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.....