Blohm & Voss "Flak Kreuzer"
- Thread starter Adler
- Start date
gabrielorosco
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 10 December 2016
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 261
Where did you see it? Never heard of...
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,538
- Reaction score
- 5,023
... and "flak" means ground based AA (Flugabwehrkanone), so I cannot imagine, how "neutralizing it midair" could work. The Me 323E-2 was called "Flakkreuzer", because of its heavy armament and actually intended as escort for the standard Me 323 transports, similarly to the Boeing YB-40 and Consolidated XB-41. But judging the high project number, this would have been a project late in the war, so the concept of such heavy escorts probably was already dead then, and the question is : What kind of bomber should have been escorted ? The P.188 (project started in late 1943) already was a jet bomber.
As far as I know there are no drawings, the descriptions indicate that it was a ground attack intruder with the inverted swept wing of the P.209, the P.193 propulsion system and the armored cockpit standard of the P.192, P.193, P.194 and P.196 projects.
On September 29, 1944 the firm proposed the P.209.02, fitted with swept forward wings in an effort to overcome compressibility problems, avoiding the low-speed instability problems suffered at the time with sweptback wings.
Until the mid-1930s, the interest of designers in forward swept wings consisted in their ability to delay stall at low speed and high angles of attack. Low speed controllability assured full aileron control until total loss of lift, and the wingtips remained unstalled to high angles of attack. This type of wing was expected to offer more speed and compressibility drag reduction, without loss in low speed handling characteristics.
The appearance of turbojet engines during the 40s allowed the design of airplanes capable of flying at Mach 0.7, although only Germany had carried out theoretical studies on the behaviour of swept wings at high speeds. In 1942, the Dipl.-Ing. Hans Wocke, who carried out aerodynamic studies for the firm Junkers, concluded that the forward-swept wings generated less negative pressure on their upper surface and helped delay shock-wave formation to higher subsonic Mach numbers. In this type of wings, the air drift towards the wing root and does not affect wingtips making the use of leading-edge slots unnecessary.
Unfortunately for the Germans, the wind tunnel tests carried out in 1942 with scale models did not reveal the existence of two dangerous defects that would prevent their use in high speed fighters.
Aircrafts with forward-swept wings suffered a pronounced tendency to Dutch roll during a turn with heavy G loads, but much more serious was the appearance of aero elastic divergence phenomena.
When the dynamic pressure is greater than the structural elastic restoring forces, a change in lift caused by the wing deformation exceeds the structural limits and the wing fails. This phenomenon limited the use of forward sweep to angles less than 15-degrees in the construction of the prototype Junkers Ju 287 bomber in Germany, the Cornelius XFG-1 glider in the USA and Romeo Ro. 57 heavy fighter in Italy. None of these aircraft exceeded 550 km/h.
Above a certain speed and degrees of forward sweep, the wing bent and twisted its leading-edge up. Increased forward sweep angle requires higher strength to resist the twisting and to delay the divergence phenomena. The wing needs to be extremely stiff, but the technology of the time and the available materials were inadequate to build such a wing. All-metal wings are effectively limited to 15-degrees, but a high-performance fighter requires a much greater degree of forward-swept.
After knowing the results of vibration tests carried out with the wing of a Junkers Ju 287 in July 1944 and the flight behaviour of the prototype Ju 287 V1, the OKL ordered the cancellation of two projects with forward-swept wings: Blohm und Voss P.209-02 (September 29, 1944) and Heinkel He 162 “C” (October 23, 1944), as well as the construction of the prototypes Ju 287 V3 and Ju 287 V4.
Following the war, the state-of-art on materials technology was unable to resolve the wing rigidity problem and the forward-swept versions of the North American P-51, Bell XS-1, Douglas D-558-I and Convair XB- 53 did not come to be built.
Until the appearance in the 1970s of the advanced composite structures Boron-Graphite, matrixed into epoxy resins, it was not possible to achieve sufficient stiffness to control the aero-elastic divergence at supersonic speeds.
Blohm und Voss P.209.02 technical data
Wings: built of wood/plywood with 35-degrees forward swept, housing two fuel tanks, flaps, and ailerons. Aspect ratio: 4.69: 1. Fuselage: built of steel and light alloy, housing the undercarriage members, the cockpit, the tail surfaces, and the engine.
Armament: three fuselage mounted MK 108/30 cannons with 65 rounds per gun.
Engine: one HeS 011 A-0 turbojet rated at 1,300 kg static thrust. Wingspan: 8.10 m.
Length: 9.2 m. Height: 3.38 m. Wing area: 14 sq. m. Max weight: 4,094 kg. Max speed: 988 km/h. Service ceiling: 12,000 m. Endurance. 1.5 hours.
After the appearance of the Stuka in the skies over Europe in September 1939, Allied soldiers learned the hard way that the best defense against a dive bomber is to shoot him with all available weapons instead of seeking cover.
In 1941, engineers began installing armor on ground attack aircraft, making them so heavy that they were easy prey for enemy fighters. The situation became even more complicated in early 1944 when the IV/Panzergruppe des Schlachtgeschwaders demanding larger anti-tank cannons than the 37-mm of the Henschel Hs 129.
The main problem for designers at this time was to protect the aircraft engine from fire from the 20 and 37-mm anti-aircraft guns used by land armies. To avoid the monstrous armor used by the Soviets on the Ylyushin Il-2 Shturmovik, Dr. Vogt proposed installing an armored cockpit in front of the propeller.
This strange configuration had already been used in 1914 on the US seaplane Gallaudet D-1 and in 1915 on the French fighter SPAD S.A.
On March 5, 1942 the Daimler-Benz Company published a preliminary design to show how it could be done.
The BV P.192 project was proposed to the OKL in February 1944.
It was a fast ground attack plane powered by one mid-fuselage mounted DB 603G or one Jumo 213 E engine drove a four-bladed airscrew that was immediately behind the pilot seat.
The cockpit was connected with the rest of the airframe by means of the engine shaft, two outriggers and two wing booms projecting from the leading edges.
This configuration did not allow heavy guns to be installed on the nose and the position of the propeller forced the designers to install a bomb displacement device, to ensure propeller clearance during dive bombing, and one ejector seat.
The cumulative weight of all these modifications exceeded the weight of the armor removed, and the project was rejected.
Blohm und Voss P.192.01-01 technical data
Wing span: 13.2 m, length: 11.7 m, height: 4.3 m, wing area: 26.2 sq. m, Max weight: 5,700 kg, power plant: one 1,900 hp. DB 603G, twelve cylinder Vee, liquid-cooled engine, armament: two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons, two wing mounted MK 103/30 heavy anti-tank cannons and one SC 500 bomb that could be slung in the under-fuselage yoke.
Blohm und Voss P.192.01-02 technical data
Wing span: 13.2 m, length: 11.7 m, height: 4.3 m, wing area: 26.2 sq. m, Max weight: 5,865 kg, power plant: one 2,100 hp. Jumo 213E, twelve cylinder Vee, liquid-cooled engine, armament: two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons, two wing mounted MK 103/30 heavy anti-tank cannons and one SC 1000 bomb that could be slung in the under-fuselage rack.
In March 1944 the P.192 project was modified as P.193 to circumvent the objections of the Technisches Amt.
The engine was mounted rear-facing drove a four-bladed pusher propeller by means of a 4.97 meters extension shaft and the new tailfin was fitted beneath the fuselage, to protect the propeller during take-off.
Blohm und Voss P.193.01 technical data
Wing span: 11.4 m, length: 10.3 m, height: 4.3 m, wing area: 20 sq. m, Max weight: 5,724 kg, service ceiling: 7,000 m, power plant: one 1,900 hp. DB 603G, twelve cylinder Vee, liquid-cooled engine, armament: two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons, two wing mounted MK 103/30 heavy anti-tank cannons and one SC 1000 bomb that could be slung in the under-fuselage rack.
On October 20, 1942 the Technisches Amt issued a specification calling for a Schnellbomber (fast bomber) with 1,000 kg payload, a penetration depth of 1,046 km (one third of the operational range) and a top speed of 700 km/h, later on increased to 1,000 km/h, at operational altitude.
In January 1943 the American bombers based in England started daylight massive incursions over the Reich. Simultaneously, the RAF started to use the H2S cartographic radar that greatly improved the accurateness of night bombing. The German defences, in spite of their sophisticated early warning network, could not stop them.
The Bomber Command launched 600 tons of bombs over Berlin on March 1, but he German retaliation meant the loss of 57 bombers for the Luftwaffe, with the mediocre result of 100 tons launched at London outskirts.
After the failure of the Me 210, the Germans did not have anything to compete against the British Mosquito. During a conference in Karinhall, on March 18, Göring warned the representatives of the aeronautical industry that he would not approve any new project until the requirement in the 1942 specification was met.
The Horten brothers decided to update its design HVII Schnell-kampflugzeug of March 26, 1942, unifying it with one of the first versions of the Ho IX jet fighter (September 1942) to create a machine that fulfilled the wishes of the Reichmarschall.
The Technisches Amt had already rejected the construction of the Lippisch Schnellbomber P.11 in May 1943, recommending the conversion into Zerstörer (heavy fighter-destroyer) in August.
The Horten schnellbomber received the official approval on 28 September, but an order to transform it into a high altitude fighter under the Jagernöttprogram (emergency fighter contest) arrived in April 1944. In August of the same year, the Focke-Wulf firm proposed to build the Schnellbomber P.310239-10 a tailless delta similar in performances to the Lippisch model. This was an extremely advanced design for its time, known in the specialised literature today as Projekt 1000 x 1000 x 1000.
The Blohm und Voss P. 196 was a single seat jet bomber designed in 1944 to meet the Schnellbomber specification.
Project 196 was 189 km/h faster than the Hawker Tempest Mk. V, 97 km/h faster than the Gloster Meteor and 20 km/h faster than the Messerschmitt Me 262 a, carrying 500 kg of bombs.
It was also very manoeuvrable at low altitude thanks to its widely spaced booms and was equipped with large split flaps that acted as airbrakes during the dive bombing.
Blohm und Voss P.196.01-01 technical data
Type: single seat ground attack aircraft, wingspan: 15.3 m, length: 11.6 m, height: 3.75 m, wing area: 33.4 sq. m, Max weight: 8,500 kg, Max speed: 890 Km/h at 5,000 m, power plant: two BMW 003C turbojets each rated at 900 kg static thrust, armament: two nose mounted Mk 103/30 (or one MK 412/50) anti-tank cannons, two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons and two SC 250 bombs housed into the booms.
Blohm und Voss P.196.01-02 technical data
Type: single seat dive bomber, wingspan: 15.3 m, length: 11.6 m, height: 3.75 m, wing area: 33.4 sq. m, Max weight: 9,000 kg, Max speed: 890 Km/h at 5,000 m, power plant: two BMW 003C turbojets each rated at 900 kg static thrust, armament: two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons and two SC 500 bombs externally mounted beneath the booms.
Blohm und Voss P.209-02
On September 29, 1944 the firm proposed the P.209.02, fitted with swept forward wings in an effort to overcome compressibility problems, avoiding the low-speed instability problems suffered at the time with sweptback wings.
Until the mid-1930s, the interest of designers in forward swept wings consisted in their ability to delay stall at low speed and high angles of attack. Low speed controllability assured full aileron control until total loss of lift, and the wingtips remained unstalled to high angles of attack. This type of wing was expected to offer more speed and compressibility drag reduction, without loss in low speed handling characteristics.
The appearance of turbojet engines during the 40s allowed the design of airplanes capable of flying at Mach 0.7, although only Germany had carried out theoretical studies on the behaviour of swept wings at high speeds. In 1942, the Dipl.-Ing. Hans Wocke, who carried out aerodynamic studies for the firm Junkers, concluded that the forward-swept wings generated less negative pressure on their upper surface and helped delay shock-wave formation to higher subsonic Mach numbers. In this type of wings, the air drift towards the wing root and does not affect wingtips making the use of leading-edge slots unnecessary.
Unfortunately for the Germans, the wind tunnel tests carried out in 1942 with scale models did not reveal the existence of two dangerous defects that would prevent their use in high speed fighters.
Aircrafts with forward-swept wings suffered a pronounced tendency to Dutch roll during a turn with heavy G loads, but much more serious was the appearance of aero elastic divergence phenomena.
When the dynamic pressure is greater than the structural elastic restoring forces, a change in lift caused by the wing deformation exceeds the structural limits and the wing fails. This phenomenon limited the use of forward sweep to angles less than 15-degrees in the construction of the prototype Junkers Ju 287 bomber in Germany, the Cornelius XFG-1 glider in the USA and Romeo Ro. 57 heavy fighter in Italy. None of these aircraft exceeded 550 km/h.
Above a certain speed and degrees of forward sweep, the wing bent and twisted its leading-edge up. Increased forward sweep angle requires higher strength to resist the twisting and to delay the divergence phenomena. The wing needs to be extremely stiff, but the technology of the time and the available materials were inadequate to build such a wing. All-metal wings are effectively limited to 15-degrees, but a high-performance fighter requires a much greater degree of forward-swept.
After knowing the results of vibration tests carried out with the wing of a Junkers Ju 287 in July 1944 and the flight behaviour of the prototype Ju 287 V1, the OKL ordered the cancellation of two projects with forward-swept wings: Blohm und Voss P.209-02 (September 29, 1944) and Heinkel He 162 “C” (October 23, 1944), as well as the construction of the prototypes Ju 287 V3 and Ju 287 V4.
Following the war, the state-of-art on materials technology was unable to resolve the wing rigidity problem and the forward-swept versions of the North American P-51, Bell XS-1, Douglas D-558-I and Convair XB- 53 did not come to be built.
Until the appearance in the 1970s of the advanced composite structures Boron-Graphite, matrixed into epoxy resins, it was not possible to achieve sufficient stiffness to control the aero-elastic divergence at supersonic speeds.
Blohm und Voss P.209.02 technical data
Wings: built of wood/plywood with 35-degrees forward swept, housing two fuel tanks, flaps, and ailerons. Aspect ratio: 4.69: 1. Fuselage: built of steel and light alloy, housing the undercarriage members, the cockpit, the tail surfaces, and the engine.
Armament: three fuselage mounted MK 108/30 cannons with 65 rounds per gun.
Engine: one HeS 011 A-0 turbojet rated at 1,300 kg static thrust. Wingspan: 8.10 m.
Length: 9.2 m. Height: 3.38 m. Wing area: 14 sq. m. Max weight: 4,094 kg. Max speed: 988 km/h. Service ceiling: 12,000 m. Endurance. 1.5 hours.
Ground attack and dive bomber projects
After the appearance of the Stuka in the skies over Europe in September 1939, Allied soldiers learned the hard way that the best defense against a dive bomber is to shoot him with all available weapons instead of seeking cover.
In 1941, engineers began installing armor on ground attack aircraft, making them so heavy that they were easy prey for enemy fighters. The situation became even more complicated in early 1944 when the IV/Panzergruppe des Schlachtgeschwaders demanding larger anti-tank cannons than the 37-mm of the Henschel Hs 129.
The main problem for designers at this time was to protect the aircraft engine from fire from the 20 and 37-mm anti-aircraft guns used by land armies. To avoid the monstrous armor used by the Soviets on the Ylyushin Il-2 Shturmovik, Dr. Vogt proposed installing an armored cockpit in front of the propeller.
This strange configuration had already been used in 1914 on the US seaplane Gallaudet D-1 and in 1915 on the French fighter SPAD S.A.
On March 5, 1942 the Daimler-Benz Company published a preliminary design to show how it could be done.
The BV P.192 project was proposed to the OKL in February 1944.
It was a fast ground attack plane powered by one mid-fuselage mounted DB 603G or one Jumo 213 E engine drove a four-bladed airscrew that was immediately behind the pilot seat.
The cockpit was connected with the rest of the airframe by means of the engine shaft, two outriggers and two wing booms projecting from the leading edges.
This configuration did not allow heavy guns to be installed on the nose and the position of the propeller forced the designers to install a bomb displacement device, to ensure propeller clearance during dive bombing, and one ejector seat.
The cumulative weight of all these modifications exceeded the weight of the armor removed, and the project was rejected.
Blohm und Voss P.192.01-01 technical data
Wing span: 13.2 m, length: 11.7 m, height: 4.3 m, wing area: 26.2 sq. m, Max weight: 5,700 kg, power plant: one 1,900 hp. DB 603G, twelve cylinder Vee, liquid-cooled engine, armament: two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons, two wing mounted MK 103/30 heavy anti-tank cannons and one SC 500 bomb that could be slung in the under-fuselage yoke.
Blohm und Voss P.192.01-02 technical data
Wing span: 13.2 m, length: 11.7 m, height: 4.3 m, wing area: 26.2 sq. m, Max weight: 5,865 kg, power plant: one 2,100 hp. Jumo 213E, twelve cylinder Vee, liquid-cooled engine, armament: two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons, two wing mounted MK 103/30 heavy anti-tank cannons and one SC 1000 bomb that could be slung in the under-fuselage rack.
In March 1944 the P.192 project was modified as P.193 to circumvent the objections of the Technisches Amt.
The engine was mounted rear-facing drove a four-bladed pusher propeller by means of a 4.97 meters extension shaft and the new tailfin was fitted beneath the fuselage, to protect the propeller during take-off.
Blohm und Voss P.193.01 technical data
Wing span: 11.4 m, length: 10.3 m, height: 4.3 m, wing area: 20 sq. m, Max weight: 5,724 kg, service ceiling: 7,000 m, power plant: one 1,900 hp. DB 603G, twelve cylinder Vee, liquid-cooled engine, armament: two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons, two wing mounted MK 103/30 heavy anti-tank cannons and one SC 1000 bomb that could be slung in the under-fuselage rack.
On October 20, 1942 the Technisches Amt issued a specification calling for a Schnellbomber (fast bomber) with 1,000 kg payload, a penetration depth of 1,046 km (one third of the operational range) and a top speed of 700 km/h, later on increased to 1,000 km/h, at operational altitude.
In January 1943 the American bombers based in England started daylight massive incursions over the Reich. Simultaneously, the RAF started to use the H2S cartographic radar that greatly improved the accurateness of night bombing. The German defences, in spite of their sophisticated early warning network, could not stop them.
The Bomber Command launched 600 tons of bombs over Berlin on March 1, but he German retaliation meant the loss of 57 bombers for the Luftwaffe, with the mediocre result of 100 tons launched at London outskirts.
After the failure of the Me 210, the Germans did not have anything to compete against the British Mosquito. During a conference in Karinhall, on March 18, Göring warned the representatives of the aeronautical industry that he would not approve any new project until the requirement in the 1942 specification was met.
The Horten brothers decided to update its design HVII Schnell-kampflugzeug of March 26, 1942, unifying it with one of the first versions of the Ho IX jet fighter (September 1942) to create a machine that fulfilled the wishes of the Reichmarschall.
The Technisches Amt had already rejected the construction of the Lippisch Schnellbomber P.11 in May 1943, recommending the conversion into Zerstörer (heavy fighter-destroyer) in August.
The Horten schnellbomber received the official approval on 28 September, but an order to transform it into a high altitude fighter under the Jagernöttprogram (emergency fighter contest) arrived in April 1944. In August of the same year, the Focke-Wulf firm proposed to build the Schnellbomber P.310239-10 a tailless delta similar in performances to the Lippisch model. This was an extremely advanced design for its time, known in the specialised literature today as Projekt 1000 x 1000 x 1000.
The Blohm und Voss P. 196 was a single seat jet bomber designed in 1944 to meet the Schnellbomber specification.
Project 196 was 189 km/h faster than the Hawker Tempest Mk. V, 97 km/h faster than the Gloster Meteor and 20 km/h faster than the Messerschmitt Me 262 a, carrying 500 kg of bombs.
It was also very manoeuvrable at low altitude thanks to its widely spaced booms and was equipped with large split flaps that acted as airbrakes during the dive bombing.
Blohm und Voss P.196.01-01 technical data
Type: single seat ground attack aircraft, wingspan: 15.3 m, length: 11.6 m, height: 3.75 m, wing area: 33.4 sq. m, Max weight: 8,500 kg, Max speed: 890 Km/h at 5,000 m, power plant: two BMW 003C turbojets each rated at 900 kg static thrust, armament: two nose mounted Mk 103/30 (or one MK 412/50) anti-tank cannons, two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons and two SC 250 bombs housed into the booms.
Blohm und Voss P.196.01-02 technical data
Type: single seat dive bomber, wingspan: 15.3 m, length: 11.6 m, height: 3.75 m, wing area: 33.4 sq. m, Max weight: 9,000 kg, Max speed: 890 Km/h at 5,000 m, power plant: two BMW 003C turbojets each rated at 900 kg static thrust, armament: two nose mounted MG 151/20 rapid-fire cannons and two SC 500 bombs externally mounted beneath the booms.
Attachments
Last edited:
Adler
Die Wunderwaffe
- Joined
- 27 February 2025
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 453
@gabrielorosco @Jemiba @Justo Miranda
Source for aircraft is the "German Aircraft of the Second World War" by J. R. Smith and Antony L. K. It is mentioned briefly on page 734, described as a "flak suppression aircraft" with 8 1700hp BMW 801D engines. I've seen the Flak Kreuzer" designation used somewhere on this forum, but that's about all the info I have.
Source for aircraft is the "German Aircraft of the Second World War" by J. R. Smith and Antony L. K. It is mentioned briefly on page 734, described as a "flak suppression aircraft" with 8 1700hp BMW 801D engines. I've seen the Flak Kreuzer" designation used somewhere on this forum, but that's about all the info I have.
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,538
- Reaction score
- 5,023
Ah, the Putnam volume ! Yes, found it now, called a "Flak supression aircraft" ....
A splendid possibility for speculations.
"Flak Kreuzer" literally would be an AA cruiser, if used for aircraft, that term generally stands for something like the mentioned Me 323E-3, I think.
Using such a heavy aircraft (with eight BMW 801 it certainly would have been heavy) in a kind of ground attack role, makes me think of the Fugaku with messes of downward pointing machine guns for strafing ships ( https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fugaku-z-plane-g10-or-g12.14582/post-156978 ) . Could work against flak, too, but the flak would certainly shoot back ...
A splendid possibility for speculations.
"Flak Kreuzer" literally would be an AA cruiser, if used for aircraft, that term generally stands for something like the mentioned Me 323E-3, I think.
Using such a heavy aircraft (with eight BMW 801 it certainly would have been heavy) in a kind of ground attack role, makes me think of the Fugaku with messes of downward pointing machine guns for strafing ships ( https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fugaku-z-plane-g10-or-g12.14582/post-156978 ) . Could work against flak, too, but the flak would certainly shoot back ...
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Exactly how it could protect German bombers from flak fire? By being the most obvious target?
Grey Havoc
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 24,500
- Reaction score
- 18,175
Possibly using shrapnel rounds or similar to detonate flak shells prematurely?
1635yankee
Recovering aeronautical engineer
- Joined
- 18 August 2020
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 1,033
Might work better to use them to suppress the gun crews.
Of course, by the time this monster could have flown, AA suppression would be something the Luftwaffe would be trying to prevent during those Allied bombing raids.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
I rather doubt that required accuracy could be achieved till well into digital era. If the whole idea isn't a later myth (like many German Wunderwaffles), I rather suspect that it was intended to carry cannon(s) to suppress air defenses by shelling them from safe distance - thus allowing bombers to reach target.
Attachments
BLOHM & VOSS HANDWRITTEN LIST
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/blohm-und-voss-asymmetric-projects.10369/post-365712
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/blohm-und-voss-asymmetric-projects.10369/post-365645
Flak-Kreuzer 8 x BMW 801 = Fernbomber 8 x BMW 801?
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/blohm-und-voss-asymmetric-projects.10369/post-365712
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/blohm-und-voss-asymmetric-projects.10369/post-365645
Flak-Kreuzer 8 x BMW 801 = Fernbomber 8 x BMW 801?
Adler
Die Wunderwaffe
- Joined
- 27 February 2025
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 453
Never heard of the Me 323E-3, I assume you meant the Me 323E-2 "Waffenträger", but feel free to correct me. Germans used the "Waffenträger" (weapon carrier) designation for a few vehicles, and it only makes sense that this project would likewise be designated as such. The fact that it is not, makes me think the role would have been somewhat different. Using something of this scale for ground attack would seem like an unreasonable waste of resources (but then again, the Nazis were big on unreasonable waste of resources). I heard someone mention it would look similar to a Fernbomber, but that's a speculation.Ah, the Putnam volume ! Yes, found it now, called a "Flak supression aircraft" ....
A splendid possibility for speculations.
"Flak Kreuzer" literally would be an AA cruiser, if used for aircraft, that term generally stands for something like the mentioned Me 323E-3, I think.
Using such a heavy aircraft (with eight BMW 801 it certainly would have been heavy) in a kind of ground attack role, makes me think of the Fugaku with messes of downward pointing machine guns for strafing ships ( https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fugaku-z-plane-g10-or-g12.14582/post-156978 ) . Could work against flak, too, but the flak would certainly shoot back ...
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,538
- Reaction score
- 5,023
The E-3 was a typo, sorry.
I mentioned the Fugaku ship strafer, because AFAIK, it’s the only case, where an aircraft that size should have been used in a kind of true ground attack role.
Principally a good idea by Grey Havoc, that the purpose may have been against the shells, not the guns, but I have no idea, what weapon could have been used. Shooting down a shell may be possible today, using a laser, or maybe something like a CIWS, but this was still science fiction then, andit would have been at best a way to protect this aircraft itself, but not other bombers in a formation. The German standard AA gun, the 88 mm Flak 18/36 or 37, could fire 15 to 20 rounds per minute, so just a single battery with four guns could throw such a mass of steel and explosives against incoming aircraft, that neutralising every single shell, or at least a large number of them seems not very probable to me. To me, the only way would have been attacking the gun emplacements, which in the case of AA guns can be somehow protected against attacks by low flying aircraft (shieldings, walls), but rather not against weapons, that come directly from above.
An 8-engined aircraft probably could carry several guided missiles in the class of the Hs 293. With a suitable warhead, something like napalm, it could be quite a devastating weapon against a gun emplacement, I think. And this would even fit the approximate time frame of this project.
I mentioned the Fugaku ship strafer, because AFAIK, it’s the only case, where an aircraft that size should have been used in a kind of true ground attack role.
Principally a good idea by Grey Havoc, that the purpose may have been against the shells, not the guns, but I have no idea, what weapon could have been used. Shooting down a shell may be possible today, using a laser, or maybe something like a CIWS, but this was still science fiction then, andit would have been at best a way to protect this aircraft itself, but not other bombers in a formation. The German standard AA gun, the 88 mm Flak 18/36 or 37, could fire 15 to 20 rounds per minute, so just a single battery with four guns could throw such a mass of steel and explosives against incoming aircraft, that neutralising every single shell, or at least a large number of them seems not very probable to me. To me, the only way would have been attacking the gun emplacements, which in the case of AA guns can be somehow protected against attacks by low flying aircraft (shieldings, walls), but rather not against weapons, that come directly from above.
An 8-engined aircraft probably could carry several guided missiles in the class of the Hs 293. With a suitable warhead, something like napalm, it could be quite a devastating weapon against a gun emplacement, I think. And this would even fit the approximate time frame of this project.
Adler
Die Wunderwaffe
- Joined
- 27 February 2025
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 453
Going very hypothetical with this one, but many AA shells used against bomber formations had detonators designed to set the explosive off based on a timer or altitude. Is it possible that the P.191 would have carried some sort of equipment that would remotely trigger the detonators before the shell reached its target? If there's anyone who knows how flak works better than I do, do explain how feasible this would be.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
The majority of AA fuzes from WW2 era were either powder trail type (where burst time was set by the lenght of blackpowder trail burning) or mechanical timer type (where a clockwok mechanic set a burst time). I could hardly imagine what kind of WW2 tech could affect the fuzes.
Impossible.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
I still think that the most probable explanation is, that large plane was supposed to carry a long-barrel cannon(s), to shell the AA positions from standoff range - disrupting their work, and allowing bombers to reach the target. The need to compensate for cannon weight and recoil (I presume, something like 105-150 mm was planned to be used) required a very big plane with very sturdy construction. And such sturdy construction would meant a lot of motor power to fly.
But Hs 293 could be launched from just ordinary twin-engine bomber. What the point of having 8-engine monster as launch platform? It would still be unable to attack more than a single target, since Hs 293 was a MCLOS-only weapon. And the range of Hs 293 is not sufficient to really be considered standoff - not overland, at least.
Grey Havoc
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 24,500
- Reaction score
- 18,175
Flechette rounds might allow for smaller caliber weapons, machine cannons for example, to be used.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Then why the 8-engine monster plane?
Grey Havoc
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 24,500
- Reaction score
- 18,175
You would need range, endurance, and plenty of ammo, all in the same airframe.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Doesn't seem the best idea. If you only have guns of small size, you could just distribute them between several standard planes - which would be much less vulnerable to AA fire they supposed to suppress than 8-engine monster.
Grey Havoc
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 24,500
- Reaction score
- 18,175
But that would eat into their bomb load though.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
I meant a dedicated AA suppressor planes. If the weapon on them is of standard size, then there are no reason to use one monster plane instead of several standard ones.
No, still think that the idea of "heavy gun plane" is the best explanation of all the oddities of said project.
Adler
Die Wunderwaffe
- Joined
- 27 February 2025
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 453
I think the P.191s were designed to escort Fernbombers deep into enemy territory and needed great range and speed to be able to stay with or near the formation at all times. This is the probable reason as to why such an enormous aircraft was needed. Now if the aircraft was to stay with a bomber formation, the "heavy plane with a single big gun" does not really work. Heavy airborne cannons are fixed to an aircraft, and to aim one towards the ground, you would need to enter a dive. This was the principle behind Ju 88, Do 217, Me 210 etc. tank destroyers. Diving a P.191 means breaking off from the formation, and since the aircraft was very large, it would probably not withstand the stress. Your first idea, which is essentially an airborne artillery battery seems more plausible, but would be pretty difficult in practice. Maybe they would have used some sort of guided glide weapons to fire upon AA positions (kind of like the 293 but unpowered). A big aircraft would be able to carry a lot of these, and provide defense throughout most of the flight.
The P.191 was an assault plane project to replace the Stuka Ju 87, it was an aircraft designed to fly at low altitude and destroy enemy anti-aircraft defenses, with additional anti-tank capability and armoured cockpit. It was powered by a piston engine and a four-bladed pusher propeller and armed with 250-500 kg bombs and 20 and 30 mm guns.
The first wild weasels...of a sort.
Today flak suppression is the duty of press secretaries
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Well, the idea of strafing air defense by long-range fighters to let the bomber reach the target was pretty common.
This idea seems like a Wunderwaffe fantasy at the very least.
1. Eight engines would be unreliable/unsafe unless the airplane could maintain height on four of them. The structure and weight penalty would also be substantial compared to a four-engined design with more powerful engines.
2. Why would it be needed? Without the US-developed VT (proximity) fuse, heavy AAA was unlikely to damage bombers significantly. It effected morale (on the ground and among the attackers) more than anything else.
3. Accurately firing heavy artillery from a moving aircraft flying at altitude would be all but impossible. AAA guns at least have the advantages of solid concrete foundations and targets that are easily distinguished by eye or by ground radar.
4. Handling the recoil from a gun capable of accurately hitting small ground targets from altitude would be difficult at best.
5. Unlike heavy, high-altitude flak, low-level light flak was very effective. If this eight-engined airplane tried to strafe from low level it would be unlikely to survive.
6. Single and twin-engined fighters would destroy such a monster before it got anywhere near the gunline, assuming that they did not spot it and destroy it on its own airfield.
7. Shooting down high-velocity shells like the 3.7-inch AA was impossible then and probably still impossible in practice.
8. Which would any rational commander (or production chief) rather have? One of these? Or four Me410s? Or eight Fw190s with long-range tanks?
The equivalent of Wild Weasel would be attacks on Chain-Home sites, not AA guns.
1. Eight engines would be unreliable/unsafe unless the airplane could maintain height on four of them. The structure and weight penalty would also be substantial compared to a four-engined design with more powerful engines.
2. Why would it be needed? Without the US-developed VT (proximity) fuse, heavy AAA was unlikely to damage bombers significantly. It effected morale (on the ground and among the attackers) more than anything else.
3. Accurately firing heavy artillery from a moving aircraft flying at altitude would be all but impossible. AAA guns at least have the advantages of solid concrete foundations and targets that are easily distinguished by eye or by ground radar.
4. Handling the recoil from a gun capable of accurately hitting small ground targets from altitude would be difficult at best.
5. Unlike heavy, high-altitude flak, low-level light flak was very effective. If this eight-engined airplane tried to strafe from low level it would be unlikely to survive.
6. Single and twin-engined fighters would destroy such a monster before it got anywhere near the gunline, assuming that they did not spot it and destroy it on its own airfield.
7. Shooting down high-velocity shells like the 3.7-inch AA was impossible then and probably still impossible in practice.
8. Which would any rational commander (or production chief) rather have? One of these? Or four Me410s? Or eight Fw190s with long-range tanks?
The equivalent of Wild Weasel would be attacks on Chain-Home sites, not AA guns.
Adler
Die Wunderwaffe
- Joined
- 27 February 2025
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 453
You bring up valid points, however since the design is mentioned in original B&V documents, we know it was at the very least considered. Since it has its own designation, chances are there exist drawings and specifications deep in the war archives. Practical? No. Fictional? Also no.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
All true, but German leadership wasn't exactly rational, and were faschinated with big, visually impressive concepts - no matter how impractical or impossible they were.
- Joined
- 11 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,641
- Reaction score
- 3,510
There are two contemporary versions of the Blohm & Voss project list. The neater and more detailed one says:
P 191 is unused. However, the second, sketchier, handwritten one says:
I would say '8 BMW 801' is correct. But what the other word says... I'm not sure. Smith and Kay probably weren't 100% sure either. In terms of any other evidence whatsoever, there doesn't seem to be any mention of it anywhere else. So that one word, and the eight engines, is the sum total of everything that's known about it.
Adler
Die Wunderwaffe
- Joined
- 27 February 2025
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 453
Thank you Dan, you save the day once again.
Temistocle
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 9 December 2009
- Messages
- 309
- Reaction score
- 725
Maybe I took the wrong direction, but... Thinking of that late war project:
1) why they need a big plane as an escort for their bombers? At that time german bombers more or less operate during the night, in scattered formations;
2) hitting a small target with a cannon from high altitude flying orizontally a very huge airplane is toooo difficult (think about the AC-130: low altitude, circling around the target, in complete air superiority...);
3) flying at medium-low altitude a big airplane like that will be an easy prey for the (night)fighters and for the AA it was intended to suppress.
So... I an not an expert of German language, but what if Flak Kreuzer means a heavily armed, big aircraft used as a flying Flak against the enemy bombers spreading over Germany?
1) why they need a big plane as an escort for their bombers? At that time german bombers more or less operate during the night, in scattered formations;
2) hitting a small target with a cannon from high altitude flying orizontally a very huge airplane is toooo difficult (think about the AC-130: low altitude, circling around the target, in complete air superiority...);
3) flying at medium-low altitude a big airplane like that will be an easy prey for the (night)fighters and for the AA it was intended to suppress.
So... I an not an expert of German language, but what if Flak Kreuzer means a heavily armed, big aircraft used as a flying Flak against the enemy bombers spreading over Germany?
That's precisely my understanding! A Flak supressor is ludicrous. It ought to be a flying AA platform.
Adler
Die Wunderwaffe
- Joined
- 27 February 2025
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 453
Some sources list it as a Flak Kreuzer, however others explicitly state "Flak suppression aircraft", thus the confusion.
Aubi
ACCESS: Secret
I haven't read anything like that in years, but that one word looks tome simply as Flakkreuzer. FLA- at the beginning and -r at the end are clear.
Similar threads
-
Blohm und Voss P.173.02 - Long range bomber project- Started by kiradog
- Replies: 13
-
-
Secret Projects of the Luftwaffe: Blohm & Voss BV 155 by Dan Sharp- Started by Dan Sharp
- Replies: 68
-
Kampfflugzeuge See (See-Stuka) 1938 contest
- Started by Wurger
- Replies: 15
-
