Accuracy while firing on the move in CMBB!

[Andreas]

Ah well, sometimes a man just has to quote himself...

Now, since the other thread has gone terminal on M18s, I feel my original point has not been answered adequately. So, I just provide post No. 200 from that thread, and ask in short whether anyone has any evidence other than a strong opinion on the following questions:

1) Firing on the move to-hit chance for the whole range GPW tanks from 1941 to 1945, i.e. including Skodas with 37mm guns to Panzer VIE with 88L71 for the Germans, and BT-26 or whatever they were called to IS-II or KV-II for the Red Army?

2) Range-dependent data on to-hit probabilities for various platforms, best with ref to turret layouts etc.

3) ROF for the whole range of tanks, best with ref to turret layouts etc.

4) What the equivalent figures would be for stationary tanks?

I am most interested in this. I would look myself if I knew where to start. I know that most of this data will not exist, or will be difficult if not impossible to come by. But if the current model is inadequate, as many people seem to feel, what should it be replaced with? In order to replace it with something better, BTS will need data to feed into their model.

Posts by RL tankers of post-war machines are certainly interesting, but not really helping with regard to the question. Fortunately enough we don't have gyros or M-18s to contend with here.

Just for info below...

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

Right, leaving the regularly scheduled discussion, and returning to the topic at hand. On the previous page Rune provided the quote from WO something or other about the British experience. Earlier on someone (Mark IV?) dug up this nice doc about German gyro research, which contained the following quote:

"Firing on the move without stabiliser had been practised after the Allied landings in Europe against Allied tanks. Success depended on the use of highly trained gunners, who were provided with power traverse and hand elevation. "

Mind you, the Germans discussed here did not use shoulder stabilised pea-shooters, but Real Guns , 88mm etc.

Furthermore, we know that it was Soviet SOP to fire on the move. I also found a reference from some mad Canuckian that he was trained to fire on the move in a Ram II (57mm only AP).

So, this to me conclusively proves that somebody somewhere at sometime decided shooting on the move was a good idea. The German quote and WO whatsit also indicate that sometimes, people did even hit somefink. Can we agree on this?

If so, discussions on whether this was a stupid doctrine (it probably was) are rather irrelevant, and musing whether all those tanks lost pre-Alamein were lost because of shooting on the move are equally important in the context, i.e. not at all.

What matters is how accurate they were and how often they fired when on the move. The first figure by definition must be range-dependent and on a range between 0 and 100%. Take your pick. BTS has gone for figures from Commonwealth research indicating 14% (or somefink) IIRC. Tests show that moving tanks in the game have a lower to-hit percentage then stationary tanks.

The second figure must be between ) and 'a lot', with 'a lot' presumably being lower than a stationary tank., and presumably dependent on turret layout and round size and weight.

Now, I would be terribly interested to hear people who either have experience with WW2 guns (i.e. not Abrams gunners, because a 120mm round is a very different animal compared to a 37mm round -which will be the ones we talk about in early GPW warfare) or with access to the research necessary to underwrite their proposals.

This is really not an issue for CMBO for me, since that won't be changed, even if the ghosts of tankers past appear to Charles in a dream telling him the figures. For CMBB it is highly important to get it right though. So far, in all this discussion, I have seen precious little informed opinion on what the range ought to be, which would lead me to go with WO Wotsit. And yes, I have read the whole thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Slapdragon]

Andreas --

The best place to start is to try and define extremes. I think the Hellcat is still a good extreme at the top end, so variable turrent speed, fast traverse, high rate of fire, and good 360 degree view are all important issues. I think a low point needs also to be addressed. Are there tanks that just can't hit on the move? I bet Stug has problems, but I have no data.

What I am saying is that we should use the M-18 coding as what is the top of tank performance for moving hits. Certianly without some extreme evidence nothing should be higher. Now that we have established extremes we can see what side the gunnery curve leans to.

What would be best is if we can get a physics model, a historical model from veterans of that war, and a testing model based on CM:BO, and see what we come up with. If we can get data at all in these three areas, and if the data can be reconciled, it will go a long way toward fixing things up.

[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Spook]

The Stug could be referenced as a non-turreted vehicle. And to my recollection too, I've not seen Stug's firing "on the move" in CM. (Anyone else here can correct if seeing otherwise.)

The Pz IVH/IVJ could be a bit useful as "median" reference sets. The IVH had powered turret traverse, the IVJ didn't, so there's one "isolated" factor. The 75/L48 guns were good, but not to the same level of the 75/L70 or the various 88's. Speed was about average for this vehicle too.

[Slapdragon]

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

The Stug could be referenced as a non-turreted vehicle. And to my recollection too, I've not seen Stug's firing "on the move" in CM. (Anyone else here can correct if seeing otherwise.)

The Pz IVH/IVJ could be a bit useful as "median" reference sets. The IVH had powered turret traverse, the IVJ didn't, so there's one "isolated" factor. The 75/L48 guns were good, but not to the same level of the 75/L70 or the various 88's. Speed was about average for this vehicle too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the H/J as a median is not a bad idea, unless and until something better comes up.

As for the AGs, does anyone know if the JSU and SU series fired HE on the move? I really doubt they could fire AP in the move, but I am not as sure about HE or how accurate that would be for limited traverse mount.

[Username]

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

1) Firing on the move to-hit chance for the whole range GPW tanks from 1941 to 1945, i.e. including Skodas with 37mm guns to Panzer VIE with 88L71 for the Germans, and BT-26 or whatever they were called to IS-II or KV-II for the Red Army?

Posts by RL tankers of post-war machines are certainly interesting, but not really helping with regard to the question. Fortunately enough we don't have gyros or M-18s to contend with here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I wont mention M18s. But I did give a ref to Mr Crisp's book (a REAL life WWII tanker) and his experience with the stuart in the other thread.

Again, he does not see the value in it. He had a fast vehicle. He had flat terrain. He worked out a short halt scheme that other tankers also used in the war.

The info you are asking for is incredibly hard to obtain. Not only is it hard to obtain but very firer dependant. Even the origional brit study that BTS used shows that.

But didnt the russians have gyro-equipped shermans?

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

As far as I know, the M4 variant sent was the M4A2 and was sent without gyros. Maybe 5000 went, half with 76mm guns, and the Russians liked this tank much better than the Valentines and Matildas they were getting earlier.

There is every possibility that some of these tanks had gyros though as I have read that these tanks were "standard US tanks" which could mean they were just like USMC M4A2.

[dragonwagon]

Heres a little info for you ,

This is a paragraph from Osprey Military on the MK IV......

In one way the 75mm guns were a very mixed blessing.In spite of the designers' efforts to conserve weight,the new weapons made the vehicle nose-heavy to such an extent that the forward suspension springs were under constant compression ,with the result that the tank tended to sway about even when no steering was applied.The effect of this was compouned when the Aufuhrung H was introduced in March of 1943,as this model not only had integral 80mm armour on the bow,front plate and mantlet,but also had 5mm side skirts and turret girdle as a defence against hollow-charged ammunition.The Ausf. H wieghed 25 tons,and in spite of a new six-speed transmition borrowed from the PzKpfw III its performance was inferior to earlier models,cross country speed dropping as low as 10 mph on anything but good ,hard , level going.An exprimental version of the Ausf. H was fitted with an hydrostatic transmission ,but was not procceded with.

I don't know about you , but , this sounds to me like firing on the move in a mK IV armed with the long barreled 75mm gun doesn't sound to likely to be able to hit much.

And for that matter, most what I have read about WW II armoured combat , Most firing (if not all) was done while the vehicle was stopped. Russian doctrine on this I am not sure about, but the germans had the best optics in the world at the time and I doubt that not much could be hit on the move except as maybe area fire.(Thats just my own observation from what I have read over the yrs.)

Just for arguments sake this is from ,The Sherman tank in British service [Main armament firing was almost always carried out stopped,and it is difficult to find anyone who remembers ever using the stabilizer for firing on the move.]

This is from The Sherman Tank in US service,

[The 75mm Sherman was one of the first tanks fitted with a gyro-stabilizer.Opinions on this feature vary,with most veterens claiming it was worthless and was generally left turned off.It was not fitted in some 76mm tanks.Some tankers who had better luck with it insist that it was rarely used because it took care to keep in adjustment and thorough training to use properly ,and most troops did not want to bother with either.AS a result , most firing was done from a halt.

[Username]

Bobby Woll (on the Tiger I): "I found the gun sights far superior to anything else in the Army so hitting the targets was no problem. Even on the move.."

http://www.panzer-vi.fsnet.co.uk/tales_bwoll.html

This site is very interesting. Someone else on the site mentions shooting on the move. No ranges are given. Woll, of course, was one of the best gunners of the war..

I had read somewhere else that Woll (He was with Whittman) had a knack for hitting T34s while on the move. He had a sense or calculator built in that over time, he could just use the flat trajectory 88 behaviour out to 7-800 meters or so.

The Tiger I is also a good gun platform. It is heavy, torsion bar suspension (many bars), distributed weight from many wheels. Its weight is also centered.

Lewis

[Andreas]

I have just been digging on the Russian Battlefield site. Quote from a T34-76 TC says no firing on the move, and combat speed 45-50km/h. Firing only when stopped.

Hmmm...

[Andreas]

And this one from Dmitri Loza, OC of a 76mm Sherman equipped Soviet tank battalion:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>- If it happened that the tanks were limited in maneuver and speed, did you maneuver your infantry or halt them?

- Nothing like that. We did not pay any attention to them. We maneuvered and they maneuvered themselves behind us. There were no problems. It would have been worse for them if we had been knocked out, so let them run behind us.

- Was the tank's speed limited in the attack? By what?

- Of course! We had to fire!

- How did you fire, from short halts or on the move?

- Both ways. If we fired on the move, the speed of the tank did not exceed 12 km/h. But we rarely fired on the move, only in order to incite panic in the enemy ranks. Primarily we fired from short halts. We rushed into a position, stopped for a second, fired, and moved ahead.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also from Valera's interview with him. Excellent resource, the Russian Battlefield.

[Username]

The Tiger was supposed to fire from a halt according to a directive. I am sure that crews would start experimenting though, especially when backing up, with firing at different speeds.

At close ranges, like the russian tanker says, the effect of moving tanks very close to a units position, firing on the move has an effect all its own.

[Lorak]

umm,

All this just seems to agree with my gut feeling on things. I haven't got any hard data. Just some small interviews and things like have already been posted.

Personally I think that firing should be allowed at any speed. Doesn't take much just to pull the trigger.

But,

non-moving firing was obviously the best.

I think AFV's should be able to target units and fire using "move", with penalties.

I think AFV's using the "fast move" shouldn't be able to target units at all. Best they should be able to get is an area target.

Lorak

[Username]

Agree with lorak.

The game does not, at this stage, care what type of terrain you are on when firing. I believe the whole flap about "you-know-what-cats" special "case" does not have enough bearing on the game as a whole.

So:

1. Area fire only on fast move.

2. Point targets on move/hunt (with a little benefit thrown in for gyros/experience)

3. Certain units have faster move on roads but still use 2 above. This way, a certain "you-know-who" can run his "you-know-whats-cats" up and down the roads..

Lewis

[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Andrew H.]

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

I think AFV's should be able to target units and fire using "move", with penalties.

I think AFV's using the "fast move" shouldn't be able to target units at all. Best they should be able to get is an area target.

Lorak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with this is that it would *never* allow a hit while fast moving. I haven't seen anything on this thread that suggests that this should be the case; there should be at least a chance of hitting even at a fast move. Especially at, say, 50m.

One problem -- that was discussed some in the other incarnation of this thread -- is that the game doesn't allow you to simulate driving fast, but stopping (or slowing) to take shots, then accelerating up to speed again.

If the game allowed moving fast with pauses to shoot, I suppose it would be okay to permit only area fire on fast moves with no pauses -- as a sort of "blind fire" option. But as it is, the only way to simulate moving fast and firing, even with pauses, is to use the fast move command.

[Slapdragon]

For those following the thread just to clear up something that may seem out of place. There is no case or suggestion that Hellcats get special treatment -- only that they historically fired on the move successfully and had no gyros, making them important as a post for judging the rest of the gyroless tanks against each other for firing on the move.

Of course, we also know that the data on this is very hard to find -- although some of the Russian quotes are very interesting.

[Lorak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

The problem with this is that it would *never* allow a hit while fast moving. I haven't seen anything on this thread that suggests that this should be the case; there should be at least a chance of hitting even at a fast move. Especially at, say, 50m.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without testing, I can not be sure. But I think I disagree with you.

If you area target something I think there will be a chance of you hitting it.

I am saying that you would draw your targeting line to the AFV, the line would stick but it would be an area fire comand.

I assume if you lob shells at that area one could hit the unit.

This is really a question of how the shells are tracked until they hit.

1) If you area target the ground by a tank I know that the blast can immobilize it. Now if that works, then why wouldn't there be a chance of the tank being hit if you area targeted the ground where it was sitting?

2) Do shells only affect the AFV your shooting at? For this I am not sure.

If you have three tanks in a line and fire at the middle one(since you can get LOS thru live vehicles). If your aim is long, is there a chance it will the one behind? Or if it is short will it the one in front?

I honestly don't know.

Lorak

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Lorak ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Without testing, I can not be sure. But I think I disagree with you.

If you area target something I think there will be a chance of you hitting it.

I am saying that you would draw your targeting line to the AFV, the line would stick but it would be an area fire comand.

I assume if you lob shells at that area one could hit the unit.

This is really a question of how the shells are tacked until they hit.

1) If you area target the ground by a tank I know that the blast can immobilize it. Now if that works, then why wouldn't there be a chance of the tank being hit if you area targeted the ground where it was sitting?

2) Do shells only affect the AFV your shooting at? For this I am not sure.

If you have three tanks in a line and fire at the middle one(since you can get LOS thru live vehicles). If your aim is long, is there a chance it will the one behind? Or if it is short will it the one in front?

I honestly don't know.

Lorak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lorak, this is a serious quiestion that effects the meaning of one of your sentences, and has me confused. Do you mean tacked as in guided or tracked as in observed / followed?

[Lorak]

Sorry about that,

I ment to type "tracked".

Lorak

[Slapdragon]

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

Sorry about that,

I ment to type "tracked".

Lorak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, makes much more sense.

I think we have a chance for a magic BB (for our purposes >1%, a definable and credible chance (in the 5% range) and anc chances ranging up from there. Each variable will modify the curve. Which variable would modify the curve the most and what proof do we have of that?

[Tero]

Apart from ROF and accuracy issues a related feature that should be addressed is spotting benefits/penalties due to absolute spotting. Moving vehicles already get reduced spotting ability but due to absolute spotting that penalty is undone.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

The problem with this is that it would *never* allow a hit while fast moving. I haven't seen anything on this thread that suggests that this should be the case; there should be at least a chance of hitting even at a fast move. Especially at, say, 50m.

One problem -- that was discussed some in the other incarnation of this thread -- is that the game doesn't allow you to simulate driving fast, but stopping (or slowing) to take shots, then accelerating up to speed again.

If the game allowed moving fast with pauses to shoot, I suppose it would be okay to permit only area fire on fast moves with no pauses -- as a sort of "blind fire" option. But as it is, the only way to simulate moving fast and firing, even with pauses, is to use the fast move command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume you are talking about AP fire against point targets? I believe there is no such thing as area fire AP in the game according to BTS.

But I get your point. But a solution would be to FAST move a distance, then just use a short MOVE (allowing a firing-on-the-move) followed by a FAST move order again. Sort of abstracts the short halt. There is no pauses in between orders in the game. This, pauses, would abstract the short halt (model it really ) nicely though.

If the M-"You-know-what" is to be used as the fast moving AP firing yardstick, then wheres the data? I havent seen any real data.

Lewis

[Username]

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

Apart from ROF and accuracy issues a related feature that should be addressed is spotting benefits/penalties due to absolute spotting. Moving vehicles already get reduced spotting ability but due to absolute spotting that penalty is undone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes very true.

I say any moving vehicle, FAST or MOVE, should be severely penalized for any area fire or point AP attacks while buttoned/shocked. This offsets the shared spotting info.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

I assume you are talking about AP fire against point targets? I believe there is no such thing as area fire AP in the game according to BTS.

But I get your point. But a solution would be to FAST move a distance, then just use a short MOVE (allowing a firing-on-the-move) followed by a FAST move order again. Sort of abstracts the short halt. There is no pauses in between orders in the game. This, pauses, would abstract the short halt (model it really ) nicely though.

If the M-"You-know-what" is to be used as the fast moving AP firing yardstick, then wheres the data? I havent seen any real data.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the previous thread.

Probably better for you to come up with the data that it testing or something found the Hellcat to be impossible to use on the move, or that some other vehicle was better.

[Slapdragon]

To keep this from turning into another bait and flame discussion I should say:

Unless someone comes up with evidence to dispute its position as the best hit and run vehicle without a gyro, and its position as an effective weapon for fire at the move, then it should be retain. But if someone wants to come up with data that it sucked and was no good, or even that was never used that way against veteran recounts to the contrary, then it makes a good yard stick for the top of the field.

A little bit of legalese wont hurt the statement and it might head off trouble at the pass.

[Slapdragon]

Now I want to follow this up with a rather quite good post on the M-18 discussion that really gets to the heart of why the M-18 may be at the top of the field and what variables need to be considered in working on this. To keep the heat down, I will use Lewis's commendable post from the other thread.

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

--snip--

I want to clarify some things about the M18 and the TD doctrine. I think it, the M18, was a slight improvement over the M10. The M10s problem in 1944-5 being it didnt have enough armor or HP to stay put or enough HP to move around. So the decision to lose the armor and beef up the engine is a return to the brit cavalry mentality. If the M18 could have been used in the desert , it would have been very well recieved.

But I would have still preferred an M10 Achilles over an M18. I would have also much preferred an M36 over a M18 also.

I view the whole M18 flap as a specialized vehicle needing specialized circumstances. Seems it needed rather special terrain, support, circumstances, etc to do its mission. In reality, the tank battalions were the one who the missions were really falling on. If the TD battalions really got priority over the rare and much needed HVAP ammo, I would say that it was endangering the US tank battalions who had 76mm armed shermans.

I dont believe theres a great body of evidence that the M18s, typically, would fire on the move at fast speeds. Certainly not presented here. I HAVE evidence that the speed of the vehicles WAS a great asset. But that relates to late war breakouts where M8s, trucks, M18s, Jeeps, etc. Could just haul ass into germany at great rates. They could also reinforce areas overnight quickly. During the bulge one unit moved over 160 miles.

Heres another website: http://purpleheart.org/m0597a3.htm

These guys are what I would call M18 elite. Extensively trained in the whole TD doctrine way back in the states (the other link below is to a late war converted pak TD unit) including portee type firing, etc. Not one of the vets mentions firing on the move. Ones nickname is "Hit'n'run".

I would imagine that M18 were used that way. Either from ambush, Hitting and then quickly running. Either in reverse or to another position. They would be ideal for the short halt type manuver. Since they had good visability, they would pick when to stop, shoot, and then haul ass using the great acceleration as a defense.

http://www.100thww2.org/support/824/824combat.html

The link gives a good example of M18 engine advantage. The units were good at driving deep into germany and shooting up volkstromm and german citizens. They dont mention if it was on the fly.

So I would much rather have had M36 TD units. The M36 had treads meant for the ETO. The M18 did not. Mud would have swallowed the M18 skinny treads. I bet they would have been hell on ice also.

Having 90mm TD units, apart from the obvious advantage, would have released 76mm HVAP to shermans, who could have used it.

So I am not saying that the M18 isnt a better alternative than the M10, just that it became a specialized vehicle. I also dont see, at least in the threads here, any real data on the thing firing on the move at substantial speeds.

Since the name of this thread is accuracy firing on the move. All of this is relevant.

Lewis

PS Heres a lineup of 76mm ammo. Notice the very small HE, HVAP and it looks like an uncapped AP on the right. The 76 HE must have been high velocity.

]

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Username ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the M-18 was specialized, with speed, acceleration, and firing on the move being its forte (I have said before HE was no good and the reason we loose a lot of them in CM is they are used like Shermans).

Lewis's post reveals these factors as important:

1) Engine

2) Crew Training

3) Tracks (the M-18 could move less than half its maximum speed across soft ground)

4) Vehicle speed at time of shot

5) Suspension

I think that crew training needs to be crucial, with crack crews getting a bonus much above the run of the mill, and maybe green crews having to stop. Certianly M-18 and all TD crews got better training that Sherman crews.

ROF is important just because the more lead, the better the chance of a lucky hit.