Nebelwerfer - Experience Reports 

1 suggestion: can you add a paragraph between the german text and its source reference. that would make it easier to compare both languages and easier to get the source. Currently the source starts in the same line of the source. For english readers it is also easier if a paragraph is used as separator. thx for the great Nebelwerfer topic mini series.

@@typxxilps thx, I will think about it.

Why do you look like TIK???

Yes...yes.

Get out

눈_눈

Via Google Translate: "This is another topic where I didn't know I wanted to know. But when I saw the video it was immediately clear to me. This comment was written before the viewing as I expect top quality as always " .

@Military History not Visualised Merci pour le cœur ❤️

Just like How many tanks could a Panzerfausts faust?

Gimme a minute to figure that How many panzershrecks to shreck a panzer ?

Love it.

I want one that's easily mass produced rocket wise, out of something that degrades in nature quickly. Like a bottle rocket, but bigger and with nebel.

If there's a bullet with your name on it, an MLRS is "to the inhabitants of the targetted town". I have seen it nicknamed the "Grid Square Removal System" for its effect in bombardment.

MLRS comes in batteries of 9 launchers. The US has an integrated fire control system with much better counter battery radar. The launchers use individual firing positions to minimize counter battery fire. The launcher moves from its firing position in less then a minute of firing. Uses @ same size rocket, has same number of rockets, has more varieties of munitions. Is tracked and more mobile. Reload time is 6 minutes for MLRS, Smersh is twenty minutes. So how is Smersh in anyway better let alone a world more advanced?

All current MLRS are atackms capable, two missiles per launcher unclassified range of 170km. MLRS batteries also have a significant Hemtt truck platoon to haul rockets. C Btry 16FA MLRS Baumholder 88-90, A Btry 6-37FA MLRS/ATACKMS Camp Essayons, S. Korea 93-94.

This is footage of modern Russian MLRS used in Syria ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-B-KLi6_OQrs.html

@@speedyeg-guitars-playlists4800 *BM, BMP means literally "Infantry fighting vehicle". As for ranges - BM-30 with rockets of which type and M270 with rockets of which type, as it is more important than carrier - sure, tracked M270 will be better at off-road manoeuvres, but BM-30 like other wheeled carriers will be easier to maintain, faster on road, not to mention that there are at least few types of wheeled rocket artillery that can reload without needing resupply vehicle

I get the impression that the British (and Americans) weren't big fans of unguided rocket systems for land combat. I've read numerous British reports from front line troops describing them as "a lot of smoke and noise, but little effect". I've also read British reports discussing the possibility of developing a similar , British system (which they eventually did). But it was regarded as a low priority because the lack of accuracy of rockets (according to the British view) greatly limited their usefulness. Nebelwerfer accuracy was, certainly, extremely poor (there are firing tables that can be viewed online) and were virtually useless within about 3km or beyond about 6km.

> British weather launch system ? you mean the land mattress, cause I can't even find something on google with " British weather launch system" and I am even more confused since you noted that I depicted it in this video? " the British weather launch system depicted in this video", am I missing a joke?

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I suspect the op is using "British Weather Launch System" as a translation of Fog Thrower for comic effect :-)

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Yes, sorry but you are :D Nebelwerfer means "fog thrower" and the stereotype is that it's always foggy in England

I don't know enough about the British nor post-war, so no idea. Next time ideally state it clearly and add the joke in parentheses or something, since I get a lot of rather weird comments that are not jokes etc.

Smoke is a very common weapon in all armies, from WWI to today. It blocks sight, which has all the effects you suggest. Firing smoke on enemy positions obscures their vision, which can disorient as well as hinder their fire. Firing smoke on your own position hinders enemy fire.

It have upsides and downsides compared to regular artillery. It is more mobile, it is cheaper to manufacture, and it can deliver more firepower in a short time period than howitzers and field guns. The downsides is that precision is lower and therefore will ammunition consumption be larger. All smoke trails and sounds can be terrifying for an enemy and crush their morale, but the smoke trails can also make it easy for the enemy to see where the fire came from and quickly organize a counter-artillery barrage. The biggest advantage of Nebelwerfers as I sees it, was its ability to in just a few seconds land tonnes of explosives on an enemy. The fire power was massive. One Nebelwerfer battery could have the same effect as 81 batteries of field artillery ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rzqp9hSZ9Vo.html ). And if you have 81 batteries of artillery fire landing on top of your head then you would become a nerve wreck for a long time afterwards. The highforce trauma from the explosions would cause massive bodily injuries. The blastwaves would be so massive that they suck up all oxygen from victims lungs. So there is no wonder why rocket artillery was so feared by the enemy. I imagine the effect would be somewhat the same as the massive artillery bombardments on the Karelian Isthmus in 1944 where gigantic Soviet troop concentrations gets wiped out in just one big salvo of artillery fire. The entire enemy spearhead becomes disorganized and vulnerable to counter-attacks.

@@adm0iii The thing is, you don't want to fire smoke directly at the enemy you are attacking nor at your attacking troops because your soldiers won't see what they are suppsoed to shoot. In offensives, a good practice is to deceide which sector you want to strike and launch smoke at flanking positions so enemy troops cannot support each other.

pretty sure that was amazon

looked it up, it is actually a shirt: Surplus Raw Vintage Hemd Langarm Braun

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized ha! Thanks!

no it wasn't, there was a flame-oil (Flammöl) ammunition though.

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thank you very much for the reply! So, it would be akin to being trapped next to a tire fire. Also massively unpleasant.

Who are you calling “scruffy?”

I actually came up with that pun during editing, so the smile must have been something else.

They werf nebels.

Is that MightyJingles brand salt?

genial!!! :D

Another historian after I showed him your comment: "Waffenfarbe hanfgrün" ;)

Maybe he's speaking American? .

@@BobSmith-dk8nw You don't say? However I did mention English, and also put in a LOL.

@@philbosworth3789 Yeah. I got that. I guess my reference to "American" wasn't an indication of humor as well. .

Because Contractors sold them big ones? .

In a nutshell: because they are not needed anymore. Depending on personal preference it might be: because for some time the people in charge thought they would not be needed anymore and abolished these systems to save money. MRL systems are not usefull for COIN and expeditionary deployment. Their basic purpose is to cause as much colateral damage as possible... they indescriminetly cover a targeted area with firepower. If single or few well placed rounds are the prefered method of operation MRLs make little to no sense. In addition most of the missions that MRL systems excel in have become an after thought or even become unnecessary. There are also changes in technology. The weight and ROF advantage of MRL is much lower than it used to be a few decades ago.

Guns and howitzers are more accurate. While rocket artillery does not only kill enemy soldiers but also lots of innocent civilians and turn the entire village into rubble. That is not so popular if that news comes out in the media, when western countries already have a problem with public support for a colonial war to steal natural resources. So old cannons are therefore better for that reason. The next reason also have to do with precision. The enemy can just try to get close to your own tanks and soldiers. And if they get too close, then you cannot fire your rocket artillery without the risk that you start hitting your own troops and killing your own men. So having a field gun or howitzer is more safe. In Vietnam could one such artillery piece drop a shell within 15meters radius from the target - and that good precision allowed the Americans to fire on the Vietcong even if they were standing very close to their own troops without any risk of hitting their own men.

@@nattygsbord Bull shit. Western powers are in these countries now to kill terrorists who are attacking them - and - to try and save the relatively responsible governments of those countries from being undone by terrorists. The West was more than happy pay who ever was running the country - up until it crossed the line. It's much cheaper to just buy the oil from who ever is selling it - than it is to put military force into the area. Military force is there - because the terrorists are there. And no - in Vietnam - you still had to be careful where you dropped your artillery. There are MLRS systems today - they are just larger than the old ones. I believe that they way they work now - is that they have larger rockets but the rockets have multiple sub-munitions they break up to that independently inflict damage on the target. .

@@BobSmith-dk8nw *"And no - in Vietnam - you still had to be careful where you dropped your artillery."* My point was just that rocket artillery was unpractical in Vietnam because the Vietnamese loved to hug their enemy. Had USA used nebelwerfers in such situations, then would many American troops have been killed by their own artillery. *"There are MLRS systems today"* Of course there are. Rocket artillery can be very practical in certain situations. Especially in real wars, and not colonialist BS. *"Western powers are in these countries now to kill terrorists who are attacking them"* There are more terrorists in Libya today than it was back when Khadaffi ruled it. Syria under Assad have been fighting ISIS, Al-Qaida and FSA, and yet do USA and EU rather side with the terrorists than Assad. Exported American, Swedish and French weapons have been found in the hands of FSA terrorists, which later on handed them over to ISIS. The suggested Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Irans links to terrorist that caused 9/11 have all been bullshit. So no. These wars had very little do to with fighting terrorism. If you want to fight terrorism, then you can start bombing FSA instead. And bully the terror-state Saudiarabia into submission, since it have been sponsoring foreign terrorism and the preaching of jihadist islam. *"It's much cheaper to just buy the oil from who ever is selling it - than it is to put military force into the area."* The oil company Total and Blackwater do not care about what is best for the tax payers. They care about their own profits only. The French oil company Total could make big profits when it could just steal the Libyan oil production after France had completed its war of aggression. And Halliburton and Blackwater could make big amounts of money from the Iraq war, so of course they liked that pointless war. And what the real point of this war was, that is something you have to ask the liar George W. Bush which himself have admitted that the original reason to invade Iraq was a lie. So I guess we now can just execute the man as a war criminal who starts a war of aggression that killed 600.000 people. Same of course goes for Tony Blair, Hollande and the politicians that in secrecy exported weapons to FSA.

Some were mounted on vehicles and after a battery of nebelwerfers fired they split pronto.

he said "literally" and therefor he's correct and you're not. it's the literal translation of these german words, or rather this compound word.

> Nebelwerfer were not only used for smoke I never said that.

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thats right, but you can mention that they were used most of the time with high explosive Rockets. When you do a Video for education, please tell the full story, and not only the part of it.

pay attention, I link to the general Nebelwerfer video. > please tell the full story, and not only the part of it. lol, since that video was also about WW2, I guess I must also cover the whole WW2, right?