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

[Jeff Duquette]

Machineman: Thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Said: Heh, you were suposed to use an reg crew<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought we had already established that all Tiger Crews were veritable tanker gods. Elite crack (pot) troops.

I loaded Panzer Elite back onto the hard drive and played about a bit with German tank gunnery. I had originally taken it off my hard drive after playing a few games and never being able to hit the broad side of a barn.

After doing some target practice with P.E., it only further reinforced my impression that long range sniper shots – 2000 meters plus – are tough propositions for all except “extremely cool gunners”. Range guesstimation using Zeiss sights is truly an art.

A little trivia…for a cookie name either of these two “extremely cool gunners”

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>SO that means the discussion is over... too bad it was finally starting to get interesting<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hell no...I just thought "Turrets" post was rather humerous...especially the drinking a pot of coffee to simulate combat anxiety...and a case of beer to simulate the fog of war.

I enjoy yaking about this topic and will continue you to do so...long after any one will really be interested in it anymore

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Machineman: Thanks

I thought we had already established that all Tiger Crews were veritable tanker gods. Elite crack (pot) troops.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL that was a joke ;D...

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

I loaded Panzer Elite back onto the hard drive and played about a bit with German tank gunnery. I had originally taken it off my hard drive after playing a few games and never being able to hit the broad side of a barn.

After doing some target practice with P.E., it only further reinforced my impression that long range sniper shots – 2000 meters plus – are tough propositions for all except extremely cool gunners. Range guesstimation using Zeiss sights is truly an art.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point I was makeing was, compare the German sights to the US sights the Germans had a way to determine range US tanks didn't this gives them an edge on rangeing & chance to hit, with practice in PE in an Panther I can hit at 1400 - 2000ms in 2-3 shots with full ballistics on & 3 - 4 with an PzKpfw IV, stationary while with a M4AE38 I expend twice that or more at the same ranges, while others I'm told average 5 shots. Moveing targets are a whole new game but its easier to lead with the German sights.

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 11-05-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Well looking through my stuff I stumbled across an 1976 US Army FM 100-5. And found a section on Firepower that had some interesting comments on the evolution of tank gunnery and some snips concerning the 76mm Sherman:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Firepower. Modren tanks are significantly more lethal then the armored vehichles which fought in World War II. Trying to hit another stationary tank at a range of 1500 meteres, the US Army medium tank of World War II could fire 13 rounds, and still have only a 50-50 chance of hitting. The standard US medium tank of the mid-'70s commanded the same hit probability with a single shot.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It then provides a table :

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To Obtain 50-50 Probability Of Hit On Standing Tank At 1500 Meters:

World War II Medium Tank - Had to fire 13 Rounds.

Korean War Medium Tank - Had to fire 3 rounds.

Mid-'70's Medium Tank - Needs to fire 1 Round. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then it notes Patton's 3rd Army Sherman tanks had to close to 500m of a Panther before the 76mm had a chance of penetrating the Panthers frontal armor. And that most tank misses were due to innaccurate range estimations, Ie, the unaided optical sights of WWII and into stereoscopic & coincidence range finders, and tank cannon advancements 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.

[Conall]

The piccies are of Michael Wittmann (note, a Tiger commander not a gunner, Bobby Woll was his gunner in Russia until he was also made a tank commander) & Kurt Knispel (a gunner & then commander in Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503). IIRC Knispel had about 180 kills by the time of his death in April 1945.

BTW I have the scans of the US M4 75/76mm sights - I'll try to post them later, when I get home.

regards,

Conall

[aka_tom_w]

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

The piccies are of Michael Wittmann (note, a Tiger commander not a gunner, Bobby Woll was his gunner in Russia until he was also made a tank commander) & Kurt Knispel (a gunner & then commander in Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503). IIRC Knispel had about 180 kills by the time of his death in April 1945.

BTW I have the scans of the US M4 75/76mm sights - I'll try to post them later, when I get home.

regards,

Conall<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welcome aboard Conall!

You certianly have picked a contentious thread to join but we would all be interested to learn from you if you have any insight into this issue.

Have you played CMBO much, if so what do you think of the long range hit accruacy and overall chacne to hit percetages on both sides as modeled in CMBO?

-tom w

[-Jochen-]

Oh my god... I have created a monster thread!

Anyways, some very good posts here. Few things like spotting ability of tanks and relative accuracy of guns inside CM are grey areas which might need some tweaking. I will conduct some tests and try different ideas after I get home.

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

jochen

Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people?

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief

Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight

Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free

But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

[Jeff Duquette]

No not M Whittman. Oh and by the way, like the original question stated both these fellows are gunners not tc's. However We do have a lovely parting gift for you.

uhhps...Kurt Knispel is the upper photo. So you win half of a cookie, as well as a lovely parting gift.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-06-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

I havent been following this thread lately. Mostly because I feel that BTS has dug in its heels and thats that.

But has it been brought up about US gunpowder throwing off a cloud a smoke and its effects on shot fall? The US did not have smokeless gunpowder I believe. Thsi would compound the longer range engagements.

Lewis

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US did not have smokeless gunpowder I believe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You referring to WWII or the Civil War?

[Guest machineman]

If anyone here can read German, the Desert Fox at:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930

has the complete Tigerfebel and Pantherfebel. He doesn't have it translated yet, but if anyone can read German here....

It seems to have a lot on the sighting and gunnery process. I was trying to pick out recc engagement ranges, but am afraid my German is way too poor.

[Guest machineman]

"To Obtain 50-50 Probability Of Hit On Standing Tank At 1500 Meters:

World War II Medium Tank - Had to fire 13 Rounds.

Korean War Medium Tank - Had to fire 3 rounds"

So this shows there was a lot of 'headroom' at 1500 meters to improve the US Medium tank accuracy in WWII (Assume Sherman 76?)

It would be interesting to know what the Americans did to improve their accuracy so much by the Korean war, which wasn't THAT much later, technology-wise, was it? Lasers and ballistic computers were not out by then, were they?

[Jeff Duquette]

Machineman:

Nice web site. I think there is a lot of contemporary information there on German S.O.P. for tank gunnery range estimation and the Ziess Site (amazing the number of half naked women drawings the German utilized in their training manuals ). Unfortunately I don’t read or speak German. I had the brilliant idea of scanning the images…OCR…than run the OCR through a German to English online translator. Unfortunately the image quality is such that OCR only results in a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

So this shows there was a lot of 'headroom' at 1500 meters to improve the US Medium tank accuracy in WWII (Assume Sherman 76?)

It would be interesting to know what the Americans did to improve their accuracy so much by the Korean war, which wasn't THAT much later, technology-wise, was it? Lasers and ballistic computers were not out by then, were they?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it refers to the 76mm Sherman. I dunno a guess would be, the US tank sights used in Korea probably were dual magnification as the M26 in WW2 had an 1x & 7x sight.

And the Korean war tank sights prolly had a range scale, similar to Jeff's scans above, which would have made estimateing range much easier then the earlier US WW2 sights, which would have improved the chances to hit.

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.

[Guest machineman]

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

Machineman:

Nice web site. I think there is a lot of contemporary information there on German S.O.P. for tank gunnery range estimation and the Ziess Site (amazing the number of half naked women drawings the German utilized in their training manuals ). Unfortunately I don’t read or speak German. I had the brilliant idea of scanning the images…OCR…than run the OCR through a German to English online translator. Unfortunately the image quality is such that OCR only results in a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting manuals, are they not? Just goes to show what will be done to GET HANS TO READ THE DAMN MANUAL. And it's not just the fancy illustrations but the rhyming way the instructions are in. AFAIK it's the same as Shakespeare, rhyming lines are easier to remember. What the Tiger gunners hummed under their breath when they were taking a bead on you....

[Guest machineman]

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

I dunno a guess would be, the US tank sights used in Korea probably were dual magnification as the M26 in WW2 had an 1x & 7x sight.

And the Korean war tank sights prolly had a range scale, similar to Jeff's scans above, which would have made estimateing range much easier then the earlier US WW2 sights, which would have improved the chances to hit.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I was wondering was if some or all of the ideas that the Americans implemented in the Korean war were ideas that the Germans had implemented during world war II. ie dual range hi-magnification sights, stadiametric range scales in the viewfinder, rangefinders for the commander. If so, it would show how much potential difference these things can make.

I'm assuming it is a M-48 with 90mm gun they are using for the Korean war era example. If so, how would it's muzzle velocity and shot grouping compare with the Tiger's 88 or Panther's 75? If it is close (and I suspect it is) then does the added tank killing accuracy come from the things mentioned above that the Tigers and Panthers had and the Sherman 76 did not?

[RMC]

I checked out some of the gunnery pages on Helge's site. There are a couple of interesting blurbs worth translating. My translations, I think I got the sense right.

On the page Huelsensack trifft immer:

"The trajectory of the 88 is wonderfully flat. You only need to raise the gun a tiny bit to shoot farther. You'll hit the close target with the range set farther if the target is tall enough. WIth the range set at 1000m you will hit any target between 0 and 1000m if it is at least 2m tall."

On the page Schiessen, aber mit verstand:

"under 1200m you can't miss if you are using the sight (Nabelvisier) correctly. Over 1200m you have to adjust the sight to the exact range. Because you never estimate right you'll shoot either too short or too long."

"Up to 2000m the 88 shoots flat. Only from 3000m is one shot in 3 a miss. at 4000m only every 4th shot will hit (dispersion)."

[PzKpfw 1]

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

What I was wondering was if some or all of the ideas that the Americans implemented in the Korean war were ideas that the Germans had implemented during world war II. ie dual range hi-magnification sights, stadiametric range scales in the viewfinder, rangefinders for the commander. If so, it would show how much potential difference these things can make.

I'm assuming it is a M-48 with 90mm gun they are using for the Korean war era example. If so, how would it's muzzle velocity and shot grouping compare with the Tiger's 88 or Panther's 75? If it is close (and I suspect it is) then does the added tank killing accuracy come from the things mentioned above that the Tigers and Panthers had and the Sherman 76 did not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here myself. I was thinking the Korean example medium was the Pershing but don't know as the FM doesnt identify the mediums except on discussing WW2 then it names the 76mm Sherman.

Well IMHO yes as I said if US tank sights had range ticks, & Dual mag sights, etc, in Korea, then their accuracy woyld have increased much compared to WW2 due to these aids.

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 11-07-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"The trajectory of the 88 is wonderfully flat. You only need to raise the gun a tiny bit to shoot farther.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus the long horizontal dispersion zone…or beaten zone. Gracias for the interpretation RC.

Just some trivia: The M48 Patton had not made it into service by the Korean War. The M46 Patton did do some time in Korea, but the M46 was basically just a rebuild of the M26 Pershing.

M46

M26

I reckon if we look into it in any depth the dramatic increase in gunnery accuracy was more than likely a direct function of improved range finders…and probably certain amount of credit could be attributed to training methods. The US ARMY went through some radical changes in training philosophies following the war.

I also suspect if we look into this in any depth we will find that combat shot outs between UN and Communist tanks are pretty few and far between. Perhaps a few tank vs. tank encounters in the opening months of the war (Tajoun, Pusan Perimeter Defence and perhaps Inchon\Seoul). After that, probably not much to speak of. So the 3 rounds to hit at 1500 meters maybe training number…where the 13 rounds to hit at 1500m for WWII maybe be based upon combat stats.

[Silencer]

Just Bumping this one up...

S.

[:USERNAME:]

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

You referring to WWII or the Civil War?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWII. US infantry were at a disadvantage from spewing clouds of particles when they fired. I wonder if the same is true for antitank guns.

[Jeff Duquette]

The United States Army had been employing a smokeless cartridge since the adoption of the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1892 (Krag-Jorgenson or ".30-40 Krag") in 1892. Most other major European Armies had also adapted smokeless powder rifles and artillery in the late 1880's and early 1890's (1888 the British army adopted the 0.303 caliber Lee-Metford… The Italian Army adopted the Mannlicher-Carcano, the first Italian smokeless powder rifle).

Smokeless gunpowder gave weapons designers of the late Nineteenth century the ability to create more powerful rifles which didn't require as much maintenance or care as the previous generation of rifles using black powder to propel a projectile. It also allowed the diameter of both the bullet and the cartridge case to be reduced and the muzzle velocity of the round to be increased. This change would allow more rounds to be carried by an infantryman, giving him greater level of firepower to throw against the enemy.

The United States Rifle, Caliber .30, Model 1903 (Springfield .03) as well as the United States Rifle Caliber .30 M1 (Garand)also employed cordite propellents.

Smokeless Artillery muntions were also being employed the US ARMY since the turn of the century.

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

From: Revolutionary War in the Ilocos (Philippine Insurrection during in 1900)

URL: http://www.bibingka.com/phg/ilocos/

On Jan. 14, 1900, the only artillery duel of the war was fought in Mount Bimmuaya, a summit 1,000 meters above the Cabugao River northeast of Lapog (now San Juan, Ilocos Sur). It is a place with an unobstructed view of the coastal plain from Vigan to Laoag. The American won mainly because their locations were concealed by their use of smokeless gunpowder so that Filipino aim was wide off the mark. Many believe that Tinio, Reyes, and Celedonio were present at this encounter but got away unscathed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Jeff, according to Joe Balkoski " Beyond the Beachhead- 29th Infantry Division in Normandy",they didn't have smokeless ammo

"Some GIs were reluctant to fire because American gunpowder was neither smokeless nor flashless.When an M-1 , BAR,machine gun opened fire, the gun emitted s puff of light blue smoke and a tiny flash that promptyly betrayed the firer's position....Meanwhile because the enemy used smokeless and flashless powder, American infantrymen found it difficult to pinpoint German firing positions . The yanks tended to locate the Germans by the telltale 'rrrrrrrp' of the MG-42, but this method was inexact."

pp106.

[Jeff Duquette]

Interesting...so the ARMY went back to employing black powder in the 40's?

[Jeff Duquette]

I got these from Thomas R. aka “Conell” with the accompanying note:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“Here are the scans of the 75mm & 76mm WWII US gunsights that I promised. As I have no idea how to post an image on the message board I'll leave it to one of you guys. Great discussion thread by the way, I've really enjoyed reading it.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great stuff Conell. Thanks for your digging. What by the way is your source?