Michael Dorosh Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Originally posted by MajorBooBoo: 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.No, he was simply doing what you apparently do best - your first posts on the board were simple insults, and now that you've gotten no attention from them, you've resorted to cutting and pasting from websites in an attempt to simulate intelligent discussion. Bastables pointed out your penchant for ad hominem and you weren't mature enough to either discuss it or ignore it. Anyway, Someone tried to put me on the spot and I came through.Not from this end - you quoted a bunch of other websites, big deal. I for one couldn't be bothered to try and discuss anything with you - even if it appeared you were capable of holding up your end in the discussion. Face it, you started talking about something you know nothing about and some very knowledgeable people (I would stack up the knowledge of Andreas and JonS, especially referencing artillery, to anyone else on the board) did a very clever job of letting you hang yourself with your own rope. They were so subtle about it, you didn't even know it. But don't kid yourself that they were "man enough to recognize what (you) posted was a good effort." And gee, it really occurred to you JonS was being sarcastic? In other words, the other posters were willing to give you a chance - see what you were capable of contributing. Just because they don't do what you do - fire barrages of insults or smart ass comments at people they don't like - doesn't mean they are worshipping the intellectual ground you walk on. In my opinion, you still have a lot to prove to the board at large. But congratulations, you've become the subject of a lot of off-forum talk. [ February 12, 2002, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 err, so? You say I am contributing then. Thank you. I am NOT going to try and respond to the other parts of your post. Theres nothing in it really. You want me to respond in kind, bring some kind of brew-ha about and just spiral down. You will then alert BTS's to what you have "discovered". I dont want to be part of the demonstrative world of Mr Dorosh. I respectfully decline. To everyone: I think this thread started out OK (although Steve and Jason werent the most civil either) and lots of good info was being discussed/presented. People who later came in brought the 'tude of the "So you think you know everything, HUH?" mindset. Sorry, four years of high school was enough for me, I dont need any more of that. I made an observation that people use some very curt/abrupt introductions. They arent very polite. Thats all. I tried to interject some self-effecing humor and maybe it fell flat. A thousand pardons. I told Andreas to lighten up. And he did. Good for him. Hes a better person than some others here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Originally posted by Brian: The design of the 15cm and 21cm Nebelwerfer was made after careful analysis of the way in which most rocket artillery explode. As most of them put the warhead in the nose and the rocket motor in the tail (sensible, yes?), it was found that when they exploded, essentially they blew the rocket motor section of the body off in a few large pieces/one piece, and this provided little to the fragmentation effect of the round. So, the 15cm and 21cm rounds were designed in reverse. The warhead was placed behind the motor, which exhausted through a ring of vents, which were angled to provide spin stabilisation which was felt was superior to fins. One side effect of the angled vents was the "moaning" sound which earned them the nickname "Moaning Minnies". . .Wurgranate 42 rocket - The German 21cm ( 8.27in ) Wurfgranate 42 was a spin-stabilized HE rocket which resembled an artillery shell in shape. The forward part held a filling of 10.16kg ( 22.41bs ) of Amatol, while in the rear section carried the rocket motor, seven thick sticks of smokeless powder with an electrical igniter. This was exhauted through 22 canted vents in the base to spin and propel the rocket. The nose was covered by a ballistic cap which concealed an impact fuse. The launcher was the 21cm Nebelwerfer 42, a cluster of five barrels mounted on the same two-wheeled, split trail carriage as the 15cm Nebelwerfer. The rockets were fired by depressing a plunger from a safe distance away. Is the 21cm a nose throwing HE weapon or a ass-dragging HE bomb? Anyone know the layouts of the larger weapons? Do you have a source for your info Brian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 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? This is a neccessary realism glitch in any current wargame. While your artillery forward observer cannot see the rounds falling, you as the player can. If CM would have the rounds drop in non-dispersed volleys at some random place within the bigger radius, you would be able to see if they (by chance) hit something useful, and if so, keep the barrage going. If not, adjust and see if the next randomly chosen place is better. Repeat until a useful target is found and then let it pour down. There are at least three ways to solve that: 1) Do not show the impact of unobserved rounds to the player. That is a strong gameplay twist, basically that would only be worthwhile if you had terrain fow-of-way as well. Advantage: realistic Disadvantage: player confusion. Also this works only when any unit can spot for artillery, because you could "spot-by-skin" with other units int he impact area. very hard to make work right. 2) Just make a wide fall pattern as CMBO does Advantage: easy to control, intuitive for user/player Disadvantage: Unrealistic. Also you do not get powerful volleys at all. 3) Make each volley non-dispersed, but each volley gets a new random place in the big radius. This is what Tacops does. Advantage: You get real volleys. You can actually do some damage if you are lucky, including to your own troops. Disadvantage: Unrealistic, why are the guns assumed to be retargetted every volley? Also you don't get wide-pattern harrasing fire at all in Tacops. Personally, I think the player should be allowed to choose between 2) and 3), this keeps the realism glitch to a minimum. The player can choose the more realistic one, and I don't see how that could be exploited in a "gamey" manner. A mix of 2) and 3) is also imaginable, real volleys in random positions, but one gun always disperses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Nebelwerfers, it seems, were not THAT susceptible to CB. They did not have a distinctive "explosive" report or ringing frequency (from a hard barrel that just shot out a heavy shell) on firing. The main CB method, I would presume, would be to see the trails of smoke they producd on firing (or motor flames as they streaked skyward at night). This could be observed from different angles and the range worked out. In fog or at night behind hilly terrain they could be a menace. The website I reffed mentions CB against them to be a jobbed out task handled by the counter-arty or counter-mortar depending on the situation. In my experience, that means neither one could really do it right! [ February 12, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 About the devices and mathematics of locating artillery batteries by sound: could someone summarize what the real question in this thread is? Sorry, I cannot see it in all the flames. I can certainly provide a diagram and some math if someone really questions that this was possible in WW2. Also I just recently read a description of such a unit, I think in MacDonald's "Company Commander". Wasn't the unit that was POW massacred at Malmedy such a unit at well? Come on guys - this isn't rocket science [ February 12, 2002, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: About the devices and mathematics of locating artillery batteries by sound: could someone summarize what the real question in this thread is? Sorry, I cannot see it in all the flames. Come on guys - this isn't rocket science The thread started out as an inquiry into the effectiveness of the 15cm variety of nebelwerfer. The payload being small and the fragmentation effect also small. Weapons were compared/preffered to it. The thread took a couple turns and the current discussion seemed to get sidetracked on if I could describe how sound ranging functions. I provided, what I believe, to be a very good outline of the physical principles behind the technology in a question and answer form. I could also take a stab at the actual electronics/recorders/etc. Other people probably have good info on how the technology was employed in the field as far as layout of the orgs, special tactics, counter tactics, etc. I could also do the math part but why dont you take a shot at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 I believe that was an Artillery Observation Battalion in the Malmedy Massacre (2085th or somefink like that...) I believe the question was one about "ambient sound" interfering with the duties of sound ranging equipment, and whether or not it was an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puff the Magic Dragon Posted February 12, 2002 Author Share Posted February 12, 2002 Redwolf Good comment To 1) I would indeed prefer this one, at least optional. The question is, who ordered artillery in reality, and where was the FO? What was done when LOS was not given, like in fog or difficult terrain? AFAIK it was common to prepare the target zones days before the battle, also before attacks. So in princip this would mean the player must have some TRPs always available, maybe a fixed number per battery instead of purchase. Beside that, correction orders from a TRP could also be given by 'normal' soldiers, at least by HQ units in LOS. To 3) I guess this option wouldn't make sense, cause it is as unrealistic as option 2), only in another way. [ February 12, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I believe that was an Artillery Observation Battalion in the Malmedy Massacre (2085th or somefink like that...) I believe the question was one about "ambient sound" interfering with the duties of sound ranging equipment, and whether or not it was an issue.Michael is correct on both counts. Here is a bit of info I typed up on how the Germans did stuff. The Germans used a minimum of three OP/LPs, preferably four, to avoid the problems resulting from only having two. Sound was used during the day, light/flash at night. The posts were usually shared. The posts were also well away from the frontline (out of small-arms range at the very least), and four or so would cover a frontage of about 10km. Since sound characteristics are such that the boom of a howitzer travels further than the sound of a rifle, this will have an impact on the quality of the ranging. I have some maps from Engelmann 'German artillery 1939-45' on how the posts were set up in a Corps area, but my scanner packed it in. It is a bit of significant info to me that my grandfather told me that only once was his post really close to the frontline (situated in a house where infantrymen were fusing handgrenades). One of his posts was in the church of Peterhof, the Tsars' residence outside Leningrad, IIRC. Rooftops, and all sorts of high places were prefered for OP duties. Some pictures if you follow the Beobachtungsabteilung link below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 1) Do not show the impact of unobserved rounds to the player. That is a strong gameplay twist, basically that would only be worthwhile if you had terrain fow-of-way as well. I like this also. Perhaps a "noise" marker could eminate from the general area. Like seismic circles pulsing or something like that. not giving away the exact locations but just the direction. In regards to ambients/background noise, I am also fully prepared to answer any questions regarding this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Originally posted by MajorBooBoo: In regards to ambients/background noise, I am also fully prepared to answer any questions regarding this.Is this an attempt to get us to beg you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I for one couldn't be bothered to try and discuss anything with you - even if it appeared you were capable of .....That would be fine then. There seems to be an influx of other people now, thanks. Good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 So what is the exact question? I assure you that background noise is not a real problem in many cases. The boom of a battery firing behind a ridge is easy to filter against random other noise, except you have shell impacts around you, an airplane flying over you of other low noise. In that case you probably figure you do your thing later. Also I think that WW2 knew directed microphones (whatever the correct english term is), but I would have to ask my musicians friend about that. In my humble opinion, the real limit to precision in this methods is not to get the timing of the sound arrival, but to tell the exact distance between the two observer stations. This is not easy in hilly terrain. I hope the math of a triangle with one known side length and the relative lengths of the other two is trivial enough that it doesn't have to be demonstrated. No I'm not dogding, but I would have to be home to make a drawing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puff the Magic Dragon Posted February 12, 2002 Author Share Posted February 12, 2002 I studied again my 'Handbook of German Infantry', the section about the regimental artillery. a) the fire was guided by the 'Hauptbeochbachtungsstelle (Haupt-B-Stelle)' ~Main Oberserving Position this Haupt-B-Stelle had, when necessary, one or more 'B-Stelle' subsections Well, both are out of CM scope. The - for us -really important group was the FO. He was attached directly to the frontline troops and was responsible to define TRPs and observe the barrage. The text don't mention it directly, but as I understand it, fireorders were not given without observation by the FO. Someone shall please correct me when I'm wrong, or if you have more information, share them with us [ February 12, 2002, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Originally posted by Andreas: Michael is correct on both counts. Here is a bit of info I typed up on how the Germans did stuff. The Germans used a minimum of three OP/LPs, preferably four, to avoid the problems resulting from only having two. Sound was used during the day, light/flash at night. The posts were usually shared. The posts were also well away from the frontline (out of small-arms range at the very least), and four or so would cover a frontage of about 10km. Since sound characteristics are such that the boom of a howitzer travels further than the sound of a rifle, this will have an impact on the quality of the ranging. I have some maps from Engelmann 'German artillery 1939-45' on how the posts were set up in a Corps area, but my scanner packed it in. It is a bit of significant info to me that my grandfather told me that only once was his post really close to the frontline (situated in a house where infantrymen were fusing handgrenades). One of his posts was in the church of Peterhof, the Tsars' residence outside Leningrad, IIRC. Rooftops, and all sorts of high places were prefered for OP duties. Some pictures if you follow the Beobachtungsabteilung link below.[/QB]Was it really a case of one during the day and the other at night? I hope FOs are more flexible in CMBB - rooftops (or steeples) would be a great idea, in addition to the ability to spot from vehicles, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: I can certainly provide a diagram and some math if someone really questions that this was possible in WW2. Also I just recently read a description of such a unit, I think in MacDonald's "Company Commander". Wasn't the unit that was POW massacred at Malmedy such a unit at well? Come on guys - this isn't rocket science redwolf Given the following.... How can the speed of sound 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. Explain the math behind the time differential. how is it used and what are the equations. Extra credit: Solve this.. The two mikes are 1000 meters apart. The sound reached the one on the left first. The sound was reached at the second one 1.18 seconds later. The resolution is +/- 0.01 second. Whats the area (error) the battery can be in? (Take the battery to be a point source) assume perfect knowledge of mikes location. neglect all other error sources. Good luck.. this post will self destruct in 10 seconds.... [ February 12, 2002, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 I am a little irritated. I didn't invite you to do a math test with me, I rather offered some serious assistence for the case somebody had an interest in the math to play with the numbers him/herself, but couldn't figure the formulas out. Maybe I'm just missing what this thread is about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puff the Magic Dragon Posted February 13, 2002 Author Share Posted February 13, 2002 Redwolf The threat was originaly started because I wondered why the 15cm Nebelwerfer has such a big blast, compared to it's small load of explosives. But I'm not sure about what it is now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: I am a little irritated. I didn't invite you to do a math test with me, I rather offered some serious assistence for the case somebody had an interest in the math to play with the numbers him/herself, but couldn't figure the formulas out. Maybe I'm just missing what this thread is about...I apologize. Could you post just the math then? Or expand on this below..I would probably take a different mathematical approach but am curious as to how you are finding these "relative" lengths. It may or may not be the trivial problem you think it is (or if I am wrong, I apologize again). I hope the math of a triangle with one known side length and the relative lengths of the other two is trivial enough that it doesn't have to be demonstrated. No I'm not dogding, but I would have to be home to make a drawing. [ February 12, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: Well, both are out of CM scope. The - for us -really important group was the FO. He was attached directly to the frontline troops and was responsible to define TRPs and observe the barrage. The text don't mention it directly, but as I understand it, fireorders were not given without observation by the FO. Someone shall please correct me when I'm wrong, or if you have more information, share them with us Are you saying that CB is beyond CMs scope? I think that it could be part of the game. Not something that is directly controlled by the player (or maybe it could be part of setup) but something that would effect the players use of arty. heres some cases: Player in CMxx decides to order a barrage of one shell each on a TRP. In this case, he is minimizing the "sound exposure" because there is no need for ranging shots and the guns only fire once each. Player in CMxx calls for a non-stop shelacking by his off-board arty. He isnt firing on a TRP. he is using an inexperienced FO too. Perhaps the arty gets interrupted mid-barrage and is unavailable for a few turns also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Since redwolf is probably working and wont be home for hours, I would like to dare anyone to solve the extra credit problem posted. He has already expressed a desire not to do it so I thought I would throw it up for grabs. Just post what you think the answer is, not how you got it. winner gets to play me in CMBO. take speed of sound to be 343 M/sec for the sake of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Actually I forgot the posting with the formulas I started at work and can't finish it today at home :-| First error discovered was that a pure detection on sounds needs at least three (not two) detection points. Can be two teams and one of them traveling, but you need three points. With two OPs you can only tell one line the battery might be on (any point of the line), with three points you get two lines at the battery is at the crossing. The resulting errors in battery position from misestimating the distance of the OPs or mismeasuring the sound delays will be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: [QB]I studied again my 'Handbook of German Infantry', the section about the regimental artillery. a) the fire was guided by the 'Hauptbeochbachtungsstelle (Haupt-B-Stelle)' ~Main Oberserving Position this Haupt-B-Stelle had, when necessary, one or more 'B-Stelle' subsections Well, both are out of CM scope. The - for us -really important group was the FO. He was attached directly to the frontline troops and was responsible to define TRPs and observe the barrage. The text don't mention it directly, but as I understand it, fireorders were not given without observation by the FO. [QB]The conclusion maybe a bit too restrictive, since the FDC (whatever the Germans called it - Feuerleitstelle?) was the place where the time-delays for German artillery partly originated. It was here that competing demands were prioritised, and the math was done. Understanding fully how things worked there will help in simulating the system more accurately. The FO is really just the front-end of a fairly complex organisation. Unfortunately, a lot of web-based info on the Germans busies itself with repeating ad nauseam how great umpteenth SS Panzerdivision was, instead of looking at the really interesting stuff And the books on the matter are just too expensive. According to granddad, his CB FDC also organised the artillery support for the front-line troops. This may have been a particular outcome of the static situation at the Leningrad front, but nevertheless, it indicates some fairly rigid control of the artillery. I would expect early war to be different, in particular for the mobile divisions, where it seems howitzer batteries were quite regularly attached to point KGs. Michael - the same for the dual use. Since it was a static frontline, it would have made sense to find the best spots, and utilise them fully. I am not sure if it was always the case, but he never said something else. Regarding the math problem, that I am just too thick to even contemplate looking at. As I said above a minimum of three reports, preferably four were required to fix a solution for the spotting round. As the OOB on my website indicates, the sound ranging battery had a signals squadron with advanced warning teams. These would be closer to the frontline, and alert the rear LP to switch on the equipment and to point it in a general direction, as I understand it. Arriving at a solution could still be a lengthy business. Up to 15 mins after all the reports were in, according to granddad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Here is a note about time-to-flash and triangulation systems that originated from some interviews I did last year. The interviewee was a trucker for an artillery battalion transport pool. He claimed that it was quite common for battaliosn to set up sound and flash triangulation groups, but that it was found that they were better off firing with few calculations and more gut instinct. Any two people would mark a sound or flash, and note its time (and direction for flash.) Infantry units would also gather this data. They would feed the information in constant dribbles to fire control centers where a fire control officers would triangulate reports and circle the estimated location on a master map. Shortly, a bunch of circles would indicate an rough area in which an artillery battery was firing, so the fire control would simply look at the map for the place where horse drawn transport could possibly set up a useful firing battery position. That was the CB target. This artillery driver said that the entire unit could do sound and flash reports. He also claimed that CB was inexact, and that a CB fire could not be made to close to populated areas without an observation plane observing fall of shot. The most interesting claim was that the battery preferred to fire CB quickly ratrher than wait forever for data accumulations. Sometimes if the shoot was safe a very few reports could lead to a potential firing site because Germans where very precise in how they set up (and where they would choose to sight) artillery, and were not all that mobile. The goal of CB was to kill the horses and stop the battery. Truck mobile artillery was not very vulnerable to even spotted artillery if it could get dug in, but horses suffered in CB barrages since it was just to tough to hide the things on the modern battlefield. This is one artillery veteran on the edge of the issue, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts