Re: Unguided, surface to surface rockets in WW2: effective?
- From: Louis C <louisc00@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:04:14 -0500
Branek wrote:
I've always been curious as to how effective unguided, surface to surface
rockets were in WW2.
They were not effective at taking out point or hard targets, but were
extremely effective to provide suppression fire.
They really couldn't be aimed effectively could they?
Depends on what you mean by "effectively". They were more precise than
naval artillery, generally more precise than air strikes, and more
precise than blind-firing artillery. They were good enough at
targetting the area that they were being aimed at.
Adjusting fire wouldn't be necessary, because either the rockets were
being fired as part of an attack in which case the targets were known
in advance (i.e. this wasn't counter-battery fire but part of a pre-
planned artillery plan), or they were fired defensively at pre-
registered spots.
Competent attackers often took care to neutralize likely enemy
artillery observation posts (e.g. using smoke) in which case the
defending artillery would fire blind at pre-registered points. For
that purpose, rocket artillery was just as effective as the gun kind.
I'd figure real artillery would be much more effective
Effective at what?
Rocket artillery was far more effective at bringing a lot of explosive
into a given area quickly. Look up the figures for even a 155mm
battery multiplying rate of fire, number of guns and weight of HE per
shell, and compare these to what a Nebelwerfer unit could send. You'll
find that the rocket-firing unit has a huge edge.
Another advantage is that rocket launchers are relatively simple
items, easier to manufacture than artillery. Yet another is that they
are lighter, and therefore more mobile. Katiusha truck is hidden
somewhere, drives out of hiding, brings rocket to proper bearing and
elevation, fires, backs into hiding, reloads. Compare the time
required for this cycle with the equivalent for a field piece: it has
to be towed/manhandled to its firing position, surveyed, it takes
longer to fire the same load, then tie it back to its tractor etc.
For the Germans, the relatively light weight Nebelwerfer was a nice
way to hide powerful artillery from Allied air power.
Now if you're looking at precision artillery work like counterbattery
or plastering a particular bunker, then a regular gun is by far the
better choice. But a lot of the artillery work consists of laying down
barrage fire and for that rockets were certainly competitive with WWII
gun technology.
BTW advanced armies still use MLRS today for the same reasons as their
WWII predecessors: if you need to blanket a particular area with a lot
of ordnance in a hurry, then a handful of rocket launchers are as
effective, much cheaper and more flexible than a conventional
artillery regiment.
LC
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: German Weapons Overengineered?
- Next by Date: Re: Finland June 1941
- Previous by thread: Re: Unguided, surface to surface rockets in WW2: effective?
- Next by thread: Re: Unguided, surface to surface rockets in WW2: effective?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|