RRC Rocketry Discussion

[Desertfox]

Yup, they look like this:
http://mm04.nasaimages.org/MediaManager/srvr?mediafile=/Size4/nasaNAS-9-NA/64021/6903517.jpg&userid=1&username=admin&resolution=4&servertype=JVA&cid=9&iid=nasaNAS&vcid=NA&usergroup=Marshall_-_nasa-9-Admin&profileid=41
And you can count the total number available on one hand. They are very very experimental, but have actually been used in action.

[ctwaterman]

So you stole just about every nations famous scientist....?????? 
I would love to see a Black bowder powered Bazooka :o

Especially without an effective electric Ignition trigger.

Light fuze and stand their waiting for rocket to fire..... :o >:( :P

[Desertfox]

Only Tesla is a real life character. Dr Who should be added to the list, while it's too early for Dr Strangelove...

Goddard demonstarted a working bazooka in 1918. Don't know exacly how he did it, but it apparently worked. You don't have to use black powder.

[Blooded]

Hello,

If government money and scientists are researching these items, I hope that money is being removed from your research funds, with the secret modifiers so applied, and of course Mod approval (If they are to have an impact on the game- if it just for storylines I don't mind).

[Walter]

Dr Who should be added to the list

Which one? Or do you plan to use all of them? :)

[TexanCowboy]

The UNK has Goddard, unless you want to change somethuing up.

[The Bushranger]

Dr Who should be added to the list

Which one? Or do you plan to use all of them? :)

All Teeth and Curls, of course. ;)

[Borys]

Ahoj!
When the British bombarded the PORT of Calais during the Napoleonic Wars, they missed. They did hit the town, though ...
This illustrates the accuracy of the rockets in this period quite well.
Borys

[Walter]

Well, we are 100 years later than the Napoleonic wars... though with a Battleship called "Napoleon the Great", the Navalism French might think differently. :D

[ctwaterman]

Yes we are 100 years latter and we are begining to see new designs and methods of propulsion over that of Black Powder.  However terms like thrust vectoring and Solid fuel propellents are still a dream.  But we can still see the use of Rockets in "By The Rockets Red Glare" should sound familiar from the War of 1812 and their use in the Crimeian war.


However the experiments with rockets now will have a pay off in about 10 to 15 years.   Where you end up with a rocket like the Kytushia.

[Borys]

Katyusha.
This is diminutive of Catherina
Yekatsyerina => Katryusha => Katyusha

[Valles]

Muahahahahaha.

[hooper82]

Arguments against rocketry in the 1920's
* Warhead size.  I've done no calculations, but for anything sort of naval engagement rockets should be mostly ignored by heavy units.  The Iowa class Battleship was considered immune to 1980's sea skimming guided missiles due to its armor.  What chance do 1920 style rockets have?  Air to Surface rockets used during WW2 where considered to have the equivalent punch to a 5 inch shell.  While rockets may pose a danger v's unarmored and smaller units (destroyers and perhaps light cruisers), what are the chances of being hit by one?  Which brings me on to my next point...
* Accuracy.  Less than 2% of air launched rockets hit their targets in ww2.  One may argue that surface launched weapons have a much more stable platform.  I would argue that there where 20 years in which to develop more accurate rockets, more consistent propellant, and machining an airframe with tighter tolerances.
Consider Logi's (not to pick on you mate) Virtical Launch System (VLS), as the rocket transitions from vertical to horizontal flight, a single degree of inaccuracy in that transition (say from 90 degrees from the vertical to 91) will result in a 1000 foot drop for every 9000 feet it travels forward.  How is such a transition timed?  WW2 large AA batteries tried using timed shells, so they would explode at the hight of the bombers they where trying to shoot down...it was found very ineffective.  In fact, many modern scholar suggest it would have been better to shoot impact fused projectiles in the AA roll instead of timed (until the introduction of VT (proximity) fuses).  This vertical-to-horizontal transition is compounded by windage, inconsistent burn times (due to inconsistant rocket fuel), etc.
* Cost v's Result.  It is very hard to argue that rocketry is any more effective than gunnery.  Consider its uses in WW2.  Air Launched Rockets where a 5 inch gun was unable to be carried and its recoil would have riped the aircraft in twain.  Barrage Fire, used for pre-assult landings in the pacific (off Landing Ships) where inaccuracy's ment little, and the weight of fire in a short time frame was desirable (similar to the Soviet/German rocket systems of the European war).  Even then they never replaced traditional gunfire, only suplimented it.  Infact, the USN's new DD(X)++ class destroyers are being built with 2x6inch guns to provide the USN with a decent shore bombardment platform.

++ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD(X)

Arguments for Rocketry in the 1920's
* Simplicity.  Simple Black Powder Rockets are easy to build, provide no great technical challanges, and could be considered a simple, yet effective weapon...in the right place -
 - Air Launched Rockets, used in WW1 v's balloons could be adapted to air-to-surface duties (even with that low accuracy rate) without considerable technical difficulty.
 - Barrage Weapons, used for pre-assault bombardments (think "Shock and Awe").  Consider a relativly light vessel (3000t merchantmen) festooned with rocket launchers and used to bombard a shore before landing troops... horribly vulnerable to counter battery fire (considering rockets short range, and explosive nature), but a cheap shore bombardment system.  This could be considerably attractive to small nations (such as Indochina) to support shore landings when larger weapons platforms are unavailable.
* They are fricken cool!


I don't know how rockets would effect game mechanics (little if any effect I would imagine), but they are very cool, and I already can't wait to read about rocket barrages splashing down amongst troops.

Yes, I was bored at work.

[Logi]

Yes you have it down quite accuratly:

My point in the VLS systems is to saturate a shore quickly and or course, scare the defenders. They are not ment to be used in naval battles as the accuracy and explosive power of the rockets will make them... well useless.

All my rockets are impact-detonated - (well except for the shrapnel rocket) I'm not trying to pierce armor, but kill the infantry. I'm not shooting airplanes with it either. So I probably won't be using timed fuses at all.


The rockets will be used in places where conventional guns can not go. That is not to say they will not be sued in other place. No! They will always be in the RRC army used in any terrain and at any front. Its just that sometimes you can't carry artillery up a hill so you get the rocket crates. So yes, I AM pursuing a policy of mixed fire support (both gunnery and rocketry).

At the VLS rocket. The transition is not timed, it occurs naturally because of the way the rocket is made. When you offset the center of gravity, add or remove fins or move them, you can actually reproduce this effect IRL. The point was that it turns naturally in flight, otherwise there would be no point. I could make a rocket box tilt at 5 degrees and chuck it as a mortar. I don't NEED it to turn in flight, it just does by itself.

The greatness reason why I opted to research this field is primarily because it is easy and cheap to produce. I can produce it in mass quantities for a very economical price.

And yes they are cool ;D

[ctwaterman]

Hmmm ...

WWII -  At the End of WWII the US was begining to Produce something humorously called the Tiny Tim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(rocket)

As you can See Tiny Tim was anything but Tiny... with a 68Kg 150Lb warhead it was basicaly a Rocket with a 500 LB Semi Armor Piercing Bomb as a warhead.

The Problem Ive been having with the Rockets is to achieve the range of Several Kilometers lets say 3 Km with even a 10Lb HE Warhead will require a rocket larger then a 10Lb HE Shell and the Powder bag needed to fire it.... The Savings is all in the wieght of the Gun.

As for taking the rockets places the gun cant go I can show you pictures of the Italians hauling Guns up the sides of the Alps using block and tackle.   And the gun unlike the Rocket isnt fragile.

But if your intention is to utilize the rocket as a suplemental weapon system that is situationaly valuable then go for it.... ;)

I can think of one use the Empire can think of for them already and where they are used even today.  Signal Rockets on ships and to fire lines to haul cables from one ship to another.