Request to add Turkish PARS III Mk19 RWS to calculations

[Ferrariic]

Situation: Turkish PARS III MK19 RWS and Marine AAVP Mk19 can accurately hit infantry targets at ranges of up to 5.8km in testing. Realistically, the PARS III has an elevation dial which can be used to justify hitting targets at these extreme ranges. The AAVP MK19 can also hit these ranges, but it cannot be dialed in without a spotter, and therefore should not be added to the mortar calculator. The AAVP MK19 also has a maximum flat elevation of 30°, giving it a range of 5,092m on flat terrain, without 15° vehicle elevation offset to get to 45°.

Turkish MK19 RWS Viewport

Problem: Turkish PARS III MK19 RWS not in calculations dropdown, and would be a very effective indirect fire method.

Solution: Add turkish PARS III MK19 RWS to calculations, using muzzle velocity of 240m/s. Vehicle has maximum theoretical elevation of 45°, and a practical elevation of 41°. Range is ~5.8km. Vehicle elevation offset can be indicated as 1.5-3meters, depending upon the vehicle used.

Ballistics calculator used, which is accurate in my testing. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/range-projectile-motion

Additional Clarification: The wiki may be incorrect at listing the muzzle velocity of the mk19 at 230m/s, the calculations work best with 240m/s. Further testing is necessary, though I believe this works best.

[sh4rkman]

Hi ! Thank you for you interest. 😄

I have already tried something like that in the past with the Turkish Tank that also have elevation in his HUD, but stopped because it was a pain in the ass to test the accuray alone : projectile path was so shallow and fast that i didn't have time to jump in UAV to see where the shots landed.

That being said, i didn't think about MK19 ! It's interesting and can definitly act like a indirect fire support weapon. Specially if as you suggest it has a inredible maxrange of 5km (!!)

I need to check two requirements before accepting your PR :

1. Find the exact velocity and MOA from SDK (the values you have right now are empirical right?)
2. Test it a bit in a local server at long range with UAV to confirm it's precision and that i'm not pushing a teamkiller feature

The second point is crucial because i have already seen the elevation indicator when inside MK19 is rounded to degrees and i don't want people to think squadcalc isn't precise 👀

[sh4rkman]

Alright so i found the values from the SDK, it's indeed 230 like the wiki said, but since you mention 240 looks better that will need serious testing from my part.

I saw that you first pushed a MOA of 50 like the SDK and reduced it to 30, was it because ingame testing looked more precise that what squadcalc displayed ?

[Ferrariic]

Yeah, my values were based upon what I saw in-game vs the wiki, however, if you find that in your testing 230 m/s & 50 moa works, that could be better used. My testing method may not be as precise as yours, jensen's range and then a separate map like Gorodok/talil in out-of-game testing for calculations w/free cam. Didn't think to use the UAV, will do that for the future. Let me verify with UAV now and see what results I get here.

To reiterate, my values were not based on the SDK. If the SDK states 230m/s & 50 moa it could be that my method was imprecise.

[sh4rkman]

Yeah i mostly freecam, but with some weapons that have too little time of flight (grad/UB) or when shooting at long distance the UAV/drone is needed.

Ideally, you stand static upper your target, record 10-25 shots and then compile shots on a single image like this to check if shots are centered on target and if spread (moa) is fine :

[Ferrariic]

I performed this short test using the values of 230m/s and 50 moa, overshot batha slightly @ 18° / 230m/s / 50 moa. Here is the clip. will do further testing.

https://medal.tv/games/squad/clips/i12VDq6lK1vYqeIdU/d13377kA873s?invite=cr-MSxQeHgsNzMyMzU0ODQs

[Ferrariic]

240 m/s 50 moa spread test, imho these results are more accurate than 230m/s @ 50 moa, though not completely accurate.

Video Test: https://medal.tv/games/squad/clips/i13DSzBao6UNUmRJO/d1337pfTAk6g?invite=cr-MSxlb24sNzMyMzU0ODQs

It seems to be better at 240 m/s. If you could review these results and let me know what you think.

Here is a comparison between the two landing zones for 17° equivalent (240m/s and 230m/s on the calculator) from E14-4-4-9-7 to Batha center L04-7-5-2-3 using Turkish PARS III Mk19 50 shots.

I can't really explain why 240m/s is more accurate with the calculator than 230m/s, when the SDK says 230m/s. However these are the results I've obtained. There is in-game overshoot when using 230 m/s in the calculations, as seen in the prior comment.

edit: 236m/s appears to be perfect for it at this location, I will test a few other locations to see how it works, and a few other maps.

---

236 m/s test @ east al khadir 17° -8.9m elevation difference https://medal.tv/games/squad/clips/i14bWrdz1mbsdAqrz/d13374L6N7CZ?invite=cr-MSxkV3IsNzMyMzU0ODQs

Very close overlap.

---

Skorpo test @ 236 m/s @ 50 moa, very good accuracy at 3.2km out, I did this test to see how elevation changes the calculations. It works well at 236 m/s.

https://medal.tv/games/squad/clips/i14q0qWmigKNu7OEq/d13378x0YoJI?invite=cr-MSxueXUsNzMyMzU0ODQs

Will test at further ranges to better discriminate these values.

[Ferrariic]

I did another test, 4.2km @ 238m/s 50 moa, which was closer than 236m/s & 237m/s, on the money at 4.2km. Really proud of this one!

Clip: https://medal.tv/games/squad/clips/i1605HbympkMVyWSP/d1337tB5hY1d?invite=cr-MSxHNHYsNzMyMzU0ODQs

Sorry for the multiple comments btw, lots of testing to see exactly what value works best. we're looking at around 238 m/s now. I don't think 230m/s works.

Summary of testing: 240 m/s calculation undershoots minorly, 230 m/s overshoots majorly. Dialed into 236, however when testing the upper end of extreme ranges: 4.1+ km 238m/s is undeniably accurate.

Updating the PR. I believe 50 moa is appropriate.

With regards to this final value of 238m/s, according to the previous test, this value matches the hit position exactly on E14-4-4 to Batha center.

[Ferrariic]

If you could verify the moa to your specifications, the velocity is now dialed in 238 m/s is now correct, confirmed on multiple layers, elevations, and distances, that's the last part that needs to be done. 50 moa value seems fine.

Edit: Tested on Harju as well, 238 m/s is correct for the calculator tested a 3.7km strike from A2 to Beachhead. I still do not know why 230 is in the SDK but 238 works best.

[sh4rkman]

Thanks a lot for your testing, also played a lot with it yesterday and i'm perplexed.

When reproducing similar test on Tallil (3200m shots) i also found that both 230 & 240 velocity weren't right, and the best was probably in between. 235 looked indeed more precise. Tested another map for the sake of it (elevation shouldn't interfer here, the existing system is solid) and at similar distance (3000m) it also looked OK.

But when keeping this 235 velocity and shooting at "short" range (1500m) now shots were again overlapping by a lot.

Before even arguing if vel & moa that we find in the SDK are right we have a major problem : in the MK19 HUD degrees are rounded. It makes every tests very approximate because if i feel like i'm kinda halfway between 17° and 18°, i have no idea if i'm aiming at 17.3 or 17.6 or even worst. When using keyboard to adjust elevation i have the feeling that there is a 0.5 step each time i press Z but how do i know if i'm jumping from 16, 16.5, 17, 17.5 and not 16.3, 16.8, 17.2, ...

At this velocities, a 0.3 difference means a 80 meters distance :

For now and unless owi add a decimal i'd consider the HUD as impracticable and the weapon imprecise as an indirect fire weapon. It feel like in every test i'm doing i'm adjusting the velocity to correct my false elevation inputs, and when switching from target to target what i though was precise isn't anymore

[Ferrariic]

That's a very reasonable point about the HUD having rounded decimals and the need to retain full accuracy w/ squad calc - I can imagine that some squad players would end up tking with rounded HUD values as it currently stands.

We may have to patiently await a MK19 platform with decimal points in the HUD for this to be truly accurate in-game, or rely on spotters to adjust fire, after this method gets you in the general grid square, which is counter-intuitive to squad calc.

So, I think you may be able to use flat decimal points to hit the general area of distant targets, but you definitely are not as accurate as a mortar, hellcannon, grad, or UB, and may need to rely on a spotter for minor adjustments.

[sh4rkman]

Well, use your fork for now and test it in some real live game : let me know if you can get +10kills without leaving main

[Ferrariic]

Will do, currently traveling abroad for 7 days. I'll be back and test it then.

The two games that inspired this method was when I got kills at 1500-1700 meters from airport as the launch zone using the AAVP at precalculated locations on Narva ‐ using 240m/s with the fork of squad calc. Here are those games. I will reproduce this on a larger map using the turkish mk19 from main and post results when I'm back.

The AAVP can reliably hit 1500-1700, however it requires flat ground and counting the ticks to estimate the degrees of elevation.

I think we may be able to do better with the PARS III because of the elevation dial, though not completely precise.

The 60 kill game I was firing into narva castle superfob from airport, the 30 kill game I was repositioning to a few different places in our backline and had to actively use the calculator to hit groupings. It is actually scary how effective it is killing enemies, though relatively inaccurate. Second game required a spotter to make minor adjustments to hit active marks.

When I arrive back in 7 days I'll post a clip in a live match with this method, ideally no spotter.

[Ferrariic]

Still on vacation, but check this out 👀, if we're lucky one of these will have elevation limits that we can test out and use as indirect fire lol. It doesn't need to shoot high at least.

also: Mk19 Vehicle Variants: The USA and USMC factions will now gain access to M1151 and MATV Mk19 variants, which will appear on the USA Air Assault unit and the USA & USMC Light Infantry units. The USMC also get a RHIB Mk19 variant on their Amphibious Assault Unit.

BMP-2M IFV: A modern modification of the BMP-2 IFV, notably using additional weapon systems - an automatic grenade launcher and a quadruple Kornet ATGM launcher system replacing the Konkurs on the BMP-2. This vehicle will be available for the RGF Mechanized unit.

[sh4rkman]

Haha you are fast, i'm more exited about the 120mm M1064A3 mortar carrier atm but let's hope this mk19 variant will have precise elevation

[Ferrariic]

Hope so too! The 120mm M1064A3 will be insane, hope it has precise dials/easy to use interface, I assume it'll be same as regular mortar.

[sh4rkman]

C16 TAPV reticle :

Emplaced/OpenTop mk19 doesn't have an optic but looks like it can be ranged up to 1500m :

[Ferrariic]

Interesting,

1. Can you elevate/depress the turret, and if so
2. Do you know the max elevation or depression? I'm assuming you cannot reset it back to 0°, as if it were an emplaced mg.
3. Is there an idea of how many degrees are added/subtracted from the turret per 100m increment
4. Is it a dynamic amount per 100m instead of flat?

Still 100m increments isn't technically precise lol, it may suffer from the same issue all mk19s have.

[Ferrariic]

https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/1dfo3jm/comment/l8l5xdg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Sent a question of changing the pars dial to a dev on reddit, it appears that it likely won't change as they'd rather not promote the use of vics for indirect fire support, and looking at the mk19 options in-game it wouldn't be too suitable to add to calc as a full model, at best it would be an experimental option with a warning if you do decide.

[SuisQi]

https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/1dfo3jm/comment/l8l5xdg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Sent a question of changing the pars dial to a dev on reddit, it appears that it likely won't change as they'd rather not promote the use of vics for indirect fire support, and looking at the mk19 options in-game it wouldn't be too suitable to add to calc as a full model, at best it would be an experimental option with a warning if you do decide.

you can make an accurate ruler sticker and place it on the original scale to be more precise. Also, I would like to ask if your MK19 calculator is accurate, and what are the parameters?

[Ferrariic]

you can make an accurate ruler sticker and place it on the original scale to be more precise. Also, I would like to ask if your MK19 calculator is accurate, and what are the parameters?

Please checkout the active PR attached to this issue for the most precise parameters and testing.

https://github.com/sh4rkman/SquadCalc/pull/149

You can read through this current issue to see what tests and changes have been performed with documentation. Though the SDK states 230, plugging in 238 to squad calc works best for the most accurate shots if attempting to hit whole number degrees. Though as sh4rkman alluded to earlier, this value may be variable with distance and not valid at all distances. More testing needs to be done.

[Ferrariic]

Per : https://github.com/sh4rkman/SquadCalc/issues/148#issuecomment-2154808286 One of the first games, back, most incaps on the team at 24 / 0 / 13 (Incap, deaths, kills)

Using the AAVP results below:

This is the best result we can hope for, and I'm very pleased with it. For ranging the AAVP at these extreme distances, I took a screenshot of the aavp screen in paint, and multiplied 19px by the required degrees to get the elevation value for values in excess of the 6° marked limit. [There is a rule guide below for marking these extreme ranges]

With the above pic and the vehicle mk19 I went 16 incaps 14 kills 0 deaths at an avg range of 1200m, unfortunately didn't make it past first point lmao, had to do bursts of 3-5 with the mk19 open top vic version to counteract the kick.

--- guide rule example below ---

I did make a gauge for discriminating distances for those interested in this topic:

Example Use Case (MK19 emplacement, Zero method): Place the marker at the zero of the mk19 implement, also works for aavp and anything using mk19)

Example Use Case (MK19 emplacement, Horizon method): Elevate/depress the gun to the world horizon at the marker, also works for aavp and anything using mk19)

Effectively it uses the horizon level, or zero level to calculate the right distance for a target, as the reticle isn't great for the mk19s.

Another mk19 game, ended up doing better than one 120mm, and a little worse than the other 120mm, 30 i / 22 k / 0 d

@SuisQi inspired the ruler above: https://github.com/sh4rkman/SquadCalc/issues/148#issuecomment-2171000407

[Ferrariic]

Final update I can really give here, had a lot of really great games w/ this PR and it's as fine tuned as I can make it. The most relevant one is here w/ the Pars III mk19 on Al-Basrah. Most games I've played with other mk19 variants have had similar results, though slightly more effort required. 43i/0d/23k.

Honorable mentions using US Marines AAVP:

Lmk what you think

[sh4rkman]

Alright let's introduce it!

I'll keep a big MOA despite the fact that imo it should be less, but at least it will warn users that it can be way imprecise because of input imprecision

[Ferrariic]

Wonderful, thanks!

I can update my PR to fix the merge conflict in a few hrs. You may want to update pars mk3 image, mine is not as clean as yours.

[sh4rkman]

Give me this week to merge/final test it again (mostly the spread/moa)

I need to deal with m121 nerfs first

[Ferrariic]

Give me this week to merge/final test it again (mostly the spread/moa)

I need to deal with m121 nerfs first

Sounds good, tyvm!

[Ferrariic]

In reference to the new gravity changes I've run some tests using values in squad calc, with modified gravity and velocity with the mk19 40mm.

I've performed 3 tests at 10°, 15° and 20° PARS III Mk19 elevation on 0° pitch 0° roll terrain on Talil.

Setup

1. Bring Pars III Mk19 to J-13-6-3-8-6 and setup rep station, using UAV in admin cam to gauge target hits.
2. When elevating the PARS MK19 to the degree of elevation required, use individual pixel counting and mouse movements to bring the mouse from a lower degree to the required degree (ex. 9° -> 10°) and stop when the digital dial reads the required distance.
3. Fire mk19 and mark center cluster.
4. Use SquadCalc with above mix of values to see where the calculator indicates the hit location.

10° Test - 2000 meters, displacement from true center in meters 1° of variance is equal to 194 meters at this range	Velocity/Gravity	9.78 m/s2		9.8 m/s2
238 m/s	< +/- 5	< +/- 5
240 m/s	+45	+30

15° Test - 2870 meters, displacement from true center in meters 1° of variance is equal to 180 meters at this range	Velocity/Gravity	9.78 m/s2		9.8 m/s2
238 m/s	< +/- 10	< +/- 10
240 m/s	+85	+60

20° Test - 3600 meters, displacement from true center in meters 1° of variance is equal to 155 meters at this range	Velocity/Gravity	9.78 m/s2		9.8 m/s2
238 m/s	+100	+45
240 m/s	+155	+138

Values are approximate based upon center hit location in each salvo group and calculated with squad calc.

238 m/s and 9.8 m/s2 seems to work best, but there is definitely some small issues with varying range which are better appreciated at longer distance. However, since the gravity will be changing to 9.78 m/s2: I may need to reduce the velocity in the PR to 237.5 or something similar, since the gravity has been reduced, the projectiles travel further, so the corresponding velocity should be reduced as a result. Going to run these numbers and then update PR.

Edit: Gravity and velocity updated to 9.78 m/s2 and 237 m/s from 238. PR updated.

[Ferrariic]

Discovered an issue, referenced above, which pertains to very long range shots >4km on maps with "low" skyboxes. The skybox seems to prevent the grenades from impacting/hitting the target, this is my assumption as the wiki does not state that the mk19 grenades have a detonation or cleanup time.

Updating issue: The max appreciable flight time of the explosive is 20s according to sdk. This will need to be updated in the calculator to provide an accurate assessment of range.

[sh4rkman]

Looking back into SDK to understand why changing gravity to 9.78 doesn't fix everything, i now did find 135m/s attached to MK19. It looks like the 130 velocity i initially found was the AAVP version of the weapon. Lowering the gravity to 9.78 with that new 135 velocity should be the mathematically right solution.

Now, testing with the Chinese testing workshop mod i feel like it's actually hitting right when one tapping left click in semi-auto : it's like your need to adjust velocity is to fight the recoil of the gun.

Problems are starting to add on top of each others.. time of flight limitation, recoil that need to be manually corrected the hacky way, input imprecision, i'm now considering this implemention not viable since i don't want users to extrapolate the imprecision of MK19 to the whole calculator.

OWI don't want the MK19 to be used as indirect weapon and they are kinda right : it would be op as fuck if we could spam 40mm grenade as precisely at a 5km range.

[Ferrariic]

Looking back into SDK to understand why changing gravity to 9.78 doesn't fix everything, i now did find 135m/s attached to MK19. It looks like the 130 velocity i initially found was the AAVP version of the weapon. Lowering the gravity to 9.78 with that new 135 velocity should be the mathematically right solution.

Now, testing with the Chinese testing workshop mod i feel like it's actually hitting right when one tapping left click in semi-auto : it's like your need to adjust velocity is to fight the recoil of the gun.

Problems are starting to add on top of each others.. time of flight limitation, recoil that need to be manually corrected the hacky way, input imprecision, i'm now considering this implemention not viable since i don't want users to extrapolate the imprecision of MK19 to the whole calculator.

OWI don't want the MK19 to be used as indirect weapon and they are kinda right : it would be op as fuck if we could spam 40mm grenade as precisely at a 5km range.

Tbh that's second point is very true, It is highly op lol... I am consistently getting the most kills in every game without seeing a single person and it's extremely low effort when you get it set up.

Here's a screenshot of the endgame when I saw your post, since I'm doing it rn: .

But yes to your main point, I completely understand if you don't want to implement this in the calculator because there are a multitude of factors which make it less than viable to the average squad player. If you'd like to shelve this idea until something better (accuracy/etc) comes along that's fine by me, and I think I encourage it to be honest. If you don't mind, I'll be using my fork of the calculator for my attacks because it's effective for me. It's a little too broken for everyone to use in-game.

Maybe it is for the best if the squad community doesn't have access to this :P After doing this for a while...it is not fair to anyone but the guy with the AAVP/Mk19 variant, I've gone 10+ games without dying and wiping the whole enemy team...

The game after I made this post 44 - 0 - 31... again most kills in the game I mean it's not even any effort at all and you can solo delete the enemy team from anywhere...

I completely understand if you don't want to add this in, because it's just very overpowered when you get it right & might ruin the meta, but also because it can be a little difficult to setup and get the nuances of.

[Ferrariic]

235 m/s seems more accurate, I agree.

Edit: I'm totally fine with closing the PR and issue if you don't think it will work for the majority of users without an experimental disclaimer. I'll use my fork for my own calcs though since I find it very useful if that's the case.

Bit of a life situation as well: I'll be starting surgical residency tomorrow, so I won't be as dedicated to squad outside of playing a match of the game once a week or so for the next 5 yrs, at the very least until I get accustomed to this new hospital. So I likely won't be able to advance this for the foreseeable future. That being said, I agree with what you decide as its your project.

Summary for qualifers for use: 0/0 terrain, visual ruler, time of flight 20s or less, using rws or emplaced variant no vehicle open tops = max precision. Therefore I agree this is highly experimental as there are many factors to get this able to work.

[Ferrariic]

I think I have a fair solution to this problem and other problems w/ regards to future indirect fire weapons: adding a custom weapon option which allows you to input details of the weapon into the calculator. Therefore the onus is not on SquadCalc to be "correct", and users could input any weapon of their choosing that they find in testing. They would have to know the necessary MOA, velocity, etc — but I'm sure other users have other ideas for indirect fire methods.

I was planning on implementing a BMP-1 cannon PR in the future, however this would kill two birds w/ one stone.

[SuisQi]

Can you send a video to see how you use the MK19

[Ferrariic]

Can you send a video to see how you use the MK19

I'm sorry I'm doing 100 hr weeks rn in surgery, I won't be on squad for a while, maybe a few months.

https://github.com/sh4rkman/SquadCalc/issues/148#issuecomment-2171873548

1. Get level ground with vehicle
2. Find horizon
3. Use visual ruler to get degrees
4. Elevate gun to degrees and fire

[utkuvrs]

There is nothing wrong here, PARS III OP cuz Turkish power.

[sh4rkman]

done with https://github.com/sh4rkman/SquadCalc/pull/204