Gunnery on the M1A1

[Toyguy]

Up until the last few days, I'd been focused mainly on learning the M1A1. Given the mix of vehicles in Red Leopard, I decided it was time to take a look at the Leopard, specifically the A5 variant.

What a pleasure to shoot with - except for needing to hold the P key for lead, it aims so much more simply and quickly. Thus my question...

Is it a quirk of the real M1A1's design that the reticle lags so badly to the left or right during fast traverse? I find it very difficult to aim quickly when the reticle is stuck to the side as the TC slews to a target. It seems that if I center the cursor and wait, the reticle will eventually snap to center, but typically not on target, so I have to chase it.

If I try to chase the target with the cursor as it comes into view, the reticle slews all over the place. If, for example, the reticle is pinned left as we traverse right, I see the target come into view with my cursor to the right and move my cursor left to the target, the reticle swings back to the left, rather than catching up to my cursor.

I didn't know any better until I tried the Leopard. It makes the M1 seem like a piece of crap Is this really the way it is, or is it something in my setup? I play with a mouse, not a joystick.

Thanks for any insight!

Dave

[Sean]

If you lase and then attempt to track the target for a long period of time and change your mind, then you need to dump your lead with the p key. Otherwise the reticle will go all over the place. Dumping the lead will release the reticle and you should be able to move the gun around with no problems. (Lase, smoothly track the target for a second, fire, then p key to dump lead.)

Yes, its that way in real life, at least in the M1A1. I've been told its been changed in the later variants. Both systems are similar in capability, it just takes some time to learn how to use them effectively.

[Toyguy]

Thanks Sean - it occured to me watching some YouTube videos that maybe dumping Lead would do it. I'm not tracking the target at the time though, typically it's the AI TC slewing me to something he wants me to shoot. Still though, I could see the FCS interpreting that motion and adding a lot of lead in a fast traverse, so I will give that a try.

[Sean]

Hit the T key to tell the TC you found a target, he will leave you alone for a little while.

[Toyguy]

For the benefit of those following the thread, that was it. Once you lase something, it seems you need to dump lead after the shot to get the reticle back into scanning mode. That's probably not the right way to say it, but it works for me. Brought my Tank Range score up by 10 points already

[Hedgehog]

Using lead on the M1A1 is like holding your breath when using a rifle.

Only do it when you need to.

Oh and the middle mouse button (Scroll Wheel Click) acts as the P key as well.

[Mogwa]

The M-1s fire control system is always applying lead in normal mode. Always! If you lase a target at 2850 M, complete the engagement, dump the lead, and resume scanning, it immediately begins applying lead as you scan left or right for 2850 M. So the reticle is going to "drift" as the FCS applies lead to your scan. The faster you scan, the more lead has to be applied, so the more the reticle lags/drifts/whatever you want to call it. Stop scanning without dumping the lead and the reticle will center. The amount of reticle movement is a function of range and rate of traverse. the same rate of traverse with a 200 M range indexed will not produce nearly as much movement as 3500 M of range indexed. Seems obvious to me.

So, as you scan, dump the lead (keypress P) after you complete a scan. Scan left, dump lead, scan right, dump lead, rinse and repeat. complete an engagement? dump lead. reticle lagging all over the place? dump lead. bad lase (obviously bad range)? dump lead. The FCS sight mirror isnt horizontally stabilized. So as you scan the mirror "lags" to allow the gun to lead the target. If you scan at battlesight range (1200M) and then track/lase a target moving left/right at a longer range, you will hear the turret jump to apply the correct lead, and the sight mirror shift to remain on target. The same thing happens in the Leo2s and in modern versions of the M-1, its just that the FCS compensates for this keeping the reticle centered.

Mog

[Ssnake]

The M-1s fire control system is always applying lead in normal mode whenever the user enters a new distance, be it by laser range finder, manual range input, or the activation of the battlesight.

There, fixed it four you.

[Toyguy]

Thanks guys - Ssnake's edit to Mog's post reflects exactly what I see in-game. I can scan freely, with the reticle keeping up nicely, until I lase something, then it begins calculating lead and the reticle drifts opposite to the traverse direction. Thanks for the clarification on the other range entry methods doing the same thing. That was somewhat intuitive but nice to know ahead of time!

[Ssnake]

Actually, what you see is the reticle staying on target initially but the rest of the view offsetting as lead is induced.

May sound like a nitpicker's struggle about words, but it hopefully makes clear the technical background of what you are experiencing.

[mpow66m]

i prefer the Leos FCS.how is the FCS different on the newer ver. of the Abrams?

[dejawolf]

i prefer the Leos FCS.how is the FCS different on the newer ver. of the Abrams?

the daysight and TIS are two separate sights now, and it has a new 2nd generation thermal imager for the gunner. the reticle doesn't float around anymore when you lase and lead a tank. the TC has an independent thermal viewer, with 50x magnification, and also a map screen. the remote controlled cupola has been removed, and instead the TC now has a pintle-mounted .50 cal. the TCs periscopes have been made larger. there's probably a ton of other upgrades minor and major upgrades as well.

[mpow66m]

sounds great.did the driver get a rearward looking video camera?

[Gibsonm]

A driver's remote camera is part of the TUSK kit.

[Damian90]

To be more precise in T.U.S.K.-II, but in Iraq not all tanks with this kit were equiped with this camera, but probably it will be standard equipment in all upgraded M1A1's to M1A1SA standard like TIP and TIS for CWS .50 cal.

IRCC M1A2SEP v.2 will got it, there are also other interesting upgrades in M1A1SEP v.2, like HUD in TC vision block... well maybe not only in TC's vision blocks.

[mpow66m]

from what i read they want to replace the loaders weapon w/ a .50 cal and the TCs w/ a mini gun RCWs on the M1a3.maybe a rail gun system.

Edited February 3, 2010 by mpow66m

[Hedgehog]

Would you like photonic warheads with that?

[dejawolf]

from what i read they want to replace the loaders weapon w/ a .50 cal and the TCs w/ a mini gun RCWs on the M1a3.maybe a rail gun system.

minigun? thats about as likely as an abrams hovertank. and railguns is still at least 15 years ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology

this thing is far more likely to be fitted to an american MBT in the next 5 years or so.

[mpow66m]

Yeah i know its a bit unrealistic but they are some of the things thrown around i guess.not enough room for a minigun.ammo storage would be a prob for 7.62 and even 5.56.plus you have cannister rnds that do a good job.as for the rail gun thats a long way off,by then tanks might be a thing of the past.

"The Abrams also needs improved secondary armaments. The tank gunner has sights which allows him to engage targets at over 3000 meters. However, his 7.62mm coaxial machine gun only reaches out 1100 meters, so it should be upgraded to a .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine gun which can reach out over 2000 meters with far greater power. In addition, the loader’s basic M240C 7.62mm machine gun should be replaced with a M134 7.62mm mini-gun, which can fire ten times faster and pulverize nearby infantry. Finally, the tank commander also needs a better weapon to engage infantry, so replace his M2 .50 cal machine gun with the Mk-19 40mm automatic grenade launcher. Since these weapons provide far more firepower, they consume more ammunition. As a result, large steel ammo boxes would be added to the top of the turret."

something i read somewheres,someones personal opinion.wondering what some thoughts are?

[Eisenschwein]

Is fighting Infantry a "Tankers Job" ?

Why we don´t have ATM, Helicopter Decks and Arty on the Tanks ?

We don´t need it !

So a Tank is Tank is a Tank.

[DemolitionMan]

Is fighting Infantry a "Tankers Job" ?

[mpow66m]

is a tanks job fighting inf.yes if ness. i believe.in terms they may have to if no other dimounts are around.and they should be prepared to.as most MBTs are.im speaking more in terms of the next gen of MBTs and what they may be like.

[dejawolf]

the panzerjäger ferdinand crewmen had to learn the hard way you can't choose the battles you want to fight. the nazis didn't equip the vehicle with any machineguns, so they were completely defenseless once infantry closed in. infantrymen could literally climb on top of the vehicle, and do whatever they wanted, for example plant explosives.

[RogueSnake79]

Probably not the best example, because it was a tank destroyer. But none the less it is an example of how all armored vehicle's should be prepared for this scenario.

The Germans did however learn from kursk, and modified the surviving Elehant's with bow machine guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant

[DemolitionMan]

More recent, the M1028 round was developed on request by US Forces Korea who certainly gave a thought about the need to counter waves of NK crunchies with Abrams tanks...

On the question of secondary armament, well the CSAMM of TUSK package connects to the FCS and therefore gives the tank the ability to shoot a .50 cal round with all the benefits of the tanks' main FCS. Problem solved.