Jump to content
Armorgunner

Artillery is underpowered against vehicles

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

@IICptMillerII Just curious, are you under the impression that an Abrams in real life could sustain this many direct hits from 155 HE-quick and still function?
bossabrams2.jpg

That does seem like an extreme case, and I would honestly expect that shell impact on the hatch to have penetrated into the turret of the tank, but I do not think it is outside the realm of possibility for a tank to survive such punishment. I doubt the tank suffered no damage though. In the screenshots I just posted above you'll see that I was able to inflict more than a bit of damage to Abrams with 152mm HE fire. Additionally, HE shells have very little, if any inherent penetration ability. So I would not expect to see an HE shell boring holes through armor before exploding. Nathan Okun, a naval historian did a bit of research and found that even big 16" battleship shells are terrible at penetrating armor. Here is a quote from him, as well as the link to the entire article:

HE shells are light-cased shells and, when combined with instantaneous nose fuzes (the only one used in the Type 0 HE shell), will do very little to even thin armor plate: For example, a 16" 1900-lb Mark 13/14 instantaneous-nose-fuzed ("PDF") High Capacity (HC) US Navy WWII shell CANNOT penetrate 3" of homogeneous armor!!! It makes a big dent, but the shell destroys itself before its nose tip can move more than a few inches forward

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-092.htm

So while it does seem like an extreme case, it does not seem impossible to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real fast:

Re: In general

I'm really not sure at this point if we're seeing realistic/unrealistic behavior.  The number of Abrams suffering direct hits from artillery is...not extensive.  There's a wide number of them hit by very large HE type munitions as deployed from IEDs though from virtually all angles.

From the IED experience, simple individual HE shells were not enough to do the job, it generally took several made into a larger "bomb" to reliably kill an Abrams (often in the neighborhood of 3-5 152 MM rounds wired together).

From the FA end of things, the only realistic difference as far as I can tell is the energy imparted from the shell impact.  But looking at the naval gunfire example, would the shell have penetrative effects if it's destroyed so quickly?

Re: Expected damage

For an HE hit to the turret deck I'd be worried about:

Direct hits on the hatch, it's not the thickest, and whatever spalling/damage is perfectly aligned with someone's body.

I would not expect the CROWs to survive any direct hits to the turret roof.  

Loader's MG is likely not going to be in good shape

The radio and GPS/BFT antennas are going to be tricky just because the radio ones are such small profile and might be able to flex with the blast.  The BFT one is low enough it might be masked by the hull.

For optics, a lot will depend on how close the round hits, but they are reasonably armored from every direction but front.  I'd be more worried about ricochets from the front part of the turret into the optic myself.  

The main gun tube is also tricky.  Short of a soild hit on the tube I think it at least stands a good chance of being operational. 

The sponson boxes (where about five of the rounds in TFO's example hit) would likely be blown off, it's just regular steel mounted to the exterior of the armor array.  

The bottom line is I would prefer 0 hits to my tank at all times.  But I don't really think I've got the background to confirm or deny effects on an Abrams.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been totally mia. but jumping in idk if the patch fixed this but it was discovered that in CM arty on airburst would NOT degrade tank subsystems even antennaes etc.

Only ground impacting arty would. which feels like a bug. not saying AB should blow up abrams but a heavy air burst barrage to kill the crunchies advancing with armor should also fu*k up external equipment on abrams. unfortunately simulations cant model every little thing or we.d have fun times when the crews personal stuff etc on the turret bustles caught on fire.. i remember reading accounts from the 03 Thunder Run about that. obviously it caused consternaition at first usually wondering whether they were on fire or "wtf is burning"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, almost certainly a bug. Airburst was degrading my tanks subsystems in the last game I played of CMSF, I see no reason why this would have changed now in BS. Mind you, my tanks were T-72Ms, but all the same. If an airbursting 120mm mortar can degrade a T72s tracks and optics...

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was tested a fww mnths ago and proven they dont unless the dust cloud u see kicked up by airbursting rounds is directly on the vehicle. so if the game sees a 155mm air burst one square over the tank wont suffer damage.

 

This drastially changed my play style. as redfor  able by use of modules of arty and playing woth rof and tubes to keep a 'linus cloud' of dirt and arty over the enemy tanks and forces advancing or enemy positoons for a large portion of the game. before it was all airburst to kill inf. and degrade subsystems. now i have to be careful to add some general rounds to the mix to make sure tank subsystems are degraded. this is rlly crycial and can make a world of difference when it comes to direct fire combat..

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

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

 

 

I think your misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make which is;

- Only direct hits cause subsystem damage (not near misses)

- Im assuming either the subsystem damage you show above was caused by direct hits

or

- Theirs something going wrong with someones application

Which is what I was trying to explain in my original post. So your results are likely exactly the same as mine.

To me it all sounds about right - except the subsystems only take damage on direct hits.

To me this seems odd - as I would have expected subsystem damage from near misses. The example of the IED (like a 155mm or 152mm based one) sounds like a good comparison - but Im guessing the effects of such IEDs on Abrams is not really made publicly available as Im sure the US military doesnt like to give this info away. 

Im guessing insurgents see either an immobilized tank, destroyed tank (dont recall hearing of many of these) but Im guessing the US military wont want to give away how / if the subsystems are degraded from such attacks and the operational effectiveness of the tank reduced.

The poor part of the comparison is that IEDs of this nature I suspect are mainly bottom attack and usually buried. Its more of an improvised landmine rather than an IED as such. 

Im also raising an inconsistency;

ie why do Javelins (which is a shaped charges) destroy an armored target (bmp3) from a near miss while a 152mm shells can damage tracks but nothing else on Abrams from a near miss???

Now I like the game.

I like to be able to apply "real world tactics" or some limited version of combined arms to get a positive result - I like how the game rewards that way of thinking - I'm just pointing out ways I think this can be further refined. And for redfor all things being equal has a bit of a disadvantage - I think that if my assumption is correct, "that large HE will cause more damage from near hits" then this actually makes the simulation;

a. more realistic and,

b. more balanced

I like what combined arms does in the game - but I suspect under modelling  HE effects leads to Gamey behavior and some unrealistic effects - like platoons of abrams that are immobilized but lethal killing machines still - because all their subsystems are intact.....  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Believe HerrTom and others here can run some calculations and simulations which would prove educational on artillery frag hazards to tank cannon barrels.

Well, I haven't got much else better to do today, so why not?  Thanks for that Aberdeen report, too.  Very informative.  My suspicion is that since the gun is round and relatively thick, it may not be as vulnerable to fragmentation damage as people are suspecting.

5 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

Just curious, are you under the impression that an Abrams in real life could sustain this many direct hits from 155 HE-quick and still function?

Maybe in the Black Sea timeline, these Abrams got the Lada armour upgrade?

6 minutes ago, Gazmaps said:

The poor part of the comparison is that IEDs of this nature I suspect are mainly bottom attack and usually buried. Its more of an improvised landmine rather than an IED as such. 

Yup.  Being buried will make a huge difference in the explosive power and fragmentation pattern.

Edited by HerrTom

Share this post


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

I think your misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make which is;

- Only direct hits cause subsystem damage (not near misses)

- Im assuming either the subsystem damage you show above was caused by direct hits

or

- Theirs something going wrong with someones application

Which is what I was trying to explain in my original post. So your results are likely exactly the same as mine.

To me it all sounds about right - except the subsystems only take damage on direct hits.

To me this seems odd - as I would have expected subsystem damage from near misses. The example of the IED (like a 155mm or 152mm based one) sounds like a good comparison - but Im guessing the effects of such IEDs on Abrams is not really made publicly available as Im sure the US military doesnt like to give this info away. 

Im guessing insurgents see either an immobilized tank, destroyed tank (dont recall hearing of many of these) but Im guessing the US military wont want to give away how / if the subsystems are degraded from such attacks and the operational effectiveness of the tank reduced.

The poor part of the comparison is that IEDs of this nature I suspect are mainly bottom attack and usually buried. Its more of an improvised landmine rather than an IED as such. 

Im also raising an inconsistency;

ie why do Javelins (which is a shaped charges) destroy an armored target (bmp3) from a near miss while a 152mm shells can damage tracks but nothing else on Abrams from a near miss???

Now I like the game.

I like to be able to apply "real world tactics" or some limited version of combined arms to get a positive result - I like how the game rewards that way of thinking - I'm just pointing out ways I think this can be further refined. And for redfor all things being equal has a bit of a disadvantage - I think that if my assumption is correct, "that large HE will cause more damage from near hits" then this actually makes the simulation;

a. more realistic and,

b. more balanced

I like what combined arms does in the game - but I suspect under modelling  HE effects leads to Gamey behavior and some unrealistic effects - like platoons of abrams that are immobilized but lethal killing machines still - because all their subsystems are intact.....  

A few things:

Near misses do cause damage. Specifically to tracks. What other sub system should be getting damaged by near misses? Optics are covered and hardened, and most other components are inside the tank, meaning you have to penetrate the tank to damage/destroy them. Thats the whole point of a tank, keeping the inside safe from outside fires.

Direct hits by artillery shells on a tank is rare. In order to get a direct hit, you either have to use a pinpoint fire mission on a non-moving target, guided munitions, or saturate the area with fire and hope to get lucky. Can a direct hit be achieved? Yes, but you're at the mercy of the law of averages, among other physical laws. This is precisely why HE artillery is not generally employed against tanks. Lets also not forget that the enemy gets a vote too. If shells start falling on the tanks, the tanks are going to move. Its called displacing, and pretty much every branch of the military has various SOP to facilitate displacement. Artillery units displace to avoid being hit by counter battery fires. Tanks displace to make them harder targets and to avoid enemy threats. (like artillery) Infantry displaces to avoid artillery, being pinned down and a slew of other reasons.

Thin brings me to my main point. Can artillery kill tanks? Yes. Can it do it efficiently/effectively? No. If you see enemy tanks on a battlefield and your first and only idea is "shell it" you're wrong. If your tanks are under an artillery barrage and you just let them sit there, you're wrong. 

As far as the Javelin incident is concerned, I could offer an explanation. For instance, its possible that the explosion of the javelin next to the BMP-3 caused shrapnel to pierce the side armor of the BMP-3 and set off the very volatile ammo inside. "But wait, why can javelin shrapnel, a much smaller warhead, penetrate the side armor of a BMP-3 but artillery cannot do the same to a tank?" Its because the side armor on a BMP-3 is much, much thinner, and is likely only RHA. This means it lacks additional armored protection provided by things like ERA, or protections organic to the armor itself such as composite armor (think chobham armor) For example, the front armor of an Abrams is roughly 700mm effectiveness. However there is not a meter of actual material on the front of the tank. The reason it is roughly 700mm effective armor is due to the reasons listed above, things like composite armors and ERA, etc.

Regardless of what actually happened to the BMP-3, one personal anecdote detailing an exception/rarity does not make it a rule. Now if it turns out there is a bug with the way BMP-3 side armor is modeled (like how when CMBS was first released and tanks could be penetrated and killed from .50 cal fire to the side armor consistently) then it should be addressed and fixed. However I do not think that such a bug exists, and there is no evidence for said bugs existence. Again, one personal anecdote of something out of the ordinary occurring does not establish it as a new norm, nor does it showcase a bug. It has to be consistently repeated, among other things. Essentially, it was a plausible fluke.

 

Which brings me to my final point; 'balance.'

REDFOR has a disadvantage in the game because in real life they are at a disadvantage. 'Balance' has absolutely no place in CM when it comes to core mechanics and the simulation of weapon capabilities. If you want a better tank for the Russians, or better ammo for the guns of Russian tanks, you'll have to wait for them to be developed and introduced in real life. CM is a simulation of tactical combat. It depicts real life equipment realistically. There is no balance or any such nonsense in real life, thus there is none in CM (when it comes to mechanics and modeling) and it does not belong. Period. Balance for gameplay considerations exist with mechanics such as the price of units in QB set ups and map design, if you chose to play on maps that are not representative or real/realistic terrain. But if Country A has better tanks than Country B, tough, deal with it. Country B does not deserve an unrealistic 'buff' for 'muh gameplay' and 'muh balance.' If thats the type of game you want to play, this is not the one for you, and there are plenty of other options commercially available. 

Edited by IICptMillerII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: Balance

Eww.

re: IEDs

Think of an object.  Someone has put an IED inside of it.  Popular places for the "large" artillery based IEDs (buried/deep buried non-inclusive):

1. Inside of guard rails on highways (the sheet metal kind, it'll mask a 152 MM pretty easily)
2. Underside of overpasses (again, there's usually a lip that the round could be hidden behind)
3. Dead animals (always classy, and blends in well with Iraq in general)
4. Parked/derlict vehicles
5. Etc

The "minelike" employment was again, largely because the "roadside" or even under the bridge types did not achieve meaningful effects against tanks on a regular basis, very large buried IEDs did pose a threat to most tracked vehicles which had a flat bottoms, and later the the EFP type IEDs had more utility against pretty much everything.

Groundburst HE just isn't the best tool for disabling tanks.  A lot of the subsystems people seem to believe should be taken out by ground level explosions are actually pretty well masked by the side of the tank, and also were designed shockingly enough to be somewhat robust against artillery barrages.  Direct hits, I'm uncertain about and perhaps they should be more lethal, but it isn't strictly an Abrams problem as I've seen a few T-90AMs staring at me from the bottom of impact craters, immobile but otherwise no worse for wear.  

But HE-PD and HE-VT in your normal concentrations are not exactly prime AT tools.  If they were, you'd never have seen ICM or all the various other anti-armor warheads.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

REDFOR has a disadvantage in the game because in real life they are at a disadvantage. 'Balance' has absolutely no place in CM when it comes to core mechanics and the simulation of weapon capabilities. If you want a better tank for the Russians, or better ammo for the guns of Russian tanks, you'll have to wait for them to be developed and introduced in real life.

Obviously the M1A2 has great armor. But the top armor on modern Russian tanks aren't any weaker in the top than the Abrams, considering T-72B3s and T-90As have ERA on top, and obviously tanks on average do not really have any good top armor. A direct hit to my knowledge and reading upon experiences should kill or mess up the crew bad enough to render them useless or less capable than they were. Not to say Russian tanks are going to fair any better against artillery of course.

I'll agree with TheFO that the Abrams does need a slight tweak to it's resistance against artillery, and I'd also love for BFC to throw in some more artillery capabilities into the game, I'd wait months for it, it'd be worth it in the long run to simulate better battles. TOS-1As would be very very interesting. My Christmas wishlist is DPICM and illumination rounds to be honest :D 

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

As far as the Javelin incident is concerned, I could offer an explanation. For instance, its possible that the explosion of the javelin next to the BMP-3 caused shrapnel to pierce the side armor of the BMP-3 and set off the very volatile ammo inside. "But wait, why can javelin shrapnel, a much smaller warhead, penetrate the side armor of a BMP-3 but artillery cannot do the same to a tank?" Its because the side armor on a BMP-3 is much, much thinner, and is likely only RHA

Considering the Javelin is a HEAT weapon it is very unlikely for a shrapnel to pierce the side armor of a IFV that has 22.5 RHA worth armor on the sides landing like half a meter or more away.

Edited by VladimirTarasov

Share this post


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

A direct hit to my knowledge and reading upon experiences should kill or mess up the crew bad enough to render them useless or less capable than they were. Not to say Russian tanks are going to fair any better against artillery of course.

A lot of these anecdotes tend to be the result of an open hatch, or some other kind of weakness in the defensive posture of the vehicle. For instance, a unit that gets surprised by an artillery barrage is at a greater risk for this to happen because the crew may be unbuttoned. This is one of the many reasons most conventional military's stopped using open topped vehicles after WWII. They're too vulnerable to indirect fires, among many other things. However a buttoned tank is pretty formidable to indirect. Again, it comes down to increasing the chances of a critical hit by saturating an area with immense amounts of fire, which most of the time is inefficient and impractical. Which is why it is not advised. 

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Considering the Javelin is a HEAT weapon it is very unlikely for a shrapnel to pierce the side armor of a IFV that has 22.5 RHA worth armor on the sides landing like half a meter or more away.

Yes, it is a HEAT Tandem warhead, but it is still enclosed in a metal casing, and is not 100% efficient. This means that some of the explosion is going to go to the sides, causing shrapnel to go with it. 22.5 mm of RHA is less an an inch. Its quite thin. .50 cal rounds can pierce it (regular ball ammo even, not just AP-I) and there is some debate about 7.62 being effective against it as well. A small chunk of hot shrapnel moving at high velocity could penetrate the the side armor and find its way into the ammo storage, causing the catastrophic explosion seen in the BMP-3 example listed. Again, I'm not saying that this is the most likely thing to happen. A lot of this comes down to luck. Will the HE round land on/in a hatch? Will the shrapnel penetrate at just the right spot to cause damage? All of these things are low probability, but they are still physically possible. When they do happen, they cause damage. Abrams can be killed with HE artillery. BMP-3s can be penetrated from the side by shrapnel. All of these effects and more are modeled in game. 

As a quick addition, you will note that while the Javelin is just a Tandem HEAT warhead, when it detonates it does create quite the explosion. Here is a video showing multiple Javelin impacts on various armored targets:

 

3 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

I agree with Panzer and Miller in spirit-- HE-Quick is not the best tool in the box for doing the business against armor.  With that said I think the Abrams resiliency in-game could still be toned down a notch.

Like I said, the example you posted was rather extreme, and I would have expected that tank to be in a less than optimal operating mode after all of those hits. However it seems that there is some good data out there that supports the idea that even with all of those direct hits, the Abrams could have survived with minimal damage, if any to internal systems and crew. Also its worth pointing out that in the most recent update for Black Sea, the overall resiliency of the Abrams was slightly decreased. Its in the patch notes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some good points made.

i have no idea what the real likely effects would be but sounds like even if perhaps slightly under modelled the game is actually not far off. Intuitively I'd have thought that he ends that size would have more effect on subsystems

ill add that where my opponent has parked his tanks right on top of trp I've pretty much immobilised all his tanks (about 4 of them).

i just do a heavy short bombardment on the point location and it hasn't failed yet to immobilise a target - though he typically is taking hits from atgms at the same time. No point doing longer because if you've not immobilised him by then he's got away.

i next try to degrade his systems with follow up bombardments so I can bring up the big guns to more safely finish them off.

or in future I'll bring along a 203mm piece to deliver the killing blow - the Atk helos have also been handy though very variable in results.

Share this post


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

Like I said, the example you posted was rather extreme, and I would have expected that tank to be in a less than optimal operating mode after all of those hits. However it seems that there is some good data out there that supports the idea that even with all of those direct hits, the Abrams could have survived with minimal damage, if any to internal systems and crew. 

I would love to see the data that would support that hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

I would love to see the data that would support that hypothesis.

Earlier in this thread I posted a link to an article discussing the destructive effects (or lack thereof) of naval gunfire, specifically 16" shells against armored plate. I'll post it again here:

HE shells are light-cased shells and, when combined with instantaneous nose fuzes (the only one used in the Type 0 HE shell), will do very little to even thin armor plate: For example, a 16" 1900-lb Mark 13/14 instantaneous-nose-fuzed ("PDF") High Capacity (HC) US Navy WWII shell CANNOT penetrate 3" of homogeneous armor!!! It makes a big dent, but the shell destroys itself before its nose tip can move more than a few inches forward

(http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-092.htm)

3" is 76.2mm. The Abrams has around 65mm (2.5") of armor on the top of the turret. At least those are some numbers that I can find right now, and it is specifically for the armor around the TC hatch. It is also the M1A1HA variant. Its possible that the top armor is thicker in other places, but someone more informed than I would have to chime in on that. If a 16" (405mm) 1900lb shell has trouble penetrating 3 inches of armor, then I don't see how a 152/155mm shell could be expected to reliably penetrate 2 inches of armor. Unless of course the shell has some kind of ballistic cap to assist it in punching through armor. Even if the HE was set to a delayed fuse, I still don't think that it would be able to reliably penetrate the armor.

Based on all of that, my hypothesis is that an Abrams could conceivably survive multiple direct hits to the top of its turret by 152/155mm HE fire. It is by no means guaranteed, merely within the realm of possibility. 

Just to make a few things clear:

  • I believe that what you posted is an extreme. As I've said, I think that 3 times out of 5 that type of direct fire would have caused damage more severe than just minor damage to sub systems, possibly enough to mission kill the tank/crew.
  • I do not think that an Abrams, or any tank for that matter would be able to simply shrug off a shell fired from a battleship. The crew would likely be down for the count, especially after a direct hit. Its also possible that an explosion that size on the top armor could crumple it and push it in, crushing the crew inside. Its more likely that the tank could be tossed or flipped by such an explosion. I'm simply using it as a working example to show that the penetrating effects of HE is very minimal. There is no hard data of an Abrams being hit by 152mm fire on a battlefield that I have access to, so I have to use this information. 
    • An additional point here about the battleship shells: there is a famous picture of Eisenhower standing next to a Tiger tank in France that was flipped by the impact of naval gunfire support. Fires that large are going to do some serious damage, even if its not due to penetration of the armored vehicle. 
    • foSWFah.jpg
  • I do not think that Abrams, or any other tanks should or are impervious to indirect fires. As I have said a few times now, its possible for tanks to be both damaged and destroyed by direct or close hits from indirect fires. I do think that artillery and armored vehicles are modeled well in CM. It is obviously not perfect as nothing is, and there will always be a fluke here and there (much to the amusement or chagrin to the player depending on which side hes on) but the vast majority of the time I think CM is doing it right. Definitely better than most other games/sims out there. 

To summarize, what you posted is unlikely, but not impossible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IICaptainMillerII,

Seems to me there's a big difference between armor plate breaching tests for the not at all typical (typical being Common/SAP for GP work and AP for ship killing on bigger weapons) HC naval shell and a 152 mm artillery shell hitting a metal box loaded with squishy people and all kinds of sensitive equipment which doesn't handle abrupt blast hammer blows well, as opposed to normal loads from traversing ground. FA HE is best thought of as being Common/SAP, not HC, for it has to be designed to be able to survive the impact loads associated with being fired into the ground or buildings to destroy defensive works and structures while on Delay.

Here is the OF-462 122 mm HE Frag shell.
122_mm_OF-462.jpg

 

 

 

Separate cases would be a  glancing blow or direct hit on the gun barrel. In any event, here's was Grad fire can do. Compared to the 122 mm shell above, it is HC.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a2_1407852495

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have data/info on the effects on the crew of large HE impact on or close to tanks?  One would think that "immobilized" crew is as effective as damage to the vehicle - but is that easier done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I went back and looked closer at Figure 8 from the article that TFO linked to - that IS an Abrams that's been totally wasted by a 155 mm shell. The proof is the right taillight [Do tankers call them that?] - compare:

Abrams:

M1_Abrams_Main_Battle_Tank_Us_Army_03.jp

M48:

M48_Patton2-3.jpg

M60:

m60_07_of_46.jpg

The taillight in Figure 8 can only be that of an Abrams - it's the only tank among the above that has its taillights mounted above the tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@John Kettler it took a couple of tries, and I still haven't managed to find a good failure model for RHA, but here's what I got for the worst-case scenario:

If the shell comes in parallel to the gun and lands under it, chances are fragmentation is going to damage the gun, maybe to the point of not being able to shoot.  Since the RHA failure model needs some work, the ultimate tensile strength of RHA is around 900 MPa, meaning any elements that are yellow or higher likely fractured, as well as any elements that strained beyond some 20% or so (RHA is not very ductile)  It's worth noting that had the shell landed perpendicular to the plate, the damage would be significantly less, as seen by the other simulations I've posted, and also that the detonation position here was a little unrealistic (since the fuse really hasn't hit anything technically), but it was much easier to set up.

@||CptMiller||, it's not the shells that penetrate, it's the fragmentation from the exploding shell, which are largely directed outwards that pose a very high risk to armour.  With that said, the explosive force can certainly cause damage, especially on thinner armour (like the top of any tank).

To summarize everything I think I've found and read in a nice list (applying to large calibre artillery like 152, 155 and 203)

  1. Radial fragmentation from shells should stand a risk of penetrating into the fighting compartment of even tanks.  Not specifically catastrophically, but with the capacity to injure crew members, damage optics and ammunition stores as well as the engine.  With that said, armour skirts help significantly against this threat, but don't really protect the tracks or rear aspect particularly well, leaving the engine particularly vulnerable.
  2. Direct hits to the frontal aspect of a tank may be damaging to optics, but that may be about it.
  3. Roof hits to any tank should be far more catastrophic to any armoured vehicle in the game.
  4. We have evidence from my explicit dynamics analysis (but that's not enough), TFO's article (http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_FULL_EDITION.pdf), as well as the video John posted (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a2_1407852495) showing the danger posed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Artillery kills tanks in CM
  • Artillery damages tanks in CM
  • Both damaging and killing tanks with artillery is consistently modeled

Just because artillery does not kill tanks every time it scores a direct hit DOES NOT MEAN the simulation is wrong/broken/bugged/whatever. 

Will a direct hit by artillery kill a tank? Yes.

Will a direct hit damage a tank? Yes.

Will artillery immobilize a tank? Yes.

Will a direct hit leave the tank undamaged? Yes.

Do all four of those occurrences occur in CM? Yes.

As I have now stated a few times, just because someone can produce one anecdotal example where artillery does not kill a tank after a direct hit DOES NOT MEAN the entire simulation is broken/bugged. It just means someone got lucky.

Everyone is under the impression that a gunshot wound to the head is usually always fatal. However I could google a ton of medical cases where someone was shot/stabbed/whatever in the head and survived, some without any permanent disability. Why is this? Is life broken? No, its just a rare possibility based on a multitude of factors. CM is the same, it simulates as best as it can all of the various factors that can occur on a tactical battlefield.

Until someone shows me that in CM artillery causes no damage (regardless of a direct hit or not) CONSISTENTLY through many many many many tests, and BFC does not announce the presence of a bug, I will continue to be content with the simulation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran a few tests with 152s and 203s.

at5x2FU.jpg

152 straight onto the gun mount.  Damage?  Commander sight and some track damage from the two that missed and went under it.  (Forgot to select it, sorry!)

8gzVu9m.png

3 direct hits on the roof of an Abrams, knocked out a lot of equipment but this tank should not be operational at all according to the discussion in this thread.  I wondered what it would take to knock out.

29Pqj10.png

Took 14 (!) more direct roof hits to knock it out besides the four misses, which caused no module damage.

I fired some 203s at the T-64. Two direct hits to the roof knocked it out, but none of the misses did any damage to modules.  In particular, the one to the right likely would have penetrated the tank.

aOM7CHS.png

I guess none of us have been clear, CptMiller, but the argument is that even misses should be causing damage, and the Abrams shouldn't be eating 152mm shells for breakfast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IICaptMillerII,

Regarding your video, I should point out what you are seeing isn't just the warhead in action against the bare tank. That was a combat loaded tank full of ammo and fuel. That's why the explosion was so spectacular.

Machor,

Solid argument an Abrams was wiped out in the referenced live fire tests. Concur. I expect it would've been a prototype or vanilla M1, rather than something more militarily useful. Wonder if someone can get us the actual report in some form? Would love to know the full details.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

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...