Thomm Posted July 15, 1999 Share Posted July 15, 1999 Looking at shells impacting and exploding on the ground I got the impression that they enter the ground prior to exploding. Thus most of the released energy is directed where it meets the least resistance: skywards. Does that imply that ground explosions do not produce a lot of shrapnel and pressure ? Or is it a misconception of mine and the truth is that the shell explodes the moment the tip touches the ground thus the whole shell is above the ground and all the metal flies away nearly horizontally ? Does the impact angle influence the shrapnel effect ? What is the "blast radius" defined for weapons in CM ? Ready to learn something new, Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted July 15, 1999 Share Posted July 15, 1999 The fuze on a shell determines when it explodes. A quick or contact fuze will detonate the shell as soon as it makes contact with something. When I was a mortar gunner quick fuzes were used against troops in the open, trucks and other non fortified targets. Delay fuzes have a small delay built in to them so that the round does not detonate immediately on contact. This is used against field fortifications and other targets where you want the round to penetrate before exploding. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 15, 1999 Author Share Posted July 15, 1999 This is interesting ! Thanks, Harold ! Say, is there a visible difference between the explostions of this two different kinds of ordnance ? I assume that a penetrating round kicks up a lot of earth, but is otherwise "relatively" harmless (unless you sit right under it). To BTS: Will these differences be taken into account ? If yes, also visually ? Do shells which hit buildings or hedges explode on contact or after penetration ? Thanks for additional comments, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 15, 1999 Share Posted July 15, 1999 Harold is right. One other factor is shell design. The smaller Nebelwerfers were found to throw shrapnel almost horizontally outwards and to have a CZ50 out to 50 metres ( casualty zone in which 50% of all men would be injured or killed of 50 metres). Also because the average height around which shrapnel from these shells gravitated was 50 cm it was extremely deadly to men who were just going prone and/or to the legs of those who stayed upright. If you hack a man's leg off then he is combat ineffective forever (at least in WW2 that was the case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 15, 1999 Share Posted July 15, 1999 CM models several different types of detonations. The other one that has not been mentioned is tree bursts. This is when the shell impacts a tree and explodes, sending shrap downwards. So even men at the bottom of foxholes can be hit. Safest place to be for one of these is standing next to a big tree trunk. We do not have different graphical explosions. Kicking up dirt, turff, etc. is not a good use of polygons. We do, however, center the explosion depending on where the shell detonates. So a treeburst is totally above ground. The blast radius is done using some fancy math and knowledge of shell types. I don't know the specifics, and don't want to know Charles did all that stuff. BTW, there is also a blast effect that can kill by shock alone. The bigger the gun, and the closer to the source, the greater the chance of getting offed. There are many accounts of soldiers coming up to someone who, by all examination, looks to be sleeping. But upon further inspection is dead without obvious fatal wound. This is also factored into the blast radius. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 15, 1999 Share Posted July 15, 1999 What about the use of proximity fuses by allied artillery. I understand they were finally released for frontline service during the Battle of the Bulge. (prior to that they were worried that the technology would fall into the hands of the Germans) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 16, 1999 Share Posted July 16, 1999 You're referring to the POZIT fuse. We haven't decided on that one. We could treat is as an automatic airburst (much like treebursts except without the tree) but don't know if it's fair to let all American (or even British) artillery have this capability by default from December onward. Does anyone know if POZIT was used on all calibers of artillery, and if not, which ones had it? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted July 16, 1999 Share Posted July 16, 1999 Maybe artillery untis with this capability could be a seperate entity within the game from normal arty units, which would cost more to purchase? This would allow scenario designers to add maybe just one unit with this capability, whilst the others in a campaign are just normal arty. Also, it would allow people purchasing arty for a game to spend extra resources on this asset, if they feel it is necessary. Just an idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 16, 1999 Author Share Posted July 16, 1999 I just see a dilemma with the visual size of the explosion. There is no problem with air or ground bursts. But when I think about a penetrating round of the same size I can imagine that the hit object catches most of the energy and practically contains the blast within itself. That is, if a bunker is penetrated by a big shell all life ceases to exist therein, but objects nearby might escape unharmed. If you determine the visual size of the blast e.g. by the mass of the shell then you face the discrepancy that the surrounding is rolled over by the shock wave (always visually speaking !) of the big shell whereas most of it would be contained within the bunker (which I am sure BTS takes into account) but the surrounding would remained untouched. Observers will ask themselfes, why . On the other hand, if you represent the reduced blast with a smaller visual explosion, the observer might ask himself why that little puff killed his mighty bunker ! Still I would opt for the second option although the first promises more visual action, because I think that the graphics should really be meaningful with respect to the damage potential of the explosion. But I am sure that you who see it working already will make the proper decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 16, 1999 Author Share Posted July 16, 1999 An addition: If you represented the shock wave with a hemisphere instead of a sphere in case of a shell hitting an armoured surface then the observer would have additional information like where the shell has come from, whether it was a direct hit or area fire and such. Unfortunately this would involve calculating the surface normal. But, what the heck, just keep going ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 16, 1999 Share Posted July 16, 1999 Charles, Found this page concerning the proximity fuse. http://www.jmkemp.demon.co.uk/artillery/options.html#VTFuze Looks like it was used on 75mm Howitzers and up. Also note that it states that there was a 5 sec minimum arming time so no close in support. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 19, 1999 Share Posted July 19, 1999 As with all things visual, there is no 1:1 connection to the data underneath. There could be no explosion graphics and the results from an explosion would be the same. So the burst you see is representational only, though its size is relational to the explosion to some degree. Just not exactly. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 19, 1999 Share Posted July 19, 1999 Thomm, No artillery in the game is useful for literal busting of large bunkers - the kind big enough to "contain" an explosion therein. (Well, perhaps the 14" artillery could do that but we really don't want to encourage use of this weapon. We've included it as a lark, not as a "typical" element of Allied artillery). I mention this because the scenario you sketched out above pretty much never occurs in CM. Concrete bunkers in CM cannot be taken out by a penetrating shell that pops a neat hole in the outside and then explodes inside. In fact, even concrete-penetrating shells (like the ones fired from Allied 155mm SP guns) actually spray huge clouds of concrete shards in all directions when they hit. Some of those shells can blast through six feet of reinforced concrete in a single hit. But this is not a neat little hole. It's a big crater scooped out of the front. And all that vaporized concrete has to go somewhere so it might actually be more lethal because of all that shrapnel. However CM does recognize the case of shells bursting inside an armored vehicle and how that would actually reduce (by a lot, in most cases) the damage to nearby units. Rod, Thanks for the URL. I'm thinking that I might put in 105mm and 155mm POZIT forward observers. (I doubt that 240mm howitzers were used much for this purpose, as those huge weapons are more useful as siege guns). Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts