Very dramatic at the firing end. Awesome. What happens at the target end? What is the CEP of these things for instance, the only metric I know anything about, if you know a better and have the numbers please provide.
And perhaps more information that would be relevant. The 'kill' area for different types of target for the round when it lands.
i.e. at what distance will it kill a tank? at zero I imagine and nowhere else. i.e. a direct hit only. land at the side it may blow off a track, I don't know.
at what distance a troop carrier?
a truck?
a car?
a soldier?
So if they have a CEP of 100 metres for instance and they can only kill troops (prone on the ground) at say 10 metres then to saturate that 100m 'random' zone which would be something like 100 x100 = 10,000 squ m. you'd need a thousand rounds.
That kills everything in the zone. Which you don't need to do. You only need to kill the targets in the zone.
But we don't know how many targets there are nor where they are.
So we're back to a thousand rounds again, just to be sure we get perhaps the one man we want. And so on.
(yes, I know, area of circle 100m = 7850)
We've all seen those photos of field after field covered in shell holes. We don't know what kind of artillery caused it but we do know:
It apparently in the main never got any machinery.. usually we see none.
It shows no signs of 'concentration' - the shell holes are generally very evenly distributed just as we'd expect from artillery firing round after round at the same target and hitting with a large CEP
More info would be very interesting.
For instance: what is the efficacy of this kind of fire on slit trenches? Apparently none. Hence the frequent and ubiquitous stalemates all over the Donetsk front line for despite 'overwhelming artillery supremacy' the allies could apparently never suppress the Kiev mob sufficiently to then storm their trenches after a barrage.
Which kinda brings up the question, doesn't it, of 'if it is so useless why keep doing it' ?
but this way, you know.... looking for sense in any part of it...
and p.s. concerning CEP : I find different definitions but quite often (gpt for instance, yesterday) it is defined as where ' 50% ' of the rounds land.
Which immediately would double the number of rounds required to achieve any of the scenarios I hypothesized up there.
Very dramatic at the firing end. Awesome. What happens at the target end? What is the CEP of these things for instance, the only metric I know anything about, if you know a better and have the numbers please provide.
And perhaps more information that would be relevant. The 'kill' area for different types of target for the round when it lands.
i.e. at what distance will it kill a tank? at zero I imagine and nowhere else. i.e. a direct hit only. land at the side it may blow off a track, I don't know.
at what distance a troop carrier?
a truck?
a car?
a soldier?
So if they have a CEP of 100 metres for instance and they can only kill troops (prone on the ground) at say 10 metres then to saturate that 100m 'random' zone which would be something like 100 x100 = 10,000 squ m. you'd need a thousand rounds.
That kills everything in the zone. Which you don't need to do. You only need to kill the targets in the zone.
But we don't know how many targets there are nor where they are.
So we're back to a thousand rounds again, just to be sure we get perhaps the one man we want. And so on.
(yes, I know, area of circle 100m = 7850)
We've all seen those photos of field after field covered in shell holes. We don't know what kind of artillery caused it but we do know:
It apparently in the main never got any machinery.. usually we see none.
It shows no signs of 'concentration' - the shell holes are generally very evenly distributed just as we'd expect from artillery firing round after round at the same target and hitting with a large CEP
More info would be very interesting.
For instance: what is the efficacy of this kind of fire on slit trenches? Apparently none. Hence the frequent and ubiquitous stalemates all over the Donetsk front line for despite 'overwhelming artillery supremacy' the allies could apparently never suppress the Kiev mob sufficiently to then storm their trenches after a barrage.
Which kinda brings up the question, doesn't it, of 'if it is so useless why keep doing it' ?
but this way, you know.... looking for sense in any part of it...
and p.s. concerning CEP : I find different definitions but quite often (gpt for instance, yesterday) it is defined as where ' 50% ' of the rounds land.
Which immediately would double the number of rounds required to achieve any of the scenarios I hypothesized up there.