First round hit probability a bit generous?

[Fletchman]

A friend of mine has commented that he likes combat mission except for the first round hit probability for tanks. (Compared it to Modern's)

Well I have to concede he has a valid point. How many rounds did it take to score a hit in ww2 tanks? I read it was on the order of 7 rounds on average.

Another comment is that tanks aquire and redirect fire with computer like precision, not like human beings, especially for tanks appearing into view etc.

Just curious what sources CM uses to model its hit probabilities.

Comments?

[Tiger]

...I read it was on the order of 7 rounds on average.

If you're going to question something in the game which has gone through extensive debate already, the burden of proof would be on you. At least that's what some here would suggest. What sources do you have that say it took 7 rounds on average. Does this take into account the optics, what combat ranges are you talking about required 7 rounds on average, are these sources considered the authority on this subject? etc. etc.

Another comment is that tanks aquire and redirect fire with computer like precision, not like human beings, especially for tanks appearing into view etc.

I wish my tanks acted with computer-like precision Instead they often target threats I don't want them to or they even don't see what's shooting at them till it's too late. Sometimes they pop smoke when I think it would have been better to shoot (damn them for wanting to live!) All depends on the crew quality I would imagine.

The more you play the game the more these things will become apparent. Soon you'll be cursing like the rest of us about missing shots and ignoring targets

-Tiger

[Fletchman]

Well I've been playing the game for several months, but don't puruse this board that often. Personnally I don't have enough information to pass judgement conclusively; however I am curious as to how they derived the conclusions they did. I don't really don't want to get into any theoretical arguement on hit probability - at least not unless I had a lot of primary reference material tucked under my arm at the time.

The friend of mine who is commenting that the game is more akin to "Modern's" has played alot of table-top WW2 micro-armor (more than me). I guess he is familiar with the lower hit probablilities in most of the major rulesets for Micro-Armor, and derives conclusions from that experience.

My personal opinion is that a couple of games may make it appear that ww2 tanks never miss simply because the engagement ranges are pretty short.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Long ago in an issue of S&T there was a brief mention that it took on average seven shots to score a kill. That includes a lot of banging away after you have gotten on target but before scoring a penetration.

But even that statement is so vague it is hard to know what it means. Was that just for US tankers or all nationalities? Was that over the course of the entire war in all theaters, or just the last year in the ETO? Was that under all kinds of terrain and observation conditions, or something else?

I too tend to think there are sometimes in the game too many first round hits and first round kills. Some people who post here forcefully disagree and can quote chapter and verse to support their case. Frankly I am at a loss how to decide the issue.

Michael

[Tiger]

I don't disagree with you necessarily but I guess the only way to find out is to drag Steve or Charles or Madmatt or Kwazydog come out of the work grind and have them explain it

Lots of screaming that "BTS doesn't know what they're doing" usually works. hehe

john

[Guest machineman]

I'd agree the 'average' wouldn't mean too much until you knew the context. From what I have read hit % from firing on the move should be very low, gyrostabilizer or not, unless the target is very close. Hit % from a preregistered position with good optics, a flat shooting gun, and a veteran crew with a well set up weapon would be quite high.

Kills likewise depends so much on range, the capability of the gun & ammo, the armour, slope and facing of the target. Tigers, for example, were almost invulnerable when they first came out, especially if the tank could be angled so the armour is oblique to the threat. Eg in this pamphlet dated August 1943:

"On the southern sector of the Russian front in one six hour engagement a Tiger was hit 227 times by anti-tank rifle shots, beside receiving 14 hits by 52mm shells and 11 by 76.2mm projectiles-none of which penetrated the armour."

While later on, in another captured report dated June 1944:

"A/Tk guns, tanks and mines have been developed that can hit a Tiger hard and even knock it out. Now the Tiger, for a long time regarded as a 'Life Insurance Policy', is relegated to the ranks of simply a 'heavy tank'...."

[Guest Michael emrys]

I've seen photos of tanks from North Africa that have been hit from half a dozen to a dozen times before being knocked out. But again, what does one make of that? Were these tanks photographed because that pattern was typical or because it was remarkable?

Michael

[Olle Petersson]

Why not test your own gunnery skills?

I've found out that the SteelBeasts Demo can help you a lot.

The demo is free for download from some site, and once in the demo you can do some exercises as gunner in a M1A1.

The 10:th gunnery scenario requires you to shoot using the auxillary sight, laser range finder, stabiliser and power traverse are turned off. To aim you have to hand crank the turret (repeatedly hitting the arrow keys), and you have a rangefinder comparable to the ones used in WW2 tanks.

When firing HEAT rounds you get a pretty close simulation of a WW2 tank firing AP.

With about half of the rounds fired being sabot, which are easier to score hits with, I usually have 30-35% hit rate. (Mix of stationary and mobile targets.)

Cheers

Olle

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I've seen photos of tanks from North Africa that have been hit from half a dozen to a dozen times before being knocked out. But again, what does one make of that? Were these tanks photographed because that pattern was typical or because it was remarkable?

Michael

I think this illustrates a point.

In North Africa, the time period (early in tank devlopment, and more importantly, gun development) combined with the very long engagement ranges meant that it was not unusual to see a large number of hits prior to an actual kill.

By 1944 the guns are a lot more powerful, and the short engagement ranges meant that you saw a lot more hit=kill.

Jeff Heidman

[Atlas]

Some good points above. Just want to remind those above that the distances in CM are incredibly small. Many tank encounters during WWII (especially in the East) were at 1000-2000 meters or more. (The heavy tanks would try to place themselves a "stand-off" ranges of greater distance to take advantage of their better armor/gun.) It is common in CM for a tank battle to be in the 250m to 500m range. Cheers.

[Fletchman]

Well I don't want to pass judgement, as this field isn't my area of expertise (more into ww2 aviation) however most of the hit tables "developed" by armies were done in the friendly confines of training bases. This is true of musketry tests of the 7 year war, and even today. Combat conditions are much different. People generally react much differently when being shot at.

My own view on this (and its only a hunch) is that for the average trooper, these theoretical tables should be chopped by at least 1/2 maybe more in combat conditions.

The advantage of veterans isn't that they are necessarily better shots, but that they keep their wits better and can begin to approach the hit probability results garnered on the stress-free firing ranges.

Overall I don't see how such things could be anything but a "best guess" anyway - taking the theoretical tables and adjusting them down to the levels resulting from combat conditions. So in the final analysis there really isn't an emperical way to resolve the issue with 100% certainty.

In any event, I don't want to be viewed as critical here, just inquisitive. Overall I've been very impressed with CM. Probably the best computer wargame I've played - with some great attention to detail.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

IMO and from my long wargaming experience CM hit % chances are in line with what is "average" on say ASL, SP, Tanks, PitS and so on... They even are somewhat under these, as CM really models (in a way) target acquisition. For example I rarely see 1st shot % chances higher than 65%, even very close...

Don't forget that in CM ranges are 9 times out of 10 UNDER 500m, that was very close even at that time.

As for modern tank warfare, there you now get a 99% chance to hit anything, moving or not, at 2000m !!! Not even comparable ...

And damn, I sometimes wanted probs to be better : in my last battle I had 2 germans 75 missing 3 rounds in a row -each !

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fletchman:

How many rounds did it take to score a hit in ww2 tanks? I read it was on the order of 7 rounds on average.

Comments?

Between 1 and 2 accoring to my sources.

Which I conveniently can't find right now.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-19-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

Its good the way it is

It used to be far too diffucult to get first round hits.

There are still plenty of first round misses and the way the game is now is the result of MUCH lobbying (largely on the part of Rexford) to include in the game stats that were dervived from known sources of targeting accuracy.

I would say MOST folks playing the game at this point in v1.12 are now fairly comfortable with the way first shot "to hit" accuracy percantages are modeled.

I think it is more realistic now than it ever was.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-19-2001).]

[JoePrivate]

There's an excerpt from 'Steel Inferno' on the first clash(Jun7) between the 12thSS and the Sherbrooke Fusiliers. The Fusiliers lost 21 tanks with 7 damaged in the six hour battle, the 12thSS reported expending only 40 rounds of AT ammunition. The short engagement ranges are deadly and CM reflects that to a large degree. Try extending the range and you may come back here wondering the opposite.

[Jeff Duquette]

Mike Emrys Said:

I've seen photos of tanks from North Africa that have been hit from half a dozen to a dozen times before being knocked out. But again, what does one make of that?

Funny you should mention this. I have been examining a fair number of both Allied and German vehicle photos from ETO over the past several months (since the 88mm Accuracy Thread). It is interesting the number of photos one comes across in which multiple gouges and multiple perforations show up on one tank hulk.

There is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that tankers would "shoot till it burns" to ensure their victim was in fact dead. Plugging ourselves back into Close Combat as a simulation one should ask the following questions:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

1)Is to much information being provided to players during tank engagements? Detailed penetration read outs during CM tank engagements reveals a level of battlefield intelligence which should be unavailable to Joe TC or Joe Gunner. It is evident that a "shoot till it burns" mentalty implies tankers were unsure a tank was in fact dead simply because it had been hit. Beyond this, it was apparent that tank crews were even unsure that a victim was dead simply because its armour had been perforated.

2)Is it reasonable to think in instances of the above described photos which reveal multiple gouges and perforations in a tank hulk that the killer of that tank was expending ammunition at a typical CM hit to miss ratio of 3M:1H or even 4M:1H in order to secure 4 or 5 perforations\armour gouges in a victim (assume normal combat ranges…ie below 1000 meters). In other words a photo of a KO'd Sherman which reveals 3 or 4 armour perforations implies a Panther or MkIV fired 9 to 12 rounds before being convinced that their Sherman victim was infact dead. This doesn't seem to compute in my mind. Ammunition upload for a Panther is what? 30 to 40 odd APCBC rounds? Thats alot of shotting to ensure a brew-up

Point 2 goes back to the age-old question of "Is the effect of bracketing underrated in CM". I personally believe that it is. I did a fair amount of live firing from M48A5's while in the National Guard up at Ft. Irwin (long before it became the National Training Center, and was still just a god forsaken speck in the desert). I recall that one of the firing ranges there had old hulks of M46's and M47's. There was even a turret from an old Sherman partly buried in the sand. When a high velocity round hits steel there is a distinctive flash clearly visable thorough dust generated from the main gun firing (there is a lot of dust in the desert). You get that distinctive flash and you know you have the range down pat. The hit probability for subsequent rounds down range on the same or adjacent targets sky rockets. Finding the proper range is 90% or more of the hit probability equation.

Olle Petersson Said:

Why not test your own gunnery skills? I've found out that the SteelBeasts Demo can help you a lot. The demo is free for download from some site, and once in the demo you can do some exercises as gunner in a M1A1.

This is an excellent suggestion, one which I had put forward some time ago on another ancient CM thread on accuracy. I have never been much of a tank computer game player, simply because of all the goofy radar screens and the like that designers insist on putting into their tank sims. Steel Beasts on the other hand really gives you the feel of being inside a tank turret (aside from the missing smell of burned cordite). If you play around with the GAS sight a little (using HEAT as Olle Suggests) you will find that you can become quite proficient at hitting targets well beyond 1000 meters. You will also quickly learn the value of the stadia range finder in the GAS....a ranging system not far removed from what WWII tankers were employing.

Just to switch back to the "real world" some old TRADOC documents I have compare first round hit probability between the M60A1, Sherman M4A1, and T62. The M60A1 as recall had a 50% first round hit probability on a target at 1500 meters. First round hit probability for the T62 was close to the M60A1. M4A1 was 50% first round hit probability at a range of about 500 meters.

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

There is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that tankers would "shoot till it burns" to ensure their victim was in fact dead.

I think the gunners probably knew when a target was no longer a threat (people bailing, etc). The reason why so many tanks were blasted until they burned was it made the tanks unrecoverable. The heat from the fire would soften the tanks armor. Belton Cooper (author of Death Traps) writing on this seemed to suggest it was a common German tactic if they had the time. I'm sure they first neutralized all the threats, then if they had time and ammo they would make the targets unrecoverable.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Why not test your own gunnery skills?

I've found out that the SteelBeasts Demo can help you a lot.

The 10:th gunnery scenario requires you to shoot using the auxillary sight, laser range finder, stabiliser and power traverse are turned off. To aim you have to hand crank the turret (repeatedly hitting the arrow keys), and you have a rangefinder comparable to the ones used in WW2 tanks.

When firing HEAT rounds you get a pretty close simulation of a WW2 tank firing AP.

Yeah I suggested that yonks ago, With the LEO-2 using visual range estimation the aux sight and hand traverse firng HEAT and APFSDS I got the following results.

Target stationary hit on second or third shot at 1500-2000m range.

Target moving towards me hit on third or fourth shot at 1500-2000m range.

Target moving crossing sight ~ 20 shots with HEAT [Vs BMP] @ the same range.

I found that ranging was the biggest factor and Lead against a moving target.

If I guessed the range right the above figures could work well , but if I guessed wrong I'd have to fire another round or two to get the range. With some practice I found I was pretty good at estimating range....even adjusting before first shot and hitting on the second round.

Now this was the test range and I find accuracy is reduced to about 2/3 of test range figures when there shooting back at you.

Hand cranking the turret around was a bitch and took for ever!!!

[KiwiJoe]

Yeah something I've always woundered about CM balistics model is this:

If you have two stationary tanks firing head on at each other... say a Panther and a Jumbo, and 1 scores a hit without penetrating, surely 95%+ of all shots after that should also hit if both targets don't move. Wouldn't it simply be a matter of loading another shell and firing? I accept you have factors such as shell inconsistancies, slight changes in the tank's postion after firing the main gun etc. But in CM once you hit a stationary target once, you only seem to have a 60-80% chance of hitting it with the next round. The only factor that seems to really increase accuracy is the amount of rounds fired at the target.

[Tiger]

...slight changes in the tank's postion after firing the main gun etc.

It's more than slight. In the video "Panzer" you can see the tanks recoil violently after each shot. Imagine this throws off the aim quite a bit. Plus there's the blast effect which isn't modeled in CM? After a tank fires its main gun, it there's usually alot of back-blast, smoke & debri, from the muzzle which lasts for several seconds. Lots of factors here including the type of gun and muzzel brakes.

Tiger

[Paul Lakowski]

Once range has been 'bracketed'it won't suffer if the tank moves a few meters or dozen meters in any direction , its just a question of keeping the aim on the target. You'd think by the way some people talk these guys have no training at all. They know all this and often fire hundreds of rounds before going into combat.

Where the statistical figures on gunnery get get crucified by averaging is when you go into battle with half your tanks only 5 hours of gunnery training . Those guys can't hit the back side of the barn and never last either. But the numbers leave there mark on company averages etc.

Elite gunners were as accurate as the antidotal evidence suggests the key is accurately modeling the frequency and effectiveness of poor gunners .

I work with a X Serb Tanker [ T-55 & 72], he told me that most of the guys in his unit were poorly trained and couldn't hit the back side of a barn in combat. He was usually able to hit with 2 to 4 shots in battle with T-55 [ APDS & no lazier] , but there was one 6 foot 4 inch gunner in the company , named the gypsy who "Never Missed ever"!!!

[Jeff Duquette]

Correction to my post above…I was quoting TRADOC info from memory. M4A1 first round hit probability at 500 meters was actually 85% and 50% at 700 meters. (TRADOC Bulletin no 1, 30 September 1975 “Range and Lethality of U.S. and Soviet Anti-Armour Weapons”.

Paul Said:

Where the statistical figures on gunnery get crucified by averaging is when you go into battle with half your tanks only 5 hours of gunnery training . Those guys can't hit the backside of the barn and never last either. But the numbers leave there mark on company averages etc.

All too true. The first time I looked into the gun sight on an M60A1 I had no frickin clue what all the lines and numbers meant. I did see cross hairs however and assumed that was what you used as your aiming point...always! The concept of trajectory and different aiming point relative to range was a mystery to me during that first look into a gun sight.

Funny to look back on it, but imagine you’re a marginally trained Soviet Tanker…1941 East Front. Thrown into the line after barely finishing basic training…little or no Advanced Individual Training on tanks. You’re hosed. You wont be able to hit the broad side of a barn at 500 meters. If you’re really lucky and manage to survive through a few engagements, and your unit is sneaking in training between real fights, than you get the gun sights wired, learn how to bore site your weapon, and maybe than you start hitting stuff...if you survive through the numerous mistakes you are going to make while learning on the job.

Big difference between the Red Army’s poorly trained tank crews of 41-42, and an average tank crew in the German Army, US ARMY and Commonwealth armies and the mid to late war Russian Army. These guys typically decent training and have a fair amount of time on live firing ranges, or have seen combat.

Tiger (the maker of most excellent MODs!) said something about tanks jostling about when they fire their main gun. This is true. But if you hit your target, and you see that flash…you know you have the range! That is critical. Statistically speaking the probability of you hitting that target again increase dramatically…in spite of all the jostling.

Someone else indicated that tank crews knew when a tank was knocked out by crews bailing out…true. Last one out of a brew-up is a French fry. Now in a case of a crew being incapacitated or killed outright…how is the firing tank crew going to know that their target is infact dead. Or lets say the few surviving crewmembers drop out from the drivers escape hatch under the tank to avoid being killed from the coax of the tank that just dispatched them. Or the all too common practice of a targeted tank popping smoke candles or Nebelwurfgerate and the dispatching tank is unable to observe the crew escaping. Or in the case of a Panther the surviving member of the turret crew crawls out the rear turret hatch. Or MkIV, which has its turret-oriented oblique to the dispatching tank and the surviving turret crewmember, crawls out the turret side hatch. Or the tank is hull down…turret crew is killed outright, and driver and co-drivers exit from the vehicle is concealed by terrain. You will even come across accounts of one or two crew members deserting a tank which has been hit, but some of the more resolute crew remains and continues to fight from the wounded beast.

Take a gander at Tiemans: "Chronicle of the 7th Panzer Kompanie, ISS Panzer Division." What if pigs had wings you may be asking at this point.

Whatever the battlefield oddities which might arise that result in tank crews shooting multiple holes in enemy tanks, I think they may go beyond Cooper’s Ordnance eye perspective of a battlefield. From an operational perspective it makes a great deal of since for crews to shot till it burns. That’s one more tank that is unserviceable...one less tank that will potentially have to be faced again 20km down the road.

From a tactical perspective I suspect a tank crew is more preoccupied with ensuring that the MKIVh 1500 meters away, slightly below that ridgeline, that your loader swares he saw get hit with the last round, isn’t going to put an AP round through your hide if you turn your back on it for a second. I’ve heard (or read) it argued both ways by more astute and combat savvy men than me.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Banshee:

I think the gunners probably knew when a target was no longer a threat (people bailing, etc). The reason why so many tanks were blasted until they burned was it made the tanks unrecoverable. The heat from the fire would soften the tanks armor. Belton Cooper (author of Death Traps) writing on this seemed to suggest it was a common German tactic if they had the time. I'm sure they first neutralized all the threats, then if they had time and ammo they would make the targets unrecoverable.

Depends on the circumstances. If they were sure of being in possesion of the battlefield after the fight, they might want to recover the enemy AFV for purposes of their own. Or if not interested in recovering them, the engineers would detonate a block of TNT inside the ammo compartment. You would save the technique of brewing up an abandoned AFV with a cannon shot only as a last resort as cannon shells might be hard to come by and you never knew when that extra one was going to come in awfully handy.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

In North Africa, the time period (early in tank devlopment, and more importantly, gun development) combined with the very long engagement ranges meant that it was not unusual to see a large number of hits prior to an actual kill.

While not entirely without merit, your comment contains a couple assumptions that cry out for examination and a point you seem to have overlooked.

First of all the "long engagement ranges". Except for the 88, that wasn't happening. It wasn't happening for a couple of reasons. One was terrain. People often assume that the battlefields of North Africa presented vast vistas of flat, featureless terrain and unlimited visibility. In fact, much of the actual fighting took place near the coastal escarpments where the ground was broken and crossed by wadis, or where there were hill, ridges, or just undulations and depressions in the ground that could conceal enemy units until you were right on top of them.

Another factor was the dust, whether driven by the wind or raised by the passage of your own or enemy units. There was also the heat haze, not an inconsiderable factor in trying to sight on a target. In addition to making its position indeterminate, due to the fact that it appeared to jump around, it made accurate ranging harder.

Finally there was the fact that both sides, knowing the limitations of their weapons, would hold fire until within effective range. On top of that, the British, still clinging to their cavalry traditions, would often try to charge right into the enemy positions.

Ergo: Long range engagements were an exception rather than a rule.

The point I think you overlook is that while gun development was at a relatively early stage, so too with the exception of the Matilda II was armor development.

P.S. I've also seen photos of tanks from the ETO with multiple hits. Could part of the explanation be that they were being fired at by multiple shooters?

Michael