12.7mm does it deserve the range?

[DRG]

chuckfourth said:
Ironic isnt it

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

[DRG]

Nox said:
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

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

[chuckfourth]

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.

[narwan]

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

[chuckfourth]

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.

[narwan]

chuckfourth said:
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.

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.

chuckfourth said:
In any case under 2000m there is no reason to dirrerentiate between the 7.62 and 12.7 calibres for indirect fire range.

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.

chuckfourth said:
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.

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.

chuckfourth said:
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.

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

[chuckfourth]

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.

[narwan]

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

[chuckfourth]

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

[DRG]

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

Don