Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:19 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5378
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

SilverbladeTE wrote:Something to start considering this issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Mafia

rockets DID take down light bridges and "light" doesn't necessarily mean "wood"
folk forget exactly how fast those RP-3 rockets were going when they hit, their mass/design
as was often pointed out it's the equivalent of a broadside from a destroyer. Anyone think a destoryer salvo wouldn't cause serious harm to a light bridge, hm?
American "Tiny Tim" rockets were more powerful and so much more likely to wreck such a structure but alas weren't very accurate
still, rockets were MUCH more accurate than bombs

exceptional pilots could use skip bombing though to very great effect and accuracy it should be said but those DO require suitable aircraft, NOT heavy bombers

remember, if you have numerous aircraft firing those rockets at shallow angle, the odds are much higher you will hit and do damage, enough damage the structural integrity gets compromised
whether the bridge drops, or, the weight of the next train going over collapses it, or it's left "unsound" and thus taken out of service until repaired, it's much better than mass bombing that get sno result

bombs were mostly useless, because they almost never hit, except when dropped by a dive bomber or very skilled fighter bomber pilot

the colossal loss in pilots, expensive aircraft etc in the "bomber mentality" was absolutely INSANE in WW2, exactly the same with the stupidity of tossing men against trenches in WW1
as I've noted, what is grossly, criminally overlooked, is the expense of those men (each man's training was worth FAR more than a typical bomber) and as people, these were often the brightest and best and losing them was terrible damage to the nation in the long term.
NOTE: British bomber crews had worse death rates than infantry in WW1

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results
;)

so, until you have a reliable accurate guided weapon, what would you do? wait years while doing nothing to the enemy?!

0.5 cals were too light really especially when they started armouring trains purely to protect them (not "armoured military trains", merely adding sheet steel, angle iron etc around the boilers)

America had a serious screw up in production of the 20mm cannon and then blockheads refused to fix this, so US forces had ot use inferior .50 cals which were good for somethings, but didn't have the power vs light armoured vehicles etc.
Though, Japanese aircraft were extremely lightly constructed with almost no defensive protections what so ever and thus .50 cal was perfectly good vs them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-S ... production


Actually the accuracy of rockets sucked until much later when tech advanced to the point when guidance systems could be installed which was why the Russians developed their katashas as area denial weapons.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:23 am

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

n7axw wrote:
Actually the accuracy of rockets sucked until much later when tech advanced to the point when guidance systems could be installed which was why the Russians developed their katashas as area denial weapons.

Don

-


true but only to a limited extent
the AIRCRAFT rockets weren't "guided" as they would be in later decades, but they were accurate enough to hit trains, individual tanks etc if the pilot was skilled.
They were not like Katyushas.
Not every pilot had enough skill though to be precise and local conditions could interfere.

When an aircraft launched a rocket, the combined speed of the aircraft and rocket (around 1,200mph), plus the pilot being able to aim the launch vehicle, then fire the rockets in pairs to "walk fire" the weapons onto a target, gave a vastly better accuracy than any bomber could achieve in that era, except an expert in "skip" or dive bombing.
They could also use their guns against the target or flak defences

Again try to remember, a lot of the German and their European allies logistics went on canals, roads and trains, making them funnelled into paths that were easier to find something worth attacking, and cause less mass murder, than area bombing.

the Germans couldn't put "flak traps " up everywhere, that's impossible, they had to be concentrated in vital areas.
Flak traps to stop fighter/bombers are vulnerable to area weapon attacks themselves, especially at night when light flak wasn't very useful (days before radar guided weapons except for large guns in certain areas, Germans were lot further behind in that tech)
Light flak in such circumstances cannot be put in heavy defences except in a few places, so they were very vulnerable to being attacked themselves

:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgTJZ_cWaT0
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by WeberFan   » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:15 pm

WeberFan
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:12 am

OK.

I won't address surface-to-surface rockets because I can't speak definitively about the topic.

BUT... I CAN speak authoritatively about unguided, AIR-to-surface rockets. I've personally fired hundreds of them from fixed-wing military aircraft at high speeds (typically 450-480 knots).

As soon as the rocket leaves the aircraft, it will follow primarily a ballistic trajectory. But the trajectory will also be affected by the lateral motion/velocity of the aircraft at the instant that the rocket was fired, and (to a lesser degree) other external forces (such as a crosswind) that are relatively small unless the wind is horrendous and is a pure crosswind (but even then, the apparent surface area for a 2.75" rocket is pretty small, and the time of flight - 2-3 seconds - doesn't give the crosswind much time to affect the trajectory).

I've fired both 2.75" and 5" rockets. The objective is to put the aircraft at EXACTLY the right airspeed (taking the headwind/tailwind into account), EXACTLY the right dive angle, and EXACTLY the right altitude just as the targeting reticle on the manual gunsight crosses the target. These parameters are known in advance (i.e., the ballistics are "known" for each type of rocket through empirical testing - THOUSANDS of times - and are documented in thick "Ballistics Tables" manuals). As an advanced jet flight instructor, I TAUGHT flight students how to get the aircraft to that proper point in 3-dimensional space repeatedly.

Now as to corrections (what if you're a little fast, a little slow, a bit steep, a bit shallow, a bit high, or - GOD FORBID - a bit low when the "pipper crosses the target). Yes, there are "back of the envelope corrections for these variables. There's also a "Kentucky windage" correction for crosswinds/lateral drift at release that we taught students about.

It ain't rocket science, it's physics. It requires a modicum of pilot skill (trainable) or - in my case (strains his elbow patting himself on the back) some inherent unquantifiable skill.

Rockets are just bombs that go faster... The same rules apply. :D
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:39 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5378
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

WeberFan wrote:OK.

I won't address surface-to-surface rockets because I can't speak definitively about the topic.

BUT... I CAN speak authoritatively about unguided, AIR-to-surface rockets. I've personally fired hundreds of them from fixed-wing military aircraft at high speeds (typically 450-480 knots).

As soon as the rocket leaves the aircraft, it will follow primarily a ballistic trajectory. But the trajectory will also be affected by the lateral motion/velocity of the aircraft at the instant that the rocket was fired, and (to a lesser degree) other external forces (such as a crosswind) that are relatively small unless the wind is horrendous and is a pure crosswind (but even then, the apparent surface area for a 2.75" rocket is pretty small, and the time of flight - 2-3 seconds - doesn't give the crosswind much time to affect the trajectory).

I've fired both 2.75" and 5" rockets. The objective is to put the aircraft at EXACTLY the right airspeed (taking the headwind/tailwind into account), EXACTLY the right dive angle, and EXACTLY the right altitude just as the targeting reticle on the manual gunsight crosses the target. These parameters are known in advance (i.e., the ballistics are "known" for each type of rocket through empirical testing - THOUSANDS of times - and are documented in thick "Ballistics Tables" manuals). As an advanced jet flight instructor, I TAUGHT flight students how to get the aircraft to that proper point in 3-dimensional space repeatedly.

Now as to corrections (what if you're a little fast, a little slow, a bit steep, a bit shallow, a bit high, or - GOD FORBID - a bit low when the "pipper crosses the target). Yes, there are "back of the envelope corrections for these variables. There's also a "Kentucky windage" correction for crosswinds/lateral drift at release that we taught students about.

It ain't rocket science, it's physics. It requires a modicum of pilot skill (trainable) or - in my case (strains his elbow patting himself on the back) some inherent unquantifiable skill.

Rockets are just bombs that go faster... The same rules apply. :D


We're your rockets unguided?

For what it's worth buzz bombs and v2s did manage to hit London from the Netherlands..

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:49 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

"London" is a very, VERY big target....

at the end the V2 had around a 6 kilometre circle of error probability (meaning half would land in that area)
that is utterly crap if you're trying to hit anything meaningful, and the extreme costs of the V2 made it a colossal waste of resources

now, the V1 wasn't accurate either
but it was very cheap, compared to a bomber and crew, and only 4% of the cost of a V2
so for a long range area bombardment weapon it was pretty efficient
however, all German attacks suffered from counter intelligence messing with their targeting plus interceptions (except they couldn't intercept the V2)

Combining a V1 with better guidance systems, maybe flying too high to be shot down...longer range version...now you've got something with potential!



funny thing is, way back in "Off Armageddon reef", Merlin notes Arthur C Clark's story "Superiority"
and that is SO relevant to these and other discussions ;)

cheap, reasonably effective, in your hands TODAY is much better than pie in the sky that doesn't do anything while the enemy gets nasty with you :p

Until you get guided weapons, your actually effective tools are unguided rockets, mine laying, skip bombing and dive bombing.
Rare units of highly skilled elites can pull off sinking the Tirpitz with unguided but specially designed weapons, but they are exceptions.
Sinking the transports the Tirpitz relies on to even MOVE is easier though :mrgreen:
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by WeberFan   » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:07 pm

WeberFan
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:12 am

n7axw wrote:
WeberFan wrote:OK.

I won't address surface-to-surface rockets because I can't speak definitively about the topic.

BUT... I CAN speak authoritatively about unguided, AIR-to-surface rockets. I've personally fired hundreds of them from fixed-wing military aircraft at high speeds (typically 450-480 knots).

As soon as the rocket leaves the aircraft, it will follow primarily a ballistic trajectory. But the trajectory will also be affected by the lateral motion/velocity of the aircraft at the instant that the rocket was fired, and (to a lesser degree) other external forces (such as a crosswind) that are relatively small unless the wind is horrendous and is a pure crosswind (but even then, the apparent surface area for a 2.75" rocket is pretty small, and the time of flight - 2-3 seconds - doesn't give the crosswind much time to affect the trajectory).

I've fired both 2.75" and 5" rockets. The objective is to put the aircraft at EXACTLY the right airspeed (taking the headwind/tailwind into account), EXACTLY the right dive angle, and EXACTLY the right altitude just as the targeting reticle on the manual gunsight crosses the target. These parameters are known in advance (i.e., the ballistics are "known" for each type of rocket through empirical testing - THOUSANDS of times - and are documented in thick "Ballistics Tables" manuals). As an advanced jet flight instructor, I TAUGHT flight students how to get the aircraft to that proper point in 3-dimensional space repeatedly.

Now as to corrections (what if you're a little fast, a little slow, a bit steep, a bit shallow, a bit high, or - GOD FORBID - a bit low when the "pipper crosses the target). Yes, there are "back of the envelope corrections for these variables. There's also a "Kentucky windage" correction for crosswinds/lateral drift at release that we taught students about.

It ain't rocket science, it's physics. It requires a modicum of pilot skill (trainable) or - in my case (strains his elbow patting himself on the back) some inherent unquantifiable skill.

Rockets are just bombs that go faster... The same rules apply. :D


We're your rockets unguided?

For what it's worth buzz bombs and v2s did manage to hit London from the Netherlands..

Don

-

No "guidance mechanism" as I think you intend the term. A casing, a warhead, and fuel (solid), and a motor. No gyros, no seekerhead, nothing.

EDIT: The 2.75" rockets tended to"wobble" a bit when they came out of the pod. The 5" rockets were like God's own roman candle going downrange. If you ever launched them at night, you had to close one eye so you didn't lose your night vision! They went right where you aimed them though...
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:37 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

SilverbladeTE wrote:
now, the V1 wasn't accurate either
but it was very cheap, compared to a bomber and crew, and only 4% of the cost of a V2
so for a long range area bombardment weapon it was pretty efficient


Yep. British were quite worried about the possibility, that Germans might add some simple mechanism to V-1 autopilot, that would make missile zig-zag on later part of trajectory. It would not significantly affect accuracy (it was low anyway), but would drastically reduce the effect of anti-aircraft fire against them. Fortunately, Germans were much more worried about Fi-103 range, and their main efforts were concentrated on it (the last model, being in developement when the war ended, were supposed to have enough range to hit London and Paris from the positions in Germany)

Combining a V1 with better guidance systems, maybe flying too high to be shot down...longer range version...now you've got something with potential!


Essentially it was what USAAF were trying to do. General Arnold essentially considered manned bombers as things that would quickly go obsolete, and was very interested in all kind of guided missiles.

During the war, USAAF tried to develope their own response to V-1 - the JB "Bat" missile (no relation with Navy's "Bat" glide bomb). It was supposed to be a turbojet powered missile with high subsonic speed (up to 900 kmh) and 1000+ km range.

Unfortunately, they gave the developement to Northrop... who predictably decided to make a flying wing, yeah. Also, the planned turbojets never worked as well as planned.

So, USAAF tried something else - they reverse-engineered the V-1 as JB-2 "Loon" missile. Essentially it was a carbon copy of V-1, but with AZON-type azimuth control system. It was supposed that the JB-2 would be tracked by radar on 250+ km distance, and guided by "left", "right" and "dive" command with enough precision to hit specific industrial tarjets.

On practice, results weren't exactly as stellar, but Arnold ordered JB-2 in production anyway. He was very concerned about the possibility, that unless Air Force would claim a stake in missile territory, the missiles would go into artillery area of competence. He wanted the missile to be mass-produced by early 1946, to the planned invasion in Japan. The idea was to barrage Japan pre-invasion with enormous barrage of cruise missiles - about 300 launches per day! - to soak up the air defenses.

Eventually, hovewer, he stuck on logistic issues. The planned launch ratio was logistically unsustainable. It would require 25% of all USA cargo shipping in Atlantic being redirected to Pacific, and would cause 10-15% drop in ammunition production due to enormous demands on powder and rocket fuel for boosters. Arnold tried to get support from Navy, but admirals weren't exactly enthusiastic either, and only agreed on limited scale combat testings. Anyway, war ended before any JB-2 could be launched in anger.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:39 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

WeberFan wrote:OK.

I won't address surface-to-surface rockets because I can't speak definitively about the topic.

BUT... I CAN speak authoritatively about unguided, AIR-to-surface rockets. I've personally fired hundreds of them from fixed-wing military aircraft at high speeds (typically 450-480 knots).


Excellent summary, WeberFan!
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:12 am

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Dilandu and WeberFan
Thanks for the info, well done guys :)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:50 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

SilverbladeTE wrote:Dilandu and WeberFan
Thanks for the info, well done guys :)


You are welcome)
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top

Return to Safehold