Did the Luftwaffe ever experiment with JATO?

[edNorth]

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.

[RodM]

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

[edwest]

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

[RodM]

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

[Jaap Woortman]

Originally Posted by RodM

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°
Rod

Strange, Schiphol/Amsterdam was completely demolished in September/Oktober 1944 by the Germans.
After finishing the destruction it was not possible to use it for operational aircraft and certainly not by jet-aircraft.

52 08 N, 06 29 E is a location close to Fliegerhorst Twente.

Jaap

[RodM]

Hi Jap,

thanks for the comments, and the confirmation that Schiphol was not in use.

Are the very high numbers of reported sightings on 2-3 and 4-5 November linked to some kind of large scale event or series of events that were witnessed for the first time? I mean this in the sense that BC crews occasionally reported "jet and rocket" phenomena during the period, but then on these two nights the number of sightings reported "went through the roof." The questions become why was there a dramatic increase in sightings and was there any event or events that occurred to account for these sightings?

On 1-2 November, there were some eight reported sightings, resulting in claims of 1 'Me262', 1 'Me163' and 1 'jet a/c' destroyed. Besides the reported sighting at Schiphol, another sighting was reported in the area of Almere-Lelystad (said to be moving NW); two sightings (and claims for a 'jet a/c' and a 'Me163' destroyed) were reported slightly north and east of Weert, apparently on the Allied side of the front lines; two sightings at Koeln/just east of Koeln; one sighting near Simmern, and; an isolated sighting just south of Luebeck.

On 2-3 November, there were at least twenty reported sightings, resulting in claims of 5 'Me262s or Me163s' destroyed. The locations of these prescribed an arc that began over Allied-controlled territory between Antwerpen-Turnhout-Eindhoven-Helmond, continued into German-controlled territory between Venlo-Krefeld-Duesseldorf-Leverkusen-Dueren, and finally continued back into Allied-controlled territory between Aachen-S. of Verviers-Durbuy.

On 4-5 November, there were at least forty-eight reported sightings, resulting, according to a BCHQ minute of 5/11/44, in 34 'combats', and claims of 18 'jet a/c' & 3 'Me163s' destroyed, and 3 'jet a/c' damaged. The locations for the majority of these sightings prescribed an arc between Lelystad-Zwolle-NE. of Almelo-area between Hopsten and Achmer airfields (6 sightings)-area between Ladbergen and the canal (5 tightly grouped sightings)-Muenster. The sightings then branched off over the Ruhr according to the course of the particular bomber stream. One group was between Wesel-Dinslaken-Recklinghausen, and the other between Hagen-Wuppertal-Dueren and into Allied controlled territory between Aachen-S. of Verviers-Durbuy.

As can be seen, the sightings also occurred over Allied-controlled territory.

Thre were a further two reported sightings of jet/rocket phenomena on 5-6 November, twelve on 6-7 November, one on 8-9 November, three on 10-11 November (including two that involved phenomena that could change course in relation to the reporting aircraft), and six on 11-12 November. To the best of my knowledge, the number of sightings on one night never again reached the levels of 2-3 and 4-5 November.

Regards

Rod

[edwest]

An Me-262 variant given the designation Interzeptor I was built "with two Jumo 004 turbojets and a Walter R-II/211 rocket engine with 1,700 kp takeoff thrust. An altitude of 12,000 meters could be reached in 4.5 minutes. (On one flight, the prototype was able to reach 8,000 m in three minutes)."

Source: The History of German Aviation, Willy Messerschmitt: Pioneer of Aviation Design, by Hans J. Ebert/Johann B. Kaiser/Klaus Peters. Published by Schiffer Publishing.

I think, at this point, it would be reasonable to prepare a list of all possibilities based on the reports. The Germans were very good at disguising damage and the idea of an airfield in such an area is not out of the question. I propose the following:

1) An unmanned Me-262 fitted with a guidance system and rocket propulsion under test in actual combat conditions.
2) An unmanned Me-163 operating in the same role.
3) A missile designed to resemble, or using actual Me-262 or Me-163 airframes, filled with explosives, rocket propelled and with a guidance system.

As to the type of guidance, I suggest the Freya-Langlatte/Erstling. This was developed for use with the A-4/V-2.





Ed

[RodM]

Hi Ed,

thanks for the very interesting information.

How easy would such remotely piloted aircraft be to control at night and would the Germans be likely to test them close to the front lines?

I've attached images of the plots of sightings and claims from the nights of 2-3 and 4-5 November 1944. The time of the sighting/claim is given and sightings are marked with a triangle, claimed with a star. The blue areas are Allied controlled territory.

Cheers

Rod

[edwest]

In order to find a reasonable explanation, a few thoughts. Prior to the development of a guided missile, for example, regular aircraft are sometimes used to test components, guidance and so on. The Enzian was based on the Me-163 design. It was controlled by a joystick from the ground. This does not rule out additional help from ground radar as well.

Along with radar guidance, the fiery exhaust would be visible at night. After reaching a certain altitude, control could be passed off to an onboard guidance system. I have the names "Madrid" and "Elsass." The first relied on scanning infrared and the latter was a proximity fuse.

Sometimes the term "magnetic" appears when mentioning fuse types. The Fw-190 F-8 had a weapon called a Foerstersonde (SG 113 A) installed that fired rockets vertically, triggered by the magnetic field generated by a large metallic object, in this case, a tank. It worked on a similar principle to the handheld mine detector. A bomber is also a large metallic object.

Back to rockets. The Americans were seeing them as well. On 5 December 1944, the New York Times published an article titled "Rockets In Reich Defense." Here is the link to the NYT paid article site:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...89D95F408485F9

An excerpt:

LONDON, Dec. 4 (AP) -- The Nazis shot "baby V-2's" or anti-aircraft rockets at formations of American Flying Fortresses that attacked Mainz, one of the German rail cities pounded by the Allied air fleets today.

"We got a lot more rockets than we usually do," said Lieut. Robert Dams of Milwaukee, a bombardier.

"The flak was light, but the Nazis mingled it with rockets which left heavy trails of bluish white smoke," related Lieut. David Barnett of Bromley, Ky., a navigator.



Ed