Firing reference
Ballistic Calculator fields — what actually changes the firing solution?
For elevation, separate the range-and-charge relationship from horizontal bearing and target-card context.
Quick answer
Use target distance and powder charges for the practical elevation relationship: elevation (°) = distance (km) × 12 ÷ powder charges. At 60°, that is equivalent to 5 km per charge. Bearing is traverse/aiming direction, not a variable in that simple elevation formula, and target classification is reference context in the strongest current guidance. The current shell-selector effect remains unresolved.
Use the calculator fields correctly
Step 1 — Use range and powder charges for the elevation relationship
The strongest full-release public evidence consistently relates elevation to target distance and the number of powder charges. Choose the charge count appropriate to the range, then solve elevation from that range/charge relationship rather than adding bearing to the elevation arithmetic.
Step 2 — Use the corroborated mental formula when you want to bypass the calculator
Two independent full-release community guides give the same practical equation: elevation in degrees = target distance in km × 12 ÷ powder charges. As an illustrative calculation, 12 km with 3 charges gives 48°. Treat this as strongly corroborated community guidance, not as a developer-published exact equation or a fixed mission recipe.
Step 3 — Treat bearing as traverse and aiming information
Bearing tells you the direction in which the turret or gun must aim. The simple public elevation formula does not use bearing as an elevation variable, so keep horizontal direction and vertical elevation as separate parts of the firing solution.
Step 4 — Treat target classification as reference context unless stronger evidence says otherwise
The strongest calculator-field guide evidence describes target classification as optional or useful for target-card context, not as a required input to the simple elevation calculation. Do not invent a target-type elevation modifier that the current evidence does not establish.
Step 5 — Keep the shell selector unresolved
Full-release formula evidence is shell-agnostic, and current structured firing-table evidence describes powder charge as shell-agnostic. However, Demo-era calculator documentation says shell weight changed the solution, while the in-game calculator visibly asks for shell type. Until a current same-range/same-charge comparison or developer statement resolves that contradiction, do not call the selector cosmetic and do not claim that shell type never affects elevation.
What each field means in the safe current scope
Current shell-selector semantics still need a targeted version 1.0 (1618) test. Demo-era documentation says shell weight changed the calculator solution, while full-release formula and firing-table evidence are shell-agnostic. This page therefore does not state that shell type never affects elevation, that the selector is cosmetic, or that the public formula exactly reproduces every internal calculator detail or rounding behavior.
Avoid these calculator assumptions
- Putting bearing into the elevation arithmetic instead of treating it as horizontal aiming information.
- Treating target classification as a confirmed elevation modifier without evidence.
- Calling the community-derived equation a developer-published formula.
- Assuming the shell selector is cosmetic because the full-release mental formula does not include shell type.
- Claiming shell type never affects elevation despite conflicting Demo-era calculator documentation.
- Promising exact rounding or internal calculator behavior that the public evidence does not establish.
Why the field roles are separated
Run 02 separated the calculator's firing-solution inputs from bearing and target-card context, while Run 09 independently cross-checked the manual elevation relationship. Two full-release Steam guides converge on the same range/charge formula, and historical player derivation matches it. Developer material independently supports the broader design intent that the simplified ballistics can be reasoned about mentally and that skilled players can bypass the calculator, but the developer did not publish this exact equation. The remaining shell-selector contradiction is intentionally preserved rather than resolved by inference.
What you may need next
Range/charge relationship corroborated; shell selector unresolvedCurrent-build limitsChecked Aug 14, 2026
Range and powder charges have strong convergent public support for the practical elevation relationship, bearing is not part of the simple elevation equation, and target classification is reference/optional in the strongest guide evidence. The exact current effect of the visible shell selector remains unresolved.
Version context: Version 1.0 (1618), Patch #4 research baseline. The manual formula is corroborated by two independent full-release guides; exact current shell-selector behavior conflicts with Demo-era calculator documentation.
Still uncertain
- Exact current effect of shell selection on the in-cab Ballistic Calculator result
- Exact current internal calculator implementation beyond the corroborated public range/charge relationship
- Exact rounding and precision behavior
- Any current target-classification effect beyond the reference/context role described by the strongest public guide evidence
Evidence and verification context
- Two independent full-release manual-ballistics guides: Both independently give elevation degrees = target distance in km × 12 ÷ powder charges and the equivalent 5 km-per-charge relationship at 60°. Their convergence supports practical use, but does not make the equation developer-authored.
- Developer-marked simplified-ballistics explanation: Supports the design intent that ballistics are simple enough for skilled players to reason about mentally and bypass the calculator. It does not publish the exact community equation.
- Current structured firing-table snapshot: Describes powder charge as shell-agnostic and range-based, with effective charge speed shared across shells. This strengthens the range/charge relationship but does not by itself resolve every possible in-cab shell-selector effect.
- Demo-era calculator documentation: Historical calculator documentation says shell weight changed the solution. Because that conflicts with shell-agnostic full-release evidence and the current calculator still exposes a shell selector, the current selector effect remains targeted-test-needed.