Is CM Artillery too destructive?

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by EJ

Thanks all for the feedback....
[b]Don or Andy,
Any chance you will consider adjusting the potency of the rockets more than the tubes based on Marcello's analysis? As always thank you for keeping this game so interesting....

No.

We had this round of discussions several years back, and the points values for the bomblet weapons was increased. Arty with that ammo is very expensive.

Against bomblet arty - don't bunch up, don't stand in one place too long, and get yourself MBT with anti-HEAT top armour (or ERA on top). Finally, apply counter-battery fires to the enemy bomblet-using arty.

Andy

[EJ]

Andy,
Thanks for giving me an answer......

[DRG]

The base standard cost of a US 155mm LW off map section with 80x3= 240 HE rounds is 255 points.

The base standard cost of a US 155mm LW off map section that has 60x3= 180 HE shells and 20x3=60 cluster shells is 906 points so those 60 cluster shells cost an extra 651 points.

Don

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by EJ

Thanks all for the feedback....
[b]Don or Andy,
Any chance you will consider adjusting the potency of the rockets more than the tubes based on Marcello's analysis? As always thank you for keeping this game so interesting....

Most likely it is the tube arty that would need to be tuned down a bit. But I can't tell for sure without:
1) Verifying if it still applies in the current version (tests)
2) Collecting more information about tube arty DPCM (area coverage, bomblet density etc.).
3) Attempt to see if it can be fine tuned (tons and tons of tests).
It might even turn out that the issue cannot be corrected without impairing standard HE effectiviness, making the whole exercise pointless.In any case I will not have the time for the above untill the next winter if that, I am researching other things now.
As it is this issue has been addressed with cost increased.

[Imp]

Just my opinion Marcello but dont know if its worth bothering, you are quite likely to decide all arty should be if anything more not less effective, wouldnt you be popular.
Lots of stuff out there on it even a standard 155mm shell landing within 30m of a tank can cause huge damage to its systems.
Sure Fastboat Pat posted some good ones.
I did a breif test last time it came up which verified my play results, use it then follow up with an attack if its vs MBT there will be survivours unless you are very lucky.
In otherwords use like normal arty & hope the die fall in your favour
Luck/randomness play a big part in this game its what makes it tricky the unexpected happens that strike can be devasting or fairly innefective, chuck in dug in status ERA armour etc lot to test.
In fact did an AAR the unstopable T-80 this guy was a gun magnet hit buy everything ATGMs APCR multiple CM strikes & still zero damage. Got very very lucky with his ERA roles had virtually nothing left.
It was not the fact he survived the arty that surprised its fairly common & was just the icing on the cake, it was the fact he was still around when it fell that was amazing.
And you dont need an ERA equiped tank to survive recently hit a lowly M60 with it for 3 turns landing in or adjacent, managed to make it immobile but it still rallied & killed my tank with an innacurate shot, damn.

[SGTGunn]

It could be a lot worse if some of the newer US "smart" sub munition delivery systems were modeled in the game.

The aircraft delivered 1000lb CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon contains 10 BLU-108/B sub-munitions - each which in turn has 4 "skeet" projectiles. The CBU-97 dispenser opens and ejects the 5 forward, then 5 rear BLU-108/B sub-munitions in a pattern designed to cover a large overlapping area. Each BLU-108/B sub-munition uses a radar altimeter to determine the correct deployment altitude. Once reached it fires a rocket motor which causes the sub-munition to ascend and spin, releasing the 4 "skeets" in a pattern over the ground. Each skeet scans the ground with an IR sensor - if it detects a AFV, launcher, artillery piece, etc. it explodes firing a 1lb copper EFP down into the target. 1 CBU-97 has 40 skeets.

An A-10 can carry 10 CBU-97. An F-16 can carry 4. An F-15E can carry 12. A B-2 can carry 30!

So picture a massed armor formation - say a battalion of Iranian Zulfiqar MBT moving across the desert at night. A B-2 can glide on over, and drop it's 30 CBU-97s at 20,000 feet, cruising at 600 knots, covering the area with 1200 smart skeet projectiles onto 40 something tanks. Not a good day to be an Iranian tanker.

There is also the artillery (155mm, MLRS and ATACMS)deployed SADARM sub-munition which while no generating the volume of projectiles a CBU-97 can, is far more lethal than the standard "dumb" artillery delivered sub munitions.

Adrian

[Mobhack]

They are modelled - a "CM" warhead may well be SADARM or similar. Game result is the same, whether a hundred 40mm HEAT grenades or 3 or 4 MMW guided thingies.

Andy

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by SGTGunn

It could be a lot worse if some of the newer US "smart" sub munition delivery systems were modeled in the game.

The aircraft delivered 1000lb CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon contains 10 BLU-108/B sub-munitions - each which in turn has 4 "skeet" projectiles. The CBU-97 dispenser opens and ejects the 5 forward, then 5 rear BLU-108/B sub-munitions in a pattern designed to cover a large overlapping area. Each BLU-108/B sub-munition uses a radar altimeter to determine the correct deployment altitude. Once reached it fires a rocket motor which causes the sub-munition to ascend and spin, releasing the 4 "skeets" in a pattern over the ground. Each skeet scans the ground with an IR sensor - if it detects a AFV, launcher, artillery piece, etc. it explodes firing a 1lb copper EFP down into the target. 1 CBU-97 has 40 skeets.

An A-10 can carry 10 CBU-97. An F-16 can carry 4. An F-15E can carry 12. A B-2 can carry 30!

So picture a massed armor formation - say a battalion of Iranian Zulfiqar MBT moving across the desert at night. A B-2 can glide on over, and drop it's 30 CBU-97s at 20,000 feet, cruising at 600 knots, covering the area with 1200 smart skeet projectiles onto 40 something tanks. Not a good day to be an Iranian tanker.

There is also the artillery (155mm, MLRS and ATACMS)deployed SADARM sub-munition which while no generating the volume of projectiles a CBU-97 can, is far more lethal than the standard "dumb" artillery delivered sub munitions.

Adrian

SADARM production has been cancelled after less than one thousands of 155mm rounds were procured (800 or so IIRC but don't quote me on the exact number). The smart submunitions variant of the ATACMS was cancelled in February 2003 before becoming operational.
I have not heard anything about something similar for the MRLS, but I doubt it fared better.
I don't know about how the aviation bombs fared, but at least as far the US Army goes the ax fell on these projects in the early 2000s. There has been only low priority R&D work since then as far as I can tell.

Multiple reasons for the above. First of all masses of enemy armor are not a priority now. Then there is the issue of high cost and, related to that, complexity.
It is one thing to build a bomb and program it to go after a set of coordinates, it is a relatively simple task for a machine.
Building a bomb and program her to recognize and find a tank is a far more demanding taks. It can be done of course, a few of those SADARM rounds were issued to some units during OIF and about 120 were actually fired with some success.
However there are ways a tech savy enemy can use to throw off the submunitions targeting, something you cannot do with conventional submunitions or Excalibur/JDAMs style PGMs.

[SGTGunn]

CBU-97's were used in OIF with some success and AFAIK are still in production and USAF inventory. The biggest problem these days is a lack of appropriate targets worth expending a CBU-97 on.

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by SGTGunn

CBU-97's were used in OIF with some success and AFAIK are still in production and USAF inventory. The biggest problem these days is a lack of appropriate targets worth expending a CBU-97 on.

That would make some sense, as noted if the **** really hits the fan a bomber can be armed with them, take off from the USA and drop them in Iran, Korea or whatever. This way the most can be made of a limited stockpile of specialized weapons.
On the other hand artillery rounds would need to be stored ready at hands, which would require a larger number of them to cover all possible fronts or limit them only to campaigns like OIF.
SADARM worked too, by the accounts; nevertheless it was cut in 2001. Lack of urgent threat is certainly the primary issue, but cost and technical reasons may have played a role.