Bullethead

Fionn said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Good point Speedy but those types of ops were pretty circumscribed and rare..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fionn, Speedy isn't talking about clearing a minefield, he's talking about breaching one. And this is a (depressingly) common task in all assaults on prepared positions. Hell, those poor bastards in Heurtgenwald had to do it every day for months, even in areas were there were no pillboxes. All the attackers are doing is clearing a very narrow lane through the mines, leaving the vast majority of them in place. If they take the position on the other side, then they worry about clearing the whole field. And because "obstacles not covered by fire are not obstacles," breaching almost always has to be done under fire ...er, I mean So are we to understand that engineers can't breach minefields in CM? No bangalore torpedoes? No flail tanks? No mine roller or plow tanks? That would certainly be depressing Seems like it would give the defense an unrealistic advantage. -Bullethead

It occurred to me it might be helpful to discuss why fragments from big arty shells do such damage to light armor compared those from smaller shells. This is where fragment mass becomes really significant. Like JonS said, the ideal anti-personnel fragment size is pretty small, about the size of your thumbnail. And the smaller the shell, the easier it is to consistently get fragments of this size. But as shell size increases, there is an increasing tendency for a lot of the shell casing to stay in much bigger chunks. So where a small fragment might weigh an ounce or so, the big ones can weigh one or more pounds (say 16 times as much). Hell, battleship shell fragments can weigh hundreds of pounds. With equal velocities, therefore, a 1-pound fragment has 8 times the KE of a 1-ounce fragment, and thus significantly higher chances of penetrating any armor encountered. As I understand it, the reason for this has to do with fusing. When the fuse goes off, the shell's explosive filler starts to burn both radially and longitudinally from where it touches the fuse. The burning happens nearly instantaneously throughout the shell, of course, but still takes some time. Thus, the burning or at least the build-up of bursting pressure reaches the sides of the shell near the fuse sooner than it does the back of the shell. With small shells, this isn't really a problem because the fuse sticks back into the shell for a significant proportion of the total filler cavity length. Thus, while it is still usually farther from the end of the fuse to the back of the shell than it is from the side of the fuse to the side of the shell, at the speed the filler burns, this difference isn't significant. For practical purposes, the whole thing goes off essentially at once. With bigger shells, however, the distance from the end of the fuse to the back of the shell is much greater than from side to side. Thus, before the explosive in the rear part of the shell even begins to burn, the front part of the shell is often already breaking up. But whatever the real cause is, there is a real tendency for big shell casings to break up into longitudinal gores somewhat like a banana peel instead of shattering into tiny bits throughout their whole length. Between these long gores, however, you do get bunches of the small stuff, and for medium-sized (say 105-120mm) shells the gores often break up into sections the about 4-8" long instead of being the full length of the shell. This type of fragmentation makes big shells true dual-purpose weapons capable of ruining light armor as well as exposed troops with near misses. This is a desirable feature for big shells--there are enough of both types of fragments to do both jobs well at the same time--so I doubt anybody will try to change things. It's somewhat fuzzy as to the caliber of shell required before this type of "big chunk" fragmentation starts to become a significant feature. It certainly happens for heavy arty (155mm and above), it sometimes happens for medium arty, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen much at all for light arty. In fact, it would be counterproductive for light arty because such shells don't have enough surface area to generate enough of both types of fragments to do small anti-personnel and large anti-vehicle fragments at the same time. -Bullethead

Fionn said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the current beta build HE Armour Penetration IS LISTED just the same as it is for AP rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But is that for a direct hit? Having the explosion go off directly on the armor, along with all the momentum of the shell pushing on that one point, is a very different thing from just fragments hitting the armor from an explosion some distance away. -Bullethead

Steve said, in the Thread that Would Not Die: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, having stated that we are comfortable standing behind the physics of CM, we look at the simulation's results. Again, history is called up here to see if things feel right. We concluded long ago that things are just fine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is HE vs. armor really modeled in terms of fragments penetrating? When I look at the detailed info on a weapon, I see "Blast Firepower XX", which I assume refers to the HE ammo. This is 48 for the Tiger I's 88 and 32 for the StuG's 75. This is the only thing I see that might refer to HE, and there is none of the armor penetration details you see for AP ammo. So my question: is this Blast Firepower number the only thing, or at least the main thing, taken into account when figuring HE damage? As in, this same number gets plugged into routines for figuring damage to armor and infantry? If so, then perhaps it's a bit too abstract for the very different effects sustained by troops and armor from HE near misses. From looking at these numbers for the StuG and the Tiger, it appears they are based pretty much directly on relative shell explosive volume (assuming the 88 had about 50% more than the 75, as roughly calcu-estimated in previous posts). But everything I know or think I know about HE effects on armor lead me to believe that simple explosive volume isn't very important when it comes to taking out light armor with a near miss. Sure, this number would be a good starting point for effects on unprotected grunts, but it has very little or no effect (to my understanding) on the ability of fragments to penetrate armor from some distance away. Sure, ARTILLERY fragments could, can, and will SHRED light armor. I've done it myself numerous times. But artillery worthy of the name (say 105mm and up) is a very different thing from a relatively high velocity, small caliber round like the Tiger I's 88. I echo a previous comment that it would be nice to disable the "no friendly HE fire" part of the AI, or do something to otherwise set up a "target gallery", so that the effects of HE near misses can be studied "scientifically." This is something that's been bugging me with more frequency ever since I saw a screenshot on CMHQ of a Stuart being immobilized by an 88 near miss that was, I believe, AP. Anyway, thanks for your time. -Bullethead [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-23-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Nice site, your pics had me feeling bad for the Iraqi troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I doubt most of them felt any pain... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you wouldnt mind I would like to see that pic of the JgPanther.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, I'll dig them up. Might be a day or so. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ps: Thanks for going when you were called. Not much of a war but Im sure you werent sure what to expect at first.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No problem--that was my job. But I do disagree with it "not being much of a war." I got there Christmas Day 1990 and left 15 APR 91, and got shot at every single day, including the 3 weeks before the war "started" and the 6 weeks after the war was "over." The only reason I have pictures of dead Iraqis and not the other way around is because our gear gave us about 10 seconds faster turnaround time on our counterbattery fire than they had on theirs. It was a consistent advantage, but there was NO margin for error, and they were sure trying hard on their end. They got a piece of me and all of a few friends of mine despite all this. -Bullethead [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-23-2000).]

I've got some photos of a JgPanther with some 75 or 77mm holes punched in the side. It's in the Imperial War Museum. I can scan these if you want them. Also got some dead Iraqi vehicles on my webpage if you want to the effects of modern DPICM shells. See my profile for the URL. -Bullethead

I could be wrong about this, but I believe the Sherman's 75 was derived from the famous WW1 French 75mm fieldgun, which was built in large numbers in the US during and after WW1. This gun had a Nordenfeldt rotary breech that had to be manually opened after each shot, and then manually closed after reloading. If the Sherman's gun inherited this feature, I can see it having a longer reload time even if the loader had more room to work in, because I'm very sure the StuG's gun had a semi-automatic, sliding bolt breech. On firing, this automatically opens and ejects the empty cartridge and, when the fresh round is inserted, automatically closes itself. Of course, I could well be wrong about the Sherman's gun. -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why are, when someone is writing in English, are the Panther, Tiger, and occasionally the Lynx written in English, but all the other German AFVs written in German?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Panther and Tiger I think are the same in German as English. Lynx is Luchs, however, which to English ears sounds more like you're getting ready to spit, so I can see them translating that one. My own personal favorite AFV name is Hetzer, and this just doesn't sound as cool when translated into English. It's kinda like that Brit plane, the Spitfire. Cool-sounding name, eh? You can really picture the name being appropriate as the 8 MGs flicker on the wing. But the original name suggested by the designer was Shrew. While these are certainly ferocious animals, they're pretty small and the name doesn't sound cool anyway. So somebody took another meaning for "shrew" (as in "The Taming of the..") and substituted a cool-sounding synonym. The rest is history. But I keep waiting for some women's rights group to try to get the name banned, because the double meaning in use here is "bitch" -Bullethead [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-21-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I said, a lot has changed since the demo and "scientific" tests without an editor (and even WITH one) are very hard to do. So since this whole discussion is based on assumptions coming out of the Beta Demo I say that this isn't worth bothering with any more until after the final comes out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, thanks for taking the time to look at it . I'll take another good look myself once I get the game. Oh no, what if Steve decides to sit on the game rather than have me bring this up after it's releases? -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, you have to let us know how to do that neat quoting thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's in the UBB Faq link. You put the word "quote" within square brackets adjacent to the front of the text and "/quote" in square brackets at the end (only without the quote marks ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I never stated anything about the speed of fragments. I stated the assumption that the explosive used in the two shells was the same, thereby causing all fragments to travel at the same speed. That is why I was concentrating on the difference in size or quantity of the fragments between the shells, as fragment speed had already been eliminated as a variable in the equation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure. But like JonS says, all fragments from all shells designed for the same purpose are intended to be about the same size, and the metalurgy of the shell casing helps achieve this. Of course, in practice you get all sorts of irregular shapes and sizes even from properly made shells. So some of the 75's fragments will be bigger than some from the 88. However, if you collected and weighed all the fragments from both, you'd get very close to the same average mass per fragment for both shells. Maybe the 88's would be an RCH heavier on average, but this difference wouldn't be significant. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, I have not had any experience with the 75mm HE having no effect on a halftrack. This actually sounds quite preposterous to me. (I have had good luck with fragments from 60mm mortars causing havoc with the halftracks, though )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The way I got the halftrack targets was experiementing in the LD scenario. I had the Tiger and StuGs shoot at the German halftracks. The only way to get this to happen is to issue area fire main gun orders with the target point right under the halftrack. Try this yourself sometime . In this experiment, the 88 ALWAYS "knocked out" the track with a single shot and often killed the majority of people in it. OTOH, the 75 usually had no effect at all--after several shots, it would "immobilize" the track in a "crater," and I think the immobilization was from the appearance of the crater, not from damage to the track. In any case, only very rarely did a 75 shell hurt anybody inside. The differences in effect in this experiment, and also the differences between other weapons such as the 60mm mortar, are what led me to start posting all this blather. Something seems wrong to me here: 1. 60mm mortar HE near misses often take out halftracks and some occupants. 2. 75mm HE near misses hardly ever hurt halftracks or occupants at all. 3. 88mm HE near misses always kill the track and many of its occupants. There are 2 ways of looking at this. Either the 60mm and 88mm are right and the 75mm is getting the shaft, or the 75mm is correct and the 60mm and 88mm are way too powerful. For reasons previously stated at great length, I favor the latter view. Fragments from 75s and 88s are essentially identical from the halftrack's POV. Because the main purpose of halftracks is to prevent troops from getting hurt by such fragments, it seems logical to me that only rarely should an HE near miss by either shell do any damage to the track or its occupants. This is especially the case when the halftrack does a pretty good job of keeping out rifle-caliber bullets, which IMHO are harder to defend against. And 60mm mortar shells should have even less chance of hurting an AFV than the 75 or 88 shell, because not only is the 60mm proportionally smaller, but it also has very thin walls due to its very low velocity. Thus, its fragments would be smaller on average and have less chance of penetrating. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"And even if every potentially penetrating fragment of both shells penetrated, what difference would that make? This is where I disagree...Having never been subject to an artillery barrage (other than the wife throwing frying pans and the like at me), I tend to believe that 15% greater fragmentation has to be quite a difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Picture an area a few feet wide on the side of the track. Picture say 2 grunts sitting on the other side of this area. Picture say 30 75mm fragments scattered evenly over this area and all penetrating (which I think highly unlikely, as noted above, anyway). The 2 guys on the other side are Swiss cheese. Now picture the results of adding 15% more fragments, for a total of 34 holes. The guys are still just as dead. Conversely, if, as I believe, neither set of fragments should be able to penetrate (at least not very often), the 75 gives you 30 paint scratches, the 88 gives you 34. In both cases, the effect on the target is the same. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, I do not think that the apparent greater lethality is due entirely to the fragmentation effect alone. There must be some consideration given to the 50% larger HE charge of the 88mm causing higher casualties and vehicle damage due to the effects of the larger shockwave and concussion of the shell, and increased spalling, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The side of the halftrack is going to protect the troops from the shock effects of the blast, at least enough to keep them in fighting trim although their ears might be ringing (see long thread on muzzle blast from last month). Because even medium arty shellbursts have little blast effect on prone troops a few meters away (in terms of incapacitating casualty effects), I figure the halftrack's side would afford adequate protection from the blast of smaller things like 88s at similar distances. Thus, the 88's larger explosive content would make no difference to the occupants from a blast standpoint, IMHO. And because the explosion is happening some distance from the track instead of right against the armor, I don't see its force being concentrated enough to spall armor. However, mechanical damage to the halftrack is perhaps another story. The main thing I see is shredding the track assemblies and tires. These weren't armored so the "limited penetration zone" referred to above for personnel casualties doesn't apply. So in this case, the larger 88's greater number of fragments would make a bigger difference. Thus, it would be reasonable to give the 88 a somewhat higher chance than the 75 of immobilizing the halftrack. I don't see any addition mechanical damage from blast alone, however. While mines can screw up transmissions from shock (besides removing wheels/tracks), it's my understanding that this requires the explosion to be transmitted directly through the drivetrain components from actually hitting a mine--blast from a similarly sized (or probably smaller) 88 shellburst some distance away wouldn't do it. Also, while sufficient blast can tip over vehicles, I don't think the 88 had the macho to do it. This comes from observations at arty direct firing ranges. A very near 155mm HE miss can make a 6x6 truck hulk turn a flip in the air, but I've never seen one do more than shake a much heavier APC hulk. If the 155 couldn't do it, then I doubt the 88 could. -Bullethead

Excellent article. Glad to see more work in this section -Bullethead

Crapgame said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As the 88mm shell has roughly 60% more internal volume than a 75mm shell one can extrapolate a little less than 60% (not the full 60% due to thicker walls of the shell) more HE is sitting in the cavity of the 88mm than in the cavity of the 75mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Based solely on external dimensions, the 88mm HE shell has 57% more volume than the 75mm HE. However, in addition to the slightly thicker walls of the shell, the 88's fuse also takes up a larger proportion of the internal volume than does that of the 75. So, without having some internal drawings handy, I'd have to say that the 88 had no more than about 50% more explosive volume than the 75, at most. Maybe a bit less. So what? That's not going to make the fragments fly faster. And that's what's important in the question of destroying halftracks with near miss HE shells. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said: "So where the difference between shell diameters is small, such as the 15% difference between the 75 and 88, most if not all of the theoretical advantages of having the larger shell wash out." - Definitely not true. You are combining several partial truths to make a bigger generalization that is less than true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you back up this assertion? I'd love to see some detailed numbers proving how the 88 HE was so much more devasting than the 75 HE vs. halftracks. That's my whole question here. Everything else I've said has just been bringing up factors to consider, trying to get BTS to examine this issue more closely. Because for the 75 HE to have NO EFFECT AT ALL while the 88 ALWAYS kills seems a bit of an extreme difference to me. If that's realistic, then fine. I just want it proven so to my satisfaction. You gotta admit it seems odd on the surface. I just can't imagine anybody building an AFV that couldn't keep out fragments from light shells such as the 88, especially given the knowledge that such fragments are extremely common in the situations in which the AFV would be employed, from light arty and medium mortars. Given that such fragments cause the vast majority of battlefield casualties, and that the whole point of an APC is to deliver the troops safely to the enemy position through such fire, why build an expensive AFV that confers no defensive benefits to troops? Also, IMHO a rifle bullet is WAY harder to stop than a small shell fragment of the same mass. The bullet is going much faster, it hits with all its energy concentrated on 1 point whereas the fragment often hits sideways, and the bullet often has a penetrator tip that the fragment lacks. If the halftrack can keep out bullets, why do shell fragments kill it. And more importantly, why do only SOME fragments kill it while others, of approximately the same energy, have no effect? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"...so the 88 isn't going to produce very many more fragments than the 75." - definitely Not True. If the Volume of the 88mm is 60% larger than the 75mm, then there must be a mathematical relationship to the surface area as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This doesn't really matter. For both shells hitting the ground in the same relation to the halftrack, only fragments coming out of the burst that hit the armor fairly close to plate normal will have a chance of penetrating. All the other fragments will either miss or glance off. Because all the fragments from both shells have approximately the same mass and velocity, then they should all have the same chance of penetrating. The only difference is that the 88 will have a few more fragments. The significant dimensional difference is shell length, because of the narrow arc in which fragments have a chance of penetrating. Most pieces from further around the 88's wider curve will be outside the lethal arc. Because the 88 shell was only about 15% longer than the 75mm shell, you're talking on the order of no more than 15% fragments in the lethal area. Thus, most of the 88's larger surface area is irrelevant in this situation. And even if every potentially penetrating fragment of both shells penetrated, what difference would that make? You're still talking a relatively narrow section of the target taking the damage. The guys behind the armor there are casualties either way (or should be, IMHO), whether they have 1 hole in them or 2. Same with the HT's motor. Thus, it seems to me that the larger number of 88 fragments is mostly irrelevant. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"The only way it could do so is if each fragment was much smaller than those of the 75, which would make them LESS effective vs. an AFV." - Here you are ignoring your previous statement that the walls of the larger 88mm shell must be thicker than that of the 75mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, what I meant was that in this hypothetical case, each fragment of the 88 shell would use up much less external surface area, regardless of thickness of shell wall. Picture the 75 making essentially cubical chunks compared to the 88 making slivers like stacked razor blades. But I don't think this is the case anyway. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said: "Thus, fragments from either shell will hit the halftrack with very nearly the same energy..." - not true due to differences in fragment mass pointed out above<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> KE is (mv^2)/2. The significant number, therefore, is velocity. This is the essentially the same for both sets of fragments. Differences in mass have very little effect on KE, especially when the difference in mass is small. So sure, on the average, an 88's fragments were an RCH heavier, so thus had an RCH more KE. Is this enough difference to have them kill the halftrack while the 75's fragments hardly scratch the paint? I seriously doubt it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"...and thus will have equal chances of penetrating. And because the number of fragments are nearly the same," - again, not true due to the 88mm shell being substantially larger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You miss the point. KE (and impact angle, etc) is what matters for penetration. KE is essentially the same for both sets of fragments. It doesn't matter how much bigger the 88 was compared to the 75, it didn't make fragments with significantly more KE. True, it put out more fragments because it was a bigger shell, but most of these were outside the lethal area. Therefore, the 88 shouldn't ALWAYS kill halftracks that the 75 NEVER does, IMHO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"...the total amount of damage done should be very nearly the same." - WHEW!!!! As you know, this is completely false. Many partial truths and generalizations can no be lumped together and presented as fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We're talking about the same, relatively small part of the halftrack for both shells. In this area, the 88 will strike with a maximum of maybe 15% more fragments than the 75. But all of these fragments will have essentially the same KE due to very nearly the same velocity and very nearly the same mass. So if 1 set can penetrate, so can the other, and if 1 set can't penetrate, neither should the other. The results should be about the same in either case. -Bullethead

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, the US forces were not smiled upon by all the liberated masses because of their sometimes overuse of artillery to minimize friendly casualties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No matter what the politicians and top brass say on the matter, it still always comes down to the man on the spot. And I can guarantee you that if you asked the guy in the trench, he'd tell you that there isn't any amount of civilians worth 1 drop of the blood of himself or his buddies. Especially if these civilians were too dumb to move away when the war moved in. Besides, when all you've been doing every day since the war started is killing as many people as possible, you tend to lose a lot of the inhibitions against murder you have in civilian life. Put yourself in these boondockers: you're a squad leader with orders to clear a certain area. You and your squad have been together through some serious ****; they've saved your ass, you've saved theirs. You don't have any time to waste and only your basic weapons and ammo load, but you do have a radio. You come upon a house containing some die-hard enemy soldiers who still want to fight. You are also very sure the civilian owners are being held hostage or are at least still in the building. What do you do? a) assault the house and then battle through it room by room. call in supporting arms, flatten the house, deal with any survivors, and move on. c) ignore the building and leave the die-hard enemy free to operate in your rear. d) break down crying under the stress of the decision. Remember, any answer you choose will haunt you for the rest of your life. Is that your final answer? OK, pencils down. If you chose a), if you are lucky you'll be killed in the ensuing action. If you are unlucky and survive, one of your suviving troops will probably frag you. Even if this doesn't happen, your boss won't be happy because now your squad won't be available for tomorrow's tasks. In any case, the civilians are probably going to die in the battle. If you chose c), if you are lucky the enemy has 2nd thoughts and surrenders later to a passing supply convoy. If you are unlucky, they simply slip away, rejoin their unit, and kill you later. If you are very unlucky, they ambush the supply convoy bringing up your mail, kill a buddy of yours who was in the convoy, and then kill you later after rejoining their unit. In any case, the enemy will have already killed the civilians if they were of a mind to do so. If you chose d) you will be branded LMF, with all associated future consequences. In the meantime, however, your next senior troop has to take command and face exactly the same decision, only with reduced available manpower to influence his decision. If you chose , then you and your troops can go on with the war and the enemy troops are no longer a problem. Sure, probably a few more dead civilians, but what's that matter in the midst of all this carnage? If you are unlucky, however, some rich, liberal, pampered, never-done-a-real-day's-work, never-been-there journalist will find out about it later and have you branded as a war criminal. -Bullethead [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-20-2000).]

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So there is a very good chance (although without seeing your test I don't know if it is true) that the Tiger happened to switch over to AP and simply shot up the vehicle directly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It would do this even against a German halftrack? When I gave the target, it wouldn't fix on the HT itself because it was a friendly unit I suppose, so I had to area fire right next to it. -Bullethead

My dad was on a PTO DD in WW2, his dad was a machinegunner in WW1, in which my mom's dad was a grunt. One of dad's cousins flew P47s in Europe. Most colorful character in the recent family was one of my great uncles on my dad's side. I never got to meet him, unfortunately. He was living in France when WW1 started and joined the Foreign Legion to fight. He wound up in charge of some Senegalese troops at 2nd Ypres when the Germans made the 1st massive use of poison gas. He somehow survived this and Verdun, then transfered to the US Army as a 1st Lt. when we got in the war, in the Rainbow Division. His battalion went into the Meuse-Argonne and came out with about 25 men, of which he was the ranking officer. He then got put on MacArthur's staff. After the war, he returned to the Legion and spent a few years "passifying" the Rifs in Morocco. It was in his old house that the WW2 Casablanca Conference was held. However, his lungs were screwed by the WW1 gas and he came home and died in the 30s. Recently found a portrait of him in full dress Legion uniform. I look just like him. Spooky. -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now where's my 8in. artillery bombardment!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No longer in the inventory, I'm afraid While the MLRS is definitely better in some respects, it just lacks the visceral appeal of a big 8" hog. -Bullethead

JonS said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, I don’t think the Germans ever develop prox fuses during the war. These rely on a little radar in the fuse to note when something is close, and use that info to start the detonation sequence. Variable Time fuses have a little count-down timer in them, and detonate when the timer reaches zero.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, another trans-oceanic difference in terminology. Over here, we call the radar "prox fuse" a "variable time fuse" (VT) and the clock timer kind a "mechanical time fuse" or just "time fuse." This is because you set the latter kind for a fixed amount of time, but the radar type goes off at a variable time from firing, depending on when its sensor triggers. -Bullethead

Doug said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BH, if there's really not much increase in HE effect from 75 to 88, what sort of increase was there from 57 or 60 to 75?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This brings up another shell design constraint . As you increase designed muzzle velocity, you have to increase shell wall thickness or the shell breaks up in the barrel. Thus, higher velocity shells have less room inside for explosive than slower shells of the same caliber. The 6pdr/57mm was designed as a high-velocity ATG. For its caliber, then, the shell wall had to be pretty thick. OTOH, the short 75s used in the Sherman and some Brit tanks were designed for lower velocities, so they had more explosive inside for their diameter than say the 75 HE of the Panther. Thus, not only was the 57mm a smaller shell, it didn't have much explosive for its size. This sort of thing is probably why the 76mm Shermans' HE shell was considered inferior to the 75, and why the Panther's HE wasn't as good as the StuG's. I didn't mention it in the StuG 75 vs. Tiger I 88 wall o' text because both those guns were designed for roughly similar velocities. -Bullethead

I'll remember this next time you ask for fire support or counterbattery help -Bullethead

Sarge said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>its so obvious maybe thats why no one has mentioned it: the diff between 75 & 88? one word "velocity"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, higher velocity is actually counterproductive for HE rounds. After impact, it takes a certain amount of time for the fuse to work and set off the main explosive charge. In this time, the faster shell moves further, burying itself further in the ground before it explodes, which decreases the effectiveness of both blast and shrapnel. So, another reason why the 75's HE shouldn't be so much worse than the 88's -Bullethead

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, I will run the comparision between the 75 and 88 by Charles and see what he has to say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks! But remember, if it needs fixing and will delay shipment, please save it for a patch <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for taking out 4 men, WIA/KIA, I still say it is VERY possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A big enough shell could certainly do this. My basic question is two-fold: 1) was the 88mm really big enough, and 2) if it was, then why is the 75mm so much worse, given that both are very nearly the same size? Conversely, if the 75mm isn't big enough, then why is the only marginally bigger 88mm so much more effective? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yes, the 88 HE round was designed for maximum shrap effect as that is what flak is all about. If an 88 HE round can take out a B-17 with a near miss while it is going 100+ MPH at several thousand meters distance, it certainly can take out a HT that is going 10mph at 300m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't altogether agree with this. First, the Tiger I's 88 wasn't the flak gun and it didn't fire the same ammunition, at least from what I can tell. I believe the Tiger I's ammo was specifically designed for ground use. Second, there's a world of difference in target hardness between an armored vehicle and an aircraft. The plane's vital systems (except for the pilot) are only protected by an aluminum skin a few thousandths of an inch thick. Engines, weapons, control lines, fuel lines, hydraulic lines, oil lines, oxygen lines, all are very vulnerable. Now, the reason all this is nagging me is because of certain parameters of shell design. First off, as shell diameter increases, the thickness of its walls also has to increase or they won't be strong enough to withstand the shock of firing. So it turns out that larger shells actually have a lower percent of explosive per total volume than do smaller shells. So where the difference between shell diameters is small, such as the 15% difference between the 75 and 88, most if not all of the theoretical advantages of having the larger shell wash out. Second, it's my understanding that fragment initial velocity from the shellburst is primarily a function of the type of explosive used. Thus, for shells of similar design (minimum wall thickness for their diameter), all fragments have more or less the same initial velocity from the shellburst, regardless of the diameter of the shell. All bigger size does for you is a) increase surface area and thus number of fragments, increase the size of individual fragments (both thickness and area) so they go further, and c) increase damage from blast and flash. But these effects occur gradually and, as noted above, cancel each other out to some extent. Thus, it takes a significant difference in shell size to really notice much difference in effect. Note: I could be wrong on all this, but this is what I've heard. So, as to how all this applies to the 75mm vs. 88mm question..... The shells are very nearly the same size in all dimensions, so the 88 isn't going to produce very many more fragments than the 75. The only way it could do so is if each fragment was much smaller than those of the 75, which would make them LESS effective vs. an AFV. Small fragments, however, work wonders on aircraft so, if you are correct in saying the Tiger I shot flak shells, then I could see it making smaller fragments, being very good against infantry, but being very poor against halftracks. Assuming, however, that both shells make fragments about the same size, then there shouldn't really be much difference in effect between the two. First off, both shells will make very nearly the same number of fragments, and all fragments will be approximately the same mass. Second, both sets of fragments will be moving at about the same velocity. Thus, fragments from either shell will hit the halftrack with very nearly the same energy and thus will have equal chances of penetrating. And because the number of fragments are nearly the same, the total amount of damage done should be very nearly the same. This sort of thing is why arty is defined in broad classes such as light, medium, heavy, and super heavy. Within each class, there isn't really much to choose from between 2 calibers of nearly the same size, and the biggest light shell is essentially just as effective as the smallest medium shell. So anyway, maybe it IS realistic for a Tiger to always kill a halftrack and many of its occupants. But if so, it seems to me the 75 should do nearly as good a job. Thanks for wading through this. -Bullethead

Fionn said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MANY times infantry have won battles without artillery versus enemy with artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Many" as in a number greater than most grunts can count to, but "few" when compared to the total number of battles ever fought, or the number of times the cannon-less forces have been uttery destroyed <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, many times the cannoncockers are sleeping in or taking up the comsat's bandwidth with more downloadable porn and totally miss the battle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, you gotta have your priorities straight . Besides, you know how the Devil finds work for idle hands. If we didn't let the grunts brawl every once in a while, they'd start wandering back to our "comfort zone" trying to steal our booze, food, porn, and smokes . -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For CM's purposes, wounding one guy might cause the squad strength to drop more than a KIA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, no problem with that. I'm just puzzled as to why an 88mm HE shell is so devastating compared to the 75mm. Neither is very big as shells go (both would be classed as light arty), and to me there doesn't seem to be enough difference in size between them to account for the very different combat results. -Bullethead

"Willie and Joe" cartoons capture the look, feel, and mindset of enlisted guys in combat environments just perfectly. Hell, most of them are still quite on point today. I can see myself and my buds from the Gulf War in a lot of them. My favorites: Willie and Joe, totally dirty, unshaven, sunken-eyed, wearing whatever they've picked up, sitting in a bunker smoking, playing cards, and drinking liberated booze with an equally wretched-looking lieutenant. Willie says, "So Lieutenant, what were some of those changes you were gonna make when you took over last month?" Joe is staring vacantly at a single pane of intact glass in a windowframe in a piece of wall. Otherwise, all else around him is waist-deep rubble. Willie comes up to him and says "Go ahead and break it, Joe. Otherwise it'll keep you awake all night." A corporal in a dimly lit arty FDC. He's got a radio handset jammed in one ear, a grease pencil behind the other, and is working furiously over the map with dividers and another grease pencil. From across the room, a fat major looks up from reading a comic book and says, "I'll talk to the colonel. You're not paid to think." Willie and Joe enter a building in an Italian village. Inside are the smashed remains of several huge wine barrels, their contents puddling on the floor. "Them Kraut bastards! Them dirty atrocity commitin' skunks!" A tank commander leans down from his turret and informs a grunt in a nearby foxhole, "We'll be moving along now. Jerry's found our range." -Bullethead

The neandro-luddite-grunt (NLG) said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Usually, the safest place on a battlefield in where arty is shooting. Been that way since you guys stopped loading your guns from the front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the poor NLG has his facts confused here. While smallarms fire (hint: that's what grunts do ) accuracy may well have declined since the days of the Brown Bess and volleys at 20 paces, the more intelligent cannoncockers have learned to achieve over 80% first-shot kills even on targets well beyond all human observation, and this under appalling battlefield conditions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This no doubt comes from those soft beds and hot chow you get in the rear<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm. The arty recruits smart people who realize the military value of new technology and can learn how to use it to best effect. Is it then surprising that these same people take advantage of 1) trucks, and 2) the long range of their weapons, to position themselves closer to the necessities of life? War is Hell, but you don't have to be stuck on the lowest level of it . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I bet you're the reincarnation of Blind King John of Bohemia Please, Fredrich... got to love a guy who makes his grenadiers march into the attack on Austrian artillery with their arms shouldered<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I think Blind King John is more your type. He was in one of the innumerable waves of the futile French assault against the English at Crecy. He'd been blinded in battle years before but this didn't bother him. And despite this, and the utter ruin of French chivalry surrounding him, he still ordered his retainers to lead him towards the enemy. He was killed, of course. He is the archetypical NLG As for those Prussian grenadiers, Freddy wasn't "der Grosse" for nothing. All great commanders know their troops, and FdG knew he had an army of NLGs. He knew they couldn't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, let alone march and shoot simultaneously. Besides, he knew they couldn't hit anything anyway, or figure out how to reload, which is why he had their bayonets permanently attached to their muskets. But they were NLGs, so he knew they'd enjoy marching into the Cannon's Mouth. This is the real basis for the above orders. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead and I both Marines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn straight! Semper Fi! Us cannoncockers exist only to support grunts. Geez, doesn't that sound like Marvin's problem "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? -Bullethead [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-19-2000).] [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-19-2000).]