Artillery explosions

[Seabeejoe]

Does anyone have a mod to change artillery / bomb explosions similar to the ones in Mius front. Like these at 1:13 in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSG6BaiMQk

[StieliAlpha]

1 hour ago, Seabeejoe said:

Does anyone have a mod to change artillery / bomb explosions similar to the ones in Mius front. Like these at 1:13 in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSG6BaiMQk

I am not quite sure what exactly you mean, but there should be a mod from Aris, improving explosion animation.

Check out the mod section on the "The Few Good Men" website.

[Seabeejoe]

I guess the link isn't working.  But the explosions in CM are like mushrooms.  The ones in mius are more dirt flying in shoozing into the air in spouts. I think more like the real thing. 

 

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

As far as I know, Combat Mission explosions are composed of 3 parts.

- large dirt particles flying away from the point of impact, not modable

- the explosion itself (ball of fire), modable

- the smoke created by the explosion and the dirt kicked up from the ground, modable

 

 

[Seabeejoe]

Guess it has something to do with the damage aspect.

Another thing that would look better IMI is the smoke from damaged vehicles. All if them look to skinny. Just a thin stream of smoke. I think it be a mixture of billowing smoke and maybe some small stream. Of course the wind would play a part. 

[Erwin]

Need to be aware that explosions and flames are more "Hollywood" SFX than real explosions which rarely result in a ball of fire.  Nothing wrong with Hwd explosions and flames, of course...

 

[LongLeftFlank]

David Holbrook, "Flesh Wounds", quoted in John Keegan's "Six Armies in Normandy":

"Tanks burn in a way that has its own grotesque poignancy. The flames are explosively fierce and yet are tightly contained in the hollow steel shell: so, the smoke rushed out with tumbling fury.... From the turret, black smoke alternating with intense flame thunders forth in a monstrous jet. But then from time to time the smoke is forced into huge expelled puffs by the exploding shells within. Each black puff, from the circular turret hatch becomes with grotesque perfection a rolling smoke ring... A burning tank, because of this, looked like a monster, a dying dragon, vomiting up the life within it in black gouts.... a red and white glower would roll in the eyes of the dead monster, the hatch holes, through which the crew had entered, never to emerge again."

BFC, please fix or sumfink ?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I recall an anecdote of a British Army Chaplain during WWII who appointed himself to recover all the bodies of tank crewmen within his regiment, to paraphrase his comment "The crews had quite enough to cope with learning what it was to live in a tank." 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Erwin]

Yeah THOSE remains recovery guys deserve the medals.  Not just a single act of bravery - but to do it regularly as a job...  Hard to comprehend the horror.

BTW:  Wasn't it rare for cook-offs?  I recall in CM1 few vehicles exploded.  But players wanted the Hollywood fantasy (as opposed to reality lol), so mods/adaptations were made so that there was more and more fireball AFV's.  And still folks want more Hollywood.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

No they burned alright, it's just that the propensity of the Sherman for bursting into flames when hit has been exaggerated by circumstances. 

IIRC my anecdotal recollection is based on this excellent book:  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Normandy-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304366404

Edited April 29, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[LongLeftFlank]

Burn baby burn! 

[Erwin]

Well we know that burning tanks are more interesting to photograph than non-burning tanks.  viz the reputation of Shermans to be "Ronsons" which I thought was being debunked as a myth. 

I recall exactly the same discussions in CM1 days that concluded that most tanks do not burn or explode when hit/KO'd.  I don't really care if they do or don't, just interested in the trooff.

So, what are the stats for burning vs non-burning tanks?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Overall, 81% of US tanks penetrated in Italy and Sicily burned and 53% in the ETO. The difference is because the introduction of wet stowage drove down the ETO average. Only 5-10% of wet stowage tanks burned.

[Erwin]

Ok, well that IS a large %.

Is that % similar for other roughly equivalent AFV's?  

Edited April 30, 2017 by Erwin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

18 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Overall, 81% of US tanks penetrated in Italy and Sicily burned and 53% in the ETO. The difference is because the introduction of wet stowage drove down the ETO average. Only 5-10% of wet stowage tanks burned.

I'm surprised how high the former figure is, where are these statistics from please?

[Vanir Ausf B]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

where are these statistics from please?

Armored Thunderbolt, by Steven Zaloga. Page 238

[Erwin]

Unless all other tanks burned as readily, that does make it sound like the Sherman was a Ronson(?)  

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Unless all other tanks burned as readily,

They probably did. I don't have statistics, but what makes tanks burn is the ammunition and there is nothing unusual about how the Sherman stored its ammunition compared to German, British or Soviet tanks. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Zaloga writes about this in another book while comparing the Sherman to the Panther:

The Sherman had a reputation as a fire trap allegedly due to the propensity of its gasoline to burn. This perception is mistaken from two aspects: the Panther and most German tanks also used gasoline for fuel, and the primary cause of catastrophic tank fires was not fuel but ammunition propellant. Most World War II tanks had large amounts of ammunition stored in the forward hull, and it was far more likely this would be hit during fighting than the rear fuel cells. Once ignited, ammunition propellant fires were impossible to stop, and if the fires spread to neighboring ammunition the results were generally disastrous. Both the Panther and the Sherman had fire-extinguishing systems to deal with gasoline fires, though their effectiveness varied much on the circumstances of the fires. The Sherman was no more suseptible to fire due to its fuel than the Panther, but it was more vulnerable to fire simply because it was more vulnerable to being penetrated in combat. The Panther had a poor reputation regarding fire safety amoung German tank crews due to the fire hazard of the hydraulic fluid used in the transmission, fuel leaks in the complicated fuel cell linkage, and fires caused by engine back blast, but its excellent armor reduced the likelihood that it would be penetrated in tank combat.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Vanir Ausf B

[BletchleyGeek]

5 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Zaloga writes about this in another book while comparing the Sherman to the Panther:

The Sherman had a reputation as a fire trap allegedly due to the propensity of its gasoline to burn. This perception is mistaken from two aspects: the Panther and most German tanks also used gasoline for fuel, and the primary cause of catastrophic tank fires was not fuel but ammunition propellant. Most World War II tanks had large amounts of ammunition stored in the forward hull, and it was far more likely this would be hit during fighting than the rear fuel cells. Once ignited, ammunition propellant fires were impossible to stop, and if the fires spread to neighboring ammunition the results were generally disastrous. Both the Panther and the Sherman had fire-extinguishing systems to deal with gasoline fires, though their effectiveness varied much on the circumstances of the fires. The Sherman was no more suseptible to fire due to its fuel than the Panther, but it was more vulnerable to fire simply because it was more vulnerable to being penetrated in combat. The Panther had a poor reputation regarding fire safety amoung German tank crews due to the fire hazard of the hydraulic fluid used in the transmission, fuel leaks in the complicated fuel cell linkage, and fires caused by engine back blast, but its excellent armor reduced the likelihood that it would be penetrated in tank combat.

Thanks for sharing that generous quote, @Vanir Ausf B

[Artemis258]

There's an excellent lecture on this by Nicholas Moran, 

 

The crux of the tank burning thing is that on the battlefield, you shoot till the tank is dead. If you can see flames, you're sure it's dead. Plus, a burned tank is much harder to refit and return to battle. 
 

[John Kettler]

Erwin,

Here is an example of a sequence resulting in a K-Kill but with no catastrophic explosion. Bear in mind that the propellant charges aren't in brass casings here but bags, which changes quite a bit things a bit. Also, this a HEAT hit. Note the whoosh out the hatch of instantly combusted cartridge propellant, the breaking out of rapidly spreading fire and the firecrackers of MG ammo detonating as it cooks off.

By contrast, here is quite the collection of destroyed (or abandoned) Allied armor. Beware there are LOTS of either misplaced captions or outright wrong identifications, some duplication of footage, yet with different striking weapon attribution, even a sequence in which a "burning" T-34 actually has its gun barrel draped with a well thrown bolo of Blendkorper smoke grenades to blind the crew. There is a ton of useful material showing tanks hit which didn't burn, tanks hit which burned, tanks hit and burning, and tanks hit and exploded--in all sorts of ways. Loads of terminal ballistics phenomenology on display. In some cases, you can see the turret fly, and there are a number of wrecks with the turret nearby. Speaking of which, but not in the video, there's a picture of a Tiger I with some GIs in. it, I believe, but the turret looks peculiar. It should, for the tank exploded, the turret lifted, flipped upside down and somehow landed where it was before!  There is a great deal to be learned here, much of which is Sherman specific, which seems to be a matter of keen interest to you. Would also note that students of Russian AFV markings will find some primo material here, and for a wide assortment of tanks.

Regards,

John Kettler