Aircraft weapons

[DRG]

There has been discussions in the past on this forum regarding the effectiveness of aircraft in the game and it was added to the list for this patch to be investigated. We are right in the middle of that investigation ATM and we have discovered one or two flaws that have morphed into serious issues that will be addressed in the next patch.

Some background info first that applies to aircraft launched rockets as that is what I am up to my armpits with ATM.

Aircraft launched rockets ONLY ( and this is important ) utilize the HE entry in the unit OOB. If you have an aircraft with guns and then two lines of rockets it will ONLY use "HE" rockets and never "AP" ones and therefore they do not use "AP penetration" weapon numbers and they do not use "HEAT penetration" weapon numbers either. The number that aircraft launched rockets use when determining an attack on infantry is the "HE kill" number in the weapon data and number that aircraft launched rockets use when determining an attack on an armoured target is the "HE penetration" number. If that number is zero or 1 that's all the penetration it gets even if it shows a significant HEAT capability

Helicopters are a different issue. Helicopter ARE set up to use the "AP" slot in a units weapons Helicopters fired rockets CAN use the "HEAT penetration" number IF the rocket is set up in the AP column of the unit data. If the rocket is set up under the HE line it will use the "HE kill" number.

What we found was a number of different problems compound by cut and pasting units and weapons from one OOB to the other. If the "master" weapon was wrong it usually ended up wrong wherever it was pasted to unless someone found it and then tracing back where all the others were can be a chore at the best of times.

Many weapons we have found were set up and applied correctly but many were not and sometimes aircraft weapons were given to helos and vice versa due to misunderstanding which one applied. It can be difficult when dealing with what can look like very similar weapons in the OOB with very similar numbers but in different order and keep that all straight over 92 OOB's.

The main problem was rockets, fired from aircraft , that should have had an anti tank capability were not, in some cases, getting what would be the penetration values usually found under "HEAT penetration" applied to the "HEPen" which made them virtually useless against any armoured target. All that is being sorted out now. The end result is rocket firing aircraft will be somewhat more deadly against armoured targets in this next patch than previous IF the weapon info had been set up incorrectly in the current OOB's. If your favorite aircraft had rockets that were set up correctly you won't see any change. As I said, not all air launched rockets were set up incorrectly but may were and that will be corrected for the next game upgrade along with any other issue we find in that regard



Don

[Suhiir]

Actually I'm glad to hear this, as I've found most aircraft weapons to be of limited use VS armored targets - and the exceptions to sometimes act like pocket nukes killing vehicles 2 or even 3 hexes from the impact hex - yet strangely fail to effect the targeted vehicle.

I'm very much looking forward to this correction.

[Marcello]

"Aircraft launched rockets ONLY ( and this is important ) utilize the HE entry in the unit OOB. If you have an aircraft with guns and then two lines of rockets it will ONLY use "HE" rockets and never "AP" ones and therefore they do not use "AP penetration" weapon numbers and they do not use "HEAT penetration" weapon numbers either."

I found that out the hard way some time ago, when I tried to have my iraqi SU-22s firing S-5K rockets at tanks. Needless to say it did not work out.

[DRG]

Yes, this wasn't a discovery on our part as much as a discovery that over time a number of units had been set up this way by the various OOB designers or that when units are cut and pasted from one OOB to another sometimes weapons set for helos have been used for aircraft and aircraft weapons used on Helos. That's not an issue if the weapon in question is strictly HE but it is very important when there are AT considerations.

Another thing is autocannon on Helos. WC5 will not fire at helos. It's for ground vs ground work. Any weapon set up as WC5 and given to a Helicopter to use as a weapon will shoot at ground targets no problem but will refuse to fire at other helos. I'm right in the middle of sorting all that out now.

There are over 34,000 units in all the OOB's. 34,679 as of today to be exact. Ensuring everyone who ever touched the OOB's did everything by the book can be a real treat at times.

Don

[Marek_Tucan]

For helos, I'd have another question: Would it make sense to distinguish helicopters with fixed weapons and those with wider field of fire? To avoid any East-West conflict, let's take say Ka-50 vs. Mi-28, one has gun with only limited traverse in forward arc, the other has gun on rotating mount. So I'd guess the '28 should be somehow benefitted compared to '50 in terms of firing opportunities, as '50 has to maneuver more to get shot off - does that make any sense?

Anyway, my suggestion would be lowering stabilliser rating for the helos with fixed guns. In hover, they'd get the same firing opportunities, but once they'd get moving, they will lose them faster than helos with flexible weapons.

Not a major issue, jsut a stray thought provoked by the Air question.

[thatguy96]

If you were going to do that I think some people might clamour for a look at whether or not there is enough variance to then justify changes based on the nature of the turret and targeting equipment as well. Faster slew rates and more advanced sighting equipment right.

[Marek_Tucan]

Those would be covered rather by FC methinks, but anyway as I've said, it's just a stry idea I even didn't have time to try out. Maybe after Wednesday http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[thatguy96]

Oh, without a doubt, I'm just saying that if you change one thing you might end up being compelled to change another.

[kevineduguay1]

I had a Maverick kill two tanks in different hexes, so this is a problem. But why can't the A-10's 30mm gun kill a tank? After all was'nt the gun was designed to do this? At least once on occation?

[DRG]

Two kills for one missile can happen. If the HEkill is reduced that reduces incidents like that but also makes the weapon less effective against non armoured targets. We made changes to the code in the last release that reduced the number of incidences like that and I assume this isn't something you see all the time but you don't say one way or the other. If it is, nobody else is reporting it.

The A-10's 30mm gun CAN kill a tank in the game. I have seen it happen so saying it cannot "At least once on occasion" is ridiculous and I can provide save games that prove that statement is ridiculous. However, we are reviewing how multibarreled weapons are handled in the game and found a flaw in the code that goes back to SP2 that was reducing the effects of multibarreled guns. That doesn't affect the way the A10's are set up in the OOB's you have now but will when the patch is released and the new OOB's are used. However, don't expect fantasy results where A-10's leave masses of twisted wreckage after one pass. The actual armoured piecing ability of the GAU-8 Avenger is 69mm at 500 meters but the game fires from a shorter range and is rated as a 9 right now and that's won't kill a lot of tanks.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

DRG,

The two kills with on shot has only happened twice in three test runs of a 1992 scenario {US vs Iraq} with the Iraqis having over 200 tanks. So this as you said is not common.

The A-10 30mm has yet to make a kill on a tank. It will kill most everything else but no tanks yet.

I am asumeing that the 69mm pen figure for the gun is with normal AP. I belive that this weapon also has a DU round for it. If Im wrong then we all know what asume stands for! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[DRG]

The only AP round made for the AN/GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gun system is the PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary (API). That's the DU round. There is no "normal" AP made and the penetration for that round is reported in many places as being between 65-70 mm at 500 yards. As I said, we boosted it up a bit because attacks in the game happen at closer ranges than 500m so it was given a tweak upwards that it may not actually deserve.

Here's one source for the guns penetrative abilities....GAU-8 Avenger (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm)

there are others

If you want to see an A10 light up a tank pick a target with less than 9 rear armour and attack from the rear. Most gulf war 1 Iraqi tanks qualify.

It's not a wonder weapon but it does have the mystique of one.

However, if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Don

[kevineduguay1]

DRG,

Tried to tweek the A-10 with some results as far as the gun goes without adding PEN. As you said in an earlier post it may be how the game handles multi-barreled weapons on aircraft. I'm glad your working on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Now you can look at a site that I found that explains the newer upgrades that will make the A-10 even deadlier and stretch its service life to 2028.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

On this site you will see a statement as follows,

"Using the cannon, the A-10 is capable of disabling a main battle tankfrom a range of over 6,500m."

You will also find that there are two AP rounds for the gun that are both refered to as API (Armor Piercing Incendiary).
One is DU, the other is not. I suspected this because as far as I know the Pen capability of DU rounds is classified as is a ton of other stuff that your trying to portray in this game. I do not envy your job.

The 25mm on the USMC's Harrier jet also fires DU rounds but to a much lesser extent.

That's another story. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[kevineduguay1]

DRG, on the same site as above you can click on Industry Projects on the top left and find other info on many other aircraft and helos that may be useful.

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:

On this site you will see a statement as follows,

"Using the cannon, the A-10 is capable of disabling a main battle tank from a range of over 6,500m."

You will also find that there are two AP rounds for the gun that are both referred to as API (Armor Piercing Incendiary).




Interesting they don't specify or offer examples of which "main battle tank" they are "disabling" from 6.5km away or how they calculate what "disabled" means. You could pepper a T55 from 6.5km away and have the crew panic and abandon the tank and that would make it tactically "disabled"

As for ammo, there are ample number of sources that say there are TWO combat rounds that cannon fires. The PGU-13/B HEI High Explosive Incendiary round and the The PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary round . The only other round made for that gun is the PGU-15/B TP Target Practice projectile and is used for pilot training so there is one, and only one "AP" round made for that weapon. The API round IS the DU round. DU is a natural pyrophoric material which enhances the incendiary effects


I don't normally like to quote from Wikipedia but this quote sums things up quite well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
"The standard ammunition mixture for anti-armor use is a four-to-one mix of PGU-14/B Armor-Piercing Incendiary (API), with a projectile weight of about 15.0 oz (425 grams or 6,560 grains) and PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds, with a projectile weight of about 12.7 oz (360 grams). The PGU-14/B round incorporates a depleted uranium penetrator."

this matches the info provided by this website
http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5741

"The General Electric-built GAU-8/A 30mm Avenger gun system could hold up to 1,174 rounds and could fire aluminum-cased ammunition with either armor piercing incendiary, high-explosive incendiary, or training practice rounds. "

and others

Note what this website gives under specifications for that weapon
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

Armor penetration 69mm at 500 meters /38mm at 1000 meters

that is typical of the info available on that weapon.


also look at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/gau-8.htm

All in all it's difficult to make assumptions about a weapon based on a vague statement that "is capable of disabling a main battle tank from a range of over 6,500m" without knowing what they mean by "disabled". There is no evidence the GAU-8 will leave a main battle tank a smoking ruin from 6.5 km range but then....... which "main battle tank" are we taking about ? A T55, A Leo 2 ? A T-90 ? The only real "targets" the A-10 has had to deal with have never been anything even approaching "top of the line" MBT's that I'm aware of but they WILL knock out UK Scimitars in real life but they will in the game as well as any test game will demonstrate.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0331-08.htm

This School of Advanced Air and Space Studies thesis..

http://aupress.au.af.mil/saas_Theses/Haun/Haun.pdf

shows a photo of a "Serbian T-55 Destroyed by A-10 with AGM-65 Maverick" Now why use a $150,000 missle to destroy and old T-55 if the Gau-8 is such an efficient tank killer?

Don

[Marcello]

"Using the cannon, the A-10 is capable of disabling a main battle tank from a range of over 6,500m."

I don't buy it, it would not exactly be the first time that the SPG Media websites write some bull**** so it should not be takes as gospel; as usual logic and common sense apply.
Just because a round is made of DU it does not become a magic bullet capable of piercing any armor at any distance.
The penetration figures listed seem to be consistent with what you would expect from an AP round of that age.
It is also sufficient to take out a tank either by mobility kill via engine deck/tracks hits or penetration of rear and top armor. Most soviet tanks, but even contemporary western designs like the Abrams, had top and rear armor in the 40mm range which could be penetrated according to the listed data. The dive angle would work against it by increasing LOS thickness but multiple impacts
might weaken the armor.
Against the intended targets therefore it should work, although I would not bet it was a 100% affair, but I would suspect that modern MBTs designed with top attack in mind would give it trouble (engine hits aside).

I am sure you could squeeze a much greater penetration from the gun but you would have to go down the sabot route and that apparently is not an option due to the petals ingestion issue. Besides there are more convenient ways to take out armor and it is mostly used against soft targets nowadays so why bother?

[Marek_Tucan]

"Disabling" is very wide formulation. Heck, even at that range I guess it can disable even M1A2SEP mixed with Merkava IV given enough rounds expended by knocking out vision blocks and other sensitive gear on the top of turret...

[kevineduguay1]

All I'm saying is that the way it is set up now I have in MOST scenarios played seen NO tank kills and NO immobillizations. When it does happen only one or two MBTs are effected in a given scenario. And my tests were done with elite air crews (Exp-120) and spotters.
What I do see is a lot of Pen-0 Arm-6, and even Pen-9 Arm-1, with both results having no effect on the target besides suppression.
It may also be an accuracy problem in the game or some other factor.

[kevineduguay1]

DRG,

I looked at all those other site before and even the text in many of them are the same.
I gave you a site with a different perspective, please read it through.

[Marcello]

"I gave you a site with a different perspective, please read it through."

And one whose reliability is questionable.
Do you really believe that something like the PGU-14 (the DU round) which is essentially an APCR, with all the disadvantages that this configuration entails and is by now decades old in design, has such magic penetration capabilities to enable it to rip apart tanks at 6000 meters?
There are cutout pictures of it all over the web.

http://www.airforceworld.com/attacker/gfx/pgu14b.jpg

Its official penetration data may still be classified but it is definitively not some top secret magic uber round capable of unbelievable performance.

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:
DRG,

I looked at all those other site before and even the text in many of them are the same.
I gave you a site with a different perspective, please read it through.



I DID READ IT!. Why do you think I wasted all that time replying at length to what it was saying. Neither you nor that website clarifies just what "capable of disabling a main battle tank " MEANS or WHICH "main battle tanks" they have disabled at that range. Doesn't that seem odd to you ? What I do know is I had already researched this question LONG before you presented this "different perspective" because I had partially bought in to the notion that this weapons should be capable of more that we credit it in the game but the deeper I dug the more I became convinced it isn't , as Marcello says, "a top secret magic uber round " The 30mm Gau that A-10 carries is the least of your worries if one appears overhead. It's all the other goodies it can carry that are the real threat.


Just because that website has a "different perspective" doesn't make it correct. When you are looking for other information on other subjects and a number of sources agree but one doesn't do you always assume the one that doesn't agree with any others is correct ? Or do you just pick the ones that suit your notion of correct ? I have already spent hours looking for information on this gun. Nothing that website says is very enlightening.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

"DU can be used to engage the enemy at greater distances than tungsten penetrators or high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds because of improved ballistic properties. When they strike a target, tungsten penetrators blunt while DU has a self-sharpening property. DU ammunition routinely provides a 25 percent increase in effective range over traditional kinetic energy rounds."

Off the Global Security site.

[kevineduguay1]

"In the early 1970s, the Air Force developed the GAU-8/A air to surface gun system for the A-10 close air support aircraft. This unique aircraft, designed to counter the massive Soviet/Warsaw Pact armored formations spearheading an attack into NATO's Central Region, was literally designed and built around the GAU-8. This large, heavy, eight-barreled 30-mm cannon was designed to blast through the top armor of even the heaviest enemy tanks. To further exploit the new cannon's tremendous striking power, the Air Force opted to use the depleted uranium U-3/4Ti, a 30mm API round. A comprehensive Environmental Assessment of the GAU-8 ammunition was released on January 18, 1976. The report stated that the proposed action was expected to have no significant environmental impact and that the "biomedical and toxicological hazards of the use of depleted uranium (DU) in this program are practically negligible." The A-10 aircraft was deployed to United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) in 1978."

Global Security.

A disabled tank would be one that no longer functions as intended. In game terms that should be immobilized or killed.

[thatguy96]

Still doesn't provide concrete figures on what it can and cannot do. Furthermore, since I'm currently an intern (read: "web monkey") for Globalsecurity.org I can tell you without giving anything away that those pages haven't been updated in years and have generally been made up of direct text from usually rather glowing government or manufacturer assessments, often with few concrete figures to go along with them.

[kevineduguay1]

Then we have a problem of inconsistancy in the game.
In the USMC OOB weapon number 077 30mm Bushmaster has a Sabot Pen of 12. Weapon number 190 the GAU-8 mounted on the A-10 has a HE Pen of 9.
The problem is that BOTH WEAPONS fire the SAME 30mmx173 DU round. Please explain. The Bushmaster only fires about 250 RPM max, while the GAU-8 spews about 3900 RPM max. While both weapons will hurt you, which would hurt more?

[Marek_Tucan]

My bet is that the difference cometh from weapon class and how is it modelled in game. You'll note thet with Mk44 chaingun, the AP ammo is in either AP or Sabot slot (too lazy to check it out right now), meaning it's penetration decreases with range. OTOH GAU-8/A is class 11 aircraft weapon, meaning the round has to be simulated there with HE penetration. Since HE pen doesn't decrease with range, it is not too sensible to let it have it pointblank penetration when it fires at a certain range ingame.

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
Then we have a problem of inconsistancy in the game.
In the USMC OOB weapon number 077 30mm Bushmaster has a Sabot Pen of 12. Weapon number 190 the GAU-8 mounted on the A-10 has a HE Pen of 9.
The problem is that BOTH WEAPONS fire the SAME 30mmx173 DU round. Please explain. The Bushmaster only fires about 250 RPM max, while the GAU-8 spews about 3900 RPM max. While both weapons will hurt you, which would hurt more?


Both weapons have the same caliber, both weapons do not fire the same specific round. The weapons were definitely modeled on the normal ammunition loadout for both. The increased sabot number is no doubt based on the fact that the navy has an APFSDS round (Mk 268 Mod 0) for the Mk 44, that isn't used in the GAU-8/A.

[kevineduguay1]

From what I understand the Navy no longer uses a DU round.

The only inovation between the GAU-8 and the Bushmaster is that the Bushmaster has a built in fuse setter for its HE rounds that the GAU-8 could in no way facillitate. The MK44 was featured on the TV show "Future Weapons" and showed how its HE round could be set to pen so much cinder block and then explode basicly depriving your opponent of their cover. So other that the HE round all others are the same.
30mmx173.

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:The Bushmaster only fires about 250 RPM max, while the GAU-8 spews about 3900 RPM max. While both weapons will hurt you, which would hurt more?



Well.. how about the Gau-8 with the 27 HE kill as opposed to the Bushmaster with only 11 ?? Strange that you would ignore that little detail. That 16 point difference is the difference between the two weapons ROF and their affect on soft targets. PENETRATION has nothing to do with ROF though we may take that into consideration.

Don

[PlasmaKrab]

I don't have time to check stats right now, but it still shows up that the PGU-14 has a muzzle velocity of 1067m/s fired from the GAU-8, while the MK268 fired by the MK30 autocannon gets a hefty 1385m/s and is APFSDS, i.e. gets much less drag over its course. Same rounds, are you sure?
While I don't have figures for the US rounds yet (heh), I have racked up a figure of 57mm RAH @1000m/60° for the apparently similar German PMC-287 round. I find this figure hard to believe, but do you think Rheinmetall would publish official figures? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

69mm @500m is largely believable for the GAU-8, and allows to kill lots of of miscellaneous AFVs and some tanks in a totally improbable Stuka dive.

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
From what I understand the Navy no longer uses a DU round.

The only inovation between the GAU-8 and the Bushmaster is that the Bushmaster has a built in fuse setter for its HE rounds that the GAU-8 could in no way facillitate. The MK44 was featured on the TV show "Future Weapons" and showed how its HE round could be set to pen so much cinder block and then explode basicly depriving your opponent of their cover. So other that the HE round all others are the same.
30mmx173.


Its not a matter of innovation, its a matter of standard loadouts. The Mk 268 Mod 0 APFSDS-T round is not a DU round. The USAF does not use this round, and the MV differences have already been mentioned here.

[kevineduguay1]

DRG,

I have no problem with the HE Kill values, they seem fine to me.

thatguy96,

The bullet is different but the case is the same.

)" This weapon fires standard 30 x 173 mm GAU-8 ammunition, using a side-stripping link developed by The Boeing Company. It can also fire RARDEN and Oerlikon KCB (30 x 170 mm) ammunition by changing the barrel, bolt and aft feed plate."
Found at,

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30mm_BushmasterII.htm (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30mm_BushmasterII.htm)

The USAF does not use the MK268 round, this is true. The USAF uses a DU round while the Navy doesn't. The Navy felt that they did not need the extra pen power of DU to take out the targets they expected to encounter in their battle environment.

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:
DRG,

I have no problem with the HE Kill values, they seem fine to me.




OK.... then why quote penetration stats to me then ROF stats comparing the two weapons ? ROF has NOTHING to do with penetration unless we feel generous and tack on a bit because of a high ROF .

Given the published penetration stats for that weapon are 69mm at 500 yards and we give it a 9 HE Pen because the game only fires at half that range we have therefore already give the weapon a 30% boost in penetration as a compromise which is quite generous considering.

I'm sorry the munition doesn't slice and dice the way you think it should but we have to at least try to stick with the hard facts we know and there isn't any hard evidence to support the type of kill rate you seem to expect from that weapon.

Don

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
thatguy96,

The bullet is different but the case is the same.


That the projectile is different and fired out of a different gun have serious affects on the rounds muzzle velocity and other ballistic characteristics, and as a result has a serious effect on the penetration capability of the projectile. That's like saying 5.56x45mm M193 fired from an M16A1 rifle has the exact same properties as 5.56x45mm M855 fired from an M4 carbine.


kevineduguay1 said:The USAF does not use the MK268 round, this is true. The USAF uses a DU round while the Navy doesn't. The Navy felt that they did not need the extra pen power of DU to take out the targets they expected to encounter in their battle environment.


Firstly, DU is not some super metal. Tungsten and titanium have equally good qualities, if not better qualities, than DU. DU was adopted because of its incendiary properties, and because its a byproduct of other nuclear production, making it both cheap and available. It was not picked because it was the most dense material available.

Secondly, the Mk 268 Mod 0's penetrator is likely made of tungsten. Where are you getting this assertion that the Navy doesn't expect to encounter vehicles and ships on the battlefield that would need additional penetration? Especially seeing as one of the Mk 44's prime applications will be as the main gun on the EFV.

[kevineduguay1]

Look up the book by Bill Gunston called,

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament
ISBN# 0-517-56607-9

On the A-10 he mentions TWO AP rounds, one tungsten core (AP-T) and one DU (API). These are in addition to the HEI and practice rounds.
The AP-T round would match up very nicely with the 69mm pen figure. The tiny German 28mm sPzB 41 could pen 66mm at 500 meters so why put that monster 30mm gun in any aircraft?

thatguy96,

Tungsten tends to blunt its own tip and even shatter at very high velocities while a DU round self sharpens until it penetrates or runs out of energy and destroys itself.

As far as the EFVs Bushmaster it may indeed be armed with a DU round. But on this Im not sure. Is the LAV 25 armed with DU rounds for its 25mm?
As far as guns aboard ships DU was deemed unnecessary. It was even pulled from the load out for the Phalanx system.

The MK44 may even end up on an improved Bradly!

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
Tungsten tends to blunt its own tip and even shatter at very high velocities while a DU round self sharpens until it penetrates or runs out of energy and destroys itself.


I'd like to see some sources on that, seeing as how widespread Tungsten is as a core metal in kinetic energy penetrators. It really seems to be the metal of choice for such things. The only reason DU seems to have been chosen is because it was a cheaper and equally satisfactory alternative, not because it was superior.

In fact, that's exactly what my copy of Gunston's book says, "cheaper and much easier to fabricate" (pg 190). My copy (dated 1988) also only mentions the DU round, not any other type of AP.

[kevineduguay1]

Your wish is my command,

"On more properly military grounds, depleted uranium is favored for the penetrator because it is self-sharpening and pyrophoric.[18] On impact with a hard target, such as an armoured vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp."

" DU can be used to engage the enemy at greater distances than tungsten penetrators or high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds because of improved ballistic properties. When they strike a target, tungsten penetrators blunt while DU has a self-sharpening property. DU ammunition routinely provides a 25 percent increase in effective range over traditional kinetic energy rounds."

This one is from Global Security.

Also from Global Security

"DU's self-sharpening properties are evident in this
x-ray. Note how the tungsten penetrator's tip deforms
into a mushroom shape."

If you go to the site look unde DU ammunition. At the bottom of the page you will see the X-ray. Notice the tungsten round is not only blunted but has broken in two while the DU round has stayed almost intact.

I'll get back to you on the book thing. I hope I didn't give you the wrong title! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

[kevineduguay1]

More goodies from Global Security.

"During the late 1950s, the primary material used for kinetic energy, armor-piercing projectiles was tungsten carbide. When first fielded, tungsten carbide represented a quantum improvement over its nearest competitor, high carbon steel. Its higher density (approximately 13 gm/cc) gave it superior penetration performance against existing armor targets. With the advent of double and triple plated armor in the 1960s, however, tungsten munitions showed a tendency to break up before penetrating the layered armor. This deficiency spurred the development of new alloys and materials capable of defeating any armored threats."

Navy stuff from Global Security.

" The Navy made the decision based on live fire tests that showed that tungsten met the Navy's performance requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and environmental impact. It should be noted that the "soft" targets the CIWS was designed to defeat-anti-ship missiles at close range-are far easier to destroy than "hard" targets like tanks. Substantial stocks of DU ammunition delivered prior to that date remain in the inventory."

One more from some other site.

" Additionally, DU penetrators exhibit significant adiabatic shear band formation. During impact, fractures along these bands cause the tip of the penetrator to continuously shed material. This erosion maintains the tip's conical shape. Other materials such as unjacketed tungsten tend to deform into a less effective rounded profile, an effect called "mushrooming"."

Good night!

[pdoktar]

The Mk44 has APFSDS ammo. No?
The GAU-8 has only APDS ammo. No?

APFSDS is made to have more penetration capability than APDS. I can see no other reason to make such a complicated round if it has not got something to offer. The only thing that an APFSDS has to offer is more penetration and range having that penetration capability.

APDS is inferior in penetration to APFSDS if properly designed and fired from the same gun. The case diameter and lenght are the same for GAU-8 and Mk44, but Mk44 can fire the APFSDS ammmo that GAU-8 probably can too, but mounted on the A-10 can not, since the sabot petals would interfere with the airframe.

You can give some extra pen for the A-10 because the weapon muzzle velocity gets an increase from the speed of the aircraft it is flying when firing. However you can hardly argue that a modern APFSDS has worse pen capabilities than a 1970s APDS.

I personally think that a good 100 round burst hitting a MBT will at probably result in a mobility kill, or not. The engine deck and fans above it, tracks, track guards, main gun etc are vulnerable to the GAU-8. The high rate of fire is probably because of getting multiple hits to the targets in one attack thus increasing the chances of damaging tanks weaker parts.

BTW how many MBT kills did A-10s have in GW1 just using the main cannon.. I´ve only heard of light AFVs, trucks, AA assets which are easily penetrated by the GAU-8 and make up the majority of vehicle targets in any battlefield thus giving the GAU-8 plenty of use even if it called a "tankbuster". Just remember that for example the media refers anything with tracks as a tank, so the tankbuster can really wreak havoc among those "tanks".

[Marcello]

I think there are some misconception about the nature of the PGU-14 fired by the GAU-8. Such round, as the cutout picture I have posted clearly show, is neither an APDS nor APFSDS, where the DS stand for Discarding Sabot. In such a configuration an high density, sub caliber penetrator is surrounded by lightweight petals which are discarded after the round leaves the muzzle in order to reduce aerodinamic drag. No such thing for the PGU-14, as the discarded petals could be sucked into the engines with the all too predictable consequences. Therefore while a subcaliber penetrator is used in the PGU-14 this is more in the fashion of APCR of WW2 vintage, with the aluminium jacket retained until the impact with the target. The drawbacks of this configuration, especially at long range, were well known even during WW2 but as I said its employment was dictated by the circumstance of its use inside an aircraft.
Note that even if you don't trust me the round is referred to as AP rather than APDS or APFSDS.As I said no DS.

"Tungsten tends to blunt its own tip and even shatter at very high velocities while a DU round self sharpens until it penetrates or runs out of energy and destroys itself."

Actually as it has been debated to death on tanknet at really extremely high velocities it is tungsten that all else being equal (quality of manufacturing,tech level , alloying etc) has an edge on DU but that is not particular important for the current round speeds as far it was understood. What it should be remembered in context is that DU has come under heavy political flak (some of it unjustified IMHO) and the DOD has had to defend its use. Some inflating of its real advantages and cherry picking of evidence went in par the course.
I hope to write something more about it later if I can find the time.

[Marek_Tucan]

I think the "Tungsten blunting" did happen with lower quality tungsten alloys, ie upon its introduction (early 1980's?) the DU should have an edge here, but my understanding is also that current tungsten penetrators should be at least equal to DU.

[thatguy96]

So I went and checked the sources on the "DU is superior and Tungsten blunts on impact" comments repeated on Globalsecurity.org and most of them come from US government documentation defending the resumed use of DU ammunition in light of the massive debate about the health consequences. While it is obvious that at least in some cases the point holds true, those kind of government documentation are not exactly the best for making determinations about the real effectiveness of a system.

That picture of the round shattering doesn't show what the rounds look like beforehand, what gun they were fired from, etc. So while it obviously does happen, we don't know what the circumstances of its occurrence are.

[kevineduguay1]

As I said before ALL DU penetration stats are CLASSIFIED. The 69mm at 500 meters figure just does not add up.
Again why would the US invest all that time and money to create this huge weapon and have it only slightly out perform a weapon like the German WWII era 28mm sPzB41 (pen 66mm at 500 meters)? I know that the Pen value in the game for the GAU-8 is 9 or 90mm but again this fits just right with the Ger 28mm weapon. Notice that when a A-10 makes a gun run in the game the last attack is said to come from 200 meters. At 200 meters the 28mm sPzB41 has a pen value of 86. In the game this would also rate as a 9 Pen value.
Im not looking to create a "uber weapon" just something closer to the real thing.

thatguy96,
I can use the same argument against you about the Bushmaster MK44. Cute picture of the round but where is it written that this 30mm weapon can punch 120mm of armor? Is that source reliable or is it just some trumped up figure put out by some US Government agency to legitimize the funding for this project?
Two of my quotes are from other sites and do not parrot Global Security.

The Bushmaster can fire a APFSDS round that may and probably does give it a slight edge over the GAU-8. The GAU-8 round is totaly self contained just like that pesky 28mm German squeeze bore. But given same size penetrators of tungsten and DU, the DU penetrator wins in the weight competition and in the penetration competition.

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
As I said before ALL DU penetration stats are CLASSIFIED. The 69mm at 500 meters figure just does not add up.
Again why would the US invest all that time and money to create this huge weapon and have it only slightly out perform a weapon like the German WWII era 28mm sPzB41 (pen 66mm at 500 meters)?


Because its cheaper and easier? As far as, I know the GAU-8/A and its ammunition do not rank up as one of the costlier weapon systems ever developed by the US military. There is also not a wealth of documentation on the supposed superiority of DU prior to the health impact scandal. There is, however, a wealth of documentation that talks about the ease and low cost of manufacture, and the availability of the material as a byproduct of nuclear power production.


kevineduguay1 said:
thatguy96,
I can use the same argument against you about the Bushmaster MK44. Cute picture of the round but where is it written that this 30mm weapon can punch 120mm of armor?


Never said it could. In fact I have not quoted any penetration figures. I just said that it was obvious that somewhere someone along the way made a design decision based on information likely to do with the difference in rounds used by the different weapons.


kevineduguay1 said:
Is that source reliable or is it just some trumped up figure put out by some US Government agency to legitimize the funding for this project?


I never said it was, and I never said it wasn't. So you could be exactly correct on both points.


kevineduguay1 said:
Two of my quotes are from other sites and do not parrot Global Security.


I checked all the sites you linked and their citations. You can look at them yourself.


kevineduguay1 said:
But given same size penetrators of tungsten and DU, the DU penetrator wins in the weight competition and in the penetration competition.


Again, I've seen nothing that conclusively proves that point or to a point where I am anywhere as convinced as you obviously are.

[kevineduguay1]

Again I ask, why mount the huge GAU-8 whan a much smaller weapon could do the same job? If it did not have a distinct advantage why not just use a 20mm Vulcan?
With all the research that went into the GAU-8 weapon they couldn't make it any better than a WWII era heavy anti-tank rifle?

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
Again I ask, why mount the huge GAU-8 whan a much smaller weapon could do the same job? If it did not have a distinct advantage why not just use a 20mm Vulcan?


I would think that the sheer fact that 30x173mm has almost identical muzzle velocity and is bigger and therefore packs a greater punch is a distinct advantage. I do not have any sort of any comparative data, but I wonder what kind of armor penetration most aircraft cannon get.

[Marek_Tucan]

From what I have in my data, Vulcan gets a muzzle energy of cca. 100 kJ, GAU-8/A some 244 kJ so indeed it has edge above the smaller gun.

[Marcello]

"Again why would the US invest all that time and money to create this huge weapon and have it only slightly out perform a weapon like the German WWII era 28mm sPzB41 (pen 66mm at 500 meters)?"

Some points to consider
1) The sPzB41 achieved those performances by being a bleeding edge, over engineered, limited production item with several issues (barrel wear inherent to the taper bore designs etc). GAU-8 ammo was designed to be practically made and expended in immense quantities.
The drag issue associated with what is an APCR design have already been noted.
GAU-8 ammo has been around for what must be over 30 years now, so it is not exactly a recent design either.

2) The "it is WW2 level stuff" claim is not sound by itself. You could knock out an Abrams with a WW2 vintage Panzerfaust. That does not make the Abrams a poor design, does it?

3) The GAU-8 high ROF means higher HE kill against soft targets, less time spent on target and to an extent greater probability of hitting the target. Such things are not directly related to each round penetration.

4) Speaking of hitting probability I have an hard time imagining how you could hit a tank size target more than six kilometers away with a fixed gun mounted on a plane.

"Im not looking to create a "uber weapon" just something closer to the real thing."

If you had an alternate a source claiming that it was let's say 88mm at 500 meters rather than 69mm it would be something we could accept without much fuss. As it is you were asking for it being capable of extreme performances (knocking out tanks at 6000 meters and the like) based on little of substantial.

[Marcello]

"The Bushmaster can fire a APFSDS round that may and probably does give it a slight edge over the GAU-8."

In general others thing being equal or similar a modern APFDS will outperform an old APCR and by a very substantial amount.

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:

With all the research that went into the GAU-8 weapon they couldn't make it any better than a WWII era heavy anti-tank rifle?




Now here's a classic example of how an argument can drift off course into fantasy. COMPARE THE TWO WEAPONS. Anyone not desperate to stretch a point into incredulity can see the Gau-8 is a much more dangerous weapon . Also, you also state "As I said before ALL DU penetration stats are CLASSIFIED". OK..... fine lets assume ALL the sources that claim otherwise are mistaken. Perhaps you could provide us with these sources that state up front that they are classified or do you assume these other sources must be wrong because the weapon simply doesn't live up to it's propaganda ? You would think that if this weapons was Gods gift to tank killing there would be ample published reports and photos of Iraqi or Serb tanks shredded by the Gau. I have seen one before and after photo of a tank attacked with the Gau-8 only.. it was an M47 Patton. Hardly a shining example of a modern MBT. In the game it's armour is approx equivalent is an M3A3 Bradley both of which the A-10, in the game, can kill with it's cannon alone.

I told you this at the beginning. I started looking into this long before it was brought up on this forum because I expected to find info that would support an increase in this weapons penetrative abilities but there is none except vaguely statements verging on propaganda that the weapon can disable an MBT from over 6km away. HARD EVIDENCE is conspicuously absent. I DO agree, however that the volume of fire this and other high cyclic rate multi-barrelled weapons put out should give it more chance to hit than a single shot weapon and that is what we have been looking at. There is a way we can simulate this with aircraft weapons but the "trick" doesn't work with the high volume/ multi-barrelled guns used on helicopters. What I DO NOT agree with is this gun should be given an uber penetrative ability based vague stories alluding to it's abilities.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

DRG,

There are pick out there on the net you just have to look. One of the sites I looked at had a pic of a Serbian M-84 that was destroyed by the GAU-8. No big holes just the turret blown off with a US GI standing on it. It had that funny burnt looking color of the M47 Patton that you mentioned. I saw that one too but never mentioned it because as you mentioned this does not compare to a modern MBT.

On another note I did some tests last night and by giving the GAU-8 sabot ammunition (9 Pen) and a weapons range of 130 and a sabot range of 130 it performed much better but was no uber weapon. About 1 in 3 or 4 passes were leathal to Iraqi T-72s. I also gave the gun a HE Pen of 2 and kept the 27 He kill value. This kept it effective against unarmored vehicles. Have not tested against infantry yet.
Another idea I tried was to give the A-10 was a AP value of 7 to match the number of tubes. This had little effect when loaded with only HE ammo but seemed to be to much with Sabot. So I put the AP value back to 1. More experiments to come.

[DRG]

What is the point of giving it a range of 130 when the game only fires aircraft weapons from 4 or 5 hexes away? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif You must have noticed that while running your tests. Give it 255 is you want it won't make the least bit of difference.

Changing the AP value to 7 won't work because that # of guns code for class 11 weapons is broken ( has been right back to SP2 ) but has been fixed for the next patch and, as I said, that "trick" won't work for Helo weapons.

Don

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:
One of the sites I looked at had a pic of a Serbian M-84 that was destroyed by the GAU-8



That's great Kevin... how about sharing the URL ?
Don

[kevineduguay1]

DRG,

I know that most all air gun attacks start a 250 to 300 meters in the game.
The longer range figures are to enhance the effects of the sabot rounds at close range. And it worked. Some of the reports read as follows, Pen 14, Arm 6 etc. a Pen of 14 was the highes I think and worked down to a low of 2 to 4 Pen.
I even had mobility kills. I'm going to try this with a sabot pen of 7 and see how effective that is.

Here is another tidbit I found,

"Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin, Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks, February-March 1978, Volume 1, Air Force/56780/February 2, 1979.

In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4°. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts on one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. These results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential."

[DRG]

Yes, strangly enough that is part of a quote I was about to post.....


How effective are DU shells anyway? Browsing through various literature about the Persian Gulf War one will encounter wonderful fairytales of British Challenger tanks penetrating Iraqi tanks with DU rounds at over five kilometers away and American Abrams tanks destroying two T-72s with one DU round at a distance of nearly 3 kilometers. One will also read stories of A-10s destroying scores of Iraqi tanks in one pass with their 30-mm DU shells. During the operation "Allied Force" against Yugoslavia stories of Serbian tanks being destroyed left and right attracted media attention just as well. After destroying hundreds of Serbian tanks in their own minds, NATO commanders were finally forced to admit the unimpressive reality.

Colorful folklore aside, in 1978 the US Army and the Air Force conducted a test in which an A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack aircraft engaged a pair of stationary Soviet-made T-62 tanks. The overall effectiveness of A-10s and their DU rounds did not exceed 2 percent:

"In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4 degrees. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts in one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of penetrations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. The results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential." 12

The result of this exercise was fully confirmed during the operation "Allied Force" despite the upgrades of the A-10 and its weaponry. For tens of kilograms of DU introduced into the environment an A-10 has a slight chance of making a hole in a tank, which may or may not destroy it.

[kevineduguay1]

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/weapons/cannons/gau8/gau8_en.htm

This one is an Iraqi T-72. It may be the same photo I was talking about. Still looking.

[Marek_Tucan]

My guess is that the cause of the final state of that T-72 is M-Rick, not GAU.

[kevineduguay1]

More stuff,

"This report describes firings of the A-10/GAU-8 weapon system against individual combat loaded Soviet main battle tanks. The pilots making the firing passes attacked at low altitude and corresponding low dive angles simulating movement through a hostile air defense system. Ammunition used in the attacks comprised 30mm armor piercing incendiary rounds, which proved to be effective damage agents against substantial areas of the Soviet T-62 tanks used as targets. The pilots in six successful firing passes (one additional pass resulted in a miss) scored 95 impacts on target, which included 17 perforations through the armored envelope. The six tanks which were impacted received damage physically assessed as ranging from catastrophic in the case of two combat vehicles to negligible in the case of one tank attacked directly from the front. (Author)"

" Meant to be 30 Years Ago": That's the view of Air National Guard Lt. Col. Donald Henry of the "new" A-10C, which he helped bring to fruition as Air Combat Command's ANG A-10 program element monitor and which he flew in combat in Afghanistan. "The A-10C is the heaviest modernization program the A-10 has ever gone through," he said and added, "This is what the A-10 was meant to be 30 years ago." The new avionics, fully integrated targeting pods, and smart weapons, such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition, have produced an "effects-based upgrade" that enhances pilot situational awareness, said Henry. During one close air support mission, Henry said that the C model Hog enabled him to drop a JDAM "right in the middle of the target." He added: "I could see exactly where the friendlies were, where the enemies were. It would have taken much longer to verify their location, to roll in with dumb bombs. The JDAM made it extremely easy and precise." USAF has set 2011 as the date by which it will have all Hogs upgraded to C models and has issued a contract for new wing sets to prolong service life. Now, if USAF could just get new Hog engines. (Langley report by SSgt. Thomas Doscher)"

I think I miss named the photo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[kevineduguay1]

The pick posted by DRG of a Soviet type tank hit by a Maverik showed substantial hull damage. You could realy see where it hit.
The little photo I posted looks more like a ammo cook off that could be caused by a lucky 30mm DU pen.

[kevineduguay1]

Shouldn,t the P-51 Mustang in the OOBs that are armed with 50cal MGs have a AP rating of 6 instead of 4? The Mustangs that carried 4 guns were armed with 20mm guns.

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
Shouldn,t the P-51 Mustang in the OOBs that are armed with 50cal MGs have a AP rating of 6 instead of 4? The Mustangs that carried 4 guns were armed with 20mm guns.


Wow, heh, I'm amazed I hadn't noticed that myself before. But that's definitely a little error. It seems to be the case throughout the OOBs, like it originated in one place and as the unit was copied it just became the standard.

[DRG]

I will look into the P-51 issue later.

Don

[DRG]

I contacted Tony Williams in regard to the DU ammo fired by the Gau 8. Mr Williams has published a number of books on weaponry. This is his reply

(A bit of background. in one posting I found on a message board the poster claimed the DU round....."A 1,000M the current round will penetrate almost 200mm of RHA(steel) plate"....and Tony had posted other info later and that was how I found his website so Tonys comment about the 200mm comes from that. )

Don



Tony Williams said:

It's quite difficult to get any firm comparative information on the penetration abilities of this round. However, the APFSDS rounds recently developed for the same cartridge for use in AFV guns like the US MK44 and the Mauser MK 30 are reckoned to penetrate around 90-100mm/1,500m/60 degrees. There is no way that any of these could penetrate anything like 200mm armour, and they would be considerably more effective than the API.

I have no reason to question the FAS figures, although I'm not sure of the striking angle used.

As a matter of interest, in early firing tests by an A-10 against a T-62 tank at ranges of 500-1,340m, only about 10% of the shots fired actually hit the tank (they have much better sights now) and of the ones which hit, only 20% penetrated the armour, although others damaged the track and suspension.

Tony Williams

Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[DRG]

"Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin, Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks, February-March 1978, Volume 1, Air Force/56780/February 2, 1979.

In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4°. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts on one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. These results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential."




So set up two t-62's in the game . Make 7 passes on each from the rear/side quarter of the vehicle with the stock gun set up in the OOB's now and tell me it the game doesn't give similar results.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

Done!
I set up as follows---Date Feb 1979 All Preferences set at 100%
Map--100x100-- Flat open ground-- No terrain features.
Visibility 65
Spotter--M981A1 FIST-V-- Exp-120-- Art com-120
4 A-10 Warthogs FC-15-- No TI/GRS-- Exp-100-- Morale-80-- Arm com-100.

Targets-- 14 immobile T-62 M1975-- No AAMG and NO MA Not dug in.

Each test consisted of 2, 4 aircraft gun runs attacking the rear of the target vehicles. Test was repeated 6 times.

Test 1, 3rd attack-- Shell Splinters=No Effect, Other 7 passes were misses.

Test 2, All misses

Test 3, All misses

Test 4, 3rd attack-- Pen 3, Arm 4=No Effect, Other 7 passes were misses.

Test 5, 4th attack-- Shell Splinters=No Effect, 5th attack-- Pen 3, Arm 28=No Effect.(This is the front turret value, how I hit that fron the rear is a mystery) Other 6 passes were misses.

Test 6, 5th attack-- Shell Splinters= No Effect, Other 7 passes were misses.

Of 48 attacks no tanks were damaged or destroyed.

[Marek_Tucan]

Set up a similar test (as your results seemed really odd to me, don't have such weak results when I'm being attacked by 20mm-armed planes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif), flat land, vis 50, four T-62M1975, four Warthogs, two attacking from the rear, two from rear-flank. Spotting M981A3, clear view on all T-62's.

1st attack (rear): Two solid hits, one top (No Effect) one Turret front (Tank fired on aircraft, turret was turned rearwards; No effect).

2nd attack (rear): First hit - * damage, second hit * IMMOBILISED.

3rd attack (side-rear): Side hit, destroyed.

4th attack (side-rear): one miss, one No Effect.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[kevineduguay1]

My computer is acting up. Fonts and colors are screwed up and other things just are acting funny. I have a new computer sitting on my dining room table but a Im waiting for a new desk, Trying to find problem now.

As far as my test went I should have given my T-62s some mobility to check that effect. What aircraft did you use and what was the fire control?

[kevineduguay1]

Fixed!! Very strange. Could it be the video card? Hmmmmm?

[DRG]

First off "kevineduguay1" I have NO idea how you could get the results you got. No idea at all.

Every time I run a test like that ( and I don't even bother trying to inflate the experience and moral modifiers ) I get dead and immobilized tanks. I do not see ANY way your game could generate 48 attacks and have "no tanks were damaged or destroyed". I consider that impossible and I'm running my tests using the same OOB's and game EXE you are using ( that assumes you ARE using V3.5 )

I'm asking you to post that test scenario so we can all replay it. There is NO way to judge what you have done without seeing it. In fact I would like as many people as possible run your test and report the results on the forum

There is something seriously "OFF" with your game to generate those results. I would suggest you delete your Game Preferences.ini found in the Game data folder. I can only assume it has been corrupted in some way because when I run test just like that tanks get damaged AND die

I have attached a simple test. 14 T-62's and 14 A-10s. The A-10's are only set up with guns and the T-62's don't have AAMG's to interfere with the test and slow it down.

The first time I ran it.. and just to remind everyone these are the stock V3.5 OOB's and game EXE, I got 3 kills and 1 immobilizations as well as 5 other tanks with varying degrees of damage.

The second time I ran it I got three kills and four tanks with varying degrees of damage

If you have been running tests like this and getting zero kills and damage I can see why you would think something was wrong with the game but when I run it this is NOT the case . It would be MOST helpful to see this test you set up that gave you "48 attacks no tanks were damaged or destroyed. I have never, EVER in all the tests or games I've played with A10's seen anything like that

Don

[kevineduguay1]

No DRG, it seems my first test was messed up. For some reason when the tanks had no MA or mobility they just weren't
important enough to hit

2nd test with a Main Gun but no ammo and a 2 speed factor added to the T-62s things changed quite a bit.

I did 24 runs this time with many more hits. Results were as follows,

Misses----------1

Immobile--------1

Kills-----------6

Hits No Effect--12 These were Pen-0 vs Arm-4 or in some cases only a 1 armor factor above the Pen factor.

Oddballs--------4 Hits that should be kills. They read out as high as Pen-10 vs Arm-4 with no effect on the vehicle besides suppression (buttoned).

All shots were from the rear. Test set up was same as above.

[kevineduguay1]

Last test of the night changed gun to fire a mix of HE and Sabot. Everything else was the same. Could only run 16 passes. (started to run out of targets)

1 tank after 2 solid hits was in retreat

5 tanks were immobile (1 abandonded)

5 tanks were kills

1 Shell Splinter

1 Miss

3 Should have been kills (P-6 vs A-5, P-8 vs A-4, P-9 vs A-4) The first one listed in this group I can forgive, the other two should have been kills IMHO.

[DRG]

If we go back and carefully review the original, real world test. ........



"In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totalling seven passes"



TWO T-62 target tanks
AND
7 PASSES TOTAL


Then the actual results


The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armoured envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18



So, only 10% of the rounds hit and only 18% penetrated in real life on two targets and SEVEN passes.

I have NO idea what you mean exactly in your 2nd test by "24 runs this time " 24 runs what ? 24 individual attacks ? 24 passes on 14 tanks with 4 A-10's ? IDK, you still haven't posted your test as I asked you to so we can see what you are doing. I don't want an explanation, I want to see your test.

When I run the tests as close to the real life test as I can both of the target T-62's either end up dead or severely damaged.

IDK what your tests are telling you but mine tell me everything's working just fine. Maybe too well.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

Each pass is an individual attack. One A-10 vs one T-62.

DRG,
The tests had to be done this way for the GAME.

If you read that the actual test carefully you will see that after EACH ATTACK the tanks were refurbished. In other words repaired to some degree.

In the game there is no option to patch holes, repair suspentions, or for that matter fix anything that happens to get blown off of a tank.

From your post,
"In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass."

[kevineduguay1]

I do not know how to post the actual tests. Tell me how and I will do it if my computer is up to it. If not you will have to wait till I get the new one up and running.(Monday maybe?)
The thing is now that I'm getting a variety of results. So far they vary from hitting almost every time with some kind of damage, to hitting maybe 60% of the time with few damage results.

[kevineduguay1]

Why do these old gun ships (units 829, 827, and 825+826) Have Fire Control ratings of 8? Why not the A-10? Also units 829 and 827 have a Fire Control rating of 20 while the A-10 has a FC rating of 15, the same as a WWII fighter plane.
Why do you people think the US Military is that stupid?

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
Why do these old gun ships (units 829, 827, and 825+826) Have Fire Control ratings of 8? Why not the A-10? Also units 829 and 827 have a Fire Control rating of 20 while the A-10 has a FC rating of 15, the same as a WWII fighter plane.
Why do you people think the US Military is that stupid?


While the A-10C upgrades might be different, the avionics on the O/A-10A and O/A-10B were pretty bare bones. This is a well known reality. While it could carry most of the weapons in the USAF inventory, it couldn't use many of the smart munitions without additional equipment or cooperation with other aircraft or ground forces.

Furthermore, at least the MobHack help file says that the FC rating affects hitting moving targets. Its been shown that aircraft flying in a pylon turn are able to achieve extremely high accuracy even against moving targets. Gunship type aircraft, regardless of their age seem to warrant a high FC rating if any of the many historical studies and anecdotes concerning their abilities are even remotely true.

[Zipuli]

"Why do you people think the US Military is that stupid?"

A lot of the stuff of course needs to be looked from the game developer's point of view. Those numbers alone won't tell the whole truth, the result all those variables have on the game world is what counts, right? I mean that even if there is a variable called FCS, and one called LRF etc. they do not have the same effect directly in this game as they do have in real world.

As an example should the Swiss Leo 2A4 have higher FCS rating than basic one (German 2A4) as it can calculate lead not only from the turret's horizontal movement compared to hull position and range that is used by the computer, but also the gun's vertical movement when lead-button is pressed by the gunner... in this case it sounds like yes, as the vehicle can fire more accurately at enemies going up and down hills, but also a big NO, as that will also affect the vehicle's chance to hit other targets, that are not going up and down hills, right?

So no-one is thinking the US Military is stupid, it may be just, that in game terms, everything is not what it seems...

Zip

[LonelyRider]

And Kev. please download and play that test scenario DRG posted and you will see that the A-10 is not useless. I had 3 tanks destroyed and 5 imobilizations in it!

its in DRG's post as an attachement incase you cant find it heres the link to it also:
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/download.php?Number=584308

And if you want to post your own test create it whit the scenario editor then save it. Then just go to your games \Scenarios\ -folder look for the scenario there its 2 files and ZIP it and post it here on as an attachement.

[DRG]

An increase in FC for later A10's **MAY**may be an option. As Tony noted, the sights have gotten better since the first ones were built but it does present some problems with the OOB as there are not an unlimited number of units slots left and I really don't know if it's justified. For a moment there I thought Kev was going to accuse us of having an anti American bias in the game which nicley balances the the accusations the game has an anti "east bloc" bias as well. It's tough to do both at once folks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


However as I have demonstrated over and over and over and others have confirmed the A10 using the cannon only is NOT useless in the game if used correctly despite claims to the contrary or you do not have unrealistic expectations of the weapons capabilities. It could also be this "old computer" Kev is using is toast and giving out weird random numbers. The game lives on random number generation.

I have stated this before but it obviously needs repeating. I started looking into the A10 / Gau-8 issue long before it was brought up on this thread and the more I dug and the more I tested the more I became convinced that we do not have a serious problem with the way this gun is modeled though the whole "gatling" class of weapon could benifit..maybe... from a higher numbers of hit's due to the higher volume of fire and ......maybe..... that could be "simulated" with an increase in accuracy ( thereby increasing the chance of a hit ) However, when the real world results are compared with the tests anyone can easily set up in the game to recreate the real world tests I think the existing set up stands up quite well and so far only ONE person is disputing that and he's using an old computer that is due for replacement.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

Ok everyone, I'm happy with all the above answers. I understand the problems of space in the OOBs and I'm happy that this issue will be looked into. Thats all I ask. And yes, as soon as my new desk shows up my new computer will be up.

Now lets fix that P-51 Mustang. Should be AP-6. The only 4 gun version of this aircraft was the attack version used by the British early in WWII. AFAIK it carried 4 20mm cannon and I think it was called the A-36.

[DRG]

The mustangs in all the OOB's that had four guns are all fixed now

Don

[kevineduguay1]

Rodger that.

[Shadowcougar]

The A-36 was the the P-51A with .50 cal mg and dive brakes.
The P-51 used with 4x 20 mm cannons was the Mustang I and was used as a low level attack craft. They used a common airframe and engine that was only good at lower levels. The Mustang became a supreme fighter when then added the Merlin engine

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_6.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_7.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang

[DRG]

All Mustangs in the game now have 6 .50's. There were a mix of 4 and six gun .50 cal versions and all are 6 now

Don

[Lampshade111]

That makes sense. I doubt they had any four gun models left in 1946.

Speaking of cannons and guns the F-35 Lightning II series of aircraft is now supposed to be fitted with the GAU-22/A, which is a lightened version of the GAU-12/U. Originally the JSF was going to use the German 27mm Bordkanone which is what the F-35 series currently has in WinSPMBT but the designers changed their mind.