WP in CMAK

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.g2mil.com/Heavy-Mortars.htm

This doesnt have anything to do with the thread. just a cool site. He brings up a good question, when does a spin stabilized shell 'turn over' when fired at an angle?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

1. Units in buildings. Infantry trying to take cover in most unfortified structures hit by a 75mm WP round (SQ fuze setting), would be treated to a hail of large shell fragments coming through the wall.

Why should we assume that? In the first place, fragments from a WP round are going to be traveling much slower than those of an HE round due to the much smaller explosive charge in a WP round. Then add in variations in the resistance of different wall materials, thicknesses, etc. The amount of fragment penetration might be large, small, or none at all.

Example: The ATG in a house. This was discussed by the tankers in one of the links I posted. They must have inspected the crew closely afterwards because they reported that they just found a pair of feet. This supports the forward directed blast/fragmentation effect.

It might, but I would suspect other causes, such as the rest of the bodies were consumed in the resulting fire.

Michael

[Mr. Tittles]

The plain physical fact is that the round is going a considerable velocity either in its whole form or in broken parts. This naturally comes from the velocity of translation. Whats the metal in one of these weigh? 12 pounds? The added velocity of its spin rate, soemthing like 20,000 rpm, is also translated into a velocity component. Even without the HE burster adding its kick, the plain fact of the matter is that a bunch of Steel is flying very rapidly.

For the sake of argument, lets say the shell broke up into 50 equal parts. (I know, impossible, but humor me and read on.) Thats 50 1/4 pound pieces of steel going at least a couple thousand feet per second lets say. They are all traveling basically in a cone in a forward direction.

I leave it for you to ponder.

[Mr. Tittles]

Anyone have webhosting that they would like to post a drawing on? Or direct me where to get free web hosting. I would like to put a nice cross sectional drawing of a WP shell.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

It might, but I would suspect other causes, such as the rest of the bodies were consumed in the resulting fire.

Michael

The flesh and bones were consumed beyond recognition? The feets wasn't? Is this what you are saying?

[Wol]

If you let me know what the weight of shell is, and weight of explosive, I can tell you what the empirically derived theoretical residual velocity is to a first approximation. Better still if you can give me the shell specs indicating wall thickness and and distribution of explosive. I can give you a more accurate result.

[Mr. Tittles]

Well, alright, I can give a cross sectional diagram of the shell!! I think the weights, etc are doable!

All we need now is more knucklehead doubting posts and we might have ourselves a real party!!!

WOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

It might, but I would suspect other causes, such as the rest of the bodies were consumed in the resulting fire.

Michael

The flesh and bones were consumed beyond recognition? The feets wasn't? Is this what you are saying? </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

All we need now is more knucklehead doubting posts...

It's far from knuckleheaded to doubt some of your more extravagant claims. In fact, if I were you, I'd be cautious about introducing such words into the discussion. They might come back to haunt you.

Michael

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Wol:

If you let me know what the weight of shell is, and weight of explosive, I can tell you what the empirically derived theoretical residual velocity is to a first approximation. Better still if you can give me the shell specs indicating wall thickness and and distribution of explosive. I can give you a more accurate result.

I would say 12 pound weight of shell (just the metal), wall thickness is 12mm, HE is about 1/3 pound. HE is like a cylindrical shape down the center of shell. Its about 16mm diameter. WP takes up rest of filling.

Use a forward velocity of 2000 fps and a rotational velocity of 20,000 rpm, if they play in

[Mr. Tittles]

The Sherman first fired a white phosphorous round into the corners of the opposite hedgerow to eliminate German heavy machine-gun positions.

This remark uses the word eliminate. It does not say 'blind ' or discomfort or obscurate. It has a very destructive intent. The German Heavy MGs with their large tripods would probably be blown away by the combined HE blast, WP generated fireball and resultant fragments directed at the position. The position would then be untenable for at least a minute as the WP continues to burn.

[Mr. Tittles]

I would like to reiterate and refine some of the points this thread is about. Just for clarification.

1. Infantry grenades both hand and rifle propelled were used by US troops in WWII with frequency and effect. I would like to see them modeled in the game but controlled by the AI like molotov cocktails/demo charges are. They should share molotov cocktails incindiery effects with a grenade like effect. They should produce smoke/heavy dust to simulate the smoke effect. Perhaps the game could give a percentage chance that a normal grenade has a chance to be WP. Perhaps issued like molotov with platoon/company/bn HQs having them when present.

2. Mortar fire WP. The 4.2 inch should have a definite instaneous smoke producing effect from its heavy payload of WP. This shell should also produce infantry casualties from its HE-burst/fragmentation and WP effects. 81mm also should show these effects but at a reduced/concentrated localization. The 81mm does not share the 4.2inch rifling and spin effect of scattering WP and fragments. It should produce instant smoke. 60mm does not seem to have a WP round till late in the war. All WP mortar fire should have an incidiery effect on appropriate terrain and targets.

3. Direct fire/Indirect fire WP. Mostly sherman 75mm, 75mm pack howitzer (M8 Scott)and 105mm and 155mm US artillery. Work in progress.

[ October 29, 2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Jim Gifford: I was up in the turret. Up ahead there was a split in the road, and there was an antitank gun in the lobby of a hotel. So I hollered for white phosphorous. We fired a white phosphorous into the lobby, and it blew out, later we saw the gun in there, and there was a guy behind it, and there was nothing but his boots, that white phosphorous wiped him right off the face of the earth. But then we went up on the sidewalk and started scraping that brick building, and something made me look to the right, and here was a second story window and there was a Kraut standing there with a gun right at my face, and he fired it. I looked at him, he looked at me, and he fires the gun, and it went either to the left or the right of me, and then he disappeared back into the room. That was the damnedest thing I ever saw.

Heres the excerpt about the ATG in a hotel. I will let people come up with conclusions.

My conclusion is that the shell exploded violently and the effects of the explosion and fragments/WP creamed the guy. No spontaneous combustion or cremations.

[Mr. Tittles]

Heres an drawing of an airburst artillery round. It is traveling right to left and downward.

Notice the forward spray of fragments. They are effected by the forward motion of the shell and the HE blasting them out (also the rotation of the shell unleashing).

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/targets.html

My contention is that IF a bursting smoke shell has less HE than a typical HE shell, its frag pattern angles forward. It vectors more towards the forward path of the shell. The fragments are probably larger than a full HE shell, but the amount of weight of fragments is the same and travel along teh path of the projectile.

In the case of direct fire, like the sherman 75mm WP round, a hit on or in front of a target has devastating results from the blast/fragments and the WP.

[ October 29, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Some more thoughts, the back spray would be reduced or even negligible. the back of the shell (thickest part) would probably stay in one piece.

[Mr. Tittles]

The Howtar.

http://marinememoir02.homestead.com/Harry03.html

I am Surpised that the 4.2 inch wasnt vehicle mounted on a reinforced halftrack or maybe a obsolete stuart tank chassis in WWII.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The Sherman first fired a white phosphorous round into the corners of the opposite hedgerow to eliminate German heavy machine-gun positions.

This remark uses the word eliminate. It does not say 'blind ' or discomfort or obscurate. It has a very destructive intent. The German Heavy MGs with their large tripods would probably be blown away by the combined HE blast, WP generated fireball and resultant fragments directed at the position. The position would then be untenable for at least a minute as the WP continues to burn.

From dictionary.cambridge.org:

eliminate [show phonetics]

verb

1 [T] to remove or take away:

A move towards healthy eating could help eliminate heart disease.

We eliminated the possibility that it could have been an accident.

The police eliminated him from their enquiries.

2 [T often passive] to defeat someone so that they cannot continue in a competition:

He was eliminated in the third round of the competition.

3 [T] SLANG to murder:

A police officer was accused of helping a drug gang eliminate rivals.

As a non-native speaker of English, eliminate in English does not have the same connotation as 'eliminieren' in German does. It is used constantly in conversation in 'non-destructive intent' ways, by me, and by native speakers. The quote above supports that interpretation of the word.

[Michael Emrys]

I agree with Andreas. The quote in question is ambiguous. To "eliminate" the MG positions may mean no more in this context than rendering them ineffective for the duration of the action, forcing their withdrawal, etc.

I would like it known that none of my criticism in this thread was ever intended to dispute the desirability of including it in CM. It was a formidable weapon and it was used as such. In fact, I argued for its inclusion in CM sometime in the first year after the release of BO, IIRC.

What I question is some of the more "expansive" claims made here for how widespread its use was. I do not find in my readings accounts of it being used in every firefight or battle. Far from it. It's almost never mentioned at all, and that would be odd given the claims made here for its spectacular effects and effectiveness. What I suspect is that except for the chemical mortar units in the US Army, it was rarely issued to front line units. For many weapons in the armies of Europe (including the USSR), even if WP may have been listed in the inventory, it was seldom if ever found in the actual units engaged in combat. It will require sorting through the actual supply chits of artillery and other units engaged in combat on the various fronts to determine exactly in what frequency it was encountered in combat.

Thus, my own suggestion that WP be included in CM, but only for those unit types for which it can be shown actually fired it in anger, and that probably some kind of rarity factor be applied even to them. This would allow a player to load up his Shermans or batteries or whatever with WP if he so chooses, but at a price that would reflect a real world commander's difficulty in obtaining it.

As to how BFC will handle this problem, my bet is even they do not know yet.

Michael

[ November 01, 2003, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[YankeeDog]

Not to turn this into a huge semantics debate, but generally speaking, in common English usage, the verb 'eliminate' refers to actions that are permanent. I agree with Andreas that 'eliminate' in the context at hand does not necessarily mean killed or destroyed - it could mean that the position was abandoned without casualties. It would be unlikely to mean simply temporarily blinded or suppressed. The quote at hand strongly suggests to me that the MG position was put out of action more or less permanently.

My own semi-educated guess is that WP's utility in forcing infantry out of heavy cover may be more due more to a combination of its incendiary, thermic, and caustic effects, than any casualty causing effect per se.

I do not doubt that WP rounds could cause casualties, and did. There certainly would be at least some splinter effect from the burst of the shell casing. Anyone unlucky enough to get actually hit by a significant fragment of WP would definitely be severely burned. It is worth noting the WP burns are especially nasty as the by-products of the combustion reaction are toxic and have a number of bad effects on the body. As such there may be a 'fear factor' to its effectiveness in a weapon system (as if being horribly burned wasn't enough).

Beyond this, it is also my understanding that the smoke itself generated by WP is caustic in nature and causes severe irritation to mucus membranes in the eyes and breathing passages. Given that WP smoke tends to hang about for quite some time unless there is something like a strong breeze to disperse it, I suspect that much of WP's effect on dug-in MGs and guns may be the result of the caustic effect of the smoke. It's very difficult to aim and fire a weapon when you're coughing uncontrollably and your eyes are so watery you can barely see. Add to this large amounts of heat and the possibility of fires started by the WP, and perhaps a casualty or two from the initial burst, and it doesn't surprise me at all that infantry units hit by a WP round would at least choose to pack up and move elsewhere.

In general, I agree that the lack of WP in CM is dissapointing. While exactly what weapons systems should have WP rounds, and with what freqency, might be open to debate, I think it is clear that at least some types of WP (4.2" mortar, for example) were used frequently enough in real combat situations to merit their inclusion in CM. I also think it is clear that the effects of a WP round are different enough from a regular smoke round to merit separate modeling.

Cheers,

YD

[CMplayer]

Mr Tittles, admit it, the real reason you want WP is that the explosions look so cool and 'spiky' with the big whitehot fireball and all those glowing, smoking fragments sailing out in all directions. You, like I, would love to see that in your CM movies.

[ November 01, 2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[SgtMuhammed]

I saw a 155 WP round hit once about 1000 meters from my position. Through the binos it loked like the sun bounding along the ground trailing a white cloud.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

I saw a 155 WP round hit once about 1000 meters from my position. Through the binos it loked like the sun bounding along the ground trailing a white cloud.

Ya see? Isn't that enough reason to put it in the game? It would look so friggin cool! It would probably burn a hole in the monitor just from the glare. No need to get into statistics and drag up crufty quotes from old WWII interviews. BTS do or fix sumfink!!!!

[Mr. Tittles]

Would you think the ATG in the hotel was eliminated?

I think most people would like to see this weapon system in the US/British inventories. Just so its clear, I have stated that 60mm WP seems to be non-existant until the later part of the war (maybe fall/winter 44). I have ONLY stated that 4.2 inch WAS a major user of these rounds. Data shows the WP to be nearly the equal in use as HE. If I have made excessive claims about others, please point it out and support it with data if you can.

US 81mm ONLY possesed a WP smoke round. If it fired smoke, it was firing WP. When doing our intensive 'readings' about WWII, we should interpret the words in our enlightened state. If I read a passage that says 'The sherman crews fired smoke into the village', I could surmise that it could be WP. If I read, '81mm mortars dropped smoke on the bunkers', I would surmise that it WAS WP.

Despite antagonistic remarks, I feel much of what is in this thread is factual and very little is extraordinarily baseless. Physics/chemistry rules the effects of direct fire WP.

A thing to ponder is how fast rumors spread on a battlefield. Something that also spreads quickly is information about how to destroy the enemy. Feignts, ruses, techniques, dirty-tricks, etc are hot topics when its your life in the balance. In the case of the interview with the tankers, they claim to prefer WP over not only other smoke shells but ALSO HE.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Mr Tittles, admit it, the real reason you want WP is that the explosions look so cool and 'spiky' with the big whitehot fireball and all those glowing, smoking fragments sailing out in all directions. You, like I, would love to see that in your CM movies.

OK you got me.

I would also want the fleeing infantry graphic to include the guys waving their hands frantically and picking WP out their butts.

[Mr. Tittles]

indirect fire delay fuse. probably 105mm or 155mm modern round.

[ November 01, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]