Minimum range

Minimum range (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Gavris Narcis -> Minimum range (4/29/2001 10:14:00 AM)
Hello ! I know that some wepons has not only a maximum range but even a minimum range ! Do you know this ? Especially was the problem for the mortars !! I search the documents and I've found that the romanian 81,4 mm mortars can't fire more closely than aprox. 200 meters (1000 meters max. range) wich corespond at 85/40 grades ; this is equal with 4 hexes, isn't it ? And that fact is because one for the elevation angle of mortar and other for the caliber of the weapon (at 120 mm the parameters were 600 min. range- 6600 max. range). As a definition, ..with increasing caliber of mortar increased the same the minimum range. Why the game don't simulate this ? I think it is a big error, but it can be fixed. Leo.

Paul Vebber -> (4/29/2001 10:23:00 AM)
Its there for larger weapons, for smaller ones, while documentation often lists a minimum range, evidence is ther ethat they were often used inside minimum range when circumstances dictate. THis also applies only to indirect fire. All wepaons can fire direct fire at any unit in their LOS, this is a stretch for some mortars, but often "the book" on minimum safe ranges got thrown out in combat.

Gavris Narcis -> (4/29/2001 10:29:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Its there for larger weapons, for smaller ones, while documentation often lists a minimum range, evidence is ther ethat they were often used inside minimum range when circumstances dictate. THis also applies only to indirect fire. All wepaons can fire direct fire at any unit in their LOS, this is a stretch for some mortars, but often "the book" on minimum safe ranges got thrown out in combat. I disagreed with you. How can a 120mm mortar fire at 50m (next hexes), for example ? At 90 degrees ? Leo.

Paul Vebber -> (4/29/2001 10:33:00 AM)
Point the barrel nearly vertical...or nearly horizontal...when your life depends on it its amazing what work arounds you can come up with... Certainly not "by the book" but historical accounts are full of such happenings.

Don Doom -> (4/29/2001 10:33:00 AM)
Would not be hard, just have to adjust alot for upper winds. It would take a while for the shell to land. 90deg's it stright up.

Gavris Narcis -> (4/29/2001 10:38:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Point the barrel nearly vertical...or nearly horizontal...when your life depends on it its amazing what work arounds you can come up with... Certainly not "by the book" but historical accounts are full of such happenings. But the weapons can't BE SET at such angle by the designation/fabrication ! The max. angle shooting have a limit ! Or they take it in hands and fire in their heads ? Leo.

Paul Vebber -> (4/29/2001 10:43:00 AM)
LIke I said its a bit of a stretch, but yes, depending on the size of the mortar a number of things could be improvised. This is more a game limitation than a "realism" thing, if a mortar is shooting direct fire at close range it is typically not long for this world anyway.

nyarlathotep -> (4/29/2001 10:50:00 AM)
Trying to remember which book I got this from but some mortar crews when confronted at close range would just charge the round by slamming it on the base plate then throw the round. Someone correct me if I'm wrong thanks.

Paul Vebber -> (4/29/2001 10:55:00 AM)
This was shown in Saving Private Ryan, with 50mm, but I recall someone saying it was not quite so simple. But shows what could be tried!

Narrowmaster -> (4/29/2001 12:28:00 PM)
Hi guys,...been lurking in the forum for a bit and have been following your posts. I was an 11C (Mortarman) in both an Armor Battalion and with 4/325th out of the 82nd Airborne,...thought I'd throw my two cents in. First off, to elevate the mortar 90 degrees you would have to lift the bipod legs off the ground on most mortars (the collar that attaches them to the tube sits about half way up) making for a very unstable shot. The US Army 60mm can be trigger fired (nowadays, don't know about back then) meaning you can drop a round down the tube without it firing, and then lining up and pulling the trigger. (Incidently, the handle also has a bubble for direct sighting so you can fire it without bipod legs by visually lininig up on target down the length of the tube.) Larger mortars (81mm, 4.2 inch etc) would require some poor ammo bearer to steady that bad boy, but it would work,...can you say DANGER CLOSE??? I forget what the recommended minimums are, but they are usally a wide margin for safety, mortars not being a pinpoint device and all. Desparate times call for desperate measures as they say. Banging rounds on the baseplate would be a job I wouldn't want. The round as its designed has a base propellant (called a charge) within the body of the round itself and it generally comes out through small hole that start along the body just above the fins. To get farther ranges, you add more charges, but if you banged that puppy outside a tube, you get your hand scorched to say the least from that base charge. I think today it might even work less because often rounds have fuses that require the round to travel a certain distance before it is armed. Hope this helps a little. Thanks for letting me ramble. :)

nimu -> (4/29/2001 12:52:00 PM)
Narrowmaster, first of all welcome to the forum.Then,(i'm a bit embarassed to ask!)....the 82th wasn't it the division that fought at Nimega in sept '44?Under gen.Browning?In the middle of the market-garden corridor?Awesome!you should feel proud of it!!! Sorry for the private question Bye

Narrowmaster -> (4/29/2001 7:54:00 PM)
As was a certain MG. R. E. Urquhart with the 1st British Airborne Division if I'm not mistaken

Gavris Narcis -> (4/30/2001 10:52:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Narrowmaster: [QB]Hi guys,...been lurking in the forum for a bit and have been following your posts. I was an 11C (Mortarman) in both an Armor Battalion and with 4/325th out of the 82nd Airborne,...thought I'd throw my two cents in. First off, to elevate the mortar 90 degrees you would have to lift the bipod legs off the ground on most mortars (the collar that attaches them to the tube sits about half way up) making for a very unstable shot. The US Army 60mm can be trigger fired (nowadays, don't know about back then) meaning you can drop a round down the tube without it firing, and then lining up and pulling the trigger. (Incidently, the handle also has a bubble for direct sighting so you can fire it without bipod legs by visually lininig up on target down the length of the tube.) Larger mortars (81mm, Hi ! Wellcome to forum, at first ! And resume what you say above (as a veteran): do you think that minimum range must to be introduced in game or not ? Please tell us. And what you want say with: ''Incidently, the handle also has a bubble for direct sighting so you can fire it without bipod legs by visually lininig up on target down the length of the tube.'' ? It was possible to kep in hands the mortar tube for direct fire ? Thank you. Leo.

Larry Holt -> (4/30/2001 7:32:00 PM)
My understanding is that the Germans added those grenade throwers (I can't remember the designation N... something) to their tanks late in the war as they needed to fire at infantry inside the minimum range of their main guns. I believe that the minimum range issue refered to not being able to point the barrel low enough to hit close in troops, not that the round had a minimum range set by the fuse.

Narrowmaster -> (4/30/2001 9:44:00 PM)
Thanks for the warm welcome! To answer a few questions, I would say first off, yes I think minimum ranges should be implemented if they aren't already, or at least take into account a long delay (high angle=long time of flight) and an inherent inaccuracy associated with that kind of extreme measure. Generally speaking, firing at targets that you can see (and thus they can see you!) isn't something you should be doing for extended periods of time-I think we played with it on the range a few times across a valley-called it "plinking". As long as you keep the rate of fire down, holding on to the tube isn't bad. Its only when you get two ammo bearers, each with two rounds, one in each hand and they steady hammer rounds as fast as they can, where heat would be a problem. (Can't imagine that happening without the bipod legs on, or you'd just be chucking rounds all over the neighborhood anyways.) Just as a bit of useless trivia, when I was a newly assigned Specialist to the Division, I heard more than one story about those "Crazy Rangers" and all the wild things they've been known to do. At one point, I was told they have been known to jump into a dropzone with a 60mm mortar round 100mph taped in the tube, set on Proximity. The mortar was supposed to of had the small square M3 baseplate attached. Anyways, I guess the idea was, when our Fearless Ranger hit the DZ, in the event he landed on contested turf (say like, in front of a DSHK or something) he could find himself something sturdy to back that thing against, trigger fire that thing in a truly DIRECT fire mode, and have himself a 60mm cannon basically. Whether or not this is true, I don't know, but it had this Specialist wide-eyed when I heard it. Anybody else heard anything like that?

Gavris Narcis -> (5/4/2001 2:26:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Narrowmaster: [QB]Thanks for the warm welcome! To answer a few questions, I would say first off, yes I think minimum ranges should be implemented if they aren't already, or at least take into account a long delay (high angle=long time of flight) and an inherent inaccuracy associated with that kind of extreme measure. Generally speaking, firing at targets that you can see (and thus they can see you!) isn't something you should be doing for extended periods of time-I think we played with it on the range a few times across a valley-called it "plinking". As long as you keep the rate of fire down, holding on to the tube isn't bad. Its only When you wrote:''As long as you keep the rate of fire down, holding on to the tube isn't bad.'' it means keeping the tube in hand ? But the mortars haven't any recoil ? If yes, how do you keep this in hands ? Leo.

john g -> (5/4/2001 3:23:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Gavris Narcis: When you wrote:''As long as you keep the rate of fire down, holding on to the tube isn't bad.'' it means keeping the tube in hand ? But the mortars haven't any recoil ? If yes, how do you keep this in hands ? Leo.[/QB] Yes motars do have recoil, as the poor marines who experimented with Japanese "knee" mortars found out. When these were first captured someone thought the curved base was to fit up against a mans leg and be fired holding it in one hand braced against a thigh. After someone broke their thigh bone from the substantial recoil they figured out that the base was better held against a tree or jammed in the ground. thanks, John.

Narrowmaster -> (5/4/2001 3:48:00 AM)
As John wrote, mortars can have considerable recoil, but is directed down the length of the tube to the ball joint and attached baseplate. The tube doesn't "jump" or "rise" like a machine gun or cannon might when fired to any extent. A good solid grip and having the baseplate set in well is all you really need to keep it from sailing away on you. On a side note (same subject though), you have to be selective sometimes where you put that baseplate and bipod legs-they don't work well on solid rock or in soft sand. I personally have had the horrible experience to watch my 81mm fall over sideways while firing a 6 round fire-for-effect in the sand. Shocking to say the least, but nobody got hurt,- lesson learned by this Sgt for sure.

panda124c -> (5/6/2001 7:22:00 AM)
Narrowmaster: I wonder, how exactly is a impact fuse armed in a mortar round? Physics says that the arming has to occur after the round is moving upward, after leaving the tube. The round does not know the difference between a rapid acceleration upward or a sudden stop. So if the arming occurs before or at the same time as propelent ignition then it is likely to go off in the tube.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.046875