The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of)
-
@Seifer well i couldnt realy achieve the desired covarage via editing the attached cbu105 page on editor. Increased damage/blast radius to near nuclear levels but still nothing after hitting save. Maybe im doing wrong ? Maybe there is a different way to edit its performance ? Im a bit lost tbh
-
@SyntaxErol as I said, it depends on the damage model of the weapon. Some of those values will be completely ignored. Probably someone from Db side can help here, not really my area.
-
So my workaround for now is to just launch singles. (Which is frankly easier than trying to guesstimate the exact distance between two points on the FCR.)
I would say, they do also seem to have better effect when azimuth aligned with the target column. Avg ~3-4 kills vs 1-2 kills.
-
Because ya’ll searchin’ for trouble in a wrong place. Editing db won’t help much else then change HE to AP. and hit ratio… but ‘bombdata’ may have some “impact” .
But!!!, be real, AGM154/CBU-87 is NOT anti-tank weapon… can you imagine skeet burning through armor of M1A1 or T90 ? which can sustain direct hit with 100mm HE shell …(maybe not APFSDS) … but you get the pic.
It is even questionable for MK-20D(100) … for today’s armors., old stuff like M-60 or T-64… older T-72 …probably yes…
But even new T-72/80(90’s mod)… I would need to see it to believe it can pierce/penetrate those “can’s”.Also, now, not sure is it modeled correctly, but clusters footprint is never a circle… but ellipsis. - there’s even nice pic of it in 1-1. - somehow, exactly for AGM154A .
No wonder you have to hit a column “inline” to get more hits… hints … whatever -
Tanks are still very thin from top.
And very fragile, lots of T-90’s are burning on ukraine Fields now…
-
@Seifer Any insight from the code on this?
@jayb said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
That old post brought up some interesting points. Is burst altitude stated in Sea Level or AGL ? Seems to be some mixed information in that thread and that is pretty crucial for the dispersion
-
-
-
@jayb sorry, no code access this week. Remind me next week.
-
@jayb said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
@Seifer Any insight from the code on this?
@jayb said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
That old post brought up some interesting points. Is burst altitude stated in Sea Level or AGL ? Seems to be some mixed information in that thread and that is pretty crucial for the dispersion
There’s a pretty tight limit on the MFD input (I think 2000 ft or something like that?) so I sincerely hope it’s AGL.
As always I have no idea what’s more realistic, MSL or AGL. I can think of arguments either way.
-
@SyntaxErol only a few fields as shown in the editor are used. The interesting info is in the .dat files
-
@haukka81 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
And very fragile, lots of T-90’s are burning on ukraine Fields now…
I certainly doubt that.
-
@white_fang do you doubt that the T-90 has suffered losses or that they were due to top attacks of SFW skeets level munitions?
Just saying the Oryx blog has documentated over 40 T-90s lost. Most of these probably due to top attack missiles like the Javelin, which admittedly are a different class than CBU-97 skeets. EDIT: @white_fang I see that you were referring to the BLU-97/B bomblets carried by the CBU-87/AGM-154 while I believe @haukka81 was talking about the thread topic of CBU-97/105’s BLU-108.Also even if it can’t get through turret top armor, BLU-108 skeet probably can reach the engine compartment of most tanks from the top fairly easily, resulting in the worst kind of M kill. To be fair though, I’m not familiar with the T-90’s top armor levels.
-
@Snake122 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
@white_fang do you doubt that the T-90 has suffered losses or that they were due to top attacks of SFW skeets level munitions?
Just saying the Oryx blog has documentated over 40 T-90s lost. Most of these probably due to top attack missiles like the Javelin, which admittedly are a different class than CBU-97 skeets.Also even if it can’t get through turret top armor, skeet probably can reach the engine compartment of most tanks from the top fairly easily, resulting in the worst kind of M kill. To be fair though, I’m not familiar with the T-90’s top armor levels.
Top armor on tanks are still low. The engine compartment of a t90 has hatches for maintenence which is a even lower armor value. However this is not the discussion here. Sfws fire at random heat/infrared signatures that resembles a vehicle while spinning in the air efp they fire can hit anywhere in a vehicle. Its not a guaranteed one shot kill miracle skeet (insert rambo shooting a helicopter with explosive tipped arrow)
However. The covarage of in game 97/105 is much less than reported figures. Thats obvious and you can see yourselves using tgp referances such as meterstick and frag circle.
I would be happy if the covarage would equal to reported values but some skeets miss/fail to destroy a target in killzone. This hitchance of skeets can be increased by dropping in pairs to same location. But thats not the case, while sfw destroy prettymuch everything in their smaller then reported killzone, they lack the covarage.
Im not after creating the wonder weapon, but these weapons have created to deal with extensive armored/vehicle quantity of redfor in staging phase of units but fail to do so imho.However @Kavelenko achieved success with 97. I will try to finetune bombdata with his procedures. Maybe 97s and 105s have a difference that i can not see. Or maybe lower altitude droppings of bombs with canisters still move at planes/columns axis in considerable speed yield to better longitudinal dispersion.
-
@SyntaxErol just something I remembered. The higher the BA, the bigger the area will be. But it will cause less damage. I usually set BA to 1800 iirc.
-
@SyntaxErol I agree, that it’s not a smart enough munition to target the engine compartment while the skeet is wobbling/spinning around. I am saying that the engine compartment when hit should be penetrated by a skeet (like through the maintenance hatches) and result in the worst kind of M kill. I would also say that if the engine is warm, the heat signature of the tank is going to skew towards the engine compartment anyway too, making slightly higher odds of hitting that area.
So overall, commenting to @white_fang it is still probably possible that if a CBU-97/105 is dropped on a company of T-90s, there will be at least a few hard M Kills and but I still think there is a possible K kill through the top of the turret unless there is more data out there.
Since I’ve been lurking in this thread since you have started it here are my thoughts:
Yes, many of the CBUs in BMS since at least 4.35 seem to have too low of coverage except the now fixed JSOW which did have too large of coverage (I would also say that DCS’s CBU-97/105 seems a little strong for those coming over as comparison). I have not tested a JSOW in 4.37.@airtex2019 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
@jayb said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
@Seifer Any insight from the code on this?
@jayb said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
That old post brought up some interesting points. Is burst altitude stated in Sea Level or AGL ? Seems to be some mixed information in that thread and that is pretty crucial for the dispersion
There’s a pretty tight limit on the MFD input (I think 2000 ft or something like that?) so I sincerely hope it’s AGL.
As always I have no idea what’s more realistic, MSL or AGL. I can think of arguments either way.
I would quote the BMS training manual in regards to MSL vs AGL burst altitude question posed here: “As with any other CBUs in BMS the burst altitude should actually be called burst height, as it is a distance from the ground and not an altitude.” I would say that there seems to be a very narrow band of setting here than can produce more than 1-2 hits and often it seems to be to not exactly above ground height because the number seems to change. But that is also anecdotal. @seifer’s suggestion of 1800 I think tends to be about the height I have found the most effectiveness.
I would also agree that it seems all too often the main source of the kill is the actual CBU canister striking the target when viewed through the TGP. Not sure if that is really what is happening, but when I can see the bomblets go off in the TGP, they do not often seem to result in a kill.
-
I get decent results with CBU-97 with BA 2,000 but prefer Mk-20, you can carry more. The CBUs in game are not too bad IMO.
In recent wars a lot of the submunitions failed to detonate and weapon specs get inflated for marketing. I’ve seen some footage of CBUs being tested and they spread and can miss targets in the kill zone. IRL they don’t usually get huge kill counts per sortie my 2c. -
Guys… your dealing just speculation. Nothing more.
Yes top armor is the worst, Javelin… and also, even probably older then you - Swedish “Bill” (1988 - I remember) uses this approach, Bill was the first to use the technique, before Javelin was even born.But… both of those missiles uses faaaar more powerful warheads then any BLU… skeet /sub. - furthermore… hard kill T90 with sub/skeet, give me a break - possible damage/destroy to remotely op. machine gun on top.
Yes you do like things that go boom , but unfortunately, AGM154 , CBU-87, even CBU-97, CBU-100 are just for lightly armored and older gen armor. - they are designed for soft-kills, like mines - neither of these weapons can “hard-kill” even a BMP… so, jeeps, trucks, light armor. - can suffer “terminal” , … APC’s and up , just soft “touch”. - maybe not destroyed, but unusable. , but new gen MBT’s - just paint scratch.
just my 2 kopeyke -
Yes. As i said in my previous message. Im not expecting everything in killzone to be killed but expect the actual killzone would be larger. Thats my whole point.
Next thing i will try is flying lower and a bit faster to make canisters still have longitudinal speed when deployed at BA. Setting burst height to a lower setting would decrease the killzone so im not sure about changing BA
-
@SyntaxErol
Well, I agree, those (ellipsis) radius-es, maybe should be bit revised… but that “nuke” of AGM-154A in Bms 4.35 was a bit too much.
I was “obliterating” whole SA-10 battalion with just 4 JSOWA… not kinda fair - but now, killzone, for any cluster is about “limited”. - need to play a bit with numbers I guess… radius, damage, hit percent… and even height / dispersion - a bit tricky - as it is a model in the end.