Modern artillery shells vs. WW II shells

[StellarRat]

This question came up in a previous thread. Maybe someone with in-depth knowledge can answer it.

Are modern artillery shells more lethal than their WW II counterparts?

If I remember my ROTC training correctly. The modern shells are far more lethal because they fragment very uniformly instead of breaking into large pieces. So, anyone caught in the area is a lot more likely to be hit by something.

[Guest Babra]

This may get you started. It's about the most detailed that I've been able to locate online for WW2.

British Artillery in WW2

[jwxspoon]

Modern artillery is much more effective than the World War II equivalents, notwithstanding the special munitions that are available now as well (ICM, SADARM, MLRS, etc.)

[StellarRat]

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

Modern artillery is much more effective than the World War II equivalents, notwithstanding the special munitions that are available now as well (ICM, SADARM, MLRS, etc.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I thought. I just wanted a second opinion. Thanks jwxspoon. Do you have military experience with artillery?

[gunnergoz]

Actually, no, if you simply look at "shells" as the projectile with it's explosive filler. The iron casing, gain and explosive filler combinations in modern rounds are not that much changed.

Fuzes, that's part of the difference, though. Modern fuzes are more responsive and accurate.

Of course, improved conventional munitions (ICM) rounds, with their multiple sub-munition bomblets, are incomparably lethal to WW2 rounds. Only WW2 VT rounds could compare, being the precursor to modern electronic fuzing and sensor munitions.

Fire direction is perhaps the second biggest difference on the battlefield. Modern artillery is almost instantaneously responsive, escpecially in counter-fire missions. Assuming your radars are up and on-line, of course!

But if we are speaking only of the shell, exclusive of fuze and special munitions, then I'd have to say they are much the same.

[Sergeant Saunders]

Now I am probably wrong, but I could swear that I recently read or saw something on the History channel, that said that there was a major shell design improvement made after WWII, that drastically improved range and performance. It could have been WWI, but not sure. :confused:

[offtaskagain]

Could it have been boat-tailing the shells? I know it helps bullets out but I don't know if that would apply to artillery.

[JonS]

There are various 'new' technologies to improve range - "Base Bleed" and "Rocket Assissted Projectile" for example. These two appear similar, but work on different principles.

Both trade off payload for an improved range, so you could say they are less effective. Depends how you look at it I suppose.

[StellarRat]

Looks at we do not all agree on this. jwxspoon and I are both thinking the fragmentation effects of the shells themselves have improved. I thought that grenades have been greatly improved since WW II (some kind of special fragmentation wire inside I think) wouldn't shells have had the same changes? Hmm...

[Charlie Rock]

While the actual shell may or may not be more effective, one of the big differences is the fuzing.

For example, mortars in 60mm and 81mm with a flick of the wrist can fire delay, point detonating, 10m or 2m airburst. Every shell in the inventory can fire proximity.

In the name of mobility, however, it is rare to see anything above 155mm.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

In the name of mobility, however, it is rare to see anything above 155mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

:confused:

[JonS]

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

:confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Babs, I think he's talking about SP Artillery. I.e., in the name of increased mobility all the really heavy calibres have been dropped.

And he's right, depending on how you count MLRS I suppose. Although, having MLRS handy kind of makes the heavy calibres moot ...

Note: No malice was intended in the construction of this post. Some smilies were forced to work overtime however.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Charlie Rock]

My only point (correct me if I need correcting) is that 8inch left the inventory after the Gulf War.

Tube artillery is 105mm and 155mm. Light divisions have 105mm, heavy/mech 155mm. While MLRS is greater than 155mm, it uses bomblets, for the most part, so if you want to deliver a payload above 100lbs, call the USAF.

In that sense, WWII munitions might be considered more effective. Naval gunfire in terms of caliber has also decreased. 16", 14" is no more.

[offtaskagain]

Isn't there still self propelled 8 inch guns?

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Isn't there still self propelled 8 inch guns?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nope

End of an era

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Username]

Maybe gunners know this now but you want to fire BEYOND the target. In WWII, airburst arty was a waste unless it pointed the sides of the shell towards the target.

This means you want to have a slight oversshoot before detonation. The side of the shell will then spray the target with ssplinters.

Lewis

[JonS]

Not true. Sorry L. Wrong again.

[Scott B]

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

There are various 'new' technologies to improve range - "Base Bleed" and "Rocket Assissted Projectile" for example. These two appear similar, but work on different principles.

Both trade off payload for an improved range, so you could say they are less effective. Depends how you look at it I suppose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at it this way - figure an M109A6 Paladin has a normal range of about 18 kilometers with its standard 155mm HE projectile, and 30 kilometers with Rocket Assisted Projectiles (RAP). RAP may have a slightly lower amount of explosive filler, but if your target is beyond 18 km away, it is infinitely more effective than no shell at all. And if the target is closer, you fire standard HE and save the RAP for when you need it.

Scott

[jwxspoon]

Yes StelarRat, I was an FO from 1983 to 1986 before moving on to another MOS. I called in a lot of CAS, mortars, and 105's, much fewer heavy artillery. A little naval gunfire.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: jwxspoon ]

[Stixx]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Could it have been boat-tailing the shells? I know it helps bullets out but I don't know if that would apply to artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boat tailed bullets do not increase range all that much. They have better wind-bucking ability and are generally more accurate.

The BC (ballistic Co-effecient) of the round does affect range but this is based more on the bullet type and weight i.e. Spitzer, Round Nose, Hollow Point etc.

Again that is for firearms munitions only not Arty.