| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
 Posted: 27-Feb-2003 13:20 Post subject: tank question |
  |
|
This for all you tankers out there. My thoughts have once again turned towards game design. In your opinion, what are the odds of a tank, say the M1A2 Abrams, hitting a slow moving target (less than 30 kph) while moving at about 30 kph at a range of approximately 1 km? Assume the terrain is flat and the tanks are moving perpendicular to each other.
_________________
Gangrene
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2003-02-27 14:23 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Karagin
Imperial Karagin Army
Imperial General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 27-Feb-2003 14:08 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
First what time of day is it? Daytime or Night?
Given the FCS in the Abrams and thermal image device I would say that a first shot hit and kill is about 74% proable and two shots with the second one being the kill shot is more in the neighborhood of 99% proable.
You have to factor in crew training as well, as well as the factors of light and wind speed.
_________________
Karagin
Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato
"Wasted trip Man. Nobody said nuthin' about lockin' horns with no tigers." Oddball
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 27-Feb-2003 14:19 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
Wow. Now is that 74% chance of hitting or killing? I would like to separate the two, since I am only interested in the hitting part.
I didn't think that light was such a big factor, since the Abrams has IR gear. But say its light, mid day, and the crews are average by tank standards, and there is almost no wind.
_________________
Gangrene
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2003-02-27 14:22 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Karagin
Imperial Karagin Army
Imperial General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 27-Feb-2003 14:38 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
The 74% chance would cover both...given the condtions you stated I would say to hit would be a little higher around 80% to 83%.
Also the question of light is to cover the use of the thermal imager that is used 99% of the time...it works in both day and night setting...
_________________
Karagin
Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato
"Wasted trip Man. Nobody said nuthin' about lockin' horns with no tigers." Oddball
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 27-Feb-2003 14:45 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
Thanks.
The accuracy of Btech is worse than I thought.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Karagin
Imperial Karagin Army
Imperial General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 27-Feb-2003 15:08 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
To some degree...it is an abstract system though for play balance...
Right now my group is talking about allowing quad mechs to get a bonus of being more stable when it comes to tohit rolls...I will post more on this once we get done talking about it.
_________________
Karagin
Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato
"Wasted trip Man. Nobody said nuthin' about lockin' horns with no tigers." Oddball
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 27-Feb-2003 15:33 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
To some degree...it is an abstract system though for play balance...
Yeah. I am not real fond of it, though. I am thinking of extending the ranges and seeing how it effects the game, or maybe testing out the D8 or D10 system Vampire and I talked about a while back. I believe it would shorten game times, which I am in favor of, and maybe force people to make better use of terrain.
Right now my group is talking about allowing quad mechs to get a bonus of being more stable when it comes to tohit rolls...
Sounds interesting. Wouldn't tanks also benefit from such a rule?
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Karagin
Imperial Karagin Army
Imperial General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 27-Feb-2003 15:39 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
Yes and that has split the group on the whole thing...two of the guys feel vehicles need this very very badly and a couple of the guys don't want them to have anything extra, this is with the idea that we have a lot home rules in use for vehicles already mind you.
I think both the quads and the tracked tanks should have a bonus for being more stable so I and three others make up the rest of the group and the stance on this issue.
Looking forward to see how your testing of using a D10 goes.
_________________
Karagin
Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato
"Wasted trip Man. Nobody said nuthin' about lockin' horns with no tigers." Oddball
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexander
Heavy Horse Merc Brigade
Commanding Officer
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 828
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: 01-Mar-2003 23:14 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
Piece of cake. If I can do it in a Cougar, on the first round while standing still,(which has no stabalization, no computer, no laser rangefinder equipment, and only the power in my arms to traverse and elevate to keep on target), then a modern tank could probably do it with the first round 9 times out of 10 while moving that slowly. But, then again, I've never used anything that modern, so...
Now, when you say perpendicular, let me just clarify this. Your Abrams is moving say north, while the enemy vehicle is moving east to west across the line that the Abrams is driving on? If that's the case, it's almost like standing still. It's a very easy shot, (I've done it in the simulators dozens of times), as the computer just has to lead the target and compensate for only a small amount of variation in the range (during the time the gunner has aquired the target and fired - just seconds really - the forward motion of the Abrams will only be a hundred meters or so).
It's a little different if the enemy tank is moving away at an oblique angle, but still, at that range it's not too bad a shot.
Now BTech... that's a whole different ball of wax.
Alexander (4 out of 5 tankers agree!  )
_________________
War is God's way of teaching geography.
[ This Message was edited by: Alexander on 2003-03-01 23:21 ]
_________________
War is God's way of teaching geography.
*******
Commanding Officer, North West Armoured Cavalry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexander
Heavy Horse Merc Brigade
Commanding Officer
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 828
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: 01-Mar-2003 23:31 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
Wind speed isn't too big a factor for an Abrams round at that range. Espically with a Super-high velocity round like a APFSDS round. Flight time is less than one second. That round travels at speeds over 1000m/sec, and since there is 1000m in a kilometer... Besides, the computer adjusts for wind automatically.
Light isn't TOO big a factor either. It just means that it'll probably take the gunner a few seconds longer to identify the target. But, if the light does start to fade, Thermal negates all light concerns. It is more difficult to correctly identify vehicle types on Thermal, however.
The only truly big variable here is crew training. That's one that no one can truly account for. But, again, the onboard targetry computers make it tough for a gunner to miss. (It's easy enough that I could probably walk into an Abrams right now, and be killing stuff easily in just a few hours, if not minutes. But, then again, I'm used to having to make do without all the fancy gear, so I'll probably just be overwelm pushing buttons for fun! )
Alexander
_________________
War is God's way of teaching geography.
*******
Commanding Officer, North West Armoured Cavalry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexander
Heavy Horse Merc Brigade
Commanding Officer
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 828
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: 01-Mar-2003 23:34 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
IR takes a back seat to Thermal nowadays. Thermal is useful in all light conditions, can see through trees and smoke (unless it's a special thermal disruptive smokescreen), and is easy to "Read". IR, however, only amplifies available light, therefore is only useful at night, and only if there's enough ambient light (ie. stars and moon,) otherwise, it's pretty much useless.
Alexander
_________________
War is God's way of teaching geography.
*******
Commanding Officer, North West Armoured Cavalry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 02-Mar-2003 02:06 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
Now, when you say perpendicular, let me just clarify this. Your Abrams is moving say north, while the enemy vehicle is moving east to west across the line that the Abrams is driving on? If that's the case, it's almost like standing still.
Yeah, that what I meant. So its really like standing still? I thought it would be harder because it would require the greatest amount of lead.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexander
Heavy Horse Merc Brigade
Commanding Officer
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 828
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: 02-Mar-2003 09:56 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
Leading isn't much of a problem. 1km isn't really that far, therefore, the lead required is just a simple calculation for the computer.
In a Cougar, where we don't have a computer, we have something called a graticule pattern (basically a bunch of different aiming markers) etched into the sight. There are different lead off markers for every one hundred meters. All you do is choose the one for your range, and adjust off of that.
Now with a targeting computer, it automatically chooses the amount of lead required. What happens is that when the gunner aquires the target he hits the laser range finder. Well, the computer sends out a few laser beams to determine range and speed of the target. Once it has done that, it's just some simple math for the computer to determine the amount of lead required, and keep the main gun on target. If the target, however, decides to be sneaky, and change direction or speed, all the gunner has to do is hit the rangefinder button again, and let the computer take care of the rest.
Really, I wish I had a ballistic computer when I was still a gunner... I had to rely on my insticts, experience, and my arms to keep the turret pointing at the target.
Alexander
_________________
War is God's way of teaching geography.
*******
Commanding Officer, North West Armoured Cavalry
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Nightmare
Lyran Alliance
Kommandant-General
Joined: 03-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 2214
|
| Posted: 02-Mar-2003 10:46 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
So modern machines should go for being non-reflective to lasers?
_________________
A tree fall in the forest, and no one is around, and it hits a mime. Does anyone care?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Slythis
Federated Suns
Colonel
Joined: 09-Aug-2002 00:00
Posts: 712
|
| Posted: 02-Mar-2003 13:02 Post subject: RE: tank question |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2003-03-02 10:46, Nightmare wrote:
So modern machines should go for being non-reflective to lasers?
|
|
You have to bare in mind that in modern warfare 99.9% the guys having the lasers used against them aren't going to have acsess to that kind of tech and if they do most likly they won't be able to properly maintain it in a combat environment.
_________________
"It is pleasant, when the winds are high and the seas are rough to watch the stuggles of another from the shore."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
