Michael Emrys Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Currently playing a QB in which I had a battalion of 105s deliver a preplanned prep fire on suspected German positions. When it arrived, I noticed about half of them were airbursts. Not tree bursts; there were no trees present to cause them. So how is this possible? Did the US army have timed fuses accurate enough to detonate consistently a certain distance above the ground available for 105 howitzers in Normandy? I understand that the VT proximity fuse was not released for surface to surface artillery until the Battle of the Bulge. Did BFC jump the gun a bit or what is going on here? :confused: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Yeah, time fuzes had been used to generate airbursts since WWI. They aren't as consisten as VT fuzes since they can only be adjusted to something like 0.1 seconds, which at a target-end velocity of 300-odd m/s gives a variance of 30 metres. But airbursts are certainly possible. Roughly 2/3rds of the rounds should be going off in the air, with the rest on the ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statisoris Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Also for anyone who doesn't know, effect (Personnel), airburst via timed fuse, can be called in TRP areas as well as in preplanned barrages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 Also for anyone who doesn't know, effect (Personnel), airburst via timed fuse, can be called in TRP areas as well as in preplanned barrages. I think I've also seen them on offer for on-call strikes not on TRPs as well. I'll check on that next time I get a chance. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 FWIW all preplanned arty seems to have this option. Well at least if its not a mortar, I dont think mortar shells can do this. TRPs as well - you can do it. I also think with FO's you *MAY* be able to do this with heavy arty- like the 240mm. I think so, but Im starting to think Im wrong because the scenario I had in mind had TRPs.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Germans also used "bouncing" shots with delayed fuzes, when the target area had hard enough ground and the guns positions and range allowed for very low angle shooting. Was particularly devastating in russia vs attacking infantry masses in rather flat and open ground. Don´t think germans had many opportunities to apply these vs western allies in 1944 though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think I've also seen them on offer for on-call strikes not on TRPs as well. I'll check on that next time I get a chance. I checked this last night and apparently that is not so. I could get it for strikes aimed at or near a TRP but not on the rest of the map. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SelfLoadingRifle Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Wasn't there a particularly good example of shrapnell arty airburst used with consistent success against the French in the defence of Hougoumont Farm at the Battle of Waterloo? Technology was much more primitive back then, but in that episode those guys really seemed to make it work. SLR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 Germans also used "bouncing" shots with delayed fuzes, when the target area had hard enough ground and the guns positions and range allowed for very low angle shooting. Was particularly devastating in russia vs attacking infantry masses in rather flat and open ground. Don´t think germans had many opportunities to apply these vs western allies in 1944 though. It was probably used on the Western Front as well. GIs either learned it from them or worked it out for themselves. Flat trajectory weapons were not working so well against dug in troops until they began using delayed fuzes and firing at the ground in front of the emplacement. It had to be done just so in order for the round to ricochet over the emplacement and for the fuze to detonate as it passed over. Probably didn't work all that well, but when it was the only thing that did... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Yeah, time fuzes had been used to generate airbursts since WWI. Timed fuses were around quite a bit before WW1. Mechanical timed fuses have been around at least since the ACW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Reliable MT fuzes are a WWI thing. Just like indirect fire, really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Timed fuses were around quite a bit before WW1. Mechanical timed fuses have been around at least since the ACW. Not to totally betray my ignorance here.. oh hell why not fire away. - aren't by their very nature all fuses time fuses? Wouldn't it be just a matter of having a consistent burn length and knowledge of the time it took to get the projectile on target? (or where in relation to the target you wanted the explosive to go off) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 aren't by their very nature all fuses time fuses? Most fuzes are point detonating. I suppose a pedantic interpretation could be that even PD fuzes go off after a certain amount of time, but generally MT is seen to be synonomous with air-burst. Wouldn't it be just a matter of having a consistent burn length and knowledge of the time it took to get the projectile on target? (or where in relation to the target you wanted the explosive to go off) Sure. But that little word 'just' masks a vast amount of complication. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Percussion fuses, proximity fuses. The fuse is the initiating device for the explosive there are numerous types of fuses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 Wouldn't it be just a matter of having a consistent burn length and knowledge of the time it took to get the projectile on target? Yeah, but there's a catch. Knowing exactly to the millisecond how long it will take a shell to reach the precise point you want it to detonate is a non-trivial problem, especially in the days before high speed digital computers. Also, having a mechanical fuze of sufficient precision and reliability even if you knew what numbers to put into it is another non-trivial problem. Fortunately, solutions to these problems were adequately worked out so that such shells would perform "well enough" enough of the time to be occasionally useful. But the proximity fuze was a much more accurate and reliable solution, and prior to its introduction the vast majority of artillery shells were either contact detonated or sometimes delayed. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well I did ask for it. Gentleman I will go back under my rock and google some information and relieve myself of my ignorance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 2, 2011 Author Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well I did ask for it. Gentleman I will go back under my rock and google some information and relieve myself of my ignorance. It's an interesting subject. Not long ago I was reading a book about carrier aviation during the Korean war, and in one chapter the author mentioned that at one point fairly early in the war they were using proximity fuzed bombs to silence antiaircraft batteries. I had known for some time that such fuzes had been built for bombs, but this was the first mention I had encountered of their operational use. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.