akd

Very interesting. Can you also attach the test scenario you are using to the thread (or share by dropbox if too big)? I was also playing around with a test and found that you can also place a wall in front of the KT to get an almost perfectly hull-down target presentation. I ran this setup (800m range) several times just to get a feel for how it was working. Didn't record stats, but I did note that one first-round APDS shot that missed did so 500m short of the target, which is the most extreme error I've every seen with tank guns firing at this range. Could just be a fluke range error, but might be worth tracking whether or not any of the APDS shots that miss do so with extreme errors.

Thanks for the saves. In "Scottish Corridor 005," the guy (with the StG) that is still in the bunker is no longer occupying it and the bunker is dead (the bunker and the survivor can be selected separately). Possibly something went wrong with his placement during bailout and he has remained within the confines of the bunker 3D model (he is in the same location as the bunker, but not "inside" it), which is intercepting much of the incoming direct fire and messing with the ability of infantry or tanks to target the guy or the area with HE (grenades/75mm). And although the bunker geometry is stopping most of the incoming fire to his location, he can fire out from that location. However, I did eventually kill him with tank MG fire from the rear quarter. Reloaded the save and was also able to easily kill him by area firing on the location with the 2-inch mortar. The other two bunkers still alive in the save were easily knocked out with direct 75mm fire and had no survivors. In "Scottish Corridor 002", the bunker near the trenches does indeed appear to be knocked out but still have "crew" inside (selecting the bunker selects the survivors and vice versa). However, they are not invincible. In one load of this save, one of the crew was immediately hit by rifle fire, but as above the last crew member separated from the bunker but remained in the same location. Hard to explore exactly what is going on here as I can't keep the scenario from ending. The other bunker still alive, however, was easily knocked out with grenades. Seems something may be messing with the bailing out process in certain circumstances. Can either of these problems be reproduced in a controlled test?

You are misreading the chain of command display (far lower left). It is a chain, not a tree. For example, in your first image the selected breach team is out of C2 with its platoon HQ, but its platoon HQ is in C2 with the company HQ, which is in turn in C2 with its HQ (battalion). The breach team is NOT in C2 with the company HQ or the battalion HQ.

In this particular case, the visual position of the soldiers is a product of that level of that building model, possibly even a bug.

Declaring 10% variance based on 50 individual engagements that don't isolate the various factors is nonsense. These duel tests do not work for this purpose. Record spotting times and shots to hit for 50 Pz IV against 50 Shermans (or 10 with scenario restarted 5 times, etc). Next replace the Pz IVs with Shermans and record spotting times and shots to hit for another 50 individual engagements. Do not allow the targeted tanks to fire back (button them and give a restricted cover arc). You may want to set wind direction back away from the targeted tanks so that any tanks that pop smoke don't obscure other tanks. Obviously soft factors should be identical for all firing tanks. That might give you numbers that can be compared.

Do you have a save game you can send? If so, PM me.

There is an important footnote to that test: Could be total BS on the part of the Brit officer, but has to be considered. Two other points on the Isigny tests: 1. 17pdr sabot was also tested at 700m and 800m. 2. Hits were recorded as hits to the aiming point (glacis plate), not hits on the targeted tank. Many "misses" still struck the targeted tank. This in no way undermines the poor performance of the 17pdr SABOT relative to the other rounds in this particular test, but I've often seen the results of this test interpreted as 17pdr sabot only hitting a hull-up panther with 57% of the shots fired. http://wargaming.info/1998/us-army-1944-firing-test-no3/#more-89

Hull-down tank. The test cited in this thread was conducted against a 5' x 2' target meant to represent a hull-down Panther.

Although that may be the case, Vanir's test does not conclusively show that. A relatively small sample shows that there is no or little variance in the first round chance to hit a target of a certain size at a certain distance. Think about this simplified scenario: Assume range is known and target is at 1000m. Target is a 100' x 100' square. A gun fires 100 rounds each of two different types of ammunition at this target and every round is a hit. Can we then assume there is no variance? No, we can only conclude that neither round has dispersion great enough to cause a miss on a 100' x 100' target at 1000m.

There is at least some randomized equipment on some CW vehicles. Achilles and Wolverine seem to have a bunch of options, and the Cromwell IV has randomized gas cans.

TRPs work as "TRAs" (radius = 50m, I think) for friendly guns.

Sorry Phil, I misunderstood what you were saying there.

But that is really neither here nor there. I don't think the issue here is absolute accuracy of either round, but the relative accuracy of APDS vs. APCBC. This report says less accurate, other reports say the same or more accurate, so that is huge problem if we want to show anything by comparing reports to in-game tests, even if we setup the the parameters in-game to perfectly match this one particular test.

Why 700m? Are you 100% certain on that? I have not seen documentation of WO 293/1263 that states if exact ranges were known by gunners. I've also seen it stated that these tests were against 5'x2' targets, not 6'x6' targets. edit: if this is an accurate quotation, then range was known but target was also smaller than originally stated: WO 291/1263, Firing Trials, 17pdr Sherman "Table VI has been constructed which shows the probability of a hit on a target 5' wide by 2' high (representing a Panther turret) at various ranges using both types of round." Range (yards) APC % AP/DS % 400 90.5 56.6 600 73.0 34.2 800 57.3 21.9 1000 45.3 14.9 1500 25.4 7.1 Comments and corrections These assume that the MPI is placed centrally on the target. The trace from the AP/DS round was not seen in 73% of cases by a flank observer, and in no case from inside the tank. Note: This data is for a known range (no estimation error) and MPI already put on target. Its value is in that it shows that hitting a hull down target is difficult for this HV gun in particular. Throw in some range estimation error (and other smaller errors) and you have a problem.

FYI, I did not run that quick test as a valid sample, but just as a counter to your claim of 100% accuracy based on no test at all. If accuracy were anywhere near 100%, there is almost no way I could get those results in a 10-shot sample. Now, however, you say you are running a controlled test. If so, I will be interested in the results if they are reproducible.

Phil, just a reminder, but there is no such thing as a "firing range conditions" in CMBN and as far as I know relative safety is not accounted for in time to aim, etc. I don't think that is a factor here, but the short range and size of the target certainly are important ones.

Could be a bug. Do you have documentation?

Absolutely not. This question is much more complex than you are suggesting. There are two major problems: 1. There are operational research documents that contradict the one you posted in this thread, with results showing equal accuracy for APCBC and APDS at certain ranges and results showing greater accuracy for APDS. However, I don't think any single one of these documents is the "right" one; this simply highlights that there is a complex issue of inconsistency at play here. This is discussed in depth in the thread you linked. In particular, read the very last post in that thread. 2. A higher velocity round can be both less precise and more accurate than a lower velocity round where we define accuracy as probability of a first round hit on a target at unknown range. This is because the flatter trajectory compensates for range errors. You cannot simply state broadly that APDS is less accurate than APCBC, particularly against a large target at short range. I have another document with a table that illustrates this well (but unfortunately I only have a scan of a single page and don't know what the actual source, but it is dated December 1944). The table gives the range at which there is a 50% chance of a first round hit on hull-up tank (allowing for typical range errors): 17pdr APCBC = 1000 yards 17pdr DS = 1100 yards Next the range at which there is a 50% chance of a hit with subsequent shots is given: 17pdr APCBC = 2000 yards 17pdr DS = 1300 yards

No, the gunner must direct lay on the target (but should be able to fire into defilade, i.e. beyond high walls).

There was no rank badge for privates, therefore no badge = private.

Do you have an example of when and where? Is this specific to a particular posture or animation or does it happen in all positions?

Sorry, but statements like this are being made in the thread:

Quick test: 10 Fireflies (regular-normal) firing against 10 front-on Panthers at 800m. All 10 used APC rather than APDS. Only 3 achieved first round hits.

Well, the flat is somewhat too close to the barrel interior, so perhaps it does need a tweak.

Look close: