Tank/APC/50 Cal Bullet Drop

[SectorNine50]

Originally Posted by Jonny

Well I probably could calculate the lead, its not that hard.

if you use values for r = distance to the object, θ1 = angle from front of tank, clockwise, θ2 = angle above horizontal.

differentiating all gives you a nice set of equations for the objects motion, once you have them you simply find an angle of elevation for the barrel and angle from the front of the tank where the lines describing object motion and shell motion intersect at the same velue of t, then you have a shot that takes lead into account.

Dont underestimate maths, epecially when computers are involved.

You COMPLETELY missed my point...

The problem is that the way a lase works from my understanding is it grabs the distance at that MOMENT. Now, I don't know if they developed a different lase system that will calculate constantly, if so, then yes, lead is calculable. (Now that I think about it, I'm sure they have if police officers now use them.)

Anyway, back to my point: Even if they did have the lase system that calculates constantly, something moving around on 3 axis' will avoid a shell even if it was calculated correctly when fired. You can't adjust the shell in mid-air. That's really the big reason that the no bullet drop stuff makes me mad. Not to mention the fact that it gives the tank a MUCH higher shot angle because it doesn't have to aim above targets to hit them at a distance REALLY brings flying helo's into the shot which in IRL wouldn't be possible. (Ballistics computer or not.)

[BloodBane611]

Lase systems cannot determine lead on a multi variable changing object, it's just not possible.

Where's that clip of Dr. Cox going "Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong" when you need it?

That's EXACTLY what the ballistics computers and laser rangefinders in modern MBTs are designed to do. They are meant to keep the barrel of a 50-65 ton tank pointed at another tank from several miles away, even while moving over uneven ground. A tank that sees a helicopter within its field of fire could easily and successfully engage it. Now, this is where view distances come in. IRL, helicopters rely on the fact that they are in the air VERY far away, or very high, in order to keep from being engaged, and in order to engage the enemy tank with their ATGWs first.

Tanks are designed to have very good accuracy over long ranges against moving targets while they themselves are on the move. The problem is not the accuracy of the tanks cannon, it is the tactics of helicopter pilots in PR, which is in turn mostly defined by the lack of view distance, which cannot be reasonably changed.

something moving around on 3 axis' will avoid a shell even if it was calculated correctly when fired.

Not if you lead it correctly....If a helicopter is flying along one vector, and doesn't change that vector or its altitude, the ballistics computer in a real tank can easily calculate the lead and barrel elevation required. Same deal in PR. Now, if the helo is constantly changing altitude, speed, and direction, that would make it much harder, though not impossible, to hit. Same deal in PR. I see no problems.

[SectorNine50]

Originally Posted by BloodBane611

Where's that clip of Dr. Cox going "Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong" when you need it?

That's EXACTLY what the ballistics computers and laser rangefinders in modern MBTs are designed to do. They are meant to keep the barrel of a 50-65 ton tank pointed at another tank from several miles away, even while moving over uneven ground. A tank that sees a helicopter within its field of fire could easily and successfully engage it. Now, this is where view distances come in. IRL, helicopters rely on the fact that they are in the air VERY far away, or very high, in order to keep from being engaged, and in order to engage the enemy tank with their ATGWs first.

Tanks are designed to have very good accuracy over long ranges against moving targets while they themselves are on the move. The problem is not the accuracy of the tanks cannon, it is the tactics of helicopter pilots in PR, which is in turn mostly defined by the lack of view distance, which cannot be reasonably changed.

If you read my post, you'll realize why the ballistics computer cannot calculate a fast moving object (150mph vs. a tank 40mph?) changing randomly on 3-axis: Because it will be wrong the second after it fired regardless of whether or not it was pin point the instant it did fire. Plus, if it were so easy to hit a helo with a tank, why are there no documented cases of it happening IRL?

PLUS! I will reiterate another point that tanks SHOULD NOT be able to shoot at helo's at range with the main cannon because they can not LOB A SHOT THAT HIGH IRL. In PR, with perfect accuracy, you can shoot a direct straight shot off of the tank's turret's highest angle. This alone should be a reason to add bullet drop!!!

Here is what I mean, lets pretend that's as high as the tank can point: (excuse awful drawing)

Originally Posted by BloodBane611

Not if you lead it correctly....If a helicopter is flying along one vector, and doesn't change that vector or its altitude, the ballistics computer in a real tank can easily calculate the lead and barrel elevation required. Same deal in PR. Now, if the helo is constantly changing altitude, speed, and direction, that would make it much harder, though not impossible, to hit. Same deal in PR. I see no problems.

I change my vector and altitude constantly when flying, not on purpose, but it happens, a LOT. I guarantee you that IRL at 800m, the helo changing it's distance from the tank a few yards would result in a big miss because the shell will fall short. In PR, since they take a linear path, this isn't true, they have essentially a much larger target to hit.

I have a good example of how hard it should be to hit a helicopter out of the air with a shell:

Throw a baseball in a linear fashion, and try to hit it with a BB gun.

[Mora]

The idea that tank shells wont have a bullet drop is because they have irl a automatic range finder and calculate the distance. They only have to point at the target.

At least this is what i think it has..

[SectorNine50]

Originally Posted by Mora

The idea that tank shells wont have a bullet drop is because they have irl a automatic range finder and calculate the distance. They only have to point at the target.

At least this is what i think it has..

Yes, I know, but if you read the posts, you'll see why giving the tank perfect accuracy to simulate this, is hugely flawed on many many levels.

If your going to give the tank perfect accuracy, you at least have to limit how high the turret goes. Only fair if you ask me.

[HughJass]

i dont know, i mean 50 cal gunners are very open to any incoming fire these days and people are just not "afraid" of them. If you introduced this new deviation for 50 cals then you would have to upgrade the cover for the 50 gunners. maybe just using crow systems?

[SectorNine50]

Originally Posted by HughJass

i dont know, i mean 50 cal gunners are very open to any incoming fire these days and people are just not "afraid" of them. If you introduced this new deviation for 50 cals then you would have to upgrade the cover for the 50 gunners. maybe just using crow systems?

I think the problem here is that most people that hop on the 50's can't hit the broad side of a barn without the crosshairs. I think I got 12 kills on a 50 before anyone could bring me down, and I think it's cause someone finally LAT'd the Humvee. A crows system would be kind of cool, but maybe excessive since you can crouch inside of the car.

[Jonny]

Your arguments are just crap, sectornine50, the values that it recieves can be used to find the rate of change (acceleration), and rate of change of that. This, along with the high velocity of the shell, means you dont stand a chance in hell of surviving.


And dont you DARE tell me what is and is not possible for the computer to do unless you at least could have had the option of taking a mathematics course at uni.

The rise of the bullets from rifles is a few tens of centimeters at MOST, so dont tell me that a high velocity round might miss, either.

[$kelet0r]

Originally Posted by SectorNine50

Yes, I know, but if you read the posts, you'll see why giving the tank perfect accuracy to simulate this, is hugely flawed on many many levels.

If your going to give the tank perfect accuracy, you at least have to limit how high the turret goes. Only fair if you ask me.

We really do need that Dr. Cox clip There's just so much wrong I don't know where to begin ...

[BloodBane611]

Dangit, I had pretty pictures and everything. Well, they're going up anyhow!


Out beyond a thousand meters this might matter, but a Sabot round has a very flat trajectory, and none of the view distances in PR are long enough to give any actual effect from this.



As long as the helicopter remains on its course, it will be hit. That's just physics.


*EDIT*

Also, the elevation/depression values are already correct for tanks.