Jump to content

lorrin

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About lorrin

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The past discussions centered on the following pro and con issues (StuG IIIG and PzKpfw IV generally carry face-hardened armor on front): A. British firing tests against 32mm/30mm layered (in contact) face-hardened armor on PzKpfw IIIH front with 37mm thru 75mm AP and APCBC results in an effective single plate resistance of 69mm for the two plates. B. American tests with 37mm thru 90mm APCBC against 30mm/50mm layered (in contact) face-hardened armor on front of PzKpfw IV shows that best test resistance is much greater than a single 80mm plate would provide C. Standard 76mm APBC fro
  2. If the Tiger 88mm is set for 800m and a target is further out, the APCBC elevation above target bottom would require the following increase in mils: 800m, 0 mils 900m, 0.94 mils 1000m, 1.94 1100m, 2.84 1200m, 3.88 1300m, 4.82 1400m, 5.90 1500m, 6.88 1600m, 7.91 1700m, 9.05 1800m, 10.08 1900m, 11.18 2000m, 12.41 A quick and dirty relationship would be to raise the target sight one mil above the normal aim point (target bottom) for every 100m above 800m that the target is estimated to be at. So if the target looks like it is 1200m, raise the triangle point so it is about 4
  3. Thanks for the response. The German gun sights worked in the following manner (from GERMAN TANKS OF WORLD WAR II, by George Forty): A. There was a range plate and a sighting plate B. The range plate had the main armament scale marked around the outside amd rotated about its own axis C. The sighting plate, which contained the triangles, moved up and down D. Both plates turned together E. To select a range the range wheel was turned until the marker was opposite the correct range F. Then the sighting mark was laid on the target using an elevating wheel and traverse T
  4. Sorry, but I don't keep them. JasonC and a few of the other regular contributors to the various discussions are the best bet. Lorrin
  5. Abovementioned report provided by Miles Krogfus after discussions on German aiming methods.
  6. "and you are showing your test/analytical inexperience." ?
  7. No, I was indicating that it is impossible to describe the 100% shot capture distance for all tests, and certainly did not indicate that it would all be done with one gun. You're reading too much into my statement. When you asked for the 100% distance you did not, to my recollection, specify a 10 shot test so I described the issue in general terms. I did post up the results for the 90% zone associated with 17 pdr APCBC, which should have answered many of your questions regarding the general validity of the German 50% zones. As an aside, when the German reports from 1943 that are
  8. The report mentioned in my first post was provided by Miles Krogfus in response to a discussion we had on German aiming procedures, range estimation and possible use of battlesight aim type techniques.
  9. Mr. Tittles, And I told you several times, and showed the procedure with numbers, where one can aim the gun at the target bottom (set triangles) and then set the range. DanielH was the first to note the constant aim/move the triangles around procedure on this forum, to my knowledge, so I mentioned his name. Lorrin
  10. A German report on aim settings and range corrections after a miss indicates that one method is to keep the range setting constant and move the aim point. This is exactly what DanielH was saying that he used in his computer wargames. The report also states that the method of "constant range/move the aim" worked well when ranges were below 1500m, but when combat ranges extended out to 1500m-3000m the method lost effectiveness and crews were advised to use artillery type bracketing with 200m changes. The above procedure would then explain why Bobby Woll and other panzer crew members would
  11. A German report dated February 4, 1944, from Panzerjagerabteilung 14, details the use of a battlesight aim procedure for 75mm Pak 40 guns (the procedure is not called battlesight aim). Various examples in the report show how aiming at a longer range than the target is estimated to be at will allow hits against targets within a range spread where the width of the spread decreases as the range increases. If the gun aims for the bottom of a 2m tall target with a range setting of 1200m and using Pzgr 40 ammunition, hits will be scored on all such targets between 855m and 1200m, which allows
  12. Agree that there are some oddball aspects to it, the Panthers at Kursk knocked out some T34's at 3000m so a sight limited to 1500m is just not right. Shows what kind of stuff is possible during wartime. We've had years to go over the stats and compare different sources, they were in a hurry sometime and hadn't been looking at different tanks for a decade or so.
  13. The British used a large number of different ballistic limits, so some variations could occur due to whether 50% of the rounds succeeded, or 80%, or one merely had to punch a small hole allowing light to pass as opposed to having 80% of the round pass through. My data is keyed to 50% success where the round makes it through with most of its mass. But 68mm/30 degrees/500 yards for the 790 m/s 6 pdr APCBC is way too low and may be a typo. 87mm at 30 degrees for 831 m/s 6 pdr APCBC seems high for rolled homogeneous armor, and could be the face-hardened figure or it could be for a lesser
×
×
  • Create New...