Mr. Tittles

Would like to see 100% if you have it.

Tero I hope you noticed that artillery caused a constant ~50% of all types of casualties (lethal and non-lethal) where as small arms cause close to 50% more fatal (~30% of the fatal subtotal) than non-fatal (~20% of the non-fatal subtotal) wounds. Yes, getting hit by rifle fire or MG fire is much more deadly. Most troops learned that helmets offered little protection from rifles or MGs. CM does model the situations where bullets do have thier most deadly impact. A large scale number crunch can not factor in non-CM situations.

Do you have any dispersion data that relates 95% areas also?

Thanks. So the Tiger I KWK was more accurate than the 88mm FLAK even when both fired the Pzgr. 39? Thats interesting. The FLAK gun is a huge firing mount. It certainly has enough mass. But the Tiger I gun is actually mounted very differently. The gun is trunioned by the very thick mantlet to the very heavy tank. The Tiger I gun also has a heavy muzzle break that may act as a vibration attenuator (or barrel stabilizer). I looked back at the ammo production and thought that it was actually not that much given training, loss through shipment/interdiction, etc. I read once that ammo supplied in front line situations usually does not exceed a 10% ratio of actually being fired at the enemy to that supplied. [ September 09, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Its sort of like saying "How many people get run over by a truck while mountain climbing?". Not very many. But you are more likely to get run over by a truck then fall screaming to your death in this life (hopefully). Troops are under arty and mortar peril in most frontline situations. Even when just dug in and sweating out another day, they have the threat of catching that low percentage over a long time. But they do not advance under directed small arms and MG fire usually every day. Small arms, during assaults and small unit actions, are very deadly (if brief) in nature. Small arms, especially rifles and MGs, are very deadly once they do hit. You have better 'strecher-odds' if hit by fragments than by MG bullets. [ September 08, 2004, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

It is worth noting that you dial in 1000m range and then point at the target bottom. If you point at the target bottom and THEN dial in 1000m, then you will be off.

British 90% zone for 17 pdr APCBC is 4.1 minutes vertical and 3.46 minutes lateral at 1000m. Compare that to 88L56 APCBC 50% zone at 1000m and see which is better. </font>

Even though the British 88mm test may be an outlier, its good shooting for foriegn troops. Its like flipping a coin 5 times and getting heads 5 times in a row. Not impossible but unlikely.

I believe it models the overlapping mantlet and turret front armor on a Tiger I. I dont think its used on any other vehicle. Note that all mantlets are not the same. A Tiger I mantlet is also the means by which the gun system is connected to the vehicle by the trunnions. The whole gun and mantlet can be taken out in one piece. Some mantlets may only be 'collared' to the gun barrel. An example would be a Elephant TD updated with a mantlet piece. Also the StuG since its gun is actually anchored to the vehciles floor like a naval weapon. The front manlet is just connected to the barrel. Like I said, hits to turrets and especially mantlets, even if non-penetrating, can seriously damage turret traverse/elevation mechanisms, signts, alignment. So gun hits are not overmodeled in the game since they can actually represent many other details besides hitting the tube itself.

Did he get Gonorrhoea from grinding his tool?

What's the point? The issue here is a firing technique where the gun is initially aimed at target bottom, and then is elevated a given amount for a 1000m shot (8.9 mils or 0.5 degrees). Is it not actually set for 1000m and THEN aimed at the target bottom? Do you think your order of procedure and this order of procedure are the same? Have you ever used the sights in Panzer Elite? In any case, I am trying to make a point about firing sensitivity to gun height. Obviously, AFV do not have altimeters. But its very clear that for a given superelevation, the distance the round will travel depends on the guns height. Since the German gunners supposedly aimed at the target bottom anyway, it can not be assumed that they were using battlefield sight. A gunner would find over time the relationship between turning his range dial and the movement that causes the triangle to go up or down (thats a hint rexford).So for an experienced gunner, he could have his range set for 800m, sight a target, and instinctively sense a range differential and point his triangles tip either lower or higher as needed. He would not dial in extra or less range but compensate for it by adjusting the position of the triangle itself.

Hulldown suggests nothing but the turret is visible, which was measured at about 0.70m from some scale models. It worked out to about one-third the total height for T34 and Shermans. Against a "hulldown" Marder, where 0.82m of the vehicle is visible over the ground, a T34 firing APBC would have a 14% first round success rate at 800m once the Marder was clearly seen. But at 800m, 0.82m of the Marder would appear to be 0.75mm tall, or 0.03", even after T34 gun sight magnification is considered. Hold out a ruler at one foot from the face and look at a 1mm line, and then picture a 0.75mm tall Marder figure poking out from behind a small hill. A 0.75mm high figure (measured at 12" from the eye) is small, and the T34's might have trouble locating the tank apart from the dust and smoke associated with the shooting, especially if there is elevated ground behind the Marder so it is not standing out against the top of a hill. Another effect is that there is no one spotting for the T34 gunner in a T34/76. The TC is also the gunner so the tank is typically buttoned up when firing. It is not easy for the gunner to pick up the tracer. Even Carius states that gunners in Tiger I often had problems due to blast or human reaction or the sight moving due to recoil. The TC was the prefered spotter and with binocs was the one who would call in corrections. Note that AFV with radio would also spot for each other or relay range info once it was determined. The two man turret is such a disadvantage in attacking and aquiring targets that it is surprising the Soviets kept it as long as they did.

60cm*30cm=278 sq in 16in * 18in = 288 sq in! I would like to see any dispersion data besides 50% zone data. I would actually like to see 95% data and compare it to 50% data.

The turret on a Panther does have a turret frontal area which is nearly vertical and vulnerable also. The curved mantlet covers the majority of the front and offers varying protection. The rather large cupula represents a sizable area also. The Panthers curved mantlet overlaps the turret frontal armor in some areas. It is akin to the Tiger I in that respect. The infamous lower curved armor of the manlet is an achilles heal and there are sufficient stories of this shot trap leading to knock-outs. The curved armor of the mantlet on the panther appears to be of varying thickness. It is thickest at its very front. Mantlets are actually part of the gun system in many cases and a hit on one can surely effect the zero of the main gun. Keeping the mantlet small would be a good design decision. The Tiger I mantlet does cover the majority of the front but would be vulnerable to hits on its outer edges throwing off the zero. Even damaging the gun system in some cases. The pigs snout mantlets are actually a good design that trys to deflect shot and not absorb its energy. The Tiger II later turret or Panther II come to mind. Keeping the front of the turret narrow and thick is optimal. Future games should address the individual complexities of AFVs to model turrets, hulls, tracks, etc better. [ September 07, 2004, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Krupp’s Main Range, Meppen For guns required to be very accurate (eg. tank and anti-tank guns), about 95 per cent of rounds fell within a rectangle 60 cm. high and 30 cm. wide on a vertical target at 1,000 metres. It was stated that the dispersion for line is less than for height. The ratio of lateral to vertical dispersion remains substantially constant at all "flat-trajectory" ranges for any gun. The angular dispersion also remains nearly constant with range in the flat-trajectory region. Herr Hengefeld, interviewed at his house in Meppen, gave the following figures for bore tolerances, which were required throughout the length of the bore 7.5 cm gun : High 7.51 cm. Low 7.50 cm. 8.8 cm. gun : High 8.81 cm. Low 8.80 cm. The shoulders of all shot were finished by centerless grinding.

Lets do some physics.. Take a Tiger I with a 2m high gun with respect to a flat plane. Use no superelevation and fire the gun parallel to the ground. 1/2Gt^2=2m, solve for t=0.64 secs, probably land about 500m away. Now for a hull down Tiger I 0.5m high weapon off a flat plane. 1/2Gt^2=0.5 t=0.32 sec The 0.5m height firer distance (downrange) is probably half the 2m high firer distance. Its gravity driven. Now if you superelevate each gun 0.5 degrees, they now will land at the same range?

Are you using the same superelevation (that is, firing at 1000m) as a 2m tall gun as a 0.5m tall gun. It would seem that there would be a shift downward all along the trajectory line which would move the '1000m' shot much shorter. Ie, it would need more superelevation then. For the case where the gun is actually at zero height, there is no correction from deptressing the barrel at targets that are closer. This effect essentially disappears. Like the StuG example above, the non dispersion gravity driven ballistic flight will exceed 2m. [ September 06, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I think a lot of people here should be in analysis. Jason does have interesting posts but does not have an engineering level of analysis. He is more a technician level. His recent 'pointing error' was an interesting addition to the first round hit debate. But his misunderstanding of what it is and how it really relates to the application was a sort of pitfall thinking that happens to people. I like it when he storms off in a huff and dismisses people (especially when he is wrong).

OK I see how the gun depression factors in. It is sort of compensating for the range. It in fact comes from the guns height. But what if the Tiger were hull down in a position where its gun height is not 2m? Lets say its 0.5m. The angle is effected by this isnt it? [ September 05, 2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The HVAP was certainly an improvement and also accurate. They may have been available for the Korean war. There was a APDS round that wasnt finished before the end of WWII. I dont know if it was in service in Korea before the end of that war. The Walker Bulldog had a 76mm and could fire... The 76mm gun fired a number of different rounds over the years, the most common in US service were the AP-T M339, HVAP-T M319, the HVAP-DS-T M331A2, the HE M352 and the canister round, M363. I believe these are all bras cased rounds, with the exception of the M331A2, which was steel. The M339 is a APBC-T shot, the M319 is a APCR-T, the M331A2 is a APDS-T and the HE M352 is a high explosive shell. In addition to these rounds, the Walker Bulldog carried around 5000 rounds of .30cal (for the later coax MG) and up to 600 rounds of .50cal for the AA MG carried up on the turret roof. In the turret were also carried a .45cal Grease Gun with ammo and usually a .30cal carbine for the driver. So if the ammo was common to Sherman 76mm then it would be available logically.

For some real hijinx, check out the latest rexford files... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=010060 I dare you not to laugh. The abovementioned trials were run in an empty house, and to see how commotion and an unfamiliar and uncomfortable setting impacted triangle estimate the model tank and tape measure were brought to the gym downstairs. The average error from the mean for the busy gym was similar to the quiet house case (about 12.5%), but the center of the gym curve resulted in the most likely shots being 10% long at the center of the curve, while the quiet house curve was centered about the actual target range. The noise, unfamiliarity and stress of the gym setting through off the accuracy, which suggests that crew experience and calmness would be important.

Tiger 88mm APCBC Gun Set at 800m 100% hit rate to 700m 50% at 800m 0% hits at 900m and 1000m My logic is that any superelevation of the Tiger I gun that is at 2m above a flat plane will not have 100% chance of a hit under these circumstances (the target is only 2m high so any superelevation will easily fly over the target if the gun is starting at 2m). The gun would technically have to start out parrallel (zero height) with the ground! This effect is short ranged though and would only effect close targets. [ September 04, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Last time I checked, gravity worked like 9.8m/s^2. So for 1/2 G t^2, we have G/2 for one second. Its about 5m drop if you let go of a 20 lb barbell off a tall building (Ok, 4.9m). If a StuG were dug in flat on the grond, 75mmL48, its AP would go about 725m in one second. It could then hit (no dispersion) most 2.5m targets out to that range. Shot goes up 2.45m and comes down 2.45m. [ September 04, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Tiger 88mm APCBC Gun Set at 800m 100% hit rate to 700m 50% at 800m 0% hits at 900m and 1000m The maximum trajectory heights for the rounds discussed in this post are: Tiger I 88mm APCBC 800m aim, 1.4m 900m aim, 1.8m 1000m aim, 2.3m The Tiger I gun is about 2m off the ground to begin with. Are you assuming a flat plane and a Tiger I dug in with its weapon flat on the ground? What do you mean by maximum trajectory height? Is it off the ground? The flight time is around the 1 second range (Perhaps slightly longer). Given a 5 m total drop in this time (2.5m up and 2.5m down) and factoring the 2 m height difference between gun height and target bottom at 800m; there will be plenty of ranges between the firer and target where 100% can not be assured. Ie the round will fly over a 2m high target at 400m. [ September 04, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

75L48 APCBC using the same firing technique with an 800m gun setting would score almost 100% hits at every range from 100m to 700m, and 50% at 800m. With a 900m gun setting the percentages would decrease from 100% at 100m to 52% at 500m, and then increase to 99% at 800m: 75L48 APCBC with 900m Aim 100m 100% 200m 100% 300m 98% 400m 61% 500m 52% 600m 71% 700m 98% 800m 99% 900m 50% Aside from Jason's claim about 'pointing error' throwing these numbers off, I would not want such a large miss percetage at 400-600m. In other words, in the case of a 75mmL48, the battlesight range that is targeted at should be shorter. Perhaps 600-800m (depends how much you buy into Jasons pointing error). In more modern weapons like the 105mm APDS rounds, the battlesight technique works out to 1500m. This is because of the very 'forgiving' flat trajectory from the high velocity round. WWII tank weapons can not achieve a firer to target guarantee but rather a band of confidence at longer ranges. A gap where hits can be assured. In the above example, its around 750m and probably +/-50m or so. This is neglecting the close in hit zone which is typically not a battlefield range to to AP. If I were in a StuG and advancing towards the enemy, and I knew that my front was vulnerable to enemy fire under 500m, I would want to be able to quickly destroy any pop up threat at this range and quickly (assuming AP loaded as per SOP and the target was armored). In other words, shift the assurance from 750 m back a couple hundred meters. The assurance band would also widen as the 'battlesight' range is moved back towards the firer (lengthening the 'flat' zone). Rexford shows it gets acceptable at this setting but I am leary of some of his calcs. [ September 04, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]