Rocket attack on a Panther.

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Rocket attack on a Panther.

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Sep 2019 00:20

This test shoot on a static Panther is referenced for the claim that RP attacks of tanks were an exercise in futility. In particular that accuracy of the rocket was poor . The plotting of the hits suggest this was not the case.
Typhoon rocket target Panther (1).jpg
Typhoon rocket target Panther (2).jpg
Typhoon rocket target Panther (3).jpg
Granted it was ideal conditions and you need a direct hit to disable a tank but The MPI on two runs was right on the target.
1-tilegfggfg.jpg
37-tvvile.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 15 Sep 2019 01:23, edited 1 time in total.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5009
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Rocket attach on a Panther.

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Sep 2019 00:44

Sorry Michael, but those are plots that demonstrate both poor accuracy and poor precision. Just because one of many shots hit the bull does not change that.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3748
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Rocket attach on a Panther.

Post by Takao » 15 Sep 2019 00:51

MPI is only relevant to statisticians...

You miss 20 feet high, 20 feet low, 20 feet right, and 20 feet left. Your MPI is dead center without hitting the target once.

I do note a good deal of shots with very few hits.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Rocket attach on a Panther.

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Sep 2019 01:03

Richard Anderson wrote:
15 Sep 2019 00:44
Sorry Michael, but those are plots that demonstrate both poor accuracy and poor precision. Just because one of many shots hit the bull does not change that.
It is an armoured vehicle designed to withstand direct hits. Anything other than a tank would be (and was)shredded by those hits. The plot shows that the grouping (for the rocket) is not as bad as we have been led to believe.
9 hits are shown which is higher than the number given in Gooderson. Nos 13, 14, 21, 30, 37, 51, 54, 57 & 60.
There are 71 strikes plotted

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Rocket attach on a Panther.

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Sep 2019 01:10

Takao wrote:
15 Sep 2019 00:51
.

You miss 20 feet high, 20 feet low, 20 feet right, and 20 feet left. Your MPI is dead center without hitting the target once.
But in this instance 9 hits.

Context-In the desert 8.8cm AP was 10-20 rounds expended per hit

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3748
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Rocket attach on a Panther.

Post by Takao » 15 Sep 2019 13:16

Michael Kenny wrote:
15 Sep 2019 01:10
Takao wrote:
15 Sep 2019 00:51
.

You miss 20 feet high, 20 feet low, 20 feet right, and 20 feet left. Your MPI is dead center without hitting the target once.
But in this instance 9 hits.

Context-In the desert 8.8cm AP was 10-20 rounds expended per hit
On a firing range?

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Rocket attack on a Panther.

Post by Stiltzkin » 15 Sep 2019 15:12

This test shoot on a static Panther is referenced for the claim that RP attacks of tanks were an exercise in futility
->
It is an armoured vehicle designed to withstand direct hits. Anything other than a tank would be (and was)shredded by those hits
Find the error. :) Soft targets will suffer.
Context-In the desert 8.8cm AP was 10-20 rounds expended per hit
A tactical air-ground attack plane during the 40s could not carry that many rockets. Static, Lafette 88mm or even AFVs armed with a 8.8cm gun could carry and expend more ammunition. This however, is not the only problem. The ability to engage a moving target by an AT installation was greater (aimtime and exposure of the target in the sights). That is the difference between a gunship with guided missile systems. Precision and a hard punch.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5009
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Rocket attack on a Panther.

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Sep 2019 16:30

It is the mean point of impact for impacts spread over an area of roughly 50 by 70 yards. It is nine hits out of about 170 shots. A single Tiffy carrying 8 rockets had about a 4.2% chance of a hit in a single pass. To repeat, it demonstrates neither accuracy nor precision. As a means of targeting hard targets it was marginally effective at best.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Aber
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

Re: Rocket attack on a Panther.

Post by Aber » 15 Sep 2019 16:47

Richard Anderson wrote:
15 Sep 2019 16:30
It is nine hits out of about 170 shots. A single Tiffy carrying 8 rockets had about a 4.2% chance of a hit in a single pass.
Surely 9 out of 170 hits is a c5% chance for each single rocket, and roughly 1 in 3 chance of a hit for an aircraft with 8 rockets?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5009
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Rocket attack on a Panther.

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Sep 2019 16:56

Aber wrote:
15 Sep 2019 16:47
Richard Anderson wrote:
15 Sep 2019 16:30
It is nine hits out of about 170 shots. A single Tiffy carrying 8 rockets had about a 4.2% chance of a hit in a single pass.
Surely 9 out of 170 hits is a c5% chance for each single rocket, and roughly 1 in 3 chance of a hit for an aircraft with 8 rockets?
A Tiffy carries 8 rockets. Thus to obtain nine hits required 21.25 passes. A single pass would have 9/21.25= 4.2% chance of a hit. Think of each pass as a shotgun blast...with the aimed shot consisting of 8 un-aimed pellets. The MPI of the blast may be on target, but it does not mean any individual pellet will hit. Or I could dig out the AORS report for the exact figures they calculated.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Aber
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

Re: Rocket attack on a Panther.

Post by Aber » 15 Sep 2019 17:11

Richard Anderson wrote:
15 Sep 2019 16:56
Aber wrote:
15 Sep 2019 16:47
Richard Anderson wrote:
15 Sep 2019 16:30
It is nine hits out of about 170 shots. A single Tiffy carrying 8 rockets had about a 4.2% chance of a hit in a single pass.
Surely 9 out of 170 hits is a c5% chance for each single rocket, and roughly 1 in 3 chance of a hit for an aircraft with 8 rockets?
A Tiffy carries 8 rockets. Thus to obtain nine hits required 21.25 passes. A single pass would have 9/21.25= 4.2% chance of a hit.
Except that I make 9/21.25 = 42%.

Decimal points can be tricky. :)

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5009
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Rocket attack on a Panther.

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Sep 2019 18:02

Aber wrote:
15 Sep 2019 17:11
Richard Anderson wrote:
15 Sep 2019 16:56
Aber wrote:
15 Sep 2019 16:47
Richard Anderson wrote:
15 Sep 2019 16:30
It is nine hits out of about 170 shots. A single Tiffy carrying 8 rockets had about a 4.2% chance of a hit in a single pass.
Surely 9 out of 170 hits is a c5% chance for each single rocket, and roughly 1 in 3 chance of a hit for an aircraft with 8 rockets?
A Tiffy carries 8 rockets. Thus to obtain nine hits required 21.25 passes. A single pass would have 9/21.25= 4.2% chance of a hit.
Except that I make 9/21.25 = 42%.

Decimal points can be tricky. :)
Damn. That's what I get for attempting math before coffee. :D
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5009
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Rocket attack on a Panther.

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Sep 2019 18:14

Okay, AORS Joint Report No. 3, Rocket-Firing Typhoons in Joint Support of Military Operations, Table II. The "% shots hitting target" is given as ".5" and for a "50% chance of a hit" the number of RP needed is given as 140 from 18 sorties. The calculation was done by taking the radial mean error of the rocket and a normal distribution for the chance of obtaining at least one hit on targets of different sizes. The horizontal projected area of a Panther for a Typhoon in a 45 degree dive was calculated as 50 square yards.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Rocket attach on a Panther.

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Sep 2019 19:02

Takao wrote:
15 Sep 2019 13:16


On a firing range?
If that is a query about the 8.8cm '10 rounds per claimed hit' then no. That is under combat conditions. 10 rounds AP per claimed hit at normal range and up to 20 at long range. Once a hit is obtained and the range established the next hit would obviously not take 10 rounds.

Aber
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

Re: Rocket attack on a Panther.

Post by Aber » 15 Sep 2019 19:30

Richard Anderson wrote:
15 Sep 2019 18:14
Okay, AORS Joint Report No. 3, Rocket-Firing Typhoons in Joint Support of Military Operations, Table II. The "% shots hitting target" is given as ".5" and for a "50% chance of a hit" the number of RP needed is given as 140 from 18 sorties.
That's 0.5% chance of a hit from an individual rocket; Cumulative chances of zero hits from 180 rockets is (1-0.5%)^140 = 49.6%. Stacks up.

Or 23 aircraft attacking to get 1 hit; and strangely, 4% chance of a hit from 8 rockets (1 aircraft). :D

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”