Tank armament effectiveness vs infantry
- Thread starter Zeus
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
parsifal
Colonel
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
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
Colonel
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
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
Colonel
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?????
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?????
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
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
Colonel
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
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
Colonel
Some further video footage to look at . Not exactly relevant.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmliSaufRbs
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmliSaufRbs
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
Juha
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
Colonel
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
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
Airman 1st Class
hey parsifal,they have absolutely no sense of humour.yours,starling.
.
.
parsifal
Colonel
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.
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.
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!
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..
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.
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
Airman 1st Class
i got a roasting for less than this nastyness,now come along.please be civil to eachother.
parsifal
Colonel
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
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
Colonel
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.
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.
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..
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..
Parsifal said:
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
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
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.
