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

[:USERNAME:]

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

Charles just mentioned something to me I did not see in any of the discussion above. The test range % chance of hitting was (often or always??) based on the gunner already knowing the range to target. Which means, the percentage to hit as stated does not include the 2-4 shots necessary to establish the range (long shots at least). Which is yet another reason why those numbers should not be taken at face value.

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

Charles comment on vehicle size calculations? LxWxH?

I believe better optics having superior clarity would allow you to decrease the ranging rounds charles mentions. Also, of course, just the target moving throws off all the math here.

I would assume that the guns were ranged in at the target range (fired till they achieved a hit), then a certain amount of ammo was expended and the hits tallied. A big question in my mind would be "Did they adjust anything during the firings?"

Lewis

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Hi John,

I always enjoy your posts and I'm sorry to ask, but can you explain your point or rephrase your statement, I'm sorry but I'm not sure what point you are making, and I am interested in understanding it. Perhaps just elaborate a little more about what your are saying about gunners on the gunnery test range having to determine the range to the target, and the % results.

-tom w

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

Tom, when establishing the accuracy of a gun system, Ie, an KwK.43 the manufacturer works with the military to establish paramaters of the gun, as in expected accuracy, penetration etc.

When the gun is ready for testing its set up at a range, usualy long before its emplaced in a turret. Then the targets are set up & range to each static target is given to the operator, who was usualy an expert gunner, who then fires & the results are cataloged, these tests are considered as conducted in an controlled enviroment, & their purpose was to establish the accuracy the system could achieve & represent the Table 1 data cited here. In Table 2 or the expected accuracy with a normal crew the controled condition factors were removed from the equasion.

In Table 2 the theoretical gunner has no pre deterimed range data, the target is moveing, the weather conditions can be diferent, shots must be fired faster etc, he must FFE to establish range, this all takes time to establish and effects accuracy hence the % adjustments in the test data results & the expected accuracy results on the range.

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 feild".

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

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

[L.Tankersley]

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

The hit propability difference between real life data and CM data is almost ten fold. Which one is more likely to be off?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since it seems certain that neither the "real-life" nor the CM data are actually correct, I can state categorically that they both have the same likelihood of being "off," namely 100%.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also agree that spotting is issue that should be looked upon in future, I don't think that regular Tiger IE crew can miss sight of M4 Sherman at 2000 meters away in level grass field. Atleast it is highly unlikely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2000 meters is quite a distance (a "fur piece" as William Faulkner might say). IMO the chance of an uncued visual search spotting a tank-sized target at that range is well below certainty even in good visibility with no war going on. And the issue with spotting is not so much the terrain occupied by the target as the backdrop. Sure, the tank may be sitting in the middle of a level field, but if there are trees, buildings, hills and other visual clutter behind it to break up the outline of the tank, that makes the spotting problem much harder.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[aka_tom_w]

We aren't really finished with this thread are we?

Maybe we are......

did I hear some say "Let's move on..."

-tom w

[ASL Veteran]

I have been doing some extensive testing on the 88 Flak, 50mm PAK, and the 25 pounder because I have test range data from Jentz on all three of these guns. I haven't finished yet, but I can already see that there is no accuracy difference in CM for any of these guns and that the targeting line is an accurate approximation of your chances of hitting a target. This means that while ballistics may be in CM per Steve's remarks, they have no effect on accuracy in CM. Therefore, my operating theory is that the ballistics equations are only in CM to make the graphic representation of the shells look like they should, and are not in the game to effect accuracy in any way. All guns in CM have the more or less the same chance of hitting at any given range, and that the inherent accuracy of each gun is not reflected. This is not necessarily a bad thing - ASL had an armor 'to hit' table that all AFV's used. BTS won't call this chance to hit a 'table' - they will call it an 'equation', but effectively, no gun's inherent accuracy over any other gun is modeled at this time.

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks ASL Vet

I know that is only a "working theory" and those are not conclusions, but that information is VERY interesting none-the-less. (NTL?)

Thanks for the post.

-tom w

[PzKpfw 1]

Below is an abridged snip from an E-mail discussion between Rune & I. Rune thinks the data is relevant to the current accuracy model discusission, and asked me to post it:

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

I shall look in my refrences problem is most AARs I have read dont break

down the AP per battle they break down ammunition fired over a time period vs

claimed kills. Ie,

Pz.Abt 116 07.01.43 - 01.01.44 76 Battles fought :

kills - 251 tanks - 2 KV-1, 12, SU-122, 227, T-34, 1 Lee, 1, T-60, 8, T-70, 12 SU-122, 40 7.62 cm guns, 147, 7.62 cm AT guns, 43, 4.5 cm AT guns, 10 7.62 cm AA guns. 87 mortars, 164 AT rifles, 34 trucks, 4,680 Inf killed

435 Inf captured, along with numerous uncounted pony carts, horses, & Inf

wpns.

Losses:

1, PzKpfw II, 26 PzKpfw III, 7 PzKpfw IV, 2 Pz.Bef.Wg, 1 PzKpfw III 7.5cm Kurz. 21 destroyed by AP hits, 8 due to mechanichal failure.

Ammunition expended :

4,887 SprGr.

1,798 Pzgr.39 7.5 cm Lang

1.237 Hl/B 7.5cm lang

99 Hl/B 7.5 cm Kurz

39 Pzgr.39 7.5 cm Kurz

5,700 SprGr. 5.cm Lang

2,845 Pzgr.39 5.cm Lang

219,140 Shuss M.G. Munition

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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 feild".

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

[:USERNAME:]

I shall look in my refrences problem is most AARs I have read dont break

down the AP per battle they break down ammunition fired over a time period vs

claimed kills. Ie,

Pz.Abt 116 07.01.43 - 01.01.44 76 Battles fought :

kills - 251 tanks - 2 KV-1, 12, SU-122, 227, T-34, 1 Lee, 1, T-60, 8, T-70, 12 SU-122, 40 7.62 cm guns, 147, 7.62 cm AT guns, 43, 4.5 cm AT guns, 10 7.62 cm AA guns. 87 mortars, 164 AT rifles, 34 trucks, 4,680 Inf killed

435 Inf captured, along with numerous uncounted pony carts, horses, & Inf

wpns.

Losses:

1, PzKpfw II, 26 PzKpfw III, 7 PzKpfw IV, 2 Pz.Bef.Wg, 1 PzKpfw III 7.5cm Kurz. 21 destroyed by AP hits, 8 due to mechanichal failure.

Ammunition expended :

4,887 SprGr.

1,798 Pzgr.39 7.5 cm Lang

1.237 Hl/B 7.5cm lang

99 Hl/B 7.5 cm Kurz

39 Pzgr.39 7.5 cm Kurz

5,700 SprGr. 5.cm Lang

2,845 Pzgr.39 5.cm Lang

219,140 Shuss M.G. Munition

This is really interesting as it shows the kill ratios the germans were getting on the russians. Notice the amount of 50mm fired. It would seem these vehicles were players after kursk. The amount of HE is in a definite ratio to ap. Fighting AT guns was a priority on the russian front.

It would of course be nice to know the TOE of this Bn. Did they have a majority of PzIVlang at the time?

Lewis

[PzKpfw 1]

Well scanning for AAR's containing ammunition expediture I found the following concerning the Tiger E's KwK. 36 accuracy from an s.H.Pz.Abt 503 02.15.43 report I thought it was interesting:

Useing 8.8 cm Panzergranate successes against enemy tanks were achieved at short as well as long ranges. The most favorable range is 1200 - 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. Additionaly, small errors in range estimates at these ranges are almost insignificant.

However with good visibility sucess is even possible at ranges over 3000 meters. As an example, at ranges of 2500 to 3000 meters, one PzKpfw VI fired 18 rounds to destroy five T-34 tanks of which three were moveing across its front.

The above's relevance to this discussion I'm not sure of but 1 thing that stands out in all the Tiger Abt initial reports on the KwK.36 is that it was a very accurate gun at even long ranges for very little ammunition expenditure.

The problem that Steve could very well point out is that the Tiger Abt's crews initialy were the very best gunners in the Panzerwaffe, so an overall comparison may be biased vs other German tank crews

Lewis no total is given on PzKpfw IV lang except the majority of 116ths tanks were PzKpfw III 5.cm L/60 with a 'few' PzKpfw IV lang.

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 feild".

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

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-12-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

One problem in dealing with statistics is the event you are simulating is a singular event or 'representative' of a 'population' of events.Thats to say when the statement is made that 1 out of every 2 shots hit the target that means exactly that ...that over a large enough number of situations you should average 50% hits[19 times out of 20].

Based on a singular model a 50% hit probability means something different . It means that....

Fire 1 shot 50% chance of hit

Fire 2 shot 75% chance of at least one hit and 25% chance of two hits.

Fire 3 shots and you should have a 87% of at least one hit and 13% of all thre shots hitting the target.

So when you getting soldiers accounts of there experiance with a weapin its probably closer to the 1st model.

etc etc etc.

[aka_tom_w]

This is still one of my favourite threads.

Good post John, it shows how accurate that 88 mm really was in the 1200- 2000 m range.

Good research. Makes me feel like I've been slacking off my self.

thanks

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

oops double post

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-12-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

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

The hit propability difference between real life data and CM data is almost ten fold. Which one is more likely to be off?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You keep holding the WWII estimates as if they are "real life data". They are not. They are guesses and so far NOBODY has presented how these figures were arrived at. So please, stop implying that this data is somehow equal to the number of mm of armor, the speed a turret rotates at, how many men are in a squad. It is not that simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS stated that gyro effectiveness was only assessed in tests on firing range in scientific conditions, not on battlefield conditions, yet their effect on accuracy has been succesfully added to CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Real world battlefield conditions DID show that the gyro worked. Go back into whatever that thread was and look at the information again. There were veteran accounts that specifically stated that they hit things on the move that they never could have hit without the gyro. So I am afraid to say that once again our position on the gyros is being distorted once again. I know you are not trying to flame us, but this has got to be the most annoyingly repeated discussion in recent memory. You have make me want to ask Charles to rip out the gyro just so we can stop having people ignore the evidence and complain without factual basis for doing so. Argh.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think that regular Tiger IE crew can miss sight of M4 Sherman at 2000 meters away in level grass field. Atleast it is highly unlikely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can find a spot around you that offers a 2000m straight view, do the following...

1. Do not sleep for a couple of days except for naps.

2. Do not eat as much as you should.

3. Have someone drive and park a large vehicle 2000m away while you are not looking. Perhaps parked in the tree line.

4. Then stand up through a sun roof while the car is moving around.

5. Have a couple of friends in the car constantly distracting you.

6. See how quickly you spot the vehicle 2000m away

Yes, we are going to look at spotting at long ranges. There is most likely some sort of bug that is around. But do not expect units to have eagle eyes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If BTS (or anyone) cannot present more information, those real life figures are what CM should produce because no-one really knows better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is it that we have to come up with reasons and methodology for our figures but the ones you keep quoting need no such support? I'm sorry, but that isn't very constructive. For all we know those accuracy figures were invented by some lab technician while having a beer with a single tank commander.

Our numbers are based on the mathematical accuracy of the weapon, downgraded based on a feel for how units shot up enemy targets in real life. Somehow my detailed PzIV vs. Sherman situation is long forgotten here. How much more accurate should we make the PzIVs? The already decimated the Shermans in 30 seconds. Would folks here be happier if they could do it in 20?

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

ASL Veteran wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This means that while ballistics may be in CM per Steve's remarks, they have no effect on accuracy in CM. Therefore, my operating theory is that the ballistics equations are only in CM to make the graphic representation of the shells look like they should, and are not in the game to effect accuracy in any way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Utterly false. Try again, or just plain out call us liars. I have told you what is simulated. If you do not like the results, fine. You are welcome to your opinion. But do not presume to know how the system is or is not working, because you have no such ability to make statements like the above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All guns in CM have the more or less the same chance of hitting at any given range, and that the inherent accuracy of each gun is not reflected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Utter BS. All guns? All circumstances? I have a VERY hard time buying that, especially beacuse I myself took the time to do a 10 repetition at 1500m test. If what you say is true then the Shermans and PzIVs would have had just as many hits. Go back and look at my test and explain how it was possible to come up with these results if the Sherman and PzIV had the same degree of accuracy.

Sorry if I am getting a little testy here, but I feel that this is a large waste of my time. But yet, I can't let such grandious and ill formed "attacks" on CM go unchallenged. Even if you mean well (and I have no reason to think you do not), making such flat out statements is not fair to CM or to us. Please, put a sock in it until you have something comprehensive and well thought out before stating your conclusions. It is the right way to do it.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

The answer is that the silhouette figure is used, modified by height, when computing accuracy and spotting. Facing is also factored in, as well as a host of other factors (like speed, cover, etc). In other words, a short and squat vehicle might have the same silhouette as a tall and skinny one (at the same angle in the same conditions), but the taller one will be easier to spot and hit than the shorter one.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-13-2000).]

[-Jochen-]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You keep holding the WWII estimates as if they are "real life data". They are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not? German (and presumably british too) tests have data for pure dispersion only (range is known and target is not moving) and also data for guesstimated battlefield accuracy. First figure is about as accurate as we can find, second is an approximation.

Anyway, if there is better data to model accuracy with, none of us have seen it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are guesses and so far NOBODY has presented how these figures were arrived at. So please, stop implying that this data is somehow equal to the number of mm of armor, the speed a turret rotates at, how many men are in a squad. It is not that simple.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this bit clarifies how those numbers were obtained:

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.

I think that describes conditions quite nicely. I admit that it could be better but it also could be much much worser.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wrong. Real world battlefield conditions DID show that the gyro worked. Go back into whatever that thread was and look at the information again. There were veteran accounts that specifically stated that they hit things on the move that they never could have hit without the gyro.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I must have missed that bit. I only remember that BTS said they had test results from tests conducted in controlled environment. In no way I want gyro's to be removed or that I complain about them!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you can find a spot around you that offers a 2000m straight view, do the following...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, I have been in finnish army as a squad leader so I know tiny bit about the conditions. Not that I'm professional soldier or anything!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, we are going to look at spotting at long ranges. There is most likely some sort of bug that is around. But do not expect units to have eagle eyes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't expect to have tank commanders with eagle eyes. But person who is accustomed in tank warfare and is expecting enemy contact right now (that's why he hasn't sleep in two days I guess) should be able to spot enemy tank in 2000 meters range in flat grass field. I know those are ideal conditions and not often met in combat in wester europe but anyways it should be looked up in CM2, I think flat steppes of southern russia offer quite a lot flat spaces

NOTE! I think if the troops have been up two days at a row without food their status would be other than "Rested" as it is not when you start scenario!

Would that mean that "Rested" troops could perform as it was estimated by Germans and Brits? If they have been up for two days their status should be "Tired" and in that case their accuracy should be like it is now ie. downgraded?

I think this is also important issue to look at!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why is it that we have to come up with reasons and methodology for our figures but the ones you keep quoting need no such support?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I honestly do think that those quotes from test shootings somewhat support figures I (and others) have posted here.

I am only curious how and why CM yields different results in conditions that I found from other sources which I consider useful. I think I understand the results I have seen elsewhere but I'm looking for information why CM behaves differently. It is possible that figures we all see in books and net are wrong and CM is right but we don't know why CM behaves differently. That is the "gray area" for me and I try to find out more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For all we know those accuracy figures were invented by some lab technician while having a beer with a single tank commander.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that was the case at all! I think me and other peoples in this thread has offered support and reasoning to figures presented here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our numbers are based on the mathematical accuracy of the weapon, downgraded based on a feel for how units shot up enemy targets in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the interesting bit! How do you calculate dispersion and such? Are they abstracted somehow so dispersion is only related to weight and velocity of round? I'm also interested to hear about the downgrading and how much it does affect accuracy.

Did you test accuracy before downgrading and compared it to test result from WWII?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Somehow my detailed PzIV vs. Sherman situation is long forgotten here. How much more accurate should we make the PzIVs? The already decimated the Shermans in 30 seconds. Would folks here be happier if they could do it in 20?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anyone here is looking for "wish 'em dead" guns. I used KwK 36 as example because that was only data that I have (apart from 75 mm L/24).

The test you did was interesting. However it does not isolate different variables too well. Since we are discussing about long range accuracy (1500 is about in borderline I think) and not killing ability in general I think that test was not the most usefull that might have been conducted. I cant remember armour thickness of PzKw IV and M4 Sherman used in your test but I think that at range of 1500 meters Sherman has quite a much smaller chance of penetrating PzKw IV's armour than it's vica versa. That could mean that results are more dependent on penetration ability against opponents armour at range of 1500 meters than accuracy.

In no way I want to flame BTS or anyone here! I have some years earlier programmed a small simulation that calculates penetrations and accuracy in 3D and I would like to know bit more how it is done in CM.

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

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

[John Kettler]

I rescued the post at the bottom from a locked optics thread. I'd hate to see the information lost simply because the thread was locked through no fault of my own. May it be useful to all those working various pieces of the target acquisition and engagement problem.

Also, I thought I'd add something to the discussion here.

I used to be a Soviet Threat Analyst for Hughes and Rockwell many years ago. In that capacity, one of the things I studied was modern Soviet tank design philosophy. After careful study of all available data, the Soviets concluded that the single biggest factor in combat survivability was overall vehicle height; to attain that lowest possible height, the Soviets purposely designed their vehicles for crews no taller than 5'5" (NOT KIDDING). Since the crews were shorter, the overall vehicle was smaller and the weight lower than for a tank able to accommodate 6' tankers.

Remember, the Soviet tanks were designed specifically for Soviet terrain. Global deployability was a secondary consideration at best. The tanks were optimized to take maximum advantage of typical terrain, and the name of the game was to not be seen by flowing through the lowest points in that terrain.

Did they give anything up by taking this path?

Of course! Their tanks typically had reduced ammo stowage and limited gun depression. Engine life was short, and ergonomics were not on par with our tanks. But the Soviets reckoned the combat life of a tank as being typically no more than 48 hours. Given that throwaway approach to tank design, coupled with an inventory of some 50,000 tanks, why would the Soviets accept the tactical handicaps I've listed during the tank's brief combat life?

The answer is as fundamental as exterior ballistics and draws directly from naval gunnery, specifically the concept called "danger space."

Simply stated, once the incoming projectile's trajectory ceases to be flat, target height becomes the single biggest defender design controllable variable in hit avoidance. The higher the target, the more slop the attacker can get away with in range estimation and still get a hit. This is because guns naturally have far greater dispersion in range than they do in deflection. Getting a hit thus becomes a matter of getting the projectile's descending trajectory to pass through the plane of the target.

In our tank or antitank example, it's not all that hard, unless the target is moving, to aim accurately in azimuth. Typically center of mass aiming is employed, with the desired strike at the vulnerable junction of turret and hull. This also has the effect of maximizing hit probability even if there are small ranging errors either short or long, as well as compensating for minor errors in azimuth lay and/or projectile dispersion about the aimpoint.

Before we continue, let me state the obvious. A tall tank is also more vulnerable to a hit even at close ranges where the trajectory is effectively flat. Again, this is because the gunner firing on the tank can afford a greater range estimation error than he could against a shorter tank.

If we return to the earlier part of this discussion, the longer range case, we find that height becomes a major casualty driver. An 88mm tank or antitank gun may be firing at a fixed point. If a T-34 passes nearby, it may well pass unhit, since the 88's projectile would pass well over it. Conversely, a Sherman, because it's much taller than the T-34, therefore subtending a bigger proportion of the projectile's descending trajectory, is probably dead meat. From this, it also follows that there are more discrete trajectories (different range settings) which will, given accurate azimuth lay, guarantee a hit on the Sherman than on the T-34.

Restated, the T-34 is lower, hence better able to use terrain; harder to spot, even when visible, and requires a much more precise range estimate than the Sherman under the same conditions, in order to hit it.

I would therefore like to propose the following:

1. Have at least two silhouette values for a vehicle. Use the first for spotting and the second for gunnery (more on this part later). Ideally, there would be an internal table or some calculation based on observable surface area as a function of angle and turret position.

2. If possible, please provide more detail on vehicle exposure and factor it into the calculations. In other words, instead of figuring LOS the way it's done now, run the calculation based on exposed percentage of the vehicle (from the firing gun) and take it from there. Military studies I read as an analyst noted, for example, that usually a tank's trackwork is masked by terrain microrelief.

3. While continuing to use overall size, modified by terrain masking, etc., for spotting, please use exposed target height as a major gunnery accuracy input, rather than the current silhouette driven version.

I believe the current approach (single silhouette modifier) is generating unrealistic hits on some, while at the same time preventing hits on units which would otherwise be hit. Admittedly, the problem becomes more ticklish with, say, a Puma head on, where a small azimuth error might be a complete miss, depending on the weapon, range, etc., but no problem broadside on. Something like a Stuart would be an easier case, being both fairly tall and wider than the Puma, I think.

Those who think I'm making this up are invited to repair to Russian Military Zone (http://history.vif2.ru) and read what the Russian crews (Guards) had to say about the Grant and Lee as compared to their own tanks, as a for instance.

I do not know how feasible my suggestions are, but I firmly believe that the current approach is skewing engagement outcomes from what they should be, independent of the side chosen. Gunnery equations are cold, heartless. But they're only as good as the inputs used to model them. I believe that the present approach may using the wrong variable, thus yielding unrealistic combat results. I'd appreciate a response from BTS and the troops, please.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

(End new post.)

(Begin resurrected post.)

John Kettler

Member

posted 10-05-2000 10:12 PM

Part I.

I think I may be able to offer some help on the American side of the gunnery equation. An FM/TM (forget which, can't find the number), called Tank & Tank Destroyer Gunnery, was published in January of 1946. I know this publication really existed because I was

outbid on eBay for an original issue by the son of a recon trooper in the 701st Tank Destroyer Battalion.

Given its publication date and title, I think we can reasonably infer that it embodies both the standard gunnery procedures and the

lessons learned from D-Day through the end of the war. As I recall, it was many hundreds of pages long, replete with photos, graphs and tables.

Seems to me that this kind of information would go a long way toward making concrete much of what's currently nebulous. In theory, it should provide some sort of handle on doctrinal open fire ranges for several different armament/sight configurations and should clearly and specifically explain exactly how to use the sights and adjust fire after the initial shot. I would further expect photos or airbrush renderings of the actual gunsight images.

I believe that Fort Knox would have a copy of this important and information rich work, and there may be other sources as well. I am trying to get the guy who outbid me to run me a copy, but I haven't heard back from him.

Part II.

I agree completely with PzKpfwI about the importance of filters in gunsights. How many of you want to be in bright sunshine at high

noon without sunglasses (glare reducing or polarizing filters)? That's a neutral gray filter in a gunsight.

Now imagine facing all that glare through magnified optics with no glare protection. What? No takers?

Shooters routinely use amber lenses, which subtract blue from the visible spectrum, greatly reducing distortion from scatter and enhancing contrast. You'll sometimes see them as driving glasses, too. They're really handy in haze and overcast.

I invite those of you who can, to go to a gun or archery range, preferably outdoors. See if you can find someone who has/rent a good variable power spotting scope. The good ones have several filters built right into the focal plane, allowing the user to change both magnifications and filters, depending on distance and environmental conditions. You will then be able to see firsthand just how important those filters can be.

Targets lost in the haze will now be seen. Blurry targets will be crisp and clear, standing out from their background. And

if you could see the target was there at, say, 2 power, at 6 power, you'll be able to precisely locate .223 bullet holes at 100

meter range.

Now, translate this back into the battlefield.

Clear, distortion free optics translate into greater detection range than lesser quality optics with the same magnification

and field of view. They are useful for discriminating camouflaged targets and selecting weapon aimpoints.

Similarly, the side with higher magnification,

holding other parameters constant, can see farther/more detail than the side with lower magnification.

If one side can simply turn a knob to change sight magnification, while the other has to unscrew eyepieces, then the side with dialable magnification has an advantage.

The side with filters will have an advantage on several fronts over the one without, being able to see and engage targets the other side will have a tough time seeing, much less engaging effectively. Again, this advantage is amplified if filters can be engaged by simply twisting a knob.

I leave it to the technical specialists to determine who had what,when, and how well it worked, but I can tell you from direct experience that the things I've mentioned here do matter and are militarily significant. I would further argue that sight goodness would be a larger concern for the force with lower velocity guns, since trajectory loopiness would make swift, accurate ranging even more important.

Part III

Like some of you, I also have played Panzer Elite (covers North Africa and Italy).

(Important: note qualifiers.)

If the sights for the U.S. and the Germans worked as depicted in that game (played both sides extensively), then I would much prefer

the German sights if I had to go to war. I found them much more intuitive and easier to use, particularly with a flatshooting gun like the Panther's.

If you can, play Panzer Elite (with gunnery fixes in). Notice how much easier it is to aim and get hits with the German sights, particularly with high magnification in use. What you can't see at all through American gunsights is crystal clear through a Panther's at high magnification. I could easily put a shot through a specific house window from hundreds of meters away, whereas I was often hard pressed to hit the same house with American optics. The blur in the trees as the Americans resolved into a hunkered down squad, with discrete men, for the Germans.

Whether this depiction is in fact correct, I couldn't say. I would also observe that this game is set BEFORE the CM time period, hence

presumably DOESN'T model late war, improved American optics.

Hope the above items are useful.

Regards,

John Kettler

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 10-13-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

Yeah. What John said.

Since BTS does keep its cards close to its chest, we have to believe that they are indeed modeling height, width, length correctly. Height should be an increasingly non-linear factor as a function of a guns deviation from a flat trajectory as far as hit percentage.

So as customers , we can only test the game and see the results and not the mechanics. In other words, unless BTS releases some numbers (since steve is experimenting like us, maybe he doesnt have access to the numbers) we can only speculate and argue.

I feel that if a firer has a non-moving target in his sights and he isnt being engaged himself directly (including near misses), then within a certain number of rounds, his hit percentage might approach range data. Thats just my take. Theres a slew of things that will throw this off, not the least is the target bugging out. If you look at the post where the amount of german ammo is tallied over a 7 month period and the amount of tanks destroyed, then you appreciate the number of misses in combat. But I wont argue it.

Myself, I feel arguing is bad. Poor Slappy had some coniptions from arguing with me and others and is now brain-deader. I dont want anything like that to happen to me.

Lewis

[L.Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Clear, distortion free optics translate into greater detection range than lesser quality optics with the same magnification

and field of view. They are useful for discriminating camouflaged targets and selecting weapon aimpoints.

Similarly, the side with higher magnification,

holding other parameters constant, can see farther/more detail than the side with lower magnification.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice, informative post, John. I have a question about the above, though. I agree that better optics lead to longer detection/identification ranges for a cued visual search. However, I'm not sure whether this should necessarily lead to longer spotting ranges. Are tank crews typically performing visual scans for targets using their high-powered optics? It seems to me that in general this wouldn't be practical, and that instead target-acquisition scans would be done with the naked eye or low-magnification optics, and the high-power stuff would only be brought to bear once you've seen something. Granted that once you do the quality of the optics will help you identify what you're looking at and help you hit it (how much it will help, I'm not touching with a 10' pole), but I don't see how the optics will help in initial spotting of the target. [Disclaimer: if someone with Actual Military Experience , or a reasonable facsimile thereof, wants to point out that most target spotting is typically done using the high-powered optics, then I will quietly withdraw from the field of battle.]

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[:USERNAME:]

Even down to the infantry squad level spotting is best accomplished through optical magnification!

You would use the naked eye to identify likley areas, and then scope it out. Lets say you and the squad/vehicle push to the edge of a woods. You stop, scan, see areas of potential enemy positions and scan for the enemy with binos/optics. In a tank, the commander will focus his gunner on the most likely areas and he will use his greater freedom of vision to scan his assigned areas. The platoon commander will assign areas. Most pics of tank commanders show them either looking through binos or holding on to them!

This aint rocket science but more common sense. In very close terrain like in urban areas, the naked eye and the amount of them become more important. Tanks avoid these areas like the plague.

Lewis

[aka_tom_w]

This seems to be a very sensitive issue

and it looks like Steve is somewhat at his wits end with us.

Thanks for all your responses Steve.

All of us here, (at least what I have read on this page) are trying to improve the game. Honestly.

I'm sorry for my part in the discussion with regard to raising the off topic issue of the gyro stabilizers.

I think that what is at issue here is that we have a hard time seeing any Vet Crack or Elite Tank crew missing second third and forths shots as much as they do in CM.

Yes we are talking about German optics and yes we are talking about long range chance to hit perentages, BUT when we play and use (even Regular) Vet Crack or Elite Tank crews and we see them MISS three times in a row at less than 1000 m on a clear day against a large target we are saying HEY! that doesn't feel right to us.

I am personally very comfortable with the first shot hit and miss percentage, but by the second and third shots, I would like to see the chance to hit raise more than it is now for for vet crews, and a bit more for Crack crew and ALOT more for Elite crews. When crack and elite crews Miss three straight at less than 1000m I think it should be a 1 in 100 chance and be EXTREMELY BAD luck.

I would like to propose the that the first second and third shot hit percentage should add up to about a 99% chance to have at least hit one by the third round fired.

So in Math how do we do that, Quite honestly I will find out, as the math on that one escapes me now. BUT it should look something like this

for an elite crew firing an 88 from a Tiger I

At 1000 m sunny day at a Sherm Jumbo

first shot .....47% chance to hit

Second shot .....68% chance to hit

Third shot .....89% chance to hit

forth shot ......99% chance to hit

there should be a way to add the odds of 47% 68% and 89% and determine that 99 times out of 100 that crew will hit at least once out of the three shots. I suggest these jumps of about 21% after each shot, because this elite crew is firing a round that has a flat predictable trajectory and has VERY high quality optics to watch where the shot lands and is Elite so it has years of experience to acquire and retarget quickly and MORE accurately after each miss.

On a positive note...

I would like to say how EXTREMELY well I think the result of the hits are modeled, I really like to see things like, "shell broke up" "riccochete" "upper hull penetration" "interior armour flaking" "front turret penetration" (with no damage )

The way the HITs are modeled seems REALLY realistic to me and I think it is one of this games strongest and most enjoyable features.

Keep up the good work!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-13-2000).]

[L.Tankersley]

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

Even down to the infantry squad level spotting is best accomplished through optical magnification!

You would use the naked eye to identify likley areas, and then scope it out. Lets say you and the squad/vehicle push to the edge of a woods. You stop, scan, see areas of potential enemy positions and scan for the enemy with binos/optics. In a tank, the commander will focus his gunner on the most likely areas and he will use his greater freedom of vision to scan his assigned areas. The platoon commander will assign areas. Most pics of tank commanders show them either looking through binos or holding on to them!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand and agree with the above. But it seems to me that in general, uncued target acquisition where you don't know exactly where the enemy is and thus have to scan a large area for potential targets has to rely on naked eye or aids like binoculars rather than targetting optics, especially in the limited time of a CM turn. (I'm not saying you can't spot something with your optics, but it seems unlikely that most of your spotting would be done with them.) Therefore, claims that better targetting optics should lead to better spotting performance seem dubious to me. Better binoculars (or vitamin A supplements ) might be another story.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[L.Tankersley]

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

The answer is that the silhouette figure is used, modified by height, when computing accuracy and spotting. Facing is also factored in, as well as a host of other factors (like speed, cover, etc). In other words, a short and squat vehicle might have the same silhouette as a tall and skinny one (at the same angle in the same conditions), but the taller one will be easier to spot and hit than the shorter one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is height displayed in the vehicle status screen (don't remember seeing it, but I might have missed it)? If not, could it be added in a future patch?

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[aka_tom_w]

One more thought....

Lets start from the premise that we want to look at how often a will crew miss three shots in a row?

Just as easily we could say how often do we want to see a crew miss four shots in a row.

I would prefer to discuss vet crack and elite crews and work backwards from there.

So lets look at what the odds are of missing 3 shots in a row.

Do we have any data that supports what are the chances of a gunner missing three in a row, not really so it would seem.

We do have a piece of information that says a German Gunner was not really qualified unless he coud get a hit by the forth shot. (I'm not sure where that quote is but its in this thread somewhere)

So does that mean that in combat that gunner can hit something by the 4th shot 100% of the time? I doubt it.

It has been stated that in CM there are no 100% chace to hit odds anywhere, so that seems about right. But if we are talking about the "average cool gunner" and we call him crack or Vet then what percentage should he have to miss four shots in a row on a sunny day at less than 1000m ?

1%?

5%?

10%?

I think the number should be very close to 2-3% and the odds of getting a hit from the cumulative chance to hit percentages of the first 4 shots should cummulatively add up to at least 97-98% meaning that in only 2 or 3 times in a hundred this crew will miss four shots in a row.

If the game is modeled that way now then we all must be playing ALOT of Combat Mission to see so many 2-3 out of 100 chances of three and four shots in a row MISS.

I would say we all know that if you miss 3 shots in a row at an enemy tank your are VERY likely going to get at least one enemy round hit your tank, sometimes you are lucky and it does no damage, but if you miss three in a row, you can bet at least one enemy round will hit its mark and then it just depends on whether you are lucky or not.

Comments from anyone else?

Am I over stating this case?

Or does this not really have anything to do with the degree of accuracy we are discussing?

-tom w

[L.Tankersley]

First a little bit of statistics:

If you want a 1% failure rate over 4 shots (that is, 4 consecutive misses) the hit chance per shot is approximately 68%. (Note, I ignore factors like increasing hit probability for subsequent shots.) For a 5% failure rate, hit chance per shot is about 53%. And for 10% failure, hit chance is around 44%.

Second, the "training standard" issue. I think before you can really rely on this as a substantive argument, you need to define how this standard was applied and evaluated. Is it a reasonable assumption that all gunners met this standard? How was this test administered? Was it on a gunnery range? Was the target moving? How fast? What is the range to target? Was the test administered using well-maintained, clean equipment and optics? Was the gunner under fire, simulated or otherwise? What were visibility conditions like during the test?

Until we know the answers to questions like the above, I think it's impossible to meaningfully argue for changes based on this gunnery standard. Personally (and this is only gut feeling, I have no evidence whatsoever to back it up) under battlefield conditions I think you'd be doing well if half your gunners satisfied your training standard.

[by the way, to achieve a 50% success rate in 4 shots, the per-shot to-hit chance is only 16%.]

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

Leland J. Tankersley