# Tank armament effectiveness vs infantry



## Zeus (Jun 18, 2008)

How would you rate different pieces of tank armament like coaxial or hull mounted machine guns, and low or high velocity main guns of different calibres, when comparing their effectiveness against infantry?

Tank machine guns were meant for use against infantry/artillery, but most tanks carried HE ammo, even for smaller calibres like 37mm (or even 20mm?), and even for high velocity guns where the effectiveness of HE ammo is greatly reduced. Which would be more or less effective? Would a tank with a high velocity 75 or 88mm gun (let's say a Tiger I or panther) be better off using its machine guns or HE ammo?

And were coaxial machine guns in tanks less effective than the same coaxial machine guns in armored cars? A Panzer II C had the same armament as an SdKfz 222 - would they be just as effective against infantry, or is there a difference there (armored cars seem to be generally considered to be devastating against infantry, while I don't think I ever read about infantrymen's fear of the Panzer II).

Any insights or references are greatly appreciated  !


----------



## Kruska (Jun 18, 2008)

Hello Zeus,

Defensive armament on a tank is to provide defensive fire in close proximity (besides AA), where the barrel of a tank could not be traversed or lowered on to. It would not be feasible for a tank to be loaded up to his heels with HE ammo just to encounter infantry – also far too costly – HE ammo was shot onto soft vehicles or gun emplacements.

A scout car is off course far more flexible than a Panzer II, its destructive force is just as good as that of the Pz.II when it come to engaging infantry but it was less armored and missed the heavy gun to encounter tanks. Therefore the mission spectrum is already entirely different. 

And I believe that an infantry soldier will fear any tank. It is obvious that in the early stages of the war, where the Pz. II was used as the prime German tank, it had a devastating effect on infantry and other tanks – it was the tank that helped to conquer Poland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, plus the initial stages of Barbarossa and Africa. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2008)

HE rounds in the WWII context was also necessary to counter long range AT defences. The British 2pdr guns in the desert lacked the HE capability, which reduced them to trying to hit 88s with solid shot. the result was that British tanks were repeatedly massacred by the German Hy AT.

Contrary to popular beliefe, tanks are vulnerable to infantry, noit the other way round. However, a combined Infantry - armour team is a formidable opponent, as the germans demonstrated time and again during the war. Essentially the friendly Infantry keeps the enemy infantry busy, whilst the friendly tanks goes about killing the enemy infantry


----------



## Zeus (Jun 19, 2008)

Thanks for your replies! I appreciate the insights.

I was kinda hoping for a little more specific info though  . Maybe I should make the question more specific as well.

Would a tank with a 75mm low velocity gun (like the Sherman M4A1 or Panzer IV D) prefer to use its coaxial MG against infantry, or its main gun, or either depending on circumstances (and in the last case, which circumstances)?

And the same for a high velocity 75mm/88mm gun like the Tiger/Panther. How badly did the fact that HE shells fired by the high velocity gun buried themselves in the ground before exploding affect their performance when compared to a low velocity gun?

Thanks again!


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 19, 2008)

Zeus said:


> ... and even for high velocity guns where the effectiveness of HE ammo is greatly reduced. ?



This is not generally true; it was true for the Sherman short 75mm vs the long 76.2mm gun, which latter had a HE shell with less exposive charge than the 75mm version, and thus was less effective. But that`s a peculiarity of the Sherman guns, for others, there wasn`t such a generic 'rule'. It comes down to specific shell design. 

For example, there was no difference between the short 75mm howitzers and the long 75mm guns mounted on early/late Panzer IV, both contained apprx. the same amount of explosives, as did the Panthers ultra-long 75mm L/70.

Where high velocity guns can be at disadvante is that their rounds _may_ dig into deeper to the ground/objects, reducing their power. However generally HE rounds were fired with less charge and lower muzzle velcoties than AP rounds from the same gun. If I recall correctly, about 600 m/sec was standard for German long tank gun`s HE rounds, which otherwise fired AP at 740 to 1000 m/sec muzzle velocity.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 19, 2008)

Zeus said:


> Thanks for your replies! I appreciate the insights.
> 
> I was kinda hoping for a little more specific info though  . Maybe I should make the question more specific as well.
> 
> ...



Hello Zeus,

In close proximity – closer than 20/25m – the tank won’t be able to use its gun on infantry. At further or suitable gun distance off course the tank will use HE ammo on soft targets, which would include infantry if at strength. Meaning a tank will not fire an HE shell at 4-7 infantry guys running around. Since tanks are usually accompanied by infantry in order to protect the tank against enemy infantry the usage of a HE shell would be a bad choice if fired closer than a 100 m.

It is not the mission of a tank to solely attack infantry, but to break through enemy positions, gun emplacements and off course to engage enemy tanks. During the task of eliminating enemy positions or gun emplacements, whilst breaking through or attacking, the tank will be using HE ammo and his defensive MG’s whilst also being supported by previous or imminent artillery support in order to knock out infantry or gun emplacements that could threaten the tank and his accompanying infantry.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

The defensive armament on a tank, i.e. the MG's, are the most effective at dealing with infantry. Why ? Because they can instantly target a man and lay down a deadly wall of lead his way, and there's no reloading time, just a continious spray of bullets. 

Now don't get me wrong the main gun was a very effective anti personnel weapon, but in a limited way. As pointed out the main gun was not effective at close range as the turret was too slow and predictable as it slowly tried to swivel itself towards you, giving you plenty of time to react - the MG's give you no chance to think, they can be on you in an instant spewing out a deadly wall of lead your way.

As for the effectiveness of a 75mm HE shell, it was/is devastating and would easily level a small house. The 88's HE shells were capable of turning a two storey house into rubble.


----------



## renrich (Jun 21, 2008)

Zeus, I believe the offensive armamment of a tank is the machine guns it carries. In short, the tank carries the MGs to kill enemy personnel and destroy wheeled vehicles(like trucks) The main gun is to defend itself against other tanks or tank destroyers.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

The main gun is the main offensive weapon, the MG's are mainly the defensive weapons. You're not going to be much effective on the offensive just using the MG's, esp. not against armoured targets. 

German tanks such as the Tiger Panther were designed mainly to engage destroy enemy tanks at long distances, sporting the deadliest most powerful high velocity AT guns of the era. The MG's were there to keep infantry from getting close to the tank, while the main gun was used to engage the enemy at range.

At 400m a man can't hope to out run at tank's main gun as it swivels to target him, which means the best tactic is to stay low, which now makes you vulnerable to the HE shells fired from the main gun. And trust me, a 75mm HE shell will make a real mess of anyone within a 10m radius of where it detonates, and the shrapnel can incapacitate or kill you from a much longer distance away.


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2008)

Soren
"trust me, a 75mm HE shell will make a real mess of anyone within a 10m radius of where it detonates,"

I doubt that, having being 20m away from detonating SC 50 and 10 meter away from detonating 10kg A/T mine


----------



## renrich (Jun 21, 2008)

It is really a question of semantics but when you think about it the tank is really meant to go on the battlefield and bring firepower to bear on the enemy which is mainly infantrymen, defeat them and put them to flight. Tanks are vulnerable to infantry, especially if they have no supporting infantry and the main gun in the tank is not nearly as effective against infantry as the MGs. As I said it is somewhat a question of semantics but the MGs in a tank are used much more often than the main gun. At least, that is what I learned when I was in the NCO Academy at Ft Hood, Texas. I was in the 49th Armored Div. Where did you learn your armor tactics, Soren?


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> "trust me, a 75mm HE shell will make a real mess of anyone within a 10m radius of where it detonates,"
> 
> I doubt that, having being 20m away from detonating SC 50 and 10 meter away from detonating 10kg A/T mine



Behind some sort of protective wall yes, otherwise you would be in very bad shape. But again an AT mine is designed to explode with all its force upwards, so this isn't the most dangerous, still it is required to be behind a protective wall. As for the SC 50, how much are we talking about here Juha ? And again you were behind or in a bunker.

Anyway it doesn't matter cause I know it will make a mess of you having witnessed litterally thousands of controlled explosions. 

Do you know how much damage just 2 kg of plastic explosives can cause ?? I doubt you do.


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2008)

Dear Soren
I have been combat engineer and used plastic explosives.
SC 50 is 50kg LW HE bomb, mate.

And the A/T mine, it wasn't designed to explode with all its force upwards, it does that if dug in the groung but we didn't want all those peddles and earth over us so we detonated them on the surface, 9,5 kg TNT produced quite a blast, I admit.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

> Where did you learn your armor tactics, Soren?



As in hw to combat them or how to field them ? If the former then while in service obviously, while the latter is mainly from witnessing actions operations performed by the armour supporting us, and then in no small part from reading hundreds of books on the armoured warfare throughout WW2.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

Juha said:


> Dear Soren
> I have been combat engineer and used plastic explosives.
> SC 50 is 50kg LW HE bomb, mate



Dear Juha, then I simply can't comprehend how you can at the slightest doubt that a 75mm HE shell will turn anyone within a 10m radius into a real mess, it will! Remember we're not talking plastic explosives or mines here, we're talking about a cannon shell exploding into thousands of fragments, heck alone the blast is enough to kill you! 

Ever wondered why handgrenades have a certain safe range, or why there are such things as concussion grenades ???

As for the SC 50, again how much or many are we talking about here, a single or several ? The reason I'm asking is that the charge no doubt has been affected by weather over the many years.

But then again, it is very limited what you learn as a mere draftee..


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2008)

Now in the army where men where trained to fight and not run away, even draftees learn something.

"As pointed out the main gun was not effective at close range as the turret was too slow and predictable as it slowly tried to swivel itself towards you, giving you plenty of time to react - the MG's give you no chance to think, they can be on you in an instant spewing out a deadly wall of lead your way."

For ex seeing that writer of that quote sounds more like eager beaver than professional soldier. I don't know who you are but your style doesn't convince me.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

To demonstrate how powerful just a mere handgrenade is:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIsC4xhIT3Y_

The cop below was about 7-10 m from the handgrenade when it exploded, he was knocked unconcious by the blast, and he was behind a tree!


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

Juha said:


> Now in the army where men where trained to fight and not run away, even draftees learn something.
> 
> "As pointed out the main gun was not effective at close range as the turret was too slow and predictable as it slowly tried to swivel itself towards you, giving you plenty of time to react - the MG's give you no chance to think, they can be on you in an instant spewing out a deadly wall of lead your way."
> 
> For ex seeing that writer of that quote sounds more like eager beaver than professional soldier. I don't know who you are but your style doesn't convince me.



I don't give a rats ass Juha. Your last comments just confirmed what I knew all along, you were in for 12 months and then out again. Come back when you've been in service for 20+ years and actually seen combat, then we can talk.


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2008)

Soren
having trown live handgranades I don't need YouTube to see their effects

Juha

Ps I wasn't in 12 months, only 11 plus some rehearsal training after that


----------



## renrich (Jun 21, 2008)

To think that a tank will engage an infantry man at 400 yds with his main gun is ridiculous. A group of infantry in some sort of fortification maybe but a man running in the open. I doubt it!


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

Juha you don't have the amount respect for explosives that a proper engineer has, you'd seriously endanger yourself in the field with your beliefs!


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

renrich said:


> To think that a tank will engage an infantry man at 400 yds with his main gun is ridiculous. A group of infantry in some sort of fortification maybe but a man running in the open. I doubt it!



Thats not what I meant Renrich, ofcourse it's not going to fire off the main gun at a single man, but the coaxial MG will be used which was my point (Remember most tanks today only have coaxial MG's!), hence why I said he would expose himself to the HE shell from the maingun if he took cover (At close range you can avoid it, but at 400m you can't hope to out run it if you try!


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2008)

Soren
in fact my CO and platoon leader liked my attitude, not being too timid while handling explosives. Maybe a cultural question, Finns had very bloody wars in 1939-45 and some of our oldest officers and NCOs were fought in those wars.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> having trown live handgranades I don't need YouTube to see their effects



Yes apparently you really do Juha, cause otherwise you wouldn't have doubted what I said for a second.

Handgrenades are very dangerous Juha and they have long safety ranges, within 10 - 15m the blast is enough to knock you out, while the shrapnel is deadly at even much longer distances. I've seen it live hundreds of times Juha, I know what I'm talking about here!


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

There's a reason these guys are standing behind a concrete wall Juha:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyBFNuHtVuw_

When we practiced with live grenades it wasn't much different as we either threw them into concrete grenade pits or stood behind a natural or concrete protective wall like the guys above.


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2008)

Soren
only really nasty thing I saw was the Pipe Mine 68, made to maim, not necessary to kill. And the IEDs which we were trained to make from stuffs available.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AdXKjtqK-Y_

How did your training with hand grenades differ Juha ? That's assuming you ever actually threw a live one.


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2008)

With handgrades we tried to hit a foxhole while trhowing them from an ordinary trench. But as I said, having done that I don't need to watch them from YouTube

BTW celebrate You in Denmark Midsummer, here up north we do, Swedes also, even if typically more mild and civilizeid ways.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

Juha said:


> With handgrades we tried to hit a foxhole while trhowing them from an ordinary trench.



And from that you concluded that handgrenades weren't dangerous as long as they were 5 to 10 m away ??? Seriously Juha, if a handgrenade was ever to go off within 10 - 15m from you, I can pretty much guarantee that you will be dead, despite wearing body armour.

Have you ever actually seen the effect a handgrenade has one objects within 10 to 15 m of it when it goes off Juha ? Or did you just throw them into foxholes to then duck and hear the blast ?



> But as I said, having done that I don't need to watch them from YouTube



Well I'm sorry Juha but it really doesn't come across like that.



> BTW celebrate You in Denmark Midsummer, here up north we do, Swedes also, even if typically more mild and civilizeid ways.



Nope not the Danes, but I know the Swedes Finnish celebrate this period.


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2008)

Soren
"And from that you concluded that handgrenades weren't dangerous as long as they were 5 to 10 m away ??? "

Read my posts. I have never doubt that handgranades were not dangerous if they detonate 5-10 m from you if you are not in cover.

"Have you ever actually seen the effect a handgrenade has one objects within 10 to 15 m of it when it goes off Juha "

Now in the Finnish Army, at least decades ago, we got some training to get used the blasts etc. And also were teached the effects of different kind of nasties by using targets. For handgranate, put some targets around a stump, put a handgranate on the stump, detonate it remotely and then go back to see the effects on the targets.

Thanks for the info on Midsummer, I thought that one must live there where there are significant variation of the length of the day between summer nad winter to have a strong tradition of Midsummer festivals or otherwise to be an Englishman.

On SC 50, I doubt that it was significantly lower order of detonation than normal because the nearby birches suffered badly from sharpnels and blast. detonation height appr 30cm over the ground, IIRC
Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

So you've seen the damage a handgrenade causes to people standing within 10 to 15m of it ? If so how the heck did you ever come to doubt that a cannon shell packed with 5 kg of explosives will make a complete mess of anyone within a 10m radius of it exploding ??


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2008)

Having being in trench and in a log and earth bunker which firing aperture was almost towards the detonation while SC 50 and A/T mine were detonated and some 10-15 away from a detonating pipe mine in a VERY shallow depression laying flat. Now SC 50 had some 25 kg explosive, it was a quite a bang but nobody was hurt. Only dangerous situation was the pipe mine incident, we were inside 50% casualty zone without proper cover.

I have never claimed that standing man would survive unwounded within 10m from exploding 75mm shell.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

Hello guys,

Anyone who has been in the Army using hand grenades, knows that the average throwing distance of recruits is initially around 20m. Therefore throwing grenades without ducking and being behind a concrete wall or in a raised trench is absolutely forbidden (at least in the Bundeswehr and many other NATO armys), since the shrapnel distance of a DM51 hand grenade (6000 steel fragments) is up to 10m deadly in the open and highly injury prone up to 16m, DM56 training grenade or DM12/22 ground detonators are therefore used especially by national draftsmen.

Besides Members of the DSO and certain PzGrenadier units normal recruits of the Bundeswehr don’t even get to exercise with “real” grenades. That the Finland army has different training procedures then the Bundeswehr is true, however no one would be alive at standing within 10 m of a DM51 grenade or equivalent defensive grenades. Therefore Juha, I am very convinced that you were using exercise or offensive grenades.

Even the depicted grenade in Soren’s clip was not a shrapnel or defensive grenade. If for a DM51 the advertising board and most certainly the police officer would have been gone. 

Training using EUHG51/85 with removed fragment mantel - offensive version


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrOXhEGVSfk_ 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

Here is a link to a US ordinance site, which gives the details of US Handgrenade ordinance.

Hand Grenades

As a general rule, the standard M-67 frag grenade has an effective kill radius of 5 metres. It has an effective casualty radius of 15 metres but carries a warning that shrapnel pieces may travel up to 230 metres. In battle conditions, this safety warning is routinely ignored.

Artillery kill radii are dependant on the cover conditions of the target. However, it must be remembered that the "Kill" radius is a function of the amount of energy per square metre away from the blast, and that this is essentially a 1/d3 relationship. In other words, it takes a great deal more energy to create an effective kill zone that is even a little greater than a shell or bomb that is only a fraction of its size.

As for the effect of artillery against Infantry in buildings, well, history shows that this only tends to increase the protection for the Infantry. the Infantry simply take cover in the rubble, which provides a great deal better cover, and virtually an instant entrechment to hide in. This was proven a hundred times over in wwii, from Stalingrad to Caen


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2008)

Double post removed


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2008)

Kruska
as I wrote we throw the granates from a normal trench, dug in, And it was a live granate. We had thrown a training granate before that. The target was a normal foxhole, but its surraundings were cleaned from undergrowth and branches and there wasn't trees near it. 

Juha


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

Not quite; initially if the building is hit, the probability of the persons inside the building being killed is almost sure. That survivors or reinforcements will use the rubble for cover (nothing else left) is understood.

Monte Casino provided excellent cover for the German paras after the bombing. If the paras would have been inside the monastery, not many would have survived the bombardment. As for Stalingrad it was in fact the missing artillery firepower that made it so costly for the Wehrmacht. The assault artillery such as Brumbaer and Sturmtiger were actually developed in reference to Stalingrad to take out infantry in buildings.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

Exactly Kruska, that Juha was throwing training grenades was my first thought as-well as that is usually all a draftee gets to try.

Juha, if you knew how dangerous a real handgrenade is then you wouldn't have doubted what I said for second. We're talking a cannon shell packing 5 kg of explosives, thats tens of thousands of deadly pieces of shrapnel and a blast large enough to knock you cold if you're within 15 - 20m of it detonating.

As for the pipe mine you were talking about, how large ? What kind of cover exactly ? The usual pipe mine contains anywhere from 150 - 200 g of explosives and has a lethal range of about 10 - 15m, but it is dangerous way past 50m.


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Here is a link to a US ordinance site, which gives the details of US Handgrenade ordinance.
> 
> Hand Grenades
> 
> ...



I take it you have never thrown a grenade in your life ?



> As for the effect of artillery against Infantry in buildings, well, history shows that this only tends to increase the protection for the Infantry. the Infantry simply take cover in the rubble, which provides a great deal better cover, and virtually an instant entrechment to hide in. This was proven a hundred times over in wwii, from Stalingrad to Caen



That's complete bollocks Parsifal. Ordinary buildings are about the worst place to seek cover against artillery. If artillery strikes a building with people in it, those people are almost surely going to die. 

Now AFTER the building has been turned to rubble, it will provide good cover for infantry, but not while it is still standing.


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2008)

Soren
as I have wrote, if you are in a trench, behind a big boulder or otherwise well protected, a 75mm shell, at least WWII type, detonating 10-15 away from you didn't kill you. That's why armies bother to dig in.

Pipe Mine 68, 240 gr TNT, cannot remember exactly danger zones. Now when I have thought it ower, maybe we were not inside 50% but inside 25% casualty zone. But still well within the sharpnel range, one small, 68 produced almost entirely only tiny sharpnels, hit my helmet. The reason of the incident was that the regular broke all the safety rules.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*I take it you have never thrown a grenade in your life ?*

Ah yes I have, both training and live fire exercises. 

*That's complete bollocks Parsifal. Ordinary buildings are about the worst place to seek cover against artillery. If artillery strikes a building with people in it, those people are almost surely going to die*. 

Not necessarily. In caen the usual place the Infantry to hide in is in the buildings cellars. in Berlin, the LDVs defending, as well as regulars used the buildings of berlin to hide in quite successfully. There is no gurantee in any situation, but a building provides far better cover than no building.

What do you see as a "typical building". If the building is double brick, or masonary, it is going to be quite resistant to artillery fire, lesser standards of construction will of course provide less cover 

*Now AFTER the building has been turned to rubble, it will provide good cover for infantry, but not while it is still standing.*


Agreed, but the issue is whether Infantry within a building before it is demolished will survive. It depends on the size of the building, the type of construction, the explosive capability of the round and whereabouts in the building the Infantry is when the round hits. But generally speaking, buildings provide pretty good cover against artillery attack

Basically, it takes energy to demolish a building, the more energy to demolish the cover and get to the target, the less energy is left to hurt the targets. If the theory is that flying shrapnel is going to do the damge, the theory still holds true. There are more obstacles within a building, like internal walls an the like, to stop, or at leat slow down the flying debris inside the building

With regard to Blast effects of artillery, I found this site, which i think is interesting but simple at the same time. It suggests that an artillery piece of 75 mm calibre (with a 14lb explosive head) will crearte a typical crater of about 1 metre wide, and 0.5 metres deep. That is consistent with what might be expected. If that asessment is correct, I doubt very much that a single hit by a 75 mm shell is going to destroy a building of reasonable size or construction (eg, a factory or shopping complex, bank or the like. It would do consideable damage toi say a 200 square metre home of single brick construction. It would, in my opinion, be quite devastating to a lightly constructed timber building. I would not consider a log cabin made from heavy timber to be in this category

General information of artillery weapons and shells


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

> Soren
> as I have wrote, if you are in a trench, behind a big boulder or otherwise well protected, a 75mm shell, at least WWII type, detonating 10-15 away from you didn't kill you. That's why armies bother to dig in.



Then why the heck did you say "I doubt it" Juha ?? As I'm sure even you must know usually infantry on the offensive don't exactly have time to dig a trench. 

Ofcourse proper cover such as a trench will protect you, that's a no brainer Juha, even if a 150mm HE shell goes off nearby. But that was not what you were responding to, you placed doubt that a 75mm HE shell will make a real mess of anyone within a 10m radius of where it detonates without cover.


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *I take it you have never thrown a grenade in your life ?*
> 
> Ah yes I have, both training and live fire exercises.
> 
> ...




That's just completely wrong parsifal. Inside a building is one of the worst places to be under an artillery attack. Why ? Because it takes very little to make the whole building come crashing down upon you. A normal two storey home can quite easily be turned into rubble by a single 105mm artillery shell, with nearly everyone inside perishing.

Now hiding in the basement is another thing, but that's not what you do in combat Parsifal, in combat you're utilizing the building's effective cover against smallarms fire while at the same firing back from its various openings (Windows, doors all sorts of openings in the tructure). This however makes you very vulnerable to cannon fire.


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2008)

Soren
the key is that in your original message there waSN'T the words "without cover", that's why I doubt it. Not evn that you were talking on attacking infantry, only a blant statement. And even without trenches there might be all kinds of cover, banks of earth, boulders etc. While attacking one uses them.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

Hello Juha,

IIRC Soren never mentioned shooting at a trench, but shooting at infantry or building with a 75mm HE cartridge. 
Any soldier around 5-15m would have been a goner. Nobody would put a trench round a big boulder, if hit fragmentation would be enormous. A tank would not shoot into a trench, for this one uses mortars and artillery and hand grenades.

And a SC50 dropped in front of a trench 10-20m would have certainly ripped some peoples eardrums, if not to include dead soldiers since during a battle even the guys in a trench certainly can't duck all the way.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> That's just completely wrong parsifal. Inside a building is one of the worst places to be under an artillery attack. Why ? Because it takes very little to make the whole building come crashing down upon you. A normal two storey home can quite easily be turned into rubble by a single 105mm artillery shell, with nearly everyone inside perishing.



Absolutely correct 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

> Hello Juha,
> 
> IIRC Soren never mentioned shooting at a trench, but shooting at infantry or building with a 75mm HE cartridge.
> Any soldier around 5-15m would have been a goner. Nobody would put a trench round a big boulder, if hit fragmentation would be enormous. A tank would not shoot into a trench, for this one uses mortars and artillery and hand grenades.
> ...



Exactly right Kruska.


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2008)

Kruska
"Nobody would put a trench round a big boulder, if hit fragmentation would be enormous. "

Well known fact here. Much experience from combat on stony small islands and in VTK-line in summer 44

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*Absolutely correct *

Hi Kruska ( soren)

Have a look at the effective blast zones in the link that I found (see my post #41). It just doesnt support the notioon that you and Soren are putting up, that a single hit, every time, will bring the building down. The blast radius and and crater dimensions are just not supporting you. If you can come up with some better supporting information, we can then discuss this, but to simply resort to table thumping and abuse doesnt help your case at all.


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

> but to simply resort to table thumping and abuse doesnt help your case at all.



And where exactly have we resorted to table thumping and abuse ??? 

Parsifal you've not seen the effect of these things in real life, that is the reason you need to rely on sites like the one you presented for your information. Furthermore I don't at all see where the website doesn't support me Kruska's statements.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

At Hammelburg, the German training area for urban combat training, soldiers can see what destruction a 20mm Sprengbrand Geschoss (Incendiary High Explosive shell) causes. It is enough to destroy everything in a or two rooms and can even cause the collapse of a two story house. This demonstration is given to remind the Bundeswehr infantrist “not” to seek cover in a building if tanks or AFV’s are in the vicinity. (not to mention artillery effects).

The other lecture is how to fortify a building or rooms escape ways in order to await an ambush on infantry or armored vehicles entering a buildup area, and how to get out of the building immediately once the ambush is conducted. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

parsifal said:


> With regard to Blast effects of artillery, I found this site, which i think is interesting but simple at the same time. It suggests that an artillery piece of 75 mm calibre (with a 14lb explosive head) will crearte a typical crater of about 1 metre wide, and 0.5 metres deep. That is consistent with what might be expected. If that asessment is correct, I doubt very much that a single hit by a 75 mm shell is going to destroy a building of reasonable size or construction (eg, a factory or shopping complex, bank or the like. It would do consideable damage toi say a 200 square metre home of single brick construction. It would, in my opinion, be quite devastating to a lightly constructed timber building. I would not consider a log cabin made from heavy timber to be in this category
> 
> General information of artillery weapons and shells



Well you added this way after my response to your original message. Why you did that I don't know, cause I wasn't talking about a large building such as a bank or shopping complex, I was talking about an ordinary two storey home or building.

A shopping complex is generally very large in ground area, usually covering an area 20 to 50 times larger than that of an ordinary home, so it will naturally need more than a single 75mm HE shell to bring it down. A bank is usually quite big as-well, however a 75mm HE shell will easily bring down the entire side facade of a small two storey bank and potentially also bring half the building down, if not all of it.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*And where exactly have we resorted to table thumping and abuse ??? *

Kruska has not done that but nearly every post of yours is abusive and non-factual in nature. 

*Parsifal you've not seen the effect of these things in real life, that is the reason you need to rely on sites like the one you presented for your information.*

Soren, I dont think you are in any position to question the experience of the ex-servicemen on this forum. you have been repaeatedly asked to present your credentials on others threads, and have refused, resorting to some lame excuse about not wanting to remember your past.

For the record, I have witnessed the power of artillery and blast effects, up to 5" (128mm) calibre. The site I have presented is something I found at short notice that is simple, in keeping with the general nature of this discussion, and a reaonably accurate estimate of the effect of artillery. And thus far it is way ahead of anything you have presented, which is zip.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

Gentlemen, let’s take it easy okay, please

Sometimes one has to see things in order to get a better picture. Right now I can’t, but I will scan in a picture tomorrow of my friends AFV Marder 20mm cannon firing a incendiary high explosion shell at a target in a distance of 600m, and you will see what I mean. (Just try to remember it is a single shot at a 2 storey building.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *And where exactly have we resorted to table thumping and abuse ??? *
> 
> Kruska has not done that but nearly every post of yours is abusive and non-factual in nature.



And that's a complete lie Parsifal, however it seems to be a good description of yourself.



> Soren, I dont think you are in any position to question the experience of the ex-servicemen on this forum. you have been repaeatedly asked to present your credentials on others threads, and have refused, resorting to some lame excuse about not wanting to remember your past.



Never said that Parsifal, again you are liying your pants off! 

Where I served is none of your business pal, but I've already told you I served for over 20+ years and was an active spec ops member. 

But like I've said its an ended chapter in my life, and I never talk about it to anyone. First of all some of it is classified, secondly why should I ? And thirdly I like my anonymity. It has nothing to do with not wanting to remember it, that is just something you fabricated in your own mind.



> For the record, I have witnessed the power of artillery and blast effects, up to 5" (128mm) calibre. The site I have presented is something I found at short notice that is simple, in keeping with the general nature of this discussion, and a reaonably accurate estimate of the effect of artillery.



Yeah I mean they're not really that dangerous those artillery shells, I mean as long as your 5 to 10m away you're good 

What a circus 



> And thus far it is way ahead of anything you have presented, which is zip.



Again complete bollocks straight from Parsifal.

Btw, is it me or did he say something about abusive tones and table thumping not helping ones cause ??? Oh well, guess he forgot


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello parsifal,
> 
> Gentlemen, let’s take it easy okay, please
> 
> ...




Kruska thanks for putting so much effort into convincing these guys that high explosive grenades shells are dangerous devices, I simply don't have the time or lust to even attempt it.


----------



## renrich (Jun 22, 2008)

As far as most tanks having only a co-ax MG, the M1 tank and as I remember, all of it's predecessors, had also a 50 MG mounted on the turret. We had M41s and M48s and all had the MG on the turret, some in a cupola. It was and still is a major weapon to kill infantry.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

Hello renrich,

Certainly correct, however the turret/copula mounted MG is primarily for AA fire, due to obvious reasons.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

Renrich, it would be a very bad idea to stick your head out of a tank when engaged with infantry, VERY bad! 

The .50 cal gun mounted on the top of the turret is also but an addition, not a std. piece like the coaxial MG, as it is with most modern tanks. During WW2 however most tanks had both coaxial hull mounted MG's.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*Kruska thanks for putting so much effort into convincing these guys that high explosive grenades shells are dangerous devices, I simply don't have the time or lust to even attempt it*.

Ah I never said that they were not dangerous, I did say that buildings provide some cover, and that the amount of cover depended on a lot of variables. i produced some evidence to support my case, and then asked either of you guys to produce some of your own. Still waiting for that one. I dont think thats a matter of time or lust, i think its a matter of inexperience and lack of evidence

And you still confirm that you cannot produce evidence of your service. I suggest that you start to produce some before belittling anyone around here about theirs.

Oh, some of my experience with live fire excercises was from within 300 metres of the target zone, so please, dont start putting down my service record when you appear too ashamed to speak of your own. How do you like them apples. 

And still i am waiting for some experience or supporting information about the ability of Light artillery to knock down buildings with a single hit

Anyway here is some video footage of what i believe is Light artillery effects on buildings. Agaihn, it is information obtained at short notice. For the record, i doubt that all of the information pertains to the oderneisse and berlin battles, but I didnt post it for that reason, it was because it shows the effects of Light artillery generally. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLO9WQAtc0s_ 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qer7EnAJe4o_


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*Hello parsifal,

Gentlemen, let’s take it easy okay, please

Sometimes one has to see things in order to get a better picture. Right now I can’t, but I will scan in a picture tomorrow of my friends AFV Marder 20mm cannon firing a incendiary high explosion shell at a target in a distance of 600m, and you will see what I mean. (Just try to remember it is a single shot at a 2 storey building.

Regards
Kruska*


Hi Kruska

I have never discouraged reasoned and respectful discourse about any subject, but I will not tolerate disrespect and straight up lies from anyone. soren has been caught repeatedly doing this, not just to me, but to a lot of people. And he gets away with it a lot.

Anyway, to clarify my position. I never said that buildings offer complete cover, I never even said that artillery could not bring buildings down in a single hit. But the evidence that buildings were used for cover in WWII is just there. it cant be denied, because it happened, used by both sides actually. So why would they do that....

The evidence that I have presented shows that buildings can withstand a fair amount of punishment, and that guns of tank calibre (WWII) were not automatically endowed with the ability to demolish buildings in the manner described. If possible, no doubt the Infantry would stay out of a building until it was reduced to rubble, but this luxury was not always available. In a close combat situation, whre Spoviet artillery concentrations could be as high as an artillery piece every 10 yards, being inside a building might be prefereble to moving outsaide of it, particuarly if you are not allowed to retreat. 

How many rounds of your 20 mm canaon were needed to bring this building of yours down. What was the nature of its construction? Was it sandbagged? There are a lot of questions to consider, before writing off a building as not being suitable for defence. The evidence of this can be found in the urban fighting that the US Army is embroiled in in Iraq at the moment (eg Fallujah). Whilst their artillery can destroy buildings, the eenmy still chooses to fight from those buildings, and does it very effectively. always the force that is forced to move into the street is going to take heavier casualties than that which remains hidden and at least somewhat protected by the buildings, particaulalry if the defenders can get into the sewers and the like


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

Hello Parsifal,

Unfortunately I can’t open these U-tube spot, but to keep the record straight IIRC nobody mentioned “light” artillery so far.
I have forwarded the effect of a 20mm incendiary high explosive projectile of today’s Bundeswehr, and as I mentioned before I will scan in the photo by tomorrow.

But let me ask you one question please if you are able to answer that, since you might have not been in an infantry unit. Does the Australian Army actually tell/recommend or teach its infantry guys to seek cover in houses? Or do they prepare trenches and bunker emplacements within urban areas with normal buildings, not taking the national library or other major buildings into account.

Australian houses are similar to American houses, wood and sometimes a basement and some stone walls around the chimney or 1st m of the ground floor with bricks. So protection wise not comparable with European houses at all. And as mentioned before by me, even a normal European house is not considered to provide cover for infantry at all in expectation of artillery bombardment or tanks and AFV assault. 

If not to avoid the so called collateral damage, the US forces could blast away every single house in Iraq and go home in the next 2 month. 

In regards to the 2nd WW, the infantry numbers were far larger then today and inproportionate to fighting vehicles, making it an infantry house to house battle, once assault guns or tanks came up both sides left the buildings as fast as possible or submerged into the basement and then later to come up again. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 22, 2008)

The fact that European NATO armies teach the infantry to get the hell out of houses makes sense to me. 

The Soviets, unlike NATO, issued HE shells to their tank units - and I would not want to be in a house when a 125mm HE shells goes off in it, for sure!


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

> I have never discouraged reasoned and respectful discourse about any subject, but I will not tolerate disrespect and straight up lies from anyone. soren has been caught repeatedly doing this, not just to me, but to a lot of people. And he gets away with it a lot.



What ?! When have I ever lied to anyone on here ?? NEVER!

The only one who's a liar here is you Parsifal, and you've just been caught doing it AGAIN!


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

*No one here is a liar okay, some of us have their own opinions and we want to discuss it in a reasonable manner okay!!!! Not all arguments or says are straight so what!!!!*

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

I just can't stand it when some guy falsely accuses anyone of lying while at the same time lying himself, Parsifal is an expert at this.

Anyway looking forward to the pictures Kruska, I've seen what a burst of 30mm shells will do to a small brick building, and it aint pretty.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*Unfortunately I can’t open these U-tube spot, but to keep the record straight IIRC nobody mentioned “light” artillery so far.
I have forwarded the effect of a 20mm incendiary high explosive projectile of today’s Bundeswehr, and as I mentioned before I will scan in the photo by tomorrow.*

Pity that you cant open the link. It is not conclusive, but it does show buildings being hit by artillery, and standing up to the punishment quite well. It also shows the kill zone of grenades to be approximately 5 metres, and that 76mm artillery creates z crater of about 1 metre width and half a metre deep.

Looking forward to the scanned amaterial that you have

*But let me ask you one question please if you are able to answer that, since you might have not been in an infantry unit. Does the Australian Army actually tell/recommend or teach its infantry guys to seek cover in houses? Or do they prepare trenches and bunker emplacements within urban areas with normal buildings, not taking the national library or other major buildings into account.*


Dont know, am not an Infantryman, or ex-Infantryman. I can find out. I would be surprised if they do, for the reasons that you point out. However neither is that my point. What was intimated here was that buildings could be taken out by tank shells (ie generally 75mm or less) firring HE. It was not stated, but the intimation was also that Infantry did not occupay buildings for protection purposes. Historical evidence says that the uits of both sides did, and further the force that attacked those ensconced in the buildings would take hevier casualties than those defending inside the buildings. The Russians in 1945 suffered over 400000 casualties, a big part of those losses was because the germans were hiding inside the buildings and picking off the advancing Russians, despite the most fearful artillery bombardment.

There is clear evidence that shells of 75 mm or below are not generally powerful enough to take out a building in a single hit, and that is the focus of this whole thread


*Australian houses are similar to American houses, wood and sometimes a basement and some stone walls around the chimney or 1st m of the ground floor with bricks. So protection wise not comparable with European houses at all. And as mentioned before by me, even a normal European house is not considered to provide cover for infantry at all in expectation of artillery bombardment or tanks and AFV assault. *

No Australian Houses are usually Brick or masonary of some description. There are virutally no timber houses being built anymore. 

Rember the p0arameters of the discussion. Can normal Tank armament (generally 75 mm or less) take out a building in a single hit. no, it cant (generally). Wgainst a sustained bombardment i think it would be a different story



If not to avoid the so called collateral damage, the US forces could blast away every single house in Iraq and go home in the next 2 month. 

It would take longer than two months to destroy every building in Iraq. IOraq is a country of about 20 millions, and was once an affluent nation. There are an awful lot of buildings to destroy, if you assume a typical occupancy rate of 2.5 persons per dwelling, there are at least 5 million dwellings alone to destroy, and that does not even count the commercial, agricultural, industrial and goivernemt buildings of their ciies. The Americans are in iraq in basically Coprps strength, which gives them, very roughly, acces to about 500 artillery pieces. If we assume 5 hits per building, and there are , say 10 million buildings, it is going to take 50 million shells to destroy all the buildings, and that is going to take your 500 guns 100000 rounds each to complete the job. Given that on average, a standard artillery piece has an EFC of about 500, that means your artillery park is going to be worn out 200 times before completing the task. I dont exactly know how long it would take to effectively fire off 100000 rounds from a single gun, but it would propbably be in the order of years rather than months


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*No one here is a liar okay, some of us have their own opinions and we want to discuss it in a reasonable manner okay!!!! Not all arguments or says are straight so what*

Dont get involved Kruska. you are a nice bloke. The moderators will arrive soon and will sort this out I am sure. i dont want anyone else to be involved in this. You are right though, so for everyone elses sake I will back off from this particualr strand of the debate


----------



## Kruska (Jun 22, 2008)

Come on Parsifal, you should know what I mean. The US forces could take out a typical Iraqi house with a single shot from a Bradley, Striker, Abrahms or whatever. (Not to mention airstrikes) It is understood that this takeout is referring to militants occupying urban areas and as such houses or buildings.
No one will just start to shoot up all buildings and houses randomly in any country.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

As for the Youtube vids, they don't support any of what Parsifal has said.


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

Parsifal said:


> but the intimation was also that Infantry did not occupay buildings for protection purposes



That is yet again not true. Neither me nor Kruska ever as much as implied that infantry didn't use buildings for cover, we infact said the exact opposite, but it depends on the situation. In smallarms firefights buildings are used all the time, however this makes you very vulnerable to attack from artillery tanks. Hence why soldiers are taught NOT to seek cover inside buildings if artillery starts raining down shells on you or tanks show up. Only when tanks unwisely venture inside dense urban areas is it recommended to fight them from surrounding buildings as it is now too close to be effective. Otherwise stay behind the buildings, NOT in them. That means DON'T fortify yourself inside a building if a tank is around, as the tank can turn it into rubble with a single shot.


----------



## renrich (Jun 22, 2008)

According to John Keegan, in "Six Armies in Normandy," some of the old stone farmhouses in Normandy were put in use by both sides as fortresses and were practically impregnable, except of course to naval or heavy artillery gunfire. Keegan is perhaps the most imminent military historian in the world. Actually I believe the M1s in Iraq have two MGs on top of the turret. The problem with tanks is(at least in the ones I have been in) that it is hard to see much of anything unless one sticks his head up out of the turret. As far as engaging infantry with an MG on the turret, you may remember Audie Murphy slaughtering German infantry with a 50 MG, standing on the tank outside the turret of the burning tank.


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

In smallarms firefights, yes, against artillery or tanks, NO.

A 75mm HE shell to the side of a stone farmhouse like those in France and you've got yourself a nice big hole, with probably half the house going down.

A decent sized French stone farmhouse:


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

Here's what 2.5 kg of TNT will do to a car:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpYu4HLiXFc_


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

Leopard 2 vs Minibus

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-9JoF5o5B4_


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

The dispute involves the effectiveness of 75 mm HE armament or less that one might find on a typical WWII AFV.

You have decided to refute the subject material of the videos, again (and as usual) without any supporting material. AND we have STILL not seen any evidence to support the position youo have taken. Displaying videos of cars being demolished by explosives, or MBTs hitting a bus are completely irrelevant to the issue, either because of the calibre of the weapon, or the the placement of the charges is incomparable and lastly because the amount of energy needed to destroy a vehicle is far less than that required to destroy a building. 

The videos I posted show buildings being hit by 76 mm artillery shells and not collapsing. there is vision of grenades being thrown, and then of them exploded. The grenades are exploding with a very limited lethal radius, perhaps 5 metres, though as the US TM says the casualty radius is approximatelt 10 metres. Finally there is vision of 76mm shells hitting the ground and exploding, with an effective shell hole of about 1 metre by 0.5 metres.

A 75 mm shell has an explosive charge or 2.2-2.8 kg, and less if SAP or AP. If it is HE, the historical evidence does not support the notion that the shell is all that effective at taking out buildings. This has to be the main reason that the germans felt it necessary to develop a heavier siege train, of which the Sturmtiger is an example.

On the german side, the threat of the large number of allied artillery pieces ranged against them would, in my opinion, be a factor in deciding not to enter buildings.

However, the object of this argument is NOT whether buildings offer protection against artillery or not. It WAS about whether 75 mm armed tanks or less could knock out buildings with a single hit, or whether Infantry was safer inside of buildings or not. I did not say at any stage whether they (buildings) offered complete protection. Never said that, and never implied it either


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*Come on Parsifal, you should know what I mean. The US forces could take out a typical Iraqi house with a single shot from a Bradley, Striker, Abrahms or whatever. (Not to mention airstrikes) It is understood that this takeout is referring to militants occupying urban areas and as such houses or buildings.
No one will just start to shoot up all buildings and houses randomly in any country.* 


This is all completely off topic, and has nothing at all to do with the issue under debate. Destroying buildings by airstrike is not relevant to whether a pzkpfw III with a 50mm gun can knock out a house with a single shot. 

I did know what you meant, but you strayed so far off topic that It would only be fair to allow me similar liberties. The issue is this (repeated) was HE ammunition as fitted to AFVs of WWII vintage (accepted as generally 75 mm or less) likely to knock over a building in a single hit. 

A supplementary issue I am prepared to debate is whether buildings offer protection to Infantry during barrage fire (ie not direct, or guided) as compared to Infantry that is un-entrenched and out in the open. In other words, the Infantry is being subjected to a standard box barrage, would it be safer inside a building(s) or in the open?


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

> The videos I posted show buildings being hit by 76 mm artillery shells and not collapsing.



And where exactly in the vids does this happen ??


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2008)

Hits at least from naval 88mm, buildings still standing today. I have always admired the accuracy of German gunners when they fired at Borgströmin tupakkatehdas, the tall building at right. And also the guts of the Finnish workers who kept on firing even if German coastal battleship Beowulf and maybe one DD fired at them from almost point blank range. Or so the story was told to me many years ago. I'm sorry for the poor quality of the picture.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

Soren 

The Videos show one or more examples of the following:

1) Buildings being hit by artillery and not falling over
2) Buildings that have been hit and have not fallen over. 
3) The explosive radius of grenades and artillery

One or more of these observations can be made at the following points

Oder Niesse video
Minutes 1.0, 1:04, 1:05, 1:30, 1:34, 3:59, 4:13, 4:34, 4:46, 6:00

Battle For berlin Video
1:11, 1:21, 1-57, 3-07, 2-50, 3-17, 4-10, 4-20, 4-44, 4-50, 5-05, 5-41, 5-56, 6-04, 7-02, 7-06, 7-15, 7-19

There are also frames that do show buildings completely demolished, or in such a state that if people had been in them they would probably have been injured or killed. However, this is not the issue you are trying to refute. you are trying to say that shells from AFVs equipped with armament of 75 mm or smaller will generally destroy a building in a single hit. You are also refuting the US Training Manual as to the lethal range of the M-67 grenade. You may be hinting that a 75 mm shell has a lethal range of around 50 metres, but this is unclear


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*Hits at least from naval 88mm, buildings still standing today. I have always admired the accuracy of German gunners when they fired at Borgströmin tupakkatehdas, the tall building at right. And also the guts of the Finnish workers who kept on firing even if German coastal battleship Beowulf and maybe one DD fired at them from almost point blank range. Or so the story was told to me many years ago. I'm sorry for the poor quality of the picture*.

Hi Juha

i had not heard of that ship name before, but I suspect it was a captured norwegian Coast Defence vessel, armed from memory with 9.4" guns.

Where exactly is this photo taken Is it one of the Finnish islands (Aland islands?????)


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

LoL, you're unbelievabe Parsifal! 

So let me get you straight here, you're presenting a bunch of WW2 footage clips from scattered locations, events time periods and then you claim that as proof that a 75mm HE shell will not bring down an ordinary two storey house. Are you serious ??!!

I looked through those vids and you can at no point establish what weapon caused this or that damage, its just a bunch of clips from all through WW2 put together to make a small film. As for buildings not collapsing while being struck by artillery, I see no such thing happening at any point in any of the clips, not once.

As for disputing the US Training manual on the M67, I aint, it says itself that it is dangerous even at 230m! Why the heck do you think the guys are standing behind protective concrete walls whilst throwing these things ??! For fun ??! Because they're all a bunch of pussies ???! Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel.

Now that having been said I can tell you that a cannon shell packed with 5 kg of explosives is not going to be anywhere near as "forgiving" as that!


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hits at least from naval 88mm, buildings still standing today. I have always admired the accuracy of German gunners when they fired at Borgströmin tupakkatehdas, the tall building at right. And also the guts of the Finnish workers who kept on firing even if German coastal battleship Beowulf and maybe one DD fired at them from almost point blank range. Or so the story was told to me many years ago. I'm sorry for the poor quality of the picture.
> 
> Juha



Nice example of large buildings hit by Naval APHE shells, I bet they went straight through the building.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2008)

*LoL, you're unbelievabe Parsifal! 

So let me get you straight here, you're presenting a bunch of WW2 footage clips from scattered locations, events time periods and then you claim that as proof that a 75mm HE shell will not bring down an ordinary two storey house. Are you serious ??!!*

I am doing that, because all I have to do is to present evidence that shows that in not every case was it possible to knock buildings down with Light HE shells (ie of 75 mm calibre or less). We are yet to see your proof that in nearly every case it will. This was only ever presented as anecdotal evidence incidentally, not as proof. It is sufficient “proof” however, to prove the exception. The footage shows numerous examples of buildings being hit and not falling down, or buildings that have not fallen down after being hit, which is all I set out to prove in this debate.

We are yet to see your proof, which is much harder to reach, since your contention is that in nearly every case, tank shells of 75mm or less will bring down a building. 

*I looked through those vids and you can at no point establish what weapon caused this or that damage, its just a bunch of clips from all through WW2 put together to make a small film. As for buildings not collapsing while being struck by artillery, I see no such thing happening at any point in any of the clips, not once.*
So you are saying that the artillery shells hitting the buildings, and the buildings not falling down is not evidence. Are you saying that the buildings that have obviously been hit by shellfire, and not brought down is not evidence. If it wasn’t shellfire that damaged those buildings, what was it?? A big wind?????

*As for disputing the US Training manual on the M67, I aint, it says itself that it is dangerous even at 230m! Why the heck do you think the guys are standing behind protective concrete walls whilst throwing these things ??! *
You are being selective when you read the manual. It actually says that the kill zone is 5 metres, and the casualty zone is 10metres. There is a safety zone of 230metres (which is the absolute limit for flying debris. The actual chances of being hit and seriously injured at that range can be calculated, and it s going to be something like 0.00001) You do know what that means don’t you?? Just in case you don’t, the safety zone means that you can be hit out to that range, not that the weapon is effective to that range. That’s akin to arguing that just because a 0.22 rifle can fire out to a mile or more, that it is effective to that range. Much beyond 250 metres, and the rifle is nearly useless. 

*Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel.*

My grandfather once had a grenade explode at his feet, not more than a metre away from him. He walked away from the thing without a scratch

As for your “experience”, You cannot bring that up as proof, because you refuse to reveal such experience. You just cannot do that because the “evidence” you present cannot be examined. If you do want to include your personal experience as supporting material, lets get the details of your “service”. 

*Now that having been said I can tell you that a cannon shell packed with 5 kg of explosives is not going to be anywhere near as "forgiving" as that*

I agree, but the effect is far less than you might imagine, because the blast radius is basically a 1/d3 relationship, and not a linear relationship, as you are suggesting. Assuming that the explosive characteristics of a shell and a grenade are similar (which they are not, but I don’t want to go to trouble of calculating the diferent energy yields of grenade explosive versus shell explosive, so I am just going to assume that they are roughly similar. If you want to work out the difference, go ahead, but for the purposes of this debate it is a relatively safe assumption to make).

The M-67 has a n explosive charge of 184 grams, and an effective kill/casualty radius of between 5 metres (lethal) and 10 metres ( I am being generous) (non-lethal). Lets say, on average, that the effective zone is 10 metres. This means that the effectivel volume of the blast from one of these devices of 125 cubic metres. That means that each cubic metre of space requires 0.67 gms of explosive behind it in order to be considered in the effective range of the device.

Now, a 75mm shell, typically has an explosive charge of 2.18 kg (2180 grams). If the relationship of explosive to volume is even remotely similar for the 75mm shell explosive as it is for the M-67, the calculated effective kill/casualty radius of the 75 shell becomes 15 metres, (assuming similar performances from the different explosives that are used in each piece of ordinance). Why is it that the 75mm shell, with 12 times the explosive, has just three times the effective blast effect. Its because blast effect decreases by a factor of d3, and not a lineal relationship, as you are trying to suggest. 

Now, just to confirm this theory, that site I posted earlier just happens to have the effective blast zones for typical artillery pieces. It says that the effective blast zone for a 76mm gun is from 10m to 22 metres, , say 16 metres. The calculated figure is close enough to the published figure, and certainly nowhere near the figures that you keep bleating out (without the slightest supporting evidence)


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2008)

Hello
Soren, only one of those uppermost high hits went definitely through the building, I have seen a photo from other side of the Borgströmin tupakkatehdas/Tubaco factory. I know shockigly little on the fight, only that BB Posen lost 4 KIA and BB Westphalen 2 KIA, so they were also in the harbour alongside CL Kollberg and some smaller ships and some of the hits on the factory might have been 5,9in shells. I don't believe that BBs used their main armament, 280mm.

Juha

Parsifal
photo is from our capital Helsinki 90 years ago. first building outside the photo to the left is our presidental palace. SMS Beowulf's main armament, if it still had it in 1918, was 240mm cannon (3 pieces)


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2008)

*Nice example of large buildings hit by Naval APHE shells, I bet they went straight through the building*

Err, actually no. Given the platform that Juha has described (incompletely, I am trying to get him to be a bit more precise) the ordinance firing the shell is likley to be a WWI era SKL/45, or more likley an SKL Flak L/45. If so, it would not be equipped with AP or SAP rounds. Its standard bombardment round was a HE. It was not issued with AP rounds, because of its age and purpose. 

Moreover, what you see is consistent with HE blast effects, being a "crater" of around 2 metres by 1meter deep, hence the penetrations of the building walls, since these are a lot less than 1 metre deep.


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2008)

Hello
my maritime historian friend made his almost daily call and I used the opportunity to get more info. And again oral history/ my memory proved to be imprecise. The mentioned BBs were in the harbour of Helsinki, so maybe some 500-700m from the buildings but according to today’s knowledge didn’t fire a shot. Beowulf was still outside the harbour helping ships through ice. The ships which bombarded were M-boats, there were 5 of them, but probably only one in time drove to the southern end of the small canal seen in the picture and bombarded the buildings with its 75 or 88mm cannon, my friend wasn’t sure which was the calibre of the deck gun of M-boats at that time. So firing distance to the left building, the main guard house of presidential guard nowadays, was between 125– 250m, depending how literally one take the words at the southern end of the canal. So the cannon used was 75 or 88mm naval cannon.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2008)

Hello
my maritime historian friend made his almost daily call and I used the opportunity to get more info. And again oral history/ my memory proved to be imprecise. The mentioned BBs were in the harbour of Helsinki, so maybe some 500-700m from the buildings but according to today’s knowledge didn’t fire a shot. Beowulf was still outside the harbour helping ships through ice. The ships which bombarded were M-boats, there were 5 of them, but probably only one in time drove to the southern end of the small canal seen in the picture and bombarded the buildings with its 75 or 88mm cannon, my friend wasn’t sure which was the calibre of the deck gun of M-boats at that time. So firing distance to the left building, the main guard house of presidential guard nowadays, was between 75 – 150m, depending how literally one take the words at the southern end of the canal. So the cannon used was 75 or 88mm naval cannon.

Juha

Thanks Juha, That pretty much confirms what i suspected. . Will be interesting to see the response. Another day at the office with Soren i am predicting

Regards

Michael


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2008)

Hello
according to Die Deutschen marinen im Minenkrieg Band 1 p. 242 M-boots fighting in Helsinki Harbour were armed with 8,8 cm cannon, so it was probably 8,8 cm SK L/30. IMHO a good substitute to WWII 75-88mm tank gun.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2008)

Yes, near enough, and certainly not an AP or SAP round at that range, type, or time scale


----------



## Kruska (Jun 23, 2008)

All right here we are as promised. The range was approx. 600m firing at target boards and in intervals of 25-30m at Brick wall facades, simulating houses. 
As one can see the impact of the single 20mm HEI shell on the Brick wall target, nobody would want to be an infantry soldier positioned in this building or behind the wall.

View attachment image5005.pdf


BTW, the person on the other photo is me as a Faehnrich (Officer Cadet) about 20 years ago.

View attachment image5006.pdf


Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 23, 2008)

Now to get this discussion into the right track again let me please summarize the events IIRC:

1st. it was about tanks shooting at infantry, it was pointed out by Soren and me that infantry will be engaged with the MG and only emplacements, buildings or large Infantry concentrations would be shot at using the main gun.

2nd. It became a Hand grenade issue which I think has been clarified to such an extend that everyone now is aware that a defensive grenade is deadly within 10m and highly injury prone up to 20m.

3rd. The Parsifal brought up the issue of infantry taking cover in buildings. It was pointed out by Soren and me that this would be a bad idea, and that the Army even teaches not to take cover in houses. It was also pointed out that taking cover in the basement is a different story and that the soldiers off course took cover in buildings previously destroyed by artillery or bombardments. And that this house scenario does not apply to buildings such as a national library or a major’s house or a 4-5 storey house/building.

4th. Soren pointed out that a single 75mm tank HE shell could blast a room and even cause a house to collapse, which is IMO a correct assumption.

5th. I then forwarded that even a modern German 20mm HEI cartridge can blow out a or two rooms and no one would be likely to survive this hit.

So now we are at a part of the discussion, were Parsifal is forwarding that a 75mm could not destroy or bring a house to a collapse and is even disputing the case of artillery being effective against buildings. – Which honestly I can’t follow – because this is what happened throughout the 2nd WW until today.

Now a good way to finalize this discussion might be to look at Arnheim.

Since Arnheim was not bombed the only damage to the city could result from ground fighting. Unfortunately I was only able to retrieve one photo from Arnheim showing the devastation caused solely by ground fire.







Regards
Kruska


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2008)

Hello Kruska
IMHO question is more complicated. IMHO Frost Paras did the right thing when they occupied the houses around northern end of the Arnheim bridge. IMHO without the rather marginal protection of the houses they would not hold out 3 days against Germans. And their orders were hold as long as possible. 

In 70s Finnish Army manual taught ways to how to harden houses. I cannot remember much of that because I was one of those, like the great majority, who were trained to fight in the forests and in the countryside and also got some guerrilla war training. But anyway, the Finnish Army, which at that time was almost purely infantry army, thought that it was worth to use also houses as strongpoints, even if historically it had usually fought almost entirely outside towns, in the last days of the Winter War there was hard fighting in Viipuri/Wyborg but I know nothing on tactics used, other than orders were hold at any cost because of truce negotations and orders for Soviets were take the town whatever it cost.

And as the Borgström Tobaco Factory shows, it took at least 12 88mm hits to silent almost pacifist civilians, (the workers were those who hadn't joined to red guards when the revolution began and they had resisted the growing pressure to allow themselves to be drafteed into guard and had kept themselves out of war to the day when the Germans arrived), armed only with rifles and knowing that by joining the fight they would join the loosing side,from a big, unprepared building. 

*Later addition: *
It occur to me that the others know even less than me on the situation on 13 May 1918 at Helsinki Harbour. Now in the factory there were say 80 workers of whom say 10 had some rudimentary weapon training. In the barracks on the forefront there were say 120 members of red guards, ie poorly trained militiamen. To the right of the photo on the headland and in the town district Katajanokka there were some 400 German Marines/Sailors. A little left and behind where the photographer stood were some 50 German Marines/Sailors pinned down by rifle fire from the barracks and from the factory. Now the option to reds and workers were, use the buildings or fight outside of them or run. Dispersing and trying a urban guerrilla warfare nearby wasn’t a good option , because say 80% of population in that area sympathise whites. Now IMHO fighting in open against more numerous trained soldiers with bolt action rifles was hopeless even if Germans would not have bothered to use their mgs. Say end result a 5 min firefight. Now using buildings bought Finns at least 2 hours time gain plus Germans had to use say 23 88mm shells. Not much I admit but something.

Juha


----------



## renrich (Jun 23, 2008)

Hey, Kruska, how about a little respect for perhaps the only one on this thread who actually served in an armored division. LOL At least give me a little credit for saying that a tank uses it's MGs to kill infantry. Many thanks to you in anticipation of that credit.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 23, 2008)

renrich said:


> Hey, Kruska, how about a little respect for perhaps the only one on this thread ......



Hello renrich, off course sorry, how could I forget?, not only did you make a correct statement, but you are also the only one who managed to make a statement on this thread and get away without ending in a brawl.  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## renrich (Jun 23, 2008)

Thank you again Kruska. If one watches the news, one sees many tapes of tanks engaging enemy troops with MGs in Iraq. Mainly these are MGs mounted on top of the turrets. Those enemy troops are presumably armed with small arms and perhaps RPGs. Of course the action in Iraq would probably be described as an unconventional war. It could be that the tank as we now know it could go the way of the battleship. I do try to maintain a sense of humor although not always successful.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 23, 2008)

Good point there. About 20 years ago I forwarded that the tank is a relic from the past and should actually be followed up by helicopters and heavier protected AFVs with AT capability. Talking about a Leopard IIA6, a helicopter such as a Huey Super Cobra I would believe is cheaper.

One will still need tanks but IMO not at the present numbers at all. The new German PUMA (hope we ever get the budget) might be just the right vehicle.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2008)

Hi andy

I have to disagree with your summation I am afraid

*Now to get this discussion into the right track again let me please summarize the events IIRC*:
From the following summary, I dont think you have recalled correctly I am afraid

1st. *it was about tanks shooting at infantry, it was pointed out by Soren and me that infantry will be engaged with the MG and only emplacements, buildings or large Infantry concentrations would be shot at using the main gun.*

That was before the main debate started. But yes, this is basically correct

2nd. *It became a Hand grenade issue which I think has been clarified to such an extend that everyone now is aware that a defensive grenade is deadly within 10m and highly injury prone up to 20m*.


No, the US TM states lethal to 5 metres, and likley to cause casualties to 10 metres. Soren claims that a grenade is deadly to 230 metres, although as usual his posts are cryptic, and he will no doubt go into denial about this. 


3rd. *The Parsifal brought up the issue of infantry taking cover in buildings. It was pointed out by Soren and me that this would be a bad idea, and that the Army even teaches not to take cover in houses. It was also pointed out that taking cover in the basement is a different story and that the soldiers off course took cover in buildings previously destroyed by artillery or bombardments. And that this house scenario does not apply to buildings such as a national library or a major’s house or a 4-5 storey house/building*.


No, this is not how the debate developed. The original post was effectiveness of tanks against Infantry, and specifically the effectiveness of 75 mm guns and below against Infantry. The debate then travelled to the effect of AFV main armement on buildings. Soren and yourself intimated that single rounds could basically bring down any building, with a single hit . I pointed out that it would depend on the circumstances, the size of the building, the type of construction, and the context (ie is it a built up area). I then pointed out that tanks are not that successful in built up areas (ie not just single rural buildings), to which you guys took the view that this was not the case. This of course flys in the face of what we know DID happen in WWII. Namely that tanks were not that successful in built up areas, that Infantry routinely used buildings for cover, and thast casualties outside buidlings are generally higher than for troops inside buildings. 

I then produced photograhic evidence of buildings being damaged by artillery, or that had previously been damaged by artillery, which was reinforced by Juha. Soren denied that such evidence was in front of him, and that the evidence presented by Juha was in fact undertaken by AP/SAP artillery. This theory has been poretty much debunked, although Soren has not replied at this point.

The central issue about all this is whether , in every situation, and against every building, armement of 75mm calibre, or less, is able to demolish a building with a single direct impact on the building. We have presented evidence that shows to the contrary. You guys are yet to prove your position AFAIK. 

4th. *Soren pointed out that a single 75mm tank HE shell could blast a room and even cause a house to collapse, which is IMO a correct assumption*.


Its the central issue of the debate, and it needs to be proven by you guuys, not just assumed. We have shown evidence that it does not occur every time. Sorens position is that it is the norm, or the outcome in the majority of cases. i challenge that assumption, on the basis of the historical facts (eg Stalingrad, Caen, Berlin, Warsaw, etc). Now it is up to you guys to present good evidence that refutes that. We are still waiting for that evidence

5th. *I then forwarded that even a modern German 20mm HEI cartridge can blow out a or two rooms and no one would be likely to survive this hit.*

You did not clarify the number of rounds fired, or the type of construction of the building. Befrore I can make comment on the photo (which I could not make much from, I need that background information presented

*So now we are at a part of the discussion, were Parsifal is forwarding that a 75mm could not destroy or bring a house to a collapse and is even disputing the case of artillery being effective against buildings. – Which honestly I can’t follow – because this is what happened throughout the 2nd WW until today.*

No, that is not my position. I am saying that buildings can be resistant to damage, depending on their context. And the evidence of this is allover the place. also, the original question was ordinance of 75mm calibre or smaller
The issue really is whether rounds of this calibre are likley to bring down a building with a single hit, and why Infantry is at such an advantage whilst in urban areas, viz a viz armour


----------



## Kruska (Jun 24, 2008)

Hello parsifal and Juha,

Let me give it one more try  in order to prove

As for Arnheim; let’s please analyze the situation and plan first.

The Battle of Arnhem Archive - Outline orders from Headquarters 1st British Airborne Corps to Major-General Urquhart

1. The plan was to take both bridges and or at least one.
2. 1 Airborne Div will seize ARNHEM 7378 and the crossings over the NEDER RIJN and est. bridgehead to the NORTH of that town.
3. Col Barlow, Deputy Comd. 1st Airlanding Bde., is appointed Town Commandant, ARNHEM. He will maintain close touch with Comd. 1 Para Bde. and will co-ordinate the tasks of the APM and OC Fd Security Sec.

MARKETGARDEN.COM - A BRIDGE TOO FAR - this site gives a very good description of forces and strength actually engaged with in Arnheim city and a formidable account on how German tanks took out the buildings systematically from top to bottom. 

Primary intention was to keep approximately 2000-3000 men inside Arnheim, rounding up resistance and setting up defensive positions in the city and around the bridge ends. 
Approximately 10000men were to build up a defensive perimeter around and specifically north of Arnheim. 
This makes sense since 10000 men dug in and prepared in defensive positions outside Arnheim could not have been taken out by the expected German strength/forces. 

However the whole plan failed as such enabling only about 600-800 men to enter Arnheim on the 17th and occupy defensive positions around the Bridge, naturally in buildings, since Frost did not expect to be attacked by tank formations or any heavy German opposition and did not have the manpower to establish any perimeter defense. Furthermore he was initially informed to hold out for 2 days till the XXX Corps will arrive and anticipating the rest of the 1st Para Bde. to reach him within the following day.

The main battle of Arnheim was actually around Arnheim and not in the city at all. The main German body was needed outside in order to prevent the 1st Airborne to reach Arnheim – Bridge in the first place. The actual German contingent attacking Frost and his men in the first 2 days was around 2000 men, initially without much heavy weapons. Therefore Frost’s decision to barricade inside the surrounding buildings was off course the right thing to do. 

However on the 19th the Germans send in tanks and Stugs. Leaving Frost’s brave men without the slightest chance and forcing them to evacuate their positions on the 20th. The high German losses (about 5 times Frost’s losses = 1500) is due to their need to push in infantry against Frost’s barricaded force seeking cover in buildings in the first 2-3 days.

So IMO Arnheim gives a very substantial support that soldier in buildings stand less of a chance against tanks, mortars and artillery then dug in on open ground. - see the Arnheim picture in regards to destruction purley on behalf of artillery, mortars and tanks.

Stalingrad was shot to bits and pieces (the least by bombers), allowing the Germans to conquer 90%. Stalingrad was not lost due to urban fighting against Russians barricading in buildings, but due to supply not available after the city had been encircled by the Russians. The initial German Stalingrad attack even proves again that barricading soldiers in buildings do not have a chance against tanks, mortars and artillery.

Paul Hausser was smart enough to clear Charcow, after the Russians had settled inside the city he attacked and re-took Charcow. 

As you might know, Hitler had the fanatic Idea of declaring cities as a fortress upon the allies entering Germany (meaning the barricading of troops inside the city) – which was sharply objected by the military commanders. Not a single city managed to hold out against allied artillery bombardment, mortars and tanks for more then 3-5 days, such as Frost, despite most cities already heaving been destroyed up to 40-60% by previous allied bombing raids. If actually the Germans could have used these forces outside the cities as forwarded by the Army commanders, resistance would have been far more effective and much less costly on behalf of civilian lives. 

I will not say that a single shoot of a 75mm (or 20mm HEI) will cause a house to collaps, but I would not categorically out rule it. Fact is however that infantry in generall buildings have no chance against artillery, mortars and tanks. Their survival chance in trenches and dug out emplacments is far higher, since we already established that the main gun of a tank or a bomb is not such a serious threat to entrenched or dug in infantry.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2008)

Hello
Now i have no time to go deep into plusses and minuses of city fighting. All terrains had its plusses and minuses and in the war there isn’t safe places at front-line.

And artillery was even during WWII very destructive.

Here: Taipale
in the 2nd and 3rd rows you can see photos what a field positions dug in a forests looked after a couple weeks of heavy Soviet artillery fire. Not much cover from enemy observation and the protection of the trenches greatly minimized. And the ability of trees to hinder movement of enemy tanks significantly lessened. Plus side, at least the danger of air burst because shell hits in nearby trees greatly minimized. Regretfully no before photos, but on the bottom right photo one can get a idea what the forest had looked beforehand. But Finns were still holding on as they did at Taipale to the end. The price was high but the price of defeat would have been much higher. We were trained to fight against very heavy odds, one might say to fight a rather desperate war.

Juha


----------



## Kruska (Jun 24, 2008)

你好: Juha
你是用中文的呢还是用英文的?

Anyway thanks for the link. From the way you write or express yourself, are you a veteran of the Finland/Russian war? ("We", "SC 50" , "Grenades into foxholes", "stony Islands") Or is it more a Finland national feeling? 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2008)

No, no
as I have wrote, I served in mid 70s. But our poor army used much old materials, and because there were many SC 50s left over from WWII we used them to simulate small aerial bombs and to study their effects.

But we, in 70s, were trained to fight against at least 3:1 superiority. Mission always were "Powerful enemy tank forces were attacking from yyy, Your mission is to stop it/ delay it 5 hours at the line xxxx" or "Strong enemy forces with heavy tank support were at..." And never any talk of possible air support, after all at that time FAF didn't have any ground attack capability. And not much talk on own tank support.

And yes, the will of defend our country was and IIRC still is extraordinary high here, even if posiible fight seems rather hopeless. One of my friends have noted that we Finns are not very capable to count odds or IMHO when we are angry or feel that we are treated unfairly we just don't mind the odds

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2008)

*Stalingrad was shot to bits and pieces (the least by bombers), allowing the Germans to conquer 90%. Stalingrad was not lost due to urban fighting against Russians barricading in buildings, but due to supply not available after the city had been encircled by the Russians. The initial German Stalingrad attack even proves again that barricading soldiers in buildings do not have a chance against tanks, mortars and artillery*.


I agree that Stalingrad was not lost due to urban fighting, but i would also say that the germans were unable to take it, because of the urban environment. Everywhere that they attacked, whether that be a destroyed part, or a relatively intact part, the Soviets used the cover provided by buildings to great effect. Certainly the committment of 4th Panzer Army's tanks to the battle made little difference. The germans were forced into a costly battle of house to house fighting. Why might this be so? Because even though artillery could destroy buildings, this could not dislodge the tenacious Soviets from their positions. The Soviets were addept at urban warfare, they would for example use the sewers to infiltrate into areas previously thought "cleared by the germans. This was a tactic repeated in other places, in particular the Warsaw Ghettos in 1944.

Armoured formations time and again in the war were shown to be less than ideal in urban warfare. Capture of a city was always a tough assignment, whoever was undertaking the assault. They were always viewed as major obstacles. Starting with Warsaw 1939, where more than 80 tanks were lost in two weeks of fighting, against an enemy with virtually no dedicated AT defences, the Tanks found it virtually impossible to move through the baricaded streets, and in fact the buildings offered ideal cover for the infantry to stalk and destroy many AFVs. The Germans could only take the city after the tanks were pulled back, a proper artillery bombardment prepared, and a fully supported Infantry assault with full combat engineer support provided. And this was not an isolated example. It happened time and again right through to the final battles in Berlin. So I hotly dispute that Tanks hold the advantage in a city assault. Maybe this is what is taught in the german army today, but if it is, it just confirms that after 60 years, the Germans still have a lot to learn about urban warfare. Similar circumstances exist incidentally in mountains, or even forested areas. Tanks are only in the advantage in open rolling plains IMO, and even then they still need strong Infantry and air support in order to survive. Proof of that can be found in the way the US despatched the iraqi armour in the recent invasion of iraq. Iraqi tanks, outgunned, unsupported, without proper fire support teams to protect them, and without aircover were massacred. 

Deighton in his book "Blitzkrieg" argues that even though Tanks with armament as small as 20mm could be fitted with HE rounds, the blast effect of any gun smaller than 75 mm was really inneffective against any soft target. This includes targets within buildings. Implicit in this appraisal is that you really need a gun bigger than 75mm in order to be effective. This explains the relative effectiveness of the 88s of the late war heavies, and the 105s and 125s of modern armour, in taking out buildings. It also explains why the germans found it necessary to start developing a heavy armoured siege train during the war 


*As you might know, Hitler had the fanatic Idea of declaring cities as a fortress upon the allies entering Germany (meaning the barricading of troops inside the city) – which was sharply objected by the military commanders. Not a single city managed to hold out against allied artillery bombardment, mortars and tanks for more then 3-5 days, such as Frost, despite most cities already heaving been destroyed up to 40-60% by previous allied bombing raids. If actually the Germans could have used these forces outside the cities as forwarded by the Army commanders, resistance would have been far more effective and much less costly on behalf of civilian lives. *

Dont agree with part of this statement. During the collapse Of AGC, it was the fortified zones in the cities that held out the longest. What might have worked better was the adoption of a flexible mobile defence, rather than a fixed defence. However, the germans were so short of transport, even horse transport in 1944, whilst the russians were much more mobile (thanks in part to US Supplied vehicles) that this was not really an option either. The Germans were really given no option but to stand and fight, and the best place to stand was within the cover of cities. The problem with hitlers orders were that they were issued far too late to allow the cities to be fortified even a little. They were without proper supply, and without proper building preparation 

*I will not say that a single shoot of a 75mm (or 20mm HEI) will cause a house to collaps, but I would not categorically out rule it. Fact is however that infantry in generall buildings have no chance against artillery, mortars and tanks. Their survival chance in trenches and dug out emplacments is far higher, since we already established that the main gun of a tank or a bomb is not such a serious threat to entrenched or dug in infantry.*

But historically they did, and historically also most commanders saw cities (especially those that had been properly prepared) as the most secure anchoring points for any given line. Facts are also that it required a Heavy siege train (ie bigger than 75mm) to reduce the defences of a city or other urban area.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2008)

I found this site, which discusses the problems and advantages of using armour in an urban environment

The role of Armor in Urban Combat

The salient points of the article are as follows:

_Even though armored, tanks and mechanized infantry units also face dangers in confined urban areas due to limited all-round observation and restrictions to maneuver capabilities. This places them at an especially severe disadvantage when operating alone. During urban encounters by US armored elements in Iraq, troops reported several effective tactics used by insurgents, including sniping and dropping grenades from rooftops or upper floor windows, in an attempt to attack vehicle crews and commanders through open hatches. Other tactics included simultaneous attacks on both flanks from alleys, allowing the insurgents to fire RPGs from close range at these relatively weak areas of the tank’s armor. 

Tanks and other armored vehicles are not invincible, especially in urban terrain, where they are vulnerable to attacks from close range by man-portable anti-tank weapons such as RPGs. Since the urban scenario has no "frontline", attacks can come not only from the front, where the tanks are heavily protected, but also from above, and from the flanks or the rear, aiming at the vehicle's weak spots. Attacks by IEDs and mines can also come from below the surface.

Although urban warfare is not exactly the tanker's dream, a significant number of future battles will inevitably take place in this environment. The value of tank support cannot be underestimated in this high-risk environment, in which a commander wishes to use all available combat elements in order to reduce casualties. Modifications to tanks for use in urban combat conditions will continue to make them indispensable partners in the future warfighting team._


----------



## renrich (Jun 24, 2008)

To me, the most interesting thing about the question raised in this discussion is the incongruous situation where a state of the art AFV like the M1 tank, with a turbine engine, infra red sighting devices, fin guided depleted uranium projectiles fired from a smooth bore gun, sophisticated armor, etc. still has as one of it's principle and most effective weapons the M2 MG in .50 BMG, designed by that genius, John Browning, almost 100 years ago. That weapon is effective against targets more than a mile away and can disable many forms of military transport. It has been used by infantry, armor, warships and air craft. I wonder how many of all the different models based on that design have been manufactured since it's inception? Has there ever been another military weapon designed that has had a longer active life?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2008)

The 50 cal is indeed a great weapon. I remember how effective it was when I was assigned to our Northern patrol (chasing drug runners, and illegal fishermen). You could always depend on the 50s to do their job. 

The 50 is also able to fulfil a multitude of roles, from AA right throgh to AT (against light vehicles). An excellent design, by any standards


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2008)

Parsifal,

All you have brought up is LARGE buildings being either hit by "SOMETHING" or falling apart because of SOMETHING, which is in no way supportive of ANY of your claims, just another one of your feeble attempts at stirring things up.

You keep dodging the issue all together as me an Kruska were from the start talking about an ordinary two storey house, which most likely WILL collapse after a single hit by a 75mm HE round. But as usual you twist this into involving large shopping complexes and banks in an attempt to support your already crumbling case, realizing full well that what Kruska and I are saying is true. 

As for the handgrenades, again have you ever actually thrown one or seen the effects of one Parsifal ??? So far you're not convincing with your ridiculous claims and lies about others.

In your usual way you attempt to twist what others are saying, one example being the below comment: 


Parsifal said:


> "No, the US TM states lethal to 5 metres, and likley to cause casualties to 10 metres. Soren claims that a grenade is deadly to 230 metres, although as usual his posts are cryptic, and he will no doubt go into denial about this.



That's not what I nor the US manual says, the US manual says that the *Kill* radius is 5m, which means that if you're within 5m of it going off, you're dead! While the casualty radius is 15m, which means that if you're within 15m of it going off, you're going to be seriously wounded! Furthermore it is noted that shrapnel can disperse as far away as 230m from the site of the explosion (Hence the long safety range!). These are not bloody toys Parsifal! There's a good reason that soldiers are standing behind concrete protective walls while throwing these things at targets 20 - 30m away!

Now let's have a look at what I said:
_As for disputing the US Training manual on the M67, I aint, it says itself that it is dangerous even at 230m! Why the heck do you think the guys are standing behind protective concrete walls whilst throwing these things ??! For fun ??! Because they're all a bunch of pussies ???! Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel._

FYI the reason frag grenades are classed as defensive grenades is because their effective casualty radius is greater than the distance they can be thrown.


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2008)

Kruska
if You want to understand Finnish psyche and thinking of the Finnish Army up to 80s, the Winter War had a strong impact to both, one easy way to do it is to watch Pekka Parikka’s film Talvisota/Winter War. A trailer can be find here (hopefully):

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ELfMprEbrI_

It told a historically accurate story of one Finnish infantry battalion. which at first fought at Taipale and later at even worse place, Äyräpää.

And so this message isn’t altogether off-topic, from the following link one hopefully can find a rather realistic representation of Soviet attack with tank and artillery support against Finnish MLR, if that line is worth of that term, at Taipale: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO535fTIgnM_

And to prove that in Finnish war films one usually got rather realistic impression what artillery strike means to those who had not got some military training, the subject of that film is the battles of Summer 44: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvK1Xx9vA08_

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2008)

Hi soren

Good to see that you have been away working on your charm and powers of persuasion as usual. 

*You keep dodging the issue all together as me an Kruska were from the start talking about an ordinary two storey house, which most likely WILL collapse after a single hit by a 75mm HE round. But as usual you twist this into involving large shopping complexes and banks in an attempt to support your already crumbling case, realizing full well that what Kruska and I are saying is true. *

No, i am not dodging the issue at all. I refer to my original comments viz a viz attacks on buildings. They are contained in Post 34, and read as follows

_As for the effect of artillery against Infantry in buildings, well, history shows that this only tends to increase the protection for the Infantry. *the Infantry simply take cover in the rubble,* which provides a great deal better cover, and virtually an instant entrechment to hide in. This was proven a hundred times over in wwii, from Stalingrad to Caen_


Please take note that I did say that the Infantry takes cover in the rubble. Both you and Kruska chose to ignore that bit….

Your reply to that was contained, which provided the following informative argument

_That's complete bollocks Parsifal. Ordinary buildings are about the worst place to seek cover against artillery. If artillery strikes a building with people in it, those people are almost surely going to die. 

Now AFTER the building has been turned to rubble, it will provide good cover for infantry, but not while it is still standing._

Obvious that you didn’t read the original post properly.

As you can see, from the very beginning I was referring to buildings in built up areas, and the problems tanks have in this sort of terrain.

Of course, we have not even considered the issue of mobility, a city that is reduced to rubble is basically impassable to tanks

Anyway, my position has always been this….the survivability of a building depends on its size, and context. You should refer to my post number 41, which in part said

_Agreed, but the issue is whether Infantry within a building before it is demolished will survive. It depends on the size of the building, the type of construction, the explosive capability of the round and whereabouts in the building the Infantry is when the round hits._

Your rejected that, but failed to provide any supporting evidence to that effect. You simply said that artillery fire into un-demolished buildings was a deadly effect.

This seems very odd, and unconvincing to me. Lets look at just one example In 1945, the Soviets poured more than 7000000 artillery shells of 76mm and over into an area of central Berlin, measuring 7 miles by 2 miles, They then poured elements of two complete Soviet Fronts into that area. They still suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties at the hands of the defenders. Whilst there was a fearful toll on the civilian population a lot of then even survived. And whilst Berlin had been heavily bombed, it was not a total ruin, so it is invalid to try to argue that all of the city was in ruins. There were still many buildings in the centre of Berlin still intact before the Soviet bombardment. The germans fought from virtually every building whether it was a ruin or not. Sort of disproves your assertion in many ways.

Please note my earlier comments….the effectiveness of buildings in providing effective defence depends on its construction, and its context. Context can clearly mean that it is located in a built up area. Your position has always been, basically that context didn’t matter, if you entered an undamaged building you were toast.

There is one other thing to consider. If Infantry is in a building, that is in urban context, you have no real way of knowing which building they are in. One of the biggest problems for tanks in cities is mobility, if you start to indiscriminately knock over buildings, pretty quickly you will lose your mobility and not be able to move at all. So unless your enemy is pinned, and unable to move, or your tank crews are supermen and able to fire as quick as like wyatt earp in a gunfight, you are going to render your tanks ineffective very quickly by your own hand. 

*As for the handgrenades, again have you ever actually thrown one or seen the effects of one Parsifal ??? So far you're not convincing with your ridiculous claims and lies about others*.

*In your usual way you attempt to twist what others are saying, one example being the below comment: *
Soren, why do you think that I have lied? I have been trained to use handgrenades (real ones too) because I had to learn small arms drill in order to lead boarding parties against drug runners and illegal fisherman. Ever been a member of a boarding party. it can be nasty, and can include the use of grenades, although I confess we never had to actually use them while on operations. I have used my sidearms in anger, and yes I have been in harms way soren. I would like you to be specific please when you say that I am lying, so that I can respond properly to the accusation. At the moment you have just said I am a liar. In my country that is a pretty serious accusation to make. 

*That's not what I nor the US manual says, the US manual says that the Kill radius is 5m, which means that if you're within 5m of it going off, you're dead! While the casualty radius is 15m, which means that if you're within 15m of it going off, you're going to be seriously wounded! Furthermore it is noted that shrapnel can disperse as far away as 230m from the site of the explosion (Hence the long safety range!). These are not bloody toys Parsifal! There's a good reason that soldiers are standing behind concrete protective walls while throwing these things at targets 20 - 30m away!

Now let's have a look at what I said:
As for disputing the US Training manual on the M67, I aint, it says itself that it is dangerous even at 230m! Why the heck do you think the guys are standing behind protective concrete walls whilst throwing these things ??! For fun ??! Because they're all a bunch of pussies ???! Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel.*

Yes, and your post is insinuating an effective range of at least 50 metres, and possibly 230 metres. I know they are not toys, which is one of the reasons I no longer touch guns or grenades. You don’t need to tell me about weapons not being toys, but thankyou for the reminder. 

I do stand corrected however. In my reply to Kruska, I had mistakenly stated that the casualty range of these things was just 10metres, my mistake.

I still cannot see ANY supporting information to support your position, namely, that buildings will normally collapse when hit by a single round of 75mm or less.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2008)

*if You want to understand Finnish psyche and thinking of the Finnish Army up to 80s, the Winter War had a strong impact to both, one easy way to do it is to watch Pekka Parikka’s film Talvisota/Winter War. A trailer can be find here (hopefully):


It told a historically accurate story of one Finnish infantry battalion. which at first fought at Taipale and later at even worse place, Äyräpää.

And so this message isn’t altogether off-topic, from the following link one hopefully can find a rather realistic representation of Soviet attack with tank and artillery support against Finnish MLR, if that line is worth of that term, at Taipale: 

Nothing quite as inspiring as a citizen soldier defending his homeland*


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Hi soren
> 
> Good to see that you have been away working on your charm and powers of persuasion as usual.



 

Parsifal I have other things in my life to attend to than this forum. I write on this forum when I feel like it, not when someone else feels like it. 



> At the moment you have just said I am a liar. In my country that is a pretty serious accusation to make.



Funny you should say that because so it is in my country, and if I'm not mistaking I seem to remember you saying this:



> I have never discouraged reasoned and respectful discourse about any subject, but I will not tolerate disrespect and straight up lies from anyone. soren has been caught repeatedly doing this, not just to me, but to a lot of people. And he gets away with it a lot.



Which funny enough is a straight out lie by you Parsifal.



> Yes, and your post is insinuating an effective range of at least 50 metres, and possibly 230 metres.



No it isn't that's just you twisting stuff as usual. What I am saying is, and I quote: _Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel._




> I know they are not toys, which is one of the reasons I no longer touch guns or grenades. You don’t need to tell me about weapons not being toys, but thankyou for the reminder.



Well seeing you think its safe to be within 15m of one going off I'm afraid you must think of them as toys suitable for crowd control.



> I do stand corrected however. In my reply to Kruska, I had mistakenly stated that the casualty range of these things was just 10metres, my mistake.



Well do you understand what it means ?? It means that if you're within 15m of one going off without cover you're in seriously bad shape!



> I still cannot see ANY supporting information to support your position, namely, that buildings will normally collapse when hit by a single round of 75mm or less.



Well perhaps thats because you AGAIN twist what both Kruska and I have been saying. I for one don't remember me or him ever mentioning anything about shopping complexes or banks, which usually are several to hugely many times larger than a normal house. 

So now read this very carefully this time: What Kruska and I have been saying from the start is that an ordinary two storey house will most likely collapse after a hit by a 75mm HE shell. Also we explained that seeking cover inside a building during an artillery attack is one of the worst things to do and that soldiers are taught this (Atleast where we come from). The reason for this is that it takes very little in the way of high explosives to make the whole house come down on top of you. So while a *building* and a *house* is very effective as cover in smallarms firefights it is a very vulnerable place to be if artillery or tanks show up. 

But since you insist upon talking about large apartment buildings or shopping complexes, let's address this issue;

Let us say a firefight is going on between 20 soldiers fortifying themselves inside a large 6 story apartment building and 20 or so soldiers seeking cover behind destroyed vehicles and rubble. In the smallarms firefight taking place the apartment building provides both excellent cover and defensive positions to shoot back from. However now a tank shows up, and it sends a 5.75 kg HE shell into the building: Here's what most likely would happen = 

Let's say the first shell strikes the middle of the building, right beside a window where two soldiers are firing from. These two men die instantly, the huge blast of the explosion ripping the room apart and seriously damaging the structure of the front facade to the degree that huge parts of it from several storeys come falling off the building. Furthermore the storey below and above the arpartment hit are gone (Upper: Collapsed. / Below: Hit by the two upper collapsing apartments.) and the men in them either dead or seriously injured. 

Now it could be even worse as the HE shell could've gone through a window and struck a supporting collumn, in which case large parts off of the building to half of it or even the whole building could come down.

Do you understand now why soldiers a taught to get the heck out of a building when either a tank or artillery shows up???


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2008)

Soren
"Let's say the first shell strikes the middle of the building, right beside a window where two soldiers are firing from. These two men die instantly, the huge blast of the explosion ripping the room apart and seriously damaging the structure of the front facade to the degree that huge parts of it from several storeys come falling off the building. Furthermore the storey below and above the arpartment hit are gone (Upper: Collapsed. / Below: Hit by the two upper collapsing apartments.) and the men in them either dead or seriously injured."


I posted a photo in which a building hit by some 14 10kg HE rounds from 8.8cm SK L/30 and its facade is still in place, now what you have to prove your claim?

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2008)

Persifal
thanks for Your comment!
Long time ago, when I and my friends still were reservists and Soviet Union behaved somewhat aggressively we talked that it was pity that we couldn't just up anchors and row Finland somewhere near Australia away from cruel world.

Juha


----------



## starling (Jun 24, 2008)

yes,i would not care 2 b 30-40 germans in a pill box on d-day,at gold beach,hiding from the royal navy and r.a.f,suddenly confronted by a few churchill tanks,sprayiing me with m.g fire and then a flying dustbin coming my way.yes,that would be effective.starling. . .


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2008)

Juha said:


> I posted a photo in which a building hit by some 14 10kg HE rounds from 8.8cm SK L/30 and its facade is still in place, now what you have to prove your claim?
> 
> Juha



That's no apartment building, and like I said the round most likely just went straight through. How do even know they were HE rounds ?


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2008)

Soren
4 things
a) as I have wrote, I have seen a photo which shows the back side of the building, only one exit hole to see, very high up.
b) M-boots were not designed to fight armoured ships. Why to store APHEs inside them?
c) I don't think that the German naval gunners were incacpable to choose the most effective ammo available when they were giving fire support to their camarades.
d) this page German 8.8 cm/30 (3.46") SK L/30 knows only HE shell to 8.8cm SK L/30.

BTW if You choose the last link in my message #108, You should find a clip on the right side which shows 2 Finnish Army StuG IIIGs driving, that might intrest You.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2008)

Looked at the page Juha, and the 8.8cm shell for the SK L/30 contained only 1.42 kg of explosives. As I thought this is because of its thick metal walls, made like such to penetrate hulls and then explode, typical naval projectile of the period.

That having been said, have you got pictures from inside the building ? Despite only contaiing 1.42 kg of explosives I'm sure that the inside of the that building was in a pretty bad shape.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2008)

Btw, about the Finnish film. What I like about it especially is the realistic look of the explosions, I've never seen a Hollywood made film with such spectacular explosions. This should be the benchmark for future war films. The artillery barrages are VERY impressive!


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2008)

Hello Soren
IMHO 1,42 kg bursting charge is rather big. I'm a bit hurry but tried to find the size of the bursting charge of Sprgr for 7.5 cm Pak/KwK 40 but didn't succeed, penetration figures are much easier to find. Anyway 7.5 cm HL/C-Ausführung had 0,56 kg explosives, best I could find in a hurry.

And the bursting charge of the Sprgr of 5.0 cm PaK/KwK 38 was only 170g (that of Pzgr. was only 17g).

On photos, no I haven't see pictures inside on the damages, should be substantial. There might be some, but as I have wrote i'm rather ignorant on what happened in 1918. I know only that the building has been at least from early 60s normal dwelling house.

Also here some directors, mostly leftist, are much too eager to use napalm (it's look so spectacular, they think) and the explosive experts are sometimes very desperate because of that.

Juha


----------



## Kruska (Jun 24, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

*Please take note that I did say that the Infantry takes cover in the rubble. Both you and Kruska chose to ignore that bit….*

No sorry, the other way around. I forwarded that it is understood that survivors or reinforcements will take cover in the rubble, which now provides excellent cover.

*Now AFTER the building has been turned to rubble, it will provide good cover for infantry, but not while it is still standing.*

Exactly. 

*Of course, we have not even considered the issue of mobility, a city that is reduced to rubble is basically impassable to tanks.*

Says who? Absolutely wrong – any photos of especially American forces entering German cities will prove you wrong.

*Agreed, but the issue is whether Infantry within a building before it is demolished will survive. It depends on the size of the building, the type of construction, the explosive capability of the round and whereabouts in the building the Infantry is when the round hits.*

Before it is demolished? If we do not talk about a bunker, no matter what building, a single storey, double storey or six storey building will and can be shot at with artillery, mortars, hand grenades, small arms fire and by tanks. And now as to stay with Soren, any donkey that will be in that building, in a room, facing towards the outside and as such recognized by the enemy is dead meat if the 75mm HE shell goes in. And a normal house might even collapse, or major parts of its structure might collapse.

But this collapse issue to me is of absolutely no concern: As the attacker I am interested to eliminate the recognized or suspected enemy and if this requires me to shot into a building with my 75mm, I will love to do it, because the donkeys inside are meat. And if the house should collapse, well good for me – more donkeys dead or injured. 

*Your rejected that, but failed to provide any supporting evidence to that effect. You simply said that artillery fire into un-demolished buildings was a deadly effect.*

Off course it is, what do you think it would be? Tennis balls bumping around? I mean seriously now, anyone who has served in Army combat units besides maybe – the company idiot (every company has one) - has seen the live impact of artillery, honestly what is there to be questioned about? Did you have a look at the 2omm photo I posted? post 91.

*The germans fought from virtually every building whether it was a ruin or not. Sort of disproves your assertion in many ways.*

Off course they have, and everyone who didn’t get out in time or held a white flag died.

*There is one other thing to consider. If Infantry is in a building, that is in urban context, you have no real way of knowing which building they are in. One of the biggest problems for tanks in cities is mobility, if you start to indiscriminately knock over buildings, pretty quickly you will lose your mobility and not be able to move at all. So unless your enemy is pinned, and unable to move, or your tank crews are supermen and able to fire as quick as like wyatt earp in a gunfight, you are going to render your tanks ineffective very quickly by your own hand.*

If enemy infantry is barricaded in buildings and opens fire at you, your own infantry will know exactly where the fire comes from (sniper is a different story) they will suffer tremendous losses to annihilate them, so you will use mortar, hand grenades, bazookas (super effective), artillery and tanks to take them out. I am not talking about “Save Private Ryan” where Tigers enter in a straight line without even taking a main guns effective distance into account, acting as rolling MG bunkers and infantry walking beside them. Total rubbish this movie besides the first 15 minutes. 

Sorry to say Michael, but you are ignoring war history, especially the total part of WW2.
Besides Stalingrad were different factors applied, or Leningrad and Moscow were the Germans didn’t even get to the city boundaries or Arnheim were the British could not even reach the place or vice versa Bastogne, please name me just one city, one mouse trap in WW2, where the attacker Germans or Allies failed to take it based on even odds or superiority by the attacker, just one

Please name me the hundreds of open terrain attacks where the attacker failed due to not being able to overcome dug in field positions on even odds or even despite numerical superiority.

So if you are the defender, you want to be in the field or in buildings in a city which provide such fantastic cover? Also let me ask you please, if the Tanks and artillery, mortars and bazookas couldn’t hurt anyone in buildings then how were these cities conquered?

*Yes, and your post is insinuating an effective range of at least 50 metres, and possibly 230 metres.*

A splinter which penetrates your eye at 230m can’t be out ruled can it? I agree however that the mentioned 230m have no account on this hand grenade issue. A German HG51 is absolutely lethal within 10m does not need to be discussed, I have been long enough in the Army and been using them to know what I am talking about.

Gentlemen there is too much, of turning around others words and deliberate misinterpretation on this thread which makes this debate meaningless if it continues in this manner.

Just an example in regards to twisting of words:
Kruska: Michael do you agree that the lethal range of a HG51 is easily 50m plus in the open?
Michael: No maximum 8-10m
Kruska: how much do you want to bet?
Michael: everything I have
Kruska: deal, please move forward 50m
Michael: I am there
Kruska will call his comrade Werner (This guy can throw like hell), Werner will lob the HG51 even 5m behind Michael making it 55m and poor Michael lost his bet and life.
Kruska to Juha: told you 50m plus lethal range. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2008)

Juha,

1.42 kg is very little as far as I can tell from looking at Quarry Nildram's site (Tony Williams), a 57mm HE shell containing 1.2 kg of HE filler.

IIRC the Sprgr. (HE) round for the 88mm KwK36 43 contained some 3 to 3½ kg of HE.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2008)

B]Parsifal I have other things in my life to attend to than this forum. I write on this forum when I feel like it, not when someone else feels like it. [/B]

Good for you

*Funny you should say that because so it is in my country, and if I'm not mistaking I seem to remember you saying this:



Which funny enough is a straight out lie by you Parsifal.*

There would be a whole lot of people on this forum who would agree with me Soren, even if they dont tell you to your face

*No it isn't that's just you twisting stuff as usual. What I am saying is, and I quote: Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel.*
Instead of just sprouting opinions, why dont you do some actual analysis of the blast effects from grenades.

There are two possible ways that grenades can kill or injure, one is by direct blast effects (a relatively minor risk), and the other is by shrapnel. Blast effects are a function of hemispherical volume, whilst shrapnel is a function of shperical surface area.

Now, you say that the chances of a kill at 5 m radius is 100%. Wouldnt argue with that. That means that in terms of probability, the chances of a lethal hit at that range is 1. So lets calculate the probability of a lethal hit at ranges further than that, based on blast volume, and spherical area

Blast Volume = BV
Spherical Area = SA


At range 5 m 

BV =523 m3
Prob (Kill) = 1

SR = 157 m2
Prob (Kill) = 1 
Total Prob (Kill) = 2, or 200%
What the control situation is assuming, is that if the blast doesnt kill you, the shrapnel will. Whilst it is a mathematical travesty, effectively the probability model here is Prob (Kill) BV + SR which a probability of 2 in this case

Now, lets look what happens to the probability model as the range increases

Range 15 m

BV = 13905 m3
Prob (Kill) = 0.03761 or, 3.76%

SR = 1413 m2
Prob (Kill) = 0.11111, or 11.1% 
Total probability (Kill) at Range 15m = 14.87%

Range 50m
BV = 516250 m3
Prob (Kill) = 0.0001013 or, 0.103%

SR = 15700 m2
Prob (Kill) = 0.001, or 1% 
Total probability (Kill) at Range 50m = 1.1%

At what point you want to nominate a device to be "effective" is amatter of debate, but I wouold think that if the probability of a kill at 50metres is reduced to just over 1%, then no reasonable person could claim that to be an effective range.

Havent calculated the probability of a casualty, but if you want we can do that as well

Now, that is the beginnings of evidence to support a position. You do understand that dont you???


*Well seeing you think its safe to be within 15m of one going off I'm afraid you must think of them as toys suitable for crowd control.*

I didnt say that, but i need your proof to support your argument,, which says that they are dangerous out to 50m. In fact the probability analysis I have just done for you suggests they are dangerous to the extent of 1.1% probability. In a battle situation I think that is a reasonable risk. 

*Well do you understand what it means ?? It means that if you're within 15m of one going off without cover you're in seriously bad shape!*

I do understand that, but i doubt that you know how to calculate risk probabilities, otherwise you would have done it by now

*Well perhaps thats because you AGAIN twist what both Kruska and I have been saying. I for one don't remember me or him ever mentioning anything about shopping complexes or banks, which usually are several to hugely many times larger than a normal house. *

If you check back on my posts, I very clearly stated in reply that it would depend on the building type, the construction, and the context. This means that I was saying that not in all situations can you make the assumption or the claim that you are. It is up to you now to prove your theory, but you have failed to do that, simply relying on bluster and talk to support your case. And that is no way to properly support a point of view is it. 


*So now read this very carefully this time: What Kruska and I have been saying from the start is that an ordinary two storey house will most likely collapse after a hit by a 75mm HE shell. Also we explained that seeking cover inside a building during an artillery attack is one of the worst things to do and that soldiers are taught this (Atleast where we come from). The reason for this is that it takes very little in the way of high explosives to make the whole house come down on top of you. So while a building and a house is very effective as cover in smallarms firefights it is a very vulnerable place to be if artillery or tanks show up. *

And i said that demolishing a house, or any other structure only serves to provide better cover , because the Infantry can then use the rubble as instant cover. If the building is part of an urban setting, indiscriminate demolition of the structures will prevent the entry of the tanks in the first place (or at least limit their mobility severely). If you dont know where the Infantry is, you cannot be as accurate as you are suggesting. 

I also pointed out that there needs to be evidence to support the notion that a single hit by a round of 75mm or less will bring down a house (or any other structure) in the majority of cases. Evidence has been presented to you on a number of occasions that suggests otherwise, to which you have chosen to either deny 9as opposed to disprove), or simply ignore. For no particualr reason I will picjk the latest example. Berlin. 14 square miles of affected city, 7000000 shells poured into that area. Structures still standing despite the punishment. Defenders still effective dspite the bombardment, 400000 casulaties suffered by the attacking Russians. All evidence that suggest you are full of crap, but which you choose to ignore

Now, if you want me to accept your position, go away and do some serious research, and come back with some hard facts to support your case. Otherwise, to use some of your own lkanguage, its bollocks to you soren


But since you insist upon talking about large apartment buildings or shopping complexes, let's address this issue;

*Let us say a firefight is going on between 20 soldiers fortifying themselves inside a large 6 story apartment building and 20 or so soldiers seeking cover behind destroyed vehicles and rubble. In the smallarms firefight taking place the apartment building provides both excellent cover and defensive positions to shoot back from. However now a tank shows up, and it sends a 5.75 kg HE shell into the building: Here's what most likely would happen = 

Let's say the first shell strikes the middle of the building, right beside a window where two soldiers are firing from. These two men die instantly, the huge blast of the explosion ripping the room apart and seriously damaging the structure of the front facade to the degree that huge parts of it from several storeys come falling off the building. Furthermore the storey below and above the arpartment hit are gone (Upper: Collapsed. / Below: Hit by the two upper collapsing apartments.) and the men in them either dead or seriously injured. 

Now it could be even worse as the HE shell could've gone through a window and struck a supporting collumn, in which case large parts off of the building to half of it or even the whole building could come down.*

So you are now a structural engineer as well as a special forces expert as well as aeronautical engineer, as well expert historian. I should proabably also add expert debater, but that might be just a little of astretch, wouldnt it. Well, i am impressed, I must say. But it would help once in while soren, if you could back your statements up with some hard evidence. So, once again to quote your good self, its bollocks to you until you can produce some supporting evidence

*Do you understand now why soldiers a taught to get the heck out of a building when either a tank or artillery shows up???*
I understand that you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence to support the notion that this sort of thing was the outcome in the majority of cases. I amstarting to doubt that you actually know the meaning of proving a theory. I suggest you do some reading and find out


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2008)

*That's no apartment building, and like I said the round most likely just went straight through. How do even know they were HE rounds ?

Its method of construction is masonary, with wall thicknesses similar to many other masonary buildings. We wouold need a structural engineer to look more closely than that, but certainly does not look any more sturdy than many other buildings

We previously deduced from the likley ordinance that cause d the damage (which we can deduce from the ship types and their ages that fired it) that the shels were not SAP or AP equipped. The cratering on the building itself is also consistent with a HE shell*


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2008)

*No sorry, the other way around. I forwarded that it is understood that survivors or reinforcements will take cover in the rubble, which now provides excellent cover.*
*Now AFTER the building has been turned to rubble, it will provide good cover for infantry, but not while it is still standing.*

Suggest you check back Kruska, lookat my post 31....I basically said that destroying the building provided instant cover in the rubble. you did not read my original post correctly


*Of course, we have not even considered the issue of mobility, a city that is reduced to rubble is basically impassable to tanks.

Says who? Absolutely wrong – any photos of especially American forces entering German cities will prove you wrong.*

Those pictures are either after the city has been cleared, and some of the rubble removed, or the city buildings have not been completely flattened, which is what is being described by you and soren. If the buildings are completely demolished in an urban environment, it becomes very difficult to get tanks into action. If you dont destroy the buildings, the tanks can be staled and surprised by AT squads. This is exactly what happened to the Russians in berlin'45

*Before it is demolished? If we do not talk about a bunker, no matter what building, a single storey, double storey or six storey building will and can be shot at with artillery, mortars, hand grenades, small arms fire and by tanks. And now as to stay with Soren, any donkey that will be in that building, in a room, facing towards the outside and as such recognized by the enemy is dead meat if the 75mm HE shell goes in. And a normal house might even collapse, or major parts of its structure might collapse[/*B].


Evidence, evidence, evidence. You guys keep making the same statements, and not providing a single shred of evidence to support any of your claims. Produce the proof, and then perhaps i will believe you. Now, I am NOT saying that it is not possible to bring down a building with a single hit. I am not saying that it is good practice to go swanning around buildings exposing your position to the enemy, and then not moving. I am saying that this notion that occupying buildings before demolition is not supported by the historical facts, and also that it is not always a necessarily dangerous thing to do. The example I have challenged Soren with is Berlin. I think I will give a different assignment. Lets go to the other end of the war, Warsaw 1939. Despite the Poles not having any dedicated AT defences, in the two weeks of fighting to take the city, the Panzers lost more than 80 tanks were lost. Moreover, it was not until dedicated Infantry, combat engineers and artillery assets were brought in that the Poles were defeated. I have given some quoted material previously (Deighton), and we have presented a number of photographic records to challenge you guys. All you guyus do is come back and say "non!no!no!" and dont support your positions properly. Small wonder we dont believe you

*But this collapse issue to me is of absolutely no concern: As the attacker I am interested to eliminate the recognized or suspected enemy and if this requires me to shot into a building with my 75mm, I will love to do it, because the donkeys inside are meat. And if the house should collapse, well good for me – more donkeys dead or injured*.

If the round penetrates without any interference (eg by going through a window), it will have an effective blast zone of about 15metres, according to the artillery site previously posted. If any part of the blast hits a solid wall, that wall will have the effect of absorbing some, or all of the blast. If the building collapses, it is likley to only partially collapse. Moreover, unless your tank is super quick, the Infantry that have been spotted are likley to be very rapidly scooting from the scene. Moreover, if the buildings are left intact, your tanks are themselves vulnerable to stalking, as the germnans found in 1939, and the Russians found in 1945, and everybody found in all the urban battles in between 

[*Off course it is, what do you think it would be? Tennis balls bumping around? I mean seriously now, anyone who has served in Army combat units besides maybe – the company idiot (every company has one) - has seen the live impact of artillery, honestly what is there to be questioned about? Did you have a look at the 2omm photo I posted? post 91*.[/B]


I did, and I asked a number of questions about it, which remain unanswered. Kruska, you have not proven your case, which now appears to be that tanks and artillery hold the advatage over Infantry in urban warfare. That mnay have been waht was taught in the German Army, but it flys in the face of every other army's experience, and the histotical record of WWII


*The germans fought from virtually every building whether it was a ruin or not. Sort of disproves your assertion in many ways.

Off course they have, and everyone who didn’t get out in time or held a white flag died.*

You have taken the quote out of context. The full meaning of the statement was that despite 7000000 shells being poured into Berlin in 1945, many buildings remained partially or fully standing. From the acounts I have read, Germans used nearly all the buildings, whether they be standing or not, to defend their capital. Russian tanks in particualr were vulnerable to ambushes by German Panzerfaust teams who infiltrated through buildings to achive flank or rear shots into the tanks. The only real way for the Russians to secure an area, was for the Infantry to go into each building and clear them out. If they could kill everybody by artillery fire, it would already have happened. 

Despite the pounding that Berlin received, there was still plenty of fight left in the defenders. 400000 soviet casualties prove that 


*If enemy infantry is barricaded in buildings and opens fire at you, your own infantry will know exactly where the fire comes from (sniper is a different story) they will suffer tremendous losses to annihilate them, so you will use mortar, hand grenades, bazookas (super effective), artillery and tanks to take them out. I am not talking about “Save Private Ryan” where Tigers enter in a straight line without even taking a main guns effective distance into account, acting as rolling MG bunkers and infantry walking beside them. Total rubbish this movie besides the first 15 minutes[/B*]. 

Ah, now you are talking some sense. Acombined Infantry armour artillery team is a completely different scenario. The battle then gets down to manouvering you assets in the street, overcomming roadblocks, mine obstacles and the like, controlling the sewers, and doing all of this a hundred times over, as each city block is a separate battle under iteself, with co-ordination areal problem



*Sorry to say Michael, but you are ignoring war history, especially the total part of WW2.
Besides Stalingrad were different factors applied, or Leningrad and Moscow were the Germans didn’t even get to the city boundaries or Arnheim were the British could not even reach the place or vice versa Bastogne, please name me just one city, one mouse trap in WW2, where the attacker Germans or Allies failed to take it based on even odds or superiority by the attacker, just one*

Tobruk, and oh nuts I almost forgot, Bastogne


*Please name me the hundreds of open terrain attacks where the attacker failed due to not being able to overcome dug in field positions on even odds or even despite numerical superiority.

So if you are the defender, you want to be in the field or in buildings in a city which provide such fantastic cover? Also let me ask you please, if the Tanks and artillery, mortars and bazookas couldn’t hurt anyone in buildings then how were these cities conquered?*

By taking a lot of casualties, and using a combined arms approach. It was also important to isolate the cities concerned, so as to prevent reinforcement and resupply for the dfending garrison. The exceptions that you have excluded were endowed with precisely that, namely a re-supply route. 

*Yes, and your post is insinuating an effective range of at least 50 metres, and possibly 230 metres.

A splinter which penetrates your eye at 230m can’t be out ruled can it? I agree however that the mentioned 230m have no account on this hand grenade issue. A German HG51 is absolutely lethal within 10m does not need to be discussed, I have been long enough in the Army and been using them to know what I am talking about.*

Have already undertaken a probability analysis for Soren, suggest you take a look at it. I never said they were not dangerous at 10m, the issue is whether they still pose a serious threat at 50m or 230 metres. 

*Gentlemen there is too much, of turning around others words and deliberate misinterpretation on this thread which makes this debate meaningless if it continues in this manner*.

Well, I wish i had been given that opportunity, because ther is no evidence from you guys that I can "twist" or, in my estimation "analyse". All we have seen thus far are uncorroborated statements that appear to fly in the face of the historical reality (or at least my reality)

*Just an example in regards to twisting of words:
Kruska: Michael do you agree that the lethal range of a HG51 is easily 50m plus in the open?
Michael: No maximum 8-10m
Kruska: how much do you want to bet?
Michael: everything I have
Kruska: deal, please move forward 50m
Michael: I am there
Kruska will call his comrade Werner (This guy can throw like hell), Werner will lob the HG51 even 5m behind Michael making it 55m and poor Michael lost his bet and life.
Kruska to Juha: told you 50m plus lethal range.* 


Did not understand this?????


----------



## Juha (Jun 25, 2008)

Soren
I must ask what 57mm?
What I was able to find, it’s easy to find the weight of the shell and penetration tables for AP rounds but the info on explosive fillings seems to be more difficult to find.
But 50mm Pak/KwK 38, HE shell weight 2,06 kg, explosive content 170 g, ie 0,17 kg
75 mm FK 18 HE shell 5,6 kg , explosive content 0,4 kg

87,6mm British 25pdr, HE, surprisingly 25 lb, explosive content 1.8 lb

So shells of all 3 had well below 10% explosive content if measured by weight
and the 8.8cm SK L/30 had 14,2%, so to me not so bad. Still I think it is a good substitute to WWII 75-88mm tank shell if we cannot find verified data for a real thing. The effects of explosions are of course a bit unpredicted and in Finnish army after calculating, roughly, the need of explosive for given job we gave a bit “pioneeriextra” to make the destruction of the target sure.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2008)

thought you experts might find this study of some interest. 

Effects and Weight of Fire

I draw your attention to the following extract

*The Effects of Terrain*

_The effects of terrain are many and varied and can markedly reduce the direct effects of bursting shells.......

Fragments fly in straight-lines out from the shell burst with gravity pulling them down as they lose velocity. However, very few targets are on football fields. 'Normal' open ground is 'rough', it has natural folds, small dips and hollows, furrows, ditches, bunds, etc. These all provide troops with protection from ground bursting weapons, not to mention direct fire projectiles. 'Natural' or 'average’ ground offers about 5 times as much protection to a prone soldier as an 'unnatural' level surface like a football field. Then there are the more obvious results of human activity such as buildings and walls, and military activity, notably trenches. 


Buildings are a further complication, and their protective properties depend on the amount of artillery fire directed at them and the material used to build them. The blast effect of shells will damage buildings, particularly if there are direct hits, and if there are enough hits the building will be reduced to rubble. However, most masonry or concrete buildings will stop fragments. The flash of detonation can ignite flammable materials._ 

Implicit in this assessment is that it takes multiple hits to destroy most buildings


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2008)

Some further video footage to look at . Not exactly relevant. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmliSaufRbs_


----------



## Juha (Jun 25, 2008)

Ah, it was difficult, couldn't find explosive charges for HE ammo of 7.5 cm StuK L/24, L/43 or L/46 from Spielberger's StuG III book but from his Panther book p. 239 I found that HE shell for 8.8 cm Pak 43/3 and /4 weighted 9,4 kg and its explosive content weighted 1,0 kg. I found it strange that not even that of 7.5 cm StuK 37 is given, after all the original funktion of StuG III was to give fire support to attacking infantry.

Juha


----------



## Kruska (Jun 25, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *Some further video footage to look at . Not exactly relevant. *



Hello parsifal,

All what this clip shows, is a bunch of retarded GI’s firing useless HEAT projectiles at a building which in the end is taken out by an artillery projectile, just as Soren and I explained.-so quite relevant

For some real urban fighting have a look on the following:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH7UP2mONUs_ Grozny

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUVJU3uWOuo_ Sarajevo

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-JjwEac8jA_ Sarajevo

Obviously you ignore facts. I showed you the picture of Arnheim which shows and proves the total destruction of buildings that had been used by the British as defensive positions.

Stalingrad had already been taken by the Wehrmacht to 90% and was not lost due to “open ways” or “supply lines”, it was lost due to Stalingrad being encircled by the Russians.

Now you flee your case onto Berlin – backed by your knowledge of 400,000 dead Russians.
And because you can show me a photo of a building undamaged or not collapsed you consider this as a proof of your theory???

The Russians never lost 400.000 men in Berlin; they claim to have lost this quantity including the outflanking of Berlin in the North at Schwedt and Guben down to Goerlitz and the outer city defenses of the Oderlinie, Lausitzer Neisse or Seelower Hoehen (80km from Berlin) and Malchow, in order to reach Berlin City.

A more realistic figure for the entire Oderlinie scenario facing Berlin including the city of Berlin is put nowadays at around 85.000 dead Russian soldiers, including about 5000 Polish soldiers. 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJinOjAu1vk_ Berlin/Russian

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_x68OteNzA_ Berlin/Russian

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LXBDKKpLxw_ Berlin/Russian

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-oXaaWqXk_ Sturmtiger/German/Warsaw

Allies (US) entering German cities after being cleared???? 

It took 40,000 GI’s two days to take Germanys 3rd largest city of Cologne. 

There is a very good documentation on pictured accords regarding combat engagements of US Sherman’s dueling with Panthers in the city of Cologne. (Before clearing) look at the roads being full of rubble, building totally destroyed – what other proof do you need???

Dierk's page - Photo Album - Cologne at war, tank duel at the cathedral 

Tobruk a city????? It was not taken despite vast German superiority because of the entrenched positions surrounding Tobruk town. 
Bastogne a city??? 4500 population, and not a single German soldier ever even entered Bastogne, the town of Bastogne was held by the American perimeter outside of the city by entrenchments.

*Ah, now you are talking some sense. Acombined Infantry armour artillery team is a completely different scenario. The battle then gets down to manouvering you assets in the street, overcomming roadblocks, mine obstacles and the like, controlling the sewers, and doing all of this a hundred times over, as each city block is a separate battle under iteself, with co-ordination areal problem*

Now I am talking some sense???? You must be joking

Soren and I never said anything else from the very beginning.

From the beginning we pointed out that for infantry to seek cover in buildings, besides in the basement is a bad choice, since they will be dead meat in the face of artillery, mortars, hand grenades and tanks. That infantry will accompany this scenario needs to be pointed out extra to you???

*Implicit in this assessment is that it takes multiple hits to destroy most buildings*

IF a 75mm can bring a house to collapse with a single shot or not was never the question, but its probability was pointed out to you. 

It was also never a discussion about tanks only attacking buildings, it was about artillery decimating buildings and as such killing every soldier inside.

I rest my case, unless you provide me with proof and pictures showing buildings and houses immune to artillery and tanks, successfully held by occupying troops against artillery, mortars, hand grenades, bazookas and tanks. (Including as always, accompanying infantry).

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

I think it might be time to pull up and take some time to reflect on the respective positions

My position is this

1) The “Kill” radius of a “typical” grenade is 5metres. It has a “Casualty” radius of 15metres. However, I dispute that grenades can be seen as effective at 50 or 230metres. To support this I have provided the relevant US TM on their Hand grenade, the M-67. I have also undertaken a probability analysis, on the assumption that at 5metres, a grenade is likely to have probability of 2 in causing a death. I have acknowledged that assigning a value of 2 to a probability analysis is a mathematical travesty, but I have accepted this to give the maximum plausible probability to a kill at greater ranges. On the basis of that probability analysis I have shown that the likelihood of a death at 50metres range from a hand grenade is just over 1%. 
2) It is possible and indeed likely, that artillery, whether that be SP, HE firing tanks or AT guns, to be able to reduce a building to rubble. However, I do not believe it the norm or likely that single hits to most substantial buildings by ordinance of 75 mm or less to be likely to destroy a building with just one round. To support this I have posted links to sites that show the destructive power of a given piece of ordinance in mathematical terms. I have also presented some photographic and video evidence that indicates cities that have been the subject of sustained bombardments, and have still demonstrated that buildings survive, more or less intact. 
3) Urban areas are significant points of resistance to any attacker, if adequately defended, because the buildings in them provide cover, hide the movement of troops, and restrict the mobility of any attacker. I have again cited some examples, namely, Berlin, Stalingrad, and Warsaw (both 1939 and 1944).
4) I have said that buildings can provide significant protection, but it very much depends on the nature of construction, the size of the building, and its context. I subsequently clarified that term “context” by very specifically saying I was referring to larger buildings in an urban context. In my original post on this thread, I also specifically said that buildings provided even greater benefits to defending Infantry AFTER they had been reduced to Rubble, and cited examples at Caen and Stalingrad, and also said this generally applied to everything else in between. 

It would now be useful, if you could calm down a bit, to sate your position on this issue, so that we can identify the differing positions. Once we get to that point, we can each present our supporting pieces of evidence, and hopefully reach some consensus


----------



## starling (Jun 26, 2008)

hey parsifal,they have absolutely no sense of humour.yours,starling. .


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

starling said:


> hey parsifal,they have absolutely no sense of humour.yours,starling. .




Wel maybe. But all i want from these Bozos is some real supporting evidence , and for them to start quoting my posts correctly, and then things might cool down a little. Both these guys have good brains on their shoulders, but right now they arent using them.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Some further video footage to look at . Not exactly relevant.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmliSaufRbs_




LoL!! You really are clueless! (Your math makes that clear as-well)

They were firing HEAT rounds you nimwit! They're meant to punch 2.5" small holes in armoured vehicles, and so that's all they did to those buildings! Not a single HE round was fired! Infact the purpose of the entire video was to protest against the fact that the soldiers down there had available to them very little in the way of HE weapons, even their tanks were equipped solely with AT ammunition!

Moving on, I know 350,000 to 400,000 Soviet soldiers lost their lives in the battle for Berlin because of the dug in German defenders, but what the heck does that have to do with what we're discussing here ????! The Germans defending Berlin were hiding in cellars, subways bunkers. But despite this most of the Germans who died defending the city did so because of Soviet artillery! 

Moving on our discussion about Handgrenades, I will repeat what I have always said AGAIN:

_Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel._

How you interpreted that as sying 50m effective range I don't know. What I do know is that you keep twisting what other people are saying and then you make up sh*t they have never said or done!

But just as I suspected you know nothing of what you're talking about Parsifal, which is the reason you keep dodging the main issue alltogether and resort to simplistic math lies to support your crumbling case. 



> So you are now a structural engineer as well as a special forces expert as well as aeronautical engineer, as well expert historian.



What ?! Where did I ever say or imply that ?? Again you're lying your pants off Parsifal!

Infact the only seeming to claim to be an expert in all things here is you Parsifal, which is quite apparent since most of what you say is bullsh*t!



> Wel maybe. But all i want from these Bozos is some real supporting evidence ,



Ha! The only one who hasn't brought forth a shred of supporting evidence is YOU Parsifal. Unless you regard your laughable math as evidence of any sort ?


Anyway I'm done with argueing this sh*t with you Parsifal, I'm tired of all you're lies and claims..


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Juha, from the site you presented yourself:

8.8cm SK C/32, 9 kg HE shell, 3.1 kg bursting charge (And note the high MV):
German 8.8 cm/76 (3.46") SK C/32

And again note these are naval HE shells, which means thick steel body.


----------



## starling (Jun 26, 2008)

i got a roasting for less than this nastyness,now come along.please be civil to eachother.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

*LoL!! You really are clueless! (Your math makes that clear as-well)*

So, produce your evidence to counter the argument. Calling me clueless does nothing to support your argument. Saying that my maths is faulty proves nothing. Demonstrate that it is wrong, by producing a better alternate model. This is what I have been saying to you and Kruska for quite some time now. 


*They were firing HEAT rounds you nimwit! They're meant to punch 2.5" small holes in armoured vehicles, and so that's all they did to those buildings! Not a single HE round was fired! Infact the purpose of the entire video was to protest against the fact that the soldiers down there had available to them very little in the way of HE weapons, even their tanks were equipped solely with AT ammunition!*

I did say it was not exactly relevant in the preamble to the post. However, your original posts suggested that tanks carried HE rounds in every case. Clearly, in this clip, they are not, rendering them incapable of destroying buildings, because of the ammunition they are carrying. The messages posted in the vid also say that this is a general case in the American army today. Which proves, that for the US army at least, Tanks cannot destroy buildings with a single round.

However, I relaize this is because of the poor choices in ammunition more than anything, hence the disclaimer at the beginning of my post. Something you evidently did not read....again.

*Moving on, I know 350,000 to 400,000 Soviet soldiers lost their lives in the battle for Berlin because of the dug in German defenders, but what the heck does that have to do with what we're discussing here ????! The Germans defending Berlin were hiding in cellars, subways bunkers. But despite this most of the Germans who died defending the city did so because of Soviet artillery! *


Where is your evidence for this. Your mate Kruska doesnt seem to agree with you, on most of what you say. Most people reading this will therfore understand when I reply by saying you are just full of crap and dont know what you are talking about, because you havent provided a single pece of supporting evidence to support you tirade

*Moving on our discussion about Handgrenades, I will repeat what I have always said AGAIN*:

And again, you have not provided the smallest shred of evidence to support your claims. Which means we should not believe you

_*Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold!* 

Still no evidence


*The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly*, 

My prpobability analysis uses this as its starting assumption, in fact I have assumed that if you are standing 5m away, you will have a probability of 2 of dying. Mathemtically that is double what probability theory allows, but it is a tool that can sometimes be used to increase odds at one end of probability set, in order to boost probabilities at the other

*and from actual experience....* 


You have got no experience because you refuse to divulge your military experience. No need to go past that point....try supporting your argument by some other means

]

*Where does this say that the effective range is 50m ?? You keep twisting what other people are saying and then you lie about stuff they have never done!*

Check back on your previous posts, you say that they can kill you out to 50 metres (Those things are lethal way past 50m ). I have simply determined the odds of that happening. Its slightly more than 1%

*But just as I suspected you know nothing of what you're talking about Parsifal, which is the reason you keep dodging the main issue alltogether and resort to simplistic math lies to support your crumbling case*. 


I dont think my case is crumbling at all. i am very happy with the way its progressing. And at least i have a case, instead of a series of posts filled with utter cabal, as well as references to service which you refuse to divulge the details on

*What ?! Where did I ever say that ?? Again you're lying about others Parsifal*!

You gave a detailed account of the effects of shellfire on a building. If you are not an engineer, on what basis are you making that assessment??? On your unmentioneable military experience??? Which I think is non-existent anyway. So either you are an engineer, you are lying, or you have made statements that you are not qualified to make. so which is it. Should we disregard your statements about shellfire effects on buildings. i think so, given that you now appear to be denying any structuaral engineering qualifications.

*Infact the only seeming to claim to be an expert in all things here is you Parsifal, which is quite apparent since most of what you say is bullsh*t!*

So, I take it that is you case in support of your position. No evidence, just insults saying that I am full of B*llsh*t. Thjats a really convincing and incisive argument soren, and really shows that you know what you are talking about

*Ha! The only one who hasn't brought forth a shred of supporting evidence is YOU Parsifal. Unless you regard your laughable math as evidence of any sort *?

So, produce a formula to disprove it, or if you are not mathemenatically inclined, produce historical or tabular, evidence to challenge it. So far you have done nothing but throw a childish tantrum 


*Anyway I'm done with argueing this sh*t with you Parsifal, I'm tired of all you're lies and claims..*


No, I just think you are tired of getting your a*rse kicked. I'll still be here waiting to give you more of the same when you come snivelling back_


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

*i got a roasting for less than this nastyness,now come along.please be civil to eachother*


Yep, and its likley that when the mods see this we will be in trouble too. Still, I dont back away from my position. Soren is a bully and does this all the time. 

Sometimes you have to make a stand for what is right. I am tired of Soren abusing people just because they hold a different viewpoint to him. If I am going to get in trouble for that, then so be it.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Let's get my background straight:

I'm an educated mechanical engineer (Not a structural engineer), I served 20+ years in the military, 18 of which was with SOF's. If you want to go even further back I started inside the military when I was 17, and got payed by the military during education within the university.

And the reason I can make a somewhat accurate assumption on what will happen to a building struct by a 75mm HE shell is because I've actually seen what happens when a building is hit by comparable ordnance. 

So Parsifal, let me ask you, what experience do you have ? Besides letting out lies talking crap..


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Parsifal said:


> Where is your evidence for this. Your mate Kruska doesnt seem to agree with you, on most of what you say



Wrong again Parsifal. Kruska and I, the only two in this argument with actual military experience (Perhaps besides from Juha), have agreed from the very beginning. 

The number of Soviet dead during the battle for Berlin is the only place where we might disagree abit, that's it. 

It is YOU Parsifal who keeps disagreeing with what Kruska I are saying, but instead of just saying you disagree with us you resort to lies about stuff you know absolutely nothing about! And that is where you are caught with your pants down!


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2008)

> Gentlemen there is too much, of turning around others words and deliberate misinterpretation on this thread which makes this debate meaningless if it continues in this manner.



That may be the only absolute truthful post any body has posted in this thread.

My 2 cents.

There are just too many variables involved when dealing with this issue. Nothing is exactly balck and white.

A single 2-story farmhouse out in the open will *generally *be destroyed with a single shot from a 75mm or less tank gun with the proper shell, etc. But there *may *be one or two times that it won't.

Buildings within heavy urban areas generally will not be destroyed with one shot although *some *will undoubtly.

And if you go back over this thread all 3 of you guys are arguing the same thing - infantry *will *take cover in rubble after a building has collapsed.

But that being said, and I have no military experience whatsoever, I have heard from friends who have served - such as my brother - that in *general *you do not seek cover in buildings when artillery or tanks are around. Did not specify whether that was a single building or in a city or town.

As far as Tank guns vs infantry - IIRC the Elephant was pulled from service for a bit after Kursk because of no anti-personnel weapons on it.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Njaco,

What your brother has told you is absolutely right.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

*Let's get my background straight:

I'm an educated mechanical engineer (Not a structural engineer), I served 20+ years in the military, 18 of which was with SOF's. If you want to go even further back I started inside the military when I was 17, and got payed by the military during education within the university.

And the reason I can make a somewhat accurate assumption on what will happen to a building struct by a 75mm HE shell is because I've actually seen what happens when a building is hit by comparable ordnance. 

So Parsifal, let me ask you, what experience do you have ? Besides letting out lies talking crap*[/B]

You have not given specific details of your experience. you are still hedging around the critical issue of your experience



I am an ex RAN officer, having reached the rank of lieutenant serving 1976 to 1983. Saw some frontline work on border security, and am a trained staff officer. This required that I complete degree level in strategic studies, which covered a wide range of subjects, and included practical training for battle situations in the air, on land, and at sea. I have completed advanced small arms course, which included training in the use and safety of grenades, and have had occasion to use small arms on active service situations, apprehending and searching illegal fishermaen, drug smugglers, and illegal immigrants. I was the top scorer in my small arms course. I was also the Navy boxing champion, described by others as being irrationally tenacious and basically unstoppable, once my blood was up. If i get angry my opponent is safe. if I get cold and unemotuional, like I am now, nothing will stop me. 


All my life I have had an intense dislike of bullies and standover merchants. make of that what you will. I wil always stand up against thugs like that 

Prior to being deployed on this duty, I engaged in further training with the Australian SAS (I am not SAS, but they taught me how to shoot better, and to handle confict situations better), and also with the Australian Federal Police. Each of these segements of my training lasted about six weeks. I have been shot at on a number of occasions. I was deployed to the Arabian Sea during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as a seaman officer, on the carrier . 

I have observed the effects of artillery fire as well, from protected locations that were as close as 300 metres from the target zone. The reason for that was so that I could observe the fire effect of naval weaponary up to 5" calibre. 

I left the navy for medical reasons. After I left the navy, I obtained degrees in Urban Plannig, with major strands in Building structural design design. I also completed major courses of study in envirnmental land management, and environmental/land use law. I have completely turned away from guns because i have no need of them, and dont believe they serve any useful purpose outside the military or the police. I gave up boxing, and now am a long distance cyclist, and runner

I have practiced environmental law and planning since 1990. I am a part time wargame designer, and have several titles that have been published, or which I have contributed towards 

So when you are ready to properly debate the issue, rather than trying to bully people into submission, I am ready anytime to reset the debate. I would suggest to clear the air that you calmly and concisely state your position, similar to what i did some posts back. If not, I am happy to keep going as is,


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

Here are some of the primary references that i have relied on in this debate. It may pay people to have a look at them before making comments

Military History

Hand Grenades

General information of artillery weapons and shells

The role of Armor in Urban Combat

Effects and Weight of Fire

I also referred to the Infantry Training Manual, 1939, which is a publication relating directly to the period, which state:

In Section 91 of the Regs _“ (in defence of villages) "A town or a village should be allotted a complete formation as its garrison. Villages can be seldom destroyed by shellfire, , and give good cover and shelter to the defence, and are difficult to attack”

It also says the following “ On the other hand small or poorly constructed villages and buildings particualrly without cellar accommodation may become shell traps….”_

NJ, we are saying simlar things, but there ar3e important differnces, relating to the defencability of buildings in certain situations. What I want to advance this debate, is for the other side to provide evidence other than namecalling, so that we can move forward. Its taken seven pages of arguing to get to that point, and still we are not there.


----------



## Juha (Jun 26, 2008)

Thanks Soren
I had checked a couple of the newer 88s from the site, but from these there were no info on bursting charge, one should never give up too easily.
But we have Spielberger’s info that the HE shell of Pak 43/3 and /4 has only one kg explosive content. So the only actual 88mm HE tank shell of which we have now relevant info had less HE than those which hit the two building in Helsinki May 1918.
Maybe Germans wanted their tank HEs to produce fewer but bigger shrapnels, that might have good against A/T weapons, not only incapacitating gunners but also weapons.
And why Germans armed their specialist city warfare vehicles, SturmPz III and IV, with 150mm gun-howitzer, if 75mm was enough powerful? Bigger shells mean less shells in AFV. And SturmMörser VI with that awkward 380mm rocket weapon?

Kruska
Quote: “Stalingrad had already been taken by the Wehrmacht to 90% and was not lost due to “open ways” or “supply lines”, it was lost due to Stalingrad being encircled by the Russians.”

IMHO that 10% still held by Soviets was all important. It acted like magnet drawing German mechanized Divisions into costly street fighting and same time at the apex of the front. All but one of the best mechanized German divs were in Stalingrad when the Soviet counterattack came. IMHO Stalingrad functioned almost optimically for Soviets. Germans knew that something was brewing on the flanks of Stalingrad and had made some preparations in case of Soviet counter attack. West of Stalingrad they had one PzCorps (22nd and 1st Romanian PzDs) and South of Stalingrad the only elite-class mechanized div in the area, which wasn’t in Stalingrad, 29th MotD, which had withdrawn from the line and was rested and re-equipped at least almost at its TOE level for a dash toward Baku when the situation at Stalingrad was cleared. But 14th, 16th and 24th PzDs and 60th MotDiv (was also 3rd Mot in Stalingrad?) were engaged into city combat. IIRC PzR of 14.PzD, or what was left of it, was at last moment withdrew from the city as a counter-attack force plus at least part of div’s artillery, but without infantry the force wasn’t as effective as a combined arm force would have been and IIRC the artillery was override by Soviet cavalry. Also IIRC the Combat Engineer Battalion of 22. PzD, like the most other CE Batts in the area was removed from its division and sent into the city. If Germans had succeeded to occupy whole Stalingrad before Soviet counter-attack, I’m sure that their troop disposition would have been much better for responsing the new situation, meaning ability to response effectively to the Soviet counter-attack.

Thanks for the Grozny link. Now Chechen were rather well adapted to warfare and they chose to fight in the city. IIRC the battle of Grozny took some 2 months. It seem that Soviet city warfare doctrine was probably same in late 80s that it had been in early 70s. (Chechens had got a Soviet training and I bet that Finnish Army city warfare regulations were based on Soviet ones because Finns had very limited experience in city warfare but Soviets got plenty during WWII and in 56 at Budapest). What I remember was that one ought to keep at least some men also in upper floors because otherwise it was difficult to know what happens around. Also the habit of shooting from inner rooms was an old trick and was in the regulations. Not that that gives much more protection but it made the detection of the shooter more difficult.

“any historian knows that the Russians loved to totally exaggerate their losses”
Now if the claims was only on Soviet casualties during Berlin fighting, I cannot comment, but if a general claim on Soviet casualty declarations, I beg to differ. In fact IMHO at least most historians know/knew that CCCP definitely tried to play down its casualty figures and only from late 80s onwards more realistic casualty figures has began to surface.

Quote: “unless you provide me with proof and pictures showing buildings and houses immune to artillery and tanks “
IMHO nobody has claimed that buildings were immune to tanks or artillery. IMHO only thing almost immune is bunker dug deep into mountain and even its entrance is vulnerable. Even heaviest concrete bunker is vulnerable, if enemy can lob heavy shells on its roof days on and is able to bring HV heavy gun to direct fire position and is able to keep steady fire on firing slits.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

What details about my experience do you need Parsifal ?

I volenteered into the military when I was seventeen, spent 12 months as a recruit, I decided to come back after my education within the university with the hope of perhaps becoming an officer. However I altered opinion since one of my good friends had went for the special forces, and so I decided to have a go at this myself. I ended up successfully fullfilling all the admission tests and started my carreer within the SOF's which lasted just over 18 years.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

What details about my experience do you need Parsifal ?

I volenteered into the military when I was seventeen, spent 12 months as a recruit, I decided to come back after my education within the university with the hope of perhaps becoming an officer. However I altered opinion since one of my good friends had went for the special forces, and so I decided to have a go at this myself. I ended up successfully fullfilling all the admission tests and started my carreer within the SOF's which lasted just over 18 years

So, are we done calling each other an idiot, and a liar, for now? Will you accept that perhaps I might have somethng mneaningful to bring to the table in terms of knowlege or experience. I am ready to move to some real debate, are we ready to move on to constructive debate, or are you enjhoying and learning from this?


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

I've been open to a real and constructive debate from the beginning Parsifal, but it is hard to have such when I get continiously misquoted by you. 

Kruska I's positions are clear and have been so from the beginning:

1. It is unwise to fortify oneself in a building during an artillery attack or when tanks show up. That is why people are taught not to do this in the military.
2. Although buildings are great cover and defensive platforms in smallarms firefights they make one vulnerable to artillery tank fire. Again the reason people in the military are taught not to seek cover in buildings if tanks are present or if they are under artillery attack.
3. A single 75mm HE shell will most of time be able to bring down an ordinary 2 storey home.
4. (And this was what set the whole argument off) A 75mm HE shell will make a real mess out of anyone within a 10m radius of it detonating. (Safety range is 750m for a 75 76mm HE shell)
5. Handgrenades have a high probability of killing you if you're within 15m of it going off, and are infact dangerous way beyond 50m. Hence why you stand behind concrete protective walls whilst throwing them at targets 25 - 30m away.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 26, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

1). What is a “typical” hand grenade to you?

I was referring to a German HG DM51 with 6000+ steel bearings, which up to 10m is absolutely lethal and highly injury prone to 16m.
Including its fragmentation mantle it is termed as a defensive hand grenade since it will be thrown from a stationary position at attackers. 

Upon removing the fragmentation mantle it becomes an offensive grenade which now only relies on its detonation pressure with a lethal range of maximum 5m and as such is thrown whilst the soldier is running/moving towards enemy positions or groupings. 

Meaning if an attacking “running” soldier would throw a defensive grenade he is most likely to get himself killed or injured due to his closing in towards the detonation point.

Due to an effective fragmentation effect of a defensive grenade of up to 50m, it is therefore a “RULE” to throw and duck behind protective walls till after detonation. 

The effect of even a defensive grenade at beyond 50m is only a discussion topic during peacetime mainly in regards to avoid probable injuries for national drafts servicemen and as such to avoid newspaper headlines. The 230m is totally not in regards to the range of fragmentation material (far too light – especially the US versions using cut wire particles) it is in reference to structural parts of the grenade, such as lever, igniter or mantle parts.

But again it depends on what kind of grenades you are talking about. The Danish Army Patruljekompagniet LRRP/SSR (To me the world #1 LRRP unit for Nordic warfare) is partially still using the M36 also called Mills Bomb and rebuilds of it, due to the restriction on blast impact in Nordic environment:

Howstuffworks Please scroll down to bottom 


2). As I mentioned before, the probability of a single 75mm round destroying a house during the WWII period cannot be out ruled, chances however are very low in central Europe, in Russia or eastern countries due to most house structures being mostly of wood, the chances are very high. If a 20mm HEI hits a 2 storey house let’s say in Germany nowadays, and you wouldn’t call the fire department, the chances of this house burning down and eventually even causing a collapse would be more than 80%. As for your second part in regards to houses still standing or intact, doesn’t prove that the soldiers inside wouldn’t be dead. 

3 and 4). All the three cities that you have cited have been taken by the attackers. That they are significant points of resistance has never been denied by me. Especially in fortified or bunker positions. But this discussion was about “normal” buildings, and as such they do not provide any adequate protection against the previously mentioned combination of weapons. If (as it was the case) the defenders took shelter in cellars in order to survive the bombardment and then to come up in order to shelter in the rubble it will become harder for the attacker, however the attacker now has the chance to eliminate the defenders since they are no more in the cellars.

But before Soren and I brought up the cellar issue you were pointing at the occupation by soldiers in a building as a good position for defending an urban area, which it is not, since the bombardment by the previously mentioned combination of weapons would have killed most of them straight away. And from a cellar you can’t engage the attacker can you?

So except for snipers or defender units in specially prepared buildings, no other soldier will take a protection within normal buildings into account in regards to engage incoming troops –those who did died, more or less instantly. And exactly this is taught by the German Army, how to fortify an existing normal building, how to engage from within a fortified building (never directly at the window) and to get out of the normal or even fortified (sandbaged and heavy furniture) building as soon as AFV’s or artillery is imminent or detected, or after the ambush as been conducted.

BTW, all Bundeswehr combat vehicles carry AT and HEI ammunition, the good part about the German 20mm cannon (and for the new 30mm) in contra to other forces, is its double feeder mechanism, which allows instant switching whilst shooting between AP and HE ammunition. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 26, 2008)

Hello Juha,

Good post. Stalingrad was Hitler’s blunder, too late and not enough units. The 4th Pz. Army was in the south toward the Caucasus, and the 6th Army was more occupied fighting the Russians on their north-western flank then the Russians inside Stalingrad.
As for Grozny, IMO the Russian Army until today simply doesn’t have the $$ to engage in any war scenario even as small as Grozny. They rather relied on their tanks and infantry (which also was rather limited) to solve the problem, which off course without artillery they couldn’t. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Juha (Jun 26, 2008)

Kruska
"Stalingrad was Hitler’s blunder, too late and not enough units. "
Easy to agree, besides he wanted Stalingrad and Baku same time, original OKH's plan was much better and MIGHT have succeed.

"They rather relied on their tanks and infantry (which also was rather limited) to solve the problem, which off course without artillery they couldn’t. "

Maybe initially, but rather quickly the artillery was bought to play its part. And historically, at least from 18th Century, Russian/Soviet artillery had been one of their best arms, time to time the best. Now according to some Russians, problem during 1995-96, or was that during 94-5, was that much of the arty ammo used was from WWII wintage and so not enought powerful against dwelling blocks, in this later war 2002 - , they used newer ammo and even aerosol warheads in their artillery rockets.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

*1. It is unwise to fortify oneself in a building during an artillery attack or when tanks show up. That is why people are taught not to do this in the military.*2.

The British Army Infantry Regulations of the time dont say this is the case ( see my previous quote) in all situations. For completeness, i have copied thenm again ghere for you to look at :

_In Section 91 of the Regs “ (in defence of villages) "A town or a village should be allotted a complete formation as its garrison. Villages can be seldom destroyed by shellfire, , and give good cover and shelter to the defence, and are difficult to attack”

It also says the following “ On the other hand small or poorly constructed villages and buildings particualrly without cellar accommodation may become shell traps_


Also you should look at the post I have attached as one of my sources, concerning the german defences at Ortona. Here is the link again for you to look at if you like. 

Military History 

*Although buildings are great cover and defensive platforms in smallarms firefights they make one vulnerable to artillery tank fire. Again the reason people in the military are taught not to seek cover in buildings if tanks are present or if they are under artillery attack*.

The report relating to the Battle at ortonaa, which set the trend for the allied urban combat concepts, doesnt support that. The relevant extract from the attached report is as follows: 

_In making the initial break-in assault on a selected part of the town, every form of supporting fire, including artillery, was to be employed – to blast the assault troops into the first buildings, to isolate by fire the chosen assault sector from German reinforcement, and to defilade it from German fire.

Thereafter, artillery was felt to be of limited value. Street fighting was a task for close-support weapons, the medium machine guns, mortars, tanks, and anti-tank guns. These weapons were to be integrated in the fire-plan for the initial break-in, but once the infantry had secured their foothold within a building or block of buildings at the edge of the town, they were then needed forward quickly. The anti-tank guns, in particular, had to be brought up at once, and as their towing vehicles were unlikely to be able to get forward due to German fire or mines, they had to be manhandled, at least, for the last 100 yards of their required positioning.11 Once the assault troops were established in the first buildings and their supporting weapons had been brought up to them, the urban battle could begin. From this point, observed a report, the fighting would become a grim infantry battle, with anti-tank guns and mortars assisting as best they could._

The issue of providing armoured support seems to revolve more about the ability to bring the tanks to bear more than the abillity of the shell to bring down buildings. You have repeatedly said that tanks can genenerally destroy buildings with a single hit, I disagree with that, in certain situations. So we are just going to have to leave that, and try and examine how difficult it was to bring the tanks to bear on buildings in an urban environment. The Ortona report suggests that there was considerable difficulty in doing this, with the issue of obstacles, mines, and AT defences from concealed positions all working to make the deployment and use of tanks in this battle quite difficult. 

Returning to the issue of whether the 75mm gun (or smaller) could destroy a building in a single hit (as a general trend), I think you will need to provide some evidence of that to support your case. I believe I have presented some sources that suggest this is not the case, which you can choose to accept or not, but for you to promote your assertions, you now need to support it. if not, we are just going to have to leave it where it is, ie unresolved. 




3. *A single 75mm HE shell will most of time be able to bring down an ordinary 2 storey home.*

See my comments above. In my opinion, it depends on the context, the nature of the construction, and other factorrs. There are a lot of variables in this equation, and i think it makes it very difficult to generalize. The army regs of the british army certainly dont seem to support that notion in my opinion, at least in the urban setting. 


4.* (And this was what set the whole argument off) A 75mm HE shell will make a real mess out of anyone within a 10m radius of it detonating. (Safety range is 750m for a 75 76mm HE shell)*

I never disagreed with that, with a possible exception of if the Infantry is a protected position. Defining what is a "protected" position has been the difficult issue. Safety  blast radius of 750 metres has to be different to effective blast radius. The artillery site suggests that effective blast radius of a 75 mm is about 15-25 metres (very approximately, I didnt bother to check back, but its there) blast radius. I doubt very much that you are trying to say that the effective blast radius is 750m, but if so you had better correct me, we dont want any more squabbles about misunderstood posts. i also note that you say "range", I have assumed you mean "blast radius by this. 

5. *Handgrenades have a high probability of killing you if you're within 15m of it going off, and are infact dangerous way beyond 50m. Hence why you stand behind concrete protective walls whilst throwing them at targets 25 - 30m away.*

Are you saying that the effective range of a hand grenade is 50 metres plus, or are you saying that this is the safety range. The safety range for an M-67 in my opinion is actually 230metre. The effective range for a lethal hit is a lot less than that. So, you need to clarify what you consider to be the effective range, and then try to back that up with some hard evidence. The US TM says the effective range is 5m in order to kill someone and 15 metres in order to maim someone. your previous posts seem to me to suggest that in fact that you think that even at 15 metres, the overwhelmingly likley outcome is a lethal hit. What you need to do to support your contention here is to provide some factual supporting data.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 27, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

As I said earlier there is too much switching of positions in contra to earlier statements or as such twisting of words which makes an ongoing of this discussion meaningless.

You are now bringing in the defense of a town that was prepared for a long defense as such was fortified, booby trapped, emplacements even for 88, tunnels leading from building to building etc. etc.

This was never part of the initial discussion: Soldiers seeking refuge/protection in normal buildings / houses and a 75mm shell killing the occupants and the probability of even causing the 2 storey house to collapse.

In the end the Canadians took the town, so what does this post now prove??? That a 75mm shell can’t kill the soldiers in a house??? That a house did not collapse after a single shot???

This whole account again proves that the Germans did not defend normal buildings by simply placing themselves in normal buildings. They had entrenched positions, fortified emplacements, caused the demolition of buildings to act as barriers and protection and used the cellars and tunnels to move around. And those poor devils that were ordered to remain in the buildings were shot dead until nobody remained to replace them and as such lost out to the Canadians.

What you totally seem to forget is, that the Germans defended from 1943 onwards since they were too weak to attack, and as such it was only a matter of time for them to lose the war, they had lost the initiative of attack, and there wasn’t a single town or city they held till the end of the war because you can’t win a defensive war by allocating your troops in stationary positions such as buildings or a town/city.

Look at the Finns, they managed to survive a defensive war because they dug in on open terrain providing natural suitable cover and not in cities, making Stalin loose enough troops for him to consider an armistice. Tito won his war against the Germans by using terrain as a battleground and not towns or cities, same would apply for the Vietcong or North Vietnamese Army.

The only valid reason to barricade in a city or town acting as a bottleneck towards advancing troops, is to sacrifice men to buy time, in order to prepare a counter attack. But your assumtion that buildings provide a better cover then open ground with dug in positions is totally wrong. Once the enemy manages to force you into defending tows or cities, you already lost the war.

Urban combat techniques in the Bundeswehr are 80% about how to storm houses and not how to use them as defensive positions.

I hereby rest my case. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2008)

In reply to Kruskas Post No 148

1). *What is a “typical” hand grenade to you?*

I think a good representative grenade is the US M-67. I think this might be the most common western grenade in use at the moment. Accorrding to the TM for US grenades, this weapon has an effective "Kill" radius of 5 metres and a "Casualty" radius of 15metres. The question being asked, is whether these numbers are correct or not. Not arguing that if you throw the thing, you should duck, because the effective throwing range for most soldiers is probably not more than 20metres,, which in my opinion would be dangerously close to the effective casualty range of most grenades.

What is being disputed is the effective kill and injury radius of a grenade. If a grenade goes off on normal terrain (ie neither a football field, or a trench, but somewhere in between, ie with trees, slight folds in the terrain, etc, what would be the effective,range of the weapon. At what point does the wepon cease to be a significant threat to enemy troops. Do they need to be 5metres, 30 metres, 50 metres 250 metres, to reduce the liklehood of being killed by the grenade.

I did a probability analysis, that showed that if the probability of being killed by a grenade was 200% at 5metres, then for a person at 50 metres, the threat was reduced to just 1.1%. This was based on the surface area, (for shrapnel effects) and volume (for blast effects). A 200% probability is actually a mathematical error (since you cannot increase a probability of more than 100%), but i did it that way because I beleievcved there were two separat ways that you could be killed by a grenade, either blast effect, or shrapnel effect. I could do the same sort of pronbability analysis of your German grenade, but would need to know its effective Kill radius. 


*Due to an effective fragmentation effect of a defensive grenade of up to 50m, it is therefore a “RULE” to throw and duck behind protective walls till after detonation*. 

The US says that the effective kill range of its M-67 is 5 metres, but it can be dangerous right out to 230 metres. The question is, how fast does the probability of a "kill" decrease, as the range increases. It depends on at what point a "kill" ceases to be guranteed. The US manual says for its grenades, it is guranteed out to 5metres, paast that point it becomes a probability of something less than 100%. The odds of a "kill are actually very good out to about 20 metres, but beyond that the odds of a kill start to drop away, until by the time the range separating the target and the point of detonation reaches 50 metres, the chances of a kill are very low. b

*The effect of even a defensive grenade at beyond 50m is only a discussion topic during peacetime mainly in regards to avoid probable injuries for national drafts servicemen and as such to avoid newspaper headlines. The 230m is totally not in regards to the range of fragmentation material (far too light – especially the US versions using cut wire particles) it is in reference to structural parts of the grenade, such as lever, igniter or mantle parts*.

Still, the safety instruction say that they can cause injury out to 230 metres. When we trained with them, no-one was allowed out of the sqafety trenches or anywhere near the firing range to a distance of about 1 km from memeory. This was purely to avoid any freak accidents. 


*But again it depends on what kind of grenades you are talking about. The Danish Army Patruljekompagniet LRRP/SSR (To me the world #1 LRRP unit for Nordic warfare) is partially still using the M36 also called Mills Bomb and rebuilds of it, due to the restriction on blast impact in Nordic environment*:


The old Mills bomb has an effective rkill range the same as the M-67, but its Casualty range is only 10 metres (which is why I got mixed up in my previous post to you. I suspect it has a smaller effective radius because it has a relatively poor burst pattern. The old pineapple pattern did not breakl up that well, and being heavy, reduced the explosive content of the bomb. 


2). *As I mentioned before, the probability of a single 75mm round destroying a house during the WWII period cannot be out ruled, chances however are very low in central Europe, in Russia or eastern countries due to most house structures being mostly of wood, the chances are very high. If a 20mm HEI hits a 2 storey house let’s say in Germany nowadays, and you wouldn’t call the fire department, the chances of this house burning down and eventually even causing a collapse would be more than 80%. As for your second part in regards to houses still standing or intact, doesn’t prove that the soldiers inside wouldn’t be dead.* 

I think we are saying basically the same thing, but in a different way. The sources I am relying on arent saying that houses are fullproof protection, and right from the start I said that the chances of a building collapse depended on its construction and context. in the battle of Ortona, the germans used mostly all stone block houses, which were very effective at resisting shellfire. They were, in effect, makeshift bunkers. The British army regs of the times also make similar observations. Moreover, from the very beginning of this argument i have tried to make clear that whilst you guys wanted to talk about isolated farm houses, I was talking about a different context, namely buildings, particulalry stone and masonary buildings, in a close urban environment. In that context, there are any number of reasons why hiding inside buildings is better than being outside.

I strongly recommend you read the link I have provided for the battle Of ortona, and then tell me what you think. 

*3 and 4). All the three cities that you have cited have been taken by the attackers. That they are significant points of resistance has never been denied by me. Especially in fortified or bunker positions. But this discussion was about “normal” buildings, and as such they do not provide any adequate protection against the previously mentioned combination of weapons. If (as it was the case) the defenders took shelter in cellars in order to survive the bombardment and then to come up in order to shelter in the rubble it will become harder for the attacker, however the attacker now has the chance to eliminate the defenders since they are no more in the cellars.*

I have to clarify that whilst you and Soren were concentrating on farmhouse buildings, i was not. I was always inferring buildings of substantial construction, in an urban environamt. The reason I weighed into this debate was because it appeared to me that dangerous generalizations were being made about attacks on buildings in all situations, and against all building types and sizes, that was patently not true. In the conte4xt of the urban environment, I still believe that Most buildings provide good protection, becauseat the very least they conceal the enemy Infantry, and protect them from small arms fire. When used in conjenction with a "street denial" strategy (eg, roadblocks, booby traps, minefields etc) the urban assault problem becomes a very difficult one for an attacker. IMO


*But before Soren and I brought up the cellar issue you were pointing at the occupation by soldiers in a building as a good position for defending an urban area, which it is not, since the bombardment by the previously mentioned combination of weapons would have killed most of them straight away. And from a cellar you can’t engage the attacker can you?*
No i didnt say that, and it was not you and soren who brought up the cellar issue. In my original Post (No 31) I said that Buildings provided good defensive positions, AFTER, they had been reduced to Rubble. You misread my post.. I then said that historically the Germans utilizing buildings in Caen were located mostly in the cellars, to which Soren made some comments about. So no, my position was that rubble made the better defense, and that cellars provided good shelter from hevay direct bombardment. 


*So except for snipers or defender units in specially prepared buildings, no other soldier will take a protection within normal buildings into account in regards to engage incoming troops –those who did died, more or less instantly. And exactly this is taught by the German Army, how to fortify an existing normal building, how to engage from within a fortified building (never directly at the window) and to get out of the normal or even fortified (sandbaged and heavy furniture) building as soon as AFV’s or artillery is imminent or detected, or after the ambush as been conducted*.

Suggest you read the article about Ortona. That is NOT what the germans did there.....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2008)

*You are now bringing in the defense of a town that was prepared for a long defense as such was fortified, booby trapped, emplacements even for 88, tunnels leading from building to building etc. etc.*

According to the Ortona Report, the Village was not fortified prior to the battle. It specifically says…..” _Ortona, a town only some 450 metres in width, edged to the east by cliffs overlooking the harbour, and to the west by a deep ravine, was approachable only from the south, and was a potentially strong urban defensive position. Its stone buildings offered formidable strong points. In the older, northern part of the town, the Cathedral Church of San Tommaso stood amid aged buildings of two or three storeys, the lower of which were often just a single large windowless room, overlooking dark and narrow cobbled streets. Many of the structures had deep cellars with underground passages linking several houses. The castle overlooking the port, its walls weakened by earthquakes and railway tunnelling, was not a keystone in the town’s defence.”_

These were precisely the types of buildings I had in mind when I said “it depends on the building construction and its context". I think all of a sudden you realize you have not considered every situation perhaps…..

And further into the article, it states “_A feature of the defence was that the Germans, having no opportunity to construct specific concrete and steel pillbox type fortifications, improvised from what was available on site. The stone buildings of the town, especially in the older quarter, were sturdy enough to provide good protection for the defenders and their equipment. “ _


The report does indicates that the town was well prepared, but cannot be considered fortified. That would have taken weeks or months, and absorbed resources that were simply unavailable to the germans, The field improvements consisted of some elementary booby traps demolitions and mines in the street. In point of fact, the Canadian advance from Moro only left the germans a few days or a week in which to prepare their defences. So it cannot in any sense be considered a fortified position. It was a “prepared position”, but that is not inconsistent in any way with anything I have said previously. It did not attract resources or time that could in any way be seen as additional to those available to the defenders. Special construction engineers were not used, ther were no bunkers or entrenchments to any extent. It was NOT a fortified position. 

*This was never part of the initial discussion: Soldiers seeking refuge/protection in normal buildings / houses and a 75mm shell killing the occupants and the probability of even causing the 2 storey house to collapse.*

My initial posts made it very clear that I was saying ‘it depended on the building type, its construction and its context. This was the sort of context that I had in mind

*In the end the Canadians took the town, so what does this post now prove??? That a 75mm shell can’t kill the soldiers in a house??? That a house did not collapse after a single shot*???

If the article is accurate, then I think it proves that defending in some building types is a good defensive move, whether or not that building is demolished. I have never said that it was not always the right thing to do (ie use a building for defence), nor have I said that it was not possible to push a house over with a single 75 mm round. What I did say was that there were a lot of instances that defending in a house was the proper thing to do, but that it would depend on construction and context. I also said that there seemed a lot of instances where 75 mm guns or smaller could not bring down a house, This report is slightly different to my position in that it says that artillery was not that useful after the initial point of break in, and that it was difficult to bring armour to bear in the interior of towns like this, and that in part this was due to the collapsed rubble in the street. This was something I had pointed out to you some time ago, but you told me i didn’t know what I was talking about basically

*This whole account again proves that the Germans did not defend normal buildings by simply placing themselves in normal buildings. They had entrenched positions, fortified emplacements, caused the demolition of buildings to act as barriers and protection and used the cellars and tunnels to move around. And those poor devils that were ordered to remain in the buildings were shot dead until nobody remained to replace them and as such lost out to the Canadians*.

They did not have the time, in any sense of the word, to entrench or fortify this position. The few days grace that they had before the Canadians hit them, allowed them to provide normal improvement to the position, but not to entrench or fortify. To entrench or fortify a position takes weeks, or even months or preparation, and would evidence bunkers, trenches, barbed wire, tank traps and the like. 

*What you totally seem to forget is, that the Germans defended from 1943 onwards since they were too weak to attack, and as such it was only a matter of time for them to lose the war, they had lost the initiative of attack, and there wasn’t a single town or city they held till the end of the war because you can’t win a defensive war by allocating your troops in stationary positions such as buildings or a town/city.*

The germans defending in cities did not cause or contribute to the german defeat, german weakness caused that. Moreover german weakness forced the germans to seek defensive benefit from cities, in order to stretch their meagre resources as far as they could. I believe the British Army Infantry Regs were correct (previously quoted) when they describe villages with the proper and appropriate buildings as good defensive positions 

*Look at the Finns, they managed to survive a defensive war because they dug in on open terrain providing natural suitable cover and not in cities, making Stalin loose enough troops for him to consider an armistice. Tito won his war against the Germans by using terrain as a battleground and not towns or cities, same would apply for the Vietcong or North Vietnamese Army*.

The Finns used forest as their primary terrain for defence, because forests are also good defensive terrain, and also because that was the dominant terrain in that theatre of operations

*The only valid reason to barricade in a city or town acting as a bottleneck towards advancing troops, is to sacrifice men to buy time, in order to prepare a counter attack. But your assumtion that buildings provide a better cover then open ground with dug in positions is totally wrong. Once the enemy manages to force you into defending tows or cities, you already lost the war.*

I think that barricading in a town is mostly about reducing the pressure on the line, so as to be able to redistribute men elsewhere on the front. This, in itself does not contribute to defeat. It may be a symptom that an army is losing, but it does not cause the defeat. 

Urban combat techniques in the Bundeswehr are 80% about how to storm houses and not how to use them as defensive positions.

Maybe its harder to learn how to attack a town than it is to defend in one?


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2008)

Hello Kruska
” Look at the Finns, they managed to survive a defensive war because they dug in on open terrain providing natural suitable cover and not in cities.”

Mostly true, but the main reason for that was that Finland was an agrarian country and we managed to stop Soviet troops before they got near our town/cities. Exception was Viipuri/Wyborg. in 1940 we fight in it during the last days of the Winter War. Soviets used most of their attacking forces in attempts to try to encircle the city, from NE through wooden, rocky and hilly terrain and from South over frozen over Bay of Viipuri. Winter 39-40 was exceptionally cold and the ice over the bay was strong enough to carry even T-26 light tanks (one 45mm cannon and 1-2mgs). This Southern move surprised Finns totally and developed into very dangerous bridgehead on the western shores of the bay. Very hard fighting took place in Viipuri/Wyborg during the last couple days before the truce. Finns lost the SE part of city but still hold the centre and NW part of it when the truce began. IIRC Finns had then one Inf.Rgt in the city and Soviets used one Inf.Div plus one TankBr against it. The reasons of this fight were mostly political, it was our 2nd largest city.

CORRECTION: During the last couple weeks of the Winter War 2 regiments of Finnish 3rd Div defended Viipuri. In SE the defence line ran some ½ km front of the city, in S some 2 km S of the edge of the city. Attacking force was Soviet 7th Div with some tank support. On the last evening before the truce Finns got permission to give up SE part of the city because situation on both flanks of the city was getting worse. Finns withdrew to their support line of which 2/3 ran on a rock ridge between the city centre and the SE suburbs and only 1/3 through build-up area. One of the Finnish rgts occupied the support line and the other withdrew out of the city. So only true urban fighting in Viipuri was fought in the last morning and forenoon of the war and even that only on 1/3 of city's defence line.


Same in the summer 44, for prestige our C-in-C demanded that the city must be held but the attempt failed miserably, Viipuri was lost in a day, mainly because the artillery of the defending brigade ran out of ammo after a short while and also the brigade, which had just arrived from the north, wasn’t familiar to city warfare.

The little what I remember on urban warfare regulations is: some men ought to be in upper floors, so that the defenders knew what would happen around and not be easily trapped in basement by surprise attack. The buildings used ought to be reinforced by various ways, there ought to be various exit routes, building used should not be at edge of the city, some of the buildings at the edge of the city would probably been demolished to barricade streets. During artillery barrage most of men should be in heavy reinforced cellars.

To my very limited understanding the expectation was that urban fight would be like in Parcifal’s quote: “ the fighting would become a grim infantry battle” added with “VERY grim AND BLOODY.

To understand Finnish Army position one must remember that we were and are a very small nation with 1800 km border with what was a rather unscrupulous military superpower. In 1939 it was 3½ million Finns against 180 million Soviet citizens and in 70s somewhat over 5 million against some 240 million. So the question wasn’t who would win but will Finland survive as an independent state or not. And maybe better way to describe the situation in 70s, would we be able to convince CCCP that Finns were prepared to made so effective stand that the gains possible to achieve by an attack were not worth of the price they would have to pay for it and same time convince CCCP that Finns could keep other foreign troops out of their country so that Finland could not be used as a base for attack against CCCP. So it was clear to all Finns that if a war broke out, Finns would took lot of casualties; no chance for an easy and cheap war for us. And what was also clear was that a positive result for Finns would be very much in doubt. And no Amis would arrive to rescue us.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2008)

Parsifal,

Plz lets's not start to divert from the original issue once more, we've done that enough already. 

What Kruska I have been saying from the start is that a single 75mm HE shell is usually enough to bring down an ordinary two storey home. Now you're suddenly talking about reinforced buildings prepared for defense, which is not what Kruska and I were refering to.

Remember that often you simply don't have time reinforce or prepare defensive positions inside buildings. Most city fighting was defending until the enemy came close and then running from building to building as either you or the enemy advanced. 



> Are you saying that the effective range of a hand grenade is 50 metres plus, or are you saying that this is the safety range. The safety range for an M-67 in my opinion is actually 230metre.



Parsifal the safety range for a frag grenade is 300m, at 230m there are still parts of the handgrenade which can kill or cause you serious injury, although cases of anyone struck at such ranges are extremely rare. 

The effective range of a handgrenade is the range out to which it is most likely to cause injuries, which is 15-20m. However beyond 15-20m it is still extremely dangerous, and even for a million bucks I wouldn't stand tall within 50m of one going off in open terrain.

Now considering that a 75mm HE shell packs roughly the same punch as 15 hangrenades going off at once I was astonished to say the least that Juha could doubt that anyone within 10m of one going off would be a real mess (You agree with this however) considering his claim that he had been a combat engineer. I found that very strange. Now upon further inquiry he let us know he was but a draftee and was mostly ducking in foxholes whilst they went off, which would explain his comments. You don't become an expert by witnessing 2 or 3 controlled detonations whilst ducking in a foxhole.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2008)

*Plz lets's not start to divert from the original issue once more, we've done that enough already. 

What Kruska I have been saying from the start is that a single 75mm HE shell is usually enough to bring down an ordinary two storey home. Now you're suddenly talking about reinforced buildings prepared for defense, which is not what Kruska and I were referring to*.

I am not trying to divert from the original issue. And the original issue for me was that the inference was that in nearly every case it could be said that a building be brought down by a single round. I was specifically thinking about urban warfare cases, such as at ortona. I tried to make that very clear from an early point. I tend to agree with you guys, an individual, stand alone farmhouse out in the middle of nowhere is not good cover, because far from concealing your Infantry, it is exposing them. 

My whole argument is mostly about groups of buildings....that is cities and large villages. Kruska has hinted (but then at times not hinted) that cities are not good defensive positions. I'm not sure about your position on this. However my position is this.....cities are very defensively advantageous positions. Taking a city is a tough assignment, for any army, but even more-so if you are light on on Infantry assets, and top heavy with armour. . Thats what I have been saying from the start, I am not sure that you are arguing that they arent, but Kruska seems to be saying that they (cities) are a defensive liability, which is something I hotly dispute.

Now, the ortona defence was NOT buildings that had been reinforced. It was a hasty defence....there had been some preparation, but nothing too major, some limited demolitions, to prevent easy access by tanks into the interior of the village, some booby trapping, and some placement of mines. This i would consider to be standard procedure when hastily preparing a city for defence. 

But Ortona was NOT fortified, and the buildings not especially prepared, except some rudimentary connection of buildings (which may have been done already by the residents themselves...the report is unclear). There may or may not have been some sandbagging of buildings, but this appears very unlikely, given the time the Germans had to get into the city and prepare their defence. It was something typical of a standard defence, the types of preparations certainly anticipated and recommended in the British Infantry Regs (ie, if the defenders had been British, that is certainly the way they would have prepared the village). Moreover the Ortona battle demonstrated that after the initial break in the role of artillery was limited.

So I disagree that this example is not relevant. And i also disagree that this is a deviation of the debate, at least for me. From the very start i have been arguing context and construction....this argument about individual buildings has not been a point I have ever argued against....From the very beginning of my involvement in this discussion, I have said repeatedly, whether hiding in a building is the correct thing to do depends on its construction, and its context. Put another way, I mean whether there are a lot of buildings, and how well constructed they are,, and whether they have cellars, narrow streets, etc etc....


*Remember that often you simply don't have time reinforce or prepare defensive positions inside buildings. Most city fighting was defending until the enemy came close and then running from building to building as either you or the enemy advanced.* 

I agree, but there is more to city defences than that, as the description of Ortona makes clear. generally, falling back onto a city you may have a few days or a week of preparation, and depending on th resources you have, it can be expected that the Ortona style preparations will be more or less typical in that scenario. 

*Parsifal the safety range for a frag grenade is 300m, at 230m there are still parts of the hand grenade which can kill or cause you serious injury, although cases of anyone struck at such ranges are extremely rare*. 

Well, the US regs say it was 230metres, in Australia you weren't allowed out of the safety bunker until the all clear had been given otherwise it was about 1 km to the range perimeter. But that is not the point. I am wanting to determine what is the effective range of a grenade. 

*The effective range of a hand grenade is the range out to which it is most likely to cause injuries, which is 15-20m. However beyond 15-20m it is still extremely dangerous, and even for a million bucks I wouldn't stand tall within 50m of one going off in open terrain.*

The effective range at which you are 100% likely to cause injury is 15metres, according to the US TM. At 15 metres the probability of an assured kill is less than 100%, because the lethal range is listed as 5metres. Lethal range and casualty range are two different things. I have been calculating the probability of a kill at a certain range. If the probability of a kill is 200% at 5 metres, then at 50 metres the probability of a kill is 1%. Now, the probability of an injury i have never worked out. As a mechanical engineer you could work that out better than me. 

*Now considering that a 75mm HE shell packs roughly the same punch as 15 hangrenades going off at once I was astonished to say the least that Juha could doubt that anyone within 10m of one going off would be a real mess (You agree with this however)* 

I agree, but that is for exposed Infantry. if the infantry is entrenched or in some sort of proper protective cover, it will be different. An extreme example. If the Infantry is in a bunker, even a direct hit wont usually hurt them. I have not read Juhas earlier posts, but I suspect he was referring to infantry in cover when he said that .

One thing that does need to be made, however. In WWII, I have read it was rare for artillery to use shrapnel rounds. This was because shrapnel rounds were really only effective on exposed infantry. If shrapnel is not being used there is still flying debris, but not nearly so many, so the round is relying mostly on blast radius instead of shrapnel effect, for its lethality. Blast effect radii are generally much smaller than shrapnel effect, so even though the artillery round is many time the size of the grenade, it does not follow that its lethal radius is comparable on a linear basis. 

In fact, the decrease in lethality as range as increased (comparing blast raddi of grenades and artillery rounds) is a 1/d3 relationship (if you assume a perfectly spherical burst pattern, which is not entirely true either) 


*considering his claim that he had been a combat engineer. I found that very strange. Now upon further inquiry he let us know he was but a draftee and was mostly ducking in foxholes whilst they went off, which would explain his comments. You don't become an expert by witnessing 2 or 3 controlled detonations whilst ducking in a foxhole*.

Doesn't help the debate in any way, so I make no comment on this part


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2008)

> Well, the US regs say it was 230metres



No it doesn't Parsifal, it says that fragments can fly as far as 230m away, hence the 300m safety range. At 230m there are still a few pieces of a grenade that can cause serious eínjury or even kill you, but chances of getting hit by one is 1 out of a million, and then tge chances of it killing you are probably just as high.



> The effective range at which you are 100% likely to cause injury is 15metres, according to the US TM.



Not quite. The effective casualty range is the range which you are nearly 100% likely to cause *serious injury*, i.e. enough to put an individual out of the fight. 



> At 15 metres the probability of an assured kill is less than 100%,because the lethal range is listed as 5metres.



Agreed. (Again it's called the killing radius  )



> Lethal range and casualty range are two different things.



Very true, but rest assured that at 15m one is highly likely going to die as-well, maybe not instantly (Eventhough there's a high chance of that happening as-well) but not much after because of all the wounds one has suffered.



> I have been calculating the probability of a kill at a certain range. If the probability of a kill is 200% at 5 metres, then at 50 metres the probability of a kill is 1%. Now, the probability of an injury i have never worked out. As a mechanical engineer you could work that out better than me.



Parsifal remember that at 5m the blast effect is strong enough to kill you alone, while at 50m shrapnel is the killer.


----------



## Juha (Jun 28, 2008)

Soren
Quote:"at 5m the blast effect is strong enough to kill you alone"

Source, please. Now Schu-mine or whatever, polkumiina in Finnish, anyway small wooden box anti-personel mine widely used by Soviets, Germans and Finns had some 80-120g TNT filling and exploded when one stepped on it and it did seldom killed the victim, and then by blood loss from damaged foot and possible from lower body also, the later wounds depending earth material blown up by the blast. Nearby other soldiers were not in danger from the blast effect alone. Of course depended the amount of explosive in handgranade but if defensive, IMHO WWII some 70-80g, offensive ?, maybe double of that, ie some 150-170g. Of course better blast effect if explodes in trench than in open. Meaning that if the target is also in the same trench.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2008)

*Parsifal remember that at 5m the blast effect is strong enough to kill you alone, while at 50m shrapnel is the killer*.

Thats why the probability model says 200%. There is a 100% (ie prob = 1)chance that the shrapnel will kill you, and also a 100% probability that the burst effect effect will kill you. Total probability = 200%, or prob = 2. 

Even with those assumptions, the probability of a kill at 50 metres is down to 1.1%. If you want the breakdown, its just over 1% due to fragments, and just under 0.1% due to blast. Total probability of a kill at 50 metres is 0.011 

The assumptions here are as follows. 
Prob of a Kill = 2 @ 5 metres
Burst and shrapnel effect are both perfectly spherical and symmetrical (I know this is not true, but for the purposes of this excercise it doesnt matter)
Blast effect is a function of volume, whilst shrapnel effect is a function of surface area. As a mechanical engineer you should know that, and why, but if not, I can explain it more if you need explanation

The results are able to be predicted with absolute mathematical certainty. No guesswork at all is needed. Provided the starting assumptions are correct.

We caqn do exactly the same for prob (casualty) if you want.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2008)

Juha said:


> Source, please.



What do you think Juha ?? I've seen it buddy!


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2008)

Parsifal,

The thing about these calculations is that they're meaningless in the field. You'd really have to be unbelievably stupid to trust your life to these calculations so much so as to be willing to stand tall without cover 50m away from a frag grenade going off.. cause even if the risk of dying is small, *it's still there*. Now having thrown these things yourself and having recieved lectures on their effects and how to handle them I'm sure you will agree.

Now in combat all the safety rules are ofcourse ignored and you often have to throw handgrenades close enough to yourself that there's a real danger of getting hit by the shrapnel, however the kevlar vest helmet are there to minimize the risks. Also std. procedure is to hit the dirt, again minimizing the chances of getting struck. But still soldiers quite often get struck by the shrapnel from their own handgrenades, however fortunately 90% of the time no injury occurs, and in the 10% where it does occur only 2-3% are serious or fatal, the rest is minor and is often just involves small splinters in the skin.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 30, 2008)

*The thing about these calculations is that they're meaningless in the field. You'd really have to be unbelievably stupid to trust your life to these calculations so much so as to be willing to stand tall without cover 50m away from a frag grenade going off.*. 

The aim of the probability analysis is to establish the effective range of the grenade. At 50 metres, the grenade still has a danger effect, but it cannot be considered effective, by any stretch of the imagination. This statement comes from both my own experience with them, and from looking at the probability claculations. You have not undertaken any further analysis I note, why is that? 

No one ever said that someone should be standing when one of these things goes off, I dont think I ever mentioned anything about that 


*cause even if the risk of dying is small, it's still there. Now having thrown these things yourself and having recieved lectures on their effects and how to handle them I'm sure you will agree*.

Peacetime safety is not the same as effective range. Exactly at what point you want to determine what is effective is a matter for debate, but at 50 metres, you would, on average, need to throw 50 such grenades to statistically achive a kill against a human target. If ther were 50 targets in the 50 metre radius you would statistically kill one of them, on average

There really is no other way of outting it, once the probability analysis is done. If you want to challenge that, fine, but you need to show how you arrived at that conclusion, prefereably by mathematical analysis

*Now in combat all the safety rules are ofcourse ignored and you often have to throw handgrenades close enough to yourself that there's a real danger of getting hit by the shrapnel, however the kevlar vest helmet are there to minimize the risks. Also std. procedure is to hit the dirt, again minimizing the chances of getting struck. But still soldiers quite often get struck by the shrapnel from their own handgrenades, however fortunately 90% of the time no injury occurs, and in the 10% where it does occur only 2-3% are serious or fatal, the rest is minor and is often just involves small splinters in the skin*.


You are saying the same thing as the probability analysis, but ina non-mathemetical way, which is unable to be measured. By undertaking a proabability assessment, you can predict with mathematical certaintywhat the chances of being killed are, with absolute precision. 

Of course I have see it argued that probaility maths is just another name for knowing the precise outcome. True enough. You cant know the blast pattern of the grenade, the precise nature of the terrain, the position of the target (upright/prone???), so from that perspective the probabilty curve is not completely accurate. However, for the purposes of this assessment, it is far superior to any non-empirical analysis


----------



## Juha (Jul 1, 2008)

Soren
sorry but it’s too easy to claim that has saw something in net discussion. So some independent sources, please. Modern Finnish Army blast hand-grenade had 235g HE filling but it doesn’t have 5m lethal radius in open. It’s other thing if used in confined space.
Look for example 20.7.44 attentat, 1 kg or 0,9 kg (2 lbs), depending on source, plastic explosives blow up inside a barrack, even if lightly built barrack, almost all blast directed towards 10 men in one end of the table by the heavy table leg, all dead were IIRC nearer than 5m of the bomb, even some of the survivors on that end of the table, and the blast that hit them was almost same than a blast from 2 kg plastic explosives in open.

Juha


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Moving on, I know 350,000 to 400,000 Soviet soldiers lost their lives in the battle for Berlin because of the dug in German defenders, but what the heck does that have to do with what we're discussing here ????!


81,116 for the entire operation since 16. April and 22462 for the battle in the city itself.



> But despite this most of the Germans who died defending the city did so because of Soviet artillery!


the most casulties Germans took were inflicted by the team work of storm groups and tanks, _and_ artillery as well, while firing a direct fire over open sights.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> 81,116 for the entire operation since 16. April and 22462 for the battle in the city itself.



The numbers varies a lot, but the generally accepted figure is ~350,000 Soviet soldiers died fighting in the city.




> the most casulties Germans took were inflicted by the team work of storm groups and tanks, _and_ artillery as well, while firing a direct fire over open sights.



No, the artillery barrage by far caused the bulk of the German casualties, but despite this the Soviet storm teams were having a real tough time against the remaining defenders.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> sorry but it’s too easy to claim that has saw something in net discussion. So some independent sources, please. Modern Finnish Army blast hand-grenade had 235g HE filling but it doesn’t have 5m lethal radius in open. It’s other thing if used in confined space.
> Look for example 20.7.44 attentat, 1 kg or 0,9 kg (2 lbs), depending on source, plastic explosives blow up inside a barrack, even if lightly built barrack, almost all blast directed towards 10 men in one end of the table by the heavy table leg, all dead were IIRC nearer than 5m of the bomb, even some of the survivors on that end of the table, and the blast that hit them was almost same than a blast from 2 kg plastic explosives in open.
> 
> Juha



Well Juha you have to look no further than at concussion grenades which all have a kill radius of 5m. And I can tell you from actual experience that if you're within 5m of one going off without cover then you're most likely going to be dead. Your body is simply being exposed to such extreme pressure that it litterally will cause a lethal concussion (Hence the name). At 7m you're going to be seriously injured, suffering from brain swelling. 

Take a look at the video I previusly linked, the guy was standing 10m away from a frag grenade when it exploded, standing behind a tree, shielding him again the shrapnel, yet he was knocked out cold by the blast and suffered a minor concussion.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *The thing about these calculations is that they're meaningless in the field. You'd really have to be unbelievably stupid to trust your life to these calculations so much so as to be willing to stand tall without cover 50m away from a frag grenade going off.*.
> 
> The aim of the probability analysis is to establish the effective range of the grenade. At 50 metres, the grenade still has a danger effect, but it cannot be considered effective, by any stretch of the imagination. This statement comes from both my own experience with them, and from looking at the probability claculations. You have not undertaken any further analysis I note, why is that?
> 
> ...



Parsifal,

The reason for the small injury rate in the field is in great part because of the kevlar vest helmet, without these there would be a far higher percentage of injuries. I for one would've had a lot of scars from shrapnel if I hadn't almost always worn a vest helmet. 

It's quite a sobering experience when you see a ½ inch fragment lodged in your helmet...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> The numbers varies a lot, but the generally accepted figure is ~350,000 Soviet soldiers died fighting in the city.


  where do you get those numbers from Soren? generally accepted by whom? Krivosheev's book, which is by far the best research available by now, puts the number of OVERALL, not only casulaties during the WHOLE operation (that means not only in the city itself) at 361,367 and among this number 81,116 of irrecoverable losses. Further, according to that source, Russians lost about 22000 KIA in the city itself.



> No, the artillery barrage by far caused the bulk of the German casualties,


please provide any source for that statement
The massive artillery barrage was rather uneffective against concrete buildings and bunkers in Koenigsberg, so it was in Berlin. The main work was done by pioneers ,infantry and tanks combined into support groups.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

Krivosheev is biased as heck Ramirezz and his numbers are ridiculously low for the Soviet and ridiculously high for the Germans.

Actual German casualties numbered around 150,000, while Soviet casualties were above 350,000.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 1, 2008)

The casualty figures of 35000 might r34fer to the casualties suffered in the final overall campaigns, which took into account other hard fought actions other than the actual battle for the city itsdelf. Kruska was saying something about 80000 soviet casualties as well. Perhaps the frames of reference are just not synchronized here.

Rammirrezz, do you have figures for Soviet losses for the final campaigns overall, starting from say the beginning of the Oder Neisse battle?


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

According to my sources 350,000 Soviet casualties were inflicted during the battle for Berlin, while the Germans suffered some 150 - 175,000 casualties, but this is not counting the civilians dead, taking that into account some 450,000 Germans died in the city.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Krivosheev is biased as heck Ramirezz and his numbers are ridiculously low for the Soviet and ridiculously high for the Germans.


Like it or not, the Krivosheev numbers regardings the late stage of war are actually accepted as the most accurate ones so far, because there was practically no much room for errors either - there were no civilians drafted and left unaccounted like it was in the Ukraine in 1944, there were no partisan
activities which could not been taken into account, and the soviet draft and casulaties calculation (I obviously forgot the right designation  ) system functioned pretty well at that time. 


> Actual German casualties numbered around 150,000, while Soviet casualties were above 350,000.


[/QUOTE]


> According to my sources 350,000 Soviet casualties were inflicted during the battle for Berlin, while the Germans suffered some 150 - 175,000 casualties, but this is not counting the civilians dead, taking that into account some 450,000 Germans died in the city.


I do believe the Soren's sources talk about the soviet general casulties, not only about the KIAs. Please recheck it.  
Heck Soren this is ridiculous! You don't have ANY reliable sources regarding the Soviet losses during the Battle in Berlin but the russian ones! The Germans couldn't count their own losses at this stage, how could they manage to calculate them on the opposite side? Even this number of German casulaties you provided is highly unreliable because of that! And before the fall of the Soviet Unieon the postwar researchers in the West could actually only speculate about the losses on both sides.



> Rammirrezz, do you have figures for Soviet losses for the final campaigns overall, starting from say the beginning of the Oder Neisse battle?


 Parcifal I have the numbers for each operation , here are the numbers for the Berlin Operation:
16 april - 8 may 1945

Unit irrecoverable overall
2nd Belorussian Front - 13070 59110 
1st Belorussian Front - 37610 179490 
1st Ukrainan Front, 3rd, 5th,13 and 52nd army,
3rd and 4th Guards Tank Army, 2nd Air Army - 27580 113825 
Dniepr Flotilla - 16 27
Baltic Fleet - 15 23

Overall: Irrecoverable: 78291 General: 352475 

so, as you see, the numbers which were provided by Soren are quite similar to the number of the general Soviet losses for the entire operation.
With Polish losses you'll come to the number of 361,367

Oder-Neisse Operation:
irrecoverable: 43251 general: 193125


----------



## parsifal (Jul 2, 2008)

perhaps then, it is simply a case of quoting the wrong numbers...perhaps the 350000 number is the number lost on the eastern front from the begining of April. I would be prepared to accept that explanation.


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2008)

Soren
Now Finnish Army blast/offensive hand-grenade didn’t have a kill radius of 5 m. And I looked the police vs handgrenate YouTube clip You have posted. To me it seems that the reporter’s estimate on distance (only steps away) was nearer to truth than Yours 7-10m. And the police didn’t have time to hide properly behind the tree. And the grenade was a blast type. So to me the clip reinforce my opinion that blast grenades generally doesn’t have 5m killing radius in open.


----------



## Soren (Jul 3, 2008)

Believe what you want Juha, I'm tired of discussing this with you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> The numbers varies a lot, but the generally accepted figure is ~350,000 Soviet soldiers died fighting in the city.



According to the OKW diaries I have in front of me at the moment casualties were aprox.

Soviet - 100,000 (only an aprox number that is actually added into it after the fact)

German - 453,000 (only an aprox as well.)


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> According to the OKW diaries I have in front of me at the moment casualties were aprox.
> 
> Soviet - 100,000 (only an aprox number that is actually added into it after the fact)
> 
> German - 453,000 (only an aprox as well.)




for which period?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2008)

April 15th to May 1st.

Dates are a little bit off, but who knows what they considered the dates for the battle.


----------



## Soren (Jul 4, 2008)

How did the OKW manage to assemble such data at that point ? Esp. regarding Soviet dead ?


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> How did the OKW manage to assemble such data at that point ? Esp. regarding Soviet dead ?



I'm wondering too. As well known, at that stage german casulaties calculation system practically ceased to exist


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> How did the OKW manage to assemble such data at that point ? Esp. regarding Soviet dead ?



Go back and actually read my post Soren. I said that it said it was an approximation put in after the fact.

Due to the fact that the OKW diaries are a legit source though, I would think that the approximations are pretty accurate as well.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 4, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Go back and actually read my post Soren. I said that it said it was an approximation put in after the fact.
> 
> Due to the fact that the OKW diaries are a legit source though, I would think that the approximations are pretty accurate as well.




that depends on which losses you're talkin' about - the german or the soviet ones 

or shall we say +/-20000 KIAs is a pretty accurate quote  (the difference between the OKW approximations and the actual listed losses of the Soviets)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> that depends on which losses you're talkin' about - the german or the soviet ones
> 
> or shall we say +/-20000 KIAs is a pretty accurate quote  (the difference between the OKW approximations and the actual listed losses of the Soviets)



To be honest I do not think we will ever have an accurate count. 

The Germans simply were not in a position to count (bodies are still being found in the outskirts of Berlin today, there was an interesting documentary on German TV about it the other night).

The Russians on the other hand I dont think cared to get an accurate account of their dead.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 4, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To be honest I do not think we will ever have an accurate count.
> 
> The Germans simply were not in a position to count (bodies are still being found in the outskirts of Berlin today, there was an interesting documentary on German TV about it the other night).


absolutely. because of that we still don't have a historically accepted figure of the German casulaties in 1945. 



> The Russians on the other hand I dont think cared to get an accurate account of their dead.



As I've already said, that depends. Russians had as good as no losses accounting system in 1941 and partially in 1942 because of same reasons as Germans in 1945, in the following years it was much better , although we have still no realible figures for the partisan losses and for those who were drafted practically unaccounted at the liberated territories in Ukraine in 1944. That's actually the points why the Krivosheev book, otherwise the greatest research available by now, is critisised. The listed losses in Poland and in other european countries including Germany are actually pretty reliable figures.


----------

