GSprocket

The GPS daysight has two levels of magnification, with the "same" reticle at the correct scaling. The GPS TIS sight has 5 levels of magnification, with the 2 widest a "box" and the 3 narrower using the scaled 'gunnery' reticle. My guess is that you are not seeing the GPS gunnery reticle on 'magnifying' in GPS TIS mode, because you are only using level wide and wide (magnified), and are not using the x10, x25, x50 zoom levels. (The leopard gunnery reticle is similar, but the scaling isn't 'correct' in any zoom setting other than x12 - which can include daysight mode in the later marques, and for the commander's TIM with auxillary magnification).

Why I phrased the comment as I did. The "Rules" are an inherent part of the terrain engine and building model. I thought I'd heard of a terrain editor tool that permitted cross levelling or embankmenting a road, but not that it improved things in the region near buildings.

This occurs for me on this road type. Note it isn't a shadow bug ~ with the slope and lighting just right, the shadow can be seen fine, but rather with the shading of this road style, which changes colour *much* more with angle than any other. When viewed proximate to the vehicle it *tends* to be as dark as the shadow tone which therefore fails to show up. The roads also have weird shading when viewed from a distance with very extreme changes in shading when compared to the terrain around it. (A recently posted example is the SS_19_44_34.jpg from the Where is it? thread)

It's a nice map, but the steep slopes and towns strung closely along roads highlights the need for new rules for levelling around buildings, and especially maintaining the grade (and cross levelling) of roads.

St Vith would be my first guess. It fits with an approximate elevation of 450m, a major valley to the south (ruling out Vielsalm, which was my second thought), and 12km south of La Gleize, where a KT is displayed. The contour interval displayed would be 10m placing the elevation of the main river at around 400m

There are apparent errors - e.g. and on a first reading ~ for the Soviet Tank Coy it lists TR strengths as 13 vehicles and MRR strength at 18 vehicles, while these should be 10 and 13 respectively. There might be other errors as well.

The FAMAS rifle?

I stand by 'marginal'. The difference in penetration over 1000m for a DM43 class weapon / 50m/s is on the order of half an inch/13mm. I'd class this as marginal improvement. Useful? Yes, but dramatic... not really. The M829A2 class round might see around 1" extra penetration, which is more significant ~ this is a 'generation' improvement, equivalent to (and for the same reasons (i.e. increased velocity)) as that between M829A1 and M829A2, but is lower than the increases from M829 to M829A1 or from M829A2 to M829A3, which were caused by increased rod sizes (albeit at lower velocity).

What I've seen suggests that the OFL 120 F1 is 'similar' to if not the same round as DM43A1/LKE1 (which unless I misunderstand is KEW-A1) Fired from an L52 barrel it will do marginally better than from the L44, but in practice the difference in velocity is minimal, and the variation in perforation with the small change in velocity is also small (as it is WHA it matters a little bit more than it would for DU ~ though DU retains perforation better over range in consequence of it's relative insensitivity to impact velocity). OFL 120 F2 is a DU rod, without further information I'd not be sure about a good analogue, but M829A2 is probably a good candidate (higher velocity 'equivalent' to the M829A1, with minimal technological improvements to the penetrator (US attention was primarily on reducing parasitic mass to enable the same propellant to throw the same rod at higher velocity with lower pressure and to keep wear increases minimal). The M829A3 is much larger with even more carefully tuned parasitic mass. I'd avoid using the L55 Leopards, as there isn't much flexibility with penetrator types (and CL3141 or DM53(L55) are probably modelled significantly better than F2 would be).

The description of the jet from Darklabour is wrong. The tip of the jet is around 8km/s (reference to APFSDS at 1.7km/s), with a velocity gradient towards the rear of the jet, where it is "around" 1km/s. Behind the jet is a 'slug' of material of much higher mass, but slower velocity. Because of the velocity gradient, the HEAT jet is under tension, rather than compression, and the penetration performance is degraded if the coherence is lost - the initial stages of particulation often have minor effects, but as the jet breaks up there is an increasing chance that subsequent particles will erode the rim of the existing crater, rather than deepening it, and the mid and rear portions of the jet have relatively poor independent penetration capabilities. This is why protection methods that aim at 'dwelling' or dispersing the jet have such high effectiveness against HEAT weapons compared to KE rounds, where the penetrator is much more massive and has similar penetration capability for fragments from any portion of it - the whole rod travels at the same speed, and the rear of the rod 'aids' the progress of the portions ahead of it.

PCOT is noted as being APCBC, so I'd assume something analogous to PzGr39/42, or BR412. For tanks without skirts, there is no issue with complete perforation and bursting in the interior from a side shot (low obliquity). The thickness of armour, even in the presence of non-ballistic skirts isn't even an issue within a km or so... but these may fuse the burster, which could detonate in the gap between skirt and hull (this is usually over 600mm on modern tanks, sometimes more... and increased by any obliquity). Side turrets range from simple steel, of easily penetrable thickness (Txx), to thin arrays of reflecting plates, plastic/elastic materials and variable density interface mechanisms tuned to HEAT projectiles or high obliquity long rods of ~25mm diameter. These latter may cause a shell to shatter, but if not, then they may perform rather less well than expected due to poor T/D effects of each layer, and higher than designed momentum/lower velocity. I'd be respectful of any of the 'higher end' WW2 weapons, and even modest things can disable tanks... Still rather be in the M1 than a Panther... but I'd not be blasé about it. Been killed "in game" by T55 too often while riding in Leo2E to think that equipment is all that matters.

Depends on what is considered to be EFC 1, whether that is excessively high or only moderate... If EFC 1 corresponds to M792 or an equivalent then EFC 3 is relatively high (HEP/HESH would be far more moderate, with an EFC of 0.3 or so?) On the other hand an EFC of 1 for M392 HEP or M452 HEAT, would give a modest wear rate at 3.0 which seems unlikely... in any case the same reference should be used for tube life and projectiles. ISTR that M829A2/DM53 were quoted as EFC 5 for the RM tube in 120mm, and M829A3 speculated at 6.0, according to Bumar(?) engineering papers from Poland.

That may be because you still have ATGM in the 'stowed' ammunition? With HE, HEAT and APFSDS I get fire started at 4km (HE max range) and this is exclusively APFSDS (followed once expended by HEAT, still at 4km), but with AT11, the first APFSDS goes at 5km, the AT11 fires next, more APFSDS follow, still at 5km, and HEAT after that... No HE rounds are expended against tanks, even though their extended engagement range permits longer ranges from HEAT and APFSDS engagements on a routine basis.

There doesn't seem to be much mystery: The APFSDS has previously been the longest ranged ammunition, with HEAT shorter ranged. With the introduction of HE and Cannon Launched-ATGM the APFSDS is now third in the queue. It is still however loaded first as the battle-carry round. While ATGM are present, the gunner should 'fire off' the APFSDS with a non-solution and possibly kentucky windage, though the FC limit is less than 5km so accuracy should be indifferent at excessive range. Once the first APFSDS is expended he should load ATGM for the long range shots until they are all expended. The next longest ranged nature is HE, but this is not the correct round for A/T fires, so carry Sabot is ordered. The gunner checks he is in range (which he *is* carrying HE rounds) and engages, but he should according to the ammunition table be holding fire with APFSDS down to 3200/3500 m according to type, and then HEAT down to 2700/2800m according to type... (you'll note that HEAT is also expended at extended ranges if HE or ATGM are present, and APFSDS are not).

There aren't any *files* on the CM filesystem (the Windows portion has zero space). The CM repository is in protected space and shouldn't have been affected. Maybe re-install CM applications and run CM-Dust or check the license data stored? From the CM control panel.

The Txx kill was against an earlier model T tank, you indicate a T-62, but this is well within the lethal envelope of the L23A1/L26 at the ~5km range claimed. Doing the same with a T80U or T90 is a wholly different proposition. While the gun was marginally improved, the ammunition natures L23/L26 are still largely the same, minor increases in muzzle velocity do not significantly change penetration performance which is predominantly determined by rod length. The L27 is only available with the CR2/L30 combination, but is not as long as the latest 2 generations of ammunition natures from the RM/M256 gun (not being possible to bury the projectile within the case limits the growth of the rod to that which can be contained in the stowage racks). Reported velocity is also marginally lower than for the lighter contemporary designs of similar size/shape from the smoothbore, though as already commented this has minimal effect on terminal performance. Until recently the ammunition supply for CR2 was in crisis, with no new production of charges or projectiles. There has been success in testing the newer L18 charges for use with the older L23A1 for training and war use with the UAE vehicles, and Rheinmetall have indicated that they can use modified DM-53 rods (without indication of what the modifications include ~ my information suggests a significant reduction of length to match projectile dimensions to the L27, or a growth of rod size with this development - part of this might be the elimination of the tracer to conform to UK practice, permitting a longer penetrator in the same projectile package).

The per-month versions are "always latest". The buy-once (codemeter) versions are persistent licences but must be upgraded to use more recent versions of the software although possibly at a lower long term cost than the subscription model. It has also so far been possible to 'skip' generations going from 2.002 to the 'current' 3.002 (once it is available) without going through every update/upgrade along the upgrade path. This might not be possible in the future though.

No, that counts as a penetration. Partial penetration has a specific meaning (cratering with no through perforation), which BAD and driver injury from a HEAT jet is not consistent with.

Surely it should be .5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10? They appear to be evenly spaced except for the mil-dot/inner line attached.

There *is* a problem though. If you as the gunner have the palm switch 'on' using 'controller' then you can release it while the commander is overriding, then 'pick up' the gun without lead induced once the commander releases his override. If you are playing using a 'joystick' (or mouse in "joystick mode"), then the 'always on' palm switch prevents this 'non-lead' pickup, and you must 'press to release' the lead, which is less natural than to 'pick up' the lead as you re-take the control. I have no problem with inducing unwanted lead by forgetting to dump my own lead, but I do struggle a bit with the response to the commander's one as the 'letting go' of my controller doesn't do the intuitive 'dumping lead'... it isn't even possible to press 'dump lead' to simulate 'waiting for the commander to finish' until he lets go of his controller. It doesn't seem to be a feature of the real tank (where the gunner has a palm switch that he can relax then pick-up under these circumstances ~ in the same way that the Leopard Gunner 'picks-up' his lead when he wants it), but rather an artifact of the control/controller assignment logic within the simulation. Unless I'm completely off-base.

I'm trying to set the mission score to indicate the proportion of targets engaged from the total population of enemy Tank, APC and IFV groups ~ With each treated separately. I set each to Mission Score (Strength Points), with the tank and IFV groups manually set in the scoring list & weighted at 80, per 80%, with a 1pt bonus (no max) and 2pts penalty (max 80%) - I think this should give a score ranging linearly from 0 at 40% casualties to 80 at 80%, and to 100 at 100% for each group. The third Strength score is set to the APC/Truck groups, with 50 at 50% and 1pt bonus/penalty (max 50). This should give a maximum score of 300. The maximum scaled score is left at 100, but when the mission is evaluated, I only get 26.5pts, rather than the expected 100. What am I doing wrong? I get the expected results for User score, based on time to kill, hit% and no of kills, but am baffled by the Mission scoring.

When using a joystick, as opposed to controller, the palm switch is "always on", and thus the commander override with a range already active, lasing or setting of a Battlesight range will induce strong lead from the slew to target, even if only over limited angular extent, as he is quite abrupt and leaves the sight picture 'off', requiring gunner correction. The gunner must 'dump' lead with an action before either re-setting the BS range to induce lead, lasing to induce lead, or aiming with an estimated lead. The initial lead calculation otherwise seems highly unreliable. Because of the lead problems I often find the battlesight being set delays taking a shot compared to dumping lead and re-lasing, which seems counter-intuitive and unwanted... I'm assuming the real behaviour is more likely to be the gunner releasing the palm switch while the commander has the override active, so the palm switch is "off" briefly during the hand-over (this would seem to make sense in the context of a null-action using the controller settings in any case). This probably applies to both M1 (through M1A1HA) 1 plane and M1A2 dual plane mirrors. Not sure if a 'bug' ~ the assumed gunner actions might be mistaken, but worth thinking about perhaps to see if this behaviour is WAD?

Here is the Winchester Olins brochure with a page containing graphical and 'point data' for SLAP/SLAP-T M903/M962 http://www.olin.com.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/1006/m3201_v1_winchester_australia_military_10.pdf page 10/17

Hmm, 5km would be Refleks, rather than Mango. The max range of the BM42 is only 3300m. The threat at longer range is the Refleks system... though this seems to be far more sensitive to ammunition age/condition than the dumb round.

I use the old Australian Tank Table, modified to hard, realistic targets (i.e. switched off kill when hit, and remove when killed), although the MBT swapped from T72M1 to T55, and everyone 'bombed-up' except for smoke. There are some 35 targets, which is quite a challenge for 40/42 rounds, every BTR/BMP that keeps rolling after being penetrated through and through by a sabot round is one step further from a clean sweep. I'm not a terrible gunner, but I usually fail to meet the 'supposed' qualification score based on rate of fire and accuracy ~ because the deliberate aiming needed for clean kills is slower than the 'twitch' that gives high scores but doesn't reliably hit the aim-point on longer range movers... I keep meaning to play with the scoring, but so far I've just been using it as a practical exercise (where the score is unimportant). Target presentation was controlled by triggers: one or two targets being presented with each activated trigger. This is simple and reliable, but it is cumbersome for the single player ~ I guess it works better with crew/instructor or gunner/observer. I intend to work up some automation of the target array in sections with re-loading breaks at some point - I like the control given by the triggers, but think that automatic sequencing of 3-4 groups (5-6 vehicles) would work better for a single player than the whole being individually selected.. I also plan to automate the presentation and link it to pauses for re-loading - perhaps using the 'trigger' to display the next target, with a variable delay, random numbers to select a chain of presentation