Tank gun test, extreme ranges. (Warning: large pics inside)

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Marcus Said: I was about to ruimmage and see if IO could dig up that one reference to a long-range kill and to regular engagement range but it's a relief to see I don't have to do that, your post made it superfluous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have numerous such write-ups. I can post more if there is an interest. I can also quote several operational studies conducted in NW Europe indicating that avg. tank vs. tank engagement ranges were in the realm of about 1200m. In the more enclosed environs of the Norman Country Side and Ardennes etc, tank combat ranges were obviously considerably reduced...400m or less. However these shorter avg. ranges were obviously a function of terrain and not optics, or systematic weapon dispersion, or gunnery skills. Statistically a 1200m average engagement range implies that a fair number of engagements were probably occurring at 2000m, and small number were probably occurring at 3000m. This seems a reasonable assumption based upon the AAR's I have already posted. Obviously a fair number of engagements were occurring at ranges of less than 1200m as well.

From my arm-chair research on the subject, I am of the opinion that well trained gunners, or veteran gunners could and did hit targets at ranges of 1200m to 2000m with anywhere from 2 to 6 rounds. This is a relatively reasonable spread of rounds expended considering most gunnery schools were honing crew skills to 1 to 3 rounds for a target @ 1200m to 2000m (see Panzertaktik, and\or 1943 or 1944 versions of FM17-12). Talented, cool headed, gunners with high velocity guns, good optics, could and did do the same at ranges of 2000m to 3000m. Systematic round dispersion for weapons such as the: 88mmL56, L71, 75mmL70, the 17-pounder, the 3” rifle etc are not so restrictive at these ranges to think that hits are a matter of shear luck. If there is not a systematic limitation than it is reasonable to assume that gunners could and did hit targets at 2500m to 3000m with a reasonable expenditure of ammunition.

I am convinced that what is being implied by some of these longer ranged kills (indicated in the above AAR’s) is that the two or three really talented gunners that are can be found in any normal tank company were doing the lions share of long range killing.

Now if we are considering German Tiger units in which the cream of Panzer and Assault gun crews are culled from normal panzer units and focused into special hvy panzer units, we may be looking at a much higher ratio of over achieving gunners and crews. Quite possibly in the hay days of Tiger Battalions (say 43 – 44) you maybe talking about 75% to 100% of the tank crews being very efficient killers at ranges in excess of 2000meters. Combine this with the tendency of Tiger crews to either “obtain” or be equipped with Sf or Em type range finders for long-range ambushes, now you are really talking about a reliable long-range threat. I wouldn’t consider 1 hit in 48 rounds fired at 2500m to 3000m a “reliable” long-range threat.

And this all has nothing to do with “uber-mench” either. It is simply a function of German Tactical doctrine, and a decision making process very early on in the war (1941’ish) by the Germans that tanks should be designed to kill other tanks. The Tiger and Panther were built from the tracks up to cupola to be efficient tank killers. This concept of tanks being thought of as efficient tools for killing other tanks was not something being considered by the Anglo-Americans or Soviets.

It is my opinion that CM focuses on the 13 relatively average crews that are found in any tank company, and totally ignores the 2 or 3 very skilled crews in that same tank company. Seems reasonable at first glance. Why focus on excellence (i.e. talented gunners) when mediocrity is the most common denominator. The problem with this approach is that the truly skilled gunners were doing the greatest amount of killing at long ranges. This goes beyond the green to elite ratings that CM allows players to juggle about. Try the same experiment with an elite tiger crew or an elite Firefly crew, or an elite Jackson crew firing at 3000m or even 2500m. Your result will still be a huge expenditure of ammunition to achieve a hit.

again just my 2 cents worth.

[M Hofbauer]

ponder ponder...

a very interesting theory, to say the least. not unplausible either.

certainly worth far more than two cents

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jarmo Said: Can you actually see a ricochet from 3000 yards?

Assuming the guns dont use HE...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The flash created by the impact of a hardened steel projectile on armor plate is very distinctive. There is a relatively bright white or red flash on impact. In addition effective tracer burnout for most US tank type Ordnance of the period was about 3 or 4 seconds. No doubt what was being observed was the tracer element on the back of the round as the round rocketed off into space following the ricochet.

[ 09-30-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>RMC Said: Ah, yes the world of CM. I hate to muddy the waters a bit, but my failing memory has this number 7,400m associated with some tank fight on the Eastern Front. I don't remember where I saw it or if it was for real....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jentz relays a tale of a Tiger I hitting a Red Army Artillery cassion with its second or third round at a range of 5km. Direct fire with Sprgr.

[Måkjager]

I would agree with Jeff on the point that the ratings in regards to skill is leaned towards the average and not the exceptional.

The way CMBO is designed in regards to the experience rating does not give an advantage of skill in regards to gunnery..only speed of reaction .

This would tend to support the "shoot first..kill first" premise that has been built into the game.

As for long rang kills i just read in Tiger's in Combat I p. 319 anbout an emgagement by a Tiger with a JS 1 near "IWACZOW" in which the Tiger ko'ed the Soviet vehicle from 3900m.No information about rounds expended.

Gotta go to work now..will rejoin the discussion once the brain cell regenertate

Regards

Måkjager

[RMC]

Going back to the Tigerfibel...seems we need to do that from time to time...

"If you miss with your first shot then you have either misjudged the range or not boresighted the weapon. It's your fault, not the gun's. Up to 2000m the 8,8 shoots rather flat. Only beyond 3000m will every third shot miss. At 4000m only every 4th shot will hit (dispersion)."

Perhaps this is where CM misrepresents long range gunnery. It's not the gun/optics combo that prohibits effect gunnery but rahter the inability of gunners/commanders to estimate the range correctly and one reason why modern tanks are so much more accurate because they all have rangefinders.

[M Hofbauer]

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

Just curious, what are your citations or statistics for extreme range accuracy of the various makes of 88? I mean aside from once in a life time holy **** remarks. Lab data, training tables, AAR stats, or other cites like that that can fill in the feeling a little better.

I mean, I have this gut feeling that the 37mm M3 can successfully kill a King Tiger at 2500 meters, should this also be modelled? This is not an attack, I am just looking for something I can sink my teeth in, especially some form of citation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RMC's post from the Tigerfibel probably addresses the first part of your post.

as for the 37mm killing the KT at 2.5km - I wouldn't rule it out, I am willing to believe these things can do anything in CM

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>RMC Said Going back to the Tigerfibel...seems we need to do that from time to time...

"If you miss with your first shot then you have either misjudged the range or not boresighted the weapon. It's your fault, not the gun's. Up to 2000m the 8,8 shoots rather flat. Only beyond 3000m will every third shot miss. At 4000m only every 4th shot will hit (dispersion)."

Perhaps this is where CM misrepresents long range gunnery. It's not the gun/optics combo that prohibits effect gunnery but rahter the inability of gunners/commanders to estimate the range correctly and one reason why modern tanks are so much more accurate because they all have rangefinders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed

For those without the Tiger Fibel this is the whole passage to which RMC is referring. Bear in mind this thing was originally written in sort of a lyrical format…like a children’s fable. Some of the finer rhymes and what not were obviously lost during translation.

From “The TigerFibel” Translated by Wulf-D.Brand, Teutonia Publications.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Under 1200 m

YOU can't possibly miss, when correctly using the belly button rule.

Over 1200 m most of the time You have to adjust range equal to distance. Since you guessed very accurately you will fire, too close or too far. Then you must adjust the range, because it was off, even if only by 50 or 25 m. Do not alter the point of aim, as that makes less of a difference over 1200 m. Only if the shot misses to the left or to the right, are you permitted to change the point of aim sideways. If that is over 2 notch, then use the minor reticule to hold the target. If the first shot is not a hit, you either made a mistake in estimating or you did not properly adjust the weapon. You are at fault, not the cannon. up to 2000 m the 8.8 will fire point blank.

Only if firing as far as 3000 m, one of three shots will miss. At a distance of 4000 m only every forth shot will Produce a hit. (deviation)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jarmo]

I assume no-one here has any idea of how CM handles the crew quality vs accuracy issue?

Certainly there is a difference, and it's a significant one. But maybe not quite significant enough, especially at long ranges.

The Tigerfibel quote is a good one, but does someone have something along those lines about other guns? Like 76mm Sherman or T-34/85.

I'm under impression, that the only accuracy value a gun has in CM (the gun, not crew or weather or anything like that) is the muzzle velocity.

In similar conditions, the gun with higher muzzle velocity is the more accurate one.

[Andreas]

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

From the Tigerfibel:

Only if firing as far as 3000 m, one of three shots will miss. At a distance of 4000 m only every forth shot will Produce a hit. (deviation)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the bit I find wholly unbelievable, and it makes me doubt the rest as well. The way it is written is very re-assuring, in a sort of 'Yeah, go get em Tiger (excuse the pun), you can do it!' style.

But we two have been through my belief in in the usefulness of training manuals before, so maybe best not go there again

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is the bit I find wholly unbelievable, and it makes me doubt the rest as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based upon what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But we two have been through my belief in in the usefulness of training manuals before, so maybe best not go there again<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I recall you were using the Tigerfibel in one particular thread to support a point you were making. Something to due with tank crews knowledge of vulnerable points on a vehicle.

[RMC]

Hey, JD, that translation seems a little warped. The part you cite as

"Since you guessed very accurately you will fire, too close or too far."

is represented in the original text by

"Da Du sie nie genau errätst, schießt Du zu kurz oder zu weit."

Which I would translate differently:

Since you never estimate it exactly, you will shoot too short or too long (far).

There is more than a subtle difference here and I would suspect more errors from the rest of the text like that bit about firing point blank doesn't even make sense in english.

Germanboy,

I would not take it as absolute evidence that the 88 was always capable of such accuracy in combat, but I would accept it as an indication of what peacetime gunnery on ranges could achieve. How accurate is a springfield 03 or a kar 98k? On the range they are certainly more accurate than in battle and yet no one doubts their efficacy at engaging targets in the right circumstances. The dichotomy here is between battlefield conditions of crew stress, training and experience and the actual capabilities of the hardware. How can BTS model both correctly?

[Slapdragon]

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

Hey, JD, that translation seems a little warped. The part you cite as

"Since you guessed very accurately you will fire, too close or too far."

is represented in the original text by

"Da Du sie nie genau errätst, schießt Du zu kurz oder zu weit."

Which I would translate differently:

Since you never estimate it exactly, you will shoot too short or too long (far).

There is more than a subtle difference here and I would suspect more errors from the rest of the text like that bit about firing point blank doesn't even make sense in english.

Germanboy,

I would not take it as absolute evidence that the 88 was always capable of such accuracy in combat, but I would accept it as an indication of what peacetime gunnery on ranges could achieve. How accurate is a springfield 03 or a kar 98k? On the range they are certainly more accurate than in battle and yet no one doubts their efficacy at engaging targets in the right circumstances. The dichotomy here is between battlefield conditions of crew stress, training and experience and the actual capabilities of the hardware. How can BTS model both correctly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because bench accuracy is a factor in battlefield accuracy, and thus becaomes one of a number of issues in calculating fall of shot.

[Andreas]

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

As I recall you were using the Tigerfibel in one particular thread to support a point you were making. Something to due with tank crews knowledge of vulnerable points on a vehicle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite - I was asking what German training manuals said about somefink or other (forgotten what) because that might shed some more light. As part of the puzzle, not as evidence in their own right.

I find it unbelievable based on gut feeling, and stories how difficult it is to hit stuff at that kind of distance, and readings about the period in question where 4,000m hits feature rather rarely, which could either be because it was absolutely no problem, hence not worth mentioning, or because it happened 'rather rarely'.

What is the current expectation of a Leopard II or M1 gunner at 4,000m? 4 shots to hit, better or worse? Do they bother to train that kind of distance? What about 1950s and 1960s tanks?

[rexford]

At 3000m range firing 88L56 APCBC, a small error in range estimation results in a fairly large miss. The TigerFibel seems to be a little optimistic at times.

At 3000m range, 88L56 APCBC is moving at 546 m/s, and it takes about 4.5 seconds for the round to reach the target. If the range estimate is off by 25m, the shot misses the aim point by a vertical distance of 0.84m (high or low).

Since the round deviates vertically due to constant aim dispersion, a 25m range estimate error at 3000m results in about 60% accuracy.

If the average range estimate is in error by 8% (TigerFibel expects crews to estimate at less than 10% error, which is very good compared to 17% to 25% for British anti-tank gun crews on proving grounds), first shot at 3000m will be off by about 120m with 4% error. Say one shot long, then one short, then bring brackets onto target, and we have quite a few shots if crew starts at 4% error.

If range estimation error at 3000m is over 10% average, it may take many shots to hit.

Actual data from 88mmL56 Flak against T34 at 2000m resulted in 10 shots per kill.

[Andreas]

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

Actual data from 88mmL56 Flak against T34 at 2000m resulted in 10 shots per kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks - now going back to my source (Piekalkiewicz: 'Die 8,8cm Flak im Erdeinsatz') made me find what must be the worst 8,8 gunners in the whole Wehrmacht. Mind you, this is the gun as AA gun, not as tank, but it is still pretty much the same gun 'that cannot miss up to 1,200m'

'Before the AA guns opened fire, the tanks started firing their cannons. When the first t-34 reached appr. 900m distance our guns (sic!) fired from all tubes. The first tank, despite our heavy fire, came up to 200m, but then brewed up. [...] One [tank] came up to 60m to the gun position and fired into it. [...]Then a shell hit our gun-shield. All were reeling like after a steep fall. The gun commander, who had been wounded, saw first [...] a tank that had camouflaged itself. It had closed to 100m. Then finally the shell left the gun and glanced from the monster. The second shell was in the breech. The tank had closed to 30m now. The shell raged out of the gun and - missed, with all the excitement.'

The tank, a KV-1, then proceeds to crush the 8,8 and various other pieces of valuable Wehrmacht property in a truly anti-social manner, before rolling off into the distance, firing all the way. If only the gunners had known that they can not miss up to 1,200m.

[JasonC]

There seems to me to be a conceptual problem here. I quite agree that tanks - and PAK - engaged in long range fire in WW II. And they hit things, and killed them. However, it simply does not follow that their hit probabilities per round needed to be high.

The obvious reason that the bigger guns remained particularly effective at long range is simply that their hits at such distances were still kills. While light guns - leaving aside the greater loss of energy from air resistence, and consequent drop in accuracy with range - just didn't hurt sreal AFVs at such distances, whether they hit them or not.

But the big guns did not need every shot to hit. The amount of ammo provided for AT weapons in WW II was very high. So high, that claims the average hit probabilities per shot were also high, can't stand scrutiny. There aren't enough dead tanks to go around.

But first consider the common case in the examples, of a platoon of tanks dueling at long range. The engagement times are often not mentioned. A single tank can fire off 30 rounds in 5 minutes, easily. Even if the ROF dropped because of greater care with each shot, in 5 minutes or less a platoon of tanks could easily send 100 shells downrange.

To get 2-3 kills they need only hit probabilities of a few percent at most. If the hit probability per round rises to 3-5% or so - because of range, or homing in on a stationary target, or crew skill - no equally numerous enemy can afford to stay in their LOS.

In the 2km Tiger example, you saw about 6 shots needed per kill. That is deadly enough that companies can't live in front of platoons, or exposure times for platoons to platoons would need to be kept to well under a minute.

It is simply unnecessary that each round have a high hit chance. The question is the ratio of the kill chances (including armor effect), if the rates of fire are similar. If that ratio is sufficiently favorable, you just keep firing, and however long it takes, the other guy will die before you will. If you fire off 2/3rds or 3/4ths of your ammo and don't kill the enemy, so what? He didn't kill you either. Do it again tomorrow.

To see that this must of been the basic logic behind long range dueling, consider the amount of ammo provided for guns meant to engage in it. The Germans made 2 million AP rounds for 88 long. Not the FLAK, nor the gun in the Tiger I, nor HE. For only 5000 weapons (70% of them towed PAK, incidentally). There were 400 AP rounds made for each of those weapons. If, as some seem to think, the kill chance per round had to be 1/5 or something, and if at least half the rounds weren't KOed or overrun unused, then every one of those weapons would have KOed 40 enemy tanks. Which would mean the whole 5000 of them would have KOed 200,000 - just with 88 long. Which is more like the total losses of all Allied AFVs on all fronts for the whole war. Leaving nothing for Tiger Is, 88 FLAK, Panthers, Panzer IVs, StuGs, 75 PAK, etc.

Average KOs per fielded AT weapon are in the single digits. Average AP rounds provide for them have three digits. Some of the difference can be accounted for by wastage, overkill, or hits that don't kill, but the average shot cannot have been more than about 1/10 chance to hit. And since close range shots were certainly more accurate than that, long range ones must have been less, by the definition of "average".

None of which means that long range fire wasn't effective. As already mentioned, they had the ammo to blaze away, and try it again. High hit probability may seem essential to players used to short range, short, and small CM battles, with a focus on what each vehicles does within the next few minutes, and used to seeing a given duel decided within a minute.

But for platoons and company fighting for days on end, with gobs of chances to shoot, it just isn't so important. Every chance to shoot without effective reply will prove effective in the long run, even if the hit chance per shot is 1-2%.

Otherwise put, it was not the ammo that was scarce, but the AT weapons themselves. So shooting without being shot was more important than a high chance to hit. It is the ratio of your kill probability to his kill probability that will prove decisive in large, long term engagements - not the absolute level of your own kill probability.

I hope this helps.

[Jeff Duquette]

RMC: I have the translated version from Portrayal Press, I cant vouch for the exact wording. And as I had already indicated the thing was written as sort a nursery rhym...no doubt adding to the diffculty in translating it into English.

The Flak 88 in capable hands can hit and kill targets at ranges of 2000m to 3000m without having to expend 48 rounds for one hit.

Ultimately my point is that all gunners could not get hits at 2000m to 3000m with a reasonable number of shots. However some tank crews could and did kill targets at these ranges as demonstrated by the numerous AAR’s I have posted on pg 1…or was it pg 2 of this thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rexford Said: Actual data from 88mmL56 Flak against T34 at 2000m resulted in 10 shots per kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey where the heck have you been

Just to clarify the 10 shots/kill should not be confused to mean 10 shots to get one hit @ 2000m.

I think the figure you quoted was based upon the Flak 88 ammunition statistic I emailed to you several months ago. It is a great bit of information as it is based upon a German Flak officers diary for actions of his unit in the Cholm area, Eastern Front, Sept 2 to 5, 1941.

A very interesting report as it records engagements between 88’s and Soviet T34’s and KV’s. It also tracks ammunition expended.

Look closely at those AARs accompanying the final ammunition expenditures for this report. You will note that some gunners are taking only 2 or 3 rounds to kill a T34 or KV. In addition, there are several references to 88mm pzgr. rounds ricocheting and or shattering at longer ranges against both the KV-1 and T34’s frontal armor!! The report indicates that T34’s and KV-1’s being engaged by this Flak unit were requiring multiple hits to kill…or more than likely Flak crews were firing until their victims began to burn. Best to make sure the victim is dead before you turn your back on it. This also prevents the possibility of recovery and repair. (Just an aside; The ammunition expenditures per vehicle destroyed include a fair number of spgr rounds being employed…presumably to deal with the crews following bail out.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rex Said: If the average range estimate is in error by 8% (TigerFibel expects crews to estimate at less than 10% error, which is very good compared to 17% to 25% for British anti-tank gun crews on proving grounds), first shot at 3000m will be off by about 120m with 4% error. Say one shot long, then one short, then bring brackets onto target, and we have quite a few shots if crew starts at 4% error.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Range estimation is the key to the equation here. I think it is a fair bet that many German Tiger and Panther crews were either issued Sf or Em range finders as part of standard TO&E or “obtained” these instruments by other means. This is based on the numbers of photos I have been able to locate showing panzer crews gazing intently through these instruments while perched in there cupolas. It is also apparent that Nashorn Crews were employing Em type range finders {see Folkestad “Panzerjager”} German Stug, Jagdpanzer, and JagdTiger crews obviously had Sf type range finders as standard equipment on their assault guns. 88mm Flak crews had Em type coincidence range finders as standard TO&E.

British OR study WO 291/78 “Comparison of Methods of Ranging for Tank Gunnery” conducted in 1944, indicates range estimation via a range finder has less than 5% range error at a range of 2000m "under service conditions". Seems to me Ogorkiewicz also has figures for probable array of range estimation errors based upon various means and methods of ranging (range finder, eyeballing, stadia etc.). I will see if I can locate this.

We have gone the gambit of fear and its impact on accuracy. My point is that there are also dead-eyes amongst the sheep that keenly understand the workings of their weapons and can coolly kill tanks at 2000m to 3000m. The present CM gunnery model obviously has the sheep well accounted for. My question is where are the wolves?

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Germanboy Said: The tank, a KV-1, then proceeds to crush the 8,8 and various other pieces of valuable Wehrmacht property in a truly anti-social manner, before rolling off into the distance, firing all the way. If only the gunners had known that they can not miss up to 1,200m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is heavily wooded in the vicinity of Nowinki. Obviously terrain considerations play an important part in engagement ranges. In addition Feldwebel Karl Hass says nothing about the experience level of the flak unit, visibility, whether the crew was under artillery fire or small arm fire, etc.

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Range estimation is the key to the equation here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That kind of talk brings back memories.

Maybe the simplest thing would be to add an accuracy bonus to the guns and tank destroyers that were documented to carry rangefinders?

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Machine Said: That kind of talk brings back memories. Maybe the simplest thing would be to add an accuracy bonus to the guns and tank destroyers that were documented to carry rangefinders?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Machineman

Your insistence on this point – so many moons ago – pushed my digging mode into high gear. You were correct…

[ 09-30-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Bad Monkey!]

One thing that I think that should be thrown in here (though I don't know whether it's ever been mentioned or not) is that tanks should have modifiers just like HQ's do. You could have a driver's bonus (faster to get moving, less likely to get bogged), a gunner's bonus (accuracy), a loader's bonus (rate of fire), and a commander's bonus (spotting, other intangibles)

[Andreas]

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

It is heavily wooded in the vicinity of Nowinki. Obviously terrain considerations play an important part in engagement ranges. In addition Feldwebel Karl Hass says nothing about the experience level of the flak unit, visibility, whether the crew was under artillery fire or small arm fire, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he says that just before they were hit by a tank cannon shell. Of course that might distract one a little. Still, 30m, and they missed. You has well as I have seen the threads going 'my XYZ missed at 100m, fix or somefink', and as ecidence goes, this is as much evidence as recorded one-shot kills at 4,500m. 'Just throwing some wood on thie fire, you know I mentioned the bell curve earlier. One end is a one-shot kill at 4,500. Another is a miss at 30m. Reality is somewhere inbetween.

I have no doubt that the 8,8 can do either. The Tigerfibel does not mention crew experience, enemy interference and terrain considerations too, BTW.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric Young:

Longest kill I ever heard of in World War II as an 88mm Flak mount at Hellfire pass killing a Brit at 2000 meters.

I'll look up the reference.

E<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Nr 3, here nr 147

"Hellfire pass" ???? :eek: :confused: ???

I suppose you mean "Halfaya Pass", I don't think its meaning (in Arabic) is similar

Good luck with GI Joe...doh, GI Combat !

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Pascal DI FOLCO ]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Germanboy Said: Still, 30m, and they missed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is fairly evident that CM already does an excellent job of modeling point blank misses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Germanboy Said: The Tigerfibel does not mention crew experience, enemy interference and terrain considerations too<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Crew experience amongst Tiger Units is implicit. As I have already indicated the better crews from Assault Gun units and Panzer units were culled and focused into Tiger units.

Environmental conditions and there effects on gunnery and range estimation are in fact discussed in the TigerFibel.