Coastal Command | Anti-shipping use of rockets
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 09. 2023
- This technical summary training film was part of a series detailing the characteristics of airborne rocket projectiles in Royal Air Force use. This particular episode, the last of a nine-part series, is titled Tactics Section : Coastal.
It explains the combat considerations of using rockets in the anti-shipping strike role by Coastal Command Beaufighters.
The lead Beaufighter has an extended fin?
The MK 10 which could carry a torpedo had the extended fin to improve directional stability with the torpedo load
There’s something very ‘Britain at War!’ about introducing a final section called The End, which contains nothing but a screen showing ‘The End’.
Director - Mr. M. Python.
That's because other parts of this film have been cut out. Probably the ones that explain the rocket.
Beau Deserves more Respect, Ugly Bird but Awesome Firepower and a Fantastic Record.
Handsome, not ugly! lol
TBH I've always liked the look of the Beau.
@@pencilpauli9442 Beau was the Mozzies Ugly Step Sister lol Mozzie was Sexy AF!! Should I ever be lucky enough to win the Euromillions lottery then I would have a Mozzie built, More economical than a Jet :)
Ugly? Lovely dolphin curves and big beefy engines!
Always surprised at the low speed, considering.
Oh I don't know. I can think of far uglier beast, the Fairey Barraccuda for one.
Form following function - it's pugilistic.
The fact the rockets travelled under water was news to me. I read The Cinderella Service recently. It went into detail about this type of attack - mainly on U- Boats. The rockets would go right through the subs if the AP heads were fitted. This, the submariners did not like!
The AP heads were also just solid, But 25lbs arriving at circa 1000 mph carries a lot of kinetic.
Nice one.
@@BrianWMaythose sub hulls never had a chance, no wonder so many were sunk by aircraft if the water wouldn't protect them unless it was deep enough to hide them as well.
The Beaufighter had terrible ditching characteristics and a poem about it was written by Gavin Ewart:
When a Beau goes in,
Into the drink,
It makes you think,
Because, you see, they always sink
But nobody says “Poor lad”
Or goes about looking sad
Because, you see, it’s war,
It’s the unalterable law.
Although it’s perfectly certain
The pilot’s gone for a Burton
And the observer too
It’s nothing to do with you
And if they both should go
To a land where falls no rain nor hail nor driven snow -
Here, there, or anywhere,
Do you suppose they care?
You shouldn’t cry
Or say a prayer or sigh.
In the cold sea, in the dark
It isn’t a lark
But it isn’t Original Sin -
It’s just a Beau going in.
Yep, if you got the option, bailing with a parachute was a faster bet (even if itself a little risky in a water landing). My guess at the causality of such is the Beaufighter's high stall speed, almost 20-25% more than spitfire/hurricane (themselves simlar but just a bit higher than most of the US carrier aircraft) with flaps up, and even greater gap if they are down. Of course the matter is an issue of to what the people watching them crash where using as comparison, rather than with the design, as almost every multi-engined bomber in allied use (that wasn't a flying boat) had a higher stall speed, and also fared poorly in a water landing (a factor which would change later on with aircraft construction/materials, despite stall speeds getting higher), and on the German side the BF110 was about 10% higher stall speed than the Beau with little other design details as to make ditching any safer.
@@SheepInACart here’s an actual beaufighter ditching, it doesn’t go well. 😞 czcams.com/video/IOuIP64Tqfc/video.htmlsi=HVDCo1lZaIDYK4jK
Really interesting find - great stuff. My father was an Observer in R/P equipped Swordfish on HMS Vindex (825 NAS). Have read several references to the 10 - 15 degree attack dive and the 'undewater trajectory' of rockets and wondered... 'really'???? - but clearly confirmed here. Thanks so much for your research. Enjoyed the Swordfish profile you did - wonderful to hear spoken history "in their own words" Any chance you might do a video in the near on the development and use of radar in carrier strike aircraft?
It's a matter of finding the subject covered in memoirs ... or I'll have to do a chat with Dr Clarke.
Well - it'd be worth the wait! Agree there's not much around from my amateurish research on the subject. Theres also an interesting context of how the services determined priority in this field; RAF Bomber Command vs Coastal Command/FAA. Keep up the great work - thanks for all the excellent content @@ArmouredCarriers
The book Fighters Over the Fleet, by Norman Friedman, covers the subject very well. @@tudorrees7207
I always find it interesting that the US considered rockets a secondary weapon mostly while the RAF used them as primary armament against ships in lieu of torpedoes or bombs. But they were definitely effective given how many german ships were sunk
Heavy fighters against coastal shipping versus carrier fighters against all kinds of shipping
Certainly more effective than anywhere else, rockets at the time were incredibly inaccurate and it seems like hitting ships was all they could do reliably. They were ideal even coupled with gunfire sighting like this training video. I really wonder exactly how effective they were, obviously they are going to expend every rocket on each target and we can't count hits like we could with destroyed tanks. At least not without a major dive and I doubt people are going to dive on a war merchant like they do a warship.
The war is absolutely full of pilots claiming enormous numbers of destroyed tanks with rockets but the facts proved otherwise in that case.
I read one pilot's account of their use - he fired cannon and if those shells hit, he released rockets. Worked for him.
Aiming must have improved anyway, as many u-boats were sunk by those rockets. @@BeKindToBirds
Yes, it's very clear that they were, in fact, lethal - although the "damage & morale" effect should not be under-estimated either. The report into the sinking of the 'Halcyon'-class minesweepers in July 1944 (by Fighter Command Typhoons firing RPs) stated that the effect of a full salvo of rockets against the superstructure of a 1,000-ton warship was quite devastating - and it stopped the struck ships from firing very much or at all. The damage was as though a giant tin-opener had been used. Fires were started, many men blown to bits or maimed, and lists were heavy and immediate.
Two ships were sunk outright (abandoned in a minefield) and one written-off after towing home. Several flights of Tiffies did this and were using the Hispano cannon too. It's probable that the full weight of fire of a section was needed to destroy a subdivided small warship like a 'Halcyon' in this manner.
Before 1944, the torpedo in open water was just as deadly and only needed one hit, although harder to aim at longer range,. Plus they still required a flight of flak-suppression aircraft to go in ahead of them. But of course torps could not be used in the confines of a fjord by high-speed types like Mossies and Beaus.
RPs allowed every aircraft to become a flak-suppression *and* strike element at once. A game-changer.
The RAF's experience with the Typhoon in Normandy - wiping out armoured columns with impacts equivalent to a naval shell. Very difficult to aim though.....
Sweet. I love the Beaus.
Great detail and I always love to see Beaufighters attacking shippin. Thanks!
Enjoyed that.
I never knew they planed on rockets traveling underwater
'planed' is an ironic misspelling...
Beaufighter one of my favourite craft doesn't get as much recognition as it deserves considering the fire power it had . Ask the Japanese as they got a taste of sone of its medicines
They called it "The Whispering Death". Quite poetic.
@@phaasch The reference to "Whispering Death" has only ever been found in western sources, no Japanese source to date has done so, and indeed noise levels where actually higher than many of the turbocharged aircraft that served in Pacific a year before Beaufighters arrived in any number, and outnumbered them till the end of the war. Moreso its honestly the proponents of the sleeve valve within British technical feilds (not even airmen) who really talked up there being an advantage at all, tactics of the time where for full engine power where both engine and prop (which was a 3blade of fairly low infill) where loud, and use of multiple groups (and different makes of plane) at once, often with fighter escort... not sudden lone aircraft that powered down for a steep dive (or even cut engines entirely in some night raids) with Vietnam or Korea. If anybody on the ships/islands where the fight was (friend or foe) noticed the difference, it was purely a novelty of aircraft type recognition, not a source of great reverence as the engines maker would try convince the top brass half the world away. They would however respect it as a good torpedo attack aircraft.
I hit my save button.
Enjoyed but Banff wing under Max Aitken also used solid RP which evidently were effective in perforating the hulls and deck. Maybe this was before strike command was formed. Did they continue to use this vic attack formation as later video I’ve seen used various angle’s possibly to distract flak gunners? Very staged RAF briefing!.
"Inny quistions?"
What was this "Fleck" that the briefing officer referred to?
The squadron mascot (a Dalmatian)
Odd that there is so much footage of the aircraft flying straight and level an so little gun camera footage about how to actually the rockets based on the gunfire. E.g. “that’s to close rockets will hit only superstructure or now is the time to fire etc.”. Having the point of aim short of the target seems counter intuitive, even though tactically correct.
Both sides filmed most "war" footage shown in training and to public broadcast well within their own lines (even for real events that actually occurred and indeed often actually edited film to add more formations or hostile landmarks to background), this was easy to do with many takes for basic flight, and you could even gunfire strafe a training target many times without really leaving to much obvious for the next take... but rockets could only be used once per sortie and even inert concrete training warheads would cause enough damage make a second take only viable if you missed completely (or where shooting something like a painted area on the ground). Fake footage was even preferred when real footage existed, it not only looked better, its controlled conditions avoided giving away information accidentally, but once or twice was a huge own goal (ww1 Jutland, royal navy ships shooting the promo reel took longer to return home, and German PR was quick to claim them sunk, as the only other ships returning the the UK where those damaged ect as not to take part in the filming). Likewise the actual time between too soon/too late is tiny, and the shaking, noise, smoke at the time considerable, so diagrams likely gave a much clearer idea of whats going on rather than purely being cost cutting.
Allways amazing how all the officers had plumb BBC accents.was there no allowence for regional accents (never heard anyone using a strong Bristol accent for example.yes I know the rest the country would not understand)😃 it must have grated if every info film had no representation from your area .
Ya roit bab, neva heard a brummie accent eiva! lol
Can you imagine a Bristolian and Brummie with strong accents talking in the rest room?
Sorry, bab, don't undastand ya banta! 😂😂
Its not amazing , but you are for being so dumb. Officers were not always selected for flying ability , leadership qualities were high on the list. As for accents its not unusual to speak the same as your surroundings , You may find a scouse accent in the Officers mess , but he will be serving the drinks.
I think you'll find that was more of an actor than an officer, dahling!
@@offshoretomorrow3346 Being of an age when ex RAF Officers abounded , they all appeared to share the same characteristic. Pencil thin moustaches , hair brushed backwards either side of the parting . and a clipped English accent.
Jolly good show chaps! Give it to Jerry!
That was a slippy wicket eh?
"Sticky wicket,what?" is the usual😂
If the RAF did hit with bullets & rockets in 1 run as instructed,they are better than computer air combat sim gamers & Hollywood aircrew in efficiency.