Are rockets as overrated as they say?

[[DBS]Browning]

15 minutes ago, Sokol1 said:

 

An unluck: https://uboat.net/boats/u752.htm

 

Yup, I was 100% wrong.

[ZachariasX]

"Kapitän! We found a rocket downstairs, a dud! We think it came in through here:"

"A dud, you say mate? Totally overrated those things..."

 

"Sir, there's more of the overrated stuff, starboard side, look!"

"Nice. In one months this will all be over and I can buy myself one of those Mosquitoes for cheap!"

 

 

(The subtle difference between a rocket attack and a deph charges you can see here:)

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by ZachariasX

[[_FLAPS_]Grim]

I didn't want to state that the rocket was the prime or best anti U-boat weapon.

But it wasn't that bad or uncommon. 

[Sgt_Joch]

so I have too much time on my hand today...but I did a quick calculation using the U-boat.net database.

 

-total of 63 U-Boats sunk by ACs alone in 1944:

 

-49 sunk by depth charges;

-4 sunk by depth charges and rockets;

-3 by rockets alone;

-2 by DCs + rockets + HMG fire;

-2 by DCs and HMG fire;

-1 by DC and FIDO torpedo;

-1 by HMG fire alone;

-1 unknown?

[ZachariasX]

It was not that effective, but it was an extensively studied topic. Read here, some sekrit Allied document on the topic, an Anti-Submarine Report from Nov 1943.

 

It features this nice Hurricane with rockets:

Spoiler

Along with (underwater) trajectories.

 

Chapter 4 of the report would be more on topic. I quote:

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-. AN ATTACK WITH ROCKET PROJECTILES

The following attack "by an R.A.P. Liberator aircraft is interesting because it is one of the first successful attacks by an aircraft using rocket projectiles.

The aircraft was patrolling at 6,600 feet when a wake was sighted, and then a U—boat was seen, distant eight miles. Radar contact was obtained almost immediately after the sighting, the delay being probably due to interference from a number of contacts from fishing vessels, The submarine was steaming on the surface at 12 knots but it took no evasive action and did not
open fire as the Liberator circled to port losing height.

The aircraft attacked from Green 110, firing the first pair of rocket projectiles at a distance of 800 yards, the second pair at 600 yards and the salvo of four R.P's at 500 yards* The front  gunner fired 30 rounds, the rear gunner 200 rounds and the port waist gunner 60 rounds, hits being obtained on the conning tower and forward of it.
«
Splashes of entry of the rocket projectiles were seen slightly abaft a point midway between the conning tower and bow, and between the U-boat and its bow wave. The rear gunner observed one rocket projectile emerge from the sea beyond the U-boat which was seen to dive a minute later.

 

Six torpex depth charges set shallow and spaced 54 feet apart were then released and photographs showed that they straddled the U-boat's track. Two white depth charge plumes were sighted, closely followed by a black plume which was larger than the others. Fifteen to 20 minutes later some air bubbles vapour and wooden wreckage appeared on the surface, and these were still visible when an escort group, which had been homed by the aircraft, arrived.

One of the most important factors in sinking U-boats is promptitude in attacking, and the rocket projectile lends itself to this.

 

The rocket projectiles are of three types, (a) a 60 lb head containing high eaplosive or incendiary, (b) a solid 25 lb amour piercing head and (c) a flare. A hit on the pressure hull of a submarine with either of the first two types is likely to cause a hole sufficient to prevent a surfaced U-boat from diving.

The striking velocity necessary to perforate the pressure hull is about 600 feet per second, and this velocity may be expected of the R.P. even after is has passed through 70 feet of water if fired at a range of about 400 yards.

When fired the rocket projectile accelerates for one and a half seconds. By this time it has reached its maximum speed of approximately 1,800 feet per second and has travelled between 600 and 700 yards. It might therefore be presumed that for best penetration R.P's should be fired at 600-700 yards range, but this is not the case. By the time the projectile has travelled 700 yards the tube is red hot and will normally break away from the rocket head on entering the sea. The tube has not reached a very high temperature after 400 yards, and the head will therefore not break off when the R.P. strikes the water.

 

The rocket head has no useful underwater trajectory, but relies on the steel tube of the rocket motor to give it the remarkable underwater travel it possesses.

Striking the water at an angle of 20° the rocket projectile will travel submerged for a distance of some 60 yards and will then surface, reaching a depth of 13 to 15 feet during its underwater passage. It will be seen that "shorts" may prove effective in perforating the pressure hull of a U-boat on or near the surface.

Four vanes, similar to those on a bomb, are fitted externally on the tail of the tube to steady the projectile in flight. The weapon is hung under a pair of runners attached to the wing of the aircraft, the total weight of the installation, including the wiring and the eight projeetiles, being between 800 and 1,000 pounds.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Allies were obviously aware that rockets were indeed suboptimal anti submarine ordinance. But there are some interesting findings in the article (emphasis mine). Hitting a sub the right way is far less straigh forward with rockets than one might think so. No wonder the results were mixed against subs at best.

 

But in both cases, be it against armor or naval vessels, in an engagemant the mentioned promptitude of an attack is often decisive. This is why in CAS, nothing beats the gun. Rockets come second as you can instantly take a shot, as over time, you might not have the oportunity for another attack. The ability to dish out hurt relatively precise and quickly makes the rocket a very potent CAS weapon, much more than the naked stats show. 

 

 

 

[Lusekofte]

I read in this site that the rockphoons had a bad killrate. 

But every docu about d day to long after falsise pocket reported massive losses among tanks 

due to airattacks. 

Kind of a confusing picture. 

I read that it was very common to salvo the lot in one pass. In a pretty steep dive. 

But in this game people is not satisfied killing just one tank. They want the column desimated in one pass. 

I do believe this game got too effective cannons if not altered in latest patches

Edited July 10, 2019 by LuseKofte

[Sokol1]

An case of Typhoon RP-3 60 lbs rockets being efficient against an vessel:

 

http://theconversation.com/why-the-raf-destroyed-a-ship-with-4-500-concentration-camp-prisoners-on-board-75903

[[DBS]Browning]

Not exactly a hard target to hit!

[RedKestrel]

Iirc anti shipping mosquitos and beaufihters used concrete headed rockets rather than HE filled ones as they were found to be more effective, but I can’t remember the source.

 

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

Typhoons certainly attacked surface ships with rockets because in 1944 a mixup in Naval intel led to a flight of Typhoons led by W/C Johnny Baldwin DFC being ordered to attack six small Royal Navy vessels laying mines off Le Havre killing 78 sailors and wounding another 149.  Baldwin had questioned the orders but even after reporting that the ships were providing the correct recognition signals he was ordered to proceed.  Three of the ships were reported to have been set on fire by rockets while the rest of the damage was done by cannon.

[Sublime]

On 7/10/2019 at 5:07 PM, LuseKofte said:

I read in this site that the rockphoons had a bad killrate. 

But every docu about d day to long after falsise pocket reported massive losses among tanks 

due to airattacks. 

Kind of a confusing picture. 

I read that it was very common to salvo the lot in one pass. In a pretty steep dive. 

But in this game people is not satisfied killing just one tank. They want the column desimated in one pass. 

I do believe this game got too effective cannons if not altered in latest patches

Loss rates are hard to quantify because different armies counted differently.

If a tanks knocked out but repaired some armies wouldnt count it as lost.  And so on.

Further many times the tank woildnt really be destroyed but it would cause the crew to bail out and be killed or bail and the tank left behind or destroyed by retreating forces.

All in all exhaustive US studies found airplanes in WW2 and Korea on average barely killed tanks ever. The biggest killer was napalm.. Area effect and multiple ways to kill the tank (aidepletion, setting fire, etc) this is why CBUs were so effective and pursued so long - planes werent the tank killers envisioned back in WW2 until smart munitions became plentiful enough and common enough to warrant using a LGB on a single tank as we saw in GW1. (O/T but the A10 kicks butt but the biggest killer of tanks actually was F111s) Soft skinned vehicles though.. The planes were terrors. This didnt help also woth pack animals and the Wehrmacht relied heavily on those.  Harder to repair a machine gunned horse than truck

Finally veteran Pz crews advised under jabo attack the best move was to sit tight in the protected armor of thw tank. They complained rookie crews were very prone to panick and bailing out exposing them to thousands of bullets spraying around..

 

I think the aircraft effect wasnt just one thing like destroyed stuff.

It was sucking up men and material for flak..it was demoralizing. It inhibited movement during the day.  It made travel dangerous and scary.  It drew away aircraft. It put the Germans on the defensive...  All these things added up to a bad bad picture for Germany.

Back to rockets but for Germany - I find the R4Ms usable for A2A. Suprisingly good rockets.  The other BM21s or whatever..  My god howd anyone hit anything with tjose. Its like lofting a rocket basketball at a enemy formation. Geesh.

The R4Ms though.. Interesting what ifs there.  The Germans if they had more sense and time may have taken that concept some interesting places.

Has anyone tried them.for ground attack out of curiousity?

[MiloMorai]

The 210mm rockets weren't intended to hit a/c but to act like AAA/flak. The R4M fitted with a different warhead were used in ground attack.

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

My god howd anyone hit anything with tjose. Its like lofting a rocket basketball at a enemy formation. Geesh.

I had indeed a direct hit in my second try, shooting down an A20. Looked absolutely great. But as I surely won't hit anything the next 1000 tries, I'll let my hands off it now?

[Bremspropeller]

On 7/10/2019 at 8:07 PM, ZachariasX said:

"Kapitän! We found a rocket downstairs, a dud! We think it came in through here:"

"A dud, you say mate? Totally overrated those things..."

 

"Sir, there's more of the overrated stuff, starboard side, look!"

"Nice. In one months this will all be over and I can buy myself one of those Mosquitoes for cheap!"

 

 

(The subtle difference between a rocket attack and a deph charges you can see here:)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

Great, now I want to fly a Coastal Command Mossie with rockets and tear up some trawlers!

 

 

Coastal Command has never gotten the flightsim-coverage it deserves.

[Sublime]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

The 210mm rockets weren't intended to hit a/c but to act like AAA/flak. The R4M fitted with a different warhead were used in ground attack.

That indeed makea more senses. So its more a game flaw thats not modelling the fragmentation or more so that we arent encountering the tight box formations of "dicke autos" the Germans were IRL in the game to use the 210cm on?

[[DBS]Browning]

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

That indeed makea more senses. So its more a game flaw thats not modelling the fragmentation or more so that we arent encountering the tight box formations of "dicke autos" the Germans were IRL in the game to use the 210cm on?

 

Mostly the latter, but also, the rockets may have not been effective AA weapons anyway.

[Lusekofte]

Again, I am a bit sceptic about my references.

Quoting one source can mislead.

But partly or mainly the rocket fired from lw against formations of bombers was ment to spread the formations. 

I seen films and they do fire them from a great distance.  

[[DBS]Browning]

28 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Again, I am a bit sceptic about my references.

Quoting one source can mislead.

But partly or mainly the rocket fired from lw against formations of bombers was ment to spread the formations. 

I seen films and they do fire them from a great distance.  

 

I have also heard this.

[69th_chuter]

I found this interesting ...

 

https://www.historynet.com/myth-of-the-tankbuster.htm