rear-firing pods on Me109

[Appleby]

Good morning everyone

I am interested in a very rare and unusual modification in one or more Bf109. I found this in the web.


''The Bf109G-2 was generally similar but had no pressure cabin. It was used primarily in the fighter-reconnaissance role, and the service test group at Guyan-court, France, experimented with a ventral gun pack in which two rear-firing MG17 machine-guns were fitted. '' Source: http://www.malignani...La%20Storia.htm

also, I found photos of a rear-facing mirror on Bf109 at Guyancourt belonging to 4.(F)/123 ref. Classic publications, Aufklarer 2 1942-1945 pag 83

I have found a little reference also here ... as ventral gun pack ... but again a very suspicious reference http://www.ishop2go....064_Prt_en.html

and, I remember vaguely a resin detail for models that depicted the rear-firing pod, some years ago in the web ... I don't remember where




But I haven't found any more about it. Is there anybody who knows some other details for a modelling project, is there any images of the gun pack?

Thanks for any help

[F19Gladiator]

......which was also recently discussed here at LEMB. I would likewise be very interested to know if there is any credible documentation/image regarding this alleged armament option.
Cheers
Goran

[harrison987]

personally, I think whoever wrote the "original" document probably got confused with the Me110...

MIke

[Appleby]

Originally Posted by F19Gladiator

......which was also recently discussed here at LEMB. I would likewise be very interested to know if there is any credible documentation/image regarding this alleged armament option.
Cheers
Goran

yes I am very interested in find that experimentation
actually , I believe there is a probability (albeit small) that a pod, attached instead of the ventral belly tank, was tried almost once

the mission involved, namely that of a fast recce palne, points to a tactic of speed for escape fighter opposition -- as I have read about in the only report of a downed Me109G-recce, that of Clostermann, and in similar acconunts for Mosquitoes --- a fast race, hence a zero-deflection shoot for the pursuer and of course the same for the quarry

also, an external pod is easy to build and, attached instead of the belly tank, probably wasn'y too mich a trouble for the balance of the plane

and I have see photos documenting a ventral pod for a gun ( 30mm?? I don't remember ) , a forward gun, attached under the belly, firing trough the propeller -- evidently with some syncornization device, a quite more difficult modification to implement


but, of course , this is only to see if there is a rationale behind the idea, even a small one: my personal thought is that the cost, the load and the difficult to use properly were too much for the minimal gain ...


summing all up:
letting aside the usefulness of the device,
do you know if it was ever tried?

TIA

[harrison987]

well...I do know of a FORWARD firing pod...see attached. Rearward seems to crazy an idea...

[F19Gladiator]

Until reliable documentation appears – I have problems with the theory of adding a weight and drag increasing belly gun pod on a reconnaissance Bf109 in order to fight off potential aggressors coming in from dead behind.
A recon aircraft relies on well adapted tactics for a specific mission to limit risk of detection and exposure to counter actions from the air as well as from the ground. High speed, altitude and acceleration being some of the survival factors why recce aircraft rather tend to delete guns and ammo to save weight, take away not needed drag inducing gear on the airframe, covering not needed gun ports as well as keeping the surface smooth and even waxed and polished to gain some extra km/h airspeed. If we accept this as being correct, which I believe a recce pilot can confirm, adding a gun pod under the fuselage would be extremely counter productive.
The value of this armament was found disappointing when tested with the Bf 110 in 1941/42 as described in my post at LEMB and I would be surprised if it would have been found of better value with the Bf 109, which design logically to a lesser degree would benefit from such a weapons arrangement as being more agile and thus potentially more easily avoiding being shot down from behind compared to the Bf110 which in turn already had a rear gunner for defense at this weak spot.
From the aggressor's point, intercepting a high flying recce aircraft most often meant climbing up to the altitude of the recce aircraft from beneath if not an altitude advantage for the interceptor existed before the chase started. This has the advantage for the interceptor of not being easily observed by the intended victim while approaching, and in case it was spotted it inevitably would make the recce aircraft accelerate its speed and vanish.
The final attack can for example be from a gained height advantage by building up speed in a dive towards the fast recce aircraft and open fire from slightly above, alternatively diving under the recce aircraft gaining a speed advantage, nose up and attack the belly of the recce aircraft. In case it comes to a level chase the interceptor can stay slightly below the recce aircraft thus being more difficult to observe and if the recce a/c maneuvers to spot the interceptor it will lose speed which is to the interceptor's advantage. Staying right in the prop wash from the aircraft in front is not ideal from an aiming point either, why again opening fire from slightly below or above would be to prefer. Given this I believe the rear-firing gun concept on a Bf 109 was a still-born idea.
Would be interested in hearing your views on this.
Best regards,
Goran

[Graham Boak]

The basic fallacy of fixed-rearward firing guns is that the attacked aircraft has to maneouvre in such a way that it places the attacking fighter into a near-ideal position - ideal that is for the attacking fighter. Moving in a way to place yourself slap in front of your enemy is a pretty poor idea.

It might have some limited (very limited) value as a scare gun for a comparatively slow immobile bomber, but Goran has clearly stated the penalties for a small light PR aircraft. And as he describes, the fighter is very unlikely to be sitting in the firepath of the fixed gun anyway.

[Appleby]

Originally Posted by F19Gladiator

Until reliable documentation appears – I have problems with the theory of adding a weight and drag increasing belly gun pod on a reconnaissance Bf109 in order to fight off potential aggressors coming in from dead behind.
A recon aircraft relies on well adapted tactics for a specific mission to limit risk of detection and exposure to counter actions from the air as well as from the ground. High speed, altitude and acceleration being some of the survival factors why recce aircraft rather tend to delete guns and ammo to save weight, take away not needed drag inducing gear on the airframe, covering not needed gun ports as well as keeping the surface smooth and even waxed and polished to gain some extra km/h airspeed. If we accept this as being correct, which I believe a recce pilot can confirm, adding a gun pod under the fuselage would be extremely counter productive.
The value of this armament was found disappointing when tested with the Bf 110 in 1941/42 as described in my post at LEMB and I would be surprised if it would have been found of better value with the Bf 109, which design logically to a lesser degree would benefit from such a weapons arrangement as being more agile and thus potentially more easily avoiding being shot down from behind compared to the Bf110 which in turn already had a rear gunner for defense at this weak spot.
From the aggressor's point, intercepting a high flying recce aircraft most often meant climbing up to the altitude of the recce aircraft from beneath if not an altitude advantage for the interceptor existed before the chase started. This has the advantage for the interceptor of not being easily observed by the intended victim while approaching, and in case it was spotted it inevitably would make the recce aircraft accelerate its speed and vanish.
The final attack can for example be from a gained height advantage by building up speed in a dive towards the fast recce aircraft and open fire from slightly above, alternatively diving under the recce aircraft gaining a speed advantage, nose up and attack the belly of the recce aircraft. In case it comes to a level chase the interceptor can stay slightly below the recce aircraft thus being more difficult to observe and if the recce a/c maneuvers to spot the interceptor it will lose speed which is to the interceptor's advantage. Staying right in the prop wash from the aircraft in front is not ideal from an aiming point either, why again opening fire from slightly below or above would be to prefer. Given this I believe the rear-firing gun concept on a Bf 109 was a still-born idea.
Would be interested in hearing your views on this.
Best regards,
Goran

thanks for the interesting note

My idea, as stated in my other post, is that the modification isn't too much interesting, and of course this in the absolute thruth -- fon nothing less, if the supposed pod was ever tried, it was a modification not adopted, for some reasons

but, of course, even other strange and ineffectual idas were tried and abandoned , and the LW had a fascination for rear-firing guns, adopted even later on fast planes- namely the Arado 234 ( were it was again found useless from the pilots, adding to your arguments, but was tried nevertheless) . Seem quite that some high-ranking official in the LW always thuoght this as a good idea, so for me isn't absolutely impossible-- only weird and useless ( to say one , I would have believed even more strange a pod under the belly to fire forward, with all the trouble of syncronization)

I was hit from the links posted above years ago, I spent some time searching fruitless in the web and in my books, and now I desire to put and end to my research-- asking to experts seem to me the only way to put a seal on this


To take a branch little diferent from the principal , and while waiting the ( I believe ) improbable documentation would appear, I wish to share a little obsrvation:
I am absolutely convinced that speed and acceleration are paramount to a recce plane , given the standard tactic of fleeing from enemy planes ( not doding, so I think manovrability is not very valued)
but also I notice that LW recce fighters were usually armed , with less guns than the fighter verisions, but armed: Allied planes were not armed , iwell Mustangs were but Spitfires Moquitoes and Lightnings never were in my memory

is my recall correct?
there is a reason for this? a different kind of mission ? ( Example: armed reconaissance at low level against high-level phograph: but LW used its recce fighters only in low-leved armed recon?)

Thanks for your help