"Tiger Tanks! - Ammo consumption versus long range fire" Topic

Ran across some interesting material in Anderson's book "Tiger" regarding ammunition expenditure versus long-range shooting by Tiger tanks ; the info is said be translated from contemporary German combat reports. Judging by the dates, the reports are referring to the Tiger I with 8.8cm L/56 gun.

- – -

2/sPzAbt 502 – 29 Jan 1943
Fire fight: The most favorable distance is 1,500m with well adjusted weapons we got clear hits only. Impact and penetration is so far without any complaint. He ratio between HE and AP rounds must be 1:1 …

- – -

sPzAbt 503 – 15 Mar 1943
1 – Success against enemy tanks at minimal ammunition consumption was possible only at ranges under 1,000m.
2 – Success against enemy tanks was possible at any ranges, the most favourable range was between 1,200 and 2,000m. At 2,000m the first round will (usually?) be a hit, a second round was only occasionally necessary. It is possible to engage enemy tanks at more distant ranges. One PzKpfw VI destroyed five T-34 (three crossing in front) at ranges between 2,500 and 3,000m. Only 18 rounds were fired.

- – -

13.Kp (Tiger-Kp.) PzRgt Grossdeutschland – 27 Mar 1943
The 8.8cm KwK proved to be a reliable and effective weapon. No faults or damage to the electric firing mechanism or similar occurred. No more than three rounds were necessary to achieve direct hits o marching artillery columns at 5,000m range using HE shells. Horses and men lay in the snow immediately. At ranges of 1,500m and more we achieved many hits on T-34 using the Panzerkopfgranate (AP round) with low ammunition consumption.

<snip>

Most times the first shot was a hit at ranges between 600 to 1,000m. At these ranges the Panzergranate produced an absolute destructive penetration to the frontal armor, and demolished the engine in the rear, too. In only a few cases the T-34 was torched. Hits at the same ranges to the sides or rear led to an explosion of the fuel in 80 per cent of all cases. Even at ranges of 1,500m and more, with favorable weather conditions, similar results were achieved with low ammunition usage.

- – -

Paderborn training course (Tiger Lehrgang) – 29 May 1943
The KwK 8.8cm shows extraordinary good impact and penetration. The most favorable firing ranges are around 2,000m. In one case in Russia, a Tiger with good observation and raised slope position managed to destroy five T-34 (three in parallel movement) and a 7.62cm AT gun at ranges between 2,200 and 3,000m using only 18 AP and HE shells. In North Africa, the General Sherman (M4) was destroyed at the following ranges: 3,400m frontal penetration in the gearbox;

- – -

Range Table data (TM E9-369A Technical Manual: German 88-mm Antiaircraft Gun Materiel, 29 Jun 1943) gives the following ballistic performance for the 8.8cm L/56 Flak 18/36 firing the standard AP projectile -

Range – 1,000m – – 1,500m – – 2,000m – – 2,500m – – 3,000m
T o F – 1.25 sec – 1.94 sec – 2.68 sec – 3.46 sec – 4.31 sec
A o F – 0.50 deg – 0.81 deg – 1.13 deg – 1.50 deg – 1.94 deg

Mean Dispersion (50pct zone) expressed as Height x Width in meters:
1,000m – 0.7 x 0.4
2,000m – 1.6 x 0.8
3,000m – 2.7 x 1.2

I assume that these dispersion values are proving ground numbers; according to Jentz, German practice was to double such values to reflect performance under combat conditions.

Wolfhag can check my math and logic here, but my guess is that a range estimation error of about +/- 150m could likely have been tolerated at 2,000m.

FWIW.

B

At Villers Bocage Wittmann fired at a Cromwell at about 50 yds….and missed!
Szamveber's 12th SS book has a few examples where Pz IV ammo consumption and claimed kills can be compared and it roughly works out at 10 rounds per claim. That matches well with the 8.8cm data and the Youtube clip I linked in the thread that triggered this response. The Tiger examples above don't have enough information to work out at the number of rounds expended per kill so unfortunately it adds nothing to what we already know

Sorry, mkenny, but I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to a Youtube posting by your goodself.

Missed 50 yard snap shot @ Viller Bocage? Perfectly possible. But it is a completely different situation.

Insufficient data to draw a 100 pct accurate conclusion? Perhaps so; that is why I closed the message with the admonition t5hat it be treated "FWIW" ("For What it is Worth"). Nevertheless, it is arguably real data from real end-users derived from real combat actions.

Your presentation of 75mm gun kill performance lacks sufficient perspective and background information to draw any meaningful conclusions, other than to say we are talking about different guns altogether.

B

That was not the ammunition the Tiger used.
Munitionsmerkblatt 5 dated December 12, 1943 gives these perforation figures for the Tiger I's 8.8 cm Pzgr. Patr. 39 KwK 36, weight 10.2 Kg, muzzle velocity 773 m/s, 30 degrees deflection:
at 100 meters 120 mm, 500 m 110 mm, 1000 m 100 mm, 500 m 91 mm, 2000 m 84mm. These are the "official" OKW figures.

The Tiger's firing table has a MV of 780 m/s in this instance.
Using the Krupp May 2,1944 4AKB 9524 chart of perforation curves for Krupp Projectiles, and the German Firing Table for 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39 FES (39-1 and 39 Al) weight 10 kg, yields these 30 degrees of deflection figures for PzGr. 39 (as used by the Tiger I) 100 meters 770 m/s 123 mm of HB 275-302 plate, 500 meters 734 m/s 113 mm same HB plate, 1000 meters 690 m/s 102 mm same HB, 1500 meters 647 m/s 92 mm also HB 275-302 plate, 2000 meters 607 m/s 84 mm HB 302-329 plate.

50% DISPERSION ZONES FOR 88L56 APCBC
RANGE…VERTICAL..LATERAL
100m………0.10m………0.09m
200m………0.13m………0.11m
300m………0.16m………0.12m
400m………0.19m………0.14m
500m………0.21m………0.15m
600m………0.24m………0.17m
700m………0.27m………0.18m
800m………0.30m………0.19m
900m………0.34m………0.21m
1000m.0.37m………0.22m
1300m..0.5m/0.3m
1500m..0.6m/0.3m
2000m..0.9m/0.5m
2500m..1.2m/0.7m
3000m..1.7m/1.0m

Range – 1,000m – – 1,500m – – 2,000m – – 2,500m – – 3,000m
T o F – 1.36 sec – 2.1 sec – 2.9 sec – 3.77 sec – 4.69 sec
At 2000 meters vs. a tank sized target a Tiger I (TZF-9b sight 16% std. dev range error) would have only a 13.1% chance of a first round hit.

BTW, std dev error of 16% is an average mean error of 12.7%

As a matter of comparison, the US Army's official statistical analysis gave a figure of 14 rounds expended to achieve "a kill".

How that number was arrived at is anyone's guess at this point. If it was a simple comparison of service rounds issued and expended versus kills claimed, how does one deal with cases where a tank gunner pumped a few extra rounds into a stopped opponent "just to make sure".

This is not a simple exercise.

B

2/sPzAbt 502 – 29 Jan 1943
Fire fight: The most favorable distance is 1,500m with well adjusted weapons we got clear hits only. Impact and penetration is so far without any complaint. He ratio between HE and AP rounds must be 1:1 …

That is not what my copy says but the range (100m) is suspect so possibly a misprint for that.
I presume you quoted page 113 but because you did not give a page number checking your claims is not easy. Is that deliberate?

Perhaps page 170 might be of more help?

That is 6 rounds per claimed tank. Very interesting numbers as well. Are we to believe they went and counted every single dead Russian soldier?

Sorry, mkenny, but I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to a Youtube posting by your goodself.

You started this thread because of my replies in the other thread so forgive if I say I do not believe you.

Your presentation of 75mm gun kill performance lacks sufficient perspective and background information to draw any meaningful conclusions, other than to say we are talking about different guns altogether

Given my 12th SS examples are worked out using actual data on ammo consumption and a total of tanks claimed per day it is far more relevant than your data.

That is 6 rounds per claimed tank. Very interesting numbers as well.

How do we know some of the AP was not fired at the AT guns? I posted a recommendation from a StuG manual that AP be used intermittently against AT guns.

Are we to believe they went and counted every single dead Russian soldier?

So do you also doubt the Russian AARs where they have totals of German soldiers killed in tank battles?

Hi Mobius,
Thanks for pointing that out. The range table for Flak 36 MV firing base-fuzed AP gives an initial velocity of 810m/sec (i.e. 37m/sec > KwK36).

Interesting passage in Jentz's book on the Tiger Tanks, which relates to shooting accuracy, can be found on page 10 -

Expected likelihood of hitting by "the average calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round …"

8.8cm KwK36 L/56 firing PzGr.40 AP
1000m – 93 pct
1500m – 74 pct
2000m – 50 pct
2500m – 31 pct

- which suggests to me that fire at such ranges could have effect without excessive expenditure of ammunition.

FWIW.

B

As a matter of comparison, the US Army's official statistical analysis gave a figure of 14 rounds expended to achieve "a kill".

How that number was arrived at is anyone's guess at this point. If it was a simple comparison of service rounds issued and expended versus kills claimed, how does one deal with cases where a tank gunner pumped a few extra rounds into a stopped opponent "just to make sure".

This is not a simple exercise.

It is all we have so it is all we can use. Your problem is you do not like the numbers because they go against everything you believe about German claims.

Here again is the link to the Youtube clip
YouTube link

and it is not news to me. I have been using that very same info for years now on AHF and other forums. Long before this film used it.

link

link

How do we know some of the AP was not fired at the AT guns? I posted a recommendation from a StuG manual that AP be used intermittently against AT guns.

We don't know. However if we use the same methods for all these consumption figures and get roughly equal results then it gives us a idea of how it was. I see no way that detailed information will become available to give the real numbers so we either work with what we have or we all cherry-pick the numbers we prefer.

So do you also doubt the Russian AARs where they have totals of German soldiers killed in tank battles?

I make no use of Russian AARs so they have absolutely no relevance at all. I have no idea why you even bring them up. Help me out and explain why you think Russian AARs might be of some use here. Have you an example in mind?

Hi mkenny,
Feel free to disbelieve whatever you like. If you posted a Youtube site in the earlier thread, I did not see it. No problem. I don't really care about Youtube references.

Did you "inspire" me to start this thread? Yes and no, to be perfectly honest. Your constant carping about Tiger tanks led me to check my references to see what relevant material might be found related to long-range shooting, so … thank you for that. I started this thread because I discovered some material I considered relevant and worth sharing.

Feel free to check my transcription accuracy from Anderson's book. Once again, I don't really care one way or the other.

B

Interesting passage in Jentz's book on the Tiger Tanks, which relates to shooting accuracy, can be found on page 10 -

Expected likelihood of hitting by "the average calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round …"

8.8cm KwK36 L/56 firing PzGr.40 AP
1000m – 93 pct
1500m – 74 pct
2000m – 50 pct
2500m – 31 pct

- which suggests to me that fire at such ranges could have effect without excessive expenditure of ammunition.

You missed the bit where Jentz says that 'These accuracy table do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Further the figueres used clearly state that this assumes that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined'
Those Jentz tables have been misused widely over the years mainly by people who know they are being deceptive.
Also the reference to 'Jentz Tiger book' is better than no reference but there are several Jentz Tiger books. The tables appear in a number of them but for page 10 it is 'Tiger I & II Combat Tactics'.

I started this thread because I discovered some material I considered relevant and worth sharing.

But did not find/chose to ignore this from the book you used. It is much more relevant than the excerpts you posted.

@Blutarski

Expected likelihood of hitting by "the average calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round …"

The German method of determining accuracy is not very good. It is dependent on the deviation of the shell. They just double the deviation to find the firing accuracy. It doesn't depend on ranging error. They aren't even using a tank sized target.

88L56 TUNGSTEN CORE
RANGE…VERTICAL..LATERAL
100m….0.1m/0.1m
300m….0.2m/0.1m
500m….0.2m/0.1m
800m….0.4m/0.2m
1000m..0.5m/0.3m
1300m..0.7m/0.4m
1500m..0.8m/0.5m

link
How to use the Tafel der Wahrscheinlichkeitsfaktoren (Table of Probability Factors).
Divide 2.5 by the lateral deviation. Find that number on the first column of the table and get the lateral percentage.
Divide 2 by the vertical deviation. Find that number on the first column of the table and get the vertical percentage.
Multiply the vertical deviation percentage by the lateral deviation percentage to get the total dispersion percentage.
To find the German accuracy percentage double the deviation values in the above calculations.

This works out as an average of 9 rounds per claimed vehicle target and 28 bullets per dead infantryman

Feel free to check my transcription accuracy from Anderson's book. Once again, I don't really care one way or the other.

You used page 80 where Lange is quoted as your original post. However on page 113 the same report is again quoted but with the slightly different text. Clearly Anderson is mixing his sources. All this would be avoided if you properly sourced your posts.

It also works out to 228 bullets per AFV/gun and 1.1448 rounds per infantry man.

It also works out to 228 bullets per AFV/gun and 1.1448 rounds per infantry man.

Yes wonderful stuff.

I prefer this though. As well as the 6 rounds-per-kill-claim for sPzAbt 502 I mention above there are other Unit records that list 40 rounds per kill for long range shooting. I took a screen grab from Youtube but the sources are given (not Zaloga but the original sPzAbt 502 reports)for the data so it can not be dismissed.

40 rounds per kill!

As well as the 6 rounds-per-kill-claim for sPzAbt 502

Abject nonsense. There is no way to tell the distribution of the rounds. If AP were fired at AT guns is unknown. If HE shells were fired at infantry is unknown. If HE were fired at armored targets is unknown. It's no more accurate than my bullets per knocked out tanks ratio.

read panzertruppen 2 page 129, 130, 131

"As a matter of comparison, the US Army's official statistical analysis gave a figure of 14 rounds expended to achieve "a kill"".

There's a big difference between "hits" and "kills", and as we all know, the German Panthers' and Tigers' guns were superior to most American tank guns, including their/our 76mm cannon, in terms of penetration. The only real Allied guns up to snuff during WWII to take on the German heavies were the American 90mm cannon, and the British 17 Pdr..

That's not my evaluation, that's from tankers and tank destroyer men who fought against the German cats, during WWII.

A US tank destroyer man mentioned that even their much vaunted and improved 76mm gun on the Sherman would frequently bounce off the German tanks when firing at them from the frontal arc, and also even from the side arcs (presumably angled by the German tank crews to present their best armor vs. their attackers – say, 45 degrees or better for their side profiles, since even their cats didn't have great side armor).

He also mentioned that the German guns didn't have the same problem vs. the US tanks, and that they frequently killed them when hit.

Knowing that significantly increases the number of rounds of US AP shot to obtain a "kill" on German tanks.

At 50m/yds., any relative angular tank movement (crossing movement) will be considerably greater that it will seem to be at further distances, raising the likelihood of misses on close range shots.

That's why many police and criminals fire so many shots at close range with pistols and miss so many times, since any apparent, relative angular movement is greatly exaggerated close in.

The simple fact is that rounds per kill is a useless way of determining a weapon's effectiveness. The example from the 502nd SwPzAbt illustrates that very well. It is highly unlikely that the crews and tanks suddenly became 7x more effective! Ammunition is expended in many ways that don't contribute to kills. Some examples:-
(1) Test firing and zeroing in. Was listening to a veteran German tanker's account the other day and he said at the start of the day, before heading out into action they would fire off a couple of rounds to check the guns were working and remained zeroed in. So your company has now expended 30 rounds for zero chance of a kill.
(2) Overkills. Unless the target explodes or starts billowing black smoke crews would keep firing until they were sure they had a kill. Otto Carius quotes an example in Tigers in the Mud where he engages an AT gun and puts 5 rounds into it, firing until he can see the barrel pointing up at the sky. It is quite possible his first or second round did lethal damage to the gun that wasn't apparent from his viewpoint.
(3) Lost rounds. I don't mean mislaid, but ammo that is expended without being fired. If your ammo res up ply vehicle is hit while moving up or you lose 3 tanks with full loads of ammo that is several hundred rounds expended for zero effect.

3) Lost rounds. I don't mean mislaid, but ammo that is expended without being fired. If your ammo res up ply vehicle is hit while moving up or you lose 3 tanks with full loads of ammo that is several hundred rounds expended for zero effect

And for example how are the rounds of the 3 knocked out Tigers counted? Do they send someone into the burnt out hulks to count the rounds remaining?

And for example how are the rounds of the 3 knocked out Tigers counted? Do they send someone into the burnt out hulks to count the rounds remaining?

They aren't, that is the point! They just are part of the total of rounds expended. No one is going to bother trying to find out those things. All they are going to record is the number of rounds they are issued and their daily ammo stock level.

emckenny,
I rarely disagree with you but I think the info you and the video are using is not consistent. The one-shot-one kill claim (by who?) should be a tactical claim, not a logistical one.

The video starts out "establishing a baseline using Freeman's study based on a Master's Thesis: A Study of Ammunition Consumption" in 2005. Here is the study:
PDF link

Preface to the paper:

Importance
The importance of this research is that it may provide information that impacts the current logistical doctrine. As a result of the research, the Army may want to modify the
way it uses an ammunition calculation schedule which has its origin based on World War II data. The Army needs to create a new ammunition calculation schedule with current
statistics. The researcher believes that by providing current, accurate data, Field Manual 101-10-1/2 (not a WWII report), Staff Officers' Field Manual Organizational, Technical, and Logistical Data Planning Factors, may be restructured to use current statistics, thus making it more relevant. The date of the most current copy of this field manual is 1990. The researcher also compared the tables in the 1990 edition to the tables in a previous edition and did not find any changes. Additionally, the research provides data that shows the Logistical Estimate Worksheet also calculates ammunition consumption at a very inflated rate.

Page 14: "The percentage of kill ratio in World War II is compared with today's Army. In World War II it was a ratio of 14 to 1. It took fourteen rounds of ammunition to kill an
armored vehicle."

It's a logistical study, not a tactical study. He's referring to 1 tank being knocked for every 14 rounds CONSUMED not FIRED tactically in combat at a target. Those stats would be almost impossible to gather. He's talking about all of WWII, not a specific nationality, battle or weapon. As others have stated, it's impossible to account for exactly how every round was expended. Consumed covers all of the ways the rounds would be used up to resupply them and is what logistics is concerned with. The reports from German Stug units appear to be a logistical report.

Freeman mentions historical data from WWII but does not go into detail. I'm assuming (so I could be wrong) that this is a logistical reference, not a tactical one. In the entire 77 page report this is the only mention of WWII and no mention of Germany or the FLAK 88. I really like the commentator but why he selected the German 88 and Freemans scant reference of the 14-1 I don't know. The commentator seems to be wary of the information and the sources too also stating at the end the lack of consistency.

The actual reports of consumption of US and German units mentioned does not account for rounds fired in combat as Fred and Mobius stated. There is no way to account for that.

Freeman mentions ammo "consumption" but does not go into detail exactly how the ammo was consumed. I seriously doubt the each and every round logistics delivered was fired tactically in a battle. Nor does he describe if they were HE, AP or used against ground or air targets. The 88 was extensively used in N. Africa with the German withdrawing, sometimes hastily. Does he include rounds shipped or rounds delivered? Many hundreds wound up at the bottom of the Med, left behind and blown when withdrawing, captured, destroyed, etc.

Personally, he does not give anywhere enough data to really know how successful the WWII gunners hit % was nor does he even go into which nationalities in his paper other than discussing the United States. His paper does establish that basing modern logistics on WWII data is wrong.

Does he mean the 14-1 was data is from US research which is what his paper exclusively discusses? Who knows but in no way is it referencing the German 88 and I can't locate any other papers he has published on the subject. He may be referencing someone else's data. The commentator also mentions early in the video he could not find the source for the 14-1 either and is highly skeptical about the value. So should everyone but do your own research.

Let's look at historical accounts and AAAR's. Even in combat conditions, there are claims from the Brits, US, Germans and Russians of obtaining multiple hits at 2000+ meters with much less than 14 rounds.

At 2000m WWII gunners could fire a ranging and then 2-3 bracketing shots to find the range and start hitting even if the average dispersion of the round was greater than the target size, conditions permitting. Using battlesight engagement a typical tank gun could have an 80% or greater chance to hit out to 1.1 seconds time of flight. Even in combat conditions. Guns in defense would set up with a range card to various locations in their FoF and if time and ammo is an available fire at each location and records the exact elevation setting up for that spot. It would be almost impossible to miss a tank at ranges up to 1 second time of flight.

If you are going to convince anyone of the lack of accuracy of guns in WWII to find some reports that are more tactical in nature. Not logistical reports. The reports are most likely true, they are just not pertinent to ammo expenditure in tactical combat.

If all of the guns in WWII were so inaccurate the war would probably still be going on.

Wolfhag

Overkills. Unless the target explodes or starts billowing black smoke crews would keep firing until they were sure they had a kill.

Often claimed but the studies show 1 penetration was the largest %..

The video starts out "establishing a baseline using Freeman's study based on a Master's Thesis: A Study of Ammunition Consumption" in 2005

I use nothing from that paper. My numbers are direct from sPz Abt 502. The average for both sets was 6 rounds and 40 rounds per claimed kill.
By the reaction you would think I had demanded every member here sacrifice their first born to the devil. There is too much invested in the Tiger myth to allow a trifling matter like evidence to change minds.
The list of excuses is amazing. In all my time of arguing this point over the last decade I have never once met anyone who (for example) uses those reasons to discredit the 955% of Shermans burn when hit even though those very same excuses would apply to the M4 . It is like the excuse that the weather prevented the German taking Moscow etc and same weather had no effect on the Russians.

If all of the guns in WWII were so inaccurate the war would probably still be going on.

Fundamental misconception that seems to be shared by many in the thread.

I say nothing about accuracy. I am concerned only about average ammo expenditure v claimed kills.
People keep posting the 88 range data without seemingly understanding that combat was not range firing.
You can be the crackest of crack shots on a range but a quivering wreck when the bullets start flying.

All the excuses forwarded to explain (glad to see no one has tried to deny the numbers-so far!) the numbers apply equally to Allied tanks. Therefore if we apply the same rule to everyone we get a direct comparison. Its a valid method and not liking the numbers is not a reason to discount them.

As wolfhag said it is a logistical value not a tactical number of rounds. Like, it took 30,000 bullets to kill one VC in Vietnam and it took 250,000 bullets to kill one insurgent in Afghanistan.
link

I am concerned only about average ammo expenditure v claimed kills.

I am not sure, though, why you are concerned about it as it proves nothing. It doesn't help write more accurate Wargames rules. It doesn't tell you anything about how effective a weapon system is or how good the crews were. As Wolfhag pointed out it is only real use is if you are constructing a logistics model.

I am not sure, though, why you are concerned about it as it proves nothing.

Before Jentz used the 8.8cm ammo-used-per-kill in his Panzer Tracts booK no one would have believed that it took 10-20 rounds fired for every claimed kill. It could be worse. Check how many flak rounds were expended per downed bomber.

Like, it took 30,000 bullets to kill one VC in Vietnam

No it took only one bullet. The other 29,999 did not hit anyone..
Which is my point.

Before Jentz used the 8.8cm ammo-used-per-kill in his Panzer Tracts booK no one would have believed that it took 10-20 rounds fired for every claimed kill.

Really? The vast amounts of ammo expended in WW2 vs the amount killed etc has been well documented for years. And again so what?!

Really? The vast amounts of ammo expended in WW2 vs the amount killed etc has been well documented for years. And again so what?!

Not correct. Until that Jentz book people would have said the possibility the 88 needed even 5 shots to get a hit would have been countered by pages of range info on the flak 88 showing it had a 90% hit probability out to 1500 mtrs. I was once berated in a thread because I queried a claim that the 88 could (and did) sink a destroyer! No tale was too tall for the mythical 88.
Now that the Jentz data is known no one will dispute it.
That battle was lost and so it is ignored and all effort expended defending the 88 in the Tiger as the new supergun.
Thus the completely irrelevant range data on the Tiger is now trotted out as if it has anything to do with combat firing.

Thus the completely irrelevant range data on the Tiger is now trotted out as if it has anything to do with combat firing.

Neither does the average number of rounds per claimed kill. The data is useless for constructing any sort of combat model.

I think the Allied tank crewman would disagree with Jentz. Forget the range info, look at the Allied crew AAR's. Taking 5 rounds to get a hit at under 1000m as the norm is ridiculous and Sherman crews would have laughed at them. In extreme circumstances it could happen but not the norm or average, not even close.

An experienced AT gun crew firing from a concealed ambush and not being shot taking a flank shot on a Sherman at 500m is in no way going to take more than 2 shots unless there is something extremely wrong or a SNAFU. I doubt if an AT gun could stick around very long if it took 5 rounds to get a hit.

I don't question Jentz, I'm just questioning how the data was gathered. If it is logistically based on expenditure compared to kills it's really irrelevant for a 1:1 engagement. Design a game around it if you must.

emckenny,

I say nothing about accuracy. I am concerned only about average ammo expenditure v claimed kills.

Please clarify. How is accuracy not a function of the number of rounds expended?

In the video, "Zaloga pointed out the most determining factor is most likely the combat circumstances". Does he go into those circumstances when he makes his statement?

Circumstances could be in an ambush or sniping at long range not being spotted or fired at, smoke a cigarette, read a letter from home, very much like being at the range while hitting targets at 2500m that have no idea where you are. You can take your time for range estimation, use a range finder, etc. No bullets are flying so there is nothing to fear. There are videos of German 88's in N. Africa firing around every 4-6 seconds with all of the crew in the open and walking around. Waiting in ambush and tracking your target at close range for a side shot is pretty safe. That was a high percentage of the engagements for the Germans in W. Europe. They were not being shot at when they opened fire. However, they would not be doing that if they were under a mortar barrage.

The other extreme could be a close-range engagement against moving targets where you are buttoned up, poor visibility and smoke, bullets pinging off your armor, vision blocks are cracked, your eyes are burning from fumes and every shot is a snapshot because that's all you have time for. In a situation like that, the gunner may not even get a good sight picture and the tank commander may be telling him when to fire when he thinks a target is in front of his gun. You could miss 50% of your shots inside 100m. Being in a Tiger tank would be a disadvantage.

There are no average engagements as there are too many variables.

A problem I have is what defines a "kill"? The first shot from 1500m could penetrate and kill the entire crew but you don't really observe any damage. In a game, you switch to a new target. In reality (and in our games), you may pump one or two more rounds into the target or shoot until it burns. It's a one-shot kill that the crew expended three or more rounds on. If the first shot blew the turret up in the air you'd switch to the next target. The average number of rounds expended for a kill is not going to enter into a game design unless it is for a logistics rule.

The same thing happened in Cologne between the Panther and Pershing. The first Pershing shot clearly set the ammo on fire. The gunner put two more rounds into the Panther because its gun was pointed at him and he didn't know what the gunner was doing. Again, one round kill with three rounds expended. No one is going to gather that data during or after a battle. An "average expenditure" doesn't provide much info for a 1:1 tactical game design. There is no average.

I'll agree to the StuG unit of 6 rounds expended per kill. To really mean anything for a game we need a lot more info. With my design in situations where a crew is forced to trade accuracy for speed, there is a chance, under really poor conditions or with a poor crew, it would could take 6 rounds but we've never experienced it. That would be a fairly extreme situation but it can happen. But an "average" of 6 rounds? What game has that?

I'm in agreement that there are situations where the crew can choke and combat conditions and suppression will decrease response time and accuracy needing more shots to ensure a target is no longer a threat (different than a kill). Personally, I feel the blubbering and panicking crew is not the norm for poor performance. Combat conditions vary from ideal like on the range on a clear day to absolutely miserable and total fear, there is no average.

So how do you model a situation where it could take 6 shots?

I use the amount of aim time as the main indicator of accuracy. Less than ideal aim time comes with an accuracy penalty but a bonus for shooting first. It's the player's choice to trade accuracy for speed. I think Whitman's crew missed at Villers Bocage because of being forced into a short-range snapshot. Forcing the crew to button up will decrease their response time and decrease accuracy.

In my game, an Ace Tiger I crew would need 6 seconds of aim time for the best accuracy. A snapshot of 0 seconds would add 600m to the target range. There is a fair chance of a miss.

Our game has a 5% chance of a SNAFU when you fire which is a miss and does include the gunner choking, the loader may have loaded the wrong round, jam, misfire, etc. A hit can mean a ricochet, hit a weak armor gap or shot trap, nothing is 100% guaranteed.

Wolfhag

Not correct. Until that Jentz book people would have said the possibility the 88 needed even 5 shots to get a hit would have been countered by pages of range info on the flak 88 showing it had a 90% hit probability out to 1500 mtrs.

Well some people might have said that, but if you know where to look and could be bothered to check the information has been out there for years. As for the 88 we know from the range data that the gun is inherently accurate and conversely we know that the 17pdr firing sabot is not. That is useful information when constructing a combat model.

but if you know where to look and could be bothered to check the information has been out there for years.

Where can we see Unit ammo expenditure for given dates alongside kill claims?

It should still be there now so where should I look?
Care to share some of that information with us?

In the video, "Zaloga pointed out the most determining factor is most likely the combat circumstances". Does he go into those circumstances when he makes his statement?

Why not use the numbers given for the Stug Abt? The video goes into those 'circumstances'.

Per Kenny's link.

51,595 rounds at tanks.
Of the 51,595 rounds, 8.3% HE, 21.2% HC and 70.5% AP(36,374).
11.9% (6,574) were AFV.

OK, we have related data. So 7.8 rounds were expended per AFV. No data on how it all turned out.
I assume AFV means tanks and we don't have a sub group.

In October 1944 it was noted that the L/48 Stug has reached the limit of its effectiveness and that Allied tanks were achieving kills at ranges where the Stug was ineffective.

Now, this is confounding because we just had a discussion that the average ranges in NWE was 700 yds. Did dark energy expand space in NWE in 10/1944 giving more ranges between points? Can we assume the 75mm/L48 was still effective at 700 yds? Panthers and Tigers getting hits at 1200 yds was just sluffed off. Now, it's important when Allied guns can do it and obsoleting certain German guns.
Seems a predisposition of certain authors.

Now, this is confounding because we just had a discussion that the average ranges in NWE was 700 yds. Did dark energy expand space in NWE in 10/1944 giving more ranges between points? Can we assume the 75mm/L48 was still effective at 700 yds? Panthers and Tigers getting hits at 1200 yds was just sluffed off. Now, it's important when Allied guns can do it and obsoleting certain German guns.

No more astounding than the RAF sightings and shoot-downs of the He 113 during the Battle Of Britain.

Now, it's important when Allied guns can do it and obsoleting certain German guns. Seems a predisposition of certain authors.

The info is from Muller & Zimmermann Vol. I.

link

Many German Tigers fought on the defensive, later in the war, as did their other tanks, assault guns, and tank destroyers too.

On the Tigers at least, I recall seeing white and red "range sticks" slapped to the sides of them, on well done models, and various dioramas.

There's a use for those, and if on the defensive, anticipating an attack, the Germans could and did measure the range to various points in front of them, and no doubt even used these "range sticks" to aid in "ranging in" to various terrain features, or even on the sticks themselves, in order to be able to greatly increase their first shot hit percentages.

Artillerymen do this too, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see hits on enemy vehicle at or near those points being well north of 50%, when and if they had the time to do this with their tank guns.

My guess is pre-ranging will probably double the to-hit % chance for a long-range, first round shot, for a well-trained crew.

Thresher01,
Exactly. You can even see this in some British 1800's colonial movies like Roark's Drift with the kids putting out ranging sticks before the attack for their Martini-Henry rifles. It was a common practice for rifle and artillery fire over 200 years ago.

Why did they do this and why is it important? Because the range estimation error of the shooter is the largest variable to accuracy (research error budget) and chances for a first-round hit. Any long-range shooter will tell you that. Give me the range and I'll put in the right elevation to give me the best chance for a hit. That's why shooting competition is held at a known range for the best accuracy.

Ambushes and not being suppressed allow almost ideal engagement parameters, almost like being at the range. Many German 88 guns had range finders mainly for AA fire but were used to range tank and infantry targets. This makes them even more accurate than most other guns. That's even more of a reason I doubt emckennys conclusion of his research despite believing the higher level ammo consumption accounts.

Crews could use a rangefinder when not fired at but most likely not when fired at. It's a huge difference that needs to be taken into account in 1:1 games. You can't use a high-level generalized logistics report, even if they are accurate if you are going to use the data for a 1:1 game to determine each individual shot, there are too many variables. That's my opinion, feel free to disagree.

The defender, in a prepared defense, has a huge advantage in getting off the first and accurate shot. Just research AAR's and personal histories of Allied and German tank crewman. Are there any complaints about the lack of accuracy of the German 88 guns? I can't find any other than missing on a short-range snapshot.

A high-velocity gun that is inherently accurate using a range finder that will give a range estimation error of +/- 10% with a combat-experienced crew that is not being suppressed is going to most likely be the most accurate weapon on the battlefield. How many hits it takes to penetrate and verify a kill is a different matter and can increase ammo consumption. That's something I doubt gun crews are worrying about in the heat of combat, despite orders not to waste ammo.

Shooting a high-velocity gun (mv 800+ mps) at 400-500m and taking more than 2 rounds to get a hit is not anywhere close to the norm but can happen in extreme circumstances. A claim of an average of 2+ shots just to get a hit under those almost ideal conditions? Show me under what conditions it could happen? I'm willing to listen, just don't show me more high-level HQ and logistical stats, it's just not pertinent to what we are doing.

I'm not a German fanboy, really. I'm familiar with the German limitations and some of the bogus legends generated. OK, so I am half German and have a cousin in the German Navy and had relatives fighting on both sides in WWI and WWII. So what?

But I don't believe the German myths but let the physics and personal accounts, for the most part, guide me in making a decision. From my personal experience in the military, which includes some time at the Pentagon, the higher the level of the report the less likely I am to believe it reflects tactical reality. It's a military cultural thing all nationalities suffer from. The higher the level the more disconnected they are from the nuances of what really happened and the more likely they are to bow to telling higher command what they want to know.

Poor conditions, suppression from small arms fire and mortars, seeking self-preservation over combat effectiveness will greatly degrade combat effectiveness. emckenny makes that point. Combat conditions, a generalized statement, that emckenny relates to. I totally agree. Maybe the question should be under what conditions and how much does it degrade accuracy? Just saying "combat conditions" and crews always panicking does not cut it for me. It does not align with AAR's.

So emckenny, how accurate can a gun be when not being fired at or the crew suppressed under almost range conditions which did exist in a combat zone (ambushes and long-range). Please answer. How accurate is it compared to range firing? Mobius has indicated how much which I think is accurate.

That's why range cards, range sticks, and range finders are so important. Also why the amount of aim time the gunner takes to make fine elevation adjustments and why suppression degrades accuracy is important and why I include it in my game.

I believe the higher level HQ and logistical reports emckenny posts. I just don't believe (too generalized) how they translate into tactical accuracy in a 1:1 engagement and question the data collection and reporting methods. I believe there are errors and a disconnect in the conclusion of the data collection and how it translates into what emckenny is claiming.

Wolfhag

Great discussion and something I've been looking at for a while as well.

I worked as a Scientist on tank gun accuracy for Challenger 2 so am familiar with the use of SD's for determining range accuracy. I've used the quoted range dispersions for 88L56 and it does have an effective range of 2000m. The 88L71 even has an effective range of 2500m. That's comparable to modern weapons and better than some.

So why does it take more than 1 round to take out a target?

I think it depends on what you're hitting and what effects the rounds have. The 'keep pumping until you see smoke' part.

An interesting snippet I picked up from the Haynes manual on the Tiger1, of all things, was the percentage chance of killing a Churchill tank was 25% for a 37mm round, 50% for a 75mm round and 66% for an 88mm round. I presumed this was in North Africa and no definition of what 'killing' the Churchill was given.

To me that says that whilst a round might hit the effects when it gets there are variable.

It also depends on what the target is, how big the over-penentration is and if the firer sees any obvious damage.

It's also interesting to compare with modern engagements, although the only one I can get any publicly released info for is Golan 73.

There we have Israeli claims of Centurion crews taking out 5 tanks in 10 mins or 12 tanks in 2hrs, but with Centurions running out of ammo in 2hrs. They had 77 rounds on a Cent mixed 50/50 AP/HE. To me that's around 6 rounds per vehicle.

To me for a tabletop game there's the chance of hit followed by the chance of kill. You can use stats for each or stats to merge them in to one.

Are you ever going to find out why it took more than 1 round to kill an historical tank? Unlikely.

Hope this helps,

B

Many German 88 guns had range finders mainly for AA fire but were used to range tank and infantry targets. This makes them even more accurate than most other guns. That's even more of a reason I doubt emckennys conclusion of his research despite believing the higher level ammo consumption accounts.

Jentz has a book called 'The Dreaded Threat' that deals with the Flak 18/36/37 in the AT role.

link

Flak Units in Russia and Libya kept details of rounds fired and kills claimed in specific engagements. It was found 11 rounds were used at 'normal' ranges and 20 at 'long' range.

Are there any complaints about the lack of accuracy of the German 88 guns? I can't find any other than missing on a short-range snapshot.

You will find countless Allied claims that 88s were firing at them. It seems everyone was personally targeted by individual 88s but not many Allied accounts complain that the 10.5 cm leFH 18 or a 75mm gun fired at them. Despite these guns vastly outnumbering the 88s.
A 1944 Panzer Division had 200 75mm tubes and 12 88mm tubes. The 88mm is vastly over-estimated both in both numbers and impact.

how accurate can a gun be when not being fired at or the crew suppressed under almost range conditions which did exist in a combat zone (ambushes and long-range). Please answer. How accurate is it compared to range firing? Mobius has indicated how much which I think is accurate.

I believe he just re-used the Jentz tables which is range firing. The same tables have a warning that this accuracy 'does not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions'
That last bit is always ignored.

Who knew but I have a UK study of combat successes.

ANTI-TANK GUN EFFECIIVENESS
29. A major factor that has emerged hm this part of the analysis is the significance of anti- tank guns in World War II anti-tank combat. In particular it has been shown that in defence the anti-tank gun was more effective than the tank. This is not at all apparent from most historical accounts of combat, apart from those quoted and some which recognise the significance of certain German anti-tank guns

I can't find it on the internet any more so it will be temporarily on my site.
panzer-war.com/Pdf/UK_anti-tank_gun_study.pdf