How accurate *is* CMBS?

[db_zero]

5 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

"Thats about all I have to say on this."

That's a somewhat discouraging discussion technique.

You're right about that. I should not have put that in.

[MikeyD]

I'll defend db_zero on this. So much of current warplanning relies on what we *think* we can do with 1/10th the forces from 80 years ago. The US general who suggested we needed 400,000 troops to properly secure Afghanistan got himself replaced, as did the other general who earlier had suggested we needed 400,000 troop to properly secure Iraq. There are reports that Russia's initial ambitions in Ukraine was much more extensive than what they got (basically tapped-out impoverished coal fields in Debaltseve). Another casualty of trying to do war on the cheap. Maybe Russia wouldn't be able to over-run much of anyone inside of 60 days, or alternatively, maybe we'd be incapable of mounting an effective response. Nobody fields 8 million man armies anymore.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

4 hours ago, Saint_Fuller said:

Hmmm...

What is that supposed to prove other than you killed a Bradley.....How many rounds did it take? 

Now do it consistently or even something approaching consistently.....Not going to happen is it?

Edited February 3, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[sid_burn]

25 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

What is that supposed to prove other than you killed a Bradley.....How many rounds did it take? 

Now do it consistently or even something approaching consistently.....Not going to happen is it?

I don’t like to indulge in conspiracy theories but I think that poster is a sock puppet. 

@Sgt.Squarehead why do you think you pointing out the real issues with Russian equipment and with the Bradley in game brings out so much emotion from the same group of people? 

Edited February 3, 2018 by sid_burn

[HerrTom]

6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Did anybody mention the issues with artillery hits on vehicles yet?  Multiple 122mm precision munitions bouncing off the top of a Bradley (and apparently not significantly degrading it's remarkable spotting capabilities) rather had me scratching my head. 

Quit reminding me that I haven't finished that yet!

Not just direct hits.  Nearby hits too - particularly with APCs and IFVs.

That 152mm shell that lands five meters from your BTR is going to ruin its day!  A Bradley may only have a few holes, though.

Man... now that I brought this up I need to go back to coding... pfah. 

[MikeyD]

It should be noted the top of the Bradley has a thick layer of MEXAS ceramic armor on it. Heavy-duty stuff, a superior (and more expensive) ceramic mix to that used on Stryker. I read (somewhere) the Bradley aluminum bow with ceramic armor was  equivalent to 120mm of armor steel. Lesser vehicles like LAV-25 or BMP-2 would be like hitting a can of sardines with a hammer.

[Saint_Fuller]

5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

What is that supposed to prove other than you killed a Bradley.....How many rounds did it take? 

Now do it consistently or even something approaching consistently.....Not going to happen is it?

It took one round. You can see the impact point on the front of the turret, actually.

And it's more evidence than you've ever bothered to show, to my knowledge, of these alleged super-Bradleys that shrug off PGMs and ATGW with no significant damage.
Because it's sure as hell not the case with the Bradleys I've seen in game, but who knows, maybe I'm just inordinately lucky (because I have in fact found that I can kill Bradleys fairly reliably using Russian artillery-fired PGM). Maybe it is in fact the case that M2s that somehow magically absorb direct PGM hits are the norm for everyone else???

[Sgt.Squarehead]

No way on earth did you do that with a single 122mm PGM round.....I've hit the bloody things with up to six and they shrug it off. 

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

It should be noted the top of the Bradley has a thick layer of MEXAS ceramic armor on it.

That armour does not cover the turret roof and especially not the hatches in the turret roof.....Your picture shows as much. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Splinty]

5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

That armour does not cover the turret roof and especially not the hatches in the turret roof.....Your picture shows as much. 

Actually speaking as a former Bradley crewmember the MEXAS does cover the roof. That bolted on sheet of tile wasn't there on M2A2s and before. That's an M2A3 BUSK in the photo.

[Rinaldi]

I ran a quick test since my curiosity piqued and I'm not doing anything productive with this hangover. 

• 4 Bradleys; 2 in vehicle fighting positions, 2 in the open.
• 1 Russian FOO set to "veteran" with a 6 gun battery of 2S1 122mm, also set to veteran. All precision missions were 3 shell protocol.

I only ran the test three times.

 

First strike: 2/3 hits (Rear top hull)

Second strike: 1/3 hit (Rear top hull)

Third strike: Total miss. No picture taken as no damage done.

Fourth strike: 2/3 hits (Weapon - both hit the TOW launcher)

Fifth strike: 1/3 hit (Forward top hull)

Sixth strike: 3/3 hits (All left hull)

Seventh strike: 2/3 hits (Rear-top hull & Turret top)

Eighth strike: 2/3 hits (Rear-top hull & Rear-top turret)

Ninth strike: 3/3 hits (Left turret twice & rear-top turret)

Tenth strike: 0/3 hits (but degraded tracks)

Eleventh strike: 2/3 hits (Forward top hull & Rear-top hull)

Twelfth strike: 2/3 hits (Forward top hull)

Some other data:

• 20 of 36 rounds struck (approx 56% hit rate) 
• Of those hits, 11 hit a "top" according to the hit marker, the rest either hit misc. externals or struck places layered with ERA.
• The majority of the "rear-top hull" hits struck the vision blocks. 
• All shots on target universally immobilized the IFV

  

Edited February 3, 2018 by Rinaldi
Embed images

[Sgt.Squarehead]

5 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

All shots on target universally immobilized the IFV

Really?  That's odd because I've seen one take three direct hits and then casually drive down a road, swatting enemy units as it went. 

I note that the outcome 'Target Destroyed' is notably absent from your list.....In that at least our experience is similar. 

PS - I think you had more tubes than me.

7 hours ago, Splinty said:

Actually speaking as a former Bradley crewmember the MEXAS does cover the roof. That bolted on sheet of tile wasn't there on M2A2s and before. That's an M2A3 BUSK in the photo.

Appreciate the insight, anything after 1945 is a bit alien to me (you should see the grief I'm having with a Syrian T-55), I'd guess the level of added protection is still significantly lower on the turret roof (bolted on applique panel) than the 'cheeks' (ERA/NERA?), I'm wondering if some numbers got confused somewhere? 

Can I ask, as a former Bradley crewman how you would feel about sitting in your vehicle knowing that three 122mm rounds were incoming, locked-on and almost guaranteed to hit? 

Not trying to be a dick here, genuinely interested to know if you were that confident of your vehicles armour?

Edited February 3, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Rinaldi]

The total immobilization is wholly in line with my experiences; its in fact how I won as Russians in my "Power Hour" PBEM. Punish any lack of forward movement with 122 (for BIFVs) and 152 (for Abrams), move in to kill with a small counterattack force while dismounts tried to hold the trenches. 

I have put 152s on that test map as well, and will likely run that test with them next. As well as for T90AMs - who have had a habit of defeating XCALIBUR with the top-side ERA. I'm neither here nor there on this slap fight. An IFV thats immobile is useless to me, but to others they can still be a source of heartburn, so, I ran a test. 

The most interesting part of the test to me, and the only thing that didn't seem like an obvious result, was the low trajectory of the rounds: only half of the hits splashed anywhere near what is traditionally thought to be a weak point. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Rinaldi

[Sgt.Squarehead]

As a point of reference, my own experiences largely come from playing 'Galloping Horse Downfall' as the Russians.....You have a fairly limited number of precision rounds and I've tried countless combinations, including using the lot on one Bradley. 

It wound up sitting in a massive crater, immobilised, covered in hit decals, but it still beat a (completely undamaged hull-down) T-90A (with a narrow target armour arc and a fresh contact icon) to the shot and took it out with a TOW. 

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Splinty]

I have no doubt if I knew I was being targeted by three 122 mm rounds me and my Bradley would be moving out of the area as fast as we could go. My comment wasn't in direct relation to the overall topic, just a comment on the MEXAS tile on the Brad.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

No worries fella, frankly that's exactly what I thought you'd say.....My interest is in a balanced game that as accurately as possible reflects the difficulties commanders and troops on the ground actually face, but I'm sure that is some times taken as some sort of pro-Russian trolling in some quarters.   

As it goes I am something of a Russophile, I just happen to like Russian stuff, especially their tanks, for reasons I can't explain.  I also like Soviet propaganda posters and artwork, but for their distinct artistic style rather than any kind of political identification, truth to be told I hated Soviet state communism then and I still despise it now.....Probably for different reasons to you, but all the same. 

 

[Kinophile]

There's always some crazy outliers in this game. No one will believe me, but I've seen Abrams APS take out a T90 kinetic round fired from <100m away, intercepted @5m. No word of a lie. But just the once, never since. 

I've also Attack Ships on fire off the Shoulder of Orion, but that's a tale for a different day... 

Immobilized Bradley's are insanely dangerous to ignore, if their weapons are still good. That sensor suite is the US's true powah.

Edited February 5, 2018 by kinophile

[A Canadian Cat]

On 2018-02-03 at 11:08 AM, Rinaldi said:

Some other data:

• 20 of 36 rounds struck (approx 56% hit rate) 
• Of those hits, 11 hit a "top" according to the hit marker, the rest either hit misc. externals or struck places layered with ERA.
• The majority of the "rear-top hull" hits struck the vision blocks. 
• All shots on target universally immobilized the IFV

Thanks @Rinaldi for doing that. I personally had not fired 122 precision at anything during testing but I did 155 vs M1s and T90s and get expected results the vast majority of the time. This test shows yet again the artillery doing the expected thing - serious effect - on targets. So, I just do not believe that you frequently see Bradley's shrugging of hits and carrying on as if nothing happened. These test shows that is not common. Sure it can happen - I saw T90s that survived a hit from a 155 - it was not common but it did happen. Just because it can happen and it sucks when it does *does not mean it is common*.

[Rinaldi]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

Thanks @Rinaldi for doing that. I personally had not fired 122 precision at anything during testing but I did 155 vs M1s and T90s and get expected results the vast majority of the time. This test shows yet again the artillery doing the expected thing - serious effect - on targets. So, I just do not believe that you frequently see Bradley's shrugging of hits and carrying on as if nothing happened. These test shows that is not common. Sure it can happen - I saw T90s that survived a hit from a 155 - it was not common but it did happen. Just because it can happen and it sucks when it does *does not mean it is common*.

Yes, I agree completely. Again, its been a game-winning strategy for me (as either side) numerous times. An immobile IFV is to me, easy prey. Naturally, I'd prefer to use the precision arty on artillery spotting vehicles, AAA, etc. but those are rare targets. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Immobilised Bradleys still seemed pretty deadly to me! 

This was part of what ****** me off so badly, I'd plastered the damned things with precision munitions so I expected their sensors to be degraded, but apparently not so much as I thought because they crushed my T-90s time and again.

If Bradley is that good, why does the US need Abrams.....Frankly it's ridiculous. 

2 hours ago, IanL said:

This test shows yet again the artillery doing the expected thing - serious effect - on targets.

Rubbish.....It shows nothing of the kind, not one single kill even with multiple direct hits! 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[sid_burn]

39 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Immobilised Bradleys still seemed pretty deadly to me! 

This was part of what ****** me off so badly, I'd plastered the damned things with precision munitions so I expected their sensors to be degraded, but apparently not so much as I thought because they crushed my T-90s time and again.

If Bradley is that good, why does the US need Abrams.....Frankly it's ridiculous. 

Rubbish.....It shows nothing of the kind, not one single kill even with multiple direct hits! 

The tests by @Rinaldi showed that artillery pretty universally immobilized the Bradley and wiped out many of its externals.

Frankly, if you are struggling to take out immobilized, heavily damaged Bradleys, then you should consider getting better at the game instead of blaming everything on the devs.

Edited February 5, 2018 by sid_burn

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Clearly. 

Have you played 'Galloping Horse Downfall' as the Russians (Iron)?

Edited February 5, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Saint_Fuller]

15 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Clearly. 

Have you played 'Galloping Horse Downfall' as the Russians (Iron)?

As it happens, I have played that specific scenario as the Russians in a PBEM with @Rinaldi.

He can probably tell you more about how his Bradleys fared when I got them under drone observation and started dropping PGMs on their heads.

[sid_burn]

28 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Clearly. 

Have you played 'Galloping Horse Downfall' as the Russians (Iron)?

I have, sadly I was forced to abandon the game early on. It’s a difficult scenario that requires a lot of skill as the russians to avoid the attack becoming a farce. I can understand why the scenario would be difficult for less skilled players

Edited February 5, 2018 by sid_burn

[HerrTom]

Rather than say "get good" I'll point you to some real examples of AFVs hit by artillery shells that Haiduk provided.

I think Squarehead has a solid point here.

[Rinaldi]

Too many unknowns to provide the vaguest semblance of a counterpoint: DPICM, MLRS, hyper-concentration of fire on a scale we're not going to see in CMBS are all factors that are routinely seen in the 'hot' phases of the conflict.

Asides from 'it is artillery' there's little else to link it to '3 to 4 rounds of pure HE intermediate artillery.' As much as I enjoy Haiduk's posts, there is nothing beyond his assertion that its 122 and 152 - I'd assert (also without any base  )that it was likely a TOT-esque cocktail of multiple calibers. Too much doubt to draw any firm conclusions. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Rinaldi