Brent Pollock Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I'm all for including in WP in CM. Related to this, a while back, my son got me testing the ability of CM smoke rounds to cause casualties (this was about the same time we were checking out what all out of infantry/guns/AFVs/soft-skinned vehicles could be overrun by AFVs). No matter how many smoke rounds landed on our near the infantry squad (that was in open ground), they never took any casualties. We figured that even without any blast, every now and again some poor bastard who get clonked directly by a smoke round....and he wouldn't be unscathed. I guess it wasn't worth modelling...or did I just not fire enough smoke for such a low odds chance of a wound? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I've never tested this nor heard of anyone prior to yourself, but my hunch is that it isn't modeled. Running over crunchies doesn't seem to hurt them either. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted October 25, 2003 Author Share Posted October 25, 2003 Yup, that matches what we surmised: you can overrun guns, but nothing else. Vehicles, hard and soft skinned, just get shoved out of the way. Infantry squirm, but don't get turned into mush. Smoke shells didn't seem to harm infantry or gun crews...don't think we tested soft-skinned vehicles, come to think of it, but I don't imagine the result would be any different. As to how you'd model it, the first thing that pops into my head is to assign them a Blast = 1, like they did for the 2 pdr AP and ATRs. [ October 25, 2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Originally posted by Brent Pollock: As to how you'd model it, the first thing that pops into my head is to assign them a Blast = 1, like they did for the 2 pdr AP and ATRs. Something like that might work, but I think you'd have to have a hit probability calculation first. If it's indirect fire, there'd have to be consideration of the dispersion of the particular pattern you were using (I expect to see this in CMx2) and if it were direct fire, then the usual to hit tables for that gun, taking into account the peculiar ballistic properties of smoke rounds. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Most 'normal' (non-WP) smoke rounds use a carrier shell that holds 'some' (for 105mm 'some'=3) generators (like smoke grenades). These carriers have bases which are fused to fall off and eject the genies after a certain time of flight. Technically, it's called "Base Eject". Now, when adjusting a smoke mission you want the fuse to zero out ahead of and above the area you want screened. What happens to the carrier shell? Well, it continues on it's ballistic path, landing some hundreds of metres beyond the area being screened. So, what does this mean for CM and your suggestion? Well, if implemented you would get a smoke screen where you ordered it, and random casualties some hundreds of metres away. Players might object to that a bit ... I suppose, if you really want to drill down into it, you could model the chance of someone in the area to be screened getting sconed by a smoke genie ... but is it worth it? If you are relying on the carrier shells and smoke genies from a smoke mission to cause cas, you are grossly mis-using the smoke in the first place. Regards JonS Edit: sbellink [ October 28, 2003, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: So, what does this mean for CM and your suggestion? Well, if implemented you would get a smoke screen where you a=ordered it, and random casualties some hundreds of metres away. Players might object to that a bit ... I wouldn't object. It would add to the sense of 'metal flying everywhere' or 'lethal air'. (not to mention the WtFDTCF? factor). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: I wouldn't object. It would add to the sense of 'metal flying everywhere' or 'lethal air'. (not to mention the WtFDTCF? factor). In that case I'd say that they should first implement friendly fire casualties for units in front of tanks and guns, and for units crossing the line of fire of squads and MGs, and so on. Wouldn't be very funny unless the TacAI would enforce some fire discipline in those situations. Dschugaschwili 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Direct fire smoke from higher velocity weapons probably cant use base discharged smoke. They would need some sort of point detonating element to use a burster charge to distribute the smoke (be it WP or HC or whatever). In this case, the people on the recieving end could be casualties from the heavy high velocity fragments (see my WP thread for more of this) and the burster charge itself. Mortar non-WP smoke would also probably land and then burst/base emit. To be clonked by one of these is poor luck but it will happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Direct fire smoke from higher velocity weapons probably cant use base discharged smoke. They would need some sort of point detonating element to use a burster charge to distribute the smoke (be it WP or HC or whatever).Do you know this, or are you supposing it. In this case, the people on the recieving end could be casualties from the heavy high velocity fragments ... and the burster charge itself.See previous comment. (see my WP thread for more of this)I've seen that thread. In at least one case you have attempted to pass off regular HC smoke as being WP. Mortar non-WP smoke would also probably land and then burst/base emit. To be clonked by one of these is poor luck but it will happen. More supposition? Regards JonS [ October 27, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Supposition? Well, please reread my post; My thought was clear, Hence the word 'probably' was used. I know that flat trajectory weapons have a tendency to skip rounds when they fire at relatively flat surfaces. I believe the Sherman 75mm uses both bursting WP/HC (plain-smoke)for this reason. See other WP thread for details. As far as fragments, see other thread for details. Supposition that a dud or a non-bursting round has ever struck anone anytime in the history of warfare? Yes. Its supposition. There. You caught me red handed. Actually I have seen pics of 60mm duds that hit people and they are clearly embedded under the persons skin. So there. Hmmm me thinks that JonS is the fun kind of guy in a thread. [ October 27, 2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 http://www.tigerforcerecon.com/nam9.htm We began to set up for the night. Lt. Christian began to set up delta tangos, and I could hear him call his first shot, intended to burst over the next finger to the side of us, several hundred feet away. The radio whispered “Shot, over.” Lt. Christian said “Shot, out.” Off in the distance I could hear the muffled boom of the single gun firing the smoke round. I thought that I needed to get my spot finished so I could make rounds, and pass out medicines, and my other usual night time chores, before it got any darker. zszszszszszszszsZSZSZSZSZSWHAMBANG! So fast that I could hardly grasp what was happening/had happened, the smoke round came in and burst just a few feet above us, possibly below the canopy of trees. A piece struck within our perimeter in a fraction of a second after the round exploded. Instant pandemonium! I scrambled from my half-erected hooch, and crouched there looking around to see who had been hit. There were so many cries of pain and confusion that I knew someone had been hit. I made my way to the closest position to mine, and found there two men lying against trees, each with several small shrapnel wounds in their arms and sides. Their hooch was collapsed onto a still form. I said I needed a flashlight, and the men who had come out of the hooch began to cry out, “What for, Doc? He’s dead, man, forget it man , he’s dead!” I asked the other medics present to take care of these men, took a proffered flashlight, dropped to my knees, and lifted the poncho. I pulled the poncho down over my head, and shoulders and after making sure the edges were sealed against the light, I prepared to turn on the flashlight. I could smell burned flesh, and feces in the air, and in this tight enclosure, with the body of the man just inches from my face could feel the heat of his body, and that from the chunk of smoke round buried in the dirt below. I clicked the switch, and there revealed before me was the young soldier’s back, laid open and sealed by the burning chunk of steel, from his shoulders to his hips. Like an anatomy lesson, his organs lay there in perfect display, the smoke from the round curling up from the ground, his body slumped forward. Instantly dead. I turned off the light, but that image was to be imprinted on my mind forever. I dropped the poncho back over the still form and walked away. The other medics wrapped his poor broken body in the poncho and prepared to evac him out in the morning. 30 years later I attended my first 101st Airborne Division Reunion. While there I met men I hadn’t seen or spoken to in the entire interim. This story came up for discussion. One of the men who was there at the time told me that the boy who died was the same young trooper that had fallen out earlier that day. I cannot attest to that, but if true, I cannot help but wonder at the irony of this young man’s fate. Not wanting to go further, the struggle that he endured that day to keep up, only to be killed that night by an errant round. Was this just bad luck or could some sort of future memory have been at work, trying to keep him from a place he did not want to go, because of the end that waited for him? I am so sorry it took so long to find this... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Supposition that a dud or a non-bursting round has ever struck anone anytime in the history of warfare? Yes. Its supposition. There. You caught me red handed.The example you give above is from the wrong war. While that is incidental, even more to the point is that we don't know what type of round it was - was it BE, WP, what? It does make a difference. Next, the incident occured in circumstances that CM makes no attempt to model. Finally, I am well aware that large lumps of metal flying through the air have a good chance of hurting someone if they hit them. But really, what is the point of modeling injuries from smoke missions? Would you consider it time well spent programming this in at the expense of ... anything else? Hmmm me thinks that JonS is the fun kind of guy in a thread.Heh. I suppose you would rather we just accepted your assertions without question. I am so sorry it took so long to find this...Sarcasm becomes you. Regards JonS [ October 27, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Not sure what JonS is going on about but I will state my case. 1. Direct/Indirect fire consisting of HC/FS/Bergers_Mixture/whatever of the bursting type are non-WP (This thread IS about non-WP causing casualties?). They are dangerous. They are directed at the area meant to be smoked. This thread is not about BES. Thats how these pissing matches get started. Someone gets a narrow-minded view of what is being discussed. They make a statement ('Most non-WP are BES..') and then they drag down a thread. 2. Mortar fire of WHATEVER smoke type lands at a steep angle. Mortar fire therefore could hit someone EVEN if it was a BES. In the case of a bursting type (non-WP) it could also cause casualties beyond the rare clonking of someone. 3. Heres a list of US indirect fire weapons: 75mm pack how -- WP bursting smoke, FS bursting smoke (titanium tetrachloride) 75mm gun -- WP bursting smoke 105mm how -- WP bursting smoke, FS bursting smoke, BES (3) HC 4.5" gun -- no smoke 155mm how M1917, M1918 -- WP bursting smoke, FS bursting smoke (sulphur trioxide), BES (3) 155mm how M1 -- WP bursting smoke, FS (titanium tetrachloride) bursting smoke, BES (4) 155mm gun -- WP bursting smoke, FS (titanium tetrachloride) bursting smoke 8" how -- no smoke listed 8" gun -- no smoke listed 240mm how -- no smoke listed Take it as you want to but there is NO weapon listed that uses JUST a BES for smoke! In my opinion, the non-WP bursting smoke rounds are plentiful. Bursting rounds cause casualties, where they land is dangerous. Please supply any proof that your assertions that BES are the predominate round for MOST artillery is true. 25lbr? Thought so. "German Artillery of World War 2", Ian Hogg, A&AP, London, 1975. 7.5cm leIG -- TI bursting smoke (blue) 15cm SIG -- no smoke listed 7.5 cm GebK 15 -- no smoke listed 7.5cm GebK 36 -- dyed HE 10.5cm GebH -- TI smoke 7.5cm FK 16 na -- no smoke listed 7.5cm leFK 18 -- pumice/oleum bursting smoke 7.5cm FK 38 -- no smoke listed 7.5cm FK 7M85 -- pumice/oleum bursting smoke 10.5cm leFH -- pumice/oleum bursting smoke, TI sugar/dye bursting smoke (blue), BES(1) 10cm K 17 -- no smoke listed 10.5cm leK 41 -- no smoke listed 10cm sK -- pumice/oleum bursting smoke 15cm s FH -- pumice/oleum bursting smoke 12.8cm K -- no smoke listed 15cm K -- no smoke listed 17cm K -- no smoke listed Lg 21cm Mrs -- no smoke listed 21cm Mrs -- no smoke listed 21cm K -- no smoke listed 24cm H 39 -- no smoke listed 24cm K -- no smoke listed 28cm H -- no smoke listed 35.5cm H M1 -- no smoke listed 42cm Gamma H -- no smoke listed Most german weapons also use bursting smoke as a smoke round. 4. As for direct fire, I would assert that bursting type smoke rounds (both WP and non-WP) were the norm. At least for the Sherman. Non-WP bursting type rounds were dangerous in this application. The physics of the shell and anecdotal evidence supports it. Please see future posts in the WP thread. Please supply evidence to the contrary if you feel BES were the predominate direct fire smoke shell. Nothing for nothing, but when you decide that you need to call out people, then hold yourself up to the same standard. 5. Please dont derail threads with rhetorical questions about 'Where do you think programming time should go..?' Stick to the topic. And the topic is 'Non-WP smoke shell casualties?'. And the answer is yes, non-WP could cause casualties. The very odd chance of being clocked by a BES and the very real chance of being close to a bursting type smoke shell. In the case of direct fire WP and non-WP, I strongly feel it should be modeled. If you have a problem with anything in the other thread, please post a response there. Q:Why would you do that?, A:Cause you are just a fun loving easy going kind of guy. [ October 27, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: If you had read the link, you would have seen this.. The smoke round is an artillery shell that is fired for one of two reasons. The first and most common reason is to check the placement of a given fire mission’s coordinates. As a first round it allows by noise and smoke and, at night by burning hot and white a visual and aural reference. The smoke round is set to explode in the air, some several hundred feet above the ground. If the shot is off by some amount the artillery observer can call in adjustments for the next shots, usually the effect rounds such as H.E. or W.P. I would hate to speculate (or haphazardly use logic) but I would guess it was a bursting type HC round. Since he mentions WP and HE being effects rounds. But lets persue why it makes a difference. Is it possible that BES also split open when they go off? How does that support your case? I was glad you pointed out that it was a 'wrong' war. Shows you have a sense of morality. [ October 27, 2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Mr Tittles, do you know the difference betweeen types and quantities? As for rhetorical - it is nothing of the sort. You think cas caused by errant smoke rounds should be modelled. I disagree. That is on topic surely. Isn't the question whether should BFC include carrier-shell cas in future versions of CM right? The only way they can do that is to 'spend' programming time on it - features don't just magically appear. This is why I disagree - not because it didn't happen, but because it was (comparatively) so rare it would add no value to CM the game. IMO. OTOH, maybe you're just shooting the breeze, pointing out that sometimes people have been hurt by carrier shells. In which case, you are correct Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Is it possible that BES also split open when they go off?Of course it's possible. Anything is possible. "Is it [likely/usual/normal/designed for/etc] that BES also split open when they go off?" No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Mr Tittles, do you know the difference betweeen types and quantities? Regards JonS Yes, could you possibly back up anything you say with some types/quantities? Programming that would suit me fine for INDIRECT would be to give them a small blast value. Now I may not be a sub-1000 member but I know that suggesting programming changes isnt the best course around here, but, lets get real, how hard would that be? Are ALL BES airbursts by the way? Type? Quantity? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Yes, could you possibly back up anything you say with some types/quantities?hehe - why would I need to? Is anything I've said false?You are the one trying to rock the boat. Don't blame me if the flaws in your argument are so easy to expose BTW, you seem to have taken the number of types of shells available for various types of weapons and made a straight line deduction that the number of shells fired must be proportionate to the number of types available. This is nonsense. It may yet be true (though I highly doubt it, and it certainly isn't proven yet), but your reasoning is just specious. ..., how hard would that be?Fine, since you are the expert - you do it And while you're at it - given that everything is options and choices - tell us what other feature(s) you will be omitting in order to include smoke-cas. Are ALL BES airbursts by the way? Type? Quantity?Que? What has this to do with anything? But anyway - to answer your question: not all shells designed to burst in the air will do so (faulty fuze, faulty fuze setting, faulty target information, faulty calculations, etc). Doctrinal point: generally smoke shouldn't be fired at the target to be screened/blinded. Far better results are acheived if the rounds are fired ~1/3rd of the way between the two points of interest (friendly location/enemy location). Not many cas are inflicted when rounds are fired at empty ground. Regards JonS [ October 27, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Isn't the question whether should BFC include carrier-shell cas in future versions of CM right? . Regards JonS No. Please reread. No. Thats a major problem. The name of this thread is 'Non-WP smoke shells casualties'. I think the subtletys are lost on you because you have declared that ALL non-WP are space-detonated BES shells. Admit there are OTHER forms of delivering smoke and you can make a breakthrough. I do not mean to be overly rude but you have some sort of reading/comprehension disorder. In my opinion. Its the not the effects of the carrier shells but the detonation of boosters, emitters, inertia (translational and rotational!), large shards of very fast whirling metal, etc. The psych effect is there also. Shells are falling. Hmmmm. Maybe these will turn into other types of shells? Maybe if I stay here long enough, I will have my head sliced off or a facefull of hot steel? I will make some statements: 1. Non-WP can be bursting 'other'-Smoke. A burster detonates and flying metal happens. the 'other-smoke' substance may or may not hurt anyone. I don't care. Its the burster/fragments moving along nicely that can kill/maim. 2. Non-WP can be BES. These are also flying metal. They may actually break up. I am not so convinced they have to be time-fused to go off in the air and may actually hit the ground and do thier thing. Seems to me the back of an arty shell has to be strong. Like survive a launch from a rifled gun/howitzer strong. Wonder how I can get the stuff out the back? Is it OK if I blow up in the process? as long as the crap blows backwards? 3. Non-WP that just smolders. Maybe some shells just land and smoke out their ass. Screw em. I dont care. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Most 'normal' (non-WP) smoke rounds use a carrier shell that holds 'some' (for 105mm 'some'=3) some generators (like somke grenades). These carriers have bases which are fused to fall off and eject the genies after a certain time of flight. Technically, it's called "Base Eject". Regards JonS Genies? They fall off like old dingleberrys? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: Isn't the question whether should BFC include carrier-shell cas in future versions of CM right? . Regards JonS No. Please reread. No. Thats a major problem. The name of this thread is 'Non-WP smoke shells casualties'. I think the subtletys are lost on you because you have declared that ALL non-WP are space-detonated BES shells. Admit there are OTHER forms of delivering smoke and you can make a breakthrough.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Doctinal point: generally smoke shouldn't be fired at the target to be screened/blinded. Far better results are acheived if the rounds are fired ~1/3rd of the way between the two points of interest (friendly location/enemy location). Not many cas are inflicted when rounds are fired at empty ground. Regards JonS Oh a 'Doctinal' Point has been made. Well Oz has Doctinated. No casualties are made in empty ground. If a shell falls in the woods, and hits a bear, does the Pope wipe his ass? Do not look behind the Curtain. OZZZZZ has spoken! And Docinated too. I think people are 'feeling' you JonS. They get your 'value'. They respect your work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 "genies" = colloquial shorthand for "generators". Apologies for confusing you. Edit: doctinal/doctrinal typo corrected above as pointed out by Mr. Tittles. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. However, based on the increasingly negative and offensive tone of your posts, I get the impression that you aren't interested in discussing this anymore and are more interested in starting a fight. That's a shame, in so many ways. [ October 27, 2003, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Most 'normal' (non-WP) smoke rounds use a carrier shell that holds 'some' (for 105mm 'some'=3) some generators (like somke grenades). These carriers have bases which are fused to fall off and eject the genies after a certain time of flight. Technically, it's called "Base Eject". Regards JonS Prove it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Most usually means a majority. Just in case you havent been indoctinated in the notion of Most. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.