Dalton Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 Something that puzzles me is why vehicles mounting rocket batteries were not common (AFAIK) in WWII. Man-portable rockets were effective against armored targets: the US Bazooka, UK PIAT and German Panzerfaust (sp?). My understanding is that a fairly small rocket could pack the HE punch of medium arty. Planes mounted rockets...Why not AFVs? Any info on this would be appreciated! ...Dalton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zulu1 Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 The main reason is accuracy. Man portable rockets, ie zooks and fausts, strecks are only accurate out to say 100 m and by accurate I mean maybe a 25% change (guessing here) of hitting your target. In comparison tanks, etc can kill out to 2000 m. So by time you got your rocket AFV close to a tank you would be dead many times over. The small rockets do not pack the punch of a medium HE shell. They work on an entirely different principal. Zooks genetate a plasma jet that burns thru armor. Use the search tool and you will find lots on this topic, plus some good links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 Have a look on this cool tank hunter bren... http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust3.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 Great Page man thanks for the link -- did you guys get the range listed for the schrek - Common range for stationary target was 400 meters , 230 meters for amoving target - Unit also reported firing on targets effectively at 1000meters -- christ if htats accurate - I'll jsut buy schreks ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 Both the Germans and Russians had rocket batteries that they used as artillery. The german version was the Nebelwerfer, and the Russians had the Katushuya. These were mostly fired in batteries. I don't know if they ever mounted these on vehicles as self propelled arty or not. It probably wouldn't have been really effective, because a conventional gun would have been far more accurate, and take up less room in a vehicle than a number of rockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 Katyusha's were mounted almost exclusively on vehicles actually. They were mounted on trucks and began the greate tradition of Soviet truck-borne rocket weaponry which has given us the BM-21 and BM-27 etc today (very effective and cheap weapons systems). Nebelwerfers were mounted on armoured vehicles (usually fully tracked vehicles) and were extremely effective in Normandy and Italy in particular. The massive backblast etc wasn't so much of a liability when the Nebelwerfers could get away from the firing area in mere minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 SS Panzerleader In playing the CM demos I find that the Panzershreck's range is 200m at best, usually 100m or less to get a knockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted April 17, 2000 Share Posted April 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Katyusha's were mounted almost exclusively on vehicles actually. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've got a photo of about an acre of Katyusha 300mm rockets firing from frames mounted directly on the ground - very simple mountes, just a bed with hte tail end on the ground and apparently a couple of bits of wood proping the front end up! Hate to be at the MPI of that lot!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CEO Posted April 17, 2000 Share Posted April 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dalton: Something that puzzles me is why vehicles mounting rocket batteries were not common (AFAIK) in WWII. Man-portable rockets were effective against armored targets: the US Bazooka, UK PIAT and German Panzerfaust (sp?). My understanding is that a fairly small rocket could pack the HE punch of medium arty. Planes mounted rockets...Why not AFVs? Any info on this would be appreciated! ...Dalton<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hate to be nit-picky, but didn't the PIAT use a spring to propel the round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted April 17, 2000 Share Posted April 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>didn't the PIAT use a spring to propel the round?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, not completely. The idea that it was completely spring-launched probably stems from the hellacious spring used to hurl the "spigot" forward to fire the rocket (basing this on "Men Against Tanks" by John Weeks). PIAT was basically a horizontal spigot mortar, meaning that the bomb itself had a hollow conical tail. A long steel rod, or spigot, was hurled into the tail by a spring, igniting the propellant charge which launched the bomb. PIAT was designed to recock on firing, as the opposing reaction forced the spigot back down into the firing position for the next round. I had to edit this after reading more carefully- it wasn't exactly a rocket, but a projectile fired by the combination of the spring and the explosive cartridge at its base. It was the Herculean (author's simile) effort required for manual cocking for the first round that associated the PIAT forever with springs. It was a very unpleasant weapon to fire from the shoulder, but was effective at 100 yds. It could also be used as a crude mortar out to 300 yds. and the baseplate was designed to rotate 90 degrees for planting on the ground. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 04-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spider Posted April 17, 2000 Share Posted April 17, 2000 The US had the calliope, a rack of rockets held high above the turret of a sherman, they didnt use them much but they were the nearest thing to rocket artillery for the allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted April 17, 2000 Share Posted April 17, 2000 And for the record... The Panzerfaust projectile was not rocket propelled, it was a recoilless launcher. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 17, 2000 Share Posted April 17, 2000 Thought I add my record schrek kill SHERMAN Killed @ 209 meters ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Panzerfaust projectile was not rocket propelled, it was a recoilless launcher.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a really interesting topic. As I understand it, the Panzerfaust was a true recoilless gun (or launcher): the bomb itself contained a blackpowder explosive cartridge in a cardboard tube at its base. When this was fired, it used the mass of gas created by the explosion to propel the bomb (a hollow charge grenade made of cyclonite) forward. This was very unsophisticated but worked well at short range (beats hell out of sticky bombs, as delivery systems go). The blackpowder (smokeless was becoming hard to get in late-war Germany) charge had to be much larger than it would have been in a closed tube (i.e., a traditional gun) so the result was a relatively massive signature blast. The tube was not reloadable and was discarded after a single use. The PIAT projectile was similar, except that the spring-loaded spigot apparently contributed an unknown (to me) percentage of the total forward velocity, with the explosive base cartridge providing the rest. Since the cartridge could be smaller and was not blackpowder, signature was minimal and there was no backblast, allowing its use from closed rooms and other tight areas. The cartridge had sufficient force to recock the spigot for the next round, so that only the first required back-breaking human force. The spigot was really a one-inch diameter, foot-long steel firing pin, and there was a considerable delay (mechanical lock time, in gun talk) between pulling the trigger and actual launch, during which the shooter had to keep the whole thing on-target and tightly to the shoulder. By definition it was not recoilless. The Bazooka and Panzerschreck were true rockets, with slow-burning propellants contained within the warhead itself. The 'schreck was actually copied, with modifications, from US Bazookas captured from the Soviets shortly after their introduction in 1943. Both used the venturi principle, where a constriction in the launch tube enabled the mass of gas behind the rocket to build up more quickly for faster launch. The gas was expelled after launch by the flared opening at the rear of the tube so that the shooter enjoyed recoilless operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 Ok... how about the Maultier... a halftrack with screaming meemies? I believe this was the primary vehicle used for German rocket support. Question: were screaming meemies developed in direct response to Stalin's organs? TIA Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 Question: were screaming meemies developed in direct response to Stalin's organs? I think it was the other way around. Although the Russians may have developed rocket arty independently with the note that Nebelwerfer was in combat before the Katushuya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spider: The US had the calliope, a rack of rockets held high above the turret of a sherman, they didnt use them much but they were the nearest thing to rocket artillery for the allies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hmm, well, there was also the British Land Mattrass, and the US truck mounted rocket batteries. I'd have to say that those were both pretty close to being rocket artillery ... Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 http://www.magna.ca/~tracks/stags.htm Think you know how ugly war is? HUHH??? Well you dont know what ugly is mister till you seen a canadian armored car outfitted with ROCKETS!!! Think they drink alot of Beer up there in CANADA!!??? HUHHH!!!!??? Well my guess is yes. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 ------------------ "Some people don't see the light until they first feel the heat" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts