30mm HE armor penetration?

[isoul]

Penetrating armor is more about bullet composition than mass. Unless a round is designed with a penetrator it's just not going to want to go through armor, no matter how close or far you fire it. That's why you can't find penetration info on this HEI round. I actually looked for quite a while earlier and couldn't turn up anything.

 

...

 

I remember a report from Greek military stuff and arms specialists opposing to the idea of Greece adapting the 5.56mm NATO rounds (Greece is currently using the 7.62mm NATO round) that was post on press.

 

These guys claimed that, although the 5.56mm assault rifles are better for urban warfare, for the needs of the Greek Army the 7.62 was better. One of the reasons, according to them, is that 7.62 rounds are able to penetrate light armor while 5.56 can't.

 

I don't know, they may be wrong, but they were ex and active military stuff and arms specialists. They can't be totally wrong!

[Jaximus Decimus]

I remember a report from Greek military stuff and arms specialists opposing to the idea of Greece adapting the 5.56mm NATO rounds (Greece is currently using the 7.62mm NATO round) that was post on press.

 

These guys claimed that, although the 5.56mm assault rifles are better for urban warfare, for the needs of the Greek Army the 7.62 was better. One of the reasons, according to them, is that 7.62 rounds are able to penetrate light armor while 5.56 can't.

 

I don't know, they may be wrong, but they were ex and active military stuff and arms specialists. They can't be totally wrong!

 

Well, an AP 5.56 NATO round is going to be more effective at penetrating armor than an FMJ 7.62. This is again do to bullet composition. Of course, an AP 7.62 NATO will fare better than an AP 5.56 because if its increased mass. My point being that bullet composition is still more important than mass.

 

Neither AP round will penetrate a modern armored vehicle, though. In fact, the U.S military's Interceptor vests are rated to stop 7.62AP with the ceramic or composite plate inserted. AP will give you better performance against light vehicles and structures, though.

[StarHopper]

I remember a report from Greek military stuff and arms specialists opposing to the idea of Greece adapting the 5.56mm NATO rounds (Greece is currently using the 7.62mm NATO round) that was post on press.

 

These guys claimed that, although the 5.56mm assault rifles are better for urban warfare, for the needs of the Greek Army the 7.62 was better. One of the reasons, according to them, is that 7.62 rounds are able to penetrate light armor while 5.56 can't.

 

I don't know, they may be wrong, but they were ex and active military stuff and arms specialists. They can't be totally wrong!

 

They're probably talking about armored vests. Full 7.62x54 can penetrate up to a level 3 vest with trauma plate. Even the lightest BDRM can stop full 7.62 rounds.

 

@Jax - The level 3 vest with trauma plate is designed to stop all assault rifle rounds, including the 5.56x45 and 7.62x38 (AKM). Or its supposed to. Hate to break it to you, but the interceptor vests are really bad and ill-designed. That's why we Americans are having so many deaths in the field. The vests don't work.

Composition is good for penetration, but mass, energy, and velocity are everything. Thats why molten copper ( just a bunch of atoms ) at a million atmosphere's pressure can pierce through the armor of a main battle tank (Steel and composites ). Composition is where you don't want the round to break up ( strong molecular forces ) before it penetrates the armor. Which is fine, but you need energy ( inertia ) to get it through. And Inertia = Mass x Velocity. Without enough inertia, the round will simply stop halfway through the armor, still whole or not. That's why full 7.62 can penetrate a level 3 vest, where 5.56 will not. Inertia. Energy. While the round may dull because of its copper composition, it will still have enough energy to break the bonds of the steel and kevlar, and literally tear its way through. Like Spetz said above, "cratering".

Edited October 8, 2011 by StarHopper

[Jaximus Decimus]

Well, I never said I was a sales rep for DHB and everyone should run out and buy an Interceptor from K-Mart. Although, saying the vests don't work is ill informed. I've watched Interceptor vests take multiple hits of 7.62X39 at near point-blank range and stop every bullet. The vests do pretty much exactly what they were designed to do. The main problems are A) The vests weren't designed to protect from threats to the side of the wearer, B) The trauma plates don't cover all vital areas, and C) Body armor is still in short supply.

 

Still to this day, not everyone that needs armor has it. Let's say you did get issued armor and you chipped one of your trauma plates. Well, good luck getting a new one when there aren't enough to go around in the first place. So, you end up going on patrol with a chipped trauma plate that will probably shatter after the first round it takes. You can't blame that on the vest or the plate. That's a logistics/supply problem. And good luck getting the military to switch to more durable armor like Dragon Skin.

 

Anyway, back on topic. Yes, if you are able to accelerate a sufficient mass at sufficient velocity it will be able to smash through armor regardless of composition. What I'm saying is that, given similar mass and velocity, the bullet with the better composition with perform better against armor. I mean, I'm sure I could kill a tank by flying the space shuttle into it, but a shape charge warhead is just a lot more practical. Composition beats mass.

[StarHopper]

Composition beats mass.

 

Lol, oh, there's probably a lot of people on this board who could argue about this all day! But, I'd like to stick to the subject of HEI (NOT!) pentrating armor. I think it is way overdone in the sim. I mean, come on, the 2A42 is killing a M2A1 at like 2km with HEI! Is the top armor THAT WEAK?

[Jaximus Decimus]

I can definitely see a few good hits with HEI playing hell with an armored vehicle, busting up external optics and sensors, but I just don't think you could "kill" anything more than an armored HMMWV with HEI. At least, not without getting a substantial amount of hits to the weakest parts of the armor.

[EtherealN]

There is another aspect you are not considering: the simulator does not currently model "mission kills" very well. Essentially, units have a HP system and the damage incurred depends on where the projectile struck, at which energy, and what type of projectile it was. Damage then carries over to decrease the units combat effectiveness (bad aim, slow reload and such) and/or kill it.

 

However, what it cannot currently model is incapacitating the vehicle; for example, you could have a rain of HEI on an APC or artillery piece tracking it and damaging the sensors enough that it simply cannot move or fire. (Think of it like putting a bullet in each of a rifleman's hands and feet - you won't necessarily kill him, but he's definitely not going to kill you... Cue the Starship Troopers quote: "How is he going to press the button if you disable his hand? MEDIC!" :D )

 

So basically, some of the "kills" you get in the simulator from (relatively) small-caliber HEI can be considered an approximation of that unit simply being "out of the picture". In "real" combat you don't necessarily need to blow a tank up to succeed in your job: if it can't move and can't shoot... It's no longer material and can be considered "killed".

Edited October 8, 2011 by EtherealN

[StarHopper]

Essentially, units have a HP system and the damage incurred depends on where the projectile struck, at which energy, and what type of projectile it was. Damage then carries over to decrease the units combat effectiveness (bad aim, slow reload and such) and/or kill it.

 

Fair enough. But I think most armor is ignoring the fact that it got hit with an HEI. To the tankers, it probably felt like someone knocked on their door. At most, it might have damaged some sensors. HEI disabling treads, jamming the turret, and getting a shot into the engine from the top or rear would be considered extremely lucky. And even if you damaged a gun sight or such, the tanker can still pop his portal, and aim and fire manually. AI and damage systems on objects other than yourself seem to be critically lacking in this game. Watching an M2A1 be destroyed at 2km by HEI doesn't seem anywhere realistic. I feel like the sims in Game Mode or something. This is what API, SAPHEI, APDS, HEDP, and all the other armor piercing rounds were made for.

 

So, in the end, we need better AI, and better damage systems.

[159th_Viper]

......Watching an M2A1 be destroyed at 2km by HEI doesn't seem anywhere realistic. I feel like the sims in Game Mode or something.....

 

It's about striking a balance between gameplay and realism, ignoring for a second that WAFM is in it's infancy and is continuously being improved and worked on with every patch/module.

 

In any event, if one wants to play the realism card, why engage Light Armour with HEI in the first instance? Utilize the AP rounds which, when fired from the Shipunov, can and will cut that Bradley to ribbons without a sweat.

[power5]

I seem to get quicker kills on TANKS faster with HEI than with AP. I usually disable a BMP with one short burst. This is at more than 1.5km.

[EtherealN]

This is at more than 1.5km.

 

Which, incidentally, is roughly the same range where the A-10 fires it's 30mm slugs against tanks. :) (Obviously though, there's too much differences between the projectiles to make such direct comaprisons, but remember that the Ka-50 has the longbarreled version of the weapon, meaning higher energies and better accuracy than similar turret-mounted weapons on other helicopters.)

 

As regards penetration of armor with the HEI round, do note that the it has a delayed fuze; it will not explode as it strikes the target, it explodes AFTER striking the target.

 

Anyway, no, it's not 100% realistic. Yes, it's close enough. IMO at least. :)

[159th_Viper]

I seem to get quicker kills on TANKS faster with HEI than with AP....

 

No you don't ;)

 

Kindly post a track with BS 1.02 killing MBT's with HEI. Goodness knows I've tried from 1.9nm against the Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, T-80 and T-72 and I cannot even kill them with API......

[EtherealN]

T-55's are possible... They take time, and you have to be closer than you really want to be, but possible. And you want to use AP. :P

[159th_Viper]

T-55's are possible...

 

Main Battle Tanks........not Soup Tins!

 

:P

[Jona33]

You can't take out Abrams with cannon. I used all my ammo and still required a vihkr to destroy it.

[159th_Viper]

You can't take out Abrams with cannon.....

 

You can - just gotta get really close, ie an ambush from cover at a coupla hundred metres range at most:

 

 

Problem is, if you can see him then he can see you and at that range it's gonna end in tears for the Egg-Beater - always!

[StarHopper]

You can - just gotta get really close, ie an ambush from cover at a coupla hundred metres range at most:

 

 

Problem is, if you can see him then he can see you and at that range it's gonna end in tears for the Egg-Beater - always!

 

And here lies the craziness. Side armor of about 700mm RHA (kinetic) and the bullet can pierce probably about 80mm RHA (and that's probably being too generous). The tank should just laugh at it. I just saw a show about an M2 shooting its 25mm BushMaster at a Iraqi T72 tank at point blank range of about 10 meters. The bullets just bounced off its front turret. The commander started to panic. Fortunately for the M2, another M2 hit it with a TOW and killed it. This was a real life accounting from the beginning of the Iraqi War. The M1 has much better armor than the T72. We need MUCH better damage and penetration code. The flight simulation is excellent, but you need to start working on the world. MUCH better AI is also needed. People and vehicles just mindlessly standing around like sitting ducks is not acceptable. Before you start working on another aircraft, you need to work on the world a lot more. At least bring it up to Arma 2 standards.

Edited October 9, 2011 by StarHopper

[159th_Viper]

....And here lies the craziness. We need MUCH better damage and penetration code. The flight simulation is excellent, but you need to start working on the world. MUCH better AI is also needed. People and vehicles just mindlessly standing around like sitting ducks is not acceptable. Before you start working on another aircraft, you need to work on the world a lot more. At least bring it up to Arma 2 standards....

 

And what makes you think this is not already happening?

 

Read post #34 again ;)

 

And yeah, until you physically put a Shipunov 100m from a M1 and open up, all comments as to the outcome is pure speculation: One thing is however certain - that Abrams is gonna hurt!

Edited October 9, 2011 by 159th_Viper

[Headspace]

At least bring it up to Arma 2 standards....

Not that I'm interested in starting a flamewar but micromanaging the AI when making a DCS mission is only slightly less painful than doing so with the game you mention. Not to mention it's an entirely different game.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Headspace

[StarHopper]

Lol, sorry, NO. Arma 2 has MUCH better AI. I've done LOTS of mission editing in it. The AI can be very smart and aggressive, even using cover and concealment. When they're coming after you, you sweat. They don't just stand there staring off into space like this sim. Your aircraft simulation is great, but you have a WHOLE LOT to do in making your AI and your damage systems realistic. You have M1A2's being destroyed by a slow firing, inaccurate, 30mm cannon, while they just sit there, not doing any defensive manuevers. That kills the realism.

 

I hope that before you start to build another aircraft, that you will give some desperately needed attention to the world, at least bringing the AI up to Arma 2 standards, and giving us a much better damage system for tanks, apc's, and such. Especially to those infantry soldiers who just stand there like they're in a daze.

Edited October 9, 2011 by StarHopper

[EtherealN]

You have M1A2's being destroyed by a slow firing, inaccurate, 30mm cannon, while they just sit there, not doing any defensive manuevers.

 

Strange, they go defensive for me...

Development is ongoing, and a lot of things have been done since DCS:BS was released. ;)

 

I hope that before you start to build another aircraft, that you will give some desperately needed attention to the world, at least bringing the AI up to Arma 2 standards,

 

ARMA 2 standards is a fairlo low goal, imo. But there's a bigger question here: whatever makes you think ED would have to cease development of aircraft to work on ground AI? It's not like the guys who specialize in aerodynamics modeling or avionics are the guys doing AI code, just like they're not the same guys as are doing 3D models, textures, so on and so forth.

 

ALL areas of the simulator see CONSTANT development, and this "either-or" mentality is the most common misconception I see (and I do see it a lot) about simulator development - or even any game or software development.

 

Think of it like this: you don't stop performing surgeries just because the hospital restaurant needs some work. ;)

 

and giving us a much better damage system for tanks, apc's, and such.

 

Everything is a question of budgets - and not only development money. There are a lot of cases where you COULD implement it into your game, and you might even have the code already, but it would just cost too many processor cycles. (Most easy example of this: the differences between the Quake 1 and Quake 2 engine are, largely, that they left a lot of stuff out of the Quake 1 engine because they knew most PC's would tank under the pressure. Similarly, iD software could have done a lot more with Tech5 than they did if they had wanted to (and hadn't thrown out a lot of stuff unecessasrily), but some features that ended up projected for Tech6 ended up there because "the hardware to run it does not yet exist".)

 

Remember, AI, damage models, etcetera can be made more detailed. Probably (I'm not the expert, so just an educated guess here) even without much changes to the underlying engine. Issue is, this would dramatically increase the per-unit CPU load, dramatically reducing the amount of units possible to have in a given mission. ARMA can easily afford more detail per unit, because there aren't that many of them - the area that needs to be populated is very small. Essentially, ARMA is Platoon level combat. DCS can easily go above Company and reach the Battalion level if you want to do it realistically - and once you get there computers already have a hard time dealing with it.

 

For that reason, my opinion is that this is a necessary tradeoff and until further engine components have been migrated to their own threads, this is all pretty academic. Improvements would be nice, both in AI and in damage calculation for AI units, but there might be requirements to that that might take some time to get ready.

Edited October 9, 2011 by EtherealN

[Headspace]

Lol, sorry, NO. Arma 2 has MUCH better AI. I've done LOTS of mission editing in it. The AI can be very smart and aggressive, even using cover and concealment. When they're coming after you, you sweat. They don't just stand there staring off into space like this sim. Your aircraft simulation is great, but you have a WHOLE LOT to do in making your AI and your damage systems realistic. You have M1A2's being destroyed by a slow firing, inaccurate, 30mm cannon, while they just sit there, not doing any defensive manuevers. That kills the realism.

DCS isn't an infantry game. Are you honestly suggesting that armored vehicles react to air attack more accurately in A2?

 

Rest assured I have more than a passing familiarity with the AI in that game.

[StarHopper]

Well, if your talking about them not just sitting there while they take fire, then YEAH. The infantry is so bad in this sim, it feels like I'm shooting at metal figurines.

[adam12]

Nonsense.

 

Have you tried engaging targets properly with HEI? Try again.

 

 

Track DCS:BS 1.02: [ATTACH]57299[/ATTACH]

 

I'll test some more, but just let me state the argument:

 

I didn't say HE couldn't kill anything. So let's put that aside.

 

What matters more to me is that I can use AP to kill any vehicle HE can kill.

 

Yes, HE can disable a tank that you can't kill. That's what your Vikhr are for (killing tanks). AP will damage tanks too btw.

 

Some points on realism -- HE is an infantry killer. That's really why it's on the helicopter, not for peppering Abrams from the frontal arc to disable systems.

 

Infantry in DCS are not modeled adequately (and that's fine!) for them to be anything but shooting gallery targets in the sim. And they can be killed by AP too.

 

---

Edited October 10, 2011 by adam12

[EtherealN]

Some points on realism -- HE is an infantry killer. That's really why it's on the helicopter, not for peppering Abrams from the frontal arc to disable systems.

 

First of all, killing infantry is not the sole purpose, it is a purpose, of that round. It is good for any soft or lightly armored target. Second, while it's purpose may not be to disable systems on an Abrams, this does not mean that it is completely incapable of doing so.

 

Is it too easy to kill armored units with HE rounds in the simulator? Possibly: but mainly if we consider only literally killing them. Whether it's too easy or too hard to achieve mission kills is a different matter, and as mentioned one that the simulator cannot (currently) fully simulate.

 

To use a silly example from a silly (but still somewhat amusing) game: in World of Tanks, even a tiny low-tier tank with practically no chances of actually killing a Königstiger might well be able to render it immobile with a good explosive shot. Now, in that game the tracks are miraculously repaired (it's basically Counter-Strike with tanks, so that's necessary to make the game work), but in reality this would be a complex thing in the midst of battle. Similarly, if we were to move this to a modern tank, you might also be able to take out sensors, MG's, engine components and so on.

 

Basically, my opinion is that for something like a Bradley it might be a bit too easy to kill the Bradley with HE, but it is also "too hard" to mission kill it. So, in my own opinion, it's a fair balance for where things are right now. Similar principles apply to Abrams and so on. It might be possible to kill them with that gun, but it requires attack parameters and amounts of ammunition that are such that you really won't be doing it much. Even against T-55's I generally consider the gun a desperation move. I've used it on purpose less times than I have fingers on one hand, and those times it's been because I absolutely had to: I was out of other weapons and that thing was headed for my friendlies - and my FARP was too far away.

 

So well, yes, not 100% correct, but a good balance (one error helping the player, another acting against the player) considering the limitations of the engine used with DCS:BS.

 

EDIT: As an aside, do recall that this same gun is used on many platforms, including BMP's, BMD's and BTR's. Whatever they use if for, the KA-50 can also use it for. :)