Artillery is underpowered against vehicles

[Armorgunner]

Hi all

This is my first post here, but i´ve read this forum since last summer, and i like the mature tone here. I played CMBB and CMAK for many years. And this summer i was back (for good i think now :)). I bought CMSF (all modules), CMBS and CMRT. After playing CMSF for a few weeks i bought CMBS, and after that i uninstalled Shock Force. Since it felt old in comparison.

But the arty is to weak against vehicles, i think.

This is very interesting reading from Ukraine ( read it all )  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwsSGlkg0LM2aVhrNXExQ2FVTngxbzhWYVFCSFpvNWNCdVFB/view

its from The potomac foundation

But if you are only interested in the topic, go to page 36 : Fire strike at Zelenopillya

Where two Ukranian mechanized battalions was caught in the open, and was decimated. They lost almost all their vehicles in just a few minutes to Russian artillery and MLRS. With the latter employing top attack munitions, and thermobaric warheads. 

.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Armorgunner

[IICptMillerII]

5 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Where two Ukranian mechanized battalions was caught in the open, and was decimated. They lost almost all their vehicles in just a few minutes to Russian artillery and MLRS. With the latter employing top attack munitions, and thermobaric warheads.

No time to read the article at the moment but I will check it out when I have the chance. Artillery is very effective at destroying vehicles, even MBTs, but when using ICM. In CM, there is no ICM artillery. We are stuck with HE, smoke and airburst (HE set to explode in the air, not ICM) None of the ammo currently available in CM is very effective at taking out armor. You can do it, but it takes a lot of ammo and some luck. 

I'm hoping that in the future, whether its a module for CMBS or an engine upgrade, we get ICM artillery. It would add a whole new level of use to artillery in CM. However I am not aware of a reason why it has not been included already, I suspect there is one. Could be coding, or it could be a gameplay thing. I'm sure someone more informed than I will drop by and let us know.

[Pete Wenman]

5 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

and i like the mature tone here

You wait !

oh and welcome by the way. 

P

[Haiduk]

7 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Where two Ukranian mechanized battalions was caught in the open, and was decimated. They lost almost all their vehicles in just a few minutes to Russian artillery and MLRS. With the latter employing top attack munitions, and thermobaric warheads. 

Not two battalions, but combined group of several companies and detachments - mech.units, airmobile and Border Guards. But never mind. 36 KIA and about 100 WIA. After first salvo next one proceeded, which partially hit rescue convoy of border guards (1 KIA, several WIA). Also were destroyed 2 T-64BV, 2 BTR-80, BMP-1KSh staff vehicle, R-145 armored radio station, BREM-1 and dozens of trucks. Losses were not so "decimated", but of course this combined unit lost own combat capability. But this disaster loses were caused not so by power of Russian weapon, but mostly because of stupid command and laziness of personnel. This were first months of war, no one didn't think that Russia will directly come to war. All companies with own vehicles have stood crowded, only several smart junior officers gave orders to disperse vehicles and personnel. Was hot and many soldiers didn't wan to dig tranches: "Separatists too far, this is just antiterroristic operation, not war ! For why ?" They set tents like on training range one close to other, only few part of experienced soldiers either dug foxholes or went to sleep in nearest treeplant. All unit actively uses own smartphones and cell phones - of course Russian SIGINT/ELINT unit easy detected big concentration of signals and locate coordinates. Furter, 14 enemy MLRS Grad or "Tornado-G" (modernized Grad with GLONASS targeting and computer firing data calculations) fired a salvo...

Need to say many, UKR units up to August 2014 are continuing to ignore fortifiacation works. Extrelally hot summer, laziness, maneuver character of war in that period, mostly hard rocky terrain - all this caused that we suffered big losses especially in vehicles, which stay open and hit by indirect fire.

In CM alas, almost absent fortifications, even primitive checkpoints from concrete blocks, only trenches and foxholes, which give less cover than in real. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Haiduk

[Armorgunner]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

No time to read the article at the moment but I will check it out when I have the chance. Artillery is very effective at destroying vehicles, even MBTs, but when using ICM. In CM, there is no ICM artillery. We are stuck with HE, smoke and airburst (HE set to explode in the air, not ICM) None of the ammo currently available in CM is very effective at taking out armor. You can do it, but it takes a lot of ammo and some luck. 

I'm hoping that in the future, whether its a module for CMBS or an engine upgrade, we get ICM artillery. It would add a whole new level of use to artillery in CM. However I am not aware of a reason why it has not been included already, I suspect there is one. Could be coding, or it could be a gameplay thing. I'm sure someone more informed than I will drop by and let us know.

read it!

For sure! it would, and i like it

[Armorgunner]

1 hour ago, Pete Wenman said:

You wait !

oh and welcome by the way. 

P

Thanks for your welcoming thoughts. And yes, I know what you mean, it will surely come soon. but in between, i just enjoy the mature tone

English is not my native language , so i excuse myself if something is wrong.  

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

I'm hoping that in the future, whether its a module for CMBS or an engine upgrade, we get ICM artillery. It would add a whole new level of use to artillery in CM.

Amen.One of the many things I enjoyed in TacOps was using an MLRS with ICM munitions against a concentration of Red tanks. The original "grid square sanitizer". It's so much fun to watch an entire battalion disappear in a cloud of smoke and dust.

Michael

Edited November 23, 2016 by Michael Emrys

[Ivanov]

In CMBS there are no DPICM or fuel-air explosive munitions, that would be most devastating against the vehicles and that wreaked havoc among the unexpecting and unprepared Ukrainian troops in Donbas. Having said this, I think a standard HE 155mm or 152mm shell exploding next to an armored vehicle, could easily disable it, but I've never seen it happening in CMBS. 

For the record - I don't think that artillery firing DPICM would work well in the scale of CM. You could just plaster the whole area general where you expect the enemy to be and go home. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Ivanov

[IICptMillerII]

32 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

For the record - I don't think that artillery firing DPICM would work well in the scale of CM. You could just plaster the whole area general where you expect the enemy to be and go home

I have a feeling that this may be the reason why Battlefront has not included ICM artillery. Granted, it is only the MLRS batteries that destroy entire grid squares. Conventional artillery would have to be massed in order to do that. That said, ICM capable artillery would still be devastating on CMs scale. Still though, until I hear official word, or see quoted official word, I will remain hopeful that it is eventually added as a capability to the modern titles. I'm hoping for more fire support options in general for the modern titles, specifically air power. We need more munition types. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I don't think there's an official word, but I know US Army side before it was put on the chopping block, there was a strong reluctance to use it on targets that might be later occupied by friendly forces.  The failure rate for a "good" submunition is still into the double digits, and thus impact areas could easily be turned into an adhoc minefield from the significant UXO.  I think that might be the logic that went into the game that ICMs would be deployed, just not at the danger close sub-2 KM from each other type fights.  Same deal with FASCAM.  

[John Kettler]

This is a retired US Army MG's take on the situation in a US vs Russia fight. It is a rather sobering read. He specifically talks about the greater range of Russian FS, the dramatic impact of the loss of "steel rain" for the US, together with the revelation, for me, at least, that the US hadn't merely withdrawn such munitions but had destroyed them altogether! He also talks directly about Russia's demonstrated effective jamming (radio, radar and GPS) and reconnaissance strike complex employment resulting from DFing Ukrainian Army radios or even cell phones.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russias-superior-new-weapons/2016/08/05/e86334ec-08c5-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html?utm_term=.1c00d5915235

Regards,

John Kettler

[Abdolmartin]

Even though ICM munitions aren't in CMBS, I still think (as has been mentioned in the forums before) that artillery doesn't do as much damage as it's supposed to. I once called in two 3-round 122mm precision strikes (from a Gvozdika platoon) on two Bradleys, both of which were hit at least once on the weapon mount. However, none of their guns were disabled. I may be able to believe that it wouldn't completely destroy the vehicle, but seriously, a 122mm HE round directly hitting the weapon but not disabling it doesn't sound that realistic to me.

[IICptMillerII]

6 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The failure rate for a "good" submunition is still into the double digits, and thus impact areas could easily be turned into an adhoc minefield from the significant UXO

As I understand it, many of these cluster sub munitions were designed to not explode in order to create a makeshift minefield. At the very least it makes recovering casualties and equipment that much more hazardous to the enemy. I know that in recent years efforts have been made to reduce the amount of UXO associated with cluster munitions due to their impact on civilian populations. I still think that conventional artillery delivered ICM (105 and 155mm tube artillery) is within the scale of CM. MLRS is obviously outside the scale. 

John, reading a bit of the article you posted, I can't help but think that there is an obvious bias or message being pushed. The idea that the US Military, or even the Army for that matter is completely incapable, or at great disadvantage to a near peer threat is ludicrous. This quote in particular caught my attention;  "I couldn’t help imagining a U.S. armored battalion subjected to a similar fire strike."

The author may not be able to imagine this happening, but I assure you anyone actually in the Army is more than prepared for this possibility. Casualties are always to be avoided if possible, but are an inevitable fact of warfare. One only has to look at what casualties were expected to be like in the First Gulf War, or what casualties were actually like during WWII to know that the US Army is aware of the possibility of taking high casualties, and in the event of taking high casualties, can still function and complete the mission. Those high casualties effect on public relations are another matter entirely, and do not directly affect the Army's ability to fight tactical battles on the ground. 

12 minutes ago, Abdolmartin said:

Even though ICM munitions aren't in CMBS, I still think (as has been mentioned in the forums before) that artillery doesn't do as much damage as it's supposed to. I once called in two 3-round 122mm precision strikes (from a Gvozdika platoon) on two Bradleys, both of which were hit at least once on the weapon mount. However, none of their guns were disabled. I may be able to believe that it wouldn't completely destroy the vehicle, but seriously, a 122mm HE round directly hitting the weapon but not disabling it doesn't sound that realistic to me.

Explosives are not just a simple equation of big boom = big destruction. If you place a large block of explosives on top of a metal plate and set it off, nothing really happens to the metal plate. It may get scorched a bit, and possibly move if not secured down, but it generally will not buckle or be vaporized into shrapnel unless there is some weakness already in the armor. The force and energy from the explosion is directed away from the metal, as it follows the path of least resistance. In order to effectively penetrate the metal, you either need a shaped charge which channels the force of the explosion into and through the metal, or a purely kinetic weapon that is also directing the force into and through the target. Check out this youtube video of shells impacting a metal surface in slow motion. You will note that even though the artillery shells are flying at significant velocity, they do little if any damage to the metal target: 

This isn't to say that armored vehicles are impervious to HE rounds. It is very possible, and likely that sub systems are damaged/destroyed, such as vision ports and radio antenna to name a few. Its also possible that an HE round gets lucky and punches into the vehicle and destroys it. My point here is that just because an artillery round lands near/on an armored vehicle does not mean there should be guaranteed catastrophic damage. 

I think that by and large CM simulates the effects of artillery fire very well. My issue is not with the simulation of what is present, but with what is not present. More/different munition types such as ICM would likely result in the mass armored casualties some people expect from a large artillery barrage. A direct hit on an armored vehicles top armor from multiple armor defeating sub munitions would surely result in significant damage or destruction of said vehicle. As I said earlier, I hope to see these munition types added and expanded upon in future modules/updates. 

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

A direct hit on an armored vehicles top armor from multiple armor defeating sub munitions would surely result in significant damage or destruction of said vehicle.

I would be interested to know what the odds are that a vehicle will get struck by more than one or two bomblets in a typical ICM attack.

Michael

[VladimirTarasov]

7 hours ago, Abdolmartin said:

Even though ICM munitions aren't in CMBS, I still think (as has been mentioned in the forums before) that artillery doesn't do as much damage as it's supposed to. I once called in two 3-round 122mm precision strikes (from a Gvozdika platoon) on two Bradleys, both of which were hit at least once on the weapon mount. However, none of their guns were disabled. I may be able to believe that it wouldn't completely destroy the vehicle, but seriously, a 122mm HE round directly hitting the weapon but not disabling it doesn't sound that realistic to me.

Same thing happened to me. In real life that gun was shredded, and so were the optics on it. 

[Armorgunner]

17 hours ago, Ivanov said:

In CMBS there are no DPICM or fuel-air explosive munitions, that would be most devastating against the vehicles and that wreaked havoc among the unexpecting and unprepared Ukrainian troops in Donbas. Having said this, I think a standard HE 155mm or 152mm shell exploding next to an armored vehicle, could easily disable it, but I've never seen it happening in CMBS. 

For the record - I don't think that artillery firing DPICM would work well in the scale of CM. You could just plaster the whole area general where you expect the enemy to be and go home. 

In CMRT There is 300mm MLRS, not with thermobaric or cluster warheads though. In this thread http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/61-ukrainian-armor-oplot-m-t-64m-bulat-and-other/ there is a lot of pictures of destroyed armour. several from artillery attacks. Dont know which warheads in use though

In CMBS there is 25mm thermobaric grenades in the US squad weapon.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Armorgunner

[MikeyD]

By coincidence just last night I got a direct hit artillery penetration of a BTR80 in the game. And I bombarded a copse of trees that had a T90A  hidden in it. End of game I found the T90A dead. So vehicles aren't immune to artillery. CMSF has cluster munitions. I want to say even old CM:Afrika Corps used cluster munitions (one German bomber). If they're not in CMBS they did it on purpose, one supposes to reflect current international conventions opposing the use of cluster munitions and air-sewed antipersonnel mines.

Edited November 24, 2016 by MikeyD

[VladimirTarasov]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

If they're not in CMBS they did it on purpose, one supposes to reflect current international conventions opposing the use of cluster munitions and air-sewed antipersonnel mines.

Russia operates DPICM in great numbers and it would be indeed used in this war. I know the US doesn't use them anymore but Russia does and it would actually help out a lot if they were modeled in game.

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

By coincidence just last night I got a direct hit artillery penetration of a BTR80 in the game. And I bombarded a copse of trees that had a T90A  hidden in it. End of game I found the T90A dead.

Russian and Ukrainian vehicles are destroyed by shells, but during my gameplay time I've come to find vehicles like the Bradley and Abrams don't get their subsystems wrecked or destroyed like they should. I called in like 3 precision 152mms on an Abrams in one of my QBs and found out after that he took barely any subsystem damage. Would also be great if the crew could get a penalty for being hit by 152mm HE shells directly. I'll have to elaborate later on with some evidence, but I'm sure others have come across the same issue. 

Edit: Just ran a test and it seems the case I mentioned was only once... Turns out Abrams do get destroyed by the 152mms. I must have had some bad luck to be honest  Everything seems fine.

Edited November 24, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Abdolmartin]

@CptMiller Thanks for the video and the information. I don't think I'm informed enough to comment any further on this arty issue so I'll leave it to veterans.

[Muzzleflash1990]

Actually if they add DPICM USA should also have it. They never signed the agreement not to use cluster. Their stance is not to use it unless it becomes necessary, and it has not so far.

"Cluster munitions are available for use by every combat aircraft in the U.S. inventory, they are integral to every Army or Marine maneuver element and in some cases constitute up to 50 percent of tactical indirect fire support. U.S. forces simply cannot fight by design or by doctrine without holding out at least the possibility of using cluster munitions."

— Stephen Mull

Also: Cluster munitions have been determined as needed for ensuring the country's national security interests, but measures are being taken to address humanitarian concerns of their use, as well as pursuing their original suggested alternative to a total ban of pursuing technological fixes to make the weapons no longer viable after the end of a conflict.

In fact, they are researching improved weapons with lower failure rates. You can find the links to original sources on this wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition#United_States_policy_towards_cluster_munitions .

[Ivanov]

Re: conventional artillery vs tanks.

I remember reading about the tests conducted by US Army in the 80's. A dug in mechanized force, was subjected to a typical Soviet style artillery barrage ( conventional munitions ). The results were pretty devastating. If not completely destroyed, the tanks and APS were severely damaged what would result in them being out of action for some time. I know that an IED made out of 155mm shell is not the same, as the shell falling from the sky, but the video gives you an idea how powerful the artillery could be.
 

 

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

50 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

Re: conventional artillery vs tanks.

I remember reading about the tests conducted by US Army in the 80's. A dug in mechanized force, was subjected to a typical Soviet style artillery barrage ( conventional munitions ). The results were pretty devastating. If not completely destroyed, the tanks and APS were severely damaged what would result in them being out of action for some time. I know that an IED made out of 155mm shell is not the same, as the shell falling from the sky, but the video gives you an idea how powerful the artillery could be.
 

 

 

That's a deep buried IED.  The insurgents purposefully went to those for anti-armor operations because even fairly large conventional IEDs (like 152 MM or even aviation bombs) on the surface were not especially effective against heavy armor.  The deep buried ones were intended to strike at the weaker under armor, but what you're actually seeing in the video is the road surface being forced upwards and the tank being lofted by that vs being "blown up"

Artillery is tricky to gauge against armor.  Explosions do rather like the path of least resistance though (which is why blast effects are so much more enhanced in enclosed spaces).  I'd be more worried about whatever KE effects a rapidly traveling projectile has, but most PD fuzes are aggressively designed to go off on contact to avoid burying themselves so deeply (unless they're fuzed for a delay detonation).  

As far as the testing against Soviet type barrages, what we're seeing in CMBS is a much lower order attack, those tests were intended to basically measure assets firing saturation at a level well above what I think even our esteemed Forward Observer would bring to battle.  

[akd]

Re: blast against Abrams, see this:

 

Supposedly this is the same M1A1:

 

[Ivanov]

41 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

As far as the testing against Soviet type barrages, what we're seeing in CMBS is a much lower order attack, those tests were intended to basically measure assets firing saturation at a level well above what I think even our esteemed Forward Observer would bring to battle.  

That's certainly true.

[HerrTom]

8 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

As far as the testing against Soviet type barrages, what we're seeing in CMBS is a much lower order attack, those tests were intended to basically measure assets firing saturation at a level well above what I think even our esteemed Forward Observer would bring to battle.  

Yup.  Just for fun, I ran a quick test in CMBS on a barrage against a dug-in Bradley company with 4 Abrams attached.  I dropped somewhere in the realm of 1,200 artillery shells on them over the course of 45 minutes and it was pretty hairy for the Americans there.  Entrenched, they suffered 75% casualties, and 3 M2s completely knocked out, 6 no longer mission capable, and all but 3 were tracked.  The Abrams survived better, with 2 tracked and lacking thermals and LWR, 1 with all weapons knocked out, and 1 undamaged.  This was all just from a series of linear and area barrages.  All in all, a Very Bad Day.