Mr. Tittles

Since the above data is for the 50% zone and is based on a bell shaped normal distribution curve, the following multipliers would be used to convert to other coverages: 50% zone includes half of the random scatter and equals the listed distance 68.26% zone equals 1.48 times the 50% zone lengths (68.26% is one standard deviation) 75% zone covers 1.71 times the 50% zone lengths 80% zone covers 1.90 times the 50% zone dimensions and includes 80% of shots 85% zone includes 2.14 times the 50% zone lengths 90% zone covers a distance 2.44 times as large as the 50% zone 95% zone covers 2.91times the 50% zone size For double dispersion, the listed 50% zone dimensions would be doubled. Did the German data state it was a bell shaped curve or are you assuming that? The 50% zone is an area. Should the first deviation be 1.48 times the 50% area? [ August 21, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Ammunition is produced in great quantities. Its possible that the older ammo could have lingered on in stockpiles and was used even though it was not being produced at that time. The Tiger I and the 88mm Flak used different firing methods (electric in Tiger, percussion in 88mm Flak) but except for fuze changes, I believe ammo could be interchanged. I have seen photos of Tiger Tanks with three different colored ammo types; black (AP), Green (HE) and yellow (evidently a Flak round). German consumption of 88mm ammunition for the Flak/Tiger program was phenomenal. Millions of rounds of 88mm were being fired every month. I find it difficult to believe that the Germans would not try to standardize the two applications of the 88mmL56 (no other vehicle used this weapon).

I think the number of Tiger Is and 88mm Flak need to be considered. There were probably never more than a few hundred Tiger Is operational at most times. 88mm Flak were in the thousands. Granted many Flak guns were guarding cities, many were also in Army field Flak battalions. My thought would be that there would be no need to continue producing a sub standard AP round. Both weapons would probably use the improved 88mm AP in the field. Any old AP would be relegated to home guard or other non-front units.

The following information is taken from Thomas Jentz's " Dreaded Threat". In 1938 the 8.8 Flak 18 was considered for firing against Ground targets, specifically armoured/concrete Pillboxes and enclosures. Armour piercing ammunition would be in service from this time onwards and consisted of the 8.8 cm Panzergranate weighing 9.5 kg (9.65kg is also stated in the text) with Armour piercing cap and ballistic cap with High explosive filler of 160 grams. Muzzle velocity is listed as 810 m/s from the L/56 barrel of the Flak 18 and Flak 36/37. During early 1942 the penetration ability was improved with the introduction of the Pzgr.39 of 10.2 kg weight with reduced HE filler of 59 grams. Muzzle velocity was 800 m/s. 30 degrees Penetration 88mm Pzgr APCBC- Early 88mm Flak Ammo 100....500.....1000.....1500......2000m 98.....93........87.......80......72mm 30 degrees Penetration 88mm Pzgr 39 APCBC- Tiger E Round 100....500.....1000.....1500....2000m 127....117.....106.......96......88mm The early Blitzkrieg up to early 1942 saw the use of the large capacity Pzgr with penetration less than 100mm at 30 degrees. In May 1941 Hitler had demanded a Tank weapon capable of penetrating 100mm at about 1500m and the improved Pzgr.39 could approach that. The 88 was retained for the Tiger I instead of installing the 75 L/70. ------------------------------------------------- In terms of 0 degree penetration, we used the slope effects in our book on WW II BALLISTICS with the 30 degree figures noted above and arrived at the following 0 degree figures for early 88mm Flak APCBC and small capacity 88mm APCBC (as used on Tiger E): 0 Degree Penetration Early 88mm Flak large HE capacity APCBC 100m...500m...1000m...1500m....2000m 123....116....108.....99.......88 0 Degree Penetration Tiger E Smaller HE Capacity 88mm APCBC 100m...500m...1000m...1500m....2000m 162....149....134.....120......109 (162).(151)..(138)...(126)....(116) (Our book) The 88mm Flak APCBC which fought the KV and T34 tanks during 1941 and early 1942 was less effective than the round fired by the Tiger E. A British firing report shows that the later 88mm Flak round with a large capacity HE burster (and 9.54 kg weight) penetrated 8% less than the Tiger E APCBC, but the above data shows about a 23% average inferiority for early 88mm Flak ammo. We believe that the early Barbarossa 88mm APCBC round not only contained a larger HE burster than the Tiger round and weighed less, but was softer steel which resulted in about an 8% drop in penetration for burster size and reduced weight, and about a 15% decrease due to less effective metal. The stories where 88mm Flak hits on KV tanks resulted in no damage may be due to nose shatter (shatter gap), which occurred with U.S. projectiles when the metal hardness fell below a given threshold and the round over penetrated the armor resistance. http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm#PENETRATION_VS._ARMOR_BASICS

http://www.germanmilitaria.com/Heer/photos/H00349.html A website with pics of SF14Z Gi (These are definetly WWII items with the grid reticle). Interestingly, the author make some mistakes. He even calls the 1/6400 number a serial number! He makes no mention of them being used as range measurement instruments. Its clear to me that the knob on the side (black knob) is used to adjust for bubble level and not rangefinding. Each eyepiece has adjustment for focus just like ordinary binos. There is no other adjustment that deals with scope except the round knob with locking device that is on the front of the device. Just how these could actually be used is a mystery.

This pic clearly shows the stereoscopic teddy bear in its splayed out employment. Notice the StuG III cupula. I would say they were FO vehciles. The scope could also be raised above the cupula rim and the TC head could be below the cupola height. Similar to the pic posted earlier of the StuG TC using SF scopes (from afv interoir website). Anyone speak Polish? http://klub.chip.pl/krzemek/pzkpfw_iv/pz4_inne.htm [ August 20, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

http://www.beobachtungsabteilung.derkessel.de/OOB.html Scissor scopes in use by counter battery. There is a photo showing them splayed out but not folded all the way down. There is also a photo looking through the right eye piece and it shows the grid overlay that could be used to judge distances. [ August 19, 2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Inside a German 250/5. Note again the middle position angle of the device. Many photos show that it is being used at an angle roughly 30-45 degrees.

75mmL24 __500__1000__1500 Dispersion __100__98___74 Firing (DD)__100__73___38 I think the casual reader should consider that these weapons WERE accurate. Think of Firing (DD or double Dispersion) as a good approximation of a second shot chance (gunner with training not stressed)... Especially at shorter ranges (not less than 500m where human factors can get excessive). Dispersion might be understood as a 3rd shot chance for competant gunners that are in control. Even a 75mmL24 could repeatbly hit a tank sized target after the third round at 1000m typically (and many tanks were larger than 2mx2.5m). After a BOT (burst on target), it could hit it almost continually! It is firing a spin stabilized massive hunk of metal. It isn't shooting spitballs with both eyes closed. I understand that rexword is trying to get to some kind of first round fudge-about. But I think that unless similar data can be found for allied guns and the odd 75mmL48 data challenged, he may have some say in future patches/games from BTS. PS I will reiterate my point made earlier. If you look at the 500m data, both are 100%. To me that means that Dispersion rounds are falling within 1 meter height delta. If we double that dispersion, then a 2m height delta still captures them. First round shots at 500m may certainly be influenced by many factors. It would not be a sure kill in any case. [ August 17, 2004, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Quite frankly, I would prefer to see the raw data. Germans are wierd when it comes to kanoodling data.

You never said they were estimated in the first post of this thread. Suggest you go back and edit. FIRST ROUND ACCURACY OF GERMAN GUNS The following hit percentages are taken from German ballistic tables (capped AP) and refer to the case where the range is known to a stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target, and the random dispersion is doubled to model battlefield conditions: Later on in the thread you explain something about converting 50% to 68% or something. And my orig claim stands then. I suggest you go back and read it. [ August 17, 2004, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Optical testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground is shown in the booklet: Ordnance School. Foreign Materiel, volume 3. (fire control instruments & sighting equipment, German & Japanese, B.C. scopes, range & height finders) Published by The Ordnance School: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, July 1943. (OS 9-61, vol. 3) 100p. This has photos, breakdown photos, and brief descriptions of use for these instruments: German: aiming circle Rkr 31; B.C. type stereoscopic telescope; range finder EM 34; illumination lamp for fire control instruments; Z.F. antitank telescope; 81mm mortar sight. Japanese: coincidence range finder 75cm base; stereoscopic height finder 2m base. This is vol. 3 of a series, the first two concerned foreign small arms & artillery. They were written for use in courses taught at The Ordnance School. Subsequent volumes were planned. (Most of the optical related work done at Aberdeen was in the realm of verifying work done and carrying any overload for Frankford Arsenal, which has been the principal site for the design, development and repair of Army optics since approximately 1921. --Earl Osborn)

No. The guns are aimed at a given range and the vertical and lateral dispersion patterns are measured and analyzed using statistics. The German ballistic tables present the 50% zone for single dispersion, the vertical and lateral distances that capture 50% of the shots. This differs from what the website says of course (Gus and Armor). I really doubt what rexfolk says.

The T34 also had an overhamging turret. This means that shots that ricochet off the sloped armor could strike the gun/turret.

I think the following need to be considered: 1. The device does NOT have to be fully splayed out to see stereoscopically. There are ample photos showing in use when it is not fully splayed out or strait up. In other words, why splay it out at all if not all the way? 2. The means of focusing the 3D image, whether fully splayed out or not, could be correlated to range. So if the same IPD was set and the operator learned the range of values that corresponded to ranges; he would have some means of determining range. basically I see the SF (not TF) lengthening the abilities of the tank crewmen from sub 1000m to out to 2000m or so.

So you dont want to tell us where you think it is?

I think the Hetzer was the correct evolution for turretless designs. Light, fuel econ, decent armor, small and easy to fix or drag away.

FIRST ROUND HIT % RANGE...50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71 500m...........81......75.....88.......79.....94 800m...........36......34.....51.......39.....61 1100m..........17......15.....28.......21.....34 1400m...........9.......7.....16.......12.....19 Why are the ranges 500, 800, 1100 and 1400? The first data was 500, 1000, 1500...etc?

So a 75mmL48 is less accurate than a 75mmL24 and also a 88mmL56 firing HEAT? The most numerous German KWK was that innaccurate? 88mmL56 HEAT Tiger I ____________500__1000__1500__2000 Dispersion ___100 __94__ 72__ 52 Firing ________98__ 62__ 34__ 20 Gun Accuracy Data The Gun Accuracy tables show the results of two types of tests: dispersion and firing. Dispersion tests show the percentage of projectiles that will hit a 2.5m × 2m target during controlled test firing. The pattern of dispersion is assumed to be centred exactly on the target. These results give a good theoretical comparison of guns and ammunition types, without considering the complicating effects of human error. Firing tests show the expected percentage of projectiles that will hit a 2.5m × 2m target by a gunner during practice firing on a gun range. It is obtained by doubling the dispersion pattern obtained from the dispersion test data. The British, Germans and Italians all considered this to be a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by troops in practice firings and, if they remained calm, in combat when the range to the target is known. 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, calm gunner, after watching tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown on subsequent shots. http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/introduction.html#Gun_Accuracy_Data [ August 16, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Where exactly do you think this dial for pupil setting is?

It has been written that the introduction of the 50mm Pak in Africa greatly extended the range of direct fire combat for tank and anti-tank gun units, and the relatively close scatter pattern and excellent gun sight quality for that weapon would be superior to the 2 pdr anti-tank gun in both respects. http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/german_accuracy3.html The reason might be better penetration but according to data, the L60 and L42 were about the same accuracy.

It could model someone carrying the rifle with grenade launcher just as you would carry a panzerfaust in addition to your personal weapon. There should be a random loss of grenades just as you might lose ammo with casualties.

You are saying that 50mmL60 is twice as accurate as a 75mmL48 at 1500m (single dispersion)? Could that 75mm data possibly be for HEAT or HE? You are then saying that after DD and range fudge, both 50mmL60 and 75mmL48 go down to 9% and 7% respective? German HEAT projectiles had muzzle velocities of less than 600m/s, and usually less than 450m/s. Although Hogg quotes various effective ranges in German Artillery of World War Two of 1,000m and more, these must be viewed with some suspicion. A report from the Infanterie-Division “Grossdeutschland” on 3 April 1943 as quoted in Jentz’ Panzer Truppen Vol 2 gives an indication of the true effective range: “Our own Panzerkopfgranate (i.e. APCBC or APCR) are exceptionally effective and amazingly accurate. However, to the contrary, due to its large dispersion the HL/B-Granaten (shaped charge shells - i.e. HEAT) is usable at a maximum range of 500 metres. If a hit is obtained at long range by expenditure of a high number of rounds, the effect of the HL/B Granate is good. However the troops have no faith in the HL/B-Granate. It is desired that the supply of Panzer-Kopfgranaten be increased.” At the time the division had 10 Pz.Kpfw.IV with 7,5cm Kw.K.37 L/24 and 75 Pz.Kpfw.IV with the longer barrelled 7,5cm Kw.K.40 L/43, as well as various other vehicles. The report quoted above indicates that the maximum effective range of Gr.38 Hl/B is 500m for these vehicles. Hits could be achieved at greater ranges but only by firing many rounds. [ August 15, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

If I understand this correctly, the guns are put in a test fixture and fired so as to get the dispersion spread against a 2 x2.5 m target? Then this dispersion is doubled (in both height/width)? And this is your double dispersion? I would expect width to be easier to hit than height. Simply because of the larger dimension. So if a single dispersion can get 10 rounds within a 1 meter height difference, centered about the middle of the vehicle, then a double dispersion might also achieve 100%? Its actually a huge error margin considering it does not account for THE biggest problem in gunnery; range estimation. I take it you fold that into double dispersion to crank out these low first shot hit probabilitys? [ August 15, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The German 75mmkwk37 (stump L24) had better numbers than the L48? I really doubt that. http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/german_accuracy5.html 75mmL24 __500__1000__1500 Dispersion __100__98___74 Firing (DD)__100__73___38 [ August 15, 2004, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]