Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: PJ_Godzilla on May 13, 2010, 01:26:51 PM
-
Why not?
I'd like both SP and immobile artillery. Imagine the possibilities. It would total open up the indirect fire route as a means of annihilating a base. With it would come the need for stealth and recon.
And imagine the spectacle of a scenario like one an old Korean war vet recounted to me. He was part of an SP155 unit that, at one point, was actually in a "pocket". As he put it, "we cricled the wagons and never saw a thing". It was a local overrun - I imagine the T-34s steered well clear - the 155 being quite capable of reaching out and touching someone.
Imagine the possibillity of on-shore/off-shore duels. Imagine the puffy ack. Imagine hiding behind a hill and capping away with impunity while one of your squaddies observes and directs your fire.
Mayhem, death, blood... it's great. Consider how many casualtyies are caused by art'y in war and you've got to admit, we're missing a big chunk of causality for casualty.
-
It would only be good for leveling towns and bases...vs tanks it will lose...good luck dropping a 155 HE on my moving Panzer a mile away while I hit you with 75mm AP. :lol
Don't forget...we don't have infantry to decimate with artillery.
-
It would only be good for leveling towns and bases...vs tanks it will lose...good luck dropping a 155 HE on my moving Panzer a mile away while I hit you with 75mm AP. :lol
Don't forget...we don't have infantry to decimate with artillery.
Since when has levelling a base been not worthwhile? What about counterbattery fire against those trying to level your base? This is yet another dimension of the arms race. What about infantry that behaves something like either autonomously or under the direction of a player?
Many artillery weapons have good direct fire capabilities. Consider, for example, the SU-152. Care to take that on with your PunyPunkPanzer? I attach a little account below. The SU152 will leave you mit ein pupenschute fertig!
The SU-152 was produced throughout 1943. The 152 mm gun was a highly effective antitank weapon. It fired a very large shell, making it useful against infantry as well. It provided long-range fire support for tanks, particularly against German heavy tanks and strongpoints. The principal disadvantages of the vehicle were a low rate of fire due to the heavy ammunition, low ammunition storage (only 20 rounds) and a cramped and un-ergonomic crew compartment. Its armor protection was adequate.
The SU-152 was issued to new heavy mechanized gun regiments, raised in May 1943. The first regiment arrived at Kursk with only twelve guns, and was brought up to its full strength of twenty-one guns during the fighting (Zaloga 1984:165).
In defensive manoeuvre SU-152s were utilized by Soviet forces as powerful anti-tank weapons. Usually SU-152s were used to ambush German tanks. Another common tactic was to amass SU-152 fire (very often direct, sometimes indirect) against the enemy. The power of the SU-152's large high-explosive shells allowed it to damage enemy armoured vehicles even without armour penetration. The 152.4 mm BR-540 armour-piercing round, with a total mass of 48.8 kilograms, devastated enemy vehicles. With a muzzle velocity of 600 meters per second, it was able to penetrate 100 mm of armour at a distance of 2000 meters. At closer ranges the kinetic and explosive energy of the shell could rip the turret off a tank. As a result, it was claimed that SU-152s managed to destroy at least seven German Elefant tank destroyers, which were unstoppable with any other antitank weapon. German after-action reports claim the loss of just one Elefant to an SU-152. Numerous German AFVs were claimed as destroyed or damaged by SU-152 fire; for example, Major Sankovskiy destroyed 10 German tanks in a single day with his crew and his SU-152. He was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet UnionHero of the Soviet Union
-
It would only be good for leveling towns and bases
Cvs too. :D
-
Since when has levelling a base been not worthwhile? What about counterbattery fire against those trying to level your base? This is yet another dimension of the arms race. What about infantry that behaves something like either autonomously or under the direction of a player?
Many artillery weapons have good direct fire capabilities. Consider, for example, the SU-152. Care to take that on with your PunyPunkPanzer? I attach a little account below. The SU152 will leave you mit ein pupenschute fertig!
The SU-152 was produced throughout 1943. The 152 mm gun was a highly effective antitank weapon. It fired a very large shell, making it useful against infantry as well. It provided long-range fire support for tanks, particularly against German heavy tanks and strongpoints. The principal disadvantages of the vehicle were a low rate of fire due to the heavy ammunition, low ammunition storage (only 20 rounds) and a cramped and un-ergonomic crew compartment. Its armor protection was adequate.
The SU-152 was issued to new heavy mechanized gun regiments, raised in May 1943. The first regiment arrived at Kursk with only twelve guns, and was brought up to its full strength of twenty-one guns during the fighting (Zaloga 1984:165).
In defensive manoeuvre SU-152s were utilized by Soviet forces as powerful anti-tank weapons. Usually SU-152s were used to ambush German tanks. Another common tactic was to amass SU-152 fire (very often direct, sometimes indirect) against the enemy. The power of the SU-152's large high-explosive shells allowed it to damage enemy armoured vehicles even without armour penetration. The 152.4 mm BR-540 armour-piercing round, with a total mass of 48.8 kilograms, devastated enemy vehicles. With a muzzle velocity of 600 meters per second, it was able to penetrate 100 mm of armour at a distance of 2000 meters. At closer ranges the kinetic and explosive energy of the shell could rip the turret off a tank. As a result, it was claimed that SU-152s managed to destroy at least seven German Elefant tank destroyers, which were unstoppable with any other antitank weapon. German after-action reports claim the loss of just one Elefant to an SU-152. Numerous German AFVs were claimed as destroyed or damaged by SU-152 fire; for example, Major Sankovskiy destroyed 10 German tanks in a single day with his crew and his SU-152. He was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet UnionHero of the Soviet Union
You seem to have missed/overlooked some very important points in your counter argument...first and foremost NO GROUND TROOPS EXIST IN AH...and they most likely won't considering the lenght of time AH has been around and the fact that even now the goons we have are 2d toon characters.
Secondly...the red highlights will tell you where your SU-152 will fail against a Panzer IV in AH unless you get very very lucky. It was a good example of what could be done but the rate of fire would make it mostly ineffective against rolling tanks except in cases where you can camp the spawn/hangar or setup an ambush...and in either of those cases a tank is just as effective.
The SU-152 was not the norm for self-propelled artillery, it was copied from the Jagdpanzer and Sturmpanzer:
(http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/145907-3/20090124)
(http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/s/sturmpanzer4-brummbar.jpg)
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/ig_yarrick/su-152.jpg)
Most Allied gun carriages carried 105 and 155 mm howitzers that could only traverse up and down...not sideways...like the M7 Priest.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1309/1308948421_24b4967541.jpg)
For leveling towns and bases...even hitting ships if they're not too far off...would be nice and add another dimension to the ground battles...against tanks, very much hit/miss (pardon the pun).
-
No, I didn't really miss it. I was hoping you would. Admittedly, you could likely avoid the loping trajectory of the occasional 152 shot and get around to the 152's bellybutton end. They're NOT ideal against other direct=fire weapons.
I did, however, acknowledge the absence of infantry in AH. It'd be cool to have it, even if in squad-level form of some kind. There was a game I used to play called "Moscow to Berlin" that had a fun if unsatisfying treatment/mixture of AFVs and infantry.
Still, you cannot deny the extra dimension it would provide the game... plus, it's one step closer to the ultimate goal: virtual total war.
-
Still, you cannot deny the extra dimension it would provide the game...
I can't argue with that part of it...would take some special events to another level.
-
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
-
In effect we have arty now, granted I'd love to see a towed piece or 2.
But ground ops have more potential for leveling targets than they've ever had.
-
<snip>
the fact that even now the goons we have are 2d toon characters.
<snip>
<hijack>
This differentiates them from a noticeable fraction of players...how?
</hijack>
-
<hijack>
This differentiates them from a noticeable fraction of players...how?
</hijack>
Man-law!!! Do not hijack a forum discussion by quoting a partial sentence to ask a rhetorical question... :neener:
It confused me... :D
-
the fact that even now the goons we have are 2d toon characters.
Goon is the plane. Drunks are the passengers.
Sorry, pet peave. Just because they jump out of a perfectly good plane, that doesn't make them goons. That's just disrespectful.
wrongway
-
"It would only be good for leveling towns and bases...vs tanks it will lose...good luck dropping a 155 HE on my moving Panzer a mile away while I hit you with 75mm AP"
German Flak 88's were used very sucessfully against allied tanks in WWII - out ranged the tanks by a long shot -
Gimmmeee my Flak 88 please hi tech please -
Artillery would be awesome +1000000000000000 :rock
HP
-
"It would only be good for leveling towns and bases...vs tanks it will lose...good luck dropping a 155 HE on my moving Panzer a mile away while I hit you with 75mm AP"
German Flak 88's were used very sucessfully against allied tanks in WWII - out ranged the tanks by a long shot -
Gimmmeee my Flak 88 please hi tech please -
Artillery would be awesome +1000000000000000 :rock
HP
same gun thats in that tiger
-
same gun thats in that tiger
I expect the German 128 Flak would be a sweet tank-killer, too.
How about a Pak 50mm or 75mm that I can hide in a hedgerow somewhere?
How about a Wespe or Hummel that can move or lob shells while my squaddie, sans icon, sits on a nearby hilltop and tells me, over the squad channel, how I'm doing?
More ground targets, more ground fire, MOREMOREMOREMORE.
How about some JagdPanzers while we're at it. Make mine a V. Perhaps some Sonderkraftfahrzeug are in order as well.
Just think, if AH could draw the ground combat crowd, we'd have ourselves a whole new set of targets - we could rightfully call them untermenschen, since they'd be below us in the virtual world. Imagine coordinated battles of thousands of players o n a persistent battlefield where every rotting corpse will reside 'til tour's end.
-
Goon is the plane. Drunks are the passengers.
Sorry, pet peave. Just because they jump out of a perfectly good plane, that doesn't make them goons. That's just disrespectful.
wrongway
When was the last time you hung out with a bunch of guys who jump out of perfectly good airplanes? Goons all the way... :neener:
-
It would only be good for leveling towns and bases...vs tanks it will lose...good luck dropping a 155 HE on my moving Panzer a mile away while I hit you with 75mm AP. :lol
Don't forget...we don't have infantry to decimate with artillery.
Might want to ask the Germans at Salerno how effective artillery was against armor.
-
Might want to ask the Germans at Salerno how effective artillery was against armor.
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?
-
Funny, soviets sure made it work at Kursk.
-
I expect the German 128 Flak would be a sweet tank-killer, too.
I don't
The 12,8 cm Flak 40 was a stationary anti air craft gun, mounted mainly on flak towers and railroad cars.
-
.
-
I don't
The 12,8 cm Flak 40 was a stationary anti air craft gun, mounted mainly on flak towers and railroad cars.
I see. So it's immobility makes you doubt its ballistics?
At 26.5 tonnes, it was virtually immobile or, best case, mounted on a rail car. But still, it used a powder charge 4x that of the 88 and threw its shell ata muzzle velocity of about 2900 fps. There can be no doubt of the penetrating capability of such a gun.
You go and raise these practical concerns - bah.
-
I see. So it's immobility makes you doubt its ballistics?
No. What makes you think I did?
-
the 88mm stationary piece was the Flak38 correct? :headscratch: just a question. and this piece tripled not only as an AA emplacement, but as an AT weapon and an artillery piece all in one.
-
just a question. and this piece tripled not only as an AA emplacement, but as an AT weapon and an artillery piece all in one.
:aok
-
the 88mm stationary piece was the Flak38 correct?
No, there was no 88mm Flak 38, but a 105 mm Flak 38.
German heavy AA guns:
8,8-cm Flak 18, Flak 36, Flak 37, Flak 41 Total built: more than 18,000
10,5-cm Flak 38, Flak 39 Total built: 2068
12,8-cm Flak 40 Total built 1129
-
No, there was no 88mm Flak 38, but a 105 mm Flak 38.
German heavy AA guns:
8,8-cm Flak 18, Flak 36, Flak 37, Flak 41 Total built: more than 18,000
10,5-cm Flak 38, Flak 39 Total built: 2068
12,8-cm Flak 40 Total built 1129
ahh ok, i got the 18 and 38 mixed up. ty
-
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?
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?
-
No. What makes you think I did?
I don't. You were making a point about the weapon's general unwieldiness, my guess. That such a gun would spread a tank like peanut butter is also certain. Making the hit would also likely not be that difficult, assuming it was in the monster's field of fire. Perhaps it's make a good base gun - but probably no better than the 5-inchers we already have (not sure what those are modelled after).
By the way, while I give you credit for making a valid point, the Wehrmacht did not share your view - since they shoehorned the very similar Pak44 128mm byotch into a JadgTiger (The Pak44/L55 - I believe the L designation being the barrel length in multiples of caliber) using a couple of shoehorns and some KY. While the Pak 44 was NOT the same gun as the Flak 40, they were both made by RheinMetall Borsig and both suffered from enormous curb weight - to the extent that a towed version of the PaK 44 was cancelled - and topped out, like it's AA counterpart, at over 10kip.
so, yes, mostly flak towers for 128s - except when they were in the hull of the heaviest AFV to see service in the entire conflict.
-
By the way, while I give you credit for making a valid point, the Wehrmacht did not share your view - since they shoehorned the byotch into a JadgTiger (The Pak44/L55 - I believe the L designation being the barrel length in multiples of caliber) using a couple of shoehorns and some KY.
They did not. The 12,8-cm KwK / Pak44 was a entirely different weapon. It was not a adapted Flak gun.
-
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. :aok
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Holy smokes! I wanna reply to this SOOOOOO BAD! But it just wouldn't be worth it!
Arty? HELL YES :aok
RC
-
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?
-
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... :aok
-
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 :)
-
What about traveling shells hitting planes?
-
What about traveling shells hitting planes?
airspace deconfliction :O 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 :noid 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
-
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... :aok
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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# (http://[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3863405014382161241#docid=6242906982728377168/url)
-
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.
Well, let's see, I am the Fire Support NCO (13F, Fire Support Specialist. MOS 13F) for the company to which I am assigned, JFO and JFCC qualified, a 10 year veteran, military history major at American Military University, last 12.5 months executed over 2000 rnds IDF from a manual gunnery system, roughly 1200 IDF from digital gunnery system... 0 colalteral damage incidents, all mission fired using map, range estimation and compass for target location, only missions fired with pre-processed data through available channels are training missions.
And maybe I didn't make myself clear about the NGF, so my fault. Only an idiot tries to put an AP round from NGF into a tank, and yes, when ship-on-ship takes place, I'm sure they used AP rounds to get past the heavy "armored belts" at/near waterline. HE, HE/Q is the preferred method for hitting LAND targets. Because regardless of equipment used to get target location, when met data comes into play you are not going to be able to put an AP round into a tank at any distance.
To give you an example, I have used a digital gun system, land based, self-locates itself up to 1 meter and relocates itself after every round fired. Using some of the most accurate precision target location equipment available to the military, even that system- stable, on land, was close, but not a hit on the target. AP has to hit the target to be effective. HE, HE/Q, even HE/VT or HE/ET can get effects on target for the FFE phase if the last adjusted round was within 50 meters; however, HE/ET and HE/VT would only really be used to pop supporting infantry but you might get lucky and get the tank CDR..
^^ Firing data for corrections, effective munitions are pulled from JFire and FM 6-30 which is being redrafted into FM 6.09-30
The fact of the matter is everyone makes this appear to be such a difficult process, and while I would never say "anyone can do it," with training and practice it is, or does, become a simple process. There are, of course, some things I can't exactly put up here to really paint the picture; obviously I have to be careful with what I post. But hopefully people will get the picture. This is not a difficult process!
-
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.
:aok
-
Whats with the m18 :)
every single thing that goes on in my head has that strange voice whispering to me like a psycho's voice saying "kill them...kill them... In...an... M-18...." :noid
-
The fact of the matter is everyone makes this appear to be such a difficult process, and while I would never say "anyone can do it," with training and practice it is, or does, become a simple process. There are, of course, some things I can't exactly put up here to really paint the picture; obviously I have to be careful with what I post. But hopefully people will get the picture. This is not a difficult process!
On that we finally agree, not anyone can do it and it takes training and practice. For a guy with 6 weeks of boot and 2 to 4 weeks of added training before being shipped to the front lines...there were a lot of difficult processes.
Well, let's see, I am the Fire Support NCO (13F, Fire Support Specialist. MOS 13F) for the company to which I am assigned, JFO and JFCC qualified, a 10 year veteran, military history major at American Military University, last 12.5 months executed over 2000 rnds IDF from a manual gunnery system, roughly 1200 IDF from digital gunnery system... 0 colalteral damage incidents, all mission fired using map, range estimation and compass for target location, only missions fired with pre-processed data through available channels are training missions.
And maybe I didn't make myself clear about the NGF, so my fault. Only an idiot tries to put an AP round from NGF into a tank, and yes, when ship-on-ship takes place, I'm sure they used AP rounds to get past the heavy "armored belts" at/near waterline. HE, HE/Q is the preferred method for hitting LAND targets. Because regardless of equipment used to get target location, when met data comes into play you are not going to be able to put an AP round into a tank at any distance.
To give you an example, I have used a digital gun system, land based, self-locates itself up to 1 meter and relocates itself after every round fired. Using some of the most accurate precision target location equipment available to the military, even that system- stable, on land, was close, but not a hit on the target. AP has to hit the target to be effective. HE, HE/Q, even HE/VT or HE/ET can get effects on target for the FFE phase if the last adjusted round was within 50 meters; however, HE/ET and HE/VT would only really be used to pop supporting infantry but you might get lucky and get the tank CDR..
You're a lucky dog...if I had that stuff I could have made better impressions on the officers. As it was, sketchy copied topo map, binoculars, radio and windage and elevation...practice, practice, practice. Tanks were easier...LOS. The big BBs in WWII fire primarily AP to penetrate reinforced concrete fortifications...not just other ships.
-
The SU 152 was a powerful weapon,but it didn't do all the killing of Ferdinands or Elephants as they were called.Nashorns were in the same category.Good guns,thin armor,and no weaponry to keep the legs from over running them.They didn't make very many of them as they just weren't worth the effort put into them,and the Germans used more mobile types of anti tank measures.Seems like everything the Ruski's made was heavily armored with a big gun.The infantry were pawns,and slain in large numbers.When the enemy captured some territory from the Germans,they were about to get hit with a accurately plotted artillery barrage.The Germans were masters of defensive warfare.One of the reasons the war lasted so long in the ETO.If Hitler would have kept his nose out of the planning the Germans would have been better off for it.That they couldn't bother Hitler on D-Day while he was sleeping was simply pathetic.Several large German Units were waiting for the word to counter attack,like Rommel wanted to do,right at the beaches.While Hitler snoozed enough troops got ashore and it was too late at that point.
Great Grandpa Dobe
-
Yes, but tell me that it wouldn't be neat to use a Nashorn out at range, plinking away at T-34s from a hilltop somewhere...
-
I have a Game and I prefer the Nashorn if I can get one.I don't use Elephants to large and their movement is really restricted in game.My Favorite is the 88 non AAA model.It takes out anything the Ruski's have.I set it up in ambush mode,and if any unsuspecting vehicle,tank,etc get caught in the web it's obliterated.The Game I play is nearly ten years old,Panzer General III,a Russian front type of game.Extremely addictive.It's always nice to run in to people that study vehicles,tanks,etc,of WWII.The Military Channel has a program that shows people restoring old WWII tanks,vehicles.Its a must watch program for me.I watched the one where a Elephant was restored,and it was really neat.It's located in the USA,and I think the Russians have one as well..I think everyone will agree with me that restoring the P-38,, Glacier Girl,has to be one of the top restores ever.The is a guy south of me in Utah,that restores WWII Tanks and vehicles and he has a bunch.He also has a bunch of money!!!
Nice blog here,as I like WWII history,with a real interest in German equipment.I have forgotten the K/D ratio for Germans verse Russian tank,but it was like one lost to ten killed in favor of Germans,but you can't fight the numbers.Kind of like you kill one,and two pop up.Hitler was a fool to attack Russia.
Great Grandpa Dobe