When I see old films of WWII, I often see the P-47 and its Brit equivalent. Was it called a Typhoon.? I assume there was no "guidance system" on those rockets (perhaps I am wrong). So I am wondering how accurate they were. Could a decent/typical pilot hit a moving vehicle with those things, or were they used more on Bigger/Stationary targets.? Thank You
Here's a short answer from... Army Air Forces in World War II Both fighter-bombers had, for their time, prodigious weapons- carrying capabilities. Both could lug up to a 2,000-lb bomb load, one 1,000-lb bomb under each wing. Typically, however, both operated with smaller loads. A P47 would carry an external belly fuel tank and one 500-lb bomb under each wing; many were also configured so that the plane could carry air-to-ground rockets, typically ten 5-in HVARs (high-velocity aircraft rockets). P47s on an armed reconnaissance mission would usually operate three flights, two armed with a mix of bombs and rockets, and the cover flight carrying only rockets. Over 80 percent of the bombs dropped by P47s during the European campaign were 500-lb weapons; less than 10 percent were 1,000-lb bombs, and the difference was made up by smaller 260-lb fragmentation bombs and napalm. While acknowledging the spectacular effects and destructiveness of rockets, the AAF considered bombs more effective for "road work" due to accuracy problems in firing the solid-fuel weapons. The British, on the other hand, preferred rockets, the Typhoon carrying eight having 60-lb armor-piercing warheads. Possibly this difference of opinion stemmed from launching methods; the P47s used "zero length" launchers while the Typhoons used launch rails. It could be expected that the rails would impart greater accuracy, stabilizing the rocket immediately after ignition until it had picked up sufficient speed for its tail fins to stabilize it. (There is, however, an interesting report from Montgomery's 21st Army Group that questions the alleged success that British air-to-ground rockets enjoyed against tanks and motorized transport.) Besides their bomb and rocket payloads, the P-47 and the Typhoon both boasted powerful gun armaments. The Typhoon had four 20mm Hispano cannon. The P-47 carried eight .50 cal. machine guns with 400 rounds per gun, and it proved "particularly successful" against transports. The machine guns occasionally even caused casualties to tanks and tank crews. The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage. This seemed surprising at first, given the typically heavy armor of German tanks. Yet Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, was impressed enough to mention to Quesada the success that P-47s had strafing tanks with .50 cal. machine gun fire. You can google for more detailed info too.
Also...Depended on the release distance and weather conditions...(And how much AAA they were receiving at the time).
They were all "dumb" weapons. At the high end of the spectrum was the Tiny Tim rocket. This was basically a 500 pound bomb with a rocket motor... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(rocket)
Interesting (per usual)..... No doubt it was the near birth of that use of rocket weapons. I am sure they must have been quite devastating on buildings, planes, vehicles that they did hit. And also interesting is the continued observation about how potent the 50 Cal AP and API ammo was on some pretty stout armor. War is a miserable place to be. Thanks Again
Actually, not "near the birth".... Unguided rockets were used in World War I, especially against balloons.
From the wings of airplanes.? I had no idea. I thought it was kind of new for WWII. Amazing how long things have been around. Thanks
The RPs fired from Typhoons were highly inaccurate, but this rather misses the point. The rockets were of course unguided and also suffered considerable 'drop' from the rails as they were released. Although the Typhoon has been praised as a 'tank killer', the main effects were by blast and also psychological impact. By all accounts, Typhoons were greatly feared by German columns in Normandy and when used in considerable numbers against buildings ( such as the famous 'dinner raid' ) the effect could be literally devastating.
Hans Ulrich Rudel, the famous Stuka pilot, discusses this in his biography. It's been many years since I read it, but he's pretty snarky about post-war discussions with allied pilots on the difference between their inaccurate rockets and the 20mm (or 40mm?) cannon mounted on his Stuka. The Stuka gun was accurate enough to put a single round into the engine compartment of a Russian tank and knock it out without much effort. Of course, that gun hung under the undercarriage and hampered the speed and maneuverability of the plane, which wasn't very fast to begin with.
And I kind of assumed that is what the rockets were intended for. Maybe not to to hit ONE train, but to reak havoc on a train yard. Not to take out a single moving car, but to blast away at groups of vehicles in battle. Hard to hit a small hut with one radio guy, but you could take out a large communications building. Stuff like that. I am sure pilots got lucky at times. best
I wanted to dig around and see what I could find on this. Bookmarked yet another site for reference [7.0] Unguided Rockets .........The RP was also supplied to some US aircraft such as the Grumman TBM Avenger, but combat experience demonstrated to the Americans needed something with more punch than the M-8 or the British RP. The US Navy accordingly sponsored the development of an improved aerial rocket at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), resulting in the 12.7 centimeter (5 inch) "High Velocity Air Rocket (HVAR)", which was introduced in mid-1944. The HVAR was also occasionally known as "Holy Moses" because of its impressive destructive effect -- "Holy Moses!" being a popular exclamation at the time. The HVAR was 1.83 meters (6 feet) long and weighed 63.5 kilograms (140 pounds). It had fixed fins and was carried on streamlined stub pylons under the wings of aircraft such as the Thunderbolt, Mustang, Grumman F6F Hellcat, and Vought F4U Corsair. It had a steel-cased warhead and could penetrate 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) of armor and 1.2 meters (4 feet) of reinforced concrete. It was also used in the Korean War with good effect. Some photographs from that time show HVARs fitted with large conical armor-piercing "RAM" warheads. These were apparently improvised when UN forces found out just how hard a target a Soviet-built T-34 tank really was. After developing the HVAR, the Caltech research group then developed a bigger unguided rocket named "Tiny Tim". The Tiny Tim resembled a scaled-up HVAR, had a diameter of 30 centimeters (a foot), a length of 3.12 meters (10 feet 3 inches), and a weight of 582 kilograms (1,284 pounds) including a 270 kilogram (590 pound) warhead. It was carried on standard bomb racks, igniting after it had fallen free of the aircraft. The Tiny Tim was intended for "bunker busting" and similar tasks. It was deployed on US Navy Hellcat fighters late in the war in the Pacific, and also used with A-1 Skyraiders and other aircraft during the Korean war............
Actually, they were usually fired from the struts between the wings, rather than from the wings themselves. I suspect that if actually mounted on the wings in WWI, they would have set the wings on fire. If you would like more information on them, along with photos, google "le prier rockets". I think they were first used in this role about 1916. edit: the name should be "le prieur"-- Sorry.
The British used them during the Napoleonic wars as well. They performed impressivly in at least one battle (Leipzig?). On the other hand there is apparently an account of a British courier well behind British lines being chased by one. Wellington didn't want them is Spain at least at first. When he found out how many horses came with them he took them then left the rockets in Portugal and used the horses. Look up Congrave rocket. They were also used in the war of 1812 thus "The Rockets Red Glare".
The Ju87G made famous by Rudel carried two 37mm guns under the wings. This required removal of the dive brakes, so the Gustav attacked in a shallower dive than the classic Stuka but could still target the thinner top armor of a tank. As I understand it they usually fired one two-gun salvo per attack/target. The Luftwaffe also had considerable success with 20mm cannons on Ju87Ds and FW190F/Gs, the ground attack variants of that fighter.
the LW was disappointed in the AP rounds of it's 2cm cannons on Allied/Soviet tanks thus the 3cm and 3.7cm were used with Tungsten rounds on the Ju 87g's and Hs 129's, Fw 190 F/G's were later fitted with several different types of rockets-missiles even experimental use by several Schlachtgruppen using 2-4 Panzerschrecks under each wing from late 44-45.
We all knew rockets were used in WW2, but the minutia is delicious... The details baby. Pictures, penetration values, different aircraft types....I recall a really nice painting of a Tiffy(?) firing rockets at a King Tiger on a grassy knoll. Impossibly close to the tank- it seemed unreal to moi...'How could a rocket be accurate enough to hit a moving target while doing 200 knots?' I wondered aloud. Also wondered why the Germans were using cannon on Stuka's....Seems a better solution than rockets for tank/pillbox/small boat destruction because a long barrel must be more accurate...Maybe the Russians appreciated the cannon over rocket, regarding the IL-2? Voted.
