ASL Veteran

I think Commissars were modeled in ASL quite well. Any squads stacked with a commissar had there morale raised by one. The commissar also rallied troops easier, but if they didn't rally they were reduced in quality. Maybe in CM you could make any squads in the command radius of a commissar fanatic, but have any squads that break or route or something lose a man each minute until they rally (to simulate the commissar 'inspiring the troops)

Okay, I just tested the 88mm PAK 43/41 and the PAK 43 at dug in Sherman Jumbos at 1500 meters (any closer and the AP would smoke them). Same gun, different carriage. For the PAK 43/41 HE, the initial TL was 8% and the max was 23%. For the AP rounds it was 11% initial TL and 30% max. For the PAK 43 HE the initial TL was 8% and the max was 23%. For AP the initial TL was 11% and the max was 31%. The data Ian Hogg provides says that muzzle velocity for the HE round was 2640 feet per second with a shell weighing 20.3 pounds. For AP the muzzle velocity was 3282 feet per second with a shell weight of 22.9 pounds. This gun shows remarkable accuracy in CM – most other guns I tested at 1500 meters maxed out in the mid 20s against dug in Jumbos if I am remembering correctly. This gun seems to be modeled correctly, but without any firing range data it is impossible to tell for sure. The thing that is starting to bug me is that the muzzle velocity of HE rounds is always lower than the AP rounds yet with a lighter shell. Does this necessarily mean a decrease in accuracy? Why would the 75L24 be just as accurate as an 88 Flak when it has such a low muzzle velocity? The AP shell of the 88 flak weighs 9.50 Kg at 810 m/s while the HEAT shell of the 75L24 weighs 6.80 Kg with a muzzle velocity of 385 m/s. Anyone here know enough about ballistics to answer this question? My only calculus book is for business applications and they don’t cover ballistics at all.

Whoa, hold on there guys. I never said that I disagreed with the basic accuracies that are present in CM. I only maintain that the differences in the accuracies of the individual guns/shells is not reflected correctly. I have no issues with whatever criteria BTS used to 'dumb down' the accuracies. This is why I am always comparing things to each other (either CM to CM or Real to Real) rather than comparing CM to test fire data. I believe that Tom and PzKwpf 1 have the position of comparing real to CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Which would then affect ROF, unless you are not interested in hitting anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not you spotting the enemy, but the enemy spotting you. If you are using flashless powder it will keep YOU from being spotted. If you are not it will make it easier for YOU to get spotted. It would not effect how you spot the enemy. Dang, I'm starting to feel like Steve

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: The annecdotal evidence mentioned talks about the flash, surely that's a different issue from the smokeless powder. Flash supressed guns would be difficult to spot, and even with a bit of smoke, surely a tank in trees or ambush position would be difficult to spot even with a puff of smoke. However, in either case, guns that produced flash would reveal the tank. I'm not clear on this issue. And as for arty, numerous accounts tell that the Axis soldiers widely believes the allies had some automatic artillery. Just been reading some accounts from jungle fighting in the pacific where captured prisoners talked about the US 'automatic' artillery as terrifying, and in Italy, one german position was pounded with 1500 shells in 30 minutes. And from memory it was only a single batallion that called in that much firepower PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, now flashless powder is another beast entirely from smokeless powder. If smokeless powder was not in use during WW2 then it would look more like a Napoleonic battlefield. Plus, the image of American tankers choking in a smoke filled turret after firing a few rounds is a bit comical. "hey sarge, can someone open a hatch - we need to vent this turret a little." I should think that someone would recommend that a change in powder would be in order if that was the situation. Flashless powder though - I can see the Allies not having that I suppose. But a lack of flashless powder wouldn't effect ROF - just spotting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Interesting ASL, "The German use of smokeless powder makes it very difficult for us to pick them up when they lie in ambush, whereas the flash of our own guns is easily discernable to an alert foe and may be easily observed from a great distance". - Cpt Henry Johnson 66th Armd. Regt Co F. Just have to did the rest of the reports up. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I'm just relaying what Ian Hogg says. He has the British, Americans, and Russians all using smokeless powder. What year were those first hand accounts from? BTW, I'm not convinced that what powder you use is going to make a difference in ROF anyway. Smokeless powder is an old invention and has been used for many many years. I believe it was in use prior to WW1.

Yes, let's keep this thread about ROF and leave accuracy to the accuracy thread. Anyway, I think there are several factors which would affect ROF. 1. Crew quality - a better crew should fire more rapidly than a poorly trained crew. 2. Distance to target - the farther away the target is, the more time it would take to acquire it. 3. Weight of shell - a heavier shell is going to be more difficult to load than a light shell. A Tiger's shell is going to weigh in the area of 24 pounds and a Sherman 75 is going to weigh around 13 pounds. 4. Space - the more room a crew has to operate, the quicker they can use the gun. Perhaps AT guns should have a higher ROF than a tank because they have all the space they need. The M10 with it's open top maybe would have a higher ROF. BTW, all the Allied powers used smokeless powder according to Ian Hogg. The Americans used brass casings and the Germans apparently used lacquered steel casings.

Both had regular crews, both were pointing directly at their targets (which were not each other BTW). Conditions were clear, dry, and in the month of July.

I was getting ready to start testing the accuracy of the PAK 43 when one of Ian Hogg’s comments about the PAK 43/41 caught my eye, “It’s only defect was a vibration period in the long barrel at high rates of fire – above 15 rounds per minute – which led to inaccuracy, but provided the rate of fire was kept below this figure the vibrations did not occur and the gun was as accurate as it was in the proper carriage.” The reason this caught my eye was the 15 rounds per minute figure. Having done a lot of testing on my CM ranges, no rate of fire for any weapon even approached 15 rounds per minute. I then started thinking about my Shermans in “Chambois” in a PBEM I am currently playing. I started to think of how slow the Sherman’s rate of fire seemed. I decided to test it. The Sherman’s ROF is only six rounds per minute. I tested a Tiger, that vehicle also had a ROF of six rounds per minute. I don’t have any figures, but that doesn’t feel right. The Sherman should have a much higher ROF than a Tiger – maybe close to twice as fast. What’s more, is that I decided to test the ROF at various ranges – at 100 meters and at 1500 meters. Logically the ROF would be MUCH faster at 100 meters than at 1500 meters since it would take less time to acquire the target at the closer range. At 100 meters you would be firing as fast as you could slam shells into the breech, while at 1500 meters your gunner would need considerable time to line up each shot – maybe 10 seconds or more.

I’ve created a brand new Allied testing facility so I can test Allied guns a little more easily. It is much improved over the old multi nationality facility – all buildings have been removed for range markers and simple gaps in the pavement are used instead. I wanted to test the 75mm PAK’s APCR vs AP but it’s APCR is not included in CM. Anyway, I tested the SPW 251/9 since it has the 75L24 on it. Initial target line at dug in Jumbos at 1000 meters for HE is 9% which then increases to a max of 26%. HEAT rounds for this weapon showed an initial TL of 8% which then increased to 23%. Jentz shows the following accuracy data for the 75L24 after dispersion adjustment: 100m 100% 500m 100% 1000m 73% 1500m 38% Prior to dispersion adjustment: 100m 100% 500m 100% 1000m 98% 1500m 74% According to Jentz this weapon is a fairly accurate one and a comparison to the 88 Flak using dispersion data may be revealing. Weap ammo 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 88mm Pzgr 100% x98% x64% x38% x23% 75mm KGrP 100% 100% x73% x38% xxxx Here is how these two weapons stack up in CM at 1000 meters at dug in Sherman Jumbos 88mm Flak using AP: initial TL 17%. Max TL 44% 75mm using K.Gr.rot Pz: initial TL 8%. Max TL 23% We see that in CM the 88 Flak is twice as accurate as the 75 at 1000m. Once again this is not consistant with the Jentz data which has these weapons nearly equally accurate out to 1500 meters beyond which the 75mm no longer has any data. Interestingly enough, the 88 Flak’s accuracy using HE didn’t degrade at all: initial TL using HE 17%, max TL 45% which is virtually identical to the AP accuracy. I don’t have the shell weight of the HE round that the 88 Flak uses, but I have the appropriate shell weight data for the 88 PAK 43 so I may test that weapon. The accuracy of the 75 using HE was actually a little improved: initial TL 9%, max TL 26%

Okay, the brief test has been concluded. There is good news and bad news. The test was conducted on my standard firing range with six paved lanes which had dug in Sherman Jumbos at 1000 meters. I had two lanes with PAK 50s loaded with HE, two with AP, and two with APCR. The good news is that the initial TL for HE rounds was 12% and this subsequently increased to 33% in the course of one minute after ten rounds were fired. The bad news is that the AP and APCR rounds both had a 17% initial TL that subsequently increased to 43%. The ballistic performance of the APCR round appears to be undifferentiated from the AP round. Of course, maybe this is just the 50mm PAK, maybe the APCR rounds of other guns are differentiated from their AP rounds.

Okay, I have just thought up another accuracy test. Why not test a gun against itself and see if there are any differences? Let’s take the 50mm PAK 38 – according to Ian Hogg in “Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War 2” it can fire Armor Piercing rounds which weigh 4.95 lbs and have a muzzle velocity of 2700 feet per second, Armor Piercing Composit Rigid rounds which weigh 1.81lbs and have a muzzle velocity of 3930 feet per second, and a High Explosive round which weighs 4.3 lbs with a muzzle velocity of 1800 feet per second. Sorry to our European friends, but I don’t have a conversion chart handy otherwise I would put that into meters and kilograms. Regardless, one would presume that if the ballistics of this weapon are modeled correctly in CM, there would be a big accuracy discrepancy between these various rounds since they all weigh differently and have a different muzzle velocity. The APCR round especially would show an accuracy drop off at 1000 meters. Ian Hogg states that “due to the light weight of the composit rigid shot, its ballistic coefficient (best visualized as ‘staying power’) was poor, and at longer ranges the (penetration) improvement became marginal.” I would like to set up a test range with three 50mm PAK 38s – one loaded with nothing but AP, one with APCR only, and one with HE only and let’s see if there are any differences. I’m currently inclined to believe that there will be no difference in accuracy in CM, but I am open to any surprises that I may discover. I will report on my findings whatever they may be.

Alright Steve, let me tender my apologies. I set every weapon in the German arsenal up on the test range and checked the targeting line. There were significant differences in the accuracies of the various gun types in the game. Perhaps if I can set up a readable table I may post this data as it may contribute to the discussion. This still doesn’t explain the discrepancies with the Jentz data between the guns though.

Well I'm sorry I set you off Steve, but I stand by my data. Perhaps I will post it if this thread continues. Reality is that I stopped the test when I saw the trend - and the test is very time consuming. I honestly didn't see any point in continuing the original test, but now that I know what I know I can test other guns as well, guns where I don't have any data, if it becomes necessary. I can do this because I found that the targeting line is an accurate representation of each gun's chances of hitting. The targeting line shows an increased chance of hitting over time and max's out at a certain percentage. The number of hits when compared to total number of shots corresponds to this chance of hitting. Once it has been established that the target line is accurate, then one no longer needs to do any more test firing to find the accuracy of each gun as compared to each other. All you need to do after that is string the targeting line. Once you get to that point you will find that most weapons that don't fire in 'bursts' like the 20mm in the Lynx do indeed have the same chance of hitting (other than the much maligned 75mm Sherman which is lower by 3 or 4 percent) BTW, the 88 Flak, 50mm PAK, and the 25 Pounder all have the same chances of hitting at a range of 1000 meters and 1500 meters. Now maybe I should 'put a sock in it' because perhaps this is an accurate reflection of the way it 'really was'. Maybe there are no statistical differences in the accuracies of all three of these (very different) guns at the specified ranges. However, Jentz says that there are. I choose to believe Jentz! I now drop out of the active portion of this discussion because I see no point in continuing here. Can Steve show us any data that proves that there are no statistical differences in the accuracies of these three (or any) guns at the specified ranges of 1000 meters, and 1500 meters? If so, then I would like to eat some crow. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong, because I love this game. If not, then Steve just went down a few notches in my book. ASL Veteran OUT!

The biggest crime against American fighting prowess in world war 2 was ASL/SL assigning American squads a morale of 6 when everyone else in Europe (other than the Italians) had a morale of 7

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.

I think it best to leave the Gyro issue alone,and I don't see any reason to question BTS's criteria for 'dumbing down' accuracy. We don't need to question reasons, let us only question data.

"Totally incorrect. The individual characteristics are in fact included. All weapons systems are simulated based on what they can do in mathematical theory, which is perhaps even more exact than the real world test firing range results. Then, and only then, are all weapons subjected to randomized factors." Well Steve, then we have a bit of an issue here. It has been stated that each weapon displays its inherent characteristics in CM because an accurate mathematical formula is used and this formula correctly demonstrates the inherent differences in the various guns used by the combatants. This then is what is on the table. Problem is, we can't see this formula so we can only take the correctness of this formula on faith. I also wouldn't even want to look at this formula since it would probably overwhelm my puny brain. So, once again here is the data from CM and the data from Jentz: Combat Mission Weap 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 50mm x87% x50% x26% x13% xx5% 88mm x87% x50% x27% x14% xx7% Jentz Weap 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 50mm 100% 100% x95% x68% xxxx 88mm 100% x98% x64% x38% x23% Now then, if the accurate ballistic data for each gun is included in the game, then the difference between the accuracy of the 50mm PAK and the 88mm Flak should be reflected in CM. Since CM is using a mathematical formula and using raw ballistics data, then perhaps the unadjusted Jentz accuracy figures should be used as a comparison Jentz Weap 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 50mm 100% 100% 100% x99% xxxx 88mm 100% 100% x95% x77% x58% Now, I am NOT claiming that these accuracy figures are the ones that should be in CM. I am only using these accuracy figures to compare one gun to another and to examine the differences in the guns themselves. I would also like to see if these differences are in fact reflected in CM. The problem arises when one looks at the hit probability that appears on the targeting line. This hit probability shows little or no difference between the 50mm PAK and the 88 Flak. In fact, it actually shows the 88 Flak marginally more accurate than the 50mm PAK. The real (dispersion) data would suggest that, at a range of 1000 meters, the 50mm PAK should be 30% more accurate than the 88mm Flak. The real (non dispersed) data shows that the 50mm PAK should be 22% more accurate than the 88 Flak at 1500 meters. The real data, both dispersed and non dispersed, is in direct conflict with the CM target line hit probabilities. This leaves us with three possibilities: A. The hit probabilities that are shown on the targeting line are so 'rough' that they are nearly useless as an indicator of actual hit probabilities in CM. I say this not only because the 50mm PAK and the 88mm Flak show as equal hit probabilities on the Target Line, but because almost all guns in CM show a similar probability of hitting. On the face of it, this would indicate that there are no inherent differences in any gun at all - and this is why I made my original statement that there are no inherent differences in the guns themselves. I state that because there is no evidence (using the target line hit probabilities) that any differences exist. Can it be demonstrated in CM that the 50mm PAK is more accurate than the 88mm Flak at either 1000m or 1500m? B. The data Jentz is presenting is wrong. The data that Jentz is using was from live firing these weapons at a range with the specific intent of isolating the inherent accuracy of each gun. However, this data could be disputed and debated - but to ignore this data entirely just because it doesn't agree with CM I think is the wrong approach. I would never suggest that these accuracy figures be the accuracy figures that CM uses. I think the focus should be on the difference in accuracy between these two weapons - is the DIFFERENCE modeled in CM? C. The mathematical model in CM is either wrong, or missing some important variable. Heaven forbid if this is the case, but it is a possiblity nonetheless. I also wouldn't hazard to question the veracity of the CM formula until more accuracy comparison's can be tested. Perhaps someone like Slapdragon would be kind enough to test CM to see if the 50mm PAK is more accurate than the 88mm Flak at all or if it is the other way around? I would be interested to see the results of such a test. I only pick Slapdragon because I believe he could create a fair and 'scientifically valid' test.

According to Ian Hogg, the PAK 41 "was principally used in the Middle East, and, to a lesser degree, in the early days of the Russian campaign." So I wouldn't count on seeing it until CM 3. It was really more of a heavy ATR than an ATG. I think the French had a taper bore gun too - 25mm I think it was. Ian Hogg also says that the supply of ammunition stopped in 1942 and that the weapon fell out of use.

Hmmm, reply with quote doesn't seem to be working properly. Anyway, while there are a lot of factors that alter accuracy on the battlefield, I don't think that the inherent accuracy of the weapon itself can be completely ignored. Since all those battlefield factors are going to be affecting all the gunners equally, these various effects can be abstracted and applied to each weapon equally. In that case, the only difference between the guns is the inherent differences between the guns themselves. If the individual characteristics of each gun is not included, then you have a situation where each gun has an equal chance to hit at a given range. This is essentially the case in Combat Mission. However, the firing range data shows that certain guns are inherently more accurate than others. The test range indicates that the 50mm PAK is much more accurate than the 88 Flak at 1000 meters and one could presume that - all other factors being equal - the 50mm PAK is a more accurate weapon and should have a greater chance of hitting than an 88 at that range. When you start comparing the 2 Pounder to the 50mm this starts to become a serious problem. The 2 Pounder really drops off after 500 meters while the 50mm (both of them) remains significantly more accurate. If the inherent accuracy of the 50mm is not included in the equation somewhere, then the British would get an artificial advantage in CM 3 Boy, will we see the German Optics crowd scream then!

Okay, while it is not possible to test the accuracy of Allied tanks vs German tanks from 1944 until some data arrives, it is possible to test the German guns against themselves. I set up a firing range with the 50mm PAK 38, the 88 Flak, and the Lynx at the end of the paved lanes. I placed Shermans at 100m, 500m, 1000m, 1500m, and 2000m and read off the accuracy that the targeting lines displayed. I then compared these readings to the real life accuracy data for these guns as given by Jentz in “Tank Combat in North Africa”. Here is a raw comparison: Combat Mission Weap 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 50mm x87% x50% x26% x13% xx5% 88mm x87% x50% x27% x14% xx7% 20mm x99% x87% x56% x27% xx9% Jentz Weap 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 50mm 100% 100% x95% x68% xxxx 88mm 100% x98% x64% x38% x23% 20mm 100% x87% x37% xxxx xxxx I am going to make some comments on this data and see what you guys think. First, the target used by Jentz’s data is 2.5m x 2m. This is approximately the size of a Sherman, but not exact – the Sherman is a bit bigger. The first thing that I notice is that the drop off CM gives these weapons at 500m seems to be overstated. Out beyond the range of 500 meters the 88 seems to be about right in CM if everything was moved over one column, but the 50mm PAK is really underrated out to 1500 meters while maybe it is overrated beyond that range. The 20mm on the Lynx in Jentz almost matches CM exactly, except that CM doesn’t model the drop off at 1000 meters and is probably overstated beyond 1000 meters. If we apply the 100m accuracy in CM as a base, then we could subtract 13% from each gun at each range to arrive at a modified ‘CM’ accuracy. Perhaps the 20mm should just use the Jentz figures since they seem to match CM so closely. Modified CM accuracy Weap 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 50mm x87% x87% x82% x55% xx5% 88mm x87% x85% x51% x25% x10% 20mm x99% x87% x37% xx5% xx1% As you may note, the accuracy of the 88 Flak using this method is almost the same as it is in CM now. You just have to move the CM accuracy one column over to the right out to 1500m. Since the Sherman’s dimensions are actually a little bigger than 2.5m x 2m one could argue that the modified CM accuracy should be even higher, but these numbers seem reasonable as second or third shot probabilities. Of course, these are just preliminary findings and much more data would need to be sifted before coming up with any type of accuracy ratings for each gun.

I also want to add that Jentz wrote "These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average gunner could achieve the accuracy shown by the number in parentheses after adjusting his fire onto the center of the target - if he remained calm." Unfortunately, this accuracy data is from 1941 and has the 2 pounder and the 25 pounder for British guns so we can't really do any direct comparisons to the game. I just thought it was interesting data to share.

I have located some accuracy data from Jentz’s book “Tank Combat in North Africa: the opening rounds”. In it he says the following on pages 57 and 59: “The estimate of accuracy is given by the probability of hitting a target 2 meters high and 2.5 meters wide, representing the target presented by the front of an opposing tank. These accuracy tables are based on the assumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the target. The first number shows the accuracy in percentage that was obtained during controlled test firing of the gun to determine the pattern of dispersion. The second number in parentheses was calculated by doubling the dispersion obtained from controlled test firing. Both the British and Germans considered that ‘doubled dispersion’ was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by the troops in practice and, if they remained calm, in combat. All of these accuracy values were obtained from firing tables published by the respective armies during the war. The British calculated their dispersion based on a 90% zone and the Germans and Italians calculated the dispersion based on a 50% zone. The 90% zone from the British firing tables was used as the basis for calculating the percent accuracy against a 2.5m by 2 meter target so that it could be directly compared with the other nations guns.” Okay, here is the table that Jentz created – it is located on page 58. I am only using the number located in parentheses – the one including the dispersion. Weap mvel ammo 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 2pdr 792m xxAP 100% x67% x26% x12% xxxx xxxx xxxx 25pr 472m xxAP 100% x66% x46% x28% xxxx xxxx xxxx 20mm 780m Pzgr 100% x87% x37% xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 37mm 758m Pzgr 100% x95% x47% x15% xxxx xxxx xxxx 47mm 775m Pzgr 100% 100% x89% x59% xxxx xxxx xxxx 50mm 685m Pzgr 100% 100% x96% x71% xxxx xxxx xxxx 50mm 835m Pzgr 100% 100% x95% x68% xxxx xxxx xxxx 75mm 385m Kgrp 100% 100% x73% x38% xxxx xxxx xxxx 88mm 810m Pzgr 100% x98% x64% x38% x23% x15% x10% 105m 395m Pzgr 100% x98% x63% x32% xxxx xxxx xxxx 20mm 840m Ital 100% x87% x37% xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 47mm 630m Md35 100% x95% x46% x17% xxxx xxxx xxxx 47mm 630m Md39 100% x95% x52% xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The first two weapons are British and the last three are Italian. I had to keep all columns four places long so the table would work on the board. The only thing I would comment on is that the accuracy of the 88 Flak doesn’t seem all that fabulous here. The other thing is that muzzle velocity doesn’t seem to make all that big of a difference to accuracy.

Any advantage that is given must be primarily based upon the differences in the muzzle velocities in the various guns. This is consistent with what BTS has already described as being in the game. Now all we need is some real world data for some vehicles at firing ranges so we can compare them.

<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.