Losing side always had better tanks in WW2

I know how German tests are carried out. That has little, if nothing, to do with what i'm talking about. Due to human error, the gun will not always guarentee a 71% hit rate. This would fluctuate between crews.

 

Yes and thats why the 71% average was given.

KBO

 

KBO
The 71% accuracy was during training. In action, the accuracy for the same gun and distance was just 31% (which is still impressive, but a lot less than your figure).

Also see http://www.panzerworld.net/cannons.html

 

Yes but action reports dont show what the gun is capable of, since that includes shooting after moving targets, and sometimes not under very good conditions. And there's two kinds of numbers, some for tests and some for practice, and then offcourse the third wich is action.

There's "tests" wich show even higher results since that means the gun is dead on the target and there's no gunner's fault, but then theres "training" which envolves the gunner and then theres the possibillity of gunners fault, and the results of training shows a 71% average, so that pretty much depics what the gun is capable of.

The Action report does not depict what the gun was capable of.

Regards, KBO.

 

It wasn't based on action reports, but test results in action (or combat-like conditions, where the soldiers are stressed). I consider this more relevant.

 

Well thats what i ment, but still it wasnt against stationary targets, and it doesnt say what the gun is capable of.

Regards, KBO

 

Is thid post on the Tiger's accuracy or on tanks in the losing side?

 

Things degress. It's a common forum disease. Just get back on topic, saying "back to topic!" and commneting on the original thread subject...

It's true enough though.

 

whats true enough ??

 

The original point of this topic. It's something we've discussed on page 1 here, maybe, before it degressed.

 

Oh okay..