Anyone else done a gunnery range?

[Banshee]

GREAT post btw, if I may offer a couple of uninformed, easily ignored opinions.

While I do feel you guys are correct, I also feel that the game also makes german tanks cheaper (points wise) than they should be, or maybe I should say that Amis tanks are more expensive than they should be. The same (IMHO) is true for Ami artillery and airpower.

Maybe the more accurate statement is that Allies should have (a lot)more points allotted to them the majority of the time.

Hmm I think I'm straying a little from the great posts that you all have made, my point really being that if German tanks are made better their costs should increase since I don't believe the costs are modeled correctly either.

Thanks for your time,

Chris

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 08-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 08-30-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee:

GREAT post btw, if I may offer a couple of uninformed, easily ignored opinions.

While I do feel you guys are correct, I also feel that the game also makes german tanks cheaper (points wise) than they should be, or maybe I should say that Amis tanks are more expensive than they should be. The same (IMHO) is true for Ami artillery and airpower.

Thanks for your time,

Chris

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an interesting comment

I had never really looked at what they are worth points wise.

The game is very realistic and there are many things that make for some really well ballanced scenarios and battles that are really fun to play.

But, during this period of the war the Allies had lots more tanks than the Germans and the German tanks especially the Panther and King Tiger had much better armour than the Allied Shermans and the Nashorn, King Tiger, and Jagpanther, had that long 88 with the very fast (1018 m/sec as modeled in CM) muzzle velocity for their AP ammo.

So one might suggest the Germans had fewer better tanks and the Allies had MANY more inferior tanks ( the early Shermans)

I had not really considered the point value but I think that could in fact spawn a whole new thread. I'm not sure how the points where allocated to each vehicle and think that its very well ballanced, but I guess your point is it may be TOO well balanced if the Long range improved accuracy of the German fast 88's was modeled with greater first shot hit leathality.

interesting thought

-tom w

[Ari Maenpaa]

Banshee, aka_tom_w,

I agree that if German tanks are made better in CM, then of course their point costs should be increased.

But, as I see it, the very first priority in a historical wargame like CM should be it's historical authenticity. Point costs are needed only to make playing balanced AFTER the tanks are modelled as historically accurately as possible.

Tank characteristics should not be left out just because they make some tanks not to fit well in some kind of point curve.

Ari

[aka_tom_w]

"

But, as I see it, the very first priority in a historical wargame like CM should be it's historical authenticity. Point costs are needed only to make playing balanced AFTER the tanks are modelled as historically accurately as possible.

Tank characteristics should not be left out just because they make some tanks not to fit well in some kind of point curve."

Ari

Hi Ari

I agree completely

Especially this point, when we have anicdotal first hand observations of US WW II tank gunners that are contrary to the way long range german gunnery is modeled in CM "tank characteristics should not be left out just because they make some tanks not to fit well in some kind of point (bell? ) curve"

the point value of german tank is an after thought to balance the game out and should only be allocated after the Tanks real life characteristics have been accurately modeled in the game.

And Yes I think the after all is said and done the Jagpanthers, King Tigers and Nashorns, with the long fast 88 should be worth more and points as they should be modeled with much great long range accuracy.

-tom w

[Warren Peace]

I have been doing my own gunnery ranges and tend to agree that the weapons are not effective enough at long ranges. The principle problem appears to be lack of accuracy. The long range German flat trajectory weapons should get a "bump" in the accuracy department at long range.

Perhaps also a "1st" shot bonus should be included in the calculation if the firer has not been spotted and fired on. This would reflect the extra care taken in sighting the first shot.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee:

GREAT post btw, if I may offer a couple of uninformed, easily ignored opinions.

While I do feel you guys are correct, I also feel that the game also makes german tanks cheaper (points wise) than they should be, or maybe I should say that Amis tanks are more expensive than they should be. The same (IMHO) is true for Ami artillery and airpower.

Maybe the more accurate statement is that Allies should have (a lot)more points allotted to them the majority of the time.

Hmm I think I'm straying a little from the great posts that you all have made, my point really being that if German tanks are made better their costs should increase since I don't believe the costs are modeled correctly either.

Thanks for your time,

Chris

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, the points are calculated depending on vehicle characteristics (armor, gun, turret speed, etc.) and not fudged with something like ASL's rarity factors. I think the reasoning behind this is to make tournament or PBEM games more evenly matched. For better historical accuracy, you'll need to use the scenario editor or bump the advantage % up for the allies.

WRT to the discussion about German optics, could this be modeled along the same lines as gyros are since not all types of German tanks (esp. the H39!) had these equipments? I also think that unit experience should count more for accuracy than it seems to.

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

IIRC, the points are calculated depending on vehicle characteristics (armor, gun, turret speed, etc.) and not fudged with something like ASL's rarity factors. I think the reasoning behind this is to make tournament or PBEM games more evenly matched. For better historical accuracy, you'll need to use the scenario editor or bump the advantage % up for the allies

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely with the statement, I wasn't trying to say that getting an even amount of points per side wouldn't get you a fair fight , it will (though IMHO, it slightly favors the germans). I was just saying it was historically inaccurate (err less accurate?). BTS has made the point cost be based on the capabilities of a particular item, which makes for interesting, but historically less accurate (IMHO!) games.

btw this isn't a rant, I love the game and wouldn't have them change a thing (keep those boys working on the expansion pack and CM2!). I just think the average CM battle has much more german (or less american) equipment, men, airpower, and artillery, vs. a typical WW2 scenario.

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 08-31-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the *option* for rarity-type number fudging, but I don't think there's enough support for it. Too many other, more pressing issues to deal with like you said. I really do recommend (for QBs at least) using the advantage % adjustment; it's an easy way to (sort of) get more historically numeric forces.

No need to apologize for a rant that never was!

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[PzKpfw 1]

I have contacted Zeiss directly and recieved an reply today. Zeiss has some examples of the original WW2 German tank optics & tech manuals & have put me in contact with another section. I will post more as I get more.

I am also searching for US & British reports on German optics at this time but no luck to date other then anecdotal. I am also contacting Leitz who was the primary manufacturer of German optics during the war.

What concerns me here is somehow an % value for US stabilization was quantified in CM despite the fact it was for the most part it was left off in US tanks, it was installed in, as well as not even installed in later Shermans, with only anecdotal refrences to support itsrelative effectivness or innefectivness.

Compared to what we have to do to prove German optics should have an better % to hit at long range in the game, because US, UK, & German anecdotal refrences arn't good enough concerning the Germans haveing better optics.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-31-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hey gents...

We just wanted to let you know that we will be looking at this issue in detail for CM2. I mean, what with Soviet tanks using polished Coke bottle bottoms for optics, there is bound to be some difference

Steve

[Aussie Smith]

LOL Steve

Not to mention the Russian Tank commanders cupping their hands together to imitate binoculars and then using flags to transmit data to their platoon comrades "I'm sure zere are Gzermans zomewhere to our front - all guns fire at zem trees over zere" - at which point the trees are obliterated by massed Soviet armour firing HE rounds (10% of which don’t go off ).

Seriously, I do hope the optics issues are fixed - but that also the point’s cost of armour reflects the volume of soviet armour amassed against the Germans - to try to reflect in historical proportion the disparity of armour numbers.

Craig

[Moon]

With regard to Zeiss - the person to talk to is Mr. Besenmatter. He is working for Zeiss and is a living book on optics and especially WW2 German optics, handheld and fixed. He actually wrote a book on it, if I could just remember the title. I met him a couple of times on trade shows and he seems open to questions about this stuff, that's why I am posting his name (wouldn't do this normally). Hope this helps,

Martin

------------------

"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."

- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Very cool Steve, I'm a happy camper just to hear you all are considering this. Makes me feel better. I can't wait for CM2. Should be great. As is the German guns just don't "feel" right at long range. But CM kicks major ass and I for one would rather you guys keep working on CM2 I guess. Great posts Tom w. and John Waters. I can't wait for you to hook us up with that German optics info. hehehe ever try to hit anything with the T-34 76.2 short in Sp:WAW at anything over medium range. It just keeps missing and missing.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon:

With regard to Zeiss - the person to talk to is Mr. Besenmatter. He is working for Zeiss and is a living book on optics and especially WW2 German optics, handheld and fixed. He actually wrote a book on it, if I could just remember the title. I met him a couple of times on trade shows and he seems open to questions about this stuff, that's why I am posting his name (wouldn't do this normally). Hope this helps,

Martin

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx Martin they sent me to the Carl Zeiss Historical Society section. To bad no one posting here lives near Zeiss as they have the stuff on display their as well as documents.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hey gents...

We just wanted to let you know that we will be looking at this issue in detail for CM2. I mean, what with Soviet tanks using polished Coke bottle bottoms for optics, there is bound to be some difference

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Steve. LOL well it does get better in late 42 early 43 when they copy the British MK IV optics .

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[Moon]

Zeiss? An hour or so drive away from where I am sitting now... Am too busy to do it, though...

------------------

"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."

- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon:

Zeiss? An hour or so drive away from where I am sitting now... Am too busy to do it, though...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL Martin you could have the data alot quicker then I .

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hey gents...

We just wanted to let you know that we will be looking at this issue in detail for CM2. I mean, what with Soviet tanks using polished Coke bottle bottoms for optics, there is bound to be some difference

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great!

If I may ask, I would still like to know how the gyro stabilizers are modeled and what if any targeting advantage they give the Allied tanks equiped with them?

I think a very good case has been made here and it seems there are still more facts and details to come on the german gunnery optics. Good work, team!

Thanks again to Steve and Charles for considering a review of the is issue.

(I would humbly suggest that the penetration values and calculations at long range of the fast long 88 should also be reconsidered at the same time.)

-tom w

[Simon Fox]

First,

Someone has already posted on another thread all that anecdotal stuff tom posted , while it represents some valuable info it is just that and needs to be taken in context.

Second,

I accept that there was some superiority in german tank optics over the US and certainly the Russian. But there seems to be considerable misconception here along the lines of uber german gunnery. This is crap. I can rattle off a whole list of examples of allied gunners taking out german vehicles at extreme ranges, including a JSII taking out a StuG with his first shot at 2km, but these sort of isolated instances abound in war.

I am not an expert in long range tank gunnery but we need input from someone who is. From what I have read crew training and experience have the most impact in this respect and most WWII tank gunners were not experts in this area. The israeli experience in this area is very very interesting I will try and dig up some references. I would hate the impact of optics to be overemphasised. I suspect that just about every other aspect (ie experience/training, gun, ammo etc) is of more importance. If the difference is small/slight I hardly think if implemented it will placate those who think German tank gunners should routinely taking out allied tanks at ranges from 1000-2000m.

If we are to model differences in optics how about the difference in firing uphill vs downhill too, which is substantial

------------------

"But on the 1st of July (D+25) the Regiment had its field day with the Tyneside Scottish in Rauray village. 'C' Sqn bore the brunt of the day-long battle when the Germans launched a massive counter attack on the Polar Bear positions. Throughout the day the Panzers launched savage attacks anf threatened to overrun the infantry. By close of play, from defensive positions an astonishing 34 Panthers had been destroyed, 31 in the Rauray area."

[thomasj]

For all those wanting more information on the ZEISS Optics please go to the following link:

http://www.wingssimulations.com/zeiss/zeiss.html

This also has a nice clip from a tiger training manual.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thomasj:

For all those wanting more information on the ZEISS Optics please go to the following link:

http://www.wingssimulations.com/zeiss/zeiss.html

This also has a nice clip from a tiger training manual.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Web page thanks!

It says this:

"The americans had poor optics and could NOT measure the range through them. All shots beyond 800 meters were lucky guesses on their part. This is an image of their M61 sight they used.

The early version was even worse. It was used through a persicope which was looking above and to the left of the gun and had poor recticles.

The only way to shoot is to raise the gun until your target matches the ranges horizon shown on the recticle."

What a great page!

here's more:

"Now analyzing what a higher muzzle velocity meant is simple. Besides having a higher penetration power it also allowed a higher margin of error in range guessing. Because the shell was flying in a stretched arc you can guess wrong up to 200 meters and the shell still hits your target because when aiming too high simply raises the aiming point by less than a meter, still small enough to hit a 3 meter high tank when aimed at its center.

Because you can see where your shell hit you immediately know if you guessed to high or too low. If you have a good sight to the target you can even judge the exact distance you miscalculated and thus can correct your sight and refire. That's why most experienced crews on German tanks could guarantee a hit on the 2nd shot. Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck.

The longest confirmed kill to our knowledge was 14 kilometers. It was shot by an 88 Flak in the desert war vs. the British forces. When analyzing the above shooting procedure you know what they had to do in order to hit. They had two large "V" shaped optics in an exact distance from the Flak positioned. Both guessed the range and triangulated theirs to set the Flak to the fire range. The Flak shot and they observed the miss and corrected accordingly until they hit their target."

And again I would like to suggest...

There is no doubt in my mind the German 88 was a real bonified, "Uber Gun" it fired a round that had an exceptional armour penetrating ability that is not IMHO truely and accurately modeled in CM. This is because of its very high muzzle velocity, hence flater trajectory, its weight and head shape (as discussed in the "88 Lacking puch thread") and because with the use of highly accurate Zeiss gunnery optics by experienced (very experienced by this time late in the war) and well trained German crews this long fast 88 was indeed an exceptional tank killing weapon with a well deserved reputation.

IMHO

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-01-2000).]

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warren Peace:

Perhaps also a "1st" shot bonus should be included in the calculation if the firer has not been spotted and fired on. This would reflect the extra care taken in sighting the first shot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if firing from a prepared defensive position so that the range has been pre-measured. Otherwise the extra care is of no use since the distance is unknown...

The US type of gun sight is better than the Zeiss type if you have a separate range finder, since there is no need to adjust the angle vs gun barrel once bore sighting is done. (This is if ignoring the actual optics quality but concentrating on the "hair cross" configuration, and I speak from personal experience.)

Regarding the 14km kill, please note that it took several adjusted shots before hitting.

As I noted in the thread "To hit at a distance..." German Flak batteries, but not AT and tank units, did have separate range finders.

Cheers

Olle

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

First,

Second,

I accept that there was some superiority in german tank optics over the US and certainly the Russian. But there seems to be considerable misconception here along the lines of uber german gunnery. This is crap. I can rattle off a whole list of examples of allied gunners taking out german vehicles at extreme ranges, including a JSII taking out a StuG with his first shot at 2km, but these sort of isolated instances abound in war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think thats the case Simon at all I think its; more ppl noticing consistant German tank gun misses, even at ranges of 300ms, I saw a vetran PzKpfw IV crew miss 3 shots at 234ms yesterday vs an imobed Ch VI.

My 'Elite' Tiger E's in a recent test were averaging 4 - 5 shots to hit a staionary Sherman III at 800ms. the 'regular' Sherman 75's were scoreing 1st round hits (while moveing) & consistantly hitting. It _seems_ as if lower quality US, UK, & Canadien crews all hit with a higher % at any range, then German crews of the same quality or higher.

Ask Helge sometime about his recent 1.05 Tiger II gunnery tests @ 2500ms. Anyway theirs more then enough evidence in the magnification levels alone to suppport an deeper look into the optics issues 2.5x, 3x & 6x vs Allied 3x maginification levels. The Pershing's M15 sight was the 1st step at rectifying the gap as it had a dual magnification level similar to German tank optics of 1x & 7x magnifications, so a Pershing should have an better % TH at long ranges then an Sherman with its 3x magnification.

The diference is the clarity & quality of the German sight picture, if you can see clearly your shot drop or not at long ranges, your going to have an advantage over another tank useing an unfiltered sight & the problems associated with trying to observe & or estimate your shot fall above 1000ms. And thats the most important diference between German & Allied optical devices of WW2, and their effects as they would be modeled in CM.

This is cited repeatedly in any refrence material dealing with tank warfare in WW2, as well as the US reports from tank crews in WW2 these are crews who actualy got to crawl around in German tanks. Its stressed again by the French in 1947 report on the Panther many of the people involved were prior Sherman crews & who knew the Sherman & other allied tanks capabilities well enough to see the diference in the optics between the two tanks was plain.

I reccomend anyone interested in German gunnery sight application go to:

http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/jagpan/jp2.html

& read the text concerning the Jadgpanther, German otics compensated for the aerodynamics of the round selected Ie, Pzgr.39 APCBC, Sprgr.40 etc.

Thats a helluva shot for an IS-2 Simon, question why do ppl keep refering to the IS-2 as an JS-2?. Noboddy's disputing a good Allied gunner couldnt get an hit at long range, just that due to his optic's lower quality he was going to have a harder time & in CM terms his shots should have a less % TH on any shots over 800 - 1000ms, compared to German tanks who's sights had advantages at ranges above 1000ms.

Regards, John Waters

---------------

"die verdammte Jabos".

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-01-2000).]

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hey gents...

We just wanted to let you know that we will be looking at this issue in detail for CM2. I mean, what with Soviet tanks using polished Coke bottle bottoms for optics, there is bound to be some difference

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

Once you have something hashed out and applied to CM2, and of coarse you feel it is as close as possible to reality, can you apply it to CM?

Thanks,

Jeff

[Dittohead]

Also remember due to the fact that the big Russian tanks carried so few AT rounds, they were discouraged from engaging in long range shooting matches. Whereas that was what the Germans perferred and thus would be better at.