Conall

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Norman: I've just got hold of a couple of books by Patrick Delaforce (The Polar Bears - 49th Div and Monty's Ironside - 3rd Div) - they are detailed divisional histories from D-day onwards and look like a good source of material for scenarios. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Be careful with Delaforce's books, they're rather mixed & contain some historical errors. Also he appears to plagiarise blatantly both unit histories & secondary material. For example a case could be made that for his history of the 11th Armoured Division, The Black Bull (1993)he lifted large chunks directly without acknowledgement from Normandy, the British Breakout by Major J J How, William Kimber 1981 ISBN 0-7183-0118-8 Having said that they're not a bad place to start & should point you in the direction of some rather better primary & secondary sources. regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-19-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: In addition to the x3 sight posted for the 17pdr earlier I understand there was also a x6 sight as well. Any info on that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There was a x6 optional eyepiece that could be fitted (not in thye heat of battle I suspect). It was the No.43 Mk 3 & Mk 3/1, which had a magnification of 3x with a FOV of 13 degrees or 6x with a FOV of 9 degrees (again Jeff may have the piccie). I suspect from anecdotal material that most gunners opted for the 6x scope despite the loss of FOV. Incidentally Firefly gunners/commanders were taught to blink at the moment of firing to prevent temporary blindness from the muzzle flash (made spotting fall of shot difficult). regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-17-2000).]

Steve, I agree with your stance on the issue & overall I think you've done a superb job in CM. I think part of the problem here with complaints that the German guns don't seem accurate enough is that some people are confusing accuracy with spotting. IMO accuracy involves all the factors required to hit a target once it has been spotted i.e the crew's ability (not least to judge the range), the combat situation (are they already under fire?) the optical quality of the sights, the quality of the ammo (it's ballistic characteristics, notably trajectory & average dispersion at a given range), environmental factors etc. (I could go on ad nauseam, it's a very long list ). From what I've seen of the game you've done an excellent job of this. As you say no model will ever be perfect & compromises have to be made & I think you've done that very well. Where I have some doubt is in the initial spotting aspect, specifically at ranges over 1000m. This is mainly determined once again by crew ability & whether they're buttoned up or not, target size, and the optical quality of the sights/binos. The last of these principal factors can add a huge advantage - one which the Germans historically possessed throughout most of the war. Their sights although having a magnification similar to those of the Allies 2.5x (exception Tiger I L, Panther A, G & Tiger II, all had dual power 2.5x & 5x), had almost double the field of view (25 degrees) & far better optical clarity. This allows you to pick up targets far more easily, not least because you have to move you own sights less which allows you to spot enemy vehicles much more easily, especially if they're moving. This is why I find the ability of the Stuart to spot a Tiger I @2000m-1500m without being spotted (see tests posted earlier) somewhat disturbing. Given the state of the optics in the Stuart (dreadful M38 sights - Jeff could you post an image of them?) I think that the opposite situation is rather more likely despite the relative size discrepancy. This of course doesn't mean that the Tiger should then have an almost mystical ability to hit the Stuart, as spotting has little bearing on accuracy (except for the ability to judge the fall of shot as John's quotation from Robert Livingston suggests). I don't think anything I've said is a compelling reason to change what you've written into the game but I do think that it raises enough issues that if you have time it might at least be worth reconsidering the game's spotting mechanisms rather than deciding simply to leave it unchanged. Apologies if you've already heard all this on the board before and thank you for so patiently listening to our concerns. Jeff, I've emailed David Fletcher at Bovington and he's looking into those War Office Documents, if they're in the library he'll make me a copy otherwise I'll try the PRO. regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-16-2000).]

Steve et al, Here's some reasonably good empirical evidence that you might find interesting. Please note that the ranges are not known for the first shot, but they do appear to assume that it is known for subsequent rounds (a little optimistic IMO 3-4 rounds seems to have been required to establish range on average). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> WO 291/180, "Accuracy of anti-tank gunnery." Ranges in yards, target assumed to be Pz VI size. Probability (%) of hitting static hull-up target with first round: <PRE> GunOK for...500 1000 1500 2000 2500 6 pdr line 100 100 96 87 range 87 33 13 3 both (hit) 87 33 12 3 17 pdr line 100 100 100 98 93 range 98 46 20 10 5 both (hit) 98 46 20 10 5 </PRE> Probability (%) of hitting static hull-up target after first round: <PRE> Gun 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 6 pdr 100 86 59 41 17 pdr 100 94 71 50 36 </PRE> Probability (%) of hitting moving target (direct-crossing at 15 mph) after first round: <PRE> Gun 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 17 pdr 86 48 26(e) 16 </PRE> Probability (%) of hitting hull-down target with first round: <PRE> Gun 500 1000 17 pdr 59 18 </PRE> Probability (%) of hitting static hull-down target after first round: <PRE> Gun 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 6 pdr 85 43 22 14 17 pdr 88 51 29 18 12 </PRE> Comments and corrections These values are those plotted on the graphs in the report; the value marked (e) is interpolated from other data points. The overall shape of the fitted curves in each case is sinusoidal. This report recommends that the maximum range of engagement for 6-pdr and 17-pdr ATk guns be considered 800 and 1000 yards respectively. The criteria stated for maximum range of engagement for a statically-sited ATk gun are: 50% chance of first-round hit on a static hull-up target; 90% chance of subsequent rounds hitting a static hull-up target; 50% hits on a hull-up direct-crossing target moving at 15 mph after MPI roughly corrected; 50% hits on a static hull-down target after MPI roughly corrected. The first table clearly shows that errors in range have a much more important effect on accuracy than errors in line. Penetration ranges against Pz VI for each gun (ammunition not specified) are stated as being 800 yards for 6-pdr on the front, 1600 yards on the side, and 2000–2500 yards for 17-pdr. Hit probability is therefore regarded as a more important limitation on maximum engagement range than penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-17-2000).]

Incidentally the idea that tank engagements were fought at much longer ranges in Russia than in NW Europe is rather over-exaggerated. Although the Steppes are flat in a macro-geographical sense (i.e. very few ranges of hills or major changes in elevation), they would be better described as rolling in nature. Furthermore a typical feature of the Steppe is the Balka - which is basically a ravine caused by winter streams & dry in the summer. These features frequently enabled armour to form up in dead ground & also approach relatively close to their objective without coming under fire. There is also a tendency in veterans' accounts in all theatres to mention exceptional long range kills, rather than the more mundane 300-400m kills. Steve Zaloga's Red Army Handbook contains a table showing exactly this (someone may even have posted it on this thread earlier on), in addition German AT doctrine was to allow the enemy armour to within 300m before opening fire (I got this from another W/O doc, I'll post the source when I get home from work). regards, Conall

For what it's worth my opinion on the subject is that CM models first round accuracy pretty well at all ranges. Where I have some doubts is that the model seems a little ungenerous with regards to subsequent shots. From what I've read it seems to me that an average gunner could get the correct range in 3-4 rounds (1-2 at distances less than 500m). Given that most W/O studies that I've read suggest that erroneous range estimation was the principal cause of inaccuracy I would expect a reasonably good hit probability by the 3-4th round yet in CM this doesn't appear to be the case. Although it is a separate issue I think that the long range spotting model does seem in need of correction. In NW Europe this isn't really a problem as the vast majority of engagements are at less than 1000m, with typical engagement ranges being at perhaps between 300-400m. However, this will change with the introduction of Desert (& to a lesser degree Russian) scenarios. Here perhaps the Germans with their superior optics may be being penalised to some extent. regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-15-2000).]

Michael Wittmann & the Tiger Commanders of the Leibstandarte, by P. Agte, J.J.Fedorowicz Publishing, 1996. There's also a book by Gary Simpson which is very poor and best avoided. No specific books on Ernst Barkmann that I know of, either try Will Fey's Armor Battles of the Waffen SS or any decent history of Das Reich. regards, Conall

The scans are from a War Office document, dated March 1945, "A guide to A.F.V. Telescopes", which I got from Bovington. regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-11-2000).]

The piccies are of Michael Wittmann (note, a Tiger commander not a gunner, Bobby Woll was his gunner in Russia until he was also made a tank commander) & Kurt Knispel (a gunner & then commander in Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503). IIRC Knispel had about 180 kills by the time of his death in April 1945. BTW I have the scans of the US M4 75/76mm sights - I'll try to post them later, when I get home. regards, Conall