Re: CM arty modeling
 

Based on some video and other sources to include a retired USA Arty Col. I work with on the base here, the modeling isn't to far off the mark considering today's advanced CM Arty rounds. All you have to do is look at the damage caused by them in Dessert Storm it wasn't all just air dropped CBU's in those pictures. The rounds are more advanced now then they were ten years ago. To put things in prospective I highly recommend to all you take a few minutes to read this article from this website from Ft. Sill home to the USA Artillery Training School. This is indeed a sad day that this has to come from a retired sub sailor:D. Here's the email addy info: http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/2002/...PAGES_8_11.pdf
I use my arty as described in the article and prefer it with CM capability. When trying to prevent a breach by the AI with it's armor I'm not afraid to dump it within 200m of my position and that's right they fall long or short (And I have paid the price too! But no guts no glory.). If there's a personal issue then adjust your arty accuracy, I use 85 to 90 percent always. We're not a 100% yet but getting closer with the USA's newest SP Arty unit in testing now, featured on History Channels "Lock n Load" program this past fall on the subject.
Have a great day!
Pat
P.S. Have you seen what a cruise missile will do to tanks etc.? Stir, Stir, Stir!

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Very interesting article, here are the highlights for lazy readers.

Myth #1—It requires a direct hit with an artillery round to damage or destroy an armored vehicle. Not true; 155mm rounds that impact within 30 meters cause considerable damage. Air bursts using VT or dualpurpose improved conventional munitions (DPICM) can strip away communications, sights, vision blocks and anything stored on the outside of the vehicle. These air bursts are especially effective against soft targets such as multiple-rocket launchers.

Myth #2—It takes 50 artillery rounds to destroy or damage a tank. Not true. It takes one round. If an artillery battalion engages an armored formation (54 rounds), more than one tank will be destroyed or damaged.

Myth #3—Artillery cannot engage moving targets. It is difficult, but it can be done. The issue is not lethality, but the tactics, techniques and procedures to hit the moving target. Units must train to shift fires.

Myth #4—Modern armor cannot be defeated by artillery. Tanks are designed to kill tanks, and most of the armor is designed to protect against direct fire. HE rounds with VT or delayed fuze and DPICM are very capable of defeating “modern” armor.

Myth #5—Armored vehicles can button up and drive through artillery fire. Yes, they can. But as soon as they button up, their ability to see is reduced by approximately 40 percent. And as they drive through the artillery fire, there is a high probability they will have mobility and firepower damage or that the formation will change its direction of attack. The results are delay and suppression of armor.

I thought Myth #1 and #5 were the most interesting as they seem to be widely accepted/believed by not only gamers but the military.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Must admit point 1 "within 30 metres" surprised me I thought it would take a near miss. The more high tech the vehicle probably the more to go wrong whether striping the sensors or just general shock taking a system out. Back to finding & aiming the old fashioned way, yikes in a battle enviroment where he who sees first lives thats a big problem the arty created the kill.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Some points to consider.
The thread has been about the effectiviness of cluster rounds, in particular tube artillery ones.
The article in question on the other hand deals primarily with unitary rounds; in particular it deals with the effects against armored targets, arguing that they have been underestimated. While others issues are touched, included cluster ammo, it is only in very tangential manner.
I am pretty sure he makes good points even if I get a slight "artillery rules" vibe from the piece. But eventually what does it tell us about the effectiviness of cluster rounds? Not much.
What would be relevant would be an article which takes this for example and analyzes performances in terms of area coverage, density/distribution and effects on target.

To the best of my understanding no new model of cluster rounds have been introduced in widespread service in the US since then.
70s M483A1 and 80's M864 are still the mainstay AFAIK. Smart submunitions like SADARM were seen as the next step in the 90's but cost and lack of worthwhile targets have led to them being deleted or being produced in minimal quantities.
There should be a cluster variant of excalibur in development but precision unitary rounds are the priority now.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Note tables C-2 and C-3 (Which seems to more than support the current modeling.) this info is from the USA field manual.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../6-40/Appc.htm
Regards to all,
Pat

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Unless I missed it, where are the radius for FASCAM?

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Well you asked for it, so here you go! FASCAM is game supported as well based on the tables shown.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ons/fascam.htm AND Tables show minefield width from 100m to 1000m with minelet density.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...20-50/Appi.htmM26 MRLS note where it mentions .23mi. area of coverage and I believe it said an armor penetration of just over 4in.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...itions/m26.htm
Info about the M270.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m270.htm
General info tables based on 1998 main US types.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ry/report/1998/Annexf.pdf#xml=http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/pdfhi.txt?query=icm+types&pr=default&prox=page&ror der=500&rprox=500&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500& rdepth=0&sufs=0&order=r&cq=&id=4b0e8277a4
I'm thinking the game is good here dealing with this topic and artillery in general. Based on the info provided an argument could be made that the target area for some types could expanded. And as a friendly reminder the first source article was from an official USA source.
Pat
A healthier choice "Sink'em if you got them"

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Just an update here for anyone thats intrestead as must have stuck in my head so noticed.
Yep 155s cover 250m across most rockets more but TOS-1 & several others like the CM mortars only effect adjacent hexes so 150m just like regular arty rounds from my observations.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

What are WH sizes? 155 covers a 2-hex "blast radius" with HE as well, as it is size 8. The mortars will havwe smaller caliber, and thus smaller WH size, right?

Re: CM arty modeling
 

If Imps' observations are correct then I, personally, am quite happy.
Because if you can use the WH size to alter the effect radius of CMs. There's no problem with smaller diameter CM munitions having a too large area-of-effect because the area is a fixed radius based on it simply being a CM.