PDA

View Full Version : rockets vs bombs



luftluuver
09-13-2007, 03:53 PM
The average hit probability of the Typhoon + rocket projectiles against tanks, in combat, was 0.5% (5% in training). The average miss distance was 60 yards IIRC (later showing improvement to around 40 yards with a better sight). The average miss distance with Typhoons + bombs was 120 yards. All results from Operational Research, examining the battlefield immediately afterwards.

Tony Williams

DKoor
09-13-2007, 04:03 PM
What was the main cause for such low ratio?

The-Pizza-Man
09-13-2007, 04:10 PM
It probably had something to do with the low velocity of the rockets, convergence issues and the guys on the ground shooting at them.

Abbuzze
09-13-2007, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
What was the main cause for such low ratio?

Because WW2 rockets (at least the unguided ones) were rather primitive weapons. I think this is nothing special to the Thypoon.

luftluuver
09-13-2007, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
What was the main cause for such low ratio?
For the rockets or for the bombs? Bombs had a 2 to 3 times miss distance.

FPSOLKOR
09-13-2007, 05:08 PM
Strange, Il-2 pilots had the same hit probability with RS-82, and around 1% if RS-132 were used... The issue with 82-s were conscidered to be that stabilizers were to weak and slightly bent under pressure of the air, thus projectile lost stability. Most important cause was the shaking of the plane, unnoticeable by pilot it could reach up to 2 degrees. All in all RS were conscidered as weapon against unprotected targets, such as columns of infantry, truck convoys and train stations. Bombs could be used from Sturmoviks and fighter-bombers with great precision if a pilot had several hundred training hour, what in WWII was not possible at all. BTW, a miss by FAB-100 in 50 meters had basically the same result as a 5 meter miss by RS-132...

Jaws2002
09-13-2007, 05:09 PM
Look at the trajectory of this things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN3ZvIe6Yc

DKoor
09-13-2007, 05:17 PM
Ain't nearly as bad as some may think after hearing such bad "reviews".
Sure for tank busters this weapons are very low effective due to obvious inaccuracy........but trucks equipment & troops generally soft targets will suffer dearly under rocket fire.

Which is also excellent and very effective.

IMO rarely anything beats Stuka diving or large cannons fitted on Sturmovik (aside those probs with cannons) when it comes down to precise tank killing.

DKoor
09-13-2007, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
What was the main cause for such low ratio?
For the rockets or for the bombs? Bombs had a 2 to 3 times miss distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Rockets

Xiolablu3
09-13-2007, 06:02 PM
Rockets were not that effective against tanks unless you got a direct hit.

However against the support vehicles they were devastating.

Also they had a significant effect on the morale of the persons being attacked.

In the failise pocket there was shere carnage agaginst all vehicles except the tanks. Trucks/Halftracks/Fuel containers/Machineguns/Anti Aircraft cannons were all mashed up pretty badly.

Even the most hardened, trained Troops apparantly had a habit of breaking and running when under rocket attack.

10,000 German soldiers killed and 50,000 surrended under the sheer morale busting effect of constant air attack by rockets and bombs.

There is a quote by a German General who was there, where he discusses just what it was like for the troops trapped in the Falaise pocket, but I cannot find it right now. He cites the feeling of absolute helplessness as they were attacked again and again by the Typhoons and P47's. He states the rockets broke morale in a big way, especially amognst the younger troops who would jump out of their vehicles and run.

I will try and find it for you guys...

Xiolablu3
09-13-2007, 06:13 PM
Here we go :-


'German accounts clearly attribute the failure of their attack on 7
August to the fighter-bombers. The commander of 2nd Panzer Division,
von Luttwitz, later recalled that his tanks had made a swift advance
of about ten miles when suddenly the fighter-bombers appeared,

They came in hundreds, firing their rockets at the
concentrated tanks and vehicles. We could do nothing
against them and we could make no further progress.

Hans Speidel, then the Chief of Staff of the German Army Group B,
later wrote of Mortain that

it was possible for the Allied air forces alone to wreck
this Panzer operation with the help of a well co-ordinated
ground-to-air communication system.'



'Interrogation of prisoners has shown without question
that German tank crews are extremely frightened of
attacks by RP...Crews are very aware that if an RP
does hit a tank, their chance of survival is small.
It is admitted that the chances of a direct hit are
slight; nevertheless, this would hardly be appreciated
by a crew whose first thought would be of the disastrous
results if a hit was obtained.'

'Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, the majority of the
others being abandoned by their crew'



Not so great against tanks unless a direct hit was acheived, but against basically everything else, such as half tracks, fuel tanks, field guns, anti aircrat guns and any soft skinned vehicles, they were quite devastating, and particularly effective on the morale of the troops being attacked, leading to them abandoning their vehicles en masse.

Seems to me that they were very much akin to the German Stuka attacks in their morale breaking ability.

Waldo.Pepper
09-13-2007, 06:37 PM
What was the main cause for such low ratio?

I think that the reason for this is the same reason we see Luftwaffe guncam footage from a great distance. The crews prefer to fire from as far away as they could, cause they don't have the benefit of a replay button like we do. Fear of/respect for Flak kept them at a safe distance.

general_kalle
09-14-2007, 12:35 AM
at least that proves that you arent below avrage if you cant hit tanks with your rockets in IL2, thats just the way it was,
rockets are difficult to hit with.

but then still i think its easyer to use rockets against tanks than bombs.

fabianfred
09-14-2007, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
at least that proves that you arent below avrage if you cant hit tanks with your rockets in IL2, thats just the way it was,
rockets are difficult to hit with.

but then still i think its easyer to use rockets against tanks than bombs.

I agree....but then we get more chance to practise on live targets than they did... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
09-14-2007, 02:36 AM
The IID was not the only Hurricane to carry the 40 mm S gun. The Hurricane IV, of which over five hundred were built, was introduced in 1943 as a specialised ground attack variant. A more powerful engine enabled more armour to be fitted and it had a "universal wing", designed to take various armament options including the S gun or rocket projectiles (RPs); the changeover could be made by five men in about forty minutes. Most saw service overseas but three squadrons based in England (Nos. 137, 164 and 184) were equipped with this aircraft.

Official British reports during 1943 concerning the effectiveness of the armament options for the Hurricane IV make interesting reading. The 40 mm gun was seen as the precision weapon, usable against smaller targets such as locomotives and tanks, while the RPs were thought to be more effective against shipping. It was recommended that all Hurricane IVs should normally be issued fitted with the S gun, with conversion kits for RPs provided, and that squadrons should employ both variants, with different flights being equipped with RPs or S guns. Operations were conducted by 11 Group over France and against coastal shipping, and both guns and RPs were evidently considered satisfactory.

In June 1943 the RAF's order of preference in weapons for use against tanks was given as: 1st 40 mm S gun; 2nd 20 mm cannon with Mk III AP ammunition; 3rd RP with 25 lb AP head; 4th RP with 60 lb HE head; 5th .50" Browning HMG; 6th 9 lb AT bomb. Only the first three of these were considered to be serious anti-tank weapons. Some comment on these preferences is necessary. The 20 mm AP Mk III, as mentioned in Chapter 1, was a tungsten-cored round of considerable performance which was, in the end, not adopted. The RP with 25 lb AP head could penetrate 70-80 mm, which compensated to some extent for its lack of accuracy. The RP with 60 lb HE head was discounted against tanks as it could only penetrate 25 mm, but this assessment rather underestimated the cataclysmic effect of detonating such a large charge against a tank.

Tony Williams, Flying Guns World War II

FPSOLKOR
09-14-2007, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Here we go :-

Seems to me that they were very much akin to the German Stuka attacks in their morale breaking ability.

In 1945 a city Polminiken (may be misspelled) was captured by a regiment of P-39 via strafing and bombing... Not an unusual thing. Another thing - almost no RP of a time could destroy a tank with a single hit, unless it was a very lucky shot... Cripple somehow, but not destroy.

DKoor
09-14-2007, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Here we go :-

Seems to me that they were very much akin to the German Stuka attacks in their morale breaking ability.

In 1945 a city Polminiken (may be misspelled) was captured by a regiment of P-39 via strafing and bombing... Not an unusual thing. Another thing - almost no RP of a time could destroy a tank with a single hit, unless it was a very lucky shot... Cripple somehow, but not destroy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe that because it makes sense.....in game we can approach our ground target on less that 400m, I know I usually start to pull up on ~200m distance or even less!

No one in the right mind would do that in a ww2 fighter for real. Including me I suppose.

Distance was I suppose main obstacle when it came down to precise ground work.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 09:36 AM
Yes I agree, we get extrememly close to the ground before firing in IL2 as hitting the target seems even more important than anything else.

In real war, not hitting the ground is your first priority, then return fire from the target (we have no fear from machine guns or a troops with rifles in the game) and finally hitting the target comes last.

Like others have said, we get to practice with thousands of rockets and they all tend to fly the same trajectory, IRL they flew out at many angles and the 'spread' was very wide.

You can see at the end of this clip how much the rockets 'fall' from the gunsight.

The final mosquito has his guns on target (see the 20mm hitting hom) when he fires his rockets, and they all fall short of the ship. It must have taken practice to use them well.

EDIT : CLip added :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ-a8U1QWUw

luftluuver
09-14-2007, 02:34 PM
Someplace I remember reading that RP attack accuracy was increased by diving. This shows in the vid on the attack on the curving road. The angle was greater than 30*, iirc.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 02:46 PM
Sorry I missed the link from the clip of the above post, here it is :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ-a8U1QWUw

Pay attention to near the end of the clip where the mosquitos are attacking ships with rockets and cannon.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 02:50 PM
YOu can see in this clip how it was possible to be very accurate with rockets once you had practiced with them a lot, or were a veteran :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN3ZvIe6Yc

See how accuratly he hits to destroy the railway track in the second clip. He hits dead on with every salvo.

This leads me to believe that it took practice to be accurate with rockets, but it WAS possible.