TANK GUN ACCURACY AT SHORT/MED RANGE

[rexford]

Following is Battlesight accuracy for Panther 75 versus Sherman front, aim at bottom of hull and range set at 1100m:

100m-100%

200m-100%

300m-100%

400m-95%

500m-81%

600m-77%

700m-82%

800m-92%

900m-99%

1000m-94%

1100m-50%

Based on dispersion accuracy with gun aimed at center of target, Panther 75L70 is one of the most accurate guns of WW II in terms of small dispersion, being smaller than 88L56 and slightly below 50L60.

[TheDesertFox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does anyone have access to dispersion stats vs. range for Panther APCBC. The Desert Fox has provided hit %'s but we need actual lateral (Breite) and vertical (hohe) dispersion (streung) data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you checked my Panther page? Check out the "Characteristics" section. I guess additional vertical and lateral dispersion data can only be found in the archives by digging through additional Waffenpruefamt data.

The Waffenpruefamt data represent actual battlefield results for a tank which fires on a target from a concealed defense position. (most kills were optained this way. Most times the enemy did neither know what hit them nor wherefrom the shot came). Remember tank engagements are won from the tank that sees the enemy first.

If the german tank formation has to fire while being on the move (attack, delay, meeting engagement, etc..) certain other factors (moral, stress in game terms) reduce the hit %. However german doctrine strongly ephazises leapfrogging or another overwatch tactic keeping at least half of your formation stationary while the other part moves. This gives the overwatching part the ability to calmly fire at everything that moves. Ergo real life hit percentages were more or less in the area of the Waffenpruefamt report. The key sentence is:

"However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown as the Practice data"

The key element is to get the distance to the target (which hasn´t changed until today) correct. If you have it correct you have an extraordinary high likelyhood to score a first shot kill, if you haven´t you have to look where the tracer falls and to use "Messer und Gabel". This gives you the correct distance after the 2nd shot.

300m engagements with tanks failing several times to hit the target with consecutive shots are a BIG NO-NO with flat trajectory weapons in tank warfare except your optics are totally damadged.

[Panther page] http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther.htm

[Panther Characteristics] http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

cheers

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: TheDesertFox@gmx.net

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Jeff Duquette]

Jentz has the accuracy numbers for pzgr 39/42. I am assuming the numbers Desert Fox gave you are from Jentz's "Panther Quest for Supremacy" (I think that's the title) and represent 50% dispersion zone. Jentz also provides hit probability numbers for doubled dispersion for pzgr 39/42. He goes on to imply that the doubled dispersion numbers represent realistic combat accuracy for gunners who were able to maintain their cool in combat. The doubled dispersion numbers apparently represent hit probability for second and subsequent rounds fired at a tank sized target (2m x 2.5 m I think). The assumption of course being range estimation via bracketing. Dunno what the lateral (Breite) and vertical (hohe) stats for this round are…I will send out some emails to folks that may have this information.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hit % when target is at indicated range and battlesight method is used:

100m-100%

200m-100%

300m-98%

400m-92%

500m-89%

600m-92%

700m-99%

800m-97%

900m-50%<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am very curious as to your methodology in arriving at the above numbers. Do these values represent first round hit probability? Do they assume no range estimation error? Stationary or moving target? Can you share the function you are employing here f(x)?

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

4-for-4 at 2000 yards with an M18 boggles the mind, but Sgt. York did some things with a gun that can only be explained as instinct, training and growing up around guns. The points in the previous message about some people just being plain good is true. The Aussie who hit a German armored car that was beyond the 2 pounder gun sight range marks seems impossible, but it occurred.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I don't disagree, I still am struck by AAR's ala the following. Perhaps these are simply the odd uber-mench that have found their nitch in the world. Idiot Savant, Genious gunner. Than again if the first shot from our M18 were a lucky hit the gunner now has the range for the subsequent engagements…half the battle is done now with regards to tagging the additional targets. What was the magnification of the M18's gun sight? 5x?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From Seek Strike and Destroy.

The M-36 would not arrive in Europe until September 1944, but once it reached the front, it proved to be the only American armored vehicle that could match the heavier German tanks in firepower. One M-36 destroyed a Panther with one round at a range of 3,200 yards' and another fired five rounds at a tank 4,600 yards distant, scored two hits, and disabled the tank. The M-36 was equally impressive in the secondary missions. In the direct-fire role, a 90-mm armor-piercing shell could penetrate 4.5 feet of non-reinforced concrete.

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first tank in the "Freineux and Lamormenil" story requires two rounds to establish range. Second round is a kill. The second tank is destroyed with one round as range has already been established from shots on the first KO…no bracketing needed. Then again these may both be examples of the extraordinary. No one wants to read the tale of the avg. GI Gunner that missed 4 times at 500 meters. But hay that's what I'm here to find out.

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

Regarding short range misses, Clint Eastwood in one of his pics explained that the key to gun fighting was figuring out who would make a move first and who knew what they were doing. The rest would get excited, shoot like heck but wouldn't aim and probably couldn't hit, and this is what occurred in a bar room scene ("The Unforgiven" or "Josie Wales"?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love this analogy. Unfortunately wargamers would never stand for such a thing being implemented in their games.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

WRT the Hellcats going 4 for 4: it's quite possible that they already knew the range to the German tanks, although we don't have enough background information to know for sure. IIRC, the tanks came out of the treeline, turned 90 degrees, and drove in a line. Thus, if the tankers (or TDers, or whatever) knew the range to the treeline, they would have known the range to the tanks, within a small margin of error.

We don't know how long the tankers were overwatching the infantry, but we do know that they didn't just drive up (they were in defilade, covering a planned infantry assault). So they may have been able to determine the range to the treeline ahead of time, or simply been able to consult a map --military maps do tend to show treelines -- and determine the range from that.

Although figuring out the speed at which the tanks were travelling would take a certain amount of skill.

[Jeff Duquette]

From the opposite end of the spectrum.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Captain Charles L. Davis (US Army) describes the actions of a single Sherman tank in a wartime report from the 1st Armored Division in Tunisia (North Africa) in early 1943: "An 88mm gun came into the platoon leader's vision, about eight hundred yards to the right front, with the gun pointed to his right. He gave 800 yrds to the gunner, and the round was high. He gave 700, and the round was still over. 600 was again high. The German crew began traversing to lay on the tank. About then the platoon leader became a bit frantic and began screaming TOUR!, FOUR!' The next round was close enough to stop the gun, which got off one round that was barely wide of the tank. The gunner polished off the 88 with several more rounds."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You were asking about Panther engagement times earlier. I found this regarding Tiger II loading times. From a 1947 test report by the British Army. Perhaps an experienced Tiger II crew could shave a second or two off the times indicated.

The average loading times per round (in seconds) are as follows:

RACK GUN MAX. MAX.

LEVEL ELEV. DEPTH.

A 9.6 8.2 10.1

B 8.0 8.0 9.3

Ready rack A and B are both located in the turret bulge. Rack A is on the Loaders side of the turret (right side of the turret). Interesting that the near side ready racks required more time than far side. Perhaps the British Army Loader guinea pigs were all right handed.

From Jentz: For the Tiger I the expected performance of a gunner on a practice range was one hit out of three rounds fired within 30 seconds at a tank sized target traveling 20 kilometers per hour across the front at ranges from 800 to 1200 meters. The test parameters were apparently the same for Tiger II crews with the exception that ranges were extended due to the flatter trajectory of the higher velocity 88mmL71. I suspect if this were the US ARMY it would be a safe bet that these would be the test standards for all gunners. With the WWII German Armies seeming fondness for non-standardization it might not be a safe assumption to make that Panther crews trained under the same standards as Tiger I or II crews.

CAT scores for a few tanks…veteran crews (first shot at 1 to 2 km range). Some German general apparently reported that if you add 5 seconds to CAT results you’d get average tank crew times.

M60A3/T72A 14sec +/-5sec

LEO-1 or M60A1 16sec +/-5sec

Battlesight Engagement 12sec +/-5sec

T55/T62 20sec +/-5sec

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We don't know how long the tankers were overwatching the infantry, but we do know that they didn't just drive up (they were in defilade, covering a planned infantry assault). So they may have been able to determine the range to the treeline ahead of time, or simply been able to consult a map --military maps do tend to show treelines -- and determine the range from that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or they may have just gotten luckey with their first braketing round.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Good discussion all!

Jeff,

I was going to relate an example here, second hand from Charles, but you just posted the full thing Thanks Jeff for finding AND posting that quote from Captain Charles L. Davis. Perfect example of how important it is to not screw up the range even with a flat trajectory gun.

There is also an account from Macksey's "Tank vs. Tank" description of the battle at Singling between Hellcats and Easy Eights vs. Panthers and Jagdpanzers (not sure what type). It is interesting for several reason (one is that it shows how the Germans racked up large kill tallies), but the one to make note of here is close range accuracy.

Basically, one Easy Eight (Fitzgerald in command) knocked out a Panther at 150m, then missed one at 400m, then killed another at 500m and hit a fourth at 800m without causing damage. Although Fitzgerald was using a "flat trajectory" gun, he still managed to miss at 400m. And since he hit three other Panthers (KO'ing two out of a total of three German AFVs) while almost 20 US AFVs were knocked out, I think we have to assume that Fitzgerald and his crew were damned good.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Andrew Hedges wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We don't know how long the tankers were overwatching the infantry, but we do know that they didn't just drive up (they were in defilade, covering a planned infantry assault). So they may have been able to determine the range to the treeline ahead of time, or simply been able to consult a map --military maps do tend to show treelines -- and determine the range from that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that we are going to do some changes, possibly for CM2, that will help simulate pre-battle range determination. As I am sure everybody in this thread will agree with, having the time to get a good range BEFORE combat gives that side a critical edge.

Right now only AT bunkers get an advantage for 1st shot accuracy based on this principle. Obviously, such fortifications would have all sorts of landmarks logged and recorded well ahead of any enemy activity. This was easy to add because fortifications can't move during the game. Mobile AFVs are a bit more tricky to deal with, so hopefully we can do something with this in CM2. It is our intention to at least.

Steve

[rexford]

The battlesight hit %'s are based on a gun aimed at Sherman hull bottom and range set at 900m for most guns, 1100m for Panther.

The percentages would apply to all shots taken without changing range or aim spot. Second shots that adjust for misses would increase hit probability.

We put a 2.2m high Sherman (hull bottom to turret top) at 600m, calculated the "no dispersion" trajectory of the gun at 600m when it was set for 900m and then used dispersion to calculate % of shots that fall onto Sherman. Alot of turret hits.

If Sherman height is changed to 2.1m, the scale height of a 1/72 M4A1, the hit percentages drop by quite a bit. Battlesight works best against tanks that are fairly high from hull bottom to turret top. A 2m high T34 would result in 50% accuracy at max trajectory height against most guns, except Tiger I.

We have detailed dispersion data for 75L48, 50L60, 88L71 and 88L56, among others. Hit percentages for single dispersion are for shots aimed at center of target, no range estimation error. Double dispersion shots take into account battlefield impacts on aim but shots are still bunched around center of box.

Since second shots usually contain some degree of range estimation error, the double dispersion hit % would be too high since it is based on an average aim at center of target.

Shots can still hit if range estimation is long, since dispersion can act to bring high shots down to tank level:

If a Tiger I estimates 2000m range and shoots at a Sherman at 1900m, the shot flies over the aim point by 2m without dispersion. Say the target is a 2.1m high Sherman and aim is at vertical center.

Shot flies over top of Sherman by 2m from aim point minus 1.05m from aim point to turret top, or 0.95m.

Since dispersion adds to and subtracts from average trajectory height, we have to consider dispersion. Vertical Tiger I dispersion at 1900m is 50% of shots within 0.9m from average trajectory, or 68.3% within 1.33m.

50% of dispersions will be lower than average trajectory, and dispersion standard deviation is 1.33m (standard deviation represents 68.3% of distribution). 0.95m above turret divided by 1.33m results in 52% of low dispersions missing tank and 48% hitting.

With 5% range estimation error against 1900m target, 24% of shots will hit even though average trajectory is above target. Dispersions can bring bad range estimate shots back onto target or turn a good estimate into a miss at long range.

Tiger I gun has 50% dispersion of 0.9m at 2000m, which corresponds to a standard deviation of 1.33m. If range estimation is perfect and average aim is at center of 2m high target, we have 2m high target divided by 1.33m standard deviation for 1.5 standard deviations. 1.5 standard deviations is equal to 87% vertical accuracy, which is the figure published for 88L56 at 2000m with single dispersion (100% of lateral shots are within 2.5m distance).

If we double the 2000m dispersions, we have 2m vertical distance divided by 2.67m standard deviation, for 0.75 standard deviations within the vertical distance. This corresponds to 55% of vertical dispersion within 2m high distance, lateral % is 91%. 55% vertical spread in box times 91% lateral dispersion results in the 50% overall figure for shots within 2m x 2.5m box when average aim is at box center and shots are subject to dispersion.

Range estimate errors lower percentages by quite a bit, 25% average range error (bell shaped distribution curve) at 2000m results in 5% hit chance against 2m x 2.5m, down from 50% with perfect average aim at center of box.

Tanks with really great gun sights, like 10x Jagd Panther, don't make gunners squint to see where they should be aiming on 2000m shots, which increases hit %. The further one aims from the center of mass, the lower the percentage of hits when range estimation errors are considered. 10x scopes yield a real good view.

Tanks with 1.0x sights suffer compared to 2.5x scopes in terms of increased eye strain, greater variations in aim point, less ability to pick up on fall of shot, etc.

Tanks with 2.5x scopes might represent a standard in CM, which would then suggest accuracy bonus' for 5x, 6x and 10x and penalties for the 1.9x and 1.0x scopes. The less powerful the sight, the smaller the perceived target and the more difficult it is to aim at the center, or at the bottom if one is using battlesight aim.

In our rules, elite or battle hardened vets that take care of their instruments and gun alignment may qualify to use 1.25 times test dispersion for their first shots along with decreased range estimation errors, while average folks use double dispersion and 25% average errors. Good vets in Jagd Panther with 10x scope would certainly qualify for our bonus', while green troops might not know how to take advantage of tank instruments and wouldn't get the same results.

Based on The Desert Fox' Panther site presentation of hit probabilities when average aim is at center of 2m x 2.5m box, Panther 75mm has less dispersion than 88L56 and slightly less than 50L60. When 50mm Pak entered North African theater it immediately increased engagement range due to less dispersion than other guns, better optics and a greater magnification gun sight than 2 pounder (3.0x magnification for 50mm Pak, 1.9x for 2 pounder, 1.0x for U.S. 37mm).

50mm Pak round to round dispersion at 900m is about 60% less than German 76.2 L51.5 and 40% less than 75L48 APCBC.

If one can''t aim properly at a long range target or has a gun with large dispersion it makes sense that one won't hit it as often, and 50mm Pak clearly was a superior weapon with regard to accuracy.

The ability to hit is tied into many factors such as distance estimations, gun sight optics and magnification, weapon alignment and fine adjustment, and if everything else was equal 50mm Pak would probably have a higher hit % than 2 pounder based on gun sight advantages.

[aka_tom_w]

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

Andrew Hedges wrote:

Note that we are going to do some changes, possibly for CM2, that will help simulate pre-battle range determination. As I am sure everybody in this thread will agree with, having the time to get a good range BEFORE combat gives that side a critical edge.

Steve Says:

Right now only AT bunkers get an advantage for 1st shot accuracy based on this principle. Obviously, such fortifications would have all sorts of landmarks logged and recorded well ahead of any enemy activity. This was easy to add because fortifications can't move during the game. Mobile AFVs are a bit more tricky to deal with, so hopefully we can do something with this in CM2. It is our intention to at least.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH you know I have to jump in on this one.

May I suggest that for the final v1.1 we could also see dug in Tanks gain the same "advantage for 1st shot accuracy" based on a known range.

And now that we know that an "advantage for 1st shot accuracy" based on a known and established range can and is modeled in the game can we look again at range finders in tanks and range finders associated with the 88mm flak that while not in a bunker "should" give the same "advantage for 1st shot accuracy" based on known range.

I would FULLY support ALL efforts to enhance 1st shot accuracy, based on something that attempts to model the likelyhood (it should be a percentage or an odds calucaltion to determine if the correct range was in fact correctly determined, perhaps based somewhat on crew experience level) of predetermined range to target accuracy.

Stationary tanks which have been documented to have these range determination devices available to them (especially in CM2 on the Eastern front at long ranges) SHOULD have some form of advantage for 1st shot accuracy, based on the use of their range finder as well.

Great thread, Thanks Steve for the updates and comments.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-03-2001).]

[Jeff Duquette]

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

Perfect example of how important it is to not screw up the range even with a flat trajectory gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding the Captain Charles L. Davis (US Army) N. Africa account this is no doubt a 75mmL31. Both Shot and APCBC have muzzle velocities of 588 m/s. Low velocity very “unflat” trajectory. Battlesight gunnery would be a relatively useless exercise at anything other than very close range. This is apples and oranges relative to an 88L56 or 75L70.

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

Basically, one Easy Eight (Fitzgerald in command) knocked out a Panther at 150m, then missed one at 400m, then killed another at 500m and hit a fourth at 800m without causing damage. Although Fitzgerald was using a "flat trajectory" gun, he still managed to miss at 400m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 4th AD's Engagement at Singling is classic small unit 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”.

According to Fitzgerald’s account his gunner was apparently still adjusting his sights when the second Panther fired a smoke round “and a few seconds later disappeared as effectively as an octopus behind its self-made cloud and escaped”. There doesn’t seem to be any mention by Fitzgerald of actually firing on this tank. Odd, considering the previous detail regarding range and number of rounds fired in the other Panther engagements by Fitzgerald at Singling. However, if he did as Mackey suggests perhaps the target was obscured by smoke.

In addition, Macksey’s reference to the loss of 20 tanks is not referring exclusively to the famous action by Fitzgerald on December 6 around Singling. The actual losses suffered by elements of Task Force Abrams at Singling on December 6 included 5 medium tanks (photos of several of these rittled tanks are shown in “Small Unit Actions”).

The Dec. 6 attack on Singling included Company B/37th Tank Battalion and Company B/51st Armored Infantry Battalion. B/37th apparently had 13 tanks, plus the Company CO’s tank, and the Artillery F.O.’s tank (15 total). Macksey’s British up-brining is obvious from his reference to Artillery F.O.O. tanks The final reckoning of the battle at Singling reveals neither a big action nor a startling successful one. All 4th Armored Division units directly involved suffered a total of 22 casualties, of which 6 were killed; they lost 5 medium tanks. Known enemy losses were 2 Mark V tanks and 56 prisoners.” Both Panthers were KO’d by Fitzgerald’s Tank Crew.

A German SP was also damaged by bazooka fire…5 rounds fired…1 hit. The crew apparently abandoned their tank after the hit, although according to the Armored Infantrymen doing the shooting, the bazooka round only succeeded in scratching the SP’s armor. Germans retained possession of the field after the battle, and presumably that is why this abandoned SP isn’t included in the casualty figures.

Anyway Macksey’s 20 tank figure includes several days worth of action by 4th AD in the vicinity of Singling and Binning. Some of these tank KO’s were apparently immobilized because of muddy ground conditions and subsequently destroyed by German Indirect Artillery fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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. The Picture was 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jeff Duquette]

Rexford:

So the spread sheet is presumably a trade secret. Never the less facinating information.

I am picturing the following problem in my head as I am to lazy to sketch at the moment. Does your model account for elevation contrasts between target and firing vehicle. Without sketching this out I am guessing that significant elevation contrasts would change the geometry and size of the beaten zone. I am also guessing that the resultant accuracy for range “X” with a significant elevation contrast would be different than range “X” for the same elevation between target and firing vehicle.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

I thought this was kind of interesting. Fitzgerald’s initial turret facing was apparently straight down the road shown in the photo above prior to spotting his 150meter Panther. The Panthers Turret was apparently parallel to the same alignment…gun obviously facing the opposite direction as Fitzgerald’s gun. The account indicates simultaneous spotting by Sherman of Panther and Panther of Sherman.

Panther TC: “Gunner…Shot…Tank…Traverse Left…Traverse Left…Traverse left”.

Sherman TC: “Gunner…Shot…Tank…Traverse left…on…two hundred…Identified…up…fire…on the way…ka-boom…cease fire”.

The KO’d Panther still has a full 20 to 30 degrees to traverse before it would be bearing on Fitzgerald’s Position. Look at the angle of the Panthers gun relative to Fitzgerald’s firing position in the photo above. What RPM’s was the Panther’s driver revving his engine at? Beaten to the draw by a country mile.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 01-03-2001).]

[rexford]

With battlesight aim, aim at hull bottom and set gun for 900m with Tiger I.

Would terrain grades effect shot? Never thought of it, and we hadn't even considered including battlesight until a few messages ago.

Trajectory height is estimated with regard to bottom of target, shooting down a slope would still result in same trajectory shape relative to line between firer and target, so grades might not substantially impact distances. So if target tank is on higher or lower ground than firer it may not significantly change results.

We'll look into this further. Good question.

See message on trajectory model for more on how things work and the assumptions that were made. Trajectory model developed about 13 years ago and we forgot most of what went into it.

Good questions from readers made us open up the old yellow notepads and try to decipher cryptic scribblings.

Somewhere in our storage shed we have a curve for armor resistance to HEAT versus target hardness. Reason why bazooka failed to penetrate Tiger I and T34/85 in Korea was because hard armor increases resistance to HEAT and HEAT must over-penetrate by about 20mm or so to do real damage.

But HEAT hits can scare heck out of crews and make them abandon vehicles. First use of bazooka against panzers (North Africa?) caused hull hatches on PzKpfw IV to blow open but crew and tank interior undamaged. Crews thought bazooka gases were poisonous so they bailed, but later got back in and continued when fellows left behind were not dead.

Side skirts may increase HEAT effectiveness by providing stand-off distance that allows HEAT jet to get organized. Some modern HEAT anti-tank ammo uses pole on end to promote stand-off distance, at least that is what Guard buddies told me.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>REX: See message on trajectory model for more on how things work and the assumptions that were made. Trajectory model developed about 13 years ago and we forgot most of what went into it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saw it and printed it out to read at my leisure. Excellent post as usual. Tanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>REX: Somewhere in our storage shed we have a curve for armor resistance to HEAT versus target hardness. Reason why bazooka failed to penetrate Tiger I and T34/85 in Korea was because hard armor increases resistance to HEAT and HEAT must over-penetrate by about 20mm or so to do real damage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read somewhere that in several cases the M9’s poor performance against North Korean T34/85’s was partially attributable to old ammunition and faulty fuzes. The 24th ID’s Ammo had apparently been setting about in damp storage facilities in Japan since 1945. I have also seen some implication that some\many of Task Force Smith’s and the 24th ID’s bazooka teams were not properly trained and may not have been removing safety pins prior to firing. Never the less, weather it was faulty training or FH armor the ARMY and MARINES quickly switched out to the M20. The M20 was apparently quite effective against T34/85's during street fighting in Seoul following the Inchon landings.

I recently came across an account in “Battle for Mortain” in which a bazooka team fired at a Panther. The tank stopped cold. Bazooka team examines innards of tank and there is no penetration or interior spalling, but the crew are all dead. Concussion perhaps?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>REX: Side skirts may increase HEAT effectiveness by providing stand-off distance that allows HEAT jet to get organized. Some modern HEAT anti-tank ammo uses pole on end to promote stand-off distance, at least that is what Guard buddies told me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. This is the same stance BTS has regarding ad-hoc armor and HEAT. I’m no expert on the Monro - effect, but presumably the plasma stream is increasing in energy up to its focal point, and decreasing after the focal point. Ideally the focal point is also coincident with the target armor plate face. Panzerfaust, LAW, bazooka, schreack, PIAT, RPG, Carl Gustav etc. would no doubt all have different focal points and would therefore not all be effected in the same way by spaced armor, shurzen, sandbags, logs, tracks, etc.

The old 105mm HEAT rounds for the M48A5 had a long (6inch maybe?) pole on its business end. The pole basically extended out of a flat nose. The flight charachteristics of the thing must have been similar to that of a brick.

Please excuse my stream of conciseness format.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 01-03-2001).]