ATGM's vs Fortifications

[Suhiir]

Since we all know Don (DRG) likes nothing more then players telling him how to do his job...

In the game fortifications (unit class 0) are treated basically as immobile armor units. This works pretty well vs every weapon type except ATGMs (weapon classes 13, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 24). Until the advent of the Sagger and TOW in the 70's fortifications make an attacker work for it.
The problem is ATGMs use HEAT warheads, which work by burning a hole usually less then 1 cm around thru the metal armor of a tank and spraying the interior, ammo, and crew with molten metal. It's rather difficult to melt thru a dirt or concrete fortification and I suspect hot dirt or concrete dust is somewhat less effective then melted armor.
Increasing the HEAT armor rating of fortifications would have the side effect of making them too resistant/immune to RPG/bazooka type weapons, the exact weapon types (in addition to flamethrowers and satchel charges) traditionally used to assault them.
Altering the game code to prohibit ATGMs from firing on fortifications has the side effect of players screaming that the game won't let them fire their weapons.
Maybe adding code to double, triple, ten-fold (whatever's needed) the HEAT armor rating of fortifications vs ATGM weapon classes will work.

Two questions for the peanut gallery.
1) Is ATGM vs Fortifications a big enough problem to require a solution?
2) Do you have a practical alternative suggestion on how to solve the problem?


** Watches Don turn purple then runs for cover **

[Imp]

Never really bothered me because if you have armour around fortifications are history from the 70s on anyway. Never waste ATGMs on them though you play USMC a bit I guess so tanks could be in short supply. Think the only time I ever tried it was in an Afghanistan battle as my 2 ATGM teams were twiddling there thumbs.
Because they are so easy to destroy with modern tank guns I did wonder however about using something similar to the way reactive armour works for the heavier fortifications to represent "chipping away at it"

[Koh]

Admittedly it's been a while since I've refreshed on my anti-tank skills, but we were always taught that HEAT rounds deal with concrete pretty effectively. For example, I believe the APILAS with an RHA penetration of around 650 - 700 mm was told to penetrate around two meters of concrete. So I'd say penetration is of no problem.

However I must agree on your second point. The after armor effects would probably be considerably less catastrophic than in a tank. With less tightly packed stuff ready to explode, probably not as cramped as a tank and like you said with less molten steel spraying around, I'd imagine that bunker would survive a penetration much better than a tank.

I'm not sure if fortifications are already coded that way, but I'd imagine that it would better reflect reality if direct hits at bunkers would more often just take out a weapon slot or two rather than outright blowing up the entire thing. But that's might be just me.

- Koh

[SaS TrooP]

From my own experience I would also say pretty much of ATGM (or tank) shots are non penetrating, or simply failed. Much more compared to hits agaisnt other targets. I guess thats how game simulates that: if you hit strong, base part then its just failed sot, contrarly itting an inner compartment with MG positions and stuff will do the trick.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The answer is simple, we keep up with the weapons systems in the field already. TOW BB. I'm waiting for the Patch to come out to see what Don and I suspect Andy have agreed upon in dealing with the TI/GSR issue for both the M1A2 SEP V2 and AH-64E GUARDIAN. I've held off on submitting a weapons system that has in combat that full capability and both the USA and USMC have used it in the capicity noted in this thread. The TOW ITAS system. It was designed for both the anti-tank and bunker busting roles as currently used in Afghanistan since early 2011. This TOW has much "longer legs" then previous TOW missiles to include the "brand new" optics which in reality is the focal point of what ITAS is, and also why I'm waiting in particular for the M1A2 SEP V2 numbers to come out as next year I intend to submit ITAS at the same TI/GSR. Not going over the reasons here, as you all know where to look for them, just know the refs for ITAS support the these claims with a sampling below of what I have. The new missile is the TOW BB. The TOW ITAS has been code named by the insurgents as "The Finger of God" the sub sailor in me agrees with the anatomy part in both counts . I understand there might be issues here but TOW BB use goes beyond forts to buildings and troops in mountinous/rocky terrin positions as well.
1) On the first ref please get past the source to get to the source. Also pay close attention to what Para 4 is telling the reader as well.
http://www.readperiodicals.com/201101/2251360761.html

2) In Ref 2 Para 2 will get the ball rolling.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...uidance-02827/

3) The last basically ties it all up.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...e_2802126.html

Sometimes I find it necessary to hold off on equipment submissions because there are unresolved issues I must address before submission. The better I can present that piece of equipment the better the chance it gets in if presented properly. Even after my own enthusiasm for it, I left out the T-90AM/MS because I had more questions then answers. So I have high hopes for this "class" based in part on the feedback I got. And we know the "Bosses" have no problem with providing feedback!?! And rightfully so under some of the OOBs current statuses. So for the "Class of 2012/2013" I remain hopeful as it was a very difficult year.

Regards,
Pat


Just announced F-22s in S. Korea.

[Suhiir]

Imp,

I have zero issues with tanks blowing up bunkers. That's one of the things they're for.
And yeah, playing the USMC I have tons of ATGMs and very few tanks *chuckles*

Fastboat,

Guess I missed the TOW BB.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As I don't want to leave people hanging I'll start with an excerpt from the "vault" with the ref below.
Current and Future TOWs
Current TOW missile improvements include a bunker buster (BB) variant and replacement of the obsolete wire guidance link with one that operates via radio frequency (RF). The TOW BB, which is just entering the Army and USMC inventories, is optimized for precision assault capability and features a blast fragmentation warhead that can punch through an 8-inch thick, doublereinforced concrete wall from ranges up to 3,750 meters. The RF guidance link is in production with deliveries beginning in FY10.
I don't know if the RF factor has any implications in the game world or not. But larger and wider expanses of water are no longer a factor. Moderate to heavy wet weather was to some extent with early TOW a factor as well, though minor, still a % was there for misses or "near hits" vs kill shots. We all heard the stories wide river shots or low % shots from the beach in testing. We've come a long way from there with first improved wires and systems and the missiles themselves.
One of those CIA documents I posted last summer addressed some of this along with other factors. It's ironic to note the Soviets factored our ATGM systems as one of the reasons they changed their doctrine to a more "defensive" one while the CIA (As noted above.) made the estimate that a determined Soviet offensive might've succeeded because we didn't have enough in the operational theatre and for the issues as discussed above. Anyway I digress . Besides I need some rest as the grand daughter is with us and tomorrow is movie day with CINCLANTHOME while I see one on MacArthur.
Be wary of those April Fools Day...Fools!?!
http://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/20...ful_200907.pdf
http://www.army.mil/article/27259/to...n-afghanistan/

After reviewing ref one for the first time in about a year, I guess with the "TOW EVOLUTION" section maybe I'll have a little more to do.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

The RF factor is irrelevant for game purposes.
However, the increased range will be relevant.

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Since we all know Don (DRG) likes nothing more then players telling him how to do his job...

In the game fortifications (unit class 0) are treated basically as immobile armor units. This works pretty well vs every weapon type except ATGMs (weapon classes 13, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 24). Until the advent of the Sagger and TOW in the 70's fortifications make an attacker work for it.
The problem is ATGMs use HEAT warheads, which work by burning a hole usually less then 1 cm around thru the metal armor of a tank and spraying the interior, ammo, and crew with molten metal. It's rather difficult to melt thru a dirt or concrete fortification and I suspect hot dirt or concrete dust is somewhat less effective then melted armor.
Increasing the HEAT armor rating of fortifications would have the side effect of making them too resistant/immune to RPG/bazooka type weapons, the exact weapon types (in addition to flamethrowers and satchel charges) traditionally used to assault them.
Altering the game code to prohibit ATGMs from firing on fortifications has the side effect of players screaming that the game won't let them fire their weapons.
Maybe adding code to double, triple, ten-fold (whatever's needed) the HEAT armor rating of fortifications vs ATGM weapon classes will work.

Two questions for the peanut gallery.
1) Is ATGM vs Fortifications a big enough problem to require a solution?
2) Do you have a practical alternative suggestion on how to solve the problem?


** Watches Don turn purple then runs for cover **

I am not a physicst but HEAT does not burn throught armor in the same sense of a thermal lance being applied to a plate (though you can also cut concrete, rock or any bunker grade material that way, not just armor). What it does is using the explosive force to turn the liner in a jet of metal traveling at several km/s. From what I recall they eventually figured out that the jet was not molten metal, but at those speeds the difference is rather academic if you are on the receiving end; behavior and dynamics may differ from those of sabots/AP (the HEAT jet won't stay together for a great distance) but the basic punch throught effect is kinetic in both cases.
Generally speaking bunker grade materials (concrete, earth/sand etc.) will offer comparatively more protection against HEAT than to modern sabots, so the idea of multiplying the base KE value by, say 3-4 or some such is in principle a sound one. In practice there must be something like a couple of thousands of fortifications class units, among which a fair number of panzerturm and others special cases, for which such operation cannot be automated.You get the idea.
In regards to th effects of HEAT against bunkers proper. Bunkers are usually roomier than AFVs, do not have engines, fuel tanks (well not where an ATGM could hit usually) etc that can be knocked out or set on fire. That said it does not mean that HEAT penetrations can be disregarded. Spalling and the others post penetration effects can still harm the crew or the weapons, and if the bunker is an artillery casemate there is likely a fair bit of ammunition that can be set off; I remember visiting an artillery block in the Maginot line which the germans had sniped at with a couple of 88mm for hours, eventually almost piercing throught the concrete behind a ready rack for at least one hundreds of 75mm shells, they gave up too soon and the french realized what was going on but you can figure out what could have happened.

[Suhiir]

Thanks for the reality check Marcello.

I thought maybe there was more of a problem then apparently exists on this matter.