Minimum UGL distance accurate?

General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification.
HMARS
Posts: 125
Joined: 2009-12-15 20:18

Re: Minimum UGL distance accurate?

Post by HMARS »

Gives new meaning to "POGest of the POGs" if he is.
ComradeHX
Posts: 3294
Joined: 2009-06-23 17:58

Re: Minimum UGL distance accurate?

Post by ComradeHX »

Nixy23 wrote: As for the duds.. yeah, Have them a lot too. I sometimes have duds when shooting around fairly straight, about 70 meters out. Just like the rounds do not explode if they aren't dropped with a steep enough angle. is this correct ?
That is the safety distance.

So you shot it within 50 meters somewhere.
Ninja2dan
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 2213
Joined: 2007-10-29 03:09

Re: Minimum UGL distance accurate?

Post by Ninja2dan »

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:Just like M203's in reality. This is one of several reasons why the US is switching to the M320.
Although I rarely used optics on my M16A2 or M4 equipped with an M203, I just never liked the leaf sight. For the few months that I spent as a Grenadier prior to becoming the AR, I always carried a quad sight on mine. They weren't a regularly-issued item back then, but I was able to acquire one and it was approved all the way up to my BC.

It seems quad sights are becoming more and more popular, they even have a few models out there with built-in rangefinders and sights that resemble a red-dot. Sure, it takes a second to adjust the range on the sight first, but it's no longer than the time needed to flip up a leaf sight prior to use anyways.


The M320 is being integrated and eventually replacing the M203 because it's a much better overall design. Loading rounds doesn't require the barrel to be slid forwards, which temporarily extended the length of the weapon. I've seen guys in the field manage to smack the end of the open barrels on stuff while maneuvering during reloads. It was also sometimes a pain in the *** to load the longer rounds like the illum shells.

The M320 has a lot of features that improve over the functions of the now-aging M203 design, and the ability to use it as a core launching platform much easier is also a bonus. I'm sure we'll be seeing the use of more LTL rounds after the M320 is fielded with more units (especially MP/SF). It's not quite as compact, but overall it is an improvement.

But like the M60, even after the M203 has been replaced it will always hold a special place in my heart.




As for the range of the M203 and similar weapons, I guess the topic has been resolved. As others have noted, most 40mm rounds are armed via spinning. It doesn't matter if you fire the weapon up or down, all it needs is a set number of spin cycles (revolutions) to arm. They also use the same method to self-det at a preset distance for safety. Dropping a 40mm will generally not cause it to detonate, but I wouldn't go about treating them like a tennis ball either. Even knowing I was generally safe, I always felt a bit uncomfortable as a Grenadier having to walk around with a bunch of explosives strapped to my chest.

And for those curious, the estimated maximum range of the M203 against an area target is about 400m (max range, not max effective range), well beyond the sight limits. But unless you are firing against a larger vehicle or structure, targets at that range will be difficult to see even if the sights were set to that scale.
Image
tntkid22
Posts: 110
Joined: 2010-12-21 18:45

Re: Minimum UGL distance accurate?

Post by tntkid22 »

I have a question regarding that gyro-armer..so to speak.

If you were to drop a shell on the ground and it start to roll, after the preset rotations (I believe it was 7), it would be armed no? so if it hit with a rock or something with enough force it would blow right?

and with the gryo-armer...would that be effected by different hemispheres?

Just want learn some more about the munition, I find that gyro-armer fascinating.
Image
Thermis
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 1537
Joined: 2008-01-27 15:05

Re: Minimum UGL distance accurate?

Post by Thermis »

Its not actually a gyroscope, that would be silly.

Image

In that picture you can see what is labeled as detonator rotor, once fired and spinning centrifugal force will cause that to rotate and provide a clear path from the detonator to the main charge. 7 was a arbitrary number, every grenade is different but generally you have about 12-30 meters before it will explode.

Since you need centrifugal force a round rolling on the ground will not blow up on accident.

Smeg and Scot.....I'm going to kill you both.....
Robbi
Posts: 3564
Joined: 2008-07-05 14:53

Re: Minimum UGL distance accurate?

Post by Robbi »

Smeggie wrote:OMGLOL Thermis is gonna kill you.

He's a Marine, right? :lol:
Canadian Air Force I heard
Image
Image
Scot
Posts: 9270
Joined: 2008-01-20 19:45

Re: Minimum UGL distance accurate?

Post by Scot »

[R-COM]Robbi wrote:Canadian Air Force I heard
Canadian Marines Air Traffic Control Repair Man!
Image
tntkid22
Posts: 110
Joined: 2010-12-21 18:45

Re: Minimum UGL distance accurate?

Post by tntkid22 »

oh ok! thanks a lot there Mr Canadian Marines Air Traffic Control Repair Man! =3
Image
Thermis
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 1537
Joined: 2008-01-27 15:05

Re: Minimum UGL distance accurate?

Post by Thermis »

Your welcome.

To clear up any confusion I am a US Army Intel Officer. MOS 35D, which before 2006 was the MOS for air traffic control repair person.
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 General Discussion”