HE Effectiveness

[flamingknives]

Try effective rather than accurate.

[RexMan]

Then try defining effective if you can not define accuracy.

[pamak1970]

Do feel free to explain how a guns inherent accuracy is dependent on velocity (with higher velocity being more accurate). I'd like to see how you reason that.

The higher the velocity the less time the projectile will be on air ,the less it will be affected by weather conditions , wind and so on.

This is the most critical issue regarding accuracy.

For the same reason (commenting on other posts ,if there is an option to use low or high trajectory to hit a target , you will most often go with the low trajectory,since the time of flight is shorter. .Additionally,high trajectory (in addition of the remark regarding easier spotting from counterbattery radars) has the disadvantage that the projectile travels along different heights with big enough variations in barometric pressures , wind speed and so on.

Also, i disagree with a post mentioning that you can have both low and high trajectory for any range .

If you see firing tables of various pieces ,you will see that this is not true.

[RexMan]

I think everyone should do the following test (if interested)...

Take a 37mm ATG (or any HV HE chucker) and just area target a point about 200 meters. Use a flat terrain test bed.

From the small craters, its obvious that horizontal dispersion is not modeled exactly. From my testing, the placement is way too close.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Well...even in a vacuum it wouldn't follow a flat trajectory unless the round achieved orbital velocity. And we aren't taking the discussion that far out, are we? You're right though that the round would not tip over into a nose down configuration without aerodynamic influences.

Michael

Not that far out at all. In fact, the way this thread is going I would hesitate to offer any kind of opinion. I only hope to get some answers and duck out before I get hit by flying debris.

Cheers

Paul

[RexMan]

Accuracy has to define a target. Thats so basic as to be funny.

When trying to hit a house at 200 meters. Most anything is accurate enough.

[RexMan]

Dispersion, in direct fire, can be atributed to velocity variation (projectile comes out faster or slower) as well as non-repeatable gun repositioning.

If you were to take a sufficiently rigid barrel, put it in a vise, and ensure that the propellant produces the same reaction (along with things like constant friction within the barrel, etc), then a higher velocity projectile from that setup will be more accurate.

That is because the exsternal ballistics it experiences will not be the same. For a set rifling, the higher velocity projectile spins faster, the amount of time it is subject to atmospheric conditions is less, etc.

By the way, rifling and spin CAN be too much. You want just enough to stabilize the projectile. Too much has an adverse effect just like too little. It will also wear out faster.

[Wicky]

/Rexman/Watgamer/Lewis: Seriously

What is Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder?

Quick Summary:

Obsessive-Compulsive personality disorder is similar to obsessive-compulsive anxiety disorder. People with this disorder are overly focused on orderliness and perfection. Their need to do everything "right" often interferes with their productivity. They tend to get caught up in the details and miss the bigger picture. They set unreasonably high standards for themselves and others, and tend to be very critical of others when they do not live up to these high standards. They avoid working in teams, believing others to be too careless or incompetent. They avoid making decisions because they fear making mistakes and are rarely generous with their time or money. They often have difficulty expressing emotion.

[RexMan]

I see a Wartgamer (Watgamer?) but I do not see a Lewis that has posted here.

Since I personally am looking into dispersion, a naturally non-perfect phenomena, why would you say that about me.

Do you feel the need to try to psychoanalyze people without meeting them?

Myself, and others, seem to find this interesting. Is there a personality disorder to describe kill-joy negative personality types like yourself? Or are you just obsessed with trying to point out others problems? Sounds to me you might be among the types you are describing!

[Battlefront.com]

Big surprise... RexMan is really Wartgamer dodging his ban. Confirmed, no questions about it. A couple of clicks in the 'ol Admin section fixed that.

Steve

[Zalgiris 1410]

This thread has been interesting, IMO. While I am no expert on ballistics and other bull for that matter, I think (despite inacuracies) that it has been applied in context here surving its purpose. Applying knowledge and thrashing it out in a descussion with the correct details is not to be confused with obsessive compulsions. The aim is to enlighten anyone interested.

Unfortunately I'm gonna do no such thing! The best that I can do is agree that guns arn't mod right and should be treated like vehicles. The other area that might need to be improved is HE blast effects and their impact spread. It would also be more realistic if you got impact info on the gun and their sheilds.

For example in CMAK I've had some Boyes ATRs and a few 2pounders firing AP at ATGs from several directions and the gun crew only ever abondon them after a while with no other read outs or damage to the guns or their workings as I would of expected. Surely firing against the rear of guns, that is behind the sheild should damage something bloody sensitive or do something other than just may be hit a crew member or two. (This I've often done at very close range!)

That said, in CMBB a pet annoyance of mine is killing the last bloke behind the sheild of Maxim MGs. Even having two or more MG34s and squads firing from different directions at them isn't enough, I often have to use HE to get him if I can't charge him down while hoping he is not set up yet or else fully suppressed! This happens so often that it can't be due to any depressions in the ground etc.

In closing, I've killed crews of guns with small arms curtainly but I agree that their structures should not be treated like they don't exist when it comes to dirrect hits of AP / HE / HEAT / etc shells or small arms AP either. I've read that it was SOP for German Panzers to use their MGs to penatraite the sheilds of 2pounder ATGs even still in North Africa to injure the crew most effectively! Obviously, but that Italian MGs didn't as I recall.

[ July 09, 2005, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[flamingknives]

German weapons in 7.92mm calibre (rifles and MGs) had armour piercing ammunition for the express purpose of defeating weapon shields. Developed in WWI, the sMK (I think) ammunition had a hard steel core and was also effective against light armour (it was found to be effective aginst MkIV tanks in WWI.)

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Big surprise... RexMan is really Wartgamer dodging his ban. Confirmed, no questions about it. A couple of clicks in the 'ol Admin section fixed that.

Whew! Thanks.

Michael

[Andreas]

Bets are now being taken on his next Username.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Bets are now being taken on his next Username.

$5 on 'Quickfuse'.

Michael

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

German weapons in 7.92mm calibre (rifles and MGs) had armour piercing ammunition for the express purpose of defeating weapon shields. Developed in WWI, the sMK (I think) ammunition had a hard steel core and was also effective against light armour (it was found to be effective aginst MkIV tanks in WWI.)

Ah, you are absolutely right with the only exception being, to be pedantic, you are referring to S.m.K 7.92mm ammunition. (Not meant as an attack as you did get it essentially correct.) Man one can really be drawn in to describing things in the minutiae of details!

That said now I think that it was introduced in WWI as a response to the first thin armoured tanks and was then found to be effective against the gun shields of ATGs some time later. This makes sense in that WWI artillery was not in the trenches but behind them for support. (Not to mention the fact that Gremany would first have to have tanks before they were confronted with ATGs and their sheilds, and at the close of WWI they had built about, oh ten!)

I am willing to concede that they just may have origionally been developed to defeat gun sheilds but I'm pretty sure they were to deal with those first tanks. Unfortunaitely for them the British improved the armour in the Mk Vs at the very latest so they ended up useless.

Actually that reminds me that the 77mm BAK and the first actual (man handled) assualt guns went the other way and were found to be effective against tanks more than their intended purposes. Balloons were rare although the BAK led to the 88AAG while the small guns suited the AT role being more mobile than field guns.

I've read that Wehrmacht riflemen carried ten such rounds each at least during the invasion of Poland and may be at the start of later campaigns. They were also instructed to mainly fire them at the vision slits of tanks and they were only expecting to deal with light tanks. It should be kept in mind that they had the PB38 ATRs to put holes in light tank armour and they only learnt to use tungsten in them from the Poles. I hope that supports my point somewhat?

Wow I'm really off the subject of this thread. Oh, hang on, getting back on track I have been wondering how those S.m.K rounds went against the gun sheilds of Russian guns including Infantry guns! My MGs do kill them fairly well. All the same I think I mean that the guns and their sheilds could still be treated better in the game and were more like vehicles and had hit readouts and have ricochet effects etc.

[Andreas]

SmK discussion

[Battlefront.com]

The problem in CMx1 is that original coding did not allow small arms weapons and mortars to be distinct from crews. They are one and the same. It wasn't the best design decision we ever made, but it was a very early one that couldn't be undone without redoing core parts of the game system. So it remained in all three titles.

Abandoning crew served weapons or vehicles was deemed to be a tough thing for us to simualte without opening things up for abuse. With about 100000 other things not coded at the time, we decided to just go with the abstraction you guys are familiar with and move on to other things. A good decision at the time, but unfortunately it was not one we could undo later on.

CMx2 fixes both of these issues. Soldiers and weapons/vehicles (of all types) are not welded together. They are separate.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

That should allow interesting possibilities.

Michael

[flamingknives]

Sweet. And by that, I mean totally cool.

[pamak1970]

Nice to hear about the abilities of the new engine.

Now i do not know if anybody is interested with the conversation of HE effectiveness in general.

Anyway i will post the following link for anyone interested.

Although it is about modern artillery , most things apply for older ammunition also

As a side note it is interesting that according to

FM 7-90 appendix B , troops without overhead cover inside forests ,are still safer regardless the wood splinder effect.

This contradicts information from other sources.

Farthermore, this result is not due the effect of limited LOS cause of the presence of woods.

Notice also the use of PD (point detonation) fuse which will actually produce airbusts cause of the foliage-tree branches.

There are also other details like the effect of angle of fall which was mentioned in previous posts .

From

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-90/Appb.htm#top

[ July 09, 2005, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[Zalgiris 1410]

Thank you Andreas for the S.m.K discussion link, much appreciated. It was interesting to read that the early tanks started out with 8mm armour plate. The armour piercing bullets would penetrate that at 500 meters at zero degrees obliquity according to a reliable soure of mine. Further that they would penetrate 12.5mm of armour at 100mm at zero degrees obliquity. The British first increasing the armour thickness on their later tank models or Marks to 12mm and then to 14mm before they were proof against the armour piercing rounds.

That said though it is a wonder why they fitted only a 5/16 inch (7.9mm) armour shield on their 2-pounder ATGs for WWII!!! The British confirmed themselves that the armour piercing rounds were not repelled by them. This often happened after their guns held their fire until Panzers had approached to within 600 yards (550 meters) and the crews were frequently knocked out by German machine gun fire which had actually penetrated their shields. That is all from the same reliable source in relation to the North African campaigne. (Jentz.)

That said I don't know of the thickness of any other guns' armour shields even the German ones, including their Infantry Guns which were similarly spaced double shielded like their PAK with 4mm between all their shields.

Thank you very much Administration for the good news, bloody beautiful mate.

Getting halfway back to the subject of this thread there could be effects of or penetration through the armour shields on guns of shrapnel from HE rounds exploding near them. Either the crew gets hit or the guns are damaged or destroyed as a resault of this. The game comes close enough to modelling this anyway, but I just want to have the readouts of this happening. It could make it all that more real or at least understandable. I would also like to see this with the armour shields of SPW / Halftrack MGs. It would be really cool to see guns tossed around or turned upside by HE or even heavy AP shots as well.

(I would love to see the T-34 take its' hat off when it meets a Tiger.)

[ July 11, 2005, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Guest Mike]

WW1 "armour" was not that hard AFAIK - by the mid-20's better alloys weer being used allowing thinner armour for teh same effect - hence teh thinner shield on the 2 pdr.

[Battlefront.com]

Keep in mind that even halftracks were generally vulnerable to AP ammo spat out by MGs. In fact, the thin vertical armor of the US M3 HTs was pretty easy to turn into swiss cheese. Bigger and more obvious target too, though of course blessed with mobility.

My understanding of the gun sheild concept is that it was mainly to defeat normal non-AP small arms fire and, in particular, shell fragments. In that role the shields did a pretty good job. But like anything in war, it has its limits. In terms of armoring stuff, limits are pretty serious and difficult to deal with. It's all about tradeoffs.

And when you guys speak about lessons learned from WWI not being logically (in your minds) applied to WWII... keep in mind that the US force in Iraq was largely unarmored, for example. This despite the fact that everybody knows a spitball can punch through both sides of a canvas topped vehicle or flimsy sheet metal doors. Was it wrong to put such a force in Iraq? Probably yes. A gamble was taken, and I'm pretty sure most would agree it didn't work out so well. But were there good reasons for taking the risk? Absolutely. There are more things to consider on a battlefield than just "x can shoot y and do z" considerations.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Having a gun shield proof against AP ammunition is very nice, but then you also have to carry it.