Better than Artillery?! Nebelwerfer (Rocket Artillery)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ค. 2024
- A look at the differences of rocket artillery - specifically the Nebelwerfer - and regular artillery in the Second World War. For this we look mostly at German primary sources (war-time documents) from the Second World War. Most of these aspects should also apply to Soviet Katyusha launchers etc. as well. Factors covered are production cost, accuracy, targets, speed of delivery, sustained fire, logistics, range, camouflage, mobility and organization.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» TH-cam Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
BArch, RH 1/1402: H.Dv. 210/1b: Allgemeine Ausbildung zu Fuß - Ausbildungsvorschrift für die Nebeltruppe. Berlin, 1938.
BArch, RH 1/1406: H. Dv. 210/3: Ausbildungsvorschrift für die Nebeltruppe. Schießvorschrift. Vom 4. 11. 1939. „Offene Worte“: Berlin 1939.
BArch, RH 1/1403: H.Dv. 210/2d: Die schwere Werferbatterie (mot.) - Ausbildungsvorschrift für die Nebeltruppe. Berlin, 1942.
H. Dv. 200/5: Ausbildungsvorschrift für die Artillerie. Heft 5: Die Führung der Artillerie. E. S. Mittler & Sohn: Berlin, 1937.
BArch, RH 10/58: Technische und andere Erfahrungsberichte der Truppe.
BArch, RH 11-IV/37: Merkblatt geh 16/4: Merkblatt über die Nebeltruppe. 12. Mai 1943.
Munitionsmerkblatt 7: Nebeltruppe. 15. Mai 1943.
Pionier: Zeitschrift für die Übermittlungstruppen. Ausgabe 1943, Nr. 9. Zürich, September 1943.
Hogg, Ian V.: German artillery of World War Two. Paperback edition, Frontline Books: London, UK, 1975.
Emde, Joachim: Die Nebelwerfer. Entwicklung und Einsatz der Werfertruppe im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Podzun-Pallas-Verlag: Dorheim, o.J. (1979?).
Fleischer, Wolfgang; Eiermann, Richard: Das letzte Jahr des deutschen Heeres 1944-1945. Podzun-Pallas-Verlag: Wölfersheim, Germany, 1997.
Wiener, Fritz: Die Nebelwerfer 1939-1945. In: Schirmer, Friedrich (Hrsg.); Wiener, Fritz (Hrsg.): Feldgrau. Heft 3. / 1. Juni 1959. Burgdorf/Han. 1959.
Hahn, Fritz: Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945. Dörfler Verlag: Eggolsheim, o.J.
Margiotta, Franklin D. (ed.): Brassey’s Encyclopedia of Land Forces and Warfare. 1st ed, Brassey’s: Washington, DC, 1996.
#Nebelwerfer,#Artillery,#RocketArtillery
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Swiss Stage DAY 5 // FPX vs TH | FUT vs LEV](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r61uDZTmu44/mqdefault.jpg)
Two German weapons feared most after D-Day - nebelwerfer - because they could be heard 'long' before they arrived, & the 88mm, because it arrived before the sound. -According to Canadian artillery memoir ('Guns of War').
Your icons/graphics are spot on. They are simple, but effectively convey their meaning. Great video!
The "unsuitable for firing on a specific target" storm trooper is genius.
Thank you! Glad you like them!
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized indeed they are! Keep up the good work. Watching from Australia 🙌
The teddy bear 🧸 for soft targets …. Genius
Would you say it heps to VISUALIZE the content that is being presented?
The military history shall we say?
Interesting german proverb in the end. In Russia we say "Stingy one will pay twice", which also conveys the same meaning: if you buy cheap there will be a catch to make you spend more money down the road.
in German there's also multiple versions of this proverb, one being a mix of the both: who buys cheap buys twice
In Slovakia we say: Moron buys twice
The dutch version of the saying roughly translates to: “buying cheap is expensive”
Another aspect to this is the cost and complexity of ammunition, which in the case of the nebelwerfer had to include not only the usual fusing systems, but also rocket engines and propellants. Artillery shells had been tried-and-tested technology for decades.
Not really. These were crude rockets compared to today. Not any more complex or expensive to make than say, a fixed case artillery round.
Interesting, hopefully I can find an expert or some war-time document that can clarify this aspect.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Maybe is it Possible today to make a Cheap Plastick version of this !
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Supposedly Hamas can make a 122mm rocket or equivalent for around $500. Possibly cheaper if mass produced in a country that's not under sanctions. Whereas a standard artillery round is $2,000 according to US army acquisition papers. Although that price is likely to be highly inflated due to MIC profiteering. With just build cost being cited as $400 for an M795 shell.
@@robertalaverdov8147 some artillery rounds cost way way more than that.
One thing I learned in Engineering school many years ago was "Build something that's hungry". ie, sell the machine cheap, and make money on the refills. Case in point, they practically give printers away, but rob you on ink.
Good discussion about werfing nebels.
thanks and lol :)
Its almost like various types of weaponry have benefits and drawbacks which means these weapons have to be applied in the correct circumstances and situations.
Surely not!
ha, don't be rediculous! In real life the best weapon is my favourite weapon which can do whatever I wish to do! If you don't agree with me you are a bigot!
Nah, that's stupid.
@@TeutonicEmperor1198 Absolutely right.
2:35 I love how you put a storm trooper to represent the inability to hit a target. :D
;)
2:42 it took be a couple seconds to process "Unsuited for firing at specific targets" before the Storm trooper icon literally made me laugh out loud. Bravo 👏
;)
Thanks, I needed that explained. I'm pretty sleepy right now & I didn't get it at first.
didn't know that artillery employment was literally rocket science :D have you found anything about the morale factor similar to the katyusha?
yeah, "moralische Wirkung" ("morale effect") is mentioned all the time, but it is the same with the artillery. I can't remember seeing a direct comparison though.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized but it was important enough to be mentioned for the nebelwerfer or was it mentioned for all artillery types in the wehrmacht?
it was always mentioned for both
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized very interesting, thank you very much for answering!
@@steelhammer96 Moral effect might be the strongest effect of barrage artillery in a bettlefield. I think I remember a paper where it basically said that the chances of being hit by artillery where smaller than being hit by standard hand weapons but their fear was greater. Artillery barrage could make soldiers retreat even when the casualties done by it where small. Something to do with not knowing where it will land and knowing the after effects of being hit by it. If you get shot, there is a small chance you might live, if you get hit by artillery, you'll be lucky if they can send your remains back home.
The machine was cheap, but the pods are incredibly expensive.
The Soviets referred to Katyushas as "rocket mortars" because they had the same characteristics as conventional mortars --- high angle of fire, high rate of fire, low velocity relative to artillery, and limited accuracy. Soviet ordnance officers noted that the many simultaneous blast waves from a salvo magnified their effect. Mating them to American lend-lease Studebaker trucks multiplied their mobility over what the Germans could obtain with a towed Nebelwerfer. They are said to have first been used at the Battle of Smolensk in summer 1941, routing a German unit of several hundred men gathered around a railroad station.
As far as I know, they called them "Guards Mortars" for deception. Also the angle of fire was not that high, if I am not mistaken.
“The title was a designation that would continue to protect the true nature of the new weapon, and offer some deception in the Red Army order of battle.” (Armstrong, Richard N.: Red Army Legacies. Essays on Forces, Capabilities, & Personalities. Schiffer Military History: Atglen, PA, USA, 1995, p. 16) More here: th-cam.com/video/1OiPfWkLGgI/w-d-xo.html&vl=en
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yes, it was a codename to deceive the enemy.
Can only imagine the pants-browning effect of hearing that Katyusha wail for the first time, en masse, and then seeing hundreds of men turned into hamburger
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Angle of fall is what is important not the launch angle.
@@wacojones8062 And the angle of fall depends highly on the launch angle
Conventional Artillery also can be used in a direct fire role,against tanks,or fortified positions unlike rocket artillery
Effective low-angle fire may be the only thing standing between an artillery crew and a bloody death if things go sideways. There are numerous instances of artillery and heavy AAA successfully engaging over open sights
@@hvymtal8566 Also the video didn't really said it,but modern self-propelled artillery are resistant to counter battery fire since it is armored,while a loaded rocket artillery turns into fire ball from a near miss,since tubes are unarmored
Probably because the video was focusing on towed artillery. But yes self propelled artillery has a lot of major advantages, while rocket arty has only gotten bigger and harder to reload. It's like a rifle and a machine gun. All infantry squads have both because they fulfill different purposes despite doing the same thing on a basic level
Grandpa, Bastogne artillery commander, was initially shocked by this weapon, however, it was loud, smoky, and limited engagement duration and range. Grandpa liked counter artillery missions, his spotters and battery commanders were very fast and accurate.
Thank you for your videos.
Nebelwerfer could saturate a target in a way that would require many more pieces of artillery. However, it's Achilles heel was its short range, needing to be placed very close to the front. Werfer units were therefore highly vulnerable to Allied counterbattery fire; especially on the Western Front and losses among werfer troops were high.
Glad someone brought this up. I don't think it came up nearly as well in the video with the rounds per hour as it should have. So, providing I didn't get the numbers wrong, six 21cm werfers could put 36 rockets or 366 odd kilograms of HE filler on a rectangle of about 300x500m in size in the space of about 10 to 20 seconds. To do the same with the 15cm howitzers in terms of rounds on target would require 36 pieces and in terms of explosive filler 80-90 pieces pointed at the same target area. Though jt must be remembered that the effect on target per round between the two are not on the same level, I think. In addition to all the practical operational considerations. In other words, it's not using one or the other but everything one has combined for maximum effect.
Sidetracked, this touches on the artillery/fire support methods/tactics and so on the Finns and Germans and Soviets as well had developed to say 1944. Plot target grids or whatever you want to call them with a high degree of accuracy and spam everything possible on a target area quickly and with as a high rate of fire as possible: artillery, mortars, werfers Katyushas.
One other thing, manufacturing artillery shells was fairly easy while especially fin stabilized rockets were comparatively expensive. Remember the GyroJet fiasco of the 60s to see how easy manufacturing errors in those could result in rockets flying all over the place, even if the tolerances in large caliber rockets were probably easier to match. But with artillery chains there was an established supply chain and mass production ongoing while rockets were a new thing.
The Gyrojet was a very good example of many of the issues rocket munitions faced that prevent them from replacing conventional guns from the smallest handgun to the middling to large artillery cannon and one I was going to bring up myself but you put it pretty succinctly. I think one of the major issues the Gyrojet had was that it's muzzle velocity was tiny, accelerating to only a few of tens of meters per second in touching distance which rendered them incapable of delivering much beyond bruises at those distances (especially considering and the low initial velocities really magnified the effect of wind, air conditions, how the weapon was held and other factors that produced inconsistencies even before subtle manufacturing differences in the drilled angled nozzles (not an easy manufacturing step to perform requiring a set of custom tooling), propellant and even the ignition strips that ignited the full length of the propellant grain affected the ammunition's trajectory. To solve the issue would've required the projectile to be fired at significant velocity- more of a pneumatically-assisted rocket launcher similar to an RPG-7 without the open rear recoilless element... which would've turned it into a gun and ruined the whole point of having rockets ammunition and no closed breech. Very cool idea but hard to execute in a way that did anything better than a conventional gun with conventional ammunition would enough to be worth it.
As a veteran Wargame: Red Dragon player I can confirm that everything that this video states is still true, assuming that the designers of that game did their research correctly 🙂 . In most battlefield situations medium or heavy artillery (ie 105mm to 155mm) artillery is still the most effective and versatile, but for sheer brute force HE shock value nothing beats rocket artillery. Of course more modern rocket artillery such as the Smerch or MLRS are a different unit altogether as they combine firepower and extreme range with great accuracy and unique munition options, eg cluster bombs, napalm, FAE etc.
There is still a place on the modern battlefield for saturation fire weapons such as rocket artillery.
Rocket artillery are the only systems under artillery that has range beyond ~60km. Essentially, war has been increasingly fought in depth. Once people can accurately counter-battery your guns, the only response is to put more firepower in depth and relocate as fast as possible.
The grid square removal service, at your service...
At the same time, traditional artillery canons have developed a lot too. Able to shoot self-guided projectiles and reposition in minutes. The shells have not even landed before the artillery piece is off.
@@VT-mw2zb ... Paris Gun.
@@advorak8529 i should have added "while being relatively light and mobile".
I used to play a pc game in early 2000s when I was a kid called blitzkrieg where you could use rockets, that game helped get me interested in WWII weapons. The rockets were most effective for rapid area saturation right before an attack or where an enemy concentration was detected. But ideally you still want regular artillery for harder or smaller targets and sustained barrages, they each have their place on the battlefield, but chosing just one or the other I'd take regular artillery in more situations than just rockets. The panzerwerfers and katyushas were great for hit and run or shoot and scoot attacks, but more often in the game having regular towed or self propelled artillery is better overall. I miss that game lol
It seems that there is a remake that was released in 2017. Maybe check it out?
Great game
In that game I used to plaster everything with artillery, turtling my way forward
Blitzkrieg was a great game. I consider it the best war game, period. It had it's flaws, but overall it was the best, most versatile, competitive gaming platform in history, in my opinion.
It had:
Infantry
Tanks
Tank Destroyers
Howitzers
Heavy Artillery
Rocket Artillery
Self-propelled Artillery
Anti-tank Guns
Fighters
Dive Bombers
Strategic Bombers
Supply Trucks
Engineer / Repair Trucks
Trenches
AP Mines
AT Mines
Barbed Wire
AT Obstacles
...and you could arrange it all however you wanted nearly.
You could get completely overrun on an attack and be nearly annihilated. Then retreat, regroup and recover and wipe them out on their counter-offensive. It was a great game, not perfect, but better than any of this garbage one finds on these mobile platforms these days.
Too bad they abandoned what made the game great in Blitzkrieg II
In men of war 2:assault squad,during defense missions you were given 3 artillery guns. And these guns were a literal MVP,they were the thing you centred your defense around because they were that usefull
stormtrooper icon made me chuckle!
excellent, at least it did not miss :)
Soft targets, represented by a teddy bear. That put a smile on my face.
Very interesting and informative video.
Glad you enjoyed it!
My dad was under fire from those things in Italy during the war. He hated the noise. Especially the first time, He said it was really unnerving. Short range though
the sound is very terrifying
One thing I have a hard time finding information on is how big the target area was for one of these things (Nebel/katyusha). The usual numbers seems to be for a group of them, that may or may not be deliberately aimed to cover a bigger area rather than every gun aimed at the same place.
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that for early werfers the target area was something like 130m deep by 80m wide with 40 or 50% or something of the rockets actually landing inside that area. For the 210mm werfer I think the grid was 500m by 130m though I don't recall whether it was for a single launcher or a battery. If that is the target grid size for a battery of werfers, it puts the 90 rockets in a matter of seconds into context: depending on the range you don't have much time to react when you hear the noise and if you don't take cover immediately you're definitely not going to outrun the barrage.
I don't remember exactly which post war Soviet launcher it was, but I think it may have been the BM-21 had a spread of about 160x300m.
...And of course I got the number wrong. So, with the 21cm werfers it's 6 rockets per unit, 6 units per battery and 3 batteries per battalion, in theory. Meaning 6, 36, 72, 108 etc. rockets depending on how many werfers are aimed at the same area. To do the same amount of rounds on target in the same amount of "one salvo" time with the 15cm howitzers would require the same number of barrels aimed at that one area as rockets fired. Obviously the effect between the two is a little different. An even remotely competent commander wouldn't use just one or the other if he has both (and mortars), but all of them to get the maximum out of what they have with minimum effects from the disadvantages of each individual system.
That assessment from the 90s has come true in some ways. The US Marine Corps is ditching most of their tube artillery for HIMARS rocket artillery.
It seems to me that the same advantages/disadvantages also apply to man-portable rocket propelled grenades/recoilless rifles and anti-material rifles:
RPG's are cheap and light, but ammo is bulky and they are overall relatively inaccurate, while anti-material rifles are individually heavier and more expensive, but the ammo is smaller and lighter to carry, as well as being more accurate
6:00 imagine them putting that reload time into Steel Division 2. That'll be fun and tone down the massed use of rocket artillery.
I really dislike it when the AI uses it for counter-battery...
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized that's because ur camping the spawn 😀. You gotta push to the mid and the set up your arty.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized me too. When the AI has Nebelwerfer, my main priority immediately becomes flattening that area with radio artillery until I can hunt them out with something like a bomber.
the nick name for MRLS is once again spot on "grid square delete"
Another Nebelwerfer video !
I don't know where you find all of the H.Dv. books and Ausbildungsvorschrift but thank you for sharing these informations. Nebel-Ahoi !
Nebelgruß
Rocket artillery are also much for affected by winds than gun artillery. So there's no real hope for high accuracy/precision without guidance systems.
4:00 love that German flowchart!
My father said screaming Mimis were very unnerving but the German had to move them after firing as it was rather obvious where they were
Excellent! A great insight into the topic, will check how we can emulate this in our work.
Glad it was helpful!
Well done. Exactly what I wanted to know about field artillery and rocket artillery comparison.
In Italian we have a similar proverbs "chi meno spende più spende" or "il risparmio non è mai guadagno" meaning "the one who spends less spends more" and "the saving never is gain"
Excellent work. You covered things I wouldn't have thought of. Thoroughly enjoy your channel, thanks, mate.
Love the efforts in these videos it really shows, please keep it up. If you could include costs for production that would awesome!
This is the video for my Hoi4 gameplay.
Continually watched your video recently, respect to all those proper citations and arguments you made.
thank you!
"I have this lovely Nebel here, but no way to werf it."
-"Here, try this!"
I assume it was fairly devastating out on the open steppes. You could saturate an area then break through it. I wonder if they employed it as sort of a shock effect which might explain the morale comment. If the larger one had a long reload time I wonder if you could stagger them to keep up a more constant barrage? It would be nice to know if they were deployed en masse.
I think offensive deployment would be difficult due to the shorter range. And when, only a single salvo could be fired before counter-battery was to be expected...if not even direct fire from enemy field guns (Nbw 28/32 has only 2.2km at max, that's well within the range of 7.62cm Zis field gun). Overall I'd say that makes artillery better at supporting offensive action since it can hold down enemy forces in their foxholes and suppress enemy AT while the tanks and infantry are advancing. Either an initial or a final salvo before the own troops get into assault range would make sense, but not much else.
Probably more useful to dump a load of fire on enemy infantry massing to attack.
Interesting Video and nice Illsutrations.
I know the German Proverb as "wer billig kauft, kauft zwei Mal" he who buys cheap, has to buy it twice
thank you! I searched for one, since I know there was one, I guess there are many.
*Great video! Thanks for sharing!*
Thanks for watching!
Interesting insight into a not often explored subject. This was a very interesting comparison.
i love how he says Nebelwerfer
Great history & shopping advice!
I remember in the early call of duty games had some of these. Their sound was incredibly scary, felt like a boss was nearby when i heard them
Excelent choices of icons and presentation. Makes it very easy to follow the data and speech.
Glad you like them!
So the obvious solve is to mix the rocket artillery with standard artillery so you can have a massive initial barrage with a more targeted sustained barrage.
1. Nerbelwerfer Fires
???
240mm Howitzer M1 "Blackdragon": "Pssst, It's free real estate" *Counter Batteries*
Underrated comment lol
Great information, thanks.
Ich dachte es heißt: Wer billig kauft, kauft zwei mal. ^^
Artillery sustained rate of fire is always limited by logistics, including the final trip to the firing position. Rocket artillery is heavier per mass of payload and the shorter range of these examples requires shipping closer to the front. How many gun shells with propellant, or rocket shells, could be carried by a representative truck?
I have been blessed with a video of my favorite channel.
Glad you enjoy it!
Thank you for saying "raises the question" instead of "begs the question".
My body: dude go to bed! We gotta be up in 4 hours!
My brain: I wonder if rockets or artillery were more effective for bombardments in WWII????
Any book I have read says, when either side massed rocket artillery the enemy in the target area experienced one of the most terrifying weapons of the war. Their stories are chilling.
I would love to see a comparison with the 170mm Kanone 18. From everything I've seen, that was a great gun, not as mobile as it's smaller 150mm counterpart, but highly accurate and long-ranged.
Great video!
This channel and joerg sprave are the only ones where german accents fits perfect 😆
it's as simple as this:
This is a nebelwerfer, it werfs nebels
There was also a version of the opal blitz truck that had been adapted to panzerkampfwagon one tracks with a Nebelwerfer mounted on it along with splinter Shields and blast Shields. These were used when available to avoid counter battery fire. The rockets could be fired in the vehicle instantly moved to a new firing position in reloaded. Reloads being carried in compartments on the hull.
The Panzerwerfer, was built on a Maultier, it is briefly mentioned, more in this video: th-cam.com/video/Iez6JSb5ndw/w-d-xo.html
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized the Maultier was the result additional adaptation of the original Blitz
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer yeah man, I know that.
Great info.
I'd never seen a photo of the 28/32 before, many thanks 👌
A very informative article as usual thank you! It would be interesting on the logistics side to understand how ammunition production complexity and costs compared between standard artillery shells and rocket based munitions. Did this influence the role and amount of field usage for Nebelwerfer artillery ?
Deine Videos sind spitzenklasse ❤
danke!
I'm surprised we don't see more improvised rocket munitions being used around the world.
The nebel weapons launch signature was so bad that it was assured of rapid enemy counter battery, making it and it's crews very unpopular with the other units near them.
Your videos are spot on info
Fresh and informative
My fav is on German Tigers and how they were not really that effective
Just very cool videos
Keep going !!!
That sound they made is terrifying, and I was never on the receiving end.
i love your Videos, großartige Arbeit :)
My father told me about the impact on American soldiers in dugouts during the battle of the bulge. He called it compressed air grenades (pressluftgranate). The victims looked unharmed but were bleeding out of their noses and ears.
yeah, that is the effect that can happen, but it has nothing to do with air pressure from what I read. It was a common misconception that was addressed by a member of Nebelwerfer in his book.
"Wer billig kauft, kauft teuerer." Is similar to the English saying "Penny wise, pound foolish."
"Who buys cheap, buy expensive."- You talking about the small home printer?
Super!
Thank you very much!
LOL at the stormtrooper symbol when talking about the inherent inaccuracy XD
Playing a computer game where there was fairly obvious approach of allied troops. Nebelwerfer's firing over in that general area caused serious disruption to his advancing infantry in light woods. Sometimes size matters!
That quote at the end, they remind me of _Star Wars_ ‘s TIE Fighters…
2:40 why u gotta do the Stormtroopers like that man 😭😭
It's so easy!!!
Interesting that we may be seeing a shift away from conventional artillery to rocket based systems in the modern era
It's because we can now build more accurate and longer range rockets. Rockets can deliver more explosive per charge, and thermobaric rockets are especially effective.
Some sources say the Germans had early thermobaric rockets, which they used in the siege of Sevastopol, but the information is limited.
Thank you.👍
always amazing
Another interesting vid.
There is a similar proverb in Portuguese: "O barato sai caro", "Cheap turns out expensive".
Huh cool I was under the impression that they would be used for counter battery for their ability to gtfo after firing and ability to fire lots of rockets quickly, good informative video.
The Nerberwefer launcher was used for BR 21 Werfer-Granate mortar which used by Bf 109s, Fw 190s, Me 210/410s & Bf 110s and Me 262’s as an alternative to the R4M rockets which used them as weapon against US heavy bombers and ground targets
I use standard rocket artilery (production license bought from Germany) with cavalry in HoI 3 because they both have 5km/h and make for a bit faster mobile division with combined arms :P I later add them heavy tanks because they are around 5,5km/h of speed so they fit too
I found two 15cm Nebelwerfer motor tubes shot during the Battle of the Bulge, few kilometres south of Bastogne ;-)
You have put me in the mood to go fire off a few Nebels in COH.
Truly an incredible piece of equipment
What a beautiful video! However 1) Nebelwerfers were excellent direct fire weapons (against soft targets like infantry). 2) They were produced in huge numbers unlike suggested in the video.
Also, you did't mention that the projectiles were not fragmenting, but pure HE.
Haven't watched the video, but I think I can predict why it is not better, and I'll see if it's right:
1) More expensive munitions limiting sustained fire
2) Limited sustained fire in general due to more complicated reloading
3) Big one - accuracy!!!
Kind of yes, but also kind of no.
1) Shells are steel and cases are brass. Both are in high demand throughout a military force and also need machining with precision. A rocket motor may need certain wall strength, but if we look at things like the panzerfaust, that´s not too much. The warhead itself can be made from cheap composites, but even thin sheet steel of lower quality will work, every company which makes tin cans can do it. Those things are not that much more than super-sized bottle rockets.
2) If compared 1:1, yes. But for the weight of a field gun you can deploy at least 3 launchers (if we take price in consideration, the number should be much higher), that should tip the balance.
3) Definitely! Launchers are more or less a one-trick pony for area bombardment.
I think the Nebelwerfer was not well thought out as well. It was designed like an artillery piece and mostly deployed as one. Double the tubes and mount it on a truck or triple them and use a halftrack, deploy those in numbers and when the counter battery fire starts, retreat quickly.
The general validity for the one application where a launcher shines can be seen with the rocket ships use by the allies prior to landing operations, either hundreds of tubes on the deck of a repurposed freigher (no reload, as this took many hours) or later the double-tubed automatic launchers which could be fed from below deck continously.
Love the inclusion of German sayings!
"Penny wise, pound foolish", where "pound" is the British money pound, not weight.
Accuracy as mentioned, is a key point. It is no good having heavy firepower if you can't hit a barn door with a bulldozer (British euphemism for very inaccurate). For reference see early Congreve rockets as fictionally depicted in the 'Sharpe' TV series. He went to get some peace and quiet.. in the target barn as they kept missing it!
Towards the end of WW2 Germany began to have a shortage of feed stock chemicals for explosives and propellants, rockets and recoiless guns use a lot of propellant, so rocket use had to be reduced. The 120mm mortar was probably a better solution, and then there was the - "Hoch-und-Niederdruck System" which translates to "high and low-pressure system" - 8-cm Panzer Abwehr Werfer 600 (PAW 600).
Starwars stormtroopers symbol used for inaccuracies made me laugh in rifled barrel XD 💥
:)
Yes, I played this mission in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.
One of the very best, can still remember it clearly to this day.
Surorised the Germans didn't come up with some sort of power reloading system like the later Czech RM70 MRL. And rocket systems, until later precision guidance tech, were intended for area sturation, not point targets.
If they tried it would be really unreliable.The czechs waited more than 20 years for a reason.
Wartime films show how much smoke, dust, and light is emitted when a rocket launching frame is fired off. One might as well be standing up, waving a flag while shouting, "HERE I AM!!" Therefore, given the short range of the weapon, certain to be within range of enemy artillery, one would want to move your weapon and crew to a different location before reloading. To use the vulgar but descriptive U.S. Army expression: "De-Ass the Area."
Here, it seems, is where the light weight of the Nebelwefer, combined with its lack of recoil, make it ideal for repelling advancing infantry or attacking a column of soft vehicles late in the War. One would fire a salvo, hitch the launcher to a vehicle as fast as possible, and then relocate both weapon and crew to be out of range of the enemy artillery about to land on that firing position. Once out of the area, the crew can reload, reposition to a different location, and repeat the cycle. "Shoot and scoot" would not work as well with towed field artillery, which must be "dug-in" to absorb the recoil.
It would be good to compare the cost of a rocket to the cost of an artillery shell. I would imagine rockets are much more expensive to produce. The cost savings of making a rocket firing platform vs an artillery gun might be offset significantly by the increased ammunition costs.
There is a higher material cost for rockets (assuming you have plenty of copper and are recycling your brass), but the manufacturing, especially rapidly setting up additional manufacturing, should be easier for rockets. An artillery shell needs quite a bit of copper, and requires fine and consistent fitment. A rocket is more tolerant of sloppiness in size. But also needs much more propellent.
The finer fitment needed for conventional artillery may not even matter, they had been pumping them out of factories by the millions since before WW I, so I imagine they had got it down so it was extremely easy for them to keep that up. Rockets would be new.
It really comes down to the fact that rockets take up more space and weight than the equivalent explosive payload from conventional artillery shells. A trainload of rockets doesn't go nearly as far as a trainload of howitzer ammunition. Even outside the wartime case of not having enough trains or working railroads, and needing to have enough space in your artillery tractors to carry it all, this translates to higher shipping costs.
Thank you. Would you say it was more like the cannister shot of 18 c battles in the way it effects people in the open but not in the open field ?
from a logistical perspective, it's like having a choice between a very complicated and expensive gun firing cheap ammunition, or a very cheap gun firing very complicated and expensive ammunition.