52 thoughts on “Ensign’s Q&A #16”

1. Kewl

   • yea

2. Keep them Q&A comin’!

3. If S-51 had 40° of gun traverse why did they make it 8°? Russian bias?

   • How can it be Russian bias if S-51 is Russian?

     • That’s the joke…

   • That 20 degree to left and right could be possible if they would remove that gunshield.

4. Q: What Soviet 152 mm gun tank destroyers were there that aren’t in World of Tanks?

   SU-152 P, SU-152 G, SU-152 Taran(object 120)

   • Oh yeah, all the post-war ones. Forgot about those.

5. longest confirmed kill.
   .
   On that matter we then have to decide if, upon looking and any claim, if the intent was to actually kill the other target or if it was an accidental hit. Because of the range any hit at 1+ km will more likely come from the eastern front or North Africa because of the terrain. I’ll try and do some digging and see what I can find.

   • And to add something to that, it might not have been a tank that scored a kill at that distance (if any), but possibly a tank destroyer.

     • That too.
       .
       On a third count I am wondering if the Challenger during the Gulf War, at 5.1 km, killed a tank/tank destroyer/spg. Because that is what I would consider for a kill. Truck, half-tracks, artillery and cars don’t count in my book.

       • the kill I think was a T55

       • The urban legend scores the longest WW2 kill to Nashorn (shooting IS-2@4,6km). It’s indeed doubtful, but we can’t simply deny it because it sounds so.

         Combat realities are not suitable for judging any ‘competition records’. We don’t know the exact details of this engagement. The tank could have been immobile (perhaps knocked out by some other antitank fire from closer range). The Nashorns battery could have been shelling the target until simply scoring the hit finally.

         There are much more legends about 4+ km kills in WW2. The problem is that most people hearing about those imagine a one shot-one kill sniper movie like scene.

         • Oh, and cited from this thread: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102014&page=3

           “Having looked through a lot of optical equipment from the WW2 era, I can positively confirm that identifying a target 2+ km away with said equipment is very much possible, and making out a tank sized object at 3+ km is quite easy.

           WW2 German optics were AR coated and purged with nitrogen, achieving clarity & brilliance rivalling that of modern optics; I have litterally often not been able to tell the difference in performance between a WW2 German scope and a modern one. So the optics weren’t going to be the limiting factor here.

           As for hitting a 3×3 meter target 4.6 km away, it is quite possible, albeit very lucky. On the practice range the Tiger Ausf.B was recorded to have a 42% hit percentage against 2×2.5 meter targets at 4,000 meters. However this kind of accuracy wasn’t to be expected during the stress of combat, and it was therefore calculated that during combat this figure would drop to about 13%. The 42% is a recorded figure however, established from 1,000 firings on the practice range, where’as the 13% is a calculated figure. So the gun + optics combination used was definitely capable of reliably hitting a tank sized target 4km away, under ideal conditions ofcourse, with a properly trained gunner and no stress of combat.

           Next comes the question of wether the gun was able to defeat the target at such a range, and according to actual test range results it was;

           The penetration power of the 8.8cm PaK43 & KwK43 L/71 gun against vertical 240 BHN RH armour at 4,600 meters:
           PzGr.39/43 (APCBC) = 133 mm @ 0 deg
           PzGr.40/43 (APCR) = 122 mm @ 0 deg

           So a Nashorn was perfectly capable of knocking out any Soviet tank at a range of 4.6 km, including the IS-2, be it from the front, side or rear.”

           • Sigh … you fail at math the is 2 has 100/120 mm armour at the front sloped at 60 degrees sloped . There was no way something that pens 130 mm at 0 degrees can pen 100mm sloped at 60 degrees .

           • You assume it was a late 1944 version IS-2 shot at it’s front hull. It didn’t need to be.

           • The real reason why any kills over 2km were “accidents” however, is the fact that German doctrine actually discourages long ranged shooting. Even if hits can be achieved, German records show that the hit rate drops significantly at longer ranges, requiring ten or even more shots to achieve a hit at ranges over 1 km.

             In general, the preference for the Wermacht was to fire at less than 1 km range, to maximize the number of kills vs ammunition usage.

6. > The S-51 had a much more impressive horizontal traverse, 40 degrees (20 in each direction).

   Wrong. http://rghost.net/private/49373048/f404f63db535e22dabb3c247e7086f07/image.png (from S-51 trials) – only 8 (-4/+4).

   And really, how can you get 40 degrees of traverse for S-51?

   • Well, it appears that I was wrong! Got any more of that document?

     • Yep, the whole document (76 pages), but, unfortunately, I can not share it, because it is not mine.

       • Can you contact the original owner? I would very much be interested in obtaining a copy of this document.

         • Original owner – Pasholok :P

           • Where did you get this from, then? VIF?

           • From Pasholok.

7. A: The all time longest confirmed kill was made by a Challenger during the Gulf War, at 5.1 km. As for WWII, the poorer fire control of the time would make it impossible to hit something at such distances. I don’t have data on the longest range kill for WWII, but be extremely vary of anyone that tries to feed you stories of 4+ km kills.

   I don’t know…it could have been done fairly easily if 1) the target isn’t moving, and 2) the gunner is just THAT good.

   • Well, if the target isn’t moving, and the gunner has the range down perfectly, the, say, D-25T only has 50% deviations of 1.5 meters vertical and 1.2 meters horizontal at 4 km, so that’s a 50-50 chance to his a big tank. The hard part is ranging in to exactly 4 km.

     • On tank net there was a conversation on this. The challey kill was indeed a t-55. Apparently. Israel used the maerkava 4 as indirect fire and with an observer knocked out a d-30 field gun. At 13km I believe. Will dig.

   • No it cant.
     .
     Just look at the data table for the 8.8 cm KwK 36 and KwK 43. That data alone can be used to dismiss a kill at 4km, 3km, and likely 2km.
     .
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_36
     .
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43
     .
     However… At 3km you have at best a 23-25% chance with the 43 to hit the target. With the 36 that drops to 19-25%. To further see if its possible we would need to understand what someone would see through a range sight, its calibration settings, max range settings, and would need to understand how the crew would zero in at such extreme ranges. Also I recall reading somewhere that it took between 3-7 shots just to adjust the gun to the correct range of even around 1km… So as to accurately fire on the target. Make the target move and that number just went up even higher. At 4km it drops to 13% for the 43 in combat.
     .
     But I have a few books I can use to track some more hard info down. I’ll look into it.
     .
     Lastly I will check the manuals because tankers were iirc told not to take pot shots at other tanks at long range for generally 3 reasons.
     1 Odds of actually hitting the target
     2 Odds of penetration
     3 Most importantly limited supply of ammo carried by the tank
     .
     Not to mention giving its own position away by firing too early. If there is a ultra long kill for WW2 it’s most likely going to be by direct fire artillery… Back to the books…

     • 4km is also the extreme end of the effective range for the 43. Something to consider.

     • Wait, we’re discussing two different things here:

       1) A one shot, one kill thetarical romantic movie scene. Highly doubtful.

       2) Killing a tank at even close to 5km range after shelling it with unspecified number of shots. Why not? Good gunner would shoot 10 times, adjusting the range carefully and finally hits. Even if hit chance would be lower than 13%, let say 5%, it statistically would require to shoot 20 times. Which isn’t at all that weird in combat situation.

       • It would be a bit weird way to use a major chunk of your tank’s combat load of ammunition though.

         • I wouldn’t call shooting the nemy a waste of ammo. Besides artillery wasted lots more of ammo. Never heard anyone complaining about this.

           • Gun crews just need to kick open a box to get more. Refilling a tank’s stores is a ‘little’ more time- and labour-intensive and AFAIK not really something you’d want to have to try doing in combat.

           • I thought it was Nashorn we discuss here?

           • Same diff. Odds are good those didn’t usually have boxes of spare ammo stacked right behind them and a few idle guys with crowbars standing around to break them open and pass fresh rounds into the vehicle as necessary.

           • The using a large percentage of ammo on one target is something that would normally not happen in a tank. Mostly because they have to conserve their ammunition.
             .
             A field gun however could expend such ammunition since it usually has quite a pile in boxes next to it. And another pile of expended cases on the other side of the gun.
             .

           • German crews were officially forbidden from taking extreme long range shots late in the war precisely because it was considered wasteful of ammunition.

   • 3) The target was being shelled until hit finally.

8. We’ll the soviets are op

   • Nah. You’re just UP.

9. why the fuck not just put totally op guns on all soviet tanks and say it was in the archives!!!!

   • So the world would be full of mysteries to stimulate the intellects of people like you.

10. ” Initial T-44 prototypes (T-44 first variant) mounted only D-5T and D-25T guns. Later prototypes with upgraded armour and engines (T-44 second variant) used ZiS-S-53 guns, as did the T-44A. None of these tanks were indexed “T-44-85″, but the hull shape of the in-game tank suggests that it represents a second variant T-44 (and not the T-44A, as the description suggests).”

    Well, we know that T-44-122 (D-25T?) will go to the supertesters on RU, but are there any other historical arguments for a T-44 prototype with a better 85mm gun, i.e. a historically motivated buff to the pitiful gun of the premium T-44-85 ?

    I know they can adjust the gun performance as they see fit for balance, but a historically accurate tank would be nice.

    • Nope, the regular 85 mm gun was deemed sufficient for a medium tank in 1944. By the time a 100 mm gun was in demand, the T-54 was in development, which was an overall superior platform.

      • Oh well, it was a faint hope anyway. We’ll just see if they manage to balance it.
        Once again, thank you EE and keep up the great work with this series. It’s one of my favorite on FTR.

11. >Q: Could the SU-85 really mount the 107 mm gun? What about the D-5S-85BM?

    A: I am not aware of anyone actually trying to put the ZiS-6 in a SU-85 (but Grabin was a stubborn fellow, so it’s very possible that he did). The both the D-5T and ZiS-6 were trialed on the IS, so if both fit in that, it’s very likely that both would fit into the SU-85.<
    It is quiet doubtful that there were attampts to install ZIS-6 in SU-85, as ZIS-6 was pre-war project (designed for KV-3) which was designed to oppose new German heavy tanks (which actually didn't appear in 1941).
    When the threat of Geramn heavy tanks (Tiger) became real (in 1943) ZIS-6 was listed as possible counter-measure, but it quckly turned out that production of 107 mm shells was stopped at the beginning of 1942 and couldn't be launched again in short time. There were some shells on stock, but largely they were WW1 anti infantry shells completely useless against taks and fortifications, so ZIS-6 was forgotten. And this was even before the first prototype of SU-85 was made.
    Sorry for large text.

12. I don’t see why it would be impossible to hit – and defeat – a tank at 2+ km.

    I saw one of those Andy McNab-programs on the Afghan war, and he presented a case of a british sniper taking out a Taleban MG-nest at 2 kilometers – and that’s with a hand carried sniper rifle.
    So why a much more stable gun platform with superior optics, aiming systems and (obviously) more powerful gun shouldn’t be able to do the same, I don’t see.

    • Not impossible, just extremely improbable. Machine gun nests don’t move around. Tanks do. After a few ranging shots, your target would very likely notice you and move away. Or a closer enemy notices you firing and decides to help out its buddy. Or an artillery spotter calls in a strike. The battlefield isn’t a very static place.

13. “SerB said that German tankers claiming kills at 2.5 km were either accidents or made up stories”
    Sure … and Serb is living in the past, prefering stalins memories of “the great patriotic war” for the only valid sources. Kill shots over 1km were business as usual for heavy anti-tank gun batteries and Tiger tanks. It’s documented by many different international sources… the only denier are the RU. The accuracy of the Tiger1 gun for 1st shot-hit at 2km was 90% at training and 60% in Combat. -> see Schneider / Jentz / Spielberger / Doyle … or an extraction of it http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3722

    • Mhm, and that’s why the Tigerfibel instructs you to fire at a target at 800 meters, and even Otto Carius bragged that he would engage at 900.

14. Pingback: Ensign’s Q&A #17 | For The Record