Only because I haven't had time to look into it...only so many hours in a day:-)
There should be no difference between .50cals or any country. They are typically AAMGs so if the TC is unbuttoned, they do generally shoot at what the MA does, more so than other MGs becasue of their range.
That 1 casualty guarantee!!
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
First why assume it is 50 yards away - this is direct fire aimed at them (not arty), so you are talking a lot closer than 50 yards and secondly have you seen the sort of blast 105/155 shells actually put out in real life?Originally posted by orc4hire:
Kev,
They're vulnerable to meteorites, food poisoning, and social diseases too. That doesn't make it reasonable to assume that a single artillery shell landing up to _50 yards_ away will _always_ cause casualties to dug in troops. These aren't low yield nuclear devices we're talking about here.
Kev,
Read my and Venger's posts on how a shell that misses by a small amount may detonate a long ways away. And why assume that a first shot against a well concealed target several hundred yards away _can't_ land more than a few meters away? (Okay, so the game _does_ assume that. Not an assumption I agree with, but as I've said before I'm willing to see how version 3 works with it. Though apparently some people would prefer to keep arguing about it.)
I'm familiar with the blast radius of artillery shells. Are you familiar with how well protected against artillery troops in a prepared position are?
Here's an item posted to GEnie several years ago that I thought worth saving:
*****
First Science Fiction & Fantas
Category 26, Topic 16
Message 511 Sun Sep 18, 1994
T.TELENKO [MilTech Bard] at 18:02 EDT
From: Juha Veijalainen <juha.veijalainen@compart.fi>
Subject: Indirect fire: an example
Message-ID: <Cw6JIH.381@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 16:37:28 GMT
From Juha Veijalainen <juha.veijalainen@compart.fi>
Following information is from the Finnish Army newspaper Ruotuvaki
(15/94)
In August -94 Finnish Army tested the effect of indirect fire against a
fortified platoon base. Size of the base was not specified, but lets
assume 150 m x 100 metres. Base had several different types of
fortifications: simple foxholes, steel plated covered foxholes, various
types of dug in bunkers, and machine gun nests protected by baskets
filled with rocks (UN -forces use).
Target area also had five vehicles and a number of obsolete artillery
pieces. Video cameras had been dug in and pressure sensors monitored
various bunkers and foxholes.
First volley of 70 152mm shells did not do much damage. Shells were set
to explode in the ground.
Second volley of 130 120mm mortar shells left marks on all above the
ground structures (shells were set to explode on impact). Most of the
vehicles on the ground could have been fixed; usually only change of
tires and fuel tank was required.
On the last day of the exercise 9 fire units (83 tubes) shot 1000
shells in five minutes (this probably had 120mm mortars,
122mm/152mm/155mm artillery). Everything above the ground was decimated.
Protective vests and 'old' steel helmets were penetrated, new composite
helmets were not penetrated.
Fortifications and bunkers were not badly damaged; some bunker doors
and trenches had damage because of very close hits. It was determined
(from the pressure sensors?) that bunkers/fortifications would have
protected the men.
--------------------------------------------------------
Juha Veijalainen Helsinki, Finland
tel. +358 40 500 4402
** Mielipiteet omiani / Opinions are personal / Facts are suspect **
---
* RM 1.3 01808 *
------------
*****
Note that it took 1000 shells in the space of 1 SP turn to do serious damage to the position.
Read my and Venger's posts on how a shell that misses by a small amount may detonate a long ways away. And why assume that a first shot against a well concealed target several hundred yards away _can't_ land more than a few meters away? (Okay, so the game _does_ assume that. Not an assumption I agree with, but as I've said before I'm willing to see how version 3 works with it. Though apparently some people would prefer to keep arguing about it.)
I'm familiar with the blast radius of artillery shells. Are you familiar with how well protected against artillery troops in a prepared position are?
Here's an item posted to GEnie several years ago that I thought worth saving:
*****
First Science Fiction & Fantas
Category 26, Topic 16
Message 511 Sun Sep 18, 1994
T.TELENKO [MilTech Bard] at 18:02 EDT
From: Juha Veijalainen <juha.veijalainen@compart.fi>
Subject: Indirect fire: an example
Message-ID: <Cw6JIH.381@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 16:37:28 GMT
From Juha Veijalainen <juha.veijalainen@compart.fi>
Following information is from the Finnish Army newspaper Ruotuvaki
(15/94)
In August -94 Finnish Army tested the effect of indirect fire against a
fortified platoon base. Size of the base was not specified, but lets
assume 150 m x 100 metres. Base had several different types of
fortifications: simple foxholes, steel plated covered foxholes, various
types of dug in bunkers, and machine gun nests protected by baskets
filled with rocks (UN -forces use).
Target area also had five vehicles and a number of obsolete artillery
pieces. Video cameras had been dug in and pressure sensors monitored
various bunkers and foxholes.
First volley of 70 152mm shells did not do much damage. Shells were set
to explode in the ground.
Second volley of 130 120mm mortar shells left marks on all above the
ground structures (shells were set to explode on impact). Most of the
vehicles on the ground could have been fixed; usually only change of
tires and fuel tank was required.
On the last day of the exercise 9 fire units (83 tubes) shot 1000
shells in five minutes (this probably had 120mm mortars,
122mm/152mm/155mm artillery). Everything above the ground was decimated.
Protective vests and 'old' steel helmets were penetrated, new composite
helmets were not penetrated.
Fortifications and bunkers were not badly damaged; some bunker doors
and trenches had damage because of very close hits. It was determined
(from the pressure sensors?) that bunkers/fortifications would have
protected the men.
--------------------------------------------------------
Juha Veijalainen Helsinki, Finland
tel. +358 40 500 4402
** Mielipiteet omiani / Opinions are personal / Facts are suspect **
---
* RM 1.3 01808 *
------------
*****
Note that it took 1000 shells in the space of 1 SP turn to do serious damage to the position.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by orc4hire:
Kev,
Read my and Venger's posts on how a shell that misses by a small amount may detonate a long ways away.
Not in the case of direct fire unless you specify a reverse slope.
Following information is from the Finnish Army newspaper Ruotuvaki
(15/94)
In August -94 Finnish Army tested the effect of indirect fire against a
fortified platoon base.
Irrelevant - indirect fire not direct fire.
Size of the base was not specified, but lets
assume 150 m x 100 metres.
Why assume this?
Also their results do not match those found in combat - Arty is not totally ineffective against dug in troops, ask the Germans about their experiences.
Remember that in SP WaW a casualty is not neccessarily dead or physically wounded - he is out of the battle.
Kev,
Read my and Venger's posts on how a shell that misses by a small amount may detonate a long ways away.
Not in the case of direct fire unless you specify a reverse slope.
Following information is from the Finnish Army newspaper Ruotuvaki
(15/94)
In August -94 Finnish Army tested the effect of indirect fire against a
fortified platoon base.
Irrelevant - indirect fire not direct fire.
Size of the base was not specified, but lets
assume 150 m x 100 metres.
Why assume this?
Also their results do not match those found in combat - Arty is not totally ineffective against dug in troops, ask the Germans about their experiences.
Remember that in SP WaW a casualty is not neccessarily dead or physically wounded - he is out of the battle.
>Not in the case of direct fire unless you >specify a reverse slope.
Well, any case where the target is higher than the shooter, and doesn't have a backstop... or where the elevation is the same. Try thowing a rock at a can on a fence some time. If the rock goes over the fence without hitting the can and stops dead in mid air no more than a foot away, then I'll buy your argument... and eat both can and rock.
>Irrelevant - indirect fire not direct fire
Oh, really? I hadn't realized that the burst radius of direct fire artillery was greater than that of indirect fire. Thanks for pointing that out for me.
>Why assume this?
You would have to ask the person who assumed it. Do you have information which contradicts the assumption?
>Also their results do not match those found >in combat - Arty is not totally ineffective >against dug in troops, ask the Germans about >their experiences
I suppose you'd have to take that up with the Finnish Army, not me.
I would point out, though, that while indirect fire certainly isn't totally ineffective against dug in troops, the ratio is a _long, long, long_ way from 1 shell = 1 casualty. However you define a casualty. The British dropped 1.6 million shells on the Germans over the course of 6 days at the Somme, and didn't even knock down the barbed wire.
Oh, but wait, that was indirect fire. Well, let's see... there was an incident at Antietam where a Union gun had let its elevation screw run down and was furiously firing shot after shot over the heads of the advancing Confederates until the brigade commander (an old artillery officer) noticed and jumped off his horse to spin the elevation screw back up, sending the next shot directly into the Confederate ranks. And now you tell me it couldn't possibly have happened. Well, damn. It was a good story.
Well, any case where the target is higher than the shooter, and doesn't have a backstop... or where the elevation is the same. Try thowing a rock at a can on a fence some time. If the rock goes over the fence without hitting the can and stops dead in mid air no more than a foot away, then I'll buy your argument... and eat both can and rock.
>Irrelevant - indirect fire not direct fire
Oh, really? I hadn't realized that the burst radius of direct fire artillery was greater than that of indirect fire. Thanks for pointing that out for me.
>Why assume this?
You would have to ask the person who assumed it. Do you have information which contradicts the assumption?
>Also their results do not match those found >in combat - Arty is not totally ineffective >against dug in troops, ask the Germans about >their experiences
I suppose you'd have to take that up with the Finnish Army, not me.
I would point out, though, that while indirect fire certainly isn't totally ineffective against dug in troops, the ratio is a _long, long, long_ way from 1 shell = 1 casualty. However you define a casualty. The British dropped 1.6 million shells on the Germans over the course of 6 days at the Somme, and didn't even knock down the barbed wire.
Oh, but wait, that was indirect fire. Well, let's see... there was an incident at Antietam where a Union gun had let its elevation screw run down and was furiously firing shot after shot over the heads of the advancing Confederates until the brigade commander (an old artillery officer) noticed and jumped off his horse to spin the elevation screw back up, sending the next shot directly into the Confederate ranks. And now you tell me it couldn't possibly have happened. Well, damn. It was a good story.
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Originally posted by orc4hire:
>Not in the case of direct fire unless you >specify a reverse slope.
Well, any case where the target is higher than the shooter, and doesn't have a backstop... or where the elevation is the same. Try thowing a rock at a can on a fence some time. If the rock goes over the fence without hitting the can and stops dead in mid air no more than a foot away, then I'll buy your argument... and eat both can and rock.
Start chewing - with a large HE weapon you would aim slightly low in your scenario just as you do with an MG.
That's the difference between HE and AP (your "rock") - a more honest example than yours would be "try throwing hand grenades at a row of cans on a fence" (the squad) - you dont need to actually hit a can, just land it near a can.
How did they taste?
>Irrelevant - indirect fire not direct fire
Oh, really? I hadn't realized that the burst radius of direct fire artillery was greater than that of indirect fire. Thanks for pointing that out for me.
You also hadn't realised that Direct fire comes in from a different direction and is aimed AT a target rather than randomly distributed had you?
>Why assume this?
You would have to ask the person who assumed it. Do you have information which contradicts the assumption?
No, but that in no way suggests that it is a reasonable assumption, so I will ask again - why assume this?
>Also their results do not match those found >in combat - Arty is not totally ineffective >against dug in troops, ask the Germans about >their experiences
I suppose you'd have to take that up with the Finnish Army, not me.
Then stop using them as an example if you do not understand the test.
I would point out, though, that while indirect fire certainly isn't totally ineffective against dug in troops, the ratio is a _long, long, long_ way from 1 shell = 1 casualty.
Why do you keep coming back to INDIRECT fire - the issue is LARGE CALIBER HE DIRECTLY FIRED AT A SEEN TARGET.
there was an incident at Antietam where a Union gun had let its elevation screw run down and was furiously firing shot after shot over the heads of the advancing Confederates until the brigade commander (an old artillery officer) noticed and jumped off his horse to spin the elevation screw back up, sending the next shot directly into the Confederate ranks. And now you tell me it couldn't possibly have happened. Well, damn. It was a good story.
Great I stand totally corrected - in the next game of SPWaW when I encounter Union and Confederate forces I will keep it in mind...
Particularly given the advent of smokeless powder and the ability of the guy firing the gun to directly observe his fall of shot.
Or is it just possible that you are grabbing at straws so badly that you must go back to the US civil war to find a poor example that doesn't really fit the issue?
Kev,
You're being insulting now just for the sake of being insulting, and Paul has asked us to cool down so I will not answer your spurious insults in detail, but only say that your argument is reduced to "rounds can't go long because the firer doesn't want them too and being HE they will spontaneously detonate rather than go past the target." Perhaps that is even true in your world. But I will not waste any more precious pixels trying to communicate with you.
You're being insulting now just for the sake of being insulting, and Paul has asked us to cool down so I will not answer your spurious insults in detail, but only say that your argument is reduced to "rounds can't go long because the firer doesn't want them too and being HE they will spontaneously detonate rather than go past the target." Perhaps that is even true in your world. But I will not waste any more precious pixels trying to communicate with you.
Originally posted by Venger:
Just beat the snot out of some more Russians, but had a VERY annoying result that cannot be explained...
I was defending and had several entrenched 90mm and 76mm guns in various positions. Of course the Russians came at me with T34/85, IS-2, KV1, and ISU-122. My guns open up, and do well.
Except...
For some reason, every time the freaking ISU-122's fire, they get a casualty. EVERY TIME. Unit's entrenched, no matter, 1 casualty. 2 percent hit chance, no matter, 1 casualty. 30 hexes, no matter, 1 casualty. Needless to say this caused me great consternation, so much so I was forced to destroy all those ISU-122's...
Still, why on earth is that happening? It makes zero sense. The other tanks opened up with their 75 and 85's, and with 2% chance... 1 suppression. But those 122 get a free casualty. It bites. Anyone else notice or have an explanation?
Thanks,
Venger
HE rounds don't go long because the firer is trained to fire them slightly short (because they are HE) and adjust them closer to the target.Originally posted by orc4hire:
Kev,
You're being insulting now just for the sake of being insulting, and Paul has asked us to cool down so I will not answer your spurious insults in detail, but only say that your argument is reduced to "rounds can't go long because the firer doesn't want them too and being HE they will spontaneously detonate rather than go past the target." Perhaps that is even true in your world. But I will not waste any more precious pixels trying to communicate with you.
I also like the "I will throw a few insults in, act surprised when the tone of the reply is not polite, so I will have one more shot whilst pretending that I am not continuing the argument and run"
It is the act of a moral coward - if you choose to argue (let alone be insulting) at least have the guts to do so honestly and not end with a whiney little snipe and "run away".
Feel free to reply - I will not in future.