HE Lethality

[rexford]

During past threads on HE fire, Jeff Duquette sent me drawings on HE fragment spread. The spread does not cover a large area and is limited to the front and sides of the impact.

This may account for all those ineffective HE shots at infantry in the open, if round is long it doesn't do much, if it is too short it also blows dirt around and little else.

The spread for 75mm HE (US) is 15 meters long.

[Jeff Duquette]

Rex:

The HE burst pattern diagram for the 75mm M48 projectile is from TM9-1907, Sept 1944. I thought you had a copy of that TM...or do you only have the armor penetration graphs? There are burst patterns for the majority of common US ARMY HE ordnance employed during WWII.

[Username]

If I recall, those pics showed that shells that explode at shallow angles (direct fire) have better spread than shells fired at higher angles (indirect fire and low velocity weapons). How about reposting those? Or maybe that gorilla pic?

[Juardis]

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

This may account for all those ineffective HE shots at infantry in the open, if round is long it doesn't do much, if it is too short it also blows dirt around and little else.

The spread for 75mm HE (US) is 15 meters long.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't read the referenced thread, but this goes with something Claymore was saying about reverse slope effectiveness.

1st, what you say above is true from a ballistics standpoint - both in CM and IRL.

2nd, I don't think CM models this correctly, for reverse slope or on flat ground with the DF coming from below you (as if you're at the top of a hill).

It is my observation (whether it's correct or not, I don't know), but it's my observation that if CM models DF HE as a long oval pattern, then anything in that long oval pattern is potentially hit. Regardless of whether the physics say that's impossible. Thus, if you're at the top of a hill, laying flat, any shell fired from below that hits in front of you should disperse up and away. If you were standing, you could get hit. If you were laying flat, there is no way you should get hit (but you do in CM).

It's a small distinction, but an important one nonetheless IMO.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Juardis Said: It is my observation (whether it's correct or not, I don't know), but it's my observation that if CM models DF HE as a long oval pattern, then anything in that long oval pattern is potentially hit. Regardless of whether the physics say that's impossible. Thus, if you're at the top of a hill, laying flat, any shell fired from below that hits in front of you should disperse up and away. If you were standing, you could get hit. If you were laying flat, there is no way you should get hit (but you do in CM).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting observation Juardis. I haven’t experimented around with this effect but I suspect you are probably correct. There are still seemingly hangovers from 2D wargames that have yet to be changed relative to 3D wargame models. I think the effect you are speaking of is one such example.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>USERNAME Said: How about reposting those?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, I’ll be sure to get right on that.

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[ASL Veteran]

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

If I recall, those pics showed that shells that explode at shallow angles (direct fire) have better spread than shells fired at higher angles (indirect fire and low velocity weapons). How about reposting those? Or maybe that gorilla pic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gorilla pic was a classic