Laser Rangefinders

[Sulman]

I suspect the main problem is getting the AI to know when to lase and not. You as the human player will have a lot of options not available to the AI opponent. That will require the bulk of the resource.

Right, and the AI cannot and does not understand context.

[agusto]

At 1200m or less, dont lase. At 1200 or more, lase. Dependency or unit skill is calculated via the following forumla:

 

Conscript = c = 0.1

Green = g = 0.25

Regular = r = 0.5

Veteran = v = 0.75

Elite = e = 1.0

 

s = skill  =c, g, r, v or e

 

1200 = r = battlesights range

 

l = range at which the unit will start to lase if the target is further away. targets at ranges < l will not be lased, targets at ranges > l will be lased.

 

r*s = l

 

So a Conscript unit will lase targets that are 120m away and further, an Elite unit will lase targets that are 1200m away further. If you want to factor in fitness = f, morale = m, command skill = cs etc, you can just add a multiplier between 0 and 1 to the forumla for each parameter. Like r*s*f*m*cs = l.

Edited March 8, 2015 by agusto

[Thewood1]

What if its not a sabot...what if its a round with a parabolic trajectory that needs range info even at short ranges?

[agusto]

You can factor that in too..

 

a = ammo parameter, APDSFS => a = 1, AMP, HE, etc... => a = 0

 

Balistically though lasing is only required at long to very long ranges. In WW2 the german SOP for tank crews using Pz IV and laters was to set the range to 700 meteres and aim for the tracks of the targeted tank (or, more accurately, to "sit" the target on the "spike" in the optics) - no matter what round was loaded, at ranges between ~50 and 700 meteres the projectile would hit somwhere between the turret and the tracks. With modern tanks and ammo, something like this probably still works. IIRC the T-72 uses sights that have a sight picture very similar to that used on german WW2 tanks.

Edited March 8, 2015 by agusto

[Thewood1]

I disagree on HEAT and HE.  One of the biggest issues in those types of rounds is that they aren't necessarily a flat trajectory because of lower velocity.  You can see this in videos and Steel Beasts.  Getting estimated ranges for those types of rounds has always been one of the biggest gunnery issues.  So now there is a complication to your simple lase/not lase statement.

 

Also keep in mind that low pressure guns like the 100mm on the BMP are at an extreme disadvantage without a laser.  As older tanks are added in like T-55 and T-62, range finding at even shorter ranges can be an issue and might require different parameters.

 

So my ultimate point is that it is not as simple as it might seem to get the AI on board as an opponent.

[Thewood1]

Another thought is laser beam riding ATGM on the Russian side.  I believe those require the laser at least through a good portion of the flight.

[agusto]

I disagree. According to http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html, the M830A1 has a muzzle velocity of 1400m/s - only 200ms slower than the M829A1 APFSDS projectile. I havent done the math yet, but i am pretty sure that at ranges below 1000 meteres drop will be neglectable to such a degree that sights with a fixed range can be used. For comparision: the german WW2 PzGr.39 APCBC-HE for the 88 mm gun of the Tiger I had a muzzle velocity of only 773 m/s and only half the mass of the 120mm HEAT round of the M1A2 and still the 700m (or actually even 1000m rule) rule was used. I can even give you a source for that:

 

http://www.bills-bunker.de/media//DIR_111001/4203297340c99131ffff817fac144225.pdf

 

It says there (roughly translated): "With sights set to 1000m, you will hit every 2m target between 0 and 1000m (if you sit the target correctly on the needle of the sights)".

 

Page 77 in adobe acrobat.

 

[Thewood1]

What about lower velocity guns though...100mm low pressure guns.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In terms of HEAT the real killer is the aerodynamics, the sabot is a murderous dart.  The HEAT round looks sort of like a giant potato masher grenade (handle being the offset probe).  It loses momentum a lot faster.

 

If I recall, battlesight for sabot from an Abrams is 1200 meters.  I want to say it was 850 or something for HEAT*.  You can still do it, just at a lot shorter range.

 

*I'm genuinely not sure.  It might be even shorter.  Keep in mind I didn't work for a living as an officer so some details like the battlesight range are not on the top of my brain.  Looking at the GAS sight reticle though 800-850 looks like the right figure.

[silent one]

As a Steel Beasts 2 guy . Which is supposed to be a training tool rather than a game. I ound that while your using your thermals most of the time they are no where near as good as the general public thinks. Its still hard to see targets a lot of the time. Regarding laze time. i dont think CM has it right. You have to track a target around 3-4 seconds to get fire control on it. You can hold off lazing to the last moment though. Then laze, you hear the gun move and fire. Maybe a second? That all takes much less time that in CM where they turn the turret and pop smoke. By the time the smokes out the round would already be on the way. Ive done this many times , even with the odd American floating gunsight the M1 has.

In battles with formations you can switch between targets without lazing in a rush so they would get no notice of the shot other than their neighbor getting hit.  I wouldnt switch to battlesight unless the primary sight was busted. Remember you can manually dial in range too and also range nearby terrain. so the enemy itself might neverr get lased before the first shot. The sight is configured with mil marks and is designed for snapshot firing. At ranges like 600m its not like you need a lazer.

Edited March 9, 2015 by silent one

[agusto]

What about lower velocity guns though...100mm low pressure guns.

 

Yeah, the projectiles from the gun of the the BMP-3 have an awkward flight path . Almost like a mortar shell. But you can factor in the vehicle type too, just as a another 0 or 1 factor.

Edited March 9, 2015 by agusto

[Thewood1]

Again, it sounds simple until you start putting in all the ifs, ands, or buts.  Its not about what is in the game, but what might end up in the game.  Assuming everything is high velocity tank cannons is a mistake.

[agusto]

Well in the end it all comes down to a mathematical/logical formula that handles all the possible if-then and with-what relations. That is just the way computer programs work. If gun = 100mm_BMP3 => vehicle_modifier = 0 => vehicle_modifier*r*s*f*m*cs*a = l with if l = 0 => always lase target. And now the formula factors in all the stuff that we have mentioned and returns a result that tells you whether or not the target will be lased. The real difficulty of pogramming a simulation is to figure out a logical/mathematical system that sufficiently abstracts reality to allow state of the art computers to handle the workload while still maintaining a reasonable level of accuracy. You must abstract, modelling a 1:1 representation of physical reality is impossible.

Edited March 9, 2015 by agusto

[A Canadian Cat]

Sometimes i am happy that my tanks retreat wehen they get lased, but sometimes i would be happier if they continued to move until they reach the cover 3 secs away.

 

Please some one slap me one if I am leading everyone astray....

 

I think the behaviour is to pop smoke and pull back to safety unless one of two things is true:

1) The vehicle crew are actively aiming to fire on an enemy target - in which case wait until the round is away before evasive manoeuvres.

2) The vehicle is driving to cover with a Fast move order - in which case they will complete the move order and not run away.

 

It is number 2 that I am worrying about my memory over.

[Thewood1]

I think the popping of smoke is automatic in the more modern tanks...I think

[Apocal]

I think the popping of smoke is automatic in the more modern tanks...I think

 

According to the description here, Shtora can discharge smoke grenades automatically or semi-automatically. AFAIK, smoke discharge is controlled by a panel near the commander's head on an Abrams though.