Talk:RP-3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United Kingdom  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
WikiProject Rocketry (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

accuracy on tanks[edit]

This article states that RP-3 was less accurate on tanks because of less slipstream. Sherman Firefly article says exactly otherwise. One is certainly wrong, but I can't verify sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent L (talkcontribs) 10:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The rocket rail was intended to provide initial guidance until the rocket had accelerated to the speed where its stabilising fins could take over - this was achieved before reaching the end of the rail. The rails were later dispensed with for aircraft - so-called "zero-length launchers" - as the aeroplane's own airspeed already supplied sufficient slipstream over the fins on the rocket to provide guidance and stability immediately upon firing. IIRC, the first RAF aircraft with these new launchers was the Tempest.
So if the tank had the rockets fitted on rails the accuracy would have been no different from a normal aircraft installation - the rocket when fired would already be doing several hundred miles an hour before leaving the rail, and possibly much more. Accuracy would be much more dependant on the aim-ability of the tank installation. If not fitted on rails, the point would be valid. IIRC, the tank so-fitted was called a "Sherman Tulip". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.221 (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Actual explosive content[edit]

I've seen unreliable sources give 5.6 kg as the content of a 60lb warhead, any books give the content of the warhead reliably? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Warhead explosive filling weight for the 60lb SAP was 12 lb. Filling was either TNT or Amatol 60/40.
Comprehensive USN manual on British Explosive Ordnance, dated 1946, here (PDF): [1]
Relevant page is Page 312; "3-in. Aircraft Rocket (Service)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.50 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"firepower of a broadside from a cruiser"[edit]

I've heard this claim that an aircraft armed with RP-3 or 5" HVAR rockets "has the firepower of a cruiser" before in a number of places, including this article, and I'd like to know just how they figured that claim. A standard cruiser of the 1930's and 1940's had 8 x 8" (230mm) guns. A salvo of 8 x 60lb rockets gives you a broadside of 480lbs. On the page M115 howitzer it says a standard HE shell for the 230mm (8") M115 weighs 200lbs, which gives a broadside of 1,600lbs assuming an 8 gun cruiser. Now, the 5"/38 caliber gun, which is a typical gun for a destroyer, fires a shell weighing "between 53 and 58lbs", which is awfully close to the weight of a 60lb rocket. A typical destroyer has 8 such guns. A typical RAF fighter had 8 rockets. This would suggest to me that a rocket armed place has the firepower of a destroyer, not a cruiser. That is of course ignoring factors such as the 5" gun being able to launch said broadside out to something like 12 miles, as opposed to a few hundred yards for a rocket, and can throw a 60lb shell at a higher muzzle velocity than a rocket can throw a 25lb solid shot, so in reality, there is no real contest in firepower there. 70.20.40.28 (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But, while it does need to be cited in this article, "the firepower of a cruiser" was how the period sources always described the rockets' effect. So however we might figure it otherwise, the sources tell the (perhaps slightly patriotic) tale. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
You are being selective in thinking of heavy cruisers alone. A light cruiser would have guns around 5- or 6-inch, eg the 16 ships of British Dido-class had variously eight 4.5 inch guns or 8-10 5.25-inch guns. So it's not necessarily exaggeration so much as selective reporting. (Also while a cruiser can hit a target 12 miles away, a Typhoon is more flexible by dint of its speed and range and could be argued to hit far further targets than a ship could.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The qualification does merit inclusion. I'd wager most of readers seeing that claim don't have but a vague notion what a cruiser's broadside could deliver. Exaggeration, even sourced (& I've seen the claim, too), does an encyclopedia no good. IMO, a direct comparison, or deletion of the claim, is a better idea. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)