Nebelwerfer

[Bastables]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

Finally Bastables, whats your input again? I know that anything that I say to you will not generate a civil attitude since every post I have ever read with you in it sounds like some teenager from Nebraska with a testosterone imbalance. Bet you are a fun drinking partner.

It's all called irony. I'm emulating your use of logical fallacies within your posts. Highlighting the un-civil attitude your post have engendered in this thread, also known as parody old chap, parody.

Good to see you turning around and attempting to get actual proof, keep it up the high horse is within your grasp.

Oh while posting I read your reply to Brian regarding microphones, looks like that hourse has bolted.

[ February 10, 2002, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[MajorBooBoo]

Its like talking to a brick wall.

I repeat. How things can be explained really depends on your education, experience and your technical background. Someone that asks me "how tings woik" is perhaps unaware of different levels of technical/physical principles. You mentioned you read a book (congrats by the way), what other education, experience, intercourse have you had with this subject?

Do I have to make a list of questions and you can choose the one that you think is the correct one? I mean cmon, I have to do all the work?

(PS How were they mounted? Why they were put on Bren Gun Tripods, of course...)

[Brian]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

Its like talking to a brick wall.

I repeat. How things can be explained really depends on your education, experience and your technical background. Someone that asks me "how tings woik" is perhaps unaware of different levels of technical/physical principles. You mentioned you read a book (congrats by the way), what other education, experience, intercourse have you had with this subject?

Do I have to make a list of questions and you can choose the one that you think is the correct one? I mean cmon, I have to do all the work?

(PS How were they mounted? Why they were put on Bren Gun Tripods, of course...)

Why the obsfucation, MBB? Assume for the nounce that I'm quite knowledgeable about the technical aspects of this piece of equipment and how it was employed. I'll ask further questions as we go along if I don't understand a concept. Start from the viewpoint not of a technician but a well-aquainted and well-educated user. I don't want to know details about the electronics but rather the practical ways in which this piece of equipment was employed.

BTW, for all I care they were mounted in a row along the wall, next to your collection of flying pigs...

[JonS]

I have a less controversial question: Maj Booboo - do you think the RA had an effective CB program - of which sound ranging was a useful part - in WW1 and/or WW2?

JonS

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by JonS:

I have a less controversial question: Maj Booboo - do you think the RA had an effective CB program - of which sound ranging was a useful part - in WW1 and/or WW2?

JonS

Since Brian cant form an intelligent clear question we will have to move on.

I dont know that much about WWI and leave that to Mr Dorosh and friends. I do believe the british were among the best of the nations in electronics during WWII. Radar in particular stands out.

From what I have read, the RA had developed counter mortar sound ranging , late in teh war, and that is why it was brought into this thread. Earlier, Steve had mentioned something about 81mm being not so loud or such. Then look what happened, all the queens subjects come piling in and show their manners.

All kidding aside. I will post a short description of the basic principles (sound speed and all) behind this and the generalized system level workings. If more detail or debate ensues, oh so the more fun.

Good night.

[Brian]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

I have a less controversial question: Maj Booboo - do you think the RA had an effective CB program - of which sound ranging was a useful part - in WW1 and/or WW2?

JonS

Since Brian cant form an intelligent clear question we will have to move on.</font>

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Andreas:

JonS kindly sent me a paper on the development of counter-battery practices in the Great War. I have read only part of it so far though.

Feh!

[Andreas]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

Andreas, the thread existed with me in it before you came in with your grandads stories. You could lighten up.

Well, contrary to you, I actually provided information from a piece of peer-reviewed research, but I guess that escaped your attention. Between that, and my grandfather's stories, I am reasonably certain I understand a whole lot more of the topic than you do, little as I do. I have also spoken into a microphone once, which according to your standards must actually make me an expert.

Question: do you actually read other people's posts, or do you just write up whatever comes into your brain at any one time? Inquiring minds want to know.

If lighten up in your book means tolerating attacks like the one you posted before, it is not going to happen.

Now why don't you answer Brian's question? I am sure we all can learn a lot from you. You are so very smart.

[Tero]

Originally posted by karch:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

BTW, Steve - I wonder why a blind fired barrage (doesn't matter which artillery) comes down with greater disperse. This seems to be completly unrealistic. To cause this effect, each barrel needs a slightly different target zone, but what I have seen in the army, a target order is always given for the whole battery*. So, the 'blind barrage' would come in with the same disperse as a 'LOS barrage'. Instead a bigger disperse, it goes to the wrong place. Indictee, what can you say for your defense?

*(exept they prepare a 'target marker', of course)

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.</font>

[Tero]

On aural spotting and casualties:

What has not been taken into account is the time it takes for the sound to travel. At ~300 mps the sound of a round leaving the mortar tube arrives (depending of the range of course) almost simultaneously with the first round. When you hear the sound of the round being fired you KNOW it is on its way and already upon you and you drop NOW.

The same applies to guns with supersonic ammo. The Soviet infantry gun the Germans named Kratsh-Bum was nasty because the round exploded before you could hear the actual sound of the gun firing it.

[MajorBooBoo]

As promised I will expand on my understanding of this technology. Since only a vague question could be posed, I will instead ask my own questions and answer them. As any intelligent person would, I will start with the principles.

Explain the physical principle behind "sound ranging"?

The physical principle used is the constant speed of sound under meteorlogical conditions. If these conditions are known (temp, pressure, etc), then the speed of sound is known.

How is the speed of sound useful in sound ranging?

A sound event, such as a gun firing, eminates like a constantly increasing circle (when viewed from above in a X-Y coordinate system) where the radius is increasing at a constant rate. That rate is the speed of sound.

How can that be used to determine where a gun is that made that sound?

An ideal example will be used to demonstrate. Two sound/time observers are positioned at two seperate points on a map. They know exactly where they are from ideal survey. They have perfectly synchronized time equipment. A gun that they cannot observe at all, fires in the distance. The sound travels from the source outward till it "strikes" one of our ideal observers. He then records to the microsecond when the event occurred to him. The sound then travels outward still till it attains a radius that reaches the other observer. He then records the exact micosecond it struck him. The differential time can then be obtained by comparing the recorded time events. The mathematics behind this is to solve for the two "circles". Simplistically, there are points that could have made circles that fit the time differential.

How many solutions are there?

In this ideal case, there are two solutions. Since the sound reached one observer before the other, then the two solutions are to the side of the first sound recorded. One solution is a mirror of the other. That is, it can be flipped ove, if you will, and put on the map so that it would overlap the other solution. Since one solution is in friendly territory, it is not the guns location.

What if the sound reaches both observers at the same time ideally? Huh? HUH? What do you have to say about THAT?

In this case, the range might not be determined, but the direction is. Both observers could be on the wave front as it passes over them at the same time (meaning they are both equidistant from the source). A line that is then drawn between them, equidistant to both of them along all its length, will intersect the enemy gun somewhere. The further the gun is away (in real life) the more error introduced. Not a desired layout and the observers are placed so as to benefit from a time differential.

In this special case, how could the range be determined?

The time of the flash of the firing gun would need to be seen and recorded. Since the speed of light is relatively instantaneous, it can be compared with either of the sound arrivals and the range determined. This is another gun location method though.

[Andreas]

Some marks out of 10 for the principles. Now, how did it actually look like? Do you know anything about the layout of the OP/LP system? The frontage covered? By what number of OP/LPs? The distances to the lines? Prefered locations for OP/LPs? The number and attachment level of the units performing the service in various armies?

Are those questions precise enough to be answered by you? I for one am waiting with baited breath.

[MajorBooBoo]

"Some marks out of 10 for the principles."

Sorry, not accepting marks anymore. Me wanty the Eurobucks please..

I probably know more about the technology (the electronics, recorders, etc and the foibles of such) than the color shade of the uniforms worn by All the Worlds CB. I would defer that expertise to others. I can dig up some info about the RA if you like and you could post about the Heer. Sound fair (no pun intended)?

[ February 11, 2002, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

"Some marks out of 10 for the principles."

Sorry, not accepting marks anymore. Me wanty the Eurobucks please..

I probably know more about the technology (the electronics, recorders, etc and the foibles of such) than the color shade of the uniforms worn by All the Worlds CB. I would defer that expertise to others. I can dig up some info about the RA if you like and you could post about the Heer. Sound fair (no pun intended)?

Well, it is not the shades of uniform that are important, but the realisation that the system is a bit more than the technicalities of the equipment - location has a rather large effect on what you hear?

I can happily dig out some info about the Heer, and post it on the site in my sig. Won't even be grandfather's stories, but it will take a while.

[MajorBooBoo]

From a pure physics standpoint the following could matter:

1. Elevation of "listening" equipment, all at the same perhaps. Hopefully with some elevation advantage over the guns.

2. As far forward as possible (there could be noise issues from the battlefield) because of range limitations. The enemy could just pull back and defeat you otherwise.

3. Distances between equipment has been posted before

4. Analysis of terrain that could cause echoes and other noise problems.

5. The forward guy (who initiates the turn on of equipment) has to be far enough in front of the electronic transducers so that the reaction time between his being alerted and relaying the turn on is actuated before the sound hits the transducers.

These just came to mind but there could be alot of other issues.

[MajorBooBoo]

Counter-Bombardment

Locating HBs and mortars was not enough, as WW1 had shown a CB organisation was required. From early in the war each Corps HQRA had a CB staff some 30 strong including seven officers. The doctrine was to handle CB at corps level, devolving to division level in mobile operations. The corps CB staff could provide CB staff to two forward divisions.

However, mortars were a major menace (as were nebelwerfers when they appeared) and being short range their deployment was very different to guns. This led to the creation of separate counter-mortar (CM) staffs, usually at brigade HQs, in NW Europe and Italy, often with an infantry officer as the CMO. Nebelwerfers didn’t fit neatly into either CB or CM and one or other would take responsibility by local agreement. As the AGRAs evolved they had an increasingly important role with their own CB staff and in the final stages of the war took responsibility for the CB targets in major formation fire plans.

CB policy could be either active or passive. Active meant attacking HB when they were located. Passive meant not attacking them until an appropriate time. In practice it was seldom this simple.

HB could be destroyed or neutralised. It was recognised that destruction was best achieved by using destruction procedures with a single gun engaging a single gun, towed guns being notoriously difficult to destroy. Neutralisation was in fact a misnomer; the method of attack was short bursts of fire at irregular intervals, typically using a ratio of initially two but later 5 - 10 guns against one. The objective was to cause casualties and damage to achieve a degree of neutralisation.

Predicted fire was seldom really effective for CB, even when 'sweep and search' procedures were used to increase the size of the area shelled. As in WW1, air observation was the best solution and AOPs were extensively used for observed CB fire although they often relied on seeing guns firing, and it needed luck to get the aircraft into position when HB fired only a few rounds at a time. Sound ranging could also range guns onto located batteries using the comparator.

CB fire used a special type of on-call fire plan - the 'Bombard'. The CB staff prepared HB Lists and issued them to batteries, which produced data to engage them, excluding corrections for non-standard conditions, which were produced when the HB was engaged. The ‘bombard’ procedure, could be on-call or scheduled during a fire plan or invoked any time against a troublesome HB, used the HB List. However, in July 1944 neutralisation was generally abandoned for CB fire, not least because the British had defeated the German artillery. Air observed one-on-one-destruction shoots became normal.

The bombard procedure was for the CB staff to order a mix of batteries or troops to engage a listed HB using predicted fire. Aim points were distributed depending on the information available about the HB, including aiming ‘gun-on-gun’ if their co-ordinates were known. Short bursts of fire at irregular intervals were applied. In Italy, German guns were often concealed in caves and bunkers so neutralisation was ineffective. This led to the use of AOP observed destruction shoots. The problem was that these took a long time, perhaps only one per sortie, this in turn led to the Festa system where an AOP engaged several protected guns simultaneously during each sortie.

The most used guns for counter-mortar fire were 7.2-inch howitzers firing air burst. 3.7-inch HAA were also often used. Upper register fire using air-burst was generally preferred for the former. These guns were usually ‘At Priority Call' to the CM officer to ensure a quick response before the mortars moved. The only problem was that the 8.1-cm mortars usually deployed well forward and this could present an own troops safety problem when using heavy and medium guns, particularly with upper register fire.

The CB staff were provided with dedicated radio communications and were not just concerned with locating HB and attacking them. They were also an intelligence agency responsible for CB Intelligence. They used various specialist techniques to deduce information about the enemy order of battle and impending activities from the deployment and firing patterns of their guns and mortars. These included the Shelling Plot, Hostile Battery History Sheet, Gun Density Trace, and Shelling Connectivity and Activity Trace.

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/maindoc.htm#Survey,%20Meteorology%20and%20Calibration

[JonS]

Nice cut 'n' paste.

[Tiger]

The Argument Sketch

A man walks into an office.

Man: Good morning, I'd like to have an argument, please.

Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?

Man: No, this is my first time.

Receptionist: I see, well we'll see who's free at the moment.

Mr. Bakely's free, but he's a little bit

concilliatory. No. Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.

Man: Thank you.

He enters room 12.

Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?

Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...

Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT

DROPPINGS!

Man: What?

A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE!

YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!

A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

M: Oh! Oh I see!

A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

M: Oh...Sorry...

A: Not at all!

A: {under his breath} stupid git.

The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.

Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

Other Man:{pause} I've told you once.

Man: No you haven't!

Other Man: Yes I have.

M: When?

O: Just now.

M: No you didn't!

O: Yes I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I'm telling you, I did!

M: You didn't!

O: {breaking into the developing argument} Oh I'm sorry, is this

a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

M: Ah! {taking out his wallet and paying} Just the five minutes.

O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.

Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not!

O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told

you!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

{very fast until next 'pause'}

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!

{pause}

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

{pause}

M: It's just contradiction!

O: No it isn't!

M: It IS!

O: It is NOT!

M: You just contradicted me!

O: No I didn't!

M: You DID!

O: No no no!

M: You did just then!

O: Nonsense!

M: {exasperated} Oh, this is futile!!

{pause}

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is!

{pause}

I came here for a good argument!

O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an *argument*!

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can't!

An argument is a connected series of statement intended to

establish a proposition.

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary

position!

M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process.

Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the

other person says.

O: It is NOT!

M: It is!

O: Not at all!

M: It is!

>DING!< The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.

O: Thank you, that's it.

M: {stunned} What?

O: That's it. Good morning.

M: But I was just getting interested!

O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!!

O: I'm afraid it was.

M: {leading on} No it wasn't.....

{pause}

O: {dirty look} I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

M: WHAT??

O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for

another five minutes.

M: But that was never five minutes just now!

{pause... the Other Man raises his eyebrows}

Oh Come on!

Oh this is...

This is ridiculous!

O: I told you...

I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!

M: Oh all right. {takes out his wallet and pays again.}

There you are.

O: Thank you.

M: {clears throat} Well...

O: Well WHAT?

M: That was never five minutes just now.

O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Well I just paid!

O: No you didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: {unable to talk straight he's so mad} I don't want to

argue about it!

O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!

M: Ah HAH!! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing???

Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!

O: {pause} No you haven't!

M: Yes I have!

If you're arguing, I must have paid.

O: Not necessarily.

I *could* be arguing in my spare time.

Monty Python's 'The Argument' sketch.

-john

[ February 11, 2002, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Tiger ]

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by JonS:

Nice cut 'n' paste.

err, thanks

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

I have a less controversial question: Maj Booboo - do you think the RA had an effective CB program - of which sound ranging was a useful part - in WW1 and/or WW2?

JonS

Since Brian cant form an intelligent clear question we will have to move on.</font>

[MajorBooBoo]

[ February 12, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ]

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

I have a less controversial question: Maj Booboo - do you think the RA had an effective CB program - of which sound ranging was a useful part - in WW1 and/or WW2?

JonS

Since Brian cant form an intelligent clear question we will have to move on.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Well, this thread went right in the crapper fast. Listen... knock it off. If you really rather piss on each other than talk about whatever it is you are making a 1/2 hearted attempt to discuss, then this thread will be closed up. Otherwise, if you decide to talk about things relevant to CM in a civilized manner, then this thread will remain open. Rather simple choice I should think.

Steve

[Bastables]

[/qb]

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Well, this thread went right in the crapper fast. Listen... knock it off. If you really rather piss on each other than talk about whatever it is you are making a 1/2 hearted attempt to discuss, then this thread will be closed up. Otherwise, if you decide to talk about things relevant to CM in a civilized manner, then this thread will remain open. Rather simple choice I should think.

Steve

I think this thread, despite its shortcomings, is interesting. Interesting, because its just typical of the exchanges around here. Maybe Steve can comment on that. I believe the same elements always come into technical threads and stirs up the crap.

Heres a very good read and I wonder if people can see themselves.

http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html#a

I dont mind a little verbal fisticuffs if someone is putting out (contributing material/info/experience to a thread), but Bastables is an example of a pure Detractor. even with Steves post, he continues to just try to prod me and others against me. All because he fancies himself ironic evidently.

Anyway, Someone tried to put me on the spot and I came through. My explanation of the principles behind CB was from just reflecting on the science behind the situation. Brian, who tried to intimidate me (please), is now quiet. I will acknowledge that Andreas does seem to be knowledgable and was man enough to recognize what I posted was a good effort. I wasnt sure if JonS meant any sarcasm about my cut-n-share post. Its from that reffed website of course.