ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Ok, I'll take a look through these tonight. Based on my first look though, I found this interesting:
Using the German figures for doubled random dispersion and assuming an average range estimate error of 25% with a bell shaped error distribution (typical results for average crew, based on British and American firing trials), the following first round hit percentages were computed against a stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target:
FIRST ROUND HIT %
RANGE...50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71
500m...........81......75.....88.......79.....94
800m...........36......34.....51.......39.....61
1100m..........17......15.....28.......21.....34
1400m...........9.......7.....16.......12.....19
Muzzle velocities are 835 m/s for 50L60, 750 m/s for 75L48, 935 m/s for 75L70, 780 m/s for 88L56 and 1000 m/s for 88L71. All rounds APCBC except APC for 50L60
A 2m x 2.5m target size was used by the Germans as a reasonable model for the front view of a typical target tank, which simplified the calculations. Those dimensions simplify the complex variations in target width with height (T34 turret front is narrower than hull and has sloping sides, T34 hull width varies with height, etc.), and probably assume that ground rolls and folds blocked out some of the lower tank area.
The above stated estimates for first round hit percentage probably represent the high side of what would be expected from average troops in battle, since “nervous and/or fatigue” origin errors were not considered during the calculations. Under the stress of combat, people can forget intermediate steps and see things on the gun sight that are not there. Discussions on the AFV News forum site have brought out the possibility that unquantifiable human errors may account for a good share of the reported misses at “sure thing” ranges.
I don't know how much to trust these numbers, given that there is debate on them in the same threads and they represent effectively an addiitonal data point rather than a definitive answer for our purposes. Nevertheless, very very interesting. With that said, he comes up with a 75% hit rate for the L48 (we were looking at the L43). We're dealing with a smaller target in the T-70 and we end up with 50% after the first shot, so it looks like we're in the same ballpark, particularly since in our tables the accuracy sharply rises inside of 500m (<425m or so it's almost a guaranteed hit). Note also that we try to take into account the "human factors" mentioned above that tend to show up in battle. I'll have to review this info in more detail, but thanks for bringing it up.
Regards,
- Erik
I would say this data (using the double dispersion method) is suspect. Even rexford came around and starting woring on models that used range estimation techniques as better starting points. Its the key piece of accuracy that many games do not address. I would liek your game to model this.
The Germans did indeed use actual range measuring equipment in some units. The RM34 (?) type coincidence range finder was used by even HMG and mortar units. In a prepared defense, ranges were known. Thats why ATG are so deadly initially. They are emplaced and leveled and they know the ranges. They do not have to estimate typically. Units like FLAK had even better range measuring equipment. Thats why the 88s were so deadly.
A tank moving into new tarrain must estimate the ranges. Its a distinct disadvantage.
