Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7387
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 09 Feb 2011 15:37

Rich... I can see how that appeared unappreciative. Perhaps a more accurate sentence would have been 'hopefully soon I'll have time to search for these details'. The NGF thing is suposed to be my priority, tho business has left me short there the past few weeks, again.

A rough count suggests the density of NGF ships was greater in the Brit sector. Perhaps as great as 2-1 to the US sector. Tho there are a number of variables: Difference in caliber of guns, type of ammunition, quantity of ammo used per target, number of targets attacked, accuracy of target location... Another item is the location of the lighter NGF ship. On the Brit side the charts suggest they were much closer. Something else to be cross checked.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by RichTO90 » 09 Feb 2011 23:05

Carl Schwamberger wrote:Rich... I can see how that appeared unappreciative. Perhaps a more accurate sentence would have been 'hopefully soon I'll have time to search for these details'. The NGF thing is suposed to be my priority, tho business has left me short there the past few weeks, again.
No, I was getting cranky because I had the feeling that I was repeating myself over and over again, which is as irritating for me as it likely is for you. :wink:
A rough count suggests the density of NGF ships was greater in the Brit sector. Perhaps as great as 2-1 to the US sector. Tho there are a number of variables: Difference in caliber of guns, type of ammunition, quantity of ammo used per target, number of targets attacked, accuracy of target location... Another item is the location of the lighter NGF ship. On the Brit side the charts suggest they were much closer. Something else to be cross checked.
I doubt it, but will double check. The difference really is probably more like 3-to-2. :) And even there, the bombardment included batteries between OMAHA and GOLD engaged by the ETF bombardment forces, but to the benefit of the western forces as well. :wink:
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by LWD » 10 Feb 2011 14:26

What is a good measure of NGF density? I can think of a few but most have at least some problems. Especially when you start comparing British to US guns.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by RichTO90 » 10 Feb 2011 17:29

LWD wrote:What is a good measure of NGF density? I can think of a few but most have at least some problems. Especially when you start comparing British to US guns.
For suppression or destruction? You could use the good old standard of "25-pdr equivalents". :lol:

Cheers!
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by LWD » 10 Feb 2011 17:53

Is that weight of shell or filler? Both would seem to be of some import. Also not sure the effect scales directly between something like a 25-pdr and say a 16" HE round. I'm also not sure how available the info would be on something like rounds fired. Others here may be however.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7387
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 11 Feb 2011 04:29

If you have not already looked at it the 25lbr equivalent table is on this site

http://nigelef.tripod.com/

Back in the 1980s we had a supplement to the JEMT for the 16" projectile. Somehow I doubt that has been declassified, but perhaps there is something similar for the 14" projos.

With 155mm howitzer ammo the general guide I worked under was one Rd every two minutes per tube to Suppress a entrenched or hardened target. That would be valid for a 18 or 24 cannon battalion attacking a area of 400 to 600 meters on the long axis. To Nuetralize a similar target six rounds per tube in two minutes was the minimum for a battalion to fire on a target area of 200 meters radius. At least that what the ops officer used then. Later I followed the JEMT recomendation for a larger quantity.

For rough comparison the 1960s Soviet Artillery norm would be 290 Rds from a 18 cannon battalion for guaranteed nuetralization of a armored SP artillery battery.

A important distinction here is the density in time. A battalion firing six Rds per tube is significantly more effective than a battery doing 18 per in stun, shock, or morale
Last edited by Carl Schwamberger on 11 Feb 2011 16:09, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by LWD » 11 Feb 2011 14:23

If the table you are talking about is the one I found it didn't include naval guns. Still leaves the question open as to what you are counting as well. For instance are you counting:
1) Number of guns available or some measure of them (shell weight or filler weight for example)
2) Potential number of rounds on target during a certain period (ie take rate of fire into account)
3) Number (and caliber) of rounds actually fired or their total mass or filler mass or some other MOE.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by RichTO90 » 11 Feb 2011 15:19

LWD wrote:If the table you are talking about is the one I found it didn't include naval guns. Still leaves the question open as to what you are counting as well. For instance are you counting:
1) Number of guns available or some measure of them (shell weight or filler weight for example)
2) Potential number of rounds on target during a certain period (ie take rate of fire into account)
3) Number (and caliber) of rounds actually fired or their total mass or filler mass or some other MOE.
Look at "Weight of Fire", Table 4, and the associated text for a full explanation.
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7387
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 11 Feb 2011 16:40

A couple caveats on that site. Its important to read the entire section closely, the author was trying to cram a lot of moving parts into it. A case in point are the second & third sentence below Table 4 & the refrence to Table 1. There is the general orientation towards fragmentation effects , which seem to have been the most studied in prewar tests. Descriptions of tests against hard targets like buildings, or earth & concrete fortifications are less pleantifull or discussed.

Still I think it will hold up fairly well even if other material comes in view. Up thread I posted some related US Army info, but I dont remember it challenging anything in the Brit table linked here.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by LWD » 11 Feb 2011 19:03

I see they mention the sqrt of the weight of the filler as the MOE. They do imply that a correction for filer type wouldn't be uncalled for. Filler weights aren't hard to find and relative explosive power of the fillers is also not to hard to find so this aspect should be fairly easy. I guess you could make the calcs for all three possibilities mentioned above and see how the numbers work out.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by RichTO90 » 11 Feb 2011 19:39

Carl Schwamberger wrote:A couple caveats on that site. Its important to read the entire section closely, the author was trying to cram a lot of moving parts into it. A case in point are the second & third sentence below Table 4 & the refrence to Table 1. There is the general orientation towards fragmentation effects , which seem to have been the most studied in prewar tests. Descriptions of tests against hard targets like buildings, or earth & concrete fortifications are less pleantifull or discussed.
Yep, the results were from the analysis of quite a number of operational and range investigations, so distilling it down to a webpage was probably difficult. Remember that if you need data versus hard targets there are the three volumes of test data that Aberdeen produced in August 1945. They also did fragmentation patterning, but the blast and penetration data is pretty extensive and shows the experience of dealing with German and Japanese field fortifications.

Cheers!

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7387
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 13 Feb 2011 06:19

A pity those studies were not available a decade earlier. In the 1920s the US Army did apply various calibers of artillery rounds and aircraft bombs to a condemned concrete bridge in Georgia. An interesting test even if not of the same weight as the post war study. Here is a link to the Archive of the Field Artillery Journal. In Vol #2 of 1928, Page 123, you can find a a summary of the tests on the Swift Island Ferry Bridge. Mostly techincal stuff on shooting the guns, but still some great photos of broken concrete and paragraphs on what each hit did or did not do.

Scattered through these volumes are extracts and summaries of other tests and combat studies which make great evening reading.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7387
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 15 Feb 2011 02:16

For some reason the link dropped from the previous post

http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7387
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 15 Feb 2011 02:21

I expect the question of ammo characterisitcs will come up sooner rather than later. Any recomendations or opinions on web sites with suffcient accuracy or detail for artillery & naval cannon ammo ? That is fuzes, explosive fillery, ect... There are a few books like Hogg & Janes at hand in the libraries here. But, since several folk are following this thread & in the interest of speed any accurate web sources would be usefull. Oddly the two I had found a few years ago have vanished from cyberspace :(

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Fire Support Battle In Normandy

Post by LWD » 15 Feb 2011 13:32

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
has at least some of the data for many but not all the weapons of interest. Accuracy seems to be pretty good but not perfect. There are links to the sources or at least references to them.
Some of the smaller ones may be found here:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ammotables.htm
alhough this concentrates on land based systems.

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”