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,
The thing about these calculations is that they're meaningless in the field. You'd really have to be unbelievably stupid to trust your life to these calculations so much so as to be willing to stand tall without cover 50m away from a frag grenade going off.. cause even if the risk of dying is small, it's still there. Now having thrown these things yourself and having recieved lectures on their effects and how to handle them I'm sure you will agree.
Now in combat all the safety rules are ofcourse ignored and you often have to throw handgrenades close enough to yourself that there's a real danger of getting hit by the shrapnel, however the kevlar vest helmet are there to minimize the risks. Also std. procedure is to hit the dirt, again minimizing the chances of getting struck. But still soldiers quite often get struck by the shrapnel from their own handgrenades, however fortunately 90% of the time no injury occurs, and in the 10% where it does occur only 2-3% are serious or fatal, the rest is minor and is often just involves small splinters in the skin.
The thing about these calculations is that they're meaningless in the field. You'd really have to be unbelievably stupid to trust your life to these calculations so much so as to be willing to stand tall without cover 50m away from a frag grenade going off.. cause even if the risk of dying is small, it's still there. Now having thrown these things yourself and having recieved lectures on their effects and how to handle them I'm sure you will agree.
Now in combat all the safety rules are ofcourse ignored and you often have to throw handgrenades close enough to yourself that there's a real danger of getting hit by the shrapnel, however the kevlar vest helmet are there to minimize the risks. Also std. procedure is to hit the dirt, again minimizing the chances of getting struck. But still soldiers quite often get struck by the shrapnel from their own handgrenades, however fortunately 90% of the time no injury occurs, and in the 10% where it does occur only 2-3% are serious or fatal, the rest is minor and is often just involves small splinters in the skin.
parsifal
Colonel
The thing about these calculations is that they're meaningless in the field. You'd really have to be unbelievably stupid to trust your life to these calculations so much so as to be willing to stand tall without cover 50m away from a frag grenade going off..
The aim of the probability analysis is to establish the effective range of the grenade. At 50 metres, the grenade still has a danger effect, but it cannot be considered effective, by any stretch of the imagination. This statement comes from both my own experience with them, and from looking at the probability claculations. You have not undertaken any further analysis I note, why is that?
No one ever said that someone should be standing when one of these things goes off, I dont think I ever mentioned anything about that
cause even if the risk of dying is small, it's still there. Now having thrown these things yourself and having recieved lectures on their effects and how to handle them I'm sure you will agree.
Peacetime safety is not the same as effective range. Exactly at what point you want to determine what is effective is a matter for debate, but at 50 metres, you would, on average, need to throw 50 such grenades to statistically achive a kill against a human target. If ther were 50 targets in the 50 metre radius you would statistically kill one of them, on average
There really is no other way of outting it, once the probability analysis is done. If you want to challenge that, fine, but you need to show how you arrived at that conclusion, prefereably by mathematical analysis
Now in combat all the safety rules are ofcourse ignored and you often have to throw handgrenades close enough to yourself that there's a real danger of getting hit by the shrapnel, however the kevlar vest helmet are there to minimize the risks. Also std. procedure is to hit the dirt, again minimizing the chances of getting struck. But still soldiers quite often get struck by the shrapnel from their own handgrenades, however fortunately 90% of the time no injury occurs, and in the 10% where it does occur only 2-3% are serious or fatal, the rest is minor and is often just involves small splinters in the skin.
You are saying the same thing as the probability analysis, but ina non-mathemetical way, which is unable to be measured. By undertaking a proabability assessment, you can predict with mathematical certaintywhat the chances of being killed are, with absolute precision.
Of course I have see it argued that probaility maths is just another name for knowing the precise outcome. True enough. You cant know the blast pattern of the grenade, the precise nature of the terrain, the position of the target (upright/prone???), so from that perspective the probabilty curve is not completely accurate. However, for the purposes of this assessment, it is far superior to any non-empirical analysis
The aim of the probability analysis is to establish the effective range of the grenade. At 50 metres, the grenade still has a danger effect, but it cannot be considered effective, by any stretch of the imagination. This statement comes from both my own experience with them, and from looking at the probability claculations. You have not undertaken any further analysis I note, why is that?
No one ever said that someone should be standing when one of these things goes off, I dont think I ever mentioned anything about that
cause even if the risk of dying is small, it's still there. Now having thrown these things yourself and having recieved lectures on their effects and how to handle them I'm sure you will agree.
Peacetime safety is not the same as effective range. Exactly at what point you want to determine what is effective is a matter for debate, but at 50 metres, you would, on average, need to throw 50 such grenades to statistically achive a kill against a human target. If ther were 50 targets in the 50 metre radius you would statistically kill one of them, on average
There really is no other way of outting it, once the probability analysis is done. If you want to challenge that, fine, but you need to show how you arrived at that conclusion, prefereably by mathematical analysis
Now in combat all the safety rules are ofcourse ignored and you often have to throw handgrenades close enough to yourself that there's a real danger of getting hit by the shrapnel, however the kevlar vest helmet are there to minimize the risks. Also std. procedure is to hit the dirt, again minimizing the chances of getting struck. But still soldiers quite often get struck by the shrapnel from their own handgrenades, however fortunately 90% of the time no injury occurs, and in the 10% where it does occur only 2-3% are serious or fatal, the rest is minor and is often just involves small splinters in the skin.
You are saying the same thing as the probability analysis, but ina non-mathemetical way, which is unable to be measured. By undertaking a proabability assessment, you can predict with mathematical certaintywhat the chances of being killed are, with absolute precision.
Of course I have see it argued that probaility maths is just another name for knowing the precise outcome. True enough. You cant know the blast pattern of the grenade, the precise nature of the terrain, the position of the target (upright/prone???), so from that perspective the probabilty curve is not completely accurate. However, for the purposes of this assessment, it is far superior to any non-empirical analysis
Soren
sorry but it's too easy to claim that has saw something in net discussion. So some independent sources, please. Modern Finnish Army blast hand-grenade had 235g HE filling but it doesn't have 5m lethal radius in open. It's other thing if used in confined space.
Look for example 20.7.44 attentat, 1 kg or 0,9 kg (2 lbs), depending on source, plastic explosives blow up inside a barrack, even if lightly built barrack, almost all blast directed towards 10 men in one end of the table by the heavy table leg, all dead were IIRC nearer than 5m of the bomb, even some of the survivors on that end of the table, and the blast that hit them was almost same than a blast from 2 kg plastic explosives in open.
Juha
sorry but it's too easy to claim that has saw something in net discussion. So some independent sources, please. Modern Finnish Army blast hand-grenade had 235g HE filling but it doesn't have 5m lethal radius in open. It's other thing if used in confined space.
Look for example 20.7.44 attentat, 1 kg or 0,9 kg (2 lbs), depending on source, plastic explosives blow up inside a barrack, even if lightly built barrack, almost all blast directed towards 10 men in one end of the table by the heavy table leg, all dead were IIRC nearer than 5m of the bomb, even some of the survivors on that end of the table, and the blast that hit them was almost same than a blast from 2 kg plastic explosives in open.
Juha
Ramirezzz
Senior Airman
81,116 for the entire operation since 16. April and 22462 for the battle in the city itself.
the most casulties Germans took were inflicted by the team work of storm groups and tanks, and artillery as well, while firing a direct fire over open sights.
The numbers varies a lot, but the generally accepted figure is ~350,000 Soviet soldiers died fighting in the city.
No, the artillery barrage by far caused the bulk of the German casualties, but despite this the Soviet storm teams were having a real tough time against the remaining defenders.
Well Juha you have to look no further than at concussion grenades which all have a kill radius of 5m. And I can tell you from actual experience that if you're within 5m of one going off without cover then you're most likely going to be dead. Your body is simply being exposed to such extreme pressure that it litterally will cause a lethal concussion (Hence the name). At 7m you're going to be seriously injured, suffering from brain swelling.
Take a look at the video I previusly linked, the guy was standing 10m away from a frag grenade when it exploded, standing behind a tree, shielding him again the shrapnel, yet he was knocked out cold by the blast and suffered a minor concussion.
Parsifal,
The reason for the small injury rate in the field is in great part because of the kevlar vest helmet, without these there would be a far higher percentage of injuries. I for one would've had a lot of scars from shrapnel if I hadn't almost always worn a vest helmet.
It's quite a sobering experience when you see a ½ inch fragment lodged in your helmet...
Ramirezzz
Senior Airman
where do you get those numbers from Soren? generally accepted by whom? Krivosheev's book, which is by far the best research available by now, puts the number of OVERALL, not only casulaties during the WHOLE operation (that means not only in the city itself) at 361,367 and among this number 81,116 of irrecoverable losses. Further, according to that source, Russians lost about 22000 KIA in the city itself.please provide any source for that statement
The massive artillery barrage was rather uneffective against concrete buildings and bunkers in Koenigsberg, so it was in Berlin. The main work was done by pioneers ,infantry and tanks combined into support groups.
parsifal
Colonel
The casualty figures of 35000 might r34fer to the casualties suffered in the final overall campaigns, which took into account other hard fought actions other than the actual battle for the city itsdelf. Kruska was saying something about 80000 soviet casualties as well. Perhaps the frames of reference are just not synchronized here.
Rammirrezz, do you have figures for Soviet losses for the final campaigns overall, starting from say the beginning of the Oder Neisse battle?
Rammirrezz, do you have figures for Soviet losses for the final campaigns overall, starting from say the beginning of the Oder Neisse battle?
According to my sources 350,000 Soviet casualties were inflicted during the battle for Berlin, while the Germans suffered some 150 - 175,000 casualties, but this is not counting the civilians dead, taking that into account some 450,000 Germans died in the city.
Ramirezzz
Senior Airman
Like it or not, the Krivosheev numbers regardings the late stage of war are actually accepted as the most accurate ones so far, because there was practically no much room for errors either - there were no civilians drafted and left unaccounted like it was in the Ukraine in 1944, there were no partisan
activities which could not been taken into account, and the soviet draft and casulaties calculation (I obviously forgot the right designation
) system functioned pretty well at that time. [/QUOTE]
I do believe the Soren's sources talk about the soviet general casulties, not only about the KIAs. Please recheck it.
Heck Soren this is ridiculous! You don't have ANY reliable sources regarding the Soviet losses during the Battle in Berlin but the russian ones! The Germans couldn't count their own losses at this stage, how could they manage to calculate them on the opposite side? Even this number of German casulaties you provided is highly unreliable because of that! And before the fall of the Soviet Unieon the postwar researchers in the West could actually only speculate about the losses on both sides.
Parcifal I have the numbers for each operation , here are the numbers for the Berlin Operation:
16 april - 8 may 1945
Unit irrecoverable overall
2nd Belorussian Front - 13070 59110
1st Belorussian Front - 37610 179490
1st Ukrainan Front, 3rd, 5th,13 and 52nd army,
3rd and 4th Guards Tank Army, 2nd Air Army - 27580 113825
Dniepr Flotilla - 16 27
Baltic Fleet - 15 23
Overall: Irrecoverable: 78291 General: 352475
so, as you see, the numbers which were provided by Soren are quite similar to the number of the general Soviet losses for the entire operation.
With Polish losses you'll come to the number of 361,367
Oder-Neisse Operation:
irrecoverable: 43251 general: 193125
parsifal
Colonel
perhaps then, it is simply a case of quoting the wrong numbers...perhaps the 350000 number is the number lost on the eastern front from the begining of April. I would be prepared to accept that explanation.
Soren
Now Finnish Army blast/offensive hand-grenade didn't have a kill radius of 5 m. And I looked the police vs handgrenate YouTube clip You have posted. To me it seems that the reporter's estimate on distance (only steps away) was nearer to truth than Yours 7-10m. And the police didn't have time to hide properly behind the tree. And the grenade was a blast type. So to me the clip reinforce my opinion that blast grenades generally doesn't have 5m killing radius in open.
Now Finnish Army blast/offensive hand-grenade didn't have a kill radius of 5 m. And I looked the police vs handgrenate YouTube clip You have posted. To me it seems that the reporter's estimate on distance (only steps away) was nearer to truth than Yours 7-10m. And the police didn't have time to hide properly behind the tree. And the grenade was a blast type. So to me the clip reinforce my opinion that blast grenades generally doesn't have 5m killing radius in open.
According to the OKW diaries I have in front of me at the moment casualties were aprox.
Soviet - 100,000 (only an aprox number that is actually added into it after the fact)
German - 453,000 (only an aprox as well.)
Ramirezzz
Senior Airman
April 15th to May 1st.
Dates are a little bit off, but who knows what they considered the dates for the battle.
Dates are a little bit off, but who knows what they considered the dates for the battle.
