correct as is CBU-87 bomblets are not armor-piercing

[intruder11]

Quote

A second type of cluster bomb called a combined effects munition is the CBU 87. Each CBU 87 dispenser contains 202 BLU-97 bomblets. 30 Each bomblet is the size of a can of spray paint with a small parachute coming out the back. Despite their small size, 2 inches in diameter and 10 inches in length, each bomblet's shaped charge can defeat the top armor of any tank.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA264233.pdf Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

[Flappie]

Thank you. Another interesting doc here: https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/publications/A-Guide-to-Cluster-Munitions.pdf

Quote

The BLU-97 submunitions it disperses (shown in Figure 14 BLU-97 with chute) incorporate a shaped charge utilising the Munroe effect and are capable of penetrating more than 200 millimetres of armour. The body of each submunition, made from internally notched steel, shatters into approximately 300 fragments, each of which can penetrate 6 mm of steel. These fragments can kill people, disable vehicles, and inflict damage on materiel to a range of 20 metres or more. Also incorporated into the body of the submunition is a zirconium ring, which has an incendiary effect intended to ignite fuel and other combustible materials in the target area.

Still, I don't think this is the problem here. IRL, BLU-97 submunitions are blind: they spread in a 20 meters-wide circle and don't aim at anything, which means chances that they achieve a direct hit on a vehicle roof are extremely thin.

We're in the 21st century: when the military want to hit a target, then don't rely on chance, they rely on the most precise weapons (when they possess such weapons). The CBU-97 with its intelligent "skeets" was specifically created to aim at tanks roof. And so were Paveways.

Why would you bother using the inaccurate CBU-87 when CBU-97 and Paveways are available?

[Hobel]

vor 32 Minuten schrieb Flappie:

Thank you. Another interesting doc here: https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/publications/A-Guide-to-Cluster-Munitions.pdf

Still, I don't think this is the problem here. IRL, BLU-97 submunitions are blind: they spread in a 20 meters-wide circle and don't aim at anything, which means chances that they achieve a direct hit on a vehicle roof are extremely thin.

We're in the 21st century: when the military want to hit a target, then don't rely on chance, they rely on the most precise weapons (when they possess such weapons). The CBU-97 with its intelligent "skeets" was specifically created to aim at tanks roof. And so were Paveways.

Why would you bother using the inaccurate CBU-87 when CBU-97 and Paveways are available?

Well, but the question is also what happens when the hit is direct?

 

If such a thing hits the turret, it will be punctured, what happens to the crew I don't need to mention.  In dcs, a direct hit on a T90 on the turret does ~10% damage.

[Flappie]

46 minutes ago, Hobel said:

If such a thing hits the turret, it will be punctured, what happens to the crew I don't need to mention.  In dcs, a direct hit on a T90 on the turret does ~10% damage.

This could be an issue caused by over simplified tank damage models. Look what I've just found:

It looks like only american MBTs do have a detailed damage model.

As one can see, the M-1 roof is modeled (into 2 parts) whereas Soviet MBTs turrets are all in one block. I'll make a complete list and then report.

In the meantime, you can try shooting M-1 Abrams with CBU-87 and see if you get a better result.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Flappie

[NeedzWD40]

6 hours ago, Flappie said:

Why would you bother using the inaccurate CBU-87 when CBU-97 and Paveways are available?

CBU-103 would be the choice nowadays, but my understanding is from ODS > OIF the CBU-87 was the preferred weapon for DEAD.

It may not be related to the current thread but as of the June OB patch I've noticed that the BLU-97s have regressed. I previously utilized CBU-87/103 and JSOW-A to good effect against unarmored ADA like SA-2/3/5, Hawk, and similar. AI F/A-18C with JSOW-A were my go-to for DEAD against these kinds of targets, but now they rarely damage a site, with lots of fireworks but virtually undamaged radar systems. If a separate thread with tracks detailing these problems is necessary, then I will be happy to do so as it's pretty simple to setup.

[Hobel]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb NeedzWD40:

CBU-103 would be the choice nowadays, but my understanding is from ODS > OIF the CBU-87 was the preferred weapon for DEAD.

It may not be related to the current thread but as of the June OB patch I've noticed that the BLU-97s have regressed. I previously utilized CBU-87/103 and JSOW-A to good effect against unarmored ADA like SA-2/3/5, Hawk, and similar. AI F/A-18C with JSOW-A were my go-to for DEAD against these kinds of targets, but now they rarely damage a site, with lots of fireworks but virtually undamaged radar systems. If a separate thread with tracks detailing these problems is necessary, then I will be happy to do so as it's pretty simple to setup.

If you go back a few updates you will notice in the notes that the penetration force has been slightly increased but the HE effect reduced.
hence your observations

[NeedzWD40]

8 minutes ago, Hobel said:

If you go back a few updates you will notice in the notes that the penetration force has been slightly increased but the HE effect reduced.
hence your observations

Do you know which update? I can find no references to it over the past 3 months of updates and I remember the BLU-97s working decently in May.

[Hobel]

 

vor 27 Minuten schrieb NeedzWD40:

Do you know which update? I can find no references to it over the past 3 months of updates and I remember the BLU-97s working decently in May.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.8.2.35632/


 

Zitat

Weapon. BLU-97/B penetration warhead and damage effect has increased.

Green was before red is the current state

hope the picture is understandable
HE damage was therefore drastically reduced

 

 

 

 

@Flappie interesting, thanks I will do <

EDIT: So have tested it, it is the basically the same result when the Blu97 hits the M1A1 Top~9% damage

Edited July 29, 2023 by Hobel

[NeedzWD40]

This is a simple track with AI A-10A, one equipped with Mk20 and one with CBU-87. They each make two passes, dropping one bomb each time from an altitude of 2000ft. The targets consist of unarmored radars and light to medium armored units. The Mk20 with Mk118 submunitions consistently destroys and damages more targets than the CBU-87 and BLU-97 do. Of particular note, the BLU-97s fail to even damage the lightly armored BRDM-2, which should be quite vulnerable to the submunitions. Meanwhile, the Mk118s destroy a BMD-1 and damages a T-55, leaving only one radar damaged and two armored targets intact.

It is possible the Mk20/Mk118 is overperforming and the CBU-87/BLU-97 are more realistic in their damage probabilities, in which case the Mk118 may need a review instead. For me, up til the June update, I felt confident in the CBU-87/103/JSOW-A's potential to destroy light targets like ADA, but now I am not and would not recommend them over Mk80 series weapons.

Mk20 vs CBU-87.trk

[shagrat]

Cluster Munition still needs some love. While Mk20 had at least got some love, the bomblets in the CBU-87/99 seem to be still as ineffective as ever.

A good test is to drop a cluster bomb on an array with infantry some 5m apart each. IRL there should be no one left in fighting condition after a couple dozen HE bomblets threw their shrapnel in a radius of 30-35m (we can agree the HE effect is at least similar to a standard hand grenade). In DCS the 20mm, 25mm, 30mm gun ammunition and luckily the rockets after they were finally fixed, still causes more damage to infantry in the open, than cluster bombs.

I am not saying everyone in the area hit with a CBU-87/99 will be dead, but surely incapacitated and out of the fight and that is what matters.

This should apply to unarmored vehicles/trucks, as well, and to a lesser degree to lightly armored vehicles, like an M-113, TPz Fuchs, Humvee or BRDM-2, if they take a direct hit or stand in the center getting blasted by 3, 4 or more exploding bomblets.

[shagrat]

...and to emphasize, this is not "correct as is".

The BLU-97/B Combined Effects Munition used in the CBU-87 is designed(!) as a Anti-Tank and Anti-Personell weapon. The Combined Effects part ensures it is effective against light armor and infantry.

It has a shaped charge AND fragmentation body with roughly 280gr Explosive (more than a hand grenade) and it is designed to kill a light armored tank with a direct hit and fragment and blast shrapnel into the area plus a zirconium incendiary element, effective against vehicles and infantry.

There is plenty public information on the design, fuzing and components available.

If the effects of the BLU-97/B as currently depicted in DCS are "correct as is" all those reports from pilots killing SAMs, vehicles, artillery pieces, infantry and small tanks with CBU-87 during Desert Storm and Allied Force, must be preposterous lies.

From this article ( https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0791weasels/ ) citing Dan Hampton:

(...)"The CBU-87B turned out to be all it was advertised to be and more. Because it has no delivery restrictions and can be tailored for use against virtually any target, it was ideal for the medium-altitude attacks we were using. In fact, “devastating” is a better word. In one attack against a SAM in northern Iraq, we saw the CBU-87 create nine secondary blasts in the target area. Post-attack reconnaissance photos confirmed the kill. The terrain surrounding the site was chewed up to the extent that it looked as if it had just been plowed. We called it the “shotgun” school of bombing."(...)

Edited July 31, 2023 by shagrat

[Default774]

"Each BLU-97/B CEB consists of a shaped charge, a scored steel casing, and a zirconium ring, for anti-armor and anti-personnel fragmentation and incendiary effects. Each CEB is designed to fragment into 300 fragments. Given the top attack angle of the weapon, the CEB can be effective against the generally light armor covering the top of an armored vehicle such as a tank."

I wouldn't really class 10% damage on a direct hit to a tanks roof as effective, this is not correct as is.

[Ballinger French]

I haven't found anything that a CBU-laden JSOW will take out, at least when launched from the F-16.  Lots of smoke and fireworks, but I not even certain that JSOWS don't end up repairing targeted vehicles, lol, because they sure do not damage them in the least. 

Why haven't these completely useless weapons been fixed yet?  

[Hobel]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Ballinger French:

I haven't found anything that a CBU-laden JSOW will take out, at least when launched from the F-16.  Lots of smoke and fireworks, but I not even certain that JSOWS don't end up repairing targeted vehicles, lol, because they sure do not damage them in the least. 

Why haven't these completely useless weapons been fixed yet?  

 

[Py]

This is still unfixed, is it even being looked at?

[Biggus]

I'd be genuinely shocked if this is "correct as-is" based on eyewitness accounts.  There's something not quite right.

[STKDirty]

They would never take out tanks or anything that I'm aware of.  However, I use them a lot to DEAD SA-11s.  Need alphas because the launchers are tracked and as soon as one hits, they move a little, so cant use charlies.  After a patch a few patches ago when they adjusted CBUs, the JSOW As stopped working as you say.  I found that changing the burst height from 1500 to 300 does the job.  Enough spread to get any moving launchers and enough concentration to inflict enough damage.  This was trial and error, so I cannot correlate this as to how it's "supposed" to work, but it works for me at least.

[intruder11]

> They would never take out tanks or anything that I'm aware of.

Please see my post from July 24 2023 at the top of page 2. There is a link to a public US Army document saying they piece the top armor of tanks circa 1990.

Edited July 10, 2024 by intruder11