Inclined Fire, part #3.1: NDS, or the fall of the favorite
I started with NDS method first because their other methodologies seem to be simple,
straightforward, and highly applicable. I consider their sniper/DMR training and Perotti's
book on sniping top of the line.
In that book, "From 1 to 1,000", inclined fire is covered by a couple of paragraphs that say approximately the following:
1. No correction within 160 MIL (≃9.1º).
2. For larger inclinations
2.1. Calculate difference in altitude between shooter and target, either using a map or by multiplying the distance by sine of inclination angle;
2.2. Divide by 3
2.3. Subtract this number from linear distance to the target, resulting in "equivalent horizontal distance" (EHD).
2.4. Take adjustments as if shooting horizontally at EHD.
Item 1 is clear. Item 2 can be rephrased as EHD = D - D * sin(α) / 3, where D is distance to target and α is absolute inclination.
JBM and LO-Calc gave surprising results (I did not believe it at first, had to check twice):
GP11 vertical miss distance, cm
15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 | |
300 | -9.1 | -10.5 | -11.3 | -11.3 | -10.1 | -8.1 | -4.9 | 0.3 |
400 | -19.9 | -23.5 | -25.4 | -26.6 | -25.3 | -22.8 | -17.4 | -9.3 |
500 | -35.4 | -42.6 | -47.0 | -49.4 | -49.8 | -46.0 | -39.2 | -27.5 |
600 | -58.4 | -69.7 | -79.3 | -83.5 | -84.7 | -81.3 | -71.0 | -55.2 |
700 | -88.7 | -108.7 | -122.8 | -131.3 | -133.9 | -130.0 | -118.7 | -98.5 |
800 | -131.7 | -159.8 | -182.1 | -194.7 | -201.2 | -197.4 | -185.8 | -158.1 |
900 | -189.2 | -230.7 | -261.5 | -282.0 | -292.3 | -291.5 | -275.8 | -244.4 |
1000 | -262.6 | -321.8 | -367.0 | -398.7 | -414.2 | -415.5 | -391.6 | -360.6 |
-15 | -20 | -25 | -30 | -35 | -40 | -45 | -50 | |
300 | -9.0 | -10.3 | -10.9 | -11.1 | -9.8 | -7.8 | -4.5 | 0.6 |
400 | -19.5 | -23.0 | -24.7 | -25.9 | -24.4 | -21.9 | -16.4 | -8.2 |
500 | -34.5 | -41.4 | -45.6 | -47.8 | -48.0 | -43.9 | -36.9 | -25.4 |
600 | -56.8 | -67.6 | -76.7 | -80.5 | -81.3 | -77.5 | -66.9 | -51.0 |
700 | -86.0 | -105.1 | -118.5 | -126.1 | -128.1 | -123.6 | -111.7 | -91.0 |
800 | -127.3 | -154.1 | -175.1 | -186.4 | -191.9 | -186.9 | -174.7 | -146.1 |
900 | -182.7 | -222.1 | -250.8 | -269.5 | -278.0 | -275.7 | -258.5 | -226.0 |
1000 | -252.9 | -309.0 | -351.2 | -380.1 | -393.1 | -392.0 | -366.0 | -333.2 |
Looks pretty much useless. Even simply fixing sights at 350 m works better.
Accuracy: bad
Domain: up to ≃400-500 m
Complexity: moderate -- 1 table lookup, 2 mathematical operations
Pros: none
Cons: inelegant and useless
How this method made its way into otherwise excellent book is beyond my comprehension.
Looks like nobody's perfect.