Spitfire IXe and rocket projectiles...

[Trooper117]

Has anyone found any combat reports or records of the MkIXe using RP's ?

I have looked through lots of my books but can't find any reference to 2nd TAF using them in action... any info gratefully received chaps.

[Custard]

IIRC they were only used in field trials from Feb 1945? Never in widespread usage.

 

I was very surprised to see them in game, but I'm not complaining!

[Trooper117]

Thought as much... I have all four volumes of the history of the 2nd TAF and can't find a single account of them being used on Mk IX's.

The only pics I can find on Mk IX's are the experimental ones.

[LukeFF]

It was apparently only 74 Squadron that used them:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by LukeFF

[seafireliv]

An interesting decision by the Devs to include them.

[Jabo_68*]

I'd prefer that the Devs introduce a rocket firing Hawker Typhoon to Bodenplatte!

Edited May 30, 2018 by Jabo_68*
typo

[LukeFF]

41 minutes ago, seafireliv said:

An interesting decision by the Devs to include them.

 

Not sure why you'd say that, seeing as they were used operationally.

[Poochnboo]

Have you ever read, "Spitfire Diary"? It's by an ex RAF NCO pilot who flew Spitfires with 2nd Tactical Air Force. A day by day account. Not a single mission is mentioned where he used rockets. Drop tanks are mentioned quite a bit and the pilots hated them. They would often not release and the Spit flew badly with them on. Authors name is E.A.W. Smith. He tells of harrowing low level missions in Spitfire Mk 9's. Good one.

[ShamrockOneFive]

26 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Have you ever read, "Spitfire Diary"? It's by an ex RAF NCO pilot who flew Spitfires with 2nd Tactical Air Force. A day by day account. Not a single mission is mentioned where he used rockets. Drop tanks are mentioned quite a bit and the pilots hated them. They would often not release and the Spit flew badly with them on. Authors name is E.A.W. Smith. He tells of harrowing low level missions in Spitfire Mk 9's. Good one.

 

Was he in 74 Squadron?

[Poochnboo]

127 squadron

 

I'm sure the reason that it saw little use was that the Spit could not carry a lot of them under it's thin wings. They had to be used in volleys to able to hit anything at all. They were very innacurate, so with two your chances of hitting anything was close to zero. The Spitfire was never designed to carry all that crap. Reginald Mitchell must have been rolling over in his grave. 

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Was he in 74 Squadron?

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

47 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

127 squadron

 

I'm sure the reason that it saw little use was that the Spit could not carry a lot of them under it's thin wings. They had to be used in volleys to able to hit anything at all. They were very innacurate, so with two your chances of hitting anything was close to zero. The Spitfire was never designed to carry all that crap. Reginald Mitchell must have been rolling over in his grave. 

 

 

That's why he never used them specifically. Just 74 squadron used them and you're right that in just a pair there's quite a bit less effectiveness. They are very powerful when they land a hit but it'd be "easier" to volley off a whole bunch of them to be sure.

[Trooper117]

Thanks for the reply chaps... Interesting stuff...

I'll have to have a dig around for info on 74 sqn. Looking at Luke's pics above, is that Spit a MkIXe or a later mark?

[Finkeren]

Honestly, my best guess is, that they included them on the Spit just to have a testbed for the RPs that wasn’t completely a-historical. They’ll need them for the Tempest anyway, so why not put them on the Spit to see that they work?

[Trooper117]

They won't need them for the Tempest as they were never used in combat during WWII on that aircraft.

They were tested in trials but saw no action.

As for the Spit, I doubt if I'll ever use them in game, but it's always nice to have options 

[EAF19_Marsh]

IXe, Troops, going by prop and wing.

 

It was about as good a fighter-bomber as the 109: ie not its forte and you probably wanted to be in sonething else.

[Finkeren]

23 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

They won't need them for the Tempest as they were never used in combat during WWII on that aircraft.

They were tested in trials but saw no action.

 

Interesting, I did not know that. I just recalled having seen photos of Tempests loaded with rockets, but they must’ve been from those trials.

[seafireliv]

2 hours ago, Finkeren said:

 

Interesting, I did not know that. I just recalled having seen photos of Tempests loaded with rockets, but they must’ve been from those trials.

 

I thought the same as well.

 

I do find it strange that they put so much effort into accurate placement of aircraft in the Career and other stuff, then this. Perhaps they are considering doing a dynamic campaign where the war can go on long than expected? A sort of 1946? This would give those rockets reason for being.

[Trooper117]

If you want a rocket firing aircraft that was used in large numbers, historically accurate for the time, they should have gone for the Typhoon...

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

 

I thought the same as well.

  

I do find it strange that they put so much effort into accurate placement of aircraft in the Career and other stuff, then this. Perhaps they are considering doing a dynamic campaign where the war can go on long than expected? A sort of 1946? This would give those rockets reason for being. 

 

 

Return on investment; they likely determined they could do one or the other and the Tempest was overall the best option. TBH, put rockets on it and it is almost a Typhoon...

[=621=Samikatz]

I think the Tempest was picked so that the RAF could have an especially strong fighter. If they only got the 18lbs boost Spit.IX and the Typhoon they'd essentially be stuck in 1943 against the best of the Luftwaffe. The alternative could've been a Spitfire XIV and a Typhoon, I guess? Or replacing the P-38, I suppose

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm really glad we're getting a Tempest

 

The Tempest Mark V was trialed and certified to use the RP-3 rockets. It was just never used operationally but it could have easily done so. Without a Typhoon filling the role, I'm ok(ish) with them being an armament option. If server owners or single players decide not to use them, that's fair too.

 

 

Tempests did drop bombs operationally. It was rare but they did.

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, Finkeren said:

 

Interesting, I did not know that. I just recalled having seen photos of Tempests loaded with rockets, but they must’ve been from those trials.

 

Also post war pictures perhaps:  Tempests took over this role from Typhoons which got the chop. There is a picture in "Tempest squadrons of the RAF".  

 

Given that it took about 100 of these rockets to score a hit on a stationary undefended tank in the open, it is hardly surprising that carrying 2 of them about was considered a waste of time.

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, seafireliv said:

 

I thought the same as well.

 

I do find it strange that they put so much effort into accurate placement of aircraft in the Career and other stuff, then this. Perhaps they are considering doing a dynamic campaign where the war can go on long than expected? A sort of 1946? This would give those rockets reason for being.

I think its more likely that they chose the aircraft they thought would be a good fit for the time period and would pique people's interest, then added historical mods to make sure the craft were able to take on multiple roles. Especially important since we don't have any dedicated ground attackers.

In the case of the Spit and the Tempest, they're both iconic aircraft that will be pretty popular and competitive against enemy fighters. The typhoon might have been seen as more of a gamble (though I would love to see one myself as a premium craft), since it wouldn't be as competitive fighter-to-fighter.

I have my doubts that very many people will be using rockets on the Spit.  It's clear they were used operationally, if only rarely, and I think for obvious reasons. Honestly, its kind of like having rockets on the MiG-3...it happened, but it was rare and something the aircraft was not very suited for. I think there was only a couple hundred Migs ever equipped to use rockets, and who knows how many ever did? Similar situation here.

 if you're going to attack ground targets in a Spitfire I would use the bombs, they were very commonly used. Or just keep the cannons and do armed reconnaissance, hunting trains and columns while your buddies fly high cover.
 

[Herne]

I tried the rockets on a ground attack sortie on the finnish server yesterday. If I can figure out a way to use some point of reference to aim them I will use them. They drop well short of the gun sight though, I want to like them and will give them a few more tries, but I might just go with an all bomb load out if I want to use the spit for ground attack

 

[Sokol1]

One can use this rockets for shoot down bombers in MP servers. ?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

3 hours ago, =FEW=Herne said:

I tried the rockets on a ground attack sortie on the finnish server yesterday. If I can figure out a way to use some point of reference to aim them I will use them. They drop well short of the gun sight though, I want to like them and will give them a few more tries, but I might just go with an all bomb load out if I want to use the spit for ground attack

 

 

Go one the QMB and turn on the aim assistance, there is a rocket pip.

 

It will let you figure out how to aim better.

 

 

Edit: oooo I have a cunning plan.

 

Try and set up the gyro sight in such a way that it slaves to the aim assistance and then remember the settings for the future. 

 

I bit cheaty but it might work.

Edited May 31, 2018 by AeroAce

[LukeFF]

12 hours ago, Finkeren said:

Honestly, my best guess is, that they included them on the Spit just to have a testbed for the RPs that wasn’t completely a-historical. They’ll need them for the Tempest anyway, so why not put them on the Spit to see that they work?

 

Or, because of the fact they were actually employed by an operational unit? Really, it's not that hard to understand.

[MiloMorai]

[Trooper117]

54 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

 

Actually used by an operational unit so we must have that modification.... I can see it now, new mission type, 'Beer Run'!!!

The jerries will have 'Beer Intercept' missions.

Just think, if you are successful you can have a beer at home to complete the mission success... Winner!

[Danziger]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

Does this plane have some kind of wheel cover plates like hub caps? It doesn't look like the same wheels on Spitfires I've seen. Also looks like some paint overspray on the tyre from repainting without masking.

[Trooper117]

18 minutes ago, BorysVorobyov said:

Does this plane have some kind of wheel cover plates like hub caps? It doesn't look like the same wheels on Spitfires I've seen. Also looks like some paint overspray on the tyre from repainting without masking.

 

FMk Vc...

[unreasonable]

Unfortunately that is a picture after restoration, I believe, looking at the exhausts. Here it is before: hard to make out the wheel covers. Solid wheel covers make sense for a Spitfire Vc, however, since it was intended for tropical use, so presumably these wheel covers were designed to keep out dust and sand.

 

 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Ok to aim rockets use the bottom edge of the static sight ring at about 0.8 to 1km from target. Obviously you need to be relatively stable and not pulling g. It works well though. 

[Custard]

I use 1/2 way between the central dot and the bottom of the ring at around 300-400m range in a dive. Anywhere around 20 degrees dive angle works well.

[Herne]

good tips will give it a try

 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

It would be good to know the rockets convergence. I think it is about 600m.

 

Does anyone know? 

[unreasonable]

 

I think the idea of convergence for the rockets is a bit odd, since they were so inherently inaccurate, but I suppose it is possible, never seen a mention of this though. I am not even sure that it would be desirable.  The main problem with rockets is that they have a very "droopy" trajectory compared to cannon or MG shell, although less than that of a bomb, in addition they are much more deflected by crosswinds.  So pilots used to miss short most often. I know I had that problem when trying the Soviet version.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

The rockets defo cross each other at a certain range. When I first started to use them I was shooting too close and they were landing either side of the target.

[Herne]

10 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I think the idea of convergence for the rockets is a bit odd, since they were so inherently inaccurate, but I suppose it is possible, never seen a mention of this though. I am not even sure that it would be desirable.  The main problem with rockets is that they have a very "droopy" trajectory compared to cannon or MG shell, although less than that of a bomb, in addition they are much more deflected by crosswinds.  So pilots used to miss short most often. I know I had that problem when trying the Soviet version.

 

I've become quite the rocket marksman in an il2 1941 version. I saw @JG4_Etherlight training vid which was immensely useful.

 

I need one of you genius' to show me how to do it with spits

[19RAF_MJDixon]

If in doubt just get a bit closer!

 

 

WARNING: Slight chance of horrible death and explosions and such.