Low Velocity guns

[Supra89]

Does anyone think there is a case for increasing the HE kill values for low velocity howitzers ?
I notice for example that an 81mm mortar has a kill value of 8, and the 88L56 has a value of 7. A high velocity round has a flat trajectory and tends to bury itself in the earth before detonating. The higher trajectory of a low velocity round also allows the gunner to "lob" rounds at the target.
Any thoughts ?

[thor]

The effective of HE rounds should have thier values increased because of airbursts. Mortar shells that prematurely detonated in trees above the target were especially deadly!

[Paul Vebber]

Only US VT fuzes near the end of the war provided reliable airbursts. The "exploding in the trees thing is true in many cases, but it works only for high trajectory shots like mortars. Unfortunately we can't reflect that right now...

DIrect fire HE has been increased in effectiveness in version 3.

But again, making individual rounds of artillery "realistic" will ruin the game becasue the player has so much situational awareness and control that it makes the game a futile excercise.

[amatteucci]

About the 81mm mortar vs 8,8cm AA gun HE ratings, I presume that the higher value reflects also the fact that mortar bombs are subject to less stress that howitzer shells (that in turn are less resistand than gun shells). So, at a given calibre, a mortar projectile will carry more explosive than an howitzer or gun fired one.

Amedeo

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by amatteucci:
About the 81mm mortar vs 8,8cm AA gun HE ratings, I presume that the higher value reflects also the fact that mortar bombs are subject to less stress that howitzer shells (that in turn are less resistand than gun shells). So, at a given calibre, a mortar projectile will carry more explosive than an howitzer or gun fired one.

Amedeo

Let me try to understand what you are saying. You say that if a shell has less force from the propellant charge, that it will have a larger warhead? I understand the logic there. Less propellant theoretically means more room for the warhead. But I am pretty sure that is not how it works.
The propellant is needed to propel the warhead out of the muzzle. For a given warhead size, mortars would have the least propellant in their rounds, and field guns would have the most. This is because of the required muzzle velocities to achieve the desired trajectory. But by having a smaller propellant charge, you cannot increase the warhead size, because that would mean your trajectory would get screwy due to the greater weight of the projectile.
Now of course, you can add more propellant behind a larger charge to make life worse for the enemy.
Now my personal guess is that field guns of a given caliber have a larger warhead and more propellant than a howitzer or mortar of the same size.
But I think anyone with actual knowledge of the size of these rounds are the only ones who can make the call due to an infinite number of propellant/warhead ratios that all give rougly the same trajectories.

[Seth]

I think what he's actually saying is that a mortar bomb doesn't have to be as rugged as a shell, due to it's lower velocity. The mortar bomb can have fairly thin walls, while the shell must be much sturdier.

[Hauptmann6]

Correct, the less force you push something out the barrel with, the thinner shell wall you can get away with. That is why A/C bombs have such a high % or explosive, very little aceleration. Guns have the smallest charge in the warhead because of the massive G forces placed on the shell when firing. Therefore a thicker shell wall is needed. Howitsers fire at a lower velocity, so the wall does not to be as think...

The amount of propelent behind the shell has nothign to do with how effective a round is on target(except in the effect of shell wall thickness) except in matters of armor penetration. If the shell in question is an AP round, the explosive component in the shell will be very small due to the need for weight and hardness in the shell. I will shut up before I totaly confuse teh issue...

Hope this helps

Haupt

[amatteucci]

Originally posted by Seth:
I think what he's actually saying is that a mortar bomb doesn't have to be as rugged as a shell, due to it's lower velocity. The mortar bomb can have fairly thin walls, while the shell must be much sturdier.

That's exactly my point. I forgot to add rocket artillery. In fact a projectile that has to travel into a long rifled barrel is subject to much more mechanical stress than one in a smoothbore short barrel (or better no barrel, like a rocket).
It could be interesting to have the possibility to fine tune HE values just to represent also those differences.
I remember that I realized how much the Wehrmacht was attack-biased in its doctrine when I saw all those howitzers in TO&E. If you have to attack (i.e. chose how and when concentrate your Artillery) you'd be glad to trade range for explosive power. While in defence when you need to concentrate artillery fire from different and dispersed positions a gun would fare better.

Regards,

Amedeo