Jump to content

8.8cm Flak 18/37/41 Wrong projectile name and explosive filler


Go to solution Solved by Groove,

Recommended Posts

Hello

 

Today I played around with some mods and the original Free 8.8cm Flak 18 from the base game

I noticed that the Flak "puffs" look much better on the modded guns and that this is a effect defined by the explosive filler used

 

so I checked how much filler is used in the original 8.8cm guns from the base game

 

its 698g for the "Spr.Gr.39"

unknown.png

 

There however is 2 issues with that:

 

  1. The value of 698g is wrong
  2. According to GERMAN EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (PROJECTILES AND PROJECTILE FUZES) from 1953 there is no "Spr.Gr.39" listed
    so that name is simply false.

 

the 88mm round listed for the Flak 18/36/37 for AA use is the 8.8-cm Sprgr. L/4.5 Zt. Z with a 2 pound (~1kg) Explosive charge

 


grafik.pnggrafik.png

 

 

How to fix:

Change the 2 lines in the Ammunition.LUA file

  • Bursting charge from 0.698 to 1.0
  • Name from Spr.Gr.39 to Sprgr. L/4.5  or Sprgr. L/4.5 Zt. Z

 

 

Now why do I say 1.0 as mass and not the proper 0.907?

thats quite simple

 

when you go beyond 1kg explosive filler you get the nicer looking black smoke puffs that also last a little longer, this would greatly enhance the immersion of getting shot at by Heavy AA

 

Base 8.8cm Smoke puffs without editing:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/269535523922509826/828662206786306068/700g_filler.gif

 

compared to the accurate 1kg filler: (everything else is the same, I only changed the value from 0.698 to 1.0)

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/269535523922509826/828662076854632478/1kg_filler.gif

 

Next reason to use a value above 1kg is the chemistry of Amatol 60/40, it has a 1.22 RE factor, meaning it is 22% stronger than the same mass of TNT

so a 907g Amatol charge has the same effect as a 1.1kg TNT charge

grafik.png

 

 

 

 

 

This small change in the code would increase the visuals and immersion of players by quite a bit

 

 

Best regards

 

Iron_physik

grafik.png

grafik.png


Edited by Iron_physik
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Groove said:

The HE filler of the 88mm shell were 698 gramms. We have original german document as source.

 

The shell name is misleading, though.

which shell where you looking at?

 

the only HE shell with that filler is the 8.8-cm Sprgr. Flak 41 outright using a 1,5lbs burster charge (pretty much exactly 698g)

HOWEVER this shell was not made for the Flak 18/36/37 series of guns, only the Flak 41 could fire it for higher alt targets

grafik.png

 

grafik.png

 

 

 

The fulltext of the german source (Merkbuch über die Munition für die 8,8 cm SK L/45, 8,8 cm Flak L/45  (Nachgebohrte Rohre), 8,8 cm SK C/30,8,8 cm SK C/30 U, 8,8 cm Flak 18 M, 8,8 cm Flak 36 M und 8,8 cm KM 41 der Schiffs- und Marine-Küstenartillerie)

confirm my source that a 2lbs (900g) charge is used

the lower ~700g charge is used a result of the Base fuze used in some of the projectiles ("BdVschr" for Boden Verschraubung or "Base plug" in english)

this plug could get either a Incendary device, or a Base fuze but at the cost of some of the explosives.

 

 

Without Base fuze:

 

grafik.png

 

With base fuze / Incendary insert

grafik.png

 

 

 

and the projectile without the plug option:

 

grafik.png


Edited by Iron_physik
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You refer to the Marinemunition.

 

Rechecked the shell drawing for the 8,8cm Sprgr. L/4,5  (Kz) and it says:

Sprengstoff  (gepreßt) einschl. Zdlg. o. R.  etwa 0,74 Kg

.....................  (gegossen)..............................etwa 0,785 kg

 

Greetings from the Schwebebahn-Town 😉

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Groove said:

You refer to the Marinemunition.

 

Rechecked the shell drawing for the 8,8cm Sprgr. L/4,5  (Kz) and it says:

Sprengstoff  (gepreßt) einschl. Zdlg. o. R.  etwa 0,74 Kg

.....................  (gegossen)..............................etwa 0,785 kg

 

Greetings from the Schwebebahn-Town 😉

 

 

2 minutes ago, Groove said:

I'm talking about this shell.

 

 

Screenshot_20210405-202201.jpg

 

 

Merkblatt für die Munition der 8,8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18 und 8,8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 36
C. Angaben über Patronen

VI. Gewichtsangaben

 

http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/HEER/HDv_481/Heft_541/Kap_C6.HTM

 

 

8,8 cm Sprgr.Patr. L/4,5 (Kz.)

gepreßt = 698

gegossen = 900

 

it depends on how you fill the shell, but looking through several sources it seems like that the FP.02 (Füllpulver 0.2 or TNT) was cast into shells more often than pressed (it is easier to cast TNT)

 

 

so it is clear that 900g is accurate, and considering the betterlooking effect of the explosions I would indeed use the 1.0 value

 

 

 

Also greetings From Der schönsten Stadt am Rhein, Düsseldorf 😉

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Groove said:

It's not clear as 900 grams is an option in Michael Likes HTML table.

 

My info is from an original shell document.

 The current shell name seems to match this shell:

image.png

Which has the same explosive mass and name but its a "hollow charge" shell.

 

This seems to be the shell used for AA duty however:

image.png

Here its 1.9lbs of filler but that's close enough.

 

 


Edited by nighthawk2174
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Groove said:

It's not clear as 900 grams is an option in Michael Likes HTML table.

its not a option when its the most common filling and when most subvariants of that shell use the cast explosive

 

grafik.png

 

the page of michael hiske is the original documents digitalized

http://michaelhiske.de/StartSeite/StartSeite.htm

 

Quote

"sämtliche in der Datenbank vorhandenen Vorschriften (und viel viel mehr!) über einen Zeitraum von einigen Jahren vom Militärarchiv in Freiburg aus. Anschließend kopierte er diese, um sie dann später in mühevoller Kleinarbeit zu dem zu digitalisieren, was ich jetzt zu ersten Mal als Ergebnis sehen konnte. Es freut mich sehr, da ich ihn bei seinen Bemühungen im Zeitfenster 1997 bis 2003 teilweise bei seinem akribischem Vorschriftenstudium beobachten und bewundern konnte. Was er einmal gelesen hatte wusste er anschließend auch mit genauem Quellenbezug, was mich viele Male beeindruckte.
Danke für die Fortführung dieser tollen Datenbank! "

 

so these are indeed primary sources.

 

the US source I used also is a primary source, it is a analysis of german munition by the US after WW2

 

 

 

to add to this, here the original page:

 

https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/4qrwxdmgw4kiw41/images/14-2029b53934.jpg

 

https://de.scribd.com/doc/271410565/133547165-H-dv-481-541-Munition-Der-8-8cm-Flak-18-Und-36-1942

 

I dont think you can just wave this source away, considering that 3 of 4 projectile versions use the 900g explosive charge, and considering that Casting is ALOT cheaper to do according to DTIC sources (also primary)

 

the majority of german AA projectiles did use a 900g charge
and changing that value in DCS to the proper amount (1.0) will make the effects much nicer, and thats a good thing.

 

 


Edited by Iron_physik
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Groove said:


"the majority of german AA projectiles did use a 900g charge" - that´s your opinion.

Here is a primary source. Find one with 900g of filler. 

image.png

Thanks.
 


 

Here are more:
image.png

Hint: The last one im not posting here has no 900g filler as well...

these rounds both are issued with a base plug for base fuzes, thus they have less filler.

also, whats the title of that source?

 

A good historian always says where he got his material from, a single picture without further referrence wont be enough

 

ON TOP of that these 2 sources also dont confirm your 698g of filler, both of them claim 785g of filler.

also all your values seem to be are without the value for the explosive inside the fuze cavity, so the are missing about 100-200g of explosives for the Booster charge

thus you come to 900g when you include that.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Groove said:

Find one with 900g of filler.

at this point I need to ask you, do you even read my sources?

 

 

How is Heeresdienstvorschrift 481 541 "Merkblatt für die Munition Der 8,8cm Flak 18 Und 36" from 1942 not a primary source?

I even linked you the original document on Scribd

 

1-59047902da.jpg

 

 

I so far gave you 3 different documents that all agree with each other about the explosive filler being 900g

all of which I have properly referenced

 

 

 

 

 

but sure, lets add ANOTHER document that confirms a 900g explosive charge for the Sprenggranate L/4,5:

http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/HEER/HDv_481/Heft_060/Kap_C5.HTM

 

1 hour ago, Groove said:

that´s your opinion.

stop being condensating 🙂

 

 

and maybe explain why pretty much every technical drawing of these rounds states a cast explosive?

 

Eingegossen

H.Dv. 481/541; Merkblatt für die Munition der 8,8 cm Flak 18 und der 8,8 cm  Flak 36 - Anlage 1: 8,8 cm Sprgr.Patr. L/4,5 (Kz.) mit eingesetzter  Sprengladung

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Groove said:


"the majority of german AA projectiles did use a 900g charge" - that´s your opinion.

Here is a primary source. Find one with 900g of filler. 

image.png

Thanks.
 


 

Here are more:
image.png

Hint: The last one im not posting here has no 900g filler as well...

The 685g of explosive matches the GR.39 shell exactly.  Which was both the name and explosive mass used in game to me it seems like there was just some confusion and this shell was used in mistake of the actuall HE shell.  As shown above there are multiple american (direct analysis of captured shells) and german sources showing this value of 685g is not correct for the AA shell.  Hec your own source shows this value is not correct.  And the americans show about 1.9-2.0 lbs of explosive.


Edited by nighthawk2174
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also just noticed something else

 

 

4 hours ago, Groove said:



image.png

image.png

 

 

you sell these pictures as different individual sources

 

But I did some digging, they are all in 1 document called the "Großringbuch" a compilation of munition used by german armed forces.

 

here are all chapters:

http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/D_HEER/D0460/0460_01/Inhalt.htm#top

 

these specific pictures are from volume 1 part F

 

 

here the indiividual pages:

http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/D_HEER/D0460/0460_01/Blatt_F/145a.htm

http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/D_HEER/D0460/0460_01/Blatt_F/147.htm

http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/D_HEER/D0460/0460_01/Blatt_F/144a.htm

 

 

Im just shocked at the audacity of you trying to deceive people to think you got "many sources" when it all just boils down to some pages from 1 single document

while you meanwhile try to ignore 3 primary sources from germany themself + one american source that deeply analysed german exposive ordnance.

 

you should be ashamed of yourself at this display of dishonesty and a lack of integrity everyone in the historic community should have.

as someone who studies history im deeply disapointed, not only in you, but also kinda in ED for not taking such reports seriously by just waving 4 primary sources away.

 

other game companies handle this bug reporting process better.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Groove.

 

The OP has clearly shown you multiple primary sources and all you keep saying is "that's your opinion". Documents aren't opinion. They're literally written facts.

And as was already mentioned, you didn't even put the right value from the source YOU posted.

 

Is this how you guys verify data all the time? It's like a trial court has a bloody knife in a bag with the defendant's fingerprints, but the defense lawyer says "that's your opinion. It's not my client".

 

Pretty disheartening to see how you treat verifiable information presented to you in order to fix an error that anyone can visually see with their own eyes.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let´s collect the facts:

1. I admitted that the shell name is wrong - will be corrected.

 

2. I wrote that the 698 gramms will be adjusted to the 7xx gramms filler.

 

3. There is just one indication in that thread aboutm 900 gramms as an OPTION.

 

4. Please stop trying to put some hidden agenda into my words.

 

5. I still haven´t seen a 900 gramm filler technical shell drawing.

 

"you sell these pictures as different individual sources" - No, i couldn´t copy paste them into one picture. I don´t need to "sell" here anything.

Again, thank you for the information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Halycon

"The OP has clearly shown you multiple primary sources and all you keep saying is "that's your opinion". Documents aren't opinion. "

 

As i was referring to the following:

"it depends on how you fill the shell, but looking through several sources it seems like that the FP.02 (Füllpulver 0.2 or TNT) was cast into shells more often than pressed (it is easier to cast TNT)"

 

Is this a fact or an opinion for you? For me it´s not a fact (which also is not stated as a fact by Iron_Physik) but rather his personal opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Groove said:

3. There is just one indication in that thread aboutm 900 gramms as an OPTION.

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA376695/page/n95/mode/2up?q=8.8+cm+ - pg 438 1.9lbs

https://archive.org/details/TmE9-369a-nsia/page/n91/mode/2up?q=8.8-cm+Sprgr.+L+4.5+Zt.+Z - pg 91 2.1lbs

http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/HEER/HDv_481/Heft_060/Kap_C5.HTM

15 hours ago, Iron_physik said:

The fulltext of the german source (Merkbuch über die Munition für die 8,8 cm SK L/45, 8,8 cm Flak L/45  (Nachgebohrte Rohre), 8,8 cm SK C/30,8,8 cm SK C/30 U, 8,8 cm Flak 18 M, 8,8 cm Flak 36 M und 8,8 cm KM 41 der Schiffs- und Marine-Küstenartillerie)

 

confirm my source that a 2lbs (900g) charge is used

the lower ~700g charge is used a result of the Base fuze used in some of the projectiles ("BdVschr" for Boden Verschraubung or "Base plug" in english)

this plug could get either a Incendary device, or a Base fuze but at the cost of some of the explosives.

 

 

Without Base fuze:

 

grafik.png

 

With base fuze / Incendary insert

grafik.png

 

 

 

and the projectile without the plug option:

 

grafik.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...