ATGM's vs Fortifications

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Since we all know Don (DRG) likes nothing more then players telling him how to do his job...

In the game fortifications (unit class 0) are treated basically as immobile armor units. This works pretty well vs every weapon type except ATGMs (weapon classes 13, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 24). Until the advent of the Sagger and TOW in the 70's fortifications make an attacker work for it.
The problem is ATGMs use HEAT warheads, which work by burning a hole usually less then 1 cm around thru the metal armor of a tank and spraying the interior, ammo, and crew with molten metal. It's rather difficult to melt thru a dirt or concrete fortification and I suspect hot dirt or concrete dust is somewhat less effective then melted armor.
Increasing the HEAT armor rating of fortifications would have the side effect of making them too resistant/immune to RPG/bazooka type weapons, the exact weapon types (in addition to flamethrowers and satchel charges) traditionally used to assault them.
Altering the game code to prohibit ATGMs from firing on fortifications has the side effect of players screaming that the game won't let them fire their weapons.
Maybe adding code to double, triple, ten-fold (whatever's needed) the HEAT armor rating of fortifications vs ATGM weapon classes will work.

Two questions for the peanut gallery.
1) Is ATGM vs Fortifications a big enough problem to require a solution?
2) Do you have a practical alternative suggestion on how to solve the problem?


** Watches Don turn purple then runs for cover **

I am not a physicst but HEAT does not burn throught armor in the same sense of a thermal lance being applied to a plate (though you can also cut concrete, rock or any bunker grade material that way, not just armor). What it does is using the explosive force to turn the liner in a jet of metal traveling at several km/s. From what I recall they eventually figured out that the jet was not molten metal, but at those speeds the difference is rather academic if you are on the receiving end; behavior and dynamics may differ from those of sabots/AP (the HEAT jet won't stay together for a great distance) but the basic punch throught effect is kinetic in both cases.
Generally speaking bunker grade materials (concrete, earth/sand etc.) will offer comparatively more protection against HEAT than to modern sabots, so the idea of multiplying the base KE value by, say 3-4 or some such is in principle a sound one. In practice there must be something like a couple of thousands of fortifications class units, among which a fair number of panzerturm and others special cases, for which such operation cannot be automated.You get the idea.
In regards to th effects of HEAT against bunkers proper. Bunkers are usually roomier than AFVs, do not have engines, fuel tanks (well not where an ATGM could hit usually) etc that can be knocked out or set on fire. That said it does not mean that HEAT penetrations can be disregarded. Spalling and the others post penetration effects can still harm the crew or the weapons, and if the bunker is an artillery casemate there is likely a fair bit of ammunition that can be set off; I remember visiting an artillery block in the Maginot line which the germans had sniped at with a couple of 88mm for hours, eventually almost piercing throught the concrete behind a ready rack for at least one hundreds of 75mm shells, they gave up too soon and the french realized what was going on but you can figure out what could have happened.