GSH-30-2 VS Western Armour

[Cheetah7798]

Not sure if this is the proper place for this post, but, in experimenting with the Hind's cannon against various vehicles, I noticed that some examples were impervious to the 30mm (front aspect) despite my reading that their armour was not sufficient.

 

Most notably, the M113, Styker and Bradley all seem to state something in the ballpark of 14.5mm protection as a best-case, especially the first two. In fact, from what I've read, the M113 is only technically rated to stand 7.62mm from all directions, while the Stryker is explicitly stated to have 14.5mm protection from the front aspect.

Despite this, the GSH-30-2 seems to be incapable of damaging those units from the front; more specifically the front-top.

 

So, to get to the point, is what I've read wrong? Are these vehicles able to sustain 30mm hits without issue? Or is it more that they are rather old DCS assets that have aged poorly?

 

EDIT:
I should add that the distances I was shooting at here were bordering on 1 - 1.5km; As you get closer, it could be quite possible to defeat the armour.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Cheetah7798

[Wychmaster]

I have generated a practice mission for me and my buddies with a shooting range. My assumption was that Bradleys and Strikers could be peneteated by the 30mm, so I used them as targets. I can confirm that shooting from higher ranges does next to nothing to them. At close range I managed to destroy a striker, but I was max 200m away. I can not tell if you can kill a Bradley at close ranges. However, if your armor protection data is correct, I would assume that the 30mm shouldn't have such problems against those vehicles.

[unipus]

You can absolutely kill Bradleys with the 30mm. Exact aspect and ranges, I couldn't say.

[WinterH]

I keep hearing these 3 have something wonky about their armor. However, I must say that a few times I tried, 30mm cut through M113s like they were paper. Other two I didn't try.

 

Bradley may, perhaps, enough protection to resist it frontally from longer distances though, it is one of the better protected IFVs.

[eatthis]

dont forget angled armour will have an effect

 

[Apok]

Tanks should be vunerable from the top. But question is how this works in dcs. Abrams can be damaged only from the  back, from the test I have done. Seems similar damage that Shilka with 23mm does.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Apok

[Pit_Toyuwo]

On 7/3/2021 at 5:32 AM, Apok said:

Tanks should be vunerable from the top. But question is how this works in dcs. Abrams can be damaged only from the  back, from the test I have done. Seems similar damage that Shilka with 23mm does.

 

Well that gun can’t do much to modern western mbts like the m1 or leo2 even from the top. Abrahms would not have much to fear from that. It would still be trouble for an m60 or a leo1 however.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Pit_Toyuwo

[YoYo]

Styker and Bradley arent a problem, the problem is Abrams , the crew is safe all the time :D.

[Cheetah7798]

Nobody is under any illusions as to how well modern MBTs are protected, especially against medium size rounds, like 30mm. That's not really the point here.

 

From my experience, DCS handles armour differently depending on which face you're shooting at. I'm confident that this has long since been established, both officially and by others on the forums. For instance, S-8KOM rockets won't scratch an MBT from the front, but can destroy all of them from the rear, with varying numbers of impacts.

 

The point is that the Stryker, Bradley, and to a lesser extend, the M113 seem to demonstrate uncanny amounts of protection for what they are. Namely, relatively light APCs and IFVs.

 

In some further testing that I've done, the M113 is soft, but after about 2km, it becomes invulnerable from the front. The Stryker is able to stop 30mm rounds (from the front) right up until about 500m, which seems remarkably unlikely. Meanwhile, the Bradly is all but impervious except for what appeared to be shots to the side from almost point-blank range. I was literally hovering circles around it, shooting it from all angles, and only one in every ten shots managed to bump up the damage percentage by about 10 or 20%. Once again, that seems excessive.

[Pit_Toyuwo]

From what I see bradley should be able to resist 30mm hist as well. Don’t know about stryker but I would not be surprised if that were the case. M113 definitely not.

[Wychmaster]

Did some testing as well yesterday. As others stated, the bullets mostly don't do anything from the front. But from the rear you can hurt bradleys and strikers from a compfortable distance. Managed to get kills against both with the impression that the bradley is a bit tougher.

[Apok]

For AP-T round it states at 1000m and 60 deg. angle of hit, 200m/s penetration is 20mm. There is tungsten variant that is a bit better  around 28mm.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Apok

[DocHawkeye]

Nobody expects a 30mm round to stop an MBT. But people expect it nonetheless because they're informed by other video games to get kills and then accomplish their mission. 30mm rounds will not stop an Abrams-but they will degrade it and that's important for the next guys who run into that Abrams platoon. Westerners are deeply attached to their notions of precision and surgical strikes and there's a visible inability to digest the way the Hind and other Russian weapon systems prefer to just bombard locations rather than fiddle around trying to see what's there or paint kills on the side of a fuselage. Just shoot there and maybe you'll hit something. Probably not but who cares, dump your ordinance, RTB, then come back and do it again until ordered otherwise. 

 

A 30mm cannon works just fine against 99% of the targets you can run into irl. Unfortunately DCS like many games and sims is a bit tank and armor heavy so in game it's fine against more like 90% of what you'll run into. 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by DocHawkeye

[sublime]

1 hour ago, DocHawkeye said:

Nobody expects a 30mm round to stop an MBT. But people expect it nonetheless because they're informed by other video games to get kills and then accomplish their mission. 30mm rounds will not stop an Abrams-but they will degrade it and that's important for the next guys who run into that Abrams platoon. Westerners are deeply attached to their notions of precision and surgical strikes and there's a visible inability to digest the way the Hind and other Russian weapon systems prefer to just bombard locations rather than fiddle around trying to see what's there or paint kills on the side of a fuselage. Just shoot there and maybe you'll hit something. Probably not but who cares, dump your ordinance, RTB, then come back and do it again until ordered otherwise. 

 

A 30mm cannon works just fine against 99% of the targets you can run into irl. Unfortunately DCS like many games and sims is a bit tank and armor heavy so in game it's fine against more like 90% of what you'll run into. 

 

 

i was really young but i remember the absolute awe that lgbs were to the general public in desert storm.  one really wonders how US society would view and how western players would play games if desert storm hadnt happened with all the footage of LGBs etc.

[unipus]

This is the boogeyman that's going to raise its head everywhere. Without meaningful fragmentation and splash effects and specific damage effects, weapons other than precision-guided are at a massive disadvantage. You see this even in AA missiles that lack proximity fusing.

 

A 30mm cannon can't destroy an Abrams, no, except under extraordinary circumstances. But it can certainly do enough damage to immobilize it or render it combat ineffective in a whole bunch of ways that are not modeled at all in DCS. We also don't have a decent model for the suppressive power of any type of ordinance really. Until those things are represented, it's going to be disappointing.

[DocHawkeye]

I don't know I think the weapons modeling is fine-enough for a flight sim. It's not Steel Beasts. If I want Steel Beasts i'll go play that. I think the solution is much easier than something as intricate as damage modeling. It's really just "winning is in the eye of the beholder". If you drop your ordinance where you were told to do what do you care was there? Like DCS has the tools to do objective scoring rather than unit scoring as far as I know-but even if it doesn't I don't really care because I just fly out on missions and ask myself what's reasonable to expect of a 1970s attack chopper. If I do that, as far as i'm concerned I won. I could certainly cripple my own experience with the game by saddling myself up with expectations taught to me by video games like K:D, like accuracy, like health. Or, I could contextualize my missions based on things like my own survival first, damage done second, and achievement of objective dead last. Adds quite a bit to the game if you remove a lot of the mentality trained into all of us by generations of awful games and sims lol. 

[unipus]

Lot of assumptions packed into that. Lots of splash, no hits.

 

So let's toss the assumptions in the trash where they belong and move forward with this: "what's reasonable to expect of a 1970s attack chopper" -- well, for one thing: good effect on target, using unguided and HE munitions.

You don't have to be Steel Beasts to have a basic handling of fundamental things like mobility kills, weapons kills, crew bailing, morale, retreat, defensive maneuvers, popping smoke... all of that stuff is fundamental to the air-ground relationship and the lack of it very directly impacts the fidelity of the sim to real world tactics and behavior - and therefore the immersion and enjoyment a lot of people can get out of it. Maybe you're personally content to put rockets where you were told to and pretend it had a realistic effect, and that's great for you, but if you're trying to experience missions (or dynamic campaigns) that actually demonstrate plausible results, the systems currently fall well short. If you can imagine believable behaviors on the battlefield by ground units, you can start to see how much more immersive it would be, and the massive positive effects that would have through the whole experience. DCS is not just a flight sim, it's a combat flight sim.

[Pit_Toyuwo]

3 hours ago, unipus said:

A 30mm cannon can't destroy an Abrams, no, except under extraordinary circumstances. But it can certainly do enough damage to immobilize it or render it combat ineffective in a whole bunch of ways that are not modeled at all in DCS. We also don't have a decent model for the suppressive power of any type of ordinance really. Until those things are represented, it's going to be disappointing.

A 30mm cannon can’t do much to an abrams. It could probably take off a track. Then that’s about it. I can kill an abrams with the ka50’s gun in dcs, which is the same as a bmp2. In reality this is more or less impossible. You could take out the vision blocks too but the crew would replace them. Shoot out road wheels? Maybe?

[stuart666]

Perhaps a study of the A10 colouring book is pertinent here.

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

 

I strongly suspect that if you shot an Abrams from the rear, you may knock out the engine, and possibly start a fire. In that regard I dont think its probably any different from any tank from the mid 70's on. Even on the wartime panthers they were putting armour covers over the engine deck fans to keep out stray rounds.

 

Of course, its fairly pointless worrying about all this until they extend the damage model down to all the tanks and vehicles. There isnt much hurry as far as softskin kit is concerned, but It really is something that needs to be addressed before attack helicopters and attack aircraft can really authentically.

[DocHawkeye]

16 hours ago, unipus said:

Lot of assumptions packed into that. Lots of splash, no hits.

 

Lots of notional baggage packed in yours. 

 

16 hours ago, unipus said:

 

So let's toss the assumptions in the trash where they belong and move forward with this: "what's reasonable to expect of a 1970s attack chopper" -- well, for one thing: good effect on target, using unguided and HE munitions.

 

The kind of mission you're describing sounds specifically like a "seek and destroy" which for many decades was the only kind of mission combat flight sims were modeling at all. This is precisely the kind of western thing where combat commanders are expected to know what kind of birch trees are in the forest and what kind of swallow nests in them-but don't know much else about the forest. 

 

16 hours ago, unipus said:

You don't have to be Steel Beasts to have a basic handling of fundamental things like mobility kills, weapons kills, crew bailing, morale, retreat, defensive maneuvers, popping smoke... all of that stuff is fundamental to the air-ground relationship and the lack of it very directly impacts the fidelity of the sim to real world tactics and behavior - and therefore the immersion and enjoyment a lot of people can get out of it.

 

Yours not mine. This 100% "own goal" kind of stuff and DCS isn't made just for you anymore than it's made just for me. Otherwise i'm not interested in the game featuring any of the above granularity. I'm not against it, but it's pretty low on the list of priorities to me. There's plenty of "good enough" going on in DCS as far as modeling of non-aerial units goes. I'd certainly like to see more in the way of entrenchments and bunkers but what we have is also suitable. 

 

16 hours ago, unipus said:

Maybe you're personally content to put rockets where you were told to and pretend it had a realistic effect, and that's great for you, but if you're trying to experience missions (or dynamic campaigns) that actually demonstrate plausible results, the systems currently fall well short.

 

No see you want better KILL CONFIRMED kind of stuff which isn't what i'm talking about and even when true in real life is far from the only kind of context there is for missions. 

 

16 hours ago, unipus said:

If you can imagine believable behaviors on the battlefield by ground units, you can start to see how much more immersive it would be, and the massive positive effects that would have through the whole experience. DCS is not just a flight sim, it's a combat flight sim.

 

Buzzword drop lol. Anyway I don't normally get into boat rocking on forums anymore so you got your views I got mine. Nice day! 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by DocHawkeye

[Cheetah7798]

There seems to be some sort of entropic state of conversation revolving around the Abrams.

 

Not that I haven't enjoyed the digressions, but my initial intention with this thread was primarily about the M113, Stryker and Bradley; and whether their protection in-game closely matched that of reality, or whether it was over/under-performing.

 

In the (admittedly limited) reading and experimenting I've done since I started this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the M113 is about right. So long as you score a hit with the GSH-30-2 from within 1.5km, it'll penetrate every face without issue. It also seems that the Bradley IFV (irl) is capable of stopping 30mm rounds from most aspects (14.5mm for early versions).

 

So, that really leaves the Stryker, which is officially stated to have only 14.5mm protection from the front, 7.62 from all other sides. Despite this, in DCS you have to get uncomfortably close to start doing any damage from the front.

[unipus]

Sorry for the off-topic then, but it is all related. If you can knock the track off an Abrams (not insignificant, if your job is to delay an attack, btw) then you can do it to a Bradley or anything else. The radio masts, optics, weapon systems, road wheels, and potentially crew are all also vulnerable. Ever wonder who is firing the AA MGs non-stop while rockets explode all around them? Every DCS vehicle commander is the bravest and luckiest man alive.

Bradleys were up-armored starting with the M2A2 and especially the M2A3, I forget which one is represented in-game. Early ones would have been quite vulnerable. M2A3 and on have reactive armor which would certainly defeat 30mm... temporarily. (Side request: it would be super nice to have some more vehicle variant options for period-correct missions! Quite a huge leap between a T-55 and a T-72B3, or an M60 and an M1A2. Can we get the M1IP? M1A1? T-72A? Etc.)

Now, I can't say I know offhand what type of ammunition was typically loaded in the Hind's gun. Entirely possible for AP to punch holes that don't do any immediate major damage. Entirely possible that HE-I just bounces. As far as I have seen there is no ammo selection or different ammo types currently in-game, so it's probably all AP by default -- a single round usually (always?) pierces and destroys a BTR, for instance.

Anyway, I'm unfortunately not happy to settle for mediocrity. Those that can clearly have easier lives. I, on the other hand, can picture how it would (and hopefully will) look and feel with ground units acting like they were actually interested in survival. It would be a whole different experience. May not matter much to the guys dropping LGBs from 20,000 feet, but when you're flying low-level CAS and can actually see all of this up-close, it's very obvious.

[Fri13]

14 minutes ago, unipus said:

Sorry for the off-topic then, but it is all related. If you can knock the track off an Abrams (not insignificant, if your job is to delay an attack, btw) then you can do it to a Bradley or anything else. The radio masts, optics, weapon systems, road wheels, and potentially crew are all also vulnerable. Ever wonder who is firing the AA MGs non-stop while rockets explode all around them? Every DCS vehicle commander is the bravest and luckiest man alive.

 

Some vehicles does have a remote control for their roof gun. Example T-64 is such that allows commander remotely control it.

Similar is with the BTR-82 and similar ones where modernization has come to play. 

 

But if you are under fire, then you are not there to sit and return fire if you don't know your threat. As you are seen and there can very well be a AT missile flying toward you and hit you any moment. And being inside a armored vehicle that is under fire, it is not a pleasant experience. 

 

14 minutes ago, unipus said:

Bradleys were up-armored starting with the M2A2 and especially the M2A3, I forget which one is represented in-game.

 

I recall it is M2A1 that is in the game. 

 

14 minutes ago, unipus said:

Early ones would have been quite vulnerable. M2A3 and on have reactive armor which would certainly defeat 30mm... temporarily. (Side request: it would be super nice to have some more vehicle variant options for period-correct missions! Quite a huge leap between a T-55 and a T-72B3, or an M60 and an M1A2. Can we get the M1IP? M1A1? T-72A? Etc.)

 

Yes please, more variants. But this is where the Battlefield Studios company approached ED that is there interest for such.... 

 

14 minutes ago, unipus said:

Now, I can't say I know offhand what type of ammunition was typically loaded in the Hind's gun. Entirely possible for AP to punch holes that don't do any immediate major damage. Entirely possible that HE-I just bounces. As far as I have seen there is no ammo selection or different ammo types currently in-game, so it's probably all AP by default -- a single round usually (always?) pierces and destroys a BTR, for instance.

 

Even a 12.7 mm AP round is dangerous to a APC like M113 or BTR-60 and BTR-70 and like from couple kilometers. Question is not really what will happen when it hits, but can someone hit at you with it? As if you are on the move, you are very difficult to hit. But if you for some reason get hit, then it would require good angle and after that a good part in the vehicle where to hit so it does something. Like air inflated wheels are very vulnerable, the side armors are vulnerable. The windows are vulnerable when not closed the armored plates. You can do a lot of damage with just couple lucky shots as you can injure the crew or infantry squad inside and that way deny their combat efficiency. 

 

Up that weapon system to something that can accurately deliver hits and it becomes dangerous from 12.7 mm and up. Especially a 20-40 mm autocannon becomes a very effective.

Having a such 30 mm on the helicopter is fancy thing. And that is the great thing in Mi-24P that we get that amazing single fire capability that allows to snipe individuals nicely.  

 

14 minutes ago, unipus said:

Anyway, I'm unfortunately not happy to settle for mediocrity. Those that can clearly have easier lives. I, on the other hand, can picture how it would (and hopefully will) look and feel with ground units acting like they were actually interested in survival. It would be a whole different experience. May not matter much to the guys dropping LGBs from 20,000 feet, but when you're flying low-level CAS and can actually see all of this up-close, it's very obvious.

 

Everything would change if the ground units would have basic instinct to try to survive, seek cover or suppress the attacker. The combat is not such that it is over in few seconds, but it could very well take hours if in small scale engagement as well prepared defender will have massive advantage on their side (3-6:1) against attacker.

 

[Hook47]

Being familiar with these vehicles in my Army service, I too can verify this in inaccurate. The Hinds cannon should be able to massacre them. The M113, in particular, was only going for reliable small arms protection at various ranges. Anything heavier than that was likely to cause damage. Hopefully ED can update the DM. 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Hook47

[unipus]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Some vehicles does have a remote control for their roof gun. Example T-64 is such that allows commander remotely control it.

Similar is with the BTR-82 and similar ones where modernization has come to play. 

Yes, and the Stryker, most late-model MBTs. For the 1980s and 90s, by far the exception rather than the norm. But DCS doesn't represent crew at all. It's certainly not true of M113s, or the M1s in the game, or M60s... if these guys want to shoot at you, they're putting their faces right in the line of incoming fire. Most people are probably not that brave/stupid to do so when they can see autocannon or rockets coming right at them. That's what I was referring to.