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

[Guest machineman]

From Michael Green's 'Tiger Tanks'

"Tiger tank commanders were provided with a small optical coincidence-type rangefinder to assist with the observation and ranging of targets.(In a coincidence rangefinder, the distance to the target is measured by sighting in on the target, and bringing the erect image into coincidence with the field of view. The range is then read on a range scale.) Used together with the auxillary hand traverse, the commander could fairly align the main gun onto a target which his gunner couldn't see.

Coincidence type rangefinders work very well under conditions of clear visibility or when used on sharply defined objects. It is also relatively easy to train competent operators. Only a couple of hours of instruction are usually required. On the minus side, they are ineffective at longer ranges or on targets having indistinct outlines.

In wartime US Army documents, the German optical rangefinder device used by Tiger tank commanders is referred to as the TZR1. It was listed as having an overall length of fifty-five inches and a field of view of six degrees according to test conducted by tests conducted by the First US Army and others in the United States. The TZR1 was typically used for observation by a German tank commander to see over the flash or muzzle obscuration (dust) from the firing of his tank's main gun. In many cases this would temporarily hide a tank gunner's view of a target. According to a US Army report: "When in use, the periscope is mounted on a bracket attached beneath the base of the cupola, so that it enables the tank commander, with his head below the top of the cupola, to see from a point approximately 39 in. above the cupola machine gun mounting ring. When not in use, it is stowed on the near side of the turret. The mounting bracket is adjustable and allows the periscope to be tilted appoximately 5 degrees to either side of the vertical. Two clamping handles are provided for locking the periscope in position after adjustment.

Early production Tiger I tanks with the drum pattern cupola did not have the bracket for mounting the TZR1. Instead the crew used a hand-held rangefinder similar to the ones used by the crews of Flak guns."

A few points:

1)That is a lot of freakin' typing. I have to get a scanner.

2)The cutaway outline drawing of the Tiger I which I was talking about(which I can't send until I get said scanner) doesn't show the rangefinder itself, but points to two different spots on the cupola, one saying "mounting for scissors telescope", and one saying "mounting for rangefinder". Ergo, both periscope AND rangefinder equipped.

3)'A field of view of 6 degrees' is not very much. Therefore from what I understand the optics should be very powerful and I suspect more so than the gunners sight. Again, I'm thinking this is another pointer that the commander did the long range shooting observation, not the gunner.

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-14-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Robert wrote this couple of years ago and I found it in my archives....

Re: WWII Gun Accuracy Robert Livingston 5/18/98 8:58:40 PM

The 8.8 L/71 did about the same as the 7.5 L/70, but the 8.8 L/56 was more accurate due to unknown factors. We think it

may have been that the 8.8 L/71 barrel was a bit too flexible, or that the machining was not as accurate, or that the ammo

was less precisely made. Or that the carriage had too loose a fit between sliding parts . . .Ya know, those figures Claus has tired his fingers providing us with (thank you, Claus) are pure dispersion figures with a German "practice" factor worked in. They assume NO RANGE ESTIMATION ERROR. That is, they only represent combat %-to-hit if the gunner knows exactly how far away the target is. Range estimation was, after all, the big unsolved issue of WWII, at least until the range finder was developed for in-tank use. Now, it has been written that the Tiger gunners were trained to estimate

range within +/-10% of the actual range (the Tiger Fibel sez so, I think). British gunners were said to average +/-25% of the actual range, in real combat. I think those values may be representative of the upper half of the range typically found during the war among gunners. There were undoubtedly gunners worse than the "average Brit" above, and there were necessarily Tiger gunners who were worse than the "required" level of accuracy noted above. And the good gunners weren't always in the places you'd expect them. For example the Russians in theirT-34/76s and KVs were able to paste the Germans at 1200m with ease, using guns of average accuracy, on paper (see Jentz' Panzertruppen).There are many, many combat stories of US tankers in 75 and 76mm Shermans hitting Germans at up to 1600m on the second shot. There is one story told somewhere about a 2 pdr AT gunner hitting a German armored car in

the desert, at some ungodly long range which was beyond his sight reticle, like 2400 yards or more. This must be the Kentucky Windage effect. Oh, and by the way, the German dispersion effects charts I have here include the 7.5cm L/48, which was very innaccurate, although no combat stories I have heard substantiate that data. I should also mention that the flatness of the trajectory is a key factor in determining the accuracy of tank and anti-tank fire, because the flatter the trajectory, the less the effects of range mis-estimation. The higher the velocity, the flatter the trajectory. I should also mention that the alignment of the gun sights is critical, and that the 17pdr AT gun and theearly Shermans had problems with that alignment. I should also mention that the 90mm gun in the Pershing was accurate enough to hit German helmets at 625 yards on the first shot, when properly boresighted. No misses. -- R. L.

[Paul Lakowski]

German vs. US optics - WWII Robert Livingston 7/24/98 9:24:55 PM

German sights for the 8.8 L56 in the Tiger I were 2.5x, and sights for the Ferdinand 8.8L71 were either 3.0 or 5.0x, according to varioussources. Seems you can multiply the magnification of these optics times 1,000 to get the maximum range in meters. Roughly. On a clear day, with favorable sun direction. In open terrain. Any more qualifiers? German sights were said by admiring American tankers to be the best in clarity, lense quality,reticle configuration, field of view, and magnification power. The latest Pershing and Sherman sights in 1945 only approached them in quality. By then the Panthers and Tigers were getting regular kills at 2000-3500 yards, according to (surviving) tankers in the 2nd Armored Division. The Shermans could see the firing but couldn't always get a sight picture. The Leitz company developed and produced the Panther and Tiger sights, which were 2.5 or 5.0 power at the flip of a selector lever. Leitz still exists and

make the highest quality lenses used in the Leica cameras. The gun sight optics were said to have flip-down filters as well. American filters (red, gray, yellow) came packed in a box or pouch, so you could fumble 'em into place as

needed.

[Guest machineman]

Interesting post

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

1. The Entfernungsmesser (rangefinder) Question: Several EM 09 have recently arrived and the bulk of them are still in Italy. Trials have revealed that personnel must first be selected who possess stereoscopic vision, a difficulty that I realized only now. Special equipment is needed for such a test, which is available only at psychological testing stations. During the next few days I will let tests and selection occur at Flakgruppe Tunis using 4-meter rangefinders, because with these larger rangefinders one can at least approximately determine if the personnel grasp the fundamentals. I will then immediately let the chosen personnel begin training, instructed by my anti-aircraft platoon leader. Training must last several weeks, if one wants to achieve reasonable results. These are all suggestions from Flak personnel, who must know what they are talking about. A lot of time-consuming work is necessary be fore experience in the use of the EM 09 on the Tiger can be obtained....On this basis I want to delay delivery of Feldfunksprechern (portable field radio sets) until I know if the rangefinder idea works.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's the beginning of '43, and the rangefinder idea is just being tried out. Is it possible that the EM 09 is a stereoscopic type? They WERE more accurate. I have EM 17 quoted as a handheld rangefinder found by the British inside a burned out Tiger, and this TZR1 as the built-in version. Both are specifically mentioned as coincidence type. Could it be that after a SNAFU with stereoscopic type they changed over to coincidence versions and forged ahead?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The rangefinder must be used by a crew member of the Panzer, not by a rangefinder squad that will be sent forward "when the need arises. " That must be known already because In 6 has ordered brackets to mount the EM 09 on the Tiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So they are already looking into mounting them on the Tiger. That checks out with Green and the other source, that only the earliest Tiger I's used them handheld.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. Tank Battles at Long Ranges: The old difference between us and the opponent — He would rather shoot; we would rather charge. If 15 enemy tanks advance to 2000 meters range or greater and commence firing from selected positions, it is an unpleasant situation. It is the same as if four batteries fired directly at us with 15 guns, with the difference being that tanks are harder to destroy than guns. Their high explosive shells are effective against roadwheels and can cause the turret and weapons to jam. With their fabulous shell material the opponent can also achieve direct hits. What do we do in such a situation? A charge is no good, so we try to outflank them. But very often the terrain doesn't play along. The result is you bite your tongue from rage over the effective fire from the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So there is a big advantage to long range shooting, at least in wide open areas like the desert, and if only they could do it more accurately so they wouldn't be wasting ammunition.....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We could do exactly the same thing with the long 7.5 cm or the 8.8 cm tank guns and achieve the same result, if we engaged 15 enemy tanks with ten long 7.5 cm or 8.8 cm guns, I am convinced that the opponent would yield sooner than us. But we don't do it, because to us it's a stupid idea and we must conserve ammunition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So they KNOW they've got the guns, if only they could hit something with them. If only that rangefinder idea would work out...

One of my quotes here, from late April '43 attributed to Captain Charles L. Davis, relating an attack on German positions by units of the 1st AD:

"A look through the glasses showed at least one Mark VI firing at approximately 3000 yards....near miss immobilizing the vehicle...realizing the futility of using the 75mm gun to compete with high velocity weapons equipped with superior fire control elements in that situationthe Platoon Leader ordered the crew to abandon the tank."

Really interesting post. This could have been where the long distance shooting thing got legs under it.

[Jeff Duquette]

The question still remains is the CM accuracy model good or bad? If its bad why?

[Jeff Duquette]

430 posts and no one wants to render an opinion? oh my.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, just to let you guys know that I have been following this thread word for word eventhough I haven't posted in a while. It is a great thread and I would like to thank all who have brought stuff forward, especially (lately) Jeff, John, Paul, and Ringo err... machineman

I think one thing is clear to everybody, especially those that started out arguing that CM has serious problems. And that is... accuracy ain't so easy to put a finger on

My opinion is now, as it was before, that CM has it about right. Not perfect, I am sure, but not off the mark by much. There might be an argument that this or that particular tank model in such and such situation should have a positive or negative modification to base accuracy, but as we can see in this thread... that too is not very easy to quantify.

The other thing that has to be kept in mind is that we can not, practically speaking, figure out every different AFV configuration's little +/- quirks in given situations. Even if we had all the time and resources available to us, this would be a daunting task to say the least. So if we start heavily tweaking out one vehicle because of some hunch, then we are starting to get into an area that is bad for the simulation as a whole. So long as ALL weapons are simulated equally, using a core of reasonably sound and fair factors, the overall balance of fairness is retained. Muck around with a small subset too much and you risk upsetting this.

Final comments here for now... for all the hoopla about accuracy, the most convincing and consistant data being presented shows that hitting at 1200m + ranges was NOT easy to do, even in the best German tanks. 2000m + was an area where only really good gunners scored hits consistantly within the first batch of shots. 3000m+ was a range only the best of the best even attempted to score a hit, and luck and/or many shots were still needed. And I think CM models that very well

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-15-2000).]

[Guest machineman]

Nice post Steve. Well, it's certainly been an interesting thread. It's nice that it hasn't gotten flamey and as it twists and turns more and more information has come out of it. Good reference, if nothing else.

In my opinion in engagements under 1000m things are fine as they are, and since engagement ranges rarely go above that in Western Europe things work out OK in CM1.

But in the wide open areas of the eastern front and the desert things I suspect there will have to be some changes, or there will be a lot more dead Tigers (never mind the Nashorns) then there were. 'Course that is just an opinion, and maybe this thread will eventually work out to back that up or maybe it won't. Defining information seems to be hard to come by as has been pointed out but it's always interesting what info shakes out of here.

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

Ya know, those figures Claus has tired his fingers providing us with (thank you, Claus) are pure dispersion figures with a German "practice" factor worked in. They assume NO RANGE ESTIMATION ERROR. That is, they only represent combat %-to-hit if the gunner knows exactly how far away the target is. Range estimation was, after all, the big unsolved issue of WWII, at least until the range finder was developed for in-tank use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So:

1) accuracy in range estimation seems to been

the next big advance in tank gunnery. The high velocity tank guns gave the reach, and the flat trajectory and dispersion accuracy made long distance shooting a possibility. The problem was estimating the range accurately at long distances without wasting tremendous amounts of shells.

2) the only mention of 'in tank use' of rangefinders use has come up in the 88L56 and 88L71 equiped vehicles, which have by far the bulk of the 'long distance marksmen' anecdotal evidence, and by being outnumbered generally during their working lives, had a huge incentive to grab any advance that would enable them to 'outreach' their opponents. As well Flak crews, firing virtually the same guns, had plenty of experience using said rangefinders.

3) a more sophisticated stereoscopic rangefinder was developed and was to be installed in later versions of the Tiger and Panther, the only WWII tanks for which this was planned, AFAIK.

4) optical tank mounted rangefinders were a major focus in the US tank development program after WWII, and they went to a great deal of trouble to equip their tanks with them, in an attempt to gain an advantage by being able to "engage effectively at much longer ranges than in in WWII" in an attempt to gain the advantage over the perceived Red Horde. M47, M48, and M103 all were equipped with stereoscopic type, while M60 went back to a coincidence version. The idea certainly seemed to have a future in front of it.

Ringo

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-15-2000).]

[Guest machineman]

An article on hunting covering a lot of long distance gunnery issues in depth, including the use of optical rangefinders.

http://www.riflebarrels.com/longrange.htm

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-15-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Machineman wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But in the wide open areas of the eastern front and the desert things I suspect there will have to be some changes, or there will be a lot more dead Tigers (never mind the Nashorns) then there were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, most likely. Think of what will be shooting at the German vehicles in these battles. Matildas, Valantines, M3 Grants, M4 (75) Shermans, and other ineffectual long range tanks in North Africa. While on the Eastern Front there will be definate penalties for Soviet tanks shooting at long ranges (at least for the domestic stuff, not lend-lease equipment most likely).

So the real question will be, can the German tanks hit targets at great ranges with the degree of accuracy that they could in real life. Being hit themselves will not be the problem at all. And so far this discussion has not really convinced me that the accuracy over 1000m is at all incorrect, or at least not to a large degree.

Steve

[Conall]

For what it's worth my opinion on the subject is that CM models first round accuracy pretty well at all ranges. Where I have some doubts is that the model seems a little ungenerous with regards to subsequent shots. From what I've read it seems to me that an average gunner could get the correct range in 3-4 rounds (1-2 at distances less than 500m). Given that most W/O studies that I've read suggest that erroneous range estimation was the principal cause of inaccuracy I would expect a reasonably good hit probability by the 3-4th round yet in CM this doesn't appear to be the case. Although it is a separate issue I think that the long range spotting model does seem in need of correction. In NW Europe this isn't really a problem as the vast majority of engagements are at less than 1000m, with typical engagement ranges being at perhaps between 300-400m. However, this will change with the introduction of Desert (& to a lesser degree Russian) scenarios. Here perhaps the Germans with their superior optics may be being penalised to some extent.

regards,

Conall

[This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-15-2000).]

[Conall]

Incidentally the idea that tank engagements were fought at much longer ranges in Russia than in NW Europe is rather over-exaggerated. Although the Steppes are flat in a macro-geographical sense (i.e. very few ranges of hills or major changes in elevation), they would be better described as rolling in nature. Furthermore a typical feature of the Steppe is the Balka - which is basically a ravine caused by winter streams & dry in the summer. These features frequently enabled armour to form up in dead ground & also approach relatively close to their objective without coming under fire. There is also a tendency in veterans' accounts in all theatres to mention exceptional long range kills, rather than the more mundane 300-400m kills. Steve Zaloga's Red Army Handbook contains a table showing exactly this (someone may even have posted it on this thread earlier on), in addition German AT doctrine was to allow the enemy armour to within 300m before opening fire (I got this from another W/O doc, I'll post the source when I get home from work).

regards,

Conall

[aka_tom_w]

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

"For what it's worth my opinion on the subject is that CM models first round accuracy pretty well at

all ranges. Where I have some doubts is that the model seems a little ungenerous with regards to

subsequent shots. From what I've read it seems to me that an average gunner could get the

correct range in 3-4 rounds (1-2 at distances less than 500m). Given that most W/O studies that

I've read suggest that erroneous range estimation was the principal cause of inaccuracy I would

expect a reasonably good hit probability by the 3-4th round yet in CM this doesn't appear to be

the case. Although it is a separate issue I think that the long range spotting model does seem in

need of correction"

[This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-15-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too have been reading and following this thread. I know I have not been contributing nay new sources of information or any new historically accurate WW II references, but I still agree with Conall that the first shot hit and miss percentages over 1200 meters seems ok but the Vet Crack and Elite Gunners should have a great second third and Fouth shot change to hit percentage for the 88 mm.

Again only an opinion.

I read this thread EVERY day and thrilled to see al the work all the rest of you are doing with research.

Thanks

Its good to see Steve is still reading this thread, I had thought he had dimissed all of us and the topic in general .

-tom w

[Jeff Duquette]

I think I would have to throw my hat into the ring with Conall's assessment. The effects of bracketing seem somewhat underplayed. However, I have found that testing the effect of bracketing (or second\subsequent round accuracy) in CM is not always easy. Targets in my little live fire test ranges have a tendency to squirm about, in and out of LOS, fire smoke and otherwise do things which cause the firing vehicle to lose its targeting line (red line). I reckon the games memory is short…so if you lose the red line to a target, you are probably going through the whole reacquisition thing over again.

My actual gaming experiences would lead me to a gut feeling that 2nd and subsequent round accusation advantage is low (pretty vague and subjective on my part and in tune with the hand waiving typical of this subject matter). But just to throw a monkey wrench into the works it is rather evident from a series of postings I have thrown up...that tank crews were not always capable of tracking there own rounds. Missing both splash from impact or the tracer element. And I have seen nothing posted so far which would suggest the Germans had superior tracking skills. Tough to bracket when you dont see where the round is hitting. Along these same lines German tank crews were at somewhat of a disadvantage in that the loader and gunner did not have viewing periscopes...i.e. fewer eyes to help spot ones own fall of shot. A tank gunner firing at long ranges would no doubt be employing max magnification setting which results in a relatively narrow field of vision. Overline and or under shots could well be striking beyond the bounds of his optics field of vision.

Of additional interest was my discovery of the Tiger I being unable to spot Stuarts at a range of 2000 meters…yet the Stuarts were able to spot and fire at the Tiger I from the same distance. I reckon there is some target aspect\size LOS benefit modeled into the game for smaller vehicles. This seems logical...smaller targets should be harder to spot. However in this particular instance there is something in the implementation of LOS\spotting modifier that is perhaps resulting in this odd quirk.

Aside from all this what we are discussing is all very subjective based upon the information posted so far. Paul posted some interesting info on combat accuracy from tests conducted at NTC suggesting relatively low hits per round fired ratio. In addition John dug up something implying a 13 rounds per hit ratio for the US Army in ETO. We also have some AARs detailing German Tank crews nailing targets out to relatively outstanding gunnery ranges by WWII standards. It is also relatively easy to dig up AARs indicating 2nd or third round hits out to ranges of 1500 to 2000 meters are "doable" by even British Tankers and US Tanker equipped with sub-German optics.

On the 13 rounds per kill…it is true that WWII tankers had a tendency to fire on targets till they began to burn. If you read Belton Coppers "Death Traps" it is evident that once a tank burns its done. No more combat even after ordnance boys get a hold of the hulk, hose off the old crew, and break out the welding torches and new paint. So the number of rounds per kill could be somewhat of a function of this shoot till it burns philosophy.

Another thing that has been bugging me… If you have been wallowing through the whole 88mm thread there has been a fair amount of posting regarding live fire range accuracy and what was reasonable in training conditions...but only snippets on actual combat accuracy some of which are contradictory. The few AAR's that others and I have posted in my mind still raise as many new questions as they provide answers to old questions.

On the one hand there is a fair amount of evidence suggesting that with high velocity flat trajectory KE munitions, errors in range estimates are not that critical. On the other hand from my own reading it is quite clear that the leading cause of misses boiled down to either poor initial range estimation (TZ1R or not) or anxious gunners. The two assessments seemingly contradict each other. In addition, if the Germans had all the answers there would have been no need to develop gun computers or laser range finders. I don't know what the new starships have in that regard…but the old M60 and M48 had a mechanical gun computer which would adjust the main gun for super elevation with respect to type of munition being employed…its velocity, range to target, and flight path, etc…SABOT, HEAT, HEP (I think it was HEP high explosive plastic or some such thing) each had their own respective settings. Now if trajectory weren't especially critical…why the micro adjustment of super elevation.

[Paul Lakowski]

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

I think I would have to throw my hat into the ring with Conall's assessment. The effects of bracketing seem somewhat underplayed. However, I have found that testing the effect of bracketing (or second\subsequent round accuracy) in CM is not always easy. Targets in my little live fire test ranges have a tendency to squirm about, in and out of LOS, fire smoke and otherwise do things which cause the firing vehicle to lose its targeting line (red line). I reckon the games memory is short…so if you lose the red line to a target, you are probably going through the whole reacquisition thing over again.

My actual gaming experiences would lead me to a gut feeling that 2nd and subsequent round accusation advantage is low (pretty vague and subjective on my part and in tune with the hand waiving typical of this subject matter). But just to throw a monkey wrench into the works it is rather evident from a series of postings I have thrown up...that tank crews were not always capable of tracking there own rounds. Missing both splash from impact or the tracer element. And I have seen nothing posted so far which would suggest the Germans had superior tracking skills. Tough to bracket when you dont see where the round is hitting. Along these same lines German tank crews were at somewhat of a disadvantage in that the loader and gunner did not have viewing periscopes...i.e. fewer eyes to help spot ones own fall of shot. A tank gunner firing at long ranges would no doubt be employing max magnification setting which results in a relatively narrow field of vision. Overline and or under shots could well be striking beyond the bounds of his optics field of vision.

Of additional interest was my discovery of the Tiger I being unable to spot Stuarts at a range of 2000 meters…yet the Stuarts were able to spot and fire at the Tiger I from the same distance. I reckon there is some target aspect\size LOS benefit modeled into the game for smaller vehicles. This seems logical...smaller targets should be harder to spot. However in this particular instance there is something in the implementation of LOS\spotting modifier that is perhaps resulting in this odd quirk.

Aside from all this what we are discussing is all very subjective based upon the information posted so far. Paul posted some interesting info on combat accuracy from tests conducted at NTC suggesting relatively low hits per round fired ratio. In addition John dug up something implying a 13 rounds per hit ratio for the US Army in ETO. We also have some AARs detailing German Tank crews nailing targets out to relatively outstanding gunnery ranges by WWII standards. It is also relatively easy to dig up AARs indicating 2nd or third round hits out to ranges of 1500 to 2000 meters are "doable" by even British Tankers and US Tanker equipped with sub-German optics.

On the 13 rounds per kill…it is true that WWII tankers had a tendency to fire on targets till they began to burn. If you read Belton Coppers "Death Traps" it is evident that once a tank burns its done. No more combat even after ordnance boys get a hold of the hulk, hose off the old crew, and break out the welding torches and new paint. So the number of rounds per kill could be somewhat of a function of this shoot till it burns philosophy.

Another thing that has been bugging me… If you have been wallowing through the whole 88mm thread there has been a fair amount of posting regarding live fire range accuracy and what was reasonable in training conditions...but only snippets on actual combat accuracy some of which are contradictory. The few AAR's that others and I have posted in my mind still raise as many new questions as they provide answers to old questions.

On the one hand there is a fair amount of evidence suggesting that with high velocity flat trajectory KE munitions, errors in range estimates are not that critical. On the other hand from my own reading it is quite clear that the leading cause of misses boiled down to either poor initial range estimation (TZ1R or not) or anxious gunners. The two assessments seemingly contradict each other. In addition, if the Germans had all the answers there would have been no need to develop gun computers or laser range finders. I don't know what the new starships have in that regard…but the old M60 and M48 had a mechanical gun computer which would adjust the main gun for super elevation with respect to type of munition being employed…its velocity, range to target, and flight path, etc…SABOT, HEAT, HEP (I think it was HEP high explosive plastic or some such thing) each had their own respective settings. Now if trajectory weren't especially critical…why the micro adjustment of super elevation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the experiances related by a Serb who I work with.

"T-34 76 gun accuracy static visual estimation , firing HVAP @ 500m rarely miss .[while trainning -PL]

1000m 1/4 shot miss

1500m 1/2 shot miss APC

2000m 1/5 shot hits APC

his company , above average Serb crew trainning regular army not combat.

As far as battle goes hes vague , in his company goes one guy ['gypse'] never missed , his tank maybe twice as many shots , but the rest of the company , some of them couldn't hit the back side of a barn...in training they were average but when it came to the real thing they sucked.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I reckon there is some target aspect\size LOS benefit modeled into the game for smaller vehicles. This seems logical...smaller targets should be harder to spot. However in this particular instance there is something in the implementation of LOS\spotting modifier that is perhaps resulting in this odd quirk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, unit size and type does influence spotting. Buttoned/unbuttoned also has a huge impact. Also don't forget that CM at the moment has "absolute spotting" so once a unit is spotted EVERY friendly unit can, in theory (LOS), see it too.

As for the other points...

Bracketing is, as Jeff points out, not an exact science. On a test range with favorable conditions, observation towers, etc. it is quite accademic. But on the battlefield you might not even be able to see where your round hit. If you can't do that... then bracketing isn't so easily done

Personally, I think CM has it about right. Remember, we need to think in terms of average results under average combat conditions. Do some tests on your own and you will find that tanks frequently score hits on the 2nd and 3rd rounds at 1500m + ranges, even with Regular crews. Sure, some miss 6 times in a row, but that balances out the ones that hit after only 1 or 2 shots, which is 2 or 3 shots shy of bracketing proceedures. Averages require both extremes, and therefore if we mess with one we most likely mess the other. I would find it hard to support a position that there should be more first and second shot hits at 1500m or more.

And I think Jeff's last point above is very interesting. If the Germans, with inferior technology to post war systems, had it so good... why the need for very complicated and sophisticated solutions that yield very little increase in accuracy? The answer is, from our perspective, that the average German accuracy in WWII is overstated. They had great equipment for the day, and some fantastic crews, but they couldn't hit the nuts off a fly at 2000m with 1-2 shots as some people appear to think they could.

All in all... I think the evidence presented here, if anything, sides more with the way Combat Mission works right now. At the very most it raises questions about how it works. But nothing I have seen so far has clearly pointed to major flaws in the way CM works now. However, that was the assumption that started this and previous threads.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

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

On the 13 rounds per kill…it is true that WWII tankers had a tendency to fire on targets till they began to burn. If you read Belton Coppers "Death Traps" it is evident that once a tank burns its done. No more combat even after ordnance boys get a hold of the hulk, hose off the old crew, and break out the welding torches and new paint. So the number of rounds per kill could be somewhat of a function of this shoot till it burns philosophy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff just a clarification the 13 rounds @ 1500yrds was to achieve an 50 - 50 probability of a hit on a stationary tank.

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 11-15-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

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.

So what does that mean...after bracketing for 12 rounds...on the 13th round there was a 50 - 50 chance of obtaining a hit? Or if you fire 26 rounds you have a 100% chance of a hit?

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-15-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

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

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.

So what does that mean...after bracketing for 12 rounds...on the 13th round there was a 50 - 50 chance of obtaining a hit? Or if you fire 26 rounds you have a 100% chance of a hit?

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-15-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff if your hit prob is 50% at 1500m then it should only take 3-4 additional shots to reach the magical 95% mark, that scientist use as a cuttoff mark. Thats 0.5 x0.5 x0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 or 0.06% - 0.03% chance of a miss or 94%-97% chance of a hit...So the average works out to about....

World War II Medium Tank - Had to fire 13 Rounds. 16-17 shots = 95%

Korean War Medium Tank - Had to fire 3 rounds. 6-7 shots = 95%

Mid-'70's Medium Tank - Needs to fire 1 Round. 4-5 shots = 95%

One of the things my collegues comments point out is the disribution of elite gunners compared to the average and what that means for statistics . Consider what he said ...

@ 1000m his company gets in battle

1 x 90% [gypse]

1 x 38% [75%/2]

8 x 10-20% [ rest]

208%-288% ÷ 10 = average of only 21-28% and thats with HVAP shot.

@ 1500m that should be

1 x 90%

1 x 25% [ 50%/2]

8 x 10%

195%÷ 10 = 19% average with 76mm APC

[PzKpfw 1]

Personaly I think CM is all right with the current model for the West, is it the model to end all models, no of course not.

Basicly I don't think, its a question that could ever be answered to begin with, as its to subjective a topic. And we just don't have the material, to even begin to assess if CM models LR accuracy correctly or incorectly, Ie, we would need the practice range qualification criteria for all the nation's tanks involved, all we have is Germany's for 1 tank (the Tiger).

Then we'd need some sort of combat range study basicly that means pooring through AARs on engagement ranges, rounds fired etc and finaly to build a comparison then to modify it with a controversial set of combat modifiers etc.

So well the ppl here cant show CM is wrong concerning accuracy, if that was this threads intent?, neither can it be shown CM's model is correct, or even adequate either, what we can say is 'it feels right' to a majority of the players & thats good eneough for me.

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]

Paul:

Don’t be confusing me with any dam statistics. What did Abraham Lincoln once say (or was it Mark Twain…or maybe it was Samuel Langhorne Clemens):

There’s liars…there’s dam liars…then there are statisticians.

Actually thanks for the clarification. I reckon I understand what was meant know. By the way printed up your email and went through about ½ of the posting last night. Impressive that you had archived all of this info. At the risk of sounding retarded, who is Robert Livingston? Sure sounds like he knows his ****.

John:

Very smoothly said. You could be a geotechnical engineering consultant…or a lawyer

[Paul Lakowski]

Robert's always been the expert on WW-II armor and projectiles. Him & Lorrin have been working on a 'book' for years showing all there research, when ever it comes out It should be great...I'll give you his Email address.... Really for me he's the guy who got me off my but and start digging through all those Impact engineering journals.

John , I think what this thread also shows is that while we all know a thing or two about armor and penetration, enough to question games that model this poorly....the truth is we know 'diddly' about the real question about whether you can even hit the target let alone penetrate. Robert just related to us that the 17 Lb could kill at 2-3 km s but couldn't hit much beyond 1km.

One other thing it shows me is that when you guys are pushed you can do research too Too many times I see these debates being a battle of mere hearsay , with debates of 'how many angles on the head of a pin'.

Its a very sobering thing to wake up one day and realize you know next to nothing about something you value so much...at least it was for me

[Guest Big Time Software]

John,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So well the ppl here cant show CM is wrong concerning accuracy, if that was this threads intent?, neither can it be shown CM's model is correct, or even adequate either, what we can say is 'it feels right' to a majority of the players & thats good eneough for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what we must be carefull about. While it certainly is true that all this discussion hasn't fully supported our modeling, neither has it really called it into question, and it certainly hasn't "proved" that CM is faulty. And, as you say, this is probably as good as we are going to get until someone unearths enough evidence to move the discussion one way or another.

However, just because we can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that CM is 100% correct in all circumstances, does not mean that it should be constantly opened up to uninformed criticism (i.e. personal opinions not backed up by a large body of solid evidence). In other words, unless someone can "prove" CM wrong it is, by default, "right" and should be left alone until a good counter case can be presented. Otherwise we will sit here arguing about the same thing over and over again instead of looking at other things that really ought to be changed.

I also reject the notion that a show of wargamer hands is a good way to figure out if something has been modeled correctly. As we have seen over and over again on this BBS, most wargamers lack the research skills and even knowledge to be qualified to pass judgement. Let's face it, most wargamers think a German tank should be able to kill anything the Western Allies produced at long ranges with only a couple of shots with 100% certainty. This same majority of gamers also thinks that the Sherman was a horrible tank and that it was impossible to lose heavy German armor to them in any circumstances.

This is not meant as a slam of my fellow wargamers, but I think anybody with an open mind can see that what I say is, on the whole, correct. Most wargamers get their sense of right and wrong from other wargames. Unfortunately, they are not good sources since they are, basically, opinions. CM is in the same boat in theory, but as we have seen on this BBS Comabt Mission is much more of an "informed" opinion than some other games

I guess what I am saying is that if we modeled things on what the majority of wargamers thought was "about right" Combat Mission would be on really shakey ground in terms of realism

Steve

[Hussar]

Steve etc

I have been following all this with interest and the same criticisms crop up for CM that crop up for all first class sims. EAW is a classic example, their web site if full of people who reckon the Spitfire is over modelled, the P-51 is under modelled etc etc. As an EAW fanatic I agree with them but I am not flying with my life on the line.

The Sherman was a sh***y tank but tactics were devised to overcome this and when your butt is on the line you behave much differently than in a sim, where you just shrug if you get hit, and move on.

There is a great article on Sherman vs Panther tactics at the Armormag site (Back Issues July/Aug 96) and in a city (Vienna) too. Sure they were Russians, but the US/Brits used the same tactics. It all comes down to the men, and well led and experienced crews will win over green crews no matter what the equipment, (within reason). Not sure that this aspect can be modelled properly in any sim.

[Guest machineman]

I agree there is not enough information to change anything yet (maybe Christmas will be generous with grog presents!) Just a few comments:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ..that tank crews were not always capable of tracking there own rounds. Missing both splash from impact or the tracer element. And I have seen nothing posted so far which would suggest the Germans had superior tracking skills. Tough to bracket when you dont see where the round is hitting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to find more info on these built in Tiger rangefinders, but if they exist as described they not only got range but also had a high point of view (to clear smoke and dust) and had a much higher magnification than the gunsight (if 6 degrees field of view is as strong as I think it is), all so the gunner could get splash from impact information via the commander.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Along these same lines German tank crews were at somewhat of a disadvantage in that the loader and gunner did not have viewing periscopes...i.e. fewer eyes to help spot ones own fall of shot. A tank gunner firing at long ranges would no doubt be employing max magnification setting which results in a relatively narrow field of vision. Overline and or under shots could well be striking beyond the bounds of his optics field of vision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perspective compresses the higher the magnification, so you are actually looking at lots of area with a high magnification lense, just a lot of area a long way away. From what I understand with long range shooting of any kind, the norm is very high magnification lenses, the higher the better, to spot shotfall. I have an article here reccommending 16x or 20x rifle scopes for target shooting at 1500m ranges.

Low magnification periscopes for the gunner and loader would help target acquisition, especially at short ranges, but not spotting shot at long ranges.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the one hand there is a fair amount of evidence suggesting that with high velocity flat trajectory KE munitions, errors in range estimates are not that critical. On the other hand from my own reading it is quite clear that the leading cause of misses boiled down to either poor initial range estimation (TZ1R or not) or anxious gunners. The two assessments seemingly contradict each other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I got from the Tigerfebel quote was that errors in range estimates at 1000m or less were not critical. Once past that, the flat trajectory makes it possible to hit accurately at long ranges, IF, AND ONLY IF, the range is calculated accurately and the gunner can stay on top of things.

I'm getting from Paul's quote that range calculation, (and shot observation, as pointed out) were the big bugaboos.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In addition, if the Germans had all the answers there would have been no need to develop gun computers or laser range finders. I don't know what the new starships have in that regard…but the old M60 and M48 had a mechanical gun computer which would adjust the main gun for super elevation with respect to type of munition being employed…its velocity, range to target, and flight path, etc…SABOT, HEAT, HEP (I think it was HEP high explosive plastic or some such thing) each had their own respective settings. Now if trajectory weren't especially critical…why the micro adjustment of super elevation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's were this WWII 13, Korean 3, 70's 1 figure is so interesting. We're looking at a law of diminishing returns here. To get the final increase from 3 to 1 (300%), the fine edge on the knife, laser rangefinders and ballistic computers were needed. But still by far the biggest differences come in from WWII to Korea, where laser rangefinders and modern computers did NOT exist. The M48 with it's mechanical computer did not exist either.

Isn't it possible that the big jump in accuracy came from better crew training in long distance gunnery, better optics, and high powered rangefinder use? All stuff the Germans had at least on the 88's? What other factors could there be?

Even if you consider it was the M48 with the mechanical computer, the main advantage to it may have been just that it was easier or quicker on the gunner/commander. As far as adjusting for different ammo goes, Zeiss sights had adjustment scales for different ammunition types built in.