Mr. Tittles

I would have liked to see a ATG fired while the legs were in the air!

M19 Maschinengranatwerfer http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1381

1. Its dark 2. Whats the range? 3. Whats the target height/width? 4. Are they moving? 5. they were close misses? </font>

There are actually several interesting subjects going on. I think the starting subject has taken on the following: High first shot probability at short to medium ranges for 75mm+ HV weapons. Some claim 90% out to 1000m (Panther). My contention is that this 90% only applys to stationary targets. It would be reduced for hull down or targets that shoot n scoot or use other movement IMNHO. But the bottom line is that these 75mm+ high velocity weapons had the ability to score high first round hits out to ranges that are typical in CM. Other interesting topics are: Zeroing: this means setting the gun/sight system using a measured (surveyed) range and target height/width. I think the game assumes zeroing or it can be abstracted through crew status (green/vet/etc) Bracketing: long range fire method that would use more ammo. In game terms, it would allow a platoon's tanks to share aquisition (see below) IF they had radios. It would cut down on the depletion of ammo for little gain seen in the current game system. Aquisition: (not to be confused with zeroing) so that an aquired target range data can be transfered to a new target that is reasonably close. The game does this but perhaps should make it transferable up to 100 meters or so or dependant on other variables. [ February 12, 2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/TIGER-1%20FILES/tigerfibel.pdf Tiger Bible in PDF, downloadable

Some Panther pages... http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/pzkpfw_v.html http://www.waffenhq.de/panzer/kwk42.html http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/panther/panther.htm bazooka vs Panther test http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html http://www.waffenhq.de/panzer/kwk42.html 57mm vs Panther http://www.100thww2.org/support/77657mm.html cutaway view of Panther http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/panther/panther_inside.htm Panther driver manual http://www.panzerdiesel.com/data/e/29p.html panther in Action http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/pzpanther/pzpanther-inaction.html

What were you saying about incomprehensibility and unfathomability again? You are laughable. You want some big blow up but under the pretense that you care so much about the thread/redwolf/etc. You are just a rabble-rouser. You are transparently phony and come off as a pompous load to boot. [ February 12, 2004, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Apology accepted. But I think its clear that JonS has a need to focus on me instead of the thread. He has done it in the past and its usually annoying at best. Maybe Simon has vented and feels better. Who knows. But a good bet is that JonS will tally up all my posts and do differential equations on the stats (cause its real important for him to do that). Not that he is obsessive or anything. [ February 12, 2004, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Gee it must be late and the beer must be flowing in a certain colonies around the west pacific. Perhaps you can do a search in the threads and see if anyone found my posts interesting? Generally I avoid the Afrika Korp forum because it is over run with sub-10000 barflys with attitudes. The real grogs hang out in the CMBB threads.

I guess if you really cared to understand, you could perhaps ask for clarifications. But probably you just needed a venue to use a word like nous to impress yourself (or all the others that you are concerned about). Eh. It doesnt really matter. If you think Jason's last post makes all that much sense, then God be with you. I think redwolf clearly waffled. But I can agree with a point he has without being a big poof like you need to be. Is there anything else you need to 'add'? We could get a nice milkbox for you to stand on... You can call me more names and impress yourself to death. Grogspam. Yeah, pat yourself on the back for that one. What a yahoo.

Actually I employ a technically proficient mind that I back up with sufficient data that is available over the internet. Somehow, to ranting self-posessed posters, finding information over the internet is a point of derision. a time-locked archaic dusty book still holds their fascination I suppose. In any case, you are so welcome to share anything besides your hissy-fits Mr. Simon. Your posting style is award winning I suppose. The Ranting Troll: a time honored internet character. [ February 12, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

If the 88L56 had the smallest dispersion then its test data does not show it. Both the Panther gun and Tiger I gun show 100% accuracy at 500 and 1000 meters. But at 1500 meters the Tiger I is 98 and the Panther 100. At 2000 meters the Panther is 92 and the Tiger I 87%. If it had such a tight shot group, it would have to outperform the Panther gun in the test. How do you define this scatter? Do you have any source for this?

redwolf's new name is redwaffle. I do agree that the game engine does not transfer the range intelligence as well as it should. I also think the game undermodels hulldown as far as difficulty in gauging the range of a HD vehicle. Also oversizing it so that it gets more hits/spots. The game probably also does not reflect the difficulty in hitting a moving target very realistically. Tanks have 3 speeds. One is a crawl, another is balls out and the other is road march. Crawling is used when getting a hull down and approaching a position while searching targets. Balls out is when other weapons are covering your advance, you can not fire effectively so limiting exposure time is a good idea. You just rush to a new forward position. Road march is just a column movement that limits vehicle wear. [ February 12, 2004, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

But you said that nothing matters once a Tiger gets a hit, its all over 'cause they can't miss after they get a hit. Why would you need any environmental conditions or anything else?

1. Its dark 2. Whats the range? 3. Whats the target height/width? 4. Are they moving? 5. they were close misses?

IMHO, the reported messes the Tigers did comes from the fact that once they got the range they wouldn't miss anymore. This is a silly statemment and goes against even the test data posted. At long range, even if a Tiger got a BOT (burst on Target), that is no assurance that a followup round (even on the same vehicle) will guarantee a another hit. I think you fully fail to grasp the simple physical/engineering problems being discussed.

Bracketing means the following: When firing at a target, rounds are seen to go short and long. This is usually at long range beyond the flat trajectory of the weapon. This is usually at a range that there is round to round dispersion (from many factors or 'stack-up'). Even in controlled tests, 88mm/75mmL70 would not hit a tank sized target repeatably at 2000m. They would, probably, miss by a very small distance. And the AP round missing the target probably still had damaging effects but a miss by a foot was as good as a mile. A platoon drill would be for one vehicle to get a bracket on a target, relay the range to the other platoon vehicles and then platoon fire would commence. This would then bring the target under concentrated probability (since many near-misses can translate to some hits instead). The main thing is that the target stay stationary. Platoon fire would often cause enemy vehicles to pull back or find a new position. Depending on ammunition supply available, this type of engagement may be prohibited. It could easily use up a dozen rounds for a single long range hit. [ February 11, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Red Me thinks you are Heavy on guessing/opinion and light on data/facts. I will take much of what you say as unsupported opinion. And maybe you need to worry about all the data (presented here) that contradicts your guessing. The battlefield basics (in order) are: 1. Is the weapon zeroed? (not bracketed which is different). 2. Is the range estimation close? 3. Is the target fully exposed (hull up) or moving. 4. If the target is stationary, and there is a miss, can the error be judged? (long/short or right/left). Can rounds bracket the target? [ February 11, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html This website has accuracy data for the Panther gun which can be compared with the website above. The Panther gun is slightly better in these controlled tests. The Tiger did have a more effective HE round making it a better ATG destroyer. Redrolfss claims about first round hits not being important, etc are wrong. In short, medium ranges; first round hits are very important. It allows a tank to rapidly destroy an enemy. Tanks are mobile targets. Bracketing (which he calls zeroing..which is different) is important for longer ranges (which eats up ammo and will not, by the way, assure a hit). Platoon fire at long range is needed for a couple of reasons. One is to rapidly destroy the target through shared information. The other is to destroy the target before it starts moving, which is the best defense a target can take when under long range fire. If tigers had ammo to burn, they could engage in long range fires against stationary targets. But to open fire at moving targets at long range is wasteful. A moving tank is very little threat as it can not use its weapons effectively. [ February 11, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The 75mm KwK 42 L70 was an excellent gun: it was very accurate thanks to his flat trajectory and hard hitting (it penetrated a vertical 170mm plate at 1,000 meters). The use of Pz.Gr.Patr. 40/42 (APCR round, initial muzzle speed of 1,120 m/s) gave excellent results against the heavist enemy tank. Lt. Berger, from Grossdeautschland remembered: "At ranges of 1,000 meters we reckoned with 90 percent hits. Normally a hit, would result in the destruction of an enemy vehicle, even Stalin's' heavy tanks. We, however, had supply problems with the high performance Pz.Gr.Patr. 40/42 ... Firing with HE rounds gave similar accuracy, but the impact was significantly inferior to the 88mm rounds ..."

I am addressing the accuracy (precision) of the weapon. I made no comment about the accuracy of the range estimation. When zeroing a weapon, a known distance is surveyed. In the german case, 1000 m range is surveyed and used. Its got nothing to do with the gunners estimating abilities. The point is that the weapon had the precision to repeatably hit a target (2m x 2.5 m) at that range. It could get a shot group on that target and the adjustments on the weapon system could move that shot group (predictably). The shot group is then zeroed in. I have shown at least a dozen people how to zero in a rifle. The first criteria is a shot group. If they cant get a shot group, then move the target closer till they can. There is no point in making sight adjustments till this is possible. If the shot group is not repeatable, then they cant shoot period. Once a shot group is obtained (and repeated several times), then adjustments are made and the shot group should move towards the center. Once this is obtained, move the target further away. At a point, your shot group gets dispersed. Its then not adjustable. hopefully, most strikes will still be on the target area in general. Range estimation is a very real variable as is the target motion (in WWII). As others have pointed out, the precision in range estimation needed is decreased with higher velocitys. So a target at 1000 meters can be +/-200 m in some cases and the ability to get a hit is not substantially reduced. But the first step is to have a weapon zeroed at that range. This is basic stuff. [ February 11, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/tiger1.htm This website has good info that was posted here but in easier to read tables, etc.

Steel Inferno pg 86-87 Sherbrooke Fusiler lost 21 tanks with 7 more damaged..12thSS lost 9 MkIV.. Their fire discipline was of the highest order.. onl;y 40 rounds of AP fired. A snippet but still revealing. In any regards, a much better indicator than Jason's production number crunchies. Another AP usage factor is over-kill. In reality, you fire till the therat is burning. The first few rounds may have already damaged/destroyed/abandoned the vehicle but its best to absolutely destroy it (make it burn). This is especially true at longer ranges (which also requires extra ammo anyway). The game under models hitting stationary targets. The game does not model hull down as it should be. [ February 11, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I think Jason's top down analysis makes no sense. Here are production stats for German 75mm AP.. 7,5-cm Pzgr. 39 (42)262,500 (43)1,924,000 (44)1,906,500 (45)82,000 There is no way to determine how many were fired from guns, on the battlefield, at live targets. So many were used in training, lost in transit, captured, destroyed by weather, blown up in vehicles, etc. It really is a weak argument. It is my contention that HV guns 75mm+ when firing at hull up AFV targets (using solid shot) under 1000m are very accurate. If the target is not moving, then the chance of a hit is very good. Jason's last paragraph makes no sense. Its like saying to a sniper, Just dont worry about accuracy, fire a lot, you will hit something (and dont worry about return fire). [ February 11, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I believe the Germans zeroed their tank guns at 1000m. This means they had to be able to repeatably hit the target and adjust the weapon at this range.