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

[Guest machineman]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking about that to, looking at my collection.

Then I thought well, hell, if all the Germans produced was PZ I, II's III's and IV's I wouldn't have a lot of German books either. How many books dedicated to the PZ IV have come out? Not very many. Just like a Sherman it is workmanlike, it gets the job done, and that is about it.

[Guest rune]

Paul,

Actually I found the British are open to WWII data, IF you can find someone to go to the PRO for you. I have a bunch of original WO comming from there, but they are expensive to get a copy. [They are a copy of the original I should state].

Here is an example:

http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk/ListInt/browse_keywords_frameset.asp?keywords=Penetration%2C+Armour%2C+Plate&function=searchdocs&lcode=&class=&subclass=

As for gunnery accuracy, just the site I gave all earlier about British accuracy...

http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt6.htm

Searching all over, I have not had any better luck, other then war games and miniatures...which I won't use.

John,

Depends on how big the column was. Imagine 4-6 horse drawn at-gun, support troops and etc, and even a 5000 meter hit on all those targets doesn't overly impress me. I did find that WO 291/827 covers the accuracy of the 17 lb gun, but I dont have a copy of the article yet.

Rune

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I was thinking about that to, looking at my collection.

Then I thought well, hell, if all the Germans produced was PZ I, II's III's and IV's I wouldn't have a lot of German books either. How many books dedicated to the PZ IV have come out? Not very many. Just like a Sherman it is workmanlike, it gets the job done, and that is about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye, but it's not just AFVs I'm talking about, its German forces in general heck we've prolly even got the memoirs from the exploits of a German feild kitchen cook, on the Eastren Front out their in print somewhere, or the story of a German railway worker in the East etc.

It's realy amazeing the ammount of tech data detail we can refrence on German AFVs compared to what we have on Allied systems, Ie, the the accuracy tables, I have spent 2 days digging through my refrences for comparible allied charts & camew up empty. Paul you may be right considering the ammount of German records captured after the war & stored at the archives, researching German stuff must be easier then trying to find the Aberdeen records on US tank gun test's 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.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

As for gunnery accuracy, just the site I gave all earlier about British accuracy...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rune, the site just doesn't contain eneough detail to make a comparison to the German table 1 data, theirs got to be more detailed info out their somewhere for each tank gun. Anyone check Bovington?, I tried Aberdeen got told all their records are at the National Archives again .

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

John, Depends on how big the column was. Imagine 4-6 horse drawn at-gun, support troops and etc, and even a 5000 meter hit on all those targets doesn't overly impress me.

Rune

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, well 5km's is quite a distance to see with WW2 optics & to actualy hit the spot your aiming at is something at that range with such a low ammo expenditure is something IMHO, the longest documented kill in the Gulf was 5100m by an Challenger & it was vs a retreating Iraqi column it hit a fuel truck with an HESH round IIRC.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Guest rune]

Well, don't knoq if this fits, but the title seems like it would be correct. This study was done in 1948. It is WO 195/10134 Weapon Research Committee: accuracy of anti-tank guns and rigidity of gun barrels. I can find british stuff, but you are right John, American stuff is much harder. Aberdeen's research has all been moved to the National Archives...and I find interesting tidbits on optics, accuracy, etc....but no document names or numbers. Ahhh...to be able to afford a vacation at the archives to find some of this lost stuff.

Rune

[Guest rune]

Yes, I have contacts at bovington, and they state that weapons testing wasn't done there. Any records involving WWII would have been moved to the Public Records Office, which I already gave the url to. I posted another document in the messgae before this one that may or may not pertain. American records seem much harder to find...

Rune

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

Heh, well 5km's is quite a distance to see with WW2 optics & to actualy hit the spot your aiming at is something at that range with such a low ammo expenditure is something IMHO, the longest documented kill in the Gulf was 5100m by an Challenger & it was vs a retreating Iraqi column it hit a fuel truck with an HESH round IIRC.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jeff Duquette]

John:

Just checking...but you do have access to Jentz's material on British gun accuracy\range for North Africa. 2-pounder, 25-pounder etc?

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John:

Just checking...but you do have access to Jentz's material on British gun accuracy\range for North Africa. 2-pounder, 25-pounder etc?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh!! somewhere in this clutter I made, problem is finding the book .

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.

[Paul Lakowski]

some ranging figures from Ogorkiewcz,

Visual estimation 20-30% per Km;

200-300m @ 1km.

400-600m @ 2km

600-900m @ 3km

Ranging Mg 15-20% per Km;

150-200m @ 1 km.

300-400m @ 2km

450-600m @ 3km

Stadimeteric 5-10% per Km ;

50-100m @ 1km.

100-200m @ 2km

150m-300m @ 3km

Sterioscopic 10-20 x Sqrt of range in kms.So 1 km = 100-200m

2km = 140-280m

3Km = 170-350m

Lazer 0.1 % per Km; 1m @ 1km & 2m @ 2km.

The range in values appears tobe the difference between a veteran and a regular gunner.

This only tells you the range estimation accuracy, we need to know 'beaten zones' and average miss distance [ Vs known range target].

Source ; Technology of Tanks pp 169- 177.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WO 291/1183 Obscuration problems in tank gunnery.

This report mentions a device called "hoonoo", a large baffle fitted 4 to 5 calibres in front of a normal muzzle-brake on a 17-pr, to prevent dust being raised on firing. At 1000 yards, firing a 20-pr over dust-free ground, in 5 out of 10 cases the tank commander could not observe strike, and in 11 out of 20 cases the gunner could not. Firing 17-pr or 20-pr, gunners and commanders could not see their tracer, although observers to a flank could. It is extremely hard to spot APDS impact on the ground or on a tank. "Over dry grassland, trials with a 20-pr gun (MV 4350 ft/sec) both with and without a muzzle blast diffuse) have indicated that there is little chance of successful observation of APDS ammunition at ranges up to 1400 yards, and that the dust raised by blast is chiefly responsible for the obscuration." "In dry weather over dusty ground obscuration is complete, and on a calm day persists up to 10-15 seconds."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I threw this up from Macksey before...thought it might be appropriate to take another look at it.

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

Major Kenneth Macksey MC Tank vs Tank The story of Armoured Battlefield Conflict in the 20th Century. (pg 107)

Pieces of such high velocity brought with them, however, additional problems for commanders and gunners. No longer was it possible satisfactorily to base corrections of aim upon spotting the fall of shot, because the shot usually landed before the dust and Smoke from the gun's discharge had cleared away. Field anti-tank gunners often overcame the spotting problem by employing a flank observer: However (sic) tank commanders in a turret, jolted by the discharge, were in trouble. Moreover, although at the shorter (and more common) ranges of engagement, where line of sight virtually coincided with trajectory of projectile over the initial 800 meters and made it necessary only to lay at the center mass of target, the judging of distance at potentially effective ranges out to 2000 meters now became critical. In desert and steppes these difficulties faced the Germans as their Tigers, Panthers, Elefants and several more kinds of heavy Jagdpanzer came into service throughout 1943. The Russians, too, would have to consider it when the greatly improved T34/85 with its three-man turret, thicker armor and 85mm gun appeared in August 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WO 185/194 Tank and anti-tank armament.

"The technique of direct AP shooting at the beginning of the War was relatively simple - after the range to the target had been estimated, the appropriate graticule on the telescope was laid on the target and the gun was fired. If the first round missed the target the gunner (i.e. the gun-layer) assisted, if necessary, by the commander, observed the fall of shot in relation to the target, applied the necessary correction in lay and fired again... The average maximum number of rounds required to hit the upstanding targets used on

training was of the order of three."

With the arrival of the 75mm tank gun and its HE round, a bracketing procedure was introduced, and used down to ranges of 1,000 yards, rather than applying direct corrections as in AP shooting.

"Gradually it was realised that since the 75mm HE M48 Super ranged with APC M61, the principles of direct AP shooting could be applied up to 2,000 yards at least. Beyond this range, or at any rate beyond 3,000 yards,...it was necessary to—adopt a bracketing procedure."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Presumably bracketing was conducted with HE to improve probability of spotting ones own round…an HE ground detonation will kick up a great deal more soil and dust that an AP round impacting the ground.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-01-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

I have never seen that latest chart Jeff Posted

Sorry

I don't understand what the numbers below the ranges mean?

I see the type of gun and I see the range, but what do the numbers in the chart relate to or mean?

sorry I'm so thick on this one

Thanks

GREAT thread, and good discussion, Still my favourite toopic.

-tom w

[Jeff Duquette]

If a number of rounds of ammunition of the same caliber, lot, and charge are fired from the same position with identical settings used for deflection and quadrant elevation, the rounds will not all impact on a single point but will fall in a scattered pattern. The points of impact of the projectiles will be scattered both in deflection and in range. Dispersion is caused by inherent (systemic) errors such as: minor variations in the weight of the projectile, and moisture content and temperature of the propellant grains, differences in the rate of ignition of the propellant, variations in the arrangement of the propellant grains, play (looseness) in the mechanisms of the carriage, nonuniform reactions to firing stress, environmental effects (gusting winds) etc, etc. It should'nt be confused with round-to-round variations caused by either human (non-cool gunner ) or constant errors (constant error like consistent wind velocity, ambient temperature, etc). Human errors can be minimized through training and supervision. Inherent errors are beyond control or are impractical to measure.

The distribution of bursts (dispersion pattern) in a given sample of rounds is roughly elliptical in relation to the line of fire and the intended point of impact. For any large number of rounds fired, the average (or mean) location of impact can be determined by drawing a diagram of the pattern of bursts as they appear on the ground. A line drawn perpendicular to the line of fire can be used to divide the sample rounds into two equal groups. Therefore, half of the rounds will be over this line when considered in relation to the weapon. The other half of the rounds will be short of this line in relation to the weapon. This dividing line represents the mean range of the sample and is called the mean range line. By further subdividing this impact zone we can establish tendency of a sample to fall within some distance from the intended impact point. The 50% zone is simply the horizontal distance over which 50% of the rounds fired will impact, or disperse over. So in the case of the Super M48 @ 2000 yrds, we can expect 50% of the rounds we fire to fall within +/- 14 yrds of the impact point (ie the the 50% zone is 28 yrds). A 10% zone would be a much tighter zone around the intended impact point…I don’t know what the 10% zone of an M48 HE round is, but for the sack of clarity in what I’m talking about perhaps the 10% zone would be something like +/- 3 yrds either side of the intended impact point.

[Jeff Duquette]

Just an added note...obviously dispersion trends in the vertical plain are also critical to tank gunnery.

One additional comment on obscuration problems is that impact of overline rounds will often be blocked from direct LOS of gunners and TC's by the target. Solution?

[Guest machineman]

So, if I get this straight, when firing a 17pounder at a target 2000 yards away, the BEST half of my shots will still have a horizontal spread of nearly 20 yards, and that is AFTER I AM SIGHTED IN AND HITTING. Also, the worst half will be even more all over the place, and the shots it took to get ranged in are not even counted in this figure?

[aka_tom_w]

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

If a number of rounds of ammunition of the same caliber, lot, and charge are fired from the same position with identical settings used for deflection and quadrant elevation, the rounds will not all impact on a single point but will fall in a scattered pattern. The points of impact of the projectiles will be scattered both in deflection and in range. Dispersion is caused by inherent (systemic) errors such as: minor variations in the weight of the projectile, and moisture content and temperature of the propellant grains, differences in the rate of ignition of the propellant, variations in the arrangement of the propellant grains, play (looseness) in the mechanisms of the carriage, nonuniform reactions to firing stress, environmental effects (gusting winds) etc, etc. It should'nt be confused with round-to-round variations caused by either human (non-cool gunner ) or constant errors (constant error like consistent wind velocity, ambient temperature, etc). Human errors can be minimized through training and supervision. Inherent errors are beyond control or are impractical to measure.

The distribution of bursts (dispersion pattern) in a given sample of rounds is roughly elliptical in relation to the line of fire and the intended point of impact. For any large number of rounds fired, the average (or mean) location of impact can be determined by drawing a diagram of the pattern of bursts as they appear on the ground. A line drawn perpendicular to the line of fire can be used to divide the sample rounds into two equal groups. Therefore, half of the rounds will be over this line when considered in relation to the weapon. The other half of the rounds will be short of this line in relation to the weapon. This dividing line represents the mean range of the sample and is called the mean range line. By further subdividing this impact zone we can establish tendency of a sample to fall within some distance from the intended impact point. The 50% zone is simply the horizontal distance over which 50% of the rounds fired will impact, or disperse over. So in the case of the Super M48 @ 2000 yrds, we can expect 50% of the rounds we fire to fall within +/- 14 yrds of the impact point (ie the the 50% zone is 28 yrds). A 10% zone would be a much tighter zone around the intended impact point…I don’t know what the 10% zone of an M48 HE round is, but for the sack of clarity in what I’m talking about perhaps the 10% zone would be something like +/- 3 yrds either side of the intended impact point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Jeff!

That was a very good decription and now I understand what all those numbers mean.

It seems that the allied way of measuring accuracy is somwhat different from the Axis charts and diagrams we have seen for measuring gun accruacy, it sort of makes the comparision of modeling accuracy in CM somewhat more difficult.

But it is still fun to look into it and learn about it

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

machineman:

Seems hard to believe (Obviously the guy conducting this test was a "non-cool gunner")

The following is the 90% zone for the M48 round including vertical dispersion. Try visualizing the problem in three space…XYZ (i.e. a WWII MBT stands up off the ground - tracks to turret top -- some 10 to 15 feet). The numbers for dispersion shouldn't seem quite as dramatic to you after going through this exercise.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It seems that the allied way of measuring accuracy is somwhat different from the Axis charts and diagrams we have seen for measuring gun accruacy, it sort of makes the comparision of modeling accuracy in CM somewhat more difficult.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has there been actual German test data posted yet on this thread? Or have we been looking at Jentz's condensation of test data. Perhaps his accuracy tables for the 88mm have been summarized for us lay folks. His present format makes it relatively easy for people to say gee this is the relative probability of hitting such and such sized target at such and such range.

Somewhat of a digression here...but I think John alluded to this in an earlier post: Jentz's 88mm accuracy numbers in "Tank Tactics in North Africa" are different from his 88mm accuracy data in "Tactics of the Tiger I". The North Africa numbers are somewhat lower.

[JoePrivate]

That's interesting information Jeff on the dispersion of the 75M3 HE shell. Compare that to the following I obtained from this website(references incl.):

http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html

http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/german_accuracy5.html

Specifically the 75 KwK42 firing Sprgr.42HE with the definition of dispersion as:

"Dispersion tests show the percentage of projectiles that will hit a 2.5m × 2m target during controlled test firing. The pattern of dispersion is assumed to be centred exactly on the target. These results give a good theoretical comparison of guns and ammunition types, without considering the complicating effects of human error."

Dispersion accuracy -

500m - 100%

1000m - 100%

1500m - 90%

2000m - 66%

2500m - 42%

3000m - 28%

Even though the data are in different formats, it would suggest the one gun system is inherently more accurate than the other on the test range. Referring back to the earlier data in this post on the 88L/56, it seems again to suggest that. Comments?

[Trooper]

Can one assume that the concept of a 'battlesight' range was around in WWII?

If I recall, it's a range setting that shots will pass through the height of a tank between a certain (wide) set of actual ranges. In this case, adjusting for range (Assuming the target is withing the battlesight envelope) shouldn't be as much of an issue as getting the lead right...

Just a thought.

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

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[Paul Lakowski]

Jeff this sounds like the standard deviatioon that is refered to by Ogorkiewzc and others. 50% of all shots should land within 2/3 of a standard devation. while 2/3 of all hits should land within 1 standard deviation.At 2.6 x the standard deviation > 95% of all shots should land.

As to the horizontal range this sounds like the 'beated zone' which proposes that the shell will hit a certain size target [ 2m?] as long as its some where alonf this beaten zone , for APDS it recall its +/- 250m range.

In a paper on APFSDS it was reported that the shells had a dispersion of 1 meter @ 1km and 3 meters @ 3 km range, but what this mean't was 2/3 of all shots would land within 1 meter, @ 1km range.

[PzKpfw 1]

German tank guns were calibrated at 1000m, I asked this before anyone know what ranges Allied tank guns were calibrated at?.

We have the German accuracy results from the controlled tests from Jentz. This was done with ranges pre deterimed before fireing, to establish the systems accuracy & dispersion pattern, vs a stationary 2m high 2.5m wide target.

Ie,

8.8 cm KwK.36 L/56 fireing Pzgr.39

500m - 100

1000m - 93

1500m - 74

2000m - 87

2500m - 31

3000m - 19

8.8 cm KwK.36 L/56 fireing Pzgr.40

500m - 100

1000m - 89

1500m - 71

2000m - 55

8.8 cm KwK.36 L/56 fireing Gr.39 HL

500m - 100

1000m - 94

1500m - 72

2000m - 52

7.5 cm KwK.42 L/70 fireing Pzgr.39

500m - 100

1000m - 100

1500m - 100

2000m - 92

2500m - 73

3000m - 55

7.5 cm KwK.42 L/70 fireing Pzgr.40

500m - 100

1000m - 94

1500m - 76

2000m - 56

7.5 cm KwK.42 L/70 fireing SprGr.

500m - 100

1000m - 100

1500m - 90

2000m - 66

2500m - 42

3000m - 28

8.8 cm KwK.43 L/71 fireing Pzgr.39

500m - 100

1000m - 100

1500m - 95

2000m - 85

2500m - 74

3000m - 61

3500m - 51

4000m - 42

8.8 cm KwK.43 L/71 fireing Pzgr.40

500m - 100

1000m - 100

1500m - 89

2500m - 78

3000m - 66

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 11-01-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Rheinmettal Handbook on Weaponary 1982,pp693,fig 1129.

beaten zone are...[from chart]

600m APDS ± 300m

350M HVAP ± 175m

220M APC ± 110m

180M HEAT ± 90m

~50M HESH ± 25m

The target height was 2.3 meters, the gun was 105mm and the range was 2 Km.

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Lemme try this again as I seem to have instilled some confusion with a couple folks with my last posts.

Beaten Zone - this characteristic represents the physical area commanded by the rounds as a group, representing a pattern formed by their individual impacts. This pattern is generally elliptical shaped (cigar shaped), but is affected by various factors such as trajectory, ground incidence angle, gun platform stability, etc. In 2d space, consider that air resistance, propellant variations, etc. will cause differences in the distances traveled by each round. Firing 3 rounds from point A will result in 3 differing impacts (point X). Consider from ground level:

Point A __________________x___x__Target___x

The trajectory of each round is minutely different for each of the X impact locations. In three space (XYZ) these variations form a characteristic known as cone of shot. Imagine a bull’s-eye around the target. Even a great marksman with a great weapon will have grouping variations. Therefore at long distance, expect large 3 space cones of fire, with 80% rounds near the bull’s-eye and 20% near the outer edge, all plummeting at high velocity towards the target and falling in a basic elliptical shape.

a) If you were to fire straight down (like from a helicopter), that elliptical shape would become more circular

If you are firing into a hill face, the pattern is similarly circular

c) If you were to fire up at 45deg, the pattern would stretch the elliptical shape.

d) Similarly if you are firing across a downhill slope, the pattern will elongate

REMEMBER - those bullets fly a complete path very quickly, and will strike anything that impedes them—this is why...in my mind anyway— the problem has to be considered in three space. The first table WO291/882 details dispersion zones in only the horizontal plane. What we associate with good marksmanship is however typically ascribed to the vertical plane (i.e. shot pattern on a vertical 2X3 meter piece of plywood or tank or a tin can). My original intent of posting WO291/882 was to begin a discussion on bracketing…not horizontal dispersion. The intent of posting the second table WO291/146 was – I had hoped – a means of clarifying the difference between horizontal and vertical dispersion. So although horizontal dispersion looks pretty huge for all those wood-be Davy Crockett’s here at CM HQ, for the M48 HE shell the shot pattern on your 2x3 plywood target…for the 90% zone…at 1000 yards, is really only 3 feet.

Bare in mind that these AP rounds are scooting along at a fair piece…so considering basic projectile physics…a 1 foot high shot pattern difference in the vertical plane results in a down range travel time of an additional .05 seconds (or whatever the time frame of continued flight is) before gravity and air friction bring the round back down to earth. So an armored piercing round that is rocketing along at 800 meters\sec will still travel a bit within the horizontal plane for that extra .05 seconds. Horizontal dispersion doesn’t – by itself -- imply that the weapon is somehow inaccurate. I suspect that higher velocity, flater trajectory rounds would have greater horizontal dispersion that lower velocity rounds.

[Jeff Duquette]

John:

Sorry…I really wasn’t trying to get you repost the Jentz tables again. I was simply curious as to what your impression was as to the subtle difference between Jentz’s North Africa 88 and Jentz’s other 88 table for the Tiger I. I had thought you had alluded to this contrast in a previous post.

From out of left field: Have you played the old Avalon Hill board game “Tobruck” (spelling). Somewhat of a precursor to Squad Leader…much more detailed armor model than SL. I no longer have a copy of the game, but would be curious as to the game references. Might help us along in this discussion.

Paul:

Gracias for the beaten zone info on more modern munitions.

Trooper:

Can you elaborate on your last post?

JoePrivate:

Thanks for the info great stuff…yes you are right…but again I am talking horizontal dispersion and the info you have posted is really a function of vertical dispersion.

And yes Dave Honner has a great web site. He also seems to be a hell of a nice fellow and never seems to tire of answering some of my more mundane questions.

Take a look at “On Armour” at:

http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/index.htm

Also a great site.

[Guest machineman]

I think I get you now. Horizontal dispersion is impact point fore and aft, not side to side. That sounds better.

And speaking of the targeting thing, I see Lewis's point on the height difference between the Panzer IV and the Sherman, almost two feet. Sherman M4A3 spec's at 10.65 ft tall, compared to 8.79 ft for the Panzer IVH and 6.07 ft for the 'low rider champ' the Jagdpanzer IV. The Sherman is actually a hair taller than a Kingtiger, although much narrower of course.