Check this out
http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm
http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm
Last edited:
Thanks for the attached files Jim.
. . .
My questions still remain unanswered I'm afraid:
What effect does a heavier weight of shell have on entrenchment, if any?
I am assuming entrenchment would have overhead cover, so VT and MT fused salvos (used against dug in positions and troops in the open on soft terrain) would have little effect.
PD (point detonating) was a standard setting for use on most terrain but was less effective than fuses set to delay, which not only allows the round to penetrate a bunker before exploding, in the case of a direct hit, but also had the effect of collapsing the walls and roof structures of entrenched positions with near misses.
I mention this because the same weight of lighter calibre rounds, set to delay, might have more impact on a dispersed position than a few very large calibre rounds as there is more chance of them finding a target.
The more I think about it, the more variables I find, making me wonder if just an arbitrary figure to cover all situations is the better option anyway lol
I'm going to drop the question about heavier weight shells drawing more supply, as well, because I imagine to cover the same burst radius, with lighter munitions, would require close to the same weight of resupply, as you would be firing more of them, for the same effect.
Just a guess, I have done no research on it.
AgreedI think it's best to just role play it out and not get too hung up on the effects of the different weights of munitions.
In the average Command Ops scenario its unlikely to make much difference.
But from a role play perspective, It would be better to use the heavier guns for entrenched/fortified positions within towns and villages to penetrate into cellars and bunkers.
Because of the dispersion of troops entrenched into forest and open terrain, I don't think it would make much difference if you use light medium or heavy artillery, from a role playing perspective, in these situations.
Interesting. Are all tanks still invulnerable to arty in CO2? IIRC it was impossible to destroy even light tanks with arty in CO1.That was an excellent article, thanks Kurt.
This was the most interesting part and confirmed my speculation.
A notable point is that smaller shells are proportionally more effective than larger ones. However, the ratios aren't generally supported by the number of fragments derived from their distribution in Table 1. Of course larger shells can be fired further, their greater explosive content makes them more effective against more solid targets, if they hit them, and their blast effects are greater.
An often asked question is about the effect of indirect artillery fire on tanks. One example helps, in 1944 the German IX Corps in Italy reported that artillery fire was the largest single cause of its tanks losses, it seems that this was usually from medium and heavy guns controlled by air OPs. The second largest source was German destruction of damaged or broken-down tanks to prevent their capture (mechanical reliability was not a feature of German tanks - but perhaps some of this was due to the Special Operations Executive's campaign of insaisissable sabotage). Other tanks, anti-tank, air attack and mines were well below the first two as the causes of tank losses.
I already knew about the effect of artillery on German armour from another source, but was nice to see it confirmed again here.
Of particular note though, was the fact that there are a tremendous amount of variables to be considered, and even today, no completely accurate data, especially on the effects of morale.
Any chances for some info on how the shell weight / radius thing works?
I know. I know. But I'm knee deep in it still. Next week perhaps.