Treebursts and you

[McIvan]

Yeah, I get what you mean about "deadly" as being a relative term, but my understanding is that the heavy caliber shells (if not mortar bombs) actually have two effects in woods that make them actually <i>more</i> deadly than in the open or even in foxholes in the open.

The first effect is, as you point out, the angle at which the shrapnell is flying. VT might simulate that.

But the second effect is to shred the timber, adding to the shrapnel effect. I don't think that the VT would simulate that in a test, would it?

No I guess not. Anyways, I don't really think we are in substantial disagreement.

I never expected "more deadly" than in the open, so I was quite happy with the results.

Interesting result with the guns that Coil got though. This whole thread is quite instructive.

[Colonel Talvela]

[The Coil]

CT - I'll test rough v woods, see what happens, if cover v cover and the possiblity of treebursts shows any difference.

I will say, though that nothing I've tested is at odds with your assertion that mortars against troops in trees are deadly. They do quite a bit of damage, esp. to morale. Just seems they are equally deadly versus troops in the open (with the exception of the instance of AT guns). So, given a mortar and an MG, and an enemy platoon in the open and the trees, it still makes good sense to mortar the guy in the trees, and MG the guy in the open...

[The Coil]

[Colonel Talvela]

i have to admire you detemination to run those tests. I started and got bored, so I quit.

[The Coil]

[Der Kuenstler]

LOL - that's like playing hotseat against yourself - I've heard you can learn a lot that way but it's so tedious and boring I've never been able to finish a game...

[The Coil]