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

[PzKpfw 1]

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

First a little bit of statistics:

Second, the "training standard" issue. I think before you can really rely on this as a substantive argument, you need to define how this standard was applied and evaluated. Is it a reasonable assumption that all gunners met this standard? How was this test administered? Was it on a gunnery range? Was the target moving? How fast? What is the range to target? Was the test administered using well-maintained, clean equipment and optics? Was the gunner under fire, simulated or otherwise? What were visibility conditions like during the test?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German gunnery range training was conducted with normaly serviced tanks, prolly better serviced then combat formation tanks.

Fireing was conducted vs targets 2m high 2.5m wide moveing 20kph across the frontal arc from 100 - 2000m in some cases to 3 & 4000m the standard fireing range results they were looking for seem to be the ranges between 1200 - 2000m. The 4 shots remarks come from the Tiger E gunners requirement to hit the target as decribed above by the 4th shot at ranges of 1200 - 2000m in 30 secs.

Their was no simulation of combat other then a time constraint to achieve a hit. Weather conditions were dependant on the weather from what I have gathered they conducted them in all types of weather. But again remember data is very limited on this aspect all I have been able to gather & present here was cobbled together from various refrences, German reports 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 feild".

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

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-13-2000).]

[ASL Veteran]

Well I'm sorry I set you off Steve, but I stand by my data. Perhaps I will post it if this thread continues. Reality is that I stopped the test when I saw the trend - and the test is very time consuming. I honestly didn't see any point in continuing the original test, but now that I know what I know I can test other guns as well, guns where I don't have any data, if it becomes necessary.

I can do this because I found that the targeting line is an accurate representation of each gun's chances of hitting. The targeting line shows an increased chance of hitting over time and max's out at a certain percentage. The number of hits when compared to total number of shots corresponds to this chance of hitting. Once it has been established that the target line is accurate, then one no longer needs to do any more test firing to find the accuracy of each gun as compared to each other. All you need to do after that is string the targeting line. Once you get to that point you will find that most weapons that don't fire in 'bursts' like the 20mm in the Lynx do indeed have the same chance of hitting (other than the much maligned 75mm Sherman which is lower by 3 or 4 percent)

BTW, the 88 Flak, 50mm PAK, and the 25 Pounder all have the same chances of hitting at a range of 1000 meters and 1500 meters. Now maybe I should 'put a sock in it' because perhaps this is an accurate reflection of the way it 'really was'. Maybe there are no statistical differences in the accuracies of all three of these (very different) guns at the specified ranges. However, Jentz says that there are. I choose to believe Jentz!

I now drop out of the active portion of this discussion because I see no point in continuing here. Can Steve show us any data that proves that there are no statistical differences in the accuracies of these three (or any) guns at the specified ranges of 1000 meters, and 1500 meters? If so, then I would like to eat some crow. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong, because I love this game. If not, then Steve just went down a few notches in my book.

ASL Veteran OUT!

[aka_tom_w]

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

German gunnery range training was conducted with normaly serviced tanks, prolly better serviced then combat formation tanks.

Fireing was conducted vs targets 2m high 2.5m wide moveing 20kph across the frontal arc from 100 - 2000m in some cases to 3 & 4000m the standard fireing range results they were looking for seem to be the ranges between 1200 - 2000m. The 4 shots remarks come from the Tiger E gunners requirement to hit the target as decribed above by the 4th shot at ranges of 1200 - 2000m in 30 secs.

Their was no simulation of combat other then a time constraint to achieve a hit. Weather conditions were dependant on the weather from what I have gathered they conducted them in all types of weather. But again remember data is very limited on this aspect all I have been able to gather & present here was cobbled together from various refrences, German reports etc.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks John!

That's exactly what I was looking for.

Those look lke HARD facts to me

Real Historical WWII gunery data. AND it is WAY higher than what is currently modeled in CM.

So can we use the that one shot in 4 at 1200 - 2000 meter at a MOVING target as the basis for accuracy expected of German guners in CM.

I say Sure.

Now to what degree will can this be "dumbed down" to simulate actual battle field conditions?

That's the BIG question and it is what is at issue here as BTS has dumbed donw the long range chance to hit for the Tiger 1E way way lower than that at those kinds of ranges.

Lets look at the "average Cool" gunner in a German Tiger I and determine how many time in combat conditions he will miss four shots in a row and set the chance to hit ofr each of those four shot to reflect the cummulative chance to miss all four shots, with each shot haveing a better chance to hit than the one before it.

I think we can say that in no way does CM take into account (as it is now modeled) the fact that German gunner were required to hit at target MOVING at 20 kph at least one in four shots at 1200-2000 m. These were good gunners and that's what they had to do to just qualify, I would therefore call that skill level Regular.

Now how do we adjust that for battle field condtions.

Earlier I proposed that we simple double the 4 shots to 8 shots and say in combat by the 8th shot they should be shooting at am almost 100% chance to hit and work backwards from there as per this table:

Tiger I Reg Crew targets Stuart at 2000m

Proposal:

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

remember this is at 2000 yards against a stationary stuart in combat conditions.

Everything at a range less than 2000 m should be even easiers to hit.

Maybe the 8 shot scale there is not what is needed.

Maybe we have to continue to focus and what was taking place in the first four shots and model that and dumb it down with the 5th shot approaching 99% chance to hit.

I'm not sure where the data is to support this dumbing down of the target practice gunnery data but, if we know the standard for the Tiger I E gunner was "Fireing was conducted vs targets 2m high 2.5m wide moveing 20kph across the frontal arc from 100 - 2000m in some cases to 3 & 4000m the standard fireing range results they were looking for seem to be the ranges between 1200 - 2000m. The 4 shots remarks come from the Tiger E gunners requirement to hit the target as decribed above by the 4th shot at ranges of 1200 - 2000m in 30 secs" then I think we can conclude that is is really not even close to the same kind of long range accuracy we are seeing from the German crews firing 88's from Tiger I's at this time in CM.

If you doubt me try 6 Tiger I's Green Conscript Reg Vet Crack and Elite on an open map and have 6 Stuarts move across their field of vision, to begin with the Tigers won't even see the Stuarts until they open fire so load up the Stuarts with ammo and give them no smoke to hide behind, then try to get them to drive at intervals across the top end of your 2000 m gunnery range while they target the Tigers and let me know what kind of results you get. (Note I think the broad side of a Stuart is bigger than 2m high 2.5m wide, so there is one advantage the gunner has right there, even thought they are just being harassed/tickled(?) at 2000 m by 37 mm peashooters)

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-13-2000).]

[L.Tankersley]

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

Those look lke HARD facts to me

Real Historical WWII gunery data. AND it is WAY higher than what is currently modeled in CM.

So can we use the that one shot in 4 at 1200 - 2000 meter at a MOVING target as the basis for accuracy expected of German guners in CM.

I say Sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, whoa there, cowboy!

Thanks to John for summarizing the test conditions above. But there are a couple of important points still not addressed. First, it looks like this training standard assumed firing-range conditions. Second, while it may have been a training standard, it's not clear that all gunners met that standard. (I will grant you that a Regular or better crew should probably be deemed able to satisfy the test.) Third, as John mentions the test was probably carried out with equipment that was in better condition than was common on the battlefield. Finally, it appears that the test was not administered under "combat conditions." [Hmm, I guess this is the same as my first point - LJT]

Oh, and let's discuss "target size" for a moment. As someone (John K.?) pointed out a few posts back, often the tracks of a tank are obscured by terrain microrelief (trans.: little bitty hills, folds and ridges occurring even in notionally "flat" ground) so comparing the 2.5m x 2m target size to a tank silhouette isn't necessarily valid. Unless a tank is hull down, however, my gut feeling is that the standard target size is a reasonable approximation to a typical target. (I wonder if the target was 2m or 2.5m tall?)

Unfortunately, there's probably no way to empirically quantify the average degradation in performance that would result from using "battlefield standard" (dirty, misaligned, cracked, gummed-up or otherwise suboptimal) equipment. But nevertheless I think there needs to be some degredation even if it means resorting to a WAG.

Then there's the "battlefield conditions" exclusive of equipment maintenance to consider. CM can't "actively" simulate a lot of the distractions that are present on the battlefield, so many things are abstracted into BTS's "life in wartime correction factor." Some things are explicitly modeled, like smoke from blazes or smoke shells partially obscuring LOS, but other things (like general haze, dirt and dust covering the battlefield degrading sight, the fact that the firing tank may well be sitting on an incline or have other difficulties, and the battlefield "pucker factor") again have to be handled via WAG.

Finally, I'm pretty sure BTS will reject the sort of "table-based" hit chance you suggest. I don't think BTS has stated just how much the likelihood of a hit increases with successive shots, but I know that it does increase by some amount (up to some limit). I would imagine their algorithm calculates a basic hit chance using range, target size, LOS quality, gun velocity, etc. and then modifies that base chance for crew quality and number of consecutive shots fired at that target. Offhand, I'd say the biggest increase should probably come somewhere around the third or fourth shot, after you've had a decent chance to bracket the target, and be fairly flat after that. Note that a "to-hit" chance sequence of 10%, 14%, 18%, 22% over 4 shots still gives you a 50% chance of at least one hit. (I'm not arguing that 50% is the right number for a 4-shot sequence; it's just by way of example.) And using the percentages from your proposed chart, an elite crew has a 95% chance of a hit in 4 shots, a regular crew a 63% chance, and a conscript crew only a 35% chance. This might not be too bad, actually, although I feel the spread might be a bit too large.

BTW, what IS the CM hit chance for a first-shot engagement on a moving target at 2000m? ::sigh:: I guess I'll have to build my own gunnery range this weekend...

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[This message has been edited by L.Tankersley (edited 10-13-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

BTW, what IS the CM hit chance for a first-shot engagement on a moving target at 2000m? ::sigh:: I

guess I'll have to build my own gunnery range this weekend...

"

I've done one And I can tell you

the results of my tests are on page 4 or 5 of this thread I think.

At 2000 meters I tested all crew levels of the KT Tiger I Jagpanther and Nashorn

ALL crew expereince levels, NOT one tank could even spot a Sherm Jumbo in Ideal condtions at the end of 2000 meters of FLAT paved road,

they did spot the enemy tanks Sherms and Stuarts after they opened fire, but they were only sound contacts, you could not actually target them, I had to run one KT up close enough about 700 meters (buttoned) to ID the enemy tanks and then with the borg like spotting the other tanks could target the now known enemy tanks and while moving or Stationary the number the game gives you for the chance to hit on the first shot is about 5-6% chance to hit, and even after the target is acquired it does not really go up all that much.

I posted my results back on page 4 I think, I would be happy to send you my gunnery range test set up scenario, but my e-mail is down and you might be happier to build your own.

I did not calculate or keep track of the results of each shot fired. There are others on this board that are much more meticulous and methodoligal about doing that than I am.

good luck

-tom w

[L.Tankersley]

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

ALL crew expereince levels, NOT one tank could even spot a Sherm Jumbo in Ideal condtions at the end of 2000 meters of FLAT paved road,

...

and while moving or Stationary the number the game gives you for the chance to hit on the first shot is about 5-6% chance to hit, and even after the target is acquired it does not really go up all that much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it would be interesting to do a "spotting range." How long did you wait before giving up on spotting the Jumbo? More than a turn? As I stated somewhere up-thread, I think it's asking a lot of a crew to spot a tank-sized target at a range of 2000m regardless of the conditions. And I'm pretty sure that "Ideal" CM spotting conditions are far from ideal real-world spotting conditions (that is, CM probably discounts spotting chances to account for things like common battlefield distractions, minor LOS obstructions, the need to scan 360 degrees around you out to the horizon searching for enemies, and so on). Remember, in an uncued search the tank crew doesn't know where to look for the tank, they have to scan all around looking for anything threatening. Sure, eventually they should spot a stationary tank 2000m away, but I don't know that you could realistically expect that to happen within the first minute. I wonder how CM handles spotting in such conditions, whether there's a periodic "did he see it" check or some other mechanism. I'm curious to know whether after several minutes the Jumbo could be spotted, and how much easier it would be spotted if moving.

If I have time I will try to investigate changing hit probabilities for subsequent shots (although this will probably be tough to do since you can only check the hit chance on a turn boundary and typically tanks fire more than one shot per turn). I don't remember seeing anyone else pursuing this. Because I think this is the area where you might have a legitimate shot at convincing BTS to look at changing things. The initial (first shot) hit probability fundamentally comes down to some WAGs, and arguments about it are basically "my WAG is better than your WAG," not very compelling. But you might be able to argue convincingly that higher-quality optics led to greater increases in subsequent-shot hit probability than are currently present in CM. You'll need supporting evidence, of course.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jochen wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The second column... estimations are in percentage and do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target during under actual combat condition. However, the average, cool gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the result presented in the second column.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is contradictory. At first it is saying that the values do NOT reflect the probability of combat conditions, then says that it does. Doesn't anybody see that the two are in conflict with each other?

The first part of this statement clearly puts forward the notion that the estimated results are still "pie in the sky". And that means they are too high and need to be downgraded. How much should they be downgraded is, of course, up for debate. But to say that they should match these figures... no.

Note what John later wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 4 shots remarks come from the Tiger E gunners requirement to hit the target as decribed above by the 4th shot at ranges of 1200 - 2000m in 30 secs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement disagrees with the hit probability (at least I think it does) put forth by the estimated accuracy figures. And neither are under battlefield conditions, so even this is somewhat an ideal figure (though much less so than Table 2)

Back to Jochen quotes:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really don't expect to have tank commanders with eagle eyes. But person who is accustomed in tank warfare and is expecting enemy contact right now (that's why he hasn't sleep in two days I guess) should be able to spot enemy tank in 2000 meters range in flat grass field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. As I said a few posts ago, there appears to be some sort of problem with spotting ranges over 2000m. In other words, a bug. This has obviously not been a big issue for CM1 because combat ranges over 2000m are uncommon for either user created scenarios or Quick Battles. But obviously this needs to be fixed. And it has nothing to so with accuracy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>NOTE! I think if the troops have been up two days at a row without food their status would be other than "Rested" as it is not when you start scenario!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. This was on The List for CM1 features, but we ran out of time. It is still on The List for CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I honestly do think that those quotes from test shootings somewhat support figures I (and others) have posted here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think they are in contradiction with other data. Not only the quote from John above, but the data Lewis posted about the number of rounds used. Misses are a common thing, and they should remain that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am only curious how and why CM yields different results in conditions that I found from other sources which I consider useful...That is the "gray area" for me and I try to find out more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple -> test range data can not be taken at face value. Period. Look at other factors for other types of weapons (like rifles, radar, or whatever) and you will see that the figures quoted by the scientists conducting the tests are very often overly optamistic. Hehe... for a really good example, look at the statistics for the accuracy of a Patriot Missle compared to the real life success

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Did you test accuracy before downgrading and compared it to test result from WWII?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we skipped this bit as it was unnecessary. What we did was put in the formulas to get the gun to shoot using real world numbers for things like velocity, shell weight, etc. Then we adjusted the accuracy down until they approximated the chance of a hit under battlefield conditions. This, of course, is not an exact science. And I am not saying now, and have never said before, that we have it 100% right. But it matches our understanding of real world hit to miss ratios and so far nobody has come up with a cohesive argument that offers better target numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The test you did was interesting. However it does not isolate different variables too well. Since we are discussing about long range accuracy (1500 is about in borderline I think) and not killing ability in general I think that test was not the most usefull that might have been conducted... That could mean that results are more dependent on penetration ability against opponents armour at range of 1500 meters than accuracy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Reread the experiment. The PzIVs generally hit 3:1 vs. the Shermans. Each fired a volley. The Shermans missed, the PzIVs hit. The penetration aspect simply meant that the Sherman was 94% likely to not fire another shot, while the PzIV was more like 50% likely to fire another shot.

However, I did not do a statistical tabulation of how many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd hits were scored by each side. But considdering the very low number of hits scored on the PzIVs, it is beyond question that the PzIV has a much higher chance of hitting than the Sherman does.

If anybody is interested in doing the numbers, you can find the test file I used at:

http://www.battlefront.com/TestRange2.cmb

It is a Saved Game so as to make it easier to do repeat tests. It also serves to make sure that variables aren't introduced by moving stuff around.

ASL Veteran wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If so, then I would like to eat some crow. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong, because I love this game. If not, then Steve just went down a few notches in my book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pardon me for remaining ticked off. You made two VERY strong and VERY specific claims about failings in CM. They were:

1. All guns (ALL was your word) have the same accuracy.

2. That the ballistics equations in CM, as far as accuracy go, are there just to make the pictures prettier.

I have already proved #1 wrong, and if you played around with more guns you would see that for yourself.

As for #2, I asked a long while ago that anybody doing tests post the conditions of those tests BEFORE conducting the experiments. I have NO idea what conditions and methodology you used, not to mention resulting data, and therefore can not do anything more than take your word for it that we screwed up something.

So pardon me for asking for you to provide proof of your sweeping condemnation of CM's accuarcy model.

Tom, we will never use table based ANYTHING in CM. It is the wrong approach to simulating real world environments. Also, I think Leland did an excellent job pointing out the realities of probability.

Steve

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If I have time I will try to investigate changing hit probabilities for subsequent shots (although this will probably be tough to do since you can only check the hit chance on a turn boundary and typically tanks fire more than one shot per turn).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had taken note of this earlier myself when doing some tests. IIRC the increase was from 3-5% per subsequent shot, the one I made note of was a Sherman(76) whose HC went from 18% to 45% after firing 8 shots at 1500m. As you noted, you are limited by the end of turn boundary so don't know whether the second shot %increase is the same or smaller than the last shot's at the end of the turn.

Someone earlier also asked about the HC against a moving target. Initially when I did the tests I let the AI control one side, it didn't work out the way I wanted so had to go hotseat but I did observe a couple things. I was checking a Nashorn versus four Shermans(AI) at 1500m. The AI would advance one or two Shermans, sometimes behind smoke, leaving the rest on overwatch. The Nashorn would target the advancing Sherman(s) while blind to the remaining Shermans on overwatch who would invariably then KO the Nashorn in short order. However a couple times the turn ended and I was able to check the Nashorn's HC on the moving target. IIRC it only increased from an initial ~20% to ~26-27% after a turn of firing.

Ron

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Thanks to John for summarizing the test conditions above. But there are a couple of important points still not addressed. First, it looks like this training standard assumed firing-range conditions. Second, while it may have been a training standard, it's not clear that all gunners met that standard. (I will grant you that a Regular or better crew should probably be deemed able to satisfy the test.) Third, as John mentions the test was probably carried out with equipment that was in better condition than was common on the battlefield. Finally, it appears that the test was not administered under "combat conditions." [Hmm, I guess this is the same as my first point - LJT]

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes as I said their was no simulation of combat, other then a time limitation & I'm not even sure that was suposed to represent any combat condition though it was implied. Also again remember their is no set refrence material on this subject to get this much info on range practices required putting pieces together from bits of data all over.

This concerned 'regular' crews the only other aspect is their was an implied diference concerning Tiger gunners; as in they seem to have been held to a higher performance standard then other tank type crews, my problem is I have not been able to establish the 'standard' range & hit % for gunnery qualification on all German tanks.

I also need to add this concerning my last post their were 2 gunnery range standards or expectations concerning the Tiger E Ie:

1) - A hit by the 3rd round in 30 secs, @ 800 - 1200m

2) - A hit by the 4th round in 30secs @ 1200 - 2000m

Yes my understanding was that the tanks recieved better daily maintance then could be 'expected' to be performed under combat conditions.

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

(I wonder if the target was 2m or 2.5m tall?)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the German test targets were 2m tall x 2.5m wide.

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

CM can't "actively" simulate a lot of the distractions that are present on the battlefield,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, but we can compare all this to what occurs in CM gunnery in a basic sense and go from their, again this is all speculation concerning abstractions.

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 feild".

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

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-13-2000).]

[ASL Veteran]

Alright Steve, let me tender my apologies. I set every weapon in the German arsenal up on the test range and checked the targeting line. There were significant differences in the accuracies of the various gun types in the game. Perhaps if I can set up a readable table I may post this data as it may contribute to the discussion. This still doesn’t explain the discrepancies with the Jentz data between the guns though.

[:USERNAME:]

quote from Steve:

"Actually, I think they are in contradiction with other data. Not only the quote from John above, but the data Lewis posted about the number of rounds used. Misses are a common thing, and they should remain that way."

Yes but..

I contend and am trying to model that tanks dont just sit and fight like they do in CM. A tank recieving a ricochet is in a pickle. It knows someone has got the range and more than likely will be shooting some more. Unless the vehicle is dueling that weapon or is it so heavily armored and hull down that it can take it; it will move. Thats why theres tracks. And tracks get busted as well as other subsystems. No one would want to get hit. Also tanks fight in platoons generally. One pulls back and they all will.

Also tanks fire alot of rounds at unknown kills, false targets, etc. So a simple tally up and divide isnt exactly accurate. But the data shows the amount of ammo needed. Thats important. I remember reading about how US shermans would fire rounds at a hill crest just to range in on it. Imagine the luxury. They had the shells and the germans didnt. So it would offset a little the better german sights to just fire at where you expected them to come.

But I want to know if anyone has done a test of MkIVL48 vs Sherm 76mm? The weapons are close and it would tell more than the sherm 75mm in my opinion.

I wish BTS would tell more about how the calcs are done regarding these interesting issues.

Lewis

[John Kettler]

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

Nice, informative post, John. I have a question about the above, though. I agree that better optics lead to longer detection/identification ranges for a cued visual search. However, I'm not sure whether this should necessarily lead to longer spotting ranges. Are tank crews typically performing visual scans for targets using their high-powered optics? It seems to me that in general this wouldn't be practical, and that instead target-acquisition scans would be done with the naked eye or low-magnification optics, and the high-power stuff would only be brought to bear once you've seen something. Granted that once you do the quality of the optics will help you identify what you're looking at and help you hit it (how much it will help, I'm not touching with a 10' pole), but I don't see how the optics will help in initial spotting of the target. [Disclaimer: if someone with Actual Military Experience , or a reasonable facsimile thereof, wants to point out that most target spotting is typically done using the high-powered optics, then I will quietly withdraw from the field of battle.]

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leland, thanks.

To answer your question, let me revert to my naval engagement model. Assuming you've ever watched WORLD AT WAR, VICTORY AT SEA, or any number of programs on the History Channel, you've no doubt seen hundreds of segments of sailors standing watch, binoculars firmly glued to their eyes. If they were U.S. sailors, they were almost certainly using 7 x 50s (7 power magnification, 50mm objective lenses) binoculars. These have, by definition, greater magnification than the highest magnification German sights whose performance has been debated on this board (6 power).

At sea, the name of the game was first detection--an otherwise invisible puff of funnel smoke, mast tops peeking over the horizon, the momentary glint of sunlight on an airplane's canopy, the feather from a periscope's cutting the water--each such sighting conferring a reaction time and combat option advantage. Failure to make that detection was often a matter of life and death.

Nor was this a new development. Back when, before even telescopes were to be had, it was customary to station a sharp-eyed young lookout at the masthead or in the crow's nest. This was done to extend the effective visual horizon for the ship. Adding a telescope only compounded the advantage, multiplying the power of the human eye and greatly enhancing target discrimination and identification.

The Japanese took these concepts and ran with them, combining huge binoculars having impressive light gathering capabilities, the Long Lance torpedo, new tactics and rigorous practice to create a nightfighting technique which time and again hammered our radar equipped ships. Often, their optics got the initial detection before our radar sets could dig their ships out of the radar clutter caused by all the land reflections. They knew where we were; we didn't know they were there. This led to such disasters as Savo Island, where the first real indication of trouble lay in torpedo detonations.

Nor did this approach end in WW II. To this day, the Navy still posts binocular equipped lookouts. The high tech stuff may break down, be damaged or destroyed, but the Eyeball, Mark I still spots threats and saves ships.

The Navy continued this basic approach when it fielded the revolutionary F-14 Tomcat, with its long range radar and missiles to match. It supplemented that radar with a visual identification system called TVSU (television sight unit; a TV camera with high magnification). This was later replaced by TISEO (Target Identification System, Electro-optical), which used the IR region of the spectrum.

The Air Force used a much simpler approach; it mounted rifle scopes in F-15 cockpits under a program called Eagle Eye. Combat range tests found that Eagle Eye equipped F-15 Eagles both survived better and got more kills. They got earlier and more target detections, had better situational awareness, got bounced less often, and got the drop far more often on opponents not equipped with Eagle Eye.

Does this apply in land warfare as well? You bet! A tank commander is still looking for the earliest possible detection of the foe, be it finding a tank amidst the rubble of a town, spotting the dust thrown up by distant tracks, spotting the raw earth which denotes hasty field fortifications, etc. To do this, he uses binoculars, binoculars at least as capable, if not more so, than his weapon optics. Those binoculars enable him to see what he couldn't otherwise see and identify what might otherwise be unidentifiable. They extend his battle space and confer tactical options and benefits on him which he otherwise wouldn't have with just bare eyeballs.

If you doubt this, I invite you to wade through the thread where American soldiers comment on their equipment vs. that of the Germans. There you will find a specific lament by an American artillery officer about how much more and more clearly he could see through German Zeiss binoculars than his American issue ones. He directly relates this to targets not seen and therefore not shelled

in his lament.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Big Time Software]

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

Agreed, but we can compare all this to what occurs in CM gunnery in a basic sense and go from their, again this is all speculation concerning abstractions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically, we tried to determine what a reasonable hit:miss ratio was, then dumbed down the numbers so that this was reflected in the game. We did this for Regular, and then applied a modifier for the other Experience levels. This is the same approach we used for many things in CM that had lots of intangible factors, including small arms accuracy. If one can get consistantly realistic results, then the model is inherently sound.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ASL Veteran wrote:

Alright Steve, let me tender my apologies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apology accepted As I said above, I know you meant well. But people need to be very carefull when making sweeping statements based on very limited data. CM simulates a very complex and complicated "world" and therefore such statements are more often than not incorrect. As for the differences in the Jenz numbers and CM's, dunno. Besides the general problems with test range data (which has been discussed here in depth), I can't explain the difference without knowing the test conditions for each weapon.

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

I contend and am trying to model that tanks dont just sit and fight like they do in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I can agree with you there. The TacAI is purposefully a little more bold than a real world tanker would be. We plan on fixing that in the future, but feel we need to make some broader changes to the way crews behave under fire first.

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

I wish BTS would tell more about how the calcs are done regarding these interesting issues.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I do not have that information to begin with. But even if I did, there comes a time when we should keep the cards close to our chest. There is no reason for us to "give away" all the "secrets" going on under the hood. Instead, it is best to focus on the outward behavior and make suggestions for improvement in behavioral terms.

Steve

[Paul Lakowski]

If a tank comes into field of view [LOS] how soon is it before its spotted? At say 1000 and 2000m range.

[L.Tankersley]

I just finished a short series of tests and have a few observations that may be of interest. But first, for John K:

My feeling is that the land warfare problem is harder than the naval spotting problem, for the following reasons. First, at sea I think the lookouts can concentrate mainly on the horizon - there is no other signficant terrain relief behind which a threat might be lurking unless you're close in to shore. Therefore lookouts can spend most of their time rapidly scanning the horizon with their eyes or binoculars, looking for any anomaly that would then cue a more intense examination. [i recognize this is less true for aircraft.] 4 lookouts could divide up the horizon into quarters and scan their area of responsibility several times per minute. Plus, while spotting is time-critical, until pretty recently a minute or two passing without spotting a target on the horizon probably wouldn't affect your chances of survival much.

In land warfare you have to search not only the horizon but also the area between you and the horizon. For a tank crew, there aren't enough free pairs of eyes to execute an effective divide-and-conquer strategy. So the tank crew has to search a much larger area (not absolute area, but larger number of scan sweeps, or something - I'm sure there's a term for what I'm thinking of, but durned if I can think of it) with fewer pairs of eyes (and furthermore these eyes are connected to a brain that has other tasks occupying part of its time), against a more varied and difficult background, in an environment where the consequences of not spotting a thread immediately can easily be fatal.

Because of this, and because of my feeling that it would be unwieldy to constantly scan with binoculars (particularly in a moving tank) and actually cover the scan area, I suspect that a lot of the search would be done with the naked eye (because you can scan a larger area in less time), periodically bringing up the binocs to perform a closer inspection of suspicious or difficult-to-see areas. Any former tankers out there agree with this, or want to shoot me down in flames? I can take it.

BTW, I've never heard of the rifle-scope on the F-15. I'm pretty sure the F-14 camera widget was mostly used in a cued role, though, based on radar contact (either from the AWG or relayed from a Hawkeye), yes? Was the F-15 scope really used for uncued search, or for cued target location/identification?

---

Whew, that was longer than I thought. Now, on to the observations. I set up my own little test with a Tiger vs a Jumbo 75, at ranges from 100m to 2000m at 100m intervals, and measured the basic (first-shot) to-hit chance for each gun at each range. I also did some firing tests against stationary targets and determined what seems to be the asymptotic limit of hit chance after sufficient shots were fired. The range was entirely paved. To avoid spotting problems, I put an ammo-less artillery spotter near each enemy tank. [by the way, I first set up the tanks 2000m apart and not moving. After 7 minutes they still had not spotted each other. But within seconds of starting to move the Jumbo, the Tiger had spotted it and started firing.]

Both tanks had Regular crews. At 2000m, the Tiger has a 7% hit chance with the first shot. The Jumbo 75 has a 5% hit chance. At this range, it took several shots before the hit chance began to increase appreciably, and hit chance seemed to max out at 15% (it stayed constant for shots 10-15, at least).

At 1200m, it's rather a different story. The Tiger starts out with a 21% hit chance, and the Jumbo with 19%. After 5 shots (one turn of firing) the Tiger has reached its maximum hit chance of 53%. After 6 shots (also one turn of firing) the Jumbo also reaches its maximum of 47%. [Note, the maximum might be reached earlier, I haven't yet figured a good way to delay starting engagements.] These hit chances stayed constant for at least 14 additional shots.

One other little tidbit: if the Jumbo was broadside-on to the Tiger, the Tiger's hit chance at 1200m went up to 28% from 21%. The displayed hit chance seemed constant whether the Jumbo was stationary or moving. I haven't repeated with hunt or fast moving, and this is based on two short tests, because the Tiger kept killing the Jumbo with flank shots.

BTW, hit chance for the Jumbo actually gets slightly better than the Tiger once you're inside 600m. (At 600m, both have a 45% hit chance. Inside that range, the 75 has a one or two percentage point advantage. At 100m, the Tiger hits 88% of the time and the Jumbo 90%.)

Now, back to John's gunnery training standard at 1200m, which was to hit the standard target by the third or fourth shot (1200m is on the cusp between the two standards it seems). For now, until other data is available I assume that the hit chance for the Tiger at 1200m increases a constant 6.5% and reaches the maximum 53% after 5 shots (this is probably a worst-case for CM).

Shot# Hit% Cum%ofOneOrMoreHits

1 21% 21%

2 27% 42%

3 34% 62%

4 40% 77%

5 46% 88%

6 53% 94%

[Hopefully, after learning a bit more about how hit probabilities increase in CM we can revise this table.]

So according to this data, a Regular crew in CM would meet the training standard about 70% of the time (splitting the difference between the 3- and 4-shot requirements). That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me, on the face of it. The question now becomes, can someone make a compelling argument that an average crew in battlefield conditions should perform significantly better than this? Show your work. I'll give you one for free: the Jumbo seen end-on is bigger than 2x2.5m. Just how much bigger I don't know (especially after accounting for lower portions being hidden by micro-relief).

If there's an underrepresentation of optics somewhere, I'd personally suspect it's in the hit chance of subsequent shots. It seems like shooting at a zeroed-in target 2000m away ought to give you better than a 15% chance to hit. But maybe not.

Next up I'll try this with smaller targets.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, I have just thought up another accuracy test. Why not test a gun against itself and see if there are any differences? Let’s take the 50mm PAK 38 – according to Ian Hogg in “Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War 2” it can fire Armor Piercing rounds which weigh 4.95 lbs and have a muzzle velocity of 2700 feet per second, Armor Piercing Composit Rigid rounds which weigh 1.81lbs and have a muzzle velocity of 3930 feet per second, and a High Explosive round which weighs 4.3 lbs with a muzzle velocity of 1800 feet per second. Sorry to our European friends, but I don’t have a conversion chart handy otherwise I would put that into meters and kilograms. Regardless, one would presume that if the ballistics of this weapon are modeled correctly in CM, there would be a big accuracy discrepancy between these various rounds since they all weigh differently and have a different muzzle velocity. The APCR round especially would show an accuracy drop off at 1000 meters. Ian Hogg states that “due to the light weight of the composit rigid shot, its ballistic coefficient (best visualized as ‘staying power’) was poor, and at longer ranges the (penetration) improvement became marginal.” I would like to set up a test range with three 50mm PAK 38s – one loaded with nothing but AP, one with APCR only, and one with HE only and let’s see if there are any differences. I’m currently inclined to believe that there will be no difference in accuracy in CM, but I am open to any surprises that I may discover. I will report on my findings whatever they may be.

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, the brief test has been concluded. There is good news and bad news. The test was conducted on my standard firing range with six paved lanes which had dug in Sherman Jumbos at 1000 meters. I had two lanes with PAK 50s loaded with HE, two with AP, and two with APCR. The good news is that the initial TL for HE rounds was 12% and this subsequently increased to 33% in the course of one minute after ten rounds were fired. The bad news is that the AP and APCR rounds both had a 17% initial TL that subsequently increased to 43%. The ballistic performance of the APCR round appears to be undifferentiated from the AP round. Of course, maybe this is just the 50mm PAK, maybe the APCR rounds of other guns are differentiated from their AP rounds.

[:USERNAME:]

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

Lewis,

The answer is that the silhouette figure is used, modified by height, when computing accuracy and spotting. Facing is also factored in, as well as a host of other factors (like speed, cover, etc). In other words, a short and squat vehicle might have the same silhouette as a tall and skinny one (at the same angle in the same conditions), but the taller one will be easier to spot and hit than the shorter one.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-13-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

I emailed you a super imposed bitmap silhoutette of a panzer IV over a sherman. If you look at them closely you will see the "height" is roughly the same yet there is a big bulk of shermans behind the panzer IV. The panzrIV is "tall" because of the commanders copula that juts up. The sherman has a huge wide turret and a boxy space consuming design.

If you could paste it here I would appreciate it.

Lewis

[L.Tankersley]

I was rereading my posts re: visual search and realized I haven't ever articulated my central point, to wit: I don't think a tank crew could effectively scan the entire area around them using optics in the course of a single 60-second CM turn. That's why I think the effectiveness of optics in aiding spotting need to be discounted (not entirely, but significantly I think).

Also: I just figured out a way to hopefully get targetting line hit probabilities for various shot numbers: I plan to use an ambush marker to delay engagement start, and different move speeds/delay times for the target to arrive at the ambush marker at various points during the turn so the interturn boundary will fall between different consecutive shot numbers. To do this at 1200m range I think I'll need a HQ out near the target to set the ambush marker (I think you can target a far-off ambush marker with a gun that way). I won't be able to pursue this until late tonight, though.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[:USERNAME:]

Tankersly

You ignore the obvious that the tank doesnt have to check everything out. I believe alot of the problems people here have in trying to get their minds around ideas in the game stem from "individuality" complex. Very common in civilian types.

The tank is part of a team. The team is a platoon. The platoons are part of a company, etc. Everyone is delegated a frontal area and the human mind filters out zones that cant have a vehicle hiding. Its the same with chess. The human mind filters out the millions of "nothing" moves and concentrates on the real tasks.

This is all terrain dependant and tanks prefer to work in the open and generally avoid towns, mountains , etc. Also you ignore pre-battle recon, maps, radio intel sharing, etc. The battlefield is not like you driving a car in traffic. Its a shared experience.

A tank takes in info two ways: Visual and radio link. It doesnt hear the enemy or smell them, etc. All powers of observation are used primarily to take in the outside world visually. I cant stress this enough. A buttoned up tank is really alot worse off than the game models.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 10-14-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Tom, we will never use table based ANYTHING in CM. It is the wrong approach to simulating real world environments. Also, I think Leland did an excellent job pointing out the realities of probability.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your reply Steve

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

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

Tiger I Reg Crew targets Stuart at 2000m

Proposal:

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My suggestion (just to be clear) was an attempt to generate numbers to put into the chance to hit algorythyms with the intention of increasing the chance to hit % on subsquent shots based on crew experience.

I understand that a very complicated (mostly Top Secret ) algorythym determines the result of each round fired. My suggestion was to intended to generate discusion on how the subsquent chance to hit % percentages in those algorythyms were generated.

I defined the circumstances under which those hit percentages would be valid and if I understand what you have said about this in the past each variable in that complicated algorythym may have a +/- value of additional uncertianty associated with it.

I like the concept of the Agorythym to determine the result of tank gunnery, it works better and any other war game I'm familiar with.So to be clear I understand you don't use tables and I have no problem with that.

BUT...

what some of us are really trying to do is build a case for is a higher chance to hit percentage, for vet crack and elite crews (both sides) that fire high velocity rounds with largely predictable flat trajectories using good optics that both Allies and Axis gunners had later in the war.

Some of us here actaully want the game to use More tungsten and and models hits at a larger percentage on subsquent shots after the target has been acquired than is currently modeled, so yes we want some tanks to be MORE deadly accurate in the way the second third and forth shots are modeled.

I was attempting to build a case to bump up the numbers in your chance to hit algorythyms by spreading those chance to hit percentages out over a "table" to let us see the spread between the first shot chance to hit of a conscript crew and the 8th shot chance to hit of an Elite crew.

To look at it the other way, from our point of view as folks trying to figure out HOW these things are modeled in the game, we are conducting firing range tests to attempt to construct a table like the one I proposed to SEE exactly how these subsquent chance to hit percentages, AFTER a target has been aqurired, are modeled in the algorythyms. (all this data as the result of the gunnery range test should be able to be displayed in such a table format)

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

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

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

And ALL other figures could be generated by modifiers to account for crew expereince and subsquent shot chance to hit percentages, instead proposing those modifier values I proposed the end results of the modifiers.

So the modifier for crew experince here is 50% of the Reg crew figure down to green and 50% down conscript and 50% up to vet and 33% up to crack and 25% up to Elite as per:

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

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

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

If you choose to tell me my proposed modifier values are WAY out line, I can fully accept that, I just wanted to clarify that I was proposing a table the would list the results of the modifiers in the algorythyms.

The game is still really fun to play.

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

Thanks to Steve for reading this thread and putting up with us, but, (as you can guess) we are convinced there is a case to made here for better subsquent second third and forth shot hit percentages to be modeled based on crew experience and high quality optics.

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

Thanks especially to Leland for his math skills with regard to the subsquent cumlative math effects of second third and forth shot cummulative hit percentages.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-14-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

I have set up a test of MkIVL48 vs sherm76. The range is 1500-1700 meters. Its a US turkeyshoot. The germans get popped fast and bad.

Any comments BTS?

Lewis

[Wilhammer]

L.Tankersley wrote:

"My feeling is that the land warfare problem is harder than the naval spotting problem, for the following reasons. First, at sea I think the lookouts can concentrate mainly on the horizon - there is no other signficant terrain relief behind which a threat might be lurking unless you're close in to shore. Therefore lookouts can spend most of their time rapidly scanning the horizon with their eyes or binoculars, looking for any anomaly that would then cue a more intense examination. [i recognize this is less true for aircraft.] 4 lookouts could divide up the horizon into quarters and scan their area of responsibility several times per minute. Plus, while spotting is time-critical, until pretty recently a minute or two passing without spotting a target on the horizon probably wouldn't affect your chances of survival much."

Rethink this whole idea.

1. The horizon is not a flat line. Waves, clouds, wakes and various sized targets.

The Japanese attack at Savo Island was in the dark to an enemy that was known to be there but was unknown in numbers. The Japanese spotted the destroyers first and then IGNORED them to engage the big guys. This is excellent training in use of superior optical equipment and discipline.

Savo Island itself was a terrain obstacle.

Nearly all surface engagements were in sight of land throughout history. Water "only" battles were/are extremely rare.

2. A minute or two spotting made a HUGE difference in WW2 combat at sea. The Americans learned to spot just a little quicker with the MK 1 Eyeball and radar, thus doing unto the IJN superior gunnery vs superior torpedoes. The minute or two was critical, becasue once those longlance torps were in the water, the range stopped closing and US gunnery was decreasing in increased effectiveness. Also, if spotted before the Japaenese could launch the LLs, then launching them was pointless as an aware torpedoe warship target was almost always a miss.

In the next paragraph you seem to suggest there is no depth to naval warfare.

Not true. If you study naval warfare just a little, it is full of depth, and I ain't talking about fathoms. Screening destroyers, Periscopes, A/C, Battlewagons beyond the cruisers. AMOF, one reason that Nelson won Tralfalgar was that the French/Spanish forces had no concept of depth to engagin an enmy force, so when the British broke the line by coming right at the F/S force, the inability of them to concentrate firepower on a non-lined force sealed their doom.

What the heck does this have to do with CM?

Nothing more than that the comparison of naval gunnery to tank gunnery is valid.

[:USERNAME:]

Interesting sidenote:

I setup so that the FOW was full, etc. The US in full FOW pop smoke profusely. With no FOW the US pops no smoke but the germans do.

It seems programmed that the germans feel they are the vulnerable ones when they can see what the US tanks are.

Comments?

Lewis

[L.Tankersley]

Batch of replies to some of the above:

First, on "individuality" - sure, in real life tanks operate in platoons, coordinating searches, communicating by radio, and operating in open terrain as much as possible. But in CM that may be the exception rather than the rule. On the CM battlefield each tank is fighting on its own apart from what limited coordination the player can impart. And a lot of the CM battlefields I've seen aren't particularly tank-friendly. I agree buttoned-up tanks should be very blind; global spotting in this case probably compensates to some degree for the lack of modeling of radio comms and coordination.

Second, Wil's comments on naval gunnery. You make good points. I wasn't thinking specifically of WWII but more in general back to the age of sail. But the fact remains that naval vessels have lots more pairs of eyes available to perform their search than a typical tank crew. And I'm not convinced that spotting a periscope feather is significantly harder than spotting a camoflaged AT gun barrel poking out of a patch of trees.

Finally, on the FOW smoke usage: I'd guess that with FOW, the Shermans misidentify the PzIVs as Tigers and pop smoke while the PzIVs see generic Shermans. Without FOW, the Shermans see only PzIVs, while the PzIVs see the 76mm gun and realize they aren't surviving a hit.

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

Leland J. Tankersley