Nebelwerfer

[Battlefront.com]

Puff,

Many changes were made to CM's handling of artillery for CMBB. I've mentioned some here in the past which a Search might turn up. Unfortunately, I am out of "chatting time" so I've got to get back to work.

Maple,

Good info there! Looks like one of the fear factors was that the troops could hear them launch, but until they landed they would have no idea where they were destined for. That is quite different from both artillery and mortars.

Steve

[Maple Tree]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Maple,

Good info there! Looks like one of the fear factors was that the troops could hear them launch, but until they landed they would have no idea where they were destined for. That is quite different from both artillery and mortars.

Steve

Okay, my pleasure.

You may have missed my question which was:

Question: since Nebelwerfers were originally used for shooting chemical weapons, will we be seeing chemical weapons used in CMBB. It would be interesting seeing chemical clouds cross the battlefield !

Any chance I can get a response on this, perhaps, it is a top-secret surprise for the CMBB release

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Maple,

Good info there! Looks like one of the fear factors was that the troops could hear them launch, but until they landed they would have no idea where they were destined for. That is quite different from both artillery and mortars.

Steve

I dont think thats quite right. It IS the case for mortars, you CAN hear them fire (if they arent behind a hill or very far away or the wind is wrong) but you DONT hear them approach. That's what is said to make them so hated.

I think the rocket example given where the sound wasnt heard was the phenomena of a shell/rocket coming right at you. The sound being behind it. If arty or especially rockets fire over you or to your sides, you get the distinctive screeming/whistling/etc. This again is not the case for mortars.

So if a spotting round is lucky enough to get you dead nuts, it doesnt matter what fired it. In this case, the near hit was in front of the troops and the blast was possibly blocked by the rocket case!

I have read other accounts of the casings being splayed open. It further demonstrates that the rocket weight was not shrapnel producing metal.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Steve ...back to work :confused:

I thought this is your work!

Anyway, thanks that you have shared your time with us

[ February 07, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Battlefront.com]

Quickly... no to chemical weapons. They were never used in the war and would be horribly complicated for us to simulate. In fact, I am not even sure where to begin because we would have to invent so much stuff.

MajorBooBoo... I would think that at the distance a 120mm mortar would not be very noticable in terms of sound. I was also under the impression that smaller mortars weren't that loud either.

But in any case, yes... mortar rounds offered no direct warning as you say. Not a good thing if you happen to be standing around when the first rounds come down.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

... I would think that at the distance a 120mm mortar would not be very noticable in terms of sound. I was also under the impression that smaller mortars weren't that loud either.

Not true. The firing sound of a mortar(eg 81mm) is quite distinctive, and can be heard kms away, even with masking terrain in between. Depends, of course, on ambient noise conditions.

Its sort of a "phounk" noise. Soft, really, especially compared to 105mm artillery.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Dorosh]

I've fired the German granatwerfer34, and it does give a distinctive sound. The optimum was for mortars to be dug in under ground though, which would muffle the sound heard from a distant listener, in addition to concealing the weapon position.

[MajorBooBoo]

Cocking ones ear for mortars is really part of non-combat missions (otherwise the sound would get lost in all the battle noise of a combat mission). A vet can get so good that he can discern if the *cough* of a mortar is directed towards him or not. I observed 81mm firing and at close range theres almost a ringing to it. Depends on the charge they use too.

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I've fired the German granatwerfer34, and it does give a distinctive sound. The optimum was for mortars to be dug in under ground though, which would muffle the sound heard from a distant listener, in addition to concealing the weapon position.

And providing protection for the equipment and crew from the inevitable retribution.

Having dug quite a few in my time they are a pain in the bum because of the need for all round traverse on many occassions (makes it a big hole) plus the need to dig individual pits as well !

Edward

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for all the first hand info. I wonder... because of the frequency of the different sounds if things like NW and conventional artillery would be easier to pick out from run of the mill background noise (rain, wind, distant small arms fire, etc.).

Oh, and I meant 50mm or 60mm when I said "smaller mortars". I thought the 81 was pretty audiable simply because it is fairly large and not so far away from the front. So the question to you vets... how audiable are the 50mm and 60mm mortars in a non combat flair up situation? (i.e. the kinds of bombardments we have been talking about above)

Thanks,

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Thanks for all the first hand info. I wonder... because of the frequency of the different sounds if things like NW and conventional artillery would be easier to pick out from run of the mill background noise (rain, wind, distant small arms fire, etc.).

Oh, and I meant 50mm or 60mm when I said "smaller mortars". I thought the 81 was pretty audiable simply because it is fairly large and not so far away from the front. So the question to you vets... how audiable are the 50mm and 60mm mortars in a non combat flair up situation? (i.e. the kinds of bombardments we have been talking about above)

Thanks,

Steve

The last time I was on the heavy weapons range, which is a couple of years now, I don't recall the 60mm mortar as being all that loud. The .50 they had going a few dozen metres away kind of monopolized the soundscape...

I don't recall ever seeing a veteran refer to "hearing" 60mm mortars firing, though most other weapons - the distinctive ripping of the MG42, the various crash-booms firing supersonic shells, etc., all are quite obvious in veteran's descriptions.

I was also at a re-enactment where a 2 inch mortar was in action (51mm) and it didn't make much noise, but I can't verify that the charge used in the projectile was anything like accurate.

If 2-inch data is any good to you, I could email the dude who was using it.

[ February 07, 2002, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Brian]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

I think its an interesting discussion nonetheless. I think critical analysis of uber-legends will always bring out heated arguments.

One issue about the Nebelwerfs with the HE in the back. From a physics standpoint, this is not ideal. As the propellent gets spent, you could have a hollow formed in the front of a spinning projectile. This leads to nutation and procession. and at long ranges, the accuracy would be severely affected.

Which is why the effective range of these weapons is relatively much shorter than a comparable normal artillery weapon, BooBoo. Their actual maximum range is much greater but as you note, because of instability problems, it cannot be fully exploited. Spinning however helps, as do fins. The Russians as did the British, went for fins. The Germans and to some extent, the US, went for spinned projectiles. The former is easier/cheaper to manufacture but complicates the design of the launcher, the latter obviously is the reverse.

The chief advantage of rockets over tube artillery is that the launcher is much lighter and more cheaply constructed. In the case of the larger calibre German rockets, the packing crate also forced the launcher, in the simplest forms. Its other chief advantage is that instead of having to crew multiple guns, over a longer period in order to achieve the same weight barrage, it is possible to crew one launcher which fires five or six rounds. As originally concieved, this provides excellent rapid coverage for smoke and chemical weapons. For HE, its a lot less accurate than tubed artillery but thats a tradeoff which has to be accepted. As noted, it will be most useful in the preparatary bombardments promised in CMBB.

Does anyone have any drawings of the projectiles?[/QB]

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

Thanks for the info and the offer to get data. Don't really need it for the game. Just a curiosity for me personally I had always thought that the light mortars (50/60mm) were not all that easy to hear, medium mortars (80ish mm) were because of their proximity to the front and charge size, while heavy mortars (120mm) were not appreciably louder than mediums, but were further away from the front (in theory of course!).

I was also under the impression that the low frequency "thwank" sound was more easily "lost" than the higher frequency sounds made by conventional artillery and rockets. For example, I can hear a chainsaw or a logging skidder for miles, while I can not hear a lawnmower at all or a heavy truck towing a load until it is much closer. But if there is even a slight wind blowing I generally can't hear anything at all, thanks to the rustling of trees.

Intresting stuff!

Steve

[Charlie Rock]

Back in Fort Benning we all piled into a bunker and a 60 mm mortar hit 80 meters away. I couldn't hear it coming.

I have had 105mm rounds fired over head occaisionally, you can hear the wavelike rushing sound as they pass overhead quite clearly.

Mortar rounds are, I believe, slower than the speed of sound throughout flight, and I really don't remember being able to hear them at all. After the first round or two on the range, I thought I could hear the remainder, but maybe only 1/2 a second of warning--I think. I wouldn't bet my life on it, and the were 60 mms in any case.

I have been on a company live fire where our 60's were 300-400 meters in the woods in a support by fire position, and I couldn't hear them firing.

My memory isn't too hot on that one.

As far as mortars and rockets go:

Mortars and rockets are at the opposite ends of the field artillery food chain.

Mortars are at the bottom. They are surprisingly accurate and precise as to range. Because they come straight down onto the target, a few mils here or there in variation has very limited impact on the round being over or short. Unlike, say, machine gun rounds, which fly parallel to the ground, have beaten zones, and...well, never mind.

Mortars are commonly referred to as company commander's pocket artillery. You see them used in a decentralized manner all the time. Some platoons, most companies, and just about all battalions get some. They are usually used in smaller numbers, and you will probably not see a mass barrage of 60mms.

Because the mortar has no recoil mechanism, flies at a low velocity, the tubes are cheap, thin metal, the walls of the round are thin, and explosive content is relatively high, vis a vis a shell.

Rockets, at least nebelwerfers, and especially katyushas, are found in centralized units higher up the food chain. You won't see a battalion rocket platoon or brigade rocket company.

Without searching the posts, I believe a 155mm shell is approx 100 lbs, and someone said a nebelwerfer is 60-70 lbs, ish. I am probably off.

A rocket launcher is much cheaper than a howitzer or cannon. There are many places that can be made much cheaper. Because the rocket does not impart recoil to the firing system, you can use a cheap open ended steel pipe. A howitzer needs a machined barrel, precise rifling, recoil springs, hydraulic fluid, lots of precision components. A 155mm can fire, I think, 14000 meters, and should be precise 50-100 meters either way or it will make you nervous. A nebel only fires 8500m ( I think) and does not have nearly the precision.

The surge capability is what you like. For the cost of one howitzer, you get 3-4 rocket launchers at least, which can made to sloppier tolerances in less efficient factories. I'm talking real-world rubles and marks as far as cost. So for the same industrial capacity, one 155 mm shell from one cannon= 4 werfs x 6 rockets x (3/4 shell weight) =18 times the capability. Katyushas, probably close. Of course, it will then take 3 minutes or so to reload, vice 30 seconds, and you don't get the accuracy. This is a consideration if your industrial capacity has been pushed east of the Urals, you want the most bang for your buck, and speak Russian.

I don't think the rocket launchers are so great for defense, because of the lack of precision. The Allies didn't use them (On Omaha beach they had a few LSTs with 5 inch batteries, the rounds landed short for the most part) and AMerican doctrine was go the most expensive route, devising a sophisticated and expensive signal net to integrate all nearby tube batteries to get the volume you want, when you want and need it. This alo requires skilled operators and some unhindered industrial work.

It probably won't come as a surprise that the russkis loved rockets. The preferred technique was mass rockets fired at a small area target as the closing to a prep barrage. The inaccuracy they could live with, and the quantity, as they say, had a quality all it's own. This was the best way they had to place maximum high explosives in a given area in minimum time.

Did they have terrific casualty causing potential? Probably not much against troops dug in the open. The advantage was that unless targeted against veteran, disciplined troops it had a "surge" capability to shock and demoralize defenders. The idea was to rush right in in a massed assault along a narrow front and follow up the barrage before the defender regained his senses. This all jived nicely with Soviet doctrine, and their barrages could be shorter and more intense than tube artillery barrages, which all shortened German reaction time.

I don't think nebelwerfers could be nearly as effective as their Russian counterparts. Due to air superiority, it was easier for the Russians to bring in Katyusha batteries and battalions as part of prep barrages. Since the Germans didn't have air parity in the West and infrequently in the east, they couldn't mass the batteries as well. In small numbers the inaccuracy of the weapon offset the explosive potential; not decisive then.

This reflected Russian ideas late in the war, at Bagration and elsewhere. They were used in a centralized manner, with high-up leadership synchronizing the main effort infantry and armor assault with some extremely high numbers as far as lbs of high explosive per acre per minute.

The other issue to think about is firing the same onto the target in half the time is not twice as effective, it's about three times. This is because the soldiers caught in the open have less of a chance to find cover, in psychological terms you impart a stress on the nervous system so fast you are more likely to cause "shell shock" and less likely to adapt to the situation, and obviously in the big picture you have less reaction time to move up reserves, call in FPFs, etc. etc.

[Brian]

Fortunately, I've never been on the recieving end of anything other than smallarms and then only on the butt party at the range.

However, I have fired and been near the firing of a lot of larger calibre weapons. One factor which has to be considered with the sound a large calibre weapon makes is the speed of the round and the length of the tube. The longer the tube (or the less supported), the louder the sound the actual tube makes as it vibrates. This is quite noticeable as a "tung" sort of sound, which is I suspect caused by the round as it passes along the tube. Its pretty distinctive and most audible I've found with the 105mm Light Gun and 105mm tank guns (both of which have rather long barrels). The shorter M1 105mm gun did not make this sound.

Another consideration is flash. Its something I note is missing from CM, to some extent. It does have the flash when a weapon fires but it does not have the flash when a high-velocity AP round hits an armoured target. This was most notable on the ranges at the Proving Establishment, when 105mm tank guns were fired. You'd see the round's trace as it moved downrange and when it hit the target, there would be a small flash of light, similar to as if someone had let off a camera flash, directed back towards you.

This was always explained to me as a consequence of the residual energy of the round having to go somewhere, the result was it was converted from kinetic to visible light and heat. Its something you might want to consider putting into the future versions of the game, Steve.

BTW, most low frequency sounds carry very well but they do tend to get lost in the background noise. Mortars tend to produce fairly low frequency sounds like a "cough" when they fire. The smaller the calibre, the smaller the sound. Against that should also be considered that they will be much closer to their targets.

Perhaps my most memorable expeirence was my first field exercise in the army. We were exercising in one area of a large range complex. An artillery unit firing 105's were doing so, over our heads into the impact zone beyond. Because of the range's limitations, they were only firing charge 1 or 2 and that meant the rounds were much lower than perhaps would be normal. It added a degree of realism to the IMT we were practicing and was most interesting. No "whistle", more of a chuffing sound.

[Triumvir]

Hmm... it's always interesting hearing others talk about how arty sounds on the receiving end; I've only ever heard it from the giving end! It's always better to give than to receive...

Incidentally, when a 155mm round goes off under max charge, the shockwave has to be felt to believed. It's particularly interesting if you're standing right next to the barrel, pulling the firing lever...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

I don't think nebelwerfers could be nearly as effective as their Russian counterparts. Due to air superiority, it was easier for the Russians to bring in Katyusha batteries and battalions as part of prep barrages. Since the Germans didn't have air parity in the West and infrequently in the east, they couldn't mass the batteries as well.

I think there are two misconceptions in this - first that Katyushas were all that effective, second the the Red Army had air superiority.

The first I can refer to a statement by a German officer (I think contained in one of the Glantz studies) that once the troops understood how inaccurate the Katyusha was, it became much less effective, because they would hunker down and wait it out. Against troops in the open it would be a different story of course, but past Kursk I don't think there were many opporunities where the Red Army could launch a massed Katyusha strike against Germans outside a defensive line.

Regarding air superiority - unlike in the west. the Luftwaffe played a major role in the East until way into 1945, achieving local command of the air e.g. over the Oder bridgeheads. Because of the distances involved over the battlefields, the Red Army air force never achieved the superiority that their Western allies enjoyed. As late as Feb 1945 Ju-87 Stukas could play a role over the battlefields in eastern Germany. While I don't know much about this, I believe that the Red Army air force probably did not fly very much in terms of deep interdiction (or whatever the techy term is), trying to keep the Luftwaffe from reaching the battlefield.

[illo]

Regarding air superiority - unlike in the west. the Luftwaffe played a major role in the East until way into 1945, achieving local command of the air e.g. over the Oder bridgeheads. Because of the distances involved over the battlefields, the Red Army air force never achieved the superiority that their Western allies enjoyed. As late as Feb 1945 Ju-87 Stukas could play a role over the battlefields in eastern Germany. While I don't know much about this, I believe that the Red Army air force probably did not fly very much in terms of deep interdiction (or whatever the techy term is), trying to keep the Luftwaffe from reaching the battlefield.

I would like to add that VVS was very concentrated on supporting soviet ground troops. Fighters flew at low altitudes support il-2s and other ground attack planes generally flying at treetop level. That left initiative in air to Luftwaffe. Higher LW planes could choose who to attack and where. This lead to germans being able to get air supremacy in selected areas of the battlefield almost until the end of war.

[ February 08, 2002, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: illo ]

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

...while heavy mortars (120mm) were not appreciably louder than mediums, but were further away from the front (in theory of course!)...

Steve

Steve, I had the previleg to be spend my military service in a 120mm mortar unit. It is LOUD!!! :eek:

Originally posted by karch:

Because you would ASK for greater dispersion. If you can't see where you are firing and you want a better chance of hitting something "somewhere over there". Getting higher dispersion would give you a better chance of hitting SOMETHING rather than a nice tight pattern hitting squat. I figured this was accurate and correct. But not being a 33 year old WWII artillery vet, I really don't know. It just seems right to me. I'd probably ask for higher dispersion if I couldn't see where anything was landing.

Karch, this is not a question of 'want', it's more a thing of 'how to'. A quick guide.

1) Gun/Mortar battery goes in position.

2) All guns are exactly parallel aligned.

3) The FO gives a fire order.

4) One shell is fired.

5) The FO gives a correction order.

6) Step 4-5 until the fire goes to the right

place.

7) Now the FO is able to give the 'real' fire order.

- Even if during step 3-6 only one gun is fireing, all guns follow the orders of the FO.

So the whole battery will fire to the same target zone with always the same dispersion. This is just the way it is practiced. It is not possible to say 'Delta One a degree more left, Delta Six a degree more right' to increase the dispersion.

Regarding the 'blind' fire by map, well, I must speculate, but at least I have never heard of an unguided artillery barrage without LOS by the FO. FO means here: any unit that was able/allowed to guide artillery fire, not necessarily a trained FO. Except the target zone was prepared before the battle, in CM terms this means a TRP.

Please correct me when I'm wrong!

[ February 08, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Hakko Ichiu]

As to being on the receiving end of a mortar barrage, a little bit of oral history. My 9th Grade English teacher was a Korean War vet. One day not that long after the war, a fellow vet, who'd participated in the retreat to Seoul, visited him in his office. While they were chatting, my teacher pulled off a length of masking tape. The other guy immediately hit the deck. Once he'd composed himself, he said that the masking tape made the exact sound of an incoming NK 81mm (were they designated 83mm??)mortar round.

[apex]

The major discovery being that HE isnt important but fragmentation is (if you want to shoot down a plane). They optimized the autocannons for planes and perhaps 88 shells this way

Wrong. German 20mm cannons used a variety of ammunition, among them were the "Minengeschoss", mine shell, very thin-walled shells with little fragmentation effect but excellent pressure effect that caused major damage to aircraft structure on hits. Used from the Battle of Britain to the end of the war.

apex

[istari]

Good discussion regarding rockets vs tube artillery & mortars. Always appreciate the expertise displayed here.

However, one point about Nebelwerfers and Katyushas has always confused me. I understand the much greater casualty potential if you can land a great deal of HE all at once, rather than one at a time giving the defenders a chance to dive for cover. Score one for the NW.

Yet at the same time, we always hear how terrifying the NW and K were to troops because of the sound of their launch. Doesn't that imply that troops had warning and time to dive for cover and reduce the casualties from a rocket strike? So what is the great advantage of all at once vs sequentially if the target still had time to get under cover?

Chris

[Michael Dorosh]

"Here comes a Moanin' what?"

[ February 08, 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by apex:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The major discovery being that HE isnt important but fragmentation is (if you want to shoot down a plane). They optimized the autocannons for planes and perhaps 88 shells this way

Wrong. German 20mm cannons used a variety of ammunition, among them were the "Minengeschoss", mine shell, very thin-walled shells with little fragmentation effect but excellent pressure effect that caused major damage to aircraft structure on hits. Used from the Battle of Britain to the end of the war.

apex</font>

[Charlie Rock]

On air superiority and the Eastern front.

Agree with the points you guys made.

If, as an example, to destroy or neutralize a given company strong point, you need to average one shell every 50 square meters, and a katyusha can only put 16 rockets into a 500 x 500 meter square or 1000x1000 meter square, than the choices are either to accept that the weapons are of limited use, or bring in rocket batteries in such mass that if you aim them at a single point the law of averages will destroy what you want in that area and scatter ordnance all over the adjacent terrain.

This is not efficient, but is effective; it means that if used in large numbers, the rocket batteries have the ability to demolish selected battle positions in extremely short periods of time, but the resources involved will be great. Obviously, it would be a good idea to use this demolition to some greater good, like immediately ram an armored division and their friends through the gap.

Therefore, the decision-maker who would approve or diapprove such a use will be a high-ranking guy, therefore centralized use in large numbers as part of a large overall offensive, not a battery here and there firing pin-prick style.

Agree completely that the luftwaffe had greater capability in the East than the West. Again, the only way to emplace katyushas in large numbers would require short term committment of lots of air force aircraft. While the Germans could achieve air superiority anywhere they chose, if the Russians were launching offensive X in sector Y, and the Germans got wind of it a few days in advance, they probably would find a large but short term air umbrella in that particular sector, only. Interdiction of Russian FA would be tough. I would bet that artillery parks were camoflaged well, emplaced at the last minute, and defended from air attack with intense antiaircraft and air support assets, at least until the offensives started rolling.

Again, that also requires some high-level decision making. It all points to katayusha batteries employed best en mass in support of large offensives.