Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Firstly, sorry for my poor English in advance. It is not my first language but I hope that it is still understandable.

Secondly, I want to address some apparent problems with Russian OOB in game. Especially with Weapons tab which is kinda a limitation on what newer weapons we can add in the game without breaking compatibility.

While looking at it I found quite a few barely used weapons and some that simply very close copies of other ones.

I do not propose to implement these changes into the game officially, but maybe it still be useful food for thought anyway.

So there is a list:

021. 2x122mm S13Kor. As I can understand this is a variant of S13 unguided rocket with a course correction system/laser guidance. Firstly, do high accuracy (90 or something) actually make much difference for the rockets in game? Secondly, this weapon is used by a single plane - 948. MiG-29SM.

030. 2-SG43 BMG. Only 006. T-54-1 uses this weapon.

036. .50 Quad AAMG. Only 399. ZSU M-17 have it. I'm not sure why it is in OOB at all. It is exotic unit and could be put into scenarios by using Allies system.

083. 76.2mm ZiS-3obr42. It is used by 471. Su-76M and 576. 76mm AT-Gun but it is the same weapon as 109. 76.2mm ZiS-3 FG. The difference is anti-tank stats and limited range. In most other cases on-map and off-map field guns/SPGs use the same weapon.

088. 57mm CH-51m gun - only used in 208. ASU-57 and could be changed into standard 079. ZiS-2. ASU-85 in game uses the same gun as T-34-85 already.

101. 9M39N Igla-N - not accepted into service. It is essentially the same as Igla-S anyway.

177. 23mm NR-23. It is used only on 134. and 135. MiG-17F and essentially identical to 181. 23mm NR-23.

182. 23mm VYa cannon. It is used only 126, 127, 937. Il-10 and 938. Il-10M. It is essentially identical to 181. 23mm NR-23. Slot 181 could be renamed into generic 23mm Cannon and cover three current slots.

188. 4x 80mm S-8 Ko. It is only used by 949. MiG-29SM.

201. 2x 82mm RS-82. It is only used by 938. Il-10M which have only 4 years availability span.

238. 3M7 Drakon. 656. IT-1 is kinda exotic and maybe interesting but the complex was in service for only three years not ten.Do it really needed to be included?

240. 23mm GSh-23L. It is only used in 968. Mi-24P. First problem is incorrect designation of the helicopter. 23mm GSh-armed Mi-24s are called Mi-24VP. Mi-24P is armed with 30 mm cannon. Second problem is that only about 30 such helicopters were produced. Is it worth the slot?

There also quite a lot of Weapon class 05 7,62mm machine guns in Russian OOB already and I fail to understand why is that? They are almost identical in capabilities and why you need to have coaxial/bow/turret versions of WC5 if it make no difference in game mechanics? As I can understand coaxial is any WC5 machine gun installed in 2 or 3 slot and bow machine guns could only be in Slot 4.

051. 7.62mm PKT BMG (?) - is only used by 648, 649, 665. BMD-2 Budka. Why not use 064. 7.62mm PKT CMG?
061. 7.62mm SGMT BMG. It is the same as 062. 7.62mm SGMT CMG.
063. 7.62mm PKT TMG. The same as 064. but used by 22 different units.
065. 7.62mm DTM BMG. It is the same 066. 7.62mm DTM CMG

It is of course much more difficult suggestion as there are a lot of vehicles with these machine guns and a lot of them were used in scenarios, so changing them is problematic indeed.

The last part is the presence of S-75/S-125/S-300/S-400 long range SAM systems in the game. They all have quite significant minimal engagement ranges so they could not be effectively used on the SPMBT maps.

135. V750V Dvina. It had minimal engagement range of 7 km.. Any reason to include heavy long range SAM into the battle order?
136. V600 S-125 Neva. Minimal range is 3.5-4 km. So it is the same reasoning as 135.
217. 5V55K S-300K
218. 48N6 S-300KM. Both 217 and 218 have 5km minimum range. Same reasoning as 135.

As I can see you can create at least nine open slots for another weapons easily by editing out exotic and rarely used stuff. 13 if you remove heavy SAMs.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Why to remove heavy SAMs if they engage units coming on map?

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

How's the weather in the Urals these days ?:) Don't worry about the language...you're doing well. I think 25% or more of the people who post here do not speak English at home
.
1/ removing weapons can cause chaos with scenarios. I recently made a few changes like you propose to the WW2 German OOB and had to redo 26 scenarios..... the end result is someone got a tiny detail corrected and I got an afternoon of work and the end result for gameplay is NOTHING

2/ Most of what you propose to remove was added by Russian or at least " approved " by Russians . That OOB has been "re-organized" a couple times already

That is not to say I am throwing your suggestions out...on the contrary they are already entered into next years list but I am very selective in what I remove and I only remove things if they are NOT used or something more important comes along and we need a slot......and that is not the case yet

Don

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Pretty nice for a February actually.

I know, I looked for stuff that not likely to be used in many scenarios specifically. The most problematic are 23 mm guns for airplanes (I assume that MiG-17s could be pretty popular for air support) and especially 7,62mm vehicle MGs.

But I still do not understand why previous makers of the OOB decided to make distinct coaxial and bow machine guns of the same type within the same class. Is there something that I do not understand about the mechanic?

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Detail freaks like details.......:rolleyes:

Someone opens a book and sees that the standard BMG or Tank 'T' is XYZ and We used ABC they want it changed for "accuracy"..... the real problem is we didn't foresee running out of weapon slots when we expanded the unit and formations lists..... If we had done that at the beginning this would not be an issue but we never dreamed it would be and it is too late now.

The weathers been really nice here too for February but winter isn't done yet

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Ah, OK, then I would ask some questions about overall design philosophy.

1. Soviet BMPs tend to have two more seats for the dismounts than they actually have in reality. First additional seat is vehicle commander seat I think as most IFVs and APCs have only two crew, but why there is another one?

Is it made because there is no way to split things like machine gun teams between two different vehicles?

2. Late 80s+ Soviet/Russian motor rifle platoons are under-strength in the game. Standard mech section have 7 men while support one have only six. It is 20 men total for the dismounted element and another 6 in vehicles.

Standard motor rifle section have 8 men in it (section commander, BTR/BMP gunner, BTR/BMP driver and 5 dismounts). And there is another 6 men in the platoon command group which is absent from the game as separate unit.

I always thought that command groups are simply spread out among the rifle squads. So mech sections should be either 7 men (if we have 3 men vehicle crews) or 8 (if commander dismounts too).

Also there should be two man PKM team in each BTR/Platoon after 90s as company machine gun platoon was disbanded. AT assets went to a company command and machine guns were spread out among the platoons.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

1/ yes partly partly to save slots when one carrier has 8 capacity and one has 9 it saves making an entire set of 9 by making them all carry 8 ( or vise versa)

2/ we CANNOT simulate reality exactly...close enough has to do. As I said before we've already had other Russians all over this OOB and what you see in mainly their corrections

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

.....also. we are in the final stages of testing for the next patch and NOTHING get changed unless it's a showstopper and how Late 80s+ Soviet/Russian motor rifle platoons are put together does not qualify but maybe what you need to do is load the OOB in mobhack and experiment on you own then if you figure out a solution that makes everyone happy you can tell us about it

Don

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

I do agree some of the long minimum range SAMs could/should be removed from the OOBs simply because they're almost never going to be located in the FEBA WinSPMBT represents.

BUT !

This would cause problems for "raid" type scenarios taking place behind the lines. Maybe set them to "Nation 0" so scenario designers have access but the average player can't purchase them?

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

You are commenting on things that have already been changed in code and has not been released yet so this is a non issue until it's been played for a few months and it's all beside the point as I don't NEED more slots available yet and until I do it's a moot point

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

LR SAMs have a place in the game because air attacks are not only low altitude raids but standoff and high altitude too.. it's a compromise and remember this is a game and not a simulation

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Some other questions, more generic in nature.

1. Help file for mobhack states:
") You may find some AI formations in the OOB - often these have // added to the name, and they usually have the 'wrong' nationality - treat exactly like an existing Camo Workshop formation, however - you now know that yo have an AI only formation the human will not be able to buy."

So it means that any formation with wrong nation code would be invisible to player but still usable for AI?

2. How the game would react to a company that have two (or more) sets of platoons that do not intersect in availability timeline? For example:

Company.
1st Platoon - 1.46 - 12.67
2nd Platoon - 1.46 - 12.67
3rd Platoon - 1.46 - 12.67
4th Platoon - 1.68 - 12.125
5th Platoon - 1.68 - 12.125
6th Platoon - 1.68 - 12.125

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

1) yes

2) gaps are best at the end. otherwise the formation throws a "line break" and splits into 2 or more sub-formations. The above may well have a co HQ on its own, and 3 platoons. Only testing could tell you.

Section
section
section
APC
APC
APC
Inf-SAM (later to end)

In the demonstrated platoon, the inf-SAM is available later on in the era of the formation. Since it is at the end of the list it works. If it had been tacked onto the infantry sections then there would be a break at the APCs when in the early era and the SAM was not there.

There is plenty one can do with formations, there are no written down rules, you will need to experiment and test thoroughly if you are trying "special effects".

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Another thing I noticed in a help file is advice against using separate transport platoons for companies. It breaks the auto-mount function during the deployment phase. It is obviously inconvenient but can AI handle transports which are in another formation?

To be more precise I want to introduce a more 'realistic' organization for Soviet rifle company on BTR-152/BTR-50 large capacity APCs. In the game now they are essentially the same as all other mech companies with a separate APC for each section, 10 in total. IRL they had only 6 or 7 vehicles for the entire company. Can AI handle such structure or it will fail to mount sections without dedicated transports?

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

The best way to find out would be to build one the way you think is should be then set a game to advance or assault, buy a number of them and autodeploy. If they are loaded when you check the map then it works..if not try another way. Autodeploy works the same for P1 human player as it would for P2 Computer player.

That said if you are looking for a formation the AI will actually buy it needs to be one the picklist "knows" about so if you replace an existing formation you know the AI picks with this new one of yours, you need to make it work for the exact same time period as the old one or the AI will not use it and that means it has to work for any new equipment that formation might have available between it's start and end date and in the case of BTR-50's the BTR-50PA's end date is a 1964 that's the end of the 20 capacity units, the BTR-50PK stays in service until 1967 but that in itself adds another wrinkle to your project as it has a capacity of 14 so if you are going to make a coy that only has the smaller number of carriers they can only run as long as there are high capacity carriers available and right now when the AI goes looking for a Mech coy or pl to buy it only looks for the ones we have in there now.....build a new one in a new slot and it might as well be on Mars

.....then there's the issue that the BMP-1 with 9 capacity enters service a year before the BTR-50PK goes out of service and when you consider all that you will understand why they are set up like they are now.........it's a juggling act between formation structure, infantry unit size and carrier capacity and it will NEVER be " perfect" but it will be "close enough" for the scale this game represents

Don

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Well, current OOB already have an mech company available specifically between 1955-65. But in the default OOB it is the same as the generic mech company. And judging by the fact that it is one of the earlier formations in the list (do not have a game at hand currently, so cannot provide a precise number) it was probably one of the default ones.
So I think switching mech platoons to a leg platoons inside the company and adding a transport platoon should make AI buy it.

Also I plan to move BTR-50s into heavy APC unit class (it already have some BTR-152s) while keeping one model in tracked APCs for the compatibility sake. As I can understand OOB structure and its use changing classes (at least within clone ones) should not break anything.

This is by the way a mistake in the current OOB. 50PK have the same capacity as 50P - 20 dismounts. Its huge inside.
http://army.lv/uploads/1192487217.7.jpg
Picture from the manual.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

I will put that on my list to investigate. Early on in OOB development the BTR-50's were 12 and 14 carry cap but a quick check seeing to show that the formation you want to create already exists ( sort of..... )in the OOB's ( 375 ) is a coy of BTR-50's with 7 carriers

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

The OOB already has a BTR-50 as a heavy APC along with a BTR-152. But right now it's just the open topped model, but there may be other changes that can be done. The other question is was how was it originally determined which troops used each APC. Where they 13 man sections with support elements or two smaller sections that used one transport. The basics have to be sorted out before any other changes can be made but a quick glance seems to indicate this is doable without upsetting the balance in the existing OOB and that is the main goal. I may be able to adjust this and gain a spare unit slot but I need to know how the troops were packed into this thing. There are only two formations that use the BTR-50's as UC 25 and if the three versions of the BTR-50 that are in that class ( 329, 330, 331 ) are changed to UC 120 that keeps the AI picklist happy and nothing needs to be changed in regards to AI picks and that isolated the heavy BTR-50's from the smaller BMP's and that allows me to eventually remove unit 885 as redundant

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

There is apparently a service manual for this thing somewhere in the deeps of the internet but most of the links are dead nowadays. Some articles claim that the scheme for BTR-50P was 10+10. Ten guys in the 'turret' and ten guys rode on the armor outside. In that case both BTR-50PK and BTR-50P have only 10 men capacity.

As for the section sizes - Soviet sections in the post war period were either 9 or 8 men (including vehicle crews for motor rifle troops), no larger 'heavy' sections existed in organizational structures. At least I never saw or heard any mentions of such sections.

One memoir claims that motor rifle battalion around late 1950 had separate 'platoon' of BTR-152 and each company had 5 of them assigned, including one (for the company commander) with ZPU-2 AA mount.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

The "heavy" sections are simply a way of representing the early 2 APC mech platoon in game terms. Half a platoon squashed into each APC.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

There appears to be an "easy" fix for this. I just have to proceed carefully.

( and " easy " is a relative term )

When all BTR-50's are made 20 carry capacity and changed to UC-120 that shifts these big APC's to a UC all their own. The ONLY formation affected by this is 5 ( from the POV of the picklist )...that's the Mech Rifle Co from 1/1955-12/66......none of the others are affected ...BUT......moving Formation 375 to slot 5 puts the Hvy APC's in the formation slot the picklist wants and moving Form376 to Form38 puts everything in sync.... freeing up 2 formation slots as well as changing nothing from a player POV and keeping the picklist " happy " once the "new" Form 5 is pointed at the correct place it's "new" pls are found in ( 38 )

See....simple. :D

now all I have to do is figure out the infantry that goes into each and in the end these early big carriers will be set up correctly but there WILL need to be a slight compromise to accommodate the lower carry capacity of the BTR-152 that shares this class

The bottom line is this can be fixed so it better represents the actual situation but it won't be exact and in the process free up 2 formation and 1 unit slot

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

I have made OOB development adjustments to the Russian OOB that appear to set up the various mech formations more correctly with slightly larger mech units and so far I have not found a case where units were left on foot and the manpower count seems to be as close as we can get. Both the BMP and BTR Rifle plts now have 24 men on foot with 6 more as crew in year 2000 platoons but it's a juggling act to get this all to work with formations that span 75 years but I *think* I have. PLUS the BTR-50 formations are better represented in regards to manpower and number of carriers per plt/ coy

However, in future PLEASE use specific game formation numbers when making comments on formations so I know I'm looking at the same thing you are looking at

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Russian Victory Day parade showed couple of new developments which caught my eye: according to news there were arctic versions of Pantsyr and Tor-M SAM launchers.
In a nutshell: Snow track vehicles that are amphibious. If there's room to fit them in the OOB.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.w...issile-system/
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...e-air-defenses

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

This is everything I've been tracking for Russian SPAA/AA equipment in some cases for almost 2 years now.

Pantsir-S2... Issues improved radar and detection augmented by a new missile allowing extended range and altitude.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru..._12502152.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._12205164.html

ZSU-23-4 & Tungunska replacement?... Issues they're just old and outdated.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._12812151.html

The next is specifically for the dedicated Arctic Defense Force (ADF) they already had the SPAA version mounting the Pantsir-S1 modified system the news here is they are also equipping the ADF with the new longer range TOR-M2 system
with both mounted on the Vityaz DT-30-series all-terrain tracked carriers (ATTCs) optimized for Arctic operations.
http://www.janes.com/article/69523/r...efence-systems

Buk-M3... Issues pretty much the same as the above improved radar and new missile, however, the main difference here is that this is considered a completely new system vice an improved one. That's the big news here. I believe I might've posted this already in the SPA/SPAA Thread at least the second ref.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._11212153.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._11312154.html

Finally because it's time for lunch and getting ready for "my Monday" the TOR-M2U improved version of the well, TOR-M2... Issues this comes under much improved from the first ref. "The SAM system is capable of acquiring over 40 targets simultaneously, prioritize them and engage four of them at the same time." in the SAM world that's pretty darn good.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe..._13009162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...o_2604153.html

Strela replacement and SPAA for Russian Airborne troops, the Sosna-10... Issues simply "out with the old, in with the new".
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._10505161.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._11312155.html


That pretty much covers most of it. As a reminder equipment status always noted on the equipment info refs or as otherwise noted in the preceding article.

Since this came up, I'll be moving this into the SPA/SPAA Thread early Tue. morning after work for my tracking.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Out of curiosity, do threads get deleted?... I've recalled there was a thread about BTR-50 capacity several years ago, and I think I've even drew a cross-section with at least 15 men inside - but I spent over half an hour searching, and couldn't find anything... :confused:

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Threads rarely get deleted and I cannot think of any reason why one like that would be. The Shrapnel search engine isn't the greatest. If you think you know what was said try Googling

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

...three minutes of of Google searching "BTR-50 capacity site:http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/" :)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...t=47851&page=6

With a drawing: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...6&d=1319491521

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

It would be cool to add few sabot ammo for Russian T-64A close support MBT (unit 63 in OOB) instead of some HE ammo.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

That's what the regular tanks are for. CS tanks are for dealing with situations requiring HE

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

CS tanks usually have some HEAT as the A/T ammo since HEAT is dual-purpose against grunts (beyond the 4 kept in hand) and is also good versus bunkers etc. Some CS tanks may have sabot or AP though, its up to the particular OOB designer.

You could always make your own version in Mobhack, then run the oob cost calculator on it. For games against yourself that is fine - but if playing PBEM you will need to agree it with your opponent and send him a copy of the modified OOB if he does (IIRC, been ages since I looked into the mechanics of PBEM).

But CS tanks as Don says, are not really there to deal with other tanks - use the regular version for that, with C/S hanging back to be wheeled forwards for any grunt-punching duties.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

May be instead of HEAT then. T-64A CS has 12 HEAT ammo but they often are useless against strong anti-HEAT armour of NATO tanks. Close support tank T-64B1 (unit 683) has 4 sabot but T-64A is deprived.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Yeah we can do that

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Notes for WinSPMBT version 10.0 upgrade patch (April 2016) say:
"PGM (precision-guided munition) from aircraft will now work like HEAT on hard targets, even if it is an HE type weapon (has to be as an air weapon for aircraft). If the AP pen is 222 coded (and all relevant weapons now are...), it will strike any hard target hit as HEAT using the HEAT pen value."

Question about Soviet guided missiles Kh-23, Kh-29 (OOB 11, weapon 206, 208).
Why these missiles have not got HEAT pen values and AP pen value 222 in game? Kh-23 was fitted up with HEAT warhead and Kh-29 with HESH warhead. I think these missiles warhead weight is enough to have HEAT value similar to American AGM-65 Maverick (HEAT 125).

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

I'll put this onto the list to look into when we get to that stage. That said you can provide sources that show that the Kh-23 was fitted up with HEAT warhead and Kh-29 with HESH warhead ?.

Because nothing I have found.... and I have not dug too deeply.... but I find no mention of that. All I found was the S-25 had a 21 kg shaped charge precursor warhead

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

The KH-23 appears to be no better then the U.S. "BULLPUP" as far as the guidance system or performance achieved.
The KH-25ML was the better designed missile and purpose built to take out fortifications, bunkers and armor. I would think given the "field of view" it's accuracy would be degraded against a moving target.

Like all missiles generally, it's about the Guidance System, Warhead (Or if you will and as used in a couple of the refs, Penetrator.) and Payload and, in this case I've seen nothing to indicate that the payload is anything other then HE.

In my "way of business" I've not looked at anything WiKi for reasons stated many times in the past, however, the below refs. are the best I can find outside of those others. I should think they should be enough for now.
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europea...s/edmis3a4.htm
http://armamentresearch.com/kh-29-ai...role-in-libya/
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-A...mozTocId603457
http://www.digitalcombatmercenaries....mfceeetmpvkjq0
https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ssia/as-10.htm
From the above ref.:
"...instead an additional warhead weighing 24 kg to supplement the 113 kg warhead in the front, was placed in its tail section..."

Add on: I forgot to add that some of these missiles were limited to what aircraft could carry them by missile designation.

For perspective and contrast:
The following to again make the my points (Less the penetrator. See below.) from Para. 2 above (And again HE. The aluminum is to contain and stabilize the other two ingredients until detonated by the fusing system. That's what the Warhead is made of.)
https://www.dodlive.mil/2017/04/14/w...-of-all-bombs/

Also just added: KH-15 primarily designed to carry a nuclear warhead, two conventional designs later followed. This obviously of the same "KH" family of missiles.
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsyste...20(Kh-15).html

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

I looked at the Global security link and there is nothing about a HEAT or HESH warhead.

Pat, if someone wants to question the data and suggest it is wrong and needs adjusting neither you nor I should be expected to drop what we are doing and wade through data links for hours doing their legwork.

I do not have the time or interest in doing that and guessing neither do you really so for these kinds of issues it's up to the person questioning the data accuracy to present links that prove they are correct so that corrections can be made.

does not indicate it has a HEAT warhead only a delay to detonation


Don

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

At the moment can give only source in Russian. Kh-23 is «Х-23» in Russian letters.
http://авиару.рф/aviamuseum/...a-raketa-h-23/

Here is the third paragraph from end:
«Боевая часть ракеты кумулятивно-осколочно-фугасная, снаряжена мощным взрывчатым веществом типа ТГ-40. В двух бортовых сегментах боевой части помещено 1488 готовых поражающих элементов — стальных кубиков с ребром 10 мм, которые при подрыве разлетались вбок и вперед. БЧ обеспечивала сплошное поражение небронированных целей в радиусе до 40 м и уничтожение защищенных объектов с толщиной брони до 250 мм. БЧ снабжалась неконтактным взрывателем РОВ-19Л, обеспечивавшим подрыв при пролете над целью, а в случае прямого попадания срабатывали находящиеся в рулевом отсеке контактные датчики СКД-24.»
Translation:
“Missile warhead is cumulative splinter high explosive equipped with powerful explosive TG-40. In two side segments of warhead 1488 ready splinter elements are placed – steel little cubes with edge 10 mm which scatter sideways and forward after detonation. Warhead provided complete defeat of unarmored targets within a radius of 40 m and destroying of protected objects with armor thickness up to 250 mm. Warhead was equipped with proximity fuse ROV-19L providing detonation when flying above target, and, in the case of direct hit, contact sensors SKD-24 located in the steering compartment were triggered.”

In Russian “cumulative” means HEAT.
In provided figure (the second from end) we can find:
• note number 30 – oskolochno-fugasno-kumulyativnaya boevaya chast F-23M – splinter high explosive cumulative warhead F-23M.
• note number 33 – stalnaya konicheskaya kumulyativnaya voronka – steel conic cumulative funnel.

So this munition was designed to combine HE and HEAT features.

Besides, HE Kill value of 100 kg regular bomb is 30 so HE Kill value of Kh-23 should be more than 30. Now it is 25. At the same time AGM-65 has HE Kill value 56 with warhead weighting 136 kg.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

This will be investigated. Andy indicated to me he saw other issues with some of the weapons in this unitclass and would take a look after the new Year

Don

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Here I was thinking I didn't want you (And now appears Andy as well.) to get to involved in these kind of issues!?! This almost appears as if we're "enabling" each other out here, and that term most always is proscribed to "addiction" issues based on my collateral duty as a "DAPA" in the USN.

Boy are we :sick:!!

From my last Post, Ref. 2 does state for the 3 KH-29 types they carried high explosive. So I'm thinking now based on rel19's last we're dealing with different payloads within the "KH" (And maybe others?) family of missiles possibly dependent on the "era" the missile was used and maybe it's "sub-variants" like noted in the AUSA site for the KH-25 series.

And if Andy found something else, that can't be good either. So...
Another %@!* "Rabbit Hole" AGAIN!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

Yes, Kh-23, Kh-25, Kh-29 are three different familes of missiles with different warheads. Kh-25 has splinter high explosive warhead and laser guidance. It has substituted Kh-23 missile which had radio command guidance. Kh-29 is large and heavy munition against protected objects with television (Kh-29T) or laser (Kh-29L) guidanse. There is an article about Kh-29 on the same site:
http://авиару.рф/aviamuseum/...a-raketa-h-29/

Reading the last paragraph of the first section:
Translation:
"Missile warhead is armor-piercing high explosive weighting 317 kg which is half the starting mass of the missile. It is a massive body of hard grade of steel filled with high brisance explosive where the mass of explosive is 116 kg. The combination of speed which is more than twice the sound speed and very heavy and lasting warhead provides high penetrating ability. This allows effectively destroy high protected objects such as concrete constructions and surface ships. Before detonation of the action load the missile is able to break through about 1 meters of concrete covered with 3 meters of soil. In attack of reinforced concrete runway strips the missile gives a crater with a diameter of 12-15 meters and about 6 meters deep."

On provided figure (the seventh in the article) we can find:
label 6 – protivorikoshetnoe ustroystvo – anti-ricochet device;
label 8 – pronikayuchshaya oskolochno-fugasnaya BCh 9B63MN – penetrating splinter high explosive warhead 9B63MN.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

I'm a little dubious about the crater size claim from 116kg of explosives.

𝑟=𝑘𝑀

Where is the radius of the crater r (m), M (kg) is the mass of explosive used (expressed in TNT equivalent), k is coefficient depending on soil surface (k = 0.2 for very hard soil surface and k = 0.7 for very soft soil surface)
[[Jaramaz, S. Physics of explosion. University of Belgrade, Mechanical Engineering Faculty, Belgrade, 1997.]]

But then I'm a nerd :D

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

And that Kh-29 one sounds like SCALP, which is going to go back to being an HE blast warhead, not HEAT since it seems to be the same sort of thing that defeats a bunker by injecting a secondary HE warhead through the initial blast. So something designed specifically for bunker busting, and not for plinking individual tanks with (like say Maverick).

SCALP, Tomahawk, Kh-29 etc would be used on high value command and control centres, bridges etcetera since they likely cost as much as an MBT per round.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

We have this noted down to look into for all weapons in that class but we won't be tackling this until the new year so if you remember, rattle this thread again in January as a reminder