Jump to content

Marder gunnery effectiveness.


ChrisWerb
 Share

Recommended Posts

A couple of hours on the gunnery range in SB was a real eye opener to me. The combinations I tried out were as follows.

 

  1. Marder 1A3 - no FCS + fast, flat shooting APDS-T. Essentially shooting a ranging machinegun with attitude.
  2. BMP-2 - not very flat shooting AP-T, stadiametric ranging (guessing!), and setting a battlesight range of 1200 metres
  3. M2A2 - flat shooting APDS-T and lasing the target for range and leading manually.
  4. CV9035DK - ultra flat shooting APFSDS-T, space age sights and FCS (other than no autotracking) lase/track and aim on

 

1. Marder. With a bit of practice I got the kill time down to around 4 seconds - my fastest was 2.9 seconds. This was basically "using the force", but wasn't wildly excessive in ammunition expenditure with frequent first round hits.

2. BMP-2 - I found it really hard to hit - particularly moving targets. I only had a few goes, but kill times vs targets moving at range were c. 20-30 seconds. To be fair I was using the gun against MBTs a lot of the time though.

3. Bradey - this worked out at about half the ammunition expenditure of Marder, but kill times were up around the 8 second mark. Without lasing the Bradley would probably be very similar to the Marder. 

4. CV9035dK - this was phenomenal in that it proved hard to miss, but enagement times were around 12 seconds. I dare say I could have gotten this down a bit with practice, but it would still have been higher than the Bradley. I remember taking 29 rounds to kill all 10 targets - in reality that would have been 11 more than I could have shot without overriding the belt end warning.

 

Now clearly there are other factors at work here as 20 and 25mm APDS are clearly going to be less lethal than 35mm APFDS, but even then, the reduced engagement time of the Rh202 equipped Marder could prove decisive in a close range duel or if having to engage multiple targets in rapid succession. I know a big bang/hole is better than a small one, but I can't help but think this rather unscientific test tends to vindicate the Bundeswehr's choice of the Rh202 for the late Cold-war period. The world has moved on though.

 

 

Edited by ChrisWerb
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try the warrior if you reach a certain standard there could be a lot of tea in it for you. LoL

A forum joke before your time.

My advice for what its worth don't try to be proficient in two many types of AFV

Pick two focus on them. then move on to the next.

 There's a couple of good gunnery videos knocking about

Grenny done a good one on how to use the T-62 gunners sight reticule.

Grenny if you see this can you repost please.

 

 

Edited by Marko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With enough practice, you can significantly reduce average engagement times for vehicles to a certain extent. I managed to reduce the average engagement time for the T-72B1 from around 11 to 5 seconds with a bit of practice. I imagine the same could be done with the majority of vehicles you have gunned with. 

 

With the BMP-2 for example, try using the O key to speed up turret traverse and holding the Shift key to adjust range in greater increments. 

 

Eventually though you will get to the point where you are simply limited by the technology of the vehicle. No matter what I do, I will never be able to consistently get a lower average engagement time with the T-72B1 than I can with the M1A2 SEP. The M1A2 can simply traverse it's turret, acquire targets, and hit said targets quicker and with greater accuracy than the T-72B1. 

 

That being said, there are certainly ways to degrade the advantages afforded by technology, and that makes it all the more important to understand the capabilities and limitations of your weapon systems and vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The comparative power of 20mm and 35mm rounds is also probably something that rather reflects weaknesses in our model than true performance in real life. We're working on it, but once more this is a rather deep-rooting part of the code where we want to be extra careful when making changes. I have little doubt however that in particular 20mm HE is currently overpowered, and 35mm KETF substantially underpowered in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I had a go on the mighty Warrior! :)

 

That was a bit of an ordeal - no powered traverse or elevation. Still it keeps up the proud British tradition of sending our troops into battle in comedy vehicles.

 

First attempt stuffed up because you start the scenario without a view - I had to find how to get a view first :)

 

2nd attempt 51/100 18% hits  Av time 14.8 sec

3rd attempt 51/100 18% hits Av time 12.0 sec

4th attempt 55/100 24% hits Av time 11.4 sec

5th attempt 53/100 21% hits Av time 12.5 sec

 

So, on average, a tad over 3x slower to get first round on target than the Marder 1A3 / Luchs A2. Perhaps 3x with practice.

 

What seemed to work best with long range crossing targets was aiming well in front and walking the rounds to where they were just in front of where you expected the target to arrive, then waiting. An added complication was that the gun crept up slightly in elevation after each shot. I wondered if that was a design feature to help cope with poor range estimation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No. The gun mount "has a bit of a loose fitting" as it was explained to me. The required training practice (as demonstrated to me) is to re-lay the gun after every. single. shot. by traversing each handcrank a quarter rotation back and forth.

 

I am still stunned. British soldiers must be very brave and patient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a long way to go before you can claim the prize Chris werb. LoL

The warrior mite have had a poor fire control but it had decent mobility and good protection.

If it gets the planned upgrade and that's a big if, it will match for any IFV out there.

It still find it hard to believe they built the desert warrior for the Kuwaiti's to such a high spec.

 And did not upgrade there own at the time.

otvaga2004_mcv80dw.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't claiming to be a crack shot - those figures are for comparison with the last ones I posted for the other vehicles - I might be able to shave a second or two off those numbers with practice though, although I'd be in serious risk of RSI/carpal tunnel syndrome attempting it :)

 

There are big problems with Warrior in trying to bring it into the 21st century - the most intractable is internal volume. Soldiers nowadays wear body armour and carry a lot more gear. They are also getting bigger and mine protected seating is a really good idea. I think having a door in the back rather than a ramp is not great. Not sure how the mid life upgrade addresses mine or DPICM protection either. From what I can gather the CTA cannon is proving to be a bit of a CF. Even if it works the ammunition is apparently "eye wateringly expensive" and the vehicle will (if I remember correctly) only carry 8o rounds total. At least it won't be loaded with 3-round clips! :)

 

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/cased-telescoped-armament-system/

Edited by ChrisWerb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree 100% with you Marco...

 

The Marder represents a vehicle, to me, that is very effective.  I really wish it had stabilization.  The lack of a FCS doesn't seem to really be a big problem to me, since it has a large ready round capacity and a pretty flat trajectory.  Typically I fire single shots, to walk onto target, and then short bursts of about three rounds until I get a kill.  Really I just hope that Ssnake will either come up with a way to model the TC's usage of the Milan ATGM system, or create a separate vehicle with the ATGM mounted if the limitations of the engine require it.  But even without an ATGM or stabs, it's an effective vehicle.

 

The Warrior...OK if you treat it like an APC that just happens to have a big cannon mounted, it isn't half bad.  It really needs to be protected by tanks everywhere it goes, but if I replace M113s with it, and use it like an M113, it seems just fine.  Still, like you said, it could have been much much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dpabrams said:

Is that why I can't find a wiki on that POS? I tried in once......................once

Actually...I've had that page near done for more than a year now, but I can't find any decent info on the gunner's and commander's sights.  What I've got points to the Pilkington Optronics Raven day/night sight, but that appears to be a dual channel 1x/8x sight rather than the 8x fixed magnification we find in sim...

Edited by MAJ_Fubar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

Actually...I've had that page near done for more than a year now, but I can't find any decent info on the gunner's and commander's sights. 

I see. I wonder if there are any consultants here on the boards that have actually operated one? Maybe time ask a vet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ssnake said:

No. The gun mount "has a bit of a loose fitting" as it was explained to me. The required training practice (as demonstrated to me) is to re-lay the gun after every. single. shot. by traversing each handcrank a quarter rotation back and forth.

 

I am still stunned. British soldiers must be very brave and patient.

This was true with our AVGP Cougars as well 76MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The one with the mercury fumes?

 

3 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

Cordite, but did not effect me, effect me, effect me

 

I always wondered what kind of fumes certain vehicle crews were getting exposed to.  The obvious part would plain old smoke, which has an immediate negative impact on your lungs and breathing and stuff...But things like mercury and lead have to be a problem too.

 

A few years back  friend and I bought a bunch of very cheap surplus 5.56mm ammunition.  NM229 made by Carl Gustaf I beleive.

We shot a bunch of it, got real sick, threw up a lot, etc.  Turns out it's lead free, but the jacket material gives you metal poisoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...