PKM range question.

[eds]

In each game database & Kbs database the range of the PKM is 1500m. This figure corresponds to the SIGHTING range of the weapon. The ranges of the M60 & the M240 in the game are given as 1100m & 1800m respectively. This corresponds to the MAX EFFECTIVE range when mounted on a tripod. Finding range information for PKM that used the term EFFECTIVE rather than SIGHTING proved a little tricky. Here's what i've found; ST 100-7 march1998 gives the PKM an EFFECTIVE ground range of 1000m. Both weg2001 & warfare.ru/? talk about the ammunition being EFFECTIVE to 1000m. weg2001 goes on to compare the PKM to the M60 saying that it is lighter, easier to control when firing, and the cartridge only has a slightly less EFFECTIVE range than the M60. So here's the question, why has the PKM an in game range of 1500m and maybe it should be ammended to 1000m. Any thoughts anyone?

[CPangracs]

In each game database & Kbs database the range of the PKM is 1500m. This figure corresponds to the SIGHTING range of the weapon. The ranges of the M60 & the M240 in the game are given as 1100m & 1800m respectively. This corresponds to the MAX EFFECTIVE range when mounted on a tripod. Finding range information for PKM that used the term EFFECTIVE rather than SIGHTING proved a little tricky. Here's what i've found; ST 100-7 march1998 gives the PKM an EFFECTIVE ground range of 1000m. Both weg2001 & warfare.ru/? talk about the ammunition being EFFECTIVE to 1000m. weg2001 goes on to compare the PKM to the M60 saying that it is lighter, easier to control when firing, and the cartridge only has a slightly less EFFECTIVE range than the M60. So here's the question, why has the PKM an in game range of 1500m and maybe it should be ammended to 1000m. Any thoughts anyone?

I agree - the ranges probably should be the max effective range - thanks for the heads-up!

Curt

[kbluck]

I've always been of the opinion that the DB should specify the max sighting range. MER normally specifies the range at which you can expect about 50% nominal pH. There may be cases when a weapon may wish to fire outside MER, for example when using suppressive area fire or if ammo is plentiful or the commander wishes to engage early even at low odds. A good example is the M1A1 tanks in ODS which regularly engaged Iraqi tanks outside their nominal MER.

It should be up to the pH algorithm to determine how effective any given shot is. If the pH is working correctly, it should end up at about 50% at any given weapon's MER under otherwise ideal conditions.

It should be up to the player to decide if they wish to limit their weapons' engagement ranges by using the SOPs provided for the purpose.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

I've always been of the opinion that the DB should specify the max sighting range. MER normally specifies the range at which you can expect about 50% nominal pH. There may be cases when a weapon may wish to fire outside MER, for example when using suppressive area fire or if ammo is plentiful or the commander wishes to engage early even at low odds. A good example is the M1A1 tanks in ODS which regularly engaged Iraqi tanks outside their nominal MER.

It should be up to the pH algorithm to determine how effective any given shot is. If the pH is working correctly, it should end up at about 50% at any given weapon's MER under otherwise ideal conditions.

It should be up to the player to decide if they wish to limit their weapons' engagement ranges by using the SOPs provided for the purpose.

--- Kevin

I disagree - there are very few situations where MGs will be used, even for suppression, outside of their max effective range - tank rounds are a very different story.

The chances that anything would be effectively suppressed and/or killed out to the maximum range of any direct fire weapon would, in my opinion, be most unrealistic. To even give the engine the possibility of killing something out to max range would be just a little too "fake".

We want the player to have a relatively stable idea of WHEN a unit is going to fire and when it will actually do damage for planning purposes - a weapon's max effective range is the BEST starting point for this. A player, if he or she so desires, can change the database to increase that value as desired.

The issue is to have a fairly standard and consistant database. the predominant value used in the AATF databases is max effective range. When this is the case, then it is smarter to make them all max effective rather than completely change the database to maximum range.

Curt

[kbluck]

It would be helpful to have a solid definition of "effective". After all, the MER of the M16A2 is widely quoted as 550m vs. a point target and 800m vs. an area target. Now, I'm sure you've been on a firing range or two and can confirm that there are very few soldiers that can hit a man-sized target at 550m with half their shots even under ideal range conditions, much less combat. The 300m target is considered "hard" enough that plenty of qualifiers let them pass to save their rounds for closer targets.

I think MER is really about ballistics: *assuming the weapon is aimed perfectly*, probably clamped to a test bench, the CEP is such that half the rounds will strike a man-sized target at that range. But that assumption of good aim is a big one. So, if we want to talk "realism", real-world combat results clearly indicate that the game pH for small arms at nominal MER is far too high. I personally would say that for direct fire against a typical moving, firing enemy, 100m is the practical maximum for reliably hitting anything with fire from an assault rifle. Anything outside that range is suppressive at best and useless noise much of the time. There are a few exceptional soldiers for whom this does not hold; but in combat you're doing well to get the average rifleman to even fire his weapon, much less aim it.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

Although I agree with the "practicality" of the ranges you propose, there is no reliable information on these ranges to create a database that has some relation to reality.

Also, the M16 and related max range is actually 300m in the database, and that was come to through discussion between Pat and myself about actual use of the weapon. It would be nice if we had the time, money, manpower to do a survey of every weapon in every database, but we don't. So, a reasonable solution is the published max effective range OR verifiable range through practical experience.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! ;)

[kbluck]

So, a reasonable solution is the published max effective range OR verifiable range through practical experience.

Right. The problem is, MER is always a swag. To make effective use of it, you have to understand what the particular source's definition of "effective" is. Those definitions vary widely throughout the literature, and often aren't spelled out at all. Conversely, there is rarely any major disagreement on the ranges for which a given weapon's sights are calibrated.

Which brings me back to my original point, that the database should represent "possibility" and the pH algorithm should be responsible for imposing reality. If players want their troops to blaze away at unrealistic ranges, well, it'll be a whole lot of missing going on and it'll be a good learning experience for them when they expend their basic loads without much to show for it. Part of being a commander is imposing fire discipline. I think the real objection at the moment wrt AATF and providing a "realistic baseline" for the player is that the game doesn't make it very easy for the player to designate sectors of fire/engagement parameters for entire heirarchies. By way of illustration, TacOps has fairly good tools for that sort of thing.

Obviously, you have to work with the product as it exists. I'm just engaging in a little blue sky thinking here.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

...Obviously, you have to work with the product as it exists. I'm just engaging in a little blue sky thinking here.

--- Kevin

HA! You should see the "wish list" for the beta! :D

[Pat Proctor]

KB,

Which brings me back to my original point, that the database should represent "possibility" and the pH algorithm should be responsible for imposing reality. If players want their troops to blaze away at unrealistic ranges, well, it'll be a whole lot of missing going on and it'll be a good learning experience for them when they expend their basic loads without much to show for it. Part of being a commander is imposing fire discipline. I think the real objection at the moment wrt AATF and providing a "realistic baseline" for the player is that the game doesn't make it very easy for the player to designate sectors of fire/engagement parameters for entire heirarchies. By way of illustration, TacOps has fairly good tools for that sort of thing.

I am not sure how TacOps does it, but AATF does it the way it is done in real army units. You set a TRP for your units, and they orient on that TRP. You can set how restrictive this guidance is, or do without it and let the units fire at will. As the platoon or company moves around, it remains oriented on its TRP.

(This is a new feature, not implemented in ATF).

[JamesBailey]

....you're doing well to get the average rifleman to even fire his weapon, much less aim it.

--- Kevin

Hehehe... I remember, many moons ago, having a personal SOP of not firing my rifle during all those silly assault drills. My logical was - a rifle not fired was a rifle you didn't have to clean! :devious:

300m sounds like a good MER for a M16. Sure, the weapon has ballistic capabilities to fire further, but no one does in real world. ATF/AATF is modeling the fight from a company commander and up level - your NCOs would be there to say it makes no sense to fire a 5.56mm round at targets 500 meters away.

The point on making it easy to designate sectors of fire is a good one however and any methods of making it easier to set in AATF would be useful. But having unrealistical ranges doesn't sound like a method for making the game easier.

[eds]

Having read the other posts in this thread, i take on board what KB says about M1A1s in ODS, also i have heard of Challengers taking out a T55 at about 5000m. I don't what ranges T72s were being taken out at though and if it was regularly more than 3500m maybe the MER of the M259 is a little conservative. I am glad to see in AATF that assault rifle ranges have been shortened. I don't what the average engagement range is with a rifle in Iraq or Afganistan, but my monies on a couple of 100m. Back to the PKM, at present within the game its range is about 1.5 times that of the M60 and i still firmly believe that it should be more on a par with the M60 where range is concerned. Also having done some more digging there are sources that bring the PKTs in game range of 2000m into question. ST 100-7 puts its MER at 1000m.

[MajorH]

Hehehe... I remember, many moons ago, having a personal SOP of not firing my rifle during all those silly assault drills. My logical was - a rifle not fired was a rifle you didn't have to clean! :devious:.

Sounds like you had inexperienced platoon leaders. One of the first things that I or my platoon sergeant usually did upon arriving in a training area was to have all hands fire off a couple of blanks. Squad leaders then inspected to insure compliance. Anyone found to have tried to get away with that old dodge was assessed as having volunteered for the first crappy work detail of the day. :)

[JamesBailey]

Sounds like you had inexperienced platoon leaders. One of the first things that I or my platoon sergeant usually did upon arriving in a training area was to have all hands fire off a couple of blanks. Squad leaders then inspected to insure compliance. Anyone found to have tried to get away with that old dodge was assessed as having volunteered for the first crappy work detail of the day. :)

LOL! Major - I didn't always successfully execute my personal SOP. I pulled that crappy work detail more times than most :o

Regarding EDS's point on engagement ranges at average 100m in Afghanistan and Iraq: I can tell you that the M16 family, outfitted with a combat optic, can comfortably engage targets successfully well in excess of 100m. Remember most of those optics are 3x (or more for the high-speed, "bring your own scope" troopers), so shooting targets at 300m is like engaging 100m targets using the old fashion iron sights (in theory, reality is tougher). As a someone who did most of his soldiering in the old iron sight Army, I was surprised with the huge improvements in marksmanship that has occurred as a result of fancy stuff like optical and reflex sights.

I assume AATF's US 2006 Fire Team model is built around M16 family w/ optics (probably ACOG TA01). Is that correct Pat or Curt?

[CPangracs]

Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight - The tactical advantage for precision sighting in any light. Initially designed for the M16 family, every feature of the ACOGs mechanical and optical design was chosen for a single purpose - to provide increased hit potential in all lighting conditions. The exterior of the ACOG is a forged aluminum body (aircraft strength 7075 alloy) which is precision machined to exacting tolerances then hard-anodized.

ACOG’s are internally-adjustable, compact telescopic sights that use tritium illuminated reticles for target acquisition in all light conditions - even total darkness. Manufactured and tested to exceed military standards, The ACOG 4x32 model was chosen by U.S. Special Operations Command for all Special Forces Units including Navy Seals, Rangers, and Green Beret.

The ACOG is also in service with many federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies. ACOG gives you the edge in any light to keep your focus sharp. Both full size ACOG models (4x32 & 3.5x35) are available with the popular Bindon Aiming Concept which is achieved using a unique combination of advanced fiber optics and self-luminous tritium. Using dual-illumination technology, originally developed for the military and proven in combat, the fiber optic light collector illuminates the aiming point automatically balancing the brightness with the shooting conditions.

The tritium illuminates the aiming point even in total darkness. The result: lightening-fast precision aiming in any light without failure-prone batteries - for maximum shooting success.



Trijicon-TA01 ONLY $695.00!! :laugh:

[Pat Proctor]

I will take 3 of them!

:)

[CPangracs]

That'll be $2,685.00,...plus tax...

Would you like mounts with that? Only $59 each!

Of course, we DO have 550 cord on sale...or maybe some camo 100mph Tape! ;)

[JamesBailey]

That'll be $2,685.00,...plus tax...

Would you like mounts with that? Only $59 each!

Of course, we DO have 550 cord on sale...or maybe some camo 100mph Tape! ;)

Don't forget to get some Picatinny rails with that package so you can mount all sorts of stuff on the rifle :ar15:

[CPangracs]

Don't forget to get some Picatinny rails with that package so you can mount all sorts of stuff on the rifle :ar15:

I mounted a rifle once...I walk funny to this day...:upset: :laugh:

[JamesBailey]

I mounted a rifle once...I walk funny to this day...:upset: :laugh:

No elaboration required! :laugh: