Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

Hello One & All,

In trying to reconcile eyewitness accounts by RAF aircrew over the night skies of Europe during late-1944/1945, I am wondering if the Luftwaffe ever experimented with Jet-Assisted-Take-Off (JATO)?

A number of seperate accounts concern night-time occurrances were an airfield was seen to be lit up as bombers passed nearby, and an object, visible by either a light or glowing exhaust plume, was seen to take-off and climb at high speed. Most of the crews prescribed these phenomena as 'Me163s', but were (rightly) scoffed at by the Intelligence officers upon return (note - the RAF Bomber Command HQ did not officially accept any night-time air combat claims against a jet- or rocket-propelled aircraft).

For the most part, I would explain many of the phenomena reported by RAF Bomber Command crews as jet- and rocket-propelled aircraft during late-1944/1945 period as either ground- or air-launched signals munitions, but the occurances reported as take-offs from lit-up airfields are a bit harder to explain.

Cheers

Rod

Re: Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

JATO is actually rocket assisted take off (RATO) and does not use a jet. I have seen several videos of Heinkel He 111s, Me 321s (glider) and Me 323 Gigants, and Arado Ar 234s using rockets to assist the take off since they were heavily laden with equipment in the case of transports and bombs in the case of the He 111 and Ar 234. The rockets were jettisoned upon using up the fuel and used parachutes for the descent so they could be reused.

Re: Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

Technically a rocket motor is a jet, as it obtains thrust from the jet of gases from the exhaust. It is not a turbojet, which is what you meant. The terms JATO and RATO are used interchangeably, but JATO is a bit more euphonious.

Re: Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

There was also a capability on Ju 88s using Walter Rocket pods. Ednorth if he is out there can probably supply more info.

Re: Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

Even the Bv138 could use the pods.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2...21/RATO001.jpg





Image from " German Maritime Aircraft " by Bryan Philpott, published by AZTEC Corporation. 1981

Re: Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

Rod,

The Me 262's of Kdo Schenk have used this equipment to take-off from Volkel in september 1944. About 10 years ago rockets used by a plane of Kdo Schenk have been found and one of them is on display in the museum "The Typhoon", the historical room of Volkel Air Base.

Jaap

Re: Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

Has anyone not considered these "lit up airfields" might possibly be bogus ones, to distract from real ones´s? Anternatively searchlights might possibly have been used to illuminate fields for brief moments, perhaps enabling single seather or twin engine fighters to "scramble" in shortest possible time (Alarmstart) or even enabling night flights - training flights - to land quickly, in trying avoiding intruders or enemy night-fighters sweeping along bomber streams. I dopt RATO packs were used much by Bf 110´s or Ju 88´s in night defence of the Reich in winter 1944/1945. At least it whould require a whole lot of rockets to light up a whole field. I do not remember reading about such use. Walter RATO packs were used by the new jets (Me 262 & Ar 234) and heavily laden Torpedo carrying Ju 88 A-4 LT or A-17´s, taking off from short fields. My two pennies.

Re: Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

Thank you for all the informative replies.

I should clarify that in the descriptions I have read, the airfields were not lit up by the 'rockets', rather some sort of lighting was seen and an airfield was identified by the RAF crews.

My question was prompted by a veteran account (of an event that occurred on 14-15 February 1945) in a Bomber Command Association newsletter from the nineties, which, while clear in its description of the incident, clearly reflects how aircrew at that time rationalised the phenomena that they saw: "...the mid-upper gunner...said that a runway had just been illuminated to port and ahead. He then reported a jet aircraft taking off, going into a left-hand circuit and climbing rapidly. It was obviously being vectored on to us and the gunners instructions were followed by...the pilot. On the order 'Corkscrew, starboard, go', the mid-upper fired a short burst and the fighter exploded. All the nine crew witnessed this as we carried two pilots and a mid-under. With the adrenalin still flowing, we made our report at debriefing, which was met with indifference and a kill was not confirmed!" (note - a common theme to many of the mis-sightings and subsequent claims by Bomber Command crews was the exploding of the alleged fighter soon after a short burst had been fired at it, and, in many cases, the exploding of the alleged fighter even when no fire at been directed at it. The veteran concerned does not seem to be aware of the reasons why the claim was not treated as an air combat kill against an aircraft)

Anyway, the jet/rocket "scare" within Bomber Command began in early November 1944 and continued for much of the remainder of the war. It became every bit as much of a myth as the use of 'scarecrows'. 34 jets/rockets were claimed destroyed at night in November 1944 by RAF BC crews, the majority of these occurring on two nights - 2-3 and 4-5 November. In assessing the claims and the sightings, BCHQ rightly dismissed the claims as not being against aircraft; they were aware via intelligence that the Luftwaffe could not be using so many Me262s at night and were rightfully doubtful on the deployment of the Me163 at night. BCHQ did soon after institute a procedure whereby all jet/rocket sightings were to be reported by returning crews, along with clear descriptions of what was seen, including the colour and characteristics of the exhaust plume.

Among the claimed sightings in November 1944, for example, were:

1-2 Nov, Amsterdam/Schipol, Single jet a/c taking off. Climbed to 5000'. Appeared to do climbs & dives over airfield (reported by a Mosquito night fighter crew).

4-5 Nov, 52 08 N, 06 29 E, A/F lit up and 3 jet a/c seen taking off, short bursts of whitish yellow flame rising at an angle of 60-70°

4-5 Nov, 52 22 N, 07 50 E, 2 Me163 seen taking off (ACHMER)

As can be seen, often the statements were more interpretations of what was seen, rather than pure descriptions of the visual phenomena.

I, for one, would prescribe the above occurrances as probably being signals munitions, but had to explore the RATO angle to be sure (any such use by night fighters of RATO would surely have been uncovered by now). Even if RATO could have enabled night fighters to climb at the speeds claimed by the RAF crews, I would have thought that such flying characteristics (very high speed climb of an aircraft not originally designed for such high speeds) would have been inherently dangerous at night. Ditto for the use of the Me163 at night; surely the risk of disorientation at high speed would have been great, giving the pilot little opportunity to do anything other than keep his eyes glued to the flying instruments.

Cheers & Thanks

Rod

Re: Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

One thing I dislike about the internet is the speculation. Or "Of course, it means this or that." Why not more research or simply writing, "Without further information, it's a mystery."?

Obviously, the RAF crews saw something and described it as best they could. These were not interpretations at all. And if the conclusion drawn was jets or something similar, why dismiss that? Poor detective work here.

8 February 1944, Rocket Phenomena. Report in AIR 14/2076.

"Reports by aircrews suggesting the use by the enemy of some form of anti-aircraft rocket projectile have been received many times during the past year, and with increasing frequency during recent months. Observations have often been characterized by a visible trace and many of the reports have referred to changes of course enabling the rocket to follow in the path of the aircraft under attack."

Since the RAF had no evidence of maneuverable rockets employed by the Germans, the reports were dismissed as something else.



Ed

Re: Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?
 

Hi Ed,

thanks for the comments.

I will respectfully disagree with your comments on speculation. In fact, I have researched at a documentary level and continue to research the Bomber Command side of the reporting of these various phenomena in the late war period, including the actual descriptions by crews, the BCHQ investigation and response, and to a limited extent, looking at what the phenomena could possibly have been.

The main point is that the RAF crews believed them to be jet or rocket aircraft, primarily the Me262 and Me163, and in the vast majority of cases, this just wasn't so (unless, of course, you have some evidence to the contrary - loss lists of aircraft destroyed for even a small percentage of the RAF claims, Luftwaffe operational records, Luftwaffe first-hand accounts, post-war intelligence investigations - please let me know).

BCHQ quickly established several common threads evident in the reporting and the claims by the RAF crews. Among these, as I have clearly pointed out, was the number of claims where the object seen simply exploded in the air with or without being fired at. Another was that the crews, except in a small few cases, when further pressed by intelligence officers, admitted not actually seeing an aircraft or outline of an aircraft (even although they may have reported an Me262 or Me163), instead seeing lights moving across the sky. If seeing a light and reporting it as this or that type of aircraft is not intrepretation, then please tell me what is.

Ed, you have referred to the 8 February 1944 report, and this subject (i.e. rocket projectiles) was again brought up during the November 1944 investigation by the BCHQ. In fact, the conclusions by that Command after the large number of reports from early November were:

"While it is possible that the enemy may be experimenting in a small way with the use of his jet and rocket propelled aircraft by night, the weight of evidence suggests that the phenomenon that is being reported is an expendable projectile other than an aircraft." (TNA AIR 40/256)

By the way, as a counterpoint to the Rocket Phenomena report, Bomber Command Intelligence Report No. 4661 was prepared on 31 March 1945, and this report acknowledged the bomber crew reports of "'jet aircraft' and wingless missiles," and described a range of German missiles known to be in existence via captured documents - the Hs.293, Hs.298, the X-4, and the Hs.117.

Thus, the original purpose of my question in this thread was to find information on the likelihood of RATO being used. This is so that such a possibility could be considered along side the actual use of jet aircraft at night, the increased use of signals munitions (to indicate the position and the course of the bomber stream), V1 or V2 trails, and the use air- and/or ground-launched self-propelled munitions (as you've pointed out, there were plenty of crew reports indicating that they were followed by lights that could change course).

Cheers

Rod