Accuracy of main battle tanks

[Doug Beman]

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.

Therefore, if (since) CM considers that gun/sight calibration is not 100% perfect, then CM's gunfire is going to be less-than-perfect.

DjB

[Tero]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Therefore, if (since) CM considers that gun/sight calibration is not 100% perfect, then CM's gunfire is going to be less-than-perfect.

That disregards one crucial factor: if a gun is found to have the sight/bore misaligned it would degrade the accuracy only for the first time it is fired. For all subsequent new targets the gunner would know how much the sight is out of whack and he can compensate accodingly. Even a new gunner would be aware of this since these things get logged in in the gun log book. If the defect was discovered before the battle begins the gunner would have the remedy already prepared (since the trial shots have been fired) before the battle begins.

I am of course assuming the gunners have gone through basic training and/or are not total morons.

[Tero]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

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.".

My mistake. ALL on-map ordnance in CM is artillery.

I wonder how for example a Tiger would know a spot has been designated a TRP by the artillery. And a spot 50 meters to the left of the TRP is not TRP and thus not boresighted/ranges ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

If all that was that easy, why did they bother with the funny-coloured measuring sticks?

To do a proper site preparation in prepared defences scenarios ?

Just from a quick 'few seconds' glance through your magical Scherenfernrohr

There were two of them, remember. One was the spit binocular type on the tripod (also used in vehicles by the commander), the other the 70cm or 1m long tube binocular range finder held on the shoulder. I do not have proper names on me. Sorry.

you know the distance to a spot 2km hence accurately enough to hit a small moving object?

How often were targets actually engaged at that range ? My frame of reference predisposes me to think in terms of 15 to 1000 meters range.

I would like to hear that from someone who has actually done it, under combat conditions.

I would also like to know how often were the targets engaged at that range and how often closer. At 2000 meters things like cross wind and other similar occurances affect the aiming too arbitrarily.

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.

In attack the orders could sound something like "Your target is the village Stalinville 2000 meters behind the enemy lines. Note this high hill, point 140,8 on your map, 400 meters in front of the village. Any OP on that hill can observe all movements in the immediate region. Also note the tree line 600 meters to the left of the village. The only road leading to and from the village runs north to south between the hill and the village. Your fire support assets will include....."

What is wrong with TRPs? Except that you don't like them as a modelling tool?

There is nothing wrong with them as such. I just think that the ambush command should include the TRP feature for the non-OBA units. IMO the TRP is solely an arty tool. How could a tank know the fireplan and select only the TRP spot as a ranged spot, especially if it has moved around alot during the battle ?

Have you actually ever tried using them for DF guns?

I have never used them in that manner. I feel it is too constrictive and a waste of resources. I use my TRP's in the historical manner: to call in arty fast in locations where speed is more of the essence than accuracy. (And lets not go in to that when talking about OBA barrages. ) I place them in locations where the FO can not obtain a visual on the target even when using a HQ unit as a go-between. I also place them in locations no friendly unit can not get a visual on or is too far away to fire on the enemy entering the spot (reverse slopes, choke points between woods etc).

[Doug Beman]

(how many tank crews had those magical 1m rangefinders? Weren't those for arty FOs? Where would you store a 1m rangefinder in a tank turret? Keeping in mind the non-scientific nature of this evidence, in all my reading about WW2 I've seen/read maybe 2 or 3 pictures/accounts of tankers using dedicated rangefinder gear apart from gun optics)

There is nothing wrong with them as such. I just think that the ambush command should include the TRP feature for the non-OBA units. IMO the TRP is solely an arty tool. How could a tank know the fireplan and select only the TRP spot as a ranged spot, especially if it has moved around alot during the battle ?

So a tank, which might have been driving around the battlefield for a few minutes, stops in a stand of pine trees. Its commander picks out a spot "over thataway" as an AMBUSH marker. Suddenly, the gunner has an exact ranging to that spot, just as though that exact spot had been measured before the battle and the gunner had calibrated his gun specifically for that spot. Then, the tank moves again, coming to rest behind a house. The commander picks another spot "there," and POOF the gunner has perfect knowledge of that spot.

This would presume that every point on the battlefield had been measured to a standard and thoroughness so as to give a vehicle knowledge of range etc from any other point on the map.

Maybe ambush commands should include the TRP-like accuracy boost, but only in cases where vehicles start out with LOS to that point, and don't move at all. Once they move, and lose their frame of reference, the work of measuring the range from vehicle to TRP (whether we're talking ranging shots, pacing off, or simply knowing the optics/gun characteristics) will not apply.

If so, these points would be purchased assets, similar to TRPs but cheaper because they're specific to one point on the map, and only affect on-map DF guns. Once placed on the map, they're locked on the map, and only vehicles that start out w/ LOS may use that spot as an "ambush TRP."

DjB

[ April 28, 2002, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

(how many tank crews had those magical 1m rangefinders? Weren't those for arty FOs? Where would you store a 1m rangefinder in a tank turret? Keeping in mind the non-scientific nature of this evidence, in all my reading about WW2 I've seen/read maybe 2 or 3 pictures/accounts of tankers using dedicated rangefinder gear apart from gun optics)

Initially at least some Nashorns. Jagdpanthers had mounting points, I don't know how many were actually installed. Apparently Jagdtigers were all supplied with them.

I am talking about the rangefinder that were a straight pipe, initially made for AA use. Not about the scissor biinoculars made for the artillery. The scissor binoculars were apparently quite common for TC use, but I don't think they gave an accurate range. They were made for secure and undetected observation, nor primarily range finding.

This scissor binoculars

A picture of the straight AA rangefinder had been posted here some time ago.

P.S. people were offering two models of scissor binoculars on the MIT tech flea market. I didn't look too closely, but from finish and paint they looked like 60ties US army equipment. I'll bring my camera next time

[ April 28, 2002, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Soddball]

If I can pop in and sound off for a mo?

I'm playing a PBEM scenario. The scenario has seen fit to provide me with Tigers and Nashorns as my armour. Now, I'm well aware that the benefits of such vehicles can only really be appreciated at longer range. However, I feel that something is wrong when:

1) Tiger 1 fires 6 shots at a stationary firefly at range 400m. All shots miss. Firefly destroys Tiger 1.

2) Tiger 2 fires 4 shots, 2 shots at immobilised Sherman II at range 300m, 2 shots at Sherman? at range 300m. Shot 2 at immobilised Sherman II blows it up, other 3 shots miss.

3) Nashorn 1 fires 3 shots at stationary firefly at range 600m. All miss. Firefly destroys Nashorn 1.

4) Nashorn 2 hunts around the corner of a building to gain LOS to enemy Stuart which is attacking head-on. Nashorn 2 misses first shot at 350m, Stuart fires burst of 50cal which kills crewmember, Nashorn shocked and forced to withdraw.

I know that sucky luck crops up from time to time, but really.

[Auggy]

What was the experience of the crew? Also the tiger and nashorn would have been better off at a longer range. Why were they so close to the sherms& fireflies?

[Soddball]

Veteran axis vs Regular allied crews.

Yes, I'm well aware they would have been better off at longer ranges. However, if you can't HAVE a longer range because there's trees, buildings etc in the way, you're kind of scuppered, aren't you?

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Folks, please excuse if this has been said already - I have not studied all answers above in detail. Just my opinion about gun accuracy in

CM.

- Gun accuracy is, if I understood it right, resolved by a die roll and a hit probability. Of course there are some factors that can't be abstracted in math formula, but most of this is nothing but hard coded physics. I mean hardcoded by the programmer of the universe we live in . There may be a random factor for each fired shot, but all what I have read about guns, it was much smaller then it seem to be modeled in CM - of course speaking as a person without knowledge of the CM source code and used formulas. For example, in reality the chance of hit dramatically rises if the distance to the target is known. This is absolutly not modeled in CM. For the same reason the probability to hit rises with each shot that is fired on the same (not or slow moving) target. That was - and is still trained today - the common technique to aim : First shot goes to far, second shot to short, but at the third shot the distance could be calculated - hasta la vista, baby. The real difficulty is to find the distance to the target. In CM I always see the shells fly far to the left or right. This is - maybe - only an 'optical bug', or it is wrong modeled.

- Unfortunatly I wasn't yet able to find a reliable source for or against my second doubt. I can only refer on some eye witnesses in different books I have read about tank battles. It appears to me that the number of hits were higher than we see in CM, while the chance to place a deadly hit was lower. Tanks got often badly damaged by several hits before they were really taken out. Part of the problem seem to be here that CM does not simulate duds or low quality ammo in general. Each fired round is in perfect condition. Same of course for the guns - 'worn out' barrels does not exist. Beside that, the damage model for tanks is very limited. Track hit = immobile. Gun hit = gun damaged. Penetration = 95% knocked out or abandoned. I wonder why it was so important in my military service to learn and know the really vulnerable points of a battle tank. However, this is only a personal theory, until I find a reliable source for hit probability and damaged caused by a hit.

[ May 02, 2002, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Soddball]

The prime reason I don't buy Tigers in my games is because they're so outclassed. For a meaty tank, I'll take a Panther over a Tiger every time, because they seem to perform better.

I don't know of anyone who'll pick a Nashorn over a Marder, even though the gun is better. Is there ANYONE out there who would choose to use a Nashorn?

I've tried some test scenarios, and the only environment in which I can get 1/1 kills/losses is a slightly hilly, slightly wooded 2km square map, with 4 nashorns against 8 shermans. Using "shoot and scoot", I managed to lose 4 nashorns and the AI lost 4 shermans.

Try some tests at 1.5km ranges with Tigers fixed in place, firing at Shermans also fixed in place, and you'll see that the Tiger is better off because the Shermans can't hit at that range, or the rounds bounce off. However, because of the size of the maps we play on (usually 1km square or less) that advantage of the Tiger's is not available.

However, what I do have a problem with is the "6 misses at 300m" for a veteran Tiger crew. What I think you ought to see is Sherman 75/Tigers having perhaps a 50% to hit chance at 300m, and the tiger's to hit chance staying good out to 1km, then slowly declining, whereas the sherman's to hit chance stays good out to say 600m, then declining so that at about 1km it's much tougher to get a hit.

At the moment, Shermans (fireflies, 76s, 75s) significantly outperform Tigers at ranges below 500m on a chance-to-hit basis, and that doesn't make sense to me. How can a gun get less accurate as the range reduces?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Soddball:

Tiger crew. What I think you ought to see is Sherman 75/Tigers having perhaps a 50% to hit chance at 300m, and the tiger's to hit chance staying good out to 1km, then slowly declining, whereas the sherman's to hit chance stays good out to say 600m, then declining so that at about 1km it's much tougher to get a hit.

At the moment, Shermans (fireflies, 76s, 75s) significantly outperform Tigers at ranges below 500m on a chance-to-hit basis, and that doesn't make sense to me. How can a gun get less accurate as the range reduces?

Soddball, if you want to nail this down to the real couse, they you have to get all al the hit probablities involved at the ranges you want. If they seem OK to you and you think that what the game gets as results is not witin the hit probablities, you need to run tests for these distances and see that after a statistically significant number of tests you get approximately as many hit as the hit probablity shows.

You know about zeroing in?

I'm pretty sure that all the Tigers reported nailed in this thread suffer from slow turret syndrome. See the tests in my Pz IV article at http://thforums.com/CMBO/ As I wrote earlier in this thread, I ran some test to see if there is maybe a bug that the Tiger doesn't get the hit probablity it prints (unlikely to start from), but as you have read, it seemed fine.

[Soddball]

Redwolf said:

You know about zeroing in?

I don't know exactly what you mean, is it firing too long, finding you're firing too long, and reducing range, or vice versa? If you do mean that, I was under the impression that the game engine doesn't model that feature, it gives a to-hit chance and then if you miss, it heads off in a random direction.

None of the units (Tigers or Nashorns) I mentioned were facing to the side, they were all facing their opponent, so I'm certain that mine, at least, weren't "slow turret syndrome." If I get outflanked, that's my fault

I plan to run some tests this evening, when I get home, on fixed tanks at different ranges, and will let you know how they pan out.

After my experience on this scenario I mentioned, I wonder whether the problem is not with the 88mm gun at short ranges. I don't know, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's frustrated with the apparent ineffectiveness of what is supposed to be a powerful weapon.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I don't know exactly what you mean, is it firing too long, finding you're firing too long, and reducing range, or vice versa? If you do mean that, I was under the impression that the game engine doesn't model that feature, it gives a to-hit chance and then if you miss, it heads off in a random direction.

The game models zeroing in, I think I have the description in this thread. It is important to tell whether you get zeroing-in or not, because the 76mm with its higher ROF will zero in faster. Higher ROF is a big advantage, and it gets much bigger when zeroing in, obviously.

None of the units (Tigers or Nashorns) I mentioned were facing to the side, they were all facing their opponent, so I'm certain that mine, at least, weren't "slow turret syndrome." If I get outflanked, that's my fault

Read my tests in the article. In CMBO, the sluggy gun movement still hurts badly if you are roughly facing the right direction.

After my experience on this scenario I mentioned, I wonder whether the problem is not with the 88mm gun at short ranges. I don't know, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's frustrated with the apparent ineffectiveness of what is supposed to be a powerful weapon.

I am not entirely happy with CMBO's hit probablity model either, but the particular example of a 76mm Sherman nailing a Tiger 1 seems OK to me. The armor doen't matter since both can penetrate each other, so and the lighter and higher ROF gun/carriage combination wins.

[ April 29, 2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Captain Wacky]

Even though I am currently the benefactor of Soddball's nearsighted tank crews I have to say that on a gut level, I find something very wrong with the first shot hit chances at the typical ranges in CM. I can't believe for the life of me that a regularly trained Tiger crew with an 88 can't hit a Sherm on the first or second try at 300m, sometimes 200m, hell even 100m sometimes. Short of going to a range and firing all the guns themselves, I don't know how the BTS crew got their accuracy data, but I can't believe that tanks missed as often as they do at the ranges they do in CM. Often times I wonder why even bother trying for that flank shot when it's just going to be wasted. I'll miss the first time. I'll miss the second time. I might as well zoom right out in front of that tiger or panther.

[Soddball]

Redwolf said:

Read my tests in the article. In CMBO, the sluggy gun movement still hurts badly if you are roughly facing the right direction.

I have just read through your article. Useful insights, particularly on the StuG III(which I am paying the price for purchasing in another PBEM ) I can clearly see that slow-turning, slow-firing vehicles pay the price for this.

However, in the case of this battle, that wasn't part of the equation. If you like, I can email the turns to you and you can have a look. Whether or not my use of the tanks was correct or sensible isn't relevant. The issue is that no Tiger should miss 6 shots at 300m when firing at a slow-moving or stationary firefly. None of the vehicles targetted were fast-moving across my 'T', they were all 'moving' or 'hunting' virtually in front of me.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Soddball:

The issue is that no Tiger should miss 6 shots at 300m when firing at a slow-moving or stationary firefly. None of the vehicles targetted were fast-moving across my 'T', they were all 'moving' or 'hunting' virtually in front of me.

I wrote it earilier in this thread. Sometimes I think that CMBO gives a unit "moron" status. That means, a given unit in one given game can't do anything right over the whole course of the game.

I know that this observation is extremly vulnerable to imagination, and I would assume BTS did not add such code to the game. However, I have seen it often enough that I can't get it out of my head.

When testing for the article quoted above I ran quite some tests of Pz IV and StuG passing by some infantry and showing how the Pz IV leave the infantry scattered and the StuG of course does nothing. I didn't finish this until I got the screenshots I wanted because it took too much time. It took too much time because the Pz IV's tendency to actually attack the infantry varied much too much. In one test scenario it would always engage with the main gun and turret traversed, and in other test scenarios it would never do that, sometimes even cancelling manual target orders.

The TacAI is deeper than you think. I have no idea whether these two effects are related, or even exist, and if they do if they are done on purpose of by accident, but whatever, the TacAI is deeper than you think.

I would recommend firing the crew of that Tiger. See it positive Soddball, at least CMBO doesn't have a campaign game where you stick with your crews all over WW2. Imagine in every battle you gets this crew into one top-line tank, only to return empty-handed a few minutes later and asking for a new tank

[ April 29, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Soddball:

The issue is that no Tiger should miss 6 shots at 300m when firing at a slow-moving or stationary firefly.

I hope you don't mean that literally.

According to the targeting tool a veteran Tiger I has a 74% chance to hit on the first shot vs. a stationary Firefly at 300m. I don't know about vs. moving targets; you will have to run tests to get that number approximated. However, I strongly suspect you will have a hard time keeping that Firefly alive for 6 shots very often. I think you were just very unlucky.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

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

The issue is that no Tiger should miss 6 shots at 300m when firing at a slow-moving or stationary firefly.

I hope you don't mean that literally.

According to the targeting tool a veteran Tiger I has a 74% chance to hit on the first shot vs. a stationary Firefly at 300m. I don't know about vs. moving targets; you will have to run tests to get that number approximated. However, I strongly suspect you will have a hard time keeping that Firefly alive for 6 shots very often. I think you were just very unlucky.</font>

[Soddball]

Am going to run some tests now.

I just reviewed the turn, with captain wacky's hordes of tanks pouring out of the woods. The Tiger actually fires off seven rounds, not six. The tanks are front-on but moving and hunting towards it at ranges between 400m and 450m (sorry, I got the ranges wrong, blame the god of hyperbole ). One is fired at a MMG carrier, the others at a Sherman. None of the seven rounds hit a target, and after firing the seventh round, the Tiger was knocked out first shot by a Firefly.

[Soddball]

First set of results in:

I created a map 880m square. There were ten Tiger 1s facing off against 10 Shermans. Each pair of opposing tanks was divided from all the other pairs by 40m of woods, creating 10 parallel alleys 880m long and 60m wide. The outer two lanes had no woods along their outer edges.

The two tanks were allowed to fire at each other until one or both were abandoned by their crew, for whatever reason. I then recorded:

Whether the first shot fired by the tank hit or missed;

How many shots were fired in total;

How many of those shots were missed;

The test was run 10 times, giving a total of 100 tank-tank duels.

All crews were regular.

Some interesting points which cropped up during this, the initial phase of the testing:

1) Tigers were significantly more likely to survive a penetration than Shermans.

2) Gun damage was a very rare occurrence in Tigers (2%)

3) Shermans responded faster (loading and firing) than Tigers.

4) Things seemed to occur in clusters - the 2 Tiger gun failures occurred in 2 tanks next to each other, and the 3 explosions of Tigers occurred in the last batch of testing.

Results of Stationary Tiger firing at Stationary M4A1-76(W) at 250m

Tiger:

Total first shot hits: 53

Total first shot misses: 25

Total shots fired: 102

Total misses: 27

% of shots fired which missed: 26.47

Sherman M4A1(76)W

Total first shot hits: 76

Total first shot misses: 24

Total shots fired: 135

Total misses: 24

% of shots fired which missed: 17.78

Notes:

Sherman achieved 82% hit rate against a stationary Tiger.

Tiger achieved 73% hit rate against a stationary Sherman.

Sherman achieved 30% more shots fired against Tiger.

First shot misses by each side were largely identical.

Not all tanks got a shot off. As a rule, the Shermans outdrew the Tigers, although this was not always the case.

I will be testing at greater ranges and with other allied tanks, with moving vehicles, and will also be running similar tests with the Nashorn.

Comments welcome.

[ April 29, 2002, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

[Doug Beman]

If you want to test the accuracy of just one tank, remove all the other tanks' ammo. This way your test group can fire away at the target group without being destroyed; that will give you many many more shots fired and vehicles killed, improving the statistical nature of the test.

Hmm...the Shermans had a higher % of 1st-round hit? Odd...doesn't the Tiger have a significantly higher silhouette? Could this (partially) explain the discrepancy? Unless this is the case, or there is some other logical explanation (or this discrepancy disappears with continued testing) I'll have to rethink some of my positions.

DjB

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Soddball:

First set of results in:

[snips]

Some interesting points which cropped up during this, the initial phase of the testing:

[snips]

4) Things seemed to occur in clusters - the 2 Tiger gun failures occurred in 2 tanks next to each other, and the 3 explosions of Tigers occurred in the last batch of testing.

Exactly what one would expect if one was observing a Poisson arrival stream -- which, in effect, you are (although the shots are not quite Bernoulli trials because second shots have higher chances of success, that just means it's a non-stationary Poisson arrivals process).

Like angels, Poisson processes have no memory (the Markov property). You wait for a bus and then three come at once. The porrige of fate is lumpy. One in a while, you go through a period of six consecutive misses.

All the best,

John.

[Soddball]

Sherman M4A176(W) silhouette: 104

Tiger silhouette: 120

Starting tests at 500m now.

[Caesar]

Sherman achieved 82% hit rate against a stationary Tiger.

Tiger achieved 73% hit rate against a stationary Sherman.

Sherman achieved 30% more shots fired against Tiger.

First shot misses by each side were largely identical.

This seems entirely reasonable surely. The sherman has a slightly higher rate of fire 6 or 7 dependent on the version compared with 5 or 6 depending on the version. The silhoulette of the tiger is much higher than the sherman 120 vs 104 so you would expect that the sherman would hit more often. The armour of the tiger is better so you would expect it to survive better. If I had been asked to guess the results then I think I would have come up with similar results (one tank relative to the other I mean) I would have thought that the turret speed should have given the shemans a slight advantage with getting the first shot off.

As I said originally, it is only in ambush situations where I think BTS's model falls down. Admittedly I didn't know I could use TRPs for on board guns (RTFM darnit!!! :mad: This could have helped me a lot in a recent game) However using TRPS means adding to the cost of the gun just so that it can be realistically accurate. A dug in hidden gun should have a much higher chance of hitting in it's first few shots than the tank that rolls on up and suddenly comes under fire. The response time of the ambushed tank should be affected by the crew quality (which as far as I know it is), the fact that it would have to load the gun with the correct ammo, rotate the turrent, the gunner would have to sight it. While the commander is likely to have seen the flash, how good would his estimation of range be from a single unexpected flash, how likely is the gunner to have even seen it? How long would it take for the commander to communicate to the gunner an accurate position and how long would it take the gunner to spot the camoflaged target and get on target. Too often I have fired at tanks with dug in guns and had no apparent accuracy advantage or a big enough delay before it gets to fire back. (Time to try out the TRPs I guess)

Never mind, CMBB is coming and one of the recent AARs about CMBB seems to indicate that AT guns may have a better time of it.