Ricochet HE Fire

[rexford]

Jeff Duquette provided our group with a German tank fire manual that brought up the issue of ricochet HE fire by German crews.

When infantry or anti-tank guns were dug in fairly well or hard ot get at, and direct fire might be time-consuming or useless, rounds would be aimed at the ground infront of the target to obtain an air burst over or near the target. Of course the ground would have to be somewhat level, grassy and firm for good ricochet fire, but the power of air bursts was well known and prized.

Funny that the Americans seem to have the first to use ground proximity HE detonation for air bursts when the Germans appreciated their usefulness and had tanks use the technique.

U.S. tank manuals may have included something on this, too.

The manual also briefly treated on battlesight aim as the standard against targets inside 1200m, saying that there was no need for range estimation on many first shots if the flat trajectory of rounds was considered and appropriate aim points were used. German ballistic tables include battlesight aim settings for targets at any range.

[Chupacabra]

Oh dear.

This has been much discussed. Here are some of the threads that I can recall:

"Skipping" AT Rounds

German 75mm HE fuses

Bouncing HE Shells

Bouncing HE rounds (yes, again) and smoke

I believe the general consensus is that while everyone agrees it was done, no one can agree how often it was done, how difficult it was for an average tank gunner to do so, or how to implement such a feature in a way that would prevent it from being used ahistorically.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 01-13-2001).]

[:USERNAME:]

Yeah I remember some discussion regarding this.

Not only could skip bursts be achieved but building interior bursts (very deadly) could be had by the same time mechanism. By backing off the point detonation setting, a HE shell could be set off inside a building. I have read of many accounts of HE going off this way.

The germans were shooting this ammo for years. It is ludicrous that it would not be part of training if they went to the trouble of making HE shells this way. I even supplied a reference of FIELD training for 75L46 guns that were delivered to an AT unit.

I dont recall anyone asking ME how I would like it implemented in the game. But I would model it as a "critical hit" possibility. The possibility would be heavily influenced by crew status and terrain. Followup hits would have a greater chance of having a larger blast effect rating also.

Did anyone supply info of US 75mm sherman rounds having this feature? I have never read of anything like it but have read that the crews found that shells would skip off hard surfaces like pavement and used this effect in street fighting. Has anyone ever documented the "superiority" of the US 75mm of legend? Whats the HE filling compared to a german 75mm? Is this folklore that makes it into the game and documented things like time fuze variability get the BTS treatment?

I say that BTS needs to turn its revisionistic talents on both sides of the conflict.

[PeterNZer]

Don't make yourself look (more) silly Lewis, BTS are hardly 'revisionist' in the Axis favour (especially, in regards to this issues) since NEITHER side has bouncing rounds!

I'm sorry noone asked you personally for your valuable opinion as to the real frequency off the skipping of HE rounds. I'm sure you have a good source telling us all how often the average gunner could do this, the conditions it happened, frequency of it breaking the shell or whatever.

Please, enlighten us.

PeterNZ

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

"I can be quite pleasant, you know" - Andreas

"WHERE'S THE MOAT?!" - Jon

[:USERNAME:]

If you reread threads you will see I supplied references (and other people as well). You will also see that the standard german HE rounds (75mm and above) had this feature while Fionn tried to float the "fact" that it was optional on all HE rounds from all nations. Then BTS locked it up by saying "there ya go everyone had em no big difference" (click). They equated options to standard I guess.

Look Peter you might act all ballsy by throwing in your two cents here but you showed you dont have what it takes in battle. Your lack of battlefield aggressiveness is Monty-like. I see why you moved there. You also rushed the flag with a halftrack on the final turn to show you are gamey as well as timid (thought I forgot about that huh?).

Good day

Lewis

[Jeff Duquette]

This is seemingly a topic of past heated discussion From my perspective I could care less weather it was implemented in combat or not or weather it is something significant enough to warrant inclusion in a wargame. It is simply a bit of WWII gunnery minutia that is interesting. US ARMY was also apparently discussing ricochet HE fire in their gunnery training manuals for the war. The following images are from the 1943 version of FM17-12.

I also recall seeing similar such firing techniques discussed in Naval gunnery manuals….”skip fire” or some such thing. Kind of reminds me of the British "Dam-Buster" bombs.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 01-13-2001).]

[:USERNAME:]

Jeff

Good info. It seems the US version had two settings; point or delay. The german seemed to have a variable delay.

Just to give a little background, yes it was a heated debate, this all came about because of another therad where my point was thnat stugs were very effective and actually a different arm of the germans (sturmartillerie). Chairborne commandos (CC)here insisted that longer barreled stugs were not as effective HE shooters as the stumpy stugs. I contended that they still retained the HE ability as well as a decent AT capability. In fact the extra velocity was a bonus because the actual projectiles were the same. The CC then were all claiming that shells buried themselves, etc, blah, blah.

The fact is that the fuze options that were available gave the stugs a deadly option. Since the sturmarty guys were actually mostly volunteers from the artillery arm and vets at that (even up to the end of the war the majority of gunners were volunteers); I believe that these skip tactics were practised and the best way to deal with ATG's and dug in infantry.

I believe the fuzes more than likely utilized the piezoelectric effect and this gave them the superquick option (look inside a bic lighter, that spark is the piezoelectric effect).

But crew experience would be a big factor in the effective use of this. I find it interesting that the delay was the stowed preference.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 01-13-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Superquick vs. delay is a common and plain vanilla thing. Delay is used against heavy cover, SQ against personnel in the open or soft skinned vehicles like trucks. There was certainly nothing specially German about it - an extremely silly idea.

With high trajectories and indirect fire, the shells do bury rather than bounce, but that is still better against dug in troops or buildings than surface detonation is. Skipping is an effective of a flat trajectory, obviously, combined with delay. It would happen because of near misses more than on purpose, but that basically just works to make the area easier to hit close enough for an effect. (A direct hit, even quick, is going to do the target it quite effectively, thank you very much).

As for the reason the stowage was delay rather than SQ, that is just a function of safety. A fuse set on SQ is much easier to set off by jarring it or dropping it than one on delay. The fuse is effectively on a "hair trigger" with the SQ setting.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

With high trajectories and indirect fire, the shells do bury rather than bounce, but that is still better against dug in troops or buildings than surface detonation is. Skipping is an effective of a flat trajectory, obviously, combined with delay. It would happen because of near misses more than on purpose, but that basically just works to make the area easier to hit close enough for an effect. (A direct hit, even quick, is going to do the target it quite effectively, thank you very much).

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite sure what you are getting at or if you are just doing the "world according to jasoncawley@ameritech.net routine".

With indirect fire, it was often that point detonating was used primarily (to get heads down and defenders under cover) and then delay was used as the attacking troops were closing in. This would protect the attackers from fraticide and destroy bunkers , trenches, etc. But the point is that both settings could be used.

As for the rest of your post. I just dont understand your english very well. Are you describing what is obvious from the pictures? Its hard to tell.

Perhaps you are somewhat right about the safety issue. maybe not. I would guess that most HE has a rotationally activated (I.e. minimum flight time distance) arming. The HE shells dont quite explode from the massive G force or rotational acceleration now do they?

Its fuze in most books I read. I have seen fuse in others.

And I never said that other nations didnt have this capability. Jeff is the first to supply any info that I can tell.

And at the risk of being completely reiterative, I again am saying that a high velocity weapon does not have to give up anything to a low velocity weapon WHEN THEY ARE FIRING THE SAME SHELL. It is in fact more accurate, quicker on the adjustments and gets a nice 1/2MV^2 kick on delay settings into things like bunkers (where it buries itself).

Thatsd my storey and I am sticking to it.

Lewis

[Mark IV]

My July 44 version of the same manual has the same text and illustration, with the following additions to the superquick section (picking up where Jeff's left off):

"Use the superquick setting when the delay setting results in the round failing to ricochet and penetrating the ground before exploding (mine action). When firing with delay setting over extremely dusty terrain, the shell striking the ground often raises so much dust that accurate sensing of the ricochet burst is impossible. In this situation change to the superquick setting."

It then goes on to describe:

"b(2) 75mm HE shell, M48, is also fuzed with the M54 time fuze. Time fire is not employed by tanks. Do not fire ammunition with the M54 fuze if other ammunition is available. When set for superquick action on impact, a very high percentage of duds results from rounds fired from tank guns.

"(3) Some 75mm HE shell may be fuzed with the M48A1 fuze. This ammunition is not designed for use in tanks. The M48A1 fuze has .15 second delay action which causes a ricochet to travel from 50 to 115 yards before bursting. This makes it impossible to adjust ricochet fire on small point targets. When firing at AT guns and similar targets set the fuze at superquick. When firing at tanks, armored cars and similar targets, set the fuze at delay.

"c. 76-mm shell, HE, M42A1. This ammunition is fuzed with the M48 or M8A1. The remarks in paragraphs b(2) and (3) above apply to 76-mm ammunition.

d. 105-mm shell, HE, M1. This is a semi-fixed round and may be fired with any one of seven charges. It is impractical to prepare charges in a tank. Charge VII is used normally and is used always against targets with a vertical profile. This ammunition is fuzed with either the M48A1 fuze or the M54 fuze. The remarks in paragraphs b(2) and (3) above apply to 105-mm ammunition."

From here it goes on to describe the smoke shells which ARE available, one year later. Of interest is that the smoke for 75 shells is just a "smoke mixture", where the 105mm is composed of WP, with the advice that WP is not suitable for effective screening because of its tendency to "pillar". It says that the amount of smoke generated by a single 75mm is insufficient for screening (partly due to the blunt-nosed projectile's tendency to bounce) and says "A platoon firing 4 rounds per tank can effectively screen an area 500 yards wide in about 1 1/2 to 2 minutes." More on this later...

If someone with a website would like to post it, I will scan some of this stuff later on.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

"the "world according to jasoncawley@ameritech.net routine"."

Right, what do I know, I was only in the artillery...

[Jeff Duquette]

The whole concept sounds pretty “if-ie” in its implementation, that is if one considers typical range estimation errors or even typical horizontal dispersion of a tanks HE munitions. Now throw in folks employing direct fire weapons without range finders, it becomes a question of luck…IMHO. TC estimates range to target…than subtracts 75 or 100 meters from that range so he can get the benefit of a ricochet air burst. Typical range estimation error using stadia from say a pair of GI bino’s or holding up your fingers for mil\range estimate is gonna be 100 to 200 meters (depending on actual range to target). I guess if it were me I’d opt for metal on metal and aim at the targets center of visible mass. The longer I dick around with estimating where to skip a round from, the more likely it is Joe ATG gunner is gonna get off a round in my direction. Soft ground conditions, uneven ground, trees, brush, fences, walls, unpredicatable ricochet trajectorys etc…there goes my fancy ricochet tactics. In addition, I don’t think I have ever read a historical account of a tank crew employing ricochet fire. It would be interesting if someone could produce some AAR’s verifying that such a thing was ever employed. Just my opinion, and all I personally intend to say on the topic…flame me if you feel the necessity.

Mark IV:

I’d be happy to post your stuff. Simply email the images (in *.jpg format) to my email address (address is in my profile stuff). Use an image width of about 400 to 700 pixels please (about 600 works best).

[:USERNAME:]

Very interesting.

Seems that the US at least had the capability but had problems with thier fixed delay. Cant wait for a knee jerk reaction from someone making the assumption that the germans had the same problems.

Lets get this strait. The advice is to stow em in delay but fire them mostly superquick? Huh? You would have to adjust each one then. ROF out the window.

As for AAR. They have been posted by myself and others.

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 01-13-2001).]

[Jeff Duquette]

hmmmm...interesting. Just read your previous postings on skipping shots.

Ok so I lied about not posting on this topic again

[PeterNZer]

For the record, Lewis, you will recall that the game in question was one that was supposed to be a double-blind, but, as it turned out, YOU HAD ALREADY PLAYED THE ALLIES in the scenario.

I thought I did quite well to pull of a draw against someone who already had a fair idea of what i had and was playing on the defence.

As for me being a slow attacker, I kinda expected you to put up a defence in the middle area, not cower at the back of the map. Hence, I didn't see fit to rush across.

The reason i had you up about your post was that you were acting inapropriately high-minded. If you see fit to talk about an already discussed topic by throwing more evidence/argument in, do so, but don't act like a spoilt brat cos BTS didn't listen the first time.

PeterNZ

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

"I can be quite pleasant, you know" - Andreas

"WHERE'S THE MOAT?!" - Jon

[:USERNAME:]

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

The reason i had you up about your post was that you were acting inapropriately high-minded. If you see fit to talk about an already discussed topic by throwing more evidence/argument in, do so, but don't act like a spoilt brat cos BTS didn't listen the first time.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me and some others here that like to discuss this topic. Who made you the high-minded enforcer?

I think its a fascinating topic and is actually an extension of my stug/sherman spat with Steve. People are still posting about how ineffective stugs seem to be compared to AAR from WWII. Think I will play the Chance Encounter game in 1.1 for old times sake.

Anyway, high-minded or not I may be, you are a sore loser. And dont think I didnt notice how you creepily run back all your crews and line them up like toy soldiers in a row. It gave me the willys to see that you do that. I still smile when I think how you meakly crawled your armor forward and then run the crews back after I had KO'd your tanks. Its important that the crews all line up right? Neatness must be enforced and high-mindedness curtailed? Did you wait till the crew took his place in line with the others in that house before waddling another tank forward to its death? Anyway your "draw" was because you ran a halftrack (I bet you even gave it a pause-pause before moving it) onto the flag area under the fire of my last panzer so as gamily grab that one flag at the end. I only played as the germans previously and had never finished the game BTW. I had lost so much of my armor that all I knew was that there was a massive US force and air power too. It was then that I decided that it would be a great double blind game and that caution and attrition would help the germans defense.

A Kiwi gone Limey has no right commanding US troops. Patton would have bit' slapped you.

Good Day

Lewis

PS I would make the argument that the German nation are considered world class clock and watch builders. This would have had a positive effect on their uber-fuzings. But it would be poo-poo'd by the same BTS mind-set that disregards the german optics industry. I am sure the russian fuzes were great.

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 01-14-2001).]

[PeterNZer]

Right.

So bassically, you knew the scenario. Glad you confirmed that.

And whether i line my dead crews up (well duh, there was a LINE of buildings at the back of the map), or whether i make them do the hokey-cokey is really irrelevant.

As for a sore loser, since when did a draw mean a losss? Points-wise I lead and while i was cautious (viz-a-viz, you knew the scenario) and let the turns slip away a bit too quick I still did just fine.

As for who made me high-minded enforcer? Well I did, sometimes it is good to point out a plonker in action lest other people be tempted to emulate.

The more you talk the more foolish you look. Bringing up the whole optics thing again? The discussion on that topic has matured past anything you might care to throw at BTS. They are well aware of the optics industry, and the discussion of real facts and figures followed up by a conclusion of some sort has been and gone.

Lewis, just a reminder, double blind means neither side had played the scenario before, from either side, for any length of time. Don't want you to get confused in future games with people.

PeterNZ

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

"I can be quite pleasant, you know" - Andreas

"WHERE'S THE MOAT?!" - Jon

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

"the "world according to jasoncawley@ameritech.net routine"."

Right, what do I know, I was only in the artillery...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jason, if you have something to contribute to the topic, I would do so if I were you, and just ignore Lewis, as you can see from his exchange with Peter, he is quite a fool who does not really deserve to be taken seriously and he has come this close to banning already. I look forward to any light you can shed onto this topic.

Lewis - any snide comments you may want to have on your characterisation are wasted on me. I don't have time for you.

Question: I have read a number of accounts of German AA gun airbursts on pre-registered targets (e.g. cross-roads). Effect would be similar to VT Fuses (that is UK english BTW, Lewis, but it may be too much for you to comprehend that spelling in the UK may be different from the US), I believe. I have no idea whether high-velocity guns needed LOS to the target or whether they could do indirect fire. I imagine the way it could have worked was that the German gunners established flight-time on target and then just put a delay onto their rounds to make it go boom in the air over it. But as I said, any sort of enlightening would be very welcome.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 01-15-2001).]

[PeterNZer]

Germyboy, i'm reading a personal account now which mentions the airbust of an 88'. The author (from 'Guns of Normandy') seems to have been frequently warned and worried about 88s using an airburst over him/his vehicles. Seems to have been a common enough tactic and I would guess it would be done in the manner you mention, definately not skipping, and requiring a bit of fore-planning I imagine.

PeterNZ

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

"I can be quite pleasant, you know" - Andreas

"WHERE'S THE MOAT?!" - Jon

[tss]

PeterNZer wrote:

Germyboy, i'm reading a personal account now which mentions the airbust of an 88'. The author (from 'Guns of Normandy') seems to have been frequently warned and worried about 88s using an airburst over him/his vehicles.

Of course, another interesting question is, were the guns actually 88s or were they, for example, 105 mm howitzers that were misidentified. (If the fire was indirect). In any case, 105 mm airburst is pretty much more effective than a 88 mm airburst.

Also, I would be surprised if Germans fired 88s indirectly very often, because they were didn't belong to field artillery (at least, AFAIK) so they didn't have forward observation teams that are necessery for accurate indirect fire.

However, I have come upon one account of German 88mm indirect use so it happened at least sometimes. One Finnish artillery officer mentions in his memoirs that he once witnessed Germans firing their flak guns indirectly. It was either in "Vienan tykit" (Tamminen) or "Jatkosodan päiviä ja öitä" (Holmström)

- Tommi

[tss]

Also, about ricochets.

The Finnish 1936 field artillery regulations state that a round may ricochet if the impact angle is 15-25 degrees (depending on terrain), and it will ricochet if the angle is less than 15 degrees.

It also states that quick fuzes (that probably correspond to the American "superquicks" above) don't work reliably if the angle of impact is too small (less than 1/2 of the angle of the shell cone).

The book is at home right now [so the following figures may be slightly incorrect], but it stated that with a "quick-delayed" fuze (that is, one that ignites like a quick fuze but has a 1/20 s delay before exploding), a 76K02 shell that comes on angle of 15 degrees will explode after a 13 m ricochet and it is 4 meters high at that point. This figure was for "medium ranges" (~4 km).

- Tommi

[Guest Germanboy]

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

However, I have come upon one account of German 88mm indirect use so it happened at least sometimes. One Finnish artillery officer mentions in his memoirs that he once witnessed Germans firing their flak guns indirectly. It was either in "Vienan tykit" (Tamminen) or "Jatkosodan päiviä ja öitä" (Holmström)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Company Commander' is talking (IIRC) about airbursts from a 12.8mm AA unit outside Leipzig. I could also imagine it to be long-range DF fire with time-fuses. AA HE ammo would have that I presume because you need it to go off in a bomber stream, not 2,000 yards above or below.

Point in game terms is that regardless of what kind of calibre/gun, would there be a historic reason to give the Germans limited VT-like arty support (e.g. restricted to TRPs).

I can live with that not being done until CM2, but I think it is worthwhile investigating, maybe even more so than the skipping HE round

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[tss]

Germanboy wrote:

Point in game terms is that regardless of what kind of calibre/gun, would there be a historic reason to give the Germans limited VT-like arty support (e.g. restricted to TRPs).

Yup, timed fuzes were certainly used by all countries. According to the above-mentioned regulations book they didn't need much more spotting rounds than impact fuzes. Their main weakness was that at long ranges the height dispersion was too large for them.

- Tommi

[PeterNZer]

Ahh, yes, I forgot to bring that point up TSS. It could very well be 105s or whatever. After all, throughout his account all they talk about is 88's and Tigers and SS.. seems that's all there was in Normandy

PeterNZ

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

"I can be quite pleasant, you know" - Andreas

"WHERE'S THE MOAT?!" - Jon

[:USERNAME:]

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

Right.

So bassically, you knew the scenario. Glad you confirmed that.

PeterNZ

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heres the origional email I sent to PeterNZ:

"This is a cool scenario. I havent played as the US so I dont really know what all they have"

From this you knew up front that I had played as the germans. I did not know the US force. The only reason you sqeaked a draw was because you grabbed a flag with a halftrack at the closing seconds while it was being targetted by a tank.

You are gamey and other people here know that up front.

I still find that playing against the US AI in this scenario very challenging. And I still remember that you were much too cautious and indecisive.

Lewis