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

[ASL Veteran]

I’ve created a brand new Allied testing facility so I can test Allied guns a little more easily. It is much improved over the old multi nationality facility – all buildings have been removed for range markers and simple gaps in the pavement are used instead. I wanted to test the 75mm PAK’s APCR vs AP but it’s APCR is not included in CM. Anyway, I tested the SPW 251/9 since it has the 75L24 on it. Initial target line at dug in Jumbos at 1000 meters for HE is 9% which then increases to a max of 26%. HEAT rounds for this weapon showed an initial TL of 8% which then increased to 23%. Jentz shows the following accuracy data for the 75L24 after dispersion adjustment:

100m 100%

500m 100%

1000m 73%

1500m 38%

Prior to dispersion adjustment:

100m 100%

500m 100%

1000m 98%

1500m 74%

According to Jentz this weapon is a fairly accurate one and a comparison to the 88 Flak using dispersion data may be revealing.

Weap ammo 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000

88mm Pzgr 100% x98% x64% x38% x23%

75mm KGrP 100% 100% x73% x38% xxxx

Here is how these two weapons stack up in CM at 1000 meters at dug in Sherman Jumbos

88mm Flak using AP: initial TL 17%. Max TL 44%

75mm using K.Gr.rot Pz: initial TL 8%. Max TL 23%

We see that in CM the 88 Flak is twice as accurate as the 75 at 1000m. Once again this is not consistant with the Jentz data which has these weapons nearly equally accurate out to 1500 meters beyond which the 75mm no longer has any data.

Interestingly enough, the 88 Flak’s accuracy using HE didn’t degrade at all: initial TL using HE 17%, max TL 45% which is virtually identical to the AP accuracy. I don’t have the shell weight of the HE round that the 88 Flak uses, but I have the appropriate shell weight data for the 88 PAK 43 so I may test that weapon. The accuracy of the 75 using HE was actually a little improved: initial TL 9%, max TL 26%

[L.Tankersley]

Here's some additional hit probability data. Methodology was similar to my last series (paved range, Tiger vs Jumbo 75) but in this case I had the Jumbo start back about 50m from the target point, with a german HQ placing an ambush marker at the target range and the Tiger targetting the marker. The Jumbo was ordered to move forward and stop at the desired range with various speeds and pauses to get different shots on the interturn boundary. As before, crews were Regular.

First, an observation: a moving target does in fact show a lower hit chance. I discovered this during some trials when the Jumbo got a late start or the move order was off and was still moving at the interturn boundary.

Range: 1200m

Shot HitChance Chance of 1 or more hits

1_______21%________________21%

2_______31%________________46%

3+______53%________________74%

(4______53%)_______________88%

Range: 1900m

Shot HitChance Chance of 1 or more hits

1________8%_________________8%

2_______11%________________18%

3_______15%________________30%

4_______19%________________44%

5_______?? (no data recorded; probably 24%)

6+______24%

Range: 2000m

Shot HitChance Chance of 1 or more hits

1________7%_________________7%

2_______10%________________16%

3_______10% *______________23% (using 13% to hit)

4_______16%________________39%

5+______21% **_____________52%

* - I think the Jumbo was still in motion on this trial; I'd expect the actual value to be around 13%.

** - This is different from the 15% max hit chance I cited earlier - I misread my notes then, the 15% max was for the Jumbo's 75mm.

Note that at moderate range (1200m) it takes only 2 shots to reach your maximum hit probability. At longer ranges, it can take 4 or 5 shots before no additional benefit is gained.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[This message has been edited by L.Tankersley (edited 10-15-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

Bumping this on a monday morning. Looking for some BTS input.

[aka_tom_w]

bump

wouldn't want to see this one drop below

the horizion

-tom w

[danielh]

I BUMP THIS UP

And findings from CM-Tankbattles with a big scenario:

- US Tank AI is contrary to the real thing, US tanks halt immediately when fired upon always first. They will not rush toward the enemy even if it brings them an advantage.

-Well in the case of the battle i fought (TGN Scenario "Battle for Seebach"). The US tanks (2 Vet Jumbos, 1 Vet Jackson, 2 Vet 105's, 1 M476(w) and 12 or so M3A1's) had to cross around 100 m open ground to a "save" position behind houses, but they instead drived back and forth throwing some smoke while being decimated stupidly by 1 Crk Jagdpanther, 1 Vet PzIV70, 1 Crk KT. The battle was an unrealistic slaughter with still very strange sideffects.

Range was around 770 - 1100 m, whereas mostly around 900 m. NO german tank hit a moving tank, but several moving M3's (Regular).

To top it all one Jumbo used up atleast 20 88 KwK/70 rounds where around 10 shots hit the turret front, only one penetrating without any effect. The tank was immobilized but could not be killed at a range of 776 m on plain level ground.

The Jumbo had 1 penetrating turret hit and a penetrating hull hit without any effect from a 8.8 cm gun ! (I suppose penetrating here means the round goes clean into the turret....).

The KT was hit around 5 times, where it was immobilized, the gun was hit, the commander wounded... (I did it two times, always with the same result). Bad luck ? F...Y... !!

Would the US-tanks have been commanded by a human no hit at all would have occurred, since the german crack-crews were completely unable to hit them while moving at around 800 - 900 m.

So ASL is absolutely right beyond around 700 m a moving tank is almost safe from enemy tank fire, thus cutting down the heavy (german) tanks, while boosting the weak (US) ones.

I personally wouldn't mind that, but please relable the german tanks then as "movie" german M4's or so. (Why in Hell did they develop such powerful guns, when they couldn't hit a barndoor with it ??) Some shots lied around 5 degrees off axis to a stationary target (Crack crews).

And open ground is open ground whether in Russia, US or Europe or anywhere in the universe.. (View is not obstructed by anything else then air)

Here once again some battlefield experiences.... (which in btw perfectly suit in the testrange figures...)

The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland reported their experience in employing the PzKpfw. VI Tiger from 7 to 19 March 1943 in the area of Poltawa-Belgorad. (As a report to the frontworthyness, since it was a new weapon then, and not a propaganda warstory).

".......First-round hits were usually achieved with the 88mm KwK gun at ranges between 600 to 1000 meters. At these ranges, the Panzer-Granate absolutely penetrated through the frontal armor of T-34 tanks. After penetrating through the frontal armor, the Panzer-Granate usually still destroyed the engine at the rear of the tank. In very few cases could the T-34 be set on fire when fired at from the front. In 80 percent of the cases, shots from the same range hitting the side of the hull toward the rear or the rear of the tank resulted in the fuel tanks exploding. Even at ranges of 1500 meters and longer, during favorable weather, it is possible to succeed in penetrating the T-34 with minimal expenditure of ammunition."

????????????????????

What do we have ?

- A detailed documentation of testrange figures

- testimonies from the front

And both in prerfect harmony.

(Btw a german tanker i knew, said exactly the same thing, he served from 1939 - 1944 as a tanker).

- Why did the germans waste such effort to build heavy armed expensive tanks ? (To crack a T-34 at 500 m you don't need a 8.8 cm.) What were the design goals ? Why not build something in the line of the M4 ?

The answer is: To hit the enemy at a range, where he is unable to kill you. And if this goal is physically impossible why were they produced then ? And why did so many people lie ?

So where's the Error ??

But what's even more annoying with tank battles is the weak tank AI. Why do tanks just sit around and await their slaughter, when 100 m near a formidable cover is available, which brings them even nearer to the enemy and a more favourable tactical position ?

Greets

Daniel

[aka_tom_w]

great post Daniel

-tom w

[ASL Veteran]

Whoa, hold on there guys. I never said that I disagreed with the basic accuracies that are present in CM. I only maintain that the differences in the accuracies of the individual guns/shells is not reflected correctly. I have no issues with whatever criteria BTS used to 'dumb down' the accuracies. This is why I am always comparing things to each other (either CM to CM or Real to Real) rather than comparing CM to test fire data.

I believe that Tom and PzKwpf 1 have the position of comparing real to CM.

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, I just tested the 88mm PAK 43/41 and the PAK 43 at dug in Sherman Jumbos at 1500 meters (any closer and the AP would smoke them). Same gun, different carriage. For the PAK 43/41 HE, the initial TL was 8% and the max was 23%. For the AP rounds it was 11% initial TL and 30% max. For the PAK 43 HE the initial TL was 8% and the max was 23%. For AP the initial TL was 11% and the max was 31%. The data Ian Hogg provides says that muzzle velocity for the HE round was 2640 feet per second with a shell weighing 20.3 pounds. For AP the muzzle velocity was 3282 feet per second with a shell weight of 22.9 pounds. This gun shows remarkable accuracy in CM – most other guns I tested at 1500 meters maxed out in the mid 20s against dug in Jumbos if I am remembering correctly. This gun seems to be modeled correctly, but without any firing range data it is impossible to tell for sure. The thing that is starting to bug me is that the muzzle velocity of HE rounds is always lower than the AP rounds yet with a lighter shell. Does this necessarily mean a decrease in accuracy? Why would the 75L24 be just as accurate as an 88 Flak when it has such a low muzzle velocity? The AP shell of the 88 flak weighs 9.50 Kg at 810 m/s while the HEAT shell of the 75L24 weighs 6.80 Kg with a muzzle velocity of 385 m/s. Anyone here know enough about ballistics to answer this question? My only calculus book is for business applications and they don’t cover ballistics at all.

[Jeff Duquette]

Here is a interesting table reproduced from S.J. Zaloga and L.S. Ness “Red Army, Handbook 1939-1945”

The first thing I noticed is that the percentages don’t seem to add up. I’m not sure what is missing in the table. No doubt unidentifiable damage or range of engagement for some of the sample being considered. Be that as it may.

The Real interest is the relative ranges. The vast majority of 75mm kills and a fair number of 88mm plus caliber inflicted kills are both below 600 meters. Certainly in the case of the 88mm plus caliber, 600 meters is well below the effective range of the weapon.

I think the original discussion on "the cool gunner" is worth returning too. Test ranges and actual combat data don’t seemingly jibe particularly well. Actual combat statistics ala Zalogas above table is certainly informative relative to the "subtle" differences between controlled gunnery ranges and insitu results.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: The US ARMY In WWII (Green Book Series), European Theater of Operations, “Breakout and Pursuit” by Martin Blumenson. CMH Pub 7-5

A closed terrain example...

Tanks generally engaged at distances between 150 and 400 yards... (pg 205)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Another one From: Applied Operations Research WO 291/1218 A survey of tank warfare in Europe from D-Day to 12 Aug 44.

The mean ranges of engagement for the period under study are given as 1200 yards in open country, 400 yards in close country. It is stated that percentage losses for both sides are higher in the open. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From:WO 291/1212 Ranges of engagement in the Anti-tank battle.

This report is dated December 1951. It was prepared by E. Benn and R. W. Shephard; readers of "Applied Operations Research" (Plenum Press, New York, 1988) by Shephard, Hartley, Haysman, Thorpe and Bathe, will recognize it as the original source of one of the exercise problems contained in that excellent book. As a result of analysis of a number of tank engagements in NW Europe (sic includes Normandy – German Surrender…so very diverse terrain types), it was concluded that

P = 1 – exp (–R/K)

is a good expression for the proportion, P, of engagements that occur at ranges of less than R yards.

For NW Europe, K is about 950 yards.

90% of engagements occur at less than 2200 yards;

80% of engagements occur at less than 1500 yards;

50% of engagements occur at less than 650 yards.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[L.Tankersley]

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

Here is a interesting table reproduced from S.J. Zaloga and L.S. Ness

The first thing I noticed is that the percentages don’t seem to add up. I’m not sure what is missing in the table. No doubt unidentifiable damage or range of engagement for some of the sample being considered. Be that as it may.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The numbers add up for me. Unless you mean, "don't add up to 100%." Ah, rereading the above I suspect that's what you mean. I agree, it's probably kills at unknown range, or possibly < 100m.

I wonder where the data for this table came from, and how reliable it is. Very interesting, regardless!

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[danielh]

Jeff,

The russian data first of all reflects what did happen on the battlefield (Btw: How did they collect the data, since you have only two methods to collect them:

1. Supervising all WWII-Battles personally (Needs a lot of good spotters with iron nerves...) -> Describe the method

2. By oral testimony or after action reports (History))

(3) Since there are no "hard" facts, data can easily be manipulated. Maybe the table was created to justify some sort of tankdoctrine for instance.... (It's seems to fit perfectly for the T-34, since he was able to kill a Tiger I and Panther at around 500 - 800 m...)

The data seem to be in contradiction to the german and US Testimonies on the ability of german armor at long ranges (1000 m and beyond).

It says nothing directly to acurracy and hit probability, it rather sums up the result of battles, where a lot of other variables other than acuraccy and hit probability come in. For instance the doctrine to rush towards the enemy and not halt until in kill range of 500 m for instance....., or the use of smoke... (There may be other interpretations), but they are interpretations from an abstract table.

Furthermore all testimonies by tankers emphasized the fact that the heavy german tanks engaged regularly over long ranges with success (US, German and Soviet). Of course there were (many) instances where a M-10 or M4 76 could achieve similar results, but what is important is the impression and generality. The M-10 for instance of course can kill a Tiger or Panther at 1500 m, and if for pure luck or a flank- rear- shot. But they were in a definitive disadvantage head to head as mentioned in the 1945-er Report to Eisenhower, the matter is emphasized throughout the whole report and in perfectly unisono !!

Greets

Daniel

[This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-17-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since there are no "hard" facts, data can easily be manipulated. Maybe the table was created to justify some sort of tank doctrine for instance.... (It's seems to fit perfectly for the T-34, since he was able to kill a Tiger I and Panther at around 500 - 800 m...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using that same logic I suppose we could speculate as to the validity of the original test data detailing 88mm accuracy I suppose the thread could follow the line of “My Numbers are better than your numbers”. If you have some real evidence suggesting that the table I have presented is flawed or inaccurate I'm sure we would all like to see it. The crux of this discussion – in my mind – lies in weather test range accuracy can be compared to combat accuracy. I have provided you with a title and author...heres a page number to help you (Page 179).

Just to redirect you to my entire post I have provided two other references discussing range of typical tank engagements in ETO 44-45. Do you have some real data to put forth…or are you limiting your supporting arguments to your above presentation?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Furthermore all testimonies by tankers emphasized the fact that the heavy german tanks engaged regularly over long ranges with success<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole premise sounds pretty vague to me. Again I would ask “Can you provide some real data on to support this statement”? Some real numbers that is. Not the odd account of GI Tanker who swore that the MKIV which just put a 75mm round up the poop-shoot of his M4 was a King Tiger.

[ASL Veteran]

I've found an interesting sight that calculates the ballistic coefficient for small arms ammunition. www.lascruces.com/~jbm/ballistics/calculations.html Unfortunately they only allow the use of bullet weights in the calculations - and that's going to be too light for shells. Personally, I think comparing range accuracy to CM is comparing apples to oranges. I think the only way to get anywhere with this is to compare range data to range data and CM to CM and see if the differences are modeled appropriately. It seems to me that the Ballistic Coefficient is the main factor here (which is modified by a large number of variables). If I could find a calculator that handled that for any weight of projectile I could compare the coefficients of the 75L24 to the 88 Flak and see if they are similar.

[L.Tankersley]

The table most certainly contains "hard facts;" the question is whether they are accurate or not. That data says nothing directly about accuracy or penetration capability of weapons systems. It does appear, however, to contradict those who would claim that a majority (or even a significant minority) of kills were scored beyond 1,200 meters (on the East Front, in 43-44, by these weapons sytems).

If you buy into this data, AND if you believe that engagements beyond 1,200 meters were commonplace on the east front in the time period specified, then that would indicate that either the accuracy or penetration (or both) of the German weapons listed was significantly less than some would have us believe. I'm not ready to make that leap yet.

Is there any indication of how this data was generated?

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[PzKpfw 1]

My question is who generated this data? was it of Soviet origin as it looks to have been, or German origin?.

As crews would have to have been interviewed right after the action & would have have to have identified the gun that knocked them out & range it fired seems alot to take note of in a combat situation.

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. Febuary 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-18-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It does appear, however, to contradict those who would claim that a majority (or even a significant minority) of kills were scored beyond 1,200 meters (on the East Front, in 43-44, by these weapons sytems)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On what basis are you making this supposition. Can you provide references? I have been collecting information on this subject matter for a while now and am always interested in additional hard facts.

Again with regards to the table I presented, it is available for review in "Hand Book of the Red Army" 1939-1945" by S.J. Zaloga and L.S. Ness (page 179).

Regarding the other references they include: "Breakout and Pursuit" by Martin Blumenson

And

"Applied Operations Research" (Plenum Press, New York, 1988) by Shephard, Hartley, Haysman, Thorpe and Bathe.

The Normandy engagement ranges should not be much of a mystery to anyone. ETO in general, as elaborated upon in "Applied Operations Research" indicates 50% of engagements occur at less than 650 yards. Presumably this would be a function of battlefield terrain, smoke, poor marksmanship etc etc

The intent is to cast doubt on the validity of comparing gunnery range statistics with actual combat conditions. That is what is at crux of this thread - at least in my mind. I think this is the approach that BTS is trying to model in CM. Systematic errors in gunnery can often be overcome with training and understanding the limitations of weapon systems ala inclusion of gunnery computers in modern MBT's. Human error and human battlefield psychology and their potential impact on gunnery are too nebulas to attach hard numbers too.

Gun accuracy and lethality has increased remarkably since WWII. It's often said that an M1a1 had 40 stowed kills onboard. Actual RPK is about 1.7 in practice, but the bottom line is that an M1 can hit and kill just about anything that it can see and shoot at, out to about 4000m. After that hit and kill percentage drop off drastically.

This goes for both Sabot and HEAT ammo, which are the two primary rounds.

This is considerably better than a WW II tank (German tanks included) that usually needed approximately 10 rounds to get a kill. A modern 120mm is probably 5x more powerful than a 88mmL71 in penetration, and is far more accurate with modern fire control systems.

[L.Tankersley]

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

On what basis are you making this supposition. Can you provide references? I have been collecting information on this subject matter for a while now and am always interested in additional hard facts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? My reference is the chart you posted above, which clearly indicates that of the Soviet tanks and assault guns knocked out by 75mm guns during 1943-1944 only 4.4% were knocked out at a range greater than 1200m, and for those knocked out by 88mm guns only 10.8% were at a range greater than 1200m. [ignoring for the moment the fact that the columns don't add up to 100%.]

I understand you got the table from a book; my question is, does the book discuss where the data in the table came from? How it was collected, what sources were used? I'd look myself, but I don't have a copy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The intent is to cast doubt on the validity of comparing gunnery range statistics with actual combat conditions. That is what is at crux of this thread - at least in my mind. I think this is the approach that BTS is trying to model in CM. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if the table is gospel truth, it still doesn't necessarily say anything about accuracy. You can't interpret the table as indicating a lack of ability on the part of 75mm and 88mm guns to score hits at longer ranges unless you can quantify how many engagements took place at those ranges that did not result in kills. To me it seems more likely that this table provides some insight into typical engagement ranges on the East Front.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[danielh]

To Jeff,

You didn't answer my question, but instead asked one by yourself about the validity of allied testimonies. OK

The data was provided by Grisha Topic:

"US Tankers & the opinions they had for us armor"

One may throw in, that the report may be colored, to achieve some goals with the High Command. Right, but there are also the same testimonies by german Tankers and Russian.

There is a documentary film about the battle of Kursk, where mainly participants were interviewed. The germans emphasized the fact that they tried to engage the numerically always superior Russians over long range, whereas the Russians tried to rush up to them to close in to their killrange.

Apart from that i can answer the question i put to you myself:

Numbers don't fall from the trees...., how do you think were the numbers about the engagement distances gathered ?

By stories and memories of participants i think. What stories ? What was the selective criteria ? How were the numbers extracted from the stories (I don't think they boiled it in water...).

Furthermore can you explain me the extreme drop at 600 m (Factor 5) ????!

And to the acuraccy/range/hit capability at range subject:

It's a very wise choice to start from "hard" facts, say experimental well defined outset.

The shooting testrange is quite a good example, much better in fact than the battlefield, to extract the potential of the Tank weaponsystem. It should be the starting point. Why because the battlefield imposed about the same restrictions on eather side, so they in fact cancel each other out. (Of course the change can have significant impact on tactics still)

To the trajectory of the L/56 (extracted from the "Tigerfibel"):

A Target 2m high at 500 m will be hit, at following range guessings of the gunner: 500 - 1000 m !! In the first case he hits the very bottom, otherwise the top. So range errors at medium to close distance is not a big issue, BUT surely at ranges reaching 1500 - 2000 m ! And exactly for that purpose the aiming/ranging mechanism of the Tiger was built. -> Go to Link: http://www.panzerelite.com/ Developer journal

Zeiss optics, the open the picture with the woman and look and see. Also their you see that the M4 optics couldn't be used effectively at ranges beyond 600 m (short 75 mm) - 1000 (76 mm), because no rangefinding mechanism was in place.

Why not provide some Testrange data from the M4 guns ?? (Nowhere in those Handbooks ????)

Greets

Daniel

[This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-18-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

L.Tankersley

Oh sorry…by your wording…or at least how I read your post, I had thought you had some additional info on the subject. As far as elaborating on information included on the table I reckon I would have to refer your question to the books authors.

I agree that the table doesn't necessarily address weapon accuracy, but it does bring to light intangibles that don't fall out from cut and dry gunnery tests in which outside stimuli plays no part in results. The table - I would contend - rolls marksmanship, battlefield terrain, battlefield tactics, training, visibility, etc etc into a large smorgasbord of what might be going with the numbers presented.

Couple points of speculation:

[*]The table dates are inclusive of some pretty heavy tank combat on the steepes of southern Russia. The steepes were seemingly flat and or rolling terrain by most historical accounts. Perhaps topography with long unobstructed fields of fire (dunno for sure not having been their…but various accounts describe the steepes as a flat grassy desert). This terrain profile should have been well suited to the long range killing abilities of the Panthers long 75 or Tigers 88mm.

[*]Russian tank tactics would presumably have been heavily weighted toward close in ambush against the heavier German Panther and Tigers of that period. Perhaps the table is telling this tale? Long-range engagements with the 76mm would have been a no win situation against the long 75mm or 88mm. If this is part of the tale being told by this table it could certainly lead one to believe that the Soviets were pretty effective at getting into close range before shooting it out with German tanks and ATG's.

[*]The later dates included in the table mid-44 would imply a lions share of T34 casualties occurring in western Russia, Baltic's, Poland, etc. Areas with a typical terrain profile consisting of wooded rolling hills, wooded swamps and marshes (the key word being wooded)...in other words terrain with relatively short lines of sight.

I have yet to run across a similar set of numbers for the Western Desert. This would be an ideal case study for examining the effects of relatively unobstructed LOS on gunnery and accuracy.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-18-2000).]

[danielh]

Attempt to analyse the factors, which can influence hit capability on the battlefield against the ones at a testrange.

Testrange/stationary target and firer (for a typical tankcalibre gun, let's say 75 mm at around 800 m/s mv):

Steps in shooting

1. Range guessing/measuring

2. Operate the azimuth of the gun to come in conjunction with rangeguess number.

3. Aim

4. Fire

Weigh the possible error at each stage:

1. (Rangeguessing) Under ideal conditions (Clear, bright Weather) error for a trained gunner will be almost zero at ranges of 0 - 600 m

2. (Azimuth) Depends on the used system but can be expected to be almost automatic -> error almost zero

3. (Aim) With zooms of up to 8 x ranges up to 1000 m won't bring some problems

4. (Fire) Deviation of the gun/shell/shot won't bring a significant error up to 1000 m (Supposed the barrel was properly adjusted to the aiming mechanic). Gunpowder differences would change the trajectory beyond 1500 m significantly (Trajectory impacts is greater at range).

Since we don't have the exact amount of gunpowder differences we should leave that variable out, because it becomes significant only at great ranges. (At what ranges were fieldhowitzers, shipguns used, right at very long ranges of several kilometers, so powder deviation shouldn't be much of an impact either).

But of course there are deviations in the system imposed by the myriad of variables which some are:

Turbulent air as most significant factor, but surely reflected in the testrange figures.

Mechanical deviations, imposed by temperature, azimuth mechanics tolerances, possible little movements of the barrels imposed by vibrations. All this errors are reflected in a testrange site.

Ballistic behaviour of the shot like tumbling (Very bad for a tankgun...), i'm not a specialist in that so i can't quantify that...

Now let's come to the battlefield, where -absolutely correct- much more variables can interfere and lead to significant errors.

Most important one, as we all agree will be the human factor, which becomes more important.

1. A target must first be spotted

2. identified

3. Ammunition type must be chosen

4. Range guessing may be heavily influenced by weather, partial covering, moving

Hardware wise 1., 2.,4. are influenced by the viewing and aiming system of the tank.

Absolute values will be very hard to gather, one can only analyze the individual tank and do some assumptions, like a narrow slit in the armor may be worse than a turnable periscope, binoculars may be superior to monoculars because of the added depth information (Hunting animals use the same trick...). Magnification may be an advantage in certain situation, but also a disadvantage in others when wrong used. (Searching that tank 2000 m away, while not being aware the one at 200 m..).

If the tank is moving, aiming may be impossible for ranges above 100 m (Rough terrain, where the crew is thrown around and the barrel as well).

Human factor

The crew may be confronted by contradictions imposing stress (When i concentrate on that target another may use the time and flank me..., i should move for that i'm a harder target but i should hold still to fire and hit..., damn the next shot will kill us..and so fort, and fort..).

An experienced crew with a high morale level will perform much much better in stress imposing situations than new recruits. This will be especially true when things get hot (Bad weather, difficult terrain, overwhelming odds, fierce battle). On the other hand there may be situations were the performance won't be so much different, those will be situations were the circumstances are favourable (Wide open field of fire, good light, good weather, "secure" position, beginning of engagement with superior tactical position). Here one can assume that performance will be quite near the testrange results.

An elite crew will be superior in examination of the overall situation on the battlefield (They can almost smell it...).

They will know more likely when to engage/ disengage.

They will know how to maximize the effect of their weaponsystem.

They can be compared to a top athlete in sports, they will perform at the edge of what is possible for humans. For the average enemy they will seem like devils.

Now to quatify the deviations from the testrange results is a very difficult task. But as i said, when i put 2 tanks on a perfectly plain open ground - front to front - aginst each other, and the crew have some battle experience they will perform very near the testrange results (IMHO). Maybe from 90 % to 70 %, but an elite crew will perform equal or even above, since the testrange results are already averaged.

The same applies against targets on the move.

IMO, there is NO valid reason for the HUGE deviation in CM even at laughable close ranges were even an absolute no tanker with a one hour experience would hit 90 shots out of 100. How can a tank miss a stationary target 400 m away several times ??? In his glasses the target almost sits on his head and fills his whole amingview.

There is no logical reason...

With this situation it's hard to deploy real tactics, because even with a dead sure shot bad luck may always interfere (more often than not). So the whole boils down into pure attrition battles. It hinders the player to think tactically, but instead forces him to "i have to put in 5 tanks to be sure, and if i have a lucky day everything will be pulverised within 2 - 3 turns and the battle decided....), gamey YES !!!! (The same problems also applies to AT, like manheld AT-weapons, use that panzerschreck ? "God will he hit out from this best of possible position at a range of 40 m ?" (More often than not he won't)

The whole problem stems from a merge of logical types in this game.

Infantry is an aggregate of people (In social science an aggregate of people can be predicted by probability models, but not the behaviour of a single human) -> Thus CM with the probability model fits quite close (A squad consists of 8 - 13 people, and the individual behaviour is of no importance).

A tank MUST be viewed as a single entity which exhibits behaviour (quite similar to an individual person) which in fact can not be described satisfactory with a probability model, without distortions at the single engagement level. Over hundreds of engagements however the result may be adequate. Here the CM-model clearly is over it's limits, since the result can only be achieved with a class, instead of an instance. So it's not a very wise choice to fight a battle with a single PzIV and PzV since the result in the single battle may be unpredictable and not follow tactical rules.

It means further, that the player would only be able to proof/justify his tactics throughout a lot of battles. But since in PBEM a battle lasts weeks, and the human has not the kind of memory to handle this, he will be restricted. (And those tanks in CM look so cute...Damn !)

?

Greets

Daniel

[This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-18-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Attempt to analyse the factors, which can influence hit capability on the battlefield against the ones at a testrange.

snip...

IMO, there is NO valid reason for the HUGE deviation in CM even at laughable close ranges were even an absolute no

tanker with a one hour experience would hit 90 shots out of 100. How can a tank miss a stationary target 400 m

away several times ??? In his glasses the target almost sits on his head and fills his whole amingview.

There is no logical reason...

With this situation it's hard to deploy real tactics, because even with a dead sure shot bad luck may always interfere

(more often than not). So the whole boils down into pure attrition battles. It hinders the player to think tactically, but

instead forces him to "i have to put in 5 tanks to be sure, and if i have a lucky day everything will be pulverised within

2 - 3 turns and the battle decided....), gamey YES !!!! (The same problems also applies to AT, like manheld

AT-weapons, use that panzerschreck ? "God will he hit out from this best of possible position at a range of 40 m ?" (More often than not he won't)

snip

?

Greets

Daniel

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Daniel

That was a long post and I think that your point is that you disagree with some of the way targeting and accuracy are modeled in the game.

more than anything else I completely agree with these statements that you make:

"IMO, there is NO valid reason for the HUGE deviation in CM even at laughable close ranges were even an absolute no tanker with a one hour experience would hit 90 shots out of 100. How can a tank miss a stationary target 400 m

away several times ??? In his glasses the target almost sits on his head and fills his whole amingview. There is no logical reason...

With this situation it's hard to deploy real tactics, because even with a dead sure shot bad luck may always interfere (more often than not). So the whole boils down into pure attrition battles. It hinders the player to think tactically, but instead forces him to "I have to put in 5 tanks to be sure, and if I have a lucky day everything will be pulverised within 2 - 3 turns and the battle decided....), gamey YES !!!!"

I will say that plain old good luck and plain old bad luck should play a factor here, but I agree with you if you are suggesting the at 400 meters the variable of LUCK plays far too large a role.

IF you were to be more concise how would you sum up your last long post. I ask this because I'm not exactly sure what your point was...

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-19-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-19-2000).]

[danielh]

Tom,

Actually i did two things primarily:

1. Analyze the possible factors which define acuraccy and hit capability on the test range and in the battlefield.

Conclusion: The main difference between testrange and battlefield:

- Human factor

- Environment

And that there were clearly situations on the battlefield which were very near the testrange situation (Example of 2 tanks against each other on open ground).

2. To give an answer why in general the probability system doesn't work satisfactory for tanks (Aggregates of objects or instances can be described well with probability models. Single objects and single instances not).

Greets

Daniel

[Paul Lakowski]

Jeff there is compareable data on open ranges of tank combat in NWE in the 'Operational analysis book', which I just finished copying for you send me your address and I'll pop it in the mail by the weekend.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Daniel wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IMO, there is NO valid reason for the HUGE deviation in CM even at laughable close ranges were even an absolute no tanker with a one hour experience would hit 90 shots out of 100. How can a tank miss a stationary target 400 m away several times ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I beg to differ in a first hand sort of way. Two summers ago I watched a M3 Stuart miss a rather large target (a car) 3 times in a row. The target was at 200-300m. Both the target and the Stuart were stationary. The Stuart was elevated as well. One man was up on the turret with a modern scope reading out range. There took about 3-4 minutes inbetween shots. And of course, nobody was shooting back at them

I also suggest that you go out to a rifle range sometime. I have a Mauser98k that has sites adjustable to 2000m. I am an excellent shot and can hit a target at 100m just fine from a standing position, aiming each shot, and taking my time. And of course I am not being shot at. But add a few variables into the mix and I a wonder if I would hit the paper even one out of five times, not to mention a decent score on the target.

So if your position is that at short ranges a gun couldn't miss, I think I would have to see some sort of evidence other than your opinion. Having read plenty of first hand and second hand accounts of gunnery in combat, my perception is that misses were common even at very close ranges.

I also don't understand your point about probabilities for single instances. Could you explain exactly why it is that if a tank needs roughly 3 shots to acheive a hit at x meters that we can't model this properly? A chance of a hit is a chance of a hit.

Steve

[:USERNAME:]

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

Daniel wrote:

Well, I beg to differ in a first hand sort of way. Two summers ago I watched a M3 Stuart miss a rather large target (a car) 3 times in a row. The target was at 200-300m. Both the target and the Stuart were stationary. The Stuart was elevated as well. One man was up on the turret with a modern scope reading out range. There took about 3-4 minutes inbetween shots. And of course, nobody was shooting back at them

I also suggest that you go out to a rifle range sometime. I have a Mauser98k that has sites adjustable to 2000m. I am an excellent shot and can hit a target at 100m just fine from a standing position, aiming each shot, and taking my time. And of course I am not being shot at. But add a few variables into the mix and I a wonder if I would hit the paper even one out of five times, not to mention a decent score on the target.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was the stuart gunner trained? Was the stuart weapon system maintained? Is the ammo fresh? Are you looking at a 50 year old system and making conclusions?

Please stop with the rifle analogys. Its similar but way different. Being a gunner in a tank has its own set of variables. One being seclusion from other events on the battlefield. Concentration is on the target and tracking the tracer. The weapon platform is so much more stable than any rifleman. The kick is taken up by the tank. The effects of winds, etc is minimal compared to a bullet.

Does anyone have info on how these weapons were sighted in in WWII? With a rifle, you shoot at a 25m target or so and look for a shot group. You then dial in the sights till the shot group moves towards the bullseye. I like to then increase the range and repeat the exercise. Obviously, you need a shot group to do this, so the range was probably 100 m? 500?

Lewis

Are you for real with the 100m targets? I was shooting trap targets with a shotgun last weekend at similar ranges!!! My best was 21 out of 25.