Artillery

[PJ_Godzilla]

You should reread the post. I concede that point. I can only assume you did not - since my statement of same occurred a full minute before you pulled the trigger.

Those of you who are observant will note that he quoted me from 8 minutes after the hour but did not post until 14 minutes after the hour. This means my multi-window compose/fact check process is better than his by about a full minute (assuming he got it and read it instantly and had to check that the Flak40 and PAK44 were different guns) - since I had already checked myself and revised before he could do it for me. That's why I just scored myself a point for another thread won. 

Actually, the truth is far more insidious. After I saw his response at 10:14p EDT and found it, after checking his assertion, to be unacceptable, I travelled back in time using Graham Lampman's Timecrowave and changed my post of 10:08 to the 10:13 post. That last bit was a nice touch, since it clipped him by a mere minute, just to frost his cake a bit.

In so doing,  I also changed history but you're all blissfully unaware of it, since, to you, proper time always looks the same in the observer's own frame of reference and the subtle changes made by my trip back were undetectable to you, since your memories are now all reset to the revision, not to the original events - since those are "undone".


All that BS aside, the Flak40 WAS experimentally mounted, in twin, on a chassis - and looking at that muzzle velocity, you can see why.

[Airborne]

Don't have to...common knowledge that a moving object is very difficult to hit with indirect fire even with fire control...also common knowledge that moving toward the artillery is highly effective in avoiding a direct hit from artillery fire. Tanks have both mobility and direct fire capabilities.

Next?

Actually, it's not as difficult as you think.

We do it all the time- from simulation trainers to FRTR's and live rounds, all you have to do is compute tgt speed, azimuth of travel, time of flight for the munition, and plot your intercept point. Also, simply moving to the piece does not make it harder to hit the target. It's not the artillery piece you have to worry about, its the observer- moving in another manner does make it harder.

Better luck next time....

[Airborne]

     Apparently both naval and field artillery have pieces that are both direct and indirect capability.  Naval gunfire
in particular is very good at hitting moving targets.  Indirect fire can be very effective against armor, consider the
size of the weapon used.

      If you know the area the object is moving through, it's not that hard to target it.  How close do you have to get
with a large gun to turn the crew of a tank combat ineffective?

All mortar/artillery/naval gun systems have a direct fire capability.... The difference between direct/indirect fire is simply trajectory. While the 120mm mortar fire high angle (only) you can "direct fire" that system as well. The artillery pieces traditionall fire low angle, but can raise their barrels for high angle to clear obstacles; if they depress their barrells as low as possible, or to the point they look through the breach and see the target, then load and fire- thats direct fire.

[PJ_Godzilla]

All mortar/artillery/naval gun systems have a direct fire capability.... The difference between direct/indirect fire is simply trajectory. While the 120mm mortar fire high angle (only) you can "direct fire" that system as well. The artillery pieces traditionall fire low angle, but can raise their barrels for high angle to clear obstacles; if they depress their barrells as low as possible, or to the point they look through the breach and see the target, then load and fire- thats direct fire.

I would add, for anyone who's done simple parabolic motion problems - usually covered in basic physics - if you have LOS on a target, you often have more than one firing solution. I'd note, though, that max range is single-valued.

I would also note that, for example, a 155 battery can effectively saturate an "area" in a relatively small amount of time using IF. Thus, how accurate do they really need to be? Consider that a battery of six 155mm can put six 150m kill-radius (soft human targets only) big-ayused shells on target in the span of some seconds, depending on how distant. How far can a tank move in that amount of time? Also note that ROF on the M114 Long Tom, max, is around 4/min. If you've got an observer, concevably, instead of firing all six at once, they'd walk 'em on to your tank by firing sequentially. Big guns work. Don't believe it? The US Army does - and has developed IF to a sick level - especially in terms of ROF, given that some of the new SP guns can have multiple shells airborne at once.

[gyrene81]

See, now a couple of you guys are thinking modern warfare capabilities, not WWII capabilities...modern SP arty and Naval weapons systems are far more effective than their WWII counterparts were.

    Apparently both naval and field artillery have pieces that are both direct and indirect capability.  Naval gunfire
in particular is very good at hitting moving targets.  Indirect fire can be very effective against armor, consider the
size of the weapon used.

      If you know the area the object is moving through, it's not that hard to target it.  How close do you have to get
with a large gun to turn the crew of a tank combat ineffective?

In WWII Naval artillery did not fire 8, 14, and 16 inch guns in direct fire like a tank...the rounds are too heavy...they had to fire them with higher trajectory than direct fire weapons or the rounds would fall short...and they were not very good at hitting moving targets smaller than ships...even then a fast destroyer can move and maneuver fast enough to get away from the big guns on a battleship or cruiser...if they were as effective as you think they were, the 88mm shore batteries and gun emplacements a few hundred yards off the shoreline at Normandy would not have been operational when the troops landed...nor would the gun emplacements on any of the Japanese held islands in the PTO. They were observed, positions marked and fired on by the naval guns. Yes rounds can be "walked" in to a target...if it is stationary.

Granted the big bore naval guns had a big blast radius...especially the 14 and 16 inch...within 100 yards of a tank was devastating enough to damage or destroy it...8 inch has to get a lot closer.

Actually, it's not as difficult as you think.

We do it all the time- from simulation trainers to FRTR's and live rounds, all you have to do is compute tgt speed, azimuth of travel, time of flight for the munition, and plot your intercept point. Also, simply moving to the piece does not make it harder to hit the target. It's not the artillery piece you have to worry about, its the observer- moving in another manner does make it harder.

Better luck next time....

Again, modern weapons systems...calculations done electronically...laser range detectors...none existent on the WWII battlefields...WWII mortar and artillery fire with a forward observer under fire looking at a topographical map took an average of 3 rounds to get on with a stationary target. There were a lot of mishaps with short rounds in every battle. And a tank moving across the battlefield by an artillery round was just unlucky...not the result of someone aiming at it unless it was at point blank range from a concealed position where the tank didn't see it in time to fire on it first. And you're not going to stick around to try a shot with a tube mortar...especially considering the ammunition is HE and not AP.

I would add, for anyone who's done simple parabolic motion problems - usually covered in basic physics - if you have LOS on a target, you often have more than one firing solution. I'd note, though, that max range is single-valued.

I would also note that, for example, a 155 battery can effectively saturate an "area" in a relatively small amount of time using IF. Thus, how accurate do they really need to be? Consider that a battery of six 155mm can put six 150m kill-radius (soft human targets only) big-ayused shells on target in the span of some seconds, depending on how distant. How far can a tank move in that amount of time? Also note that ROF on the M114 Long Tom, max, is around 4/min. If you've got an observer, concevably, instead of firing all six at once, they'd walk 'em on to your tank by firing sequentially. Big guns work. Don't believe it? The US Army does - and has developed IF to a sick level - especially in terms of ROF, given that some of the new SP guns can have multiple shells airborne at once.

And once again, modern warfare techniques and equipment...not WWII. The average soldier in WWII barely understood the word physics, let alone the principles...all they understood was what they were taught in basic...how to read a topograpical map, a compass and how to direct fire according to grid coordinates. If you have LOS on a tank and you're not in a concealed position or in another tank...you're too close. Quit thinking the tank is going to just sit there while it's ranged by artillery...if the crew doesn't panic it's going to move as fast as the terrain will allow...and adjusting artillery fire for a moving target was not as easy as it is today.

[whels]

Ive thought for a long time now fields needed a big anti-tank gun like the 88mm at each end of runways with the big GV threat we have.

For Arty we could do 105s using a M16 to tow it and when u hit O like on a PT it would deploy a battery of 3 (75s 105s or what ever size).
limit range from 2.5k min to 10k max. Aim using the clipboard map like you do now in Cruiser guns with land mode.  The M16 would give it alittle
A2A defence and slight anti-GV. Ammo, id say HE n smoke.  Limit the firing cone, u can air from side to side some but beyound a certain
angle you would have to undeploy and move it with the M16, also deploy/undeploy would take say like 15 to 30 secs.

[RipChord929]

Holy smokes!  I wanna reply to this SOOOOOO BAD!  But it just wouldn't be worth it!

Arty?  HELL YES

RC

[PJ_Godzilla]

And once again, modern warfare techniques and equipment...not WWII. The average soldier in WWII barely understood the word physics, let alone the principles...all they understood was what they were taught in basic...how to read a topograpical map, a compass and how to direct fire according to grid coordinates. If you have LOS on a tank and you're not in a concealed position or in another tank...you're too close. Quit thinking the tank is going to just sit there while it's ranged by artillery...if the crew doesn't panic it's going to move as fast as the terrain will allow...and adjusting artillery fire for a moving target was not as easy as it is today.

No, I was specifically writing with regard to the M114 155mm - developed in 1942. As for the Flak 40 - whatever do you mean, ranged? That only makes sense in IF - in which case, the tank is not going to return fire. In DF, the muzzle velocities of the AA guns are high enough that "ranging" is only necessary in the sense of compensating for a little drop. Which part of 2800 fps is eluding you here?

[Airborne]

See, now a couple of you guys are thinking modern warfare capabilities, not WWII capabilities...modern SP arty and Naval weapons systems are far more effective than their WWII counterparts were.

In WWII Naval artillery did not fire 8, 14, and 16 inch guns in direct fire like a tank...the rounds are too heavy...they had to fire them with higher trajectory than direct fire weapons or the rounds would fall short...and they were not very good at hitting moving targets smaller than ships...even then a fast destroyer can move and maneuver fast enough to get away from the big guns on a battleship or cruiser...if they were as effective as you think they were, the 88mm shore batteries and gun emplacements a few hundred yards off the shoreline at Normandy would not have been operational when the troops landed...nor would the gun emplacements on any of the Japanese held islands in the PTO. They were observed, positions marked and fired on by the naval guns. Yes rounds can be "walked" in to a target...if it is stationary.

Granted the big bore naval guns had a big blast radius...especially the 14 and 16 inch...within 100 yards of a tank was devastating enough to damage or destroy it...8 inch has to get a lot closer.


Again, modern weapons systems...calculations done electronically...laser range detectors...none existent on the WWII battlefields...WWII mortar and artillery fire with a forward observer under fire looking at a topographical map took an average of 3 rounds to get on with a stationary target. There were a lot of mishaps with short rounds in every battle. And a tank moving across the battlefield by an artillery round was just unlucky...not the result of someone aiming at it unless it was at point blank range from a concealed position where the tank didn't see it in time to fire on it first. And you're not going to stick around to try a shot with a tube mortar...especially considering the ammunition is HE and not AP.


And once again, modern warfare techniques and equipment...not WWII. The average soldier in WWII barely understood the word physics, let alone the principles...all they understood was what they were taught in basic...how to read a topograpical map, a compass and how to direct fire according to grid coordinates. If you have LOS on a tank and you're not in a concealed position or in another tank...you're too close. Quit thinking the tank is going to just sit there while it's ranged by artillery...if the crew doesn't panic it's going to move as fast as the terrain will allow...and adjusting artillery fire for a moving target was not as easy as it is today.

The Field Artillery and  Naval Gunfire, regardless of type of engagement, has always used HE or HE/Q (or a variety of other FUZE types) for fire missions. To this day we still smack tanks with FA and mortars on impact areas with HE, HE/Q, and it still busts tanks... You are thinking of why people use AP rounds in a DIRECT FIRE, I.E. my tank gun goes BANG and I'm trying to pierce so-and-so many inches of armor.


As far as targeting methods, buddy, I've done this job for a long time. I still use map/compass methods of target location when a 5lb. portable LRF is no longer "portable" because of battery power requirements or due to size and guess what, oh yeah we still have to pack extra bb's and water/food. Also, who do you think was controlling the bombardments in the island hopping campaign when the troops landed? they had a designated observer telling Mr. Squishy Squid on the boat where to point his noise maker and make it go boom

The arguements could go on forever, but as someone who does this job, has done it with modern technology and has done it "old school" using map and compass, with a M119, M252, M120, M224, and M198 that still uses MANUAL GUNNERY JUST LIKE IN WWII, to the new hotness, the M777 that is digital.


But I guess the next arguement is that my maps are in better color because of modern printing abilities...

[ACE]

out of every arillery thread or thread hijack i have said +1 and i will say it again... +1 and add my M-18 too

Whats with the m18

[Ghostbuster]

What about traveling shells hitting planes?

[Airborne]

What about traveling shells hitting planes?

airspace deconfliction  such a pain,  but the probability of this happening is very low, but I think it would be a neat feature to add.... The Airforce likes to say little-sky-big-bullet, I prefer the big-sky-little-bullet  when decon'ing my airspace so I can get rounds out- even if it means doing the look/listen-no-sounds-fire-rounds method.... Not exactly the right thing, but then again, I guess aircraft operating in a ROZ should check in

[gyrene81]

The Field Artillery and  Naval Gunfire, regardless of type of engagement, has always used HE or HE/Q (or a variety of other FUZE types) for fire missions. To this day we still smack tanks with FA and mortars on impact areas with HE, HE/Q, and it still busts tanks... You are thinking of why people use AP rounds in a DIRECT FIRE, I.E. my tank gun goes BANG and I'm trying to pierce so-and-so many inches of armor.

Always used HE or HE/Q hmm? You might want to rethink that...WWII battleships used 2100 - 2700 lbs AP...WWII Heavy cruisers 8 inch and Light cruisers 6 inch fired AP...some SP artillery such as the SU-152, StuG III, and the U.S. M110 8 inch and the replacement 155mm version carried AP and HE. Perhaps you meant to say HE has always been an option.

Also, who do you think was controlling the bombardments in the island hopping campaign when the troops landed? they had a designated observer telling Mr. Squishy Squid on the boat where to point his noise maker and make it go boom

Wrong again, the naval bombardments in the PTO were based on previous intel and conducted prior to the landing of any troops...to "soften the defenses". Often times the intel was "off a bit". Once troops began to land, fire from the ships or airstrikes could be directed to specific targets that either got missed by the bombardments or was not included in the intel reports.

But I guess the next arguement is that my maps are in better color because of modern printing abilities...

No, the argument is your maps are more accurate due to satellite imagery and modern map making techniques...try making your maps from black and white aerial reconaissance photos taken by cameras that did not have high zoom capabilities, and a dozen people studying those photos while hand drawing the topology then running those drawings through a black and white ink fed printing machine. Your methods for manual fire control have had 60 years to be refined...you're also better educated than the average WWII soldier. You have had years of peace time to "practice" whereas in WWII they had 6 to 8 weeks of crash course before getting tossed into the battle.

You have no clue.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Hey idiot, the moron over here called you stupid... or maybe you called him that, whatevah...

I'm struggling with why a guy named Gyrene and a guy named Airborne seem to have entirely different understandings of artillery best practices.

I think it's time for a credential check.

Gyrene, Airborne, what is the source of your understanding of artillery best practices, both modern-day and historical (yes, very funny, I know)?

Put up or shut up. I'm into the sheet stirring thing today.

I also note that neither of you are doing much sourcing here... hmmm.

[gyrene81]

Hey idiot, the moron over here called you stupid... or maybe you called him that, whatevah...

I'm struggling with why a guy named Gyrene and a guy named Airborne seem to have entirely different understandings of artillery best practices.

I think it's time for a credential check.

Gyrene, Airborne, what is the source of your understanding of artillery best practices, both modern-day and historical (yes, very funny, I know)?

Best practices? It's not about best practices...it's about battlefield execution under fire, less than ideal conditions and minimal training. I did 4 peace time years in the Corps working with Vietnam era tanks and artillery that were standard issue prior to the introduction of computerized systems of any kind. Direct fire from a tank on to a moving tank without modern fire control systems took a lot of training...as did indirect fire from artillery...could it be done? Hell yes it could be done...but it didn't happen with a single round fired.

There is a huge difference in the capabilities between this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ev6KIvfFg&feature=related

And these:


[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3863405014382161241#][http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3863405014382161241#docid=6242906982728377168/url]

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3863405014382161241#