Luftwaffe losses to ground fire during Bodenplatte

[Jon]

I am reading "The RAF Regiment at War" at present, all about obviously the ground based regiment and their roles, mainly that of airfield defence against land and air attack.

Not only does the book mention several losses of ME262's to light AA fire at RAF airfields but also claims that on the day of Bodenplatte 355 Luftwaffe aircraft attacked 11 RAF airfields. The RAF regiment fired 7500 rounds of 40mm ( Bofors ) and 5000 rounds of .303 and brought down 46 Luftwaffe aircraft !

Can anyone confirm these losses ?

This to me sounds like superb shooting, i assume the 40mm Bofors shell by 1945 were all proximity but how close did the shell need to be and what sort of damage could a shell cause to an aircraft such as say the FW190 without actually a direct hit ?

Was the ME262 especially vulnerable to ground fire, i would imagine even a single rifle bullet in one of the engines would be a problem ?

[Juha]

Hello Jon
You can find the answer from John Manrho's Bodenplatte book. Highly recommended.

Juha

[George Hopp]

i assume the 40mm Bofors shell by 1945 were all proximity

While you might be correct on that, I always thought that the proximity unit needed a shell of at least 3 inch (75 mm) diameter.

[ArtieBob]

IIRC, having been a first loader on a quad 40 mount, we did have ammunition with VT fuses (which I believe was the U.S.Navy identification for proximity fuzes).

Best regards,

Artie Bob

[Jon]

How close did the shell need to be ArtieBob for it to detonate?

[George Hopp]

IIRC, having been a first loader on a quad 40 mount, we did have ammunition with VT fuses (which I believe was the U.S.Navy identification for proximity fuzes).

You were obviously part of a ground-breaking project, Artie, because the Dept. of the Navy said that up to 1950, the smallest shell in which it installed a production proximity fuse unit was the 3"/50; and for the Army, the 75mm gun.

I may be wrong, but I thought that by the end of 1944 (Bodenplatt), the Allies, especially the US, had gyro gunsights on their smaller AA guns. These would make those weapons very effective against low-flying aircraft.

[ArtieBob]

Although it has been over 50 years ago that I was a first loader, it was however after 1950. The statement G.G.Hopp made was "I always thought that the proximity unit needed a shell of at least 3 inch (75 mm) dia" which had a ring of finality and my memory is different. I could still be wrong, but I rather remember the gray green color of the plastic for nose fuze cone. But I am getting old and perhaps my memory is not so accurate. However, the time frame was not specified for your statement. I have also been first loader on a 3"/50 (too late I believe for WWII), and second loader (upper handling room) for 5"38.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

[George Hopp]

(Gee, Artie, you're becoming awfully formal in your old age. But, as you wish.) The guns listed by the Navy as being supplied with VT fuzes were the two Mr. A. Medcalf mentioned--the 3"/50 and the 5"/38--and in addition, the 6"/47 and the 5"/54. Although I never said that the 40mm gun couldn't have received the VT fuse after 1950; my gut feeling is, why would they bother? But, I am saying that it certainly didn't have it in time for Bodenplatt, at least according to the Navy, and why should it lie? Remember, this was all still vacuum tube technology with wire circuitry and a wet battery for power; and they were having problems sticking the unit into a 3" shell. Just imagine the additional problems they would have in trying to fit the same mechanism into a shell nose of less than 1/3 that volume.

Since Mr. Medcalf can remember the colour of the shell nose cones, perhaps he can also remember the type of sight the 40mm gun used when he was on its gun crew. If I remember correctly, they had the ring-and-bead sight for much of the war, but did they eventually get the gyro sight?

All the best,
George

[Jaap Woortman]

Maybe that this page can be a contribution to your discussion. It is a page from Ralph B.Baldwins book :"The deadly fuze". It tells the story of the development and use of the proximity fuze at allied and German side.

Jaap

[ArtieBob]

IIRC, the U.S.Navy quad 40 mounts still had ring and bead sights (for manual pointing and training). However, the Mk 56 fire control system that I remember had gyro lead computing , but was remote from the mount, electrically linked. The cable bringing in the signal to the mount could take a total of 720 degrees twist (360 each way, before having to be manually untwisted). The electodyne drives were very fast in slew and first loaders needed to be well braced as we could get flung off the mount if we were not careful. I have no idea if the Mk 56 was in service during WWII, but the ship I was on in during the 1950s appeared to be pretty much in WWII trim except for the 20mm mounts having been torched off. You are absolutely correct that there was not much reason to upgrade the 40mm after WW II. The 3"/50 mount I mentioned was not the manually loaded WW II version, but the semi-automatic twin mount that was designed to be a drop-on replacement for the quad 40s. This was a direct reslult of the kamikaze attacks and the need not just to "kill" the attacker, but literally have enogh blast and kinetic effect to knock them out of the sky. I believe they were barely too late for WWII.
Next comment, I remember watching the bursts around the towed sleeves, since I was second loader on the 5"/38, I would not have been able to see what was going on during AA practice (gun house). And since I was seeing bursts, if they were 40mm, it would seem that they would be from VT, since I do not remember the 40mm having a mechanism for setting fuzes. But, as I said, my memory could be getting fuzzy after more than 50 years.
Final comment, VT fuzes were apparently restricted to naval use for most of the war, primarily so there was little possibility that unexploded fuzes could be recovered and copied by the enemy (a la H2S).

Best Regards,

Artie Bob