Artillery effectiveness in woods/forest terrain

[boroda]

In the Annex E of the BFTB manual in the Area fire collumn it says that targets in the forest/wood terrain are 15% more likely to get hit by area fire than targets in the clear(if we drop all teh other factors like deployment etc). Am I reading this right? Could someone explain what the reasons for this are? Are the tree bursts to blame?
Does the target projection factor into this? Like when a trooper goes prone in the clear he presents a much smaller target to shells with point detonation fuzes than the prone soldier in the forest under the treebursts? Do trees provide any cover to someone in such situation? What does "hug a tree" mean in this context?
There is also http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 0/Appb.htm Is there anything in there that can explain why troops in the open are less vulnerable? Deep snow, lack of proper proximity fuses in 1944 etc?

[wodin]

Tree burst..flying wood splinters etc.

Troops hated being hit by Arty when in woods etc. An example have you seen the Bulge and Foy scene from Band of Brothers? Not a healthy place to be in those woods during a bombardment.

The link is talking about mortars not Arty. Not sure of the value of mortar fire into woods or if it has the same severe tree bursts effect, maybe thats why in that link your required to fire more mortar rounds.

Actually it does say mortars have little effect against troops under heavy forest\jungle even the modern medium mortars. That explains why the chart says to fire more than into the open.

I think Arty is different altogether and thats why tree bursts can be extra lethal.

[Arjuna]

As wodin said it's the tree burst effect we are simulating here. When a mortar or arty round hits a tree say several metres up from the ground and it detonates then in addition to its own shrapnell it causes a plethora of splinters to be projected down and around as well. This adds to the lethality of the round. As to whether personnel lying prone are less likely to be hit from area fire, then yes that is the case and is factored into the deployment modifier. But bear this in mind, from an air burst point of view being prone provides a much bigger target than say against a round which impacts on the ground.

[Arjuna]

Just reading your link and it says:

c. Dense woods cause impact-fuzed HE rounds to detonate in the trees, producing airbursts. These airbursts can be dangerous to exposed troops since large wood splinters are added to the round's metal fragments. Wounds caused by large wooden splinters are often severe. Extremely dense woods, such as triple canopy jungle, cause most impact-fuzed HE rounds to detonate high in the trees without much of an effect at ground level.

Note the last sentence where it talks about triple canopy jungle and the fact that this will often deonate most rounds way up above the ground. Triple canopy jungle can be over 50m high, which is larger than the lethal burst radius of all but the 120mm mortar. Hence why they recommend more orunds to increase the number of rounds that actuially get through the canopy and impact close to the target on the ground.

The forest represented in BFTB are not tgriple canopy jungle but rather pine and fir plantation timber, where rounds would typically impact say 5 to 15 metrese above the ground and thus still be very lethal to personnel on the ground.

[RockinHarry]

BUT...the tree burst effect is not hard coded? You can change area fire effect to any value in the map editor, some value below 100, if you think tree burst effect shouldn´t be reflected. Recompile map, save and gone is the tree bursts...

[boroda]

tree bursts are fine by me

a bit earlier today i had a discussion with another bftb player who wondered why infantry in the clear is less vulnerable to area fire than same infantry in the woods.
i replied somewhere along these lines:
1. a prone soldier presents a much smaller target to shrapnel from ground burst than to tree/air burst 
2. no widespread usage of proximity fuses guaranteed that places like woods were among the few places where infantry would be exposed to shrapnel raining from above

are above reasons correct? could anyone provide field manuals or some document from that time period regarding artillery employment? were proximity fuzes allready in use by any side during the battle of the bulge?

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Just reading your link and it says:

c. Dense woods cause impact-fuzed HE rounds to detonate in the trees, producing airbursts. These airbursts can be dangerous to exposed troops since large wood splinters are added to the round's metal fragments. Wounds caused by large wooden splinters are often severe. Extremely dense woods, .... []

Note the last sentence where it talks about triple canopy jungle and the fact that this will often deonate most rounds way up above the ground. Triple canopy jungle can be over 50m high, which is larger than the lethal burst radius of all but the 120mm mortar. Hence why they recommend more orunds to increase the number of rounds that actuially get through the canopy and impact close to the target on the ground.

The forest represented in BFTB are not tgriple canopy jungle but rather pine and fir plantation timber, where rounds would typically impact say 5 to 15 metrese above the ground and thus still be very lethal to personnel on the ground.

Actually, the Germans produced airbursts deliberately, and they were not produced by using impact-fuzed shells, but by using time-fuzed shells. Timed fuzes were available for ALL Flak artillery guns, and -if i am not mistaken-, for some non-flak guns as well later on (I can't verify that atm, tho). Also, the Germans had started to employ that method in Russia, and it was usually employed in dense woods only, as the flying splinters, branches and other tree parts would produce an evil amount of flying objects, having a devastating effect on the INF, turning even foxholes and trenches into pretty unsafe places. If I am not mistaken, the Artillery crew could use the "Kommandohilfsgerät 35", a mobile (predictor) device,

(which can be seen here on this picture: http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/SdAh_53___KdoHiGer_35.jpg )

in order to determine the settings for the (variable) time-fuzed shells (and their trajectory). The shells would then detonate ABOVE the ground, as "predicted" (well, and desired), usually somewhere at around head-level (of a standing soldier) and/or higher (in the middle or the bottom half of a tree), depending on tree-level. Initially, this method was developed to inflict casualties in trench systems, where it proved to be pretty successfull, as the shell exploded above, but still near the trench, so that a direct hit (with a regular HE shell having to land inside the trench) was not necessary. Now, if used in woods, this method produced major mayhem, plus a huge amount of casualties (= with the majority being injured soldiers, due to the massive amount of pieces flying around). According to accounts from a couple US vets I've seen on TV, some of the new(er) units, but also experienced units, that got hit by airburst bombardments in dense woods, were put out of action for a whole day or even 2 days; a result of the terror and the losses created by these airbursts.

By 1944, the Germans had really mastered that method, and they presented that skill in the Battles of Hürtgen Forest, as well as in the Ardennes.

The following link contains a quote from the publication "Tactical and Technical Trends" No.6, August 27, issued by the US War Department in 1942:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt0 ... rgets.html

This shows that the US had intel about that German method as early as 1942.

My guess is, that this isn't rendered in BFTB, is it?

such as triple canopy jungle, cause most impact-fuzed HE rounds to detonate high in the trees without much of an effect at ground level.

Sorry, but that's nonsense, as the Germans usually picked time fuzes, if a dense wood (with INF in there) was the target, and the time fuzes would then set off the shells somewhere between the middle of an average tree and soldier's head-level, actually. The effect on the ground used to be devastating, as described above.
Also, afaik, the Germans could also start with reducing the "crown" (top of the trees/wood), and then proceed with the method above (mid-level or right above the ground), in order to maximize effectiveness.
It's not surprising that the Germans were actually pretty skilled there, because they had been using (and experimenting with) time fuzes since 1941.

[Arjuna]

Hey GoodGuy I am commenting on a US field manual here not the German practice. So I don't think it is nonsense. Have a merry Xmas.

[RockinHarry]

@ GoodGuy: Worth to add to german artillery techniques would be the "Abprallerschiessen" (edit: delayed fuzes, low trajectory fire angles, target area flat and harder gound), the bouncing shots. Wasn´t just applied by artillery, also tanks could use this technique effectively vs. infantry masses in the open. Off course there´s considerable random elements in there. Think russians did take the most of it and less so the western allied.

Personally I think making dense forests to have area fire effects boosted, benefits both forces alike, so it´s not really necessary to reflect individual artillery technics.

If you can´t properly entrench in a forest, you´d like avoid defending there. BftB "entrenchments" do offer overhead cover vs. air-/treebursts, so I think the game should be capable of modelling hurtgen forest style battles quite well. [8D]

@ Dave: In case you need particular info relating to german combat techniques, training ect. from original german wartime sources, take a look in here:

Parts of my library

Merry XMas all btw. [:)]

[wodin]

Goodguy as Dave pointed out triple canopy jungle is 50 metres high, Ardennes forest isn't. Thats why it maybe less effective in the jungle (as the USA feild manual states).

[grenvill]

That quite surprising really,off the top of my head Command Ops is probably only one wargame who counts troops in forest more vulnerable to artillery fire than in the field. Tree burst effect is looking probably very spectacular (very much so in movies [:)] ), but Joint Munitions Effectivness Manuals tell a different story. Do you have any hard data for this?

[wodin]

Have you a link to the manual? The one already linked is regards to mortars and jungle ineffectiveness it states that tree bursts in wooods\forests that aren't as tall like triple canopy cause tree splitners as well as shrapnel thus making them an uncomfortable spot to be in. If you read the manual fully you will realise it's not talking about forests like the Ardennes nor is it talking about Arty.

I always think the best evidence is from those who have been in the situation and from all accounts tree bursts at Ardennes weren't very nice at all.

[boroda]

so, grenvill, what is the еxact story that is being told by Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals?)) does it tell us that prone infantryman in the woods with shells exploding above him and producing a lot of secondary fragments is less vulnerable than prone infantryman in the open snow covered field presenting a much smaller target to shrapnel from the shell with point detonating fuses exploding not in the air above but beside him? why would GI's be taught a so called hug-a-tree technique if they are already more protected as is?(btw i have no idea what this hug-a-tree stuff is about. seen it in some article on the wiki describing BotB or Hürtgen Forest))

oh wait. there is a guy here http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/targets.html who claims that

Quick fuze on HE shells in woods may cause detonation in the trees. This may decrease the effect if the shell goes off high in the trees, or it may increase the effect by acting in the same manner as an air burst.

VT fuze is useless in woods unless the angle of fire is very great, in which case most bursts occur at their normal height.

Woods have little effect on low-angle quick fuzed HE fire (other than making observation difficult), since the cover effect is offset by the detonating effect of the trees. High-angle fire, on the other hand, is about twice as effective as on open ground. Personnel in the edge of woods are in great danger from direct-fire HE, as almost any shot into the tree will act as an air burst.

and the source of this is Field Artillery Gunnery FM6-40, Department of the [US] Army, January 1950. i admit i could not find it online. neither could i find the JME manuals.

so which manual we've not read gives us the correct assessment of artillery effectiveness re woods vs open in the winter 44-45?

[wodin]

I think the edge of the wood is a worse place to be in game aswell...not sure but I'm sure this was mentioned in a thread when HTTR came out.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Hey GoodGuy I am commenting on a US field manual here not the German practice. So I don't think it is nonsense. Have a merry Xmas.

First off, merry x-mas to you, too.

Well, nonsense was the wrong word, and I know you were QUOTING the field manual. What I meant, by using the word nonsense, not that you were talking or quoting nonsense, but that the effect/method you mentioned did not apply to the Germans, in the main, as they had a different approach for bombardments of dense woods, they clearly had made excessive use of airbursts where it came to targeting or harrassing Allied units/movement in dense woods in the West. This goes even more for the Battles in the Hürtgen Forest, where the Germans layed carpets of airbursts on the US troops in the surrounding woods, while their Engineers were called numerous times to blast away rocks to help expand the Kall trail, in order to get the stuck tanks to the front.
The Ardennes did see less of that method, because units/fronts were moving quickly initially, but I've seen veteran accounts from both sides on TV, that this method was employed there (Foy and other sectors), too, hence my question whether it's rendered in the game or not.
I can imagine that it may be problematic (or cumbersome) to add/cater for an ability/effect on one side of the forces only, but that's what it was like historically.
It's just like say a programmer adds mines to a game, where then one side can use mines that cannot be detected (German wooden mines, glass mines). Major disadvantages for the other side, but still historically accurate.

Since I wrote that in early a.m. and since I was in a hurry, I couldn't come up with a better wording there and picked the word "nonsense". No offense intended. [:)]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Goodguy as Dave pointed out triple canopy jungle is 50 metres high, Ardennes forest isn't. Thats why it maybe less effective in the jungle (as the USA feild manual states).

Hi Wodin,

yeah I understood that. My objection just dealt with the fact, that the described effects apply to US methods and their use of HE only, but not to the German tactical approach on woods, since early in the Russian campaign, already. It's then on Dave to decide whether it's sufficiently rendered or not, or to leave it as is.
I just tried to point out that there was a different general approach on the German side.

ORIGINAL: grenvill

... Tree burst effect is looking probably very spectacular (very much so in movies [:)] ), but Joint Munitions Effectivness Manuals tell a different story. Do you have any hard data for this?

Well, the Germans used airbursts in Russia already with quite some success. I don't think they'd have kept employing that method, if it would have proved to be useless. On the German side, VT-fuzes were widely available, and it was then up to the forward observer/front line CO to request VT or impact-fuzed bombardments. I've seen veteran accounts stating that airbursts turned out to be the only method (aside from [costly] direct infantry assaults) that would dislodge Russian troops from dense woods.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: boroda

In the Annex E of the BFTB manual in the Area fire collumn it says that targets in the forest/wood terrain are 15% more likely to get hit by area fire than targets in the clear ...

Clear or forested, the AARs on my games to date reveal that most casualties -- from both sides -- are from bombardment (when arty is available).

Historically, weren't most battle casualties from arty?

[SeinfeldRules]

Yes. If I can recall correctly the common percentage is around 80% of casualties in the European theater were from artillery of high explosives. The US Army put together a study of casualties during the war, and it includes a survey of 1,000 American Casualties killed in Italy. 86% of those were killed by high explosive or shrapnel wounds, the rest by small arms. Here's the link, interesting reading and includes links to photos of real casualties: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs ... apter6.htm.

There's a reason Field Artillery is called the "King of Battle" in the American military.

[Lieste]

Bear in mind though that the bulk of Apers firepower for some units would be considered as 'artillery' in those statistics, the distinction between Apers and Bombard being an aiming method, rather than a separation of casualty causing agents.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: SeinfeldRules

... There's a reason Field Artillery is called the "King of Battle" in the American military.

Did Stalin call it "The Queen of Battle"?