Impact of the R4M if it was ready earlier?

[Yuri]

All the above calculations should be crossed out, do not care and forget.
P4M is a missile (rocket projectile).
With the simultaneous launch of 24 R4M missiles (12 missiles from each wing) from the optimal position and the optimal distance (one km), the missile spread area is 30 x 15 m2. This provides a 25% probability of hitting a heavy bomber. All other options for launching R4M missiles, namely:
- not a simultaneous launch;
- the launch of a smaller number of missiles in one salvo;
- the launch is not from the optimal position;
- the launch is not from the optimal distance,
rapidly reduces the probability of hitting the bomber to zero.
Let's assume that every second simultaneous launch of 24 missiles was made from the optimal position and from the optimal distance. Therefore, the practical (actual) probability of hitting a heavy bomber when using R4M missiles is 12.5%.
A very good result. And everything would be fine, if not for one small but.
The fact is that every second simultaneous launch of 24 missiles led to the destruction of the carrier aircraft. At the same time, the carrier aircraft was destroyed regardless of the position from which the salvo was fired and from a which distance.
Let's summarize the intermediate result.
It has the following initial data on the fact of the use of R4M missiles:
- every eighth launch of R4M missiles led to the destruction of a heavy bomber and its crew;
- every second launch led to the destruction of the carrier aircraft and the pilot.
Thus, for every heavy bomber shot down by means of R4M missiles, there were four carrier aircraft of these missiles. This is the actual, and not the theoretical, price of using R4M missiles at that stage of its development as of April 1945.

[TheMarcksPlan]

The images are blank, a perfect metaphor for someone who claims his arguments have been ignored, who hasn't in fact made any arguments.

[Yuri]

For the above reasons, it took Soviet designers ten years to create 57 mm S-5 "Skvorets" missiles and a UB-32 launch unit. The S-5 rocket together with the UB launch unit is a design, engineering, and technological masterpiece.

Information for reflection.
The R4M rocket was manufactured at a factory located in the Protectorate (modern Czech Republic), where mainly Czech specialists worked. This plant was not damaged and work on the P4M continued after the war on a legal basis. Soviet designers and specialists exchanged information with Czech specialists. The Red Army left the territory of Czechoslovakia in August 1945. Until February 1948, there was a bourgeois dictatorship regime in Czechoslovakia, and therefore British and American specialists also had no problems getting information about the R4M rocket.

[EKB]

The images are blank, a perfect metaphor for someone who claims his arguments have been ignored, who hasn't in fact made any arguments.

It's not my fault that your computer dislikes puppies and blocks their puppy-like behavior from view. If you don't want pushback on your ideas then put up counterfactuals that are more defensible.

[TheMarcksPlan]

If you don't want pushback on your ideas

The whole point of posting here is to get pushback. My complaint is about quality, not quantity. I want you and your friends to be better at this. If you actually made an argument, rather than complaining about not being allowed to make an argument or invoking some nebulous anti-quantitative principle, I'd be much happier.

Even better if you made a good argument, but I won't ask for too much. Especially considering R4M isn't even my idea and I began this thread by stating:

R4M would definitely have helped but we're talking on the margins. By early '44 even a doubling of aerial attrition ratio in LW's favor probably doesn't stop 8th AF, only blunts it.

[EKB]

If you don't want pushback on your ideas

The whole point of posting here is to get pushback. My complaint is about quality, not quantity. I want you and your friends to be better at this.

I want you to be better at remembering what you wrote. For instance your questionable statement about the Messerschmitt Bf 109 in post #117, to which I responded with post #120, with a follow-up reply to someone else in post #127.

Round and round we go again.

[TheMarcksPlan]

For instance your questionable statement about the Messerschmitt Bf 109 in post #117, to which I responded with post #120

You're on ignore so, except for my quixotic effort in this thread to address AHF meta-issues (of which you're a part), I don't see your posts. Having reviewed these, I'll rest on the Me-109 discussions already stated.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Yuri,

You say, "Let's assume that every second simultaneous launch of 24 missiles was made from the optimal position and from the optimal distance."

Why make that assumption?

Cheers,

Sid

[Terry Duncan]

Topic closed.

Terry