Tanks - Fire-control system

[cdn_biggdogg 29]

Can you lase aircraft and have the FCS aquire a firing solution. IE. a hovering or slow moving helo or a jet coming straight at you?

[dr. hladik 231]

13 minutes ago, cdn_biggdogg said:

Can you lase aircraft and have the FCS aquire a firing solution. IE. a hovering or slow moving helo or a jet coming straight at you?

 

It is possible. However max. allowed speed of target is limited by config.

[Damian90 697]

9 minutes ago, cdn_biggdogg said:

Can you lase aircraft and have the FCS aquire a firing solution. IE. a hovering or slow moving helo or a jet coming straight at you?

 

Yes modern tanks FCS can do that, it's actually bad idea for helicopter pilots to hover in range of modern tanks armament, surprise APFSDS, HEAT or HE round is not nice. ;)

BTW for all players, as a RHS member doing research mostly about AFV's, and also as Steel Beasts Pro PE simmer, few advises.

 

Laser range finders cooldown, yes this is real feature (kinda ;)) because laser range finder in the past could burn out, the modern ones do not burn down but system turn them off for some time to prevent burn our if laser range finder is used too often.

 

Now for lasing, lead and overall gunnery.

 

When you have a moving target very effective technique is so called "laze and blaze", which means that you track the target for around 1-5 sec, then laze it, and after around 1-2 sec of steady track fire the main gun. What is always important is to have steady track on target. Also it's necessary to keep up turret rotation speed properly to target movement speed, it is possible that with too quick rotation, even if you have steady target track, FCS will overcalculate lead, which means miss.

 

I also strongly advise everyone interested in this subject to read Steel Beasts Wiki about gunnery, I will provide links for two most popular tanks in the sim at the moment, this is M1A1HA and Leopard 2A4 as they are kinda, basics for each gunnery training.

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=M1A1_(HA)#Gunner.27s_Position_F6
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Leopard_2A4#Gunner.27s_Position_F6

 

I hope this will be helpfull, and interesting for other players, cheers! ;)

[kuIoodporny 45]

25 minutes ago, dr. hladik said:

 

It is possible. However max. allowed speed of target is limited by config.

 

That should rather be maximum angular limit, meaning how much can gun deviate from optics direction, than a speed limit. Also, lead should be acquired by multiplying smoothed out angular speed of turret from last few seconds (1-2 is usually comfortable enough) with distance/time of flight, so it wouldn't matter whether you actually lase some target or not - lead would be calculated anyway.

[supercereal4 29]

Just tested with the 120mm gun on the Slammer. Works pretty well, but the rounds always seem to hit a bit low of the lased target. This results in me shooting right under the chassis of cars lol.

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 hour ago, supercereal4 said:

Just tested with the 120mm gun on the Slammer. Works pretty well, but the rounds always seem to hit a bit low of the lased target. This results in me shooting right under the chassis of cars lol.

 

Just played around with it myself, and I agree with Supercereal. In all of my shots ,where my crosshair was center of mass, the actual impact was in the lower track region. Spot on horizontal aim, but about 1-2 meters vertically below my aim. Distance was about 1000m, target traveling directly perpendicular to my tank (maximum horizontal speed, zero closure).

 

Other than that, I am LOVING the improved FCS. Works like a charm. Actually makes aiming tank-shots more fun, while it feels a lot more authentic!

[eriktrak 76]

 

FCS will be a really nice feature however I start to worry how a soldier can fight against a tank which can immediately set the gun elevation and fire. Right now at least need manually adjust which takes a slightly more time.

[Alwarren 2767]

12 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

FCS will be a really nice feature however I start to worry how a soldier can fight against a tank which can immediately set the gun elevation and fire. Right now at least need manually adjust which takes a slightly more time.

 

Tank vs. Soldier -> Soldier dies. That is how it is supposed to be. Unless you have an anti-tank launcher, you're not supposed to have a chance against a tank.

Before the new FCS, right clicking a target and firing was enough, the gun auto-zeros on the target. Most of the time, pressing tab was enough to cycle through targets whether you see them or not. Now, the gunner has to actually spot targets. I find this an improvement in every aspect.

[dragon01 902]

Well, for one, he can avoid getting spotted. :) That's the principal rule of anti-tank warfare - see the tank before it sees you. Missiles, unlike the gun, give no warning for locking onto an enemy tank. If the tank doesn't see you, it can't kill you. That also applies if you don't have an AT launcher. Stay out of sight, go through a building (if you hide in it, the tank may blow it up), don't run across open areas without cover when you know tanks are around... There are quite a few ways for a soldier to survive or even beat a tank, especially in difficult or urban terrain, but quick-draw dueling with an RPG is not one of them. :)

 

To help with that, being inside a tank should muffle outside sounds quite strongly and effectively disable AI hearing anything but large explosions. In urban areas, for example, you should be able to, if the commander isn't scanning around (which he should be doing to prevent that very thing) walk or even run up to a tank from behind, place a bomb and blow it up, as long as you keep out of view. I noticed that AI especially seem to be able to hear from inside a tank, which is not realistic.

[x3kj 1247]

21 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

however I start to worry how a soldier can fight against a tank which can immediately set the gun elevation and fire.

 

[dragon01 902]

Exactly. :) As long as they deal with the fact that in the current version you also have not to be heard, that's basically what it should amount to. Even communication with the tank's crew isn't an easy task, which is why the TUSK kit includes a rather hilarious-looking telephone for use by the troops supporting the tank:

Every time I look at this thing I'm reminded of The General calling Dick Dastardly in the most improbable situations. :) Still, I suppose it works better than trying to jell over the Abrams' ginormous gas turbine engine, or trying to jump on the tank and bang on the hatch...

 

I suppose that at least for ArmA, radio will do for communication, but the point is, noises from the outside should be almost inaudible from inside a tank with a running engine. 

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

38 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Well, for one, he can avoid getting spotted. :) That's the principal rule of anti-tank warfare - see the tank before it sees you. Missiles, unlike the gun, give no warning for locking onto an enemy tank. If the tank doesn't see you, it can't kill you. That also applies if you don't have an AT launcher. Stay out of sight, go through a building (if you hide in it, the tank may blow it up), don't run across open areas without cover when you know tanks are around... There are quite a few ways for a soldier to survive or even beat a tank, especially in difficult or urban terrain, but quick-draw dueling with an RPG is not one of them. :)

 

To help with that, being inside a tank should muffle outside sounds quite strongly and effectively disable AI hearing anything but large explosions. In urban areas, for example, you should be able to, if the commander isn't scanning around (which he should be doing to prevent that very thing) walk or even run up to a tank from behind, place a bomb and blow it up, as long as you keep out of view. I noticed that AI especially seem to be able to hear from inside a tank, which is not realistic.

 

Sneaking up on tanks has always been possible in Arma and is very easy to do.

 

[darkChozo 133]

After trying it out on dev branch, seems very good! Definitely an improvement over the current system.

 

The only thing I'd change is to put a slight (.5-1s) delay between pressing T and getting a firing solution. Partially because it's realistic, mostly because it's less interesting if you can just hit T and LMB at about the same time and have it work out. I realize that there's a chance that you lock on to the background instead, but I was able to hit moving targets fairly reliably using that method.

[ampersand38 344]

Maybe vehicles can have a detector for being hit by a laser range finder. This feature will give a little bit of warning to the target. If planning a surprise attack it will be a bit better to manual range or lase a spot near the target instead.

[ampersand38 344]

12 hours ago, snoops_213 said:

Good out to 3000m. After that rounds fall short.

 

Looks like the Slammer gun only auto-elevates out to 3000m, as shown by the Weapon Status HUD. The co-ax auto-elevates out to 1500m.

[Strike_NOR 898]

6 hours ago, ampersand38 said:

Maybe vehicles can have a detector for being hit by a laser range finder. This feature will give a little bit of warning to the target. If planning a surprise attack it will be a bit better to manual range or lase a spot near the target instead.

 

I am no tank expert, my knowledge lies more towards aircraft, but I do believe many modern tanks are equipped with laser detectors. In some vehicles they just give a warning, others will give the crew a general direction to where they are being lased from. The most advanced systems can automatically override the crew and point the turret towards the laser source for quick counter-attacks. I think the russian T-80's/90's can be outfitted with such a system.

 

With the new sensor suite, maybe arma's tanks (and IFV's) should equip laser detectors. As a measure of balance and stealth, clever players may manually range their elevation, or lase something close-by the target to acquire the range without alerting the target's crew. This probably works best for stationary targets :)

 

 

I also agree with what several other users have posted, that a 0.5 s to 1s delay between lasing and having a ready solution would simulate the tank FCS having to "lay the gun" with the computed lead.

 

 

By the way, has anyone actually checked if the FCS physically moves the tank turret sideways when calculating lead? Or is the shell just fired in an angle out of the barrel? In other words: Does the lead compensation happen at the barrel, or by rotating the turret? Because if BIS have done it realistically by making the turret traverse compensate for lead, then the turret traverse speed of the tank is what essentially limits the time from lase-to-fire :)

[eriktrak 76]

14 hours ago, Alwarren said:

 

Tank vs. Soldier -> Soldier dies. That is how it is supposed to be. Unless you have an anti-tank launcher, you're not supposed to have a chance against a tank.

Before the new FCS, right clicking a target and firing was enough, the gun auto-zeros on the target. Most of the time, pressing tab was enough to cycle through targets whether you see them or not. Now, the gunner has to actually spot targets. I find this an improvement in every aspect.

 

Agree that sitting in a tank give much higher survivability rate when fighting against barefoot soldiers. However keeping in mind that this is a game some form of balance will needed. Not sure if delay and laser overheating will be enough. Honestly I cannot detect any delay between lasing and the gun is correcting the lead in this release.
 

Hiding from thermal vision...your only hope those silly rabbits wandering around.

[Varanon 892]

11 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

 However keeping in mind that this is a game some form of balance will needed.

 

What are you talking about ? A "balance" between a tank and a soldier ? 

Edit: Let me elaborate: Tanks in Arma 3 have zero survivability compared to their real world counterparts. Usually, a single hit from an RPG already destroys it. Add to that that RPS and missile launchers in Arma are grossly overpowered (*) in itself, this tips the balance away from the tank by far.

(*) Have you ever fired anything like an RPG or missile launcher in real live ? First of all, the locking mechanism is laughably simplified in Arma 3. Secondly, a launcher usually requires loading/reloading that is usually done by a second man. When fired, making the weapon ready again requires quite some time. For example, you don't reload a Javelin, you dismount the CLU from the spent launcher and put it on a new one. 

Some launchers aren't even reloaded at all, on use, they are spent and discarded.

The RPG-7 is one of few launchers that can really be reloaded relatively quickly.

Tanks are impressive, and every soldier should fear them. 

[dragon01 902]

ArmA is different from other games. Here, balance is achieved almost solely by mission design, not by units themselves. Tanks are supposed to be hard to beat by infantry. A lone soldier with an AT launcher doesn't stand a chance unless the tank doesn't know he's around. It's been that way since OFP.

 

Besides, you can hide from TI. First of all, tank crew all have poor FOV, even the commander. He has to scan around, which you can see him do by MG movement. He also can't hear you (or shouldn't be able to). Smoke grenades obscure TI, solid objects do the same, but better. A distraction (for example, another tank). If the commander is in the middle of machinegunning someone else and the gunner is busy as well, you're free to run right up to their back. They can't see things underneath the vehicle or very close to the sides, as well.

 

Of course, you're not going to be doing that in open field, but if you try engaging a tank in open field on foot, you deserve everything you get. Soldiers have a huge advantage against tanks in difficult terrain such as forests, mountains or urban terrain. Deserts, salt lakes or rolling Chernarussian plains? Better get a helo or your own tank.

14 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

Sneaking up on tanks has always been possible in Arma and is very easy to do.

 

My experiences with AI were different. Last time I had to fight tanks I nearly gave up in frustration. No matter where I went, if I did anything but crawl, they spotted me. The mission was in broad daylight, but the commander wasn't scanning anything (his MG was always pointed forward).

 

If you've got a lousy (human) tank commander, of course it's easy. But then, it depends entirely on the competence of the crew.

[Alwarren 2767]

7 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

Agree that sitting in a tank give much higher survivability rate when fighting against barefoot soldiers. However keeping in mind that this is a game some form of balance will needed. Not sure if delay and laser overheating will be enough. Honestly I cannot detect any delay between lasing and the gun is correcting the lead in this release.

 

Why? Tank vs. Soldier, tank wins. Every time. Just because this is a game doesn't mean everything needs to be symmetrical. Just stay out of sight. If you can't manage that, you're toast.

 

Seriously, what's next? Take the autocannon away from choppers because it is so deadly? Have only smoke rounds for mortars? Seriously, what do you expect in a confrontation between a 10 million USD death machine and a sack of meat? 

 

A tank in Arma is way too vulnerable anyway. Almost every standard squad has a heavy AT launcher (titan) and an insane amount of missiles. On a normal battlefield, you will encounter M134 and maybe a SMAW/MAAWS, Javelins are a very costly and very rare occurance. Tanks go down easily, way too easy if you ask me. There is absolutely no need for any balancing here.

 

7 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

Hiding from thermal vision...your only hope those silly rabbits wandering around.

 

If you expect to cross open field and not be spotted, you are expecting something unrealistic. Yes, a tank has thermals and if it sees you, well, bad luck. It's not like tanks grow on trees, you will encounter one or two, maybe an entire platoon but that's it. If you expect run-and-gun tactics to work against a tank, youo are mistaken. 

 

If you start to nerf tanks just to give a lone infantryman a chance, you are doing something VERY WRONG. Game balance is no excuse for reckless play style. You just can't expect to survive against a tank if you are in an open field. It's one of the beauties of Arma that the combined warfare exists, don't try to water it down with for the sake of "balancing"

 

[Alwarren 2767]

8 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

My experiences with AI were different. Last time I had to fight tanks I nearly gave up in frustration. No matter where I went, if I did anything but crawl, they spotted me. The mission was in broad daylight, but the commander wasn't scanning anything (his MG was always pointed forward).

 

Of course, if you've got a lousy (human) tank commander, of course it's easy. 

 

A few weeks ago I was the last one of my squad after we got decimated by a BMP-2. The second squad was still alive, so I decided to sneak up on the BMP-2 and plant a charge on it. This was with ACE; so I could attach the charge to the BMP-2's hull. It didn't see me. After a while it drove off, only to die by my satchel shortly afterwards.

 

Glorious moment :)

[eriktrak 76]

I have no idea how much chance you have in real life carrying an AT launcher against a tank. Surely must have some otherwise no such weapon type would exists.

 

Just for confirmation I don't want to make the tanks as an expensive / loud shooting target just  right now cannot see how to fight against them.

[dragon01 902]

So called "AT" launchers are also commonly used against bunkers, APCs and IFVs, low-flying helos, groups of infantry and softskins. RPG-7 has a selection of rounds for those purposes and just one "proper" tandem HEAT warhead for actual tanks. As people mentioned, you can sneak up on them and this is your best chance when fighting tanks on foot IRL, as well. Even without TI of your own, you'll generally see and hear the tank before it sees you. 

14 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

 

A few weeks ago I was the last one of my squad after we got decimated by a BMP-2. The second squad was still alive, so I decided to sneak up on the BMP-2 and plant a charge on it. This was with ACE; so I could attach the charge to the BMP-2's hull. It didn't see me. After a while it drove off, only to die by my satchel shortly afterwards.

 

Glorious moment :)

That must have been awesome. That's what I call "having the last laugh". :) ArmA really needs attachable explosives. Well, that, and maybe "climb on top and shove a grenade down the hatch" button/menu action. :) A well known desperation tactic dating back to WWII, still effective against a lone vehicle with some stealth (or just enough chaos around that the crew misses you). Could also be done with a smoke grenade, to make the crew think the tank's on fire or simply making their lives difficult until they find and toss it out... or even an apple (true story from WWII!). :) For ArmA, I'd settle for being able to wreck the turret with a frag.

[eriktrak 76]

9 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

 

A few weeks ago I was the last one of my squad after we got decimated by a BMP-2. The second squad was still alive, so I decided to sneak up on the BMP-2 and plant a charge on it. This was with ACE; so I could attach the charge to the BMP-2's hull. It didn't see me. After a while it drove off, only to die by my satchel shortly afterwards.

 

Glorious moment :)

Now that is unrealistic. Stationary vehicles without some form of guarding and somebody can sneak up and attach the satchel without undetected highly unbelievable in real life.
However agree that is a nice moment archive. :) 

[Alwarren 2767]

5 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

I have no idea how much chance you have in real life carrying an AT launcher against a tank. Surely must have some otherwise no such weapon type would exists.

 

Just for confirmation I don't want to make the tanks as an expensive / loud shooting target just  right now cannot see how to fight against them.

 

The key is not getting spotted. Preparing a launcher for a shot takes time. My personal experience is with the MAAWS/Carl Gustav. You usually need two men to handle it, one that aims and the other that reloads. Reloading takes something like ten seconds upwards. Security demands that you announce your shot to make sure backblast is clear (which is seriously fubar on the MAAWS). It's not easy, and if the tank has already spotted you, that's bad news.

 

The average missile soldier in Arma has three missiles for his Mini-Spike launcher. The Javelin is way too large to carry more than one. M134 are not reloadable. All these factors make the tanks in Arma much more vulnerable than in reality.

 

 

5 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

That must have been awesome. That's what is called "having the last laugh". ArmA really needs attachable explosives. Well, that, and maybe "climb on top and shove a grenade down the hatch" button/menu action. :) A well known desperation tactic dating back to WWII, still effective against a lone vehicle with some stealth (or just enough chaos around that the crew misses you). Could also be done with a smoke grenade, to make the crew think the tank's on fire or simply making their lives difficult until they find and toss it out... or even an apple (true story from WWII!). :) For ArmA, I'd settle for being able to wreck the turret with a frag.

 

I once had a situation were a Shilka was firing at the rest of my squad. I was the one with the explosives, so I snug up on it while it was firing, placed a charge, just ducked into the next ditch and blew it up. It's these kind of moments that make Arma what it is :)