Jump to content
Raging Al

Krasnopol 152mm precision round vs M2 Bradley top armour

Recommended Posts

Should the Krasnopol 152mm precision round be able to destroy an M2 Bradley with a forward top hull hit? I'm playing a scenario in which I've now hit three different M2's each with a three round (General munition) precision strike and in each case one of the three rounds has achieved a top hull hit. Every time the result has been immobilised M2 (nose down in a fresh crater) with a functioning main gun. There is a clear strike decal left on the hull top, but I have no idea what other damage has occurred as a result (optics etc).

Is this common or have I just been extremely unlucky?

Edited by Raging Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... whereas I am usually one to extol the virtues and abilities of HE, the Krasnopol is a little different. The penetrative power of HE arty comes from their mass and hardness. The large, energetic splinters also are beneficial and cause damage to tracks, etc, if not outright side penetrations. The Krasnopol, like other guided munitions, gives a lot of space in the nose to "soft" guidance seekers. The control systems also use up mass and volume. This gives the Krasnopol and Excalibur et al., much lower penetrative capability than standard arty HE shells.

 

That's it in a nutshell. It may be wrong, but, until there is PROOF otherwise, that's how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems bizarre still.  Top of a Bradley cant be that thick, surely.  Granted, the Krasnopol doesnt seem to be an enormous projectile either...

Edited by Nerdwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I widely used Krasnopol 152mm during the last mission of Russian campaign. I remember those shells worked against the top of the Bradley. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I widely used Krasnopol 152mm during the last mission of Russian campaign. I remember those shells worked against the top of the Bradley.

Exsonic01, did they actually penetrate the Bradley's top armour in your case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I think what antaress73 says is modeled, the krasnopol seem to me to have much less penetration than Excalibur.  Still messes things up but I'll shoot more rounds and expect less to sink in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see if those top hit achieved some sub-system damage. It is possible that outside elements (such as a Tow launcher, for example) will "absorb" the damage of an incoming arty shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a 45kg round smashes 25mm armor with ~12000J at almost verticaly, I'd think you don't even need to consider how effective the tip is. That's all discounting exсluding a 9kg explosive as well. 

Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excalibur nose is a thin metal (or maybe not metal?) radome for the proximity sensor. It is not going to make any difference in armor penetration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bradley was originally required to survive a 152 mm VT detonation at 18 meter HOB. It therefore seems reasonable to me that a direct hit would not be survivable, at least in terms of Bradley combat functioning. Best case. Additionally, live fire trials have shown stock US 155 HE is capable of piercing the side of the turret of an M60A1 tank, a level of protection the Bradley at no point has ever had. In doing some quick digging, over on Armchair General I found a post in which someone presented an account in which a Cromwell(?) took a direct Nebelwerfer hit on the engine deck, but all it did was blow off the engine grates, bend them up a bit and start an easily controlled fire. The crew was fine, and the TC and the loader dismounted to deal with the fire. Unfortunately, the tank took a second such hit, killing, I believe, both. It's not known what size Nebelwerfer rocket hit.

 

Regardless, the Nebelwerfer warhead is essentially a very large Stielhandgranate 39, a blast weapon, whereas the 155 is a gigantic pineapple grenade which has both blast and frag effects. Versus armor, the latter more than offset the explosive weight delta, as well as dramatically expanding the lethal and damage radii. 

 

There has been an extensive Forum discussion (CMSF?) on field artillery vs armor, for which my Google Fu has so far proved inadequate, which reported on US live fire trials in order to determine the effect of Russian artillery fire vs US armor. This was done quite a few years back, and this is where the 155 piercing the M60A1 turret side story comes from.  155s , subbing for 15s2, were fired at the aforementioned tanks, at Russian ammo expenditure scales (way lower than ours), with US testers fully expecting an ineffective shoot. Great was their consternation when it was found the Russians knew exactly what they were about and that the 152 stand-in murdered M113s, damaged M60A1s to a considerable distance without a direct hit and could kill them via near miss or direct hit. Perhaps someone can resurrect what my befogged brain couldn't so far? Regardless, I emphatically concur with BTR. A Bradley hit by a Krasnopol should be a dead Bradley, regardless of where it hits. Speaking of Krasnopol, one of its explicit targets is the tank, which naturally is much tougher than a Bradley. One thing which CMBS doesn't model is the enormous scale of issue, something like 200 rounds per battery, for Krasnopol. I've previously provided that link from a piece by an analyst at the Army's Foreign Military Studies Office. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on my limited personal experience with explosives (antitank mines, plastic explosives, claymores) I think the effects of explosions are undermodeled in CM. I would assume 10+ kilograms of high explosives detonating on top of an IFV would at the very least cause extensive subsystem damage.

 

This is necessary due to the nature of the game, ie. plentiful firepower focused on artificially limited maps. I have a feeling that direct artillery hits occur far more often in CM than they would in real life, simply because more firepower is amassed in a smaller area than would be likely and this firepower is controlled with an all-seeing-eye. I think it's a bit too easy to clear areas of infantry with a plentiful sprinkling of HE (in large part due to units not falling back and resuming positions after it's safe.) If this would be viable versus tanks too, I fear gameplay as a whole would suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure that even 82mm landing on top of Bradley would be game over. Considering the liberal use of aluminum in Bradley design (particularly in the top section), a direct 152mm hit would be one of those scenes with only the black burnt out spot on the ground and mangled, half-melted tracks to remind that there was a vehicle, with bunch of unrecognizable debris spread in a very large radius.

 

 

Cauldron retreat snapshots from Ukraine, with much heavier T-64s looking like shredded tin cans scattered in pieces on asphalt are pretty indicative of what even an old school, guy-with-the-map-calling-grids arty strike  does to an armored convoy (and that is without 152mm in the equation, with NAF primarily using the ancient D-30 guns and 120mm mortars for heavy missions and typically landing 90% of their rounds off-target in open fields).

 

While loving the modern setting, I miss the inflexible, "wooden" but very laid back artillery from WW2 titles, with 10 min call times, blind guess prep barrages and decreased deadliness. BS can be a micro hell sometimes, especially when facing US insta-arty on call, with the constant need to shift forces around or be pounded within a minute of stopping in seemingly safe spots. Maneuvering is cool, but sometimes I just want to chill on position for 10-15 mins, reorg, sip some tea and put an assault group together for the next push without the need to go through the clickfest of sandwiching my AFVs between buildings for shelter, one at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a 45kg round smashes 25mm armor with ~12000J at almost verticaly, I'd think you don't even need to consider how effective the tip is. That's all discounting exсluding a 9kg explosive as well. 

 

Well, I did some maths. I took an 80kg water ballon to the top of a building. I tossed it off, onto a Bradley... 12,000 Joules = 1/2*80kg*(17m/s)^2. In order to get the velocity of 17m/s, I needed to use gravity for 2 seconds. Before I tossed the water ballon off the roof, I realized it was too bulky to move. Therefore, I used an anologue for the water balloon. Humans are mostly water...

 

The height needed (in a vacuum) to reach 17m/s is only 14 meters. (H=1/2*9.8*t^2). 

 

Looking around the world, I see many, many, many structures of 14m or more in height. Therefore, the best defense against an armored incursion would seem to be throwing oneself off a building onto an armored vehicle's roof.

 

Perhaps hardness matters? (oh, that's a can o'worms! Don't let blstk see this one...)

 

;)

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pretty sure that even 82mm landing on top of Bradley would be game over.

 

Eh.  I wouldn't bet especially hard on it.  I'd give it a chance to knock the thing out especially depending on where it hit, but in practice 120 MM mortars is about the smallest indirect fire weapon you want to use on armor (105 MM howitzers offering much the same performance on different trajectories.  

 

Something the size of a 152/155 MM should pretty much ruin any PC/IFV type target in a direct hit though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did some maths. I took an 80kg water ballon to the top of a building. I tossed it off, onto a Bradley... 12,000 Joules = 1/2*80kg*(17m/s)^2. In order to get the velocity of 17m/s, I needed to use gravity for 2 seconds. Before I tossed the water ballon off the roof, I realized it was too bulky to move. Therefore, I used an anologue for the water balloon. Humans are mostly water...

 

The height needed (in a vacuum) to reach 17m/s is only 14 meters. (H=1/2*9.8*t^2). 

 

Looking around the world, I see many, many, many structures of 14m or more in height. Therefore, the best defense against an armored incursion would seem to be throwing oneself off a building onto an armored vehicle's roof.

 

Perhaps hardness matters? (oh, that's a can o'worms! Don't let blstk see this one...)

 

;)

 

Ken

Hardness, or the area of impact and the subsequent pressure. Also has to do with impact velocity being around ~600m/s. 

 

 

While loving the modern setting, I miss the inflexible, "wooden" but very laid back artillery from WW2 titles, with 10 min call times, blind guess prep barrages and decreased deadliness. BS can be a micro hell sometimes, especially when facing US insta-arty on call, with the constant need to shift forces around or be pounded within a minute of stopping in seemingly safe spots. Maneuvering is cool, but sometimes I just want to chill on position for 10-15 mins, reorg, sip some tea and put an assault group together for the next push without the need to go through the clickfest of sandwiching my AFVs between buildings for shelter, one at the time. 

E-War setting is there for a reason. If you want stiff artillery crank it up from "casual border skirmish", to full blown WW3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the responses, fellas. My battle has 20 mins to run, so will find out soon from my oppo what ancilliary damage was done apart from immobilisation and will report back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we can see how glorious HATO force field fitted on M2 protects the engine deck against all similar 122mm top attack artillery munitions. Part of next generation armour system developed by DARPA utilising the pure power of freedom to deflect the blast. Visible is the dust clouds as superior fighting complex M2 drives away unscathed from its encounter.

 

http://imgur.com/9whd04C
 

Edited by Stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we can see how glorious HATO force field fitted on M2 protects the engine deck against all similar 122mm top attack artillery munitions. Part of next generation armour system developed by DARPA utilising the pure power of freedom to deflect the blast. Visible is the dust clouds as superior fighting complex M2 drives away unscathed from its encounter.

 

http://imgur.com/9whd04C

 

 

Sigh. I looked at the screenie. OBVIOUSLY, that arty round got sliced by the Bushmaster barrel. Kind of like slat armor...but better. By cutting the round as it came in, the fuzing was messed up and the round barely exploded. Next time, hit a Brad on the roof when the barrel is facing the other way. (Be careful! The spinning turret will slice things, as well!)

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may well be an alternative protection system, where that the turret acquires incoming projectiles and turns to use the main armament to simply bat them out of the way. Ingenious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am conducting some tests. Now, this is only a very first result, and I'd like to try more tests, but indeed there seems to be something wrong here:

 

Russian 120mm precision strike with 120mm mortars (6 tubes)

 

2zxqzbb.jpg

 

2ih9pnm.jpg

 

r0ttfc.jpg

 

 

 

152mm precision arty:

 

dqxeg.jpg

2qbyvbn.jpg

 

Second test with 152mm:

Edited by Kieme(ITA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, what do you think is wrong? That is quite a lot of damage from a mortar round hit. Or are you saying that was from six hits? Even then the Bradley is in pretty bad shape. I'm just looking for clarification and definitely run that a bunch of times. My testing of precision rounds was mostly 155 and 152 and for that a single round was most often enough to deal decisively with BMPs or Bradleys. I would expect 120mm would be less effective.

Based in my testing I use a single precision round against IFVs and two or three against MBTs, that is enough to provide a high chance of destroying them and nearly a guarantee of at least immobilising them. Occasionally one manages to keep driving but the additional cost in rounds is not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×