Is CM Artillery too destructive?

[rob89]

AT indirect (artillery) fire

I know that this matter has been discussed yet, in this and other threads and so I hope not to bore you; I've read your opinions about that matter, but, analysing the database (v.6.0) I found - IMHO - some incoherent records.

Let's start, as a benchmark, from the AP/HEAT penetration of a 120mm shell.

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)

Now let's go to the MLR class, with CM : MLRS, BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch. Somebody in the thread said that they have an effect, on tanks, similar to that of the 152/155mm cluster munitions. But, in the database, noone of the above mentioned MLRs have an AP Pen : value = zero; so :

a) they are considered as having only HE bomblets (DPICM, like the M77/M85)

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.

On the other side, there is the issue related to the 152/155mm class CM.

All of them (M109, MSTA, PzH2000, towed variants, etc.) have been granted with a 60 AP pen capability ! I.e., they have sub-muni with the same pen-capability of a whole 120mm HEAT shell.

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.

Note :

d) the standard DPICMs of the standard 152/155mm CM shells (like the M42/M46) are small bomblets like the ones in the MLR rockets - or smaller - with the AP pen value of a 40mm grenade (so in terms of game data, about 5-7, not 60!)

e) only Sadarm like (or the CBU-97 SFW) 'skeet' submunitions could have such a pen value; but they are exceptions (and they had limited production), and not the rule. Moreover, the Sadarm like munitions were deployed in the mid '90, but in the database the "60-AP-pen" is available from mid '80 (M284 & 2A65 with AP
rounds, for ex.).

f) the game engine manages these 152/155mm AT sub-muni rounds as :

- AP for the western gun-mortars like AMOS : AP Pen value = 21; HEAT value = 0

- AP for the US/Western guns : AP Pen value = 60; HEAT value = 0
- HEAT for the RUS gun-mortars like Nona : AP Pen value = 25; HEAT value = 60 (???)

- HEAT for the RUS guns : AP Pen value = 60; HEAT value = 60.

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.

Indeed, I tested 155mm CM vs T-90A and I had a kill/hit ratio of about 90%, but always without any reaction from ERA (and no message like in the ATGM/AGM cases). On the other side, Merkava 4 have good chances (with their ERAs, that generally defeat the sub-munis) vs MSTA+ CM, due to the HEAT value if the russian shells.

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.

thank you in advance for the attention and for any explanation

regards

PS 1 : will it be possible, in the future, to model NLOS missiles (like NLOS Spike) ?

PS 2 : please note that the PzH2000 in the german and in the italian OOB are different, and the german one has a wrong range.

[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.

[AMX]

Originally Posted by rob89

Now let's go to the MLR class, with CM : MLRS, BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch. Somebody in the thread said that they have an effect, on tanks, similar to that of the 152/155mm cluster munitions. But, in the database, noone of the above mentioned MLRs have an AP Pen : value = zero; so :

These two MRLs use separate weapons for cluster warheads, with weapon class 14 ("Cluster Bomb" - they treat "HE" ammo as bomblets).

Please make sure you didn't test the "standard" version (with class 3 weapon - has normal HE) instead of the "CM" version (with class 14 weapon - "HE" is really cluster, and has higher HE Pen value)

edit: just dropped a bunch of BM-30 on a clump of Abrams, and a bunch of BM-30 CM on another bunch of Abrams - the unitary rockets destroyed some tanks, while the bomblets only immobilised them.
Interesting...

[rob89]

Originally Posted by AMX

These two MRLs use separate weapons for cluster warheads, with weapon class 14 ("Cluster Bomb" - they treat "HE" ammo as bomblets).

Please make sure you didn't test the "standard" version (with class 3 weapon - has normal HE) instead of the "CM" version (with class 14 weapon - "HE" is really cluster, and has higher HE Pen value)

edit: just dropped a bunch of BM-30 on a clump of Abrams, and a bunch of BM-30 CM on another bunch of Abrams - the unitary rockets destroyed some tanks, while the bomblets only immobilised them.
Interesting...

I checked and tested both 227mm M26CM, M26A1CM, M30CM (slots 293,206,214) and the russian 220mm CM, 300mm 9M531CM (slots 106 & 102) and all have no AP pen value (=0), nor HEAT, so the bomblets are not able to penetrate armor, only to damage or immobilise (and/or to harass).

regards

[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.

[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.