Bamse Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 BTS ! Include the Wurf. just for the sake of the poor dumba$$es (like me) that at the beginning thought that the Wurf. was accuratly modeled in CC3. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertanker Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 We have a family friend who was a naval weapons tech in Vietnam (I don’t know what the official title would be, that is what he calls it), and he told me that he spotted for the 16-inch rifles on occasion. He described the sound as a freight train coming through the sky, and when they hit, it seemed like half a hillside would vanish. I asked him what kind of targets they would use them on, troop concentrations, hard targets, other big stuff, and he said, “No, no, no, they would use them on ANYTHING. One time, we used them to blow up a wooden footbridge.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Question for the military guys here- I would think spotting for a Battleship would be a hard... Land based artiller, you fire a shot, the gun stays where it is (for the most part), so its not hard to simply adjust your aim and shoot again... For a battleship, however, I've heard those things are blasted back nearly 3-4 Feet from a full broadside, I'd think that would easily be enough to fully through siteing calculations... so how do the know what angle to shoot at the next time if the whole firing platform moves between shots? -EridanMan the curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 I actually thought they moved further than 3-4 feet after a broadsides - more like several metres (or several tens of metres). Anyway - to the question - the drills at the FO end remain the same - you assume the ship hasn't moved. Its up to the gunnery control on the ship to figure out the changes. I assume they have very good procedures for this considering that this is their feed - its not really that different (technically) to a ship-ship gunnery duel. Also, the ships off the coast of Normandy (or anywhere for that matter) will be able to get good fixes off known points on the land, for example "that church spire to the left, nad that headland to the right". By taking accurate bearings to each when required, the ship will be able to accurately figure out where it is, and compensate accordingly with each salvo. Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Yes, warships, and especially the big expensive warships, have dozens of men devoted to nothing but fire direction. They have all the best instruments, the big-ass rangefinders, and I'm told they have a compass too I'm still mystified how one ship could possibly hit another at sea though... ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Umm, when EACH of your HE shells makes a 50 metre diameter crater wherever it lands it isn't all that important if each 9 gun salvo rocks you back 10 metres . OTOH these BBs generally only fired one turret ( 2 to 3 shells) per salvo at on-land targets. Still, a 5 metre rock-back just isn't a big deal. The concussive force of a hit will jellify any human within 100 metres of the impact who happens to be out in the open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s bakker Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 ________ The concussive force of a hit will jellify any human within 100 metres of the impact who happens to be out in the open. __________ Jellify, what a horrible term ...... Grtz S Bakker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 About the Wurfrahmen. Being curious and asking around about the firing ranges for the vehicular mounted launchers I was given the following clarifying answer: ---- Two classics, Field Rocket Equipment of the German Army 1939 - 1945 by TJ Gander and Deutsche Raketen-Werfer, Podzun-Pallus-Verlag. 28cm min 300m max 1925 m 30cm min 400m max 4450 m 32cm min 400m max 2200 m The minimum range is taken from the range tables of the frames (sWuG 40 and 41). The 251 was fitted with the sWF40 frame and rated with the same ranges. TJ rates the 30cm as having a higher range of 6000m but I believe this applies to the 15cm rocket when fired from the same launcher. The 15cm had a max of 6900 m. You could use them at shorter ranges, but you would start to suffer from the effects. --- These figures seem reasonable enough and, if so, would put the launchers on board rather than off board in the CM scale (thinking 2x2 km map), more akin to medium calibre mortars in range than "classic" off board artillery. I had a few doubts myself, but thinking about it they probably were more due to the way the weapon system was portrayed in CC3 than anything I have heard or read about them in real life. Not exactly a priority system but perhaps a nice addition in the long run. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 I've seen the way the rocket launchers are rigged on the sides of the vehicles and I must admit I simply see no way at all that the minimum range is 300 to 400 metres. The minimum up-angle of the rockets is at least 15 degrees. Since rockets burn until empty the minimum range is determined by elevation. 15 degrees up elevation for a rocket moving at the speed of the rockets we're talking about simply rules out any possibility of that rocket impacting within half a click of the launcher as I see it. Who gave you this info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s bakker Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Not that is some interesting information to the discussion pending (i don't have the technical information/resources Fionn and Mattias seem to have ), but i found some pictures of a H-39 (french) at which the Germans had transfixed four sWF40 frames. needless to say they look really cute It's in "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" Peter Chamberlain, Hilary Doyle; Grtz S Bakker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Fionn, As I am the one presenting the “facts” I think it would be wrong of me to refer to any other person, should I be wrong. Not least because I didn’t bother to ask him if he would object to me presenting the information here. I have no primary source of my own so I suggest looking at the sources indicated by my “informant”. As for “achieving” minimum range, how about increasing elevation of the launchers instead of decreasing it? Anyway, will look into it with the aim of getting the hard facts for myself Ill be back.. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 - [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 02-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 - [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 02-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Ok Mattias . I was just curious where you got the min range from since I simply can't fathom it... It'll be interesting to find out if there's any truth to it since just from looking at the assembly I can't see any way to achieve horizontal fire (which a 300 m range would require) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfrikaKorps Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Its not the angle, its the propellant quantity put into it before firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Rocket motors for those rockets were NOT loadable in the field as far as I know.. These rockets came as a single piece assembly with both rocket and explosive being sealed. It was NOT possible to "fuel" the rocket engine in the field.. Doing that would have resulted in some HUGE explosions... The Russians used to refuel their Tu-26M fleet in bunkers to protect them from air attack until in the early 80s they lost a large portion of their fleet when some of the high octane fuel caught fire as one was being refueled and the fire spread burning out multiple planes. German artillerists would NOT have liked lugging around liquid rocket fuel on the backs of their vehicles to refuel their vehicles . Simply put these rockets are one-piece constant fuel rockets (we're NOT going to get into the effects of evaporation on liquid rocket fuels I hope). In short it IS the elevation that matters. That is unless you can show me proof of in-field fuelers following artillery batteries around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Well, as a member of the newly founded pro-wurf camp.... The sources I have never explicitly state what the minimum range was and my calculus skills are too rusty to try to calculate the minimum range. But my sources Handbook of German Military Forces, Encyclopedia of German Tanks, Armored Fighting Vehicles of Germany all give minimum elevation values of 5 degrees (and a maximum of 45). Mattias' numbers are lower than I had I heard of before. But didn't he say that they came from the firing tables for those weapons? To me that sounds pretty definitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 15, 2000 Share Posted February 15, 2000 Actually he said that a friend had told him they were from firing tables. From experience I know how a table in some less than authoritative book can become garbled in the telling and become a bona fide WW2-vintage firing table from that very vehicle . In the immortal words of someone somewhere... You've got to see it with your own eyes to be sure .. A LOT of these things get innocently garbled in transmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted February 15, 2000 Share Posted February 15, 2000 Hmm, 5 degrees elevation? That sounds like it would certainly allow for some fairly short range direct fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted February 15, 2000 Share Posted February 15, 2000 I ran out to the library at lunchtime - counldn't find much about the minimum range, but the boxes along the side of the halftracks could be set to different elevations to allow a spread of ranges from a salvo - sort of like a modern MLRS I suppose. Also, the fuel is (was?) solid. Way safer and more stable than liquid fuels... Does anyone have any info on what type of units the 251/1s belonged to? If, for example, they were part of the TO&E of an inf, pnzgren, or panzer abeitlung then I doubt they would have the other ancillary equipment to enable them to fire IF. If, on the otherhand, they 'belonged' to artillery formations then maybe they would. Sadly, my TO&E resources for the Whermacht are very limited. Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Pender Posted February 15, 2000 Share Posted February 15, 2000 I always figured that by the inclusion of the aiming vanes on the front of the engine compartment it sugested that the rockets could/would be used for direct fire. Just a thought. Take care John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 15, 2000 Share Posted February 15, 2000 I've just found out some interesting info from Mattias. My quick first-read take is that MINIMUM elevation was 14 degrees when the launchers were mounted in series. If one mounted ONLY a single mounter on each side of the vehicle then the minimum elevation was 5 degrees (fine for direct fire). So, it looks like it's a case of "whether or not it could DF is dependent on whether it is carrying only 2 launchers or more". Of course, I would aver that they more commonly went around with 4 to 6 launchers than 2 so that DF was rare but it seems that if they specifically set up the vehicle for DF then they could do it (albeit with only a fraction of their normal firepower) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Pender Posted February 15, 2000 Share Posted February 15, 2000 If you look at pictures of this rig you will notice that the mounts for the rockets are staggered in height from front to back, the fwd ones being the lowest. It looks like you could use two rockets on each side at 5deg if you used the the fwd and aft mounts only. Just for info only. I don't think they need to be included in the game, to destructive. And how would you model the possibility/effects of one of the rockets being penetrated by small arms fire while loaded to the 251/1. Take care John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted February 15, 2000 Share Posted February 15, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And how would you model the possibility/effects of one of the rockets being penetrated by small arms fire while loaded to the 251/1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Must be a big bang with nothing left of the halftrack and a really deep whole in the ground Helge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 What to me seems to be the deal at this time: The vehicle mounted sWF 40 could fire at targets at any range within the envelope of it’s 1925/2200 (Sprg/Brd) range, the only limitation being arming distance which could be set to almost nothing. It was intended as a Pioneer weapon for clearing of obstacles and in a secondary role for “simple” bombardment. As the primary task requires accuracy it was usually done at close range. However it “looks” like the six-pack of launchers mounted on, for example, the Sd Kfz 251 was unable depress the launchers below 14-15 degrees when all six were in place. Enter game considerations: I cannot see how anything less than the fully loaded vehicle on a bombardment mission could be modelled in the game. The game, as it stands today, simply isn’t flexible enough to, usefully, model the pioneer missions envisaged for it in real life. If this is the “truth” the vehicle would be limited to +14 to +50 degrees In order to achieve a certain range you could move the vehicle to a spot where the ground is sloping slightly up or down in order to get an elevation outside of the limitations of the mountings. Alternatively you could hit a target at a higher elevation than yourself, or something really tall, like a big building, in which case the target could be very close. However, back to the game: My impression is that this is not modelled in the game or would require extra coding. I shan’t dwell on it as I don’t know anything about it but it is my impression that a sWF would be limited to operating from “flat” ground when the trajectory of the projectiles is calculated, no matter the inclination of the vehicle. Would be happy to be wrong though. So, where does this leave us in game terms? Considering the limitations mentioned above the vehicle mounted sWF 40 could be added but would be limited to bombardment missions at ranges of app: 1000 to 1925m for the 28cm Sprg 1200 to 2200m for the 32cm Brd Considering that map sizes of 2x2 km does not appear to be extreme it is tipping on the edge of being an on board weapon system rather than an off board one. I have a range chart supplied by an Australian friend but am sadly lacking in ability, thus I cannot post it here. But as an example of the “accuracy”, consider this: At maximum range the 50% zone of the 28cm rocket is. 80m in length and 90m in breadth. At 1000 meters it is 150 in length and 30 in breadth The same figures for the 32cm Brd is 100/110 at max and 180/40 at 1200 meters. Now, if this would be fun/good/possible in the eyes of the powers that be I humbly leave for them to judge. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts