Nashorn

[wadepm]

That does not sound right. Right?

[bobo]

That does not sound right. Right?

I wonder. Recreated at 2500m and still the FO saw the T-34s but the Nashorn did not. Next up 2000m.

Bobo

[Michael Emrys]

Oh dear, the dreaded Nashorn jinx has struck again. Somebody at BFC must really hate them.

Michael

[sburke]

zoom in and make sure your gunner isn't Marty Feldman

[Michael Emrys]

Or wears glasses with very thick lenses.

Michael

[Sequoia]

Oh dear, the dreaded Nashorn jinx has struck again. Somebody at BFC must really hate them.

Michael

Nashorn Jinx? I don't remember that one.

[JasonC]

wadepm - no, 5-10 shots really isn't a lot.

Look at AP rounds issued and fired vs enemy tanks actually KOed some time... We know to a demonstration that the idea the average shot actually fired in combat had a 50% plus hit probability is complete nonsense.

Wire guided TOW missiles with active joystick control all the way in, when actually fired in combat, don't achieve 50% average accuracy.

[Oddball_E8]

My understanding is that the Nashorn was accidentally left off the German TOE but will be included in the patch...

Nevermind, I was thinking about the Elefant/Ferdinand

[Michael Emrys]

Nashorn Jinx? I don't remember that one.

Referring back to "The Hornets' Nest" in CMx1.

Michael

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

While I take your overall point, I fear you've had a grog breakdown. TOW doesn't use a joystick. All the gunner has to do is hold the sight crosshairs on the target, and the rest happens automatically. An early AT-3 SAGGER of the type used by the Egyptians in the Yom Kippur War does fit your description. I used to work on TOW program effectiveness analyses at Hughes, which built the TOW then.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

JK - the amendment is friendly, thanks for the correction. The point is that precision guided munitions achieve 40 to 50% hit rates in actual combat, and that makes them vastly superior weapons to unguided gunfire, on a per shot basis at least. Guns are perfectly effective weapon systems even when firing with average hit rates in the single percent range. Because firing opportunities simply aren't that scarce. Whole units fire repeatedly over a minute or two, or five, and readily rack up large counts of rounds expended. Enough that even if only one in twenty hits, they still kill meaningful numbers of enemies.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

You're welcome. I agree with your point and wish I could find that great overview volume for the camouflaged plastic binder FM series The Army released in the early 1980s. Right near the front was a nice set of tank silhouttes with a performance graph to the right of each comparing the performance numbers for a Sherman vs an M60A3, I believe. You'd hardly believe they both were the same sort of combat vehicles, so great were the disparities. I believe the Sherman (static) was something like 16% at the specified range, while the M60A3 was more like 80% at the same range and maybe 65% while firing on the move (gun was 3-axis stabilized)--more accurate than a parked Sherman! Unsurprisingly, Pk was tremendous for the M60A3. That same manual rather shockingly detailed specific defensive measures to be used against high energy lasers and particle beam weapon attacks. Wonder what somebody over there knew?

Regards,

John Kettler

[wadepm]

5-10 shots is a lot...in CM. But I think that is more because we tend to stand and shoot it out a lot more than in actual combat. In real life they might take two shots, if they don't get a hit they move whilst we sit there and a keep pounding until one or the other is knocked out. But, in my experience, that is usually not more than 2-3 shots tops. Have we ever seen a duel where either gun fired 10 rounds without hitting?

If you are going to compare overall rounds fired to kills in theater then I would agree with you. As I said above, many engagements are 1-2 shots and then they move. This negates the very significant benefits of successive shots - with each shot the hit rate is increasing dramatically. If you stop after one or two you are going to miss a lot more than if you always take 3 or 4 shots - or 10. Of course your chance of taking accurate return fire increases at least as fast! Hence the shoot and scoot...

My feeling is that the wire guided missiles are not more accurate with successive shots. is that true? Does anyone have a table (similar to what Vanir posted) for a Javelin or similar?

[JasonC]

wadepm - what we actually see much more of in real WW II armored engagements is lopsided shooting by whole units, rather than duels between singles or nearly singles.

I mean an entire company is in a prepared position with good fields of fire and some camou, and then an enemy columns or approaching wedge drives into view. Maybe well into view while the prepared side waits. Then they open up.

And they fire for several minutes, every tank in the company, blazing away. The other side is (1) panicking, (2) some firing back if they ID something, but that is much less common in real life than in CM, (3) reversing and popping smoke and generally trying to get the hell out of there, plus plenty of (4) dying horribly.

When the smoke clears, the ambushed company of 15 or 20 tanks reports they lost 6 or 8 and had 20 men killed. The ambushers didn't get their hair mussed. But they fired 200 rounds.

[womble]

And those 200 rounds will have included some (many, perhaps, if the range is well known) solid hits on already-dead tanks. Ambushes like that, in CM, should probably have a TRP associated, if the ambushers have had chance to prepare.

[wadepm]

Jason - do you have a source that summarizes typical engagements and ranges? That would interesting...

[poesel]

Have we ever seen a duel where either gun fired 10 rounds without hitting?

Not without hitting but without killing: try Lynx vs. Lynx. That is really a lot of fun! Lots of manoeuvring and you need several hits for a kill.

Try it and you will soon be lobbying for an early war CM!

[Vergeltungswaffe]

1941 in the desert in CMAK was a blast for 1500m engagements. Everyone shooting as fast as they can and no one hitting anything the vast majority of the time.

[Sgt Joch]

yes, but JasonC is talking about global averages, there are exceptions to any rule, i.e.:

Despite this, the Firefly's increased firepower was much valued, and during many engagements, the Firefly proved its worth, knocking out Tigers and Panthers at long range, as well as less formidable tanks like the Mark IVs and StuGs.

One example of this increased firepower was displayed by Lt. G. K. Henry's Firefly during the defense of Norrey-en-Bessin on 9 June against an attack by the 3rd Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment of the 12th SS Panzer Division. Determined to capture the town in preparation for a larger offensive to drive the British and Canadians back into the sea, Kurt Meyer ordered an attack by 12 Panthers of the 3rd Company and infantry to attack Norrey and drive the Canadians out of the town. The attack got under way at 1300 hours with the Panthers racing to the town at full speed only stopping to fire their guns, they quickly outran their infantry support which was forced to the ground by Allied artillery fire. Within 1,000 m (1,100 yd) of the town, nine Shermans of the 1st Hussars opened fire into the advancing Panthers' flanks. Lt. Henry's gunner, Trooper A. Chapman, waited until the Panthers "lined up like ducks in a row" and quickly knocked out five with just six rounds. The attack was repulsed with the loss of seven of the 12 Panthers.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly#Normandy

[JasonC]

womble - sure there was overkilling. But there was also plenty of flat out missing. Not everyone in the firing formation is an ace, some have the wrong range estimate, the targets start moving, smoke gets popped or targets brew up and obscure lines of sight, the targets try to take cover, gunners get excited... Combat fire is not firing range fire, basically, and its achieved hit rates reflect it.

You can engage still at long ranges and have a quite good effect, if you just have enough shooters and enough target exposure time. But no, they don't need a TRP and they typically aren't boresighted or anything that elaborate. It is enough that one company gets the drop on the other.

The operational histories are full of cases of companies or even whole battalions of tanks being engaged by enemy AT shooters and really not having much in the way of reply, certainly of effective reply. They get shot up and they pull out and lick their wounds, without having done much of anything back.

As for ranges, sometimes as low as 800 yards, sometimes as long as 2.5 kilometers. At the longer ranges, often the shooters are never even located ; the targeted formation has their attention riveting on what is happening to them, very rapidly, and then on their defensive measures.

In CM terms, "panic" for a tank crew does happen, but they typically continue to spot well and even shoot back effectively, when in real life that often breaks down completely. Seeing 3 friendlies brew up and being under effective heavy AT fire is often enough to make any idea of fighting back effectively the farthest thing from the tanker's mind, just like being under sustained MG fire often leads an infantryman to bury his face in the dirt, not scan the horizon for muzzle flashes and try to duel effectively with his own single shot rifle.

Men are not all heroes. Combat is terrifying, and men get out of it when it is clearly going against them - if they can.

[JasonC]

Sgt Joch - note the one sided losses. Note also that only 7 targets are KOed by 9 firing tanks, and 5 others on the targeted side survive unscathed. Did the one best shooter get nearly all the hits? Perhaps he did. Perhaps he only thought he did. The other 8 Shermans were certainly firing, and if the best did hit 5 out of 6, then the other 8 probably missed 46 out of 48, or 22 out of 24 (firing half as fast as the best performer, perhaps). Or if they hit any more often than that, only hit tanks already penetrated.

Certainly all tanks do not get average performance in such cases; the best ones by both skill and luck - and placement to have the most targets - do far more than their share, and equally many of the others do far worse than the average. No, every tank you have in a CM scenario shouldn't get the best claimed outcome of every engagement; all children are not above average...

[Sgt Joch]

JasonC - it is maybe not that clear from that quote since it is WIKI, but in that engagement one Can. Firefly did KO 5 Panthers with 6 shots. Note also that the 6 Panthers were moving across the front of the Firefly at high speed.

I agree with you that in many engagements, multiple shots were fired with no hits, but I would not want readers to get the impression that WW2 tanks were into "spray and pray" or wildly inaccurate. Under ideal conditions, you could get close to one shot=one hit.

[JasonC]

"Under ideal conditions..." - so why didn't the other 8 Shermans get more than 2 kills, out of the other 7 targets?

[Baneman]

"Under ideal conditions..." - so why didn't the other 8 Shermans get more than 2 kills, out of the other 7 targets?

They had LoS, but not LoF !

( sorry, couldn't resist )

[wadepm]

Can we get back to the original question? Which was, are the Nashorns going to be awesome? Bobo presented some disturbing info in Reply #25 that indicated there is something wrong with the Nashorn. Maybe the gunner or commander is facing the wrong way? Didn't that happen with another AFV?