My SOP for Armor Simulations

[Armored_Fist_Player]

Here's my S.O.P. for All Armor Simulations:

1. Line the hull up with the turret toward the enemy because the armor is strongest there.

2. Deploy in a line formation.

3. If it's at night, use the engine smoke to conceal your rear.

4. Pop smoke once you know you've been seen by the enemy.

5. If you're in unknown territory, move slowly toward the objective. Then move at max speed once the enemy's location is detected.

6. Sniper kill the enemy from max effective range with one tank while the rest of the platoon is behind the hill. This runs contrary to the Mass principle of war but almost always works in just about every tank sim! If you've got a good position, you can devastate an enemy platoon with one tank with enough firing, moving, repositioning, firing, etc.

I thought I'd throw that insight into the mix! Cheers.

[12Alfa]

Popping smoke is not really a good idea.
It lets the enemy know where you are or were.
Granted someone knows, because they engage you.

However there manytimes the rest don't, popping smoke gives them the direction in which to look.

Smoke is used best , when on the move to your next fire position you are engaged, if you see where from, slew the turret in that direction, and pop smoke, it will be between you and the enemy as you put distance between yourself and that next round coming your way.

[ShotMagnet]

On a tangent, Mapman and I during a map-reading exercise were able to orient one on the other through the use of smoke.

I'm on the record as being a great advocate of smoke; it's never entirely useless and when the other guy has lost thermal-imaging capacity for anyone who might want to pop you-the smoke-use-it can be a tank-saver. There are times even when the right concentration of smoke will prevent the other guy, regardless of TIS- and/or LRF-capability from getting a good bead on you.

Smoke is also handy for shielding you against dismounts, whose HH ATGM will end your day right-quick if they have the right shot at the right range.

Sorry for the tangent, maybe I should start another thread.


Shot

[mapman]

Smoke is also handy for shielding you against dismounts, whose HH ATGM will end your day right-quick if they have the right shot at the right range.

Yea...I learned that from Poker one night. We were trying to get past a section of woods that we had to pass close by and LS had a number of grunts in there doing a lot of damage. Poker lit up the smoke generator and ripped on by without being hit in the rear.

[12Alfa]

Smoke has a huge tatical advantage on the battlefield, but it require a round that you can fire. As we know SB1 does not, SB Pro-PE will i think. It will give a player the meens to "mark" anywhere in the players view by means of a direct fire wpn (tank gun).

This will aid to troop/Ptl is spotting/marking, either the enemy or a terrian feature that is of special intrest to them.
Placing a smoke round just in front of the enemy grunts from say 2000m, is also another aid to the troop.


I wish I could spel!!

[twobravo]

U so rock, really. ;)

[3Star]

Other problem with popping smoke and hanging around is that your LRF is probably hosed.

NTM

[ShotMagnet]

Yeah, that and the reality that once the battle has been raging for a while, most LRFs are hosed anyway.


Shot

[Cobra2]

IRL smoke is never used on one local. normally you fill the front with smoke and send in your mech inf and tanks. mind you im talking about arty smoke and a Russian doctrine. however, when you talk about tanks and smoke dischargers the real thing to do is pop smoke after youre spotted. the idea is not to just hide but also give your buddies time to come up and support you. i must say that SB smoke lasts much longer than IRL and tanks usually use IR-smoke or even multispectral-smoke and not simply WP.

i do find myself popping smoke in games, but i do wonder if its a good thing in the game. does not seem to be very effective im afraid. but still, i like the realisim of using smoke when im engaged by inf, T72s and BMPs.

[ShotMagnet]

There are times when popping smoke prevents the LRF from functioning adequately. If that's enough to keep the enemy from getting an accurate bead on you, and a hit thereby, it's done what it was supposed to do.


Shot

[taskforce-panther]

gg

[taskforce-panther]

ive played all the armored fist games i miss a few features such as the drivers seat, citv and a halway aimable ah ma duce but over all the game was cheesy too arcadish for my taste, i didnt like the gps on it either SB is way better in alot of ways but hell theres things about it i dislike as well, 1 the AI is dumb 2, the gps is bouncy (not realistic, it dont move side to side) and 3 the m1 dont take a lick like it should.....

[RIPper]

what do you meant that the bouncing of the M1 reticle is unrealistic? are you sure? do you mean the side movement when engaging a moving target? everywhere i read it's like that (with the M1)

[Grenny]

Well, I need an english update.

What does this phrase mean: "...and 3 the m1 dont take a lick like it should....."

??

[DrDevice]

"Take a lick" or "take a licking" is to take a hit or a beating. He means that the M1 does not take damage as well as he thinks it should. He thinks the M1 should be tougher than it is modeled in the game.

[Bluewings]

Armored fist sucks . It 's a kid 's toy , Period .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Ssnake]

The problem with many armor games is that they make people believe that some models are invulnerable. Typically that's the Tiger in WW2 games, or the Abrams in pretty much any other game.

The damage model in SB1 was basic, but our best guess at that time. In SB Pro, it will be a lot more detailed (and again, represent our best possible estimate). It doesn't mean that it's spot on. Most likely, there will still be cases where the damage model seems to be off the mark. The question is, what's the purpose of the model?

If it is supposed to provide you with raw data for a quantitative statistical analysis to predict the outcome of future battles, then SB Pro will produce a big heap of garbage. Because the we lack the reliable data to set the parameters of the model right.
Our model is supposed to facilitate gunnery training - to indicate where there may be particular vulnerabilities with each specific vehicle, to learn the strengthes of one's own vehicle, to know the spots where to aim. For this purpose, even a rough model will still be "good enough".

I think that SB1 was already a good indicator to make people realize what a big difference a new ammunition type can make. Every SB player knows that there is a big difference between the performance of a 120mm DM33, and a 120mm M829A2 cartridge, even though the caliber and gun are identical. How many people who are now playing SB realized this before, and that the differences could be as dramatic?
To that extent, even the primitive damage model of SB1 was successful - it was good enough to show what it was supposed to show.

[Mpat120]

in refrence to the m1 redicle, im an m1 below a2 mod, it does move to calculate lead, in the A2 and sep it does not, insted the turret moves. take it from me i thought something was wrong when i shot my first gny with an A2

[Trekker]

in refrence to the m1 redicle, im an m1 below a2 mod, it does move to calculate lead, in the A2 and sep it does not, insted the turret moves. take it from me i thought something was wrong when i shot my first gny with an A2

You know why they changed?

[Bluewings]

The M1 's reticule moves to calculate the lead ?? I might be wrong but I believe that is incorrect . It moves because the M1 's FCS has only 2 mirrors and not 3 like the SEP or German Leopards .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Lone*star49]

The M1 's reticule moves to calculate the lead ?? I might be wrong but I believe that is incorrect . It moves because the M1 's FCS has only 2 mirrors and not 3 like the SEP or German Leopards .

Cheers . :3starSK:
...

My favorite subject, the M1-1A's sights (reticule-movement) after lazing, and hard to get them to settle down. :evil:

Agreed, 2 mirror sights suck, but I thought (IIRC) that the Leo's had a "4 mirror" system?, thus no movement within the gunners sights (eyes), not 3 mirrors.

Can someone confirm this: 3 mirror or 4 for Leos's?


LS

[Mpat120]

yes the m1 mirror moves to calculate lead. the m1 through m1a1ha has a double axis while the m1a2 and SEP have a multi axis which coupled w/ the new fire control keeps the redicle steady and moves the gun in both axis to calculate lead insted of the redicle, and yes im sure i used to b a m1 master gunner

[Bluewings]

ok rgr that :cvcsalute:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[jlh]

While you guys are on the subject of fire control systems, I have a question.

I've noticed in SB that when a tank (either the M1 or Leo) is firing at a target that is at a significantly lower elevation, that the tank will tend to shoot slightly long. Likewise when the target is at a much higher elevation, the rounds will tend to land slightly short (this is much more noticable with the HEAT rounds with their more looping trajectory).

I would think that with todays modern fire control systems that the firing tank would be able to sense its own atitude or tilt and when combined with an accurate distance to the target and angle from the firing tank to the target (I assume that this would come from the laser range finder being pointed at the target) that there would be an unambiguous fire solution that would put the round exactly on the target no matter what the elevation difference.

So what is going on:
a) This is the way real tanks are and it is accurately represented in SB
b) SB is not accurate in this respect and real modern MBTs will take the height difference into consideration.
c) What I think I'm seeing is not really happening

[Mpat120]

yes some tanks do have sensors that tell it that it is siting at an angle, but they cannot copensate for exessive angles (trunnion tilt), remember that the gun and turret can only move in two planes, up/down, left/right, the computer cant compinsate in a third direction. also at long distances or odd angles you get a paralax effect from the gun and sights not looking at the target at the same angle, eg, gun and sights not being in the same plane unlike the gas on the m1, basicly a rifle scope, the gps is several feet above and to the right.

[Bluewings]

And it is why the "CANT" engineering have been implemented in Pro and Pro PE ...
It certainly looks real but as Mpat120 explained , it made firing on target pretty hard . Especialy at 2500m+ ... :?

Pro PE gunnery will separate the Men from the boys , believe me ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[jlh]

Thanks for the answers, but I don't think this has anything to do with CANT. I just ran this experiment again. The firing vehicles are not sitting on a hillside. They are sitting on more or less level ground at a distance of 2500m to 3000m from their targets at a height difference of 55m to 60m. (Like I said this phenomenon is much more noticable with the HEAT rounds, I assume because of their more looping trajectory, if they were firing lasers instead of guns there would be no over or under shooting.) The tanks firing downhill overshoot, the tanks firing uphill undershoot. (Set it up and try it yourself.)

It's as if the tanks computer expects the round to follow the same trajectory whether the target is at the same elevation as the firing unit or not. But with extreme differences in elevation I would expect the tanks firing uphill to undershoot and the ones firing downhill to overshoot. I think this shows the physics model of SB to be accurate.

I just thought that in real life with these modern fire control systems that the tanks would be able to compensate.

[Mpat120]

gravity sucks dont it....rifle rounds do the same thing, now that i understand what you are talking about......downhill creates an overshoot, less pull of gravity, uphill tends to go short, gravity pulling the round down, you will find the effect worse the higher the angle simple balistics.

[jlh]

So it is correct then, that modern fire control systems (at least in the M1A1 and the Leo2A4) don't compensate for this?

[DrDevice]

So it is correct then, that modern fire control systems (at least in the M1A1 and the Leo2A4) don't compensate for this?

The key there is that the A4 and A1 models are not really that modern. They are a generation old by now. The A5 and A6, and the A2 and A2 SEP are the standard now, and (if I am not mistaken) compensate in 3+ dimensions to accomodate for the actions discussed above.

[jlh]

Thanks for the information!

[Lone*star49]

Thanks for the answers, but I don't think this has anything to do with CANT. I just ran this experiment again. :arrow:

The firing vehicles are not sitting on a hillside. They are sitting on more or less level ground at a distance of 2500m to 3000m from their targets at a height difference of 55m to 60m. (Like I said this phenomenon is much more noticable with the HEAT rounds, I assume because of their more looping trajectory, if they were firing lasers instead of guns there would be no over or under shooting.) The tanks firing downhill overshoot, the tanks firing uphill undershoot. (Set it up and try it yourself.)

It's as if the tanks computer expects the round to follow the same trajectory whether the target is at the same elevation as the firing unit or not. But with extreme differences in elevation I would expect the tanks firing uphill to undershoot and the ones firing downhill to overshoot. I think this shows the physics model of SB to be accurate.

I just thought that in real life with these modern fire control systems that the tanks would be able to compensate.
...

Just a long shot here, but you are indexing your ammo, Sabot, or Heat, in the M1.. yes?

:arrow: If not; *if your FCS is indexed to fire a Sabot round, with a Heat load, it is gonna fall way short, a/o if your FCS is indexed to fire a Heat round, with a Sabot round, it is gonna sail long past the target..

*in M1 tank only (gunner has to index the ammo load first).. Leo's FCS does this automatically


LS

[jlh]

yes it's indexed. Anyway, not-indexing would not account for the overshoots when shooting downhill. Its an easy experiment to set up, one just needs enough height difference between the target and the firing unit and enough lateral distance between them and its much easier to see with HEAT. I suspect it's just as Dr Device said. It will be interesting to do the same experiment with the Leo2A5.

[taskforce-panther]

also in quick engagement i learned to use the reti as a range finder i dunno how to explain other than ya just get used to it i could hit a target with a 0000 range on rangefinder but hit it at 1000 meters but generally lase was used i guess im sayin ya could se it imilar to the gas

[taskforce-panther]

it moves yes but not like the erratic crap in sb1 it hugs the left or right side when scanning its not that severe