Hitler Starts WW2 with Rockets

trurle

Banned
What if instead of concentrating on long-range missiles, the Wehrmacht would develop a series of short-to medium range battlefield missiles for strategic shelling of enemy positions. Something like a heavy cannon or mortar. I remember to have read somewhere that by 1944 they were actively exploring mobile rocket launchers as an alternative to pulled cannons. I am no expert, but could 1940's or even 1950's technology come up with a rocket system that would be easier to handle, easier to maintain and better overall then existing howitzers?

If so, would it make a difference if Germany had this rockets as their standard equipment in France? in Africa? in Russia?

Definitely rockets are not fit as standard equipment. Russians had BM-13 MRLS and aircraft rocket pods during the entire war. Americans had the HVAR pods. British had an Unrotated Projectile. All these rockets had a niche applications.

Main problem with rockets is what their nozzle volume cannot match the volume of gun barrel. Also, pulse expansion (as ooposed to quasi-continuous expansion in rockets) do squeeze more energy from gas. See the "Pulse detonation engine". Therefore, the thermodynamic efficiency of propulsion for low-speed projectiles (at speeds where Oberth effect is not important) is better for cannons. So as long as you need to pump a lot of shells to enemy positions at modest speeds, the gun is the most cost-effective way to do so. Only if special considerations like recoil limitation or high range (with associated high speed resulting in Oberth effect and terrible air resistance losses) are considered, rockets find their place.
 

Deleted member 1487

What if instead of concentrating on long-range missiles, the Wehrmacht would develop a series of short-to medium range battlefield missiles for strategic shelling of enemy positions. Something like a heavy cannon or mortar. I remember to have read somewhere that by 1944 they were actively exploring mobile rocket launchers as an alternative to pulled cannons. I am no expert, but could 1940's or even 1950's technology come up with a rocket system that would be easier to handle, easier to maintain and better overall then existing howitzers?

If so, would it make a difference if Germany had this rockets as their standard equipment in France? in Africa? in Russia?
Those sorts of rockets were very inaccurate until much later when computer technology improved.
 
Definitely rockets are not fit as standard equipment. Russians had BM-13 MRLS and aircraft rocket pods during the entire war. Americans had the HVAR pods. British had an Unrotated Projectile. All these rockets had a niche applications.

Main problem with rockets is what their nozzle volume cannot match the volume of gun barrel. Also, pulse expansion (as ooposed to quasi-continuous expansion in rockets) do squeeze more energy from gas. See the "Pulse detonation engine". Therefore, the thermodynamic efficiency of propulsion for low-speed projectiles (at speeds where Oberth effect is not important) is better for cannons. So as long as you need to pump a lot of shells to enemy positions at modest speeds, the gun is the most cost-effective way to do so. Only if special considerations like recoil limitation or high range (with associated high speed resulting in Oberth effect and terrible air resistance losses) are considered, rockets find their place.

The real advantage of rockets is that you can fire them all at once. A gun battery has 6-8 tubes that can fire say 5 rounds a minute. In ten minutes, that battery has fired 300-400 shells, and it can keep firing for a long time. A rocket battery might have 6-8 vehicles, with say 30 launch tubes each. It can fire 30 rounds at once, but then takes 10 minutes to reload, so the rocket battery will fire 180-240 rockets in the time it takes the gun battery to fire 300-400 shells.

However, if they are bombarding an enemy unit, the most effective rounds are the first three from each tube, since the enemy troops will take cover in no more than 30 seconds. The gun battery manages 18-24 most effective rounds, while all 180-240 of the rockets count as most effective, because they are all fired at once.

Rockets are best for short, shattering bombardments. Guns are better for wrecking things over time, hiting point targets via adjusted fire (rockets are too inaccurate) and what are referred to as harrasment and interdiction, where you fire 1-2 rounds at intervals to keep the enemy in cover and moving slowly.
 
The real advantage of rockets is that you can fire them all at once....
Rockets are best for short, shattering bombardments. Guns are better for wrecking things over time, hiting point targets via adjusted fire (rockets are too inaccurate) and what are referred to as harrasment and interdiction...

So would it have helped the German army if Rommel had something akin to a Stalin Organ in his arsenal when he went to Africa? What about the earlier campaigns? Would a battery of rocket launchers made Dunkirk into an unmitigated disaster? Or would it made the Germans overrun Greeca with the same ease they overran the Netherlands and Belgium?
 

Deleted member 1487

So would it have helped the German army if Rommel had something akin to a Stalin Organ in his arsenal when he went to Africa? What about the earlier campaigns? Would a battery of rocket launchers made Dunkirk into an unmitigated disaster? Or would it made the Germans overrun Greeca with the same ease they overran the Netherlands and Belgium?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebelwerfer
 
Top