M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

I'm wondering if maybe US (and others that use them) mortars might rate an increase to their lethality (HE Kill) based on the widespread use of the M734 Multi-Option Fuze since the mid 80's?

It's a rangefinder and collision detection system used on 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm mortar shells as a trigger to detonate the shells at height (i.e. ye old VT for mortars).

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

......I'll let everyone debate this then see what the result is

ALL 8x mm mortars in the game right now are HEK 11 so if we move say.... the M252 to 12 or 13 then what needs to be done is find out who else uses a fuse system like that and if it's justified to move 81mm mortars into the 90mm - 100mm kill range and if we want to avoid that then we are left with moving them to HEK 12 and I sincerely doubt a 1 HEK change will make any noticeable change to game play.

Now..... if there is some proof this fusing system makes 81mm ( or 60mm or 120mm ) mortars as effective as a larger calibre then there is justification to make a change but we should see that proof

So I'm not saying no, I'm just not saying yes

Don

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

Perfectly reasonable and why I started this thread.
Yeah, +1 would be pointless, is +2 "too much" and "reasonable"?

Currently the 155mm goes from 21 HE Kill to 42 HE Kill for the VT version, which may be a bit much perhaps.
I'm thinking a 25% increase maybe. So 60mm from 7 to 9, 81mm from 11 to 13-14, 120mm from 19 to 23-24, the 155mm VT from 42 to 26.

Discussion?

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

If we compare the +25% rule to AMOS and STRIX I get the feeling that it's too high. Neither AMOS nor STRIX currently get any additional HEK bonus.

Swedish OOB (obat66, v. 5.5)

120mm AMOS
ACC: 6
HEK: 19

120mm STRIX
ACC: 10
HEK: 19

120mm Mortar
ACC: 3
HEK: 19

81mm Mortar
Acc: 3
HEK: 11

The fact that AMOS and STRIX rounds can be fired to hit simultaneously does not IMO seem to be reflected in the OOB. +2 might be reasonable for intelligent munitions all around with maybe some additional bonuses for big calibers. How about for every additional 10 HEK units (without VT) there's a +2 bonus with VT munitions?

Howitzers etc., typical HEK (base) for mm, proposed addition, new HEK for VT and similar improved munitions
For mortars, 60mm might not be getting +2, but +1 instead as the HEK is quite low.
Mortars, typical HEK (base) for mm, proposed addition, new HEK for VT and similar improved munitions

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

As it stands now all weapons across all OOBs have the same HE Kill from 1946 to 2020 based strictly on caliber (with a handful of exceptions like the US 155mm VT and cluster munitions).

One could (eventually) find out when each nation got access to sufficient VT type fuses to make an across-the-board improvement to that nations mortar/artillery effectiveness.

And just because Russia gets this increase in say (and this is merely a number for the sake of discussion) 1990 doesn't mean the Mujahadeen who use Russian weapons will ever have a significant number of such fuses before 2020.
What is a "significant number"? I'd say 50%+ of actually used ammunition. Having 10,000 in inventory that are only actually used on special occasions wouldn't count.

Yeah, this IS a can-of-worms that may well be more trouble then it's worth to Don and Andy.
Thus the reason for this thread.

How much increase?
What nations should get it?
When?
Just make an across-the-board increase at some date based on the more common availability of such things post 1970ish?

For the US we can definitely identify the availability of the M734 Fuze for mortars as "justification" for when. Can we DEFINITELY identify something similar for other nations or are we just making (hopefully) educated guesses?

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

I remember reading a study on the effect on proxy fuzes a long time ago. IIRC the increase in lethality, compared to contact fuzes, varies widely depending on target disposition. The greatest increase,by some ludicrous high percentange, was against troops laying behind vertical cover but without overhead protection. The smallest was against troops standing in the open, though still in the double digit range; in any case it is not how you want be caught by an artillery strike.

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

Saw VT demonstrated at RA Larkhill open day as a cadet back in the 70s.

It was (deliberately) fired over a bit of the landscape where the topsoil had been removed. Since Salisbury Plain is chalky (it's a pig to dig in there), it was quite impressive watching the white stuff go puff...

Yes, against unprotected troops or trenches with no overhead cover, very nasty. Made me REALLY appreciate why stage 2 top cover (18 inches of soil or sandbag on top of some wood) cover AFAIR was considered so absolutely necessary when we did digging-in exercises.

SP does not differentiate between stage 1 open topped entrenchments and stage 2 (L-shaped covered shelter bay) and further (bunkering up, basically)stages.


Andy

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

Had to "dumb this down a little" so I found this article which I hope will help others on the various types of mortar fuzes out there, some background, how they work, what applications they're designed for and where the tech is going (Some already here now, article was written in 2004.). If you click on the authors name you'll find other articles he's written and a further search revealed he's also written many books on military avaition matters as well. Free Library is not a "WIKI" type site.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fuzes+...s.-a0122105138
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ef2.htm#fm7_10

This second ref. was most helpful in a discussion IMP started on dare I say it...maybe in a different way "Charlie Mike". Not to worry not going there again!?! Be careful Global Security doesn't want to be free anymore so you'll only get 7 visits per month free now otherwise it's 9.95 per, the dirty rotten...basses, and make sure you descale them good before cooking!?! Interesting research project all this though.

Regards,
Pat

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

That list of manufacturers in the first article is VERY useful.
As are the comments in the article about actual usage.

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

Last of fundamentals I promise, but goes beyond that as well. This will be most useful for newer and maybe not so new players as I think the game does a decent job with arty as a whole generally which is why this might be again useful for players especially the tables shown. This is taken from the USA FM 23-91 Chapter 2 Fundamentals of Mortar Gunnery.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ch2.htm#tab2-3
I most get some sleep, have to work and be home for the "ball drop", Happy New Year everyone!!

Regards,
Pat

P.S.
Just saw your post as mine went up; check the following two websites I use for other purposes, but they both have an extensive company listing that might help all in the heart of this matter never mind...here
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/firms.php
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/
http://www.army-technology.com/contr...indexAtoZ.html
Night Owls; somebody should put us out of our misery!?! Good Night Morning!

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

Well thanks to FASTBOAT TOUGH (a.k.a. Pat) we now can pretty much pinpoint the "who" and to a good extent the "when".

Thus we're left with the primary questions "how much" (to increase HE Kill) and "is it worthwhile" ?

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

I ran into this same problem a few years ago and as far I can tell there is no easy answer. Some detailed analysis can be found in a report titled "Iraq: Proximity Fuses found on 107mm Rockets" that made into the headlines a few years ago and might still be floating around in some recess of the net.
Lethality is going from a moderate double digit percentage increase up to a fifty fold increment. This variability is dependent on target disposition and tends to be inversely proportional to effect of contact fuzed artillery: the greatest gains are seen when measures to shelter against conventional rounds are taken, such as laying to the ground, sheltering behind vertical cover etc. Which is not to say that you want to stand in the open when a barrage strike, but taking cover without overhead protection will be much less effective.

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

WinSPMBT already reduces the effectiveness of artillery when the target is in cover so I think that should "come out in the wash" (note I said SHOULD).

So for the most part we're looking at troops in the open where VT is incredibly more effective.

My suggestion of a 25% increase was (I think) a compromise.
In the open the stuff is about 50% more lethal from what I read, but that would be "to much" when dealing with targets in cover.

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

Alright first the disclaimer; I like arty as demonstrated in IMP's (Johns) thread on the topic where I hopefully showed with the military documents I submitted arty in the game is not quite there but, I feel effective enough to counter the argument it was too effective in the game. Not going to rehash that again go back and read it for yourselves. But I bring it up to say there might be useful info in the thread for this topic and an earlier thread of the same topic that proceeded IMP'S by about three years as I recall. I know the field manuals I submitted got into the effectiveness of arty on various target protected and unprotected positions. The results are deadly, but see for yourself it's all there. Field Manuals (FM) ARE CALLED THAT FOR A REASON, they represent the results of extensive testing involving hundreds to thousands of rounds expended and results on post battle investigative analysis for any country. Those posts included conventional round comparisons as well another reason I brought this up. To the topic fuze of this thread this is from the people that make it happen, it is in PDF format, I invite you to look it all over but pgs. 3-6 & 11 are the most relevant:
http://proceedings.ndia.org/5560/Wed...II-B/Mohan.pdf

Gotta call Mom to wish her a Happy New Years, we sailors always have a soft spot for "Mum".

Regards,
Pat

From that CM thread; Of note look to tables C2 and C3, for more detail like I did then just read it. Note the coverage areas in meters on table C3. SOMETIMES SOMETHING "OLD" CAN BE SOMETHING "NEW" AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY A COUPLE OF OTHERS IN THE PAST. Oh yes this is from USA FM 6-40 Appendix C. Second thought see all tables in article are targets used for testing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../6-40/Appc.htm

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

Table C-4 was very informative as well.

Re: M734 Multi-Option Fuze
 

Noticed that 50 meter radius I see, was surprised to see how the 105mm performed, but then if you really want to hurt someone badly a .22 cal will do the job just as well as anything by comparison as well. I still like my 155mm arty though.

Regards,
Pat