A few questions....

[22sec]

That's an awful long sight line, especially for Germany. I spent some time looking at maps and 3D terrain of the engagement area, it's possible with the 50m elevation levels that the hexes occupied by the combatants would realistically be visible to each other. However, it feels off based of historical data and observations. I think all of it is an excellent conversation on the continued refinement of the engine.

Back to map making....

[WildCatNL]

One comment on the range.
In Bil's save game, the distance between hex centers was 3700m. Given 500m hexes, and the game modeling the vehicles being spread across the hex, some of the engagements will occur at 3200 (both vehicles 'forward' in the hex, so two times 250m closer to another), some engagements will occur at 4200 (if range allows it, both vehicles in the 'rear' of the hex), and most in between.
Hits are more likely to caused by the shorter range exchange of fire.

[Bil H]

One comment on the range.
In Bil's save game, the distance between hex centers was 3700m. Given 500m hexes, and the game modeling the vehicles being spread across the hex, some of the engagements will occur at 3200 (both vehicles 'forward' in the hex, so two times 250m closer to another), some engagements will occur at 4200 (if range allows it, both vehicles in the 'rear' of the hex), and most in between.
Hits are more likely to caused by the shorter range exchange of fire.

Okay 3200m - 4200m doesn't change the facts.

[TheCapt]

One comment on the range.
In Bil's save game, the distance between hex centers was 3700m. Given 500m hexes, and the game modeling the vehicles being spread across the hex, some of the engagements will occur at 3200 (both vehicles 'forward' in the hex, so two times 250m closer to another), some engagements will occur at 4200 (if range allows it, both vehicles in the 'rear' of the hex), and most in between.
Hits are more likely to caused by the shorter range exchange of fire.

I can see that from the pic now - not sure when the engagement started (really have no idea where to put those files to be honest). 3500m is better but still high. Based on what I have seen the T64s should just be able to kill an M1 (box standard, not the M1A1) at about 2000-2500m with AP. Adding another km to that should drop penetration by at least 25mm from the 450, so 425, which is still below listed M1 armor values. Trying to find a tank friendly ballistics calculator is nearly impossible (if anyone can find one please post it) but I am not sure the velocity-to-penetration bleed off is linear.

Regardless adding it all up the results look more like an engagement at about 2500m to be honest. I just dug out Stephen Zaloga's "M1 Abrams Vs T-72 Ural : Operation Desert Storm 1991" and he is listing the M1A1 based on Soviet estimates at "600mm" for both Hull and Turret versus APFSDS (pg 16 and 28). The 450 and 440 in game look a lot more like the M1 numbers.

[WABAC]

One comment on the range.
In Bil's save game, the distance between hex centers was 3700m. Given 500m hexes, and the game modeling the vehicles being spread across the hex, some of the engagements will occur at 3200 (both vehicles 'forward' in the hex, so two times 250m closer to another), some engagements will occur at 4200 (if range allows it, both vehicles in the 'rear' of the hex), and most in between.
Hits are more likely to caused by the shorter range exchange of fire.

I can see that from the pic now - not sure when the engagement started (really have no idea where to put those files to be honest). 3500m is better but still high. Based on what I have seen the T64s should just be able to kill an M1 (box standard, not the M1A1) at about 2000-2500m with AP. Adding another km to that should drop penetration by at least 25mm from the 450, so 425, which is still below listed M1 armor values. Trying to find a tank friendly ballistics calculator is nearly impossible (if anyone can find one please post it) but I am not sure the velocity-to-penetration bleed off is linear.

Regardless adding it all up the results look more like an engagement at about 2500m to be honest. I just dug out Stephen Zaloga's "M1 Abrams Vs T-72 Ural : Operation Desert Storm 1991" and he is listing the M1A1 based on Soviet estimates at "600mm" for both Hull and Turret versus APFSDS (pg 16 and 28). The 450 and 440 in game look a lot more like the M1 numbers.

The game distinguishes between fallouts and kills. So two tanks out of action doesn't mean two hulls penetrated.

[CapnDarwin]

600mm would be an M1A1(HA) which is in the game as well. As noted the two M1s are fall outs as non pen "kills". There is a RoF bug William found that will drop the rounds and possible kills down some for both sides.

[TheCapt]

600mm would be an M1A1(HA) which is in the game as well. As noted the two M1s are fall outs as non pen "kills". There is a RoF bug William found that will drop the rounds and possible kills down some for both sides.

Not according to Zaloga, he has a different line for the M1 (HA) which shows the HA with 600 hull and 800 turret. But that is one source, not sure which one is used in game.

As to "non pen" kills, what does that mean exactly? Are we talking gun and mobility kills? Is there a soft factor at play where the crew simply says "nope"? These things do happen, particularly with artillery but APFSDS is pretty specific. Do we have stats on Pk for the gun/TA and/or mobility from AP?

[Bil H]

Yes I also have conflicting numbers regarding the M1A1 armor values versus AP and HEAT. Even the SB wiki gives the turret armor for M1A1 as 600mm versus AP and 1100mm versus HEAT.

None of the discussion above though addresses that the Soviet optics could only ID targets out to 4000m, the very edge of the engagement we are discussing, or more importantly, that the maximum effective range of that tank gun was 3000m. To my mind these are the real issues of the engagement and have been my contention all along: that an on the move T-64 Company would not be able to identify, target, or engage hull-down M1A1 tanks at the ranges we are discussing.

This has been a good discussion so far, and I am learning a lot about the engine. Appreciate Jim and William getting involved in it with Warren and me.

Bil

[IronMikeGolf]

So to follow up on the targeting challenge. Using a simple relative size calculator:

https://sizecalc.com/

At 4500m with the naked eye, a 3.3m tank is like spotting .73mm at a 1m range or a lead pencil tip. Now the guns of these tanks are firing so you will see sparks of light, which is going to help but even when you get the 8x tank scope (https://crib-blog.blogspot.com/p/soviet ... amily.html) we are talking about spotting and hitting at an equivalent to about 5.8mm at 1m - that is a small target.

In this engagement we saw what looks like about 20% hit rates, which at these distances is pretty suspect.

Spotting something quarter inch at 1 yard? On the surface, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

It's much better to examine this using mils (milliradians). 1 meter of width or height is 1 mil at 1000 meters. Easy math, right?

So, 3.3m at 4500, that' s about 3/4 mil tall.

In the sights of the M1, M2, and M3, the central aiming "ring" (the M1 used a square, don't know why) is 1 mil across. The sight reticle is projected and you can dim it to be translucent. It's just not hard to lay your gun.

Harder is more often than not, only have a meter of target exposure due to cover and concealment (crew qualification gunnery tables included turret only targets). So a one meter target at 4.5km is around a quarter mil (target is half the size between the center pip and the edge of the center circle/square). Tougher, but far from impossible. Laser rangefinders (LRF) and ballistic computers make this much easier. M2/M3 back then didn't have LRF and the ballistic computer was behind the gunner's ears. For shooting autocannon against IFV/APC, your limited (with typical crew) to around 1600m. Maybe 60% of the force could get to 1800. Once the M919 DU round came out, I'd put the mark at 2500m, with extra ammo expended, for great crews.

As to magnification: If you have an LRF sight, 8x, 10x, 12x doesn't really contribute to Ph (probability of Hit). It does contribute to target classification (tank vs APC vs IFV vs truck) and target identification (make and model of tank) ranges. In an IFV (especially with auto-cannon) the higher magnification does help with adjusting fire when the first burst misses the target. You really want to see the splash and, unlike a tank, you can watch the entire flight of each round. In thermals, you even see the sabot petals falling off an AP round and have to train yourself to ignore those. And for an autocannon shooting HE at soft targets at 3000m, you need to sense range error and you really need that extra 2x.

There is a tradeoff between higher magnification and field of view. 8-10x seems to me a sweet spot for an LRF fire control system in the late '80s.
Sight magnification for US fighting vehicles: M1 4x/10x for primary sight, 6x (IIRC) for auxiliary sight (day only, stadia reticle). M2/M3 was 4x/12x primary and 6x stadia sight for aux.

[TheCapt]

It isnt the M1 I have issue with, it is the T64s. Spotting something that small, while being shot at and jockying around is a tall ask. Likely why shots this long are not the norm in combat. Good news is that I think the guys have already addressed it.

[CapnDarwin]

We have fixed the hyper-accurate and too long-ranged direct fires. That will be in the Steam release and the Matrix update that will hit at the same time next week.