Accuracy values for the main guns - MBT's.

[Fabfire]

This one being my first post here, I would like to thank Andy, Don, & The Camo Workshop for what is, IMHO, the best version of SP ever - God, after 10 years - SP, SP2, SP3, SPWAW - I can reverse a tank!!

However, perhaps the accuracy (for the tank's main guns) values should be reviewed, since my impression is that they do not represent the tank gun's actual accuracy. The rule of thumb in WinSPMBT is "the length in calibers divided by 4" (this is from the manual, under the item "Accuracy"). So, a German 120mm L/55, will have an accuracy value of 14, and the German 120mm L/44 will have an accuracy value of only 11... The same with the American M256 of the all versions of the M1A1/A2. And the Israeli 120mm of the Merkava and each and every tank that uses some 120mm L/44, too. And then we have the British Challenger's guns, with an accuracy value going up to 16 (I am not bashing the British rifled 120mm guns - they are deadly accurate, but perhaps not so much more than the German 120mm L/44, which has a value of only 11), and the Soviet/Russian 125mm guns a value of 13.

Would Rheinmetall design a gun less accurate than the Soviet 125mm guns? I don't believe so. That's against the company's tradition and reputation. And no, I don't work for Rheinmetall...

I just want to point out that maybe gun length is not the best factor in determining tank gun accuracy, there are many other factors involved such as the quality of the materials used in the gun itself and how it behaves with the propellant used, the chamber pressure, etc. All these factors are exclusive of the tank gun itself, not the FCS. And they are relevant where accuracy is concerned.

I am really not convinced of the "longest gun is the most accurate one" accuracy principle, specially when the latest tank guns are compared to the old Soviet guns. I mean, by the time of their respective development and posterior deployment, why the Hell would Germany and the US implement a gun on the Leopard 2 and M1A1 Abrams that were less accurate than the guns used in the same Soviet tanks they were supposed to defeat? Again, I am not speaking of the effects of the different FCS systems used, I am referring to raw gun accuracy.

Most respectfully, I would like to hear Andy and Don's comments on this issue.

[Listy]

Hullo kevineduguay1... **Waves**

If you're not, then appolgies. There's been this disscussion over at the DosMBT group, the following reply was given (Edward is talking about the formula used for working out the ACC):

Edward R. Mortimer said:
Y'see, what we have works very well through WWII and even into the
1970's . . . and then breaks down because of the advances in
munitions. The problem is . . . most of that data on munitions in the
last 30 years are classified. Getting a coherent grip on the situation
is not easy. Yes, everyone knows the current formula is not perfect.
But it works well enough when ALL the other variables are used in the
formula (not just ACC, FC & RF, but ALL the variables). ACC is only
representative of firing a generic munition over iron sights, something
which none of these modern tank guns will do intentionally.

Remember, the game has to deal with HE, AP, HEAT, HESH, and all the
varieties of so-called SABOT munitions. Each of which has its own
characteristics (i.e. velocity, drag, etc) . . . but the game demands
that all of them be merged into one identity for the purpose of
accuracy.

So you see it is not that we haven't thought about it, but that we
haven't come up with a better universal formula yet. But to say the
in-game Soviet tanks are better than the in-game Abrams because of a
minor 2 points in ACC rating, yet ignore massive differences in other
ratings that are part of the formula, is ridiculous.

[Fabfire]

Listy said:


Hullo kevineduguay1... **Waves**

If you're not, then appolgies. There's been this disscussion over at the DosMBT group, the following reply was given (Edward is talking about the formula used for working out the ACC):

Appologies accepted. I am not kevineduguay1...

I don't think that a 2 points difference is ridiculous, because it affects not only the Abrams, but also the Leo 2 (up to the A4), Merkava...etc. What seems ridiculous is Western 120mm L/44 being rated as inferior to old Soviet 125mm guns. I am not ignoring other problems with the accuracy formula, it's just that as I have a little more knowledge on tank guns performance, it came to my attention first.

By this formula, who can garantee that even the Leo 2A6 120mm L/55 accuracy of 14 is right? Or even the Challenger's rilfed guns? What we need is a better general formula.

Finally, I still remain with the same doubts I posted.
But thanks for the answer, anyway.

[Mobhack]

We will be having a look at this, but what Ed said in the quotation is very true - you also need to look at the other inter-related values used (such as range finder and fire control).

Cheers
Andy

[JaM]

I dont forgeting FC and Rangefinder. For example if you have a T80UM tank (Crew exp 90)with FC 40 and RF 22(ACC13), you will have better accuracy at longer ranges than M1A1 tank (FC 40,RF22,ACC11 with same crew exp 90),but in reality M1A1 will be much accurate with its ammo such as M829A2 (L/D 30:1) over Russian BM-32,42 rounds (L/D 13:1-15:1).
Accuracy of ammunition is a key factor, that cant be ignored.Much more important than lenght of gun, and is a best measure of technology, gun that can handle those long rods are far superior to those that are not able to fire them. Shorter and more robust rod, the worst accuracy it has over longer distance.First soviet APFSDS rounds were 43-47mm L/D 10:1, their accuracy was bad at ranges bigger than 1500m.

[JaM]

A the other side, i like more your values than those in original SSI Steel Panthers 2. In SSI OOB 120mm smothbore guns had accuracy over 35,125mm guns 25 (same as 105mm)Your lower values are good, the only problem with them that weapons are not modeled correctly. Lenght of gun is not good variable for accuracy of smothbore guns. It has much more to do with kinetic energy than accuracy.My suggested values for tank gun accuracy are:

L/D Value
10.........................11
15.........................12
20.........................13
25.........................14
30.........................15
35 and more........ 16

I reworked most of OOB with those values. Those values dont change much, as those values dont make big difference to your values, but they make older guns( with old ammo ) less accurate than modern guns over longer range as rangefinder and firecontrol value make all guns to have accuracy to 1200-1600m over 90%.With this you should see difference between same tanks with different ammunition,(like T-64B in Russian OOB, T-64B with BM-29 from 1983 will have lower accuracy than same T-64B with BM-42M in 1998 or M1A1 from 1987 with M829 will be less accurate than M1A1 from 2003 armed with M829A2)

[Fabfire]

Mobhack said:
We will be having a look at this, but what Ed said in the quotation is very true - you also need to look at the other inter-related values used (such as range finder and fire control).

Cheers
Andy

Thank you. I really think this issue deserves it. I am well aware of the effects of the FCS, but what we are discussing here is the raw performance of the tank guns, in terms of accuracy. JaM really has a point when he makes a link between accuracy and the ammunition used.

Best regards, and thank you for your efforts in providing us with the best SP version ever. I have just received my CD (version 1.012), works like a charm and the improvements are terrific. I strongly reccomend everyone to buy the CD version. It's worth every cent.

[Alpha]

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/ind...1454&action=pd

http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm

notice that ammo is almost as important as the gun itself!

[Gooseman2448]

I have a real big problem with accuracy. An information I have read said in the 80's that NATO (US,UK and Germany mainly) were able to get a one shot one kill(1:1)ratio within 2000 meters. I am lucky to get one kill a turn in the game. That is sitting in a top down elevated postion, sitting still with no obstructions.

I can't even HIT a bunker sitting next to it. Forget KILLING it with one shot but, it won't even HIT the darn thing. I had a whole platoon around it and NONE of then could hit it!!!

I think a M1A2 could knock out a fixed postion with atleast two shots of HE or HEAT.

I tried different vehicles also.
M3A3 couldn't hit it much less kill it.
I tried the tow launcher from the M3A3, It would not go above 13%.

You tell me am I crazy.


BTW, I ended up moving engineers up, the first squad got cut down (of course, after shooting everything I had it was not even pinned) and a second squad took it out in TWO shots with TB grenades and a satchel charge.

[Gooseman2448]

What you need to do is play more and gain some experience on how these things are handled. They are quite capabale of being destroyed without having to take massive losses. I would also suggest you avoid the Marines campaign until you have played awhile otherwise the spider holes will be a serious "problem" for you ( as they can be for many people ) However, I know they are all " defeatable " with proper tactics and a bit of game experience

Don

I guess the fact that a PLATOON of M1A2 cannot kill a MG pit is My problem not the ability of the weapon. I'll make sure I tell my brother-in-law to leave his armor support back at the base, because it is useless to them.

LOL... what a joke answer. You are telling me that 4 tanks 50 meter cannot kill much less hit a target??? Are you telling me all the advanced FC and RF and ACC is useless??

I have been playing SP games and wargames for 12 years so don't tell me about what I need to do. I might as well go back to WAW, atleast the WW2 era weapons are pretty consistant. BTW, I've been through the MARINE campaign several time that was fun, glad I didn't have M1's might have been a BIg problem...

Sorry to everyone else for my return rant.