gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3339
    MEMBERS
  • 189793
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Cav vs arty   General Army topics

Started 23-May by graylion; 1166 views.
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

26-May

schnuersi said:

I did not assume a target area of 1 m^2. Which is roughly the target area of a standing human. I assumed a truck/APC sized target or small building. Seriously who would shoot a fire mission of 155 mm against a single man

Exposed infantry is really the only target I could see being killed out to 100m radius.

If fragments are below 1m2Frag at 100m, what are they really going to be doing against much harder to kill vehicles and buildings? 

If you see the chart I posted earlier, the assessment seems to be quite a few shells are required to reliably kill vehicles or buildings.

100m is a gigantic area. The street I live on is 125yd long (I've paced it out when testing flashlights); a 100m radius would encompass our little 36 home gated community. 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

26-May

gatnerd said:

100m is a gigantic area. The street I live on is 125yd long (I've paced it out when testing flashlights); a 100m radius would encompass our little 36 home gated community.

Yes it is.
This is what i mean with the CEP is missleading if looked at out of context. Because several round will hit close to the point of aim. Its just that not all do it and some might land 100 m away from the point of aim. The spread is not even. It does cluster around to point of aim. Even without this effect 100 m CEP does not mean all rounds land on the outer ring. If the spread would be 100 % random a shell would be as likely to land dead center as it would be to land on the very edge.

gatnerd said:

Exposed infantry is really the only target I could see being killed out to 100m radius. If fragments are below 1m2Frag at 100m, what are they really going to be doing against much harder to kill vehicles and buildings?

An unarmored vehicle can easily be taken out by one fragment. STANAG K1 barely protects against 155 mm going off at 100 m. If this is a non issue why has it been specified?
With building I did not mean make it collapse but by fragments hitting it, penetrating the wall and doing damage inside. Which again often is enough.
It really depends on what effect you want to achieve.

gatnerd said:

If you see the chart I posted earlier, the assessment seems to be quite a few shells are required to reliably kill vehicles or buildings.

It really depends on how you define kill and the basic parameters.
For example an infantry platoon moving, like in the video in the UA weapons threat, the guys hit by the drone. A single shell could have taken them out. It was only a squad, yes. So for a platoon 4 or 5 shells would have effectively wiped them out. Maybe less if airburst is used.
But IMHO defining every member of the targeted platoon is a casulty as a kill is BS. A platoon is killed when it ceases to be an effective combat unit. For this actually nobody has to be killed. Chances are once several members have been injured the unit will disengage or withdraw. With is a mission kill. Same goes for supresson. If they are all face down in the mud shaking and not fighting anymore they are "killed".
I would also argue if we look at the oposit end of the spectrum, a platoon of infantry heavily entrenched and dispersed, its virtually impossible to kill them with artillery. There allways will be a few or one survivor. And if we want to see them all dead this would be a fail. It is possible though to make them ineffective or much less effective as a combat asset.

I am not against guided munitions. These certainly have their uses. Especially against targets where direct hits are required. Or when collateral damage is an issue. But i really don't see that in the scenario we are seeing now in UA.

TOP