Rocket artillery

[rickshaw]

Basically you're correct.  However, remember spinning the rocket creates a gyroscopic effect with the result that it tends to fly in a straight line.  "Tends" because of course it is affected by external factors, such as winds as is any projectile.   Remember, this gyroscopic effect is why rifling was introduced in firearms.

However, the difference between a rocket and a bullet is that the rocket motor is producing thrust during flight, while the bullet is just coasting. If a bullet wobbles in flight, the gyroscopic effect tends to re-stabilise it, but if a rocket wobbles while it's motor is burning, the motor immediately starts actively pushing it off course.

Yep, thats one of the problems with rockets.   Its one of the reasons why most nation's don't like using rocket boosted artillery rounds (the US Army is one exception).   The dispersion is too great.  Even so, the rounds do generally fly down range in a reasonably straight line.  Of course, as I keep saying, this is all relative.  Unguided rockets are not the best solution but they do work - within the know limitations of the weapon.   When you're desperate and rocket motors are to hand and offer a cheap solution to the problem of putting a large quantity of HE in the general vicinity of a target, then you have to accept the compromises inherent in using rockets.

[Weaver]

Basically you're correct.  However, remember spinning the rocket creates a gyroscopic effect with the result that it tends to fly in a straight line.  "Tends" because of course it is affected by external factors, such as winds as is any projectile.   Remember, this gyroscopic effect is why rifling was introduced in firearms.

However, the difference between a rocket and a bullet is that the rocket motor is producing thrust during flight, while the bullet is just coasting. If a bullet wobbles in flight, the gyroscopic effect tends to re-stabilise it, but if a rocket wobbles while it's motor is burning, the motor immediately starts actively pushing it off course.

Yep, thats one of the problems with rockets.   Its one of the reasons why most nation's don't like using rocket boosted artillery rounds (the US Army is one exception).   The dispersion is too great.  Even so, the rounds do generally fly down range in a reasonably straight line.  Of course, as I keep saying, this is all relative.  Unguided rockets are not the best solution but they do work - within the know limitations of the weapon.   When you're desperate and rocket motors are to hand and offer a cheap solution to the problem of putting a large quantity of HE in the general vicinity of a target, then you have to accept the compromises inherent in using rockets.

All fair comment. Probably the best comparison is to look at two Soviet systems: the D-30 howitzer and the BM-21 rocket launcher, because both are 122mm calibre and deliver roughly the same payload-per-round.

The D-30 can manage upto 8 rounds/minute until the crew are knackered, but it can keep up 1-2 rounds/per minute forever and accurately, providing the ammunition keeps coming. The ammunition (separate rounds and charges) is compact and reasonably robust and can be carried in varying quantities by anything from a foot soldier to truck and everything in-between, including jeeps and mules.

By contrast, the BM-21 can fire 40 rounds in 40 seconds, but it then takes 10 minutes to reload. The "ammunition" consists of delicate 10ft long tubes that are awkward for two men to manhandle into the launcher, never mind carry any distance, and they don't fit into any vehicle with a less than 10ft load bed.

So if you need to drop 40 x 122mm rounds on an area target near-simultaneously, then the BM-21 is the weapon of choice. If you need to keep a target under constant fire for a long period, and/or maneuver and supply your weapon in difficult circumstances, then the D-30 is a better bet. Of course, armies that are big anough and smart enough have both....

[NARSES2]

Thanks gents. Confirmed my thoughts on rocket artillery. That's why I find that "Atol" lash up slightly odd, you wouldn't have enough to make them a saturation weapon. Maybe so the lads can boast down the pub "we've just got some new rocket artillery" 

Thanks again for the explanations

Chris

[Weaver]

Thanks gents. Confirmed my thoughts on rocket artillery. That's why I find that "Atol" lash up slightly odd, you wouldn't have enough to make them a saturation weapon. Maybe so the lads can boast down the pub "we've just got some new rocket artillery" 

Thanks again for the explanations

Chris

Then again, remember the context. A lot of "artillery" fire in the Yugoslav war was basically terrorism: as long as it lands in "their" bit of Sarajevo, who cares......

[NARSES2]

Thanks gents. Confirmed my thoughts on rocket artillery. That's why I find that "Atol" lash up slightly odd, you wouldn't have enough to make them a saturation weapon. Maybe so the lads can boast down the pub "we've just got some new rocket artillery" 

Thanks again for the explanations

Chris

Then again, remember the context. A lot of "artillery" fire in the Yugoslav war was basically terrorism: as long as it lands in "their" bit of Sarajevo, who cares......

Understand that

[rickshaw]

Horses for courses.   Artillery excels at highly accurate fire and can be employed quite closely to friendly troops.  Rockets are for large concentrations of enemy troops well away from your own.   Each have their use and each are quite good at it.  This lashup would indeed be more a case of "Hey, look we've a bigger conker that you have!"  Than be considered as a serious weapon. Again, looking at the Japanese use of similar weapons in the last 2 years of the war,  they were considered a nuisance and if you were unlucky enough to be hit with one, quite deadly but they were few and far between and inaccurate.  I suspect the same for this one.  As mentioned, it would be a weapon designed to inspire terror because its main target would be urban concentrations where large numbers of civilians live.  Not the bunker down the road which is blocking your advance.

[Weaver]

Some of the aircraft rocket pod conversions would make evil direct fire weapons, wouldn't they?

"Ooh, you think it's clever to fire RPGs at us do you, well how do you like these apples....."

Mind you, it wouldn't be fun to be in, or even near, one of those vehicles if the rocket pod got hit, would it?

[rickshaw]

Some of the aircraft rocket pod conversions would make evil direct fire weapons, wouldn't they?

"Ooh, you think it's clever to fire RPGs at us do you, well how do you like these apples....."

Mind you, it wouldn't be fun to be in, or even near, one of those vehicles if the rocket pod got hit, would it?

Nope.  They aren't armoured and the rockets themselves are chock full of explosive propellant.  Make quite big explosions.   Even their use can be quite dangerous.  You get a round hangup and its a very hot launcher.  Get two hangup and you could get a big explosion.   Personally, I've always considered "Dropshorts" crazy. 

[dy031101]

Thread revival due to inspiration.

A CG trailer from End of Nations MMORTS......

Some armour cars and light tactical trucks ought to be capable of mounting a small multiple rocket launcher (the likes of BM-12 or KF-4)...... I remember seeing a pic of Hummer carrying a Type 63, PRC copy of BM-12, and the enclosed pic makes me think of one based on a BRDM-2......