Rockets red glare

[Oldbaldguy]

A couple of recent threads have made me wonder about something.  Back in the WW2 days and maybe a bit beyond, it seems there were a couple of ways to deliver unguided rockets.  The Brits seemed to prefer launching their rockets from longish rails under the wings of their airplanes while the US used zero-length launchers.  Does anyone know off-hand if one system was inherently more accurate (inasmuch as unguided rockets can be) than the other or were these just different ways of doing business with pretty much the same results?

[europapete]

I think the guys on the recieving end would prefer the least accurate meathod. 

[Confusionreigns178]

I remember reading a few years ago that rockets launched from RAF Typhoons hit less than 4 percent on their intended targets. If that is true, the old comic book image of aircraft destroying multiple tanks in one pass could be a big exaggeration. They only had four small, non-moving fins on the back and no means of guidance whilst in flight... it doesn't seem like the most accurate situation, to be honest.  

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris.  

[Martinnfb]

Here is an interesting , unclassified study of a later date, but still relevant.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0474776.pdf

[Padubon]

4 hours ago, Confusionreigns178 said:

I remember reading a few years ago that rockets launched from RAF Typhoons hit less than 4 percent on their intended targets. If that is true, the old comic book image of aircraft destroying multiple tanks in one pass could be a big exaggeration. They only had four small, non-moving fins on the back and no means of guidance whilst in flight... it doesn't seem like the most accurate situation, to be honest.  

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris.  

Not if the rockets hit the tanks around the one tank the pilot was aiming and missed! 

[Finn]

A lot of variables are involved but even if the target is large and you are close as in this image, you still can miss:

 

 

Jari

[LSP_K2]

I suspect it was a point and shoot sort of thing, with commensurate results.

[LSP_K2]

I suppose we could also discuss how many bombs and bullets actually reached their targets. Enough, in the long run, to make a substantial difference to the enemy.

[Oldbaldguy]

6 hours ago, Martinnfb said:

Here is an interesting , unclassified study of a later date, but still relevant.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0474776.pdf

Uh oh.  Secants and tangents and velocity vectors and all that math stuff.

[John1]

2 hours ago, Finn said:

A lot of variables are involved but even if the target is large and you are close as in this image, you still can miss:

 

 

Jari

Didn’t the Mossie use rockets with solid steel warheads for anti-ship, anti-U Boat missions?  They were supposed to be aimed just below the waterline of the target vessel, for maximum damage.   In the case of your picture above, I’d suggest those shots are aimed pretty nicely.   

[Oldbaldguy]

We’re beginning to drift from the question in my original post, but the Beaufighter photo is basically the premise of what I was asking.  Look at the smoke trails from the rockets - they all are almost ruler straight all the way to the target.  If you look at photos of US rockets fired in a similar situation, they rarely fly straight and tend to go where they please (within reason) causing me to wonder if the Brit launch rails make the difference.

[Cheetah11]

On 9/30/2023 at 2:09 PM, Oldbaldguy said:

A couple of recent threads have made me wonder about something.  Back in the WW2 days and maybe a bit beyond, it seems there were a couple of ways to deliver unguided rockets.  The Brits seemed to prefer launching their rockets from longish rails under the wings of their airplanes while the US used zero-length launchers.  Does anyone know off-hand if one system was inherently more accurate (inasmuch as unguided rockets can be) than the other or were these just different ways of doing business with pretty much the same results?

 

Rockets are not gyro stabilized like bullets/shells. so once they leave the aircraft they yaw and pitch into the relative airflow. Long or zero length rails will not make much of a difference. In Rocket ballistics the pitch towards the relative airflow is called the F factor.  The speed at launch with a simple gunsight needs to be accurate since a different angle of attack will cause the rockets be inaccurate. 

Nick

[John1]

Recall reading somewhere that the British style launchers had a very significant impact on airspeed, whereas the US low profile ones did not.   

[Finn]

If you line up the rockets with their exhaust most seem to be going where they were aimed at but if you look at the 3d rocket from the right it looks like it will go elsewhere:

 

 

Jari

[easixpedro]

9 hours ago, Finn said:

If you line up the rockets with their exhaust most seem to be going where they were aimed at but if you look at the 3d rocket from the right it looks like it will go elsewhere:

 

 

Jari

Wonder if one of the fins got banged up either in storage, being transported, or being loaded?  

 

Whilst doing an interview for my book, one squadron CO confessed that he'd pay his ordnance men to tweak the fins on a different A-4 squadron's Mk 76 practice bombs.  Just enough, mind you, so that a) they wouldn't be discovered on pre-flight b) they'd cause a miss large enough so that the competition would be skewed and the opposing squadron would lose in the bombing competition.  Filed under: "All's fair in love and war and squadron shenanigans!"

 

-Peter