Talk:R4M

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / European / German / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Germany C‑class Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

"Two warheads were available for the R4M, the common PB-3 with a 4kg shaped charge for anti-aircraft use, and the larger PB-2 for use in the anti-tank role"

Soory, but that's wrong - as the designation "Minenkopf" indicates, the normal warhead this rocket carried was a thin-walled, high-capacity charge of about 500 g explosive. The weight of the entire rocket was around 4 kg, so obviously it couldn't have mounted a "4 kg shaped charge".

Only the dedicated anti-tank version of the R4 had a shaped charge, with a weight comparable to that of the HE warhead. --

 Right, warhead was about 500 g, that was considered as always lethal against any aircraft. The dedicated AT version was called "Panzerblitz" and looked like a modern AT rifle grenade in shape.

Lastdingo (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed an obvious spelling error in the meaning of FFAR but a Google of “FFAR rocket” produced a variety of possible meanings in addition to the one given in the article – Folding-Fin Aircraft Rocket, Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket, Folding-Fin Air Rocket, Free Flight Aircraft Rocket, etc.

I chose words which agreed with the only other reference to the rocket in the wiki but can anyone confirm the correct name? GreatWhiteNortherner 04:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Fixed quite a few innaccuracies with warhead, missle types, and added the fact that the R4m was actually first used on the F and G models of the Fw 190. I also added some facts about the missle itself.

I hope to add some images later tonight.

All facts are from German war testing documents and Luftwaffe training manuals.

--Evil.Merlin 20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is in this article. "Overall however the Luftwaffe pilots found the R4M missiles to be highly unpredictable in flight, due to their unguided nature and the use of Revi gunsights for aiming."

It was unpredictable because of their unguided nature but what does the REVI gunsights have to do with this? 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC) BernardZ 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link suggestion (with pictures!): http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/r4m.htm Lastdingo (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Success rate of the R4M[edit]

At the bottom of the page, under "operations," I see some fairly ambitious claims about number of B-17s shot down by Me-262s firing the R4M: fourteen in March and thirty in April. Can those kills be confirmed from other sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.86.167 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

total nonsense about Panzerblitz III[edit]

All German sources state that Panzerblitz III used 75 mm shaped charge, not 210 mm! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.39.46 (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]