Rocket Tanks

[Lord Harmes]

Why are there not any rocket tanks in CM??? There is a picture here showing some rockets being fired at a range of 200 yards.. so surely they could be used in a practicle game sense????

Or have i just missed them???

http://www.752ndtank.com/RocketTanks.html

[Michael Emrys]

This is something that was requested going back to the CMBO days.

Here's a pic:

And from another angle:

Michael

[Lord Harmes]

Nice pics. Was there any practical reason for them not to be in the game? I'm guessing it has something to do with the 2 hours it took to load? Though I think they should still be in there... maybe as one shot wonders.

[Michael Emrys]

I can't remember what reason BFC gave. It may have had something to do with the engine not being able to model more than one main weapon per vehicle.

I guess one shot (salvo actually) would be about right, and only giving area fire. Although, now that I think about it, I believe they might have been able to fire single shots. Not much point in that though, unless you were doing harrassing fire, unlikely with a short-range weapon such as this.

After firing the rockets, they still had full use of the 75mm. It was an interesting weapon, and I would like to explore the tactical implications. Too bad they didn't have some in Normandy.

Michael

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Lord Harmes:

Nice pics. Was there any practical reason for them not to be in the game? I'm guessing it has something to do with the 2 hours it took to load? Though I think they should still be in there... maybe as one shot wonders.

Why were ammo compartments in tanks armored? Why not on the rooftop? Why did T34s drop the external fuel tanks before going into battle? What happens if tracers from a HMG or small HE rounds hit the rockets?

I would not like to be in or near that tank with the enemy close. If you are in LOS you risk 60+ rockets exploding - with all their fuel.

If you are out of LOS you can as well put the tanks off board and use a spotter.

Gruß

Joachim

[Michael Emrys]

Here's a pic of a very nice scale model that shows up some of the details of the installation.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Joachim:

I would not like to be in or near that tank with the enemy close. If you are in LOS you risk 60+ rockets exploding - with all their fuel.

Interesting point. The fact is though that a fair number were used in combat in the last two or three months of the war. So far as I know, they were used in the direct fire mode. I haven't heard yet of any that were lost in the manner you describe, but something along those lines could still turn up.

Michael

[Lord Harmes]

Thanks for all the interesting replies... I'm pretty convinced that they would be very useful in attacking towns in the game. The link above has a good referance to them being used against buildings etc. So lets hope they can be included in the new engine eh?

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:

I would not like to be in or near that tank with the enemy close. If you are in LOS you risk 60+ rockets exploding - with all their fuel.

Interesting point. The fact is though that a fair number were used in combat in the last two or three months of the war. So far as I know, they were used in the direct fire mode. I haven't heard yet of any that were lost in the manner you describe, but something along those lines could still turn up.

Michael </font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Lord Harmes:

Thanks for all the interesting replies... I'm pretty convinced that they would be very useful in attacking towns in the game. The link above has a good referance to them being used against buildings etc. So lets hope they can be included in the new engine eh?

Which cost do you suggest? Would you use a section of them if they came at 600pts each like a Sturmtiger in CMBB? Mobile, armored, fast response times, huge blast, good accuracy (compared to OBA).

Would you like to defend vs them if they came at 150 pts? A regular German 105mm spotter with 60 rounds moves slower, reacts slower and has less blast..

Gruß

Joachim

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Lord Harmes:

Thanks for all the interesting replies... I'm pretty convinced that they would be very useful in attacking towns in the game. The link above has a good referance to them being used against buildings etc. So lets hope they can be included in the new engine eh?

Which cost do you suggest? Would you use a section of them if they came at 600pts each like a Sturmtiger in CMBB? Mobile, armored, fast response times, huge blast, good accuracy (compared to OBA).

Would you like to defend vs them if they came at 150 pts? A regular German 105mm spotter with 60 rounds moves slower, reacts slower and has less blast..

Edited to add that they are a cool toy... just like the Sturmtiger, which I tested once.

Gruß

Joachim

[ April 02, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

[752ndTank]

So far as I know, they were used in the direct fire mode. I haven't heard yet of any that were lost in the manner you describe, but something along those lines could still turn up.

Actually, the later 4.5 inch T34 rocket launchers in the 752 had a much greater range, and given the terrain in the Northern Apennines, the rocket tanks were used almost exclusively in indirect fire mode using forward observers. The tankers received target acquisition and fire effect information from the FO's via radio, and written transcripts of some of the 752 radio transmissions still exist. On my web page, I have photos of an abbey destroyed by a salvo of 53 rockets, fired from about 3800 yards via indirect fire.

http://www.752ndtank.com/rockettanks.html

Regarding losses, none of the 752nd rocket tanks were lost in combat. Rocket ammo, which actually was the same as that used by allied aircraft, was normally stockpiled near the rocket tank. In one instance, return fire from a German counterbattery struck almost on top of the rocket ammo dump next to one of the rocket tanks. The blast killed an officer who was standing beside the tank, but surprisingly it failed to detonate any of the rockets.

Hope this adds some perspective.

Bob

http://www.752ndtank.com

[ April 02, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: 752ndTank ]

[YankeeDog]

From reading that website, it sounds like the short range, direct-fire T40 rocket system saw only limited experimental deployment with the 752nd, and that the T34 "Calliope" type launchers, while used much more extensively, were used as an indirect fire weapon, and not for DF support. As such, they would probably be better modeled as off-map artillery than as an on-map weapon. Nevertheless, it is interesting that, according to the website, both rocket systems could be "hydraulically jettisoned in seconds," implying that perhaps they were designed with the intention that a tank should be able to fire a rocket salvo from defilade, jettison the rocket rack quickly, and immediately roll forward to directly support an attack. It would be interesting to determine if this was ever actually used as a regular tactic.

I have always assumed that, generally speaking, the various US vehicle-mounted rocket systems were primarily indirect-fire weapons, and all the website seems to indicate is that there was some brief experimentation with a short-range direct fire system in Italy. As such, I don't see them as a very high priority for modeling in CM. If there is evidence of more widespread use of rockets as direct-fire weapons, then they would be a higher priority for modeling IMHO.

I do agree that the T40 system would be fun to play with as a novelty item, though -- it must have packed a hell of a short-range punch with 20 7.2" rockets! Not my highest priority for things to be modeled in the new engine, but I certainly wouldn't complain if it made its way in.

Cheers,

YD

[Spanish Bombs]

Not that it was any sort of precedent for the inclusion of the Calliope in CM, but I recall playing a little of Close Combat IV: Battle of the Bulge. I think I played through exactly one campaign, and I still recall the one time I was equipped with one. It was pretty damn fun, for whatever thats worth, producing uncontrollable giggling on this end as it tore up the Germans at about 250m. Of course, this proves absolutely nothing regarding historical usage.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by 752ndTank:

Interesting info. Any explosives experts out there that know about different effects of blast and direct hits/heat to ignite explosives?

Given that rockets create kind of blast to propel them forward and the way they are stacked on launchers, I guess they should not explode on blast effects.

Gruß

Joachim

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

After firing the rockets, they still had full use of the 75mm. It was an interesting weapon, and I would like to explore the tactical implications. Too bad they didn't have some in Normandy.

Michael

The article seems to think differently

"Main Gun Operation: Cannot be fired until launcher is jettisoned"

[752ndTank]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

perhaps they were designed with the intention that a tank should be able to fire a rocket salvo from defilade, jettison the rocket rack quickly, and immediately roll forward to directly support an attack. It would be interesting to determine if this was ever actually used as a regular tactic.

None of the rocket launchers in the 752nd Tank Battalion were ever jettisoned. Armored fighting in the Northern Apennines during the winter of '44-45 was very static and indirect, so there was no reason to fire a rocket salvo and then quickly move up to support a direct attack with the 75mm. The launcher itself had to be installed by an ordnance company, and it was quite a time-comsuming project. Not to mention the fact that jettisoning the unit ran the risk of damage, and there were only 8 rocket tanks in the entire MTO at that time.

When the 5th Army broke out of the mountains in April '45 in the push to Bologna and the Po River, the rocket tanks were left behind. They were great for use in static conditions, but were totally ineffective in a rapidly moving front. It took a crew of 5 men approximately two hours to unpack the rockets, load the 54 tubes, and wire the launcher. With this kind of time investment, plus the digging of trenches to gain maximum elevation and range, the rocket tanks could only realistically be employed in static situations.

Bob

http://www.752ndtank.com/rockettanks.html

[Joachim]

Originally posted by 752ndTank:

None of the rocket launchers in the 752nd Tank Battalion were ever jettisoned. Armored fighting in the Northern Apennines during the winter of '44-45 was very static and indirect, so there was no reason to fire a rocket salvo and then quickly move up to support a direct attack with the 75mm. The launcher itself had to be installed by an ordnance company, and it was quite a time-comsuming project. Not to mention the fact that jettisoning the unit ran the risk of damage, and there were only 8 rocket tanks in the entire MTO at that time.

When the 5th Army broke out of the mountains in April '45 in the push to Bologna and the Po River, the rocket tanks were left behind. They were great for use in static conditions, but were totally ineffective in a rapidly moving front. It took a crew of 5 men approximately two hours to unpack the rockets, load the 54 tubes, and wire the launcher. With this kind of time investment, plus the digging of trenches to gain maximum elevation and range, the rocket tanks could only realistically be employed in static situations.

Bob

http://www.752ndtank.com/rockettanks.html

Interesting info - the employment does not suggest that on board use makes much sense. Add the small amount of tanks available and you know why they are not in CMAK.

Gruß

Joachim