NGP^85: Range fire Soviet and NATO tanks?

CptCav · 07-21-2007, 02:28 AM,

I spent my first 18 months in the Army as a M-60A1 tank platoon leader. At 3000 meters a stationary M-60A1 tank had a 10% chance of hitting a stationary target with the first round. The main difference between a M-60A1 and a M-60A3 was the laser rangefinder. So, even though Tazaaron's friend indicates that the M-60A3 has been known to hit targets out to 3000 meters (the key words here are "has been known"), I have to say that the odds are against a first round hit; especially, if that target is moving.

We had to rely on the BOT (burst-on-target) technique, which means that we would have to see where the rounds landed to adjust our subsequent shots to achieve a hit on the target at range. This is something that Soviet tanks could not take advantage of due to the auto-loader feature, which would cause the gun to elevate immediately after firing to load the next round. This would cause the gunner to lose sight of the target. That is one of the reasons that Soviet doctrine called for all three tanks of a platoon to fire at the same target.

The other thing to consider is that during WWII in Europe the average battle range for tank engagements was 500 meters. The guns had ranges of greater distance but terrain and other considerations (i.e. fog) reduced the engagement distances. In the 1980's, "battle-sight" for the US tanks was 1600 meters. This was the maximum distance that a Sabot round would travel without the fall of the round (due to gravity) significantly impacting the aiming at the target (basically, the barrel was pointed straight at the target without having to be elevated). I remember being told that we could expect most engagements to take place at a 1000 meters and less. So, maybe no vehicle should have a two-hex range.

Even though the terrain on the map appears to be flat and open, much of the ground does have dead spaces where vehicles will not be seen. During our training we were taken on nature walks to study terrain and how to take advantage of the dips and undulations of the ground. Even on high ground, we were shown how the open terrain in front of us could mask movement. So, the amount of targets that can be engaged at two hexes would likely be a smaller number than those that are represented in the game.

By the way Epoletov, no need to apologize for your English, we are happy that you are contributing to the discussions on this board.

Regards,
CptCav

CptCav · 07-21-2007, 02:36 AM,

Here are some examples of open terrain in the Fulda Gap.

Regards,
CptCav

shortreengage · 07-21-2007, 03:41 AM,

Volcano Man Wrote:Just play the game and have fun and try not to worry about these things, it will give you too much stress.

Just game on the second place. :)
It would be desirable to receive stress from new knowledge on military history. :cool:

Mike Abberton · 07-21-2007, 04:08 AM,

Epoletov [SPR Wrote:.]
It would be desirable to receive stress from new knowledge on military history. :cool:

Yes, that sounds like a good trade. :)

Aaron · 07-21-2007, 05:44 AM,

Hey Cav, im looking at a cutoff for 1 or 2 hex range at 2400m so i know the Leo1a5 is efective at 2400,not sure on Leo1a2,a3 but probably not, but can a M-60a1 or m-60a3 be effective at 2400m. Im going to say the a1 cant but the a3 can, what do u think or can dig out of that brain of yours:)

Aaron

Aaron · (This post was last modified: 07-21-2007, 08:08 AM by Aaron.)

I think in the end the answer is staring us in the face,who knows there equipment better than the Soviets. All u got to do is look at there deployments, why do they have T-80,64 in GSFG and no T-72. Answer thats b/c it was there best tank in open country and could hit a target out to about 3000m. And why do all 5 divisions in czech(CGF) have t-72, answer the CGF forces would have been fighting in southern germany therefore terrain wouldnt have aloud for many engagements at 3000m, they new the limits on the T-72 and put it where it would be best used where the fighting would have been close quarters and not the open country of the north. Henceforth the T-72 still has a range of 1...................................................:cool:

Aaron

Aaron · 07-21-2007, 08:27 AM,

CptCav · (This post was last modified: 07-21-2007, 09:39 AM by CptCav.)

Sorry to tell you this, but whoever gave you that info needs to be put on the drug and alcohol program, because he is obviously high!

A moving M-60 series or M-48 series tank, especially in the early 1980's could not hit the broad side of a barn if moving more than 10 mph on a smooth road! The stabilization system sucked! It only worked in the horizontal plane and not that well. When we did gunnery in the moving tank engagement, we would drive 6-7 mph on a dirt road and be fortunate to hit the target.

The normal engagement technique was firing from the short halt, which is how they did it in WWII.

As I mentioned above, the odds of a stationary M-60A1 of hitting a stationary tank-type target at 3000 meters on the first round was 10% (as per the FM of the time). The ranges presented for first round hit look as if they are more like maximum engagement ranges.

Regards,
CptCav

Aaron · (This post was last modified: 07-21-2007, 10:44 AM by Aaron.)

Hey Cav correct me if im wrong but the M-60a1 upgrade had limited stabilization and the upgrade to A3 had full stabilization so therefore could those be numbers be for an M60a3 and not a A1 model

Aaron

And yes he could be on drugs, that 4000m part of his range chart didnt look right

CptCav · 07-21-2007, 10:55 AM,

Aaron,

The A3's stabilization may have been better; however, I doubt that the improvement in it was as marked as your friend implies. The ranges are more believable if you are talking the M1. I was going to follow up on this on the TankNet.com, but I see that is where you've been. ;)

Regards,
CptCav