Roger604 wrote:
Actually the shell would not be exploding in Floor 1 but upon impact with the wall of Floor 1.
I'm well aware of that, but you don't understand what exactly this results in.
Anyway, you didn't explain how any force is transmitted from a detonation to Floor 3. Unlike an explosion in the open, there would be no rapidly expanding air to "knock people off their feet." Any expanding air in Floor 1 would not penetrate the reinforced concrete -- the air on Floor 3 would be unaffected.
If you want a scientific analysis, try one of the Defence Research or Technical sites. If you want to know what happens when a tank's main gun round detonates in a building, ask a soldier.
The sound and similar vibrations from an explosion may be transmitted to Floor 3, but this is the only possible effect (if no shrapnel penetrates the concrete).
That quite understates the case, as that sound and those vibrations may still be sufficient to stun, knock down, concuss, or even seriously injure any individuals on Floor 3. And its not "shrapnel", which is a specific (and obsolete) type of ammunition; it's "fragments" ("splinters" will also do fine), and some of those fragments can penetrate the shattered reinforced concrete dividing Floors 1 and 2 and punch right on through into Floor 3, turning the unfortunates up on said Floor into casualties; dead, dying, or injured.
That was not an insult in any way. I just meant that I was looking for an explanation more detailed than simply claiming a revolutionary new technology with capabilities that sound to me like exaggerations.
First off, I made no claims about any "new, revolutionary technology" or "exaggerated performance"; HEAT and HESH were developed back in
WWII. And your statement certainly was insulting, as is your denigration in your subsequent post of enlisted men and non-commissioned officers as mere "worker bees" who know little more than a few technical functions of their weapons and what's it's like to be outdoors:
As for military experience. There's nothing really special about having "low rank" military experience. An enlisted man is just a worker bee. He doesn't know everything about the weapons he has contact with (except how to use it). He knows nearly nothing about the weapons he has no contact with. He knows nothing about tactics, strategic or logistics (neither do I) -- but he knows about morale and living conditions of the soldiers. As far as I know, there are no officer ranked service personnel on this website.
Quite the contrary. Enlisted men are not only the specialists on such weapons, but are also on tactics, techniques, and procedures. Moreover, it is NCOs who perform most of the instruction of Officer Candidates in Weapons, Tactics, etc., as well as the other basics of being a Commissioned Officer; already Commissioned Officers who instruct on such courses do so on a more limited basis than the NCOs, and perform principally administrative tasks. Officers also tend to be restricted from some of the more specialist military training, as their career paths do not afford time for it with administrative and staff postings taking up most of their career time. And many enlisted men and NCOs hold College diplomas and University degrees. Personally, I hold two University degrees (a BA with Combined Honours in History and Politics, and an MA in Political Science; I also hold a College Diploma in Mechanical Engineering). Atypical perhaps, but hardly uncommon.
Simple worker-drone indeed.
If you were fearing some defence-contractor sales pitch for some
wunderwaffe, you need not have. Most Combat Arms soldiers are intensely interested in armaments and equipment, naturally, as it is part of their stock-in-trade. Being the ones who actually wield them day in and day out, however, there is no one who knows better then they exactly what they are capable of, and how to use them. This also makes them extreme skeptics of the claims of defence contractors, and soldiers are a naturally conservative lot who prefer to stick to what they know works, and avoid what doesn't.
Now, given that you demonstrate effectively no useful military knowledge and possess absolutely no military experience yourself, and yet have persisted in rejecting not one, not two, not three, but
four former or serving combat arms soldiers' statements expressing clear incredulity in one way or another about your uninformed and amateur opinions, clearly what we have here is not a failure to communicate on the part of the aforesaid four soldiers, but a case of obstinate and willful ignorance on yours. Most people lacking a military, let alone a combat arms, background would recognize that something might be amiss about making such statements as you made when several soldiers indicated that there were very serious errors made in such a statement.
You, of course, did not, and as your arguments have dissolved, you have resorted to insulting insinuations and references, and rather grand and sweeping ones at that. You were quite out of your depth in this discussion. And quite amateurish, not possessing the foggiest genuine notion of what you were talking about. Spare us soldiers the pall of your ignorance.
Now, until you are civil in discourse and demonstrate useful knowledge in matters that you intend to dispute on this forum, we have nothing further to discuss with each other.
