LawrenceKay | 11 Dec 2015 5:59 a.m. PST |
Hello, I am currently in the process of making a set of rules for WWII tank battles based on Lanchester's Square rules. I have been doing some research and have been able to find quite a lot of information on tanks (as you would imagine). Rather annoyingly though I have struggled to find hardly any information on the accuracy of different tank guns (with exception of the 88mm KwK). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Many Thanks, Lawrence |
mwindsorfw | 11 Dec 2015 6:45 a.m. PST |
Are you looking for test range accuracy, or combat accuracy? My guess is that the two are not nearly the same. Indeed, I don't know how you would find much verifiable data on combat accuracy, given the nature of the events happening and reporting after the fact. There are a lot of stories that seem to have more to do with penetration (or usually the lack of), rather than accuracy. Good luck though. |
Martin Rapier | 11 Dec 2015 6:56 a.m. PST |
John Salts compendium of WW2 AT gun data includes some data on accuracy from pages 40 onwards: PDF link it is of course possible to calculate gun accuracy using ballistics formula, see earlier threads on TMP for this. I would urge some caution in trying to apply Lanchester to the outcomes of twentieth century warfare, particularly at a tactical level, as his approach to combat outcomes based on force ratios takes no account of target density. A bit of reading around the subject is: 'Simulating War' by Phil Sabin 'Military Power' by Stephen Biddle 'Numbers, Prediction and War' by Dupuy 'The Stress of Battle' by David Rowlands Sabin is probably the most accessible, although the best on this subject is Rowlands (as it is includes exhaustive analysis based on the outcomes of hundreds of engagements) it is long oop and hard to obtain. If you can find it is is well worth it though. Sections of Rowlands are included in the more recent 'Brains and Bullets' by Leo Murray, although the focus on that is more trying to quantify the effects on combat outcomes of particular tactical situations (flank attacks, surprise etc) than on the specifics of armoured warfare. Sabins book is a much more general one about designing wargames, but it does include a lot of insights into the peculiarities of twentieth century warfare. Dupuy is largely interesting in this context for the formulas around force ratios and attacker/defender losses, albeit aimed at divisional level resolution. Biddle has some very useful discussion around tactics and dispersion as well as the outcomes of multiple runs of the JANUS simulation of 73 Easting with some of the variables tweaked, producing markedly different outcomes. |
Mobius | 11 Dec 2015 7:03 a.m. PST |
|
Badgers | 11 Dec 2015 8:20 a.m. PST |
Martin Rapier – when are your rules coming out? You look like one of the most informed types around on the science behind modern tactical combat. |
No longer can support TMP | 11 Dec 2015 8:29 a.m. PST |
Like most weapons, I expect the crew quality has the greatest impact on accuracy. While I'm sure there are differences in accuracy between various guns, I'm not so sure of how big the impact of those differences. For example, if your engagement range is 500 meters, I don't think there is enough of a difference to worry about. If you are shooting at 1000m +, the optics quality might play a bigger role than gun accuracy. Additionally, you are starting to get into a range where you are hoping to hit rather than expecting to hit. So, let's say an average accuracy gun might be 30% to hit, a high accuracy gun might be 35%. Is that 5% worth reflecting? Every modifier you add to a game has a cost in terms of memorability and speed of play. |
Martin Rapier | 11 Dec 2015 9:45 a.m. PST |
Thank you Mobius, I hoped you'd chip in. "when are your rules coming out?" LOL, I am always tinkering around with one thing or another. Trying to make the grim reality of conducting manouvre in an environment of massive lethality into an enjoyable game is quite a challenge, as real life tactics are actually incredibly boring. Do people really want to game a 13 hour firefight in which no-one gets hit? In our game we all want a bit of heroism, but any mechanisms at all which: a. make the result of virtually all direct small arms fire suppressive b. penalise players who bunch up (whether they or on foot or in vehicles) goes a long way towards 'realism'. But any game in which a single machinegun can pin down an entire company (they were stupidly bunched up), gets a lot of long faces on game night:) Operational games are much easier, it is just numbers: force ratios, advance rates, relative loss ratios. This is a handy chart for budding games designers: link the probabilities of various force ratios and postures succeeding in an attack (from the Defence Science and Technology Lab). |
BattlerBritain | 11 Dec 2015 10:36 a.m. PST |
For determining gun accuracy 'Textbook of Ballistics and Gunnery', published by HMSO, is what you need, if you can find a copy. You may need to be able to understand the statistics that goes with it though. Martin: Like your link and the Downloads section of the Connections UK. Some good stuff there. Think I'll spend some time reading through those 'First Battle' rules. |
thomalley | 11 Dec 2015 11:33 a.m. PST |
"In our game we all want a bit of heroism, but any mechanisms at all which: a. make the result of virtually all direct small arms fire suppressive b. penalise players who bunch up (whether they or on foot or in vehicles) goes a long way towards 'realism'". For that may I recommend a set called "1944" by Arnold Hendrick. Problem is that it played slowly because of the need for constant visibility checks. |
Blutarski | 11 Dec 2015 12:33 p.m. PST |
LOL- Somebody switched on the flux capacitors. I played a lot of "1944" with Arnold when we were both with Dick Bryant's NEWA club in Boston back in the 70s IIRC. It was a noble early effort at game design but, as I recall, suffered from a couple of problematical rules glitches. One problem was the lack of a reaction fire opportunity in connection with its alternating IGO/UGO turn mechanics. I still remember sitting up atop a wooded hill with two stationary StuG platoons overlooking a vast open field. In his turn, Arnold ran a pair of American armored car platoons right through my frontal arc of fire, around to point blank range of my rear and blew me away in a single phase. Quite annoyed was I. Another popularly exercised rules anomaly was to build tank-proof barricades by lining your own trucks/lorries up nose to tail and purposely destroying them (truck wrecks being "impassable to AFVs"). B |
Blutarski | 11 Dec 2015 12:42 p.m. PST |
Lawrence – See "Tank Combat in North Africa" by Thomas Jentz, pp 57-59. Be sure, however, read his qualifying remarks in the text. B |
Rudysnelson | 11 Dec 2015 2:14 p.m. PST |
I have posted this comment before. Back in 1976, I was assigned to the Armor school in order to be an armor officer. During the initial training on Tank Gunnery, we were issued the green plastic cover manuals. I still have the Cavalry MANUAL but I am not sure about the Gunnery one. Anyway, the intro section on first round hit due to ghost range finders and stabilization importance, had a paragraph on gunnery in 1944. It stated that it would take a M4 Sherman firing at a Stationary target only 500 meter distance 13 rounds before the gunner would have a 50% chance to hit the target. |
goragrad | 11 Dec 2015 2:38 p.m. PST |
John D Salt's WW2 Weapons Effectiveness compilation also has some accuracy information. Here is a link to the pdf (at Martin's website) - link |
thomalley | 11 Dec 2015 3:37 p.m. PST |
Same problems with opportunity fire. I don't think we had a problem with wreck, we figured at that ground scale, there's always room to get by. But idea of ground points and casualties base on target density, plus the pinning rules were wonderful. Although I understood his view on armor, I did think they were too brittle. |
Wolfhag | 11 Dec 2015 5:26 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure how something like individual gun accuracy would translate into one of the equations. It uses force levels, maneuvers and ratios. The variables used in the equations don't seem to break it down to tactical levels as none seem to be representative of accuracy, fatigue and training. I guess you could tweak them for yourself to change the ratios of kill coefficients. Maybe I'm missing something? Personally I'd use the equations from this book: Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War by DePuy. They are easily tweaked for your personal satisfaction. Wolfhag |