HE Effectiveness

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

But the amount of effort required to fit an ATG of any reasonable size into a thick walled house menas that it would be called a bunker or pillbox

I think that would be equally true of the effort needed to get it back out of the house once it was in. </font>

[Wartgamer]

Soviet 'Emcha' commander (M4 sherman)

- What did you consider the most dangerous opponent? A cannon? A tank? An airplane?

- They were all dangerous until the first round was fired. But in general, the antitank cannons were the most dangerous. They were very difficult to distinguish and defeat. The artillerymen dug them in so that their barrels literally were laying on the ground. You could see only several centimeters of their gun shield. The cannon fired. It was a good thing if it had a muzzle brake and dust was kicked up! But if it was winter or raining, what then?

[dalem]

Uninvited input from a well-read layman here:

I think that, given enough time, you could put an ATG almost anywhere. Whether such placement would be desired is of course dependent on the particular situation at hand.

But the average CM game doesn't imply that kind of time, and the CM limitations have never really allowed us to model the outlier "full blown" defensive belts very well. So although theatrically it would be nice for me to be able to put tanks and ATGS in buildings and such, I don't think it's that big a deal.

-dale

[JonS]

Actually Dale, you can do it - for guns and tanks - in CM. It just takes a bit of fiddling about to get there.

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

Actually Dale, you can do it - for guns and tanks - in CM. It just takes a bit of fiddling about to get there.

Yeah, I see your point, but the fiddling is a pain, and sort of an accidental feature.

-dale

[Brent Pollock]

Yup - go over to The Proving Grounds for tips on how to do this.

[Wartgamer]

This photo shows a very bad emplacement for an ATG. It has to its back tall vertical surfaces that would catch HE rounds and kill/wound the crew. The low wall to the front being the only advantage.

[Wicky]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

This photo shows a very bad emplacement for an ATG. It has to its back tall vertical surfaces that would catch HE rounds and kill/wound the crew. The low wall to the front being the only advantage.

But the Virgin Mary (see was God on the Allied side thread in GF) would obviously negate HE overshoot

[moneymaxx]

There is another, reasonably large, vertical surface that can catch a HE shell on that picture, the atg.

[Michael Emrys]

In any event, the wall would offer small advantage since it's not between the gun and the direction from which the crew appears to anticipate trouble. What they in fact seem to have done is to drive through the opening and park there. This is the kind of behavior I've seen exhibited in several photos, where the gun is located immediately behind a wide gap in a hedge, for instance.

I don't know if this represents rational behavior or not, but I have my doubts. Perhaps they value having a field of fire that is the widest possible above cover or concealment. But in that case, I wonder why they bother to get behind hedges, walls, or other obstacles at all.

Michael

[Wartgamer]

yeesh. I guess this caps this thread.

Is Emry's the official civilian blitherer that nails coffins blandly?

[Michael Emrys]

Lewis, if you don't like it, why are you here?

Michael

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Yes you are mistaken. Sorry you can't follow the thread.

JasonC said this:

Well, Guns in CM are sillouette zero. Which is false, empirically.

and you were arguing against it being modelled, or some miniscule difference. I get confused as you seem to switch your position around a bit

Perhaps you should keep your FlaK 'asides' to yourself?

Why? Because your attempts at disproving it failed? It was something I was told by a desert veteran and I thought it interesting, given the subject.

Both accounts are at unbelievably close range.

Oh, was that the point you were failing to make?

ATGs were not always dug in, and an ATG not dug in or in a shallow foxhole - foxholes for large ATGs being difficult to dig - is as large as a Carrier or a jeep, both of which can be targetted directly and hit comparitively easily. Conversely , an ATG, not dug-in and on a ridge, is very difficult to kill, as it cannot be directly targetted - the ground beneath it must be attacked.

[Wartgamer]

My point is that the present system, given the non-recrewing of guns, is an acceptable abstraction. Testing proves it out also.

I have also said that IF CMx2 DOES have recrewing, then a better modeling of HE needs to be implemented. Including fusing of HE shells.

If ANYTHING, modeling the realities of HE delay fuses, with the potential of skipping the rounds, INCREASES the size of the crew target AND also the possibility of striking the gun phsically.

The gun was not targeted under most battlefield conditions and ranges. The crew was.

[Wartgamer]

Why? Because your attempts at disproving it failed? It was something I was told by a desert veteran and I thought it interesting, given the subject.

I posted data that shows the actual time fuse abilities for the 88mm. Getting an airburst near a tank, even a stationary one, would be a matter of pure luck.

You were told a story? How nice. I posted data.

[Madmatt]

What you posted was the last nail in your coffin.

You know what Wartgamer/Lewis/Whoever the hell you are. Here is what I think... I think you are an insufferable little prick and I think that I am tired of it. I warned you before to play nice but you apparently don't want to listen.

So here is what is going to happen. Your banned...again, until for whatever reason that seems to make sense in that demented brain of yours you come slitering back with a new name and handle and aol/hotmail/yahoo email address. And thats fine, I'll ban ya again...and again...and again.

See, I CAN call you names like a "insufferable little prick" because A). You are one and . It's my forum and I can do whatever the hell I want with it... Nice eh? Yeah...It is..

So tata for now.

Madmatt

[ June 26, 2005, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[flamingknives]

Wartgamer:

As usual, you posted data that failed to contradict what I was claiming. Timed airbursts were used to target tanks at long range, usually against groups of tanks and presumably using multiple shots. Certainly it was effective enough to bother British tank crewmen.

The bloke in question had had his tank shot out from under him twice (France, '40 and Africa) and fought to the end of the war, so he wasn't inexperienced.

It's possible that your reading of my initial post meant that you thought I was talking about targetting a specific tank. I wasn't, and subsequent posts are to this effect. Words like 'formation' and 'depth' ought to have given this away.

You can post all the data you like (and frequently do), but unless you make a clear analysis of what you're posting no-one, you included, is going to know what you're gibbering about.

Much of your 'data' is flawed, irrelevant or inherently contradictory, and you seem to view any question or challenge as a personal attack. This is clearly not the sort of attitude you need for participating in a discussion forum.

Oh. I see Madmatt has banned you, so this post is rendered moot, but I hate to waste typing (I would say effort, but then I'd have to vanish too) so I'll post it anyway.

[RexMan]

I have read this thread with interest. I do not believe either side made a good case beyond intuition and some assumptions.

I would guess that range would have much to do with the matter. Just as it does in many battlefield cases. Not only distance but also the estimation of distance.

Take the 88mm gun of the famed Tiger and Flak weapon of the German army. At 1000 meters it had a statistical chance of 50% zone of 27.6 inch in height and 15.h incj in width. About 0.7 meter in height approximately. This is using the data for the AP round. The HE round may not have been as accurate. They have a very close muzzle velocity I believe.

Since the shield on many purpose built Antitank guns are only about 1 meter high, getting a hit directly on the gunshield at this range is not an easy task. This is further compounded by any errors due to range estimation, wind effects, etc. If the 88 knew exactly the range, and aimed at the center of the antitank gun shield, its chances of a hit are not exactly assured.

Many tank guns specifically designed for WWII (in the later years) purposely designed the HE rounds to have lower velocity than the AP round. In other words, they may not be expected to have as much accuracy as the Tiger I.

[JonS]

Originally posted by RexMan:

Many tank guns specifically designed for WWII (in the later years) purposely designed the HE rounds to have lower velocity than the AP round. In other words, they may not be expected to have as much accuracy as the Tiger I.

Accuracy is relative. Low velocity adds some advantages - particularly in terms of adjusting and terminal ballistics.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

Many tank guns specifically designed for WWII (in the later years) purposely designed the HE rounds to have lower velocity than the AP round. In other words, they may not be expected to have as much accuracy as the Tiger I.

Accuracy is relative. Low velocity adds some advantages - particularly in terms of adjusting and terminal ballistics. </font>

[Guest Mike]

Terminal ballistics means the angle the shell strikes the target at - assuming level ground a low velocity shell will usually have a move vertical angle, and this makes its fragmentation more lethal.

Adjusting - with a high velocity shell you can get more range adjustment per unit of elevation - eg at a limit if your shell is travelling flat and you drop the elevation 1 degree you might lose hundreds of metres range. But with a low velocity shell firing in a higher register you get more sensitive adjustment by changing the elevation.

I think!

[RexMan]

Just to be clear, I am discussing the hitting of a vertical target with width.

[dalem]

Oh man, Username got hisself banned again? Heehee!

Steve G.! You owe me a pizza!!!!!

Name one of the laddies in CMx2 after me and make him a Chaffee tank Cdr. and I'll be a happy man.

-dale

[JonS]

Paul, what Mike said.

Rex, what Mike said.

[RexMan]

Originally posted by Mike:

Terminal ballistics means the angle the shell strikes the target at - assuming level ground a low velocity shell will usually have a move vertical angle, and this makes its fragmentation more lethal.

Adjusting - with a high velocity shell you can get more range adjustment per unit of elevation - eg at a limit if your shell is travelling flat and you drop the elevation 1 degree you might lose hundreds of metres range. But with a low velocity shell firing in a higher register you get more sensitive adjustment by changing the elevation.

I think!

Internal Ballistics deals with events happening within the gun barrel. External ballistics deals with events after the projectile has left the barrel and is in flight. Terminal ballistics deals with what happens to the projectile after striking the target (and perhaps exploding).

I have to agree with an earlier poster that a high velocity HE shell that detonates nearly parallel to the ground is actually superior in fragmentation effect tha one that is 'nose-down' and detonating. For a 'nose-down' HE shell to be at its best, it must be at a nearly vertical drop. The mortar trajectory approximates this closely. Most direct fire HE weapons can not attain this very high trajectory needed.

An even better terminal effect is the air-burst.

As far as range adjustment, it is not really applicable to what is being discussed; ie hitting a vertical 'wall' target like a antitank gun shield. But I see the point that a very high velocity gun, trying to hit a small parcel of land (say a trench), would need to have very fine adjustments coupled with low dispersion.

Low velocity high-arc shells have dispersion along the line of fire by the way. This has to be taken into consideration. True 'adjustments' have to compare the dispersion to the amount of adjustments.

[ July 07, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: RexMan ]