550m Accuracy With Jagd Panther

[rexford]

In last night's game, first shot by Jagd Panther against a Sherman in the open with flat ground had 63% hit probability at 550m. This seems low when trajectory analysis is completed with 25% range estimation error. Seems like it should be closer to 90%.

Has anyone played games where first shot accuracy between 500m and 600m is well above 65%?

[Freak]

Nope. I have not. 500+ meters usually have been in the 50% range for me.

[John Hough]

Nope. That's higher than any accuracy number I've seen in cm. Remember the 'my men aren't robots' factor. Real people subjected to combat stresses, are gonna be lousy shots.

Though I think somewhere BTS said they basically pulled the current numbers out of their butts, and that it's 'felt right' and that tank vets have said that it's 'felt right'.

So if somewhere in your barn you have stacks of good statistics on firing accuracy in real combat conditions, please share them, I'm sure it would be a great help.

-John

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

so you can stay cool behind your window

and choose the view you want to see

but as long as there's others held captive

do not consider yourself free

-EMBRACE, "DO NOT CONSIDER YOURSELF FREE"

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by John Hough:

So if somewhere in your barn you have stacks of good statistics on firing accuracy in real combat conditions, please share them, I'm sure it would be a great help.

-John

Thats the Acc-shack. Stands for accuracy shack.

I believe a JagdPanther in a defensive position that is level and has had a chance to guage the surrounding terrain should have a pretty good first round hit against a stationary target. Thats if the JagdPanther isnt being fired on also. Throw in any other parameters and all that goes out the window. Right out the window of the Acc-shack.

Lewis

[rexford]

The max hit probability thread seemed to post examples where hit probabilities were higher than 65% at 550m.

Men might not be robots but using reasonable error ranges for range estimation, and reasonable shot scatter due to mis-aim, gun sight problems and so on, that 88L71 should hit on more than 2/3 of first shots at 550m.

At 550m, Jagd Panther 88L71 trajectory is so flat that many errors can be made and round will still hit a large target like a Sherman.

If gun is aimed at 200m range, it hits Sherman. With 900m aim, it still hits Sherman.

That means that range estimate and gun setting from 200m thru 900m hits Sherman at 550m most of time. So range estimate can be in error by over 60% against 550m target and still hit with 88L71.

It also seemed that 75L48 accuracy was close to 88L71 against 550m target. Will check closer on this since 88L71 should be more forgiving on aim error than 75L48.

Average range estimate error from studies is 25%.

Will look into issue and see if hard combat data exists.

Thanks for posts.

[Jeff Duquette]

"From Middle East AFV Technical Liaison Letter 25 16 December 1944-

3. Sherman 17 Pdr (Ic)

2nd Can Armd Regt of 5 Can Armd Bde have the following user comments:-

5. An opportunity to observe its hole-punching capabilities came late in this first afternoon. One of the tp cpls spotted a Panther at about 300 yds range. He indicated it to his tp sgt and meanwhile fired one round of 75 mm AP at it. The tp sgt's gunner reports that as he laid the 17-pdr on the Panther, its turret was swinging slowly towards him and, as be fired, was still roughly 30 degrees off. Four rounds of 17-pdr AP were fired, all scoring direct hits. The Panther did not brew up, our own infantry patrols, fearing recovery by the enemy, set fire to it during the ensuing night.

4 consecutive hits on a Panther by a Firefly at 300 yards.

[Jeff Duquette]

Interesting write-up from a member of the 704th SPTD Battalion

Dear Sirs:

Reading in the May-June issue about the increased "lethality and tightability" of the enhanced M1A2, with its extensive use of digital electronics for target acquisition and target tracking, made me wonder if any younger readers knew how target acquisition and target tracking was done fifty-odd years ago. I would like to quote a paragraph from the combat history of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion, Fourth Armored Division, of General Patton's Third Army.

The time was September, 1944, the weapon was the 76mm, high-velocity antitank rifle that armed the M-18 "Hellcat." The gunner was SSG Phillip Hosey. I quote from Phil Hosey.

"Near Nancy, France, between Luneville and Arracourt, we faced a group of German tanks that had taken a position one mile away, across a shallow open valley. Our M-18s were in defilade, facing out over a small hill. Infantry led the way across the valley with three M-4s intermingled. The Krauts let them get halfway across, then opened up with anti-tank fire from woods on the right. They immediately KO'd two M-4s and drove the infantry to the ground. Two Panthers, a Mark IV, and an assault gun came out of the woods and moved across our line of fire at the distance of about a mile. In his position in our open turret, the tank commander, SSG Hicklin, watched their progression through his glasses and called out the range: "Two thousand yards, moving at about ten mph." Our rifle, with AP, had a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps, so it would take two seconds to arrive on target. The Krauts were moving at fifteen feet per second, which let them travel thirty feet in two seconds. Their lead tank was twenty feet long (from the book), so we led him a good length for a center shot. We laid on and fired. Voila, a hit! It struck two feet in front of his rear drive idler. We then picked the last tank and scored — he began to bum. The two intervening tanks were destroyed by two fast AP shots. So we got two Panthers, a Mark 4, and an assault gun. Our 76mm rifle packed a good punch, even at two thousand yards. We felt that we had the best self-propelled antitank gun in the ETO."

In spite of his Purple Hearts and continued combat-related disabilities, Phil Hosey has provided many important first-hand accounts of his experiences for our combat history of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion.

CPT Richard R. Buchanan, 704th Tank Destroyer Bn. Secretary/Historian, 704 TD Bn Assn. Wilmington, Ohio

[Jeff Duquette]

I came across this web site yesterday (when I should have been diligently working). The web site is basically a unit history of the 635th TD battalion in ETO 44-45. Fairly well detailed as web site unit histories go. Unit was equipped with the towed 3”. From the read it appeared that the 635th saw a great deal of time at the front…including Normandy, Lorraine, Hurtgen, Siegfried line, B of B, and finally into western Germany. What struck me was the limited numbers of engagements the unit had with panzers. The history does contain a fair number of tales about getting shelled and suffering casualties from HE. Anyway I went through the whole ****-oh-ree, and pulled out those AAR’s, which detailed both range of engagements and numbers of rounds fired. Impressive range\accuracy results for these 3” guns.

THE 635th TANK DESTROYER BATTALION IN EUROPE IN WORLD WAR II

by Carl Condon

http://skyways.lib.ks.us/museums/kng/635TDB.html

Camouflaged enemy tank spotted in Company B area obviously bogged down in swamp terrain, 57mm gun unable to hit tank. On order Sergeant Cumming's gun (sic. Cummings sections was equipped with the 3” gun) fired 9 rounds and had six direct hits—distance 2500 yards. Battalion surgeon advised Schuetz and Maderis, Severely Wounded In Action to Died Of Wounds.

Ray Klein, Company B, tells this story—On June 22, 1944, Colonel Taylor of the 18*

Regiment, 1st Infantry Division told me that a German tank was firing into the Battalion area. He said to locate the tank and stop the firing. The 2nd Lieutenant in charge of their platoon of 57mm anti-tank guns and I moved one of our 3rd platoon 635th 3" guns into a spot where we had a clear shot. The German tank was spotted camoflouged on a small trail of a forward slope. I had a BC scope and estimated the distance at 2500 yards. He and I had a wager on the distance. We hit the tank with our 1st round of APC. A couple of the crew bailed out, so we fired some HE around it.

A Company reported-lst platoon on Oct 10th between 1230 and 1300 hours fired 22 rounds of APC and 6 rounds of HE at pillbox in front of their position. Pillbox neutralized. All direct hits—range 1700 yards. Fire also directed to aid confusion made by feint attack by Group in aid of southern drive by 9th Infantry Division.

Company A reported— At 1415 hours Sergeant Carroll's gun section, 4th platoon, in

position approximately 2800 yards southwest of Esch, Germany, fired at an enemy tank and CP house and observation point in Esch. Direct hits were observed on both tank and house obviously neutralizing the object as no additional fire was received from that point. Number of casualties unknown. (Upon arrival in Esch, Battalion Commander checked position and found that tank sustained direct hit in right bogie, immobilizing the tank which was definitely identified as a Tiger VI. Crew unable moved out, placed a charge of explosives inside tank, destroying it for further use. 4th platoon credited with a Tiger VI.

[Jeff Duquette]

The description is taken from the book. “Freineux and Lamormenil” by George Winter.

“I saw a flash from the panzer, the shell hitting the building near the eve of the house, sending debris all over us. The panzer then fired another round and missed, hitting the same area. Returning fire, Graham’s gunner got off two or three rounds but was unable to score a hit since the German was in a depression … “I then looked to the right across the valley and saw a flash from another panzer about 2000 yards away. I then gave the gunner orders. “Right front! Right front! Range 2000! Fire! After firing I saw the AP with tracers in direct line, but short. I then ordered the gunner, ‘Up 2! Fire!’ The second shell went straight into the back of the panzer and it started burning. I was watching it with field glasses and to my surprise saw another panzer move from right to left behind the burning tank. I then gave the gunner orders. ‘Left! Up 2! Fire!’ The shell went straight in to the rear.””(Winter 34-35)

The advance of the 2nd SS Panzer Regiment along this route was halted partially by the Shermans of Vance and Graham. The 2 M4A1(76)Ws stood their ground and stopped a superior force from advancing into the town of Freineux. At the end of the battle 8 Shermans and 8 Panthers were totally disabled or destroyed.

[Jeff Duquette]

The 4th Armored Engagement at Singling is classic combat study by the US ARMY and covered extensively (maps, figures and contemporary photos) in “Small Unit Actions” Historical Division US War Department, April 1946. Although K. Macksey covers Singling in “Tank vs. Tank” you really should get “Small Unit Actions”.

While Padgett had been trying to get to Belden, Lieutenant Guild, the observer, had already spotted the enemy tanks himself from the roof of his OP, No. 33, and had informed Captain Leach. Leach took the warning personally to Lieutenant Goble. Goble, figuring that if the Germans attacked they would come either down the road or in back of the houses opposite, had Sgt. Robert G. Fitzgerald on the right move his tank down the hill to within 15 yards of the edge of the road, where he could observe better to the northeast. Fitzgerald kept his gun sights at 1,400 yards, the range to the northerly ridge where the enemy was reported. The first tank to appear, however, drew up between No. 37 and No. 38 less than 150 yards away, heading toward the church. The enemy Mark V and Fitzgerald saw each other at about the same time, but neither could immediately fire.

While the enemy started to traverse his turret, Fitzgerald brought his gun down. He shot first and, at point-blank range, put the first round into the Mark V, setting it on fire. One man jumped out and ran behind one of the houses. Fitzgerald fired two more rounds into the burning tank.

Fitzgerald’s 150meter Panther. Picture taken from the approximate spot where Fitzgerald’s tank fired from.

Later, on warning by Lieutenant Padgett's infantry that more enemy tanks were approaching from the northeast, he drove his tank through the hedge and east along the road almost to the bend where observation north and east was clear. He saw an enemy tank, but before he could adjust his sights the German fired smoke and in a few seconds disappeared as effectively as an octopus behind its self-made cloud and escaped. Rockets then began to fall close to Fitzgerald's tank. Whether this was aimed fire from the battery near Welschoff Farm or simply a part of the miscellaneous area concentration on the town, Fitzgerald did not stay to find out. He retired westward to the concealment of the hedge, and there, leaving his tank, crossed with Lieutenant Goble to Padgett's CP. From the house they could see a Mark V in the valley " northeast, apparently parked with its gun covering the road east, facing, that is, at right angles to the tankers' observation. Fitzgerald went back to try a shot at it. Again he moved his tank east, getting a sight on the enemy between two trees. The second round was a hit; one more fired the tank. He then shot a round or two at another Mark V facing him about 800 yards away, at which Sgt. Emil Del Vecchio on the hill behind him was also firing. Both 7 5-mm and 76-2-mm shells, however, bounced off the front armor plate of the enemy. Fitzgerald decided to move back to his hedge. Back in No. 39 again he saw an enemy SP moving east in the vicinity of Welschoff Farm.

Rather than risk exposing his tank again by moving it out to the east, Fitzgerald decided to wait until the SP came around behind the farm and emerged into his field of fire. But the SP did not emerge. Whether, concealed among the farm buildings, it fired into the 1st Platoon tanks cannot certainly be determined. But in any case, a short while after it had disappeared, two rounds of AP hit Lieutenant Goble's tank in quick succession. The first round set it on fire and wounded Goble and his gunner, Cpl. Therman E. Hale. The second round penetrated the turret, then apparently ricocheted inside until its momentum was spent, and finally landed in the lap of the driver, Tech. 5 John J. Nelsen. Nelsen dropped the hot shell, scrambled out, and with the loader, Pvt. Joseph P. Cocchiara, ran from the burning tank.

[Vanir]

Deja vu? I seem to recall this exact same discussion from a while back (optics thread?).

Jeff pulled out examples of tanks hitting with first shots at long range. Steve pulled out examples of tanks missing multiple shots at short range. Its all anecdotal. There doesn't seem to be any data kept for actual first shot hits in actual combat. There is only data for expected first shot hits from firing ranges and training programs.

BTS lowered the hit percentages from what was expect on a firing range to simulate battlefield stress. This is a nebulous thing and is hard to quantify. But as John said, most real world tankers here have said it feels about right, for whatever its worth.

BTS did increase short range accuracy in a recent patch, and is going to increase long range accuracy in the next patch. Tank duals are going to be quick and deadly.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-03-2001).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Vanir:

Deja vu? I seem to recall this exact same discussion from a while back (optics thread?).

BTS lowered the hit percentages from what was expect on a firing range to simulate battlefield stress. This is a nebulous thing and is hard to quantify. But as John said, most real world tankers here have said it feels about right, for whatever its worth.

BTS did increase short range accuracy in a recent patch, and is going to increase long range accuracy in the next patch. Tank duals are going to be quick and deadly.

Since both single hits and multiple misses do occure they should show up in the game as a matter of course , if not then somethings wrong with the gsme system. It should follow a normal distribution.

I was reading Ribbentrops account of the fighting around Prochorvoka and it seemed that once they zeroed- in every shot was a hit , and he even states that much.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by rexford:

The max hit probability thread seemed to post examples where hit probabilities were higher than 65% at 550m.

Men might not be robots but using reasonable error ranges for range estimation, and reasonable shot scatter due to mis-aim, gun sight problems and so on, that 88L71 should hit on more than 2/3 of first shots at 550m.

At 550m, Jagd Panther 88L71 trajectory is so flat that many errors can be made and round will still hit a large target like a Sherman.

If gun is aimed at 200m range, it hits Sherman. With 900m aim, it still hits Sherman.

That means that range estimate and gun setting from 200m thru 900m hits Sherman at 550m most of time. So range estimate can be in error by over 60% against 550m target and still hit with 88L71.

It also seemed that 75L48 accuracy was close to 88L71 against 550m target. Will check closer on this since 88L71 should be more forgiving on aim error than 75L48.

Average range estimate error from studies is 25%.

Will look into issue and see if hard combat data exists.

Thanks for posts.

Hi Rexford

I agree with you completely.

Slighty before you arrived here there were several HUGE threads about the "the long 88 lacking punch" and the Long ragne gunnery and things like superior Ziess gunnery optics. Many of us here tried with many lengthy postes to increase the long range accuracy of the long 88 in particular.

the ranting and the replies from BTS went on and on.

I agree with everything you have posted with regard to accuracy.

When you post about accuracy remember BTS does model 6 different levels of accuracy depending on crew experience. we have shown conclusively that there is AT LEAST a 10% accuracy difference (and do this it is higher) between the conscript crew and the Elite crew.

so when posting about accuracy for a given weapon in a given set of circumstances remember they are modeling 6 different degree of first shot accuracy depending on crew experience.

Other factors to determine accuracy are also size shape and orientation of the target, Is the target moving, is the tank firing the shot moving? is it raining (ie. weather conditions) and is the tank firing being fired upon (shocked or non-shocked)

So it can be very frustrating to look at one isolated expample like your 63% hit probability at 550 m and draw any clear conclusions.

I comment on this because some of us have be down this road and back again several times prior to your arrival here.

Be patient, in my opinion there is ONE last chance to see this issue addressed.

MadMatt has posted this list of the tweaks we can expect in the upcoming final v1.12 patch

check this out

I post this with specific attention to point number 2!!

"Here is the list for v1.12 improvements and fixes:

* Tanks use better hull-rotation logic.

* Gun accuracy is somewhat higher at long range.

* Firing ordnance while moving is less accurate than before.

* Quick Battles have a new "unrestricted" force type.

* Pillboxes have slightly better 'reaction time' and are slightly less easier to spot at long range. It is also somewhat harder to hit their firing slits from longer ranges.

* Smoke usage logic tweaked.

* 20mm gun in Lynx cannot fire on aircraft.

* If both sides have global morale below 25%, a battle will end immediately with an enforced cease-fire.

* Fixed a bug (introduced in v1.1) where simultaneous cease-fire requests by both players in play by email could lead to a crash.

* Fixed a bug so that the computer will never place antitank mines in woods.

* Fixed a bug that made hotseat mutual cease-fires activate one turn later than they should.

* Fixed a bug that could cause a game previously (partly) played as PBEM, but subsequently reloaded as TCP/IP to "lose" minefields and barbed wire.

* Fixed a bug that made the TacAI hesitant to give targeting orders to the rearward-firing Archer.

* Fixed a bug that allowed tungsten rounds to be overly effective against highly-sloped armor.

* Data changes:

- Sherman Jumbo speed, turret rotation, and some armor values lowered.

Sounds good to me!!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-03-2001).]

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Since both single hits and multiple misses do occure they should show up in the game as a matter of course , if not then somethings wrong with the gsme system. It should follow a normal distribution.

I agree and they do show up as a matter of course. In fact, people have often posted complaints when they have seen first shot hits or multiple misses in the game as if it were a bug or something.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[:USERNAME:]

Certain elements can be modeled. Such as:

1. Am I zeroing in on a tank shooting/looking elsewhere?

2. Is the tank swinging its turret my way? And am I an iron nerved veteran or a first time rookie?

3. Did I just miss at someone that is cranking his turret towards me?

Point two more than anything will make snap shots happen. Shooting cardboard cutouts is one thing, when they got guns too its a world of difference. I dont know if the game models this but its real. (Point three is a good situation to reverse EVEN IF I have a superior tank).

Look at the panther in Jeffs posty-pic. Now imagine a battle going on with dust/smoke/radio crackle confusion. That tank , even at that range, would be hard to see if you werent looking right at it. I can appreciate the game abstracting these misses to mean other things. Like, firing at shadows, pulling the trigger when the driver lurches, pulling the trigger when a HE round impacts nearby, etc.

But if the game could up the odds for situations when the defender clearly has the undisturbed advantage (like an ambush) then I say bravo. It might even quell the droning posts of the acc-shack attacks this board has been subjected to.

The game uses abstractions. Not every percentile point and freaking millimeter is modeled per se. A good game company knows its limitations imposed by hardware/coding constraints. They work around them.

I kind of like the hit chances/game play as is but would like some improvements. I am really bored with "list-posts" where the reXford files surface. I look at range data as only something that can be performed under battlefield conditions by the best of crews.

Lewis

[rexford]

The hit percentage I referred to in first post was prior to start of action, as tanks used line of sight to potential targets. No dust, no rain, no movement, tanks at an angle to each other so target width something larger than head-on shots.

In other words, optimum shot conditions.

Before BTS closes book on CM they should look over all of the data because there are slope multipliers that go up as thickness goes down, which is opposite of how things work.

Our armor penetration booklet is close to finished and we have been using it to go over alot of what is in CM. Not saying we're 100% correct, just identifying things BTS might like to examine one more time.

The booklet has been refined over 25 years and mistakes have been weeded out.

If BTS looks into Will Phelps' PzKpfw IV web site and buys the copy of AFV G2 with Mark Diehl's article on German ammo that is advertised there, they will see that 75L24 HE has more amadol than Panther 75mm. They will also see some questionable data.

The hit percentage difference between elite and average crews should exceed 10% if elite has 10% average range estimation error and average has 25%. Our beef with CM is that hit percentages are not based on trajectories and range estimation errors but a "feel" for what is correct.

Intuitive "feel" without analysis based on trajectories seems too speculative, and the differences between 75L40 and 88L71 ammo or elite and poor crews would be a shot in the dark.

With trajectory analysis one can say average crews will use a 25% range error and the resulting difference between 75L40 and 88L71 is such and such. The Eisenhower report presents one complaint after another about how the Panther and Tiger II guns have flat trajectories and better sights and hit alot more often at long range than 75mm Shermans.

Yes, one can go on forever about this stuff and we'll leave the subject.

However, prior to leaving subject forever, who can avoid the

PARTING SHOT

What about the intuitive "feel" for APDS accuracy, which is described by Jentz as not particularly accurate and firing test results show to be erratic in terms of accuracy AND penetration. If APDS round is thrown off course by sabot pieces staying on too long, penetration falls off due to yaw. Where is the CM "feel" for APDS inconsistencies?

And CM "feel" for Panther glacis flaws where some tanks are good, some are poor, but all are penalized in game. And "feel" for other Panther armor areas where there is no proof that the nose and side were as inconsistent in quality as glacis.

And "feel" for HE fire at ground point targets, who would ever think that 75L24 HE (420 m/s) would be more accurate than 88L56 HE (810 m/s) against ground point targets (my original conclusion is correct after rereading German ballistic tables). Or that 75L24 HE would contain more explosive than Panther 75mm HE (look it up in Diehl, 30% more amadol in short 75 HE).

Or that guns firing at target points above the barrel are more accurate than guns firing down.

My point is that it takes analysis and calculations to model things in a game so odd and unexpected results can be included. Without trajectory analysis all of the little weird things go unnoticed. Without shatter gap, German armor gets zonked when American tanks wiht 76mm guns should be mince meat.

But it isn't a one way street, it takes analysis and "feel" to make a game.

[Tris]

Keep up the good work.

[Wisbech_lad]

Of course, a Zen answer would be that the probability of a hit is either 100% or zero once the gun is fired. As the situation cannot be reproduced, we can't find out by estimation either.

At CM ranges, scatter from one round to the next is (I guess) not material compared to the size of the targets. Most shells will hit the aim point, or close enough for a hit against a tank size target at 550m (given range correctly estimated)

Therefore, whether shell hits the target (or not) is dependent on the crew estimating range correctly, actually having the target in the middle of the sights (especially tough when you or he is moving), has got correct shell in the spout etc. I.e. the main driver of a shell hitting is not ballistics (95% plus probability of hitting a 2m square, if that is what you have aimed at correctly...) but whether or not the gunner has got his aim right in the first place.

So in Rexford's case, 95% chance of hitting 2m target, 67% chance his gunner has got that 2m target correctly aimed at?

Now, thats much more difficult to model, and CM probably does it right by doing it randomly. But should such data be known to the player? Would a gunner tell his TC "I've got a 63% chance sir" or "I can nail this sucker"

I would rather in CM2 that to hit be shown in the same way as "to kill", i.e. good, poor, excellent etc.