The verdict is in

[K K Rossokolski]

Now, I know that allied bombers would empty their bomb bays randomly if need be before returning, but I don't remember any stories of the RA firing off whatever allotment of rounds they may have had so loading up the ammo carrier was easier.

As for firing random artillery behind enemy lines. I do it all the time.

Well yes, that is my point, lots of folks do - except the guys that actually fought on the battlefields 65 years ago!

umbro

Sailors are always very good at attending to their own comfort and alleviating the difficulties facing them. Soldiers, so my Army (or ex-Army) mates tell me are probably even cleverer. We know that the Brits would happily fire off a belt or two of Vickers ammo to boil water for a brew...why should arty ammo have been treated with greater concern for the taxpayers money?? Husbanding ammo for a tactical contingency is of course a different story.

Umbro also states the assumption that for a 155mm weapon, a hit within 10 m of target is a kill...IMO a very dodgy assumption for a well armoured tank such as a T-34. And the arithmetic appears to assume that a hit within range but anywhere within the clock will have an an identical result. I doubt this.

But returning to random fire. The US Army, the Australian Army and ARVN fired off God only knows how much arty in Vietnam, at areas of possible bad guy activity. Does anyone know for certain whether such essentially random fire was NOT used in WWII? (No need to comment on the ARVN in this context). I accept that in general, ammo supplies were probably better in the Vietnam War.

As with Huib, I am concerned that light/medium mortar fire will have an unrealistic effect against armour. Remember too that most indirect arty fire uses HE shell. Do we have any hard evidence of the effect of such random non-penetrating fire against armour.