Effectiveness of 5 inch aircraft rockets

[Micdrow]

Title says it all.

Enjoy

Paul

 

[Glider]

Not good in summary

 

[Micdrow]

Not good in summary

Agree with you on that.

 

[parsifal]

I don't know about that. Rockets are definitely a specialised weapon, but the chances of getting a rocket into the killing zone for soft skinned vehicles (cf 45 feet) is 8-10 x more likely compared to free fall bombs.

Its not conclusive though. Against trains strafing was considered superior. Damage to airfields was alsso fairly low. rockets were good against fixed position, regardless of whether dug in or not, though the chances of destroying the gun was fairly slight. Still better than a bomb which would need 8 to 10 times the weight of ordinance to even hit the target . Airborne gunnery was more accurate, but generally ineffective against dug in targets because it lacked the hitting power.

Rockets. I would describe them as a necessary, but flawed weapon system.

 

[b0ned0me]

My immediate response to reading was to wonder how 2.75" and 3" would compare. Seems like they might do better due to increased hit probability.
Also wonder if the comparison with strafing was using .30, .50 or 20mm....

 

[parsifal]

I was wondering that as well, but came to the conclusion that as it is an American report, was probably a 50 cal weapon.

The advantages of the heavier weaponary was a higher kill probability against AFVs. The disadvantages are less ammo, lower MV, and lower rof. A 20 mm weapon late in the war would struggle to bring down a heavy tank, even when hitting the target through the decking plates, the tanks most vulnerable defences. Generally kill claims to 20mm cannon armed a/c have been proven untrue, even 40mm armed a/c struggled.

 

[Brooke]

They have killed many US servicemen.

1967 USS Forrestal fire - Wikipedia

USS Enterprise fire - Wikipedia

 

[b0ned0me]

I was wondering that as well, but came to the conclusion that as it is an American report, was probably a 50 cal weapon.

The advantages of the heavier weaponary was a higher kill probability against AFVs. The disadvantages are less ammo, lower MV, and lower rof. A 20 mm weapon late in the war would struggle to bring down a heavy tank, even when hitting the target through the decking plates, the tanks most vulnerable defences. Generally kill claims to 20mm cannon armed a/c have been proven untrue, even 40mm armed a/c struggled.

I think 20mm generally is fairly limited against anything armoured unless it's an AP round, and generally aircraft would not carry those, ball at best. 20mm HE would give better effects against soft targets like trucks but would still need a direct or very close hit.
Even rockets were it seems far more effective against supporting logistics than they were against tanks. The more I read about this type of stuff the more it becomes apparent just how difficult it was to pick the right weapons when you didn't know what exactly you were engaging.

The best bets appear to me to have been RCMG or fragmentation bombs versus infantry, small bombs/cluster bombs/rockets vs vehicles or small fortifications (including armour) and the biggest bomb you could manage vs most anything else.
The tank sniping cannons used by the brits and Germans are super cool but PTAB seems more practical and versatile.

 

[parsifal]

In korea, the air group of HMAS Sydney (basically 20 Sea Fury FB11s and 12 Firefly AS-6s conducted over 2500 sorties in a three month period, dropping , from memory 800 x 1000lb bombs, about 1600 x 500 lb bombs 6000 rockets and approximately 270000 rounds of 20mm ammunition. Virtually none of the 20mm ammunition was used in air combat, though over 20 enemy aircraft were shot up on the ground,, and something in the order of 500 soft skinned vehicles. It is believed, but not proven, that 10 T-34s were destroyed by the HMAS Sydney ground strikes. Cause of the claimed tank losses is not stated, though as the following game video shows, certain types of 20mm round could certainly have the potential to penetrate everything except the frontal armou of a T-34. Obviously the weapon tested is much more powerful than the airborne hispano cannon, but armour penetration that is even half that of the Lahti could be deadly . r

Just the same, 10 tanks by 30 a.c in three months is not a great result. And bear in mind that Sydney was considered one of the most efficient CAGs fielded during Korea.





This is a clip posted on behalf of "World of tanks" so take it with the huge grain of salt that it needs, but the research (appearing about halfway through the clip, seems fairly sound to me.