shooting a moving tank

[davmalk 10]

What’s the best way of engaging a moving tank? I seem to be having a lot of trouble hitting them from a distance even though I have them lock on. My rounds always seem to either too short or too long.

[Beagle 684]

The Anwer depends on the Weapon System, the aspect and movement direction of the target.

[GReeves 10]

It depends on which weapon you're using. With ACE, tanks have fire control systems that calculate shots at moving targets. With unguided shoulder launched weapons like the SMAW and AT4 you just have to practice with them and get a feel for how they work. The Javelin should be easy to use.

[Mirek 166]

Non lock-on AT launchers are not ment to be used for long distances. Use them up to 300m.

For bigger distances use Javelin or dragon.

[sander 14]

Practice makes perfect: lead the target, observe the fall of shot and adjust accordingly. Use the editor to set up a situation for training where you have a vehicle or weapon with nearby ammo supply of the right kind and fire away a lot of rounds and missiles to acquire a feel for the weapon system. Initially you might wish to use a this setCaptive true statement to acquire experience without too much pressure, then remove it to make it a two way range to see whether you have acquired the speed necessary to find and obliterate targets under adverse conditions.

Regards,

Sander

[maturin 12]

Non lock-on AT launchers are not ment to be used for long distances. Use them up to 300m.

For bigger distances use Javelin or dragon.

With a lot of practice in ArmA you can make hits at 500m with an RPG or SMAW, but for moving targets don't even try over 150m or so. Not unless you have a whole platoon shooting and plenty of ammo.

[GReeves 10]

Non lock-on AT launchers are not ment to be used for long distances. Use them up to 300m

I can push the SMAW to its limits with 900m shots. :P But yeah, with any other free-fire rocket launchers, 500m is about as far as I can effectively use them.

Edited October 22, 2013 by GReeves

[Mirek 166]

I can push the SMAW to its limits with 900m shots. :P But yeah, with any other free-fire rocket launchers, 500m is about as far as I can effectively use them.

I bow before you if thats true.

[Beagle 684]

Try it with the lates beta that indroduces the balistic arc and realistic speed for rockets and the effective ranges come down to realistic ranges again.

[Mirek 166]

I play ACE and hitting anything thats further away than 300m with RPG or smaw doesnt seem possible to me.

[GReeves 10]

Couldn't let that comment go unchallenged, Mirek. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47wgWUgxhZU&feature=youtu.be

For shots under 800m, I can use the optic markings to adjust for the range when it exceeds the sight adjustment limit of 500m. Any farther and you really have to just get a feel for it -- the optic markings don't really seem to be accurate, as you can see in the video. I was aiming for 1000m with the first shot and it hit short, even though the target was closer than a kilometer. The best way obviously is to use the nine mil spotting rifle until you get it in the right spot. My best shot with the SMAW was probably in an MSO our unit did awhile back. I had forgotten the spotting rifle rounds in the SOV and didn't have time to go back for them. There was an enemy sniper in a building 675m away, so I adjusted to 500m, aimed two optic marks high, and hit it with my first shot, destroying the entire building. I'm not bragging or anything though. :cool:

[EliteSniper 10]

With a lot of practice in ArmA you can make hits at 500m with an RPG or SMAW, but for moving targets don't even try over 150m or so. Not unless you have a whole platoon shooting and plenty of ammo.

Don't know about that. If you are good at Arma 2 you can make shots from 700m+ on a moving target with ATM(Anti-tank missile; unguided). I used a Carl Gustav at 500m+ on a moving T-34 which is the smallest tank in the game, and it was moving. Destroyed in 1 hit. Anything is possible if you have the skill to do it.

If however you are new to the game or don't have much skill don't try to kill a moving target 100m+ away. You'll most likely miss and make yourself known to the enemy.

[maturin 12]

700m on a moving target is dumb luck.

Yes, you are a goddamned ace shot for hitting, but the chance of a target maintaining the same speed and heading for the time it takes a rocket to travel 700m is miniscule. A shot that relies on that much fate is a waste of ammo in most cases.

[EliteSniper 10]

700m on a moving target is dumb luck.

Yes, you are a goddamned ace shot for hitting, but the chance of a target maintaining the same speed and heading for the time it takes a rocket to travel 700m is miniscule. A shot that relies on that much fate is a waste of ammo in most cases.

A real man makes his own luck. Do you think in real life they rely on luck? No, it's all training and skill. The Average soldier using a Carl Gustav in real life would be able to hit a moving target 500m+ away. All skill, and no luck. Would you consider non-stop headshots from a M24 700m+ away dumb luck? I wouldn't, I would call it skill. War consists of 10% luck 90% skill. :o

[maturin 12]

It's 90% training and 10% luck. (I won't argue the percentages.)

And actual soldiers are trained not to give away their position and waste their ammo by doing stupid things like taking shots that are likely to miss based on factors they have no control over.

Would you consider non-stop headshots from a M24 700m+ away dumb luck?

I would call it within the parameters of the weapon (although again, trained snipers don't aim for the head). And if a 'skilled' sniper is doing what he's supposed to, he doesn't take the shot unless he's likely to hit or a miss has no consequences. But missing a tank with a big loud tracer round has immediate and fatal consequences. Really skilled CG gunners are worth more alive.

All skill, and no luck.

Do you speak English? I just told you were the luck is. What part of the shooter's skillset is going to magically stop the tank from changing direction or speed? At such ranges, the rocket is just going to miss. Period. Because you're way out of the optimum parameters. Unless you're going for a division record on a firing range, you're advocating suicide.

[EliteSniper 10]

It's 90% training and 10% luck. (I won't argue the percentages.)

And actual soldiers are trained not to give away their position and waste their ammo by doing stupid things like taking shots that are likely to miss based on factors they have no control over.

I would call it within the parameters of the weapon (although again, trained snipers don't aim for the head). And if a 'skilled' sniper is doing what he's supposed to, he doesn't take the shot unless he's likely to hit or a miss has no consequences. But missing a tank with a big loud tracer round has immediate and fatal consequences. Really skilled CG gunners are worth more alive.

Do you speak English? I just told you were the luck is. What part of the shooter's skillset is going to magically stop the tank from changing direction or speed? At such ranges, the rocket is just going to miss. Period. Because you're way out of the optimum parameters. Unless you're going for a division record on a firing range, you're advocating suicide.

Talking to you is like talking to a wall or a child who wants to argue. Obviously you've never been in the military and don't know a single thing about firing an ATGM, ATM, or RPG. They don't waste shoots on moving targets because they hit them.

P.S, the Average Sniper is trained to aim at the center of mass and the neck region. Both are known as kill shots, and both must be expert-ed before a sniper can complete training.

2nd P.S, Most ATGMS, ATMs, RPG shots are fire from 500m+ away on moving targets and on sitting targets. Most of the time the target will not change speeds or directions. So you are trying to find an excuse to back up your non-fact statements.

Good-day.

[maturin 12]

Right. All soldiers are magical super beings who can flawlessly compute the necessary lead independent of all wind, projectile flight time and target speed/trajectory changes and land every shot at beyond the effective range of their weapon. USA USA USA. And I'm the child?

RPG-7 hit probabilities for a moving target.

50 m 100%

100 m 96%

200 m 51%

300 m 22%

400 m 9%

500 m 4%

Fact. (You've yet to provide a single one.)

Now put on your dunce cap and go sit in the corner.

[EliteSniper 10]

Right. All soldiers are magical super beings who can flawlessly compute the necessary lead independent of all wind, projectile flight time and target speed/trajectory changes and land every shot at beyond the effective range of their weapon. USA USA USA. And I'm the child?

RPG-7 hit probabilities for a moving target.

50 m 100%

100 m 96%

200 m 51%

300 m 22%

400 m 9%

500 m 4%

Fact. (You've yet to provide a single one.)

Now put on your dunce cap and go sit in the corner.

Fact? You say I have yet to provide a single one, yet you haven't provided one either. Send me a link that states, "An RPG can not hit a moving target from 500m+", also provide a link that says UGB(Unguided missiles) can not hit a moving target from 500m+. Please also provide a link that ATGMs cannot hit a target from 500+. Please do so. Also send me a link of those percentages. Would love to see it.

I can really tell you made those numbers up. The Average Russian Tank hunting team during the cold war would hit moving targets up to 575m with the RPG-7, quite easily. So I can tell your made up percentages are false.

P.S you should probably get off the Call of Duty series because they are providing you false information. =)

Now take your own advice and while your crawling to the corner to cry, suck your thumb like the baby and liar you are.

[[frl]myke 14]

I would think the U.S. Army does have the competence to test weapon systems accurately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7#Hit_probabilities

As i am trained in the use of the RL-83 Blindicide (now retired) and the Panzerfaust 3, i can say that shots over 300m on moving targets aren't encouraged by weapon instructors as the factor "luck" becomes more evident with higher distances. And you don't want to rely on luck when you're fighting a battle tank.

I think this should clear things up. If not, you're free to take it to PM. In this thread you'd better stick with the topic: how can the OP get better in fighting armored vehicles.

[EliteSniper 10]

Myke;2549855']I would think the U.S. Army does have the competence to test weapon systems accurately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7#Hit_probabilities

As i am trained in the use of the RL-83 Blindicide (now retired) and the Panzerfaust 3' date=' i can say that shots over 300m on moving targets aren't encouraged by weapon instructors as the factor "luck" becomes more evident with higher distances. And you don't want to rely on luck when you're fighting a battle tank.

I think this should clear things up. If not, you're free to take it to PM. In this thread you'd better stick with the topic: how can the OP get better in fighting armored vehicles.[/quote']

As you are responding to my answer, I will tell you how those tests were done. If you look at the picture to the right it'll clear things up. The tests were done while training the Afghanistan army. The Average soldier is trained to use the AT-4, Javelin, or the SMAW(based on branch) you try converting to an RPG-7 after using those, you'd be surprised how hard it is.:butbut:

As for the PzF3 3 and the RL-83, I'll tell you that if you were in the Belgium army you might want to think about your training compared to the U.S and the U.S.S.R. There's a reason why Belgium has never been in the top 10 strongest military powers. (I don't know very much about the RL-83 or the PzF3 to be 100% correct)

I know it's not encouraged to try and hit a moving target at 500m+ all I was saying is that it's possible with skill and it has been done in the past quite easily by the training of the two greatest super powers.

{Topic}- As for help, I already stated that I wouldn't encourage a new person to try firing on a moving target from 100m+ away. But perhaps use an ATGM instead of a UGM or RPG. If you want to use an UGM/RPG anyways, I would advise setting your dude to a Col. in the editor then putting a "independent" tank down, with the waypoint to move to a position, and target practice till you get the hang of it. Best of luck!

Edited November 4, 2013 by EliteSniper

[[frl]myke 14]

I'll tell you that if you were in the Belgium army you might want to think about your training compared to the U.S and the U.S.S.R.

Don't know how you got the idea that i was/am in the belgian army (i'm in the swiss army btw) but this shows how you get your "facts".

[GReeves 10]

I didn't really want to get involved in this discussion, but this is ridiculous. EliteSniper, you need to stop insulting people's military training when you don't even know what country they serve in. If you don't mind my asking, I'd like to hear about your real life military experience.

[maturin 12]

I know it's not encouraged to try and hit a moving target at 500m+ all I was saying is that it's possible with skill and it has been done in the past quite easily by the training of the two greatest super powers.

[citation needed]

The effective range of the RPG-7 is 300m, with a scope. 500m is considered very long range for tank-sized, STATIONARY targets. I'm curious, how have the US and USSR been making these incredible shots against tank-sized targets (in combat, not on the range)? Because I'm pretty sure that the number of times AT infantry (from the US and USSR) have actually taken shots at enemy MBTs with shoulder-mounted weapons (not Javelins, you bringing up ATGMs in this debate was pathetically dishonest) can be counted on my fingers and toes.

The tests were done while training the Afghanistan army. The Average soldier is trained to use the AT-4, Javelin, or the SMAW(based on branch) you try converting to an RPG-7 after using those, you'd be surprised how hard it is

Training the Afghan Army? In 1976? Also [citation needed] because of your tendency to make up numbers. Like that 575m figure, which is very suspiciously the range of AT weapons in Wargame: AirLand Battle. It's not a simulator, you know.

[Birdy890 0]

I'll tell you that if you were in the Belgium army you might want to think about your training compared to the U.S and the U.S.S.R. There's a reason why Belgium has never been in the top 10 strongest military powers.

You're joking, right? this is a joke? please tell me it's a joke.

Do you honestly think that the US/USSR were considered the strongest nations based on training?

Where do you get this stuff?

As for applying lead on tank rounds, it really comes down to training of oneself, get used to the speed of the rounds you're flinging, and you'll get better.

I've been waiting for BI to add proper tank modeling since OFP, but for now, rely on your own gunnery skills.

[EliteSniper 10]

You're joking, right? this is a joke? please tell me it's a joke.

Do you honestly think that the US/USSR were considered the strongest nations based on training?

Where do you get this stuff?

{How nations become the strongest.}

1. Strong economy.

2. Superior Training.

3. Superior technology.

4. Superior in all branches, {Navy, Airforce, Ground force(Marines and Army.)}

5. Nuclear Weapons.

It doesn't matter about who has nuclear weapons, it doesn't make them the strongest nation in the world. North Korea has nuclear artillery and bombs, yet they are 9th on the top 10 strongest nations.

How U.S.S.R and USA got to be the strongest was due to superior military, base on training, economy, technology, and great strengths in all branches. It's not because of nuclear bombs that there were the first on the list.....Learn Cold War my friend, and learn how to base nation strengths.

Secondly, I was basing Mykes nation off the nation of which each of those were from. Thinking that he was from Belgium because it was on the list.(I stated that I didn't know if he was in the Belguim military or not) I also never insulted their military training. I said "I'll tell you that if you were in the Belgium army you might want to think about your training compared to the U.S and the U.S.S.R." God you people need to learn the difference between insults and just debating. FFS:rolleyes: