IMHO

@kinophile, a response in two posts (2 of 2)

Just pictures

Sorry, I rechecked - yes, I was the first to use the words. Sorry. Anyway I still believe it's a sticky name

***Deleted*** "No damage" were my words. For me it's an interesting train of thought to have Marines themselves saying they rained unheard before amount of artillery fires on Raqqa yet to come to this conclusion...

Let's take Raqqa. Only US-led coalition and YPG/SDF showed up for the party. YPG/SDF does not have heavy assets to speak of so we have Coalition only. Typical breakdown of sorties between US and non-US aircrafts are given here. US contributes over 95% of total sorties so it basically comes down to US air assets vs. Marine arty support. US air assets delivered 20'000 munitions in June-Octobe 2017 both in Syria and Iraq whereas Marines lobbed 35'000 rounds in support of Raqqa offensive for the same period of time. Actually the reason for the barrel burnout was inordinate amount of fire Marine arty had to rain on Raqqa since there were no other arty assets available for the task. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/06/these-marines-in-syria-fired-more-artillery-than-any-battalion-since-vietnam/ https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2017/11/02/marine-artillery-barrage-of-raqqa-was-so-intense-two-howitzers-burned-out/ Quotes: “They fired more rounds in five months in Raqqa, Syria, than any other Marine artillery battalion, or any Marine or Army battalion, since the Vietnam war,” said Army Sgt. Major. John Wayne Troxell, the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Every minute we were there we were putting some kind of ordnance or some kind of attack on ISIS,” Troxell told Marine Corps Times. “I couldn’t believe ISIS was still holding out.” Luke O’Brien, a former Army artillery officer and now historian, who acquired statistics on rounds fired from an Army historian at Fort Sill, Oklahoma: “That’s a lot of rounds. Even on a daily average basis that’s a lot. It certainly speaks to demand.” “Every minute of every hour we were putting some kind of fire on ISIS in Raqqa, whether it was mortars, artillery, rockets, [High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems], Hellfires, armed drones, you name it,” Troxell told reporters... Can "no damage" side provide the numbers as well?

Yepp. I posted it for the response time. No, I didn't mean that - I'd rather differentiate between the purpose and inevitable costs. Fighting ISIS is beyond commendation, it's just goes against the obvious. Tens of thousands of 155mm did cause so much destruction. But leaving head choppers to their designs is far worse. IMHO I'd state well prepared city defences as the main reason. ISIS had many months and a sizeable deal of forced labor sourced from the local populace to accomplish that. Other operations stated above are either rural terrain - where lower calibers do the trick - or high tempo operations where the enemy didn't have much time to dig in. There was no need for so many 155mm rounds I believe.

@IICptMillerII, @sburke, ok, ok, you got me... "'They fired more rounds in five months in Raqqa, Syria, than any other Marine artillery battalion, or any Marine or Army battalion, since the Vietnam war,' said Army Sgt. Major. John Wayne Troxell, the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s an explosive revelation that sheds light on the immense level of lethal force brought to Raqqa and northern Syria in support of U.S. counter-ISIS operations. ... From June 2017 until Raqqa’s liberation in October, U.S. aircraft dropped just under 20,000 total munitions. Those numbers, from U.S. Air Forces Central Command, reflect strikes in Iraq as well." https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/06/these-marines-in-syria-fired-more-artillery-than-any-battalion-since-vietnam/ Certainly most of the destruction in Raqqa and Mosul was caused by US artillery but that's war. What is the purpose of the statement that US arty fires record number of rounds at the city yet somehow it magically cause no damage? I mean a purpose outside of political spin... PS @kinophile, here's for you, - ODS and OIF though not for Syria

Do you suggest ISIS bombed itself? Where have this record number of US rounds gone to then?

@c3k, https://translate.google.com/

@c3k, except the papers I've referred to I know of Danish Army Artillery School and Defence Research Service experiments. When I said I was referring to their results. They put M107 and BAE L15 155mm HE at 1-1.5m from a decommissioned Centurion hull and used accelerometers and barometers to measure the effects in multiple tests. The hull was not penetrated and the "crew" survived albeit with a temporary suppression. Everything on the outside was ripped off - read the damage to the modules was extensive. Though 1.0-1.5 is QUITE A NEAR miss so I didn't put the research as a source initially. There's an article about the experiments but it's quite scant unfortunately - http://www.patriotfiles.com/archive/danskpanser/Artikler/Destruerede_kampvogne_for_skud_igen.htm It would be interesting to hear from @Battlefront.com. I'm sure development pipeline is kept to its fullest as it always happens so it would be good to know Steve's thoughts. PS And thoughts about BFC choice between "realism" and fun as well. I'll do some testing with instant detection of ATGM launchers but if they go the way I believe they will than this together with considerably higher damager from artillery barrages will take away a certain "dynamism" from the game. I believe the cost of rushing in armour will increase considerably and the game may end up looking the way real Syria, Yemeni wars are. Not like Rumsfeld doctrine and more like Israel deciding to back down from Lebanon due to high costs.

You may well be right.There's some hard data in "Report on protection..." - they have the number of penetrations for M107 at 20 and 50 feet against different armour thickness. So it gives the number of fragments with different energy levels. Can be extra/interpolated. I've gone through good WWII-era ML-20 data but it was quite a time ago. They specifically tested HE and HEFRAGs against German armour. I don't remember where I took the reports. Most interesting were PzV and PzVI tests. For Krasnopol/Excalibur there're some show-off vids against tank targets. Overall it's also proved by Haiduk's Lostarmor pics. And here are the pics from the Field Artillery Journal.

Thanks! Here you go! ztst_155HEvsT90.btt ztst_155HEvsT90 0.bts

Description: A bit different setup to speed up testing - 100 experiments in five batches of 20 each: All tubes and spotters are Elite Fire mission is preplanned to the points where tanks are Mission effect is set to General, I assume it denotes something like Variable-Time vs. Point-Detonation, HE vs. HEFRAG Results: Direct hits 3 4 10 6 7 Module damage 1 0 4 0 1 Knock-outs 1 2 6 4 3 Analysis: Unlike previous tests I had module damage here - weapons, smoke launchers, targeting etc. If direct hit does not result in the module damage then it resulted in severe tracks damage though ALWAYS a step or two short of total immobilization. I didn't count tracks as modules in the table so these cases are reflected in direct hits less module damage and knock-outs. Comparing to the 100% of severe damage from the direct hits as given in the Field Artillery article I gave above we'll have different results depending on what we count as severe damage in CMBS context: If we equal knock-outs AND module damage AND severe tracks damage to "severe damage" then 100% of direct hits resulted in severe damage If we count knock-outs AND module damage as severe damage then 22/30=73% of direct hits resulted in severe damage If we use only knock-outs then we have only 53% of direct hits Since I used different experience level and point fire command instead of direct aiming the ratio of shots to direct hits is not comparable to the first data set. Near miss NEVER results in module damage - only tracks damage. I didn't do all distance measurements between tanks and points of impact in near misses but a rule of thumb is: Light tracks damage starts at ~8m from the tank Total immobilization requires 1-2-3 meters In-between those two we have varying degrees of track damage IMHO: All non-airburst direct hits from 155mm HE should result in total knock-outs - whether PD or delayed. Arguments: All direct 155mm HE hits are named as lethal for tanks in "Who Says Dumb Artillery Cannot Kill Armor" by Maj. (Ret.) George A. Durham, Field Artillery Journal, Nov-Dec 2002 Even at 10 feet airburst for each M107 there are three fragment penetrations for 2" RHA plate. Source: Report on protection from fragments from HE ammunition by Aberdeen Proving Grounds of 1961. At point detonation there should tens of them with much higher energies. I figure even Abrams top of the nose should have multiple perforations save turret or engine compartment Assorted Russian language sources: Krasnopol 152/155mm HE testing. Krasnopol is a Russian equivalent of Excalibur WWII tests of ML-20 152mm howitzer Near misses within 10/20/30m should result in total immobilization AND considerable module damage BUT NO crew casualties. Arguments: Field Artillery Journal gives 30m as "considerable damage" distance Russian 152mm HE damage tables give 20m as an equivalent distance Judging from "Report on protection..." give 6-10m as the distance with enough fragments to penetrate 25-30mm RHA; tracks and wheels are not RHA but side/back tank armour is thicker

By the way, instant ATGM launch acquisition works for Javelin teams as well. But what's the real life story behind it? Javelin's regular CLU does not have a laser rangefinder to set off LWRs, Javelin launch is undetectable by Doppler radars at all reasonable launch ranges... So what's the magic that allows CMBS tanks to know they're fired upon when real life tanks do not know?

Javelin

CMBS setup 12 T-90As vs 12 spotters and 12 Paladins, firing Excaliburs. Three runs in three columns. Damage indicates only tracks damage as even direct hits are able to damage no module but tracks (though one can destroy the vehicle outright). destroyed 1 2 1 immobilized 5 1 2 red circle 1 0 1 yellow circle 0 2 3 yellow square 2 1 1 no damage 3 6 4 Penetrations / Direct hits 1/3 2/3 1/3 Reality check source Who Says Dumb Artillery Cannot Kill Armor by Maj. (Ret.) George A. Durham, Field Artillery Journal, Nov-Dec 2002, results of the four year US Army study for 155 HEs Effect of a direct hit: Real-life: "A direct hit with an HE round with a PD fuze consistently destroyed the various target vehicle" - I assume they mean 100% destruction CM - 4/9 ~44% destruction Effect of a near miss: Real-life: "155-mm rounds that impact within 30 meters cause considerable damage". I'd say from the context and photos by considerable they mean enough damage to take the tank out of battle though it may be available for further out-of-battle repairs. Out-of-battle repairs would be out of the CM context so they equal to total kills. CM: The damage model provides for track damage only - no damage to gun, targeting etc. whatsoever. I didn't test with other vehicles but it may be CM engine models the damage only for penetrations. I.e. the engine first calculates whether the projectile is able to penetrate and IF it penetrated CM calculates the damage it may cause inside. It may be true for all the armour present in the game or it may be limited to ERA-equipped vehicles and/or tanks/heavy armour. Moreover I saw cases when a projectile hits ERA (text label) then it "goes though the tank", creates the crated and disabled the tracks. Track-damage - approximate meters, except for 2-3 cases all craters were at the sides of the vehicle 1-2m - immobilized 3-4m - red circle / yellow circle / yellow square 5-6m+ - no damage whatsoever @Battlefront.com, does it qualify for a steps 2-3-4? To propose a remedy one has to know how the engine works inside. Or it will be wild dreaming.

It'll be useless within the Russian doctrine. Way more expensive and less versatile than Kornet. Javelin is more or less the news of yesteryear. SPIKE's FLIR - uncooled and allegedly having higher resolution and sensitivity than Javelin's.

Somewhere in Mediterranean...

@IICptMillerII, may we kind of come back to square one since I do feel it was kind of misunderstanding I'd rather answer piece by piece to save time... Front plane - obviously Abrams is impervious. Just like Merkava-4, Leclerc or Leo-7 and above. I'm honestly not so sure DU/ceramics matrices of 80s have that much of undisputable advantage over strike surfaces of nano-crystal steels/modern ceramics but who knows - not a specialist Undisputable density for sure... And no one is able to test projectiles of the day against contemporary armor/ERA We all remember the faults with those late Sovier Union long-rod testing... The figure of 750 is kind of difficult to comment on (well... it's bull****). The original Russian-language text is quite ambiguous. It's a volley in the local PR war of yesteryear between MoD and producer. The original text is dated to 2010 and It may refer either to the output of ONE particular producer IN the yar 2010 or UP TO the year 2010 or whoever knows. Total production nubers of 35'000 vs. RUS MoD purchases of 750 certainly look way off mark...

@IanL, I'd say those are just the feeling of yours - I've been playing the game for almost 18 years now and I plan to continue to do so nonetheless. As @Vanir Ausf B was right to point out the argument is just about very particular aspect of the game - infantry AT defense - however sensitive those might be

http://ekurd.net/syrian-kurds-use-anti-tank-missile-2016-02-24 But it's not known whether they were actually "officially supplied". They might have been "donated" by Western SOF due to pressing operational needs or even taken from ISIS (who took them from Iraqi Army). PS There's a consistent rumor that the US provided MANPADs to Kurds as well. It's still just a rumor but I haven't seen a proper denial from the US so far. But may be I missed something.

Sorry, this statement of mine was innacurate so I deleted it.

Abrams armor plates Chobham/Burlington armor of Chieftain Merkava armor And the last but not the least... T-72B armor @IICptMillerII, I believe we can be fairly sure no one passed the "dreaded secret" of Chobham armor to the Soviet Union. It's just the laws of the physics are the same be it US, UK, Israel or the Soviet Union so the engineers come to the same designs when concieving similar things. I can tell you even more: The effect that forms the basis of the spaced composite armor / NERA (Chobham armor) was first used in the armor of the Soviet tanks albeit in a different, considerably less efficient setup And even more, the way Kontakt-5 ERA works is the same as NERA, it's just NERA uses the energy of incoming projectile while ERA - the energy of chemical explosion

Seems like US commanders do not share your opinion that Abrams does not need ERA. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8144/u-s-army-m1-abrams-tanks-in-europe-are-getting-explosive-reactive-armor ---------- My understanding is by saying "infantry held AT weapons being fired from complex geometries" you meant ligher hand-held RPGs as an antithesis to heavier tripod-based ATGMs. No doubt Trophy provides protection against RPGs as well but I believe your statement that was the main intention of Trophy development is invalid. Here's an excerpt from "Hezbollah anti-amour tactics and weapons. Assessment of the Second Lebanon War By Col. David Eshel": Realizing the capabilities of the Merkava 4 tank, Hezbollah allocated their most advanced weaponry to combat this advanced tank, engaging these tanks exclusively with the heavier, more capable missiles such as 9M133 AT-14 Kornet, 9M131 Metis M and RPG-29. RPG-29 and 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5) were employed mostly against Merkava 3 and 2 while non-tandem weapons, such as Tow, Fagot and improved RPG 7Vs were left to engage other armored vehicles such as AIFV My points: In many interviews after 2006 Lebanon War Israeli said that they underestimated the threat posed by modern heavy ATGMs and Israli tanks sustained considerable losses. Second Lebanon War's battles was fought mostly in rural rather than urban settings. Israel dispatched a special diplomatic mission to Russia to compain s"pecifically about Syria's passing of its Russia's supplied Kornet heavy ATGM to Hezbollah. Israel sped up testing and system selection for APS right after the war. Since hard-kill APS poses a considerable danger to nearby infantry Israel changed their urban warfare doctrine after the Trophy was inducted into the armored force. Infantry now follows tanks at a distance. This difficulties in infantry-tank cooperation was actually one of the main criticism of the Trophy implementation. So I do believe your statement that "TROPHY is intended to protect tanks in urban environments from infantry held AT weapons" is misleading. ---------- Can you provide specific names/models for those "most modern and lethal ATGMs, which only exist in double digit numbers"? ---------- Kornet vs. American Abrams, 2003 Iraqi War: from 2 to 4 reported penetrations, tanks disabled. Iraqi military possessed limited number of Kornets as they have never been officially supplied, only few were smuggled from Syria. RPG-29 vs. American Abrams, 2003 Iraqi War: 3 reported penetrations, crews wounded/killed. RPG-29 vs. Challenger 2, 2003 Iraqi War: one known FRONTAL ERA penetration, crew wounded. RPG-29 has way less armor penetration than Kornet yet American military prohibited post-Saddam Iraqi Army from buying them http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/weekinreview/big-guns-for-iraq-not-so-fast.html. "He [General Jassem of Iraqi Army] also complained that the United States wants to supply his troops with RPG-7's, the Soviet-era rocket-propelled grenade launcher. 'Why are they always giving us the oldest models?' he asked, saying he likes the more modern, larger caliber RPG-29, which penetrates armor better. But such weapons could raise a threat against the United States if they fell into the wrong hands ... "The RPG-7 is more versatile than other antitank weapons, which really only have one use -- destroying armor," the senior American officer said." ---------- Israel is well known for putting specific emphasis on tanks protection. If we put aside the argument that a way more modern Merkava-4 is less protected than American Abrams just by pure magic of it not being American then 2003 Lebanon War may be a good proxy for evaluating modern tanks protection level against current ATGMs.