Tiger Fibel Notes on Tiger Accuracy

[rexford]

TIGER FIBEL NOTES ON WEAPON ACCURACY AND USE

The Tiger Fibel presents a wealth of information about the gunnery procedures used by Tiger crews, and the following notes discuss the Fibel guidance relative to 88L56 APCBC accuracy (the Tiger Fibel is available on line at http://tiger1.info/fibel/).

The Fibel material is also compared to the instructions in ARMORED FORCE FIELD MANUAL (Tank Gunnery) , April 22, 1943, for 75mm armed Shermans as a means of showing relative strengths and weaknesses.

1. GUN SIGHT RANGE MARKINGS: Page 66 in the Fibel

The Tiger sight fixes the top point of a triangle against the intended aim point, and the circular range dial slides by an arrow as the gun is elevated. Ranges are marked in 100m increments.

In comparison, the Sherman gun sight has range markings in yards at 0, 600, 1000, 1500, 2000, etc..

The Tiger sight would seem to promote greater accuracy due to less guesswork on range settings.

2. RANGE FINDING USING PERCEIVED WIDTH OR HEIGHT: Pages 67, 70 and 88 in Fibel

A line of triangles on the Tiger gun sight define 4 mil increments of lateral angle, and 2 to 4 mils of vertical angle (1 mil of arc creates a 1m wide pie slice at 1000m range). The triangles can be used to estimate range since the 3m front width of a T34 will appear 3 mils wide at 1000m, 1.5 mils at 2000m, 4 mils at 750m, 6 mils at 500m, etc., and the 6m side will appear twice as wide at those ranges.

The Sherman manual notes that the coaxial machine gun can be used to estimate range by rolling shots onto the target starting from the initial range estimate.

While the ranging coax machine gun method may work it could also give the Sherman position away, as could the other ranging method where one tank in the platoon opens fire and the rest join in after the range is determined from a hit.

The triangle method for range estimation would work, though not with high precision, against the 6m side of a T34 even if the firing weapon were angled at 0 to 65 degrees from the armor facing.

3. VISUAL RANGE ESTIMATION: Page 69 in the Fibel

For Tiger crews, visual range estimation for the first shot at a target is a group effort where the commander (panzerfuhrer), driver (fahrer) and gunner (richtschutze) each estimate target range and the commander averages the figures.

The use of three independent range estimates may provide some advantages over the Sherman in terms of improved accuracy, where the Sherman commander alone provides the initial weapon range. With practice one might expect the Tiger averaging process to proceed without unusual delay, although some Russian reports note that Tigers were often slow to fire.

The range estimates used in the Fibel example suggest that individual Tiger crewmen were not expected to estimate target range to within 10% of actual, as has been suggested in some references.

4. BATTLE SIGHT AIM: Page 72 in the Fibel

By aiming the gun at the target bottom and setting the weapon elevation for 1000m, the Fibel predicts that the trajectory will fall onto a 2m high target at all ranges out to 1000m. In practice, the method would appear to result in less than 100% hit probability due to random scatter and a maximum trajectory height which is over 2m (the following calculations assume infinite target width and represent vertical hit %):

88L56 APCBC

Mean Trajectory Height Above Target Bottom

2m High Target

1000m Aim Range

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

0.77m at 100m (all hit)

1.41m at 200m (all hit)

1.86m at 300m (73% hit)

2.14m at 400m (31% hit)

2.25m at 500m (22% hit)

2.17m at 600m (32% hit)

1.94m at 700m (56% hit)

1.47m at 800m (88% hit)

0.83m at 900m (94% hit)

0.00m at 1000m (half miss low)

The German ballistic table for 88L56 APCBC indicates a maximum trajectory height of 2.3m with 1000m aim, which is consistent with the above results.

In view of the relatively low hit percentages from 400m to 600m, the highest first shot hit probabilities at those ranges would probably be obtained with the triangle based range finder or visual range estimation.

Improvements to the above noted first shot accuracies might be obtained by correcting the range for misses (add 150m if low, deduct 150m if high).

The optimum hit percentages would be obtained by setting the gun for an 850m range and aiming at target bottom, as the following hit probabilities show (the 1.62m maximum trajectory height allows for hits on a 2m high target when the scatter is up):

88L56 APCBC

Mean Trajectory Height Above Target Bottom

2m High Target

850m Aim Range

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

0.65m at 100m (99% hit probability)

1.14m at 200m (99%)

1.46m at 300m (99%)

1.61m at 400m (92%)

1.59m at 500m (90%)

1.38m at 600m (96%)

0.97m at 700m (99%)

0.38m at 800m (80%)

0.00m at 850m (50%)

5. CONCLUSIONS

The procedures and gun sight layout which are discussed in the Tiger Fibel present a system that appears to be superior to the Sherman tank (75mm gun), and the Fibel does not include other advantages such as the superior light gathering characteristics of German optical glass.

In one recorded case, a Tiger was able to target and hit massing T34’s through a fog due to the excellent sights while the Russian tank crews were unable to locate the source of the fire. The Americans also noted in a report to General Eisenhower that their tank optics were inferior to the Germans during reduced light conditions.

6. INTERESTING ASIDE ON TIGER TURNING RADIUS

While not related to weapon accuracy, one of the Fibel pages shows a series of turning radius for the Tiger, and the tank was able to change its facing by 90 degrees within a lateral distance of 4m (4m turn radius). American sources note that the Sherman required a good sized field to accomplish a 90 degree turn compared to the distance used by a Tiger.

[c3k]

Rexford,

Thanks for posting that.

I've repeatedly argued/held that the wonderful game modelling by BF.C consistently falls short in the realm of sights.

It seems that the in-depth optics knowledge by a BF.C member has somewhat blinded them to the large advantage to be gained by different reticles and sights.

The German method of adjusting the gun so the sight is always centered on the target seems better than the allied method of adjusting the sight to the target.

(A note on your accuracy tables: I certainly cannot argue with any of the figures, however, the high miss-rate at low ranges may be misleading. In sub-800 meter engagements, I would expect the range estimates to be pretty close (10% to 50% would still produce more hits). The 1,000 meter range preset would be advantageous in situations where the range is not so obvious, would it not?)

Thanks,

Ken

[rexford]

By basing the visual range estimate on an averaging system, the Tiger would gain over vehicles and tanks that used a single crewmen's estimate.

Using an average range estimate error of 25%, which is consistent with British trials and tests conducted by our group, the following summarizes the impact of averaging the range estimates of one, two and three men on 1000m targets:

1 man: 25% average error

2 men: 17.2% average error

3 men: 15.1% average error

The data was generated by assuming a bell shaped distribution and running 100 trials allowing random range estimates.

In terms of first shot hit probability at 1000m against a 2m high x 2.5m target, the range estimates would result in:

1 man estimate: 25% hit chance

2 men with average of estimates: 35% hit chance

3 men with average of estimates: 40% hit chance

Everything else being equal, the Tiger Fibel method of estimating range would result in a 60% higher first shot hit chance over a one man prediction. The advantage would be somewhat higher if the Tiger gunner used the triangles to estimate range based on the observed target size.

[rexford]

Originally posted by c3k:

"I've repeatedly argued/held that the wonderful game modelling by BF.C consistently falls short in the realm of sights.

It seems that the in-depth optics knowledge by a BF.C member has somewhat blinded them to the large advantage to be gained by different reticles and sights."

The Germans seemed to have done alot of things right, and the Americans appear to have suffered through a period of goofs and corrections. The Sherman gunnery tech manual acknowledges that the early Sherman sighting system, with a periscope atop the turret, was prone to misalignment which would ruin or at least inhibit hit chances.

"The German method of adjusting the gun so the sight is always centered on the target seems better than the allied method of adjusting the sight to the target."

It does seem easier to aim at the middle of the target, or any other special area, when the cross hairs stay in one place.

"(A note on your accuracy tables: I certainly cannot argue with any of the figures, however, the high miss-rate at low ranges may be misleading. In sub-800 meter engagements, I would expect the range estimates to be pretty close (10% to 50% would still produce more hits). The 1,000 meter range preset would be advantageous in situations where the range is not so obvious, would it not?)"

The accuracy tables were based on the 1000m aim at target bottom, and it probably would not take long for a Tiger crew to realize something was wrong with the graph. Since the Tiger crews tended to be elite and hand picked, especially in the earlier periods, seeing a target at 500m would probably result in the use of the visual range estimate method since 500m is not that far.

Your comment is correct though, at 400m to 600m the range estimate errors would probably be small.

"Thanks,

Ken"

Thank you for the response.

[rexford]

Two additional points:

1. the gunner's range estimate is given twice the weight of the commander's and driver's, which probably acknowledges the benefits of using triangles to improve the estimate.

2. after the range estimate is made, the commander must do some mental gymnastics to increase the range because the gun is aimed at the bottom of the target and an addition must be made to put the shot higher up on the target. This further complicates the range estimating process for the first shot at a target, extending the time and opening the door for possible math errors.

[rexford]

The previous accuracy figures for a 1000m aim at the observed target bottom were for a 2m high target flush with the ground.

Against a 2m high T34 with 0.4m ground clearance the accuracy figures for 1000m aim at target bottom would change significantly:

Target Range/hit %

100m/76%

200m/94%

300m/84%

400m/66%

500m/58%

600m/63%

700m/79%

800m/93%

900m/81%

1000m/23%

Aiming at the ground level where the tracks touch raises the tank profile so the maximum trajectory height of 2.3m is slightly below the maximum tank elevation.

Given the complexity involved in estimating first shot target range the use of battlesight aim would speed things up and increase the hit percentage against targets beyond 500m.

[Mr. Tittles]

In reality, shots that landed short would skip off the ground and present a real danger to the target. These shots could even get under the targat and penetrate the belly armor in some cases.

At 400M, I can hit a tank sized target with an M16 with iron sights 90%+ of the time. Do you really think a 88mm would do any less?

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

In reality, shots that landed short would skip off the ground and present a real danger to the target. These shots could even get under the targat and penetrate the belly armor in some cases.

At 400M, I can hit a tank sized target with an M16 with iron sights 90%+ of the time. Do you really think a 88mm would do any less?

If a Tiger uses battle sight aim against a 2m high target at 500m it will miss quite a bit.

Seeing something that close the Tiger would probably just assume a 500m range and aim for a 700m shot against the target bottom, which would bring the shot up near the middle.

[MikeyD]

Here's a favorite quote from "The 752nd Tank Battalion in the Battle for Cecina":

"At that moment, Tiger 221 rounded the curve onto Via Montanara and came face to face with the Lieutenant Cox's Sherman, at a distance of 75 to 100 yards. Both tanks fired simultaneously. The Tiger's 88mm shell struck the ground close to the left side of Cox's Sherman. The concussion of the Tiger's shot lifted the left side of the Sherman off the ground, but no damage was inflicted. At the same instant, the Sherman fired a 75mm armor piercing (AP) round, hitting the lower front hull of the Tiger. Crew members of the Sherman recalled seeing the shell merely bounce off the Tiger's hull. The only damage inflicted upon Tiger 221 by this hit was a chip in the Zimmerit coating, which is clearly visible in after-action photographs.

The two tanks momentarily lost sight of each other in the dust that had been raised by the firing..."

This illustrates pretty well that in the heat of battle an 88-armed Tiger could indeed miss from a mere 100 yards! Under similar stressful conditions (CM-style close combat) I can imagine a Tiger missing what would've been a gunnery range easy shot from 500m (1/3rd of a mile). Beside's Rexford's listing of peculiarities of the aiming system, you could also factor in the affect of heat and humidity on the propellant, excessive barrrel wear (88 barrels wore down pretty fast), or even whether the tank had traveled over particularly bumpy ground since the last time the sights were adjusted!

[Mr. Tittles]

Actually it seems to imply that the tiger (and sherman) were moving or had come to a short halt. It also seems that the Tiger may have had a HE shell in the breech at the time and needed to clear it out quickly. An AP 88mm would not have a concussion that would lift a sherman at all if it did not hit it.

The topic is really what are the first round chances of hitting a target. I would assume that means a stationary firer AND target.

At shorter ranges (200-600 meters), I dont think that anybody would aim at the bottom of the target vehicle. They would aim for the center (after dialing in estimated range) and the reduced range estimate error would be forgiving. That is, any error in range estimation would still result in a hit.

[ June 22, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Griffin 36th]

You can quote all the stats you like really but that all goes to crap in a combat situation, as mikeyd's contribution fully illustrates. What I imagine happened in the illustrated scenario is that the tiger traversed the turrent and lowered it as fast as they could and fired without aiming in a situation like that, since the turret speed of a tiger was notoriously slow fine tuning on the gunners part would surely take much to long. That being said I loved the tables despite what I said earlier, very informative and very accurate in my opinion. The main doctrine of the German armor was to engage at geat distance due to their better sites and shells.

[Mr. Tittles]

According to Jentz (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.): "These accuracy tables are based on the assumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion. The figures in the second column include the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunition and gunners. These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the second column".

Accuracy:

Gun 88 mm KwK 36 L/56

Ammunition Pzgr. 39 Pzgr. 40 Gr.39 HL

Range

500 m 100 (100) 100 (100) 100 (98)

1000 m 100 (93) 99 (80) 94 (62)

1500 m 98 (74) 89 (52) 72 (34)

2000 m 87 (50) 71 (31) 52 (20)

2500 m 71 (31) 55 (19)

3000 m 53 (19)

As the excerpt says, the range is determined. This is the biggest wildcard in the equation.

But as others have pointed out, range estimation errors are both reduced at closer ranges, AND have a further minimal effect since the high velocity weapons do not exhibit appreciable shot fall due to gravity/time at short ranges.

And, again, Mikeys example is out of context and means nothing to the discussion. Its like two gunslingers who bump into each other in a doorway. Niether will be the best shot because teh immediacy of the situation does not allow SOP to take place.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/Zeiss_Optics.htm

worth reading

tigerfibel download

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/TIGER-1%20FILES/tigerfibel.pdf

[ June 22, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/Zeiss_Optics.htm

worth reading

Interesting article except for the last bit

The americans had poor optics and could NOT measure the range through them. All shots beyond 800 meters were lucky guesses on their part.

which is ignorant garbage. It's not hard to find examples of TDs hitting targets at beyond 1000 meters, and there are a couple of examples of Hellcats hitting targets at 2000 meters.

The triangular recticle thing is cool, and I'm sure it's useful - but there are lots of other ways to get the range without them - you could sometimes tell the range from the size of the vehicle, even without the recticles. You might know that the fence being crossed by the enemy tanks was 1250 meters away. You may be able to estimate the range by being able to estimate the distance of an object (house, tree, shed) near the target (admittely, more difficult on the Russian steppes). And as soon as one tank in your platoon gets the correct distance, all tanks should know it.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://tiger1.info/EN/Target.html

This shows how the Germans would rough in the weapons alignment on a Tiger. I imagine the next step would be to survey a known range (1000m) and set up a target of a precise height. This would allow the firing of rounds so the weapon could be tweaked in. It would also allow the gunner to train with his triangles for a target height/range combination.

[Mr. Tittles]

Stereoscopic equipment was also used by German tankers 9scissors scopes). By focusing the two images, a reading could give fairly accurate range information.

German 88mm Flak weapons certainly had even more powerful stereoscopic devices. The precision needed would only be +/- 200 meters or so.

Notice the featureless terrain and extreme ranges. The 88 crew is using a stereoscopic range finder with a wide seperation between the images.

[Mr. Tittles]

An interesting side discussion is that hull down vehicles would be very difficult to get the range to. If the hull down target was a german tank, its even more difficult due to the many different types they fielded.

This is probably something that the games modeling does not take into account.

Similarly, tanks behind cover or heavily camoed would also be difficult to range on. It would almost always lead to very low chances on first round hits. If the observation of the first shot was difficult (and it was for US tankers due to smoke), then the tanks would be at a severe disadvantage.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/Zeiss_Optics.htm

worth reading

Interesting article except for the last bit

The americans had poor optics and could NOT measure the range through them. All shots beyond 800 meters were lucky guesses on their part.

which is ignorant garbage. It's not hard to find examples of TDs hitting targets at beyond 1000 meters, and there are a couple of examples of Hellcats hitting targets at 2000 meters.

The triangular recticle thing is cool, and I'm sure it's useful - but there are lots of other ways to get the range without them - you could sometimes tell the range from the size of the vehicle, even without the recticles. You might know that the fence being crossed by the enemy tanks was 1250 meters away. You may be able to estimate the range by being able to estimate the distance of an object (house, tree, shed) near the target (admittely, more difficult on the Russian steppes). And as soon as one tank in your platoon gets the correct distance, all tanks should know it. </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/pantherfibel.htm

pantherfibel

[wmosner]

Just curious, is there an English translated version of the Tiger Fibel?

Bill

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

[QBAt shorter ranges (200-600 meters), I dont think that anybody would aim at the bottom of the target vehicle. They would aim for the center (after dialing in estimated range) and the reduced range estimate error would be forgiving. That is, any error in range estimation would still result in a hit. [/QB]

The German procedure was to set up the gun sight on the bottom of the observed target, estimate the range, and then increase the range by a certain amount so the shot would be aimed at the target middle (give or take).

If the estimated range were 500m, the addition would equal 100m x (1000m/500m) or 200m, so the gun would be elevated for a 700m shot against the target bottom. This would place the shot near the target center if the initial range estimate were correct or very close.

In the case brought up by MikeyD regarding a Tiger and Sherman coming face to face, perhaps the commander ordered the gunner to fire at 100m range and forgot to add the modifier (100m x 1000m/100m or a 1000m + 100m shot). It is possible that a 100m shot would bounce short, although it is hard to see why a near miss would raise the Sherman off the ground.

Would an 88mm HE near miss cause a Sherman to rise off the ground?

[ June 25, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

An interesting side discussion is that hull down vehicles would be very difficult to get the range to. If the hull down target was a german tank, its even more difficult due to the many different types they fielded.

This is probably something that the games modeling does not take into account.

Similarly, tanks behind cover or heavily camoed would also be difficult to range on. It would almost always lead to very low chances on first round hits. If the observation of the first shot was difficult (and it was for US tankers due to smoke), then the tanks would be at a severe disadvantage.

Good points.

The Tiger Fibel does not say what to do if the target is hull down, or behind cover. The only instructions are for fully viewable targets, as far as I can see.

[Mr. Tittles]

I doubt an AP round that struck close to a sherman tank could be that noticable given the noise/vibation in a running tank.

A HE round landing close to the side of the sherman would have much of its blast force enveloped under the track area. It could be felt as a distict noise/force even when buttoned up.

When playing Panzer Elite, I often just had the sights set at 600 meters or so. In close ranged combat, you develop an instinctual correction. In normandy, I bet many German tankers did like wise.

I do think that it would always be better to guess short than long. Not only would these HV rounds skip up, they would be easily discernable from the 'splash' they would exhibit. A 'long' round is very hard to judge just how wrong and long it was.

[ June 25, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[flamingknives]

I would have thought that the likelihood of a HV shell skipping off the ground and still hitting a target with sufficient force to do damage would be on the unusual side of events, especially German APHE.

Sherman crews in the desert, apparently, routinely fired HE short with a delay fuse in order to create an airburst over the intended target. Not sure if skipping would be sufficient to set off an AP fuse, but it might. Skipping would be enourmously affected by ground type too.

I'm reminded of the firing procedure for the Conqueror Heavy Gun tank. This had a cross-coupla stereoscopic range finder, but smoke from the main gun obscured all observation of the fall of shot. The gunner would lay on target, setting range as 200m short and 200m long for the first and second shots, respectively. A third shot at the measured range was deemed to not increase the to hit chance by any worthwhile percentage in comparison to the time and ammunition expenditure.

[Mr. Tittles]

Actually I have read of accounts of skipping AP hitting tanks and KOing them. The amount of energy lost by skipping off the ground is not that substantial. Also, base HE in AP rounds may need a massive decel to set it off.

[ June 26, 2004, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]