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

[Andreas]

Right, leaving the regularly scheduled discussion, and returning to the topic at hand. On the previous page Rune provided the quote from WO something or other about the British experience. Earlier on someone (Mark IV?) dug up this nice doc about German gyro research, which contained the following quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Firing on the move without stabiliser had been practised after the Allied landings in Europe against Allied tanks. Success depended on the use of highly trained gunners, who were provided with power traverse and hand elevation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mind you, the Germans discussed here did not use shoulder stabilised pea-shooters, but Real Guns , 88mm etc.

Furthermore, we know that it was Soviet SOP to fire on the move. I also found a reference from some mad Canuckian that he was trained to fire on the move in a Ram II (57mm only AP).

So, this to me conclusively proves that somebody somewhere at sometime decided shooting on the move was a good idea. The German quote and WO whatsit also indicate that sometimes, people did even hit somefink. Can we agree on this?

If so, discussions on whether this was a stupid doctrine (it probably was) are rather irrelevant, and musing whether all those tanks lost pre-Alamein were lost because of shooting on the move are equally important in the context, i.e. not at all.

What matters is how accurate they were and how often they fired when on the move. The first figure by definition must be range-dependent and on a range between 0 and 100%. Take your pick. BTS has gone for figures from Commonwealth research indicating 14% (or somefink) IIRC. Tests show that moving tanks in the game have a lower to-hit percentage then stationary tanks.

The second figure must be between ) and 'a lot', with 'a lot' presumably being lower than a stationary tank., and presumably dependent on turret layout and round size and weight.

Now, I would be terribly interested to hear people who either have experience with WW2 guns (i.e. not Abrams gunners, because a 120mm round is a very different animal compared to a 37mm round -which will be the ones we talk about in early GPW warfare) or with access to the research necessary to underwrite their proposals.

This is really not an issue for CMBO for me, since that won't be changed, even if the ghosts of tankers past appear to Charles in a dream telling him the figures. For CMBB it is highly important to get it right though. So far, in all this discussion, I have seen precious little informed opinion on what the range ought to be, which would lead me to go with WO Wotsit. And yes, I have read the whole thread.

BTW: did the Red Army have M18s?

[Tero]

>55mph on the flat,

The only place where the terrain is flat and even enough is paved roads.

>a 76mm gun with lots of tungsten ammo,

Lots of tungsten ? Where from ? The tungsten ammo was heavily rationed and in short supply. The CM design team has given some to ALL units with the 76mm gun regarless of the prevailing TD doctrine.

>I have seen M18's going full speed get

>picked off in competition play by STUGs who

>in real life were easy meat for the M18 -

>they could not follow along with their guns

>fast enough to get an effective shot

In what conditions ? IIRC the Stug has 20º firing arc. Moving diaconally across that 20º arc at combat distance of 500-1000 meters does give the Stug crew plenty of time to follow along and fire at the M18 moving at 55mph.

>while the M18 crews, many of which knew how

>to use their gyro stabilisers in battle

IF they had one.

But what they most definitely did NOT have was IR goggles. The Stug was easily concealed in ambush positions that would have given them first shot surprise benefits not modelled properly in CM now. Not to mention smokeless powder in the shells making their fire harder to spot.

>(something which the line tank crews often

>did not)

What is your opinion of the CM modelling of stabilizers again ?

>allowed them to fire on the move while

>ducking from hiding place to hiding

>place.

But did they manage to hit anything with consistently the same rate that is now seen in CM ?

>With cheesy armour, often called on to

>fight in close combat in support of

>Infantry, the Hellcat's expected life in

>combat is dismal in Combat Mission.

It was that IRL too.

Between June 6th 1944 and February 20th 1945 the monthly average of M18's in service in ETO was 238 vehicles. Total irrevocable losses during that same period was 120 vehicles. For the M10 the figures are 695 and 439. For the M36 the period is September 20th 1944 and February 20th 1945 and the figures 356 and 72.

Comparing to the other prominent CM vehicles:

M4's (both 75mm and 76mm armed):

Between June 6th 1944 and January 20th 1945 the monthly average was 2901 vehicles and the total losses sustained during that period 2855 vehicles.

Light tanks (M3, M5, M24) 2057 monthly average, 1069 total losses.

M8 AC 1854 monthly average, 672 total losses

M20 AC 711 monthly average, 364 total losses (of which 277 were lost 20 Nov-20 Dec 44)

NOTE: all losses listed are irrevocable losses. Combat losses repaired and returned to service are not included.

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Andrew H.]

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

Ever tried changing a C-casette/CD in a car moving at 50mph in a bad road turning sharply left and right and going up and down and you can not look out the window to get a heads up on the bumps and turns ?

No...but I'm not sure that's an accurate analogy. For one thing, I was driving; for another, I'm not a trained CD changer.

Also (3) the gun might already be loaded as the tank commences its fast move, which would eliminate reloading difficulties as a reason for a slow ROF, but would not mean that there wasn't a slower ROF due to the difficulty of laying the gun.

It would also mean that the gunner gets only one shot. ROF does entail firing multiple shots.

No, the point is that you can have a slow ROF even when the gun is loaded because you are unable to line up the gunsight with the potential target.

[/qb]One thing that must be remembered is the fact that the early British tanks with 2prd and 6prd relied on the gunner to act as the stabilizer. The gun mount was a "free swing" type mount that gave the gunner more direct control over the guns (he used his shoulder to help stabilize and lay the gun) than the latter gun mounts for both the 6prd and the 75mm guns allowed.

To draw any conclusions about the operational viability of stabilizers from a study that does not name the vehicle being tested is dubious. This is because to infer any superior performance of the mechanical stabilizer from a test made with a totally different lay out is plain flawed.

Ceterum censeo the ROF and accuracy for tanks firing on the move should be dramatically reduced. Stabilizer or no stabilizer. [/qb]

I don't think that the presence or absence of stabilizers has much to do with my argument, although of course the amount of time it takes a gunner to lay the gun on a target might be affected by the presence of a stabilizer, or by the fact that the gunner can use his shoulder as a stabilizer. In either case, the ROF would still be lower than for a stationary tank.

Why run out shooting if you already have a clear or semi-clear shot at the target standing still ?

Why indeed. As the commander who gave the order to charge across the field. :c

So perhaps a 50% accuracy rate for a moving tank is not unrealistic *if* the game recognizes that the tank will only fire when the gunner has a good shot lined up...an event that might occur only once a turn. And perhaps less frequently for green tankers.

This 50% accuracy brings out an interesting point: what about the (first shot) accuracy of tanks (AT guns, IF guns) that have not moved an inch ? The hit chance INCREASES when you fire on the move ? Sorry, I do not buy that.

Where do you get from that that the hit chance increases when you fire on the move? The 50% number I got from the post upthread on british accuracy while shooting on the move; the number should be whatever is historically accurate and could be much lower. The accuracy of shooting from a stationary tank at a range of 300 m is almost 100%, even for a first shot.

So the main reason not to fire on the move wouldn't be that the shots you fired were inaccurate; the real problem would be having the opportunity to fire in the first place.

If this was true wouldn't the armies have started training their tank gunners to fire on the move, even on mounts that were not stabilized ?

Umm, they did train tank gunners to do this. Then they later told them not to fire on the move. My theory why this was a bad idea is that it was due not just to (1) reduced accuracy, but also due to slower ROF due to the difficulty of reloading *and* laying the gun.

Also, if British doctrine in '42 called for firing without pausing, that's how a fast move should work.

How many tanks did they actually lose and was their doctrine revised subsequently ? CM is about fighting in '44. Did the truths that were selfevident in '42 survive intact until '44 ?

I mean this doctrine should apply for british tankers in '42, of course; not that it should apply in CMBO because british tankers did it in '42.

CM is built around the premise of the universal soldier/tanker/gunner. You are indicating that the British training, tactics and doctrine were dissimilar to the rest of the forces present in the CM now. Yet all of them are harnessed to act according to the British doctrine and the unsubstantiated use of built in mechanical stabilizer in this particular instance. The Allies get benefits, the Germans get penalized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Down, boy! Down!

[Tero]

>Mind you, the Germans discussed here did

>not use shoulder stabilised pea-shooters,

>but Real Guns , 88mm etc.

I'd like to see the speeds they recommended be used: crawling backwards or charging ahead at full speed.

>Furthermore, we know that it was Soviet SOP

>to fire on the move.

Yes. But they never even expected to hit anything, just scare the shait out of the troops in the receiving end.

>So, this to me conclusively proves that

>somebody somewhere at sometime decided

>shooting on the move was a good idea. The

>German quote and WO whatsit also indicate

>that sometimes, people did even hit

>somefink. Can we agree on this?

Firing on the move ? I think so, yes.

Hitting something with that fire... dunno. I think that is too much dependant on the prevailing circumstances to be bracketed down for a great sweeping generalization.

>If so, discussions on whether this was a

>stupid doctrine (it probably was) are

>rather irrelevant, and musing whether all

>those tanks lost pre-Alamein were lost

>because of shooting on the move are equally

>important in the context, i.e. not at all.

I have a notion DAK tankers were more critical on the British moving diagonally in nice parade ground formations presenting nice broadsides of thin armour to shoot at rather than them firing and missing on the move. And their 50L42's had a greater effective range than the 2prd had IIRC. They could outgun them while the British were presenting posh precision parade ground moves.

>What matters is how accurate they were and

>how often they fired when on the move.

That is at the core of this furball.

>The first figure by definition must be

>range-dependent and on a range between 0

>and 100%.

I'd say the closer you get the more time it will take to line up a shot. The logic being they have to reallign the turret more the closer they get to the target when the the platform gets jolted around. The further the target is the less they have to turn the turret to reaqcuire the target in case the platform gets jolted enough to throw the aim off completely.

>The second figure must be between ) and 'a

>lot', with 'a lot' presumably being lower

>than a stationary tank., and presumably

>dependent on turret layout and round size

>and weight.

>BTW: did the Red Army have M18s?[/QB]

[Tero]

>No...but I'm not sure that's an accurate

>analogy. For one thing, I was driving; for

>another, I'm not a trained CD changer.

I have tried it a few times in my youth (OK, I was not driving and I was drunk in most cases ) and to focus on a task that requires precision in a bouncing vehicle is not really easy, espcially if your friends are yelling at you to hurry up.

>No, the point is that you can have a slow

>ROF even when the gun is loaded because you

>are unable to line up the gunsight with the

>potential target.

I know.

>I don't think that the presence or absence

>of stabilizers has much to do with my

>argument, although of course the amount of

>time it takes a gunner to lay the gun on a

>target might be affected by the presence of

>a stabilizer, or by the fact that the

>gunner can use his shoulder as a

>stabilizer. In either case, the ROF would

>still be lower than for a stationary tank.

True. But I think both the accuracy and the ROF are important issues here.

>Why indeed. As the commander who gave the

>order to charge across the field. :c

Bouncing overwatch is out of the question ? Or is the procedure only to be used in a dire emergency ?

>Where do you get from that that the hit

>chance increases when you fire on the move?

No comparative figure was represented on firing from a stationary platform but judging from the CM modelling it seems that way.

>The 50% number I got from the post upthread

>on british accuracy while shooting on the

>move; the number should be whatever is

>historically accurate and could be much

>lower.

The number presented is historically accurate for British tanks with 2prd guns in free swing mounts but NOT for tanks with mechanical stabilizer and geared gun laying handwheels.

I do not recall if the early British tanks had geared gun laying handwheels on the side, I think they did not have them.

And the 50% hit chance is universal for every shot: you either hit or you don't.

>The accuracy of shooting from a stationary

>tank at a range of 300 m is almost 100%,

>even for a first shot.

Not in CM it is not. Or I have been constantly and consistently unlucky with the first shot hits. It seems that even if the MISS chance is 3% that is what the CM game engine picks that over the 97% hit chance for unstabilized non-moved guns. The chances I have seen the most revolve around the 14-17% mark.

>Umm, they did train tank gunners to do

>this.

In the WHOLE wide world.

>Then they later told them not to fire on

>the move. My theory why this was a bad idea

>is that it was due not just to (1) reduced

>accuracy, but also due to slower ROF due to

>the difficulty of reloading *and* laying

>the gun.

Concur.

>I mean this doctrine should apply for

>british tankers in '42, of course; not that

>it should apply in CMBO because british

>tankers did it in '42.

So, is the use of the data based on the '42 test correct and called for in your opinion ?

>Down, boy! Down!

I'm collecting data to support my views on this matter on the side and this tread has proved to be a real treasure chest for me. All sorts of force specific tactical and doctrinal facts are being thrown around.

As I said it was a cheap hobby horse shot and I will cease and desist forthwith along this line until further notice.

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Slapdragon]

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

>55mph on the flat,

yadda yadda yadda

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: tero ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tero, please reread my comments made on this page rather than comments I made more than a year ago based on faulty data and posted by Lewis to start a flame war. I would be happy to reply to comments on that.

[Username]

This thread is getting sidetracked on Hellcraps.

The M18 did not have low ground pressure. It was 12.6psi (M4a3=13.7, Panther 12.8, StugIII 13.5). It also had skinny tracks. It would stick in the mud as quick as many armored vehicles and skinny tracks are actually worse when you start to bog. You lose the battle against the mud. I know. Ive driven tracked vehicles.

This high speed advantage is crap. Slappy wants to make a case that they need some specialized conditions that cant be seen in CM to be successful. They need circling fighter bombers pointing out isolated armored columns and arty to button them up so that the amazing Hellcats can rush in, blast away on-the-fly and pull back for more tungsten ammo.

The only advantage the M18 had because of its engine was because of its acceleration. If the game models the accel, then it will be better in game terms. It can pull out quicker and move out quicker. the tank had a automatic 3 speed tranny. I bet it took quite awhile on flat terrain/road to get to that top speed!

Since the hellcats didnt have gyros, what is the secret of thier moving fire "advantage"? Is it the torsion bar suspension? Hope not, cause the germans had torsion bar suspension vehicles with more torsion bars too. Was it cause they got in so close they couldnt miss? Did they drive in circles around the panzers? That would make them very vulnerable to any screening infantry or 20mm armed vehicles.

I have a feeling that hellcats reputations are another well established urban legend.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

This thread is getting sidetracked on Hellcraps.

I have a feeling that hellcats reputations are another well established urban legend.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except they really did have the best kill to loss ratio of any allied TD in ETO. I think I would like to see your sources on the Hellcat being a poor AT weapon. Certainly the crews loved them, the Army kept them when they could have converted to M36, they killed far more tanks than they lost with some very impressive figures for different TD units, they did have lower ground pressure than other tanks, they did use hit and run tactics that proved very effective, and they did, according to the tankers that used them, fire on the run, and fire fast bursts for short periods of time.

It is important not to let revisionism without fact take apart a very effective TD just because it happens to be American and just because later gamers would throw the tankers that used these vehicles opinions of them, as well as military test and the like, into the trash. Now, was the M18 the best tank in the universe? Nope, a little less than 200 of them in Europe and Italy did not make it through the war. They killed around 2100 tanks and SPGs based on ground counts (I do not trust figures that did not get accounted for by salvage and intel teams).

Certianly when we use them as Infantry support (which was not how they were used mostly) they take much greater casualties in fighting -- like the M4 and M10 did.

Andreas -- I have a document which says "several" M18s made it to Russia. I have no idea what that means, but it can't be a lot of them.

[Andreas]

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

>Mind you, the Germans discussed here did

>not use shoulder stabilised pea-shooters,

>but Real Guns , 88mm etc.

I'd like to see the speeds they recommended be used: crawling backwards or charging ahead at full speed.

>Furthermore, we know that it was Soviet SOP

>to fire on the move.

Yes. But they never even expected to hit anything, just scare the shait out of the troops in the receiving end.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Focusing on the important bits.

The German tanks moved. It was suggested by post WW2 tankers here that moving tanks should not fire at all, and lots of fun was made of Commonwealth training to FOTM. That they moved was all I wanted to establish, but we can add 'what speed' to the questions of 'what chance to hit' and 'what ROF'.

Regarding Red Army SOP - this maybe a 1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters situation. If 50 T34 come at a position all guns blazing, will they hit somefink or just scare the living beejeezus out of the Germans? Your guess is as good as mine, unless someone comes along with some data.

The M18 question was rhethorical, but thanks for looking it up. This thread is getting a bit side-tracked.

[Andreas]

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

Andreas -- I have a document which says "several" M18s made it to Russia. I have no idea what that means, but it can't be a lot of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting - somehow I would be surprised if they made it past Kublinka or whatever the testing ground is called

When I say side-track, BTW, it is an interesting and relevant side-track thought, but I guess Lewis is just out stirring up trouble again, so it maybe better to move away from the topic of M-18s in order to have a more productive discussion.

[Slapdragon]

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

Focusing on the important bits.

The German tanks moved. It was suggested by post WW2 tankers here that moving tanks should not fire at all, and lots of fun was made of Commonwealth training to FOTM. That they moved was all I wanted to establish, but we can add 'what speed' to the questions of 'what chance to hit' and 'what ROF'.

Regarding Red Army SOP - this maybe a 1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters situation. If 50 T34 come at a position all guns blazing, will they hit somefink or just scare the living beejeezus out of the Germans? Your guess is as good as mine, unless someone comes along with some data.

The M18 question was rhethorical, but thanks for looking it up. This thread is getting a bit side-tracked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad to help Andreas. I think though the M18 was mentioned in the first post and thus gets returned to often. Baiting aside (which is what the ground pressure thing is all about) the M18 was "reputed" by its crews to be able to hit on the move, and if we could lock down some numbers it would at least put some range and speed info into our hands. the best I have is oral evidence that "under a thousand meters" and "less than 20 mph" was norm for "rapid fire" which was when the whole crew fed and fired shells as fast as they can. Highly technical data rarely comes out in oral histories so we have to turn to post war Hellcat studies and the studies that proving grounds did in its design.

This is only important as a measure of tank success in firing on the move, and in this case the Hellcat would represent the top of line for unstabilized tanks, and not some median figure. Like I said earlier though, if someone has real data that the Hellcat was highly over rated or used in a different manner, I would very much like to read it -- since it would not be the first time that a device got a rep it did not deserve.

Most of our data so far looks like 500 meters +- is going to be a cut off for average crews, and perhaps 10-20 % to hit at normal speed. This needs to be fined down more if possible. Most of the veteran commentary only tells us it was possible, not how possible (whichb I am sure is why Steve and Charles relied on the British desert tests).

[Slapdragon]

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

Interesting - somehow I would be surprised if they made it past Kublinka or whatever the testing ground is called

When I say side-track, BTW, it is an interesting and relevant side-track thought, but I guess Lewis is just out stirring up trouble again, so it maybe better to move away from the topic of M-18s in order to have a more productive discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine by me, I think the Hellcat relevance is just as a measure of the top of the curve for tanks without gyros.

The source I have does not mention what happened to the Hellcats.

[Andreas]

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

Most of our data so far looks like 500 meters +- is going to be a cut off for average crews, and perhaps 10-20 % to hit at normal speed. This needs to be fined down more if possible. Most of the veteran commentary only tells us it was possible, not how possible (whichb I am sure is why Steve and Charles relied on the British desert tests).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And therein lies the rub. I totally agree about the relevance of the M-18 as the upper end of the scale of what was possible.

Instead of strong opinions by many people here and general poo-pooing of Commonwealth practice, I would love to see some evidence that is as good as the British stuff (this is a relative statement - it is entirely possible that the British stuff is crap and irrelevant, but unless anyone has something better to offer, we are stuck with it).

[Username]

5 M18 were sent to russia along with a pershing and a couple of M24. What became of the M18 you ask? Why they married a russian tank...

http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/M18+T55/1/*http://www.missing-lynx.com/library/modern/t55hell/t55hell.htm

[Username]

This from Brazen Chariots-Crisp. Author is a commander in a Honey (Stuart) tank and is relating the realities of firing from the short halt.

"At the same time I completely discounted the possibility of shooting accurately from a moving tank, which is what we were taught to do when it was not possible to take uo a hull down position. So I worked out a system in my troop whereby, after the target had been indicated, a more or less automatic procedure followed if the circumstances were favorable. The objective was to get close enough to the enemy tank to destroy it.

the first order was 'driver advance, flat out". The gunner would do his best to keep the cross-wires of his telescopic sight on the target while we were moving. The next order, heard by the gunner, driver and loader, would be "driver halt". As soon as the tank stopped and he was on target, the gunner would fire without further command from me. The sound of the shot was the signal for the driver to let in his clutch and be off again. From start to stop took 4 seconds. All I did was control movement of the tank."

I havent read through the whole book but maybe someone here can tell IF the Honey HAD a gyro at the time the author was in North Africa.

Notice that the gunner is only popping off one round. They know that to loiter is suicide.

I am also glad that M18s are the Typhoons of the AFV world. They run up shoot and retreat like hell to notch their guns because of a confirmed kill.

They only made 2500 or so of them and stopped producing them before the end of the war. The whole TD business was killed at the end of the war too.

The M18 had a barrel, btw, that had less rifling than a normal 76mm weapon (less twist). I cant imagine that led to any accuracy benefits. It didnt even have a very fast turret either. The sherman turret being better.

So. Gyros good or bad? Eh. maybe a little good. M18s. So freaking good they dont need no stinkin gyros!!!!!!

Lewis

[opfor6]

I am not sure how the M18s spotted their targets for their hit and run missions. Most of my research shows the germans favored reverse slope defenses and hides to shelter their very few tanks from massed fire and Fighter bombers. I am sure the M18 was used as the book on the 704th describes but again that is a deviation from the normal tanks. The fact they had to design a vehicle like the M18 shows there was a problem with other vehicles being able to cope with firing accurately on the move against enemy AT defenses and AFVs.

How the fire on the move for CMBB should be modelled should be a more general fix. Not aimed at tinkering with certain vehicles. The new game will have vehicles from several different countries and time periods (early to very late).

Has anyone tried using faster German vehicles on the move? I am curious if the result is just not a Allied slanted item.

[Mark IV]

Less twist would also cause greater muzzle velocity (through reduced friction). Some guns are more accurate with a near-magic combination of more/less stabilization, more/less velocity, and more/less muzzle length. My only point being, that reduced twist in itself is not necessarily an indication of less accuracy. Older rifles and cannon (19th century) usually had greater twist rates, partly because of faster burning powders, and partly because ballistics was an infant science.

A big achievement in ballistics by mid-century was controlled burn rates, designed to fully consume the exploding gases in the barrel before the round exited. This resulted in better velocities and accuracy. Once this was achieved, it was recognized that too much twist was counter-productive, as the rifling grooves in the barrel only slowed the exit velocity of the round.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by opfor6:

I am not sure how the M18s spotted their targets for their hit and run missions. Most of my research shows the germans favored reverse slope defenses and hides to shelter their very few tanks from massed fire and Fighter bombers. I am sure the M18 was used as the book on the 704th describes but again that is a deviation from the normal tanks. The fact they had to design a vehicle like the M18 shows there was a problem with other vehicles being able to cope with firing accurately on the move against enemy AT defenses and AFVs.

How the fire on the move for CMBB should be modelled should be a more general fix. Not aimed at tinkering with certain vehicles. The new game will have vehicles from several different countries and time periods (early to very late).

Has anyone tried using faster German vehicles on the move? I am curious if the result is just not a Allied slanted item.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Lynx is not too bad at it, and in fact keeping the old Lynx moving his how you usually keep the thing alive.

[Tero]

>....rather than comments I made more than a year ago based on faulty data

I think the statement was lifted off your site.

http://www.slapdragon.org/midnight/closeup/hellcat/

Apart from the faulty stabilizer data you should revise your site even further:

"Most hellcats in Europe had a good 76mm cannon, but a few were equipped with 105mm cannon that fired all HEAT rounds to deal with Tigers and Panthers. "

http://battletanks.com/m88_mod_hellcat.htm

Modified "Hellcat" mounting a 105mm howitzer on the M18 chassis. Not a successful design. Only one built.

>and posted by Lewis to start a flame war.

While his post does seem inflammatory I do not see any makings of a flame war in it. It is not flaming if somebody points out YOUR facts are not correct. You are not the only one around with a maliciuous sarcastic streak so learn to live being in the receiving end from occasionally.

>I would be happy to reply to comments on that.

OK, here goes.

>Yep, I wrote that almost a year and a half

>ago from a copy of Jentz that credited it

>with gyros (I was wrong of course). Based in

>part on Evans who claimed on the move hits

>and Jentz who credited gyros. Later books

>correct this.

You should revise your site (opinions even ?) to reflect this.

>The M18 is very hard to employ properly on

>smaller CM boards.

How so ? Adhere to proper, RL US Army TD tactics and doctrine and it should do just fine. If the CM is modelled propely to reflect RL battlefield occurances totally impartially without any biases or undertones.

>One hit kills it with most weapons.

**** happens. Why do you think they made it lightly armoured and FAST in the first place ? All the sources I have read on it state plainly that it was a consciencious design decision brought on by prevailing US Army-specific doctrinal thinking on tank destroyers.

>German tanks can take it easy if you use it

>the way it was used in WW2.

What do you mean ? Shoot and scoot was the doctrine and tactic it was built for. What makes you think it was NOT easy to take it out IRL ? An average of 50% attrition rate over a period of 9 months (5% average monthly attrition rate) does indicate that it was NOT invulnerable.

Another related issue: if they built 2500 specimens and it was so darn good a tank killer why was the number of available M18's in ETO only 237 (monthly average, June 1944 146 on hand, February 20th 1945 448 on hand in the entire ETO inventory) ? Where were the rest of the 1 900-odd (deducting the 120 total losses in ETO) vehicles stashed away ? 800 in MTO, 800 in PTO and 300 back home being used in training ? Production started July 1943 but when did it end ?

What are you griping about the M18 being too brittle for ? Most gripes in this tread are due to the fact that that darn M18 (any Allied tank really) can hit (and kill) with the first shot while going Fast over uneven terrain while the German tanks sitting still usually miss with the first shot and get killed. If they even get that one shot off before getting snuffed.

>It has to be very close to make moving hits,

In my experience it can hit any target it comes up against at 500+ meters while moving. In CM that is.

[Tero]

Originally posted by opfor6:

The fact they had to design a vehicle like the M18 shows there was a problem with other vehicles being able to cope with firing accurately on the move against enemy AT defenses and AFVs.

Nope. The "problem" was doctrinal axiom that the tank is an infantry support weapon which is not supposed to go against the enemy armour in the battlefield. That is why they established the TD command and that is why they constructed specialist TD vehicles.

One reason for the failure of the TD doctrine was found at:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache :-orFAgcR96DM:www-cgsc.army.mil/csi/MMAS/1976%2520MMAS.htm+%22tank+destroyer+doctrine%22&hl=en

omit the - between : and o when accessing. I had to include that because otherwise the it will come up as

A technological threat from heavy German tanks caused development efforts in the United States to incorporate bigger guns. The US Army’s failure to properly assess the magnitude of the threat resulted in a scarcity of adequate antitank weapons in Northwest Europe. When the ideal tank destroyer, the M-18 “Hellcat,” finally reached Europe; it proved to be undergunned.

The study concludes that the development of equipment is not strictly a technological process. Doctrine and combat experience alter the path of development. Personalities and the pressure of war accentuate different views and also effect development. Technology dictates the speed of creating new equipment demanded by doctrine and combat experience.

another interesting remark:

From

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1418/armor4.htm

American Tank Destroyer doctrine was as faulty in its own way as was American tank doctrine. Relying on their superior mobility, tank destroyers were to actively engage in seeking out and destroy enemy tanks6. The vehicles were simply too thin-skinned for this type of active role and unit commanders began to improvise. By the end of 1944, tank destroyers were unofficially emulating German tactics: scurry out in front of the tanks, find some good cover, hunker down and wait for the German tanks to appear. This tactical change improved the situation somewhat and tank destroyers began to score some hits before they were knocked out by German return fire.

How the fire on the move for CMBB should be modelled should be a more general fix. Not aimed at tinkering with certain vehicles. The new game will have vehicles from several different countries and time periods (early to very late).

Only the Soviets used firing on the move as an integral part of their doctrine.

Has anyone tried using faster German vehicles on the move? I am curious if the result is just not a Allied slanted item.

In my experience German tanks in CM tend to complete their assigned movement orders before they start even turning the turret to engage the target. That is why I try to issue as short movement orders as possible to avoid losing them between waypoints.

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

[Slapdragon]

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

>....rather than comments I made more than a year ago based on faulty data

I think the statement was lifted off your site.

http://www.slapdragon.org/midnight/closeup/hellcat/

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should reread my comment.

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

Apart from the faulty stabilizer data you should revise your site even further:

"Most hellcats in Europe had a good 76mm cannon, but a few were equipped with 105mm cannon that fired all HEAT rounds to deal with Tigers and Panthers. "

http://battletanks.com/m88_mod_hellcat.htm

Modified "Hellcat" mounting a 105mm howitzer on the M18 chassis. Not a successful design. Only one built.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, Tero, I have not written every comment on the web about Hellcats. Perhaps you should be a little more careful. If this is on someone elses website I have no control over that.

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

>and posted by Lewis to start a flame war.

While his post does seem inflammatory I do not see any makings of a flame war in it. It is not flaming if somebody points out YOUR facts are not correct. You are not the only one around with a maliciuous sarcastic streak so learn to live being in the receiving end from occasionally.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tero, his comment, as out of context and designed to prod me into a reaction over an imagined "wrong", was indeed an attempt to spur a flame. Since I am not playing flame games with him anymore, it is best to drop the entire thing.

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

>I would be happy to reply to comments on that.

OK, here goes.

>Yep, I wrote that almost a year and a half

>ago from a copy of Jentz that credited it

>with gyros (I was wrong of course). Based in

>part on Evans who claimed on the move hits

>and Jentz who credited gyros. Later books

>correct this.

You should revise your site (opinions even ?) to reflect this.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I usually do not run back and cover up when I was wrong. I may, next go around, fix it with an adendum, but it is certianly nothing to get worked up about.

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

>The M18 is very hard to employ properly on

>smaller CM boards.

How so ? Adhere to proper, RL US Army TD tactics and doctrine and it should do just fine. If the CM is modelled propely to reflect RL battlefield occurances totally impartially without any biases or undertones.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read my previous commentary please. You ignored my comments that the tank was used in a much larger area, and relied on lateral displacement in it shoot and scoot. If you are fighting on a 1 km wide board, and most M18 units used much more, then you have a natural restriction.

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

>One hit kills it with most weapons.

**** happens. Why do you think they made it lightly armoured and FAST in the first place ? All the sources I have read on it state plainly that it was a consciencious design decision brought on by prevailing US Army-specific doctrinal thinking on tank destroyers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So? I fail to see how warning people that the M18 is vulnerable is somehow faulty advise. Since I am not complaining that this is a mistake in modelling, I am not sure at what you are trying to do.

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

>German tanks can take it easy if you use it

>the way it was used in WW2.

What do you mean ? Shoot and scoot was the doctrine and tactic it was built for. What makes you think it was NOT easy to take it out IRL ? An average of 50% attrition rate over a period of 9 months (5% average monthly attrition rate) does indicate that it was NOT invulnerable.

Another related issue: if they built 2500 specimens and it was so darn good a tank killer why was the number of available M18's in ETO only 237 (monthly average, June 1944 146 on hand, February 20th 1945 448 on hand in the entire ETO inventory) ? Where were the rest of the 1 900-odd (deducting the 120 total losses in ETO) vehicles stashed away ? 800 in MTO, 800 in PTO and 300 back home being used in training ? Production started July 1943 but when did it end ?

What are you griping about the M18 being too brittle for ? Most gripes in this tread are due to the fact that that darn M18 (any Allied tank really) can hit (and kill) with the first shot while going Fast over uneven terrain while the German tanks sitting still usually miss with the first shot and get killed. If they even get that one shot off before getting snuffed.

>It has to be very close to make moving hits,

In my experience it can hit any target it comes up against at 500+ meters while moving. In CM that is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[/QB]

[Tero]

>As for Tero's numbers -- oddly enough his

>numbers seem a bit strange, since 3rd Army

>alone under Patton had 150 M18s in 3

>Battalions not counting replacements. I

>would say, without reading his source, that

>it is not accurate.

The person you should contact is

Rich Anderson

The Dupuy Institute

He sent me a list I am using as a source

"The source is the USETO/USFET/COMM-Z Armored Fighting Vehicle and Weapons Decimel Correspondence Files."

"Monthly ETO Loss Reports of AFV's by Type"

"Type of Vehicle"

"M18 76mm SP Tank Destroyers"

........................On Hand..Losses

6-20 Jun 44.............146......0

20 Jun-20 Jul 44........141......0

20 Jul-20 Aug 44........176......6

20 Aug-20 Sep 44........170......6

20 Sep-20 Oct 44........189......14

20 Oct-20 Nov 44........252......7

20 Nov-20 Dec 44........306......44

20 Dec 44-20 Jan 45.....312......27

20 Jan-20 Feb 44........448......16

You better recheck your source on the total number of M18's in the ETO. And I do not mean the grand total when you count together all the monthly figures. I mean the number of actual vehicles in the entire ETO area of operations.

[Andreas]

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

........................On Hand..Losses

6-20 Jun 44.............146......0

20 Jun-20 Jul 44........141......0

20 Jul-20 Aug 44........176......6

20 Aug-20 Sep 44........170......6

20 Sep-20 Oct 44........189......14

20 Oct-20 Nov 44........252......7

20 Nov-20 Dec 44........306......44

20 Dec 44-20 Jan 45.....312......27

20 Jan-20 Feb 44........448......16 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. What does 'on hand' mean? Vehicles in workshops/replacement units included or not.

Also, this shows that your earlier analysis was misleading. The average is meaningless in this case since in fact the vehicle number was built up considerably over 9 months. Compare it to numbers of M10 or M36 to get a better indication of usefulness.

I would venture a guess based on this that someone somewhere must have thought they were useful weapons.

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by opfor6:

Has anyone tried using faster German vehicles on the move? I am curious if the result is just not a Allied slanted item.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In CM, AFVs like the US Stuart and Hellcat can Fast move and fire effectively because they have a fast turret speed to stay on target and a quick rate of fire while doing so. None of the German AFVs compare in that regard so aren't really 'suited' for that. Check out the performance of the Daimler or Greyhound, both with medium turret speeds, for comparison and you'll see they don't do it as well either.

Ron

[Slapdragon]

........................On Hand..Losses

6-20 Jun 44.............146......0

20 Jun-20 Jul 44........141......0

20 Jul-20 Aug 44........176......6

20 Aug-20 Sep 44........170......6

20 Sep-20 Oct 44........189......14

20 Oct-20 Nov 44........252......7

20 Nov-20 Dec 44........306......44

20 Dec 44-20 Jan 45.....312......27

20 Jan-20 Feb 44........448......16

These numbers presented this way just show how safe it was to be a Hellcat TD crew. Note the highest loss rate per month is 14% per MONTH, with the average a nice 6.2%. Note that the highest loss was Bulge, removing this spike brings it down to 4%. Note that eventually 450 machines were in ETO, added to the 120 lost in action, and assuming that there was no other Cats but those in action (for example, the Sherman always had 5% out for repairs or more from front line service) then we get 670 machines shipped to ETO and delivered to the front. These 670 machines, plus 410 or so in Italy killed 2200 (a little less actually) enemy tanks and SPGs for the loss of 190 +- of themselves.

Now to bust another of what could become an urban legend. The M18, as opfor pointed out, was built from the ground up to fire on the move and use hit and run tactics including having a high rate of fire, fast turret, and several other goodies. It and the Greyhound were proposed when TD command began to arm up after the French Blitzkrieg. The Greyhound was dropped when TD command demanded a bigger gun on their TDs but it was designed to fill the same role as the Hellcat.

Hellcat production was not ended because it was a poor weapon. On the contrary, it survived the M10 because it was a great weapon. It was ended because it could not take a 90mm gun. The 76 though remained a viable weapon to the end of the conflict.