Steve McClaire Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 I've recently been playing a pair of PBEM games, one in December 44 and the other in February 45. I've noticed that in both games (especially the December game, which had snow) artillery fire seems to be much more effective than in other games I have played. 105mm was just lethal, and even 81mm mortars caused about 50% casualties to men in foxholes. Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just imagining things again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson44dday Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 depending on how close the people were together it makes a difference, but i too have noticed that it is more effective in winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 I too have experienced more effective artillery fire in the snow, but I think it is NOT because the fire is magically better, but that units moving through the snow move slower, and thus are exposed longer to the fire. On the defense, as in foxholes, the lack of vegetation and hence the loss of concealment shoulld increase exposure to damage of all kinds. [ 04-14-2001: Message edited by: Wilhammer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 If true, this surprises me. From what I have read, I would have expected the effectiveness of artillery to be diminished in weather where there is snow or mud. The shells would tend to burrow in before detonating, therefore their blast and splinters would be more directed upward rather than outward. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 Ah, this can be explained by the fact that most things contract when cooled, and expand when heated. The air molecules in a winter scenario are closer together and the shell fragments do not have to travel as far to get to the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: If true, this surprises me. From what I have read, I would have expected the effectiveness of artillery to be diminished in weather where there is snow or mud. The shells would tend to burrow in before detonating, therefore their blast and splinters would be more directed upward rather than outward. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's generally right for mud, bud in winter it's a little different: how thick is the snow? The ground freezed. The snow gives less cover. Was it impactfuzed or VT?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McClaire Posted April 15, 2001 Author Share Posted April 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: How thick is the snow? The ground freezed. The snow gives less cover. Was it impactfuzed or VT?...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The ground condition for the December game was "Snow". There's no snow in the February game -- ground condition "Damp". None of the artillery was VT. Granted, there is reduced cover in the winter, but foxholes should still offer the same protection, if not as much concealment. The nature of 'a hole in the ground' doesn't change much, even if the effort to dig one does. Perhaps it is intentional modeling of very cold temperatures, which usually means men going into shock from just about any significant wound. I was just curious if anyone else had noticed this, and if it had ever been discussed if so. I couldn't find anything searching the forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted April 15, 2001 Share Posted April 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: Ah, this can be explained by the fact that most things contract when cooled, and expand when heated. The air molecules in a winter scenario are closer together and the shell fragments do not have to travel as far to get to the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, but because metal fractures more easily when its cold, you would end up with fewer fragments, so soldiers would be less likely to get hit. BTS do somefink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesreidau Posted April 15, 2001 Share Posted April 15, 2001 It could be that they've modeled the ground being frozen and their being less of a burrying effect. Read an account which said mortars were much more deadly in winter because the ground was frozen so hard that the shell didn't/couldn't burrow in before exploding. PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted April 15, 2001 Share Posted April 15, 2001 A.Beevor states in "Stalingrad" that the extreme cold had frozen the earth solid. This caused a tremendous increase in the numbers of wounded by arty, especially mortars. I think I read somewhere else that when the ground is REALLY that hard, arty shells could "bounce" off the ground and detonate mid-air and thus causing more casualties. Perhaps an arty vet can clarify this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts