PDA

View Full Version : Air launched missiles - a must have for '46



Bang_D
10-12-2006, 08:33 AM
Nazi's missile technology was ahead of its time. Beside the famed V1 cruise & V2 ballistic, the Luftwaffe air-launched missiles were no less brilliant.
As far as I know, there were several important models:

Fritz X: 1500kg Guided bomb, fitted with wings and an adjustable remote-controlled tail component. Manual Wire-Guided, aiming work could be done with an ordinary Lofte 7D Bombsight. The bombardier controls it with a joystick. Its most significant record was set in 1944; two direct hits with Fritz-X sank the Italian 40,000 ton battleship Roma (A defector ship). Numerous others sank & heavily damaged records, mostly RN battleships and cruisers.

Hs-293: Typical AG Guided missile. After Fritz-X?s astonishing success, the RLM wanted something faster and more accurate than the glider bomb, as a result the Hs293 entered service. The 293 has a under slung rocket engine, with a 300kg HE warhead. (Only intended to destroy smaller and lightly-armed targets.) A flare ties to its butt will be lit the moment the missile is launched, to help the operator to navigate it. 5 destroyers were confirmed destroyed by 293s. One variant, the Hs-293D, was an experimental wireless TV Guided model(!), tested but abandoned because of the poor reliability of this system.

X-4: Wire Guided AA missile. German jet pilots used to intercept American?s heavy bomber by firing a set of R4M unguided rocket, the accuracy was proved insufficient. The idea was to build a missile with enough range to allow it to be fired from well outside the range of the bombers' guns, while being guided with enough accuracy to guarantee a "kill". The X-4 met these specifications. Its BMW 109-448 rocket motor got the missile up to a speed of over 1152 km/h and kept it there during its "cruise", which lasted up to 4 km (although 1.5 to 3.5 km was more typical)But unfortunately the BMW Stargard factory, X-4?s engine producer, was destroyed in an allied aerial bombardment, along with all stock rocket motors. It is possible that some X-4s were used in the closing weeks of World War II, of course, no one could prove it.

Bang_D
10-12-2006, 08:33 AM
Nazi's missile technology was ahead of its time. Beside the famed V1 cruise & V2 ballistic, the Luftwaffe air-launched missiles were no less brilliant.
As far as I know, there were several important models:

Fritz X: 1500kg Guided bomb, fitted with wings and an adjustable remote-controlled tail component. Manual Wire-Guided, aiming work could be done with an ordinary Lofte 7D Bombsight. The bombardier controls it with a joystick. Its most significant record was set in 1944; two direct hits with Fritz-X sank the Italian 40,000 ton battleship Roma (A defector ship). Numerous others sank & heavily damaged records, mostly RN battleships and cruisers.

Hs-293: Typical AG Guided missile. After Fritz-X?s astonishing success, the RLM wanted something faster and more accurate than the glider bomb, as a result the Hs293 entered service. The 293 has a under slung rocket engine, with a 300kg HE warhead. (Only intended to destroy smaller and lightly-armed targets.) A flare ties to its butt will be lit the moment the missile is launched, to help the operator to navigate it. 5 destroyers were confirmed destroyed by 293s. One variant, the Hs-293D, was an experimental wireless TV Guided model(!), tested but abandoned because of the poor reliability of this system.

X-4: Wire Guided AA missile. German jet pilots used to intercept American?s heavy bomber by firing a set of R4M unguided rocket, the accuracy was proved insufficient. The idea was to build a missile with enough range to allow it to be fired from well outside the range of the bombers' guns, while being guided with enough accuracy to guarantee a "kill". The X-4 met these specifications. Its BMW 109-448 rocket motor got the missile up to a speed of over 1152 km/h and kept it there during its "cruise", which lasted up to 4 km (although 1.5 to 3.5 km was more typical)But unfortunately the BMW Stargard factory, X-4?s engine producer, was destroyed in an allied aerial bombardment, along with all stock rocket motors. It is possible that some X-4s were used in the closing weeks of World War II, of course, no one could prove it.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2006, 08:45 AM
Apparently you dont read the news http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The X-4 will be on Ta-152C and Ta-183 in the new patch.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/sig2.jpg
Escadron virtuel RCAF 438 (http://438cityofmontreal.googlepages.com)
<span class="ev_code_red"> Are you from Montreal? French is good? JOIN US! RCAF 438 "The City of Montreal"</span>

"You know, I've personally flown over 194 missions and I was shot down on every one. Come to think of it, I've never landed a plane in my life."

berg417448
10-12-2006, 08:51 AM
These allied "high tech" weapons could be implemented as well:


AZON bomb:

Azon was used with moderate success in the Mediterranean and European theaters and with great success in the China Burma India theater where B-24 crews knocked out 14 bridges in seven missions.

http://www.space.edu/LibraryResearch/swanson/Exhibits/Azon.htm
http://www.455th.ukpc.net/tomfeise/455th/458azon.htm


Bat bomb:

The US Navy designed Bat bomb was active RADAR homed weapon and was used in combat.

http://biomicro.sdstate.edu/pederses/asmbat.html



The TDR-1 Assault Drone

Remote-control or "stand-off" weapons were used in the Pacific. The TDR-1 Assault Drone carried a 2,000 lb. bomb load or torpedo, and included a TV camera for close-in guidance. The control plane carried a crew of four which included two pilots who's job it was to control the flight of the drone.

The U.S. Navy?s first tactical precision guided weapon, the Interstate TDR-1 Assault Drone made some 100 successful attacks against anti-aircraft facilities in the South Pacific."


Over the course of a month, VK-11 and VK-12 expended 46 TDRs in combat. Of these, 37 reached target areas, and at least 21 successfully executed precision attacks.

http://www.stagone.org/ns.html

Tater-SW-
10-12-2006, 09:16 AM
^^^^ That'll never happen, only the germans had uberweapons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tater

JG53Frankyboy
10-12-2006, 09:24 AM
****.

german rockets that realy would have been needed are Panzerblitz ones.............

bads thats a very dead horse since a long time already - anyway i cant understand it !


about X-4 , also the Lerche will be able to carry them.

Whirlin_merlin
10-12-2006, 09:56 AM
I'm sure their were British experiments with a pigeon guided anti-shipping bomb, I'll have a look and post what I find.

berg417448
10-12-2006, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
I'm sure their were British experiments with a pigeon guided anti-shipping bomb, I'll have a look and post what I find. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well...I know that the Americans were looking at that same thing.

http://historywired.si.edu/object.cfm?ID=353

Antoninus
10-12-2006, 11:46 AM
According to luthier the western allies are out of the war in the 46 storyline, so no new toys for them.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

FritzGryphon
10-12-2006, 01:15 PM
The Western allies were swiftly defeated when the pigeons turned on their masters.

II_JG1Adler
10-12-2006, 01:56 PM
Pigeon Missle? Were the allies this desperate or just not thinking clearly.

Tater-SW-
10-12-2006, 01:59 PM
So their "plausible" scenario is that the UK fell? Riiight. Glad I don;t like fantasy planes, I couldn't suspend disbelief for that one.

tater

Whirlin_merlin
10-12-2006, 02:38 PM
Haven't found a link to what i remembered might be the US pigeon bomb mentioned.
However if I rember rightly it was much cruder with a single pigeon trained to peck the image of a ship on film. The bomb had the pigeon in the nose behind a perspex sheet which could move and was conected to tail fins. The bird's pecking at the ship would guide the bomb in.
Seems nuts but a pigeons brain has more processing power than a tomerhawk missile.

ruby_monkey
10-12-2006, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by II_JG1Adler:
Pigeon Missle? Were the allies this desperate or just not thinking clearly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What? You've never heard of homing pigeons?

roybaty
10-12-2006, 03:56 PM
Even though it was promising, and may have worked, the military just wouldn't take it seriously it seems.

http://www.elecdesign.com/Globals/PlanetEE/Content/4964.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon

http://www.ideafarm.co.za/blog/2004/11/project_pigeon.html<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-------------- QUICK SPECS --------------

-------------- HARDWARE --------------

SYSTEM: DELL XPS 600 3Ghz/P4/630
VIDEO CARD: nVidia 6800GS/256
RAM: 1 Gig DDR2 4200
HOTAS : Thrustmaster COUGAR
PEDALS: CH Pro Pedals USB
OTHER INPUT: Track IR2


-------------- SOFTWARE --------------

OS: Win XP Pro SP2
VOICE COMMAND: Shoot 1.6/VR Commander
COMMUNICATION: Teamspeak 2 R2
DX Ver: 9c

VW-IceFire
10-12-2006, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
So their "plausible" scenario is that the UK fell? Riiight. Glad I don;t like fantasy planes, I couldn't suspend disbelief for that one.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds more like a ceassation of hostilities occured sometime in '44 according to the alternate timeline. Interested to see where they take it. Hitler's strategy was definately at one point or another to try and force the Western Allies to incur so many losses as to try and force a peace on the West front so that Germany could concentrate on the Soviets.

The Western Allies were not really friends to the Soviets and prior to 1939 were more affraid of the Soviets than the Germans.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

LEXX_Luthor
10-12-2006, 09:35 PM
The remaining scenario is the most interesting of all -- the war simply lasted longer. 5,000 Me-262s produced and flying in action by December 1945, but they can't stop the 50,000 P-47s. Its not talked about on the baords, but USA had not even begun wartime production by the time WW2 ended, and was already slowing down by 1944 as the end was certain. On the other hand, imagine the casualties if the war lasted longer and reached a more massive scale.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

darkhorizon11
10-12-2006, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bang_D:


X-4: Wire Guided AA missile. German jet pilots used to intercept American?s heavy bomber by firing a set of R4M unguided rocket, the accuracy was proved insufficient. The idea was to build a missile with enough range to allow it to be fired from well outside the range of the bombers' guns, while being guided with enough accuracy to guarantee a "kill". The X-4 met these specifications. Its BMW 109-448 rocket motor got the missile up to a speed of over 1152 km/h and kept it there during its "cruise", which lasted up to 4 km (although 1.5 to 3.5 km was more typical)But unfortunately the BMW Stargard factory, X-4?s engine producer, was destroyed in an allied aerial bombardment, along with all stock rocket motors. It is possible that some X-4s were used in the closing weeks of World War II, of course, no one could prove it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said it yourself about the X4 being used, it can't proven all though all the other sources I've read said it never saw any combat... I would think probably because even if some were running around in the last month or so no squadrons (Besides the test aircraft) were equipped with pylons or the guiding system to use it...

whiteladder
10-13-2006, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Haven't found a link to what i remembered might be the US pigeon bomb mentioned.
However if I rember rightly it was much cruder with a single pigeon trained to peck the image of a ship on film. The bomb had the pigeon in the nose behind a perspex sheet which could move and was conected to tail fins. The bird's pecking at the ship would guide the bomb in.
Seems nuts but a pigeons brain has more processing power than a tomerhawk missile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is a program in the UK called "The crafty tricks of war" where they recreate all odd ball weapons. They talk to the daughter of the American gentleman(B. F. Skinner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner) who proposed the Pigeon missile, a scientist who had been working on animal behavoir. The pigeons were trained that when they pecked at the image of a ship they were rewarded with food. The faster they pecked the more food was released.

One of the problem they encountered was as the range decreased the pigeon were not able to peck fast enough to correct the angular deviation.

Work never got as far as building any actual missiles, the pigeons pecking at a lens in the front of the missile would have made a electrical contact on a fine wire mesh and this would have sent signal to the control surfaces. In the TV series they used a perspex sheet connected to some dummy control surfaces by cables, worked quite well.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5248/whiteladder4ws6pf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Waldo.Pepper
10-13-2006, 02:51 AM
II. Bats Away!
by Joe Michael Feist

It is early 1945. An American bomber crew is anxiously nearing the now familiar islands of the Japanese Empire. Flak begins to burst around the plane as the target comes into view. The bombardier releases the payload, and the crew watches as thousands of incendiary bats plummet toward the paper cities of Japan.

This bizarre event never actually occurred, but it very well could have?largely through the enthusiasm of an unlikely war planner by the name of Lytle S. Adams, a Pennsylvania dental surgeon. It seems he was on his way back from a visit to Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico, when he learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He immediately thought of the millions of bats that lived in Carlsbad: why not arm the little beasts with tiny incendiary bombs? The following January he somehow got the ear of President Franklin Roosevelt and convinced him that the idea warranted investigation.

Next Adams approached Dr. Donald R. Griffin, a distinguished Harvard zoologist. Griffin was intrigued by the concept and agreed to accompany Adams on a return trip to the bat caves of Carlsbad.

The pair arrived late in July, 1942, and covered the entrance to the cave with netting wire. This snagged some five hundred of the Mexican free-tailed bats, which were transferred to coldstorage chests. The low temperature, it was hoped, would impel the bats to hibernate, thus making transportation easier and eliminating bothersome feeding. Unfortunately the system did not work too well, and only about three hundred bats survived the flight back to Cambridge. There Griffin found that the surviving bats could be kept in hibernation for a period of up to two weeks at a temperature of 10 degrees Centigrade and that each could carry a weight of three to five grams.

By this time the National Defense Research Committee had become acquainted with the ?Adams Plan,? so much so that Earl P. Stevenson, a top NDRC official, suggested that bats could conceivably be released from submarines as well as from bombers. Stevenson was of the opinion that the use of bats would be very demoralizing, especially when used against a ?superstitious people.?

Toward the end of 1942 the Adams Plan bogged down in bureaucratic indecision. The main drawback was the fact that Griffin?s preliminary experiments indicated bats could carry only a slight weight. But when later tests showed that the creatures could support fifteen to eighteen grams, the Army Air Force asked to push ahead with the bat bomb. So the Army?s Chemical Warfare Service and the NDRC joined forces on the project.

The incendiary unit was produced by a noted Harvard chemist, Dr. Louis F. Fieser, who was also an NDRC consultant. With a celluloid case threequarters of an inch in diameter and two and one-half inches long, the bomb was shaped so it could easily be dragged into a small crevice. It was filled with a concentrated napalm gel, equipped with a fifteen-hour delay mechanism, and attached to the loose skin of the bat?s chest with a surgical clip and a string. Moreover, Dr. Adams had designed a case that would slow the falling of the bats as they were dumped from the plane, allowing them to recover from hibernation gradually. Once fully awake, they would supposedly seek refuge in buildings, gnaw through the strings, and leave the incendiary units behind.

The first experiments, conducted at Muroc Lake, California, on May 15, 1943, were an unadulterated disaster. Fieser, Adams, and their associates found that the bats were harder to capture, more awkward to handle, and more difficult to force into hibernation than anyone had expected. Adams? container did not sufficiently slow the descent: many bats broke their wings, and some never awakened at all. And all the bombs were too heavy. Luckily the bats released from the plane were not armed with incendiary units. Much to the chagrin of Adams and Fieser, however, the units were tested. Several bats on the ground that had incendiaries attached to them managed to escape. The hangars and outlying buildings of the small airport, as well as a general?s automobile, were the first victims of the American bat bomb.

After the May 15 fiasco, many recommended scrapping the project; indeed, no work was done on the delay device between May and September of 1943. Finally Dr. Harris M. Chadwell, chief of the NDRC?s Division 19?which handled the development of the delay mechanism?wrote Fieser that ?it would be unwise for NDRC to spend any more time, money, and effort on the bat problem unless NDRC?s aid was solicited by some recognized branch of the service.?

Not wishing to see his brainchild cast aside, Dr. Adams began a vigorous public relations campaign. He explained to every general or admiral who would grant him an interview that bats are very robust and strong in any season except spring, when the tests had been conducted. Though the Army had given up hope on the bat bomb, Adams succeeded in attracting the attention of the Navy. In October, 1943, Rear Admiral D. C. Ramsey, the chief of the Navy?s Bureau of Aeronautics, asked the Chemical Warfare Service and the NDRC to keep going with the Adams Plan.

Problems soon arose, not the least of them the confusion among those working on the bomb. Because of the project?s highly secret nature (even today the blueprints of the incendiary unit remain security classified by order of the CIA), researchers struggling with one aspect of the device were unaware of the activities of their counterparts. Adams himself turned out to be a problem, too. In December, 1943, Dr. William G. Young, a UCLA chemist and NDRC consultant, complained that the dentist skipped an appointment with him on November 19: ?He did not arrive either that day or the next; and at the time I phoned his home I learned that he had left at five o?clock in the morning for parts unknown. Apparently, he just chases around from one part of Southern California to another without staying put long enough for anyone to corner him.

?Last Saturday Lieutenant Charles J. Holt of the Marine Corps Air Station at El Centra came to Los Angeles to see me, and we had a very interesting talk. ? Everyone in the project seems to be in agreement that Adams cannot accept responsibility for the project and have it function. For example, he ordered Lieutenant Holt to prepare for a test to be held on the desert in which ten thousand assemblies were to be used. When Holt pointed out the tremendous hazard involved to the whole of Southern California by such a program, Adams was most indignant, and the lieutenant finally had to tell him that such an experiment would not be performed even if he, Holt, had to stand in front of the arsenal with a machine gun to prevent it.?

By the middle of December, Adams had been squeezed out of the Adams Plan?which the Navy then renamed ?Operation X ray.? Further tests, held at the Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah on December 15, were quite promising. In fact, on a weight-to-weight basis, the tiny bat incendiary was more effective than any other such bomb in our arsenal; one estimate had it that a typical planeload of bat bombs would set anywhere from 3,625 to 4,748 fires, as opposed to from 167 to 400 with a planeload of regulation incendiaries.

It finally seemed that the time had come to use the bat bomb against Japan. The last day for all design changes was March 15, 1944; extensive tests of the finished product were scheduled for late April, and large-scale production, as many as 1,000,000 units, was set to begin in May.

But then, in March, 1944, Operation X ray came to an abrupt end, twenty-seven months and $2,000,000 after its conception. After the war, rumor had it that X ray had been terminated for fear the Japanese would charge the United States with having waged biological warfare. In fact, the chief of naval operations called a halt to X ray because of what he termed the ?uncertainties? surrounding the behavior of the bats and the length of time before an actual strike could be launched.

So the bats of war never got there.


Link here

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1982/3/1982_3_88.shtml<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/sig/p61rev.jpg

Whirlin_merlin
10-13-2006, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Haven't found a link to what i remembered might be the US pigeon bomb mentioned.
However if I rember rightly it was much cruder with a single pigeon trained to peck the image of a ship on film. The bomb had the pigeon in the nose behind a perspex sheet which could move and was conected to tail fins. The bird's pecking at the ship would guide the bomb in.
Seems nuts but a pigeons brain has more processing power than a tomerhawk missile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is a program in the UK called "The crafty tricks of war" where they recreate all odd ball weapons. They talk to the daughter of the American gentleman(B. F. Skinner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner) who proposed the Pigeon missile, a scientist who had been working on animal behavoir. The pigeons were trained that when they pecked at the image of a ship they were rewarded with food. The faster they pecked the more food was released.

One of the problem they encountered was as the range decreased the pigeon were not able to peck fast enough to correct the angular deviation.

Work never got as far as building any actual missiles, the pigeons pecking at a lens in the front of the missile would have made a electrical contact on a fine wire mesh and this would have sent signal to the control surfaces. In the TV series they used a perspex sheet connected to some dummy control surfaces by cables, worked quite well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That rings a bell, was the prog presented by a bloke with a big 'tash. Sry to any Americans for attempting to attribute this to Britian.

whiteladder
10-13-2006, 09:01 AM
Yep Colonel Richard Strawbridge

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2004/01/07/bvdick.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5248/whiteladder4ws6pf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Philipscdrw
10-14-2006, 06:27 AM
To the Original Poster:

'46 is complete, finished. It's now disappeared into the publisher's offices while they work out how to distribute it. We have the X-4 but won't get any of the other interesting stuff you mentioned in this release.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
PhilipsCDRw

PF_Tini's Simple Guide to Switching 4.04m, 4.05m, and 4.07m. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7351046415)
Flying on Hyperlobby as EAF_T_Dozer

Philipscdrw
10-14-2006, 12:22 PM
The ultimate guided missile in WW2 would be the QB-17 (or something with a similar designation). A weary B-17F with the cockpit roof removed, remote controls and TV cameras fitted, as well as several tonnes of TNT. Takes off with crew of 2, along with B-24-based control ship. Crews engage and test remote controls and cameras, QB-17 copilot arms bombs, pilot finally engages remote control, then they bail out over southern England. B-24 steers QB-17 over France and crashes it into U-boat pens or V1-site or whatever.

They didn't really work properly. At least one landed in France without exploding, giving Germans the highest Allied remote control technology. Mostly they lost control, couldn't see through the cameras, crashed, exploded mid-air sending shrapnel into unassuming English village...

JFK's brother was killed while flying a QB-17, come to think of it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
PhilipsCDRw

PF_Tini's Simple Guide to Switching 4.04m, 4.05m, and 4.07m. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7351046415)
Flying on Hyperlobby as EAF_T_Dozer

berg417448
10-14-2006, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
The ultimate guided missile in WW2 would be the QB-17 (or something with a similar designation). A weary B-17F with the cockpit roof removed, remote controls and TV cameras fitted, as well as several tonnes of TNT. Takes off with crew of 2, along with B-24-based control ship. Crews engage and test remote controls and cameras, QB-17 copilot arms bombs, pilot finally engages remote control, then they bail out over southern England. B-24 steers QB-17 over France and crashes it into U-boat pens or V1-site or whatever.

They didn't really work properly. At least one landed in France without exploding, giving Germans the highest Allied remote control technology. Mostly they lost control, couldn't see through the cameras, crashed, exploded mid-air sending shrapnel into unassuming English village...

JFK's brother was killed while flying a QB-17, come to think of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't a B-17. Joe Kennedy Jr was a naval officer and was flying a PB4Y (naval varient of the B-24) when he was killed.
http://www.aviationmuseum.net/Joe_Kennedy.htm