I couldn’t kill the anti-tank gun operator from the side or behind, the bullet seemed to hit the air wall, sending out a fire that hit the metal. This is unreasonable
1 Like
Agreed.
It’s even more dissapionting that the same issue was present when AT guns where first introduced during CBT. Then it was fixed but here we go again.
1 Like
So that’s why I can’t snipe them. Almost thought there was some bullet drop I didn’t account for.
Which one?
The German one in Moscow used to have a broken hitbox like that but it got patched out months ago
It’s back. I remember Russian one being patched out too, but after some latest update it is almost impossible to shoot AT gun operator again (unless you lay behind him and shoot him directly in the back)
1 Like
Someone’s gonna have to post a video and CLOG again unfortunately.
This is mine from the last time so it’s no longer relevant, but this is how obvious it needs to be for them to notice:
Aye normandy AA had that from the start for me. Dunno why it was not patched out yet.
You can snipe them when you aim on the head but next time you aim at the head you get a glance, really inconsistent.
Based on my experience from all the long-range shooting I do, I believe there is a bullet drop. It is a realistic amount though. For a full-sized rifle round like .30-06 or .303 or 8mm Mauser or 7.62x54r, etc., the bullet drop out to 200m is pretty negligible. In fact when the No.4 Lee Enfield was fielded, it had a simplified rear sight with only 2 positions, 300yd (280m or so) and 600yd (550m or so). Based on the math I just did with ballistic coefficient calculators and bullet drop calculators, a No.4 Lee Enfield with Mk.VII Ball .303 with a 300yd zero would, at 100yd (90m or so), be shooting 4.9" (about 12.5cm) above POA (Point of aim, meaning what you’re aiming at with a 300yd zero), and at 200yd (about 180m) would be shooting 5.4" (about 13.75cm? Doing math in my head) above POA. So, if you aimed high on someone’s chest in the middle, it’d hit the neck. If you aimed at the neck, you’d hit 'em probably in the mouth. If you named at the belly button, you’d hit them high in the belly. That’s not really much of an issue at that distance. Even if someone is prone, you’d have to aim for the forehead for the bullet to go over their head.
As for a 100yd (90m) zero, which seems to be very typical for Military WWII rifles, either 100yd or 100m, at 200m with Mk.VII Ball .303 British we’re looking at a drop of 4.3" (less than 11cm).
My, either I’m doing this wrong or there’s quite a lot of difference between Mk.VII Ball .303 (174gr bullet, 2440 ft/s muzzle velocity) and M2 Ball .30-06 (150gr, 2800 ft/s muzzle velocity) because I punched in the info for M2 Ball which the .30-06 used in WWII and at 200yd with a 100yd zero, the bullet drop is only 2.9", which is just shy of 7.5cm. Okay, now I wanna do 8mm Mauser! What was it, s.S. Patrone 1934, the standard ball ammunition of 8mm Mauser during WWII? 198gr, 2500 ft/s. .324 cal bullet. Bullet drop of 4.1".
So, at 180m, with sights set to 90m, a bullet from a Kar98k, M1903, M1 Garand, or Lee Enfield, would drop by roughly 3-4" or 7.5-10cm. Not particularly significant. For 123gr bullet going 2350 ft/s (standard M43 Ball ammo from an AK) it’s 4.8" which is maybe around 12cm, huh, I expected more.
Adjusting the parameters for the STG-44, which included just increasing the bullet diameter by about 0.1" and lowering the muzzle velocity from 2350 ft/s to 2250 ft/s, the bullet drop with a 90m zero at 180m increases to 5.4" which is more around 13.5cm or so.
To further put this into context I’ll use 115gr 9x19, and say an 8" barrel. Different ammo produces different results, I’m seeing info online indicating both around 1250 ft/s and 1350 ft/s, so let’s just say it’s 1300 ft/s.
HAH! Yup, 19.1", that’s around 47.5cm if my figures are correct! Oh geeze, what about .45 ACP? With an M1911 it’s about 830 or 850 ft/s as I recall, let’s call it 900 ft/s for the 8" barrel of an M3. The 10.5" barrel of a Thompson would produce better velocity by a bit, not by much, and the M3 is more common in the game anyhow so we’ll go with that. 230gr bullet.
Wow, 41.4"? Damn… I did NOT expect the difference to be that dramatic, did I input the information correctly? Quite certain I did. That’s over 100cm, meaning more than 1m, which is about 1.1yd. Aim for the head and I guess you’re liable to hit the wrong one, if you hit the target at all. Damn do I love this ballistic stuff… I still fancy that if I was successful in my endeavors to get into the Military, I’d have achieved my aim of become a designated marksman if not an outright sniper. Still on my bucket list to nail a 1000m (1100yd) gong with a WWI and a WWII rifle, probably with both irons and optics. Of course, for the shots with optics, a rifle that is not 100% original and authentic is acceptable, as long as the optic is a faithful reproduction like on that PU M91/30 I owned… miss that rifle, shouldn’t have let it go. Rang a roughly head-sized gong at 200m (220yd) with it, and a roughly torso-sized gong at 300m (330yd). Good times, what a beauty, and it was with VERY old milsurp ammo that was made sometime around the Korean War if I’m not mistaken. Tsk… what a beauty. Got it because of the movie Enemy at the Gates. “He puts snow in his mouth to hide his breath.” lol Aw man, I’m even Canadian, would have been a funny gag to play with a friend at the shooting range lmao Damn do I love bolt-actions!
1 Like
Has nothing to do with bullet drop. Its the same if you put the pistol physically against the gunners head.
That aside, there is bullet drop in the game offc.
2 Likes
Fair enough, still enjoyed writing that comment. So back then I guess the only way to take someone out who are using the AA gun was to blow up the AA gun. If that’s how it is now with AT, I guess it’s likewise, but hopefully it isn’t that bad. Pretty sure I shot someone off an AT gun at least once before.
I enjoyed reading it, cheers for doing the extra mile
1 Like
The .303 British was a slower, heavier round with a lower ballistic co-efficient compared to its American and German counterparts. At least in real life.
Let’s put that to the test.
http://gundata.org/ballistic-coefficient-calculator/
Both M2 Ball and Mk.VII Ball had flat-base bullets, not boat-tail, which I believe helped with the ballistic co-efficient. Mk.VII was .312 and 174gr while M2 was .308 and 150gr, and I think wider width of the bullet negatively affects ballistic co-efficient though it’s only one aspect of several. As for 8mm, looks like it’s boat-tail which should help, but it also has the thickest bullet of the lot at .324 and is the heaviest at 197gr. As for velocity, .303 comes at the bottom at 2440 ft/s, then 8mm at 2500 ft/s, and then M2 is the zippiest as 2800 ft/s though its light 150gr projectile helps in that. Now granted, all these bullets get squished to some degree upon firing, but I’ll use their un-fired dimensions for the sake of ease and of consistency. Can’t say I can comment on the G-based ‘drag function’ aspect as I know nothing of it.
Annoyingly, that website only allows 2 digits after the decimal point instead of 3, so both .303 and .30-06 will be set to 0.31 and 8mm will be set to 0.32. Very unfortunate but I have checked over half a dozen other ballistics calculators and some of them don’t seem to even provide you with the ballistic coefficient, it requires you to input it yourself, while I’m trying to FIND the ballistic coefficient.
Mk.VII - 0.509
M2 - 0.438
8mm - 0.44
Looks like .30-06 and 8mm are almost the same. I can then use this website to gain further information.
https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/ballistic-calculators/#!/
I will leave all settings as-is with a 100yd (90m) zero, and will provide the bullet drop for 200yd (190m), 500yd (450m), and 1100yd (1000m).
Mk.VII - 4.3", 52.4", and 306.3"
M2 - 2.9", 38.3", and 228.9"
8mm - 4.1", 49.6", and 291"
I actually anticipated 8mm as performing the best there, but it seems as though the M2 does out-perform 8mm even though the 198gr stuff was more hotly loaded than .30-06’s M2 Ball 150gr stuff. As for .303, though I adore that cartridge, I did anticipate it to function the worst because it’s ultimately the lowest-powered of the three, clearly-so in comparison to 8mm which has a heavier bullet AND higher velocity.
What of energy though? I will include the info at the muzzle, and after that, again, 200yd, 500yd, and 1100yd. I’ll use the G1 drag function as according to what I read online, it’s by far the most popular, and also read “When in doubt, use G1,” again, because it’s the most popular/widely used. I’ll actually include the velocity too at those distances since bullets begin to slow down as soon as they leave the muzzle.
Mk.VII - 2440 ft/s 2300 ft/lb - 2117 ft/s 1731 ft/lb - 1683 ft/s 1094 ft/lb - 1088 ft/s 457 ft/lb
M2 - 2800 ft/s 2611 ft/lb - 2396 ft/s 1912 ft/lb - 1856 ft/s 1147 ft/lb - 1104 ft/s 406 ft/lb
8mm - 2500 ft/s 2734 ft/lb - 2123 ft/s 1972 ft/lb - 1627 ft/s 1157 ft/lb - 1019 ft/s 454 ft/lb
So at the muzzle, M2 .30-06 is very solidly in 2nd place for energy, only a bit behind 8mm but much more ahead of Mk.VII .303. Somehow, though, .303 retains its energy better and by 1100yd, it very narrowly is in 1st place. As for velocity, M2 remains in the lead throughout right out to 1km (1100yd) although it seems like if I went a bit farther, .303 may have come out ahead, as the gap goes from 360 ft/s at the muzzle (12.86% difference from the perspective of M2) down to 16 ft/s at 1100yd (1.45% difference). It has been my observation that heavier bullets tend to retain velocity better than lighter bullets. Then for 8mm vs .30-06 in that regard, 300 ft/s at the muzzle (10.71%) 85 ft/s at 1100yd (7.7%, rounded up from 7.699%). Huh, seems like .303 retains velocity better than the heavier boattail 8mm does… I can’t figure that one out. At no point within 1100yd does M2 seem to manage to best 8mm for energy, and .303 remains in last place for energy seemingly until RIGHT at 1000-1100yd or so when it BARELY squeaks past into 1st place.
I might also add that I’m pretty sure both M2 and the 8mm have solid lead cores, while .303 had a softer/lighter material at the tip to make it back-heavy, which encourages it to tumble upon contact allegedly. The material differed by nation, with some using aluminium and others using I think a wooden tip. .303 was manufactured in Britain, Canada, Australia, and probably also India. I had no way to include that aspect in the calculations, but I find it interesting.
Anyhow, if a higher digit for ballistic co-efficient is worse than a lower digit, then yes, .303 is substantially worse than M2 and the 197gr 8mm. Well, 198gr if we round up as it’s apparently 197.5gr, but anyhow, hopefully this info proves useful. I find it quite interesting. VERY surprised to see that .303 holds onto velocity better than 8mm, given the 8mm is heavier and has the boattail. I really don’t understand that, and it apparently has a better ballistic coefficient? I dunno, I’m at a loss. Regardless of any of the date, all three rounds are very much within the same ballpark, along with 7.62 Nato. .303 comes in last for velocity/energy at the muzzle, I regard it as the weakest of the lot, but .303 is by no means ‘weak.’
I’ve heard the claim before that .303 is too weak for moose lol My grandfather on my mother’s side hunted moose with .303 regularly, and I’ve got uncles who’ve done likewise. It’s on my bucket list to bag a moose with a .303. Love moose meat… doesn’t get much better than roast moose with that delicious stringy meat just falling to pieces on the fork and melting in your mouth. A bit of salty jigg’s dinner as well perhaps? Mmm-mmm, maybe mustard pickles and/or pickled beets to go with the veggies. Welcome to Newfoundland cuisine!
1 Like
Quoting myself here, but I really don’t know why I said that. Pretty sure boat-tail provides better ballistic coefficient than flat-based… I just checked. 197gr, .32 cal 8mm Mauser with boattail has 0.44 BC, while with just a spitzer (flat-based) bullet, it’s 0.54. For .303 British and its 0.509 BC with ‘spitzer,’ if I switch it to ‘boattail’ it’s 0.414. .30-06 with boattail becomes 0.357. I assume that the smaller the number, the better the BC.
1 Like
The higher the BC number the higher the BC. Boat tails do improve the ballistic coefficient by themselves by a small amount, but you will get larger performance increases if you combine them with other high-BC/aerodynamic bullet design elements like a spitzer tip, long ogive, correct length, optimized shape of ogive/tip/tail, bullet size relative to its case, neck and capacity, weight balance, material and even bullet surfacing (a new area being studied to decrease in-barrel friction and reduce aerodynamic drag in flight). That being said a higher BC isn’t necessarily better by itself - it depends on application and the compromises that come with it if you’re working in a set of older predefined parameters.
1 Like
I’m surprised the .303 Mark VII has a better BC than its contemporaries but then again I shouldn’t be when I look at the design of the Mark VII, Mark VIIz and Mark VIIIz. They are massively improved compared to the .303’s previous iterations (I still mostly think of the older .303 designs). I’m not one for calculations and math and all that, nor do I really understand G based functions myself, but if you are interested in this stuff and want to expand your knowledge on ballistics for bullets I highly suggest you research on G-based drag functions.
1 Like
I think I remember seeing this was fixed in an update change log. I think it’s the same case as snowing inside the plane cockpit. Fixed in the change log but still a thing in the game.