Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ole1291

Are ICM ammunition overpowered in SB

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 1/5/2020 at 1:18 PM, ole1291 said:

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?  

 

 

TOW-2B has 2 EFPs, and has been shown to be highly lethal against T-72's. they also have an advantage that ERA is ineffective against them, since they form a copper slug, instead of a thin copper needle. 

for leopard and Abrams, it depends on where it hits. Leopard would be far more likely to go up in flames, but only if the hull ammunition rack is filled. Abrams would at best be put out of action. at worst crewmembers could be killed. 
it would also depend on the version of leo2. newer versions has spall liners on the roof to reduce post-penetration damage likelyhood, and some versions has armour which might make part of the roof impervuous to EFPS. 
 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dejawolf said:

TOW-2B has 2 EFPs, and has been shown to be highly lethal against T-72's. they also have an advantage that they are not affected by ERA, since they form a copper slug, instead of a thin copper needle. 

I must admit I'm surprised by that!  I always thought the two EFPs were used to either find or make a gap in the top ERA and that there was a chance it might not be effective, but I didn't know that ERA wasn't effective against them.  Does this include Kontakt-5 and other such "heavy ERA", or just the light weight stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All HEAT / shaped charge / hollow charge / EFP warheads form both a very fast tip a.k.a. needle and behind it a heavier, slower "slug". Both are solid, not liquid.

The opening angle of the shaped charge cavity determines which projectile is how powerful. At >110° angle the HEAT is called EFP, as the slug becomes the main penetrator. At <110° angle we call it HEAT, as the needle is the main penetrator. The EFP is stable over some distance, thus used for shaped charge warheads meant to explode at metres away from target. These are overflight top attack warheads (TOW-2B, NLAW, BILL 2 etc.), SaDARM/BONUS/SMArt 155, standoff AT mines, M93 WAM, for example.

 

EFP is affected by ERA, though not the same way as HEAT. Especially heavy ERA is almost guaranteed to stop EFP warheads, since those usually have poor penetration (half of less than same diameter HEAT) and HERA has substantial metal plating included.

--------------

 

I have looked up the fate of AT-2 in Germany. The Italian AT-2 have been destroyed. I have not found conclusive evidence about the fate of the German AT-2, though there was official statement about Nutzungsverzicht (non-use). That could mean both that they were considered compliant with Ottawa Treaty and destroyed or that they were considered compliant but kept in storage, but never used in practice.

 

I remember by memory that the AT-2 was considered unacceptable becuase its fuze and its demining trap effectively gave it anti-personnel lethality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2020 at 8:25 PM, stormrider_sp said:

That has been done in Desert Storm.

I didn't know. If you have any links please share, I'd be interested to read about it.

 

23 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

Yes, in SB it works well in German terrain where you have the enemy coming up valleys under AI/programmed command. It would obviously work less well in open terrain against a reasonably sentient human opponent.

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.

 

23 hours ago, dejawolf said:

TOW-2B has 2 EFPs, and has been shown to be highly lethal against T-72's. they also have an advantage that they are not affected by ERA, since they form a copper slug, instead of a thin copper needle. 

for leopard and Abrams, it depends on where it hits. Leopard would be far more likely to go up in flames, but only if the hull ammunition rack is filled. Abrams would at best be put out of action. at worst crewmembers could be killed. 
it would also depend on the version of leo2. newer versions has spall liners on the roof to reduce post-penetration damage likelyhood, and some versions has armour which might make part of the roof impervuous to EFPS. 
 

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.  

 

 

23 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, what are we discussing here - real life, or the model in Steel Beasts. Also, the original opinion piece in the blog seemed to reflect primarily on the logistical tail of a rocket artillery strike as the main reason why it might not be as attractive to use as some proponents make it to be, particularly if juxtaposing DPICM and conventional HE-frag. In any case, at this point Steel Beasts does not model the finer points between EFPs and HEAT jets, or the detailed effects of each individual bomblet, as already mentioned. This could be something we might be doing in a future version of SB Pro, provided that the associated CPU costs are acceptable, but until then a continuation of this thread makes only sense if the discussion is limited to reality, not the way how it's modelled in Steel Beasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The question is, what are we discussing here - real life, or the model in Steel Beasts. Also, the original opinion piece in the blog seemed to reflect primarily on the logistical tail of a rocket artillery strike as the main reason why it might not be as attractive to use as some proponents make it to be, particularly if juxtaposing DPICM and conventional HE-frag. In any case, at this point Steel Beasts does not model the finer points between EFPs and HEAT jets, or the detailed effects of each individual bomblet, as already mentioned. This could be something we might be doing in a future version of SB Pro, provided that the associated CPU costs are acceptable, but until then a continuation of this thread makes only sense if the discussion is limited to reality, not the way how it's modelled in Steel Beasts.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw this into the mix, I'm curious what everyone thinks of this recent NY Times story which also questions the reported reliability and effectiveness of DPICM, based on its performance during Desert Storm: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/magazine/steel-rain-army-artillery.html

 

From the article:

Quote

In many cases, they failed to work as advertised. They were supposed to be able to destroy Soviet armored vehicles, with small armor-piercing warheads. But the attack on the First Armored Unit shows that the DPICMs not only failed to destroy Bradley Fighting Vehicles; they also failed to destroy the troop’s unarmored Chevrolet S.U.V.s — even those that took more than one direct hit.

 

Also noted is the significant tendency for the dud munitions to explode later, injuring friendlies or civilians.

(just bought SB this week and really enjoying it btw!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dud rate is certainly something that has been bothering me since we implemented ICM, but like so many other issues it never received top priority. Likewise I would love to build an ICM model from first order principles but again, this would be computationally prohibitive - and frankly, again we have a prioritization conflict since I know what else needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for a fact that the author of the NYTimes piece spent a lot of time researching for the article, and I've noticed he's engaged with some artillery circles.  That said;  he devotes an awful lot of time and words to debunking myth (specifically that Iraqis surrendered en masse because of DPICM thus bestowing the title steel rain rather than the myriad of reasons that preceded the ground war) that no serious artilleryman considers fact, or even considers at all beyond tongue in cheek instances of expressing espirit de corps.

Secondly he unilaterally declares DPICM ineffective, stating "In many cases, they failed to work as advertised. They were supposed to be able to destroy Soviet armored vehicles, with small armor-piercing warheads. But the attack on the First Armored Unit shows that the DPICMs not only failed to destroy Bradley Fighting Vehicles; they also failed to destroy the troop’s unarmored Chevrolet S.U.V.s — even those that took more than one direct hit." 

Referring to this incident mentioned earlier in the article: "That document also misattributed a mass-fratricide bomblet attack on a unit of the First Armored Division to enemy fire. It correctly states that one American cavalry troop suffered at least 23 wounded when howitzers fired cluster shells at them; however, in a 2017 interview with The Times, the squadron operations officer at the time, Mark Hertling, now a retired lieutenant general, says he believes it was friendly fire that wounded his soldiers. Hertling himself was awarded a Purple Heart for shrapnel wounds he suffered in that incident."

This is how the incident was described at the time:
hertling.png.9e45acf6cd2549a822d9349dce01330e.png

Now assuming General Hertling's recently re-imagined version, where the enemy fire that earned him his purple heart was actually *friendly fire* and his recollection at the time of 100 bomblets is correct-- that would mean maybe 2 rounds of 155mm DPICM yet sustained 23 casualties, five destroyed trucks, a damaged Bradley, and two damaged command vehicles.  This is the only incident the author was willing to cite, in support of his DPICM is ineffective thesis, and it remains unknown whether the incident was indeed friendly fire. 

His second piece of evidence is to cite a theoretical dud rate, which is rather meaningless as a function of ineffectiveness.  Massive amounts of additional risk, yes, critical effect on plans, yes.

Last two points-- the article is remarkably devoid of any serious technical detail.  There are no discussions about the relationship between armor, probabilities of hits, purpose in achieving hits, critical surface area, weight of fire, desire to overcome and spread the traditional overkill of HE.  No explanation of the technical reasons to favor DPICM over another munition.  Was incredibly let down by the article, which should have been an opportunity to educate the public on the weapons its military chooses to use and why.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

..., again we have a prioritization conflict since I know what else needs to be done.

Finally, you realized that mounting the ATGMs on the Marder is THE  thing needed!

😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Breakthrough7 said:

This is how the incident was described at the time:
hertling.png.9e45acf6cd2549a822d9349dce01330e.png

Now assuming General Hertling's recently re-imagined version, where the enemy fire that earned him his purple heart was actually *friendly fire* and his recollection at the time of 100 bomblets is correct-- that would mean maybe 2 rounds of 155mm DPICM yet sustained 23 casualties, five destroyed trucks, a damaged Bradley, and two damaged command vehicles.  This is the only incident the author was willing to cite, in support of his DPICM is ineffective thesis, and it remains unknown whether the incident was indeed friendly fire. 

His second piece of evidence is to cite a theoretical dud rate, which is rather meaningless as a function of ineffectiveness.  Massive amounts of additional risk, yes, critical effect on plans, yes.

Last two points-- the article is remarkably devoid of any serious technical detail.  There are no discussions about the relationship between armor, probabilities of hits, purpose in achieving hits, critical surface area, weight of fire, desire to overcome and spread the traditional overkill of HE.  No explanation of the technical reasons to favor DPICM over another munition.  Was incredibly let down by the article, which should have been an opportunity to educate the public on the weapons its military chooses to use and why.  

 

What publication is that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stormrider_sp  That excerpt is from page 271 of 'CERTAIN VICTORY: The U.S. Army in the Gulf War' By General Robert Scales.  You can find a downloadable PDF here:  https://web.archive.org/web/20170215223727/http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/certainvictory.pdf

There's a lot in the book that's relevant to the questions you brought up in the fire support thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the readily available references I would recommend reading to all interested in the effects of ICM (DP&AP);
3rd Infantry Division AAR (OIF1) https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/3id-aar-jul03.pdf

ICM: Bridging the Capability Gap: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1038759.pdf

Operation Iraqi Freedom: Decisive War, Elusive Peace: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1214/RAND_RR1214.pdf

US Marines in Iraq 2003: Anthology and Annotated Bibliography:  https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Anthology and Bib.pdf

Between those 4 reports, there are numerous battle damage assessments and AARs like these:
dpicm001a.png.27f3508a972f1dd8e6fb04a98a97d878.png 
------------------------------------------------------------
dpicm001b.png.dcf029a4ac48e94cb23aa7856410851a.png

There's no shortage of reasons to decline the use of ICM, and really there needs to be widespread implementation of purpose built anti-armor rounds, picking up where the incredibly effective SADARM left off.  However, in OIF 1, DPICM target engagement criteria was heavily restricted, and as a result clever FDCs chose to take advantage of improvements in FISTs ability to provide accurate grids, and successfully engaged armor with HE, converged sheaf over traditional sheafs that would have compensated for poor TLE by spreading the love, but potentially reduce the exposure or probability of direct hits on hard material targets like tanks (hence why DPICM would normally have been preferred).  It was in my opinion totally unreasonable for the author of the NYTimes DPICM piece to cite as evidence of DPICMs ineffectiveness, the decision to not use DPICM in the Balkans during the 90s, while ignoring the numerous successful uses in Iraq 2003.

Edited by Breakthrough7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Breakthrough7 said:

@stormrider_sp  That excerpt is from page 271 of 'CERTAIN VICTORY: The U.S. Army in the Gulf War' By General Robert Scales.  You can find a downloadable PDF here:  https://web.archive.org/web/20170215223727/http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/certainvictory.pdf

There's a lot in the book that's relevant to the questions you brought up in the fire support thread.  

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2020 at 4:15 PM, JSF said:

All HEAT / shaped charge / hollow charge / EFP warheads form both a very fast tip a.k.a. needle and behind it a heavier, slower "slug". Both are solid, not liquid.

The opening angle of the shaped charge cavity determines which projectile is how powerful. At >110° angle the HEAT is called EFP, as the slug becomes the main penetrator. At <110° angle we call it HEAT, as the needle is the main penetrator. The EFP is stable over some distance, thus used for shaped charge warheads meant to explode at metres away from target. These are overflight top attack warheads (TOW-2B, NLAW, BILL 2 etc.), SaDARM/BONUS/SMArt 155, standoff AT mines, M93 WAM, for example.

 

EFP is affected by ERA, though not the same way as HEAT. Especially heavy ERA is almost guaranteed to stop EFP warheads, since those usually have poor penetration (half of less than same diameter HEAT) and HERA has substantial metal plating included.

--------------

 

I have looked up the fate of AT-2 in Germany. The Italian AT-2 have been destroyed. I have not found conclusive evidence about the fate of the German AT-2, though there was official statement about Nutzungsverzicht (non-use). That could mean both that they were considered compliant with Ottawa Treaty and destroyed or that they were considered compliant but kept in storage, but never used in practice.

 

I remember by memory that the AT-2 was considered unacceptable becuase its fuze and its demining trap effectively gave it anti-personnel lethality.

 

 

All ERA is most effective when sloped. the heavier the slope, the more effective it is, since it gives the ERA more time to affect the penetrator, and also induces a twisting and shearing motion on the penetrator. 

however attacking from the top, the protection of the ERA is reduced to a negligible amount, since the ERA bricks on the T-72 roof is angled to defeat incoming threats from the front, and offer close to no protection from the top. 

another important factor is that ERA reduces the penetration power by a percentage of the penetrators original penetration. 

as for modern heavy ERA, it is even effective against APFSDS penetrators. however, it too has reduced protection against top-attack slugs, due to the near perpendicular angle they are struck at. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...