Any tips on maximizing the chance of tank v. tank spotting?

[PEB14]

@George MC@Brille

I still have much concern regarding the relative influence of soft factors (troop quality) versus hard factors (guns and gunsight accuracy, penetration efficiency) in terms of gunnery accuracy. For the latter we have training field stats (dispersions of guns) and much testing data for amor penetration. These are clearly tabulated, relatively easy to find in various litterature sources and, finally, easy to mod.

On the other hand, I am under the impression that the soft factor importance regarding gunnery accuracy is underestimated. Veterans crews and good leaders can take the best of their machines and reach the training field performances on the battlefield. Poorly trained (green) will not. Give me a Tiger in RL and I won't hit a building 200 meters away, especially if someone is firing at me... The question is: how influential are the soft factors ? The main problem is that we lack objective data.

In my example above, 10 Panther tanks destroyed 6 T-34/85 in a one minute meeting engagement with no losses to them - manned by basic crews (no Wittman around). My humble opinion is, this is just too much. Did it happen in RL? Certainly. Was it the rule? I strongly doubt it was. Otherwise the German would have won the war, just sitting in defensive position and shooting the enemy tanks as they came around. Sitting in defense = generally you get the first shot. Better guns = high hit vs. miss ratio. Better guns = high kill to hit ratio. And as long as you've got 3 or more defending tanks, they are basically impossible to flank as they keep covering themselves. (Or you would need very big maps with low density of defending troops, which certainly was the case on the Eastern Front but which I never saw in any CMRT scenario.)

Additionally, it seems to me that this game, like many other wargames, suffers from the "Übermensch disease". Nazi propaganda (the official wartime one, and the insidious, postwar one) has a lasting influence on our representation of the WW2 German army performance, especially on the people of my generation, who grew up reading Paul Carrel's books and the like. The best tanks, the best tankers, the best aces, the best battleships, the best generals, the best NCOs. Yeah.

Sure the Panther and the Tiger were better than the Sherman and the T-34 as far as gun and armor are concerned (which are the relevant factors for such a tactical game). But in 1944/45, for one Wittman you had 10 green German tank crews and unexperienced/third rate leaders, who led the Panzerwaffe to disasters like the Dompaire battle. And I strongly believe that the soft factors did make the difference in RL. In CM game terms I believe that gunnery accuracy shall be more homogeneous for low quality tank crews (Regular and Green) whatever the tank they use, the hard factors getting prominent for more experienced crews.

 

I know there are many professional military (retired or not) on this forum. I would really be interested to get their opinion regarding soft factor vs. gunnery accuracy.

[chuckdyke]

The biggest morale booster for German tank crews was. We may lose our tank but not our lives. I saw a propaganda poster of a happy tanker and his Tiger tank. Hit 200 times but he goes home on furlough. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by chuckdyke

[George MC]

3 hours ago, Brille said:

Thank you for the clarification. 

Never the less I always had a bitter taste in these scenarios as the ai always seems to hit better. 

 

But maybe that's just my Cmx1 ptsd.

 

Most of my playing time et the moment is PBEM. 

My opponents tanks, infantry and artillery are always way more accurate and effective than mine. Fact

[George MC]

@PEB14 British gunnery discussions echo similar points.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000067.html

As this is CMRT. I used German examples as that is what o has immediately to hand. Search 

If interested in Soviet take check out https://www.tankarchives.ca/?m=1

it’s all there. I’ll let you enjoy hunting for the info. 

[PEB14]

1 hour ago, George MC said:

Most of my playing time et the moment is PBEM. 

My opponents tanks, infantry and artillery are always way more accurate and effective than mine. Fact

Not my case.

My opponents tanks, infantry and artillery always get the first shot. Fact

[PEB14]

1 hour ago, George MC said:

@PEB14 British gunnery discussions echo similar points.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000067.html

Extremely interesting.

Some facts coming from the stats and discussion:

- even on the Eastern Front, engagement ranges appear to have been shorter than what we use to think. 80% of the Soviet AFV destroyed by 88 mm gun were destroyed at ranges below 1000 m according to Zaloga!

- on the Western Front, it appears that tanks contest was won by the first to SHOOT. This can be interpreted in different ways:

1) German tank's technical superiority didn't matter much because of the short range and the importance of the first shot;

2) Accuracy was probably high (otherwise the first to shoot was not necessary the winner), AND/OR accuracy was pretty much the same for both sides.

 

[Halmbarte]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The biggest morale booster for German tank crews was. We may lose our tank but not our lives. I saw a propaganda poster of a happy tanker and his Tiger tank. Hit 200 times but he goes home on furlough. 

The posters they didn't make show unhappy tank crews whose tanks have run out of gas or suffered a mechanical breakdown and are now being rounded up as emergency infantry because there are no more tanks...

H

[JoMac]

On 8/21/2023 at 4:35 PM, PEB14 said:

I play both, but I am currently playing my first PBEM tank vs. tank battle and ranges are so ridiculously short that it doesn't mean a thing.

 

Tired of "feelings", I just make a quick test. A line of 10 Panther A tanks against a line of 10 T-34/85, 1300 meters away. No obstacle in between except the dust caused by gunnerey. Both lines are static. All crews are regular with normal motivation and 0 leadership. Quoting the manual: "extensive training, but lack combat experience (...) [or] mediocre training and fair amount of combat experience".

The results of the first minute:

- The T-34/85 fired 18 shells, and scored 4 hits.

- The Panther fired 21 shells, and scored 12 hits.

After only one minute of gunnery, no Panther were disabled while there were only 4 T-34 battleworthy. I know that the German have better optics and that the Panther gun is more accurate than the T-34/85, but the discrepancy is much too high IMHO and I really think that, at this range, crews training shall make more difference that what these results show.

Another quick test led to very similar results. Raising 4 Panther tanks to veteran status yields to 12 hits out of 17 shots.

So I stick to my initial impression: gunnery accuracy is really much too good in Combat Mission.

This is why I have all Armor & Field Pieces for both sides set as 'Conscript' (to represent Regulars), then raise or lower the Soft Factors to represent Green or Vet.

Ex; if Armor in RL are Vets, then I would make in game Armor 'Conscript' w/+2 Leader +2 Motivation...If Armor in RL are Regulars, then I would make in game Armor 'Conscript' w/+1 Leader +1 Motivation...If Armor in RL are Green, then I would make in game Armor 'Conscript' w/ 0 Leader 0 Motivation. All the above overall seems to work nicely.

You could try the above set to 'Green' and change the Soft Factors to represent Green, Reg or Vet to see how that works out for you. 

I also set all Infantry to Green, then use the above Soft Factors to represent Green, Reg or Vet.

Edited August 23, 2023 by JoMac

[Brille]

21 hours ago, PEB14 said:

In my example above, 10 Panther tanks destroyed 6 T-34/85 in a one minute meeting engagement with no losses to them - manned by basic crews (no Wittman around). My humble opinion is, this is just too much. Did it happen in RL? Certainly. Was it the rule? I strongly doubt it was. Otherwise the German would have won the war, just sitting in defensive position and shooting the enemy tanks as they came around. Sitting in defense = generally you get the first shot. Better guns = high hit vs. miss ratio. Better guns = high kill to hit ratio. And as long as you've got 3 or more defending tanks, they are basically impossible to flank as they keep covering themselves. (Or you would need very big maps with low density of defending troops, which certainly was the case on the Eastern Front but which I never saw in any CMRT scenario.

Well If the germans would have had sufficient numbers in tanks and crews that would match or come close to the T34 I'm quite certain that the eastern front would have went in another direction. 

But the thing is that the germans did not had the resources nor the manpower to do it. Most of the German tank force were still designs from prewar. Updated designs sure but they were at their limit and the newer soviet armor was more than a match. 

There is a reason why some heavy Panzerformations were called "Feuerwehr" (Firefighter) as they had to rapidly close gaps in the fronts that had been breached by the soviet armor because of lighter resistance there. 

So your teast might be a bit misleading in that regard. Maybe try a 1:1,5 or 1:2 ratio for the soviets to match the actual numerical superiority. 

21 hours ago, PEB14 said:

Additionally, it seems to me that this game, like many other wargames, suffers from the "Übermensch disease". Nazi propaganda (the official wartime one, and the insidious, postwar one) has a lasting influence on our representation of the WW2 German army performance, especially on the people of my generation, who grew up reading Paul Carrel's books and the like. The best tanks, the best tankers, the best aces, the best battleships, the best generals, the best NCOs. Yeah.

Now you are jumping conclusions there. Because of some tests that did not match your expectation it is now wehraboos and German bias? 

I know CM has flaws and all and to some, certain things don't go in the direction they have imagined but I doubt that BFC is in any kind "infected" by this "desease" as lots of my burning Panzers show.

But well the German army was in my opinion one of the best armies back then. And that would concern training and technological tier they had. 

That doesn't make them in any kind unbeatable but otherwise they would not have gotten as far as they did. They had many flaws on the contrary too that all played a role in the endgame, like bad logistics, over engineering and well... Hitler. 

If you just alone look at the battle of Kursk and watch the casualties and compare them there must be something to it. 

Sure T34/85s and JS 2 weren't a thing there but still. Keep in mind that the soviets knew that the germans would be coming and had enough time to prepare themselves: build up ATG positions, entrench themselves put up reserves etc. pp. 

 

The germans lost the battle because they didn't achieved their main goal but the death/kill ratio for an attacker is astonishing. 

21 hours ago, PEB14 said:

Sure the Panther and the Tiger were better than the Sherman and the T-34 as far as gun and armor are concerned (which are the relevant factors for such a tactical game). But in 1944/45, for one Wittman you had 10 green German tank crews and unexperienced/third rate leaders, who led the Panzerwaffe to disasters like the Dompaire battle. And I strongly believe that the soft factors did make the difference in RL. In CM game terms I believe that gunnery accuracy shall be more homogeneous for low quality tank crews (Regular and Green) whatever the tank they use, the hard factors getting prominent for more experienced crews.

As you mention Wittman so much: Maybe you are underestimating green and regular troops to much maybe? 

What makes a regular trooper any different to an elite one? Accuracy? Of course through more firing in battle conditions you should be getting better or fine tune that ability but as a regular you already should have some decent gunnery skills. 

You should know the advantages and disadvantages of your given weapon, how to maintain it and how to solve simple errors if something went wrong... At least if you consider a normal training time. I know these were shortened at some point in the war. 

I'm no tanker but looking back at my conscription time in the German army I could hit a target with my G36 at 600m without much effort considering the scope was zeroed properly. I could disassemble and reassemble my rifle and the MG3 pretty fast and blindfolded. I could build up the MG3 in a tripod position and make it a good covered MG position. That are your traits as a soldier, you learn that. 

Does it make me a veteran fighter? Surely not. 

Now the difference between a trained soldier and a battle hardened (veteran, crack, elite) one is to be on the actual battlefield. Experiencing and overcome battle stress like being under fire or witnessing death all around. Making those fast decisions while under fire. Know when to retreat and when to attack and maybe being a bit reckless from time to time. 

 

So while accuracy surely is a point and is represented in CM it is not the main thing that defines an experienced soldier. It is the battle brain if you can call it that and the endurance to keep on fighting while being fired uppon. 

At least that's my opinion on the matter. 

 

To the subject Panther VS T34 again:

To get a better insight on why these two tanks, which are somewhat similar, perform so differently I would recommend you some videos where people actually have an insight into the tanks. 

People like "The chieftain" that make complete walk-around videos that  sometimes have multiple episodes. 

I remember that he and other mention that the T34/76 and the T34/85 (though it being a good upgrade to the former) are not very pleasant to be in. And that would also reflect on the performance of the crew, be it in spotting or actually shooting. 

[PEB14]

10 minutes ago, Brille said:

So your teast might be a bit misleading in that regard. Maybe try a 1:1,5 or 1:2 ratio for the soviets to match the actual numerical superiority.

Well, for my test the ratios are not realy relevant. The purpose was to test the accuracy of standard tanks at medium ranges - Which by the way appear to be quite long ranges according to informations provided by @George MC.

It's clear that 10 T-34/85 would not have gained the upper hand against 10 Panther, all soft factors equalled. But I'm troubled by the difference of accuracy.

 

10 minutes ago, Brille said:

Now you are jumping conclusions there. Because of some tests that did not match your expectation it is now wehraboos and German bias? 

I know CM has flaws and all and to some, certain things don't go in the direction they have imagined but I doubt that BFC is in any kind "infected" by this "desease" as lots of my burning Panzers show.

I must agree with you. But I'm troubled by my experience with Panzer IV and StuG in other games, whose resistance seemed to be overly spectacular. That led my to the somewhat precipitated conclusion above.

By the way, infantry-wise, the game show no bias favouring the Germans. Maybe because soft factirs clearly rule CM infantry performance in a much more significant way that it does for AFVs.

 

10 minutes ago, Brille said:

But well the German army was in my opinion one of the best armies back then. And that would concern training and technological tier they had. 

That doesn't make them in any kind unbeatable but otherwise they would not have gotten as far as they did. They had many flaws on the contrary too that all played a role in the endgame, like bad logistics, over engineering and well... Hitler.

This discussion could fuel hundred pages of flaming discussions!

Based on my latest readings, recent researches tend to show that the performance of the German army in 1944-45 has been overestimated, mainly because it is an interesting case of history being (at least in part) written by the losing side.

 

10 minutes ago, Brille said:

As you mention Wittman so much: Maybe you are underestimating green and regular troops to much maybe?

What makes a regular trooper any different to an elite one? Accuracy? Of course through more firing in battle conditions you should be getting better or fine tune that ability but as a regular you already should have some decent gunnery skills. 

I mentioned Wittman only twice in my post and never before!

But this is clearly the key point. How do green troop perform when compared to veteran troops? Or (once again), in terms of armor warfare, are green troops significantly less efficient than veteran ones in terms of spotting and gunnery accuracy?

My opinion is, accuracy and peripherical spotting (I mean, away from the tank/turret axis) should be heavily influenced by troop quality; and in a non-linear way (eg, difference shall be small at short ranges and tremendous at long distances). But to be honest, this is only my personal opinion, I can't back it by any kind of stats, and I doubt we can find any of them to back my stance (or to deny it).

Probably only veterans could have told.

10 minutes ago, Brille said:

So while accuracy surely is a point and is represented in CM it is not the main thing that defines an experienced soldier. It is the battle brain if you can call it that and the endurance to keep on fighting while being fired uppon. 

At least that's my opinion on the matter.

I 100% agree with you. But it's hard to translate it in game terms.

For the infantry, it's even the opposite. The more experienced troops are the ones who die the most in the game, mainly because they don't cower as much as the green ones and they won't break and retreat easily.

 

10 minutes ago, Brille said:

To the subject Panther VS T34 again:

To get a better insight on why these two tanks, which are somewhat similar, perform so differently I would recommend you some videos where people actually have an insight into the tanks. 

People like "The chieftain" that make complete walk-around videos that  sometimes have multiple episodes. 

I remember that he and other mention that the T34/76 and the T34/85 (though it being a good upgrade to the former) are not very pleasant to be in. And that would also reflect on the performance of the crew, be it in spotting or actually shooting. 

My purpose was not to test the performance of the Panther VS T34, but only to have an insight of the accuracy of two standard medium tanks. I could have taken Sherman, Pz Iv or T-34/76 as well (and the results would be interesting.

Once again, the technical superiority of the Panther over the T-34 in nearly every aspect but reliability is well established.

 

 

[chuckdyke]

Play Gog Magog in Red Thunder It starts with T34/76 vs King Tigers it is not that one sided as one may think and that is the AI as the Soviets and I was still a noob player. 

[Chibot Mk IX]

I haven't played "Broken Shield" campaign but what is the weather conditions in that scenario?  

Are your Panthers shooting at something before they were hit by T-34/85?

in the foggy weather, the spotting might become very weird. Sometime you won't spot a stationary AFV 200m away. However everything changes if your Panther open fire, let's say it is shooting an infantry squad 200m away with MG, it will become a beacon in the darkness, attract incoming fire from everywhere as far as 1000m away.  

 

 

I also had some frustrating spotting experience in scenario "FR Feierabend", that is a scenario with mist weather, most Soviet tanker are Veterans with +1/+2 , they were boosted by high proficiency tank riders. 

[Bulletpoint]

On 8/22/2023 at 2:41 PM, PEB14 said:

- even on the Eastern Front, engagement ranges appear to have been shorter than what we use to think. 80% of the Soviet AFV destroyed by 88 mm gun were destroyed at ranges below 1000 m according to Zaloga!

This is because of the gently rolling nature of the terrain. If you play Mius Front, you'll really notice it. Even when you're on a hill, the curvature means that sight lines are often quite restricted.

As you move forward on the curving slope, gradually more and more terrain rolls into view, but there's usually this "horizon" that prevents you from engaging very far.

Only exception is when you're on the top of a hill - then you can target small areas of other hilltops far away, but everything between those points is dead ground.

[Vacillator]

On 8/23/2023 at 10:07 AM, chuckdyke said:

Play Gog Magog in Red Thunder It starts with T34/76 vs King Tigers it is not that one sided as one may think

It's been a while but I think I recall not so many T34/76s - more IS2s, ISU122s and some T34/85s.  There are some T34/76s that are fast but quickly dispatched.

In the real life battle, it was supposedly the IS2s that made the difference, according to the 'established' history books.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Vacillator said:

It's been a while but I think I recall not so many T34/76s

At the very beginning they do their job by damaging optics and radios and make it more even for the JS2s.

[Vacillator]

13 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

damaging optics

That is a good point.  Probably hitting gun mounts and disabling guns as well...

[Chibot Mk IX]

On 8/19/2023 at 2:08 PM, PEB14 said:

I basically agree; but the problem is, 95% of WW2 CM battles occur at engagement ranges where any hit is fatal for AFVs (except for German tanks which are able to withstand several hits without significant damages: Tigers, Panthers, and even Pz IV against Shermans).

Additionally, I find the accuracy of the shooters incredibly high . I didn't perform systematical tests, but I would say that at least 80% of the shots directed at a static or slowly moving vehicles hit their targets. Which means that, basically, the first to spot is the first to kill.

I seems to me that, in WW2 CM games, gunnery accuracy is much to high, and spotting chances much too random. I have the feeling that it should be EASIER to spot than to hit (at least for opened up vehicles), while in CM WW2 games there is really no doubt that the opposite is true.

As for the randomness of spotting, it really leads to ridiculous results. In my last game against @FogForever, I managed only once to outmanoeuver him: I was able to advance an armored car on the flank of one of his light tanks, unnoticed. My armored car advanced in open ground towards his tank; the AC stopped about 100 meters away; the tank was right in front of the armored car, which was opened up. For about 20-30 seconds, both vehicles stayed in this position. Then the light tank turned his turret, fired and destroyed the armored car. At NO TIME the armored car spotted the enemy tank, for which it had a tentative contact. Yes the armored car crew was green; but the light tank's crew was only regular, so only one rank better. This was really ridiculous, just like facing an elephant in a corridor and not seing it. I would have been much less frustrated if the green crew spotted, missed because of its "greeniness", and then got dispatched by the light tank. Fair enough. But no spotting at this distance? No way.

 

As a conclusion I 100% agree with @SDG ; after 8 months of CM experience, I got so frustrated by the tank vs. tank and AT gun vs. tank game dynamics that I now play a lot more CMBN and CMFI than CMRT. Infantry rules!

 

I haven't finish all the discussion on tank gunnery accuracy discussion in this topic.   I agree this is something need more testing and discussion.

What matters here is the first shot hit rate, and how much improvement the following shot can have 

I have a lot of 1vs1 sandbox scenario at 1000m, with IS/2, T-34/85 vs Panther, vs StuG III, vs KT , checking how are their performance may help my decision making during the other CM game time. Most of the time you will see the Panther fired three shots then turn the T-34/85 into a fireball, sometime it is four, occasionally you will see first shot hit the target.  Anyway, I do feel the needs to run couple tests and record what is the first shot hit rate in CMRT. 

In the CMx1, the 1000m first shot hit rate is at 33%, then slowly improves to 66%-80%. In CMx2, after one or two correction shots, the following rounds seem to have a 100% hit rate. So compare to pervious engine, CMx2 has better follow up shots' correction improvement, after gunner zero in it rarely miss. 

 

********************************************************************************************************************************

 

The weird part is a multiplier to one engagement. it seems like the ability to zero in is not based on each individual shooter, but based on the total number of shots one side have fired,  In other word, assuming you have PzIVs shooting at a T-34 at 2000m, a PzIV might need 10 AP round to zero in the target, but after the first IV fired 9 AP rounds, the 2nd PzIV also spotted the T-34 , he might just need one shot to hit the target.  I don't have any hard proof on this crazy theory. It's an impression from couple dozens long range engagements.

I even discussed this with one of my PBEM opponent. the scenario is a player modified German stock campaign mission 1. German Panzer formation try to capture several fords in an open terrain.  In this German attack scenario, I sent PzG Inf forward, spotting T-34/85 then sharing the information with Panzer branch. Move Pz IVs into position, use HMG teams and mortar to keep T-34/85 hatch closed. Then I will let multiple Pz IVs jumping out of cover simultaneously, usually it is a 4:1 ratio to ensure I outgun the T-34/85.

From my conversation with my opponent,

The #1 T-34 destroyed , hull down position, distance 1400m, it is a one vs one duel,  a veteran Pz IV fired 4 AP rounds. 1^st , 2^nd missed. 3^rd, 4^th hit.

another T-34/85 hidden in the woods was engaged by serval IVs,  then later a veteran Pz IV at 1400m distance spotted the T-34, he hit the T-34 with first shot, causing ammo cook off.

third T-34 faced 4 Pz IV  , multiple shots fired, it’s probably took out by 2nd shot from a regular IV at 1400m

forth T-34 facing two separated engagement from two directions. First engagement is at 1700m, again, after couple shots fired by other IVs,  a regular IV hit T-34 with first shots although it didn't went through the turret armor.  one min later, a regular Pz IV at a different direction spotted the T-34,  the first round connected the target and kill the T-34 at 1300m, shocking…

Another T-34 killed by a crack Pz IV  with 2^nd round at 2000m. Before the crack Pz IV open fire, several others IVs fired 3-4 AP at the T-34.

 

From this PBEM record, seems like if you just look at the gunner who hit the target it shows a remarkable/unrealistic high accuracy. But like I said, put it into the big pic, this high accuracy is forged by total number of shots one side that have fired. 

 

it's just my theory, sounds crazy....

 

 

[chuckdyke]

Here is a technique worth testing that is. Light Area Fire where you intend to ambush once an enemy armor enters your cover arc where you area fired before the first hit probability increases. Which was my subjective impression. Using German armor outside ranges where Soviet armor is not that effective. 

[PEB14]

@Chibot Mk IX

Thank you for sharing, this is much interesting.

As you rightfully point out, more testing is required; but the test I described above seems to confirm that "the ability to zero in is not based on each individual shooter, but based on the total number of shots one side have fired".

You indicate that a single Panther needs 3 shots to put a T-34 in flames. In my examples, 10 Panther scored 12 hits out of 21 shots, half your number. I should perform more systematic tests to check wether it's a statistical bias or for real.

By the way, it's not completely unrealistic. If I understand WW2 tank ballistic correctly, the main factor for gun accuracy is range finding. Once range is known, the guns were precise enough to hit a tank at 1000 m with nearly no miss. So if one tank acquires the range and is in C2, he can share the information with his mates and improve their accuracy. Obviously this is only true for tanks firing at the same target (or a very close one) from the same area, otherwise the range information is irrelevant...

[Vanir Ausf B]

16 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

The weird part is a multiplier to one engagement. it seems like the ability to zero in is not based on each individual shooter, but based on the total number of shots one side have fired, 

 

10 hours ago, PEB14 said:

As you rightfully point out, more testing is required; but the test I described above seems to confirm that "the ability to zero in is not based on each individual shooter, but based on the total number of shots one side have fired".

I put 3 pair of Pz IVs 1250m across from 3 isolated IS-2s, let one of each pair of Pz IVs (call them Group 1) fire for two turns (9 shots each) to ensure every subsequent shot was a hit, then let the other Pz IVs (Group 2) start shooting. The number of shots taken by Group 2 tanks to achieve the first hit was 2,4 and 3 respectively.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Vanir Ausf B

[A Canadian Cat]

6 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Group 2 tanks to achieve the first hit was 2,4 and 3 respectively.

And what were the shots to first hit of the first PzIV? I think I can guess but I figured you had the data

[Vanir Ausf B]

5 minutes ago, IanL said:

And what were the shots to first hit of the first PzIV? I think I can guess but I figured you had the data

None of them hit on the first shot but I did not actually count Group 1s shots to first hit, to be honest. The point of the test was a quick sanity check, not an in-depth statistical analysis.

[A Canadian Cat]

11 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

None of them hit on the first shot but I did not actually count Group 1s shots to first hit, to be honest. The point of the test was a quick sanity check, not an in-depth statistical analysis.

Oh I get that. Sometime wild claims get made and it's nice to check for sanity so they don't get absorbed into the form lore.

Thanks.

[warrenpeace]

This thesis is interesting.  In the literature review section it says that "12 shots were required to kill a AFV in WW2 with and average range of 800 meters.  In Destert Storm it was 1.2 at 2200 meters.

 

https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p4013coll2/id/562/download