Paul Lakowski

I know who 'rexford' and 'we' are and I've always deferred to them in the past. BTW didn't Nashore always use a arty range finder, which is the only reason it boasted such a long range accuracy.

90mm gun demonstrated only a 50% penetration ability Vs Panther glacis @ 2-300 yards [Faint Praise,pp90] "Gillem's figures , provided by the Ordnance Department were fantastically optimistic. Americans in combat found that the 76-mm and 3 inch guns might penetrate a Tiger at 50 yards , but were both considered to be generally ineffective against the frontal armor of the Tiger" ....... "Through out the war the Ordnance Department fired its guns against nearly vertical plates of armor to establish their penetration capabilities.The hardness of the test plate did not match that of German armor. More importantly , the Ordnance Department accounted for angled armor by geometrically calculating the increased effectiveness of the angled plate. Then extrapolating a gun's penetration capabilities based on performance against vertical plate, they calculated its capability against slanted armor. This technique failed to account for the tendency of projectiles to ricochet from angled plate.For example , the horizontal thickness of a plate of vertical steel is doubled when the plate is slanted at 60°, but its resistance to penetration is tripled because of ricochet.[pp90]" "The three inch guns had a chance against the turret mantle at a very short range , 200 yards .Only the 90mm gun and the 105mm howitzer proved capable of penetrating the Panther's glacis plate....The 90-mm gun was credited with penetrating the Panthers front from 600 yards . But even this was disputed in a later test. The 703rd Tank Destroyer Batttalion with M-36 tank destroyers firing in early december 1944 was only able to make penetration about half of the time at ranges of 150-300 yards."[pp106 & 107]. The longer the nose cone the more slanted penetration can turn the projectile and lead to increased path through the armor or even riochet.The Germans were the first to recognize this in WW-II when the moved to APCBC ammo, the ratio of the diameter of the tip to the diameter of the body change from 10:1 or more down to 4:1 to 5:1 and the interior projectile was cap with a blunted shape piece. The impact was to reduce the stress on slanted impact. The Russians where the next to recognize this with the BR-350A which featured 6:1 tip to body ratio and blunted cap. But the americans didn't clue in until after the war.The M61 had tip to body ratio of 15:1 with a conical ballistic cap.Same construction is seen in the 76mm M-62 & 90mm M82 APC rounds. It had direct impact on the slanted performance of the ammo Wa Pruef Report on APCBC penetration at angle similar to Jentz figures. 500m/s 30deg 0.866^ 1.26 45deg 0.707 ^ 1.4 60deg 0.5 ^ 1.26 800m/s 30deg 0.866 ^ 1.26 45deg 0.707 ^ 1.7 60deg 0.5 ^ 1.45 1000m/s 30deg 0.866 ^ 1.26 45deg 0.707 ^ 2.5 60deg 0.5 ^ 1.5 90mm APC 700- 750m/s @ 30° 0.866^1.45 @ 45° 0.707 ^1.75 @ 60° 0.5 ^ 1.75 90mm HVAP 1000m/s @ 30° 0.866 ^ 1.7 @ 45° 0.707^ 2.2 @ 60° 0.5^ 2.4 Russian @ 30° BR-350 ^1.26 BR-350A ^ 1.25 BR-350B ^0.9 BR-354P ^0.85 BR-412 @ 30° ^ 1.3 @ 60° ^ 1.3 The reason the HVAP round suffers @ slanted impact is due to the very sharp nose shape and that this is aluminmum encased Tungsten projectile. Aluminum is an appaliing penetrator material suffering from thermal softening at penetration temps. The sharpness leads to shatter at angle leading to aggrivated penetration route through the angled plate, @ 60° this should be 0.5^2.4 or thickness ÷ 0.19 times [ > 5 times thickness]. The APDS has a rounded penetrator this lowers the shatter or its transitional velocity [remember that word?].Consequently its penetration route is much closer to the LOS. The effect of the nose shape disappears after the projectile has penetrated two diameters .Now if the projectile is a full caliber 2-3:1 L/d APC type shot then this has a more dramatic effect than a APDS penetrator that are usually 4-5:1 L/d. [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 01-17-2001).]

Another problem with the comparison is that German test plate was reportedly 'pound for pound'supposed to be 10% better than allied plate, so on the face of it 100mm penetration against german test = 110mm Ve allied test. German test methods refer to 2/3 of test batch having to meet criteria and test methods speak of 'average results'. It may not be know to some but theres a ± 7% variation in all penetration figures. So if you fired 10 shots you'll get 10 penetration figures all different but with in a certain range of results. The faint praise test don't mention how many shots were fired but it does appear that about half penetrated at 200-300 yards Vs Panther glacis. I found that allied projectiles suffered more in slanted impact compared to Russian & german results due to sharper nose designs ...which are penalized in such cases.

Steve since you ignor the 'numerous anecdotal evidence' that suggests that german optics and ammo are better, then you understand I can ignor your 50 year old anecdotal evidence from a Vet...just because its anecdotal you understand The problem is that if you ignor accurate OOB and maps but argue that you've got the mechanics right [even though a number of well informed posters question that fact]...then you have the details right but the structure wrong....its far more important to get the structure right and ignor the details until later. But thats just my opinion I guess the bottom line is that a different company will have to do their version of this level of comabat to balance things off abit...you know give us more choices.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Warning Ranting follows... Orders of Battle and TO&Es do not make a game realistic if the core simulation can't turn this information into a "realistic" battlefield environment. That is why SP fails my definition of "realism". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not going to dwell on this too much [cause its a matter of opinion] just to point out that most peoples idea of what's realistic and what's not realistic about WW-II tactical battles is driven by hollywood with a small bit of historical reading [and no I don't mean BTS specifically]. This is a common problem with flight sims -if they look good and seem to fly right, people think there real. Its not until you actually see the fly boys themselves rant about it you can't even be sure they got the mechanics right let alone the battle right ....it may just end up being really good art , or should I call it entertainment! There's a great deal of seduction that goes on with the imagery in computer games that can very easily 'propagandize' [ what I mean is make it seem real]. In SB we have a sim that all the tankers repeatedly tell us operates like the real thing and now the US Army wants to work with us to develop it even more....does that mean it simulates real battle well....don't know but we've got the mechanics right so far! To me this is the closest I've seen to realism , but it doesn't have 3d acceleration and to some users that makes it 'not realistic' , personally I would never treat its lessons a gospel just a good guide. The USARMY guys apparently want to use it to simulate 'medium brigade combat' tactics against "Opfor" Now we've got resent users experience to rely on [ some with battle field experience] and the ODS data base to operate on. But the data base on WW-II battles is too small to do easily even Rgt Bn battles level action let alone the 'sub tactical' level... So you've got a great game that breaks new ground and may even get some of the mechanics right [ except optics and penetration questions etc ], but that by its self doesn't make it a great simulator of WW-II battlefield...it may just make it a great game. When I asked my friend about why he selected PE over CM he said that PE spooked him cause 'it seemed so brutally real'....and this is a scientist who's well read in military history with decades of experience with computer games.

Theres a side to this thats never discussed...when your playing CM scenarios , how realistic do you think they are?? Have you read the historical record lately...the number of detailed accounts from both sides of a particular battle are few and far between. So you can never be sure about the scenarios authentisity.The problem is the scale its far to small to be useful.This may not be as big a problem with normandy and the battle of the bulge but when you move east the battle accounts lack the detail needed to get a good snap shot of the battle. In SPW@W your looking at Bn/Rgt actions that span hours and as pointed out above, can be strung into campaigns covering days. There are a gazzilion bits and pieces of battle records from rgt reports of both sides .It doesn't take much to nail down a map and find the piece of turf the battle was fought on , who participated and roughly what where the forces on each side and what were the losses etc ....With a bit of work you can get a scenario to get pretty close to the battle reports and over all out come. I regularly can find three four even five books that cover a particular action from both sides of the fight [ east front] plus a map thats usable given the 50m hex scale and get a good idea of what went on that lead to this out come or that out come.You don't have to tweak the game too much to do this. So for my money SPW@W is better way to study WW-II historical battles.

As I recall the TOE went like this 1939-40 Pzgt 3-4 x Tk bn each with 4 x co 4 x pltn 5 x vehicles 88/bn including command 41-42 Pzgt 3 x Tk bn each with 4 x co x 4 pltn x 5 vehicles 88/bn including command . Plus a PzJ Bn with 3 x 12-14 Pzj or Towed 50mm ATGs 1943 Pzgt 2-3* x Tk bn each with 4 x co x 4 pltn x 4 vehilces 72/bn including command * only elite SS and some times a Tiger Co Plus a PzJ Bn with 3 x 12-14 Pzj 1944 Pzgt 2 x Tk bn each with x 3-4*co x 4 pltn x 4 vehilces 56 to 72/bn including command * only elite SS had 4 co and often one bn was Stug bn of 3 companies of 14 Stug. Plus a PzJ Bn with 3 x 12-14 Pzj or JgdPz or Assault guns 1945 Pzgt 1-2* x Tkbn with 3 x co x 3-4 pltns x 3 Tks 30-40 tks per bn * elite SS div had 2 tk bn while others had 1x Stug Bn instead. Plus a JgdPz Bn with 3 x 10 JgdPz or Assault guns

Mind you one of the strengths of the Regimental system is that as long as the cadre of the new formation was veterans they could rebuild a compitent Rgt within the normal training cycle. No doubt that the constant stream of specialist equipment to these political army units like SS & LW divisions seriously depleted the HEER to the point where in '44 Inf Bn were luck to be any where near full strength.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: So you're saying that the 45 Bn TOE is the way it is out of necessity and not out of any lessons learned?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes most of what they did in the last year of the war was out of desperation, due to losses. In 44/45 they included biycles in the Pzgd Bn which was not due to any lesson , just they had no other form of transport for them.

By '45 the loss rate was so high that maintaining even modest Bn TOE was out of the question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Paul, Very interesting. If you're right, then that would suggest that perhaps a better way to simulate, say, 85% quality would be to randomize it and on any given shell hit the percentage could be anywhere from 70% to 100%. So the average would be 85%, but you could get higher or lower on any given hit. The only problem with this is that I wonder if it might allow too many "fluke" kills on a Panther. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You've just described a "Ballistic limit S curve", yes this does happen not only with AP but APFSDS and HEAT, but hold of for now I've just put the question 'Why" to Robert Livingston and he had several interesting things to say [ as always] < i > Paul, the data is based on several test shots against Panther glacis' in NW Europe, using standard issue US ammo, as well as data from multi-shot test programs using US ammo against US plate over a range of hardness, with measured amounts of flaws from "none" to "a lot" Paul, The reason that armor has less ballistic resistance is generally that the armor does not cohere under impact. As you are well aware, this can be expressed as hardness/softness or ductile/brittle continuums. Both hardness and ductility are essential. However, the steel must also be homogeneous, and if a gradation of hardness is deemed desirable, as in KC ship armor, or Face Hardened tank armor, the transition from hard to less-hard areas must be gradual and even. Any unevenness in the interior molecular structure of the steel creates stress-points which accumulate stress and may initiate interior cracking under load. These stress points may be caused by laminations (layering in the steel) or by inclusions (specks of carbon, dirt, phosphorous, sulfur). Stress points are also created at air bubbles and hot tears (found in T-34 bow, and KV turret castings, respectively). The Panther glacis I mentioned in the other message (tested by the Allies) had a zone of brittle steel in the center section, like the center layer of a three-ply piece of plywood. Hardness was about 262 BHN throughout the thickness. The interior layering would weaken the armor, even though thoe outer layers were OK for hardness and brittleness. I recall that the lower bow plate (45mm) of a T-34 tested at Aberdeen also showed this layering. Another source of stress-point formation is incorrect heat treatment. The Germans used a multi-step "timed quench" process which involved hoisting steel in and out of a bath several times; times were given to the second, but given the size of the pieces, different areas would get a different time of immersion. Imagine this with a multi-ton Panther glacis. Stress points can be created by this kind of uneven quenching. The US used water jets within the quenching bath to even-out the hardening and tempering of large pieces like Sherman turrets and hulls. Their problem was they were simply too thin, not that the armor was of poor quality (except the pre-'44 made Shermans, which had a nasty tendency to be too thin AND flawed.) -- Robert </ i > Heres a quote from Jonas Zukas [ one of the world leaders in ballistics research] talking about the problems of quality control applied to modern ballistics tests…. < i > "For example, rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) steel is used extensively in military construction. It can safely be said that RHA is rolled. It is also used as armor. However, the military speci"cations that govern the production of RHA have wide tolerances so that it is anything but homogeneous. Material properties (primarily hardness) are known to vary by as much as 10% within a lot of RHA and up to 30% from lot to lot. This makes single tests (the famous ` one-shot statistics a ) useless and correlation between numerical results and experiments unlikely unless a statistically meaningful number of tests have been done. Simple go/no}go ballistic tests can cost upward of $2000 each. Instrumented "eld tests can run from $10,000 to $100,000 each. As a rule, then, a statistically signi"cant data set is almost never available." </i > OK I'll ask him about the ballistic limit S curve and see what he says...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Paul, You're saying that we should lower the Panther's armor quality further? Are you sure that wouldn't unfairly make the Panther an easy target? I want to make sure I understand you correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes and No. The armor in the vicinity of these areas should result in weakened zones but often the armor is thicker to ofset this effect,some times this works like in the Tigers front mantle 100mm cast mantle plus 100mm turret plate = ~ 140mm effective resistance similare to the mantle thickness in the middle. The problem is when you read of projectile x penetrating armor Y is it due to hitting a vunerable area....to that end any 'poor quality of german armor by wars end is going to be expressed as localized weakened areas or plates and not nessesarly a across the board loss for all tanks of that type/year. We just got a report showing that Russian T-34s in an effort to speed up production suffered from poor or incomplete welding ...the result was visible gaps throught the joints of some of the models exhaimed..this doesn't apply to all, more of a quality control problem.

I think 85% is far to high for any tank as an across the board figure. A couple of years ago Maraging steel [ very strong] and Tool steel [ high carbon] were tested against Rc -27 plate with AP shot at ~ 800m/s and both were found to offer 90% of the resistance of the RHA standard. David Honner puts the value for 'flawed plate' at only 90% which is in line with the above mentioned tests.Now if localized 'weak areas' were the yard stick this might make more sence...the reason Hetzer would have 85% would be that most of its armor was mild steel [ 199 BHN], which is known to offer only 66% of RHA @ 150BHN and 80% of RHA @ 180BHN. Panthers armor was 260-285 BHN and should not suffer as much of a reduction.The Free edge effect guarantees that the most of the front turret and some of the glacis should offer less resistance. I have resently determined that the Free edge effect on WW-II APC shot was far less than modern APFSDS bring it down to 1-3 projectile diameters from the 'free edge'.[ APFSDS its upto 30 projectile diameters] That should mean within 15-20cm of the Panthers MG ports on the mantle and glacis as well as the optical ports on both should be weakened offering 70-90% [the closer to the edge, the lower the value]. In addtion the edge of the mantle constitues a 'free edge' to the mantle plate and the front turret plate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BTS: Panthers armor is rated at 85%<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 11-27-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: Heh, could be, but there are no M1A2s in CM and the Army gave up on Shermans a little while back (although with their new light, mobile philosophy maybe they should bring the old Sherman back. Is it any less capable than a LAV III? And it only weighs a little more... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Afraid not the LAV-III with 105 has mexas armor [NERA] which means its protection level is on par with Tiger 2 [KE wize] and HEAT resistance is probably all round protection against RPG-7V...except the wheels.

I think the 5 levels to optics should be a good starting point...RL made the point about 1 x magn = ~ 1km visiblity on a clear sunny day [so 3x = 3km ]. There are visibility comparisons that reduce visibility already worked out for NATO and this could be grafted . Together with Conalls info a credible model can be built. One thing Robert also mentioned was that the Sherman optics were easier to track a target than the German optics...having played SB I can relate to the smoothness being soooooo important. To me its the rate determining step in my time to hit scores. BTW: we just sold 1040 copies of SB to the USARMY [ West Point Training Acadamy] Yahhoooo Sorry couldn't resist

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: As a simple example, the best lenses will produce the sharpest image (ideally in a range of light conditions and magnification settings); the worst lenses will produce a "softer" image. This matters a lot for photography, especially when the photo will be enlarged quite a bit. However, even through the cheapest lens, you can clearly identify what you are looking at; it would be incorrect to say that the image is "blurred," even though part of the image will not be as clear as it would be with a better lens. For example, if you are looking at a radio aerial on a tank, it would appear to be a crisp vertical line (if that is how it really looked) through a better lens, and appear to be fuzzy (although probably still visible) through a cheaper lens. While this level of detail would be important in photography, it should not affect shooting at a tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK my understanding is that it should make a difference,maybe not up close but at distance it should. German optics , as I stated before used upto 6 lense with less distorion and loss of clarity than western optics did with 4 lens standard. This was due to the Argon gass coating that they had and no one else at the time had. In lesser light conditions it probably would make a difference..which is probably why you get reports of Brit crews complaining they couldn't see the guys that were shooting at them. But this is all a wast of time BTS needs siolid facts to change CM , but your not going to find any other than anicdotal evidence from the historical record... Again we come back to this problem..every one is quoting a few historical sources when whats wanted is scientific sources to get the answers... My main area of interest is penetration & armor [ moden]. I have found tons of journals on these that explain the science and with work it can be understood. But there are just as many journals on optics and tracking systems and guidance technology ..if some one was so inclinded they could get some better 'facts' for BTS.[personally I think this is just'school of thought'issue with BTS, Duck Incoming ] Conall. Does PE better simulate optics than CM ? cause my friend whos tried both says theres nothing that comes close to PE!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Edmund Blackadder: ehrm... reading this discussion raises some questions on CM, which I would like answered. I assume direct fire accuracy (not penetration) is dependant on: - A general weapon system accuracy rating - LOS - Wind speed - Suppression of firing unit - Range - Illumination - Trajectory Deviation - Target elevation - Firing unit speed - Target unit speed - Unit ROF settings (higher = lower accuracy) - Acquisition increase on first 3-4 shots - Target silhouetted or not - Firing unit morale - Firing unit training - Reduced initial fire (due to traverse) - Target terrain Since CM is proclaimed as 'the most realistic tactical game ever made' all this surely comes into play, does it not? Anyway, it does in a not so graphically enhanced game from a publisher I figure I can't mention on this forum [This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 11-19-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whats he talking about, is that PE ?

You know its really great having an 'old man' whose both a Scientist and an Ophthalmologist, but when he's also crazy about lenses and was in the German army...... OK a short course in lenses....The function of a lens is to bring light rays into focus . A lens can be seen as a back to back prism that attempts to bend as little as possible while the light that passes through the lens. Concave lens result in 'barrel distortion' that tend to bend the rays towards the periphery while convex lenses tend to bend the rays towards the middle or 'pin distortion'. But the distortion of light is different depending on where the light is chromatic or monochromatic,the best quality of lenses are those that deal with both these types of distortion.Depending on the quality of design, each lens in a series will lose 8-10% energy and while its possible to build multiple lenses by the time you hit half a dozen lenses you have great undistorted magnification but the human eye can't pick out much cause you've lost more than 1/2 the light energy. Any focusing device therefore becomes a series of lenses and a balancing act ,and you can imagine there's a very fine line in quality and the demands on production quality are very, very high. OK a short History lesson. By the end of the 19th century [ 1890s] the design of choice for a focusing device was a 4 x element lens that was composed of back to back concave lenses sandwiched between two convex lenses . This generally resulted in a 28-35% 'loss of vision' but allowed the kind of magnification used on telescopes and guns sights etc etc. The Germans recognizing the importance of lenses were world leaders in the research and development of lenses and discovered that 'Lanthanum' in the glass improved the clarity of the lens, suggesting there figures on loss would be below the 30% level .Just before WW-II in the late 30s they discovered that if you are able to deposit a thin layer of Argon gas on the lens this reduces the distortion per lens to around 3-4% ....no one else in the world could do this until well after the war. What this meant was that German lenses used in WW-II could successfully use 4-6 element lenses to achieve greater magnification with out distortion and a much less overall loss of vision [15-22%] and thus much larger clearer lenses for the same magnification or much greater magnification for the same field of view.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Simon the point is that he thinks that it wasn't the stadimeteric system or the training asmuch as the quality of the lenses being superior...they were very clear and had big field of view. Thats why Robert makes the comment about the Sherman gunners being unable to identify who was shooting at them. How do you quantify lens clarity and quality?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: In my opinion, it was not the "stadiametric" quality of the German sights which helped, but the optical quality,so the gunner could actually see the target clearly. The target was magnified more, sharper, and in a larger field of view than in Allied sights. This made all the difference, in my opinion. It should also be pointed out that US sights had markings of a standard size, against which objects of known size could be measured, as outlined in US training manuals.I don't think this was stressed as a method in US training. In my opinion, the US training manuals give better info,on the whole, on how to estimate range than the German Tiger and Panther fibels. I think it was mainly a hardware problem which held back US tankers: lousy quality optics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Geeez that must be the reponse to my question, can't wait till I get home to read it

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Paul, That is an oldy Assuming that these numbers are even close to correct, check out the 2000m+ numbers for each weapon vs. the numbers below. It would appear that the combo gun and "sights" (including everything used to aim the gun here) improvements hugely increased the sub 1000m accuracy, greatly improved 1000-2000m accuracy, but then the improvements start to taper off. For example, there is a 10 fold improvement in accuracy for a 105mm gun at 1500m vs. the 76mm, but only a 5 fold increase in accuracy at 3000m. This is especially significant because 2% for the 76mm leaves a LOT of room for improvement, yet the 105mm only scored 10%. Interesting But of course, the same basic questions about what these numbers mean still remains. Still, if the numbers are even in the right ballpark they do indicate how hard it is to hit at long ranges even with far better guns and sights than what were available to ANY side in WWII. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-16-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes this is true, As my Serb friends figures suggest, the bulk of the gunners would have difficulty on a real battle field even though they did alright 'home on the range'...But theres one guy in every company whos a 'super gunner' ... So when your reading an account of shooting accuracy in battle , is it the 'average guy' or the 'super gunner '? Whos going to use accounts of the guy in the company who never can hit anything?

An oldie but a goody...the old Panzer Battles board game came with the following info on US gunnery % first round hit with APDS ammo vs tank size target standing target[static] <PRE> 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m 2500m 3000m WW-II 76mm 87% 21% 5% 3% 2% 2% Korea 90mm 90% 65% 31% 14% 6% 5% Today 105mm 95% 87% 55% 26% 14% 10% </PRE> Today would be 1979 so I guess thats M-60A3 level Lazer Rangefinder, while Korea would be coincidence rangefinder plus analogue computer[??] and WW-II would be visual estimation [maybe assisted by pltn leader with stadi binoculars[??]. Robert makes the comment about ± 25% accuracy on range estimations for the Brits Vs ± 10% for the germans. Ogorkiewcz notes that visual estimation is ± 25-30% [ intensive training can reduce this to ± 20%], while stadi is ±15-20%. I remember hearing that the Germans trained extensively on speed and accuracy of shooting ....that would start with good range estimation.I'll have to ask Robert about this.

Robert's always been the expert on WW-II armor and projectiles. Him & Lorrin have been working on a 'book' for years showing all there research, when ever it comes out It should be great...I'll give you his Email address.... Really for me he's the guy who got me off my but and start digging through all those Impact engineering journals. John , I think what this thread also shows is that while we all know a thing or two about armor and penetration, enough to question games that model this poorly....the truth is we know 'diddly' about the real question about whether you can even hit the target let alone penetrate. Robert just related to us that the 17 Lb could kill at 2-3 km s but couldn't hit much beyond 1km. One other thing it shows me is that when you guys are pushed you can do research too Too many times I see these debates being a battle of mere hearsay , with debates of 'how many angles on the head of a pin'. Its a very sobering thing to wake up one day and realize you know next to nothing about something you value so much...at least it was for me

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: To Obtain 50-50 Probability Of Hit On Standing Tank At 1500 Meters: World War II Medium Tank - Had to fire 13 Rounds. Korean War Medium Tank - Had to fire 3 rounds. Mid-'70's Medium Tank - Needs to fire 1 Round. So what does that mean...after bracketing for 12 rounds...on the 13th round there was a 50 - 50 chance of obtaining a hit? Or if you fire 26 rounds you have a 100% chance of a hit? [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-15-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff if your hit prob is 50% at 1500m then it should only take 3-4 additional shots to reach the magical 95% mark, that scientist use as a cuttoff mark. Thats 0.5 x0.5 x0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 or 0.06% - 0.03% chance of a miss or 94%-97% chance of a hit...So the average works out to about.... World War II Medium Tank - Had to fire 13 Rounds. 16-17 shots = 95% Korean War Medium Tank - Had to fire 3 rounds. 6-7 shots = 95% Mid-'70's Medium Tank - Needs to fire 1 Round. 4-5 shots = 95% One of the things my collegues comments point out is the disribution of elite gunners compared to the average and what that means for statistics . Consider what he said ... @ 1000m his company gets in battle 1 x 90% [gypse] 1 x 38% [75%/2] 8 x 10-20% [ rest] 208%-288% ÷ 10 = average of only 21-28% and thats with HVAP shot. @ 1500m that should be 1 x 90% 1 x 25% [ 50%/2] 8 x 10% 195%÷ 10 = 19% average with 76mm APC