Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Katyusha point blank fire

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Egorka
    replied
    Originally posted by ShAA View Post
    I think there might be a semantical difference between the terms. "Direct fire" might be the fire at a visible target, as opposed to "indirect fire" which is the fire at certain coordinates on a map outside the visibility range. At the same time the term "point blank" seems denote firing missiles at a very short distance, like the tactics Katyusha crews employed in Berlin when they fired at the walls of buildings located 300-400 meters away from the vehicles.
    +100500
    "Pryamaya navodka" literally means to "aim directly" (the gun/cannon barrel) at the target. So target is visible, but the distance may not be very close. Just close enough to see target properly.
    "V upor" is referring more to the range, i.e. very-very close. Incidentally it implies direct aiming as mentioned above.

    Leave a comment:


  • R.N. Armstrong
    replied
    Originally posted by amvas View Post
    You forgot one thing - presense of one gun for fire for adjustment.
    It was used prior to the major volley of rocket launchers
    The use of a single 122mm gun for registration proved unreliable in the first ten separate batteries that were created in 1941, and they were stripped from existing units and eliminated from future created gds mortar units.
    Last edited by R.N. Armstrong; 03 Apr 17, 17:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
    As I understand the sequence, the rocket units would begin in a hide position, then move 12-18 kilometers to a load position where they could load the M-13's in a few minutes. Once loaded and time for their mission, they moved 300-400 meters to the firing position. After firing, the unit would immediately depart the firing position to move either to a hide position or another load position depending on number of missions and timing.
    You forgot one thing - presense of one gun for fire for adjustment.
    It was used prior to the major volley of rocket launchers

    Leave a comment:


  • ShAA
    replied
    I think there might be a semantical difference between the terms. "Direct fire" might be the fire at a visible target, as opposed to "indirect fire" which is the fire at certain coordinates on a map outside the visibility range. At the same time the term "point blank" seems denote firing missiles at a very short distance, like the tactics Katyusha crews employed in Berlin when they fired at the walls of buildings located 300-400 meters away from the vehicles.

    Leave a comment:


  • R.N. Armstrong
    replied
    Originally posted by amvas View Post
    Usually fire positions was plain fields. Quickly arrived, fired and ran away.
    As I understand the sequence, the rocket units would begin in a hide position, then move 12-18 kilometers to a load position where they could load the M-13's in a few minutes. Once loaded and time for their mission, they moved 300-400 meters to the firing position. After firing, the unit would immediately depart the firing position to move either to a hide position or another load position depending on number of missions and timing.

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
    It is an interesting tactical problem. Because of the dust blow up from the back blast of so many rockets, the rocket units had to move immediately after a salvo or they risk counterbattery or air attack.
    Yes, but even not aviation, but back artillery fire thread was more dangerous.

    Consequently, there was no advantage to physically preparing the firing position. There would be such efforts for camouflage in the hide position. At the firing position it would be rapid set up, aiming, firing, then departure.
    Usually fire positions was plain fields. Quickly arrived, fired and ran away.

    In general cases of firing at targets observed from the firing position, horizontal targeting was carried directly on the target. The War Experience Directorate on the Red Army General Staff believed for the purpose of the most complete and effective use of the strength of the Guards Mortar Units was its suddenness and great firepower and it was necessary to fire salvos across an area. Firing on single targets has little effectiveness and inefficient, essentially wasteful.
    Indeed.
    Direct fire was used (or expected) only when some breakthrough of enemy forces could happen, or waited for.

    The other case is the firing at point blank which are probably situations of the rocket units being surprised trapped by enemy armor. In this case, the firing would be expedient measures with no time for preparation.
    Yes, correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • OpanaPointer
    replied
    I remember a video of a LCI(R)* ripple firing 1,000 5 inch rockets, preparatory to a landing. I couldn't imagine what it was like in the target zone.


    *probably, I didn't get the hull number

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
    Fair amount of prep required for that. Do you know if they piled the dirt up in front of the cab so it was "dug in", or did they use the excavated dirt for the ramp under the rear wheels?
    No, such a details I can't remember.

    Frankly, this kind of works are not too hard to do.

    Very fast if the appropriate terrain is available, but the cab of the truck is exposed to counter-fire.

    Nice tactical problem.
    Yes, this kind of vehicles are not the best for direct fire. But been well-masked after the first direct volley usually there were nobody who could reply..at least quickly
    Last edited by amvas; 02 Apr 17, 08:35.

    Leave a comment:


  • R.N. Armstrong
    replied
    Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
    Nice tactical problem.
    It is an interesting tactical problem. Because of the dust blow up from the back blast of so many rockets, the rocket units had to move immediately after a salvo or they risk counterbattery or air attack. Consequently, there was no advantage to physically preparing the firing position. There would be such efforts for camouflage in the hide position. At the firing position it would be rapid set up, aiming, firing, then departure.

    In general cases of firing at targets observed from the firing position, horizontal targeting was carried directly on the target. The War Experience Directorate on the Red Army General Staff believed for the purpose of the most complete and effective use of the strength of the Guards Mortar Units was its suddenness and great firepower and it was necessary to fire salvos across an area. Firing on single targets has little effectiveness and inefficient, essentially wasteful.

    The other case is the firing at point blank which are probably situations of the rocket units being surprised trapped by enemy armor. In this case, the firing would be expedient measures with no time for preparation.

    Leave a comment:


  • OpanaPointer
    replied
    Originally posted by amvas View Post
    As far as I could see there were two ways
    1. digging a trench for the front wheels
    Fair amount of prep required for that. Do you know if they piled the dirt up in front of the cab so it was "dug in", or did they use the excavated dirt for the ramp under the rear wheels?
    2. using suitable inclined ground surface for getting desired elevation angle for direct fire
    Very fast if the appropriate terrain is available, but the cab of the truck is exposed to counter-fire.

    Nice tactical problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
    Great! Appreciate the lead. Owe you another rep.

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
    Could they jack up the rear, or did they have dig a trench to get the launchers level?
    As far as I could see there were two ways
    1. digging a trench for the front wheels
    2. using suitable inclined ground surface for getting desired elevation angle for direct fire

    Leave a comment:


  • OpanaPointer
    replied
    Could they jack up the rear, or did they have dig a trench to get the launchers level?

    Leave a comment:


  • R.N. Armstrong
    replied
    Originally posted by amvas View Post
    http://www.rulit.me/books/ogon-vedut...324216-39.html

    " Для снижения угла прицеливания машина задними колесами наехала на отлогий скат кургана. Этот маневр быстро и четко выполнили лейтенант Алексей Бартеньев и командир боевой машины Смирнов со своим расчетом."

    For example.
    there exists quite many mentioning of this way of fire.
    Great! Appreciate the lead. Owe you another rep.

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
    I thought that would be necessary since the launch rail could go no lower than the truck cab top. Do you have a source that speaks to the digging as a recognized procedure? Or is it just an expedient measure?
    http://www.rulit.me/books/ogon-vedut...324216-39.html

    " Для снижения угла прицеливания машина задними колесами наехала на отлогий скат кургана. Этот маневр быстро и четко выполнили лейтенант Алексей Бартеньев и командир боевой машины Смирнов со своим расчетом."

    For example.
    there exists quite many mentioning of this way of fire.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X