ATGM's vs Fortifications

[Koh]

Admittedly it's been a while since I've refreshed on my anti-tank skills, but we were always taught that HEAT rounds deal with concrete pretty effectively. For example, I believe the APILAS with an RHA penetration of around 650 - 700 mm was told to penetrate around two meters of concrete. So I'd say penetration is of no problem.

However I must agree on your second point. The after armor effects would probably be considerably less catastrophic than in a tank. With less tightly packed stuff ready to explode, probably not as cramped as a tank and like you said with less molten steel spraying around, I'd imagine that bunker would survive a penetration much better than a tank.

I'm not sure if fortifications are already coded that way, but I'd imagine that it would better reflect reality if direct hits at bunkers would more often just take out a weapon slot or two rather than outright blowing up the entire thing. But that's might be just me.

- Koh

[SaS TrooP]

From my own experience I would also say pretty much of ATGM (or tank) shots are non penetrating, or simply failed. Much more compared to hits agaisnt other targets. I guess thats how game simulates that: if you hit strong, base part then its just failed sot, contrarly itting an inner compartment with MG positions and stuff will do the trick.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The answer is simple, we keep up with the weapons systems in the field already. TOW BB. I'm waiting for the Patch to come out to see what Don and I suspect Andy have agreed upon in dealing with the TI/GSR issue for both the M1A2 SEP V2 and AH-64E GUARDIAN. I've held off on submitting a weapons system that has in combat that full capability and both the USA and USMC have used it in the capicity noted in this thread. The TOW ITAS system. It was designed for both the anti-tank and bunker busting roles as currently used in Afghanistan since early 2011. This TOW has much "longer legs" then previous TOW missiles to include the "brand new" optics which in reality is the focal point of what ITAS is, and also why I'm waiting in particular for the M1A2 SEP V2 numbers to come out as next year I intend to submit ITAS at the same TI/GSR. Not going over the reasons here, as you all know where to look for them, just know the refs for ITAS support the these claims with a sampling below of what I have. The new missile is the TOW BB. The TOW ITAS has been code named by the insurgents as "The Finger of God" the sub sailor in me agrees with the anatomy part in both counts . I understand there might be issues here but TOW BB use goes beyond forts to buildings and troops in mountinous/rocky terrin positions as well.
1) On the first ref please get past the source to get to the source. Also pay close attention to what Para 4 is telling the reader as well.
http://www.readperiodicals.com/201101/2251360761.html

2) In Ref 2 Para 2 will get the ball rolling.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...uidance-02827/

3) The last basically ties it all up.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...e_2802126.html

Sometimes I find it necessary to hold off on equipment submissions because there are unresolved issues I must address before submission. The better I can present that piece of equipment the better the chance it gets in if presented properly. Even after my own enthusiasm for it, I left out the T-90AM/MS because I had more questions then answers. So I have high hopes for this "class" based in part on the feedback I got. And we know the "Bosses" have no problem with providing feedback!?! And rightfully so under some of the OOBs current statuses. So for the "Class of 2012/2013" I remain hopeful as it was a very difficult year.

Regards,
Pat


Just announced F-22s in S. Korea.