|
|
Post by christian on Apr 11, 2020 18:58:50 GMT -6
exactly what the title says a rocket payload for some plane types (most likely fighters) designed to damage light warships
these rockets would be effective against destroyers and light cruisers and would not do alot of damage against larger ships (they would act like 16-18 inch explosive shells or 350 lb bombs considering their 67kg filler for the larger anti ship ones and 6-8 inch and 75 lb bombs for the smaller rockets (though fired in higher quantity)
historically rockets were used for anti shipping as can be seen with the Tiny tim rocket and also smaller rockets used by american fighters and attackers on shipping and escorts (plenty of footage of it on youtube)
the rockets would have a much higher hitrate than divebombing and glide bombing and would thus be an effective means of sinking dds and cls from the air
|
|
|
|
Post by sagaren on Apr 12, 2020 12:23:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2020 16:27:18 GMT -6
Just some figures on the accuracy of unguided rockets. There were test accomplished in Europe during the 1944-1945 time frame between bombs and rockets. The targets were all field positions and derelict panther tanks. Here are the figures:
TABLE VI
BOMBING AND ROCKET ACCURACY
ROCKETS BOMBS
NUMBER OF ATTACKS 37 11
NUMBER WITHIN 150 YARDS 33 (89%) 5 (45%)
An average typhoon pilot firing eight rockets in a salvo had about a 4 percent chance of hitting a target the size of a German tank. The tanks were stationary and not firing back.
Now, how does this relate to air to ground Tiny Tim rockets? Well, they were designed for bunker busting primarily but were used against ships. A rocket and two bombs sank the Japanese destroyer Uranimi along with a merchant ship in December 1944. But again, she was escorting slow moving transports and was also hit by two heavy bombs so what did the most damage: the bombs or the rockets. Hard to know. However, merchant ships generally don't sail very fast and are not all that maneuverable and probably are not firing back at you. They also have high freeboards and low length to beams so they are really good, slow moving targets.
I don't believe that a 11.75 inch diameter rocket, dropped from an aircraft and ignited by a lanyard, with no guidance is going to be that accurate against a warship, maneuvering, firing back and armored. Remember also, that the tests were eight rockets not one rocket, but all were unguided rockets, not missiles.
Just my thoughts.
Gooderson, Dr Ian. Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 (Studies in Air Power) (Kindle Locations 1853-1856). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 13, 2020 2:42:50 GMT -6
Just some figures on the accuracy of unguided rockets. There were test accomplished in Europe during the 1944-1945 time frame between bombs and rockets. The targets were all field positions and derelict panther tanks. Here are the figures: TABLE VI BOMBING AND ROCKET ACCURACY ROCKETS BOMBS NUMBER OF ATTACKS 37 11 NUMBER WITHIN 150 YARDS 33 (89%) 5 (45%) An average typhoon pilot firing eight rockets in a salvo had about a 4 percent chance of hitting a target the size of a German tank. The tanks were stationary and not firing back. Now, how does this relate to air to ground Tiny Tim rockets? Well, they were designed for bunker busting primarily but were used against ships. A rocket and two bombs sank the Japanese destroyer Uranimi along with a merchant ship in December 1944. But again, she was escorting slow moving transports and was also hit by two heavy bombs so what did the most damage: the bombs or the rockets. Hard to know. However, merchant ships generally don't sail very fast and are not all that maneuverable and probably are not firing back at you. They also have high freeboards and low length to beams so they are really good, slow moving targets. I don't believe that a 11.75 inch diameter rocket, dropped from an aircraft and ignited by a lanyard, with no guidance is going to be that accurate against a warship, maneuvering, firing back and armored. Remember also, that the tests were eight rockets not one rocket, but all were unguided rockets, not missiles. Just my thoughts. Gooderson, Dr Ian. Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 (Studies in Air Power) (Kindle Locations 1853-1856). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. though it is important to mention that ships are quite a bit bigger than tanks especially in the height department and lenght department (quite hard to miss in front or behind a 150 m target) but its alot easier to shoot over and under also while the tiny tim was alot more inaccurate than the HVAR the tiny tim had a much larger warhead than the hvar another thing to note is that attacking tanks is significantly harder than ships as sometimes you dont have a clear line of sight its sitting close to trees or in a ditch and so on with a ship you have none of those problems and have a clear outlined target against the ocean and its of a substancial size (120+ meters long and 10+ meters wide) but you cant really compare accuracy against a tank to a ship though if we use the numbers you give it mentions 33 of 37 rockets (89%) being within 150 yards of the target which is 137 meters it seems it would be rare for pilots to shoot in front or behind the target but rather under/over as most ships in ww2 were 120 meters long or longer (destroyers and up) also it seems bombers doing attack runs on escorts/smaller ships had a tendency to get awfully close Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 13, 2020 6:03:47 GMT -6
|
|
