Talk:Rocket artillery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Rocketry  
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.
 ???  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.


Ok, some stupid stuff here. rocket artillery system is not defined by what it can shoot, but by rocekts themselves. To write rocket artillery can shoot ballistic missiles is moronic. I am deleting the funny piece. ALso, we could post some more pictures of rocekt artillery, some russian maybe? Since russians are pioneers. (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Rocket artillery means Rocket Launcher vehicles which shoot artillery rockets over a range of tens of kilometers. One vehicle can shoot several or all (even 40) rockets simultaneously.

Rocket artillery appeared in the bigger scale during World War II by the Nazi Germany (Nebelwerfer) and Soviet Union (BM-13 Katyusha).

When will wiki become a reliable source?? :( Nothng is mentioned about Grad, Uragan or Smerch MLRs, especialy considering the last one is the most powerful rocket artillery piece in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen photos of US WWII-era aircraft and ships firing rockets, so the World War II section must not be terribly complete (though the language is very definite). The LCI(R) was a rocket-armed landing craft, for instance. At least the Corsair F4U could be armed with rockets: see the photo on and the Wikipedia article F4U_Corsair . If I get the opportunity I'll try to update this article, but I'm hoping someone who knows where the accurate sources are can do it instead of me starting from scratch. - Rapscallion (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Related articles[edit]

Questioning a statement[edit]

"It is also the only practicable system for counter-battery fire."

This statement seems a bit out of place and tacked on to me. In the types of massed combat seen on the Eastern Front during WW2 Katyusha's were used to great effect for counter battery fire as they were able to move to a point within range and return fire on their less mobile tube brethren rapidly before scooting away without being fired upon themselves. This combined with the massed fire means they were often capable of taking out large batteries without the operators having the chance to get to cover. This has become an influence on modern tactics and has led to the development of numerous modern rocket artillery systems, designed specifically to have a longer range then the tube artillery, so that in a conflict they can reduce enemy artillery positions to rubble before their own tubed artillery is put into play.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tipu or Tippu?[edit]

"Hyder Ali's son, Tippu Sultan, continued to develop and expand the use of rocket weapons, reportedly increasing the number of rocket troops from 1,200 to a corps of 5,000. In battles at Seringapatam in 1792 and 1799 these rockets were used with considerable effect against the British."[1]

After Tipu's eventual defeat"

Anyone know the accepted spelling of his name? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Physical view[edit]

From a physicist's view, how do rocket (self proppelled?) artillery and canon (cf. Cartridge (firearms)) artillery differ? Is the latter more energy efficient? E.g. you want to "deliver" a warhead of 100kg at a distance of 40km. Which propellant (rocket or cartridge) is more energy effective? Echinacin35 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • The actual propellants used in battlefield guns and rockets are very much the same, historically having consisted primarily of "single-base" mixtures of nitrocellulose (colloidion and gun cotton) or "double-base" mixtures of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. Gun propellants have wax added to make it easy to extrude it in small pieces that will burn quickly, while rocket propellants have an opacifier added to make it burn more evenly in large, solid grains. Making the rocket propellant opaque prevents sub-surface ignition due to penetration of infrared radiation from the hot combustion. The same companies make both gun propellants and rocket propellants, ATK being the largest such company at the present time. In terms of efficiency, a gun is most efficient at producing subsonic (muzzle) velocities while only a rocket can produce supersonic (exhaust) velocities. The muzzle velocity of a gun may reach about 4200 ft/sec (Mach 1 in the hot combustion gases) while a rocket is unlimited by the choking velocity of a barrel. For velocities<4000ft/sec a gun will require less propellant than a rocket to achieve the same velocity for the same mass projectile. Modern propellants are more complex mixtures than the single-base/double-base mixtures of WWI and WWII, but the same gun vs. rocket comparison applies. For velocities greater than about 4200 ft/sec, only a rocket will work--regardless of efficiency.Magneticlifeform (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)