Killing Armor with Rockets

[mtnman]

Point your finger out in front, now walk ahead.  If your finger were a peashooter, which way would the peas shoot?  Now keep walking the same direction but point your finger to your side a wee bit.  Will the peas shoot where you are walking or in the direction you are pointing (or somewhere in between)?

The rockets, bombs, and bullets from an aircraft are no different.

They are different actually.  

Rockets have fins so the moment they let go of the rails, they'll "weather-vane" into the airstream, which makes them travel in the direction the plane is traveling (rather than in the direction it's pointing).  Bullets don't have the fins, so they don't behave the same way.

Bombs also continue to travel in the direction the plane is traveling.  They're not "launched", so the pea-shooter analogy doesn't work.

Kicking rudder will allow you to fire bullets off to the side of your line-of-travel, but it won't work for rockets or bombs.

[OOZ662]

While that's true, rockets shouldn't be able to be fired straight up, down, or backwards either.

[Lepape2]

While that's true, rockets shouldn't be able to be fired straight up, down, or backwards either.

Think ill try a tailslide and shoot rockets that way... see if they go behind me in the direction of travel...

[BaldEagl]

I didn't see anyone mention it but I fly the F6F-5 as my attack plane of choice and the rockets on the F6F will clean kill anything on a Panzer chassis with a salvo of 2 although I usually salvo 3 in case one misses.  Angle of attack can be anything starting with horizontal and going up from there but you need to hit it from the rear and don't fire until you're close (6-800 or less).

[OOZ662]

Think ill try a tailslide and shoot rockets that way... see if they go behind me in the direction of travel...

There's a method to it; spawn on a CV with a hooked plane. Put the hook down, then use the same throttle work normally used to back up on a carrier deck. With just the right amount, you'll be flung backwards off the deck at 100+MPH. If you release rockets during that time, they'll fly in a halfcircle/star forward, up, and backwards.

[Lepape2]

There's a method to it; spawn on a CV with a hooked plane. Put the hook down, then use the same throttle work normally used to back up on a carrier deck. With just the right amount, you'll be flung backwards off the deck at 100+MPH. If you release rockets during that time, they'll fly in a halfcircle/star forward, up, and backwards.

Yeah! haven't thought of this one...

[SmokinLoon]

They are different actually.  

Rockets have fins so the moment they let go of the rails, they'll "weather-vane" into the airstream, which makes them travel in the direction the plane is traveling (rather than in the direction it's pointing).  Bullets don't have the fins, so they don't behave the same way.

Bombs also continue to travel in the direction the plane is traveling.  They're not "launched", so the pea-shooter analogy doesn't work.

Kicking rudder will allow you to fire bullets off to the side of your line-of-travel, but it won't work for rockets or bombs.

While you argument if valid, the physics are not pure as if the aircraft had no rudder imput what-so-ever.  I just double checked in the TA and my memory served me correct:  When you use hard rudder (at least in the Mossi) the green cross hair moves for both the rockets and bombs, with the rockets having far more of an variance than the bombs.  I launched between 400-600 yards on the dive bomb targets in the TA.

[mtnman]

While you argument if valid, the physics are not pure as if the aircraft had no rudder imput what-so-ever.  I just double checked in the TA and my memory served me correct:  When you use hard rudder (at least in the Mossi) the green cross hair moves for both the rockets and bombs, with the rockets having far more of an variance than the bombs.  I launched between 400-600 yards on the dive bomb targets in the TA.

It's been a long time since I've fired any rockets, so I can't argue specifics.  I'd have to fire some to look into it further.

The green cross hair doesn't convince me though, as I've proven it doesn't always tell the truth.  It's a good learning tool, for sure, but it's easy to "fool".

[Mystery]

Re: U.S. and British rocket effectiveness against armor

"It was estimated that the salvo of all eight rockets would result in a one-in-twenty chance of hitting a target the size of a Panzer tank".

"...However the RAF 2nd TAF was equipped with RP-equipped (RP=Rocket Projectile) Typhoons which were instrumental in preventing German tanks from reaching the front. Studies of the 2nd TAF's rocket equipped 124 squadron showed that it only destroyed 12 tanks in June [1944] using 3,700 rockets for an immense expenditure of 308 rockets per tank destroyed..."

"...The major disadvantage of the rocket in a ground support role was its sensitivity to pilot errors especially in the face of anti-aircraft fire. Incorrect airspeed or glide angle along with any errors in range or wind estimation could cause inaccuracies..."

Source: U.S. Aerial Armament in World War II The Ultimate Look Vol. 3: Air Launched Rockets, Mines, Torpedoes, Guided Missiles and Secret Weapons. William Wolf, Schiffer Military History, 2010


Does the U.S. 5" HVAR or British 60lb RP have enough armor penetration and destructive power to destroy tanks? Certainly. The problem is hitting the darn things.

[SmokinLoon]

Re: U.S. and British rocket effectiveness against armor

"It was estimated that the salvo of all eight rockets would result in a one-in-twenty chance of hitting a target the size of a Panzer tank".

"...However the RAF 2nd TAF was equipped with RP-equipped (RP=Rocket Projectile) Typhoons which were instrumental in preventing German tanks from reaching the front. Studies of the 2nd TAF's rocket equipped 124 squadron showed that it only destroyed 12 tanks in June [1944] using 3,700 rockets for an immense expenditure of 308 rockets per tank destroyed..."

"...The major disadvantage of the rocket in a ground support role was its sensitivity to pilot errors especially in the face of anti-aircraft fire. Incorrect airspeed or glide angle along with any errors in range or wind estimation could cause inaccuracies..."

Source: U.S. Aerial Armament in World War II The Ultimate Look Vol. 3: Air Launched Rockets, Mines, Torpedoes, Guided Missiles and Secret Weapons. William Wolf, Schiffer Military History, 2010


Does the U.S. 5" HVAR or British 60lb RP have enough armor penetration and destructive power to destroy tanks? Certainly. The problem is hitting the darn things.

The British 60lb RP-3 SAP rockets certainly have a better chance.  I can remember a single tank that I've destroyed using the US 5in rockets.  Most of the time I track 'em, or destroy the engine or turret.