88mm KwK 36 L/56 accuracy test and some ideas

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom,

You keep forgetting that Jens also states:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first-round hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the second column.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please stop looking at just the LAST bit of this statement. Look at the first bit:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can this be ANY clearer? Those estimated hit numbers are NOT what you would find on the battlefield, and therefore NOT what you should expect in CM. The last part, that you keep quoting over and over again, is either in direct contradiction to the first part OR was talking about the chance of follow up hits AFTER range was calculated. I very much doubt that Jenz purposefully contradicted himself, so we are left with only the second possibility.

So, the question is... at 2000m how many misses (braketing shots) would be required to establish range of a non-moving target. Jenz then goes on to provide an example:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The expected performance from a Tiger I on a practice range was that the gunner would hit the target by the fourth round at ranges between 1200 and 2000 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so a well trained gunner should hit on the 4th shot at this range (which is a far cry from 3000m). But re-read what Jenz clearly states here yet again:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>on a practice range<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now... combine all this stuff together, and what is Jenz saying that you aren't getting? I'll tell you

1. The gunner's accuracy in the second table was predicted after range was found.

2. The statistics do not represent accuracy in battlefield conditions.

3. To find range the gunner would have to employ bracketing. This means, basically, missing and spotting where the misses landed.

4. On a practice range at under 2000m a gunner was expected to hit by the 4th shot.

Conclusion:

Jenz clearly states that battlefield conditions lower the chances of a hit being acheived. He also states that to score a hit several misses (bracketing shots) are expected. He then gives a qunatifiable number for a PRACTICE range expectiation for a hit. Therefore, if practice range results are not directly translatable into battlefield results, then the 4 shots to hit would obviously be greater on the battlefield. Therefore, at ranges between 1200 and 2000m, according to Jenz' figures, the chances of a gunner hitting his target, under battlfield conditions, is going to be in excess of 4 shots. How much more than 4? That is debatable. But certainly more.

The above is all from Jenz' own words. Disagree with the above, you are disagreeing with Jenz.

As a side note... check out my previous test with the PzIVs at 1650m. What was the average number of shots needed to achieve a hit? 5.2 hits. Now is that so ourtragously out of whack with what Jenz is saying? Nope

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

You know I have gone into some detail on explaining that the German accuracy tables in Jentz's books don't reflect combat or even range gunnery results here. As well as pointing out the 2nd table is a calculation based table not one that was built from gunnery practice range firing in several posts.

So again the table 2 data does not reflect actual gunnery range results, it is an mathematical equation table with modifiers from the Table 1 accuracy test Live fire data, with accuracy % adjusted down to reflect, the absence of predetermined range, an expert gunner, etc. The table 2 data is nothing more then an example of what accuracy could be expected to attain from a normal crew with that wpn system under the adjusted formula.

Again what is needed here is actual qualification gunnery statistics for these tanks Ie, what qualified a passing grade, we know in the Tiger E it was expected that the crew score an hit in 30secs, @ 800 - 1200m by the 3rd round & and again expected to score

an hit in 30secs, @ 1200 - 2000m in 30secs, by the 4th round vs a 2m high 2.5m wide target moving at 20kph across the frontal

arc.

As well as that Tiger crews were generaly held to a higher standard expectations then other tank crews. We know squat about any other German tank's gunnery expectations or practices on the range other then that their gunnery practice was vs a 2m high 2.5m wide target moveing at 20kph across the frontal arc.

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. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-25-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

Hi John W

I hope you don't mind I included you in my "we" statement in a post on page 11. I almost always find myself in agreement with oyur position and your posts, and I have not known you to disagree with me too much, so I used we mostly because a team effort is usually more appealing that the use or the "egocentric" I this, or I that, hope that's ok.

Again I agree with your post above.

And I guess now owe ASL Vet and Steve a Reply..

(I'm working on it, but so far I don't have anything new to add) Maybe I should put my "slack ass poster boy" hat back on and withdraw )

-tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

John,

Just a nitpick. You wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>again expected to score an hit in 30secs, @ 1200 - 2000m in 30secs, by the 4th round vs a 2m high 2.5m wide target moving at 20kph across the frontal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was there more to the Jenz discussion than what Jeff posted? What was posted said nothing about hitting a moving target at 1200-2000m. The reference about hitting at this range with 4 shots was against a stationary target, unless of course there is more than what Jeff quoted.

In any case, under "battlefield" conditions (i.e. my PzIV test) I showed that roughly 5.2 shots were needed to score a hit at 1650m. This covered a range of results, from first shot hit to 6 shots missed. Obviously the former was a "stone cold" gunner and the latter was a bit "flustered"

Since "Regular" crews are the same, no matter what they are manning, unless the aspects that contribute to accuracy were radically differnt between the PzIV and the Tiger 1E, I think this quick example of mine shows that CM's results and the predictions Jenz quoted are not all that different. The "average, cool gunner" under battlefield conditions (i.e. in CM) performed close to what Jenz quoted.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John,

Just a nitpick. You wrote:

Was there more to the Jenz discussion than what Jeff posted? What was posted said nothing about hitting a moving target at 1200-2000m. The reference about hitting at this range with 4 shots was against a stationary target, unless of course there is more than what Jeff quoted.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Steve, me bad, to many returns to this accuracy table topic . The 1200 - 2000m result's are for a Tiger vs an stationary, 2m 2.5m target.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since "Regular" crews are the same, no matter what they are manning, unless the aspects that contribute to accuracy were radically differnt between the PzIV and the Tiger 1E, I think this quick example of mine

shows that CM's results and the predictions Jenz quoted are not all that different. The "average, cool gunner" under battlefield conditions (i.e. in CM) performed close to what Jenz quoted.

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Steve to be fair you would need to try that test with a Tiger, not a PzKpfw IV unless someone has the 7.5cm L/48 table 1 & 2 data lying around for a comparison. As the tables being bantered around here are for the KwK.36 & KwK.43 as well as, the hit expectation results concern the Tiger E.

Until such time as we have more data on each tank guns accuracy preferably tabled as with the KwK.36, 42 & 43, proclaiming all CM's tank gun accuracy to be universily close to the table 2 results may be a bit premature . As I said we know absolute didl'y doo about range expectations for the PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw V etc we have the KwK.42 tables just not the gunnery range expectations.

I agree regular crew are regular in CM, my point was that Tiger crew in reality were held to higher standards then other German tank crews, in that they were considered regular 'elite' crews .

No Tom I didn't mind ...

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. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-25-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

John wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well Steve to be fair you would need to try that test with a Tiger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. I was just pointing out that the PzIVs at least came in with fairly close numbers to what Jenz quoted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree regular crew are regular in CM, my point was that Tiger crew in reality were held to higher standards then other German tank crews, in that they were considered regular 'elite' crews <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree completely. I personally would crew Tigers with "Veterans" to simulate this. However, my point is that the range of results for a Regular crew will be greater than a better one. This is what Jeff was talking about. The results for the "average" gunner are going to include the one shot one kill types as well as the can't hit the broad side of a barn in 60 seconds. As long as the average is in the ball park, perhpas leaning more towards the fewer shots to achieve a hit, things are working fine.

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

Out of the Clear Blue again

aka

This is that info I was talking about regarding the Panzerfaust misfires. It’s from a series of pamphlets similar to the Osprey Military Pamphlets. This series appears to be somewhat lower tech with respect to printing\publishing gloss (relative to Osprey). But real nice booklets…and relatively inexpensive. A lot of great photos on glossy paper. Some interesting facts and figures. Anyway enough with the review. Here’s the stuff you were asking about (plus some additional fluff).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In 1943,350,000 of the Panzerfaust were produced. Production of the Panzerfaust klein was halted. The HASAG made suggestions to improve the performance and utility of the new weapon. Warheads with shrapnel and incendiary effects were tested. Wa. Prw. 11 examined salvo firing devices with ten or sixteen Panzerfaust units.

Despite the deficiencies that were still present, the Panzerfaust established itself as the main close-combat anti-tank weapon. Production of the Panzerfaust 60 m began in August. The stipulated monthly production of 400,000 units could be attained only in October 1944. Handling had been simplified further and reliability improved. An increase of the black-powder charge to 140 grams necessitated a thicker firing barrel, but brought an increase in the effective range to 75 meters. In November of 1944 the Panzerfaust 100 m came out. The introduction of the hollow-charge cartridge allowed an increase of the effective range to 100 meters while using the old firing barrel. With its trajectory at its greatest height of 3.5 meters, a maximum range of 280 meters could be attained. In December 1944, production reached the striking figure of 1,295,000 units. The misfiring quota, though, was 5.5%!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are a couple of great ways to win the Cross of Iron...Posthumously

The above image and write are courtesy of: Wolfgang Fleischer

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-27-2000).]

[Guest machineman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

[.

Machineman:

I am still curious about your findings regarding Tiger crews use of flak range finders. I have yet to find a photo of this being used by a Tiger TC. I have seen STUG TC’s using scissor type range finders. Is the thing physically inserted into the cupola or does the TC hold it by hand while he checks range to target? Do you have access to a photo?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, I can't find a photo of it being used here either. This is the whole quote dealing with it:

"Early production Tiger I tanks with the drum pattern cupola did not have the bracket for mounting the TZR1. Instead the crew used a hand held optical rangefinder similar to the ones used by crews of Flak guns"

It does give a picture of a US hand held one, a long tube with the eyepeices in the middle and lenses either end, with the following caption:

"From a destroyed Tiger I in North Africa, the British Army found a badly burnt example of a hand held optical rangefinder known as the E.M.17. Wartime pictures also showed it's use in other areas of operation by Tiger I crews. It was a coincidence type rangefinder...The hand-held rangefinder pictured is from a US Army manual and is almost identical to the models used by the Germans."

It looks like a long awkward thing that you view from the center while holding both 'horns' out and steady with the hands.

From the information given I'm thinking the handheld idea worked, but as soon as they figured out the idea was useful they modified the cupola to fit the TZR1, with which the commander did not have to stick his head out of the turret and still gave him 39 inches of view height above the cupola. Plus stowage and everything was taken care of:

"When not in use, it (the TZR1) is stowed on the near side of the turret. The mounting bracket is adjustable and allows the periscope to be adjusted approx 5 degrees to either side of vertical. Two clamping handles are provided for locking the periscope in place after adjustment."

All quotes from Michael Green's 'Tiger Tanks'.

Paul

[Jeff Duquette]

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

BTS Said:

Was there more to the Jenz discussion than what Jeff posted? What was posted said nothing about hitting a moving target at 1200-2000m. The reference about hitting at this range with 4 shots was against a stationary target, unless of course there is more than what Jeff quoted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeeze BTS...you mean to tell me you don’t own a copy of Jentz’s Tiger I & II Combat Tactics? Oh my...I’m not sure what to think now

[Jeff Duquette]

machineman:

Did it look something like either of these

EmR.1.5 m

Entfermungsmesser 14 and 34

[Guest machineman]

Yep, probably more like the top one than the bottom, two eyepeices, about that width. I guess the distance between lenses gave some triangulation for the coincidence imaging to work at distance?

And I'm assuming they would have a pretty fair degree of magnification or something at a distance would not give enough 'edge' to get a range reading. What is 6 degrees anyhow, like looking through a transit? If so they would be a real bear to hold still.

I've only used a very small rangefinder that was originally made for cameras myself.

[Guest Big Time Software]

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

Jeeze BTS...you mean to tell me you don’t own a copy of Jentz’s Tiger I & II Combat Tactics? Oh my...I’m not sure what to think now <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles collects the low level stuff like this. My collection is higher level. In other words, for ever one Jenz book you have I probably have at least one by David Glanz

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

My Glantz collection is limited to his recent "Battle of Kursk".

An interesting book to take a look at -- considering the subject matter of CM2 -- might be "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" by Dmitriy Loza (Translated by James Gebhardt). A lot of interesting insights into M4's of the Russian Front.

[illo]

In finnish book "Marskin Panssarintuhoajat"

following stats are said from 75PaK/40 AT-Gun(1944):

Range:8000m

Effective range:1800m (20%)

Suggested range to open fire at non moving target:1200m (50%)

Suggested range to open fire at moving target, using lead predictor sight:700m

Expected rate of fire:7-8 rounds/min.

Expected hit percentages are in brackets

Target is most likely considered as russian medium tank (T-34/76,T-34/85?)

[This message has been edited by illo (edited 10-27-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Interesting Illo. I found this in Jentz’s work on the Stug III regarding the short 75mmL24. His write-up – with a few notable exceptions -- is remarkably similar to his write-up for the 88mmL56.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: Doyle, Jentz & Sarson’s “Stug III Assault Gun 1940-42”

Due to the high arcing flight of low velocity rounds fired from the 75 mm Stu.K. L/24, it could only be expected to hit vertical point targets such as tanks at fairly short ranges. The estimated accuracy is given as the probability (in percentage) of hitting a target measuring 2 x 2 m, representing the target presented by the front of an opposing tank.

These accuracy tables assume that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits centered on the point of aim. The first column shows the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing of the gun to determine the pattern of dispersion. The second column includes the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunition, and gunners. As shown in Table 3, both columns were reported in the accuracy tables extracted from an original manual on the 75 mm Stu.K. L/24. These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range, the probability of any hit beyond 800 m was slight when firing these low velocity rounds with their associated high arcing trajectories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jeff Duquette]

Couple other things I wanted to speculate on (unless of course we’re done with this topic):

The practicality of Hand Held Range Finders in Tanks I suspect in the defense...when initially checking reference points...i.e. expected avenues of advance...this instrument would have been very useful. In the attack, and once a defensive engagement was joined I cant imagine a TC fiddling about with such an awkward tool. Once buttoned up...forget it.

Likely Engagement Ranges I think the tendency of flesh and blood tank and anti-tank crews (who unlike wargamers have but one life to give for their "virtual" battlefield) would be reluctant in the defense to engage targets until they felt a reasonable chance existed of scoring a first round hit. The reasons being: Once you have commenced firing the probability that your position will be revealed rises dramatically. And once you begin firing on an unsuspecting enemy attacker they are likely to scatter like roaches when the kitchen light is turned on.

Elite Tiger Crews Regarding Tiger Crews being held to a higher standard…I don’t know weather this is true or not, I’m sure we all recall reading the particulars behind the British capture of the Tunisian Tiger...less than a stellar moment for Tiger crews. However, the survivability of the Tiger on late 42 – early 44 Battlefields would certainly have given crews a greater ability to work through the ins and outs of their equipment while on the job. A green T34 crew learning its job makes a mistake on the battlefield and it’s likely their dead as a result of their mistake. A Tiger crew makes a battlefield recruit mistake…and there is a good chance that the thick armor on their Tiger saved their asses, and allowed them to learn from their mistakes. They live to fight another day. If your lucky enough to survive through enough mistakes...well...you become elite. Most folks learn more from mistakes than anything else. However, if your killed as a result of your mistake you can hardly become elite

German Precision Engineering There was a discussion regarding German Engineering precision and how it should somehow result in an accuracy bonus to German tank fire. Both the Panther and Tiger were notable for various mechanical problems throughout their respective service histories.

[illo]

PUNT!

..err how did this great topic drop back to page 4??

Wasnt it shown here that CM had some problems in its gunnery modelling? Im talking

about that german 88L56 and 50L60 test which showed some relativity info.

Has CM modelled these guns with same relative accuracies that RL test showed??

[Jeff Duquette]

seems we are the only interested parties left

[Aussie Smith]

Nope Jeff

I'm very interested in this post - just not confident enough to put pen to paper on this one - as I'm holding up a big sign saying "Lack of Knowledge"..

John/Tom/Steve - now this is how a adult discussion should be - well done guys

Craig

[Jeff Duquette]

This was an interesting test:

One Tiger I, Elite SS crew.

vs.

Ten Stuarts, British Green Crews.

Setup test range of 2000 meters. Placed Tiger on a 3 meter high embankment (elevation 10). Remainder of map was flat (elevation 7). Placed 100 meter land marks so range was easy to determine.

First go around was Tiger at 2000 meters. The Tiger was unable to spot any Stuarts, yet was receiving accurate fire from the Stuarts. Tiger was eventually destroyed by a hit in a weak spot...or some such thing.

Second Go around I placed the Tiger at 1500 meters. The Tiger was able to pick one Stuart off after 4 rounds...the Stuart had moved to a range of 1200 meters before being spotted and destroyed. After the one KO’d Stuart the Tiger was unable to identify any more Stuarts from a range of 1500 meters. However the Stuarts were able to engage the Tiger with accurate fire at 1500 meters. I than preceded to move the Tiger to 1000 meters range, but the Tiger was still unable to identify Stuart targets. The Stuarts continued to issue accurate fire at the Tiger from 1000 meters.

[aka_tom_w]

Hey its still my favourite thread

I'm still here, unfortunately I have nothing new and revelant to add but I'm still looking for new material.Actually I have been playing much more lately and posting here a little less.

-tom w

[:USERNAME:]

I think this thread became an extension of the Slapdragon burnout thread.

I think theres discussion left about the sizing of vehicles and spotting and hit probabilitys. I still say pnzIV are oversized compared to shermans.

Eh. BTS decides where and when they need to discuss things. Be nice if THEY would start a thread now and again and moniter it closely.

Lewis

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

This was an interesting test:

One Tiger I, Elite SS crew.

vs.

Ten Stuarts, British Green Crews.

Setup test range of 2000 meters. Placed Tiger on a 3 meter high embankment (elevation 10). Remainder of map was flat (elevation 7). Placed 100 meter land marks so range was easy to determine.

First go around was Tiger at 2000 meters. The Tiger was unable to spot any Stuarts, yet was receiving accurate fire from the Stuarts. Tiger was eventually destroyed by a hit in a weak spot...or some such thing.

Second Go around I placed the Tiger at 1500 meters. The Tiger was able to pick one Stuart off after 4 rounds...the Stuart had moved to a range of 1200 meters before being spotted and destroyed. After the one KO’d Stuart the Tiger was unable to identify any more Stuarts from a range of 1500 meters. However the Stuarts were able to engage the Tiger with accurate fire at 1500 meters. I than preceded to move the Tiger to 1000 meters range, but the Tiger was still unable to identify Stuart targets. The Stuarts continued to issue accurate fire at the Tiger from 1000 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a great test

What conclusions would you draw from that test?

Should the Elite Tiger not pick off ALL of those Stuarts at 2000 meters which should be outside of the effective range of their 37 mm pea shooters which should be NO threat to the Tiger frontally?

No?

-tom w

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

This was an interesting test:

First go around was Tiger at 2000 meters. The Tiger was unable to spot any Stuarts, yet was receiving accurate fire from the Stuarts. Tiger was eventually destroyed by a hit in a weak spot...or some such thing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tiger couldn't see the Stuart, but the Stuart, could see the Tiger?,If the Stuart

can see the Tiger then the reverse should be true as well.

The Stuart's M40 sight would be lucky to even,be able to see an blurred image of an tank sized target at 2000m much less shoot accurately. And the Tiger was actualy killed by an weak point hit to, where did it hit? the 37mm barely penetrated 45mm @ 1000yrds IIRC.

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. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-29-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

You got it John...I thought it was pretty odd me-self.

Did another test...same range except 1 Tiger I (Elite) vs 5 Sherman MKV. (Green). The map is featureless other than a long 3 meter high berm\embankment which I place the Tiger.

Played 40 turns and typical ranges remained between 1800 to 1900 meters. The Tiger fired off all but 2 AP rounds in 40 minutes. The Tiger started with an upload of 41 AP rounds. The Tiger Killed 3 Shermans in that time. Granted the AI tends to be a little squirley in that the majority of firing was against moving targets.

I Guess I didnt buy into how bad you folks were making this issue out to be. Now that I have been fiddeling about with some of my own tests I am begining to scratch my head a bit on why CM gunnery accuracy is as poor as it is. All I can think of is that any target aquisition\target bracketing is not really much of an advantage in the game. That combined with very low "To Hit" probabilities.