Jump to content

CBU-87 and CBU-103 Performance Explanation


NineLine

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, MasterNomis said:

More over. Training/Inertial bombs like BDU-33, BDU-50s have 0 damage even on direct hit.

 

I cannot speak for the BDU-50 but you do realize that the BDU-33 is basically a 25 pound chunk of aluminum with a 12 gauge shotgun round not for damaging a target but for marking the hit so you can see where it landed?  Any military vehicle with even basic armor isn't going to be bothered much by that even with a direct hit.  Jeeps and other completely un-armored vehicles sure it will do some limited damage as a blunt weapon but that is about it.


Edited by Stubbies2003
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Stubbies2003 said:

 

Jeeps and other completely un-armored vehicles sure it will do some limited damage as a blunt weapon but that is about it.

 

I read a report once where they hunted pirates at the coast of Somalia. They sunk their boat with just a practice bomb. 🙂

Also, I bet, a concrete filled BDU-50 will surely put a big hole into the aluminium hull of any IFV if dropped from high enough. And that, without much risk for colateral damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This changes are on today update? Seen nothing on changelog

i7 9700K | Corsair Pro Vengeance 32Gb 3200 Mhz | KFA2 GeForce RTX 3080Ti SG | Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro | Western Digital SN750 1TB | Samsung 850 Evo 500GB | OCZ ZX 1000W | Asus ROG Shift PG27V | Xiaomi P1 55" | Virpil T-50 CM2 Base + Thrustmaster Warthog Stick | Thrusmaster Warthog Throttle | Thrustmaster MFD | Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals | Oculus Quest 2

 

DCS World | Persian Gulf | Syria | Flaming Cliff 3 | P-51D Mustang | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | Fw-109 A-8 | A-10C Warthog | A-10C II Tank Killer | F/A-18C Hornet | F-14B Tomcat | F-16C Viper | Ka-50 BlackShark II | Mi-24P Hind | SuperCarrier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Flagrum said:

I read a report once where they hunted pirates at the coast of Somalia. They sunk their boat with just a practice bomb. 🙂

Also, I bet, a concrete filled BDU-50 will surely put a big hole into the aluminium hull of any IFV if dropped from high enough. And that, without much risk for colateral damage.

 

Just that IFVs are not made from aluminium 😉

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 32 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | DCS dedicated @ WD Blue 500 GB SSD | Win 10 (64-bit) | TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

 

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | Full Fidelity Su-25A | Asset packs (80s Iran, Lebanon 1982, Syria 2011+ factions) | Persistent KB shortcuts | Proper coalitions system |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NineLine said:

No sorry, they were approved for merge too late.

Thanks @NineLine

i7 9700K | Corsair Pro Vengeance 32Gb 3200 Mhz | KFA2 GeForce RTX 3080Ti SG | Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro | Western Digital SN750 1TB | Samsung 850 Evo 500GB | OCZ ZX 1000W | Asus ROG Shift PG27V | Xiaomi P1 55" | Virpil T-50 CM2 Base + Thrustmaster Warthog Stick | Thrusmaster Warthog Throttle | Thrustmaster MFD | Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals | Oculus Quest 2

 

DCS World | Persian Gulf | Syria | Flaming Cliff 3 | P-51D Mustang | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | Fw-109 A-8 | A-10C Warthog | A-10C II Tank Killer | F/A-18C Hornet | F-14B Tomcat | F-16C Viper | Ka-50 BlackShark II | Mi-24P Hind | SuperCarrier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Arctic Fox said:

Can we expect to see improvements to Rockeyes and other conventional cluster munitions in the game as well?

 

Rockeyes and other bombs work reasonably well if you use multiples per pass. Like 2x rockeyes off the harrier usually works "ok".

 

  • Like 3

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should be way more lethal, though. Those were meant for killing tanks and other heavy armor, and as such, even a single one should clear a T-55 formation. Wikipedia quotes the penetration at 190mm of armor, which is way more than most tanks have on top.

 

I'm looking forward to trying out the improved CEM in the next update, it seems like a big step in the right direction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Desert Fox said:

Just that IFVs are not made from aluminium 😉

 The Bradley is.

 

  The larger practice bombs are concrete filled to mimic ''the real thing''. I'm 100% sure 500lbs at 500kts will cave in the roof, jam turret rings, etc unless the angle is so shallow it skipped off. High velocity penetrators are one thing, but at some point sheer mass can get the job done, too.

 

@Dragon1-1

 

Shaped charges still need a direct to function. Even if there are hundreds of them being dropped, only the ones that actually connect will pen (thus dropping hundreds to insure more hits). Dropping one over a column is going to cause a lot of chaos, but depending on the spread, most of them are obviously going to scatter.

 

 

  The issue with clusters is less likely to be related specifically to the clusters themselves as it is the way vehicle armor is modeled. If you hit ahead of the half way mark on most vehicles it's considered ''frontal armor'' and behind the halfway mark is ''rear'' (I tested this with a BMP-2 once). Some vehicles are more nuanced, but most are not, and in general the caliber of vic modeling is all over the place. How well your clusters work is likely directly related to what specific vehicles are in the column as to whether they even HAVE ''top'' armor values.

  • Like 2
Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great stuff! I really appreciate this effort on the CBU-87/103! :thumbup:

 

Now if only other cluster munitions (Rockeyes, RBKs, ...) would get similar improvements, then this would be absolutely terrific!

  • Like 3

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

Shaped charges still need a direct to function. Even if there are hundreds of them being dropped, only the ones that actually connect will pen (thus dropping hundreds to insure more hits). Dropping one over a column is going to cause a lot of chaos, but depending on the spread, most of them are obviously going to scatter.

Yeah, another thing about Roceye is that its footprint is generally smaller than that of the CBU-87. This depends on HOF and RPM, of course, but it puts more bomblets into a smaller area, for the exact reason you mention. It's essentially a predecessor to CBU-97, and was intended for use in the same role (that is, stemming the veritable tide of Soviet tanks in Europe).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

The issue with clusters is less likely to be related specifically to the clusters themselves as it is the way vehicle armor is modeled.

This cannot be stressed enough as well, that we have some work to do on ground unit damage modelling as well, we generally don't see M or F Kills right now unless you do some ME magic, you can see mobility reduced or in some cases weapons stop firing but this is still planned to be worked further.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

SigDCSNew.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Just that IFVs are not made from aluminium 😉

Many are, or at least partial use it. I.e. the M113 APC, the Bradley, the BTR-80. The armor is often meant to just protect from small arms fire and thus, using aluminium can provide that while also saving some weight. But no matter what material, I am sure a ballistic kinetic projectile of with a mass of 500 lb at at few hundret knots coming at you will do some harm to anything it hits. 🙂

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd be surprised. Sinking a boat is certainly possible, but banging on a hardened armor plate with a 25lb brick (training bombs typically don't weigh 500lbs) would not do as much damage as you might think. Now, it could certainly bend some metal, but modern armor would most likely not be penetrated. Even if you do drop an actual 500lb concrete bomb, what'll happen is that the concrete will shatter on impact. Without a proper penetrator, nailing armored vehicles with training munitions is largely a waste of time. Softskins, by all means, but even relatively wimpy armor would be a significant obstacle to anything softer than it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic work! These are my go-to munitions for the Viper.

Now: Water-cooled Ryzen 5800X + 32GB DDR 4 3200 RAM + EVGA 3090 FTW3 Ultra 24 GB + Reverb G2 + Add-on PCI-e 3.1 card + 2x1TB Corsair M.2 4900/4200 + TM HOTAS Warthog + TM TPR Pendular Rudder  'Engaged Defensive' YouTube Channel

Modules: F/A-18C / AV-8B / F-16 / Persian Gulf / Syria / Nevada 

Backup: Water-cooled i7 6700K @ 4.5GHz + 32GB DDR4 3200MHz + GTX 1080 8GB + 1TB M.2 1k drive & 250GB SSD drive 500MBps 4K 40" monitor + TrackIR 5

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure every A10c pilot has dropped two or three 87's and said "Well, that was worthless"

 

The CBU87 visual effect is one of the best in the game.   Im going to use this to great effect.

 

Thanks for the Fix!

 

bart

 


Edited by Bartacomus
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! These kind of documents are gems. Somehow I feel sad they might get lost in the sea of information that the forums are. Many will not know that they exist.

 

I remember one about aerodynamics simulation. I think one was about missile aerodynamics (or was that from Heatblur, not sure). One was about wing tip vortices behind aircraft. All great stuff. In the past there was also very interesting stuff about the blades of the KA-50 bending animations etc. Love all these technical things.

 

@NineLine Maybe ED could collect them somewhere as an encyclopedia kind of thing. Somewhere with higher visibility. Not sure if it is worth the work of managing that.

 

I am very thankful to get an insight into these interesting details that make everything come to life. 🙂


Edited by Whirley
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

 Then don't read them? The relevant info is in the OP.

The thing is, you keep track of when there is a new post in the official updates section. Now it lights up all the time, as soon as a user comments, and you think, "great, official news", when there is none. I agree with Hekktor. @NineLine, would you please lock this thread, move it to the user section, or start a new discussion thread there.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sharkku said:

The thing is, you keep track of when there is a new post in the official updates section. Now it lights up all the time, as soon as a user comments, and you think, "great, official news", when there is none. I agree with Hekktor. @NineLine, would you please lock this thread, move it to the user section, or start a new discussion thread there.

 

Was just gonna say this, yea it's annoying;P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...