As you would not necessary hit at exactly the same place with a rifle on a rest, shooting bench, etc...

The same parameters are at play with a tank, multiplied by the size of the canon, the size of the slug, heat, mechanics.

On another hand, a turretless TD is more likely to be more accurate due to the lack of mechanism of the Gun Turret, it is a more stable gun platform.

This is WWII Technology.

Moreover, this is NOT BF3.

What you see is what you get, be happy they did not reproduce ammunition malfunction, shortage of ammunition, fuel, constant break down of transmissions, Lack of replacement parts, lack of training of young crew, wear and tear etc... in the King Tiger, Panther, etc...

This is 1944, Germany has it's industry bombed day and night, human slave are working on assembly lines and sabotaging quality as much as they can. Be aware of Parachronism!

LOL!...When you zero in with a scope on the rifle, you ellevate the scope!....When you zero in, in a panzer, you dont ellevate the scope, you ellevate the gun!....Go to the range, rent for an hour a high power rifle with a scope, a shooting bench and experiment!...

Yup we are all fully aware of that Gunny. Just discussing the accuracy rather than the precision. The precison of the tank guns in game is actually extremely high, probably a little too high actually.

Edit: sorry gunny this was in response to your post about WW2 tank guns etc, not the post you just posted

I know how the zero/elevation/sight picture works...

The outer ring is rotated, mechanical linkage depresses the reticle appropriately, the reticle is laid back on the target, with suitable correction for lead and the weapon is fired. This is the same as the T72 sight, and very similar to that in the Leopard's Auxiliary Sight.

When the range is very short, all rounds fired will approximately impact directly in front of the muzzle... Don't give a hoot what the projectile weight/aerodynamics/material/function is, the round fired at minimum range will hit in the same general area - a five degree 'offset' between PzGr40 and PzGr39 as suggested in the document is ludicrous beyond all measure.

Please entertain us if you think it is supportable, I'd enjoy hearing the explanation.

It is possible that the '1300m' mark represents a 1500m or 2000m range, if PzGr is retaining velocity reasonably well, or where the PzGr40 and PzGr39 trajectories cross if PzGr40 slows more quickly... but it has nothing to do with the muzzle condition, or the start of the range scale etc. I could check my papers - I know I have some sample trajectory data for these rounds in one form or another, that would give some kind of indication.

Don't forget that I posted that link for the information on range finding etc that they'd taken from actual documents. The rest of the information on that page is for people making mods for a different game and coming up with their own ideas etc. The 'ingame' shots and reticules etc are from an entirely different game, and were posted in 2008.

Engine off, on?...What type of terrain?....Tank on a shooting bench?...How far from the muzzle of the gun is your target?...If too close, did the blast damage the canon?...Which tank?...the recoil starts when the projectile is still in the barrel-How long is the barrel?...where is placed your scope? (right above the gun as on a rifle, aside, how far? Did you notice how the optic moves on a StugIII?), Parallax error?...How much of that energy is absorbed by the recoil of the barrel, then the vehicle?...You reload with a different ammo = you have moving pieces that influence the trajectory.

Then again have you ever shoot a projectile from a Panzer and measured up the result?....That is the problem with simulation. If programmers could just translate what the reality is it would be fine. Yet, how many panzer are left in the world and tested for ballistic on a regular basis (like yesterday)?...And your record of data dating of an era where recording was not as accurate as today.

So, parachronism again!...

I would not worry if I was you because if you play the game long enough you will correct it automatically and will enjoy the game. If they made a mistake they will fix it and you will have to adapt to the new data to enjoy the game again.

If everything I said failed to entertain, I am gonna quote Buddha in regard to the secret of happiness: "All you have to do is to accept what is unacceptable to YOU". Don't resist, the fear of being wrong should not stop you from enjoying this wonderful day!

I feel blessed to be alive to feel the happiness that now I have a more decent WWII armor sim!

Who was that in response to Gunny?

Gunny. I like your style.

So, you really think that a 5 degree difference in trajectory is supportable, and that any questioning of this is 'out of the context of time'?

I can't be bothered arguing the point further. I read the document, saw several 'facts' and 'interpretations' that made no engineering sense, and commented on them. Go ahead and prove black is white, but be careful using Zebra crossings.

OK more testing and found that the ranges reading on the panther sight are completely wrong, i think. It seems that the range marker is too condensed. You can hit at 500 meters without touching the sight, if you set it at 500 it goes way over, and for a target 1200 meters away you need a range of 2200 on the sight. It'd be cool if they could get them all calibrated so that we can use them.