Tank armament effectiveness vs infantry

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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
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.
 
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


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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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

Exactly right Kruska.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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 :rolleyes:

What a circus :rolleyes:

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 :rolleyes:
 
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


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.
 
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.
 
Hello renrich,

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

Regards
Kruska
 
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.
 
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
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back