Javelin vs Laser Designator

[Kinophile]

No Arty support? 

[TheForwardObserver]

48 minutes ago, kinophile said:

No Arty support? 

I had two batteries of Paladins.  I did manage to immobilize probably half of his tanks, owing to Excalibur rounds.  Problem was some of those immobilized Abrams tanks can take a dozen (im being generous) or more direct 155 hits before you finally get the knock out.  Sometimes less if I've remembered to sacrifice a goat before hand.

[Kinophile]

Is that direct hits or straddling?

Question -  are paladin rounds HE or AP? 

I could see requiring multiple HE hits to break through the armor,  but less AP.. 

[TheForwardObserver]

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

Is that direct hits or straddling?

Question -  are paladin rounds HE or AP? 

I could see requiring multiple HE hits to break through the armor,  but less AP.. 

In game the 155mm projectile should be HE, coming in at roughly 100lbs, 25lbs of which should be actual HE.

The hits seem direct enough to me.

[Kinophile]

Seriously? That many direct hits on the top armor to knock it out? Is this realistic? 

[TheForwardObserver]

15 hours ago, kinophile said:

Seriously? That many direct hits on the top armor to knock it out? Is this realistic? 

I don't believe this one got knocked out.  He had a twin brother near him that lasted against 1 more fire mission of 6 Excalibur rounds before he blew, I didn't check how many of those were direct hits.  I would imagine most smart tank crews will scatter quickly in the moments after their tank turns from titan of death to missile magnet.

[Kinophile]

Still.. Is this realistic,  this  number of rounds and the tank is still alive? 

Not at you yourself,  general query to those more knowledgeable than me. 

[TheForwardObserver]

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

Still.. Is this realistic,  this  number of rounds and the tank is still alive? 

Not at you yourself,  general query to those more knowledgeable than me. 

There is no black and white answer to that.  The simplest answer is that an Abrams tank is very unlikely to sustain that many direct 155mm hits in real life and still possess its turret.  My evidence is anecdotal.  FOs practice all year round blasting older armored vehicles on the range, and this resilience is a-typical.  Under deployment circumstances I have had the mis-fortune of seeing Bradleys and humvees (not abrams) shredded by arty and mortar shells-- though placed and grouped as IEDs rather than fired- still underside armor is not top side armor so once again we deal with the grey rather than black and white.

If we approach the issue purely doctrinally, with *unguided* artillery, the standard volume fired to take out a a main battle tank will be between 25 and 40 rounds.  Excalibur is supposed to reduce this volume to between 1 and 4 shells at a price of I believe $70,000 per projectile.

Newer block Excalibur rounds will incorporate laser guidance, which will allow the observer and the round to target specific equipment on the vehicle rather than just the vehicle's GPS grid.   We used to have these capabilities with a system we called 'Copperhead.'  No tank stands any chance against properly organized laser guided artillery when spoofing equipment, and multiple lasers are involved because you can literally arty snipe bits of the the vehicle to oblivion.  That was how I spent most of my early army training in a COLT.  Before the Banana Wars.  

Edited April 13, 2016 by TheForwardObserver

[TheForwardObserver]

Some examples of the types of damage done to armored vehicles, though Bradleys, not Abrams.  During both of these attacks all crew and dismounts survived with non-life threatening injuries.  The one that looks like it burned to the ground was hit by ONE RPG.  The bulk of the damage was done to the Bradley by its own reactive armor, and ammunition cooking off.  The better condition Bradley struck a buried Arty shell.  One of these crews remembered to sacrifice a goat to shiva that morning.  

[Kinophile]

Fascinating, thank you! 

That's mad, sniping individual equipment with a weapons system from 15-20 Mike's away. 

[TheForwardObserver]

The end goal of my lobbying;

[TheForwardObserver]

I know it's been brought up in the distant past, but man, stats for off-map support units would be so welcomed.  My work-around in CM:BN is 75mm pack howitzers and 81s of course.   For the pack howitzers I'll take a map, make it larger with a nice big field in a rear area where the battery or battalion can set up and fire without obstruction.  It's so nice at the end of the game taking a look at how effectively you called in each gun/battery.

Which reminds me; I get the impression that the Arty in CM is only making use of low-angle fire which is unfortunate for many reasons, including diminshed effects against targets in defilade/urban areas.  Small gripe though.  Number one priority  is getting some proper vision for the FOs.

[Kinophile]

14 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

I get the impression that the Arty in CM is only making use of low-angle fire which is unfortunate for many reasons, including diminshed effects against targets in defilade/urban areas. 

I'm curious,  why you feel so? The Arty shells always seem to come in at a fairly high angle for me (I'm not military).  You mean they are usually closer to 85+ deg than the current,  seemingly,  70-85?

[Sublime]

FO i think its been said before that the game doesnt model the ability to place more or less charges and some of the finer points for on map supporting fires. I was surprised at how well my AB 75 packk howitzers do indirect support in game ( though bs an errant round clipped a building corner wiping out a squad leader and a crack bazooka team)  especially opposed to the German 75mm IG that Ive never been able to find a proper angle or spot to fire it at the enemy indirect.

[TheForwardObserver]

3 hours ago, kinophile said:

I'm curious,  why you feel so? The Arty shells always seem to come in at a fairly high angle for me (I'm not military).  You mean they are usually closer to 85+ deg than the current,  seemingly,  70-85?

Kino, Any arty piece capable of handling firing elevations of substantially greater than 800 mils, or approx 45 degrees, is considered high angle.  For example mortars shoot exclusively high angle, whereas artillery 'typically' shoots low angle (all american arty pieces can shoot both). Trajectory can be specified by the Observer in the 'method of engagement' portion of his call for fire.  My assumption that low angle is being used is derived from examination of the 75mm Pack Howitzers performance in CMBN&FI, visual comparisons of the trajectories of mortars and arty, and inspection of the fall of rounds in built up areas where obstructions are present on the approximated GT line (Gun-Target line).

 

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

FO i think its been said before that the game doesnt model the ability to place more or less charges and some of the finer points for on map supporting fires. I was surprised at how well my AB 75 packk howitzers do indirect support in game ( though bs an errant round clipped a building corner wiping out a squad leader and a crack bazooka team)  especially opposed to the German 75mm IG that Ive never been able to find a proper angle or spot to fire it at the enemy indirect.

Sublime, Right, I think I've come across those remarks as well.  For all its faults, I quite like the game's abstraction of Arty and CAS, and that's why I manage to stop myself from writing drawn out comparison and contrast novels about it everyday, because I am happily boring, certainly have the time, and Fire Support is all I profess to know!  That and I've found workarounds for all my real gripes. Thinking about the Pack Howitzers is what triggered the thought of angle of fire.

[TheForwardObserver]

Token screengrab of the reticle I built for my support roster panel.

[Sublime]

44 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

Kino, Any arty piece capable of handling firing elevations of substantially greater than 800 mils, or approx 45 degrees, is considered high angle.  For example mortars shoot exclusively high angle, whereas artillery 'typically' shoots low angle (all american arty pieces can shoot both). Trajectory can be specified by the Observer in the 'method of engagement' portion of his call for fire.  My assumption that low angle is being used is derived from examination of the 75mm Pack Howitzers performance in CMBN&FI, visual comparisons of the trajectories of mortars and arty, and inspection of the fall of rounds in built up areas where obstructions are present on the approximated GT line (Gun-Target line).

 

Sublime, Right, I think I've come across those remarks as well.  For all its faults, I quite like the game's abstraction of Arty and CAS, and that's why I manage to stop myself from writing drawn out comparison and contrast novels about it everyday, because I am happily boring, certainly have the time, and Fire Support is all I profess to know!  That and I've found workarounds for all my real gripes. Thinking about the Pack Howitzers is what triggered the thought of angle of fire.

Feel free to pm me these novels.. id love to hear about copperhead and also fo experiences mil exp in general and interested to know the literal dofferences between the patterns you call in in real life (sheaf?) And whats in game. 

Finally was the German practice (especially it seems, though i know all sides used it) of using indirect mg fire ever considered a form.of arty?

[TheForwardObserver]

28 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Feel free to pm me these novels.. id love to hear about copperhead and also fo experiences mil exp in general and interested to know the literal dofferences between the patterns you call in in real life (sheaf?) And whats in game. 

Finally was the German practice (especially it seems, though i know all sides used it) of using indirect mg fire ever considered a form.of arty?

Ohh Copperhead.  Sigh.  You know how some guys love to constantly pontificate on who or what is destroying the world, I'm that way about the loss of Copperhead. 

I don't believe small arms in the indirect fire capacity, MG fire and massed rifle volleys, has ever been considered artillery specifically because a firearm transitions to artillery once it can be qualified as large caliber.  That being said, the same control measures could be utilized if the associated physics is known to whoever is attempting it.

As for sheaf; I've got my mission parameters adjusted to include 'sheaf.' In real life you will likely stick with converged, open and linear, however the guns are capable of writing your name if you want them to.

Edited May 1, 2016 by TheForwardObserver

[Sublime]

How do you them adjusted to sheaf and  can you explain what the patern woild look like for sheaf and the rest?

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

Token screengrab of the reticle I built for my support roster panel.

Is this purely visual,  decorative or of functional use? 

[TheForwardObserver]

25 minutes ago, Sublime said:

How do you them adjusted to sheaf and  can you explain what the patern woild look like for sheaf and the rest?

If the Observer; chooses to not specify sheaf requirements in either his initial Call for Fire or subsequent adjustments (or sends no dimensions) than the firing unit will assume a circular target with a radius of 100 meters.  The firing unit will then attempt to even distribute the fall of the rounds in this 100 meter circle.  If the Observer requests a Converged Sheaf, the firing unit will mass all guns on one point.  If the Observer specifies Open Sheaf the rounds will be distributed based upon maximum effective burst width of each shell.  If target dimensions (length, width, attitude) are submitted, a linear sheaf is fired which distributes the rounds parallel with the attitude (directional alignment) of the target.  Pre-planned coordination opens up the possibilities, in that each gun can be choreographed with your specific requirements, IE irregular target shapes.  

An example of how sheaf specification would sound in an initial FFE Call For Fire using Grid vs Polar Plot would be:  
Sandman this is Falsetto1, Fire for Effect, over
Grid LB 2345 2345 over
Infantry Plt Dug in, HE/VT in effect, Converged sheaf, over

Anything you leave out of the Call for Fire will default to the firing unit's SOPs or the above mentioned doctrine.  OT direction, the direction from Observer to target, can be omitted unless adjustments will be made or if the mission is sent using Polar Plot target location.

 

27 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Is this purely visual,  decorative or of functional use? 

It does function though the relative math depends on the zoom I use.  I use it when I play the computer mostly for admittedly unnecessary tracking of spotting rounds and for quickly estimating target distance.  A sample formula for measuring distance to target is Actual Target size in meters (ie front of vehicle is 4 meters long) divided by perceived size (ie looks like 4 mils or .4 distance to the 1 hash through the reticle) x 1000.

[Sublime]

Very interesting thanks FO.  Interesting to know why sheaf was using for the term as opposed to say linear or point targetting etc. Im sure it goes back to something a couple hundred years ago. 

[TheForwardObserver]

New compass with mils.

[TheForwardObserver]

and some silhouettes

[TheForwardObserver]

and i got into the winter craze as well.  overwhites for the infantry and camo paint jobs for the vehicles