Tulips.

[lyric1]

Is your 17 pounder found to be lacking?
You have heard the snickers as others pass you by.
Has the significant other told you your lacking a pair of bulbous baubles between that big long barrel of yours.

If the answer is yes get some Tulips.

No not these.








These.




The 1st Coldstream guards had them on their Fireflys as well as the standard M4's & other armour they had.






















 

[VonMessa]

Tiptoe through the tulips.

[BuckShot]

+1

[waystin2]

Hilarious cool!  Would this be considered a field modified situation?

[Arlo]

Huh. +1

[Tinkles]

+1   

[Mano]

+1

 

With Supps nearby.......could do some serious damage.   

[JunkyII]

+1

[lyric1]

Hilarious cool!  Would this be considered a field modified situation?

Without question a field modification.

APPENDIX "B" TO 21 ARMY GROUP AFV TECHNICAL REPORT NO 26

 REPORT BY 1 ARMOURED COLDSTREAM GUARDS OF RESULT IN ACTION OF TYPHOON
 ROCKETS FITTED TO SHERMAN TANKS

 The results achieved by these rockets when used in action were highly
 satisfactory, but before discussing these it is necessary to point out the
 limitations of their use caused by lack of time for experiment, etc.

 Less than 24 hours after the idea was conceived (shortly before the crossing
 of the RHINE), the first tank was already fitted up with a home-made
 bracket, rails and warhead.

 The only resources available for this purpose were Battalion fitters and
 Battalion LAD.

 The brackets were roughly sighted for line with the vane sight on top of the
 turret but all elevation had to be adjusted and set from outside the tank.

 The "shear" wire used to gain the impetus for launching the rocket was the
 same as that used in a Typhoon. The Typhoon is travelling at upwards of 400
 mph when the rocket leaves whereas the tank is stationary. Therefore the
 ''drop" due to lack of impetus in the first 10 yards flight of the rocket
 had to be overcome by a set adjustment in the bracket itself. This precluded
 all possibility of actually pointing the rocket at the target even for short
 range shooting.

 Owing to the above and other considerations it was decided to have one
 rocket set to hit anything that got in its way up to about 400 yards and the
 other one up to about 800 yards. (This required the setting of

 the brackets to be at 150mm and 160mm above the horizontal respectively).

 EFFECT ON ENEMY.

 1. Morale

 The morale effect - especially against ordinary troops - was tremendous. On
 occasion a strongly held bridge was captured when rocket firing tanks were
 used in support of our infantry. The first 88mm gun was knocked out by a
 rocket and the rest failed to fire. 12 PW came in deaf as a result. None of
 the other guns fired. The enemy suffered over 40 dead and we had next to no
 casualties.

 This of course was not caused entirely by the rockets, but they certainly
 had a lot to do with it.

 On a second occasion, our infantry were being troubled by enemy infantry in
 a wood. Two troops of tanks fired two rockets each from about 400 yards and
 the did not fire another shot, and 30-40 Infantry, including
 "Brandenburgers" came out of the wood afterwards and gave themselves up.
 They were extremely shaken. There were several other occasions of this
 nature.

 2. Killing Effect.

 In the type of fighting encountered after crossing. the RHINE, only two
 types of good targets were found for the limited use of rockets - woods and
 buildings.

 On one occasion after a Squadron had fired all its rockets and a number of
 other missiles at a barracks, it was found that there were about 40 dead in
 the buildings after the battle was over. The hitting power is like that of a
 shell. The explosion caused by the rocket is slightly greater than that than
 that of a medium shell.

 3. Other Uses.

 The rocket was found effective in removing road blocks when they were
 covered by fire and it had considerable effect when ordinary HE and AP did
 not.

 It was never possible to use them against an enemy AFV chiefly because very
 few AFVs were encountered at close range and also at present they lack the
 accuracy in aim. If, however, the latter defect is overcome they would
 undoubtedly remove the turret from any enemy AFV with a direct hit.

 APPRECIATION OF PRESENT AND FUTURE POSSIBILITIES.

 On the whole the equipment proved most satisfactory, but the results were
 limited by the points already mentioned and also by the fact that a number
 of tanks fitted with rockets were lost through enemy action and

 through normal break-downs, etc. Thus, although we started with a whole
 Squadron, we ended up with comparatively few. The weapon was obviously most
 useful from a morale point of view and this was lessened when the number of
 rocket firing tanks dwindled.

 As far as a "non-expert" can tall, the possibilities of this type of rocket
 fitted by experts to a tank either as a main armament or a subsidiary one,
 are almost unlimited.

 The decree of accuracy could be largely increased by use of a stronger
 "shear" wire, a proper sighting arrangement, a telescope and a range table.

 If used as a main armament it should be possible to carry as many rockets as
 shells with added simplicity that it would be unnecessary to carry both AP
 and HE. It should be stated in this connection that no "accidents" were
 caused by the rockets - one went off when the wire was severed by an air
 burst which must have generated the required electrical current. Two tanks
 that were gutted by fire still had the rockets undischarged at the end.
 Another direct hit on a war-head merely shattered it.

 Should this type of rocket replace the gun it would enormously simplify the
 design of a tank owing to there being no recoil, breech block, etc.

 There should be no difficulty in fitting four or eight to a tank which could
 all fire at the same time causing a tremendous fire power and this should
 make up for any slight deterioration in accuracy.

 RAC Branch, Second Army, have made the following comments on the above
 report:-

 1. It is emphasised that the excellent results obtained were from very rough
 and ready appliances made with no technical assistance from outside.

 2. It is felt that the results of the experiment may be of interest to those
 concerned with the future armament of AFVs.

Comments by DG of A, Ministry of Supply on the expected accuracy of rockets as tank armament.

(257/Tanks/1367/E44 dated 9 August 1945 enclosed in RAC3(b)/BM/1748).


I see little prospect of obtaining the necessary precision required from tank armament by means of rocket projectiles. Neglecting the difficulties of serving projectors mounted on the outside of protected vehicles and dealing entirely with the accuracy aspect the situation seems to be as follows:-

Present accuracy of normal HV gun is of the order of 1.2 mins with its most accurate service shot. This is not considered by the WO as surf recently accurate. They demand a m.d. of 0.5 mins.

Rocket accuracies are still being quoted in degrees rather than minutes and vary, according to the method of launching, from the unrotated fin-stabilised rocket at 1.2 degrees (i.e. 62 mins) to the spin stabilised rocket fired from a machined liner with a closed breech at 0.2 degrees i.e. 12 mins.

The most favourable prediction which the CPD has recently made is that as a ten year probable development rockets might be obtained with accuracy comparable to present guns, which is at the present time considered by the GS as not sufficiently accurate.

I cannot see the rocket replacing the gun as a precision weapon unless some unforeseen development of it occurs and can only visualise its use as a secondary armament of one shot weapons for short ratio fire against fairly massive targets.

[waystin2]

Without question a field modification.

That's a bummer.  Thanks for the info Lyric.  This is one of those field mods that would not destabilize any part of the game, but would sure add a fun option.  Putting the +1 on the table.