JonS

Thank you for that stunningly original piece of WWII history. Here I was thinking the war started in December 1941. I also find it truly amazing that gearing up to a war-footing greatly boosted production of war material. I'd been thinking that all that centralised planning and clear direction would have been harmful to production figures. Bombing around the clock? You don't say? I thought there were only 3 or 4 air raids during the war: Schweinfurt, Polesti, Hamburg and Dresden. Thanks again for the update. If you come across any more gems of information, be sure to share them with the rest of us!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by russellmz: ...fungus, the kind of fungus that grows on...<hr></blockquote> ... beer mugs. Meanwhile, my telepathic crystals are ...

Stuart. Or Honey if you prefer.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by russellmz: wait, if my us halftrack gets hit with one casualty it can still fire mg? are you sure about that? (i WANT that to happen but i've never seen it fire when it had a man down)<hr></blockquote> Yes it can. You have to unbutton first though (of course).

<extends hand> no problem.

Uh, Jason? That's a King Tiger.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: Okay, forget it. Everything you said is right. I'm a liar, because I excactly know that ammo NEVER explode except when it should. Please excuse that I rised your attention. I've forgotten that you have studied explosives. [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]<hr></blockquote> Between this and the post that followed, I take it you didn't agree with what I was saying. Fine. In your world mortar propelling charges are made of dynamite, and rounds of all types will go off if you so much as look at them wrong. In my world, military ammuntion is as safe and stable as something which is built from several explosive parts practically can be. It will stand rough handling and being thrown about with safety, yet when called upon to fire will do its job. I never said that rounds would under no circumstances explode if subjected to shelling. I did said it was rather less likely than Hollywood would have you believe. You disagree with what I say. Fine. If it's any consolation I believe you are wrong also.

you do - kill the FO, no more artillery. QED.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: to let something explode it's not necessary that it burns.<hr></blockquote> And another point - explosions happen in confined spaces. If it isn't confined, a charge bag burns (very fiercly) but does not explode.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: Take a bottle of liquid Nitroglyceryn and shake it. Then you will know what I mean.<hr></blockquote> Yes, but we aren't talking about nitro, are we. We are talking about military ammo, handled by trail apes, throw about during ammo resupply, transported in military trucks over rough roads, etc. This stuff just isn't that fragile or volatile. [ edited because I made a typo. I hope The Anglophile doesn't see this one He might go into an edit-inspired-rage or something ] [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: Well, I was in a 120mm Mortar platoon in my military service. Beneath the shells, you have always lots of propeling charges around, depending on the type of artillery. For a mortar, it's a simple ring of dynamite, sewed in a peace of cotton. I wouldn't beat it with hammer.<hr></blockquote> Well, there are two components really, aren't there - the propellant and the round itself. The propellant is more likely to go up in these circumstances, but since it isn't in a confined space (like the breech of a gun, or the bottom of a mortar barrel) it would burn very fiercly rather than explode. The round itself - unless caught in such a fire - would still be quite safe. Incidentally, I wouldn't fart around with charge bags either, but I sincerly doubt that hitting them with a hammer would cause them to burn. Consider this controlled experiment (note, there is a good potential for carnage here, so don't try this at home, or at work): Take a rifle calibre round, and pull the projectile out of the end. Pour the powder out. Take a small quantity of this powder and place it onto a brick or concrete surface. Leave it uncovered and uncontained. Now, hit it with a hammer. Anything happen? Would you expect anything to happen? Would you expect a match to burst into flame if you hit it with a hammer?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Offwhite: I'd like to hear from some of our resident arty vets... granted it's possible for a hit to blow up the ammo pile, but how likely is it? These are self-contained shells, not open kegs of black powder laying about. Wouldn't it take a sustained fire heating up the ammunition, or maybe a chance hot fragment that penetrated the casing and ignited the HE... but that's only one shell, and I've also read in one or two places that explosives are more difficult to "improperly" detonate than laymen like myself are inclined to think. I await the wisdom of some gun-deaf veteran...<hr></blockquote> More or less what he said. Artillery rounds are surprisingly safe. Well, until fired that is. There are seven, IIRC, safety features built into the shell and fuze to prevent a premature detonation. Being on the recieving end of HE fire could cause rounds to go off - or more likely ignite the propellant - but its not a given. Regards Jon

It certainly was done in WW2. There are lots of ways to figure out where a battery is. Crater analysis: craters of different calibres leave distinctive craters, and also fragments. From both, you can work out what size gun was firing. Also, the crater isn't a perfect circle, but an oveal oriented along the flightpath. From several targets engaged by the same battery you can triangulate where the rounds originated from. Takes time to do though. Flash ranging: Spot flashes from guns firing, and take a bearing. If several observers can get a bearing to the same flashes, again you can triangulate the location of the source. Sound ranging: Similar principle to the above, but uses more techo equipment. Lines of microphones were laid out on known bearings, and by noting the minute time differences for teh sound to arrive at different mikes, the bearings of the sources could be determined. Direct observation: either by aerial recon, or due to poor positioning by the bad guys. Educated guess work: look at a map, look at the targets being engaged by the enemy, know what the effective range is for the enemies guns, think about where you would put the guns if you were the enemy, combine all of the above to produce locations. Not terrifically accurate ... FWIW, IIRC, and all the other usual disclaimers. Regards JonS

I give up! Jokes aren't funny when you have to explain them. [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I mean, like, lighten up already!<hr></blockquote> Hey! I resent that! I've been going to Jenny Craig, and am lightening up just fine, thank you very much.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kettler: JonS, I never said what you "quote" me as having said.<hr></blockquote> Yes, I know. It was long, and I don't like to repost entire long posts. That was why I included the phrase "snipped" That aside, what you wrote made me laugh, but did leave me wondering about your grip on reality

not until you show me your picture, you silly dingo

tee hee. Its fun watching someone wrestle with UBB code in real time. Sorta like watching CNN

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Unless I am badly mistaken, the Bazooka predates the Panzerfaust by a year or two. The Panzerschreck was developed after the Germans had examined some captured examples of the Bazooka. Michael<hr></blockquote> It was a joke Michael

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Splinty: The official Army nomenclature for a Bazooka is Rocket Launcher,Anti-Tank M1 BTW.<hr></blockquote> huh. I came up with something else: M9A1 2.36in Rocket Launcher [ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Juju: The question is: Why's a bazooka called a bazooka? <hr></blockquote> The answer is: because Panzerfaust and Panzer schreck were already taken. Besides, they wouldn't have made much sense to English speakers. Hope that clears things up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: Kettlers' alternate reality snipped<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh dear :eek: Maybe you should give the writing of the AARs a break for a day or two

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... Did they do right? Well - no one has yet offered a better way of doing things with any back up, so it is really an open issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, actually, they have. This is where this, and several other, thread started. Also pertinent are the rumours that the artillery system has changed quite a bit for CMBB.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... I have had a nice, off line discussion with three people ... possibly brought my point home on why I feel the way I feel, all in a heck of a lot fewer posts. The people who really wanted to understand my point of view do, and it costs them very little to understand it. They don't have to agree with me, and to varying degrees they do not, but they heard me out and pointed out where they felt I was wrong, and I was wrong with at least two things on the British side and am now corrected...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slap has presented some information on the setup of the US comms system. What he hasn't done is provide any comparitive evidence between the two systems - apart from his post to this thread three or four pages ago that appears to read "the US system in CM is faster than everyone elses, therefore the US system in real life must have been better". I still do not agree with his contention that the US artillery system was the greatest thing since sliced bread, while everyone else was still using unleavened rotis (to stretch a metaphor. Anyway, I quite like roti ). Something to note about the Commonwealth in the 1930s and 1940s: This wasn't a cross between "Yes Minister" and "Fawlty Towers" - going into the war the Brits had the worlds fastest plane, train, the landspeed record, and held the Blue Riband. In science and technology they were well ahead of the curve. Sure, its easy to make jokes about the Empire, the class system, and the Royal Family (all of which tends to colour thinking about Britain in general) but during WWII they had many very smart cookies, most of whom were roped into the war effort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: I'm curious about the different roles of the Battery Commander and the Battery Captain. Am I right to say that the Battery Commander works with the manoeuvre units and the Battery Captain is involved with the administration of the battery at the firing point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, this is correct. The BK was responsible for "technical gunnery", ie making sure that SOPs, Drills, etc were carried out correctly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Or does the Gun Positioning Officer handle the firing calculations as well as the siting of the guns?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is correct. GPOs would alternate going forward to recce the next position. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do have one minor nit to raise about the experience levels; I think that the gunners in the battery HQ should be notched down in experience to green.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Valid, and it has been suggested, though in conjunction with increasing the fanaticism to reflect the passion to defend the guns. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do these gunners reflect the RSM's linesmen and reaction squad?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More or less, although the RSM is over with the trucks at echelon. The squad represents the stray bods at Bty HQ who could be formed into an ad-hoc fighting force. Depending on the degree of notice, this could realistically be another full section by stripping men from the guns and other sources. Thanks for the kind words. Jon Quo Fas Et Vino Du Femme! or Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt! [edited because its a habit now. And for The Anglophile. He expects it ] [ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]