Cannon now ineffective against armor

[Azazel]

I'm not sure if this is just for the AV8B but I've noticed the cannon no long will damage armor. This includes an few SA-11 launchers and BMP-2 I was gunning today. Anyone else seeing this in Open Beta???

Edited April 29, 2020 by Azazel

[Kang]

I haven't tested that myself, but I've seen someone else in MP light up a Shilka and a BMP-2 as expected using the 25mm.

[Kappa]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4208454&postcount=87

 

DCS AV-8B by RAZBAM

CAS page update, you can now edit and delete records

Fixed cockpit texture text issue

Fixed bomb release order

Fixed CTD after alignment when selecting DATA page

Fixed Flashing letters in HUD

Fixed TACAN offset symbol position in the MPCD

Fixed VVM HUD position will now remain on the same horizontal plane with the GVM

Changed the gun pod ammo to PGU-32/U SAPHEI-T 25 mm rounds

[Shrike88]

Yep. Worthless against any armor. Wish at least we had the option to change ammo in the arming screen. Waste

[Azazel]

We really need a combat mix option. I've done a few test runs now. BMP-2s are very hard to kill - requires a very high angle of attack at close range. Anything above them - all

tanks and BMP-3s are pretty much unkillable with the this ammo load-out. ZSU-23s and APC-80 can be killed though.

 

Will a combat mix be available?? - there are plenty of articles about AP / DU rounds being used in the past on USMC Harriers:

 

- 13:30 mi AP/DU talked about.

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgu-20.htm

 

M791 APDS-T would be nice:

 

http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/AFV_Guns/OATK_25x137mm_Ammo.pdf

[Holbeach]

Perhaps the original round was deemed too strong.

 

 

It could kill T-55/72/80U/90, which is too much.

..

[BIGNEWY]

You can do damage with HE but it is much harder and you need to be closer.

 

For penetration AP is better when engaging armour.

 

Things will improve when unit damage is improved, but that is for the future.

 

thanks

[Stubbies2003]

Perhaps the original round was deemed too strong.

 

 

It could kill T-55/72/80U/90, which is too much.

..

 

 

T-55 isn't too much for the GAU-12. There are testing videos on youtube taking those out from the Harrier with the GAU-12.

[Gunnar81]

As a counter point to this, the original ammo loadout was nearly useless against infantry and soft targets with the exception of a direct hit. The current ammo loadout was the most commonly used from 2001 onwards so it is an accurate reflection of the general use of the GAU-12 in actual combat. That being said I strongly agree with an ammo selection tab much like the A-10C and the F-16C so the user can enjoy whatever they want. Should be a simple add in I would think?

[Holbeach]

T-55 isn't too much for the GAU-12. There are testing videos on youtube taking those out from the Harrier with the GAU-12.

 

 

Yes. At a dive angle of 5 deg from less than 3000' range, it could penetrate 2.5 inches of side armour of a T-55 and was the big selling point of this gun with API.

 

Difficult to replicate with our harrier, with its displaced sight sending you into the ground.

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232589&page=15

 

 

..

[mungo13]

How well is damage model for the ground unit done in DCS (as for ships I have noted claims that it is rather some hit-point type than anything even barely realistic)?

Those DU 2.5 inch penetration would be close to limits when attacking T-55. Side armor is described to be 80 mm that is more than 2.5 inch - but that penetration slightly changes for every single round and with closing distance during the attack.

Funny thing is - if your round can penetrate side of the T-55 it can in theory penetrate even T-72 (T-80, T-64) as the thickness if the side is the same (metal quality, effect of the mud guards, tracks, wheels etc not included). So it is not OP nor unrealistic - just the likelihood of the total destruction should not be high. (Btw. that video shows this very well - they were able to penetrate T-62 in an attack but in another out of the 13 hits, none went in)

Penetration is not equal to destruction sometimes even not to the real damage. Here comes quality of the damage model (I am newbie to the DCS details so I do not know what I am dealing with here)

 

I tried to made some search about those new SAPHEI rounds - they do not seem to have lot of penetration. Some claims are around 20 mm of the steel. In that case even for the side of the BMP-2 would not be granted penetration.

 

I suppose that in current situation there is not much need for the true AP ammunition in the actual theaters of war where US armed forces are involved. But in the case of the conflict where enemy has armored units and Harrier's mission is to go against such - would it go with gun loaded for the "soft" targets? Or they would use AP load?

[Holbeach]

However this is cut up, the fact remains, the gun was never designed for, or is capable of, reliably destroying MBT's, in real life, but it can destroy them in DCS, including full frontal damage to T-90's.

 

 

For this reason alone, I'm glad this present AP is gone, not because it's a bad round, but because the tank damage model is not complex enough to deal with it.

When the model is updated, it would be nice to see it back.

 

 

The new round is penetration 13 mm @ 30deg 1000m.

 

 

..

[Holbeach]

Whilst it would be best for everyone to have both rounds available, it would be handy to know the reason for the change.

 

 

So, why was the 25mm gun ammo changed?

 

 

.

[Fri13]

Again, even GAU-8 is incapable to penetrate T-55/62 armor, so 25mm GAU-12 CAN'T do better.

 

You really go against main battle tanks with heavier A-G missiles or 120mm cannons, not with a sub 40mm ones.

[Harlikwin]

Again, even GAU-8 is incapable to penetrate T-55/62 armor, so 25mm GAU-12 CAN'T do better.

 

You really go against main battle tanks with heavier A-G missiles or 120mm cannons, not with a sub 40mm ones.

 

Frontally. Otherwise the Gau-8 will shred t series tanks from rear, top, and side aspects. Gau12 too but at a guess from much shorter ranges.

[probad]

no the gau-8 is garbage and obsolete for any mbt after the t-55

guns are for killing stuff that aren't worth dropping explosives for, knock it off with the stupid tank buster meme

Edited May 9, 2020 by probad

[Holbeach]

no the gau-8 is garbage and obsolete for any mbt after the t-55

guns are for killing stuff that aren't worth dropping explosives for, knock it off with the stupid tank buster meme

 

 

I haven't flown the A-10C for years, so I couldn't remember how to get the gunsight up, but I still managed to kill a target T-90 with it, so it can't be that bad.

..

[Mars Exulte]

I haven't flown the A-10C for years, so I couldn't remember how to get the gunsight up, but I still managed to kill a target T-90 with it, so it can't be that bad.

..

 

Ingame, yes, because ingame uses crude armor modeling and hitpoints for ground vehicles. In real life, BMPs fall under the generic ''tank'' that's being busted in layman's terms and the primary target for such things (along with trucks and apcs). A 30mm cannon will eat BMPs etc alive, actual battletanks, not so much.

 

Against an actual battle tank, you'll need to do steep dives to get at the softer top armor, or shallow runs at the sides/rear. Top and rear easier than sides, sides you'd need to get relatively close. Even side armor is near the upper limits of what you can expect to pen with a 30mm at anything resembling acceptable ranges.

 

That doesn't mean strafing mbts is pointless. Depending on the tank some are more vulnerable than others, even modern ones can be crippled or mission killed, etc etc, but the popular notion of A-10s decimating hordes of mbts with its ''tank busting death ray'' is a bit exaggerated in the public imagination.

 

If 30s would reliably do the trick, nobody would bother with 120s or ATGMs, afterall.

[Harlikwin]

no the gau-8 is garbage and obsolete for any mbt after the t-55

guns are for killing stuff that aren't worth dropping explosives for, knock it off with the stupid tank buster meme

 

I mean its probably garbage in DCS, but we all know how "accurate" DCS is when it comes to damage modeling.... But in the real world the GAU-8 was quite capable of chewing through T-55's T-62s, T-72's and most likely T-80's whose non-frontal armor schemes were fairly similar.

 

Here is a USAF "training document" that might be your speed. Bust out your crayons I mean I know its your speed... AND!!!! Hey holy cow its 1.16 compliant... Being pre-1980, much like the T-55, T-62, and T-72.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to know more try here.

 

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/cold-war-coloring-book-taught-a-10-pilots-to-kill-soviet-tanks-a26385113bf0

 

Now the harrier, much all things Marine, carries a smaller, less effective "package". But I'm sure it might be able to do the "job" if it gets closer and tries "harder".... :megalol:

Edited May 10, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

Ingame, yes, because ingame uses crude armor modeling and hitpoints for ground vehicles. In real life, BMPs fall under the generic ''tank'' that's being busted in layman's terms and the primary target for such things (along with trucks and apcs). A 30mm cannon will eat BMPs etc alive, actual battletanks, not so much.

 

Against an actual battle tank, you'll need to do steep dives to get at the softer top armor, or shallow runs at the sides/rear. Top and rear easier than sides, sides you'd need to get relatively close. Even side armor is near the upper limits of what you can expect to pen with a 30mm at anything resembling acceptable ranges.

 

That doesn't mean strafing mbts is pointless. Depending on the tank some are more vulnerable than others, even modern ones can be crippled or mission killed, etc etc, but the popular notion of A-10s decimating hordes of mbts with its ''tank busting death ray'' is a bit exaggerated in the public imagination.

 

If 30s would reliably do the trick, nobody would bother with 120s or ATGMs, afterall.

 

At the end of the day its all about target aspect (hence armor), and slant range (hence kinetic energy of the round)…

 

I'd wager most of "fighter aces" here on DCS are:

 

a) shooting the wrong part of the tank from the wrong angle.

b) shooting from waaay too far away.

[Harlikwin]

 

I suppose that in current situation there is not much need for the true AP ammunition in the actual theaters of war where US armed forces are involved. But in the case of the conflict where enemy has armored units and Harrier's mission is to go against such - would it go with gun loaded for the "soft" targets? Or they would use AP load?

 

In the modern "permissive" bombing simulator environment I'm sure its some sort of HE, anti infantry round. I mean a Toyota is a way more likely target than a T-XX anything.

[Holbeach]

Hmmm! The Harrier. A Gau 12, 25 mm rotory cannon, Toyota destroyer. Is that what it's been reduced to?

 

 

I think I'll pass on that mission.

 

 

..

[TeamMaximus]

Here's an interesting study by the USAF back in 1978, assessing the effectiveness of the GAU-8 and APIT ammo on Soviet T-62 tanks. The study assessed attacks from various approaches, and at a low dive angle. To summarize, attacking from the front of the T-62 would not result in a kill, but from the sides and back, the tank was very susceptible to catastrophic damage from the A-10 gun.

 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36722041.pdf

[Dehuman]

This thread started it I believe https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255929

[Fri13]

no the gau-8 is garbage and obsolete for any mbt after the t-55

guns are for killing stuff that aren't worth dropping explosives for, knock it off with the stupid tank buster meme

 

The idea of "tank buster" comes that definition of "a tank" is very broad.

It includes every vehicle that:

 

1) is tracked

2) is armored

3) has self-defense armament

 

Example BMP-1 is a tank, but BTR-60 is not. M113 is a tank, LAV-25 isn't.

 

It is easy to define many things as "a tank killer" because definition to a tank is so loose.

But as there are many tanks classifications, many thinks Main Battle Tank as "the only tank" and so on thinks as well that as something is called as "tank killer", it means Main Battle Tanks as well.

And so on the idea that aircrafts 30mm cannons are there to "bust MBT's" is easily made.

 

And no, 20/25/30mm cannons are not there to penetrate main battle tanks armors in any sensible situation, and that includes the first MBT ever, T-54/55.

 

 

But why not just install those 25mm or 30mm cannons to main battle tanks as you don't need those 120/125mm cannons and ATGM missiles as you can so easily penetrate those T-55/62/72 armors from 1500-3000m range like with GAU-12/8?!

 

 

RIGHT? Those pesky Russians are again knowing something that West isn't, right?