Halajda

Ground Force Rangefinder Guide

Do you think a proper Zeiss style reticle would be faster for range finding?

More effective, possibly. But that would depend on the way it'd be implemented.

And it would probably open another can of worms: "Diz tonk haz bedder optix than dat tonk. Panther haz more magnification than T-34." etc
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Posted in another thread, but valid here as well, methinks...)

I played around a bit with Excel, so here's a simple to use chart showing angular mils vs. distance for targets ranging from 4 to 8 meters:

 

AngularMils01.jpg

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Posted in another thread, but valid here as well, methinks...)

I played around a bit with Excel, so here's a simple to use chart showing angular mils vs. distance for targets ranging from 4 to 8 meters:

 

AngularMils01.jpg

 

Btw. How did you do that in excel, could you throw it somewhere online. I didn't play with excel for some time so it would take me some time to find out the way to make proper graphs.

As I would love to change it myself so it would also include tank width. Or if you can then make a graph that also takse into account 2m width of tanks. And also only is from 250m to about 2.5km.

So simply put that zoomed out part, from 2m to 8m, from 250m to 2 or 2.5 km.

Edited by XaturaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As awesome as this is it's impractical to use in game. Your experience with your particular cannon and shells is faster than calculating based on memorization of all the dimensions of all enemy tanks. You just "know" how much elevation you need. The Kursk map is perfect for learning this. Enemies can be at pretty extreme ranges (for this game) and you really get a good feel for your cannon and shells. You can tell people quickly gain experience with their cannons by how uncannily accurate they are on Kursk, including myself sometimes (hitting a T-34's turret at extreme range when he's hull down behind one of those dirt embankments is glorious).

 

This still should be stickied though.

Edited by Ted_Striker1
  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As awesome as this is it's impractical to use in game. Your experience with your particular cannon and shells is faster than calculating based on memorization of all the dimensions of all enemy tanks. You just "know" how much elevation you need. The Kursk map is perfect for learning this. Enemies can be at pretty extreme ranges (for this game) and you really get a good feel for your cannon and shells.

 

This still should be stickied though.

From <1km yes. Above that its get tricky, and its better to one shoot the target than miss him by about 50m in front or behind.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From <1km yes. Above that its get tricky, and its better to one shoot the target than miss him by about 50m in front or behind.

 

A lot of times a cannon is simply too inaccurate to hit the target all the time at such long range. You can hit your target dead center, not move the cannon at all, and the next three shots either fly above it or hit the dirt in front of it. It's much worse with short barrel cannons or shells with lower velocity.

 

One grid square in Kursk is 500 meters? That means I'm firing at targets like 1500 meters away. I'll know for sure when I play later on and get that map since I never paid attention to how many grid squares were between myself and my targets. I do know it's pretty extreme range though, certainly more than two squares.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of times a cannon is simply too inaccurate to hit the target all the time at such long range. You can hit your target dead center, not move the cannon at all, and the next three shots either fly above it or hit the dirt in front of it. It's much worse with short barrel cannons or shells with lower velocity.

 

One grid square in Kursk is 500 meters? That means I'm firing at targets like 1500 meters away. I'll know for sure when I play later on and get that map since I never paid attention to how many grid squares were between myself and my targets. I do know it's pretty extreme range though, certainly more than two squares.

Tiger II

"The turrets were designed to mount the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 gun. Combined with the Turmzielfernrohr 9d (German "turret telescopic sight") monocular sight by Leitz, which all but a few early Tiger IIs used, it was a very accurate and deadly weapon. During practice, the estimated probability of a first round hit on a 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high, 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) wide target only dropped below 100 percent at ranges beyond 1,000 m (0.62 mi), to 95–97 percent at 1,500 metres (0.93 mi) and 85–87 percent at 2,000 m (1.2 mi), depending on ammunition type. Recorded combat performance was lower, but still over 80 percent at 1,000 m, in the 60s at 1,500 m and the 40s at 2,000 m. Penetration of armored plate inclined at 30 degrees was 202 and 132 mm (8.0 and 5.2 in) at 100 and 2,000 m (0.062 and 1.2 mi) respectively for the Panzergranate 39/43 projectile (PzGr—armor-piercing shell), and 238 and 153 mm (9.4 and 6.0 in) for the PzGr. 40/44 projectile between the same ranges. The Sprenggranate 43 (SpGr) high-explosive round was available for soft targets, or the Hohlgranate or Hohlgeschoss 39 (HlGr—HEAT or High explosive anti-tank warhead) round, which had 90 mm (3.5 in) penetration at any range, could be used as a dual-purpose munition against soft or armored targets"

 

Guns may be innacurate but not WOT like innacurate where you can't hit a barn with a big bullseye on it.

I know about grids and such, most of my targets are around 800-1200m from me, fun starts to happen when you snipe at 1400m sometimes I need 1-2 leading shoots to work out the range, and that is a big no-no for me.

I've yet to see a target render for me at 2km. Kursk is designed such way that basically you don't see anything past 2km which is sad imo.

Edited by XaturaS
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree it may be clumsy to work with, experience sure is more valuable, but still, it helps think about and understand the system and the things one has to consider...

 

I work on it a  bit more - got some ideas from when I used Panzerfaust 3 Anti-Tank Weapon in the army: it's sight had a representation of that (just like the "funnel" we sometimes see in modern aircraft gunsights for when no distance cues available by radar).

 

Basically you can properly scale the funnel, print it out onto transparent overhead-projector foil and stick it to your screen (or hold it there when needed...).

 

Funnel01.jpg

 

An advanced version could even integrate ballistic scaling (if such data ever becomes available - I think "guesstimating" it from the actual sight in WT could work as aproximation), so the y-axis would not be linear, but would represent the actual aim-point necessary for the weapon for which the funnel was designed: just "bracket the tank of known size in the apropriate funnel, and the elevation would fit with what's actually needed to hit!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger II

"The turrets were designed to mount the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 gun. Combined with the Turmzielfernrohr 9d (German "turret telescopic sight") monocular sight by Leitz, which all but a few early Tiger IIs used, it was a very accurate and deadly weapon. During practice, the estimated probability of a first round hit on a 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high, 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) wide target only dropped below 100 percent at ranges beyond 1,000 m (0.62 mi), to 95–97 percent at 1,500 metres (0.93 mi) and 85–87 percent at 2,000 m (1.2 mi), depending on ammunition type. Recorded combat performance was lower, but still over 80 percent at 1,000 m, in the 60s at 1,500 m and the 40s at 2,000 m. Penetration of armored plate inclined at 30 degrees was 202 and 132 mm (8.0 and 5.2 in) at 100 and 2,000 m (0.062 and 1.2 mi) respectively for the Panzergranate 39/43 projectile (PzGr—armor-piercing shell), and 238 and 153 mm (9.4 and 6.0 in) for the PzGr. 40/44 projectile between the same ranges. The Sprenggranate 43 (SpGr) high-explosive round was available for soft targets, or the Hohlgranate or Hohlgeschoss 39 (HlGr—HEAT or High explosive anti-tank warhead) round, which had 90 mm (3.5 in) penetration at any range, could be used as a dual-purpose munition against soft or armored targets"

 

Guns may be innacurate but not WOT like innacurate where you can't hit a barn with a big bullseye on it.

I know about grids and such, most of my targets are around 800-1200m from me, fun starts to happen when you snipe at 1400m sometimes I need 1-2 leading shoots to work out the range, and that is a big no-no for me.

I've yet to see a target render for me at 2km. Kursk is designed such way that basically you don't see anything past 2km which is sad imo.

 

I think I saw something past 2km once. In my pz.Bfw, it was basically a floating IS-2. Both of us kept shooting at each other for 5 minutes till he got bored and reversed. Not sure of exact distance though. But it was like 4 squares or so, but I am not sure so don't quote me on it.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funnel "thinking model" has advanced a bit: I measured out the distance tics on a screenshot of a sight (still very basic), and scaled the mil-vs.-distance curves with those values (I fit the values (distance vs. elevation) to a power function)...

 

In the end it could look somewhat like this, aiming at a 5m long tank at about 450m, 950m and 1800m: Knowing the length of the tank it can just be bracketed in the apropriate funnel, and directly fire (note elevation (y-axis) is not linear, but follows the power function elevation = constant a  x distance ^ constant b)...

 

Funnel02.jpg

 

Still, this is just for fun, but theoretically a sight like this could be implemented (possible via CDK?!? idk...). Basically only the scale of the y-axis is important and needs to be adjusted (by twiddling with the constant b, mainly) to the ballistics, which are of course weapon and ammunition dependant.

 

:crazy:

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the guide. I usually tried just to estimate the distance on my own, because I didn't know what the horizontal scale is for :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funnel "thinking model" has advanced a bit: I measured out the distance tics on a screenshot of a sight (still very basic), and scaled the mil-vs.-distance curves with those values (I fit the values (distance vs. elevation) to a power function)...
 
In the end it could look somewhat like this, aiming at a 5m long tank at about 450m, 950m and 1800m: Knowing the length of the tank it can just be bracketed in the apropriate funnel, and directly fire (note elevation (y-axis) is not linear, but follows the power function elevation = constant a  x distance ^ constant b)...
 
Funnel02.jpg
 
Still, this is just for fun, but theoretically a sight like this could be implemented (possible via CDK?!? idk...). Basically only the scale of the y-axis is important and needs to be adjusted (by twiddling with the constant b, mainly) to the ballistics, which are of course weapon and ammunition dependant.
 
:crazy:


The site changes depending on which ammo is loaded in addition to differing between tanks.

You need to label a template with tank and ammo type or you'll be off as these change
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This

Is

Great.

 

I love it, thank you so much, this makes things easier :)s :salute:

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To avoid the doubtless incoming flood of "bump" posts, it is heartily recommended that the mods sticky this thread.  It certainly deserves it.

 

...oh, and "bump".

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really needs to be pinned, at the rate new threads are flooding in this is going to sink way to low.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i usually just use pythag on the minimap, sure it relies on the the person being spotted on the map or you knowing in which grid square they are, but you don't have to know the sizes of each tank, just the length of each box on the mini-map. Only downside is that you pretty much do have to have a calculator handy but it takes about 5 seconds to do

 

[spoiler]MCuVmBq.jpg[/spoiler]

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with the pythagoras is that you don't always know the size of the square.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with the pythagoras is that you don't always know the size of the square.

 

meh, bit of trial error and i worked out the grid squares were

 

Jungle 200m, Ash River 100m, Kursk 400m, Kuban 170m, Karelia 130m

 

and the OP's method gets a bit funky if you're aiming at an angled tank, or if the enemy is obscured by terrain

Edited by Carrmatt93
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice info!

 

But, like somebody else I think already said on the thread, it's something you can "train" in arcade and then you can estimate using that experience to realistic.

 

I'm still very new to the game, but I've been switching between arcade and realistic to try and get a grip on this.

 

Sometimes I do get it right, but most of them it's completely off and you revert to the trial and error mode. With practice I guess it'll come "naturally" at some point. And, of course, knowing how the rangefinder is suppose to work helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.