Canister in CMBB: Realistic or Hollywood?

[rune]

Going to argue the point. Most shells that showed up were NOT shrapnel, but case shot. Proof? Here is a quote directly from Valera:

In all operational guides for Soviet tanks mentioned "shrapnel and case-shot rounds", none of them defines how many there were shrapnel rounds and how many case-shot rounds. I asked Soviet tankers, they told me they didn't use shrapnel at all, while case-shot used quite often. Vets said C-S ammo was deadly for any advancing infantry, much more effective then common HE ammo. C-S ammo used mostly in defensive actions and ambushes.

Mentioned shrepnel and case-shot rounds used for Soviet 76-mm field guns:

F-22

F-22 USV

ZIS-3

Also, case-shot round used for KV-1, KV-1S, and T-34-76 tanks: 4-8 rounds per tank.

Also the analogy of the mg is wrong. From another post and discussion:

See following site:

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/monyushko/monyushko2.htm

"Fortunately, the guns turned out to be 76mm ZIS-3, familiar from school. An excellent gun, but in 1944 it was becoming somewhat weak to fight the new German armor. It's armor piercing shell couldn't penetrate the Pz.VI tank (Tiger) even at almost point blank range. Only the scarce subcaliber shell could help there. And even subcaliber shells couldn't penetrate the Ferdinand self-propelled gun from the front. We were left to hope that there would be less Tigers than main German AFVs, Pz.IV's. Out of thirty cases of ammunition, only two were with subcaliber shells, eight - armor piercing, and the rest - fragmentation/high explosive grenades. There was also a certain quantity of grape-shot, for self-defense against infanty, which gave us a feeling of confidence, but, fortunately, I never had to fire it. (For those unfamiliar with artillery I have to explain that, if a medium machine gun, when beating back an attack, fires practically around 250 rounds per minute, a single gun, firing grape-shot, can create a density 25-50 times greater, and a four gun battery - 100-200 times; moreover, the bullets spread evenly across the front, not leaving any dead ground. Attacking such battery is a hopeless proposition.)"

Rune

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by tar:

If this was such an effective anti-infantry weapon, why was it not more widely adopted?

Besides wear reasons mentioned, tankers usually cannot or don't like to get so near to infantry, especially not German infantry in late WW2.

[Redwolf]

Rune, you are talking about batteries getting attacked by infantry.

The complains in this thread are about infantry in foxholes and heads down.

[rune]

Redwolf,

Reread what i posted. The first section states that tankers used case shot often and NOT sharpnel shot, the second case also states a sinle gun put out a better spread then a medium mg. These points have nothing to do with helmets or trenches, rather the USE of the shells.

Also note the following:

Vets said C-S ammo was deadly for any advancing infantry, much more effective then common HE ammo. C-S ammo used mostly in defensive actions and ambushes.

Rune

[MikeyD]

In the game infantry in foxholes heads-down is not counted as 100% behind cover so you still get casualties. Heads-down in trenches you'd be more secure, in craters less secure.

[Amedeo]

I found this website that features an HTML version of the book " Artilleriia ", published by the NKO in 1938. I managed to identify a couple interesting pictures.

Here is a picture detailing canister usage against infantry for AT guns self-defence:

Here is another picture relative to a Russo-Polish war episode: opening a gap in barbed wire with canister rounds :eek:

A bootlicking reference to Stalin and Voroshilov or a viable tactic?

An indirect proof that the elusive 76mm 'case-shot' (kartech') round did exist anyway and was in common use?

Regards,

Amedeo

[ May 29, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Amedeo ]

[Snarker]

I'm playing a game where my Heroes of Stalin are getting thwacked by canister. The first group took it in the nose from about 30 - 40m when they rose in scattered trees to fire. Bad choice. 9 dead after two bursts, the other two headed for the rear... Another group taking cover in rubble took fire from about 150m and at first they took no damage. Then they panicked, and lost men on the next burst as they high tailed it for the rear as the German infantry converged fire on them.

There may be an overkill quality to canister in some cover (heavy buildings for example) but otherwise when I've used it or been hit by it the results seem reasonable.

[Amedeo]

Another interesting site gives some details about Soviet cannister performance (unfortunately this site has only pages for the 45mm AT gun and the 57mm one).

If I'm not mistaken it says that the 45mm canister had effect on an area 60m wide for a depth of 400m, while the 57mm canister affected an area 40m wide and 200m deep. The seemingly inferior effect of the larger round was possibly due to the much higher muzzle velocity (my guess).

The 57mm Shch-271 round is reported to be filled with 324 balls, weighting 10.8g each. The angle of the "cone" of fire is 10-18°, consistent with the base width x depth figures given above.

Regards,

Amedeo

P.S. For sure the 1.03 patch should include 57mm canister rounds also for the AT guns and not only for the T-34-57.

[edited for spelling]

[ May 29, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Amedeo ]

[Chad Harrison]

Okay, I watched the posts at work and did not want to post until I was able to do some real CM testing.

It would seem that there is a consensus that there was one form or another of 'canister' shot. While not a classical canister shot, it still held the same principle {as was pointed out, a big shotgun effect}. Okay, like I said at the get go, I can understand that it was used in the war by both the Russians and the Germans. I knew the Ami's used it in the PTO with the 37mm gun, but I had never heard of it used at all in the ETO. So, I know now and thats just fine.

How common was it really? A couple numbers have been thrown around saying that tanks would carry about 6 or so shells; some of which were homemade. Sure, that is believeable. Thats real life, now lets talk about CM. I ran some random tests of 27 T34 and KV-1 tanks in 1941 and 1945. Guess what the average number of canister shells was? Guess what the maximum numbers of canister shells was?

1941: Out of 27 tanks the average load was 6.67 Canister shells, with 6 of those tank having over 15 shells, and one having a whopping 21 shells of canister!! :eek:

1945: Out of 27 tanks the average load was 9.7 canister shells, with 10 of those tanks having over 15 shells and one coming in with a grand slam of 24 canister shells AND 7 tungsten shells!!! :eek:

Okay, were they really that common? 15+ canister shells on nearly 25% of tanks? Yes it was a rough test, but still. Do it yourself. Do it 50 times. I would be very interested to see the results of that test. My guess is that CM finds how many canister shells there are as a random percentage of total shells in the tank. But those 20 shellers were the T34's not the KV's. Again I do not have any real world references on how many shells would be realistic, but is 15+ canister shells that common? I have a very hard time believing so.

Now lets talk about damage. I took the same setup with 27 tanks and threw in some german infantry in scattered trees, woods, tall pines, light building, and heavy building. I set up the tanks at both 30m and 50m and turned off all FOW so the tanks could see them okay.

Before I get to the results, lets talk about the previous posts. If a ten man squad was running in the open and was fired on with a canister shell from under 40 or so meters I would not be surprised at all if they were all killed. That seems to be the real world use of a tank canister shell in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, ect. Now take that same squad and put them in woods, or tall pines with good cover. They are fired upon with a canister shell from 30 meters out. Now correct me if I am wrong, but there is no way a soldier behind a 12" pine tree is going to be hit from the shell. Sure a few guys might be hit, but the effects would be less than a HE shell I would say. Now lets say that same squad is in a building, light or heavy. The same tank at the same distance fires. I would not believe it if you told me that more than 2 or 3 of the men were put out of action especially in a heavy building constructed of brick. These are assumptions of the real world, but thats all I have to work off of.

Okay now in CM as was pointed out the canister shells are proboably given a firepower rating of X, which depletes over range. Good way to do it, except for the fact that I dont think that cover plays into the firepower equation. Okay, so the results of my testing. What would your guess be on how many men would be 'killed' {remember that in CM just because there are listed as being 'killed' means a number of things, not all of which are them being killed or incapacitated} from a canister shell at 30m if they were in tall pines? Woods? Light or heavy building?

You ready for this. Even when their heads were down {pinned from the tank MG fire before they would fire} and they were taking cover from that fire ONE canister shot from one tank at 30m would consistently take out 9 men in a heavy building! There were some 6, or 7 casulties, but there were also a bunch of 10 casulties! Same goes for any terrain. Lowest value for canister casulties was 3, and that was only once. In any terrain, with one shot you could expect to take out atleast 7 of them and a 9 or 10 casulty shot was not uncommon!

Okay, is this right? Sure I could do more testing and get more real to CM results, but that was enough for me. I ran the battle three times and came up with the same results, and that was good enough to make my point. I am not complaining because I always get killed by canister or something. I use it just as much as the next player, and I love it. BUT, it is not realistically modelled and is way too common.

Simple solution. You can leave the number of shells as a random percentage, but put a limit on it. Nine shells? Seven shells? But for peng's sake not 22 shells. Then terrain needs to be a much larger factor in its damage. In open ground anybody hit with a canister shell under 30m is toast. But in a heavy building? Tone down the canister shells from the small thermal nuclear brick and tree penetrating uber exploding space monkeys spewing rocket propelled grenades and plasma.

Just my two cents atleast.

Chad

{I just realized how long my post was. For a split second I felt like Jason }

[Gpig]

I LOVE cannister in CMBB! I use it with my tanks whenever I can.

But I also HATE cannister, when used against me.

All of the weapons systems in CM have their use AND a defense against their use.

Cannister has a use, alright. But the defense against their use is just "don't be on the map, if cannister is flying!" (Not always a relevant defense.)

AT guns? Use a mortar. Enemy tank? Use a tank hunter team. (or another tank.) Enemy aircraft? Use some FLAK. Enemy infantry? Use some HE. Enemy Arty? Use some cover . . .

Why doesn't cover work for cannister?

It's deadly stuff, but taking cover in a heavy building/church should provide relative safety for a cannister round.

Unfortunately, it does NOT. (In my experience.)

Still, I freakin' LOVE this game!

Gpig

[Michael Dorosh]

Umm....does turning off fog of war have any effect on the Tac AI? I thought it was only to let the player see where the enemy was. Turning off the fog of war should have had no effect on the spotting ability of the troops, no?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

In the game infantry in foxholes heads-down is not counted as 100% behind cover so you still get casualties. Heads-down in trenches you'd be more secure, in craters less secure.

[rolling eyes]

Yes, sir.

It does. Nobody said anything else.

However, the point here is that the same cover protects better against canister than against 7.62mm bullets.

Need an example with math?

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Umm....does turning off fog of war have any effect on the Tac AI? I thought it was only to let the player see where the enemy was. Turning off the fog of war should have had no effect on the spotting ability of the troops, no?

I dont know for sure. I turned it off for my test so my tanks could spot the troops at that range without problems; and it makes it easyily to calcualte casulties for sure. At that close range, tanks dont have time to spot very well. Grenades and grenade bundles took out a few tanks, but I rarely see tanks that close {unless its someone who has no idea what they are doing}.

The argument that you should not get your troops that close has nothing to do with this conversation. This thread is not about game balance, it is about making this game shine as a example of realism. The question is whether or not canister was really that common and was it really that deadly?

Chad

[rexford]

I have a German report on 7.62cm ammo, and there is a big section entitled "Anleitung zum Schiessen mit russischen Schrapnells". Guidance for shooting with Russian shrapnels

Shows a gun firing and the little balls are spreading out and forming a roundish shape on the ground. Cross sectional drawings of the various projectiles show lots of tiny balls in each 7.62cm Schr. Patr. projectile.

"Der Streukegel hat einen Winkel von durchschnittlich 15°, das heisst, die Kugeln treffen in 80 m Enterfernung eine Flache von 20 m breite: die Lange ist je nach dem Einfallwinkel verschieden"

Translated as:

"The strewing cone has an angle of on the average 15 degrees, i.e., the balls meet a flat from 20 m broad in 80 m Enterfernung: the long one is different depending upon the angle of incidence"

The drawing that goes with the above statement shows a 20m wide oblong shape on the ground at 80m range from the gun, with balls landing all over the shape.

"Die Zunderstellung in der Schusstafel ist so angegeben, dass der mittlere Sprengpunkt fur Ziele in der mundungswaagerechten 80 m vor dem ziel liegt. Er wind dem beobachter vom Geschutz knapp uber dem ziel (2 bis 5) erscheinen. Jnfolge der streuung wird eine kleine anzahl von geschossen unvermeidlich am boden aufschlagen. (Deshalb auch AZ). Diese sind nahezu wirkungslos, mussen aber in kauf genommen werden, da andererseits auch zu hohe sprengpunkte keine Wirkung haben".

The scale position in the firing table is in such a way indicated that the middle bursting point lies fur goals in the mouth-horizontal 80 m before the goal. It wind the observer of the Geschutz the goal (2 to 5) appear scarcely more uber. Jnfolge of the dispersion a small number of shot inevitable at the soil to impact. (therefore also AZ). These

are almost ineffective, mussen however in purchase to be taken, since on the other hand also to high bursting points do not have effect

Balls that hit the soil are ineffective?

There is a firing table for 7.62cm Schr Patr fired at several muzzle velocities. At 626 m/s, the 50% scatter pattern has a height of 1.1m at 1000m and a length of 55m. "Ein Teilstrich der Zunderstellung verlegt d. Sprengpunkt nach der Hohe Lange"

What does this all mean?

[Holman]

I may be wrong, as I'm going from memory of a game played about two months ago, but doesn't CMBB accurately model the low velocity of cannister shot? I seem to recall seeing cannister fired at a very noticeable ballistic arc when used at ranges more than 75m or so. I assume that if it's visually correct this way, it's probably also modelled as having much less velocity than a more flat trajectory shell.

Anyone know?

[Amedeo]

Another interesting page from the site that contains the "Artilleriia" book I was referring to above, speaks of an episode of the Russo-Polish war in which an isolated Red battery repulsed Polish cavalry charges opening fire with canister at 300m! I presume that the guns in question were of the 76mm calibre since the typical horse artillery battery of the '20s should have been equipped with the old 3" field gun. Thus the Soviets might indeed have a large stockpile of 76mm canister shots at the beginning of WW2.

Regards,

Amedeo

[rune]

Chad,

I disagree with you. A typical tank had 4-8 shells normally, quite possible and realistic that tanks hoarded ammo and had more then the typical load out. So quite possible to have more then 9 rounds. 15 rounds is not unbelievable, and is within the realm of possibilities.

As for the effect, here is from a real tanker:

" Having lots of real life battlefield experince with the 90mm cannister round , I feel the 76mm cannister in the game is not as destuctive and effective as it should be. Even fired at bunkers the cannister pellets entering the firing slots cause high casualities.

Just my 2 cents worth. "

Now, let us look at the "low velocity". The 47mm cannister round is listed as 700m/s. 30 meters away, the velocity hasn't dropped much. Unit is near the wall, what is the case shot made of?

"Canister shot shell 244,5mm long. Bakelite caseing holds 137 lead/antimony balls." [Note 45mm, the 76mm had more- around 930]

Having seen a black powder pistol fired at 50 yards, using a miniball, it most certainly can penetrate a 2" thick piece of wood and come out with enough force to kill someone. Someone else has said the same thing. I do not know the velocity of a black powder pistol [anyone know?] but i expect it to be slower then 700 m/s. I certainly can see it killing or wounding 9 people. Do the same test and move the unit 10 meters into the building, notice a drop off in the number of wounded/killed?

Last point, to the person who said case shot was wear and tear on the barrels, please cite an example. Several tankers I talked to all said the same thing, there was no additional wear/tear on the barrel. I will go with their knowledge unless you have proof. Bullethead, I know you said it also depends on how the shell was packed [wadding?] and if there was damage int he barrel already.

Rune

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

Okay, were they really that common? 15+ canister shells on nearly 25% of tanks?

Where's the problem? That by implication, and looking at your averages, means that there were nearly 25% of tanks with 2-3 rounds of cannister. That clearly is not enough, and I want BTS to fix it or sumfink. Have you never seen a bell-curve?

Or would you prefer that every T34 in the game has 6-7 rounds as a standard loadout?

In game-terms, this variance is very welcome, because it means that not all cannister will be used. How likely is it that the one tank with 20 rounds will go through all of the cannister rounds? How likely is it that the one tank at the opposite end of the bell curve, with 1-2 rounds would need more? How likely is it that your opponent obliges you to attack with infantry just where the one tank with 20+ rounds is?

In one recent game, I had one T34 with 19 rounds cannister. It was also the only one T34 that was conscript, and it lost its commander through an air-burst, leaving it permanently out of command (45 sec delay on orders). It used two cannister rounds against infantry stupidly assaulting it in the open, at 30m, from the front. The other 17 were never fired. Thank you very much.

At the opposite end of the board, my opponent put in an infantry attack when the two T34s there had run out of cannister, because they had 3 rounds between them. I would much have preferred all of them to have six rounds.

[Caesar]

Can someone clear something up for me. Did canister shells fire sort of like grapeshot or shot gun cartidges or was it a shell that burst having left the barrel.

If it was the former then I would have expected it to have had very limited range effect and keeping down in cover (foxholes, craters etc) would be extremely effective. If it is a shell that explodes then its effect on good cover is at least explainable, maybe even reasonable.

On the other hand, I ususally seem to end up playing Russian and I don't think I have ever seen it have the devastating effects quoted in this thread (and others) Are people quoting the extreme cases or have I just been very unlucky.

[Engel]

Originally posted by rune:

I do not know the velocity of a black powder pistol

Typically slightly under 300 m/sec, depending on the barrel length, shot weight, charge and powder type. That is, if you are talking about "loose powder" weapons and not black powder cartridges, which can go somewhat higher (but not much). You need to bear in mind that these weapons typically use heavy calibres, so their performance is better than you could expect by looking at the muzzle velocity alone.

And if the pistol was using minie balls, it was probably rifled, meaning increased accuracy and power; the later black powder era weapons are by no means ineffective and generally don't fit into the image of black powder weapons as weak.

[ May 30, 2003, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[John D Salt]

[Nonsense deleted]

[ May 30, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

John, I don't follow your calculations here. I agree that the proportion range/radius is 10:1 for each circumference you might obtain secating the cone with a plane perpendicular to its axis, but if this is true why are your figures relative to the circle's area are so high? Shouln't we have, for the first case, 5m x 5 m x 2.14159... that is about 78.5 square metres and not 247.

Moreover, if you assume the average target be half a metre wide and 1.5m tall, you should end up with a target surface of 0.75 square metres and not 1.5.

Am I missing something?

Regards,

Amedeo

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Man-sized targets in the cone of effect are assumed to be half a metre wide and 1.5 m tall, giving a target area, t, of 1.5 m^2.

Since you are ignoring cover, I have trouble bringing the suggested height of 1.5m in relation with the well-known tendency of German soldiers to be right strapping lads of Aryan superhumanity with blonde hair and chiseled chins, and an average height of say 1.75m including boots and helmets.

You are not assuming that the targets belong to that famous unit of vertically challenged acolytes of Adolf, the 289th SS-Division 'Rumpelstilzchen'?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Amedeo:

John, I don't follow your calculations here. I agree that the proportion range/radius is 10:1 for each circumference you might obtain secating the cone with a plane perpendicular to its axis, but if this is true why are your figures relative to the circle's area are so high? Shouln't we have, for the first case, 5m x 5 m x 2.14159... that is about 78.5 square metres and not 247.

Moreover, if you assume the average target be half a metre wide and 1.5m tall, you should end up with a target surface of 0.75 square metres and not 1.5.

Am I missing something?

No, I am posting complete crap.

A few minutes while I re-jig the figures, this time using an ability to multiply accurately...

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

No, I am posting complete crap.

And suffering from double-posting finger-trouyble, too.

All the best,

John.

[ May 30, 2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]