KV2 first shot accuracy test result

[Catacol Highlander]

Folks

For those that read my previous post on the remarkable accuracy of the KV2 I have now conducted a short test. Not had eons of time to spare, but set up the following:

Green KV2s at around 600 - 650m from StugIIIB. June 1941, extreme FOW, clear conditions, flat ground.

Watched 100 first shots

Results:

23 direct hits

77 misses

Compared this to identical test but substituting Green KV1s [1940 version] for the KV2s

Watched 100 first shots

Results:

27 direct hits

73 misses.

The KV1 was marginally more accurate, but this small test pretty much backed up what I felt to be the case while in battle, namely that the KV2 has an accuracy much like a tank fitted with a "real" AT weapon. Each test was run in batches of 10, and twice while running the KV2 test 5 out of 10 tanks hit first shot. However significantly something in the region of 7 or 8 stugs were destroyed by the blast of a near miss and many others damaged. Unfortunately I only started looking for such occurence towards the end of the run and didnt count them accurately, but in reality therefore taking direct hits and near misses into account the KV2 is deadly, even first shot.

I will run a test that looks at second shot and beyond when I get the chance. Not going to be as simple, but I'll manufacture it somehow. I'll also test the 2 tanks out at much longer range. I'll post the results as soon as they are done.

One final observation - virtually all of the green KV2s acquired and fired within 10 to 11 secs. The KV1s were poor in comparision, often not firing until the 17th or 18th sec of the replay and sometimes not firing at all as it took so long to get off a shot that the stugs retreated behind smoke.

Conclusion: The KV2 is a better battlefield AT weapon than the KV1, at least in June 1941 when I ran the test. This cannot be right, surely??

More thoughts anyone?

Cheers

Al

[Tigrii]

Yeah, but the KV-2 has a much longer reload time.

[Panzer76]

Doesnt feel right that a low velocity weapon has approx the same hit % as the high velocity waepon.

[JasonC]

600 yards is way too close to see any appreciable difference in first shot accuracy due to MVs. I don't know why people have the idea that artillery pieces are innaccurate weapons anyway. They hit 50m wide targets at 10 km. But a high MV weapon will start getting higher first shot hits, and second shot hits, when the flight time gets up to 2-3 seconds.

Understand, it is the flatter trajectory that makes it easier to hit with a high MV weapon. The shell doesn't arc as high in the air. The result is a longer distance along the axis of fire within the error band the height of the target affords. You shouldn't see any significant difference until the drop of the slower shell over half its flight time (the descending portion) significantly exceeds the height of a typical target.

Until then, it is mostly just a matter of pointing (2-D "putting" rather than 3-D "hole in one"), which differs hardly at all from piece to piece ('cept better optics at extreme range, perhaps). An artillery piece is not a blunderbuss, you know. There is no windage. It is a rifle.

Try the test at 1200 and 1800 meters. If you get the same result, there may be something to worry about. At 600m, there shouldn't be a large difference.

[JasonC]

I ran a test to see if the KV2 is more or less useful than a KV1 against tanks. The answer is that the KV1 is better at it, hands down.

I put one of each up against a platoon of Pz III G models - thin 37mm fronts, short 50mm guns. I started at 1800 yards. I started with a tactic of just dueling. At that range, the Russians are hopeless. The Germans play church bells on the KVs, the KVs get off an occasional shot without hitting anything. 4:1 odds, higher rate of fire from smaller guns and bigger crews, better optics, etc.

In 2 minutes, the KV1 got of 7 shots, no hits. The KV2 got off 3, no hits. They were themselves hit a combined total of 42 times, none serious, but counting 2 track and 1 gun hits that easily might have been.

Then I got tired of that and closed the range, at first moving both sides to make it go faster. At around 1100 yards, the KVs halt and fire. The Pz IIIs charge on "fast", firing on the move and rarely hitting because of it.

The KV1 kills off the charging platoon, leaving wrecks at 750 yards, 500, 400, and 300 yards. Yes, they got that close. On fast move they are not easy to hit.

Meanwhile the KV2 was destroyed without loss of a tank. One TC was fragged by an HE near miss - could have been buttoned, I had let them decide. If I had buttoned them there would have been no losses at all.

How was it destroyed? Well, a track hit from moving fire immobilized it when the Pz IIIs were between 300 and 350 yards. They continued to beat it like a drum, and the crew bailed. It's last actual shot was at something like 450 yards - the slow ROF, very slow turret tracking faster movers, and hits combined to nearly silence it.

The Pz IIIs then ringed it and fired away at under 100m, pulling up to more like 25m and continuing. I wanted to see if they'd get penetrations.

They got more gun hits and track hits, and I saw one turret side penetration, and two rear turret partial penetrations, each of which would have KOed even had the crew not already bailed. It remained just "abandoned", though - they didn't brew it up.

Reports of the tank fighting prowess of the KV2 are greatly exaggerated.

[Redwolf]

The reported hit probablities are 29% for the KV-2 and 32% for the KV-1.

So the test results are as expected relative to each other. Abolutely they are both a little lower than expected, but overall this test didn't reveal anything special.

The second-shot hit probablity for both target and shooter not moving and target line never broken should be execatly the probablity addition of the hit probablities (not the mathematical sum, of course), at least that was the case in CMBO.

I think we are chasing the wrong horse here. The engine works fine in that it in fact does what the formulas spit out. The question here is whether the formulas' input isn't worth tuning. Some people, icnluding me, think the KV-2 with its 436 m/sec should suck, and true llong-range gunnery from high-training crews with good optics and everything could stand out a little more.

I will check the Rexford book, he presents a hit probablity model.

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The second-shot hit probablity for both target and shooter not moving and target line never broken should be execatly the probablity addition of the hit probablities (not the mathematical sum, of course), at least that was the case in CMBO.

This is certainly not the case in CMBB. Hit percentage rises quickly modeling corrections by the guns crew. Once a target is destroyed the gun receives an accuracy bonus against any nearby targets modelling the fact the crew already has that range sighted in.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

The second-shot hit probablity for both target and shooter not moving and target line never broken should be execatly the probablity addition of the hit probablities (not the mathematical sum, of course), at least that was the case in CMBO.

This is certainly not the case in CMBB. Hit percentage rises quickly modeling corrections by the guns crew. Once a target is destroyed the gun receives an accuracy bonus against any nearby targets modelling the fact the crew already has that range sighted in. </font>

[manchildstein (ii)]

one problem with the effectiveness of the kv2 in cmbb is that you will see it a lot in scenarios and quick battles.... more than you would have ever seen it in 'real life'...

i mean in the scope of cmbb where you don't have any operational concerns such as getting it to travel more than a few meters, it's a great tank... a veritable heavily armed pillbox... the best tank of 1941 hands down... regular kvs are boring in comparison...

but in 'real life' the kv2 would often break down en route to the battlefield, or it would be out of ammo, and there weren't that many...

i have no problem with the performance of the kv2 in cmbb... except that if the thing about it not being able to turn its turret on anything but flat ground is true... well if there were a way to limit that in the game engine... that's the only change i would make

as someone also mentioned in the other thread about this... maybe the kv2 is kind of like the 1941 version of the sturmtiger... it's probably already fought more action in cmbb than it ever did in 'real life'

i'll bet too that the gun on the kv had the kind of sights where it wasn't too hard to hit something, even without a flat trajectory... i am reminded of the sights on an m-203 grenade launcher, or on a lever-action .45/70 rifle... the sights are such that they have the firer 'angling' the gun according to a target's range... assuming the ammo is of uniform quality, the only real variable (other than windage) is the proper range estimate on the firer's part...

does anyone remember the soldier in apocalypse now who could hit things by sound with his trusty m-79 grenade launcher?... same concept...

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by JasonC:

600 yards is way too close to see any appreciable difference in first shot accuracy due to MVs.

I wouldn't say that. 600 yards is a lot for a weapon with such a low Vo like the KV-2s gun. It has 400somefink m/s (at the muzzle!) which means it will travel one and a half to two seconds, which is an eternity for flat-arc ballistics. I don't know off the back of my head how much better the KV-1s 76mm gun is but even 200 m/s more Vo would make targeting a lot easier.

Originally posted by JasonC:

I ran a test to see if the KV2 is more or less useful than a KV1 against tanks. The answer is that the KV1 is better at it, hands down.

I put one of each up against a platoon of Pz III G models - thin 37mm fronts, short 50mm guns. I started at 1800 yards.

maybe the problem becomes more apparent with something more solid...IIRC there are targets that only the Kv-2 has any chance of killing, and the KV-1 cant, even if he hit better.

sorry for being so unspecific and foggy here, I have so far (luckily?) zero experience with the KV-2 in CMBB. Did not encounter it, and never picked it myself so far: all I know is that in reality it sucked bad. And if the turret rotation limitation isn't modeled in CMBB then I am also not really dieing to see this vehicle in my games.

[Mikeydz]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

maybe the problem becomes more apparent with something more solid...IIRC there are targets that only the Kv-2 has any chance of killing, and the KV-1 cant, even if he hit better.

Since I can't recall alot of in-game encounters, I've having to look at the raw numbers I have for the 2 tanks, and I don't see where the KV1 can't take out something but the KV2 can. Even out to 2km the 1's APBC rounds out penetrate the 2's HE rounds. the only real advantage is the massive blast rating on those HE's. And they both look like that have a shot against the german armor until you get to the later model PzIVs.

The only thing I'm wondering about is the aquisition time Al reports for the KV1 vs the KV2. The both show the same rated turret speed, and neither have any special optics, so there shouldn't be any obvious or appreciable difference the the time to initially get a shot off between the 2.

[Caesar]

Originally posted by JasonC

Understand, it is the flatter trajectory that makes it easier to hit with a high MV weapon. The shell doesn't arc as high in the air. The result is a longer distance along the axis of fire within the error band the height of the target affords. You shouldn't see any significant difference until the drop of the slower shell over half its flight time (the descending portion) significantly exceeds the height of a typical target.

A rough calculation in my head, the height of the arc of the shell from the KV2 would be a little over 11m compared with a little under 4m for the KV1. I am certainly no grog but I would have thought that 3 times the height of the arc (roughly speaking) would have made it significantly more difficult to hit a target a couple of metres high.

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by Caesar:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Originally posted by JasonC

Understand, it is the flatter trajectory that makes it easier to hit with a high MV weapon. The shell doesn't arc as high in the air. The result is a longer distance along the axis of fire within the error band the height of the target affords. You shouldn't see any significant difference until the drop of the slower shell over half its flight time (the descending portion) significantly exceeds the height of a typical target.

A rough calculation in my head, the height of the arc of the shell from the KV2 would be a little over 11m compared with a little under 4m for the KV1. I am certainly no grog but I would have thought that 3 times the height of the arc (roughly speaking) would have made it significantly more difficult to hit a target a couple of metres high. </font>

[Other Means]

i must say, i'm constantly impressed by the quality of this forum.

so, not to try to hijack the thread but: if a tank is hull down to you, presenting a very small silhouette, are you better off shooting from long range (discounting optics for a sec) thus dropping the shell down onto them, reducing glance angle & going for the top armour? i know you drastically reduce your chance of hitting but could there be a situation where you would have no chance of penetrating the front armour but may get the top from longer range?

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Other Means:

i know you drastically reduce your chance of hitting but could there be a situation where you would have no chance of penetrating the front armour but may get the top from longer range?

You had to use a curved trajectory weapon, like mortars or howitzers to do this, not your normal AT og tank gun.

[JasonC]

Mididoctors comments (though in places a little hard to follow) mostly seem correct to me. The other fellow who said the difference is 11m vs. 4m, I don't think got it right. The shell arc spends only half the flight time descending. The aim point is raised, not flat at 2m above the ground. For the first half of the flight of the shell, it is still moving upward, though at decreasing speeds, not downward.

At 600m, a 400m/s shell has been in flight for 1.5 seconds, yes. It spent only half that time descending from its apex, the other half climbing to that apex. At the apex, of course the vertical component of the velocity is zero - that's why it is the apex. The drop from the apex starts with zero vertical velocity at that point, and the vertical part of the motion is just like free fall from that point.

So the descent time is 0.75 seconds, and the height drop in feet is 16 * .75 * .75, or 9 feet. That is, the apex of the arc of the shell is 9 feet above its origin and end-point. Note - this does not mean the shell passes 9 feet above the target. The arc of the shell was included in the elevation to give to the gun.

If the range was estimated exactly, the shell will still go right through the target center of mass. But what happens if the range estimate is off? If the shooter *thought* the range was 800m, he dialed in the elevation offset for that range. Which is what? A descent time of 1 second, thus a 16 foot drop. He aims 7 feet above the target's center of mass (actually, that is the difference in the two apex heights he aims at), because he got the range wrong by 200m.

Compare the same ranges, the same estimates, but a 800 m/s gun. At 600m, the descent time is only 3/8 of a second, and the shell arc is only 2.25 feet below the apex. If he dials in 800m incorrectly, the flight time is 1 second, the drop time .5 seconds, the drop height is 4 feet.

So being wrong by 200m in the range, only made for a height difference of 1.75 feet with the flatter trajectory. The aim point is center of mass, and a tank is typically taller than 3.5 feet, so the 800 m/s gun will still hit the target with a 200m range error at 600m - a pretty big mistake in the range, for a target so close. The slow, 400 m/s gun may miss high, because the shell goes 7 feet above his aim point, and most tanks aren't 14 feet tall.

Actually it is slightly worse than that, because the apex is 100m farther one, and the target is only 200m past it when the range is overestimated like that. The portion of the shell flight closest to the apex is the flattest, so the shell "carries" there. With only 1/2 second of descent between 400m and 600m, the shell drops only 4 feet from the higher apex, so the wrong flight path is 12 feet higher than the correct one at that point in the trajectories.

Naturally there are other factors, slowing of the shell, lift, etc. But it is close enough to show what the basic problem is.

So the tolerance for error in the estimation of the range is higher for the flat trajectory, high MV weapon. If the slow MV weapon gets the range more nearly right, however, it will still hit. Nowhere is it written that everyone gets the range wrong by 200m at a mere 600m range. If he was trying to hit a target at 650m, he'd only aim high by 1.56 feet, and the size of the target will cover that.

As for comments that 400 m/s is low MV for shooting at 600m, I don't see why. The 75L24 had about that MV, and plenty of StuG drivers and early Pz IV drivers hit things with them. If you estimated the range correctly, you still hit things at twice that range.

It is just that the tolerance for error in the range estimate, shrinks rapidly as the flight time gets up around 2-3 seconds, because you have overall drops from flight apex of ~25 feet to contend with, so you are "golfing" at that point, rather than "bowling". And the likelihood of getting the range wrong by a significant amount, increases the farther away the target is (also the worse the crew, naturally).

[ January 28, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

You aren't going to hit top armor at direct fire ranges. I understand talk of 25 foot drops sound large, and they are compared to the target size. But we are talking about falls that large over half the total distance to the target, meaning half a kilometer, and the fall is not large compared to that distance. The "run" is more than 60 times the "rise". That is a very small angle from the horizontal.

As for how fine the angles are discriminated in shooting, quadrant and deflection are typically measured in "mils", 1/6400 of a circle. It is a unit chosen because for small angles, the arcsin of a mil is 1/1000 (hence the name). So an error of 1 mil at 1 km means a miss of 1 meter.

The finest gunnery can discriminate down to half a mil accuracy. Errors of around 1-2 mils may occur just from the way the sights and such work, without range error or gunner error in pointing etc. (Though a careful gunner should be able to eliminate 2 mil size errors, if he understands his equipment). Not beyond that.

At indirect fire ranges, these pointing errors will lead to some "sheaf spread", but modest amounts of it - 5s and 10s of meters. Small compared to shot to shot variations in powder burn, gun travel during firing, etc, which cause scatter for reasons other than the direction the gun is pointed.

But at direct fire ranges, these "pointing errors" are tiny, almost always under the size of the target. It is errors in estimating the range that cause most misses. Once the target is a kilometer away or so, you can easily get the range wrong by a factor of 2.

The tolerance for error is high with a high MV gun, and that can lead to gunner sloppiness - they just put the sights on one middling range and pay no further attention to it, concentrating on pointing, without making any real effort to estimate the range.

It is not surprising, incidentally, that many later ace gunners cut their teeth on lower velocity guns. They had to do the range stuff right from the get-go, and in 3-4 km shooting that pays off even with a Tiger or Panther gun. They "learned how to golf".

With a moving target, misses also come from misjudging speed and direction, and so missing "wide" by the wrong "lead". The tolerance for error is small for bad "leads", which is why hitting moving targets at range is hard.

[ January 28, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by JasonC:

So being wrong by 200m in the range, only made for a height difference of 1.75 feet with the flatter trajectory. The aim point is center of mass, and a tank is typically taller than 3.5 feet, so the 800 m/s gun will still hit the target with a 200m range error at 600m - a pretty big mistake in the range, for a target so close. The slow, 400 m/s gun may miss high, because the shell goes 7 feet above his aim point, and most tanks aren't 14 feet tall.

Actually it is slightly worse than that, because the apex is 100m farther one, and the target is only 200m past it when the range is overestimated like that. The portion of the shell flight closest to the apex is the flattest, so the shell "carries" there. With only 1/2 second of descent between 400m and 600m, the shell drops only 4 feet from the higher apex, so the wrong flight path is 12 feet higher than the correct one at that point in the trajectories.

hmmm thats the rub........

flight profile well resemble a blunt arc with the with a coresponding diffculty in range assement as shell will drop in second half of flight as contary too our simplistic view of balistics.......perversely the heavy shell weight of the 152mm may mean its carry thru the air ie flight speed is more consistant....

I am left feeling that BTS must have done their homework and got it right...we have little choice..

Boris

london

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by JasonC:

It is just that the tolerance for error in the range estimate, shrinks rapidly as the flight time gets up around 2-3 seconds, because you have overall drops from flight apex of ~25 feet to contend with, so you are "golfing" at that point, rather than "bowling". And the likelihood of getting the range wrong by a significant amount, increases the farther away the target is (also the worse the crew, naturally).

What realy matters in a way is flight time...especialy against moving targets....

As you rightly pointed out leading a moving target is going to be somewhat hard with a target that may be close to 8 meters further away than at the time of firing with a 600m range.....

perhaps a test against moving targets would produce a more obvious difference in performance between a KV 1 and KV 2

Boris

London

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by Alastair Anderson:

Conclusion: The KV2 is a better battlefield AT weapon than the KV1, at least in June 1941 when I ran the test. This cannot be right, surely??

More thoughts anyone?

Cheers

Al

try again but have the target moving at right angles to firer at approx 600m....

infact use several different angles of deflection

my gut instinct is the 152mm is going to comeout much worse compared with the76mm

Boris

london

[ January 28, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: mididoctors ]

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for how fine the angles are discriminated in shooting, quadrant and deflection are typically measured in "mils", 1/6400 of a circle. It is a unit chosen because for small angles, the arcsin of a mil is 1/1000 (hence the name). So an error of 1 mil at 1 km means a miss of 1 meter.

The finest gunnery can discriminate down to half a mil accuracy. Errors of around 1-2 mils may occur just from the way the sights and such work, without range error or gunner error in pointing etc. (Though a careful gunner should be able to eliminate 2 mil size errors, if he understands his equipment). Not beyond that.

so at 600m your sughts alone could be 1.2m out about half the width of a turret? green crews are going to multiply this figure somewhat?

Boris

london

[Pak40]

Another thing to consider is that the 76mm gun of the KV-1 isn't exactly a high velocity weapon. Sure it's higher than the KV-2's gun but still rather slow when compared to many other AT guns.

Of coarse, I'm going from memory since I don't have CMBB in front of me at this time. Anyone care to post the muzzle velocities of the two guns?

[Redwolf]

KV-2 HE (has no AP): 436 m/sec

KV-I Model 1939 AP: 612 m/sec

I think these two are more interesting to compare:

SU-152 AP: 600 m/sec

57mm AP: 990 m/sec

They are more interesting to compare because they have almost the same hit probablity in CMBB. I think it was 39% for the 57mm and 36% for the 152mm at 800m (I posted the exact numbers in the previour thread). Surely the difference should be bigger, shouldn't it?

[ January 28, 2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[JasonC]

You guys are still just expecting the differences to show up way too close. The early portion of the ranges are easy for all guns.

Here at the ranges for 50%, 25%, 13%, and 6% initial to hit chances against a Pz IVH for 387 (76L17 infantry gun), 600 (SU-152), and 990 (57mm ATG) m/s guns -

990 m/s - 640-1330-1950-2500+

600 m/s - 560-1070-1500-1950

387 m/s - 480-840-1150-1450

Hit probabilities at 600, 1200, 1800, 2400m -

990 m/s - 54-28-15-7

600 m/s - 47-20-8-3

387 m/s - 41-11-2-0

At 600m, they can all do it - even the lowest MV guns is still firing close to flat. At 1200m, it is behind the faster ones by a factor of 2-3 (3 seconds, see? ineffective). The 600 m/s gun is still reasonably close to flat, though, and so while it is behind the faster 990 by 30-40% (.7:1 or 1.4:1), it still has a decent hit chance. Extend to 1800m, and the fastest now outperforms it by about a factor of 2 (3 seconds, see? ineffective), while the slowest gun is completely ineffective.

If you demand a decent chance to hit before opening up, but can expect to fire for a minute or two, then you might open at 1500, 1250, and 1000 m for the three respective guns. In practical dueling, the 57 will vastly outperform the 152 if both can kill the target, firing rapidly at 1.5 to 2 km, homing, and getting hits within the first minute.

At the same ranges, the slow firing 152 will get off 2-3 shots. It would need several minutes, and luck to hit anything. In fact it is marginal at 1500m (given a couple of minutes to home in, OK), and only becomes really effective under 1 km, given the slow rate of fire. At stationary targets.

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by JasonC:

You guys are still just expecting the differences to show up way too close. The early portion of the ranges are easy for all guns.

Here at the ranges for 50%, 25%, 13%, and 6% initial to hit chances against a Pz IVH for 387 (76L17 infantry gun), 600 (SU-152), and 990 (57mm ATG) m/s guns -

990 m/s - 640-1330-1950-2500+

600 m/s - 560-1070-1500-1950

387 m/s - 480-840-1150-1450

Hit probabilities at 600, 1200, 1800, 2400m -

990 m/s - 54-28-15-7

600 m/s - 47-20-8-3

387 m/s - 41-11-2-0

At 600m, they can all do it - even the lowest MV guns is still firing close to flat.

I think that must be pretty close to the stats Alistair got..........

Your stats are out of some grog tome I guess....and now I except as verbatim along with flat trajectory conjecture at sub 1000m or so ranges .Jason is right in his explanation

OK just to kick it back on topic vis a vis LV vs MV or HV guns.....

Again question... flight time is critical against moving targets for flights of as little as .5 sec which could equate against a AFV moving at 12mph as 2m...I still expect High MV guns to significantly outperform LV guns against moving targets in the 500-1000m range. For 400m/s guns a 20kph moving target will need a correct lead of accurate to within 1/2 of TDD (roughly)

1.5 sec flight time equates in target relocation at 20kmh of 8m...accurate lead against centre of target what's a AFV 3X6 X3 box?

ASL size modifiers?.....I take it target profiles are modeled I would expect non-liner performance against moving targets in relation to target size and MV..... off angle movement even at close ranges produces tremendous problems in lead for LV guns

if flight time against a target at 20kph is less than .5 sec then most target will be hit on the button as 2.7m displacement is within target size tolerance (lead ignored).. JUST.

this is very close for the KV 2 sub 250m....what is also added is turret tracking angles start to increase at close ranges further complicating things.... for the KV 1 this distance is of course arund 300m for HV 990m...close to 500m....

the long arm of Hv guns is much more noticable at the 500m against moving targets... a ASL style global moving target modifier is inaccurate....is this also true of CMBB? I would have thought a straight physics 2 body problem would produce almost perfect results assuming an inital shot velocity(includes direction) against target movement behaviour modeled seperatly but mapped in time.......modeling the gunners decision when and how to fire is the issue...subjective.

the advantage of diminishing 2 mil error...1.2m down to .5m is not that noticable against moving targets against errors in lead.

of course shoots along the axis of travel or close almost eliminate this disadvantage as flat trajectory fire conjecture still applies....IE do not charge down a KV 2 barrel..dooh!

the results for fast AC or road travel at 40kph plus are quite staggering

conclusion run at off angles towards your KV 2 foe he is unlikley to hit a thing until less than 250m and closer in turret swing will be a real issue......bam got him.....OH that is exactly what Jason got in his test

:cool:

well theres a thing it comes down to tactical deployment......

solutions within the game for what at first appear to inaccuracies in modelling AFV stats......well...things can be misleading at first.

BTS have spent alot of time on DF/AT fire model and it is not an area I feel that has "that" much wrong with it.

Boris

london