Rockets in the Typhoon

[von_Tom]

16 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Do you know, if our Typhoon will be equipped with bombs?

 

2x500lb or 2x1000lb.  You cannot take bombs and rockets at the same time.

 

10 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Q: What constitutes a "Cab Rank" mission?

 

Ground attack aircraft used to take off and orbit in a certain place.  Ground controllers would then call them in to attack targets as and when they were identified, hence the cab rank system (as cabs line up and the first one gets the fare).

 

von Tom

Edited June 3, 2021 by von_Tom

[blockheadgreen_]

As for using the rocket sight, 1.5 degrees for shallow passes and 2 degrees for the steepest of dives has done me very well. In two shallow dives on a column of 4 rocket-artillery trucks, I managed to hit spot on with each salvo using 1.5 degrees. Always remember to reset the sight when strafing though...

[RedKestrel]

59 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

LukeFF - you really should write a history book someday - or perhaps a history guide to the history behind what is in the sim!

 

Q: What constitutes a "Cab Rank" mission?

In some ways a pre-cursor to modern close air support missions that have a forward air controller on the ground. Fighter-bombers would go to a certain point near the front and wait for a target to be called in by an embedded communications team with the troops below. IIRC the guys calling in the air strikes were often themselves pilots doing a tour on the ground.

[Avimimus]

20 minutes ago, Lythronax said:

As for using the rocket sight, 1.5 degrees for shallow passes and 2 degrees for the steepest of dives has done me very well. In two shallow dives on a column of 4 rocket-artillery trucks, I managed to hit spot on with each salvo using 1.5 degrees. Always remember to reset the sight when strafing though...

 

I'm currently trying 2.7 degrees - this means that the top of the circle can be lined up with the horizon as a guide for maintaining level flight. I find rockets hit close to the centre of the reticle if fired from about 100 metres in level flight (throttle is all out). Something to refine.

 

I don't think it'll ever approach the accuracy of a diving attack though.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Avimimus

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, von_Tom said:

2x500lb or 2x1000lb.  You cannot take bombs and rockets at the same time

I feel like an Ass, I just saw a video with a tiffy with bombs. And I honestly did not see a option for bombs when testing it. 

Just came home from 4 week work away from home, stayed home for one night and left again

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, von_Tom said:

Ground attack aircraft used to take off and orbit in a certain place.  Ground controllers would then call them in to attack targets as and when they were identified, hence the cab rank system (as cabs line up and the first one gets the fare).

 

Yep, and typically the artillery would fire red smoke shell(s) to identify the target.

[JG1_Vonrd]

It doesn't seem like there is any convergence set on any rockets... they shoot straight along the flight path. Is that correct? IDK if they could be adjusted in RL but it sure would be nice. Currently you have to chose whether it's the left or right wing rockets to target. If I center the sight, I often bracket the tank. I'd really like to set them at 400m convergence. 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

Is that correct?

 

Yes

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

It doesn't seem like there is any convergence set on any rockets... they shoot straight along the flight path. Is that correct? IDK if they could be adjusted in RL but it sure would be nice. Currently you have to chose whether it's the left or right wing rockets to target. If I center the sight, I often bracket the tank. I'd really like to set them at 400m convergence. 

I read it is possible to adjust the sight i game, Not tested it myself, I have no time flying. In one post , one said -1 was ideal for him, but ofcourse one need to adjust back using cannons

[JG1_Vonrd]

49 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes

Copy... I think it's the same for all rocket firing planes. IL-2 seems the same

 

[DetCord12B]

On 6/2/2021 at 3:30 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

As an aside, ground assessment after the fact determined that only a tiny percentage of rockets found their mark - a vast majority missed. I can’t quote the hit rate atm but it was pathetically minuscule.

 

What I’m saying is, if you’re missing just about always, well that’s about right.

 

 

This.

[US103_Baer]

15 hours ago, Diggun said:

Intriguing that they talk about attacking an HQ with  1x 'section' of 4 aircraft with bombs and 2x 'sections' of RP armed aircraft. iirc, in the RAF Typhoon squadrons specialised in either rockets or bombs. Were things different for the Canadians? Or would it be flights from different squadrons?

Desmond Scott (Typhoon Pilot, a must read) constantly referred to bombphoon Squadrons.  So it appears they did segregate bombphoons from rocket-firing typhoons at squadron level. 

[jeanba]

47 minutes ago, US28_Baer said:

Desmond Scott (Typhoon Pilot, a must read) constantly referred to bombphoon Squadrons.  So it appears they did segregate bombphoons from rocket-firing typhoons at squadron level. 

Yes they did

Specialization was good to optimize trainings 

[sevenless]

Some good stuff here, especially how they split their forces into an Anti-Flak section armed with RPs and an attack section armed with bombs:

 

 

Tactics Employed by Fighter-Bombers Operating Against Special Targets (wlu.ca)

 

And some interesting 83 Group data here:

 

The Fighter-Bomber in the Normandy Campaign: The Role of 83 Group (wlu.ca)

Edited June 4, 2021 by sevenless

[Chief_Mouser]

10 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

I feel like an Ass, I just saw a video with a tiffy with bombs. And I honestly did not see a option for bombs when testing it. 

Just came home from 4 week work away from home, stayed home for one night and left again

 

You should have done something ? to grab Nocke's attention the other night! I'm sure he would have told you ?.

[56RAF_Stickz]

14 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

I feel like an Ass, I just saw a video with a tiffy with bombs. And I honestly did not see a option for bombs when testing it. 

Just came home from 4 week work away from home, stayed home for one night and left again

its not an actual mod as such to select, its part of the basic selection - guns and either 2x500 or 2x1000. So you dont see a selection as for the rockets/prop/filter whatever so not immediately obvious.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

its not an actual mod as such to select, its part of the basic selection - guns and either 2x500 or 2x1000. So you dont see a selection as for the rockets/prop/filter whatever so not immediately obvious.

I am happy the option is there. I kind og like flying with rockets, I relate to it as rockphoon,

 

5 hours ago, 216th_Cat said:

 

You should have done something ? to grab Nocke's attention the other night! I'm sure he would have told you ?.

Ye but it was pretty cool watching you guys firering the rockets , the smoke trail looked like in gun cams. It is just such a adorable plane, I feel the devs done a great job with it

Edited June 4, 2021 by LuseKofte

[sevenless]

On 6/2/2021 at 10:30 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

I can’t quote the hit rate atm but it was pathetically minuscule.

 

According to Ian Gooderson roughly 4% hit chance.

 

Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 (Studies in Air Power Book 6) (English Edition) eBook: Gooderson, Dr Ian: Amazon.de: Kindle Store

 

Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 - Dr Ian Gooderson - Google Books

 

Let this sink in:

 

Finally, a fact not generally acknowledged comes out in this book - Allied tactical air superiority in Europe was won at a great cost - casualties in all of these British and American tactical air forces were high as the Germans gave as good as they got with their flak batteries. The average survival time of a Typhoon pilot in the autumn of 1944 was only about 17 missions.

Edited June 5, 2021 by sevenless

[Off_Winters]

On 6/4/2021 at 7:29 AM, Avimimus said:

Q: What constitutes a "Cab Rank" mission?

Squadron aircraft (all sorts, Spits, Typhoons, Tempests etc) would fly a set route round and round whilst waiting for a forward air controller to call them in on a target, once hit if they had ordinance remaining they would return the the set patrol area and await another call. like taxi's coming and going from a taxi rank.

regards Rob.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Off_Winters
spelling

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Off_Winters said:

Squadron aircraft (all sorts, Spits, Typhoons, Tempests etc) would fly a set route round and round whilst waiting for a forward air controller to call them in on a target, once hit if they had ordinance remaining they would return the the set patrol area and await another call. like taxi's coming and going from a taxi rank.

regards Rob.

 

Tempests weren't used for these sorts of missions. It was pretty much an exclusive Typhoon mission in Western Europe. From what I've read, the only place Spits were used for cab rank missions was Italy. 

Edited June 5, 2021 by LukeFF

[Off_Winters]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Tempests weren't used for these sorts of missions. It was pretty much an exclusive Typhoon mission in Western Europe. From what I've read, the only place Spits were used for cab rank missions was Italy. 

Pierre Clostermann in his book 'The Big Show' details these limited use of cab rank activities in late 44 early 45 whilst Flying Tempest's.

Agree Spitfires used in Italy, as well as The Western Desert (where the concept was born, DAF refined the ground attack role), along with P40's and Mustangs. but the question didn't specifically ask/state Western Europe, just asked what a Cab Rank mission was.

The US also used the same system with the XIX TAC (Tactical Air Command) P47's and P51's support being credited as one of the main reason for Patton's speedy advance.

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Off_Winters

[ZachariasX]

39 minutes ago, Off_Winters said:

Pierre Clostermann in his book 'The Big Show' details these limited use of cab rank activities in late 44 early 45 whilst Flying Tempest's.

I can‘t find any mentioning of such neither in the 1948 edition nor in the last edition of his work. He never once mentioned having radio contact to anyone but his flight(s) and ground control. But never communication with ground crews other than they shooting at him.

 

Also in his pilot logbook I cannot find such missions. It is usually interdiction in a specific area with preassigned targets or free hunt („cannon tests“).

 

In which episode you think he does talk about cab rank?

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Off_Winters said:

Pierre Clostermann in his book 'The Big Show' details these limited use of cab rank activities in late 44 early 45 whilst Flying Tempest's.

 

Clostermann said a lot of things in his writings, not all of which were accurate.

 

That, and I've read every single mission report for Tempest squadrons deployed on the Continent. There are 0 mentions of cab rank missions being flown.

3 hours ago, Off_Winters said:

The US also used the same system with the XIX TAC (Tactical Air Command) P47's and P51's support being credited as one of the main reason for Patton's speedy advance.

 

Sorry, I don't want to be difficult, but I've not read of USAAF fighter-bombers carrying out the same sort of system as the RAF did. You read of them providing armored column support in July/August of 1944, but that was close air support against predefined targets the pilots were briefed about before they took off. Again, I have a lot of complete squadron logs for USAAF P-47 and P-38 squadrons, and none of them mention taking off and orbiting a given area while waiting for a ground controller to give them a target. So, again, it looks to me like the Cab Rank system, as defined, was carried out only by the RAF in the Med and Western Europe.

Edited June 5, 2021 by LukeFF

[jollyjack]

Y'all probably seen this ?:  https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/20/the-hawker-typhoon-1a-1b-worst-raf-fighters-in-wwii/

[Bremspropeller]

25 minutes ago, jollyjack said:

Y'all probably seen this ?:  https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/20/the-hawker-typhoon-1a-1b-worst-raf-fighters-in-wwii/

 

Quoting the last sentence :

 

Quote

Unlike many other aircraft, all the Typhoons were scraped and not sold off; implying the RAF did not want to pass the Typhoon’s many shortcomings onto others.

 

Yeah. BS.

 

The RAF (as well as any other Air Force) had duckloads of surplus airplanes. With better performing props (late Spitfires, Tempests) and the dawning of the jet-age, there was little place for the Typhoon. The Typhoon was a maintenance-hog and by the time, it was a ground-pounder only.

 

It had nothing to do with shortcomings. If that was the case, the 109 would not have been copied by the Czech and Spanish.

[migmadmarine]

Similarly the P-47s were exported and sent to Air National Guard units since there were fairly rapidly pulled from USAAF service post-war in favor of standardizing on the mustang. 

[Gambit21]

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

USAAF P-47 and P-38 squadrons, and none of them mention taking off and orbiting a given area while waiting for a ground controller to give them a target. So, again, it looks to me like the Cab Rank system, as defined, was carried out only by the RAF in the Med and Western Europe.

 

Yep, they operated in 4 ships assigned to a given sector. Ground controllers (pilots from the squadron embedded with the tanks) would call in the aircraft and direct the attacks.

 

They would often enough arrive on station and have to wait however...but it wasn’t a lineup as such and that certainly wasn’t the desired system...on some days though it probably inadvertently shook out that way.

 

 

[Off_Winters]

15 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Clostermann said a lot of things in his writings, not all of which were accurate.

 

That, and I've read every single mission report for Tempest squadrons deployed on the Continent. There are 0 mentions of cab rank missions being flown.

 

Sorry, I don't want to be difficult, but I've not read of USAAF fighter-bombers carrying out the same sort of system as the RAF did. You read of them providing armored column support in July/August of 1944, but that was close air support against predefined targets the pilots were briefed about before they took off. Again, I have a lot of complete squadron logs for USAAF P-47 and P-38 squadrons, and none of them mention taking off and orbiting a given area while waiting for a ground controller to give them a target. So, again, it looks to me like the Cab Rank system, as defined, was carried out only by the RAF in the Med and Western Europe.

Hi Luke, you're not being difficult, we are just discussing stuff, and I'm happy to admit errors on my part.

Tempest's, no worries, happy to concede the point. I may have been thinking of flights on standing patrols being called in onto V1's as they were picked up on radar after launch. which whilst not a cab rank ground attack mission as such, is still a cab rank style of deployment. 

With regards to the XIXth TAC this is the piece that describes the use of forward controllers calling in standing patrol aircraft to attack targets of opportunity after the armored column had engaged them. these were not pre-defined targets such as the deep interdiction missions they also flew against predefined targets.

Formed in England in early 1944, XIX TAC was a command and control organization, designed to provide air support to Army ground forces, primarily with P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51 Mustang aircraft. XIX TAC supported all of Third Army's operations and more. Its roles included an extensive number of tactical roles: close air support, battlefield air interdiction, deep interdiction, dive bombing, counterair, reconnaissance, and even leaflet dropping.
 

XIX TAC's close air support role took its most concerted, extended, and spectacular form in supporting Patton's armored and motorized infantry columns as they sped across France. The Third Army's tank crews and their accompanying air liaison officers pointed out enemy concentrations, and divisional artillery at times gave further assistance by marking targets with smoke. In return, the P-47 and P-51 pilots of XIX TAC provided cover for the tanks.

A typical close air support tactic involved one-hour shifts of four aircraft per flight, and four more on ground alert could be called in if necessary. As little as three minutes after being contacted, they could strike the designated target, thereby freeing the armored forces to continue their advance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XIX_Tactical_Air_Command

regards Rob.

[69th_chuter]

I think there is a key point in rocket accuracy that is being overlooked in the game so far:  ballistic profile.  The rockets, as currently modeled, seem to exhibit bullet type ballistics where the projectile starts on a very defined path and gradually, for various reasons, begins deviating.  Real rockets, on the other hand, begin their path with an initial deviation at launch, for other reasons,  and tend to define their trajectory more accurately as speed increases and overall accuracy would, therefore, somewhat improve with launch speed.   I haven't been able to identify the actual speed profile or ballistic arc of rockets in game but the arc should start with a significant drop that flattens with the speed increase (is there one?), essentially a reverse bullet trajectory.  A way to test this in game would be by comparing one's ground fired spread (should be rather wide) with air fired (should be much closer), with zero length launchers being far worse at ground launch than rail launchers. 

 

I find the RAF's experiment using experienced rocket firing Typhoon pilots against a static, captured Panther and them scoring a less than 5% hit ratio on it in excellent conditions quite telling.

[Heliopause]

[MiloMorai]

On 6/3/2021 at 10:21 AM, RedKestrel said:

But you likely had several squadrons operating from each airfield, so you just had e.g. 442 Canuck Rocketeers* covering for the 443rd Fighting Hosers** when they went in for a bomb run.

442 was an actual squadron flying the North American Mustang IV, claiming over 58 enemy aircraft and hundreds of vehicles, locomotives and rail cars.

443 was also a real squadron and flew Spitfire iXs.

 

RCAF squadrons that flew the Typhoon were 438, 439 and 440.

 

 Article XV squadrons - Wikipedia

[busdriver]

@Off_Winters and @LukeFF just a further bit of description regarding the USAAF variation of the RAF's cab rank system. 

 

>>>>>>

Other innovations were adopted by both the Americans and British, including improved means of communication between infantry and armour. Telephones had been placed on the back of tanks, for example; these were trial-and-error developments and were certainly something Stanley Christopherson, for one, believed needed further honing. For the most part, however, the British and Canadians followed one approach, the Americans another; because they were coalition partners and fighting together but independently of one another, there was little common doctrine, although tactical developments were shared. The same was true for the air forces. Pete Quesada, for example, got on very well with both Coningham and Broadhurst, but was developing different tactics for his air forces, not least because the fighting in the bocage was different to that experienced by the British and Canadians in the area around Caen. The RAF was using the cab-rank system and VCP – visual control point – but Quesada, in the build-up to COBRA, was now hatching an even more refined system for directly supporting the ground troops. It was yet another example of innovation and rapid implementation being developed in Normandy. ‘Bradley liked me, and I liked him a hell of a lot,’ recalled General Quesada. While the planning for COBRA was taking place they were talking daily, with Quesada urging the First Army commander to assemble his armour on a very narrow front so that they could smash their way through and then keep going.

 

Quesada was belying his lack of ground operations experience, but he said,

‘Look, Brad, if you will concentrate your armor, I will tell you what I will do. I will keep over every column that you establish a flight of bombers from daylight until dark.’

‘You will?’ Bradley replied. ‘

Yes, I will,’ answered Quesada.

‘For every column I establish?’

‘Yes, and further than that, Brad, we’ll do something else that I think will be a tremendous help. We will put in the lead tank of every column an aircraft radio, so they can talk to the flight that’s above them.’

 

That wasn’t all. In the same conversation, Quesada also offered to put a pilot in the leading tank. Suddenly, in the space of one simple conversation, an exciting new tactical development had been born, one they then began to thrash out verbally. Quesada’s fighters were now using high-frequency radios and were also being controlled from the ground by their MEW radars as well as by radio and high-frequency direction finding. What Quesada was proposing was a development of the cab-rank and Rover system used by the RAF, but with important differences. By flying directly above an armoured column, the pilots could see ahead. If they spotted an 88, or enemy troops, they could warn the column below and could either deal with it themselves or help the armour to defeat it. Because there was to be a direct verbal link between the lead tank and the pilots above, friendly-fire incidents, which had been not uncommon so far in the campaign, would be reduced. In fact, because of the direct radio link, the gap between the armour below and the actions of the fighter-bombers above could be narrower, which would also help the armour get on to their targets more quickly. That very afternoon, they trialled putting an aircraft radio in a tank with a pilot alongside and found the system worked very well. Within a matter of days, they had practised it on a larger scale. Flights of four P-47 Thunderbolts flew in turns, thirty minutes at a time, over an armoured column, which meant they could maintain a permanent air umbrella over any armoured advance, striking targets and providing advance searches. It also meant an armoured column could dash forward with less concern about its flanks, because any movement on that score was likely to be spotted from the air. Keeping up such an umbrella would absorb a lot of Quesada’s fighters, which would then not be available for interdiction tasks, but it did not have to be kept up all the time; rather, it could be implemented as and when required – such as for Operation COBRA. The Armored Column Cover had been born. It was a potentially devastating development of air–land integration forged from the bloody bocage battles of Normandy.

>>>>>>>>>

Holland, James. Normandy '44 . Grove Atlantic. Kindle Edition. 

 

 

[DD_Arthur]

They put a pilot in a tank?

 

 I bet that was a popular duty...

[sevenless]

FCP or VCP is described in some detail by Johnston here:

 

Tactical Air Power Controversies in Normandy: A Question of Doctrine (wlu.ca)

 

[Lusekofte]

13 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

They put a pilot in a tank?

 

 I bet that was a popular duty...

Typhoon pilots had a horrible death toll, so I guess it kind of felt like a rest duty

[Heliopause]

J. Linzel was a Dutchman flying with Sqn 33 on the Tempest. In his book he describes an incident with the pilot at the front
who calls in air support in April '45. I made a translation:

 

"On the 17th again Hamburg-Bremen. Near Papenburg there was heavy fighting to the south of Leer. There was a swamp area.
One of our pilots was always present at the frontline in an armored car. This pilot had the task of giving directions for air support.
I never did it but if the war had lasted longer I also would have performed this task.
At a certain moment this chap at the front called in and asked me if I had any ammo left. Sure I said. Plenty.
Well can you help us? We're having trouble with a self-propelled gun. After a couple of minutes I was over the designated area.
Where is it?: I informed. "We'll throw some smoke". They fired red mortar grenades to mark the area. I came low over it at about 20m height
but could only see the wild terrain. Again I flew low over it and then spotted a German soldier running and then diving in a slit trench. He had panicked.
Now I knew the exact spot. A number of times I went round with my number two and we fired everything we had in that bush.
I found out later that the troops were not fired upon by this gun again so we must have hit it good. In this fase of the war it was easy shooting.
They probably fired at us as well but without tracers you couldn't tell."

[Diggun]

The storied Bob Spurdle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spurdle) writes about his experiences as a forward Air Controller towards the end of the war in his excellent memoir, The Blue Arena.  Cannot recommend that book highly enough.

[RedKestrel]

20 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

442 was an actual squadron flying the North American Mustang IV, claiming over 58 enemy aircraft and hundreds of vehicles, locomotives and rail cars.

443 was also a real squadron and flew Spitfire iXs.

 

RCAF squadrons that flew the Typhoon were 438, 439 and 440.

 

 Article XV squadrons - Wikipedia

I admit I chose those numbers at random BUT I chose the 400 series because as far as I can tell, all Canadian squadrons were in that number sequence. So unfortunately I mixed just eneough authenticity with my humour to make it sound believable, but not enough to not accidentally impugn the honour of existing squadrons.

[Gambit21]

18 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

They put a pilot in a tank?

 

 

Yep - the pilot was able to “speak the language” and get ordinance where and how it needed to be delivered.

[Avimimus]

Here is another question... my assumption has been that the double-stacked rockets are fired together due to game-engine limitations. Is this correct?

 

I know that later double-stacked rockets had the ability to fire the outer rocket first... but perhaps both of them were indeed triggered at the same time?

 

I also assume that they would come apart in flight, but I could be wrong... anyone know? I'm curious.