Accuracy of main battle tanks

[illo]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Rare events happen all the time.

Hi vanir, i think you have something wrong there.

It's USUAL that happens often.

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by Phantom Rocker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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!!!</font>

[Mattias]

illo

The poor taste aside, how does the analogy work?

Is it some kind of word game?

M.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>

[Holien]

Illo

What does that have to add to the debate?

I have found it useful and some people have contributed information which has aided my understanding of the game.

Pity you feel the need to bring the whole tone down.

H

Edited in response to your later post and so that I don't waste any more space nagging you.

[ May 02, 2002, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Holien ]

[Boo Radley]

I played a game against the AI last evening. I was given 2 Hummels and 4 20mm AC's. The AI had two Shermans and several Ht's that didn't really figure in. Actually, the only thing that figured in for the Allies was one of the Sherman's.

This one Sherman knocked out all 6 of my armor. I only got one hit on it early on. I hit a track rendering it immobile. This one tank, nailed everything I had from whatever angle I came at it without moving. I just laughed and laughed. That was one accurate tank.

[wodasini88]

redwolf in most of my experiances crack and elite crews miss 20m shots ALOT while reg and vet crews never miss them. I am going to test this especially with the panther as the panther is the tank I have had this happen a lot with.

[wodasini88]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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.

Ya even though I like to bitch about the accuracy that isn't what ussually does me in in games. Like the PBEM I just had my scout platoon spotted a firefly over a hill so I ordered my mkIV up the hill and into a hull down posistion to ambush the enemy tank. Unfortunately for me the gunner decided it would be a good idea to turn his turret and fire at a group of infantry in heavy cover 500m away when he got to the hull down posistion over looking the firefly the firefly fired 3shots killing the mkIV on the 3rd I want to be able to tell my tank commander "hey there is a group of tanks over the crest pop up and ambush them" I as a commander would not order him to move up to the crest without telling him there were enemy tanks there....

[Redwolf]

Boo_Radley, so what do you expect of you go with Hummels and 20mm vehicles against real tanks?

wodasini88, did you consider a shorter sig? I mean you clutter the thread page-wise, it's maybe a big heavy.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Boo_Radley:

I played a game against the AI last evening. I was given 2 Hummels and 4 20mm AC's. The AI had two Shermans and several Ht's that didn't really figure in. Actually, the only thing that figured in for the Allies was one of the Sherman's.

This one Sherman knocked out all 6 of my armor. I only got one hit on it early on. I hit a track rendering it immobile. This one tank, nailed everything I had from whatever angle I came at it without moving. I just laughed and laughed. That was one accurate tank.

The best US ace that I have ever heard of destroyed something like 140 AFVs in 11 months of combat. While he killed German heavies, he spent most of his time shooting up stugs and eratz tank types, that being what the Germans had in the most numbers.

[wodasini88]

sorry, never though of it as my regular signiture on forums is the one I have now

[Tero]

Originally posted by 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.

You mean you get some shut eye amids all this fun and games ?

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)

Nope. That is not what I said. You cut off the quote at the wrong point. If you read the preceding sentence you see I am referring to the TRP marker.

This is of course infginitely more unrealistic than having the gunner get the perfect knowledge of the spot from data prepared by a FO team (he has never heard of and propably never will hear of) prior to battle. Meaning the TRP

and the quote continues:

And since that one particular spot 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.

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?

Which is it what ? I am of the opinion the TRP targeting benefit for non-OBA assets should be transferred to the Ambush marker.

Demand is a bit strong term. But I do feel TRP targeting benefits to non-OBA units are unrealistic and I do hope this could change for CMBB.

Ymmärsitkö ?

[ May 02, 2002, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

[illo]

Originally posted by Holien:

Illo

What does that have to add to the debate?

H

Nothing really.

Can't you see where this thread has gone? For me it seems just arguing for sake of arguing.

Keep adding to this debate Holien.

[ May 02, 2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: illo ]

[Doug Beman]

tero:

You mean you get some shut eye amids all this fun and games

Yeah, this week my body was sending signals I though would be imprudent to ignore. Things like falling asleep while watching the BBC World News during breakfast, falling asleep sitting at my desk after eating lunch, and (what convinced me to take the night off) having to stop the car during the morning commute to get out & walk around in order to stay awake the rest of the way.

Ymmärsitkö

Does that mean "understand"?

Because if so, I believe I do. You were saying that allowing any vehicle to get a freebie bonus by shooting at any TRP (which is there for OBA) is unrealistic. Gotcha on that; sorry for misunderstanding.

We still haven't answered, and probably never will to satisfaction of even a simple majority (not that I'm calling any of you simple, in case you thought there was a pun there), the question: Given two tanks in perfectly equal circumstances EXCEPT one is targeting an ambush marker, how much more accurate should that tank be when firing at targets on that ambush marker?

For the record, my feeling is that there should be some bonus. However, in the absence of satisfactory evidence as to the degree, any alteration is going to feel just as abstracted and unjustified, and generate similar howls of discontent, as does "I missed 3 shots at an enemy tank crossing an ambush marker 200m away" or similar happenings-of-excrement elicit from players. I've watched this kind of crap happen too; I've also watched a $#@#&^&%^#&^ green-rated PS team take out one of my Shermans at 184m in the pouring rain. I bitch about it in the context of that battle, rather than believing in a conspiracy to screw me over.

DjB

[ May 02, 2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[Redwolf]

Slight correction, guys:

the zeroing in for the second shot is not probablity multiplication with 3, but 2. It is always the probablity multiplication with the number of shots since zeroing in is in effect.

I mentally mixed it up with the Flak gun accuracy bump that is 3 for each shot (plus zeroing in ).

[TSword]

Hit probabilities in CM are completely wrong, just look to the LOS figure in open terrain at targets over 1000 m, it's something around 10 %.

Typical fighting distance in the east in 1944 were 1000 - 1500 m as stated by the russians and the germans. Meaning up to 1500 m distance was of almost no relevance, you just opened up no bracketing necessary.

Col. General Alexei A. Dement'yev, Cmdr 93rd Tank Brigade reccounts:

"..the 85 mm gun (T-34/85) cannot take the Tiger on from the front at a range exceeding 1000 m. But a Tiger at a range of 1000 - 1200 m burns the T-34 with the first blow....

...We could not penetrate the KT, even the 100 mm gun couldn't penetrate the KT at a range of 1000 m.....(What does that say to you ????)

..Those two tanks, our IS-2 and the Tiger, were comparable where capabilities were concerned...Gunnery took the form of just one round (CAN YOU READ THIS ??) (betw. IS and Tiger) a second round was just about ruled out...."

You see the russian commanders consider 1000 m quite short range, because up to 1500 m a normal crew would hit the non- or slow moving target with the first shot most of the time (72 %). If the tanks lie in a defensive position with rangecards created this value further increases towards 100 %.

Another important aspect is that up to 1000 m distance plays no great role, whether you hit a target or not, if your gun is correctly calibrated. For the Panther gun 1 Strich (meaning a relative aiming property) which is 1 m for a target 1000 m away).

If you alter your distance aiming 100 m, the shot will "climb" 50 cm for AP-shot at 1000 m and 1 m for HE. So if you set your tanks aiming to 700 m you will hit a target with high probability whether it is 1000 m away or 400 m if you aim at it's center of mass. If not your second shot will do it. (1.5 m Height-error if he is at 400 or 1000 m).

An experienced gunner of course will set distance more precise and thus have a quite high first hit capability up to 1500 m (for 88 mm) and 1200 m for 75 mm.

So i can perfectly understand those General description of tankfighting in the East..., and CM really annoys with the regularity (Of course you can miss 5 times, because your gun has gone out of calibration due to a hit, rough ride, or you are overexcited, untrained.., but those are exceptions) of stupid misses at 700 m.

This is further compounded by the fact that your hit probability is lower when you are "hidden" behind a brush of trees. What is hidden is the mass of the tank BUT NOT THE GUN ! So you should have almost the same probability as in the open but the enemy a lower one to you. In CM even in Hull down (Check it out yourself) it is extremely difficult to achieve hit probability superiority which is complete nonsense since a considerable part of the hulldown vehicle is hidden.

That WILL be the first test to do in CMBB a JS-2 and a Tiger I at 1500 m vs. each other one in the open the other Hulldown, if there is a long ding dong shootout-battle, the thing will land in the basket..

Greets

Daniel

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by TSword:

Hit probabilities in CM are completely wrong, just look to the LOS figure in open terrain at targets over 1000 m, it's something around 10 %.

Typical fighting distance in the east in 1944 were 1000 - 1500 m as stated by the russians and the germans. Meaning up to 1500 m distance was of almost no relevance, you just opened up no bracketing necessary.

Col. General Alexei A. Dement'yev, Cmdr 93rd Tank Brigade reccounts:

"..the 85 mm gun (T-34/85) cannot take the Tiger on from the front at a range exceeding 1000 m. But a Tiger at a range of 1000 - 1200 m burns the T-34 with the first blow....

...We could not penetrate the KT, even the 100 mm gun couldn't penetrate the KT at a range of 1000 m.....(What does that say to you ????)

..Those two tanks, our IS-2 and the Tiger, were comparable where capabilities were concerned...Gunnery took the form of just one round (CAN YOU READ THIS ??) (betw. IS and Tiger) a second round was just about ruled out...."

You see the russian commanders consider 1000 m quite short range, because up to 1500 m a normal crew would hit the non- or slow moving target with the first shot most of the time (72 %). If the tanks lie in a defensive position with rangecards created this value further increases towards 100 %.

Another important aspect is that up to 1000 m distance plays no great role, whether you hit a target or not, if your gun is correctly calibrated. For the Panther gun 1 Strich (meaning a relative aiming property) which is 1 m for a target 1000 m away).

If you alter your distance aiming 100 m, the shot will "climb" 50 cm for AP-shot at 1000 m and 1 m for HE. So if you set your tanks aiming to 700 m you will hit a target with high probability whether it is 1000 m away or 400 m if you aim at it's center of mass. If not your second shot will do it. (1.5 m Height-error if he is at 400 or 1000 m).

An experienced gunner of course will set distance more precise and thus have a quite high first hit capability up to 1500 m (for 88 mm) and 1200 m for 75 mm.

So i can perfectly understand those General description of tankfighting in the East..., and CM really annoys with the regularity (Of course you can miss 5 times, because your gun has gone out of calibration due to a hit, rough ride, or you are overexcited, untrained.., but those are exceptions) of stupid misses at 700 m.

This is further compounded by the fact that your hit probability is lower when you are "hidden" behind a brush of trees. What is hidden is the mass of the tank BUT NOT THE GUN ! So you should have almost the same probability as in the open but the enemy a lower one to you. In CM even in Hull down (Check it out yourself) it is extremely difficult to achieve hit probability superiority which is complete nonsense since a considerable part of the hulldown vehicle is hidden.

That WILL be the first test to do in CMBB a JS-2 and a Tiger I at 1500 m vs. each other one in the open the other Hulldown, if there is a long ding dong shootout-battle, the thing will land in the basket..

Greets

Daniel

I think you are reading in to this what YOU want it to say. Without knowing the context, I read it as talking about penetration, not hit probabilty. All it says is that the first guy to get a hit at 1000m gets the kill, not that all shots hit. Have you any idea what 1000m actually looks like? A tank is a dot to the naked eye. With modern tanks, computers etc, you might get the accuracy you claim. Any WWII tank that regularly gets hits at that range without zeroing in is a major ace!

(You dont have to play the game, no one forces you !)

BTW, in order to finally(??) close out the 'my Tiger misses too often, it's missed 6 times in a row', I am conducting a set of range tests at 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600m. Watch this space!

[TSword]

Sailor,

In case of the russian general he certainly meant A SINGLE SHOT !

Both tanks the Tiger I & II and JS-2 were perfectly suited for long range shooting AND OF COURSE tried to use that to their advantage. Have you noticed that the gap for the Tiger I vs. T-34/85 seems to be only 200 m, but it was enough for this general and his staff to work out an intricate plan/training to take the Tigers in the flanks... (Sources: Charles C. Sharp "German Panzer Tactics in World War II, Jentz's Tiger I & II Combat tactics)

If you do not believe look into the Tiger- or Panther-fibel the training handbooks for tankcrews. Why do you think had the TZF 12 a 5 x magnification from mid 1943 on ? To count the rivets on tanks 500 m away ?

Greets

Daniel

[PzKpfw 1]

Soviet report on ranges Tiger II side armor, side turret armor & superstructure could be penetrated*:

- 45mm - AP - 300m

- 45mm Sub-calibre - 300m

- 57mm - AP - 400m

- 57mm - Sub-calibre - 600m

- 76mm Zis-3 - AP - 300m

- 76mm Zis-3 - 400m Sub-calibre

- 85mm SP- 500m -AP

- 122mm Howitzer - 400m AP

See: Jentz: Germany's Tiger Tanks p.162

Regards, John Waters

[Doug Beman]

We are not talking about penetrating hits. We are talking about hit probability. The information posted immediately above, about the inability of the Soviets to penetrate the Tiger, speaks only of hitting power, NOT about the difficulty of hitting in the first place.

TSword, can you post some relevant information backing up your claim of

You see the russian commanders consider 1000 m quite short range, because up to 1500 m a normal crew would hit the non- or slow moving target with the first shot most of the time (72 %). If the tanks lie in a defensive position with rangecards created this value further increases towards 100 %.

??

DjB

[Tarquelne]

From early on in the thread:

"Range (yards)___6-pdr____17-pdr

500_____________87_______98

1000____________33_______46

1500____________12_______20

2000____________03_______10

2500_____________________05"

I got curious, and did a featureless-map test. My side by side 6 and 17 pdr guns never had more than a 1% difference in thier hit-chances, as listed by the LOS tool. Tested against a static target at 500 to 1000m. What's going on?

On anectodal evidence: My little test also showed that it doesn't take an AT gun more than 2 shots to destroy a PzIV at the 500-1000m range, and that 6 pdrs are 300% more effective at getting kills such than 17 pdrs.

Oh, btw, I _did_ try searching previous messages for an explaination for seemingly odd accuracy results. Among other things I learned ALOT about the 14.5 Russian AT rifles and some interesting facts about locating enemy atrillary via listening posts, but I didn't stumble accross an answer to my question. I find it easy to believe that my question has been answered already... the problem is finding it among all the other answers.

[ May 06, 2002, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by TSword:

Hit probabilities in CM are completely wrong, just look to the LOS figure in open terrain at targets over 1000 m, it's something around 10 %.

Typical fighting distance in the east in 1944 were 1000 - 1500 m as stated by the russians and the germans. Meaning up to 1500 m distance was of almost no relevance, you just opened up no bracketing necessary.

Col. General Alexei A. Dement'yev, Cmdr 93rd Tank Brigade reccounts:

"..the 85 mm gun (T-34/85) cannot take the Tiger on from the front at a range exceeding 1000 m. But a Tiger at a range of 1000 - 1200 m burns the T-34 with the first blow....

...We could not penetrate the KT, even the 100 mm gun couldn't penetrate the KT at a range of 1000 m.....(What does that say to you ????)

..Those two tanks, our IS-2 and the Tiger, were comparable where capabilities were concerned...Gunnery took the form of just one round (CAN YOU READ THIS ??) (betw. IS and Tiger) a second round was just about ruled out...."

You see the russian commanders consider 1000 m quite short range, because up to 1500 m a normal crew would hit the non- or slow moving target with the first shot most of the time (72 %). If the tanks lie in a defensive position with rangecards created this value further increases towards 100 %.

Another important aspect is that up to 1000 m distance plays no great role, whether you hit a target or not, if your gun is correctly calibrated. For the Panther gun 1 Strich (meaning a relative aiming property) which is 1 m for a target 1000 m away).

If you alter your distance aiming 100 m, the shot will "climb" 50 cm for AP-shot at 1000 m and 1 m for HE. So if you set your tanks aiming to 700 m you will hit a target with high probability whether it is 1000 m away or 400 m if you aim at it's center of mass. If not your second shot will do it. (1.5 m Height-error if he is at 400 or 1000 m).

An experienced gunner of course will set distance more precise and thus have a quite high first hit capability up to 1500 m (for 88 mm) and 1200 m for 75 mm.

So i can perfectly understand those General description of tankfighting in the East..., and CM really annoys with the regularity (Of course you can miss 5 times, because your gun has gone out of calibration due to a hit, rough ride, or you are overexcited, untrained.., but those are exceptions) of stupid misses at 700 m.

This is further compounded by the fact that your hit probability is lower when you are "hidden" behind a brush of trees. What is hidden is the mass of the tank BUT NOT THE GUN ! So you should have almost the same probability as in the open but the enemy a lower one to you. In CM even in Hull down (Check it out yourself) it is extremely difficult to achieve hit probability superiority which is complete nonsense since a considerable part of the hulldown vehicle is hidden.

That WILL be the first test to do in CMBB a JS-2 and a Tiger I at 1500 m vs. each other one in the open the other Hulldown, if there is a long ding dong shootout-battle, the thing will land in the basket..

Greets

Daniel

TSword, interesting post, I agree with your conclusions

"That WILL be the first test to do in CMBB a JS-2 and a Tiger I at 1500 m vs. each other one in the open the other Hulldown, if there is a long ding dong shootout-battle, the thing will land in the basket.."

Good point!

For CMBB this information is VERY relevant. long range(1000- 1500+) accuracy for the 88 in CMBO has been supect in the past...

In CMBB long range stand of duals should be modeled much better and hopefully optics and long range accuracy will be granted to those tanks and guns (e.g.Tiger 88 mm) that had a deserved reputation for long range first shot accuracy.

if you are interested in modeling realistic tactics and strategy then the game MUST account for long range, first shot kills from tanks and guns that are almost completely unseen by the opposing force.

-tom w

[Tero]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Ymmärsitkö

Does that mean "understand"?

Yes. Makes a wellcome change for "Capishe ?" I hope.

Because if so, I believe I do. You were saying that allowing any vehicle to get a freebie bonus by shooting at any TRP (which is there for OBA) is unrealistic. Gotcha on that; sorry for misunderstanding.

No harm done.

to satisfaction of even a simple majority (not that I'm calling any of you simple, in case you thought there was a pun there),

My last name is not Majority.

the question: Given two tanks in perfectly equal circumstances EXCEPT one is targeting an ambush marker, how much more accurate should that tank be when firing at targets on that ambush marker?

IMO much more accurate than they are now. But that is not exactly qualtifiable.

For the record, my feeling is that there should be some bonus.

Equilibrium ? I'll be damned.

However, in the absence of satisfactory evidence as to the degree, any alteration is going to feel just as abstracted and unjustified, and generate similar howls of discontent, as does "I missed 3 shots at an enemy tank crossing an ambush marker 200m away" or similar happenings-of-excrement elicit from players.

The thing is the bum rap the AT-gun's have gotten has not affected the Allies as much as it is the German side as the defender which would benefit more from this tweak more. Take the 88 FLAK for example. No way no how (most of the time) will it hit a stationary Sherman at any range with the first shot. And with absolute spotting the Sherman is liable to knock out the 88 before it fire the necessary shots to increase the hit chance. The AT guns are historically accurately vulnerable but they do not seem to be able to deliver the historical results in hit accuracy.

In CMBB-world historically both sides used more DF towed guns and both sides conducted offensive and defensive operations. It remains to be seen if the AT gun performs better in CMBB than it does in CMBO.

[Sailor Malan]

Ok - after a long and boring series of tests, here are some factual (CM style) results.

I set up 10 fire lanes surrounded by woods. I put one Tiger I (regular crew) in each one, firing at vanila Shermans at various ranges. The fire lanes had marshes in to constrain visibilty a bit. The first set of tests was designed to test 1st round hit chance, under 'reasonable battle conditions'. The Shermans had no ammo, but could move in a 100m by 20m box. They had no ammo, but could use their smoke dischargers, which they did, giving me more first round shots. Ran the tests for about 100 shots. The results:

Range 100m, LOS tool hit prob 88-92%. 1st round hit 85.7%, total hit 85.4% (the anomoly here is that most targets were dead after the first shot, so very few second shots.

Range 180m, LOS prob 80-83%. Ist rnd hits 65.3%, total hits 76%

Range 380m, LOS prob 54-56%, 1st rnd hit 52.3%, total hits 55.3%

Range 760m, LOS prob 24-26%, 1st rnd hit 37.7%, total hit 26% (odd this one - seemed like tanks split into 2 groups - hit quick, or almost not at all! I suspect some tanks were losing LOS and hence these results are suspect)

Conclusions so far - the LOS tool estimate isn't bad as an approximation, but it is just that (for good reasons).

Then I decided to explore the 'ambush' set up that everyone seems so upset about. Same set up, but now Shermans in a 20x20m box, facing away, so they didn't use smoke effectively. Results:

Range 800m, Los prob 34-38% (I cleaned up the range a bit to speed the test). 1st round hit 34.7%, total hits 51.8%. worst bit of shooting, 3 misses then a hit. All targets dead in less than 1 minute, except 1 that managed to hide effectively - got nailed 1st shot on reappearance!

Range 1600m, LOS prob 10-12%. 1st rnd hit 15.4%, total 21.8%. Worst shooting 13 misses in a row, although might have lost LOS. Routine to hit after 5-6 misses. However, 2/3 of the targets were dead within 1 minute. The average was c4 shots per kill (and some targets took multiple hits to kill).

Conclusions: The Tiger shoots perfectly well at close range. There might be some non-linear modelling, for example, BTS might have 'bad' crews. Alternatively the random number generation might not be perfect, but this seems unlikely because funny behaviour seems linked to specific vehicles, not sequences of 'rolls'.

15.4% first round hit at 1600m under battle conditions seems quite reasonable to me, and 4 rounds to kill (less than 4 to first hit) in well under 1 minute is quite lethal.

The type of hit statistics quoted for the Russians etc above would imply that vast numbers of tanks being killed by single tanks - move and youre dead type stuff. I am sorry, I just don't buy it, not under combat conditions, by average crews. If the figures are reliable, the must be for the most experienced crews. I am afraid I cannot be bothered to repeat my tests with elite crews.

Finally, I suspect what is actually wrong with the ambush set up, is our old friend lack of relative spotting. The ambushers aren't missing too often, they are being spotted too quickly. I think everyone would be much happier if it took 2-3 minutes to spot a hidden hull down ambusher, if he could take out 3-4 tanks at 1600m (per ambusher) in that time!

Someone ought to test out a KT vs a Pershing, or 17pdr tank sometime, at 1000 or 1600m -closest you'll get to the JS2/KT debate this week!

[ May 06, 2002, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Sailor Malan ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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>