Paul Lakowski

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: I think I would have to throw my hat into the ring with Conall's assessment. The effects of bracketing seem somewhat underplayed. However, I have found that testing the effect of bracketing (or second\subsequent round accuracy) in CM is not always easy. Targets in my little live fire test ranges have a tendency to squirm about, in and out of LOS, fire smoke and otherwise do things which cause the firing vehicle to lose its targeting line (red line). I reckon the games memory is short…so if you lose the red line to a target, you are probably going through the whole reacquisition thing over again. My actual gaming experiences would lead me to a gut feeling that 2nd and subsequent round accusation advantage is low (pretty vague and subjective on my part and in tune with the hand waiving typical of this subject matter). But just to throw a monkey wrench into the works it is rather evident from a series of postings I have thrown up...that tank crews were not always capable of tracking there own rounds. Missing both splash from impact or the tracer element. And I have seen nothing posted so far which would suggest the Germans had superior tracking skills. Tough to bracket when you dont see where the round is hitting. Along these same lines German tank crews were at somewhat of a disadvantage in that the loader and gunner did not have viewing periscopes...i.e. fewer eyes to help spot ones own fall of shot. A tank gunner firing at long ranges would no doubt be employing max magnification setting which results in a relatively narrow field of vision. Overline and or under shots could well be striking beyond the bounds of his optics field of vision. Of additional interest was my discovery of the Tiger I being unable to spot Stuarts at a range of 2000 meters…yet the Stuarts were able to spot and fire at the Tiger I from the same distance. I reckon there is some target aspect\size LOS benefit modeled into the game for smaller vehicles. This seems logical...smaller targets should be harder to spot. However in this particular instance there is something in the implementation of LOS\spotting modifier that is perhaps resulting in this odd quirk. Aside from all this what we are discussing is all very subjective based upon the information posted so far. Paul posted some interesting info on combat accuracy from tests conducted at NTC suggesting relatively low hits per round fired ratio. In addition John dug up something implying a 13 rounds per hit ratio for the US Army in ETO. We also have some AARs detailing German Tank crews nailing targets out to relatively outstanding gunnery ranges by WWII standards. It is also relatively easy to dig up AARs indicating 2nd or third round hits out to ranges of 1500 to 2000 meters are "doable" by even British Tankers and US Tanker equipped with sub-German optics. On the 13 rounds per kill…it is true that WWII tankers had a tendency to fire on targets till they began to burn. If you read Belton Coppers "Death Traps" it is evident that once a tank burns its done. No more combat even after ordnance boys get a hold of the hulk, hose off the old crew, and break out the welding torches and new paint. So the number of rounds per kill could be somewhat of a function of this shoot till it burns philosophy. Another thing that has been bugging me… If you have been wallowing through the whole 88mm thread there has been a fair amount of posting regarding live fire range accuracy and what was reasonable in training conditions...but only snippets on actual combat accuracy some of which are contradictory. The few AAR's that others and I have posted in my mind still raise as many new questions as they provide answers to old questions. On the one hand there is a fair amount of evidence suggesting that with high velocity flat trajectory KE munitions, errors in range estimates are not that critical. On the other hand from my own reading it is quite clear that the leading cause of misses boiled down to either poor initial range estimation (TZ1R or not) or anxious gunners. The two assessments seemingly contradict each other. In addition, if the Germans had all the answers there would have been no need to develop gun computers or laser range finders. I don't know what the new starships have in that regard…but the old M60 and M48 had a mechanical gun computer which would adjust the main gun for super elevation with respect to type of munition being employed…its velocity, range to target, and flight path, etc…SABOT, HEAT, HEP (I think it was HEP high explosive plastic or some such thing) each had their own respective settings. Now if trajectory weren't especially critical…why the micro adjustment of super elevation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the experiances related by a Serb who I work with. "T-34 76 gun accuracy static visual estimation , firing HVAP @ 500m rarely miss .[while trainning -PL] 1000m 1/4 shot miss 1500m 1/2 shot miss APC 2000m 1/5 shot hits APC his company , above average Serb crew trainning regular army not combat. As far as battle goes hes vague , in his company goes one guy ['gypse'] never missed , his tank maybe twice as many shots , but the rest of the company , some of them couldn't hit the back side of a barn...in training they were average but when it came to the real thing they sucked.

German vs. US optics - WWII Robert Livingston 7/24/98 9:24:55 PM German sights for the 8.8 L56 in the Tiger I were 2.5x, and sights for the Ferdinand 8.8L71 were either 3.0 or 5.0x, according to varioussources. Seems you can multiply the magnification of these optics times 1,000 to get the maximum range in meters. Roughly. On a clear day, with favorable sun direction. In open terrain. Any more qualifiers? German sights were said by admiring American tankers to be the best in clarity, lense quality,reticle configuration, field of view, and magnification power. The latest Pershing and Sherman sights in 1945 only approached them in quality. By then the Panthers and Tigers were getting regular kills at 2000-3500 yards, according to (surviving) tankers in the 2nd Armored Division. The Shermans could see the firing but couldn't always get a sight picture. The Leitz company developed and produced the Panther and Tiger sights, which were 2.5 or 5.0 power at the flip of a selector lever. Leitz still exists and make the highest quality lenses used in the Leica cameras. The gun sight optics were said to have flip-down filters as well. American filters (red, gray, yellow) came packed in a box or pouch, so you could fumble 'em into place as needed.

Robert wrote this couple of years ago and I found it in my archives.... Re: WWII Gun Accuracy Robert Livingston 5/18/98 8:58:40 PM The 8.8 L/71 did about the same as the 7.5 L/70, but the 8.8 L/56 was more accurate due to unknown factors. We think it may have been that the 8.8 L/71 barrel was a bit too flexible, or that the machining was not as accurate, or that the ammo was less precisely made. Or that the carriage had too loose a fit between sliding parts . . .Ya know, those figures Claus has tired his fingers providing us with (thank you, Claus) are pure dispersion figures with a German "practice" factor worked in. They assume NO RANGE ESTIMATION ERROR. That is, they only represent combat %-to-hit if the gunner knows exactly how far away the target is. Range estimation was, after all, the big unsolved issue of WWII, at least until the range finder was developed for in-tank use. Now, it has been written that the Tiger gunners were trained to estimate range within +/-10% of the actual range (the Tiger Fibel sez so, I think). British gunners were said to average +/-25% of the actual range, in real combat. I think those values may be representative of the upper half of the range typically found during the war among gunners. There were undoubtedly gunners worse than the "average Brit" above, and there were necessarily Tiger gunners who were worse than the "required" level of accuracy noted above. And the good gunners weren't always in the places you'd expect them. For example the Russians in theirT-34/76s and KVs were able to paste the Germans at 1200m with ease, using guns of average accuracy, on paper (see Jentz' Panzertruppen).There are many, many combat stories of US tankers in 75 and 76mm Shermans hitting Germans at up to 1600m on the second shot. There is one story told somewhere about a 2 pdr AT gunner hitting a German armored car in the desert, at some ungodly long range which was beyond his sight reticle, like 2400 yards or more. This must be the Kentucky Windage effect. Oh, and by the way, the German dispersion effects charts I have here include the 7.5cm L/48, which was very innaccurate, although no combat stories I have heard substantiate that data. I should also mention that the flatness of the trajectory is a key factor in determining the accuracy of tank and anti-tank fire, because the flatter the trajectory, the less the effects of range mis-estimation. The higher the velocity, the flatter the trajectory. I should also mention that the alignment of the gun sights is critical, and that the 17pdr AT gun and theearly Shermans had problems with that alignment. I should also mention that the 90mm gun in the Pershing was accurate enough to hit German helmets at 625 yards on the first shot, when properly boresighted. No misses. -- R. L.

"The 90mm gun was credited with penetrating the Panther's front from 600 yards .But even this was disputed in a later test. The 703rd Tank Destroyer Battalion with M-36 Tank Destroyers firing in early december 1944 was only able to make penetration about half the time at ranges of 150-300 yards . In addition , the commander of the 703rd concluded that the 90mm was ineffective against the King Tigers frontal armor". [pp 106-107 FAINT PRAISE Charles M Bailk.] It also points out that supplies of HVAP ammo in the fall of 44 was limited to 2 rounds per month supply to all users, so having 3-4 per tank per engadgement sounds like a 'pipe dream'.

The late war German tanks ['44 on] employed gun sights with two magnifications and apparently this was used to assist in zeroing in on the range measurement.Has anyone heard of this and can elaborate on what they did and how it helped?

Jeff, according to Joe Balkoski " Beyond the Beachhead- 29th Infantry Division in Normandy",they didn't have smokeless ammo "Some GIs were reluctant to fire because American gunpowder was neither smokeless nor flashless.When an M-1 , BAR,machine gun opened fire, the gun emitted s puff of light blue smoke and a tiny flash that promptyly betrayed the firer's position....Meanwhile because the enemy used smokeless and flashless powder, American infantrymen found it difficult to pinpoint German firing positions . The yanks tended to locate the Germans by the telltale 'rrrrrrrp' of the MG-42, but this method was inexact." pp106.

LEO-2 , best tank in the world, and WW-II Stug III should have built tens of thousands of them!

Theres a new chap who may be able to help here a Dr Elder , he just sent me a paper on decaping APC shells for BB. But he does cover WW-II test results...It seem that this is difficult to predict. Its the first time I've seen the 1950 Ordnance board report included as a source OH yea one of his findings is that the spaced armor on the Pz-III front hull & turret forced the premature detonation of the 75mm APHE shot leading to no penetration of the main armor ....which may explain why the Brits removed the blasting charges from the rounds....come to think of it this is some thing Valera [RMZ] was saying. Any way heres another quote from Livingston, "Which leads to Paul's question about the welded head on the PzGr 39. This was an alloy conservation move and was noted as early as '42 in captured PzGr 39 for the 7.5. The head of the shot all the way to the bourrelet (where the ogive meets the sides) was of the richer alloy. This did not seem to affect the penetration significantly, except if the shot failed. There are some Geman combat stories which describe shots bouncing off when the official tables show a high percentage of penetration, which can be explained by premature shot failure, although the exact type of shot is not specified (these are combat anecdotes). Usually the German APCBC did hang together and do the job, far better than US AP and APCBC. " It seems that the Allies were not the only ones with this problem. I also remember Valera on RMZ noted that Russian hardness of ballistic tips was too low and reduced penetration potential. [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 11-09-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: I saw this on another thread and thought it to be a perfect epilogue to our discussion here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> SO that means the discussion is over... too bad it was finally starting to get interesting.

Thanks John , I do have to get PE , just don't know where on earth I'm going to find the money to get it and the space to put it on my hard drive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Of course this all assumes the target is not moving.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, so now we need to know the proceedure for leading a target, any one know? I tried this on Steel Beasts in a LEO-2 with all systems 'down'. Thats manual traverse and elevation, visually estimated range and manually adjusting and estimating my own lead. Hitting a stationary target at 2km required 2-3 shots [1 shot with all systems 'up'], but hitting a moving target @ 2km was pure luck on my part, took 20 shots or more. With all systems 'up' I could usually do this on the second or third shot. A ODS veteran told me that , under the same circumstances in the game he hit 4 T-72s & 8 BMPs so it can be done with skill. Since the trajectory of a APCBC is a fraction of the DM-33, I guess this whole procees would be a hole lot worse.

OK this is the second time I have to wright this [ my computer crashed], so I'll make it brief instead of 2 pages long. 100% hit probablity on a 90% dispersion sounds like 2 standard deviations , so what there saying is that the 100% value is dispersion of 0.5 meters standard deviation . That way 2 stand deviations is 1 meter radius around the aim point and all shots shot land within a radius of 1.25 meters of the aim point. As far as hitting the target goes this assumes the 'aim point', and the center of the target are the same thing and the range to the target is already know. In the Heat of battle getting the aim point exactly dead center might be tough and clearly is something where skill nerves and experience come into play. So at 2 km down range the 88 gets 58%, which suggest that the 2.0 x 2.5 meter target is about 3/4 of a standard deviation or more simply.... 2/3 of all shots should fall within a 1.3 - 1.4m radius @ 2km range of the point of aim, and 90% should fall within a 2.7 meter radius of the point of aim. Now getting the range determined should take several shots , since the 88 used a sterioscopic range finder it should be able to determine the range to within 140 to 280m depending on crew quality.In addtion the beaten zone for a 800m/s APC shot should be > 100m. If we assume that 'bracketing the shot' means systematically adjusting long and short until the range is reached then... A well trained 88 crew should get 'the range' on the 3rd shot[which should have a 2/3 chance of a hit].A average crew would take 4-6 shots to get'on target'. So a good 88 crew should hit the target on the 4 or 5 shot while a average crew should do it in 6-8 shots.An elite crew might very well hit the target on the second or third shot. If the 'double dispersion rule is applied' the 'on range hit prob' is down to 23%, which suggest the radius will be larger - more like 2meter radius. So the 'on range hit prob is ~ 50%, and the # shots to hit @ 2km should be .... <PRE> Elite 5-6 shots Good 7 shots Average 8-10 shots </PRE> Based on the above I looked at a Sterioscopic equipped M-60A1 firing APDS [0.8 Mil @ 2km] ....in order to compare to Bolgers figures from NTC.The beaten zone is 600m total and the ranging errors are 140-280m <PRE> Ranging to hit... Elite 0 shots 2-3 Good 1 shots 3-4 Average 2 shots ~5 </PRE> If you remember his the Tank company averaged 1 hit in 4 shots too as much as 1 in 7 shots. so this model looks good.

What do you guys mean when you talk about dispersion? Whe I see it the reference is to miss distance measured in cm or meters, so what does 10% mean...10% of what?

Rheinmettal Handbook on Weaponary 1982,pp693,fig 1129. beaten zone are...[from chart] 600m APDS ± 300m 350M HVAP ± 175m 220M APC ± 110m 180M HEAT ± 90m ~50M HESH ± 25m The target height was 2.3 meters, the gun was 105mm and the range was 2 Km. [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 11-01-2000).]

Jeff this sounds like the standard deviatioon that is refered to by Ogorkiewzc and others. 50% of all shots should land within 2/3 of a standard devation. while 2/3 of all hits should land within 1 standard deviation.At 2.6 x the standard deviation > 95% of all shots should land. As to the horizontal range this sounds like the 'beated zone' which proposes that the shell will hit a certain size target [ 2m?] as long as its some where alonf this beaten zone , for APDS it recall its +/- 250m range. In a paper on APFSDS it was reported that the shells had a dispersion of 1 meter @ 1km and 3 meters @ 3 km range, but what this mean't was 2/3 of all shots would land within 1 meter, @ 1km range.

some ranging figures from Ogorkiewcz, Visual estimation 20-30% per Km; 200-300m @ 1km. 400-600m @ 2km 600-900m @ 3km Ranging Mg 15-20% per Km; 150-200m @ 1 km. 300-400m @ 2km 450-600m @ 3km Stadimeteric 5-10% per Km ; 50-100m @ 1km. 100-200m @ 2km 150m-300m @ 3km Sterioscopic 10-20 x Sqrt of range in kms.So 1 km = 100-200m 2km = 140-280m 3Km = 170-350m Lazer 0.1 % per Km; 1m @ 1km & 2m @ 2km. The range in values appears tobe the difference between a veteran and a regular gunner. This only tells you the range estimation accuracy, we need to know 'beaten zones' and average miss distance [ Vs known range target]. Source ; Technology of Tanks pp 169- 177.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Jeff Compared to looking in the history section & finding tons of German books and seeing a few Ambrose books representing the allied contribution with maybe a Forty book or an Mackesy reprint, of Tank vs Tank with a few Keegan titles, and lately encyclopedias seem to be the in thing to publish. So info on all things German seems to be much easier to get then info on other countries so its not just 'kids' etc, their is apperently money to be made in publishing books etc, on the WW2 German armed forces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree thats the problem, for the longest time all you got was info on the German systems, I always figured it was the cost of being the 'runners up in WW-II'. You can't get much data on british systems and this creats a artifical interest in all things German. Kind of back fired didn't it!Ah weel isn't there something like 'freedom of info' in the UK now , if so then people who know where to look should be demanding more!!

Situation…. 2 Panthers from HG Pz div encounter a troop of 4 x T-34s on January 24 1945 . " 'Battle readness!' ordered Hartelt. He viewed the situation through the bullet-proof glass of the turret cupola. 'We'll take the leading one , Percher. Range 500, one Oclock! - Fire when ready!' A red lance of flame shot from the long barrel .The shell flitted across to the enemy tank, which had exposed its vulnerable flank to the Panther.The shot struck the T-34; in seconds the tank became a blazing torch. Loader Zittau rammed the next armor piercing round into the breach.The turret traversed a few degrees left. Gunner Percher had the next T-34 in his sight. Another shot , a second hit. Disabled by the hit, the enemy sat immobilized. By now the remaining two T-34 had grasped the situation.They opened fire on the commanders Panther. 'To the Left! Full Gas!' Hartelt ordered the driver.The Panther jerked around and literally leapt forward.The enemy shells raced past, missing the rer otf the tank by less then two meters.Something crashed hard against the side of the turret ; a richochet from a shell striking at sharp angle. There was a flash from where Amreins Panther was positioned . The third T-34 was immobilized with a shattered track.The next shot ste it afire. Now there only one left .It had been hit in the tracks but continued firing . The T-34 was destroyed by two shots from both sides." Hartelts company [ 5 Panthers] continued the assualt and came across a village just as a battle group of 26 x T-34s advanced out of the town. Dodging from cover to cover the Panthers shot up 25 of the 26 T-34s from short halt fire at a range of upto 800 meters with out a single loss. When the Panther company returned to Div the next day each panther still had several rounds left.So if each of the five panthers had ~ 80 rounds of which half would be AP and several were left, this suggests a consumption of say 35 AP rounds from each of 5 x Panthers or 175 shots to kill 25 T-34s or 7:1 @ about 500--800 meters range.. Note that it 'seems' that more than one hit were required to kill each so this could mean 3-4 :1 shot to hit ratio. With 17 kills to Hartelts credit up to that point in his military career,I suppose that this should be considered a veteran or elite company. Source: pp 384/385 The History of the Fallschirm PanzerKorps Hermann Goring , Franz Kurowski. JJ Fedorowicz Publ.1995, ISBN 0-921991-25-8.

Can't find the desert account but heres the Leibstandarte account.dated 4th Feb 1942. " From the elevated Donez, the 1. (8.8cm)/Flakabteilung LAH (under Dr Loenicker)used ite 8.8cm Flak guns and its heavy range finder to achieve targeted firing on the Russian tanks from a distance of between six and nine kilometers. The Kompanie was able to set nine tanks on fire and drive the rest back to the Balkas. It must have given the Russian tank crews, so certain of their victory, panic attacks to be shot at from an unknown location." pp 47 "The Leibstandarte" Vol III, Rudolf Lehmann.JJ Fedorowicz Pub. 1990. [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 10-30-2000).]

I have a distinct recollection of reading about a 88 gun battery/Bn? that was excuting long range fires [ 2 to 3 kms] against the brits in the desert and as I recall they got something like 5-10% hit prob. In addition theres at least one account of 88 gun battery killing a T-34 at some ungodly range [ 5-6km] in Russia. 1 SS pz div history, I'll look that one up when I get home. I also have the HG Pz history that started out as a 88 gun regiment and there should be goodies in there.

The point about Jentz and the NTC AAR is that once you can approximate the number of times the dispersions deviates from the test range accuracy to the notional 'real world combat' then Jentz data can be scaled back by the same amount. But to do this you need to hit the books and find out the 'Mils' accuracy of select WW-II ammo to go by, for example in the 105 APDS ex the ammo is 0.4 mil while HESH is 10 times this.

OK this debate is going around in a pointless circle. On the one hand Jentz data can't be accepted cause it doesn't predict 'real combat conditions', but since no one has a clue what that is nothing can be made of it. On the other hand a whole batch of people are testing the game engine to explore the 'game accuracy'. But given the first point, this is just as pointless cause you have no 'yard stick to measure' by, in otherwords you can't tell if the results are right or not. Ok in the interest of sending some of you back to the books I'd like to propose something. In Dan Bolger's "Dragons at War, Land Battle in the Desert", a number of Live fire battles from NTC are studied . Since each battalion is forced to use the same Ft Erwin tanks ,mostly in disrepair and neglect in a unfamilar battlefield. I'll consider this a reasonable 'combat test', especally since most ODS veteran tankers report that NTC was tougher than real war. In the Test case detailed, M-60A1 with basic conincidence fire controls were used by the Tank company that had upto that point had turned in a 'underwhelming response' during this NTC rotation, so we'll consider them 'average'. The engadgement range was 500-2000m in open desert and in all case the OPFORS were moving , the results were as follows.... Tank company averaged about 26 shots each [ in about 20 minutes] to hit ~ 6 targets each for a average of 23%, or about 1 hit out of every 4 shots.[Good day; defence and prepared- best score for that mission in NTC up to that point '1982] Tank company fired an average of 20 shots to hit 3 targets each for a 13% average , or 1 hit out of every 7 shots fired.[ Defence-bad day ; sloppy excution] Tank company averaged about 23 shots to hit an average of 3 targets each for a 12% average , or 1 hit out of every 8 shots fired [assault short halt fire ; average excution]. Now the quoted range accuracy for the M-60A1 is around 50% @ 1500m range and if we use this as a rough guide the 'real combat' results were 1/2 to 1/4 this value. In Jentz work they report that the Germans and the British "considered the 'double dispersion'was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by the troops in practice and if they remained calm in combat. Jentz Tank Combat in North Africa. So it follows that if you can approxmate how many more 'dispersions' is needed to adjust the notional M-60A1 down to the 1 in 4 average , you should be able to do the same for WW-II tanks. On the test range the M-60A1 firing APDS should get accuracy of .... [PRE] Stad Coin 500m 100% 100% 1000m 50% 75% 1500m 10% 40% 2000m 5% 15% rough average 40% 57% [/PRE] Thus at first glance the 'real combat accuracy vs a moving target ' is about 40% of the 'test range accuracy' on a good day and ~ 23% of the 'test accuracy' on a bad day or while on the move.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buddy: OK, admittedly I am not well-versed in the history of the Eastern Front - WW2...I know that the Germans pushed pretty far into Russia - laid siege to Stalingrad, right? I know that both the German and Russian armies had a burnt earth strategy, millions died and that in the final days of the 3rd Reich 2 major Russian armies were converging on Berlin and, in their bloodlust to get there first, even attacked each other for awhile. True - saw it on a documentary once (if the documentary is to be believed). My point is, besides having a revised and new and improved CM with new/revised AI, graphics, etc..., what is the attraction to the Eastern Front that the Western Front doesn't offer? (Besides Russian troops/equipment?) I need schooling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK try this on for size. WW-II was won and lost on the eastern front between 1941 and 1943, any study of WW-II out side of this area is of secondary importance. They say the Americans suffered some thing like 300,000 casualties in the war while the Brits some what more[any one got any figures?]. But the Germans lost 250,000 in the first few months on the eastern front and the Russians probably lost that much in the first few weeks....and yet they fought on like that for another 4 years. If the Western armies had been forced into the kind of fighting the Russians endured they'd probably have lost the war in 1941.

Aren't you descibing a 'stadimetric' sight?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: My next couple purchase (in no particular order): 1) TOAW: Century of Warfare. Bring on both Balkan wars. 2) Flanker 2.5/ Flanker Attack (SU-39): God I love pre-dawn strikes on U.S. carriers. I'm not sure if its skimming the waves at Mach 2+ or the big boom, but it brings a smile to my face. 3) Space Empires IV: Ever since MOO I need a little 4x fun. 4) IL-2: If they can do the Ostfront, I will buy the game. 5) Steel Beasts: Finally one can drive something modern besides an Abrams. Of course, I won't let any of these interfere with my CM time. WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If all goes well we'll have a working T-72/T80 soon for Steel Beast , but don't hold your breath just yet....