Is CM Artillery too destructive?

[AMX]

No, that's not the problem - some experimentation with Mobhack shows they are using the HE value, just as they should.

But with Pen 18 and Warhead Size 2 or 3 they are simply not very destructive.

[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

[Gooseman2448]

My 2 cents.

Maybe instead of changing the distructiveness; the number of shots should be limited and with max the cost.

Also, if you play against someone you should set battle conditions and limits. Otherwise you are asking to take a beating.

[Mustang]

Modern tank gun HEAT round is generally defined with a capability of 60 (=600mm) or more; modern 'conventional' 120mm mortars, like EFSS, IMI, etc. have no HEAT but a AP Pen of 21. All these shells are 'single' ones; no bomblets at all. But the AMOS e Nona gun-mortar types, having also AP ammos, are granted with CM with, respectively, a 21cm (AP) or 60 cm (HEAT) capability !!! (go to point c)

AFAIK, the way the game is coded, all AP rounds given to artillery represent cluster rounds. If they have an AP pen but no cluster rounds that just means they aren't issued any AP rounds.

b) they don't damage modern tanks, but only harass / damage them : in my tests, with heavy MLR bombardment vs modern tank formations, I never had a real-complete kill; in the best cases the suppressed crews left the vehicle and/or the vehicle itself was immobilized.

I've seen rockets and howitzers kill tanks, it's just rare because they don't cover the wide surface area that cluster munitions do.

c) why an AP pen, for submunitions, with so a high value : a 155mm sub-muni with about three times the capability of a EFSS, IMI mortar single round and equal to the standard 120mm HEAT ? It's obvious that with this value (vs the top armor), no tanks could have a chance to survive, if hit.

Good point but I think it's irrelevant in practice because real life cluster munitions can penetrate any tank's top armor anyway.

- HEAT for the RUS gun-mortars like Nona : AP Pen value = 25; HEAT value = 60 (???)

AFAIK the HEAT rounds are only useful in direct-fire. You can't plot indirect fire missions that use HEAT. 60 PEN is similar to some of the better RPGs.

and so the ERAs have effects only vs the Nona / 2A65 CMs; no defense in the case of the AMOS & M284/FH155 ecc.. Why ? One of the russian T-72/80/90s atout is just the ERA's top armour protection. In this way, the CM capability seems to be modeled as the ultimate T-xx killer.

I thought indirect fire never uses HEAT rounds. Only the HE and AP pens matter for fire missions. But then again I haven't checked.

IMHO, the AT capability of the 120/152/155mm CM sub-muni seem to be over-estimated, by about a 10 factor (60cm vs probably a 5-7cm in real world, in the DPICM cases), with heavy consequences on the simulation mechanics and on the game play, and - in the case of western guns - thet are treated as AP and no HEAT, without any defence chance by modern ERA. In the case of the gun-mortars, if the AP/HEAT simulates the single-shell, it would be necessary to avoid the CM effect.

Even if cluster munitions can't penetrate armor, and I'm pretty sure they can in real life, they can knock out optics and send shrapnel into any air filter or viewport on the vehicle, totally wrecking the interior. Any tank would be trashed under a cluster barrage. The problem is the Russian weapons not being powerful enough. Just my humble $0.02.

[rob89]

Perhaps I was not able to underline the, IMHO, BIG issue.

Apart from all my considerations about the values attributed to the different weapons and my evaluations about their realism and the balance between MLR, howitzers and mortars, the BIG issue is very simple : the 152mm russian CM (and 120mm Nona/Vera) are managed like HEAT (due to the HEAT value present in the records) and so the ERA armour of the Merkava like MBTs destroy them, defending the tanks; on the opposite side, the 155mm CM of the western guns are not treated like HEAT (because of the missing HEAT parameter) and they can easily destroy all the ERA top covered T-72/T-80/T-90s.

In the real life, the stratified ERA layers on the top of the AFVs' hulls & turrets have been built to cover exactly that threat.

I think that the present database approach create a not realistic unbalanced situation.

Moreover, it's true that, indipendently from the correctness of the pen-value, the CM submunis in any case have a great possibility to damage/immobilise the AFVs. But it's different (in real life and in the game) to be damaged or to be killed.

regards

[DRG]

Originally Posted by rob89

Perhaps I was not able to underline the, IMHO, BIG issue.

the BIG issue is very simple : the 152mm russian CM (and 120mm Nona/Vera) are managed like HEAT (due to the HEAT value present in the records) and so the ERA armour of the Merkava like MBTs destroy them, defending the tanks; on the opposite side, the 155mm CM of the western guns are not treated like HEAT (because of the missing HEAT parameter) and they can easily destroy all the ERA top covered T-72/T-80/T-90s.

Please compare USA weapon #75 and Russian weapon #111 then look at the "CM" units that use them...

USA Unit #524
Russian Unit #806

..... and then explain to me how they differ as you discribe

??

There IS NO DIFFERENCE in the way they are set up. Both have AP and HEAT values. FH-70's however, only have AP values EXCEPT in the Italian OOB where both values are present . That *may" be an issue and we are checking that but so far the only weapons I have found that is seriously in error is the Russian weapon #229 ( 203mm 2A44 CM ) that has neither AP nor HEAT values BUT DOES have an AP kill value WHICH IS OK AS LONG AS THEY ARE SET UP AS WC14--- however, Russian weapon #229 is set up as a gun that fires both HE and cluster and has now been corrected and we are searching for any others like that ...so far.....none





Don

[rob89]

Originally Posted by DRG

Please compare USA weapon #75 and Russian weapon #111 then look at the "CM" units that use them...

USA Unit #524
Russian Unit #806

..... and then explain to me how they differ as you discribe

??

There IS NO DIFFERENCE in the way they are set up. Both have AP and HEAT values.
Don

Please, compare :

- USA # 042 - M109 Paladin - weapon = 104 (155mm M284) - ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 0

- USA # 678 - M109 PIN ... - weapon = 104 (155mm M284) - ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 0

- GER # 106 - PzH2000 .... - weapon = 112 (155mm FH155)- ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 0

- RUS # 506 - MSTA ....... - weapon = 228 (152mm 2A65) - ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 60

- RUS # 600 - MSTA+ ...... - weapon = 228 (152mm 2A65) - ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 60

and all the system that uses these weapons (and/or similars)

the difference are, as said and as you can easily see, in the HEAT values and in the consequences.

Please, test all these vs top-covered-ERA-AFVs (like Merkava Mk4) : for guns with HEAT value, you will have in the most cases the message : "ERA defeats HEAT"; for guns without HEAT you will have no ERA reactions and quite always a penetration.

IMHO, it's unbalanced, because, as I said

- or the sub-munis are DPICM (very small penetration capability, not in the range of 60cm)

- or the are SFW-Sadarm-like, but with HEAT-like-effects, that could be defeats by ERA.

Moreover, it seems (to me) very strange that MLR in the class 220-300mm (MLRS, Uragan, Smerch) have sub-munis with AT capability incredibly lower than those of the 155mm CMs shells.

regards

[Mobhack]

Cluster munitions use the AP pen value for AP ammo (HEAT bomblets) and HE pen for HEDP (also HEAT!) - like class 14 "HE only" weapons.

So any HEAT value is totally irrelevant for indirect - as on map artillery need a HEAT (or sabot) shell for direct-fire anti tank ammunition, because AP is cluster and HE can be as well.

So HEAT is for the full-calibre AT round (if any) for howitzer X when it is used on the map for shooting direct fire at tanks.

We are now reviewing the data for those things for the next release.

[Pfor]

I thought I would share the changes I made to my USA cluster munitions, which I thought were too destructive for my liking (purely a personal preference) in the default OOB, based on the following presumptions about how the system might work:

1. Every hard target in the 7-hex zone is liable to be hit;
2. If hit, the AP-Pen value is applied to each hit;
3. Targets in the centre hex may or may not have a higher probability of being hit;
4. Even if a target is hit twice, each hit is evaluated separately rather than as one hit with double the AP-Pen.

On this basis, I changed the AP-Pen to 7, representing the HEAT penetration value of a single bomblet.

4. Every soft target in the 7-hex zone is liable to be hit;
5. The AP-Kill represents the maximum cumulative damage that can be inflicted on targets in a single hex;
6. This AP-Kill value may or may not be adjusted by the system - the centre hex having greater value than the outers.

On this basis, I changed the AP-Kill to 17. The regular HE-Kill value is 21. I reasoned that 72 bomblets spread over 7 hexes should significantly reduce the explosive and flying metal content per hex relative to a 95-lb HE shell, but that (a) the multi-location explosions in a single hex would partially offset that and (b) such occurring in multiple hexes would still result in a far superior product.

I have absolutely no idea how the system would know how to adjust the probability of a hard target hit if the CM bombload were to be redistributed across a differently sized area, but with my limited experience, I can't see how increasing the AP-Pen would be the way to do it (unless of course my presumption 2 is out-to-lunch).

My corresponding values for the MLRS 227-mm M26 are 7 and 55, based on 644 of the same bomblets distributed over 20 hexes, and I limit my MLRS ammo to one round only.

And the bottom line is that my changes work for me, and Mobhack allows me to make them. Thanks.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Sorry John just felt it had to come back again?!? Left you guys something in the TO&E Thread I think you'll find useful to this "never ending" but I suppose sometimes necessary topic. Sort of kind of like did the East Germans use the T-62 tank(?). Got caught in that one to and got "cured" by someone here to look back into a couple of old threads until I found the final answer myself and posted it. Sometimes the answers are right in front of us or at least the road map to get there. I really think the data will surprise you as it did others who've been here much longer then me. I ask only you keep an open mind, understand there are game limitations and that this doesn't necessarily cover some of the newer more deadly types of rounds out there though most are unitary now. Again the first set of answers are right here in the first couple of pages of this thread. Most post refs to back they're discussion points and not to add "decorations" to them.

Regards,
Pat