Mr. Tittles

I would like to reiterate and refine some of the points this thread is about. Just for clarification. 1. Infantry grenades both hand and rifle propelled were used by US troops in WWII with frequency and effect. I would like to see them modeled in the game but controlled by the AI like molotov cocktails/demo charges are. They should share molotov cocktails incindiery effects with a grenade like effect. They should produce smoke/heavy dust to simulate the smoke effect. Perhaps the game could give a percentage chance that a normal grenade has a chance to be WP. Perhaps issued like molotov with platoon/company/bn HQs having them when present. 2. Mortar fire WP. The 4.2 inch should have a definite instaneous smoke producing effect from its heavy payload of WP. This shell should also produce infantry casualties from its HE-burst/fragmentation and WP effects. 81mm also should show these effects but at a reduced/concentrated localization. The 81mm does not share the 4.2inch rifling and spin effect of scattering WP and fragments. It should produce instant smoke. 60mm does not seem to have a WP round till late in the war. All WP mortar fire should have an incidiery effect on appropriate terrain and targets. 3. Direct fire/Indirect fire WP. Mostly sherman 75mm, 75mm pack howitzer (M8 Scott)and 105mm and 155mm US artillery. Work in progress. [ October 29, 2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The Sherman first fired a white phosphorous round into the corners of the opposite hedgerow to eliminate German heavy machine-gun positions. This remark uses the word eliminate. It does not say 'blind ' or discomfort or obscurate. It has a very destructive intent. The German Heavy MGs with their large tripods would probably be blown away by the combined HE blast, WP generated fireball and resultant fragments directed at the position. The position would then be untenable for at least a minute as the WP continues to burn.

I would say 12 pound weight of shell (just the metal), wall thickness is 12mm, HE is about 1/3 pound. HE is like a cylindrical shape down the center of shell. Its about 16mm diameter. WP takes up rest of filling. Use a forward velocity of 2000 fps and a rotational velocity of 20,000 rpm, if they play in

Well, alright, I can give a cross sectional diagram of the shell!! I think the weights, etc are doable! All we need now is more knucklehead doubting posts and we might have ourselves a real party!!! WOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen, please remain in your seats. JonS will be with us shortly with multitudes of data supporting everything he says. After all, those that demand so much show the way through example! Lead on! JonnyS!!! LeadON!!!!!! [ October 29, 2003, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The flesh and bones were consumed beyond recognition? The feets wasn't? Is this what you are saying?

By saying "inside", do you mean inside a building or what? Michael </font>

The Banner looks good. Makes me wonder, Will US Weapons, with their non-smokeless powder, give off dust/smoke?

Anyone have webhosting that they would like to post a drawing on? Or direct me where to get free web hosting. I would like to put a nice cross sectional drawing of a WP shell.

Prove BES were the majority non-WP smoke round. Jeesh.

The plain physical fact is that the round is going a considerable velocity either in its whole form or in broken parts. This naturally comes from the velocity of translation. Whats the metal in one of these weigh? 12 pounds? The added velocity of its spin rate, soemthing like 20,000 rpm, is also translated into a velocity component. Even without the HE burster adding its kick, the plain fact of the matter is that a bunch of Steel is flying very rapidly. For the sake of argument, lets say the shell broke up into 50 equal parts. (I know, impossible, but humor me and read on.) Thats 50 1/4 pound pieces of steel going at least a couple thousand feet per second lets say. They are all traveling basically in a cone in a forward direction. I leave it for you to ponder.

Prove any of this first! 1. Prove BES were the majority non-WP smoke round. You were the first in the thread to claim so. you always want proof, well put some up! 2. Prove what you say about where the empty BES carrier shells land. [ October 28, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

http://www.g2mil.com/Heavy-Mortars.htm This doesnt have anything to do with the thread. just a cool site. He brings up a good question, when does a spin stabilized shell 'turn over' when fired at an angle?

Lets look at some examples of 75mm WP aginst target types: 1. Units in buildings. Infantry trying to take cover in most unfortified structures hit by a 75mm WP round (SQ fuze setting), would be treated to a hail of large shell fragments coming through the wall. Most of the WP would be distributed on the extarior wall with some coming through. If a delay fuze was used, the detonation would be internal to the building and the WP would be maximized in effect in an enclosed area. Example: The ATG in a house. This was discussed by the tankers in one of the links I posted. They must have inspected the crew closely afterwards because they reported that they just found a pair of feet. This supports the forward directed blast/fragmentation effect. [ October 28, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I would like to start the final part of this threads discussion matter. Namely the direct fire gun/howitzer bursting WP shell. The star witness will be the Sherman 75mm gun and its M64 round with the M57 fuze. I have given the matter some thought and would like to bring up some details regarding the 4.2 inch WP round and present it here again as 'evidence'. This evidence will help develop my theory (call it whatever you like) about the direct fire WP rounds. Evidence suggests that these 4.2 inch rounds, on detonation , would reduce the shells to a base plate and turn the shell walls into fragments. Since the HE burster charge used in these WP shells was of less power than the HE shell, the fragments produced would PROBABLY be larger. evidence suggests that the HE fragments were finely divided. Many people might stop right there and claim 'Hey, big fragments, less velocity, less effect'. And they would be somewhat correct,for this type of round. The 4.2" mortar round descends at a steep angle. It usually lands in a somewhat vertical orientation. Unless it can be detonated at a height above ground, like a tree burst, its burster charge/fragmentation is localized (think of a downward cone directed into teh ground). Since the 4.2" is slow moving (well this is range/velocity dependant), this 'down-ward fragmentation' effect is attenuated. Anyway you cut it, the bottom line is that the 4.2" WP WOULD break up on impact and had a fragmentation effect. The fragmentation effect is aided by the height of detonation and spinning of the shell. The spinning will by the laws of physics, give a added velocity to the fragments produced. OK. Lets wipe the mystified looks off our faces and 'turn' to the direct fire 75mm WP shell. I say 'turn' because it lands, generally, at a very flat relationship with the ground. It compares to the 4.2 " as a higher velocity, greater spin rate. Here's my main contention (if you havent already guessed it). The direct fire bursting WP type of shell acts as a sort of mutant. It behaves with properties similar to a fragmentation/cannister round! This behaviour is in addition to the heat/burning/incindiery effect of the WP. I would contend that the burster, on breaking up the shell casing, releases the WP agent (aided by not just the burst but by the rotational speed) and the shell fragments/fuze/ect continue forward in a deadly cone pattern. Cannister rounds exhibit this behaviour. They are always likened to shotguns but shotguns are smoothbore. Cannister rounds will develop a cone distribution pattern. the balls in the cannister round closest to the rifling are the ones that cone out, the ones near teh center will travel forward along the line of aim. It may be a leap of faith but I believe this is what might be happening in spin stabilized burster shells that have comparatively less HE than a normal HE shell. The effect on the target end would be devastating. Not only from the WP and the small concussion but the directed hail of metal flying into the target.

Thanks JonS. Actually, the spin rate would be a function of the amount of charges (translation muzzle velocity and rotational velocity varying together) also but I am too lazy at the moment to do the math.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If AP ammo can have an infantry effect than so can these weapons. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And important difference is that when AP is shown to effect infantry that is because it is being intentionally fired at infantry. As Jon pointed out, non-WP smoke is not normally fired at the enemy but in front of him. If AP is area fired at a location, and the unit inside is hidden, should there be any effect?

I think I will clarify my points again since we have another player. 1. It was never specifically stated by the original post that he was ONLY talking about indirect fire non-WP smoke. Reread his post. 2. CM level of non-WP smoke generation MOSTLY involves bursting type ordanance. Either direct fire (tanks/SP/guns/howitzers) or indirect fire (mostly mortars/arty). I would like to see the effects of the non-WP burster charge modeled at the recieving end. Doesnt mean it has to be modeled or even addressed. Its just what I would want in a game, either thsi one or another, depicting battle at this level. 3. To say that the effects are negligible is fine, please provide proof. To realize the effects are actually greater than AP fire at infantry shows common sense. HE direct fire rounds that miss are tracked and collataral damage assesed. It is not that great a break with the detail of the game. 4. To say that 'well, no one is usually there' does not hold true. The indirect fire patterns are usually short/over in variation and units are usually there. Perhaps the game should not allow smoke unless the ground is vacant? Of course not, its silly. 5. The abuse in the game of arty systems having smoke when historically they did not have shells, the abuse of the ability of the player/AI to drop WAY too many smoke shells (HE/Smoke can be any variable ratio) and other artillery over-simplifications and problems, makes the arty element in the game unrealistic. As I have said before, most BES type smoke screens would be part of a fire plan and beyond the scope of the players control. If anything, it would be an event that occurs on the first turn (like a barrage) or at a set point in the game. These type of smoke screens are usually started with a bursting type round to get it up and maintained by BES. 6. If you have data, please share it. I can not take people like JonS seriously because he refuses to post data. He just feels it is his opinion that matters and that gives him the privelage to question people.

Can you say 'Hall Monitor' Boys and Girls? Nice work JonS.

I would like to wrap up some thoughts: MOST weapons that WOULD be firing smoke during a CM type battle would be using burster type delivery systems. These are specifically designed to shatter the shell. The WP burster type shells would be much more lethal/discomforting in effect than other smoke producing agents. The non-WP burster shells would still have some punch. While they are in no way comparable to HE in effect, they should not be ignored either. If AP ammo can have an infantry effect than so can these weapons. I wonder if many indirect or even direct fire weapons have smoke capability when they should not? But I dont care about any reprogramming about it. No sir. I just like typing in this small box that takes up less than 1/12th my computer screen. [ October 27, 2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Its my impression that the amount of time spent talking/arguing/etc about code making is greater than the writing of the code. I guess in an ideal setting, it should be 1/3talking (arguing) 1/3 coding 1/3 testing Leaving so soon? Well thanks for all the data, sources, technical drawings, etc [ October 27, 2003, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

It is about non-WP. But you sound confoosed??? I do not think it was specifically stated to be about any weapons system but most people probably assumed artillery. Reread the first post. In my opinion, most base eject type smoke missions are pre-planned and beyond the scope of small unit actions like CM MOSTLY represents. They would mostly fit in as occurring on the first turn. I shortly plan to evolve my 'direct-fire WP/other-burster-smoke' finale on my WP in CMAK thread. I am using this thread to sharpen my obnoxious chops. The point is, i like to argue about crap like this. I dont give a hairy rat's ass about resources. Most software people waste more time arguing than improving the product.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m84_105mm_usafas.jpg Need help? Since you said 105mm...

Here's an example of Most: Most Sherman smoke shells were WP (about 2 out of 3, aka two thirds). Most were bursting. Can you guess the ratio of bursting Sherman smoke shells? (Yes, I know, you want to call this all 'specious' or some other over-used word you see in threads don't you?)

Most usually means a majority. Just in case you havent been indoctinated in the notion of Most.