WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
So I know I can have Avrit Singhram do it in the WW Thailand sim.

Well, I've already nabbed most of Avro Canada's historical design staff, so I guess I can start up some Avro Arrows in a year or two...

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Item 1.

Quoted

Recall that Robert Goddard circa 1918 started experimenting with this when he first started working on an RPG for Pershing's Army as a trench and machine gun nest clearing weapon.

Interesting, but fairly irrelevant.

Quoted

As are the references to other rockets and rocketeers and if it can or can not be done. Great, Goddard demonstrated it on a practice range. Proof of concept, not proof of a practical weapon the Army was on the verge of adopting when the war ended.

Quoted

The question is when was it in-service.
Not dreamed up, or prototyped, but developed and accepted for use. When and What army adopted an RPG/Rocket launcher/ type device as standard issue?

Quoted

It is not absolute, there is room for everyone to discuss things. I imagine if the USMC had asked for funding in the mid30s and was denied, that would be a good basis. Did an invasion/fire/flood/death/fiscal emergency cut short the design evolution to allow a substantive argument that it would have been finalized and adopted in this time frame?

Quoted

Item 2
My reference to the possibility of a shaped charge was simply because your story had folks saying something like 'this will take out any tank'.

Quoted

That could be over-enthusiasm or an indication that the HE round was HEAT or HESH. Apparently HE.

Quoted

Item 3

Quoted

The BAM RPG-1 has been fired successfully in action and is established.

Which is the problem with introducing such things in such a manner.

Quoted

However, it is only established to you. SIAM is yours, you can choose that route. There are other pieces of military equipment out there which folks have pushed through despite disagreement and may/may not be accepted outside their nation(1).

Quoted

Item 4.
I am still wondering why you appear to have chosen to go for the stats of the 1945 M9A1 bazooka, albeit with a substantially larger warhead and no apparent degradation in performance, than the 1942 M1A1. Even if folks were to accept that there was a good basis to accelerate the introduction of a bazooka like weapon, why accept the 2nd Generation, 10 years in the future as a reasonable basis for introduction.

Quoted

(1) off topic: but a potential problem in the world war concept talked about elsewhere

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
My primary issue with it is not so much the technology as that I doubt it will be accurate enough for what is claimed to be it's purpose: dealing with strongpoints. In the jungles, it's probably not going to be able to use even the majority of it's effective range, and given the accuracy problems faced by other rocket weapons of the period it's not likely to be able to hit small point targets with any consistency. It's unclear what percentage of the warhead weight is explosive and what is metal, but assuming a .67 kg explosive fill, a HEAT round (once developed) will make it an effective weapon against bunkers and other strongpoints, but until then it will be more of a curiosity than an effective weapon. For now, as Marek suggested, flamethrowers are a better choice for dealing with bunkers (especially in the jungle, where their operators stand a better chance of getting within flame range),

Quoted

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Quite relevant. Like many 1919 weapons it was in the trials stage when the war ended. No war no procurement.

No, not very relevant because we don't generally use prototypes as the basis for weapons introduction. The description available in Wiki does not sound like a developed system.

I prefer NASA. They describe it as a weapon-proof.. That we can use.

Quoted

Quoted

Look again. The Goddard rocket launcher is remarkably similar to the 1864 rocket battery successfully used in the siege of Charleston, S.,C.

A battery is different than an RPG.
Now, a shoulder fired man portable rocket launcher in use in the US civil war? Never read about it.

You misunderstand the true nature of the US Civil War rocket.

Quoted

Quoted

US Army 1846, 1863, 1941. Would have in 1919, but Congress kiboshed it.

The 1846 and 1863 are irrelevant if we're not talking man portable rocket launchers.
1941 is interesting, Wiki says the M1A1 was first issued June 14, 1942 by Capt. L.A. Skinner. Its a difference of 5 years or 6 years in the future.

As you can see, ALL of those rocket launchers were man-portable and AIMED.

Quoted

Would have been 1919 except for congress- now that would be reasonable fodder to claim the weapon. Are we certain that the weapon demonstrated in November 1918 was only a year from being deployable? Did the US army make a specific funding request that was denied? Did it later revisit the concept and try to add a rocket launcher but not have the budget?

Case stated as described.

Quoted

Quoted

Reframe the question? I was challenged as to whether I knew what the hell I was talking about. I answered that question with both observation and evidence.

My question, in the very first post,

Quoted

I am curious as to the in-service historic precedent for this RPG existing in the 1930s.

Asked and answered. CREF above.

Quoted

Which you still have not provided.

Was provided repeatedly.

Quoted

Quoted

Rubber gas. That still irritates me, but its here.

Yep. I'm not keen on either. I developed a Napalm-type as a response, and later regretted it, just leads to nonsense escalation.

I actually agree with this. Napalm was a WW II development that was less effective than is generally claimed. The RPG at least is not only 1937 plausible, it makes a lot of military sense. I mean, reflect on the resistance to the Gatling gun which was fielded but never used in the numbers it should have been; until Maxim finally eked it out in 1890? That is the reason you don't see a WW I bazooka.

Quoted

Quoted

Because the Lyle rocket gun happens to fit the profile nicely and a Czech can mine is the right dimension for the RPG warhead?^2

Not familiar with either. Searching for lyle rocket gun turns up USCG Lyle guns, which appear to been conventional guns with specialty shells. Don't feel like searching through a book for the Can mine, as I don't see the obvious link between a mine and a projectile.

Size and design for the warhead can. The Gyro-jet rocket gun is a more familiar more modern smaller version of the Lyle rocket gun.

Quoted

Quoted

Also you will see that its specifications are not the 1945 bazooka specs at all. MER and flight performance is inferior to the original bazooka.

Well, using Wiki again,

Quoted

M9A1

* Length: 61 in (1,550 mm)
* Caliber: 60 mm (2.36 in)
* Weight: 15.95 lb
* Warhead: M6A3/C shaped charge (3.5 lb)
* Range
o Maximum: 400–500 yards (365.76– 457.2 m)
o Effective: 120 yards (109.728 m)
* Crew: 2, operator and loader(M9) or 1, operator+loader(M9A1)

Length- shorter by 1 inch
Caliber : greater by 1 inch
weight : same to the hundredth of the pound.
Warhead : Different, as expected
Range : Same
Effective : Same

It's that exact same weight, range and effective range that had me thinking there was some similarity in stats to the 1945 Bazooka. Though I would expect your weight to be higher and/or range shorter due to the higher caliber.

Well here I cheated a little. I needed the Human factors engineering limits for my rocket launcher as to size and weight. Since that is about 20 kilograms all up and not more than two meters in length for the launch tube?

Every type of possible rubberized solid rocket fuel I used, yielded a ridiculous long range because of the sustained burn time. I chopped those numbers severely and passed them around via PM for peer review comment. Still wasn't enough for WW acceptance, so after discussion, I chopped the burn time to about 3/5 second. Those are the numbers you finally get-surprise? Not really. Its expected. The Panzerschreck and the Bazooka are too similar to each other in flight performance to be an accident.

H.