T-34/85 at 2252 meters (vs Jgdpz IV (late))

[Kauz]

Hello,

i remember CM:AK were 88mm guns were not able to produce more than about 8-10 % hit probability at 1300 meters. The guns/tank guns had a very limited range.

Now i was quite happy to see that in general the range increased in CM:RT.

On the other side i had the impression that tanks could quite easy/fast find the correct range/aiming in CM:RT .....

I wanted to get some impressions about:

- time or no. of shots to get right range

- penetration power (here: 85mm gun)

- armor quality (here: Jgdpz IV late)

For a start:

I had a single occasion which made me extreme curious.

Set-up:

T-34/85 late is on open field on a topography-level of 5

he faced on a distance of about 2100 meter a Jagdpanzer IV (late) on a topography-level of 30.

In front of the JpzIV is an area of topography-level 31.

The JpzIV is set up a way on the ridge that his hull is completlly down ("spotter is hull down") and that he can barely see and fight the T-34/85.

In following picture you see what it is like from a point of view of the T-34...

I zoomed in maximum (the distance to the ridge peak topo-level 31 is 2200 meter...the Jgdpz IV is about 2250)meter:

http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3660/edo4hydi_jpg.htm

In the first test the distance was about 2100 meter and not 2250 meter.

The following happened:

A standard 85mm round hit the Jagdpanzer IV (late) ...look at following screenshot for more description:

Test 1:

http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3660/6hmfd6vi_jpg.htm

Test 2:

After that "experience" (the Test 1) i set up a similar situation but on 2252 meter and the T-34/85 late became a MEGA-ROOKIE:

Experience: conscript (Wehrpflichtiger)

Motivation: Poor (schwach)

Fitness: Unfit (Unfit)

Leadership: -2

Supply: Full

Headcount: Full

Vehicle statur: OK

Apearance: standard

The following picture gives you a detailed result of the fire behaviour:

http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3660/foklih7m_jpg.htm

Conclusions:

A)

Even if you take a complete Rookie like this conscript T-34/85 and let him fire against a complete hull down, low silhoutte Jagdpanzer IV (late) at 2252 meters you can easy find the right range.

You can see (last screen shot) that the gunner already has a good aiming at the second shot and finally at the third shot he is able to perform accurate like at all other shots following after.

The exponential "learning curve" should in my opinion rise not so fast...because:

-The bad/average optics (not working with "theorem of intersecting" like the german counterparts) should make range finding more difficult.

-The range itself should make range-finding difficult too.

-And last but not least the Crew...which was conscript, low motivated and bad guided (leadership) should ensure also that range finding becomes more difficult.

There is only avery little variation (even counting the rounds flying above) sidewards(from the left to the right) from the center of the tank.

Does anyone know if this is accurate for the 85mm gun at 2250 meters????

C)

Like in my "Test 1" there was again a quite weird experience with penetration.

The sidewards orientation between Jgdpz. IV(late) to T-34/85 was only some degree.

The more weird the Hit/shot no. 7 (look screenshot) is a very "funny" impact and i wonder the same way (like in my Test 1)how that could penetrate and doing damage.

As a housenumbre i kept in mind (according to CM:BB) that the 85mm could penetrate @2250meter about 39mm at 60°, 70mm at 30°; 74mm at 0°

According to the manual the Jagdpanzer IV late has 80mm (and angle of the superstructure of 50°).*

The hit at or next to the Saukopfblende is interessting too.

On the other side i just wondered why the HE hit at the sight/optic slit (no.18) did not cause any effect/damage. I do not know if the destroyed optics were due to this hit....

But optics and radio are nontheless always the first things which get damaged and destroyed in this game....no matter where the impacts of the rounds are.

*I find it hard to explain how a round with that performance has any chance being able to penetrate in the situation of "Test 1" and the "Test 2" (shot no. 7).... not to mention doing further damage (Test 1: crew kill, flames, rear armor penetration; Test 2: Crew people kills, motor destroyed)

[Kauz]

Additonally two screenshots:

Details of the hit decal:

http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3660/qjmukxfq_jpg.htm

Here a screenshot from the bullets points of view:

http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3660/lm54r45f_jpg.htm

[Vanir Ausf B]

I can't make heads or tails of this regarding what flaws in the game all that is supposedly showing except that you have seen a single instance of a conscript T-34 getting a hit on the 3rd shot at 2200 meters and you feel that in reality this would be impossible for some reason, although you don't provide any actual evidence for why that would be impossible.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Additonally two screenshots:

Details of the hit decal:

http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3660/qjmukxfq_jpg.htm

Here a screenshot from the bullets points of view:

http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3660/lm54r45f_jpg.htm

What did the hit text say on that impact?

[akd]

I can't make heads or tails of this regarding what flaws in the game all that is supposedly showing except that you have seen a single instance of a conscript T-34 getting a hit on the 3rd shot at 2200 meters and you feel that in reality this would be impossible for some reason, although you don't provide any actual evidence for why that would be impossible.

Fourth shot, in fact.

T-34-85 had good optics.

Whether lower experience levels has sufficient effect on gunnery is an open question that would require much more testing.

[Kauz]

I can't make heads or tails of this regarding what flaws in the game all that is supposedly showing except that you have seen a single instance of a conscript T-34 getting a hit on the 3rd shot at 2200 meters and you feel that in reality this would be impossible for some reason, although you don't provide any actual evidence for why that would be impossible.

The first hit was the 4th round....not the 3rd.

I only said the the 3rd round had same accuracy like later shots ...if you look at the picture i posted

I guess in the game an exponential learning curve (range finding process) is implemented which always work the same way....

In general....:

-I leave it open to discussion if a conscript T-34 should be able to find the correct range after the second round he shot (at a distance of 2250 meters).

-I leave it also open to discussion if the sidewards spread of the 85mm rounds should be that small.

-And i leave it also open to discussion if the two penetrations at (Test 1: and Test 2 shot no. 7) should be possible.... Especially at these points ....

I kept in mind that germans tried to fight russian tanks at 1000-1500meters if they can with their tank-hunters, tanks and anti -tank -guns...because they could hit and destroy on the one side....and the russians had problems to hit (find range) and destroy the germans on the other side.

The germans prefered to retreat before letting themselve overrun and loose their range advantage. Thats why the germans only very very very late produced tank kills with Panzerfaust and Panzerschrecks.

I guess the Jgdpz IV late was not build for handling T-34/76 (for that purpose the StugIII were enough, especially at medium and high ranges).

The Jgdpz IV late were more like build to handle T-34/85. But if he has even problems to survive at 2250 meter on a high ridge with hull down...then i ask myself why the germans build it....

But ok....i let this open to discussion, too

What did the hit text say on that impact?

I already wrote it in my posted screenshot...here again:

http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3660/foklih7m_jpg.htm

The message of No.7 was "Aufbau Front Wanne-penetration"....means "Superstructure Front Hull-penetration"

[Amizaur]

I guess the game assumes some gunner ranging error at then start and then it's reduced every next shot, and soon (3rd shot?) it's reduced simply to zero. Such modelling works very well IMO at ranges of about 1000m, but from above test it would seem that it's not enough to modell long range gunnery.

To correct that, it could be changed in a way that at longer ranges it would have to take more shots to reduce ranging error to zero, for example 5 shots for 2000m ect.

Or - IMO a better and more realistic way to modell it - the ranging error could be exponentially reduced by some % every shot (randomised a bit up or down) but never really reach zero. This way at long ranges even small 5-10% range error remaining after initial 2-3 shots would still count and ranging error would have to be reduced in further few shots to achieve actual direct hits.

On the other hand at a range of 1000m such small error (like 5%) would be not important and direct hits (although no precise hits in center of mass) would be possible from 2-3 shot. Sounds realistic.

The whole issue needs more testing and a serie of at least 100 shots would be needed to draw any conclusions.

Two words of advice for Kauz and other testers:

- make several lanes on your testing range (T-34/85 and a target) OR restart the scenario for each single test

(I found it most convenient for me to restart the test scenario from a saved game, with everything set up and ready for specyfic test - targets spotted, orders given).

DO NOT set one shooter and several targets when testing first-shot accuracy and ranging efficiency.

It's because the shooting tank "remembers" the range setting used in the last shooting and it's starts shooting at the next (close by) target with correct range and full accuracy.

How to note and interpret the results ? Several methods are possible, each one holding little different information.

You could note number of shots to get first hit in each single test - the information that is most interesting for you - but as the spread of shells at 2000m is considerable, tank can miss even with range-error reduced to zero.

Better would be to make a table and note hit/miss or the first 5 or 10 shots, and then after collecting 100 results, from this table you can get much more info - average numbers of shots to hit, accuracy of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ect shot, and from that we can deduct how the ranging error is reduced - it's after some number of shots when the accuracy reaches it's max and it's constans afterwards.

P.S. ---> Kunz - the gunsight of a T-34/85 was in most ways technically not worse in any way from PzIV sight or early Panther sight. It has similar field of view, had similar (but more simply realised) moving scales for aiming, had all the lateral mils scales needed for range estimation. The sight graticule had everything a Tiger sight graticule had, although it was drawn different.

Rangefinding using T-34/85 gunsight:

If we talk about older Russian sight, they were not a simple cross too - had all needed lateral scales that could be used for range estimation too, if trained for, only placed less conveniently so not as quick to use:

T-34/76 sight or early T-34/85 gunsight look:

T-26 era gunsight:

The difference would be in quality of glass and manufacturing. The picture would be not as clear and not as bright as in German sights - but on a bright day in an open field it wouldn't make much difference (if at all) when targeting tanks in the open. Some say the picture could be not clear at the edges of FOV, only center of FOV being clear. Maybe in early war, 1942-1943 tanks. After all, Russians bought in 1930's a whole Zeiss factory equipment and licences, so they could make optical devices not worse than Germans did 5-10 years before. And beside improvements of anti-reflection layers, I believe there were no breaktroughs in optical designs in those years. Pre-war Russian optics were of good quality, it dropped considerably at the beginning of the war (mass production, relocation of factories) but improved again later, just as quality of everything else. Not German level, but good enough. It's hard to imagine for me HOW POOR would have to be quality of gunsight to seriously affect fire accuracy at ranges of 1000-1500m. The few pieces of old Russian optical devices (binoculars, gunsights) I looked trough were just normal - I could get sharp view and observe things at any range. There were no magical "fog" effect that would prevent me from seeing sharp at 2000m. The only limitation on long ranges was the small magnification of the sight, but it was exactly same for most German sights - 2.5x magnification in PzIV was even less than 4x magnification in T-34/85.

I have a Russian war-time mass produced artillery sight and the picture is as good and clear as in any mass produced optical device - like binoculars or telescopes you can buy today. So definitely good enough.

I know some German sights had somewhat more clear and sharp view (like in an expensive binocular/telescope), but this is really advantageous only on extreme ranges and in poor light conditions. On a clear day on average tank-duel ranges - no practical difference IMO. I hane not seen any easily noticeable difference. I have no perfect eyesight (slight astigmatism), maybe a person with eagle-eyesight would notice a difference on long ranges, don't know.

If someone have such a "poor" Russian war-time gunsight or binoculars have looked trough such "poor" gunsight, please share your experience.

As for popular beliefs that better German optics should mean better spotting at ranges in game like 1000-1500m - people, come on, use some common sense !

Spotting was made mainly by commander eyes, either using binoculars (longer ranges) or by using naked eye. Other crewmembers (if free from other duties) could spot too - also with naked eyes.

Spotting a target by a gunner using it's gunsight was rather uncommon, as he had very narrow field of view. If the German gunner scanned for targets using gunsight it was because he had no other way to spot (or see). Anyway - commander's binoculars were much better at spotting long range targets that gunner's sight.

If naked eye was used - German naked eye is in no way better than Russian naked eye ! So if both tanks had a separate commander performing naked eye spotting, we can assume both were spotting equally good. It's just a personal ability to have good eyesight and ability to spot things. This ability could only further depend on combat experience (so CM creqw quality, equally for both sides).

If more (unbuttoned) crewmembers were spotting, the probability of target detection could be higher (or time to detection shorter), especially at short range (more pairs of eyes looking in different directions).

If a commander's binoculars were used, again - do we really believe that average German military binoculars were so much better than average Russian military binoculars that it affected target spotting ability at ranges of 1000-2000m ? I would say that in a clear bright day the difference would be very small when detecting tanks at distyances of 500-2000m (detecting a camuflaged AT gun from distance is another thing).

From extremally long ranges some German commanders could use scissors-type artillery binocular sigh, with great magnification and stereoscopic view, that's a tool for spotting, but that would be practical only at really long ranges, at average ranges scanning using binoculars would be faster and more efficient. (the most important advantage of scissors-type binoculars was that it allowed commander to remain protected while scanning, in situations when enemy snipers were a threat).

So I find it strange, that in my shooting tests unbuttoned T-34s have hard time spotting German tanks at all in an open field from 1000m (!), when Germans (PzIV) are spotting them much more easily. Are Russian binoculars so bad in the game ? In an open field anyone can easily spot a tank from 1000m, no binoculars needed ! (only for identification). Those Russians probably all have medical eyes/sight problems...

What WAS worse in Russian optical devices:

- much worse quality of "armored glass" for vision slots - it was often dark, coloured and gave no clear view.

- Russian observation periscopes like PT-1 were very primitive devices, I heard of them being made from two polished metal plates as a mirrors. The view quality was said to be limited. It was rather to be used at close and medium ranges while staying protected (no magnification, wide FOV, rotating 360deg), for long range spotting the quality of view would be much worse than unbuttoned naked eye.

It definitely was not as good as German true periscope devices with glass mirrors.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I guess in the game an exponential learning curve (range finding process) is implemented which always work the same way....

I am not sure what you mean when you say it "always work the same way". If you mean that the same number of ranging shots are always needed given the same parameters (crew experience, range, ect.) then that is not at all true.

In general....:

-I leave it open to discussion if a conscript T-34 should be able to find the correct range after the second round he shot (at a distance of 2250 meters).

In my opinion, yes, at least on occasion. I see no reason why it would be impossible.

-I leave it also open to discussion if the sidewards spread of the 85mm rounds should be that small.

I have no opinion on that at the moment. You would first of all need a larger sample of hits, then get a rough measure of the lateral dispersion, then compare that to a dispersion table for the ZiS-S-53 gun if you can find one.

-And i leave it also open to discussion if the two penetrations at (Test 1: and Test 2 shot no. 7) should be possible.... Especially at these points ....

I will do some testing. I have previously tested Soviet 85mm vs the JPz IVs at 500 meters and found the chance of penetration through the 80mm superstructure to be roughly 50%, which would suggest penetration at 2000 meters would be impossible. However, I was using an earlier version of the T-34/85 than you did which may have uncapped AP ammunition. I will test with the "late" to make sure it is APBC.

[Vanir Ausf B]

So I find it strange, that in my shooting tests unbuttoned T-34s have hard time spotting German tanks at all in an open field from 1000m (!), when Germans (PzIV) are spotting them much more easily. Are Russian binoculars so bad in the game ? In an open field anyone can easily spot a tank from 1000m, no binoculars needed ! (only for identification). Those Russians probably all have medical eyes/sight problems...

There is a huge amount of variability in spotting in-game. I would caution against any conclusions based on anecdotal observations.

[Sgt Joch]

I have nothing constructive to add, except to say I am glad Vanir is now a Beta Tester.

[Oddball_E8]

Just a casual observation here, but Kauz, you never seem to have any complaints about germans being overpowered.

Every time you bring something up it seems to either be about russians being overmodeled, or germans being undermodeled.

And you seem to draw pretty stereotyped conclusions about the russians in general (fx. claiming that the T-34/85 had "bad/average optics", which is not true)

Just an observation.

As for the thread, I don't see the problem.

You have a tank firing at a stationary target at long range.

The tank would figure out the range pretty quickly, even without much training.

Even a conscript tank gunner would have had at least a cursory explanation of how to judge distances against enemy targets (at least this late in the war).

After 2-3 ranging-shots you should be hitting the target.

Even a conscript should be hitting after that number of shots against a stationary target, even at those ranges.

As for sideways movement, did you take any notice of the wind direction and strength in this experiment of yours?

Because unless it was windy and blowing crosswinds, the winds would not have made much difference in sideways accuracy against a standing target like that.

I can't speak for the penetration of the 85mm or where it hit, but I'm sure someone else will come along and discuss that.

I'm still waiting for you to make a post about how any piece of russian equipment is undermodeled... But somehow, I seriously doubt you'll do that

[Amizaur]

There is a huge amount of variability in spotting in-game. I would caution against any conclusions based on anecdotal observations.

I have repeated several times the same test with 10 lanes of T-34/76 vs some German tank, and always the T-34 were on average spotting worse than let's say PzIV.

To draw definite conclusions I would have to repeat those tests making sure the crews were of equal quality and all else being equal too.

P.S. Seems I was wrong. I tested this again using PzIVs, T-34/85 and T-34/76.

Seems that unbuttoned spotting is more or les equal for both sides at 1000m. All regulars.

(Possibly T-34/76 was a little worse unbuttoned that T-34/85 and PzIV, but it could be just a glitch. Or maybe it's effect of 4 man crew ?)

While buttoned, the PzIV had some advantage over T-34/85, the T-34/76 from 1942 Early was outclassed completly - it had problems to detect any Germans at all at 1000m buttoned.

Spotting while buttoned was done head-on. Would be interesting to set tanks side by side at 1000m and see if there is any difference (no gunsight used for spotting).

When I noticed a difference in testing, Russian side had to be buttoned or the crew quality was different.

P.S. Spotting to the side while buttoned is MUCH better for Germans (PzIV) than for Russians (T-34) - at 1000m range.

I think it's ok considering better quality of German armored glass in commander's cupola vision slots and poor quality of Russian observation periscopes.

[Vanir Ausf B]

To really test tank spotting accurately you need to pick one model of tank and have everything attempt to spot that model rather than vs. each other so as to avoid an apples to oranges problem since some vehicles are more difficult to spot than others due to differences in silhouette. At ranges of 1000+ meters you will typically need around 150 to 300 data points per test (depending on how large the difference is) to factor out the random noise.

[Macisle]

Thanks for the interesting information, Amizaur.

I'm currently playing a very large SP QB where I have two companies of PIVs vs a large horde of T34/76s mixed among buildings and foliage patches.

At 1000+ meters, I can basically just bring up the PIVs in open ground and let them annihilate any T34s they spot--which they usually do pretty quickly.

All units of both sides are "Typical." The PIV feels like a wonder weapon at long range. I haven't lost one yet to the T34/76s at 1K+ meters.

[Vanir Ausf B]

T-34/85 late vs. JPz IV late at 2000 meters. I did not attempt to replicate Kauz's differing elevations or hull down status. All vehicles are at the same elevation to make calculations simple.

Superstructure Front Hull (the upper most section)

80mm thick at 50°

Hits: 22

No damage: 22

Upper Front Hull

80mm thick at 45°

Hits: 51

No damage: 51

Mantlet

80-130mm thick, rounded

Hits: 17

No damage: 17

Lower Front Hull

50mm thick at 55°

Hits: 19

No damage: 0

Spalling: 11

Partial Penetration: 6

Penetration: 2

______

I'm not seeing any problems here*. Kauz, if you have a test that shows regular penetrations of the superstructure front hull or upper front hull at angles of impact greater than what I tested at post the save file and I will take a look at it. That would be a very strange thing given my results. If it was a once time event then I'd chalk it up to a weak point penetration.

* There were a number of penetrations of the deck armor from top hits which probably should not be happening given the extremely shallow angle (angle of decent at 2000 meters is 1.3 degrees). This is not an issue unique to any particular vehicle and was reported as a possible bug (not by me) a while ago.

[Oddball_E8]

I'm not seeing any problems here*. Kauz, if you have a test that shows regular penetrations of the superstructure front hull or upper front hull at angles of impact greater than what I tested at post the save file and I will take a look at it. That would be a very strange thing given my results. If it was a once time event then I'd chalk it up to a weak point penetration.

* There were a number of penetrations of the deck armor from top hits which probably should not be happening given the extremely shallow angle (angle of decent at 2000 meters is 1.3 degrees). This is not an issue unique to any particular vehicle and was reported as a possible bug (not by me) a while ago.

Could it be possible that the angle of decent is actually higher in the game than it is in real life?

I posted some videos in another of Kauz's threads about that and it does look like it's higher than 1.3 degrees in the game (to me anyway).

Could it be that the arc of a shot is higher in the game for some reason?

[Sardaukar]

Could it be possible that the angle of decent is actually higher in the game than it is in real life?

I posted some videos in another of Kauz's threads about that and it does look like it's higher than 1.3 degrees in the game (to me anyway).

Could it be that the arc of a shot is higher in the game for some reason?

That is very possible. I have seen some "odd curveballs", but not made any tests on this. Don't even know how to test that anyways.

[Amizaur]

To really test tank spotting accurately you need to pick one model of tank and have everything attempt to spot that model rather than vs. each other so as to avoid an apples to oranges problem since some vehicles are more difficult to spot than others due to differences in silhouette. At ranges of 1000+ meters you will typically need around 150 to 300 data points per test (depending on how large the difference is) to factor out the random noise.

You are absolutely right, but I didn't mean to do a "proper" testing, just to check if my observations were true or false. Even short dedicated test has shown that I was wrong and that unbuttoned spotting is "about the same" for PzIV and T-34, this is all wanted to know .

[Amizaur]

Could it be possible that the angle of decent is actually higher in the game than it is in real life?

I posted some videos in another of Kauz's threads about that and it does look like it's higher than 1.3 degrees in the game (to me anyway).

Could it be that the arc of a shot is higher in the game for some reason?

Any shell trajectory watched along it's path on a high zoom setting will look like a seriously curved one, when in fact it's descending at mere 1.5deg or so. It's just effect of zoom I think.

It looks like that in any game, and probably in real life too - watching trough the sight it seems that the shell is dropping at the target from above at a "high angle".

[c3k]

Testing: A single odd instance is worth testing to see if there is something wrong. The tests I run usually involve 50 lanes. EVERY variable has to be taken into account and removed, if possible. I'll run from 5 to 20 iterations. I'll log them in a spreadsheet and run some stats on them.

Then I'll change ONE variable. Run that the same number of iterations and compare it to the baseline.

That produces solid, actionable, data. Or not. If not, then I had an aberration.

Just food for thought. (It takes a week or two to dig into one issue. At least. Sucks when I screw up the baseline and have to start over.)

[Oddball_E8]

Any shell trajectory watched along it's path on a high zoom setting will look like a seriously curved one, when in fact it's descending at mere 1.5deg or so. It's just effect of zoom I think.

It looks like that in any game, and probably in real life too - watching trough the sight it seems that the shell is dropping at the target from above at a "high angle".

Not zoomed in:

[Vanir Ausf B]

Could it be that the arc of a shot is higher in the game for some reason?

Sure. If you have a protractor you could try measuring the angle on your screen right before impact. But I think the tracer graphic is only a close approximation to what the game uses internally.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Just food for thought. (It takes a week or two to dig into one issue. At least. Sucks when I screw up the baseline and have to start over.)

For me it depends on what the question is that I am trying to answer, how much random variation there is and how certain I need to be of the results. If I want to quantify the difference in the spotting ability between two different vehicles then hundreds of data points are necessary because the differences may be small and there is a lot of randomness involved. If I want to know if it is normally possible for projectile X to penetrate plate Y at range Z, yes or no, and the first 22 data points all say "nope" I can be reasonably sure that 500 more data points won't change the answer since there is far less randomness in armor penetration.

[John Kettler]

It probably doesn't directly affect the particulars under examination here, but I believe a significant aspect of the German tactical superiority of the German over the Russians lay in crew training, especially live fire. The tanker and SPG accounts at www.IRemember.ru are quite clear that the T-34 series tankers got to fire, at most, three live rounds before being sent straight to battle or to the factory to work on/pick up their tanks, then off to battle.

I don't have the German training standards handy, but I feel safe asserting the Panzer crews got vastly more gunnery training than that. This was almost certainly a driver in the lopsided kill ratios recorded. Even with optics factored out, the typical Panzer crew was far better trained, also better fed, than the typical Russian tank crew and therefore performed better. The Germans, in other words, got more actual combat value from every tank which made it to the battlefield than did the Russians.

In terms of the issue under discussion here, it stands to reason that a crew with better training and better optics would spot better, would find the range more quickly and deliver killing fire in consequence. This without factoring in the well-attested German advantage of smokeless flashless powder, which makes German tank firing harder to spot in the first place.

Regards,

John Kettler

[gcrain]

After 2-3 ranging-shots you should be hitting the target.

Even a conscript should be hitting after that number of shots against a stationary target, even at those ranges.

I can't speak for the penetration of the 85mm or where it hit, but I'm sure someone else will come along and discuss that.

I disagree, given the cost difference I do not think a Conscript should be able to zero in the range that quickly at that extreme distance.

I also don't think it should be able to penetrate at that range but here I would also say more tests are needed. There seems to to be a very small chance of firing a magic bullet that will penetrate no matter how unlikely it seems.