Rockets damages in case of penetration.

[dimitriov]

Hi ;)

 

I am currently working on a mod which increases the damages made by rockets and bombs on DCS.

 

My question is for foreign or actual soldiers, or, better, tankists.

 

In DCS, you will need 4 S-8KOM anti-tank rockets (400 mm penetration) in the side or in the engine of an heavy tank, (from T-55 to Abrams and Leo-2) to obtain destruction of the vehicle.

 

It is very important to note that the rockets penetrate the armor (Explications below).

 

My mod modifies the damages bonus coefficient in case of successful penetration of the tank. For the S-8 KOM or Hydra anti-tank, it just does this.

 

Currently, in its first version, you will need 2 successful penetrations to destroy a tank.

 

My question is :

 

If an 80mm anti-tank rocket, which carries 865 g of explosives, manages to get inside the tank. Will it kill the crew and disable the tank, or will the damages be limited ?

 

Sounds stupid as question, for me, that's simple : tank is disabled by a way or another. But I'd like expert answers ;)

 

Thank you ! :)

 

Nicolas

Edited February 25, 2016 by dimitriov

[RoflSeal]

Well if it penetrates and hits any ammunition, unprotected fuel tanks and engine its gonna go on fire.

 

An example would the M1A1 "Cojone Eh", which has hit by what is thought to be a 73mm SPG-9 in the rear fuel tanks and was set on fire. The Halon fire extinguisher was set off, but failed to stop the fire.

 

Further attempts of the crew to stop the fire failed and they were forced to abandon the tank.

 

Most of the damage to Cojone eh came however from coalition efforts to destroy it, including other Abrams, Mavericks, Hellfires and Thermite grenades

 

 

DCS damage model is however too simple to model this, but if I modelled that in DCS, I would argue that the Abrams would of been killed in the first shot as from then on it was not combat capable.

Edited February 25, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Enduro14]

Well I can tell you the current iterations of Abrams and t90 none of the rockets will penetrate it's armor. Will it give mobility kills and fire power kills yes but that is all down to shot placement. Considering in Dcs world we do not have the most modern variants with all defensive systems post above is right hit either the old Abrams or the older Russian tanks in the sweet spot and penetration will happen.

Shot placement is key, if you get successful penetration with a heat rocket in the turret the crew inside more than likely will be killed or at least rendered non combat capable. Same goes with hitting Ammo stores then you definitely will score a catastrophic kill.

I look forward to the day this type of modeling is in Dcs I suspect it will improve since it has been mentioned several time the CA module will become much more Simulated.

 

So short answer yes it will kill or disable crew and or tank depending on shot placement.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Enduro14

[RoflSeal]

Well I can tell you the current iterations of Abrams and t90 none of the rockets will penetrate it's armor. Will it give mobility kills and fire power kills yes but that is all down to shot placement. Considering in Dcs world we do not have the most modern variants with all defensive systems post above is right hit either the old Abrams or the older Russian tanks in the sweet spot and penetration will happen.

Shot placement is key, if you get successful penetration with a heat rocket in the turret the crew inside more than likely will be killed or at least rendered non combat capable. Same goes with hitting Ammo stores then you definitely will score a catastrophic kill.

I look forward to the day this type of modeling is in Dcs I suspect it will improve since it has been mentioned several time the CA module will become much more Simulated.

 

So short answer yes it will kill or disable crew and or tank depending on shot placement.

 

Well they will penetrate the Abrams/T-90 if the hit the side/rear/top armor. Only place with composite armor is the front (and side turret of the Abrams), and side ERA (T-90)/armoured skirt (Abrams) placement is designed to protect the crew compartment from the front +- 30 degrees.

 

Side and rear armor on MBTs is thin (40-80mm of steel)

[Enduro14]

This is true but you have to add in the fact modern tanks are not just relying on its armor but also defensive and reactive armor systems to defeat these specific ordinances. Also they have learned many lessons as of late and have adjusted ttp to have said systems in a full wrap config of the tank depending on theatre and threat faced.

They are much more advanced compared to the older generations of systems. The era tanks we have in Dcs I completely agree, but modern ones currently on fields of battle I know are much harder to crack open so to speak. But then we would have to talk about the new anti tank rounds also lol.

Absolutely the ttp that is trained is to never engage front on always the rear, and or settle for a side shot. We never expect to get catostrophic kills but mobile and firepower kills. Well depends on the class of tank and weapon systems available.

If only we could have these things simulated in Dcs world and it would make the battlefield flesh out much greater both in size and tactics.

[NRG-Vampire]

this one looks as an anti-tank mine explosion under the caterpillar-track

 

[Sryan]

 

It is very important to note that the rockets penetrate the armor (Explications below)

 

(...)

 

For the S-8 KOM or Hydra anti-tank, it just does this.

 

(...)

 

If an 80mm anti-tank rocket, which carries 865 g of explosives, manages to get inside the tank. Will it kill the crew and disable the tank, or will the damages be limited ?

 

 

That's not quite how most modern rockets work. It seems to me that you think the rocket penetrates as a whole and then detonate inside. A weapon like that could be described as an Armor Piercing, High explosive weapon. or APHE. Those weapons where commonly used in the era's surrounding world war II. they where fired by other tanks and field guns. Rockets however, employ a different mechanic,called HEAT. High Explosive Anti Tank works by detonating outside the tank. While doing so it propels a copper element to hypervelocity wich penetrates the armor. Both systems are deadly. but the damage caused by HEAT is not omnidirectional. it's a ray with a conical shape around it from fragments and spall.

 

 

 

 

 

HEAT at work. the 2nd explosion is from a secondary charge and not typical for all HEAT weapons

 

[ame]

[/ame]

 

 

 

The only rockets that I know of that employ mechanics like APHE are those that are designed to penetrate HABs ( Hardened Aircraft Bunkers ).

 

have a nice day.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Sryan

[Enduro14]

Big fan of th Carl G, have you seen the New m4 version? little off topic do apologize and great info above thanks!

[RoflSeal]

this one looks as an anti-tank mine explosion under the caterpillar-track

 

Not an anti tank mine, 500lb JDAM.

 

Cojone Eh, after the decision to abandon her, was desided to throw thermite grenades into the ammuntion and crew compartment, another Abrams from the column shot a HEAT round into her turret bustle. Further efforts to destroy Cojone Eh involved 2xHellfire, 1x Maverick and 1x JDAM

 

This is true but you have to add in the fact modern tanks are not just relying on its armor but also defensive and reactive armor systems to defeat these specific ordinances. Also they have learned many lessons as of late and have adjusted ttp to have said systems in a full wrap config of the tank depending on theatre and threat faced.

They are much more advanced compared to the older generations of systems. The era tanks we have in Dcs I completely agree, but modern ones currently on fields of battle I know are much harder to crack open so to speak. But then we would have to talk about the new anti tank rounds also lol.

Absolutely the ttp that is trained is to never engage front on always the rear, and or settle for a side shot. We never expect to get catostrophic kills but mobile and firepower kills. Well depends on the class of tank and weapon systems available.

If only we could have these things simulated in Dcs world and it would make the battlefield flesh out much greater both in size and tactics.

 

 

TUSK II armour package still leaves the roof and engine vulnerable

 

T-90A only has ERA panels on the front 1/3 of the side of the tank, this is designed to protect the crew compartment from 30 degree attack

 

T-14 Armata also clovers only 2/3 of the side with ERA/NERA armor, engine + roof is still vulnerable

 

Active protections systems are likely to get overwhelmed by the onslaught of 64 projectiles coming towards.

 

Tanks are protected from rocket attacks by aircraft by other systems, mainly Manpads, it would suicide to do a low-level rocket attack, as was shown in Ukranian War, where UAF promptly grounded their fleets

Edited February 26, 2016 by RoflSeal

[NeilWillis]

Indeed, the rockets that are effective against armour will use chemical energy to penetrate the armour, and are definitely not kinetic.

 

Armour defeating comes down to one of three methods. Firing a very dense solid shot at very high velocity, which simply punches through due to it's inherent energy. A shaped charge that explodes outside the armour, and sends a stream of hot molten metal through the armour. A soft nosed explosive charge that squashes against the armour before exploding, and producing a shock wave that causes a spall of the inside of the armour to break away and cause lethal damage within the tank.

 

Reactive armour will defeat the last two methods, as will spaced or composite armour. As has been said, there are always areas that are vulnerable, but the percentage chance of finding one of those vulnerable spots is of course lower than just hitting it anywhere. Kinetic rounds are more effective, but composite armour can also defeat that, and reactive armour can reduce the energy enough to make penetration far less likely.

 

Frontally, they're very strong, side armour is also strong, but not invulnerable. They are the places most of the exotic forms of armour are concentrated for obvious reasons. Where they are most weak is underneath, and also areas like the engine decks, top surfaces, and the rear are less protected. A lucky hit from relatively ineffective weapons can devastate a tank, but the odds of achieving such a hit are small. The angle that a round hits is also very important, and is the reason most tanks have armour that is steeply sloped. A kinetic round hitting armour sloped at 45 degrees will either glance off, or if it does penetrate, has effectively twice the thickness of armour plating to pass through.

 

Tanks are much more vulnerable to airborne threats, and also artillery fire than they are to ground fire. The plunging trajectory defeats sloped armour, and also the more vulnerable areas are much more exposed to either method of delivery. Rocket attacks are not the most effective anti-armour weapon, but again, a lucky hit will defeat even the best protected tank, and so will a 30mm GAU-8 hit in the right place, and at the right angle. That's why it is best to attack them from the rear, and from above.

Edited February 26, 2016 by NeilWillis

[Enduro14]

t-14 is rather impressive as no longer are the crew stationed in the turret.

[Hummingbird]

I think atm the Leopard 2 is probably the best protected tank in the world.

 

I remember seeing some Canadian Leopards with what looked like some pretty extensive protection, incl. full 360 deg protection from RPG's.

[RoflSeal]

I think atm the Leopard 2 is probably the best protected tank in the world.

 

I remember seeing some Canadian Leopards with what looked like some pretty extensive protection, incl. full 360 deg protection from RPG's.

 

I don't see what tank fanboyism has to do with S-8 rocket effectiveness.

 

Tying it in with the S-8, Leopard (and M1 Abrams) drivers compartment are very vulnerable to top attack as those areas are only 40mm (50mm on the Abrams), sloped at very high angles, so they are effective from the level attack, Leopard 2 is particularly vulnerable since next to the driver sit 30 or so rounds of 120mm, whilst in the Abrams, the driver has armoured fuel cells to his left and right which are part of the armor.

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by RoflSeal

[NeilWillis]

But of course, the overhanging turret provides a lot of protection to that area, so in effect it isn't quite as vulnerable as you imagine, and it would be a difficult area to hit, particularly if the arrow glacis has been fitted. If the leopard is anything like most other modern tanks, then the 120mm rounds are far less vulnerable than you imagine. And there is a blow out panel which would direct the blast from any exploding ammunition outside the tank, protecting the crew and interior.

 

So it isn't as straightforward as you imagine.

[RoflSeal]

Leopard 2 only has blowout panels on the ammunition stowed in the turret, hull ammunition is completely vulnerable if it is penetrated in that region, considering the blowouts of the Saudi and Iraqi M1s, 120mm ammunition is still vulnerable, of course in those cases it looks spectacular as the blowout panels of the M1 Abrams are working as intended.

 

Leopard 2A5 and later granted does protect that area due to the NERA wedges covering it from above.

Edited February 26, 2016 by RoflSeal

[shagrat]

Leopard 2 only has blowout panels on the ammunition stowed in the turret, hull ammunition is completely vulnerable if it is penetrated in that region, considering the blowouts of the Saudi and Iraqi M1A1s, 120mm ammunition is still vulnerable, of course in those cases it looks spectacular as the blowout panels of the M1 Abrams are working as intended.

You are aware, that the current Leo 2 versions A4 KWS, A5 and beyond have changed some things since 20 years ago???

As well, as it would be interesting to know in which Leopard 2 version you actually were taking a ride?

[RoflSeal]

You are aware, that the current Leo 2 versions A4 KWS, A5 and beyond have changed some things since 20 years ago???

As well, as it would be interesting to know in which Leopard 2 version you actually were taking a ride?

 

And there has been no change in the stowage of the main ammunition since the Leo 2A0.

 

27 rounds unprotected in the hull, left of the driver, 15 rounds, with blast doors in the turret.

 

What has changed is protection, cannon, fire control system.

[shagrat]

Hi ;)

 

I am currently working on a mod which increases the damages made by rockets and bombs on DCS.

 

My question is for foreign or actual soldiers, or, better, tankists.

 

In DCS, you will need 4 S-8KOM anti-tank rockets (400 mm penetration) in the side or in the engine of an heavy tank, (from T-55 to Abrams and Leo-2) to obtain destruction of the vehicle.

 

It is very important to note that the rockets penetrate the armor (Explications below).

 

My mod modifies the damages bonus coefficient in case of successful penetration of the tank. For the S-8 KOM or Hydra anti-tank, it just does this.

 

Currently, in its first version, you will need 2 successful penetrations to destroy a tank.

 

My question is :

 

If an 80mm anti-tank rocket, which carries 865 g of explosives, manages to get inside the tank. Will it kill the crew and disable the tank, or will the damages be limited ?

 

Sounds stupid as question, for me, that's simple : tank is disabled by a way or another. But I'd like expert answers ;)

 

Thank you ! :)

 

Nicolas

So basically, if(!) any AntiTank Missile with a penetrator breaches the armor to the crew compartment, the crew is disabled, one way or the other. If they are button-down (all hatches tight) the pressure induced in the compartment will damage lungs, and ears, plus hot shreds of copper from the penetrator and liquified metal from the armor will shred through the compartment.

Driver may survive if the turret is hit, but the blast at least will disorient him fir quite a while.

If the hull is not sealed and overpressure can escape, still the physical damage from the penetrator remains, plus a severe concussion at least disorienting, incapacitating the crew.

In both cases the tank is combat ineffective, for the remaining fight.

Even a simple bomb or HE rocket blast can easily damage targetting equipment, mirrors for situational awareness etc. making it very difficult to fight effectively, yet this depends on areas struck, angle of the blast etc.

 

Mobility kills could simply mean a damaged track, or hit to the engine compartment, yet the tank can still fight stationary. Yet it is a sitting duck.

[shagrat]

And there has been no change in the stowage of the main ammunition since the Leo 2A0.

 

27 rounds unprotected in the hull, left of the driver, 15 rounds, with blast doors in the turret.

 

What has changed is protection, cannon, fire control system.

Yep, but the protection especially with the A4 KWS took care about the front area... Not that it is invincible, but at least a penetrating hit other than to the engine, turret top or tracks/side of the lower hull is very difficult to achieve.

 

The Leopard 2, M1A2, T-90 and maybe the Challenger are still among the most effective and well protected tanks...

[Hummingbird]

I don't see what tank fanboyism has to do with S-8 rocket effectiveness.

 

I don't see what purpose your comment serves.

 

Tying it in with the S-8, Leopard (and M1 Abrams) drivers compartment are very vulnerable to top attack as those areas are only 40mm (50mm on the Abrams), sloped at very high angles, so they are effective from the level attack, Leopard 2 is particularly vulnerable since next to the driver sit 30 or so rounds of 120mm, whilst in the Abrams, the driver has armoured fuel cells to his left and right which are part of the armor.

 

 

Looking at a 2A4 is not really going to tell you much though as aside from the front & sides a lot of additional amour has also been added to the top & bottom of the Leopard since then, incl. the area around driver comparment:

Edited February 27, 2016 by Hummingbird

[dimitriov]

Still reading your answers, they are very instructive and numerous, thank you very much :) And keep on, more information = better modding ;)

 

For the "865G" of explosive, that's just me who's stupid, as long as I knew already how the S-8 worked. Just a stupid inattention mistake.

 

For the roof attacks... AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I believe you, really. But DCS doesn't ! :p During my tests, I needed more hits on the engine and turret roofs than on the side or the rear part of the Tank.

 

That's completely stupid, but that's like this.

 

To give you an idea of the madness... Using API 30 mm shells from 20 m above the tank... You will need 80-100 shells on the engine's roof to destroy the tank...

 

Same for a T-55_72_80...

 

Well, I would like to know which kind of metal the aeration grid is made of...

 

Ah and for the L-2 era, it is not our business here, we are looking at a 1995 max battlefield remember. The M1 used in DCS is, if I don't make any mistake, the M1A1. I really don't care about the Armata tank, or any last built tank. I just care about the 80-95 tank versions, and how they are supposed to handle a direct penetration in the engine, or in the crew compartment.

Edited February 27, 2016 by dimitriov

[Enduro14]

Wow I hope a new damage system comes out as what you just listed is pretty crazy. Generally most aeration grids are made out of steel.

[ESAc_matador]

 

 

 

 

 

HEAT at work. the 2nd explosion is from a secondary charge and not typical for all HEAT weapons

 

 

 

 

The only rockets that I know of that employ mechanics like APHE are those that are designed to penetrate HABs ( Hardened Aircraft Bunkers ).

 

have a nice day.

 

Actually, this kind of ammo, does not have two charges, there is not any secondary charge. What happen is after the detonation of the charge, the copper cone lead all the explosion energy to one direction creating a jet.

 

In any case, if we consider the tank does not work anymore, because the weapon system does not work, or it cannot move... It would be good to consider 2 impacts instead of 4.