This has been covered previously but a recent book purchase renewed my interest in the topic. So, here's a question for those of you who know this stuff well or have acutal experience.
A lot of gamers have certain ideas about "effective range" for tank gunery. This is a loaded term and can mean different things to different people with lots of shades of gray. But I've noticed some consistent inconsistencies on this topic.
It seems that those with an interest in WWII tank gunnery and many sources covering modern tank guns quote ranges that surprisingly long (eg 2000-4000m). The quoted ranges seem more shocking when it comes to WWII ranges in light of the period technology. These inconsistencies are more surprising when one compares modern ranges to quoted WWII ranges (modern guns are often quoted with ranges shorter compared to WWII guns even with very similar specs in caliber and length).
Maybe sources on modern tank guns are more "accurate" and the WWII quotes are over stated? Thoughts based your reading and experience?
Effective Range for Tank Guns
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
I think part of the problem you will encounter on this topic is the nature of a moving target. Not meaning the tanks are shooting at moving targets (well, not always), but that YOU are. The term "effective range" will vary in meaning from one person to the next.
For most wargamers, it will mean "the range that I once read that one guy in my favorite tank fired his weapon and thought he hit something". With that definition, ranges can be quite long.
Today's leading generation tanks (Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, Merkava, Leclerc, T-90, etc.) generally shoot effectively out to 3,000m. That is the maximum range setting most FCS's will accept.
But there are occasions when tankers have done better.
I know one fellow who got a one-shot kill in ODS with the 120mm of an Abrams at about 3,600 meters. It was a well-documented event, has been described in a couple of places, and he has explained in great detail the mental gyrations he went through to determine his super-elevation. He knew his gun, knew his range, and generally knew his stuff. You will find similar stories, at similar and even greater ranges, among other armies that have recent tank warfare experience -- the British and the Israelis in particular.
So in WW2 you will read about Germans scoring kills at ranges out to 3,000 meters. Nashorns and Tigers were known for this. But I've never read of these being one-shot kills. More often the panzertrupper would "walk" his shots to the target. Maybe OK if the target is immobilized, but I would expect that most "victims" might choose to displace as the second and third rounds impacted ever closer. StuG crews were known for getting on target a bit faster than panzer crews, as they were trained in the artillery techniques of straddling (intentionally shooting short, then long, then splitting the difference) rather than walking their rounds towards the target.
In general, it seems that WW2 tank combat generally occured at less than 1,500m, with particulars depending on the theater of combat (longer ranges in the desert or on the steppes, shorter ranges in forrested lands). Seems like US tankers fought most of their battles at ranges of 800m or less.
Oddly, from my readings it appears that the earlier 88 (Flak and Tiger 1) was the better long-range shooter than the later, longer 88 (Pak43, Nashorn, and Tiger 2). Modern tanks have muzzle reference indicators to register and correct for barrel warping/drooping that will occur with long barrels on sunny days or with heavy use. These were not available in WW2, and so the German long guns would shoot differently at different times of day. These differences were not noticeable at common battle ranges (300-1,000m), but would place the shot off by as much as a few meters at long ranges on the steppes.
Russian guns were known for being very destructive at long ranges. In general, at most points in time during the war, Russian tanks tended to carry guns of a larger caliber than their German (or western allied) counterparts. So their rounds were heavier, and carried greater momentum over range. The late war 122mm and 152mm guns were particularly known for doing massive damage almost regardless of range. However, Russian tanks tended to carry low ammo load-outs, and so long-range shooting, with its necessarily low hit rates, was often discouraged. I have often seen statements about the poor optics on Russian tanks. I'm not so sure that's correct, as most Russian tanks in WW2 used optics derived from the PzIII optics which the Russians received pre-war during their exchanges with the Germans. The bigger issue with the Russians was crew training, which was spotty at best for much of the war.
For most wargamers, it will mean "the range that I once read that one guy in my favorite tank fired his weapon and thought he hit something". With that definition, ranges can be quite long.
Today's leading generation tanks (Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, Merkava, Leclerc, T-90, etc.) generally shoot effectively out to 3,000m. That is the maximum range setting most FCS's will accept.
But there are occasions when tankers have done better.
I know one fellow who got a one-shot kill in ODS with the 120mm of an Abrams at about 3,600 meters. It was a well-documented event, has been described in a couple of places, and he has explained in great detail the mental gyrations he went through to determine his super-elevation. He knew his gun, knew his range, and generally knew his stuff. You will find similar stories, at similar and even greater ranges, among other armies that have recent tank warfare experience -- the British and the Israelis in particular.
So in WW2 you will read about Germans scoring kills at ranges out to 3,000 meters. Nashorns and Tigers were known for this. But I've never read of these being one-shot kills. More often the panzertrupper would "walk" his shots to the target. Maybe OK if the target is immobilized, but I would expect that most "victims" might choose to displace as the second and third rounds impacted ever closer. StuG crews were known for getting on target a bit faster than panzer crews, as they were trained in the artillery techniques of straddling (intentionally shooting short, then long, then splitting the difference) rather than walking their rounds towards the target.
In general, it seems that WW2 tank combat generally occured at less than 1,500m, with particulars depending on the theater of combat (longer ranges in the desert or on the steppes, shorter ranges in forrested lands). Seems like US tankers fought most of their battles at ranges of 800m or less.
Oddly, from my readings it appears that the earlier 88 (Flak and Tiger 1) was the better long-range shooter than the later, longer 88 (Pak43, Nashorn, and Tiger 2). Modern tanks have muzzle reference indicators to register and correct for barrel warping/drooping that will occur with long barrels on sunny days or with heavy use. These were not available in WW2, and so the German long guns would shoot differently at different times of day. These differences were not noticeable at common battle ranges (300-1,000m), but would place the shot off by as much as a few meters at long ranges on the steppes.
Russian guns were known for being very destructive at long ranges. In general, at most points in time during the war, Russian tanks tended to carry guns of a larger caliber than their German (or western allied) counterparts. So their rounds were heavier, and carried greater momentum over range. The late war 122mm and 152mm guns were particularly known for doing massive damage almost regardless of range. However, Russian tanks tended to carry low ammo load-outs, and so long-range shooting, with its necessarily low hit rates, was often discouraged. I have often seen statements about the poor optics on Russian tanks. I'm not so sure that's correct, as most Russian tanks in WW2 used optics derived from the PzIII optics which the Russians received pre-war during their exchanges with the Germans. The bigger issue with the Russians was crew training, which was spotty at best for much of the war.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
BattlerBritain
- E5
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:00 pm
- Location: Somerset, UK
You'll probably get lots of different opinions on this but here's my 2-penneth.
Firstly, 'Effective range' is the range at which the weapon has a 50% chance of hit.
For WW2 guns this was often quite a short range. There are many quoted examples of ranges but probably the most accurate gun throughout the war was the German 88mm. For the Tiger I there are quoted examples of it having an effective range of 2000m in combat. I think it was probably nearer 1500m but it is still quite a long way.
Most other WW2 guns were around the 1000m mark, probably less than that (~750m).
Modern tank guns have a lot more sensors to determine wind speed and direction, charge temperature, barrel wear, barrel bend etc and use more sophisticated range finders with fire control computers to aid in first round hit chance. Even then first round hit largely depends on whether the crew have setup their tank so that they can actually hit what they aim at. Keeping a tank setup in combat conditions is not easy, even if the crew do know how to do it.
For Modern games I take NATO 105mm guns as having an effective range of about 1500m with bigger+better guns out to 2000m. You could argue for even longer ranges on the really-really-new stuff, but what the heck.
For Warsaw Pact I take 125mm guns as having an effective range of about 1500m as well, going up to 2000m for really-really-new stuff. The new stuff tends to have more sensors, but WP tanks still don't carry a muzzle ref system.
Hope this helps,
Battler
Firstly, 'Effective range' is the range at which the weapon has a 50% chance of hit.
For WW2 guns this was often quite a short range. There are many quoted examples of ranges but probably the most accurate gun throughout the war was the German 88mm. For the Tiger I there are quoted examples of it having an effective range of 2000m in combat. I think it was probably nearer 1500m but it is still quite a long way.
Most other WW2 guns were around the 1000m mark, probably less than that (~750m).
Modern tank guns have a lot more sensors to determine wind speed and direction, charge temperature, barrel wear, barrel bend etc and use more sophisticated range finders with fire control computers to aid in first round hit chance. Even then first round hit largely depends on whether the crew have setup their tank so that they can actually hit what they aim at. Keeping a tank setup in combat conditions is not easy, even if the crew do know how to do it.
For Modern games I take NATO 105mm guns as having an effective range of about 1500m with bigger+better guns out to 2000m. You could argue for even longer ranges on the really-really-new stuff, but what the heck.
For Warsaw Pact I take 125mm guns as having an effective range of about 1500m as well, going up to 2000m for really-really-new stuff. The new stuff tends to have more sensors, but WP tanks still don't carry a muzzle ref system.
Hope this helps,
Battler
-
voltigeur
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
I think that one of the reasons this subject is sooooo messy is that so many non mathmatical issues affect the historical outcome of battles.
I remember reading a book by Dupy that listed a mathmatical formula for muzzel velocity vs. distance to get a mathmatical effective range. This tends to give the 2000 and 3000 meter ranges in some WW2 rules. If your a math wizard it is a good read.
My expierence as a TOW gunner was that gunners typically won't even try to aquire a target till maybe 2000 meters out. While the TOW was very different weapon than a gun the gunner's tendancy to let the opponent get within 1/2 of what his weapon can do is very typical. Alot of time was spent getting us to learn what 3km looked like. This is a good time to note that while our optics could easily see and ID a target at 3000 meters we scanned for targets with the naked eye. Except in certain light and terrain situations we never saw more than the dust clouds of opposing tanks. I think this is one of the things that is hardly ever captured on a game table.
I remember reading a book by Dupy that listed a mathmatical formula for muzzel velocity vs. distance to get a mathmatical effective range. This tends to give the 2000 and 3000 meter ranges in some WW2 rules. If your a math wizard it is a good read.
My expierence as a TOW gunner was that gunners typically won't even try to aquire a target till maybe 2000 meters out. While the TOW was very different weapon than a gun the gunner's tendancy to let the opponent get within 1/2 of what his weapon can do is very typical. Alot of time was spent getting us to learn what 3km looked like. This is a good time to note that while our optics could easily see and ID a target at 3000 meters we scanned for targets with the naked eye. Except in certain light and terrain situations we never saw more than the dust clouds of opposing tanks. I think this is one of the things that is hardly ever captured on a game table.
Last edited by voltigeur on Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
The skill of the gunner, the quality of the sighting equipment, the terrain in which you are fighting, the wind and weather, and the quality of the shell (powder and ballistics) all determine the range at which opposing armies may kill effectively.
The ballistic effectiveness of the actual projectile has a lot to do with the ability to hit at range. The density and shape directly effect how outside forces act causing degradation of accuracy. The quality and age of the powder used to propel the projectile is also critical. This area was especially critical to the Soviets whose powder production quality during WW2 was often hit or miss directly effecting the ability of their forces to kill at range.
Probably the major factor can be summed up by the difference between "range" firing and "actual battlefield" firing experience, and the conditions that apply to the two. Extremely long range shots are possible when a crew "knows" their weapon and the conditions are exactly correct to make the shot reported. The one factor that is missing from most reports about extremely long kills is "how many rounds were used" to obtain the kill. Today, that can be a single round. During WW2 it would usually be several rounds simply because of the inconsistency of the materials and lack of knowledge of the crew about their weapon.
The same is true with today's sniper. Bullet technology has changed the accuracy of snipers exponentially just as depleted uranium's dense projectile increased accuracy and lethality in tank guns.
Will
The ballistic effectiveness of the actual projectile has a lot to do with the ability to hit at range. The density and shape directly effect how outside forces act causing degradation of accuracy. The quality and age of the powder used to propel the projectile is also critical. This area was especially critical to the Soviets whose powder production quality during WW2 was often hit or miss directly effecting the ability of their forces to kill at range.
Probably the major factor can be summed up by the difference between "range" firing and "actual battlefield" firing experience, and the conditions that apply to the two. Extremely long range shots are possible when a crew "knows" their weapon and the conditions are exactly correct to make the shot reported. The one factor that is missing from most reports about extremely long kills is "how many rounds were used" to obtain the kill. Today, that can be a single round. During WW2 it would usually be several rounds simply because of the inconsistency of the materials and lack of knowledge of the crew about their weapon.
The same is true with today's sniper. Bullet technology has changed the accuracy of snipers exponentially just as depleted uranium's dense projectile increased accuracy and lethality in tank guns.
Will
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900
-
hauptgrate
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:39 am
"Effective range" can have many different definintions as noted above. On a proving ground, with perfect conditions (and no one shooting back at you), hits can be made at long range...but...in combat, with stress, noise, dust, smoke, and people shooting at you, the chance of hits drops off quite dramatically. One thing I have noticed about games in general is that rules tend to treat the "possible" -- l like a hit at over 3000m -- as "normal" and set the probablities accordingly. I prefer to use a very steep probability curve on my hit tables to reflect more realistic battle conditions. I would certainly hope modern fire control has higher probablities of a hit than WWII -- otherwise why spent all the money on computers and lasers when an optical sight is just as good. Perhaps the biggest difference between WWII and modern is the modern stress on a first round hit. The assumption in WWII was that the first few rounds would probably miss -- hence the adjustments such as the StuGs above -- while with modern, the figuring is that once you fire, fire will be coming back at you so you had better get that first round kill.
-
voltigeur
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
In my set of rules there is an aquisition roll. It is here that I have attempted to introduce the "human" element. Players desiginate a sector of observation (60 degrees centered on the gun) and there is a negative modifier for trying to aquire out side that arc. You can also interlace these sectors to get multiple rolls against a target. Also under this rule if you can get the tank to button up the observation goes to 15 degrees cenered on the gun. I can modify for light and weather conditions, I can take into account "handing off" targets from observers, and targets moving in and out of cover. All without having to keep alot of records.
Once you roll "to hit" and "to kill" then it is technology. While I can't make the argument for every little piece of this logic, it does seem to work well. Many shots are not taken because of failed aquisition, and the tactics start becoming more realistic.
A 3000 meter shot is possible but aquiring at 3000 meters is difficult, making it an exception rather than the rule.
Once you roll "to hit" and "to kill" then it is technology. While I can't make the argument for every little piece of this logic, it does seem to work well. Many shots are not taken because of failed aquisition, and the tactics start becoming more realistic.
A 3000 meter shot is possible but aquiring at 3000 meters is difficult, making it an exception rather than the rule.
I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!
-
Timothy OConnor
- E5
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:16 am
Voltigeur makes a good point which is echoed in my recent book purchase M2/M3 Bradley at War.
Here's an interesting comment in the book:
"The BFV automatic cannon could engage targets at a maximum effective range of almost 3,000 yards and the TOW at over 4,000 yards. While the BFV turret crew members could see potential targets at over 4,000 yards, the images were no more than fuzzy thermal hotspots, which forced them to hold their fire on many occasions while waiting target confirmation from other vehicles. The BFV turret crew crew members were generally unable to distinguish between friendly and enemy vehicles at ranges beyond 2,000 yards under clear weather conditions..."
Tellingly the 25mm autocannon's APDS-T tracer round burns out at about 1700 yards and, according to the book's authors, "Beyond 2,400 yards, the accuracy and penetration abilities of the APDS-T projectile drop significantly as the projectile slows through the high-drag transonic flight regime."
Other sources state an "effective range" of 2,000m (yes, for some reason the book uses yards instead of meters) and a maximum range of 6,800m (!!!!!). One source makes the helpful distinction that the weapon's true "accuracy limited" effective range is 1,600m
So, for one weapon currently in use (we're not talking WWII research in dusty archieves here) we have "effective ranges" of 3,000m/yards; 2,400m; 2,000m; and 1,600m. The sources are not always clear as to type of round being described although one book notes that effective HE fire is limited to ~3,200 yards.
And of course we have the anecdotal evidence that, regardless of the weapon's physical capabilities the crew can't distinguish between friendly and enemy vehicles beyond 2,000m anyway. M2/M3 Bradley at War notes that friendly fire accounted for 17 of 20 Bradleys destroyed during Desert Storm and 3 of 12 damaged and that some Bradley crews feared American tanks more than Iraqi tanks as they believed that they could be mistaken for Iraqi BMPs (such incidents are described in the book Storm on the Horizon).
The authors also state that Bradley crews requested integrated laser range finders after OSD. During Desert Storm they discovered that while they could see potential targets at ranges far greater than in the broken terrain of Europe, the featurless desert made it difficult to estimate range. As a result they often fired their chain gun and even TOWs at targets beyond the weapons' effective ranges.
Based on comments in another thread ( http://www.ghqmodels.com/forum/viewtopi ... t=spotting ) I had modified my home grown rule's combat model. These rules integrate spotting into the "hit roll" mechanic. In light of the excellent input from that previous thread, the insightful comments provided by others in this new thread, and some recent research I'm very pleased with the results so far!
Here's an interesting comment in the book:
"The BFV automatic cannon could engage targets at a maximum effective range of almost 3,000 yards and the TOW at over 4,000 yards. While the BFV turret crew members could see potential targets at over 4,000 yards, the images were no more than fuzzy thermal hotspots, which forced them to hold their fire on many occasions while waiting target confirmation from other vehicles. The BFV turret crew crew members were generally unable to distinguish between friendly and enemy vehicles at ranges beyond 2,000 yards under clear weather conditions..."
Tellingly the 25mm autocannon's APDS-T tracer round burns out at about 1700 yards and, according to the book's authors, "Beyond 2,400 yards, the accuracy and penetration abilities of the APDS-T projectile drop significantly as the projectile slows through the high-drag transonic flight regime."
Other sources state an "effective range" of 2,000m (yes, for some reason the book uses yards instead of meters) and a maximum range of 6,800m (!!!!!). One source makes the helpful distinction that the weapon's true "accuracy limited" effective range is 1,600m
So, for one weapon currently in use (we're not talking WWII research in dusty archieves here) we have "effective ranges" of 3,000m/yards; 2,400m; 2,000m; and 1,600m. The sources are not always clear as to type of round being described although one book notes that effective HE fire is limited to ~3,200 yards.
And of course we have the anecdotal evidence that, regardless of the weapon's physical capabilities the crew can't distinguish between friendly and enemy vehicles beyond 2,000m anyway. M2/M3 Bradley at War notes that friendly fire accounted for 17 of 20 Bradleys destroyed during Desert Storm and 3 of 12 damaged and that some Bradley crews feared American tanks more than Iraqi tanks as they believed that they could be mistaken for Iraqi BMPs (such incidents are described in the book Storm on the Horizon).
The authors also state that Bradley crews requested integrated laser range finders after OSD. During Desert Storm they discovered that while they could see potential targets at ranges far greater than in the broken terrain of Europe, the featurless desert made it difficult to estimate range. As a result they often fired their chain gun and even TOWs at targets beyond the weapons' effective ranges.
Based on comments in another thread ( http://www.ghqmodels.com/forum/viewtopi ... t=spotting ) I had modified my home grown rule's combat model. These rules integrate spotting into the "hit roll" mechanic. In light of the excellent input from that previous thread, the insightful comments provided by others in this new thread, and some recent research I'm very pleased with the results so far!
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
It should be noted the crews of AFV's and IFV's have observations zones which each crew member is responsible for when buttoned up, or when "open" that are related to the formation the unit is operating in as well as terrain, etc...
Limiting sighting to directly ahead +/- is very "unrealistic" especially in the modern era.
Will
Limiting sighting to directly ahead +/- is very "unrealistic" especially in the modern era.
Will
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900
-
SSgtBuck
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:45 am
- Location: Maine, USA
The Israelis had pretty well established defensive positions on the Golan, and it wouldn't surprise me if that had range markers so they new exactly the distance to the target, they would have been stationary at the beginning of the Syrian assault and friendly fire would not have have been an issue as anything moving in front of them would have been Syrians and therefore shot at, not to mention that 105mm/L7 was a pretty decent shooting gun.
Rock is dead, long live paper & scissors
-
Timothy OConnor
- E5
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:16 am
In his book The Yom Kippur War Abraham Rabinovich notes that the Israeli tanks on the Golan were firing under nearly ideal conditions from elevated tank ramps. Rabinovich also notes that the Syrian tanks were tightly massed and either oblivious to the destruction raining down on them from the Israeli tanks or deliberately ignoring their losses since they failed to take any sort of evasive action during the advance. Israeli crews marveled at what they said was either extraordinary courage and discipline, or complete ignorance!
Under such conditions 3,000m kills might be reasonable, especially since the Israelis were expecting what they called a routine "battle day" in which they traded a few shots with their Syrian counterparts. There would be no need to fear friendly fire since they would be certain that anything on the far side of the tank ramp, berm, and anti-tank ditch that they had constructed would be enemy.
The author also notes that the Israelis were very, very pleased with the ability of their guns to penetrate the latest Syrian tank armor. Rabinovich reports that the Israeli guns penetrated newer T-62s as easily as older T-55s. That opens up a whole other can-o-worms about guns vs armor.*
On the other hand he also notes that in one Sherman unit armed with newer and older tanks lesser armed tank crews thought they would be sent to guard rear areas in the event of a shooting war. So, there was some recognition that the older guns were not up to snuff against modern tanks.
Someone who has acutally fired a 105 in anger or at least on a firing range could probably enlighten us as to the difficulty of hitting an "easy" target at 3,000m.
*Lots of wargame rules seem to treat ERA as magic super armor vs RPGs and HEAT rounds. But there have been reports that RPG-team tactics and technolgy were very succesful at defeating Israeli ERA in 2006. They would either pair up and hit the same area on a tank with two RPGs or use new RPGs with tandem warheads which could penetrate ERA. In the aftermath of the 2006 fighting the Israelis accused the Russians of providing Hezbollah with tandem-warhead RPGs. The Russians denied this but were then confronted by the Israelis with evidence of Russian-made Syrian RPGs captured in Lebanon.
Under such conditions 3,000m kills might be reasonable, especially since the Israelis were expecting what they called a routine "battle day" in which they traded a few shots with their Syrian counterparts. There would be no need to fear friendly fire since they would be certain that anything on the far side of the tank ramp, berm, and anti-tank ditch that they had constructed would be enemy.
The author also notes that the Israelis were very, very pleased with the ability of their guns to penetrate the latest Syrian tank armor. Rabinovich reports that the Israeli guns penetrated newer T-62s as easily as older T-55s. That opens up a whole other can-o-worms about guns vs armor.*
On the other hand he also notes that in one Sherman unit armed with newer and older tanks lesser armed tank crews thought they would be sent to guard rear areas in the event of a shooting war. So, there was some recognition that the older guns were not up to snuff against modern tanks.
Someone who has acutally fired a 105 in anger or at least on a firing range could probably enlighten us as to the difficulty of hitting an "easy" target at 3,000m.
*Lots of wargame rules seem to treat ERA as magic super armor vs RPGs and HEAT rounds. But there have been reports that RPG-team tactics and technolgy were very succesful at defeating Israeli ERA in 2006. They would either pair up and hit the same area on a tank with two RPGs or use new RPGs with tandem warheads which could penetrate ERA. In the aftermath of the 2006 fighting the Israelis accused the Russians of providing Hezbollah with tandem-warhead RPGs. The Russians denied this but were then confronted by the Israelis with evidence of Russian-made Syrian RPGs captured in Lebanon.
-
voltigeur
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
Picking 60 degrees is a start point for paly testing and the results when I did this before were realistic. If the testing shows that the sector is too narrow then 120 degrees can be used. Truth is I have watched tank crew after tank crew orientate to the front of thier vehicles. My rules don't disallow aquisition out side the visual arc it just has a negative modifier out side of it.It should be noted the crews of AFV's and IFV's have observations zones which each crew member is responsible for when buttoned up, or when "open" that are related to the formation the unit is operating in as well as terrain, etc...
Limiting sighting to directly ahead +/- is very "unrealistic" especially in the modern era.
I saw an FM on the M60 and a totally realistic handling would be to allow 360 degrees from the cupula with a 7.5 blind spoke off seach individual periscope. This would be unwieldy and slow the game to a crawl.
One of the methods the Israelis used was to set the elevation at 1400 meeters. (Its been a long time since I've read this so don't hold me that number) At that rang a 105 sabot round will cross the 10 meter height of a T55 or T62 from the Muzzle out to max range. There was no figuring out the range, just set the azmith and pull the trigger. This gave them a slightly faster rate of fire than Americans in the same kind of tank, and better accuracy. I think this was only done in the Centurion and M60s and had to use sabot to work. (Again long time since I read this.)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.
I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!
-
BattlerBritain
- E5
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:00 pm
- Location: Somerset, UK
Ona related topic I came across a really good website the other day where someone has compiled a pretty good list of armour thicknesses and weapon pen data for a whole range of tanks.
It's at : http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
It looks pretty well researched and worth a study.
Cheers,
Battler
It's at : http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
It looks pretty well researched and worth a study.
Cheers,
Battler
-
jb
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
Its called "battlesight". The Ballistic computer is set for SABOT,rangefinder is set at 1200m, "occluder" and "accuating" knobs are check periodically (at least I did)due to a change of temperature. With this setup you are set to engage any target that "surprises" you within the 1200m range span without going through "the motions", saving seconds, with a great chance of a first round hit.voltigeur wrote: One of the methods the Israelis used was to set the elevation at 1400 meeters. (Its been a long time since I've read this so don't hold me that number) At that rang a 105 sabot round will cross the 10 meter height of a T55 or T62 from the Muzzle out to max range. There was no figuring out the range, just set the azmith and pull the trigger. This gave them a slightly faster rate of fire than Americans in the same kind of tank, and better accuracy. I think this was only done in the Centurion and M60s and had to use sabot to work. (Again long time since I read this.)
If Infantry or "soft" targets "appear" then the SABOT round (in the tube) is fired anyway, and the appropriate ammo is loaded after to properly engage.
BTW I 've never seen a 10meter high tank!
must be Ogre...John