Deep snow blast, shrapnel and cover

[CMplayer]

Does deep snow provide some cover from mortar shrapnel and the like? Either by muffling or shaping the blast or by the infantry digging in a bit under the surface?

I ask this because I recently came across a reference where a vet described light mortar fire as being less frightening in deep snow.

[ February 14, 2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Compassion]

Putting sandbags on the front of Shermans made the crew feel more secure... But the sandbags didn't necesarily make them actually safer.

It's an interesting question, though... Do units not break as easily in snow? Will I have to spend more on big arty in a snow QB (for those rare times I'm masochistic enough to agree tot hem)?

[CMplayer]

This guy was a commando, and an officer as well I believe. (if that adds to his reliability) I'll try to dig up the quote.

[ February 13, 2002, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[pilgrim]

I can't answer the real question (which would also apply to wet/mud conditions also), but I'll offer a little insight on the side-question:

Due to the much slower movement speeds of squad in snow, arty becomes more effective on moving infantry, not due to any blast modifications (if there are any), but due to the longer time the infantry is exposed to the FFE zone. (I can give you personal testimony, having been on the wrong end of the experiment, that it's true. )

[CMplayer]

Pilgrim,

Please do give personal testimony. What was it that happened?

[pilgrim]

Oops, personal CM testimony is what I should have said to be more specific. Sorry if I misled you.

But, since you asked: Platoon of British rifles, attacking in snow. Moving from cover to cover, they got hit by 81mm mortar fire. Even given the "Run" command, they never made it out of the FFE zone, the entire platoon broke and routed, and proceeded to still get hammered as they slowly routed back through the snow. The platoon was a complete write-off.

Having seen the effectiveness, I tried it on my opponent in the next snow battle I fought. It worked just as well on him as it had on me...I caught his main attack force just shy of its last staging point, they couldn't move fast enough to get out of the mortars, and a large portion of the group broke and routed.

[CMplayer]

'Nobby' Kendall, a German with X-troop attached to the Belgian Commando in Italy writes :

... and practised on our skis for two days. Almost none of the men had been on skis before. We then set out for a plateau in the Luperian mountains on our fist -- and last -- ski patrol. The name of the mountains notwithstanding we did not meet with any wolves but approximately at the 3000-foot level came upon a stone hut in which an outpost of the opposing Austrian mountain troops was ensconsed, with a light mortar in position nearby. We were greeted with some fairly accurate mortar fire. Due to the deep snow it proved to be as ineffective as the return fire from our personal arms. I had decided to proceed without a PIAT (which could have breached the walls of the hut) as my novices had difficulty enough to stay on their feet without this unwieldy load. Soon we beat a hasty retreat downhill during which some spectacular tumbles were observed.

To repeat my question, what about the deep snow made the mortar fire ineffective?

[ February 14, 2002, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[newlife]

I'm just taking guesses here, but;

It might have someting to do with a difference in where the mortar explodes. Depending on snow conditions, it may explode higher or lower than where the troops are. A fresh powder won't do much to change things (other than allowing the shell to penetrate deeper relative to the soldiers), but if the snow is deep and wet it may afford a little protection. Plus crust on the snow will also affect things.

I'm sure I've been most unehlpful

Pete

Originally posted by CMplayer:

'Nobby' Kendall, a German with X-troop attached to the Belgian Commando in Italy writes :

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

... and practised on our skis for two days. Almost none of the men had been on skis before. We then set out for a plateau in the Luperian mountains on our fist -- and last -- ski patrol. The name of the mountains notwithstanding we did not meet with any wolves but approximately at the 3000-foot level came upon a stone hut in which an outpost of the opposing Austrian mountain troops was ensconsed, with a light mortar in position nearby. We were greeted with some fairly accurate mortar fire. Due to the deep snow it proved to be as ineffective as the return fire from out personal arms. I had decided to proceed without a PIAT (which could have breached the walls of the hut) as my novices had difficulty enough to stay on their feet without this unwieldy load. Soon we beat a hasty retreat downhill during which some spectacular tumbles were observed.

To repeat my question, what about the deep snow made the mortar fire ineffective?</font>

[JasonC]

The Russian staff study of the battle for Moscow in the winter of 41/42 also noted the ineffectiveness of light mortars in heavy snow. They advised abandoning the 50mm mortar, and stated that the 82mm was marginal in deep snow conditions. Understand, the snow was often 2-3 feet deep that winter, on that front.

A round falling to near the bottom of it was cushioned significantly. Fragments can only get out easily if going nearly straight up, and those are the ones that won't hit anything. The fragments that can hit people farthest away are those with trajectories almost parallel to the ground. But in deep snow, those have to go through not a foot or two of snow, but yards and tens of yards.

So fewer fragments are effective, and only close to the round's point of impact, and even a short distance away only on men standing up. In the case of the small 50mm, you'd need nearly a direct hit to do anything. These effects are all more pronounced the weaker the HE charge involved. Larger charges in heavier shells can still drive fragments through significant amounts of snow, and still be going fast enough to wound seriously. But all rounds are at least marginally reduced in blast effect.

[M Hofbauer]

It's an open secret that in the RealWorld both mud and snow as well as shallow water will considerably reduce the effect of artillery because the soft surface has the opposite effect that fuze extenders / VT fuses have: more of the round is below surface when the round goes off, meaning that more of the lethal fragmentation will be consumed by the soil. This effect affects smaller artillery (morars) more than it does affect the heavy stuff.

Whether it is modeled in CM I cannot say. I have made very bad experiences so far with infantry caught by artillery in heavy snow, they tend to panic and break easily.

[Thermopylae]

Yea, looking at any accounts from infantry units on the east front, especially the Germans(don't know why?), you hear about how the heavy snow resulted in the muffling of hand grenades, light mortars, etc. This was apparently a Really Bad Thing when the action of the machinegun was frozen and you had to crack the ice on your mauser bolt.

[M Hofbauer]

well, contrary to the russian MG thread now it was JasonC's turn to beat me to it with once again a more elaborate answer containing the same basic message.

[Charlie Rock]

VT rounds, which rely on radar reflection and echoes from the ground, get less of an echo off snow and will explode lower, with less fragmentation.

As JasonC said, snow will absorb the fragments.

Depending on the engineering the snow may provide less resistance to the shell, and a slight delay could take place before the fuse receives an impetus to start the chain. As opposed to, say, hitting concrete, the shell may bury deeper in snow than it would in the ground before exploding. A difference of milliseconds, really....

Most smoke shells are based off pieces of felt dipped in chemicals to burn and create a smoke screen. Snow tends to make smoke screens less effective.

[CMplayer]

Thanks for the answers. Does anyone know if this effect of deep snow is modelled in the game?

[CMplayer]

[double post]

[ February 14, 2002, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Gyrene]

Deep snow should aversely affect mortar and grenade shrapnel disperstion, as should sand.

Don't know if it is in CM though.

Gyrene

[Sig]

Hello,

Having tested it in real life, I can tell that at least for hand grenades, deep snow works very well. The poor things becomes almost (almost...) harmless.

At least this is the case for grenades which rely mainly on blast, as opposed to fragmentation, for killing. Haven't tested the other model.

Sig