Army mortars v screw galleys

PalmerSperry wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:The hedgehog was used for depth charge distribution against a submarine that wasn't localized beyond over-there-ish - you got "accuracy" under those conditions just by hosing down an area with pain. Surface fighting wouldn't have that kind of need except in case of fighting in the dark or thick fog, but the sub could be put out of action or driven off by underwater detonations that may not do much good against a ship when they go off in air.

Whilst Hedgehog was an anti-submarine weapon it didn't fire depth charges, the warheads where impact fused so you either hit the submarine and got a bang or missed and got nothing ... There was thus no chance of any near-miss damage.

The flip side of that is that if you missed you didn't have extraneous explosions screwing up your sonar; so you had a better chance to keep the sub in your sights for a second attack.

The later heavier depth charge projectors did let you keep the sub in front of you, and hence in your sonar sights. But the explosions would temporarily scramble things enough that your sonar was effectively blinded. A quick sub could try to dart clear in the confusion. (Would have been a much bigger problem if the Germans had gotten their type XXI boats into widespread service)

And of course with hedgehog if you did get a bang then you'd knew you'd hit something, and could react appropriately as well.

So there are tradeoffs to each type of system.

Hi Don,

I thought I'd posted this last week, but I'll try to remember everything.

Definitely open tubes for the rockets.

Rockets don't work very well with a closed rear end of the tube [all sorts of asymmetric effects], indeed while Newton's third law seems to point directly at rockets and recoiless artillery, 'getting it right' took more than a couple centuries for the latter.

For example, the designers of the "Hajile" rocket assisted landing system in the Admiralty's WW2 DMWD didn't figure out that putting the retro rockets on top of the payload rather than under it provided the same braking power without being affected by the vagaries of whatever it landed on, be it rock or soft earth, that could reflect the thrust and pitch the platform back up or even flip it upside down because some part of the surface was harder or softer than the rest.

The designers may have been influenced by all the period science fiction pictures including the Flash Gordon movies, that showed the rockets on the bottom of the spaceships, because the artists were just using common sense after all.

You can see 'Hajile' working quite well in the soviet propaganda films of their airborne troops from the 1960's with such vehicles as the ASU-57 and BMD in the 1970's, but you probably know now where they got the idea from.

Launching ICBM's from non-vented concrete tubes in the ground was a real pain until they found various ways around the problem.

A thousand yard direct range is about the maximum to be expected for rockets given Safehold's current tech, even from an anchored ship [which is what the original problem was IIRC], with a high RoF needed to generate a good hit probability in the limited time.

Switching out some of the muzzle loaders for breechloaders gets into the 'new wine in old bottles' quandary, but despite the probable current production limits, might still be the simplest solution.

Another might be to have galleons carry a steam launch or two replacing half of the ships boats, and armed with a light short 'pedestal mounted' 4" gun, which being faster than the screw galleys, could keep them at bay when it wasn't punching their hulls full of holes, besides neutralizing them by destroying their rudders etc.

I find it very interesting that the HMS Warrior, very similar to the ICN's HMS Dreadnought, also had an unprotected rudder etc.

One wonders if HFQ's naval battle was based on some of RFC's war-gaming experience, or just applying some of it to the book's unique situation.

If the 6" breech loaders have a RoF of 12-15 seconds, several could indeed give the screw galleys a very hard time.

L


[quote="n7axw"][quote="lyonheart"]Hi Don,

Isn't thread drift fascinating if not fun?

Regarding defending galleons at anchor; the screw galleys have a maximum speed of 8 knots for up to 40 minutes, a velocity of 11.7333 feet per second or some 255 seconds to cover the last 1000 yards to the ship although a target ~56-60 mils wide at 1000 yards ought to be easy to hit with its 8-10" gun, so shooting back may be moot.

There could be a COW 37mm type gun [1.5 lb shot] with a 5 round clip [RoF 90 RPM] as mounted on some WWI airplanes although 1-3 pounders seem far too light to be effective; ore a recoiless Davis gun in 1.57"/2lb, 2.45"/6lb, 3"/12lb sizes, the latter used by the USN for ASW in WWI, or a tube type rocket launcher with a couple of dedicated loaders firing from the ship's fighting tops.

At anchor, the sails are furled so they're not in the way, and in action fighting sail is out of the way of the lower 'fighting top, while the topmost has no such restrictions in the first place of course.

The Davis recoiless gun worked by firing a weight equal to the shell in the opposite direction made up of lead shot and grease, later it was redesigned so the steel case was ejected rearward as well as clearing the breach for the next round.

I suspect the upper fighting top could have 4 mounts for a pair of Davis guns or rocket tube launchers while the lower could have 6 or 8 mounts for 3-4.

Because the angle to the screw galley might be too acute, the shell might require a spike to keep it from ricocheting off the deck, even if that complicates loading.

L

[/quote]

Hi Lyonheart,

Yep. It is fascinating, although this thread really hasn't drifted very far.

Maybe your idea works, although I've sort of come to think that the best defense might be waving a white flag...

With the rockets in tubes, I take it that one end is closed to prevent the thrust from torching anything in its rear?? Or perhaps to aim??

What you would get by putting the stuff in the tops to provide angle over the front castle of the screw galley?

Of course that only works as long as you are at anchor. In the event of a situation where the galleons are trying to get away, full sail would be set. I'm thinking of Abhaht's ssquadron here in the narrows.

A couple more thoughts come to mind. First, changing out some of those thirty pounders on the galleon for the same guns that a Rottweiler has would have to be a very unpleasant experience for the galleys. Given size and weight, you'd probably have to give up two old style cannon for each rifled cannon you gained. But I bet the exchange would be worthwhile. And a stern chaser could give a pursuing galley a very long day.

The other thought that comes to mind is that the screw galleys are a limited threat. They were able to operate as they did in an enclosed bay under conditions so calm that the galleons were having difficulty making way. Under normal blue water conditions, the galleys can't successfully operate and are thus not a threat.

It would be interesting to hear what the rest of you guys think of putting those wire wound rifled cannon on the older style war galleons, though. Maybe 2 or perhaps 4 on each side with at least 1 stern chaser... If it can be done, it's obviously worthwhile, but is it doable?

Don

-[/quote]

lyonheart wrote:A thousand yard direct range is about the maximum to be expected for rockets given Safehold's current tech, even from an anchored ship [which is what the original problem was IIRC], with a high RoF needed to generate a good hit probability in the limited time.

The demonstration of the COGA rockets was at 1000 yards. The effective range was also stated at 800 to over 4000 yards.

One has to keep in mind that these are not man portable rockets and nor are they precision weapons. They are mounted on carts, so should be about 6 to 8 feet long. They are also intended to be used as area of affect weapons. You fire many of them to completely obliterate an area that is likely at least 100 square feet in size.

A Charisian rocket would be considerably smaller and would have sufficiently good quality control to make it much more accurate. whether it would be accurate enought to be effective as a single shoulder fired rocket is unknown at this point.

Easternmystic wrote:A Charisian rocket would be considerably smaller and would have sufficiently good quality control to make it much more accurate. whether it would be accurate enought to be effective as a single shoulder fired rocket is unknown at this point.

Modern rockets aren't accurate, the Charisian ones certainly won't be. They'll be able to hit a smaller area from a longer range but they're still area bombardment weapons. The closest thing we have to a direct-fire rocket weapon is the RPG--and that's awfully short ranged.

Loren Pechtel wrote:

Easternmystic wrote:A Charisian rocket would be considerably smaller and would have sufficiently good quality control to make it much more accurate. whether it would be accurate enought to be effective as a single shoulder fired rocket is unknown at this point.

Modern rockets aren't accurate, the Charisian ones certainly won't be. They'll be able to hit a smaller area from a longer range but they're still area bombardment weapons. The closest thing we have to a direct-fire rocket weapon is the RPG--and that's awfully short ranged.

There is another thread about Nahrman's brainstorm which apparently has to do with targeting. Admitting in advance that I haven't the foggiest on this one, I find myself wondering if this is something that could have to do with rockets...

Don

-

n7axw wrote:
There is another thread about Nahrman's brainstorm which apparently has to do with targeting. Admitting in advance that I haven't the foggiest on this one, I find myself wondering if this is something that could have to do with rockets...

Don

-

It's heard to believe. Rocket in accuracy isn't something you can fix with targeting improvement, not until you can get over the problem of irregular burning of fuel and - especially - the messy application of thrust outward. It's only after you work through all that - which is going to mean advances in machining, measurement, and production - that aiming it any better will have a chance to improve accuracy significantly.

I think it's more likely to follow the gist of that thread and have to do with getting ballistic projectiles of various sorts on targets by means of better field calculators and mapping data.

Mind you, I admit I have only the foggiest idea myself.

Loren Pechtel wrote:

Easternmystic wrote:A Charisian rocket would be considerably smaller and would have sufficiently good quality control to make it much more accurate. whether it would be accurate enought to be effective as a single shoulder fired rocket is unknown at this point.

Modern rockets aren't accurate, the Charisian ones certainly won't be. They'll be able to hit a smaller area from a longer range but they're still area bombardment weapons. The closest thing we have to a direct-fire rocket weapon is the RPG--and that's awfully short ranged.

You do realize that you have just refuted your own argument in three sentences. A RPG is not an are bombardment weapon, it is still a rocket.

Accuracy is not a matter of can't hit the broadside of a barn - can shoot the hair off of a gnat's posterior situation. You may have noticed I attached adjectives to the word accurate. You might want to look up the effect adjectives have on sentences in which they are used.

The COGA is has black powder to use as the fuel for their rockets. COGA black powder has always been less uniform in performance than Charisian black powder. The COGA also cannot match Charisian manufacturing tolerances. Charis is also in the process of converting to smokeless powder.

Once Charis has smokeless powder up to a high enough level, they will have the capability of producing a shoulder fired rocket that does not require mass bombardment tactics to be effective. Whether they have the strategic or tactical need for such a weapon is a different argument.

Easternmystic wrote:You do realize that you have just refuted your own argument in three sentences. A RPG is not an are bombardment weapon, it is still a rocket.

Yeah--but very short ranged so the drift isn't a big deal. Modern ones have a maximum effective range of 200m--they'll fly farther but actually hitting your target is another matter.

Once Charis has smokeless powder up to a high enough level, they will have the capability of producing a shoulder fired rocket that does not require mass bombardment tactics to be effective. Whether they have the strategic or tactical need for such a weapon is a different argument.

They already have shoot-through rifle grenades, why would they need an infantry rocket? Infantry rockets are for punching through armor and require shaped charge warheads. That requires high explosives and a complex impact fusing system--and they can't make them for their shells, why should we think they can make a far more complex system for a rocket?

And when are they shooting at at armor anyway? The only armored targets are at sea at well beyond RPG range.

Loren Pechtel wrote:

Easternmystic wrote:You do realize that you have just refuted your own argument in three sentences. A RPG is not an are bombardment weapon, it is still a rocket.

Yeah--but very short ranged so the drift isn't a big deal. Modern ones have a maximum effective range of 200m--they'll fly farther but actually hitting your target is another matter.

Once Charis has smokeless powder up to a high enough level, they will have the capability of producing a shoulder fired rocket that does not require mass bombardment tactics to be effective. Whether they have the strategic or tactical need for such a weapon is a different argument.

They already have shoot-through rifle grenades, why would they need an infantry rocket? Infantry rockets are for punching through armor and require shaped charge warheads. That requires high explosives and a complex impact fusing system--and they can't make them for their shells, why should we think they can make a far more complex system for a rocket?

And when are they shooting at at armor anyway? The only armored targets are at sea at well beyond RPG range.

Most modern rocket launchers are used in reducing strong points and bunker busting not anti-armor work.

Lots of soldiers still using personal armor, of course. But no APCs yet so really no other armor to penetrate.

Don

-