Schräge Musik
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schräge Musik
I have recently been re-reading a couple of books about Bomber Command’s operations in the Second World War. One thing that puzzles me (and has done for a few years) is the fact that the authorities did not know about Schräge Musik.
The idea of a fighter with guns that fired upwards at a 45° angle were not really new. The Air Ministry had issued specification F.29/27 calling for an aircraft design that incorporated an upward firing Coventry Ordinance Works 37 mm automatic gun. Three designs were submitted: Vickers (Type 161), Westland (C.O.W. Gun Fighter) and Bristol (Type 112). The Vickers and Westland designs were actually built and trials were made in 1931.
I seem to recall that a similar concept was at least muted in the First World War to counter Zeppelins.
I know that nothing came of either specification, but surely the powers that be must have known about them and made a connection when crews reported back that they had not seen the aircraft that attacked them. Or was it a case of not letting the people at the sharp end know?
The idea of a fighter with guns that fired upwards at a 45° angle were not really new. The Air Ministry had issued specification F.29/27 calling for an aircraft design that incorporated an upward firing Coventry Ordinance Works 37 mm automatic gun. Three designs were submitted: Vickers (Type 161), Westland (C.O.W. Gun Fighter) and Bristol (Type 112). The Vickers and Westland designs were actually built and trials were made in 1931.
I seem to recall that a similar concept was at least muted in the First World War to counter Zeppelins.
I know that nothing came of either specification, but surely the powers that be must have known about them and made a connection when crews reported back that they had not seen the aircraft that attacked them. Or was it a case of not letting the people at the sharp end know?
...surely the powers that be must have known about them and made a connection when crews reported back that they had not seen the aircraft that attacked them. Or was it a case of not letting the people at the sharp end know?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North of Watford, South of Watford Gap
Age: 68
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Although similar tactics had been developed some 20 years earlier there's no guarantee that those in authority remembered it and made the connection!
Bomber Command's Operational Research Section did conduct some analysis of damage to returning aircraft. The AHB monograph on OR in the RAF states that research was carried out into damage caused by AA fire; "the great majority of aircraft damaged by heavy flak received only two or three strikes [but] strikes from below were twice as numerous as those from above." That in itself is hardly surprising, given that AA fire usually has an upward trajectory...
However, Schraege Musik may have been so effective that very few crews returned to report attacks. It's unlikely that intelligence on its use would have come from POWs or SIGINT, but it's hard to believe that we had no hint of it.
Bomber Command's Operational Research Section did conduct some analysis of damage to returning aircraft. The AHB monograph on OR in the RAF states that research was carried out into damage caused by AA fire; "the great majority of aircraft damaged by heavy flak received only two or three strikes [but] strikes from below were twice as numerous as those from above." That in itself is hardly surprising, given that AA fire usually has an upward trajectory...
However, Schraege Musik may have been so effective that very few crews returned to report attacks. It's unlikely that intelligence on its use would have come from POWs or SIGINT, but it's hard to believe that we had no hint of it.
The Canadians were certainly concerned about being vulnerable to attacks from below and quite a few of their heavy bombers were fitted with a 'scare gun' in the belly.
Unfortunately most of our heavy bombers simply did not have room for a proper lower turret,especially those a/c fitted with H2S.If the Canadians were aware of the risk I find it difficult to believe that our 'Airships' were not aware of the possibility of attack from below - as already posted - attacking from below was quite normal during WW1 and most RAF senior officers were WW1 veterans.
Unfortunately most of our heavy bombers simply did not have room for a proper lower turret,especially those a/c fitted with H2S.If the Canadians were aware of the risk I find it difficult to believe that our 'Airships' were not aware of the possibility of attack from below - as already posted - attacking from below was quite normal during WW1 and most RAF senior officers were WW1 veterans.
The idea of a fighter with guns that fired upwards at a 45° angle were not really new. The Air Ministry had issued specification F.29/27 calling for an aircraft design that incorporated an upward firing Coventry Ordinance Works 37 mm automatic gun. Three designs were submitted: Vickers (Type 161), Westland (C.O.W. Gun Fighter) and Bristol (Type 112). The Vickers and Westland designs were actually built and trials were made in 1931.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North of Watford, South of Watford Gap
Age: 68
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
"most of our heavy bombers simply did not have room for a proper lower turret,especially those a/c fitted with H2S."
ISTR that early Lancasters (and possibly the other types) had a ventral turret, and the H2S scanner was mounted in the hole provided for the turret.
ISTR that early Lancasters (and possibly the other types) had a ventral turret, and the H2S scanner was mounted in the hole provided for the turret.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google Halifax LK 710 shoot down, the Bomb Aimer was my late brother in law John Grimer {F/LT RAF} he wrote a very lucid account of the effect of the inclined cannon fire on the aircraft and crew.
Innominate;9862898]
ISTR that early Lancasters (and possibly the other types) had a ventral turret, and the H2S scanner was mounted in the hole provided for the turret.
ISTR that early Lancasters (and possibly the other types) had a ventral turret, and the H2S scanner was mounted in the hole provided for the turret.
The Preston-Green design was later deemed more suitable for series production but as more H2S units became available - the space for fitment disappeared.
As I posted earlier though - the canadians had already fitted 'scare guns' under many of their heavies.
Preston Green under defence mounting Mk.II
On 29th February 1944, a Halifax III, (LW650), took off from Boscombe Down. It appeared to be just another Halifax, with the bulging blister of H2S radar beneath the fuselage, but close inspection would have revealed a 0.5in. Browning protruding through the rear of the blister. The aircraft was being used for trials of the Preston Green under-defence turret.
Preston Green began with an American mounting used by USAAF bombers. It gave free movement of the gun whilst providing a firm anchorage. Work had begun 18 months earlier, when it was suspected that enemy night fighters were attacking from below. At this time, the H2S sets were looked on as an essential aid, but production of bombers was outstripping the supply of radars, and it was decided to install Preston Green mountings in all Halifax IIIs.
The adapter was fixed across the base of a bowl-shaped enclosure immediately behind the bomb bay. The gunner had an aft-facing bucket seat within the blister, with a tilting back rest. The gun could be swung clear of its aperture when searching, but could rapidly locked in the firing position if needed.
Had more Bomber Command aircraft been fitted with the Preston Green turret, this previously non-existent protection from attack from below would have cut down the toll taken by Luftwaffe night fighters using upwards firing cannon.. Unfortunately, when H2S production increased, the turrets were taken out, much to the annoyance of bomber crews.
On 29th February 1944, a Halifax III, (LW650), took off from Boscombe Down. It appeared to be just another Halifax, with the bulging blister of H2S radar beneath the fuselage, but close inspection would have revealed a 0.5in. Browning protruding through the rear of the blister. The aircraft was being used for trials of the Preston Green under-defence turret.
Preston Green began with an American mounting used by USAAF bombers. It gave free movement of the gun whilst providing a firm anchorage. Work had begun 18 months earlier, when it was suspected that enemy night fighters were attacking from below. At this time, the H2S sets were looked on as an essential aid, but production of bombers was outstripping the supply of radars, and it was decided to install Preston Green mountings in all Halifax IIIs.
The adapter was fixed across the base of a bowl-shaped enclosure immediately behind the bomb bay. The gunner had an aft-facing bucket seat within the blister, with a tilting back rest. The gun could be swung clear of its aperture when searching, but could rapidly locked in the firing position if needed.
Had more Bomber Command aircraft been fitted with the Preston Green turret, this previously non-existent protection from attack from below would have cut down the toll taken by Luftwaffe night fighters using upwards firing cannon.. Unfortunately, when H2S production increased, the turrets were taken out, much to the annoyance of bomber crews.
Last edited by longer ron; 15th Aug 2017 at 23:08.
Oh, they knew about it alright. I've read quite a few books now about Bomber Command, unfortunately often it seems the priority was shipping maximum bomb loads rather than defence - though of course there was also the issue of how much defence is enough defence and when does it stop being beneficial.
You can debate also using .303 guns against fighters armed with at least 13mm & 20mm if not more.
Or the much maligned Defiant fighter that shot down most enemy aircraft during the Night Blitz....by attacking from below.
You can debate also using .303 guns against fighters armed with at least 13mm & 20mm if not more.
Or the much maligned Defiant fighter that shot down most enemy aircraft during the Night Blitz....by attacking from below.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lso you have to question the effctiveness of defensive weapons. When used in daylight they proved to be realtively useless TBH - for a start machine guns v cannons was no match
The main benifit of the air gunner was visual warning - which, at night, was highly variable - and the morale effect of firing back
Of course a downward and backward radar set or radar warning receiver was needed but the active sets were large & cumbersome and would have given the enemy somethnig to home on once they figured out they were fittted. There were warning receivers but they were always slightly behind enemy advances
The main benifit of the air gunner was visual warning - which, at night, was highly variable - and the morale effect of firing back
Of course a downward and backward radar set or radar warning receiver was needed but the active sets were large & cumbersome and would have given the enemy somethnig to home on once they figured out they were fittted. There were warning receivers but they were always slightly behind enemy advances
Knowing about a problem is one thing. Being able to solve it is another. Maybe those in charge did know as we had some very clever people (Prof R V Jones for one) working in military intelligence.
How might aircrew have reacted if they were told that night fighters could shoot them from underneath and we had no counter at the time? Just a thought.
How might aircrew have reacted if they were told that night fighters could shoot them from underneath and we had no counter at the time? Just a thought.
A must-read, first hand, article on British Bomber losses and the official understanding of them here:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...-intelligence/
by Freeman Dyson, eminent theoretician and member of the wartime operational research unit
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...-intelligence/
by Freeman Dyson, eminent theoretician and member of the wartime operational research unit
A devastating weapon. On the night of 22/23 March 1944 Helmut Lent shot down three Lancasters with just 22 rounds. He again shot down three Lancasters on the night of 15-16 June in seven minutes using 57 rounds of ammunition. 110 victories of which 59 were heavy bombers.
Aces of the Luftwaffe - Helmut Lent
Aces of the Luftwaffe - Helmut Lent
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,251
Received 147 Likes
on
91 Posts
My late father was shot down by a Night Fighter which he beleived was equipped with the "Dancing Music" as he was a rear gunner and never saw the fighter until it opened fire below them, and he then could not depress the guns enough or bring to bear on target. His desciption of 20mm cannon shell fire at night in his words was " like playing tennis with flaming tennis balls" - he was a keen tennis player ! He also beleives only maybe 10 - 15 cannon shells hit the A/C but the damage they did was quickly fatal.
Regards
Mr Mac
Regards
Mr Mac
The SM pilots targeted the wing fuel tanks - a few phosphorus type cannon shells in the Engines/Fuel Tanks would have been enough to bring the Bomber down.
Minengeschoss = HE
Phosphorbrand = Incendiary
Glimmspur = Dim Tracer
The ammo used was a mixture done by the waffenmeister according to the wishes of the pilot.
normally 1 piece of explosive- Minengeschoss, then 1 phospor-fire - Phosphorbrand, and 1 tracer ammo-Glimmspur, the last not too bright.
normally 1 piece of explosive- Minengeschoss, then 1 phospor-fire - Phosphorbrand, and 1 tracer ammo-Glimmspur, the last not too bright.
Minengeschoss = HE
Phosphorbrand = Incendiary
Glimmspur = Dim Tracer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a fascinating topic.
Despite what Mr Dyson says, his colleagues had detected the rise in night fighter attacks from below (and rear) as early as mid-1943.
Urgent action was taken to counter the threat. The solution decided upon was the 0.5" Browning "lash up" devised at the Bomber Development Unit (not by "the Canadians"), using the aperture originally intended for powered turrets in all the main bomber types still in service, i.e. Stirling, Halifax, Lancaster and Wellington.
Trials were conducted on the three heavies (I'm not sure the Wellington ever had the modification in view of its imminent departure from Bomber Command). The Lancaster's installation was judged to be slightly superior to that in the Stirling, while the Halifax was judged the least successful. The latter installation was modified, producing the "Preston Green turret" which was only a fairing in reality. I've searched high and low for background information as to who/what Preston Green was. The closest I've come so far is that the representative for Handley-Page in these trials was a Mr P. T. Green (co-incidence?).
There were inevitable delays in getting the aircraft equipped, but by early 1944, all the three types were being modified, either on the assembly lines or on the units.
The major problem, of course, was the parallel drive to get H2S into the same aperture in the airframe. Faith was to be pinned on H2S and Fishpond to detect the night fighter. That didn't work out too well either.
No. III Group continued to use the under gun lash up after the other Groups because their Lancasters had the 8,000 lb. bomb doors and no H2S fit.
Meanwhile: rejected by Fighter Command in 1942...
Despite what Mr Dyson says, his colleagues had detected the rise in night fighter attacks from below (and rear) as early as mid-1943.
Urgent action was taken to counter the threat. The solution decided upon was the 0.5" Browning "lash up" devised at the Bomber Development Unit (not by "the Canadians"), using the aperture originally intended for powered turrets in all the main bomber types still in service, i.e. Stirling, Halifax, Lancaster and Wellington.
Trials were conducted on the three heavies (I'm not sure the Wellington ever had the modification in view of its imminent departure from Bomber Command). The Lancaster's installation was judged to be slightly superior to that in the Stirling, while the Halifax was judged the least successful. The latter installation was modified, producing the "Preston Green turret" which was only a fairing in reality. I've searched high and low for background information as to who/what Preston Green was. The closest I've come so far is that the representative for Handley-Page in these trials was a Mr P. T. Green (co-incidence?).
There were inevitable delays in getting the aircraft equipped, but by early 1944, all the three types were being modified, either on the assembly lines or on the units.
The major problem, of course, was the parallel drive to get H2S into the same aperture in the airframe. Faith was to be pinned on H2S and Fishpond to detect the night fighter. That didn't work out too well either.
No. III Group continued to use the under gun lash up after the other Groups because their Lancasters had the 8,000 lb. bomb doors and no H2S fit.
Meanwhile: rejected by Fighter Command in 1942...
The possibility of upward firing nightfighters very rarely gets a mention in any Brit Bomber crews autobios.
The Canadians at least acknowledged the problem could exist.And it is possible that some sqns had a local 'lash up' before the official 'lash up' - a couple of tracers fired at a night fighter would certainly cause the NF to break away.
All a bit strange really as an attack from below was the easiest and most obvious option for NF's and us brits had even designed a couple of upward firing fighters.
Wing Commander J. D. Pattinson of 429 Squadron, recognized an unseen danger but to him, it "was all presumption, not fact." He ordered that the mid-upper turrets be removed and the "displaced gunner would lie on a mattress on the floor as an observer, looking through a perspex blister for night fighters coming up from below.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first generation of new, monoplane bombers (i.e. Wellington and Whitley) had the "dustbin" type of turret which was lowered into the slipstream when required. A single .303"(*) and a loss in performance due to drag made them unpopular. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go to war in one of them!
The second generation of Bombers, Manchester, Halifax, and Stirling had more advanced turrets where only a small proportion of the turret projected below the fuselage. This meant the gunner sat inside the fuselage and sighted through a periscopic sight. These turrets were considered useless at night due to the loss of vision through the sight and a tendency for the gunner to quickly become disorientated when traversing.
(*) I was thinking of the very early dustbin turret in the Heyford when I typed this. The later, retractable turrets in the Manchester, etc, all had two .303" Brownings.
The second generation of Bombers, Manchester, Halifax, and Stirling had more advanced turrets where only a small proportion of the turret projected below the fuselage. This meant the gunner sat inside the fuselage and sighted through a periscopic sight. These turrets were considered useless at night due to the loss of vision through the sight and a tendency for the gunner to quickly become disorientated when traversing.
(*) I was thinking of the very early dustbin turret in the Heyford when I typed this. The later, retractable turrets in the Manchester, etc, all had two .303" Brownings.
Last edited by 682al; 18th Aug 2017 at 11:19. Reason: Typed in too much of a rush!
Rory57 your post #13
Schräge Musik "efficiently destroyed thousands of bombers"
Really that many?
first hand, article on British Bomber losses
The German night fighter force was tiny compared with Bomber Command. But the German pilots were highly skilled, and they hardly ever got shot down. They carried a firing system called Schräge Musik, or “crooked music,” which allowed them to fly underneath a bomber and fire guns upward at a 60-degree angle. The fighter could see the bomber clearly silhouetted against the night sky, while the bomber could not see the fighter. This system efficiently destroyed thousands of bombers, and we did not even know that it existed. This was the greatest failure of the ORS. We learned about Schräge Musik too late to do anything to counter it.
Really that many?