Talk:RP-3

accuracy on tanks

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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"

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)

The contemporary newspaper and publicity claim was originally made at the time because the diameter of the warhead was around 6" and this, and the number of rockets carried, i.e., 8, compared roughly to the broadside of that of a contemporary 6-inch gun-armed light cruiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.41 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not quite, it's more to do with 'throw weight' and it's hyperbolical, but not terribly. The classic Town-class cruiser HMS Belfast could in theory fire a twelve-gun broadside, but I'm not sure it ever did. (The battleship HMS Rodney did fire all nine of her 16-inch guns at once against the Bismarck, several times, but that was an extremely unusual thing to do. It stopped clocks and broke water mains and caused general havoc throughout the ship, and it was only done because the destruction of Bismarck was a grave national priority.) More often and more likely, Belfast would at most fire six guns, for a total throw weight of 672lb. A single rocket-armed Mosquito or Typhoon could deliver an eight-rocket salvo totalling 656lb. The rockets would impact at over 1,200mph, depending on the fighter's launch speed, so they were fairly comparable to 6-inch navy or 5.5-inch artillery shells.

It's deeply unfortunate that someone has edited the article to say that only 17 German vehicles were destroyed by RPs in the Falaise pocket, which betrays a deep ignorance of the work of ORS2 and the fragmentary and partial nature of its reports. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify this, ORS2 claimed that 'they counted 344 tanks, self-propelled guns and other armoured vehicles, 2,447 lorries and 252 towed guns -- 3,043 items in all.' (Major LF Ellis et al, Victory In The West Vol.I, Cabinet Edition, HMSO 1962, repr Imperial War Museum, London, 1993, ISBN 1-870423-07-0, p.448.) However, they admitted that 'the stench of dead horses was so overpowering that where there was any number of horse-drawn vehicles that area had to be passed with all speed.' (Ellis, ibid.) This means that they must have skipped very large areas of the Falaise pocket, since by all accounts the overpowering stench of dead horses was pretty unavoidable. The Americans, meanwhile, counted some 5,000 vehicles in their own area, including 220 tanks and 160 self-propelled guns. (Carlo D'Este, Decision In Normandy, Collins 1983, repr Penguin, London, 2001, ISBN 0-141-39056-5, p.432.) The legendary Daily Express war correspondent Alan Moorehead spent four hours in St-Lambert-sur-Dives, at the epicentre of the Falaise pocket, on 22 August 1944, when the fighting had only just moved on and the horses hadn't begun to smell -- in fact many of them, though crippled, were still alive and 'a Canadian soldier is mercifully going round shooting wounded horses with a Luger pistol.' Moorehead observed in his dispatch, 'I suppose there were about a thousand German vehicles of every sort lying out in the fields behind [the village].' (Alan Moorehead, Eclipse, Hamish Hamilton 1945, repr Granta Books, London, 2000, ISBN 1-86207-366-X, pp.146-7.) That's a thousand destroyed or abandoned enemy vehicles on view in the immediate vicinity of this one little village. And the Falaise pocket, the supposed area of ORS2's analysis, was about fifteen miles long and seven miles wide. (See map, Ellis, op cit p.448ff.) This puts ORS2's figures in context. Those figures are so partial as to be meaningless.

Now, it turns out that ORS2's count of 344 'armoured vehicles' in fact meant '187 armoured vehicles and self-propelled guns, 157 armoured cars or personnel carriers', personnel carriers being half-tracks (D'Este, ibid.) So, in the areas where the smell wasn't too much for them, ORS2 counted 187 tanks and SP guns. If just 17 of these were destroyed by RPs and not hit by any other weapon, that would be almost 10 per cent of the total. If all '17 vehicles' were tanks rather than SP guns, that would be a higher proportion of the total. If we are to take the Wikipedia article literally, as the unknown editor apparently intends, and conclude that rocket-firing Typhoons only destroyed '17 vehicles' of all types, including horse-drawn carts, in the Falaise pocket, then the proposition becomes something well beyond ludicrous. By all accounts RPs were used on every class of vehicle, in circumstances where the roads were packed and the pilots really couldn't miss. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Level of detail in article

Per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Encyclopedic_content: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Also "Wikipedia is not a manual,". To take a example: the colouring of a warhead, is not of any use to the average reader, if someone was researching the subject to that level, they would go to the works referenced for the detail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well guess its time i give up on Wikipedia.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggest move back to "Rocket Projectile 3 inch (RP-3)"

The article name is ambiguous, not in line with other articles relating to similar weapons & it sounds like a Disambiguation page. Suggest keeping it consistent with 5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket page (amongst others), & giving it a better Title of Rocket Projectile 3-inch (RP-3).

I have done this but it was moved back as... "Because according to the article, it's name was "RP-3". That's not that hard to understand. As to "sounds like a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page", I don't recall ever seeing that used in an RM discussion. Ought to be interesting."

According to the article, it's called Rocket Projectile 3 inch anyway.Steve Bowen (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's called that in full in official sources but the abbreviation is more generally used. "60lb rocket" is probably also more commonly used than the spelt out name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood & happy to have a title containing "60lb rocket" just not RP-3 as it's so scant & meaningless Steve Bowen (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The rocket can carry more warheads than the 60lb SAP one. I agree that the article name RP-3 is ambiguous, however, I think a better new name than Rocket Projectile 3-inch (RP-3) would simply be RP-3 rocket, or RP (rocket).--Blockhaj (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Instead of rocket then maybe "rocket projectile" to specify that it is a weapon.--Blockhaj (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood & good point re the 60lb limited description & I think RP-3 (3 inch rocket projectile) is better Steve Bowen (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Still a tautological name. And there are several weapons out there known by a name which is at first glance impenetrable and might be mistaken for ambiguous (but aren't) MG 08 , PPSh-41, RPK, FN MAG, SNEB, CRV7 GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Tautological mathematical logic, a tautology is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation & my new favourite word. I don't disagree & I'm sure there are others but I'm talking about this page. Steve Bowen (talk)

The examples GraemeLeggett brought up are problematic in their own right. I think Steven Bowen hit the nail on the head with RP-3 (3 inch rocket projectile). I vote for a move there.--Blockhaj (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Tautology (language) - repetition. And WP:CommonName says there's nothing wrong with PPsh etc. Given there is contention you should initiate the Requested Move procedure. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all & will do. And this is why people laugh at this site - Roll on Commercialisation & adverts... Steve Bowen (talk)

To be honest, Wikipedia is way to limiting. Its like people do not understands that it is a limitless website and not a book limited by paper.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

In some ways it is limiting, but they limits that the Wikipedia community has imposed. There are websites out there without those limits, and you're welcome to contribute to those. But if you keep contributing here, you're going to have to follow the limits. BilCat (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

:If the name is currently ambiguous, and there's no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the natural solution would be to move back to the full name, since any parenthetical disambiguation wouldn't be much shorter than that. Of course, that all depends on the "if". Is this really ambiguous? I mean, to take some of the examples, MG 08 isn't ambiguous, although, of course, everything should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The disambiguated name could be RP-3 (rocket), per Wikiproject:Rocketry, or RP-3 (weapon) c.f. Hedgehog (weapon). If it needs disambiguation GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC an article name does not need to be unambiguous if it is the primary topic. If it were not the primary topic, we would see a lot of hits for the disambiguation page - but we don't per page view analysis). It appears that RP-3 is the common name, so that is what we should go with and it is found directly by using its full designation in any case, so there is no problem there. KISS! Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

BilCat, by Wikipedia community i assume u mean the early users of the site and not the new writers which u scare off all the time? Times changes and so should the wikipedia rules. Information should not be limited.--Blockhaj (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I normally just try to scare off users who think Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ("the community") don't apply to them because they know better than everyone else. It doesn't matter to me if they're new or old users. If you don't like the policies and guidelines, you're free to try to get them changed, but not to just ignore them. BilCat (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Contested moves should not be repeated

There is a process for this. Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Controversial It will also flag up the requested move to interested projects and will get more input on the name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)