Artillery effectiveness - Vehicles this time!

[hcrof]

One of the best things about CMSF is that it has encouraged me to do my own research on modern military matters and some of the things I have found have been fascinating.

Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can’t Kill Armor?

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_PAGES_8_11.pdf

The above link confirms something about artillery that was bugging me but I just hadn't noticed fully before. In the game, a more or less direct hit is required to destroy an armoured vehicle. While this might seem like realistic results, a near miss or an airburst munition causes no damage at all, not even damage to optics, radios etc!

The above article states that artillery is in fact more effective against armour than it is in the game. Apparently, a 155mm round can potentially destroy a tank from up to 30m away and shell fragments are effective at destroying weapons, tracks, sights, radios and other components of a vehicle even if the crew are unharmed.

I would be interested to hear what other people think. Should CM players be forced to move their vehicles out of artillery fire immediately, even if it is 'just' airburst because of the worry that they will become combat ineffective or destroyed? Or is the artillery in CMSF correctly modelled as is, with no changes needed

One problem that occurs to me is the AI. Currently, a tank will not move if under artillery fire, meaning precise targeting is easy. This compensates for the lack of effectiveness of the artillery. Apparently some campaign missions can only be won because of this and so by increasing the effectiveness of artillery against armour, single player games would become much easier.

On the other hand, by making the TacAI act more realistically, you could 'break' the campaign.

Any thoughts?

[SlowMotion]

In the game, a more or less direct hit is required to destroy an armoured vehicle. While this might seem like realistic results, a near miss or an airburst munition causes no damage at all, not even damage to optics, radios etc!

The above article states that artillery is in fact more effective against armour than it is in the game. Apparently, a 155mm round can potentially destroy a tank from up to 30m away and shell fragments are effective at destroying weapons, tracks, sights, radios and other components of a vehicle even if the crew are unharmed.

I'd guess that there should be quite a bit of this less lethal damage. It would also make the game more interesting to players if arty could cause all sorts of random problems.

[Alan8325]

I agree. It seems that before v1.20, IIRC, near misses of the larger sized shells hitting near vehicles would regularly take out their tracks and tires, immobilizing them. Since then, however, it seems that it takes a 155mm shell landing literally a foot or two away from a vehicle to do any significant damage.

If artillery blast damage really got nerfed significantly like it seems it did, I don't know why. I haven't seen any complaints about artillery doing too much damage with near misses, so there must have been some "source" saying that the previous damage values were unrealistic.

[Pvt. Ryan]

A hellfire landed right next to a T-72. The tank wasn't damaged, but it did get bogged - the tracks were turning as it was trying to un-bog. I've never seen that happen before. The next hellfire destroyed it, so I don't know if it would have eventually become immobilized.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Secondary damage has always been under modelled. Except for tracks, no direct hit=no damage

[John Kettler]

hcrof,

I've read of firing tests in which 155mm shell splinters pierced the sides of an M60's turret, as well as numerous accounts going back to WW II in which radio antennas were shot away. The Germans used to carry spares for precisely this contingency. There was a case in Tunisia in which a German infantry company trapped a Sherman tank and literally shot it to pieces with MG, SMG and rifle fire. The infantry shot out all the vision blocks, periscopes, gunsights, blew away the radio antenna and completely jammed the tracks and turret, leaving the tank an unfightable hulk. At Kursk, an entire Tiger 1 company was rendered useless not just by exhaustion of the vision block stocks, but by numerous tank commander casualties from eye and face injuries when vision blocks are shattered and even stove in. Shell splinters are definitely a threat to modern visionics, which is why they have armored covers on many AFVs, and they and blast don't improve things like muzzle references and wind sensors, not to mention data links. Bomblets found in things like DPICM are a serious threat, bad enough that the Cold War Russians put special soft armor blankets on turret roofs to defeat Rockeye and similar. CM:SF was supposed to be about detailed damage modeling, but if artillery and bomb frag and blast effects aren't represented, then I think something needs to be done.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

... then I think something needs to be done.

May I suggest you instigate a unilateral posting moratorium until it's fixed?

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Weren't you the one who provided the M-60 story?

hcrof,

I forgot to mention that the Tiger company was rendered useless for battle because of antitank rifle fire concentrated chiefly on the cupolas. 14.5mm projectiles are much lighter than many artillery shell fragments, so it should serve to give some idea of the power of the latter, not to mention their much higher velocities.

Here is a Kursk cause of loss table for the WW II German heavy tank destroyer Ferdinand. Note that a HE direct hit (likely 122mm) can not only immobilize, but even destroy, a Ferdinand. I should point out, though, that circa the Cold War, it took ~5000 artillery rounds to get one direct hit on a tank using observed fire. In turn, this led to the development of ICM, DPICM and FASCAM on one track (area weaponry), Copperhead on another (artillery shell as antitank PGM), later followed by SADARM (area weapon with precision submunition targeting) to replace the failed Copperhead.

http://www.battlefield.ru/en/documents/81-losses/255-ferdinand-destroyed-at-ponyri.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Figure3 Page 10

"Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise"

[phil stanbridge]

I was pleasantly surprised last night. In one mission in the Brit campaign, enemy spotters had landed a dozen or so rounds of airburst right over the head of my AFV. I was expecting serious damage to at least the radio/optics etc, but it wasn't damaged whatsoever. Furthermore, my Scimitar was next to it, and was unbuttoned! If they had used AP rounds (or perhaps even general-purpose) it might have been a different story. I believe these were mortar rounds.

[Inkompetent]

Really interesting reads. Thanks for the links!

And indeed, I've been puzzled by the artillery effects as well. I recently playing CMSF again after half a year break due to instant CTDs in the game (messed up graphics card that didn't like certain games), and starting all over with the Semper Fi campaign I had severe trouble trying to take out the stationary T-55s in the first two missions.

I had hits as close as just a few feet from them with 155mm artillery, but they were without a scratch until I scored a perfect hit. I'm really glad that there were more air support in the second mission, so I could use Hellfires on them instead.

[hcrof]

I have an opponent right now who is deliberately airbursting himself to stop me sneaking up on him!

Does anyone know what calibre artillery are required to destroy a tank? Can you use 81/60mm mortars for example?

John Kettler - Thanks for the link, a suprising number of knockouts due to HE. Certainly more than I remember from my CMBB days!

It would be nice to get cluster munitions too but I can understand Steve when he says that a 'Grid square removal service' may unbalence the game

[phil stanbridge]

I have an opponent right now who is deliberately airbursting himself to stop me sneaking up on him!

Does anyone know what calibre artillery are required to destroy a tank? Can you use 81/60mm mortars for example?

John Kettler - Thanks for the link, a suprising number of knockouts due to HE. Certainly more than I remember from my CMBB days!

It would be nice to get cluster munitions too but I can understand Steve when he says that a 'Grid square removal service' may unbalence the game

In game I've had 81mm knock out BMPs but only 155mm appears to knock out tanks.

[John Kettler]

Inkompetent and hcrof,

You're welcome! The Bradley had a design requirement to withstand 152mm airburst 20 meters above it. I presume that this requirement was based on the Bradley's not only being buttoned but with the armored covers closed over the primary fire control visionics. Mind, that's one round, not a barrage of prox fuzed 152. Still, a step in the right direction in terms of combat survivability. As for grid removal, if BFC seriously intends a NATO version, then it's important to simulate it, for both sides have it, and the Russians had a lock on that capability before the MLRS was fielded. Indeed, this was one of the big adjustments American units had to make when training at the NTC against OPFOR--learning how to operate against a foe who didn't require precise targeting data in order to generate a punishing MRL strike. Led to improved ComSec!

Regards,

John Kettler

[TheVulture]

Brit artillery is rather effective vs tanks, since it seems like a target armour mission will have all the shells landing within about 3 meters of the target point, resulting in a high number of direct hits on the vehicle (if it is stationary...). But I've only tried 155mm vs tanks that I can recall (which was pretty effective). I'd imagine that several direct hits by a lower caliber would put a tank out of action fairly reliably though (although obviously not something as small as 60mm).

[Wiggum]

One problem that occurs to me is the AI. Currently, a tank will not move if under artillery fire, meaning precise targeting is easy. This compensates for the lack of effectiveness of the artillery. Apparently some campaign missions can only be won because of this and so by increasing the effectiveness of artillery against armour, single player games would become much easier.

On the other hand, by making the TacAI act more realistically, you could 'break' the campaign.

Any thoughts?

Something need to be done to the AI in this case !

A example:

3 enemy BMP's standing near a farm, i call in a helicopter to attack them. The first BMP gets destroyed...the others stand still. The second BMP gets destroyed...the third still dont move.

If one of my vehicles gets under fire they pop smoke and drive back. But why are the third BMP's standing still ? Is he waiting for the next charge ?

[Gen. J-sun]

120MM mortar has destroyed T72TURMS and 60mm have destroyed BMP3s.

[Lethaface]

Something need to be done to the AI in this case !

A example:

3 enemy BMP's standing near a farm, i call in a helicopter to attack them. The first BMP gets destroyed...the others stand still. The second BMP gets destroyed...the third still dont move.

If one of my vehicles gets under fire they pop smoke and drive back. But why are the third BMP's standing still ? Is he waiting for the next charge ?

It is probably because it can't 'see' the threat, the off map Apache shooting at it.

EDIT: Ofcourse I think it would be better if vehicles in that situation tried to hide elsewhere, using the terrain to obstruct potential views from high places

[Ryujin]

Well, if shrapnel taking out optics is modeled, then I want my AFVs to close their armored doors on the GPS and switch to the GAS. It would open a bit of a can of worms there.

On a related note, I don't think I've ever seen any official reasons on why ICM isn't modeled. Anyone know anything? Because I'd love to have some of that to deal with pretty much anything short of a structure and it seems a bit strange to not have any at all (not to mention cluster munitions for aircraft).

[John Kettler]

hcrof,

To illustrate my point, consider the very nasty capabilities of the BM-30 Smerch, which per Wiki entered service in 1989. My bet is that actually entered service well before then, but simply wasn't detected immediately, given the Russian mania for secrecy and their detailed knowledge of our recon means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-30

Nor does it take reading Russian to follow what this vid's saying. Note particularly the Basalt SFW, the Russian equivalent of SADARM and Skeet. I first heard of Russian SFW circa 1985. I just found out about the MRL delivered UAV.

Notice, too, that the BM-27 first saw combat in Afghanistan,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-27_Uragan

not a decade plus later as did the M270 MLRS,

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

Also, the M270 didn't even begin to enter service until 1983 and wasn't operationally deployed until 1985! Thus, there was a huge MRL gap for many years during the Cold War, starting in earnest with the BM-21 Grad. This is the grid square eliminator that so vexed American units training at the NTC. Win the targeting lottery via some stupid move, and the entire area gets blanketed with 720 (40 per MRL, 18 MRLs per division) 122mm rockets. This is without factoring in the 12 tube regimental Grad launchers defector Suvorov reported, but are only addressed here as the airborne Grad V.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

Hmmm, 720 122mm shells in a grid: 1,000m x 1,000m = 1,000,000m2 / 720 shells =

1388m2/shell 1388^.5= 37.25m

So, one shell per 37 meter square. No knowledge here, but was it really that effective to have one impact every 120 feet? Or, is that just against unarmored units caught moving?

(I'm still trying to get my 155mm shells which hit buildings (small 3 story buildings) have an effect on the 14.5mm machineguns on the 3rd floor. I guess artillery can't go through roofs. Oh, did I write a thread about that?)

On topic: I have found Blue artillery strikes on tanks to cause kills. I have not tried this in v1.21.

Ken

[hcrof]

John - I am aware of the capabilities of Soviet artillery, they certainly put a lot of emphasis on it and all of it is genuinely scary. I didn't know that the MLRS was fielded that late though! It does seem like a massive gap in capability that could be cheaply filled with an inferior system while they developed the MLRS. Maybe NATO relied on airpower to do a similar job instead? (a massive mistake if that is the case IMO)

I just don't 'get' NATO's thinking on a ground war in europe. It is almost as if they didn't take it seriously!

c3k - I believe the 'grid square removal service' refers to cluster munitions specifically. However, even using HE you probably wouldn't need to be that accurate against softer targets like artillery batteries and HQ elements behind the front lines.

In v1.21, artillery certainly works when you get a direct hit. I just lost a T-55 to (very) lucky 122mm round. The problem is that vehicles don't take any damage from near misses and airburst as described in the OP.

[John Kettler]

c3k,

First of all, they're rockets, which means that the warhead doesn't have to be stressed for the 100,000 Gs of cannon launch. That means, everything else being equal, that a 122mm rocket warhead has considerably more explosive than its tube artillery cousin and that its frags will be considerably more energetic. We looked into this extensively in CMBB, where we directly compared the figures for an HE shell from the 122mm M-38 howitzer with the warhead of the 122mm BM-13 rocket on the Katyusha. Try searching the CMBB archives under Katyusha for the details. There's also the small but vital fact that an MRL barrage arrives near instantaneously, maximizing initial lethality, whereas a tube artillery battalion would require many volleys just to get the same round count, and the target would be prone after the first volley landed. And don't forget counterfire.

The situation with the BM-21 is worse, because the explosives have improved considerably, as has the understanding of fragmentation effects. The BM-21 isn't merely an antipersonnel weapon. Rather, it is designed to kill CPs, missile launchers, artillery, destroy fighting positions, etc. Anything less well protected than a tank was lunch for the BM-21 when it first appeared. As the link shows, the weapon system has remained anything but static since.

http://www.enemyforces.net/artillery/grad.htm

Note that prox fuzing is available, greatly increasing lethality over point detonation.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/bm-21.htm

Now, let me put a little personal spin on this discussion. While in Iraq, my brother was on the receiving end of Russian built M-1943 120mm mortar fire. Isby's Weapons And Tactics of the Soviet Army, Fully Revised Second Edition lists the weight of the 120mm mortar round as 15.4 kg (p. 250), and he said that even at a kilometer from the detonation he found the experience extremely disturbing. The Grad rocket has a warhead weight of 19 kg (Ibid. p. 281) and can kill an original pattern M113 if it lands anywhere within a meter of the vehicle, and from page 259, we learn that the similar in performance D-30 122mm howitzer shell has an effective frag area of 800m2 per shell, bad news for anyone not dug in, with heavy overhead cover! Recall that this is the exact same type of rocket which clobbered most U.S. bunkers in Vietnam with ease, slicing through many layers of sandbags and timbers like so much warm butter. Here's the crater that resulted when two bunkers were near missed by a 122mm rocket.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7264537@N08/530668326/

This is a great thread in which lirelou confirms what I said about the 122mm rocket vs. bunkers. BTW, the standard fire base bunker had overhead cover consisting of PSP and two layers of sandbags.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69453

Excerpt from the history of a unit rocketed at Khe Sanh.

"On 21 May, in an intense and extremely accurate rocket attack on FSB C-2, A Battery suffered 1 man wounded. This attack was followed by a direct hit on a bunker with a delay fused 122mm rocket resulting in casualties of 31 killed and 34 wounded."

Site's here.

http://www.8th-4th-arty.com/bnhistor

Here's what a 122mm rocket did to a fuel storage tank in Dong Tam.

http://www.gingerb.com/VIETNAM%20Dong%20Tam%20122-mm%20Rocket%20Hole%20in%20Tank.jpg

Another one nearby really got clobbered.

http://www.gingerb.com/VIETNAM%20Dong%20Tam%20Fuel%20Storage%20Tank%20Hit%20by%20122-mm%20Rocket.jpg

Both in context.

http://www.gingerb.com/VIETNAM%20Dong%20Tam%20Destroyed%20Fuel%20Tanks%20-%20View%20A.jpg

Got pics here.

http://www.gingerb.com/vietnam_dong_tam_enemy_attacks.htm

When a hooch eats a 122mm rocket.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/122%20rocket%20attacks,%20vietnam/DO_NO_HARM/GENERAL%20CATCH%20ALL/1967-07-28SHAMBLESOFSHORTTIMERSHOOC.jpg

Huey vs. 122mm rocket. Rocket goes through Huey's side, through floor of helo, through PSP, then detonates. Huey was franged not just by primary effects, but also the impact when it came back down after being blown skyward by the explosion!

http://www.vhpamuseum.org/companies/128ahc/images/ROCKETATTACK2.jpg

This should give you some idea what we're talking about in terms of effects, but if the BM-21 battalion fires, we're talking about an awful day in Vietnam, 57 122mm rockets into a base in one day, multiplied by more than a factor of twelve plus, and arriving over a period of mere seconds!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Alex]

Some very interesting info about Artillery effectiveness against vehicles, but unfortunately only on russian.

http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w5/010_art.htm

[SlowMotion]

I used Google translation to get some idea of that article. The pictures give good examples of various things that could easily damaged by arty. I haven't really checked what kind of damage does happen to various tanks and vehicles, but it would add much to the game if arty effects to vehicles would not be just destruction or immobilisation. But more often some of these less lethal damages.