[DEV] Insufficient Explosive Damage of the CM502KG

[Cooked_dough]

In the game, the Z-10 ME requires more spawn points to carry the CM502KG, but the explosive damage of the CM502KG is insufficient. Even though it has a 7.68 kg TNT equivalent, it cannot guarantee a 100% destruction rate against non-armored targets. I believe that as an HE-powered guided rocket, the explosive damage of the CM502KG should be changed to be similar to that of the Type 75 rocket, PR-3, 130-3 or Zuni MK32.（Remove the radius code for the CM502KG.）

I spent a considerable amount of time editing my issue before, but the bug report manager rejected it within just a few minutes, citing the reason as “not a bug report.” I also can’t help but remark on the remarkably high efficiency of the managers in the issue section.

In a previous similar issue report, the bug report manager stated, “This is not an ATGM; this missile is designed to destroy lightly armored vehicles.”

So, can the CM502KG truly easily “destroy lightly armored vehicles” in the game? I don’t think so. Let’s take a look at its performance in actual gameplay when the CM502 attacks some lightly armored vehicles:

In the game, the CM502KG has failed to achieve effective kills against targets such as the Buk-M3 radar vehicle, the SPAA Type 87, and even WWII-era vintage vehicles.XD

According to official demonstrations, the CM502KG has a warhead mass of 11 kg

, with options for both HE and SAP-HE warhead types. Previously, the CM-502KG in the game featured an SAP-HE warhead, which was later changed to an HE warhead. Theoretically, due to the structural constraints of the SAP-HE design, its explosive filler content would be lower than that of a pure HE warhead. Therefore, since the CM-502KG has been switched to an HE type, its current explosive filler mass of 4.52 kg should be increased. Furthermore, we certainly don’t expect that carrying eight of these missiles, which require higher spawn points, results in nothing but ineffective ‘fireworks’ against enemies, do we?

In comparative results, the damage effect of the CM502KG is similar to the 122mm 3OF24 HE (6.11 kg TNT equivalent) or the 125mm 3OF26.

, when shooting at the upper right ammunition rack of the Leopard 2A7 from the same angle, both destroyed 2 rounds within the rack. When shooting at the area above the breech

, the CM502KG couldn’t even destroy the spall liner on the turret roof, whereas the 3OF24 could.
Comparing with some HE rockets that have lower TNT equivalents, we found that when attacking the upper right ammunition rack of the turret, they can destroy most of the ammunition in the rack, which the CM502KG fails to do

.

Comparing with rockets that have similar explosive mass, TNT equivalent, and HE fragmentation characteristics, such as Japan’s Type 75 rocket for the 75ml MLRS and Britain’s PR-3 and Chinese 130-3

, we can see that they can destroy almost all ammunition when attacking the rear ammunition rack and effectively kill crew members inside the turret when attacking the area above the breech

. I believe the explosive damage of the CM502KG should be similar, but its performance in the game is poor and, at the very least, does not match its stated TNT equivalent.

In the code, the CM502KG has been assigned a parameter of
“radius = 0.3”

, which represents its explosive radius. In my tweet, the RP-3 and 130-3 rockets I mentioned were not assigned this
“radius” parameter

. I believe this is the reason why the explosive damage of the CM502KG is so poor.

Therefore, I suggest changing the explosive damage of the CM502KG to be consistent with that of the Type 75 and PR-3 and 130-3 rockets. If the explosive damage is not changed, I recommend reducing the spawn points required to carry the CM502KG.

These are just my personal suggestions based on my experience using it. I hope the Dev Forum Moderator can adopt them as formal suggestions and submit them to the development team. Thank you very much!

[S-200VE_Vega]

it has bigger spawn point requirement because zuni does not have this

[O_Warrior0]

Give them the source.

[Cooked_dough]

Bro, this thing can fly for a long time just to hit you, but all you’ll get is a scare—nothing actually happens.I don’t think the in-game CM502KG can be compared to the AH-64E’s 16x JAGM or the Mi-28NM’s 8x LMUR (Product 305).

[S-200VE_Vega]

they cant be compared to jagm or lmur but they also cant be compared to dumb rockets like zunis
you can actually kill sam from long range even if it takes bunch of them

[Cooked_dough]

Because its explosive damage cannot effectively destroy lightly armored vehicles — as you can see from the images in my tweet showing the results of striking a Buk-M3 radar vehicle and SPAA Type 87 — I argued in my tweet that the CM502KG should have an explosive damage effect similar to the Zuni rocket. If this explosive effect cannot be changed, my alternative appeal is to reduce its spawn points.

[kitsune_qq]

@Cooked_dough

Zuni MK32

Not even close.
It’s HE, while ZUNI is HEAT.

[kitsune_qq]

@Cooked_dough

Buk-M3 radar vehicle

Sometimes KH-38 cannot destroy it. And? Should it cost cheaper? Absolutely no.

[Cooked_dough]

Yes, I am aware that the Zuni is not the same type of weapon, but its explosive damage is equally potent. The Type 75, RP-3, and Type 130-3 shown in my tweet are all either HE or SAP-HE warhead types. I only used them for comparison with the CM502KG. The reason I mentioned the Zuni in my tweet is solely because it has a similar explosive damage effect.

[S-200VE_Vega]

@Cooked_dough

Because its explosive damage cannot effectively destroy lightly armored vehicles — as you can see from the images in my tweet showing the results of striking a Buk-M3 radar vehicle and SPAA Type 87

like i said, you need to fire multiple of them. you can easily fire multiple of them.
go down on helipad and you can continue to spam them.

[Cooked_dough]

Rather than that, I’d prefer to use the AKD-10 (AGM-114), because without buffing the CM502KG’s explosive damage, it poses little threat to the enemy. It’s more like a cheerleader on the sidelines, just providing atmosphere.:D

[闪闪的红星]

agree

[双汇王中王]

Setting the overpressure radius to infinite; 11 kg is a very large warhead.

[Designer_Speer]

cm502的超压半径限制应当取消

[Константинович7]

Is there any difference between explosive types in the weapons data or is it just a information asset? HMX (or HTA), if I’m not wrong Hexal (or A-IX-2) is more explosive as standard RDX/TNT and conventional TNT obviously.

If the explosive type does affect the performance of the weapon and if there’s source for that, this may help improve the weapons behaviour relative to overpressure and explosive damage overall.

[Cooked_dough]

In my opinion, what primarily affects the explosion damage result in the game is its explosive radius code, and only secondarily its TNT equivalent value. A higher TNT equivalent generally leads to better explosion damage effects, but an even more crucial factor is a higher radius value, or in some cases, the absence of an explosive radius code assignment altogether, which often results in the best explosion damage. This explains why the explosive damage effects of the RP-3, Type 75, and 130-3 [that I listed above] are superior to some High-Explosive (HE) shells with higher explosive filler content.

For example, the AGM-65D in the game has a 51 kg TNT equivalent, but its explosive radius is only 0.5—the same as some 155mm HE shells. Consequently, its explosive damage effect can sometimes be disappointingly poor.

[Cooked_dough]

Regarding the different explosive type in the game, Gaijin might not have implemented distinctions between their explosions and merely used TNT equivalent to represent their effects.

[CofCof]

?? man , turn off chines main bias , You can argue whatever you want, but this type of explosive is indeed implemented and behaves differently. That is the big difference between, for example, the AGM-65, but then again, who am I? You want to compare your Chinese missile with a tandem warhead, and a missile with 20kg of explosives. Accept that if you want to destroy a tank, you will have to fire two missiles, and to destroy an AA, one missile, just as is already the case with spikes.

[Godvana]

If you want the explosive mass increased, you need to provide reliable sources for it. Also, it needs to explicitly be the explosive mass and not the warhead, as the warhead includes things such as a penetrator and/or fragmentation jacket.

[Cooked_dough]

Didn’t you read my tweet? I only compared the 502KG to HE and SAP-HE rockets with similar TNT equivalents in my post. I never used the AGM-65 or any missiles with tandem warheads as points of comparison. Given the CM502’s current explosive damage, firing three or even four rounds might not guarantee the elimination of an armored target.