UAVs & LWRs

[MOS:96B2P]

Trying to get a better understanding of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Precision Guided Munitions and Laser Warning Receivers.  I did some experiments to determine which UAVs triggered LWR  on OpFor vehicles when targeting those vehicles (US M1 Tank and Russian T-90AM Tank).  This is what I found.

Russian UAVs: Pchela-1T No  /  Orlan-10 Yes  /  ZALA Yes (No PG just conventional)

US UAVs: Raven No  /  Shadow Yes  /  Gray Eagle No.

The CMBS game manual page 95 states the Raven may have a laser.  The 4.0 Engine manual page 80 states the Raven is too small for a laser.  But it can spot for precision rounds and does not set off LWRs.    

The CMBS game manual page 96 states the Gray Eagle has a laser.  However in the experiment it did not set off LWRs.

The 4.0 engine manual page 80 states the ZALA is too small for a laser.  However it does set off LWRs when targeting OpFor vehicles with conventional munitions.  The ZALA is the only UAV that can’t spot for precision munitions.    

Any corrections, clarifications or comments welcome.  Did I get it right?  Are the manuals a bit off?  

[Kinophile]

hmmmm

So the Pchela has a LWR, yet it doesnt' set off the warning?

[exsonic01]

So, if one try precision bombing with laser guided shells to vehicles with the UAV, some UAVs (such as Orlan and Shadow) will activate the LWR of tanks or any vehicles with LWR. Is this correct? 

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

17 hours ago, kinophile said:

hmmmm

So the Pchela has a LWR, yet it doesnt' set off the warning?

No LWR is on vehicles and when you call for precision fire with laser designator, it set LASER WARNING on. If you lase vehicle with another tank or atgm it puts defensive smoke, but when lased with laser designator nothing happens except warning.

ZALA can activate LWR on vehicles without laser designator? How to do it?

[Kinophile]

Ah sorry,  typo, yes I meant it has a LR but doesn't set off the warning.

Ah k,  thank you. 

I guess it makes sense to not pop smoke -  that's designed/oriented against ground level threats.

This suggests an update of RL modern smoke screening is required, accounting for overhead airborne threats. I'm curious why it's not been done do far - even launching a chaff cloud could help.  I know it's revealing the tank's position to other threats,  but fight one threat at a time,  no? 

[MOS:96B2P]

On 1/13/2017 at 10:51 PM, exsonic01 said:

So, if one try precision bombing with laser guided shells to vehicles with the UAV, some UAVs (such as Orlan and Shadow) will activate the LWR of tanks or any vehicles with LWR. Is this correct? 

Sorry for the delayed reply.  RL got busy.

Yes this is correct and not just for precision rounds.  If you request a point target conventional strike (Like you might do with the ZALA) it will also set off LWRs.    

[MOS:96B2P]

On 1/13/2017 at 7:27 PM, kinophile said:

hmmmm

So the Pchela has a LWR, yet it doesnt' set off the warning?

The Pchela did not set off the LWR.  I'm not sure if the Pchela is suppose to have a laser or not.  The CMBS game manual page 138 is kind of vague.  It reads that the Pchela can carry a variety of TV and infrared imaging devices.        

 

 

[MOS:96B2P]

20 hours ago, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:

No LWR is on vehicles and when you call for precision fire with laser designator, it set LASER WARNING on. If you lase vehicle with another tank or atgm it puts defensive smoke, but when lased with laser designator nothing happens except warning.

ZALA can activate LWR on vehicles without laser designator? How to do it?

The vehicles used in the experiment (M1 Abrams and T-90AM) had LWRs.  The ZALA, according to the 4.0 engine manual page 80, states the ZALA is too small for a laser.  However in the experiment the ZALA using a conventional munitions Point Target did set off the LWRs.  This doesn't seem like it is intended behavior.     

[akd]

Definitely some inconsistencies here, but it is possible that conventional missions result in a UAS using a laser rangefinder to obtain target location data (but that does not explain no laser warning from Raven or Grey Eagle during conventional missions).

[MOS:96B2P]

24 minutes ago, akd said:

Definitely some inconsistencies here, but it is possible that conventional missions result in a UAS using a laser rangefinder to obtain target location data (but that does not explain no laser warning from Raven or Grey Eagle during conventional missions).

Just for clarification, the Raven and Gray Eagle were tested during precision strike missions and did not set off the LWR on the T-90AM.  I only tested the ZALA with conventional munition point mission since it can't do a precision munition strike.  Not sure if that changes anything but ........... just in case.       

[MOS:96B2P]

Probably the most useful information to come out of this is: If a vehicle's LWR activates, it Pops Smoke and goes in Reverse it was targeted by another ground unit.  If a vehicle's LWR activates and the vehicle does not Pop Smoke or change position it is probably being hunted with a UAV.  The UAVs also seem to activate the LWRs on vehicles at the star of a turn.  So that would be an additional indicator it's a UAV.     

[akd]

I suspect there is a bug lurking in this.

[cool breeze]

Thanks MOS I hadn't really digested all this as far as taking advantage of my enemies yet but now I'm fully prepared

[Fizou]

Im using a FO team, spotting trough a Orlan-10, so no direct LOS, but I have a clear infantry contact for several turns. I try do target a Kitolov-2M precisions strike on this infantry unit. Times passes by, the shell is fired, but I doesn't impact on the map or off the map edge. What happened? Do I need to have the FO in direct LOS with his laser designator to guide the precision strike on target? Strange though that the shell was expended.

I used the same FO team, with the Orlan-10 to guide in some 82mm mortar fire on the same target. It took very many spotting rounds before the mission started and it was a bit off target. I was expecting to get better results than above (first time ever Im calling in arty via UAV LOS though so maybe something strange happening in this instance).

Any thoughts? What is your general experience calling in arty via UAV LOS? 

[Fizou]

Scratch that.. the Kitolov round was mid flight and hit dead center. 

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL I find that happens frequently with precision missions. The turn ends with the round in flight and the artillery is available again for use. More than once I have said to myself "what happened to that precision mission and who was I targeting, again I forget". Then near the beginning of the next turn a surprise enemy vehicle gets taken out.

 

[cool breeze]

Kind of ideal timing really, lets you plot a new one.  Id never be that time efficient with my spotters in a real time game

 

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL as long as re remember what target is about to get hit. I frequently find my self unsure and waiting to see what happens.

[Michael Emrys]

10 minutes ago, IanL said:

LOL as long as re remember what target is about to get hit. I frequently find my self unsure and waiting to see what happens.

Happens to me sometimes too.

Michael

[Fizou]

I was finally able to guide home a  Kitolov-2M HE on the roof of a Bradley but to little effect. Is that the expected result? Is there a  Kitolov-2M AT grenade/shell as well? 

Im playing a PBEM and have been murdered by my oppos Bradleys so far.. finally thought I was gonna get some payback

Edited January 25, 2017 by Fizou

[John Kettler]

Fizou,

Can't speak to the game version, but the real deal would wreck the Bradley. If you haven't read this thread , may I suggest you do so? In it, there's a major discussion of what artillery fire does to tanks, both from real world examples and engineering modeling. This includes a look at the results of live fire testing on everything up through an early M1 Abrams. 155 mm artillery (subbing for Russian 152 mm) will kill tanks, and 122 mm isn't all that much less potent, since blast scales by the cube of charge weight. The Kitolov-2M, whose warhead is HEF weighs 28 kg and has a fill consisting of 5.3 kg of explosive. The explosive is likely to be what's in Grad, and it's much nastier than TNT. KBP's site explicitly addresses the AT capabilities of the Kitolov-2M projectile. Note well the statement about "significantly enhanced warhead lethality," which practically screams better explosive than a standard 122 mm howitzer shell.

http://www.kbptula.ru/en/productions/artillery-guided-weapon-systems/kitolov-2m

(Fair Use)

The Kitolov-2M system significantly increases division artillery performance due to, first of all, the direct hit capability offered by the guided projectile plus significantly enhanced warhead lethality compared to conventional HEF projectile, and, secondly, due to the new advantage to successfully fight main battle tanks.

Russian  HEF O10 submunitions apparently use a fill for them of A-IX-2. This is an aluminum powder enhanced RDX explosive, described here.  It dates back to WW II, yet during the Cold War, the Pentagon explicitly stated, in several editions of Soviet Military Power, that aluminum enhanced explosives were a key part of a significant Russian advantage over the US. A-IX-2  is by no means the state of the art, as shown here in a description of the Grad MLRS improvements planned by Splav, the manufacturer. That site seems to have vanished in English (found this in Russian via Army Guide), but this information from it remains. Quoted in full sans attribution here. This is found on Army Guide's writeup of the 9K21 Grad.

Therefore, the designers of the Splav State Research and Production Association, headed by Director General Nikolai Makarovets and Chief Designer Gennady Denezhkin, speak in proposals about the creation of new 122mm rockets for the Grad MLRS. 

The first of them concerns a rocket with a maximum firing range of up to 35 km and enhanced power warhead. It uses a mixed propellant motor and prefragmented HE warhead loaded with enhanced power explosive.

When addressing the Kitolov-2M, we are talking about a detonation on the top of the tank or other AFV. Even if it doesn't penetrate, the concussion is going to put the crew out of action and administer shock loads all kinds of gear was never designed to take, never mind what the blast and frags do to everything atop the AFV hit if there is no penetration. A dud would deliver a shattering concussive blow, too, one that would do lovely things like smash vision blocks into the fighting compartment. 

Would imagine HerrTom can provide real insights, and perhaps engineering modeling, in support of assessing both the detonation scenario and the dud scenario.  

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

I use 2x KrasnopolM to destroy Bradley and 6x KrasnopolM to destroy Abrams and for light vehicles just 1x Krasnopol. What is interesting direct hit with KrasnopolM on infantry below small wall brings zero death

[MOS:96B2P]

On 1/13/2017 at 3:36 PM, MOS:96B2P said:

Trying to get a better understanding of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Precision Guided Munitions and Laser Warning Receivers.  I did some experiments to determine which UAVs triggered LWR  on OpFor vehicles when targeting those vehicles (US M1 Tank and Russian T-90AM Tank).  This is what I found.

<Snip>

The CMBS game manual page 95 states the Raven may have a laser.  The 4.0 Engine manual page 80 states the Raven is too small for a laser.  But it can spot for precision rounds and does not set off LWRs.  The CMBS game manual page 96 states the Gray Eagle has a laser.  The 4.0 engine manual page 80 states the ZALA is too small for a laser.  The ZALA is the only UAV that can’t spot for precision munitions.   <Snip>  

@akd FYI.   @cool breeze if your using the previous information in PBEMs. 

An update and probably unintended behavior (bug) identified.  In the old experiment I used a combination of HQ teams and FO teams to control the UAVs and call in precision strikes.  During a PBEM I used my original data from the OP to try an figure out what was setting off friendly LWRs but the results did not seem consistent and did not match what my opponent said he had.  I did some more experimenting and learned that it is not the type of UAV that determines if a LWR is set off but the type of team controlling the UAV and calling in the precision artillery.  In summary:

When a HQ team is controlling the UAV and calling in a precision strike it will not set off OpFor LWRs.

When a FO team is controlling the UAV and calling in a precision strike it will set off OpFor LWRs.

I apologize for the inaccurate info in the opening post.   

 

  

[akd]

And the FO team does not have LOS to the target itself, correct?

[MOS:96B2P]

30 minutes ago, akd said:

And the FO team does not have LOS to the target itself, correct?

Correct.  

In addition to an FO the Air Controller team also triggers LWRs.  It does not matter if they are in a vehicle or on foot (but always out of LOS) they still trigger LWRs.  The US M7A3 BFIST (ERA) also triggers LWR when it controls a UAV and calls for a precision strike (with no FO or Air Controller Team inside, just the three man crew).  Same with the Russian Artillery Observation Vehicle PRP-4M with only the three man crew inside.  I suspect all FO type vehicles may trigger LWR but I only looked at the US BFIST and Russian PRP-4M.   

Even an FO controlling a ZALA with a conventional Point Target (since a ZALA can't do precision) will trigger LWRs.  But of course HQ teams controlling a ZALA with a conventional Point Target will NOT trigger the LWRs.