M1A2 Gunnery Question

[lavictoireestlavie]

i am trying to engage targets from over 3000 m in the M1A2 SEP but i do not seem be able to hit them effectively. Is not the lead automatically induced once you have tracked a target for over 2 seconds ? Even when i track the target for over 2 seconds the induced lead is off. My ammo loadout consists of KE rounds exclusively and i have indexed the ballistic computer accordingly. I use the GPS' digital mag of 25x to engage targets from a distance. I have also tried to change the lase echo from first to last but that did not improve my long distance gunnery results. My results in the Leopard 2 series seem to be more consistent. I am currently using a mouse as a controller.

[Maj.Hans]

I tried an M1A2, loaded up with M829A3, and set up some T-72s to move across the nose of my stationary tank at 3km.

I didn't have trouble scoring hits with the 25x thermals, using the mouse as a controller. I wonder if you were just getting bad lases? I got a bad lase, and it made me miss.

[Rotareneg]

I also set up a test scenario and didn't have any problems, but I do remember having some trouble with shots going way wide on another scenario. I'll have to play it a few times while recording and see if I can catch it happening.

[Guggy]

I find its tempting to go whole-hog and zoom in as much as you can with the M1A2, but I imagine that'd cause many more cases of bad/inaccurate lasing if you arent careful.

Is 25x generally the best setting for the 2 to 3km engagement zone? 50x being reserved for precision ID and detecting potential threats?

[Maj.Hans]

Honestly I haven't put much time into the 1A2 yet. When I do use it, I find that it's easiest to get a good lase with the 12x zoom setting, then bump it up to 25x or 50x as needed to engage. Once I'm done engaging, I bump it back out to a lower zoom setting to get on the next target.

Hey, eSim, I have a question for you! Might it be possible to allow us to assign hot-keys for specific zoom settings rather than just a toggle? I find that I don't often scan with 3x on the TIS as I find the 6x much more useful, and I'd like to be able to skip directly to 6x sometimes, etc.

[Ssnake]

We already have a severe inflation of hotkeys in general (and it doesn't tend to become better with the addition of new vehicles), so I'm rather reluctant to do it. The only justification would be if it could be directly selected in the real vehicle itself (which is usually not the case), and even then I think that toggling isn't such a terrible chore.

[Maj.Hans]

Yes, I understand the hotkey inflation problem, but you could always simply add them and not map them by default, unless they're really necessary to play.

[Assassin 7]

In the SEP you are suppose to be engaging targets in 13X. But you can engage them in 25X or 50X if needed. 25X and 50X are used for identifying long range targets out of range of a ballistic solution. personally I use 13x or 25x depending on the range of the target to engage a target on the SB range. In the actually SEP I have engaged targets using 13x due to the farthest target being between 2200 to 2400 meters.

[Rhyfel]

dta delta is right on the money with his answer. When setting engagement ranges or echeloning fires for vehicles, M1A2SEPs should set their maximum engagement line (MEL) from 2000m-2500m. The X50 power zoom is used to acquire targets, not identify and engage.

[lavictoireestlavie]

Thanks for the reply you all.

Rhyfel, i was always kinda under the impression to engage targets from the greatest effective engagement ranges. In tanks such as the Abrams M1A1 (HA) or Leopard 2A4 i used to start around 3500 m at 10x Mag.

Now with the M1A2 SEP i can score hits from up to 4600 m. I am just surprised that i can not reliable hit targets although i am tracking the target at its visible center of mass for over 2 seconds.

Sometimes i have issues engaging targets in the GPS FLIR channel because the target is totally obscured by the reticule (ha ha). Should i just keep tracking and wait until the target has moved to within 3000m and i can see the distinct outlines of the target ?

Tanks such as the T-72B , T-80U, T-90A start engaging me at 5000m and are therefore fairly tough to deal with in a 3 vs 1 scenario when both sides are closing in on each other.

Delta and Rhyfel how does the SB modeled SEP stack up against the real thing ?

[Assassin 7]

Thanks for the reply you all.

Rhyfel, i was always kinda under the impression to engage targets from the greatest effective engagement ranges. In tanks such as the Abrams M1A1 (HA) or Leopard 2A4 i used to start around 3500 m at 10x Mag.

Now with the M1A2 SEP i can score hits from up to 4600 m. I am just surprised that i can not reliable hit targets although i am tracking the target at its visible center of mass for over 2 seconds.

Sometimes i have issues engaging targets in the GPS FLIR channel because the target is totally obscured by the reticule (ha ha). Should i just keep tracking and wait until the target has moved to within 3000m and i can see the distinct outlines of the target ?

Tanks such as the T-72B , T-80U, T-90A start engaging me at 5000m and are therefore fairly tough to deal with in a 3 vs 1 scenario when both sides are closing in on each other.

Delta and Rhyfel how does the SB modeled SEP stack up against the real thing ?

The actually SEP has alot more options than the one in SB. As far as hitting targets the SEPV2 was tested for long range shooting and the results were outstanding as far as accuracy.

[Maj.Hans]

For me, personally, I find that long range gunnery is completely different from medium or short range gunnery.

For example, if I have a human gunner and we're engaging vehicles at ranges of say 2000m or less, I'm often times pretty happy to let my gunner blaze away rapid fire style as fast as the loader can load. As long as the targets aren't moving too fast laterally, this means lots of quick hits.

Long range engagements are totally different. At 4000 meters I find it's often a case of having both gunner and TC observing the same target together. Fire a round, try to watch where it lands, talk about how to adjust, fire another round, etc.

[lavictoireestlavie]

The actually SEP has alot more options than the one in SB. As far as hitting targets the SEPV2 was tested for long range shooting and the results were outstanding as far as accuracy.

I can imagine that the vehicle itself has far more options overall than can be modeled right now. Did you solely mean gunnery options? How would you compare the long range shooting ability/accuracy of the SEP in SB to the real thing stationary and on the move? Are they more or less comparable or does the real thing have an advantage?

Hans, i concur , although i have not played with a human gunner recently, i also have engage targets that are further away differently. I used to use a joystick but i found my adjustable mouse to be far more accurate and ergonomically inclined. At long ranges i had certain settings on my joystick which i had to adjust once targets moved in closer to my position, which made the gunnery rather procedure cumbersome for me.

[Rhyfel]

A commander should set the platoon's engagement ranges based upon the "ye olde reliable answer to everything" of METT-TC. However, in the spirit of ammo consumption and conservation, I would take into account the gunnery record of my Troopers. In a real world scenario (ie OIF), I would set my MEL to what they can reliably hit in combat conditions (2000-2500m, or 3000m if Kuwaiti desert). For the simulation, I usually set it for 3000m. I agree with Maj Hans on the observed fire, but would use a platoon fire command of observed fire, where one tank shoots and the wingman observes as the obscuration from the discharge would block the gunner and TC.

As for the accuracy of the SEP, ESim did a nice job on the model in respect to simulating the capabilities of the SEP without violating any systems classified as secret or above (FBCB2 or BFT capability and functionality are classified FOUO Secret). This gets into the question of stimulate vs. simulate of Battle Command Systems which is a whole different discussion. Once again Esim games beats any other combat simulator out there including CCTT.

[Panzer_Leader]

As for the accuracy of the SEP, ESim did a nice job on the model in respect to simulating the capabilities of the SEP without violating any systems classified as secret or above (FBCB2 or BFT capability and functionality are classified FOUO Secret). This gets into the question of stimulate vs. simulate of Battle Command Systems which is a whole different discussion. Once again Esim games beats any other combat simulator out there including CCTT.

Nice feedback on the fidelity of the M1A2 SEP in Steel Beasts. Thanks for sharing Rhyfel.

[Ssnake]

For us, the answer is rather clear-cut. Stimulating a battlefield management system with simulated sensor data is the much better choice than simulating the stuff. Just set up a real device next to your monitor screen and let SB Pro send position updates into the system.

Simulating the system? Most of the time would be spent on the replication of the user interface, not the basic functionality. So it'd be a collossal waste of precious programming hours. Next, UIs change relatively often. While it would be good business for us charging our customers fantastic amounts of money for menial tasks like adapting SB Pro to the nth iteration of a battlefield management system, it would also quickly challenge the theory that simulation based training saves a lot of money (if you burn it on trivialities like user interface changes).

No, it's clearly better to stay away from the details of these battlefield management devices, especially if you can feed them with simulation data (which we do). For some customers it's difficult enough (with respect to internal red tape) to let Steel Beasts send data into the classified network of the BMS, even if it doesn't receive a single bit.

[Rhyfel]

Ssnake,

From the perspective of my previous duty as a small group instructor, trying to add BMS to systems created such a headache that it would often result in an exercise not occurring on time, if at all. The good idea fairy would often float in and say "Lets hook up BFT, FBCB2, AFATADS, and the kitchen sink!" merely to justify the existence of a platform. Leader Decision Exercises became more about trying to get all the systems to communicate then actually running the mission to see how the student absorbed, processed and executed on information. The reason we liked SB was that the 2D map provided similar functionality to a BMS and allowed us to use in a classroom setting with little to no overhead.

In so much as the SEP SB model, I think it serves a perfect roll for students or units to conduct Tactical Decision Exercises ( TDE, LDX, etc ). I wish I had known about SB when I was a SEP PLT LDR or Company CDR, I would have been using it daily while in garrison!

[Ssnake]

Well, that's what SB Pro was originally designed for - the kind of tool that I always wanted to have when I was a tank platoon leader.

Of course you don't willy-nilly hook up the different systems and keep your fingers crossed that it'll work. You need a classroom for that which is specifically prepared for this task, and you do that with close cooperation between the simulation developer and the BMS manufacturer. At least there must be some API to which the BMS developer can create a matching interface for the communication.

In Denmark, it works and is being used on an almost daily basis with SB Pro and Sitaware Frontline, Denmarks choice of BMS. Other customers of us are currently working on that integration. It must be a planned and properly managed process, but if you do it right, it works like a charm.

(Or so I've been told)

You are of course right that nothing beats a single application which, out of the box, does pretty much anything that you want with minimal fuss. And I've been told that the map screen in SB Pro is, from a functional perspective, close enough to the real thing to at least get the concept of a BMS across, and in addition, Steel Beasts being unclassified, can also be shown to foreign officers in an exchange program. So, that may occasionally also count as a bonus.

[Assassin 7]

I have to agree with everything that Rhyfel said. It also comes down to knowing the operations of the vehicles itself in SB. Learning and training with the vehicle plays a major factor. On TS in 3rd armor channel we do many different missions in SB. Coops, Crew-Coops, Commander's training sessions, FCS lessons, HTH, Crew-HTH, degraded tank fighting, and even talk about hosting a complete crew gunnery range at some point in the future. We have guys in here that could hit targets at 7000 meters in HTH missions. We also have guys that are shooting 2.9 seconds with a 100% accuracy on the gunnery range using the SEP in SB. SB is the best and most accurate Tank Simulator out there and will be for along time in my opinion.

Edited January 9, 2014 by dta delta

[Lt DeFault]

...

Seeing as this exchange is adding nothing to the value of the forums and is really only making the community look bad...perhaps you'd like to continue this via PM?

...Please!

[Tjay]

Seeing as this exchange is adding nothing to the value of the forums and is really only making the community look bad...perhaps you'd like to continue this via PM?

...Please!

Certainly Sean. You are dead right. Not being able to resist pulling the willies of loud-mouthed is a bad habit of mine. But I do claim 1 x daring and successful thread hijack!

[Invader ZIM]

:bigsmile:

Just wanted to add a little levity to the situation.

[Tjay]

LOL. A great way to wrap it up. :luxhello:

[Assassin 7]

See you down range tjay.

[Gibsonm]

Homer, et al,

Unsure if this is possible (or compliant with free speech, etc.) but can we delete posts 21 and beyond from here?

The first part seemed useful / informative but then it went "pear shaped", certainly off topic at least.

Don't know if you need to get agreement from the various people who posted from 21 onwards inclusive (via PM or something?) but its probably not in line with the image of a helpful, friendly, community etc?

Edited January 11, 2014 by Gibsonm