Accuracy of main battle tanks

[Soddball]

Caesar said:

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.

I don't understand how it can be reasonable. The Tiger has a significantly lower chance of hitting at point blank range. The Tiger's gun is supposed to be very accurate, and here I am finding that it's less accurate than a standard 76mm. Rate of fire doesn't come into it, nor does turret speed, since turrets aren't turning in this test, and I wasn't evaluating rate of fire. True, Shermans got more shots off, but as a percentage of shots fired, they were more accurate at 250m. Have another read through and you'll see that my problem is accuracy of the 88mm gun at the point-blank ranges regularly encountered in CM.

Incidentally, another Tiger in my game missed 2 of its 3 shots at 400m.

[aka_tom_w]

This is not the first time this has come up Doh!

Does anyone here remember the "88 lacks punch" thread....

it had to be the MOTHER of all 88 complaining threads.

I think Steve and Charles posted to it.

If you look at the history of the patchs to CMBO you will see they have increased the accuracy of all guns in tanks at two times, one patch lists increased accuracy at long range and the range for the Tiger was extended beyond the original progrmaing decision (bug I think they tried to call it?) to limit the spotting distance of the Tiger to no more than about 2000 m if I recall correctly. An another seperate patch lists increased accuracy at short range for all guns in tanks as well.

It would seem to me (and I'm only guessing here) that a Tiger with a reg crew should get a first shot hit on a Sherm at 250m over %90 of the time.

Is that TOO accurate?

There have been some old threads with some VERY techincal imformation in them as to the percentage of the dispersal effect of the 88mm round and how if a Tiger crew at a certain distance (close) aimed at the center of a tank (the tank being about 2m high) would be SURE to hit some part of the tank because at that close of a range the effect of the dispersal (inaccuracy) was as small as .25m (I'm totally guessing here) so the 88 mm round, because if its VERY flat trajectory, basically could not miss, and was sure to hit some part of the target.There is of course MUCH more to this theoretical explanation, those were just some numbers I GUESSED off the top of my head to demonstrate the principle, as I only recall the "gist" of the discussion as it was highly technical in nature, and worth re-reading.

If one searches the archives for discussions on the accuracy of the 88mm weapon in CMBO there is ALL kinds of really great stats and theories and propositions with GOOD physics equations behind them as to why this game should model the 88mm with MORE accuracy than we currently see in the game.

I'm not sure what Rexford's member number is, but you search for 88 accuracy and use his member number you will find plenty of GREAT information to read and enjoy.

If you are lazy my member number is 1515 and I did participate in some of those discusions.

-tom w

[ April 30, 2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Andreas]

Tom, you are falling into the old trap again. There is no such thing as your regular Tiger @ 250m. That regular Tiger is being shot at, in a multiple target environment, yada yada. We have been around this before. Using physics but ignoring the human equation is the straight way to a 'garbage-in = garbage-out' equation.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Tom, you are falling into the old trap again. There is no such thing as your regular Tiger @ 250m. That regular Tiger is being shot at, in a multiple target environment, yada yada. We have been around this before. Using physics but ignoring the human equation is the straight way to a 'garbage-in = garbage-out' equation.

OK

won't argue with you there

Just thought I'd mention that this topic has been discussed to death here in the past.

I'm sure you remember the "88 lacks Punch" thread

-tom w

[Mattias]

Makes one wonder what the JgPz IV/70 crews meant when they reported 80-90% first shot hit chance against tank size targets in combat conditions...

M.

[Soddball]

Well, first of all, forgive me for discussing something which has been raised before.

Secondly, I don't think the 88 "lacks punch" (if by that we mean penetration). My prime concern is a lack of accuracy which makes primarily the Nashorn, but also the Tiger, a liability in a combat situation unless the combat is at such extreme ranges that no unit has a good chance of a hit - and that combat situation rarely occurs in CM due to map size limitations.

I'm not expecting a fix for CMBO, but the Tiger is supposed to be a feared opponent on the Western Front - allied tankers were scared of facing them - and my tests are showing that a 76mm Sherman can outshoot and beat them at short (CM) ranges in a majority of situations.

What's the situation going to be like in CMBB, with the Tiger as one of the biggest and most powerful tanks in the early war? What about the Nashorn?

I will continue testing, despite some people's beliefs that this subject has been 'done to death', and will post my results as they come in.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Soddball:

Well, first of all, forgive me for discussing something which has been raised before.

Secondly, I don't think the 88 "lacks punch" (if by that we mean penetration). My prime concern is a lack of accuracy which makes primarily the Nashorn, but also the Tiger, a liability in a combat situation unless the combat is at such extreme ranges that no unit has a good chance of a hit - and that combat situation rarely occurs in CM due to map size limitations.

I'm not expecting a fix for CMBO, but the Tiger is supposed to be a feared opponent on the Western Front - allied tankers were scared of facing them - and my tests are showing that a 76mm Sherman can outshoot and beat them at short (CM) ranges in a majority of situations.

What's the situation going to be like in CMBB, with the Tiger as one of the biggest and most powerful tanks in the early war? What about the Nashorn?

I will continue testing, despite some people's beliefs that this subject has been 'done to death', and will post my results as they come in.

No problem Sodball

I was just mentioning that "88 lacks punch" thread specifically because it ALSO dealt with accuracy issues IIRC.

-tom w

[Andreas]

Soddball, one interestig statistic would be how often Shermans did face Tigers at 250m on the Western Front. My suspicion is that it would not have been that often, so the test is really not that relevant as it is creating an artificial situation. At 800m (a much more standard range) they had good reason to be afraid, since they could not penetrate the Tiger, while the 88 easily could go through their Sherman.

Mattias, I too would be interested in what kind of situations they were talking about. Do you know?

[aka_tom_w]

some of this maybe somewhat off topic but it it here is... (It was a GREAT thread 13 pages LONG!)

If you are interested this is it:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=009258

""Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division:

The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories.

Superior Flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.

The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.

German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks.

The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression.

The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943. "

-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"

"

"Big Time Software

Administrator

Member # 42

posted September 21, 2000 03:56 AM                 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helge,

To date this thread has produced nothing more than various different assortments of conjecture as to why CM's output differs from certain ballistics tests. This would be fine, and even enjoyable, if it wasn't (at times) intended to be personal.

As you say, ballistics is not something that is easy to simulate. It is also, as this thread has clearly shown, not easy to document first hand. Or at least, it is not easy to know exactly what this 1st hand documention means some 55 years after the fact.

Our point has been, from the start, that CM's treatment is accurate. Our approach, which *is* scientifically sound (even if it turns out it contains some flaws), has been repeatedly called into question and at times ridiculed without any coherent counter position based on science, logic, and data combined. It is really hard not to take things personally when some of the things said here were definitely intended to be personal.

But the thread remains open. Why? Because we have no interest in shutting down this thread because WHO KNOWS... something might actually come from it. Stranger things have been known to happen

Steve "

"danielh

Member

Member # 2160

posted September 30, 2000 04:16 PM                 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

John,

So what sources are accepted ?

The formulas used do undermine the wrong "Jentz" figures do not represent reality, but instead are rough assumptions of reality, for instance the effects of the explosive charge at a near penetrating hit are not represented. To get the real values through maths a much more complex model would have to be choosen incorporating an endless count of variables.

What is important is the following:

The 88/KwK43 and 88/L56 could kill any allied tank up to 1000 yards.

Shells from a 8,8 cm bouncing off a jumbo under 1000 m is ridicolous.

A US-tanker stated when asked to improve armor for the M4: "A 8.8 cm penetrates any practical armor."

Have you read the collected statements of US-tankers provided by Grisha ? (Or are these sources also rendered inacurate ?)

I quote just a few findings:

- Superior mobility of Pz V against M4 even with the new suspension

- Far superior sights

- Far superior guns

- Superior projectiles (Souped up...)

- Far superior acuraccy at ranges over 1000 m

- US 90 mm believed to be inferior to 88/KwK43

- HVAP remedies only partly for the 76 mm

These quotes are from men actually being there...

Why not accept it ?

Greets

Daniel"

All from that Thread

-tom w

[ April 30, 2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Andreas]

Just to reiterate - the Tiger did not get its reputation as a close-in, knife-fighting weapon. Neither did the Nashorn or the Elefant. On the contrary in the latter case, it fared extremely badly doing so.

These are long-range, stand-off weapon systems, designed to destroy an opponent that can not touch you in open battle (Tiger v. T-34/76 or KV-1) or from an ambush (Nashorn/IVL70/Elefant v. the above). They did not earn their reputation by fighting it out at 250m, in fact they lost it that way. If you test them in that environment, you will conclusively prove that if you use the tank in an ahistoric manner, it will perform in an ahistoric manner.

Anyone claiming that you don't hit at extreme ranges in CMBO, I suggest you try again. The 88 and the 75L48 are perfectly capable of achieving hits at long ranges (defined as >1,600m, or roughly twice muzzle velocity). Depending on crew quality, also first shot hits.

[Holien]

Sodball

It is worth discussing and please don't take the knocks as personal attacks.

I too feel that the Nashorn and AT guns are not as effective in CMBO as they perhaps should be.

This is just based on feelings and not any real basis of evidence. Hence I usually just keep quiet and watch the debates and see what occurs.

So for that reason alone continue testing.

I might add a couple of human issues that might cloud our view of the battles in Europe.

Stuarts and Greyhounds can be effective killers in the game by doing mad rushes around the rear of the German heavy tanks. This happens often in CM as the players realise this is the way to defeat the German player.

IRL if you were in charge of a Stuart and were given the order to do some of the things we make our units do in this game we would respond in no un certain manner.

The game has created a universe of rules and calculations which attempt in some small way to model RL. It can not model RL very well as we create situations in the game on a regular basis which would not really happen.

Your comment the Tiger is supposed to be a feared opponent on the Western Front - allied tankers were scared of facing them is very true from what I have read.

This would weigh in the minds of the Tank Cmdrs and they would not put themselves in situations where the model of CM is often being tested. Hence we would have more RL evidence of what would have happened at these ranges.

As it is the model is being used to resolve things which not often happen and we can not expect it to always work well.

As for AT guns it does annoy me that I have a stationary hidden asset which is tracking a visable target and I get one maybe two shots off before HE hell comes my way. From GB AAR it looks like CMBB might model this type of action better?

H

[Soddball]

Andreas said:

Soddball, one interestig statistic would be how often Shermans did face Tigers at 250m on the Western Front. My suspicion is that it would not have been that often, so the test is really not that relevant as it is creating an artificial situation. At 800m (a much more standard range) they had good reason to be afraid, since they could not penetrate the Tiger, while the 88 easily could go through their Sherman.

I'll be testing at 500m, 750m and at 1km aswell. I don't know how often Shermans and Tigers faced off at point blank range, I'm afraid, but I agree it would be useful information. Perhaps ranges were shorter in 'bocage country' early in 1944 but became longer as the allies advanced into Germany.

Not only that, but if Tungsten is available for the 76mm (M10/Hellcat), the 76mm round will go through.

If we also consider the Firefly (which I will be testing), it's 17pdr gun can go clean through the Tiger without tungsten.

I don't know how accurate the Tiger's gun should be, but what I'm trying to find out is if the 88mm becomes less accurate at closer ranges whilst everyone else's becomes more accurate, and if that is the case, I want to know why.

[Andreas]

Soddball, the 17-pdr was probably the best AT gun of the war, so there is nothing wrong with it defeating the Tiger at any range as far as I am concerned. It came as a very bad surprise to the Germans in Tunisia, who just thought they had gotten themselves a tank that would shake off the 6-pdr.

By 1944 the Tiger I was outdated and beyond its prime. It acquired its reputation against Sherman 76s on the Steppe, and the fact that the Germans stopped producing it in August 1944 shows that they understood that as well.

[Redwolf]

Soddball, I am not sure why you are testing this. You will find that the hits are proportional to the reported hit probability, and it appears to me you have issues with this reported hit probablity to start from, so why the tests? Or maybe you suspect a bug that leads the result to derive from the probablity?

BTS assumes that every shot can be screwed up badly, and that means even closes range shots gets a non-neglectable miss chance. And that is the right thing to do, because of all those human factors stated here. There is no such thing as a certain kill. Have you played Steel Beasts or Panzer Elite?

There is no way a game like CM can model both regular soldiers and elite tank ace crews with one computational model, and given the choice I choose a model that does green/regular/veteran well. Not only because I think it is by far more important for realistic gameplay, but also because many of the elite factors will be very hard to model (the regular stuff is difficult enough as we all know).

As I said, I would do some details of the hit probablity model differently that CMBO 1.12, so I don't pretend everything is great, but in different way than what you are researching right now.

[ April 30, 2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[aka_tom_w]

Again Sorry

this may be wildly off topic but if you look closely at this list you can see where they have made as Least 2 improvements in targeting accuracy:

this is from the read-me from the latest patch v1.12

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.12 2/6/2001

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Tanks use better hull-rotation logic.

* Gun accuracy is somewhat higher at long range.

* Gunnery accuracy equations modified slightly to permit greater accuracy at point-blank ranges.

Ok ok

-tom w

[ April 30, 2002, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Holien]

Hmmmm

How to destroy a debate by posting reams of un related information.

Tom could you trim that information down to something meaningful.

I think we all know where to find that info. Could I suggest you use the edit button?

Thanks!!!

H

[ April 30, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Holien ]

[Redwolf]

Tom, please cut that stuff.

[Soddball]

Redwolf said:

Soddball, I am not sure why you are testing this. You will find that the hits are proportional to the reported hit probability, and it appears to me you have issues with this reported hit probablity to start from, so why the tests? Or maybe you suspect a bug that leads the result to derive from the probablity?

If you look back over my first post, you'll see that I'm testing it because my Tigers are hopeless at hitting enemy tanks when they are at close range.

I'm discovering that even when both tanks are stationary, the Tiger's 88mm gun is less accurate than the 76mm gun mounted on the Sherman. This test was done at 250m. My initial test results for 500m (only about half way through) are coming up with similar results, but I won't publish them until I've checked and completed tests.

My issue is this: how can a weapon become less accurate as range decreases? The issue goes beyond doctrine, beyond using a tank ahistorically. It's not a matter of being flanked, or turret rotation. Both tanks are stationary and facing each other.

I'm well aware that the Tiger and Nashorn are 'stand-off' weapons. This is how their 88mm gun should be used. Whether or not such a weapon is of any real use in an 800m square map is not part of the debate here. My concern is that as range closes, the 88mm gun is proving to be less accurate, even once one sets aside issues such as slow turrets, differing crews.

Note again that I was not interested in testing numbers of tanks destroyed or damaged, I was specifically interested in testing how frequently a tank achieved a hit with its first shot, and what percentage of shots fired struck the target. FYI, and as I would expect, at 250m Tigers were being caned by 76mm Shermans, whilst at 500m the reverse is the case.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I'm discovering that even when both tanks are stationary, the Tiger's 88mm gun is less accurate than the 76mm gun mounted on the Sherman. This test was done at 250m. My initial test results for 500m (only about half way through) are coming up with similar results, but I won't publish them until I've checked and completed tests.

My issue is this: how can a weapon become less accurate as range decreases? The issue goes beyond doctrine, beyond using a tank ahistorically. It's not a matter of being flanked, or turret rotation. Both tanks are stationary and facing each other.

You lost me, what are the hit probablities at short and long range, exactly, as reported and from your findings?

I don't have CMBO in front of me, could you post the two muzzle velocities, please?

[Holien]

It is worth testing as I would not expect the 88 to be less accurate at close range than the 76mm.

If it is proven, and not just a fluke, then it would be interesting to understand why it was the case.

H

[Soddball]

My post from yesterday - this is only 250m, you'll have to wait until I'm not at work for muzzle velocities and for me to finish the 500m 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.

[Holien]

Looking at those figures the total 1st shots (missed and hit) for each tank type do not match?

Why?

Surely if you are going to get an accurate comparison the total number of shots should match?

H

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Mattias, I too would be interested in what kind of situations they were talking about. Do you know?

Missed some of the finer points of that as I took it from memory...

Fleisher/Eiermann claims in their book "Die deutsche Panzerjägertruppe" that the 75mm L/70 mounted on the JgPz IV/70 had 80-90% chance of hitting a 2,5 x 2 meter target at 1000 meters under "kriegsmässigen Bedingungen", combat conditions.

That was the quote I was thinking of..

M.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Soddball:

If you look back over my first post, you'll see that I'm testing it because my Tigers are hopeless at hitting enemy tanks when they are at close range.

I'm discovering that even when both tanks are stationary, the Tiger's 88mm gun is less accurate than the 76mm gun mounted on the Sherman. This test was done at 250m.

The comparative accuracy of guns in CM is simply a function of muzzle velocity. The gun with the higher MV will be more accurate all else being equal.

88L56 MV: 773 mps

76L54: 793 mps

The 76 has a higher MV and therefore is more accurate in CM. The fact that the Tiger is a bigger target than the Sherman adds to it.

CM does seem to model the fact that larger rounds are more accurate at long range than smaller rounds, even with lower initial velocity. For example, the 50mm gun experiences a greater decrease in accuracy from 100m to 2000m than the 88mm. So, the 88 should become more accurate relative to the 76 as range increases. However, the difference does not appear to become significant until ranges outside of those seen in a typical CM game. How realistic this is I don't know.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I don't know how often Shermans and Tigers faced off at point blank range, I'm afraid, but I agree it would be useful information. Perhaps ranges were shorter in 'bocage country' early in 1944 but became longer as the allies advanced into Germany.

IIRC American forces did not encounter the Tiger in combat in Europe until the Ardennes offensive in December (at least in Northern Europe, they may have in Italy and they did in N Africa as well). I'm sure some grog will slap me around if I'm wrong.

[ April 30, 2002, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]