What is the range covered by the CBU bomb according to the burst altitude?
-
I can’t remember where we found this Cluster Munitions Table, but I’ve been using it for years. Doesn’t list every CBU in BMS 4.33, AFAIK, but I keep it handy when flying BMS:
http://veterans-gaming.com/index.php?/files/file/29-cluster-munitions-table/ -
This post is deleted! -
Gusy did quite a few tests:
I spent a few hours of testing munitions in a controlled environment. Target is 100 M1A1’s in column. CCIP on a single tank and judge each weapon’s effectiveness using TACVIEW and debriefing kills.
Mk-20 Rockeye
BA-500 - 150ft area/~50% destroyed
BA-1000 - 150ft area/~50% destroyed
BA-2000 - 200ft area/~50% destroyed
BA-3000 - 300ft area/~50% destroyed
BA-3000 Pair - 300ft area/~95% destroyedCBU-87 Combined Effects Munition(CEM)
BA-500 - 200ft area/~15% destroyed
BA-1000 - 200ft area/~15% destroyed
BA-2000 - 523ft area/~15% destroyed
BA-3000 - 531ft area/~15% destroyed
BA-3000 Pair - 531ft area/100% destroyedCBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon(SFW)
BA-500 - 130ft area/~75% destroyed
BA-1000 - 300ft area/~75% destroyed
BA-2000 - 300ft area/~75% destroyed
BA-3000 - 300ft area/~75% destroyed
BA-3000 Pair - 300ft area/100% destroyedMk-84 Low Drag General Purpose(LDGP)
Single - 300ft area 100% destroyed/550ft area ~60% destroyed/Damaged only zone 301ft-550ft
Pair - 300ft area 100% destroyed/550ft area ~60% destroyed/Damaged only zone 301ft-550ftMk-82 Low Drag General Purpose(LDGP)
Single - 50ft area 75% destroyed/300ft area ~25% destroyed/Damaged only zone 51ft-300ft
Pair - 300ft area ~100% destroyedJSOW (Joint Standoff Weapon)
BA700 Single - 800ft area/~16% destroyed
BA700 Pair - 800ft area/~50% destroyed
BA1500 Single - 800ft area/~16% destroyed
BA1500 Pair - 800ft area/~50% destroyed
BA2500 Single - 800ft area/~16% destroyed
BA2500 Pair - 800ft area/~50% destroyedThe largest conclusion vs M1A1s is that burst altitude does not change destruction percent, no matter the CBU. There is no reason to use any BA other than 3000.
The strangest bit of information is the 87CEMs destruction rate of 15%, but pair dropped is 100%.
General conclusions:
CBU-97 BA is somewhat irrelevant, probably single drop for best bang for buck
Mk. 20 BA is somewhat irrelevant, but pair drop for best effectiveness
Pair drop all other clusters at 3,000’
Pair drop Mk-82s for wider destruction footprint
Single drop Mk-84s, do not pair drop themRealistic? Idk. But that’s how the sim works.
http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/28320-air-to-ground-munition-effectiveness/
-
I don’t have the same observation !
especially for JSOW: Damage for 2 JSOW in trail with 1500ft spacing = 4 ripple 900ft CBU87 BA 3000ft
-
Which JSOW, CEM or SFW?
-
Gusy did quite a few tests:
Realistic? Idk. But that’s how the sim works.
http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/28320-air-to-ground-munition-effectiveness/
Very interesting. Tests like these can help me with the choice of weapons. To make the right choice i need to understand a bit more about the setup of the test. I checked the link but i am still not quite sure how to read the results.
He states he engages one tank ccip. I assume in the middle (or sufficient distance to ensure maximum usage of the foot print of the CBU) of the column of 100 tanks. But what does 100% mean exactly, or any of the other percentages for that matter?
The number of times a tank was destroyed in repeated tests?
100% could not mean the whole column destroyed clearly.
Or is it the number of tanks destroyed within the area of the CBU?
If last is the case 100% of a total of 1 tank within the area is actually worse than 50% of 4 tanks in the area.I hope you see what i mean and somebody can clarify this for me?
Greetings Snowman
-
I don’t have the same observation !
especially for JSOW: Damage for 2 JSOW in trail with 1500ft spacing = 4 ripple 900ft CBU87 BA 3000ft
I don’t think he refers to spacing at all in his testing. You guys did a different test ( as I see it anyway)
-
Snowman, here’s my take on what he was showing. See if this makes sense:
The area (of any reported damage)is a factor of the BA.
The area is a circle, but only inflicts damage where there
are targets, which is inline with the formation of the column.His ripple is either 1 (single) or 2(pair) with no spacing.
Even for this formation (the column), there are more targets in an circle of 531’ than
are in a 200’ circle). To rephrase, 15% of the targets in a 531’ circle is MORE targets than 15% of the
targets in 200’, because the larger circle runs farther down the line of the column than a smaller circle.That is the important point.
His observation:
1–-A Burst Altitude increase does not result in a kill increase percentage
2—A Burst Altitude increase results in increased kills. (given sufficient targets) due to a larger area of damage. ie larger circle.
3—A ripple of a pair really gets the kills.
Therefore to maximize kills, increase your BA, and release it in a pair.
That is where the goodness lies. -
Hi Axe,
Yes i agree.
Sounds as the most plausable explanation indeed.
In general the conclusion is higher BA, more kills. At some point there should be a tradeoff where bigger circle results in less kills though. I don’t see this in the results. This can be a BMS modelling thing, or the data.
More interesting for me is the comparision of weapons VS targets.
If BA results in the same area if you compare weapons (i.g. mk20 500 ft BA results in the same area as a JSOW BA 500 ft) then at least we can compare the results of different weapons.
I have no idea if this is the case though.Thx
Snowman
-
BA has no effect on JSOW modeling in BMS according to me
-
The conclusion I found from the tests were that damage was not increased with a lowered burst altitude, always use the highest burst altitude setting. Hopefully this can be fixed with a database edit.
-
Hi Axe,
Yes i agree.
Sounds as the most plausable explanation indeed.
In general the conclusion is higher BA, more kills. At some point there should be a tradeoff where bigger circle results in less kills though. I don’t see this in the results. This can be a BMS modelling thing, or the data.
More interesting for me is the comparision of weapons VS targets.
If BA results in the same area if you compare weapons (i.g. mk20 500 ft BA results in the same area as a JSOW BA 500 ft) then at least we can compare the results of different weapons.
I have no idea if this is the case though.Thx
Snowman
I agree. Allow me to present a ridiculous but logical example.
Assume I am a perfectly healthy, physically fit 21 year old male, standing in a field next to a 90 year old grandma.
Someone drops a cbu from 3000 altitude centered on us. Because the area (footprint) is rather large, with a bit of luck me and grandma each get hit with only one projectile.:woohoo:
Because I am hardened:D , I survive (damaged) , but granny just don’t make it (destroyed):(Alternatively consider that we are targeted with the same cbu, but it’s BA is 500 feet. It will have the same amount of projectiles, but in a more condensed footprint, thereby insuring
me and granny both are hit with several projectiles. Although I am considered somewhat hardened, we both wind up destroyed.Logically this result is not surprise at all. So I expect that with a higher burst altitude we should see more damaged, and less destroyed. And that is what I ‘think’ I see at times.
But like in your concern, this should come down to 'weapons vs targets '( vs BA vs ripple etc). And here there is so much variability it ‘almost’ makes it impossible to sort out. -
The conclusion I found from the tests were that damage was not increased with a lowered burst altitude, always use the highest burst altitude setting. Hopefully this can be fixed with a database edit.
Hey Gusy, I did get that from your tests. But I forgot to include one important thing.
Thank you for sharing your results. I know that is difficult to test, and time comsuming for you.:rockon:
I should have started with that in the first place!
I am not in the position to refute any of your findings. I was just surprised that’s what you got.
I bet you were too.
The part where you found a ‘pair’ resulted in much more ‘destroyed’ matches what I mentioned should happen to me and granny getting hit by more projectiles.
Did you see anything interesting in regards to ‘damaged’ targets?
thanks again. Axe
-
only one shape (one submunition of CBU97) charge can destroy tank …so the best way should be spread wide!
-
Good to know!
thank you
-
The cbu-97 & 105 are supposed to be smart weapons… but this isn’t really modeled in bms. They just behave like the other cbu’s, simply dealing more damage.
Lots of the special CBU’s functions aren’t modeled.
Don’t think the CBU-94 has any special effect on power plants:
Imagine if the CBU-89 could actually lay a minefield… that would be interesting
-
@Axe:
Snowman, here’s my take on what he was showing. See if this makes sense:
The area (of any reported damage)is a factor of the BA.
The area is a circle, but only inflicts damage where there
are targets, which is inline with the formation of the column.His ripple is either 1 (single) or 2(pair) with no spacing.
Even for this formation (the column), there are more targets in an circle of 531’ than
are in a 200’ circle). To rephrase, 15% of the targets in a 531’ circle is MORE targets than 15% of the
targets in 200’, because the larger circle runs farther down the line of the column than a smaller circle.That is the important point.
His observation:
1–-A Burst Altitude increase does not result in a kill increase percentage
2—A Burst Altitude increase results in increased kills. (given sufficient targets) due to a larger area of damage. ie larger circle.
3—A ripple of a pair really gets the kills.
Therefore to maximize kills, increase your BA, and release it in a pair.
That is where the goodness lies.really not convinced!
A ripple of a pair really gets the kills : why?! it doesnt make sense…except if you concentrate effects on one area where there is a vehicules concentration …
a burst altitude increase results in increased kills or a Burst Altitude increase does not result in a kill increase percentage : I don’t see any effect…According to me, JSOW are too efficient actually with BMS if we compare CBU 87 effects…
I read:
The AGM-154A version used in the strikes dispense 145 BLU-97 bomblets over an area the size of a football field.
The CBU 87 CEM dispenses the 202 bomblets over an area patch of 800 feet by 400 feet.but in game, the effects are disproportionate…
-
the SFW definitely has a special animation, you can see the rocket fire and all the little pucks spin off the thing, at least that’s what I remember.
-
the SFW definitely has a special animation, you can see the rocket fire and all the little pucks spin off the thing, at least that’s what I remember.
there is a big gap between simulation & reality ! it is not surprising …
now my question is rather to understand how the effects are simulated …just to understand why it exists a big difference between JSOW & CBU97 effects