Jump to content

Artillery Effectiveness against Units in Buildings


c3k

Recommended Posts

Apocal, those two screenshots reveal a tale...

I think you've hit on something important there. (Okay, "important" may be exaggerating the implications of how a computer game models some damage, but still....)

It seems that targeting the floor you want could, indeed, result in artillery strikes being fuzed to hit that floor. (Now, having rounds fuzed on a per floor basis seems a bit too precise to me, but I don't know how many milliseconds of delay are required per floor - maybe an artillery unit does.)

The remaining issue would be to find out how to target something other than the roof of a building if your spotter has an elevation advantage.

BF.C???

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to establish first if artillery is modelled to such a complexity in this game. Has BFC commented on this at all? I have definitely had issues with effectiveness against troops in buildings, although last night for the first time I pointed my FO at the floor of the building rather than the area where the troops were and within 4 direct hits of 155mm (general) the building collapsed and the entire squad was KIA or incapacitated. But maybe this is also abstracted 1:1 representation. I mean, the FO was a vet and he was within his Observer vehicle whilst he was plotting the fire mission. But maybe different skill levels and conditions play a major part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apocal, those two screenshots reveal a tale...

I think you've hit on something important there. (Okay, "important" may be exaggerating the implications of how a computer game models some damage, but still....)

It seems that targeting the floor you want could, indeed, result in artillery strikes being fuzed to hit that floor. (Now, having rounds fuzed on a per floor basis seems a bit too precise to me, but I don't know how many milliseconds of delay are required per floor - maybe an artillery unit does.)

The remaining issue would be to find out how to target something other than the roof of a building if your spotter has an elevation advantage.

BF.C???

Ken

I always target the lowest floor on the buidling I can see, it's never had an effect on where the shells explode for me (they explode on the first thing they hit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that targeting the floor you want could, indeed, result in artillery strikes being fuzed to hit that floor. (Now, having rounds fuzed on a per floor basis seems a bit too precise to me, but I don't know how many milliseconds of delay are required per floor - maybe an artillery unit does.)

The pic doesn't show it, but fuze delay appears to be as in real life, where it's a fixed time after impact. The end result for the customer is that each floor is reduced in turn.

The remaining issue would be to find out how to target something other than the roof of a building if your spotter has an elevation advantage.

I'm sure I brought this up before and made a UI request, but without the benefit of pictures, here we go:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88722

Finally, I noticed a long time ago it's far more destructive to a building to set the target for arty/CAS on lower floors, (presumably) so they use the right fuze or select the right aimpoint to get a specific floor. Is there any chance of adding a floor selection menu similar to the move menu for times when the roof is visible but the ground floor isn't? Or is that a deliberate design decision?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw that thread, but like most others, I did not focus on your point about targeting interior floors. That got lost in the chorus of techniques which answered your first question...

Still, if all I can see is a rooftop - which is somewhat common - the point detonation of round after round of artillery is what seems to be "off". A fuze setting to allow penetration would be, um, "on".

I don't think having the ability to target specific floors would be the way to go. That seems to be unrealistically controlling. I just don't think any FO calling fire on a target building would state, "Target on the 2nd floor up of the 4 story building." (Then we could get into the whole problem of US vernacular 2nd floor equating to European 1st floor. THAT would cause Ally to Ally support problems!)

Instead, the FO should be able to specify, "Target is a building". Presto magico, 105mm, 155mm, or 120mm rounds rain down, penetrate to some depth PAST the roof, then explode wreaking mayhem and destruction INSIDE the structure.

If my target is on a rooftop, the present PERSONNEL target works well, especially with a POINT target type. The airbursts clear the roofs quite well. (Usually.)

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think having the ability to target specific floors would be the way to go. That seems to be unrealistically controlling. I just don't think any FO calling fire on a target building would state, "Target on the 2nd floor up of the 4 story building." (Then we could get into the whole problem of US vernacular 2nd floor equating to European 1st floor. THAT would cause Ally to Ally support problems!)

Instead, the FO should be able to specify, "Target is a building". Presto magico, 105mm, 155mm, or 120mm rounds rain down, penetrate to some depth PAST the roof, then explode wreaking mayhem and destruction INSIDE the structure.

Yeah I should have thought that through a bit more, but something like a choice between roof/interior would be nice and it would be realistic. I'd use a quick or superquick fuze for rooftops (or if I didn't want to render the building uninhabitable), delay for getting inside and stirring up any unwelcome occupants.

Really though, the FDC should automatically assume since it's a building, we'd want a delay fuze. Otherwise we'd ask for VT, since only people can be on a rooftop. It should be under-the-hood, since BFC wants to keep most of the call for fire stuff that way.

If my target is on a rooftop, the present PERSONNEL target works well, especially with a POINT target type. The airbursts clear the roofs quite well. (Usually.)

Oh yeah, never had a problem there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can tweak some options we already have where selecting "armour" causes a deep impact, "general" causes point detonation, "personnel" causes airburst.

Just tested the armor thing, it apparently does specify a delay fuze! Freaking A, for some reason I thought it didn't. Gonna test more before I get too excited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apocal, I am not seeing any statistically different results in my testing. I am seeing minor variations, but nothing which would make me think that ARMOR penetrates more than GENERAL.

In multi-level buildings it seems, so far, that only near misses which impact the ground, cause casualties on the ground floor. I see no penetratrion yet. :)

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always under the impression that targeting a specific floor has higher probability of shells hitting that particular floor and, with good results. Now whether those hits were simply caused by their rounds ballistic route, or because of penetration, thats something I have never really asked myself. I'm quite sure though that it has been (for me) generally effective to target specific floors, or better parts of a building. Like lowest few floors, middle or top floors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most modern (i.e. post-1950) Third World buildings larger than houses (which are mud brick or cinderblock) are made of the cheapest materials available, which is cement reinforced with rebar. You start by pouring a foundation (few bother with cellars), then build up a skeleton of cement pillars with reinforcing rods (as cheap steel and central climate control became more widespread in the 1980s, I-beams became more common).

This skeleton, not the walls (as is the case in older structures) is the building's primary load-bearing element (and source of solid cover).

In smaller 3-5 story urban buildings, the two end (side) walls may be the load-bearing elements (thicker and largely windowless), in place of interior pillars. All remaining exterior walls, as well as balconies and parapets are relatively flimsy, designed only to keep out the weather. They provide almost no cover against military small arms.

The building floors, also cement with rebar lattices, are the next thickest element. These provide far better cover than the walls, although ricochets remain a problem. So if you were being machine-gunned within such a structure, you'd probably want to be higher or lower than the fire and lying prone behind a support pillar, or in a stairwell (stairs are steel and cement).

As HE rounds plunge down into these buildings, they may penetrate a floor or two depending on fuzing and then explode, with the blast being channeled horizonally and blowing out the flimsy walls as well as holing the floor. Depending on calibre, some or all of that level or levels would be reduced to a ragged skeleton, but the only portions that would collapse outright would be where a direct hit or large calibre blast collapsed or melted the pillars. The floors and uncollapsed pillars would remain largely intact, together with debris, and continue to provide cover, although concealment would be less and movement could be hazardous, especially on upper floors.

In contrast, collapsing such a building with flat trajectory tank rounds would be quite a trick, since you'd have to systematically shoot away most of the pillars.

None of the above is true of traditional structures, where the outer walls are either the primary or the only load bearing elements. Blow away a big chunk of these at ground level and a lot of the unsupported interior above falls away too.

DISCLAIMER: Regrettably, none of this has much to do with how the actual building damage model in CMSF behaves. The game offers only a single, generic building which behaves the same way regardless of size or height. Number of windows is the only determinant of cover. I hope the buildings model will get some much deserved enrichment in Normandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLF,

Thanks. I miss seeing the loosely stacked wall blocks blowing out. (Yes, I know they're not just stacked, but the sand/cement ratio in the mortar leans a bit too heavily towards sand. :) )

Roofs: are they poured in place, or do some buildings have pre-cast roof sections lifted and installed? (I lean towards poured in place, based on memories of forests of supports between floors to hold up the forms above.)

Thanks,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apocal, I am not seeing any statistically different results in my testing. I am seeing minor variations, but nothing which would make me think that ARMOR penetrates more than GENERAL.

Yeah retested it, you're right.

In multi-level buildings it seems, so far, that only near misses which impact the ground, cause casualties on the ground floor. I see no penetratrion yet. :)

Ken

Even with a realistic delay, you wouldn't get penetration to the ground floor of a multistory building. Fuze delay is a fixed time across the board. Real life, that's why you use shake-and-bake fire missions (WP followed by HE).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget fuse delay would work with the rounds falling around the building as well as the ones striking the roof. That would imply a lot of digging of round deep holes and up-directed shrapnel. So whatever benefit you get penetrating the roof of a 4 story building might be lost with the reduced effectiveness of other rounds impacting next to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MikeD; very true.

Note that I'm NOT postulating penetration all the way through a 4 storey building, although if that is possible with today's munitions I'd like it to be simulated, but I am trying to show that artillery rounds should be MUCH more effective in suppressing or causing casualties to men inside the buildings.

(My comment about ground floor casualties was to highlight that near misses were causing those casualties, not any penetration.)

Thanks,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I am trying to show that artillery rounds should be MUCH more effective in suppressing or causing casualties to men inside the buildings. ...

Ken,

I've just re-read all your posts in this thread, and all I see is your repeated opinion that artillery in CMSF should be more effective than it is against multiple floors of buildings because ... um, because you want it to be, I think.

Several people have told you that Real World artillery isn't wildly effective against buildings (which is, after all, why people choose to fight from buildings rather than open ground), why that is so, and that CMSF artillery can already be seen as too effective.

IMO, you are very far from "show[ing] that artillery rounds should be MUCH more effective in suppressing or causing casualties to men inside the buildings." To do that you'd need to gather some relevant, applicable data (the M114 data from Wikipedia is neither), and show that CMSF is in stark contrast to that.

Regards

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JonS,

I respectfully disagree with what you've posted.

Yes, my OPINION is that CMSF artillery is undermodelled vs. buildings due to fuzing which detonates the round on the roof in all cases except PERSONNEL.

Despite what you just wrote, others have posted that real world artillery rounds actually penetrate into buildings then explode.

Those who stated that CMSF artillery is too effective were specifically referring to the tightness of the sheaves and the responsiveness, NOT the penetration of the rounds.

No one, that I can see, has stated that artillery should be more effective against buildings rather than open ground. That is an insultingly transparent strawman argument.

Let's agree that we all understand being in a building is better than being in the open during an artillery bombardment.

So, I'd like to find your OPINION: should artillery be able to penetrate building rooftops?

If yes, then the pertinent question is whether CMSF models the effects correctly despite not modelling the penetration. I think not.

Regarding the M114 data I posted, I thought the shell info, as I stated, was at least a starting point. I was hoping that a current artillery servicemember would be able to chime in with relevant data.

As I said earlier, you'll rue the day that machinegunner in a thatched roof Normandy farmhouse cannot be touched by your 105's.

I'm off to see if there's any footage/AAR's about artillery rounds vs. buildings. Any thoughts on where to look?

Regards,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree with what you've posted.

I was already aware of that ;)

... [CMSF] fuzing which detonates the round on the roof in all cases except PERSONNEL.

Yes, but the effects penetrate into the next floor down, which is as it should be. Call it a visual abstraction, if you like, but the net effect is correct (albeit overblown)

Despite what you just wrote, others have posted that real world artillery rounds actually penetrate into buildings then explode.

I'm aware of that, since that's what I wrote back on page 1.

Those who stated that CMSF artillery is too effective were specifically referring to the tightness of the sheaves and the responsiveness, NOT the penetration of the rounds.

No, that is incorrect. The tightness of the sheaves is part of it, but not all of it. You may want to go read that section again.

No one, that I can see, has stated that artillery should be more effective against buildings rather than open ground. That is an insultingly transparent strawman argument.

Er, I wasn't saying that, so that particular strawman is entirely your own creation. You may want to apologise to yourself for being so insulting. What I did say was that artillery is already too effective, and making it more effective - which in effect would take buildings closer to behaving like open ground - would be wrongheaded.

So, I'd like to find your OPINION: should artillery be able to penetrate building rooftops?

Yes it should (although ONLY one floor), but ...

... the pertinent question is whether CMSF models the effects correctly despite not modelling the penetration.

... since it already does that (albeit overblown) I see no need for any change.

I was hoping that a current artillery servicemember would be able to chime in with relevant data.

They have. You ignored them. Make of that what you will.

As I said earlier, you'll rue the day that machinegunner in a thatched roof Normandy farmhouse cannot be touched by your 105's.

I very much doubt that, because since the effects already penetrate so the MGer will be nicely suppressed (at a minimum).

I'm off to see if there's any footage/AAR's about artillery rounds vs. buildings. Any thoughts on where to look?

There is a piece of footage of a building in Iraq being targetted by a variety of US weaponry. As I recall, they start off with an AT4 (or Javelin?), then a Bradley comes in and looses of several bursts, then an Abrams, then some artillery, and finally a bomb of some description hits it. The building looks battered by the end of it, and I certainly wouldn't want to live or work there, but I'd be happy to fight from it. Sorry, I don't have a link for it and I suck at searching for things on YouTube - hopefully someone will recognise the clip from the description and link to it?

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing concrete, but there is a reference to penetration, from http://www.usna.edu/USMCInfo/Documents/Pubs/b0386.pdf

(7) Mortars. Mortars are high-trajectory weapons. This makes them well suited for urban combat due to

the height of buildings and the natural "canyons" they create. Mortars can be employed against enemy positions on roof tops,

behind buildings, or in other defilade positions. Mortars can be used to fix enemy positions, isolate objectives, suppress and

destroy enemy positions or formations in the open. Suppressing enemy positions within buildings may be difficult or impossible

due to building construction. Conversely, mortars may penetrate the roof top or cause significant structural damage to lightly

constructed buildings. To deny the enemy roof top positions or limit the amount of rubble produced, HE/VT may be used. The

ability of the unit calling for fire to observe the mortar fire may be reduced due to buildings or rubble.

and...

(9) Artillery/Naval Gunfire. Because of their relatively flat trajectory, artillery and naval gunfire are

limited in their ability to suppress or destroy point targets within an urban area. Both will have difficulty hitting targets hidden

within buildings or in the natural defilade created by the buildings. Use of laser-guided munitions (Copperhead) may be useful to

engage targets with pinpoint accuracy, but again the masking of those fires may be a problem. Artillery and NGF can be used to

isolate urban centers or areas within the built up area. They can also be used to illuminate areas with the city. Both artillery and

NGF, when fired within urban areas, will create significant amounts of rubble and will cause considerable damage to structures.

This may hinder follow-on operations and should be considered. Artillery may be used in the direct fire mode to rubble buildings

or create a breach point. Depending on building construction, the danger of fires started by artillery and NGF should also be

considered. Rules of Engagement(ROE) may prohibit the use of these fires within all, or a portion of the urban area.

From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/indirect.htm

(This seems to be cut and paste from some other sites available, but that does not detract from the information content.)

If collateral damage and the death of civilian non-combatants is not an issue, then Field Artillery and Naval Gunfire should be employed to their maximum lethality prior to friendly forces entering the MOUT environment. Field Artillery can be very effective when used to deliver laser guided munitions against known enemy fortifications, delay or concrete piercing fuzes also can provide excellent penetration of reinforced structures, fuze time can be adjusted and used against personnel in the streets or on rooftops. Variable time and proximity fuze should be avoided because high structures may cause the round to detonate prematurely. Naval Gunfire can be devastating when attacking targets on a waterway or coastline, the ships' mobility and high muzzle velocity (flat trajectory) make it an excellent FS platform for this situation. Naval Gunfire can also be used similarly to FA in providing fire support against a counter-attacking force.

None of these can quantify the effectiveness, yet there are sufficient references to the ability to fuze for penetration which let's me conclude that modern artillery can penetrate Syrian rooftops.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JonS,

We have crossposted.

The Soviets used to go to great lengths specifying how many rounds fired into a specific area would produce "x" percentage of casualties. I have not seen any posts about how many rounds of the various calibers could realistically neutralize a building of a given size. That would be valuable data.

Reading that artillery destroys buildings is not relevant... We know that it does. How many rounds does it take? What happens to the soldiers in the meantime.

I would argue that a weak-walled Syrian structure would aid survivability due to reduced overpressure when compared to a building which has walls which are stronger and contain the blast.

If CMSF is balancing reduced artillery round effectiveness to compensate for increased accuracy, that is their decision. I am not sure that it is so.

(As an aside, I saw youtube footage of 5 Afghani's being tracked and targeted by some Apaches. A bullseye on 3 of them in the open next to a building by a Hellfire resulted in the 3 of them able to run away. They joined the other 2 and all 5 entered a 10x10' structure. A Hellfire in that resulting in at least 1 running away. One more Hellfire needed. That just shows that fuzing is important. Hellfires, Javelins, and other weapons designed for specific functions are not that good at producing immediate casaulties. (For all I know, each of the men killed in the videa had been wounded but were able to run.))

FWIW, I still don't think a 155 hitting a 8x8m structure should leave unwounded soldiers still firing...

Off to look for impact footage...

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, nothing in those three quotes supports your contentions *apart* from "rounds can penetrate" ... but then that wasn't under debate anyway.

If all you want is a graphical change so the 'splosion is inside the building - rather than on the roof or wall - then fine. Count me in. If, on the other hand, you want increased effects, and/or effects across multiple floors, then I'm a definate 'no'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CMSF is balancing reduced artillery round effectiveness to compensate for increased accuracy, that is their decision. I am not sure that it is so.

There is some general-case fiddling with the effects of HE at a distance from the 'splosion due to the bunching of squads, but I'm not really sure that's applicable to this discussion. In general, though, artillery against buildings is already too effective.

FWIW, I still don't think a 155 hitting a 8x8m structure should leave unwounded soldiers still firing...

... and I think you have a wholly fanciful notion of the effectiveness of HE. A 155mm round impacting near a prone squad in the *open* probably wouldn't kill or injure all of them.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...