More Artillery and Smoke Shell Data

[tar]

More data for one of our favorite perennial topics: Artillery shell effects and effectiveness:

Artillery Ammo Page

Of particular interest is the diagram of wind and weather effects on smoke screens:

[civdiv]

Originally posted by tar:

More data for one of our favorite perennial topics: Artillery shell effects and effectiveness:

Artillery Ammo Page

Of particular interest is the diagram of wind and weather effects on smoke screens:

I'm not sure of WWII artillery specifics, but as a former artillery forward observer, part of this info may be wrong. 'Base ejecting' doesn't refer to smoke coming out of the back of the projectile, but rather smoke canisters that eject from the back of the round, and then fall to the ground. A time fuze is used, to allow the sub charge to function above the ground, in order to get the proper dispersal of the smoke canisters. It is the same principle that was used for artillery illumination rounds. I don't know if this was just for the US forces, or even what the exact munitions used in WWII were. But as artillery illumination was utilized by the US during WWII, and it consisted of base ejecting rounds with time fuzes, and as the same exact method is still used for smoke rounds, I would assume that was the method employed in WWII.

HC is still used for smoke, though the preferred munition is the M825 (Felt Wedge) round, at least in US use.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by civdiv:

[snips]

I'm not sure of WWII artillery specifics, but as a former artillery forward observer, part of this info may be wrong. 'Base ejecting' doesn't refer to smoke coming out of the back of the projectile, but rather smoke canisters that eject from the back of the round, and then fall to the ground.

You're right, the site is wrong. This site is also very badly mistaken on a number of other points, and the author has shown no inclination to correct mistakes when pointed out. I suggest that anything from this source should be trusted about as far as you can spit a large rat (or nutria, if you prefer).

All the best,

John.

[tar]

I'm not sure what the problem with the base ejecting description is:

If a smoke shell penetrates the ground or hits it too hard, the smoke effect will be minimal. Base-ejection shells throw the smoke generating part of the shell backwards just before impact so it is moving at a slower velocity when it hits the ground and is unlikely to penetrate.

Sounds a lot like the description that civdiv gave:

smoke canisters that eject from the back of the round, and then fall to the ground. A time fuze is used, to allow the sub charge to function above the ground, in order to get the proper dispersal of the smoke canisters.

John: Do you have any examples? It seemed that most of the infromation was just repeated and to my untrained eye didn't appear obviously incorrect. Do you have time to elaborate?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by tar:

I'm not sure what the problem with the base ejecting description is:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If a smoke shell penetrates the ground or hits it too hard, the smoke effect will be minimal. Base-ejection shells throw the smoke generating part of the shell backwards just before impact so it is moving at a slower velocity when it hits the ground and is unlikely to penetrate.

Sounds a lot like the description that civdiv gave:

smoke canisters that eject from the back of the round, and then fall to the ground. A time fuze is used, to allow the sub charge to function above the ground, in order to get the proper dispersal of the smoke canisters.

John: Do you have any examples? It seemed that most of the infromation was just repeated and to my untrained eye didn't appear obviously incorrect. Do you have time to elaborate? </font>

[tar]

Thanks, John.

I appreciate both the information and the effort to go through the site in such detail.