PR Tank Fire Control System and Helo Missile Systems

[fubar++]

Please bear in mind when you are developing this system for tanks that the tank commander is the one who should be acquiring the targets, and as there isn't specific tank commander in game the tank driver will usually set in that role. And please excuse me if you are already trying to do that and it is said somewhere in the thread, but if not, I think the system would miss something substantial.

[CAS_117]

Please bear in mind when you are developing this system for tanks that the tank commander is the one who should be acquiring the targets, and as there isn't specific tank commander in game the tank driver will usually set in that role. And please excuse me if you are already trying to do that and it is said somewhere in the thread, but if not, I think the system would miss something substantial.

Acquire in what way?

[fubar++]

Acquire in what way?

Is that a question about how it is done IRL or should or could be done in-game?

If you mean in-game I'm sure you have much better chances to understand than me how it could be done in code-wise - if it could be done.

One option could be that the tank driver would lase the targets and gunner would acquire the lock on by pointing the turret on those targets. That way the driver would have control what targets should be engaged and which order, same way as the tanks with commanders usually operates. It would require more co-ordination by the crew and wouldn't be just point and shoot by the gunner, as that is the impression the system you are developing is giving by the information given here - My excuse if that is not correct.

[Alex6714]

Have you used the soflam in PR? It is incredibly slow. What you say wouldn´t be bad, but in game it would remove the hole point of the thing of being able to shoot on the move etc.

[CAS_117]

Yeah no one would bother lasing a tank if they have to stop and shoot anyways.

But we are thinking of some kind of blue force tracking thing for certain vehicles that might help make a more defined division of labor in the vehicle.

[fubar++]

Have you used the soflam in PR? It is incredibly slow. What you say wouldn´t be bad, but in game it would remove the hole point of the thing of being able to shoot on the move etc.

Sure if you can't speed up the lasing procedure from what it is in soflam it would be quite slow to operate. On the other hand do you need it to be that fast, after all the system could be kind of addon to the existing operation and would affect on both sides as well. But you are bosses/developers here so it's up to you what you see the best way how it should be done...

[Jaymz]

We thought of that. So we gave AAV's a radar can target an aircraft up to 2300m (instead of 800m like now), and the A-10 must visually acquire a vehicle (if you watched the vids you'd notice there is no green or white box around each vehicle unless you lock on it); I am fairly sure that it would be closer to the A-10 getting shot before it even comes into range, that is if he's at high altitude.

Most of the guys working on this fly in PR, and the AA vehicles win about 3:5 of the time against enemy aircraft. It gets closer to 1:1 when the aircraft (particularly choppers) use terrain masking.

If it works like that in-game as you mentioned, I see no reason why we wouldn't want it in PR. Along with the FCS (if it works as proposed, have to try it out myself).

However the T-72 has a lower firing range, as well as about 25% weaker armor, they will have a shorter spawn time however and be more numerous, so in a battle of attrition, they will have the upper hand. It also has an auto-loader which will give it a 2-3 second rate of fire advantage.

Sources I obtained on Russian-made autoloaders indicated that they are slower than a fully trained manual loader in an Abrams or Challenger tank. Which works nicely considering that we're going to give future OPFOR tanks barrel launched ATGM's in the future.

EDIT: A quote from a post I made a while ago, during a discussion on the subject....

Abrams/Challenger : 6 seconds (manual loaders)

72/90 & Type98 : 8 seconds (auto loaders)

Asymmetrical balance will come through when 9M117 missiles (and PLA equivalents) are added to all "OPFOR" Tanks. These will have a switch delay of 15 seconds, with an 8 second reload time.

9M117* & TOW** damage vs MBT armour

Front : 2 = Destroyed

Side : 1 = On fire -> Destroyed

Back : 1 = Destroyed

[CAS_117]

If it works like that in-game as you mentioned, I see no reason why we wouldn't want it in PR.

Me neither.

Jaymz;983962']
Sources I obtained on Russian-made autoloaders indicated that they are slower than a fully trained manual loader in an Abrams or Challenger tank. Which works nicely considering that we're going to give future OPFOR tanks barrel launched ATGM's in the future.

EDIT: A quote from a post I made a while ago, during a discussion on the subject....

That's actually quite surprising. An interview with a Desert Storm veteran said he had an exceptional loader who could get a round up every 3-4 seconds. I've seen vids of the T-72 and the loader actually does look quite slow for something being automated. My guess is its to save on weight (less armor, fuel, personal weapons+ammo, space). I need to do some research on the subject.

[xatu miller]

T-72 automatic reloading system still need the loader to push the round into the barrel and it must be pretty old now. Another thing is T-72 loading system caused some loaders to loose there hands. It also caused the tanks some times to explode.

[Killarfromduty]

This seems pretty good to me.

[Mosquill]

The T-72 autoloader differs from the T-64 and T-80 basket autoloader, in that it has both propellant and projectile stored horizontally. The carousel rotation is limited to 1 direction only. in normal operation, the cassette loader takes 6 seconds to load a round. However, it can take up to 15 seconds to load a round if the round desired is a 355 degree turn of the carousel away.

Source: T-72M1 - SBWiki

T-72 automatic reloading system still need the loader to push the round into the barrel and it must be pretty old now. Another thing is T-72 loading system caused some loaders to loose there hands. It also caused the tanks some times to explode.

There has been rumors that the autoloader has eaten the hands of gunners, and fed them into the main gun breech, but this is impossible. The gunner would have to put his hand into the breech, after pushing the gun load button.

Also, T-72 doesn't have a loader position, and the ENTIRE loading process is done solely by the autoloader.

[Alex6714]

I say real life values, remember the MEC also have Tunguskas and BMPs. The tunguska irl can target ground vehicles with its missiles, maybe a version in game should have that to balance.

[CAS_117]

I say real life values, remember the MEC also have Tunguskas and BMPs. The tunguska irl can target ground vehicles with its missiles, maybe a version in game should have that to balance.

Well I could swap the boresight for wire guided I guess. It's just that AA weapons all have an exaggerated blast so... ehh.

The stormers not bad with the starstreak because I can remove the proximity fuze from them, but the SA-19 might be nuts.

[Alex6714]

Well I could swap the boresight for wire guided I guess. It's just that AA weapons all have an exaggerated blast so... ehh.

The stormers not bad with the starstreak because I can remove the proximity fuze from them, but the SA-19 might be nuts.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of a tunguska variant in game with an SA-19 ground version, not meant for Air defense, so as not to have way to many AA vehicles.

Doubting the realism there though.

Probably better is replacing a gaskin with a Tunguska, that also has cannons. This way the amount of AA would stay the same but the MEC would have an extra cannon based AAV, which is useful against many targets.

[xatu miller]

Also, T-72 doesn't have a loader position, and the ENTIRE loading process is done solely by the autoloader.

Ahhh I was watching a show some time ago about the T-72s on national georaphic and thats where i saw the push in of the projectile into the barrel and heard the story about crewmen loosing hands from the autoloader.

[DeltaFart]

Yeah someone has to reload the autoloader

[xatu miller]

*double post

[Jaymz]

An interview with a Desert Storm veteran said he had an exceptional loader who could get a round up every 3-4 seconds.

Of course. [R-DEV]Undies said he has personally loaded a 120 into a challenger barrel in three seconds. Thing is, it's all dependant on the loaders stamina as to whether that kind of RoF can be maintained.

Regarding T-72 autoloader,

The T-72's auto loader on average takes between 6.5 to 15 seconds to reload the main cannon.

source : the T-72

But like Wiki said, I think it's dependant on the traversed position of the turret.

[Farks]

Is it possible to use seprate code for the TFC so the tanks can't lock on SOFLAM lasers? With the little I know about BF2, it seems possible in theory, since there are seperate systems for SAM and ATG weapons.

[Alex6714]

The only target objects are Heat and Laser.