Absurdly accurate first turn Russian Artillery

[junk2drive]

There was/is quite the uproar in the John Tiller's Campaign Series forum when they changed the indirect arty damage to AFVs rules in an update.

We are still in testing/adjusting mode so it will be tweaked before release.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Ron
I also remember another more recent report which analyzed US 155mm effectiveness with assorted modern munitions and it proved to be quite effective even in not so close proximity, probably due to the size of the caliber and ammuniton types.

I had a Colonel in the US Army Armor tell me he has had both 105mm and 155mm artillery mistakenly dropped on him. The 105mm was not worrying but the 155mm was quite “impressive“. (This was in M60 tanks.)

[Zemke]

Let's try and frame this another way.  Artillery can fire for several km, but lets use 10k as the range from the target to the guns, around six miles. Direct fire weapons in WW II usually had an effective range of 500m to 2k, and usually were kinetic energy rounds, in other words they punched a hole in their target due to speed/mass/projectile diameter.  Any minor change to a gun is going to affect the flight of the round, and the error increases over distance.  Any direct hits by artillery is sheer luck, nothing else.  The other factor is the type of round tanks and artillery use.  Tank/AT guns used kinetic and shaped charged rounds.  Shaped charged rounds are designed to explode on impact and blow a hole in the armor.  Artillery rounds are NOT shaped charge rounds, they are designed to explode and spread shrapnel to kill men and damage light vehicles.  Tanks guns projectiles rely on speed and mass to get the penetration, so tank guns shoot flat or high speed like a rifle bullet.  Artillery can shoot longer distance, due to the angles it shoots at, and charge size.  In general artillery projectiles exit the tube a lot slower than a tank round.  So as you can see the ranges artillery fires is a lot longer than any tank gun.  Directly hitting a target the size of a tank with artillery is not done.  A tank would not like it, but the chances of getting hit are very low, because artillery is NOT a point attack weapon, it cannot be, and in WW II there was no expectation you would get direct hits on a tank.  The purpose of shooting artillery at tanks was not to kill them, but to cause them to button up, and maybe to move.  Second, a direct hit by an artillery round would not necessarily cause a kill to a tank.  First the HE rounds for artillery are not designed to do that, so it would depend on size weight and speed of the rounds and thickness of the armor, and explosive charge.  If the armor was thin, a kill is possible, but anything pretty thick, a kill would be unlikely.  The crew would be badly shaken I am sure, but alive.

Seriously, I think the developers/designers need to call Fort Sill and Fort Knox and get some expert opinions, because it sounds like your artillery/tank model is not where it needs to be or is accurate as possible.  Both sources can supply you with many unclassified studies and documents done by both the armor school and the artillery school on the effectiveness of artillery against tanks.  Also, I would not talk to just anyone.  Both have their "we can do anything" believers.  Talk to a senior officer or someone like that.  Not getting this right could ruin the game, or it would for me to see artillery routinely killing tanks.

[Erik Rutins]

Zemke_4,

Artillery is not a major cause of tank loss in the game, but it's also worth keeping in mind that this is WWII and we're dealing with some tanks in WWII that are much lighter than more modern armor. A Panzer I is going to have a much tougher time weathering an artillery bombardment than a King Tiger, for example.

The main effect of artillery strikes in game is exactly what you describe. Tanks _can_ be destroyed by artillery, just as it could happen in real life, but it is not common or routine for this to happen in-game, assuming you use realistic tactics too.

No one is suggesting that artillery can target a tank from kilometers away. The odds of artillery directly hitting a tank in Panzer Command is basically based on physics and as a result are quite small. We know how many shells are dropping, we know the area the artillery is affecting and we know what percentage of that area the tank represents. A tank can still take some indirect damage from the shell exploding nearby, but medium and heavy tanks will typically just shrug this off - light tanks may take some track damage or a casualty if unbuttoned.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mobius]

An often asked question is about the effect of indirect artillery fire on tanks. One example helps, in 1944 the German IX Corps in Italy reported that artillery fire was the largest single cause of its tanks losses, it seems that this was usually from medium and heavy guns controlled by air OPs. The second largest source was German destruction of damaged or broken-down tanks to prevent their capture (mechanical reliability was not a feature of German tanks - but perhaps some of this was due to the Special Operations Executive's campaign of insaisissable sabotage). Other tanks, anti-tank, air attack and mines well below the first two as the causes of tank losses.

Pulled from this site:
http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm

[NefariousKoel]

ORIGINAL: Rick

If you don't care for the mortars landing, wait until you see the Katyusha barrage coming in. You' be really unhappy then, though they are supposed to be a bit less 'accurate' than the other offmap artillery assets.

Preplanned Katyusha barrages make kittens cry. [X(]

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Zemke_4,

Artillery is not a major cause of tank loss in the game, but it's also worth keeping in mind that this is WWII and we're dealing with some tanks in WWII that are much lighter than more modern armor. A Panzer I is going to have a much tougher time weathering an artillery bombardment than a King Tiger, for example.

The main effect of artillery strikes in game is exactly what you describe. Tanks _can_ be destroyed by artillery, just as it could happen in real life, but it is not common or routine for this to happen in-game, assuming you use realistic tactics too.

No one is suggesting that artillery can target a tank from kilometers away. The odds of artillery directly hitting a tank in Panzer Command is basically based on physics and as a result are quite small. We know how many shells are dropping, we know the area the artillery is affecting and we know what percentage of that area the tank represents. A tank can still take some indirect damage from the shell exploding nearby, but medium and heavy tanks will typically just shrug this off - light tanks may take some track damage or a casualty if unbuttoned.

Regards,

- Erik

Roger got it.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Due to the high angle fire of mortars, that would make sense, and seeing that few direct fire weapons could pentrate a Tiger, if I would in his shoes, I would be worried about that also.  But the chance of a hit on a stationary tank, much less a hit on the engine compartment, would be very small.  I used to be a mortar Platoon Leader 20+ years ago in the 80s, and I remember out on the range we had a bet with the Forward Observers (FOs), that we could hit this old tank with a direct hit.  It took us a lot of rounds from one gun, not because we had to adjust the gun data, but because mortars are not a point attack weapon, they are an area attack weapon, and with the same data on the gun, we got really close several times, hitting behind it, in front of it, to the sides, finally the FOs called back they has seen "flash", indicating a metal on metal strike, a direct hit.  So yes if can be done, with enough rounds, and some luck, to hit a stationary tank, but it took us 10-20 rounds to do it.  When I talk about data on the guns, we take into account, not only the obvious factors like range, but air density, air temperature, wind, tube temperature, all these variables are taken into account to get the most accurate fire possible and if the FO has the range correct, you will hit +/- 50 meters with one adjustment, and that is good enough in the indirect fire world, because once again, mortars and artillery are area weapons designed to kill infantry.  Shell fragments may cause minor damage to a tank, but will not knock it out, maybe damage it.  Today we can kill a tank with one round, the Excalibur round allows us to do a precision hit, because it is GPS guided, so unless they had GPS in WW II, I stick by hitting a tank with mortars or any other indirect fire weapon is NOT likely, possible, but not likely.

Bottom line, I think 40% of FNGs tanks getting knocked out in one barrage by 120mm mortars is way too high, and unrealistic.

You don't think the ammunition allotment for a Soviet mortar battery in action amounted to "10 or 20 rounds"? I'd suggest it was a lot higher than that under normal conditions by the middle of the war. Add the number of tubes per km of front in during some of the later barrages, and you're increasing the odds dramatically. Not to mention German tanks were pretty rare things, wargames notwithstanding. Armoured divisions amounted to something like 10% of German formations as a whole; a forward observer getting a mass of tanks in his binoculars was probably not shy about calling down as much fire, in as high a quantity, as possible.

Ron

I agree with Zemke_4, the chances of actually hitting a point target with artillery or mortars should be fairly low, the chances of 'knocking it out' even lower still as it would have to hit the right place. What kind of damage modelling will be portrayed with AFVs?

Not arguing against this but in the enclosed confines of a "typical" PzC scenario, you still have to have consequences for blundering through an artillery barrage with AFVs. Otherwise, what would stop a player from knowingly driving through one with his tanks/APCs, if he knows he is impervious to them? At the end of the day, it is still a game.

[gijas17]

I usually send infantry ahead to probe the area and if there is arty present (almost always is) I do a pincer move with the tanks. Once located its much easy to deal with them and their ranges.

[Mad Russian]

Notice the amount of 120mm mortar fire coming down on the Germans. The entire German force is Panther tanks so it's easy to see what the results are.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Finally, because I didn't move the Panthers one was actually hit.

But only one in the entire game and that was with the Soviets targeting them specifically.

Good Hunting.

MR

[gijas17]

I just played this map myself. Great map scenario.

[Ron]

I'm not debating as I don't really know, but what are the odds of a top turret hit causing destruction from a 120mm mortar shell? During a barrage I could understand and expect some sort of track and/or gun damage over a period of time, but in this example that never happened? Even with a direct hit some sort of engine damage may be probablr, but a top turret penetration? How much armor does a Panther have there anyways?


Edit: I checked myself. The Panther has 16mm on the top.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Ron

I'm not debating as I don't really know, but what are the odds of a top turret hit causing destruction from a 120mm mortar shell? During a barrage I could understand and expect some sort of track and/or gun damage over a period of time, but in this example that never happened? Even with a direct hit some sort of engine damage may be probablr, but a top turret penetration? How much armor does a Panther have there anyways?

I believe we show the Panther with 2mm of armor for the top turret location.

thanks
rick

[jamespcrowley]

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Ron

I'm not debating as I don't really know, but what are the odds of a top turret hit causing destruction from a 120mm mortar shell? During a barrage I could understand and expect some sort of track and/or gun damage over a period of time, but in this example that never happened? Even with a direct hit some sort of engine damage may be probablr, but a top turret penetration? How much armor does a Panther have there anyways?

I believe we show the Panther with 2mm of armor for the top turret location.



thanks
rick

Then that would be incorrect - it should be, as Ron stated, 16mm.

I very much doubt that a 120mm mortar bomb could penetrate a Panthers turret roof - maybe it went down through an open hatch - or even that the concussive power would be enough to cause serious structural damage.

[Mobius]

Rick means 2cm.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Ron

During a barrage I could understand and expect some sort of track and/or gun damage over a period of time, but in this example that never happened? Even with a direct hit some sort of engine damage may be probable, but a top turret penetration?

There is no way to tell whether track, engine or gun damage was done by the mortars. There was a concern about the accuracy and number of vehicles that we getting killed by artillery so I reported what I saw. A single tank in an entire game was destroyed by mortar fire even though they were targeted by them the entire game.

I think that shows that the artillery module at least for mortars isn't excessive in regards to vehicle kills.

I remember a time when playing ASL a 120mm mortar hit a King Tiger. After a series of incredible die rolls the KT was knocked out by the mortar. We too decided that it must have gone right down the open hatch. Funny how the more things change the more they stay the same.....[:)]

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Ron
I'm not debating as I don't really know, but what are the odds of a top turret hit causing destruction from a 120mm mortar shell? During a barrage I could understand and expect some sort of track and/or gun damage over a period of time, but in this example that never happened? Even with a direct hit some sort of engine damage may be probablr, but a top turret penetration? How much armor does a Panther have there anyways?
Edit: I checked myself. The Panther has 16mm on the top.

FM 90-10-1, 8-30
120-mm Mortar. The 120-mm mortar is large enough to have a major
effect on common urban targets. It can penetrate deep into a building,
causing extensive damage because of its explosive power. A minimum of 18
inches of packed earth or sand is needed to stop the fragments from a
120-mm HE round that impacts 10 feet away. The effect from a direct hit
from a 120-mm round is equivalent to almost 10 pounds of TNT, which can
crush fortifications built with commonly available materials. The 120-mm
mortar round can create a large but shallow crater in a road surface, which
is not deep or steep-sided enough to block vehicular movement. However,
craters could be deep enough to damage or destroy storm drain systems,
water and gas pipes, and electrical or phone cables.

This is a Cold War FM on the Soviet 120mm mortar. But the shell weight probably would not have changed.

[Mobius]

Here is an excerpt of an article on armor penetration. The Class 105,000 steel here is considered good quality US armor. The 10lb warhead of the 120mm fits in there somewhere near 45mm.

[dazoline II]

Interesting how the Ger 150mm has a smaller HE weight but will buckle thicker armour than the US 155mm. 82mm vs 75mm.

Is this direct or indirect fire?
I wonder how much the kinetic energy would differ between the two for an HE round.