Efficiency of artillery on AFV´s, and tanks in the war.

[Armorgunner]

The war in Ukraina has showed a suprisingly high effectivnes, of artillery against Tanks, IFV´s, and other armored vehicles. Ukraine said erlier, that most of their tanklosses came from artillery. And Russia is very thin on guided shells. And we have seen 100´s of twitter/youtubeclips of artilleryshells detonating close <50ft to AFV´s destroying them. And now even several upparmored M2A2 ODS-SA Bradlys, and a Leo 2A6. Getting missionkilled by artillery, possibly a few total kills. And more to come with probably M-kills/K-kills by arty, of upparmored CV 90´s, Marders, Challenger 2´s, Strv 122´s. And later on of M1A1´s. 

I know BF cant change this in existing games, since every campaign. And every scenario have to be redone, to reflect this. 

What your thoughts? I didn´t want to spam the bigone with this, but a separate thread.

[Grey_Fox]

6 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

And now even several upparmored M2A2 ODS-SA Bradlys, and a Leo 2A6

I believe a number of those vehicles struck mines and ATGMs. Most of the vehicles looked relatively intact, and it looks like at least some have been recovered and are being repaired.

What I'm getting at is that immobilizing armoured vehicles with artillery already happens in CMBS.

There is some idea that shrapnel does less subsystem damage than perhaps it should, but I don't know about that.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Grey_Fox

[Carolus]

 

16 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

There is some idea that shrapnel does less subsystem damage than perhaps it should, but I don't know about that.

I remember reading a thread about that in the past here in these very forums, and with specific reference to the observations from Ukraine.

The conclusion was, ultimately, that from a game design standpoint increasing the damage of artillery and specifically shrapnel and fragments to vehicle subsystems would probably be more realistic but it would also change the dynamic of gameplay in a way that is too unbalanced and not desired.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Carolus
Typo

[Sgt Joch]

I would be leery about making conclusions based on videos when we only have fragmentary info on what is actually going on and no or only vague info on what actual ordnance was used.

Currently, the game only models conventional artillery with mostly "dumb" HE shell and a small number of GPS/laser guided precision rounds. From what I can see, the existing effect of indirect HE on AFVs in the game seems more or less correctly modelled. US 155 mm HE ammo, for example, will immobilize/damage Russian tanks with a direct hit and can destroy less armoured IFVs even with a near miss. When a conventional HE shell misses, even if it hits close by, only a fraction of the explosion is directed at the AFV, most of it is directed upwards if it hits the ground or 360 degrees if it is an airburst, so no reason why anything other than a near miss should cause damage. Even when a tank hits a mine, the usual result is immobilization from track damage rather than destruction.

One caveat of course is that anti-vehicle cluster munitions like those which can be potentially fielded by the M142 HIMARS or M270 MLRS or equivalent Russian systems like the BM21 GRAD or Tornado G could potentially damage or destroy AFVs from farther away than conventional HE shells, but these would typically only be used to strike units deep behind the front lines because of the high risk of collateral damage to friendly troops. These are not modelled in the game, but would normally be outside the scope of a typical CM battle in any event. 

[kevinkin]

Wrong Forum

Edited June 17, 2023 by kevinkin

[Grey_Fox]

7 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

These are not modelled in the game, but would normally be outside the scope of a typical CM battle in any event. 

155mm cluster is a battlefield munition and would be in the scope of CM.

[Sgt Joch]

I presume you are referring to the M483/M864 round? yes, that would be a nice toy to have, but they are not currently in use with NATO and officially, none of those in reserve have been sent to Ukraine. Another thing to keep in mind is that these have footprint of around 150 meters and being unguided have a potential CEP of 150-250 meters?, so the potential of collateral damage to friendly troops is high.

If NATO would use cluster munitions against a Russian invasion, they would be more likely to use the newer GPS-guided GMLRS rockets delivered by HIMARS/M270.

[Pelican Pal]

 We’ve certainly seen a lot of vehicles that appear to be M-killed and killed  outright by artillery but that could be anything from the vehicle ceasing to function to the crew saying “nope”. Did artillery kill the vehicle or did the crew have an issue that was exacerbated by arty causing them to abandon the vehicle?

Especially in the context of Ukraine where a lot of dumb artillery seems drone spotted. So it’s clear that someone is watching you and they might be able to better direct dumb fire or bring in PGM for the kill if you sit around.

 

18 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

From what I can see, the existing effect of indirect HE on AFVs in the game seems more or less correctly modelled.

The particular issue with CM being that near misses will only damage tracks. So APS, vehicle sights,ERA,  smoke launchers, turret mounted HMGs, etc… all are invulnerable to fragments. The end result is that artillery does a bad job of doing chip damage that degrades the combat capability of the vehicles. 

also an additional quirk of this is that direct hits on ERA count as near misses.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Pelican Pal

[Artkin]

Bilohorvika..... enough said.

[Grey_Fox]

6 hours ago, Artkin said:

enough said.

I have no idea what you're referring to, so I really do think you need to say more.

[Sgt Joch]

so had to dig out some old data, but always fun.

U.S. did a test in 1960 detonating 105mm and 155 mm HE shells to see how fragments performed against armour plates. At a 20 feet distance, fragments from 155 mm HE were not able to penetrate a 2 inch plate.

http://tanks.mod16.org/2014/03/10/report-on-protection-from-fragments-from-he-ammunition/

estimated armor protection of T72 turret/hull armor is estimated to be equivalent to a 13-46 inch plate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

so the tank itself cannot be knocked by a near miss from a U.S. 155 mm shell (or presumably a Russian 152 mm HE shell). Whether sub systems can be effected by fragments would be another issue.

I suspect most tanks knocked out in Ukraine by indirect artillery were the victims of cluster munitions.

[Sgt Joch]

just an a quick test, near miss from 155 mm HE will damage subsystems on a T72.

[Pelican Pal]

Did you confirm that the vehicle in question took no direct hits? people have a tendency to fast forward through the turns missing the outcomes of each individual shell. Which is part of why the bug has been with the titles for so long.

this thread with the Capt has the same events. He initially didn’t see an issue because he was fast forwarding through the turn. 

 

 

And here is the original post the revealed the issue. 

[Armorgunner]

On 6/18/2023 at 2:43 PM, Sgt Joch said:

so had to dig out some old data, but always fun.

U.S. did a test in 1960 detonating 105mm and 155 mm HE shells to see how fragments performed against armour plates. At a 20 feet distance, fragments from 155 mm HE were not able to penetrate a 2 inch plate.

http://tanks.mod16.org/2014/03/10/report-on-protection-from-fragments-from-he-ammunition/

estimated armor protection of T72 turret/hull armor is estimated to be equivalent to a 13-46 inch plate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

so the tank itself cannot be knocked by a near miss from a U.S. 155 mm shell (or presumably a Russian 152 mm HE shell). Whether sub systems can be effected by fragments would be another issue.

I suspect most tanks knocked out in Ukraine by indirect artillery were the victims of cluster munitions.

But with 13-46 inch plate, you are only talking about the frontarmour. Artillery don´t care if the wehicle is turned in the direction they are firing from. Most arty kills I´v seen from the war, is from the side. And mostly on BMP/BTR´s. But according to Ukraine soldiers, they lose most of their tanks to artillery to (Now, maybe mines to). And there are lots of weakspots on tanks in the side/back. Particularly on the T-xx tanks.

Take this photo of the side front of an T-72B3  Very thin side armor there. And you se the composite front plate armor inside, and that we know the thicknes of.

 

80 mm on the upper part of the sidearmour of the T-72 hull side. But only 20 mm on the lower part of the side. Thats not even an inch! And thats where the carousel mag is! 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Armorgunner

[Pelican Pal]

What we don't(?) have information on is exactly what kind of loss is being generated by artillery. Is it a irrecoverable loss or is it a vehicle that is beaten up and no one really wants to use it in combat right now? My suspicion is that its the latter. Vehicles that have been damaged in a variety of relatively minor ways that could operate in a fight but that the units wouldn't be excited to use.

More broadly there has been a discounting of the impact artillery has on armor that the fighting in Ukraine has helped to reveal is a sort of bogus. They are fairly complex machines and chucking chunks of metal at a tank isn't good for them. Now tanks are obviously advantaged against artillery, but that has often turned into a "don't use artillery against tanks" which doesn't seem to hold water. Tanks are advantaged against artillery because they (1) cannot be pinned by artillery and (2) each artillery shell has fewer fragments of significant size to cause damage. So armor is able to maneuver away from/through artillery and this ability to avoid fire is key. Infantry and soft skinned vehicles cannot maneuver through artillery so if they are hit they become pinned and have to sustain the barrage. To get tanks to sustain the barrage you either need tanks that are static or the ability for the FO to adjust fire along the vehicles route of movement which is difficult (but apparently getting easier).

 

[Lethaface]

It was already confirmed that artillery effects on armor will be changed (to be more 'deadly').