Earlier use of Rockets

[Rekjavik]

How can Europe use rockets as a method of waging war earlier than in OTL? Not neccisaraly as a precise weapon, but as a siege weapon or suppresive artillery.

I am not asking for rockets to be used by the 14th century or something. I was thinking more on the lines of 1900. However, the POD probably would be pre-1900.

 

[Zyzzyva]

How can Europe use rockets as a method of waging war earlier than in OTL? Not neccisaraly as a precise weapon, but as a siege weapon or suppresive artillery.

I am not asking for rockets to be used by the 14th century or something. I was thinking more on the lines of 1900. However, the POD probably would be pre-1900.

The British used rockets in the early 19th C. They weren't terribly effective, but they were used.

 

[Ferrell]

I believe that rockets were used in the 1700s as signaling devices. It might not be too great of a stretch to imagine that a more robust form of these rockets used in greater numbers. However, the line in the 'Star-spangled Banner' about the rockets' red glare is describing Cosgreve (sp?) Rockets bombarding Fort Henry. I think that the reason rockets went out of fashion, until the late 19th-early 20th centuries, was because cannon out paced them technologically. If those trends could be reversed, somehow, then rockets would have been the prefered artillary weapon.

 

[Flocculencio]

Congreve rockets, yup.

Early versions were used by the Brits in the Napoleonic Wars- the early Congreve designs, IIRC, were based on Indian rockets that the British faced in India*. As Ferrel says the problem was that they really couldn't do anything that regular artillery couldn't besides the fear they insipred in troops who hadn't encountered them before. I suppose the setup is a bit lighter than a cannon but that just suits them for secondary roles, e.g. providing some punch to small expeditionary forces and mounting them on ships for bombardement (as with the Bombardement of Copenhagen and Fort McHenry) and the like- on the whole cannon are better for everything else.

*Indian rulers tended to really like artillery so the British were constantly being faced by Indian armies with incredibly heavy and sophisticated artillery corps. The problem was that said rulers would spend all their money on arty and not have enough left over to train and equip effective infantry. Thus, the irregular infantry would have to be drawn up behind the guns to give them some heart. The Company troops would turn up, the cavalry on both sides would commence their usual irrelevant engagement, the artillery on both sides would open fire. The difference being that Comapny troops would be well-trained enough to advance under fire while the irregular infantry of the maharajas wouldn't. Thus the Maharajas' arty would keep banging away, the Company troops would advance under fire and capture the enemy arty and all the enemy troops would run away. Sorry about this massive and irrelevant digression.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

In the British military the successor to the Congreve was the Hale rocket. The Hale was a revolutionary advance as it used spin stabilization that is still in common use today. This development created rockets with useful accuracy for the first time.

The Russians were another people deeply fascinated with advancing rocket artillery. Katyusha designers of WWII can trace their lineage to a long tradition of this Russian obsession.

Rocket artillery stagnated at the Hale level largely due to improvement in artillery. Specifically breech-loading, rifled artillery like the Armstrong. Tube artillery from then on had far greater range and accuracy than rockets of the time.

It's a shame though because the invention of smokeless powder and TNT by late 19th century meant modern military rockets were technologically possible. But it would require a lot of money and research to field them at a time when tube artillery was better understood.

A lot of things in history suffered from a lack of organization and investment not because of some technical limitation. From a technical point of view there's no reason at all the cordite fuel based Katyusha or Nebelwerfer rockets couldn't be built before 1900. Before WWII cheap asphalt-perchlorate rocket fuel could have been perfected. Not only would you be able to make rocket artillery with this stuff, but it would be used for rocket assisted propeller aircraft, and much better air-launched rockets.

Here's a link on pre-20th century Russian rocket history.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rockets_pre20th_cent.html

 

[Rick Robinson]

How can Europe use rockets as a method of waging war earlier than in OTL? Not neccisaraly as a precise weapon, but as a siege weapon or suppresive artillery.

I am not asking for rockets to be used by the 14th century or something. I was thinking more on the lines of 1900. However, the POD probably would be pre-1900.

Rockets probably WERE used in the 14th century - it is much easier to make a fireworks style rocket than an effective cannon, but war rockets were marginalized once effective guns appeared. Congreve, with a few improvements, made the traditional war rocket briefly popular again, but I don't think that's what you mean. I think you're talking about industrial-tech rockets, either liquid fueled or some more advanced solid fuel than black powder. This probably became technically feasible between 1880 and 1900, as precision machining and a chemical industry appeared.

Here's a tentative POD: Verne has his heroes use a rocket instead of a cannon in From the Earth to the Moon. He didn't need to understand the theory of rocket flight to know that rockets go up, and that strapped to a rocket wouldn't be as bad as shot out of a gun. From the Earth to the Moon is published in 1865, with the same immediate impact as OTL. But now the general idea of moon rockets is part of the popular culture, and by about the 1880s, when gasoline engines were first being developed, someone conceives the liquid fuel rocket.

I doubt that a flying prototype could be built before 1900, if then, but surely by 1914 - and the stage is set for large scale military development in WW I instead of WW II. You won't see a V2 counterpart, but both sides certainly would be interested in super long range artillery that could hit rear areas far behind enemy lines, and believed safely beyond artillery range.

The stage is now set for a rocket craze in the 1920s, with guys like Oberth and Goddard (if not butterflied) competing to at least send guys on suborbital flights, and if the Depression doesn't quash everything, try to put a payload into orbit. You now have potential for ICBMs in WW II, but not militarily significant, because you're paying the cost of a heavy bomber, at least, to throw one conventional bomb with no accuracy. Of course, if anyone does a Manhattan Project, an ICBM becomes a credible delivery system.

 

[CanadianGoose]

It's a shame though because the invention of smokeless powder and TNT by late 19th century meant modern military rockets were technologically possible. But it would require a lot of money and research to field them at a time when tube artillery was better understood.

Russians and Germans spent 20+ years IOTL perfecting technology of solid-fuel Katyusha and even after that Katyushas are in some sense abortive branch of weaponry. Not as precise and reliable as classic artillery, more dangerous and cumbersome, very demanding logistically. Therefore I would suspect that cordite-based solid-fuel rockets are not going to see the light of day pre-WWI (unless you ISOT someone from 1940s with head full of design and technological details and unequalled salesman talent).

 

[Elidor]

What were the origins of Mysorean rocket artillery? Could a few European traders got them at the same time they got guns? Maybe then they'd have a lot of time to perfect it.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Russians and Germans spent 20+ years IOTL perfecting technology of solid-fuel Katyusha and even after that Katyushas are in some sense abortive branch of weaponry. Not as precise and reliable as classic artillery, more dangerous and cumbersome, very demanding logistically. Therefore I would suspect that cordite-based solid-fuel rockets are not going to see the light of day pre-WWI (unless you ISOT someone from 1940s with head full of design and technological details and unequalled salesman talent).

It goes without saying, they're not going to get results without doing their homework. What I mean is had rocket research been better funded earlier (say 1880s) there would be no problem making Katyusha or Nebelwerfer rockets pre-1900. The rocket fuel is the same used for rifle cartridges. Not terribly mysterious. It's just a matter of lots of testing to make a reliable model suitable for mass production.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Rockets probably WERE used in the 14th century - it is much easier to make a fireworks style rocket than an effective cannon, but war rockets were marginalized once effective guns appeared. Congreve, with a few improvements, made the traditional war rocket briefly popular again, but I don't think that's what you mean. I think you're talking about industrial-tech rockets, either liquid fueled or some more advanced solid fuel than black powder. This probably became technically feasible between 1880 and 1900, as precision machining and a chemical industry appeared.

The technology to make liquid fuel rockets would not come around until late 19th century. However liquid fuel rockets are only worth their trouble if you're building city to city long range weapons. And the limitation here would be gyroscopic stabilization.

OTOH rockets are most useful in the short range artillery supplement role. And for this you want solid fuel. There are LOTs of better fuels than black powder. Cordite for instance, which would be available since 1880s. Congreve was not the last pre-modern rocket BTW. That would be the Hale rocket. It was quite modern with its spin-stabilization in the 1840s, but still used pneumatically compacted black powder. Even in the pre-cordite days they could have used a sugar-Potassium Nitrate fuel. I think they just didn't know about this simple formula This syrup based fuel would have improved the Hale rocket. In fact this is the fuel used in Palestinian rockets hitting Israel from Gaza.

Another alternative to the solid and liquid fuel is compound fuel - which is to say combined solid and liquid fuels. The simplest compound fuel involve liquid Nitrous Oxide as the oxidizer and paraffin wax as the solid fuel. It would be doable with 1860s technology. In OTL this logical stepping stone from solid to all liquid fuel rockets was never made. Compound fuel rockets were only invented after WWII. They are the favorite of amature rocket makers due to their simplicity.

 

[Caesar]

Congreve rockets, yup.

Early versions were used by the Brits in the Napoleonic Wars- the early Congreve designs, IIRC, were based on Indian rockets that the British faced in India*. As Ferrel says the problem was that they really couldn't do anything that regular artillery couldn't besides the fear they insipred in troops who hadn't encountered them before. I suppose the setup is a bit lighter than a cannon but that just suits them for secondary roles, e.g. providing some punch to small expeditionary forces and mounting them on ships for bombardement (as with the Bombardement of Copenhagen and Fort McHenry) and the like- on the whole cannon are better for everything else.

*Indian rulers tended to really like artillery so the British were constantly being faced by Indian armies with incredibly heavy and sophisticated artillery corps. The problem was that said rulers would spend all their money on arty and not have enough left over to train and equip effective infantry. Thus, the irregular infantry would have to be drawn up behind the guns to give them some heart. The Company troops would turn up, the cavalry on both sides would commence their usual irrelevant engagement, the artillery on both sides would open fire. The difference being that Comapny troops would be well-trained enough to advance under fire while the irregular infantry of the maharajas wouldn't. Thus the Maharajas' arty would keep banging away, the Company troops would advance under fire and capture the enemy arty and all the enemy troops would run away. Sorry about this massive and irrelevant digression.

Didn't some groups in India have rockets with large blades on the end, so that the mass of rockets would fall back to earth and slash the enemy to bits?

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Didn't some groups in India have rockets with large blades on the end, so that the mass of rockets would fall back to earth and slash the enemy to bits?

Yes that was Tippo Sultaun's rocket corp. They used steel rocket tubes which allowed very high pressure loading plus a sword blade for stabilization. The blade would tumble and skip on the ground causing mayhem. Swords however were expensive, and its unknown if the expense was cost effective. The Congreve rocket was inspired by the Indian stabilization method, but used a wooden stick for stabilization. This type of early stabilization was made obsolete by the Hale rocket.

If anyone has time, read the USMC article on military rocket history. It's worth it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/MAF.htm

 

[Rick Robinson]

The technology to make liquid fuel rockets would not come around until late 19th century. However liquid fuel rockets are only worth their trouble if you're building city to city long range weapons. And the limitation here would be gyroscopic stabilization.

OTOH rockets are most useful in the short range artillery supplement role.

The best place for rockets, before precision guidance, seems to be a rapid and massive area bombardment - especially the rapid part, because you can let off a whole rocket barrage more or less all at once, whereas guns can only fire one shell at a time.

It seems like this might have worked well - or at least been something high commands thought would work well - on the Western Front. Whomp a section of enemy trenches, without the massive buildup and prolonged artillery fire that tips off the defenders about where you're planning to hit. Even in WW I, rockets could be fired from lorries that drive up overnight and deploy on a line behind the trenches. At dawn you let off the whole barrage all at once, smothering the enemy trenches without warning, then send your guys over the top while the defenders are still off balance and before they can even start bringing up reinforcements.

It probably works as well as most breakthrough schemes did, but that was life and death on the Western Front.

Would military planners circa 1900 - who were not anticipating the Western Front - have seen a mission for the sort of mass volley barrage for which solid military rockets are best suited? I am only knowledgeable about naval warfare. In principle a rocket boat could be analogous to a torpedo boat - a fairly small and cheap vessel, able to let off a one-time punch that can sink a battleship. In practice you won't; unguided rocket fire from thousands of yards will get very few hits on maneuvering ships, and you'd need jumbo rockets to punch an armored battleship.


In my scenario above, however, rocketry develops before WW I much as it did in OTL between the wars - initially by space enthusiasts, whose interest is far more likely to be liquid fuel rockets. They wouldn't be of much actual wartime use, any more than in OTL WW II, unless someone early in the war has the idea of cheap reliable solids instead of expensive tricky liquids.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

The best place for rockets, before precision guidance, seems to be a rapid and massive area bombardment - especially the rapid part, because you can let off a whole rocket barrage more or less all at once, whereas guns can only fire one shell at a time.

It seems like this might have worked well - or at least been something high commands thought would work well - on the Western Front. Whomp a section of enemy trenches, without the massive buildup and prolonged artillery fire that tips off the defenders about where you're planning to hit. Even in WW I, rockets could be fired from lorries that drive up overnight and deploy on a line behind the trenches. At dawn you let off the whole barrage all at once, smothering the enemy trenches without warning, then send your guys over the top while the defenders are still off balance and before they can even start bringing up reinforcements.

You are talking about the short range battlefield use of rockets, in which case solid fuel, spin-stabilized rockets are best for that role. There's no need for liquid fuel rockets in this role. Liquid fuel rocket motors are much too expensive and complicated. They are only good for long range (V2) type weapons, and you couldn't barrage fire these things, hence the need for gyroscopic stabilization (V2).

Would military planners circa 1900 - who were not anticipating the Western Front - have seen a mission for the sort of mass volley barrage for which solid military rockets are best suited? I am only knowledgeable about naval warfare. In principle a rocket boat could be analogous to a torpedo boat - a fairly small and cheap vessel, able to let off a one-time punch that can sink a battleship. In practice you won't; unguided rocket fire from thousands of yards will get very few hits on maneuvering ships, and you'd need jumbo rockets to punch an armored battleship.

The Hale rocket was quite popular in the 19th century among colonial armies which had to operate in places where lack of roads made moving tube artillery difficult. So there was a recognition of the deployability of rocket artillery in the expeditionary role.

Another advantage rockets had was being able to fire off small vessels, including fishing trawlers for amphibious landing support. Even in riverine operations a bunch of rockets on a boat has the firepower of a floating artillery battery.

Other than deployability, rockets are mainly attractive for being cheap to make compared with tube artillery. Making big guns require much more sophisticated heavy industry than barrage rockets. One of the simplest and most successful military rockets today is the Chinese Type-63 107mm which is used by guerrillas from the Viet Cong to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents. With a few hundred dollars any small rebel band can afford their own artillery.

I suspect the main reason, other than resistance to change, for lack of investment in rocket artillery pre-WWI is the superiority of accuracy from tube artillery. Until WWI wars were still relatively small enough that industrialized nations could meet artillery demands with conventional guns. There was no threat of artillery factories being destroyed by enemy bombers. Hence only after WWI did armies realize rockets could be a useful alternative.

But there's no reason this had to be. A little clear headed thinking among the military establishment would move things ahead. I think we underestimate the mind-numbing military bureaucracy in the pre-WWI era. Officers were invariably upper class traditionalists who hated change. It took a long time for them to accept breech-loading artillery so you can imagine their attitude toward something completely different like rockets.

___

To my knowledge rockets have little appeal for surface naval warfare. Rocketry in this arena tend to involve guided missiles, which have closer resemblance to small airplanes than rockets. Conventional rockets are fired in ballistic trajectory and aren't capable of the kind of terminal maneuvering required for anti-shipping warfare.

 

[Rick Robinson]

I suspect the main reason, other than resistance to change, for lack of investment in rocket artillery pre-WWI is the superiority of accuracy from tube artillery. Until WWI wars were still relatively small enough that industrialized nations could meet artillery demands with conventional guns. There was no threat of artillery factories being destroyed by enemy bombers. Hence only after WWI did armies realize rockets could be a useful alternative.

I think this is bingo. This is the era of the gunnery revolution at sea, and presumably on land as well. Navies went in a couple of decades from assuming that they would fight nearly yardarm to yardarm still, to expecting battle ranges over 10,000 yards. Surely land artillery was showing similar improvement - essentially as it sank in that modern pieces were precision machines. The difficulties of hitting in field conditions were not fully appreciated. But if familiar types of artillery, as improved, could score precision hits over miles, soldiers would be less excited by a weapon that however handy could only achieve area fire, not e.g. knock out enemy batteries.

But there's no reason this had to be. A little clear headed thinking among the military establishment would move things ahead. I think we underestimate the mind-numbing military bureaucracy in the pre-WWI era. Officers were invariably upper class traditionalists who hated change. It took a long time for them to accept breech-loading artillery so you can imagine their attitude toward something completely different like rockets.

Here I disagree! The changes in military tech were just staggering - far more, proportionally, than we have seen in modern times. The senior officers of the prewar years were born around midcentury, and entered the service when industrialization was just starting to hit in military forms. The British Brown Bess musket had been issue from the 1690s to 1840. Until about then you really could not find much on the battlefield that was not a refinement of 16th century tech, and most of it very gradual steady refinement.

What changed dramatically between 1600 and 1850 was the organization, discipline, and supply of armies. The cannon or musket was somewhat improved in design, but if you armed a post-Napoleonic army with arquebuses and sakers and sent it against an army of 1780 with its normal equipment, archaic weapons and modern doctrine would smoke 'em.

So a soldier of the mid-19th century - the guys who taught the cadets and lieutenants who would lead armies after 1900 - simply did not think about improved weapons. Weapons were, pretty much, what they had always been. What you studied was how to deploy them. The Germans didn't win in 1870 because of more modern weapons, but because of new technology far behind the lines, efficient deployment by rail.

Viewed in this light, I think the military leaders around 1900 did amazingly well in dealing with an onslaught of technology that made war radically different than it had been before. You could no longer study Napoleon for anything specific about how to deploy your troops for battle, only for abstract lessons about force and mass in warfare.

My knowledge is mostly naval, and for sure the navy guys did an amazing job of adapting to ships that they would not even have recognized as ships when they were kids.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

I think this is bingo. This is the era of the gunnery revolution at sea, and presumably on land as well. Navies went in a couple of decades from assuming that they would fight nearly yardarm to yardarm still, to expecting battle ranges over 10,000 yards. Surely land artillery was showing similar improvement - essentially as it sank in that modern pieces were precision machines. The difficulties of hitting in field conditions were not fully appreciated. But if familiar types of artillery, as improved, could score precision hits over miles, soldiers would be less excited by a weapon that however handy could only achieve area fire, not e.g. knock out enemy batteries.

Another factor was the artillery school of the times were very focused on direct fire weapons. The future of indirect fire weapons was not understood clearly by all. It wasn't until WWI that German howitzers definitively proved themselves superior to direct fire field guns of the British army. Artillery officers were the most technically trained and indoctrinated army experts, and they don't change their minds easily. In any case, the constraint on rocket artillery was not technology but doctrine.

Here I disagree! The changes in military tech were just staggering - far more, proportionally, than we have seen in modern times. The senior officers of the prewar years were born around midcentury, and entered the service when industrialization was just starting to hit in military forms. The British Brown Bess musket had been issue from the 1690s to 1840. Until about then you really could not find much on the battlefield that was not a refinement of 16th century tech, and most of it very gradual steady refinement...

What you say is true, but it only explains the failure of foresight with regards to rockets, it can't excuse it. They were adaptive compared to their grandfathers, but compared with the modern mindset they were terribly close minded. We are much more willing to experiment with innovative concepts today than they were. What did they say about steamships at the time? Something about fire and wood don't mix? These were the same people who withdrew the breech-loading Armstrong gun and replaced it with a traditional muzzle-loader!

Enclosed is a link to Victorian military prejudice against the Armstrong gun.

http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/arm/arm5.htm

 

[tallwingedgoat]

To take this in a different direction, there's no reason the Hale rocket could not have been invented decades earlier. This was a steel tube rocket with spin-stabilization. The fuel was black powder. Besides the stabilization, the other innovation with the Hale was using highly compact powder which was made possible only through a pneumatic press. You could pack black powder some other way but it was dangerous.

Suppose the sugar-Potassium Nitrate fuel was invented earlier, the caramelized sugar fuel could be cast instead of pressure formed. It would make the Hale rocket much easier to manufacture. When the Hale was invented in the 1840s, it was considered accurate and had excellent range. This was quite revolutionary. Had this rocket been around earlier, it would certainly had a prominent role to play - at least in land warfare, the steep trajectory of rockets would make it difficult to hit ships back then.

 

[Thande]

The trouble is that I think some people are conflating 19th century rockets with 20th century missiles, and the technologies aren't really that related, anymore than a modern tank is derived from the 17th century Czech armoured car.

 

[The Dean]

The trouble is that I think some people are conflating 19th century rockets with 20th century missiles, and the technologies aren't really that related, anymore than a modern tank is derived from the 17th century Czech armoured car.

I can feel a visit to The Shed coming on.

 

[Rick Robinson]

The trouble is that I think some people are conflating 19th century rockets with 20th century missiles, and the technologies aren't really that related.

A bit subtler than that, because there are three distinct types of rocket here:

1) The 19th c. rocket, a simple unguided solid, really an improved skyrocket.

2) Katyusha type war rocket, also a simple unguided solid, just brought into the industrial age.

3) Liquid fuel rocket, like the V2.

The second two are both '20th c. rockets,' but of totally different types, and probably with different PODs needed to bring them along earlier. Katyusha types are much more useful in warfare - in fact, liquid fuel rockets verge on useless as a war weapon. But they are boffo for space launch, and so have longer range than any simple solid rocket. This gives them one potential military role. The original poster wanted earlier use of rockets in 20th century war, but did not say that the rockets had to be ideal or even very effective as weapons.

My first post upthread had a POD with Jules Verne using a rocket to get to the Moon, resulting in earlier enthusiasm for space rocketry, and VfR/Goddard level experimentation in the early 1900s. (Did Tsiolovsky ever build hardware?) If space enthusiasts had been shooting off experimental liquid fuel rockets in 1910, surely attempts would have been made during World War I to develop them into super long range artillery - not V2 range, but perhaps 50-100 km. Even if developed in time for operational use, these would almost certainly be a wasted military effort: expensive to build and launch, unreliable and woefully inaccurate. They'd be spectacular, though, part of our mental image of the war - and they set the stage for truly spectacular rocket experimentation in the 1920s.

If you want effective war rockets in WW I you want something more like a Katyusha. For that you need a different POD. Space enthusiasts have no interest in simple solid rockets, so nothing Jules Verne writes is likely to hasten their improvement. if artillerists had seen a role for Hale type rockets, and they had remained in use through the later 19th century, the steel and chemical revolutions would have gradually transformed them into a Katyusha type. There wouldn't be any obvious break in development, any more than there is with cannons, just sucessive improvements.