ibucephalus

Artillery at close range( less than 1000m) is like a CRACK, at longer ranges its more of a KRUMP.

I waited seven weeks and then declared it MIA in the mail. Battlefront sent another copy super-quick though.

Its funny, the green beret is the standard headdress in the Canadian army. We're often mistaken for commandos by foreigners, until they see us in action.

If we were to go to war I think our best chance would be against Micronesia or the Galapagos Islands, provided we had the advantage of surprise of course.

I find it odd that some people on this thread are claiming Apocalypse Now is the novel Heart of Darkness set in 'Nam. Put your bong down for a moment guys and get over to the library. Beyond a river and Kurtz, the movie is not like the novel at all. In the book, Marlow is a steam boat captain travelling down river and the moral change that happens within him. The character in Apocalyse Now doesn't undergo any change. He's an assassin at the start and an assassin at the end. He was morally bankrupt when the movie started. I suggest everyone go out right now and get a copy of Heart of Dearkness by Conrad. Its not my favourite work by him but is pretty intense. If you like it you should check out Nostromo and Lord Jim. Both are fantastic! To get back to the topic, SPR has my vote for worst. Couyldn't get over the flag-waving. Yanks eat this artless crap up for some reason though. I'd like to make a movie called "Stock Characters in Militarily implausible situations who save the free world with good ol' american know-how".

I have a couple points: Artillery isn't fired at armour with the aim of destroying it. Artillery fire is used to neutralize armour temporarily and possibly cause damage to external equipment like antennas, periscopes, and external fuel tanks. All this damage is caused from shell splinters, not direct hits. The idea of aiming at a tank with HE with the intent to hit it directly does not enter a gunner's mind. Also, an HE round armed with a point-detonating fuse set to super-quick will not penetrate armour because the detonates the round as soon as it is contacted. The round would detonate on the surface. Even, if the fuse were set to delay, the round will likely ricochet and then detonate. You can only hit a tank with a howitzer through direct fire. A pretty scary proposition for the gunners. The weight of fire necessary to give a realistic chance of a direct hit would be on the order of around 80 tubes(commonwealth div) firing for a long period of time. This is out of all proportion to the the target description and if this weight of fire were requested by a FOO Regimental command post would deny it, if not the FOO's own battery command post.

To Brucer: Sir, I love you. You say the things I want to say but am to illiterate communicate. I think people are too quick to accept opinion for fact in the absence of experience. There seem to be great misconceptions about the workings of artillery on this board. I think we need more gunners around here. Your comments are always appreciated.

What'sa CMMC? I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive. I ordered it on the 29th and I'm starting to get ants in my pants.

Has anyone read anything by Byron Farwell? I finished Queen Victoria's Little Wars and thought it was fantastic. He's an excellent writer and finds a good mix of comedy and horror to illustrate the time.He describes many little known wars and actions. Makes me want to read his other books. My friends say Mr Kipling's Army is a classic but I can't find it anywhere.

I've read that the British and Canadian 25pdr was rated for 6 rds/min sustained fire, however, a gun position officer in a cdn battery in Normandy clocked his gunners at 15 rds/min sustained fire.That was with ammo that required the projectile and charge bags to be loaded separately, not the fixed ammo used by tank guns. He also reported that at its height, each gun would fire 1000 rds a day and the barrels would glow red at night. Amazing, considering the guns only had a barrel life rated for 20 000 rds.

The claims the author of the article makes seem very different from everything i've read and experienced of the british artillery system.It doesn't seem based on much research. A good book that gives a first-hand account of canadian artillery in the war is "The guns of Normandy" by George Blackburn. I'm shure you could find a copy even in the states.

The best war movie thread seems pretty well covered. What about books? I think one of my favourite books dealing with war is "The Wars" by Timothy Findley(Canadian). Takes place during the 1st WW and is extremly macabre.

We are backwater arty hicks. The most high-tech kit we have is an ancient(70's?) laser that we guntape(YES, GUNTAPE) to the top of a grizzly(lav). We've got some gps's too, but no intergrated FOO vehicle. Apparently there might be a FOO/LAV 3 on the way though. But then again, we can hardly afford tanks anymore.

blast radius is determined by a few factors. I don't happen to have a ballistics manual handy but if I remember correctly high angle fire produces a circular shrapnel pattern on the ground and low angle produces cone shaped patterns. Altitude of burst will affect size. Airbursts having a bigger footprint than groundbursts. Also, mortar shrapnel tends to be smaller than artillery shrapnel, thicker shell wall. Also, it just accured to me that modern 81's are have larger lethality radius than 105's. 81mm mortar= 40m 105mm howitzer=30m so the game modelling seems correct.