Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 7/17/2016 at 7:39 PM, John Kettler said:

Since CMBS models the various subsystems on AFVs in particular, we can therefore do what we couldn't in CMx1 games--eat the elephant one bite at a time by degrading optics or destroying optics, vulnerable missiles, radars; cutting up radio, data link and wind sensors: damaging mobility, especially for wheeled AFVs--in addition to the classic FS capabilities modeled in CMx1 and which had no granularity of effects vs AFVs. M-Kill, F-Kill or K-Kill.

I've heard this claim before, originally from Sublime.

Has anyone confirmed that it actually happens?

Immobilization is easy to confirm, however, how do you quantify (and thereby confirm) sensor degradation? If you're driving around in an M1A2, and you go through a mortar barrage, how do you know that you didn't see something that you would have seen without the mortars, since that isn't what happened?

It seems to me that this claim is trying to prove a negative: that mortars deprived you of something you would have detected, and that is, by definition, impossible to prove.

So how has it been demonstrated that this actually happens in the game?

Edited by Jammersix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty hard to quantify unless someone wants to do hundreds of tests. However Ive definitely seen effects. First of all there is a tab that shows the degradation level.  

If wpns controls are out the gun will not fire. Same with the gun barrel itself. Radio out Ive seen the radio not work and units lose command and control.

Ive also seen other things get effected but you.re of course right uts hard to quantify the optics. And even wiped out tanks will still fire.

Just not as accurately etc. While itd take tests to prove I have faith BFC tested this and I *do* know that peppering the living crap out of an abrams with a tunguska will make the abrams almost useless it.ll shred everything on it ans eventually you.ll see the most important subsystem hit txt : hit - weapon :)

 

Also Jammer I was wrong about one thing when we played and I sense learned thanks to FO. Remember I used to have a rolling 152mm air burst barrage over your armor to clear out infantry but also i hoped shred antennae etc? Turns out thru a bug or something airburst rounds arent degrading armor subsystems :/

 

It could be proven in a traditional lane test. First you.d have a bunch of lanes of m1s. Alternating with tunguskas at end of lanes. M1s are fanatic short covered arcs. 5 minutes or until tunguskaa exhaust their ammo on abrams. Now save. Open file in acenario designer and place fanatic enemy tanks in different cover or where the tu guskas were and make note of how long which abrams take to spot the enemy armor.

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jammersix,

I've had an Abrams stripped of every weapon system but its coax from a single frontal-impact 30mm burst from a BMP-3.

pnzrldr

1.  Recuperator failure might or might not result in breech out of battery, but most tank crewman would not want to risk firing once they know their recoil system is jacked, especially war-shot ammo. 

2.  Both of the Abrams hit hard by 30mm are now expensive machinegun platforms.  Will look over the rest of the damage to see what else, and will post.

In the narrative, he reports the recuperator failure was caused by something which came through the turret armor; am not sure what.We were supposed to get full details on subsystem damage, but it didn't happen because that game was called.

I thought it was pnzrldr but may've been someone else who had at least one Abrams shredded by Tunguska fire to the point where it was, I believe pulled out of the battle since it was combat ineffective. He fought I forget whom, but had subsystem damage out the wazoo, though the tank remained alive and mobile. In any event, when Bil went up against c3k, one of Bil's T-90AM got hosed by a Tunguska. The horrifying sea of red damage display is here. Page 6 in the thread.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage tab that Sublime mentioned for anybody that may not have noticed it before.
dmg.png

Also, as a note, if you fire up a game with Scenario Author difficulty level you can see this information for enemy vehicles as well as your own allowing you to track and test enemy damage in real time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha!  A few of us did some tests and posted our insights on the Russian Motor Rifles tactics thread.  Generally speaking Arty/mortar VT rounds produced some damage and the odd knockout against the older Russian vics and the light American vics, however Abrams, Bradleys and Strykers didn't seem to take any damage from airburst.  

Edited by TheForwardObserver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jammersix and The ForwardObserver,

The explosive charges on mortar rounds are considerably more powerful than those in 30 mm HE cannon shells. Are we talking direct hits from mortars, or do you mean airbursts from mortars, such as those afforded by US multi-function fuzes? The Bradley artillery survivability design requirement was to survive an 18 meter HOB 152 mm HE shell. Unfortunately, I do not know precisely what that meant. It wouldn't surprise me if it was something like no penetration of the fighting compartment. That is in no way the same as saying the TOW pod must come through intact, the radio antennas shall remain uncut, and all the turret roof observation and sighting equipment must come through unscathed.

In light of what someone posted possibly a year ago regarding what happened when the US did live fire tests of 155s vs M60s at what were thought to be laughably small Russian norms, there was great consternation when it emerged the Russians knew exactly what they were about. M113s were demolished, M577 likewise, and an M60 had its turret side speared by a long fragment. I have no idea how detailed BFC's terminal ballistics modeling is, but it seems to me that if you catch one of those, it could end badly. Russian tank turret roofs are pretty thin, and I also find it difficult to believe that the M1 turret roof can withstand a frag which can go into the side of an M60 turret.

That said, someone reported a case of an Abrams which drove under a culvert to the roof of which was affixed an artillery shell IED. KABOOM!!! My recollection is that the CROWS got dinged up, but nothing else happened. I would rate that outcome as being more on the miraculous end of the scale than the normal expected result. It seems eminently reasonable to me to expect a lot of topside damage, starting with vision blocks. Maybe that particular result was the tank equivalent of Burgett of Currahee! fame having a German stick grenade detonate as he was about to throw it back, yet was only KOed, not wounded and came to naked and deaf for a bit?

I also have a recollection of seeing a pic on the Forum of a T-72 from the Debaltseve fighting which took a 120 mm mortar hit. It seriously damaged the tank and may've rendered it at least temporarily inoperable. I'd say a direct hit from a 120 mm mortar could degrade-ruin your day, depending on where it impacted. I would further note the Bradley of today has many more goodies on top than it used to. For starters, that means a random hit on the roof is more likely to encounter something important than was the case before all the modern gee wiz stuff. And while the Bradley's armored envelope wasn't pierced in the above original live fire test vs 152 mm airburst, and doubtless something similar was done on the XM1 Abrams and maybe later models, that doesn't automatically provide immunity to, shall we say, turret roof scouring. There are many unknowns here, but were I a TC, I'd be inclined to think twice about driving through a hail of artillery airbursts if I had another option. To me, it seems like a path to mission degrading damage.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jammersix and The ForwardObserver,

It's too late too edit it now, but the direct hit I described on the T-72 turret roof at Debaltseve may've been Grad, but I doubt it. The pics I've seen shows Grad kills  Ukrainian tanks quite well, so I'm reasonably sure a direct hit by that, which has a much higher explosive fill than does even the fairly low G stress mortar round, would break the tank in one or more ways. My recollection is the ones hit by the Grad strike were torn up and burned. Also, in reviewing the 30 mm damage to Bil's T-90AM, I find it odd there is no 125 mm gun listed of the systems tracked for component damage. There are such main gun entries for other tanks. Is this, perhaps, something which got left out of the system status roster for the T-90AM?

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John we tested the effects in-game of arty airburst but not direct fire.  I think the general consensus was that it'd be nice if airburst had a modest impact on Abrams/Bradley/Strykers.

Not sure about the systems roster, but I think there is an amount of space they have on the panel to display all the vehicle's systems.  Damaged systems might take precedence over healthy systems, possibly bumping them off the screen.  Like I said though not sure.

I was in a mech company that brought it's Brads to Iraq and we lost enough of them that we co-opted our sister company's Bradleys and they switched to 100 percent humvees.  To their credit though the Bradleys always kept our guys alive which was not the case with our humvees.  The Brads announce their presence with the gusto of the three tenors which is great because the bad guys all scatter but they always seem to forget to take their stupid IEDs with them and then we accidentally roll over them and then frustratingly there's nobody around to claim ownership or to discuss liability.  We mostly used them to establish blocking positions around our cordons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheForwardObserver,

Understood. Maybe I'm severely underestimating the resistance to fragment strike and blast of the various sensors and such on tops of the Bradley, Abrams and Stryker, but I really don't see how airburst FA shells wouldn't possess the potential to cause significant mission degradation, if not wreck things outright, such as the cannon barrel. Maybe our current and former US tankers can tell us what they can repeat regarding airburst artillery survivability testing vs Abrams ands Stryker, as well as instructions, if any, when taken under such fire when in battle?

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


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

Not sure about the systems roster, but I think there is an amount of space they have on the panel to display all the vehicle's systems.  Damaged systems might take precedence over healthy systems, possibly bumping them off the screen.  Like I said though not sure.

This also happens in the WW II games. I've observed this kind of reshuffling of items on the list more than once.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheForwardObserver,

Figured as much, but I wonder what that translates to in terms of damage? Certainly not, and you know I had to do this, given such a lead, this variety!

 

What I can readily see would be a great loss in personal comfort via shredded fart sacks, sleeping mats, rucks and the like--never mind damage to the tank proper.

Michael Emrys,

Was unaware of this and appreciate the information.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Jammer in my post I zpecifically mentioned that FO did tests and airbursts DID NOT impact vehiclr subsystems at all unless the puff of smoke underneath an airburst is right on the vehicle. Ground impact arty is different IIRC.

 

HE otherwise will degrade abrams subsytems. And throw up dust and make it harder for the Americans.

Tunguskas were brought up bc you asked abt susbsytem damage and their the best way to strip an abrams besides an accurate su25 strafing run.

In fact if you get a drop on an abrams and the US cany take out the tunguska the tunguska can keep firing at the abrams and 'stun' it into just sitting there getting clobbered by HE shells and losing subsystems. Sometomes they reverse othertimes they just sit there. If you get a abrams in this position a rapid move of an atgm team or tank can easily dispatch the abrams who wont even act due to the hundreds of shells impacting per minute.

 

You.ll see the reshuffling on the damage tab way more in BS bc the vehicles have way more subsyatems. If you cant see a subsytem it doesny mean its not there. Damaged ones simply goto the top.

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sublime said:

Yes Jammer in my post I zpecifically mentioned that FO did tests and airbursts DID NOT impact vehiclr subsystems at all unless the puff of smoke underneath an airburst is right on the vehicle. Ground impact arty is different IIRC.

 

HE otherwise will degrade abrams subsytems. And throw up dust and make it harder for the Americans.

Tunguskas were brought up bc you asked abt susbsytem damage and their the best way to strip an abrams besides an accurate su25 strafing run.

In fact if you get a drop on an abrams and the US cany take out the tunguska the tunguska can keep firing at the abrams and 'stun' it into just sitting there getting clobbered by HE shells and losing subsystems. Sometomes they reverse othertimes they just sit there. If you get a abrams in this position a rapid move of an atgm team or tank can easily dispatch the abrams who wont even act due to the hundreds of shells impacting per minute.

 

You.ll see the reshuffling on the damage tab way more in BS bc the vehicles have way more subsyatems. If you cant see a subsytem it doesny mean its not there. Damaged ones simply goto the top.

The dangerous derail is that the Tu fires in bursts.

Unless your first burst damages the main gun you're still in danger.  I've been caught by that -  had a Tu get the drop on an M1,  blew off pretty much everything but the main gun, paused to reload but that big ol' tube of death slew around - dead Tu. 

Then the bastard reversed home. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've attacked many a wounded Abrams only to find out the hard way that their main gun remains operational.  

Re:  The fickleness of air.  Has anyone done any testing on the vulnerability of the different attack aircraft to the different air defense systems?  Maybe someone could buy our two intel guys some cans of strongbow black so we could get some proper charts and slides.  I was glad to see Panzer mention SEAD.  Sometimes I'll bring Air and I'll give the enemy some Tunguskas for Air Defense.  I'll holdout on summoning the birds till those targets are knocked out- adds a SEADy feel to a game.  Unfortunately the presence of MANPADS can take the pi$$ out of the plan and against a human, I'm just not sure yet if it's worth the points/risk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

Damaged systems might take precedence over healthy systems, possibly bumping them off the screen.

That is exactly how it works.

 

17 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

My sparring partner is a tanker and his response to the question of HE/VT against the Abrams is 'it's just a flesh wound.'  I have a feeling other tankers would offer more nuanced technical versions of that same answer.

LOL quoting that scene from Monty Python really does not clear things up at all :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an Artillery perspective firing HE/VT at Abrams tanks would be a waste of ammo and if you didn't specifically request VT but you did provide a Target Description that mentions the armor, the FDC would send you HE/Q (and probably let the Btln FSO know that he should be calling the ALO or DIVARTY pronto).  Depending on the volume of the VT and how the arty hits, there are systems that should sustain damage, and obviously repeated hits will have a residual effect, but you'd need surprise and massed fire otherwise the Abrams crew'll scoot before the effective stuff hits.  You can always get lucky.  End of the day VT is most effective against man flesh.

American Artillery has been re-organizing and re-stocking to deal with armor over the past few years, as our ability to undertake this mission has somewhat atrophied due to the unique demands of a decade and a half of American Adventurism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since its brought up I have found that artillery HE impact does not really damage US armored vehicles like it should in reality. Would be cool if we can get a detailed look into it, a 203 mm shell landed on an Abrams and rendered it imbolizied but somehow after such a gigantic blast the crew inside wasnt even fazed at the slightest it murdered my tank after. Anyways thats one of some events I found artillery to be weak against US armor. 

Also I'd love for some MLRS support attached to my motor rifle battalions please would make my battles so much easier. MLRS module maybe? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Since its brought up I have found that artillery HE impact does not really damage US armored vehicles like it should in reality. Would be cool if we can get a detailed look into it, a 203 mm shell landed on an Abrams and rendered it imbolizied but somehow after such a gigantic blast the crew inside wasnt even fazed at the slightest it murdered my tank after. Anyways thats one of some events I found artillery to be weak against US armor. 

Also I'd love for some MLRS support attached to my motor rifle battalions please would make my battles so much easier. MLRS module maybe? :P

Pretty sure if modern MLRS systems were included you would need a gentleman's agreement to not use them until the final turn of combat for the sake of fairness :P

On the topic of CAS I never bring it. It's too easy for a tunguska to sit in the back and splash it and I will never see it. Personally think the CAS system needs a major overhaul. But I'm a bit biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...