When you see this you can see the diffrence between the pilots who got close to the targets and those that started firing at a difference. Its a pity they didn't get rockets until later, with those the damage may well have resulted in a number of sinkings.
When you see this you can see the diffrence between the pilots who got close to the targets and those that started firing at a difference. Its a pity they didn't get rockets until later, with those the damage may well have resulted in a number of sinkings.
Ill would love to see a typhoon with the 4x20mm hispanos plus two pods with 40mm 2 pounders.That would be the ideal light ship busting/tank busting aircraft and with more accuracy that the rockets.
Ill would love to see a typhoon with the 4x20mm hispanos plus two pods with 40mm 2 pounders.That would be the ideal light ship busting/tank busting aircraft and with more accuracy that the rockets.
The problem with the 40mm guns is that all they would do is knock small holes in the ships even with HE shells. The other problem is that they would normally only get two/three shots in during a pass. No one is claiming that the rockets were accurate but they caried a massive punch and a vessel even a small one such as a barge or a tug, is a much bigger target than a tank.
Against tank the issue is likely to be the loss rate. What gun pods would do to the performance of a Typhoon I don't know but it wouldn't help and the loss rates would be even higher.
"Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts"
Sir Winston Churchill
"To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today"
Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London
Sinking a ship is hard, most ships needed several torps to sink. And they have 280 kg warhead exploding below the waterline. I doubt many ships get sunk by 8 rockets with a 27kg warhead, exploding above the waterline.
I agree it sounds terrifiing but sinking sounds real dubious.
Sinking a ship is hard, most ships needed several torps to sink. And they have 280 kg warhead exploding below the waterline. I doubt many ships get sunk by 8 rockets with a 27kg warhead, exploding above the waterline.
I agree it sounds terrifiing but sinking sounds real dubious.
In late August 1944 sixteen Typhoons sank two RN Fleet Minesweepers and nearly sank a third in 10 minutes using rockets. The vessels it should be noted did all they could to defend themselves and were a good size, not converted tugs or fishing boats.
Germany lost a number of warships and cargo ships to the rockets of Typhoons and other RAF aircraft. Submarines were also disabled by rockets, don't underestimate the effectiveness of the 60lb rocket. Its warhead was roughly equal to a 6 in naval shell.
Other examples include the sinking of a German 2,600 ton destroyer armed with 5 x 5.9in guns, and other vessels.
Operating from Davidstow Moor in Cornwall, 236 squadron part of a detachment of the North Coates wing turned their attention to German Navy vessels hiding in ports along the Western coasts of France, from where they could sortie and threaten the supply lines to the Normandy beachhead. In collaboration with the armaments officer at North Coates, Tacon had evolved a method of attack that involved “walking” the cannon shells from his four 20mm guns over the water towards the target to get a “bead” on it, and then, just as they reached it, at a range of 800-yards “ripple-firing” his rockets in pairs at half-second intervals. Tests he had conducted on an old target destroyer at North Coates indicated to Tacon that this method should obtain four hits on the hull below the waterline and four above, thus holing the vessel and destroying her machinery. At the same time her decks and bridge would be raked with cannon fire, killing all exposed on them.
This technique was first used against the 1,372-ton convoy escort Jupiter, which was lurking in harbour at Les Sables d’Olonne. In execution it required some fortitude, as it involved flying straight and level through flak to achieve a result. Tacon pursued an unflinching course through the fire of Jupiter’s two 105mm, four 40mm and four 20mm guns and struck the target amidships with his ordnance. In moments, the ship had blown up and sunk.
This was followed by an equally devastating sortie against German vessels in the Gironde, concentrated on the destroyer Z24 and the torpedo boat T24 (the latter in no way analogous to a British torpedo boat, but with its 1,100-ton displacement and 4-inch guns, really a small destroyer). T24 perished immediately under the Beaufighters’ onslaught. Z24 survived long enough to be towed alongside the harbour jetty where she later capsized and sank.
In late August 1944 sixteen Typhoons sank two RN Fleet Minesweepers and nearly sank a third in 10 minutes using rockets. The vessels it should be noted did all they could to defend themselves...
I assume this was a blue on blue and not inter-service rivalry gone mad
Oh I do understand that the rockets make nice holes. They compared the hititng power of a rocket armed fighter with abroadside of a destroyer, so 16 planes equal 16 broadsides of a destroyer no wonder it sinks ships. However a DD can engage another target after that a fighter has to return home. I've been interested in naval warfare the last few years, and the amount of shipping that reached her destination after being hit with a torpedo is enormous. The fact that rocket armed fighters did sink ships does not change teh fact that MTB's and MKB's could do the same with similar results... perhaps better. I think the rocket armed fighter could be better used against soft targets.
P.s. what was the hitrate of a bomb armed FB? on a 2k ton ship?
Sinking a ship is hard, most ships needed several torps to sink. And they have 280 kg warhead exploding below the waterline. I doubt many ships get sunk by 8 rockets with a 27kg warhead, exploding above the waterline.
I agree it sounds terrifiing but sinking sounds real dubious.
I was just replying to your statement advising that ships can and did get sunk by the rockets and that sometimes they were substantial warships.
Moving on to this posting
Originally Posted by looney
Oh I do understand that the rockets make nice holes. They compared the hititng power of a rocket armed fighter with abroadside of a destroyer, so 16 planes equal 16 broadsides of a destroyer no wonder it sinks ships. However a DD can engage another target after that a fighter has to return home. I've been interested in naval warfare the last few years, and the amount of shipping that reached her destination after being hit with a torpedo is enormous. The fact that rocket armed fighters did sink ships does not change teh fact that MTB's and MKB's could do the same with similar results... perhaps better. I think the rocket armed fighter could be better used against soft targets.
P.s. what was the hitrate of a bomb armed FB? on a 2k ton ship?
I think you had a typo in this posting. I am pretty sure you meant to say that the amount of shipping that failed to reach her destination after being hit with a torpedo is enormous not the amount of shipping that reached her destination
On this I would agree with you, a torpedo is very dangerous, however I am very confident that the hit rate of torpedos was small, very small, and that MTB's stood little chance of hitting their target or even getting close enough during daylight hours.
I would also agree that the rocket was best used against soft targets which would include Cargo/Transport ships and warships up to and including destroyers.
As for the hit rate of bombs, I don't know, do you?
I do know that Typhoons started with bombs on anti shipping strikes and then moved to rockets so presumably there were some advantages. What they were I don't know and could only speculate on.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by CharlesBronson
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks