How Should Destroyed Optics Affect Tank Accuracy

[smbecket]

I believed that if a tanks optics were fully destroyed (red) that its accuracy would be drastically reduced. In my present game one of my Panthers in this situation (PzVA{Mid}) made a first round kill on an M5A1(Late) through its frontal aspect at 461 meters. The Panther was moving with a hunt command, the M5A1 was stationary. Is this unusual?

[womble]

461m doesn't require fancy optics for a 1120m/s muzzle velocity projectile to hit pretty reliably. The shell hardly drops at all, and the target was stationary.

Did your "Hunt" command work as I imagine, and bring the PzV to a halt as soon as the Stuart was spotted, so before it fired?

[Michael Emrys]

I would have supposed that with totally destroyed optics, the gunner could not aim the main gun or coax at all, and that only the hull and commander's MGs could function. Perhaps I don't understand "totally destroyed" in this context. Or maybe something in the code is not right.

Michael

[womble]

I would have supposed that with totally destroyed optics, the gunner could not aim the main gun or coax at all, and that only the hull and commander's MGs could function. Perhaps I don't understand "totally destroyed" in this context. Or maybe something in the code is not right.

Michael

I'm pretty sure BFC have said that the "Optics" damage is to the "fancy optics" that are for long range shooting, and that the basic sights aren't considered part of that particular subsystem; perhaps they're in "Weapon Control" which does render the main gun inoperative when it's KOed.

[MikeyD]

German tank gunners just had the one (or dual) coax gunner's sight. American tanks had the advantage of a secondary wide field roof periscope that could act as a stand-in if necessary. PzIV gunners could open the forward shutter and view the battlefield directly. In a pinch a commander could 'walk' coax mg rounds up to a target giving commands while the gunner fired blind. I've even heard of crew peering down the length of the gun barrel through the open breech! Not exactly pinpoint accuracy. I sometimes wonder if CMBN tanks ability to fire after the optics are hit is a hold-over from the original modern war title. Modern tanks with their backup systems and backups of backups.

[smbecket]

For Womble: the Panther stopped immediately upon spotting the M5A1 or because it had reached the end of its hunt command. I knew where the M5A1 was located so I had plotted the hunt command to a point where the enemy would be visible.

BFC, please provide more info on the effect of destroyed optics on German tanks.

[womble]

For Womble: the Panther stopped immediately upon spotting the M5A1 or because it had reached the end of its hunt command. I knew where the M5A1 was located so I had plotted the hunt command to a point where the enemy would be visible.

So the gunner had the bore open for sighting purposes cos he knew where the contact was going to be. Don't need no crosshairs at that range.

[Karabekian]

So the gunner had the bore open for sighting purposes

I know of many instances where this method was used by Finns, both on tanks and artillery (anti-tank guns). Perhaps not common, but definitely viable if you have the enemy in plain sight without needing much adjustment.

[c3k]

German tanks had a welded sight aid for the commander built into the front of the cupola. With that, he had a very good method of bore sighting the gunner onto the desired target. Definitely present on the Panther. I'd have to check my Pz IV and VI references.

Ken

[JasonC]

If without any real optic you are off by even 1 degree, that is 17.7 mils. At 461 meters you would miss by 8 meters (17.7/1000 * 461 = 8.15). Velocity has nothing to do with it, you would miss with a laser without a sight to align it properly.

Fire at ranges beyond about pistol shot requires sights. Period.

[womble]

The angle across the base of an L70 weapon is .8 degrees. So half that side to axis, and for the sake of argument, half that again for estimation and getting the "Sight picture" somewhere near the middle, so the "likely" point of aim will be somewhere within 0.2 * 8.15m of where you want it to go. The velocity means you don't need to worry very much about drop, so you've still got at least a moderate chance to hit a tank sized target at that range with a boresighted L/70.

That said, it's academic. I don't think the "optics" damage in-game requires such extravagance. Maybe when the Finnish module for EF comes out there'll be some sort of exigencies where the SuperSuomi need to boresight their guns.

[JasonC]

(1) Finns tell fish stories.

(2) Initial sighting ranges in dense pine forest aren't very long.

(3) Boresighting is a very poor substitute for a sight, might half-work for a large target at point blank.

(4) When your life depends on it, you don't do half tailed things unless you have no other choice.

(5) Use a sight. It's what they are for, and they work.

[MikeyD]

For the vast majority of engagements a gunner wasn't battling Panthers but was literally trying to hit the broad side of a barn (or its equivalent) on the far side if a valley. With or without optics he'd eventually land rounds on target before he used up his ammo load, using a little ingenuity. Awhile ago I stumbled across a statistic on tank rounds expended per enemy casualty caused. It was a staggering number. About as far from 'first shot kills' as you could get. Almost as though they really were firing blind!

[MG TOW]

Do yellow damaged optics create a penalty for aiming? Or is this just a step closer to red, or destroyed optics. I suppose damaged optics could be the loss of the mechanical ability to switch range lenses vs complete blindness

[Lt Belenko]

In CMFI /GL the AAA realy does a job on optics.

[womble]

Do yellow damaged optics create a penalty for aiming? Or is this just a step closer to red, or destroyed optics. I suppose damaged optics could be the loss of the mechanical ability to switch range lenses vs complete blindness

In a perfect world, that would depend on the model of tank As would the level of penalty at each level of damage. Don't know if they're quite that detailed though.

[Vanir Ausf B]

In a perfect world, that would depend on the model of tank

It does.

As would the level of penalty at each level of damage. Don't know if they're quite that detailed though.

That I don't know either.

[womble]

It does.

Not quite what I meant. I was meaning that the penalty incurred for long range shooting should depend on the particular sight arrangements that are being damaged, and how "redundant" they are. Whether that's represented by slower degradation for sight systems with redundancy, or lesser penalties at a given level of damage.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I was meaning that the penalty incurred for long range shooting should depend on the particular sight arrangements that are being damaged, and how "redundant" they are.

I think that is the reason for differences between vehicles. At least no one has suggested a better explanation to my knowledge. See MikeyD's post in the linked-to thread.

[womble]

I think that is the reason for differences between vehicles. At least no one has suggested a better explanation to my knowledge. See MikeyD's post in the linked-to thread.

The differences were in spotting, rather than accuracy, weren't they, in that thread? I didn't read all the way to the end, but that page seems to be addressing the differences in spotting without gunsight for tanks with and without secondary periscopes for members of the crew.

[hoolaman]

I think that is the reason for differences between vehicles. At least no one has suggested a better explanation to my knowledge. See MikeyD's post in the linked-to thread.

Could be they only bothered tagging the Panther correctly and the whole sub-system damage thing is bugged.

The fact that tanks in CMSF never had any performance degradation from totally destroyed optics (or several other systems) is no real excuse. The system was designed for CMSF, I recall at one stage totally destroyed smoke launchers could still fire smoke too.