Does TacOps accurately reflect the lethality of modern artillery?

[Allan Wotherspoon]

The November-December issue of the Field Artllery Journal has an article titled "Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can't Kill Tanks?" The article

argues that dumb (meaning in the article plain jane HE) rounds have significantly greater effect against armour than they have been credited

with.

The article recounts tests done by the US Army in 1988 and came up with the following results:

A direct hit with a 155mm HE round with a PD fuse consistently destroyed target vehicles (no surprise there)

A hit by a 155mm HE round within 30 meters of a tank destroyed road wheels, tracks, main gun sights and vision blocks. A hit within 30

meters of an APC results in fragments penetrating the vehicle causing crew casualties and damage to internal components.

155mm VT rounds damage or destroy gun barrels, vision blocks antennas, sights and engines and destroyed anything stored on the outside of

the vehicle.

The article has a number of photographs of the test vehicles, including a Bradley with the 25mm gun barrel penetrated by a fragment from a VT

burst, an M577 with numerous holes in the side from a near miss and various tanks with destroyed or damaged tracks and running gear caused

by near misses.

TacOps does not seem to grant the same lethaliy to HE rounds as shown in the tests. I ran a couple of tests with artillery units firing plain HE

against tanks and APC's stationary in the open. The HE appeared ot have no effect against tanks or light armoured vehicles.

Allan

[dhuffjr]

Interesting info. I came across a powerpoint/PDF on artillery use in the Iraqi conflict that talked about the "wonders" of HE, It also mentioned that DPICM was not as effective because of a high dud rate. It did say that the dud rate was less when used on hard surfaces, which I assumed to be roads. Another round with great results was SADDARM (sp?).

It also mention how effective mortars were in urban areas and at being able to quickly deliver accurate fire.

Dennis

[minmax]

Looking at Army and Dept of Defense reports on the use of Artie vs. Armor in the Gulf wars I and II found that sand tended to greatly lessen the effect on Armor.

In Central America likewise the soil composition acted like sand in reducing Artillery lethality. That is my personal experience there.

Another factor to consider are Skirts used on M113s, Bradleys, and earlier models of the M1s which greatly reduce damage to tracks and road wheels.

Check out the Army FMs online that talk about protective countermeasures Armor and Mech can use to reduce Artie hits. Something as simple as laying fallen trees around the vehicle or a single layer of sandbags. Besides the suspension response to a concussion wave that reduces effects.

I think I have a paper written by a Major at Amphibious Warfare College about Artie in the First Gulf War and how poorly it performed against Iraqi equipment both entrenchend and in the open. If I can dig it up I will post its conclusions.