Jump to content

Spirale

Recommended Posts

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.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Spirale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :

Screenshot_20221205_085935.jpg

Screenshot_20221205_085800.jpg

 

Blu97Screenshot_20221205_085856.jpg

Screenshot_20221205_085738.jpg

 

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  🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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%


 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...