AGM65G Vs Ships

[Fonz_408]

hey guys I'm just wondering about Ships damage model?

 

So I made a mission to Strike the ship in the pic, and well it took 3x Mav-G's and still did not go down in the end I dropped a MK83 on his head using DLY1 setting.. oh and ill add, I set the Mav's to DLY2 as I don't know a lot about killing ships but I know its best to set a Delay on any fuse so it pens the Hull and then Detonates inside doing MAX Damage.. is this even modelled in DCS ship models ? oh and I've used the Mav-G's Vs Oil takers and it only takes 2 vs them using the DLY2 setting.. 3 + a Mk83 seems a little over the top for a little ship... thoughts ?

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=199100&stc=1&d=1543748459

[Deano87]

Afaik the damage model for most ships is nothing more complex then a total number of hitpoints which you have to chip away at. Not sure things like delay settings have any effect currently. They are rolling out a subsystem penetration based damage model to all objects in DCS but that’s only just started with some of the WW2 aircraft and will be quite a while before things like ships are done.

[Fonz_408]

Afaik the damage model for most ships is nothing more complex then a total number of hitpoints which you have to chip away at. Not sure things like delay settings have any effect currently. They are rolling out a subsystem penetration based damage model to all objects in DCS but that’s only just started with some of the WW2 aircraft and will be quite a while before things like ships are done.

 

Dam still you would think the Big tankers have more hit points then a little ship right LOL.. I mean everything I hit with the Mav's just Implodes.

[Deano87]

Dam still you would think the Big tankers have more hit points then a little ship right LOL.. I mean everything I hit with the Mav's just Implodes.

 

A big oil tanker for instance would respond very badly to a single Maverick. The size of the ship is irrelivent it’s more about how armour plated it is. A warship of any kind will always be a lot harder to take out then a Un-armoured floating bomb like a tanker.

[QuiGon]

A big oil tanker for instance would respond very badly to a single Maverick. The size of the ship is irrelivent it’s more about how armour plated it is. A warship of any kind will always be a lot harder to take out then a Un-armoured floating bomb like a tanker.

Modern tankers are actually much better armored than warships, as you can see in the two US navy crashes on the Pacific last year and the norwegian navy crash weeks ago. The tankers where just scratched, but the warships were heavily damaged. This is because there are very strict rules on how sturdy modern tankers have to be, because if they sink (or just leak) it will be an environmental catastrophe.

[Deano87]

Well pretty much all tankers are now double hulled which makes them quite resistant to ship-ship impacts, but in order to save weight the thickness of each of those hulls is usually thinner than than what it would be for a single hulled tanker. I still wouldn’t call it armoured. I’d be seriously surprised if a Maverick hitting the side of an oil tanker couldn’t punch through both of those hulls into the cargo tanks. Certainly it would at least cause pressure waves that a tanker wouldn’t be designed to cope with.

 

 

Most double hull designs have the biggest distance between the hulls below the water line to protect from submerged impacts like shown above, above the water line the two hulls are relatively close.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Deano87

[Fonz_408]

Still boys, i think just one Mav should be enough to take out that little FF in the pic.

[shagrat]

Still boys, i think just one Mav should be enough to take out that little FF in the pic.

Unlikely... It can destroy a tank, or incapacitate a ship (hitting the bridge or other critical parts), but is not enough boom to destroy it or sink it, unless you are very, very lucky to hit under the waterline and penetrate to the internals.

[Sandman1330]

Also, don’t discount the damage control aspect of a warship vs a civilian vessel.

 

Warships are all made of watertight compartments with crews trained in firefighting and flood control. All of this helps to keep damage localized and save the ship. Civilian vessels do not go out expecting to take battle damage, and are therefore not designed around this principle.

[ExNusquam]

A big oil tanker for instance would respond very badly to a single Maverick. The size of the ship is irrelivent it’s more about how armour plated it is. A warship of any kind will always be a lot harder to take out then a Un-armoured floating bomb like a tanker.

That's really not accurate at all, unless you're talking about something like a LNG tanker. Tonnage correlates with survivability, and modern merchant vessels can be orders of magnitude larger than typical warships.

 

Large modern merchant ships and tankers are easier to hit but harder to sink than modern small combatants or merchant ships of the size attacked in the two world wars.

An unclassified assessment, entitled "Cruise Missile Warfare," appeared in the Naval Institute Proceedings in October 1985 (pp.97-101). The results are based on a relationship proposed by the Brookings Institution, which asserts that the number of hits required to put a ship out of action can be related to the length of the ship. Beall's conclusion is that vulnerability is proportional to the cube root of displacement. Since displacement is roughly proportional to the three dimensions of length, beam and draft, the cube root reduces to one dimension.

 

That chapter of Fleet Tactics also includes several charts/tables comparing displacement vs hits to put a ship out-of-action or sink. In most cases, there has not been an appreciable decrease in number of hits required to put a ship OOA in studies done after WWII, despite the reduction of armor. While Hughes argues that improvements in armor could make warships more survivable, in general cost vs. maneuverability/speed win out.

 

Results of missile hits differ with the size of the vessel hit. Among smaller freighters/tankers of 13,000 to 30,000 tons displacement, a split of 20% sinking, 60% major damage, and 20% minor damage was produced. Of large tankers 70,000 to 300,000 tons displacement, 60% of the ships were heavily damaged, and 40% saw minor damage. All incidents here are classified as defenseless targets, since the only defense these tankers had against ASCM attacks was size.

This paper by Schulte should be required reading before people talk about ASM effectiveness. It notes that large merchant vessels were surprisingly survivable, with only 7 being sunk to ASMs. Other sources on the conflict note that only about 1/3rd of merchant ships were actually sunk due to hostile action.

[shagrat]

A big oil tanker for instance would respond very badly to a single Maverick. The size of the ship is irrelivent it’s more about how armour plated it is. A warship of any kind will always be a lot harder to take out then a Un-armoured floating bomb like a tanker.

Apart from the size, which has been covered by a few responses, already, the perception of Oil explosions are mostly rooted in Hollywood action movies.

Especially crude oil isn't really "explosive", as long as you not gather the gaseous fumes in large amounts and mix them with oxygen.

 

You can try to lite up even a cup of diesel fuel. You will be astonished how hard it is to ignite it.

 

All the fancy "fuel explosions" we are so used to are basically special effects from Pyrotechnicians who pull a lot of tricks and use gasoline oxygen mix to create the "boom".

[Mars Exulte]

A big oil tanker for instance would respond very badly to a single Maverick. The size of the ship is irrelivent it’s more about how armour plated it is. A warship of any kind will always be a lot harder to take out then a Un-armoured floating bomb like a tanker.

 

 

Except modern warships are not armor plated and haven't been for many decades. A high caliber rifle will penetrate the hull on virtually everything out there. Anti-ship missiles rendered armor utterly obsolete by the late 50s/early 60s. It has to do with it being a game with an extremely simplistic damage model for ships with arbitrarily assigned hit points. In-RL A warship might have more efficient layout for bulkheads and such, but even that is going to be variable by design.

 

 

@OP

A Maverick would be unsuitable for engaging most ships of any substantial size, by virtue of being a smallish weapon, and subsonic to boot. It would never make it through the defenses on most warships, though you could use it against small gunboats, etc, and it would be effective.

Edited December 3, 2018 by zhukov032186