Re: Question - Fire Control and Range Finders
 

"Bad" is a relative term.
Even tho many RR's are 60's-80's weapons systems they wouldn't have any better FC then a 40's-50's AT gun.
On the other hand it's entirely possible they'd have better RF.

Re: Question - Fire Control and Range Finders
 

I agree that the RF should remain low, but 5 is not exactly top-range even in the 60s. In my tables, it's the FC of an early T-54 or early Patton, and one notch above an RPG-7.
If you want to try out M-40 RRs with, say, 8 RF and 3 FC if that makes more sense to you, I'd be interested in seeing the difference.

Re: Question - Fire Control and Range Finders
 

just ran a little test with M40 106mm RR's with FC 2 RF 8.

VS moving BTR 152's at apx 800m they were hitting between 5 and 24% with most shots being in the 11-20 range.

VS moving BTR 152's at apx 400m they were hitting between 12 and 30% with most shots being about 25%.

Re: Question - Fire Control and Range Finders
 

I'm also curious as to the RF and FC question more specifically as it pertains to tank armaments.

Could someone post a general guide to what the currently accepted values are for both RF and FC numbers?

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this
I assume

For RF
For stadiametric type sights I'm seeing values typically under 10
For Ranging MGs the number is not 15 or 16?
For Optical coincidence type RF's the values are around 18? Except for apparently russian ones that are rated much lower ~12 on the T-64 (why? its the same unit used on the T72 listed as 18)
LRF 22

As for FC values Is there any criteria or ranges for these numbers? Or are we subjectively saying one system "seems" better than another? Or is it a more per decade thing? I can't quite figure anything out.


Also on an odd note Why is the T-54 (006, 007) FC 2 when the T-34 (004) has it as FC 3 (was the T-54 FC worse than the T-34 orT-44?)