Uber Ram-jaeger!??

[sequoiaranger]

Ramming aircraft to disable them usually resulted in disabling the ramming plane as well. One-for-one ain't a bad trade, if it is viermotor for einzmotor. Now let's imagine a REAL ram-plane actually DESIGNED to ram!

Designed to PUNCH A HOLE right through the wing, hopefully in the gas tank area as well (f'rinstance between the engines of a B-17), this craft would have to be sturdy and streamlined. Like a "Natter", this would probably be a ground-launched, rocket-powered gizmo. The nose cone past the cockpit would be especially hardened to allow penetration to the midpoint (the rest, un-hardened, would then pass through the hole made by the hard stuff!). It's small wings and tail control surfaces would fold inward at the last split-second, then spring out again after passing through the enemy wing. The cockpit canopy would be just a bubble, protected in front by a reinforced steel ramp with horizontal slots for pilot viewing (I would also presume the pilot would instinctively "duck" when penetration is imminent!). So it might look much like a large drop-tank with minimal wings on it. Hmmm.

Presumably the "holepuncher" would hit one aircraft on the way up, and at least another on the way down.

[RussC]

Basically a Nike Hercules missile with more wing area to cover more distance -with a recoverable cockpit section. How about one that auto-rotates to the ground after the mission?

[tahsin]

I'd say you would have to sacrifise the wings even the plane as long as you get the pilot out , since even in suicidal affairs experience makes a difference .

Experts always disagree but P-79 has been reliably reported to cut wings and tails off . And it would be rather better in range .

[KJ_Lesnick]

@tahsin

Experts always disagree but P-79 has been reliably reported to cut wings and tails off . And it would be rather better in range .

Reliably reported by whom

[PR19_Kit]

The one and only XP-79 crashed on its first flight so it couldn't have cut any wings or tails off anything......

There are persistent threads that the XP-79 was intended to be a 'ramming fighter' but the pilot was lying prone right in the nose so it would have been a suicide mission for him! The aircraft did have a very strong structure, being of welded magnesium with internal steel reinforcements, but it was originally designed to contain the proposed rocket motor's fuel tanks, but it was changed to jet power during construction, rather negating the idea of the ultra-strong fuel tanks.

[tahsin]

Reliably reported by somebody who is widely known to be a nut , and he does quite allright for my case , and there is a fair amount of literature out there . The wing span is quite large and in any case pilots can be found when the situation seems desperate ; there were 2000 Germans who volunteered to ram in 1945 .

[Doc Yo]

  I'd love to see the reference for the XP-79 info. Kit is correct, the one and only XP-79B crashed on its first test flight, killing its pilot, Harry Crosby, when he struck the aircraft after bailing out. When it was in its original rocket-powered form, there might have been suggestions that it could ram
other aircraft, but apart from the whole pilot seating issue, the jet powered version would have been prone to foreign object ingestion.

While the Germans and Japanese may have been willing to resort to the tactic out of desperation, I don't think the USAAF felt like its back was
that close to the wall, even when the Northrop fighter was first conceived.

That said, I notice that virtually all the "Ram-jaegers" I've ever heard of were derived from, or the size of, ordinary fighters. What if aerial
gunnery had been a bit better a bit earlier....faster turrets, better tracking, that sort of thing. That, and perhaps better materials technology
giving better armor....I find myself thinking of A-20s and Hampdens and Airacudas with ram bows...or noses, if you prefer.

[RussC]

  I'd love to see the reference for the XP-79 info. Kit is correct, the one and only XP-79B crashed on its first test flight, killing its pilot, Harry Crosby, when he struck the aircraft after bailing out. When it was in its original rocket-powered form, there might have been suggestions that it could ram
other aircraft, but apart from the whole pilot seating issue, the jet powered version would have been prone to foreign object ingestion.

While the Germans and Japanese may have been willing to resort to the tactic out of desperation, I don't think the USAAF felt like its back was
that close to the wall, even when the Northrop fighter was first conceived.

That said, I notice that virtually all the "Ram-jaegers" I've ever heard of were derived from, or the size of, ordinary fighters. What if aerial
gunnery had been a bit better a bit earlier....faster turrets, better tracking, that sort of thing. That, and perhaps better materials technology
giving better armor....I find myself thinking of A-20s and Hampdens and Airacudas with ram bows...or noses, if you prefer.

  Don't forget the Russians, who nicknamed the tactic  "Taran" and even made them after gaining air superiority.

[Weaver]

An alternative approach might be to formalise a tactic that a number of pilots used in desperation and lived to talk about, namely putting the fighter's wing through a fragile bit of the bomber while missing it with the fuselage. Effectively, the fighter becomes a giant sword, chopping the bomber into bits.

You could imagine something like an Me-163 with heavily reinforced wing leading edges. The pilot would aim to fly just past the outer wing of a big bomber or the rear fuselage of a medium-sized one and slice off either an aileron or the complete empennage, thus making the bomber uncontrollable.

[rickshaw]

Be safer I think to just use guns/rockets and shoot the bugger down.  If I was to ram, I'd aim for the vertical tail.  Remove most of that and the bomber would be hors de combat.

[Weaver]

Be safer I think to just use guns/rockets and shoot the bugger down.  If I was to ram, I'd aim for the vertical tail.  Remove most of that and the bomber would be hors de combat.

Not really: german research towards the end of WWII revealed that it took an average of 20 x 20mm hits to bring an American heavy bomber down, and the average pilot was only getting 2% of rounds on target, which meant that he'd have to fire 1000 rounds to score a kill, that representing, for say, a FW190A-3, 23 second's continuous firing... Not very safe or practical at all, hence the Luftwaffe's interest in exotic weapons like big calibre guns, rockets and missiles. The ram fighter could be seen as simply another alternative: if a firing pass that's fast enough to be safe presents too short a firing time to do enough damage, then you might as well use that pass for something else, like slicing a wingtip off.

On choice of target, I'd go for a wingtip: furthest point from the heavy stuff (like engines and fuselage) that you can't afford to collide with, and it makes the bomber instantly uncontrollable by simultaneously making the lift asymetric and removing the pilot's only tool for counteracting it. A surprising number of aircraft have survived losing their fins: on a multi with wing-mounted engines, differential throttle can do a lot to compensate for the loss of directional stability.

[Doc Yo]

Don't forget the Russians, who nicknamed the tactic  "Taran" and even made them after gaining air superiority.

wrote RussC

I had completely forgotten about them, but I'll own I know very little about the air war in Russia, and most of that comes from Green's
Warplanes of the Third Reich. Can anyone recommend a good source for the particular topic, or simply spare a little discourse?

[rickshaw]

You may survive the loss of the fin and rudder but it means you're suddenly a great deal more interested in getting home than continuing the mission.   The B-17 in particular is vulnerable in this regard, it had that massive fin for a reason.  The B-24 less so.

Interestingly, the Japanese never really utilised the tactic en mass whereas they were quite willing to do so against surface ships.  The Germans toyed with it but weren't keen on it and the Russians developed a real doctrine how and where it was to be employed IIRC.  The Western Allies never saw the need, as was remarked, their backs simply weren't that close to the wall.

[RussC]

Don't forget the Russians, who nicknamed the tactic  "Taran" and even made them after gaining air superiority.

wrote RussC

I had completely forgotten about them, but I'll own I know very little about the air war in Russia, and most of that comes from Green's
Warplanes of the Third Reich. Can anyone recommend a good source for the particular topic, or simply spare a little discourse?

  From my readings, the technique was to ram the tail and was to be used against bombers and only when the supply of MG and cannon ammunition was gone. The air conflict in the east is not well documented beyond individual accounts by survivors. Some of the most extensive writing was by Stuka pilot Rudel and some short stories on Airwar.ru
A lot of the official Russian volumes on the air war are told at the leadership level and not the pilot level at all.
Other surprises- Russia had next to nil strategic bombing unlike USAAF, RAF, Luft. Also they had women aviators in combat.
   All I can relate about it.

[rickshaw]

Not quite "nil".  They instead had a similar doctrine to the Germans of primarily tactical bombing.  However, they did on several notable occasions undertake strategic missions.  Perhaps most notable was the raid a few days after the Germans invaded Russia conducted on Berlin.  It rather surprised the Germans apparently who had most of their defences devoted to combating the RAF from the West.  Mainly conducted by IL4s and Pe8s IIRC.