Air launched rockets vs bomber stream

I'm afraid the Attack of the Haunted QB-17:p doesn't prove anything.

Of course not. But it does allow us to regard the idea with a certain amount of scepticism, I think. If 2 aircraft with 208 rockets between them can't hit a single, non-maneuvering target, then are they really more dangerous than a couple of 20-30mm cannon?
 

Kongzilla

Banned
Well it depends really, there is a big difference between 1 slow non maneuvering target and upwards of 200 slow non maneuvering targets. Albeit those 200 targets do have weapons. 208 rockets fired in the general direction of a bomber stream has the potential to fuck shit up.

Also it could be kind of scary to see a single fighter take out a dozen B-29 bombers.
 
Kongzilla said:
Well it depends really, there is a big difference between 1 slow non maneuvering target and upwards of 200 slow non maneuvering targets. Albeit those 200 targets do have weapons. 208 rockets fired in the general direction of a bomber stream has the potential to fuck shit up.
That's more/less my thinking, too. Hitting a single ship is one thing; shooting a salvo into a convoy, you have much better chances of hitting something, even if you don't get collisions & confusion trying to avoid.

Plus, when a single rocket hit can knock down a bomber... If you expose the fighters less to hostile fire, you increase their survival, & their serviceability rate.
 
Last edited:
Well it depends really, there is a big difference between 1 slow non maneuvering target and upwards of 200 slow non maneuvering targets. Albeit those 200 targets do have weapons. 208 rockets fired in the general direction of a bomber stream has the potential to fuck shit up.

Also it could be kind of scary to see a single fighter take out a dozen B-29 bombers.


In the late 40s/1950s, single bombers were the primary target of the air launched FFAR systems, not squadrons in formation. With nuclear bombs the bombers would come in individually en masse, all using their own flight paths, so hopefully overwhelming the enemy air defence system with the number of individual intercepts to be plotted and serviced by the interceptors. Swarm tactics in other words, a bit more like the UK bomber streams, but over a wider front. Some would probably get through, and that is fine if they are carrying buckets of instant sunshine.

The rockets promised a single hit knock-out, and the ability to stand off out of the range of the 23mm tail guns these targets carried. However they did not work particularly well in practice - even using the sophisticated radar gun sights and analogue fire control computers developed for the purpose and firing packs of 100 or so of the things.

The Genie atomic unguided nuclear rocket was a solution to that, (and any bombers in formations as well!;)). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie

Then reliable air to air missiles arrived with sidewinder in the mid 50s.

So the packs of FFAR fitted on USAF interceptors came and went rather quickly. Proper cannon replaced the pop-out trays of 100 or so unguided rockets.

The FFAR rockets then went on to be used as a worthwhile air to ground weapon in under wing pods. Ground targets are manoeuvring rather less than bombers, and not in 3 dimensions.
 
Acordding to Stuart Slade, those things were useless.
I would be interested to know where he said that. The only references I have are in "The Big One". As everything in the German NAIADS bar luck was useless against the B36s it was not a fair test for wire guided AAs.
 
The Germans had it on some of their fighters. I had them on some planes when i played Aces over Europe. Only way i could get them to be effective was playing with unlimited ammo och shooting them as machine guns. They were not that effective
 
Weren't the rockets used IOTL timed so they exploded in mid-air like air launched flak? That has to have been easier to do damage with than trying to get a direct hit with an unguided weapon.
 
BigWillyG said:
Weren't the rockets used IOTL timed so they exploded in mid-air like air launched flak? That has to have been easier to do damage with than trying to get a direct hit with an unguided weapon.
That really wants a bigger rocket, which implies Bf-110s or Ju-88s...
 
I'm sure if they could fit Proximity fuses on AA shells they can fit Proximity fuses on Rockets.

But most of the combatants in WW2 couldn't fit proximity fuses to AA shells. Most AA shells had a time fuse, the duration of which was calculated to detonate the shell at the right altitude. British work on proximity fuses was passed to the USA by the Tizard mission in 1940, after which it became a high priority for the US electronics industry. The radar proximity fuse was very highly secret during WW2, in the same sort of category as the Manhattan Project.
 
Top