View Full Version : Rockets CAN kill tanks after all

12-24-2004, 08:21 PM
I have read many accounts regarding Brit RPs, Soviet RS-##, and US M-8s, which state that they are more accurate than level bombing, maybe able to hit something large like a fuel truck or a train, but unlikely to score a direct hit on a tank. The ballistics of rockets in IL2 are simplified (like a lot of other things) and exaggerate the accuracy of rockets. However, I have found an account of p-51 Jabos killing a Tiger with its first shot during the battle of Struth, Apr 7 1945.


By this time in the war, I assume the rocket was an HVAR, the tank was a relatively large target (a tiger) and not concealed, and there was no AAA in the area. Is it possible that the HVAR, unlike the other earlier rockets, actually WAS accurate enough to be a deadly antitank weapon? Was this just a perfect situation for a hit? Was the pilot just plain lucky? Or is this account a fabrication? Any comments?

12-24-2004, 08:32 PM
i think they where all pretty bad... unguided are still arent that good from what i know..

tiffies would often fire them all at once, or pairs...

12-24-2004, 08:50 PM
ROFL-132 to the rescue!

12-24-2004, 10:25 PM
Nowadays, computer does all the aiming, and they're much faster, and fired in greater Numbers. 2.75 Hydra Rockets (A-10A, helis among others) have either 7 or 19 rockets in a pod. Completely ineffective against tanks. 5in Zunis come in 4 rockets per pod. Dont know how they do against tanks. Heard they were pretty nasty in 'nam

In Lomac, on the Russian Side, I use the S-25 rockets a bunch, and two of those sends a Cruiser to the bottom. It's pretty easy to hit things with 'em. They'll take out 2-3 tanks if you aim 'em right.

12-24-2004, 11:33 PM
Olegs view of RS-xx rockets:

(Q): Shouldn€t those RS rockets have more deviation than present now in IL2?
(A): The was even special order in winter 1941/42 that to escape the dispersion of rockets.
If the disperson was like you said, then how the pilots were able to hit the planes? I don't speak about ground attack, I speak about use of Rockets by Russian pilots in aerial battles. There is a lot of recals of pilots, even Pokryshkin writes how was solved dispersion problem in his squad.... (see the posts of others here in this topic that re-post my answer in the past)
I know about disperson values of real RS82/132, Panzer Blitz I and II, RM4 rockets. Same for American Rockets that has really big dispersion.
From the distance of 300-400 m they all had almost no dispersion.
If we'll make like described in some early tests of 38 and 39 (that authors like to use, and don't take in account how it was solved historically), that was done for solution of this porblem in winter 1941, then we should think that this weapon is totally uneffective... And then we'll need to think why only RS82 were produced in millions amount... And why for Il-2 it is considered the most effective against tanks and armored vehicles...(after ptabs)

(Q): I€ve got russian materials that characterizes RS 82/132 rockets as having deficient efficency against small targets because of a huge dispersion of shells, therefore resulting in bad probability of the target hit. But in IL-2 game we have non-deviant RSs?
(A): And wahtr is wrong with our modeling?
1st of all you got the read of book that calculate statistic of how much was spent the rockets for a single targed for a year. It is known. And it isn't right statistic if to speak about experience of pilots year per year.
Also there are not any count of BRS type of rocets (armor penerating) that was able to damage any of tank.
Also in this book is present a lot of contradictions comparing to real pilots recals.
Dispersion of rockets phenoment was solved in 1942 by simple way. It is know fact that ground crew usually didnt think about quality of stabilizers of the rockets and simply damage them - simply curve them without undertanding that they should keep it ideal.
In 1942 all rockets that had aerodynamics stabilizers were equied with special wooden package that to keep stabilizers in good conditions in any kind of transport and by ground crew before they are installed on the aircraft.
The Pokryshkin itself made an order in his regiment (he liked rockets very much) about careful use of rockets on the ground that to do not damage stabilizers.
So.... you offer us to model curved stabilizers by the women ground crew? I'm serious. Its not a joke.
In Il-2 rockets has dispersion like it is in tests of weapon department of NII VVS.
The effectivenes of RS82:
Yes, they can't penertate most of middle and heavy tanks of the second half of the war. But they can damahge wheels, top of the engine, tracks, etc
The explosion of RS-132 under 3-tons truck make this truck flying/jumping on up to 20 m altitude... That is also from a test and recals of IL-2 pilots. However at the moment we can't model such thing....
In Reality RS-82 had a lot of mdification (Not only BRS type) with different warheads. from 1942 they had thermite warhead more often that cause great damages.
So all things has realtive numbers.
One more sample.
The pilots of 1941 year that recieved RS rockets for use was firing then like they drop a bomb. The they were saying that it is absolutely ineffective weapon... Only when manufacture workers were there that to explain that they are doing something wrong change the situation....
That also shows how was stupid the edicution of middle soviet pilots at 1941...
Statistic that mean show excatly the same samples counted.

(Q): I saw on the web for the Lavochkin La-7 the posibility of carrying rockets?
(A): Frtom 1942 year was special order to do not installl amymore rockets on the fighters, becasue of big speed reducing. Not all pilots where happy with it however becasue some pilots was very experienced to use then agains enemy planes.
But order is order amd it happened.
So the info isn't correct on that site.
Probably La-7 was able to carry rockets, but I think it didn't going ib to serieal instalations or field pack modes.
I know no one reference or photo for they La-5-La-7 with rockets.

I would also add that any AH-64 or A-10 or Su-25 pilot who makes a habit of launching rockets only at around 300-400m is going to have a very short career. Over the ranges that they were fired in WW2 - accurate enough. Trouble would be more to do with holding your nerve long enough to aim and fire them at a target, low alt, against camouflaged targets, with double digit numbers of small AA firing at you.

LW continued to use them as area effect and standoff range weapons against bombers too.

12-25-2004, 11:06 AM
yes in raf strict rules about how low they could fire rockets (they dived).

in a book i read there was new pilot, said they didnt push attack that much, and flak was light. all other pilots where http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.

few missions later guy pancaked it into a chimney stack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif. he had gone too deep.

author also spoke of seeing rocket/cannon fire whizz by from where someone had lost there nerve behind him

12-25-2004, 12:39 PM
Rockets are by far my favorite anti-tank weapon. They aren't uber, or at least the rockets on the P47 aren't. I went jaboing against a formation of Elefant self propelled artillery pieces and those things seem to be quite resistant to rockets. You need to make a pretty much spot on shots to knock em out. Other tanks go up in flames more easily.