Rockets vs. Tube Arty

[c3k]

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