Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GSprocket

  1. I did specify from 1000m ish, which is 10x as far... at least on the frontal target. The first flanking target was a hit into the rear compartment from ~150m in the area of the firing ports on the original BMP1 it was derived from. (There are no firing ports on the PRP of course). The frontal turret hit I didn't save the AAR, but the recorded impact was just below the left hand edge of the mantlet, on the turret armour, from slightly to the left of the centre-line, again 1000m, which is beyond the useful anti-armour range of the SMGT weapon. (Certainly I have to hose down trucks at 1km to even slow them down, and killing them at that range is difficult).
  2. I was ranging an OF18 HE round from a T-62 onto a hull-down PRP-3 using the coax. From a range of around 1000m ish, I killed one in the upper side hull. On another attempt with a frontal aspect I broke the track with the coax, then killed the vehicle with a hit in the turret front. This surprised me, as I find trucks generally harder to kill than this, and I was expecting BMP (or BRDM at worst) armour levels, which would have justified the bigger round. The burst lengths were only 3-4 rounds with one tracer visible ~ it wasn't even that I was hosing the target down. Is this vulnerability and protection model correct?
  3. Not really worthwhile though: 5 flanking hits to obtain a kill... and a hit probability not likely to be better than 1 in 12 assuming perfect alignment and function of the system. This would require around 60 rounds per kill if this is representative, which isn't likely to be sustainable... (If nothing else it would cost $420,000, and would require a cooperative target and a spotter). Closer in there is a reasonable prospect of success.
  4. It *could* be a 'short' near the apex of the ricochet. From observing dozens of hits (from hundreds of total shots), the 'clean' hits do have a slight downward direction, while ricochets tend to have a mix of impact directions and a 'thinner' hit ray (most noticeable with medium calibre penetrators, rather than tank rounds). No distinction is made in the AAR between a clean hit and a subsequent hit after impact with another target or the ground.
  5. It was found using a Google search ~ This gun wiki had the 'in house' ballistic table for an unspecified weapon and firing conditions. I suspect the original source would have had more contextualisation, but I wasn't able to find the originating document. http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/Saboted_light_armor_penetrator There are some discrepancies... the main page states "over 4000 fps", while the trend of the velocity curve indicates 'around 3770 fps' within a few hundred fps ~ other textual data indicates a 1219m/s V0 (compared to 1150m/s from the trend of the data table).
  6. The ammunition data listed in the ammunition dialogue for M903 is completely wrong for this round: It seems in SB to be similar to that for a full-bore AP/API round. I've seen different values for the M903/M962 rounds, but all indicate a V0 well above 1100m/s (in the linked image 1150m/s) and with a velocity loss of ~400m/s over 1km (rather higher near the muzzle) This makes it much flatter firing than M8 or similar rounds ~ travelling to 1500m, rather than 1000m for the same bullet drop.
  7. It really shouldn't be though: The range table for BM9 has 0.54 degrees (0.6 Grad, 9.6 mils) fall at 4000m, and BM9 isn't noted for retaining velocity well, although high velocity. OF412 has 2.79 degrees (3.1 Grad, 48 mils (compared to 38 Strich/40 mils firing angle)) fall at 4800m, and is much lower velocity than "most rounds". In my book this is still 'flat fire' rather than plunging. If SB produces other results then the ballistics model isn't right, but I believe that it is fairly good in fact, and you are seeing the illusion of a steeper fall angle than is actually present because of magnification of the sights.
  8. Disregard, I was working outside the permissable range on the M1A2SEP, so no update to the FCS was being made, by design... all is clear now.
  9. Not really - at 5000m: APFSDS is descending at roughly 0.7 degree (12 mils ~ outbound was around 10 mils) MPAT at roughly 3.5 degrees (60mils ~ outbound around 18 mils) APFSDS isn't descending steeply until *much* later only - fifteen degrees would be at around 70km or more, based on relationship between max range and "minimum range" for indirect fire HE of guns. (fifteen degree angle of fall at roughly half maximum range).
  10. GSprocket

    Laze help

    Is that still true if you dump lead between? I noticed something similar with the T72, but not if I dumped/zeroed the sight first.
  11. Hmm. A problem with using M830A1 for this is that it "runs out" around 7500m (The ARL-3567 paper seems to support an equivalent departure angle for M829A2 and M830A1 for 7500m and 4500m respectively. This isn't possible with the M1A1(HA), and thus the use can't be extended to the laser range limit. This obviously already isn't a really practical range, but for APFSDS "used as artillery", it would extend the 'point and shoot' range a little more to use the M830/DM12 range scale... Here 7500m for M829A2 is a more reasonable 2905m for the FCS in M830/DM12, which can be used in all RM120/M256 tanks.
  12. The result maybe wouldn't be much... using Commander, Select SABOT, Select SABOT, Gunner position would however accomplish *something*. The AI commander will override your ammunition selection (or make the same one) as soon as you leave him in the original scheme IMO. Other useful ones might be: Identified > Lase or Identified > Battlesight (to prevent the Commander overriding during an engagement)
  13. Worse barrel erosion, worse consistency etc. There are reasons for sacrificing 'high temperature' performance even when 'high temperature' conditions are the norm for current operations.
  14. DU has slightly lower high velocity penetration than the equivalent WHA rod, but has a slight edge in ultra long range performance. Nothing really in it though ~ a few 10s of mm difference in most cases at most. A typical modern Long Rod (from 120mm gun) will still have between 85 and 93% of the muzzle performance at 4km. Older rounds, slower rounds and smaller calibres will tend to lose more relative performance (though often less absolute differences). Loss per km is around 2.5-3.5% for modern large calibre long rods, around 10% for 25mm APFSDS or 125mm BM-9, and around 15% for 25mm APDS. Reducing penetration for KE penetrators is often greatly exaggerated, and is only important in the case where the rod is marginal for penetration of the target. For many combinations of rod/target there is no overlap of penetration and protection ~ either the target is too tough in the protected zones, and chance and the smaller weakened zones are solely vulnerable, or the round will easily penetrate almost the whole target array irrespective of range. All the estimates for DM53 and M829 series suggest that DM53/L44 is nearer to M829A1 performance levels, and DM53/L55 nearer to M829A2 levels... M829A3 is a generation newer, with a much more massive rod. It seems highly improbable that DM53 can come close to it, despite the 13% higher velocity from the longer tube. M829A2 and to an even greater extent M829A3 use weight reductions in the sabots (composite materials and Computer Aided Lay-up and material level optimisation & design) have slashed the parasitic fraction compared to all other reported NATO-style in-service rounds, most of which still use Aluminium sabots. This permits larger rods or higher velocity than would otherwise be possible, at lower pressure levels.
  15. Documentation is dreadful though, no indication of what each "Class" (Luokka) should represent is available, and not all are immediately obvious. Still wading through each layer in my sample area to identify most of the types. Any Finnish users can help with trawling the non-English portions of the site looking for any such information?
  16. But you could create a waypoint strike 'event' that links to a unit's incremental time exceeding a threshold, and link the artillery to that event?
  17. http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/file_download_service Includes 10m and 2m elevation datasets and building and landcover at ~ 1:10,000 "scale". Might be useful for map building purposes ~ being more consistent and complete than existing OSM data/SRTM etc.
  18. The *Commander* TIM in the late marque Leopard 2's PERI is a higher resolution 2nd/3rd generation device, rather than the somewhat fuzzy one in the gunner's place or EMES replication mode. It isn't *quite* at the level of the digital enhancement of the CV90/M1A2 or some other top end displays, but it is a significant improvement over the M1/M1A1/Leopard2/Bradley GPS units.
  19. Not all maps use a "woodland" terrain theme. Either place the textures into the relevant folder, or modify the terrain theme to use "woodland" season.
  20. EMES is the same in both Leopards, but the commander TIM *is* a more modern device in the 2A5/Strv122/Leopardo 2E (as I understand it).
  21. In some vehicles there are INS systems. Set to the correct position at the jump-off-point, they will keep locations accurate to within a few hundred metres over tens of km. The same systems are used in aircraft too. They do drift, but not as much as 'just guessing'. To update the position requires a known observable reference point (or two). By doctrine I think each Soviet MRR/tank company had one system, plus all FOO and Artillery HQ. Not sure how common it would be in UK/US/DE service.
  22. Actually when in KH (up-arrow) mode the gunner will set the EMES to the requested mode (Daysight/TIS) if he is still active. The commander has no override mode for this switch though, so has to otherwise use his PERI or the TIM/EMES TIS modes. In ZU mode you will still see daysight mode if the gunner is using it anyway, but the gunner will not respond to requests to change mode.
  23. The Cold War Soviet tank battalion had several different forms depending on where it was operating: As part of a Tank Regiment of a Division, it had 31 tanks, HQ plus 3 Ten strong tank companies. (3 platoons of three vehicles, plus HQ) As part of the Motor Rifle Regiment, it had 40 tanks, HQ plus 3 Thirteen strong tank companies. (3 platoons of four vehicles, plus HQ) As part of the MRD there was an independent (non Regt) Tank Battalion - 51 tanks, HQ plus 5 Ten strong tank companies. The final form is in and part of an Independent Tank Regiment or Independent Brigade, where the strength is sometimes given as 41 tanks, HQ plus 4 Ten strong tank companies. This form seems to be that used by the formation referred in the OP. There are also some archaic Heavy Tank structures, with 5 strong tank companies (HQ plus two platoons of two vehicles), but these would have last been used in the era of the IS3/T10/T10M and aren't relevant in modern/semi-modern contexts.
  24. It can be upgraded to the latest version for $40 IIRC. (Full price for a new CM stick and license is $115) So nominally it is worth around $75 'as-is', perhaps a little less for the 'hassle' of an unknown hardware reliability/function, and the need to update the license before use. It might be worth checking what firmware version is currently on the stick, and perhaps to upgrade it from the original CM software if it isn't 'current version' compatible to avoid hiccups later? There was also a license update 'hiccup' for an original license that has never been updated - SSnake mentioned needing to contact him if updating to version 3.0 from an original 'vanilla' 2.3xx license. This shouldn't be a problem, but does make the process less convenient for the new user for this first update. (Only IIRC, and perhaps outdated/incorrect since the dust settled with/after the release)
  • Create New...