Many years ago I worked with a man who had been an RAF armourer immediately after WWII, and he told me that instead of an explosive warhead the rockets often had a concrete warhead because it was almost as destructive but vastly cheaper - When a 60lb lump of concrete arrives at several hundred mph it's going to make a mess of anything it hits.
They used wooden ones for Tanks Two wooden ones hit the outside Knock Knock so the tank commander opened the hatch the third was real thing and blew the tank
Andre Williams. I think that you will find that they were the equivalent of a broadside from a battle ship, which is why they were good tank busters.....
At the beginning of the Korean war June-July-August 1950, to stop the NK tanks they used the rocket-firing P 51 Mustang, which were very good, but not as sturdy to ground fire as the P 47 Thunderbolt or the Typhoon. The 2 latter would have been much welcome in Korea at the time.
I've watched scorers of rocket attack vids, and never do the rockets hit the target. I wd say they're almost useless. Why ? 1. They had NO aiming mechanism (pilot aimed his plane at the target & fired). 2. The rockets were completely unguided. 3. The rockets were not precision engineered - two fired from the same static laauncher wd not hit in the same place. There are plenty of videos of rockets being fired at huge targets like SHIPS and still missing. It's only very very recently that rockets fired from a plane can hit a target.
the fire power of 8 of those 60lb rockets was almost the same as a broadside of a 6" light cruiser they just had to get close enough to wreck stuff no need of a direct hit
Even if the rockets didn't get a direct hit, the scores of abandoned vehicles and tanks found by the allies after rocket strikes and other strike runs showed the effect on troop morale was devastating. Being constantly harassed from the air and single planes having the same instant suppression effect as an artillery bombardment; even without the rockets many of the attack planes carried several 20mm cannons or .50 cal machineguns, which tend to tear up lightly armoured vehicles, not to mention their effect on a person. Getting the definite kill is not the only way to win a battle, simply convincing your enemy that to battle further on is pointless is also effective.
@@captmoha3787 Yes at Falaise the Typhoon was instrumental in destroying an Army. The USAAF was conspicuous by its absence. In fact the USAAF was absent at The Battle of Hurtgen Forest Why ? I have no idea
@@justinhealey2408 Just a typo. 4:38 there’s a cameraman with a Eyemo with a spider turret. Not typical for AFPU, so more likely that this is a scene near Carpiquet as filmed by the CFPU.
Many years ago I worked with a man who had been an RAF armourer immediately after WWII, and he told me that instead of an explosive warhead the rockets often had a concrete warhead because it was almost as destructive but vastly cheaper - When a 60lb lump of concrete arrives at several hundred mph it's going to make a mess of anything it hits.
Neverheard that..cool
They used wooden ones for Tanks Two wooden ones hit the outside Knock Knock so the tank commander opened the hatch the third was real thing and blew the tank
That is another good one .......THANK you for the post
Rockets were notoriously inaccurate.
Aitape. Pronounced "Eye-Tah-Pee", not "Eye-tappy". Close to the 1998 tsunami site of Sissano lagoon.
Tank busters of there time my first airfix model followed the hurricane never got the publicity they deserved
From what I understand these so early Rockets were accurate impact the hell of a punch, you could severely damage a cruiser or Destroyer with one hit
Andre Williams. I think that you will find that they were the equivalent of a broadside from a battle ship, which is why they were good tank busters.....
Andre Williams the 60 lb warheads were equivalent to the shells of a cruiser. Eight of them would equate to a full broadside.
@@groupcaptainbonzo 4.5 inch Naval shell weighs 56 lb
Rockets are scary.Their unpredictability makes them more so.At least with a bomb or bullets you have an idea where they’re going to go.
At the beginning of the Korean war June-July-August 1950, to stop the NK tanks they used the rocket-firing P 51 Mustang, which were very good, but not as sturdy to ground fire as the P 47 Thunderbolt or the Typhoon. The 2 latter would have been much welcome in Korea at the time.
What language is the subtitles of the 1st few seconds of the vid? Looks like Hebrew or Middle Eastern.
6.19 there is a hole in the gun barrel. Such a gun cannot fire, because the barrel will burst after firing
2.23..... good shooting
Soaringtractor is a troll
Siwek Kazimierz Mustang III RX 878 Pilot Oficer 315 RAF. Google.
The movie is very beautiful, but the logo is too much and it is impossible to see it, to change that.
Why put an enlarged logo over the screen? Why not just put it right in the centre of the screen and obscure the whole film!
They are a fan with cold that's all. NO POWER FROM THE MAINS. YOU COULD BUILD ONE FOR 10 DOLLAR'S.
I've watched scorers of rocket attack vids, and never do the rockets hit the target. I wd say they're almost useless. Why ? 1. They had NO aiming mechanism (pilot aimed his plane at the target & fired). 2. The rockets were completely unguided. 3. The rockets were not precision engineered - two fired from the same static laauncher wd not hit in the same place. There are plenty of videos of rockets being fired at huge targets like SHIPS and still missing. It's only very very recently that rockets fired from a plane can hit a target.
I think they were going with the 'throw enough shit and some of it'll stick' approach.
Air fired rockets were first used to shoot down observation balloons during WW I.
the fire power of 8 of those 60lb rockets was almost the same as a broadside of a 6" light cruiser they just had to get close enough to wreck stuff no need of a direct hit
Even if the rockets didn't get a direct hit, the scores of abandoned vehicles and tanks found by the allies after rocket strikes and other strike runs showed the effect on troop morale was devastating. Being constantly harassed from the air and single planes having the same instant suppression effect as an artillery bombardment; even without the rockets many of the attack planes carried several 20mm cannons or .50 cal machineguns, which tend to tear up lightly armoured vehicles, not to mention their effect on a person. Getting the definite kill is not the only way to win a battle, simply convincing your enemy that to battle further on is pointless is also effective.
@@captmoha3787 Yes at Falaise the Typhoon was instrumental in destroying an Army. The USAAF was conspicuous by its absence. In fact the USAAF was absent at The Battle of Hurtgen Forest Why ? I have no idea
4:63 Cameraman
I must b gettin old coz i looked for 4:63..? Mayb u mean 4:53? Or ur trollin?
@@justinhealey2408 Just a typo. 4:38 there’s a cameraman with a Eyemo with a spider turret. Not typical for AFPU, so more likely that this is a scene near Carpiquet as filmed by the CFPU.
@@benjaminmoogk3531 thank you..way to have an eye for detail👍
/