Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HE Artillery vs Armour

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HE Artillery vs Armour

    Recently having started playing Combat Mission: Shock Force again I paid a visit to the Battlefront forums, which usually has some quite interesting and informed stuff from all possible people within the armed forces or the military industry, and this morning was no exception.

    There was a discussion about high-explosive artillery versus armour and the effects of it, and how it is completely misrepresented in CMSF, and I consider it a quite good read.

    There was a nice 4-page report summarizing US research on the subject that was done between 1972 and 1988, as well as effects from Operation Desert Storm, effectively pointing out how the American model to measure artillery effectiveness versus armour was way off, contrary to Soviet research on the subject.

    To briefly sum up the report American war simulation calculations required a direct hit from HE artillery on armour to count it as damaged or destroyed (it was known to be wrong, but no accurate math on it existed, and thus they stuck with it), while in fact Soviet research, and later American live-fire research done to improve the Artillery damage calculations showed vastly different results. It was found out that point-detonating 155mm HE shells could severely damage even main battle tanks from 30m away, and that variable-time fuzes air-bursting had a significant effect. Tracks would get blown apart, antennas, optics and guns damaged or destroyed, and view blocks damaged or completely shattered, and engines knocked out. Against lighter armour like older tanks, APCs or AFVs the shrapnel from HE explosions could penetrate the armour even from far away, wounding or killing the crew.


    The full report can be found here: http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/2002/...PAGES_8_11.pdf
    Last edited by Inkompetent; 11-26-2009, 06:32 AM.




  • #2
    Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

    Originally posted by Inkompetent View Post
    Recently having started playing Combat Mission: Shock Force again I paid a visit to the Battlefront forums, which usually has some quite interesting and informed stuff from all possible people within the armed forces or the military industry, and this morning was no exception.

    There was a discussion about high-explosive artillery versus armour and the effects of it, and how it is completely misrepresented in CMSF, and I consider it a quite good read.

    There was a nice 4-page report summarizing US research on the subject that was done between 1972 and 1988, as well as effects from Operation Desert Storm, effectively pointing out how the American model to measure artillery effectiveness versus armour was way off, contrary to Soviet research on the subject.

    To briefly sum up the report American war simulation calculations required a direct hit from HE artillery on armour to count it as damaged or destroyed (it was known to be wrong, but no accurate math on it existed, and thus they stuck with it), while in fact Soviet research, and later American live-fire research done to improve the Artillery damage calculations showed vastly different results. It was found out that point-detonating 155mm HE shells could severely damage even main battle tanks from 30m away, and that variable-time fuzes air-bursting had a significant effect. Tracks would get blown apart, antennas, optics and guns damaged or destroyed, and view blocks damaged or completely shattered, and engines knocked out. Against lighter armour like older tanks, APCs or AFVs the shrapnel from HE explosions could penetrate the armour even from far away, wounding or killing the crew.


    The full report can be found here: http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/2002/...PAGES_8_11.pdf
    I think this should be reflected in ArmA because right now the artillery doesn't really even phase a piece of armor if it hits 20+ meters away.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

      Originally posted by Dr. Nner View Post
      I think this should be reflected in ArmA because right now the artillery doesn't really even phase a piece of armor if it hits 20+ meters away.
      And thats a shame ,because if it would work you could do nice things with it .

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

        Then again, plenty of explosive ordinance in the ArmA universe is misrepresented. I've survived dozens of tank shells, RPGs, and dumb-bomb strikes by sidestepping. Shockwave, you say? What shockwave?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

          I believe A.C.E2 adds a shockwave to most explosives and tanks while firing rounds.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

            As far as I know ACE2 only includes backblast, and overpressure + discarded sabot parts as physical damage/death as secondary effects from weapons.

            It is hard however to model things accurately. IRL a Bradley or BMP-2 using HE ammunition against a MBT would be VERY dangerous against the tank, for example. Not because they will penetrate, but because they will shoot sensors and optics to ****, leaving the tank with secondary sights and cracked view ports at best.

            There are actually stories of where MBTs have been defeated with small arms fire, like a Sherman during WW2, that was under so much fire by rifles and machine guns that every single view port and sight was destroyed, the antenna shot off, tracks damaged, and it even ended with a jammed cannon and turret ring, leaving the tank completely inoperable and blind, despite not one single round penetrating it.

            Because of the above fact all German tanks for example carried spare antennas, since they were likely to get shot off or damaged, not only by artillery, but also by small arms.


            It would be awesome to model primary and secondary sights, FLIR and daylight optics, view ports, primary and backup antennas and so on for tanks. But on the other hand I want to give them a proper FCS and thermals too, or they'd only get the negative effects without any improved fighting chance.



            Comment


            • #7
              Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

              Originally posted by Sc[ + ]pe View Post
              Then again, plenty of explosive ordinance in the ArmA universe is misrepresented. I've survived dozens of tank shells, RPGs, and dumb-bomb strikes by sidestepping. Shockwave, you say? What shockwave?
              Yeah I already had a thread about this a while ago talking with Dyslecxi or whatever his name is about grenades. Every single video game I have ever played has misrepresented hand grenades. I have thrown and seen M-67 grenades explode in real life and they have a blast/shrapnel that is sure to at least injure you severely from 50m all around.

              The M67 can be thrown about 30 meters by the average soldier. It has a 5.0 second fuse that ignites explosives packed inside a round body. Shrapnel is provided by the grenade casing and produces a casualty radius of 15 meters, with a fatality radius of 5 meters, though some fragments can disperse as far out as 230 meters. Its effectiveness is not just its blast radius, which measures approximately 45 feet (13.7 m) since shrapnel fly much further.
              Sources:
              http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m67.htm
              http://inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa3/m67/index.html
              http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-te...asp?product=98
              [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGiHGFLftp4[/media]

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

                Yeah. Simply put you NEVER want to be exposed when throwing fragmentation (defensive) hand grenades. They'll probably get ya.

                Unfortunately the damage modelling for indirect damage in ArmA2 makes it more or less impossible to get a believable effect on hand grenades, and most likely one would have to script the fragmentation to get it any decent.



                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

                  Originally posted by Inkompetent View Post
                  Yeah. Simply put you NEVER want to be exposed when throwing fragmentation (defensive) hand grenades. They'll probably get ya.

                  Unfortunately the damage modelling for indirect damage in ArmA2 makes it more or less impossible to get a believable effect on hand grenades, and most likely one would have to script the fragmentation to get it any decent.
                  Slightly OOT:
                  Playing ArmA I learned that hand grenades are pretty much useless: they rarely kill and even the wounds are not that serious, unless you find yourself directly over it when it detonates, and are in fact much more dangerous to the user, especially in MOUT areas when you are trying to clear a building. M203s are only slightly better: even though the blast radius is smaller, at relatively close ranges (>100m) you can usually hit someone with it directly, and you can actually aim them; oh, and they don't take up inventory space that you could have used to carry more smoke grenades/mags/rockets/satchels/beer. :D


                  Completely OOT:
                  CM:SF nice game, that ;)
                  sigpic

                  Now with 200% more content!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

                    Speaking of M203s... That gave me an idea. I should probably write a small addon to simulate the arming delay on M203s and GP-25s, to avoid accidents. On the other hand it'll require a new class to be created for inert grenades, so will bug out on Bravo unless people have the addon :(



                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

                      Originally posted by Inkompetent View Post
                      Speaking of M203s... That gave me an idea. I should probably write a small addon to simulate the arming delay on M203s and GP-25s, to avoid accidents. On the other hand it'll require a new class to be created for inert grenades, so will bug out on Bravo unless people have the addon :(
                      Wait, I thought the arming delay was already implemented in the 203: I'm pretty sure I fired at least 3 or 4 grenades that didn't explode because the target was a little too close for them to arm properly.
                      sigpic

                      Now with 200% more content!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

                        As far as I know it isn't. But on the other hand I think it's built into SLX, so if we decide to go with SLX's weapon configs it'll already be there ^^



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

                          Just did a quick test on Utes with the M203: I tried firing the GL at the control tower and the other small building just to the west of it, and there is a fuse delay.
                          I tested the 203 at 50, 30, 25, 21, 20 and 15 meters: the m203 will not explode if fired within 20 meters from the target (I used the Spacebar to see the exact distance), but there is no self-destruction of the fired grenade.

                          Edit:
                          I forgot to mention that for this test I ran ArmA without any mods
                          sigpic

                          Now with 200% more content!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

                            Oh? I was so sure that there wasn't a fuze delay. And 20m sounds about right. It's roughly the avarage of the arming delay for the 40x46mm grenades, afaik.

                            At least it explains why the grenade I fired at Humvee making bumper-marks in my face yesterday didn't explode.


                            Well, maybe I should focus my effort on fragmentation then. Or air-burst. Nasty, btw... The Bradley is designed to be resistant against airburst munitions (armoured covers on top of all sensor equipment) but pretty much nothing else around that we are likely to use is. Wonder how that can be simulated effectively, aside from possibly specificly damaging the engine or gun...



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

                              Originally posted by Merula View Post
                              Slightly OOT:
                              Playing ArmA I learned that hand grenades are pretty much useless: they rarely kill and even the wounds are not that serious, unless you find yourself directly over it when it detonates, and are in fact much more dangerous to the user, especially in MOUT areas when you are trying to clear a building. M203s are only slightly better: even though the blast radius is smaller, at relatively close ranges (>100m) you can usually hit someone with it directly, and you can actually aim them; oh, and they don't take up inventory space that you could have used to carry more smoke grenades/mags/rockets/satchels/beer. :D


                              Completely OOT:
                              CM:SF nice game, that ;)


                              I beg to differ. I've used M203's and hand grenades to excellent effect on ArmA 1 and ArmA 2. I always carry at least one hand grenade as I can't count how many times they've saved my life when clearing courtyards or taking out a group of bad guys coming up on my position.
                              Hand grenades are your friend.

                              Also on the topic of artillery, the artillery is VERY effective on LAV's. I've been unfortunate enough to have been caught in a LAV-25 during an arty barrage hunkering down inside as shells exploded all around me and my crew. When the barrage stopped, my driver tried moving and nothing... I jumped outside to take a look...all the tires blow to shreds. lol
                              So there might be a way to make the treads a bit more vulnerable because I have disabled tanks practicing with RPG's while firing at the tank treads.
                              But really it's something that the ACE2 team should be working on as it would be a great bit of realism to be able to do stuff like blast off a tank tread with a M203 or GP-25. Now whether the crew would bail as quickly as they do, is another matter. But it would disable the tank.
                              "LETS ROLL GROUNDHOGS!!!" -Supreme Bashar Miles Teg (Heretics of Dune)

                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X