German tank vulnerability

[SleeStak]

24/7 is not true from the allies perspective. I am sure they were on the lookout 24/7 but fortunately the Germans did not have enough armour for each allied tanker to be spotting a tank once a day.

It was uncommon. I might try and find a couple of diary like first hand accounts that I know of and count how many tanks each of them saw to put it in better perspective.

Thats true, the Americans especially didn't face alot of German armor until the Bulge. The British had to deal with those pesky SS Panzer units but the Americans had it comparibly easy on the armor front.

[MengJiao]

In my reference somewhere I have an Army report on how to kill Panthers based on their Normandy experience. They did say specifically to aim for the lower bow plate or try to bounce a round off the lower gun mantlet. They also said that this would take a lot of luck to accomplish. The impression was that they were telling the guys "If you've got to try something you might as well try this." They sounded much more confident in their advice to maneuver for a side shot. No luck involved in that.

It was also possible to shoot a 3 inch AT gun shell through the bow MG cover.

This happened at the start of the Mortrain counterattack. It sounded to me like this was a known option, but I might have been reading too much into the text.

[jjhouston]

I think I differ from most of the rest of the posters in that, I think the opportunity to aim was more frequent. I can't defend my position with evidence and I haven't really seen any evidence that changes my position. The closest thing I've seen is the poster that posted the training manual but, that really isn't conclusive. I don't think either side can be proven.

Even if a gunner knew the exact range to a target and was able to precisely determine the required super-elevation for the gun, and even if he was able to conclusively identify the target as a vehicle with which he was familiar of all its 'weak spots', and even if he had all the time he needed lay the gun perfectly, the round might not hit exactly where it was aimed.

This is a fact. It is a fact that no two projectiles are identical. No two cartridges are identical. A gun barrel is never in an identical condition for two projectiles. Thus all projectiles have different flight paths. Ballistics is a science; a practical species of physics. Ballistics experts describe the spread of the shot groups for tank rounds by referring to 'dispersion'. Rocket scientists refer to 'circular probability of error' when describing the expected accuracy of ICBMs. Gun nuts/marksmen talk about 'minutes of angle'. Tank round dispersion can be tested for and measured. See U.S. Army Armor and Engineer Board Material Test Procedure 3-3-512 (1970)

Additionally, as a practical matter, boresight may be lost or degraded through the course of engagements or just movement.

When a tank gunner aimed, despite what he may have thought he was doing, he was placing a cone of probability over his target into which a fired round was more or less likely to strike. Given the diameter of the cone, which increases proportionally with range, he's likely to hit his target if the visible target falls completely within the cone. If the target form is smaller than the cone, there is a likelihood that even a perfectly aimed round will miss. Aiming for center mass increases the amount of target within the cone and increases the likelihood of a round striking target.

If you want proof, do an experiment. Get a rifle and ammunition and go to a rifle range. Take a bunch of Panzer IV plastic models with you and use them for targets. Rather than aiming for center mass, aim for the weak spots. Try different firing combinations -- different rifles, different lots of ammo, different sight configurations, fire from a bench, fire unsupported. Even with your best weapon-ammo-sight configuration-position combination, you'll still be firing shot groups.

[LongLeftFlank]

While it's important not to overestimate the accuracy of WWII tank gunnery, don't underestimate it either. There are plenty of anecdotes of ranged weapons being used for precision shooting, from the 88mm sniper shots to that Tunisia incident where the Stuart 37mms brewed up multiple moving MkIIIs (?) by hitting them in a specific spot between the bogies (it's in that compendium BFC published around the time of CMAK). Unusual yes, rare maybe not.

[Peregrine]

Additionally to do with misidentification I can remember a reference to Fireflies taking friendly fire at different times. Why? Long barrel, muzzle brake, must be a German tank lets kill it.

I can't remember the exact context and it may well have been infantry that was guilty of this misidentification rather than tankers which therefore doesn't support the identify/aiming point argument at all.

[SleeStak]

Even if a gunner knew the exact range to a target and was able to precisely determine the required super-elevation for the gun, and even if he was able to conclusively identify the target as a vehicle with which he was familiar of all its 'weak spots', and even if he had all the time he needed lay the gun perfectly, the round might not hit exactly where it was aimed.

This is a fact. It is a fact that no two projectiles are identical. No two cartridges are identical. A gun barrel is never in an identical condition for two projectiles. Thus all projectiles have different flight paths. Ballistics is a science; a practical species of physics. Ballistics experts describe the spread of the shot group for tank rounds by referring to 'dispersion'. Rocket scientists refer to 'circular probability of error' when describing the expected accuracy of ICBMs. Gun nuts/marksmen talk about 'minutes of angle'. Tank round dispersion can be tested for and measured. See U.S. Army Armor and Engineer Board Material Test Procedure 3-3-512 (1970)

Additionally, as a practical matter, boresight may be lost or degraded through the course of engagements or just movement.

When a tank gunner aimed, despite what he may have thought what he was doing, he was placing a cone of probability over his target into which a fired round was more or less likely to strike. Given the diameter of the cone, which increases proportionally with range, he's likely to hit his target if the visible target falls completely within the cone. If the target form is smaller than the cone, there is a likelihood that even a perfectly aimed round will miss. Aiming for center mass increases the amount of target within the cone and increases the likelihood of a round striking target.

If you want proof, do an experiment. Get a rifle and ammunition and go to a rifle range. Take a bunch of Panzer IV plastic models with you and use them for targets. Rather than aiming for center mass, aim for the weak spots. Try different firing combinations -- different rifles, different lots of ammo, different sight configurations, fire from a bench, fire unsupported. Even with your best weapon-ammo-sight configuration-position combination, you'll still be firing shot groups.

I agree with everything you've said, yet if I go to the range with a rifle or a pistol or even a BB gun, I can hit my targets if I shoot within my less than average ability. I have a friend that can shoot a smiley face on a target with a pistol at 25 yards (aka one of the Lethal Weapon movies). Heck, my sister in law can put out a hand sized group with a handgun at 25 yards (She doesn't shoot fast but she's a better shot than I by a mile). Sure, their is variance in the ordinance, boresights that get out of whack, wind, any number of factors that impact the accuracy of a tank cannon. Still, tankers aimed and hit their targets.

I don't think that you've stated anything that would keep them from aiming at a part of the tank in the correct circumstances though. A couple of posters have posted that the Americans identified the Panther shot trap as a legit target and I think someone identified the MG port too. I can recognize that a question of how often the tanks found themselves in a position to aim is a debatable point and I may very well be wrong. But I don't really buy the arguments that A - combat is so stressful a gunner couldn't aim in those circumstances or B - Aiming is so hard a gunner wouldn't attempt to do it at any time. I think everyone will aggree that the gunners at least aimed at the tanks and aiming at a part of a tank is really just doing the same thing at a smaller target. And sometimes, not even that. Hitting a Sherman turret at 500m isn't any more difficult than hitting a Sherman at 1500m. Not that the Germans or Americans were doing alot of fighting at 1500m in Normandy but certainly tank crews were engaging at that range in the east, even farther.

I haven't said the factors you listed don't impact accuracy or that either sides tankers were the Davy Crockets of the ETO. I'm just saying that, given the chance, I believe the tankers would try to hit the tanks in the spots that would most likely kill the tanks.

[MikeyD]

U.S. tanker casualties were so high and training of replacements so spotty that its likely that after some months a fighting unit would wind up with a hard central core of veteran tankers who knew hat they were doing surrounded by a lot of "Gomer Pyles" fresh from the states. It was said that Tank Destroyer crews were especially well trained and highly motivated. The question then is 'compared to who?' Regular tankers who weren't highly trained or highly motivated?

[Andrew H.]

I don't think that there was very much aiming going on in normal tank encounters: it was just too hard to hit the target in the first place, much less to estimate the range exactly enough to hit a particular part of the tank. Look at the Tigerfibel - it devotes 10 pages to estimating the range, calculating the size of the target, adjusting for the barrel being to the side of the optics, describing where to shoot HE, describing how to bracket a target...but there's no discussion on how to aim for the turret vs. the hull. There's even a discussion about how it's better to overestimate the range than to underestimate it (and about how the gunner can't estimate the range himself).

Now maybe in a prepared position where you have aiming stakes and boresighted weapons you might be able to hit a particular part of the tank right as it crosses the aiming stake...but I don't that this was that common at all.

[Vark]

Ken Tout, gunner during Operation Totalise. Extract from Tank: 40 Hours in the Bocage

"Trees and Branches. Twigs and leaves" (he is scanning for a target in a woods) "A box shape. A box....BOX! Jab gun elevator, twist grip, crosswires ON! STAMP! (Keith: 'Hornet! Hornet! Front!)

Much more likely than picking shots carefully, these guys lives were on the line they acted as such.

[SleeStak]

I don't think that there was very much aiming going on in normal tank encounters: it was just too hard to hit the target in the first place, much less to estimate the range exactly enough to hit a particular part of the tank. Look at the Tigerfibel - it devotes 10 pages to estimating the range, calculating the size of the target, adjusting for the barrel being to the side of the optics, describing where to shoot HE, describing how to bracket a target...but there's no discussion on how to aim for the turret vs. the hull. There's even a discussion about how it's better to overestimate the range than to underestimate it (and about how the gunner can't estimate the range himself).

Now maybe in a prepared position where you have aiming stakes and boresighted weapons you might be able to hit a particular part of the tank right as it crosses the aiming stake...but I don't that this was that common at all.

You should check out two parts of the Tigerfibel. Page 17 has a beautiful picture of my new favorite Fraulein. Also, apparently the pocket of the Tigerfibel had: (I'm pasting this because I'm lazy) "a small 10-3/4 x 11-1/2 inch two-sided sheet identifying enemy tanks and armored cars dated 1 February 1943; a larger 11-1/2 x 23 inch two-sided sheet identifying enemy tanks; a 11-1/2 x 12-1/2 inch two-sided sheet explaining the effectiveness of the Tiger’s 88 mm gun by showing the vulnerable spots in the front side and back armor of ten enemy tanks including the Russian T34 and the American M4 Sherman tank." Link that I found the text, check out the diagrams almost half way down the page

Your post piqued my interest in the Tigerfibel (I've never seen it) and a look showed information that seems to support my claim. Not conclusively of course, but I don't know why they would distribute this information if it wasn't used or was unable to be used.

Vark, I'm sure alot of tank encounters were seat of the pants affairs where speed was the factor. I just don't think that represents all of them.

[stikkypixie]

I agree with everything you've said, yet if I go to the range with a rifle or a pistol or even a BB gun, I can hit my targets if I shoot within my less than average ability. I have a friend that can shoot a smiley face on a target with a pistol at 25 yards (aka one of the Lethal Weapon movies). Heck, my sister in law can put out a hand sized group with a handgun at 25 yards (She doesn't shoot fast but she's a better shot than I by a mile). Sure, their is variance in the ordinance, boresights that get out of whack, wind, any number of factors that impact the accuracy of a tank cannon. Still, tankers aimed and hit their targets.

I don't think that you've stated anything that would keep them from aiming at a part of the tank in the correct circumstances though. A couple of posters have posted that the Americans identified the Panther shot trap as a legit target and I think someone identified the MG port too. I can recognize that a question of how often the tanks found themselves in a position to aim is a debatable point and I may very well be wrong. But I don't really buy the arguments that A - combat is so stressful a gunner couldn't aim in those circumstances or B - Aiming is so hard a gunner wouldn't attempt to do it at any time. I think everyone will aggree that the gunners at least aimed at the tanks and aiming at a part of a tank is really just doing the same thing at a smaller target. And sometimes, not even that. Hitting a Sherman turret at 500m isn't any more difficult than hitting a Sherman at 1500m. Not that the Germans or Americans were doing alot of fighting at 1500m in Normandy but certainly tank crews were engaging at that range in the east, even farther.

I haven't said the factors you listed don't impact accuracy or that either sides tankers were the Davy Crockets of the ETO. I'm just saying that, given the chance, I believe the tankers would try to hit the tanks in the spots that would most likely kill the tanks.

To be honest, I don't understand how you take the anecdotes about trying to get a kill via a shot trap on panther over and official training manual of the US Army.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Not conclusively of course, but I don't know why they would distribute this information if it wasn't used or was unable to be used.

Never been in the military?

[SleeStak]

Never been in the military?

You've got a point Bil, I haven't been in or worked for the military but I have both been an employee of and a contractor for the US government and, upon reflection, I can see them distributing unnecessary, useless, pointless information. I stand corrected on this point.

[Battlefront.com]

The notion that a tanker could, and more importantly DID, routinely discriminate his aim point to focus exclusively on a known weak point requires a number of things to be true under normal combat conditions. When we, as designers, look to answer such questions we always look at the "best case" as the test. So let's assume we're talking about a very good quality crew with a good amount of combat experience operating in a fairly favorable combat setting.

When aiming a gunner has two possible choices:

1. Aim for center mass

2. Aim for optimal weak point

Anybody who thinks a well trained, combat veteran would choose the option with the least likely chance of success needs to please exit this discussion right now. One of the primary reasons combat veterans become veterans, and not casualties, is because they go with what works REGARDLESS of what their training manuals state. So... what we really need to do is look at the practical pros/cons for each method and it should be pretty clear which one worked better overall. And that would be the option the gunner would opt for.

There is no question about it... aiming center mass is a VASTLY superior method because it:

1. Repeated experiences tend to produce better overall outcomes. Hence why training emphasizes repetition ("drills"). Since aiming for center mass can be done with any target at any time in any condition, it is a more flexible and efficient skill to optimize behaviors around.

2. Requires no specific knowledge of the exact type of tank being engaged, nor accounting for specific variables such as hull angle. Since practical conditions would prevent even reasonably accurate identification of these variables most of the time, optimizing a skill set that for success requires this generally unavailable information is not a good idea.

3. Even at close range against a stationary target in the open, the chances of hitting exactly what is aimed for (I mean EXACTLY) is quite small. With center mass aiming the chances are a well aimed shot will at least hit the target somewhere.

4. Since ammo and firing opportunities are limited, and the chances of a near hit causing a desirable effect, clearly aiming center mass is more likely to produce a better end result than aiming for a specific part and missing completely.

These are powerful reasons to aim center mass. What are the powerful reasons to counter this? There is only one:

If you construct a near optimal situation for the firing tank, and I mean down to every last variable, it could be argued that aiming for a known weak point would be better than firing at a generally invulnerable center mass. Included in this optimal arrangement is the general assurance that the target is isolated, there is a chance for at least one follow up shot before return fire, and that someone else's life isn't hanging on the balance of that first shot.

Does anybody seriously think this sort of thing comes up in a CM battle very often?

There's no question about it... center mass was the standard method for engaging targets because it was overwhelmingly more likely to result in a positive outcome in any situation you care to name. And I do mean ANY. Even the fantasy perfect conditions situation I just outlined.

This is really just a discussion for the sake of having a discussion. The evidence is so overwhelmingly in support of center mass aiming that we are not going to make any changes to the game code.

Steve

[SleeStak]

To be honest, I don't understand how you take the anecdotes about trying to get a kill via a shot trap on panther over and official training manual of the US Army.

I believe Normal Dude and Steve both rightly cautioned against giving official manuals too much creditibility out of hand. With that said, I don't think the Shot trap advice trumps the training manual. There seems to be official, printed material that supports both a center mass only shooting technique and vulnerable point conscious technique. I've read alot of arguments that seem to suggest aiming at a point of the tank wouldn't be done because it was hard, but I'm sure hitting a Sherman turret at 500m would be just as hard as hitting a Sherman at 1500m and I'm sure the Germans shot at Shermans at 1500m in Russia.

The only real opinion that counts as far as CMBN is concerned is Battlefronts and, based on what I've read of their posts, I think they've already decided and not in my favor. I don't know how you prove something like this. Maybe a seance with Patton and Guderian.

[Vark]

SleeStak, I agree but I think the majority were, and thats the rub. How can you simulate a rare event and not make the game lopsided? Give a gamer the capability to simulate an occurence that was rare, and they will try to use it at every opportunity! How would you decide when a crew would target a particular part of the tank? If crew ability is the determining factor then the uber crew phenomenon arises, which is less realistic than not allowing them to target in the first place My only solution would be to reinstate the CMBO ambush markers and allow a greater chance to hit and penetrate, but it could be abused, correction would be abused!

[Battlefront.com]

You've got a point Bil, I haven't been in or worked for the military but I have both been an employee of and a contractor for the US government and, upon reflection, I can see them distributing unnecessary, useless, pointless information. I stand corrected on this point.

There's actually three VERY good reasons for disseminating this sort of information:

1. An informed crew can make it's own informed decisions. It doesn't mean it's practical, or desirable, for them to actually use this info... but if they don't have it then for sure they won't be able to use it. So I think it is prudent to get that information out even if it winds up having little practical value.

2. The information would give tankers a general sense of how difficult a particular target is likely to be. This could influence things such as how many rounds they fire at a particular target, if they use HE or AP (or perhaps MGs only!), if they should run away, what is the optimal engagement range, etc. It's good info to have for reasons other than aim points.

3. Any manager of any staff out there can tell you that the more technical the job asked of the worker, the more informed they need to be. Even if the information they get is false or wishful thinking, it's better than giving them no information at all. You do have to be careful of giving them false information that they can quickly prove false, because that undermines confidence and that's never a good thing. In short, sending a tank crew out into the field with some sense what to expect is prudent. Sending them out into the field with nothing at all is stupid.

Steve

[JonS]

The Shermans might be hard to identify their specific model but, you wouldn't really have to. You'd give yourself the best chance of killing one by shooting it in the turret no matter what model you came across (with a 75L48 gun that is).

This is where you're coming unstuck, I think. You're trying to maximise your chances of a kill by assuming a hit. In many (most?) cases a hit to the turret of a Sherman (or an M10, which looks more-or-less alike) would be overkill, and you're going to get fewer hits overall because you're aiming at a much smaller target.

In my view, the way to maximise chances of a kill on a Sherman tank are simply to get a hit, and the way to maximise that is to aim at centre of mass. Then you don't need to consider different models, you don't need to be as concerned about range estimation (though range estimation is still the overwhelming cause of inaccuracy), you don't need to worry about orientation of the target. The only thing you do need to worry about is that occasionally you'll come across a model of Sherman that's at the right range and orientation to defeat your round.

To whoever was talking about trick shots with a Stuart; you've overlooked the most powerful weapon carried in every Stuart - the radio.

[GhostRider3/3]

Thank you Steve... great points. For those of you who have not expereinced Tank Combat and would like to simulate it... T34/vs Tiger is decent... and when you are in your Panther or Tiger and have 5-10 tanks shooting at you... try and take the time at over 1200m zooming in on their 'Weak" point thru the dust and smoke and go for it... I think its safe to say if I had the target in my cross hairs Im Sending it down range plain and simple...and hopefully I see flames or people jumping out. My buddy in the Corps was a tanker, and although he was not engaging actual Armor 90% of the time, he knew that what ever he shot.... would pretty much be vaporized... M1a2....although I like the Leopard 2 myself.

[SleeStak]

There's actually two VERY good reasons for disseminating this sort of information:

1. An informed crew can make it's own informed decisions. It doesn't mean it's practical, or desirable, for them to actually use this info... but if they don't have it then for sure they won't be able to use it. So I think it is prudent to get that information out even if it winds up having little practical value.

2. The information would give tankers a general sense of how difficult a particular target is likely to be. This could influence things such as how many rounds they fire at a particular target, if they use HE or AP (or perhaps MGs only!), if they should run away, what is the optimal engagement range, etc. It's good info to have for reasons other than aim points.

3. Any manager of any staff out there can tell you that the more technical the job asked of the worker, the more informed they need to be. Even if the information they get is false or wishful thinking, it's better than giving them no information at all. You do have to be careful of giving them false information that they can quickly prove false, because that undermines confidence and that's never a good thing. In short, sending a tank crew out into the field with some sense what to expect is prudent. Sending them out into the field with nothing at all is stupid.

Steve

With all due respect Steve, I just got finished reading the post you made previous to this post and, based on my reading, it seems you want me to leave the discussion. Of course, if this were a movie, I would bravely stand up and state 'My voice will be heard!' but its not, its your forum and I'm I guest here and I will now leave this discussion. For the record, I enjoyed it and learned plenty in the process.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I think of a situation where it would be probable that a gunner would aim at a specific point, and that would be when he sees his previous shell hit the target, but not killing it.

Confident of his aiming point (though probably very nervous), he might then adjust a bit to go for the turret or other weak point.

[Battlefront.com]

I believe Normal Dude and Steve both rightly cautioned against giving official manuals too much creditibility out of hand.

Exactly. As I said earlier, one should NEVER take a field manual's contents at face value. NEVER. But that doesn't mean it should be dismissed without having a good reason to do so. Firing center mass is a quantifiably superior method of aiming, in nearly all situations, compared to aiming for a specific point. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that crews understood this through direct experience and stuck to it rather than what the manual said to do. The US manual, obviously, does in fact say to aim center mass.

With that said, I don't think the Shot trap advice trumps the training manual. There seems to be official, printed material that supports both a center mass only shooting technique and vulnerable point conscious technique.

Remember that the Panther's shot trap was pretty close to center mass, therefore it was likely aimed for even if the gunner wasn't aware there was a shot trap there in the first place.

I've read alot of arguments that seem to suggest aiming at a point of the tank wouldn't be done because it was hard, but I'm sure hitting a Sherman turret at 500m would be just as hard as hitting a Sherman at 1500m and I'm sure the Germans shot at Shermans at 1500m in Russia.

The difference is that at 500m if you overshot a center mass shot you'd likely hit the turret. If you overshot a turret aimed shot it would sail off into the wild blue yonder. If you under shot with a turret aimed shot you'd hit center mass, if you under shot with a center aimed shot you'd hit the even weaker lower hull armor.

From a pure probability standpoint, a gunner is better off aiming center mass at any range.

SleeStak, I agree but I think the majority were, and thats the rub. How can you simulate a rare event and not make the game lopsided? Give a gamer the capability to simulate an occurence that was rare, and they will try to use it at every opportunity!

Correct. In this case we would have to identify what factors would allow for a specific aimed shot. Oh, like:

1. Within 500m range

2. Target not moving

3. No shots being exchanged

4. Crew experience at x level, other factors "in the green" such as Morale

5. Good lighting

6. Very little blocking terrain

Stuff like that. It could be done, but there doesn't seem to be much practical need for it so we're not going to implement it. DEFINITELY implementing it "across the board" would be an unsupportable suggestion from a historical standpoint.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

With all due respect Steve, I just got finished reading the post you made previous to this post and, based on my reading, it seems you want me to leave the discussion.

No, not at all. That wasn't my intention at all.

What I'm trying to do is get us to stop going around in circles. It's something that tends to happen when one side sticks to some facts as if they aren't debatable or are so overwhelmingly applicable that other points raised aren't as important.

There are two issues that are continually being raised here by people thinking that a specific aim point is what tankers would go for and that is:

1. It's in the manual

2. It's will lead to better results

These aren't unreasonable points to start a discussion, but they can be debated. So the important thing is to keep focused on the debate and not revert to a position of "but the field manual says this and that".

For the record, I enjoyed it and learned plenty in the process.

It is a good discussion for sure.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

In my view, the way to maximise chances of a kill on a Sherman tank are simply to get a hit, and the way to maximise that is to aim at centre of mass. Then you don't need to consider different models, you don't need to be as concerned about range estimation (though range estimation is still the overwhelming cause of inaccuracy), you don't need to worry about orientation of the target. The only thing you do need to worry about is that occasionally you'll come across a model of Sherman that's at the right range and orientation to defeat your round.

I wanted to requote this because it is a good summary of the heart of the reason why center mass is a superior method of aiming.

Simply put... any hit is better than a miss. Center mass is a faster, more reliable method for obtaining a hit. Therefore, center mass offers a better chance of obtaining a desirable outcome.

Steve

[akd]

If and when AT rifles make an appearance (East Front), the "always aim for center of mass" logic will have to change, lest they be totally worthless, rather than just mostly worthless. The weapon system in use is definitely a factor.