Tanks - Fire-control system

[scavenjer 112]

Just now, Beagle said:

Missile ranges are also well below the real life ranges for that reason. Everything is a bit "condensed" to keep the game playable on a larger scale. The Devs stated more then once that this is a reason.

Yeah, but missiles are quite different from direct-fire cannons.... even the indirect fire artillery has realistic range to it, otherwise we'd have a Battlefield scenario where the bulletdrop is 15m/s²....

Like I said, you most definitely won't notice it in your average gameplay, heck AFAIK most servers limit the view distance for ground stuff to 4KM or 3KM...

[x3kj 1247]

18 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

5000m shots are line of sight, its not artillery shots, [...]

I fired at such ranges in SteelBeasts, stationary and on the move, but latter demands some practice.

Requirements in arma are higher: Practice, server object draw distance that locks out most people (or disadvantages them), and some innate ability to somehow predict target position while its warping and jiggling due to network latency....

[scavenjer 112]

TBH, I don't quite understand the point of this discussion, at the ranges we're talking about engagements rarely happen and if they do, FCS are less usefull due to the time of flight and targets on the other hand having much more time to essentially dodge the shell (consciously or not).

At most this benefits and increases the ease of use for HE shells against infantry and such.

 

Regardless, it's not like server owners will now suddenly change the view range on their server to accomodate for this increase in FCS range...

Most will stick to 3-4KM max for ground units, I don't see this having any kind of serious or even mild impact on gameplay/PvP.

[Beagle 684]

6 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

TBH, I don't quite understand the point of this discussion, at the ranges we're talking about engagements rarely happen and if they do, FCS are less usefull due to the time of flight and targets on the other hand having much more time to essentially dodge the shell (consciously or not).

At most this benefits and increases the ease of use for HE shells against infantry and such.

 

Regardless, it's not like server owners will now suddenly change the view range on their server to accomodate for this increase in FCS range...

Most will stick to 3-4KM max for ground units, I don't see this having any kind of serious or even mild impact on gameplay/PvP.

Default Ultra setting sets Objects VD at 2300...for a good reason. Even on a i7/GTX1070 setup more than 3000m objects render turns out to develop uncomfortable experience over time. Works well on a empty map though. Again, I consider 3000m  good value for the games sake, not for Simulation sake.

[scavenjer 112]

1 minute ago, Beagle said:

Default Ultra setting sets Objects VD at 2300...for a good reason. Even on a i7/GTX1070 setup more than 3000m objects render turns out to develop uncomfortable experience over time. Works well on a empty map though.

Yup, pretty much.

That's why a lot of servers run max view ranges at 3-4k :)

 

edit: I can potentially help you with poor performance though, I've had to suffer with my FX-6300 for about 7 years ;)

[wattywatts 76]

In the game, the 4-5km is the max. zeroing range for the cannons. Max. effective range (to hit a tank-sized target from front) should be 2-2.5km. At 4+km, it's more practical to shell enemy infantry with HE rounds while being out of range of their AT weaponry, rather than precision shooting at a point target, especially when it's moving.

[dragon01 902]

My original point was that generally, FCS can't usually give you a good lase at those distances. IRL, even if the rangefinder did return something at 5km, I wouldn't expect such distant readout to be all that accurate, even before considering the weather affecting the shell's trajectory. It is definitely possible to input this kind of range into FCS on several modern tanks (and even shoot beyond when using the tank as impromptu artillery), but this is firmly in the realm of trick shots that are not commonly used, though they're definitely possible for a skilled tanker. 

[lex__1 422]

In the modern tank there is an instrument of firing on a distance up to 12 km. But for use of each type of a round, everyone has an expediency limit, and restriction with own opportunities for penetration.
The guaranteed penetration at a distance of 3 km for armored vehicles. FCS shouldn't limit use of APDS or HEAT, for defeat of lightly armored transport at a distance to 5 km.

 

[Beagle 684]

12 minutes ago, lex__1 said:

In the modern tank there is an instrument of firing on a distance up to 12 km. But for use of each type of a round, everyone has an expediency limit, and restriction with own opportunities for penetration.
The guaranteed penetration at a distance of 3 km for armored vehicles. FCS shouldn't limit use of APDS or HEAT, for defeat of lightly armored transport at a distance to 5 km.

 

Rendering distance is the main limiting factor. At 5km the game either runs like crap or looks like crap. Additionally its of little value since there are only a handfull of Places on our maps where such target distanced from ground to ground are posible- You can already use guided munitions at those ranges in ArmA III. Just not from any platform and just not inside rendering range of the launching platform.

[a_killer_wombat 120]

I was just messing around with the Nyx 20mm autocannon variant and discovered that manual zeroing (page up/page down) for the 20mm HE rounds didn't work (seemed to be stuck on around 100m zero even if you select 3000m zero). FCS for the 20mm HE rounds works fine though and the AP and coxial worked fine with both manual and FCS zeroing.

[pils 49]

On 23.3.2018 at 4:23 PM, dragon01 said:

My original point was that generally, FCS can't usually give you a good lase at those distances. IRL, even if the rangefinder did return something at 5km, I wouldn't expect such distant readout to be all that accurate, even before considering the weather affecting the shell's trajectory. It is definitely possible to input this kind of range into FCS on several modern tanks (and even shoot beyond when using the tank as impromptu artillery), but this is firmly in the realm of trick shots that are not commonly used, though they're definitely possible for a skilled tanker. 

 

"The standard fire control system found on the Leopard 2 is the German EMES 15 fire control system with a dual magnification stabilised primary sight. The primary sight has an integrated neodymium yttrium aluminium garnet Nd:YAG laser rangefinder and a 120 element Mercury cadmium telluride, HgCdTe (also known as CMT) Zeiss thermographic camera, both of which are linked to the tank's fire control computer.

The fire control suite is capable of providing up to three range values in four seconds. The range data is transmitted to the fire control computer and is used to calculate the firing solution. Also, because the laser rangefinder is integrated into the gunner's primary sight, the gunner is able to read the digital range measurement directly. The maximum range of the laser rangefinder is just less than 10,000 m with a measuring accuracy to within 20 m at this range. The combined system allows the Leopard 2 to engage moving targets at ranges of up to 5,000 meters whilst itself being on the move over rough terrain."

 

Unfortunately, the source is "just" wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2). I was digging around quite a bit, but Rheinmetall seems to be quite secretive about the parameters of their products ...

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Anyway, please don't reduce the max. range of the FCS. It's just fine right now.

I respect everyone who has real life experience. But keep in mind, the Leopard 2A4 was introduced in 1985. More than 30 years ago ... and Arma 3 takes place in 2035. That's 50 years!

 

But hey, take a look at this here:

"On 26 February 1991, a Challenger achieved the longest range confirmed kill of the war, destroying an Iraqi tank with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) round fired over a distance of 4,700 metres (2.9 mi) — the longest tank-on-tank kill shot recorded."

 

Now that's confirmed and no, it wasn't even a Challenger 2. It was a Challenger 1 during Operation Desert Storm. Hit was a Iraqi T-72. 

And again, that happened in 1991 and was achieved with a tank introduced in 1983. 

 

 

And yep, a 5000 m hit at a moving tank in Arma 3 is pretty much impossible. If both you and the enemy tank are moving ... unthinkable. But that doesn't mean we should put an artificial limit to the FCS that doesn't exist in real life.

If both you and the enemy tank are stationary, a 5000 m hit is possible in Arma 3. Not easy, but possible. Plus, it's useful for shelling enemy positions with HE.

Btw., I play on a lovely little French Liberation server on a regular basis with a view distance (+objects of course and terrain on ultra) of 6000 m. When using a helo or jet, I crank it up to 7000 m - because I hate that immersion breaking feeling of being in a little bulb surrounded by fog. The game feels and looks so amazing and realistic if you have 6000+ m view distance.

My PC? Anything but fancy: i5-4670k + GTX 760. (CPU is overclocked though, 4.5 Ghz + good RAM + SSD, I guess that helps quite a bit)

I'd rather restart my PC every 2 - 3 h or so than playing with a lower view distance.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

9 hours ago, pils said:

"On 26 February 1991, a Challenger achieved the longest range confirmed kill of the war, destroying an Iraqi tank with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) round fired over a distance of 4,700 metres (2.9 mi) — the longest tank-on-tank kill shot recorded."

 

Now that's confirmed and no, it wasn't even a Challenger 2. It was a Challenger 1 during Operation Desert Storm. Hit was a Iraqi T-72. 

And again, that happened in 1991 and was achieved with a tank introduced in 1983. 

CR1 shot in 1991 wasn't done with FCS in the way we know it in Arma 3. It's more accurate to say the FCS was able to lase a target at 4.7km, than to say it was targeting at that distance.

 

The Challenger 1's fire control system (Tank Laser Sight+Computerised Sighting System) worked in a way where an illuminated ellipse reticle moved in the gunner's sight to indicate the required lead and elevation after lasing the target. Once that was done the gunner could autolay, and the turret would move by the amount that the ellipse was offset from boresight. So the ellipse would end up over the target if it was a correct lay.

IIRC the crew who did the 4.7km shot had to manually input the required deflection in to the CSS after they took laser measurements; because the system did not automatically indicate for ranges that great. As such it did not automatically lay the gun after lasing.

So the gunner either manually input elevation and the autolay moved the gun based on that. Or he manually aimed the gun from boresight until the manually deflected reticle was over the target.

The latter operation, is quite similar to zeroing the Arma 3 tank sights up to maximum range and then manually aiming above the target (Kentucky windage style) to add extra elevation required to hit something at 5km.

 

AFAIK all modern tank FCS have the ability to manually input elevation and deflection, for the sake of doing indirect firing at extremes of range, or if the automated system is failing. The TLS sight could theoretically be used out to 10km with "manual" deflection of the aiming reticle.

[scavenjer 112]

6 hours ago, pils said:

 

But hey, take a look at this here:

"On 26 February 1991, a Challenger achieved the longest range confirmed kill of the war, destroying an Iraqi tank with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) round fired over a distance of 4,700 metres (2.9 mi) — the longest tank-on-tank kill shot recorded."

While I agree with what you're saying, but that wasn't a good example to use as @da12thMonkey explained.

The crew themselves said that shot was more luck than "training" or good FCS.

 

In fact, the Challenger 1 and 2 are considered to have the worst FCS of the four major western MBTs (Abrams, Leopard 2, Leclerc, Challengers).

Challenger 1 and 2 use the TOGS, which hasn't been changed much since it's introduction on the Challenger 1 Mk2.

Even back then it wasn't considered a great FCS, as shown by the performance of the albeit new challenger 1 with TOGS in the Canadian Army Trophy of '87.

 

Now, that's not to say it can't hit stuff, but compared to the leopard 2/abrams or especially the Leclerc (which is an improved version of the Leopard 2s FCS), it's nowhere near comparable or amazing.

Compared to Soviet bloc FCS, it's still quite a bit ahead though.

 

In general, it's not recommended to engage targets past 2km anyway (atleast in German doctrine) to maintain maximum hit and destroy chances.

Ofcourse when you're in the desert and the enemy can easily see you.... that's a different story.

 

In arma, FCS before this update were a bit underwhelming in performance IMO, waiting an entire second for simple lasing is a bit too long, especially considering the FCS only works up to 3K and a speed of 100kph...

When IRL with the leclerc FCS they can engage helicopters with MPAT up to 4km moving at speeds greater than 100 kph.

 

[x3kj 1247]

longest kill -> usually what they dont mention in the press and anecdotes is how many tries it took, and what the propability of success rate was.

The margin between longest kill and irresponsible waste of ammo is slim.

 

Quote

When IRL with the leclerc FCS they can engage helicopters with MPAT up to 4km moving at speeds greater than 100 kph.

Technically there is no reason that in 2035 tanks do not possess the computing algorithms (because the hardware is already there, or only missing very little) that tanks can track any optical target automatically and engage automatically - one shot sniping anything in vision range.

It is still a game however that needs to be played.

[scavenjer 112]

9 minutes ago, x3kj said:

longest kill -> usually what they dont mention in the press and anecdotes is how many tries it took, and what the propability of success rate was.

The margin between longest kill and irresponsible waste of ammo is slim.

 

Technically there is no reason that in 2035 tanks do not possess the computing algorithms (because the hardware is already there, or only missing very little) that tanks can track any optical target automatically and engage automatically - one shot sniping anything in vision range.

It is still a game however that needs to be played.

Yup, I agree, from my experience 150kph up to 4k would be plenty, maybe with the new T-140 having better FCS it could do a bit more.

Overall, there's very little reason to go much beyond 4km as most engagements happen well below that range.

[dragon01 902]

14 minutes ago, x3kj said:

Technically there is no reason that in 2035 tanks do not possess the computing algorithms (because the hardware is already there, or only missing very little) that tanks can track any optical target automatically and engage automatically - one shot sniping anything in vision range.

It is still a game however that needs to be played.

Actually, it's not anywhere near that point. This only works reliably for radar-linked weapons, which in turn are only reliable against aircraft, and even then, they need to use high-ROF weapons to ensure high enough hit rate. If you don't care much about IFF or have an auxiliary ID system, you can also make a TI-based anti-infantry MG (though given it won't distinguish civilians or medics, it might be frowned upon). However, in general, computer algorithms for target detection, identification and engagement tend to only work well in the laboratory. In the field, humans beat them hands down, and probably will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. 

[lex__1 422]

On 23.03.2018 at 7:34 PM, Beagle said:

Rendering distance is the main limiting factor. At 5km the game either runs like crap or looks like crap. Additionally its of little value since there are only a handfull of Places on our maps where such target distanced from ground to ground are posible- You can already use guided munitions at those ranges in ArmA III. Just not from any platform and just not inside rendering range of the launching platform.

Rendering is the main factor, to discuss the issue of the Arma3 game and PC performance.
This does not apply to the FSC parameter.

[pils 49]

On 2.4.2018 at 2:28 PM, da12thMonkey said:

IIRC the crew who did the 4.7km shot had to manually input the required deflection in to the CSS after they took laser measurements; because the system did not automatically indicate for ranges that great. As such it did not automatically lay the gun after lasing.

So the gunner either manually input elevation and the autolay moved the gun based on that. Or he manually aimed the gun from boresight until the manually deflected reticle was over the target.

The latter operation, is quite similar to zeroing the Arma 3 tank sights up to maximum range and then manually aiming above the target (Kentucky windage style) to add extra elevation required to hit something at 5km.

 

AFAIK all modern tank FCS have the ability to manually input elevation and deflection, for the sake of doing indirect firing at extremes of range, or if the automated system is failing. The TLS sight could theoretically be used out to 10km with "manual" deflection of the aiming reticle.

 

I believe it. But it shows that APFSDS projectiles still have a lot of kinetic energy left at such ranges and it's not completely pointless to engage targets beyond 3000 m or so like claimed in this thread.

 

But I'm absolutely sure state of the art MBT FCS have the ability to process targets at 5000 m with the entire spectrum of their assistance features. 

In fact, I have proof. I kept digging for some more for information. The Leopard 2A6 with the new L/55 120mm gun "has the ability to engage targets at a range of up to 6000 meters" - according to the manufacturer of the actual tank itself, KRAUSS-MAFFEI WEGMANN, which is a little less secretive than Rheinmetall ;)

 

Source (German): https://www.kmweg.de/home/kettenfahrzeuge/kampfpanzer/leopard-2-a6/produktinformation.html

 

Additionally, I found a lot of sources that claim the Leopard 2A7+ in its latest configuration is now able to use the Israeli LAHAT missile, which has a range (if being fired by a ground unit) of 6000 - 8000 m. 

It's safe to assume this is true, because Germany is now officially one of the six nations that use the LAHAT missile.

Since the maximum range of the laser range finder is 10,000 m (+/- 20 m), it's likely the FCS of the Leopard 2A7+ is capable of processing targets at 8000 m distance when using the LAHAT.

When using 120 mm shells, it's evidently capable of processing targets at a range of 6000 m. 

[pils 49]

On 2.4.2018 at 5:56 PM, lex__1 said:

Rendering is the main factor, to discuss the issue of the Arma3 game and PC performance.
This does not apply to the FSC parameter.

 

That, plus I really don't get how people still claim more than 5000 m view distance is unplayable.

Again, I play on a French Liberation server on a regular basis with 20 - 30 players. 

Plus, you guys probably know Liberation and know it's a cooperative CTI mode that uses plenty of AI, up to like 350 or so?

 

Even with my mediocre system (GTX 760 PC + i5-4670k [@4.5 Ghz] + decent RAM + SSD) I play with 6000 m view distance on that server and I crank it up to even 7000 - 7500 when using a jet. Graphics are fine, most settings are pretty high, terrain, objects and textures are on ultra.

Yes, if the max. number of AIs is reached, FPS drop to a level where it gets a bit uncomfortable. Admins try to avoid that and with 100 - 150 AI on  the map, FPS are just fine (>30 FPS).

And yes, I do restart my PC every 2-3 hours. 

30 FPS is my personal limit. If I get less than 30 FPS, I restart my PC (or curse at the people who activated two major towns at the same time, lol).

[scavenjer 112]

12 minutes ago, pils said:

-snip-

I think we've pretty much proven and agreed that KE shells can reach past 3KM quite easily, I think the confusing really comes from two things:

1. The FCS on some older tanks (challenger 1, leopard 1-a4, M60s) wasn't really intended to hit moving targets at 3KM+ ranges.
2. When comparing contemporary, "state of the art" MBTs, the range at which these steel beasts can reliably penetrate the other's armour tends to be well below 3KM.

The issue nowadays isn't processing the data, let alone give a good firing solution, but give an excellent firing solution with high hit probabilities after consecutive shots with many factors.

To put it into perspective: in the 60s and mid 70s firing on the move at moving targets at 2KM range, the hit probability was lower than 75%.

 

Skip ahead 30 years for the Leclerc and we're talking about 95%+ hit probability under bad conditions, moving at 50kph+ shooting at targets 3KM away also moving at 50kph+...

And that's with only "good" hits counting...(close to center of mass).

 

Sidenote on the leopard 2A7: the German army doesn't use that version and they don't use the LAHAT as of this moment.

They use the Leopard 2A7V.

Though technically, any Rheinmetall 120 equipped tank could use the LAHAT.

 

Performance wise, only 20-30 people on a server is easy to run, more than that is often worse than lots of AI.

Depends most on your CPU (speed, IPC) and RAM.

[pils 49]

36 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Sidenote on the leopard 2A7: the German army doesn't use that version and they don't use the LAHAT as of this moment.

They use the Leopard 2A7V.

Though technically, any Rheinmetall 120 equipped tank could use the LAHAT.

 

Sorry about that, you're correct. It's the 2A7V.

However, included in the process of upgrading more than 100 of Germany's Leopard 2 to 2A7V standard are the same companies which presented several different prototypes of next generation Leopard 2's, among them the 2A7+: KWM and Rheinmetall.

Rheinmetall is also the company that offers (offered?) the LAHAT missile upgrade.

The English wikipedia article of the LAHAT lists Germany as official operator of the missile, the German doesn't (yet?).

Another source I can't seem to find again claimed Germany is supposed to aquire the LAHAT in the near future.

It's really not easy to find such kind of information.

So, officially there has been no statement by Germany that they're using the LAHAT. 

Maybe there will or they are/have tested it? So, for now not evidence to assume Germany uses the LAHAT I guess.

But the 6000 m range statement by KWM for the (soon to be obsolete) 2A6 version is confirmed.

 

Quote

Depends most on your CPU (speed, IPC) and RAM.

 

Ok, that would explain why I can play at high view distances even though my PC is a couple of years old. I've delidded the Haswell-i5, replaced the shitty internal thermal pad with some fancy ass T-1000 liquid metal thermal compound and overclocked the shit out of it, lol. And I've replaced the old RAM with G.Skill DDR3-2400 with decent timings.

[scavenjer 112]

14 hours ago, pils said:

 

Sorry about that, you're correct. It's the 2A7V.

However, included in the process of upgrading more than 100 of Germany's Leopard 2 to 2A7V standard are the same companies which presented several different prototypes of next generation Leopard 2's, among them the 2A7+: KWM and Rheinmetall.

Rheinmetall is also the company that offers (offered?) the LAHAT missile upgrade.

The English wikipedia article of the LAHAT lists Germany as official operator of the missile, the German doesn't (yet?).

Another source I can't seem to find again claimed Germany is supposed to aquire the LAHAT in the near future.

It's really not easy to find such kind of information.

So, officially there has been no statement by Germany that they're using the LAHAT. 

Maybe there will or they are/have tested it? So, for now not evidence to assume Germany uses the LAHAT I guess.

But the 6000 m range statement by KWM for the (soon to be obsolete) 2A6 version is confirmed.

 

 

Ok, that would explain why I can play at high view distances even though my PC is a couple of years old. I've delidded the Haswell-i5, replaced the shitty internal thermal pad with some fancy ass T-1000 liquid metal thermal compound and overclocked the shit out of it, lol. And I've replaced the old RAM with G.Skill DDR3-2400 with decent timings.

Yeah, the leopard versions aren't well documented and are confusing, A7+ is supposed to be a PSO upgrade (peace keeping operations).

LAHAT and the leopard versions that are optimised for it most likely will be marketed by German companies.

 

Germany never liked gun launched ATGMs though.

I wouldn't say the 2A6 is obsolete at all, it was just an upgrade package, not meant as a "baulose" or production model.

So the different production models are going like this:

2A0(pre-production), 2A1, 2A2, 2A3, 2A4, 2A7, 2A7 "fau" (2A8 essentially, not yet finalized).

This is where it'll stop.

 

As for engaging enemy targets, 6KM IIRC was the maximum limit for moving targets, though more of a "soft" limit.

 

Arma is a special beast when it comes to performance,

Higher clocks especially and combined with high speed RAM and an SSD can make this game run flawlessly almost.

It's also dependant on the server and the people connected to the server.

With my I7 3820(4.2) I can get 40+ FPS in towns with 70 people on, or on a different server same circumstances I get 30 FPS....

 

Arma is one of those games that can cause superstition about PCs (or people) being haunted ;)

[1911shields 11]

I'm having some trouble with the controls. I have binded "Y" to lase target and "LSHIFT+T" to lock target.

However, when i lase the target to get the distance by pressing "Y", it automatically calculates the movement of the target and causes me to miss my shot.

AFAIK LSHIFT+T aka "Lock Target" function is supposed to do that. As i would much more prefer to just lase the target to get its distance and lead the shot myself.

Is there something i'm doing wrong here??

[scavenjer 112]

3 hours ago, 1911shields said:

I'm having some trouble with the controls. I have binded "Y" to lase target and "LSHIFT+T" to lock target.

However, when i lase the target to get the distance by pressing "Y", it automatically calculates the movement of the target and causes me to miss my shot.

AFAIK LSHIFT+T aka "Lock Target" function is supposed to do that. As i would much more prefer to just lase the target to get its distance and lead the shot myself.

Is there something i'm doing wrong here??

There's different kinds of FCS, tanks use the lasing for acquiring range and compensating for movement.

Helis and jets or missiles don't use this, and use different one.

 

Tanks can't use the "locking". (except the rhino with missiles, not the same though obviously)

[Beagle 684]

What some players seem to miss is that you have to use "Lase" just right before fire to get the best fire solution. The slightes change of speed or direction of the target will make the FCS miss otherwise. More so if youre moving yourself. Thats a nice touch to reflect the real life issues and inaccuracies that happen when comparing stationary vs. moving gunnery. The farther away the less is the hit probability.