karch Posted January 30, 2002 Share Posted January 30, 2002 Not the rest of you boneheads. I have no idea what percentage of shells were duds, but I seem to read a good number of stories about a dud shell slamming into a building wall near someone, or into the ground only feet away. I'm sure they were rare, but too rare not to be included? I have no idea myself. It sure would be something to fire off a tank round at infantry or a building and hear a clunk or thud instead of an explosion... same for incoming artillery. What a bummer to lose a 155mm round that landed SQUARELY in the middle of a pack of infantry. I'd just love to hate that happening. Regards, Scott Karch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted January 30, 2002 Share Posted January 30, 2002 Do a search and see what it turns up. Maybe there's some issue with the current engine that prevents them from being modelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted January 30, 2002 Share Posted January 30, 2002 I don't need yet another excuse to pin my poor playing on. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted January 30, 2002 Author Share Posted January 30, 2002 Originally posted by Gyrene: I don't need yet another excuse to pin my poor playing on. GyreneSpeak for yourself! I'll take all the excuses I can find! I did just do a search on DUD and the primary reason seemed to be the lack of hard numbers on dud rounds per weapon and per country. I can see the point in not just guessing, but I'd hazard that the percentage was so low that a SWAG (Scientific Wild A** Guess) would be close to reality. Say one in one thousand or so? Just often enought that you'd see one every 10 games or so. That may be so miniscule that it wouldn't be worth the coding time. Scott Karch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 karch said: I'm sure they were rare, but too rare not to be included? I have no idea myself. It sure would be something to fire off a tank round at infantry or a building and hear a clunk or thud instead of an explosion... same for incoming artillery. What a bummer to lose a 155mm round that landed SQUARELY in the middle of a pack of infantry.There are some duds in CM. It's most noticeable with VT arty. In these, very occasionally the VT mechanism fails and a shell hits the ground to explode like it had a regular impact fuze (which is the back-up mode for the VT fuze). Also, sometimes solid AP breaks up due to random metalurgical imperfections when it should have penetrated. IIRC, there are also regular HE duds, but that the game's graphics and sounds always show the full explosion thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Young Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 hmmm, one dud round in a thousand, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 Originally posted by karch: I seem to read a good number of stories about a dud shell slamming into a building wall near someone, or into the ground only feet away. middle of a pack of infantry. If those hadn't been duds, there wouldn't have been anyone to tell the story. Duds probably get more exposure in stories because they were the exception, not the rule. An exploding round would just have been a "normal" occurence, hardly worth specific mentioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 Well just recently we were told that, what, 8% of the sub munitions distributed by US cluster bombs were duds? Or was that all a media thing... Though artillery shells are bigger and probably less complicated to produce there probably was a fair amount of duds delivered, especially considering the standards and conditions of productions back then. It would not surprise me if it was in the percent range. Varying for different nations and munition types of course. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 Originally posted by Mattias: Well just recently we were told that, what, 8% of the sub munitions distributed by US cluster bombs were duds? M.Even if 8% of submunitions in these weapons are duds, that still leaves quite a bit of bomblets to go off, eh? I forget the nomenclature, but the special shells that 16" naval guns deliver have 666 bomblets in them, even if 8% don't explode properly that still leaves 533 nasty bomblets... I think this is quite a bit different than some ratio of standard munitions being defective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 Instead of that, how about SMG and Rifle jams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 I would REALLY like to see the dud rate modeled for arty and mortors and other things that go boom. I have in the past debated this with Steve online in this forum. (really) My point was that the dud rate for EVERY type of munition in the old AH board game Tobruk (one of the first if not THE first 2D board game to attempt to accuractely and historically model armour penetration for individual WWII tanks) was modeled. Steve said he figured that ALL those dud rates were likely guesses and that BTS was not prepared to guess about dud rates of different types of munitions. STILL some estimate of dud rates for munitions in CMBB would be appreciated. There should be some form of dud rate or frequency modeled in for explosives. BUT thats just my opinion... I and absolutely positive this is not one of Steve's priorities for CMBB, in fact its not even on the list of things they might think about considering, I suspect -tom w [ January 31, 2002, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: ... Steve said ... that BTS was not prepared to guess about dud rates of different types of munitions ...Speaking semantically, he already has made a guess by setting the dud-rate to zero. However, this guess is known to be wrong. Is one wrong guess worse than another? If a CM Grogs' computer crashes in the middle of a forest, can anyone hear him scream? These and many other questions we may never know the answer to... Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosehead Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 I agree that duds should be modelled. And i would expect it to be more than one in a thousand. MG are modelled to JAM, so why not model duds. I found this http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/4.2/Features/ww2/ww2.htm website that mentions up to 30% of ammunition were duds. And 10% duds with todays ammunition. maybe it would be difficult to find exact dud rates for every ammunition out there. but it is just as much a bad excuse to not model it , knowing there were plenty of duds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosehead Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 darn double post [ January 31, 2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: moosehead ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 31, 2002 Share Posted January 31, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w: ... Steve said ... that BTS was not prepared to guess about dud rates of different types of munitions ...Speaking semantically, he already has made a guess by setting the dud-rate to zero. However, this guess is known to be wrong. Is one wrong guess worse than another? If a CM Grogs' computer crashes in the middle of a forest, can anyone hear him scream? These and many other questions we may never know the answer to... Regards JonS</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted February 1, 2002 Author Share Posted February 1, 2002 I just did a couple Google searches on dud rate artillery And found lots of information. Much of it relating to current submunitions, but quite a few people quoting statistics ranging from 2% to 30%. A very wide range for sure. I'd be really happy with a 2% dud rate of any shell, artillery, bomb, rocket, mortar. That 2% was tested by Israel by firing 10,000 rounds to get the statistic, and that was a pretty current test with new ammo produced in peace time (if you can call what they have peace). I'd guess (huge guess here) that the average rate was over 3% after looking at the sites, probably 5%. Anything over that and you really run the risk of creating more duds for a specific shell type than may have been the case. If it can be proven that ALL exploding shell/bomb types had a dud rate of 2% or higher, I'd like to see a flat rate given to all munitions. I know we'll never find the actual percentage of EVERY shell type by every country, but a VERY low estimate would seem to add accuracy. As said before. We all agree that ALL shells had SOME percentage of duds. If we could find some statistics that say ALL munitions had at lease X% rate, we go with that. Food for thought. Scott Karch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted February 1, 2002 Share Posted February 1, 2002 I don't think duds realy need to be in this game unless for some reason they start modeling U.S submarines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted February 1, 2002 Author Share Posted February 1, 2002 Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: I don't think duds realy need to be in this game unless for some reason they start modeling U.S submarines.If your reasoning is just because it's a low percentage of shells, then we could also call for the elimination of weak point hits, shot traps and other small (1% or so) happenings in the game. I dissagree. If BTS says it would be too late to be able to include it, that would satisfy me. I understand about deadlines and "Mission Creep". SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted February 1, 2002 Share Posted February 1, 2002 Thats a good point, i stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 This website has a 'user' report on dud rates during WW2. It's not much, and it relates to particular circumstances, and IMHO should be taken with a grain of salt regarding the literal number. However, 'tis better than nothing. Regards to Mike Dorosh for hosting and Ernst Knolle for relating. Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrold Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Modeling an artillery shell dud landing in the middle of an infantry unit would necessarily require the modeling the soiling of pants that likely would occur. Come to think about it why isn't this effect already modelled. BTS to somefink. Hey those pain meds are kicking in...whoop whoop more...ow ow less. It is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts