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

[Ron]

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

Pzgr.39 had no problems with the standard Sherman's armor, frontaly at any range according to combat reports, Ie, an 76mm Sherman was KO'd at 1800yrds by an PzKpfw IV, the round cleanly penetrated the glacis thru to the crew compartment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something I overlooked in my previous test, the M4A376/Easy8's upper hull armour is 64/47' while the M4A176's upper hull armour is 51/47'. Running the test again, using the M4A176 in the same conditions, shows the MkIV has no problem penetrating the upper hull of this Sherman. It's then more of a toss up which one comes out on top.

Ron

[Guest Big Time Software]

Also note that earlier Shermans had armor quality problems which result in about a 15% reduction in ability to withstand a hit. So an earlier production Sherman with the SAME armor thickness and angle as a later model would likely not deflect a 75mm round.

When people point to a documented case of this or that happening, remember a few things. One, if it was noted it was most likely because it was not common. Two, there are plenty of variables NOT mentioned in such AARs that could make a huge difference. For example, if a Sherman was hit in the front while deceding a gentle 10% slope it could have been defeated but if it was dead level perhaps not. Three, veteran's perceptions of events might not match the reality. Four, generally anything could happen in real life. Charles has a report of a Sherman deflecting a Panzerfaust. How many times do you think this happened in the whole war? Half dozen?

So in the end people need to take the AARs with a grain of salt. They can be very usefull, but in and of themselves rarely are enough to prove what the norm was. And the lack of an AAR certainly didn't mean something didn't happen (i.e. we know there were no little green men manning Shermans, but we don't see AARs stating that they didn't exist ).

Steve

[:USERNAME:]

I used 10 x MkIVL48H vs 10 xM4A376. I setup so both sides are facing each other on paved surface and there are no flags. The setup conditions only make it possible to set up backs to the wall. Range around 1700 meters.

I believe the MkIVs are too large a target and once a round gets on them its a goner. Even stugs get whacked bad in this test conditions.

Lewis

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John wrote:

Ah, but these same tankers thought wood, roadwheels, extra track, etc. had an effect. I think the evidence is clearly not in favor of these opinions. What I see is that a Sherman with some sandbags got lucky and the guy said "gee, it must have been the sandbags". If there was significant evidence that sandbags etc. helped defeat German AP rounds *all* tanks would have had this stuff loaded on. But in fact, it was a minority that did. On top of that, I am pretty sure that there were studies done that found that there was no appreciable benefit, but in fact made the tank more likely to break down or get stuck.

The science and the anecdotal evidence does not convince me that these extras did anything positive in terms of defeating AP rounds. Like I said, check out the previous discussions on this topic for more info.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the previous discussion's Steve did anyone post the results of the German tests concerning AP vs surfaces covered with spare track link's, and the track links effects on penetration? or the British LF results on a Tiger E vs track?.

The British live fire tests vs a Tiger E with 6lb APDS found that track link on the nose plate did effect penetration in that; 6lb APDS could be expected to defeat the noseplate @ 1000yrds @ 24 ^ with no problem but after a length of Panther track was added on the noseplate, the next round @ 3665ft/s that struck the link caused only a 'smooth bulge' and the expectation of defeat of the nose plate dropped to; 'at very short range only'. The track was also fitted to the turret sides, vs 6lb APDS @ 40^ where it was found that the turret sides could be defeated at 1200yrds, but after the track was added the next 6lb APDS rounds @ 3375ft/s & 3670ft/s caused 'negligible damage'.

The British then tried fireing at short range @ 30^ @ 3507ft/s which produced a 'smooth bulge'. The ordinance personel concluded that 'considerable added protection is given by the track at an angle, and that the range for defeat would be short'. The Germans also did tests with AP vs track & its effects on penetration, showing the same basic results as above.

BTW Steve, I'm not attempting to convince you of anything, you asked about the sand bag effects etc, & I replied as I said I have no idea if it worked but they appeared to believe sandbags & track links provided some protection vs KE projectiles.

As for any studies etc, that dispute add on armors adding any benifit's whatsoever vs KE rounds etc, see above. Now I'd like to find out if any similar tests were conducted vs sandbagged armor as well.

As for the numbers of Shermans that had tried add on measures I don't know exact numbers but I do think stateing as 'fact' only a minority used this practice is questionable unless one has access to individual unit workshop records 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. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

I have often thought that wargamers over emphasize the importance of equipment specifications on their personal success or failure on their virtual battlefields. The fact is flesh and blood Germans fighting defensively through the majority of 44 – 45 were very adapt at taking advantage of localized terrain. This combined with their seeming superiority in small unit tactics is what – IMO – resulted in much of the real world German Success during this period. The fact is an inept wargamer will do poorly weather he is playing as the Germans, Allies, Soviets, or as the Neapolitans. The average gamer when subjected to a trouncing while playing the Germans will often cry “the game models German tank optics incorrectly, or German Armour is inferior to Allied Armour…etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I think we tend to breeze over the large number of contemporary photos depicting knocked-out Sherman tanks with flank and or rear armor penetrations. I personally associate some correlation to German small unit tactics in these photos of side and rear armor penetrations rather than thinking their cause is simply some battlefield quirk. I also think we often read through the information like following and don’t associate its relevance to game play.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: “Changing An Army” An Oral History of General William E Depuy.

INTERVIEWER: You mentioned that the Germans were pretty good at using all of their vehicles but that they really didn't employ big tank assaults like we might visualize. Was there anything you learned during this period that you could apply today in fighting armor, things that would he meaningful?

GEN DEPUY: Well. I think the first thing that impressed everybody at the time was how a handful of Germans could hold up a regiment by sighting their weapons properly. If they had two assault guns and 25 men, they put one assault gun on one side of the road, perhaps on the reverse slope firing through a saddle, and put another one behind a stone house, firing across the road. They protected them with some infantry and had a couple of guys with Panzerfausts up on the road itself, or just off the road in pits or behind houses. Now, here comes the point of an American unit roaring down the road, a couple of jeeps or maybe a tank, and bang, you lost a tank or two. The company commander then decides to maneuver a platoon around and boom, he loses another tank. So, the commander decides to wait for the battalion commander to come up. And, the battalion commander, if he is very imaginative, might say, "All right, while I'm trying to solve this thing, "C" Company go wide around to the right and come up behind this town." Those were the tactics, which kept the thing moving. But, sometimes a unit would stay there and fight all day against 25 men and two assault guns. And, that happened all too often. Commanders would too often attack the enemy head-on, whereas if they could just screen that position, just block it with something and find another way around, then they could keep going. Eventually, that is what almost always happened. They found their way around. Some units would find their way around in a matter of minutes and hours; other units couldn't find their way around except after having lost a whole day fiddling with one of these little things. Now, what one learned from fighting a lot of these things, is an understanding of tactics. The big lesson is not to take him head-on. Anything is better than that. And, you get an understanding of sighting weapons. The Germans were just superior at that. And, to this day, they are very good at it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Regarding Sandbags (and I’m at a loss as to how this thread turned from accuracy of the 88 to a duel between Easy 8’s and MkIVh’s…be that as it may).

I disagree that sandbags play no part physically (or an insignificant part) in reducing the kinetic energy of an Armored Piercing round. I’m not sure what physicist you’ve been chatting with, but the fact is sand can be modeled as an elastic-plastic material in the same way steel is modeled. Obviously steel has a much higher modulus of elasticity than sand will have. But a foot of sand will reduce the kinetic energy of an AP round. This should be intuitive to anyone with even a very basic background in materials or physics. One really only needs to turn to Combat Engineering Field Manuals and look at the effect varying levels of overhead soil cover have on the reduction of casulties due to indirect fire. Analogy: shrapnel is an AP round to the human body. Slow its kinetic energy sufficently and its no longer a threat to the body.

In addition, I suspect the effect of sand bags would have a considerable effect on the penetrating capabilities of shaped charge munitions. The blast from a shaped charge impacting sandbags would be focused some 8 to 12 inches from the exterior face of Armour plate, ala Shurzen.

Totally out of the blue...I just read an interesting statistic indicating that over 5% of Panzerfausts fired had miss-fires.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-24-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

"Totally out of the blue...I just read an interesting statistic indicating that over 5% of Panzerfausts fired had miss-fires."

If that is really verifiable I would REALLY like to see that modeled in the game. As well as duds, HE rounds that don't go off, or gun Jams in tank breaches. (?)

I'm not sure at what rate these things happened, but I do know I have played enough CM to know that machine guns jam up ALL the time at the WORST time when you really need them. NOT complaining, I'm complementing BTS in how well they have modeled Murphy's Law in Machine gun jams.

NOW by the same token, I still think there are too many misses, in Tank combat, especially at long range by Crack Veteran and Elite crews, firing any form of high velocity round that had a largely predictable flight path.

Still trying to focus on Long range accuracy of high velocity main weapons.

its still a great discussion.

-tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

John,

Hmmm... interesting study the Brits came up with. Charles mentioned a study that found the opposite. That German tracks actually aided the AP round in that it offered a nice textured "grip" for the AP round to connect with. In other words, instead of having a chance of deflection (angle is important here) the round would instead stay true. I am also at a total loss as to how one can explain some molded and pourous steel could add that significantly to the armor's value. I mean, why not have a thin layer of track like stuff all over an AFV if it is so effective?

As for the sandbags, Patton was said to have put in an order forbidding the use of them because he did not belive they did anything but harm the mobility and reliability of the tanks. On the other hand, he was very much in favor of extra armor being welded on.

As for how "typical" it was. Check out a hundred different random photos of Allied tanks and tell me how many you see with sandbags. Many tanks had some sort of kitchen sink attached to it, but even they weren't the majority from what I can see. Sandbags were definitely limited to a few units from what I have read.

Jeff, in the previous discussions the dampening of kinetic energy was certainly looked at. From what I recall even 12 inches of sand did not significantly reduce the kinetic energy, at least for the typical rounds the Germans were using. There is a big difference between a low velocity HE round and a high velocity AP round, so your comparison of what sandbags do for infantry is not valid.

As for the sandbags helping out against hollow/shaped charges, the opposite was found to be the case. The sandbag detonated the hollow charge at a more optimal distance. And unlike the skirt armor the Germans used, the sand actually contained and directed the jet INTO the armor, instead of allowing it to disperse external to the armor. So the conclusion was that sandbags actually AIDED the penetration of hollow/shaped charged.

In any case, the typical rounds being fired at the typical Allied armor at typical ranges had plenty of execess power. So even if this stuff aided in a small way, it wouldn't make the critical difference between penetration and deflection.

Please feel free to do a Search for the previous discussions on these issues. Best if we either get this thread back on track about talking accuracy or simply let it fade into the background

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>NOW by the same token, I still think there are too many misses, in Tank combat, especially at long range by Crack Veteran and Elite crews, firing any form of high velocity round that had a largely predictable flight path.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The following table has been bated around a bit on this thread…and was previously posted by some else I think? Anyway Jentz’s qualifiers for these numbers should be looked at fully before we say Tigers should be assured of first round hits at ranges out to 2000 meters.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Both the 8.8 cm Kw.K.36 L/56 and the 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 U71 were very accurate guns capable of first round hits at ranges exceeding 1000 meters. The estimated accuracy is given as the probability (in percentage) of hitting a target 2 meters high and 2.5 meters wide, representing the target presented by the front of an opposing tank. These accuracy tables are based on the assumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing of the gun to determine the pattern of dispersion. The figures in the second column in parentheses includes the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunition, and gunners. Both columns were reported in the accuracy tables from original fire tables as shown in Table 7.1.2.

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.

The Tiger I could immediately open fire for effect at enemy tanks at ranges of up to 1200 meters. At ranges greater than 1200 meters, bracketing was to be employed with jumps of 200 or 400 meters, switching to fire for effect when within 100 meters of a tank target. 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. In exceptional cases individual Tiger I could fire at stationary enemy tanks at ranges up to 2500 meters. Concentrated fire from the platoon could be used to engage stationary tanks out to 3000 meters.

The same rules applied for firing against moving targets: immediate fire for effect up to 1200 meters, and bracketing to 2000 meters.

But the Tiger I was not to fire at moving targets at ranges greater than 2000 meters. The expected performance of a Tiger I gunner on a practice range was one hit out of three rounds fired within 30 seconds at a tank traveling 20 kilometers per hour across the front at ranges from 800 to 1200 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When someone starts talking about bracketing...I instantly think of low hit probability. So the magic number seems to be 1200 meters although I previously provided a quote indicating that flak 88’s used during the battle of Gazala were rarely hitting targets beyond 1000 meters (flak88’s which no doubt would have had crews equipped with relatively sophisticated range finders as standard issue equipment). So perhaps there is some gray area here.

Then again there are the odd accounts of crack Tiger gunners knocking off targets in excess of 3000 meters. The question is how much fudge is too much fudge. Pretty subjective question.

The other question...as has already been pointed out...how much credence do we place on the extraordinary. In a world at war with litteraly millions of men under arms, tank gunners will tend to be average folk...not Kurt Knispel Ace gunner...but J. Duquette average guy. A simulation of such an event should place an emphasis on the average. However, the rare wolves amongst the sheep should also occasionally appear.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-24-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Hmmm... interesting study the Brits came up with. Charles mentioned a study that found the opposite. That German tracks actually aided the AP round in that it offered a nice textured "grip" for the AP round to connect with. In other words, instead of having a chance of deflection (angle is important here) the round would instead stay true. I am also at a total loss as to how one can explain some molded and pourous steel could add that significantly to the armor's value. I mean, why not have a thin layer of track like stuff all over an AFV if it is so effective?

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, my point was that any study that states track links, had no effect on penetration, is countered rather clearly by the British 6lb APDS LF results showing angle penetration before the track section was applied & after, as well as the below German report where the Germans found in LF testing vs the Tiger B 80mm side turret plates with spare track that:

The results were on the vertical up to 10-degree sloped plates, the protection afforded against penetration by medium caliber anti-tank rounds was actually reduced. At 30 degrees and greater sloped plates, the afforded protection increased. At angles between 10 and 30 degrees, their was no change in the afforded protection .

Then look at the 24^, 30^ & 40^ results with 6lb APDS vs the Tiger E noseplate & side turret armor with & w/o spare track. The British report stated that 17lb APDS could defeat the 82mm @ 50^ & 40^ Tiger E side turret armor @ 40^ @ 1300yrds without track.

As to widespread use we do see it, on Panther side turret, & side hull, Tiger E & B turrets , & nose plates, PzKpfw III & IVs, used spare track link, Sherman glacis, 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. February 1945.

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

[Guest machineman]

Anyone have specs on how the Allied long distance firing procedure worked, have specs, etc?

It sounds to me as though the ability to shoot at range depends on a number of factors:

1) High velocity, flat shooting gun, with high quality ammunition.

2) Gunners sight quality: high magnification (to see far targets as large as possible), plus high resolution (ability to differentiate at a distance), brightness (so you can actually use this wonder lense in anything but perfect light) plus an accurate way for the gunner to 'set' the sight for different ranges.

3) Ability to judge distance and spot fall of shot. Preferably a good rangefinder, secondly good stadiametric rangefinding system. The stadiametric thing seems to be a function of both equipment, skill at estimation, and the ability of the commander, gunner and driver to communicate and work together as a team.

4) Everything else. This would include things like a fine control of turret traverse, a good recoil mechanism, design of the muzzle break to reduce dust and reduce recoil, the height of the gun above the ground, and I'm supposing everything that can affect how good a 'gun platform' the tank is, sturdy suspension, wide tracks, the preciseness of manufacture of turret ring, etc.

I'm thinking of everything I would do if I was building a tank and training a crew for long distance shooting.

Now from what I can see, the Germans took great care in all of these factors, especially with the Tigers and and the Tiger crews. It seems logical to me the SUM of all these 'pieces' added up to greater combat effectiveness at long ranges, more so than just indicated by the muzzle velocity of the guns. It was certainly in their interest to do so with the war situation they were facing when the Tigers came out.

And of course the point can be made that hey, the Germans are STILL anal about quality and precision.

Does anyone have evidence the Allies put a similar effort into their long range shooting? What were their recc engagement distances, what sight magnification did they have, did they have rangefinders in their tanks, what range measuring procedures did they have, how fine did the turrets traverse, etc?

[Gen-x87]

I setup a test range like that once.

About 1000 Meters apart.

2 King Tigers vs 6 Sherman 76s

Hit after hit on the front.

In the trials the King tigers knocked out 24 Shermans with 1 total loss of a King and another King having a gun knocked out.

I also ran 6 105 US howitzers vs 2 King tigers.

I was surprised that even with 800 meter shots on the King not a single 105 could knock out a King tiger. I only ran that test once. The 105s were pretty accurate also. At one point 3 shells almost simutaneously ricochet off one of the kings turret.

Gen

[Dschugaschwili]

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

Also note that earlier Shermans had armor quality problems which result in about a 15% reduction in ability to withstand a hit. So an earlier production Sherman with the SAME armor thickness and angle as a later model would likely not deflect a 75mm round.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that you're mentioning armor quality, what does the armor quality rating in CM actually do? Does "85% quality" mean that the effective armor thickness is reduced when calculating a hit? Or does it mean a higher chance of weak spot penetrations? Or a higher chance of internal flaking? Or something totally different?

Dschugaschwili

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

Erst hat man kein Glück, und dann kommt auch noch Pech dazu.

[aka_tom_w]

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

And of course the point can be made that hey, the Germans are STILL anal about quality and precision. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Post

I am of British ancestery, and not some German equipment whorshipping wanna-be Stormtrooper.

Just wanted to make that clear as I comment here that Porsche made equipment like turrets and other Armour for the German war effort and they still make automobiles, and they make extremely high QUALITY automobiles (please don't disagree with me about this one ) Anyone who has owned a Volkswagon or Porsche product knows the Germans are absolutely ANAL about mechanical accuracy, quality and precision.

Some of us here are suggesting that the German crews (Elite Crack and Veteran) that manned the 88 mm weapons, (Flak versions and in tanks) were welled trained to exacting standards, which we have presented here and they fired a high velocity round from a presicisely engineered barrel of that 88 that had a reputation for UNCANNY accuracy at long range.

We have shown the German war effort produced high quality zoomable tank optics to aquire the target, we have presented evidence that tank commanders in Tiger tanks had high quality spotting and range finding devices to determine range to the target. We have presented differences is Allied and Axis gun sighting optics.

Yet the 88 still is not modeled with the long range accuracy it deserves.

The Germans were and still are ANAL about precision and manufacturing to exacting mechanical standards. We are trying to present a case to indicate that long range accuracy of the 88 should be modeled higher in CM, and I would say modeled a good deal higher in the second and third shot at long range as this weapon should be able to brackett quickly and accruately as the crews attempting to train and qualify to aim this weapon were required to get a round on target by the 4th shot at long range.

In the game and in CM2 the Tigers and the Flak 88 and the Nashorn and the Jag Panther should all be able to Stand off at ranges over 1200 meters and successfully spot, acquire, target, engage and penetrate the frontal armour of MOST allied tanks.

In the game the Germans do not have enough long range chance to hit advantage that they were believed to have exploited at EVERY opportunity in WW II tank combat. (examples and ARR's have been presented here we are not talking about the "uncommon" or fluke 3000 meter hits, but we are suggesting that German tankers ROUTINELY used the advantage of LONG range to engage Allied armour ANY time they could,outside of the effective rane of the main weapon, HELL the damn German tanks were big and slow and heavy and DESIGNED to be able to target at long range and get the first shot off before the enemy closed in down to the range were most Allied main guns (the allied 75 mm for example) were most effective.)

It is nice to see Charles has mentioned this will be a consideration for CM2 in the latest interview about the "goodies" we can expect in CM2.

Now that sounds positive!

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Just in case you missed it.....

"Another glowing article in the latest CGW (Dec 2000). Basically, it said once you play CM, you can't go

back to any other hex based games. AMEN Brother.

But it also had this juicy tidbit straight from Sir Charles mouth (or keyboard).

CM2 will include the Russkies, Germans and Finns (no other nationalities listed ). "We've received a

huge list of suggestions for new features and improvements (presumably from this forum) of which a

lot will be incorporated. New weps (tanks and arty pieces), new units (like ski troops - YESSSSS), new

terrain types, diff combat organizations, expanded treatment of long-range tank duels and

gunnery optics - YESSS#2, and probably a new way to simulate the limited C&C abilities of early

war russkies. Some graphics improvements as well (didn't sound like a lot in that dept)."

Very good read. Also in this issue was an article about WWII Online and Steal Beasts. If you buy the

issue with the CD, you get SPWAW on it. Well worth the dough boys and girls. If I weren't addicted

to CM, I'd seriously consider WWII online. It sounds like a workable scheme.

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

Jeff Abbott"

[Ari Maenpaa]

Dschugaschwili,

A quote from the past:

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

...

That's enough to defeat the Hetzer's 20mm side armor. And there's more...

The Hetzer has low quality armor.Very low quality. The kind that doesn't have the strength you'd expect. We rate it at 85% which is probably generous.

So the effective side armor basis of the Hetzer is 17mm, which the .50 cal can penetrate quite easily at short ranges.

Charles

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basing on this for example Panther's (same armor quality with hetzer) ACTUAL frontal armor values are (CM 1.05):

turret: 0,85 * 110 mm = 93,5 mm @ 11 degs

u.hull: 0,85 * 80 mm = 68 mm @ 55 degs

l.hull: 0,85 * 60 mm = 51 mm @ 55 degs

plus, as you suggested, a higher chance of weak spot penetrations and internal flaking.

Ari

[ASL Veteran]

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

It sounds to me as though the ability to shoot at range depends on a number of factors:

1) High velocity, flat shooting gun, with high quality ammunition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although logically this may seem to be the case, it isn't necessarily true. A mortar can be extremely accurate at long range and nobody will ever confuse a mortar with a high velocity, flat shooting gun. The accuracy of the 75L24 as shown in the Jentz tables for North Africa also contradicts this assumption. I am starting to think that the ballistic qualities of the ammunition itself must be combined with the muzzle velocity to get an 'accurate' picture of that weapon's capabilities. High muzzle velocities are important for penetration of an armored vehicle once the round reaches the target, but high muzzle velocities aren't required to get the round to the target accurately.

[ASL Veteran]

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

It is nice to see Charles has mentioned this will be a consideration for CM2 in the latest interview about the "goodies" we can expect in CM2.

Now that sounds positive!

-tom w <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't get too excited about that. The accuracy of German vehicles vs Soviet vehicles was already mentioned by BTS prior to this thread being started.

[Silencer]

Tom,

maybe you can answer this;

What I'm curious about is the expansion pack for CM, is it still a go?? Steve?

I'd really like to see the Brummbär, or the M16 Halftrack or the PSW 234/4

S.

[aka_tom_w]

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

Although logically this may seem to be the case, it isn't necessarily true. A mortar can be extremely accurate at long range and nobody will ever confuse a mortar with a high velocity, flat shooting gun. The accuracy of the 75L24 as shown in the Jentz tables for North Africa also contradicts this assumption. I am starting to think that the ballistic qualities of the ammunition itself must be combined with the muzzle velocity to get an 'accurate' picture of that weapon's capabilities. High muzzle velocities are important for penetration of an armored vehicle once the round reaches the target, but high muzzle velocities aren't required to get the round to the target accurately. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I have read I would like to disagree with that.

The high muzzle velocity meant that the gunner did not have adjust for the shot drop to the same extend as for the slow muzzle velocity rounds which dropped more. The research we are refering to suggests that the shot drop of the high velocity 88's was so minimal at long ranges that if the gunner targeted the center mass of the tank or the turret the shot was VERY likely to fall somewhere on the upper hull or lower hull, as the deviation was less due to the flatter trajectory of the high velocity round, this is also why the Allied gunners liked their high velocity ammo too when they could get it. And yes without question, these high velocity rounds struck with greater kinetic energy and sure they were more likely to penetrate, but I would say more importantly they were MORE likely to hit and easier to aim and target with because the variable of shot drop was so minimal it fell within average 2-3 meter hieght of the tall Allied tanks like the Sherman.

Accounting for the varible of shot drop was one the skills that experienced gunners learned, the less shot drop over range they had to deal with the easier it was to lay the round on the target at long range, and the German gunners had a reputation of being GOOD at it.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

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

Tom,

maybe you can answer this;

What I'm curious about is the expansion pack for CM, is it still a go?? Steve?

I'd really like to see the Brummbär, or the M16 Halftrack or the PSW 234/4

S.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not exactly sure why you are asking me..

I read this forum every day and I may post here alot but I have NO idea about the expansion pack, I'm looking forward to it as much as everybody else, but I have no "insider" info or insight on it. I figure (just my guess) they are still doing VERY well with CMBO sales of the latest burn of their game and are so busy with TCP/IP that the expansion disk is not at all an immediate priority. Again ONLY speculation on my part as I have no connection or affiliation with BTS at all (Not that I wouldn't LOVE to join the team there, but they now have four guys so they have doubled their full time staff, and I'm sure they are all quite busy working away on things they don't really need to tell us about).

Mostly I just post here and rant on about Long range accuracy and German optics and such things

-tom w

[Jeff Duquette]

aka

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The high muzzle velocity meant that the gunner did not have adjust for the shot drop to the same extend as for the slow muzzle velocity rounds which dropped more. The research we are refering to suggests that the shot drop of the high velocity 88's was so minimal at long ranges that if the gunner targeted the center mass of the tank or the turret the shot was VERY likely to fall somewhere on the upper hull or lower hull, as the deviation was less due to the flatter trajectory of the high velocity round, this is also why the Allied gunners liked their high velocity ammo too when they could get it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting…is this verifiable. The reason I ask is that I just read something about the 17 pounder which would suggest otherwise. Muzzle velocities are comparable. See WO291/324. APCBC at 1000 yrds could routinely have a plus or minus 6.3 minutes arc error. That equates to approximately +/- 5.5 vertical feet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have shown the German war effort produced<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is we? You and the frog in your pocket…or you and the lynch mob We’re all big boys here and I think we can each speak for our selves.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would say modeled a good deal higher in the second and third shot at long range as this weapon should be able to brackett quickly and accruately as the crews attempting to train and qualify to aim this weapon were required to get a round on target by the 4th shot at long range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How quickly, and how accurately? If you were king describe the model you would use for simulating gun accuracy. Specifics are nice. You’re the designer now…and you seem to have an audience. Do you have a specific algorithm in mind?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the game the Germans do not have enough long range chance to hit advantage that they were believed to have exploited at EVERY opportunity in WW II tank combat. (examples and ARR's have been presented here we are not talking about the "uncommon" or fluke 3000 meter hits, but we are suggesting that German tankers ROUTINELY used the advantage of LONG range to engage Allied armour ANY time they could<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Presumably you can site a fair number of AAR’s detailing Tigers engaging targets accurately at ranges in excess of 3,000 meters.

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?

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-25-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

aka

How quickly, and how accurately? If you were king describe the model you would use for simulating gun accuracy. Specifics are nice. You’re the designer now…and you seem to have an audience. Do you have a specific algorithm in mind?

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-25-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Jeff,

Back on Page 5 of this thread I proposed this:

I've had some time to think about this and to suggest an elite German crew would have a 32% first shot chance to hit a Stuart at 2000 meters may make me look like a fool...

so Lets take another look at that table:

Tiger I Reg Crew targets Stuart at 2000m

Proposal:

.

shot....con... gr ...Reg ..Vet ..Crk .Elite

first......3... 6... 12%.. 18... 24... 32

second..6... 12... 18%.. 24... 32... 43

third....12... 18... 24%.. 32... 43... 55

forth....18... 24... 32%.. 43... 55... 70

fifth... 24... 32... 43%.. 55... 70... 85

sixth....32... 43... 55%.. 70... 85... 90

seventh.43... 55... 70%.. 85... 90... 90

eigth..... 55... 70... 85%.. 90... 90... 95

Question? Should the first round fired by the elite gunner (32%) be 10 times more likly to hit than the

conscript gunner (3%)? This may, now that I think about it, be WAY out of line? Probably crazy but

then look what Jentz has to say about accruacy:

Jentz :

"The following tables show estimated accuracy, of both the 8.8 cm Kw.K.36 L/56

and 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 L/71, in hitting a target of 2 meters high and 2.5 meters wide,

based on assumptions that the actual

range of the target has been correctly determined, and that the distribution of hits

is centered on the aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained

during controlled test firing to determine

the pattern of dispersion. The second column (in brackets) includes the variation

expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunitions and

gunners. All estimations are in

percentage and do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target during under

actual combat condition. However, the average, cool gunner, after sensing the

tracer from the first round, could achieve the result presented in the second column: (50) in brakets

below

8.8 cm Kw.K.36 L/56

Ammunition Type

Pzgr.39

Range @ 2000 m

87 (50)

So Jentz says "the average, cool gunner" can hit "a target of 2 meters high and 2.5 meters wide" at

50%

SO in CM what does that mean?

What experience level do we call the "the average, cool gunner" and after how many rounds in combat

conditions would that crew level be firing rounds at a 2 meters high and 2.5 meters wide target that

he would hit 50% of the time?

In the above proposal a Reg gunner is targeting at 55% accuracy by the sixth round fired and an Elite

gunner is firing at 55% by the third round.

The question is to what degree will BTS attempt to model 50% chance to hit at a target "2 meters

high and 2.5 meters wide" fired by an "average, cool gunner" at 2000 meters in the game?

The way the targeting at 2000 meters is modeled now it is NO where near that generous chance to hit

percentage.

Everything you have just read about how the varying levels of crew experience are modeled and how

the chance to hit percentages in the above table were modeled to be increasing after every round fired

at an acqyired target, ALL came from my fertile imagination and is NOT based in ANY way on how I

understand CM to model these variables because I have NO idea how CM does indeed model the

increased chance to hit variable for an acquired target, but I do know from my tests the chance to hit,

does appear to rise after a minute of shooting at a target that has not been hit in the first minute.

I would say that that increased chance to hit that acquired target is unrealistically low for the main

weapons in the game that fired the very high velocity rounds that traveled along straight flat and

more predictable trajectories.

followed by this:

OK on the first point, at long range if the first shot is 10% chance to hit and the chance to hit, only

goes up a little then sure each shot following still has a large chance to miss so missing 4-5-6 or 7 in

a row when all the chance to hit percentages all along are under say 30% is very feasible no problem

there.

The math was just 2x2x2x2x...... 20 times, easy. about a million to one odds, but it COULD happen

But, on the second point "Which means, the percentage to hit as stated does not include the 2-4

shots necessary to establish the range (long shots at least). Which is yet another reason why those

numbers should not be taken at face value."

I think what we are really trying hard to present is that the German's had optical aids in their sights

that helped them determine range very quickly and accurately. This is Especially true for the highly

effective Donkey eared range finder (Ok I "should" find out its official german name and some real

accuracy stats on it), but it is known to be standard equipement with an 88 mm flak team and it DID

predict range with a very high degree of accuracy allowing that flak 88 to put the first round right on

or very near the target at any range without the need for 2-4 range finding rounds. My point is this

technical advantage is not modeled in CM.

What is at issue here, (and sadly the best way to support this arguement is with gunnery optics as

modeled in Panzer Elite) is that German tanks had optical sights and equipment that gave them the

ability to establish range quickly and accuratly in battlefield conditions.

Just to recap this issue came up way back last May when Heinz 25th PzReg posted this..

"Heinz 25th PzReg

Member

posted 05-15-2000 09:28 AM

Greetings all

I have been playing the CM golde demo for some time now and it is great. But I am a litte interested in

how the game simulates the tank gunners actions. I have seen tanks miss their target completely at

ranges under 300m. Ok, that probably happened sometimes during the war, but the when a second

shot also misses, something is wrong. Are the gunners blind?? Do they need glasses?? The German

Zeiss optics was actually quite good and they where very accurate. The American optics was not that

good in comparison. The German gunners should have a distinct advantage just because of their

optics. Is this more clear at engagements over long ranges in CM??

And does the hit probability increase after the first shot?? I have seen my StugIII gunners miss the

first shot against Shermans hoping they would nail them with the next shot. But sometimes the

second shot can be even further of target. Is there a logic to all this or is it just chance??

Qualified answers would be greatly appreciated.

Many thx

Former tank gunner

Heinz 25th PzReg"

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html

What he and I and others are suggesting (ok what I know I am suggesting) is that for the 88 flak the

range finding ability of the donkey eared range finder should give it a better first shot chance to hit

than an 88 in a tank, (tests by Ron indicate no such range finding first round chance to hit advantage

is modeled)

"

Vet.Tiger vs Vet.M4A3(76)(1500m/50x)

Tiger

Hitchance - 16%

255shots/73hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 4.15

avg. shots per kill - 5.21

1st shot hits - 14%

worst case for 1st hit - 11shots

5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38%

The tests are of Veteran AT guns in woods versus Regular stationary tanks at 1500m. I ran

them 50 times, the tanks never returned fire as they didn't spot the AT guns, with the

following results:

88Flak vs M4A3(75)

Hitchance - 15%

278shots/87hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 4.1

avg. shots per kill - 5.56

1st shot hits - 16%

worst case for 1st hit - 11shots

5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38%

AND I would suggest German tank gunners that fired the 76 and 88 mm weapons that were of

Veteran, Crack, and Elite crew status SHOULD have their chance to hit percentage raised after their

first shot miss at stepped increase per subsquent round fired that is higher than what is presently

modeled at long ranges over 1000m as an advantage for acquiring the target and adjusting for the

shot drop after a first shot miss, because they had the techical aids and 4 years (some of them)

battle experience to help them do that more accurately. I would also agree that there is good data

that suggests that the 17 pounder and the allied 76 mm firing high velocity rounds by Veteran, Crack,

and Elite crews should also be modeled with the same higher chance to hit step increase on

subsquent shots after a first round miss.

Good German gunners firing 88's should be much more accurate on the second, third and forth shot

following misses than the hit percentage they are currently modeled at, at ranges over 1000 meters.

This opinion is not new.

followed by on page 7....

"

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Tom, we will never use table based ANYTHING in CM. It is the wrong approach to

simulating real world environments. Also, I think Leland did an excellent job

pointing out the realities of probability.

Steve

Thanks for your reply Steve

Sorry I've been away for so long, I just hate it when "Real Life™" gets in the way of my CM passion.

I do understand that CM does not use tables, BUT to revisit my suggested table below:

Tiger I Reg Crew targets Stuart at 2000m

Proposal:

.

shot....con... gr ...Reg ..Vet ..Crk .Elite

first......3... 6... 12%.. 18... 24... 32

second..6... 12... 18%.. 24... 32... 43

third....12... 18... 24%.. 32... 43... 55

forth....18... 24... 32%.. 43... 55... 70

fifth... 24... 32... 43%.. 55... 70... 85

sixth....32... 43... 55%.. 70... 85... 90

seventh.43... 55... 70%.. 85... 90... 90

eigth..... 55... 70... 85%.. 90... 90... 95

My suggestion (just to be clear) was an attempt to generate numbers to put into the chance to hit

algorythyms with the intention of increasing the chance to hit % on subsquent shots based on crew

experience.

I understand that a very complicated (mostly Top Secret ) algorythym determines the result of

each round fired. My suggestion was to intended to generate discusion on how the subsquent chance

to hit % percentages in those algorythyms were generated.

I defined the circumstances under which those hit percentages would be valid and if I understand

what you have said about this in the past each variable in that complicated algorythym may have a

+/- value of additional uncertianty associated with it.

I like the concept of the Agorythym to determine the result of tank gunnery, it works better and any

other war game I'm familiar with.So to be clear I understand you don't use tables and I have no

problem with that.

BUT...

what some of us are really trying to do is build a case for is a higher chance to hit percentage, for vet

crack and elite crews (both sides) that fire high velocity rounds with largely predictable flat trajectories

using good optics that both Allies and Axis gunners had later in the war.

Some of us here actaully want the game to use More tungsten and and models hits at a larger

percentage on subsquent shots after the target has been acquired than is currently modeled, so yes

we want some tanks to be MORE deadly accurate in the way the second third and forth shots are

modeled.

I was attempting to build a case to bump up the numbers in your chance to hit algorythyms by

spreading those chance to hit percentages out over a "table" to let us see the spread between the

first shot chance to hit of a conscript crew and the 8th shot chance to hit of an Elite crew.

To look at it the other way, from our point of view as folks trying to figure out HOW these things are

modeled in the game, we are conducting firing range tests to attempt to construct a table like the one

I proposed to SEE exactly how these subsquent chance to hit percentages, AFTER a target has been

aqurired, are modeled in the algorythyms. (all this data as the result of the gunnery range test should

be able to be displayed in such a table format)

I undestand that you use modifiers, so in this way lets say the table I proposed could be just one

figure:

shot....con... gr ...Reg ..Vet ..Crk .Elite

first.....-... -... 12%.... -.... -.... -

And ALL other figures could be generated by modifiers to account for crew expereince and subsquent

shot chance to hit percentages, instead proposing those modifier values I proposed the end results

of the modifiers.

So the modifier for crew experince here is 50% of the Reg crew figure down to green and 50% down

conscript and 50% up to vet and 33% up to crack and 25% up to Elite as per:

shot....con... gr ...Reg ..Vet ..Crk .Elite

first......3... 6... 12%.. 18... 24... 32

so those are my suggested modifier values from the baseline line 12%

If you choose to tell me my proposed modifier values are WAY out line, I can fully accept that, I just

wanted to clarify that I was proposing a table the would list the results of the modifiers in the

algorythyms.

The game is still really fun to play.

I've been Playing against the AI and I enjoy winning most of the time and occaisionally getting my

butt kicked.

Thanks to Steve for reading this thread and putting up with us, but, (as you can guess) we are

convinced there is a case to made here for better subsquent second third and forth shot hit

percentages to be modeled based on crew experience and high quality optics.

We should all be thankful this discusion is so positive and constructive and free of flames.

Thanks especially to Leland for his math skills with regard to the subsquent cumlative math effects of

second third and forth shot cummulative hit percentages.

-tom w"

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

[aka_tom_w]

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

aka

nteresting…is this verifiable. The reason I ask is that I just read something about the 17 pounder

which would suggest otherwise. Muzzle velocities are comparable. See WO291/324. APCBC at 1000

yrds could routinely have a plus or minus 6.3 minutes arc error. That equates to approximately +/-

5.5 vertical feet.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-25-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok

if the Sherm is:

(from John waters post)

Length, width, & height comparison:

M4 Sherman:

Length - 5.89m

Width - 2.62m

Height - 2.74m

M4A3 Sherman 76mm

Length - 7.54m

Width - 3.00m

Height - 2.97m

Sherman VC:

Length - 7.77m

Width - 2.67m

Height - 2.74m

PzKpfw IV H - J:

Length - 7.02m

Width - 2.88m

Height - 2.68

Panther Ausf G:

Length - 8.86m

Width - 3.42m

Height - 2.98m

Tiger E:

Length - 8.45m

Width - 3.70m

Height - 3.00m

Tiger B:

Length - 10.29

Width - 3.76m

Height - 3.09m

Then surely 5.5 feet of shot drop is less than 2.x meters for the Sherm hieght.

no?

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

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

aka

Presumably you can site a fair number of AAR’s detailing Tigers engaging targets accurately at ranges in excess of 3,000 meters.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-25-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Jeff

I said

"examples and ARR's have been presented here we are NOT talking about the "uncommon" or fluke 3000 meter hits, but we are suggesting that German tankers ROUTINELY used the advantage of LONG range to engage Allied armour ANY time they could,outside of the effective range of the main weapon"

I was refering to ARR's we (John W and I, can be "we" as we seem to have a similiar focus here, if using we is a problem ) have posted which refered to NOT fluke 3000 meter shots but the ranges between about 1200 meters and 2000 meters which were admittedly rare in the ETO after D-Day. The point remains, do you dispute that fact that it was well documented tactic of the German tank commanders to try to use their long range advantge to dual with allied tanks outside the effective range of their main weapon? And here I'm refering to the 75 mm Sherm specifically, as it was in the ETO in Large numbers and Allied tank commanders of the 75 Sherms were instructed not to engage German tanks and wait for tank the killers to arrive, because they really could not get close enought fast enough, from the frontal aspect to do any damage to the Tiger or the Panther.

-tom w

[ASL Veteran]

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

From what I have read I would like to disagree with that.

The high muzzle velocity meant that the gunner did not have adjust for the shot drop to the same extend as for the slow muzzle velocity rounds which dropped more. The research we are refering to suggests that the shot drop of the high velocity 88's was so minimal at long ranges that if the gunner targeted the center mass of the tank or the turret the shot was VERY likely to fall somewhere on the upper hull or lower hull, as the deviation was less due to the flatter trajectory of the high velocity round, this is also why the Allied gunners liked their high velocity ammo too when they could get it. And yes without question, these high velocity rounds struck with greater kinetic energy and sure they were more likely to penetrate, but I would say more importantly they were MORE likely to hit and easier to aim and target with because the variable of shot drop was so minimal it fell within average 2-3 meter hieght of the tall Allied tanks like the Sherman.

Accounting for the varible of shot drop was one the skills that experienced gunners learned, the less shot drop over range they had to deal with the easier it was to lay the round on the target at long range, and the German gunners had a reputation of being GOOD at it.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't have to read anything to know that accuracy is not entirely dependent on muzzle velocity. Just go outside and throw a baseball around with a friend. You can lob it underhand, you can toss it lightly overhand, and you can throw it as hard as you can, and you can be just as accurate with each method as you are with the throwing hard method. I also see you continually mentioning the 88 Flak as some kind of hyper accurate weapon with its 'donkey eared' range finder, but the Jentz data shows that the 50L42 and the 50L60 both have superior accuracy at 1000 and 1500 meters. Furthermore, the 75L24 has the same accuracy as the 88 Flak in the Jentz data. So which is it Tom - is Jentz right or is Jentz wrong? If Jentz is wrong with the North Africa data, then we might presume that he is wrong about the Tiger data .... eh? Hmmm, quite a quandary here