Poor accuracy of AT guns and Tank guns

[illo]

I just read that Finnish AT crews with 75mm Pak40 averaged 2 shots to 1 hit from ranges of 1000-1200 in combat against non moving tanks. That was allso recommended range to open fire against russian tanks. If tank was moving recommended range was 700m when lead predictor sight could be used with accuracy.

In Combat Mission i had firefight between 2 veteran PzKpfw IVh and 2 regular Sherman IIs.

Range was 1200m-1100m Pz IVs were positioned in scattered trees and hiding. They opened fire at 1200m. Both PzIVs fired about 15 shots without hitting anything. Shermans fired maybe 15 times or more hitting other PzIV and knoking it out. Then second later knocking other out too.

PzIV were in ambush position they could use 3 minutes for aiming to be more sure of hit.

They could count Shermans range from their Zeiss sights.But no... accuracy was around

13% to hit...poor gunners or what? Even ground was totally flat grassfield.

I understand if those Shermans had problem aiming with their inferior sights and low velocity cannon. But what was wrong with PzIV? Has easy easy 8 or Firefly so bad change to hit too?

Or is PzKpfw-IVh 75mm gun very different than

75mm Pak40? I thought it was even better.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I just read that Finnish AT crews with 75mm Pak40 averaged 2 shots to 1 hit from ranges of 1000-1200 in combat against non moving tanks. That was allso recommended range to open fire against russian tanks. If tank was moving recommended range was 700m when lead predictor sight could be used with accuracy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Stuff Illo. What is the reference? Can you scan in the exact quote by chance?

Thanks

Jeff D.

[illo]

It was at book store here in finland Book is named Marskin Panssarintuhoajat if i remember right. ("Mannerheims tank hunters")

It has much information about 50mm Pak38 and 75mm Pak40 AT-guns. Maybe someone of this boards finnish readers has it?

[Jarmo]

I've read of finnish AT teams trying to hit something 500 meters away and missing

all the time.

I'm sure tss will drop by to give more info if we keep this floating for awhile.

Last tim I was seriously disappointed in my gunners accuracy was when I raced a Hellcat

right behind a Panther. The cat stopped, and proceeded to miss twice from the range of

15 meters, while the panther was trying to rotate it's turret. Dunno how the duel would

have ended, as a nearby wespe then knocked out the Hellcat.

[illo]

It was at book store here in finland Book is named Marskin Panssarintuhoajat if i remember right. ("Mannerheims tank hunters")

It has much information about 50mm Pak38 and 75mm Pak40 AT-guns. Maybe someone of this boards finnish readers has it?

[Sergei]

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

I just read that Finnish AT crews with 75mm Pak40 averaged 2 shots to 1 hit from ranges of 1000-1200 in combat against non moving tanks. That was allso recommended range to open fire against russian tanks. If tank was moving recommended range was 700m when lead predictor sight could be used with accuracy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's the crews that are better. One Finn equals with 10 Russians and about 5 Germans...

Actually, I have the book, and I find it difficult to understand, since most of engagement ranges were much shorter. Unless you want to harvest 500 metres of forest... if you are talking about the page 376, then it seems like it's some sort of shooting range statistic: it also says that the practical upper limit to immobile tanks was 1800 metres, in which case the hit probability was 20 %, and at 1200 metres 50 %. It's like testing a rifle from a bench: it has a good or bad hit %-age depending on how concentrated or scattered pattern it makes, but when I unscrew it and start shooting from my hip, the results probably get even worse.

So, it doesn't actually say that in live combat situation every other shot would have been a hit. Human factor, wind, atmosphere, hotness of the bore and other such modifiers are not taken into account, I would guess. It doesn't mean that at least that many shots should hit the target; it means that only that many shots can hit the target in maximum, if we repeat the test n times.

[This message has been edited by Sergei (edited 12-22-2000).]

[Stoffel]

Well you can ask Master Bates about the performance of the Pak 40.

A regular crew knocked out three of his tanks in 28 seconds with 4 shots.

That brings me to the unit experience were these mk IV regulars or veterans?

Experience is responsible for accurate firing and hitresultss I guess.

[Samhain]

Regarding tank gunner firing accuracy, this may be of interest:

For the Tiger, at least, "A trained gunner was expected to be able to hit a stationary target at 1200m with his first round, and bracketing was only necessary at greater distances to the maximum effective range of 2000m. At that range, he was expected to be on target by the fourth round. Against a moving target travelling at 20kph (12.5mph) across his front, at a range of 800-1200m, the gunner was expected to be able to score a hit within three rounds, and within 30 seconds each."

I guess my CM Tiger gunners skipped class and headed to the Kneipe instead

(Quote from Roger Ford's "The Tiger Tank" p.26)

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[Jeff Duquette]

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

Last tim I was seriously disappointed in my gunners accuracy was when I raced a Hellcat right behind a Panther. The cat stopped, and proceeded to miss twice from the range of 15 meters, while the panther was trying to rotate it's turret. Dunno how the duel would have ended, as a nearby wespe then knocked out the Hellcat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A rather disappointing experiance for you I would imagine. Hard to understand how that could happen in reality. One miss at that range would seem possible, but 2...WOW!

[Sgt. Steiner]

For Illo:

The reason your Mk.IV's long range accuracy sucks is because the German long-range optical superiority is not modeled. Those Zeiss optics you mention simply don't exist, unfortunately..

BTS has said however, that the optics will make it into CM2 (doesn't help now though).

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

Ob's stürmt oder schneit, ob die Sonne uns lacht, der Tag glühend heiß oder eiskalt die Nacht, bestaubt sind die Gesichter, doch froh ist unser sinn, ja unser sinn, es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin

-- Panzerlied

[Jeff Duquette]

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

BTS has said however, that the optics will make it into CM2 (doesn't help now though).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought they said they might take a look at it? I certainly didn’t come away with the impression that BTS buys into the German Uber-Optics theory. But then again maybe I have misinterpreted their views on this.

[tss]

illo:

I just read that Finnish AT crews with 75mm Pak40 averaged 2 shots to 1 hit from ranges of 1000-1200 in combat against non moving tanks.

Well, if you look at the Appendix 4 of the book, you may notice that all of the Armored Division's Pak40 kills were from much shorter range. The mentioned ranges are: 150m, 150-200m, 250m, 40m (took 3 shots), 150m, 200m, 75m, 450m, 200m, 200m and 200m, the average being about 150 meters. That 450 meter case was pretty interesting, a 50mm Pak gunner fired 41 shells at a T-34-85 before it caught a fire (first hit immobilized it). The ammo usages (when given)for 75 mm guns were: 3, 6, 5, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, with the average 2.7. Note that neither the range nor the ammo usage was given for all destroyed tanks.

Another thing that has to be remembered is that those figures come from engagements where the gun won. There is no data from those fights where the AT gun lost and was destroyed, or fired several shots, missed them all and the target escaped.

One of Käkelä's older books (I think it was "Laguksen Miehet") gives one occurrence where Finnish AT men didn't perform so good. One of the Finnish T-26 companies was fighting South of Vyborg (it was either June 18 or 19) when one of them drove to a Finnish AT ambush. The 75 mm AT gun opened fire from point blank (15-20 meters) but missed (the nationality of the tank was clearly marked). The tank commander then shouted to the gun crew and tried to get them to cease fire, but they didn't pay any attention to it and fired again, this time destroying the tank. One crewman was killed.

- Tommi

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I thought they said they might take a look at it? I certainly didn’t come away with the impression that BTS buys into the German Uber-Optics theory. But then again maybe I have misinterpreted their views on this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After a couple hundred posts, you think you got it wrong? You are, of course, totally right. We are planning on taking a look at it. What we come up with may or may not give the Germans some sort of overall bonus at long ranges IN ADDITION TO THE ONE THEY ALREADY HAVE due to their generally superior guns.

BTW, the Tiger manual quote above has been discussed to death on this BBS. The statistics are for a well trained crew on a test range firing under non-combat conditions. Very different than what CM simulates.

Anybody interested in accuracy should check out one of the 2 or 3 multi-hundred post threads on the topic. A very, very detailed and informed discussion took place. I think it, at the very least, showed that the vast majority of people under estimate how many shots it took to knock out targets at greater ranges, regardless of what type of sights were being used. I also think the assumption that the Germans had a significant accuracy bonus at long ranges, compared to later war Allied tanks with similar high velocity weapons, was at the very least creadibly put into question.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hard to understand how that could happen in reality. One miss at that range would seem possible, but 2...WOW!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. VERY, VERY, bad luck. If the gunner survived he needed some remedial gunner lessons

Funny enough though, Tommi quoted this in his post above:

"40m (took 3 shots)"

DOH! That must have REALLY sucked, since it was real As you know Jeff, there isn't a lot of difference between 17m and 40m, so 2 shots missed at 40m is really hard to imagine as well. I know I can't picture what the guy did to miss that many times. Must have made a really BAD initial calculation? Then followed up by an off the cuff adjustment? Dunno

Steve

[fubar628]

A slight aside on the vaunted accuracy of Germans guns.

The German 88 was supposedly a deadly tank killer and there's one story of it hitting targets at over 5000 yards.

But remember, it's primary purpose was as an antiaircraft gun. How did it perform? Not all that well despite the Zeiss sights, etc..

Germans had flak belts around all major targets consisting of multiple batteries of aa guns. The Allied bombers came in at around 20,000 feet or call it 7000 yards. Now the B-17 is a big target, with a 105 foot wingspan x 75 feet long. Plus on the bomb run there were no evasive maneuvers. So you have a big target coming in at 225 mph dead straight and level. Its a simple calculation to figure out where the bomber will be when the shell should arrive.

Did they get shot down in droves? Nope.

The point is it's not that easy to hit a target at any significant range.

At a range of 2000 yards a tank has to aim some 60 feet above your intended target. Add in wind, humidity, shell imperfections, and you can start to see that it's not that easy to hit at long ranges.

As has been stated more than once, it's the exceptions that get the postings. Sh*t happens in war and in life. As an example, look what happened to the Hood. Couple of salvos and boom, game over. And the bomb didn't get Adolph.

[tss]

Big Time Software wrote:

"40m (took 3 shots)"

DOH! That must have REALLY sucked, since it was real As you know Jeff, there isn't a lot of difference between 17m and 40m, so 2 shots missed at 40m is really hard to imagine as well.

Though it is not certain whether the first two were misses or did they only fail to penetrate. This is not stated in the book. The destroyed tank was identified as a KV-I, but since it happened on 11 June 1944 it may have been a IS-II, and in that case two non-penetrating hits wouldn't be surprising, at least if the shots hit the front.

That 15 m example was certainly a real miss.

- Tommi

[Samhain]

Steve, I figured that quote might be a little too optimistic For what it's worth, in playing Steel Beasts (an excellent modern MBT sim), it's very easy to place rounds on target in one attempt during the training missions, but under live fire when the tanks are roaring across country is another matter entirely, even with the modern ballistics/targeting computers.

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[CATguy]

2000 yards requires precision to hit anything even today and this is over a mile! The 5000 yard hit is very unlikely since this would be almost 3 miles!

[tss]

I just came upon an interesting account. During the battle of Vuosalmi one Finnish stug (Ps-531-25, "Kyllikki") was positioned near the Vuoksi river. One morning was quite foggy and the Soviet side of the river was hidden by the fog. The stug crew were relaxing when they suddenly noticed a muzzle flash on the other side of the river. Some Soviet direct fire gun was firing blind, they thought. Then they noticed that the location of the flash changed between the shots so it had to be a tank. Apparently the tank crew changed locations between each shot so that Finns couldn't pinpoint it. However, they used only 4-5 different firing locations and in fixed order.

The stug crew then aimed their gun at one of the positions and waited for a couple of Soviet shots to see that the gun was aimed correctly. Then, just after they saw the muzzle flash the next time the gunner, private 1st class Vuorela, fired his 75 mm gun. Amazingly, the shot hit and the Finns heard a catasthrophic explosion from the other side of the river. When the fog cleared, they saw that the Soviet tank was approximately 1000 meters away. Vuorela destroyed a total of 7 tanks in summer '44.

- Tommi

[tss]

After writing the above post, I started to wonder about the geography and went to see the map of Vuosalmi area.

One morning was quite foggy and the Soviet side of the river was hidden by the fog.

Actually, the Soviet tank was in the bridgehead on the Finnish side of the river. The account was little confusing but a mention of a "road at the riverside" identified the place to be on the North side of Vuoksi.

- Tommi

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>DOH! That must have REALLY sucked, since it was real As you know Jeff, there isn't a lot of difference between 17m and 40m, so 2 shots missed at 40m is really hard to imagine as well. I know I can't picture what the guy did to miss that many times. Must have made a really BAD initial calculation? Then followed up by an off the cuff adjustment? Dunno<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Singling out ONE of these things, and not looking at it in the context of the bigger picture, is not a good way to do historical research. It is also wrong to take something that you read as FACT simply because it is in print. That is a standard rule So take everything you read with a grain of salt, flesh it out with other sources, and... most importantly... look at the whole thing as a WHOLE when attempting to draw rational conclusions. Then use your deductive and rational powers of reasoning to come to a conclusion that is more likely than not. We have done this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These hallowed words are now framed above my hearth. I gaze upon them often. I become misty eyed when I try to utter them aloud

[illo]

Ive heard that longest distance (direct fire)AFV kill in WW2 was by german 8,8cm Flak in N.Africa. Flaks were shooting british armored column at open desert from 12km range.

I guess that must be more than 5000yards?

[Jeff Duquette]

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

2000 yards requires precision to hit anything even today and this is over a mile! The 5000 yard hit is very unlikely since this would be almost 3 miles!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. Individual gunnery tables for the M1A1 are 1,200 to 2,000 meters. A company team of M1A1’s most effective fire has been determined to be less than 2,400 meters. Makes since as that is the range over which they train on tables VI, VII, and VIII. According to observations at NTC and Ft. Knox, long-range M1A1 fire for experienced, distinguished rated crews is between 2,500 to 3,200 meters. I think there were some examples of 4,000 meter engagements in the Gulf. Your “Sniper tanks”.

Ft. Knox has published some unofficial probability of kill (“PK”) charts relative to range:

M2 TOW system @ 3,000 to 3,500 meters is 50% PK (i.e. if eight TOW rounds are fired that equates to 4 enemy vehicles disabled or destroyed.)

M1A1 “Sniper” crews @ 2,200 meters is 50% to 65% PK

M1A1 normal crew proficiency @ 1,800 meters is 65% to 70% PK

Compare this with Jentz’s often quoted numbers for Tiger I, Tiger II and Panther crews (cool gunner in combat)

88mm Kwk 36 using Pzgr 39 @ 2,000 meters is 50% PK

88mm Kwk 36 using Pzgr 39 @ 1,500 meters is 74% PK

88mm Kwk 43 using Pzgr 39/43 @ 2,000 meters is 43% PK

88mm Kwk 43 using Pzgr 39/43 @ 1,500 meters is 61% PK

75mm Kwk 42 using Pzgr 39/42 @ 2,000 meters is 49% PK

75mm Kwk 42 using Pzgr 39/42 @ 1,500 meters is 72% PK

(Disclaimer: I am implying nothing with the numbers posted above...I am simplying posting numbers...no need for anyone to get defensive about anything).

It is interesting to note, based upon review of the WWII version of FM17-12, that US ARMY tank crews gunnery trials involved engaging targets at ranges between 300 to 3000 yards (approx. 275 to 2750 meters). “Place targets at ranges of 300, 500, 800, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 3000 yards. The gun is prepared for action. The examining officer checks the laying for range and deflection after each trial. Allow no credit (NO-GO ) if the laying is not precisely correct”

[Guest Michael emrys]

Jeff, those figures in your post are labeled for Probability of a Kill (pk). Should not some of them at least be labeled for Probability of a Hit (ph)?

In any event, I would expect the accuracy of M1A1 gunfire to be significantly better than for even the best WW II tanks at extreme ranges (beyond 2k meters), due to their laser rangefinders, gun laying computers, and higher velocity APDSFS shot.

Michael

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff, those figures in your post are labeled for Probability of a Kill (pk). Should not some of them at least be labeled for Probability of a Hit (ph)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the case of both sets of numbers, I am simply regurgitating numbers from various sources. Here is what I think maybe going on...

“PK” is defined as probability of killing or disabling a vehicle per round fired. Bear in mind that an M1A1 will, in many cases, have a very accurate indication of range to its target. So a “cool gunner” in an M1A1 should in theory have a relatively good chance of a first round hit\kill out to at least 2,200 meters (My M1A1 “PK” numbers were derived from “Orchestrating the Direct Fire Fight” by Maj. Jay Allen and Maj. Mike Albertson, US ARMY). As these numbers are derived based on a scenario where by an M1A1 company team is standing in defense against an attacking force consisting of a Soviet type Mechanized Rifle Battalion, the PK numbers may very well be based on the assumption that the M1A1's targets are moving.

In the case of the Jentz numbers their origin has been discussed at length in the 88mm-accuracy thread. Presumably you don’t have Jentz and haven’t read the previous postings on this forum regarding this data. The numbers represent probability of hitting a stationary tank sized target under combat conditions. It is suggested by Jentz that these numbers represent 2nd, 3rd and subsequent round accuracy for each of the respective weapons. They also assume a gunner was able to maintain his “cool” during combat. Of importance is WWII tank crews would not have souped-up means of assessing range to their targets (the odd German TC employing an Sf14z or Em70 from complete defilade aside ), so first round hit probability would be considerably less than those numbers posted.

Technically the Jentz "PH" numbers don’t necessarily equate 1:1 to “PK” (probability of killing or disabling per round fired). However, given the targets that Panthers, Tiger I’s and Tiger II’s would have typically been engaging (i.e. T34/76, T34/85, and Shermans) a hit by their weapons would in most cases equate to a killed or disablement.

To elaborate; British Operational Studies conducted during the War concluded that Shermans KO’d by AP fire on average were hit 1.6 times per KO. But the majority of Shermans being knocked out by AP fire would have been KO’d by PAK 50mmL60 and PAK 75mmL48 AT guns. This would tend to skew avg. number of hits per kill away from unity(1:1). Just some speculation here; If these numbers could have been broken out by gun type I suspect Sherman hit to kill ratio resultant from 75mmL70, 88mmL56 or 88mmL71 would be much closer to 1 hit per kill\disablement. So in the case of any of the three above listed weapons I would contend that "PK" is approximately equal to "PH".

Now if I were talking about a Shermans 75mmL31 or 75mmL40 engaging a Tiger or Panther, than yes, "PK" and "PH" would be vastly different. The same British Army Operational Study assessing German AFV’s as targets put the number of hits required per kill on a Panther at 2.55, and for the Tiger 4.2. In this case "PK" would not equate to "PH".

Some additional tid-bits…

T80 probability of a first round hit vs. a stationary tank sized target is apparently 50% @ 2,500 meters.

T72 with LRF probability of a first round hit vs. a stationary tank sized target is apparently 50% @ 2,100 meters.

An alternate source for the M1A1 suggests probability of a first round hit vs. a stationary tank sized target is apparently 75% @ 3,000 meters. I can’t verify this one however.

One more thing of interest is that German WWII Gunnery training for Panther and Tiger crews was conducted at:

1,200 to 2,000 meters against stationary tank sized targets.

and

800 to 1,200 meters vs. moving tank sized targets.

Individual gunnery tables for M1A1 main gun training engagements are typically 1,200 to 2,000 meters.

(Disclaimer: Again all the above is me simply yaking...I am really just hoping someone will post additional points of interest on this subject).

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 12-24-2000).]