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!!http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

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]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Hullo kevineduguay1... **Waves** http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

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.

[JaM]

In fact, US Army had accuracy problems during testing german 120mm L55 Gun firing new US APFSDS rounds (M829A2,M829A3)Its accuracy with this rounds was much worse than with M256 gun (L44)

[JaM]

Discusion on Yahoo board is quite big. Accuracy system works great until 1970, after this date new ammunitions are avaiable and this should be taken into account. I know that most of datas are classified, so you need a formula that will work for all tanks with data avaiable. My sugesstion is use L/D ratio of APFSDS projectiles as measurment for accuracy and degree of technology of tank gun. Soviet tank guns were quite unaccurate at ranges over 1600m,they used APFSDS rounds with L/D ratio 10:1 - 13:1,newest projectiles has better accuracy (BM-42,BM-42M etc...)guns that fires them are upgraded so they can fire longer rounds with better L/D (20:1, autoloader prevents to use longer rounds such as US M829A2 or A3 with L/D 30:1 - 37:1).Western tanks started with L/D 10:1 (M735) but they develop better ammo quite soon as M774(not so sure but it is in L/D 15:1 - 20:1 region) M833 (L/D around 20:1) or M900 (L/D 30:1).
Im not suggesting use L/D value as a acc value, but just better variable than lenght of gun.Soviet HEAT ammo for example are stated as more accurate as APFSDS rounds (0,2mil dispersion for HEAT-FS and 0,25-0,3mil for APFSDS)

[Fabfire]

Listy said:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Hullo kevineduguay1... **Waves** http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

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.
<snip></snip>
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.






Appologies accepted. I am not kevineduguay1... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

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.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif
But thanks for the answer, anyway.

[Fabfire]

JaM said:
In fact, US Army had accuracy problems during testing german 120mm L55 Gun firing new US APFSDS rounds (M829A2,M829A3)Its accuracy with this rounds was much worse than with M256 gun (L44)



Yep. I know that. But this was due to the incompatibilities of the new German gun with the US DU APFSDS rounds, that were developed to maximize the potential of the 120mm M256 gun. This does not implies, in any way, that the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 would be less accurate than the 120mm M256 (a modified Rh 120mm L/44 gun), once the DU ammunition is optimized for this gun.

[Fabfire]

JaM said:
Discusion on Yahoo board is quite big. Accuracy system works great until 1970, after this date new ammunitions are avaiable and this should be taken into account. I know that most of datas are classified, so you need a formula that will work for all tanks with data avaiable. My sugesstion is use L/D ratio of APFSDS projectiles as measurment for accuracy and degree of technology of tank gun. Soviet tank guns were quite unaccurate at ranges over 1600m,they used APFSDS rounds with L/D ratio 10:1 - 13:1,newest projectiles has better accuracy (BM-42,BM-42M etc...)guns that fires them are upgraded so they can fire longer rounds with better L/D (20:1, autoloader prevents to use longer rounds such as US M829A2 or A3 with L/D 30:1 - 37:1).Western tanks started with L/D 10:1 (M735) but they develop better ammo quite soon as M774(not so sure but it is in L/D 15:1 - 20:1 region) M833 (L/D around 20:1) or M900 (L/D 30:1).
Im not suggesting use L/D value as a acc value, but just better variable than lenght of gun.Soviet HEAT ammo for example are stated as more accurate as APFSDS rounds (0,2mil dispersion for HEAT-FS and 0,25-0,3mil for APFSDS)



That's interesting. Thank you. However, I still would like so much to hear from Andy and Don on this subject...

[JaM]

M256 said:

That's interesting. Thank you. However, I still would like so much to hear from Andy and Don on this subject...



Me too.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

By the way, i have some numbers about our Slovak modernisation of 2A46 gun (2A46MS) from Slovak military bulletin, gun during tests was 30% more accurate than original gun

[Fabfire]

JaM said:

M256 said:

That's interesting. Thank you. However, I still would like so much to hear from Andy and Don on this subject...



Me too.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

By the way, i have some numbers about our Slovak modernisation of 2A46 gun (2A46MS) from Slovak military bulletin, gun during tests was 30% more accurate than original gun



I am interested in those tests data. Can you post it on this Forum?

[JaM]

yes,i will post them, yust need to translate them to english,tomorow

[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)

[JaM]

link for L/D values of most of soviet APFSDS rounds :
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

[Fabfire]

JaM said:
yes,i will post them, yust need to translate them to english,tomorow


Thank you. I really appreciate it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[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.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Alpha]

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1454&action=pd

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

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

[Fabfire]

I just finished a complete OOBS update of the 120mm tank gun accuracy. The 120mm L/44 goes from 11 to 14 or 15, depending on the ammunition used (APFSDS) The 120mm L/55 went from 14 to 16. Also modified the front armor (turret only) of the M1A2 SEP Abrams and Leopard 2A6 and A6EX.

The modified OOBS are available for download at my WinSPMBT page (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/winspmbt.htm), and the zip version attached in this post.

As with any OOB dealing with modern MBT data, the values used reflect only my personal estimative - so use them at your own risk...;) Anyway, I think those modifications enhanced gameplay, and are well within the overall WinSPMBT TO&E concept.

[DRG]

We've already done our own modification to smoothbore gun accuracy but expanded that to include Russian derived guns as well as all nations using the "krupp" 120mm gun. When making adjustments like this all nations have to be taken into consideration. The Accuracy number has only a limited effect on the to-hit %. Things like crew skill and FC and RF have more influence but we have taken all these guns into consideration and made modifications to a very large number of OOB's

Don

[scJazz]

I don't suppose you would care to divulge the formula for to-hit%??? I'm slightly curious but mostly I raise the question so that everyone can see just how teeny the ACC value is in relation to the-whole-situation.

[Fabfire]

DRG said:
We've already done our own modification to smoothbore gun accuracy but expanded that to include Russian derived guns as well as all nations using the "krupp" 120mm gun. When making adjustments like this all nations have to be taken into consideration. The Accuracy number has only a limited effect on the to-hit %. Things like crew skill and FC and RF have more influence but we have taken all these guns into consideration and made modifications to a very large number of OOB's

Don



I am looking forward to it! Just as a side note, I took into consideration all nations, too. And I also considered other 120mm guns other than the Rheinmetall L/44 and L/55, although I admit I concentrated much more on the German guns, because I have much more knowledge about them.

The MBT I know better is the M1A1 and derivatives up to the M1A2 SEP. Next, comes the Leopard 2, from the beginning up to the A6. Next, there is the Tigers of WW2, but thay are out of the context here, anyway.

Is there any possibility that we could have your new OOB pack for testing before the patch is released? I don't think this would do any harm whatsoever. Since I am twaeking with the OOBS already, I really would like to see what you guys, who have tons of experience with this game more than I wll ever do, have done. So I can learn what and how things interact to determine accuracy for the MBT guns.

Thank you for this wonderful game. I can't thank you enough for the most pleasurable wargaming-addicted lack of sleep since 1994...

The last wargame that grasped my interest like this one was the venerable TANKS by Norm Koger. The SP series was interesting, SPWAW included, but none really took my heart by assault like WinSPMBT. I can see I missed a lot not being able to run DOS games like SPWW2 and SPMBT in Win2K, which is my OS of choice for my two PCs...

You guys ROCK! WOO-HAH!http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Best regards,

FAP

[DRG]

M256 said:

Is there any possibility that we could have your new OOB pack for testing before the patch is released? I don't think this would do any harm whatsoever. Since I am twaeking with the OOBS already, I really would like to see what you guys, who have tons of experience with this game more than I wll ever do, have done. So I can learn what and how things interact to determine accuracy for the MBT guns.
FAP




Nope, sorry. It's just confuses people when we do that (trust me on this ). As well there are OOB's with new Icons and new pics, and new picklist and before we know it the "pre-release" patch ends up almost as big as the actual one

We are testing it internally

Don

[JaM]

What about Sabot max range? Now, if you have russian gun and western gun with same penetration, they will have same effectivity, but in real world, soviet APFSDS rounds loose their speed and energy sooner than longer western APFSDS.So we have for example round from early 1970, with the same range as Silver bullet from 1991, but in real M829A1 had effective range over 3,5km and BM-15 around 2km.BM-15 loose over 150m/s/km. M829A1 around 50m/s/km.

[Fabfire]

Roger that. I can understand the situation. There are so many changes besides the issue of accuracy, that it would cause problems. But could you give me some more details, like, say the new values you are using (that affect accuracy) for the M1A1/ 2 or the Leopard 2A6, so I can go on further on my own? FC and RF I can understand and make some experiments with them, but crew skill are hard-coded, isn't it? I can alter the experience and morale modifiers in the OOBS, but how can I modify crew skill, other than via scenario editor?

Again, thanks so much for your kindness.

FAP

[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.

[Alpha]

@ M256: hope you didn´t overdo it ? since we want also some challenge in the game playing as US or GER....i woul dbe a better solution to make some russian stuff more cheaper, so player can buy more, which would model to a decree the numbers of the eastern units that woul dbe thrown against us in the 80ties or 70ties....

btw: do you have some space left on your fine page ? i have a modified german OOB which could fit there.....

[DRG]

Gooseman2448 said:
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.




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

[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.

[DRG]

Gooseman2448 said:

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.




I'll tell you what. You send me your save with your platoon of M1A2's sitting next to a bunker that cannot be hit and I'll look at it



Gooseman2448 said:

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??




As strange and this may seem to you I HAVE heard this all before in regards to bunkers and especially spiderholes (which totally mess with some peoples heads) and I have demonstrated with a save game example how to destroy these things when others said it was quite simply impossible. So dig out you save and attach it to a post and as I said, I will look at this becasue there are more than one kind of "bunker" and without seeing what you were dealing with I can only guess



Gooseman2448 said:
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.



Ah but see the problem here is WinSPMBT is NOT WAW and what works there may not work here becasue there were two entirly different groups developing both games with very different ideas on how the game should work. Send me your example of "I can't even HIT a bunker sitting next to it. " and I will look into it. Glad you liked the Marine campaign.

Don

[JaM]

Sorry so late, but i have problems to find this buletin.It is writen in Slovak and too technical, so im not able to translate it corectly.But there were two tables. Tab.1 with sumary of comparation fire with sabot ammunition at 1000m with gun fitted externally:
N500 ................ N250
TK.....2A46....YA1.........2A46....YA1
Y......81.......95..............48........67
Z......43.......95..............10........62

Y- horisontal
Z-vertical
N500- percentual share of hits on tagret, in 500mm distance from middle of target
N250- percentual share of hits on target, in 250mm distance from middle of target


Tab.2 is propability of hit from T-72 tank with first shot using APFSDS round at 2000m

Propability with tank gun Rate
2A46..........YA1..........YA1/2A46
0,57..........0,7.............1,23


YA1 is prototype of 2A46MS tank gun.Those tests were made in 1998.

I can send you by mail scanned pages.

[DRG]

Gooseman2448 said:

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.




Just for fun I went ahead and built a test scenario using all the factors you gave me . If there is a problem with the game I want to deal with it ASAP.

-"a PLATOON of M1A2"
-"a MG pit"
- "can't even HIT a bunker sitting next to it. Forget KILLING it with one shot"


So I built this sceanrio with three MG pits and each one had a platoon of M1A2's around it with three sitting in the hex directly adjacent to the Mg pit's field of fire with one sitting back one hex further

Now, does that sound similar to the situation you were in? I think I covered everything. The platoon of M1A2 all with top of the line RF and FC. A MG pit as those are size zero and that makes a big difference in hitting and the tanks were directly adjacent to the fortification. That's pretty much what you described in you first email....correct??

Then I fired the M1A2 sitting right in front of the MG pit. All three were "one shot, one kill".
The save game is attached.

Maybe I'm just lucky but that seem unlikely three times in a row.

I'm still interested in your save if you have one. There may be extenuating circumstances that caused your units to miss consistently

Don

[Fabfire]

Alpha said:
@ M256: hope you didn´t overdo it ? since we want also some challenge in the game playing as US or GER....i woul dbe a better solution to make some russian stuff more cheaper, so player can buy more, which would model to a decree the numbers of the eastern units that woul dbe thrown against us in the 80ties or 70ties....

btw: do you have some space left on your fine page ? i have a modified german OOB which could fit there.....



Hi, Alpha,

Have you tried my modified OOBS?

Well, I don't think I overrated the 120mm guns accuracy... What I did was to put things in perspective within the game's own constraints. It's most unrealistic to have the 120mm L/44 (when I say 120mm L/44 I am NOT referring exclusively to the Rheinmetall gun. I am using this qualification to represent ANY smoothbore 120mm tank gun with a length of 44 calibers) with an accuracy value of 11 when older Soviet 125mm guns are rated 13.

So, I modified the basic 120mm L/44 accuracy to 14. This is still NOT realistic. The accuracy should be higher. But not to disrupt game balance, I kept it to 14.

I was very pleased with the result, but - hey, this is just me. I welcome any positive criticism. What values do you suggest I should use as accuracy for the 120mm guns?

How you would make Russian equipment cheaper? I totally agree the most realistic situation is the traditional "Cold War" one. Hordes of cheap and inferior Soviet tanks against high-quality, high-performance, but seriously outnumbered western tanks.

I have as much space in my website as you want, for you and anyone else interested to post anything related to WinSPMBT - New OOBS, Scenarios, Campaigns, the works...

I am really decided to support Andy, Don, and the Camo Workshop. But the success of any supporting web page or web site depends mainly of the wargamers sending their work to be shared with the community. This I can tell for experience.

I am proud to say that my web site was the main supporting site for SPWAW right from the beginning for a long time. The success we achieved was the result of a combination of my commitment to provide the highest quality web site I could within my possibilities; the wargamers - providing scenarios, campaigns, OOBS, utilities, etc, and the support of friends like Wild Bill Wilder, Brent Richards, and many other talented scenario and campaign designers.

Just send me a private e-mail with your modified German OOB attached and with the info about this OOB to fprado@fprado.com. It will be my pleasure to post it.

Best regards,

Fab

[Fabfire]

JaM said:
Sorry so late, but i have problems to find this buletin.It is writen in Slovak and too technical, so im not able to translate it corectly.But there were two tables. Tab.1 with sumary of comparation fire with sabot ammunition at 1000m with gun fitted externally:
N500 ................ N250
TK.....2A46....YA1.........2A46....YA1
Y......81.......95..............48........67
Z......43.......95..............10........62

Y- horisontal
Z-vertical
N500- percentual share of hits on tagret, in 500mm distance from middle of target
N250- percentual share of hits on target, in 250mm distance from middle of target


Tab.2 is propability of hit from T-72 tank with first shot using APFSDS round at 2000m

Propability with tank gun Rate
2A46..........YA1..........YA1/2A46
0,57..........0,7.............1,23


YA1 is prototype of 2A46MS tank gun.Those tests were made in 1998.

I can send you by mail scanned pages.



Thank you. This is very interesting info.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

If there is not any inconvenience to you, I would like to take a look at the scanned pages. My e-mail address: fprado@fprado.com

Best regards,

Fab

[Alpha]

hi fabio,

thanx for all the info.

i agree mainly with your thoughts...but can´t comment on it
seriously cause i don´t know the game mechanism good enough. i played the DOS version of this game only a short time, but now it´s another matter and i like this win version very much.

i also come from SPWAW and i know your name and the others you mentioned, perhaps you also remember me from the matrix forum, my name there was (is ? ) frank w.

yes, your page is cool, this is the reason i want you post my stuff there and also i recommend your page to other wargamers.

perhaps you played H2H ?? check the prices for the russian stuff there. in PBM the russian player can outweight the quite bad accuracy of his tanks with mass. i thought simmilar for this game. but i don´t have enough knowlegde on modern armor...except some websites i read for info on my OOB stuff ( and also some personal experience from my time in the luftwaffe of course i hadn´t much to do with tanks there LOL )...i didn´t touch MBT, APC and IFV at all in my OOB...ohhh i post the the info just here so everyone can read it:

[Alpha]

Fabio: I´ll send it to your email adress at the weekend. need to do some additional testing if formations work in timeframe and if prices are balanced !

--------
Changes:

Weapons added:
--------------

- HK 502 shotgun
- 2 police weapons
- Roland 2 AA missile

Units added:
-----------

- Polizei Trupp ( represent civil police but also "Feldjaeger of the Bundeswehr )
- Bundesgrenzschutz troops ( BGS - paramilitary German forces without conscripts so a bit better exp + morale than normal grunts )
- Luftwaffe Sicherung ( LW - Sich, these are LW troops mainly for the protection of airfields, Nato bunkers, radars, AA instalations etc. )
- Kampfschwimmer ( elite diver troops of the Bundesmarine )
- Pionierpanzer 2 Dachs ( impr. version of PioPz. 1 )
- Roland 2 FlaRak ( impr. version of Roland 1 )
- AA MG unit
- Mehrzweck Raupe ( Bulldozer - use like eng. tanks )
- Gep. LKW ( represents armored trucks like in use at the balcans KFOR )
- some fort types added

Most of these units you´ll find in the "misc" folder.....


Changes to:
-----------

Mountain troops, Boxer IFV, PzH2000, Bell UH1D, SP mortars ammo loadout ( older lowered ) , Alouette carry lowered, Luchs, Wiesel 1 + 2, Kraka, Stinger now Fliegerfaust 2, some names changed....and much other stuff. ( for example i found a wiesel in the orig OOB with 21 (!!) TOW missiles - corrected to real loadout of 8 ! )
-------------

[Fabfire]

Alpha said:
Fabio: I´ll send it to your email adress at the weekend. need to do some additional testing if formations work in timeframe and if prices are balanced !

--------
Changes:

Weapons added:
--------------

- HK 502 shotgun
- 2 police weapons
- Roland 2 AA missile

Units added:
-----------

- Polizei Trupp ( represent civil police but also "Feldjaeger of the Bundeswehr )
- Bundesgrenzschutz troops ( BGS - paramilitary German forces without conscripts so a bit better exp + morale than normal grunts )
- Luftwaffe Sicherung ( LW - Sich, these are LW troops mainly for the protection of airfields, Nato bunkers, radars, AA instalations etc. )
- Kampfschwimmer ( elite diver troops of the Bundesmarine )

- Pionierpanzer 2 Dachs ( impr. version of PioPz. 1 )
- Roland 2 FlaRak ( impr. version of Roland 1 )
- AA MG unit
- Mehrzweck Raupe ( Bulldozer - use like eng. tanks )
- Gep. LKW ( represents armored trucks like in use at the balcans KFOR )
- some fort types added

Most of these units you´ll find in the "misc" folder.....


Changes to:
-----------

Mountain troops, Boxer IFV, PzH2000, Bell UH1D, SP mortars ammo loadout ( older lowered ) , Alouette carry lowered, Luchs, Wiesel 1 + 2, Kraka, Stinger now Fliegerfaust 2, some names changed....and much other stuff. ( for example i found a wiesel in the orig OOB with 21 (!!) TOW missiles - corrected to real loadout of 8 ! )
-------------



That's it. Ladies and gentlemen, by the weekend, a new revised German OOB by Alpha will be available at the Armorsite's WinSPMBT Page (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/winspmbt.htm)! Enjoy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Fabfire]

Alpha said:
hi fabio,

thanx for all the info.

i agree mainly with your thoughts...but can´t comment on it
seriously cause i don´t know the game mechanism good enough. i played the DOS version of this game only a short time, but now it´s another matter and i like this win version very much.

i also come from SPWAW and i know your name and the others you mentioned, perhaps you also remember me from the matrix forum, my name there was (is ? ) frank w.

yes, your page is cool, this is the reason i want you post my stuff there and also i recommend your page to other wargamers.

perhaps you played H2H ?? check the prices for the russian stuff there. in PBM the russian player can outweight the quite bad accuracy of his tanks with mass. i thought simmilar for this game. but i don´t have enough knowlegde on modern armor...except some websites i read for info on my OOB stuff ( and also some personal experience from my time in the luftwaffe of course i hadn´t much to do with tanks there LOL )...i didn´t touch MBT, APC and IFV at all in my OOB...ohhh i post the the info just here so everyone can read it:



Yep. I remember H2H pretty well. Excellent mod. Let's wait the upcoming patch that Andy and Don are working on right now and then we'll look at the possibilities. I'm saying this because it seems that the OOBS are an item which are receiving "special treatment"...

So, I will hold until I can see what changes the new OOBS included in the patch will bring (specially in the area of MBT's main gun accuracy), before making any more OOB tweaking. But I agree with your concept 100%.

Best regards,

Fab

[Alpha]

thx. yeahh, better wait for patch.

btw: this animal is missing also from teh ger OOB:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zwijntje.JPG

( guess what it is ? ) LOL

[Fabfire]

Alpha said:
thx. yeahh, better wait for patch.

btw: this animal is missing also from teh ger OOB:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zwijntje.JPG

( guess what it is ? ) LOL



Isn't it the "Keiler"? ROTFL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[kevineduguay1]

Hello folks!

I finnaly made it onto this site.

M256, I like your ideas with the 120mm guns but also look at the sabot range as this effects long range hitting power also. Notice that the latter Russian 125mm guns have a greater sabot range than most if not all the 120mm's. This has to be looked at especially when in another post it was pointed out that the Russian ammo lost energy more quickly than the rounds used by Western countries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Alpha]

seems the "keiler" is build using a M48 hull.

so i could use this as base, but what armor vlues should
be chosen for the turret armor ( i mean the keiler has no turret ) how is this calculated by the game ?

[kevineduguay1]

M256,

Another thing to consider when looking at accuracy is the ammunition as mentioned in one of the above posts.

There are no less than 6 versions of the M256 gun in the US OOB. All have improvements in sabot penetration. This just cannot be. The reason is that there are only 4 DU penetrators.
IMHO the first one, the M829 was not very efficient and was not the kill all bullet the Army was looking for. It also had some accuracy problems. So for these reasons I would suggest changing weapon #100-120mm M256 86 to Accuracy--11 Sabot Pen--52.

The next gun shows up in 1988, the time of the "Silver Bullet", the M829A1. This is weapon # 101. Accuracy for this gun should be kicked up to 12 or 13 and the Sabot Pen up from 62 to 82. This round was going through sand burms and still destroying T-72s. You may want to up the Sabot Range to 125 also.

Weapon #102 120mm M256-91 should be a clone of the 1988 weapon. I cant find any improvements to either the gun tube or ammunition to warrent any changes. The real changes may be on the Tank itself.

Weapon #247 120mm M256-94 Introduces the M256 A2. This penetrator is a vasts improvement in hitting pover and accuracy over the "Silver Bullet"(A1). Moving at least 100M/Sec faster and with a better designed pennetrator this is a very accurate round and leathal at longer ranges. With this in mind I suggest a Accuracy rating of 13 to 14 and a Sabot Pen of 95. Sabot Range could remain at 125. There should also be a change to the HEAT PED from 60 to 78. 1994 is when the M830A1 was fielded. This HEAT round was more accurate and out performed the original M830 against light armoured vehicles by 30%. Can be used as an AP round and against helicopters

The last M829 Sabot/DU began mass production in 2001 or 02 and is now in use. This is the M829A3. One source that I found says that this round has a 70% better kill ability over the M829A2 and a 30% to 70% better hit probability. I have some doubts on these figures. But consider this, the first M829 rounds weighed about 41+ pounds. This one is stated as being just under 56 pounds. With all the composit materials to reduce the weight of the round and reduce barrel ware, how much does the penetrator weigh now? My best guess with out sabot is 5 or more kg. This round is described as having increased velocity and more long range accuracy. It was designed to defeat all armored threats even those protected by ERA. With this in mind I would kick this weapon up a notch!
The weapon is #105 120mm M256-03. Sabot Pen 100, Sabot Range 130.

We still have weapon #125 120mm M256-07 to deal with.
In the future there will be inprovements in the ammunition for the 120mm gun. If you dont belive that then just use weapon #124 140mm NATO10. reduce the ammo load out a little and mount it on an Abrams.

However, If you think we can and will improve things, try this.
Accuracy 15, HE Kill-16, Sabot Pen-1010. Sabot Range-135, HEAT Pen-82.
Its not the 140mm but its close!

Hope this helps with future OOBs. Now its time to work on the 25mm! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

All above info is just a suggestion and is based on everthing I could find in books and on the web. I edited because I had to do a date check for when the rounds in question were actually available. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif





http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/beerglass.gif

[JaM]

No. 120mm M256 gun 86 represents M827 APFSDS round, first US 120mm APFSDS.M827 was capable penetrate around 450mm at 2000m
M829 was quite powerfull.It was capable kill any Russian tank in this time, only Kontakt-5 equipped tanks could survive hits (Kontakt-5 tanks were not so numerous...)
M829A1 was fielded somewhere around 1990-91
M829A2 around 1994-95 and newest APFSDS M829A3 around 2004-2005.

Value 13 is not enough for 120mm APFSDS or HEAT-FS.They are much more accurate. I have made some tests with game, and actual accuracy is too low after 70 era.
M1 Abrams with 105mm gun is capable hit target with first round at 2000m with propability around 80%. In game with crew with exp 70 it is only 60%. You need crew with exp 100 or higher to have 80% propability,so we need way to make modern MBTs much more accurate, at least +20%

[Fabfire]

kevineduguay1 said:
Hello folks!

I finnaly made it onto this site.

M256, I like your ideas with the 120mm guns but also look at the sabot range as this effects long range hitting power also. Notice that the latter Russian 125mm guns have a greater sabot range than most if not all the 120mm's. This has to be looked at especially when in another post it was pointed out that the Russian ammo lost energy more quickly than the rounds used by Western countries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Hi, kevineduguay1.

I'm glad you made it... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

On your comments about newer Russian tanks capabilities, I quote the best source for modern Russian armor over the Internet, Vasiliy Fufanov's Modern Russian Armor (http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/):


The 2A46 and 2A46M lines of mainguns (internal designations D-81T, D-81TM) were developed by the Spetstekhnika design bureau in Ekaterinburg (former Sverdlovsk), and are manufactured at the Motovilikha artillery plant in Perm.

The 125mm high-velocity maingun was a huge overkill when it was first introduced on a T-64A MBT back in 1969. Today, however, it is barely able to keep on par with the modern Western mainguns like Rh-120. Its inability to reliably penetrate frontal projections of modern MBTs is the main reason why the Russian designers are developing a 152mm maingun to substitute the 2A46 gun on a perspective Russian MBT.

However, even with tungsten alloy rounds this gun remains a very dangerous adversary that assures penetration of any other projection at all battle ranges.

One of the drawbacks of this gun is that a high strain on internal surfaces during firing, as well as sheer size of it demands strict manufacturing discipline of which Soviet industry was never famous. This resulted in unsatisfatory dispersion characteristics of original models due to all kinds of manufacturing defects, including substandard materials, poor machining, barrel drooping, and so on. It is worth noting, however, that this problem has received due attention during the upgrading efforts (2A46M line of mainguns), including the purchase of the Western machining equipment. Improved manufacturing process and better stabilization and recoil equipment provided for increase in accuracy especially on the move and at medium to long ranges.
The barrel life of an original 2A46 gun was 210 APFSDS rounds or 840 HEAT/HEF rounds, or around 500 'generic' rounds, according to the Polish data provided by Mike Jasinsky. Russian sources give the figure of 900 rounds, but it is not known of what type. The barrel life of 2A46M guns is unknown, but modernization included the addition a more robust internal chromium liner and provided for a simple gun barrel replacement in field conditions.

As a last note, the unique feature of all Russian mainguns is the ability to launch guided rounds through the barrel.

Specifications (2A46M-2 with T-90 FCS and autoloader):
Designation 2A46M-2
Internal designation D-81TM-2
Type Smoothbore
Caliber 125 mm
Features Bore Evacuator, Thermal sleeve, Chromium liner
Barrel replaceable in field conditions
Recoil devices 2, symmetrical
Free recoil until the round clears the barrel
Recoil length 300 mm
Barrel length 6383 mm
51 caliber
Barrel life >500 shots
Gun weight 2500 kg
Max.barrel pressure 5200 N/cm2
Ammunition separately loaded
w/semicombustible propellant case 4Zh63
Ammunition types: APFSDS, HEAT, HEF, ATGM

Practical ROF
autoloader 8 rds/min
manual 2 rds/min
ATGMs out to 5km
with autoloader 3 rds/min

Effective range
direct fire vs. 2m high target
HEAT 1010 m
APFSDS 2120 m
with FCS
HEAT/APFSDS 4000 m
HEF 5000 m
HEF indirect 10000 m
Max.range with APFSDS >80 km



Fab

[Fabfire]

JaM said:
No. 120mm M256 gun 86 represents M827 APFSDS round, first US 120mm APFSDS.M827 was capable penetrate around 450mm at 2000m
M829 was quite powerfull.It was capable kill any Russian tank in this time, only Kontakt-5 equipped tanks could survive hits (Kontakt-5 tanks were not so numerous...)
M829A1 was fielded somewhere around 1990-91
M829A2 around 1994-95 and newest APFSDS M829A3 around 2004-2005.

Value 13 is not enough for 120mm APFSDS or HEAT-FS.They are much more accurate. I have made some tests with game, and actual accuracy is too low after 70 era.
M1 Abrams with 105mm gun is capable hit target with first round at 2000m with propability around 80%. In game with crew with exp 70 it is only 60%. You need crew with exp 100 or higher to have 80% propability,so we need way to make modern MBTs much more accurate, at least +20%



I agree with you, JaM. 110%. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Fab

[JaM]

I found something strange. Im trying to find better accuracy ratings for guns, but during my tests i found that Firecontrol rating do only a minor bonus to accuracy.During my tests i tryed gun with acc 20, rangefinder 30 and firecontrol 0. i had accuracy at 2000m (target size 4) 64%. When i rised FC at 20,it rised accuracy to 70%, FC 40 made up to 76%. So only +6% at 2000m with 20 point Fire Control.Isnt it too low?

[scJazz]

JaM said:
No. 120mm M256 gun 86 represents M827 APFSDS round, first US 120mm APFSDS.M827 was capable penetrate around 450mm at 2000m
M829 was quite powerfull.It was capable kill any Russian tank in this time, only Kontakt-5 equipped tanks could survive hits (Kontakt-5 tanks were not so numerous...)
M829A1 was fielded somewhere around 1990-91
M829A2 around 1994-95 and newest APFSDS M829A3 around 2004-2005.

Value 13 is not enough for 120mm APFSDS or HEAT-FS.They are much more accurate. I have made some tests with game, and actual accuracy is too low after 70 era.
M1 Abrams with 105mm gun is capable hit target with first round at 2000m with propability around 80%. In game with crew with exp 70 it is only 60%. You need crew with exp 100 or higher to have 80% propability,so we need way to make modern MBTs much more accurate, at least +20%



Is the figure of 80% to hit @ 2000 yards, etc a figure given by US Army? Is it done at a known range course? The reason I'm asking is because the US Army in particular has been wildly optimistic with information such as this. If we had a third party confirmation of this info I'd be much more likely to accept it.

[kevineduguay1]

Jam,

I read about this round somewhere but just cant remember. Was this a tungsten penetrator?

[kevineduguay1]

JaM,

The gun accuracy was a problem in the early years with the 120mm. But you may have a point! Maybe the fire controle range finder and stabiliser ratings are not up to par? Thats also not including crew ratings. American troops fire more rounds in any training exersise than any other nation. This shoul beef up our experiance and some other rateings in the game.

[kevineduguay1]

M256,

Just read an article on the web talking about Russian 125mm Sabot ammo. They were said to be able to pen 580 to 650mm of armor but because of yaw or instability in flight at long ranges they were barely able to pen 350mm. For the size of the gun this is around WWII standards. They are now developing newer APFSDS rounds and may have them in service.

[kevineduguay1]

Please re-read my post above about the ammo issue.

[Fabfire]

JaM said:
I found something strange. Im trying to find better accuracy ratings for guns, but during my tests i found that Firecontrol rating do only a minor bonus to accuracy.During my tests i tryed gun with acc 20, rangefinder 30 and firecontrol 0. i had accuracy at 2000m (target size 4) 64%. When i rised FC at 20,it rised accuracy to 70%, FC 40 made up to 76%. So only +6% at 2000m with 20 point Fire Control.Isnt it too low?



Yep. Way too low. I also did tests modifying the FC and RF values, and was most disappointed with the results. It seems to make that always repeated motto "It's not only the accuracy value, it's the way the accuracy interacts with FC and RF that matters", or "it is more complicated than that" (just altering the accuracy values) incoherent. Since we don't have access to how each of those variables (ACC, FC, and RF) really interact with each other, or better, since nobody tells us what is the actual formula for defining the hit probability - seems it is classified information - all we can do is what we are doing now - making empirical tests on each variable.

Well, all this said and done, it seems to me that the FC should play a much more important role in the model. That is possible, either by changing the game's code and leaving the OOBS settings alone; or by raising the FC settings on the OOBS dramatically.

However, things being as they are right now, the main variable is the ACC (seems it doesn't have that name for nothing), and that is where all the tweaking should be done.

So, until the so expected patch is released, or until Andy and/or Don clarify how the game actually works as far as tank main gun hit probability is concerned and prove that the ACC interaction with FC and RF really have a significant effect, the best (and most direct and effective) way we have is simply to up the ACC values until we achieve something that is coherent with the actual performance of those guns.

Just my two cents...

Fab

[Mobhack]

JaM said:
I found something strange. Im trying to find better accuracy ratings for guns, but during my tests i found that Firecontrol rating do only a minor bonus to accuracy.During my tests i tryed gun with acc 20, rangefinder 30 and firecontrol 0. i had accuracy at 2000m (target size 4) 64%. When i rised FC at 20,it rised accuracy to 70%, FC 40 made up to 76%. So only +6% at 2000m with 20 point Fire Control.Isnt it too low?



As noted in the mobhack help - FC is mainly to do with accuracy against moving targets. It adds a little effect similar to RF as well.

If your targets were not moving, then you will not expect to notice much FC effect..

Andy

[Mobhack]

Some figures (range figures, so well above combat ones)

Source: Isby "Weapons And Tactics of the Soviet Army" (1981)

T-62 static shooter vs M60A1 sized target, US Army Range Test results
@ 500/1000/1500/2000/2500/3000 metres
BR-5 APFSDS, Stadia RF, 1st shot 98/79/50/27/14/8
BR-5 APFSDS, Stadia RF, 1st shot 94/75/33/19/8/nil(moving target)
BR-5 APFSDS, Stadia RF, 2nd shot 98/94/66/51/40/32
BR-5 APFSDS, laser RF, 1st shot 98/86/60/43/20/10
BK-4M HEAT, Stadia RF, 1st shot 89/69/33/11/3/3
BK-4M HEAT, Stadia RF, 1st shot 75/30/5/nil/nil/nil (moving target)

BR-5 APFSDS penetration (mm at 0 degrees)
350/300/285/270/245/215 (71% kill probability om M60A1 if penetrated)

BK-4M HEAT - 432mm at any range, Pk is 75% if penetrated (M60A1)


T-72
unspecified APFSDS, Laser RF, 1st shot 98/94/70-80/50-60/40+/35+

Penetration figure - like the to-hit - is an estimate and is ignored.

T-55

D-10 gun
BR-412 APC 90/50/33/8/4/nil
BK-5M HEAT 84/43/25/2/nil/nil

Sight unspecified, as was target. I assume 1st shot both stationary with Stadia
and reference target M60A1 as USA range test.

Text notes "Soviet textbook estimates of the 100mm gun's accuracy are much higher. Theoretically, a gun using a BR412 APHE (the book changes classification on the shell here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif round against a halted enemy tank 2.7m high and 3.6m long should have a 77% chance of hitting its target at 1800m range.

the text also notes "Actual accuracy would doubtless be much less in combat conditions" - which one can apply to all the above range test results as well.

100mm D-10 armour piercing values: (500/1000/1500/2000)
BR-412 APC 155/135/117/100
BM-6 HEAT 380 (any range)
BR-412B APC -/171/-/146
BR-412D APC -/175/-/156

Pk "The probability of killing an M60 tank with a 100mm shell is aboutr 50%, though this depends heavily on whee the target tank is hit"


Pt-76
50/100/175/250/500/750/1000/1500/2000/2500
BR-354 APCR 97/89/89/89/86/83/68/39/17/0
HEAT 97/83/83/83/83/75/61/33/3/0


M60A1 equivalent figures against Soviet Tanks:

AP values (500/1000/1500/2000/2500/3000)
105mm APDS 300/275/200/225/200/175 Pk 54%
105mm HEAT 425mm pk 75%
TOW 500mm pk 90%
Dragon 300mm Pk 80%
LAW 325mm Pk 33%


Ph (@ 50/250/500/1000/1500/2000/2500/2500/3000/3750), stationary vs stationary target, 1st round
105mm APDS 97/94/94/86/61/44/25/8/1-2
105mm HEAT 97/92/89/69/50/28/17/3/nil
105mm HEP (they mean HESH) 97/92/89/56/47/28/17/3/nil
TOW nil/75/90/90/90/90/90/90/90
Dragon nil/73/90/90/nil..
M72A2 97/17/nil

Also in the book:

A Belgian M48 tank using different types of rangefinder with its 90mm gun:
(Stationary tank vs stationary 2.3m square target)
500/1000/2000
Laser 98/86/34
Sterio Coincidence 97/70/14
Stadia reticle 98/34.5/4

[JaM]

I found those:
1000/1500/2000
105mm M68 with M735 98/87/74 (M60A3 in 1980)
105mm M68 with M111 95/81/67 (Merkava mk1 during Lebanon fighting)
120mm M256 with M827 98/84/70 (M1A1 during tests in 1985)
125mm 2A46 with APFSDS 87/66/46 (T-72 with laser rangefinder in 1980)
115mm 2A20 with BR5 86/60/43 (T-62 with laser RF 1980)

120mm M256 with M829A1 80% at 2500m stacionary,75% at 2000m moving

I posted some data from Slovak military buletin where T-72 had accuracy 57% at 2000m with 2A46 firing BM-15 round

[JaM]

M827 was new round with accuracy problems, Merkava 1 stats are fighting results, so they cant be compared with one from training ground.

[Alpha]

Hi Fabio,

i sent you a mail with my OOB set.

[Fabfire]

Hi, Alpha!

I've just got it. Going to take a look at it and will post it ASAP.
Thank you so much!

Best,

Fab

[Fabfire]

Alpha said:
Hi Fabio,

i sent you a mail with my OOB set.



Great worK! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Already posted: The Armosite's WinSPMBT page! (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/winspmbt.htm)

Fab

[Gooseman2448]

Don,

Let me be the first to appologise for my remarks in earlier post.

I did not mean to disrespect you or WinSPMBT. I also did not expect to be belittled by you for expressing my opinion.


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




Things got out of hand and I apologise.

I have had a chance to replay the senario that was giving me my problems. I was able to get thte same problems but I have gotten them in a different situation.

I am attaching a save of where I am now.

I would appreciate anyones analysis of what is happening.

The first is of course the earthen bunker that is in question. I have over a platoon of M1A1+ around it at various ranges. I have reduced all suppression and moved to the next turn.

I can kill now within 50 meters. If I try any further out, say 100 meters or more, the ACC % drops to nothing. Even TOW missile aren't able to get a hit, not a kill but a hit.

I have Brads in close to another bunker but they don't seem to be able to do much either.

Another question I have is the M1s in the upper area engaged with a 23mm AA emplacement. I am thinking they should at least be able to suppress it if not hit it.

I never meant to disrespect you or SPMBT. I have enjoyed everything you guys have done. I mentioned WAW before in a bad attempt to explain that to have to close within 50 meters AND stop until the next turn to hit a bunker seemed more along the lines of WW2 technology or tactics.

I think before I had engaged further out (About 300 to 400 meters). By time I had gotten to within 50 meters I was frustrated in I thought an M1 should have atleast hit this thing by now. Am I wrong in thinking this?

With this senario there are no shortages of 120mm, 25mm and TOW missiles, so someone should be able to hit the thing and if lucky kill it.

As I said before I apologise to you Don.

[DRG]

Gooseman2448 said:
Don,

Let me be the first to appologise for my remarks in earlier post.

I did not mean to disrespect you or WinSPMBT. I also did not expect to be belittled by you for expressing my opinion.


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




Things got out of hand and I apologise.

I have had a chance to replay the senario that was giving me my problems. I was able to get thte same problems but I have gotten them in a different situation.

I am attaching a save of where I am now.

I would appreciate anyones analysis of what is happening.

The first is of course the earthen bunker that is in question. I have over a platoon of M1A1+ around it at various ranges. I have reduced all suppression and moved to the next turn.

I can kill now within 50 meters. If I try any further out, say 100 meters or more, the ACC % drops to nothing. Even TOW missile aren't able to get a hit, not a kill but a hit.

I have Brads in close to another bunker but they don't seem to be able to do much either.

Another question I have is the M1s in the upper area engaged with a 23mm AA emplacement. I am thinking they should at least be able to suppress it if not hit it.

I never meant to disrespect you or SPMBT. I have enjoyed everything you guys have done. I mentioned WAW before in a bad attempt to explain that to have to close within 50 meters AND stop until the next turn to hit a bunker seemed more along the lines of WW2 technology or tactics.

I think before I had engaged further out (About 300 to 400 meters). By time I had gotten to within 50 meters I was frustrated in I thought an M1 should have atleast hit this thing by now. Am I wrong in thinking this?

With this senario there are no shortages of 120mm, 25mm and TOW missiles, so someone should be able to hit the thing and if lucky kill it.

As I said before I apologise to you Don.



I didn't belittle your opinion. I gave you advice You were sounding like a
newbie and I've had this "discussion" before regarding bunkers and such and
I suggested you need more experience playing the game because when I test
these complaints I invariably end up scratching my head wondering how I
could get results diametrically opposed to what other people do. That was
confirmed when I built the my test sceanrio based on the information you
gave me. MG's pits, + Abrams all around them in adjacent hexes and unable to
even hit the bunker. I get one shot, one kill three times in a row in the
test scenario .

However, it is almost impossible to test things like this properly in a
"test scenario" I have to build just guessing at the conditions in the actual game. I
need the save game and I need to see what you see to judge the problem. Now
that I have that I can look more closely at the issue and , in this case
what I discovered was we have already made changes that change the results.

I first loaded this save game into my working game and killed the AA
emplacement in one shot with Abrams so I start thinking..." oh yes.....
here we go again" but then I realized the EXE I'm using in my working game
is about 35 versions beyond the one you are using so I dug out a version of
the EXE that was in the DL release and tried this and yes indeed, things can
be very difficult to hit. Not impossible, but difficult. Lot's of misses

I then loaded this test scenario in the most up-to-date EXE

This one has had tweaks to the code to enhance Fire Control, Range finder
and vision ( like TI ) plus the OOB's I', using have the M256 gun increased
from 11 accuracy to 14. That increase in accuracy may sound like a lot but
it is a minor change in the big scheme of things. However, each small change
accumulates and we had to be very careful not to go too far with this but
here is what would happen now if we issued the patch today ( you can refer
to your game while reading this. It's a nice benefit of running in Windowed
mode I never run full screen simple because this allows me to do multiple
things at once )

Abrams B0 targets AA emplacement 800m 44% to-hit chance. In three attempts
two missed one kill

Abrams D0 firing at the bunker in 150,164 ( the one with the Bradley's and
M113's around it ) 500m 61% to-hit report. In three shots there were two
kills and one miss

Bradley L0 firing at the bunker in 150,164 ( again... I reloaded the game )
450m 61% to-hit report. Three attempts, three kills

I then ran Abrams F0 up the road until I had a clear shot of the AA emplacement
( I ended up in hex 144,150 ) 900m 17 % to-hit. Four attempts resulted in three shots missed
and one kill

So, it appears the changes we made to the code have eliminated the issues you raised so when the patch
is released you should see a noticeable change. We have not turned them into omnipotent wonder
weapons but they do hit and kill more in line with existing battle reports

Glad you like the game otherwise

Don

[Gooseman2448]

Don,

Thank you for taking the time to look into this. I know I came off wrong.

I have experienced the same in my time as a systems administrator.

I know it is hard to hold back when someone is telling you that what you know to be true is wrong. In the world of computers and programing many people have no clue as to what is really going on.


However, it is almost impossible to test things like this properly in a
"test scenario" I have to build just guessing at the conditions in the actual game. I
need the save game and I need to see what you see to judge the problem. Now
that I have that I can look more closely at the issue and , in this case
what I discovered was we have already made changes that change the results



I have to go through this same procedure with my systems. I should have given more info to you, my mistake.

Hey, even I am not perfect, just right most the time, LOL. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I like to say this to users (Luser, in the IT world for newbies)when they find something I didn't.

I have learned that they are not as much wrong as they are not informed enough to give the correct answers.

I am glad that I was not totally incorrect though, just not up to date.

I don't think any of us want uberweapons, just fair representation. Even in real combat in Iraq what seems like a unbeatable weapon (Galiath) can be defeated by the so called Davids. Several M1's and Bradley's have been taken out.

Even with the current debate of WP weapons and Nato weapons, it has always been my understanding that we may have had better weapons and training but, the shear mass of what was going to be comming through Germany would balance everything out. The pre attack artillary and air strikes would have been more devastating than we could ever have known. Nobody seems to put that in their senarios. I'm talking about 2 or three turns worth of raining Hell.

I myself have been working on the infantry side of things since version 1. I have worked on making infantry weapons and troops a little more unique. The old standards of ACC and HE kill just didn't seem to fit the different weapons.

I would like to understand more of how ACC, FC and RC influence a weapon.

Well, everybody keep up the good work and DON, take a breathe and think LUSER...

[DRG]

Gooseman2448 said:

Even with the current debate of WP weapons and Nato weapons, it has always been my understanding that we may have had better weapons and training but, the shear mass of what was going to be comming through Germany would balance everything out. The pre attack artillary and air strikes would have been more devastating than we could ever have known. Nobody seems to put that in their senarios. I'm talking about 2 or three turns worth of raining Hell.





More like 10 or 20 "game" turns minimum. 2 or three game turns is only 6 - 9 minutes or so. Any serious WP opening barrage would have been much more than just 9 or 10 minutes

Don

[Alpha]

@ gooseman: so you´ll will get some arty barage for shure soon...hehe

[Gooseman2448]

@ gooseman: so you´ll will get some arty barage for shure soon...hehe



I look forward to it and your upcomming campaign. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Gooseman2448]

More like 10 or 20 "game" turns minimum. 2 or three game turns is only 6 - 9 minutes or so. Any serious WP opening barrage would have been much more than just 9 or 10 minutes




I wasn't even thinking that long, because most scenarios haven't even been that long. That would be sweet!!!

The HECK caused by trying to avoid or ride in out would be nerve racking, then out of the smoke at about 1000 meters or less are the Soviets, well within thier effective range.

Will Western technology be good enough then??

I think I will play test that myself.

[Alpha]

@ gooseman: but you cannot generalize what you said, for severall reasons:

1. is was assumed that nato get´s air suppority, so many arty tubes would fall prey to aircraft
2. the nato developed some "smart" weapons special against arty and tanks ( russians also but later ! )
3. okay the first attacks from the pact on nato lines would probably such with th emassive arty fire, but i think if the run a bit and on their way get harrassed by nato air and small counter attacks very soon their arty will get seperated and unorganized in later stages of the ww3 so, that these battles would perhaps see pact units without much arty support at all....

just a few thoughts....

[Gooseman2448]

Alpha,

I agree completely with you on that point.

I was mainly thinking of the first assault.

The whole WP goal was to hopefully pound what defensive units they could so they could get deep in to allied territory before NATO could mobilize enough support.

I believe NATO would be able to wear down the RED TIDE, but the first 48 hours would determine the whole thing.



This also depended on a slow build up of forces on both sides. If they were able to attack without a strong NATO response it wouldn't be as big an impact. Also as you said, it is assumed NATO air superiority would balance things out. Soviet doctorine relied on masses of anti air systems also.

Not to mention NATO aircraft may get tied up with WP fighters.

It may take a day or two to get air superiority.

[Alpha]

well as long the SU27 and MIG 29 were not invented in soviet arsenal we had the better fighters. ( f16, f15, f18 also some french like mirage f1 or 2000, tornado )....

[kevineduguay1]

M256,

The info on Russian auto loader equiped tanks ROF is optomistic at best. In the early 1990's it took the auto loader 10 seconds to re-load and put the gun back on target. In a real battle any Western tank could out shoot it by at least 3 to 2 rounds. And who reloaded the ammo carrosel when it was empty in a Soviet built tank? The commander. If the gunner and commander are doing it, that just leaves the driver to pray that they get it done soon so he does'nt have to die for his country.
Now if he is doing that, who spotted for new targets? In the game durring the first few turns a Soviet/Russian tank gets to fire 2 rounds per impulse. One a gun round and one a ATGM. This is bull. All are in the auto loader. If not the ROF drops. They all go through the same tube.
They are still working on the accuracy of their sabot rounds, and their auto loader is still a mess.
My question is, why do Soviet/Russian tanks in many cases have ROF of 7, while they have the ATGM advantage (weapons slots 1 and 2 ) and an unbeliveable ROF of 7 for all T-80s, some T-70s, and maybe some I have not found. ALL WESTERN TANKS with a 90mm or better armament have a ROF of only 6. Despite the FACT that a 120mm loader in an ABRAMS could out load the AUTO-LOADER 3 to 2 in ANY situation reguardless of training.
One other thing, how do you un-load the tube of a 125mm gun with the auto-loader if you have the wrong ammo in the tube? You clear the weapon just like a naval weapon, fire the round off, make another selection for type of ammo, and wait 10 seconds to die.

[RecruitMonty]

I find the best wayto deal with bunkers is with an airstrike/bombardment followed by an assault with engineers or flamethrowers (preferably from the flanks or rear of the emplacement) with armoured support to supress any infantry tanks near the bunker.

[RecruitMonty]

If you have no air support, popping smoke infront ofthe bunker (the tanks should have smoke) normally puts the enemy out of action for a while until you can zap them.

[RecruitMonty]

I agree with you guys when you say the Russians are definately over gunned, I looked at the figures in Mobhack for Germany and the USA and you are all absolutely right, The Ruskies really do have a very high ROF, a bit too high.

[DRG]

RecruitMonty said:
I agree with you guys when you say the Russians are definately over gunned, I looked at the figures in Mobhack for Germany and the USA and you are all absolutely right, The Ruskies really do have a very high ROF, a bit too high.



ROF of main guns is determined by crew experience in this game and crew experience only. The ROF number in MOBHack has NO effect on the number of shots you get with the main gun in this game. It's all about the crew and how good they are. That's the way it is, that's the way it's going to stay.

There are also a lot of people commenting on how fast a Russian tank can fire who really have no idea how fast a Russian tank can fire. Here's a quote from a Finn who was trained on it...

" I was a mech in the Finnish army half a decade ago. My training was especially for the weapons systems: gun, sights, hydraulics, electronics, autoloader. I've used the loader a number of times, and when I clocked it, loading usually took 7-9 seconds, 10 if the cassette required was furthest away "

7 - 9 seconds is hardly slow is it and I don't hold this quote as the holy grail but it is representative of other's I have read and it's also fair and honest

There are WAY too many people trying to judge how the game works by focusing in on one number in the OOB's. There are 12 numbers that make up a weapon then there are another half dozen in the unit section that determines how well it works. THEN you toss in how good the crew is at their jobs. Looking at ROF then judging that this makes the Russians "Over gunned" isn't even remotely accurate. If this were the case anyone playing as the Russian or with Russian equipment would run roughshod over any "western" opponent and that MOST DEFINITELY does not happen.

Put tanks on a map and play the game to judge how it works

Don

[kevineduguay1]

DGR,

When you approch the 9-10 second time range then you are talking about a 2 to 1 shot difference in favor of a western tank.

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:
DGR,

When you approch the 9-10 second time range then you are talking about a 2 to 1 shot difference in favor of a western tank.




Kevin....I'm not changing the OOB's to give western tanks more of an advantage than they already enjoy when all the other factors are put together. Generally they already enjoy a ROF advantage in many cases because the crew experience it higher. If you consider this some kind of affront to "reality".... that's fine, go ahead and believe that but the OOB's are not changing. The existing ROF of 3 and 4 shots on average isn't even CLOSE to what "theoretically" could be fired by either Russian OR Western tanks given the time and distance they can move on the map in one turn but those are the numbers we use because , when combined with all the other factors in the game it gives a reasonable representation of "reality" even if some things just don't add up. I can live with that. What you want changed is NOT going to change because I know that changing it will screw up the game play and in the end, it is a game. The topic has been flogged to death. You have not and will not convince me that this is something that needs to be done. Give it a rest.

Don

[Marcello]

"One other thing, how do you un-load the tube of a 125mm gun with the auto-loader if you have the wrong ammo in the tube?"

Exactly in the same way an Abrams would do.You fire it.
Even if theoretically possible, you do not unload a "wrong" round in the middle of a battle in any other way.Too dangerous and time consuming.Even with an human loader the procedure is fire and reload, if I have undestood correctly.

"The info on Russian auto loader equiped tanks ROF is optomistic at best."

Do not underestimate Vasily, that would be a big mistake...
Ten seconds is basically the worst case scenario for the slowest autoloader type, mounted on the T-72.The one mounted on the T-90 can cycle faster, the T-80 is faster still and the latest bustle autoloader is even faster.
So it depends on what specific tank you are speaking about,the loading plan and the mode of operation.You can go from 10 seconds down to probably 3-4 depending on all the above variables. The issue is a bit more complicated than "ruskies SUCK!!!!!!".You should read more about it, it is rather interesting...

[kevineduguay1]

I may be wrong to a point about the ROF issue. But they did change the accuracy of the 120mm main gun in the US OOB. Maybe in some cases more than it should be. Especially the early 120mm guns. This is a hard nut to crack so I have to give them credit. (designers/modders)
The accuracy of the US 120mm smooth bore tank gun has more to do with the ammo than the gun. This is why I suggested that the accuracy rating evolve. They chose to make all 120mm US tank guns have the same accuracy. I would have started at an accuracy rating of 11 or 12 for the first 120mm and moved up to 15 by 2007. Now they are all rated at 14. This seems to me to be a shotgun approach.
Said enough. I like the patch. Play the game, it's fun!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Cris]

I agree with the comments wrt the penetrator L/D's but to take only those into account would be a similar issue to taking only Barrel length... both are a factor as is manufacture

Rather than taking to account one factor perhaps a couple of multipliers or an weighted average of penetrator l/d Barrel length..

Just a thought.

[JaM]

Thats true, but there isnt a modifier for technological advancement. On paper, is soviet 125mm gun impressive (L48-50,1700-1800m/s muzzle speed...),but in reality it dont count. First gen soviet APFSDS were very unaccurate.Round of choice was HEAT,becouse it was more accurate and destructive. Western APDS rounds were more accurate than first and second gen. West APFSDS (M735,M111,M774...) I saw somewhere on Tanknet some data, where M60A3 in 1980 firing APDS was more accurate than M1A1 with M827 or Merkava Mk1 firing M111 (87% at 2000m M728, 84% M827 and 73% M111,but M111 accuracy is combat value from "1982 Peace for Galilee",accuracy during tests is always better) So for accurate accuracy :-) formula you need count with much more variables,but many of them are not public domain. (speed loss of projectile at distance,dispersion,quality of discarding sabot etc...)

[Cris]

Yeh, You are right but.... In the end we could be pedants one and all and take into account all sorts of variables from Barrel wear to what socks the gunner put on... Its a game and pretty good at that... Keeps e entertained thats what cousnts I suppose.

[Gooseman2448]

This is something that I pulled out: I says they have developed a 105mm smoothbore with simular stats as the early 120mm in Leopard 2 (L44).

And this was 4 years ago, so think about that...


10/23/2001

Mobile gun system: Rheinmetall 105mm smooth bore gun for the US Army's Brigade Combat Team

In response to the US Army's requirement for a mobile gun system to equip its Brigade Combat Teams (BCT), Germany's Rheinmetall W&M GmbH is offering a 105mm smooth bore gun system whose performance is equivalent to larger caliber systems, but features a clear advantage for the LAV III class vehicle in terms of weight and size, thus resulting in greater flexibility and better mobility.

Rheinmetall W&M is a subsidiary of Rheinmetall DeTec AG, one of Europe's leading defense systems suppliers of ground forces equipment. W&M is a world leader in large caliber weapons systems and ammunition.

In cooperation and in close consultation with General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) and Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Rheinmetall W&M believes there is an excellent chance of supplying an improved 105mm armament for the mobile gun system under a pre-planned upgrade effort for the Brigade Combat Team. GDLS, teamed with GM of Canada, is now manufacturing the ten LAV III (Light Armored Vehicle) variants for the US Army and is directly responsible for the MGS.

Rheinmetall set its sights on an anticipated block upgrade, called P3I for pre-planned product improvement, of the mobile gun system, which can be fielded in the 2004 time frame. Overall plans call for fielding over 2,000 LAV III of which about more than 200 will be MGS variants.

The Army planning calls for the MGS to be primarily an infantry support vehicle with a limited anti-tank mission. One key performance requirement is to breach a reinforced concrete wall so that foot soldiers can have direct access through fortifications or to a building. The existing M68A1 rifled cannon, a derivative of the L7, will be on first production MGS vehicles. Follow on fielding to selected brigades are expected to require a tank-defeating role beyond the T-62 main battle tank.

With a view to an army-sponsored pre-planned product improvement (P3I) project, Rheinmetall W&M is offering its 105mm smooth bore gun for the MGS. Currently such an upgrade package can be delivered starting in 2004.

In terms of performance, the Rheinmetall high-pressure smooth bore gun offers the lethality equal to first generation 120mm smooth bore guns fielded in the Leopard 2 (L44) and M1A1 (M256) Abrams. It exceeds a desired goal of defeating the T-72 main battle tank. In terms of gas pressure, the Rheinmetall gun is capable of firing ammunition with pressures of about 1,000 bar higher than in comparable rifled barrels. This results in a significantly higher velocity, range and enhancement to penetration power or lethality.

The smooth bore gun encompasses a growth potential well beyond the 105mm conventional powder/ rifled gun limits. By increasing the volume of the chamber, for example, the maximum range and lethality can be dramatically extended. Along this projected growth path, designers anticipated that next generation propulsion means, such as electro-thermal chemical (ETC), could be inexpensively retrofitted to lightweight platforms. Thus viewed in an evolutionary sense, the 105mm smooth bore gun is seen as fulfilling a vital role for the MGS and a firepower "bridge" to the combat system of the future.

The US Army's chief of Staff, GEN. Eric Shinseki, experienced the power and accuracy of the 105mm smooth bore gun first-hand when he visited the Rheinmetall proving grounds at Unterlüß last December. He was impressed when the gun caught his attention while on display at AUSA 2000. Rheinmetall is encouraged by the continued US Army interest in the potential of the 105mm smooth bore gun to enhance the mobile gun system in the future.

Rheinmetall's long-established experience in large caliber weapon systems, especially smooth bore technology, enables it to draw upon an existing design when maturing the 105mm. Flowing into the design are state-of-the-art enhancements derived from the company's L44 and L55 120mm and the L52 155mm cannons - representing the latest in tactical, technical and manufacturing knowledge.

The decisive performance of the Nato standard 120mm L44 tank cannon on the Leopard 2 is acknowledged worldwide. With a longer barreled 120mm L55 tank gun and accompanying advanced ammunition, Rheinmetall W&M is again on the way to establishing a new higher standard in main battle tank direct fire performance. Likewise, it is Rheinmetall's 155mm L52 cannon that advances the PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzer to the forefront as the most powerful artillery system ever fielded.

The large caliber cannon leadership role enjoyed by Rheinmetall W&M, together with a century of experience, enables the company to attain the high level of direct fire lethality encompassed in the 105mm direct fire regime. A buildup of technical know-how assembled, especially over the last 15 years in Nato advanced tank armament programs, makes possible a flow down from 120mm and 140mm smooth bore guns to generate a performance not achieved before in a 105mm tank cannon.

The application of advanced ultra-hard gun steel employed in the L55 gun on Leopard 2 enables the 105mm smooth bore to withstand the stresses accompanying use of superior performance and high-pressure fourth generation kinetic energy ammunition. Ultra modern technologies are employed in the manufacture of critical elements, such as the lightweight aluminum cradle and a new advanced method of chrome plating and laser hardening of the barrel, both of which are critical to attain gun tube straightness and aid in wear reduction.

A special feature of the modern Rheinmetall 105mm smooth bore gun is its ability to fire existing Nato stockpiled fin-stabilized rifled ammunition by a modification to the driving band. This feature was shown to the US Army chief of staff in the live fire demonstration firing the DM128 CSDS-T originally type classified and used in the L7 and acquired for US forces in Germany using the M68A1 gun on the M1 Abrams.

The Rheinmetall tradition of excellence in large caliber weapons dates back to 1898 when the company produced their first barrels for artillery pieces. Today, building on a strong foundation of technical excellence, Rheinmetall W&M is first among the world's most innovative and efficient suppliers of ground force equipment. Apart from outstanding competence as a supplier of defense systems, the company is a highly experienced leader in international cooperation, typified by its long standing successful partnership with Alliant Techsystems (ATK).

Innovative ammunition solutions such as the MTLS modular propelling charge system and the SMArt 155 sensor fuzed munition are a few examples of Rheinmetall leading the way to the future in land combat products.

For further information, please contact:
Rheinmetall DeTec AG
Press and Information
Oliver Hoffmann
Phone: +49 211 473-4748
Fax: +49 211 473-4157