Rockets allow greater concentration of firepower on a give target in less time. They would be ideal for use as a means of laying down a gas barrage. The British developed the "Livens Projector" which was a sort of smoothbore, short range mortar (usually produced in the field from a smoothbore barrel and an oil can as the projectile with a small black powder charge to propel it). A rocket battery could produce a similar effect. What would be needed is that the rocket projectors be enplaced some distance from the front line and when required, their fuses would be initiated. The point was, the Livers Projector allowed the British to build up the amount of gas, extremely rapidly.
AHC/WI: Germany with rocket artillery by 1914
- Thread starter Otto Kretschmer
- Start date
marathag
Banned
The German 170mm Minenwerfer, a 'medium' Mortar of WWI, weighed 1065 pounds without the transport carriage(another 800 pounds), had a 840 yard range with a 109 pound Shell, with 26pounds and 7oz of an ammonium nitrate based filler.
With a 3.8 caliber barrel, wasn't pinpoint accurate either, and heavier than the T88 shown above
Last edited:
I doubt it would, because they severely underestimated the amount of shells that were going to be used.
True, but they would have had a budget for artillery. Unless that is increased to account for rocket artillery as well as conventional (which will then get into inter-service negotiations over budget allocation) then any money spent on rocket artillery will not be spent on conventional artillery. Perhaps it is cheap enough that the number of artillery pieces overall is increased but the number of conventical pieces would be reduced.
marathag
Banned
Rocket technology, as well as recoilless rifle, promised big warheads for very lightweight firing platforms.
Overlooked at first by Germany, the RR used far more smokeless propellant than conventional arty, and that became a problem as the war continued.
Propellant production was even a larger problem in WWI for Germany
Overlooked at first by Germany, the RR used far more smokeless propellant than conventional arty, and that became a problem as the war continued.
Propellant production was even a larger problem in WWI for Germany
Unless you can run, really fast after firing. early modern rockets are not a good thing. even the much later Katyusha was quite vulnerable to counterbattery fire (it leave ssuch a nice smoke trail to triangulate for location.
Your math is also somewhat in error.
Let's use the 82mm Katyusha (which was the result of years of effort) to fire 16 rounds requires 50 (as in FIVE ZERO) minutes to reload. It had a range of 6.500 yards and threw a warhead weighing 1.4 pounds/0.64kg. The famed French "75" fired three AIMED rounds a minute without causing the barrel to overheat (e.g. 150 rounds in 50 minutes) and well trained crew could close to put out 15 rounds per rate for a couple "mad minutes". The 75 had an aimed range of 7,400-9,300 yards (depending on shell type) with later war rounds taking this up to 11,000 yards, with a shell weight of 12 pounds/5.4 kg to 16pound/7.24kg.
To summarize a single 75mm can fire as many rounds rounds in 1:05 as a 16 round launcher can in 50 minutes. In 50 minutes the one gun delivers as many rounds as nine 16 round rocket launchers. Each shell weights between 8.4 and 11.4x that of a rocket warhead. This gives the total delivered weight in the initial one minute burst from the rocket launcher of 22.4 pounds/10.2kg. The 75mm gun total delivered weight of fire is 180/81kg -192 pound/116kg. (As an aside a four gun 75mm battery can fire 17,000 lead balls into a 100x400 meter space in one minute.
There will be shock and awe. It just won't be from the rocket launchers.
You CAN NOT compare a modern MLRS to a WW I Weapon.
Might as well compare a Gotha G.IV with its 500 kg of bombs to a B-1B and its 50,000 bomb load. After all, they are both airplanes.
Last edited:
Oh wonderful, comparing an early WW1 Mortar to a late WW2 rocket, really fair. try something a little more even, like the M2 4.2-inch mortar, 3.9-4.4 km range, 151 kg, projectile weights 11.11-13 kg, rate of fire 5 r/m rapid, 1 r/m sustained.
marathag
Banned
Thread is about German getting involved with rockets before WWI. They did not have the US Mortar, and the thread isn't over 'WI the Germans had developed medium mortars that were more portable?'
The 7.2" Rocket was not out of reach for WWI, save it wouldn't have plastic explosive for its filling. The Chemicals for the solid fuel rocket are around by this time, and nothing particularly high technology for even WWI standards. Just a path not taken.
The 7.2" Rocket was not out of reach for WWI, save it wouldn't have plastic explosive for its filling. The Chemicals for the solid fuel rocket are around by this time, and nothing particularly high technology for even WWI standards. Just a path not taken.
Isnt a rocket truck just another artillery piece? They already had lots of artillery.
I thought the only advantage to them in WWII is that they could be made really fast and maneuver relatively quickly. WWI was static, unless they provide some specific trench busting option, are they any more useful than conventional arty?
Could they have been more useful in the East where the fighting was a bit more fluid?
I thought the only advantage to them in WWII is that they could be made really fast and maneuver relatively quickly. WWI was static, unless they provide some specific trench busting option, are they any more useful than conventional arty?
Could they have been more useful in the East where the fighting was a bit more fluid?
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Things were fluid thru October in the West, and would be very useful for the Chemical Weapons phase of the War, once it comes to that
One of my first post on this is that yes, this would help the Germans, by even with that, I have my doubts it's enough for a knockout.
The German needed better logistics and troop transport than more weapons
Last edited:
I agree, if they're going to have a whole lot of trucks all of a sudden, they can probably be better used for the logistical side of things.
How large would these rockets need to be compared to earlier ones?
Are trucks needed or could horses or people carry the launcher and rockets?
From the discussion so far it seems regular artillery still dominates, but rockets are good for a rapid strike.
An advantage over regular artillery is cheaper metals can be used, what about wood or bamboo could they carry enough payload to be useful?
Though I suspect Britain and France would have better access to bamboo.
Are trucks needed or could horses or people carry the launcher and rockets?
From the discussion so far it seems regular artillery still dominates, but rockets are good for a rapid strike.
An advantage over regular artillery is cheaper metals can be used, what about wood or bamboo could they carry enough payload to be useful?
Though I suspect Britain and France would have better access to bamboo.
marathag
Banned
At this time, steel is cheap, and doesn't need to be able to hold up to thousands of firings like an artillery tube, just needs to last one firing.
Yeah, you can use wood, but you need more of it, so ends up weighing more than the steel. Aluminum is still expensive at this point.
for fuel, BP has an ISP of 90, and the early asphalt/perchlorate was around 140. Undiscovered at the time, was the simple Sugar and KNO3 mix. that's around 125 and better behaved than Black Powder. All are very smoky, and ID the launch area immediately
Horses would likely not like to be near the launch area, very skittish to things like that , so not the best thing for the needed 'Shoot and Scoot'
Ah yes, they would quickly learn just when the enemy wasn't in their bunkers. What with all those radios that barely existed, phones that didn't work, and messengers who would have to relay messages. Not to mention the time that would be required to actually verify that the enemy weren't in their positions at the moment. And no, firing them as an infantry assault is starting would NOT buy the attacking infantry time. It would in fact do the opposite, since the infantry aren't going to be keen on the idea of getting out of THEIR trenches while the extremely innacurate and probably mistimed rockets are coming down either on their heads, or on No Man's Land.
Paradoxer
Banned
Couldn’t horses pull them or even 3 to 4 more for short distances or positioning adjustments while still being out of range of enemy shots or in covered?
marathag
Banned
WWI Counterbattery fire was not very fast, for reason listed in the post above.
However, launching rocket shows immediately to all, friendly and unfriendly, the rocket battery location
The real risk is being in range of volley fire in return by riflemen and Machine Guns, plus any direct fire artillery in the area, say under 2000 yards
You need to specially train the horses, or they're likely to bolt. Also, the accuracy of these things is likely to be fairly atrocious, so they wouldn't be a brilliant weapon on the attack anyway.
Artillery rockets are great for rapid "burst fire" but the reload times are much longer than conventional artillery. So you fire off say 24 from a single launcher in 15 seconds but then spend 20 -30 mins reloading them.