Author Topic: HTC some more heresay info :) (Read 483 times)

hazed- · « **on:** May 16, 2001, 01:11:00 AM »

Hi HTC Im not sure how you decided on the range of the 21cm rockets but since you changed it to a higher value im assuming you have reference to the distance its presently set at.
I was among those who protested at the short range of the rockets when you first introduced the air to air type but i didnt know if it was correct, i just assumed they had longer range. sorry.
well in case you could find no references to their range heres one i have found:
again in 'the lufftwaffe fighter force:view from the cockpit' adolf Galland et al ISBN 1-85367-327-7
F.W.190. 2x21cm. RP underwings.This RP was an adaption of the ordinary German Army RP Nebelwerfer.The tubes were rifled and were jetisonable with explosive bolts.Time or impact fuses were used.Adopted upon proposals from operational units.

Advantages:
Effective range of 800-1200 meters, outside of range of bombers defensive fire.Good psycological effect on the bomber crews.

Disadvantages:
Speed loss of 40-50 KM/h plus loss of ceiling and manouverability.Lack of range-measuring device and therefore inability to control the point of detonation.Also used at various times(Normandy invasion,on the Eastern front and in ardennes offensive) to shoot up ground targets'

***************

hope this is usefull.
ps also this was stated about another type of rocket:

'R4M Rocket Projectile.Of all special weapons, this 5.5cm RP with collapsible fins and about 400 grams of hexogen explosive proved to be the best.It was introduced at the end of march 1945.'

blah blah blah

'The RP were mounted with an upward inclination of about 8 degrees and fired at 600 meters, at which range they had the same ballistics as the MK108 shots.'

*********

the way the rockets drop below the nose in AH as they are at present makes them almost impossible to aim effectively.are they modeled with this sort of inclination? and do they share ballistics with a MK108?

Im not posting to pick holes i assure you i just thought this sort of info might be hard to find and could help you guys out when deciding on weapons and how they would have behaved.

------------------
Hazed
9./JG54

Tony Williams · « **Reply #1 on:** May 16, 2001, 01:38:00 AM »

Rockets and guns do not have the same ballistic trajectories. Gun projectiles start out at top speed and slow down steadily. Rockets start slowly and speed up until the fuel runs out, then slow down quickly. WW2 RPs were therefore generally aimed upwards and followed a trajectory which saw them rise above the line of sight before falling down again.

It was certainly possible to arrange for rockets and guns to hit the same point of aim at one specified distance, but at other ranges they would be way out. It made the gun harmonisation problem look simple by comparison.

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm

hazed- · « **Reply #2 on:** May 16, 2001, 09:41:00 PM »

tony i dare not question your statements but i am quoting from 'the lufftwaffe fighter force:a view from the cockpit' adolf galland et al
'these are first-hand accounts by lufftwaffe fighter leaders that have never been published before in any language'
'The authors compiled most of these documents as prisoners of war, under the authority of US Army Airforces, while being held in Germany and England.The Air Prisoner of War Interrogation Unit(APWIU), under Major Max von Rossum-Daum USAAF, started the procedure in occupied Germany, at Heidburg.'

blah blah cant be bothered

This is a quote from an interogation of Generalleutnant Galland,Oberstleutnant Bar,Oberstleutnant Dahl,Oberst Peterson
at Kaufbeuren, Germany, 12-14 September 1945.
surely these guys know what they are talking about?

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 05-16-2001).]

Vulcan · « **Reply #3 on:** May 16, 2001, 11:20:00 PM »

Let me solve yet another problem with my genius intellilect...

fire the rockets inverted hazed

Tony Williams · « **Reply #4 on:** May 19, 2001, 02:33:00 AM »

I don't see that there's any contradiction. Galland in effect said that the rockets fired to the point of aim at 600m, and as I said there is no problem in achieving that at one range. There would also be some tolerance caused by the fact that the rockets weren't very accurate anyway compared with guns. If he tried to fire them at 400m or 800m, though, I suspect they'd be way off.

A little puzzle for you; there were two cirumstances in which both rockets and gun projectiles would have followed identical trajectories at any range. What were they?

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

Dowding · « **Reply #5 on:** May 19, 2001, 05:01:00 AM »

Assuming you mean purely tradjectory:

1) Fired vertically downward
2) Fired vertically upward

Basically any situation in which there is no transverse acceleration to the axis of the missile.

But of course, I doubt in real life you could fire at such inclinations.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #6 on:** May 19, 2001, 03:16:00 PM »

Quite right! Not very likely when attacking other aircraft, I agree, but I have read of rocket-firing Typhoons attacking ground targets in extremely steep dives, which was probably an attempt to improve the poor accuracy.

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/