CBU-97 overpowered?

[p1t1o]

I've been away from DCS for a few years, and now the CBU-97 seems very OP to me.

 

It used to be that a '97 would struggle to kill heavy tanks, just damaging them. T-55s would be killed and T72s a mix of kills and damage, but T-80s and newer would be far more resistant.

 

This is inline with realistic performance, as far as I am aware. The individual "skeets" are powerful, and top armour on a tank is at its thinnest, but they shouldnt be killing modern tanks with such immense efficiency. These are self-forging projectiles, not shaped charges, SFPs are less penetrating and many modern tanks are designed with top-attack in mind, ERA blocks are often found on turret rooves (the BLU-108 skeet does not have a tandem warhead). With an estimated penetration capability of 100-300mm RHA (thats my estimate based on warhead size and construction, an official figure could not be found) and with modern armours and ERAs being significantly more resistant than RHA, it seems that the newer tanks in DCS should be, not invincible, but somewhat survivable.

 

Now, I can nuke massed formations of T-90s no problem, with a single weapon.

 

Is there even a limit to the number of vehicles that can be destroyed with a single weapon? In my test, one nuked nearly 32 vehicles including 6 T-90s and 6 T-80's. I know that a '97 contains 40 submunitions, thats a high hit rate, I'll do a further test if I can.

 

****

 

And why did they take away the lovely animation of the submunitions deploying?

 

I take it they removed the animations to reduce lag. But the CBU-97 is a fascinating and sophisticated weapon, and the animation used to do a really good job of showing that, now we have a disappearing bomb, an arbitrary delay, followed by magically exploding heavy tanks.

 

Poor show!

 

****

 

Anyone agree? Anyone have any better data on penetration capability?

 

Please ED, show the '97 a little bit of love? At least re-instate the animations for singleplayer?

[razo+r]

Submunitions are still visible and deploying is still animated and visible too, the animations and models were never gone

[Nooch]

It's not overpowered, it has the same effectiveness in real life.

[Rex854Warrior]

The CBU-97 might not destroy the tank, but it will surely disable it, killing most of the crew, destroying the engine, the autoloading system for some tanks, potentially blowing up some ammo (assured kill when the tank has an autoloader),.... Since none of that is modeled in DCS, destroying the tank is the easiest option. There is a bunch of different ERA and RA blocks (some not effective against kinetic projectiles), this would have to become a tank simulator if you wanted the CBU to have the correct effect.

Not all tanks are protected from top attacks too, in fact only some russian tanks (T-72, T-80 (not all the time for these two) and T-90) have some protection on the turrets roof. It's a matter of doctrine.

 

And for the animation, you're going to need to be more precise, do you mean when the bomb releases the submunitions, the animations after that or the animations in general ?

Edited April 11, 2017 by Rex854Warrior

[p1t1o]

It's not overpowered, it has the same effectiveness in real life.

 

This is a hardcore sim, Im going to need more than that - Are there any figures to support the claim? Or real-life reports? I could find precious little in terms of its capability apart from warhead details.

 

Submunitions are still visible and deploying is still animated and visible too, the animations and models were never gone

 

Is that so? If thats true Im a blind fool, I'll look again.

 

Im positive I was reading something about cluster animation removal to reduce lag...

[cichlidfan]

@p1t1o

 

If you don't have any data other than your own 'estimation' how can you claim that ED has it wrong.

[p1t1o]

I am referring to the animation of the submunition deployment, descent, rocket ascent and skeet deployment.

 

That a skeet could do all that to a tank, even a T-72 (although I am referring more to the newer tanks) is very optimistic.

 

The skeets are very smart but their warhead is not the biggest in the world. And explosively formed projectiles have good distance capability but their penetration is much less than an equivalent-sized shaped charge.

 

I am looking for a known example of what a CBU-97 has killed, or a capability in terms of mm of RHA penetration. I think a decent estimate of the capbility is 100-300mm RHA. Since mm RHA equivalents for tanks roof armors are hard to come by as well, it is difficult, but with turret face and side armours approaching exceeding 650mm without ERA blocks, penetration of the roof of a modern MBT is not a given.

 

There should be a %'age chance of an outright kill, not blanket coverage.

[p1t1o]

@p1t1o

 

If you don't have any data other than your own 'estimation' how can you claim that ED has it wrong.

 

Steady on, Im just trying to figure out what is right. That logic is weak without knowing what ED have based it on. Being wrong would not even be a mark against ED, since accurate data in these things is hard to come by, but you can have a meaningful discussion and good estimates can be made.

 

Im not even certain that they *are* wrong.

 

As far as I recall, the effectiveness used to be much more nuanced, not just "nuke everything in the area of effect."

[Rex854Warrior]

I am referring to the animation of the submunition deployment, descent, rocket ascent and skeet deployment.

 

That a skeet could do all that to a tank, even a T-72 (although I am referring more to the newer tanks) is very optimistic.

 

The skeets are very smart but their warhead is not the biggest in the world. And explosively formed projectiles have good distance capability but their penetration is much less than an equivalent-sized shaped charge.

 

I am looking for a known example of what a CBU-97 has killed, or a capability in terms of mm of RHA penetration. I think a decent estimate of the capbility is 100-300mm RHA. Since mm RHA equivalents for tanks roof armors are hard to come by as well, it is difficult, but with turret face and side armours approaching exceeding 650mm without ERA blocks, penetration of the roof of a modern MBT is not a given.

 

There should be a %'age chance of an outright kill, not blanket coverage.

 

Do all of that to a T-72 ? Well a skeet going trought the engine bloc for example will destroy the engine, that's not optimistic at all and that works with every single tank. The skeets will go most of the time for the engine, disabling the tank (as i said in my last reply, none of this is simulated so destroying the tank is the easiest option)

 

And you're speaking about penetration values. This is not a tank simulator, all units have hitpoints. You want something realistic but the problem is that the whole ground part of the game isn't. The only solution would be to have a random % of a kill or not when the skeet hits and that would be overall less accurate then what we have now.

 

For the animation only the deployement of the submunitions isn't animated (well not the greatest animation) all the rest is there.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Rex854Warrior

[razo+r]

Do all of that to a T-72 ? Well a skeet going trought the engine bloc for example will destroy the engine, that's not optimistic at all and that works with every single tank. The skeets will go most of the time for the engine, disabling the tank (as i said in my last reply, none of this is simulated so destroying the tank is the easiest option)

 

And you're speaking about penetration values,... This is not a tank simulator, all units have hitpoints. You want something realistic but the problem is that the whole ground part of the game isn't. The only solution would be to have a random % of a kill or not when the skeet hits and that would be overall less accurate then what we have now.

 

new damage model is WIP and soon coming...

[Rex854Warrior]

new damage model is WIP and soon coming...

 

Well in that case we will have to see what the CBU does after the new damage model goes out. When did they announce that tought ?

[razo+r]

Well in that case we will have to see what the CBU does after the new damage model goes out. When did they announce that tought ?

 

idk, after new year somewhen, can't remember sorry

 

maybe you'll see it in the newsletter

[p1t1o]

Do all of that to a T-72 ? <snippity-snip>

 

Thats all well and good, *if* you get through the armour. And again, more modern tanks are tougher generally and more top-attack aware. Point taken about the software model though.

 

 

new damage model is WIP and soon coming...

 

Thats good news, I'll wait out. Im sure they are operating off the best information they have with the software model.

 

Anyone know if destructiveness has been changed in the past? I swear they used to be less of a "silver bullet".

[Rex854Warrior]

Thats all well and good, *if* you get through the armour. And again, more modern tanks are tougher generally and more top-attack aware. Point taken about the software model though.

 

I haven't seen a single tank with ERA on the engine deck, and nor are they thickly armored, that's a fact.

[p1t1o]

I haven't seen a single tank with ERA on the engine deck, and nor are they thickly armored, that's a fact.

 

Can you tell me where you get your figures because I had a hard time finding any, I'd be very interested?

[Rex854Warrior]

Can you tell me where you get your figures because I had a hard time finding any, I'd be very interested?

 

There is no exact data, but i have seen an engine bay of a modern tanks (M1 Abrams). And i'de say i was roughly 10 cms ish on the top. and that's pretty thick already.

 

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1_Saudi_Refurbishment_AAD_USAR_lg.jpg

 

You can see the engine being worked on, the engine cover is the tickest and what's under the turrest (when it's facing forward is quite thin (5 to 10 cms)

Edited April 11, 2017 by Rex854Warrior

[ShalashakaDS]

new damage model is WIP and soon coming...

 

 

Im sorry to go off topic, but could you tell me where you read about a revamp of the damage model for AI ground units? I dont remember seeing it in any newsletter, just curious btw :P

[razo+r]

Im sorry to go off topic, but could you tell me where you read about a revamp of the damage model for AI ground units? I dont remember seeing it in any newsletter, just curious btw :P

 

As i said, i don't know where it was stated, but there's a new damage model/system coming up for both air and ground objects...

[ShalashakaDS]

I remember when the spitfire was about to be released they said they where developing a new, more detailed component based damage model for aircraft, but i dont remember anything about remaking the damage models for the ground units as well.

Edited April 11, 2017 by ShalashakaDS

[Fri13]

a 40kg (6kg TNT) 155mm shell is already deadly to MBT from 30m distance by fragments... what is then a 4kg with 1kg shaped charge with top attack?

[p1t1o]

I did a couple of tests last night.

 

I arrayed 100 T-90s in a 10x10 grid, forming an approx 1200ftx1200ft square.

 

Dropped a '97 right in the middle.

 

Performed this 3 times.

 

Results were 4, 4 and 5 tanks killed.

 

***

 

I first brought this up because in a practice mission, I dropped a '97 on a similar grid of vehicles, 32 in total - 6 T-90, 6 T-80, 6 T-72, 6 T-55, 4 BMP, 4 BTR80.

 

In that test a single weapon destroyed 30 out of the 32 vehicles.

 

I was fearing that if I dropped a '97 into the 10x10 grid of T-90s that it would end up nuking just a ridiculous number of heavy, modern tanks.

 

So how the damage is meted out I have no idea, but at least it is not the "silver bullet" that I was fearing.

 

a 40kg (6kg TNT) 155mm shell is already deadly to MBT from 30m distance by fragments... what is then a 4kg with 1kg shaped charge with top attack?

 

I've heard this sort of claim many times. But I have also heard the counter-claim many times. Depending on who you talk to, tanks are either nigh-invulnerable or basically made of paper. Both cannot be true, and a middle-ground is far more likely, ie: what bearing did the shell burst from the tank? What tank was it? How many times does a shell like this successfully kill a tank under these conditions? etc etc etc.

 

Im sure its not exactly safe hanging around near exploding arty, but fragmentss @30m from a 4kg charge surely cannot be more deadly than a dedicated anti-tank weapon detonating in contact with the armour, and since some of those are useless verses certain tanks, types of armour, under certain conditions etc.

 

Not all tanks are alike. Not all weapon strikes are alike.

 

So whilst I will add your statement to "arty is more deadly to tanks than one would at first think", I still prefer to seek out figures such as armour quality and penetration capabilities.

 

PS: the BLU-108 is not a shaped charge, ok it is, but it is not a HEAT warhead, it is a self-forging projectile, which has inferior penetration qualities compared to HEAT. Its advantages are a much longer effective standoff range.

 

 

There is no exact data, but i have seen an engine bay of a modern tanks (M1 Abrams). And i'de say i was roughly 10 cms ish on the top. and that's pretty thick already.

 

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1_Saudi_Refurbishment_AAD_USAR_lg.jpg

 

You can see the engine being worked on, the engine cover is the tickest and what's under the turrest (when it's facing forward is quite thin (5 to 10 cms)

 

Thats really interesting, thanks.

It should be noted that 10cm (100mm) of modern tank armour, depending on its composition, represents an RHA (rolled homogenous armour - the standard for measuring armour penetration/resistance) equivalent of significantly more than the thickness displayed, ie: >100mm.

Edited April 12, 2017 by p1t1o

[Rex854Warrior]

Thats really interesting, thanks.

It should be noted that 10cm (100mm) of modern tank armour, depending on its composition, represents an RHA (rolled homogenous armour - the standard for measuring armour penetration/resistance) equivalent of significantly more than the thickness displayed, ie: >100mm.

 

Yes indeed, still since the efficiency is exponential (specialy against HEAT, less against Kinetic penetrators) i would say the SFP, perpendicular to the armor, would go throught. And i think that would also be the case for the turret roof.

It's probably worse on a T-90, the engine is protected by a trapdoor :

 

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y297/timroberts8/13263.jpg

 

And the transmission is under the radiators, possibly a little bit of armor but i doubt it.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Rex854Warrior