Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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

Somewhat quiet here.

I was hoping the discussion would develop as to what is accuracy, repeatability, etc but it hasnt. I am amazed at how sometimes people discuss things and its never established what is being discussed. Even something like accuracy means different things to different people.

Let me put this question out:

Which weapon would you rather fire in combat? One that can hit a 1m by 1m target 15 percent of the time at 1200meters or one that can hit a 2m x 2m target 25 percent of the time at the same range?

Just discuss. Not saying theres any data or anything needed to discuss.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis, I am still running test runs of the game's model of accuracy -- but the 1x1-15 and the 2x2-25 example you posts is a possible distribution for the same gun. Here is the reason (and I have to take data from tests of rifles since it is much easier to obtain, but the concept is the same).

In statistical measurement you have two measure of how accurate your mean is: confidence interval and margin of error. A confidence interval is how confident you are your test matches the real world, and the margin of error is what area you would not be surprised to find your mean in. They can be manipulated because the higher you set your confidence level, the more margin of error you will have; the lower you set your confidence level, the less margin of error. For example: at 90% confidence (1 chance in 10 I am wrong alltogether) my margin of error may be 5%, but if I set confidence to 95% (1 chance in 20) my margin of error may jump to 10% -- I am more confident that my number is in a larger space.

Now, when doing accuracy tests of weapons such as a rifle, it will work the same way by the nature of how the world works. A bullet that has a 15% chance to strike a 1 meter square area may also have a 25% chance to strike a 2 meter square area, and a 95% chance to strike a 10 meter square area. The bigger the area, the greater the chance for a hit. My choice of area is arbitrary in this case, and as I change it it encompases more and more of my data points.

This in fact is used to fudge data -- a researcher like to say that their gun has a 95% chance to hit something so they just keep expanding the hit space out until it gets to be 95%. In the case of rifle accuracy with was done recently in tests of different sniper rifles -- the companies all had a 95% chance to hit a target in becnh tests at 1000 meters, but the size of the targets that they used was different, and listed only in the fine print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 606
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest machineman

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

I could figure out the flight path and calculate the time of flight, length of travel (the arclength if you will), the shell path height (I assume that you want to hit a target at a similar height to the gun that is firing).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what made me think of it, from a reply by Charles on this issue on http://battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572-3.html

Quote

"...Sherman 75mm guns, which are (IMO) "medium velocity" guns, not high-velocity like the Panther 75mm or Tiger's 88. Even at only 500m, a Sherman's shell will drop, from gravity, about 4 to 5 meters. That's roughly twice the height of a StuG. So there's definitely no direct-aiming going on there.

The shot drop for a German 88mm L/71 at that range would only be about 1 to 1.5 meters (sorry I'm just doing rough calculations in my head) and Ren's observations are more appropriate to that weapon; of course CM would also show much better hit percentages for an 88"

End Quote

So comparing the 75mm in question for example, if it drops THAT much in 500 m, it must drop a tremendous amount more at 1500. I'm assuming the 76 is better, but still not in the class of the 88's, the Panther 75, or the 17 pounder firing AP.

I think to see a graph of the shell arcs would be very interesting indeed, especially if there are a lot of big differences like that. I suspect there are. It would show graphically just how the guns compared, and how it interrelated with sights, tungsten vs APBC, etc. It could be that BTS did compensate, but not enough, or maybe of course they are right on the money after all.

I remember on the Panzer Elite board there was some discussion on getting Teut to include a 'firing range' in the game showing these things and giving the chance to test out the various guns and sights, of course that would have been the ultimate but as it was it seemed they just barely got the game out.

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-07-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Lewis, it seems to me that the smaller target taken 15 percent of the time is the better choice.

On your 4 square meter target that would get you and equivalent of 15 percent on each square meter x 4. The other deal would get you flat 25 percent. While I doubt the math would exactly match the intuitive 60 percent of hits on the larger target with the 15 percnet accuracy I think that would likely represent the direction of the trend.

Obviously a number of the misses at the smaller target would get on to the larger one to increase the hits over 15 percent. A lot could depend upon the causes of the misses though. Assuming all factors equal, though, I still think I would take the 15 percenter.

Now I have bitten, so what do you say?

[This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

There is no answer only opinions.

I would like BTS' opinion but I will give you mine since you answered. I would say that I would need ALL the data for all rounds fired. That is, in either case, I need to see the results of all rounds fired wherever they were.

Its meaningless to me in my experience to throw out the data points for either case. If I could not get all the data points for both cases then I would say "I need to study the shot groups for the individual cases".

I would compare the repeatability. Suppose that the 2 by 2m had about 20 rounds in the 1 by 1m square? See my point? Theres more here than you think. I am not saying I am right but that I need more information. Suppose that the 1 by 1m distribution (total rounds)was way out on average beyond the 2 by 2m? I would start studying the resolution of the sights, traverse mechanics, etc. This is what I do for a living and I am very pragmatic about it.

I would like other opinions too. Its a better way to look at things than the nastiness from yesterday. I am not even saying that I am right.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This is what made me think of it, from a reply by Charles on this issue on http://battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572-3.html

Quote

"...Sherman 75mm guns, which are (IMO) "medium velocity" guns, not high-velocity like the Panther 75mm or Tiger's 88. Even at only 500m, a Sherman's shell will drop, from gravity, about 4 to 5 meters. That's roughly twice the height of a StuG. So there's definitely no direct-aiming going on there.

The shot drop for a German 88mm L/71 at that range would only be about 1 to 1.5 meters (sorry I'm just doing rough calculations in my head) and Ren's observations are more appropriate to that weapon; of course CM would also show much better hit percentages for an 88"

End Quote

So comparing the 75mm in question for example, if it drops THAT much in 500 m, it must drop a tremendous amount more at 1500. I'm assuming the 76 is better, but still not in the class of the 88's, the Panther 75, or the 17 pounder firing AP.

I think to see a graph of the shell arcs would be very interesting indeed, especially if there are a lot of big differences like that. I suspect there are. It would show graphically just how the guns compared, and how it interrelated with sights, tungsten vs APBC, etc. It could be that BTS did compensate, but not enough, or maybe of course they are right on the money after all.

I remember on the Panzer Elite board there was some discussion on getting Teut to include a 'firing range' in the game showing these things and giving the chance to test out the various guns and sights, of course that would have been the ultimate but as it was it seemed they just barely got the game out.

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-07-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Machine

You are getting onto very good points. That is, depending on the weapon system; sights take on a bigger role. There is such a sudden drop off from velocity flatness in medium velocity weapons that sights take on an important role.

I believe that the german 75mmL24 weapon system had such a usefull life because the german optics made it a "player" longer than it should have. If it had poor sights it would not warrent the manufacturing effort given to it. Even after its use as a tank weapon, I believe the sights made it a great weapon to have around (please, you search fiends, I am not contradicting my other steve battles by saying this).

This is my own opinion so I am not going to have to defend it but I believe there was a sweet spot range depending on so many things. It depends on what you are up against, your ability to hit with precision and the repeatable effects of that. You play on your strengths by playing on the other guys weaknesses. I believe this is why the russians went all for hell-bent-for-leather in-your-face attacks BTW. An example might help here.

The Panzer IV was a success not due to its armor but its gun. It could reasonably defend (and attack selectively) turning its engagements on its gun performance. It was never one to stand on a hill and take on all comers during the whole war.

My game (ahem) bases alot of its combat on this. Tanks dont hang around and engage but will be "shot-off" ground because they retreat. I firmly believe that tankers in whatever vehicle they are in will not stand still and take hits. Its really unusefull. Theres just too many sub-systems that can be destroyed. Close misses and especially ricochets make tanks move. You always can be de-tracked.

So combat resolution in my game is based on "discretion being the better part of valour". In CM stugs die because stugs fight like robots. In CM2, BTS has to resolve some of this or it will be too pro-russian.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I created a firing range that was 2000 meters long organized with three lanes of pavement and tall heavy buildings at 500 meter intervals. I placed four Allied vehicles in each lane at each designated 500 meter interval and placed various German tanks at the end of each lane. I never fired a single shot, I just wanted to see what the targeting line said was the chance of hitting. I used the following vehicles with silhouettes in brackets: Panther VG late (118), Tiger VIE late (120), King Tiger (135), Lynx (74), Mark IVH (99), Hetzer (65), Firefly (101), and the M4 Sherman (100).

Shooter Target 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m

Sherman King Tiger 54% 27% 12% 5%

Sherman Tiger 52% 25% 11% 5%

Sherman Panther 51% 25% 11% 5%

Sherman MkIVH 48% 23% 10% 4%

Sherman Lynx 42% 19% 9% 3%

Sherman Hetzer 39% 18% 8% 3%

Firefly MkIVH 51% 30% 17% 9%

King TigerSherman 52% 30% 18% 10%

Panther Sherman 51% 29% 16% 9%

Tiger Sherman 50% 27% 14% 7%

Mark IVH Firefly 50% 27% 14% 7%

Lynx Sherman 87% 56% 27% 9%

Hetzer Sherman 50% 27% 14% 7%

I could not get the vehicles to be in exact increments of 500m but I was able to get each one within plus 7 or minus 1 meters.

Sorry, but neither by tab key or spacebar can I seem to make this table more readable.

[This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-07-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest machineman

trajectory.jpg

This is a scanned illustration from the Tigerfebel (I believe) explaining the whole looping thing (in German, mind).

And some more info from the zeiss optics article at http://www.wingssimulations.com

"Now analyzing what a higher muzzle velocity meant is simple. Besides having a higher penetration power it also allowed a higher margin of error in range guessing. Because the shell was flying in a stretched arc you can guess wrong up to 200 meters and the shell still hits your target because when

aiming too high simply raises the aiming point by less than a meter, still small enough to hit a 3 meter high tank when aimed at its center."

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-07-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

I never fired a single shot, I just wanted to see what the targeting line said was the chance of hitting. I used the following vehicles with silhouettes in brackets: Panther VG late (118), Tiger VIE late (120), King Tiger (135), Lynx (74), Mark IVH (99), Hetzer (65), Firefly (101), and the M4 Sherman (100).

Shooter Target 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m

Firefly MkIVH 51% 30% 17% 9%

Mark IVH Firefly 50% 27% 14% 7%

I could not get the vehicles to be in exact increments of 500m but I was able to get each one within plus 7 or minus 1 meters.

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My immediate reaction is to the firefly to pvIV relationship as both firer and target. Its about even but the firefly has the upper hand. I would think the game would "weigh" height AND size in silhoutte numbers. But perhaps BTS can elaborate. Also larger targets are hopefully spotted more readily.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 10-07-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I set up my test gunnery range, if anyone wants it I'll be happy to sent my set up

I tested Tiger I's Nashorns King Tigers and Jagpanthers.

I set up one Elite Crack Vet Reg Green and Con unit of each tank

All Alllied tanks are Conscript Stuarts and Conscript Sherm Jumbos were used for target practice, Some Jumbos were dug in and some Stuarts were dug in.

the allied tanks were placed at 2000 m 1500m 1000 m and 500m

what follow are notes from the chance to hit percentages as I read them off from my attempts to target.

The dug in jumbos were good targets be they lasted long enough to allow for the target to be aquired and show the increased chance to hit in the next minute of shooting,

Firing lanes of paved road were used, it was a clear day in Nov 44

I got these results:

All hit percentages are frontal aspect armour to frontal aspect armour

Elite tiger 1 targets immobile sherm jumbo 1521 m 21%

Dug in Stuarts at 1500 cannot be spotted targeted or identified by any Tiger, KT, Jagpanther or Nashorn

Conscript Stuart targets Tigers and KT and Jagpanthers at 2000 m 5-6 chance to hit % with a 37mm ????

Reg Tiger targets Stuart open in pavement frontal aspect at 2013 meters 6% both staionary first shot Tigers 88 mm weapon has the same first shot chance to hit as the conscript stuart's 37 mm at 2000 m 6% !!!!!!

(This is in my opinion NOT historically accurate, the stuarts would have to lob those 37 mm rounds like mortars to make them go that far)

Vet king tiger targets sherm at 2007 12%

ID via LO a= (M4 Sherm ?) (its a Jumbo)

Crack tiger 1 targets hull down sherm jumbo at 1516 11%

Reg tiger 1 targets hull down sherm 1512 9%

Vet king tiger targets hull down sherm at 1551 13%

Con king tiger targets hull down sherm at 1550 8%

Vet tiger 1 1497 targets hull down sherm 9% won’t fire de-targets not fired

Elite tiger 1 targets Sherm jumbo 1012 41%

Crack tiger 1 targets Sherm jumbo 1021 35%

Vet tiger 1 targets Sherm jumbo 1021 31 %

Reg tiger 1 targets Sherm jumbo 1016 28%

Elite nashorn targets Sherm jumbo 1014 44%

Crack nashorn targets Sherm jumbo 1017 39%

Vet nashorn targets stuart 1012 30%

Crack jagpather target hull down sherm jumbo 1008 20%

Vet jagpather targets sherm jumbo 1016 36%

Elite jagpather target hull down sherm jumbo 1027 29%

Elite king tiger targets sherm jumbo at 1542 28%

Crack King Tiger targets stuart 1537 21%

Con nashorn targets stuart 1559 21%

Vet king tiger targets stuart 1015 30%

Reg nashorn targets hull down stuart 529 31%

Reg nashorn targets stuart 583 50%

Reg jagpather targets stuart 511 49%

Reg jagpather targets hull down stuart 501 30%

Elite jagpather targets hull down stuart 515 43%

Elite jagpather targets stuart 514 59%

Con king tiger targets stuart 1515 11%

Green nashorn targets stuart 1565 14%

Reg jagpather targets hull down sherm 518 17%

Vet jagpather targets hull down stuart 1602 11%

Elite tiger 1 targets hull down stuart 1508 10%

Elite Jagpanther targets immobile sherm jumbo 1579 m 65% target aquired after one minute

Crack tiger 1 targets hull down stuart 1237 22% aquired after one minute of firing

Vet tiger 1 targets Sherm jumbo 1063 65 % aquired after one minute of firing

Green king tiger targets hull down stuart 1050 31 % aquired after one minute of firing

Crack jagpather target hull down sherm jumbo 1021 25% aquired after one minute of firing

Crack tiger 1 targets hull down sherm at 1210 27% % aquired after one minute of firing

Crack king tiger buttoned cannot ID Stuart at 772 meters sound contact Only, BOTH are on FLAT open pavement?????? !!!! (Enemy Light Armour?) reported by LOS tool

Crack tiger 1 targets hull down stuart 1556 9%

Crack jagpather targets hull down stuart 2078 7%

Vet jagpather targets hull down stuart 2081 6%

reg jagpather targets hull down stuart 1529 9%

green jagpather targets hull down stuart 1520 8%

vet king tiger targets hull down stuart 1551 11%

Vet king tiger targets sherm at 2007 12% ID= M4 Sherm ? (its aJumbo)

No record of hits and misses was kept.

Anyone else do any tests?

Anyone care to comment on these findings?

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know these anecdotal accounts are not new but when dooing the gunnery range tests and in playing the game, there appears to be no long range german gunnery advantage for the 88.

from this web page:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000686.html

"Since landing in France with this division, we've seen countless numbers of American

tanks knocked out and burned with a resultant loss of American lives, due, we

believe, to our inferior tanks.

Of course, we must take into consideration the fact that, due to the nature and

course of the war, the German tank usually gets in the first shot. Instead of making

up this disadvantage in equipping us with guns of high muzzle velocity and hitting

power, in addition to more armor protection, as matters stand now we can't

compete with them in either. To take a specific case, the German Mark V tank,

mounting a 75-mm gun with a muzzle velocity of about 3,200 feet per second, able

to travel on a highway at 38 miles per hour, 15 to 20 miles per hour cross country in

soft going, and better as the going improves.

It has to our mind greater maneuverability, being able to turn in the space it's

sitting in, while our mediums require half a field. It also has more armor protection,

with approximately four inches of armor on its front and enough rearward slope to

make it the equivalent of 6 to 7 inches. Not so with our Shermans, whose front

construction aids, rather than hinders, the penetration of an armor piercing round.

In one recent action in which we took part, one of our medium tanks was hit and

burned at a range of approximately 2,500 yards. In the same action, probably

minutes later, we fired on and bounced several round of AP broadside off a Jerry

tank at a range of 1,500 yards, and were unable to knock it out. In another case,

our 76-mm gun was unable to knock out a German tank frontally at 600 yards.

The consensus of opinion is that the German Mark V can out-speed, out-maneuver

and out-gun us, in addition to their added protection of heavier armor.

What the American tanker wants is a high-velocity weapon, as high or higher than

the Germans, mounted on a tank of equal maneuverability, and added armor plate.

-Rains M. Robbins, Sergeant, Tank Commander

-Walter McGrail, Corporal, Driver"

"During our attack on Gereonsweiler, Germany, a platoon of Mark V tanks moved in

on the high ground on our left flank and knocked out several of our tanks at about

3,600 yards. This was out of range of the 75-mm gun on our M4 tank. In order to

place fire on them, I was forced to elevate the gun so that the target appeared

completely below the graduation in the sight. We succeeded in holding them off, but

did no damage to their vehicles.

-Cpl. Virgil Townsend, Tank Gunner"

I think yards are smaller than meters so this 3600 yard distance would be 3291.84

meters, in the games terms.

In this game the Mark V is the panther I understand, now just try to hit ANYTHING with a Panther in CM at 3200 m!

in my test Neither the Tiger or the King Tiger or the Nashorn or the Jagpanther could even spot the outline of a Sherm Jumbo at 2000 m

I had Sherm Jumbos and Stuarts shooting at the Nashorns KT's Tigers and Jagpathers from 1500 meter and all the German tanks (even un buttoned) could "see of them was a "sound contact that they could NOT target.

Once spotted a Conscript Stuart had a 5-6 percent chance to hit % at 2000 meter, the Reg Tiger, (once a Much closer unit spotted the Stuart) ALSO had a 6% chance to hit that Conscript Stuart, so I conclude the German's 88's have no long range advantage they historically enjoyed.

This is the previous gunnery range thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009348.html

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Once spotted a Conscript Stuart had a 5-6 percent chance to hit % at 2000 meter, the Reg Tiger, (once a Much closer unit spotted the Stuart) ALSO had a 6% chance to hit that Conscript Stuart, so I conclude the German's 88's have no long range advantage they historically enjoyed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go, comparing annecdotal apples and oranges and making sweeping conclusions based on flawed findings.

There are so many factors involved, some of which I have already noted. Look at the size differences between the two. The Stuart is a little under half as big as the Tiger, facing matters, and I am not sure that hit % display takes into consideration everything under the sun (it is a rough estimate from what I know).

As for spotting... that is TOTALLY seperate from the issue of accuracy. So take that completely out of this discussion because it has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Lewis wrote:

I would think the game would "weigh" height AND size in silhoutte numbers. But perhaps BTS can elaborate. Also larger targets are hopefully spotted more readily.[/qoute]

Height, width, and length all weigh in for the silhouette number. Spotting is, partly, based on the silhouette value. So yes, larger vehicles are spotted more easily than smaller ones.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" 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 I's 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."

from:

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

source: Jentz?

I tested unbuttoned Tiger I's King Tigers, Nashorns and Jagpathers, (one each of Elite Crack Vet Reg Green and Conscript) at 1500 meters they could not even spot Sherm Jumbo's that had acuired them and were targeting them, and firing at them, because other Allied tanks on the gunnery range at 500 m and 1000 m had presumably radiod their location and position, but all the unbuttoned German tanks could make out at 1500 meters was a "sound contact" that they could not target.

I conclude that CM does not model the long range ability of the 88 to enagage Allied armour at ranges outside the effective range of the 75 mm Sherm weapon.

I believe it is historically accurate to conclude that the German 88 mm weapon was feared most by the Allied tanks because this weapon and the 76 on The Panther have been reported to have engaged the sherm 75 mm from outside it effective range giving the German tanks a distinct long range advantage, this advantage has been compromised in CM as unbuttoned German tanks in my gunnery range test could not spot, see, ID, or engage Sherm Jumbos at 1500 or 2000 meters which were firing at them.

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Lewis wrote:

I would think the game would "weigh" height AND size in silhoutte numbers. But perhaps BTS can elaborate. Also larger targets are hopefully spotted more readily.[/qoute]

Height, width, and length all weigh in for the silhouette number.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

Let me make up an example and you can elaborate.

You have a tall thin tank like a stuart. You also have a small squat tank like a hetzer. Lets say for the sake of argument that we measure the frontal area length by width in square cm. The two vehicles are identical in square cm (by looking at them from the front) but the stuart is much taller. They have the same length. Will the silhoutte number be the same for these two vehicles? Do you get where I am going with this?

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom this has all been brought up BTS doesnt agree that German optics this includes bino's provided any benifits to LR fireing, so natuarly units are going to have a very hard time spotting & hitting at 1500ms and above, because their to hit % sux above 1000ms.

Their realy is no LR model, or signifigant diference in % to hit between US & Ge tanks at LR, these tests pretty much point this out. So you are correct German tanks can not exploit their gun range or armor advantages past a certian distance as they did historicly, due to CM's LR limitations.

Regards, John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-08-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, there is a German targeting bonus in the game. One does not need to do a lot of test firing to see this. One only needs to compare items with similar silhouettes as targets and use the CM targeting line. The M4 Sherman’s silhouette is 100 and the Mark Ivs silhouette is 99 which makes these items very close in size. In my firing range I had the following results from the targeting line:

Shooter Target 500m 1000 1500 2000

Sherman MkIV x48% x23% x10% xx4%

Tiger Sherman x50% x27% x14% xx7%

As you can see, the Tiger does have an accuracy advantage over the Sherman. It is relatively small, but it is there nonetheless. The only question in my mind is whether this bonus is sufficiently large enough to reflect actual battlefield conditions. In my opinion, the only way to tell would be to compare actual firing range data between the Sherman and the Tiger. If it was found that the Sherman only hit a 2000 meter target on a range 25% of the time and a Tiger hit a similarly sized target 50% of the time, then I think it would be fair to expect that this 25% difference be reflected in CM as well. Now the CM hit percentages wouldn’t necessarily have to match the firing range hit percentages, but as long as the difference was modeled then we would have a good simulation.

[This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-08-2000).]

[This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-08-2000).]

[This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-08-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Shooter Target 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m

Sherman MkIVH 48% 23% 10% 4%

Tiger Sherman 50% 27% 14% 7%

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excelent Post ASL, everyone note the % to hit, above 500ms & how it drasticly drops, even on a Tiger, their is an small advantage to Ge tanks but nothing signifgent that any reliance could be placed on winning a dual.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-08-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 88 on the King Tiger is currently modeled in the game to be able to penetrate 157 mm of armour at 0^ at 2000 meters.

That would be great if the gunner and the TC could see that far. My testing indicates to me that A Sherm Jumbo at the other end of 2000 meters of paved FLAT road CANNOT be spotted by any of the the following (all unbuttoned) Elite, Crack, Veteran, Reg, Green or Con, Tiger I, King Tiger, Nashorn, OR Jagpanther, UNTIL the Sherm jumbo opens up and fires, now I think we all know that no Allied Tank comander in his right mind would fire at these large German tanks at that range, so the Jumbo Sherm should attempt to get closer, well in CM it can do that without being spotted so these german tanks all with 88's can't pick off large long range targets unless they open fire which in comabt they would be well advised not to do.

I must conclude that the 88 mm weapon (any variation) may well be able to penetrate 157 mm of armour at 2000 meters but the German tanks I tested (even unbuttoned) CANNOT spot that far.

The only good explanation for this would be to say there were no long range (longer than 1000 meters) tank battles in the ETO after D-Day.

But we have provided anecdotal evidence that the German tanks did indeed exploiut every opptunity they could to engage Allied tanks outside of their effective main weapon gunnery range.

It is my opinion this long range 76 mm and 88 mm German gunnery advantage is not at all modeled in CM tank gunnery.

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tom, there is a German targeting bonus in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's misleading because the gun's velocity has the noticeable impact on the % hit chance not some 'German targeting bonus' which doesn't exist. Your comparison would be more revealing with the Sherman76(793m/s) versus the Tiger(773m/s) rather than the regular Sherman(619m/s).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only question in my mind is whether this bonus is sufficiently large enough to reflect actual battlefield conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I question also if the difference IRL was that small. Good post.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

ASL maybe another edit is needed. You mention three tanks and are comparing two? PzIV, Sherman and Tiger? Compare Sherman and PzIV pleease?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis, everything is as intended. The use of the Mark IV is only relevant because it is similar in size to the Sherman. The edits were only to try to make the table read better. The only thing that matters is the target size and the gun firing. Since the 88 is the gun everyone is in a huff about, I used a tank with an 88. In this case the Mark IV has a similar size silhouette to the Sherman therefore it was used as the Sherman's target. The only other way to do it would be to have a Sherman fire at another Sherman and CM won't let you do that. To compare a Sherman's accuracy when firing at a Tiger and vice versa would be using two different sized targets. The type of tank you are firing at is irrelevant, it is the size of the target that matters not the type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ASL. I see three edits on your post. Its still wrong.

You have a good idea but you are not coming through.

1. Compare "similar" silhouttes in game terms. Sherman and Panzer IV are real "close".

2. Compare similar guns. Use 76mm sherman and 75L48 german please.

Now , I think theres a need for discussion on silhouttes and I agree with BTS that spotting can be left for somewhere else. I note a rise in "tenseness" here and perhaps BTS can rise above it and keep this discussion in check and on track. Be a moderator please.

Lewis

PS "Since the 88 is the gun everyone is in a huff about, I used a tank with an 88. "

I see you want to discuss the 88 but I think we are comparing optics. It would be better for a comparision to keep as many variables as close as possible and see the results. Just to be clear, is the sherman a 75 or a 76 in your comparision?

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 10-08-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

It is my opinion this long range 76 mm and 88 mm German gunnery advantage is not at all modeled in CM tank gunnery.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom, its always been IMHO their is no real LR gunery model in CM. Due to CMs small map scale, I doubt LR gunnery was an big issue, when they made CM, or that they believed scenerio or Op, ranges would exceed 800ms, with an occasional 1000m above again due to terrain & map scale limitations.

As to spotting, Steve has stated that is an diferent aspect from gunnery, perhaphs we need a spotting thread started, so we can explore that as well.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I must conclude that the 88 mm weapon (any variation) may well be able to penetrate 157 mm of armour at 2000 meters but the German tanks I tested (even unbuttoned) CANNOT spot that far.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure we are at the point where we can conclude anything yet. I would like to see some data for Allied tanks at the firing range before we can start cobbling together an argument or making any conclusions.

As far as the spotting goes, well that is a completely separate issue from the accuracy issue. We are only trying to establish whether accuracy is correctly modeled in CM at the moment. Perhaps we can discuss the spotting issue once the accuracy issue has been addressed to everyone's satisfaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

As far as the spotting goes, well that is a completely separate issue from the accuracy issue. We are only trying to establish whether accuracy is correctly modeled in CM at the moment. Perhaps we can discuss the spotting issue once the accuracy issue has been addressed to everyone's satisfaction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again I also agree. It is an advantage issue that needs to be addressed elsewhere as it relates to the games borginess.

Also I would like to reiterate that the definition of accuracy itself might be worth discussing. What it means to different people here should be expressed. If we were to all write down what we think it is and then post at the same time , I think we would be surprised. I am somewhat surprised that BTS did not comment on my previous post about the 1 by 1 meter vs the 2 by 2m target hypothetical question. Only one person here had the guts to even post an opinion. very revealing.

Lewis

PS I still question the BTS silhoutte formula and would like them to discuss. Does anyone think a PzIV and a sherman are the same silhoutte?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

ASL. I see three edits on your post. Its still wrong.

You have a good idea but you are not coming through.

1. Compare "similar" silhouttes in game terms. Sherman and Panzer IV are real "close".

2. Compare similar guns. Use 76mm sherman and 75L48 german please.

Now , I think theres a need for discussion on silhouttes and I agree with BTS that spotting can be left for somewhere else. I note a rise in "tenseness" here and perhaps BTS can rise above it and keep this discussion in check and on track. Be a moderator please.

Lewis

PS "Since the 88 is the gun everyone is in a huff about, I used a tank with an 88. "

I see you want to discuss the 88 but I think we are comparing optics. It would be better for a comparision to keep as many variables as close as possible and see the results. Just to be clear, is the sherman a 75 or a 76 in your comparision?

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 10-08-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not focusing this discussion on optics alone. I am also not on one 'side' or another. I am merely presenting data for everyone to examine and interpret as they like. I also don't detect any tenseness in this discussion.

I am merely showing that, with similar sized targets, the 88 has a better chance to hit than a 75 at long range. The chance isn't a whole lot better, but it is there. If you want to test something else be my guest. Show us your data and we can all examine it.

BTW, my previous post had a Firefly's chance to hit a Mark IV - compare the Firefly's chance to hit a Mark IV with a Tiger's chance to hit a Sherman if you want to find an optics 'bonus'. I suspect that the Firefly's chance to hit is similar to the Tiger's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...