need a counter ASAP!

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
Three bazookas per wing are a cargo applied in a part not designed to carry such a extra load so,
not counting the stress due to multiple backblasts, how is it possible the wing does not risk to break?

Also how it is possible to "aim" the target with an improptu weapon located in a wing ?
I can only Imagine the plane must approach very slowly to the the tank, from rear and at low level. How the AA MG did not kill him?

If the story is true, looks like the real war actions are very different the way we imagine. And this pilot must have the same mental attitude of a kamikaze
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
not counting the stress due to multiple backblasts, how is it possible the wing does not risk to break?
The BAZ is a recoilless weapon. The launch of a rocket does not put any force (or probably just a little) on the tube/operator. Most of the rocket propulsion gas is vented out the rear of the tube. When used in a small space this vented gas will fill the space, and since it is very hot it might burn the operator and/or others in that space. It may also propel objects (stones and debris) into flight. Both of these are the reasons that RCL weapons "attack" units in their backblast zone. That is what backblast is: hot gas in a small space, not recoil. If it were really recoil, every BAZ shot would cause "backblast."

And the BAZ will not set the wing on fire either. The BAZ (and most other recoilless weapons) was designed to finish burning propellant by the time the rocket left the tube. The PSK had a shield that was supposed to protect the user from these gases. I don't know if it was necessary on the PSK, but on the BAZ there was no similar guard. There was a small mesh dish at the end (on some?), but I think that was frequently dispensed with.



JR
 
Last edited:

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Also how it is possible to "aim" the target with an improptu weapon located in a wing ?
I don't think rockets mounted on any aircraft in WWII had more sophisticated aiming than, "point the nose at the target, let 'er rip."

I can only Imagine the plane must approach very slowly to the the tank, from rear and at low level. How the AA MG did not kill him?
The tank crew was probably as surprised as you are.

If the story is true, looks like the real war actions are very different the way we imagine. And this pilot must have the same mental attitude of a kamikaze
The story is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carpenter_(lieutenant_colonel). Because the BAZ would not damage the plane it was not a kamikaze weapon. It was dangerous, no doubt. According to Carpenter, "word must be getting around to watch out for Cubs with bazookas on them. Every time I show up now they shoot with everything they have. They never used to bother Cubs. Bazookas must be bothering them a bit."

JR
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Three bazookas per wing are a cargo applied in a part not designed to carry such a extra load so,
not counting the stress due to multiple backblasts, how is it possible the wing does not risk to break?
They are attached to the wing struts, not the wing. Those struts are mainly to prevent the wings flapping UP in flight, though they would provide a little support holding the wings up when on the ground. Despite their flimsy appearance they have to be strong. As for the loading on those struts, he started with one per strut, added another and finally a third. An engineering experiment that succeeded. These days I doubt he would get an Airworthy Certificate for that rig, bloody bureaucrats!

As for Backblast, that is only a problem in a confined space. A rocket motor does not usually go bang (though sometimes does like the Challenger shuttle). It is supposed to have a controlled burn over a certain period to provide an accelerating thrust. That would be unfortunate in a room as the rocket exhaust has to go somewhere and rebounds from the wall behind you and your hair and uniform back get a tiny little bit warm or even catch fire. Under the wing of an aircraft or even the open field you are standing in, there is more than enough space for the motor exhaust to disperse fairly safely.
 

djohannsen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
762
Reaction score
620
Location
Within 800 meters.
Country
llUnited States
The BAZ (and most other recoilless weapons) was designed to finish burning propellant by the time the rocket left the tube.
From: https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/09/28/panzerschreck-five-amazing-facts-about-the-german-bazooka/
During firing, the RPzB 43 missile left the tube in full burn, something that made life unpleasant for the user. Gas masks and fire-retardant clothing were often essential when shooting a Panzerschreck. Later models, like the RPzB 54 (built from mid-1944 onwards), provided a shield on the launcher to reduce this problem, although this increased the weight of the weapon to 11kg (24.2lb) from 9.5kg (20.9lb). Variants like the the RPzB 54/1 had a slightly shorter tube, but improved RPzBGr 4992 rockets provided an increased range but offered a reduced blast issue since most of the propellant was consumed in the tube.
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
The story is true, the pilot was a little crazy and of course very brave, but I'm not sure this was an acceptable way to use (risk) resources like the pilot himself, the plane, six bazookas, and the precious spotting coordinates for artillery, ( not necessarily in this order) to immobilize a tank or destroy an halftrack.

General Patton gave even him a prize despite a mistaken air attack against US troops (in fact try to find a target, aim and fire, all alone with no help, no orders, no co-pilot, and no radio, easily causes mistakes) so the only certain thing is that Patton and me do not have the same opinion about the best efficient use of a observation plane...

But may be a US General today would see things in another way.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
One crazy pilot is probably an acceptable deviance. I don't think the US is going to notice the loss of one pilot, one cub and/or six bazookas in World War 2, especially since he is officially credited with six tank kills. If all of them are doing it then the army would probably have to shut the practice down. Plus I'll bet he was gung ho on the artillery spotting too.

JR
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Three bazookas per wing are a cargo applied in a part not designed to carry such a extra load so,
not counting the stress due to multiple backblasts, how is it possible the wing does not risk to break?

Also how it is possible to "aim" the target with an improptu weapon located in a wing ?
I can only Imagine the plane must approach very slowly to the the tank, from rear and at low level. How the AA MG did not kill him?

If the story is true, looks like the real war actions are very different the way we imagine. And this pilot must have the same mental attitude of a kamikaze
It certainly is a true account. The Major was a former High School History teacher from Moline, IL and his escapades are noted in the U.S Army's official history of the Lorraine Campaign as well as a tactical vignette produced by the Staff War College at Ft. Leavenworth, KS about the Arracourt-Juvelize battle where he engaged a German armored column that was about to overrun an American unit and forced to to redeploy to take a defensive posture.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,357
Reaction score
10,205
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
It certainly is a true account. The Major was a former High School History teacher from Moline, IL and his escapades are noted in the U.S Army's official history of the Lorraine Campaign as well as a tactical vignette produced by the Staff War College at Ft. Leavenworth, KS about the Arracourt-Juvelize battle where he engaged a German armored column that was about to overrun an American unit and forced to to redeploy to take a defensive posture.
Well, there are crazies in any war. Most of them very dead.

Of course, those few that make it provide some hairraising or outrageous stories like the Brit shooting people with his longbow, the cub with the 6 bazookas, etc.

von Marwitz
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Well, there are crazies in any war. Most of them very dead.

Of course, those few that make it provide some hairraising or outrageous stories like the Brit shooting people with his longbow, the cub with the 6 bazookas, etc.

von Marwitz
Certainly became one of Patton's favorites, and returned to teaching after the war. BTW, crazy can work in a crazy situation; And there's nothing crazier than combat!
 

Gordon

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
2,488
Reaction score
2,940
Country
llUnited States
I don't think rockets mounted on any aircraft in WWII had more sophisticated aiming than, "point the nose at the target, let 'er rip."



The tank crew was probably as surprised as you are.



The story is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carpenter_(lieutenant_colonel). Because the BAZ would not damage the plane it was not a kamikaze weapon. It was dangerous, no doubt. According to Carpenter, "word must be getting around to watch out for Cubs with bazookas on them. Every time I show up now they shoot with everything they have. They never used to bother Cubs. Bazookas must be bothering them a bit."

JR
I think the most interesting part of this quote is that he felt the enemy "never used to bother Cubs." I would have thought observation planes would be prime targets to eliminate due to what sorts of hell they were liable to bring down on you.
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
I think the most interesting part of this quote is that he felt the enemy "never used to bother Cubs." I would have thought observation planes would be prime targets to eliminate due to what sorts of hell they were liable to bring down on you.
this surprised me too.
Probably if the plane stays at a security altitude, light fire from ground it's not a problem for it. So there is no point to fire to a Observer Plane that makes the Observer Plane. Totally different if the observer plane becomes a fighter-bomber and attacks a target on the ground when even a lucky Luger shot can make all the difference.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
7790

meet the O-1A "Bird Dog" with WP rockets, circa Southeast Asia, 1963-1969.

7791

Or an O-2 "Super SkyMaster" with 2.75 in FFARS pods.

7792

And Carpenter's Bazooka laden Piper Cub.

Fixed Forward Firing Rocket assemblies are relatively easy to mount onto any airframe that has enough free wing loading on the chord of the wing. Very much a point in the general direction and shoot - area of effect weapon system, rather than precision munitions. I wouldn't suggest putting one on a "Bee Gee" or a "Pitt Racer" or a "Morane Bullet" or a Fokker "Eindecker" - the wing loading is too high for them without weapons pylons. But for light obs. aircraft, a long time tried and true method for both engaging enemy and serving as ad hoc marker rockets for FAC.
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
View attachment 7790

meet the O-1A "Bird Dog" with WP rockets, circa Southeast Asia, 1963-1969.

View attachment 7791

Or an O-2 "Super SkyMaster" with 2.75 in FFARS pods.

View attachment 7792

And Carpenter's Bazooka laden Piper Cub.

Fixed Forward Firing Rocket assemblies are relatively easy to mount onto any airframe that has enough free wing loading on the chord of the wing. Very much a point in the general direction and shoot - area of effect weapon system, rather than precision munitions. I wouldn't suggest putting one on a "Bee Gee" or a "Pitt Racer" or a "Morane Bullet" or a Fokker "Eindecker" - the wing loading is too high for them without weapons pylons. But for light obs. aircraft, a long time tried and true method for both engaging enemy and serving as ad hoc marker rockets for FAC.
The aircraft in the photo with the 2.75" rocket pods is a Cessna 0 -1 Bird Dog. The Cessna 0-2 Skymaster is a twin engine aircraft, with the engines in a 'push-pull ' configuration. The designation 'Super Skymaster ' refers to the Cessna 337, the civilian aircraft from which the 0-2 was derived.
 
Top