Congreve rockets used like Katyushas

Sachyriel

Banned
I highly doubt that this could happen, unless you have a POD before 1000 in which Korea just comes short of being absorbed into China Proper.

Just look at the French, who invaded when their missionaries were tortured and executed. Although they did have initial successes, including the capture of numerous Joseon artifacts, they were eventually forced to withdraw. The Americans also failed in the Korean Expedition.

On the other hand, if Japan had more success in the Seven-Years War, they might have exported hwachas to Europe. However, the Japanese also failed miserably. Of course, you could argue that getting rid of Yi Sun-shin might result in a Japanese conquest of Korea, but he won so many battles in which he was outnumbered (Just look at the Battle of Myeongnyang. Yi only had 12 ships to Japan's 333), so Joseon would have been pressed hard to surrender. In fact, the king even ordered him to give up and join the army, yet he resolutely continued to fight on water with his salvaged navy. Also, although the Korean Army was disorganized, the navy was highly structured and had superior ships suited to the Korean geography. The best result that Japan would have is a partial conquest of the Korean Peninsula at best (Taking China was simply not an option).

To further highlight Korea's success at repelling invasions, it's worthy to note that it remained independent (although they were tributaries at times) from 2333 BC to 1910 AD, or a total of 4243 years. They weathered attempts from numerous empires, such as the Han, Tang, Mongols (a total of six invasions), Japan, Qing, France, and the United States, just to name a few.

However, the British might sign trade agreements (although highly doubtful) with Joseon in the 1800's, and weapons and culture might be transferred.

So the British can't do, Chinese can't do it, French can't do it and Japanese can't do it...

Is it because of the Hwachas?:confused:
 
So the British can't do, Chinese can't do it, French can't do it and Japanese can't do it...

Is it because of the Hwachas?:confused:

I'd say it's a mix of determination, competent generals, and luck.

I mean, the hwacha was only developed in the 1400's, so it was only effective(?) against the Japanese.
 
Just look at the French, who invaded when their missionaries were tortured and executed. Although they did have initial successes, including the capture of numerous Joseon artifacts, they were eventually forced to withdraw. The Americans also failed in the Korean Expedition.

Actually, the U.S. pretty much stomped the Koreans in every single engagement in which they met. The only reason they didn't, in the aftermath of said stomping, get their diplomatic objectives immediately (opening Korea to foreign trade) was the refusal of the Korean regent to negotiate, even though his military had been bitch-slapped. If the U.S. had a full army there instead of a few companies of Marines and a few supporting artillery pieces, they could have marched on Hanseong/Seoul and conquered the whole kingdom without breaking a sweat. :rolleyes:

And the diplomatic objectives were gained within five years anyway. Not really a victory the Koreans should be crowing about, IMHO.
 
The multiple launch arrow rockets were widely used in Ming China. However by late Ming and Qing dynasties they were mostly replaced by tubed artillery. It seems to me they were deemed inferior by people familiar with its use. Possibly because East Asian armies did not fight in as close order as that of the European.

If you insist on it being used in the Napoleonic Wars, why not have the Russians use it in 1812? They can still name it Katyusha. :D
 
Last edited:
I've heard of that issue. I wonder if the fletching idea brought up earlier would solve it. As it was Hall rockets didn't have that problem, if there's a realistic way to get Hall type stability in Congreve era rockets there might be more willingness to use them.

That ingenious (if decidedly flaky) gentleman and inventor Francis Maceroni wrote to the Mechanics Magazine in 1838 about his plan for a "Double Range Carcass or Shell Rocket for Distant Parabolic Projection, or Feu Verticaux".The plan includes "wings being placed with a very slight diagonal direction, causes the whole to revolve on its axis like an arrow or a rifle ball, and trebles their directing effect".[1]

Maceroni claims his original plan is from 1823: if this is true, the idea of spinning the rocket for accuracy predates Hale's invention by at least two decades. Does anyone know more about the principle, is there still an earlier European predecessor to Maceroni and Hale to be found?



[1]No. 754, January 20, 1838, p. 265-267. Can be browsed at Google Books.
 
Actually, the U.S. pretty much stomped the Koreans in every single engagement in which they met. The only reason they didn't, in the aftermath of said stomping, get their diplomatic objectives immediately (opening Korea to foreign trade) was the refusal of the Korean regent to negotiate, even though his military had been bitch-slapped. If the U.S. had a full army there instead of a few companies of Marines and a few supporting artillery pieces, they could have marched on Hanseong/Seoul and conquered the whole kingdom without breaking a sweat. :rolleyes:

And the diplomatic objectives were gained within five years anyway. Not really a victory the Koreans should be crowing about, IMHO.

Pretty doubtful.

The Civil War had just ended six years ago, so the US was still recovering from the immense toll that resulted from the numerous casualties.

If the US had managed to send troops over, they might have had a force of 50,000 to 75,000 over the course of a week, while Joseon might have managed to mass between 25,000 and 50,000 over two or three weeks. In other words, Hanseong might have been taken, but the country would have put up a stiff resistance pretty quickly, and I highly doubt that they would have capitulated easily. Would the whole kingdom surrender? Probably not.

After one to three months of war, both sides might come to trade negotiations, but Joseon would be more interested in acquiring weapons than anything else, and within five years, they might have resisted the Japanese, who did come five years later, but in OTL, the US did not achieve what they wanted until 1882, or eleven years after the expedition. Also, the Japanese were only able to get what they wanted because Joseon desired advanced European technology, such as weaponry, which would not have been necessary if the US succeeded in their efforts.

Keep in mind that Joseon was completely different from the Qing. The latter failed in the Opium Wars because they only possessed junks as battleships, and had a much larger territory to defend. On the other hand, Joseon had turtle ships and a much smaller coastline to worry about. It's true that they possessed few battleships, along with the fact that they were pretty much inefficient because of a long period of peace, but each could hold at least 10 cannons, meaning that they probably held about 20-25 at the most. As a result, they would prove extremely hard to conquer by any means.
 
Back to the point...

Congreve's rockets were used with incendiary heads of some kind at both Boulogne and Copenhagen. The second attack used up to 25,000 rockets and set the city on fire.

I agree that there is a need to add either Hale-type rotating vents or arrow-type fins to the design.

There is no need to add Korea to the mix - I would suggest that remarks about the inaccuracy of 'Whinyates's rockets' might lead to experimentation by Woolwich Arsenal to improve the design.

A Hale-type design would lend itself to a 'Stalin's Organ' multi-barrel launcher. This would also be excellent in trench warfare (Crimea and the Great War) as it would be lighter to bring to the front than artillery pieces. If the mortar-type Livens gas projector had been replaced by a rocket battery with airburst gas heads, the German forces could have been badly affected.

Look on Wiki at http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/nineteenth-century-military-rockets/
 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Rocket to right of them,
Rocket to left of them,
Rocket in front of them
Volley'd & thunder'd[/SIZE]
[/FONT]
 
Pretty doubtful.

The Civil War had just ended six years ago, so the US was still recovering from the immense toll that resulted from the numerous casualties.

Not really. Indeed, the Civil War left the USA with a huge pool of experienced soldiers that if needed could have been called up again.

If the US had managed to send troops over, they might have had a force of 50,000 to 75,000 over the course of a week, while Joseon might have managed to mass between 25,000 and 50,000 over two or three weeks. In other words, Hanseong might have been taken, but the country would have put up a stiff resistance pretty quickly, and I highly doubt that they would have capitulated easily. Would the whole kingdom surrender? Probably not.

Considering the USA was a modern industrial power and Korea was still fighting mainly with swords, spears, and matchlocks like it was in the 17th century, I don't think they would have been able to put up "stiff resistance." Yes, they could have sent large numbers of men out in wave attacks, perhaps, to be mowed down by American troops. And they could have attempted a low-tech guerilla type campaign (sort of akin to the sort of warfare the American Indians did after the Civil War). But neither would have been effective against such a crushing advantage in firepower.

I shudder to think what an army of 50,000 to 75,000 Union veterans commanded by the likes of Billy Sherman or Phil Sheridan or James Wilson would have done to the sort of resistance Korea could muster in 1870.

There might not be a formal surrender, but the Joeson Dynasty would have been toast and the country occupied in short order.

Keep in mind that Joseon was completely different from the Qing. The latter failed in the Opium Wars because they only possessed junks as battleships, and had a much larger territory to defend. On the other hand, Joseon had turtle ships and a much smaller coastline to worry about. It's true that they possessed few battleships, along with the fact that they were pretty much inefficient because of a long period of peace, but each could hold at least 10 cannons, meaning that they probably held about 20-25 at the most. As a result, they would prove extremely hard to conquer by any means.

The Koreans never had more than about 10 turtle ships at any one time. And these were not heavily armored ships...they had a light covering of iron plate on top of the ship, not at the waterline or along the sides (which were made of wood) which was intended to foil grappling hooks, not to stop cannon shot. They might have been great against Japanese galleys in the 16th century. Against any Western opponent they woud have faced in the 1870s, they would have been turned into kindling by modern warships firing explosive shells and armor piercing shot.

The reason why Korea was never colonized by the West was not due to "successful Korean resistance." It was because, in the final analysis, Korea really wasn't worth all that much. If they had been, one of the Western powers...most likely Britain or France...would have devoted the resources to take it. The fact that they never did that shows that Korea wasn't really considered much of a plumb prize.
 
I've been reading a history on Napoleonic artillery and I came across descriptions of the use of Congreve rockets by the Britsh. It says they were never terribly widespread due to their lack of accuracy. They were launched indivitually from troughs at indivitual targets like tybe artillery.
What would the effects have been both on the battlefield and the extent of their use had they been used en mass like Katyushas in the 20th century with numbers making up for indivitual inaccuracy.

The Katyushas of the Soviet Union were far more advanced than Napoleon-time rockets, as several authors already have pointed out.

Also, remember that the Soviet Union used Katyushas because they were easy to make. You didn't need a gun factory, highly skilled workmen and high quality steel - you could make rockets with ordinarly tubes, hand-loaded by unskilled labour. (I saw some rockets in a Moscow museum - and they were very crudely done.) It was a stop gap measure, using what was available and fitting to Soviet doctrine. And one of the more successful measures.

Using rockets in large numbers means a huge logistic train, which wasn't popular in the colonial wars following Waterloo. Better to have rifle-armored infantery and some guns that could be used both for siege and field work than a lot of rockets that would be worse in both situations.
 
Top