WP in CMAK

[Mr. Tittles]

Recently in a thread about HE effects on armor, it was brought up that WP is modeled in CMXX as being non-lethal. I only own CMBB so this was news to me.

I think that someone said that it was desired that its effects not be over modeled. Or something.

I can see that infantry WP hand grenades might be over modeled but to not model WP shells from tank guns and indirect artillery seems an oversight.

WP shells fired from guns like the US 75mm sherman tank used the same shells as HE rounds. These rounds had a HE central filling to break open the shell (the HE was less than a regular HE round but still strong enough to break the shell). The result on the target end is a nice bang, a smattering of shrapnel and the chemical reaction of the WP with the atnosphere.

Since the rifled guns fired a spun shell, this rotational energy would be transferred to the resultant shrapnel. Any piece, small or large, would be a deadly projectile.

I think the modeling of WP breaks down to 3 cases;

1. Infantry grenades (hand and rifle)

2. mortar rounds (mostly non-spun and thin walled)

3. Rifled guns (arty and tank guns)

I don't think WP grenades needs special modeling. They could be treated like regular grenades as far as effect with a great chance of raising dust/small smoke. They should be tracked like regular grenades are.

I think WP mortor rounds should produce instant smoke and have some displacing/morale effect. Troops hit by them will move to other cover/be suppressed.

I think guns/arty should have more of an 'HE' type effect in addition to the effects like the mortar WP.

I would bet that a WP shell fired by a gun like the sherman 75mm could easily break most tank tracks with a direct hit. As it was put forth in the other thread, these shells had some real kinetic energy.

I can email cross sectional views of 75mm HE and WP shells.

[ October 19, 2003, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Kestrl]

These are the only types for ammunition for CMBB

he – High Explosive (HE )

ap – Armor Piercing (AP )

hc – Hollow Charge (HC )

c – Canister (C )

t – Tungsten (T )

s – Smoke (S )

They don’t model White Phosphorus rounds in either CMBO or CMBB at least yet.

[flamingknives]

Somwhere in the manual (don't have mine with me, so I can't check) it mentions that the offensive properties of WP is not included to prevent ahistorical overuse.

Reading various documents indicates that this is a significant omission, as US forces, at least, were well aware of the usefulness of WP as a weapon and used it frequently.

[...................................]

I never knew Word Processing could be so dangerous. If it is in then can we have spreadsheets as well? It will be handy for AARs.

[Sergei]

I think Warsaw Pact wasn't formed until West Germany joined NATO, and WP certainly didn't have activities in North Africa or Italy.

[flamingknives]

Honestly, you lot are hopeless.

WP clearly stands for Wet Pudding, and refers to the practice of tank crews creating a field expedient round using the stodgy desserts found in British Compo.

Similar in design and effect to case shot, it was found to be more forgiving on the rifling than stones or steel shot.

Extensive research indicated that waterlogged suet pudding had the best balance of range and coverage.

The Germans called it the Vergehennassmehlspeisewerfer.

[Mr. Tittles]

The Rangers assaulted the house and Lt Moody kicked in the door, killed the officer in charge and led the search of the trenches dug behind. The Rangers began the systematic destruction of the pillboxes and positions using grenades, rifles and even their bayonets. Lt Moody was killed clearing one pillbox and command fell to Lt Saloman. Sgt Belcher led a furious charge of German machine gun positions that were pouring a murderous fire down onto OMAHA. Using white phosphorous grenades, the Rangers cooly shot the Germans as they fled the burning positions.

http://www.grunts.net/army/rangers.html

I think this demonstrates what WP grenades can do. That is, make a position uninhabitable.

[Mr. Tittles]

WP on ebaY!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2197473596&category=4720

I have seen WP rifle grenades but this is the first bazooka WP round I have seen.

[rleete]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

WP clearly stands for Wet Pudding...

Food grog.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by R Leete:

Food grog.

Yep, that's usually the order in which I partake.

Food, then Grog.

I'm not one of theose French types who eats and drinks at the same time

[Mr. Tittles]

WP stands for Waffling Pengsters. A unique cross breeding of mutants that's suffering from chuckleheaditus.

The least the management could do is come in here and say "NO! You can not have that".

{{{thread pans to a shopping mall near you}}}}}

SantaMatt: So what would you like for Xmas little soldier?

CMAKfan: uh, uh, lots of Willy Peter, panzer IV turrets that are like real small, transparent halftracks so I can see inside...

SantaMatt: NO! NO! NO! AHHHH-HaHa-HARRR Get out of here kid and GET A LIFE!!! NO! NO! NO!!!

CMAKfan: WAAAAAHHH!!!! MOMMMMYYYYY!!!!

[ October 19, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Determinant]

WP has two effects: it produces lots of instant smoke and it burns. In modern British ammo 81 mm mortars produce smoke from bursting WP while artillery rounds squirt non-WP smoke out their bottoms (presumably the shells are filled with furiously chain-smoking daemons - I'm unclear about the science).

The distinction is that the mortar rounds produce a useable smoke screen much more quickly than artillery. But the mortars also have a significant anti-personnel effect. Which is not to say that artillery smoke shells do not have any anti-personnel effect, particularly if you were to be hit by one, but such precisely targeted shooting is beneath the dignity of the Royal Regiment of Artillery and considered unsporting.

In conclusion 81 mm mortar WP is a very useful round. It is often fired in conjunction with HE rounds and colloquially this devilish combination is called 'mixed fruit pudding' thus confirming flamingknives comments above.

[ October 19, 2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Determinant ]

[Mr. Tittles]

WWII US 75mm WP shells relied on the burster charge to split open the shell. The spinning of the shell and bursting charge would dispense the WP and shell fragments. The base of the shell is quite thick.

I have a drawing of a M64 WP 75mm shell in cross section. Perhaps someone could post it somewhere so that it can be linked here?

I think it is a fine point but there is a difference between mortor/grenade WP and gun fired WP. The gun fired WP would be very much more deadly. It would not have the HE level of deadliness of a typical 75mm HE shell but to not model its WP/HE/Splintering effect is leaning in the wrong design direction.

If nothing else, does CMBO model WP so that it produces smoke without the usual delay seen in CMBB?

[flamingknives]

Nope to that last.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Determinant:

WP has two effects: it produces lots of instant smoke and it burns. In modern British ammo 81 mm mortars produce smoke from bursting WP while artillery rounds squirt non-WP smoke out their bottoms (presumably the shells are filled with furiously chain-smoking daemons - I'm unclear about the science).

The distinction is that the mortar rounds produce a useable smoke screen much more quickly than artillery. But the mortars also have a significant anti-personnel effect. Which is not to say that artillery smoke shells do not have any anti-personnel effect, particularly if you were to be hit by one, but such precisely targeted shooting is beneath the dignity of the Royal Regiment of Artillery and considered unsporting.

In conclusion 81 mm mortar WP is a very useful round. It is often fired in conjunction with HE rounds and colloquially this devilish combination is called 'mixed fruit pudding' thus confirming flamingknives comments above.

That was quite amusing old chap. As one of the Gang of Four™ who control this forum, I would like to let you know that you may continue to post in this vein.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Nope to that last.

So weapon systems that fire WP in any specific form are no different than smoke shells? I would assume then infantry can not 'throw'/fire (rifle type) smoke grenades at all?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Determinant:

...artillery rounds squirt non-WP smoke out their bottoms (presumably the shells are filled with furiously chain-smoking daemons - I'm unclear about the science).

Heavy indulgence in Mexican food can have that as an outcome. (Keeping with the tenor of this thread.)

Michael

[ October 19, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

So weapon systems that fire WP in any specific form are no different than smoke shells? I would assume then infantry can not 'throw'/fire (rifle type) smoke grenades at all?

WP simply does not exist in any form at all in CM at present.

Michael

[SgtMuhammed]

I think infantry smoke is part of the infantry abstractions. One of those things that happen but we never see.

In general I think WP falls into the realm of control. It would be far too easy to abuse these rounds if they were included unless there were a lot of built in controls, meaning more programing work for one and more player gripes about "unrealistic" constraints.

WP was not as common and widely used as many seem to think and certainly not as comon as it would become were it included in the game. Hmmm...instant smoke that starts fires and kills things, no it wouldn't get abused.

As it stands I don't miss them nearly as much as I think I would hate them if they were in.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

I think infantry smoke is part of the infantry abstractions. One of those things that happen but we never see.

In general I think WP falls into the realm of control. It would be far too easy to abuse these rounds if they were included unless there were a lot of built in controls, meaning more programing work for one and more player gripes about "unrealistic" constraints.

WP was not as common and widely used as many seem to think and certainly not as comon as it would become were it included in the game. Hmmm...instant smoke that starts fires and kills things, no it wouldn't get abused.

As it stands I don't miss them nearly as much as I think I would hate them if they were in.

I don't quite see how that is a compelling argument. If it's modelled accurately, then surely it will get used as it did in real life - extensively - according to the 'Combat Lessons' series of pamphlets published towards the tail end of WWII

The availability of WP can easily be modelled by using historical limits on the numbers of such shells.

Excluding WP on these grounds is like excluding HE, as it would be abused?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Excluding WP on these grounds is like excluding HE, as it would be abused?

I don't think so, as HE was abundantly available and extensively used. WP was not nearly in that same class. That said, I hope to see it in CMII (or whatever alias it is using these days) and realistic rules written for its use.

Michael

[flamingknives]

OK, some of the rarer vehicles might be more comparable.

Or the .50cal AA mount on a Sherman - these get overused fairly often.

WP was there, albeit in limited numbers, and was used. Why exclude it? Saying it will be overused doesn't make sense.

[flamingknives]

More from the "Combat Lessons" pamphlets:

“A srnoke screen about 500 feet high and 3 miles long was placed on the north side of the VOLTURNO River to cover bridge-building operations. This screen was maintained for 11 hours of daylight during one day, and continued during the night by using smoke pots. On the second day it was again maintained by mortar fire for 6 hours; 3,800 WP filled mortar shells were fired. The rate of fire, after the screen was established, was one shell each 15 seconds."

And

“A number of enemy snipers were in an iso lated stone farmhouse. Fifty rounds of observed HE fire knocked the house apart and 40 rounds of white phosphorus(WP) poured into the debris eliminated the snipers."

Both refer to use of the US 4.2" mortar.

[Mr. Tittles]

I dont doubt that WP was used by US Mortors extensively. The 4.2 inch even had rifling I believe.

If the concern is ahistorical misuse, this could be handled like the tungsten rounds perhaps.

Perhaps only a linited WP are 'present' and the rest are generic smoke.

Another method may be to only area fire these rounds, not have units be the target.

In any case, to not have them in the game, and to have things like cannister or molotov cocktails present, does not seem quite right.

Infantry WP grenades could be modeled as molotov cocktails by the way. With a greater increase in fire and resultant smoke.

North Afrika would have been fine without WP but Italy should have them. The US was on an offensive war footing and the use of WP was part of the program It was not ahistorical, it was a weapon that the enemy probably wished they could use.

[winkelried]

The only reference for WP shells I found in my readings is the battle described by Belton Y. Cooper in his book "Death Traps". He describes how a company of Shermans (17 tanks) got shot up by a few King Tigers. One Sherman 75 took two KT's out with WP ammo, before getting hit. Only one other KT was destroyed by a 76 Sherman.

Cooper describes, that the KT crews bailed out, after they got hit by the WP because they believed that the KT had been seriousely hit. He also says, that the fumes of the WP entered the crew compartement through the engine room and a crack in the front plate (where the upper and the lower front plate were connected).

Only one of the 17 Shermans seems to have used the WP ammo, obviousely there was no SOP to use this ammo. This supports the CMXX people's attitude on not including this type of ammo in the game.