c3k Posted February 11, 2002 Share Posted February 11, 2002 Gents, I just scanned pages 4 & 5 of the nebelwerfer thread. It seems to've degenerated into a flame-fest about counter-battery detection techniques. However, in reading some messages there, I saw a few things I'd like to address. Someone mentioned that they thought that rockets should be treated as aerial bombardment, making massive craters, particularly effective against dug in troops. My understanding, subject to grogs who know better, is that rocket rounds were very thin-skinned and did not penetrate much, if at all, on impact. Instead their explosive force was very much directed on the surface, making them very good against exposed troops caught by surprise, but ineffective against dug in targets. (The benefit of the U.S. VT fuse was it enabled regular arty rounds to detonate above the ground, spraying splinters across the ground, instead of burying in dirt and losing effectiveness as normal fuzes would do.) More on that later if this thread develops. As for "rockets are cheap, tube arty is expensive why not just make more rockets?", that's not totally correct. It is easier to manufacture rockets and their launchers than it is to produce arty barrels and shells. BUT, the standard rocket round uses 3 times the propellant of a normal arty round. Propellant was in short supply in Germany. Very short. I believe the Russians also may have had to be careful with their propellant allocations. (I.e., they were not awash in the stuff.) Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts