M1A2 immune to 152mm mm precision strikes

[antaress73]

It seems the M1A2 is immune to 152mm precision strikes from the russians . 6 hits on the top turret with armor dent decals (including one on the loader's hatch) and the tank was immobilized and all its external systems destroyed or severely degraded but still alive. 

 

 

[Nerdwing]

Honestly, from the streams I've seen it seems tanks may be a bit too resilient to precision strikes in general.  

[MikeyD]

I had to look the munition up on Wikipedia:

 

 

"Krasnopol carries a 20.5 kg (45 lb) high explosive fragmentation warhead"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(Weapon)

 

So its a bad mutha, but not a bad mutha with a HEAT anti-armor warhead. 

[c3k]

This topic was beat upon, a lot. There is a lot of evidence, pro and con, about the resistance of modern MBT's to modern artillery. On issue is that the precision rounds don't penetrate as well. That hardened, pointy warhead, has been replaced by an optic. Plus, some HE filler is removed. Splinters? Yeah. But, look at what you said: the tank is damaged. In modern combat, that tank is a sitting duck. If it's mobile, it should shuffle off to the rear. The Abrams is designed to keep the crew alive, not to keep the tank in the fight. A slight difference, but important.

 

Ken

[Skwabie]

eh I did a similar test in CMSF on the Abrams. The shooters are M109, PzH2000 and AS90, set to heavy-long-armor so at least there will be direct hits.

The winner is the PzH. It did KO the M1. The other 2 guns did immobile and disable systems but didn't KO.

Hats off to german high penetration shells or so I thought...

[Vanir Ausf B]

The only possible issue with precision rounds is that Russian and Ukrainian tanks are more vulnerable to them as the game seems to assume they have thinner roof armor than the Abrams. I have seen some evidence that this is not correct, but hard number are difficult to find.

[dan/california]

This topic was beat upon, a lot. There is a lot of evidence, pro and con, about the resistance of modern MBT's to modern artillery. On issue is that the precision rounds don't penetrate as well. That hardened, pointy warhead, has been replaced by an optic. Plus, some HE filler is removed. Splinters? Yeah. But, look at what you said: the tank is damaged. In modern combat, that tank is a sitting duck. If it's mobile, it should shuffle off to the rear. The Abrams is designed to keep the crew alive, not to keep the tank in the fight. A slight difference, but important.

 

Ken

Especially to the crew in question!

[A Canadian Cat]

The only possible issue with precision rounds is that Russian and Ukrainian tanks are more vulnerable to them as the game seems to assume they have thinner roof armor than the Abrams. I have seen some evidence that this is not correct, but hard number are difficult to find.

Another difference is that I have found is that if you drop three US precision 155 shells on a Russian tank they will all likely hit directly (it is a near certainty that two will anyway). Whereas if you drop three Russian precision 152 shells on an M1 one will probably hit but not always while the other will land near the vehicle.

BTW a T90 survives a hit from 155 precision shell just as well as an M1 survives a 152 precision shell. Which is to say they will both likely need to be recovered and repaired after the battle 'cause they are not likely to drive home.

[antaress73]

the excalibur has a pointy solid penetrator for penetrating structures so it should be more effective in destroying tanks than the krasnopol which has a glass nose for the sensor. Concussion effects and destruction of everything on top of the tank taking it out of the fight but no catastrophic destruction. Even the T-90AM survived a hit near the front of the top of the turret in one of my screenshots on the screenshot thread but it didnt survive a hit near the center of the turret which I guess is less armored.

[whitehot78]

imho the precision strikes over mbts have a good chance to disable the target, although normally not knocking out it. I experimented with basically all the tanks, M1A2, T-90 and even T-72 don't get killed by direct hits: although if I remember correctly I managed to destroy T-64s with krasnopol precision strikes.

 

btw, in CMSF we had the "armor" fuze setting in the FS interface, which has been lost in BS.

I don't know exactly what it is in real life (maybe a little delay, or a less sensitive fuze?), but in CMSF used to destroy heavily armored tanks with the 155mm rounds.

It was available, if i remember correctly, to all the arty tubes the US had in the game, 60mm to 155mm.

 

Why isnt there anymore in BS? Precision mission coupled with that coulod maybe have better effects?

[Stagler]

A Krasnopol of Kitilov hitting the roof of an M1 should cause catastrophic subsystem failure. Not a kinetic or mobility kill, but it should knock out most of the optics through shock and blast damage.

[AkumaSD]

btw, in CMSF we had the "armor" fuze setting in the FS interface, which has been lost in BS.

 

I could be wrong about this, but it was always my understanding that "armor" just meant that the guns would try for a tighter grouping. "Personnel" was the only arty round to actually do something different with their fuze.

Edited February 27, 2015 by AkumaSD

[vyrago]

personnel setting is airburst fuzing, armor is impact fuze.  general is a mix of both.  

[BlackMoria]

personnel setting is airburst fuzing, armor is impact fuze.  general is a mix of both.  

 

No.  Personnel setting is HE round using a Time fuze or a VT fuze.  General setting is Point Detonating (PD) fuze.  Armor setting is PD fuze set to delay setting, allowing the round to penetrate deeper before going off.

[akd]

BlackMoria is correct, and we really need the setting back, less for attacking armor and more for attacking structures or hard targets under tree canopies.  I think when targeting tanks, some amount of delay is already accounted for even when using "general" setting, otherwise we would presumably see no penetrations due to instant fuze action.  However, in the absence of a delay fuze setting (CMSF "armor" setting), troops in buildings are safe from direct hits if they have a floor above them, and AFVs (and possibly covered fortifications) can hide under tree canopies to reduce their chances of getting hit.

[vyrago]

No.  Personnel setting is HE round using a Time fuze or a VT fuze.  General setting is Point Detonating (PD) fuze.  Armor setting is PD fuze set to delay setting, allowing the round to penetrate deeper before going off.

 

 

Is this actually modeled in CMSF?  I was talking in-game.  

[BlackMoria]

Yes. In game in CMSF.  The Armor option for artillery is simulating putting the PD fuzes on fuze delay.  What that means in the underpinning of the game, outside of having a better chance of knocking out armor, I don't know.   From my perception, buildings target with artillery set to armor setting seemed to bring down the building faster but I have no proof of that.

[cool breeze]

Its been a while since I played CMSF but my memory is siding with Vyrago, I think some of the rounds airburst in CMSF with a general strike.  I might be misremembering and if not it would only be with the airburst capable shoots, which I'm not sure they all were.  Armor missions did maybe have a delay fuse, the building observation seems right.  but that's confused by it mattering which floor you target. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by cool breeze

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I seem to remember it being anti-personnel, anti-armor, or mix for some reason.

[Kieme(ITA)]

In a quick test I hit an M1A2 with several 152mm strikes.

 

The shots Landing on the turret caused a "top hit" warning message but nothing else (can't say about the subsystems, will need more tests).

 

The only penetration was a "top rear hull penetration", which immediately destroyed the vehicle.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)