Jeff Duquette

This is pretty ass-back wards and dangerous for the crew. Presumably the gunners position was suspended from the turret rather than the hull...can you imagine the latter <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From: The Russian Military Zone: http://history.vif2.ru/t34_85_2.html T-34-85 The absence of a rotating turret basket in the crew compartment was a consequence of the layout. In action, the loader worked while standing on the top of the ammunition crates stowed in the bottom of the tank. When the turret rotated, he had to move alongside the breech ring, and was hindered in doing so by the spent cases piled up there on the floor. During intensive firing, the piled-up cases made it difficult to get to the shells in their combat stowage in the bottom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So how about Soviet tank gunnery...optics, range finders, accuracy, etc

Four crewman is not any kind of disadvantage in and of it self. Most modern Armies employ MBT's with 4 man crews quite successfully. In fact I would argue that a five man crew is a waste of a man. The "disadvantage" that the T34/76 might have lies in the ergonomics of crewmen duties...specifically the TC also functioned as the gunner. And yes there is already another thread on this subject. T34 Turret Rotation I think.

The Nafzigar Collection has reprinted at least one WWII Soviet field manual "Soviet Armoured Tactics in WWII". In addition they have reprinted "Soviet Tactical Doctrine in WWII (actually a reprint of portions of the US ARMY TM-30-340 Handbook on the Soviet Army in WWII). Both are around $20.00. http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/books.html You might enquire at the Russian Military Zone as well.

I thought this was kind of interesting. Found it on the Russian Military Zone by accident while looking for information on Soviet WWII Tank Optics. URL to the most excellent Russian Military Zone: http://history.vif2.ru/library/army7.html <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From: EVALUATION OF THE T-34 AND KV TANKS BY ENGINEERS OF THE ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS, SUBMITTED BY FIRMS, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING TANKS The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization. Regarding the T34/76 Turret The main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets (Americans tested the T-34 with a two-men turret - Valera). The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"The trajectory of the 88 is wonderfully flat. You only need to raise the gun a tiny bit to shoot farther.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thus the long horizontal dispersion zone…or beaten zone. Gracias for the interpretation RC. Just some trivia: The M48 Patton had not made it into service by the Korean War. The M46 Patton did do some time in Korea, but the M46 was basically just a rebuild of the M26 Pershing. M46 M26 I reckon if we look into it in any depth the dramatic increase in gunnery accuracy was more than likely a direct function of improved range finders…and probably certain amount of credit could be attributed to training methods. The US ARMY went through some radical changes in training philosophies following the war. I also suspect if we look into this in any depth we will find that combat shot outs between UN and Communist tanks are pretty few and far between. Perhaps a few tank vs. tank encounters in the opening months of the war (Tajoun, Pusan Perimeter Defence and perhaps Inchon\Seoul). After that, probably not much to speak of. So the 3 rounds to hit at 1500 meters maybe training number…where the 13 rounds to hit at 1500m for WWII maybe be based upon combat stats.

Couldnt find mention on the tamiya site to the CD's and am very interested in obtaining these things as they are released. Any thoughts as to alternate on-line outlets?

Machineman: Nice web site. I think there is a lot of contemporary information there on German S.O.P. for tank gunnery range estimation and the Ziess Site (amazing the number of half naked women drawings the German utilized in their training manuals ). Unfortunately I don’t read or speak German. I had the brilliant idea of scanning the images…OCR…than run the OCR through a German to English online translator. Unfortunately the image quality is such that OCR only results in a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US did not have smokeless gunpowder I believe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You referring to WWII or the Civil War?

No not M Whittman. Oh and by the way, like the original question stated both these fellows are gunners not tc's. However We do have a lovely parting gift for you. uhhps...Kurt Knispel is the upper photo. So you win half of a cookie, as well as a lovely parting gift. [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-06-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>SO that means the discussion is over... too bad it was finally starting to get interesting<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hell no...I just thought "Turrets" post was rather humerous...especially the drinking a pot of coffee to simulate combat anxiety...and a case of beer to simulate the fog of war. I enjoy yaking about this topic and will continue you to do so...long after any one will really be interested in it anymore

Machineman: Thanks <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Said: Heh, you were suposed to use an reg crew<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought we had already established that all Tiger Crews were veritable tanker gods. Elite crack (pot) troops. I loaded Panzer Elite back onto the hard drive and played about a bit with German tank gunnery. I had originally taken it off my hard drive after playing a few games and never being able to hit the broad side of a barn. After doing some target practice with P.E., it only further reinforced my impression that long range sniper shots – 2000 meters plus – are tough propositions for all except “extremely cool gunners”. Range guesstimation using Zeiss sights is truly an art. A little trivia…for a cookie name either of these two “extremely cool gunners”

Dunno if you mean real or game battle stories. Here is a real one. From: Belton Cooper Death Traps, The Survival of an American Armored Division in WWII” Cooper was an ordnance officer serving with the 3rd Armored Division. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Following General Rose's death, confusion was rampant among our leading elements. The general was trying to get Task Force Doan to secure our left flank when he was struck down. German groups of tanks and infantry counterattacked our task forces whenever possible. One major engagement just south of the Paderborn airport exemplified the tragic inferiority of our tanks” (sic the German Tank Crews were apparently mostly very young soldiers still in training at the German Tank Training Facilities around Paderborn…kind of the German equivelent to the US ARMY’s Tank Training Facilities at Ft. Knox). One of our columns proceeded up a slightly inclined straight road. A narrow, winding road met the straight road about half a mile from the point where our column entered it. Heavily wooded, rolling hills lay on the right side of the road, and a level, open field was on the left with woods set back about three hundred yards. The column consisted of a company of M4 Sherman tanks followed by a company of armored infantry in half-tracks. These were followed by several GMC trucks and Jeeps and three M36 tank destroyers. Suddenly, seven King Tiger tanks appeared along the crest of the forward slope on the left side. As the tanks advanced toward our column, they turned to the right into a column formation and opened fire. We had no time or room to maneuver, and the Shermans could not utilize the advantage of our gyrostabilizers. Three more King Tigers emerged from the hilly woods road to the right. Our tankers and infantrymen were faced with their worst fear: to be caught in the open by King Tiger tanks at close range, without the ability to maneuver or seek cover. The seven King Tiger tanks on the left proceeded down the entire length of the column, then turned around and came back. At extremely close range, a hundred yards or less, they raked the column from stem to stern. Some observers said it was more like a naval engagement than land warfare. The infantry immediately took cover in the ditches on both sides of the road. One of the Sherman tanks, with a 76mm gun, broke out of the column and took cover behind a small stucco farm building to the left, just off the road in about the middle of the column. As the Tigers came down on their first pass, the Sherman crew swung their 76mm gun 180 degrees to the rear and let go at close range. The Tiger's thinner armor over the engine compartment was penetrated, and the tank started to burn. The victory for this brave crew was short-lived, however, because the Sherman was knocked out by another Tiger on its return pass. Although the entire column was trapped, some of the veteran crews stayed cool and utilized their advantages. One of the crews of an M4 Sherman with a short-barreled 75mm M2 gun was near the middle of the column when the three King Tigers appeared on the right side. The alert tank commander immediately saw two possibilities. First, he knew that the King Tiger had a manual traverse***, and it would be extremely difficult and time-consuming for him to swing the turret and elevate the gun to zero in on him. Next, our tank commander knew that an armor-piercing shot from his low-velocity 75mm would just bounce off the King Tiger. In a split second he told his gunner to load a white phosphorus round. It struck the glacis plate right above the driver's compartment with a blaze of flames and smoke. Although there was no possibility of penetration, the shock in the tank must have been terrific. The entire faceplate in front of the turret was covered with burning particles of white phosphorus which stuck to the sides of the tank. The smoke engulfed the tank, and the fan in the engine compartment sucked the smoke inside the fighting compartment. The German crew must have thought the tank was on fire and immediately abandoned it. Although the tank suffered little damage, had the crew stayed inside they would have been overcome by the deadly fumes. The Sherman immediately turned its gun on the second tank in the column and fired white phosphorus, with the same result. Although the ingenious tank commander knocked out two King Tiger tanks (without ever getting a penetration), his tank was then knocked out by another Tiger. The King Tigers on the left proceeded all the way to the end of the column, where they knocked out one of our M36 tank destroyers, which blocked the rear of the column. The lead tank in the column had already been knocked out and trapped the entire column. As the German tanks returned to the front of the column, they swung their guns around to the other side and picked off the remaining tanks and half-tracks. It was like shooting ducks in a pond. The remaining King Tigers withdrew, leaving our entire column bleeding and burning. When our maintenance crews arrived on the scene, we found a catastrophe. The Germans had knocked out seventeen M4 Sherman tanks, seventeen half-tracks, three GMC trucks, two Jeeps, and one M36 tank destroyer. The column had been annihilated. Fortunately, the personnel casualties had not been as high as the appearance of the wrecked column indicated. The German tanks were so close that the machine guns in the turrets would not depress low enough to reach the men in the ditches. We immediately started dragging back those vehicles that had not been totally burned. The burned-out vehicles were pushed off to one side of the road and abandoned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ***Although the King Tigers turret rotation trended toward the slow to very slow side…traversing I think was actually a hydraulic system similar to the Panthers, in which rotational speed varied with the engines RPMs. This is from Actung Panzer Web Page http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm#tiger2 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“Porsche turret had a curved mantlet, which created shot trap below the mantlet and Henschel was ordered to design new turret to be used as a standard for future models. Henschel turret featured flush cupola instead of bulged one and saukopf mantlet instead of curved one. Henschel turret was also known as Krupp's (production) turret - Serien Turm. Porsche turret weighted 67500kg, while Henschel turret 68000kg. The turret could be traversed 360 degrees in 19 to 77 seconds, depending on engine's RPMs, which powered the hydraulic turret drive (at 2000rpm - 19 seconds).” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From Jentz: Tiger II turret rotation 360 degrees in 19 sec with engine @ 2000 RPM’s Tiger II turret rotation 360 degrees in 25 sec with engine @ 1500 RPM’s Tiger II turret rotation 360 degrees in 36 sec with engine @ 1000 RPM’s If a German crews engine stalled, a seemingly common occurance when a tank was struck by an AP round (armour perforation or not) these fellows would be in a world of hurt due to slow rotational speed from hand cranking. I have cranked an M60A1 turret by hand (dunno the exact rotational speed) but it seemed like it took several minutes to complete a full rotation. Very physically demanding as well inspite of the hand crank gear ratios.

I saw this on another thread and thought it to be a perfect epilogue to our discussion here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Turret: The probability of a strong point hit is a great idea! I did some model testing using 4 1/35th scale Tigers made of scale steel (3,200 lbs each!). For test rounds, I melted depleted plutonium from the core of a decaying star into a mold made from the round of plastic 1/35th scale US 75mm gun. I put the round into a Crossman 766 BB gun and gave it 50 pumps. I wanted to simulate the kind of shots that would occur in battle. So I installed R/C units in the tanks and gave the controls to my wife and instructed her to drive each test tank in a "combatish" way. I drank a pot of Starbucks coffee to simulate the heat of battle and then a case of beer to simulate the fog of war. I then went "hunting" in the yard. The results of my test: Typically the Tiger was shot in the front as it was hard to get a flanking shot with my wife's quickly learned simulation of German tank tactics. 3 out of the the 4 tests it was a mantle hit. Tank one was taken out in the first shot at the mantle. Tank two and three survived their mantle hits. With tank 4 it was a rear trap shot that hit a fuel line. Empirically the data suggest that the strong point hit probability is more like 33%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John: Yeah I know the recoilless rile site isn’t quite the same to the WWII allied gun sights. The methodology of estimating ranges is more analogous to the German gunnery sights. The concepts regarding dispersion and the like are relatively universal however. Describing a common method of engaging moving targets was really the intent. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Some Additional Game Testing Did some additional game testing. Open range…placed an Elite Tiger I at 1500 meters from 5 Green British Sherman II’s. 1st Test @ 1500 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 12 rounds, 5 hits, 5 kills. That’s a 41.7% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. 6 Turns to complete test. 2nd Test @ 1500 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 19 rounds, 6 hits, 5 kills. That a 31.6% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. The Tiger had an astounding 3 Rounds 3 kills on the first turn. 7 Turns to complete test. Avg hit to miss ratio @ 1500 meters on moving targets = 36.6% Expected Tiger accuracy on a firing Range (from Jentz) for a stationary target @ 1200 to 2000 meters was a hit by the fourth round of fire…or hit to miss ratio of 25% xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Performed the same test 3 times with a reduced range of 1000 meters. 1st Test @ 1000 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 14 rounds, 5 hits, 5 kills. That’s a 35.7% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. 6 Turns to complete test. 2nd Test @ 1000 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 12 rounds, 6 hits, 5 kills. That’s a 50% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. 6 Turns to complete test. 3rd Test @ 1000 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 13 rounds, 6 hits, 5 kills. That’s a 46.2% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. 7 Turns to complete test. Avg hit to miss ratio @ 1000 meters on moving targets = 44% Expected Tiger accuracy on a firing Range (from Jentz) for a moving target @ 800 to 1200 meters was a hit by the third round of fire…or hit to miss ratio of 33.3% I agree with Paul’s assessment that the Combat Mission tank gunnery accuracy model is good. And now its time for some weekend R and R...off to the beer and sausage fest! [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-04-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rate of fire should be extremely slow, because the two guys in the turret could never figure out who did what - "Hey, am I supposed to gun today, or you?" ... "I don't know, look at the regs."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> heh heh heh Regarding mechanical unreliability lets talk about the Panther and Tiger

I hardly think "The Battle of San Pietro" is Propaganda. The documentary was banned from being shown in the US during the war because it was overly realistic portrayal of the battle (i.e. excessive number of scenes depicting dead GI’s). It was still being used as a training tool by the US ARMY Infantry School back in the 70’s and early 80’s.

Some more fluff <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From: US War Department, Handbook on German Military Forces Section V: Defence German antitank guns are disposed in depth, with some well forward. They often are dug in and carefully concealed to prevent the enemy from discovering the location and strength of the antitank defenses prior to attack. In emplacing antitank guns, the Germans prefer positions in enfilade or on reverse slopes. They normally employ two to three antitank guns in each position, protecting them from infantry attacks with light machine guns. Ranges at which the Germans open fire upon hostile tanks vary according to the caliber of the gun and its position. Although single antitank guns sometimes engage enemy tanks at ranges up to 1,000 yards, main antitank defenses usually hold their fire until the range is reduced to about 150 to 300 yards. The employment of close-combat antitank teams supplements the antitank defense. When the hostile tank attack is repulsed, the antitank guns move to alternate positions. (Pg 233)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

British gun accuracy for 6-pounder and 17-pounder...stationary and moving targets. Notes indicate that recomended max engagment range for either weapon is 800 to 1000 yards.

I broke down and ordered a used copy of the 1950 FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery manual. Couldnt find an earlier version...but since the ARMY and MARINES were still employing some Shermans in 1950 there should be some pertinant info. In the mean time this is about as good as I can come up with for direct fire gunnery of a larger caliber weapon. Leading moving targets is covered toward the bottom. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FM 23-11, 90MM RECOILLESS RIFLE, M67 April 1967 TECHNIQUE OF FIRE 70. Definitions and Scope a. Terms. (1) Technique of fire. Placing effective fire on a target. (2) Direct laying. Pointing a weapon for direction and elevation by laying on a target visible to the gunner as he looks through the sight. (3) Direct fire. Firing conducted when the gunner is using direct laying. b. Scope. Training in marksmanship is a prerequisite for instruction in direct laying. Direct laying involves a knowledge of the following subjects: (1) Characteristics of fire. (2) Range, apparent speed, and lead determination. (3) Fire commands. (4) Fire control. 71. Characteristics of Fire a. Trajectory. (1) The trajectory of a projectile is the curve traced by the center of gravity of the projectile in its flight from the muzzle of the gun to the point of impact. A knowledge of the trajectory is important, especially in firing antitank weapons and when firing over the heads of friendly troops. (2) The 90mm rifle is classified as a flat trajectory weapon. The muzzle velocity and the weight of the projectile are the more important factors in determining the flatness of the trajectory. In all cases, however, due to the action of the force of gravity and air resistance, the trajectory of projectiles is actually a curve and not a straight line. Air resistance retards the projectile during its flight, causing the angle of fall to be greater than the angle of elevation. Therefore, the projectile reaches its maximum ordinate (highest point) closer to the point of impact than to the rifle (fig. 36). Figure 36 (3) A line tangent to the trajectory at the point of impact is called the line of fall. The vertical angle between the line of fall and the ground at the point of impact is called the angle of fall. b. Dispersion. (1) When firing a large number of rounds from a rifle having elevation, direction, and other conditions as nearly identical as possible, the points of impact of the projectile are scattered both in range and deflection. This scattering is called dispersion. The greatest concentration of points of impact is near the center of the group. Approximately as many points fall short of the center as fall beyond, and a few will fall to the right or to the left. (2) Among factors that cause dispersion are variations in weight and composition of the propellant, weight and balance of the projectile, and atmospheric condition. c. Dispersion Rectangle and Probable Error. In general, the points of impact of projectiles fired from a rifle, using the identical sight picture for each cartridge fired, may be included in a rectangle with its longer axis along the gun-target line. This is called a dispersion rectangle. If this rectangle is divided into eight equal parts by lines drawn perpendicular to the line of fire, the percentage of points of impact to be expected in each part is as shown in figure 37. Notice that each of the two segments nearest the center of the dispersion rectangle contain 25 percent of all impacts. The length (in the direction of fire) of each of the segments of the dispersion rectangle represents one range probable error. The value in meters of one range probable error, which varies with the range from the rifle to the center of impact, is given in the firing table pertaining to the type of ammunition being fired. Figure 37 Section II. RANGE DETERMINATION, AND ESTIMATING LEAD AND APPARENT SPEED 72. Range Determination a. General. (1) Ability to accurately estimate range is essential to achieve first round hits. The length of time available to fire is in many cases limited; therefore, quick and accurate determination of range is extremely important. (2) The methods used to determine range to a given target are: (a) Using stadia lines in the sight reticle. ( Using map distance. © Estimating by eye. (d) Obtaining the range from other units. (e) Firing other weapons. (f) Measuring ground distance. (g) Using binoculars. b. Stadia Lines. The stadia lines in the sight reticle are a readily available means of estimating range (fig. 38). These lines are developed from the mil relation formula and are designed to enable the gunner to estimate range to targets having a 10- or 20-foot dimension. Most tanks are approximately 10 feet wide and 20 feet long. To estimate range, the gunner adjusts the lay of the rifle until the target exactly fits between the stadia lines. The point on the vertical (range) line of the reticle, that corresponds to the center of mass of the target, indicates the range. The target in figure 38 is at a range of 275 meters. On targets showing more of the flank than the front, a full stadia picture is used. If more of the front than the flank is shown, a half stadia picture is necessary (fig. 39). It is important to remember that a deflection adjustment must be made from a half stadia picture to obtain the correct sight picture for target engagement. Figure 38 Figure 39 c. Map Distance. Accuracy of determining range from a map depends on skill in map reading and the accuracy of the map (FM 21-26). d. Estimating Range by Eye. See FM 23-71 for explanation. e. Obtaining the Range From Other Units. Often, a unit relieved from a combat position possesses range cards and other information that may be of use to the relieving unit. Also, other units of the same organization as the relieving unit may have the desired information. This latter source of information is usually reliable, especially if the unit has previously engaged targets in the area. In many cases, other weapons have been fired at targets near the target being engaged by the 90mm rifle, and their range data may be useful in determining the desired range. f. Firing Other Weapon. You may use the fire of other weapons to determine range. The fire of smaller individual weapons, such as the M14 rifle using tracer ammunition, does not disclose the position as readily as do larger type weapons and is effective to ranges of approximately 500 meters. g. Measuring Ground Distance. If the situation permits freedom of movement, pace off the distance or measure it with tape or speedometer. h. Using Binoculars. Binoculars, used in conjunction with the mil relation (WORM) formula, are useful in determining ranges. To use this method, select a house, door, window, highway, or a telephone pole--something which has a known size or can be closely estimated. Using the mil scale in the binoculars, measure the height or width of the object. Then substitute in the mil relation formula: R=W/m, where R equals range in thousands of meters, m equals width in mils, and W equals width of the object in meters. 73. Determining Leads The primary method of determining leads for the 90mm rifle is as follows: a. Estimate apparent speed of the target. b. Convert the apparent speed to leads. 74. Apparent Speed Estimation The speed at which a target seems to move toward or away from the line of sight is called apparent speed. It is determined by establishing a line of sight and then estimating the target's speed as it moves toward or away from this line of sight. In figure 40, tank A has no apparent speed no matter how fast it is moving because it is moving directly toward the gunner. The same applies if the tank is moving directly away from the gunner. Tank B has an apparent speed equal to its actual speed, because it is moving perpendicular to the gunner's line of sight. Tank C, moving at the oblique, has an apparent speed less than its actual speed. Constant practice is the only method by which the gunner can acquire proficiency in estimating apparent speed. Figure 40 75. Lead Estimation a. A moving target is led by the distance it travels from the time the rifle is fired until the projectile crosses the path of the target. Angular leads are measured with the direct fire sight M103, 5 mils being equal to one lead. The number of leads applied varies with the apparent speed of the target, but not the range. b. Ballistic characteristics of the 90mm rifle are such that one lead is applied on the sight reticle for each 2½ miles per hour of apparent speed of the target. c. An alternate means of determining leads is the common lead rule. The number of leads required is determined by the direction the target is moving in relation to the gun position (fig. 41). Target speed is assumed to be 15 miles per hour. If the target is moving directly toward or away from the gun position, no leads are required. If the target is moving from 1 or 11 o'clock, two leads are used; from 2 or 10 o'clock, four leads; and from 3 or 9 o'clock, six leads. Figure 41<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course this all assumes the target is not moving.

I just got this from the Nafziger Collection yesterday: "Soviet Armor Tactics in World War II, from Combat Regulations of 1944". It’s apparently a translated version of the original 1944 Soviet Combat Regulations for the individual armored vehicle, tank platoon, and tank company. Presumably this thing is kind of the Soviet counterpart to FM17-32. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>289. Before starting the attack tank engines are started on a signal from the company commander. In addition to the signal from the company commander to start the attack, the platoon leader gives the signal, "March!" ("Forward!") and leads his platoon in the ordered direction to the attack, maintaining his position in the company formation. In special cases - because of obstacles or a long distance to the enemy main battle line - the platoon marches from the Start Position in close or march formation and deploys for combat on the march. 290. From the Start Position the platoon leader directs the movement of his platoon according to the Guide platoon. Upon reaching the effective range of enemy antitank gun fire (1000 to 1200 meters) the platoon attacks at extreme speed. After passing through the combat formation of our own infantry the platoon opens strong cannon and machine gun fire while on the move, breaks into the enemy main battle line and destroys the enemy infantry. 291. The platoon negotiates antitank obstacles under covering fire from other tank platoons and with the support of guns assigned to support the tanks (self-propelled guns, infantry guns, antitank guns). 292. If the obstacle cannot be negotiated by the entire platoon at the same time part of the tanks in the platoon provide fire support for the others in crossing. In cases where the obstacle cannot be crossed, and no detour around it can be found, the platoon maneuvers to exploit the terrain (for cover), fires on the opponent and waits for a gap to be made by the following infantry. 293. In an attack with the fire support of the artillery and mortars the platoon advances close to the barrage of the artillery and mortars (within 75 to 100 meters). Any delay or falling back behind the artillery and mortar fire increases the losses of the tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> #292 Looks like Soviets were beginning to think about bounding overwatch. #290 Sure fits in nicely with my previous post on “The Anvil of War” & “The Development of German Defensive Tactics in Cyrenica #293 Hey…Ruskie creeping barrages <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This one is pretty interesting. From: The Anvil of War, German Generalship in Defense on the Eastern Front. This particular section of the book is by Generaloberst Erhard Rauss “Military Improvisation during the Russian Campaign”. (Don’t ask me for additional context on this one as there is none) Painting silhouettes of the most common types of enemy tanks in front view and profile on the shields of artillery and antitank guns proved a very practical antitank defense aid. The vulnerable points were marked in red. In addition there was a warning sign on the shield: 'Observe carefully, take good cover, and open fire at a maximum range of 1,000 yards.' The distances were indicated by markers on the ground at 200-yard intervals in all directions so that reference points for the exact distance were always available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> & <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: The Development of German Defensive Tactics in Cyrenica—1941. FMFRP 12-99 Perhaps the most outstanding single element in German defenses was the 88-mm gun. It sometimes opened fire at ranges up to 2,000 yards, but was most effective at about 800 yards. The 50-mm and 37-mm antitank guns opened fire at between 400 and 800 yards.(Pg 60)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> aka_tom_w: Thanks for digging. I guess what I was hoping was if Avalon Hill had a list of references and studies employed for the game. Lee: I know what you mean…whenever I play Germans my tank guns are always being damaged. However…and this is weird…whenever I play the Allies I never seem to be able to damage German Guns

No Paul your not going nuts…ASL is right however his memory did some dyslexia on him. The numbers are adjusted to the 90% dispersion zone (vertical plane ). Here is what Jentz says…also posted the accuracy tables we’re referring to for any interested parties that don’t own the book and may wonder what the hell we’re yaking about. Anyone know if Jentz ever intends on covering the remainder of the Africa Campaign? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: T.L. Jentz, “Tank Combat in North Africa” 4.2.1 FIRING AT STATIONARY TARGETS FROM STATIONARY GUNNERS The estimated accuracy is given as the probability (in percentage) 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 2.5 m x 2 meter target so that it could be directly compared with the other nations guns. 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-02-2000).]

John: Sorry…I really wasn’t trying to get you repost the Jentz tables again. I was simply curious as to what your impression was as to the subtle difference between Jentz’s North Africa 88 and Jentz’s other 88 table for the Tiger I. I had thought you had alluded to this contrast in a previous post. From out of left field: Have you played the old Avalon Hill board game “Tobruck” (spelling). Somewhat of a precursor to Squad Leader…much more detailed armor model than SL. I no longer have a copy of the game, but would be curious as to the game references. Might help us along in this discussion. Paul: Gracias for the beaten zone info on more modern munitions. Trooper: Can you elaborate on your last post? JoePrivate: Thanks for the info great stuff…yes you are right…but again I am talking horizontal dispersion and the info you have posted is really a function of vertical dispersion. And yes Dave Honner has a great web site. He also seems to be a hell of a nice fellow and never seems to tire of answering some of my more mundane questions. Take a look at “On Armour” at: http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/index.htm Also a great site.

Lemme try this again as I seem to have instilled some confusion with a couple folks with my last posts. Beaten Zone - this characteristic represents the physical area commanded by the rounds as a group, representing a pattern formed by their individual impacts. This pattern is generally elliptical shaped (cigar shaped), but is affected by various factors such as trajectory, ground incidence angle, gun platform stability, etc. In 2d space, consider that air resistance, propellant variations, etc. will cause differences in the distances traveled by each round. Firing 3 rounds from point A will result in 3 differing impacts (point X). Consider from ground level: Point A __________________x___x__Target___x The trajectory of each round is minutely different for each of the X impact locations. In three space (XYZ) these variations form a characteristic known as cone of shot. Imagine a bull’s-eye around the target. Even a great marksman with a great weapon will have grouping variations. Therefore at long distance, expect large 3 space cones of fire, with 80% rounds near the bull’s-eye and 20% near the outer edge, all plummeting at high velocity towards the target and falling in a basic elliptical shape. a) If you were to fire straight down (like from a helicopter), that elliptical shape would become more circular If you are firing into a hill face, the pattern is similarly circular c) If you were to fire up at 45deg, the pattern would stretch the elliptical shape. d) Similarly if you are firing across a downhill slope, the pattern will elongate REMEMBER - those bullets fly a complete path very quickly, and will strike anything that impedes them—this is why...in my mind anyway— the problem has to be considered in three space. The first table WO291/882 details dispersion zones in only the horizontal plane. What we associate with good marksmanship is however typically ascribed to the vertical plane (i.e. shot pattern on a vertical 2X3 meter piece of plywood or tank or a tin can). My original intent of posting WO291/882 was to begin a discussion on bracketing…not horizontal dispersion. The intent of posting the second table WO291/146 was – I had hoped – a means of clarifying the difference between horizontal and vertical dispersion. So although horizontal dispersion looks pretty huge for all those wood-be Davy Crockett’s here at CM HQ, for the M48 HE shell the shot pattern on your 2x3 plywood target…for the 90% zone…at 1000 yards, is really only 3 feet. Bare in mind that these AP rounds are scooting along at a fair piece…so considering basic projectile physics…a 1 foot high shot pattern difference in the vertical plane results in a down range travel time of an additional .05 seconds (or whatever the time frame of continued flight is) before gravity and air friction bring the round back down to earth. So an armored piercing round that is rocketing along at 800 meters\sec will still travel a bit within the horizontal plane for that extra .05 seconds. Horizontal dispersion doesn’t – by itself -- imply that the weapon is somehow inaccurate. I suspect that higher velocity, flater trajectory rounds would have greater horizontal dispersion that lower velocity rounds.