Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them
sburke

Vet Question - Tank infantry cooperation

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Reading Echo in Ramadi and in this one combat situation an Abrams section comes up to support some Marines in the middle of a firefight.  The Marines are on the roof of a building with the M1 on the street below.  The M1 is given info on the building they want targeted and prior to it firing the call goes out to the marines on the roof to hunker down and clear the roof.  Due to a bit of mis communication the marines are not aware the M1 practice is to fire 2 rounds.  The marines have started to re-engage when the second round was fired.  The resultant over pressure knocked 2 marines flat and caused them to be evacuated for concussion injuries.

Question is this, in RL what kind of proximity would be expected for units working with armor?  In this particular instance it is a MOUT scenario and the confines of the street channels the pressure wave of the tank gun.  How much impact would that normally have and is there an expectation that infantry should be x meters distant when working with armor?

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank main guns create noise in excess of 140 decibels. Repeated exposure to this level of noise can cause severe hearing loss and even deafness. In addition, dangerous noise levels may extend more than 600 meters from the tank. Single-layer hearing protection such as earplugs allows Infantrymen to work within 25 meters of the side or rear of the tank without significant hazard. (FM 3-21.20)

Share this post


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

I should do a check in game, see where the impact distance is. And maybe see if it varies between MBT types... 

Interesting question, @sburke

I don't think CM simulates this which is partly why I asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. That diagram is repeated a lot. The sabot petals are the big danger issue. However, I am curious about the actual blast from the muzzle. I couldn’t find any definitive information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, c3k said:

Yeah. That diagram is repeated a lot. The sabot petals are the big danger issue. However, I am curious about the actual blast from the muzzle. I couldn’t find any definitive information.

I was more curious about the over pressure. The story was pretty graphic on how it affected those 2 Marines and they were on a roof.  Thinking my troops lying next to a tank as it fires looks kinda dumb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I vaguely recall a similar anecdote from (IIRC) Vienna in WWII, a bunch of Soviet troops decided to watch ISU-152s sorting out dug in defenders and took quite a few casualties from flying debris etc. in the process.

1 hour ago, c3k said:

Yeah. That diagram is repeated a lot. The sabot petals are the big danger issue. However, I am curious about the actual blast from the muzzle. I couldn’t find any definitive information.

You can see what a 125mm does here (at 1:39):

That's actually the second time (it also fires at 1:23), but the dumbass filming it is looking straight down the muzzle this time!  :o

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, lol. I'll bet he doesn't do that a second time! I love the crawl afterwards. Who, amongst us, hasn't had to crawl due to something like that? Across time and borders, yeah, brother, I feel it, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me that in the 1950s there was an Army show called The Big Picture. Every now and then they would have films of tanks firing during training and sometimes maybe even combat. When the cannon would go off the camera which was located maybe 20 meters off to the side would jerk violently, and that was only 90mm. I think you wouldn't want to be anywhere close to the muzzle of even a 75mm.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sburke said:

I was more curious about the over pressure. The story was pretty graphic on how it affected those 2 Marines and they were on a roof.  Thinking my troops lying next to a tank as it fires looks kinda dumb. 

I can only speak from training environments with full caliber ammo for the 84 mm Carl Gustaf.But considering I got blood taste in my mouth and clear pressure change feel all over the body, particularly the torso, when leading the squad and being 5-10m to the side of the damn thing (much less uncomfortable to actually fire it yourself) wearing double hearing protection I can only imagine the "discomfort" of being in close vicinity of a tank 120 mm gun fired in an urban setting. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a (very) vague recollection of Pentagon criticism years ago of Abrams as a close infantry support vehicle in Iraq because the 120 high pressure gun's blast placed troops in too much danger. I recall Abrams was described by one TC as 'an over-engineered mg platform' due to the disadvantages of hauling that big gun around with friendly infantry close by. One thing about Stryker MGS as close infantry support. Its primary round is a low pressure 'squash head' round which has less of a charge than even the (discontinued) 105mm smoke round. Firing it is very much easier on the vehicle suspension and on the nearby troops as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am betting the front line troops would have objected to trying to put the MGS in that role. It wouldn’t survive the combat environment. If on the other hand they were trying to reduce their inventory. . . . :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I was thinking about this. 

At first, I tried to find blast and overpressure numbers. Yeah: not available.

Next, I looked for safety zones, but a lot of that is populated with range safety (berms, clear zones, etc.). Others are only due to sabot petals. Lastly, hearing damage zones are delineated. Nothing that would work for my purposes.

Finally, I had a realization: the energy spent expelling the round is created by releasing the same amount of chemical energy. This is the same as what an explosion does. The Abrams, firing an M829 round (rough numbers, so don't hold me to A1 through A4), releases about 27 MJ of energy. (KE=1/2*m*v^2)  That should be the starting point to compare the muzzle blast with an explosion.

Some differences:

Muzzle blast is directional. Someone 1m in front of the muzzle would get a much greater effect than someone 1m behind the muzzle. A conical spread would probably model it best.

There is no fragment damage. Sure, rocks, pebbles, etc., will get hurled about, but this is not an explosive held in a case until it overcomes the case's internal tension. The sabot petal danger is negligible in comparison to a bomb/shell casing.

Related to the above, the blast may be mitigated by not being held until the pressure overcomes the shell casing. So, it'd be a "soft" explosion.

 

So, perhaps comparing the muzzle blast to an explosion would work. The propagation front would be a fractal dimension: more than 2D, less than 3D, and directional.

 

What is the equivalent energy release for an RPG7 launch? Or bazooka/panzerfaust? These backblast weapons cause pinning/suppression in game. Well, how much "oomph" do they have in comparison to the M256 cannon on the Abrams?

Anyway, that's how I'd approach this issue to model it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should one also consider the effects of unconsumed propellant (that big 'invisible' fireball).....I'd imagine it's kind of toasty within a certain radius of that muzzle, if only for moment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Should one also consider the effects of unconsumed propellant (that big 'invisible' fireball).....I'd imagine it's kind of toasty within a certain radius of that muzzle, if only for moment.

 

Based on my experiments with accelerants, campfires, and alcohol, I do not think that momentary flashovers would have much combat effect.  Just sayin'...

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is how would the AI compute avoiding messing with its crunchies...  This reminds me of why gun elevation limits isn't strictly modelled.

Share this post


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

Problem is how would the AI compute avoiding messing with its crunchies...  This reminds me of why gun elevation limits isn't strictly modelled.

Yeah I am not looking for seeing it in game.  Just like we don't have friendly fire for small arms.  The player would have difficulty managing it, the AI forget it.  There are a lot of things that need to be forgone in order for the game to function.  I'd love for tank guns to be unable to rotate in small street confines, but then the AI would be screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There goes my plan to poke a tank gun muzzle into a building's window, pull the trigger, and then storm in with my troops. 

Brings a whole new level to the idea of a flash-bang.  

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, c3k said:

There goes my plan to poke a tank gun muzzle into a building's window, pull the trigger, and then storm in with my troops. 

Brings a whole new level to the idea of a flash-bang.  

;)

You can achieve the same effect by dropping your knickers with your bum in the window. That “flash” will allow your men to storm the place effectively. :lol:

Edited by Bud Backer
Autocorrect, damn you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×