Accuracy of main battle tanks

[Capitalistdoginchina]

As a side note, if your AFV misses with his first shot it's chance to hit will increase with each shot thereafter.....so, inbetween turns do not press the "Target" button and retarget the enemy tank, just use the LOS tool. Otherwise the next turn will be counted as a first shot again with a lower chance to hit.

At least, i think thats how it works :confused: Someone here will correct me if i am wrong!

CDIC

[Doug Beman]

illo, that part of my post wasn't responding to your comments on "my tanks miss at 150m." Rather, it was responding to Caesar's "how come my tanks miss even when I set up an ambush marker?" with no qualifying info on range (ie "ambush markers should guarantee a first-shot hit regardless of range.")

If Caesar's experiencing busted ambushes at 150m range, then his crews should be hung by their thumbs.

Sorry my post wasn't clear in who was addressed by which part.

DjB

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

I have been playing CMBO for quite some time and in my opinion it is the best WWII game on the market.

I am a bit perplexed at something I have noticed since purchasing the game however. The Allied tanks are far more accurate than their Axis counterparts. Regardless of the tank that you are using. Does anyone else find this to be the case?

Just to give an example, I recently played a game in which a Tiger I late model went up against no less than three M4A3EZ8's. The Tiger fired and missed five times and was eventually knocked out because of such pitiful marksmanship. This is a common experience when I play the game. Apparently the folks at BATTLEFRONT feel the Germans just can't shoot a lick. The Tiger crew was veteran and the Sherman crews were regular. The Tiger was waiting in ambush overlooking an open terrain area with no obstruction. Five misses in a row!

I am sure that many of you that play this game are well read to some degree about the conflict. I have read in several sources that the optics on the German guns were second to none. Five misses on a target that was within 200 meters! That veteran Tiger crew deserved to be taken out.

One thing that BTS always likes to tell us is that in this game there is ALMOST never a %100 chance to hit. There are no "SURE things" which means you can have a streak of REALLY bad luck.

Most players new to the game somehow seem to hit this streak of REALLY bad luck early in their experience of the game. BUT then after that I guess we get used to it OR it goes away and we aren't always so unlucky.

The theory from BTS goes something like this:

"In the heat of combat with the Fog of War all round you and your buddies in their tanks brewing up beside you, and your own tank being fired upon next, with 88 mm AT rounds zipping past your head, the whole concept of the those "theoretical" chance to hit probabilities And accuracy data from non-combat, pristine, gunnery range accuracy tests GOES STRAIGHT out the window and so they downgraded all "to hit" accuracy data and percentages to simulate tank gunners in combat situations being routinely "flustered"

THUS tanks MISS sometimes.

If you want REAL fun play a battle with ALL green tanks (they miss all the time and it is a REAL heart pounding thrill sitting there watching your tanks dual it out with enemy tanks waiting to get that FIRST hit) Green tanks Almost NEVER get first shot kills.

anyway its just my opinion

IMHO

-tom w

[Mattias]

Well, the other night I had four Shermans engaging a non hull down Puma from the side at a distance of 140-180 meters, it took six shots to hit it. Does that mean that CM is biased against US tanks?

In another game I had two Shermans killed by first shot hits from a StuH 42 at a distance of 670 meters. Does it mean CM is biased in favour of German armour?

M.

[Gen-x87H]

I have actually seen just the opposite. Allied guns from what I have seen tend to be very inaacurate over 6-700 Meters. German guns seem to be very accurate at upto 1200 meters.

Dont know if that is realitic but this is what I have observed playing both sides of the ball.

Sure you get the lucky and unlucky shots but on avg.....

Gen

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

As a side note, if your AFV misses with his first shot it's chance to hit will increase with each shot thereafter.....

Only if neither shooter nor target move.

so, inbetween turns do not press the "Target" button and retarget the enemy tank, just use the LOS tool. Otherwise the next turn will be counted as a first shot again with a lower chance to hit.

Yes. Most annoying is when the gun or tank voluntarily switches targets or drops targets. When it switches back or retargets, the zeroing in is gone. If you even look at the target key too closely, it will drop it, even if you end up targetting the same tank.

[Redwolf]

About crew quality: CMBO only models some aspects of differences in humans. It works quite well if you go down from regular, idiots are easy to simulate. It does not work well if you go up, crack and elite CMBO crews only model some aspects of what makes a real soldier elite.

And I like it that way, most fights in real WW2 were done by idiots. In any case, there is always only such much as a maximal hit chance for short rang, and it doesn't get better when you shorten the range further. OK for me.

As for the range finders, note that the real Flak rangefinders were very uncommon, even though we know about some Nashorn and Jagdpanther and apparently the majority of Jagdtigers which had them. In any case, I don't think you can use tem while the battle is on.

What I would like to see is if CM changed the zeroing in to a model where it has 1 circle of 15m around both your target area and your position, and while you stay in your circle, you get a huge accuracy bump to shoot at anything in the target cicle. A pair of circle can be gotten by shooting and zeroing in, or bought like a TRP.

I firmly believe that CMBO does not reward it enough when a standing and looking tank shoots at a tank moving into its line of fire. Try Tacops in comparision, if you are cuaght on the move in the open, you are toast, you can lose whole tank platoons this way. The comparision is a big scewy, because modern weapons have a higher initial chance to hit, but still it is a game mechanics issue as well.

[Soddball]

In my experience, accuracy of tanks like the Panzer IV and Panther can only really be appreciated at ranges beyond about 750m. Inside that, Shermans seem to have the edge.

Saying that, my PBEM against Terence cost him 3 Panzer IV's at 900m for the loss of 1 firefly (which missed all its shots).

So I think it's swings and roundabouts, with Axis tanks better off at ranges out to maybe 1200m.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

As a side note, if your AFV misses with his first shot it's chance to hit will increase with each shot thereafter.....so, inbetween turns do not press the "Target" button and retarget the enemy tank, just use the LOS tool. Otherwise the next turn will be counted as a first shot again with a lower chance to hit.

At least, i think thats how it works :confused: Someone here will correct me if i am wrong!

CDIC

I don't know... I was under a different impression.

IIRC, in an operation I wanted to set two tanks that had been abandoned close to each other on fire, so I targeted one of them. After a turn of shooting by my gun I checked with the LOS tool and I'm almost sure that the hit probabilities for both tanks had gone up. I'm not sure how large this "bonus area" is though.

I can't do any testing right now, but if anybody does, I'd be interested in the results.

Dschugaschwili

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

IIRC, in an operation I wanted to set two tanks that had been abandoned close to each other on fire, so I targeted one of them. After a turn of shooting by my gun I checked with the LOS tool and I'm almost sure that the hit probabilities for both tanks had gone up. I'm not sure how large this "bonus area" is though.

I can't do any testing right now, but if anybody does, I'd be interested in the results.

My comments further up this page are a result of actual testing with CM 1.12.

[Doug Beman]

I firmly believe that CMBO does not reward it enough when a standing and looking tank shoots at a tank moving into its line of fire. Try Tacops in comparision, if you are cuaght on the move in the open, you are toast, you can lose whole tank platoons this way. The comparision is a big scewy, because modern weapons have a higher initial chance to hit, but still it is a game mechanics issue as well.

The comparison is not a bit screwy. The comparison is void. Modern tank weapons systems are as far removed from WW2 tanks as are modern guided missiles from WW2 rockets. The M1A1's combination of laser range-finding, real-time atmospheric data collection, computerized calculation of these and all other factors (barrel bend, etc) completely alter the matter.

A brief anecdote may show that a stationary unit firing on a stationary target does not make for perfect shooting. In the early 1960s, the IDF engaged the Syrians in a border clash along the Golan. Israeli Chieftains took several Syrian Panzer IVs (yes, 20-year old German tanks) in a gunnery duel at ranges around 1000m. Despite (I assume) the IDF tanks' rating as "regular" (they had first-line equipment), the IDF forces shot away all day and achieved not a single hit.

The reason? Sloppy gun zeroing, ineffective calibration of gunsights (which were a lot more advanced than systems in use by WW2 tanks) amd non-consideration of factors like barrel bend, windage, etc.

If stationary WW2 tanks were guaranteed a hit on the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) shot, no attack would've succeeded.

DjB

[Andreas]

My favourite RL example of 88L71 accuracy is still the case of an 88 in Russia, firing at a KV-1 bearing down on it at 50 yards or so, and missing. I wonder if this was poor modelling of the gun on the part of reality. I mean really, did these gunners know that they could not miss?

My second favourite one is the anecdote of an 88L71 firing at 7,000 yards in the Caucasus, achieving a first shot brew-up on a T-34 located in the valley below.

I think these two are probably at the outer ends of the bell-curve for what the gun could do. Anything in between is an acceptable result to me.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I firmly believe that CMBO does not reward it enough when a standing and looking tank shoots at a tank moving into its line of fire. Try Tacops in comparision, if you are cuaght on the move in the open, you are toast, you can lose whole tank platoons this way. The comparision is a big scewy, because modern weapons have a higher initial chance to hit, but still it is a game mechanics issue as well.

The comparison is not a bit screwy. The comparison is void. Modern tank weapons systems are as far removed from WW2 tanks as are modern guided missiles from WW2 rockets. The M1A1's combination of laser range-finding, real-time atmospheric data collection, computerized calculation of these and all other factors (barrel bend, etc) completely alter the matter.

</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug Beman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I firmly believe that CMBO does not reward it enough when a standing and looking tank shoots at a tank moving into its line of fire. Try Tacops in comparision, if you are cuaght on the move in the open, you are toast, you can lose whole tank platoons this way. The comparision is a big scewy, because modern weapons have a higher initial chance to hit, but still it is a game mechanics issue as well.

The comparison is not a bit screwy. The comparison is void. Modern tank weapons systems are as far removed from WW2 tanks as are modern guided missiles from WW2 rockets. The M1A1's combination of laser range-finding, real-time atmospheric data collection, computerized calculation of these and all other factors (barrel bend, etc) completely alter the matter.

</font>

[K_Tiger]

The reason? Sloppy gun zeroing, ineffective calibration of gunsights (which were a lot more advanced than systems in use by WW2 tanks) amd non-consideration of factors like barrel bend, windage, etc.

Dont know what you r try to tell... If a modern sniper used a non/or wrong-calibrated high-end sniper riffel with laser-target-systems he will miss every shoot...so i have better chances with a barrock musket to do it...

This isnt a discussion for reallife happenings, its about the game mechanics. Also, no one tryed to made someone to belive, the US tanks must be worser or the germs better. Its a fact, with good weather on short ranges (we except optimum zeroing-guns) the hitprobability is around 80-95%. If BTS tells me, they implemented worst gun-zeroing, i will shut up, but in real the crews will target true the barrel and with a high-velocity gun it isnt a big problem on short ranges to do so.

On the net or other resurces, you will find statistics in gun accuracy in testing and battle conditions. The better guns like the 75mmL/70 and the 88`s have mostly up to 100% hit chances up to 1000m (17Pounder is also a nice piece) in a battle it drops down to not worser than 80%. Sme german tankers uses a lot of ammo to score a hit, on the other hand there were alot other guys hwo claimed nearly hitprobability like on the testing ground the thrue is rigth in the middle.

I think, BTS tryed to hold the motivation up in "not losing every tank after the first round" Sure, this still did happend.

My favourite RL example of 88L71 accuracy is still the case of an 88 in Russia, firing at a KV-1 bearing down on it at 50 yards or so, and missing. I wonder if this was poor modelling of the gun on the part of reality. I mean really, did these gunners know that they could not miss?

My second favourite one is the anecdote of an 88L71 firing at 7,000 yards in the Caucasus, achieving a first shot brew-up on a T-34 located in the valley below.

I think these two are probably at the outer ends of the bell-curve for what the gun could do. Anything in between is an acceptable result to me.

Its like in Newsletters, the highlights r on site No.1. You didnt know why the gun misses, was it a bad adjustet gun/sight, or only a blind gunner who forget to wear his glasses, nobody knows, but we all know, those circumstances arent programmed, so what you hade in mind to post it?

I hope i made no one upset...but for me, i think here r to many guys hwo praised the game at all costs and if somthing isnt clear, it comes to "Luck" or "this happend also in real". I will not bring any suggestions (BO/BB is done), could only hope for CM2, something will change with the Hitting percentage and the calculation of it.

[Redwolf]

K Tiger, I think your descriptions are not a good reflection of reality.

All the concrete numbers we have seen in other threads support the basic hit probablity that BTS gives tanks, except for very high-velocity above 2000 meters or so. People didn't post anekdots, but shooting range results. Consider above Elephant results: can you imagine how many shots a whole company of TDs gets off in an engagement like this? And they scored how many hits? Doesn't sound too far from what we get in CMBO to me.

So while I think the basic probablity is right, I disagree with other details:

- standing shooter waiting for someone to come into LOS

- complete lost of zeroing in even if target or shooter move by an inch

- no "reuse" of zeroing in when next target is almost at some spot

- CS tanks and SP arty shoot on moving AFVs like TDs and tanks do

And Tom complains about accuracy on the move, not about basic hit probablity.

[ April 23, 2002, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Andreas]

K_Tiger, since you are wondering. I posted this to illustrate that there is no such thing as a 'the gun should hit 4 times out of 5 at 150m, because it has a flat trajectory and the target is the size of a barn and my little indicator tells me that the probability to hit is 80%'.

There are a lot of things outside the pure mechanics of the weapon that influence whether a crew hits with the weapon it operates, and a lot of these are modelled in CMBO, and even more maybe modelled in CMBB.

Just looking at the '80% to hit chance' tells you diddly squat, if you excuse my voyage into the vernacular. All this going on about how wonderful a gun the 88LXX was and that it should never miss or somefink, or can take out a fly's eyeball at 3,000 yards at the first shot misses the point. I.e. that no matter what piece of equipment you have, it is used by humans in a highly adrenaline charged situation, and that this has a rather large effect on the way results are arrived at. IRL™ and to some extent in-game too.

[K_Tiger]

I spoke allways about ranges from 200-500 meters. Doesnt mean the far sniper ranges. I mad also my own tests like i mentioned before especialy with JTigers (over 1000-1200 meters same useless or worse like other gun plattforms).

The only thing i would make to thinking about, is the reason (and i find it not fair) to bring all Tanks down/or up only to its muzzlevelocity. There is a lot to do for BTS.

About Toms tests: It wasnt the topic from moving targets,or?

[Doug Beman]

K-Tiger, what I was trying to say was that stationary tanks should not have an automatic sure-hit, even on the 3rd or 4th shot. Whether we're looking at anecdotal evidence or standardized tests, hitting a target with a tank gun is NOT merely a product of range and muzzle velocity, resulting in a % hit chance which will dictate every shot. Many other factors go in, such that it's quite possible for tankers to miss dozens of shots at stationary targets "only" 1000m away.

I was also not saying anything about the US tanks be modeled as worse than reality or the Germans as better than reality (or vice versa)

Lastly, you said "This isnt a discussion for reallife happenings, its about the game mechanics." CMBO is supposed to represent reallife happenings on WW2 battlefields, NOT standardized tests of gun A or tank X, through game mechanics that mirror, as closely as possible, known conditions on WW2 battlefields. If you have game mechanics that exactly duplicate those non-real-life range-tests showing "gun A will always hit with its 2nd shot at 500m range," then you will have a technically accurate representation that completely fails to show what WW2 platoon-level combat was like.

In effect, you'll have something like CloseCombat3, a game which looked like it had the right play mechanics (after all, the squads had the right weapons and the tanks had the right stats) but was a complete wash as a representation of EastFront combat.

DjB

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

K-Tiger, what I was trying to say was that stationary tanks should not have an automatic sure-hit, even on the 3rd or 4th shot.

Nobody ever propsed giving up the hit chances and replacing them with something like certaincy after <x>.

[K_Tiger]

K_Tiger, since you are wondering. I posted this to illustrate that there is no such thing as a 'the gun should hit 4 times out of 5 at 150m, because it has a flat trajectory and the target is the size of a barn and my little indicator tells me that the probability to hit is 80%'.

Why not?? 150 meters is nothing...even without optics you have not to worry to hit the target. I will not say with every first shoot, but after the first hit or miss, the following bullets will be on the traget, and out of 100 shoots then you will come over 4/5 percentages.

There are a lot of things outside the pure mechanics of the weapon that influence whether a crew hits with the weapon it operates, and a lot of these are modelled in CMBO, and even more maybe modelled in CMBB.

So please telle me wich... let the crew moral and the crew experiance outside. Ill spoke about stationary targets mostly plain los, no wounded crewmembers, with normal moral.

Just looking at the '80% to hit chance' tells you diddly squat, if you excuse my voyage into the vernacular. All this going on about how wonderful a gun the 88LXX was and that it should never miss or somefink, or can take out a fly's eyeball at 3,000 yards at the first shot misses the point. I.e. that no matter what piece of equipment you have, it is used by humans in a highly adrenaline charged situation, and that this has a rather large effect on the way results are arrived at. IRL™ and to some extent in-game too.

Hmm.. please read carfully... i didnt made to belive the XXX-Gun was so wonderfull or the Panther is such a nice and wonderfull weapon so it couldn be killed or somethink stupid.

I only get upset, if my tiger...or even a vanilla sherman couldn kill something 200 meters away with its 5-6 shoot. Or hit with first and the rest goes into the sky. This r things hwo happened also in real..but from 1 times out of 1000 or more.

Also allways the diskussion about the moral in the field (like you mentioned "Adrenalin". I asked my Grandpa some times ago about stuff he faced in battles, there was a story he must rescued together with a other guy a woundet soldier under MG fire. Couldn translate it properly but i try it "We pressed our arse-halfes together" and run with the wounded soldier"

I asked him about fear, and got the answer "No time to have fear" then "I saw so many deads and woundeds, so i came to the conclusion, my life on the Battlefield isnt worth anything" or " I came also to the conclusion, i will die soon or later, so i will do my job until the worst case happend" (free translated.. ))

I think also, a high adrenalin production could be also a benefit, like in sports or like in war and dangerous situations.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

[snips]

On the net or other resurces, you will find statistics in gun accuracy in testing and battle conditions. The better guns like the 75mmL/70 and the 88`s have mostly up to 100% hit chances up to 1000m (17Pounder is also a nice piece) in a battle it drops down to not worser than 80%.

I'd be very interested to know what the sources are that give those hit probability numbers, please.

The following numbers are from PRO document WO 291/180, "Accuracy of anti-tank gunnery." They give the probability (%) of a static anti-tank gun hitting a static hull-up tank target with first round.

Range (yards)___6-pdr____17-pdr

500_____________87_______98

1000____________33_______46

1500____________12_______20

2000____________03_______10

2500_____________________05

All the best,

John.

[K_Tiger]

Doug..

Im the last men who try to bring it down to "Every gun must hit at his or those ranges"

Let us stay by the weapons and let out the "humanity" things. You will agree with me, all Tanks hade is own pros and cons. I will see in future more and better detailed Tanks.

What brings me a super-ultra fast sherman tank-turret and 20 shoots per minute, if i must wait (without a muzzlebrake) until the smoke clears a bit to get again on the target (only an example).

Again to the hit probality...i read alot from german acounts (they need it) in the early war they hade only a chance to damage T-34 and KV`s wen they aim for the turret rings. Do you know how small such a turret ring was?? May they missed alot, but they would stop this practice, if they were no chance to do so.

So its for me inaceptable to see my puma miss 4-6 shoots from 100-200 meters behind a greyhound...

[Brian]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips]

On the net or other resurces, you will find statistics in gun accuracy in testing and battle conditions. The better guns like the 75mmL/70 and the 88`s have mostly up to 100% hit chances up to 1000m (17Pounder is also a nice piece) in a battle it drops down to not worser than 80%.

I'd be very interested to know what the sources are that give those hit probability numbers, please.

The following numbers are from PRO document WO 291/180, "Accuracy of anti-tank gunnery." They give the probability (%) of a static anti-tank gun hitting a static hull-up tank target with first round.

Range (yards)___6-pdr____17-pdr

500_____________87_______98

1000____________33_______46

1500____________12_______20

2000____________03_______10

2500_____________________05

All the best,

John.</font>

[Traject0ry]

"I...am...not...FLAT!!!!" :mad: