Tiger accuracy

[Sgt Barger]

Hiya everyone,

Im new to the boards but not new to the game I I have a HUGE problem with the accuracy of the Tiger I at ranges of 1000 meters or less. I am a Historian currently attending the university of Michigan, and all research I have done puts the accuracy of a trained (meaning regular) Tiger tank at ranges of 1000 meters at between 85-91% first round hits.

The optics that the Tiger I mounted gave it great accuracy at long ranges, and that coupled with the flat shooting 88mm gave it even greater odds of first round hits. In CMAK I constantly see my Tigers firing round after round that miss, even with Veteran crews. This effectivly negates the potency of the 88mm at long ranges. This was the role this gun was intended to fill and should be more accuratly represented here. I have tested this many times and the result is the same each time. 4 churchils cresting a ridge into the fire arcs of 4 stationary Tiger tanks at ranges from 600-1000 meters should be obliterated. This is not the case in CMAK.

Also the AI needs some tweeking when it comes to target selection. We all know that a WWII tank gunner often used bracketing to get the proper range and azmuth to his target. In CMAK I constantly see my tanks switching targets after 1 shot is fired, negating the accuracy of his second shot. This just isnt how tank gunnery was done.

Other then these issues the game is great, keep em comeing.

Sgt Philip Barger

Disabled Vet

10 year M1A1 Tank Crewman

[Schrullenhaft]

This is a bit of a limitation with the current engine. Units do not remember what they've done in the previous turn. Therefore the threat gets evaluated at the beginning of each turn (or something approximating that). If a new threat presents itself that rates higher on the 'threat scale' then the unit will switch targets or if it believes that 'suppression' has occurred with the previously targetted unit or if the target has moved, popped smoke or executed some other LOS obscuring tactic. This probably affects bracketing and a variety of other actions.

As for accuracy, optics are already factored in. In fact if the conditions are hot, then a good percentage of the benefits of superior optics are probably going to be negated.

I'm not sure how muzzle velocity and flat trajectory are accounted for in the 'to hit' chances, but I assume that they're in there. Admittedly it is probably pretty hard to come up with some sufficient equations to give a good 'to hit' distribution under all possible circumstances. Quantifying such possibilities is quite a chore. I don't think anyone here would want to propose that if you have an 88mm-based German AFV with a veteran crew it should hit all of it's targets on the first shot more than 80% of the time. Part of that 'to hit' chance is the responsibility of the player (the tactical situation and circumstances that the unit is in).

[Kanonier Reichmann]

The accuracy of guns in Combat Mission is very much a function of its muzzle velocity. Hence, you get greater accuracy, all things being equal, from a Honey tank with its higher muzzle velocity 37mm gun than you do from a Tiger with its 88L56 gun. That's basically how the game works with some minor tweaking at longer ranges due to the Germans generally superior optics.

Regards

Jim R.

[Redwolf]

To the original poster: you have seen that the hit chance is displayed in the game as a number, did you? No need to test-play.

The effect that BFC gave the optics is very minimal, both for spotting and especially for hit probablility. You can see that in CMBB with captured equipment, e.g. the 76.2mm gun gets better optics in the German version. Many vehicle allow to compare.

Otherwise the hit probability is IIRC built completely on the projectile speed at the muzzle (slowdown over time not taken into account), neither giving an advantage to heavy projectiles over light ones and not modeling other factors that according to Rexford made the 88/L56 extra precise. I remember CM does model exceptions like 17pdr ADPS inprecision, not sure that is in CMAK.

Overall, nothing of this matter. The problem you are seeing here is that the zeroing in is so limited in CM. If a defending, standing Tiger is shooting up several enemy tanks then it starts zeroing in fron scratch with every switch of the target. In reality the gunner could easily figure when a given tank has almost the same distance, this is very easy to do if you have references like ridges, treeline or a street.

CMAK got a lot better than CMBO (not sure it is in CMBB, I think so) because there is at least a zeroed in area, so if the target moves a little you don't drop the precision to zero again. But the area is still very small, but far not extending to a full platoon on a ridge like it should.

[YankeeDog]

I must say that I've always been a bit skeptical of the 90% first round hit at 1000m figure for Tigers, at least as a reflection of performance under all battlefield conditions. In circumstances, sure. But as a general rule, I doubt it.

However, I do agree that the accuracy of Tigers (and, indeed of many other AT weapons) seems to be a bit low in some conditions. IMHO, what would improve things is the incorporation of additional factors into the modeling of gun accuracy, not a broad increase of gun "to hit" percentages.

In your example above (4 churchills moving into the CAs of 5 Tigers) I think one of the major factors that the current game engine does not take into account is the advantage inherent of having had time to study terrain from a stationary position. It seems to me that this was more of an advantage in WWII than it is today, given that WWII tanks generally did not have laser rangefinders and ballistic computers.

As far as I can tell, in the current engine accuracy for tank guns is the same whether the tank just arrived at a given location, as in a tank that arrives at a ridge crest and is getting its first look at the terrain on the other side, or whether the tank has spent several minutes in the same location studying the surrounding terrain, as in a tank that has set itself up in on a ridge crest awaiting the expected approach of enemy armor.

I strongly suspect that, IRL, one of the first thing a tank gunner does when a tank comes to a stop is look through his gunsight and do some rough calculations to determine the range and bearing to nearby terrain features like ridge crests, treeline, etc. As such, the accuracy of the first shot from a tank's main gun should probably go up gradually as the tank sits in one spot and the gunner presumably becomes familar with the nearby terrain. In your Churchill vs. Tigers example, such a 'stationary bonus' might make a substantial difference.

To me, CM's accuracy figures seem to be more realistic for a tank that has very recently come to a halt in its present location. For a Tiger (for example) that has had 5 minutes or so to study its field of fire, I agree that the figures are a bit low. Right now, the only way to represent this kind of 'terrain familiarity' is with TRPs, but TRPs don't model the kind of gradually increasing accuracy during the course of a game that I'm talking about - TRP are either there at the start of the battle, or they're not.

Cheers,

YD

[30ot6]

How weird. Whenever my tanks see a Tiger, they die. Usually one shot.

[fridericus]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I must say that I've always been a bit skeptical of the 90% first round hit at 1000m figure for Tigers, at least as a reflection of performance under all battlefield conditions. In circumstances, sure. But as a general rule, I doubt it.

Cheers,

YD

I am a tanker in german Leo1 and 2.

When we train, we fire often under conditions with all systems shut down. so you fire with the same technic as in ww2.

in training circumstances, me and most of my comerades get 1st-shot-kills with around 85-91% upto 2000m firing moving and fix targets. when using all technics, you fire under all conditions 99% 1st-shot-kills.

so, when you have experienced ww2 crews, not german today recruit-gunners (compulsory military service), i can accept in this high hit-% at 1000m, its the normal case.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The problem you are seeing here is that the zeroing in is so limited in CM. If a defending, standing Tiger is shooting up several enemy tanks then it starts zeroing in fron scratch with every switch of the target. In reality the gunner could easily figure when a given tank has almost the same distance, this is very easy to do if you have references like ridges, treeline or a street.

CMAK got a lot better than CMBO (not sure it is in CMBB, I think so) because there is at least a zeroed in area, so if the target moves a little you don't drop the precision to zero again. But the area is still very small, but far not extending to a full platoon on a ridge like it should.

It seems that being zeroed in on a tank can be transferred to other targets. I noticed that in CMBB the listed to-hit percentage was higher for tanks near the target of last turn than for tanks farther away. You're right about the area being quite small though.

Originally posted by fridericus:

I am a tanker in german Leo1 and 2.

When we train, we fire often under conditions with all systems shut down. so you fire with the same technic as in ww2.

in training circumstances, me and most of my comerades get 1st-shot-kills with around 85-91% upto 2000m firing moving and fix targets. when using all technics, you fire under all conditions 99% 1st-shot-kills.

Do you think you'd get the same number of first shot kills under combat conditions?

Dschugaschwili

[fridericus]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

Do you think you'd get the same number of first shot kills under combat conditions?

Dschugaschwili [/QB]

nearly the same, as the real numbers of the tiger-crews show us.

[Mark Gallear]

WHAT!!!

We have got a modern Leopard gunner with a laser range finder and battle computer, thermal sites that believes a WW2 tank crew can do better than him!

So pray tell where does this figure of 91% first hit with a Tiger at 1000 metres come from. Ok the Germans have got a sophisticated targeting site but you still have to guess the range – and at 1000 metres guessing wrong is going to make a big difference. Just read an account of Kasserine where the German tankers could not believe how stupid the Green US tankers where fire at long ranges, which they new they could not hit at!

I personally think the chances of hitting especially at longer ranges are far to high in the CM system – a tank will slowly site his gun in from observing where his misses land could take 5-6 rounds at minimum to hit. Forgot the official do it in 3 of the British Army is a bit optimistic at over 1000 metres. The fact that the engine does not remember the last target and decrease the chance to hit is a big realism problem.

A post war Example would be the clashes between Indian Centurions and Pakistani M60s. The M60 was state of the art with a ballistic computer, the Indian Armies Centurion was seen as basically an obsolete WW2 tank and its crews had being trained by the British Army to observe the fall of shot. Guess who won?

Don’t believe I even joined in this debate!

[BadgerDog]

A re-post of a message from an earlier discussion, but it adds some tangential value to this thread.

Badger posted:

I can ONLY speak to the sighting telescope mounted in the M4A2E8 Sherman (76mm) that I qualified on. It was a circa early 50's critter with a reticule pattern in the sight,. This sight had NO magnification capability. It had the vertical bar down the center with horizontal lines for range (marked on each line in yards) that became increasingly tighter together as the range decreased. It also had additional horizontal markings for lateral displacement and fire correction that were graduated in mils. I believe there's 6400 mils in 360 degrees. There was a hand traverse wheel (gunner's right hand) marked with mils also for the same fine corrections so that we could look down and move the gun laterally without having to look through telescope. There was a small black cross for engaging at targets under 1,000 yards and zeroing the master weapon to adjust for parallax. We zeroed the actual gun at 1,000 yards to the telescope's cross by bore sighting (literally looking down the barrel through an open breach) with pieces of "thread" taped to the end of the barrel in a cross pattern. Why zero for parallax at under 1,000 yards. Well, remember the type of armored warfare and equipment of that era. A period map study for Northern Europe (see footnote) concluded that the average range that a tank could see another tank from any random point was 322 yards. The probability that a tank could see 1000 yards at any random point in Northern Europe was less than .05 (less than 5%). It was concluded that tank engagements in Europe was controlled by the terrain - thus limiting tank engagement ranges to less than 800 yards. In fact, the actual range that most encounters took place was 330 yards.

It is only my opinion as an old Sherman gunner that the many of the up close engagements of tanks within the Combat Mission series, tend to be a bit gamey and the accuracy/hit ratio is far too low when engaging targets at less then 1,000 yards, but it's still a fantastic piece of entertainment software and I love every minute of it.

Regards,

Badger

[fridericus]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

WHAT!!!

We have got a modern Leopard gunner with a laser range finder and battle computer, thermal sites that believes a WW2 tank crew can do better than him!

thatswhy i wrote, we are on training with ALL SYSTEM SHUT DOWN. i dont know, what there could be missunderstood.

So pray tell where does this figure of 91% first hit with a Tiger at 1000 metres come from. Ok the Germans have got a sophisticated targeting site but you still have to guess the range – and at 1000 metres guessing wrong is going to make a big difference.

today when firing an ap-round and guessing 1000m distance, you will hit every target in distances from 700m to 1300m properly. it isnt so complicated to guess 600m near the target. with our optics its quit easier. ONLY GUESSING the range, nothing played ith laser. when using all system of a modern main battle tank, even a child can hit a target upto 3000m, its like playing computer.

I personally think the chances of hitting especially at longer ranges are far to high in the CM system – a tank will slowly site his gun in from observing where his misses land could take 5-6 rounds at minimum to hit. Forgot the official do it in 3 of the British Army is a bit optimistic at over 1000 metres.

wrong, as i discussed above. when one of my gunners misses a target twice, he can run to the target with a 120mm-round on each arm to the target !!!

A post war Example would be the clashes between Indian Centurions and Pakistani M60s. The M60 was state of the art with a ballistic computer, the Indian Armies Centurion was seen as basically an obsolete WW2 tank and its crews had being trained by the British Army to observe the fall of shot. Guess who won?

with using all systems are are much faster in shooting and killing. but we didnt discuss this problem, but the problem of hitting.

Don’t believe I even joined in this debate!

It ok to me.

[fridericus]

i found the gunners-sight of a leo2 in the www.

with this there is no problem in guessing the range and velocity.

[zukkov]

Originally posted by fridericus:

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

I must say that I've always been a bit skeptical of the 90% first round hit at 1000m figure for Tigers, at least as a reflection of performance under all battlefield conditions. In circumstances, sure. But as a general rule, I doubt it.

Cheers,

YD

I am a tanker in german Leo1 and 2.

When we train, we fire often under conditions with all systems shut down. so you fire with the same technic as in ww2.

in training circumstances, me and most of my comerades get 1st-shot-kills with around 85-91% upto 2000m firing moving and fix targets. when using all technics, you fire under all conditions 99% 1st-shot-kills.

so, when you have experienced ww2 crews, not german today recruit-gunners (compulsory military service), i can accept in this high hit-% at 1000m, its the normal case. </font>

[Sgt Barger]

I would have to agree totaly with my Leo I/II counterpart. Every M1A1 tank crew is trained to fight their tank with no computer, range finder, stabilization etc.. Using the GAS is exactly like what WWII gunners had to do. Also my Leo counterpart is totaly right when he says anyone can hit a target first round from 800-1300 meters using the GAS simply because the rounds trajectory does not change at all for those ranges, its point and shoot. Having said that, the trajectory for the 88mm L/56 gun was nearly the same out to 1000 meters, point and shoot. Although it dropped significantly after this range unlike modern high velocity guns.

Im not saying that a Tiger should hit every shot within 1000 meters, as a Tanker myself I know that there are many things that have to go right for a succesful shot. But I do think the hit % is very very low. For example....

I put 6 tigers with CRACK crews 800 meters from a small ridge. I then placed 65 british tanks of all types on the other side of the ridge. I placed 4 88mm flack on a ridge 1400 meters away from the brit held ridge as well as 6 mark IV specials.

When all was said and done Every single tiger was out of ammo, including HE, two tigers knocked out and 59 brit tanks knocked out. The flack and mark IV specials only knocked out 7 of those 59, the Tigers bagged the other 52.

Now lets do some math. Each Tiger has a load out of around 80 rounds, aprox half HE, half AP.

There is no way those tigers should have ran out of ammo, they just miss way to much at that range. There were still 6 brit tanks firing away at the tigers and Hitting nearly 2 out of three shots. 480 rounds to destroy 52 of 65 tanks at 800 meters is a bit off Im thinking.

There was no wind and the temp was cool so heat was not a factor.

What do you guys think

Sgt Barger

[fridericus]

Originally posted by zukkov:

hey, isn't the specs for the leopard tank, which would include "to hit" probability, classified? does that mean that now that you've told us, you have to kill us? :eek: [/QB]

i dont think so. whole europe uses the leo2, they all will know the hit-%. but i expect them to be the same as in the tanks of usa, france and gb.

[fridericus]

i totally agree with you, Sgt Barger.

i think cm was programmed in this way, for beeing a little bit fair and funny game. most german tanks in ww2 were knocked out by allied airforce, but in cm you can not control it, so you have to give other possibilies for an even match.

[rune]

Firing on a range is one thing, firing under combat, when people are doing their best to kill you, is quite another. Any tank crew can tell you anything can and does happen in combat.

As for Air power killing most tanks, that is bunk. i refer to this:

From "Flying Guns: World War II' by Tony Williams:

"The fighter-bomber pilots pressed home their attacks with great

courage throughout the campaign despite the often ferocious light FlaK

which caused loss rates far above those experienced by fighter units

(one Typhoon squadron suffered 100% casualties in an eighteen-month

period). They were confident that any German tank they spotted was as

good as dead, and they earned a considerable reputation for tank

killing, with substantial claims being accepted. However, British

operational research (OR) carried out at the time (but not publicised

for obvious reasons) presented a more complex picture. As the Allies

were advancing, intelligence officers were often able to examine a

battlefield shortly after an air attack, and what they discovered

causes controversy even today. (Much of this section is taken from Ian

Gooderson's "Air Power at the Battlefront", which explores this issue

in great detail).

The evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks

were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223

Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted

from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During

the Mortain battle of 7-10 August, the RAF and USAAF launched

sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six

hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500

sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a

total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just

46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air

attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from

the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391

armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was

examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of

which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the

retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left

behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only

thirteen out of 388 AFVs examined were found to have been knocked out

by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101

knocked-out AFVs were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack,

compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing

circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the

German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions,

in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks

abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were

lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign.

In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence

of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air

Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.

The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no

surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not

suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and

20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but

insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance.

The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks

but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."

Rune

[winkelried]

Originally posted by fridericus:

i totally agree with you, Sgt Barger.

i think cm was programmed in this way, for beeing a little bit fair and funny game. most german tanks in ww2 were knocked out by allied airforce, but in cm you can not control it, so you have to give other possibilies for an even match.

Not exactly true fridericus. See Who killed the tanks? . Although I agree with your arguments on the accuracy of high velocity weapons. It's the same for infantry weapons. E.g. with our assault gun, we rarely changed the distance in the sight. Just left it at 200m you could expect to hit anybody between 0 and 300m ...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by fridericus:

most german tanks in ww2 were knocked out by allied airforce...

Oops, sorry, I have to disagree with you there. A few months back someone posted the results of Allied post-battle surveys that showed that a majority of German tanks were destroyed by AT shot coming either from AT guns or tanks. The next largest group were tanks destroyed by their crews when they abandoned them. Then came HEAT type weapons (e.g., bazookas), mines, and miscelaneous other things. Air to ground kills only scored something like a measly 5% or less.

The point is that whatever reason BFC may have had for possibly under-modeling tank gun accuracy, it was not to balance under-modeling of air effectiveness.

Michael

[fridericus]

@ rune, winkelried and michael.

then i am still looking for a reason for this.

thx

:confused:

[c3k]

Gents,

First, I do agree that combat kill claims were often exaggerated. Also, some weapons achieved myth-like status which was not backed up when the cold eye of science was applied to scrutinize the results. Given all that, it still seems to me that these games ARE flawed when the sighting algorithms are looked at.

Several points follow, in no particular order. Each of these are, I believe, overlooked (or undervalued!) by the good folks at BF.C.

Every projectile has several properties. Muzzle velocity is one. The round's Center of Gravity is another, and a critical one when determining accuracy (look at what the German's did during the Abram's gun competition - weighting the round to beat the British 105mm entry). Ballistic coefficient - a measure of how the round's trajectory is resistant to atmospheric effects. I don't think these have been accounted for very well.

Round drop. As hinted at in the posts by our tankers, round drop (a function of velocity and drag) is important. If, at 1,000 meters, my round impacts 1 foot lower than the aimpoint at 600 meters and 1 foot higher than at 1,400 meters, then I simply sight in for 1,000 meters and make sure I aim within 1 foot of the target edge. Given a slower velocity and higher drag, that technique cannot be used. So, with a high velocity weapon, I can set a standard battlefield range, put the sight on target and hit at just about any range.

Let's talk about sights. One of the members of BF.C (sorry, forget who) has experience in the field of optics. Beating on this dead horse, he stated that the various optical properties of sights don't make that big a difference in hits. (That's MY summary, so don't run off with that as a BF.C quote!) I disagree. Let's take two weapons, identical rifles. Put a welded bead on the muzzle of one. That's your sight. The optics are pure, grade A, mark I human eyeball. The other rifle has a cloudy, 1/2 mag (yes, one-half) RED-DOT sight, but it's zeroed in. Optically, the welded bead is MUCH better than that dusty 1/2 mag RED-DOT. In a 200 meter duel, who thinks they'd win with the bead? Yeah, that's right: there's MUCH more to weapons accuracy than optics. How the sight is designed and used is critical.

Also, weapons design is a mix of science and art. There is a sweet spot for accuracy. It's got to do with projectile shape, size, weight, etc. Also, powder properties, rifling rate, muzzle length, weapon frequency (they DO vibrate!), etc. The sweet spot is hard to find. That's the art. When it is found, that weapon is accurate beyond what the raw numbers of our sciences can predict. (Perhaps, with more research and knowledge, some of these factors will be discovered and described. But we're not there yet.)

I've written a lot, but these are just the tip of the iceberg as to why I think BF.C missed the accuracy boat. I applaud their desire to keep the game as scientifically based as possible. I do believe that they have overlooked some critical aspects as to what yields improved battlefield effects.

Thanks,

Ken

[rune]

And here is why I don't think they did miss the boat. These figures are test range.

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)

Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

So, if the actual range was determined, at 1000 meter, using different ammo you had from a 62 to 93 percent chance of hitting the target. This is NOT under battle conditions. Now, lets add fatique to the crew, the chance the sights are off due to battle damage or movement to get to the battleifeld, just plain mis-calculation, or fear, differences in each ammo round, etc. etc. etc. So, a crack crew with a calm gunner could and did get first rounds hits, they were expected in the SECOND round shot to get the numbers in the () above. However, a more normal crew would not make these numbers even in the SECOND shot.

Rune

[ February 10, 2004, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I believe abandonment/self-destruction was the number one German reason for loss of armor. Whether this was because of lack of fuel, breakdown without hope of recovery, battle damage, etc. is not exactly known. Certainly the air force was a direct/indirect contributor to the losses. But as far as directly knocking out panzers they would be a minority cause.

[c3k]

Rune,

Thanks for the citation from Jentz. I'll use the same. In "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tiger I and Tiger II: Combat Tactics" by Jentz, p11, "The expected performance of a Tiger I on a practice range was that the gunner would hit the target by the fourth round at ranges between 1200 and 2000 meters."

BY the fourth round (not necessarily just ON the fourth round). A miss after 4 shots may be a failure of the gunner and back to the infantry for him. If so, that would be the minimum, poorest performance. Or, it may not.

Continuing, "Concentrated fire from the platoon could be used to engage stationary tanks out to 3000 meters." Here we seem to've left the practice range and we're in combat. A Tiger platoon is 4 vehicles. How many CM shots would 4 Tigers take to hit a stationary target at 3000 meters?

Even more, "The expected performance of a Tiger I gunner on a practice range was one hit out of three rounds fired within 30 seconds at a tank traveling 20 kilometers per hour across the front at ranges from 800 to 1200 meters." Again, by "expected performance" does that mean EVERY gunner must do that in order to BE a gunner? Or is that the 50% bell curve point? I don't know. But how does CM model that? (I'll do tests next week. Time issues.)

Talking about the Tiger II, "The Tiger II could open fire for effect without bracketing at ranges up to 2000 meters and engage stationary tank targets out to ranges of 4000 meters." Okay, 4 km. How does CM do at that range? (I'm not expecting first round hits, but I am expecting reasonable hits, say, after the 3rd volley from a platoon of 4 Tiger II's.)

Now, looking at the table you used, 7.1.2, at 2000 meters my Tiger I should have a 50% hit chance on its second shot. Not in CM. (I'm using Pzgr. 39 figures as a standard AP round.) Okay, let's choke the range down to 1000 meters. Second round accuracy should be 93%. Hmmmm. Dammit, man! Now I'll HAVE to run a test......

Ken