Jump to content

ole1291

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ole1291

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 02/16/1984

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. At this point, we were discussing reality. I brought up figures from SBwiki as they are as good as can get on the internet and some reference was needed for the discussion. The choice of the article was probably not the best for the topic and I can see how it could add some confusion, but the author did touch on the technical aspects of bomblets potential weakness vs tanks. Maybe to answer my own question, the fact the Germans felt it was necessary to up armor the roof of their tanks in the 90s is good indications they assessed the Leo would be unacceptably vulnerable to them. How much it (or ERA protected tanks) is now seems to be an open question.
  2. I didn't know. If you have any links please share, I'd be interested to read about it. That's my feeling too. I used variations of that tactic successfully in single player, but I don't recall it being used much in multiplayer head to head. Didn't know that about the EFP slug defeating ERA, interesting. The analogy with the DPICM might be wrong though: TOW-2B 's two warheads are much bigger, and listed with 300mm RHAe 152mm DPICM bomblet only 52mm Leo 2 hull ammo is of course vulnerable, but isn't the glacis armor signignificantly thicker than the roof top armor? In the case of the bomblet at least, that might be enough.
  3. Thanks for the info. Would you say that is enough to stop or severely deplete a DPICM bomblet EFP? I guess with regards a T-72, if penetration occurs, there is a real chance of the jet igniting the ammo carousel under the turret but would catastrophic damage also be likely for an M1 or Leo2?
  4. I am sure that works, but it seems a little gamey. Doubt it could be replicated in real life. I'm pretty sure an armored formation on a road march could be successfully engaged with an ICM strike, and I think this was done in Ukraine. But I am less sure if that is possible with armored formations once combat deployed in open fields.
  5. I totally understand that. Reason I brought the subject up is I also tend to use SB as... how to put it, an "outcome predictor" (up to a point), a learning tool, with regards to the effects some weapons modelled within the simulation. In this case, I just wanted to check how close to actual reality ICM effects were modelled. Thanks for clearing it up.
  6. Thanks, very interesting. Of note to the particular subject was this paragraph: The Puma turret can be fitted with additional armor to provide protection against medium calibre ammunition, larger fragments of artillery rounds and large artillery bomblets with EFP or shaped charge warhead. Except for a smaller curved section behind the gun (which moves when the gun is elevating), the add-on armor for the roof consists of "Igelpanzerung" (hedgehog armor), which utilizes many rubber-spikes to damage the shaped charge warheads of artillery bomblets. That "Igelpanzerung" was also mentioned on the 'defence and freedom' blog. Looks like designers are indeed looking at ways to mitigate the effects of DPICM.
  7. Maybe but you are choosing one of the few tanks we have in SB whose hull armor is almost as thin as that of a modern IFV, not a very representative sample. Thanks for bringing up STANAG 4569, its a useful reference, and yes, it goes to show that many APC/IFVs listed as "shrapnel proof" are actually far from it.
  8. I agree, simplifications are probably better in this instances, especially if modelling these strikes more accurately would strain the FPS too much. Current hit probability within the kill zone seems to be a good enough approximation. What surprised me in SB was the proportion of vehicles, tanks in particular, that are totally out of action after one hit. I would have expected more damaged tanks relative to destroyed ones. In the linked article, bomblet penetration is listed as 70-100mm. in SB though the RHAe given for DPICM ammunition is 54mm, I don't know which figure is more accurate. 155mm M-185: M483 DPICM 21000 54 273 1970s I understand the roof armour of a tank is not very thick, (perhaps someone can step in here with average thickness for modern western MBTs). My guess is it must be at least around 40-50mm if it is able to stop artillery air burst shrapnel ( STANAG 4569 level 6), perhaps even more in the case of the Leopardo. So the HEAT jet of any bomblet would be pretty depleted (if it penetrates at all), on a tank with segregated ammo storage, total destruction seems unlikely. I had it reversed then, ICM (anti personnel only) rounds being developed first and the 'DP'ICM being added later, thanks for clearing it up. The writer in that blog focuses mostly on high intensity symmetric warfare, I guess it can be argued that even then, an entire arty battalion firing on the same target for a minute would be uncommon, but not impossible. During the war in Donbass, there was a few cases of large Ukrainian large mechanised units being almost completely obliterated in DPICM strikes, I would guess those necessitated those kinds of fires. That actually makes me wonder; in SB its pretty difficult using artillery against moving formations because the player has too many assets to control at the same time but is that also true IRL? I would imagine a dedicated artillery commander could make all the required calculations, all he needs really is the enemy AFVs bearing and aproximate speed. Also, are there any instances in SB where, when provided both ammo types are available (HE and ICM) , it would make sense to select HE? I understand HE is more useful against dug in troops but we don't really have them in SB , except bunkers (is their greater protection actually modelled ?) I agree with you that MLRS are a useful part of combined arms (again proven recently in Ukraine, or the first Gulf war for that matter) despite its logistical problems. I don't think the writer was saying there are useless, just somewhat overrated. I think nobody is asking for the supply train to be modelled, it's just outside the scope of this simulation. In any case thank you for the thorough reply.
  9. This blog: https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2014/04/or-smackdown-on-dpicm.html Makes an interesting argument that that DPICM is overvalued as an anti -vehicle ammunition (or in general too as its mainly rocket delivered which the author argues is an inefficient ammo logistic-wise) and is only really better than conventional ammo when dealing with infantry in the open. I used to think it was the contrary, DPICM being optimized against AFVs with the frag effect thrown in as an afterthought. So what do people here think about the issue? I must admit I was a bit surprised with the lethality of DPICM as modelled in steelbeasts, a very high proportion of hits seem to completely destroy the vehicle as opposed to just damaging it/killing a crew member which I didn't expect given their relative small size. Also, tanks seem to be nearly as vulnerable to them as PCs, but I think I recall reading that DPICM was meant to work against light armor rather than tanks (extra thick roof armour of upgraded leos doesn't seem change things much). Are these false notions (DPICM just as lethal agaisnt entire range of AFVs)? Just being curious.
  10. Ah, I see. I then assume the launchers around the RWS turret are potentially for some soft kill APS or smoke. Thanks for the clarification.
  11. According to Wikipedia the Btr B10 Kurganets has a "scaled down APS" but in steelbeasts it doesn't appear to be modelled (nothing happens when an ATGM is fired on the vehicule). Is that because you think it actually doesn't have one at all? or will it be modelled at a later stage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurganets-25
×
×
  • Create New...