Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Proximity Fuse Artillery 2017-08-19 03:06:09 Post No. 34906619
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Proximity Fuse Artillery 2017-08-19 03:06:09 Post No. 34906619
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: WW2-ARTILLERY-INVENTION_600.jpg (192KB, 600x415px) Image search:
[Google]
192KB, 600x415px
Artillerists and crew out there.
Do most fire missions use contact fuses or proximity fuses?
Proximity fuses were first extremely effective against aircraft, and then so very effective against land targets in the Battle of the Bulge that Patton thought if all armies used them warfare itself might have to change.
Are they really that much more effective than shells hitting the ground and exploding? Why are they not more commonplace?
>>
>>34906619
We don't seriously still have artillery that only explodes when it hits the ground, do we? That's so WW1.
>>
>>34906630
yeah we do, especially if we want the army to fight in cities. I mean what war are we going to fight that doesn't include an urban component? Contact fuses are cheap and in urban environments more effective than airburst shells.
We also have timed shells.
>>
>>34907307
wait you really don't use radio proximity fuzes? What the hell.
>>
>>34907321
Speaking as an artilleryman, VT fuses are less reliable than timed fuses and also way more expensive. Q fuses are also better for hitting lightly armored targets like APCs and sandbag emplacements. VT is good for quick attacks, but if you already have a solution, time fuses are good too.
>>
>>34906630
If your target isnt infantry or softskin shit in the open, ground burst is more useful, sepecially if they are dug in.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1