Accuracy of main battle tanks

[Traject0ry]

Getting serious then... heh.

Most certainly even the best of shooters can miss his target in a combat situation. It is inhuman to completely ignore the fact that people of the opposition are trying to kill you. Besides good shooters (not that I know any) who have visited the range weekly for 14 years have their "Bad days" as well even without any combat conditions. Thus John's post which provides accuracy information does not even try to take this into account. It simply shows that a certain hit even at range conditions is hard to achieve with WWII weaponry. Bolting a zeroed weapon and shooting at the range of 50 m to a stationary tank sized target should do but such a task is actually quite hard to manage during combat mithinks. Disagree as much as you like...

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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.

I think the issue is one of statistical consistency. First shot misses did occur as well as first shot hits. But IMO the first shot misses did not occur as consistently as they occur in CM now especially if the conditions are ideal, like first shot from an ambush position.

An example from a recent PBEM:

A 88 FLAK in a previously unspotted location vs a British TD, range around 700 meters. 88: first shot, miss, British TD first shot: miss, 88 second shot: miss, British TD second shot: miss. 88 third shot: miss, British TD third shot: 88 KO'd. Nothing wrong with that in itself, **** happens. Only, when you see this kind of thing consistently over a number of games it does make you wonder if there is something amiss in the modelling.

[Andreas]

K_Tiger - aiming for the turret ring was practiced in training a lot, according to info from the father of a friend of mine who was with an AT unit in a Panzerdivision (France and Italy), crewing a 3,7cm PAK35. He says that they could hit turret rings of moving tanks regularly in exercises. A turret ring hit does not need to penetrate to disable the tank - it won't kill it, but it usually induces the crew to retire and get it fixed. BTW - my comment about pressure on the crew was not aimed at you specifically, but at the discussion in general. Where did your grandfather serve? Mine was in AG North, at Leningrad. I have some pictures at the site linked in my sig (Beobachtungsabteilung).

tero - I guess I don't play enough to have that sort of data. BTW - if you want to simulate zeroing in of AT guns, you need to use TRPs on the spot where the gun is zeroed in to. It is my understanding that the presence of a TRP increases to hit chance. It follows that zeroing in is in fact modelled through TRPs, and all claims about guns missing at first shots are talking about non-zeroed in guns, unless a TRP was present.

[wodasini88]

while I do agree that stationary tanks should have more of an advantage when ambushing I also would like to point out that in the 2 games I played today only one of my tanks missed on the first shot…then again I always buy vetran TDs I think CM models accuracy fairly well except that the chances/percent system CM uses is too linear…(I'll try to explain this when I wake up tomorrow lol).

[ April 24, 2002, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: wodasini88 ]

[K_Tiger]

K_Tiger - aiming for the turret ring was practiced in training a lot, according to info from the father of a friend of mine who was with an AT unit in a Panzerdivision (France and Italy), crewing a 3,7cm PAK35. He says that they could hit turret rings of moving tanks regularly in exercises. A turret ring hit does not need to penetrate to disable the tank - it won't kill it, but it usually induces the crew to retire and get it fixed. BTW - my comment about pressure on the crew was not aimed at you specifically, but at the discussion in general. Where did your grandfather serve? Mine was in AG North, at Leningrad. I have some pictures at the site linked in my sig (Beobachtungsabteilung).

I know...but why its possible in real to hit such a smal traget (with 3,7cm guns) and ingame, you see so many misses on shorter ranges?

Im not sure but i belive he served in XX Korps 389 Inf. Div. or Regiment...later he was transvered to the west...but i dont know the unit.

I was thinking, the gun calibration wasnt simulated in the game like breakdowns from the heavy`s. "Isnt in the range of CM" one of my favorite spell`s i read here... )

So wie must come to the conclusion, all Tanks r in best condition we meet on the field/CM...

John:

I read it elswhere on the net, but after re-installing and forgeting to save my favorites, i must search again for those statistiks. Im sure, the long range first shoot hitprobality (on praktice) for 88`long 75mm was alot better then the 17pounder but like i said...i must find it first.

[Doug Beman]

from KTiger:

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.

Yet, KTiger, you also post things like this:

The JTiger for example, couldn hit a skyscraper from over 1000 meters..best weapon plattform and optics..but..arg..

and

Does change nothing...still hope cm:bb will show us some realisticaly shooting accuracys..

and

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

and

CM is still far away to be realistic..it looks like and some elements r really good implemented, but it isnt realistic.

I read here to often, if no other possibilitys r in range, it comes to the "luck" faktor...i hate it!

and

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%.

and

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.

I could probably find a few more, but the process of copy/pasting across multiple browser windows is tedious.

When you post

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

are you meaning "let's discount human factors when discussing gunnery accuracy?" If so, the arguments are void because CM DOES account for human factors in gunnery. Or are you meaning "CM should discount human factors and resolve gunnery duels merely on the basis of each gun?" That's also void, because the human component is what determines winners and losers.

I also wonder, what do people think of the tactic that the Indian Army developed during the fighting around the "Patton Narga" in one of its wars with Pakistan where their Centurions would fire what they called "the three round shot" - the commander would give the order on sighting of a target, "target, bearing such-and-such, 1000 metres, fire!" and then repeat the order for 500 metres and 1500 in rapid succession. If on the correct bearing, it was apparently a guaranteed hit within the range bracket of 0-1500 metres, simply because indeed, the trajectory was so flat.

It was a novel solution to an age old problem, but had no impact on WW2.

from redwolf:

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

redwolf, more than a few people have posted words to the effect of "it's unrealistic that stationary tanks miss on their Nth shot." If they're not saying "stationary tanks should hit on their Nth shot," then what ARE they saying?

from redwolf

At the end of the article I have a test: which Axis tank can shoot the most M8 HMC which try to cross its field of view?

The result is almost entirely dictated by the swiftness as defined above, except for the extremly accurate Ostwind. The Pz IVs with the fast turret rock. The StuG III is much worse than the StuG IV. Tiger 1, Jagdtiger and friends totally suck. Jagdpanther is good, but very obviously because of its good suspension.

Check it out, if you tank is lame, especially lame in acquiring targets, it sucks except for very special situations (e.g. long but narrow lanes).

I went to that thread; good analysis of the PzIV's strengths and weaknesses. In response to your statement "Turrets are not as useful in CMBO as they were in reality, because you cannot have them turned towards the most probable spot of yet unspotted trouble while moving." Use an AMBUSH command; the tank will keep its turret pointed until you delete the AMBUSH, even if the tank loses LOS to the AMBUSH marker (I've lost quite a few tanks because I forget to delete the AMBUSH before ordering a move

Your test would be even more useful if you altered it such that the M8s have NO ammo. That way the German vehicles don't have to worry about return fire, and you can get large volumes of gun-accuracy data.

The Ostwind might not have been accurate, so much as "it throws a LOT of ammo into the air."

And, lastly, "Check it out, if you tank is lame, especially lame in acquiring targets, it sucks except for very special situations (e.g. long but narrow lanes)"

EXACTLY! Limited-traverse weapons are SUPPOSED to be deployed in situations where they will have a very narrow threat-axis.

Until somebody provides a body of historical gun-accuracy evidence that is equal to what BTS has, either in sheer volume or "statistical purity," the current system is the right way. Gut feelings and hunches and opinions are not.

DjB

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Brian:

[snips]

One presumes those results were obtained on a range and not a battlefield?

From that paper, I think they were calculated using an error budget, but some other papers with range firing trials from 6-pdr Churchills show even lower hit probabilities (with considerable inconsistency between the amount of trunnion-jump on each gun, ISTR).

"Informed opinion" among the folks who currently model the direct-fire battle for the British MOD (that is, what they tell me down the pub) is that you can probably multiply the number of shots needed for each hit by up to ten for real exercises as against range firing, and up to ten again for real combat as opposed to exercises. Not all of this is due to degradation in performance hitting visible targets -- some is due to hitting the wrong targets, such as bits of agricultural machinery that are mnis-identified, and I suspect a bit of shooting up the countryside on spec.

On the other hand, one paper I've seen (reference not to hand, I'm afraid) suggests that many successful 6-pounder engagements in Normandy obtained hitting rates pretty much as good as range firing.

One the whole, I agree with Andreas' remark about there being plenty of room between the two extremes that cannot be definitively characterised as "wrong".

I also wonder, what do people think of the tactic that the Indian Army developed during the fighting around the "Patton Narga" in one of its wars with Pakistan where their Centurions would fire what they called "the three round shot" - the commander would give the order on sighting of a target, "target, bearing such-and-such, 1000 metres, fire!" and then repeat the order for 500 metres and 1500 in rapid succession.

Sounds like what I'd call the Bovington system -- I believe Ken Macksey mentions this in "The Tanks".

As you point out, such a method relies on having a good high-velocity gun with a nice, flat trajectory. APDS from a 20-pdr or 105mm would be leaving the muzzle at almost 1500 m/sec, which is a good deal oofier than anything in CM:BO. Obviously, the lower the velocity of the weapon, the more critical it is to estimate (or measure) the range tonthe target accurately.

All the best,

John.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I guess I don't play enough to have that sort of data.

As it happens I had a veteran 8cm PAW take out a SuperPershing with the second shot from the flank at 1300 meters.

Yet another one for the HC round over AP shot hall of fame ?

BTW - if you want to simulate zeroing in of AT guns, you need to use TRPs on the spot where the gun is zeroed in to. It is my understanding that the presence of a TRP increases to hit chance. It follows that zeroing in is in fact modelled through TRPs, and all claims about guns missing at first shots are talking about non-zeroed in guns, unless a TRP was present.

Why is it assumed a (gun) crew would not track its target before firing if it has the advantage and benefit of surprise ? Snap shots in a melee are one thing , opening up from a concealed /previously unspotted location another. I would assume the quality of the crew would have an effect on the opening of fire but as things stand an elite crew opens up at the same time a green crew does.

I always assumed shooting from the hip was a figment of Hollywood movie makers imagination.

This also brings up an interesting point: does the ambush command include this kind of feature ?

[Andreas]

Tero, I wonder what is so hard to understand in the sentence 'CMBO uses TRPs to model zeroed-in guns - if you do not have a TRP, your gun is presumed not zeroed-in in CMBO'. Please enlighten me.

As for in-game data, I have seen a crack Tiger kill a Cromwell with the first shot at 1,600+m, and regular Panzer IVs achieve 2nd or 3rd shot kills on Shermans at 1,800+m distance. I have also seen a Jagdpanzer IVL70 kill two Shermans at 1,400m or thereabouts with five shots.

All the while the Allied tanks did not even get close to hitting anything, let alone being in a position to do damage.

Anyone wanting to observe long-range tank gunnery in CMBO and the difference between Panzer Ivs and Shermans should play 'Cintheaux Totalize' from Der Kessel.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Tero, I wonder what is so hard to understand in the sentence 'CMBO uses TRPs to model zeroed-in guns - if you do not have a TRP, your gun is presumed not zeroed-in in CMBO'. Please enlighten me.

TRP's are used in CMBO mainly with OBA. The ambush command is basically only a "focus on this spot" command. If a unit under ambush command sits there for X turns what does it do, fill in a cross word puzzle while they are waiting some poor sap to come along ? IMO ambush command, as it is now represented in CMBO, does not reflect the procedure realistically.

IRL when you set up an ambush, even a hasty one, one of the first things you do is determine the distances to various points in the kill zone. This is done to facilitate aiming when it is time to open fire. That does not quarantee first shot hits in 100% of the cases but it improves the odds markedly.

Is really firing ranging shots the only way to zero in direct fire guns ? Each and every gun has firing tables and a host of other aids to facilitate aiming. The gun crew quality does figure in. But I have always been under the impression the difference between a veteran gunner and a green gunner also includes judgement, not just clinical performance. A green gunner is more likely to take a low odds shot than a veteran gunner. Conversely a veteran gunner should be more apt to hit with the first shot than a green gunner.

As for in-game data, I have seen a crack Tiger kill a Cromwell with the first shot at 1,600+m, and regular Panzer IVs achieve 2nd or 3rd shot kills on Shermans at 1,800+m distance. I have also seen a Jagdpanzer IVL70 kill two Shermans at 1,400m or thereabouts with five shots.

How have your AT guns fared ?

Anyone wanting to observe long-range tank gunnery in CMBO and the difference between Panzer Ivs and Shermans should play 'Cintheaux Totalize' from Der Kessel.

I'll check it out.

[K_Tiger]

are you meaning "let's discount human factors when discussing gunnery accuracy?" If so, the arguments are void because CM DOES account for human factors in gunnery. Or are you meaning "CM should discount human factors and resolve gunnery duels merely on the basis of each gun?" That's also void, because the human component is what determines winners and losers.

Yes...but in a other fashion as you think...a US regular crew hase the same abillitys like the german counterpart we didnt have really a "human" faktor until we have things implemented like "Fritz miss with his first shot due to a one minute dream he hade about his Girl Heidi hwo telled him not to let him come home bevore he got not his 21 Kill" .

So we stay at the Tank abillity...and the accuracy thing. BTS spend a gyro-stabilization for the most US tanks where we all know, it wassnt liked by the crews and mostly not used.

I will see differences between a Tiger and a Panther..or other Tanks not only by Muzzlevelocity...Target tracking, optics, the use of m-brakes ect...Then you can come with the human option...

Did i say i hate the moddeling of the KTiger in CM? The german tank with the smallest turning radius from all gerry tanks, then the slow Turret rotating...3000rpm 14 sec. for 360 degree (ok, this wasnt practicable due to engine overheating, but with 2500rpm alot faster then we see it in cm).

The JTiger testing was only a example i made, 5000 points and alot of tanks flat field some german heavys and the allied got so many tanks i could buy for my money. Range was aprox 1200-1500 meters. I started this 3 times, and the JTiger was the tank could only claim one hit out of may 60 rounds. I dont count the slow reload from the JT, but it isnt a reason to miss so many times...

So to bring this discussion to an end, i think, its not enought to put, lets say a 17Pounder into any Turret and hope to get the same result like a Gun hwo were made for one special tank. Same like i give a IG18 Inf. gun the magnitude from a JTiger or Panther optics.

I hope my standingpoint is now a bit clearer.

[Andreas]

Clearer, yes. Correct, probably not. You are assuming that stress levels are the same. This is not necessarily the case. If you have one Tiger in the open targetted by four Fireflies in hull-down, do you think that the Firefly crews are going to be as stressed about this incident as the Tiger crew? If you do think that, why do you think that?

Regarding the gyros. BTS has always been open to be persuaded that gyros were disabled or not used. The last evidence I have seen was at best anecdotal, and there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary too. I suggest you do a search with BTS member number and 'gyro' or somefink. So no, 'we all' don't know that gyros were disconnected.

[Doug Beman]

K_Tiger, the fact that BTs cannot model a unique psychological status, experience/history, and reaction for each&every tank crew does NOT indicate we, or BTS, should "discount human factors when discussing CM, or historic field-tested, tank-gunnery accuracy." Wars are not won/lost on technical superiority; it is the human factor which decides who stands and fights, and who runs or surrenders, etc etc. CMBO must take that into account, and the current system of treating two regular-rated tank crews in identical circumstances the same is the only viable solution. Until we all have HillionJillionHertz processors that can model each&every human depicted on a CM battlefield, that is.

TRP's are used in CMBO mainly with OBA. The ambush command is basically only a "focus on this spot" command. If a unit under ambush command sits there for X turns what does it do, fill in a cross word puzzle while they are waiting some poor sap to come along ? IMO ambush command, as it is now represented in CMBO, does not reflect the procedure realistically.

IRL when you set up an ambush, even a hasty one, one of the first things you do is determine the distances to various points in the kill zone. This is done to facilitate aiming when it is time to open fire. That does not quarantee first shot hits in 100% of the cases but it improves the odds markedly.

tero, in the absence of laser rangefinders, the process of accuractly determining distances requires firing ranging shots, or close coordination among 2+ units right next to each other (ie one gunner says "I get 1350m" and the other says "I get 1310m") or having somebody pace-off the range to "that tree right where we think the bad guy's tanks will appear." If a tank or ATgun with faulty optics, badly zero'd gun, battle-damaged sights, human-error-gunner, etc sets up an ambush, it MATTERS NOT how long it stare at "that tree;" it will still have an inaccurate range. Otherwise, CM would HAVE TO ASSUME that EVERY tank & ATgun has PERFECT optics and gun-zeroing, and gunners ALWAYS get the right range.

DjB

[ April 25, 2002, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

tero, in the absence of laser rangefinders, the process of accuractly determining distances requires firing ranging shots, or close coordination among 2+ units right next to each other (ie one gunner says "I get 1350m" and the other says "I get 1310m") or having somebody pace-off the range to "that tree right where we think the bad guy's tanks will appear."

A handheld stereoscopic range finder will get you in the ball park far more easily. Even regular military binoculars have graduation to determine distances. Training aids like 3D cardboard silhouettes, pictures and the like were used to train gunners to recognize enemy models and determine the range of an indentified enemy model by using the guns sight graduation to determine the distance to the target when the height and lenght of the model was known.

If a tank or ATgun with faulty optics, badly zero'd gun, battle-damaged sights, human-error-gunner, etc sets up an ambush, it MATTERS NOT how long it stare at "that tree;" it will still have an inaccurate range.

Only, some 80 to 90% of the actual range finding is done with other methods than the actual gun sight. The procedure runs (both in tanks and in guns):

1) the commander calls in the target and its estimated range (How can he call it if it is totally indeterminable ?) If there are faulty optics, badly zero'd gun, battle-damaged sights involved then he is not a fit commander (or the crew is no good) if he is not aware of these things. A human-error-gunner: he should be aware of the abilities of the gunner. Mistakes happen but it does not take long to spot a generally lousy shots.

2) the gunner lays the gun and fires either on command (which would require a ready signal from the gunner to the commander) or when he feels he has the best chance of hitting the target.

3) the commander calls in the range corrections as needed.

Otherwise, CM would HAVE TO ASSUME that EVERY tank & ATgun has PERFECT optics and gun-zeroing, and gunners ALWAYS get the right range.

Well, the OBA barrages (also the on board arty) are 100% free of duds, misfires and tube detonations. 100% of certain tank models have generically weakened armour plating. 100% of certain tank models have the gyrostabilizers on or "partially on" with 0% failure or malfunction rate for said gyrostabilizer.

[ April 25, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andreas:

[snips]

Regarding the gyros. BTS has always been open to be persuaded that gyros were disabled or not used. The last evidence I have seen was at best anecdotal, and there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary too. I suggest you do a search with BTS member number and 'gyro' or somefink. So no, 'we all' don't know that gyros were disconnected.

Rats, I can't find the PRO document reference, but

I am quite sure that one of the ones I've read said that in 21st Army Group, from Jan 1945, tank workshops were free to return Shermans to units as "100% combat ready" with non-working stabilizers.

Hunnicutt's compendious "Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank", however, states that the gyrostabilizer conferred an advantage if crews were properly trained in its use. Gander 7 Chamberlain's Airfix Magazine Guide "American Tanks of WW2" describes it as a "valuable asset" that was "often wasted".

I suspect that this is another of those cases where RL included a wide variety of different things, and it is impossible to be dogmatic about gyros being used or not used in all cases.

All the best,

John.

[Doug Beman]

so, tero, you're stating that CMBO tank gunner X should be able to get an accurate-enough range using that method. How long did that take, and how accurate was it?

Well, the OBA barrages (also the on board arty) are 100% free of duds, misfires and tube detonations. 100% of certain tank models have generically weakened armour plating. 100% of certain tank models have the gyrostabilizers on or "partially on" with 0% failure or malfunction rate for said gyrostabilizer.

so we should rectify a perceived inaccuracy (ie lower-than-normal hit % for tanks in ambush position) by applying a known arbitrary generalization (ie infallibility of OBA), or else justify any change made to the gunnery inaccuracy in light of "well, we fudged it for OBA, so let's fudge it in tank gunnery too."

The matter remains that there will always be some degree of fudging until a computer-coded game engine can exactly duplicate real-world conditions (assuming we know those conditions with 100% accuracy which, in this case, we really don't) while running on Joe Consumer's computer. The fudge on OBA hurts accuracy but not as much, IMHO, as would fudging a boost for tank accuracy. Almost immediately gamers would begin yelling "nobody ever misses" and conducting an attack would be nigh-impossible (assuming that defenders are more often using the boosted ambush accuracy fix, or similar)

DjB

[Tero]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

so, tero, you're stating that CMBO tank gunner X should be able to get an accurate-enough range using that method.

Actually, the CMBO AT gunner X should be the one to get accurate-enough range using that method. If a vehicle is equipped with the arty Stereoscopic range finder (like a Stug would be) then it should be ellidgible for the accurate-enough range.

How long did that take, and how accurate was it?

That depends. What kind of pre-battle intel have they received ? Usually a sit-rep or frag-or includes landmarks, terrain features and distances to them from the base line.

A slow moving gun arrives at a location. Has the gun commander taken part in hauling it or has he gone ahead with X number of men to prepare the site and scout the fire lanes, ranges ect ? Lets say it takes 5 minutes to haul the gun and 1 minute to set it up. I would recon that would be enough to get the ranges if the crew has the proper equipment of course. For tanks it is a little different. But if they see an enemy tank on a hill they know was 2000 meters from the base line and they know they have travelled 500 meters from that base line the ball park is there. If they have the proper equipment and are can observe in (relative) peace then I would assume they would get the figure close enough within a few seconds.

so we should rectify a perceived inaccuracy (ie lower-than-normal hit % for tanks in ambush position) by applying a known arbitrary generalization (ie infallibility of OBA)

You know what I mean. There are already 100% perfect/imperfect features. What does a new one hurt if it is justified, quantifiable and within reason ?

, or else justify any change made to the gunnery inaccuracy in light of "well, we fudged it for OBA, so let's fudge it in tank gunnery too."

Redirect, your Honour:

CM would HAVE TO ASSUME that EVERY tank & ATgun has PERFECT optics and gun-zeroing, and gunners ALWAYS get the right range

I trust you are aware different quality optics are a no-no according to BTS. All optics in the game are equally perfect or lousy, depending on how you look at it.

Gun zeroing: do not rightly know what you mean but for all I know each and every army kept log books on all the guns noting ballistically relevant data and changes in them. The performance of the gun was known, so were any quirks in it. The sight/bore alignment could go sour, but that is something you would monitor all the time.

Gunners getting the range correct all the time: I trust there would be a way to model statistical occurances quite accurately, even if the AT guns and ambushing AFV's got a bonus.

(assuming we know those conditions with 100% accuracy which, in this case, we really don't) while running on Joe Consumer's computer.

When it comes to ballistics, athmospherics and other data pertinent to gunnery the conditions are known 100%. And you can work them with a slideruler. The only thing missing (when talking about WWII tank gunnery) is reliable statistical data to formulate historical hit/miss occurance per shot percentages. As for direct fire arty: firing tables deviced to aid in indirect fire are not relevant when determining hit chances.

The fudge on OBA hurts accuracy but not as much, IMHO, as would fudging a boost for tank accuracy. Almost immediately gamers would begin yelling "nobody ever misses" and conducting an attack would be nigh-impossible (assuming that defenders are more often using the boosted ambush accuracy fix, or similar)

Hmmmmmm... why would the military use ambushes IRL if they do not yield better results than gunnnery duels over distances ?

[Doug Beman]

I never stated that "ambushes don't give the ambusher any bonus." I also will accept your evidence that ambushing tanks/guns would have a better chance at first round hit, as long as they did, indeed, do the necessary legwork. If a battle is created specifically as an assault against defenses which had time to prepare, the scenario designer should include (or the defending player in a QB) TRPs which are situated appropriately.

However, fudging something (or perhaps a different fudge than the one we have now) wouldn't be a good move. Without getting a message from God himself, we'll never know.

As for direct fire arty: firing tables deviced to aid in indirect fire are not relevant when determining hit chances.

I didn't say that it was. I said that we can't justify fudging DF accuracy because of an existing fudge on OBA. "Two fudges don't make a brownie" or something.

As for gun-zeroing, I was referring to the procedure of ensuring that the gun and its associated sight are perfectly in agreement with each other. From my knowledge (admittedly not extensive: 1 account from an Israeli/Syrian border clash, and remarks from Kenneth Macksey, George Forty, and other authors) the process was often beyond the abilities of crewmen on the firing line (esp for the Soviets) and, in between visits to the specialists, could be thrown out of whack by damage, excessive use, etc. Once the gun and the sight don't point on the same line, putting the sight on a point won't get the correct range no matter how long the sight is on. You'd have to fire a round, get corroboration (as you described) or pace-off the distance.

DjB

[Andreas]

Originally posted by tero:

Actually, the CMBO AT gunner X should be the one to get accurate-enough range using that method. If a vehicle is equipped with the arty Stereoscopic range finder (like a Stug would be) then it should be ellidgible for the accurate-enough range.

That depends. What kind of pre-battle intel have they received ? Usually a sit-rep or frag-or includes landmarks, terrain features and distances to them from the base line.

A slow moving gun arrives at a location. Has the gun commander taken part in hauling it or has he gone ahead with X number of men to prepare the site and scout the fire lanes, ranges ect ? Lets say it takes 5 minutes to haul the gun and 1 minute to set it up. I would recon that would be enough to get the ranges if the crew has the proper equipment of course. For tanks it is a little different. But if they see an enemy tank on a hill they know was 2000 meters from the base line and they know they have travelled 500 meters from that base line the ball park is there. If they have the proper equipment and are can observe in (relative) peace then I would assume they would get the figure close enough within a few seconds.

If all that was that easy, why did they bother with the funny-coloured measuring sticks? Just from a quick 'few seconds' glance through your magical Scherenfernrohr you know the distance to a spot 2km hence accurately enough to hit a small moving object? I would like to hear that from someone who has actually done it, under combat conditions. Also, I am reasonably certain that you assume that far more info was passed on to the gunners than was the case in reality. Remember that below platoon level (and often below battalion level) at least the Germans preferred to give orders orally. Which means they had to be succinct. The examples of these orders that I have seen talked about go in no way towards the detail you assume.

What is wrong with TRPs? Except that you don't like them as a modelling tool? Have you actually ever tried using them for DF guns?

[Redwolf]

Aehm, guys, did somebody actually test whether CMBO TRPs increase the accuracy of guns or AFVs shooting at armor?

[ April 26, 2002, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Aehm, guys, did somebody actually test whether CMBO TRPs increase the accuracy of guns or AFVs shooting at armor?

It is my understanding that it does not show up in the to-hit chance, but that the fire of a gun becomes more accurate. I have done very limited testing that confirmed that to me. ISTR that is how Moon explained it to me once too.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Aehm, guys, did somebody actually test whether CMBO TRPs increase the accuracy of guns or AFVs shooting at armor?

I just did some testing.

The setup was a regular Tiger I against a Sherman.

Distance was 1023m, the Sherman was placed in marsh so that he couldn't move.

The hit chance showed 27%.

I ran the test 10 times to see if a TRP influences your accuracy.

Without TRP it took 36 rounds to kill the Sherman 10 times.

That's an average hit chance of 27%. OK, exactly what CM shows you when targeting the Sherman.

With the Sherm sitting on the TRP the hit chance still appears as 27%, but it took only 18 rounds to kill it 10 times.

That's an average hit chance of 55%!

So, I know this test isn't very exact, I should've made more tests, but I think it shows pretty much that a TRP greatly improves your accuracy.

Hope that helps.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

I never stated that "ambushes don't give the ambusher any bonus."

It sounded like you said "ambushes should not give the ambusher any bonus" though.

I also will accept your evidence that ambushing tanks/guns would have a better chance at first round hit, as long as they did, indeed, do the necessary legwork.

So the only remaining point of order is the timeframe this legwork could be performed.

If a battle is created specifically as an assault against defenses which had time to prepare, the scenario designer should include (or the defending player in a QB) TRPs which are situated appropriately.

That would mean the terrain right in front of and behind the defender would have to be one big TRP for the defender.

However, fudging something (or perhaps a different fudge than the one we have now) wouldn't be a good move. Without getting a message from God himself, we'll never know.

I'd settle even for an offical word from BTS.

I didn't say that it was. I said that we can't justify fudging DF accuracy because of an existing fudge on OBA. "Two fudges don't make a brownie" or something.

True. But TRP's being modelled to be used in conjuncture with OBA it would require the DF guns should be included in the fire plan with each and every of their potential position logged in (essentially every inch of the map) so they know the coordinates of the TRP in relation to their position which ellidgible for change all the time. Conversely the DF guns would have to be able to do the site preparation for each and every new location they enter in real time so they would know their exact coordinates at all times to be able to utilize the TRP data. And they would have to know all the pertinent terrain data (elevation, relation of their position to the TRP etc).

To my knowledge only the überFinnish indirect fire arty was capable of such precision site preparation in the time frame alloted to the CM combat sequence. And even then it would take them at least 10 minutes after taking up positions to get the the guns firing.

Once the gun and the sight don't point on the same line, putting the sight on a point won't get the correct range no matter how long the sight is on. You'd have to fire a round, get corroboration (as you described) or pace-off the distance.

Actually pacing-off does not help because you would have to be able to determine how much the difference is and if it remains constant after each shot. And if it is constant it would not affect the range determination that much. The gunner would only have to know how much he has to aim off to hit the location his cross hair is pointing. If the aim off is big enough and it would be outside the view sector of the scope the gun would be virtually useless against close up moving targets as the gunner would have track the target and re-align after every shot.

[ April 26, 2002, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

So, I know this test isn't very exact, I should've made more tests, but I think it shows pretty much that a TRP greatly improves your accuracy.

It also proves the Tiger is not an armoured unit but an arty unit.

Hope that helps.

It does, actually.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by tero:

It also proves the Tiger is not an armoured unit but an arty unit.

Nope, since in the manual it's stated, that "Other on-map ordnance...can use TRPs as well...they gain a considerable accuracy bonus because they are considered to have "boresighted" or "ranged" their weapons to the TRP before battle.".