BFC, Reinforced concrete buildings vs. aerial bombs & shells

[John Kettler]

Earlier tonight, I learned something on a History Channel Battlefield Detectives episode which may be useful to CM:SF designers. The program was on why the Germans lost at Stalingrad, and the first part dealt with a remarkable architectural discovery: the brick buildings weren't brick, but were instead brick faced reinforced concrete! This did wonderful things for their ability to endure heavy attack, as shown by the Flour Mill right on the Volga, a mill which took a direct 250+ kg aerial bomb hit, blowing a huge hole in the roof and top of the front wall, and a substantial hole in the floor below, but didn't demolish the building or even come close. Indeed, the building had a slew of other shell holes in it, some many feet across, yet the building still stood, still stands unrepaired to this day as a special memorial.

Architectural analysis, postbattle photo coverage and computer modeling showed that the real damage was done by the first blast, after which subsequent attacks were greatly reduced in effectiveness by the blast's dissipating through all the prior openings in the building, to include all the blown out windows. Further, in most cases, even the parts which did fail landed within the building footprint. Postbattle imagery showed

that even gutted buildings' walls generally stood, despite weeks of heavy combat. Stalingrad streets were quite visible in aerial photos taken after the battle, and this, combined with the unexpectedly tough nature of the buildings, was deemed key to why the Russians were able to defend so effectively.

I don't know how well the reinforced concrete buildings in Syria/qua Syria stack up against modern explosives, but I thought I'd mention this, in case it proved useful. What kind of building was it which was leveled by the GMLRS in combat in Iraq, and what was the test building made of the video someone posted?

Regards,

John Kettler

[offtaskagain]

The answer to reinforced concrete is the delay fuse and large caliber. 60mm and 81mm mortar systems are not much use in an urban environment due to their low penetrating power and small explosive filler. 120mm systems on the other hand have been found to be capable of causing all kinds of problems for brick and low quality concrete buildings. Anything above that with a delay fuse should eat up smaller reinforced concrete structures. Bigger buildings like the Stalingrad mill or a hardened bunker would require aerial ordnance. The building destroyed by the GMLRS was most likely one of the shoddily built cinderblockish structures common to this part of the world. They might be able to stop 5.56 rounds but I wouldnt rate them any better than that.

I've got another example video that I just posted on Youtube from my time in Haditha with 3/3. I didn't take it but I got it from one of the guys who was there and confirmed the ordnance amounts with the battalion air shop. The building was a large 3 story reinforced concrete hotel that was destroyed by 4 2000lb JDAMS and 4 500lb JDAMS. There was also a pair of M1A1s firing on it. You can see one round impact in the video. You can also see the Marines involved are well within danger close for a 500lb munition, much less the 2000lb ones. I guess it shows we have alot of confidence in the pilots and weapons these days. I suppose I should put the link in here somewhere.

[ November 30, 2006, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: offtaskagain ]

[imported_Wildman]

In addition, the prevelence of 2000lb bombs makes for a much bigger bang. Combined that with the more accurate delivery method.

Even if that is the case, you blow off the roof and floors you have reduced the buildings effectiveness.

Remember today's planners don't try and eliminate targets, they plan for battlefield effects.