Jump to content
Armorgunner

Artillery is underpowered against vehicles

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

ARGH CADETS WHY
2d26bmc.jpg

We got to do 155 MMs at LDAC.  It was fun but I missed the burn off as we rotated through the firing line, so the dudes loading in the morning (like me) were calling the fires in the afternoon and thus far from the inferno.  

Is that you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gazmaps said:

The US tanks and Javs are very powerful in the simulation as I suspect they are in the real world - however it would be a more balanced and interesting simulation if the advantages of the redfor where perhaps not under modeled. My understanding is that the Russians like pre planned artillery and lots of it - I have certainly being using it to combat US tanks in the game - be good to the full effect of this as I suspect its a very valid tactic.

Just want to point something out here. In general you are correct, the Soviets and current Russian doctrine does rely on massed artillery fires a lot. However its important to note that this is a primarily operational level consideration. A platoon leader in the Russian army does not have access to a divisions worth of artillery. The massed fires that the Russians have in their doctrine are more like the massive artillery bombardment that kicked off the Battle of the Bulge. There are a lot of pre planned strategic targets that are hit with massed fires (communications hubs, railways/yards, electrical and infrastructure targets like substations and intersections/bridges/important roadways, things of this nature) The aim of these fires is to reduce the enemy's ability to respond on an operational level as well as to create chaos in the rear areas, which are generally most vulnerable to indirect fires. 

Precision fires, like those used on the tactical battlefields in CM are still used obviously, but they are not the massed massive artillery barrages you may be thinking of. This is one of the main reasons why weapon systems like rocket artillery are not in the game, because they are not used as fire support on a tactical battlefield, but as an operational tool used to strike strategic targets. 

 

All those pictures were very cool! I especially liked the Brazilian :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, antaress73 said:

Is that you ?

Like a decade ago.  I went through Cadet summer training for ROTC (UNLIKE CERTAIN WEST POINT NERDS ON HERE) the summer before they started giving ACUs to cadets.  For our squad tactics lanes we were equipped largely with M16A1s and M60's, which gave a sort of Cold War-Vietnam vibe.  Most of us posed for Rambo action shots with the M60s once we were issued them though hence the photo.  

Share this post


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

Artillery is ineffective against roof armor on Lada type assault platforms.  

I think it's because the Ladas were made to military specifications coming down from the top of the Politburo!  These platforms are a well kept secret that shows the superiority of Russian armor. :D

On a more serious note - Hilarious!  Clearly didn't set off the fuse at that shallow angle.  Equally amusing how it spins out of control after the ricochet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

RELEVANT:
Artillery is ineffective against roof armor on Lada type assault platforms.  

Not only that but Russian artillery crews show their mastery skills... You think he accidentally got the round bouncing off the Lada? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

You just made my night. The video was outtanding, but the Lada wit in a league of its own. You may force the Marshal of Artillery into early retirement! NSA's also picking up chatter the T-14 Armata production line has come to a standstill in light of this shocking discovery!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Not only that but Russian artillery crews show their mastery skills... You think he accidentally got the round bouncing off the Lada? 

:blink::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Noticed something else in the video. There is a base bleed going on as the projectile flies to the unexpectedly impervious target. The impact really messes up that bleed, probably via propellant fracturing and loss, which is why the shell does that strange semi vertical rotational thing after it hits the Lada roof and bounces. Do you have an embed code for the video? Would love to share it with some people.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2016 at 11:06 PM, Codename Duchess said:

That was a concrete bomb, if it had been live that tank would have been toast. But you can see that the KE alone of that would have ruined a tank. When we drop on armor we use tail fusing for the bomb, which will kill it very dead, including ex-Iraqi Abrams. I'd chock the "miss" up there to most likely being the EOTS on that F-35 being out of calibration, or just standard CEP stuff.

[...]

Yes, that was actually my point, the bomb usually kills the tank by its shear explosive power and not by direct hit.

During the final phase of the Lybian war, French air-force used concrete bombs in urban environement against vehicles to reduce risk of civilian casualities because the tanks and vehicles were hiding in cities. And they witnessed that it was a more complicated to achieve than live bombs due to the need of a direct hit to kill the tank, very much like in the video. Consequently they switched to more advanced guidance kits. That's also why they decided to engage the helicopters that proved very deadly later on.

Back on the topic, I really think artillery should be more deadly to vehicles and destroy more subsystems on tanks, especially airbust rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, FoxZz said:

During the final phase of the Lybian war, French air-force used concrete bombs in urban environement against vehicles to reduce risk of civilian casualities because the tanks and vehicles were hiding in cities. And they witnessed that it was a more complicated to achieve than live bombs due to the need of a direct hit to kill the tank, very much like in the video. Consequently they switched to more advanced guidance kits. That's also why they decided to engage the helicopters that proved very deadly later on.

FoxZz you don't happen to have a link to an article/book/similar that discusses the Libyan war in the detail you describe? Sounds like it would be an interesting read about an event i know nothing about....

Edited by gnarly

Share this post


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

especially airbust rounds

Airburst does not equal armor defeating. If an HE shell set to explode before hitting the ground goes off above a tank, all its doing is spraying the tank with small metal fragments. Will it shred antennas and ruck sacks and the like on the outside of the tank? Yes. But its not going to destroy a 120mm/125mm main gun. Its also not going to damage optics, because optics are protected behind blast shields that are operated by the crew. All airburst artillery is in CM is a shotgun going off a few meters off the ground aimed down.

Artillery deployed cluster munitions, Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions, or DPICM, or ICM for short, are designed to defeat the top armor of armored vehicles, including tanks. This type of artillery is NOT in CM currently. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-Purpose_Improved_Conventional_Munition

The way artillery is represented and simulated in CM for both sides is fine. If there is an issue, it is that certain capabilities of artillery are not present in the game. Hopefully these capabilities are added in future modules, but if not artillery is more than functional as is. For now, use HE artillery against targets HE artillery is designed to engage, infantry, fortifications/buildings, strongpoints and the like. Stop trying to kill tanks with it. 

Share this post


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

Yes, that was actually my point, the bomb usually kills the tank by its shear explosive power and not by direct hit.

During the final phase of the Lybian war, French air-force used concrete bombs in urban environement against vehicles to reduce risk of civilian casualities because the tanks and vehicles were hiding in cities. And they witnessed that it was a more complicated to achieve than live bombs due to the need of a direct hit to kill the tank, very much like in the video. Consequently they switched to more advanced guidance kits. That's also why they decided to engage the helicopters that proved very deadly later on.

Back on the topic, I really think artillery should be more deadly to vehicles and destroy more subsystems on tanks, especially airbust rounds.

That 152mm shell burst pretty close to the Lada...and the windshield stayed intact. Impressive resilience to blast effects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2016 at 7:44 PM, John Kettler said:

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Noticed something else in the video. There is a base bleed going on as the projectile flies to the unexpectedly impervious target. The impact really messes up that bleed, probably via propellant fracturing and loss, which is why the shell does that strange semi vertical rotational thing after it hits the Lada roof and bounces. Do you have an embed code for the video? Would love to share it with some people.

Regards,

John Kettler

I see absolutely no evidence of any base bleed system. 

There is disrupted air, the same (but bigger) as that formed behind any other projectile. If the lighting is right, you can track your own rounds by the wake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c3k,

Odd, considering the Russians have base bleed 152 mm HE Frag. Bold in main text is mine. Am sure you'd agree Msta-S and Koalitsya-SV are ammo compatible.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mstas/

(Fair Use)

"MSTA-S howitzer munitions

MSTA-S fires a variety of ammunition - HE-FRAG (high-explosive fragmentation), HE-FRAG with base gas bleed, cluster projectiles with fragmentation submunitions and the Krasnopol laser-guided 152mm projectile. It can also fire the 3RB30 jammer carrying projectiles which set up radio intereference to disrupt enemy communications. These have a range of 22km and can jam frequencies between 1.5MHz to 120MHz to a radius of 700m."

Highly specific data accompanying this Msta-B YT video lists the above projectile as OF61. Additionally, it is so listed in Kinnards's Artillery: A Illustrated History of Its Impact on page 320.
 

Am standing on my statement and would love to hear from our Redleg community.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, c3k said:

That 152mm shell burst pretty close to the Lada...and the windshield stayed intact. Impressive resilience to blast effects. 

I think there are two things going on here - #1 is the telephoto effect, which compresses the distance between objects.  The shell was probably a lot further away than it looked.  The second is that the shell seems to have exploded in a ditch, which probably shielded our unobtanium Lada.  Impressive nonetheless.

 

6 hours ago, FoxZz said:

Yes, that was actually my point, the bomb usually kills the tank by its shear explosive power and not by direct hit.

I think I forgot to mention this, but I looked up the Mk 82 vs a 152mm shell, and the difference is something like 150 kg of TNT vs 6 kg.  So there's a fair margin of explosive power between the two!  After investigating the HE-FRAG shells, I pale at the thought of what a Mk 82 would do to a tank.

 

5 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Airburst does not equal armor defeating. If an HE shell set to explode before hitting the ground goes off above a tank, all its doing is spraying the tank with small metal fragments. Will it shred antennas and ruck sacks and the like on the outside of the tank? Yes. But its not going to destroy a 120mm/125mm main gun. Its also not going to damage optics, because optics are protected behind blast shields that are operated by the crew. All airburst artillery is in CM is a shotgun going off a few meters off the ground aimed down.

While you're definitely right on a lot (especially on shells up to 120mm or so), I think the opinion is less that near hits and airbursts will kill tanks and more along the lines that hits within a couple of meters of tanks should stand a higher chance than currently (is there one?) of damaging subsystems and even injuring crew (and in my opinion, direct hits outside of the front aspect should knock it out).  It may be a shotgun, but it's more akin to that 120mm shotgun shell than a 12ga.  TFO's article gives some pretty solid evidence for artillery shells knocking out M48s through the side armour, which as far as I know is similar to the armour on the roof and rear of the Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

While you're definitely right on a lot (especially on shells up to 120mm or so), I think the opinion is less that near hits and airbursts will kill tanks and more along the lines that hits within a couple of meters of tanks should stand a higher chance than currently (is there one?) of damaging subsystems and even injuring crew (and in my opinion, direct hits outside of the front aspect should knock it out).  It may be a shotgun, but it's more akin to that 120mm shotgun shell than a 12ga.  TFO's article gives some pretty solid evidence for artillery shells knocking out M48s through the side armour, which as far as I know is similar to the armour on the roof and rear of the Abrams.

In my experience in CM, vulnerable sub systems such as radio antenna, tracks and the like do suffer damage from artillery, whether its a direct hit or a close hit. Other sub systems, like optics are generally damaged much less, but that is because these systems have more protection than the others. As far as the armor comparison between the M48 and the Abrams, I find it very hard to believe that the latter could be reliably and effectively penetrated by shrapnel from HE artillery. The armor on the two tanks are quite different, as the M48 lacks various components like spall liners and composite armor to name a few. So while the top armor on the M48 is likely just a thin piece of metal, on the Abrams its a thin piece of metal with a bunch of other things as well, so its more than just a thin piece of metal. I'm sure everyone's favorite cabbage launcher (PzSrKtWerfer) could give a better explanation.

There are plenty of google-able confirmed occurrences of American Abrams tanks (not the export versions) being difficult to damage/destroy, even by other American weapons. Its not invincible at all, but it is pretty resilient as far as tanks go. I think the way it is modeled, and artillery in general is very good in game. One can always find the one anecdote that seems to prove the exception to the status quo, but CM like any simulator is not designed to simulate all the little exceptions. 

By the way, just wanted to say that your simulations you share here on the forums are very cool! I hope you continue to provide them here to the rest of us. Its a great contribution that really helps to visualize some of the finer details. Plus, explosions are always cool, even if they're just a computer model :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

50 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

In my experience in CM, vulnerable sub systems such as radio antenna, tracks and the like do suffer damage from artillery, whether its a direct hit or a close hit. Other sub systems, like optics are generally damaged much less, but that is because these systems have more protection than the others. 

Well in my test where I lined up 25 Abrams and snogged the map with loads of 152mm,

- I saw the odd kill from a direct hit (I'm pretty sure never from a single hit - but successive direct hits)

- the odd non killing penetration  or armour spalling from direct hits

- consistent damage to tracks from near misses - though seems multiple near misses usually required to completely immobilise the tank.

- no other sub system damage from near misses.

- gradual subsystem damage from each successive non-penetrating hit - but not the main weapon. 

i find it hard to believe near hits from 152mm he will blow of tracks but not damage subsystems. Actually I find it hard,to believe,they don't damage any subsystems unless getting direct hits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IICaptainMillerII,

Regarding your blanket statement that an artillery airburst isn't going to destroy the 120 mm gun, I strenuously disagree. Seems to me that a shell capable of spearing a heavy frag out the far side of turret side armor for an M48 would constitute a credible threat of 120 mm tube deformation (denting from without distorting bore within) or even perforation. Either one is a F-Kill. The muzzle reference sensor is quite vulnerable to damage, and its loss will degrade gunnery accuracy. Damage to the thermal jacket will induce further error sources into gunnery, and damage to the bore evacuator would, I believe, have some unpleasant repercussions in the fighting compartment.  All of these are with zero damage to the sights per se. But don't take my word for it regarding the sort of damage a 155 mm HE shell (used as valid Russian 152 mm shell substitute) can do, since I brought some firing test data to the party. See particularly B-2 in the report below. It gives such useful data as frag initial velocity, frag density per steradian as a function of angle relative to projectile's longitudinal axis and other items as well. Believe HerrTom and others here can run some calculations and simulations which would prove educational on artillery frag hazards to tank cannon barrels.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a125824.pdf

Report No. TOP-2-2-722

US ARMY TEST AND EVALUATION COMMAND

TEST OPERATIONS PROCEDURE

"Fragment Penetration of Armor"

Aberdeen Proving Ground

15 March 1983

This also appears relevant, though I've not read anything but the abstract and skimmed a bit of the report. Ordnance grogs may need bibs to catch drool!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230785657_Characterization_of_distribution_parameters_of_fragment_mass_and_number_for_conventional_projectiles

Characterization of distribution parameters of fragment mass and number for conventional projectiles

Berko Zecevic*, Jasmin Terzic*, Alan Catovic*,
and Sabina Serdarevic-Kadic*
* University of Sarajevo, Mechanical Engineering faculty, Bosnia and Herzegovina
zecevic@mef.unsa.ba
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


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

 

Well in my test where I lined up 25 Abrams and snogged the map with loads of 152mm,

- I saw the odd kill from a direct hit (I'm pretty sure never from a single hit - but successive direct hits)

- the odd non killing penetration  or armour spalling from direct hits

- consistent damage to tracks from near misses - though seems multiple near misses usually required to completely immobilise the tank.

- no other sub system damage from near misses.

- gradual subsystem damage from each successive non-penetrating hit - but not the main weapon. 

i find it hard to believe near hits from 152mm he will blow of tracks but not damage subsystems. Actually I find it hard,to believe,they don't damage any subsystems unless getting direct hits.

 

Well that is very bizzare, because when I set up 4 Abrams in a row and hit them with 152mm HE fire this happens after just one minute:

(Pictured: Subsystem damage on an Abrams after 1 minute of 152mm HE fire)

d691fa5d275f4dc1a1eb007a5d1276a7.jpeg

Here is the before picture. Note the time difference between the two pictures (1 minute)

4e6eee97c8974754875200d7edd14d6f.jpeg

Same minute, different tank pictured this time. Note that is is immobilized and has two subsystems completely destroyed:

8b7747aae36d46f5ac80272dba92501b.jpeg

Five minutes have now passed. Please note that the tank is now immobilized and has suffered even more damage to its sub systems:

4592593b1fa54101af01ae0697b07ef2.jpeg

All 4 tanks are now immobilized. All four tanks have suffered damage to multiple subsystems and that damage increased as the barrage went on. I could keep posting more and more of these screenshots, but I feel it would be overkill and insulting to the intelligence of those reading this thread. It very clearly shows that the Abrams tank suffers damages to its subsystems after taking fire from 152mm HE artillery. 

As for the statement that an artillery shell exploding next to a tank should cause significant damage, I'll refer you to points made by both PzSrKtWerfer and HerrTom. Watch the vid that PzKraut posted. You'll notice that an artillery shell going off close to a Lada car (world renowned for its sturdy build :rolleyes:) barely flinches as an artillery shell bounces off its roof and explodes very close. HerrTom pointed out the drastic difference in the amount of explosives in a 152mm HE shell compared to an aircraft deployed bomb. Both of these points clearly illustrate that just because something goes boom, does not mean everything dies near it. 

In conclusion:

  • Tanks, specifically the Abrams suffers damage from artillery
  • Artillery is able to damage sub systems on tanks
  • Artillery is able to immobilize tanks
  • Artillery is able to kill tanks, however it takes a lot of ammo and a bit of luck
  • Artillery in Combat Mission is modeled well

 

 

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...