Scipio Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 I can purchase 105mm Artillery and 105mm VT artillery. The VT is more expensive. What is the difference? They have both 100 shells and the same blast range. ------------------ Keine Gefangenen! Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site! Scipiobase Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 VT shells have a radar fuse mounted in the nose of the shell. When the shell is a pre-determined distance from the ground it explodes, showering the blast area with shrapnel. it is very deadly against troops in the open, gun emplacements, etc... ------------------ "What do you know about surfing, major, you're from God damn New Jersey" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 VT artillery (I can never remember what the VT stands for, Variable Time or something) is based on the posit fuse. Basically, it has a radio transmitter inside the shell that causes the shell to explode at a set distance above ground. This greatly enhances the destructiveness of the shell as it spreads the shrapnel over a much greater radius than a conventional shell the explodes on impact with the ground. You will find it well worth the cost. 105VT makes a mess of infantry, and 155VT (though only 35 rounds) obliterates infantry. Try it, I guarantee you like it. ------------------ The New CessPool WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO. MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!! must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai Croda, you rock! - Meeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 Useful info on VT fuzes: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm ------------------ New to Combat Mission? Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips. "90% of the crucial decisions in this business are made by idiots who don't even play games." Cliff Bleszinski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cos Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 Originally posted by Croda: You will find it well worth the cost. 105VT makes a mess of infantry, and 155VT (though only 35 rounds) obliterates infantry. Try it, I guarantee you like it. I used it in a QB where a large amount german infrantry (15 plus squads) was getting ready to overrun my right flank. 19 shells stopped them cold and allowed me time to get some HT and armor over there to mop up the survivors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted February 15, 2001 Author Share Posted February 15, 2001 Thanx to all. One more thing learned ------------------ Keine Gefangenen! Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site! Scipiobase Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waxx_IK Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 From what my grandfather tells me, something similar was used in the Pacific Theater against Japanese kamakaze aircraft. They were called proximity fuses, I don't know if VT and proximity fuse mean the same thing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Yes, VT (stands for "variable time") is the same thing as a proximity fuse, and yes it was originally developed for anti-aircraft use. It was rather effective in that role. The 5 inch duel purpose guns of the U.S. fleet fired large VT fused shells, as the first or outer "shell" of the layered flak protecting the fleet. The inner ones used huge numbers of 40mm and 20mm lighter AA guns. Fighters patrolled outside the flak screen. Even before they switched to kamikazes, few Japanese planes survived attacks on such fleets, once the whole system had been developed. Since they weren't going to make it out anyway, they switched to the kamikaze tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Huang Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Guys : The info you need for VT is here , check it out (and bookmark this site) : http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm#anchor1191195 ------------------ Sgt. Huang I LOVE my country, but my government suc*s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Croda: This greatly enhances the destructiveness of the shell as it spreads the shrapnel over a much greater radius than a conventional shell the explodes on impact with the ground. This is not strictly true. That is, the VT-fuzed shell does tend to be deadlier against soft targets, but the reason is not because it spreads shrapnel over a larger radius (the two types of shells are substantially the same in this regard), but because it negates any vertical protection, such as a wall or a foxhole with no overhead protection, that a soft target might otherwise benefit from. When a conventionally fuzed shell strikes the ground, it may burrow some distance into the soil before exploding. The ground then focuses the blast and shrapnel upward into a cone shape. Personnel behind any sort of obstruction, or merely lying flat are thus unlikely to be struck, even though the fragments are traveling just as far as with the VT fuzed round. The VT round, on the other hand, projects blast and fragments in a roughly spherical distribution from overhead. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Michael emrys said: The VT round, on the other hand, projects blast and fragments in a roughly spherical distribution from overhead. I respectfully disagree. A shell always has its center of mass in the same place and following the same trajectory both before and after it explodes. IWO, when the shell explodes, the expanding cloud of fragments has a net center of mass that is still moving forward with the velocity of the shell. In fact, the velocity of the center of mass along the trajectory of the original shell is usually higher than the outward velocity of the fragments. The result is that when viewed from the side, the fragments continue going forward in an expanding cone-shaped volume rather like a charge of birdshot instead of in a spherical pattern. Only if the shell was stationary when it exploded would you have a spherical fragment pattern. With a VT fuzed shell, the burst occurs when the shell is coming down toward the ground. As a result, the cone of fragments also points downwards and thus ends up filling an elliptical area of ground with fragments (it would be a circular area if the shell was falling straight down). The fuze is tweaked so that the burst occurs at a height where the fragments will still be close enough together inside this oval area to hit anybody caught inside it, usually several times . This is what makes airbursts (whether from VT, MT, or trees) so nasty. With an impact fuze, all fragments not immediately absorbed by the ground are going upwards at some angle. Thus, hiding behind a wall or lying prone is very effective protection. But with airbursts, the fragments will go down behind walls and into foxholes lacking overhead protection. Plus lying prone on the ground only increases the target area you offer the fragments. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts