M61A1 hit and damage points

Hello all,

I don't know if this is a bug, or work in progres, or it is the way it is, but I find the M61A1 cannon on the Hornet very weak to engage targets.

I understand that:

- A-10 cannon can engage anything short of a T-90 tank;

- Harrier cannon can engage anything short of a tank;

But, the Hornet cannon as it is now can engage only light vehicles and trucks.

If I try to engage self-propelled armored artillery or APCs like BTR80s, the system does not show any damage at all, while when engaging with the Harrier, for instance, it computes damage to the target (when I say compute damage is when the hits show on the real time BDA and on the debriefing log at the end of the mission).

Well, even when enganging BTR80s with the P-51 Mustang, damage is shown on BDA and on the model, and yes, with some good hits you can destroy a BTR.

When checking on TacView it shows that I hit an APC with Hornet cannon 181 times(!). Or a self propelled artillery 82 (!) times. But nothing is registered on the real time BDA or after flight log.

Is it a problem with the model as it is now or in real life you shouldn't be engaging anything armored with the Hornet cannon?

It's because they currently only model the ammo in the gun as HE rounds, and they're incapable of damaging anything more than lightly armored or unarmoured units. It's fairly easy to see - you need almost all your rounds to kill a BMP-1 (if you're lucky), but try and shoot a Roland/SA-6/SA-11/SA-15 and you do no damage. The Harrier can one shot kill all of those.

Yes, I've noticed that as well, on SA-11 command vehicle and search radar yesterday. Plenty of confirmed hits by TacView, but no significant damage. I'll see if I can get short track later today.

TacView isn't a good confirmation for hits, because it's based on approximation AFAIK. But it is true, that the Hornet does extremly little dammage with its gun. I've noticed that when I shoot at a guard tower foe example, the dammage values shown by the BDA function increment in much smaller steps than with other aircraft that are equipped with 20mm as well, like the F-5E. It feels like we're only using HE ammo on the Hornet instead of AP, CM or something like that.

It's because they currently only model the ammo in the gun as HE rounds, and they're incapable of damaging anything more than lightly armored or unarmoured units. It's fairly easy to see - you need almost all your rounds to kill a BMP-1 (if you're lucky), but try and shoot a Roland/SA-6/SA-11/SA-15 and you do no damage. The Harrier can one shot kill all of those.

Ah there is something to that on Roland at least. I've found it impossible to even damage a Roland EWR via strafing with the 18.

Ok, I was able to successfully replicate this. It looks like lightly armored targets such as SA-11 command post, search radar and Roland radar cannot be affected my the cannon. Will be reported.

It's because they currently only model the ammo in the gun as HE rounds, and they're incapable of damaging anything more than lightly armored or unarmoured units. It's fairly easy to see - you need almost all your rounds to kill a BMP-1 (if you're lucky), but try and shoot a Roland/SA-6/SA-11/SA-15 and you do no damage. The Harrier can one shot kill all of those.

Kudos for ED though, because the HE rounds are not piercing armor.

Thank you all for the answers. Maybe better do missions without using cannon by now.

Enviado de meu SM-J500M usando o Tapatalk

Ok, I was able to successfully replicate this. It looks like lightly armored targets such as SA-11 command post, search radar and Roland radar cannot be affected my the cannon. Will be reported.

Thanks for that.

I hope I helped in something.

Enviado de meu SM-J500M usando o Tapatalk

A10-C uses something known as combat mix (CM) which is a nasty mix of PGU-13 HE high explosive and PGU-14 API depleted uranium armour piercing in a 4 to 1 mix ratio.

A10-C also is mounts a 30mm cannon whilst the F18C is 20mm and uses 20mm HE rounds - big difference!

Lastly attached is a pic of interest - note how the 30mm cannon with CM has shredded the APC.

So if the F18c was having the same impact as the A10C something would definitely not be right - its correct that HE would not penetrate armoured targets however will effectively neutralise soft skinned targets / ground troops.

Ok, I was able to successfully replicate this. It looks like lightly armored targets such as SA-11 command post, search radar and Roland radar cannot be affected my the cannon. Will be reported.

Good news, thanks for getting into it sir.

Cheers,

Don

there are still problems with certain vehicles,

there are still problems with certain vehicles,

 

I didn't know you could even fire off weapons in Active Pause... learnt something new

i hope every day they add serious ammunitions.

its a shame not be able to damage BMP ecc

I understand that:

- A-10 cannon can engage anything short of a T-90 tank;

- Harrier cannon can engage anything short of a tank;

The GAU-8 effectiveness is seriously, very seriously overstated against MBT's. It is very useful against almost all other tanks like most IFV, APC, SPG, SAM etc, but not against any MBT from such easy way as it is in DCS.

https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK

That makes sense. Since only HE rounds are being modeled, so no hit points for armored targets.

 

Kudos for ED though, because the HE rounds are not piercing armor.

But HE does spalling. That is something we should be expected to see in the future when the new damage model gets to ground units etc. That you do not need to penetrate the armor to kill the crew/carried troops as the spalling can do that. You really don't want to be inside a vehicle that has no anti-spalling as it is like tiny fragments flying all over the closed interior, killing and injuring very effectively.

So while you might not destroy the engine and blow up the ammunition racks with good positioned penetration, you will kill the crew, injure them or at least get them to panic with HE shell.

But HE does spalling. That is something we should be expected to see in the future when the new damage model gets to ground units etc. That you do not need to penetrate the armor to kill the crew/carried troops as the spalling can do that. You really don't want to be inside a vehicle that has no anti-spalling as it is like tiny fragments flying all over the closed interior, killing and injuring very effectively.

 

So while you might not destroy the engine and blow up the ammunition racks with good positioned penetration, you will kill the crew, injure them or at least get them to panic with HE shell.

Not exactly. Spalling is usually caused by penetration. A dinky 20mm HE round would bearly scratch the armor of most WWII “tanks”. On top of that most modern armor has some anti spalling measures in place. So yeah the crew would probably shit there pants, but that would be about it.

Not exactly. Spalling is usually caused by penetration.

Wrong. You do not need penetration to cause spalling. That is the whole point of the spalling protection, so the ammunition that doesn't penetrate your armor doesn't cause damage to personnel or equipment inside.

The spalling protection doesn't help at all against penetration. And once something penetrates your armor, everything behind it and possibly after ricochet is dead or seriously injured in that same compartment, regardless that it anyways causes some spalling.

The dangerous part against non-penetrating weapons are exactly the spalling, like APC with enough armor to stop a 7.62x53 or 12.7mm, but without spalling protection you get soldiers injured or dead because spalling.

Very high speed photography of a small projectile striking a thin aluminum plate at 7000 m/s. The impact causes the projectile to disintegrate, and generates a large number of small fragments from the aluminum. This can occur without penetration of the plate.

In anti-tank warfare, spalling through mechanical stress is an intended effect of high-explosive squash head (HESH) anti-tank shells and many other munitions which may not be powerful enough to pierce the armor of a target. The relatively soft warhead, containing or made of plastic explosive, flattens against the armor plating on tanks and other armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) and explodes, creating a shock wave that travels through the armor as a compression wave and is reflected at the free surface as a tensile wave breaking (tensile stress/strain fracture) the metal on the inside. The resulting spall is dangerous to crew and equipment, and may result in a partial or complete disablement of a vehicle and/or its crew. Many AFVs are equipped with spall liners inside their armor for protection.

 

A kinetic energy penetrator, if it can defeat the armor, generally causes spalling within the target as well, which helps to destroy/disable the vehicle and/or its crew.[1]

By the way, Hornet has M61A2 and not M61A1. Current damage is correct. This canon is known to be unable to damage armoured targets.

By the way, Hornet has M61A2 and not M61A1. Current damage is correct. This canon is known to be unable to damage armoured targets.

Doesn't this depend on ammunition rather than the cannon?

By the way, Hornet has M61A2 and not M61A1. Current damage is correct. This canon is known to be unable to damage armoured targets.

Yeah, the Super Hornet uses the A2 gun. A2 version was developed to F22. Less metal, so the A2 is just a lightweight version.

The gun is not very good at strafing and in A2A it's most usefull under 2000 feet range.

By the way, Hornet has M61A2 and not M61A1. Current damage is correct. This canon is known to be unable to damage armoured targets.

But but but F16 has the same cannon and they damage targets just fine. Why can't we get different ammo types. ED mods I DEMAND EXPLANATIONS.

With far less rounds.

Cheers,

Don (callsign Ziptie)

GD list the M53 API round as capable of penetrating 20mm thick armor plate at 25o obliquity at 100M. While i wouldn`t expect it to do amazingly against a proper armoured target, against something like a BMP-1 given that thing can be penetrated by a 50 cal round from the rear i would expect to to do something.