Weapons Effective Range

[MikeAP]

Looking through the data file, I see weapons with some very short 'effective' ranges.

Some of the weapons that immediately stick out

M16 Rifle - 132 meters (300m real life)
M4 Carbine - 66 meters (300m real life)
M256 120mm - 1980 meters (3500m real life)
M60 MG - 198 meters (900m tracer burnout / 1100m real life)
M2 50cal - 660 meters (900m tracer burnout / 1800m real life)

Are the weapons ranges listed in the data worksheet in yards or feet, maybe? Or maybe someone can define what 'effective' means in FCRS?

[Hexagon]

Maybe in game we have combat effective range... but yes, i think they can add 3 values in game taking in consideration the units training/quality, i think they can use a minimal combat range and a max combat range of course with a middle range.

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Maybe in game we have combat effective range... but yes, i think they can add 3 values in game taking in consideration the units training/quality, i think they can use a minimal combat range and a max combat range of course with a middle range.

I hope that's not the case. An inexperienced/untrained unit shouldnt suffer from equipment flaws - ie - 'I'm new so my M1A1 only shoots 1800m'.

A M1A1 shoots 3500m no matter who is behind the trigger.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

A M1A1 shoots 3500m no matter who is behind the trigger.

The difference being if they can actually hit something with it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The difference being if they can actually hit something with it.

Good Hunting.

MR

Certainly.

What's the deal with 'effective range' then?

[Mad Russian]

Don't know. CD is in charge of all things data. I'm sure he'll be along in a bit to answer your question.

Good Hunting.

MR

[wodin]

When you start putting into a game the max range a weapon can fire as the thing to look at during combat you start to get very unrealistic combat results..thats why effective range is far better to use in a game, esp if the game has abstract terrain.

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: wodin

When you start putting into a game the max range a weapon can fire as the thing to look at during combat you start to get very unrealistic combat results..thats why effective range is far better to use in a game, esp if the game has abstract terrain.

The real life ranges I wrote in my original post ARE the effective ranges.

The M2 50cal has a real life max range of 6764m but an effective range of 1800m

[wodin]

During NATO wargames in Germany they realised the average max combat range was around 1800m due to the terrain, very little fighting took place at ranges further than that. Thinking baout it this isn't really replicated in game as I see lots of combat at ranges far further than this (4hexes).

[pzgndr]

The real life ranges I wrote in my original post ARE the effective ranges.

Those are generally for probability to hit, 50% being "effective." Probability to kill effectiveness is more complicated depending on target; e.g., BTR vs BMP vs T-72, etc. For a game like this it would be interesting to know and understand what the game model assumes.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The “effective...” ranges are presumably the “effective...” ranges under the conditions of high-intensity warfare. Where people are under constant near unbearable, and often actually unbearable... stress and pressure. In a war where the enemy stand a very good chance of killing you..... not a one-sided affair such as the Gulf Wars and that must be scary enough.

Nothing to do with hit probability on the range. Hopefully.... [;)]

All the best,
Kip.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Most of the long range stuff I see seems to be ATGMs (or occasionally SAMs), with a bit of long-range tank fire thrown in usually from NATO tanks. But the most killing gets done at short ranges. When it's 10000m visibility, everybody gets seen and the arty whallops them.

[CapnDarwin]

I had placed some form of answer to this somewhere else, but the effective range for use is a function of the max range and its relation to a 40% inflection point for ballistic weapons to hit. Now it is more complicated than that since the effects of fire control, stability, movement, and crew impacts change the "effective range curves" in the combat engine calculations. I'm sure those numbers would be more inline with some of the numbers being stated above. The trick here is the use of the word effective. It means something different to us within the game engine and to others using outside data. As I stated earlier too, as soon as the 2.02 is out and I finish the Mod Guides (on the back burner for debugging in the code right now), I will work on discussing a bit more of the internal mechanics and how things are calculated. For now, check out the Under the Hood thread here: tm.asp?m=3336894

Thanks.

[GloriousRuse]

I'd have to say that I'd be very impressed with the M16 armed rifleman who could hit the enemy with any regularity at 300m when that enemy is an actual moving, shooting, terrain hugging, trying-not-to-die human as opposed to an E-type on a range.

Similarly, the A1 Abrams really stops "shooting itself" beyond 2000m or so, with average training bringing that up to 2500ish. With only 10x power optics in the A1s, targets beyond that require fine motor control and experience with the system. Newer gunners often miss their lase at those ranges and their ability to set the lead declines rapidly as well. Both can result in a bad firing solution, and an inexperienced TC may not even realize that the range is bad.

So, generally speaking...planning ranges are fairly short.

[MikeAP]

You can argue variables and what-if's all day, but the technical specs will always remain the same. I just want to make sure that is emulated in the game.

I'd have to say that I'd be very impressed with the M16 armed rifleman who could hit the enemy with any regularity at 300m when that enemy is an actual moving, shooting, terrain hugging, trying-not-to-die human as opposed to an E-type on a range.

Standard rifle qualifications go out to 300m. I agree that the average rifleman probably couldnt 'regularly' hit an enemy at 300m but he shouldn't be limited by his weaponry. The M16 is accurate to 500m, and although the individual soldier might not have the skill or experience to do so, he still is still capable.

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse
So, generally speaking...planning ranges are fairly short.

I disagree with you there. In the real world we use a hybrid of technical specs to ammo capability...weather and terrain are used but shouldnt be relied on, and training level is never used.

How would your Soldiers feel if you briefed something like..."We all know an AK47 is accurate to 300m, but I dont think those commies on the hill did much shooting during their train up, so I'm going to set Phase Line Charlie at 150m" I dont think it would sit well.

[GloriousRuse]

The difference is that the game's definition of Effective Range is more akin to the Army's definition of Planning Range - the point where the weapon system can consistently and reliably produce battlefield effects. For instance, the Abrams series Planning Range is 2500m because that's where we can reasonably expect it to perform under battlefield conditions.

Yes, the system is expected to be effective beyond that. Yes, there are a plethora of recorded effective engagements well beyond 2500m. But where the eggheads say you should be hitting 90%+ of your shots with lethal effects is the 2500m mark.

The M4/16 Planning Range is 200m. I strongly suspect that is not the 90% first round hit, 95% Pk mark al the Abrams, but just about where you would expect a rifleman to really start contributing to the battle as more than fairly inaccurate volume of fire.

Similarly, the .50's "effective range" of 1800 meter implies plunging fire against an area target, observed by a spotter or optics, and adjusted by a T&E or stabilized system. Free gunners, or even stab'd/T&E'd gunners, tend to rapidly decline in accuracy after 700m, and once the tracers burn out...it's a chore to get it on target. You certainly would not rely on a .50 to produce any sort of consistent effect against the enemy much further.

So, while you might not brief "the commies suck with their AKs", you might very well brief "we should be able to set the SBF 250m away from the OBJ and not take losses so long as we stay low and keep up the rate of fire"

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

In my experience with this game, my Abrams and Bradleys routinely hit and kill the enemy at 3500-4000m. This is almost always in bad visibility (for the Pact), where the NATO imaging stuff comes into play. I have not played much with attack helos on my side, so I can't really say there. But when the lights go out the NATO systems tend to excel.

Which is pretty good, given that the guys doing the firing are usually not at 100%, are getting shot at, and are under arty fire.

[wodin]

Well thats an issue right there..3500 to 4000m just isn't a range that would be viable in the terrain the battle would be fought on. As I said the max range on average by NATO wargames in Germany during the eighties was 1800m, very little over that before LOS was blocked by terrain features..

[Mad Russian]

There is a tremendous difference in the effective range of a weapon and the actual range that weapon can be deployed effectively at.

Effective range is a subjective number. On a clear day in the Ukraine you get one value for an AK-47, in the jungles of Vietnam in the monsoon you get another.

Did the weapons ability to perform change? Yes, the bullet will fly a lot further in the open air of the Ukraine that it will through jungle foliage. As has also been discussed, effective range to one shooter is not necessarily the effective range for another shooter.

How do you bring all that together in a game though? As Mike points out, you have to start with a base line. Something that all the units with the same training under the same set of circumstances would be able to reasonably achieve. That's where we started and we adjusted from there.

Some interesting facts about armored combat in NWE. In WWII, the US Army average engagement range was 400 meters. Since that's the average there were many engagements at longer and shorter ranges. There is no reason to believe that the combat ranges wouldn't be longer in WWIII, with the great leap in technology after WWII. Sights and range finders, etc. all make it easier to hit vehicles at longer ranges. Still, much of NWE is built up with lots of villages, forest, etc. to reduce the longer ranged firing. It depends on where in the country you are. In the south, the mountainous area, the ranges would be very short, while as you go north the country progressively opens up until you get the North German Plain and would have the ability to shoot long distances.

Just depends on the situation. The maps and scenarios in the game were created to highlight the differences of the nations military's and the terrain they would be expected to fight in. The one common denominator is the Soviet forces. They have to fight through all the different types of terrain. We hoped to show how the terrain is a factor in how and where battles are fought. Battles take place in an area for a reason.

Hopefully the scenarios will give you the opportunity to explore some of the differences and how weather and terrain can make a huge difference in the effectiveness of the weapons of the war.

Good Hunting.

MR

[TigerTC]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

In my experience with this game, my Abrams and Bradleys routinely hit and kill the enemy at 3500-4000m. This is almost always in bad visibility (for the Pact), where the NATO imaging stuff comes into play. I have not played much with attack helos on my side, so I can't really say there.

I haven't seen that. I've seen lots of shots from my M1s at long-range, but not that many hits/kills. If I can knock out a couple in a 10-tank company at long-range, that helps -- because once my M1s can fire at closer range (<2000 m) their fire is devastating and can get 2-3 hits easily in one salvo. Of course, if a relatively-intact Soviet company closes to less than 2000 meters, my M1s are in trouble because of the sheer volume of return fire.