Improved Spotting: Muzzle Flash!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Test: 10 US FOs spotting 10 PaK40 at 1500 meters. Ground conditions Damp to prevent dust from interfering with spotting.

I first move the Pak40s one action spot to get rid of the camo bonus they get before firing or moving. I then run 15 turns without any shooting. None of the Pak40s are spotted. I then give the Pak40s area fire orders. After one turn of firing 1 Pak40 is spotted, 4 are spotted after two turns and 7 spotted after three turns. I only ran this one time so actual spotting times should be taken with a grain of salt but the gist of it is that the shooting is what allowed the AT guns to be spotted.

But what about sound? I ran the test again but with a ridge between the US observers and the AT guns that blocks LOS. After 4 turns of shooting the US observers have zero sound contacts.

And yes I am something special

[A Canadian Cat]

Test: 10 US FOs spotting 10 PaK40 at 1500 meters. Ground conditions Damp to prevent dust from interfering with spotting.

Cool, I am impressed. That should settle it then. Mind you I think you should have used your time for something better, like staring at your navel

You are something special!

[snarre]

äh , not again this 2 guys trying to start flame war here.

[poesel]

Flashless and Smokeless powder can be known easily enough.  All you need to know is the chemical composition of the various gunpowders used by the forces involved.  You can then make your case.  

As I said I'm not making a case for or against flashless powder. I just said that since it isn't simulated I assume that BFC did not do it because of technical reasons or insufficient data. I forgot the third option: they could have deemed the difference not be worthwhile to be simulated.

[cool breeze]

Units can spot firing guys at night farther away than they can see the terrain, so OBVIOUSLY they are modeled and this whole thread is stupid and maybe people should play some night battles before coming on to complain. 

[cool breeze]

like seriously look at the freaken image at the top of the website you really think they might have forgotten about muzzleflash?

 

[MikeyD]

Its odd that you'd be conducting tests trying to get infantry to spot from a mile away. Conducting eyeball spotting tests from 1000m or 800m seems more realistic, especially in cluttered European landscapes. Early on (years and years ago) people had been complaining that AT guns were too easily spotted. During gameplay whenever an AT gun opens up its position is usually immediately given away. Unless it opened up from a mile off or more.

[Andrew H.]

Flashless and Smokeless powder can be known easily enough.  All you need to know is the chemical composition of the various gunpowders used by the forces involved.  You can then make your case.  The US and British navies were using flashless powders after WW1 but even with flashless powder the muzzle flash is not eliminated entirely and apparently there were storage issues.  Even modern NATO weapons have muzzle flash and I can't believe that German gunpowder technology from WW2 is superior to what is used in NATO weapons today. 

While some in the US did note that the use of flashless/smokeless powder by German (and Japanese!) forces did give them some advantages, these reports deal only with rifles and machine guns.  I'm unaware of any reports complaining about the use of these propellants in tanks (and I'm not sure that tanks used the same formulation anyway).  But you can certainly find video of WWII German tanks and PaKs firing, and they are neither smokeless nor flashless.

[womble]

It's been said that the emphasis on the words should be on the "less" part. They are not entirely without smoke or flash, they just make less of either... Cordite is often referred to as "smokeless" when compared to black powder...

[Vanir Ausf B]

While some in the US did note that the use of flashless/smokeless powder by German (and Japanese!) forces did give them some advantages, these reports deal only with rifles and machine guns.  I'm unaware of any reports complaining about the use of these propellants in tanks (and I'm not sure that tanks used the same formulation anyway).  But you can certainly find video of WWII German tanks and PaKs firing, and they are neither smokeless nor flashless.

From United States vs. German Equipment:

Henry W. Johnson, Captain, Company F, 66th Armored Regiment:

"The German use of smokeless powder makes it very difficult for us to pick them up when they lie in ambush, whereas the flash of our own guns is easily discernible to an alert foe and may be easily observed from a great distance."

Everette L. Harris, Corporal, Gunner, 2nd Armored Division:

"Due to the type of powder a Jerry tank has, they can fire at you and are difficult to pick up because there is so little smoke or muzzle flash. When we fire our 76-mm there is so much smoke and muzzle flash that you can hardly observe your burst, except for long ranges."

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Smokeless and Flashless Propellants

a. The Army Ground Force Equipment Review Board stated that a "uniform" demand exists for smokeless and flashless propellants. The European Theater of Operations and Twelfth United States Army Group described the demand as "urgent and uniform". The Army Ground Force Board also recommended that obscuration of vision by muzzle blast be reduced to an "absolute minimum by any means".

b. The urgency of smokeless and flashless propellants and of unobscured vision cannot be over-emphasized.

1. Interviewees universally lamented the ease with which the Germans located American tanks by the gun flash and smoke, and the contrasting difficulty of locating enemy tanks.

 

-- TANK GUNNERY, The General Board, United States Forces, European Theater, November 1945

Edited January 3, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[ASL Veteran]

The fact is that personal accounts isn't a good barometer of powder qualities.  If you went by personal accounts then every German tank fielded during the war was a Tiger tank.  Even a review board report doesn't give you a barometer of how different things may or may not be.  The Government can ask for a lot of things that are useless, overstated or politically motivated.  Like I mentioned before, the allies already had flashless and smokeless powder and modern weapons still have flash.  Here in the US it is even possible to fire WW2 era weapons on the range if someone wants to.  The only way you are going to have definitive proof of a qualitative difference between the powders that various forces use is to examine the chemical composition of them so until someone can show the chemical compositions and can demonstrate a difference worthy of something that should be represented in the game I'm just going to yawn and chalk it up to NAZI superweapon worship.  It's not like American gun makers were third world.  Maxim?  American.  Browning?  Colt?  The first semi auto rifle issued to any army's infantry arm?  The Garand.  American arms manufacturers were not second class to anyone so why would their gunpowder be?  Are there any Soviet reports about German super gunpowder or did Soviet forces have access to this super powder too?  How about British reports?  Were the British still using gunpowder from the 1860s just like America was or was it just America that was fighting with one hand tied behind their backs due to faulty gunpowder? 

Edited January 3, 2016 by ASL Veteran

[John Kettler]

There's more material in support of the argument that the smokeless, flashless powder was a major German advantage.  George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in his official biennial report to the Secretary of War for the period July 1, 1943 to June 30, 1945 said 

A second marked German advantage during most of the European war was in powder. German ammunition was charged with smokeless, flashless powder which in both day and night fighting helped the enemy tremendously in concealing his fire positions. United States riflemen, machine gunners, and gunners of all types had to expose their positions with telltales muzzle flashes or puffs of powder smoke.

This is on page 310 of United States vs German Equipment 1945, by Uwe Feist. That book has a considerable array of material on the smokeless, flashless issue, some from tankers low (SGT) and high (Regimental COs).  Right after the item I cited as a quote in his report, Marshall blames the powder problem on flawed post-WW I explosives procurement policy, as well lack of inter-war scientific and technical research after the powder companies were pilloried as "Merchants of Death."

Seems to me that when smokeless, flashless powder is such a big deal that it's being reported to the Secretary of War that it bears inclusion in the game.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2016 by John Kettler

[sburke]

This doesn't explain why if it is such a game changer why aren't we using it 70 years later. ASLVet's point stands as a pretty sharp argument that there is more than just a little "smoke" in those quotes. Ha see what I did there?

[akd]

Again, people are misinterpreting it as an absolute.  Widespread anecdotes would suggest German powder was more smokeless and flashless relative US powder (but I agree it is difficult to quantify).  No powder has yet been made that is truely entirely smokeless and flashless, but these terms were in use at the time because of the huge improvements that had been made over the previous generation of gun powder.

Here's another little anecdote from Yank Magazine:

 

The battalion has not noticed much change for the better or for the worse in their weapons or ammunition in the two years that they have been in combat. Some of the men would like lighter weapons with more fire power; others would prefer more heavy weapons, like the BAR. They still envy the German smokeless powder as they did in Tunisia. They like the German light machine gun better than ours and they think that the German machine pistol is a better weapon than our Tommy Gun.

http://www.34infdiv.org/press/ironman.html

The issue of Japanese "smokeless" powder (again, meaning lower muzzle signature compared to US weapons) seems to have stemmed from their use earlier in the war of small calibers and very long barrels, not the powder itself.

 

Edited January 3, 2016 by akd

[ASL Veteran]

There's more material in support of the argument that the smokeless, flashless powder was a major German advantage.  George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in his official biennial report to the Secretary of War for the period July 1, 1943 to June 30, 1945 said 

A second marked German advantage during most of the European war was in powder. German ammunition was charged with smokeless, flashless powder which in both day and night fighting helped the enemy tremendously in concealing his fire positions. United States riflemen, machine gunners, and gunners of all types had to expose their positions with telltales muzzle flashes or puffs of powder smoke.

This is on page 310 of United States vs German Equipment 1945, by Uwe Feist. That book has a considerable array of material on the smokeless, flashless issue, some from tankers low (SGT) and high (Regimental COs).  Right after the item I cited as a quote in his report, Marshall blames the powder problem on flawed post-WW I explosives procurement policy, as well lack of inter-war scientific and technical research after the powder companies were pilloried as "Merchants of Death."

Seems to me that when smokeless, flashless powder is such a big deal that it's being reported to the Secretary of War that it bears inclusion in the game.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

 

You may or may not recall that there was a big deal about American body armor in Afghanistan and Iraq a few years ago.  It seems that a certain manufacturer of body armor - I believe the company name was Dragon Skin or something like that - did a bunch of tests that showed that the armor type the US military was currently using was not as good as the armor made by Dragon Skin.  A lot of people came down on both sides and there was some testing.  A lot of political pressure was applied to get the Army to adopt Dragon Skin instead of using what it was using.  If someone wants to push a procurement agenda with the Pentagon an agenda can be pushed.  In the course of pushing that agenda all sorts of 'facts' and opinions can be tossed about.  The fact with the German super powder is that there doesn't need to be any mystery involved.  We don't need to rely on reports or the comments of boards.  All we need to do is grab a handful of German gunpowder and look at its chemical composition.  Everything else beyond that is just jawjacking.

Edited January 3, 2016 by ASL Veteran

[Vanir Ausf B]

This doesn't explain why if it is such a game changer why aren't we using it 70 years later. ASLVet's point stands as a pretty sharp argument that there is more than just a little "smoke" in those quotes. Ha see what I did there?

Christ on a crutch, there is more to it than some quotes. That General Board report ASL Vet just waved his hand at is based on "analysis of the following material: 

1. Interviews with 344 enlisted men and 98 officers, of which 75 percent were company grade. Combat experience of personnel interviewed ranged from 2 day to 30 months. They represented 12 of the 15 armored divisions and 10 of the the 40 separate tank battalions which fought in the European theater. Seven of the officers and twelve of the enlisted men fought with the 1st Armored Division in the Mediterranean Theater.

2. Interviews with three German panzer lieutenants.

3. Documents listed in bibliographies at the end of each chapter."

That doesn't mean it's the word of god but to just dismiss it out of hand is asinine.

The only way you are going to have definitive proof of a qualitative difference between the powders that various forces use is to examine the chemical composition of them so until someone can show the chemical compositions and can demonstrate a difference worthy of something that should be represented in the game I'm just going to yawn and chalk it up to NAZI superweapon worship. 

Two questions for you: 

1) Who are you accusing of "NAZI superweapon worship"? Me? The quoted American soldiers? The Army General Board? That's the second time you've dropped a Nazi sympathizer inference in reply to one of my posts. I am done taking the high road with you. Pavlov will have his way with you from now on.

2) Who is saying this is something that should be represented in the game? Oh, that would be no one This is probably too hard to quantify accurately and getting it wrong would be worse than leaving it as is.

I have considered asking for some modeling of muzzle brake effects. Those things are not for decoration:

"Fast, accurate firing requires that the tank commander's and gunner's observation be unobscured by muzzle blast. Observation of every round is necessary to make proper range and deflection changes for the succeeding round. Even with 75mm guns and 105mm howitzers, at shorter range, the round often strikes before the blast has cleared sufficiently to permit observation. Obscuration of vision by muzzle blast makes 76mm and 90mm "one shot" weapons.

The muzzle brake and forward venting primer reduced obscuration of vision. However, the muzzle brake increases the weight of the gun and necessitates adding undesirable counter-weights to the breech. A number of tank commanders reported that with the muzzle brake the blast seemed to concentrate in their vicinity, knocking off their helmets and making it difficult for infantry to stay on the rear deck of the tank. It was agreed, though, that the muzzle brake greatly improved the gunner's observation."

However, this is from the same report you already declared null and void because it was inconvenient for your narrative

Now, as for smokeless powder, although it has been stated several times, you don't seem to comprehend that the term is relative. Technically, all common propellants aside from black powder are "smokeless". That means that every industrialized nation has been using smokeless powder of some type almost exclusively since WW1 at the latest. But there are a great many different types and varieties of smokeless powder which have very different compositions and properties. Powders vary by chemical composition, grain size and shape, burn rate, stability, hygroscopicity, ect. In addition to that, the powder used in a gun is only part of the equation that determines how much smoke or flash it produces. The same powder used in different guns will produce different results. In other words, when you say nations other than Germany used smokeless powder you are correct but that doesn't say much.

Flashlessness in powder is dependent not only upon the composition of the powder, but upon relationship between quantity of powder required as a charge, length of bore of the weapon, weight of projectile, and other details. While it might appear possible to obtain flashlessness in any weapon by merely increasing the amount of flash-reducing agent in the powder composition, such a procedure may be impracticable either because of increased smoke produced or reduction in potential of the powder.

When nitro-cellulose powder is treated to reduce smoke and flash the powder potential is reduced. A powder charge for a given ammunition to be used in a specific weapon is adjusted to produce the required velocity within the pressure limits prescribed for the weapon in which the ammunition is fired. The burning rate of the powder must be controlled (this is accomplished through design and manufacture), in order to get the full results of the powder potential. A slow burning powder produces more propelling power than an instantaneous quick burning powder.

-- Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 47, June 1, 1944.

We know for a fact that some US and British tank cannon could produce very large amounts of smoke and flash. For example, a test at Fort Knox by the Armored Force and Tank Destroyer Board (yes, another board for you to wave your hand at) had this to say about the British 17 pdr:

"APCBC Ammunition: The excessive smoke and flash produced by this round makes sensing of the strike by either the tank commander or the gunner virtually impossible at ranges of 1,000 yards or less."

Now since you have declared the chemical composition to be the Only Evidence That Matters (probably because you thought no one would know what it was) there was more than one variety used by the US for tank cannon in WW2 but all the ones I have seen are essentially M1 propellant which is 86% nitrocellulose, 10%  dinitrotoluene, 3% dibutylphthalate, 1% diphenylamine.

I am not sure how many types of powder the Germans may have used but Pzgr. Patr. 39 KwK 40 (75mm APCBC) used Digl. R.P. G1 which was composed of nitrocellulose, diethylene glycol dinitrate, centralite and potassium sulphate (don't have the proportions).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

This is interesting. Some info I was not aware of.

Flash Ranging Flash ranging, or 'flash spotting' as it was more commonly known in the British Army, was a technique involving observation of the front by skilled observers to detect the flash of enemy artillery firing from otherwise concealed positions. It relied on good optical instruments to evaluate range accurately, and needed rapid and clear communication between between the observer and the artillery HQ.

German flash ranging was particularly effective on the East Front against Soviet artillery from 1941 to 1943. This was mostly because the Red Army usually had severe problem deploying its artillery in indirect fire mode, mainly due to the specialized training and equipment needed (e.g. radio communication). They thus preferred to mass large artillery units near the front line and use them in direct fire mode. In this position they were immediately vulnerable to German observers and artillery using the flash ranging technique.

The Germans themselves were so worried about the enemy using flash ranging that they spent a lot of effort developing flashless propellant powders. In fact the Germans' technological advantage in the field of flashless and smokeless propellants during most of WWII is not well known. It basically meant that artillery in forward positions was much more difficult to spot. As the Germans rarely used their medium to heavy artillery in direct fire mode this had minimal impact. However, the same chemical technology was almost immediately applied to rounds for anti-tank guns and tank guns with the result that German anti-tank guns and tanks were much more difficult to spot after firing that their Soviet and western counterparts for almost the entire war.

-- Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organizational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation Volume I (Volume 1), by Nigel Askey

Edited January 3, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[chuckdyke]

Spotting is far better when you pass on the intel. The HQ Sherman just arrived as reinforcement. Thanks to the Intel of the scouts his formation starts with the position of the German units known. In the editor this method is the one the AI uses, and people wonder why the AI is superior with direct fire. I demonstrated this by the Jeep with no radio. Rest assured the Germans must have spotted the arrival of the US reinforcements. PS Trees were disabled to illustrate this point. This also works if the spotter has a different C2 network. This time Intel was passed on quicker because the scout is in range to permit verbal communication. Sure, enough I didn't need to plot anything the Game Engine does it for you if you give it the correct information. Start with the bottom picture. PS I found the Sherman range 500 meters. 

Edited January 17, 2021 by chuckdyke