Bouncing HE Shells

[JohnH]

Hi,

I didn't want to mention this in the other thread, since there was a pretty intense flame war in there.

There is evidence for the Germans using "bouncing" HE as a standard tactic , at least for the sFH 18 ( 15cm howitzer ), in the book "Feuer" by Werner Adamczyck ( spelled something like that ), who was a gunner with a 15cm HE battery in Russia from '41 to '45. A good read, if you haven't read it.

The author seemed to think that this tactic was very effective as it created an "air burst" above the enemy infantry, which could be deadly if they were caught in the open. He talks about this tactic as if it were SOP.

I'd be surprised if this tactic were restricted to 15cm howitzers and not used with smaller weapons like the 7.5cm.

More fuel for the flame war.

Thanks for reading.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

JohnH:

I have never heard of this book. Do you have any more information on it? Publisher/date, etc.

Thanks!

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Moon]

Two questions wandering around in my mind ever since this got first mentioned (a while ago already there has been some discussion about it before the recent thread):

- how do you know where a round is going to bounce to? Take a basketball and throw it onto uneven ground... now do the same while shooting the basketball out of a cannon at a few hundred m/s

- how do you set the fuze delay to have it explode right over the target? 0.15 seconds to late and it's 40 meters too far...

Just thinking loud...

[JohnH]

Hi Scott,

I'm at work now, but when I get home tonight I'll dig up my copy and get you the correct spelling of the author's name as well as publisher, ISBN, etc.

I got my copy from "Articles of War" some time ago. Maybe they have some copies left?

JohnH

[Stoffel]

I don't think it matters if a shell explodes in the air at say 40 or 50 meters away from the target.

Fragments can fall in any direction, and still hit their targets(unprotected infantry)if you have ever thrown handgranates you know that you had to take cover after throwing it.Because some fragments would hit the bunker in which you stand.

Just imagine what a 150 mm shell will do...

[Fionn]

My research on this in the past couple of days has led me to the following conclusions.

1. It happened.

2. Virtually all gun/shell combinations had the capability to do this. Any shell with the option to have a delayed fuse setting could do this.

3. It would require a VERY good gunner if you were doing this against a point position (e.g. foxhole or something similar).

Moon,

The speed of a shell is pretty constant (for our purposes) at low engagement ranges. Setting a delayed fuse would give a SET time delay from impact to detonation.

Thus, any gunners could very easily figure out that a 0.2 second delay for a shell travelling at 750 metres per second means that you'd have to bounce the shell 150 metres short of the target in order to get the detonation right over the target.

Problems.

1. It can only be done on certain terrain.

2. There IS a minimum range which comprises " minimum range at which the shell will skip PLUS the product of (time delay and velocity of shell after skipping) "

3. The minimum range at which a shell will skip is a function of the relative angle of incidence of shell and terrain (plus a factor for any confounding factors such as tree stumps etc) and its velocity and the condition of the surface.

4. It could only be attempted on certain terrain types.

All in all it is possible but there are many restrictions and you'd need to think it all through to code it in PLUS you'd have to have a sliding scale of effectiveness based on experience of the gunners.

IMO this bouncing airburst thing was most useful in going after dug-in infantry. Exposed infantry could just be hit with MGs and normal, easy to aim HE. This type of firing required extra finesse and thus was more useful for those targets which normal HE simply couldn't hurt sufficiently IMO.

[Username]

I dont consider a "flame" war is going on in the "75mm fuse" thread except for the MG sidetracking BFG did.

Lets see what Fionn comes up with.

Lewis

[Major Tom]

Huh?

[Moon]

This is from the WWII Artillery website ]http://www.jmkemp.demon.co.uk/artillery/options.html

"Delay Fuze

With the delay fuze, the shell goes off some time after hitting a hard target. This can be used either to penetrate a target before detonation (such as a bunker), sink into the ground a ways before detonation (to produce craters), or to purposefully richochet and produce airburst effects. Richochets occur more frequently with low-angle fire and hard ground. Richochet fire should only be attempted if the observer can verify that at least 50% of the shells are actually richocheting. If not, another type of fuze should be specified."

Despite everything else - I find it hard to believe that such tactic could have been used with great success, simply because it must be so hard to bounce off a round at the right angle to get the desired result. Notice that the website mentions that only at 50% ricochets one should try this tactic. That implies that on most cases the actual percentage of rounds bouncing was below that even. Add to this how many round would indeed bounce the way they are supposed to, and you arrive at something like 10% and below easily. Hmm.. to be honest, I'd rather fire 10 HE rounds direct at a target than making holes 150 meters in front of his position.

All in all, this ricochet thing seems to me to be something reserved for relatively static situations, like a tank encountering small arms fire from a distance where the crew has fired a dozen shots into an enemy position and is getting bored and wants to try out something new... What also seems to me is that the delay fuze was NOT designed for the ricochet effect, but rather for the other mentioned uses (bunkers or creation of craters); and that the ricochet use was "invented" in the field. Granted, it might have become common knowledge between the gunners, but putting sandbags on Shermans was, too... which didn't make it more effective.

Martin

[This message has been edited by Moon (edited 05-09-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just a note here... when bouncing was brought up the last time, many months ago, the issue Moon brought up was one of the main reasons for not trying to find a way of simulating. The math involves too many variables that we didn't feel comfortable fudging.

Although HE might be easier to simulate (if we feel it is the way to go) than AP, but some of the problems of simulating are the same. I was just thinking about this because of another thread on this very topic concerning similar stories about "skipping" AP rounds at the underbellies of tanks...

Simulating how the game should handle skipping an AP round off a frozen solid surface, from a low angle, at a target that is at an already established range, is pretty tough to do. Who decides that the crew is going to risk a skip? Certainly this shouldn't be some sort of special orders option (open that floodgate, and you will get drown ) but how happy would you be to see the TacAI doing this for you? And, here is the big thing:

What are the chances of a variable round, at a variable velocity, against variable terrain, in variable weather, at variable angles, at variable range, rising a variable number of meters per second, at a variable angle of deflection, actually hitting a target of variable size? And I am probably leaving out some other stuff since I am no physicist There are a couple of these that are made easier with HE vs. AP, but in the end they are both cans of worms.

Steve

[JohnH]

Hi Again,

Here are the details of the book as promised.

The title is "Feuer : An Artilleryman's Life on the Eastern Front" by Werner Adamczyk. It was published by "Broadfoot Publishing Company", 1907 Buena Vista Circle, Wilmington, North Carolina, 28405, in 1992. The ISBN is 0-916107-97-3.

Here is a brief passage from the book.

"We also had to learn about the types of shells we could fire. First there was the general purpose or high explosive shell. It exploded on impact and it was the most widely used type. Then there was the nasty one. This one had a built in time delay fuse. This shell was fired at a very flat trajectory; when it hit the ground it would bounce and rise into the air. On impact the time fuse would be activated and the shell would explode about 10 feet up in the air. This was very effective in combating large masses of advancing infantry."

There are other passages describing the combat use of this type of shell, but unfortunately I'm a pretty slow typist, so they will have to wait for another day.

[Simon Fox]

I restrained myself on the 75mm HE thread since it seems to me that such a discussion would be more appropriate later re CM2 'cos it certainly isn't going in CM1.

But I actually agree with Lewis (yikes!) and John Kettler that this technique was far more widely practiced than many beleive. I am not familiar with German accounts of this but I have come across a number of British accounts (including Wilson's Flamethrower, an excellent read BTW) most of which describe it in a context which suggests that it was well-recognized and often used. (Along with the practice of firing at the tree height in woods) Obviously the uncertainties involved make it an area weapon (gee, that's what HE is, isn't it?).

The ground conditions and angle of impact, as Fionn rightly points out, will have a bearing but given a high velocity flat trajectory round it may be the physics of the situation are more analogous to the 'skipping' of a stone on the surface of water (the details of which I am currently hunting down). Martin is correct when he says time delay fuses (been around for ages) are designed for bunkers etc but this does not preclude their application in this way through ingenuity. I might also add that they are good for well dug in infantry in woods where air bursts are not very effective.

It is difficult to determine it's relative effectiveness vis a vis conventional use, though I don't think that the sandbag analogy is quite the same situation Whatever the case it is definitely not one of those uber German things and therefore it's absence is unlikely to affect the balance of the game.

Note: this is not the same as bouncing AP rounds since to be effective the AP round must maintain its aspect etc, also if the AP round fails to bounce perfectly it's wasted whereas the HE will still have some effect therefore they should be discussed entirely seperately

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 05-08-2000).]

[Username]

Moon

You need to fix that link. I have it in my artillery folder because he is discussing artillery on that website. I am discussing direct fire where the firer has the capabilty to vary the delayed time length.

I agree with Fox. Just because something comes about by serendipity does not make it none the less useful.

Lewis

[Fionn]

Simon, Lewis,

You're right. I think this was common and something of a "fluke finding".

However, one or other of you MUST provide some quantifiable evidence of effectiveness versus normal HE for the simple reason that it isn't enough to simply prove it existed. You've got to prove how good it was and how it should be modelled in-game.

I tried to find that info and couldn't and that's why I said it shouldn't be in\CM.. Of course, if good evidence is found then that changes.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Thanks JohnH....now I just need to find a copy.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Okay, here it goes...

I REALLY don't want a flame war. And I am REALLY trying to understand.

And to tell the truth I don't have an opinion either way about the 'direct-fire-HE-bouncing-shell-air-burst-thing'.... and have already conceded the Nahverteidigungswaffe issue...

But in my 'eyes' I see a weeee bit of hypocrisy going on around here.

Fionn said (and Steve has as much said, if I understand correctly):

"...you MUST provide some quantifiable evidence of effectiveness versus normal HE for the simple reason that it isn't enough to simply prove it existed. You've got to prove how good it was and how it should be modelled in-game."

To paraphrase: it is not enough to prove a weapon system existed, you must prove it was effective and be able to quantify how effective it was. I see this 'standard' applied being applied to the MG34 and bouncing HE shells (for example), but not to other weapon systems.

Steve said (regarding the Nahverteidigungswaffe):

"...the mechanics and physics of the weapon were fairly easy to quantify, and therefore we could extrapolate this into what most likely is a realistic portrayal."

I just don't see this 'standard' being applied in the same manner to different weapon systems. There is not even agreement on the SIZE of the projectile (unless we can all agree it was fired from a flare-gun now--no such agreement existed 5 months ago). Yet, a "realistic portrayal" is easily "extrapolated"? I just don't see it, sorry. Not to mention, I still have not heard of a single case in which the weapon system was actually used in combat successfully (for self-defense not smoke), not one.

If one is in and the other is out because BTS says so...THAT IS FINE. REALLY, that is fine, it is after all their game.

BUT PLEASE, don't erect some 'standard', and then hold it up as a 'rule' when it is applied on a select few issues, and ignored or down-played on others.

Sorry, but I call'em as I see'em and thats the way it looks to me. And if someone can please explain how this is NOT at least a little hypocritical I would be most grateful.

Feel free to get all 'bent-out-of shape' now and flame away. I have come to expect no less around here these days.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 05-09-2000).]

[Fionn]

Simple.

Charles, Steve and I just MIGHT br privy to some info about the nahv. which led each of us to our own conclusions about that which haven't been shared with you.

I know that I definitely have info which played a part in my decision abut the nahv. which you haven't and won't see.

Remember, just cause you haven't seen something doesn't mean it didn't happen. I have a few personal accounts here from the Eastern Front detailing how effective the nahv. was versus close-in infantry.

Now, nothing in there is a flame... By simply stating that you expect a flame you've already set up a system whereby you can paint anyone who disagrees with you as a flamer. This is... unfortunate.

All I'm simply saying is that just because you don't have evidence in front of you doesn't mean others don't.. Also, you'd do well to remember that the sort of "I expect everyone'll flame me attitude" is one reason who, at least some, people aren't giving their info to you.

[Guest tom w]

Scott

Just to be clear....

Are you suggesting that the standards of evidence or information to which the "Nahverteidigungswaffe" (which was included in the game) was subjected are different (in that there is no good evidence, I think you are suggesting) than the standard of evidence or information to which the bouncing HE fuzes are subjected, (but which is not included the game)???

I am have no opinion either way and this is a little bit of a slippery slope...

I would suggest another expample of this kind of inconsistency is the example of LOS or LOF through live units. We are told the Live tanks that are in motion cannot effect LOS or LOF determination because the CPU cannot handle the hit it would take to determine their motion and if it intersected the LOS or LOF at a given instant.Method 1 vs. Method 2 This I can understand.

BUT when I'm told that an immobile tank or vehicle, which is NOT flaming or smoking, (KO'd, but not burning) does not block LOS or LOF then I would suggest that the motion of the unit Live/dead/ko'd or flaming, is irrellevant.

OK, I bring it up as another example of a standard of LOS blocking that is not the same right across the board. (ok maybe it is a different issue as this is not a weapon system inclusin issue)

OK

I'm sorry to bring this up again, it has been settled.

Its a great game

We all love it! Look a the anticipation for just the Gold Demo!

Scott (I assume) loves the game.... so do I, in all honesty I am thrilled and completely blown away that you would even "consider" thinking about attempting to model the behaviour of bouncing HE shells, that is so realistic it is beyond my comprehension, but then so is the fact that if a Combat Flight sim, can model a true 3D environment with Missles and machine guns blazing at super sonic speeds, (on a consumer level PC/Mac cpu) where, if an aircraft traveling at MACH 1 in a true 3D environment can intersect the LOF of a Machine gun on an opposing enemy aircraft and get hit even it not targeted, then why can't a slow moving (say 45 mph tops) tank moving in a mostly 2D environment (hell they don't fly) not take at hit when it traverses the LOF of a projectile aimed at another target.

Yes I understand Method 1 and Method 2 and

this issue has been resolved. Short answer

method 2 leaves no opportunity to accomondate the possibilty that some thing might intersect the path of the projectile from gun to target, and Method 1 (the MOST realistic) is said to be too computationally intense for home computer use at this time. Well my question is (without hi-jacking this thread) why and how do Combat Flight sims model the super sonic speed of projectiles in a true 3D environment with units (aircraft) traveling at super sonic speeds in, REAL Time no less? (Its not Method 2 that for sure)

Ok

I'll; be quiet now

That probably enough dissent for one day..

Sorry Steve and Charles...

I know you guys have busted your asses to make this the best game ever and it really is!

I promise I will never be critical of any aspect of this game in any the forum outside of this one. Else where I will always promote this game as the BEST thing I have ever seen!

(which it is)

-tom w

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-09-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Thanks Fionn for the non-flame (why you think I would call it a flame I have no idea).

> By simply stating that you expect a flame you've already set up a

> system whereby you can paint anyone who disagrees with you as a flamer.

> This is...unfortunate.

Indeed it would be unfortunate, if I did what you seem to think I would. But I did not, I have not and I have no intention of doing so, as long as the responses are as cordial as yours.

> All I'm simply saying is that just because you don't have evidence in front of you doesn't

> mean others don't.

Agreed.

> Also, you'd do well to remember that the sort of "I expect everyone'll

> flame me attitude" is one reason who, at least some, people aren't giving their info to you

Yeah. That is why these 'sources' were not named five months ago, long before the flames started around here.

The circular logic you have built for yourself is also quite convenient. It allows you to use non-name, nebulas, all-accurate 'sources' while at the same time demanding that others provide concrete, detailed counter sources to refute them.

No offence, but you will forgive me if I don't take these never-been-named sources too seriously. Would you if you were in my shoes? I think not.

Fionn, I would still like to stay as far away from a flame war with you as possible (been down that road too many times). But frankly I don't see where your last posts adds one iota of useful information to this debate. All I see is an attempt to 'cover yourself' with circular logic. I am truly sorry.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

Simple.

Remember, just cause you haven't seen something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve: " Because something exists does not inherently prove anything."

Lewis: " " (Im speechless)

[Mark IV]

Quit talking about flame wars. What are you all, pyrophiliacs?

FWIW I don't think what passed in the other HE debate would qualify as a flame war, either, at least by Usenet standards. If you think that was violent you must be very sensitive, indeed. Rude and intransigent do not a flame war make, of themselves, though they set the stage for one.

It's OK to feel strongly and to state with emphasis. Some posts ask "will I be flamed?". Well, why would you?

If you all would avoid the use of value-laden terms like "hypocrite" ("inconsistent" would work without disparaging the integrity of an individual) the chances of flaming are low.

The final decisions really are the prerogative of the programmer, who has a lot on his plate that we don't necessarily see in the heat of defending a single point.

It's not as though this forum is a legal arena where debate can compel a game modification. State your case, defend it if necessary, and you've done all you can. The game is not public property, but a product offered for sale.

[Ron]

I'm not bringing any new revelations to the table but I am curious about something. Steve has said that the artillery had a major overhaul due to input from people in the military. What do they(military) have to say about skipping HE fire? Is it something that is trained for and used in today's armed forces? If so, then that would obviously go a long way in assisting it's implementaion in CM. If not, then why isn't it in use?

Thanks,

Ron

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

<HEAD>

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">

<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97">

<TITLE>Tom w:</TITLE>

<META NAME="Template" CONTENT="C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT OFFICE\OFFICE\html.dot">

</HEAD>

<BODY LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#800080">

<FONT SIZE=2>

Tom w:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2>

Are you suggesting that the standards of evidence or information to which the"Nahverteidigungswaffe" (which was included in the game) was subjected are different than the standard of evidence or information to which the bouncing HE fuzes are subjected, (but which is not included the game)???</P></DIR>

</DIR>

</FONT><FONT SIZE=2>

I am saying it APPEARS this way to me. Fionn makes the point that it is actually NOT this way, but instead he (and others) have access to 'other-non-disclosed' information. The very fact that these sources remain 'non-disclosed' and thus not open to peer review (a guiding principle in ALL academic matters) leaves me less than confident.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2>

I would suggest another expample of this kind of inconsistency is then example of LOS or LOF through live units.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

</FONT><FONT SIZE=2>

I was of the understanding that the ONLY reason this was not included was do to hardware requirements. So this IMHO is an entirely different issue. A feature that BTS would like to include but one for which they have not found a way around the CPU hit.</P>

</P>

Mark IV:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2>

It's OK to feel strongly and to state with emphasis. Some posts ask "will I be flamed?". Well, why would you?</P></DIR>

</DIR>

</FONT><FONT SIZE=2>

Because it has happened (many times) in the past for less. Where have you been?</P><DIR>

<DIR>

</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2>

If you all would avoid the use of value-laden terms like "hypocrite" ("inconsistent" would work without disparaging the integrity of an individual) the chances of flaming are low.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

</FONT><FONT SIZE=2>

Perhaps, and point taken. I did search for a better word; maybe this would have worked better. But this 'standard' has been 'held up on high' so strongly and for such a long time...I am not sure which word would best convey its meaning.</P></FONT></BODY>

</HTML>

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 05-09-2000).]

[Username]

Ron

The VT fuze made such tactics for INDIRECT fire obsolete. There was need for it since electronics far outperform such crude mechanical devices. So unless you are speaking with someone with experience from 1940-1944, you are not getting factual information. So books, studies, first hand accounts SHOULD weigh more heavily.

As far as DIRECT fire HE rounds, maybe the military men could comment on whats what. Id be interested. In the 120mm case for the M1 tank, they use a dual purpose hollowcharge and supposedly there is a new (MPAT?) round with a VT like performance.

I am absolutely amazed how my 75mm fuze post has turned into the 'bounding betty'. Delayed action fuzes allow other advantages besides skipping rounds but its getting tiresome repeating myself.

Lewis

[DesertFox]

The whole debate is getting ridicoulous, since one side claims to have firm sources which obviously don´t exist. "Refering to the NahVtdgW" Why don´t they exist? Simple answer:

Because something which isn´t there can´t be proven. That´s the reason why one side in this threat refuses to show or name the sources.

Sources that don´t exsist have no name!

hahahahaha

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/