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

[Jeff Duquette]

Very Cool Paul thanks much. I will shot off an email this evening. You will need to send me your return address so I can mail a check.

Back to the subject at hand, it is relatively easy to find after action reports of what – by gunnery range stats – should be “sure” hits, but infact misses often seem to be occuring in this "sure hit zone". Perhaps this weekend I will make a list of tank vs. ATG and tank vs. tank in which close range misses are occurring.

I think gunnery range results tell us optimum capabilities of weapon accuracy. I also think gunnery range test results should not be ignored in a wargames accuracy model, but they should be taken with a grain of salt.

The following is perhaps a weak analogy, but maybe some additional food for thought for an open mind. Since BTS brought small arms into the discussion I figured I too could plod down that trail. Bare in mind the weapons in the following quote include M1 Garands with an effective range of about 500 yards...and max range of what...1000yds or 2000 yds? BAR effective range is about 600 yds...and max of maybe 1500 yds or 2500 yds. I suspect an average US MARINE Rifleman in WWII and Korea was quite proficient on a rifle range, and could regularly put all 8 rounds from an M1 clip into a paper targets bull’s eye at 500 or 600 yds.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: SLA Marshall’s Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea

The average effective infantry fire with weapons lighter than the machine gun was consistently less than 200 yards. In no instance was it established, in the operations brought under survey, that any significant move by enemy forces had been stopped and turned by rifle and carbine fire alone at ranges in excess of that figure.

This, perforce, limits the significance of the evaluation. It rarely happens in the Korean fighting or elsewhere that a tactical situation of large order arises which tests the effectiveness of the rifle alone as a stopping and killing agent. By the nature of engagement, the infantry contest between opposing groups of riflemen is pretty much confined to strong patrol actions, fire exchanges between small group" within a larger skirmish, or last-ditch stands by companies which have emptied the ammunition from header weapons in the earlier stages of the fight. In the latter situation, the contending sides almost invariably close to within less than 150 yards before the climax is reached in which the position is held or lost according to rifle effectiveness.

During the winter fighting, in both Army and Marine operations, there were manifold incidents of this exclusive type. On the Marine side these were marginal encounters of one type or the other. Within the Army operations, there are numerous examples of company fights in which all of the heavier weapons ran dry, leaving onlv the rifle. But in interrogating the witnesses to these various encounters, in no case could it be established that a decisive fire from rifle and carbine was delivered at a range in excess of 200 yards. There is only this type of exception to be noted: enemy patrols were frequently engaged at slightly beyond 200 yards range: the first fire might knock down one or two of their number; the others then scampered away. However, when an enemy patrol or larger body is walking into a concealed position under such conditions that the defenders feel their advantage, they customarily hold fire until it is within the 200-yard zone. When the action is more precipitate, and they open at longer ranges with rifles only, the results are not killing. The Marines who were under siege at Koto-ri through the early days of December told of their effort to pick off Chinese riflemen who in broad daylight would stroll to within 300-350 yards of the armed camp or walk in-the open to a stream, bed to draw water. They found the targets far more elusive than they had expected.

The equation alters radically as soon as automatic fire, either from the BAR or the LMG, is added to the rifle volume. The killing-stopping zone then lengthens anywhere from 200 to 400 yards, depending upon the number of automatic weapons, the ability of the gunners, the governing terrain conditions, the weather, visibility, and general situation. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about this; the one point which seems deserving of particular emphasis is that the BAR greatly compounds the stopping effect of rifle fire at ranges considerably m excess of those at which unaided rifle fire is potent. It has long been prized as a mop-op agent, for depressing final resistance in a conquered area, or liquidating tenacious elements infesting the rear. There is perhaps need to emphasize that it adds body to the rifle volume at any range.

What is said here is meant to reflect in no degree whatever on the accuracy of the standard rifle; the men who use it in battle swear by it. Junior officers frequently said that they had seen it do decisive work in excess of 250 yards range. When the question was raised whether this was in combination with heavier fires from other weapons, the answer was invariably yes. The evaluation therefore points up mainly the conditions under which rifle fire is likely to play its part in battle. The great killing zone for the rifle is at less than 200 yards. But an arm which was not reasonably accurate at ranges well in excess." of that would shift too large a part of the burden to the heavier weapons of the infantry during the enemy approach and withdrawal. No change in doctrine is indicated: no change in the weapon is indicated: no radical shift in training technique is indicated. Rifle practice at the longer ranges is still desirable. But the rifleman needs about five times the- mount of practice now given him with live ammunition if the weapon's potential is to be fully exploited in combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-20-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

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

Coupled with all the other evidence that a shot at this short range was NOT 99% likely to hit (as Daniel has stated without any evidence), yes. Check earlier in this thread about what a Tiger gunner was supposed to do at the ranges noted. Or do you dispute this?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please stop with the rifle analogys. Its similar but way different.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know that. It is there as an illustration since many people have experience with small arms but NOT with tank guns. My point is still valid. You can hit a target with a rifle, at a rather close range, with a weapon that is capable of shooting much further, quite reguallarly under sterile "range" conditions. Toss in some "combat" variables and this all goes to Hell. That is the point.

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

Talk about comparing things that shouldn't be compared 21/25 is pretty good though. I kinda laugh when my dad (on a team) complains when he misses one bird in 3 rounds

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Good Morning Steve !

In all sincerity you sound positive and chipper this morning.

This is rare treat, as I usually read your posts late at night or in the morning after I wake up.

It's good to see you are still reading this thread and I feel positively lazy and slack for not having any new facts data or references to refute your latests points with

Spoken in the deepest sense of fun and humour.

I think we are still glad to know you are still checking in here on such a regular basis. You know some of us hold this issue fairly close to our hearts and optical, eye pieces.

Thanks

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-20-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Daniel,

You wrote this earlier...

<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>

Care to provide even one bit of evidence to back this opinion up? I am curious what your opinion is based it on.

I also don't understand your use Marshall quote. All it does is prove my point that the weapon's theoretical (range fired) accuracy is far above what you should expect in the field. You wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bare in mind the weapons in the following quote include M1 Garands with an effective range of about 500 yards...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you mean effective range of 200m? That is what Marshall talked about. 350m was the greatest range that he talked about, and as described by him I would suspect the shooter had a spotter (and perhaps a scope) and was not being shot at.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I suspect an average US MARINE Rifleman in WWII and Korea was quite proficient on a rifle range, and could regularly put all 8 rounds from an M1 clip into a paper targets bull’s eye at 500 or 600 yds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Single shot, a well maintained weapon, good weather conditions, and a scope... maybe. Without a scope, no way. In actual combat, absolutely no way either. So what is your point?

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-20-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Tom,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is rare treat, as I usually read your posts late a night or in the morning after I wake up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After being away for a couple of days I am trying hard to get back to a "human" sleep schedule.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Coupled with all the other evidence that a shot at this short range was NOT 99% likely to hit (as Daniel has stated without any evidence), yes. Check earlier in this thread about what a Tiger gunner was supposed to

do at the ranges noted. Or do you dispute this?

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought we had settled the question of using the German accuracy tables. Again the Table 2 results; are not combat results; they are the calculated expected results of a normal crew firing on a gunnery range vs a 2m high 2.5m wide target moving 20kph across the frontal arc, using the Table 1 results as a base with lower % calculations, due to pre determined range data being not set, & an expert gunner being removed from the equation & a mathematical equation representing the lower % accuracy results expected with a normal gunner.

I'm not saying they should be ignored but I agree with Steve these range expectations do NOT factor in the stress of combat situations, nor do we have any quantifiable evidence of tank accuracy on a daily basis for a specific tank model vs rounds fired to even begin to build a base table comparison ie, go back to one of my earlier posts where I presented ammunition expenditure for Pz.Abt 116 from 07.01.43 - 01.01.44 in 76 Battles, look at the ammunition expenditure vs claims.

I for one do think accuracy is questionable in some instances in CM especially when my Sherman or PzKpfw IV misses at 300ms or my crack PzKpfw IV, misses 10 times in a row vs an imobed Sherman @ 967m, but I have no clue on how we could even begin to address this as we have nothing in ways of supporting evidence to date, sure I can quote the reports from US tankers on ranges the Germans were hitting them but they tell us nothing about factors modeled in CM such as crew quality etc.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

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

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-20-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

If anyone wants a great example of the difference between combat and a range, do the following.

Find a local paintball field. Likely that there is one somewhere near you.

Go out some Saturday morning, and before playing a game, get your marker and fire at a stationary man-sized target 50m away. After you get the hang of the drop of the round, you will find that you can hit that target 95% of the time (at least you should be able to).

Then go and actually play. Unless you have been doing it for a while (and I mean A WHILE), you will be stunned how hard it can be to hit a person 25m away while other people are shooting at you, yelling, ducking, target is trying not to be hit, or is trying to hit you, etc., etc.

I remember innumerable occasions of missing a non-moving person at just a few tens of meters for absolutely no discernible reason. It just happens. Call it stress, unknown variables, whatever.

Jeff Heidman

[:USERNAME:]

"Do you dispute this"

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

BTS:

Uhh…That wasn’t Danielle that posted the SLA Marshall quote…that was me. And I posted it to give credence to the difference between target range firing and combat firing, and to support the CM accuracy model.

As far as the difference between the 500 meter effective range and SLA Marshall's findings...yes you have a point...which is the same point I was trying to make

[danielh]

To Steve,

Thank you for your reply !

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the army we used the "Sturmgewehr", we calibrated the weapon on a 300 m range. Target was around 1.2 m x 1.2 m with rings, the innerst was 20 cm the outest 100 cm.

In average after adjusting the weapon all shots were within 40 cm. If we now consider that the shot (7.9 mm) is around 10 times smaller than a 75 mm round, it weighs 100 times less but it's frontal area is only 10 times smaller. So in fact the 75 mm has a much better trajectory and being almost as accurat. We also know that the max eff. range for a 7.9 mm round is around 1000 m. The calibration onset is quite similar to guninstallation with an exact mechanic. From above weight to frontal area, one can assume that for a 75 mm max range would be around 10 km.

From Guns vx. Armor:

"Firing tests show the expected percentage of projectiles that will hit a 2.5m × 2m target by a gunner during practice firing on a gun range. It is obtained by doubling the dispersion pattern obtained from the dispersion test data. The British, Germans and Italians all considered this to be a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by troops in practice firings and, if they remained calm, in combat when the range to the target is known. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after watching tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown on subsequent shots."

Again for the 8.8/L56 the theoretical values

(Dispersion actually measured):

100 % of shots on target up to 1000 m (2 x 2.5 m), at 1500 m still 98 %

Practically: 100 % up to 500 m and 93 % up to 1000 m. (Achievable by an average crew as expected by British and german...)

Now we know that range guessing for the 8.8/L56 in the Tiger I, was not of great importance for a 2m high target up to around 1000 m, because of the trajectory (Gunner will hit wether he guessed 500 m or 1000 m). The same for the M4 to a range of around 500 m (Short 75 mm) -> As also can be read from the "Eisenhower report"

The battlereport of the division "Grossdeutschland" says that first round hits were normally achieved at ranges between 600 - 1000 m. (I suppose normally means favourable conditions as open ground, clear daylight).

The same unit also critizise the HEAT round as unreliable at ranges above around 400 m. So it's by no means a "propaganda" report, but quit sure a honest one.

Furthermore exactly the same is also emphasized by the "Eisenhower report".

The US-tankers say that beyond 600 - 1000 m they couldn't use their guns effectively because of the inferior range measuring (even with the 76 mm, which still is viewed as inferior to the german ones). And beside that it may still be possible that morale was low in that units and they had not much faith in their equipment (This however seem unprobable, since on the other hand the unarmed vehicles are generally seen as far superior..). I don't think they were low on morale, but instead honest and acurrat about their opinions. (As is clearly shown with the US-aircraft, crews were usually very confident in their equipment and praised it(although when shortcomings were there) as long as they feeled that it was a match or superior against the enemy.. (The P-38 and P-47 were never be seen as inferior, were in regarding the hard data, they were in fact in certain important areas..)

To the Stuart, in what condition was this 60 year old equipment (barrel and so fort), was the crew trained ? And a car has much lower Height than 2.5 m (About the Height of the M4) ?

To the probability-model, you're right of course the probability-model is well suited to model hit probability , BUT not for the modelling of the behaviour of the crew: Target acquiring/spotting, aiming, manouver. (That elite crew unbuttoned not seeing the tank coming around a Houses corner directly in front, the tactical situation is not evaluated correctly). And it's also not very well suited to simulate damage (That 8.8 cm APCBC with HE filler penetrating the M4's turret with no effect..).

Away from this all important things are not modelled at all:

- The M5 Stuart and Hetzer vor instance have miserable view when buttoned, the panther excellent in comparison.

- Variable turret traverse for the Panther

- Some weapons were more accurat than others (For instance the 76 mm APCR round was very inacurate, and had the shatter gap between 200 - 1200 m against the harder german armor..)

- US APCR (non sheated) rounds are not modelled correctly in general their fall off in penetration power with angle of armor falls much more than for a sheated- or APCBC round.

- Face hardened armor is not simulated, although of no benefit against ABCBC rounds, but against AP (M2) and APCR to some extent.

- Frontal turret armor of the Panther is 2 times 100 mm Cast armor, although not comparable to a 200 m single piece armor it was surely more than 100 mm. (The same for the M4's maybe..)

- Blast effect of Panzerschreck against softtargets not there.

- 20 mm cannons have only a small blast, and only blast is modelled against soft targets.

The M2 has no blast and is much more potent against infantry (why) ? The "Flakvierling" was a devastating weapon against infantry, they were regularly use in russia to defend airfields against infantry with devastating effects.

- Nebelwerfer salvos were fired all at once within seconds (However reloading the big ones took it's time..), and since they weren't very acurat i suppose they could also be fired much faster than normal artillery (?)

IMHO the acuraccy hit capability for all guns should be risen a bit to correct for "probability"-model errors as mentioned above, and the superiority of german long barrelled guns beyond 1000 m should be reflected.

Today an overwatch-position at 1500 m brings me no benefit at all which is clearly wrong.

Furthermore, why is a tank hidden behind wood or similar so easy spottable once he opened fire to all enemy units with a direct viewline to it ??

Excerpt from Tank-doctrine by Col. E.D.Swinton, 1916:

"....Bomb MG-positions and other small guns of the enemy with your 6 pounders first. You won't see them, because they are well hidden. You have to guess where they are: Go for noise, smoke and dust. Holes in walls, haystacks, woodstacks...."

I could bring you tons of photographs of little Switzerland with such terrain..., wide open ground surrounded by woods, scattered trees, and a kind of bocage.

Greets

Daniel

[danielh]

Jeff,

Of course i know by my own experience that it is a huge difference when a target is moving. So the 200 - 400 m for small arms seems very valid. (But one can suppose for typical tank calibres like 75 - 90 mm this value is up to 10-times higher, and mostly limited by the viewing/aiming system, and comparable fewer and more precious rounds, and time between shots).

But, when i've mounted my gun on a precise mechanic, and i've to aim for a target stationary ahead of me not seeing me, results will be very near the ones at a shooting range.

And that's what i mean, hit probability should be determined against a stationary target, the most favourable conditions. There atleast an elite crew should perform equal or near the shooting range. From this values then should be changed to moving targets (with deflection, without), probability falls with multiples of 1 i suppose..(3 new variables enter the system).

Greets

Daniel

[kipanderson]

Hi,

this has been an interesting thread and I am quite happy to sit back and just follow the arguement. If it came to taking sides then I would go with Steve and John Waters (PzKpfw1). The true test of real world battlefield conditions is the number or rounds fired per kill. When you consider that "kill claims" are likely to be a huge exagaration on reality, in my view, and anyway look at ammunition expenditure, the difference between fire on ranges and battle fields is likely to be very great.

Anyway the piont of my reply is to do with the fact that it has been claimed that "spotting" tank and anti-tank fire is too easy in CM. I disagree with this.

Over the years I ahve only seen only a few clips of film of WW2 tanks firing, but what is clear is the huge blast and flash of fire and smioke that resulted. If someone was observing a given area it would be very difficult to miss in any terrain, even at long distances.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The reason why I feel "kill claims" are likely to have been hugely exagarated, on all sides, is my view of the great "emotional" pressure individuals must have been under to believe they had achieved a kill.This is just my view, others will differ.

[danielh]

kipanderson,

Agree, but we have to define a standing ground from which to go, and that are the "hard" facts.

Beside that there is a contradiction in your reasoning.

You claim kills were greatly exagerated, but on the other side you also say that a panzerschreck/bazooka man is easy to spot after firing (and killed i think..).

Greets

Daniel

[PzKpfw 1]

Let's try this another way, ppl feel that range accuracy % hits could be achieved on the battlefield etc. Can anyone provide any for example, actual German WW II range data as well as gunner qualification data along with results on an actual range?.

Can anyone provide precise data on ammunition expenditure for an single combat formation over a set period of time? Ie my 116th Abt example. I believe Rune has an example he hasn't shared yet that's relevant.

We know that a Tiger E gunner was expected to hit an 2m high 2.5m wide target moving across its frontal arc @ 20kph in 3 shots in 30secs at 800 - 1200m & again @ 1200 - 2000m, in 4 shots, in 30secs yet I have seen no data concerning the, PzKpw IV, PzKpfw V, etc.

Also remember before submitting; the Table 2 data in Jentz etc, is NOT actual gunnery range results but an mathematical equation on hit probability based on the original accuracy firing tests of the system.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

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

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-21-2000).]

[danielh]

PzKpwI, i Bump this up !

Anyone has actual data ?

Greets

Daniel

[Guest rune]

John and I had a conversation going, and I am looking for more examples. The one I have is a battery of four 88s outside Caen. In the AAR, they state 326 rounds of AP type rounds were fired. I can get the break down of round if anyone wants it. They destroyed 26, yep, count 'em, 26 tanks. HOWEVER, this does not mean they didn't destroy other vehicles or fired at infantry, which might account for some of the rounds. I continue to search for more AARs, which have but vehicles destroyed and types of rounds fired.

Rune

[LuckyStrike]

This is an interesting engagement:

"On July 7th of 1943, single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharfuehrer Franz Staudegger from 2nd Platoon of 13th Panzer Company of 1st SS Panzer Grenadier Division "LSSAH" engaged Soviet group of some 50 T-34 tanks around Psyolknee (southern sector of the Kursk salient). Staudegger used up his entire ammunition after destroying some 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For his achievement, Franz Staudegger was awarded the Knight's Cross."

[LuckyStrike]

And another...

"On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."

SS-Haupstscharführer Karl Körner,

schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps,

East Germany, April of 1945.

Apparently the range was relatively short and virtually every round fired hit.

[Jeff Duquette]

I think the information Runes brings up would be interesting to take a look at. I think it would also be of interest to note accounts in which caliber, ammunition expenditure, is as well as range of engagement are discussed.

Some additional food for thought on the subject…

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

Franz Kurowski’s Panzer Aces II (pg 207)

As there was no range-measuring device in the Tiger (nor in any German tanks) the distance to the target always had to be estimated. A shot could only be on target if the range was estimated precisely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Major Kenneth Macksey MC Tank vs Tank The story of Armoured Battlefield Conflict in the 20th Century. (pg 94)

The clash of armored masses to the southeast of Tobruk erupted as a turmoil of

formations and units seeking combat in dust clouds and battle smoke. Shooting might

open from the 88s at 2000m, but hits were rarely scored above 1000m (where the L60 50mm guns came into their own) and at 300m, if their luck held, the British with their 40mm guns might begin to take a toll, Notably on the vital ground of the Sidi Rezegh feature, with its airfield, the losses to the British, fanning out to seek their quarry, mounted alarmingly as they fell into ambush after ambush.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Major Kenneth Macksey MC Tank vs Tank The story of Armoured Battlefield Conflict in the 20th Century. (pg 107)

Pieces of such high velocity brought with them, however, additional problems for commanders and gunners. No longer was it possible satisfactorily to base corrections of aim upon spotting the fall of shot, because the shot usually landed before the dust and

Smoke from the gun's discharge had cleared away. Field anti-tank gunners often overcame the spotting problem by employing a flank observer: However (sic) tank commanders in a turret, jolted by the discharge, were in trouble. Moreover, although at the shorter (and more common) ranges of engagement, where line of sight virtually coincided with trajectory of projectile over the initial 800 meters and made it necessary only to lay at the center mass of target, the judging of distance at potentially effective ranges out to 2000 meters now became critical. In desert and steppes these difficulties faced the Germans as their Tigers, Panthers, Elefants and several more kinds of heavy Jagdpanzer came into service throughout 1943. The Russians, too, would have to consider it when the greatly improved T34/85 with its three-man turret, thicker armor and 85mm gun appeared in August 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Major Kenneth Macksey MC Tank vs Tank The story of Armoured Battlefield Conflict in the 20th Century. (pg 129)

This new method worked on the principle of firing a shot of smaller caliber dense material encased in a lightweight, carrier through a standard gun barrel: increasing

velocity was obtained because the full-caliber projectile had a greater base area for the charge to act upon than the normal AP, APC or APCBC round. The new projectile was also lighter in weight. With a German round of this kind, known as Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (APCR), both shot and carrier traveled to the target, but generated higher air resistance and a rapid falling-off in accuracy beyond 600 meters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ASL Veteran]

"Major Kenneth Macksey MC Tank vs Tank The story of Armoured Battlefield Conflict in the 20th Century. (pg 94)

The clash of armored masses to the southeast of Tobruk erupted as a turmoil of

formations and units seeking combat in dust clouds and battle smoke. Shooting might

open from the 88s at 2000m, but hits were rarely scored above 1000m (where the L60 50mm guns came into their own) and at 300m, if their luck held, the British with their 40mm guns might begin to take a toll, Notably on the vital ground of the Sidi Rezegh feature, with its airfield, the losses to the British, fanning out to seek their quarry, mounted alarmingly as they fell into ambush after ambush."

This is an independent confirmation of Jentz accuracy tables, which I have already posted earlier. The 2 pounder drops off in accuracy after around 500 meters, the 50mm PAK is very accurate out to 1000 and even out to 1500 meters and is actually more accurate than the 88 at those ranges. I think the thing about the 88 is that it could kill the Matilda at great range and that was why the 88 was considered so remarkable. Killing power, not necessarily accuracy (although still more accurate than the 2 pounder).

[ASL Veteran]

"Major Kenneth Macksey MC Tank vs Tank The story of Armoured Battlefield Conflict in the 20th Century. (pg 129)

This new method worked on the principle of firing a shot of smaller caliber dense material encased in a lightweight, carrier through a standard gun barrel: increasing

velocity was obtained because the full-caliber projectile had a greater base area for the charge to act upon than the normal AP, APC or APCBC round. The new projectile was also lighter in weight. With a German round of this kind, known as Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (APCR), both shot and carrier traveled to the target, but generated higher air resistance and a rapid falling-off in accuracy beyond 600 meters."

This is independent confirmation of Ian Hogg's statement about the ballistic coefficient of the lightweight APCR round. Problem here is that in CM the APCR and the AP round do not show any accuracy difference at 1000 meters for the 50mm PAK.

[Jeff Duquette]

Did WWII AP munitions typically have tracer elements attached?

[illo]

Punt!

[Jeff Duquette]

huh?

[Guest rune]

Ammo type will have to wait until I get home. The range stated in the German AAR state 800 meters, while the British AAR states 1000 meters. Amazingly, the German and british AARs agree with the tank losses, of 26. Do you want the breakdown of just the 326 rounds, or do you want me to include the he rounds?

Note: This is only one battle, hence I look for more examples. This was also near Caen, so I assume bocage country. Don't know how the two influence the numbers.

Rune