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

[PzKpfw 1]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, their is a contrast the table in the NA book is diferent then the other 3 Jentz tables I have Ie,

100m - 100

500m - 98

1000m - 64

1500m - 38

2000m - 23

2500m - 15

3000m - 10

Trying to figure out why this table is diferent as its even lower then the modified Table 2 results.

I had Tobruk but lost it so I can't comment on its refrences anyone here got it lying around?.

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.

[aka_tom_w]

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

J

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.

Also a great site.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Folks

I have the game

I played it in the mid to late 70's when it came out

the copyright is 1975

When I was a teen we played this game a great deal, I was always the Allies and and my crappy British tanks got SMOKED everyt time by the like os the 88 mm flack and that dreaded Pzkfw IIIJ

Anyway I have the manual in my hand RIGHT NOW

Which references are you looking for?

They look long and hard to type out

since I guess I cannot easily cut and paste them from some other source, I'll try to type them out over lunch and post them.

I thought the Armour pentration model i Tobruk was VERY well done, extremely well done and I have all the stat sheets and hit charts, the whole game is intact.

Now, how shall we use it?

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

I had Tobruk but lost it so I can't comment on its refrences anyone here got it lying around?.

Regards, John Waters

Hi John

OK, I've got it.

I can scan the relevant sections and post them, now I wonder why I will do this if BTS has already said they do not and will not use facts and references from other games to let us support our positions here?

But I will do it anyway.

That Tobruk manual is FULL of great Designer notes and FULL refernces with ALL kinds of Math and formula's and algorythyms and equations for determining hits and pentration and the like.

Sit tight and I'll scan it and post it today.

-tom w

Its the ONLY decent WWII reference material I own SO I'm wildly happy to share it!!!

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-02-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

sorry I'm late

I have not had a chance to get to a scanner

but I did read over the designer notes for Tobruk at Lunch.

I'm not really sure there is much in them that will halp us here, but they are Very interesting to read.

I will post those references and there are plenty of them.

-tom w

[ASL Veteran]

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

Jeff, their is a contrast the table in the NA book is diferent then the other 3 Jentz tables I have Ie,

100m - 100

500m - 98

1000m - 64

1500m - 38

2000m - 23

2500m - 15

3000m - 10

Trying to figure out why this table is diferent as its even lower then the modified Table 2 results.

I had Tobruk but lost it so I can't comment on its refrences anyone here got it lying around?.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the North Africa book, Jentz uses the British method of dispersion rather than the German method so that he can compare the British accuracies to the German accuracies using the same dispersion. The British used something like a 10% dispersion and the Germans used a 5% or something along those lines.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

In the North Africa book, Jentz uses the British method of dispersion rather than the German method so that he can compare the British accuracies to the German accuracies using the same dispersion. The British used something like a 10% dispersion and the Germans used a 5% or something along those lines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DOH thx ASL I need glasses .

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]

What do you guys mean when you talk about dispersion? Whe I see it the reference is to miss distance measured in cm or meters, so what does 10% mean...10% of what?

[Lee]

On an unrelated note (well, it relates to the Tiger, which has the gun in

question that this thread was started about ), has anyone else noticed

that the Tiger seems to get an awful lot of "gun damaged" hits on it?

Seems like most times it get's into a fight with several lesser U.S. tanks

who's shots are just bouncing off it's armor, I'll get a "gun damaged" report.

Which seems to happen too often to make sense, and it's really cheap

to have your armor advantage spoiled because it won't do you much good

if your gun gets knocked out all the time.

Just wondering if this might need toned down a bit to be more realistic.

Comments?

[Jeff Duquette]

No Paul your not going nuts…ASL is right however his memory did some dyslexia on him. The numbers are adjusted to the 90% dispersion zone (vertical plane ). Here is what Jentz says…also posted the accuracy tables we’re referring to for any interested parties that don’t own the book and may wonder what the hell we’re yaking about. Anyone know if Jentz ever intends on covering the remainder of the Africa Campaign?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: T.L. Jentz, “Tank Combat in North Africa”

4.2.1 FIRING AT STATIONARY TARGETS FROM

STATIONARY GUNNERS

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 target. The first number shows the accuracy in percentage that was obtained during controlled test firing of the gun to determine the pattern of dispersion. The second number in parentheses was calculated by doubling the dispersion obtained from controlled test firing. Both the British and Germans considered that "doubled dispersion" was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by the troops in practice and, if they remained calm, in combat. All of these accuracy values were obtained from firing tables published by the respective armies during the war.

The British calculated their dispersion based on a 90% Zone and the Germans and Italians calculated the dispersion based on a 50% Zone. The 90% Zone from the British firing tables was used as the basis for calculating the percent accuracy against a 2.5 m x 2 meter target so that it could be directly compared with the other nations guns. 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 gunner could achieve the accuracy shown by the number in parentheses after adjusting his fire onto the center of the target - if he remained calm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

I just got this from the Nafziger Collection yesterday: "Soviet Armor Tactics in World War II, from Combat Regulations of 1944". It’s apparently a translated version of the original 1944 Soviet Combat Regulations for the individual armored vehicle, tank platoon, and tank company. Presumably this thing is kind of the Soviet counterpart to FM17-32.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>289. Before starting the attack tank engines are started on a signal from the company commander. In addition to the signal from the company commander to start the attack, the platoon leader gives the signal, "March!" ("Forward!") and leads his platoon in the ordered direction to the attack, maintaining his position in the company formation. In special cases - because of obstacles or a long distance to the enemy main battle line - the platoon marches from the Start Position in close or march formation and deploys for combat on the march.

290. From the Start Position the platoon leader directs the movement of his platoon according to the Guide platoon. Upon reaching the effective range of enemy antitank gun fire (1000 to 1200 meters) the platoon attacks at extreme speed. After passing through the combat formation of our own infantry the platoon opens strong cannon and machine gun fire while on the move, breaks into the enemy main battle line and destroys

the enemy infantry.

291. The platoon negotiates antitank obstacles under covering fire from other tank platoons and with the support of guns assigned to support the tanks (self-propelled guns, infantry guns, antitank guns).

292. If the obstacle cannot be negotiated by the entire platoon at the same time part of the tanks in the platoon provide fire support for the others in crossing. In cases where the obstacle cannot be crossed, and no detour around it can be found, the platoon maneuvers to exploit the terrain (for cover), fires on the opponent and waits for a gap to be made by the following infantry.

293. In an attack with the fire support of the artillery and mortars the platoon advances close to the barrage of the artillery and mortars (within 75 to 100 meters). Any delay or falling back behind the artillery and mortar fire increases the losses of the tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

#292 Looks like Soviets were beginning to think about bounding overwatch.

#290 Sure fits in nicely with my previous post on “The Anvil of War” & “The Development of German Defensive Tactics in Cyrenica

#293 Hey…Ruskie creeping barrages

<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: 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>

aka_tom_w:

Thanks for digging. I guess what I was hoping was if Avalon Hill had a list of references and studies employed for the game.

Lee:

I know what you mean…whenever I play Germans my tank guns are always being damaged. However…and this is weird…whenever I play the Allies I never seem to be able to damage German Guns

[Paul Lakowski]

OK this is the second time I have to wright this [ my computer crashed], so I'll make it brief instead of 2 pages long.

100% hit probablity on a 90% dispersion sounds like 2 standard deviations , so what there saying is that the 100% value is dispersion of 0.5 meters standard deviation . That way 2 stand deviations is 1 meter radius around the aim point and all shots shot land within a radius of 1.25 meters of the aim point.

As far as hitting the target goes this assumes the 'aim point', and the center of the target are the same thing and the range to the target is already know.

In the Heat of battle getting the aim point exactly dead center might be tough and clearly is something where skill nerves and experience come into play.

So at 2 km down range the 88 gets 58%, which suggest that the 2.0 x 2.5 meter target is about 3/4 of a standard deviation or more simply....

2/3 of all shots should fall within a 1.3 - 1.4m radius @ 2km range of the point of aim, and 90% should fall within a 2.7 meter radius of the point of aim.

Now getting the range determined should take several shots , since the 88 used a sterioscopic range finder it should be able to determine the range to within 140 to 280m depending on crew quality.In addtion the beaten zone for a 800m/s APC shot should be > 100m. If we assume that 'bracketing the shot' means systematically adjusting long and short until the range is reached then... A well trained 88 crew should get 'the range' on the 3rd shot[which should have a 2/3 chance of a hit].A average crew would take 4-6 shots to get'on target'.

So a good 88 crew should hit the target on the 4 or 5 shot while a average crew should do it in 6-8 shots.An elite crew might very well hit the target on the second or third shot.

If the 'double dispersion rule is applied' the 'on range hit prob' is down to 23%, which suggest the radius will be larger - more like

2meter radius. So the 'on range hit prob is ~ 50%, and the # shots to hit @ 2km should be ....

<PRE>

Elite 5-6 shots

Good 7 shots

Average 8-10 shots

</PRE>

Based on the above I looked at a Sterioscopic equipped M-60A1 firing APDS [0.8 Mil @ 2km] ....in order to compare to Bolgers figures from NTC.The beaten zone is 600m total and the ranging errors are 140-280m

<PRE>

Ranging to hit...

Elite 0 shots 2-3

Good 1 shots 3-4

Average 2 shots ~5

</PRE>

If you remember his the Tank company averaged 1 hit in 4 shots too as much as 1 in 7 shots.

so this model looks good.

[Jeff Duquette]

Of course this all assumes the target is not moving.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Of course this all assumes the target is not moving.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And brings us back to square 1 and the German qualification gunnery examples, Ie, the Tiger crew's one hit by the 3rd round in 30secs on a target moveing 20kph @ 800 - 1200m, & 1 hit by the 4th round in 30secs on a stationary target @ 1200 - 2000m.

Do we have any comparible data for Allied tanks?.

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 11-03-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

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

Of course this all assumes the target is not moving.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, so now we need to know the proceedure for leading a target, any one know?

I tried this on Steel Beasts in a LEO-2 with all systems 'down'. Thats manual traverse and elevation, visually estimated range and manually adjusting and estimating my own lead.

Hitting a stationary target at 2km required 2-3 shots [1 shot with all systems 'up'], but hitting a moving target @ 2km was pure luck on my part, took 20 shots or more.

With all systems 'up' I could usually do this on the second or third shot.

A ODS veteran told me that , under the same circumstances in the game he hit 4 T-72s & 8 BMPs so it can be done with skill.

Since the trajectory of a APCBC is a fraction of the DM-33, I guess this whole procees would be a hole lot worse.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Yes, so now we need to know the proceedure for leading a target, any one know?

I tried this on Steel Beasts in a LEO-2 with all systems 'down'. Thats manual traverse and elevation, visually estimated range and manually adjusting and estimating my own lead.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In German tanks Ie, the Panther & Tiger after range was established, lead was done useing the distance between the triangles. Inm US sights, Ie, the Shermans M70 their was a mark for centering on targets below 500yrds, but no way to determine range as German tanks had. The SOP was for targets from 500 - 800yrds was to use the Co-Axe MG and the TC & gunner working together adjusting for shot fall. This is one reason why German optics were considered superior to US sights as the Germans had a much simpler process to determine range, lead etc.

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

Hitting a stationary target at 2km required 2-3 shots [1 shot with all systems 'up'], but hitting a moving target @ 2km was pure luck on my part, took 20 shots or more.

Since the trajectory of a APCBC is a fraction of the DM-33, I guess this whole procees would be a hole lot worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh I have done the same with the Abrams in SP Paul the Abrams sight is basicly the same as the Shermans at least from compareing them in PE. Anywai I sucked useing Kentucky windage ;)initialy but got better.

You can also load up Panzer Elite & see the difrences in the Panther & Shermasn sights as well as try your hand shooting. As to accuracy difrences look at what a Tiger gunner was expected to do vs a moveing and stationary target compared to SB's results w/o the FCS active.

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 11-03-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

I broke down and ordered a used copy of the 1950 FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery manual. Couldnt find an earlier version...but since the ARMY and MARINES were still employing some Shermans in 1950 there should be some pertinant info.

In the mean time this is about as good as I can come up with for direct fire gunnery of a larger caliber weapon. Leading moving targets is covered toward the bottom.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FM 23-11, 90MM RECOILLESS RIFLE, M67 April 1967

TECHNIQUE OF FIRE

70. Definitions and Scope

a. Terms.

(1) Technique of fire. Placing effective fire on a target.

(2) Direct laying. Pointing a weapon for direction and elevation by laying on a target visible to the gunner as he looks through the sight.

(3) Direct fire. Firing conducted when the gunner is using direct laying.

b. Scope. Training in marksmanship is a prerequisite for instruction in direct laying. Direct laying involves a knowledge of the following subjects:

(1) Characteristics of fire.

(2) Range, apparent speed, and lead determination.

(3) Fire commands.

(4) Fire control.

71. Characteristics of Fire

a. Trajectory.

(1) The trajectory of a projectile is the curve traced by the center of gravity of the projectile in its flight from the muzzle of the gun to the point of impact. A knowledge of the trajectory is important, especially in firing antitank weapons and when firing over the heads of friendly troops.

(2) The 90mm rifle is classified as a flat trajectory weapon. The muzzle velocity and the weight of the projectile are the more important factors in determining the flatness of the trajectory. In all cases, however, due to the action of the force of gravity and air resistance, the trajectory of projectiles is actually a curve and not a straight line. Air resistance retards the projectile during its flight, causing the angle of fall to be greater than the angle of elevation. Therefore, the projectile reaches its maximum ordinate (highest point) closer to the point of impact than to the rifle (fig. 36).

Figure 36

(3) A line tangent to the trajectory at the point of impact is called the line of fall. The vertical angle between the line of fall and the ground at the point of impact is called the angle of fall.

b. Dispersion.

(1) When firing a large number of rounds from a rifle having elevation, direction, and other conditions as nearly identical as possible, the points of impact of the projectile are scattered both in range and deflection. This scattering is called dispersion. The greatest concentration of points of impact is near the center of the group. Approximately as many points fall short of the center as fall beyond, and a few will fall to the right or to the left.

(2) Among factors that cause dispersion are variations in weight and composition of the propellant, weight and balance of the projectile, and atmospheric condition.

c. Dispersion Rectangle and Probable Error. In general, the points of impact of projectiles fired from a rifle, using the identical sight picture for each cartridge fired, may be included in a rectangle with its longer axis along the gun-target line. This is called a dispersion rectangle. If this rectangle is divided into eight equal parts by lines drawn perpendicular to the line of fire, the percentage of points of impact to be expected in each part is as shown in figure 37. Notice that each of the two segments nearest the center of the dispersion rectangle contain 25 percent of all impacts. The length (in the direction of fire) of each of the segments of the dispersion rectangle represents one range probable error. The value in meters of one range probable error, which varies with the range from the rifle to the center of impact, is given in the firing table pertaining to the type of ammunition being fired.

Figure 37

Section II. RANGE DETERMINATION, AND

ESTIMATING LEAD AND APPARENT SPEED

72. Range Determination

a. General.

(1) Ability to accurately estimate range is essential to achieve first round hits. The length of time available to fire is in many cases limited; therefore, quick and accurate determination of range is extremely important.

(2) The methods used to determine range to a given target are:

(a) Using stadia lines in the sight reticle.

( Using map distance.

© Estimating by eye.

(d) Obtaining the range from other units.

(e) Firing other weapons.

(f) Measuring ground distance.

(g) Using binoculars.

b. Stadia Lines. The stadia lines in the sight reticle are a readily available means of estimating range (fig. 38). These lines are developed from the mil relation formula and are designed to enable the gunner to estimate range to targets having a 10- or 20-foot dimension. Most tanks are approximately 10 feet wide and 20 feet long. To estimate range, the gunner adjusts the lay of the rifle until the target exactly fits between the stadia lines. The point on the vertical (range) line of the reticle, that corresponds to the center of mass of the target, indicates the range. The target in figure 38 is at a range of 275 meters. On targets showing more of the flank than the front, a full stadia picture is used. If more of the front than the flank is shown, a half stadia picture is necessary (fig. 39). It is important to remember that a deflection adjustment must be made from a half stadia picture to obtain the correct sight picture for target engagement.

Figure 38

Figure 39

c. Map Distance. Accuracy of determining range from a map depends on skill in map reading and the accuracy of the map (FM 21-26).

d. Estimating Range by Eye. See FM 23-71 for explanation.

e. Obtaining the Range From Other Units.

Often, a unit relieved from a combat position possesses range cards and other information that may be of use to the relieving unit. Also, other units of the same organization as the relieving unit may have the desired information. This latter source of information is usually reliable, especially if the unit has previously engaged targets in the area. In many cases, other weapons have been fired at targets near the target being engaged by the 90mm rifle, and their range data may be useful in determining the desired range.

f. Firing Other Weapon. You may use the fire of other weapons to determine range. The fire of smaller individual weapons, such as the M14 rifle using tracer ammunition, does not disclose the position as readily as do larger type weapons and is effective to ranges of approximately 500 meters.

g. Measuring Ground Distance. If the situation permits freedom of movement, pace off the distance or measure it with tape or speedometer.

h. Using Binoculars. Binoculars, used in conjunction with the mil relation (WORM) formula, are useful in determining ranges. To use this method, select a house, door, window, highway, or a telephone pole--something which has a known size or can be closely estimated. Using the mil scale in the binoculars, measure the height or width of the object. Then substitute in the mil relation formula: R=W/m, where R equals range in thousands of meters, m equals width in mils, and W equals width of the object in meters.

73. Determining Leads

The primary method of determining leads for the 90mm rifle is as follows:

a. Estimate apparent speed of the target.

b. Convert the apparent speed to leads.

74. Apparent Speed Estimation

The speed at which a target seems to move toward or away from the line of sight is called apparent speed. It is determined by establishing a line of sight and then estimating the target's speed as it moves toward or away from this line of sight. In figure 40, tank A has no apparent speed no matter how fast it is moving because it is moving directly toward the gunner. The same applies if the tank is moving directly away from the gunner. Tank B has an apparent speed equal to its actual speed, because it is moving perpendicular to the gunner's line of sight. Tank C, moving at the oblique, has an apparent speed less than its actual speed. Constant practice is the only method by which the gunner can acquire proficiency in estimating apparent speed.

Figure 40

75. Lead Estimation

a. A moving target is led by the distance it travels from the time the rifle is fired until the projectile crosses the path of the target. Angular leads are measured with the direct fire sight M103, 5 mils being equal to one lead. The number of leads applied varies with the apparent speed of the target, but not the range.

b. Ballistic characteristics of the 90mm rifle are such that one lead is applied on the sight reticle for each 2½ miles per hour of apparent speed of the target.

c. An alternate means of determining leads is the common lead rule. The number of leads required is determined by the direction the target is moving in relation to the gun position (fig. 41). Target speed is assumed to be 15 miles per hour. If the target is moving directly toward or away from the gun position, no leads are required. If the target is moving from 1 or 11 o'clock, two leads are used; from 2 or 10 o'clock, four leads; and from 3 or 9 o'clock, six leads.

Figure 41<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jeff Duquette]

British gun accuracy for 6-pounder and 17-pounder...stationary and moving targets. Notes indicate that recomended max engagment range for either weapon is 800 to 1000 yards.

[Jeff Duquette]

Some more fluff

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

From: US War Department, Handbook on German Military Forces

Section V: Defence

German antitank guns are disposed in depth, with some well forward. They often are dug in and carefully concealed to prevent the enemy from discovering the location and strength of the antitank defenses prior to attack. In emplacing antitank guns, the Germans prefer positions in enfilade or on reverse slopes. They normally employ two to three antitank guns in each position, protecting them from infantry attacks with light machine guns. Ranges at which the Germans open fire upon hostile tanks vary according to the caliber of the gun and its position. Although single antitank guns sometimes engage enemy tanks at ranges up to 1,000 yards, main antitank defenses usually hold their fire until the range is reduced to about 150 to 300 yards. The employment of close-combat antitank teams supplements the antitank defense. When the hostile tank attack is repulsed, the antitank guns move to alternate positions. (Pg 233)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[PzKpfw 1]

Great post Jeff, the only thing I'd add is the sight in the scans is not the same as used in WW2 US tanks, it's the later US sight with granulations for range. If anyone can post a scan of the M4 75, or 76mm optics it would help, if not goto Mike's old Panzer Elite gunery article:

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/turret/pegunnery/pegunnery.shtml

& checkout the optic screenshot's from PE for the Sherman tanks.

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 11-04-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Thanks John , I do have to get PE , just don't know where on earth I'm going to find the money to get it and the space to put it on my hard drive.

[Jeff Duquette]

John:

Yeah I know the recoilless rile site isn’t quite the same to the WWII allied gun sights. The methodology of estimating ranges is more analogous to the German gunnery sights. The concepts regarding dispersion and the like are relatively universal however. Describing a common method of engaging moving targets was really the intent.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Some Additional Game Testing

Did some additional game testing. Open range…placed an Elite Tiger I at 1500 meters from 5 Green British Sherman II’s.

1st Test @ 1500 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 12 rounds, 5 hits, 5 kills. That’s a 41.7% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. 6 Turns to complete test.

2nd Test @ 1500 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 19 rounds, 6 hits, 5 kills. That a 31.6% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. The Tiger had an astounding 3 Rounds 3 kills on the first turn. 7 Turns to complete test.

Avg hit to miss ratio @ 1500 meters on moving targets = 36.6%

Expected Tiger accuracy on a firing Range (from Jentz) for a stationary target @ 1200 to 2000 meters was a hit by the fourth round of fire…or hit to miss ratio of 25%

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Performed the same test 3 times with a reduced range of 1000 meters.

1st Test @ 1000 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 14 rounds, 5 hits, 5 kills. That’s a 35.7% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. 6 Turns to complete test.

2nd Test @ 1000 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 12 rounds, 6 hits, 5 kills. That’s a 50% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. 6 Turns to complete test.

3rd Test @ 1000 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 13 rounds, 6 hits, 5 kills. That’s a 46.2% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. 7 Turns to complete test.

Avg hit to miss ratio @ 1000 meters on moving targets = 44%

Expected Tiger accuracy on a firing Range (from Jentz) for a moving target @ 800 to 1200 meters was a hit by the third round of fire…or hit to miss ratio of 33.3%

I agree with Paul’s assessment that the Combat Mission tank gunnery accuracy model is good.

And now its time for some weekend R and R...off to the beer and sausage fest!

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-04-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Some Additional Game Testing

Did some additional game testing. Open range…placed an Elite Tiger I at 1500 meters from 5 Green British Sherman II’s.

1st Test @ 1500 meters: All Shermans were knocked out after the Tiger had expended 12 rounds, 5 hits, 5 kills. That’s a 41.7% hit to miss ratio. Targets tended to be moving at a relatively slow speed. 6 Turns to complete test.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, you were suposed to use an reg crew ...

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.

[Jeff Duquette]

I saw this on another thread and thought it to be a perfect epilogue to our discussion here.

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

The probability of a strong point hit is a great idea!

I did some model testing using 4 1/35th scale Tigers made of scale steel (3,200 lbs each!). For test rounds, I melted depleted plutonium from the core of a decaying star into a mold made from the round of plastic 1/35th scale US 75mm gun. I put the round into a Crossman 766 BB gun and gave it 50 pumps. I wanted to simulate the kind of shots that would occur in battle. So I installed R/C units in the tanks and gave the controls to my wife and instructed her to drive each test tank in a "combatish" way. I drank a pot of Starbucks coffee to simulate the heat of battle and then a case of beer to simulate the fog of war. I then went "hunting" in the yard. The results of my test:

Typically the Tiger was shot in the front as it was hard to get a flanking shot with my wife's quickly learned simulation of German tank tactics. 3 out of the the 4 tests it was a mantle hit. Tank one was taken out in the first shot at the mantle. Tank two and three survived their mantle hits. With tank 4 it was a rear trap shot that hit a fuel line.

Empirically the data suggest that the strong point hit probability is more like 33%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest machineman]

Nice posts Jeff, that looks like a lot of work.

[Paul Lakowski]

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

I saw this on another thread and thought it to be a perfect epilogue to our discussion here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SO that means the discussion is over... too bad it was finally starting to get interesting.