Quote:
|
Originally Posted by malladyne
It is fatuous to dismiss the claim that the Typhoon's rockets were significantly less effective than the broadside of a cruiser ( a comparison frequently made ).
|
In terms of HE delivered, they were quite close. The 60 lb warhead of a 3 inch RP contained 14 lb of HE, which was more-or-less the same as a 6 inch HE shell. So a full load of eight RPs delivered much the same quantity of HE as one broadside from a typical 1930s RN 8-gun cruiser (of course, many RN 6 inch gun cruisers had 12 guns, and USN ones up to 15...).
However, it isn't as simple as that, of course. The much heavier naval shells would have produced a much greater quantity of high-velocity steel fragments when they detonated - but the downside is that they often didn't detonate until they had buried themselves in the ground, as naval shells were generally fuzed to detonate after they had penetrated a ship.
More generally, naval gunfire support is instantly available regardless of day, night or bad weather, and can keep up a relentless pounding - but only within gun range, and they rely on others to spot their targets for them. Each (planes and gunfire) has its place and can deliver effects which the other can't.
Quote:
|
...rocket equipped aircraft be it Typhoon or Thunderbolt, Lightning or Mustang could roam at will over a battlefield and it is that very mobility that makes rocket equipped planes the superlative tank killers/pillbox smashers/bridge busters that they were.
|
RPs weren't superlative tank killers because they were too inaccurate. The average miss distance in 1944 was about 60 yards, with the hit probability of a single RP against a tank being around 5% in ideal training conditions and more like 0.5% (official British estimate) in combat. That meant they had to fire 200 RPs for every tank kill.
Quote:
|
Also, somewhere else in this thread a claim is made that the Allied fighters were insufficiently gunned for the Normandy campaign !!!! Is not a snootfull of m.g.'s and cannon in the nose of a lightning not enough guns for you ? let alone the 4 20.MM quick firing cannon of the Tempest and Typhoon and Spitfire variants !!!
|
They were more than adequate against soft-skinned or lightly-armoured targets, as has been said, but were incapable of damaging tanks, except occasionally by chance. Large-calibre high-velocity cannon were needed for that, and neither the RAF nor the USAAF had planes in Europe equipped with these.
To sum up, the fighter-bombers were very effective in disrupting German operations due their ability to knock out the supply trains (on rail and road) on which the Panzer Divisions depended, and they also scared the daylights out of tank crews (especially inexperienced ones) but they didn't kill many tanks.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum