88mm KwK 36 L/56 accuracy test and some ideas

[-Jochen-]

Yesterday I build 2000 meter long shooting range scenario to test out some guns. terrain was totally flat without anything else but landmarks marking different ranges of 100, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 meters. Weather was clear and ground was dry.

I had accuracy data of 88mm KwK 36 L/56 an so I decided to test regular CM Tiger IE. Target was M4 Jumbo which was stripped from all ammo and smoke. Test data of real 88mm KwK 36 L/56 was from target size of 2.5 m X 2.5 meters. M4 is not precisely the same size but quite comparable.

First range was 2000 meters. I had to move M4 for a bit so that Tiger could spot it. 30 rounds fired, 2 hit target, hit propability 0.067, CM reported 0.21. Hits were about 8th and 22nd shots. Real life data indicated combat hit propability of about 0.5 at this range, shooting range hit propability was higher.

Second range was 1500 meters. Now tiger could see M4 without moving it. 30 rounds fired, 8 hit target, hit propability 26.7, CM reported 0.54 (I think). Hits were roughly evenly distributed. Real life data indicated combat hit propability of about 0.75 at this range, shooting range hit propability was higher.

I have full test data down to 100 meters at my home so I can post them here if needed. i realize that 30 rounds are bit small sample but I think it gives idea of the accuracy.

Few things I found out:

- Hit propability of this gun in CM seems to be ok in ranges near and below 1000m, after that hit probality is smaller than what was reported by 88mm KwK 36 L/56 manual. The difference between manual data and CM data gets larger as the range increases. This was not a suprise since BTS has stated that they have intentionally weakened hit propability of all guns at longer ranges from hit propabilities which were achieved in combat.

-If CM data is compared to real life 88mm KwK 36 L/56 manual data from practice shootings, the different is even larger.

- Seems like CM does not model target tracking. I would think that after first round that hits target range would be known by gunner, eliminating some of the guesswork and leaving round dispersion as only variable increasing successive shot hit propability greatly. This was not evident on test at any range. To conclusicely test this I should conduct more test sets of 30 rounds to see if hit propability increases after first round. If benefit from target tracking is not modeled in CM it is quite a omission.

I have also data for KwK 75mm L/24 and I think I will test it also since this gun can be found from several German halftracks and armoured cars. This is a low velocity weapon and quite different than 88mm KwK 36 L/56. This might give idea of behaviour of slow velocity rounds at distances.

If the hit propability at longer ranges (> 1000 meters) is for some reason weakened this gives some relative advantage to tanks that are equipped with lower penetration capability. Guns with better penetration capability cannot exploit their advantage as they might have done historically because their effective "can kill but cannot be killed zone" is reduced due to smaller hit propability at longer ranges.

Example:

Tank A has capability to penetrate tank B at range of 1500 meters.

Tank B has cabability to penetrate tank A at range of 500 meters.

->

Tank A has penetration advantage (can kill but cannot be killed) of 1000 meters over tank B.

However this advantage is smaller than it was historically if hit propability beyond say 1000 meters is smaller than was historic. Tanks with lower penetration capability can get closer to tanks with higher penetration capability easier and score kills.

Interesing issue, I keep posting my findings here as I progress.

------------------

jochen

Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people?

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief

Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight

Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free

But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

[The DesertFox]

Interesting report. The gunner must have been either "Puck die Stubenfliege", suffering from Hypovitaminosis A, or have been drunk to achieve such an outstanding performance

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[-Jochen-]

Readily I admit that crew quality is an issue. I used a regular crew but might run tests later with different experience level crews.

------------------

jochen

Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people?

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief

Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight

Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free

But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -Jochen-:

Yesterday I build 2000 meter long shooting range scenario to test out some guns. terrain was totally flat without anything else but landmarks marking different ranges of 100, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 meters. Weather was clear and ground was dry.

Real life data indicated combat hit propability of about 0.5 at this range, shooting range hit propability was higher.

Real life data indicated combat hit propability of about 0.75 at this range, shooting range hit propability was higher.

Few things I found out:

- Hit propability of this gun in CM seems to be ok in ranges near and below 1000m, after that hit probality is smaller than what was reported by 88mm KwK 36 L/56 manual. The difference between manual data and CM data gets larger as the range increases. This was not a suprise since BTS has stated that they have intentionally weakened hit propability of all guns at longer ranges from hit propabilities which were achieved in combat.

-If CM data is compared to real life 88mm KwK 36 L/56 manual data from practice shootings, the different is even larger.

- Seems like CM does not model target tracking. I would think that after first round that hits target range would be known by gunner, eliminating some of the guesswork and leaving round dispersion as only variable increasing successive shot hit propability greatly. This was not evident on test at any range. To conclusicely test this I should conduct more test sets of 30 rounds to see if hit propability increases after first round. If benefit from target tracking is not modeled in CM it is quite a omission.

I have also data for KwK 75mm L/24 and I think I will test it also since this gun can be found from several German halftracks and armoured cars. This is a low velocity weapon and quite different than 88mm KwK 36 L/56. This might give idea of behaviour of slow velocity rounds at distances.

If the hit propability at longer ranges (> 1000 meters) is for some reason weakened this gives some relative advantage to tanks that are equipped with lower penetration capability. Guns with better penetration capability cannot exploit their advantage as they might have done historically because their effective "can kill but cannot be killed zone" is reduced due to smaller hit propability at longer ranges.

->

.

Interesing issue, I keep posting my findings here as I progress.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice work Jochen...

This is GREAT!

I should have done this kind of test long ago.

I'm curious as to what "real life" hit probability you are quoting?

Can you share the source of the long range hit probability data for the 88mm KwK 36 L/56?

This coud be VERY informative. If you have been reading the German optics lacking thread (now thankfully closed) you may know that some people here on the board are wondering if the long range "chance to hit " probabilities or the 88 are accurately modeled in CM.

It would seem your gunnery range test data suggests that they are not. Perhaps this has NOTHING to do with optics just that there was some reason for BTS to weaken the historical long range hit probability in the interest of play balance?

Maybe German optics and the fact they are not modeled in the game has nothing to do with this decision?

It would be my sincere hope that the folks who post to this thread can stick to the facts and discuss the test results and long range hit probability data as Jochen has presented them.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-06-2000).]

[The DesertFox]

Tom,

here you are. On this site you will find the Waffenpruefamt data for Tiger IE and II.

http://redrival.com/leibstandarte/fire.htm

And here you find the Waffenpruefamt data for the Panther.

http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

Or if you want to have a look at US/UK/RUSSIAN etc data too, hop to David Honners site.

Here´s his 88-Accuracy site:

http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/german_accuracy7.html

Cheers

Helge

BTW: This stuff is published in the Jentz publications about TigerI&II and in his Panther book

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 10-06-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

NOW we're talking!

I suspect this is nothing new to most of you here:

but from this web page:

http://redrival.com/leibstandarte/fire.htm

We find these accuracy hit probabilites

Over the weekend (Thanksgiving this monday in Canada) I hope I have some time to test and document where CM deviates from these numbers (below) at long range (over 1000 meters)

I did a very small gunnery range test last night before I was aware of these numbers and the hit probability at 1000 meters on a clear day for a Tiger I against an M4 sherman was about 35% this report indicates it could be as high as 93 % with a near certainty of a hit on the second shot. This is not modeled in CM.

But more details will follow. I suspect we have been totally barking up the WRONG tree on the the German optics thing.

Optics or not my point, all along, has been long range German hit probabilities AND especially second and third shot hit probabilities for the 88's have been modeled in CM as unrealistically low.

QUOTE

"However, the average, cool gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could

achieve the result presented in the second column:"

Can anyone comment on the accuracy and authenticity of this source and these data?

from: http://redrival.com/leibstandarte/fire.htm

"The following tables show estimated accuracy, of both the 8.8 cm Kw.K.36 L/56 and 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 L/71, in hitting a target of 2 meters high and 2.5 meters wide, based on assumptions that the actual

range of the target has been correctly determined, and that the distribution of hits is centered on the aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing to determine

the pattern of dispersion. The second column (in brackets) includes the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunitions and gunners. All estimations are in

percentage and do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target during under actual combat condition. However, the average, cool gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the result presented in the second column:

8.8 cm Kw.K.36 L/56

Ammunition Type

Pzgr.39

Pzgr.40

Gr.39HL

Range @ 500 m

100 (100)

100 (100)

100 (98)

Range @ 1000 m

100 (93)

99 (80)

94 (62)

Range @ 1500 m

98 (74)

89 (52)

72 (34)

Range @ 2000 m

87 (50)

71 (31)

52 (20)

Range @ 2500 m

71 (31)

55 (19)

-

Range @ 3000 m

53 (19)"

-

-

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-06-2000).]

[The DesertFox]

Tom,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can anyone comment on the accuracy and authenticity of this source and these data?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have already mentioned the data is Waffenpruefamt data and published in "Germany's Tiger Tanks : Tiger I & II : Combat Tactics" by Thomas L. Jentz (February 1997) Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.; ISBN: 0764302256

and

"Germany's Panther Tank the Quest for Combat Supremacy : Development - Modifications - Rare Variants - Characteristics - Combat Accounts" by Thomas L Jentz (October 1995)

Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.; ISBN: 0887408125

Really nothing new.

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 10-06-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

This is a GREAT web page:

http://redrival.com/leibstandarte/fire.htm

now for the Long 88:

8.8 cm Kw.K.43 L/71:

Ammunition Type

Pzgr.39

Pzgr.40

Range @ 500 m

100 (100)

100 (100)

Range @ 1000 m

100 (85)

100 (89)

Range @ 1500 m

95 (61)

97 (66)

Range @ 2000 m

85 (43)

89 (47)

Range @ 2500 m

74 (30)

78 (34)

Range @ 3000 m

61 (23)

66 (25)

Range @ 3500 m

51 (17)

-

Range @ 4000 m

42 (13)

"Note: It seems like the supposedly better gun of Tiger II never really enjoyed the same accuracy as the gun of Tiger I, due to the possible reason of "barrel whip".

The Tiger I gun sight was the articulated, binocular Turmzielfernrohr 9b, with 2.5 times magnification mounted parallel to and on the same axis as the main gun. Each of the two sight tubes had a

different sight reticle. The range scale was graduated at 100-meter intervals out to a range of 4000 meters. In April 1944, late war Tiger Is were fitted with the Turmzielfenrohr 9c, which allowed the

gunner to select two magnifications, 2.5 times or 5 times. The lower magnification provided a wider field of view for target detection, while the higher magnification assisted in precise aiming at long

ranges. The adjustable range scales allowed the gunner to register the exact range to the target, and range scale was graduated in the same way as the Turmzielfenrohr 9b sight.

The Tiger II was equipped with the monocular Turmzielfenrohr 9d, mounted parallel to and on the same axis as the main gun. It had the same magnification options as the Tiger I Turmzielfenrohr 9c, but

the range scale of the Pzgr.39/43 was graduated at 100-meter intervals out to a range of 4000 meters, and a second range scale that for the Sprgr.43 was graduated out to a range of 6000 meters.

To quickly traverse onto a target, the turret drive of the Tiger I was powered by hydraulic motor. Depending on engines, the hydraulic power granted the Tiger I an average traverse speed of 360° in 60

seconds. The Tiger II had an improved hydraulic powered turret drive, which depends on the engine speed and selection of high or low gear by the gunner. The Tiger II turret could traverse 360° in 19

seconds at 2000 rpm; 25 seconds at 1500 rpm; 36 seconds at 1000 rpm. For both Tigers, the turret could be traversed manually, in times of power traverse failure. In the Tiger I, the gunner was

assisted by the commander using the auxiliary hand traverse. In the Tiger II, the gunner was assisted by the loader through the same means.

The Tiger I and Tiger II could open fire for effect at 1200 meters and 2000 meters respectively. At greater ranges, bracketing was to be employed with jumps of 200 to 400 meters, switching to fire

when within 100 meters of an armoured target. On practice range, an average Tiger I was expected to hit the target by the fourth round at 1200 to 2000 meters. Exceptional individual Tiger Is had

scored hits against stationary tanks at 2500 meters and concentrated platoon firing could be used against targets at 3000 meters. The Tiger II could fire at stationary targets at 4000 meters. The same

applies to moving targets for both Tigers."

[Guest rune]

The key phrase here is:

These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions.

CM models battlefield conditions, not a target range. Does anyone have the figures for accuracy while being shot at? I would expect them to be lower then the numbers given....but to what extent I do not know.

Rune

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The DesertFox:

Tom,

As I have already mentioned the data is Waffenpruefamt data and published in "Germany's Tiger Tanks : Tiger I & II : Combat Tactics" by Thomas L. Jentz (February 1997) Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.; ISBN: 0764302256

Really nothing new.

Cheers

Helge

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry....

This is like a feast of Data for me because it is on the web. And I don't have the book.

I'm sure for most here this is nothing new but I do thank you for posting the web page.

BUT is it accurate or is it (as I suspect) the smae as the Jentz source that has been debated for historical accuracy in the 88 lacking punch thread?

Thanks again

-tom w

[Joseph Porta]

Ah, so THIS is why I always lose my battles !

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune:

The key phrase here is:

These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions.

CM models battlefield conditions, not a target range. Does anyone have the figures for accuracy while being shot at? I would expect them to be lower then the numbers given....but to what extent I do not know.

Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok

But it would be my opinion that the KEY phrase here is

"All estimations are in

percentage and do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target during under actual combat condition. However, the average, cool gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the result presented in the second column: "

AND he's refering to "average cool gunner"

in CM if we call that skill level "average cool gunner" Veteran, than the Crack and Elite gunners should be able to do better than this and the Regular, Green and Conscript would do worse and much worse.

I plan to test how this crew experience is modeled in CM over the weekend and focus on the short 88 in the Tiger I as it appears more accurate.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-06-2000).]

[The DesertFox]

Tom,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BUT is it accurate or is it (as I suspect) the smae as the Jentz source that has been debated for historical accuracy in the 88 lacking punch thread?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you trust the german Waffenpruefamt it is accurate, well at least this data is primary data, recorded by Waffenpruefamt, the testconditions are recorded (everyone who want´s to see them can do this, most of the documents can be found at the Bundesarchiv Freiburg) The dataset is open to peer review.

It´s everyone´s free decision to trust he, who has the most expertise in the field. I assume german engineers who conducted the tests back then knew what they did.

To clarify this: ALL figures which are published in Thomas Jentz books are original primary source Waffenpruefamt data. He doesn´t crank the data out himself as some folks here obviously seem to believe.

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Snake Eyes]

-Jochen- This is a very interesting test. I would like to see a BTS response to this report.

Also, you stated, "This was not a suprise since BTS has stated that they have intentionally weakened hit propability of all guns at longer ranges from hit propabilities which were achieved in combat." Did BTS give a rational for this? If this is indeed the case, it seems to me that one of the historic advantages of German weaponry has been compromised.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

-Jochen- This is a very interesting test. I would like to see a BTS response to this report.

Also, you stated, "This was not a suprise since BTS has stated that they have intentionally weakened hit propability of all guns at longer ranges from hit propabilities which were achieved in combat." Did BTS give a rational for this? If this is indeed the case, it seems to me that one of the historic advantages of German weaponry has been compromised.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"If this is indeed the case, it seems to me that one of the historic advantages of German weaponry has been compromised."

EXACTLY

This has been my point all along and I tried the "Superior German Optics" logic to counter their stated intention and desire to compromise the long range accuracy of the short 88 and other German guns.

OK they said there is NO hard data on what bonus we should give the German optics.

OK....

But what they appear to have done (it sounds like they have admitted it) is to have intentionally weakened the long range accuracy of the German main weapons, without refering to any historical reference or source as to why or how the "weakening" abstraction was arrived at and modeled in CM.

And it is now my opinion that Steve and Charles take this issue very personally as it seems to be a touchy subject.

Further study into the exact nature of the deviation in CM from the data Jentz cites above will help us see where and how this long range accuracy "weakening abstraction" is modeled.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-06-2000).]

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

... AND he's refering to "average cool gunner"

in CM if we call that skill level "average cool gunner" Veteran, than the Crack and Elite gunners should be able to do better than this and the Regular, Green and Conscript would do worse and much worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

- Mark the notation cool gunner.

To be "cool" in combat you'll need a Crack rating or better. Veterans and less von't be cool. (This will vary a bit depending on what sort of cover and protection the gunner has. You'll be "cooler" in a KT than a Nashorn.)

- Then it's far from sure that the first round fired will be seen by the gun crew, or that corrections from one single round are enough. I'd let five rounds be fired before any certainty to have the aim right.

- Both target and gun are supposed to be stationary. This luxury was rarely ever available in combat, so there was always the need to account for target velocity and elevation difference, and estimate the new range. When firing from a tank then that would usually move between each shot as well.

Cheers

Olle

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -Jochen-:

Yesterday I build 2000 meter long shooting range scenario to test out some guns. terrain was totally flat without anything else but landmarks marking different ranges of 100, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 meters. Weather was clear and ground was dry.

I had accuracy data of 88mm KwK 36 L/56 an so I decided to test regular CM Tiger IE. Target was M4 Jumbo which was stripped from all ammo and smoke. Test data of real 88mm KwK 36 L/56 was from target size of 2.5 m X 2.5 meters. M4 is not precisely the same size but quite comparable.

First range was 2000 meters. I had to move M4 for a bit so that Tiger could spot it. 30 rounds fired, 2 hit target, hit propability 0.067, CM reported 0.21. Hits were about 8th and 22nd shots. Real life data indicated combat hit propability of about 0.5 at this range, shooting range hit propability was higher.

Second range was 1500 meters. Now tiger could see M4 without moving it. 30 rounds fired, 8 hit target, hit propability 26.7, CM reported 0.54 (I think). Hits were roughly evenly distributed. Real life data indicated combat hit propability of about 0.75 at this range, shooting range hit propability was higher.

I have full test data down to 100 meters at my home so I can post them here if needed. i realize that 30 rounds are bit small sample but I think it gives idea of the accuracy.

Few things I found out:

- Hit propability of this gun in CM seems to be ok in ranges near and below 1000m, after that hit probality is smaller than what was reported by 88mm KwK 36 L/56 manual. The difference between manual data and CM data gets larger as the range increases. This was not a suprise since BTS has stated that they have intentionally weakened hit propability of all guns at longer ranges from hit propabilities which were achieved in combat.

-If CM data is compared to real life 88mm KwK 36 L/56 manual data from practice shootings, the different is even larger.

- Seems like CM does not model target tracking. I would think that after first round that hits target range would be known by gunner, eliminating some of the guesswork and leaving round dispersion as only variable increasing successive shot hit propability greatly. This was not evident on test at any range. To conclusicely test this I should conduct more test sets of 30 rounds to see if hit propability increases after first round. If benefit from target tracking is not modeled in CM it is quite a omission.

I have also data for KwK 75mm L/24 and I think I will test it also since this gun can be found from several German halftracks and armoured cars. This is a low velocity weapon and quite different than 88mm KwK 36 L/56. This might give idea of behaviour of slow velocity rounds at distances.

If the hit propability at longer ranges (> 1000 meters) is for some reason weakened this gives some relative advantage to tanks that are equipped with lower penetration capability. Guns with better penetration capability cannot exploit their advantage as they might have done historically because their effective "can kill but cannot be killed zone" is reduced due to smaller hit propability at longer ranges.

Example:

Tank A has capability to penetrate tank B at range of 1500 meters.

Tank B has cabability to penetrate tank A at range of 500 meters.

->

Tank A has penetration advantage (can kill but cannot be killed) of 1000 meters over tank B.

However this advantage is smaller than it was historically if hit propability beyond say 1000 meters is smaller than was historic. Tanks with lower penetration capability can get closer to tanks with higher penetration capability easier and score kills.

Interesing issue, I keep posting my findings here as I progress.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have several confounding variables -- one is that when I am duplicating this the tests the Shermans all are in motion. Also -- so far my results are within the standard error of the listed to hit numbers.

Finally - the target shooting manual for the Tiger is probably not a good source for battlefield hits.

I am retesting controlling for the confounding variable and will report my findings along with standard error tonight.

Just a warning though, thie is a scientifc style report and not a personal attack. This needs to be placed on the table before the flamers come out.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

- Mark the notation cool gunner.

To be "cool" in combat you'll need a Crack rating or better. Veterans and less von't be cool. (This will vary a bit depending on what sort of cover and protection the gunner has. You'll be "cooler" in a KT than a Nashorn.)

- Then it's far from sure that the first round fired will be seen by the gun crew, or that corrections from one single round are enough. I'd let five rounds be fired before any certainty to have the aim right.

- Both target and gun are supposed to be stationary. This luxury was rarely ever available in combat, so there was always the need to account for target velocity and elevation difference, and estimate the new range. When firing from a tank then that would usually move between each shot as well.

Cheers

Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As most here know my experience in WWII tank combat is only from baord games and video games like CM and Panzer Elite.

BUT I would like to respond anyway.

I would be more than happy to see the data for that "cool gunner" be modeled in CM as the data for accuracy for Crack gunners, NOn problem, and an even greater degree of accuracy for Elite gunners, if when we test this CM is in fact model to resprent these accuracy numbers I will cease and desist my posting here.

However, I would like to address the issue of the stationary targets, AS I understand it MOST armoured combat should ideally be fought hull down frontal aspect to hull down frontal aspect, in this case, the tareget is either stationary or rising and falling above the line of the horizon, this would make it harder to target, granted. I think BTS plans to tweak the modeling of there "hull down-ness" of tanks so I have no issue with how this is modeled in CM.

but if the target is not hull down and advanceing with its frontal aspect toward the shooter then a good case can be made for easier targeting as the target is advanceing and growing larger in the sights and from the gunners perspective and so it presents a largly stationary (approaching) target.

Now if the target is crossing the field of view then we must presume the flank of the tank is being presented thus giving the gunner a larger target, (lenght wise) to shoot at.

Again my point this web page claims that These Tiger I German gunners had a VERY good second shot accuracy if the first one missed because they could see very accruately were the shot fell and adjust the next one.

-tom w

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

it would be my opinion that the KEY phrase here is

"All estimations are in

percentage and do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target during under actual combat condition. However, the average, cool gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the result presented in the second column: "<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the key phrase is "do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target during under [sic] actual combat condition".

These experience ratings are necessary abstractions to make a game and do not exist in real life. Why wouldn't "Average" cool gunner refer to a CM Regular, anyway? This is a guy who had not only completed his training on the equipment but uses and maintains it as a full-time job. "Properly trained, have likely seen some combat, though not extensively" (manual, p. 78).

Combat shooting is virtually always of lower accuracy than target range shooting, for many reasons. A "cool" gunner still has to deal with weather, explosions, and odd positions (our tank gunnery for record was done from level concrete pads). A gun fired from an AFV parked on a lateral angle (cocked to the left or right) has a much harder time dealing with ranging and elevation, because the drop of shot is no longer aligned with LOS.

[Ron]

Jochen,

CM does model target tracking, subsequent shots do have a higher chance of hitting. However at long range there is a point where %hit chance doesn't increase anymore regardless of the number of shots, IIRC at 1500 it is ~40-45% depending upon experience. Also if you have an infantry unit down range to spot you won't have to move the target.

I ran something similar awhile ago also, thought I would repost since it seems to be a hot topic at the moment.

The tests are of Veteran AT guns in woods versus Regular stationary tanks at 1500m. I ran them 50 times, the tanks never returned fire as they didn't spot the AT guns, with the following results:

88Flak vs M4A3(75)

Hitchance - 15%

278shots/87hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 4.1

avg. shots per kill - 5.56

1st shot hits - 16%

worst case for 1st hit - 11shots

5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38%

Pak43 vs M4A3(75)

Hitchance - 20%

190shots/53hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 3.56

avg. shots per kill - 3.80

1st shot hits - 18%

worst case for 1st hit - 10shots

5 or more shots for 1st hit - 28%

17pdr vs PzIVJ

Hitchance - 18%

177shots/51hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 3.52

avg. shots per kill - 3.54

1st shot hits - 24%

worst case for 1st hit - 16shots

5 or more shots for 1st hit - 24%

US76mm vs PzIVJ

Hitchance - 16%

203shots/53hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 3.90

avg. shots per kill - 4.06

1st shot hits - 12%

worst case for 1st hit - 10shots

5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38%

Vet.Tiger vs Vet.M4A3(76)(1500m/50x)

Tiger

Hitchance - 16%

255shots/73hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 4.15

avg. shots per kill - 5.21

1st shot hits - 14%

worst case for 1st hit - 11shots

5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38%

Sherman(76)

Hitchance - 18%

305shots/116hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 2.85

1st shot hits - 21%

worst case for 1st hit - 8shots

The Sherman(76) KO'd the Tiger twice with weak point penetrations and damaged it's gun once.

So for both the Tiger and 88 Flak it took on average around 4 shots to hit the target with a veteran crew. More tests would give more consistent results as there was a large variation in each group of 50.

Ron

[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 10-06-2000).]

[-Jochen-]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, you stated, "This was not a suprise since BTS has stated that they have intentionally weakened hit propability of all guns at longer ranges from hit propabilities which were achieved in combat." Did BTS give a rational for this? If this is indeed the case, it seems to me that one of the historic advantages of German weaponry has been compromised.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think someone quoted (in that notorious "German Optics" thread) old message by BTS which stated that they had data about gun accuracy in different conditions (I think it said it was German data, perhaps same as I used and what is available trough links in this thread) but they made hit propability smaller in longer ranges. I think (can't remember for sure) BTS stated that they thought that hit propabilites in combat was too high.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>- Then it's far from sure that the first round fired will be seen by the gun crew, or that corrections from one single round are enough. I'd let five rounds be fired before any certainty to have the aim right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant that first round that hits the target. This should produce quite visible visual effect. After this round the target, following rounds are fired with same gun laying setting and hitting depends only of gun's own dispersion. I can't produce this in CM ie. after round hits enemy tank the hit propability of next round should be higher than before since correct range is already known.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> - Both target and gun are supposed to be stationary. This luxury was rarely ever available in combat, so there was always the need to account for target velocity and elevation difference, and estimate the new range. When firing from a tank then that would usually move between each shot as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is bit more advanced subject to test. But I think that we must first determine does CM produce realistic results with stationary targets.

I'm quite sure that CM does not model target tracking between individual shots. Can BTs comment on this?

I think CM calculates hit propability from size, orientation and speed of target and velocity of firing gun for each individual round fired. In other words I think that even when gunner is firing at the same target as before he does not "remember" where his round went, thus missing shots after direct hit and not gaining any bonus for tracking same moving target for several shots and observing needed lead.

New bed arrived, gotta go! i post later more.

------------------

jochen

Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people?

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief

Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight

Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free

But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

[Guest machineman]

That's probably the crux of the whole thing right there. According to this, in the game the Sherman 76 is BETTER at long distance shooting than the Tiger. There's been other shooting range type experiments posted with the high velocity German anti tank guns that have pretty much worked out the same way. This is where the rubber hits the road. If this was how it worked out in real life, then fine. BUT if not, then something is wrong, and where the scientific method is needed is to find out why.

Originally posted by Ron:

Jochen,

Vet.Tiger vs Vet.M4A3(76)(1500m/50x)

Tiger

Hitchance - 16%

255shots/73hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 4.15

avg. shots per kill - 5.21

1st shot hits - 14%

worst case for 1st hit - 11shots

5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38%

Sherman(76)

Hitchance - 18%

305shots/116hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 2.85

1st shot hits - 21%

worst case for 1st hit - 8shots

What I'd like to see is a graph of the trajectories of the various guns to see how they varied. How much did a Sherman 76 round drop at 1500m and how much did the L56 and L71Tiger, Panther, Mark IV Special, 17 pounder, etc? If there is a big variation then I would assume the guns with 'more loop' need BETTER sights and a more accurate estimate of range or they are going to be much slower at getting hits, all the other variables being equal.

Another factor, if the Allied guns have to use Tungsten to kill at that range and use AP to bracket, does not the Tungsten have different flight characteristics and less accuracy at long ranges?

[Maj. Bosco]

Don't test with just open terrain. Open terrain is still bumpy and provides cover. If you want to imitate those accuracy tests pave your entire board with concrete. I think you'll see numbers much closer to Jentz. I haven't read through the links yet, but did I catch that some of those numbers were lifted from the manuals to the tanks? Just curious. I'll read through the links later.

[Snake Eyes]

I must admit that I quit following the "Superior German Optics" thread when folks started pulling out their flamethrowers. I hope this thread doesn't turn into a 'Five Alarmer' like that one did.

CM is a great game. The best wargame around. The watchword here is GAME. It would not be nearly as much fun if it parodied reality too closely. As a consequence many compromises and abstractions must be included to make it fun. The question is, has BTS tweaked the range issue a little too much? My thinking is, they have. However, I think a small adjustment would suffice.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune:

The key phrase here is:

These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions.

Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In earlier Jentz works the 2nd table was the expected combat % results hence the lower figures then the practice data, but this apperently changed in GTT.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.