this: zero, no, nil, null, nada
targets.
With radar guiding, the bomber was plotted with one Wuerzbug Riese, the
fighter was guided with another. Eventually the bomber *could* come in
range of the fighters Lichtenstein radar.
*If* the plotting succeeded, the fighter experienced this: one and only
one target. Otherwise still nada. Not target rich.
Before the bomberstream, British pilots could chose their way freely
to the target. The Kammhuber line was passed by the bombers on many
locations and occasions. Result: many bombers and nightfighters could be
plotted. After the bomberstream was introduced, formations of 10 or more
bombers passed the Kammhuber line simultaneously at one place,
the German ground radar suddenly had a lot of targets, but still, only
one bomber and one fighter could be plotted at a time by a ground
station. So, the environment was indeed target rich for the
radar stations, but only for a short period, for the fighter there
was no difference, he still could only attack one target a time. The
bomberstream was a British countermeasure, so overall, the environment
became less target rich than before.
I think you agree that nightbombing was safer for the bombers than
daylightbombing. Why ? They were harder to find, or in other words,
the environment for the interceptors was not as target rich as on
daytime. See also the numbers of air victories by the best
German aces. The best daytime pilots achieved 200 - 350 air victories
the colleges from the nightfighter arm achieved lesser than the
half of this, despite the fact that they used long range fighters
and in this way were airborne much longer than their daytime colleges.
Dirk
_______________________________________________________________________
What am I, Life ? A thing of watery salt, held in cohesion by unresting
cells, which work they know not why, which never halt, myself unwitting
where their Master dwells. - John Masefield -
> Corky Scott
>
>
Brian Jones
In article <4s95kv$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fred...@aol.com (Fredfaxx)
wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> >You're missing the point. There were plenty of Allied night ops for the
> >Japanese to worry about and develope defenses against long before the
> >massive B-29 raids. Jeez! Read the posts and think in context.
>
> Fuck you dickhead. It's you that is unable to think in context. You
> haven't got the balls to even print your name so fuck off back under
> whatever rock you crawled out from under.
>
> Mark
Well Mark, you do have a short fuse as well as being semi-anonymous. All
you have done by using such language is make yourself look silly,
detracting from any serious points you might make. You also give
ammunition to those who are trying to censor the internet. So when
someone like "Anonymous" offends you just ignore him/her. It's very easy.
--
Email jo...@vi.rl.ac.uk (Brian Jones)
Dirk Lorek
> da...@quadrped.demon.co.uk (David Gillon) wrote in article
> <0996062405464...@quadrped.demon.co.uk>...
There a 2 possibilities:
a) the 8 bombers were shot down within a short period of time. In that
case I bet that the pilot experienced exceptional visual conditions,
(full moon, no clouds or over a burning city)
b) the 8 bombers were shot down within a longer period of time. In that
case, I bet that the ace saw, say 12 bombers during a 4 hours flight
and, ace as he was, managed to shot down 8 of them.
In the first case, we have exceptional conditions, that doesn't count.
In the second case, the fighter encountered on average 3 bombers per
hour. That's not what I call a target rich environment. BTW, after 8 kills
he was out of ammo of course, who wouldn't.
Well, aces are exceptional too aren't they. We were discussing if the
environment at night was target rich in general and that it wasn't. That's
why the British flew at night in the first place. Face it guys, the average
pilot was lucky to find himself a bomber. And if he did, he didn't feel the
need to save ammo, he sprayed the bastard all over just to make things sure.
When the pilot saw the tracers coming from below, the bomber would pass
through the line of fire within seconds. Too late for a corkscrew I think.
The corkscrew was useful if the rear gunner detected the approaching
fighter or if the fighter had been detected by Boozer or Monica.
And now I already can feel the flames coming... :-)
David, do you have a more detailed description of the intercept ?
Would be a very interesting read.
Dirk
_______________________________________________________________________
What am I, Life ? A thing of watery salt, held in cohesion by unresting
cells, which work they know not why, which never halt, myself unwitting
where their Master dwells. - John Masefield -
>
> David
>
> !^NavFont02F01460004HH47659C
>
>
Paul J. Adam
In article <4skgi3$c...@kryten.awinc.com>, Miles or Lorraine Constable
<mcon...@access.awinc.com> writes
>One English company (Gloster possibly) did try to build a dedicated
>anti-bomber aircraft between the wars using an upward pointing 30 mm COW
>gun (I don't recall what COW stands for, it isn't related to bovine).
Coventry Ordnance Works, IIRC.
Charles K. Scott
In article <01bb74c4.23134ca0$0267...@Swipnet.mailbox.swipnet.se>
"Dirk Lorek" <DiL...@pobox.com> writes:
> We were discussing if the
> environment at night was target rich in general and that it wasn't. That's
> why the British flew at night in the first place. Face it guys, the average
> pilot was lucky to find himself a bomber. And if he did, he didn't feel the
> need to save ammo, he sprayed the bastard all over just to make things sure.
I don't understand your point. 1,000 bombers generally in one place
over Germany is what I call a target rich environment, not poor. A
poor target environment is one in which you are lucky to see any
targets. The Germans KNEW when the bombers were raiding so if they
managed to find the stream they had all kinds of targets to hit.
>
> When the pilot saw the tracers coming from below, the bomber would pass
> through the line of fire within seconds. Too late for a corkscrew I think.
> The corkscrew was useful if the rear gunner detected the approaching
> fighter or if the fighter had been detected by Boozer or Monica.
You say this as if the night fighters all used tracers but the
information I have is that most of the Shraege Musik equipped pilots
chose not to use tracers so they would not be detected. Some did, no
question but many did not. Anyway, I think you missunderstand the
nature of the typical Schraege Musik attack. The attacking airplane
did not cruise by underneath with his finger on the trigger. That
would have been wasteful of ammo and could expose the fighter to other
bombers near by.
>
> And now I already can feel the flames coming... :-)
>
> David, do you have a more detailed description of the intercept ?
> Would be a very interesting read.
I've already posted a typical attack several times before but it was
such an interesting process I'll be happy to do it again.
Typically, when a bombing raid was suspected by radio intercept, the
night fighters were put on alert. When night fell and the first of the
bomber stream was detected, the fighters were launched and usually told
to orbit one of several radio beacons.
From this position they would be directed to the bomber stream or sent
to another location where they would be redirected. Once near the
bomber stream, the control went to the onboard radar operator who
searched for targets. When he found one, he coached the pilot to the
target giving him courses and letting him know if the target was higher
or lower than the fighter.
When they got close enough to the bomber, the pilot would sight it
visually and the radar operator's homing operation wasn't needed
anymore. Needless to say, the better the visibility, the worse things
were for the bombers.
Now that the pilot could see the bomber, he would loose altitude to the
point where he was far enough below the bomber that he could remain in
visual contact but would be very difficult for the bomber gunners to
spot. From this position, the fighter would ease forward until it was
almost directly underneath the bomber whereupon the pilot would add
power and ease back on the stick, climbing directly up from below.
When the fighter had risen to the point where it was at the normal
firing distance (which may have been quite close), the pilot would
reduce power and level out. At this point it was flying formation with
the bomber, directly underneath. The pilot would sight up through the
gunsight on the top of the canopy and maneuver the fighter until the
wingtanks were centered in the gunsight. At that point he would open
fire for a few seconds and observe the results.
The results usually were that the fuel tanks were ruptured and a blaze
had started so the fighter could now move off to one side so that he
was not hit by any debris when the fire got bigger or if the wing blew
off in an explosion.
This is the way I think most of the Schraege Musik interceptions
occured rather than the method you describe of hosing the underside of
the bomber with fire as it cruises by underneath.
Corky Scott
Howard of Effingham
In article <4sgfb5$e...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>,
David Brown <David...@uwoadmin.uwo.ca> wrote:
>bgr...@tpgi.com.au wrote:
>>Which means that when a He-219 can destroy something like 7 Lancasters
>>in 15 minutes, the bombers either blow up fast, or the destruction isn't
>>carefully monitored??
>
it would have had several chances too you know.
ever tried flying near the main force if say a mix of 400+ heavy bombers
are in the air and are going to drop bombs in _YOUR_ backyard.
you couldn't miss, particularly if fitted with upward firing cannon.
btw, the He219 was a vastly underrated a/c. afaik it was the very first
production nightfighter fitted with ejector seats for the two man crew,
was very fast and quite manoueverable in the air, as well as being heavily
armed.
t.
==============================================================================
Trevor Williams |
| But if the while I think on thee, dear friend,
| All losses are restored and sorrows end.
|
| William Shakespeare - Sonnet XXIX
==============================================================================
Charles K. Scott
In article <01bb7473.69bee5c0$9267...@Swipnet.mailbox.swipnet.se>
"Dirk Lorek" <DiL...@pobox.com> writes:
> I think you agree that nightbombing was safer for the bombers than
> daylightbombing.
I'm not sure I do agree with this. My impression is that Bomber
Command suffered a casualty rate second only to the German U-Boat
crews. I don't have the facts sitting right in front of me so for the
moment this has to remain an impression only and should be taken as
such. Perhaps this high casualty rate is a result of the length of
time Bomber Command was in action rather than the actual danger of
their operations.
Corky Soctt
David Brown
All I wanted to know was when did a HE219 shoot down 7 Lancasters in 15
minutes. I did not say it couldn't be done.
t...@coventry.ac.uk (Howard of Effingham) wrote:
>ever tried flying near the main force if say a mix of 400+ heavy bombers
>are in the air and are going to drop bombs in _YOUR_ backyard.
>
>you couldn't miss, particularly if fitted with upward firing cannon.
>
Dave Brown <David...@uwoadmin.uwo.ca>
Paul J. Adam
In article <4svr7f$6...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, "Charles K. Scott"
<Charles...@dartmouth.edu> writes
>I'm not sure I do agree with this. My impression is that Bomber
>Command suffered a casualty rate second only to the German U-Boat
>crews. I don't have the facts sitting right in front of me so for the
>moment this has to remain an impression only and should be taken as
>such. Perhaps this high casualty rate is a result of the length of
>time Bomber Command was in action rather than the actual danger of
>their operations.
Partly it was that most Bomber Command crews didn't have "tours" the way
US crews did: my grandfather flew something like sixty missions before
he became the first name in the list of Guinea Pig Club members (Jan
Adamcyzk, in case anyone has a copy of the book).
While US daylight crews faced heavy risks, they did so for fewer
missions (larger population base and more crews available, no slight
intended to the 8th Air Force).
David Gillon
In article <01bb74c4.23134ca0$0267...@Swipnet.mailbox.swipnet.se>,
From "Dirk Lorek" <DiL...@pobox.com>, the following was written:
> David, do you have a more detailed description of the intercept ?
> Would be a very interesting read.
I'm currently reading 'The Other Battle: Luftwaffe Night Aces versus
Bomber Command', by Peter Hinchliffe, published by Airlife. Lots of
anecdotal evidence from both sides.
David
funkraum
>Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) wrote:
[...]
>I'm not sure I do agree with this. My impression is that Bomber
>Command suffered a casualty rate second only to the German U-Boat
>crews. I don't have the facts sitting right in front of me so for the
>moment this has to remain an impression only and should be taken as
>such.
This is correct.