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

[Guest machineman]

Kind of busy with work lately, sorry.

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.

I agree, but also think that the restrictions on use of these also indicates the Germans would use them for long range shooting, no? And the fact that these handheld models (used only on EARLY tiger I's, I might add) were developed into the purpose made and fitted TZR1 model on later Tigers is another indication that long range shooting was done and found useful in some situations?

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.

Aha, but IF your weapon system (gun + rangefinding + sights + crew training/experience + gun platform) allows kills at ranges that your opponent cannot match, would you not do your best to keep your opponent at a range at which you can kill him and he can't kill you? A boxer with a reach advantage generally tries to keep his opponent at a distance. And if you are outnumbered, as Tiger crews often were, AFAIK, any advantage you had to 'whittle the opposition down' before they got close would be well worth the trouble, wouldn't it?

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

True. However you can train a crew all you want to be accurate gunners but it won't make them brave or clear headed under fire until they have some experience, which, as you point out, a Tiger crew (in their steel 'life insurance policy') was more likely to get.

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.

Making a gun accurate at distance, sights sharp, good rangefinding systems, precise turret controls, etc I think are quite different things then making engines and gearboxes reliable, I imagine. German tank guns and german optics are still very highly regarded, and have been all through this century, whereas their motor vehicle skills were definately behind the US in the thirties and forties. Again, I think the sum total of the weapon system (gun + rangefinding + sights + crew training/experience + gun platform) makes the difference at long ranges, not just muzzle velocity as it is modelled now.

The other thing would be official/field policy. What would something like the Tigerfebel say about recc engagement distances, and how would they compare to the recc engagement distances of their opponents?

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

OK this debate is going around in a pointless circle. On the one hand Jentz data can't be accepted cause it doesn't predict 'real combat conditions', but since no one has a clue what that is nothing can be made of it.

On the other hand a whole batch of people are testing the game engine to explore the 'game accuracy'. But given the first point, this is just as pointless cause you have no 'yard stick to measure' by, in otherwords you can't tell if the results are right or not.

Ok in the interest of sending some of you back to the books I'd like to propose something.

In Dan Bolger's "Dragons at War, Land Battle in the Desert", a number of Live fire battles from NTC are studied .

Since each battalion is forced to use the same Ft Erwin tanks ,mostly in disrepair and neglect in a unfamilar battlefield. I'll consider this a reasonable 'combat test', especally since most ODS veteran tankers report that NTC was tougher than real war.

In the Test case detailed, M-60A1 with basic conincidence fire controls were used by the Tank company that had upto that point had turned in a 'underwhelming response' during this NTC rotation, so we'll consider them 'average'.

The engadgement range was 500-2000m in open desert and in all case the OPFORS were moving , the results were as follows....

Tank company averaged about 26 shots each [ in about 20 minutes] to hit ~ 6 targets each for a average of 23%, or about 1 hit out of every 4 shots.[Good day; defence and prepared- best score for that mission in NTC up to that point '1982]

Tank company fired an average of 20 shots to hit 3 targets each for a 13% average , or 1 hit out of every 7 shots fired.[ Defence-bad day ; sloppy excution]

Tank company averaged about 23 shots to hit an average of 3 targets each for a 12% average , or 1 hit out of every 8 shots fired [assault short halt fire ; average excution].

Now the quoted range accuracy for the M-60A1 is around 50% @ 1500m range and if we use this as a rough guide the 'real combat' results were 1/2 to 1/4 this value.

In Jentz work they report that the Germans and the British "considered the 'double dispersion'was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by the troops in practice and if they remained calm in combat.

Jentz Tank Combat in North Africa.

So it follows that if you can approxmate how many more 'dispersions' is needed to adjust the notional M-60A1 down to the 1 in 4 average , you should be able to do the same for WW-II tanks.

On the test range the M-60A1 firing APDS should get accuracy of ....

[PRE] Stad Coin

500m 100% 100%

1000m 50% 75%

1500m 10% 40%

2000m 5% 15%

rough

average 40% 57%

[/PRE]

Thus at first glance the 'real combat accuracy vs a moving target ' is about 40% of the 'test range accuracy' on a good day and ~ 23% of the 'test accuracy' on a bad day or while on the move.

[Guest rune]

Great post Paul.

This is somethig I have been looking for. Now there is NO way a WWII sight is going to be better then an M60A1 sight. The only other AAR I have found where I can compare German shots to the Allied report, like I did on the first one, has a hit ratio much lower then this. However, WWII AARs don't go into the detail as well as I would like. Gee, didn't those officers know I would be researching their battles 50 years later? I think the modeling of hit/miss is good for CM1, and Charles already said he will try to get more information on German optics for CM2. Jentz non-withstanding, leave the numbers be.

Rune

[aka_tom_w]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Jeff those were good tests.

The ranges in question here are just about anything over 1000-1200 meters where the Tiger I should eb able to stand off and spot aquire target, hit and penetrate most allied armour with impunity, and it can't. The

Stuart test is a good one.

The 37 mm Stuart main weapon should not be able to accruately target anything out to 2000 meters, and a penetration on a Tiger at in a weakspot while it may have only been a 100-1 shot seems should impossible at that range against the frontal armour of the Tiger I.

So yes this is the long range gunnery spotting and accuracy issue we have been chatting about.

Paul makes a VERY good point when he says this:

"OK this debate is going around in a pointless circle. On the one hand Jentz data can't be accepted cause it doesn't predict 'real combat conditions', but since no one has a clue what that is nothing can be made of it.

On the other hand a whole batch of people are testing the game engine to explore the 'game accuracy'. But given the first point, this is just as pointless cause you have no 'yard stick to measure' by, in otherwords you can't tell if the results are right or not."

I have been suggesting that crew experience, especially for Veteran Crack and Elite crews, should mean that the subsquent shots after a first shot miss should be modeled with a greater chance to hit than they are now to model the skill with which the gunner uses the distance by which he missed the first time to adjust the shot and lay it on the target in the second or third shot.

The cumulative odds for a chance to hit should be getting close to 96% on fourth shot (after three misses, 1 in 25 chance of a fourth shot miss) for an Elite crew in Daylight against a largish target like a Sherman, (both stationary) at around 1000 meters.

BUT again, Like Paul says "Why" ?, and on what basis is this proposal modeled? What Data, which AAR's whose historical facts?

All good questions.

Thanks for the gunnery test range ARR Jeff, I think it is curious and helpful

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).]

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

OK this debate is going around in a pointless circle. On the one hand Jentz data can't be accepted cause it doesn't predict 'real combat conditions', but since no one has a clue what that is nothing can be made of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I don't believe this is correct. The Jentz data can be accepted because it points out the differences in the inherent accuracies of each gun/ammunition type when compared to each other. In this area we can use this data to show if the differences in these accuracies are reflected or not. Yes, it has no value in predicting the battlefield accuracy of these weapons, but it has value in predicting that the 75L24 should be just as accurate as the 88 Flak at 1000 meters - something that is not reflected in CM currently. The 50mm PAK should be more accurate than the 88 Flak. Also, APCR rounds should show a rapid decrease in accuracy as the range increases - in CM they display accuracy characteristics that are identical to AP rounds from the same gun.

So, while we can't really say that the accuracy model in CM is incorrect in the assumptions that it makes, we can say that the accuracy model doesn't take into account the differences between ammunition and guns per the Jentz data. Now, in CM's defense, CM does model different accuracies between gun types, and even has differences between HE and AP, but these differences do not necessarily correspond to the range and dispersion data that Jentz has presented.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Actually, I don't believe this is correct. The Jentz data can be accepted because it points out the differences in the inherent accuracies of each gun/ammunition type when compared to each other. In this area we can use this data to show if the differences in these accuracies are reflected or not. Yes, it has no value in predicting the battlefield accuracy of these weapons, but it has value in predicting that the 75L24 should be just as accurate as the 88 Flak at 1000 meters - something that is not reflected in CM currently. The 50mm PAK should be more accurate than the 88 Flak. Also, APCR rounds should show a rapid decrease in accuracy as the range increases - in CM they display accuracy characteristics that are identical to AP rounds from the same gun.

So, while we can't really say that the accuracy model in CM is incorrect in the assumptions that it makes, we can say that the accuracy model doesn't take into account the differences between ammunition and guns per the Jentz data. Now, in CM's defense, CM does model different accuracies between gun types, and even has differences between HE and AP, but these differences do not necessarily correspond to the range and dispersion data that Jentz has presented. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent post ASL Veteran

That does make sense and I had not looked at it from that perspective.

Very constructive post

-tom w

[Paul Lakowski]

The point about Jentz and the NTC AAR is that once you can approximate the number of times the dispersions deviates from the test range accuracy to the notional 'real world combat' then Jentz data can be scaled back by the same amount. But to do this you need to hit the books and find out the 'Mils' accuracy of select WW-II ammo to go by, for example in the 105 APDS ex the ammo is 0.4 mil while HESH is 10 times this.

[Jeff Duquette]

Paul:

Great post...I think this is the track this discussion should be taking.

I have been cracking the books in attempt to collect enough WWII AAR’s regarding rounds fired, range of engagement, and results of engagements to derive some reasonable feel for accuracy. Jentz includes several relatively detailed accounts fitting all three requirements in both Panzer Truppen II and Tiger Tactics. However, I feel like a fair amount of information should be gathered from non-Jentz sources. Again the problem becomes one of: “gee is the AAR being reported because it is something extraordinary or is it a typical event”. Most folks aren’t particularly keen on writing personal tales in which they fired 15 rounds and still couldn’t hit a tank at 500 meters. Conversely if they nail a target at 4000meters you can bet everyone in the division is going to be yakking about it.

Just a side note: Regarding “Applied Operations Research” the Brits concluded after studying a great number of tank engagements in ETO 44-45 that there didn’t seem to be any specific tendency on the part of German tankers to engage targets at extended ranges more often than British tankers.

My personal conclusions from game testing are that engaging tank targets at 2000 plus meters (assuming your tank can even see the target at 2000) is a waste of ammunition. But in my case I will simply adjust my game tactics accordingly. I am just as content to remain in a concealed position till the bad guys are at 1000 meters…than open fire. So in that sense I’m not chasing my tail with game testing.

[Paul Lakowski]

I have a distinct recollection of reading about a 88 gun battery/Bn? that was excuting long range fires [ 2 to 3 kms] against the brits in the desert and as I recall they got something like 5-10% hit prob.

In addition theres at least one account of 88 gun battery killing a T-34 at some ungodly range [ 5-6km] in Russia. 1 SS pz div history, I'll look that one up when I get home. I also have the HG Pz history that started out as a 88 gun regiment and there should be goodies in there.

[PzKpfw 1]

Well another problem would be narrowing down the weapon systems actual capabilities. German tank guns were calibrated at 1000m what were Allied tank guns calibrated at?. We know German optics gave them the ability to determine range through use of scales well for example the Sherman gunner had no way to accurately determine range & used shot fall to correct to range then bracket. You can see the difrences when looking at the sight reticules.

Then we have combat AARs describing the accuracy of their gun & ammo expenditure Ie, s.H.Pz.Abt 503 02.15.43:

'Using 8.8 cm Panzergranate successes against enemy tanks were achieved at short as well as long ranges. The most favorable range

is 1200 - 2000 meters. At ranges up to 2000 meters, a direct hit is reckoned on with the first or at the latest by the second shot.

Additional, small errors in range estimates at these ranges are almost insignificant.

However with good visibility success is even possible at ranges over 3000 meters. As an example, at ranges of 2500 to 3000 meters,

one PzKpfw VI fired 18 rounds to destroy five T-34 tanks of which three were moving across its front.'

I am interested in the reports comment that at ranges of 1200 - 2000m with the KwK.36 in corrections are 'almost insignificant' what does that tell us about the guns accuracy? the statement implies this is due to the guns capability. Was 1200 - 2000m the Tiger E's 'sweet spot' Ie, ranges where it had increased accuracy?.

The French reported in 1947 that the Panther's optimal engagement ranges were 1400 - 2000m & that the KWK.42's accuracy should be fully exploited at those ranges, at 2000m the KwK.42 produced hits even with Sprgr within 4 rounds.

The Panther & Tiger were built to exploit the long range capabilities of their guns, their sights and ammunition were designed from the drawing board specifically for the guns they would serve each type of round had its own performance, that was reflected in the sights when the round was selected and in the gun elevation.

Both tanks were armored such that they could kill their adversaries long before they could do the same. Is the inherent relationship with the sights, gun & ammunition in German tanks modeled in CM?.

We have tables of base accuracy from their original factory & proving ground tests, for most if not all of the German weapons but so far we have nothing on the Allied gun tests that were performed to determine the guns accuracy.

One of the questions bugging me from the evidence we have is that it appears German Tiger & Panther gunners were expected to hit targets at a longer range then Allied gunners, whether this was due to gunnery training or the guns inherent performance at these ranges, remains to be seen. The Allied test & practice range qualification data would help answer a lot of these questions IMHO. Anyway all this leaves is more questions then answers .

And lastly are we expecting to much from CM? CM is not a tank simulator, in a tank simulator Ie, PE I'd think these question's would be more important then in CM as PE is a tank simulation, while CM has many more wpns systems etc, to model then an dedicated simulation to a handful of tanks does.

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 10-30-2000).]

[Guest machineman]

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

I have been cracking the books in attempt to collect enough WWII AAR’s regarding rounds fired, range of engagement, and results of engagements to derive some reasonable feel for accuracy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's one:

Quoted in Michael Green's Tiger Tanks:

A wartime report by Captain Charles L. Davis where he recounts detail of an attack on German postions in North Africa by units of the 1st AD in late April 1943.

"As the platoon moved back up to the ridge to cover the left flank, the Germans responded with high explosive and armour piercing shells. A look through the glasses showed at least one Mark VI tank firing at approx 3000 yards...The platoon leader kept moving, putting his trust in mobility...A near miss had struck near the right rear of the tank, breaking the track...Recognizing the futility of using the 75mm gun to compete with high velocity weapons equipped with superior fire control instruments in that situation, the Platoon leader ordered the crew to abandon the tank."

Farther on, it is mentioned that high explosive rounds from an 88 are more accurate at longer ranges than armour piercing rounds, which I thought was interesting.

[Guest machineman]

Here's another one, a little more amusing maybe, from 'Six War Years' on 88 anti tank guns.

"You can wake up in a cold sweat remembering we were popping away at those big bastards at 1200 to 1800 yards, our range, and they could blow our tanks to pieces at 3000 yards.

You know who used to get most of those 88's, apart from the Typhoons, the dive bombers when we pinpointed one? The fellows in the tin hats. Yep, the infantry, they could get in close and they would get the German crew with their whizzing tiny bullets, their little machine guns, and there we were with the firepower of a gunboat and we usually didn't stand a chance."

[Paul Lakowski]

Can't find the desert account but heres the Leibstandarte account.dated 4th Feb 1942.

" From the elevated Donez, the 1. (8.8cm)/Flakabteilung LAH (under Dr Loenicker)used ite 8.8cm Flak guns and its heavy range finder to achieve targeted firing on the Russian tanks from a distance of between six and nine kilometers. The Kompanie was able to set nine tanks on fire and drive the rest back to the Balkas. It must have given the Russian tank crews, so certain of their victory, panic attacks to be shot at from an unknown location."

pp 47 "The Leibstandarte" Vol III, Rudolf Lehmann.JJ Fedorowicz Pub. 1990.

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

All I have energy for tonight. A smorgasbord of tank and anti-tank engagements\sop. The focus of this discussion IMO should be on gunnery and accuracy in general, and not be limited specifically to the 88mm.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seek, Strike and Destroy, US ARMY Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII. Dr. Christopher Gabel.

The direct-fire mission was especially important in Italy, where tank destroyers provided covering' fire for tanks that, being better armored, closed with and destroyed enemy positions impeding the advance of the footsoldiers. Thus, tank destroyers supported tanks, and tanks supported infantry. During the September 1944 assault on the Gothic Line, specially trained tank destroyer gunners supported the advance by placing rounds through the small gun embrasures of German pillboxes at a range of fifteen hundred yards. Even when openings could not be hit, the high-velocity rounds were quite effective against concrete fortifications." Tank destroyers were so valuable as armored self-propelled assault guns that one battalion in Italy functioned exclusively in the direct-support role for four months. (Pg 41)

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

The M-36 would not arrive in Europe until September 1944, but once it reached the front, it proved to be the only American armored vehicle that could match the heavier German tanks in firepower. One M-36 destroyed a Panther with one round at a range of 3,200 yards' and another fired five rounds at a tank 4,600 yards distant, scored two hits, and disabled the fank. The M-36 was equally impressive in the secondary missions. In the direct-fire role, a 90-mm armor-piercing shell could penetrate 4.5 feet of non-reinforced concrete. (Pg 56)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PANZERJAGER, Tank Hunter by William Folkestad

Folkestad while crewing a 75mm Pak

On several occasions this routine was abruptly Interrupted as, when on one afternoon two T-34s immediately fired on us. A railroad embankment separated us from the Russian tanks parked about 600 to 700 yards distant. When we arrived, instead of our gun leader kneeling down and looking to be sure that we could clear the crown of the embankment, he had simply indicated where to place the gun. When we came under fire, our gunner looked through the cannon's sight to determine the range and swore saying, "I can't shoot. We have half the hill In the gun sight." When the driver saw our signal he came back to help us. We hooked the gun to the half-track and made a circle, dragging it around to a new position facing the T-34s. We stopped less than 100 yards from the embankment where a depression of about two feet allowed us to shoot. Just then our new 1st lieutenant, who was also the company leader, arrived In his open-topped, 4 wheel-drive Kommandowagen. He threw open one of the swing doors and demanded to know why were we not shooting? Our squad leader explained that the gun had been too low and we needed to relocate It onto higher ground. He then turned and ordered me to go to the embankment and give fire coordinates. With an antitank gun you always need to have someone observing out front because with each round fired, the barrel blast sent dust and everything flying up. In such Instances you are unable to see if you hit the target, or the ground In front, to the side or In the back of a tank. My job was to correct the fire and give new coordinates using arm and hand signals. I ran over to the berm, clambered up to the edge and from there began directing fire towards the T-34s. (Just an observation here…tank crews would not really have the luxury of detaching a crewman to the front of their tank outside the zone of flash\dust from firing to observe fall of shot. In addition this procedure was apparently routine amongst ATG crews, as a similar process is attributed to British Anti-Tank Gun crews in “Applied Operation Research” (tanks Paul) as well as “Artillery In the Desert” FMFRP 12-3)

Whenever we were uncertain of the distance we fired three shots. The first shot was to the estimated range, for example 600 yards, and discovering that It was 50 yards too short you would add another 50 yards. If you were lucky you got a hit, If not, and you struck behind the tank, you could correct your aim for a third time which generally placed you on target.

The Russians saw all the activity we were engaged in and kept us under constant fire. Luckily for our gun crew, the tankers shooting at us were lousy gunners. Each time they were firing It was either too long or too short. Then suddenly, as the driver was moving out of range, they struck our half-track on the back just above the fenders where we had special racks to hold our Tellerminen or T-mines. Tellerminen were so named because of their flatness resembling a dinner plate. Fortunately nothing happened although large shrapnel cut right through some of the mines. There was no explosion because they were useless without their primers in them. If by some freak accident they had ignited, the driver and vehicle would have disappeared. The accident turned out to have a practical side. We later built a sturdy storage box over the back of our half-track where it had been damaged.

The two tanks were sitting side by side, at most 30 yards apart, still shooting at us without effect. With our second shot I had the exact distance and we knocked them both out, one after the other.

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

Hornet Combat Demo

One afternoon In the fog and drizzle I had an opportunity to watch one of our Hornisse, the Hornet, 88 mm self-propelled antitank cannons at work. Hornisses were open-topped armored vehicles with armor plating surrounding the gun deck. The crew had been issued the same range finder used by antiaircraft batteries. It was incredibly accurate.

The front line was 800 yards from our position and 1200 yards beyond Russian tanks were Idling In their forward assembly areas. As I watched through my field glasses the Hornisse cut loose on two T -34s destroying both of them. It was like observing an ant hill being stirred up with a stick. The Russian tankers had thought that they were out of range and they had no Idea what had hit them.(Pg 80)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: The Development of German Defensive Tactics in Cyrenica—1941. FMFRP 12-99

Perhaps the most outstanding single element in German defenses was the 88-mm gun. It sometimes opened fire at ranges up to 2,000 yards, but was most effective at about 800 yards. The 50-mm and 37-mm antitank guns opened fire at between 400 and 800 yards.(Pg 60)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Artillery In the Desert, FMFRP 12-3

Other difficulties arise in the desert which only keen eyes and training can surmount. There is the real problem which a forward artillery observer has in identifying his own bursts among the dust, and heat waves when other units are also firing. Judging distance In the desert is as difficult as on the ocean. Lack of familiarity with the size and appearance of armored vehicles at various ranges is a frequent cause for misjudging distance (personal observation…this seems to have been relatively crucial to the successful employment of German Zeiss Optics. A gunner had to be familiar with potential target sizes) . The fact that the enemy opens fire does not invariably mean that the enemy is within range, for he can misjudge also. But it is even more important to remember that all tanks are not equipped with the same type of gun. German tanks armed with 75-mm guns can open effective firing at a range of 2,000 yards. Antitank guns with a smaller range waste ammunition by returning fire and, what is worse, give away their own positions.(Pg 42-43)

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

Direct laying – Usually the 2-pounder anti-tank batteries are directed not to use direct laying on tanks until the tanks are within 800 yards of their positions. For 25-pounder, direct fire is held until the enemy vehicles are within 1,000 yards. Opening at 600 yards has been found to be too short, because enemy machine guns are within their effective range. At 800 yards the antitank gun is still comparatively accurate as at 600 yards, whereas the machine gun has lost considerable accuracy and is likely to penetrate the gun shields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From the book. “Freineux and Lamormenil” by George Winter

“I saw a flash from the panzer, the shell hitting the building near the eve of the house, sending debris all over us. The panzer then fired another round and missed, hitting the same area. Returning fire, Graham’s gunner got off two or three rounds but was unable to score a hit since the German was in a depression … “I then looked to the right across the valley and saw a flash from another panzer about 2000 yards away. I then gave the gunner orders. “Right front! Right front! Range 2000! Fire! After firing I saw the AP with tracers in direct line, but short. I then ordered the gunner, ‘Up 2! Fire!’ The second shell went straight into the back of the panzer and it started burning. I was watching it with field glasses and to my surprise saw another panzer move from right to left behind the burning tank. I then gave the gunner orders. ‘Left! Up 2! Fire!’ The shell went straight in to the rear.””(Winter 34-35)

The advance of the 2nd SS Panzer Regiment along this route was halted partially by the Shermans of Vance and Graham. The 2 M4A1(76)Ws stood their ground and stopped a superior force from advancing into the town of Freineux. At the end of the battle 8 Shermans and 8 Panthers were totally disabled or destroyed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: The Battle of Kursk by David Glantz

The Wehrmacht began developing a heavy breakthrough tank prior to the 1941 encounters with the T-34. This entered series production in the autumn of 1942 as the Tiger I heavy tank (Mark VI). Armed with a version of the formidable 88mm antiaircraft gun and fitted with armor that was impervious to contemporary Soviet tank and antitank guns, the Tiger I was the most lethal tank on the battlefield in 1943. It could stand off and decimate Soviet tank formations from ranges of over 1,000 meters, where it was invulnerable to Soviet return fire. For example, on 5-6 July 1943, two companies from the 505th Heavy Panzer Detachment (battalion) destroyed III Soviet tanks for a loss of only 3 of their 15 Soviet tactics were to close with the Tigers as rapidly as possible and engage their thinner side and rear armor. These tactics were difficult to execute and the two Tiger detachments (battalions) during Citadel lost fewer than 10 tanks in combat while destroying several hundred Soviet tanks.(Pg 18)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: St. Lo, Historical Division US War Department

Regarding Panzer Lehr Counter Attack outside St. Lo July 11, 1944

To the west of le Desert, approximately ten German tanks drove north on the unimproved road leading from the le Hommet-d'Arthenay cross-roads to le Charlemenerie and succeeded in reaching a point just south of le Scellerie. Here the column was stopped when the 3d Platoon, Company A destroyed the leading German tank after losing one of its own M-10's. To deal with the German threat in this area, the Company A commander reorganized his tank destroyers and requested a company of infantry as reinforcements. While awaiting the arrival of these troops, the TDs spotted three Mark V tanks on the road west of la Scellerie and opened fire, destroying with 12rounds the tanks and one half-track.

Later in the morning. Company C, 899th Tank Destroyer Battalion, holding positions near la Charlemenerie, knocked out its first German tank of the campaign. A well-camouflaged Mark V, carrying several soldiers and accompanied by others on foot, rounded the west corner of the crossroads below la Charlemenerie in front of an American tank destroyer. The M-10 opened fire and with two shots destroyed the German tank, killing and wounding several crew members and scattering the rest.

(NOTE: Although ranges are not specifically mentioned in these two AAR’s Fritz Beyerlain indicated that the failure of his counterattack was partly attributable to the close ranges of tank combat in this area of heavy boccage. He indicated receiving a great deal of well directed concealed fire from tanks at ranges of 200 meters. So presumably the above ranges were probably between 200 to 400 meters).

Later in the chapter regarding the same series of close quarter SPTD engagements vs Panzer Lehr tanks:

Another Panther thrust in the early afternoon toward la Charlemenerie, near the la Caplainerie road junction, was stopped by two of Company C's tank destroyers with the aid of Company F, yd Armored Regiment (Combat Command A). The Company F tanks were located in orchards on either side of the road waiting to take part in a 47th Infantry mission, while the two M-10's were holding positions on the road about 200 yards from the American armor. As the Mark V's appeared, Company F opened fire with HE at a range of 400 yards. The Panthers continued to roll, however, and the leading tank broke through to fight a duel with an M-10 at a range of 120 yards. The Mark V was damaged by TD fire, but it returned a shot, hitting the TD and wounding or killing three members of the crew. The other M-10 then opened fire, finishing the Panther with two shots. Then, spotting another Mark V, the TD fired ten rounds into the suspension system of the Panther, which sideslipped helplessly against the bank on the east side of the road and hung there in a tangle of matted hedgerow and churned mud. The crews, who had left their tanks when they were hit, were tracked down by infantry and captured in a farmhouse in the vicinity.

The slaughter of the German armor continued. As the 1st Battalion, 47th Infantry moved down the road west of la Charlemenerie to contact the 3d Battalion, the first two M-10's in the column spotted two Panther tanks approaching from a lightly wooded area to the left front. Before these tanks could get into action, the TD's opened fire with their 3-inch guns at a range of 170 yards, knocking out both Panthers. A few moments later a third Mark V was discovered on a farm road to the east. Both M-10's fired on it, and ten minutes later this third tank was found pitched inert against a hedgerow. None of the enemy tanks had been able to fire on the 1st Battalion before being hit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This one is pretty interesting. From: The Anvil of War, German Generalship in Defense on the Eastern Front. This particular section of the book is by Generaloberst Erhard Rauss “Military Improvisation during the Russian Campaign”. (Don’t ask me for additional context on this one as there is none)

"Painting silhouettes of the most common types of enemy tanks in front view and profile on the shields of artillery and antitank guns proved a very practical antitank defense aid. The vulnerable points were marked in red. In addition there was a warning sign on the shield: 'Observe carefully, take good cover, and open fire at a maximum range of 1,000 yards.' The distances were indicated by markers on the ground at 200-yard intervals in all directions so that reference points for the exact distance were always available."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: Anzio Beachead, 22 January – 25 May 1944. Center of Military History, US ARMY. German counterattack by the 3rd Panzer Grenadier Division and the Infantry regiment Lehr (309th Panzer Grenadier Regiment) on the northern sector of the Anzio Beach Lodgement. Engagement Range appeared to have been approximately 600 yards. US Army tank type was apparently 75mm Sherman. German tank types are not indicated…presumably since this was a Panzer Grenadier Division tanks were perhaps: STUG’s, MKIV’s or MKIII?

“Two enemy tanks approached down the road. Concealed by the cloud of dust around the house Sergeant Keyser moved his No. I tank out, knocked out one enemy tank with three rounds, and with four rounds set the other on fire. Well-placed shells disposed of the crews as they attempted to escape.”(Pg 72)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Guest machineman]

Interesting reads.

A few more snippets:

Extract from US army intelligence report dated September 13, 1944. (After examination of Tiger II knocked out in Normandy)

"The monocular sight, TZF 9d, is graduated for up to 5000 meters for HE and 3000 meters for APCBC and Hollow Charge."

So I guess the higher accuracy for HE at long ranges checks out.

I've also got a nice line drawing here showing not only a mounting for a rangefinder in the commanders cupola in a Tiger I, but also one for a scissors telescope, so apparently commanders had both.

There is also a quite in depth article on the planned successor to the TZR1 optical rangefinder, which is described in a US Army report as a Em.1.6m R(Panzer), a large 1.6 m stereoscopic rangefinder which actually made it into production, with the war end stopping it's planned use. It was based on a number of Flak rangefinders already in operational use and shows again I think that the Germans were serious about their long range shooting.

[Guest machineman]

One more:

This is supposed to be a gunnery test conducted by the British on captured Tiger I's and later supplied to the American army:

"A five round grouping of 16"X18" was obtained at a range of 1200 yards. Five rounds were fired at targets moving at 15mph and although smoke obscured observation by the gunner, three hits were scored after directions were given by the commander. Normal rate of fire was estimated to be from five to eight rounds per minute."

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-31-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

All I have energy for tonight. A smorgasbord of tank and anti-tank engagements\sop. The focus of this discussion IMO should be on gunnery and accuracy in general, and not be limited specifically to the 88mm.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, problem is their is apperently more German gun accuracy material available then US etc material. I keep hopeing someone will locate US & UK WW2 gun test charts like we have for the German guns.

Regards, John Waters

[Guest machineman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Agreed, problem is their is apperently more German gun accuracy material available then US etc material. I keep hopeing someone will locate US & UK WW2 gun test charts like we have for the German guns.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That and some official and/or field operational procedures dealing with engagement ranges from both the German and Allied sides.

Some comparative trajectory graphs of the various guns would be nice too.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Interesting reads.

So I guess the higher accuracy for HE at long ranges checks out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Report fom Grossdeutschland's Tiger Kompanie March 1943 concerning the Tiger:

Sprenggranaten were fired at a moveing artillery column at a range of 5000 meters. A direct hit was achieved with the third round. Horses and men immediately lay in the snow.

Jentz Thomas L Germany's Tiger Tanks. p.77

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 10-31-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Situation…. 2 Panthers from HG Pz div encounter a troop of 4 x T-34s on January 24 1945 .

" 'Battle readness!' ordered Hartelt. He viewed the situation through the bullet-proof glass of the turret cupola. 'We'll take the leading one , Percher. Range 500, one Oclock! - Fire when ready!'

A red lance of flame shot from the long barrel .The shell flitted across to the enemy tank, which had exposed its vulnerable flank to the Panther.The shot struck the T-34; in seconds the tank became a blazing torch. Loader Zittau rammed the next armor piercing round into the breach.The turret traversed a few degrees left. Gunner Percher had the next T-34 in his sight. Another shot , a second hit. Disabled by the hit, the enemy sat immobilized. By now the remaining two T-34 had grasped the situation.They opened fire on the commanders Panther.

'To the Left! Full Gas!' Hartelt ordered the driver.The Panther jerked around and literally leapt forward.The enemy shells raced past, missing the rer otf the tank by less then two meters.Something crashed hard against the side of the turret ; a richochet from a shell striking at sharp angle. There was a flash from where Amreins Panther was positioned . The third T-34 was immobilized with a shattered track.The next shot ste it afire. Now there only one left .It had been hit in the tracks but continued firing . The T-34 was destroyed by two shots from both sides."

Hartelts company [ 5 Panthers] continued the assualt and came across a village just as a battle group of 26 x T-34s advanced out of the town. Dodging from cover to cover the Panthers shot up 25 of the 26 T-34s from short halt fire at a range of upto 800 meters with out a single loss. When the Panther company returned to Div the next day each panther still had several rounds left.So if each of the five panthers had ~ 80 rounds of which half would be AP and several were left, this suggests a consumption of say 35 AP rounds from each of 5 x Panthers or 175 shots to kill 25 T-34s or 7:1 @ about 500--800 meters range.. Note that it 'seems' that more than one hit were required to kill each so this could mean 3-4 :1 shot to hit ratio.

With 17 kills to Hartelts credit up to that point in his military career,I suppose that this should be considered a veteran or elite company.

Source: pp 384/385 The History of the Fallschirm PanzerKorps Hermann Goring , Franz Kurowski. JJ Fedorowicz Publ.1995, ISBN 0-921991-25-8.

[Claus B]

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

That and some official and/or field operational procedures dealing with engagement ranges from both the German and Allied sides.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some scans from firing manuals for the Nashorn and Hetzer and info on expected gun performance in manuals for Jagdpanther and Tiger.

I dont have available just now, but basically they operate with a maximum range for the various types of ammunition (PzGr 39, PzGr 40, Gr. 38 Hl and SprGr), a range for immidiate fire (point the gun at the target and fire) and a range where bracketing (Gabel) or approaching fire (Heranschiessen) is to be used.

If I recall correctly, firing PzGr 39 bracketing is recommended for the PaK 39 (Hetzer) from 1200 meters, for the KwK 36 and PaK 43 form 2000 meters.

Manuals for the Tiger emphasises that fact that one of its advantages is range and this should be exploited.

If CM is going to be able to handle long range fire, it needs a system for simulating bracketing fire where the first and second rounds are deliberately fired long and short where after the 3rd round has a much higher chance of hitting. At longer ranges, it may be round 1 - 4 that are used for ranging with round 5 getting the higher hit probability.

....and then users will complain that their Tigers cannot hit squat at 3000 meters anyway

Claus B

[Guest rune]

Gee, by the third round I hope he would be able to hit a column. A direct hit on anyplace of the column would count.

Looking for American accuracy reports today, will let you know if I find anything. Still need someone near the National Archives.

Rune

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Report fom Grossdeutschland's Tiger Kompanie March 1943 concerning the Tiger:

Sprenggranaten were fired at a moveing artillery column at a range of 5000 meters. A direct hit was achieved with the third round. Horses and men immediately lay in the snow.

Jentz Thomas L Germany's Tiger Tanks. p.77

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jeff Duquette]

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

Agreed, problem is their is apperently more German gun accuracy material available then US etc material. I keep hopeing someone will locate US & UK WW2 gun test charts like we have for the German guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That’s the problem with kids these days. All they talk about is German Panzers this, and German Panzers that. You can’t hardly get on the net without finding some web site with a plethora of info on German WWII Armour.

I would think WWII ordnance data similar to what Jentz presents in his works on the TIGER I & II would readily be available for British and US AFVs. Maybe there sittin in a pile of notes on Steve Zaloga’s Desk.

I do recall reading somewhere that US ARMY tankers would set their coax sights to 800 meters (or maybe it was the AAMG). When engaging a tank…they would employ the MG as a pseudo-range finder. CM has I think modeled this tendency --- at least the visual effect. US Tanks will tend to give a burst of MG fire prior to firing their main gun at German Tanks.

Paul:

Interesting assessment...seems to verify your previous info from Ft. Irwin trials. I read that AAR and I’m tempted to think that CM’s model is ok.

Claus:

That seems to be hitting the nail on the head with respect to accuracy. Many of the examples I posted above emphasize the importance of fire, adjust, fire adjust. Bracketing seems to be what’s at issue. A healthy “To Hit” probability increase should be occurring with each successive round fired. Perhaps a graduated function dependent upon range to target and number of previous rounds fired etc. After the bracketing bonus is determined this than is worked into the “To Hit” alogorithim. The danger here is in preventing an accuracy function\model which eliminates the probability of close range misses from occuring. Or bracketing bonuses which prevent third or fourth round misses from occuring.

I suspect the games existing accuracy function is graduated with range – as it should be –the closer you are to your target the better the chances of getting a first round hit. Than again perhaps the “To Hit” function simply drops off too rapidly with range.

As far as complaining about low hit probability out to 3000 meters, I think typical game map terrain will proclude this from occurring to often. Personally I think tweaking the existing engine to allow some increased hit probabilities out to 2000 meters would be fine.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-31-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Gee, by the third round I hope he would be able to hit a column. A direct hit on anyplace of the column would count. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno Rune they seemed rather impressed by the fact it hit by the 3rd at 5000m, pretty good IMHO for an ancient gun w/o an computerized FCS useing HE rounds.

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

Looking for American accuracy reports today, will let you know if I find anything. Still need someone near the National Archives.

Rune

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I imagine we have someone near the archives but whomever went would need very specific details on what he was looking for before going as the archives is a large repository & w/o specifics your request will get circular filed generaly.

Jeff - Agreed but their are also many more books on the shelves concerning the German armed forces then either the US or UK, as well as new ones comeing out all the time.

Ie, Hunnicutts Sherman has been the Sherman bible for years now, yet for years it was out of print and very hard to get till repubublished by Fiest. When a German AFV book goes outa print its back in months generaly.

Compared to looking in the history section & finding tons of German books and seeing a few Ambrose books representing the allied contribution with maybe a Forty book or an Mackesy reprint, of Tank vs Tank with a few Keegan titles, and lately encyclopedias seem to be the in thing to publish.

So info on all things German seems to be much easier to get then info on other countries so its not just 'kids' etc, their is apperently money to be made in publishing books etc, on the WW2 German armed forces.

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 10-31-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Jeff

Compared to looking in the history section & finding tons of German books and seeing a few Ambrose books representing the allied contribution with maybe a Forty book or an Mackesy reprint, of Tank vs Tank with a few Keegan titles, and lately encyclopedias seem to be the in thing to publish.

So info on all things German seems to be much easier to get then info on other countries so its not just 'kids' etc, their is apperently money to be made in publishing books etc, on the WW2 German armed forces.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree thats the problem, for the longest time all you got was info on the German systems, I always figured it was the cost of being the 'runners up in WW-II'. You can't get much data on british systems and this creats a artifical interest in all things German. Kind of back fired didn't it!Ah weel isn't there something like 'freedom of info' in the UK now , if so then people who know where to look should be demanding more!!