Grenade and small HE effectiveness

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Other Means:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AdamL:

What about today's training? In this area what differences are there?

None that I can tell. Less emphasis on hand to hand combat possibly. </font>

[The_Enigma]

I dont quite fully understand the concept of because someone is a volunteer he will preform better then others, ok i can see it over people who have been conscript and prehaps dont agree with the war or just dont want to fight etc but what about in comparison to the regulars, the guys who have been in alot longers - lifers or even those who have already seen combat?

Does "calibre" really get involved when you got some dude across the field shooting 10 pounds of poop out of you with a machine gun (ala the Somme, heres better of the 50+ thousand casulties that day a good deal where volunteers)?

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AdamL:

What about today's training? In this area what differences are there?

None that I can tell. Less emphasis on hand to hand combat possibly. </font>

[flamingknives]

As I understand it, while it is difficult to train someone to want to kill, it is much easier to get someone to engage a target. The closer that target is to the reality, the easier it is to blur the distinction. Hence pop-up targets, figure 11 targets (or whatever they are - the ones with the nasty-looking enemy soldier on) and laser/paintball training. Get the soldier to shoot before he has time to think about it.

S.L.A. Marshall (for all his faults) pointed out a need to engage point or area targets that were not obvious (that copse of trees, third window from the left, that sort of thing) I think, but am not sure, that this was subsequently adopted as part of training.

The idea of a volunteer doing better is probably linked to the training process. In units like the paras, you have volunteers, so you can fail them, to pick and choose your men and bond them together. As has been noted in many sources, soldiers fight not for ideals or nationalism, though they may join up for that reason, but they fight for the man next to them. If they have all been through an arduous training regime that bond is stronger. The more drive a man has the more arduous that training can be, so it can be more effective and the bond is stronger. Plus, with more stressful training the shock of the stress of combat is lessened.

If you make it so the trainees can quit, you get the cream, the most driven. So volunteers are better, if you take advantage of their being volunteers. Treat them like conscripts and that's what you'll get.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

S.L.A. Marshall (for all his faults) pointed out a need to engage point or area targets that were not obvious (that copse of trees, third window from the left, that sort of thing) I think, but am not sure, that this was subsequently adopted as part of training.

Fire orders at the section level go back to the First World War, though, so that's nothing new, either. Robert Graves has a memorable account of one of his platoon sergeants, IIRC, giving fire commands using a roadside calvary as a target, and giving the command "consecrate" instead of "concentrate". As I recall it from my basic training it was GRIT - Group, Range, Indication, Type, and I think that too dated back to the 1940s, if perhaps in a different name/acronym.

[Darkmath]

Originally posted by Kineas:

Trenches work in a strange way in CM. They are a narrow patch - to enter. Once a unit is in a trench, he has the same protection as if it was in a 20x20m trench-tile. So your trench become 2 dimensional.

So if a grenade finds its way into a trench and explodes, that doesn't mean half of the trench is cleared. The target unit has a lot better chance than in a woods tile.

(Though the nearness of the explosion indicates better hits in a wood tile, I don't know if this still applies to trenches)

You can check the trench vs HE effectiveness in the TOW demo. (Let's assume it is more realistic)

Are you really sure that trench is considered as a 9% exposure 20*20m terrain tile?

Anyway, the way CM represents trench as a wide linear dug in position may be a misrepresentation for the player?

In ToW for example , the trench are just 1,5m deep and quite tigh (less than the size two men can occupy) and connect different foxholes in a zig zagging pattern.

Some WW2 pictures seem to confirm how the trench looks like in ToW.

The trenches were desiged so that HE fragments could not do lethal damages ; you cannot see farther than 10 metres in a trench.

So, if a grenade is thrown in a trench , the fragments would be stopped quickly because of the tight alley and zig zag path.

However, at a larger scale, several grenades would be thrown in every places, so I don't think a squad in a trench would survive a such assault like it does in CM just by keeping the heads down.

[ June 27, 2007, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[Kineas]

I meant that an explosion in a trench is not a close explosion (like in tow), but an "abstract" explosion like what you can suffer in a scattered trees tile.

The ToW trenches are realistic. But, if a grenade find its way and explodes on the back wall of a trench, then every infantry unit must be 'knocked out' within a 5 meter radius, the concussion enough should be enough for this.

In a recent game I fired at a single trench with 5-6 T34s for at least 5 minutes continouosly (~800m, that's 150 grenade minimum, though not every one exploded in the trench), and the +2 morale Battalion HQ and another HQ unit still popped up their head.

[Guest Mike]

Concussion has almost no effect in open air - which is essentially what a trench is.

Only a small fraction of the fragments will pass along a trench (asopposed to into the walls), and the first person they encounter will likely stop all of them - so there's a practical limit of 2 casualties to a grenade in a trench unless there are people close packed around it's landing point.

[Kineas]

Okay, I don't have any concussion experience whatsoever (except when I was drunk and fell from a stage), but I simply don't believe that a - let's say - 76mm HE grenade going off 5meters from your head doesn't at least stun you for a while.

And a trench is definitely not open air, the blast wave can bounce back/between the trench walls.

Maybe someone with battle experience could enlighten us...?

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Concussion has almost no effect in open air - which is essentially what a trench is.

Only a small fraction of the fragments will pass along a trench (asopposed to into the walls), and the first person they encounter will likely stop all of them - so there's a practical limit of 2 casualties to a grenade in a trench unless there are people close packed around it's landing point.

[Broompatrol]

To SO, I'm not correcting you but adding a bit of general info to your post.

If you're speaking in terms of hand grenades I concur. But in general, as you start adding explosive the power increases at a mathematic progression. Large bombs release so much energy so quickly that it is like getting slapped with a wall of steel moving 500mph. But, It would be hard to throw a grenade that big very far.

If the grenade is close enough when it pops even in the open you can get stunned because eyes and ears are sensitive, but the concussion isn't what is considered lethal.

I will admit I have never had a grenade go off near me (but have had some pretty close calls with home made fireworks from crazy friends...ahh good times), so my knowledge of such things are purely scholarly

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Concussion has almost no effect in open air - which is essentially what a trench is.

[Guest Mike]

I agree - concussion from large amounts of explosive can be lethal - but it is subject to the inverse cube law, so the effect rapidly diminishes.

Concussion grenades usually have 3-4 times as much explosive as fragmentations ones (according to Wiki), while "stun" grenades do so with light and sound (millions of candlepower and 100+ decibels) to attack sight and hearing rather than using concussion/air pressure.

[JAFisher444]

flamingknives is correct. The major difference in training doctrine involves using reflex in shooting an enemy silhouette. Prior to this training doctrine soldiers were trained in rifle marksmanship with simple round targets. When they came up against troops they knew how to shoot straight but had to choose to use that skill to kill. Under modern training it has been instilled as reflex to shoot at a silhouette when it pops up. The soldier is then left to deal with the consequences of these actions, whether he (or she) is psychologically equipped or not. This is why there is such a higher occurrence of PTSD in modern soldiers.

According to most studies about 15% of soldiers are capable of killing voluntarily, the rest generally intentionally miss or even just don't fire and often hand off their ammo to those who will kill, and therefor run out of ammo faster.

[FAI]

I'm interested to see those studies.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by FAI:

I'm interested to see those studies.

There aren't any. The number is from S L A Marshall's "Men Against Fire", and his data-collection methods are long since discredited.

The general observation that combat soldiers seem to fall into three groups -- roughly one part "heroes" to two parts "sheep" to one part "column-dodgers" -- is, however, borne out by the independent observation of Lionel Wigram, and despite his dubious methods Marshall's conclusions are broadly accepted by such highly-regarded analysts as Dave Grossman and Dave Rowland. In turn, much of Marshall's view is based on the pioneering work of du Picq's "Etudes sur le combat". As an aside, Grossman is interesting in his claims about the "operant conditioning" of modern Western youth to kill without compunction.

To claim that a particular numerical participation rate is borne out by any rigorous study is I think over-egging it. It simply isn't practical to collect the data, and if anyone has done so they have done a remarkably fine job of keeping it hidden.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Kineas:

Okay, I don't have any concussion experience whatsoever (except when I was drunk and fell from a stage), but I simply don't believe that a - let's say - 76mm HE grenade going off 5meters from your head doesn't at least stun you for a while.

And a trench is definitely not open air, the blast wave can bounce back/between the trench walls.

Maybe someone with battle experience could enlighten us...?

Not battle experience, but I have been explosively concussed twice, once by a thunderflash and once by an SLR firing blank without a BFA. Neither of these involves very much explosive; it just has to be near enough to your head and it will render you completely unconscious for a few seconds, and disoriented for a few seconds more.

I should perhaps point out that I don't concuss easily, having a skull thick enough to withstand at different times a rounders bat between they eyes and a steel pipe in the back of the head without any trace of concussion. None of these events have had any permanent ill effects, and if you don't believe me you can ask my friend Peensmith the talking lamp-post.

All the best,

John.

[Broompatrol]

Would you please share your sources for the 15% figure with the appropriate citations and your credentials regarding your experience working with individuals with PTSD?

Obviously PTSD rates are higher now since it wasn't added to the DSM-III until 1980. So prior to 1980 there was no recognition of the disorder.

Originally posted by JAFisher444:

flamingknives is correct. The major difference in training doctrine involves using reflex in shooting an enemy silhouette. Prior to this training doctrine soldiers were trained in rifle marksmanship with simple round targets. When they came up against troops they knew how to shoot straight but had to choose to use that skill to kill. Under modern training it has been instilled as reflex to shoot at a silhouette when it pops up. The soldier is then left to deal with the consequences of these actions, whether he (or she) is psychologically equipped or not. This is why there is such a higher occurrence of PTSD in modern soldiers.

According to most studies about 15% of soldiers are capable of killing voluntarily, the rest generally intentionally miss or even just don't fire and often hand off their ammo to those who will kill, and therefor run out of ammo faster.

[ July 10, 2007, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Broompatrol ]

[Cantabron]

Back to topic: I once saw a conscript volksturm squad anahilate an entire russian squad with 4 grenades in less than 2 secs.

The volksturm was hiding on a second floor and the russians were walking on the pavement with their backs to the enemy.

The small arms fire lasted less than half a second so i guess most of the casualties were caused by the grenades.

[flamingknives]

The small arms fire comes in split-second 'bursts' that abstract a more sustained exchange. The firepower of a volksturm squad, with lots of submachineguns, is fairly substantial, so could quite easily destroy a Russian squad in short order. The grenades probably killed a few, but the lion's share would be small arms.

[PLM2]

I have to revert back to a thread I once started asking a similar question. Turned out to be quite an interesting discussion.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=003636#000000

I remember reading in a book called "On Combat" that using pop-up human shaped sillouette targets supposedly improved willingness to fire a lot.

Supposedly it has been a problem though, i've read some quotes of people intentionally missing targets as recent as Vietnam

[ July 16, 2007, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: PLM2 ]