Nebelwerfer

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

If, as an example, to destroy or neutralize a given company strong point, you need to average one shell every 50 square meters, .

I am wondering where you get the 50 metre figure from, or if this was just an example from the top of your head.

[MajorBooBoo]

The hard part about destroying a company strongpoint, or any infantry position, is that it usually is in a line. By that, its roughly parrallel to the guns layout. The problem with these rockets is the variation in range they exhibit.

A strongpoint means dug-in/entrenched/bunkered troops. You need almost direct hits to be effective. So it may be possible to saturate an area with rocket fire (which is outside the CM scope just as is carpet bombing), but it is incredibly wasteful. A really good infantry strongpoint includes Mantraps. This is a reinforced bunker that has no firing slits towards the front. It is usually connected to the infantry fighting positions by shallow trenches that allow the infantry to crawl to them during heavy bombardments. They are usually proof from most indirect fire except direct hits from heavy arty (122 and above perhaps). Hence the name Mantraps. The germans went in for reverse slope defense when they could. The angle on the reverse slope preventing observation of and targeting of fieldworks. the angle helps defeat arty shells because they cant seek out ground as well. mortars are as good as ever.

Rockets are also pretty useless for helping assaults. Proper assaults come in under protective fires from arty and mortars. The key being to let up only when your troops close (and sometimes take a few blue-onblue casualties). Most nations discovered this sooner (midwar-1918 WWI) or later (Sometime in WWII, sometimes relearned).

Rockets, to me, are akin to airstrikes and should share the heavy payload effect of airstrikes. Big bangs, big craters, big terror.

[Charlie Rock]

Michael,

It was an example from the top of my head.

The principle is there, however, and that is usually how FA units and planners operate. If it takes X lbs of ordnance into an acre to destroy a dug in strong point, and only 25% or 10% of what we fire will land in the target area, we must fire 4 /10 times that (or maybe more, using calculus or whatever) to destroy it.

Booboo, the final protective fires piece is exactly the point

The logic might be:

A strung out infantry battalion has a reserve panzer kampfgruppe within 60 minutes of reinforcement, and can call in protective fires in 15. We want to push this tank brigade forward through the main line of resistance before the reserves can be brought up. To do so will require a 60 minute prep, or we can temporarily suppress the position in 30 minutes, but we will have to barrage them with a lot of cheap, wildly inaccurate rockets with ridiculously high rates of fire. We won't kill many, but these defenders are green (which is EXACTLY why we're attacking in this sector) and it will rattle their cage long enough for the 99th human wave brigade to get amongst them.

Wait, this sounds really inefficient. Why don't we build really finely machined cannon in larger numbers?

Because we have some marginal factories who don't have the technical ability to build them to tolerance. They're cheap, go Whoosh, and we can make lots of them. We have T34s and riflemen all over the place, shock effect is good enough.

While I am really talking out my butt on this one, I would bet that in bang for your buck terms, a one shot barrage from a katyusha or nebel is probably a very efficent use of industrial capacity, more so than a heavy bomber or artillery piece. If the wild inaccuracy bothers you, go with 155mms and P-47s. Otherwise, build more and rely on the law of averages.

In the assault on the Oder river, for example, I believe the Russians were using something like 400 of them.

[MajorBooBoo]

"Sound ranging used a straight line base of six very accurately surveyed microphones connected by line to a pen recorder in a CP. This recorded the relative times of arrival at each microphone of the sound of guns firing, which enabled a line to be plotted from each microphone to give a ‘cats-cradle’, resolving this gave the HB location. The record could also show the type of gun. Forward deployed advanced posts ordered the CP to switch on the pen recorder when they heard guns firing. The British equipment was capable of locating guns to range of about 6 miles and an accuracy of about 100 yards. However, these were not sensitive enough for mortars, but improved significantly in 1944 with the arrival of the ‘four pen’ recorder that connected to a line of four microphones (typically 400 to 1000 yards apart) although 8.1-cm mortars remained a problem. Sound ranging could also range CB fire onto a HB using a ‘comparator’, a mechanical device for solving first order differential equations."

This from

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/index.htm

These techniques probably were only good during periods of calm. During a raging battle, the floor of noise from so many weapons firing would be like a jamming device.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

These techniques probably were only good during periods of calm. During a raging battle, the floor of noise from so many weapons firing would be like a jamming device.

Err, not necessarily. At least not with the German army observation detachments (Beobachtungsabteilungen). If you check out where the LPs/OPs were actually placed, you'll see that they were out of the line, in a rear area. Small-arms fire and tank engine noise would not really be that much of an issue.

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

These techniques probably were only good during periods of calm. During a raging battle, the floor of noise from so many weapons firing would be like a jamming device.

Err, not necessarily. At least not with the German army observation detachments (Beobachtungsabteilungen). If you check out where the LPs/OPs were actually placed, you'll see that they were out of the line, in a rear area. Small-arms fire and tank engine noise would not really be that much of an issue.</font>

[Andreas]

MBB

Question - have you ever seen a map of how these posts were placed, or do you indeed know any more than what you are saying here, which is just surmising for all I can tell?

Well, it is a good thing to see you know all anyway, and I am sure that there is no need to debate this any further, since you pronounced on it. I salute your infinte wisdom, and bow to your knowledge. You are obviously very smart.

[karch]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

In a raging battle, both sides are firing. That means your own mortars, arty, tank, antitank, etc are firing. most of your weapons and the enemy weapons are usually in front and to the sides and rear of the receptors. i would love to see the needles move on these recorders when that was happening. the ground vibrations could also effect these analog type devices. these methods were stated as being range dependant so having them too far back would decrease their sensitivity obviously.

I'd have to dissagree with you on this one. If you use directional microphones, probably set within a parabolic dish, you would ONLY hear sound from the direction you were aiming the microphone. That's why you can hear the quarterback's calls on TV when there a nearly 100,000 screaming people in the stadium, many of them FAR closer than the quarterback and an order of magnatude louder. There is a guy with a parabolic dish aimed at the QB and you can hear him pretty well, at least louder than the crowd.

If you had guns 50M away from your microphones, sure you would get masking sounds, but that probably wasn't done. I don't see how very low frequency vibrations would set off a microphone. The microphone would probably be tuned to lower mid to upper midrange frequencies and filter out very low frequency. It's NOT directional anyway so why pick it up. The higher the frequency, the more directional it is, but the more it is attenuated by distance, ground masking, trees etc. Mid range frequencies would be your best bet for distance AND direction.

The British were able to hear German aircraft forming at the channel a few miles away and get distance estimates, I'd say the troops were some distance behind the lines, maybe a mile or 2 to be safe and still be close enough to hear reports.

Just my 2c.

As for my previous post about tight vs loose groupings.... I was wrong. I agree blind shoots should be just as tight as aimed artillery, unless you call for a WIDE dispersion. My Bad.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

MBB

Question - have you ever seen a map of how these posts were placed, or do you indeed know any more than what you are saying here, which is just surmising for all I can tell?

Well, it is a good thing to see you know all anyway, and I am sure that there is no need to debate this any further, since you pronounced on it. I salute your infinte wisdom, and bow to your knowledge. You are obviously very smart.

He only seems to be abusive with those who have shown themselves capable of deeper, critical analysis. Welcome to the club, Andreas - see his earlier posts in the latest "MG thread" for even more reasons not to bother reading or responding to what he writes.

I take it one of your relatives was in one of these listening posts? It is interesting to me that the Canadians had pioneered sound ranging and flash spotting in World War One; wonder how and when the Germans learned these techniques - if they were independently developed, or if they somehow learned all this by contact with Empire gunners. During the barrage on Vimy (described by Pierre Berton as a "wall of sound", they were still able to locate something like 90 percent of the German batteries in the area, who were desperately trying to fire counter battery. Apparently, the "ambient noise" didn't bother them too badly, either.

On contact between gunners (do German gunners celebrate St. Barbara's Day, by the way?) Arthur Currie had been convinced that there was some "sort of freemasonry" between gunners on each side, because before he took over the Canadian Corps, German and Canadian batteries spent their time shelling the infantry and apparently bothered little about shelling each other. The ability to spot and fix enemy batteries by listening and spotting techniques changed all that.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I take it one of your relatives was in one of these listening posts?

My grandfather was an NCO and OP commander in a light ranging (Lichtmess) battery in observation detachments 26 and 30 from 1939-44, serving in Poland, France, and outside Leningrad until he was wounded during the retreat (have a look at the link in my sig). The OP/LPs were dual use, light ranging at night, and sound during the day. I have no idea where the Germans learned that stuff. The particular branch of service was called 'Aufklärende Artillerie'. Also no idea on whether German gunners celebrate St. Barbara's day I somehow doubt it.

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.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

... a paper on the development of counter-battery practices in the Great War ...

In that paper it is made clear that the RA developed the ability to pick out the distinctive frequencies for different calibres. In effect this meant that they were unhindered by the ambient sound-scape. This was in 1917-18.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

In that paper it is made clear that the RA developed the ability to pick out the distinctive frequencies for different calibres. In effect this meant that they were unhindered by the ambient sound-scape. This was in 1917-18.

Thanks again for that Jon. Now could you make the day have 36 hours please? I just trawled the document, and this is what I found:

From: The British Army's counter-battery staff office and control of the enemy in World War I (The Journal of Military History); Jan 1999; Albert P Palazzo

Sound ranging employed a series of microphones connected to a central recording machine which registered the movement of both the sound wave generated by the gun's blast and also of the subsequent explosion of the shell. By measuring the difference in the time it took the sound wave to reach each microphone, the engineers could calculate the location of the source. As different ordnance types have specific sound wave characteristics, the British could also determine the hostile gun's calibre. The sensitivity of sound ranging equipment was such that the firing of a single round was sufficient to give away a gun's location.

(emphasis by me)

Not much of a point posting this though, since Iam sure it will not stand up to the discerning standards and rigorous intellectual approach exhibited by Major Booboo (was there ever a more appropriate forum name?)

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by Andreas:

MBB

Question - have you ever seen a map of how these posts were placed, or do you indeed know any more than what you are saying here, which is just surmising for all I can tell?

Well, it is a good thing to see you know all anyway, and I am sure that there is no need to debate this any further, since you pronounced on it. I salute your infinte wisdom, and bow to your knowledge. You are obviously very smart.

I believe there are sub-grog catagories.

Here they are;

1. Educated Grogs holding degrees. Will even discuss the science behind it all.

2. Testy Grogs, almost cranky, grogs holding grudges. Humorless and best avoided.

3. Groggy Grogs. Insominiacs mostly. They make alot of tpying errors.

4. Grovelling Grogs who, for some unfathomable reason, like to be teachers pets and tattletales mostly.

None of the above have anything that can be described as a real life, let alone much sex. Modders cant be put into catagories because the people that have studied them lose their minds and quit.

If anyone has worked with some of the old data recorders, they would know that vibration would have a serious effect on the needle movement not the transducer(microphone).

heres a mind experiment:

If multiple batteries, lets say 3 times 105mm german howitzers (4 guns each) that are all located in different areas and thus, different ranges from the sound equipment, all open fire at the same time, what would the recordings be? Are they useful?

discuss amongst yourselves.

[ February 10, 2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ]

[Maple Tree]

Just an update to my earlier Nebelwerfer post:

Here is a link to a brief movie of the NW firing:

http://normandy.eb.com/normandy/media/onormay517v1.html

It seems Real Player wants my credit card number before I can download their free software, so I have not watched it myself.

I was flipping through a book I have:

Twentieth-Century Arillery - by Ian Hogg

and it has this to say on the subject:

Nebelwerfer 41 ( launcher ) - Under the terms of the Versailles Treaty, Germany could not develop heavy artillery. However, the Treaty said nothing about rockets. Therefore, rockets were developed as a substitute for artillery from 1931 onwards and the Nebelwerfer was one of the products of this program. The launcher was a six-barrelled device on a split trail two-wheeled mounting and the rocket was an ingenious design, which had the motor in the front section, exhausting through a ring of vents halfway down the body and the explosive 'warhead' was actually the sail section of the round. This gave good accuracy, since the rocket was pulling instead of pushing and also gave better terminal effect because the bursting charge was above the ground when it detonated.

Calibre: 158 mm ( 6.22in )

Launcher weight: 770kg ( 1697.9lbs ) - loaded

Length of rocket 979 mm ( 38.55in )

Weight of rocket: 31.8kg ( 70lbs )

Warhead: HE; 2.83 ( 5.70lbs )

Maximun velocity: 342m/sec ( 1120ft/sec )

Maximum range: 7,060m ( 7,725 yds )

----

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.

Calibre: 210mm ( 8.27in )

Launcher weight: 1100kg ( 425lbs )

Length of rocket: 1.249m ( 49.21in )

Weight to rocket: 109.55kg ( 241.31lbs )

Warhead: HE; 10.17kg ( 22.4lbs )

Maximum velocity: 320m/sec ( 1,050ft/sec )

Maximum range: 7,850 ( 8,585yds )

[Bastables]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

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

MBB

Question - have you ever seen a map of how these posts were placed, or do you indeed know any more than what you are saying here, which is just surmising for all I can tell?

Well, it is a good thing to see you know all anyway, and I am sure that there is no need to debate this any further, since you pronounced on it. I salute your infinte wisdom, and bow to your knowledge. You are obviously very smart.

I believe there are sub-grog catagories.

Here they are;

1. Educated Grogs holding degrees. Will even discuss the science behind it all.

2. Testy Grogs, almost cranky, grogs holding grudges. Humorless and best avoided.

3. Groggy Grogs. Insominiacs mostly. They make alot of tpying errors.

4. Grovelling Grogs who, for some unfathomable reason, like to be teachers pets and tattletales mostly.

None of the above have anything that can be described as a real life, let alone much sex. Modders cant be put into catagories because the people that have studied them lose their minds and quit.

If anyone has worked with some of the old data recorders, they would know that vibration would have a serious effect on the needle movement not the transducer(microphone).

heres a mind experiment:

If multiple batteries, lets say 3 times 105mm german howitzers (4 guns each) that are all located in different areas and thus, different ranges from the sound equipment, all open fire at the same time, what would the recordings be? Are they useful?

discuss amongst yourselves.</font>

[MajorBooBoo]

I would want the Wurgranate 42 rocket then. Its payload being truly a blast.

I would argue against the accuracy of a 41 because of reasons mentioned earlier.

(Whats a hominine?)

[Andreas]

Okay, MBB. Thank you for admitting that you are talking out of your rear end. Now if you would be so kind to let the adults talk to each other, we can all get along nicely.

Your pathetic little example somehow seems to fail to address the evidence from the Great War I provided.

Your insults are also recognised for what they are. One more of those posts, and I copy them to the moderators. No point in wasting time with someone like you.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

I would want the Wurgranate 42 rocket then. Its payload being truly a blast.

I would argue against the accuracy of a 41 because of reasons mentioned earlier.

(Whats a hominine?)

Whoa you've got me its should be ad hominem, naughty spell check. Well done on making a red herring argument though. you should try a tautology next or a strawman debate. Eye of the tiger mate, eye of the tiger.

[MajorBooBoo]

i bet that I am one of the few people here that has worked on tube based (shudder) electronics. I have also worked with very old data recording technology. I have worked in vibrationally challenging environments. I am very familiar with spectrum analysis.

Does that make me a WWII era electronics genius and expert on counter battery radar? No. I never said as much. But any post where someone has some information attracts the detractors. It was a very interesting discussion till the last page or so. This is a trend that appears on this board alot.

I am still hoping that JasonC decides to come back to this therad. Say what you like about him, he is knowledgable and can express himself in a correct technical manner.

JonS posted:

"In that paper it is made clear that the RA developed the ability to pick out the distinctive frequencies for different calibres. In effect this meant that they were unhindered by the ambient sound-scape. This was in 1917-18."

I think he (Jon) was the one from the IS2 thread that jumped on the momentum problem and got it right so I will give him some respect. But I believe that he is assuming something in his last sentence. If it is an fact true and not an assumption, perhaps he can say so.

Someone else said that the transducers can be directional. This would mean that they would have to be pointed within an angle at the unknown battery.

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

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.

[Brian]

MBB, I was wondering if you would be willing to share with us your intimate knowledge of how sound locating and ranging actually works?

Perhaps Andreas, Jon and myself would see whether or not you know what you claiming to be talking about? 'cause I for one, at least, suspect you don't actually have a clue how sound location and ranging actually worked.

I'll even give you a clue - Shelford Bidwell, in his excellent book "Firepower" mentions how the concepts were first arrived at, in an amusing little anecdote. Perhaps you've read it?

[JonS]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

JonS posted:

"In that paper it is made clear that the RA developed the ability to pick out the distinctive frequencies for different calibres. In effect this meant that they were unhindered by the ambient sound-scape. This was in 1917-18."

... I believe that he is assuming something in his last sentence. If it is an fact true and not an assumption, perhaps he can say so.

The 1917-18 sentence? No assumption there. The paper makes it clear that they had mastered the techniques of CB by the time of Paschendale. However, due to environmental conditions there (weather, layout of the salient, etc) it wasn't very successful. In other battles it was very succesful.

The equipment used consisted of several straight lines of microphones in carefully surveyed locations, with the recording equipment elsewhere. By noting the time that particular soundwaves arrived at each of the microphones in turn, angles to targets could be deduced. The microphones did not need to be directional. This is all covered in the quote in Andreas' post above.

I would be willing to lay money on them having trouble initially with skip, vibration, trying to figure out which sound related to what hostile battery, etc. On the other hand, I would put that same money on them not just giving up and going home. Using the primitive equipment available to them in 1917-18, the RA developed a fast and efficient CB program.

Regards

JonS

Edit: typos, clarifications, etc.

[ February 10, 2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[MajorBooBoo]

I have already posted how they work. repeated here for your reading pleasure.

"Sound ranging used a straight line base of six very accurately surveyed microphones connected by line to a pen recorder in a CP. This recorded the relative times of arrival at each microphone of the sound of guns firing, which enabled a line to be plotted from each microphone to give a ‘cats-cradle’, resolving this gave the HB location. The record could also show the type of gun. Forward deployed advanced posts ordered the CP to switch on the pen recorder when they heard guns firing. The British equipment was capable of locating guns to range of about 6 miles and an accuracy of about 100 yards. However, these were not sensitive enough for mortars, but improved significantly in 1944 with the arrival of the ‘four pen’ recorder that connected to a line of four microphones (typically 400 to 1000 yards apart) although 8.1-cm mortars remained a problem. Sound ranging could also range CB fire onto a HB using a ‘comparator’, a mechanical device for solving first order differential equations."

This from

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/index.htm

Are you more interested in the physics/electronics side then? Theres many issues with ambients/drift/non-repeatability/tuning, etc. I could expand on that. I am responding to what I percieve to be genuine interest and not hostility dripping in your post Brian. I think the voice of calm and reason has come into this thread and his name is Brian. Knowing how things "work" is fine, knowing how they cant work requires somemore than reading.

[Brian]

No, MBB, I am not asking for a cut-and-paste job.

I am asking you to explain, in your own words, how sound location and ranging worked.

Lets see if you can do it and please again, no cut-and-paste. You explain to us how the microphones were setup, why they were setup that way and more importantly, what was it they recorded.

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by Brian:

I am asking you to explain, in your own words, how sound location and ranging worked.

Lets see if you can do it and please again, no cut-and-paste. You explain to us how the microphones were setup, why they were setup that way and more importantly, what was it they recorded.

I hate to break your bubble but the microphones dont record diddly.

You are revealing yourself to be technically incorrect in even asking the question you are trying to impress upon everyone that you (and the others you have selected in your royal "we") know so well!!!!!

I am not kidding. microphones are transducers that create signals. Sorry pally. I cant explain things that you are likely to misunderstand since you cant ask the question right! I beg your pardon but you are biting off more than you can chew. How things work can be explained at many levels. Where you at?

Lets see if you, no cheating now, can ask a clear question that I will answer. Its still early where you are so dont rush.

[Brian]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

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

I am asking you to explain, in your own words, how sound location and ranging worked.

Lets see if you can do it and please again, no cut-and-paste. You explain to us how the microphones were setup, why they were setup that way and more importantly, what was it they recorded.

I hate to break your bubble but the microphones dont record diddly.

You are revealing yourself to be technically incorrect in even asking the question you are trying to impress upon everyone that you (and the others you have selected in your royal "we") know so well!!!!!

I am not kidding. microphones are transducers that create signals. Sorry pally. I cant explain things that you are likely to misunderstand since you cant ask the question right! I beg your pardon but you are biting off more than you can chew. How things work can be explained at many levels. Where you at?

Lets see if you, no cheating now, can ask a clear question that I will answer. Its still early where you are so dont rush.</font>