Quoted:
you brought it up, not me.

Quoted:


yep we once had a other unit firing on the same GT line of our observers.  Round lands 100m off due deflection error, result round lands on the 40m from the foxes on the hill lucky they were in tracks at the time, needless to say after that  they were always very concerned with GT and Angle T as well as where and what other units were shooting that day.

Quoted:



It's not the Coriolis effect.  Coriolis affects n-s ballistics (or the n-s component of the ballistics).   E-w ballistics is, as pointed out earlier by other folks, affected by the eotvos effect.   Artillery tables should account for it because it does matter.

Quoted:
Which is the practical application of ballistics so that the desired effects are obtained by fire.
You are correct in that the position of the gun doesn't matter after firing.  You are not considering the location of the target before or after firing.



The Army calculates firing data based on the distance between the gun and the target.  Further, the standard conditions the Army assumes include the earth not rotating.



So say the target is 2000 m from the gun.  We could pull an elevation from the TFT that would let the gun fire 2000 m under standard conditions.  Since the earth is spinning, the achieved range would be more or less than 2000 m; depending on which direction the gun was fired.



That brings us to the question posed by the OP.  If fired in the direction of the rotation of the earth, the achieved range will be less than the firing data under standard conditions.  If fired against the direction of the rotation of the earth, the achieved range will be further than predicted under standard conditions.



The OP is poorly phrased.  The projectile does not fly shorter or further relative to the gun's position when fired.  But it does impact shorter or further relative to the target, which is what we really care about.

Quoted:


I lost the front end of my jeep at NTC once.  The Battalion FDC input me for the registration point.  Fortunately I was on a bit if a rise and the round impacted below us.  As my driver and I were getting off the ground, two four-deuce rounds impacted.  Good thing it was a registration.  It would have been nice to know I was doing the Task Force mortars.

Quoted:





You brought up the amount of range increase or decrease at zero deflection.  You are the one who originally quoted that part of the chart.  And you also edited out the post above mine so it would be very clear.



zero mils would obviously have no increase or decrease in range because its perpendicular to the rotation of the earth.  

Quoted:

Quoting the OP's first post.

"It seems like artillery rounds would travel further if fired in the opposite direction the world is turning at 1000 miles per hour. When it comes to artillery with ranges of dozens of miles, does the round fly the same distance if fired exactly into the rotation and exactly away from the rotation of the planet?"

Granted, he didn't ask about the shot being taken at different latitudes (which I acknowledged would alter the range of the shell.)


What I'm arguing is a direct analysis of a thought experiment, as suggested by the OP.

You seem to have a strange need to prove me either wrong (I'm not,) or arrogant (I'm not that either.) Is it because I've never served in the military?  Does that bother you?

Quoted:

Quoting the OP's first post.

"It seems like artillery rounds would travel further if fired in the opposite direction the world is turning at 1000 miles per hour. When it comes to artillery with ranges of dozens of miles, does the round fly the same distance if fired exactly into the rotation and exactly away from the rotation of the planet?"

Granted, he didn't ask about the shot being taken at different latitudes (which I acknowledged would alter the range of the shell.)

What I'm arguing is a direct analysis of a thought experiment, as suggested by the OP.

You seem to have a strange need to prove me either wrong (I'm not,) or arrogant (I'm not that either.)  Is it because I've never served in the military?  Does that bother you?

Quoted:


I lost the front end of my jeep at NTC once.  The Battalion FDC input me for the registration point.  Fortunately I was in a bit if a rise and the round impacted below us.  As my driver and I were getting off the ground, two four-deuce rounds impacted.  Good thing it was a registration.  It would have been nice to know I was doing the Task Force mortars.

Quoted:
huh   ... what we find interesting is by your own admission  it seems you have no understanding of Geometry, Trig or Ballistics as it applies to FA projectiles , let alone US  Artillery Gunnery procedures and you want to participate in a "thought experiment"   ..lol  





I'd leave the "rocket science" to the experts.

Quoted:

Tell me what I don't understand when I say that an artillery shell fired at the equator in either a due east or due west direction will go the same distance.

I've learned about your deflection tables, thanks to this thread.  The table shows that there is no range correction in those two scenarios.

How am I wrong?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-40/fig7-17.gif
 

Quoted:


Thanks, It makes sense because there is less horizontal velocity for the Eotvos effect (which is new to me).

I was assuming it was for a different powder load producing different velocity and requiring a different angle to reach the target; as in the multiple rounds hitting simultaneously technique.  But it seemed to me that there would be way more than 2 sets needed if that was the case.  I can see why a computer would do this way faster.

Quoted:



A computer is faster and easier to use for a wider variety of conditions, but there are ways of creating and applying a general correction to your manual firing data.  Anywhere from correcting for muzzle velocity outside of standard, weather conditions, target elevation above/below gun, the two corrections being discussed in this thread, and a couple others.  Good people with manual can be pretty fast and accurate, but it takes prep work to come up with the corrections beforehand.

Quoted:


Thanks, It makes sense because there is less horizontal velocity for the Eotvos effect (which is new to me).

I was assuming it was for a different powder load producing different velocity and requiring a different angle to reach the target; as in the multiple rounds hitting simultaneously technique.  But it seemed to me that there would be way more than 2 sets needed if that was the case.  I can see why a computer would do this way faster.