Accuracy While Firing On the Move (OR FAST) in CMBO

[Stephen Smith]

I had meant to mention this in my earlier post, but forgot. I thought that shooting on the move would be difficult for two reasons 1) alterations in terrain would jiggle the aim point off target, and 2) it would be hard for the gunner to remain oriented (and reorient, once he's off) on a target in a moving, bouncing tank. What I forgot to say, is these two effects would be affected differently by range. The further the range, the more alterations in terrain will jiggle the aim point off target (thus, .15 degree bumps will alter the aim point by a small distance at 100 m, but a huge distance at 1500 m)- perhaps at very close ranges, small alterations in terrain wouldn't even jiggle the aim point enough to move it off target (say, 50 cm from the center of a tank is still hitting the tank). But the other effect (the gunner remaining oriented) will be worse at close ranges than at far ranges (imagine looking at something through a toilet paper tube while running. Imagine its a mountain top in the distance-its probably possible to keep 'on target' and to restore your view of it when your hand shakes and you end up 'seeing' the sky through the tube. Now imagine trying to stay 'on target' to the headlight of a car across the street while running-it'd be practically impossible!). So no matter what, you're screwed. At far ranges, you can still see the target but are more likely to miss it. At near ranges, its harder to remain 'seeing the target' through the scope.

steve

[Slapdragon]

This is a reply I got from Lt. Hans Cooper, my cousin's husband and a former officer in 1/87 Arm (I think). In reply to my question on firing on the move in the M1A1 (used as a reason why the M4 could not fire on the move) he had this to say:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Regarding the M1 question, the answer might depend somewhat on M1 vs M1A1, which has a better gun (120 mm Rhienmetal smoothbore vs the old 105 mm from the M60A3). Either way though, we routinely trained to fire on the move as well as standing still. I would doubt accuracy at 1800+ meters / higher than 25 mph over very rough terrain, but it could certainly be possible over a moderately smooth desert floor. We trained to fire at speeds of 25 mph on

(moderately) rough gravel roads, and hit most of what we shot at. Shooting on

the move from an M1A1 would be a big advantage vs a T-72 since the M1A1

generally shoots almost as accurately on the move as it does parked, whereas the T-72 has trouble hitting a moving

target. Anyway, hope this information helps." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hans has further said that this was the standards in his company at the time he was in the military, but that other units may train to lower standards, not be as confident of their equipment, or be under orders to take it easy on their equipment (in other words, he is not claiming knowledge of every unit in every battalion in the Army, only his own).

He also said that it was possible to shoot on the move without gyros but you can't get anywhere close to the 90% first round hit at 20 mph on (moderately) rough gravel against a moving target that his unit trained for. His unit did not train to shoot without the gyros, just he knew it could be done.

[rexford]

A 0.15° change in tank angle represents a 0.63" inch difference between front and rear hull of a 20' long tank.

0.15° change in aim angle is about

If a tank is moving and closing on a stationary target, chances are the tank is vibrating about a mean value, and the gunner will see the target going up and down on scope.

If gunner watches target and notes midpoint of "vibration" they may be able to adjust aim based on mid vibration. Pilots flying instrument approaches to erratic beacon signals (which can change direction completely due to distance and intervening trees) may direct aircraft towards center of swinging pointer arc. Center of "vibration" is assumed to be correct course.

If moving tank is on level ground without major vibration and the front of the hull suddenly pitches up by 0.15° compared to rear hull, a shot aimed at the center of a 500m target will miss (shot passes target at 1.3m above aim point).

It would seem that the problem when shooting from a tank that has the gun "vibrating" through a vertical arc is that the gun sights would depict a target that is moving up and down. If the normal gun elevation aim for a 500m target is 0.244° and tank movement pitches the gun up by an additional 0.15°, the resulting weapon elevation is 0.394° (61% increase). This raises the 500m trajectory by 1.3m.

[Rother]

Slapdragon,

Could you ask Hans about gunning on the move using the aux sight and no laser range finder? I think you might get a completely different answer.

Whoever asked about Bradley gunners. I used to be one but it's apples and oranges compared to a tank. You shoot a 25mm more like a machinegun than a tank gun. If you miss you just walk the rounds on target. A monkey can do it. It's been a long time since I fired a gunnery and I barely remember it but I don't remeber ever firing on the move. If I did it was at nothing more than walking speed. There were moving engagments but I think we stopped before firing. I could be wrong though.

I have alot more experience in a M551-NTC turret. Gunning on the move was impossible. Not because the gyro was inop but because you couldn't keep your eye on the sight. Mount a rifle scope, binos or preferably a spotting scope solidly to any vehicle and try to use them on the move. You can't even look through them much less attempt to aim them. Which brings me to the British test that Steve mentioned. If the gunner is holding the gun on his shoulder then the gun, gunner and sight should be moving the same. That would make firing on the move far easier than a moving gunner trying to look through a fixed sight.

Rother

[Jeff Duquette]

Agree with Rother. I trained on the M48A5 and M60A1 at Fort Irwin. Firing on the move is certainly possible. Hitting anything while firing on the move…at least in these older MBT’s was a matter of sheer luck. Anyone who has gazed through a gunners sight in a tank traveling at even moderate speeds cross country can relay the jostling about that occurs. No idea what M1A1’s can do, but again I would agree with Rother in that if you make the gunner shut down his GPS and force him to employ his auxiliary gun sight you’ll probably get a completely different answer as to the merits of firing while on the move.

British Army WWII doctrinal philosophy of firing while on the move with any accuracy was a flawed gunnery philosophy. SOP for even experienced British tank crews was to deliver accurate fire on point targets while halted. Those more interested in reading WWII British tankers feelings regarding firing while on the move should take a look at “Brazen Chariots” by Major Robert Crisp.

Soviet WWII armor training manual indicates the Russian tankers were to employ moving fire for suppressive effect, but that accurate fire on point targets should be delivered while halted. Quick halt, engage target, cease fire, and move out...some such thing.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Username]

A gunner in a tank would not himself be stabilized. As jeff and others have said, you are jostled around. The gunner's stabilized sight meanwhile is staying in line with the gun barrels counter movements. To keep ones eye on this could probably only be done at slow speeds on fairly forgiving terrain that allowed anticipation by the gunner as to the sights next move.

I can imagine that a gyro could help out when slowly cresting a slope to get Hull down. The gunner could call out immediately when he sees over (and the gyro would make this clear).

I think that BTS did the right thing by making gyros a slight advantage. But in general, firing on the move, at point targets, should maybe be toned down in general. Even in the case on non-gyro weapons.

Lewis

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Tero]

A what-about-harmonious-vibration-from-the-running-gear-and-recoil-from-previous-shots-affecting-the-aiming-and-firing bump.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Username]

This is from another thread...

Dekefenkle wrote:

"I was with the 11 ACR in Germany circa 1990. I was assigned to the gunners position in my Bradley after about 18 months of my tour. The Bradley has an OX sight, which is nothing more than a periscope with a range finding site consisting two lines forming a V and a center line running up the middle. (actually IIRC its two V’s, one for flank and one for head-on targets) The site is to be used in case the primary firing site is disabled. In ranged gunnery firing single shot using the manual traverse and elevation you can attain a first shot hit up to 800 meters in the neighborhood of 50% of the time with very little practice. You almost need to be a contortionist to get your body into position to use this site AND the manual controls but we did indeed practice it.

Now I know this is NOT apples to apples. The 35mm on a Bradley is a very high velocity gun IIRC 2850 meters per sec. (any of you active scouts out there feel free to correct me) and I sure wouldn’t want to try to take a shot on the move with that system."

Aside from the fact its a 25mm system and the velocity cant be that high, its a good addition to this thread.

Lewis

[Andreas]

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

The British were big on firing on the move before the war. The gunner acted as the stabilizer in their tanks. But alas that worked only for the professional tankers with years of experience. Once the fresh conscripts started manning the tanks that doctrine was proven less than ideal so they had to revert to stopping to shoot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite what I read. The South Alberta Rgt when in Britain in 1943 trained firing on the move, according to their history. They had Ram II tanks with 6pdr guns at the time, and these could only shoot AP, no HE, so it was not for suppressive effect.

I agree with Jeff's statement though that the doctrine was flawed. That did not stop them from teaching it though.

[Tero]

>Not quite what I read. The South Alberta

>Rgt when in Britain in 1943 trained firing

>on the move, according to their history.

Trained. But what is said about combat use of said method and how effective did it prove ?

I rely largely on a stament made in a Discovery Channel program. I know for a fact the shoulder rest for the 2prd gun made it up to the Churchill Mk1 so the training must have gone on. But from what I can gather the effectiveness of firing on the move dropped when the peace time army of professionals was flooded with the 30-day wonders.

>They had Ram II tanks with 6pdr guns at the

>time, and these could only shoot AP, no HE,

>so it was not for suppressive effect.

A clean miss with a AP round seldom suppresses a tank. Theyt may not even realize they are being targeted until they get hit.

>I agree with Jeff's statement though that

>the doctrine was flawed. That did not stop

>them from teaching it though.

Agreed. But it is the RL effectivness that is being debated, not its doctrinal employment as such.

[Andrew H.]

I think the fact that firing on the move was used in training up until '43 is indirect evidence that it was at least possible to fire on the move and hit something. If tankers were unable to hit *anything* on the move in training, the doctrine would have been dropped more quickly.

I suspect the real reason that the doctrine was dropped is because it is much more effective to move, stop for 3 seconds and fire, then continue moving. This takes care of all of the accuracy problems discussed in this thread, and only slows the tank down a tiny bit.

This brings up the question of what CM models. I had always sort of assumed that a tank that is moving and firing is actually stopping briefly to fire, and the fact that it appeared to be constantly moving is just a graphics thing, or else the brief pauses are abstracted.

If they are not abstracted, they should be, as doctrine and (most) common practice by '44 appeared to be brief halts.

I guess there are a couple of ways CM could deal with this. One would be to have separate commands for Move(and don't stop when you fire) and Move(stopping for 3 seconds to fire). This would be cumbersome and possibly ahistorical.

Another way would be to decide that, say, Move meant brief pauses to fire, but Fast Move means go hell-for-leather and don't stop to fire at all.

The third way, and maybe the best way, would be to abstract the tanks' behavior based on the time period and the applicable doctrine.

So if '42-style Sov. doctrine called for tanks to fire on the move, and '44-style soviet doctrine called for brief pauses, the '42 tanks should be less accurate on the move than the '44 tanks (even if they are the same tank) to reflect the different firing doctrines. On the other hand, the '44 tanks would be slower than the '42 tank because it would have to slow down, briefly stop, and accelerate up again to accomodate its firing method. If the tanks in question have a ROF of 2 or 3 shots/minute, the '44 tank would be noticeably slower.

Maybe there's another way of dealing with this. My proposals lack elegance.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Agreed. But it is the RL effectivness that is being debated, not its doctrinal employment as such.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again I would suggest taking a look at the "RL" comments of "RL" British Tankers in "Brazen Chariots". That is why I provided the "RL" reference.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Said: I suspect the real reason that the doctrine was dropped is because it is much more effective to move, stop for 3 seconds and fire, and then continue moving. This takes care of all of the accuracy problems discussed in this thread, and only slows the tank down a tiny bit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This presumes that a crew can identify and engage a target in 3 seconds. Average CAT scores for even “crack” M1A1 tank crews and Leopard-2 crews falls out at around 6 to 7 seconds per engagement. This also assumes a first round hit. “Average” crew engagement times fallout at approx. 16 to 25 seconds. These avg. engagement times incorporate all the benefits\luxuries of modern tank gunnery ala multiple gun sight magnification settings, laser range finders, stabilization, ballistic computers, etc. Space age technology relative what WWII gunners had at their fingertips.

In addition, tanks moving at speed that jam on their brakes will lurch and rock. Quite uncomfortable for any loaders or TC’s who get caught unbraced. Very uncomfortable for a gunner who has his eye pressed against a gun sight...stab or no stab.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Said: I think the fact that firing on the move was used in training up until '43 is indirect evidence that it was at least possible to fire on the move and hit something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normally I might agree on correlation between training doctrines and combat SOP. However given the weapon systems of that time firing while moving at even moderate speeds x-country and expecting to hit something consistently should not be a realistic expectation.

Another example of flawed British tank gunnery doctrine was post WWII reliance on ranging machine guns. While the rest of the post WWII world was busily figuring out ways of incorporating honest to goodness optical range finders as standard equipment on their latest MBT’s the British clung to the idea that ranging to targets should be established via machine gun fire (Conqueror being one of the only exceptions). Even the Chieftain with its armor shredding 120mm was expected to establish range via a ranging MG. Yet British Army doctrine anticipated attriting large Soviet tank formations at ranges up to 3000 meters.

This thread I believe opened with the comment that US tank destroyers in CMBO can readily dispatch their pray while under a fast move command. I haven’t done any game testing myself, but if this is indeed the case (and this sort of thing is occurring consistently and is not just some odd-ball once in a while occurrence within the game), than it is clearly “unrealistic”.

[opfor6]

I agree with the other former/current tank gunners, it should be very difficult to hit a point target over a few hundred yards away.

A 14% rate is not that far out of the realm. A tank moving cross country will have short periods of time where the gun, the gunner and the target will all align.

What is missing is the target acquisition phase of the engagement. If the gunner can acquire the target he should be able to hit it atleast 1.4 times out of ten shots. A rate of 3.3 times in ten is not bad IF the acquisition of the target is modelled accurately.

The main problem in tank gunnery is finding the target and laying the gun on the target. After the trigger is pulled all the other stuff (temp, humidity, barrel whip, cant etc etc) takes effect. The higher the velocity the less effect the "other stuff" has.

I found it interesting that many of the tests people ran had some sort of spotter placed to "see" the targets so the test firing tanks could get shots of at the right range. This is a basic flaw. NO ONE but the tank commander can spot for a tank gunner. He has to acquire and engage on his own. If you take this away from the equation everything is skewed.

My suggestion for how to address this in CMBB is fairly straight forward. There needs to be an acquisition check of some sort for each vehicle before it can fire. The penalty for movement should be substantial. But if it does acquire then the ability to hit is ok in the current range.

The Soviets will have to fire HE at area targets on the move if they want to get supressive effect. That is what they did and there is no need to acquire a woodline to your front. You lob rounds and they land based on the gunnery tables in CM area fire. IF they want to fire at point targets with any chance of hitting they will need to slow or stop. Again this mimicks real life as the Soviets found that HE suppresion did little to the German AFVs. Thus the change in doctrine between 42 and 44.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi all,

Good stuff, but I do see a bunch of apples and oranages here. For starters, please go back and look at the British data and then data complied by Treeburst, Slapdragon, and myself. This is critical here for the following reasons...

1. We are talking about accuracy UNDER 500m or so. Therefore, examples of M1A1s at 1000m and up are irrelevant right off the bat unless you are comparing them to similar tests conducted in CM at such ranges. I did such tests and CM tanks can't hit squat at those ranges when on the move. To you tankers out there... did you ever do firing on the move training at 500m or less? If so, how different was it than firing on the move at 1800m? That is what needs to be kept in mind here.

2. Speeds are being tossed about here as if it doesn't matter what the speed is. In CM if a tank is firing using MOVE it is going at only a couple miles per hour. If it is firing while moving FAST, it is generally about 10-15mph. I keep seeing 25mph being batted about, but only the Hellcat can even get close to that sort of speed in CM while using FAST.

3. The tests, both the British ones and ingame ones, are done in ideal circumstances. Any comparison to real life combat needs to take this into account.

Opfor6 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I found it interesting that many of the tests people ran had some sort of spotter placed to "see" the targets so the test firing tanks could get shots of at the right range. This is a basic flaw. NO ONE but the tank commander can spot for a tank gunner. He has to acquire and engage on his own. If you take this away from the equation everything is skewed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not correct. Having the targets spotted ahead of time rules out a rather large variable, which is spotting. Therefore, the results from such tests can be seen as "best case" and all on an even footing. And that is what the tests that I and others did were meant to show -> best case gunnery accuracy.

If you didn't make sure that all the targets were spotted, the "best case" tests would be skewed since different vehicles in different tests would spot and react differently. This would therefore ruin the scientific basis of a "best case" test since a random variable is running around messing with the results.

I found it interesting that many of the tests people ran had some sort of spotter placed to "see" the targets so the test firing tanks could get shots of at the right range. This is a basic flaw. NO ONE but the tank commander can spot for a tank gunner. He has to acquire and engage on his own. If you take this away from the equation everything is skewed.

Think of it like other artificial conditions, such as removing all ammo from the targets, restricting their ability to pull back, flat terrain, no covering terrain, etc. These are no more realistic than having all the enemy units spotted, but realistic battlefield conditions are not what we are trying to look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My suggestion for how to address this in CMBB is fairly straight forward. There needs to be an acquisition check of some sort for each vehicle before it can fire. The penalty for movement should be substantial.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To the best of CM's ability, both of these things do exist in CMBO and always have. Unfortunately, the realities of Absolute Spotting negate such modeling sooner or later. Not all the time in all circumstances, but in general it does. Play a game with one tank on each side and you will see a very different targeting dynamic than one with a company of infantry and one tank per side (provided they all stick together).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Andrew:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This brings up the question of what CM models. I had always sort of assumed that a tank that is moving and firing is actually stopping briefly to fire, and the fact that it appeared to be constantly moving is just a graphics thing, or else the brief pauses are abstracted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brief pauses are up to the player. You can very easily do them. If we put in brief firing halts into the system we would stop the vehicle when it fired since it would be highly unrealistic to keep it moving since target tracking and physics are linked to such action.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If they are not abstracted, they should be, as doctrine and (most) common practice by '44 appeared to be brief halts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but this is up to the player. There are a half dozen ways of doing this, but generally they center on the HUNT order, giving Pause orders during the middle of a move, or halting orders completely and then replotting using the C&C penalty as a pause of sorts.

From what we can tell, a "short halt" in WWII terms was long enough to crank off a few rounds. The notion of driving at 15mph, stopping on a dime, firing one round, then zooming off again, is a modern concept made possible only through massive leaps in vehicle, gun, and targeting systems technologies. In WWII if you stopped short and cracked off a round, you were not likely to hit except at very close range. In general a tanker needed to fire 2-4 rounds from the same position to be assured to get a hit. This is, of course, a gross simplification. Other threads go into far more details than I care to do now

Steve

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Triumvir]

Steve,

I don't think the use of a hunt command is quite enough to simulate a brief pause. I like the idea of interspersing hunt and move commands, but the problem with hunt that I've noticed is that when the tank engages the target, if it misses, it will stay in position and shoot at the target.

This is fine for a hunt-into-hulldown, but I don't feel that it's suitable for an advance over open fields. Instead of charging between patches of cover, a hunt-move tank will stop just outside of cover and volley with its opponent, instead of moving forwards while reloading.

I like the implementation of the hunt -- note that a hunting tank moves faster than a moving tank too, but models the pause correctly. But I'd rather see a hunt-pause-shoot-move.

Your sources say that a tanker needed to bracket before assuring a hit; but bracketing is sometimes an unaffordable luxury.

[opfor6]

Steve,

I understand about the various "Lab" conditions vs normal game conditions. My point is that acquiring and being able to lay the gun on target are the hard parts of firing on the move. The actual to hit and penetration etc of the shot does not seem to be that skewed...given that the gunner can see the target. For example if the tank is running over rolling terrain and the gunner kept oriented on the target, he could pop a cap when the crosshairs were on the target even for a moment. IF he hit is up to all the firing modifiers and how good he was.

The absolute spotting problem can be overcome with a aquisition check that takes into account movement of target and shooter, terrain, crew quality, target size etc. This has to occur for each unit wanting to fire. Previous spotting by another unit should be a very small modifier. It is very hard to tell someone else where a target is with any accuracy especially in a combat situation with all the chatter on the radio. "MKIV in the woodline at your 11 O'clock" is about the best you can get. This does very little to help a gunner lay on target. It helps him to know where to search. But if he is rolling all over the place and is having trouble orienting his weapon the information turns into knowing what shot you.

I real life we did not practice much on engaging short range targets. Primarily because it was closer that we would like to engage the enemy. Secondly because given the training times available the best use of time was to engage harder targets. For an M-1 a five hundred meter target looks like it is climbing up the front deck. The magnification on the WWII tanks was not as high.

[aka_tom_w]

Steve Writes:

"Brief pauses are up to the player. You can very easily do them. If we put in brief firing halts into the

system we would stop the vehicle when it fired since it would be highly unrealistic to keep it moving since

target tracking and physics are linked to such action.

quote:

If they are not abstracted, they should be, as doctrine and (most) common practice by '44

appeared to be brief halts.

True, but this is up to the player. There are a half dozen ways of doing this, but generally they center on

the HUNT order, giving Pause orders during the middle of a move, or halting orders completely and then

replotting using the C&C penalty as a pause of sorts."

Those folks here who think the game should model the tank actually stopping and firing and then moving on when NOT ordered to advance on a hunt order are presumably requesting this feature so they can avoid the firing while moving penalty modifier then move on, but they will still lose the second shot target aquistion modifier. Here's my point, I still don't believe that the penalty you pay for firing on the FAST move is really all that substantial so you "could" suggest or infer that this not so substantial penalty applied to firing on the fast move "sort of" abstracts the kind of targeting accuracy you would get if your tank stopped and fired which it CLEARLY does NOT in CMBO while firing on the FAST move.

I'm still ranting on about this because I could NOT believe my eyes the first time a played the Beta Demo when those three Hellcats came flying down the hill at warp 9 firing on the FAST move of course and Nailed that Tiger I and took it out. Right there I thought that must the Allies Secret weapon, Hell for all I know that fast Hellcat must have been the secret weapon the Allies needed to win the war .

Anyway the only way to fix this that I can see, would be to ADD another order that says fire on the move BUT stop to do so than Then Move on, this would be different then the Hunt order. I think the Hunt order works just fine.

Here's another idea....

OR not penalize firing while on the MOVE, and tell us the this new Fire on the MOVE order abstracts the move and fire order and while tanks don't actually stop moving to fire it is modeled.

In any case there REALY should two sets of firing on the move penalty modifiers, first the modifier (Much more substantial than it is now, i.e. Hard to get a hit) for firing on the FAST move, and then a different and MORE generous modifier for firing on the Move, thus implying the only real penalties for firing on the Move would be a slower ROF and No target acquistion bonus after every round, the "No target acquistion bonus" is in the game already, but I'm not sure about the slower ROF for firing on the move.

AND of course the ROF for firing on the fast move should be slower than while firing on the move.

Again thanks to Steve and all the contributors here, lets stay focused on how we can make positive and constructive comments and suggestions for how this feature can be modeled in CMBB.

Thanks All

-tom w

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

nothing further from anyone else on this issue?

-tom w

[Jeff Duquette]

Yes…several things I would like to add. Conducted numerous tests of my own. Both Stuart vs. MkIVG and Sherman M4A3(75mm) vs. MKVIG. Both sets of crews were green. Snipers provide LOS for Shermans\Stuarts. Stuart and Shermans plotted to move under fast move command. Terrain flat. Weather clear…blah…blah…blah. Range maintained at 450 to 525 meters. Both sides given ammo and allowed to fire at each other. No toothless engagements. Used berm to block LOS until Sherman got up full head of steam.

Results: 1st test one Sherman vs. one MkIVG (both Green rated crews)

30 Engagements played.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Sherman total shots taken during all 31 engagements: 51

<LI>Sherman total hits during all 31 engagements: 15

<LI>Sherman total kills achieved during all 31 engagements: 13

Hit Ratio: 29.4%

Kill Ratio: 25.5% (# Kills/total shots fired)

<LI>MkIVG total shots taken during all 31 engagements: 43

<LI>MkIVG total hits during all 31 engagements: 23

<LI>MkIVG total kills achieved during all 31 engagements: 21

Hit Ratio: 53.5%

Kill Ratio: 48.8% (# Kills/total shots fired)

Several tie engagements occurred…i.e. both vehicles simultaneously killing each other.

========================================

Stuart vs. MkIVG…both crews green. Ranges between 425 and 475 meters. Stuart cranks out an ROF of about double MKIVG. 15 total engagements.

Stuart Hit Ratio: 27%

Stuart Kill Ratio: 4.4% (# Kills/total shots fired)

MkIVG Hit Ratio: 33%

MkIVG Kill Ratio: 30% (# Kills/total shots fired)

=========================

Several other stream of conciseness comments that are somewhat related to this topic:

While looking over several of Hunnicutt’s books for references on Gyro’s I noticed that no US SPTD’s (M10, M18 or M36) had stabilization. I think that was addressed earlier on this thread.

The Grant, Stuart, and Sherman were all decked out with stabilization, but as has been indicated before, while “in theatre” crews routinely disconnected their gyro stabilization. Crews often felt they had to “fight” with their elevation wheel in order to wrestle control of the gun away from the gyro. It was apparently not a well-received piece of equipment.

=====================

R.P. Hunnicutt’s “Pershing” indicates that none of the iterations of the T-26 or M-26 Pershing tanks were equipped with stabilization. I verified this in the rather voluminous Official WWII US ARMY Ordnance and Equipment Manual. If you check the CMBO vehicle stats you will find your digital Pershing’s are equipped with stabilization.

========================

US Armor Force Tank Gunnery Manual FM17-12 (1943 iteration) clearly indicates that --- stab or no stab -- firing while on the move should only be conducted in “emergencies”, and only by “expert crews”, and only at “point blank ranges”.

========================

Regarding analogy between modern MBT’s and WWII tanks, one must bare in mind the relative magnification of gunner’s sights between now and than. M1A1 employees a two power scope adjustable between 5X and I think 12X. Identify targets with 5X because of large field of view…switch to higher power for actual gun lay. WWII Sherman and Stuart employed the M70D or M70F gunsight. This was a 3X scope. So what looks like the broad side of a barn to a M1A1 gunner (i.e. a target at 500m) isn’t quite so monstrous in a Sherman gunner’s telescope.

What's my point? A gunner in an M1A1 that has problems hitting a target at 1500 meters while on the move is quite analogous to the difficulties a Sherman gunner faced in trying to KO a target at 500 meters, with the added caveat that the M1A1 as a firing plate form is no doubt much more stable than its stone-axe ancestor.

[Username]

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

In any case there REALY should two sets of firing on the move penalty modifiers, first the modifier (Much more substantial than it is now, i.e. Hard to get a hit) for firing on the FAST move, and then a different and MORE generous modifier for firing on the Move, thus implying the only real penalties for firing on the Move would be a slower ROF and No target acquistion bonus after every round, the "No target acquistion bonus" is in the game already, but I'm not sure about the slower ROF for firing on the move.

AND of course the ROF for firing on the fast move should be slower than while firing on the move.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Id like Steve to comment on these thoughts. Theres some good ideas here.

[Slapdragon]

The "everyone removed their Gyros" issue is more urban legend started by Greenwood than anyone else. The best that authors say is that "some crews had trouble using them" although the indictments of the gyro are more severe in 1942 than later. There is also a body of information that the gyro was a great boon and that many tankers liked it.

At best, you might be able to build an argument that green tankers might remove the gyro.

As a side issue it should be noted that all US tanks after WW2 got gyros and the M26 would have had gyros but none where built for the 90mm at that time.

My cousin's husband said that without the laser their accuracy was cut by half or a third -- as low as 30 percent hits @ 25 mphs on sem- rough gravel. He also said that they did not train much this way but they had procedures for firing with everything up to and including total electrical failure in the vehicle -- but that did not mean they ever did it.

[Username]

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

Results: 1st test one Sherman vs. one MkIVG (both Green rated crews)

30 Engagements played.

• <LI>Sherman total shots taken during all 31 engagements: 51

<LI>Sherman total hits during all 31 engagements: 15

<LI>Sherman total kills achieved during all 31 engagements: 13

Hit Ratio: 29.4%

Kill Ratio: 25.5% (# Kills/total shots fired)

<LI>MkIVG total shots taken during all 31 engagements: 43

<LI>MkIVG total hits during all 31 engagements: 23

<LI>MkIVG total kills achieved during all 31 engagements: 21

Hit Ratio: 53.5%

Kill Ratio: 48.8% (# Kills/total shots fired)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good data. I find it hard to believe a moving tank can fire more shots. 51 to 43. This should be toned down, gyros or not. It takes longer to load when moving and it would take longer to sight in.

Lewis

[Username]

This from Britwar http://salts.britwar.co.uk/salt5.htm

WO 291/90 Firing on the move from tanks.

"With existing British tanks the effectiveness (hits per minute) of shooting on the move is never greater than 1/2 that of stationary fire under similar conditions and is often 1/20 or less. The Westinghouse gyro stabilizer produces some improvement".

The "Movement is armour" argument was held to be confuted by results from a trial by gunnery instructors at Lulworth shooting at a target at 800 yards and obtaining 62% hits on a static target and 64% hits on a moving one. It is pointed out that the smooth, steady movement necessary to gunnery on the move does little to make the tank harder to hit.

For MG fire, "...the number of machine gun bullets per minute that will come dangerously close to an anti-tank gun crew from a single tank firing on the move is very small." The best MG results, using the shoulder-controlled mounting in the Crusader and an expert crew, showed a reduction of one-half in hitting rate. "For average gunners factors of 1/4 to 1/20 or worse would be expected."

For the main armament, it was found that "...a comparatively high percentage of hits can be obtained with a light gun in a free elevation mounting but that the rate of fire is greatly reduced by movement."