RogueStarflyer

HVAR Mk. 32 Mod 1 (Mk. 25 HEAT warhead)

HVAR Mk. 32 Polls  

206 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to see the HVAR Mk. 32 in the game?

    • Yes!
      195
    • No!
      11
    • Other (Please explain in comments)
      0
  2. 2. How would you like to see the HVAR Mk. 32 implemented if it is added?

    • As an additional loadout option to compliment the in-game Mk. 6 HVAR.
      170
    • As a replacement to the in-game Mk. 6 HVAR.
      25
    • Other (Please explain in comments).
      0
    • I don't want the HVAR Mk. 32 implemented.
      11
  3. 3. What nations should get the HVAR Mk. 32 if it is implemented (Please defend your answer in the comments)?

    • United States and lend-lease nations
      101
    • Just the United States
      40
    • Other (Please explain in comments).
      2
    • I don't want the HVAR Mk. 32 implemented.
      8
  4. 4. Which aircraft should get these rockets (taking historical accuracy and balance into effect) if it is implemented (please defend your answer in the comments)?

    • All aircraft that historically carried these rockets.
      127
    • Aircraft in service as early as before August 1952.
      5
    • Aircraft in service during and after August 1952.
      9
    • Only jets.
      3
    • I don't want the HVAR Mk. 32 implemented!
      7


Greetings, WarThunder Community!

 

 

As many of you know, update 1.71 "New E.R.A." brought a lot of anticipated new content and changes.  One of the these changes was a rework of the air-to-ground rocket flight trajectory and damage model:

 

Capture.PNG.3f783292f2a68dd98e008bd39384

 

In addition to this, all ATG rockets received penetration statistics on their stat cards.  One of these stat cards, however, puzzled me for a long time.

5a2730630c659_shot2017_12_0518_09_14.thu

 

The issue:  Why did the U.S. Air Force/Army even use the HVAR if it had such low armor penetration?

 

I mean, if you think about it, 36 mm isn't all that much.  To put it in perspective, that's about this much distance:

 

_________________

 

 

I simply couldn't believe that an institution like the U.S. Armed Forces would be using such weak rockets (I was pretty sure that I could handcraft something with more penetration), especially when compared to the recently added Italian HYDRA rockets, that had 290 mm of penetration, and the French SNEB rockets, that had 300 mm of penetration.  I figured that there had to be another piece to the puzzle.  I found that missing piece a few days ago, while rummaging through some old data sheets.  So, without further adeu:

 

 

The HVAR Mk. 32

 

As it turns out, there were actually two mass produced versions of the American HVAR rocket.  The first version, the one that we have in-game right now, is the HVAR Mk. 6, which had an HE based warhead 3.4 kg of TNT.  The other mass produced and widely used version of the HVAR had the same ballistics, but instead of an HE head, it utilized was the Mk. 25 warhead, a HEAT based warhead. 

 

A brief history on the development of this rocket:

Spoiler

The closing years of WW2 and the years immediately following led to a massive advancements in rocketry technology on both sides of the conflict.  The allied forces led the way in aircraft-launched rocket technology, and developed some of the best rocket systems for their time.  The British manufactured the RP-3 AP rocket, which proved moderately effective against hard targets.  During the early years of its participation in the war, the United States didn't have very reliable ATG rocket systems, until 1943, when students from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) developed the HVAR, a 5-in. air to ground unguided rocket that proved very effective against concrete targets.  The first production variants of the HVAR "Holy Moses" (the nickname given to the rocket, perhaps due to the reaction of the pilot from seeing its effect) were entirely HE based, and first saw massive use on D-Day, as the Allies stormed the beaches of Normandy.  The U.S. military command were extremely impressed by the performance of the rocket during the invasion, and hastily ordered the mass production of the HVAR rocket.  Due to a lack of German armor on the Western Front, however, the HVAR was rarely used against tanks.  One of the rare documented matches between an HVAR rocket and German armor is shown below:

 

5a2d821df10e7_tankdestroyed.PNG.cc37d5b15a2d8329f04f4_closeup.PNG.367357b79ca6cb

 

The left picture depicts a soldier that stood by the remains of a destroyed panther tank, pointing to the nose clip of an HVAR rocket that destroyed the tank, shown up close on the right.  Though the HVAR rocket wasn't used on a massive scale in Europe, it proved to be extremely effective in the Pacific Theater, where it saw extensive use against Japanese supply vessels and other light targets.  By the end of the war, over a million rockets had been produced.

 

Even after the end of World War 2, development of the HVAR continued.  When the Korean War began in 1950, the HVAR was again used on a massive scale for CAS support.  However, in the five years since the end of the war, tank technology had progressed rapidly.  The HVARs would harmlessly bounce off of Soviet-supplied T-34s, without any penetration and often not causing much damage to the target.  This spurned on one of the greatest military rocket development programs in U.S. history, conducted primarily at the top secret United States Military Ordnance Station at China Lake.  Resulting projects included modernizing the HVAR, giving it a 6.5 inch AP warhead.  The resulting rocket became known as the RAM rocket, and it was used with success throughout the period of the war.  We already have the RAM rocket in the game, a French variant designated the Matra T-10 151, which is used on a variety of French aircraft.  However, the RAM rocket, though it had great penetration power, was a relatively slow rocket, and the anti-tank warhead didn't always function correctly.  The RAM rocket, as a result, had a short service period.

 

Even before the introduction of the RAM rocket, the U.S. rocket scientists were already working on improving the existing HVAR.  Postwar developments included changing the fin design to allow the rocket to carry a heavier warhead, while still retaining the same aerial velocity.  The new tail fins also allowed for new launching systems, including the placement of rockets on top of eachother, as used on the F-84.

 

Finally, with the addition of the Mk. 25 HEAT based warhead, the new weapon was completed.  Christened the HVAR Mk. 32, the rocket was put into service sometime during the early 1950s, and it remained in service until it was replaced by another China Lake Project, the Zuni, in 1955.  Below is the most probable picture of the HVAR Mk. 32, taken at the testing grounds in China lake in the 1950s.

 

 

 

This is an excerpt from the one of technical manuals of the United States Army, TM 9-1950, which talks about rockets.

 

There are three versions of this document that are confirmed to have existed.  The first one is confirmed to have existed in 1945:

Spoiler

5a2ff7ba50efb_1945pic1.thumb.PNG.f37ab6b5a2ff7d0a94c8_1945pic2.thumb.PNG.830927b

 

The second edition was released in July 1950.

Spoiler

5a2ffa1ad1f36_1950pic1.thumb.PNG.8644e295a2ffa4d8266a_1950pic2.thumb.PNG.89b20dc5a2ffa37839cf_1950pic3.thumb.PNG.a26fa0b

The HVAR rocket in general is at least confirmed to be in these documents.  Unfortunately, for these first two editions, I have only been able to preview some of the pages, so I don't know if the HVAR Mk. 32 specifically is listed in these texts.  I will keep trying to find this information, however.

 

The third edition, however, produced in 1958, is completely available to the public:

Spoiler


tm1.thumb.PNG.64b6912ff37fe578f6ae72a6betm2.thumb.PNG.0a432de9b1a76c002c68601a64tm3.thumb.PNG.a8262f58403b556266091b31cetm4.thumb.PNG.7971d2ca21512839f4c23d37b3tm5.PNG.dda3b8348f56b849e870282b5b2428b7tm6.PNG.71312c384d7be07f40f2a945f9e76d5ctm7.thumb.PNG.1f5bc1a44f799672477a41096btm8.PNG.788491ba3fcc36d407f7a3bfba928283tm9.thumb.PNG.9e6cc984b512dfb210ffe28b3a
 

 

 

Thus, the HVAR Mk. 32 had the Mk. 25 HEAT based warhead instead of the Mk. 6 HE based warhead.  Further information on the specifications of this rocket can be found in the "T.O. 11A-1-20 Techincal Manual: Airmutions General:"

Spoiler

to1.thumb.PNG.c80350a7d159c9469db09de6ffto2.thumb.PNG.f2f34e7ebf2f7ea4f2e968e8aeto3.thumb.PNG.6b2bdf079597d6c31492771f21to4.thumb.PNG.2dba4ce2dbd117d422dedb34c3

 

From the Australian Government's "Defense Unexploded Ordnance Website Ordnance Information Sheet:"

Spoiler

ag1.thumb.PNG.b68a6fcd8c42d5e95f215d1e83ag2.PNG.2ebc7687ab33401985f3cca320652db2ag3.PNG.0a6d120a92d26eae7ad6b0306433813d

 

On August 21st, 1952, the United States military ran a classified experiment to test the penetration performance of the Mk. 25 HEAT warhead.  The report is now declassified:

Spoiler

wt1.thumb.PNG.8292fee898449b5f760f00d41bwt2.thumb.PNG.d1e5fc8a8b2b852d5e58eb2555wt3.thumb.PNG.6d1bb35d0841f2cbee870787e5wt4.thumb.PNG.0a7f2e0954607f71cc8f9468cbwt5.thumb.PNG.cf7c6e6c8e81af3e9533c77347wt6.thumb.PNG.2f44abe9d8debb52a02e58d438wt7.thumb.PNG.a39fb7e383c1c6c55d73122716wt8.thumb.PNG.8f1a403d24a569fd9e6fa0fd1dwt9.thumb.PNG.812c927e989dd09ed35f5f35b9wt10.thumb.PNG.d637533e1b30179c4e459a46ewt11.thumb.PNG.389f6da2d2b7a4b1a760e99fewt12.thumb.PNG.b61806620defd2c708ad5ca7cwt13.thumb.PNG.42fd09644164a82cf80ea8e9a

 

The Mk. 25 warhead was thus confirmed to penetrate 3.5 in (88.9 mm) of homogeneous armor sloped at seventy degrees from vertical (or twenty degrees from horizontal) of rolled homogeneous armor.  This means that at 90 degrees from horizontal (un-angled, basically), the warhead could penetrate at least 263 mm of rolled homogeneous armor.  This means that the warhead could pen both light pillboxes (which have an in-game protection of 20 mm) and regular pillboxes (which have an in-game protection of 40 mm).

 

 

To Sum Everything Up:

 

Name: HVAR Mk. 32

Length: 68 in (173 cm)

Diameter: 5 in (127 mm)

Mass: 131 lb (64 kg)

Warhead: Mk. 25

Nose fuse: Mk. 149

Warhead type: shaped charge HEAT

Maximum speed on the trajectory: 404.2 m/s + speed of aircraft

Explosive type: Composition B

Explosive mass: 7.94 lb (3.4 kg)

TNT Equivalent: 4,716 g

Armor Penetration: 263 mm of RHA, concrete penetration unknown.

Service: According to present info, the HVAR Mk. 32 was confirmed to have been in service during 1952, although production and service could have started a few years earlier.  Production of all HVAR variants ended in 1955.  The exact date that the rocket was retired from service is unknown.  Still hunting for sources.

Use:  Confirmed use by Douglas A-1 Skyraider series, which likely means that U.S. jets used these rockets as well.  Still hunting for sources.

 

 

Thank you all for your time, and I hope you'll consider this suggestion!

 

 

Sources:

 

(MOTIS) Ordnance Technical Data Sheet TM 9-1950, Rockets, July 1945

T.O. 11A-1-20 Techincal Manual: Airmutions General

Defense Unexploded Ordnance Website Ordnance Information Sheet

Experimental Ballistic Test of Modified Mk. 149 Nose Fuze

OP 2210 Aircraft Rockets

https://imgur.com/a/EuHsMeV

 

 

Big shout out to @MandolinMagi for digging up some extra info and finding a big error in the suggestion.  Check out and support his suggestion here:

 

Edited by RogueStarflyer
Corrected suggestion errors, linked to @MandolinMagi's thread.
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 23
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open for Discussion.:salute:

 

I put the images in spoilers to allow faster page loading speeds for members with slow connections.:good:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome back CAS.

 

anyway, with the AD-4 with 24 rocket who could penetrate pretty much any tank and the imminent introduction of the french ground forces, the Wirbelwind will have some work to do.

 

if the german want to counter the CAS well, they need some fast firing AA, in addition to the Wirdelwind, they could easily have the Otswind II and the Zestroyer 45

Edited by CaID
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2017 at 3:13 AM, RogueStarflyer said:

The issue:  Why did the U.S. Air Force/Army even use the HVAR if it had such low armor penetration?

 

I mean, if you think about it, 36 mm isn't all that much.

You don't need a lot of penetration IRL to do massive damage. A direct hit from a HVAR would result in 3,4kg of TNT exploding on the outside of the tank, damaging modules, crew and so on. Not to mention that from 1944 onwards, German steel was poor quality. This combined with the Germans used rolled steel, means that it was quite brittle, resulting in the armor shattering in some cases when being hit by HE.

 

Also, the US used HVAR's for the same reason the Shermans mostly used HE rounds. The western front didn't have all that many German tanks, mostly infantry and anti tank weapons. Same with the Pacific war. Most land targets were, and still are more effectively taken out by HE munitions, not AP. 

 

But that aside, I do support this in WT. 

Edited by igeticsu
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the French AD-4 gets effectively Mk.25 HVARs under a different name (the rocket weight and warhead weight are exactly the same), then I see no reason why not to allow HEAT HVARs on American aircraft.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Penetration: 1200mm”? Umm, no. That value is from concrete, not RHA. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2017 at 2:53 AM, igeticsu said:

You don't need a lot of penetration IRL to do massive damage. A direct hit from a HVAR would result in 3,4kg of TNT exploding on the outside of the tank, damaging modules, crew and so on. Not to mention that from 1944 onwards, German steel was poor quality. This combined with the Germans used rolled steel, means that it was quite brittle, resulting in the armor shattering in some cases when being hit by HE.

 

Also, the US used HVAR's for the same reason the Shermans mostly used HE rounds. The western front didn't have all that many German tanks, mostly infantry and anti tank weapons. Same with the Pacific war. Most land targets were, and still are more effectively taken out by HE munitions, not AP. 

 

Agreed, and American HE punch is quite powerful.  The problem is getting the rocket inside the target.  German steel might have been of poor quality, but the quality of steel isn't exactly reflected in the game.  Try hitting a King tiger from the side with an HVAR mk. 6, and you'll see what I mean.  Even if you hit the turret from the top, there is a more than likely possibility that an optic port will completely eat all the HE.  The only reliable hit you can make on a King tiger is on the engine deck from directly above.

 

The point is, trying to use the HVAR mk. 6 is the equivalent firing an HE shell.  It has a lot of punch; the problem is, trying to penetrate the tank/target.  

 

On 12/6/2017 at 9:05 AM, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

“Penetration: 1200mm”? Umm, no. That value is from concrete, not RHA. 

 

Correct.  However:  "The Mk. 25 warhead was thus confirmed to penetrate 3.5 in (88.9 mm) of homogeneous armor sloped at seventy degrees from vertical (or twenty degrees from horizontal)."  See final image in the fourth spoiler for visual. 

 

If it penetrated 89.9 mm sloped at 20 degrees of RHA from horizontal, that meant that it was confirmed to penetrate at least 260 mm of RHA at 90 degrees from horizontal.

Edited by RogueStarflyer
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew something stink to high hell with 36mm pen and 400 something for the french when those rockets are a lot bigger than heatsinker/Hellfires. You would assume that at least the heavy momentum weight alone at high speed would do some serious damage PLUS the heat warhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 9:13 PM, RogueStarflyer said:

Greetings, WarThunder Community!

 

 

As many of you know, update 1.71 "New E.R.A." brought a lot of anticipated new content and changes.  One of the these changes was a rework of the air-to-ground rocket flight trajectory and damage model:

 

Capture.PNG.3f783292f2a68dd98e008bd39384

 

In addition to this, all ATG rockets received penetration statistics on their stat cards.  One of these stat cards, however, puzzled me for a long time.

5a2730630c659_shot2017_12_0518_09_14.thu

 

The issue:  Why did the U.S. Air Force/Army even use the HVAR if it had such low armor penetration?

 

I mean, if you think about it, 36 mm isn't all that much.  To put it in perspective, that's about this much distance:

 

_________________

 

 

I simply couldn't believe that an institution like the U.S. Armed Forces would be using such weak rockets (I was pretty sure that I could handcraft something with more penetration), especially when compared to the recently added Italian HYDRA rockets, that had 290 mm of penetration, and the French SNEB rockets, that had 300 mm of penetration.  I figured that there had to be another piece to the puzzle.  I found that missing piece a few days ago, while rummaging through some old data sheets.  So, without further adeu:

 

 

The HVAR Mk. 25

 

As it turns out, there were actually two mass produced versions of the American HVAR rocket.  The first version, the one that we have in-game right now, is the HVAR Mk. 6, which had an HE based warhead 3.4 kg of TNT.

 

The other mass produced and widely used version of the HVAR was the Mk. 25.  This is an excerpt from the "(MOTIS) Ordnance Technical Data Sheet TM 9-1950, Rockets, July 1945:"

  Reveal hidden contents

 


tm1.thumb.PNG.64b6912ff37fe578f6ae72a6betm2.thumb.PNG.0a432de9b1a76c002c68601a64tm3.thumb.PNG.a8262f58403b556266091b31cetm4.thumb.PNG.7971d2ca21512839f4c23d37b3tm5.PNG.dda3b8348f56b849e870282b5b2428b7tm6.PNG.71312c384d7be07f40f2a945f9e76d5ctm7.thumb.PNG.1f5bc1a44f799672477a41096btm8.PNG.788491ba3fcc36d407f7a3bfba928283tm9.thumb.PNG.9e6cc984b512dfb210ffe28b3a

 

 

Thus, the HVAR Mk. 25 had a HEAT based warhead, the Mk. 149.  Further information on the specifications of this rocket can be found in the "T.O. 11A-1-20 Techincal Manual: Airmutions General:"

  Reveal hidden contents

to1.thumb.PNG.c80350a7d159c9469db09de6ffto2.thumb.PNG.f2f34e7ebf2f7ea4f2e968e8aeto3.thumb.PNG.6b2bdf079597d6c31492771f21to4.thumb.PNG.2dba4ce2dbd117d422dedb34c3

 

From the Australian Government's "Defense Unexploded Ordnance Website Ordnance Information Sheet:"

  Reveal hidden contents

ag1.thumb.PNG.b68a6fcd8c42d5e95f215d1e83ag2.PNG.2ebc7687ab33401985f3cca320652db2ag3.PNG.0a6d120a92d26eae7ad6b0306433813d

 

On December 31st, 1964, the United States military ran a classified experiment to test the penetration performance of the mk. 149 HEAT warhead.  The report is now declassified:

  Reveal hidden contents

wt1.thumb.PNG.8292fee898449b5f760f00d41bwt2.thumb.PNG.d1e5fc8a8b2b852d5e58eb2555wt3.thumb.PNG.6d1bb35d0841f2cbee870787e5wt4.thumb.PNG.0a7f2e0954607f71cc8f9468cbwt5.thumb.PNG.cf7c6e6c8e81af3e9533c77347wt6.thumb.PNG.2f44abe9d8debb52a02e58d438wt7.thumb.PNG.a39fb7e383c1c6c55d73122716wt8.thumb.PNG.8f1a403d24a569fd9e6fa0fd1dwt9.thumb.PNG.812c927e989dd09ed35f5f35b9wt10.thumb.PNG.d637533e1b30179c4e459a46ewt11.thumb.PNG.389f6da2d2b7a4b1a760e99fewt12.thumb.PNG.b61806620defd2c708ad5ca7cwt13.thumb.PNG.42fd09644164a82cf80ea8e9a

 

The Mk. 149 warhead was thus confirmed to penetrate 3.5 in (88.9 mm) of homogeneous armor sloped at seventy degrees from vertical (or twenty degrees from horizontal), although some sources sources, including the aforementioned Australian Government's "Defense Unexploded Ordnance Website Ordnance Information Sheet" confirmed that the warhead could penetrate over 1 m (1000 mm) of concrete.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"Two different versions of the HVAR were built during World War II. The warheads were either 1) Mk 4 (or Mk 6) general purpose warheads with 7.5 pounds (3.4 kg) of TNT and both nose and base fuses or 2) Mk 25 shaped-charge semi-armor-piercing warheads (having an internal copper cone) with 7.5 pounds (3.4 kg) of Composition B and a base fuse only. HVAR testing was complete by D-Day, 6 June 1944, and air-lifted Navy HVAR rockets were soon being loaded on Ninth Air Force Republic P-47D Thunderbolts to support the break-out at Normandy. Other single-engine delivery aircraft included the Vought F4U Corsair, Grumman F6F Hellcat, Grumman TBF/TBM Avenger, and Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Twin-engine aircraft sometimes armed with HVARs included the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, North American PBJ Mitchell bomber and the Lockheed PV-2 Harpoon bomber. HVAR could penetrate 4 ft (1219.2 mm) of reinforced concrete and was used to sink transports, knock out pillboxes and AA gun emplacements, blow up ammo and oil-storage dumps, and destroy tanks, locomotives, and bunkers."

 

 

To Sum Everything Up:

 

Name: HVAR Mk. 25

Length: 68 in (173 cm)

Diameter: 5 in (127 mm)

Mass: 131 lb (64 kg)

Warhead: Mk. 149

Warhead type: HEAT

Maximum speed on the trajectory: 404.2 m/s + speed of aircraft

Explosive type: Composition B

Explosive mass: 7.94 lb (3.4 kg)

TNT Equivalent: 4,716 g

Armor Penetration: 89.9 mm (sloped at 20 degrees from horizontal) of rolled homogenous armor (or 260 mm at 90 degrees from horizontal) confirmed...possibly even more penetration.  1219.2 mm (sloped at 90 degrees from horizontal) of reinforced concrete (could penetrate light and regular pillboxes).

Use: Used by all aircraft that currently use the Mk. 6 HVAR

 

 

Thank you all for your time, and I hope you'll consider this suggestion!

 

 

Sources:

 

(MOTIS) Ordnance Technical Data Sheet TM 9-1950, Rockets, July 1945

T.O. 11A-1-20 Techincal Manual: Airmutions General

Defense Unexploded Ordnance Website Ordnance Information Sheet

Experimental Ballistic Test of Modified Mk. 149 Nose Fuze

Wikipedia: High Velocity Aircraft Rocket

 

 

I support this but it would have to be on aircraft from 4.3 and up because like previous stated it pens somewhere like 260mm at 90/0 and would be complete overkill in lower tiers. I’m an experienced CAS pilot and even with these HVARs I have just flown close to the ground and ammo racked Kpz-70s and T-64s from the back by flying close to the ground and hitting the back of the turret. So as i have said it would be good if properly balanced.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, *SoupMcT said:

 

I support this but it would have to be on aircraft from 4.3 and up because like previous stated it pens somewhere like 260mm at 90/0 and would be complete overkill in lower tiers. I’m an experienced CAS pilot and even with these HVARs I have just flown close to the ground and ammo racked Kpz-70s and T-64s from the back by flying close to the ground and hitting the back of the turret. So as i have said it would be good if properly balanced.

It would not actually be too OP. In fact, the HE would likely be more effective at low BRs, as they have more splash and may not need a direct hit. Now, if it was not used by early war aircraft that is a different question. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, muzzleflash98 said:

I'm seriously doubting that the Mk 25 was ready by D-day. Considering that the testing of it at the Naval Proving Ground at Dahlgren was done in August of 1952...

 

The earliest dates on those sources Rougestarflyer gave are from 1958, AFTER the Korean War! 

 

Spoiler

First source: 

disproof.PNG.2b0c41d33f828ea9e0fb5087fbe

disproof2.PNG.0bd52ce8c3662c851900ab1902

 

Second source: 

disproof3.PNG.ed080b50bd5d6b78b0c59f9c06

 

Basically, only jets and the AD-2/4 should get these missiles. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really needs to be a source for their introduction. That would give a solid date that they could be used after, and aircraft that were still in use at that time could use them. The only ones that would be affected by that though would be Korea era props.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheDeadDisciple said:

While I agree that they would be a nice addition, only at higher tiers.

 

Low tier CAS is still rather effective and that would create a big gap with the american CAS and the rest of the nations.

as xX_Lord_James_Xx said, it's likely to be added on upper tier propeller plane and jet. so i guess we will not see it before the Br.5.0 which is fine, the tiger start to appear in that range and to be honest, i would like to return of the good old CAS in that range. anyway, with the french AD-4 and the introduction of the French ground force, you can be sure that the tigers and panthers will have a bit to fear from the sky.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 10:46 AM, Dundee93 said:

It would not actually be too OP. In fact, the HE would likely be more effective at low BRs, as they have more splash and may not need a direct hit. Now, if it was not used by early war aircraft that is a different question. 

^This.

 

There is a large difference in the way that HEAT works as opposed to HE.  In general, HE shells don't have that much penetration;  however, once you get the round through the armor, there is enough explosive mass to destroy the target.  HEAT rounds, on the other hand, detonate once they hit the target's armor.  The high speed contact of the round with the armor triggers a chemical reaction, which causes a highly localized linear blast that penetrates the armor.

 

Basically, HE can easily destroy the target if it gets through the armor.  HEAT can get through the armor, but the blast has a high chance to be completely absorbed by tank module or crew member, due to its linear trajectory.

 

 

On 12/7/2017 at 5:34 PM, muzzleflash98 said:

I'm seriously doubting that the Mk 25 was ready by D-day. Considering that the testing of it at the Naval Proving Ground at Dahlgren was done in August of 1952...

 

The Mk. 25 was in fact ready by D-day, and used during it.  Source: E.W. Price; C.L. Horine; C.W. Snyder (July 1998). EATON CANYON, A History of Rocket Motor Research and Development in the Caltech-NDRC-Navy Rocket Program, 1941-1946, (PDF). 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cleveland, Ohio. AIAA. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-11.

 

On 12/7/2017 at 6:01 PM, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

The earliest dates on those sources Rougestarflyer gave are from 1958, AFTER the Korean War! 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

First source: 

disproof.PNG.2b0c41d33f828ea9e0fb5087fbe

disproof2.PNG.0bd52ce8c3662c851900ab1902

 

Second source: 

disproof3.PNG.ed080b50bd5d6b78b0c59f9c06

 

Basically, only jets and the AD-2/4 should get these missiles. 

 

Currently, earliest source is actually from July 9th, 1945:

Spoiler

5a2ff7ba50efb_1945pic1.thumb.PNG.f37ab6b5a2ff7d0a94c8_1945pic2.thumb.PNG.830927b

 

Earliest confirmed source is from 1952:

Spoiler

wt12.thumb.PNG.b61806620defd2c708ad5ca7c

^See date at top of page.

 

On 12/7/2017 at 7:01 PM, muzzleflash98 said:

There really needs to be a source for their introduction. That would give a solid date that they could be used after, and aircraft that were still in use at that time could use them. The only ones that would be affected by that though would be Korea era props.

 

Acknowledged.  Currently hunting for sources to confirm exact service introduction date.  Would appreciate any help I can get.  Pictures of aircraft with this armament, historical documents, data sheets, and anything of the sort would be helpful.

Edited by RogueStarflyer
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RogueStarflyer said:

The Mk. 25 was in fact ready by D-day, and used during it.  Source: E.W. Price; C.L. Horine; C.W. Snyder (July 1998). EATON CANYON, A History of Rocket Motor Research and Development in the Caltech-NDRC-Navy Rocket Program, 1941-1946, (PDF). 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cleveland, Ohio. AIAA. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-11.

 

After reading that document (granted, I skimmed most of it) I didn't find any mentions of the Mk 25 HVAR. It does state that the HVAR had been "well tested by June 6 (D-Day)", but it gives no mark number anywhere in that section (page 5). It does, however, state that the HVAR in question had the same warhead as the 5.0-in AR which was only effective against lightly armored targets. Being as the Mk 25 would have been able to easily penetrate any tank in the field in 1944, I find it hard to believe that the HVAR in question is the Mk 25.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sirchby said:

+1

 

Considering TM 9-1950 already specified the HVAR Mk. 25 as early as July 1945.

 

Where are you seeing July 1945 in that document? I'm only seeing dates that are well into the 1950s.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 9:42 PM, muzzleflash98 said:

 

After reading that document (granted, I skimmed most of it) I didn't find any mentions of the Mk 25 HVAR. It does state that the HVAR had been "well tested by June 6 (D-Day)", but it gives no mark number anywhere in that section (page 5). It does, however, state that the HVAR in question had the same warhead as the 5.0-in AR which was only effective against lightly armored targets. Being as the Mk 25 would have been able to easily penetrate any tank in the field in 1944, I find it hard to believe that the HVAR in question is the Mk 25.

 

Apologies, I referenced the wrong source. Here's the one I meant to reference.  On this website, there is also an image of a tank that was destroyed by an HVAR, as well as an up-close shot of the HVAR nozzle plate that destroyed the tank.  The two images are shown below:

 

5a2d821df10e7_tankdestroyed.PNG.cc37d5b1

5a2d8329f04f4_closeup.PNG.367357b79ca6cb

 

By the looks of the rear of the tank, it appears to be a panther.

 

Capture.PNG.bef14bceb7370d4d557c0871cda7

 

The standard armor on the panther is thicker than 36 mm on all sides except for the top.  So, unless the pilot got a top down shot that hit the armor at ninety degrees from vertical with a Mk 6 HVAR, then I'd say that this is pretty good evidence that the tank was destroyed by an HVAR Mk. 25.

 

 

I will keep hunting for a document referencing the Mk. 25 earlier than 1950, but it is unlikely that I will find one.  As aforesaid, I would appreciate any help I can get.

Edited by RogueStarflyer
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks like the rocket landed beneath the Panther and exploded beneath the engine, destroying/damaging the engine, transmission, and tracks. I'd assume that would only be possible with a Mk 6 and not with a Mk 25. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RogueStarflyer said:

 

Apologies, I referenced the wrong source.  Here's the one that I meant to reference:  Caltech Archives.

 

If the warhead to the Mk 25 existed and was produced during 1944-1945, then I believe that this is strong evidence that the Mk 25 existed during this time as well.

 

On this website, there is also an image of a tank that was destroyed by an HVAR, as well as an up-close shot of the HVAR nozzle plate that destroyed the tank.  The two images are shown below:

 

5a2d821df10e7_tankdestroyed.PNG.cc37d5b1

5a2d8329f04f4_closeup.PNG.367357b79ca6cb

 

By the looks of the rear of the tank, it appears to be a panther.

 

Capture.PNG.bef14bceb7370d4d557c0871cda7

 

The standard armor on the panther is thicker than 36 mm on all sides except for the top.  So, unless the pilot got a top down shot that hit the armor at ninety degrees from vertical with a Mk 6 HVAR, then I'd say that this is pretty good evidence that the tank was destroyed by an HVAR Mk. 25.

 

 

I will keep hunting for a document referencing the Mk. 25 earlier than 1950, but it is unlikely that I will find one.  As aforesaid, I would appreciate any help I can get.

 

You do know if the crew bails, for any reason, it's technically considered a "kill". The crew can bail out of the tank from fear, and that's technically a kill by whomever/whatever scared the crew out of the tank. If your tank is no longer able to move because a rocket from a plane hit it, you're most likely going to bail because you don't know exactly what was damaged and the plane now knows where you are to attack you again. And besides, that residue on the rear of the panther looks like dirt or mud; not what a HEAT round does when it pens: 

 

Spoiler

Cratering%2Bafter%2Brubber%2Bbulging%2Ba

Image result for HEAT shell penetration

Image result for HEAT shell penetration

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sirchby said:

 

5a2dc5dfef399_TM9-1950(1945).jpg.0cb1380

 

That's very different than what the actual document says. From the OP:

Spoiler

tm2.thumb.PNG.0a432de9b1a76c002c68601a64

 

At the bottom of the page it states that it supersedes another TM, but that one is also from the 1950s.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.