First Shot Hit %: Actual Data from Korea

[rexford]

The John Salt site, at http://salts.britwar.co.uk/, has some combat hit probabilities and notes from Korea regarding first shot hit probability (look under WW 2 Weapon Hit Probability):

0-350 yards, 84% for all ammo types

351-750 yards, 63%

751-1150 yards, 39%

1151+ yards, 16%

Interesting that hit probability at 350 yards and under is not closer to 100%.

Another nice tidbit is that hit probability under poor visibility conditions was HIGHER than shots in good visibility, tankers stated that sunshine glare played havoc with sighting.

[Jarmo]

Interesting. But what were the guns used?

Sherman 76, Pershing or something else completely?

Were there changes made to the two mentioned tanks after WWII?

Improved sights, training, or something..

Wondering if the figures are the same as for WWII gunnery...

[M Hofbauer]

size of target?

[JasonC]

Link redirects to a page of ads...

[Holien]

Did same for me...

H

[Nekander]

The link is not working correctly because it has a extra symbol in the end.

Try this:

http://salts.britwar.co.uk/

-Nekander

[ParaBellum]

Thx Nekander, didn't see that.

Very interesting stuff, thx for posting it.

And rexford, I guess the pretty low hit chances you quote are due to 'all ammo types used'.

When using 90mm APDS rounds at 500m vs a static tank the figure rises to 90 %.

So I think for 350 yards you'd get an even higher percentage.

I did a quick test to compare some figures to CM.

For the 90mm the first hit propability in CM at 1000m vs a tank (Panther) is 33% for a regular crew and 38% for a veteran crew.

The data given in the article for the 90mm (representative for the Korean war, including increased effectiveness of range-finders and fire control systems) gives a first hit probability vs a static, tank-sized target of 65%. Wow, looks like there had been quite some improvements since WW2.

For the 76mm the first hit propability in CM at 1000m vs a Panther is 31% with a reg crew and 36% with a vet crew.

This is quite higher than the figure given in the article (representative for WWII), which is 21%.

So, the 76mm gun in CM seems somewhat too acurate compared to these data, while the CM 90mm obviously has a much worse performance than the 'Korean War 90mm'. Does anyone know what kind of improvements were done on the 90mm after WWII?

[ July 15, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by rexford:

The John Salt site, at http://salts.britwar.co.uk/, has some combat hit probabilities and notes from Korea regarding first shot hit probability (look under WW 2 Weapon Hit Probability):

0-350 yards, 84% for all ammo types

351-750 yards, 63%

751-1150 yards, 39%

1151+ yards, 16%

Interesting that hit probability at 350 yards and under is not closer to 100%.

The link is a dead end, but anyway. Hard to read something from this few numbers... it is obvisous that they can be valid for only one gun, and I guess it must be more a falling curve and not a stairway, so 84% can be valid for 1 meter or for 350 meters or somewhere between this, but not be valid for both. I guess it is very difficult to miss a shot on 5 yards for example, even if I'm one of those who believe that the accuracy model in CM:BO is much to optimistic for several reasons, your chances would be surely better then 84%.

[ July 15, 2002, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

gives a first hit probability vs a static, tank-sized target of 65%.

well, you know, there's tanks and there's tanks.

Like, there's Pz I's and Pz VI's. There's FT-17's and Char B-1's, etc.

[WWB]

Guys, to get the link to work, click on it then delete the ending comma. Gotta stick spaces in there rexford.

WWB

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

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

gives a first hit probability vs a static, tank-sized target of 65%.

well, you know, there's tanks and there's tanks.

Like, there's Pz I's and Pz VI's. There's FT-17's and Char B-1's, etc.</font>

[Jeff Duquette]

The unabridged version of "Tank-vs.-Tank Combat in Korea" (ORO T-278), is one of a series of ORO reports generated during Korea that detail UN tank combat on the peninsula. Although US ARMY and US MARINE use of HVAP ammunition was on a much more generous scale than what had been seen in Northwest Europe in 1944-45, tank gunnery, vehicle weapon systems and main-gun fire control were for all intents and purposes the same as late war capabilities seen during WWII. The Shermans, Chaffees, M26\M46, Cromwells, Churchills and Centurions used in Korea were not equipped with coincidence or stereoscopic range finders or ballistic computers. The M47 and M48 Pattons were the first tanks in the US arsenal with a design that included a turret mounted range finder. Those two big round “Frankenstein neck bolt” looking things jutting out of the turret sides of these two vehicles were part of the tanks rangefinder. M48 was the first vehicle to be outfitted with a ballistic computer. Neither of these MBTs saw combat during the Korea Conflict.

The vast majority of tank vs. tank combat in Korea occurred during the first year of the conflict, and most typically involved a Sherman(76) vs. T34/85 or a Sherman(76) vs. SU-76. The second most common tank vs. tank engagement was fought between M26(90) vs. T34/85 or M26 vs. SU76. Tank gunnery during the Korean War was very much analogous to that of late war-WWII, and typically required bracketing or burst on target adjustment techniques for longer ranged engagements. Initial range to target was still most often established via a stadiametric estimate…mil relationship. And the gunners primary sight on US tanks in Korea were still pretty much circa WWII instruments…(M10, M70 or M71 gunsights).

For those that actually have access to the various unabridged ORO studies of tank combat in Korea, it is apparent that tank vs. tank engagement typically involved combat between the lead one or two tanks within a UN column and one, two, or three dug-in and camouflaged T34/85’s or SU76’s ambushing the UN column. The NK's digging at terrain pinch points or defiles. So NKPA vehicle target aspect most often presented to UN tanks would have been both hull-down and camouflaged. The size of target being engaged by UN Tanks represented only the cross-sectional area of a T34/85 turret, or the super-structure x-section of an SU-76.

Of additional interest is the various ORO reports description of the notoriously poor accuracy of T34/85's and SU-76's when firing on UN Tanks.

[ July 15, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Burma Doc]

Just finished a good book called Death Traps, unfortunatly have taken it back and do not know author now. He was the liason officer resposible for getting damaged tanks repaired and replacements back into fight. In a nutshell our tanks stunk and because the crews were so shot up we ended up grabbing infantry with as little as 3 hours training putting them into battle. Small wonder hit percentages were what they were. Only our ability to repair and lack of fuel for Germans made ther difference in armor

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Burma Doc:

Just finished a good book called Death Traps, unfortunatly have taken it back and do not know author now.

Belton Cooper is the author's name. He is one of the more common interviewees used in History Channel documentaries, particularly those on D-Day. If I'm not mistaken, he recently passed away.