Bombs and rockets and ground missions on 20 December!

[Georgio]

Found this little gem for bedtime reading while we're waiting...

 

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=79862

[bivalov]

If I remember right, most of the tanks destroyed after Normandy invasion, was from AT & Tank fire, the losses from air attacks being something like 2%.

The rocket attacks were very inaccurate and even when hit, they could end up doing "only" a mobility kill.

hmmm, i saw several quotes about impressive accuracy of russian RBS-132/ROFS-132 with good quality, plus reports of pilots with "direct hits in tanks", although of course i'm not mean what all pilots did direct hits during all war... but i saw and several footages with typhoons etc, well, personally i see sometimes very good accuracy what depends from speed of plane of course (typhoon, especially in dive was very fast attack plane, huh?)...

 

ie i mean what we mainly about just generalized statistics...

 

but, for example, we have summary about low effectivness of rockets, in books about il-2... BUT, have and resonable critics of this conclusions, with documents too, plus what i write above about real reports from real pilots...

 

well, i think powerful rockets with good accuracy (don't know about RP-3 and HVARs, but rbs-82/132 and rofs-132 had not bad accuracy in total), by single shots with ЭСБР-3 and not very big distance, could give a good chance for destroying of single target, especially, in game, but it's only my very simple opinion at this moment...

 

Dont know how the BoS is going to model the fusing. I think it could be nice if one could decide the bomb type/fusing.

be sure, we have good chance to get realistic bombs/fuses, because developers have all books of Reznichenko and other sources, how i think...

[bivalov]

PS oh, i remembered what accuracy very depends on handling of plane, well, il-2 and especially some types of this plane had not best handling ever, and this is one of reasons why pilot not could do really fast amendments in aiming, if i'm not mistaken...

[OBT-Psycho]

It's fun, a couple of days ago I was watching some documentary on TV about battle of Normandy. there was this former typhoon pilot interviewed who said "some of the guys were talking about blowing up tanks with rockets and how one prefers aiming for the turret, the other one for the tracks,.. the hecks with those showoff, I was aiming at the god damned TANK!"

 

thinking back to this, I totally see what he meant. I was trying to shoot friendly vehicules this week end and I realized how hard it was to keep a good and steady aim on those moving ground target. I know I might need some more training, since there is  been a while from the last time I blew stuff up frequently. CloD is quite good now but is not really design for ground pounding, those .303 are good against soft targets but useless on slightly heavier one. OK, Luftwaffe's side does it better, with 109 and 110 carrying SC50 and 20mm MG-FF. 

but in the end the main focus has been put on the aerial battle, and does a really good job, but I have to admit it is not that good when it comes to ground attack. I enjoy it now that we know it a bit better and TF patches made wonders, but I miss the mud moving from 1946.

 

Engaging convoys with rocket with your buddies covering your ass, big discussion with squad mates about how to shatter armor concentration hidden in valley of north africa on Spit-vs-109 with almost 50 players on each side was what hooked me well on WW2 sims. Christmas 2014 appears to be pretty good on my sight

[Wind]

hmmm, i saw several quotes about impressive accuracy of russian RBS-132/ROFS-132 with good quality, plus reports of pilots with "direct hits in tanks"...

but, for example, we have summary about low effectivness of rockets, in books about il-2... BUT, have and resonable critics of this conclusions, with documents too, plus what i write above about real reports from real pilots...

 

well, i think powerful rockets with good accuracy (don't know about RP-3 and HVARs, but rbs-82/132 and rofs-132 had not bad accuracy in total), by single shots with ЭСБР-3 and not very big distance, could give a good chance for destroying of single target, especially, in game, but it's only my very simple opinion at this moment...

 

 

Here was some of the percentages I found. I know that somewhere there should be a better chart made by allies, but afaik, it had very similar stats.

 

German losses :

 

Mines 22.1%

AT guns 22.7%

Tanks 14.5%

SP Guns 24.4%

Bazooka 14.2%

Other 2.1%

 

So, the losses from air plane activity is 2.1%, of 450 or so destroyed Tanks in the days/weeks after operation overlord.

That'll make something like 9-10 tanks destroyed by air activity, including the heavy bombers that struck a lot of targets

around Caen etc...

 

The illusion of the effectiveness is not surprising. The rockets are a area weapon almost by design and pilots reported

more than often that they had hit "tanks" when they had hit troop carriers,trucks or even artillery pieces. Which is not surprising

as you are flying 400kmp/h at treetop level while getting shot at...

 

But, as said, the relative ineffectiveness of rockets agains tanks do not make them ineffective against other targets, like

pillboxes, trucks, arty emplacements, houses, troops...etc...

[bivalov]

Here was some of the percentages I found.

it's exactly what i'm told you - it's just generalized statistics, has similar russian reports from tests of rockets and about results during Kursk'43, but has and many single reports, opinions and proofs with ANOTHER results, and in end performances of each models...

 

you really WILL read lot of russian or just belive me? although, i'm not have several sources now, but developers have, and interesting what will be in ALPHA, but most likely for BOS'42-43 will be modelled not best russian rockets...

 

and i NOT think/write what rockets are weapon of sniper, i and some documents write what rockets could be weapon for little targets like tanks, ships, planes etc, just try to find more exactly about accuracy and conditions of accuracy (high speed=better accuracy, handling of plane, and here just really lot of details when rocket in flight, for pilot need to understand many conditions)...

 

The illusion of the effectiveness is not surprising.The rockets are a area weapon almost by design

and here illustration of "illusion" about accuracy, right? plus attached pic (like i see in footages of typhoons)... and "illusion" it's what i'm read in reports/critics? well... ok, i think what fully understood you...

 

and pilots reported more than often that they had hit "tanks" when they had hit troop carriers,trucks or even artillery pieces.

pilots, at least russian pilots of slow il-2, had very good vision as almost all pilots and write which target was destroyed, and how, even like "попадания в гусеницу и танк остановился" and other little details, moreover, it's no matter if pilot saw HITS - it's exactly what we talking about...

 

Which is not surprising

as you are flying 400kmp/h at treetop level while getting shot at...

you heard about reputation of il-2 pilots, huh? moreover, il-2 has lot of not bad armor... and maybe it's surprise for you, but main speeds of il-2 at this period cant be more than 395-400 kph at short WEP only for concrete situations, and most likely, it's without any weapon under wings... so, for il-2 your arguments is not really valid...

[=38=Tatarenko]

Well the attached pic shows a strike by a Beaufighter but of course the ship is a big target!

[Finkeren]

Sorry, but neither of those images really supports your claim about air-to-ground rocket accuracy in WW2. In fact in the pic of the ship attack, you can even see several of the rockets veering to the sides in different directions (and given the relative size of the rockets and the ship in that image, the photograph must've been taken very shortly after launch)

 

As for overall combat effectiveness of aircraft vs. armoured vehicles, here is a short summary of some of the more glaring examples of overclaiming by pilots of ground attack aircraft:

 

http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/Mythbusters4.html#an_2

 

The IL-2 propably was among the better light attack planes of WW2, though very likely not the "best" by any standard, it's just that as a whole, aircraft did really poorly against tanks during WW2 and their pilots fell vicitim to massive overclaiming, simply because it is often extremely difficult to determine damage against an armoured target viewed from an airplane going several hundred km/h at low altitude.

[Georgio]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Michael Wittman (tank ace) didn't fear other tanks or air attack 'but those little dug in AT guns' as they posed the greatest threat to his tanks.

Rockets can be deemed very much a 'poke & hope' area weapon where you fire off a salvo and hope for the best. Most gun-cam footage I've seen of WW2 attacks show the rockets dropping low. Which isn't surprising as to get any sort of accuracy you would need to attack at exactly the same dive angle (due to gravity) and take the wind into account.  

I would imagine they had more of a psychological effect as it must of been terrifying even if a salvo didn't actually hit.

[=38=Tatarenko]

The Coastal Command crews preferred them to the Molins gun or torps/bombs because they could be released during high speed flight and against a ship they hoped for a few wet hits (just below waterline). But against a tank you'd have to be very lucky indeed.

 

Mind you, I've fired a lot of artillery at tanks (as a FOO) and only got a direct hit once. Massive flash.

[Finkeren]

As far as psychological effect goes, I actually think dropping a 500lbs bomb in the vicinity would have a much larger impact than a salvo oof 60lbs rockets. The concussive force and the noise of such an explosion is just so massive.

 

I've spoken to a couple of veterans from both WW2 and the Spanish Civil War, and they both shared the sentiment, that artillery and heavy air dropped bombs were by far the most frightening weapons to face, because the force was so tremendous and stuck in your body for a long time, and because as a frontline soldier, you witnessed every day the effect such explosions could have, when they actually hit something. The guy I spoke to, who fought as a republican volunteer in the Spanish Civil War was wounded in combat no less than five times, but he said, that he didn't fear being hit by a bullet half as much as ending up as one of the torn up corpses left by a bomb or artillery shell.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Finkeren

[bivalov]

Well the attached pic shows a strike by a Beaufighter but of course the ship is a big target!

for example, i could post here opinion from russian book, which based on info from developer of panzerblitz too, but you cant understand this i think, but i quoted before - "rockets could be weapon for little targets like tanks, ships, planes etc" - because starting from distance around 1000 meters accuracy could be 8x8 meters...

 

not ONLY "big area weapon", huh?

 

or i write what what rockets like modern .50 barret? and you really wait and want accuracy like .50 or just sniper rifle?

 

if you can read, no problem, it's much more easy for me, but i quoted above in fact... and just try to understand what i written here and before...

 

Sorry, but neither of those images really supports your claim about air-to-ground rocket accuracy in WW2. In fact in the pic of the ship attack, you can even see several of the rockets veering to the sides in different directions (and given the relative size of the rockets and the ship in that image, the photograph must've been taken very shortly after launch)

at first, photos it's what i found and remembered only at this moment, and trajectory of MANY rockets looks like almost RAILS = theoretically, very good accuracy... huh? no matter which type of target here, moreover, first photo NOT at sea, right? what rockets not very exact after start and after some distance, well, and WHAT? but who tell you here what rockets are sniper bullet and at all distances? it's strange critics, i think, sorry but looks like arraignment in some sence...

 

further you just can watch ENGLISH footages of typhoons, for example, where 2 typhoons in dive attacked railroad absolutely not with firing just "in that area", plus good guncam with 51s from pacific, etc...

 

and i repeat, try to find conditions of correct firing, on english, because i saw this on RUSSIAN forum...

 

second, maybe, YOU have guncams of il-2? personally i'm not saw this theoretically great stuff, but i have MANY various reports, mentions, descriptions of real pilots, and performances of all rockets at all periods - personally for me it's ENOUGH to understand what rockets not ONLY "area weapon"...

 

i can post something, but i think noone here not will read and correctly understand lot of russian quotes, like and before, so, just belive me and try to find english tests etc, no another ways...

 

altough, ok, further very big quote about some rockets from absolutely great book, which has developers as one of main sources i think - it's Резниченко С.Н. Реактивное вооружение советских ВВС. 1930-1945. - М.: Бедретдинов и Ко., 2007. - 1056 с...

 

you want facts, you got it and PLS try to read...   -

4 января 1942 г. был доклад заместителю наркома обороны Союза ССР генерал-полковнику Жигареву, начальнику авиационного отдела оперативного управления Генерального штаба Красной Армии генерал-майору авиа¬ции Викуленкову от командующего ВВС МВО генерал-майора авиа¬ции Сытова, из которого следует, что в 65-м шап фактически бы¬ли проведены войсковые испытания новых реактивных систем на штурмовиках. То есть, «установка и испытание в боевых условиях на самолетах Ил-2 ракетных снарядов М-13 (системы Костикова — 42 кг)». Вот так. Коротко и емко — 42 кг (масса окончательно снаряжен¬ного ракетного снаряда), значит - «системы Костикова», а вовсе не Шитова... То есть, легенду о непревзойденном конструкторе, «отце «катюши» начали создавать в Красной Армии уже в начале войны, и не без участия НКВД...

Итак, войсковые испытания «пехотных» ракетных снарядов М-13 в авиации... На каждую консоль крыла штурмовика для сравнения под¬вешивали по два РС-82 или РС-132 и по два М-13. Испытания показали, что самолет в полете и при стрельбе ведет себя нормально, а М-13 обла¬дают «исключительно большой эффективностью». Взрыватели на М-13 использовали от авиабомб. Наряду с отчетом, были представлены фото¬снимки пусковых установок М-13 на штурмовике Ил-2 и пикирующем бомбардировщике Пе-2.

К этому времени на имя командующего ВВС МВО поступили более подробные материалы по эксплуатации упомянутых ракетных систем на самолете Ил-2 от командира 65-го шап подполковника Витрука. В них, в частности, говорилось, как на самолетах Ил-2 из состава 65-го шап во время боевых вылетов применяли РС-82, РС-132 и снаряды М-13.

В соответствии с инструкциями, проверив ракетные орудия РО-82 и ис¬правность электропроводки к ним, полковые специалисты заряжали пиро-пистолеты. Было отмечено, что желательно фиксирующие штифты затвора укоротить наполовину, так как гнезда для них засоряются, и контакт пиро-затвора не доходит до контакта пиропатрона. Далее осматривали РС - целы ли ведущие штифты, вывинчивали пробки из очка взрывателя, вынимали деревянные вкладыши, проверяли наличие дополнительного детонатора. Затем заряжали РС в РО, ввертывали «взрыватель АМ-А для штурмовки». Если взрыватель был с контровочным усом, то, отвернув крыльчатку на 1-1,5 оборота, ус заправляли в паз РО и досылали РС назад до постановки в замки. Перед вылетом, как требовалось, выбивали картонную сопловую заглушку. Подготовка РС-132 к стрельбе была аналогична.

Часто в сырую погоду и зимой РС-82 и РС-132 отказывали в стрель¬бе. То есть, пиропатрон срабатывал, а РС не стартовал - либо отсырел по¬роховой заряд (вернее, пороховые воспламенители), либо при рулении и взлете самолета снегом забивало сопло РС. С цель исключения этого военные рекомендовали удлинить стволы пиропистолета, чтобы часть его входила в сопло через картонную заглушку, которую не удалять перед полетом на применение РС.

1 марта 1942 г. было письмо главного конструктора самолета Ил-2 С.В.Ильюшина И.В.Сталину: «На основании ознакомления с работой самолетов Ил-2 в действующих частях, вношу на Ваше рассмотрение следующие предложения:

1) Не расходовать самолеты Ил-2 в течение ближайших двух месяцев, , а начать производить накопление их к весенним операциям для истреб¬ления танков врага. За март и апрель авиационная промышленность даст Не менее 1000 самолетов Ил-2, что составит 50 штурмовых авиаполков.

2) Для нанесения сокрушительных ударов по танкам врага необходи¬мо вместо 82-мм реактивных снарядов самолеты Ил-2 снабдить в достаточном количестве реактивными снарядами М-13. 82-мм реактивные снаряды снять с самолета Ил-2 совсем, как малоэффективные для стрельбы по танкам. Точно так же необходимо за эти два месяца, во что бы то ни стало накопить достаточное количество снарядов М-13».

Снаряды М-13 заряжали в РО-132, дополнительно оборудованные дву¬мя электроконтактами. Самолеты Ил-2, вооруженные пушками ВЯ, РС ос¬нащали из расчета М-13 и РС-82 - по четыре штуки и столько же фугасных авиабомб ФАБ-50. Техсостав полка отмечал, что при массовом применении завод должен изготавливать М-13 с очком для взрывателей АМ-А, то есть, с диаметром 26 мм. Забегая вперед, можно отметить, что это пожелание так и осталось «криком в пустыне» — гвардейские минометчики эгоистично использовали на все 100% свое монопольное право гензаказчика РС.

Далее следовало описание применения новой реактивной системы по танкам, автомашинам и живой силе. Первыми снаряды М-13 в авиа¬ции применили старший лейтенант Торев и военлет Болгов. Их пись¬менные отзывы практически слово в слово повторяются, поэтому изло¬жим лишь суть докладов. «При применении в штурмовой авиации про¬тив техники и живой силы противника действует эффективно. В сравне¬нии с РС-132, М-13 при отрыве от самолета создает торможение на пло¬скость сильнее и снижается по траектории больше. То есть, сбрасывая его с той же высоты, что и РС-132, снаряд ложится по дистанции бли/ке». Терминология пилотов наводит на мысль, что ракетными снарядами они скорее бомбили, чем стреляли.

«Применяя снаряды М-13 по автомашинам противника численно¬стью до 30 штук, я первым РС попал метрах в трех от головы колонны, и три машины от волны разрыва были перевернуты за дорогу. Вторым РС попал в середину автоколонны точно по дороге, и было видно, как летят щепки и осколки от автомашин, а на том месте, где была автомашина, после разрыва РС ничего не оказалось. Последние два больших РС я бросил по деревне, где было много пехоты и автомашин. РС попал точ¬но в цель и задел дом, который тоже раскатило по бревнам, и наблюдал¬ся пожар и взрывы».

Второй пилот докладывал: «М-13 мне приходилось бросать на дис¬танции от 300 до 600 м, и чем дальше он рвется, тем отчетливее видны его результаты. В одном из полетов я бросил два М-13 на семь груже¬ных автомашин, подходивших к передовой. Первый РС упал сбоку в метрах 1,5-2 от головной машины, а второй попал в центр автома¬шин. Благодаря тому, что машины были в движении, и атака произве¬дена в лоб, то задние на полном ходу наезжали одна на одну после то¬го, как передняя была разбита. Второй РС уже разнес все машины. С близкого расстояния хорошо видно, что струя пламя, снежной пыли и осколков от машин в момент разрыва РС летят до пятидесяти метров во все стороны».

В выводах комиссии указывалось, что для более эффективного дей¬ствия штурмовика Ил-2 по танкам, автомашинам и живой силе против¬ника впредь желательно применять снаряды М-13, как «имеющие ис¬ключительно большой эффект по уничтожению танков, автомашин и живой силы». При этом боевую нагрузку на Ил-2 рекомендовали в со¬ставе смешанного варианта ракетного вооружения из четырех снарядов М-13 и такого же количества РС-132 или 82, а также четырех авиабомб 50-кг калибра. Пушки ВЯ и патроны - полностью. По мнению летчиков, практика подтвердила, что такой вариант нагрузки наиболее удобен.

РОФС-132 (М-13) отличался высокой эффективностью действия по бронированным целям. Его рассеивание было меньше, чем у РОС-132, а баллистика совпадала с баллистическими характеристиками пуль пуле¬мета ШКАС. Эти особенности позволяли применять М-13 по точечным целям. При этом атака обнаруженной бронированной цели начиналась пристрелкой из пулеметов, для чего каждый пятый или шестой патрон в ленте устанавливали с трассирующей пулей. Это позволяло визуально учесть поправки на снос боковым ветром и выбрать упреждение по даль¬ности. Только после этого пускали РС. К сожалению, снарядов этого ти¬па в авиацию поступало мало, и они пользовались большой популярно¬стью в войсках. Была и моральная заинтересованность - к званию Героя Советского Союза летчиков представляли за 12 уничтоженных танков. [/i][/u]А некоторые асы умудрялись в одном вылете четырьмя РОФС-132 под¬бить четыре танка.[/i][/u] Чего греха таить, на аэродроме при дележе боезапаса этих РС иной раз доходило и до драки летчиков... К тому же, приказ на вылет для борьбы специально с танками поступал не так часто, а в обыч¬ном налете незапланированно уничтожить бронированную цель можно «Ыло и обычным осколочным РС-132.

Верхний бронированный лист танка, особенно над моторным отде лением, с высоты 200-250 м пробивал даже снаряд пушки ВЯ. В этих же условиях у РС еще только заканчивался активный участок траектории а при куда менее чем у пушечного снаряда скорости, превосходил ею по массе на два с лишним порядка. Редкая цель могла выдержать прямое попадание такого средства поражения. Даже тяжелый танк не подлежал восстановлению после попадания РС-132 в моторный отсек.

На высоте ниже 100 м применять РС-132 было невозможно. При под¬рыве на открытой местности он давал большой разлет осколков, а если еще взрывалась и пораженная цель... По свидетельству М.П.Одинцова в боях под Кировоградом РС очень помогли в уничтожении крупного склада боеприпасов противника. К сожалению, не было заранее учтено, что его удастся взорвать двенадцатью РС-132 с первого захода. Второе звено шло ниже первого, и все самолеты попали под осколки, а один сра¬зу загорелся и взорвался над целью.

 

etc etc etc, not only in this great research, and in all sources i see what although rockets are really "area weapon", anyway, they succesfully could be used for attack SINGLE targets...

 

As for overall combat effectiveness of aircraft vs. armoured vehicles, here is a short summary of some of the more glaring examples of overclaiming by pilots of ground attack aircraft:

we talking exactly about rockets...

 

and i write about GENERALIZED STATISTICS already 3 time, and i read russian reports in original and not only reports, but you not see another proofs and mentions in my posts? well, try re-read, pls...

[JtD]

If you have Russian reports that aren't copyright-protected, please share.

[Finkeren]

- "rockets could be weapon for little targets like tanks, ships, planes etc" - because starting from distance around 1000 meters accuracy could be 8x8 meters....

I'll take a while to chew through the inept Google translation of the Russian text you posted, but I just want to get the above quote out of the way, because it frankly sounds absurd and goes against anything I've read about the subject.

 

The technical data I've seen on the RS-132 seems to agree on an average spread of 16 angular mil (NATO standard) which is roughly the same as 1 degree. Not too bad for a WW2 era unguided rocket, but that's under ideal circumstances during official tests.

 

Still that one degree spread translates into more than 30 meters at 1000m distance under those ideal circumstances. The chance of hitting a small tank-sized target at ranges further than 5-600m would be very, very small.

[bivalov]

edit - 8x8 meters for unnamed "PANZERblitz" it's FULL dissipation...

 

well... if best but rare in some sence, models of rockets like rbs-82, m-13uk and rofs/rbs-132 (just enumeration of types), and most likely HVARs, RP-3 (racks on typhoons are very impressive) had at least similar accuracy without other factors, lets see at dangerous "tiger" - 8.45 x 3.4-3.7 x 2.93 meters - ie experienced tank buster, on plane with good handling and with considering of all needful factors, really CAN destroy this heavy tank...

 

but, of course, it's my VERY simple opinion, life and reality much more complex, but we can see obvious trend and game is GAME...

 

If you have Russian reports that aren't copyright-protected, please share.

i all time have this wacky thing with copyright here, in russia are not so strictly with this, but i think nothing seriously dangerous or really wrongly, and it's not my scans mainly from two famous forums, including by one my friend...

 

well, of course i said "many", mainly as we saying - "для красного словца"...

 

i'm not historian, and now even not has any books of Reznichenko, mainly i use open sources like Rodionov's Chronology (it's great compilation of quotes from russian books, documents etc including Reznichenko), monographies about planes, interviews with veterans etc...

 

but be sure, i'm not kiddin here about accuracy in total, like in quote above from book and based on reports which read autor (it's very experienced militarymen from shooting range of russian army, if i'm not mistaken), in Rodionov's Chronology have little more reports by simple search with "рофс-132", but mainly not so impressive, but and i not want to say what rockets are sniper rifle...

 

it's all what i can remember now, but, most likely it's almost all...

 

PS here, which rockets will be in game (info from R.), if what, just let moderators knows... plus attached page what i'm talking about above, which you saw before... i want to try read this books someday, for real understanding... attached couple of scans with performances (looks like for m-13uk it's 8.6x4.7 meters, starting from 600-800 meters, in compare with unnamed panzerblitz) and condition of good accuracy (ie careful handling with rockets)...

[Wind]

for example, i could post here opinion from russian book, which based on info from developer of panzerblitz too, but you cant understand this i think, but i quoted before - "rockets could be weapon for little targets like tanks, ships, planes etc" - because starting from distance around 1000 meters accuracy could be 8x8 meters...

 

That is positively,absolutely not possible with WW2 rocket tech. Present WAFAR or FFAR rockets dont even have that good CEP from stable launch systems like AH-64.

Imho, realistic CEP for that ww2 rocket tech from 1000m, would be closer to 50m...

Hell, CEP of the apaches stabilized 30mm gun for 1000m is worse that 8m2!!!!!

CEP for current laser guided FFARs are around 1-1.5m2 = 4-6m2.

 

And, I absolutely dont want to start any kind of pissing contest or anything, but the german/american satistics in the tank losses, and causes have been proven to be quite accurate.

So, if the germans in their own estimation say that their tank losses to air activity is 2.1%, it is safe to guess it is relatively close. So, by that, it quite clearly shows the relative 

ineffectiveness of airpower in destroying tanks, in that operation. It of course varies from theatre to theatre and weapon options aviable in that timeframe.

 

What the airpower however did was DENYING freedom of movement, strat/tact manouvering and effective placing of the tanks, thus filling their job of rendering german tank force

to perform less than optimally.

 

Dont take this the wrong way Bivalov, you post interesting links and documents!

Carry on!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit : typos.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Wind

[=RvE=Windmills]

Wasn't some test done where they put pigs/dogs in a tank and detonated different bombs at various distances from the tank checking afterwards if the 'occupants' survived?

 

Can't remember where I read this.

[=38=Tatarenko]

Here is actual film of a LaGG-3 firing rockets vs a ground target ...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3cdsI2hXnxA#t=504

 

Doesn't look too good although the first lot are fired from too far and deconverge.

[DD_Squawk]

Watching that rocket attack, I think it actualy starts looking good for the rockets.   Assuming the road to the left is 20ft wide (not including the ditches full of water), based on spread size and pattern before I lost track, I would wager the explostions to be approximately 40ft wide and, about 60-80ft long.

 

With a PzIV being roughly 20ft long by 10ft wide, and having 8 rockets inside that area, I'd take those odds.

[=38=Tatarenko]

I guess, if you launch them all at once.

[Finkeren]

I wouldn't take the odds with RS-82s against a Pzkw IV.

 

It would take a direct hit on the top armour fired from a nearly vertical dive to penetrate.

[JtD]

The question still is where you are aiming them and where they are going.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Interesting stuff. What you have to take in account on those Russian reports is that "official tests" in ideal conditions by far differed from the actual performance on the field. This has been proven many times on many things. I've read the Falaise Gap report too and when the tanks were studied indeed only a VERY FEW had been blown by aerial acitvity, most being abandoned due clogged road or some other reason. Overclaiming is nothing new

 

 Why I am skeptic about Russian reports is that if their official history is to believed Finnish Air Force would not have a single plane even today or foreseeable future, because VVS shot them down during Winter War already and in Continuation War even more. Even today Russians claim Finland was trying to invade Russia in 1939. Right. So if anything I sure read those documents and stuff, but have to use a heavy filter on them to get to the relevant info hidden in there. And it has some good and interesting info allright  

[=38=Tatarenko]

Yes. I don't remember the exact numbers but I think in the Winter War the Russians claimed 650 by plane and AA at a time the Finns had 65 combat planes

[bivalov]

I wouldn't take the odds with RS-82s against a Pzkw IV.

3s/4s, of course, not tigers, but on EF were lot of panthers, lot of easy armored vehicles = dangerous even close exploding shells...

 

moreover, side armor of 3/4 around 30 mm, or little more for late versions (i forgot absolutely all numbers, although still love steel fury: kharkov 1942) plus things like wheels, caterpillars etc which can defend tank, but looks like it's not enough...

 

for example, i forgot where i readed this, but even 76 mm HE shell for f-34 can destroy 3/4 in sides, and other places like they... like this has and in SF:K'42...

 

although, besides other important conditions, exactly for destroying at best it's can be rbs-82'44 (b = armor-piercing, ie here fundamental difference), but most likely need talking about m-13UK/UK1, rofs-132, rbs-132 on il-2 one-seater or il-2s with improved handling (if i'm not mistaken, end'43 or in 44), if we about good chances for destroy several panzers/sturmgeschuetz of any type, by several il-2s...

 

well, and almost last what i can, and think, what need to post here, old topic on russian forum...

 

there interesting not only a bit questionable personal theory and findings by SMERSH (in total, do not contradict what i posted above), it's pictures including pics from some manual on english, for pilots of attack planes? which could be very useful if will be correct modeling of rockets in game...

 

and in topic have almost all, what i posted above and even more, as i think, in "secure" links...

 

 

btw, if someone can do this, will be very interesting to read about panzerblitz/hvars/RP-3, including source of pics in russian topic and like i posted here, but not these generalized statistics about "peace in all world" etc which personally i know, it's good but we about concrete situations and FACTS...

 

 

LLv34_Flanker

 

 

 

S! Interesting stuff.

very, and i hope on continuation from english sources...

 

What you have to take in account on those Russian reports is that "official tests" in ideal conditions by far differed from the actual performance on the field.

sorry, but exactly CONDITIONS of tests of effectivness of rockets are very questionable, it's not rechlin or something like this, plus have very much doubts about adequateness of conclusions of high chiefs/commanders...

 

just remember, you talking about RUSSIA during this hard period...

 

and this in fact and wrote Reznichenko... or you have much better source about russian rockets?! very interesting to see this... but, for example, one of designers of panzerblitz, if i'm not mistaken, already confirm findings in total...

 

This has been proven many times on many things. I've read the Falaise Gap report too and when the tanks were studied indeed only a VERY FEW had been blown by aerial acitvity, most being abandoned due clogged road or some other reason. Overclaiming is nothing new

that proven exactly? you trying to read what i'm posted?

 

i just repeat - i about concrete situations, facts from absolutely adequate sources at this moment, but not about generalized statistics, and especially WF and especially over claiming...

 

btw, il-2s had mainly US equipment for checking of results, but just we dont has these films...

 

Why I am skeptic about Russian reports is that if their official history is to believed Finnish Air Force would not have a single plane even today or foreseeable future, because VVS shot them down during Winter War already and in Continuation War even more. Even today Russians claim Finland was trying to invade Russia in 1939. Right. So if anything I sure read those documents and stuff, but have to use a heavy filter on them to get to the relevant info hidden in there. And it has some good and interesting info allright

a bit politics here, huh? and your "interesting conclusions" about? hmm... 

 

you understand what this is very typical for all sides? you want examples and really dont knowed their?! maybe, dont need to write about USSR/Russia like about monster, and like was during last 100 years in german/finnish/"west" propaganda? at least, it's very strange against my FACTS, and in our discussion strictly about rockets/planes with rockets...

 

plus, i think, we faces troubles by rules/moderators, keep it in your mind before posting...

 

and exactly like you, write some modern russian historians WITH concrete facts/mentions/opinions from archives etc... at least as "independent observers" of free at this moment country = criticality in relation to all, in addition to patriotism of ALL peoples of ALL world...

 

ie it's not just blablabla on forums, well, and your filter are absolutely wrong thing here, but it's just your choice (sorry me, but in fact TROUBLE, your trouble) and deal...

 

at least, just try to appreciate efforts of many great experienced peoples, which doing hard interesting job ie what you read here FREE, with my little help...

 

 

with these sort of reply's i feel what i'm fool, and doing wacky work vain... and it's my trouble, of course...

 

 

well, what i can say in end, for most stubborn opponents? if someone doubts, not read or not understood what i'm talking exactly and what talking autor, thinking without any serious facts etc, in fact, he just can find mr. Reznichenko and try to discuss with him terrible "lie" from his book...

 

it will be unforgettable, and very funny show...

[Georgio]

What's a few noughts between enemies.... :D

 

Yes. I don't remember the exact numbers but I think in the Winter War the Russians claimed 650 by plane and AA at a time the Finns had 65 combat planes

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Mr Bivalov. Your response is exatly the one I expected from you as a Russian. Going defensive on your tech and sources + dragging the card of "western and Finnish" propaganda. If you even follow the current discussions between your army and government it is clear that they know there is an issue with doctrines, technology and manufacturing quality. Admitted by the highest officials of your army, go figure. So call that "western or Finnish" propaganda if you like I rest my case here with you, with all respect.

 

 Tatarenko. It is funny to read how the kills were claimed and more so the plane types we had. According to the kills by VVS we had FW190's in 1942. Real plane was propably Brewster or Fiat G.50bis they mixed it with. Also the number of Bf109's we had was grossly exagerated. An interesting claim of kills by VVS during 1944 was "5 Messers shot down by pilots A, B and C" caught by the Finnish radio surveillance. Planes in question were from Lentolaivue 34, Bf109G-6's that disengaged from combat in a steep dive as fuel was running low. So anything going down was a kill? Was there no system to even verify if the pilot got a kill at all or were they so called imaginary ones/paper kills after all?

 

On the contrary when a well respected researcher and historian C.F Geust had possibility to dig into Russian archives with his fellow Russian researchers, some of the Finnish aces GAINED more kills as they could be verified from the official records. For example Hemmo Leino got 11 kills added to his tally totaling 22 when those he had reported "heavily damaged/propable" as his wingman could not verify the incident, were added. Ilmari Juutilainen had officially some 94 kills but the tally seems to go as high as 128. But he did not report those as could not be verified reliably. But archives had some planes gone missing with matching dates and times of his combat reports.

 

 What makes it interesting in those archives is that Russians did not report all losses as pure losses to enemy. There were terms like "technical loss" or "beyond repair" used instead. Was the meaning to make losses to enemy look smaller to the higher officials/STAVKA or what? When carefully examining these numbers and dates the numbers begin to match pretty well. But there is a great discrenpancy between the actual losses and which were actually reported as ones, even the plane was destroyed in those archives. Shame the archives were closed again and access is restricted a lot.

[=38=Tatarenko]

The most amusing things in this line are the reports by RAF Brewster pilots in Singapore/Malaya. They had believed the racist reports of the Japanese not being up to much and when they were shot down they reported Messerschmitts and Stukas and even a captured German pilot! They really thought that only the Germans could have beaten them.

[JtD]

Mr Bivalov. Your response is exatly the one I expected from you as a Russian. Going defensive on your tech and sources + dragging the card of "western and Finnish" propaganda.

That's almost funny given it was you who pulled that propaganda card first. I also wonder what the rest of your post has to do with bombs and rockets in the first place.

 

---

 

MK.Bivalov, the Il-2's started with 16 rockets, then reduced them to 8, then reduced them to 4. The plane was equipped with NS-37 mm guns for AT work. PTAB cluster bombs were developed and used. Why do you think the Russians were looking for alternatives to the rockets if these got the job done reliably?

 

OTOH as you've mentioned them, the Panzerblitz rockets were considered a large improvement in the AT capabilities of the German fighter bombers, but the salvo consisted of a dozen and more, for good hitting probability.

 

Looking at the data you posted, it appears to be dispersion only. And compared with heavy guns, while it is pretty good in general, it's still fairly large. Is it possible that the data you give is late war / post war? The Russians to my knowledge did a lot of testing and improving the rocket accuracy and early to mid war was far worse than late war. I think it was a Russian test where they fired rockets from Il-2's against tank sized targets, and didn't achieve a single hit with about 100 fired, early war. Wish I still knew specifics, had a link, but I don't. Do you?

[Finkeren]

Generally, believing your opponents to be nothing but backwards, primitive savages who can't put up a fight rarely produce good results.

[=38=Tatarenko]

Generally, believing your opponents to be nothing but backwards, primitive savages who can't put up a fight rarely produce good results.

Absolutely

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 JtD. It has to do as it shows the immense overclaim Russians did during the war. On paper and in tests their equipment looked good, but in practise when used by not so often skilled crews the results were well below average. It is different to argue if a rocket can split a hair than actually effectively employ it in combat. It is about combining the data you get with other reports to get a more truthfull image. I do not say the Russian bombs or rockets were in any way inferior to any other nation's. Look at the bigger picture, not just the reports.

 

 The bombs are effective against tanks, especially if they are big enough. There are many reports of stalled tank formations as they were bombed at assembly area, as example Tali-Ihantala battle in Carelian peninsula 1944. To make the picture clearer the effect was so devastating because Finns had broken the Russian radio codes early in the war and could keep up with the latest iterations of the code. This led to the interception of Russian radio messages and opening them to be used to our own advantage. A large tank formation was to attack Finnish lines at a certain time. This order and subsequent messages were intercepted. Finns reacted and sent a large formation of Bf109G escorted Ju88 bombers loaded with 500 and 1000kg bombs to attack the assembly area(shallow dive) of the tanks before they could start attacking. Kuhlmey's Stukas and Fw190F-8's participated. Russians were caught with their pants down and the whole attack was stalled before it could even begin due the bombs destroyed, tumbled or otherwise damaged the tanks and killed personnel + support equipment. So the picture I am trying to paint is that effectiveness of a weapon system relies pretty much on all other aspects as well rather than just on the paper or test values. Any weapon system needs a trained operator and supporting organisation to be effective and was this the case EVERY time in ANY army of that time? I bet not.

 

 Rockets are effective if employed well. But again here we can see overclaims from many users. Falaise Gap was inspected by British specialists and they did do some conclusions when comparing reports and actual damage. It showed the overclaim of rocket armed CAS planes. Did it make rockets inferior? No, but again overclaim was strong here as everywhere else in any theater. Rockets or any other weapon system for sure works perfectly fine and within specifications under controlled conditions or on paper. But when you take in account the whole organisation and chain of events before that particular weapon is fired live on a target on the battlefield a lot has changed and you won't get anything near the test results as the target is not just sitting there waiting to be shot but defends itself or evades thus reducing the chances of getting hit. On the attacking platform you are facing the different levels of experience and training using the weaponry and added with the changing environment of the battlefield + defensive actions taken by the target or it's supporting units(AAA etc.)

 

 So TL;DR Weapons are only accurate on the paper or tests, but less so in the actual combat situations.

[Finkeren]

On the topic of rockets, it hasn't really been covered in any sim I've seen but I hope the rockets flight model and ballistics cause them to weather vane into the prevailing wind while under power. Make them nice and interesting to use. An accurate flight model for the rockets plus wind would make pilot actually think about their environment before rushing in for the attack.

 

I know it's been awhile since this comment was made, but I'd really like to know, why you think rockets should weathervane into the wind? Sure they would drift from their target a great deal due to their slow velocity. At 1000m with 5 m/s side wind an ROS-82 could drift as much as 10-15m off target depending on the airspeed of the aircraft firing them. But what force would make the rockets weathervane?

 

I ask in all honesty, because I don't know.

[=38=Tatarenko]

The fins at the rear provide more lateral resistance than the pointed front so the wind would weathercock them, same as a crosswind wants to turn a plane nose into the wind by hitting the large rudder.

[Finkeren]

The fins at the rear provide more lateral resistance than the pointed front so the wind would weathercock them, same as a crosswind wants to turn a plane nose into the wind by hitting the large rudder.

 

I don't think I understand. Once you get to an altitude of about 100m wind speed and direction is pretty constant, right? Therefore the wind is not really blowing past the aircraft, but rather the aircraft moves inside a large block of moving air. At least, that's what I was told by pilots.

 

If what you said is true, shouldn't an aircraft weathervane the same way?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Finkeren

[Primus_71]

The fins at the rear provide more lateral resistance than the pointed front so the wind would weathercock them, same as a crosswind wants to turn a plane nose into the wind by hitting the large rudder.

 

I'd imagine, this effect would be negligible at speeds that a rocket travels. A simple vectors calculation can demonstrate this. 

Edited December 20, 2013 by [-]Primus_71

[DD_Squawk]

'Weathervaneing' only occurs on objects is on the ground.   Once airborne, the ground has no direct bearing on an object in flight. 

 

Think of the wind as a block of air moving horizontaly across the ground.  Anything flying a straight line in refrence to that block is also moving horizontaly across the ground, the difference between the direction the aircraft is heading and the actual track across the ground is called drift. 

 

To counteract drift, an pilot crabs the aircraft into the wind using control inputs.  This allows the pilot to maintain a straight line in refrence to the ground, regardless of what the wind is doing.

 

 Rockets, once fired, have no direct input other than thrust, and therefore will fly (more or less) straight through a given block of air, and thus have no means to counteract drift.

[Finkeren]

That's what I thought as well.

[CreepiJim]

Good explanation Grach. Ballistics are a fun topic.

 

I really enjoy the ground target mission with the Bf109. Can't wait to do the same in a Ju87 next year.

 

It is a bit difficult to tell when the bomb is released, but I managed to hit my targets on the second attempt.