DPICM?

[rune]

Just a correction, depending on the type of M483A1 round, it could carry 88 submunitions. The extended range M864 round carries 72 sub-munitions.

Rune

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Adam1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Not simulating the downside of a weapon (and the dud rate is a very widely known problem) is akin to biasing the game in favor of the side that benefits form it. In this case Blue. Gotta take the good with the bad or the value of putting it in at all diminishes proportional to impact it has on gameplay.

Nah, the effect is negligible. You know you can attach neon orange ribbons to each one right? Anyhow... they aren't landmines. </font>

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[YankeeDog]

Calling the DOD official data on all casualties caused by Land Mines and UXO explosions in OIF an "anecdote" is a curious use of the word. . .

But oh well. If you don't want to play, then I guess I'll take my marbles and go home. I must admit I'm disappointed, though. I thought this had the potential to be a good, and potentially fruitful discussion.

Sure, I'm trying to win an argument. I'm trying to actually present hard data that will support my hypothesis that DPICM duds *are* dangerous and *do* cause casualties and restrict maneuver on the battlefield significantly. I've already presented some data that supports this point. This is how you do historical research. You take a quick survey, and make a hypothesis that is logical based on your initial survey. Then you try to come up with other data that supports it.

But I'm not so attached to my hypothesis that I'm going to defend it to the death. If you or someone else can put up convincing data (rather than unsupported opinion) that contradicts my hypothesis, I will happily eat crow and change my mind. That's how peer review is supposed to work, and I'd certainly rather know I'm wrong than think I'm right.

Incidentally, while everything I've found so far strongly supports my hypothesis that DPICM UXO creates a fratricide and maneuver restriction problem, and that further this this is a serious concern for US Military planners right now, I have also found some rather interesting anecdotes suggesting that it might, nevertheless be somewhat relevant on the CM scale in certain very specific circumstances. Certainly not widely used, but not completely absent, either. JasonC's post is along the lines of what I'm talking about, though I would perhaps differ with his opinion by a few degrees.

But at this point, nothing I've found has changed my opinion that DPICM is non-essential at the CM scale. I do think it would be a nice cherry to be added at some point, if the modeling issues of UXO hazard could be dealt with somehow. I still think other stuff should higher priority, though. For example, the 3rd Div. papers seem to indicate that Precision Guided anti-armor rounds would see much greater use in a large conflict today than they did in 2003, where they were fairly uncommon. GPS-guided MLRS w/ HE (rather than DPICM) warhead is another new weapons system that the divisional reports indicate was much wished for in 2003, and now that it's available would probably be see considerable use at the CM scale.

Cheers,

YD

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[YankeeDog]

Jeez, you're a tease. Lay down yer cards or leave the table, fer crissakes.

I know damn well what a land mine is. I'm not arguing that DPICM UXO = Land Mine. I'm arguing the DPICM UXO is *enough like* a land mine that it creates a fratricide and maneuver hazard, and that furthermore it would be important to model this drawback of the weapons system to realistically represent it in CMSF.

I've put up some cites that I believe support this hypothesis. If you would care to cite some data that shoots me down, I'd love to see it.

But blithely sending me off to some website to learn more about land mines in general doesn't convince me of anything. Since you've apparently already decided so, assume I'm a dumbass and can't reach these apparently obvious conclusions you've made on my own. Prove your point. I'd love to see it.

Cheers,

YD

[ May 16, 2008, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[YankeeDog]

So. . . as I understand it, your argument is:

(a) Land Mines in CMSF (NOT real life) have only a marginal effect.

( However dangerous DPICM UXO is, IRL, it would almost certainly be considerably less of a hazard than raeal land mines which are, after all, built for the purpose.

© Thereore, DPICM could be added to the game without UXO hazard modeling, since even purposely designed land mines are marginal in CMSF.

Yes?

I'll certainly agree that, as a hazard, DPICM UXO would be less hazardous than an actual minefield (assuming similar density).

However, if I am understanding your argument correctly, I still disagree because I think, regardless of whether landmines are or are not nerfed in CMSF, standard US military ROE very clearly restricts where and when they will use DPICM. Besides the obvious humantitarian restrictions (no use over inhabited areas, etc.), my readings suggest that the US military is also extremely reluctant to use DPICM over any area that might become a (a) a maneuver point for friendly combat forces, ( a transit route for follow-on forces, © a possible future supply route, or (d) over terrain that creates a high dud rate, which includes, amongst other things, terrain with soft ground (such as soft sand), or soft vegetation.

Further, the decision as to whether DPICM is the best round to use, and is acceptable within the ROE for a given mission is made well above the CM scale, by Brigade and Division Arty staff. And, with a few limited execeptions, that decision would generally not be DPICM for the kinds of support missions you see in CMSF.

So, it is my opinion that, regardless of what types of Arty rounds are represented in CMSF, the player should *not* have the ability to pick a specific type of round; this decision should be made by the AI based on general parameters given by the player (target point, target type etc.). And under this sytem, even if DPICM was one of the round types modeled in the game, I believe a proper modeling of ROE would mean that DPICM would be the "round of choice" by the "DIVARTY AI" only very rarely.

So I don't really see the point.

Finally, I even if I could choose a DPICM strike myself, I really doubt I'd use it much. DPICM is most effective against mixed enemy concentrations that include some infantry and some vehicles, and especally light armored targets (hence the name: Dual Purpose Improved Cluster Munition; it's basically a HEDP round with both armor piercing and fragmentation qualities). HE/VT is more effective against infantry in the open. Timed HE is more effective against infantry in buildings and other fortifications. Various PGM or dedicated anti-armor munitions are favored against a pure armor target (these I WOULD like to see modeled; I'm not sure what the point of the "Armor" target type in the arty menu is right now).

Assuming I'm playing a scenario that involves a significant concentration of armor and infantry in a relatively small area (not the most common thing in CMSF, but I've seen it a couple of times), how often am I going to want to wait for 5 minutes or more for a 155mm strike to take out a few BMPs in CMSF, when you can much more quickly and reliably just pop them with Javelins?

IMHO, something that might be useful once in a while, but I can definitely live without it for now in preference of other game improvements.

Cheers,

YD

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[John Kettler]

Adam1,

Having some familiarity with the M42 submunitions from my military aerospace days, to include handling inert ones, I feel compelled to clear something up for you. DPICM is just that--dual purpose, but you seem to think only of the shaped charge detonation. This is only partially correct. If the submunition doesn't encounter metal or concrete on impact and detonates as a shaped charge, the fuzing sequence shifts so that the submunition, which does have a frag wrap, detonates much as a hand grenade does, except this one is impact fuzed. This is what ruins infantry's day as an area is blanketed by closely spaced explosions.

What YankeeDog is arguing is that the dud rate is high enough that after DPICM is used in a given area, you now have significant quantities of highly unstable, likely to go off if touched munitions littering the battlefield, and not just the ground (trees, roofs, in ponds, down wells, etc.). This not only imposes real constraints on own force activities, but can cause major black eyes in global politics. In OIF, for example, for days the news was full of reports of Iraqi kids first getting blown up and later, being unable to play because of cluster munitions scattered everywhere in their village.

To understand how devastating such a strike can be in terms of being able to simply live normally, understand that a single German raid on a British village using SD2 butterfly bombs so unhinged the most mundane daily activities that the British classified the matter secret so the Germans wouldn't learn how effective it was and do it again. Though rarely used against England during the War, an SD2 killed someone in 1956. SD2 story's here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Bomb

This is the kind of thing YankeeDog's talking about, and as a lifelong student of military history and a former professional military analyst, I think he makes an excellent point.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dan/california]

If they are going to model additional arty rounds that are appropriate this scale the best thing would be Excalibur. A ten meter error radius with the first round is exactly what you want close to friendly troops. And it won't melt video cards the way modeling smoke would.

It is after all specifically and expensive designed to avoid all the problems with DPICM discussed above.

Is the army still using single fuse DPICM or have the switched to the dual fuse models? My understanding is that their dud rate is much lower.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[John Kettler]

Adam1,

Here is exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about, using the very submunition under discussion.

Note how hard these things are to spot, this with no dust or smoke present, where they wind up, and what a nightmare they are to those exposed to them and those charged with demining ops following their use.

Note further that the dud rates are over three times what we're talking about and how closely bunched some of the ones are in the pics. That kind of density is most definitely of real military significance.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/17/lebano14026_txt.htm

Here is a discussion of unacceptable munitions, from the standpoint of minimizing both immediate and long term collateral damage. See how beautifully the M42 fits so many criteria for a bad munition, such as no self-destruct capability, stabilizing streamer, high dud rate, etc.

http://tinyurl.com/4o257u

This explains both how the DPICM shell works and how the M42 submunitions function. The second set of pics shows an M42 atop a witness plate after shaped charge detonation, sectioned M42s and more.

http://wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?t=3459

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

Rune - correct, the old first gulf war type had 88, but the modern use is virtually all the extended range type, with 72 per round. It is enough, and the extra range more useful. The older rounds have more duds each, too, another reason the recent run ammo is preferred.

Incidentally, the army has ordered 100,000 of the GPS guided MLRS rounds. Clearly there will be a high demand for those in the future, and they will be a lot easier to get.

JK - unacceptable to whom? I don't think those being blown up by ICM find it all that acceptable. Liberal activists want to ban them, but then they also want to ban exhaling so... In low intensity warfare, sure it makes sense to use GPS guided HE, but that is because there really isn't any serious enemy threat and the targets ICM is useful against are missing. Ask that 3rd ID recon squadron whether ICM is "acceptable", on the other hand, and you will get a different answer. No, they are not going to "accept" being overrun in a sandstorm because some nitwit neutered the field artillery.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

The report on cluster munitions is geared toward eliminating, to the greatest extent possible, those munitions which cause wholly avoidable unnecessary suffering and destruction by virtue of their design, arming scheme, instability as old ordnance, lack of self-destruct/self-sterilization features, etc. I'm not saying they're militarily ineffective, but I am pointing out there are both prompt and long term downsides to their use. I provided only a tiny portion of the relevant studies on Israeli cluster munition use in Lebanon, but the true problem there alone is daunting.

JasonC and Adam1,

The M85 is a considerable improvement, not least in that it does have the ability to dud itself after a designated time has elapsed, but even these are still running at something in excess of a 4% dud rate, which is where we started this discussion to begin with. Worse, people may think these are okay to move, precisely because they have this feature. Time's up! Let's clean up the mess. Boom!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Worse, people may think these are okay to move, precisely because they have this feature.

IIRC the only US tankers killed in the Gulf War died when they dismounted their Bradley and picked up some dud DPICMs for souvenirs. 2 KIA and 1 badly WIA IIRC.

Steve

[the Fighting Seabee]

OK, screw the stupid dpicm's.

1. I still want smoke rounds (how the hell are smoke rounds gonna change the fps of the game, I use smoke all the time and enemy vehicles use it all the time, and it's fine, so that's not even an argument).

2. As a lowly seabee, I could call in artillery on the other side of a hill. I did NOT have to have direct line of sight. All I needed was a map and a compass. This feature is dumb and should be fixed. The whole reason we used artillery was to hit places we couldn't hit otherwise. There I said it.

3. Here is a video of soldiers using MLRS closer than 1200 meters... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c6d_1210416574 .

4. Since there is only ONE campaign from BFC, then the relevence of what type of artillery is used in a new scenario or campaign is up to the discretion of the SCENARIO DESIGNER, not Steve. Steve said special forces couldn't be done. I did it anyway and it wasn't too bad. So Steve, wouldn't it make sense to give the designer more tools to work with, allowing for more interesting scenario variety, which in turn allows for a more diverse gameplay experience, which in turn could increase sales as well as customer retention? I think so. (Yes I know you don't care about customer retention, as you have mentioned before).

5. While I'm at it, throw in some willy peter.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b27_1210961771

6. If you guys MUST HAVE arty mines, just use regular mines and tell the player that they are arty mines. Use your imagination to simulate it.

Btw, I can think one good reason to include any of these suggestions in the game... FUN. I would love to lay mines behind an enemy and make him fight me head on by taking away his escape routes. I think it would be more effective than the current "armor" option in the artillery menu. I have shot thousands of these rounds with very few armor kills. To me that was a useless waste of programming time that could have been spent on any number of game improvements. But hey, I'm just a lowly customer.

[Will7813]

Look, I'm not sure if its been said yet but I think we should have illumination rounds for night missions.

Will

[JasonC]

"IIRC the only US tankers killed..."

Well then you don't recall correctly.

The US lost 35 armored vehicles in the first gulf war, 28 of them to friendly fire. M-1s were the leading offenders, with A-10s firing Maverick the number 2 cause, and about as dangerous if their hits on allies are included.

The US lost 11 KIA to unexploded US munitions, and 18 to mines or Iraqi unexploded ordnance. Saudi mine clearing teams lost abother 12 KIA cleaning up both types. For comparison, there were 35 KIA to friendly fire, and 110 to enemy fire.

[rune]

Actually the Marines still have the older version, there are slightly over 3.3 million rounds still in existance, altho they have been upgraded so the timed fuze so the shell explodes if it was a "dud" after a lenght of time, the dual fuze version.

Rune

[JasonC]

Rune - cool, didn't know that about USMC use...

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

OK, screw the stupid dpicm's.

1. I still want smoke rounds (how the hell are smoke rounds gonna change the fps of the game, I use smoke all the time and enemy vehicles use it all the time, and it's fine, so that's not even an argument).

2. As a lowly seabee, I could call in artillery on the other side of a hill. I did NOT have to have direct line of sight. All I needed was a map and a compass. This feature is dumb and should be fixed. The whole reason we used artillery was to hit places we couldn't hit otherwise. There I said it.

3. Here is a video of soldiers using MLRS closer than 1200 meters... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c6d_1210416574 .

4. Since there is only ONE campaign from BFC, then the relevence of what type of artillery is used in a new scenario or campaign is up to the discretion of the SCENARIO DESIGNER, not Steve. Steve said special forces couldn't be done. I did it anyway and it wasn't too bad. So Steve, wouldn't it make sense to give the designer more tools to work with, allowing for more interesting scenario variety, which in turn allows for a more diverse gameplay experience, which in turn could increase sales as well as customer retention? I think so. (Yes I know you don't care about customer retention, as you have mentioned before).

5. While I'm at it, throw in some willy peter.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b27_1210961771

6. If you guys MUST HAVE arty mines, just use regular mines and tell the player that they are arty mines. Use your imagination to simulate it.

Hi CB, I agree with a lot of these points.

Once the official campaign is over, or if you didn't enjoy it much, the game is back to being nothing more than a sandbox.

Now I can understand making a limited sandbox for reasons of economy of programming time, but to limit things based solely on the fictional setting is not a great option. The longevity of the game, especially with the module concept is going to be it's sandbox nature, not the official canon. People will buy modules to get more toys, not more scenarios.

I do however, get the impression that the inclusion or otherwise of this stuff is still mainly due to time constraints, and that it will hopefully crop up eventually.

I would also like to see arty calls on places out of LOS. It worked ok in the first games, and I think it takes away realism more than it adds.