Effective Range for Tank Guns

[Panzerleader71]

I read that on the Golan in 1973, the Israelis opened up at 3000m & were scoring '1-shot kills' at that range-maybe hype, I dont know. The 1973 gun/armor technology was a lot closer to WW2 than the present day.

Not sure about occurances in the '73 War, but I have read about an engagement around Bir Gifgafa in '67 where Israeli Centurions opened up and killed quite a few of Egyptian T-54s at 3000yds.

[voltigeur]

BTW I 've never seen a 10meter high tank! must be Ogre...

OK OK you caught me JB! I think the text stated the T62 & T55 as 10 feet. The T62 is actually just shy of 8 ft.

Oh brother you can't get away with anything on here.

Nice to see this discussion is still alive. It is one of the more interesting.

[WHM]

Wasn't it the Brits who have the longest range tank kill on record where they took out a Iraqi tank at something like 4 klicks? Now that is an "effective range"! But just how practicle of a possibility is that for the normal crew?

Ft.Knox says the thermal imager is your primary sight, meaning you use it during the day to. Not to say the individual gunner does not elect to use his day channel instead. I found using the thermals made it real hard to find the target while scanning so elected to go without them. The point being the equipment allows for greater range and accuracy but the human eye is still the same. At 3k meters is that a tank or just a hot rock, or a bare patch of ground soaking up the suns rays? You would be surprised the number of bare spots are engaged on a range.

1200 meters was/is the most often indexedd range we would use, but depending on targets expected to be engaged coupled with the terrain we would be in that could change to 1500 or even 2000 meters. 1200 meters is the text book setting.

As for target acquisition, the TC should be out of the hatch along w/the loader looking for targets while the gunner scans using the FCS. We were always told this was what the tower wanted to see from a crew when they started their run. Sometimes you'd get a TCE who would try to impose a 5 pt. crew cut if the TC was out of the hatch more then "name tape defilade", but there wasn't anything in the manual saying that was so. I got as high as I could with binos to look. The .50cal mount was in the way otherwise.

From what I read once a big difference between the Isreali TCs and that of his Arab couterpart was the Isreali TC fought outside the hatch, the Arab per Russian doctrine was buttoned up. Downside for the Isrealis they lost alot of TCs due to snipers, arty, etc. The upside was their situational awarness was high. For the Arab being buttoned up especially for the Syrians in 1973 their awarness had to be nil when you consider all the smoke and dust thrown up by all the tracks churnning dirt and when its nil you are not as effective in aquireing targets for the gunner. hence, your range of engagement drops.

Whole point is the technical advances may allow for longer range shots then that of WWII, but it dosen't mean on the practicle side you can reach out and hit your target all the way out in west Texas.

And of course crew drill is VERY important. Every tanker knows its better to have a well trained crew in a mediocre tank then a mediocre crew in a good tank.

[Timothy OConnor]

From what I read once a big difference between the Isreali TCs and that of his Arab couterpart was the Isreali TC fought outside the hatch, the Arab per Russian doctrine was buttoned up. Downside for the Isrealis they lost alot of TCs due to snipers, arty, etc. The upside was their situational awarness was high. For the Arab being buttoned up especially for the Syrians in 1973 their awarness had to be nil when you consider all the smoke and dust thrown up by all the tracks churnning dirt and when its nil you are not as effective in aquireing targets for the gunner. hence, your range of engagement drops.

A problem I've noticed in many WWII and modern rule sets is that AFVs usually can spot targets only at close range. The rules writer assumes that since a buttoned-up AFV crew has a harder time seeing things its spotting range should be less that other unit types.

But everything that I've read (and consistent with your comments) is that AFV crew situational awareness (aka spotting) decreases as range gets shorter since THAT'S when they button up. At longer rangers they can spot just as well as anyone else but at shorter range, when an exposed TC head makes a tempting target, they can't see as well.

[WHM]

Ever see the video Men against Tanks? Last I saw it was hosted on youtube. Its a hell of an entertaining trainng flick. Here comes the Red Army w/KV tanks leading the attack, infantry following. First the German MGs cut down the infantry and then the German infantry close up on the KVs and attach anti-tank mines to the tanks killing them. When the crew has its hatches closed their field of vision is WAY restricted.

Perhaps that is why the Isreali TCs fought with the hatch open.

My point is with the FCS you can see far, but that is only for the gunner and the TC. You may see something, but the problem then becomes identifying just what is it you see.

Perhaps you reach a point of diminishing returns.

[Mobius]

="Timothy OConnor"
A problem I've noticed in many WWII and modern rule sets is that AFVs usually can spot targets only at close range. The rules writer assumes that since a buttoned-up AFV crew has a harder time seeing things its spotting range should be less that other unit types.

But everything that I've read (and consistent with your comments) is that AFV crew situational awareness (aka spotting) decreases as range gets shorter since THAT'S when they button up. At longer rangers they can spot just as well as anyone else but at shorter range, when an exposed TC head makes a tempting target, they can't see as well.

The rules should have a buttoned factor and an unbuttoned factor. Where sighting unbuttoned is better than buttoned.