Accuracy Data for 88mm Flak

[K_Tiger]

Hell, whats a "Aushilfsrichtmittel"...do you have a Picture from it? i understand the Word, but have no idea how it looks like...

[Rausch]

I have looked over the list of optics I have and the only part coming close is the "Richtaufsatz 38".

But this was normally used for mortars to adjust elevation and traverse so I am not sure if they are the same.

[K_Tiger]

Isnt a "Richtmittel" something you use to adjust/elevate the gun?

Maybe a Handweel...or else?

[Rausch]

No.

It's an optical device to measure e.g. directions.

When the commander of the gun tells "Aim 2 Striche left of the church tower", then the gunner knew exactly where to aim. The "Striche"-scaling of the binocs was the same as for the aiming optic.

(Explanation for "Striche": A full circle was divided in 6400 "Striche". "Striche" was the unit all German ballistic manuals used to tell the elevation and side corrections for the guns).

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Rausch:

No.

It's an optical device to measure e.g. directions.

When the commander of the gun tells "Aim 2 Striche left of the church tower", then the gunner knew exactly where to aim. The "Striche"-scaling of the binocs was the same as for the aiming optic.

(Explanation for "Striche": A full circle was divided in 6400 "Striche". "Striche" was the unit all German ballistic manuals used to tell the elevation and side corrections for the guns).

This was brought up in the other optics thread about the scissorscopes (SF14Z Gi). I wondered if the TC had binoculars that had strich information also (so he could relate objects to the gunner as you say).

[Rausch]

Since the standard infantry binoc had such a scaling, I see no reason why the tank commanders binocs should have lacked it.

Especially since such a "Striche" scaling is also existing in the gunner optics in the form of the little triangles.

For big direction changes the German tanks had for a long time the "Richtungsanzeiger" as a base for the commander to let the gunner know where he should roughly traverse the turret to.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by rexford:

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

Would like to see 100% if you have it.

100% dispersion data is not real in the sense that weird wild rounds can always be just a little further out if one goes from 1 million to 10 billion rounds.

The 90% zone for 17 pdr APCBC at 1000m is 1.19m high and 1.01m wide. The corresponding 68.26% zone dimensions are 0.73m vertical and 0.61m lateral.

The 50% zones for 17 pdr APCBC at 1000m would be 0.49m high and 0.41m sideways.

The 50% zones for 88L56 APCBC at 1000m are 0.4m and 0.2m.

Keep in mind that the German figures are averages, so many guns would be vastly superior and many would be really awful looking. </font>

[lorrin]

No, I was indicating that it is impossible to describe the 100% shot capture distance for all tests, and certainly did not indicate that it would all be done with one gun. You're reading too much into my statement.

When you asked for the 100% distance you did not, to my recollection, specify a 10 shot test so I described the issue in general terms.

I did post up the results for the 90% zone associated with 17 pdr APCBC, which should have answered many of your questions regarding the general validity of the German 50% zones.

As an aside, when the German reports from 1943 that are currently the subject of my recent posts calculated hit probabilities at 1500m, they did not double the 50% zone dispersion but used it "as is". So it was not common practice to use the doppelte streuung for hit rate estimates.

[lorrin]

"and you are showing your test/analytical inexperience."

?

[Mr. Tittles]

After I use common sense and simple logic I then apply analytical and testing methods

[ September 24, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I would like to test a zeroed weapon as follows:

1. Fire at a target at the zeroed range (lets say 1000m) with 10 rounds at a normal battlefield rate.

2. Record the shots by number and distance from point of zero.

3. Alllow weapon to cool and repeat test 3 times after cooling each time.

What you might find is that the succesion of the shots leads to greater scatter. That is, the first few rounds would be more accurate than the next 7 rounds.

To give each round equal weight is a pitfall.

Another pitfall is to decide that the rounds follow a distribution of mathematical nature and therefore the most improbable outliers are achievable. If 10 rounds are fired at 100m intervals out to 2000m, you are starting to get into the realm of wear of the gun barrel. So these outliers are not the real expectation of a gun in the front lines that has only 50 rounds through it. By testing, you have impaired the test too much. You have looked at the Gorilla too closely and he is wondering, Why is this guy looking at me?

An example would be the British test shoot of a Tiger I gun. It managed 5 rounds into the so called 50% zone. Rexford would claim this to be an outlier. Its like tossing a coin 5 times and getting heads each time (after calling it). But it could be that the next 5 rounds would start to disperse due to barrel heating, transfer of heat to propellent, etc.

[ September 24, 2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

GERMAN RESEARCH

WORLD WAR II

LESLIE E. SIMON

Major General, Ordnance Department

U.S. Army, Retired

Former Director, the Ballistic Research Laboratories

A third service of research consisted of advising development

people in the more technical phases of problems. For example,

when the Army Ordnance Office decided to adopt the air forces'

8.8-cm flak gun for a tank gun they found that dispersion was

enormous. It was not until the tank adaptation was tried in the

high-altitude firing range at LFA that the reason for the dispersion

was discovered. It was found that the development people had

added a muzzle brake without making allowance for initial yaw of

the projectile, and that the rotating band of the projectile was

striking the muzzle brake.

I would assume that the Germans then developed a AP round for the 88mm KWK that would not yaw.

[ September 27, 2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by Rausch:

For big direction changes the German tanks had for a long time the "Richtungsanzeiger" as a base for the commander to let the gunner know where he should roughly traverse the turret to.

Any info in how that "Richtungsanzeiger" worked?

Which tanks had it?

Marcus

****

[Rausch]

the scaling was like a clock divided in 12 parts and also numered 1-12 (12 was as on a clock at the top, 3 at the right and so on).

The pointer was connected with the traverse mechanism of the turret and so the gunner and commander knew just by a quick look where the turret pointed to. When the commander told a new direction he wanted the turret pointed to he gave the direction by using the scale.

The original name was "12-Uhr-Zeiger" not "Richtungsanzeiger", I mixed the names up, sorry.

The manuals I have tell the installation for the Pz-III E-J, Pz-IV B-F2, Tiger B and E, all Panthers.

The Pz-III and Pz-IV variants missing are doing that, because I have no manuals for them till now. With a good probability they had it also.

Hope this helps

Michael

[Mr. Tittles]

I believe all turreted panzers had them. They also had gyroscopes for direction. This was so they could follow N S E W during battle.

[Mr. Tittles]

Actually a Panzer IV had both a dial 'clock' indicator AND a MIL indicator right next to each other. I suppose the clock was for roughing in a enemy target and the MiL indicator for more precise pointing. Since greater magnification sights limit field of view, this would offset the disadvantage (as long as the TC could relay the info).