Infantry Firefights in Forested terrain.

[Michael Emrys]

Penetration of german 7.92mm sS bullet (the standard one for rifles and MGs) vs . dry pine wood, taken from H.DV 73, shooting regulation for HMG, page 25/26, 1937:

at 100m penetrates 65cm dry pine wood

at 400m penetrates 85cm dry pine wood (!)

at 800m penetrates 45cm dry pine wood

at 1800m penetrates 25cm dry pine wood

Forgive me for asking, but are you quite sure that is supposed to be centimeters and not millimeters? 85cm is almost three feet. Even though pine is a relatively soft wood, that seems almost incredible.

Michael

[Broadsword56]

What I'm finding challenging is not being able to take cover in forests from forces that are firing in from the outside...

Again, it's a matter of good map-design principles. We have a lively thread devoted to making proper forests that use combinations of hedge tiles, brush, D trees, etc., on the fringes to create a realistic amount of cover and concealment for units inside the woods. It can be done, I think, with the tools we have.

[LongLeftFlank]

My trusty 303 SMLE fired at 100m or so once penetrated a first 2 foot diameter white oak then a second slightly smaller trunk about 5m beyond that. After that I lost track. And that was with soft-nosed sporting ammo.

[YankeeDog]

Forgive me for asking, but are you quite sure that is supposed to be centimeters and not millimeters? 85cm is almost three feet. Even though pine is a relatively soft wood, that seems almost incredible.

Michael

Not surprising to me at all. Go on Youtube and look up some of those videos of modern 7.62mm NATO (same general ballistics class) being fired through all sorts of crap. It's pretty impressive.

[Erwin]

There was an earlier post someplace that such a bullet would go thru about 25cm/10" of reinforced concrete. Pretty amazing. You'd think you'd be safe behind that. Probably been watching too many TV/movie firefights where people are safe behind one row of bricks.

[Michael Emrys]

[waves hanky from behind two feet of reinforced concrete]

Okay, I give. I accept the consensus of informed opinion here. White oak is definitely tougher than pine, so I guess that tell us something.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

Amazing, isn't it!

Is this the same as WWII weapons?

GaJ

[womble]

Amazing, isn't it!

Is this the same as WWII weapons?

GaJ

Most of the figures being quoted here are actually from performance figures for WW2 weapons.

[GreenAsJade]

Good to know: wasn't completely clear, given the references to modern day guns that people own and have tested.

Would be great to see a real life performance test like

http://civiliandefenseforce.com/308penetrationtest.html

with bricks/other wall material.

GaJ

[womble]

Just looking at the last couplea pages, the only user-owner test reported is actually of a WW2 vintage weapon: the 303 SMLE is the short magazine Lee Enfield rifle the British-armed forces used.

[c3k]

Modern 7.62x51mm NATO ammo compares favorably, but lesser, than the .30 '06 used in the Garand. (It's modern nomenclature would be something like 7.62x63mm.) The Garand cartridge case is longer, but more narrow, than the modern NATO round. The case size has various effects on burn front, etc., beyond just volume.

Roughly speaking, the .30-06 can push a 180gr bullet at 2700fps while the same weight round out of a 7.62 NATO cartridge would go 2580fps. That gives the .30-06 about a 10% increase in muzzle energy.

Increase your penetration figures as needed.

(Please, oh, please, let's not get into the minutia of how certain 7.62 rounds can have higher velocity, handloads, different rifling effects, etc., etc. Please. This is a rough cut post only.)

Ken

[womble]

Modern 7.62x51mm NATO ammo compares favorably, but lesser, than the .30 '06 used in the Garand.

That's interesting. I'd sort of assumed that propellant tech had improved a bit since WW2, and the current round would therefore be more powerful. Perhaps it has, but not enough to overcome the differences in cartridge. Cool.

[Sublime]

Quick question - how does the 7.92mm round used by the Werhmacht stack up?

[womble]

Quick question - how does the 7.92mm round used by the Werhmacht stack up?

That short list of penetration depths offered by RockinHarry is for the 7.92mm round.

[c3k]

Um, about .3mm bigger?

A very quick check, with all the appropriate warning inherent to internet skimmings, shows that the 7.92x57mm round (also called the 8x57), seems to be very similar to the .30-06. A 181gr round shows 2700fps. (The .30-06 showed 180gr at 2700fps.) That would be...1/2 of 1% more energy at the muzzle. Oddly, the same source (okay, you caught me; it's friggin' wikipedia. Gah.), shows a 187gr round ALSO at 2700fps.

My rough take on this is that the German and US rifle rounds were quite comparable. End effects, ballistics, etc., should be close enough that other factors would be the bigger difference (round characteristics, rifling, sights, etc.) in how well one or the other worked.

Both these WWII rifle rounds had a bit more energy than the modern NATO round. (That's been a consistent trend in firearms development for some time: reducing mass and/or energy. Older rounds - think 1890's - could drop an elephant. Men don't need so much ballistic performance to kill. After each conflict, the main rifle ammo has been reduced in power. We're down to .22 carbines now. Although, there is a lot of argument that a bit more oomph is now needed. That's grist for another thread...)

Ken

[Sublime]

That short list of penetration depths offered by RockinHarry is for the 7.92mm round.

haha. I was being lazy. waiting for someone to say its a little better, or whatever.

-sigh- Ill go look at the fu*king chart I guess

[RockinHarry]

Forgive me for asking, but are you quite sure that is supposed to be centimeters and not millimeters? 85cm is almost three feet. Even though pine is a relatively soft wood, that seems almost incredible.

Michael

Yup, it´s cm. Data straigthly taken from the german field regulation of 1937.

[RockinHarry]

I repost data charts here from the other thread:

Since most tests are done comparing US small arms ammo, here´s some data for the common german 7.92mm sS round (schweres Spitzgeschoss).

Taken from german H.DV 316, Pionierdienst aller Waffen, table 12, 1936.

Cover vs. rifle fire at ranges of 400m and below:

earth, sand, clay = 100cm

sandbags = 50cm

grass pads = 120cm

gravel = 20cm

oak wood, round = 70cm

pine wood = 130cm

brick wall = 38cm (no protection vs. machine gun point fire)

And some data from Wolfgang Fleischers "Field Fortifications of the german army, 1939-1945:

This is general guidelines for safe cover vs. enemy small arms, 1944:

stamped snow = 250-300cm

fresh snow = 400cm

ice = 80cm

firm earth = 120cm

loose earth = 140cm

clay = 110cm

sand, rubble = 100cm

soft wood = 90cm

hard wood = 75cm

sandbags = 70cm

soft rock = 60cm

medium hard rock = 40cm

brick wall = 65cm

field stone wall = 40cm

concrete = 20cm

steel concrete = 20cm

Some more interesting data re german 7.92mm sS bullet, taken from H.DV 73, shooting regulation for HMG, page 25/26, 1937:

at 100m penetrates 65cm dry pine wood

at 400m penetrates 85cm dry pine wood (!)

at 800m penetrates 45cm dry pine wood

at 1800m penetrates 25cm dry pine wood

the fact, that the 7.92mm sS penetrates less at 100m is from the bullet deforming at impact with the higher V0, resulting in worse penetration.

Brick walls of single brick strength (25cm), can only be penetrated by single bullets if they hit a joint by chance. With longer shooting and hitting at the same spot, even stronger walls do not provide safe protection.

[LukeFF]

...and then there's the 7.62x54R round, which fires at about 2,800 fps from an M91/30.

[Erwin.Rommel]

I suppose this is not the issue related to the penetration of the round but related to the change of the game engine from CMX1 to CMX2.

In CMx1 things are abstract,when you place your troop in the forest,they are not in the place that you see from the screen.In fact the engine calulation according to the situation that your troop are well place them behind good cover(trees),but in CMX2,things are completely different.the troop are in the place that they actually are and the AI can not place every soldiers behind good cover(trees),in this situation,the trees can not give enough cover because the soldier can not well use it.

[JasonC]

Erwin - in the movies they think all ammo is pistol ammo, and sufficient cover against a 9mm is sufficient cover against the generic concept of "bullets". But this isn't remotely true in reality. Pistol ammo is one thing, carbine ammo again things like a brick wall might stop (especially at an angle), or reduce the damage behind. But full rifle ammo is just in another league.

Here is a Marine Corps test of all the various weapons against typical light exterior walls, including a single layer of brick or cinder block, at 0 or 45 degrees. Complete with interior targets in flak jackets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwIjIkb-ktU

The moral? Bring a rifle or rifle caliber GP MG, and none of that matters. Bring a 50 cal and you will take the place apart.

[womble]

Here is a Marine Corps test of all the various weapons against typical light exterior walls, including a single layer of brick or cinder block, at 0 or 45 degrees. Complete with interior targets in flak jackets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwIjIkb-ktU

The moral? Bring a rifle or rifle caliber GP MG, and none of that matters. Bring a 50 cal and you will take the place apart.

I was surprised to see M16 failing to penetrate cinderblock, and only getting through brick at the seams.

[poesel]

Here is a Marine Corps test of all the various weapons against typical light exterior walls, including a single layer of brick or cinder block, at 0 or 45 degrees.

This may be a typical US wall but, sorry - this wouldn't be gardenshed material in europe!

I'm joking - but only half. It really astonishes me again and again how houses are build in the US. It must have some kind of advantage else they wouldn't be build like that but there are no such houses here.

Older houses, especially rural, tend to be build from thick stone walls. I'm no expert but going back to CMBN it always makes me wonder how fragile these houses are.

[womble]

This may be a typical US wall but, sorry - this wouldn't be gardenshed material in europe!

I'm joking - but only half. It really astonishes me again and again how houses are build in the US. It must have some kind of advantage else they wouldn't be build like that but there are no such houses here.

Older houses, especially rural, tend to be build from thick stone walls. I'm no expert but going back to CMBN it always makes me wonder how fragile these houses are.

There is at least one house type in BN that provides excellent protection against rifle-calibre ammo. I had 2 M1917 and 4 rifle teams that had BARs firing for about 5 minutes at a spotted HQ on the upper storey of a 2-storey heavy-looking house (had grilles in the windows). It was taking 30 or more seconds to suppress the HQ each time it popped its head up, and they took no casualties until a tank managed to find a LOF for its main gun, then the 75mm did some damage.

[RockinHarry]

This may be a typical US wall but, sorry - this wouldn't be gardenshed material in europe!

I'm joking - but only half. It really astonishes me again and again how houses are build in the US. It must have some kind of advantage else they wouldn't be build like that but there are no such houses here.

Older houses, especially rural, tend to be build from thick stone walls. I'm no expert but going back to CMBN it always makes me wonder how fragile these houses are.

Bit off topic in this thread, so lets revive in here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99777