Penetration and accuracy of lobbed weapons (Full Version)

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



Message

Larry Holt -> Penetration and accuracy of lobbed weapons (7/9/2001 8:43:00 PM)

I was playing against the Poles. I consistently saw an 81mm mortar kill my halftrack with a penetration of 37 or 37 but the OOB says its HE penetration is 28. I did not mistake this, in fact I reran the turn numerous times and got a screen shot of the effects text box. Is this possible? If I understand correctly the OOB accuracy number is twice the number of hexes that there is a 50% chance of getting a first round hit (acuracy 20 + 50% @ 10 hexes). Here is what I see in the Polish OOB (& in others as well) satchel 12, molotov 20, AT mine 12, stiel hgr 32 (!) This is odd as these values exceed the max range that the weapons can be thrown (1 hex). This compares to a M! Garand at 16. This seems to say that a high speed projectile fired from an aimed weapon is less (much less) accurate than something that is thrown by hand. My halftrack just moved into some woods. It was directly fired on by two Polish 81mm mortars at 10 hexes (500m). They got 31% & 44% first hit probability (consistent over several replays) against this point target. This seems impossible with a low velocity, smooth bore weapon. By the way the 45 cal pistol is a 4 (or 2 hexes = 100m). This is only one of two weapons in the OOB that I have personally fired (the other a 50 cal). A range of 25 meters is all that someone with moderate training (not an expert) can reasonable hope to hit 50% with a first shot. [ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Larry Holt ]



Voriax -> (7/9/2001 8:58:00 PM)

howdy Larry A quick reply..battletech session awaits :) diveide the ranges by 4 to get the correct range..so the .45 cal has a maximum range of 1 hex = 50m. but when you get range numbers in excess of...230? they are special ones..hardcoded..Paul explained this in another thread not that many days ago. The higher than range values for thrown weapons and rifle grenades are also intentional, to make it possible to actually hit with them :) As for the Garand..you know, fired round may actually *be* much less accurate than grenade...but you really cannot compare them. One is a thingy you throw for 20-25 metres and then it explodes causing area effect...and you cannot really miss very much at that distance..and another is a rifle with hundreds of meters of range..and if you miss by a 1cm, it's a miss and does nothing.. Hmm...perhaps I should one day try to figure out how many weapons in the oob i've fired... Voriax



AmmoSgt -> (7/9/2001 9:03:00 PM)

Larry the formula for range is R/4 not R/2 so that is just a simple misunderstanding ... there seems to be a pattern more or less that the larger the warhead size the greater the accuracy .. this maybe related to the larger area of effect that a larger warhead is assumed to have ..which I am not perfectly comfortable with since area of effect is not exactly the same as hitting something BEFORE the fuze detonates any HE filler in the round, seems to ME IMHO to be a different issue ... now there are some exceptions ..and somehow i think they are more a matter of different folks ideas of what is and isn't right for any given weapon ..without any standard approach being applied .. for example in the british OOB there are several different grenades and demolition chages ... lets compare ... Sachtel charge accuracy 12 warhead 10 he kill 15 ( compare to 150mm how round at 16) HE pen of 120 with a code 222 in AP pen so it uses the HEAT pen of 90 ( i don't understand that either ) Now in Fact the sachtel charge is typically a canvas bag of bulk HE ( could be 15-40 lbs HE depending ) more likely used by placing it and detonating it than by lighting a short fuze and throwing it ..some scahtel charges actually have seperate blocks of High Exlosive with a threaded fuze well but standard grenade type fuzes do not "screw in" to it, different size ..it is actually a demo charge type arrangement requiring a time fuze or electrical command type initation ..but yet it is a throwing weapon in the game high HE kill but no inherant shrapel capability which seems " wrong to me" blast being a very unreliable casuality producing effect on it's own .. Sticky Bomb accuracy 4 warhead 3 he kill 0 AP pen 42 HE Pen 50 again a bluk HE charge in the 3 lb category range of 4 (1 hex)...as the name implies designed to be physically placed on a target perhaps a tank as it drives by .. not thrown , certainly not throw 50 yards Accuracy 4 for a hand placed weapon ??? you tell me ...and why the HE Pen and the AP pen would be different totally escapes me .. but on to grenades proper M36 grenade range 4 (1 hex ) accuracy 24 warhead 2 ( compare to a 20mm round warhead 2 , 20mm has maybe 2 grams of HE M36 is around 40 grams ) HE pen 38 HEAT 30 AP pen code222 so it uses the Heat rating ..despite the fact it is not a HEAT weapon it is a Frag ( i am trying to figure out the hidden secret meaning of this HE Pen factor V AP pen and HEAT pen and why some weapons have both .. BTW if you go to http://www.sonic.net/~brucel/ and look on the links page for the Grenade link they have extensive color pictures of the grenades, fuzes and the like some are pics ot training grenades cut away so you can see the internal confihuration ..the link is not a good one for specifics on HE fill ect since not all grenades are given full descriptions "75" Grenade range 4 (1 hex) accuracy 32 warhead 3 (compare to guns in the 50mm -60mm range ) "75" grenade is about the size of a canteen but only half as thick and more square holds maybe 1.5- 2 lbs HE ( much more than the maybe 3-6 oz of HE in a warhead 3 shell ) but despite it being shaped more like a large paperback book as opposed to the M36 grenades more conventional "grenade" shape it's accuracy is higher ?? ( maybe eaiser to throw , I don't think so whatever ) HE pen of 63 AP code 222 so it uses the HEAT pen 70 ..the "75" is not a HEAT weapon so why this is is beyond me .. HE kill is a 4 despite much more HE .but that might be right since it is of sheet metal construction and is not optimized for frags. rather it has a flat surface for placement against the target .. Gammon Bomb Range 4 accuracy 8 warhead 5 (compare to 25lber shell which has more HE the Gammon being in the 1 lb + HE fill category and the 25lber being several times that ) HE Kill is an 8 same as a 25lber despite serious differentences in HE weigth and frag potential HE pen is a 60 it has a 222 code for AP pen so it will use it's 0 HEAT rating .. ..it looks like a Panzerfaust warhead so i suspect some kind of AT capabliity but ya never know do you ... Rifle grenade range 12 ( 3 hexes) accuracy 12 ( this one actually is intended to be used at range , it actually accuracy is not great but better than hand thrown at 50 yards i assure you ) warhead 2 ( again compare 20mm cannon rounds despite significantly higher HE fill and frag potential than a 20mm for the rifle grenade) HE kill is a 4 which compares well with a regular M36 handgrenade above which i think is fair... The HE pen is 38 coded to HEAT 12 by the AP pen code 222 .. None of above stats makes much sense to me all the data was extracted from the Brit OOB.. and the identical weapons may have different values and codings in other OOB's .. due to factors I am still trying to sort out ..I know the HEAT numbers being lower than HE pen have to do with some tweaking that went on to get a better at apability modeling for some weapons but why some of the other values seem so incosistant is beyond me .. The 81's that were hitting you Halftrack shouldn't be encountering a whole lot of armor due to the halftrack being opentopped and unarmored from above for most of it top area ( the hood over the engine being armored) I suspect that the two hits were more fluke and luck than reliable reproducable accuracy [ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ]



Paul Vebber -> (7/9/2001 9:04:00 PM)

For some "one hex range" weapons to show that they actually used by a brave trooper that gets much closer than 50 yards, the accuracy ratings are "bumped up". So they have more chance for an effect. Mortars and rifle grenades are a problem becasue they should only be able to shoot using the Z key really, though you can "direct fire" some mortars (I wouldn;t want to try it though...if its THe OOB Tiger team will try a few things... that or getting shot though!) [ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



AmmoSgt -> (7/9/2001 10:01:00 PM)

Paul so are you saying that the Accuracy 4 on the sticky bomb might need changing ?



Larry Holt -> (7/9/2001 10:19:00 PM)

Thanks for the R/4 correction and the detail! The mortars were consistently hitting the front of the halftrack (armor=15). That was reproducable over 15 reruns. The halftrack was never missed in any of the reruns, it was always hit. None were top hits (despite the expected downward arcing of a mortar round, that's probably beyond the modeling in the game) Can anyone address the penetration of 37 & 39 when the OOB gives a 28 HE penetration value?



AmmoSgt -> (7/9/2001 10:23:00 PM)

Larry the numbers are right as far as they go so it looks like a prgraming thing I don't see anything at the weapons level that would cause the hits .. PaulV maybe Mark Woods might have that answer ... maybe if you ran a printout on the info from the gray info bar at the bottom of the screen it would be useful



Warrior -> (7/9/2001 11:50:00 PM)

Larry, I regularly destroy tanks with 81mm mortars. You had the bad luck to be on the wrong end of the shot. :D



Kluckenbill -> (7/10/2001 1:08:00 AM)

I'm playing a campaign as Germans. I'm currently in a battle where I had a shootout between a SIG 150mm SP gun (which was immobilized, (thus it hung around for several turns) and a British 50 mm mortar at 8 hex range. We slugged it out for two turns, the SIG got hit 3 times and lost! I suppose this isn't too unrealistic since my gun was immobile and rather lightly armored, but come on, a 50mm mortar?? At least it wasn't part of my core force.



Paul Vebber -> (7/10/2001 1:09:00 AM)

Alot of the grenade values are SWAGs so if you feel they are off and need changing, add it to the list. I would make mortars and rifles grenades direct fire all have 0 accuracy. But that would need some more testing. hand grenade accuracy is something I've never been happy with, but it seems to make them more useful - for the most part they seem to give good results in 6.1. [ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



Larry Holt -> (7/10/2001 2:30:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior: Larry, I regularly destroy tanks with 81mm mortars. You had the bad luck to be on the wrong end of the shot. :D
Well, I don't think its bad luck. My tests showed a consistent 31% and 44% first shot probability to hit a vehicle with an 81mm mortar using direct fire at 500m. Not hit the hex and have frag hit the vehicle but actually hit the vehicle directly. Now I've not been a mortar crewman but I have watched them fire, seen the crew drill, etc. This just is not possible. Occasionally you might get lucky (there is always that 2% probability of a hit it seems). Does anyone have facts for range to have a 50% chance of a first round direct hit? I'd estimate it possible out to 100m. OOB team are you reading this thread and Paul's comment?



Belisarius -> (7/10/2001 2:34:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Kluckenbill: I suppose this isn't too unrealistic since my gun was immobile and rather lightly armored, but come on, a 50mm mortar?? At least it wasn't part of my core force.
I guess if those tommies managed to put a shell right on top of the SiG, it's pretty much toast. A hand grenade would be enough.



AmmoSgt -> (7/10/2001 2:46:00 AM)

Larry I am reading , I am reading .. research research research .. see if you can find any sources that at least give creditable data indicating that mortars are desperately inaccurate in direct fire .. I think I saw discussion a few years back with some hard data when the Brits started fielding that smart 81mm round for their new Mortar but i'm not sure if it was a evaluation report or a Military Ordnance Mag article or what.. but I know data is out there ..somewhere .. Folks who want changes are simply gonna have to find me some data ... PaulV is the Boss , he says 0 accuracy at least for testing, then thats what it will be .. Larry did I hear you just volunteer to help test .. it's a few weeks down the road but never hurts to have a reservation ..LOL



Paul Vebber -> (7/10/2001 3:14:00 AM)

The problem we have is these high trajectory weapons could be used with great accuracy against staionary targets, but not vs moving targets. We don't have the ability to model that yet. SO we either have to have them suffer some degradation direct fire against stationary targets, so they do not seem to be firing Bofors Bill rounds against moving vehicles. A trade off that you have to resolve through testing unfortunately and not thorugh research. Same with Hand Grenade accuracy, though I think that seems to work OK right now. I waffle back and forth like many based on how successful my last attempt to use them were :o



Larry Holt -> (7/10/2001 10:07:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: The problem we have is these high trajectory weapons could be used with great accuracy against staionary targets, but not vs moving targets. We don't have the ability to model that yet. SO we either have to have them suffer some degradation direct fire against stationary targets, so they do not seem to be firing Bofors Bill rounds against moving vehicles. A trade off that you have to resolve through testing unfortunately and not thorugh research. Same with Hand Grenade accuracy, though I think that seems to work OK right now. I waffle back and forth like many based on how successful my last attempt to use them were :o
Paul, OK I understand the need for a tradeoff in terms of game code. However, hitting a stationary target requires walking the rounds onto target. I've seen high first round hit % (31 & 44% for example) that stays at that %, no increase as they fire additonal times in direct fire. Tanks have a lower first round % that goes up. Is there some way to indicate that arty is firing in direct mode (over open sights) and use the tank model vs. firing indirect where the spotting rounds and adjustment is built in so there is no increase from the initial % to hit?



Larry Holt -> (7/10/2001 10:10:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: Larry I am reading , I am reading .. research research research .. see if you can find any sources that at least give creditable data indicating that mortars are desperately inaccurate in direct fire .. [snip] .. Larry did I hear you just volunteer to help test .. it's a few weeks down the road but never hurts to have a reservation ..LOL
OK, I'll look for a source. Since mortars are smooth bore and the round essential rattles down then up the bore they are inaccurate by their nature. Kind of like smoothbore cannons used to be.



New York Jets -> (7/10/2001 10:16:00 PM)

From the original Post of Larry Holt XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Is there some way to indicate that arty is firing in direct mode (over open sights) and use the tank model vs. firing indirect where the spotting rounds and adjustment is built in so there is no increase from the initial % to hit?[/QB][/QUOTE] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Mortars using "direct lay" technique did not have to rely on "firing over open sights" which represents a tactical expedient sometimes used by artillery units in extreme tactical situations. They indeed did posess an actual sighting mechanism used for direct fire purposes. They DID NOT have to merely rely on "Kentucky Windage" and walking rounds towards the target in order to hit the target. Tactical Note: Referring to your original posting. It is probably not a good idea to park open topped vehicles or soft targets in woods within sight of weapon systems capable of producing air bursts as the warhead strikes a tree branch, etc. [ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Trog ]



panda124c -> (7/10/2001 10:33:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: OK, I'll look for a source. Since mortars are smooth bore and the round essential rattles down then up the bore they are inaccurate by their nature. Kind of like smoothbore cannons used to be.
Mortars are much more accrate than smoothbore cannon by their nature plunging fire(yes there were rifled mortars but they do not seem to have increased the accracy much). Please note that a large number of mortars were use as coastal defense artillary, example Fort Drum, and Corrigador were armed with those smoothbore mortars for use against ships. In fact the invention of the mortar is credit to Mohammad to destroy the ships in the harbor of a town under seige. The mortar was revive in WWI to provide local avaiable artillary for the Infantry for the reduction of strong points (MG nest)so they had to have a very good accracy to hit the small target. Hitting a moving target is harder as it is for all weapons. The angle of strike is in the order of 70 degrees. So to accrately model mortars they should have a higher percent of getting a top hit and very rare to get a side, front, or rear hit. Direct fire should by nature be more accrate than indirect fire, better fire control (the gunner can see the target). Ballintine books "Grenads and Mortars" (Sorry about the spelling I are an Ijun'ear a week ago I could not spell it now I are one.)



Larry Holt -> (7/10/2001 10:41:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Trog: Mortars using "direct lay" technique did not have to rely on "firing over open sights" which represents a tactical expedient sometimes used by artillery units in extreme tactical situations. They indeed did possess an actual sighting mechanism used for direct fire purposes. They DID NOT have to merely rely on "Kentucky Windage" and walking rounds towards the target in order to hit the target.
Again I've not been an 11H, mortar crewman but I've observed their drill. What I have seen is that they put a stake in the ground then sight on it. When they need adjustments (x meters at y range) they calculate translation of this to determine how much to adjust the sights on the aiming stake. I've never seen a sight that they lay directly on the target. Can you tell me if this is done and how?
quote:

Tactical Note: Referring to your original posting. It is probably not a good idea to park open topped vehicles or soft targets in woods within sight of weapon systems capable of producing air bursts as the warhead strikes a tree branch, etc.
I agree and if I was getting killed by airbursts I would have no complaint. I was consistently getting killed by rounds coming down through the tree canopy and striking directly on the front (not the open top) of the vehicle. [ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Larry Holt ]



sven -> (7/10/2001 10:45:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: I agree and if I was getting killed by airbursts I would have no complaint. I was consistently getting killed by rounds coming down through the tree canopy and striking directly on the front (not the open top) of the vehicle. [ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Larry Holt ]
Again I've not been an 11H, mortar crewman but I've observed their drill. What I have seen is that they put a stake in the ground then sight on it. When they need adjustments (x meters at y range) they calculate translation of this to determine how much to adjust the sights on the aiming stake. I've never seen a sight that they lay directly on the target. Can you tell me if this is done and how? --------------------------------------------- umm Larry not o nitpick, but 11h is TOW Gunner and 11C is mortar man. sven(ex11h)



Larry Holt -> (7/10/2001 11:02:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by sven: umm Larry not o nitpick, but 11h is TOW Gunner and 11C is mortar man. sven(ex11h)
[joke]Thanks for reminding me how much of the details I've forgotten since I got out and how stupid I feel. [/joke] Really, thanks for the correction, you are correct of course.



sven -> (7/10/2001 11:09:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: [joke]Thanks for reminding me how much of the details I've forgotten since I got out and how stupid I feel. [/joke] Really, thanks for the correction, you are correct of course.
I meant no offense. Hey they killed the 11H mos a few years back. Now it is a sub designation of 11b or 11m. sven



Larry Holt -> (7/11/2001 12:19:00 AM)

Sven, no offense taken, that was the intent of the [joke] tags. As to the ability of mortars to fire directly at targets, vice indirectly. I have no information on WWII Polish mortars but I did check out the US Militart history site. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=711 page 9 of this PDF lists the US 81mm mortar. It lists the M4 sight as well as the M7, M8 & M9 aiming posts. It lists no direct fire sight. I do not believe that WWII mortars had direct fire sights. I believe that they had to walk rounds onto the target.



BA Evans -> (7/11/2001 1:26:00 AM)

Artillery effects are abstracted. When you get a 'hit' with artillery...all that means is that the round landed close enough to affect the vehicle. It does not necessarily mean the round struck the vehicle. Your 'hit' very well could be an airburst over the target, concussion from a near miss, or an actual direct hit. BA Evans
quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: I agree and if I was getting killed by airbursts I would have no complaint. I was consistently getting killed by rounds coming down through the tree canopy and striking directly on the front (not the open top) of the vehicle. [ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Larry Holt ]



Larry Holt -> (7/11/2001 2:44:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by BA Evans: Artillery effects are abstracted. When you get a 'hit' with artillery...all that means is that the round landed close enough to affect the vehicle. It does not necessarily mean the round struck the vehicle. Your 'hit' very well could be an airburst over the target, concussion from a near miss, or an actual direct hit. BA Evans
I agree that there is a lot of abstraction in the game. However vehicles are abstracted as the eight slab model. The "hit" has to have some armor value to compare the HE penetration against. I keep getting frontal (because my track was facing the mortar) hits that catestrophically kill, not turret hits that you would expect from above. Then again the arty model can simulate a direct hit as well as secondary damage (tool box, suspension damage, etc.) I do not think that a few pounds of HE detonating nearby my frontal 15mm of armor can penetrate it. There isn't even a baseplate to hurl (as a large piece of frag) through the armor. [ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Larry Holt ]



Grumble -> (7/11/2001 4:09:00 AM)

Larry, My, admittedly ancedotal, experiences with mortars as anti-armor weapons parallels yours-especially with mortars of 40-50mm, basically grenade-throwers. Yeah, I know that each "shot" represents a few lobbed rounds, and mortar bombs have a high explosive-weight ratio, but the kill percentages noted here approach those of dedicated anti-armor weapons. Which means the round had to IMPACT the vehicle AND the blast had to be powerful enough to outright rupture the armor plate, concuss or cause enough spall/loosen rivets to kill the crew. I dunno...



Slayer -> (7/11/2001 4:55:00 AM)

Just out of curiosity, were the 81mm mortars unes in the test x1, x2, or x3. If it was x2 or x3, it could explain the accuracy, as it is really 3 mortars being lobbed, for 3X the chance of a hit. Just a thought...



New York Jets -> (7/11/2001 5:27:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: Sven, no offense taken, that was the intent of the [joke] tags. As to the ability of mortars to fire directly at targets, vice indirectly. I have no information on WWII Polish mortars but I did check out the US Militart history site. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=711 page 9 of this PDF lists the US 81mm mortar. It lists the M4 sight as well as the M7, M8 & M9 aiming posts. It lists no direct fire sight. I do not believe that WWII mortars had direct fire sights. I believe that they had to walk rounds onto the target.
The 81mm Mortars seen on the TO&E's of many nations at the start of WWII were in most cases a licensed built copy of the French Mortier de 81 mle 27/31 designed by the Edgar Brandt firm in 1927. The US used a license built Brandt, as did the Italians (close copy), the Russians (actually a slightly redesigned 82mm close copy), the Japanese (actually the Stokes-Brandt, nearly identical to US version), the Nationalist Chinese (I will assume Communist also), as well as the Polish and a number of other minor nations. Note: The US M2 60mm was also a license built copy of an original French, Brandt design. As for direct fire sights. They did not exist in the sense of a "line up the front sight with the peep hole and let 'er rip" method. They did exist in the form of a mechanism that allows one to simply calculate range to target and adjust the angle of the tube accordingly. Some also required the personnel to adjust the level of propellent either with an adjustable port at the base of the tube or in the round itself. An experienced crew would have no trouble making things "warm" for you in short order if not with the first round. [ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Trog ]



Nikademus -> (7/11/2001 7:11:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: Thanks for the R/4 correction and the detail! Can anyone address the penetration of 37 & 39 when the OOB gives a 28 HE penetration value?
In a conversation i had with Paul on Rifle Grenades, he told me that the variance for HE and HEAT based weapons (include grenades in this and morters as HE was also discussed) the actual penetration can range from 50% - 150% of the stated pen at 'X' range.



Paul Vebber -> (7/11/2001 7:22:00 AM)

ATucally teh variation has been redone a few times since then - the last iteration FOr HEAT is something like wpnPen*(125-Die(20)-Die(20)-Die(20)))/100 So if you are REALLY lucky you can get up to 122% of the listed value and if REALLY unlucky as low as 65% of teh value but for teh most part it will be between 80 and 110% of the listed value. There is a 15% chance of a "tumpble" that prevents the jet from forming and that reduces the penetration to about 1/3 normal. HE now has a kinetic factor so range slightly affects it, espeically if it ricochets and the blast goest mostly away from the armor.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375