AHC/WI: Germany with rocket artillery by 1914

They could quickly wheel them into tunnels like the Japanese did with their artillery on Iwo Jima and Okinawa
Tunnels, 3-4 miles behind the front lines? And 3-4 miles is the best you can hope for, as much further than that and the spread of the rockets will reduce them to near worthlessness.
 

Deleted member 2186

How does it change ww1?

Does having a regiment of Katyushas at corps level is a huuge boost since 4 of them deliver a salvo equivalent to 72 regular guns.
Not much, artillery was already was king of the battlefield on World War I which was mostly as static war.
 
Tunnels, 3-4 miles behind the front lines? And 3-4 miles is the best you can hope for, as much further than that and the spread of the rockets will reduce them to near worthlessness.
Tunnels and bunkers were all part of the trench systems it would be relatively easy for them to construct tunnels to hide their rocket launchers
 
Tunnels and bunkers were all part of the trench systems it would be relatively easy for them to construct tunnels to hide their rocket launchers


Honestly this and the other recent stuff it seems like bending over backwards in resource terms to make this work, but even doing all that bending I'm still not seeing the benefit. Just use guns (like they did) It's not like rockets were an unknown tech at the time. Given all the weird and wonderful stuff they did try in the 4 yeas to break teh deadlock I don think this was somehow overlooked.

The reality is the combination of variables that existed in some fronts in WW2 that made the Katusha a viable thing* doesn't exist here.


*and it not like it single headedly won teh eastern front or made Bagration possible or anything, it was one weapon system in much large mix of thing that had a specific role. And the more modern MLRS systems have (as pointed out buy others) as much in common with any WW1 Rocker system as a B52 has with a WW1 bomber.

I was thinking of using the Rockets to break up enemy attacks on German trenches if it bogged down into trench warfare

Rockers are too inaccurate of this, plus toy hav eteh rage issue better hop they're attacking within range of these things. Again existing weapons will do this, artillery and then machine guns for instance
 

marathag

Banned
ust use guns (like they did) It's not like rockets were an unknown tech at the time. Given all the weird and wonderful stuff they did try in the 4 yeas to break teh deadlock I don think this was somehow overlooked
The French were the main user of rockets, but they were BP, and really, not all that different from the Congreve and Hale from the previous century. Some of Tipu Sultan had 10 pound rockets with over 2000 yard range, more than a hundred years earlier
 

Garrison

Donor
Honestly the only place I could see rockets having any chance of making a difference to the war is if the British had them on the Somme. High explosive warhead rockets might do what the shrapnel failed to do and cut the wire. I'm not saying its a likely outcome but as I say it's the only time I can see they might be more useful than the regular artillery.
 

marathag

Banned
Honestly the only place I could see rockets having any chance of making a difference to the war is if the British had them on the Somme. High explosive warhead rockets might do what the shrapnel failed to do and cut the wire. I'm not saying its a likely outcome but as I say it's the only time I can see they might be more useful than the regular artillery.
They already had the Stokes and the 'Candy Apple' bombs
Loading2inchMortarBalkanFront.jpg

The Rockets would have slightly more range and payload, but not enough to make a difference, since 'over the top and walking into machine gun fire would eliminate much of a generation, wire or no wire
 

Garrison

Donor
They already had the Stokes and the 'Candy Apple' bombs
Loading2inchMortarBalkanFront.jpg

The Rockets would have slightly more range and payload, but not enough to make a difference, since 'over the top and walking into machine gun fire would eliminate much of a generation, wire or no wire
Yeah except that's utterly misleading. The deciding factor on the first day of the Somme was the weight of artillery fire. British units adjacent to the French section of the line enjoyed far heavier artillery support and largely achieved their objectives.
 

marathag

Banned
Yeah except that's utterly misleading. The deciding factor on the first day of the Somme was the weight of artillery fire. British units adjacent to the French section of the line enjoyed far heavier artillery support and largely achieved their objectives.
At huge losses from those surviving machine guns,despite 1.5 million shells fired for the opening barrage
 

Garrison

Donor
At huge losses from those surviving machine guns,despite 1.5 million shells fired for the opening barrage
Concentration of artillery is the key. The French had the guns to achieve the density needed the British didn't. But this in danger of derailing the thread.
 
Concentration of artillery is the key. The French had the guns to achieve the density needed the British didn't. But this in danger of derailing the thread.
Good point; I will therefore only point out that learning quickly also helped; there was a creeping barrage with a swift follow up on 14th July at Bazentin ridge; " Walking into Machineguns" was really only a 1st day of the Somme aberration. ( See john Terraine: =The Smoke and the Fire")
 
I would like to share something:

What make the MLRS a nightmare to deal with in WWII is the firepower concentration, abate only for one salvo. If a MLRS with 12 launchers a system is as expensive as a howitzer, the missiles have explosive force as a round, the first salvo of a MLRS is 12 times that of a howitzer. That concentration of firepower is overwhelming to an opponent. Let's call that the alpha strike (I know the USN's alpha strike, just borrow it here for simplicity's sake)

combined this with smoke mortars and creeping barrage, timed the alpha strike just when the stormtroopers about to get to the enemy's line and voila, the line crumble asap :)).

Just my 2 cents.
 

Garrison

Donor
Good point; I will therefore only point out that learning quickly also helped; there was a creeping barrage with a swift follow up on 14th July at Bazentin ridge; " Walking into Machineguns" was really only a 1st day of the Somme aberration. ( See john Terraine: =The Smoke and the Fire")
Absolutely and I would also recommend 'Forgotten Victory: The First World War: Myths and Realities' by Garry Sheffield
 
I would like to share something:

What make the MLRS a nightmare to deal with in WWII is the firepower concentration, abate only for one salvo. If a MLRS with 12 launchers a system is as expensive as a howitzer, the missiles have explosive force as a round, the first salvo of a MLRS is 12 times that of a howitzer. That concentration of firepower is overwhelming to an opponent. Let's call that the alpha strike (I know the USN's alpha strike, just borrow it here for simplicity's sake)

combined this with smoke mortars and creeping barrage, timed the alpha strike just when the stormtroopers about to get to the enemy's line and voila, the line crumble asap :)).

Just my 2 cents.
Before the modern era, the MLRS is too inaccurate to be worth much.
 
There were four things that the Infantry needed the Artillery to do on the attack in WW1:

1. Clear Barbed Wire - In theory, rockets could do this, but accuracy does matter in this case. Rockets will not be accurate enough to clear a path. You would need to have enough of them to basically nuke a large area and hope it does not so crater the ground that the infantry can't get over it anyway. Even if you succeed in getting the perfect spread, until the invention of grazing shells HE tended to simply lift up barbed wire and drop it back down again. Rockets will have the same problem

2. Keeping the enemy in cover to allow the infantry to get as close to their lines as possible.- This is where creeping barrages come in. Rockets are too inaccurate to do this. The exclusion zone is going to be too big, so the infantry will be too far out when the enemy mans the trenches and the machine guns again.

3. Counter Battery Fire- Again, too inaccurate. And it takes too long to reload. If you are not bang on with your first salvo you may not get a chance to launch a second, and given the trail left by a rocket launch it seems more likely that you are the one being counter batteried.

4. Hammering Enemy counter attacks- Both too inaccurate and too short ranged. The amount of space that could reasonably be taken by the infantry through most of WW1 was determined by the range of their artillery. Through most of the war, the 18 pounder's range was about 6500 yards. The closest they could get to the front line was 1000 yards. The enemy trench would be another 1-2000 yards away. That left 3500 yards at most and was more often more like 1-2000. Any further than that and the artillery could not defend the infantry from counter attack while the infantry are consolidating the position. The even shorter range of the rockets will reduce this still further. Also, once again, you would not want to call on these things to fire over your head at the enemy.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Yeah except that's utterly misleading. The deciding factor on the first day of the Somme was the weight of artillery fire. British units adjacent to the French section of the line enjoyed far heavier artillery support and largely achieved their objectives.
In addition a lot of artillery batteries were New Army with very limited training or experience. Add that to the number of dud shells & the preponderance of shrapnel shells over HE and you can understand why the infantry attack failed almost everywhere, except around Montauban.
 
Absolutely and I would also recommend 'Forgotten Victory: The First World War: Myths and Realities' by Garry Sheffield
An excellent book: I recommend it too! Also for the effect of technology and above all technological change in WW1 see "White Heat, The New Warfare 1914-1918" also by John Terraine.

 
Top