Clusterbombs are broken
-
Thanks man. Something is wrong here. Rockeyes gave me the same problem. Here is the video.
Humm ok targets were moving (not the best solution) but you drop close enough to some kills at least. Arming delay time?
You mentioned that Rockeyes give you the same issue. Yep check Arming delay times and next time for CBU 103/105 52/58 try at least BA around 1600 FT with pair release and an Burst interval around 150/200 FT
Note that it’s my personal opinion and i believe other have different release parameters.
-
You got it boss. I’ll give it a try.
-
High
-
You got it boss. I’ll give it a try.
No sweat
Also i forgot to mention check Arming delay. I usually give just 1 or 2 sec before release ( it really depend on the altitude release for calculation. Also check minimas and AO and cold turn to avoid being to exposed.
-
First, don’t use Tacview for debugging. You don’t know what object is being recorded and how determinations are made. If you are going to use Tacview: there are better ways to display information and control camera with it. Remember the canister will follow ballistic trajectory and then there are submunition cloud which is its own object which isn’t shown. Use the in-Falcon ACMI review instead since it shows more what really happens. I understand that you’re upset but your tone does not match your level of demonstrated knowledge.
First attempt, CBUs go dumb off the rail and miss… oh right they have some alignment time before they are A01 RDY.
CBU-103, two in trail at 10’ spacing at parked T-55s BA 500’ killed both. That’s moderate high density so no surprise it’s a kill.
CBU-103, single at same T-55. Kill. OK so one 103 at BA 500 is enough.
CBU-103, single with deliberate 10m offset at BA 1200, killed nearby T-55 and slightly farther one.CBU-103 seem fine. OK now for CBU-105s.
Fired two single 105s deliberately offset from targets (~50m) on two points on stationary column. First killed two T-55, second killed one. Both BA 900.
Seems a little low for 105s so I’ll try a BA1800 single to see what low density coverage does. First deliberate miss was too wide and scored zero, second generally on scored two.OK last test replicating the video conditions as best as possible. BA 900 against moving column. I did my best lead aiming but miss distance was greater than footprint size. I just plain missed.
OK, more “my style” 1800 BA, two in abreast formation, AZ 030 (slight right), VIS delivery at 9000’ four kills.
CBU-105s seem in agreement with what I expect considering BMS doesn’t model all the fancy dance mechanization of the real weapon.CEM you have to remember is 202 bomblets and pattern is roughly diameter of BA. Do the arithmetic about bomblet density and you realize that to have a 50/50 chance to hit a BLU-97 against a T-72 sized object you need BA low like 300-700’ and dropping in two or four quantity helps when you get into BAs of 900-1200. For softer targets you can go less density since you don’t have to hit to kill.
SFW isn’t fully mechanized in BMS so it’s a “super CBU” of conventional type. You shouldn’t expect SFW as a magical grid square removal device. It’s hard to compare your weapon effects to anything objectively because there is no quantitative data shared. In any cases BA 900 is probably well too low for any SFW delivery except low and level. 1200-2100’ is better and BMS tends to reward higher BA and multiple weapons.
-
Just curious, what’s your Object Density setting? (UI graphics menu)
Again , what is your Object Density setting ?
In case you missed gzas post.
-
I honestly think he just missed. BA900 SFW is not a very large footprint. Judging by AOA it was <300 knots release against the general area of a moving battalion. Miss any vehicle by 400’ or so and you come up empty.
-
Highest object density.
-
Test#2. CBU 103s and CBU 105s both at 3,000 BA and AD of 1.0
2 hits. Video uploading now. Thanks for the help in testing, I really appreciate it. -
This post is deleted! -
2nd test. CBU 103s and CBU 105s both at 3,000 BA and AD of 1.0
AI Wingman had the same loadout as me. As before, AI wingman hit nothing. I hit only 2 targets.
You guys are the experts on the lethality of these munitions; I totally accept that. I am just really surprised that the AI can’t hit anything with them.
-
2nd test. CBU 103s and CBU 105s both at 3,000 BA and AD of 1.0
AI Wingman had the same loadout as me. As before, AI wingman hit nothing. I hit only 2 targets.
You guys are the experts on the lethality of these munitions; I totally accept that. I am just really surprised that the AI can’t hit anything with them.
With those parameters and drops you should at least get some more kills
Have you tested other Cluster munition? CBU55 /58 MK20?
-
Right now I’m focusing on CBU 87s, 97s, 105s and 103s. I find it weird that GBU-12s are looking to be more effective than clusters against armor.
-
I think AI have no concept of leading moving targets, especially WCMD. Weapon effects and weapon accuracy are two different ideas so let’s treat them separately.
CEM should require dense pattern to be effective against MBT armor since it is hit-to-kill. Fragments of CEM is only good for I think ~11mm of penetration. Low density CEM against soft targets should be investigated. Ideally low density will harm soft targets but not hard targets. CEM against T-series tank probably has a burst which only covers 2-3 tanks in size when configured for that target type. It’s not so much an area weapon as a kind of unitary warhead. What I don’t know what is a reasonable density for soft target engagement. I think probably a 200x300’ pattern with a ~1200 HOF is about right for being “hell on Earth” but not super concentrated for tank killing. You can probably get 5-10 soft targets inside this footprint at normal BN spacing.
SFW is a balancing act. Since real SFW must pair skeet to target 1:1 (at best, often multiple skeet target same object) this naturally limits damage potential to even groups of targets packed tightly. But Falcon does not model this fact since it is just CBU generic with different numbers. It has to be coded such that it isn’t so powerful you drop on 1000 tanks and kill all 1000 just because they happened to be in the “super CBU” radius. Soft target damage should be similar between CEM and SFW.
-
I’ve not had any problems with 87s at 2000 BA on stationary targets in 4.34. If anything it seems the footprint of the 87 is a bit bigger in 4.34 versus 4.33. CBUs aren’t the best choice against movers. That is a hard solution to make for getting hits since the aircraft isn’t going to give you a leading the target solution. If I know it is going against a mover or potential mover I pick mavs or LJDAMs.
-
I have also the same feeling that something is wrong: the damage range of this weapon seems to be too low as if only one submunition had been dropped… instead of 10 submunitions with 4 skeet type warheads in a single dispenser, providing 40 weapons total which can cover an area of about 500 feet by 1,200 feet…it seems be far from this case in BMS.
Now as Textron Systems has decided to stop cluster bombs production in 2016 …so it is maybe a good occasion not to use them in 2019 with BMS
-
CBUs have been illegal since 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition#Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions
But of course some countries find them too useful and haven’t signed the convention. Hideous devices and I’m ex Military!!!
-
CBUs have been illegal since 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition#Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions
But of course some countries find them too useful and haven’t signed the convention. Hideous devices and I’m ex Military!!!
Yep looks like 99% of the nations who own 0.1% of the cluster bombs agreed to the ban
-
Yep looks like 99% of the nations who own 0.1% of the cluster bombs agreed to the ban
…and you are smiling why? CBUs are hideous weapons
-
Because it doesn’t matter that they’re hideous weapons, what matter they’re just so bloody effective that the only nations calling for the ban were the ones who didn’t use them in first place, and anybody who did didn’t give a hoot about the ban. All that talk about morality is just smokescreen for plain old realpolitik. It’s cheaper to ban a weapon than to develop countermeasures. Nobody bans weapons which are genuinely useful to them, no matter how awful they might be.
I’ve tried using rockets in BMS, and needless to say, CBUs it is. Rockets have potential to be effective against unarmored movers, but in practice, the ones mounted on Vipers are just not lethal enough. Visual delivery is the only option with those, making things worse. Rockets are good for helos, because using bombs on them is perilous thing at best. The only more futile thing I’ve done was trying to strafe a truck with the cannon (it probably would’ve worked better if it was preplanned, but it’s not exactly something you expect to be doing…). My technique probably wasn’t best (we need a rockets/gun training TE), so I can’t say for sure they aren’t good for anything, but CBUs are rather easier to use.
Though to be entirely honest, when I’m doing BAI or SCAR, I just bring Mavs. Movers, non-movers, tanks, SHORAD, you name it, Mavs work against it, and from further away than you can loft a CBU from.