Terminal Ballistics Puns

It seems to me like a large complaint of a lot of players, myself included, is that bullet behavior in this game is not even remotely accurate. Some of these suggested changes in settings would probably not require much overhead or time, others would involve more intricate system retooling.

There should be a setting that allows you to switch between 3 (4?) different ballistic behaviors:

Classic: Bullets behave the same way they do currently as far as speed and trajectories.
Arcade: Bullets are hitscan.
Realistic: Bullet speed is doubled, on average, with some guns receiving more or less. This would mostly fix trajectory issues.

This seems relatively simple, probably requiring the least investment from devs to add/change.

Terminal Ballistics should have their own setting, so you can mix and match the above with the following 2 (3?) choices:

Classic: Bullet damage and penetration is the same as currently in game.
Realistic: Damage is doubled, and combat-states no longer exist. You won't be one-tapping someone in the foot from stealth anymore, but you also won't need to sink 9 rounds into center mass if combat is active.

This also seems like a fairly low-investment change that could be made and added.

If Ubi wanted to make the game it seems a lot of us want, I would propose the following addition to each of the above settings:

Immersive Realistic: Bullet speed is now based on caliber and ammunition, as well as barrel length.
-Each weapon is tuned individually to standard mil-spec caliber type for m/s.
-Short barrels reduce bullet speed accordingly
-Suppressors no longer reduce damage, but also put enemies on curious-alert to check for sound
-Most weapons have a new aim-option bound to reload key: -Load Subsonic/Load Standard
-Pressing button initiates reload of the selected type
-Subsonic ammunition does not place enemies on curious-alert
-Subsonic ammunition has significantly lowered velocity, and thus trajectory, similar to classic.

Immersive Realistic: Weapons no longer have a damage rating. Instead, body parts are mapped for damage values, with damage and penetration based on caliber of bullet fired into body parts. Body Armor increases survivability and decreases speed.

This would take considerably more investment in both time and money, since portions of the game would need to be retooled to accommodate, particularly on Immersive Realistic Terminal Ballistics setting.

Depending on

I was reading about the military's interest in the Barrett MRAD, and it got me thinking. I know here in the long-range community, 6.5 Creedmoor is a super popular cartridge because of its external ballistics, but if you look at the chamberings for the MRAD, there are a whole slew of cartridges, everything from 7.62x51 NATO to .338 Lapua Magnum. Obviously the military is interested in more than just shooting paper/making steel ring, so I'm curious - what cartridges offer the best balance between external ballistics and terminal performance? At 500 yards? At 1000 yards? A mile?

I'd love to see if there's any comparisons or spreadsheets with that kind of data. I nerd out with numbers.

What’s the effect of silencers on terminal ballistics? I saw most marine infantry are starting to make silencers standard issue. Other than weight and expense, are there any downsides to silencers such as reductions in terminal ballistic efficiency (muh stoppin’ powah) and if so how would switching to a non silenced but lowpower subsonic round fair vs silencers. (On the chance that this is a sprey-tier question, I should clarify that I’ve never seen a gun before and any mistakes are cause my little brother is typing this with a usb flightstick)

Hi! I'm looking for information on China PLA rocket force ground based anti-ship ballistic missiles (my first post on this subreddit).

Background

Much has been discussed and written about China's area denial / anti access capability based on anti-ship ballistic missiles launched from ground. This capability puts US fleet near Chinese coast at a great risk, and thus hinders US fleet's ability to stay and conduct operations.

In traditional ballistic missile doctrine, the targets are usually stationary (at least during missile flight), and therefore ballistic missiles need only course correction (usually done before re-entry), but does not need homing (target tracking and continuous course correction). However, when hitting moving targets such as US naval fleet, even a simple back-of-envelop calculation shows that the chance of hitting a target is slim unless the warhead is guided until impact (~1000km range ballistic missile warhead will fly through atmosphere at around 3km/s or Mach 9 for about 40s, during which a carrier doing evasive maneuvers at 30 knots can move as much as 700m).

Curiously, despite that the terminal phase warhead guidance is a must-have, I cannot find any information/discussion on this capability. So I'm asking the community help answering some questions.

Questions

1. How is target tracking done? Does warhead (hypersonic re-entry vehicle) carry on-board sensors (RF, optical) and/or does it rely on targeting information from another platform?
2. How is course correction done? Does a warhead have moving aerodynamic surfaces, RCS thrusters, or gyro to effect trajectory change?
3. If answers to 1 & 2 are unknown, then how do US general staff and think-tanks make assessments of Chinese ASBM capabilities?
4. Bottom line, this is a real threat or just a big bluff?

I'm interested either real intel or assessment from experts. Thanks!

I know of programs to put lasers on aircraft for boost phase ICBM defense, but installing a few lasers in a city to shoot down warheads before impact is a far more logical idea. You can literally see incoming MIRVs during reentry, it stands to reason that lasers could be pointed at them to destroy them. With the near-instantaneous speed lasers can be aimed and fired, they would be effective against even large numbers of decoys/warheads. So what is preventing this impregnable shield over every city? Obviously cloud cover is a problem, but at least on clearer days there is a lengthy window of time from when the warheads are visible from the ground until detonation. If the heat shield is hard to penetrate by laser beams, is it feasible to simply use more powerful lasers?

Heres something I noticed while testing a few things in IL2 yesterday, trying to shoot down two flights of IL-2s.

The P-47, with it's eight .50s and extra ammo, did poorly against the heavily armored planes, I believe for two reasons: 1 - my aim sucks, and good aim is vital when using widely-spread wing mounted guns, and 2 - the power of .50s lies in punching through the armor and making lots of holes in vital components (like the engine, the cooling system, or the squishy pilot) or setting fuel tanks on fire. All of those are too heavily armored in the IL-2

The Fw 190A-8 (and maybe the A-6 too, but I don't have it) did much better in destroying the IL-2s' tails, with its MK 108s, MG 151/20s and even to some extent to its MG 131 mini-cannons. The placement of the 108s and their limited ammo limits their usefulness though.

The late Bf 109s also do pretty well, with MG 151/20s in gunpods, MG 131 minicannons, and especially their engine mounted MK 108. Again, after using up the ammo for the 108, their capability diminishes a lot.

Finally, the only plane I uses that could take out more than four IL-2s with a single load of ammo was the Bf 110 with the MG 151/20 gunpod. Four 20mm cannons with plenty of ammo per gun is a lot of dakka for smashing rudders and elevators.

Today I will try using the Me 262 with its four MK 108s. Dem flaps gonna be useful.

Is there a plan in the pipeline to add different ammunition types for weapons if in the future we will be able to change different types of uppers and barrel diameters? For instance, if I’m running suppressed I’d also like to run subsonic ammo for my MK18 in rundown for instance. Or if we want to beef it, could we run hotter ammo types and change the upper to be able to run those specific ammo types?

Also, is there a plan to add more simulated bullet physics, terminal ballistics, fragmentation, bullet ricochet off corners and different surfaces based on type. Also bullet frag and dispersion having the ability to wound your soldier if in the dispersion zone of that fragmentation. I think this combined with proper simulation of diff types of body armor and armor thickness would make this more realistic than arma, and would especially be important in CQB environment.

I'm very interested in terminal ballistics and the true lethality of small arms. My research has led me to develop particular opinions and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks.

To start, in my opinion, debate about the lethality of handgun calibers is pointless because, in comparison to rifles, they essentially just poking holes in a person. Whereas, when a bullet reaches rifle velocities (the magic number being 2200 fps because it tears human tissue rather than simply stretching) it starts to have effects on the body beyond simply damaging whatever organ it passes through. The difference between 9mm and 45acp or even 9mm vs 44mag/50ae is marginal when it hits a person compared to a rifle like 5.56.

I'm also of the opinion that, just based on my rudimentary understanding of physics, that velocity is far more important than mass when determining the lethality of a bullet. A heavier bullet does less damage than a fast one. Doubling the mass of a bullet doubles the kinetic energy. Doubling the velocity quadruples it.

I'm curious if anyone else has explored the literature and has any info to share. What makes bullets lethal?

Granted, they were not fired into ballistics gel, but I also wasn't intending to recover and examine them. The wet backstop stopped the bullets near the surface, and I actually managed to recover rather a lot of lead that trip. These were the best preserved specimens of the .58 cal Burton Minies I fired that day.

TL;DR Barrel length and range should make more of an impact on damage than it does in game.

One thing I love about Tarkov how we have this awesome gun nut appeasing customization and an excruciatingly detailed armor penetration system. One of my major gripes with Tarkov is how there is a major disconnect between the damage you inflict on a target and how little it has to do with the platform you utilize; in particular - barrel length.

Lets use the M4 as an example - A round coming out of an M4 does the same armor pen and same damage whether it's coming out of a shorty barrel or a 20" barrel. The amount of armor pen and damage is determined entirely by your round type. In the real world, armor penetration is a speed game. 55 grain FMJ (I realize the ingame rounds are hollowpoints) 556 going out of a 20 inch is able to penetrate level III steel plates, see video for proof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMYkEMhPsO8&t=1s

Reason for this is pretty simple - rounds going out of a 20 inch barrel have a higher muzzle velocity, more energy, and better penetrating power. That 55 grain is a fast boi going out a barrel that long. However in Tarkov, it doesn't matter if it's going out of a short barrel or long barrel, it's gonna penetrate the same. In addition, distance is another major factor in determining penetration. That fast boi isn't a hefty sniper round, so it's not gonna retain that same penetration power from Radar Dome across Reserve. These two concepts interact together to create a new interaction between round type, barrel length and range. That shorty FAL build is slinging very penetrating rounds yes, but will it retain that penetration power across the lake in woods? Probably not as well as a FAL rocking a long barrel, and that could mean the difference when you're 2 tapping the odd goober wearing samurai armor on Woods.

What do you guys think of having barrel length increase armor penetration and excess range decrease armor pen? It'd give a reason to run Long Hefty Bois. Bad idea or good idea?

If I got anything wrong please do correct me, will edit.

So I was looking through the Terminal Ballistic Data Volume III, but then I realized I have no idea how to actually read the thing properly. This is my first time looking at graphs like this so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Can someone help me out? I know I look like some clueless elementary student, but just the double x-axis is confusing me HARD.

This picture is just an example of my point.

For example, how is that 0 degree slope supposed to be read???

(Hopefully I don't get hunted by mods for that picture)

Hey guys. Thanks for all the great help in our earlier post about zeroing.

We have now more or less completed external ballistic and its very accurate to real life thanks to the use of real world ballistic coefficients.

We are now moving on to terminal ballistics, we need data on different ammo types capability to penetrate different materials (9x19, 5.56x45, 7.62x51, 5.7x28, 12 guage etc). Is there such a database in existence?

Thanks

Wanted to post these results from everyone participating in this subreddit in the study we have been doing on terminal ballistics of various projectiles. We have been actively collecting real-world data on projectile performance compared to what we have witnessed when conducting our own test. Unfortunately, no one has reported bullets in for the peregrine so here are our findings below:

124 Peregrine Ballistics Gel Test

The goal of this study will be to find and record:

1. Consistency of diameter, length, weight, and Ogive of the projectile.
2. Complete load, workup.
3. At what point, the intended projectile will expand at its lowest velocity.
4. Report wounding channel effects of the projectile at various speeds i.e. Neck, Temp Cavity Length, Location of Max Temporary Cavity Diameter, Maximum Penetration Depth, and weight retained.
5. Report results of what the projectile will do at various distances through Clear Ballistics Gel block with Rib Bone.

https://preview.redd.it/3ry3ql2but561.png?width=2944&format=png&auto=webp&s=4fc8b7d88b7a06ba66ab71f700a8a6bf23b7fd2e

Abstract

• The 124 Peregrine VLR4 will expand at the lowest velocity between 1700-1800 FPS.
• The current advertised 1:8 twist was not optimal for our lot of bullets.
• It is important to record bullet diameter, Ogive, length, and weight when receiving a new lot of bullets. This will be potentially helpful for hunters when calculating if their bullet will produce pitching or yawing on game terminally. Moreover, it will also aid in calculating more accurate bullet stability. Diameter inconsistency can result in extreme spread spikes due to irregularities with diameter that is in relation with obturation.
• Current stability with the advertised 1:8 twist, as we used**, yields the following SG's: 1650 FPS: 1.15 SG, 1990 FPS: 1.22 SG, 2500 FPS: 1.32 SG, 2850 FPS: 1.37 SG. Which is marginally stable that produces bullet yaw and is ultimately not optimal for our lot.**
• A 1:7 Twist yielded the following SG's, which would be more optimal with our lot of bullets received. The results were: 1650 FPS: 1.50 SG, 1990 FPS: 1.59 SG, 2500 FPS: 1.72 SG, 2850 FPS: 1.80 SG.
• **The bullet itself has performed as intended regarding wound channel creation at low velocities. Further, it is not fair to say that the bullet is to blame because of the inadequate twist as advertised. The VLR4 is also offered in a 118-grain version that would be more o

Anyone know if there is a course that studies terminal ballistics (how bullets interact with inanimate materials and human bodies)?

I've heard stories about bullets ending up in really strange places once it enters the body. the trajectory changes in unpredictable ways, even when the shot placement was dead-on.

I feel like when it comes to terminal ballistics, and 9mm vs 45 debates, this sort of thing never gets discussed. a heavier bullet probably should stick to its "intended" (lack of a better word) trajectory and this should give heavier bullets an advantage in this regard, is this right?

Hey everyone! We sent out a while back some feedback on your own personal experience on projectiles and what they do terminally on game at distance. We have been collecting a lot of data and it’s overwhelming, thank you.

We just finished up the 124 peregrine testing and are off to the Berger 156 EOL next!

https://www.reloadingallday.com/post/124-peregrine-ballistics-gel-test