ASL Veteran Posted October 15, 2000 Share Posted October 15, 2000 I was getting ready to start testing the accuracy of the PAK 43 when one of Ian Hogg’s comments about the PAK 43/41 caught my eye, “It’s only defect was a vibration period in the long barrel at high rates of fire – above 15 rounds per minute – which led to inaccuracy, but provided the rate of fire was kept below this figure the vibrations did not occur and the gun was as accurate as it was in the proper carriage.” The reason this caught my eye was the 15 rounds per minute figure. Having done a lot of testing on my CM ranges, no rate of fire for any weapon even approached 15 rounds per minute. I then started thinking about my Shermans in “Chambois” in a PBEM I am currently playing. I started to think of how slow the Sherman’s rate of fire seemed. I decided to test it. The Sherman’s ROF is only six rounds per minute. I tested a Tiger, that vehicle also had a ROF of six rounds per minute. I don’t have any figures, but that doesn’t feel right. The Sherman should have a much higher ROF than a Tiger – maybe close to twice as fast. What’s more, is that I decided to test the ROF at various ranges – at 100 meters and at 1500 meters. Logically the ROF would be MUCH faster at 100 meters than at 1500 meters since it would take less time to acquire the target at the closer range. At 100 meters you would be firing as fast as you could slam shells into the breech, while at 1500 meters your gunner would need considerable time to line up each shot – maybe 10 seconds or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 15, 2000 Share Posted October 15, 2000 Interesting post. What type of crews and what condition were they in? ------------------ And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh. -Steve My website! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 What were the crew's skill levels? Was a crewman dead? Did you make the tiger's turret turn between shots, ie have him target two different things? What was the visibility, ie clear day or foggy night? ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 also note that the American tanks used a mechanical firing device to fire their guns; the Tiger tank used an electrical one, which resulted in less of a delay between firings. -john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Doesn't gunpowder gasses have a big effect in tank's ROF? A gun's theoretical ROF max is completely different thing than the ROF under actual combat situation. Also it's been mentioned earlier that the US gunpowder released much more gasses compared to the German powder. Maybe that has been taken in account in ROF values. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted October 16, 2000 Author Share Posted October 16, 2000 Both had regular crews, both were pointing directly at their targets (which were not each other BTW). Conditions were clear, dry, and in the month of July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: Doesn't gunpowder gasses have a big effect in tank's ROF? A gun's theoretical ROF max is completely different thing than the ROF under actual combat situation. Also it's been mentioned earlier that the US gunpowder released much more gasses compared to the German powder. Maybe that has been taken in account in ROF values. Ari<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And completely different from aimed shots, I mean the Panther in emergency situations could achieve 20 rounds per min before the recoil forces necessitate a cease-fire in the French report (Spielberger, 1993). And just because Styer say that its rifle can achieve cyclic rate of fire of 600rds a min does not mean that I will even get close to it in combat, remembering the old joke that when you achieve maximum rate of fire on the GPMG or C-9 that its time to change the barrel or aim higher and then get your arse handed to you by an angry NCO after damaging the Queens property. Conclusions, cyclic rates of fire are also referred to as theoretical for a reason, you won’t ever see it in combat. Also it all very well to have Howitzers firing 20 rounds a min after the battery is on and a large mountain of shells next to the gun, its another story firing at visible and ‘pin point’ targets which tend to move on one and inexplicably return fire, the cads. ------------------ From the jshandorf "Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?" Mr T's reply "Don't touch me FOO!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibucephalus Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 I've read that the British and Canadian 25pdr was rated for 6 rds/min sustained fire, however, a gun position officer in a cdn battery in Normandy clocked his gunners at 15 rds/min sustained fire.That was with ammo that required the projectile and charge bags to be loaded separately, not the fixed ammo used by tank guns. He also reported that at its height, each gun would fire 1000 rds a day and the barrels would glow red at night. Amazing, considering the guns only had a barrel life rated for 20 000 rds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 I'd think ROF would be dendant on crew skill, in CM. As Bastables pointed out ROF could be affected by the blast as well, as US tanks ROF suffered from their powder as in it could take upto 15 secs for them to be able to reaquire their target after fireing or they had to change position right after fireing, whereas the Germans used a smokeless powder which meant faster target reaquirment after fireing, this is mentioned by US tankers in reports concerning areas they felt German tanks had an advantage. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count Sessine Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Interesting indeed, as the discussion concerning accuracy, or lack thereof, of german guns at long ranges. It seems that maybe BTS has cut some corners... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Interesting indeed, as the discussion concerning accuracy, or lack thereof, of german guns at long ranges. It seems that maybe BTS has cut some corners...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, it is baseless and unsupported comments like this that really tick us off. One utterly groundless statement like this gets read by one person, who didn't follow the discussion in question, and the next thing you know everybody is whispering "psssst... did you hear, BTS' accuracy modeling sucks ass". It has yet to be shown that there is a problem. Lots of stuff has been thrown out in the Accuracy thread about where CM fails, but little of it has stood up when examined more closely. In fact, there is quite a bit in that thread to support that we have it right. So until there is a heap of evidence to show that CM has something broken, we ask that people keep irresponsbile and unfounded comments to themselves. If there IS a problem, we will find it and fix it. Or does it take more than a couple hundred instances of this to prove that? Sheeesh... Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Count Sessine: Interesting indeed, as the discussion concerning accuracy, or lack thereof, of german guns at long ranges. It seems that maybe BTS has cut some corners...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um, yes sure whatever mate. ------------------ From the jshandorf "Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?" Mr T's reply "Don't touch me FOO!" "Yes that's right Jerry, RUN, Run for your little lives because Tommy's gotten close enough to assault mhahahahah." Nizam al-Mulk, (Order of the realm) In speaking of his superb disregard of maneuver warfare, in the destruction of OGSF hamsters who then carried on to flee the battle in their own notion of maneuver warfare. Tally HO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted October 16, 2000 Author Share Posted October 16, 2000 Yes, let's keep this thread about ROF and leave accuracy to the accuracy thread. Anyway, I think there are several factors which would affect ROF. 1. Crew quality - a better crew should fire more rapidly than a poorly trained crew. 2. Distance to target - the farther away the target is, the more time it would take to acquire it. 3. Weight of shell - a heavier shell is going to be more difficult to load than a light shell. A Tiger's shell is going to weigh in the area of 24 pounds and a Sherman 75 is going to weigh around 13 pounds. 4. Space - the more room a crew has to operate, the quicker they can use the gun. Perhaps AT guns should have a higher ROF than a tank because they have all the space they need. The M10 with it's open top maybe would have a higher ROF. BTW, all the Allied powers used smokeless powder according to Ian Hogg. The Americans used brass casings and the Germans apparently used lacquered steel casings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: BTW, all the Allied powers used smokeless powder according to Ian Hogg. The Americans used brass casings and the Germans apparently used lacquered steel casings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting ASL, "The German use of smokeless powder makes it very difficult for us to pick them up when they lie in ambush, whereas the flash of our own guns is easily discernable to an alert foe and may be easily observed from a great distance". - Cpt Henry Johnson 66th Armd. Regt Co F. Just have to did the rest of the reports up. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted October 16, 2000 Author Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Interesting ASL, "The German use of smokeless powder makes it very difficult for us to pick them up when they lie in ambush, whereas the flash of our own guns is easily discernable to an alert foe and may be easily observed from a great distance". - Cpt Henry Johnson 66th Armd. Regt Co F. Just have to did the rest of the reports up. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I'm just relaying what Ian Hogg says. He has the British, Americans, and Russians all using smokeless powder. What year were those first hand accounts from? BTW, I'm not convinced that what powder you use is going to make a difference in ROF anyway. Smokeless powder is an old invention and has been used for many many years. I believe it was in use prior to WW1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Well, I'm just relaying what Ian Hogg says. He has the British, Americans, and Russians all using smokeless powder. What year were those first hand accounts from? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was commenting on Hoggs remark compared to 1st hand accounts. 1945 was the year the report was compiled. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTW, I'm not convinced that what powder you use is going to make a difference in ROF anyway. Smokeless powder is an old invention and has been used for many many years. I believe it was in use prior to WW1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh I agree my problem is, if this was the case that something blocks your vision so bad , that for periods up to 15 secs you can't see out your gunsight, or you have to change position immideatly after fireing, then this is going to adversely affect ROF as your constantly re-aquireing etc. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 The annecdotal evidence mentioned talks about the flash, surely that's a different issue from the smokeless powder. Flash supressed guns would be difficult to spot, and even with a bit of smoke, surely a tank in trees or ambush position would be difficult to spot even with a puff of smoke. However, in either case, guns that produced flash would reveal the tank. I'm not clear on this issue. And as for arty, numerous accounts tell that the Axis soldiers widely believes the allies had some automatic artillery. Just been reading some accounts from jungle fighting in the pacific where captured prisoners talked about the US 'automatic' artillery as terrifying, and in Italy, one german position was pounded with 1500 shells in 30 minutes. And from memory it was only a single batallion that called in that much firepower PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 "All combatants in the Second World War employed brass as their cartridge case material. In Germany, however, towards the end of the war when material shortages were beginning to be felt and brass was in short supply, cartridge cases for the German forces were fabricated from steel with success, despite its greater tendency to corrode. Corrosion was inhibited in this case by the application of enamel and laquer." "British, US and Soviet tank guns all employed percussion operation. The Germans used electrical primers which were more reliable as they eleminated the firing interval which elapsed in percussion systems between the gunner pressing the trigger and the primer firing, due to the mechanical linkage involved." -Armoured Firepower by P. Gudgin <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps AT guns should have a higher ROF than a tank because they have all the space they need. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is already modelled in the game. I just had a 50mm AT gun that was firing 4 shots for every one the tank fired at it. Don't forget to add into your list the use of seperate ammo and also spent casings rolling around on the floor of the turrent. Maybe this is getting a bit too nit-picky. -john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted October 16, 2000 Author Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: The annecdotal evidence mentioned talks about the flash, surely that's a different issue from the smokeless powder. Flash supressed guns would be difficult to spot, and even with a bit of smoke, surely a tank in trees or ambush position would be difficult to spot even with a puff of smoke. However, in either case, guns that produced flash would reveal the tank. I'm not clear on this issue. And as for arty, numerous accounts tell that the Axis soldiers widely believes the allies had some automatic artillery. Just been reading some accounts from jungle fighting in the pacific where captured prisoners talked about the US 'automatic' artillery as terrifying, and in Italy, one german position was pounded with 1500 shells in 30 minutes. And from memory it was only a single batallion that called in that much firepower PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, now flashless powder is another beast entirely from smokeless powder. If smokeless powder was not in use during WW2 then it would look more like a Napoleonic battlefield. Plus, the image of American tankers choking in a smoke filled turret after firing a few rounds is a bit comical. "hey sarge, can someone open a hatch - we need to vent this turret a little." I should think that someone would recommend that a change in powder would be in order if that was the situation. Flashless powder though - I can see the Allies not having that I suppose. But a lack of flashless powder wouldn't effect ROF - just spotting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: the image of American tankers choking in a smoke filled turret after firing a few rounds is a bit comical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When I find the data i'll re-post it here. interesting, though as something was causeing a problem with reaquasition after the Sherman fired, it was identified as smoke outside the tank after fireing IIRC & they had to either wait for it to clear or change position as they couldn't see to fire, & it gave away their position. Heres a passage * concerning ROF as well from an 1943 report, for the US Armored Forces compareing the 75 & 76mm guns: 'The 76mm gun has an extremely heavy muzzle blast, such that the rate of fire when the ground is dry is controlled by the muzzle blast dust cloud. Under many conditions this dust cloud does not clear for some eight to 30 seconds. The presence of this heavy muzzle blast makes the senseing of the round extremely dificult for the tank comander and gunner...' The anecdotal reports submitted in 1945 confirm this as well in as I related earlier problems they had after fireing they also claimed that German tanks didn't suffer from these problems which would seem wrong to me as muzzle blast effects all tsnks. Question is, were German tanks affected as much by blast effects as the 76mm Sherman or did their muzzle breaks aleviate the blast affects somewhat allowing faster reaquasition after fireing?. *See: Zaloga Steve, Sherman Medium Tank 1942 - 1945 p.6 Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: But a lack of flashless powder wouldn't effect ROF - just spotting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which would then affect ROF, unless you are not interested in hitting anything. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted October 16, 2000 Author Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Which would then affect ROF, unless you are not interested in hitting anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not you spotting the enemy, but the enemy spotting you. If you are using flashless powder it will keep YOU from being spotted. If you are not it will make it easier for YOU to get spotted. It would not effect how you spot the enemy. Dang, I'm starting to feel like Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claus B Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 We seem to be going in all directions here A: Smokeless propellant. Old invention, probably used by all combattants in WWII (except perhaps certain African tribes using Napoleonic-age rifles B: Flashless propellant. Chemicals added to prevent muzzle flash. Would prevent you from being spotted by the enemy (and yourself from being temporarily blinded by the flash?) C: Muzzle blast. Regardless of propellant, when the projectile leaves the barrel, the gasses driving it will follow, creating a blast that can stir up dirt and dust. If the gun has a muzzle brake, the blast will be directed to the side and rear, throwing a cloud of dust and dirt up just in front of the vehicle/gun. Furthermore, anyone standing too close to the muzzle will be knocked silly and probably toasted as well (the temparature of the muzzle blast from the 7,5cm PaK 40 was 2100 degrees celsius). The primary problem effecting ROF seems to be C: Muzzle blast as it could completely obscure the target until the dust had settled, as well as giving away the position of the gun firing. Claus B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Not you spotting the enemy, but the enemy spotting you. If you are using flashless powder it will keep YOU from being spotted. If you are not it will make it easier for YOU to get spotted. It would not effect how you spot the enemy. Dang, I'm starting to feel like Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, not possessing first-hand knowledge, I would still think it is advisable to look away or close your eyes for a sec while firing, and that might make a difference with re-focussing. Otherwise you would get blinded, looking into the flash. Those are of course very minor niggles. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted October 17, 2000 Author Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claus B: We seem to be going in all directions here A: Smokeless propellant. Old invention, probably used by all combattants in WWII (except perhaps certain African tribes using Napoleonic-age rifles B: Flashless propellant. Chemicals added to prevent muzzle flash. Would prevent you from being spotted by the enemy (and yourself from being temporarily blinded by the flash?) C: Muzzle blast. Regardless of propellant, when the projectile leaves the barrel, the gasses driving it will follow, creating a blast that can stir up dirt and dust. If the gun has a muzzle brake, the blast will be directed to the side and rear, throwing a cloud of dust and dirt up just in front of the vehicle/gun. Furthermore, anyone standing too close to the muzzle will be knocked silly and probably toasted as well (the temparature of the muzzle blast from the 7,5cm PaK 40 was 2100 degrees celsius). The primary problem effecting ROF seems to be C: Muzzle blast as it could completely obscure the target until the dust had settled, as well as giving away the position of the gun firing. Claus B<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True enough, although every tank is going to suffer from muzzle blast - the bigger the gun and the closer to the ground it is, the worse it would probably be. Why would the Sherman's muzzle blast be bigger than a Tiger's? A crew could theoretically fire at a close stationary target through the muzzle blast too as long as the first shot was true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts