12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Hi All
I have been interested in the anomalous range given to the 12.7mm calibre. AFAIK all weapons in the game of this calibre have a range of 2000 meters, whereas machine guns in the 7.62 have ranges of 1500 metres. When we move up to 20mm calibres these weapons ranges drop back down to 1500 m. At 37mm calibre the range has only just managed to return to 2000m. So I ask myself why does the 12.7mm calibre have such an extraordinary range?
Well a lot of people will tell you that the 12.7mm calibre has the perfect Ballistic Coefficient (BC) giving it great stability out to 2000m and further, however even the 7.62mm round remains stable at this range so actually the BC is irrelevant when considering ranges under 2000m.
But if you are interested in these things then then we can compare the 7.62mm, 50 cal and the 20mm Hispano cannon rounds using information from
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm
to calculate BC we use BC = sectional density(SD) * Form Factor(FF)
we can use the supplied FF
"Pointed full jacket: FF = 1.5-1.8"
lets use an average value of 1.65

we get,

7.92______SD of .27____* by 1.65 gives .45
50 cal____SD of .37___ * by 1.65 gives .61
20mm______SD of .47____* by 1.65 gives .78
Im no expert on ballistics and FF's vary but it looks like the bigger the calibre the better the range. which is why I an curious as to why the 12.7s out-range the 20mm cannon and equal the 37mm cannon, especially as the 12.7's are firing over open sights whereas the 20mm and 37mm cannon usually have an optical sight.

You can easily find references quoting 2000m as the range for the 50 cal (12.7mm). However if one looks a little closer one finds that the 50 cal has two ranges 2000m for "area targets" and 1500m for point targets. see

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Qu...83/page30.html amongst many others. Actually this site gives 1830m rather than 2000m for "area shot"
As the game does not model area fire I dont see that the 2000m "area fire" range is appropriate.
For the calibre in russian hands there is this for BTR-60 from

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2296&catid=245

"Maximum Aimed Range (m) 1,500"

This is interesting as 1500 is the maximum "aimed range" ie this is as far as the simple "open" sights can be used. Note that the 7.62mm Machine guns also have 1500 as maximum range. As the 7.62mm rounds travel further than 1500m It looks as though 1500m has been chosen as this is the maximum range at which the sights can be used. If this is the case then as the sights on 12.7mm calibre weapons and 7.62mm weapons are the same they should both have the same range, 1500m.
Bottom line, I think the sights on the 12.7mm weapons limit their effective range to 1500m

The 15mm Besa and Italian 13.2mm calibres also have the 2000m range.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

(a TO&E question, so moved to the correct forum.)

It is done for game purposes.

Apart from APCR/Sabot/AP shell no. 2, weapons have one (1) range for HE and AP. If we made cannon ranges greater, then thier AP characteristics would be seriously altered. Cannon use AP rounds as a matter of course. MG use HE AP factors.

The game does give you area fire - please refer to "Z Fire" which is also able to be fired through smoke etc in this game, unlike the original (but witout the laser-like accuracy).

Cheers
Andy

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

We regularly hit targets out to 1000 meters with tripod-mounted 12,7mm NSV AAMG and plain iron sights. Targets were about the size of 3x4 meters though, and hitting infantry in those distances might require a zoom-optical sight and very short bursts. I was surprised by the NSV accuracy and ease of shooting at those ranges though.

However our marksman with a 7,62x53R sniper rifle still shot 5 air balloons with 5 shots at 800 meters.. so much for the NSV..

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

HI Andy
Well actually Im not asking for cannon ranges to be increased. Im asking for 12.7, 13.2 and 15mm calibre machine guns to have their range reduced from 2000 to 1500m, In line with the rest of the games open sighted MGs.
Also When I say area fire I mean the beaten zone created at extreme range by Heavy MGs. This only occours at ranges greater than the current in-game limit for MG fire of 2000m. ie I am talking about "indirect" MG fire. Z fire is blind fire, we could quibble about the naming here all day but blind fire is not what I meant.
Anyway neither of these two points is particularily relevant.

I can understand that giving some LVTs armour of 1 instead of the correct 0 was for the game purpose of making them less sinkable. However I am at a loss as to what the game purpose would be for giving the 12.7mm calibre a bonus 25% increase in range. Would you be able to tell me what that game purpose is?
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

I gave you the answer in my previous message.

Heavy MG will be remaining as they currently are.

If you want to change that - then by all means, make your own OOB set with Mobhack, as we have said to you before.

Andy

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Because we decided to allow that in the game. I know you don't agree with that answer but that's the way it goes. We also told you more time than I care to count that we include MOBHack with the game to allow personal preference OOB customization but that always falls on deaf ears.

Do other people have a problem with this design decision ?
No.
Have we had other complaints about it ?
No.
Did anyone else chime it with support for your ideas on this since you posted it a month ago?
No.
Do Andy and I think this is an issue worth pursuing?
No.

Can you see a pattern ?

Now lets deal with this "area fire" issue. Yes, it is true the game does not directly model "area fire" in the sense of firing indirect like mortars or artillery but it DOES allow you to Z fire through smoke and over trees at targets than may or may NOT be see by other units on your side but not by the HMG unit itself so you can call this "area fire" or "blind fire" or "Z fire" or whatever you like but it simulates indirect HMG fire and it is ONLY available to tripod mounted weapons and a 50 cal or 12.7 MMG should have better range than a 303 or 7.92 round....yes ? so this is the compromise that gives those guns a better ability to create a beaten zone out of LOS.

Does this mean they get a longer than is likely normal direct fire range ?
Yes.

Is that maximum 40 hex direct fire range used much in the game ?

No.

So the game DOES model area fire. You just prefer to ignore that it does. The game manual says this about the "Z" key

"Z -- Fire direct area fire at a hex, no requirement for a target to be located there (AKA suppressive fire)."


You can use that "Z Key" game feature to spray the tree line right in front of your troops with fire from any type of unit OR you can use it for tripod mounted MG's to fire into a unseen "beaten zone" ( area fire ) it serves both purposes

"suppressive fire" "beaten zone" "area fire" call it what ever you like but it's an ability give to tripod mounted MG's to fire into areas they cannot see directly therefore it is "area fire" and the large calibre MG's a modeled to allow them that ability further than standard bullet MG's

So in the end, you disagree with this design decision and we disagree with you so it stays as is.

Don

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Hi Don
Hard to say if anyone else is concerned because Andy has specifically instructed other people not to respond to my posts.
Ok lets call it "indirect HMG fire" as distinct from "Z" fire which doesnt go through trees.
The allocation of the extra range to 12.7, 13.2 and 15mm calibres depends on the combination two factors.

1. "indirect HMG fire" is only available to tripod mounted weapons.
2. The 12.7, 13.2 and 15mm calibres have a higher maximum range than the 7.62 and 7.92 calibres.

So because the extra 500m range is modelling indirect HMG fire then why do non-tripod mounted weapons (ie capable of direct fire only) in these calibres also get the bonus 500m?
In particular, weapon 101 (15mm Besa TMG) in the Great Britian OOB is a turret mounted main gun. I would just note here that prior to v6 this calibre actually did have a range of 30.
For the USA the weapons that are not HMGs but have the bounus 500m range are 140 "50 cal M2 AAMG", 143 "50 cal M2 AAMG", 153 "50 cal M2 TMG" and 215 "50cal Quad AAMG".
And for the Soviet Union weapons 141, "12.7 DShK AAMG", 152 "12.7mm DShK TMG" and 153 "12.7mm DShK CMG" same not HMGs.
No doubt there are others.
So these weapons dont conform to condition 1.
Even though AA does have a tripod, it is a simple afair not designed to lock the gun into small fixed arcs required for area fire.

For point 2. yes and no.
yes but not under 2000m.
From message number 20827 in the old DOS forum.
"Don't be absurd - dopplar radar measurements have shown that
rounds of that caliber(7.62) go unstable at about 2000 m"
and the proof
http://www.fulton-armory.com/fly/fig28.htm
One can see from the graph that this particular bullet loses its stability 14 seconds into its flight Carl says this is about 2000m you can probably derive the exact distance from the area under the graph if you are a genius.
My point is this, both 7.62/303/7.92 and 12.7/13.2/15.0 calibres are capable of putting out unaimed rounds to 2000m
So at ranges under 2000m both the big and small calibres should have the same indirect fire range, 2000m.
For example
A 50 cal can put a bullet out to 7000m or so.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun
so the vickers can put a round out to 4100m
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG3
MG3(close enough for MG34 and 42 max range.) can put a round out to 3750m
I think the extra 500 m shouldnt be allocated unless the guns are firing further than say 3500m. Also because of the better ROF and lower recoil the smaller calibres put more bullets into the beaten zone. ie they are 'better' at indirect fire.

Ive certainly used HMGs out to 40 hexes to great effect.
I did some tests.
With visability set to 50 in June 44 I direct fired the american MG section 50 cals (1 per section 6 shots per gun) at german inf coy squads moving along a metal road at full speed.
range result (men killed 6 shots per gun)
1850 0
1800 1
1800 0
1800 1
1850 0
2000 0
2000 2
1550 0
1600 4
1600 1
1650 0
1550 2
1550 2
1650 0
1650 4
1600 1
Notwar winning but certainly annoying
Then I though what if it wasnt marching german infantry but panzer grenadiers trundelling along in their trucks?
I started with a truck in pretty much every adjacent hex. the trucks are loaded and moving at full speed.
range result(6 shots)
2000 8cm mortar destroyed,5 casualties 2 mg sections retreating, 2 pinned squads.
2000 1 Opel destroyed, 2 casualties 4 pinned squads.
2000 5 casualies 6 dismounted squads.
So i then removed every second column so there was a space between each column and moved forward a bit.
1800 3 casualties, 4 dismounted squads.
1850 opel immobilised, 6 casualties, 5 squads dismounted.
1900 4 casualties 4 dismounted squads.
1950 4 casualties 4 dismounted squads.
So I removed every second column again so no effects on any column other than the one Im firing at,
1800 2 casualties, 4 dismounted squads.
1850 3 casualties 1 mg destroyed, 3 squads dismounted.
1900 Opel destroyd, MG destroyed 1 casualty. 3 squads destroyed.
1950 1 casualtie 3 squads dismounted.

Note the particular susceptability of soft tagets carrying crewed weapons. The carried weapons often lose all their entire crew when forced to dismount in this way.
Try it, you can shoot up soft vehicles very easily at this range.

So in answer to your question
"Is that maximum 40 hex direct fire range used much in the game"
I would say that the extra range can be used to great benefit. And the situation of being able to cover a road in this way is possible in any open or medium cover type terrain.
Also just generally the 12.7 calibre is actually a bit heavy for a HMG calibre ROF is slow and barrels arnt quick change so they cant keep up th sort of sustained fire that the 7.62/7.92 calibres can. Because of this the smaller calibres are actually better suited to indirect area fire. They larger calibre HMGs were often actually allocated as AA and found there way to ground targets because people liked their greater punch.

Just in passing unit 112 Matilda I* has been given weapon 101 in error it actually should have the .5 inch vickers MG (12.7mm) I mentioned this already in the DOS forum.

Best Regards Chuck.

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

We have no problem with the range of the heavy calibre MG's as they stand now in the game and as I said in summation to my previous post...."So in the end, you disagree with this design decision and we disagree with you so it stays as is." To say this issue is getting stale and repetitive is an understatement. Either accept it or find something else to do with your time.

Your claim that it's... "Hard to say if anyone else is concerned because Andy has specifically instructed other people not to respond to my posts." is just laughable, all you have to do is scroll up a bit to see that claim is false as it is for most every thread you start that ends up being longer than a couple of posts and you know it.

I will, however, look into the Matty 1's gun issue for you.

Don

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Hi Don
Yes of course I realise that it is in fact your game and Im quite happy for you to set ranges at whatever you deem appropriate. My intention is merely to show you the inconsistencies in the justification supplied for the "extra" range. Again I thank you for your time and response.
I would just point out one further thing, which when rereading you response I think you may not be aware of. The nontripod 12.7mm calibre weapons now out-range the 20mm calibres in direct fire. 20mm is limited to 1500m so in this case bigger rounds have a worse range. Ironic isnt it?
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Unit 027 "Matilda I" already has the 0.5 vickers MG, why should unit Unit 112 "Matilda I*" also have the same arnament that would make two identical tanks?

Now maybe changing the other Matilda I weapon to 0.30 cal MG would make more sense...

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_Mk_I

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Life's full of little Ironies Charles. The example I provided was not intended to be a "justification supplied for the "extra" range " since most of the .50 and 12.7mm etc etc MG's have had a 40 hex range since the games were first created an event that predates the addition of the ability to fire through smoke and over trees by over four years or so. It was more of an example of how the added range benifits those weapons in that aspect of the game. So yes, I will grant you that my comment that " this is the compromise that gives those guns a better ability to create a beaten zone out of LOS " could be construed as some kind of "justification" for the added range but the "added" range for those weapons has existed in the game since day one. If you found examples of weapons of that type being increased from 30 to 40 it is more likely than not in response to someone else complaining about "inconsistancies". As well, 20mm guns like the one the SdKfz 222 carries have had a 30 hex range for just as long as the majority of the HMG's have been 40 which no one, besides you seems to have a problem with. Ironic isnt it?

Don

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Yes, it would, wouldn't it ? I've see the same info on other websites as well during my research. http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedki...ry/matilda.asp

Gives a good breakdown of the Matilda 1's armament

Don

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Hi Don
I greatly enjoy playing your game, thanks again for providing it. I play your game because It is historically accurate. As you know when I find something A-historic I like to point it out. When its something debateable like this it sometimes take a few posts to get to the root of the problem.

Because people think your game is historically accurate (and it 99% is) then they may come to believe that 12.7mm calibre outranges 20mm and that 76.62 tripod monted MGs can only indirect fire to 1500m. Both off these propositions are wrong as Ive detailed above.
In the former the sights are the limiting factor.
If there were any real reason for the extra range for the 12.7mm calibre (under 2000m) Im sure there are several posters who would be most happy to jump in and ram it down my throat. The fact that this hasnt happened would be the best proof that giving 7.62 and 12.7 different indirect fire ranges under 2000m is incorrect.
IMHO The fix would seem simple, just give the non tripod 12.7 etc weapons (detailed above) in the calibres the correct range (1500 same as 20mm) and give the tripod mounted 7.62 and 12.7 MGs the same indirect ranges.
As you say the 12.7 and 13.2 have had the extra range for some time. The 15mm calibre got its range increase after v6 perhaps the OOB designer responsible for the change is aware of why the 15mm calibre should get the extra range? I wuld suggest that if he did so without any justification he did so in error.
As you say it is my problem but I would have thought you would be striving for as realistic as possible OOB.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

You are forgetting that 20mm guns usually have both HE and AP ammo and only one range for the two, unlike the 12,7mm hmg's and their likes (which carry only HE). So comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. The 20mm's and up have to make the best of 1 range simulating the abilities of both types of ammo. As the AP rounds usually have less range than the HE rounds it may well seem that the HE range for these weapons is too short. But if it were raised, the AP range would be too high. So compromises need to be made. The HMG's have no such restriction.

Narwan

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Hi Narwan
Are you telling me the AP round range for a 20mm round is less than 2000m? surely not. In any case what you are saying is interesting enough but not particularily relevant to my argument, here it is in summary.

Here is a quote from Don
"Does this mean they (12.7mm) get a longer than is likely normal direct fire range ?
Yes."
So we have already established that 2000m is too long a range for direct fire for 12.7 13.2 and 15mm HMG
Why? because they are firing over open iron sights which dont work much past 1200, see the second post in the thread.

So, unless a telescopic sight is fitted all 12.7mm & co weapons firing direct should have a 1500m range.

except

Tripod mounted HMGs can fire indirect, so to allow for this they have the 2000m range as this is independant of the iron sights, fair enough.
But... under 2000m 7.62mm HMGs can also easily indirect fire to 2000m so they should also have a range of 2000m because they also are tripod mounfed HMGs. In any case under 2000m there is no reason to dirrerentiate between the 7.62 and 12.7 calibres for indirect fire range.

Lastly there is a whole swag of weapons in the 12.7mm category that arent on tripods and so cant fire indirect, and so should only have 1500m range, but have the 2000m range. Ive listed most of them above.
Sounds sensibe to me anyway.
Im sure you realise this but of course but when you say these weapons fire HE you mean they fire solid shot and have an in-game HE rating.
Also I have a question for you,
If the 15mm is firing solid shot and 20mm AP is solid shot shouldnt the 20mm then have at least as good a range as the 15mm and dont worry that the 20mm HE shot can go either further?
Best Chuck.

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

EFFECTIVE range, ie the range at which it can still penetrate armor. That's what the game works with. If you think a 20mm AP round can still penetrate armor of 1 cm or more at 2000m please show me the data. It is quite relevant as you brought up 20mm weapons yourself to support your views on how the range of hmg's should be modeled. So highlighting the difference between the two with regards to how the game system treats them is pretty relevant.

There is, the weight of the rounds and environmental effects on the rounds for the high ranges. These do affect the 7.62 rounds much more than they do the 12.7 mm rounds. You may not feel these have enough effect to warrant the differences as present in the game but that doesn't mean there isn't a good reason. You just don't agree with it.

This point you actually counter yourself in the very same post and I quote:
"So, unless a telescopic sight is fitted all 12.7mm & co weapons firing direct should have a 1500m range"

In other words, the weapons do have a range higher than 1500m. They just can't effectively aim at a target using iron sights according to you. Using the hmg's in the indirect mode means per defenition you are not aiming at a specific target but a more general area. The targetting device isn't relevant for this function. Iron sights are good enough to fire at a more general area at ranges over 1500m as opposed to a specific target.

15mm HE solid shot vs 20mm AP solid shot? Is that what you mean? Same argument as above. EFFECTIVE range for the AP designated round (game mechanics wise) is relevant here. I don't disagree that a HE 'solid shot' will travel further and can do damage to soft targets at greater distance than that the AP 'solid shot' can travel and do damage to armored targets. But both have to use the same range value in the game. So whichever way you go, it will always be a compromise.

Narwan

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Hi Narwan
Boy this is tedious.
The in-game ranges are not the ranges at which a gun can penetrate 1 cm of armour they are the ranges at which a gun can hit a target.
By environmental effects you mean wind, if its windy move the gun a bit to the left or right, no? (did you maybe notice above that Ive shown that the 7.62 calibre is stable to 2000m)
The point is that the extra 500m is for 'unseen' area targets ie you arnt using the sights. We have already established that 2000m is too long a range for direct fire.
There is no such thing as HE solid shot.
Please read and digest the previous posts before responding.
Chuck.

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

Tedious indeed. Skirt around it all you want. MY point in reply to something which YOU brought up is that you can't simply compare 20mm's and hmg's with regards to range. The end.
Enjoy the rest of your opinions.

Narwan

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

HI Narwan
No Im not skirting around it, I already pointed out that your definition of in-game range is incorrect.
So OK what range are you talking about, indirect, direct, effective or armour peircing?
and are you talking about the real range or in-game range?
Please try relate your answer to whats already been said in the thread. Or at least read them.
Chuck

Re: 12.7mm does it deserve the range?
 

I've locked out this thread. The subject is closed.

Don