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

[Jeff Duquette]

Part of my point was that 1 tale does not a correlation make. 10 tales however may be significant.

If you can see it you can hit it...if you can hit it you can kill it (unless of course its the glacis of a Tiger II).

Postulate: If you cant see it you cant it hit it.

Boys will be boys and play with toys. I suspect every GI who had the chance crawled around the interiors of German tanks and tried out all the "gee-wizz" new gizmos. Belton Copper in "Death Traps" relays a tale of finding several Panzerfaust 100's and testing them out on a Tiger II's frontal armour. A panzerfaust 100 will apparently punch a hole through the front of a Tiger II. Unless of course Cooper was fabricating the whole tale.

[Dittohead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does anyone know anything about Russian optics & gunsights?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering the current crisis in the mideast, I would think the Early Arab Israeli wars would be a good indicator of the respective quality of US vs Russian sights. Considering the Arabs used a lot of T-34/76/85 and The Israeli's used various models of sherman tanks.

[Conall]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

All I'm going to add on anecdotal material is it's fine to dismiss it, if you can prove it's at fault etc.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some sympathy here with BTS mainly because I can't see how you incorporate anecdotal evidence into a spotting/accuracy model (algorithm). By the nature of anecdotal reports they tend to highlight notable incidents, which may statistically be outliers & not representative of the norm.

Where I agree with you much more is that you shouldn't glibbly dismiss such reports out of hand. They represent useful controls - albeit an incident may be exceptional but it did happen & the model should therefore be able to cope with that.

Incidentally I also second John's thoughts on spotting. When I was in the Army we used to practice spotting vehicles & using our MILAN ATGW sights by setting up a position approx 2000m from a road. We would then spot vehicles with the naked eyeball, identify them & estimate the range using binos. Finally we would use the MILAN simulator to practice firing a missile at a moving target.

If you look at the FOV figures that I posted earlier you can see that a Tiger platoon could easily cover a frontage of approx 2000m, with overlapping arcs of fire. This would allow each Tiger gunner to scan his sector at 2.5x mag with minimal movement of the scope. This would optimise his chance of spotting movement or any other indication of enemy vehicles (shine,regular spacing etc).

Best regards,

Conall

[Guest Big Time Software]

First I would like to restate that like Jeff, we are only interested in figuring out how best to simulate various aspects of WWII in Combat Mission. This discussion, and it is a great one, is about optics and I for one am enjoying it very much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have some sympathy here with BTS mainly because I can't see how you incorporate anecdotal evidence into a spotting/accuracy model (algorithm). By the nature of anecdotal reports they tend to highlight notable incidents, which may statistically be outliers & not representative of the norm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Not only that, but perception is everything. The US tankers, quite rightly, perceived that they had inferior equipment compared to the Germans. There is plenty of imperical and 1st hand evidence to support this when making certain cases (i.e. long range ability to hit, kill, and shrug off enemy hits). This very likely colored the US tanker's perception. It could also be that they mistook certain advantages and attributed them to non-relevant things. This is basically the heart of the discussion here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where I agree with you much more is that you shouldn't glibbly dismiss such reports out of hand. They represent useful controls - albeit an incident may be exceptional but it did happen & the model should therefore be able to cope with that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree. We use veteran's accounts all the time to flesh out stuff. However, we generally need to agree on certain fundamentals first. At this point, we still do not agree that, when all is said and done, that the Germans had a noticable accuracy bonus from their sights when compared to later war Allied sights.

Yes, any idiot can pick up two different things, like binocs, and figure out that one is better than the other. This has been brought up a couple of times in this thread already. The key factor is, do the differences between the two really make a tangible difference all things considdered? This is the QUALIFICATION step. If QUALIFIED, then we must QUANTIFY. We are still arguing about QUALIFICATION and haven't even begun to try and assess the QUANTIFICATION. Unfortunately, I don't think we will EVER get enough info to make an informed guess about QUANTIFICATION even if we should give the Germans a bonus.

This is how I see it:

FACT -> German gunners more regullarly hit and killed Allied tanks at longer ranges.

Significant factors:

Stance of the vehicles (i.e. who is on the defensive).

Experience of the crew for each

Basic capabilities of the guns for each

Terrain each vehicle was in

A "typical" engagement where range played a factor would most likely have the Germans on the defensive, with at least as good (or better) crews (especially if it is a Tiger/KT), using a superior gun against an inferrior one, and having the armor to deflect a hit while the Allies would take a kill.

Now... nowhere in the above statement is it necessary for the German optics to be better to come out ahead. Even if the German optics were slighly INFERIOR, the chances are they would walk away the victors. This is why it is not even close to being clear cut that the optics had some positive effect on the outcome of such an engagement. All else being equal, the Germans have a huge advantage without optical advantages.

And Jeff... the truck/Mercedes example you gave actually proves my point. Sure, the Mercedes is a better on road vehicle than the truck. So if you were going to say that one is superior to the other, in that context, you would be correct. But go offroad and which one would be better? The truck, obviously. So on the whole which one is a more versitile ("better") form of transport? In my opinion, the truck. My point is that if a US Vet just hopped into a Panther and drove it on the road and took look through the optics, would this be enough info to base his conclusions on? I am not sure that it would be.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Some more misc. responses:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John wrote:

Or better yet Charles and Steve can contact WW2 museams and locate examples of the sights themselves Robert L, might be able to help them find examples, then go look thru & study them 1st hand etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what would this tell us? Nothing, really. Why? Because not only are we totally unqualified to know what it is we are looking at, but they have been taken out of context -> a wide range of real life battlefield situations involving months or years of training and experience. So looking through 50 year old optics in a museum is too out of context to be of any use. Still would be fun though

Also John, thanks for reposting Robert's stuff. This illustrates how very difficult it is to assess bonuses/penalties.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff wrote:

This would simply be another “incomplete, vague, or even contradictory first hand report” sorry I couldn’t resist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if I asked you a specific question, you are here to answer it along with follow ups. This is very different than taking meaning from a couple of "sound bites" written down 50 years ago, without knowing the individual's agenda or personality, and utterly lacking the ability to do a back and forth Q&A, is totally different. Historical study is always hindered by such problems, but I think you can see the difference between me asking you a question within your expertise and experience vs. trying to figure out what a guy meant when he wrote one or two sentences 50 years ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff wrote:

When I see one vet account relaying a tale of what seems to be a fantastic tale…I chalk it up to folk lore. When I see two vets telling similar tales…hmmm…still kind of vague.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. And this is why I picked on that 3000m in one shot quote. This is the FIRST time I have ever read such a thing. Perhaps it happened once, that I don't doubt. But regullarly? No way am I going to believe that. And who knows... that King Tiger might have already ranged in on the likely advance route of the enemy. So range was already a known quantity.

Also don't forget that some tanks did use ranging stakes when on the defensive. These have nothing to do with optical qualities, nor was the guy getting shot at likely to know they were used. But accuracy would most likely be increased. So how would the guy getting shot know if it was optics, the gun, pre determined ranging, stakes, etc. that got that great shot to where it was aimed?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff wrote:

The tests I have run typically render results in the range of 1 shot in 10 hit to miss ratio. Unbuttoned...clear visibility...flat terrain. Bracketing effect appears to be minimal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different tests will yield different results, depending on variables (like crew experience), the gun in question, and luck. Bracketing effects do play a huge role in accuracy. The question is how much of a difference should it make? This debate has shown that there are all sorts of factors that reduce accurate bracketing in 3-4 shots.

Thanks for continuing the investigation and discussion!

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

FACT -> German gunners more regullarly hit and killed Allied tanks at longer ranges.

Significant factors:

Stance of the vehicles (i.e. who is on the defensive).

Experience of the crew for each

Basic capabilities of the guns for each

Terrain each vehicle was in

A "typical" engagement where range played a factor would most likely have the Germans on the defensive, with at least as good (or better) crews (especially if it is a Tiger/KT), using a superior gun against an inferrior one, and having the armor to deflect a hit while the Allies would take a kill.

Now... nowhere in the above statement is it necessary for the German optics to be better to come out ahead. Even if the German optics were slighly INFERIOR, the chances are they would walk away the victors. This is why it is not even close to being clear cut that the optics had some positive effect on the outcome of such an engagement. All else being equal, the Germans have a huge advantage without optical advantages.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve

Great post and most certianly an informed and open minded one.

But.... (and this is not really new) again I would like to suggest that the German Main weapons, specifically the 88mm and the Tiger 1 and any German AFV with the 88, was designed with the concept of being capable of engaging the enemy (sucessfully) outside of the range of most Allied main guns, and specifically outside of the range of the Allied 75. My point is that I still believe it is unrealistic to say the Allies and that German's should both have similiar long range, (Over 1200 m up to 2000 m) chance to hit percentages. I have said this before so I guess it is now starting to sound more like noise than anything else, BUT with the advantage of crystal clear optics and the flatter more predictatble trajectory of the 88 AP round, the result of a first shot miss was more easily spotted and adjusted for leading me to suggest again the German crews in the Vet Crack and Elite catagories should be have increased chance to hit odds in the chance to hit algorythym so that for an Elite crew at 1200 m there is a close a 90-95% percent chance to hit by the forth shot, having missed three they should not be Elite if they cannot guarantee a hit by the fourth shot. (in day light against a Stationary Sherm, not hull down, OK, its stationary because it has been imbollized, I know it would not just sit there and take three misses and engage a Tiger )

I admit that I do not know what the chance to hit percentages are for subsquent shots after a first shot miss, but some of us here, after running CM shooting range tests still feel the Vet Crack and Elite German gunners manning 88's do not range in and have increased chance to hit percentages reflected in their chance to hit algorythyms after several misses to realistically model the accuracy we have (perhaps mistakenly) been lead to believe the the legendary German 88 enjoyed during tank combat in WW II. I Still strongly believe a second, third and forth shot chance to hit advantage (a slight advantage) should be modeled for the Vet Crack and Elite German crews (slightly more so than for the Allied crews of Similiar weapons) to account for their better optics and ability to see the shot fall and quickly adjust for it with the Aid of crystal clear optics and in-tank Range finders.

Oh well....

Those are just my opinions. At least I take some comfort in knowing I am not completely alone and way, way off base on this one.(Meaning at Least I think, there are few other supporters of this position)

Its still a great discusion and has been remarkably flame free for quite some time now.

Keep up the good work

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Guest machineman]

Does anyone have a copy of an english version of the Tigerfebel? I see one is available here:

http://sites.netscape.net/wulfdbrand/main/Teutonia-Tigerfibel-main.html

Or does that Mamiya Tiger CD have that included?

I'd like to see just exactly what the official engagement range recommendations were for the L56.

[Jeff Duquette]

machineman...its in the mail for me. I think its like 30 bucks.

some more anecdotes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Jentz: Tiger I & II Combat Tactics Pg. 69

On 15 March 1943, schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503 reported on their experience in tank-versus-tank combat as follows: The Abteilung has experience with the 7.5 cm kurz Granat-patrone 38 HL (hollow charge) and the 8.8 cm Panzergranate (APCBC/HE).

Using the 7.5 cm Gr.38 HL and limiting expenditure to only a few rounds, successes against enemy tanks could be achieved only at ranges up to 1000 meters. At longer ranges, succe"" could be achieved only through a large expenditure of ammunition. Because of the short gun tube, during attempts to hit point targets the atmospheric influences strongly affected the flight path. Using the 8.8 cm Panzergranate, successes against enemy tanks were achieved at short as well as long ranges. The most favorable range is 1200 to 2000 meters. At ranges up to 2000 meters, a direct hit is reckoned on with the first or at the latest by the second shot. Additionally, small errors in range estimates at these ranges are almost insignificant. However, with good visibility success is even possible at ranges over 3000 meters. As an example, at ranges from 2500 to 3000 meters, one Pz.Kpfw. VI fired 18 rounds to destroy five T-34 tanks (of which three were moving across its front).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Jentz: Tiger I & II Combat Tactics Pg 77

Armament 8.8 cm Kw.K. gun proved to be a depend-able and effective weapon. No problems or breakdowns occurred in the electrical firing circuit. Sprenggranaten were fired at a moving artillery column at a range of 5000 meters. A direct hit was achieved with the third round. Horses and men immediately lay in the snow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Jentz: Tiger I & II Combat Tactics Pg 89

Dissatisfied with how the Tigers had been tactically employed by the units to which they were attached, General der Panzertruppe Breith, commander of the III.Panzer-Korps, issued the following directive on 21 July 1943: Based on experience in the recent battles, I issue the following instructions for the cooperation of Tigers with other weapons:

1. As a result of its high performance weapon and strong armor, the Tiger should be used primarily against enemy tanks and anti-tank weapons and secondarily - and then only as a complete exception - against infantry targets. As experience has shown, its weapons allow the Tiger to fight enemy tanks at ranges of 2000 meters and longer, which has especially worked on the morale of the opponent. As a result of the strong armor, it is possible to close to short range with the enemy tanks without being seriously damaged from hits. Still, the Tiger should attempt to start engaging enemy tanks at ranges over 1000 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[PzKpfw 1]

I agree to a point Steve and again, I say we will not Quantify it, it's impossible even Robert can't give us any xtra data & if anyone would know of any it would be him. Its not a question if CM's model, is correct or not, as has become evident here their is no hard data to corelate.

My point was if you were to examine the optics Ie, actualy look thru them as Robert has, and you had a blurry image at 2100yrds on a clear day, and then you for example looked thru a German sight, and had a crystal clear picture, as German optics were filtered US sights wern't, later US tanks were issued a package, of filters they had to insert manualy etc. Or you looked thru aUS sight & couldn't see the target you knew was their & then looked through the German sight & saw it, You wouldn't need to be qualified to 'see' a difrence in power & clarity if it's evident.

My point all along has been German advantages (as in a higher chance to hit)in LR shooting was not just their guns flat trajectory etc, it was an advantage of the whole FCS, working together Ie, the sights & ammunition were purpose built for their gun be it KwK.42 or KwK.43, This & their ability to actualy see, the shot fall and adjust, as the French report states; out to 3000m with clarity. US tanks Ie, Shermansd had an advantage at short & medium ranges as Robert has pointed out, and now I consider the Germans slower traverse speeds as simulating the Shermans advantage in aquisition at those ranges in CM. It's the same when you look at PACT engagement ranges compared to NATO ranges Ie, the M-60 & Abrams could reportedly engage at longer ranges then the T-64, T-72, or T-80 because of our 'superior' FCS not just the guns performance.

Anyway more rambling from the fireplace .

And this discussion IMHO has moved away from CM to more of a search for some answers on accuracy determination and the advantage we have been told the Germans had in this area.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Tom,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point is that I still believe it is unrealistic to say the Allies and that German's should both have similiar long range, (Over 1200 m up to 2000 m) chance to hit percentages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is nothing in this thread, or in anything I have read, that supports this as a blanket statement. The more common 75mm gun on the Sherman didn't have much of a chance of hitting, and if lucky enough to hit, cause much in the way of damage. This is realistic, and CM does simulate this every well. However, the Allied 76mm, 17ldr, 3inch, and 90mm guns were very capable of hitting targets out that far. The problem was that against a target like a Panther, Tiger, or other heavy tank the hit wasn't likely to do any damage. This was not true for the German tanks doing the same thing in reverse.

So yes, overall the AVERAGE Allied tank doesn't have a reasonable chance of hitting at 1000m+, just as the AVERAGE German tank does in fact have this ability. This is very well simulated in CM (try Sherman 75s against PzIVs at 1200m). But to say that ALL Allied tanks lacked this capability is wrong. I have no idea why it is you feel so strongly that this is correct since there has been no evidence to suggest this (clarity of optics is not a smoking gun here). In fact, I have at least one documented case of US M10s knocking out on the move PANTHERS at 3000m, which some statements here would make it appear practically impossible with the sights the Allies possessed.

As Conall stated, if it happened in real life it MUST be allowed to happen in CM if it is to be realistic. So if we put in some arbitrary "sorry, you can't hit squat at such and such a range" factor we would be making CM historically inaccurate. However, I think one would be hard pressed to score such victories in during a CM battle, and that is realistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess it is now starting to sound more like noise than anything else, BUT with the advantage of crystal clear optics and the flatter more predictatble trajectory of the 88 AP round, the result of a first shot miss was more easily spotted and adjusted for leading me to suggest again the German crews in the Vet Crack and Elite catagories should be have increased chance to hit odds in the chance to hit algorythym so that for an Elite crew at 1200 m there is a close a 90-95% percent chance to hit by the forth shot, having missed three they should not be Elite if they cannot guarantee a hit by the fourth shot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I honestly don't know what you are complaining about. I just tried a test scenario at 1500m, with Tigers, Regular crews, and totally open terrain. 1 out of 5 scored a kill on its first shot. A second scored a kill on its second shot. The other three targets (damn them!) popped smoke and ran away.

I guess I don't see the problem here. Luck is a very real factor on the battlefield. A lot of information has been presented here that makes it quite clear that hitting targets in excess of about 1200-2000m was damned difficult, no matter what the conditions. There should be absolutely no hard coding of arbitrary values to enforce an unsupported concept of accuracy.

Superior crews DO have an accuracy bonus. And if the tank they command has a great gun, they should do very well. But no way should there be some magical "always hit by x shot" value. This is simply not supportable.

So here we go again

If anybody can show us where CM's model breaks down, in terms of realism, that would be fine with us. But so far that has not happened. Instead there has been a very interesting and lively discussion about the factors that go into accuracy that, while not establishing a case for change in CM, has at least got us all thinking about the concepts involved. Perhaps further conversation will bring about a strong case for change in CM, but even if it doesn't this is a worthwhile discussion to have.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the new round of quotes. The only one that I found relevant was this one:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> At ranges up to 2000 meters, a direct hit is reckoned on with the first or at the latest by the second shot. Additionally, small errors in range estimates at these ranges are almost insignificant.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny enough, this runs contrary to the quote from the Tiger manual that has been repeated here many times. In it, on a test range, 3-4 shots were expected for a hit by an average "cool" gunner (which was probably a cut above other guners). So I guess I am left with the question... which is it, 1-2 in combat or 3-4 on a firing range?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sprenggranaten were fired at a moving artillery column at a range of 5000 meters. A direct hit was achieved with the third round. Horses and men immediately lay in the snow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firing HE at soft targets is a whole 'nother ballgame

John, I share your doubts and frustrations. If someone like Robert can't get to the bottom of this, I think we are in for a tough ride trying to do better

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point was if you were to examine the optics Ie, actualy look thru them as Robert has, and you had a blurry image at 2100yrds on a clear day, and then you for example looked thru a German sight, and had a crystal clear picture<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the question is HOW much fuzzier was the image in which German sights vs. which US sights? Blanket statements don't appear to be the case, since the US used different quality sights at different points in time in different vehicles. Apparently this was true, to a lesser extent, with German tanks.

But if I were to look through various sights today, in the year 2000, I would not be able to judge if the view I am seeing is the one seen by a tanker a year after the optics were manufactured. I have looked through scopes for the German G43 and I couldn't see jack squat because they had "clouded" with age. This is an unfortunately common thing with optics over time. So a first hand examination is not the answer.

And even if I did look through ones that were prestine, that still wouldn't tell me what the effective difference was on the battlefield when ALL factors were in play. See next comments...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point all along has been German advantages (as in a higher chance to hit)in LR shooting was not just their guns flat trajectory etc, it was an advantage of the whole FCS, working together<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the tricky part of doing simulations. There are at least a half dozen very significant factors involved with accuracy. These are not necessarily the same from tank model to tank model, nationality to nationality. Some things aid accuracy, some hinder. Unless we know exactly which does what and how much, for ALL of these factors, it is very dangerous to start playing around with one of the unknown variables and not the others. But if we mess with all of them, simply guessing as we do so, I doubt the system would be very realistic in the end.

The German firecontrol system in one German tank (say a Tiger) might have been superior to one in another (say a Sherman M4 75) in certain ways in certain conditions. But not necessarily in all conditions all the time. In fact, some have postulated that the complexity of the German optics actually HINDERED the all important range estimation. So there is still room for debate.

One thing is VERY clear to me. The gap between German and Western Allied gun platforms, in terms of accuracy, was not all that wide. The Germans had an edge, for sure, but mostly for other reasons than firecontrol. This was NOT true on the Eastern Front, where the Soviets did in fact have serious problems with their firecontrol systems.

You mentioned post war systems, and it is obvious why NATO had an edge. Their systems were based on the German/US/GB models as used in WWII, while the Soviets were still based on their own from WWII. As the West increased the quality gap with the Eastern Bloc, the difference between the firecontrol systems increased. Or so it would appear.

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

Kurt Knipsel "cool gunner"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzer Aces II by Kurowskipg 207

Once he and his tank were sitting in a ditch when someone called out: "Tanks from the left!"

About 3000 meters away two tanks had rolled out of a wood. They were Churchill III’s. The armor on the front of these tanks was 100 mm thick. Before anyone else could react, Knispel opened fire and after the second shot the first Churchill went up in flames. During this engagement, which lasted only a few seconds, the second tank was able to drive back in the forest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzer Aces II by Kurowskipg 220

At the end of October the battalion assembled in Cegled. Beginning on I November it- saw action between Cegled and KeKskemet. The fighting on this day saw the first appearance of the new Josef Stalin tank armed with a 122-mm gun; tnese, too, were destroyed by the King Tigers.

During the days and weeks that followed Fw. Knispel scored further successes against Russian tanks. In some cases his kills were made from maximum range, up to 3000 meters. His kill list grew longer and longer and everyone agreed that Knispel would soon reach the offically-recognized figure of 200 enemy tanks destroyed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzer Aces II by Kurowskipg 198

Knipsel on the Tiger I

The penetrative power of the new gun and its fantastic aiming system caused the crews to have high expectations. The results of live firing trials convinced them that they had in their hands a weapon which was superior to any tank they knew of.

The crews had to learn and practice new tactics. The first was engaging enemy tanks from long range. Then there was the fast dash from benind the front and the subsequent attack. The crews practiced attacks over and over again. It was the role of the Tigers driving on both flanks of an armored wedge formation to make quick firing halts and engage the enemy from distances of 2000 meters and more, inflicting the initial losses on him, thus diverting his attention from the center of the attack and giving the main attacking wedge the opportunity to halt and fire en masse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest machineman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

My point all along has been German advantages (as in a higher chance to hit)in LR shooting was not just their guns flat trajectory etc, it was an advantage of the whole FCS, working together Ie, the sights & ammunition were purpose built for their gun be it KwK.42 or KwK.43, This & their ability to actualy see, the shot fall and adjust, as the French report states; out to 3000m with clarity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's the same when you look at PACT engagement ranges compared to NATO ranges Ie, the M-60 & Abrams could reportedly engage at longer ranges then the T-64, T-72, or T-80 because of our 'superior' FCS not just the guns performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still wondering if onboard rangefinders were the 'final link' in the chain that made long distance (2000 meters plus) shooting a practicality. Havn't found anymore info on them, other than one picture showing where the rangefinder was mounted on the Tiger I.

Jeff, did you get the scan of that I sent you?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff,

These were not "average" gunners. "Average" gunners did not get written up in AARs

The only quote that mentions number of shots is this one:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Before anyone else could react, Knispel opened fire and after the second shot the first Churchill went up in flames. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't find that hard to believe at all. I just had a REGULAR crew hit and kill a Sherman at 1500m in one shot. There is nothing in Combat Mission that prevents luck from benefiting the Germans in such a way as to score really good hits at even long ranges.

But remember... what you are quoting are, for the most part, "outliers". These are the high of the high end. For every one shot one kill there were probably several 5 shots no kills, which would put the average at 4 shots one kill.

The rest of the information you quoted is not contraversial. German tanks could, and did, hit at long ranges and acheive knock outs. This has never been in dispute, so quotes that do nothing more than say "x was knocked out at y range" really have no bearing on this discussion.

Again, this is why anecdotal stuff is dangerous to simulations. In general, the most fantastic stuff got recorded, while the general stuff did not. And it would appear that only the worst stuff was reported when it was the enemy doing it. How many American AARs do you see stating "we fired 15 shots at the German tank, but scored not one single hit". Far and few inbetweeen for sure, but I bet it wasn't all that unusual (uncommon perhaps) for a Sherman 75 to expend such a load of ammo for no results.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And this is why I picked on that 3000m in one shot quote. This is the FIRST time I have ever read such a thing. Perhaps it happened once, that I don't doubt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can dig up some statistically outlying Bobby Wohl 3,000 meter plus hits if you would like.

3000 meter hits are impossible in CM even with “bracketing”. This is a function of some flaw in the games LOS calcs. It is impossible for a tank to even spot another tank -- under absolutely ideal game visibility conditions -- at this range.

Even 2500 meters is stretching the LOS abilities in Tank on Tank engagements. But don’t take my word for it. I would encourage anyone reading my post to test this for themselves. Put an Elite SS Tiger Ie on an embankment say 10 meters above all surrounding terrain. Make the rest of the map dead flat and featureless. Grab some Sextons (big silhouette vehicle…plus Sextons have no Smoke rounds) put the objective flag right next to the Tiger. Place the Sextons at 3,000 meters range from the Tiger. Start the game. You find that the unbuttoned Tiger will not spot moving Sextons in open flat terrain till they are within 2200 to 2300 meters. Once the shooting starts you will find that the Tiger will periodically lose sight of the Sextons (typically when it is hit or near miss HE detonation occurs and the TC buttons up). This will result in a condition in which the Sextons are hammering on the Tiger…yet the Tiger cannot spot the Sextons.

You will also find that hit to miss ratio for the elite SS Tiger Crews will be in the range of 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 rounds fired per hit at approximately 2300 meters. This isn’t 1 in 2…this isn’t even 1 in 4.

I am still curious as to what some of your references for WWII tank gunnery are?

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Firing HE at soft targets is a whole 'nother ballgame<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aside from an adjustment in super-elevation I am curious as to what you think is different from firing HE in a direct fire mode from a tank as oposed to firing AP? From where I sit there is no difference. The reference talks of a direct hit @ 4 klicks.

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

3000 meter hits are impossible in CM even with “bracketing”. This is a function of some flaw in the games LOS calcs. It is impossible for a tank to even spot another tank -- under absolutely ideal game visibility conditions -- at this range.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is due to a known bug in the game, so technically, it is a flaw in the game LOS calcs. However, it will be fixed in the next patch so I don't think it's worth discussing anymore.

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

Most people assume that the M in US vehicle designations means "Model". Thus, the Medium Tank M4 Sherman would be the "Model #4" Medium tank. This is incorrect. The M actually stands for "Mortality" and the number represents the life expectancy of the vehicle in minutes. - Bullethead

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Aside from an adjustment in super-elevation I am curious as to what you think is different from firing HE in a direct fire mode from a tank as oposed to firing AP? From where I sit there is no difference. The reference talks of a direct hit @ 4 klicks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe the definition of a direct hit is a bit different? Don't know, but for HE I would be more enclined to even call a few metres off a direct hit, because of the blast effect. Anyway, this just struck me.

The real point of my post is this shameless plug, if any of you has not yet played Helge 'Desertfox''s scenario 'Cintheaux-Totalize', give it a whirl, I have seen Panzer IV knock out a number of Shermans etc. at at least 1,826m range on first and second rounds. The Shermans were totally helpless and did not score any hits in retaliation. I am not sure what bearing that has on the discussion, as I have not followed it much for the first 350 or so posts, but just in case. This maybe a bit more 'realistic' than do flat map engagement tests at long range. I don't know. But anyway, it is a good scenario, and should be fun to play (shameless plug, I know.) You can get it from our website.

You may now continue to your regularly scheduled discussion, while I return to randomly insulting people on the Peng thread and/or arguing about horses and their place in CM (Anybody knows anything about the long-range characteristics of horse droppings in combat? I am sure German horse droppings had higher heating value than Russian Panjehorse droppings. This could be relevant in CM2, and ASL must have simulated that)

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

Germans - they come here, they shag our anteaters (Angus Deaton)

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Guest rune]

What is different is the target itself. John and I discussed this before. A Column of anti-tank guns, horse drawn. OK, 4 guns with teams and support. This would streach out to be a 100 meter long target. Which way was the target heading? Towards the tank and an overshoot is a hit. Traveling left to right, still not impressed. While I agree with Jon [think it was John] that it was cool to get a hit at that range...it doesn't mean much without knowing more.

Ditto with the other general comments. OK, the Tigers would be on the outside firing at 2000 meters to pick off some tanks. How many shells were fired in roder for them to do that? s were that good as so far, why close in at all? Too m,any unanswered questions...

Last, after the battle was over, Lt. has to send a report up the chain of command. Hans, how did you do? I hit at 2000 meters on the second shot. Fritz how did you do? I hit at 2000 meters on the 10th shot. Which one goes into the report?

It is why I researched the amount of shots fired, and the claimed kills. Then I looked at the other side and saw if the kill claims were the same. I had an example already posted and John had one. However, over time, there just isn't enough information anymore. However, I keep researching...

Rune

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Firing HE at soft targets is a whole 'nother ballgame<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aside from an adjustment in super-elevation I am curious as to what you think is different from firing HE in a direct fire mode from a tank as oposed to firing AP? From where I sit there is no difference. The reference talks of a direct hit @ 4 klicks.

[Jeff Duquette]

machineman:

No I have not received your email with photo. Try sending it to:

jeffduquette@home.com

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is impossible for a tank to even spot another tank -- under absolutely ideal game visibility conditions -- at this range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As others have stated above, there is a bug in 1.05 that causes this. 1.1 fixes the problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Put an Elite SS Tiger Ie on an embankment say 10 meters above all surrounding terrain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just want to make sure that you understand that it is irrelevant that the vehicle in question is Waffen SS. Elite is Elite, no matter what the branch of service is. The SS get no special übermensch bonus

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will also find that hit to miss ratio for the elite SS Tiger Crews will be in the range of 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 rounds fired per hit at approximately 2300 meters. This isn’t 1 in 2…this isn’t even 1 in 4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has been long since lost in this discussion, but I did say that when we start working on CM2 we are going to looking into the greater than 2000m accuracy aspects. And as I have said time again again, we aren't trying to argue that CM is perfect and without flaws. This discussion is about optics bonuses. I suspect that if we find something wrong with the long range accuracy it will be for all high velocity guns, not just the 88s. In other words, if there are problems it is accross the board, not specific to any one weapons system.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am still curious as to what some of your references for WWII tank gunnery are?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same as what you see here, plus math and physics (which is over my head, but not Charles'). The thing is that we look at outliers as being just that -> statistical annomolies. We need to make sure that CM allows them to happen, but they should not be the norm.

Statistically speaking, one sample means nothing other than to establish some sort of boundary. And when we are talking about litterally MILLIONS of shots fired, even a few dozen extraordinary examples mean absolutely nothing in terms of statistical trends. So you could go and dig up 50 first person, verrified, highly documented cases of 1 shot 1 kills at 3000m and it still would mean nothing, statistically speaking, unless they surfaced as part of a blind study of a few hundred or thousands of equally credible examples under more or less the same situations.

And that is why we do not put much stock in "Schmidt hit a Sherman at 3000m with one shot" AAR quotes. Notice the lack of number of shots mentioned in all the other quotes you gave. Why? Because they were most likely normal shot:hit ratios. No reason to write down that it took all the other tankers 4 or 5 shots to do the same thing that Schmidt did in 1. Heck, they usually don't even mention ranges in most AARs. Generally it is just "we knocked out x and only lost y during intense combat".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Aside from an adjustment in super-elevation I am curious as to what you think is different from firing HE in a direct fire mode from a tank as oposed to firing AP? From where I sit there is no difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are huge differences. Rune did a good job outlining them. But apart from the likely scenario he painted, just think about it.

If you missed the center of a tank by 3m firing an AP shot, what would be the result? A miss, correct? If you landed an 88 HE round (which is a damned nasty round) 3m away from a horse drawn cart what would be the result? Total death and destruction. A "direct hit" by any reasonable use of the definition. Surely the AAR did not mean that the HE round pass right through the torso of the lead horse? No. Clearly it meant that it hit close enough to totally obliterate the intended target. Or as Rune suggests, one of several possible targets.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-22-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Once the shooting starts you will find that the Tiger will periodically lose sight of the Sextons (typically when it is hit or near miss HE detonation occurs and the TC buttons up). This will result in a condition in which the Sextons are hammering on the Tiger?yet the Tiger cannot spot the Sextons.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An tank that has a target when it buttons, should not lose 'sight' of an enemy tank etc, as well as it should be assumed the gunner is searching for targets useing the gun optics while buttoned. Also Sherman gunners had a periscope that allowed them a wider veiw to search with while buttoned, well German TC's used scissor scopes as well when hunkered down in the turret, so they didn't have to expose themselves, as well as coupala vision blocks.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I'm a little skeptical that better German optics were the explanation for what was frequently better German tank performance against the Allies. I'm by no means an expert on optics, but I do know a little about optics from photography (including things like low-dispersion glass and coatings and filters and lens elements), and I believe that the differences between the cheapest $85 lenses and very expensive $8,500 lenses today would probably not matter at all in a tank battle.

As a simple example, the best lenses will produce the sharpest image (ideally in a range of light conditions and magnification settings); the worst lenses will produce a "softer" image. This matters a lot for photography, especially when the photo will be enlarged quite a bit. However, even through the cheapest lens, you can clearly identify what you are looking at; it would be incorrect to say that the image is "blurred," even though part of the image will not be as clear as it would be with a better lens. For example, if you are looking at a radio aerial on a tank, it would appear to be a crisp vertical line (if that is how it really looked) through a better lens, and appear to be fuzzy (although probably still visible) through a cheaper lens. While this level of detail would be important in photography, it should not affect shooting at a tank.

Better lenses are also typically brighter lenses (although unsharp lenses can be bright, too). The main determinant of brightness is lens size, but the dispersion ratio (or whatever it is that measures dispersion) is also very important, because for lenses of equal size, the lens with the least dispersion lets through the most light and is consequently brighter.

Now dispersion depends on a lot of things. For one thing, the optical quality of the glass itself is very important. (Optical glass is also very soft glass, which is why dust can scratch a camera lens but will not scratch a window). Various optical coatings will reduce the amount of dispersion even more. The number of elements (different pieces of glass) that light can reflect off of also reduces the brightness of the image,as *each* piece of glass can potentially reflect more light away. (but multiple elements help sharpness at different ranges). Ideally each piece of glass in the sight would be optically coated. But once again, tiny differences that matter in photography shouldn't matter at the tank-fight level. For example, a very cheap lens might require a half-second exposure time in a low-light situation, whereas a very expensive lens might require an exposure time of 1/30 of a second (in this example, the expensive lens lets in 4 times as much light as the cheap lens, which is a huge amount assuming that the size of the lenses is otherwise identical). This matters in photography because you can hold a camera steady in your hand for 1/30 of a second, but you need a tripod for any longer. This has barely noticeable effect on the photographer's ability to see what he wants to photograph, though, as eyes work differently than film. As an example, think of situations where you've had to use a flash indoors, even though there is enough light in the room to read by. If you had a more expensive lens, you might be able to take an indoor picture without a flash, but regardless of which lens you use, you will probably have no difficulty actually seeing the subject of your photograph through the viewfinder (and I'm assuming SLR cameras, where what you see in the viewfinder comes through the lens).

So, anyway, it seems like even great (from the photographic perspective) disparities in optical quality would have little real effect on actually acquiring a target and hitting it. Assuming of course, that you have a sufficient field of vision and magnification to see the target at all, which I believe all tanks did. But if optical quality did make a difference, it would be a fairly small difference, as even if the edges of a German tank at extreme range appeared "soft," that shouldn't normally matter because the tankers are probably not aiming for the edge of the tank.

Similarly, even if the German lenses are much brighter than the Allied lenses, it is not likely that this would make a meaningful contribution to spotting in low-light conditions. (And of course the enemy tank would be easy to spot once it fired).

Now it may well be that many tankers, especially Tiger crewman used for long-range defense, had an historical advantage because they already knew various ranges. In the example of the Churchill getting hit as it left the treeline, it occurred to me that the German tankers may have precisely known the distance to that treeline, as it is an easy thing to measure to (and it shouldn't matter if the tank moved 100 meters or so, either). Similarly, in the Loza book describing how the Tiger shot up supply convoys, it is likely that the crewmen knew the precise range to various locations on that supply route, through trial and error if nothing else.

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

As a simple example, the best lenses will produce the sharpest image (ideally in a range of light conditions and magnification settings); the worst lenses will produce a "softer" image. This matters a lot for photography, especially when the photo will be enlarged quite a bit. However, even through the cheapest lens, you can clearly identify what you are looking at; it would be incorrect to say that the image is "blurred," even though part of the image will not be as clear as it would be with a better lens. For example, if you are looking at a radio aerial on a tank, it would appear to be a crisp vertical line (if that is how it really looked) through a better lens, and appear to be fuzzy (although probably still visible) through a cheaper lens. While this level of detail would be important in photography, it should not affect shooting at a tank.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK my understanding is that it should make a difference,maybe not up close but at distance it should. German optics , as I stated before used upto 6 lense with less distorion and loss of clarity than western optics did with 4 lens standard. This was due to the Argon gass coating that they had and no one else at the time had. In lesser light conditions it probably would make a difference..which is probably why you get reports of Brit crews complaining they couldn't see the guys that were shooting at them.

But this is all a wast of time BTS needs siolid facts to change CM , but your not going to find any other than anicdotal evidence from the historical record...

Again we come back to this problem..every one is quoting a few historical sources when whats wanted is scientific sources to get the answers...

My main area of interest is penetration & armor [ moden]. I have found tons of journals on these that explain the science and with work it can be understood.

But there are just as many journals on optics and tracking systems and guidance technology ..if some one was so inclinded they could get some better 'facts' for BTS.[personally I think this is just'school of thought'issue with BTS, Duck Incoming ]

Conall. Does PE better simulate optics than CM ? cause my friend whos tried both says theres nothing that comes close to PE!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Andrew, thanks for that post. I had mentioned this several times before. "Better" is a subjective term that doesn't necessarily translate into a noticable difference in use. At long ranges I suspect that the TC was unbuttoned and using binocs to aid in range determination. I would also guess that at longer ranges the tank had more time to do range calculations, especially if the targets were halted. And if on the defensive the tank might already know ranges or be using stakes to help out too. And even if the ranges were determined beforehand, they might have been established earlier in the battle. For example, the tank that KO'd the Churchill in 2 shots might have taken 4 shots at one next to it, established range, and therefore increased the chance of a hit the next time.

All of these things are VERY difficult for CM to simulate since they involve human thought processes and subjective prior experience more than anything else.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul wrote:

Again we come back to this problem..every one is quoting a few historical sources when whats wanted is scientific sources to get the answers...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be ideal, but we don't expect that this information exists. At least not in a form that would be usable to us. So our standards are much lower here. Anecdotal information alone isn't good enough, especially because it is too easy to draw weak conclusions that A = B without knowing it. So I don't know what it will take to prove/disprove a case for some sort of German optics bonus, but the case hasn't been made well enough thus far. And we haven't even touched on HOW to quantify such a bonus even if we felt one was needed. That will be even harder.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>cause my friend whos tried both says theres nothing that comes close to PE!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, this really disturbs us. We know for a fact that PE uses D6 "rolls" to determine various random numbers, which anybody with probability skill will tell you introduces a huge range of error by greatly reducing the range of possible outcomes. So when people "swear by" PE we get a little nervous. It might be a great game, and perhaps the most accurate tank sim out there for WWII, but I certainly won't take anything it has to offer without a heavy dose of salt. But Wings shouldn't feel bad, since we follow this logic with any game. Games don't make good sources for primary historical research, CM included.

Steve