"tank combat - looking for ideas" Topic

Hello fellow gamers,

I would like to ask you, if you could help/advice me on a wwII tank combat house rule I have in my mind.

I want to have the player estimate the range to the target as basis for shooting (like Featherstone said in his North Africa book). Short estimates resulting in no hit, but longer estimates should be able to hit dependent of range over target, weapon/ammunition trajectory and size of the target.

Any ideas from your side?

Thank you very much and best regards from Germany,

Brisko

Well if you underestimate you get nothing, so I would always overestimate.
In real life I gather that Allied crews used to shoot in front of the big German tanks and try to bounce the shot into the thinner floor armour (From the book Tank Men).
But I would really ask yourself, why bother?

Underestimating the range is only going to result in a miss if the target beyond point blank range.

If you want to go that route, I think that there needs to be a fairly small window your estimate needs to "hit" to score a hit. Otherwise, you always guess too long. That should result in overshooting the target.

In my oh so humble opinion, you run the risk of the game grinding to a halt while each player tries to get his best estimate. Then you have to measure it anyway.

Also, you give the advantage to those who estimate distances well (mechanics that can look at a bolt and tell you what size it is…blows my mind).

If you want range determination to be important enough to add to the game, you may dispense with the to-hit roll.
1. estimate range
2. measure
3. apply a modifier based on how close the estimate was
4. roll once for a combined to-hit/damage determination
ie: roll 1d6, 4+ for heavy damage, 2-3 for light damage, 1 for miss
if estimate was off by 2 inches, -1 to roll
if estimate was off by 4 inches, -2 to roll
etc. You'll have to flavor for taste, of course.

Short rounds kick up dirt . also give the gunner a point of reference. over gets you nothing . also short rounds spook enemy vehicles over is just a sound . short was always preferable to over

Brisko,
Check out this posting of the trajectory table for the German 76L48:
link

If you know the trajectories and the target height you can physically determine if the range estimation will generate a hit or not without a die roll.

If the initial ranging shot misses you can apply the historic corrections like "add 200" or "drop 400" for the next shot to realistically simulate bracketing. You can even simulate battlesight tactic using a set elevation/range setting and aim high or low depending on the initial range estimation.

I generated my own tables and have been playing a version of this for a few years now.

How is the weather in Germany in early August? I'll be doing a river cruise down the Rhine soon.

Wolfhag

The Germans had optical range finders link
PDF link As can be seen from the second link the sighting method did use a method of estimation combined with measurement. Bore sighting was a method that could also be used at short ranges as the trajectory of the shell was fairly flat. The long 75 of the Panther was very good for this.
Probably not used during ww2, but used by the British on the Centurian and early Chieftain was the ranging machinegun. Most rules usually have a chance factor for hitting a target which takes into account the process of estimating the range to the target. I do know of one naval gamer who is very good at estimating ranges for gunnery and almost always hits his targets.

Battle sighting was also common. Set the sights to a range where the round had a flat trajectory to, and anything between you and that is going to get hit.
But thats not the point, so far as I understand it, the idea is for the player to guess the range to the target. Why, I don't know.

VVV Reply,
Remember, this is TMP, we don't need to know why people do the things they do. We just need to attempt to understand them and respect their opinion – as hard as that can be sometimes. I struggle to understand many posts but it is interesting to get different viewpoints. People rarely agree with me, go figure.

I guess it's a Donald Featherstone game mechanic he wants to use. I don't have players visually estimate the range. I use a die roll to randomize the historical range estimation errors based on crew training, rangefinders, and other techniques.

Wolfhag

Remember, this is TMP, we don't need to know why people do the things they do

I always like to understand whats going on. After all if you know the objective, then you can point them in the right direction.
I agree, if you are looking for a simulation of combat then then you take into account what the real troops had available. But if its just guessing ranges, then none of that is important.

Thank you, guys, for your comments.
Each one was helpfull and got me thinking.

vvv reply: Bouncing shot on armoured targets sounds to me like a desperate measure – and I will try to find out more about it.
You are right, overestimating is preferable to guessing short, because you still have a chance to hit.
And now the big question: why? Because I want to get a bit of authenticity into (my) gaming. Range guessing/finding was and is a big factor in bringing your weapons to bear – yet it's seldom included in the rules. And I follow Featherstone that it is one of the rare things to get the human factor into wargaming tank combat (on the small scale – it won't matter gaming upwards of a company).

@BillyNM: Yes – a point blank range band should be considered.

@mwindsorfw: Yes – that's the point I ask for your input here.

@Stryderg: actually I have this problem with the guys I am gaming with, regardless of the actual rules/mechanisms ;-) That's why I try to give players a time limit to make their decisions. And I will keep it in mind! The final measurement would be made by the umpire or covered – just to see where the shot lands.
I like your ideas for a modifier – will think about it!

@marcus arilius: I see, you are a fan of short-ones. The idea of short rounds being preferable to long ones is absolutely new to me, and I will need far more valid arguments to get convinced. We were trained to hit and kill the enemy(-vehicle) not to spook them – and a short shot never does the job.

@Wolfhag: Thanks for the link. In the end it's exactly what I am after. I see you are playing this mechanics?! Would you mind sharing your ideas/tables with me?
At the moment weather is fine. I live in northern North-Rhine-Westphalia and it's warm and overcast. Down the Rhine is always something special!

@williamb: Thank you! Hadn't had the time to look up the links, yet. I know of the use of the machinegun for ranging – at least for infantry and soft targets. And it is definitely one way to do it.

@vvv reply: battle sighting is a good way to do it. We used it with our emergency optical device. Set it on, say, 1500m (in case you don't have time to calculate) and after the first shot do your corrections.
And, yes again: because the real troops had/have to do it is, why I want the players to do it. Over here most of the gamers don't have any military or real-life-weapons experience – and that shows in their way of playing. I know, that dice-rolls can do an authentic job based on data – and I would like to bring a bit more real-life feeling to World-of-Tanks-like gamers.

And once again: Thanks for all the input.
Please keep posting!

Brisko,
I hope to visit the village near Saarbrucken where my family is from. They have a war memorial that shows six of my German relatives killed in WWI and two at Stalingrad. My Grandfather was in the US Army and at the Meuse-Argonne Offensive somewhere across on the German side were a number of his 1st cousins. The Kaiser chased us out during the Kulture Kampf in the 1880's.

I'd be glad to discuss the details with you. Try to find a copy of Bird & Livingston's book "WWII Ballistics and Armor"
Email me at treadheadgames AT gmail DOT com

In Ogorkiewcz Technology Of Tanks he reports Standard deviations for the ranging system as follows:

25-30% [of range] Visual estimation
15-20% stadimetric
5-10% Ranging MG

10-20 x Sqrt of range in km. Steroscopic Rangefinder
10-20% @ 1km.
14-28% @ 2km.
17-35% @ 3km.

These turn out to be Standard Deviations.

The one variable not discussed is the amount of time to take estimating the range. Battlesight is important for getting the first shot off with an advantage to the side with the higher muzzle velocity. I'm sure you'd get different estimations from players if you gave them only 3-4 seconds to estimate the range and if they take longer they give up the initiative. Seems like you could have some interesting game possibilities.

Wolfhag

From Arthur Taylor's "Rules for Wargaming":

Presumably these are for 1/72 scale figures that were available when the rules were published in 1971. Range estimates were in mm (!) measured from muzzle of the gun to nearest point of the turret ring. Guns were given an AP value and targets a defense value. Exact estimates (to the mm?) had the highest kill chance; shorts were total misses; overs that did not exceed 100mm had various modifiers to reflect a reduced chance of a kill. There were a variety of other modifiers for flanking or rear shots, movement across the line of sight, stationary targets, etc. No dice were rolled-- if the AP value exceeded the defense value the target was killed.

Seems tedious to me even when compared with Fletcher Pratt.

Fireball Forward by Mark Fastoso has a range die that aids in hits. Here is a link to his you tube video tutorial on Fire Actions" that explains his concept.
YouTube link

You are right, overestimating is preferable to guessing short, because you still have a chance to hit.
And now the big question: why? Because I want to get a bit of authenticity into (my) gaming. Range guessing/finding was and is a big factor in bringing your weapons to bear – yet it's seldom included in the rules

Ah, but the point is, the crews had aids to help them with ranging to target. The player has none. Also the ballistics of various rounds will vary.
So a suggestion. Instead of players guessing ranges to their targets give them range sticks. The range sticks have zones marked on them and the players guess which zone the target is in. If they are right, they get full effect for that hit, if not then you have penalties for being in the wrong band. You could have different levels of difficultly of range sticks based on ranging/ammunition being used. So a mix of reality and fun.
Oh and another point, certainly in the German army they did not have the luxury of using their guns to their theoretical limits, ammunition was scarce and not wasted on long range shots.

Don't do it. We had a naval game, the old Fletcher Pratt rules. One guy a landscape gardener could guess even at 12 accurately to 2 or 3 millimeters so the game became a farce. Workshop dod this but gave it up, I guess for similar reasons. You need all players to be equally incompetent.

1. In Normandy, American tankers were taught not to estimate the range to an ATG, but to aim short with an AP round. The solid shot would skip into the target destroying the gun. No range estimation necessary.
2. Battle Sight. The sight setting at which a round will neither rise above, nor fall below, the target at any range out to the range at which the sight is set. Just aim straight on and you will get a hit at any range from here to there. For each type of round the range setting is different but you get the idea of what the practice is. VVV's idea for range bands will produce a similar effect.
3. Panzer crews estimated range by SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess). Artillery crews estimated range by straddle, one over, one under, split the difference. StuGs were manned by artillery crews and it was known that they were faster ranging onto target than were the Panzers.
4. Command Span. Target selection and initial range estimation is done by the Tank Commander (TC) and may be adjusted by the gunner. Subsequent adjustment is called by whoever can observe the fall of shot. If you are playing an RPG in which you are playing the TC or gunner, you will do this. If you are playing a game in which you command a tank platoon (as a Leutenant), or a tank company (as a Captain), it is not your resposibility. Leave this task to your Sargents. They know better.

From my research and reading here is an example of battlesight gunnery:

The vertical red line represents the target vertical size of 8 feet, about that for a Panzer IV. Using a battlesight setting of 800m the gunner fires center mass if he estimates the range at 800m.

At ranges closer than 800m he aims at the bottom of the target and the trajectory rises to hit the target.

If he estimates the range over 800m (950m in the example below) he aims at the top of the target and the trajectory drops it onto the target.

‌

At ranges over 1000m, the crew would use bracketing fire taking additional time to estimate the range. Bracketing corrections would be adding or dropping in 200m or 400m increments.

Battlesight aiming would give the advantage of getting the shot off 3-5 seconds sooner than using longer range estimation time with the tank commander. The higher the muzzle velocity the flatter the trajectory and the battlesight range could be set longer.

You can see that with a battlesight setting of 1000m the trajectory would be too high for this aiming method.

The square red bracket in the middle of the red line represents the approximate MPI of the round. Looking at the target at 1500m a setting of 1400m and 1600m would put the trajectory under and over the target but the MPI dispersion could still hit the target.

It's easy to visualize how smaller and hull down targets (3 feet tall) are harder to hit.

This is not a perfect mathematical model of the 75L48 but should give a good representation.

Wolfhag

Wow,
still a lot of interesting information coming in. Thank you all.

@vvv reply: Although I am of the opinion, that the players view and his chances to look at the ruler and get his estimates more than make up for the lack of optical devices with range finding aid, I love your idea of using a set of range sticks! I am still surprised about what and how german tankers operated in wwII. Getting more information about single crew up to platoon level is high on my list. The gunner should have been able to get a very good idea about the actual range using his sights, the targets dimensions and his maths. On the other hand I was surprised to find, that according to the Panther and Tiger Handbooks, in german tanks every crewmember who could actually see the target gave his guess, then the commander calculated the arithmetic mean, which they used for the first shot. This way they sacrificed time for accuracy.

@UshCha: Thank you. I will keep it in mind. I still want to try it out at least once ;-)

@walking sailor: 1. I am still curious and sceptical about this bouncing shot using AP. I will definitely try to get more info about that.2. yes, I agree; 3. (German) Panzer crews use(d) the same system for corrections as the artillery (like Wolfhag described above: either drop 400 – add 200 – drop 100… or short – add 200 – add 100… depending on wether or not the ground behind the target could be observed); 4. I (mostly) agree.

@wolfhag: again great info. Thank you very much. I will have to find a quiet hour to digest all this.

Brisko

Although I am of the opinion, that the players view and his chances to look at the ruler and get his estimates more than make up for the lack of optical devices with range finding aid,

We used range sticks for Peter Gilders 'In the Grand Manner'. It is amazing what people used to get up to with them. Checking the range stick against your arm length, then resting your arm on the table (in a casual way), to get a better idea of the range.
Some people will do anything to get an advantage in a game.
I echo the comment about how assault gun crews were supposed to be better shots because of their different training. Russian training on the other hand was very poor.

Brisko,
Make everyone wear an eyepatch over their dominant eye. That should level the playing field and make it more interesting when estimating range. When visibility gets bad have them wear dark sunglasses too.

If suppressed have them wear the "drunk goggles": YouTube link

Wolfhag

There are two main features of gun accuracy. One is projectile dispersion and the other is target range estimation accuracy. The ranging estimation is further complicated because as Wolfhag has shown the chance of being on target depends on shell velocity. The higher the velocity the flatter the trajectory and less error even it the range is not estimated perfectly. For tank gunnery hit probabilities can usually be calculated given both variables.

While range estimation has been used in games before it is usually done in naval games where the shell velocity doesn't change things as much.

Also, make sure you don't play on a tiled or patterned floor and no one knows about Pythagoras.

Thak you.

@mobius: did you get my mail? I sent it to the adress on the PanzerWar Homepage.

@wolfhag: Nice ideas :-D Did you get my mail?

No I haven't gotten it yet. Double check the spelling.

Brisko,
I returned your email with the pdf attachment.

I do have a table that randomizes the actual range based on range estimation errors from 5% to 35%. A single die roll randomizes it and can give you a more historical outcome.

Wolfhag

One is projectile dispersion

Ah yes I forgot that. Apparently the early APDS rounds were hideously inaccurate.

@mobius: is exdxasbcglobaldotnet still valid? My mail came back. Would you mind send me a mail to brisko32312athotmaildotcom? I asked for additional German Bundeswehr Vehicle stats for Airland War.

Regards

@brisko exdx AT sbcglobal DOT net

I haven't updated Airland war for quite awhile. I may not have the reference material for more recent vehicles and weapons.

AP shot has a pretty flat trajectory, so distance estimation isn't the main reason it hits or misses.
So I'd say it's not a good mechanism to simulate anti-tank fire, unlike say, naval gunnery.

Dexter,
Most high-velocity tank guns first shot at a target will have about a 90% chance to hit a WWII medium tank at one second time of flight. At two seconds time of flight, it drops to about 50%. The reason it drops so much is that the TC/gunner estimate the range wrong, normally +/- 15% to 25%.

Looking at the trajectory table I posted on May 25 a target at 1500m (just under 2 seconds time of flight) will be missed if the gun is set to 1400m or 1600m. I think that comes out to anything greater than a 6% range estimation error means a miss.

At one second time of flight (800m), the round should hit with a +/-20% range estimation error (650-950m) on the trajectory table.

I think you'll find that out of all of the errors for accuracy the range estimation error is the one that most effects accuracy of the first shot. After that, it's just a matter of correcting high or low.

When I describe accuracy I like using time of flight as a comparison because that's a common denominator for all rounds and it helps show the difference between the muzzle velocity and accuracy.

Wolfhag

Dexter,
For the 75mm/L48 (750 m/s) in Wolfhag's example a range estimate of 1600m on a target 1500m away would be 6 ft/1.84m over the center of target.
Depending on the target size it might or might not hit.
The time-of-flight would be 2.44 seconds.

Data from: H.Dv. 119/324 edition dated October 1944:
link