Question about FV433 ballistics

#7
If you're talking about Abbot, then the FACE you refer to was dependant on the quality of the surveying-in. Remember this was 1970s technology (1960s really. The FACE I used was still using Nixie tubes for data display). No GPS, just a good surveyor AND good meteorological info. So probably not a good chance of hitting a 10m x 10m target directly, but if they were using VT, with a battery shoot, a very good chance of something vaguely metallic hitting the designated spot.
Why?
 
#8
If you're talking about Abbot, then the FACE you refer to was dependant on the quality of the surveying-in. Remember this was 1970s technology (1960s really. The FACE I used was still using Nixie tubes for data display). No GPS, just a good surveyor AND good meteorological info. So probably not a good chance of hitting a 10m x 10m target directly, but if they were using VT, with a battery shoot, a very good chance of something vaguely metallic hitting the designated spot.
Why?
Just gathering info for a info board for my Abbot to show people at Tankfest. Punters usually ask a lot of questions about the gun and I don't know much about what it's really capable of.
 
#11
So its not because you drove out of camp in it on demob, kept it safe, you have an FOP in the mother-in-laws garden and wish to calculate the time she takes to get to the roses/compost? It would save hitting the house wouldn't it, its an asset in the will? Shame its not that, would be a great story. You'll get nicked, mind.
 
#15
At 40 fd regt as a new crafty I found that the 434 was unique in that it could be in two places at the same time, and often was. It was also more reliable, which I put down to the presence of red lead touch ups rather than an extra couple of tons of paint (it adds up you know).
 
#16
The ballistic model used and its implementation in FACE did cause a fall of in accuracy at extreme ranges. That's what the boffins assured me, there were only about three people who knew how to program FACE. Of course FT max range was not always possible (with any gun) given reduced MV due to barrel wear and a cool day with wind in the wrong direction. That's why for planning purpose actual max range was always assumed to be about 90% of FT.

All that said, given up to date meteor data, up to date MV data and assuming some idiot hadn't read the charge temp thermometer wrongly then at about 90% max range I would expect the mpi to be very close to the target coords. Of course at these ranges the probable error (ie the measure of dispersion) was around 50 metres, ie 50% of shells fall within 100 metres of their mpi.
 
#17
Many thanks Petardier,

I can state 'within 100m' as a reasonable accuracy at long range (assuming everything is dialed in correctly) and should hopefully avoid any punters telling me I am talking bollox...

Anyone know the weight of the HE 105mm shell? My empty one is about 5kg I guess.
 

Latest Threads