investigating mk82, 83 bombs explosion radius too large after update?

[Nealius]

On 7/1/2025 at 4:58 AM, shagrat said:

Seems they are now quite close to real life, so proper parameters and planning matters.

Yes, if only all the -34 tables with such parameters weren't classified. And if ED doesn't provide us with in-game parameters, then how are we expetected to do such planning?

[Py]

15 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

You break left or right after release?

Release altitude at 300 feet or more?

Using Delayed fuze?

Yes hard break instantly after release, 500-600ft release altitude. I've also tried going full burner and pulling up hard but still get damaged.

Delayed fuze is a good idea, unrealistic and a problem with moving targets but it might be the only way.

[Nealius]

Real world safe escape/bombing tables for Mk84AIR released high drag show MRA of 150-170ft AGL at 450KTAS at sea level to 5,000ft MSL(depending on ripple setting) with a straight or level turn safe escape maneuver. If you're getting fragged with a 500-600ft AGL release then something is defintely wrong with the blast modeling. Assuming your bombs are indeed deploying their ballutes.

Edited July 2 by Nealius

[Esac_mirmidon]

Yep, 500-600 AGL at 450 speed should be safe enough for Air Ballute Mk-84

Edited July 2 by Esac_mirmidon

[SalakauHeadman]

On 7/1/2025 at 3:58 AM, shagrat said:

You mean finally manage to destroy an unarmored truck that's as close as 500ft (~150m) to a 1,000 lbs bomb?

That's actually good news. Thank you ED.

For some context, according to statistics compiled by the GICHD (Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining) the typical lethal area of an Mk82 (500 lbs) is 80m by 30m (260ft by 100ft) with RED (Risk Estimate Distance) of 250m(!) for 10% (one in ten) people incapacitated! ...and that's just the "small" 500 lbs Mk82.

Here is a link to the GICHD website for research: https://www.gichd.org/our-response/policy/explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas/

Direct PDF download link for the MK82 study (Annex-E): https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/uploads/gichd/Publications/Explosive_weapon_effects_web.pdf

Seems they are now quite close to real life, so proper parameters and planning matters.

 

wow i had no idea that bombs were THAT damaging IRL

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

17 minutes ago, SalakauHeadman said:

wow i had no idea that bombs were THAT damaging IRL

There was probably a reason for the increasing focus on limiting collateral damage and development of systems such as Small Diameter Bomb.

[shagrat]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Raven (Elysian Angel):

There was probably a reason for the increasing focus on limiting collateral damage and development of systems such as Small Diameter Bomb.

☝

Edited July 3 by shagrat

[shagrat]

Am 2.7.2025 um 03:50 schrieb Nealius:

Yes, if only all the -34 tables with such parameters weren't classified. And if ED doesn't provide us with in-game parameters, then how are we expetected to do such planning?

Yes and no. There's some information in the GICHD documents. The RED describes 10% and 0,1% ranges for damage to human bodies, so we can assume there's fragmentation, at least up to that distance.

The problem I see, with the current increased blast model, is fragments will slow down faster than the blast wave and that's why we end up in the outer edge of the damage zone from the blast.

So your observation is definitely valid.

Guess, there's still some tweaking needed. But it's better than before. 

[graveyard4DCS]

On 6/30/2025 at 10:26 PM, shagrat said:

Assuming the real life fragmentation heights, and planning for a safe escape maneuver above 3500 ft, should keep us out of harms way... though I still need to test/verify this assumption.

In real life, a hard deck at 3000' AGL is generally the norm.

There are several fragment envelope diagrams in various flight manuals, and 3000' seems to be a safe value for all bombs at sea level.

Keep in mind that the fragmentation envelope is shaped by the drag of the fragments, and therefore the higher the target, the larger the danger zone. 

[graveyard4DCS]

19 hours ago, shagrat said:

some information in the GICHD documents. The RED describes 10% and 0,1% ranges for damage to human bodies, so we can assume there's fragmentation, at least up to that distance

If you are interested by fragmentation envelope, RED and collateral damages, I tried to introduce these concepts here and here.

But I agree with you, we need to do some tests to see how DCS replicates all these models, and how far we are from real life data.

Until now, I considered DCS parameters "safer" than real life parameters, so sticking to real life procedures ensured safe margins. With the new damage models, we need to reassess whether it's still the case or not. 

[Nealius]

AI behavior seems unadjusted for the newer frag radius as well. AI P-47s are fragging themselves and killing the pilot with low-level 250lb bomb drops during CAS.

[gmangnall]

On 6/28/2025 at 6:36 PM, Why485 said:

Full list of weapons affected. IMO this is a very positive change and I'm shocked ED didn't announce this in the patch notes or newsletter. This is something the community has been asking for, for many years, and would have been appreciated by a great many players.

AN_M30A1
AN_M57
AN_M64
AN_M65
AN_M66
M_117
Mk_81
Mk_82
MK_82AIR
MK_82SNAKEYE
Mk_83
Mk_84
GBU_8_B
GBU_10
GBU_12
HB_F4E_GBU15V1
GBU_15_V_1_B
GBU_16
GBU_31
GBU_31_V2
GBU-38
GBU-54_V_1B

The new damage is ridiculous and has destoyed the ability to do CAS missions as bombs now kill friendlies 300+ metres away..meaning it's difficult go get troops close enough to fire...and be safe from friendly bombs....and you now blow yourself up  when dropping retarded bombs at altitudes from which you should be safe.

On 6/30/2025 at 8:58 PM, shagrat said:

You mean finally manage to destroy an unarmored truck that's as close as 500ft (~150m) to a 1,000 lbs bomb?

That's actually good news. Thank you ED.

For some context, according to statistics compiled by the GICHD (Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining) the typical lethal area of an Mk82 (500 lbs) is 80m by 30m (260ft by 100ft) with RED (Risk Estimate Distance) of 250m(!) for 10% (one in ten) people incapacitated! ...and that's just the "small" 500 lbs Mk82.

Here is a link to the GICHD website for research: https://www.gichd.org/our-response/policy/explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas/

Direct PDF download link for the MK82 study (Annex-E): https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/uploads/gichd/Publications/Explosive_weapon_effects_web.pdf

Seems they are now quite close to real life, so proper parameters and planning matters.

 

Nonsense. The lethal radius to a person for a 500lb bomb is about 20 metres.....in DCS it's now over 300 metres! The entire DCS damage modelling needs to be redone as it's an utter joke. 

[Czar]

On 7/1/2025 at 10:07 AM, Py said:

Something doesn't seem right though, I haven't managed to drop high drag MK-84 at any reasonably low altitude without damaging myself, even just below supersonic, and that's specifically what they are designed for.

At 6:35 :

It seems something is off with the chutes and high drag bomb speeds are very slow when in terminal velocity, though. Maybe something changed since your comment.

Edited August 9 by Czar66

[shagrat]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb gmangnall:

The lethal radius to a person for a 500lb bomb is about 20 metres

    ...ever thrown a hand grenade IRL? 

[NytHawk]

On 8/9/2025 at 9:27 AM, gmangnall said:

Nonsense. The lethal radius to a person for a 500lb bomb is about 20 metres.....in DCS it's now over 300 metres! The entire DCS damage modelling needs to be redone as it's an utter joke. 

Are you able to link a credible source supporting this 20 metre lethal radius claim. 
 

Peak overpressure from a Mk82 blast is 117kPa 16m according to the GICHD document linked above, with overpressure decreasing to 34kPa at a distance of 31 metres.

According to the CDC; 69kPa overpressure is enough to kill most people, with 34kPa is enough to universally injure people with widespread fatalities, and serious injuries at 21kPa.  I feel like "serious injuries" to infantry in DCS should count as deaths, purely because they prevent the soldier from fighting in any capacity.

 

This is not even factoring in fragmentation. It's not uncommon to see videos of several large pieces of shrapnel to travel over 75m even from just a 155mm artillery shell explosion. And those only have an explosive filling of ~15 pounds. Just imagine the amount of shrapnel, and the distance it will travel with the ~200 pounds of explosive filling in a Mk82.

Edited August 15 by NytHawk

[graveyard4DCS]

Taking the Risk Estimate Distances from official docs like the JFIRE is certainly the best way to answer your question. 

10% PI and 0,1% PI were the two common thresholds in the past.

You'll see that later versions use new references with 0.1% PI standing/prone/prone protected.

You'll note also that values changed along time, taking into account newer studies and operational experience.

In any case, it will give you realistic values for all types of western weapons effects. 

Edited August 15 by graveyard4DCS

[Esac_mirmidon]

Try edit the fuze settings to delay the explosion a bit when releasing High Drag Bombs at low level.

[shagrat]

Am 15.8.2025 um 09:59 schrieb graveyard4DCS:

You'll note also that values changed along time, taking into account newer studies and operational experience.

Also, there were modifications to the actual bomb body, that aimed at improving the fragmentation damage and radius. Like pre-fragmented casings, optimized materials and air-burst fuzes. 

In the recent conflicts the requirement changed toward less, but precise damage. Though typically that was addressed by separate low yield or kinetic weapons.

I mentioned it in an earlier post, in DCS the difficulty is currently to balance the lack of fragmentation modeling with the effects of blast damage. Blast damage naturally travels faster than fragments. So the new adjusted blast radius is a stand in for fragmentation, which in itself is a step in the right direction and very much appreciated (finally a bomb, rather than a glorified handgrenade). On the downside, the danger to low flying aircraft is calculated by the fragmentation pattern over time, so with the blast reaching a low flying aircraft, way faster than the fragments would, we need to delay the bombs fuze in a HD low altitude attack, so we clear the excessive blast range faster. But we need to be aware, a friendly ground unit or helicopter inside the RED is not "safe".

The "Danger Close" definition, is friendlies inside the 0.1 PI RED... and that's 425 m according to the GICHD document and other sources.

If we assume it is a good idea to have cleared the airspace inside a 450 m radius around the impact point before(!) the bomb explodes, we should be safe.

[Nealius]

Adding more data to the pile. A clump of Mk82s, some airbursting due to the first impact, 100% destroyed an entire SA-3 site without actually hitting any units. (The P-19 in the top right was taken out earlier by a HARM).

I expect shrapnel to shred the track radar and the nearest launcher. I expect perhaps some damage to the other 3 launchers but not 100% damage. At this point it's like an arcade game. Toss a Mk82 with a DSU-33 within a 150m radius of a SAM site and you can take the entire battery out with ease.

Edited August 18 by Nealius

[gmangnall]

On 8/9/2025 at 4:17 AM, shagrat said:

    ...ever thrown a hand grenade IRL? 

Not sure you have much to worry about from a grenade at 20metres

[NytHawk]

7 hours ago, gmangnall said:

Not sure you have much to worry about from a grenade at 20metres

The M67 is quoted by the DOD to have an effective (50%) lethal radius of 5m with an effective (50%) casualty-producing radius of 15m. There are numerous sources claiming fragments can travel to distances exceeding 200 metres.

I personally wouldn't like being inevitably being peppered with dozens of tiny steel fragments standing in the open 20 metres away from a hand grenade. Sure you're unlikely to die, but it's certainly not a pleasant experience.

Edited August 19 by NytHawk

[shagrat]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb gmangnall:

Not sure you have much to worry about from a grenade at 20metres

Wanna try?

Open ground, no cover.

I wouldn't recommend it! Even with eye protection, helmet and body armor... real life is different than computer games.

[shagrat]

Am 18.8.2025 um 03:41 schrieb Nealius:

Adding more data to the pile. A clump of Mk82s, some airbursting due to the first impact, 100% destroyed an entire SA-3 site without actually hitting any units. (The P-19 in the top right was taken out earlier by a HARM).

I expect shrapnel to shred the track radar and the nearest launcher. I expect perhaps some damage to the other 3 launchers but not 100% damage. At this point it's like an arcade game. Toss a Mk82 with a DSU-33 within a 150m radius of a SAM site and you can take the entire battery out with ease.

Yep, that's pretty accurate. 150m is less than half the 425m RED. So the fragmentation should incapacitate/render the majority of the site unusable, at least you would need to fix a lot of damage. 

As I pointed out above, currently the fragmentation is "faked" by blast damage, which is not perfect. Blast wave travels faster than fragmentation does.

But actually DCS bomb damage felt like a joke, compared to real life, before.

The adjustment definitely needs fine tuning, fragmentation calculated and in a perfect world even blast wave accumulation and reflection on objects, including over- and underpressure effects, but at least we now have bombs that can destroy/collapse buildings and do damage to vehicles without a direct hit!

I am not sure if it's still linked on the GICHD site, but there was a nice damage area and damage distribution simulation linked, where you could see the distances on a simulated village.

Also the document I linked, is really worth reading, especially the part of damage and casualty rates in urban areas (as secondary fragmentation increases the actual damage to people and unarmored/light armored vehicles).

At least I hope there's an interest in understanding the real life effects and distances, with exactly the problems for weapon employment under ROE, which led to the development of low collateral damage weapons like the BLU-39 or BLU-129/B. 

[Nealius]

11 hours ago, shagrat said:

As I pointed out above, currently the fragmentation is "faked" by blast damage, which is not perfect. Blast wave travels faster than fragmentation does.

So currently it's an issue of the blast wave standing in for fragmentation, and thus 100% killing everything in the radius instead of dealing more granular damage points? The launcher in the far right revetment most likely wouldn't have gotten enough fragments to explode like that.

[shagrat]

Am 20.8.2025 um 11:09 schrieb Nealius:

So currently it's an issue of the blast wave standing in for fragmentation, and thus 100% killing everything in the radius instead of dealing more granular damage points? The launcher in the far right revetment most likely wouldn't have gotten enough fragments to explode like that.

Yep, blast range is ok now, but the damage dealt over distance is A) a bit too excessive (my subjective opinion) and B) as it is a stand in for fragmentation too fast, as the fragments slow down faster.

Keep in mind, if you dropped more than one bomb the damage is cumulative (also in real life), as the blast waves overlap (and IRL would interact). Also IRL an airburst Mk-82 would spray the  whole site and damage most if not everything not armored.

The thing here is damage modeling, though it has improved, isn't able to visualize things like crew incapacitated, a track of a tank damaged (mobility), though some effects are modeled. For example damaged units can't drive full speed any more, simulation of engine/mobility damage. 

So, yes, the current change is not perfect, but it is a big step in the right direction.

For a long time, you could more or less throw a Mk-82 between a couple T-80 some 10m apart and if you were very lucky one got noticable damage. IRL the crews would have been heavily disoriented, or even injured, likely the tracks on the side of the explosion damaged and some of the optics and external weapons (DshK) damaged.

Edited August 21 by shagrat