BOMB LETHALITY

[GumidekCZ]

I need to report serious BUG with HUGE negative effect on bomb lethality.

DCS 2.5.5.38756 Open Beta

I started when i practiced HADB with Mk82 with impact distance of 15m from SA-13. Result was not even scratch. So I search for Mk82 lethality and found this attached document Explosive_weapon_effects_web.pdf which says:

In its simplest configuration, the standard Mk 82 bomb contains approximately 89 kg of high explosive in a forged steel body weighing 142 kg (Glass et al., 1997). According to one manufacturer, the detonation of a Mk 82 aircraft bomb produces a peak overpressure of 117 kPa at 16 m from the point of detonation. The design fragment from this weapon is less than 20 grams travelling at 2400 m/s, and at this distance the natural fragments generated by the detonation will penetrate up to 32 mm of steel armour plate. After 16 m the velocity is reduced below 1900 m/s. It will then be capable of penetrating up to 200 mm of concrete (ConWep, 2016).

My test:

 

Than I made my SP test mission with majority of Russian made armour, SAM, BVP, SPA,... with distance 100ft between each other. Than I dropped Mk82/83/84 in the middle of them to have result in shorter time. Thrue the process of testing my jaw just hang down on my face, I could believe what I saw. Mk82 did "NOTHING", Mk83 was weak version of RL 82, and 84 behived like 82 with improved RL version. But even Mk84 was not able to harm T-55/72/80 from behind from 10m. Sorry I dont have a track from my test only like 15 screenshots and ACMI file.

8x Mk82 (100ft spacing)

 

With the results of my test it is clear, the DCS doesnt simulate combined effect of simultaneous bomb impacts. Explosions in DCS needs to follow basic physics depicted in following picture.

 

I suggest DCS will need to look on Blast lethality and its (combined) effect on personels, soft targets and armoured target as well. At this time, you need percise munition or very!!! close dumb bomb impact to destroy or damage ground units.

Edited November 3, 2019 by GumidekCZ

[peeter]

I think it will be part of the new damage model.

 

First, warbird, then jet and ground units

[BIGNEWY]

Hi

 

Be sure to check the health bars of the units in the F10 map.

 

We dont currently have a damage state for the vehicles, even if they are damaged.

 

They will show alive, smoking or dead only on the outside.

 

the health bar in the F10 view is the best way to check if a unit has taken any damage also ensure you have BDA turned on in settings as it will give a percentage of damage in a message.

[GumidekCZ]

Hi

 

Be sure to check the health bars of the units in the F10 map.

 

We dont currently have a damage state for the vehicles, even if they are damaged.

 

They will show alive, smoking or dead only on the outside.

 

the health bar in the F10 view is the best way to check if a unit has taken any damage also ensure you have BDA turned on in settings as it will give a percentage of damage in a message.

I did checked F10: this was result (only BM-21 GRAD was destroyed completely):

another Mk82 run, Sorry not 82 but Mk83

you need to turn picture 180° (view from North)

Edited November 3, 2019 by GumidekCZ

[BIGNEWY]

Do you have a short track replay, I will take a look.

[BIGNEWY]

also bare in mind with a near miss soft skin vehicles are more likely to take damage over armoured vehicles.

 

EDIT: We do have frag damage reported for soft skin vehicles.

[GumidekCZ]

Mk84 on MBT:

All three of them was able to drive away!!!

In RL they would be rotated around any of its axis more than 2 times.

[BIGNEWY]

Please add a track replay and we will take a look.

 

thanks

[GumidekCZ]

There are the tracks, couple of Mk82/83 and two Mk84 on tanks.

 

BOMB_LETHALITY.zip

[Pikey]

splash damage from bombs has long been under "performing" if that is such a phrase. There are a few posts on this. It's mostly to do with the "health" system implementation of vehicles. Warheads do a certain health damage on vehicles, and range away from the impact point decreases rapidly, way more than any published lethality guides, say the ones in CAS documents.

 

I believe what you are seeing Gumi, is how DCS behaves normally. It's up to ED to come up with better damage modelling, although it's complex.

[BIGNEWY]

There are the tracks, couple of Mk82/83 and two Mk84 on tanks.

 

[ATTACH]220493[/ATTACH]

 

 

Thanks had a quick look, it looks normal to me, I can see you are damaging and destroying vehicles even when intentionally missing for blast effect demonstration.

 

Make sure you are using BDA in the settings, it gives a good indication of what damage you are doing.

 

Remember our units currently only have an alive state, a smoking state, and then a destroyed state, so you will see no physical damage on the unit itself until it pops.

 

We are looking into what can be done to improve the perception of damage on our ground units, so we may see change in the future.

 

As mentioned We do have frag damage reported for soft skin vehicles already.

 

Thanks

[kega76]

Just want to state the obvious here...so, one thing is the vehicles and their technical state. Another thing is the soft skin humans that operate the vehicles. The blast effects from a bomb would greatly affect them even at distance (lungs/breathing, hearing, concussion etc). Even when sitting in an armored vehicle they wouldn’t be protected from this. Also, as stated earlier, the frag pattern would cause great damage. The frag pattern is even taken into consideration when dropping the bombs so as not to fly into your own frag. Metal pieces traveling in excess of 1500m/s would melt through steel like the armor penetrating darts of the main battle tanks. The last thing would be the moral or fighting spirit of the guys being bombed. That’s a common problem for AI behavior of most computer games, the AIs are super human and too keen to die. No humans is no active vehicles. Let’s just say that the damage modeling should get some attention.:)

[Fri13]

I need to report serious BUG with HUGE negative effect on bomb lethality.

.......

Thrue the process of testing my jaw just hang down on my face, I could believe what I saw. Mk82 did "NOTHING"

........

 

Let me just drop this magazine article here:

https://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_FULL_EDITION.pdf

 

Page 10 starts the article "Who says dumb artillery rounds can't kill armor?" written by Major (Retired) George A. Durham.

 

The article is about the effectiveness of the 155mm artillery shells. And the basic context is that a 155mm artillery shells that were used on that time testing has gone far more improvements compared to armors in all kinds APC and tanks (and this is again time to remind people that definition of the "Tank" is a 1) Tracked 2) Armored 3) Armed vehicle for combat use. Even a M113 APC is a "Tank" by the definition by itself, but example LAV-25 ain't as it is not tracked vehicle. But not all tanks are same kinds, as in WW2 some were "light tanks", "medium tanks" and "heavy tanks" (and some even "super heavy tanks") and medium tank was then made by Soviet Union own new version as Main Battle Tank when they designed T-54/55. And today there are mainly IFV's and MBT's and both those are tanks, but only other is MBT) and a today a 155mm artillery shell, like even old M107 projectiles, are far more deadly than what artillery was in the WW2 era. And always the artillery has been the most destructive arms in warfare to destroy vehicles and personnel, not the air force, not the infantry, not any other than the artillery itself. It is fastest way to get deadly fire on location, and today with all kind laser guided shells, GPS guided shells etc they are as accurate as any "smart munition" from any aircraft. Only difference is that you can put far more out of them than from any aircraft.

 

The M107 projectile total weight is about 43 kg. From that it is about 15% explosives, so about 6.5kg. And such single projectile can put even modern MBT out of action, causing a mobility kill or destroy their cannons, optics, communications etc just by impacting anywhere 30 meters range of it. And if the target is less armored than MBT, like IFV or APC etc, the 155mm shell will tear them up, penetrate through the armors and kill the personnel inside them. Performing similar kind mobility kills etc.

 

And what is a Mk.82 aka 250kg bomb then? It is FAR MORE effective than any artillery shell. And if you can drop it anywhere near 100 meters of the tank, it is very bad to them if gets the fragments from it, it is not just 16 meters, it is 100 meters. For infantry alone the deadly ranges are 250 meters, but for APC and IFV the larger fragments can penetrate the hull from 100 meters, and less than 50 meters the fragments spread is still so tight and effective that you very likely take most tanks or other armored vehicles out of action. And if the vehicle ain't armored but more vulnerable like a tankers, SAM's, trucks etc, they literally get so many hits from fragments that they are unusable for operation anymore.

 

In future it is hoped that the artillery becomes extremely deadly against anything, that all vehicles get all kind levels of damages like destroy the tracks, optics, cannon/weapon, radio, engine, wheel(s). And then have all kind other effects like crew should have moral and fear, where fear can cause units to panic easily from near misses, and high fear can lower the moral to stay in formation or location and cause them to retreat or even flee, ignoring the commands or being afraid to advance etc.

Even hitting a MBT with a A-10 GAU-8 cannon that wouldn't penetrate the hull, would cause damages to wheels, maybe tracks and optics etc, but more it would be the stunning effect to the crew inside the "tin can" that gets shot at, and then realize that there is a CAS aircraft close by that can drop a bomb or launch a missile at them, cause fear in them and retreat to seek air cover from nearby forests etc.

 

As each ground units should have a own will to live, to survive. That could be one element in the various countries like where if you have high moral you will have units that are willing to take high risks. While lower moral means more careful behavior and not willing to take high risks. And that is about the units experience and success. A RPG/RTS elements are required where a successful commander (player) that gives good unit commands and results to good results where enemies die and own troops survive, it gives boost to the units to follow the commands and perform better.

 

Someone dropping MK.82 bombs near by means that you should have all the units near by to panic or at least get high fear. As you can't see outside from the vehicles at all so easily, and seeing a high explosion nearby and feeling the effect from hundreds of meters, means you do not want to be the next one to receive that.

 

That is why you fly buttoned up so you can see outside, you can observe the skies and prepare for the self-defense when one spots the air threat. That is as well something that ain't at all modeled in the DCS that when the enemy aircrafts are detected by early warning radars or any other observation manner (like outputs, recon teams etc that then radio the information to corresponding places), the air threat warning is issued to all units in area, and they take preparations for self-defense. Meaning that no column is going to move in tight formation, instead there is like 500-1000 meter separation between vehicles so you can't bomb multiple vehicles at once but only one. And when one is attacked, everyone pulls out of the road to nearest air cover, unmount troops, prepare for self-defense and after each attack all changes their location so pilot needs to find the targets again and again after each strafing run.

 

Dropping one mk.82 bomb can be lucky thing, but after that you have likely CAP already heading on, area SAM defense is activated and MANPADS are prepared and ready to take target out at 20x5km area, as once someone gets attacked, you have like 15-30 seconds when everyone on near area is searching the sky for the attacker, and pilots needs to stay at low altitude or they get shot from all directions.

[maxTRX]

I'm impressed with the effectiveness of munitions on structures :smilewink: (except dams). A while back, I brought down Burj Khalifa in Dubai with 2 IR Mavs. Came down perfectly...

[Baco]

Still It would be nice to increase bomb blast or effects while the damage model is redone. as it is, You have to have a direct hit on an armored vehicle to be able to kill it or leave it out of combat.

[Dr_Arrow]

The same problem goes for the FAB family of bombs.

[Fri13]

Metal pieces traveling in excess of 1500m/s would melt through steel like the armor penetrating darts of the main battle tanks.

 

That is one of the misinformation people get. Like the the most common AT weapons, rockets or missiles with a shape charge copper penetrators ain't penetrating armors because melting through them, but because high pressure in small area. The same thing are all those rod penetrators like the arrows in MBT cannons, they are made from very hard materials like depleted uranium or tungsten so they would maintain their pointy shape and when they get fired at high velocity, that pointy penetrator will literally cut through the armor as long it doesn't bend or get cut off.

 

That is as well reason why a artillery shell or bomb fragments doesn't penetrate those thick armors in MBT as all the fragments they throw around are just way too soft or too blunt. It is like having a bullet impacting a structure sideways instead sharp pointy head first. This is example a common problem with the 5.56 and 7.62 caliber bullets, the 5.56 is very easily altering its trajectory from slightest obstacle like a bush twig and bullet can leave at high angle (like there are nice videos how 5.56 is shot at apple on table and it leaves the apple in over 45 degree angle), but 7.62 caliber having lower penetration at shorter ranges as the bullet wobble as it hasn't stabilized so quickly, why its optimal penetration capability is only at the 600 meters where it is completely stabilized and it has almost twice the penetration capability than at 150-300 meters ranges.

 

An fragment from bombs and shells are not pointy, they ain't hard and they ain't even heavy in most pieces. Their main property is high velocity. And for most shells the most wanted thing is lots of very tiny fragments as you can have a lot of those that will injure the infantry, but then you as well want a larger pieces that would impact to objects and have extra damage, like hit a tree trunk and cause it to splitter and cause more wooden splinters fly around from above the infantry. There is reason why flechette rockets were wanted to be banned by UN in demand of Soviet Union as they considered them inhuman weapons against infantry, but they weren't.

 

But even in MBT the most critical parts are not behind heavy armor, radios, optics, tracks, wheels etc are all vulnerable to those softer and slightly larger fragments. The crew is protected well, but their vehicle operation can be very easily stopped, killed to that location. There is as well reason why mortars, artillery and bombs are far more dangerous than GAU-8 because you will receive far more fragments hits from near hits (<30 meters) than from direct hits from GAU-8. Just like the "A-10 color book" informs, don't even use GAU-8 against a MBT as you are not going to do anything really to it unless you get from high and above directly on the engine compartment through its air ventilation grid. You can hit to tracks, wheels etc but you get so few hits that it is more waste of time and at too high risk that it is not worth it.

 

And trying to hit a tank with a Mk.82 bombs was found way too inaccurate, why the AGM-65 Maverick was invented, so the A-10 pilot can with high change success rate (<50%) launch a single missile and hit a tank or get near hit. While with Mk.82 bombs it was IIRC a 10% change for same effect when dropping 4 bombs. The CCIP/CCRP is so inaccurate way unless you have a ARBS from A-4 or Harrier, or something similar that optically tracks and continually calculates the release time.

 

Edit: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3262448&postcount=40

 

But IR/TV mavericks problem is that what Sweden found with the Viggen, you couldn't get the lock in optimal situations at ranges less than 4-5km.

 

Edit: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3034958&postcount=1

 

So considering that do you carry mavericks or bombs, you would need to fly dangerously close to any AA protected area, why the "stealth" aircrafts are so valuable and as the F-35 name "Joint STRIKE Fighter" says, the idea is to be able strike at deep enemy protected areas giving them as little as possible time to spot you and then issue air threat warning to the area the strike package is flying at, and then be able drop the bombs or release the missiles and get out of there before you have turn your tail at them.

 

In DCS we currently have very unrealistic bomb accuracies with CCIP/CCRP, we have unrealistic laser spotting ranges, FLIR/TGP resolutions and capabilities to lock. All our vehicles are glowing in heat like heated by magical blowtorch, and no one is trying to hide anything, nothing is capable to spot the laser designators (like all the MBT's are equipped with laser emission warning systems) and then capable to release the laser/IR blocking smokes, and that all after being concealed with the IR/Radar opaque nets all around it, hiding them from FLIR and from A-G radars.

 

And we are required to get a Mk.82 to hit the target perfectly to get it destroyed? LOL

It would be far more realistic to start seeing those realistic inaccuracies in CCIP/CCRP modes unless you have ARBS kind system to calculate you the release, and even then have inaccuracy. Have the very limited ranges for laser spot search trackers, FLIR etc. Have the major problems to get TV locks like the Walleye to actually get it on target unless it is more about the scene tracking than target tracking. Have the realistic concealment and hiding functions for vehicles to really hide from the FLIR and radars.

 

And then when having the more realistic artillery and bombs fragments ranges and damage modeling, it would become far more pleasing results when you can get that bomb hit <50-100 meters of the target and possibly get some damage to them and get the "kill" for their operational status, like destroy the vulnerable missiles on top of the SAM or get the mobility kill for MBT or kill some of the infantry troops inside a APC, or kill the gunner or commander in IFV.

 

Inaccuracy could still be accurate, but not so effective and totally not so easy to get bombs near the targets.

 

The last thing would be the moral or fighting spirit of the guys being bombed. That’s a common problem for AI behavior of most computer games, the AIs are super human and too keen to die. No humans is no active vehicles. Let’s just say that the damage modeling should get some attention.:)

 

It would be some day nice to see a AI crew jumping out of the vehicles, spreading around it and trying to get in safety to direction from they were coming. See in air threat alarm phase the vehicles quickly seek cover, stop and unmount the troops out and then drive to another location for better cover. And if one unit is destroyed, not so that all just drive somewhere a side and sits there the default 600 seconds until decides to "continue the command".

 

Like one MBT platoon leader once said, when he heard first mortar (80mm) shell exploding close by, he commanded the platoon to retreat to safe area at rear, and yelled to own driver to drive like crazy out of there. As in few seconds later the whole area was saturated by the shelling and there was nothing left as safe area to be. Said that the driver drove like a F-1 driver from there, as getting even near hit from 80mm mortar shell can render your vehicle dead in spot.

 

The effect of the fear, the wisdom to retreat and avoid all kind fire is something that is missing completely in DCS.

As I say often that DCS is amazing simulator when it comes to the aircraft and flight modeling. Like there is nothing on the market to simulate the procedures of flying and releasing ammunition etc like the DCS does. But that is where it basically ends. Ground units are like cardboard targets on shooting range, they don't really shoot back. They ain't such threats either. And the mission editor doesn't support anyone to design the realistic scenarios because no ones PC can handle the load that it would take to get the thousands of units on the area, and the mission editor is not at all flexible or powerful enough (at this moment) to create such realistic missions that would require a lot more from the virtual pilots than now.

 

The "Fear" and "Moral" element is completely lacking in the DCS, be it a Multiplayer where players fly against each others, as anyone can just press "Respawn" and go back to Air Quake, or is it Air-to-Ground where ground units just sits there and wait that they get destroyed or they can just shoot back at something, and pilots doesn't need to fear ground as they can see and spot everything so easily and then when knowing just the usual ranges and altitudes, they can just safely stay out and use "Stand-Off weapons" to take targets down, who doesn't know anything about how to operate in ground.

 

So great, but still missing the "fear factor". And that is very difficult to get there if no one is willing to be really limited by the realism.

[GumidekCZ]

BIGNEWY - You written:

it looks normal to me"

Really ???

alive state, a smoking state, and then a destroyed state

Why I didnt saw any sign of smoke than? only alive or dead?

Where are you info from?

PLEASE, I dont want to be angry even little bit, lets try to slove this in peace. :angel:

PLEASE, convert my track into *.miz files and try to fly it as I did, aim for centre fo vehicles row with 120ft ripple setting.

take all three type of bombs na with MBT you can aim just behind them (in back, where the engine is situated).

You will see couple of absolte unrealistic results, like vehicle with just tiny bit red strip of health still able to drive. RU SPA, BVP and some more not affected by blast even from 16m blast even bit. In real life fragment dont even need do destroy vehicle, just injure badly its crew, and work is done.

PLEASE in sake of bright DCS future, we need revision of ground units health -all of them, escpecialy SAM systems with fragile structure on top of its roof, all vehicles when hit from back - engine damage, wheel and track after hit by blast unable to move the vehicle anymore. MBT assumed as dead when near hit by 83 or 84 bacause of in RL it would roll the tank around on its roof (couldnt be modeled in DCS). We need combinde pressure and fragments density when two bombs explode simulatenously.

How you want to fight against medium / hardened vehicles when all these effects are poorly or not at all modeled in DCS???

 

I really hope that this IS constructive criticism.

Edited November 4, 2019 by GumidekCZ

[BIGNEWY]

Don't be angry, never a good policy :)

 

I watched your tracks and it shows the vehicles taking damage, which is what I would expect to see, the health bars show this and the BDA ( BATTLE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT )

 

As mentioned we don't have a damage model on the units, they have health bars, so damage is not always obvious for the user.

 

The crew don't have a separate health bar, they are included in the vehicles health as well.

 

Could the damage be modelled better? yes of course it could. But at the moment this is what we have.

 

Soft skin vehicles and damage from blast's has been reported to the team.

 

Thanks

[nighthawk2174]

Well considering that i've never seen a track file replay be exactly the same between each replay that could be the issue with the difference in results.

[GumidekCZ]

Soft skin vehicles and damage from blast's has been reported to the team

What exactly is SOFT skin? Why not include everything? Mk82 can penetrate 32mm if in ideal distance and angle. What thicknes than can Mk83 an 84 penetrate?

Still glad to hear that somebody will try to improve something. Thanks

 

Well considering that i've never seen a track file replay be exactly the same between each replay that could be the issue with the difference in results.

Good point.

[BIGNEWY]

Well considering that i've never seen a track file replay be exactly the same between each replay that could be the issue with the difference in results.

 

I look at track replays everyday, most are fine. MP tracks especially large ones can be difficult to use, tracks that include unofficial mods are usually bad, and tracks with lots of scripts.

 

But this off topic here, if you want to discuss tracks make another thread please.

[BIGNEWY]

What exactly is SOFT skin? Why not include everything? Mk82 can penetrate 32mm if in ideal distance and angle. What thicknes than can Mk83 an 84 penetrate?

Still glad to hear that somebody will try to improve something. Thanks

 

As mentioned damage to soft skin vehicles is under review at the moment.

 

Damage is being done to the targets, you can see that from the BDA and the health bars.

 

If you want to destroy them out right you need to hit closer.

 

Your feedback is here and the team will see it, if we have news about a change to damage and how it is modelled for units we will let you all know.

 

Thanks

[Foka1]

I've seen debates about bombs and tanks rise up more and more in past year.

 

take a look at this answer from vietnam pilot: https://www.quora.com/How-do-fighter-jets-k-kill-blow-up-a-main-battle-tank-efficiently?fbclid=IwAR2SDD3aEdw_-GQ331OkkSNMtj_74LezhzmjsQppTDWO7R9iW8KYr7_GqKo

 

Tanks are called TANKs not just like that, also sealed tank protect crew from outside sudden pressure change to some degree. You need to actually know numbers of pressure change from explosions which would hurt the crew before stating that crew would be affected.

 

For Mk-82 bomb to hurt the modern tank it would need practically hit it or land 2-3 meters close to it. Also I've seen people are talking about WW2 sometimes, WW2 are nothing compared to modern tanks armor.

 

Of course DCS is not fully modeling effects of bombs landed near vehicles because fragmentation damage is not modeled in DCS yet.

 

DCS units although lose some of their abilities corresponding to their health bar.

 

For instance if you land a bomb near tank and it health bar went near certain percentage it looses ability to use main gun or its speed slowed severely, so that is modeled to some degree.

 

You can check less armored SAMs, if you land bomb near SA-15 and it health bar goes red it will lose ability to use its radar at all and will be practically useless.

 

Also remember that GBU-12 and other precision weapons were invented for some reason, the reason is TANK being TANK.

 

Attrition IRL is possible because vehicles IRL have different smallish parts that can be affected by near explosions, but in DCS vehicles are not that detailed. Tanks doesn't have separate damage points for aiming sites, tracks, or other external sensors. But that will arrive at some point.

 

Overall I get OP concerns, but this topic is actually really sophisticated and I've seen people go into it without doing much research and basically want stuff which is not corresponding to real life characteristics. OP is right to some degree, but also wrong to some degree.

 

Reporting this issue needs a lot of research and actual calculations and require probably specific education to make a good point.

[Foka1]

Overall I think each vehicle should be checked and studied separately in DCS. Maybe some of them has less accurate reaction to blast.

 

From what I remember from previous debates approximate number that you would need to knock tank out is around 500 PSI. And if 250Kg bomb will detonate few meters away from modern sealed tank crew won't be much affected by 1/2 PSI generated by that.

 

Whole park of vehicles and bombs in DCS needs to undergo testing one by one to pinpoint if there is too much deviation from approximate numbers..