CM arty modeling
 

Following a post by DRG have startred this to see if anyone has a better way of modeling its effects.
No expert on as only looked briefly at in the past & obviosly diffrent types will vary slightly but how do you model its effect any better?
2 Types I think cluster which produces a cloud of hundreds of explosives. Smart munitions seek target & think level of airburst can be set as launched. Devastating to all in area including soft targets, large multidirectional shockwaves. The other type are really armour killers like the Bonus shell which fires 2 seekers at about 2000m above target area per shell. These probably have no effect whatsoever on other units in the area as it ignores them so perhaps HE kill of zero.
As regards area of effect clusters are nasty Bonus each penetrator scans an area of 32,000m square, over 3 hexes across in game terms, probably closer to 4 by time allow for slight dispersal. So one shell should target 2 armoured vehicles in that area, 3 shells slightly stagered a bit more area & 6 vehicles targeted.
Videos of test fires (Boffors I think) cleary show the penetrator firing at targets well off centre like 40 degrees /
So perhaps as said Gun fired should have no or very low HE kill component while rockets like MLRS stay as are but I have not looked at the subject thouroughly.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Actually the most common type is still the non guided variety.
Typically a small submunition with a HEAT charge capable of penetrating four inches or so of armor and a pre set fragmentation pattern for soft target, with a 155mm artillery round carrying several tens of them.
Such munition rely on numbers to achieve coverage and lethality, with the HEAT warheads penetrating the roofs of most
AFVs out there (and the engine decks of those few with reinforced top armor) while the storm of fragments kills anyone exposed.
A lot of specialized HE submunitions also exist, as antiarmor capability is both expensive and not always necessary.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Like I said no expert & I am happy with it in game even if its painfull if get caught by a strike but thats not as easy as it used to be due to LOS being needed for rapid adjustment.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

As I said elsewhere, I have zero issues with CM type munitions (or FAE rocket barrages) getting multiple kills, thats the whole point of CM munitions after all!

I am however curious about how large an area CM currently effect in-game.
It's apparently more then just the target and adjacent hex (at leas in some cases) as I've seen them effect stuff two hexes from the target hex. I'm wondering if that might be too large a radius for something like an artillery round or maybe a bomb. Now for a CM MLRS (or similar) to blow up stuff in a half km radius is "reasonable" given the point it's a barrage of 10-20+ (generally large) rockets.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

I think its a case of game mechanics to stand a reasonable chance of killing adjacent also needs the offchance of destroying 1 hex further out. More often than not they are fine if a bit shaken also some bombs have pretty large coverage.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

As a further food for thought on BONUS/SADARM types, keep in mind that these are going to be very limited issue weapons. SADARM production was terminated after few hundreds rounds; only 300 were issued for the iraqi campaign and less than half of that were actually used, about the 0.7% of the rounds fired by the units equipped with them.
High cost, lack of worthwhile enemy AFVs in the current campaigns, and high demand for Excalibur type unitary rounds better suited for engaging most common targets mean they are not going to mass produced in serious numbers.
Throw in the coming budget crunches and you see you won't have to to worry too much about how they perform

Re: CM arty modeling
 

The "real" frequency of any weapon/equipment system use VS how often players buy/use them is always an issue in any game. The AI can be "forced" to buy them less often via the X2, X0, X1, X3 radio codes. But most players will buy what looks good or what they want. Some (most?) do so out of ignorance (they have no clue how (un)common anything is), many just like playing with the best toys, and others just plain don't care about such things and only want to win their battles so pick whatever allows them to do so.

All that said all we can do is try to model any equipment/weapon as best we can keeping in mind it's "real" effects, it's "game" effects, and it's "game balance" effects.

Talk about walking a greased high wire!

Re: CM arty modeling
 

What I was trying to get across is that they are a niche weapon at best for the time being (and the 2010-2020 timeframe in all likelyhood) and since they would be hard to differentiate from conventional cluster ammo in terms of game mechanics anyway it is not very cost effective to do so, say by using scarce weapon slots for example. The game is inhrerently inflexible when it comes to handling different types of ammunition for a given weapon.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Just curious, but does anyone know what the exact area of a SP hex is? I know the width, which is 50m, but I don't know whether that width refers to the longest line of bisection or the shortest line. If I knew which bisection the 50m refers to I could figure out the area myself.

K.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

I agree.
They are certainly a high-tech niche weapon due to real-life cost and mass production manufactureing difficulty.
The problem, as was pointed out, is how can the game best model the overpressure effect of this sort of weapon.
Currently it's been decided the "flame effects" do the best job, with the unintentional (I assume) side effect of an automatic fire in the target hex.
Without knowing what the flame effects vice the CM effects are in the game code we can only look at the results produced in-game by a weapon and extrapolate on how it was produced.
While the overpressure effect is (I'm sure) best modeled via the game codes flame efects I'm just wondering if the end result, i.e. how destructive these weapons are in game (with the side effect of hex fires) is best modeled this way?
The in-game cluster munition effects seem to accomplish the same job of simulating AoE destruction without the fire side effect.
My question is - might this not be a "better" way to simulate these sorts of weapons?

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Assuming I understand the question correctly the game uses a hexagon that's 50m from side to side as it's base, that's to say 25m from the center to any of the six sides, no clue offhand how long each side is, or what the total enclosed area is (my math skills aren't up to calculating this sort of thing without looking up the formulas).

Re: CM arty modeling
 

I would be willing to accept continuing using CM artillery if each "shot" from such hit only the units in the hex it hit. If you turn fast artillery OFF and watch how it fires and what it hits, it is getting to be way too...unrealistic?

Every X is a hex that one shot from such artillery will kill or heavily damage enemy MBTs Y is the actual hex the artillery landed on.

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXYXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

Since every hex is 50 meters that means that a single shot of CM artillery can and will destroy MBTs (and other of course) units 125 meters in all directions. It's just insane.
IMO the area of effect/kill for CM artillery should be minimised to just the hex it hits which is 50 meters! It seems that where a regular HE shell could kill from the blast someone troops or affect their morale, 125-150m away from where it fell, the CM artillery gets the same bonus in destroying armoured targets. I can understand this might be hardcoded or something, but it just doesn't feel right.
It's one thing if several "shots" hit nearby hexes, but for one "shot" (yes I know they are submunitions but they do not spread into such a huge area!)
Remember, these are not huge bombs dropped from bombers.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

I have just tested this quicky save included & cant see a problem look at the results

Arty USA Paladin vs Challenger One
Fired 4 Paladins one each at tank in centre of group.
All Paladins used 0.5 so only one shell.

Results using one shell only
In target hex 2 destroyed 2 immobile.
2 Hexes away 1 out of 10 immobile
3 Hexes away no effect.
So 4 shells gave 2 kill & 3 immobile results.

Game saved here.

If carry on & hit at 0.0 so 4 shells the carnage is far worse from watching.
Tanks in target or adjacent hex stand a good chance of being damaged or destroyed.
Those 2 hexes away stand a very good chance of nothing or minor suppresion.

Obvious conclusion keep them 2 hexes apart & wont do much damage, to me this makes it a deterent forcing you to keep dispersed therefore making combat maneuveres harder.
Yes it covers an area of 5 hexes across when it should really be 4 & a bit but the chances are will be unscathed in outer hexes.

If you are talking MLRS first result I found on You Tube for TOS-1 as you mentioned it earlier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJOEtSMhdc
As you can see quite a large area I would say the problem is more people use them far more often than they really would be due to cost etc. But thats true of most things from best IFVs MBTs attack helos planes etc.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

TOS-1 = ouch !

Re: CM arty modeling
 

You fired once and that's it?

Hell, I bet that 1 out of who knows how many, it might not even destroy any tank...that won't mean that CM can't destroy.

I am talking about hundreds of battles of usage of CM artillery. Not a single shot and quit the game.
Try 10 times with same conditions, see what happens each time.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

That was 4 shots of 1 shot each since you were complaining what a single round did, normally of course you fire more than 1 shot. I cannot be bothered to test further yes next time might get 4 kills & 2 immobile results. Its still not the devastating weapon you are making it out to be after all thats 4 shots now I will take 4 with a modern MBT for 3 kills. Possibly try adjusting the Pen level to 40 or so for even less effect vs units on outer circle if you think its to effective.
Banning though changes the entire nature of the battle in my opinon as if CM arty is possible it changes tactics by causing dispersal both in attack & deffence making doing both far more difficult. After all its useless if it misses so if you think your force is spotted dont do the obvious, bit trickier vs planes mind & a general "rule" anyway.
You have to judge when its safe to group up or worth the risk & if he guessed right what your up to it hurts. With CM arty only I end up plotting far more than firing as decide target is not worthwhile as have been second guessed.
When we played you restricted it to onboard only no reloads something like 50 CM rounds only, this made it easy as know what you have once fired. So use tactics to combat & once it fires I know elsewhere I can bunch up for a turn hence you only hit one or 2 tanks a game. My CM then fired taking out most of your CM regulary letting me operate normally while you had the threat of my remaining shells hanging over your force.
Hardly ever use it on armour unless dug in or offer up a target thats just to good to ignore as hitting fast targets as in vehicles is tricky vs a human, a mortar will prep an armored force & its escort for attack nearly as well. But the mortar will not do the job effectivly on targets like SAMS Arty or that ATGM that is stalling the attack.
Not being able to deal with these fast leaves your armour air vulnerable to attack & hence loses.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

OK, first of all, you are not talking to some stupid f***. Yes under normal operation you will fire more than one shell, but that means ****, if one shot can do the damage it can.
If you cannot be bothered to do the test, then it is not a test and I cannot be bothered to read the rest of your post.
but I will because I am very bored.

This is not about tactics, so stop kissing the *** of certain people. It doesn't even affect me directly since as I have mentioned I have stopped using CM artillery, not because I had an issue with it, but because most of my opponents did and I can't be bothered to remember different rules for different opponents.
As I said, tactics mean nothing if the problem is what it is. The fact that you can get away from it if you move etc etc, means NOTHING if one system is overpowering. It's irrelevant.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Re: CM arty modeling
 

I can't start changing the effects of weapons to whatever I feel like since I am playing with other humans PBEM games. Thanks for the suggestion.
It DOESN'T BOTHER ME.
Just forget it. Don't be bothered to do anything.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Assuming I understand thew way the game code handles Pen and warhead size I'm thinking reducing Pen will "only" effect the probability of a hit damaging/destroying something. This would have no effect on the effect radius.
Now adjusting the warhead size does effect the radius. Now I also know adjusting the warhead size also various other effects as well so more experimenting will be needed to get the "proper" effects.

The other thing is ... it may be that setting a weapon to WC=14 (Cluster Bomb, MLRS) automatically means the effect radius is "X" and the warhead size has no effect on the radius.

Again, experimentation is called for.

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.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Did not bother checking but yes assume mortars will be warhead 4 or so cant remember calibre, know some rockets are size 12 so blast radius for CM based on like other stuff I would say.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

I know 60mm and 81mm;s are warhead size 4.
120's are 5's.
155mm artillery is (as I recall) 8.

Also, wasn't there some talk a while back of increasing the warhead size of certain CM (I believe rockets) to slow down the resupply rate from ammo dumps?

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Please read the game guide.

Last release point 17

It's all done in the code and has NOTHING to do with what's in the OOB's

Don

Re: CM arty modeling
 

.and while everyones at it they can read the section on warhead sizes and how they are applied in the MOBHack help file near the end under "Warhead Size Chart" and keep in mind that there will be a clarification added to this release that "rockets" do NOT include man portable AT rockets or flame rockets like RPG's, Pzf 3's , RPO's etc but take their WH size from the normal "guns" column and any you may find now in any OOB that deviates from that have already been fixed

Don

Re: CM arty modeling
 

I thought some might find some interest in this article. I would like to point to a couple of items in the article, first the last sentence in para 3 that intimates the effectiveness of conventional artillery and the need of dispersal tactics (As was advised in a couple of posts in this thread.) to counter it and that basically CM is there to counter that tactic with the effectiveness of CM, well that's my read on that. Second the last couple of paras cover "SKEET" CM as currently being used by the U.S. and I had forgotten we stopped exporting CM.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/17272/

Regards,
Pat

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Seems a good place for this article as U.S. prepares and is getting away from TNT for it's artillery munitions.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/17107/

Regards,
Pat

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Went through quite a lot of tests including being hit by bullets shrapnel & a shaped charge jet all without cooking off.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Whilst US forces use laser guided artillery rounds sparingly, this is not so with the USSR, a significant number of 240 mm Smel'chak guided rounds were used in Afghanistan and Chechna, which were apparently quite effective at clearing caves and bunkers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...russia/2s4.htm

To model this, perhaps a FO can be created with a HE ATGM round, with HE kill and warhead of 240mm mortar ?

Also the Krasnopol 152mm laser guided munition is widely available to Russian arty, it is not nearly as fragile and expensive as the US Copperhead 155mm

Re: CM arty modeling
 

The SP series games do not model third-party guidance, so there are no copperhead type munitions, or mavericks being fired by helos in full defilade onto spots designated by scout helos etc.

Cheers
Andy

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Because that is an ATGM - an instantly available direct-fire weapon that can also opfire against enemy units. And has direct-fire weapon ATGM rules (it can be dodged or the firer can be opfired, for example) There is no remote firing battery, no requirement for comms with same, and no fire delays. Also, loss of the observer leads to loss of the round (which is actually sitting in an arty piece back aways), not just a designator.

So - not really doable by that kludge.

(The indirect arty mission type IDF_COPPER has been in the SP2 code since the start - but is not actually implemented. So SSI thought of it, but did not/could not do it.)

Andy

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Thanks andy.

I understand that is a third/fourth rate fix and the mechanics aren't yet there to do it properly. If the game code could be fixed to make it work that would be great.

Would a second weapon slot on the mortar with acc 100, ammo 1 work, perhaps with more HE kill and HE penetration to model the increased acc, then you can call it in like any other arty and be pretty sure it will land on the hex it was called in on.

You could of course then use it in direct fire mode, with visability at 80-90 you could snipe targets from your deploy zone, just run away if you get any atgm or arty attacking your position.

The downside here is that when you call the mission you need to turn on the right slot on the mortar you gave the fire mission to to choose the right round. Otherwise it will just shoot both the normal and guided round at the same target, and blow through all your guided munitions.

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Accuracy does not affect indirect fire - only direct fire. Thus of no use for simulating laser guided or GPS indirect fires.

Use a GPS equipped FOO (with TI or GSR) and a laser range-finder with LOS on the target and your indirect fires will be rather accurate. Part of that technology 'package' could be rationalised as the use of LGM, where appropriate.

Andy

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Fair enough, I always thought it did, becuase a rocket rife mission will scatter everywhere, whereas if you use a howitzer it is 0-3 hex deviation only. I assume that is becuase of weapon class ?

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Indirect accuracy is affected by weapon class - MRL MPI scatter is significantly more than tube arty and the battery has a wider pattern. Mortar battery patterns tend to be wider than guns, but scatter is about the same.

Mainly though, it is the difference between having an observer with eyes-on or not that affects arty scatter (and also size of the battery's pattern).

Unobserved fire is wilder - it is searching map fire. Firing on a gold spot is more like observed fire though, even if blind fire.

Andy

Re: CM arty modeling
 

Well I'm bringing back an "old friend" it's needed again. So the discussion will have to be with the U.S Army, the data is based on extensive testing but also post combat analysis as well. Pages 2 - 5 are the most useful to the discussion on the main forum page. Please read as myself and others have that were involved at the time. The tables in the refs cclearly shows if anything CM and Unitary rounds were generally under strength in the game at that time and now for the sake of discussion. Makes you wonder why the Swedes spent so time and money to ensure that they're Leo MBT's were the best top protected in there class. They saw what top attack weapons can do to tanks after testing they're own 120mm AT mortar round on a bunch of T-72 tanks they had. It's in this thread somewhere started by DRG. This issue keeps popping up every 2 - 4 years it seems and keep doing so I'm sure. There's another thread on this topic that also started in JAN 2010 in here or the main forum. Also note the first couple pages of the thread you're in now. Always nice to get feedback from guys who were there as well.

Regards,
Pat