| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 26 Feb 2015 2:23 p.m. PST |
put the calliope rocket launcher on top of a tank instead of a halftrack or flatbed truck? And don't tell me it's simply because they don't want it to look like the Panzerwerfer or Katyusha. |
| Zyphyr | 26 Feb 2015 2:31 p.m. PST |
Because it seemed like a good idea at the time? |
| Sajiro | 26 Feb 2015 2:37 p.m. PST |
IDK, that would seem like a lot of smoke and fire going into a small crew compartment on a half track, but that doesn't explain why a truck wouldn't work. Maybe they mounted it on a Sherman because that tank enjoyed a tall profile and they knew the rockets could clear most obstructions. :). |
| Forager | 26 Feb 2015 2:42 p.m. PST |
I'd guess that the demand for trucks and halftracks to move men and the materiel of war precluded their use as a rocket platform. |
| Weasel | 26 Feb 2015 2:46 p.m. PST |
It might make them able to operate a bit closer to the front lines or be a bit more resilient to incoming artillery fire. |
 enfant perdus  | 26 Feb 2015 2:53 p.m. PST |
It wasn't meant to be mobile rocket artillery in the way the Katyusha or the vehicle mounted Nebelwerfers were. The idea was to give the tank unit extra firepower that was under their immediate and direct control. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 26 Feb 2015 3:15 p.m. PST |
Wasn't there also a jeep mounted version? Were they in widespread use during WWII? |
 Herkybird | 26 Feb 2015 3:25 p.m. PST |
It would be a useful 'one shot' supporting 'artillery' volley for the advancing tanks, I reckon. |
| Weasel | 26 Feb 2015 3:56 p.m. PST |
It's also worth noting that the Americans pretty much went through every possible combination of "gun + vehicle" in the war.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a Pershing tank with pintle mounted revolvers somewhere out there, presumably named after some civil war cavalry general. |
| Cold Steel | 26 Feb 2015 4:26 p.m. PST |
Ever see the films of the Marines using the jeep-mounted rockets in the South Pacific? They were taking counter-battery fire before the last rocket was gone. Given the speed and accuracy of German artillery concentration in Normandy, mounting the rockets on a tank made a lot of sense. Granted, the Germans' Normandy performance was based on months of pre-plotting fire, but the Allies didn't know it at the time. |
| Mako11 | 26 Feb 2015 5:51 p.m. PST |
Direct fire, and the ability to easily rotate the launcher onto the target, I suspect. Perhaps weight on a M3 halftrack might have been a concern too, since there are a lot more tubes than on a Nebelwerfer. |
| cosmicbank | 26 Feb 2015 6:14 p.m. PST |
Because it is cool. And sometimes that's enough. |
| Charlie 12 | 26 Feb 2015 7:15 p.m. PST |
Somewhere I read (years back) that what Mako says was the one of the big reasons. Plus, it was an easy conversion on a tank (just need a handful of welded on brackets and you're done). To do it on a halftrack would have required a lot more work. |
| zoneofcontrol | 26 Feb 2015 8:24 p.m. PST |
Those weren't rockets. The tubes were actually filled with water. The official name was Ronson Fire Suppression System. |
| mandt2 | 26 Feb 2015 8:32 p.m. PST |
My guess would be mobility. The Sherman could go places the M3 halftrack couldn't. The Sherman was also more heavily armored and could get in closer to the enemy. |
| Ivan DBA | 26 Feb 2015 8:40 p.m. PST |
Because with rockets added, the Sherman looks almost cool. |
| skippy0001 | 26 Feb 2015 8:55 p.m. PST |
No-the rack could be angled so the back blast wouldn't damage the rear of the vehicle and still have a good indirect capability and the crew was safe inside the tank in order for it to shoot and scoot.
It also made pretty colors in flight and on impact as noted in Osprey's 'Craters of the European Theater'. Thank the stars Oddball never had one… |
| Bunkermeister | 26 Feb 2015 11:20 p.m. PST |
The same rockets in a smaller pack were mounted on trucks and fired sideways. The tanks carried the launcher for immediate artillery support and could drop the launcher so they could then advance as a regular tank. It was for quick fire support for armored units. Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog |
| uglyfatbloke | 27 Feb 2015 3:27 a.m. PST |
Maybe it was done to ensure that in the future wargamers would have awkward models to build; ones that could be broken simply by looking at them thus avoiding all that tedious business of actually dropping them on the floor. |
 ColCampbell | 27 Feb 2015 9:31 a.m. PST |
Thank the stars Oddball never had one… No, he just had the paint-filled rounds! Jim |
| Rudysnelson | 27 Feb 2015 3:50 p.m. PST |
Half tracks were in greater demand for use as support vehicles and converting foot infantry to mech infantry . Certain Sherman models were no longer valid for frontline combat. |
| Randall of Texas | 03 Mar 2015 2:47 p.m. PST |
The Sherman was capable of indirect fire, like an artillery piece. This and the protection it afforded the crew, its cross country performance, and its ability to fight as a tank made it a natural. |
| number4 | 06 Mar 2015 8:17 p.m. PST |
The rockets were short range but gave the tank units a useful added punch before going into the attack – particularly handy going up against dug in infantry and antitank guns. Robert Boscawen describes the use of the 'Tulip' – air to ground rockets mounted in pairs on the side of some Shermans in his memoirs 'Armoured Guardsmen' |
paints up some WWII Soviet aircraft.
