Mr. Tittles

I forget the weapons name but there is a way to use small particles in a recoiless type weapon. These slivers are launched backwards as the weapon propels the bomb forward. They are packed in tight and give the propellent something to push against (the typical recoiless rifle just vents the charge backwards). This had two features; a very small backblast danger area (the small particles quickly scrubbed thier velocity) and a smaller report/flash than a recoiless weapon. It could be fired from within a room (but like any weapon, opening a window would be a good idea). This may have been the initial stage to just get the warhead going, a rocket propulsion taking over from there.

I would give the accuracy to the bazooka over this PIAT. The bazooka rocket travels the length of the tube giving it an acceleration path that is much longer than the short lenth of rod the nose heavy bomb pops off of. Did commonwealth use shrecks and fausts? I saw A Bridge too Far last night and the movie weapon seemed unbelievably slow in flight. It did look cool firing off that balcony.

From lessons learned..Italy To gain our first foothold in the town we used smoke and tanks supported by infantry. The infantry under unobserved fire removed mines and filled in anti-tank ditches to assist in the advance of the tanks. On gaining the first foothold we got men in buildings and consolidated our positions with particular attention to getting bazookas in large numbers placed in the most forward positions. German tanks in this sector had been giving us trouble, but the German armor didn't bother us in CASSINO because we had so many bazookas well forward. The bazooka proved to be a very effective weapon in street fighting. It was the squad leaders' direct fire artillery and with very little instruction and experience can be fired with surprising accuracy. Since all doors and lower windows were covered by fire, at other times we had to make other entrances to these buildings through thick stone walls. If tanks could be maneuvered to shoot holes in these walls, it was done. Otherwise, the bazooka was used. In one instance, it took nine rounds to get a hole big enough to go through. After an entrance was found or made a grenade always preceded the infantryman into the room if there was any possibility of Germans being there. In cases where a house could not be approached, tank fire was used to level the building to the ground. Of course, this gave the Germans some wonderful rubble piles to build camouflage emplacements but they lost the overhead cover for artillery and mortar fire. We also used an 8" howitzer on some buildings. It can be fired with precision and changes as small as ten yards can be made so we used it on targets within 50 yards of our own troops. We called it sniping with an 8" how. Mortars are not too effective against the buildings and are used mainly to harass and interdict paths.

Brick walls are subject to fracture. WWII bazookas could open a mouse hole with a few shots.

The real question is whether the spring actually imparts that energy to the bomb. The rod is more than likely thrust forward by the spring, but it must have a stopper to limit its forward travel (otherwise, it would come flying out like a spear. The total throw of the rod and the depth of the hollow cylindrical part of the bomb needs to be known. In other words, for the spring energy to do anything besides detonate the propellent, it has to transfer to the bomb. The energy of the propellent has to both send the bomb flying AND recock the weapon. If the rod could come out and lock at its percussion point (imagine a PIAT mounted to a vehicle lest we break the shoulder off the firer), then the range would be increased. If the PIAT were to have a longer rod, and a bomb with a deeper cavity, it would be more accurate. But the whole thing gets quickly too large for a LATW.

I think that firing a weapon like the PIAT while in a building at your own building would be like throwing a granade at an enemy in the same room as yourself. The PIAT could be used from a building if its trough was hung out a window (ie firing across the street). The blast would largely be external to the interior space. In this regards, it was much safer than a bazooka/shreck/faust. It also had a smaller signature/flash I suspect. But the mechanics of the device would have a decidedly user-hostile effect. It is not deadly like some of the other LATW but it would be a bitch to fire. Has anyone been to the side of someone firing a revolver? That spritz of powder burn would be very similar. Get that in the eye and it would be pretty serious. This would tend to create the flinch-factor. I doubt the spring added any velocity to the projectile but was just an igniter and a launching rod the bomb shot off of.

This would certainly be very discomforting and I can only imagine the flinch-factor that had to be dealt with. It is not the same as firing a typical rifle where the powder, blast is propelled forward. When the rod/bomb disengage after the blast, the effect is shot back at the firer. A better design would have had the bomb attached by some break away holding device. The bomb could be held in place on the end without a trough. There would be a large funnel around the end of the weapon to protect the firer. [ April 27, 2004, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The rod comes forward under spring pressure. It enters the bombs rear and slides into it till it strikes the charge. The charge detonates creating pressure and starts both the bombs sliding off the rod (shooting downrange) and pushing the rod backwards. When the bomb seperates from the rod, there will be an escape of gas, smoke , etc. This will more than likely shoot backwards in a cone pattern. Very similar to the effects of a low velocity gun firing. I would imagine that the place where seperation takes place is somewhere along the trough. Is the large tube area meant to capture this blast? It would certainly get the spring dirty if it was.

The spring loaded pin will detonate the propellent and when the bomb 'uncovers' from the pin, there will be an excaping blast. Its like an inside out gun. The bomb carries the 'barrel' away with it. There most certainly is a blast and it is directed not backwards out the tail like a panzerfaust or bazooka, but rather towards the firers face. I imagine it would be like someone firing a large blank cartidge right at your face.

The insides of afvs are very loud anyway. These headphones would offer some protection.

I corresponded with a WWII vet who described 50 cal range detail without hearing protection (guns to the left and right). He was deafened for hours after and ringing for days too. He said it was worse than any other loudness he encountered (and he had plenty). I think perhaps being on the firing end is as bad as the receiving end. I fired a M16 without earplugs and it 'shfuzzed' my drums good. This was semi auto fire. Full auto would be damaging for sure. I asked a Nam vet what they did and he said some guys put paper from the cig filters in the ears. Many guys opened the mouth to relieve pressure also. Others just went deaf. But back to the point of the thread; I believe unless a HE shell actuall strikes the armor itself, it is MUCH better than a poor infantry slob as far as effects. Of course, the fragments are nearly useless against most armor, the blast/debri/heat/etc are all reduced also. I would imagine the noise is attenuated too. The exception being the HE landing right on the armor that is protecting a crewmen. The shock/noise would be terrific. I knew a tanker that had the misfortune of having a main weapon go off within feet of him. The concussion itself KO'd him for hours. He had horrible tinninitus that was permanant. Any closer and he may have died. The energy from the concussion would cream the brains and shatter all bones.

The AI should just send tank/infantry platoons/companies against objectives. It should have seperate routines for arty/HMG/support formations. It seems that the individually controlled units, be they squads/tanks/etc, are on lone missions and there is no overall command or concern for fire support, HQ control, tactics, formations, intermediate goals, etc. I think the AI is overdone and simpler 'drills' that control the platoons/companies actions would have made a better attacker. In the attack, the AI should think in terms like: Probe, Firefight, Close-in, Assault, Retreat. In a Company-Probe, the AI should select one platoon to be the 'meet-the-enemy' force. It splits one or two squads, they get run, move-to-contact/hide, advance, sneak type orders. The remaining platoon HQ and squad and platoon weapons of that platoon use slower moves and more bounding type way points to get to terrain that the half-squad 'probers' have uncovered. The other platoons either overwatch or slowly move up one squad at a time. The goal or drill is to meet the enemy and then engage it in a firefight. Once the enemy is met, then the company should be assigned a different type 'drill'. Firefight would be a drill where the company tries to pin the enemy and move weapons/squads closer only for better shooting. Units in the open sneak to cover. Enemy un its targeting friendlies in the open or poor cover get targeted. If a FO was attached he would only move forward to get a spotting round on either a flag or a enemy position. Close-in gets the infantry squads in a position where they can assault/advance to obtain flags and eliminate the enemy. Close-In only gets activated once the AI determines the firefight is being won. Sneak, move to contact, short advances and assaults are used. Smoke is set up and area fire put on likely points. Those troops without move orders and known targets get area fire orders. Assault is the execution. Troops go for the longer assaults/advances. Arty is shifted. Retreat would use withdraw, run, shoot smoke, etc. to break off an attack. [ April 24, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I cant believe MG fire could be that bad. If it was, then concentrated MG fire against a tank would cripple it. Sound falls off quickly so if it was hitting directly outside the armor that a crewman was stationed at, perhaps it could discomfort that crewman. Studies show that even in the open against infantry, HE is not THAT deadly.

I would imagine it came down at an angle and struck the top or rear part of the tank. I think CM overstates the AP rating of most HE. But I agree that softer effects of HE should be modeled. It would be cool to see radios KO'd for awhile (tubes changed, etc) or the tank being 'stunned' till the crewmen shook off the effects. Having reduced accuracy could be more from the gun falling out of alignment. Tanks and AFVs carried extra sights, vision blocks, so the effects may not be as bad as thought. I am glad dust is at least modeled. Arty makes tanks move for a number of reasons. One of which is the amount of dirt and black smoke TNT throws up.

I think that HE has to be either in contact with the armor or inches away. The effect rapidly falls off with distance. Even when in contact, the HE largely blasts its energy out sideways. So when a HE shell squarely lands on a vertical surface, the blast energy is not directed into the armor but to the sides. A HE shell lucky enough to land under the tank would be as effective as a landmine with its blast energy trapped underneath. Top deck armor like the Panthers driver/RO station is vulnerable to hits against the turret front. The blast/fragments directed downward could defeat this area. later versions uparmored this area. A blast that could dislodge the internal engine from its mounts would be quite powerful and would kill any crewman and damage the tank dramatically. Theres a long thread about HE against armor around. Maybe in the CMBB threads. For small caliber HE of around 90mm and less, I would contend that it would have to be set on delay (the fuse) and most of its antiarmor effect comes from a typical AP type model. That is, it needs velocity/hardness/etc. The explosive contributing very little 'AP' power. Larger HE in the 105mm class may have damaging effects but would need to hit a shell trap area or beneath the tank to really get a mobility kill. A knock out kill being rare. The real question is the after armor effects of these large HE payload shells like the 155 and greater class. Bones and brains can be KO'd beyond armor and perhaps fuel lines and ammo also. Aerial bombs should have been tank killers but the fact is that WWII dumb bombs could not get close enough to get these kills. The CEP negated the kill area.

I wonder what the resolution would be on the ranging of the airbursts. By this, I mean the incremental change in range that could be dialed in. Could they jump it in increments of 50 meters lets say? A good thing about a flat trajectory is that longs and shorts could still have an effect on target because the shell is not at a tilted angle. A FlaK battery was all wired together. All the guns could be connected to a central command point by cables. Theres a good website with pics that shows this as well as the unlimbering process. I wonder if known targets like a bridge or cross road could have been easily called up by the command point and all guns would then dial it in.

Peng Bum Tienot BRRRReng Nug Retart Prem Rum Bipart Aw screw it...(HUUUUUUFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF) WEEEeeeEEEee.. *even Seanachais posts are not sad and bitter anymore*....

Brem Gum Flypot Blem Groom Frypod Gren Bloom Pietart UMMMMMmmmoooo...uhuhuh..Bren Gun Tripod. There. I said it. I gotta stop sniffing glue.

From what I understand, its defeating the tip of the HEAT penetration 'jet' thats important. Its actually the fastest moving part. Anything that could make the tip stronger would be better. Perhaps DU could be alloyed with copper or some other metal. I understand DU has alloys when used as a APFSDS round.

DANGER! DANGER! Young Peng Robinson is taking a space shower and Dr. Smith is eyeing him for a space examination.

Ive heard the Russians use DU in hollow charge warheads (how nasty is that?). Is DU conductive?

..And yes, rabbits and Easter be damned; I like to split hares. Quite illegal but tasty little hoppers they be.

If its any of neither of your business well then it is morning. Or nearly getting to it. Or closely getting near to it. Or by the time the brews give out; it'll be morning surely. But regardless (But not irregardless). You ALL owe me a turn. Either now. Or Later. Or the day after. But more than likely in the future surely. My patience has been tested! May you all have Bren Gun Tripods esconced up your rear quarters. good Day! And Good Night!

Thats great. But if the copper can be replaced with a non-conductive 'penetrator', it would then defeat this technology.

no rectangles here These are the rectangles M1A1D Abrams Main Battle Tank The M1A1 fleet remains the majority of the Armor Force. The M1A1D is a digitized M1A1 that provides improved situational awareness and far target designate capability. The installation of a digital appliqué command and control package on the M1A1 is necessary to achieve Force XXI required capabilities. Another planned improvement is replacing the analog Turret Network Box (TNB) and Hull Network Box (HNB) with new digital units to eliminate the associated obsolescence problems and to allow the introduction of a built-in-test (BIT) capability to support the Force XXI maintenance structure. Digital TNBs and HNBs also allow future electronic growth by providing unpopulated VME card slots. In the survivability area the Army is working to develop and field a contingency armor package that is thin and lightweight, but with a high level of protection. These armor packages can be applied to either the side or front of Abrams tanks to provide additional protection as required by the mission. The Army is also seeking to fundo resource upgrades to the M1A1 fire control system with the same 2nd Gen FLIR package on the M1A2. [ April 11, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]