This makes me think you may have the POD, too: the Versailles Treaty. Germany was prohibited from having heavy artillery, & turned to rockets to make it up. So suppose Germany was prohibited from having heavy-gun ships of any description? And turns to missiles, instead...which makes sense, seeing she was already following essentially a jeune ecole path to begin with, of need.BlondieBC said:
Missile Gunboats in WW2?
- Thread starter phx1138
- Start date
Your problem is going to be the seeker - and the only way you're going to get a small radar seeker into an object the size of a theoretical Seabat is with centimetric which means it's not going to be until mid-late war before you can even begin to develop it.
Wire-guided as has been pointed out is pretty much a no go.
Not sure about infrared although I see it took several years for the Sidewinder to get to the point where it could be used. Maybe with an IR designator on the launch vessel you could use it against nearby shipping (or as has been pointed out with a sister vessel that does the target designation).
Wire-guided as has been pointed out is pretty much a no go.
Not sure about infrared although I see it took several years for the Sidewinder to get to the point where it could be used. Maybe with an IR designator on the launch vessel you could use it against nearby shipping (or as has been pointed out with a sister vessel that does the target designation).
That's a thought... how hard would it be to fit an IR designator to the periscope of a sub?
Rather irelevent, since the horizon is so close at periscope depth that you might as well fire torpedos (or throw bricks).
Certainly, if the sub is the vessel firing the missiles. But perhaps they could designate targets for a launch platform further away.
If it's to be active, yes. If it's just a receiver set coupled to a pair of rudders... How big were the receivers for the AI.I sets?ModernKiwi said:
How much of that was because of issues that wouldn't arise in this application? Size is much less problematic; the 'winder's systems needed to fit in a 15cm hole; *Sea Felix, 40cm or bigger, maybe as big as 53cm. The 'winder had to deal with much smaller, dimmer sources, as well as cope with glint & sunlight distraction; this (except sunlight) is far less likely to arise in an antiship missile, since the ship is distinctly hotter (brighter) than anything in the missile's field of view (& you could blinker-off sunlight by a sunshade or limiting the missile's climb beyond a certain angle of attack--which would also help restrict it being distracted by flares heading it skyward).ModernKiwi said:
Not terrible hard... Probably you'd mount a separate illuminator mast, though (same as for radar).Gunnarnz said:
Hitting an inbound tincan with a torpedo, which can't maneuver, is harder than it sounds, especially since the DD can maneuver to avoid; snap-shoot a *Sea Felix at 1000-2000yd, with a closure rate of over 200kt, & a missile that can track on its own...ModernKiwi said:
Actually, if you can put a sub that close, you don't need another ship: just launch from the sub herself & let the target's IR do the heavy lifting.
Besides, as already said, subs probably would be using *Sea Felix only in self-defense anyhow.
Also, "periscope depth" isn't, of necessity, where you'd illuminate from; I can imagine illuminating decks awash (IR mast top about 30' out of water?), or with the 'scope shears just underwater (mast top about 15' out of water?)--provided you're not operating the boat surfaced or dived.
Big enough from recollection that the first of them were mounted in Boston bombers rather than Bolton Paul Definants. And you still have your issue with the very low radar horizon of the launch platform.
I doubt that a passive IR homing system is possible with WW2 tech. At best we are talking an active IR illumination of the target much like the semi-active radar system discussed above and will the same limitations.
With the same 2 nautical miles or less horizon. Nice.
Yes because being on the surface served submarines so well once centimetric radar arrived on escourts. A weapon you have to be surfaced to use (talk of submerged launch is implausible - it took the USN and Red Navy's many years to get this to work) is a suicide weapon for a submarine, especially in an era of escort carrier aircraft and centimetric radar.
That was to also account for the size of the transmitter & aerial, plus the power source for the transmitter. How big was the receiver set alone?ModernKiwi said:
For SAR, yes, & not the option I'd prefer.ModernKiwi said:
No, we're not: Felix, as already linked to upthread, was passive IR.ModernKiwi said:
Did you not read the "not submerged" options? And if the missile only needs terminal guidance from a sub-carried illuminator, 2mi isn't outrageous: you could launch from extreme range in the general direction, & have the homer pick up the signal on final.ModernKiwi said:
Yes, Japan had so many radar-equipped escorts...ModernKiwi said:
Who says it has to be done the same way? IDK why the Germans stopped trials with the Nebelwerfer, but it looked like it was working well enough for it to be at least useful, if not ideal. Also, how deep were the USN ships supposed to fire from? Firing awash, or shallow, is a distinctly different operation...ModernKiwi said:
For the Germans, maybe. I'd suggest a weapon that can be launched from beyond the range surface radar can detect a U-boat is extremely useful--especially if it's killing the radar-equipped escorts.ModernKiwi said:
If it can be fired on a "pop-up" in the direction of a convoy, even attacks under hostile air might be credible. So is firing awash.None of which obviates use by PTs, MGBs, 'vettes, & DDs, nor from shore.
So your answer is that it would be a USN or RN weapon? That makes no sense. By the time such a weapon could be fielded the need for it had ceased. The IJN was at the bottom of the Pacific.
As for Felix, its seeker was intended solely for very large infrared targets - steel mills and the like are mentioned.
If you can't launch from submerged, it's a death trap. If you can, you have no way of guiding it.
As for Felix, its seeker was intended solely for very large infrared targets - steel mills and the like are mentioned.
If you can't launch from submerged, it's a death trap. If you can, you have no way of guiding it.
Not solely. Nor would it be useless outside ships...ModernKiwi said:
If it only appears in 1945, I'd agree. Who says it has to be so late?ModernKiwi said:
Ships at sea are comparatively bright infrared targets... The ocean is cold compared to land.ModernKiwi said:
In 1944, it may be. In 1941 or 1942, from U-boats, not so much. And I continue to ask, how impossible is it to launch from 20 feet: that is, from (roughly) the top of the conning tower, at periscope depth? I'm by no means suggesting an SSBM-style deep launch...ModernKiwi said:
Presuming SAR guidance... And where is it carved in stone you can't run shallow, with a mast extended, to increase the radar horizon?ModernKiwi said:
It would be very useful for shore defense I agree. But the necessary technologies for it to be used from ships/submarines seem to be 10 - 20 years away from being solved.
Because that's when the technologies you are referring to (IR/radar seeker heads/prox fusing etc) all matured.
Not compared to a steel mill with an eight point IR seeker they're not.
See above about maturation of technologies needed.
Presuming SAR guidance... And where is it carved in stone you can't run shallow, with a mast extended, to increase the radar horizon?
Heavy radar head on a 30'+ periscope mast (because you're going to need that kind of height for any real resolution)? Massive radar target for the ASV equiped aircraft overhead. Massive intrusion into the submarine hull. And of course the returns from any but the smoothest of seas are going to bugger up your targetting too.
Could a carrier use sea skimmers instead of torpedo planes? With an aircraft providing the terminal guidance radar beam?
Send out your radar assisted spotter planes (something like a Mosquito) and then turn the carrier and fire your sea skimmer in the right direction. Something like a V-1, but compatible with a steam catapult, and with greater range. Thirty to sixty minutes later it approaches the last known location of the target, and the spotter plane directs it from there.
And yes, I know a Mosquito could simply carry two V-1 warheads instead, and drop them sooner, further, and faster than the above arrangement, but this ain't a bombing topic.
Send out your radar assisted spotter planes (something like a Mosquito) and then turn the carrier and fire your sea skimmer in the right direction. Something like a V-1, but compatible with a steam catapult, and with greater range. Thirty to sixty minutes later it approaches the last known location of the target, and the spotter plane directs it from there.
And yes, I know a Mosquito could simply carry two V-1 warheads instead, and drop them sooner, further, and faster than the above arrangement, but this ain't a bombing topic.
BlondieBC
Banned
I can see that one too. I would be tempted to write the POD so that Germany wanted to get around the limits, so just like it built the quad 11" that can be refitted to dual 15", it builds ships that carry rockets. And makes plans to easily retro fit other ships. So something like, Germany keeps low level rocket work going in the 1920's. When Hitler takes power, he has a weapon system that can be ready in a few years (say 1938 ITTL). Germany built a lot of merchant ships interwar, so perhaps some enterprising patriot builds ships in such a way that cargo holds can be converted into missile launch bay. UK might not even react that much, kind of depends on how the view the new technology.
Or maybe you don't want this path. Have Germany develop them for coastal naval artillery replacement. If the weapon is available for deployment in 1933-1938 for coast batteries, it would be far simpler to get onto ships. And it could in this POD be viewed as a defensive weapon, especially if it has a short range like your propose (8 miles or so initially). With the bugs worked out of this short range land based system, it gives a chance to try to rush into production once the UK enters the war. Maybe by early 1941, we could see them in large numbers on something like an E-boat.
Looking at Felix OTL, it didn't look more than a year, let alone 20.ModernKiwi said:
And that's without changes to encourage development, which I presume here.OTL, which doesn't pertain.ModernKiwi said:
So you disbelieve a ship is ever going to be bright enough with '40s tech? Even at under 10mi? Under 5? The contrast is stark...ModernKiwi said:
How massive, with no need to rotate? With no need to resolve the target? With no more need than to generate a signal at a given frequency? IDK...ModernKiwi said:
Conceded. Problematic for U-boats, & given radar is used.ModernKiwi said:
With a retracted height putting the aerial at the top of the 'scope shears? Not seeing it. Put it this way: USN periscope depth was 60', meaning the 'scopes were about 45' long (about 15' from the top of the shears to eyepiece in conn).ModernKiwi said:
I'm not sure about that, either. Ships are going to produced bright, strong returns...ModernKiwi said:
I should reiterate, since I've been getting distracted: were I a U-boat skipper, I wouldn't want this for a range of 30mi, I'd want it to kill DDs or 'vettes at maybe 2mi. I'd want to put up a radar mast to paint the DD & shoot, then dive & rely on the missile's own *ARM/RWR gear to home on the enemy. (USN PTO, I'd keep the mast up, figuring the hazard from air is much less.)
Which presumes IR homing isn't used to start with...
And firing from 2mi, how damn bright does a ship have to be for IR to see it?The main beneficiary is going to be light forces, not subs, anyhow.
I don't think you need terminal guidance: if you can paint a target, you can hit it with a SAR-homing weapon, & you can get a return an SAR homer could track at more than 5x as far away as you'd get a PPI blip or indication on the A-'scope.ANTIcarrot said:
Which is to say, you could paint missile targets about 300mi away...
IMO, tho, for these really long-range weapons, you'd want radio course updates or something... Why send "spotter aircraft" without weapons? Or, rather, why not simply send bombers with SAR PGMs?I like both of these, & can't decide which I like better.BlondieBC said:
I had in mind something like a ban even on large ships, so no *Tirpitz, but instead, something like Erie & 6" guns as the upper limit--until some smart guy says, "Y'know..."
Getting around the treaty limits should be dead easy: who thought a guided missile-launching ship, of any size, was even possible in 1919?
(Hmmm...maybe Emily Lake did...)I do think "missile bay" is improbable. If these are deck-launched by catapult, a variety of shelter turret arrangement seems likely. If they're folding-wing or small-span, so they can be tube launched, adapting them to existing TT, or developing large-bore TT, makes more sense IMO. A "Sherwood Forrest" arrangement strikes me improbable.
I also think you'd see these as standard aboard AMCs, for self-defense against cruisers or heavies: this makes enounters like Sydney's much more hazardous to the challenger.
Which path is taken (large, shore-launch or small MTB-launch) really depends on decisions hard to foresee. On the face of it, large weapons & shore-launch seem more likely, because the gear is easier to fit in a large weapon; IMO, the homer will impact that a lot. ISTM there might even be SAR & IR varieties both, while the developers try & see which works better & which can be fitted to ships & such sooner.
In our time line it would be 1968 for a viable submerged-launch anti shipping missile system, with the Soviet Charlie class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_class_submarine So rather more than just 10-20 years ahead of its time in technological terms.
Note the size of the missile, and the size of the sub especially compared to WW2 boats. (In other words, you really also need nuclear power as well). Not that many WW2 4K ton subs I can think of - Surcouf?. You could not build it on the normal U-boat slipways anyway, as it's cruiser sized. It is worth about 5 WW2 700 ton U-boats in sheer tonnage alone.
The Soviets also had earlier surface launched systems, both sub and ship launched. The sub-launced Shaddocks needed about 30-45 minutes on the surface to prepare and launch. That is a 1955 technology. The sub is horribly vulnerable to MPA whilst on the surface and preparing to launch!.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-5_Pyatyorka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_class_submarine (Whiskey twin cylinder model)
SS-N-2 STYX is a 1960 technology. Looks like both radar and infra-read homing versions were produced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit
(Styx being the first SSM to sink a warship - Eilat in 1967)
In any case these subs - especially long ranged SSN3 users - usually relied on off board sensors providing the targeting for them, such as Bear-D radar planes and satellites. All technologies well in advance of WW2 (especially data links to pass the target data between platforms)
Germany managed the V-1 doodlebug in WW2. Not viable for anti-shipping purposes even if you converted a heavy cruiser to carry a launch rail and a hangar full of the things. No guidance system, and whenever the Germans did do guided weapons like the Fritz-X the Allies always managed to find a way to jam the guidance. The Germans did not seem to factor in enemy ECM, or perhaps with the technology of the day there was no way round it. if the latter - then such guided weaponry is rather useless, as Fritz-X proved to be after a brief "happy" period before the appropriate jammers were developed.
But a surface launched V-1 with manual radio guidance would be a line of sight weapon with an extremely slow rate of fire. It therefore would be easily countered with a hail of 6 inch shells onto the mother ship - 6 inch shells fly faster and come in batches of 12-15 at about 15 second intervals. The gun is still the naval surface weapon of choice in this era, especially once it gets radar fire control.
So - any thoughts of rockets or missiles for German naval use is rather ASB.
It's best to concentrate on torpedo technology (fusing, homing etc) for the U-boats (as they did OTL) - with the plus factor that torpedoes let water in the bottom of ships, which is a faster way to sink them than letting air in the top (as artillery and missiles tend to).
Therefore - probably a better "what if" is what if the GNAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7es_torpedo was available in 1940/41, rather than 1943. it's achievable tech for the era, so what if there was a breakthrough that allowed an acceleration in the project? - and add in solving their teething problems with the magnetic fuses as well as another divergence from OTL. Effects on the U-boat war if so?
Notice they didn't even start design of the Ametist until the mid-'60s... If missile design is advanced, so is udw-launch.Andy42 said:
Note the 500km range...Andy42 said:
And the 1000kg warhead.IIRC, Shaddock was liquid-fuelled, like most Sov missiles. Nor is it mandatory to adopt Sov prep methods...Andy42 said:
OTL... And I'm not aware of the Sovs being exactly world leaders in electronics.Andy42 said:
Really? Recall even DDs were equipped with aircraft in the '30s. (Not terribly successfully, since the idea was to recover them...which doesn't pertain here.) Note also the range is at least triple the maximum I'm proposing here.Andy42 said:
So nobody should introduce a weapon until it's immune to CM?Andy42 said:
You'll note, if you've read the rest of the thread, this was already rejected as an option?Andy42 said:
When did 6" guns gain a range of 40mi?Andy42 said:
I'll agree, this is interesting. So why don't you start your own thread on it?Andy42 said:
Notice they didn't even start design of the Ametist until the mid-'60s... If missile design is advanced, so is udw-launch.
Note the 500km range...
IIRC, Shaddock was liquid-fuelled, like most Sov missiles. Nor is it mandatory to adopt Sov prep methods...
OTL... And I'm not aware of the Sovs being exactly world leaders in electronics.
Really? Recall even DDs were equipped with aircraft in the '30s. (Not terribly successfully, since the idea was to recover them...which doesn't pertain here.) Note also the range is at least triple the maximum I'm proposing here.
So nobody should introduce a weapon until it's immune to CM?
You'll note, if you've read the rest of the thread, this was already rejected as an option?
When did 6" guns gain a range of 40mi?
I'll agree, this is interesting. So why don't you start your own thread on it?
Charlie 1 used the SSN-7 starbright, which had a maximum range of 80Km or thereabouts. However - Charlie 1 could only self-target those on sonar using the (first?) convergence zone (not a WW2 technology) or direct path sonar or usually, by using the periscope radar. A sub periscope radar is awfully low out of the water and is lucky to have 15Nm LOS range, and WW2 radars did not manage the theoretical LOS ranges due to low power or primitive signal processing.
A Charlie 1 launch was the simulation we took down to the naval expo in Portsmouth back in about 1985 to demonstrate the EW system we were selling (GEC Stanmore, forget the system name). 2 or 3 sweeps from the radar, then 30 seconds later the first of the 8 missiles started to appear at 15 or so second intervals. The simulation used a micro-VAX with all the useless crud stripped out, and still ran at about 1/8 speed. (real thing used an array of 68000s AFAIR). The demo was more to show off the system's UI etc.
I also seem to recall seeing Charlie back in 83 when I was working on airborne sonobouy processors back in 83 or so (AQS 901/2/3) - I think an audio sample reference we used was a charlie, but it may have been a victor. (Or an early NATO nuke boat - we were not supposed to know what it actually was or came from AFAIR).
Charlie was an interesting vessel to play with in the early Harpoon naval wargame - but usually I preferred the 65cm super-sized wake homing torpedoes. (Defending SAM and F-14 shot down the incoming missiles often enough, but were useless on torps!
). the 8 sirens were a useful way to overwhelm an isolated frigate, though.A 6 inch gun is effective to about 20-25 kyds. WW2 surface search radars mounted on larger vessels had ranges of about that level mounted on a cruiser-sized vessel. Nope - twice the range (10-20 Nm, not Kyd) - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_Radar.htm but still close enough for a cruiser force to close quickly to gun range, especially if it was operating at the shorter range band given. (In daylight, you send the planes in to deal with a hypothetical German V-1 Raketny Kreyser)
I might launch a WI thread on early GNAT introduction though - it is a plausible technology that might have been accelerated by a couple of years.
Again, not to get too hung up on subs, I expect this to be a limited usage...Andy42 said:
Andy42 said:
Take away the CIWS & fast CAP for a WW2 convoy, mostly. So I expect they'd be more effective in WW2.If you're firing into a task force, maybe. I'd wonder if the 6" were fast-enough firing to stop a sea-skimming missile; I tend to doubt it, seeing how well Exocet performed. If the missile is more compact, more akin to Ametist (Starbright), I'm wondering about ambushes by PTs &/or DDs (or, in the Med, maybe flak lighters?) In any case, if you've got MTBs or DDs being closed by cruisers, & they've got a 10nm (or greater) lead, I'm thinking that's one hell of a stern chase; with the ability to re-engage outside gun range...Andy42 said:
And before you mention radar gunlaying, recall the mooted missile doesn't need a skin paint strong enough to return a blip, which GL does. (And that's disallowing *ARM & IR-seeking... I continue to think IR is the seeker of choice.)
I see you have.Andy42 said:
Find my comments there; on further consideration, I wonder if the impact isn't bigger. (I didn't mean to sound snarky before...)Looking at Felix OTL, it didn't look more than a year, let alone 20.
Andy's answered the underwater launch item pretty well. Something that everyone could see would be useful for submarines and it still wasn't working until the 1960's.
Ah, so magically fast development of these technologies so that they're available 3-5 years early?
That's what the limitations were quoted for Felix. Keeping in mind that the sea not only provides contrast, it also provides cooling.
No rotating? How are you going to aim it? By turning the submarine?
Possibly. Again it boils down to how large is the radar transmitter.
Pre-doppler radars all had issues with operations in less than perfect weather at sea. All it takes is a sea state 4 or the like and you will have waves big enough to obscure/confuse your targetting.
I should reiterate, since I've been getting distracted: were I a U-boat skipper, I wouldn't want this for a range of 30mi, I'd want it to kill DDs or 'vettes at maybe 2mi. I'd want to put up a radar mast to paint the DD & shoot, then dive & rely on the missile's own *ARM/RWR gear to home on the enemy. (USN PTO, I'd keep the mast up, figuring the hazard from air is much less.)
Which presumes IR homing isn't used to start with...
The main beneficiary is going to be light forces, not subs, anyhow.
I don't think you need terminal guidance: if you can paint a target, you can hit it with a SAR-homing weapon, & you can get a return an SAR homer could track at more than 5x as far away as you'd get a PPI blip or indication on the A-'scope.
Which of course comes back to the improbability of submerged launch in WW2.
Without a demand for it until, what, 1943? When the Germans began to realize just how damn dangerous maritime patrol a/c could be? (AFAIK, nobody in 1918 really got it.)ModernKiwi said:
Nothing magical about it: POD 1919 moves the start date on research up about 10yr (maybe 20).ModernKiwi said:
The contrast against the hot ship is what matters, compared to the lower contrast of (warmer) land.ModernKiwi said:
If necessary. Or use a wide-beam aerial. How wide is the beam fan at 2mi? At 10?ModernKiwi said:
It does. And on how powerful the signal has to be, & how wide a beam is needed. Here's the thing: by 1944, the U.S. had radars fitted into periscopes. The ST heads were on retractable masts (IIRC; useable at about 30' keel depth anyhow). I don't think the problems are as big as you do; I'll admit, they may be bigger than I realize.ModernKiwi said:
It's still gonna be better than the other options ISTM.ModernKiwi said:
If it's so improbable, how did the Germans manage it with their trial rockets? (Yes, IDK why they stopped. Lack of a guidance system certainly didn't help.)ModernKiwi said:
And harping on subs again... I like the idea of it being available for subs, but I don't demand it.