(07-07-2023, 05:36 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Good to know; one of the articles I was reading about DPICM mentioned that in Gulf War, the artillerymen didn't use many because they required more manual calculation and they hadn't used them in training, but perhaps that was incorrect or just old.
I am not certain, but I think the extra computations required involve the fuse settings for the DPICM shells. This has to be done for every fire mission and is not something you can omit. More importantly, the guys bringing the shells have to set the fuses properly and the setting has to be verified. It is more work, for sure. "Unitary" 155mm shells have fuse settings too, but if you are using contact detonation there is nothing to compute.
Back in the 80s the "formula" was to use unitary 155 mm ammunition with VT fuse settings against Russian "Motor Rifle" divisions that were "moving". Back then, Russian Motor Rifle divisions had a few BMPs but mostly truck-bore infantry. The air burst of the 155 mm shell was considered sufficient to destroy the guys in the trucks. Of course, VT does require correct fuse settings, but it was a lot more available (not a special munition). OTOH, against Russian armored divisions, the required shells were DPICM, without question. If everybody was "buttoned up", VT would scratch the paint but probably not kill anybody.
Many of us undoubtedly remember the video showing the Russian tanks moving down the road in Ukraine that were taken under fire by Ukrainian artillery. While it did mess up the formation, and lots of the Russians were obviously panicked, it pretty much takes a direct hit or a very near miss for a unitary 155mm shell to "kill" a tank. It isn't a matter of accuracy either really, as the tank is moving unpredictably and the "indirect fire" is onto a position, not a specific vehicle. The Russians in that engagement weren't really "hurt" that bad. Scared, yes, destroyed utterly, no.
That is why DPICM exists. The "grenades" saturate an area, and everything in it will be hit. It is true that the grenades that hit a tank on the turret may not kill it. The "parasols" the Russians were using don't work on Javelins but the do mostly work on DPICM. However, grenades landing on the engine compartment and other top surfaces of the tank often result in a "mobility kill". The other anti-personnel grenades will kill anybody who is already outside in a thin-skinned vehicle or tank crews who are "bailing out" when they catch fire. A very small number of DPICM shells can really mess up an armored formation. The second set of shells after all the parasols are gone and many tanks are burning can pretty much finish them off. Nothing at all like what we saw on the video.
FWIW, when HIMARS could fire DPICM in big bunches, that was the "finger of god" and the "commanders eraser". The US no longer has that capability, unfortunately. The newer HIMARS rockets carrying unitary warheads are much more accurate and longer range. Indeed, that is a great capability. However, it shouldn't be an "either-or" IMO.
Quote:This article I just read today was a good summary of DPICM rounds US may be providing and cluster munitions and dud rates more broadly.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/militar...munitions/
Indeed a good article. It does point out in a low-key way that there are "troops" that do not agree that unitary weapons are a good alternative to DPICM in all conditions. There are also statistics cited that pretty much proves it. Ukraine is going to be using DPICM mostly against trenches. It is perfect for that. There is also a discussion of the reasoning being given for this "banned" weapon being sent to Ukraine. There may be some in Washington who actually believe that explanation. IMO the "real" reason is that it is the right weapon for the intended use and NOT using it under the present circumstances would be crazy. Ukraine has been asking for it because they know it is the right weapon. Finally they will get it.