How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

I have seen accounts that suggest the effectiveness of Schrage Musik gun installations on a variety of night fighters was exaggerated. To the casual observer, the upward-firing device looks deadly and suggests that it was a piece of cake to fly under a Lancaster and blow it away, but I wonder...

Some have written that the installations were heavy and were often stripped out in the field, others have said that they had the unfortunate side effect of firing at an angle (typically 65 degrees, I think) that led to the attacking aircraft being hit by pieces of the bomber. They should have fired vertically, it has been suggested.

What is the truth of the matter? Was Schrage Musik deadly and effective, or did it look better than it actually was?

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

I'm no expert on this installation, but I did talk to Guenther Bahr about it over dinner many years ago. He left no doubt as to the efficacy of this device in the right hands.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

As I see it, it was deadly and effective when it was introduced. Allied aircrew often reported explosions of unknown source then, since they didn't see the fighter. Later, when this type of weapon became known to them, they knew what to watch out for and how to evade, so efficency and deadlyness might have decreased. And of course, flying just below an allied bomber and causing the bomb load to go off by hitting it with incendiary ammo would cause some trouble to the german Nachtjäger...

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

In engineering terms, the installation of long guns vertically into a shallow fuselage, whilst ensuring feed mechanisms and low drag, doesn't seem achievable. In flying terms, aiming directly upwards wouldn't be particularly easy, nor maintaining formation on a bomber that could be carrying out unpredictable changes of direction. Both are much easier with the fighter positioned a little behind. Sometimes idealised theories don't work out for good practical reasons.

I suspect the choice of angle came from trials, and it is what it is because that worked best.

As for its success, I think that would need a good statistical study which, if it exists, I haven't seen. However the more successful fighter pilots seem to have favoured it, which is a fairly strong hint.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

All of the He-219s that flew in 1./NJG 1, the only squadron to be fully equipped with that aircraft, had their Schrage Musik guns removed. They weren't worth the weight penalty,the pilots apparently decided.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

I understand the angle was chosen after studying the movement of the pilot's head that was needed to keep track of both his instruments and the target: tilting his head all the way back was a no-no in night flying.

Bruce

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

Are you able to back this claim up with data or documents?
Would be more logical to remove the underfuselage weapons bay than the SM guns.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

Actually (AFAIK), the angle of the guns (about 60-65 degrees) was choosen as this proved to offer the least risk of debris from the target hitting the attacking night fighter.

The actual aiming of the guns was done using a separate Revi 16 A-N sight: this was usually mounted in the upper part of the canopy, slightly above and in front of the pilot.
During an attack using the S/M, the pilot of the night fighter didn’t actually look straight up at the target, but instead taking aim through the mentioned Revi 16 A-N sight.

It can be worth noting that the weight of the S/M (2 x MK108 w. 100 rounds each) in the He 219 was enough to prevent full use of all four weapon stations in the fuselage tray: when S/M was fitted to the He 219, the two rearmost (centre) under fuselage guns had to be removed in order to keep the total weight down, as well as to not upset the aircraft centre of gravity.
Each MK108 with 100 rounds weighed roughly the same as one MG151/20 with 300 rounds (standard ammunition load for the He 219).

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

I disagree. However useful against slow heavy bombers, the SM installation would be totally useless against Allied night fighters in the stream, or for intercepting fast Mosquito night bombers. Whether that was a factor in their removal in this particular case I cannot say, but the belly guns are more flexible operationally.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

He 219 had more than sufficient forward armament, even the 2x20mm gun in wing roots were sufficient, no need for four more. The 219 wasn't fast enough to catch Mosquitoes or night fighters and their main target were bombers anyway.

He 219 weapons manual does neither mention weight or CoG issues for removal of the center bay guns. Judging from the manual Section IIB the MK 108 uses the attachment points of the center bay guns.

For weight calculation one needs to add 2x compressed air bottles required for the MK 108.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

Excellent clarification, Denniss! I stand corrected (and I also totally missed the attachment point issue).

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

Hello guys,

Some remarks:
1./NJG 1 was indeed a squadron as part of the I./NJG 1 (in German: a Gruppe, more or less comparable to a wing). It was the Gruppe I./NJG 1 which converted to the He219 since March 1944. As 'Denniss' said: would love to see any documentary evidence for the statement about the removed MK108's. There were He219's of the I./NJG 1 with no SM installation, I don't contradict this but it was not a common practice to remove SM installations as a habit.

However, Denniss is wrong about the statement that He219's were not fast enough to catch Mosquito's: comparing the max.speeds of both the Mosquito and He219 may prove him right, but the fact is that the I./NJG 1 is the best scoring nightfighter Gruppe against Mosquito's. I have 9 acknowledged victories recorded. Not an overwhelming number that shifts the fortunes of war, but exceptionally because the Ju88 en Bf110 equipped units could not match this number. Until the Me262 arrived, the He219 was the sole type that had a chance to catch a Mosquito.
The diaries and recollections of pilots/Bordfunker, the Kriegstagebuch of the I./NJG 1 and Heinkel documents show that catching a Mosquito was very difficult, even for the He219's with skilled crews.

Marcel

All the best, Marcel

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

They might have had a chance with the A-2 or A-7 but likely either with stripped-down armament/armor or reduced fuel to catch loaded Mosquitoes - no chance vs unloaded flies on their return leg. The 219 was just too heavy with full fuel/armament and lacked alt performance in the A-0 to catch them.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

I don't think that's true. I'm looking at a photo of the 30mm Schrage Musik unit out of an He-219 Uhu, including two guns and ammunition containers and feed mechanisms, and though I'm guesstimating measurements, the breech block/receiver units seem to be about 2.5 feet long with two-foot-long barrels. From the bottom end of the receivers to the floor of the aircraft seems to be about 1.5 feet, so inclining the guns from 65 to 90 degrees would still allow plenty of clearance at the bottom and probably extend the barrels several inches out into the slipstream at the top. Or move the entire gun down several inches, get the guns entirely out of the slipstream and still have plenty of clearance at the bottom.

These were pretty short "long guns."

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/arch...inkel%20AG.htm
http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/arch...bewaffnung.pdf

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

I can't comment on the engineering technicalities but this thread caught my eye because I recently watched a documentary on UT and a veteran nightfighter pilot was talking about just how devastating Schrage Musik was in one particular victory of his. The Lancaster blew up above him after only a few dozen rounds and his aircraft (Ju88 I think he said) was thrown onto it's back, suffered considerable damage and he was blinded for several minutes afterwards but managed to make an emergency landing.

By the look on his face when describing all of this, I have no reason to think he was lying.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

He must have missed the usual target - the wings - and hit the bombs in the fuselage instead.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

For my opinion the bombs in the fuselage must not been the cause. The arming vanes of the bomb pistols was secured with a arming wires. This wires was removed in the moment of dropping the bombs. Before this the bombs were uncritical. The main cause was exploding fuel and in connection with burning TI's and INC's. Note the much UXB´s after aircraft crash.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

22 mm cannon shell exploding in a bomb will do the trick fused or not.

Re: How effective was Schrage Musik?
 

Dear Dennis,

The first Mosquito-kill by a He219 of the I./NJG 1 was in the night of 6/7 May 1944: this was a He219A-0. The next 9 Mosquito's were also shot down by He219A-0's, the last Mosquito fell in the night of 18/19 July 1944.

The first maiden flight of a He219A-2 (Werkenr. 290002) was on 15th July 1944 at Rostock, two days later the same aircraft made another flight at Rostock to check the communication equipment. On paper the A-2 and A-7 might have had better chances against Mosquito's, documentary evidence shows that the I./NJG 1 had no further Mosquito-kills despite a very few A-2 deliveries late July 1944 and a first A-7 delivery late December 1944...

Best regards, Marcel