An annorying problem about ammo pre selection

[cycle6]

The problem is, when I play as a gunner, TC always pre select a type for the next round. Well it make sense TC want to save some time. However, it always happens that after I killed a tank, TC chose a PC as next target, or after I killed a PC, TC chose a tank as next target. But TC also select next round based on current target. Which means I killed a tank, sabot will be loaded, then I use sabot against next target which is a PC. Or maybe other way around, I kill a PC, HEAT loaded, next target is a tank. — —；

The question is, why can't TC tell me next target type he spoted instead of telling the loader next round type? If he dose that, I as a gunner can chose the appropriate ammo type: if I kill the target, I tell loader select ammo type for next target, or if I missed, I tell loader select the same type of round for current target.

I also had a game called T-72 balkans on fire, in that game no matter auto loader of men power loader, gunner has to select ammo type and reload next round after fired the main gun. So if you miss the target, just push reload button, if you kill the target and next target is an other type, you just select new ammo type then reload it.

I just wanna ask you guns how you solve this probelm? Don't tell me you guys only play as TCs?

[Skybird03]

I strongly would assume the simulation simply mirrors real world practices here. One guy has to tell the loader which round to load next - and usually it is not the gunner deciding that, but the commander.

Target choice usually is the commander's job, not the gunner's, at least as long as the commander doe snot order "fire at will" or something like that (but even then somebody would need to tell the loader which type to load next, and while the gunner is aiming at one single vehicle, who is the guy having the time to gain situational awareness of what is happening around, and make that decision on ammo selection? Right, it'S the commander). I assume the gunner only ignores the commander's explicit choice under very special circumstances that are not the rule - mind you, it even can easily be seen as a form of insubordination if you do not follow his orders. If you risk that and ignore the explicit firing order of your commander, you better have a damn good reason - for example a tank close by that is trimming his gun on your vehicle and the commander obviously having overseen him.

Better do not compare this sim to T72 Balkans, M1 Tank Platoon, and the like. These two never claimed the realism SBP delivers.

[MAJ_Fubar]

Skybird is correct. Ammo selection is generally the province of the TC. I do admit some frustration at times with the AIs prioritization of targets but for the most part it does an adequate job. If you find yourself in the position of needing to change ammo types mid-engagement, merely switch to the TCs position and double select the desired type and either return to the Gunners position or use the override.

[ottoramsaig]

The are factors to ammo pre-selection are based on METT-T but I think what your talking about is the next round loaded. The tank is always in a "Battle Carry" posture. Most times this means it is carying the most potent tank killer round after all thats what tanks do is hunt other tanks. The command sounds as so: Battlecarry Sabot one two hunred (normall battlesight range for SABOT) The loader loads the round and announces, SABOT loaded and ensures the weapon is on safe. The Gunner replies one two hundred indexed (manual range indexed to the ballistic computer and ASU set to APFSDS). I as a tank commander would automatically ask for a crew report as each crew member checked his station and replied "Ready" NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!! will a TC order a round removed from the breech during battle. This is why a typical fire command for PC goes: Gunner SABOT PC, FIRE fire HEAT!. The reason being that he wants to engage with the pre-loaded ammo and just in case re-ingage with the proper ammo. If a first round hit is achieved he will then continue mission with HEAT preloaded. There is an exception. When the situation dictates the TC can order for the ammo to be removed and re-loaded according to METT-T. I would normally do this only when the situation allowed. I never liked this option as I have have main gun rounds swell in the hot gun tube and seperate during removal. Thank God it only happened on the range.

[cycle6]

I strongly would assume the simulation simply mirrors real world practices here. One guy has to tell the loader which round to load next - and usually it is not the gunner deciding that, but the commander.

Target choice usually is the commander's job, not the gunner's, at least as long as the commander doe snot order "fire at will" or something like that (but even then somebody would need to tell the loader which type to load next, and while the gunner is aiming at one single vehicle, who is the guy having the time to gain situational awareness of what is happening around, and make that decision on ammo selection? Right, it'S the commander). I assume the gunner only ignores the commander's explicit choice under very special circumstances that are not the rule - mind you, it even can easily be seen as a form of insubordination if you do not follow his orders. If you risk that and ignore the explicit firing order of your commander, you better have a damn good reason - for example a tank close by that is trimming his gun on your vehicle and the commander obviously having overseen him.

Better do not compare this sim to T72 Balkans, M1 Tank Platoon, and the like. These two never claimed the realism SBP delivers.

Well, I'm not sure if I made this clear or not. I mean when TC always assume I need to re-engage the target and given order to load next round for current target, but I maight kill the target with the current round, then same type of round will be loaded for next target which might be an in-apporpirate ammo type for this target. And for many times I have to fire a HEAT to a heavily armored enemy tank, or fire a sabot to a light armored PC, then there is a great chance for me to re-engage the target because the HEAT is not so efficient for Heavy Armors, or sabot is not so efficient for PCs. This will cause a wast of ammunation and firing opportunities.

I think it just AI TC didn't do his job very well. If I as a TC, I know a Sabot is loaded, I probrobly will chose a tank for next target. Not like AI TC frequntly shifting target from tanks to PCs to tanks then to PCs again.

BTW, no offence but I'm not comparing Balkans and SB for realism, I'm just comparing the loading strategy used by T-72 crew and M1/ leopard crews. No matter how unreal T-72 Balkans is, it didn't mess up the loading strategy on T-72s, because unlike T-90s, T-72s can't pre select next rounds. You always have to press reload button after you fired a round. Any way, Balkans has it's own advantages such as driving simulation or terrain details, I always enjoy driving the tank to the top speed on a ruff terrain while TC says:"Are you crasy? Slow down!", but I don't like T-72 tanks, they're quite out outdated.

[cycle6]

The are factors to ammo pre-selection are based on METT-T but I think what your talking about is the next round loaded. The tank is always in a "Battle Carry" posture. Most times this means it is carying the most potent tank killer round after all thats what tanks do is hunt other tanks. The command sounds as so: Battlecarry Sabot one two hunred (normall battlesight range for SABOT) The loader loads the round and announces, SABOT loaded and ensures the weapon is on safe. The Gunner replies one two hundred indexed (manual range indexed to the ballistic computer and ASU set to APFSDS). I as a tank commander would automatically ask for a crew report as each crew member checked his station and replied "Ready" NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!! will a TC order a round removed from the breech during battle. This is why a typical fire command for PC goes: Gunner SABOT PC, FIRE fire HEAT!. The reason being that he wants to engage with the pre-loaded ammo and just in case re-ingage with the proper ammo. If a first round hit is achieved he will then continue mission with HEAT preloaded. There is an exception. When the situation dictates the TC can order for the ammo to be removed and re-loaded according to METT-T. I would normally do this only when the situation allowed. I never liked this option as I have have main gun rounds swell in the hot gun tube and seperate during removal. Thank God it only happened on the range.

Wow, a real tanker!! Thanks dude, that pretty much answered what I was asking. Actually I would never want to unload a round from the hot tube as well. I just hope AI TC may choose target and rounds more efficently so I won't wast my rounds. I was a rifleman my self.

BTW, are you a TC on M1A2 or M1A1? I just wanna know Does M1A2's Gunner sight aim the leads for moving target same as M1A1? Tell me if it's no secreat in your army.

[Skybird03]

Well, I'm not sure if I made this clear or not. I mean when TC always assume I need to re-engage the target and given order to load next round for current target, but I maight kill the target with the current round, then same type of round will be loaded for next target which might be an in-apporpirate ammo type for this target. And for many times I have to fire a HEAT to a heavily armored enemy tank, or fire a sabot to a light armored PC, then there is a great chance for me to re-engage the target because the HEAT is not so efficient for Heavy Armors, or sabot is not so efficient for PCs. This will cause a wast of ammunation and firing opportunities.

I think it just AI TC didn't do his job very well. If I as a TC, I know a Sabot is loaded, I probrobly will chose a tank for next target. Not like AI TC frequntly shifting target from tanks to PCs to tanks then to PCs again.

BTW, no offence but I'm not comparing Balkans and SB for realism, I'm just comparing the loading strategy used by T-72 crew and M1/ leopard crews. No matter how unreal T-72 Balkans is, it didn't mess up the loading strategy on T-72s, because unlike T-90s, T-72s can't pre select next rounds. You always have to press reload button after you fired a round. Any way, Balkans has it's own advantages such as driving simulation or terrain details, I always enjoy driving the tank to the top speed on a ruff terrain while TC says:"Are you crasy? Slow down!", but I don't like T-72 tanks, they're quite out outdated.

Your threat assessment and the TC's/AI's threat assessement may differ. That you see there is a tank, does not mean that it is the biggest threat to you. A T-72 at 3000m on your 12 o'clock position may pose less a threat to your Leopard-2A6 than that BMP-2 at 1000m at your flank, firing an armour-defeating missile at you, as an example. At close range I often have the impression that the TC/AI also favours targets that manouver and enter my flank sectors, enabling them to launch shots at my more vulnerable flanks. I cannot tell for sure whether the AI really does that, or that is just my personal impression, though.

Another explanation is that an enemy target is covered by foliage and trees (and thus the AI prioritizes a different, more visible one) . The LOS may be considered to be blocked by the internal AI, the enemy tank thus is treated as being invisible for your AI-TC, even when your human eye on the monitor sees or at least knows the enemy is there, by some hints, the top pf the turret, an antenna, behind those leafs and bushes. The AI, this has to be admitted, does not always calculate LOS in the most optimal manner (and I do not mean the well-known cosmetical small ground coverage objects and vegetation thing).

What I never have seen when the enemy exclusively sent MBTs against me, was my TC choosing HEAT (as long as SABOT was available), or the enemy formed by light PCs, but my TC favouring SABOT.

What you can do is to go into the editor, imagining you have a good assessment of force composition of the enemy, and then, possibly, making the loadout of your tanks exclusively SABOT. Indeed some nations favoured almost exclusive SABOT loadouts for their tanks, for they used their tanks in a tank-killer role almost exclusively, not expecting them to fight against infantry. Other nations may favour a more mixed loadout. It makes sense to chopose ammo loadout accotrding to the the expected mission profile, I would say. And I personally prefer SABOT even against APCs and IFVs any time anyway - more range, more precisions, more lethality. In reality the round may pass through the vehicle and do not do more damage than just punshing two holes into it, but in the sim I would say SABOTs versus APCs and IFVs are much more lthal, at least more lethal than HEATS fired at great distance, with good chance to miss. I avoid, if possible, to use HEAT at ranges beyond 2500-3000 m, the chances for a miss are climbing rapidly, it seems to me, while a SABOT you can still use with good probability for a hit over 3500 and 4000m ranges. While the laser measures up to 4000m, this does not mean you must shoot at that range, though. When you want to shoot HEAT at 4000m, try to find a way to spend the time for something more useful instead - which often means manouvering and reducing the distance.

[cycle6]

Your threat assessment and the TC's/AI's threat assessement may differ. That you see there is a tank, does not mean that it is the biggest threat to you. A T-72 at 3000m on your 12 o'clock position may pose less a threat to your Leopard-2A6 than that BMP-2 at 1000m at your flank, firing an armour-defeating missile at you, as an example. At close range I often have the impression that the TC/AI also favours targets that manouver and enter my flank sectors, enabling them to launch shots at my more vulnerable flanks. I cannot tell for sure whether the AI really does that, or that is just my personal impression, though.

Another explanation is that an enemy target is covered by foliage and trees (and thus the AI prioritizes a different, more visible one) . The LOS may be considered to be blocked by the internal AI, the enemy tank thus is treated as being invisible for your AI-TC, even when your human eye on the monitor sees or at least knows the enemy is there, by some hints, the top pf the turret, an antenna, behind those leafs and bushes. The AI, this has to be admitted, does not always calculate LOS in the most optimal manner (and I do not mean the well-known cosmetical small ground coverage objects and vegetation thing).

What I never have seen when the enemy exclusively sent MBTs against me, was my TC choosing HEAT (as long as SABOT was available), or the enemy formed by light PCs, but my TC favouring SABOT.

What you can do is to go into the editor, imagining you have a good assessment of force composition of the enemy, and then, possibly, making the loadout of your tanks exclusively SABOT. Indeed some nations favoured almost exclusive SABOT loadouts for their tanks, for they used their tanks in a tank-killer role almost exclusively, not expecting them to fight against infantry. Other nations may favour a more mixed loadout. It makes sense to chopose ammo loadout accotrding to the the expected mission profile, I would say. And I personally prefer SABOT even against APCs and IFVs any time anyway - more range, more precisions, more lethality. In reality the round may pass through the vehicle and do not do more damage than just punshing two holes into it, but in the sim I would say SABOTs versus APCs and IFVs are much more lthal, at least more lethal than HEATS fired at great distance, with good chance to miss. I avoid, if possible, to use HEAT at ranges beyond 2500-3000 m, the chances for a miss are climbing rapidly, it seems to me, while a SABOT you can still use with good probability for a hit over 3500 and 4000m ranges. While the laser measures up to 4000m, this does not mean you must shoot at that range, though. When you want to shoot HEAT at 4000m, try to find a way to spend the time for something more useful instead - which often means manouvering and reducing the distance.

Thanks alot, Yeah maybe I'll just play more as a TC and let AI be my gunner. I'm just not used to be a TC on M1 cause I have to share the sight with my gunner (TC 12.7mm M2 sight moves tooooo slow and not stablelised). I really like Leopard2's TC sight, but a lot of nice missions are based on M1 tanks.

[Skybird03]

Thanks alot, Yeah maybe I'll just play more as a TC and let AI be my gunner. I'm just not used to be a TC on M1 cause I have to share the sight with my gunner (TC 12.7mm M2 sight moves tooooo slow and not stablelised). I really like Leopard2's TC sight, but a lot of nice missions are based on M1 tanks.

In SBP, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams-A1 regarding TC's SA and gunnery procedures (more egonomic and simplier in the Leopards). Solution: load the mission into the editor, and replace playable Abrams with playable Leopards. I edit many missions I play to my liking (removing time limits, for example, altering available artillery, or setting ammo to unlimited if I play a mission with very huige own forces - the AI tends to headlessly waste all ammo stores once it got deadlocked on a target that it cannot precisely aim at, it can sink 40 rounds of ammo into that thing if things are really messed up, and it is NOT realistic that a batallion commander has to micromanage the ammo-stores of every single vehicle every couple of minutes while being in battle - less puristic realism sometimes can be more realistic. Also, doing like this recommendation - unlimited ammo - adresses the issue that the AI sometimes chooses incredibly stupid times to swing the turrets in order to reload - and get a hostile shot into the rear of the turret, also, the aI does not make sure by itself to manouver into a safe location before doing internal reloading).

As gunner, be aware that you can use the "target!" command to prevent the TC from moving the gun away from the target you have set your sights on, if TC's choice is different from yours. You have to repeat the keyboard command for it every couple of seconds. It has no influence on the ammo selection, though - the last ammo type ordered by the TC will be the one that gets always reloaded.

[ottoramsaig]

Wow, a real tanker!! Thanks dude, that pretty much answered what I was asking. Actually I would never want to unload a round from the hot tube as well. I just hope AI TC may choose target and rounds more efficently so I won't wast my rounds. I was a rifleman my self.

BTW, are you a TC on M1A2 or M1A1? I just wanna know Does M1A2's Gunner sight aim the leads for moving target same as M1A1? Tell me if it's no secreat in your army.

You will find alot aof us here (TC's) The tank I fired on was the M1A1. I did however work on the M1A2SEPE3 as a consultant. Each one of us had a specific area of intrest. Mine was the new crow system for the loader.

[MAJ_Fubar]

Wow, a real tanker!! Thanks dude, that pretty much answered what I was asking. Actually I would never want to unload a round from the hot tube as well. I just hope AI TC may choose target and rounds more efficently so I won't wast my rounds. I was a rifleman my self.

BTW, are you a TC on M1A2 or M1A1? I just wanna know Does M1A2's Gunner sight aim the leads for moving target same as M1A1? Tell me if it's no secreat in your army.

The 'A2 provides kinematic lead the same as the 'A1, but thanks to its Dual-Axis Head Assembly (same as the Leo 2s) there's no reticule movement. You still have to dump lead in between engagements though, and without the cue provided by reticule drag it's easy to forget.

[ottoramsaig]

The 'A2 provides kinematic lead the same as the 'A1, but thanks to its Dual-Axis Head Assembly (same as the Leo 2s) there's no reticule movement. You still have to dump lead in between engagements though, and without the cue provided by reticule drag it's easy to forget.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...........no reticule drag. Not sure if I would have liked that. Most gunners I ever had seemed to forget to dump the lead. I have noticed in SB that reticule off set is a little exagerated but effective. I don't forget.

By the way, did you notice my avatar, seems like everone over there got the same pic. ;0

Edited November 2, 2010 by ottoramsaig
added

[Ssnake]

I have noticed in SB that reticule off set is a little exagerated but effective.

It may appear so, but that's probably due only to the difference of looking into an eyepiece where even a small shift of your head position can change your field of view noticeably, and looking at a monitor where the view is always steady. The reticule displacement in SB Pro can't be exaggerated since it is based on the actual ballistic data and the same sampling length for the tracking of turret movement.

...

Having said that, the only possible source of error is that the turret in SB Pro is too agile (so we'd have to tone down the acceleration).

[ottoramsaig]

And this is why SB Rocks.....................

[GH_Lieste]

Of course, if you are 'on your own' (ie detached/not part of a platoon/section), you have no trouble locating the various targets yourself and are faced with a mixed array you can specify 'hold-fire', where the TC will not spot for targets, the AI gunner will not fire (but a player gunner of course can, but should not )... the loader will load as normal and there are no penalties for firing in this mode in the simulation.

Now you can have APFSDS loaded until it is all spent from the ready rack, and then have 'solid' HE/HEAT/HE-P in turn... you can optimise target selection to make the most of the current round type.

Or... you can allow the commander to specify his choice of target and ammunition, but select and engage your preferred target (eg BMP if HEAT is up, rather than T80U frontal) using the 't' "I have a target" button to discourage his overriding.

[Stemik]

Thanks alot, Yeah maybe I'll just play more as a TC and let AI be my gunner. I'm just not used to be a TC on M1 cause I have to share the sight with my gunner (TC 12.7mm M2 sight moves tooooo slow and not stablelised). I really like Leopard2's TC sight, but a lot of nice missions are based on M1 tanks.

I dealt with the real thing w/ the IP M1 back in '89. IMHO the .50cal mount on the M1/M1A1 was designed by some jackass who knew he'd never have to actually use it in combat.

[MAJ_Fubar]

Dittos with the 'A2 on the CWS. That whole "excuse me while I completely expose myself while reloading my weapon" thing is a bit of true genius.

[ottoramsaig]

It may appear so, but that's probably due only to the difference of looking into an eyepiece where even a small shift of your head position can change your field of view noticeably, and looking at a monitor where the view is always steady. The reticule displacement in SB Pro can't be exaggerated since it is based on the actual ballistic data and the same sampling length for the tracking of turret movement.

...

Having said that, the only possible source of error is that the turret in SB Pro is too agile (so we'd have to tone down the acceleration).

Ah yes! the old internal Paralax vs System Paralax. This is why I would train my gunners to move their their head into the daylight sight the same way every time. I called it placing the bubble. I perfered to place the bubble at the top of the GPS / GAS and move my head into the sight. Very important suring Boresight and Zero procedures. I made it part of ARE:

A - Aim center mass

R- Remember your sight picture

E- End lay in elevation.

The good news is that the TIS didn't require this. But still it was crtitical as the TIS sight was refered to the GAS during this operation. It also removed the frustration of a new gunner unable to complete the G patteren using manual controls during boresighting.