Air Strikes

[c3k]

You are so wrong about what testing is. It is a physics and engineering research project, not one firing range exercise.

Example - http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a125824.pdf

There are many military contractors running bomb ranges blowing stuff up to design the next underside of a truck to withstand IEDs, or to design the right kevlar sandwich. They model, they calculate, then they test to learn very specific things, then they do it again.

(They also use my company's software, part of how I know...)

Sigh. Really? Another strawman? Fine. Tell me again about how divebombing carriers is the same as divebombing tanks. Tell me again how artillery doesn't damage tanks. I'm all ears.

I am very aware of testing and how and when it can be useful. Sheesh.

Theory is fine. Testing is better. Real world proves it. Or, am I wrong about that? (This is your opportunity to draft a magnum opus on testing methodology, the scientific method, and all other sundry aspects of testing. Really. But, please, do it in another thread.)

Regards.

Ken

[Apocal]

Allow me to backtrack a bit, to clear up any ambiguity regarding what has been and has not been said:

The basic conclusion was without ICM, the 155 shell had to hit the tank to kill it - physically intersect its cross section on the fly. That hits within 1 meter would typically cause immobilization. 1 meter, not 15.

Of course those figures were for mere 100 pound artillery shells, not for 500 pound bombs, which carry more HE per unit of weight, as well. But we don't have to just guess how equivalent distance goes. It goes as the square root of the delivered HE. A 500 pound bomb might have 16 times the HE of a 100 pound artillery shell - the shell is roughly 15% HE payload and the bomb more like 50%, on top of the weight difference. That works out to all of 4 times the distance for equivalent blast pressure. Or near misses 4 meters away bring effective.

A tank might be 4 by 2.5 meters. That puts the effective target area at a rectangle about 12 by 10. Side misses are likely more effective than front ones, so we can be generous and raise it to 12 by 12. You can miss a perfect point of aim by 6 meters and get an effective hit, by that estimate.

Tell me again how artillery doesn't damage tanks. I'm all ears.

Nobody said that, not in this thread, not even in the article: "The US database was a result of the modeling data developed in 1972 that required direct hits against tanks to achieve any effects." Slight aside, but for why they specify tanks instead of generalized mix of armored vehicles; the 1972 model (AFAIK) came from OR studies (i.e. 'actual use with all conditions exactly correct.' in your words) not theory work in some lab. Obviously there wasn't a whole lot of field data regarding IFVs/APCs under artillery fire in 1972.

Thank you.

From that article:

This test confirmed that US Army models did not accurately

portray artillery effectiveness. Direct hits were not required to

damage tanks and other armored targets.

The US Army models were built from OR studies of dumping 155mm arty on tanks for real.

Theory is fine. Testing is better. Real world proves it. Or, am I wrong about that?

Well, the real world information available (where available, of course) says tac air (especially large bombs) should be mostly ineffective at destroying tanks. You should be able to put a dozen (or two) IL-2s over the battlefield and get one or zero knockouts as a typical case thing.

[MikeyD]

You should be able to put a dozen (or two) IL-2s over the battlefield and get one or zero knockouts as a typical case thing.

I recall reading awhile ago that the good-old Sherman tank expended an average of 100 rounds per target eliminated, or something on that order. And think of the millions of artillery shells fired to no purpose, the millions of bullets fired and the millions of bombs dropped. I once had the stats on the numbers of Javelin anti-tank missiles fired during the Iraq war. I vaguely recall it was an absurd number like 40,000. And we were facing an opponent without a tank force. It seems a 'true to life' tactical wargame might be a little bit absurd to play, firing absurd amounts of ordnance at eachother over hours and hours with hardly anything to show for it.

[Skwabie]

some pics. (smoke is toggled off.)

210mm artillery

301mm rocket

Stuka small payload

Stuka big payload

far as I can see for CM, you put some HE explosive big enough near a tank it's gonna knock it out. bigger the HE the more forgiving for how near.

[Apocal]

I recall reading awhile ago that the good-old Sherman tank expended an average of 100 rounds per target eliminated, or something on that order. And think of the millions of artillery shells fired to no purpose, the millions of bullets fired and the millions of bombs dropped. I once had the stats on the numbers of Javelin anti-tank missiles fired during the Iraq war. I vaguely recall it was an absurd number like 40,000. And we were facing an opponent without a tank force.

The ATGM numbers specifically:

By 2005, between Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Army expended a total of 607 Javelins. Maybe you could add another ~200 or so expended by the Marines. Far from being 40,000. Even adding TOWs accounts only for another 4000 or so missiles. Obviously usage continued along with the war, but I doubt it hits even 10,000 given the nature of most operations post-2005.

(source: http://proceedings.ndia.org/5650/Cannon.pdf)

edit:

(source: http://www.ausaredstone.org/files/CCWS%20PMO%20Briefing%202009%20TM%20Conference.pdf)

Better numbers, 801 Javelins expended in initial OEF/OIF conflict, 154 post-2005.

Addressing the point in general, the high-end estimates come from taking all ammunition produced or issued, dividing by casualty totals and coming with a figure. But I'm not using estimates of expenditures: in specific, I use accounts of massed aircraft attacks on observed armor (i.e. Mortain, Lorraine, Bulge, IL-2s employing PTABs against Tigers at Kursk, etc.) wherever sufficient detail exists in primary sources, essentially.

I'd be more than open to the idea that tactical aircraft could have better effects typically, but the source has to stand up the scrutiny of the receiving side's loss reporting, not just Rudel's bull**** claims.

It seems a 'true to life' tactical wargame might be a little bit absurd to play, firing absurd amounts of ordnance at eachother over hours and hours with hardly anything to show for it.

Except decision was achieved within an hour or two in the real deal; I play realistic wargames (like CM) because I want to explore the hows and whys of achieving that decision. If I wanted an experience that was "dialed back" and balanced to keep all units 'competitive' in H2H, I would just play a light wargame like Red Dragon.

[sburke]

It seems a 'true to life' tactical wargame might be a little bit absurd to play, firing absurd amounts of ordnance at eachother over hours and hours with hardly anything to show for it.

I'm playing Sacrifice for a New Religion for the second time (first time against the AI). I have 4 MGs blasting away at the steeple trying to suppress the FO in there. God damn a**hole keeps dropping mortars rounds on me and probably laughing his ass off. Man I need a tank.

[Yeknodathon]

There is nothing more epic than watching the slow-moving men-o-war grog hulks, HMS JonS Indefatigable and Le Grande JasonC maneuver within range, open their gun ports, and spout whole devastating broadsides into each other while wannabe frigates and lesser sloops dart around with their little 6lb-ders and weedy grape shot to detach a bit of rigging here and there.

Hornblower doesn't come close.

[Yeknodathon]

What was that ?

First Russian test of a hand thrown nuclear grenade, dropped from Pe-2 planes by Night Withes squadron ?

I spy the sails of a whaling ship on the horizon: the Kettler roaming the vast seas for very rare whale oil, proof positive methinks of tactical nuclear capability.. but..but in the wrong hands. Call me a revisionist but Soviets got ém first?!

[mjkerner]

There is nothing more epic than watching the slow-moving men-o-war grog hulks, HMS JonS Indefatigable and Le Grande JasonC maneuver within range, open their gun ports, and spout whole devastating broadsides into each other while wannabe frigates and lesser sloops dart around with their little 6lb-ders and weedy grape shot to detach a bit of rigging here and there.

Hornblower doesn't come close.

Lol, that had me spitting out my coffee! Spot on; it's always a Battle Royale.

Edit: the thumbs down symbol on this post must be from my clumsy fingers...I would have given Yekkies' post a thumbs up if I was trying to add an icon.

[sburke]

There is nothing more epic than watching the slow-moving men-o-war grog hulks, HMS JonS Indefatigable and Le Grande JasonC maneuver within range, open their gun ports, and spout whole devastating broadsides into each other while wannabe frigates and lesser sloops dart around with their little 6lb-ders and weedy grape shot to detach a bit of rigging here and there.

Hornblower doesn't come close.

I think you may have pissed someone off inferring he is represented by the French

Now back to wiping the coffee I just snorted all over my keyboard. Man I really need to get a liquid proof model one these days.

mjkerner I think the thumbs down post was appropriate. Stuff like this should come with a warning label.

[John Kettler]

Skwabie,

There is a considerable difference between the way as Nebelwerfer rocket warhead works and that of, say, a 15cm HE shell. The Nebelwerfer rocket's primary kill mechanism is blast, for the charge/weight ratio is very high, a situation made possible by the minuscule G forces at launch, meaning little warhead structure is needed to survive them. By contrast, a cannon shell may be subjected to as much as 15,000 Gs at launch and therefore requires heavy steel walls, reducing the charge to as little as a few percent for things like 16" AP shells.

Consequently, a Nebelwerfer warhead is primarily a blast weapon, and blast atttenuates very rapidly over range. It can not only kill by direct impact, but by a near miss. Also, it is more prone, by virtue of burster charge size, to cause the dread blast lung among humans in the area--at ranges well beyond the direct blast kill radius. Contrariwise, the equivalent shell kills primarily by fragmentation, and to horrifying distances. Try 503 meters for the heavy frag radius of a 155mm. ISTR in one of the Cold War test firings the US conducted against our tanks, there was great consternation when a long, sharp 155mm shell splinter actually pierced the side of an M60's turret. A wholly unexpected event.

Yeknodathon,

You left out "ponderously" as the adjective preceding "maneuver" in your Age of fighting Sail metaphor. And if you're going to invoke one of my favorite periods, please get the gun stats right. A frigate of that era typically sported 18-pounder long gun main armament. A sloop was typically armed with 4-pounders of the same design. As for nukes, the best this period could offer would be fireships.

sburke,

If I can ever get my Tactical Engine™ going, then your solution is to let me be your opponent in that scenario. Can pretty much guarantee your first burst would decapitate my FO--before the fire mission could be ordered. On a more serious note, a stone church steeple offers excellent protection. No idea whether BFC models ricochets from the bells.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

By contrast, a cannon shell may be subjected to as much as 15,000 Gs at launch and therefore requires heavy steel walls, reducing the charge to as little as a few percent for things like 16" AP shells.

The actual reason for the robust construction of 16" naval AP shells is so that they may penetrate the armor belts of battleships. A better comparison is the HC shell, in which case your argument is perfectly valid.

Michael

[Skwabie]

Skwabie,

There is a considerable difference between the way as Nebelwerfer rocket warhead works and that of, say, a 15cm HE shell....

JK, that does make sense but HE weight of various munitions can mostly all be found on the net.

OTOH what's a good warship game these days? Jutland?

[Yeknodathon]

please get the gun stats right. A frigate of that era typically sported 18-pounder long gun main armament. A sloop was typically armed with 4-pounders of the same design. As for nukes, the best this period could offer would be fireships.

Comeon, laddie board me, comeon, comeon, right here, right now, comeon

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

I was arguing the general case, yet apparently was unclear. Whether designed to down planes, blow up infantry or smash into the vitals of an armored warship and detonate, any cannon launched shell has to have a thick, stout casing, relative to the beer can warhead wall construction of an equivalent diameter Nebelwerfer rocket. A 28cm Nebelwerfer rocket is almost exactly the same diameter as the 11" bore of the pocket battleship GRAF SPEE. Naval AP shells are the heaviest projectiles for a given diameter and have the toughest terminal environment, so are constructed accordingly. I agree with your HC argument. It's the best comparison possible vs standard field artillery HE. BTW, even using the mighty 240mm howitzer, Patton couldn't crack the German forts at Metz. They were too tough, and I doubt his shells were even on par with naval SAP. Now if he's had a captured 42cm Gamma Morser/Big Bertha or the never fired in combat 910mm super heavy US siege mortar Little David...

Regards,

John Kettler

[Collingwood]

OTOH what's a good warship game these days? Jutland?

Steam and Iron is very good for WWI and earlier. The graphics are nothing to write home about, in fact when playing you could be forgiven for thinking you're back in the windows 3.1 days, but it is a long way better than some of the prettier looking games out there. Comes with a good campaign mode update too.

You can fight everything from small raider actions to the full Jutland battle. It has very decent AI and is well worth a look.

[sburke]

Comeon, laddie board me, comeon, comeon, right here, right now, comeon

This is all your fault. This is what we get for leaving the door to the cesspool open. I keep saying we need to seal that door.

[Michael Emrys]

And if you're going to invoke one of my favorite periods, please get the gun stats right.

He can't help it, John. Turning the pages of those thick tomes is hard when all you've got is hooves. Besides, his brain is about the size of a chestnut.

Michael

[Yeknodathon]

[...how flapping in the wind, the raised dead head Sprout and Crossed Carrots to bring fear on those in waters from Boston to the Spanish Main]

Aharrrrr, graaaaaa, plunder ,ahooyyyyy ahaaaaarrr matey... ahaaaaarrrr... I smell Grog and Kettllers in equal measures... ahhaaaaa, careen me barnacles off with a cutlass if there not be booty here me lads... ahaaaaarrr

[Jock Tamson]

Having now recovered from earlier LOLs @Yeknodathon, I would add to this thread that if anyone is looking for a really excellent book on the pre '14 naval arms race and the associated personalities - from Lord Salisbury through Bismarck, three generations of Kaisers, Chamberlain senior, Fisher, Tirpitz, Churchill...a really fascinating mix of people, politics and technology - I would thoroughly recommend Robert K Massie's "Dreadnought".

[Fizou]

There is nothing more epic than watching the slow-moving men-o-war grog hulks, HMS JonS Indefatigable and Le Grande JasonC maneuver within range, open their gun ports, and spout whole devastating broadsides into each other while wannabe frigates and lesser sloops dart around with their little 6lb-ders and weedy grape shot to detach a bit of rigging here and there.

Hornblower doesn't come close.

Priceless.. and coffee all over my work desk (again).

[Skwabie]

Steam and Iron is very good for WWI and earlier. The graphics are nothing to write home about, in fact when playing you could be forgiven for thinking you're back in the windows 3.1 days, but it is a long way better than some of the prettier looking games out there. Comes with a good campaign mode update too.

You can fight everything from small raider actions to the full Jutland battle. It has very decent AI and is well worth a look.

Thanks for the reco Collingwood, my search indeed took me to just the 2 S&I + jutland/distant guns series. Still went with Jutland tho for it seemed closer to naval CM... Might still expand my collection later for sure!

[agusto]

Steam and Iron is very good for WWI and earlier. The graphics are nothing to write home about, in fact when playing you could be forgiven for thinking you're back in the windows 3.1 days, but it is a long way better than some of the prettier looking games out there. Comes with a good campaign mode update too.

You can fight everything from small raider actions to the full Jutland battle. It has very decent AI and is well worth a look.

Hmm, thanks for posting that. Steam and Iron really looks quite promising, i think i might get it.

OTOH what's a good warship game these days? Jutland?

The Harpoon series are quite good. Another game that looks VERY interesting to me but that i havent tested myself yet is Command: Modern Naval and Air Combat. Dont know if you have already heard of it, it is quite new.

[Skwabie]

agusto I did get jutland and fumbling with it atm with what little spare time i got. Whole system is quite complex tho for i've never had naval sim experience before let alone that era, so will be busy with the steep learning curve for a while i suspect! Did know about harpoon, dangerous waters, command and 688i(?) but reason I went for jutland is only that it's got 3d combat for the tactical level as 'seeing is believing' always worked better for me.

[Michael Emrys]

Having now recovered from earlier LOLs @Yeknodathon, I would add to this thread that if anyone is looking for a really excellent book on the pre '14 naval arms race and the associated personalities - from Lord Salisbury through Bismarck, three generations of Kaisers, Chamberlain senior, Fisher, Tirpitz, Churchill...a really fascinating mix of people, politics and technology - I would thoroughly recommend Robert K Massie's "Dreadnought".

Agree 100%. He also wrote a sequel a few years back called Castles of Steel covering the Great War at sea. While not so fascinating as the first book, if one is into WW I naval affairs, this too is a must read. His discussion of what went wrong at Gallipoli and why certainly increased my understanding of the matter.

Michael