missing evidence MK 20

[Spirale]

I wish this weapon (on par with CBU 99) to be more effective against light armor). Nowaday i find this weapon very frustrating in term of results...

Thx

[Mr_sukebe]

I don't remember there being much in it between the 20 and the CBU99.  Neither seem effective against armour.

You sure that you're not thinking of the CBU105, which is an awesome piece of kit against armour.

[Spirale]

Hello Suke,

It is what i mean: they aren't effective at all ( or very poorly) against armored vehicules ( of course it is pretty normal against heavy ones). MK20 should be more effective .

 

[Hulkbust44]

"missing evidence"? Take a look at any A/S combat report from 91', last I checked it was the most employed weapon.

[Spirale]

11 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

"missing evidence"? Take a look at any A/S combat report from 91', last I checked it was the most employed weapon.

Surely true but there is difference between employed weapon "IRL" and weapon simulated effect

[Hobel]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb Spirale:

Surely true but there is difference between employed weapon "IRL" and weapon simulated effect

can you upload some tracks from your observations?

 

[Northstar98]

On 12/2/2022 at 10:38 AM, Mr_sukebe said:

I don't remember there being much in it between the 20 and the CBU99.

There isn't, the Mk 20, CBU-99 and CBU-100 are all essentially the same weapon.

They're all identical in DCS and IRL, the only difference between the CBU-99 and the -100 is that the former is thermally protected, being used by the Navy.

On 12/2/2022 at 10:38 AM, Mr_sukebe said:

Neither seem effective against armour.

Yeah, despite the Mk 118 bomblet being described as an anti-tank bomblet, with a shaped-charge warhead with a copper liner, according to this it should penetrate up to ~190 mm of armour, which should be more than enough to go through pretty much any tank from the top, save for those with ERA (which isn't even modelled in DCS).

[Spirale]

MK20 nearly no damages.trk

[Mr_sukebe]

I certainly wouldn’t disagree about how ineffective it appears to be when compared to the claims.

Having said that, I wouldn’t consider challenging it unless I had some solid supporting evidence to show that it’s incorrect.  
Maybe the effectiveness is correct?

[Hobel]

vor 33 Minuten schrieb Spirale:

MK20 nearly no damages.trk 723.7 kB · 1 Download

thx.


I have reduced the number of bomblets to 1 to better see what is happening

and a direct hit of a MK118 from the MK20 does the following damage to a T80U

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Hobel

[nickos86]

53 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

I certainly wouldn’t disagree about how ineffective it appears to be when compared to the claims.

Having said that, I wouldn’t consider challenging it unless I had some solid supporting evidence to show that it’s incorrect.  
Maybe the effectiveness is correct?

Honestly, the "supporting evidence" claim is absurd many times. If ED setup a damage model to a weapon - it doesn't make it automatically a "correct-as-is".

For example, compare the damage of an AGM-62, GBU-24 and a AGM-84 vs a Kuznetsov carrier - You need two AGM-62 to sink the ship (technically two bombs cause a 99% damage) Vs 6 GBU24 bombs vs ~8 harpoons... none of it make much sense. Almost arbitrary. 

The ground/naval units got a "life bar" instead of a damage model (that should include sub-systems) and the weapons damage is an educated guess (inconsistent BTW). 

Now, because it is a game and developing and improving systems takes time/resources - I can understand the some weapons won't have reasonable performance and it will be addressed "some day"... But it got nothing to do with the community not providing "supporting evidence" to a currently "correct-as-is" setting.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Again, I won’t disagree that it seems wrong.

However, if we’re only guessing what the effectiveness should be, then why bother making the change?  
Surely it’s better to get it right, as against multiple iterations, each of which will cost time, that could hopefully be better used elsewhere.

it’s worth remembering that every change ED makes costs time and money and are therefore “opportunity costs”, that might be better used on higher priority work.

[Spirale]

A CBU 97 is way effective than a MK20 ( one of the deadliest weapon for cas missions in DCS). IRL it is like this BUT wayyyyy more (like it is in DCS) a MK20 certainly not IMHO.

However this MK20 is anemic in DCS since ages...

Edited December 4, 2022 by Spirale

[Spirale]

@Hobel: Is the bomblet damage, in your one bomblet test, enough that i close this topic as "solved"?

I used the CBU97 yesterday again and i find that they are much more efficient that the MK20/CBU99.

 

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Spirale:

@Hobel: Is the bomblet damage, in your one bomblet test, enough that i close this topic as "solved"?

I used the CBU97 yesterday again and i find that they are much more efficient that the MK20/CBU99.

 

I would not compare the CPU 97 with the MK20 and its mk118.  

Rather compare the cbu87, the blu97 bomblets are much more similar to the mk118.

MK118 :

 

Blu97

 

In my last test, a direct hit from the Blu 97 was enough to destroy a tank, but I'll have to look at that again.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Spirale:

Hobel: Is the bomblet damage, in your one bomblet test, enough that i close this topic as "solved"?

I do not decide such things 

[Spirale]

Thx a lot Hobel, your photos are very informative

The MK18 is a hollow charge specially designed for amor penetration. Why the CBU 97 does better than the MK18 in this area?

Edited December 5, 2022 by Spirale

[nickos86]

The explosives weight and geometry are different = different penetration. But more importantly - the CBU97 bomblets are IR and laser guided. Those, increasing the probability of a bomblet to hit the target - in particular - hot spots like the engine. If you damage the engine - the life bar should not drop to zero and the tank should not explode... But it actually incapacitated the tank... It should be marked as 'destroyed'. As for a MK-20 bomb - If it will hit the tank from above- it would probably penetrate nicely because the upper part of tank is less protected. But, the chance to hit a 'critical' system is lower in comparison to the CBU-97.

So the current DCS status is bad due to :

A. You can't effect the pattern of the MK20 - not able to adjust the probably of hit.

B. The damage model of the ground units and of the weapons is too simple. The CBU97 was adjusted to inflict 100% damage to the tanks 'life bar' and and the MK20 was adjusted to inflict a 20% damage to a tank. 

C. You can't argue that it's wrong because you're getting a "missing evidence" tag...

[Hobel]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb nickos86:

The explosives weight and geometry are different = different penetration. But more importantly - the CBU97 bomblets are IR and laser guided. Those, increasing the probability of a bomblet to hit the target - in particular - hot spots like the engine. If you damage the engine - the life bar should not drop to zero and the tank should not explode... But it actually incapacitated the tank... It should be marked as 'destroyed'. As for a MK-20 bomb - If it will hit the tank from above- it would probably penetrate nicely because the upper part of tank is less protected. But, the chance to hit a 'critical' system is lower in comparison to the CBU-97.

So the current DCS status is bad due to :

A. You can't effect the pattern of the MK20 - not able to adjust the probably of hit.

B. The damage model of the ground units and of the weapons is too simple. The CBU97 was adjusted to inflict 100% damage to the tanks 'life bar' and and the MK20 was adjusted to inflict a 20% damage to a tank. 

C. You can't argue that it's wrong because you're getting a "missing evidence" tag...

That's exactly why we should use CBU87 as a comparison.

 

and I have tested it again and was surprised against the T80U makes the Blu97 but only 8% damage

 

T80U Direct hit:

CBU 87/Blu97:  8%Damage
MK20/MK118: ~25% damage

BMP2 Direct hit :

CBU 87/Blu97: 57%
MK20/MK118: 100%