Cannon now ineffective against armor

[Ramsay]

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.

 

No, you are broadening the definition of a "tank" to argue that a "tank buster" can't kill a tank.

 

The USAF knows what most people expect a tank to be and it's not an APC, etc.

 

1. The A-10/GAU-8 system in realistic simulation of combat is capable of inflicting catastrophic K-Kills as well as M- and F-Kills on M-47 and similarly protected main battle tanks, e.g., Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks.

 

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.

 

Incorrect ...

 

2. The weapon system in low level attacks can perforate specifically the side surfaces of the hulls and turrets of M-47 and similarly protected main battle tanks.

 

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?!

 

Because it's not so easy, it requires a low level attack from the side (4° @750m slant range) and likely several passes i.e. one pass of 18 rounds = ~9 rounds on target of which ~3 penetrate, 2/3 chance Mobility kill, 1/3 chance Tank kill (irreparable damage).

 

Being lightly armed/armoured but much more mobile is already a strategy used in modern ground warfare i.e. BMP-1, etc.

 

The A-10C and AV-8B take that mobility to the extreme and into the air.

 

IMHO the debate should be about the new AV-8B ammunition mix not "what is, is not a tank buster".

 

A-10 GAU-8 (10 passes) Low Angle Firings Versus Simulated Soviet Tank Company, a522397.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522397.pdf

Edited May 10, 2020 by Ramsay
Correction, approx. 3 of 18 rounds penetrate, fix link to correct document.

[Holbeach]

Back to the subject.

 

 

You have a gun that could do this:

 

 

A truck requires, 1 damage hit. BTR, 4 hits. T-55, 20 hits. T80, 25 hits. T-72/T-90, 30 hits, for a kill, using the GAU-12U.

 

 

To a gun, that could maybe do the first 2 and there's no answer to my earlier question.

 

 

..

[Ramsay]

Back to the subject.

 

... there's no answer to my earlier question.

 

It looks like ammunition selection may be WIP as a second mix of AP/HE shells has been defined in AV8BNA_Weapons.lua

 

-- GAU12 Gunpod
function GAK_14_GunPak(tbl)

tbl.category	= CAT_GUN_MOUNT 
tbl.name		= "GAU_12"
tbl.supply		= 
{
	shells	= {
				"PGU32_SAPHEI_T",
				[color="red"]"M242_25_AP_M791[/color]", 
				[color="Red"]"M242_25_HE_M792"[/color]
			 },
	mixes	= {
				{1},
				[color="Red"]{2,2,3,3}[/color],
			}, 
	count	= 300,

 

... but there's no way to select it.

 

The previous mix was a mix of 2 different AP ammo, now it's pure SAPHEI, which seems to make it perhaps weaker than the 1:1 mix of DU/HE the USMC used in the Gulf war, etc.

 

IMHO it'd have been better if the AP/HE mix was default, rather than PGU-32 (at least until both mixes can be selected), perhaps PGU-32 is the stronger ammo or just more appropriate for a 2005-2015 Harrier with DITER GBU-32's, etc. ?

 

It'd be nice to get some feedback from the dev's on what their intentions are as, although they are unlikely to please everyone, it'd help set expectations.

 

PGU-32 SAPHEI: https://www.gd-ots.com/munitions/medium-caliber-ammunition/25mm-pgu-32u-saphei-t/

Edited May 13, 2020 by Ramsay
typo, revise approx year of Razbam's AV-8B

[Harlikwin]

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.

 

 

..

 

Thought you wanted "realism"...

 

Plus you get -10000000000000 points for every round that hits something other than the Toyota... You know, because they were in wedding party... :megalol: Plus you will have to write reports in triplicate to explain where each one of those rounds went. And maybe explain your "feels" at the time.

 

On the plus side, EU and NATO probably will contract with ED to create CBU's that can't actually damage anything since that's clearly their priority for the 21st century...

Edited May 11, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

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

 

So, the tounge in cheek coloring book which was btw a real thing waaay back when, is actually accurate? I'm shocked! Shocked!

[Harlikwin]

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?

 

 

To be fair, those pesky western IFV's got plenty of kills against "Russian" tanks in the fist gulf war with 25mm guns... Not frontally of course, but hopefully you knew that... MBT's have armor in the front, and the hope is that the crew is smart enough to point "Front toward enemy". Which usually works against ground targets, but against some random helo, or A10 that's coming from some weird angle to hose you with 30mm rounds, that assumption usually hasn't held true historically.

[Fri13]

No, you are broadening the definition of a "tank" to argue that a "tank buster" can't kill a tank.

 

The USAF knows what most people expect a tank to be and it's not an APC, etc.[/Quote]

 

"A Tank" doesn't mean it can't be APC, IFV or even SPAAG. It simply is very wide term.

 

There are other terms as well, like "A armor" as well "AFV" as Armored Fighting Vehicle that includes as well tanks as wheeled armored vehicles etc.

 

1. The A-10/GAU-8 system in realistic simulation of combat is capable of inflicting catastrophic K-Kills as well as M- and F-Kills on M-47 and similarly protected main battle tanks, e.g., Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks.[/Quote]

 

In very special cases it can be said it can cause kills. But so can be said that A-10 is vulnerable to AK-47 firing....

 

Yes, and 152/155mm artillery is deadliest AT weapons of all....

 

2. The weapon system in low level attacks can perforate specifically the side surfaces of the hulls and turrets of M-47 and similarly protected main battle tanks.

 

M47 wasn't as capable as T-55. And it was not a Main Battle Tank, but a Medium Tank. Another difference in them. M47 was a M46 with a new turret, improved 90mm cannon and new fire control system in a old M46 Hull. And M46 was basically M26 Perching with wider tracks and more powerful engine. That then got replaced by a M48 that was first new design since WW2 with one piece casted hull etc.

 

If you see a MBT when flying in A-10, you don't go for cannon but something far more effective like rockets, bombs and especially missiles.

You don't have a change to even damage the MBT to such a level that you don't get shot down and stop a MBT platoon completing their mission, that is supporting their infantry and destroying your infantry.

 

Because it's not so easy, it requires a low level attack from the side (4° @750m slant range) and likely several passes i.e. one pass of 18 rounds = ~9 rounds on target of which ~3 penetrate, 2/3 chance Mobility kill, 1/3 chance Tank kill (irreparable damage).[/Quote]

 

As said above, you are dead if you try to complete MBT kill with cannon.

 

Being lightly armed/armoured but much more mobile is already a strategy used in modern ground warfare i.e. BMP-1, etc.[/Quote]

 

Yes, tanks move fast. And GAU-8 or GAU-12 are great tank busters generally, but not even average to bust Main Battle Tanks....

 

The A-10C and AV-8B take that mobility to the extreme and into the air.[/Quote]

 

Because IFV's and even APC's are equipped with cannons (20mm and above is a cannon), doesn't make them capable deal MBT's as they can all other tanks. That is why they are given as well AT missiles to deal MBT's. Just like A-10 carries Maverick to deal MBT's, a IFV like M2 Bradley carries TOW missiles to deal MBT's.

 

IMHO the debate should be about the new AV-8B ammunition mix not "what is, is not a tank buster".[/Quote]

 

First you need to understand:

 

1) What is "a tank" as meaning what is a MBT, what is IFV, AFV, APC etc...

 

2) What is a "Tank buster" capable weapon. And GAU-12 is such, but only in broad term because there are lots of tanks that can be destroyed by it. But it is not a "MBT buster" as people would think it would be because its caliber and combat mix.

 

Arguments that can it destroy a T-54/55 or newer are useless because:

1) DCS doesn't still model ground units armors and individual parts etc.

2) You simply don't have enough punch to penetrate them than in most optimal scenarios.

3) you have other weapons designed to deal MBT's and 25-30mm cannon ain't such.

 

If we would be discussing about the GAU-12 effectiveness by change in it's combat mix when having IFV's, APC's etc (that are "a tank") targets, we would have base to talk about it's effectiveness.

 

But when even a BMP-1 was designed to withstand a 20mm hit from the front hull, it doesn't mean you let someone to keep firing at you and 20mm will eventually penetrate from weak point.

It doesn't matter are you a air or a ground force if you get a change to aim a weak point without any challenge.

 

That is same thing why M2 Bradley for a "MBT killer" name because in GW1 one got to drive it behind a T-72 that was in hull-down position just next to it, and shoot at point blank range at the rear because low visibility.

 

And people think that 25mm autocannon can so on just kill T-72's from any range or direction etc.

 

I wouldn't want to be under fire from even .50cal in MBT without knowing where it comes from. That is why we dig defensive positions for all fighting vehicles to raise up to visible only when firing and back to cover as quickly as possible.

And if we have a A-10 or AV-8B flying anywhere in 8km radious from us, our air defense network has been destroyed and we already are dead as it means no one exist anymore to fight. That is the purpose of the self-defense that troops can deny enemy attack aircrafts operating in their area of operation.

 

And that is problem in DCS that it can't simulate combat.... It does great job to simulate combat aircraft anywhere inside cockpit etc. But once you take situation to outside, it's old architecture doesn't support the combat between air and ground, or even between ground forces alone.

 

Heck, our ground units are complete morons that by default sit 600 seconds still after slightest impact near them. Even basic logic of surviving is missing.

 

ED has huge work in their hands to get ground units operating even semi-realistic manner so that GAU-12 could be even used somewhat realistic style.

 

But when the mythical GAU comes to play, it is like all MBT's should be running for their lives....

Edited May 11, 2020 by Fri13

[Fri13]

To be fair, those pesky western IFV's got plenty of kills against "Russian" tanks in the fist gulf war with 25mm guns... Not frontally of course, but hopefully you knew that... MBT's have armor in the front, and the hope is that the crew is smart enough to point "Front toward enemy". Which usually works against ground targets, but against some random helo, or A10 that's coming from some weird angle to hose you with 30mm rounds, that assumption usually hasn't held true historically.

 

Yes there are possibilities, just like that GW1 situation happened that few got most optimal change to shoot "fish in a barrel" and then myths has born.

Helos etc don't use cannon against MBT's but other ordinance.

This is one reason why APKWS II was wanted to be taken in service so that AV-8B and other attack helicopters has accurate meaning to take down as well old IFV's and MBT's like T-55/62 without spending expensive Hellfires or Mavericks while their cannons can't deal them effectively.

 

Instead shooting "BB Gun" at those, you have a 2.75" rocket guidable on the target with penetration capability from 300mm to 500mm and you save not just money, but as well bee capable deal threats quickly.

 

And you don't need to enter the close range, fly toward target etc.

But you still need to get a good hit... It is after all like hitting with a RPG.

[Harlikwin]

Yes there are possibilities, just like that GW1 situation happened that few got most optimal change to shoot "fish in a barrel" and then myths has born.

Helos etc don't use cannon against MBT's but other ordinance.

This is one reason why APKWS II was wanted to be taken in service so that AV-8B and other attack helicopters has accurate meaning to take down as well old IFV's and MBT's like T-55/62 without spending expensive Hellfires or Mavericks while their cannons can't deal them effectively.

 

Instead shooting "BB Gun" at those, you have a 2.75" rocket guidable on the target with penetration capability from 300mm to 500mm and you save not just money, but as well bee capable deal threats quickly.

 

And you don't need to enter the close range, fly toward target etc.

But you still need to get a good hit... It is after all like hitting with a RPG.

 

Oh no doubt on the whole use case. The Bradley kills were on weak spots on the sides. No one here is trying to make the argument you penetrate the armor of an MBT frontally, but from the rear aspect they are all fairly vulnerable. And I Don't think anyone is really saying its the primary weapon of choice. Plus the 25mm gun on the harrier is even less effective than the GAU-8. So, should it kill IFV's/APC's, yes (again, better from the sides/rear), and its probably still somewhat effective against MBT's from those same aspects. And yes, you always want to use a better weapon.

[Holbeach]

Thought you wanted "realism"...

 

Plus you get -10000000000000 points for every round that hits something other than the Toyota... You know, because they were in wedding party... :megalol: Plus you will have to write reports in triplicate to explain where each one of those rounds went. And maybe explain your "feels" at the time.

 

On the plus side, EU and NATO probably will contract with ED to create CBU's that can't actually damage anything since that's clearly their priority for the 21st century...

 

 

Bring the war right up to date, where drones are dropping LGB's on bread delivery vans, in the Middle East.

 

 

Harrier, Gau-12.- 25 mm, Bakery Van Buster.

 

 

..

[Holbeach]

It looks like ammunition selection may be WIP as a second mix of AP/HE shells has been defined in AV8BNA_Weapons.lua

 

-- GAU12 Gunpod
function GAK_14_GunPak(tbl)

   tbl.category    = CAT_GUN_MOUNT 
   tbl.name        = "GAU_12"
   tbl.supply        = 
   {
       shells    = {
                   "PGU32_SAPHEI_T",
                   [color=red]"M242_25_AP_M791[/color]", 
                   [color=Red]"M242_25_HE_M792"[/color]
                },
       mixes    = {
                   {1},
                   [color=Red]{2,2,3,3}[/color],
               }, 
       count    = 300,

... but there's no way to select it.

 

The previous mix was a mix of 2 different AP ammo, now it's pure SAPHEI, which seems to make it perhaps weaker than the 1:1 mix of DU/HE the USMC used in the Gulf war, etc.

 

IMHO it'd have been better if the AP/HE mix was default, rather than PGU-32 (at least until both mixes can be selected), perhaps PGU-32 is the stronger ammo or just more appropriate for a 2006-2010 Harrier with DITER GBU-32's, etc. ?

 

It'd be nice to get some feedback from the dev's on what their intentions are as, although they are unlikely to please everyone, it'd help set expectations.

 

PGU-32 SAPHEI: https://www.gd-ots.com/munitions/medium-caliber-ammunition/25mm-pgu-32u-saphei-t/

 

 

I think people are going to be dissappointed with a gun that can only kill trucks, ( I don't have beta so I don't know how effective it is), seeing as its big selling point was its armour piercing quality, both in DCS and RL.

Combat mix would be the obvious choice, as it would reduce the OTT, MBT tank killing power, but still be useful T-55 and below.

 

 

The gun and sight are out of alignment, so I don't find it very satisfying to use, but I would still like to know the devs reasoning behind the decision to change it.

 

 

..

[Ramsay]

I think people are going to be dissappointed with a gun that can only kill trucks, ( I don't have beta so I don't know how effective it is), seeing as its big selling point was its armour piercing quality, both in DCS and RL.

 

As I rarely (if ever) use the gun pod vs a tank, I can't comment on the change in effectiveness.

 

Personally* I don't mind the "nerf" if SME's have said SAPHEI is the realistic "modern" USMC loadout i.e. I think most players would give up DU/HE ammo for DITER GBU-38's, etc.

 

*(Might be because it appeals to my own "life is full compromises" and "nothings for free" mentality :lol:)

 

Combat mix would be the obvious choice, as it would reduce the OTT, MBT tank killing power, but still be useful T-55 and below.

 

Ideally we should be able to choose ammo mixes in the same way as the Hornet but suspect that, because it's an external gun pod, Razbam would need to setup separate DU/HE and SAPHEI pods.

 

That way cold war servers/missions can disallow GBU-38's, etc. while still allowing the potentially "better" DU/HE mix.

[Harlikwin]

Bring the war right up to date, where drones are dropping LGB's on bread delivery vans, in the Middle East.

 

 

Harrier, Gau-12.- 25 mm, Bakery Van Buster.

 

 

..

 

Pretty much... Also partly why the SDB is a "thing".

 

Though I really think someone should make DCS predator a thing...