German tank vulnerability

[LongLeftFlank]

Yes, the poor gentleman's name was Amidou Diallou, a hardworking (legal) Ethiopian immigrant. RIP. Malcolm Gladwell (New Yorker) wrote a very interesting piece on that incident and how the human brain literally becomes more primitive under stress. It also found its way into one of his books ("Blink"?)

[Bastables]

Along those lines, there was an incident in New York a decade or so back where three plainclothesmen stopped a guy to question him, and when he reached for his ID they thought he was going for a gun. They fired something like 33 rounds (at least that's the number I recall) and only hit him 11 times. Range wasn't specified in the report I heard, but I am assuming it was more or less conversational distance, say about three meters. Among other considerations, it sounded to me as if they needed to spend more time on the range.

Michael

Maybe they did need more time on the range, but the thing was two of the police men had been in shootings before meaning they had already seen the elephant and were in a select few of NYPD personal that had been in multiple shootouts. The stresses of live firing still turned their accuracy to mediocre, they also only hit him 11 times while they were all in a corridor, so it's not like the poor chap was dodging them.

[SleeStak]

Wasn't it standard practice to aim for the center of mass? Did WW2 crews have the information we have now and *know* the weakness of a Sherman?

The crews certainly knew the ranges at which their guns would be effective. Each side captured examples of their opponents tanks (I'm sure the Germans had captured Shermans in North Africa and on the Eastern front) and tested their guns against them. I'm also sure that the tanks would have tried to target vulnerable areas when ever possible. Why else would the armies have circulated this information?

[Battlefront.com]

However you are obviously fully aware of the problem and I am sure that you will fix it in the future.

It's not likely to happen any time soon, if ever. The reason why is that center mass is still the right place to aim. The deviation of a shell's flight path from even a perfectly aimed, point blank shot is still enough that if you aim for the turret you can fling one over the tank entirely. Or if you aim for lower belly have the round buried into the ground. The reasons for this? Many, but two common ones are:

1. Barrel wear

2. Boresight out of whack

In other words, even the best crew in the world, in ideal non-battleifled shooting gallery setup, at close range could miss a turret if the weapon they use was slightly out of adjustment. Tanks in the field were pretty roughly handled, even when great care was taken by their crews. After a few shots, in fact, all bets were off. Especially for some guns, where a couple of quick shots apparently were enough to heat the barrel to the point where accuracy was noticeably affected.

Anyway... my point is that crews were trained to shoot for center mass because it has the greatest chance of doing something. A hit on the glacis can still cause a crew casualty (as it did to one The_Capt's M4A3s), it can still cause damage, and it could very well penetrate. At the very least it will likely cause the targeted tank to be rattled and probably do evasive maneuvering (which we actually increased the chance of because of this AAR battle). A shot sailing 1500m to the rear of a target or one on its way to China does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

As others have pointed out, center mass is what law enforcement and militaries are trained to shoot for. Everybody knows a center mass hit on a Human might not put him down, while a headshot definitely will. But the chances of making an effective headshot are far lower than the chances of an effective torso hit. And if your target is down on the ground, with a non life threatening gut wound, you're definitely better off than a live target with a little "zing" sound ringing in his ear.

And thank you for these AARs. I can't wait to play the game !!!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The crews certainly knew the ranges at which their guns would be effective. Each side captured examples of their opponents tanks (I'm sure the Germans had captured Shermans in North Africa and on the Eastern front) and tested their guns against them. I'm also sure that the tanks would have tried to target vulnerable areas when ever possible. Why else would the armies have circulated this information?

I think the key thing you said here is "when ever possible". I've read 1st hand accounts of Allied tanks coming upon a Panther and doing something they called, "knocking to see if anybody is home". In these situations they saw themselves in no immediate threat, but weren't sure what the Panther was going to do (if anything, as it could have been knocked out or abandoned). In this situation the tanker crew had the time to do things like aim for the shot trap under the turret, or aim between the bottom of the hull side armor and the top of the road wheels. If the Panther suddenly came to life they could snap the round off at whatever point in the aiming process they were at and probably do better than if they had snapped one off at first contact. If the Panther just sat there then they could probably afford a second or third shot if the first one missed or didn't seem to do anything.

What I don't see as being very practical is having only seconds to get off a round, knowing that the other tank is trying to do the same, and yet somehow have the time and concentration necessary to not only decide to go for a specific spot on the tank but to actually do it. Both things have to happen for there even to be a chance of hitting a specific spot.

"Hey Hans, is that a M4A3 or a M4? If it is a M4 we can take the safe shot for center mass because it's a near sure kill. But if it's a M4A3, and it's at 30 deg to us, then maybe we should aim for the turret, don't you.... BAM.... everybody bail out, we've been hit!!"

Seriously guys... if you think even a highly experienced crew is going to think about this sort of stuff in a point blank shootout, please think again. And much harder the second time than the first time

Also keep in mind that through the optics and visual ports of a buttoned tank, all Shermans are likely to look pretty much alike at any normal range in any normal circumstances. Since center mass is plenty fine to kill most Shermans most of the time, why would a tanker take a risk on a MUCH less likely shot on the off chance it's the one type at the one angle at the optimum range for a shot to bounce off?

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

...I'm sure the Germans had captured Shermans in North Africa...

I suspect that the first time the Germans would have gotten a look at a Sherman in NA would have been in Tunisia. Montgomery had them at el Alamein and after, but he was advancing while the Axis was retreating. The 8th. Army doubtlessly picked up a boatload of abandoned German tanks, but it's questionable whether the Axis forces were able to do the same with Allied equipment at this point. Once in Tunisia, they would have had ample opportunity to examine many new pieces of Allied equipment, especially after the Sbeitla debacle.

Michael

[stikkypixie]

The crews certainly knew the ranges at which their guns would be effective. Each side captured examples of their opponents tanks (I'm sure the Germans had captured Shermans in North Africa and on the Eastern front) and tested their guns against them. I'm also sure that the tanks would have tried to target vulnerable areas when ever possible. Why else would the armies have circulated this information?

The knowledge they had was probably not as detailed as that. More in the sense of don't shoot at the front, but try a flank shot.

Most tank crews had trouble telling Tigers apart from a Pz IV, let alone identifying the exact model of tank. Also there is always the possibility that the enemy field a new version of a tank, that wasn't studied yet that the crews have to reckon with. The Shermans captured in North Africa are completely different from those that saw action in Normandy for example.

The other thing that you have to keep in mind that using that kind of information is not easy. You would have to:

a) Correctly identify the vehicle

Correctly remember the thickness of its various plates

c) Correctly estimate the angle that the enemy tank is facing you

d) Correctly estimate if your round will penetrate at that angle or not

e) Correctly adjust for windage, estimate range so that you hit what you want to hit, which hard enough without

... having a Sherman taking aim at you from 300m.

Most tank crew will just aim at the centre of mass and hope that the hit the damn thing. Don't underestimate the effect of big chunk of metal hitting a tank on the people inside. You scare them, add stress, and if not kill it damage weapons, control, etc...

[SleeStak]

I think the key thing you said here is "when ever possible". I've read 1st hand accounts of Allied tanks coming upon a Panther and doing something they called, "knocking to see if anybody is home". In these situations they saw themselves in no immediate threat, but weren't sure what the Panther was going to do (if anything, as it could have been knocked out or abandoned). In this situation the tanker crew had the time to do things like aim for the shot trap under the turret, or aim between the bottom of the hull side armor and the top of the road wheels. If the Panther suddenly came to life they could snap the round off at whatever point in the aiming process they were at and probably do better than if they had snapped one off at first contact. If the Panther just sat there then they could probably afford a second or third shot if the first one missed or didn't seem to do anything.

What I don't see as being very practical is having only seconds to get off a round, knowing that the other tank is trying to do the same, and yet somehow have the time and concentration necessary to not only decide to go for a specific spot on the tank but to actually do it. Both things have to happen for there even to be a chance of hitting a specific spot.

"Hey Hans, is that a M4A3 or a M4? If it is a M4 we can take the safe shot for center mass because it's a near sure kill. But if it's a M4A3, and it's at 30 deg to us, then maybe we should aim for the turret, don't you.... BAM.... everybody bail out, we've been hit!!"

Seriously guys... if you think even a highly experienced crew is going to think about this sort of stuff in a point blank shootout, please think again. And much harder the second time than the first time

Also keep in mind that through the optics and visual ports of a buttoned tank, all Shermans are likely to look pretty much alike at any normal range in any normal circumstances. Since center mass is plenty fine to kill most Shermans most of the time, why would a tanker take a risk on a MUCH less likely shot on the off chance it's the one type at the one angle at the optimum range for a shot to bounce off?

Steve

There are more tank vs tank encounters than being on the receiving end of an ambush. I'm sure that when the tankers were in a shooting gallery as the ducks, they didn't try to snipe the other tanks. I'm also sure that when they were close or were stationary with a pretty good idea where their targets were coming from, they would take aim and try to hit points on the opponents tanks that were vulnerable.

What's more, given the choice of what to shoot, I'm sure most gunners would try to kill or disable the other tank's gunner. I don't think this is the kind of thing that they would have had to consider or the kind of specialized knowledge that requires years and years of study, I suspect anyone that played any of the CM titles more than a handful of times knew the armor matchups well enough to know where the tanks were vulnerable.

The problem with always aiming center mass is that I think you are going to see results that are a little skewed. Say, for instance an M3 Stuart comes across a PzIV at a couple hundred yards. The Stuart gunner is going to probably know that a glacis hit on that PzIV isn't going to hurt that tank but that a turret hit has a reasonable chance of killing it, or at least the gunner. He's not going to need to consult tables to figure this out, he won't have to contemplate it, he probably thinks about what he'd do if he ran into that tank constantly (he's in the war 24/7 and its his life on the line) and I'm sure he'd aim his shot.

In short, I'm sure the gunners aimed their shots for the vulnerable parts of their opponents tanks when they could. Not everytime and certainly not always successfully, but when they could. The process of knowing where to aim isn't necessarily hard and, by Normandy, both sides had the skinny on each others tanks for the most part. There were times when tanks were mis-identified and distinguishing versions might have been difficult but I think we underestimate the tankers that fought when we think they didn't know this stuff. Also, we have lots of examples when this knowledge was circulated by the armies and I'm sure they didn't do it as trivia.

Seriously guys... if you think even a highly experienced crew is going to think about this sort of stuff in a point blank shootout, please think again. And much harder the second time than the first time

To think that combat was so stressful that it shut down the capacity for the soldiers to calculate, I think is exactly the opposite of what I've taken from the historical record. Almost everything that I've read regarding a soldiers response to the stress of combat has said something along the lines of 'I wasn't scared till it was over, I was too busy to be scared'. Never having been in combat, I'm not really in a position to judge, but the sentiment seems consistent.

[SleeStak]

I suspect that the first time the Germans would have gotten a look at a Sherman in NA would have been in Tunisia. Montgomery had them at el Alamein and after, but he was advancing while the Axis was retreating. The 8th. Army doubtlessly picked up a boatload of abandoned German tanks, but it's questionable whether the Axis forces were able to do the same with Allied equipment at this point. Once in Tunisia, they would have had ample opportunity to examine many new pieces of Allied equipment, especially after the Sbeitla debacle.

Michael

No doubt, I don't think the eigth was losing any M4's the Germans could have grabbed.

[MikeyD]

In short, I'm sure the gunners aimed their shots for the vulnerable parts of their opponents tanks when they could

I'm reminded of a story of a Greyhound on night watch beside a road, during the Bulge battles. To their surprise a Tiger emerged from the darkness and flew past them on the road without spotting them. The Greyhound crew gunned the engine, raced after the Tiger and managed to put a 37mm round through the rear engine plate from point blank range before the Tiger knew they were there. The question is did they aim for the center of mass?

[SleeStak]

The knowledge they had was probably not as detailed as that. More in the sense of don't shoot at the front, but try a flank shot.

Most tank crews had trouble telling Tigers apart from a Pz IV, let alone identifying the exact model of tank. Also there is always the possibility that the enemy field a new version of a tank, that wasn't studied yet that the crews have to reckon with. The Shermans captured in North Africa are completely different from those that saw action in Normandy for example.

The other thing that you have to keep in mind that using that kind of information is not easy. You would have to:

a) Correctly identify the vehicle

Correctly remember the thickness of its various plates

c) Correctly estimate the angle that the enemy tank is facing you

d) Correctly estimate if your round will penetrate at that angle or not

e) Correctly adjust for windage, estimate range so that you hit what you want to hit, which hard enough without

... having a Sherman taking aim at you from 300m.

Most tank crew will just aim at the centre of mass and hope that the hit the damn thing. Don't underestimate the effect of big chunk of metal hitting a tank on the people inside. You scare them, add stress, and if not kill it damage weapons, control, etc...

I don't know that it matters if they knew the mm thickness of the armor. They'd have cared about what tank components they could have penetrated at what distance. Also, I'm sure circumstances dictated their response. You're example of 300 m is perfect. At that range (as we've seen from the AAR) the hull isn't a great place to shoot a Sherman M4A3 but the turret is pretty good. A PzIV gunner could aim successfully at 300m and doing so may keep the tank from being killed. That is exactly the circumstances under which I'd expect an aimed shot.

There are no doubt circumstances when tankers aimed for center mass. You are also correct in listing the challenges of hitting specific targets. but these guys didn't get into a new tank every day. They rode in the same one for months at a time. They knew how their guns shot, they knew how conditions would effect their aim. I know any gun that I've shot often, I've developed a feel for and I'm sure these tankers had a feel for their guns.

I guess I just don't buy the 'they were to stressed out to aim at a vulnerable location on the tank' argument.

[SleeStak]

I'm reminded of a story of a Greyhound on night watch beside a road, during the Bulge battles. To their surprise a Tiger emerged from the darkness and flew past them on the road without spotting them. The Greyhound crew gunned the engine, raced after the Tiger and managed to put a 37mm round through the rear engine plate from point blank range before the Tiger knew they were there. The question is did they aim for the center of mass?

Give that guy an M10 and a medal, definitely an above and beyond sort of response.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I saw a Sherman tank commander on Greatest Tank Battles talking about trying to hit vulnerable spots on the Panther to disable it instead of knocking it out. He specifically mentioned the TC, don't know how realistic that would've been.

[SleeStak]

I saw a Sherman tank commander on Greatest Tank Battles talking about trying to hit vulnerable spots on the Panther to disable it instead of knocking it out. He specifically mentioned the TC, don't know how realistic that would've been.

I remember reading a comparison once of the Panther vs the Sherman. It was written as a narritive and it described how the Germans destroyed the Sherman: "shooting it at any distance they could hit it and watching it burn" and how the American destroyed the Panther: "sneaking up on it and trying to bounce a shell off of the mantlet". While it was a little like bumper sticker politics, I felt sorry for the Sherman crewmen.

[stikkypixie]

I don't know that it matters if they knew the mm thickness of the armor. They'd have cared about what tank components they could have penetrated at what distance. Also, I'm sure circumstances dictated their response. You're example of 300 m is perfect. At that range (as we've seen from the AAR) the hull isn't a great place to shoot a Sherman M4A3 but the turret is pretty good. A PzIV gunner could aim successfully at 300m and doing so may keep the tank from being killed. That is exactly the circumstances under which I'd expect an aimed shot.

There are no doubt circumstances when tankers aimed for center mass. You are also correct in listing the challenges of hitting specific targets. but these guys didn't get into a new tank every day. They rode in the same one for months at a time. They knew how their guns shot, they knew how conditions would effect their aim. I know any gun that I've shot often, I've developed a feel for and I'm sure these tankers had a feel for their guns.

I guess I just don't buy the 'they were to stressed out to aim at a vulnerable location on the tank' argument.

The only way to know where best to hit is to the the thickness of the armor. The hull is the best place to hit if the tank is facing straight on and the turret is the best to hit if the hull is making an angle. You cannot make this kind of judgement without having intimate knowledge of the tank armor or very vehicle specific rule of thumbs.

Again, most tank crews had a hard time telling a Tiger apart from a Pz IV, how are they supposed to make this kind of deliberated judgement.

[Txema]

Wasn't it standard practice to aim for the center of mass? Did WW2 crews have the information we have now and *know* the weakness of a Sherman?

It's not likely to happen any time soon, if ever. The reason why is that center mass is still the right place to aim. The deviation of a shell's flight path from even a perfectly aimed, point blank shot is still enough that if you aim for the turret you can fling one over the tank entirely. Or if you aim for lower belly have the round buried into the ground. The reasons for this? Many, but two common ones are:

1. Barrel wear

2. Boresight out of whack

In other words, even the best crew in the world, in ideal non-battleifled shooting gallery setup, at close range could miss a turret if the weapon they use was slightly out of adjustment. Tanks in the field were pretty roughly handled, even when great care was taken by their crews. After a few shots, in fact, all bets were off. Especially for some guns, where a couple of quick shots apparently were enough to heat the barrel to the point where accuracy was noticeably affected.

Anyway... my point is that crews were trained to shoot for center mass because it has the greatest chance of doing something. A hit on the glacis can still cause a crew casualty (as it did to one The_Capt's M4A3s), it can still cause damage, and it could very well penetrate. At the very least it will likely cause the targeted tank to be rattled and probably do evasive maneuvering (which we actually increased the chance of because of this AAR battle). A shot sailing 1500m to the rear of a target or one on its way to China does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

As others have pointed out, center mass is what law enforcement and militaries are trained to shoot for. Everybody knows a center mass hit on a Human might not put him down, while a headshot definitely will. But the chances of making an effective headshot are far lower than the chances of an effective torso hit. And if your target is down on the ground, with a non life threatening gut wound, you're definitely better off than a live target with a little "zing" sound ringing in his ear.

Steve

The german tank crews were trained to know perfectly the weak areas of their enemy tanks. I have not been able to find pictures of the training materials that they used on internet (and I have looked for them intensively !), but in the english translation that I own of the Tigerfibel manual a detailed "Armor penetration chart" for the Tiger's 8.8 cm "KwK" 36 gun is included, featuring the main enemy tanks that the Tiger could find in the battlefield and including drawings of each enemy tank indicating the different areas that could be penetrated by the Tiger, and the maximun shooting distance to achieve penetration at that area.

A photograph of these supplements found in the back of the Tigerfibel can be seen in the middle of this web page, although it is too small to see the drawings properly:

http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml

Similar information is included in the Pantherfibel manual. You can download it here:

http://megaupload.com/?d=DYMSU0C6

Please, check pages 105 to 120.

I am sure that if all this information was included in the manuals the tank crews knew it and used it, aiming, when the situation allowed it, for the most faborable areas of the enemy tanks. It is clear that this stuff was in the training of the german tank crews.

Txema

[MikeyD]

The german tank crews were trained to know perfectly the weak areas of their enemy tanks.

I'm reminded of someone who posted here awhile ago. His aged father was and ex panzer driver. When the son asked him about the use of those convoy driving lights mounted on the vehicles' rears the father answered "We had convoy driving lights?"

[Peregrine]

I am pretty sure that it was "By Tank into Normandy" that the author stated that at the start of training they were happy getting hits but by the end they were able to aim and hit very specific parts of the targets (I don't think there was a reference to exactly what their tank targets actually were). So alot of crews would have had the skill to aim and hit "weak spots" on the training ground. How this was put into practice on the battlefield and knowledge of weak spots is completely different.

That said from the author's point of view although not entirely happy about Panthers/Tigers it seemed to be 88s and schreks that were the biggest threats.

I think he specifically detailed each tank encounter he had and there were simply not that many.

[JonS]

I am pretty sure that it was "By Tank into Normandy" that the author stated that at the start of training they were happy getting hits but by the end they were able to aim and hit very specific parts of the targets (I don't think there was a reference to exactly what their tank targets actually were).

I've read BTiN, but I don't recall that specific bit. However, I have no difficulty believing it to be true.

So alot of crews would have had the skill to aim and hit "weak spots" on the training ground.

This deduction, however, is highly erroneous because it lacks a lot of crucial context.

Stuart Hills was in one of the DD Tank regiments. They had a very specific role and a very specific task during the assault. They were to float their tanks in land ahead of the infantry, then promptly knock out the pillboxes and bunkers on the shore using direct fire so that the infantry would be able to get ashore with tolerable loss. Of course, the bunkers and pillboxes were made of concrete many feet thick, and for all practical purposes immune to the Sherman's 75mm MV gun. The only way the DD tanks could do any good would be to hit the firing slots and appertures directly, and they knew that for months before the invasion. Therefore the training programme for the DD regiments placed a very heavy emphasis on precision shooting. And it worked - the DD regts ended up with very accurate gunners, able to engage the firing slits and slots in a pillbos with great accuracy and precision.

Of course, between that and learning to float their tanks their other training suffered, but that was ok; if they had to be re-trained post a successful invasion, well, that would be a much better result than the invasion failing because the infantry couldn't get off the beaches.

But that degree of accuracy and precision was ONLY trained into the five DD regiments, and ONLY inrelation to engaging pillboxes at the kinds of ranges you'd expect to find between the low water mark and the first line of defences.

To extrapolate from those five regts and those circumstances, to all regiments engaging enemy tanks is probably a little too ambitious.

[ChrisND]

The german tank crews were trained to know perfectly the weak areas of their enemy tanks.

Never use that word, it might lead people to think you aren't being objective about this.

I am sure that if all this information was included in the manuals the tank crews knew it and used it, aiming, when the situation allowed it, for the most faborable areas of the enemy tanks.

This is an assumption that you shouldn't be making. Having armor and penetration data in a field manual isn't enough proof. When I was in the army I taught all manner of things that I then promptly never used again. There was ten times more of that in manuals.

Training is nothing like actual combat, they don't usually have the chance to sit there and take their sweet time aiming at a dead target with a freshly boresighted gun.

[Battlefront.com]

Never use that word, it might lead people to think you aren't being objective about this.

And anybody who knows even a tiny bit about warfare knows that is a word that never should be used since it has no purpose in such a discussion

This is an assumption that you shouldn't be making. Having armor and penetration data in a field manual isn't enough proof. When I was in the army I taught all manner of things that I then promptly never used again. There was ten times more of that in manuals.

As I said earlier, manuals are simply a point to diverge from. Also, wartime information in manuals was often:

1. Factually incorrect. Either because things changed (friend or foe) after printing or because intel was imperfect.

2. Fanciful (propaganda) because to tell the truth straight out might be less than ideal. Sometimes people have to feel like they have options, even when those options most likely would result in disaster. Like famous German pamphlet showing a soldier mounting a T-34 tank and smashing it's MGs with a crowbar before blowing it up with something.

This is not to say manuals and period information, including first hand, should be automatically rejected. Rather it is to say that it should never, ever, EVER be automatically accepted as being factually correct or factually material to a specific line of inquiry.

Training is nothing like actual combat, they don't usually have the chance to sit there and take their sweet time aiming at a dead target with a freshly boresighted gun.

Yup, and I tried to cover this point in detail already. Unfortunately it didn't make much of an impression.

Txema,

It is clear that this stuff was in the training of the german tank crews.

This is the only thing you have said so far that I agree with. All the rest I dispute. WW2 tankers weren't blessed with the equipment or the opportunities to be armored snipers. The smart ones most definitely understood this, the others were scraped out of their burned out tanks.

Hmmm... I am beginning to suspect we have another Bren Tripod discussion in the works

Steve

[SleeStak]

And anybody who knows even a tiny bit about warfare knows that is a word that never should be used since it has no purpose in such a discussion

As I said earlier, manuals are simply a point to diverge from. Also, wartime information in manuals was often:

1. Factually incorrect. Either because things changed (friend or foe) after printing or because intel was imperfect.

2. Fanciful (propaganda) because to tell the truth straight out might be less than ideal. Sometimes people have to feel like they have options, even when those options most likely would result in disaster. Like famous German pamphlet showing a soldier mounting a T-34 tank and smashing it's MGs with a crowbar before blowing it up with something.

This is not to say manuals and period information, including first hand, should be automatically rejected. Rather it is to say that it should never, ever, EVER be automatically accepted as being factually correct or factually material to a specific line of inquiry.

Yup, and I tried to cover this point in detail already. Unfortunately it didn't make much of an impression.

Txema,

This is the only thing you have said so far that I agree with. All the rest I dispute. WW2 tankers weren't blessed with the equipment or the opportunities to be armored snipers. The smart ones most definitely understood this, the others were scraped out of their burned out tanks.

Hmmm... I am beginning to suspect we have another Bren Tripod discussion in the works

Steve

I guess I just don't see from the arguments in this post why a WWII tanker wouldn't have aimed the points on his target he felt he could penetrate. I don't think the stress of combat would keep the majority of gunners from effectively doing their jobs. Certainly our modern soldiers are able to carry out complex tasks while under fire. The soldiers had access to the information, undoubtly imperfectly but they had the info. Aiming isn't a complex task that requires a great deal of time. At least, not in the circumstances that I'm suggesting. No one is trying to snipe the vision slit of the tank. They are shooting at reasonably large parts of the tank. This isn't a herculean task. That's not to say its easy to accomplish, but the process of aiming isn't precluded by anything I've read so far.

A person using iron sites on a .22 can hit a man sized target at a couple hundred yards with a minimum of training. A gunner that has some training, with the advantage of a gun that has a higher muzzle velocity, a telescopic site and shooting at a target that isn't tinsy should probably be able to extend that out farther. Not in all situations of course, but when stopped and prepared to enter combat, it seems reasonable to me. I don't know how we could prove or disprove that tankers aimed at vulnerable parts of tanks during WWII, it just seems incomprehensible to me that they wouldn't when able. Steve, I don't think that turns this into a 'BREN Tripod' discussion, I just think you're wrong on this point.

[ChrisND]

A person using iron sites on a .22 can hit a man sized target at a couple hundred yards with a minimum of training.

Now try doing it when scared for your life, snapping off shots at an unclear target, while winded after little food or sleep, and while being shot at. I don't think people really appreciate this factor - it all seems just so easy and logical when you're sitting in a comfy chair behind the computer screen, doesn't it?

[Peregrine]

I've read BTiN, but I don't recall that specific bit. However, I have no difficulty believing it to be true.

This deduction, however, is highly erroneous because it lacks a lot of crucial context.

Stuart Hills was in one of the DD Tank regiments. They had a very specific role and a very specific task during the assault. They were to float their tanks in land ahead of the infantry, then promptly knock out the pillboxes and bunkers on the shore using direct fire so that the infantry would be able to get ashore with tolerable loss. Of course, the bunkers and pillboxes were made of concrete many feet thick, and for all practical purposes immune to the Sherman's 75mm MV gun. The only way the DD tanks could do any good would be to hit the firing slots and appertures directly, and they knew that for months before the invasion. Therefore the training programme for the DD regiments placed a very heavy emphasis on precision shooting. And it worked - the DD regts ended up with very accurate gunners, able to engage the firing slits and slots in a pillbos with great accuracy and precision.

Of course, between that and learning to float their tanks their other training suffered, but that was ok; if they had to be re-trained post a successful invasion, well, that would be a much better result than the invasion failing because the infantry couldn't get off the beaches.

But that degree of accuracy and precision was ONLY trained into the five DD regiments, and ONLY inrelation to engaging pillboxes at the kinds of ranges you'd expect to find between the low water mark and the first line of defences.

To extrapolate from those five regts and those circumstances, to all regiments engaging enemy tanks is probably a little too ambitious.

Just so it clear where I stand I am positive this tanker stated that in training they were able to aim and hit specific spots. And yes the DD tanks were definitely special.

In actual combat I have never read a reference where gunners actually did aim for weak spots so Battlefront's aim for the middle is fine with me.

My memory may fail me but I think his DD tank started sinking so for him it was By Lifeboat into Normandy, By Tank into Germany.

I have no idea how accurate the main guns are on repeated shots without adjusting the aim.

Say for example a tank targets an enemy that is at 45 degree facing at a longish range say 800m+ and hits the front upper hill but it ricochets. Would the gunner/TC recognise enough to tinker with his aim to hit the side of the tank or the fact that a hit was scored is as much as can be expected and simply shoot again as soon as possible without changing anything.

[SleeStak]

Now try doing it when scared for your life, snapping off shots at an unclear target, while winded after little food or sleep, and while being shot at. I don't think people really appreciate this factor - it all seems just so easy and logical when you're sitting in a comfy chair behind the computer screen, doesn't it?

Fortunately, i have absolutely no experience shooting at anything while being shot at. Yet I'll still contend that aiming at a tank or aiming at part of the tank is basically the same thing. What I've read from people that have been in combat was that the fear did not over ride their ability to do their job. With that said, would it impact their ability to aim well, I'm sure it did. And for the record, I'm on my couch typing on my IPad, not in a comfy chair behind a computer screen, though the couch is pretty comfy.