Heavy artillery against armor underrepresented?

[Alan8325]

I know that small HE effects against armor have been recently reduced in CM but I'm thinking that large HE may be less effective at at least immobilizing tanks than it should be. I was playing a scenario in the "Task Force Engel" campaign and using Nebelwerfer 42s when I saw that a Sherman took several near misses including one no more than a couple meters away, leaving a crater that went partially under the sherman. I saved the game and clicked "cease fire" because I was curious to see what damage that would do and saw that it took no damage to any system other than the tracks, which just went from green to light green. I'd like to do some tests but won't have time until after the weekend. In the mean time I found this supposed study on the effects of large HE versus armor and even near misses do a lot of damage.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Who+says+dumb+artillery+rounds+cant+kill+armor%3F-a097722805

[sburke]

I love this section

For this test, a 24-gun 155-mm battalion was used to achieve the Soviet criteria of 50 percent destruction. To accomplish these effects, the fire plan for each of the three iterations of the test required 2,600 HE rounds with a mix of PD and VT fuzes. In each iteration 50 percent of the infantry fighting positions were destroyed and about 50 percent of the personnel were wounded or killed.

The physiological and psychological effects on personnel could not be measured as Army regulations prohibit using humans or animals in this type of testing.

Damn liberals interfering with national defense concerns!

I can see it now, ads like those ones for people signing up for medical studies only now asking them to participate in helping determine how best to spend our defense dollars.

[JonS]

Nebels have impressive blast characteristics, but only relatively trivial fragmentation effects. It's the fragmentation effects which are important when attacking AFVs.

[winkelried]

i always achieved pretty good effects with artillery against tanks. preferred guns are the 25pdr due to its high ROF and the US 155mm howitzer ... still missing the onmap version though

[slysniper]

Unless you are seeing real problems, you are wasting your time if you are talking minor adjustment to the system.

you likely do not have any data that is going to justify the game results not being realistic enough in its present state.

I sure do not find the game having any problems with arty taking out or damaging tanks if you manage to them in your blast area. But it does have a way of showing fate in the results. All close or direct hits do not always give damaging results. So, I will inform you of yes, I have seen craters left under tanks and have watched them drive away. But most of the time That isnt going to be the case.

[Killkess]

I love this section

For this test, a 24-gun 155-mm battalion was used to achieve the Soviet criteria of 50 percent destruction. To accomplish these effects, the fire plan for each of the three iterations of the test required 2,600 HE rounds with a mix of PD and VT fuzes. In each iteration 50 percent of the infantry fighting positions were destroyed and about 50 percent of the personnel were wounded or killed.

And i like that section because in WWII the only artillery pieces neccesary to achieve comparable results is a couple of 60mm mortars.

[agusto]

Nebels have impressive blast characteristics, but only relatively trivial fragmentation effects. It's the fragmentation effects which are important when attacking AFVs.

I wonder what happens in CMBN if a tank takes a direct hit from a Nebelwerfer. What is their calibre again? Up to 320mm if my memory is correct, isnt it?

[A Canadian Cat]

I wonder what happens in CMBN if a tank takes a direct hit from a Nebelwerfer. What is their calibre again? Up to 320mm if my memory is correct, isnt it?

It is not Nebelwerfer but 120mm Mortar - it is pretty cool:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1428163&postcount=172

[baron Jacquinot]

I add in scenario "surrender invites death" 4 battery of Nebelwerfer 301mm with full ammo and won battle, when enemy tank stay close they very effective.

You can call me cheater)))))))))

[baron Jacquinot]

When my first tanks came to outskirts of village, i saw 5 destroyed tanks, after battle i count about 9-11 tanks destroyed by artillery.

[winkelried]

I know that small HE effects against armor have been recently reduced in CM but I'm thinking that large HE may be less effective at at least immobilizing tanks than it should be. I was playing a scenario in the "Task Force Engel" campaign and using Nebelwerfer 42s when I saw that a Sherman took several near misses including one no more than a couple meters away, leaving a crater that went partially under the sherman. I saved the game and clicked "cease fire" because I was curious to see what damage that would do and saw that it took no damage to any system other than the tracks, which just went from green to light green. I'd like to do some tests but won't have time until after the weekend. In the mean time I found this supposed study on the effects of large HE versus armor and even near misses do a lot of damage.]

i ran a test with three batteries of 150mm Nebelwerfer against an U.S. tank batallion - near misses yield often (slight, but accruing) track damage. had quite a few direct hits - e.g. engine desk penetrations with killed engine and total loss or as another example even a upper front hull penetration (!!!!!) which yielded a total loss including crew!

no underrepresentation IMHO.

[Alan8325]

Thanks for the tests! Looks like very heavy artillery indeed kills tanks with near misses. Once I have some time I will run a test with 155mm artillery.

[Apocal]

Thanks for the tests! Looks like very heavy artillery indeed kills tanks with near misses. Once I have some time I will run a test with 155mm artillery.

Look at the module counts though, you have four 301mm Nebels in BJ's test, three 150mm Nebels in winkel's test. There aren't many scenario authors who'd give a player even one of those to play with and I can't think of any who'd give four.

[slysniper]

You do not need that amount to do what is needed. 105 and up will get the job done and there is plenty of scenarios with that and you can take out tanks with it.

Actually one of the campaigns have navel fire in it, I enjoyed dropping that on 3 panzers hiding in the woods waiting for units to break out in the open.

[womble]

You do not need that amount to do what is needed. 105 and up will get the job done and there is plenty of scenarios with that and you can take out tanks with it.

You can take out tanks with 105. A direct hit on the engine deck will ruin pretty much any tank's day. If they sit still under it, they could end up limping, even without any directs. But it is by no means guaranteed.

[poorfish]

I don't know if the CM modeling takes into account the differences in US armor vs the German when hit with similar caliber and round type. M4 tanks on WWII had less hard, thinner, and flexible armor than Panthers, so the effects seen above might not hold true with US shelling German Panthers or Tigers. M4s weren't called "Ronsons" out of whimsy. See link: my post, "US Guns, German Armour".

[Apocal]

You do not need that amount to do what is needed. 105 and up will get the job done and there is plenty of scenarios with that and you can take out tanks with it.

Like womble said, a single 105mm battery can do it, but it isn't all that likely to happen unless your opponent just sits under the barrage for minutes at a time. I mean, honestly, even 75mm pack howitzers and 81mm mortars can take out as well, but no one complains about them because it is just so unlikely to happen outside of ideal situations (already immobilized track, etc.).

[slysniper]

Like womble said, a single 105mm battery can do it, but it isn't all that likely to happen unless your opponent just sits under the barrage for minutes at a time. I mean, honestly, even 75mm pack howitzers and 81mm mortars can take out as well, but no one complains about them because it is just so unlikely to happen outside of ideal situations (already immobilized track, etc.).

Very true, when they camp your odds go up.

But playing HtoH, I find the best trick is A heavy short burst and if you can. Not only where they are located, but the route where they likely will pull out when they realize Arty is coming.

My best one I remember was sending a few 81 rounds on a Stug, figuring he pull back and keyhole behind some woods. I had a massive 105 mission for that spot also. Had that zeroed in from the set up phase of the game figuring just such a use of that area. So he rolls back just as the 105's start to drop. Soon I see 2 pillers of black smoke. Wow, very late in the game I finially see what I did. Not only did I get that Stug, but he had a buddy he pulled back along side of. Nice days work

[womble]

Very true, when they camp your odds go up.

But playing HtoH, I find the best trick is A heavy short burst and if you can. Not only where they are located, but the route where they likely will pull out when they realize Arty is coming.

My best one I remember was sending a few 81 rounds on a Stug, figuring he pull back and keyhole behind some woods. I had a massive 105 mission for that spot also. Had that zeroed in from the set up phase of the game figuring just such a use of that area. So he rolls back just as the 105's start to drop. Soon I see 2 pillers of black smoke. Wow, very late in the game I finially see what I did. Not only did I get that Stug, but he had a buddy he pulled back along side of. Nice days work

StuG are a bit more vulnerable than "proper" tanks, I think. As are things like M10s, but even if you drop a heavy mission on their bug-out route, you're still only stacking odds. Not that this is a bad thing, of course, but it does speak counter to the "ZOMG the artilleries are like the sky falling on everyone's head at once!" hyperbole that is bandied about.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Considering your very real contributions here, I find it appalling that you seemingly feel obligated to attack someone you know to be recovering from both a brain injury and an assault. What does that say about you?!

winkelried,

I gave gotten a 105 kill on a Panther in the CMBN Demo, using an FO and artillery from off the map. Blast can indeed wreak havoc on armor. During the Yom Kippur War, the television guided AGM-65 Maverick (173 lb shaped charge) was so devastating the Israelis switched to aiming at the edge of the tank's shadow. This way, only the tracks and running gear were destroyed, leaving a salvageable tank.

If you refer to Figure 4-17 and Figure 4-3 here in this FEMA study http://tinyurl.com/bqdmb8c, you can see that 10 psi overpressure can be generated tens of feet from a 100 lb charge, conveniently close to what a 30 cm Nebelwerfer delivers, 99 lbs. 10 psi is enough overpressure to demolish a building and destroy a heavy truck. I have no data for how much a really close in HE blast could generate, but it would be much worse than 10 psi. I've read that a single 38cm Sturmtiger rocket wiped out three Shermans in one shot (seen the pic somewhere; KOed and bowled over one, KOed two more). That's a 275 lb charge. http://www.panzerworld.net/panzersturmmorser.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

...10 psi overpressure can be generated tens of feet from a 100 lb charge, conveniently close to what a 30 cm Nebelwerfer delivers, 99 lbs. 10 psi is enough overpressure to demolish a building and destroy a heavy truck.

10 PSI? A bit more than 2/3 of one atmosphere overpressure, so 25 PSI absolute? My water supply runs at 2 bar without bursting plastic pipes, and I'm pretty sure a sneeze generates more than that pressure in my head, and that doesn't explode... Or it hasn't yet... Hmm. A trickier than expected Google suggests a sneeze isn't that powerful... But my water supply is definitely about 2 atmospheres, or 30 psi without popping any pipes. According to the meter on my heating boiler.

What's your source for that figure? Or am I misunderstanding overpressure?

[John Kettler]

womble,

This should help. Data derived from nuclear tests against real structures.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects4.shtml

A combined look at both human injury and structural damage for the same overpressure values. Even 2 psi can be fatal. Remember, this is 2 lbs applied to every square inch of the target in the blast zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpressure

We need a combined explosives grog and mathematician to run the numbers, but I daresay 100 lbs TNT equivalent is going to generate numbers way beyond 10 psi, and per the first link, at 10 psi we're talking about a 294 mph wind assailing the outside of the tank. Any bets on life expectancies for radio antennas, even at that relatively low level of overpressure? What kind of overpressure loads can vision blocks take? If a warhead detonation of roughly the same order as the 100 lb. charge (not much difference between 100 and 200 lbs because of scaling laws) can smash the running gear at distances of, say, a tank length, then what might a closer in detonation do? And This assessment presumes the hatches are shut when the detonation occurs. If not, then you get to deal with the issues detailed here in this Walter Reed study. See the blast injury discussion there.

http://tinyurl.com/co3m4u8

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

womble,

This should help. Data derived from nuclear tests against real structures.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects4.shtml

That table doesn't separate damage to people due to "pressure" from that due to flying debris, and being tossed around by a 300mph wind with hard objects in the environment.

Even 2 psi can be fatal. Remember, this is 2 lbs applied to every square inch of the target in the blast zone.

It can't be that simple. I've SCUBAed down to 25m, and that put an additional 2.5 Bar (50-plus PSI total) on every inch of my skin and lungs. I can see that pressure on a large surface like a wall can push it over, but air pressure squashes us equally from all directions. Is it the directionality of the pressure wave?

[Erwin]

Pressure applied very slowly is not a problem. It's the SPEED of the pressure application that makes it destructive.

[womble]

Nobody ever died directly and solely from the impact of a 70mph wind (2psi according to that table). There's a big difference between saying "Even 2 psi can be fatal" (JK) and "...Serious injuries are common, fatalities may occur." (3psi from the effects table). When that 3psi is pushing over buildings, of course serious injuries are common and fatalities occur, but they're not necessarily because of the overpressure. Note that at 1psi, it specifically includes environmental injuries from causes other than the direct effects of pressure.

Maybe abrupt delta-P of those magnitudes in clean air can cause direct injury, but that source doesn't really support the assertion.