Question - Fire Control and Range Finders

[Suhiir]

Also looking at the OOB's MMG's tend to have a base accuracy of 21 so while RF might "better" represent their increased accuracy firing while stationary the base accuracy and ability to splash into adjacent hexes probably covers things fairly well.

Plasma
Thanks for the info on your tests.
Given the nature of recoiless rifles I'd be inclined to give them even less in the way of FC. Hitting moving targets in particular isn't something they're going to really proficient at. As I understand it RF will help them hit any target, moving or not, if the firing weapon is stationary.

[pdoktar]

Hmm.. not sure about "bad" hitting of moving targets. Given that RR´s were designed to engage armored vehicles, that are seldom stationary in combat, I doubt that it´s inherently worse at engaging moving targets than say AT-guns. Of course their muzzle velocity is slower, but this should be already considered in its accuracy rating.

[Suhiir]

pdoktar said:
Hmm.. not sure about "bad" hitting of moving targets. Given that RR´s were designed to engage armored vehicles, that are seldom stationary in combat, I doubt that it´s inherently worse at engaging moving targets than say AT-guns. Of course their muzzle velocity is slower, but this should be already considered in its accuracy rating.

"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.

[PlasmaKrab]

pdoktar said:
Hmm.. not sure about "bad" hitting of moving targets. Given that RR´s were designed to engage armored vehicles, that are seldom stationary in combat, I doubt that it´s inherently worse at engaging moving targets than say AT-guns. Of course their muzzle velocity is slower, but this should be already considered in its accuracy rating.

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.

[Suhiir]

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%.

[harlikwin]

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?)