Leo 2A6 spotting distance

[BlackDeath]

Hi, 

I made some tests about spotting target from afar :

while M1A2SEP is able to spot targets from at least 5km and mark it on the map, Leo2A6M2 is unable to do the same.
Actually, M1A2 TC marks (and directs gunner to target) between 5 and 4km (but does not fire until 4km); Leo2A6 TC does not see anything (while we clearly can see targets when manually controlled).

Does target identification need the gunner to see it as well (considering the relatively bad optics on the Leo gunner)?

 

Also, Leo2A6 gunner cannot engage at more than 4km, even when manually controled ? 

 

M1A2 CITV and target reported:

 

Leo2A6 TC periscope : no target reported.

 

Actually, to be reported in Leo2A6, targets have to be at maximum 4km .

 

 

Not related, but what is the condition for AI T72B3 to load missiles instead of APFSDS, especially at mission start?

 

Regards.

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, BlackDeath said:

Not related, but what is the condition for AI T72B3 to load missiles instead of APFSDS, especially at mission start?

Don't think that we have an option for that.

[BlackDeath]

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Don't think that we have an option for that.

 

OK i made some tests : 

below 4Km, if target if spotted right away => APFSDS is loaded and fired
between 4Km and 5km, if target if spotted right away => missile is loaded and fired

above 5km, target is never spotted neither by TC nor gunner (while it is visible and we can lase it) => APFSDS is loaded, no fire.

 

Ultimately it means that, unless a target is spotted right away between 4 and 5km, AI never loads missiles, not until it runs out of conventional ammo  

- AI doesn't shoot APFSDS above 4km

- AI only loads missiles if target is between 4 and 5km so if APFSDS is already loaded, it won't unload then reload missile

 

 

[Ssnake]

I'm not sure if an unloading of the 125mm gun systems with autoloader is even possible; most certainly it's not a routine procedure. Even in the Leopard 2 and M1, where we made it possible, it's frowned upon as a hazardous practice. Yes, possible - but static electricity can build up, and the cartridges being made of nitrocellulose, well, it's a highly entertaining combination (from a safe distance). If you're inside the same tank, it's not a safe distance.

 

While an AI crew might not load a missile on their own in most cases, at least as a human commander or gunner you can order the next round to be a missile/set the autoloader to missile before activating the load sequence. It's a start, I suppose.

 

That being said, in future release notes, be on the lookout for a fixed "bug 11989" which might bring improvements in this area.

[Volcano]

As far as I understand it, the T-72B3 gunner will not load a round until the AI TC gives it an instruction to engage a target. Then it will load that round (for example KE), and continue to load that until the target is destroyed, or a new target is spotted. Given how there is a time of flight, the next round will likely be loaded before the target is destroyed. That said, the AI will of course switch to missile during that loop if the AI thinks it is necessary to do so (only so much you can do here with the AI, but at least the AI getting instruction from the commander before loading is far better than it used to here).

 

FWIW, the spotting distance between tanks has been described before, and it has to do with the presence of FLIR on the M1A2 (and the AH-64), which allows the sight resolution to be able to identify the target (by the AI)  at ranges beyond ~ 5km to something like 8-10km (from memory). You as the user certainly can see "things" in the Leo 2A6 at 5+ km, but not enough to ID what it actually is. Is it a tank? Is it even enemy? You very well cannot have the unit icon showing up on the map at that range with those optics, not to mention the AI being released to fire at it. At some point we have to make a call and say that you cannot tell what that "thing" is, while in the M1A2, at higher (non-digital levels) of magnification (at least twice the magnification of other tanks), you can certainly see much more detail, to say it is plausible to ID targets to the map that far away.

 

So, there is simply a distinction there between the sight resolution and FLIR type sights. If there was a newer version of the Leo 2 in SB with the latest optics that are comparable (or better?) to the M1A2s, then certainly they too would receive that advantage. But, unless I am remembering incorrectly here, since the SB Leo 2s can only fire out to 4km, then this isn't that much of an issue in the first place. What is important is that the Challenger 2 and M1A2 can fire out to 5km, but in the case of the CR2, since it doesn't have that FLIR distinction, then this is left up to the user to do (not the AI). 

 

There are a lot of considerations and distinctions there. Just something to keep in mind.

[Stefan.K]

With the 125 mm gun, loaded ammunition can no longer be unloaded to the "rear". Because the shell was pressed firmly into the transition cone of the gun. Only the propellant charge could be removed. So it is always unloaded "forward". That is also the principle according to manual.

 

Based on my knowledge of Russian procedures, a gunner will never load a missile without an order. There are only an extremely limited number of these. And that's why the TC has reservations about the firing of missiles. And the use of a missile requires the separate system for missile firing to be switched on beforehand. 

[BlackDeath]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

While an AI crew might not load a missile on their own in most cases, at least as a human commander or gunner you can order the next round to be a missile/set the autoloader to missile before activating the load sequence. It's a start, I suppose.

 

That being said, in future release notes, be on the lookout for a fixed "bug 11989" which might bring improvements in this area.

 

Ok, I will look forward to it!

 

4 hours ago, Volcano said:

FWIW, the spotting distance between tanks has been described before, and it has to do with the presence of FLIR on the M1A2 (and the AH-64), which allows the sight resolution to be able to identify the target (by the AI)  at ranges beyond ~ 5km to something like 8-10km (from memory). You as the user certainly can see "things" in the Leo 2A6 at 5+ km, but not enough to ID what it actually is. Is it a tank? Is it even enemy? You very well cannot have the unit icon showing up on the map at that range with those optics, not to mention the AI being released to fire at it. At some point we have to make a call and say that you cannot tell what that "thing" is, while in the M1A2, at higher (non-digital levels) of magnification (at least twice the magnification of other tanks), you can certainly see much more detail, to say it is plausible to ID targets to the map that far away.

 

Update, i made a bit more testing and find out why AI Leos and other do not spot targets beyond the 4k range :

this all has to do with visual range, by default set to 4000m.

 

 

Both Leos or Chally do not spot targets beyond 4k when visual range is set to 4000m, even when we human can see and ID target from TC thermals. However T72B3 & M1A2 are not affected (as much - when visual range is set to 10m, everyone is blind -) and can still detect and report.

When visual range is set beyond 4K, AI can detect target much further. Leo 2 AI can spot up to 5k, M1A2 way beyond that.

 

5 hours ago, Volcano said:

So, there is simply a distinction there between the sight resolution and FLIR type sights. If there was a newer version of the Leo 2 in SB with the latest optics that are comparable (or better?) to the M1A2s, then certainly they too would receive that advantage. But, unless I am remembering incorrectly here, since the SB Leo 2s can only fire out to 4km, then this isn't that much of an issue in the first place. What is important is that the Challenger 2 and M1A2 can fire out to 5km, but in the case of the CR2, since it doesn't have that FLIR distinction, then this is left up to the user to do (not the AI). 

 

There are a lot of considerations and distinctions there. Just something to keep in mind.

 

AI holds fire for all tanks but missile-loaded-T72B3 between 4-5k, including M1A2. But yes, M1 & Chally can still fire when human controlled.

However, even human controlled, why cannot Leo2A6 fire beyond 4km? Rounds will just not go.

 

Human controlled M1 on the other hand, can fire up to 5k, but beyond that, all rounds land short.

 

Anyway, thanks for the explanations!

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, BlackDeath said:

However, even human controlled, why cannot Leo2A6 fire beyond 4km? Rounds will just not go.

Because the fire control system doesn’t support ranges beyond 4000m. To achive such ranges you need specific ammunition and a relatively new model of the Leopard 2. The ones modeled in Steel Beasts can simply not shoot that far. 

[Ssnake]

"They could, but they don't, because they can't".

Leopard 2 (prior to 2A7) still have a ballistic computer with discrete firing table ROM cards that get plugged into the mainboard, with ammo data tabulated out to 4,000m. This is technologically obsolete (and already was in 1980), and note that the M1 had its firing tables already software based back then. But there wasn't a compelling reason to change all this either, until recently. So, the way how it was implemented in hardware prevented an earlier upgrade.

[Volcano]

11 hours ago, BlackDeath said:

AI holds fire for all tanks but missile-loaded-T72B3 between 4-5k, including M1A2. But yes, M1 & Chally can still fire when human controlled.

However, even human controlled, why cannot Leo2A6 fire beyond 4km? Rounds will just not go.

 

Human controlled M1 on the other hand, can fire up to 5k, but beyond that, all rounds land short.

 

Anyway, thanks for the explanations!

 

Right, I was referring only to the AI placing icons on the map.  If I recall - the AI can be aware of a target, but not know what it is, and so will not report the contact on the map, and of all the variables at play this one is the simplest - the vehicle is either considered to have high resolution thermal optics, or not (which we collectively call FLIR capability).

As for engagement distances, this is a whole other thing altogether, and it has to do with a combination of the max ballistic range of the FCS (as defined by each vehicle) and also the ammunition's maximum range (as defined in the ammunition data), using the shorter range of the two. Example, if a vehicle has a round that allows engagement out to 8km, but its ballistic computer is limited to 4km, then it will only engage at 4km. (Then you have the LRF range, which is usually always going to be the highest of the three parameters, so I'd say a non-factor, but certainly if a vehicle doesn't even have an LRF, or it was damaged, then it could limit the AI engagement range even further.)

 

So, it is a complicated set of relationships going on there. As for the ammunition at least, you can easily see the maximum range of each in the ammunition dialog.  The thing here is - a lot of times this max range is a limit we put on it to prevent the AI from burning all the ammo up, to let the human decide to fire at targets at 5km. Best example: On the M1A2 the M829A3 is limited to 4km range. One could easily argue that it should be raised to 5km (I have, but I can see both sides of the issue too), but the thought there is that at 5km the hit rate gets a little unreliable with dispersion, so restricting it to 4km is safer in regards to the AI blazing away. IMO this should be left to the fire control settings, but the problem is we don't have a maximum range in that fire control settings yet (a range in which the user tells the unit not to fire past this range - we only have a range where the user tells the AI to open fire on targets BELOW that range). So one day, with better fire control selections some of these rounds could have an increased max range, but until then the user must decide to fire on those > 4,000 meter targets with maingun (AI will use missiles though).

 

But as we can see, a vehicle might have an ATGM that is allowed to fire out to 5 to 8 km but the ballistic computer might limit that to 4km, or the optics might limit target ID out to 4 or 5 km, and so on.  Now it is not unusual that there is a discrepancy in the data here, and we have fixed quite a few things over the years, but someone would have to mention something specific to investigate in the Support Forum there, because as far as we are aware, things are in order, in general, now (taking into account past fixes where we reviewed all the tanks at the time). 

 

Hopefully that helps clear up the situation.

[Higgs]

15 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

"They could, but they don't, because they can't".

Leopard 2 (prior to 2A7) still have a ballistic computer with discrete firing table ROM cards that get plugged into the mainboard, with ammo data tabulated out to 4,000m. This is technologically obsolete (and already was in 1980), and note that the M1 had its firing tables already software based back then. But there wasn't a compelling reason to change all this either, until recently. So, the way how it was implemented in hardware prevented an earlier upgrade.

So I take it that means starting from the 2A7 version, the Leopard 2 has the ability to use certain rounds to ranges up to 5km?

[Colebrook]

The Leo2A5-A2 can fire up to 5Km

[Ssnake]

11 hours ago, Higgs said:

So I take it that means starting from the 2A7 version, the Leopard 2 has the ability to use certain rounds to ranges up to 5km?

The fire control system has that ability.

Since the ammunition can and will fly (much) further under the right circumstances, a (human) crew might target beyond the fire control system's limits under beneficial circumstances.

 

The danger zone of a 120mm APFSDS is in the order of magnitude of 130km, so you would definitely hit "something" if you managed to get the gun up to 45° elevation and let it rip. It's just, you'd have to be very, very, very lucky to hit a specific target at that range. This may sound like an absurd answer because I picked the extreme end of what physics/exterior ballistics allow for. But if your fire control system is capped at 4km, you can aim a little higher and fire manually, and with enough practice also hit something.

Just check out the auxiliary sight in the Leopard 2. If you adjust the superelevation to 4km on the APFSDS scale, you have reached the end of the scale. But you can adjust the crosshairs more, using the different scale of a slower ammunition, and still have some reference.

 

It's something that you could practice in Steel Beasts to develop some experience. Would an army train this in real life? There's at least one precedent: Israel targeted Syrian Bulldozers of a water diversion project in the 1970s with 105mm tank guns at ranges in excess of 8km, with the help of artillery observers, and were successful enough that the Syrians eventually gave up on trying to cut off the Jordan river water.

[Higgs]

15 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

The fire control system has that ability.

Since the ammunition can and will fly (much) further under the right circumstances, a (human) crew might target beyond the fire control system's limits under beneficial circumstances.

That's what I wanted to know. So starting with the A7 version the FCS does support fire at ranges in excess of 4km. I was trained to engage targets at around 3.5km since beyond that even small changes in speed of the target will cause a miss. Sabot can be used out to 4km in some circumstances. After that the dispersion is just too big.
I understand that you might want to shoot further than that though, if the situation makes it possible.

 

32 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

It's something that you could practice in Steel Beasts to develop some experience. Would an army train this in real life? There's at least one precedent: Israel targeted Syrian Bulldozers of a water diversion project in the 1970s with 105mm tank guns at ranges in excess of 8km, with the help of artillery observers, and were successful enough that the Syrians eventually gave up on trying to cut off the Jordan river water.

That's interesting. I assume that means they were still firing direct fire and not indirect? As far as I know, many tanks of the old days occasionally supported indirect fire. Some newer modells still do.

[Stefan.K]

Firing tables for APFSDS are usually limited to a maximum firing range of 4000 m. I don't know of any FT where APFSDS values go beyond 4000.
The US FT 120mm from 1994 (ok...) for HEAT is limited to 5000m. If you have newer FT, please feel free to correct this. That would be interesting.
If the ballistics computer can't calculate that because it's limited, okay. With paper FT and Quadrant you could firing at larger distances. But who has paper FT in the tank AND can handle it?

Which tanks have ballistics computers with digital FT for firing ranges over 5000 m? If that even makes sense. This would perhaps be conceivable for HE. 

[Ssnake]

Not everything our customers tell us is suitable for a public debate, sorry.

[Stefan.K]

What is secret should remain secret.

[Iarmor]

13 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Israel targeted Syrian Bulldozers of a water diversion project in the 1970s with 105mm tank guns at ranges in excess of 8km, with the help of artillery observers, and were successful enough that the Syrians eventually gave up on trying to cut off the Jordan river water.

 

12 hours ago, Higgs said:

That's interesting. I assume that means they were still firing direct fire and not indirect? As far as I know, many tanks of the old days occasionally supported indirect fire. Some newer modells still do.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Iarmor

[Gibsonm]

12 hours ago, Higgs said:

That's interesting. I assume that means they were still firing direct fire and not indirect? As far as I know, many tanks of the old days occasionally supported indirect fire. Some newer modells still do.

 

You we still train and practise three modes of engagement:

 

1. Direct - the usual where the Gunner can see the target.

 

2. Semi Indirect - where the Gunner can't see the target but the Crew Commander can (say using binos while standing on the turret roof).

 

3. Indirect - where neither can see the target and you are using corrections over the radio, and range tables.

[Higgs]

26 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

You we still train and practise three modes of engagement:

 

1. Direct - the usual where the Gunner can see the target.

 

2. Semi Indirect - where the Gunner can't see the target but the Crew Commander can (say using binos while standing on the turret roof).

 

3. Indirect - where neither can see the target and you are using corrections over the radio, and range tables.

Well I think there's no need to say this anymore but we don't. We rely on direct fire.
I guess that might be partially due to the militia nature of the Swiss Armed Forces. Or perhaps it's just not seen as needed.

It's cool to see that other countries are still doing it.

[Ssnake]

I think it requires special circumstances to make it a viable option. The Swiss Army may consider the benefits of this marginal capability simply not worth the required training effort. Even in the 1965 water war, only very few Israeli tank crews were selected for this gunnery task.

[BlackDeath]

Not related again, but is there any "Resupply if" like a Revive/ repair if?

 

I found a way to force loading a missile by the AI by setting intial load at 1 or 2 missile only, then with a custom resupply. However, I do not find a resupply condition anywhere 

[Iarmor]

More recently than 1965, on November 12th 2012, Merkava Mk. 4 MBTs destroyed two Syrian D-30 howitzers in the Golan Heights, across the border, at 6 kms range.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-golan-tank-idUKBRE8AB12N20121112

[Ssnake]

16 hours ago, BlackDeath said:

Not related again, but is there any "Resupply if" like a Revive/ repair if?

 

I found a way to force loading a missile by the AI by setting intial load at 1 or 2 missile only, then with a custom resupply. However, I do not find a resupply condition anywhere 

Park a supply truck next to your tanks, or park your tanks next to a non-fuel supply truck.

[Iarmor]

Tiran MBTs during indirect fire training, circa 1971