Tank gun test, extreme ranges. (Warning: large pics inside)

[Eric Young]

Longest kill I ever heard of in World War II as an 88mm Flak mount at Hellfire pass killing a Brit at 2000 meters.

I'll look up the reference.

E

[Cooper]

The reason why you don't see any documented kills 3000m+ in WWII is because it is crazy to engage and those distance. If a 88 gun crew engages at those distances all it is doing, besides getting the very rare kill, is wish upon themselves a mass amount of motor and artillery fire. What is the point of killing one T-34 (the most common theater where you could find these ranges) when you are going to get spike by art. you can't counter. So with no accurate stats about kills, accuracy, hit rates, blah, blah, blah, I am sure that bts just took the ranges and made them highly unlikely for a kill shot. But this post is IMO._

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A Challenger tank recorded a kill at over 5 km during the gulf war. That must be close to a record or something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

5km? Isn't that past the hump of the horizon in flat terrain? Where did you get that info from?

Battleships have been known to hit each other beyond the horizon, but I never thought tanks could do it.

Gyrene

[Slapdragon]

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

5km? Isn't that past the hump of the horizon in flat terrain? Where did you get that info from?

Battleships have been known to hit each other beyond the horizon, but I never thought tanks could do it.

Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your horizon depends on how far off the ground you are (pi R square you know) so the tank could have been on a hill firing acorss the desert at dusk (since day in the desert distorts sighting at long distances and Challenger FLIR is not effective to 5km, only about 1.2).

[Mace]

I've read about the Challenger kill at 5km as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Challenger 1 & 2: Spearhead of the British Royal Armored Corps (publisher concord)

It was reported that a Challenger knocked out an Iraqi tank with it's first round at a distance of over 5,100 meters. (5,574)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there's is another reference to this in the book authored by the then Divisional Commander of the 1st Armoured Division (UK). I'll dig it up and post it if I can.

Mace

[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: Mace ]

[Jeff Duquette]

I’ve collected a bunch of these things. This a sample.

Various quotes from: “United States vs. German Equipment” Major General Issac White, 2nd Armored Division, March 1945. A report to General Eisenhower. You can buy a copy of this report from Merriam Press.

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

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

Although we haven't seen the M26 in action, we have seen the tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun, and also the Tiger and Tiger Royal. We are of the opinion that the Tiger and Tiger Royal's 88-mm gun are far superior to our tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun. Our reasons for this assertion are:

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

Far superior sights which permits hitting a target at a great range, that is, 3,000 yards, usually without bracketing.

2. The "souped-up" ammunition of the Tiger permits penetration of our armor at long ranges.

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

In my opinion, I think that the German tank is much better than ours in firepower. They can sit back about 2,500 yards to 3,000 and knock us out. Were we able to get within a thousand yards we might be able to give them a little trouble with our guns.

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

Some thing I have seen in combat that were disturbing and disgusting to any tanker.

Many times I've seen our tanks engage German tanks in tank duels. Their tanks have the ups on us. Their guns and armor are far better than ours. On this particular occasion, just north of Wurselen, Germany, our column was advancing towards its objective when suddenly we began to draw direct fire from German tanks. At once we located two Mark V tanks at about 2,800 to 3,000 yards away. At once our tank destroyers and tanks opened fire on them. The gunners had the eye to hit but our guns didn't have the power to knock them out. I saw our tank destroyers and self-propelled guns get several direct hits on the Kraut tanks but the projectiles just bounced off the Jerries. The Jerries' guns didn't fail, they knocked out three of our tank destroyers and one Sherman tank at 2,800 to 3,000 yards. If our tanks had been as good as the German tanks they would never have scored a hit.

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

The Mark V and VI have our tanks out-gunned and out-sighted in all cases except the new sight M71D on the American M4E8. They can hit at 3,000 yards in the M4 with a good percentage of penetrations. I have actually seen ricochets go through the M4 at 3,000 yards.

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

At Oberamot, Germany, 27 February 1945, our second platoon on road block was engaged by two Tiger tanks, Mark VI, at 3,600 yards, and two of our Shermans were knocked out. Our 3,400 feet per second 76-mm HVAP ammunition was used and bounced off the side slopes, seven rounds. Definitely out-ranged due to better sights in the Mark VI and more muzzle velocity in their souped-up ammunition. Upon throwing smoke at the Tiger tanks, they withdrew because smoke means marking target for artillery and fighter-bombers to the Germans.

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

On 6 January 1945 in the vicinity of Samree, Belgium, fired at an enemy tank at a range of 2,500 yards. Due to poor visibility, could not sense the rounds or their effect. The enemy tank opened fire and the first round hit the tank penetrated the front slope plate.

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

On 19 September 1944 in the vicinity of Weir, Germany, tank was hit in the left suspension system by a 75-mm HE field gun fired from a range of 3,000 yards. The tank was put out of action.

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some other AARs I picked out from various references.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seek, Strike and Destroy, US ARMY Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII. Dr. Christopher Gabel.

The direct-fire mission was especially important in Italy, where tank destroyers provided covering' fire for tanks that, being better armored, closed with and destroyed enemy positions impeding the advance of the footsoldiers. Thus, tank destroyers supported tanks, and tanks supported infantry. During the September 1944 assault on the Gothic Line, specially trained tank destroyer gunners supported the advance by placing rounds through the small gun embrasures of German pillboxes at a range of fifteen hundred yards. Even when openings could not be hit, the high-velocity rounds were quite effective against concrete fortifications." Tank destroyers were so valuable as armored self-propelled assault guns that one battalion in Italy functioned exclusively in the direct-support role for four months. (Pg 41)

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

The M-36 would not arrive in Europe until September 1944, but once it reached the front, it proved to be the only American armored vehicle that could match the heavier German tanks in firepower. One M-36 destroyed a Panther with one round at a range of 3,200 yards' and another fired five rounds at a tank 4,600 yards distant, scored two hits, and disabled the Tank. The M-36 was equally impressive in the secondary missions. In the direct-fire role, a 90-mm armor-piercing shell could penetrate 4.5 feet of non-reinforced concrete. (Pg 56)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> PANZERJAGER, Tank Hunter by William Folkestad

One afternoon In the fog and drizzle I had an opportunity to watch one of our Hornisse, the Hornet, 88 mm self-propelled antitank cannons at work. Hornisses were open-topped armored vehicles with armor plating surrounding the gun deck. The crew had been issued the same range finder used by antiaircraft batteries. It was incredibly accurate.

The front line was 800 meters from our position and 1200 meters (sic range to T34 cluster was 2000 meters) beyond Russian tanks were Idling In their forward assembly areas. As I watched through my field glasses the Hornisse cut loose on two T -34s destroying both of them. It was like observing an ant hill being stirred up with a stick. The Russian tankers had thought that they were out of range and they had no Idea what had hit them.(Pg 80)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Artillery In the Desert, FMFRP 12-3

Other difficulties arise in the desert which only keen eyes and training can surmount. There is the real problem which a forward artillery observer has in identifying his own bursts among the dust, and heat waves when other units are also firing. Judging distance In the desert is as difficult as on the ocean. Lack of familiarity with the size and appearance of armored vehicles at various ranges is a frequent cause for misjudging distance. The fact that the enemy opens fire does not invariably mean that the enemy is within range, for he can misjudge also. But it is even more important to remember that all tanks are not equipped with the same type of gun. German tanks armed with 75-mm guns can open effective firing at a range of 2,000 yards. Antitank guns with a smaller range waste ammunition by returning fire and, what is worse, give away their own positions.(Pg 42-43)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From the book. “Freineux and Lamormenil” by George Winter

“I saw a flash from the panzer, the shell hitting the building near the eve of the house, sending debris all over us. The panzer then fired another round and missed, hitting the same area. Returning fire, Graham’s gunner got off two or three rounds but was unable to score a hit since the German was in a depression … “I then looked to the right across the valley and saw a flash from another panzer about 2000 yards away. I then gave the gunner orders. “Right front! Right front! Range 2000! Fire! After firing I saw the AP with tracers in direct line, but short. I then ordered the gunner, ‘Up 2! Fire!’ The second shell went straight into the back of the panzer and it started burning. I was watching it with field glasses and to my surprise saw another panzer move from right to left behind the burning tank. I then gave the gunner orders. ‘Left! Up 2! Fire!’ The shell went straight in to the rear.””(Winter 34-35)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting write-up from a member of the 704th SPTD Battalion

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

Reading in the May-June issue about the increased "lethality and tightability" of the enhanced M1A2, with its extensive use of digital electronics for target acquisition and target tracking, made me wonder if any younger readers knew how target acquisition and target tracking was done fifty-odd years ago. I would like to quote a paragraph from the combat history of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion, Fourth Armored Division, of General Patton's Third Army.

The time was September, 1944, the weapon was the 76mm, high-velocity antitank rifle that armed the M-18 "Hellcat." The gunner was SSG Phillip Hosey. I quote from Phil Hosey.

"Near Nancy, France, between Luneville and Arracourt, we faced a group of German tanks that had taken a position one mile away, across a shallow open valley. Our M-18s were in defilade, facing out over a small hill. Infantry led the way across the valley with three M-4s intermingled. The Krauts let them get halfway across, then opened up with anti-tank fire from woods on the right. They immediately KO'd two M-4s and drove the infantry to the ground. Two Panthers, a Mark IV, and an assault gun came out of the woods and moved across our line of fire at the distance of about a mile. In his position in our open turret, the tank commander, SSG Hicklin, watched their progression through his glasses and called out the range: "Two thousand yards, moving at about ten mph." Our rifle, with AP, had a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps, so it would take two seconds to arrive on target. The Krauts were moving at fifteen feet per second, which let them travel thirty feet in two seconds. Their lead tank was twenty feet long (from the book), so we led him a good length for a center shot. We laid on and fired. Voila, a hit! It struck two feet in front of his rear drive idler. We then picked the last tank and scored — he began to bum. The two intervening tanks were destroyed by two fast AP shots. So we got two Panthers, a Mark 4, and an assault gun. Our 76mm rifle packed a good punch, even at two thousand yards. We felt that we had the best self-propelled antitank gun in the ETO."

In spite of his Purple Hearts and continued combat-related disabilities, Phil Hosey has provided many important first-hand accounts of his experiences for our combat history of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion.

CPT Richard R. Buchanan, 704th Tank Destroyer Bn. Secretary/Historian, 704 TD Bn Assn. Wilmington, Ohio<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Mattias]

It has been my impression that the scattering seen in CM is actually totally random. Random within a certain realistic/logical spread obviously, but totally random within this spread.

Secondly, combat reports from German units deploying the high velocity 75mm and 88mm guns seems to indicate that there was nothing very extreme with engagement ranges of around 2000 meters. In combat evaluations of the Panther tank for example, ranges of between 1500-2000 are presented as the standard with most of the tanks killed being hit from these ranges.

M.

[RMC]

It is totally random, Mattias. BTS said so several times. The ellipitcal shape just shows that they have realistic limits on where the random misses will land.

[Måkjager]

Hey Jeff have you heard the combat report about a Tiger II engaging a T34-85 at 1600m without LOS using indirect fire.

It happened on the Austrian/Czech boarder on the 21s April A1945...unit involved was from the 503rd sPzAbt.

It took 4 rounds to get the T-34 and scared the beejaysus out of the Soviets.

Regards

Måkjager

[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: Måkjager ]

[Jeff Duquette]

Måkjager:

Yes I had come across that rather amazing tale somewhere. The TC apparently stood on a roof of house and directed the fire of his tank from there.

[Monty's Double]

I've recently moved and all my books are still packed up so I can't check, but I think the Gulf War Challenger kill is referenced in George Forty's "Tank Commanders", which should be easily available. I could be wrong though.

[Jeff Duquette]

Just to add to RMC post as we have had this discussion before here. The dispersion pattern –as RMC has already indicated – is totally random, although the shot pattern looks relatively realistic. However, there is no logic in CM as to where rounds land relative to how a gunner might adjust his fire onto his target. That is why in CM you get these crazy 48 rounds to get one hit at 3000m.

Tank gunners (German, Commonwealth, American) were all trained during WWII to “bracket” longer ranged targets with their fire. This was a sort of guessing game for ranging before the days when range finders were standard equipment tanks (Germans TC’s with Sf14z aside for the moment). But the “guessing” was a function of training and was –in theory – conducted in a logical manner. The initial range estimation was conducted via stadia lines in binoculars or the stadia lines in a gunners sight. In the case of Panzers the German Zeiss gunsights had small triangles in the gunners sight for helping with range estimation. This was all based upon a mil scale, and the knowledge that a tank sized target is 1mil high in a 5x gunsight at a range of 2000 meters (or whatever the actual ratio is)….or 2mils high in a 5x gunsight at a range of 1000 meters.

So you estimate your range, adjust the main-gun to the appropriate range setting than fire. The gunner and TC (and hopefully the driver loader, and hull machine gunner) all try to see where the round hits…sensing their own fire...or watching their fall of shot. They will look for the tracer element or for the splash of soil as the round impacts the earth. Or, if the round hits a hard target there will be a bright white or red flash…very easy to sense this flash.

If the round falls short of the target, training typically dictates a certain range increase for the next round fired. US Army FM17-12 for 1944 (this was the Army tank gunnery manual for WWII) indicates that for ranges beyond about 1200 yrds the gunner should automatically perform a 400yrd increase in his range setting and fire again. This range jump is a function of both the firing weapons relatively flat trajectory, as well as operational study group folks that figure out how best to bracket targets and optimal range jumps to ensure the highest probability of achieving a hit with the fewest number of rounds.

Moreover, a high velocity round does not have a huge amount of arc to it, so range estimations do not have to be right on the money in order for a gunner to hit his target. Very Simplified: for example an increase of say 400 yrds range by the gunner might really only result in a 12 inch vertical jump in the maximum elevation of the rounds trajectory (again this is very simplistic but I am only try to illustrate the basics here). But for a round that is traveling at 2000 fps that 12 inch increase in elevation results in a lot of additional horizontal travel down range before gravity and wind resistance pull the round back down to earth.

There is no particular logic in CM to a tanks fall of shot as it fires on a target, or how a gunner might realistically be adjusting his own fire to get closer to his target. One round will be short by 200 yrds. The next will be short by 300 yrds. The third will be wide right by 200 yrds. The fourth round will be over the target by 600 yrds. Presumably for a game such as CM this sort of in depth modeling of the nitty-grittys of tank gunnery (or anti tank gunnery) is well beyond the scope of realism to which BTS is aiming for. I am also assuming that this sort of thing would entail a huge amount of additional programming and memory space…blah blah blah. I wouldn’t know about that sort of thing as I’m not a programmer (I just play one on TV). All of the above is –so the legend goes – handled by some sort of “to hit” modifier, with successive rounds fired being given an arbitrary +10% bonus (or whatever) between successive rounds fired at the same target. I don’t know if the “bracket bonus” is a straight modifier, or if it increases between the 2nd and 3rd rounds etc.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> At once we located two Mark V tanks at about 2,800 to 3,000 yards away. At once our tank destroyers and tanks opened fire on them. The gunners had the eye to hit but our guns didn't have the power to knock them out. I saw our tank destroyers and self-propelled guns get several direct hits on the Kraut tanks but the projectiles just bounced off the Jerries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you actually see a ricochet from 3000 yards?

Assuming the guns dont use HE...

[Guy w/gun]

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

Just to add to RMC post as we have had this discussion before here. The dispersion pattern –as RMC has already indicated – is totally random, although the shot pattern looks relatively realistic. However, there is no logic in CM as to where rounds land relative to how a gunner might adjust his fire onto his target. That is why in CM you get these crazy 48 rounds to get one hit at 3000m.

Tank gunners (German, Commonwealth, American) were all trained during WWII to “bracket” longer ranged targets with their fire. This was a sort of guessing game for ranging before the days when range finders were standard equipment tanks (Germans TC’s with Sf14z aside for the moment). But the “guessing” was a function of training and was –in theory – conducted in a logical manner. The initial range estimation was conducted via stadia lines in binoculars or the stadia lines in a gunners sight. In the case of Panzers the German Zeiss gunsights had small triangles in the gunners sight for helping with range estimation. This was all based upon a mil scale, and the knowledge that a tank sized target is 1mil high in a 5x gunsight at a range of 2000 meters (or whatever the actual ratio is)….or 2mils high in a 5x gunsight at a range of 1000 meters.

So you estimate your range, adjust the main-gun to the appropriate range setting than fire. The gunner and TC (and hopefully the driver loader, and hull machine gunner) all try to see where the round hits…sensing their own fire...or watching their fall of shot. They will look for the tracer element or for the splash of soil as the round impacts the earth. Or, if the round hits a hard target there will be a bright white or red flash…very easy to sense this flash.

If the round falls short of the target, training typically dictates a certain range increase for the next round fired. US Army FM17-12 for 1944 (this was the Army tank gunnery manual for WWII) indicates that for ranges beyond about 1200 yrds the gunner should automatically perform a 400yrd increase in his range setting and fire again. This range jump is a function of both the firing weapons relatively flat trajectory, as well as operational study group folks that figure out how best to bracket targets and optimal range jumps to ensure the highest probability of achieving a hit with the fewest number of rounds.

Moreover, a high velocity round does not have a huge amount of arc to it, so range estimations do not have to be right on the money in order for a gunner to hit his target. Very Simplified: for example an increase of say 400 yrds range by the gunner might really only result in a 12 inch vertical jump in the maximum elevation of the rounds trajectory (again this is very simplistic but I am only try to illustrate the basics here). But for a round that is traveling at 2000 fps that 12 inch increase in elevation results in a lot of additional horizontal travel down range before gravity and wind resistance pull the round back down to earth.

There is no particular logic in CM to a tanks fall of shot as it fires on a target, or how a gunner might realistically be adjusting his own fire to get closer to his target. One round will be short by 200 yrds. The next will be short by 300 yrds. The third will be wide right by 200 yrds. The fourth round will be over the target by 600 yrds. Presumably for a game such as CM this sort of in depth modeling of the nitty-grittys of tank gunnery (or anti tank gunnery) is well beyond the scope of realism to which BTS is aiming for. I am also assuming that this sort of thing would entail a huge amount of additional programming and memory space…blah blah blah. I wouldn’t know about that sort of thing as I’m not a programmer (I just play one on TV). All of the above is –so the legend goes – handled by some sort of “to hit” modifier, with successive rounds fired being given an arbitrary +10% bonus (or whatever) between successive rounds fired at the same target. I don’t know if the “bracket bonus” is a straight modifier, or if it increases between the 2nd and 3rd rounds etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that certainly explains some of the problems I've been having. I also have been doing some tests to observe long range accuracy in CMBO. I always wonder why the virtual tank gunner doesn't try to adjust his aim after missing. Now I know why. Your right Jeff, the direction the round travels does seem to be random and I guess programming the gunner AI to try to adjust his aim is beyond the ability of the game.

[M Hofbauer]

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

This was a sort of guessing game for ranging before the days when range finders were standard equipment tanks (Germans TC’s with Sf14z aside for the moment).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh, we might as well leave it aside for the duration of the whole discussion as we are in the world of CM

but seriously, great post up there on the long-range kills. I was about to ruimmage and see if IO could dig up that one reference to a long-range kill and to regular engagement range but it's a relief to see I don't have to do that, your post made it superfluous. Thanks!

[RMC]

Ah, yes the world of CM. I hate to muddy the waters a bit, but my failing memory has this number 7,400m associated with some tank fight on the Eastern Front. I don't remember where I saw it or if it was for real.

[M Hofbauer]

muddy waters require dynamite fishing.

go find that reference, RMC!

if not for this discussion, then because this is most interesting!

as for the Challenger hitting something at 5km...it probably aimed at a T-72 parked 50 meters away, missed it and the stray round landed 5 kilometers away on an iraqui jeep...j/k

[Andreas]

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

Ah, yes the world of CM. I hate to muddy the waters a bit, but my failing memory has this number 7,400m associated with some tank fight on the Eastern Front. I don't remember where I saw it or if it was for real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was an 8,8cm Flak employed in the Caucasus mountains, where the gunners decided to have a lark and fire at a T-34 somewhere in the valley below. The claim is a first-shot hit and brew-up of the T-34. Reasons given were that the air is very clear up that high, and they were firing top-down, so were not impeded by the horizon bending away.

I think I have that in Piekalkiewicz' 'The 8,8cm Flak in ground combat' (Die 8,8cm Flak im Erdeinsatz).

If it is correct, I think it can be put into the realm of flukes nevertheless. From the way the story is written it is clear that everyone was a bit astonished at that, to put it mildly. Sort of beats the hell-fire pass story though (another thing the Commonwealth can not claim - longest-range victim of an acht-acht).

[Guest ckoharik]

Just as more wood for the fire, Achtung Panzer has a reference where an Elephant killed a T-34 at a range of 4.5 kilometers.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Boxb:

Just as more wood for the fire, Achtung Panzer has a reference where an Elephant killed a T-34 at a range of 4.5 kilometers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO - the reason these things are recorded for posterity and subsequently mentioned on websites/in books is that they were so freakign unusual. Nobody records the event where it took an 8,8 five shots at 900m to hit a Sherman trundling down a road unawares.

Common sense tells me though that the absence of mention does not mean that these things did not happen. It's a bell-curve, and with the number of statistical events you will get some outliers at the freakish end.

So, what exactly is it that people would like to see? Exact modeling of bracketing? 8,8 based guns never to miss at first shot? Better to hit chances at 1,500 - 2,000? Or is it just general - my oh my, that was a great gun?

I am a bit at a loss here.

[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Diceman]

From "Tank Versus Tank":

In 1959 they bought from Britain Centurion tanks with 105mm guns and in November 1960 used them to engage two old German PzKpfW IVs which were dug in to support operations by Syrian patrols at Nukheila. Opening fire at about 1500 m, the Israelis shot off 89 rounds in 1 ½ hours, to raise clouds of dust and smoke but without hitting either PzKpfW IV, which shot back with equal ineffectiveness. Henceforward, the Israelis under General Israel Tal concentrated upon tightening up discipline, above all gunnery discipline and techniques. With methods similar to those already worked out by the British, the Israeli Centurions began knocking out PzKpfW IVs and T34/85s at ranges up to 3000 m without themselves suffering much harm.

Moral of the story: training and gunnery discipline make a huge difference of how effective a weapon is, even the superb British 105mm gun. Can't wait to see how well this is modeled in CM2.

[M Hofbauer]

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

So, what exactly is it that people would like to see? Exact modeling of bracketing? 8,8 based guns never to miss at first shot? Better to hit chances at 1,500 - 2,000? Or is it just general - my oh my, that was a great gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not people (he left for the gas station a minute ago), but I think there are two gripes here.

One is the overall effectiveness, read, accuracy, of the 8.8 in absolute terms. By which I mean things like how accurate, or rather, inaccurate, the 8.8 behaves in a 2km engagement. this refers to both first-round accuracy and accuracy after a number of shots.

The second refers to relative effectiveness compared to small-caliber peashooter guns like the 37mm on the greyhound or the 40mm on the Daimler. Because the latter two are just as accurate as the 8.8 at the above ranges.

Of course both gripes are subjective, and nobody will be able to dig out enough sources to convince the other side, as any example cited is just a single incident among the many million rounds fired by 8.8s.

What remains is a subjective feeling of "something's wrong here but I can't put a finger on it", similar to the proverbial "do you know the feeling when someone kicks you in the balls from behind and you start to think 'something feels wrong here' ? " among some players, just tlike the overall performance of german armor.

The old players got used to it, either way, and accept it as the way things are and enjoy the game.

However, every once in a while a newbie rears his ugly head...wait, let me re-phrase that... a welcome new member comes and discovers for the first time that something does not work as advertised in the allied battle reports.

And that is when the discussions start anew and old soup is being warmed up again for the n-th time. Luckily there are no mushrooms in that soup else we all would have died long ago.

[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IMO - the reason these things are recorded for posterity and subsequently mentioned on websites/in books is that they were so freakign unusual. Nobody records the event where it took an 8,8 five shots at 900m to hit a Sherman trundling down a road unawares.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this board predictable or what. I think I said on page one that this tired old “referenced” because it was unusual would pop up again on this thread.

[New Age Santa]

Well on the subject of accuracy at long and extreme ranges something has to be done. 40+ rounds to kill a stationary target at 3km seems a bit much, especially with the 88mm cannon and a elite crew. As M Haufbauer said, "It just seems wrong"

Odds are this will be adressed in CMBB where there will be much more long range fighting. But for the sheer sake of arguement this needs to be adressed in CMBO because it seems to be the reason why many people say the German armour isn't being modelled correctly. HOWEVER, I have noticed that the German armour fairs much better than the allied in a 2,000m shootout. So the problem (or lack thereof, if I am wrong) does not cripple the game by any means.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by New Age Santa:

Well on the subject of accuracy at long and extreme ranges something has to be done. 40+ rounds to kill a stationary target at 3km seems a bit much, especially with the 88mm cannon and a elite crew. As M Haufbauer said, "It just seems wrong"

Odds are this will be adressed in CMBB where there will be much more long range fighting. But for the sheer sake of arguement this needs to be adressed in CMBO because it seems to be the reason why many people say the German armour isn't being modelled correctly. HOWEVER, I have noticed that the German armour fairs much better than the allied in a 2,000m shootout. So the problem (or lack thereof, if I am wrong) does not cripple the game by any means.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just curious, what are your citations or statistics for extreme range accuracy of the various makes of 88? I mean aside from once in a life time holy **** remarks. Lab data, training tables, AAR stats, or other cites like that that can fill in the feeling a little better.

I mean, I have this gut feeling that the 37mm M3 can successfully kill a King Tiger at 2500 meters, should this also be modelled? This is not an attack, I am just looking for something I can sink my teeth in, especially some form of citation.