Artillery animation

[Reise]

Back when I was in the army, and I was a forward observer (ie me and my group spotted artillery targets), I never ever saw any flashes from artillery. Note that that includes night time artillery fire too.
They just don't produce a gigantic flash, airbombs do that

Well the guns you were directing weren't from the 40's either.

 

[Xendance]

Well the guns you were directing weren't from the 40's either.

Yes, I realize this. Though some were Soviet guns from the 60's

 

[Oldih]

Well the guns you were directing weren't from the 40's either.

Feel free to explain the exact diffrence between 1940s artillery's muzzle flash to a 1950s-1970s one in comparasion, especially considering artillery batteries aren't exactly right common firing range as due obvious trajectory issues they can't fire that close

 

[FlyXwire]

Knowing the difference between the muzzle flashes of WW2-era and modern artillery would be a good subject to explore indeed.

Also knowing the difference from the lighting effects of lauching rocket artillery then and now can be explained.

 

[Atomskytten]

At Xendance and others

At Xendance and others

Modern day propelling charges includes a flash reducing salt/powder, and that is why you don't see todays artillery producing much muzzle flash. I served my time in the army in the artillery in a M109 battery and even at night the muzzleflash was nothing more than a small pale greenish yellow flame barely visible from a 100 meters out. Can't remember if the flash reducing powder was added seperately as a bag or if it was mixed with the powder in the propelling bags though???

 

[Oldih]

Yes it's true that modern artillery doesn't produce as large\huge\visible muzzle flash than some old artillery piece, but could someone explain me this:

Just for the sake of example, let's imagine a groundscape like this and you're at the ground level.

Under daylight how visible you think even notable muzzle flash would be considering the artillery battery could be 5km+ away from the frontline due trajectory (and safety) reasons? 10km? There's plenty of diffrent obstacles blocking your line of sight and even if you're on high ground\some tall building dust, rubble, poor weather conditions and how human eye behave with diffrent lightning conditions would make it so that even if you see it, it's not gonna be that visible. Night conditions are obviously diffrent, as it's easier to spot any source of light(ning) in dark area than it's in middle of a daylight.

Now while IRL you could - under certain conditions - see something going on during daytime, considering scale object syndrome that objects appear smaller on screen than they "would" on human eye, it would make the problem even more notable.

 

[FlyXwire]

I believe this was the image being discussed (WW2 historical context, low light, perhaps dawn/dusk/night, unobstructed veiw to the distant horizon, vantage point over the Volga to the opposite bank):

BUT what would be great is if you saw in the distance the flashes of the guns when they fire, in Ostfront you only hear the guns firing in the distance, as seen in the first Call Of Duty during the Stalingrad mission, you can see it here in a video at 5:53, it really gives a more intense feeling that there really is a battery of artillery firing.

YouTube - Call Of Duty Russian Stalingrad

 

[Nicholas]

I believe this was the image being discussed (WW2 historical context, low light, perhaps dawn/dusk/night, unobstructed veiw to the distant horizon, vantage point over the Volga to the opposite bank):

That was awesomeness.... Maybe if it was nightime it would look like that.

 

[FlyXwire]

War is Hell (not to mention Stalingrad).

 

[Nicholas]

War is Hell (not to mention Stalingrad).

I meant the sound and visuals, in real life it must have been terrifying.