Accuracy of main battle tanks

[Tero]

Originally posted by Caesar:

Was this a German only practise or did other nations use this.

Never seen any refrences to others using it. That does not mean nobody else did it.

Were they rotating the tank on the spot or were they just driving in an agle towards the target.

I think both. Moving forwards and backwards and turning while moving is better. Rotating on the spot a lot is liable to shear off a tread.

Was this an advantage of their suspension

I think that was actually a steering system design feature and not a suspension system as such.

A higher ROF results in a faster overheated gun, this reduces the muzzel velocity and has direct negative effect on the accuracy.

Also affects barrel wear.

I would think that in most cases, if you are being shot at you are going to fire back as fast and accurately as possible irrespective of the long term well being of your tank. I think your near term survival would take precedence.

True. But unlike the OK Coral fast draw shoot out gunner a fast shooting WWII tank is more likely to be blinded by the smoke and debris it is itself raising.

Rapid opening of fire is essential. So is accuracy. Firing the first shot first and hit is good. However, if you miss the first shot the TC is better off scanning for cover and ordering reverse gear and bug out to an out of LOS location to rethink the approach than start gunning it out with the opponent. Especially if it is a knife fight and there is some doubt about the punishment the ride can take.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Tero

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The TC is always the first to go no matter who would be killed/disabled IRL.

Yep, right. I forgotten to mention this.

IMO high ROF should not give you an advantage just because you can in theory bracket a target faster than your opponent. There were also disadvantages..

This is right. A higher ROF results in a faster overheated gun, this reduces the muzzel velocity and has direct negative effect on the accuracy.

Here a quote from the book PzKpfw IV by Spielberger/Doyle/Jentz :

The 5. Panzer Division, equipted with 4 Pz.Kpfw.IV - maingun 7,5cmKw.K40 L/43, reported kills of this tanks in the time from 22 February to 20 March east of Shisdra(Russia):

17 KV-1

26 T-34

1 T-26

1 Mark II

3 Mark III

1 General Lee (M3)

The battle distance was ussually 1200-1600 meters

With the Pz.Gr.39 2-3 shots were needed, each hit resulted in a deadly burn out (hope this is the correct translation of 'Brandwirkung'), with Gr.HL/B rarely made the tank burn, 1-5 were needed per kill. In this time, the Division lost only one of the four PzKpfw.IV-7,5cmKw.K.40L/43

What can we learn from this?

a) I was wrong in my earlier post. Tanks die fast when they are hit.

The normal distance for real tank battles is above 1000m, at least in the later war. The normal CM battle distance is - even on big maps - usualy below 1000m. I also remember a report about the 7.5cm PAK - the normal attack range was the biggest possible distance to the target.

c) The German guns were very accurate. The chance to hit is about 33-50% on 1200 - 1600 meters - in real battle conditions.

Now I checked this in CM with a stationary PzIV and a stationary Sherman on 1432 meters, optimum possible targeting circumstances, the Sherman shows his side. The chance to hit is shown as :

22% for a regular crew

24% for a veteran crew

28% for a crack crew

33% for an elite crew

So the CM hit probability is even in best circumstances with the best crew on the lower end of the possible results, compared to the real war results.</font>

[Andreas]

Tom, it is not a good point, because a general conclusion is drawn from one example and then assigned to the wrong period by the looks of it (mid war to late war)

Also, he explicitly said 'Panzer IV', and nothing about Tigers or Panthers. The 75L48 was a good gun, but not that great.

To be honest, and as a friendly suggestion, instead of just cluttering up the thread by quoting a post twice in your post that was posted three posts higher, maybe you should read it more closely?

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Puff, basing very general conclusions on one example is maybe a bit rash?

More specifically:

Where is Shisdra? What makes you think this was a late-war example? What makes you think it is generalisable? What makes you think these are confirmed kills? Where did you find that quote saying 'maximum possible distance' for the Pak40? What is the definition of 'maximum possible distance'?

Tanks die fast when they are hit - maybe, but do you always know they are dead? I have a nice example from Stug Brig.276 showing the opposite.

Sorry, I forgotten to mention the year: 1943. I see this as late war, when long range guns were used, not the relative short range weapons like the 3.7 - 5 cm calibers or the short 7.5cm

Antrollas - I'm not sure if I should take you serious. Your whole post only sounds the way like 'I don't like what he say, let's ask a bunch of - sorry, partially very stupid - questions to undermine his position.'

To locate Shisdra, take your atlas. Care for possible misspelling. It's somewhere in the Orel area.

The autors have an excellent reputation. The example was taken as exemplarily for the performance of the PzIV with 7.5cm 40/L43 in Spring 1943. Of course I can't be sure how generalizable this is. Of course I can only assume that the autors know what they are talking about. If you have written something else in your books, then please excuse - what was their title, and where can I purchase them, please?

If smoke comes everywhere out of the tank, burning crew members jump out the hatches etc, I take this as a good indicator to say : 'This tank is taken out'. I said that each hit with the Pz.Gr.39 resulted in a burning tank, did I? Beside that, this were reported kills for the four mentioned tanks - reported by the 5. Panzer Division, lead by Oberst Johannes Nedtwig, Panzer Corps Scheele, 2. Pz Armee, Heeresgruppe Mitte. Please excuse, I wasn't there personaly - I assume you have this advantage? - again I must believe that this numbers weren't fictional.

The 'greatest possible range' is the range where the gun has a good chance to hit & kill the tank. However, the correct term was IIRC 'start the fire as early as possible'. Maybe I interpreted this wrong.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Antrollas - I'm not sure if I should take you serious. Your whole post only sounds the way like 'I don't like what he say, let's ask a bunch of - sorry, partially very stupid - questions to undermine his position.'

Puff, if you don't like someone questioning your unqualified and meaningless generalisations, maybe you should refrain from making them? The question for the location of Shisdra is important, because if it is in the Orel area, I take it that is Steppe country? Now obviously very stupid people would compare combat distances in the Steppe to those in France, but I am sure that would not happen to such a distinguished contributor to this board as you.

Late war is generally accepted to be 1944-5. In your head you are welcome to claim that late war is 1937 in Spain and draw conclusions, or whatever else, but don't expect others to follow.

I will also report your post to the moderators. We have so far had a reasonable discussion, I will not let you wreck that.

Have a nice day.

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

c) The German guns were very accurate. The chance to hit is about 33-50% on 1200 - 1600 meters - in real battle conditions.

Now I checked this in CM with a stationary PzIV and a stationary Sherman on 1432 meters, optimum possible targeting circumstances, the Sherman shows his side. The chance to hit is shown as :

22% for a regular crew

24% for a veteran crew

28% for a crack crew

33% for an elite crew

You ignored the effects of bracketting. A 24% first-shot CMBO crew will have a >24% chance of hitting on the second shot. This is reflected in the real-life numbers, but not in the quoted CMBO percentages. And it could easily explain the differences you noted.

To find out exactly how much bracketting increases subsequent hit chances by, you could either bribe Steve (easy option ), or run a statistically significant number of trials, and then compare the number of expected second-shot kills if there was no bracketting (e.g. 24% of those who missed on the first shot) with the actual number (which might be, say, 30%). Ditto for third shot (35%?), fourth shot (40%?), etc etc etc.

I have a hunch this would be a LOT of trials though!

[Wisbech_lad]

Well, what have I learnt from all this?

1) Play Allies. That way one is elated when you get a tank kill with another tank, rather than regarding it as your right. Because, by a ratio of roughly 5:1 from this thread, complaints about tank fire are from those playing with kitties with big guns. Note the lack of complaints about a Stug III missing from 50m…

2) Poop happens

3) Poop happens even more during war

My luckiest CM moment? A 2” mortar team that brewed up a Wirbelwind.

My most frustrating CM moment? Getting a Vet Daimler in a perfect position behind a Stug IV, range 30m or so, only to watch it miss twice, get penetration but no damage twice, and then get blasted first shot. Aargh!

I did enjoy the comments about troops being given a briefing about "it will be 300 m to the woods on your left" before an attack. Come off it! I would suggest given the fairly well documented instances of entire units getting lost in real life, we have stronger ground to argue CM doesn't model correctly the chance of misunderstood orders/ units getting lost/ units taking a wrong turn.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by tero:

However, the higher ROF does not explain away why the Sherman seems to be getting the first shot hits down better.

If you don't assume the tank always has a round already chambered for the first shot (or the correct round), yes it does.

I have sometimes thought the Sherman fire accuracy calculation is done using the hit propability as the norm and the Tiger calculation is done using the miss propability as the norm.

If you were serious about this you could easily test for it. But I know you're not

Hmmmm..... say both get a 78% solution on each other simultaneously the bigger tank gets 20% knocked off its accuracy because it is bigger and in effect the solutions should read 78% vs 58% (or 98% vs 78%) in favour of the smaller tank ?

Does not sound really realistic. Or plausible.

If this is the case I smell a fish.

Which I hope does not turn out to be a red herring.

It's a red herring

What is the frequency of occurance that turns a rare event into a commonplace one ?

Not a rare event, any rare event. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference.

[ May 02, 2002, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

If you don't assume the tank always has a round already chambered for the first shot (or the correct round), yes it does.

No, it does not. All things being equal (the Sherman sporting a fast turret and stabilizer vs no difference in optics quality and no bonus for ambush ) the FIRST shot hit propability should not have anything to do with the ROF.

Incidentaly, how does the ROF affect how fast the first round is chambered anyway ?

If you were serious about this you could easily test for it. But I know you're not

No need for testing. I have played both sides extensively and I still have a feeling the Allies play by the hit propability and the Germans by the miss propability when talking about first shot hit propabilities.

It's a red herring

Are you sure ?

Not a rare event, any rare event. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference.

Yes. But when a rare event, for example a German AFV missing its first shot in a CM game, happens often enough I think it does not qualify for a "rare event" status anymore.

[ May 02, 2002, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

I did enjoy the comments about troops being given a briefing about "it will be 300 m to the woods on your left" before an attack. Come off it! I would suggest given the fairly well documented instances of entire units getting lost in real life, we have stronger ground to argue CM doesn't model correctly the chance of misunderstood orders/ units getting lost/ units taking a wrong turn.

Stupidity and inability to grasp the finer nuances of orienteering are one thing, modern kartography another. Why do you think they persist on using things like scale and grid references when they are drawing maps ?

[ May 02, 2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Antrollas - I'm not sure if I should take you serious. Your whole post only sounds the way like 'I don't like what he say, let's ask a bunch of - sorry, partially very stupid - questions to undermine his position.'

Puff, if you don't like someone questioning your unqualified and meaningless generalisations, maybe you should refrain from making them? The question for the location of Shisdra is important, because if it is in the Orel area, I take it that is Steppe country? Now obviously very stupid people would compare combat distances in the Steppe to those in France, but I am sure that would not happen to such a distinguished contributor to this board as you.

Late war is generally accepted to be 1944-5. In your head you are welcome to claim that late war is 1937 in Spain and draw conclusions, or whatever else, but don't expect others to follow.

I will also report your post to the moderators. We have so far had a reasonable discussion, I will not let you wreck that.

Have a nice day.</font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by tero:

Incidentaly, how does the ROF affect how fast the first round is chambered anyway ?

Why wouldn't it? I assume the weight of the round is one of the main factors. That would be the same for every shot.

No need for testing. I have played both sides extensively and I still have a feeling the Allies play by the hit propability and the Germans by the miss propability when talking about first shot hit propabilities.

LOL! Hint: this has been tested many, many times including earlier in this very thread by Soddball.

Are you sure ?

Very sure. Unlike you, I actually do test these things to get the real numbers

Yes. But when a rare event, for example a German AFV missing its first shot in a CM game, happens often enough I think it does not qualify for a "rare event" status anymore.

How often is "often enough"? Are you talking about all German vehicles or only certain ones? How often do allied vehicle miss the first shot?

[ May 02, 2002, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Madmatt]

I am always awake Puff but it is YOU that I see being out of line. Andreas asked some legitamate questions and now you resort to childish comebacks and distorting his name. Knock it off and learn to conduct yourself with more maturity or else I WILL be coming back here, hard.

Understand?

By the way, units are affected to various degrees to what happens around them including being scared to some extent becuase of the presence of enemy units or to what occurs to adjacent units. In CMBO it is not always evident, in CMBB it is MUCH more so, espically with the new vehicle moral system in play.

Madmatt

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

I am always awake Puff but it is YOU that I see being out of line. Andreas asked some legitamate questions and now you resort to childish comebacks and distorting his name. Knock it off and learn to conduct yourself with more maturity or else I WILL be coming back here, hard.

Understand?

By the way, units are affected to various degrees to what happens around them including being scared to some extent becuase of the presence of enemy units or to what occurs to adjacent units. In CMBO it is not always evident, in CMBB it is MUCH more so, espically with the new vehicle moral system in play.

Madmatt

Hah - I'm always right. I'm a dragon!!! I will tell this my mommy .

However, Andreas still doesn't offer better facts. This is the typical way of acting here. He attacks my position - what is his good right. He is been asked for better facts - he disapears. Well, anyway, before I must go back to kindergarten.

Madmatt, I have not said that troops don't react - but IMO they reacted in reality much more, even when they were not affected. Unit A is slaughtered by tanks. Unit B see that and runs away, even they didn't received a single shot yet. Panic is a 'disease' that spreads out very quick and can make a whole frontline break apart. What usually happens in case of armored breakthroughts.

What has it to do with tanks is close combat? Well, I think it is important why a tank crews can miss a shot on short distance. They just lost the nerves. I know that vehicels will have a moral factor in CM:BB - however, I still think this is something to work on. Maybe it would be a nice idea to show the moral of a crew - even for some moments - as 'Scared' . This would help to understand some situations.

BTW, just seen today in a battle : three Tigers and one Panther vs two Jacksons on 200 meters. Only one Jackson was known. Lost one Tiger to the unspotted Jackson - one shot, one kill. The Panther killed the already spotted Jackson with one shot. The other Tigers targeted now the second Jackson, both missed (Iassume they were scared, cause they've lost a comrade). The Jackson killed another Tiger with a one-shot-hit. Then the Panther killed the second Tiger, also with one shot. Sounds like a realistic result to me. The only unrealism here is - IMO - that large battle tanks were not issued to fight on that close range. I guess it was Andreas who said that? Tigers were long range weapons. However, CM battles usually doesn't take place on maps that are big enough and with open terraine. If you make the right map, you can use your tanks in the right battle situation, and you can see realistic results.

[ May 02, 2002, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by redwolf:

[qb]I do think that the size of the target may factor in somehow,

It is already reflected in the hit probablity that the LOS or target tool prints.

A tank with silhuette 120 has a 20% (not percent point) higher chance to get hit than a silhuette 100 one, it is plain and simply linear.

Hmmmm..... say both get a 78% solution on each other simultaneously the bigger tank gets 20% knocked off its accuracy because it is bigger and in effect the solutions should read 78% vs 58% (or 98% vs 78%) in favour of the smaller tank ?

Does not sound really realistic. Or plausible.

The hit probablity displayed by the LOS tool already includes the relative sizes.

But yes, if two equal guns shoot at each other, and one of them sits in a bigger carriage, then that carriage has the bigger probablity of getting nailed, although the precision of the guns is the same. What is wrong with that?

As another poster pointed out, a 20% bigger tank doesn't get a 20% disadvantages, though, which is correct behaviour.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

there seems to be almost NO advantage for the German player at long range. The Tiger and the 88 mm weapon should shine in long range tank duals.

But it is not true, as we have seen the large-caliber weapons get an advantage at long range.

CMBO has, according to Steve, not been designed to model very long range shots realistically. And it has no clue what to do with 20 meter shots either.

Last but lot least CMBO has no means to correctly simulate elite humans, with very high talent, very good nerves etc. CMBO is targeted at modeling normal crews, and does idiotic crews quite well, because it is easier to take intelligence away than to add it from a computer program. This has been discussed in this very thread.

[Doug Beman]

Blast, took one night off to do errands and get more than 6 hours of sleep, and this topic's out of my grasp.

I will make one last post, a reply to something tero said back on Page 7. He said:

And since that one particular spot (meaning AMBUSH marker) is ranged for him a spot some distance to the side of this spot is not ranged and consequently does not apply as a pre-ranged target. No matter how the tank has moved prior to the shot the range data is updated automatically and the gunner knows exactly how far he is from that TRP but the range data to a spot (just as visible as the TRP spot) next to the TRP is not calculated similarly at the same time.

Sorry, can't buy that.

Yet, you seem to demand this very thing from ambush markers in this post on Page 4:

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, which is it, tero?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by PondScum:

To find out exactly how much bracketting increases subsequent hit chances by, you could either bribe Steve (easy option ), or run a statistically significant number of trials, and then compare the number of expected second-shot kills if there was no bracketting (e.g. 24% of those who missed on the first shot) with the actual number (which might be, say, 30%). Ditto for third shot (35%?), fourth shot (40%?), etc etc etc.

I did this, of course. What are you thinking?

The CMBO zeroing in model gives shots from one shooter to one target, where neither unit moved, the target is armored, the shooter is not a weapon that is taken from target to be reloaded (e.g. PIAT), and the target has never switched or dropped since the previous shots, a second hit chance of a probablity multiplication by three of the base chance.

If the base probablity for the first shot is 24%, the second shot's probablity alone, given all conditions met, is 56%. The combined chance to hit with one of these two shots is 81% with zeroing in, while it would be 42% without.

And it *is* shown in the display of the LOS tool. To test this, set up a Sherman shooting on a King Tiger without ammo in hotseat and wait until the minute is over and then use the LOS command (not thetarget command, which would reset zeroing in). It is a very simple model. I only wished the zeroing in would stay effective for an area around the target.

[ May 02, 2002, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

<begin rant>

I have to say one thing, guys, I *know* that the CMBO Tiger in close quarters dies mostly because of its lame gun turn rate (and no player control over the turret). All my tests, and apparently I'm the only one here who ever ran useful tests, indicate that this is the most deadly issue, and you can ignore that as you like, but please don't bury this thread under restatements of this.

Whether it is fair to give Tiger and especially Panther the slow turrets they have is a different matter. It has been discussed to death, though. So your only option is to use these tanks some other way than sabre range. How surprising.

To a lesser degree the Tiger dies from slow ROF. Look at the zeroing in mechanism, how importantant the second shot is when zeroing in is in effect (which is the case of both hunt or stand). So what happens if you are *always* the guy how gets the second shot off later than the opponent: you die. How surprising. You have a 24% to 82% hit probablity.

As for 20m shots, did anyone test whether a crack or elite crew is likely to get them wrong, too? Now this would finally an opportunity to apply "elite" status for a game like CMBO, simulate better nerves. Did anybody even looked whether CMBO gets this right?

And tom, *please* watch your quotes.

<end rant>

Don't take the rant personally, everybody, but would you *please* discuss useful issues that could actually be incorporanted into the game?

There are so many corners of CMBO to bitch about with a point, and people keep retelling granddaddies war stories. Every trusted source I read supports the basic hit probablities of CMBO for normal crews at least with guns from 75mm Sherman to Panther gun.

Why don't you talk about more sophisticated zering in model? Or better turret commands, which is also a large factor why the Tiger 1 is much less useful in CMBO than in reality (and CMBB with covered arc command). Or a "advance until LOS to this point" command. Or knockout on penetration probablities. So much useful stuff we could fill this thread with.

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I did this, of course. What are you thinking?

My apologies - I didn't realise anyone had. Yay!

The CMBO zeroing in model gives shots from one shooter to one target, where neither unit moved, the target is armored, the shooter is not a weapon that is taken from target to be reloaded (e.g. PIAT), and the target has never switched or dropped since the previous shots, a second hit chance of a probablity multiplication by three of the base chance.

If the base probablity for the first shot is 24%, the second shot's probablity alone, given all conditions met, is 56%. The combined chance to hit with one of these two shots is 81% with zeroing in, while it would be 42% without.

Ah, this is very good to know. But 56% is less than three times 24% - is there a typo?

[Phantom Rocker]

Originally posted by redwolf:

<begin rant>

Why don't you talk about more sophisticated zering in model? Or better turret commands, which is also a large factor why the Tiger 1 is much less useful in CMBO than in reality (and CMBB with covered arc command). Or a "advance until LOS to this point" command. Or knockout on penetration probablities. So much useful stuff we could fill this thread with.

Yes

Sometimes it appears to me that CM:BO has started as a simple 'icon-moving' game with a 3d environment. A lot of things still work that way - like the well known MG that can hold down only one enemy unit.

The engine of course is much more complex right now. However, from some point of view, it still works like a 2D icon moving game. It is a 3D tactictal game, and the best we have, for sure. But it is still an abstratction. I guess this is written somewhere in the manual, too. A barrage causes X damage. This is what the engine calculates. The chance to hit a tank is x. The chance to destroy with this hit is y. Period. There is nothing hidden in this calculation. It is - maybe a bit more complex and with more used datas - in princip the same way how damage is calculated in 'Steel Panthers', or example.

Some people seem to believe CM is a 3D battle simulation, like a tank sim, only with a lot of different units. What is not right. Not yet . And that causes a lot of missunderstandings.

BTW, Redwolf, I hope to see everything in future games what you have mentioned!!!

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by PondScum:

But 56% is less than three times 24% - is there a typo?

It is the probablity multiplication (whatever the correct english term is). If you shoot 3 times at 60% probablity, you don't get 180% :_)

(- 1 (expt (- 1 prob) 3))

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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

But 56% is less than three times 24% - is there a typo?

It is the probablity multiplication (whatever the correct english term is). If you shoot 3 times at 60% probablity, you don't get 180% :_)

(- 1 (expt (- 1 prob) 3))</font>

[Madmatt]

Puff,

Actually we will show the moral for vehicles now and often you will see it say "Paniced" (which is similar to what you said 'sared' and even if Paniced they can and will still fight and move etc, just with various penalities and limitations.

Madmatt

[PzKpfw 1]

Good god, LOL another accuaracy thread ya'll should do a search we have hashed this to death over the last three years .

Regards, John Waters