88mm KwK 36 L/56 accuracy test and some ideas

[Jeff Duquette]

Something my pal Grisha posted awhile back regarding some inquires by Eisenhower as to how US tanks stacked up against German Tanks. I have culled this down to include only references addressing German Tank optics.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On 18 March 1945, General Eisenhower sent this letter to Brigadier General Isaac D. White, Commanding General, 2nd Armored Division:

"Dear General White:

From time to I find short stories where some reporter is purportedly quoting non-commissioned officers in our tank formations to the effect that our men, in general, consider our tanks very inferior in quality to those of the Germans. I realize that these sometimes spring from the human tendency to make startling statements in the hope that out of them will come a bit of publicity and self-notoriety. Possibly, also, certain reporters sometimes support their own views on such matters as those by quoting only those statements that uphold such views.

My own experience in talking to our junior officers and enlisted men in armored formations is about as follows:

Our men, in general, realize the Sherman is not capable of standing up in a ding-dong, head-on fight with a Panther. Neither in gun power nor in armor is the present Sherman justified in undertaking such a contest. On the other hand, most of them realize that we have a job of shipping tanks overseas and therefore do not want unwieldy monsters; that our tank has great reliability, good mobility, and that the gun in it has been vastly improved. Most of them feel also that they have developed tactics that allow them to employ their superior numbers to defeat the Panther tank as long as they are not surprised and can discover the Panther before it has gotten in three of four good shots. I think that most of them know also that we have improved models coming out which even in a head-on action are not helpless in front of the Panther and the Tiger.

The above, however, are mere impressions I have gained through casual conversations. I am writing you and General Rose of the 3rd Armored Division identical letters with the request that at your earliest convenience you write me an informal letter giving me: (a) Your own personal convictions about the quality of our tank equipment as compared to the German, and having in mind the necessity of our shipping our material over long distances to get it to the battlefield; ( Your opinion as to the ability of the new T-26 with the 90-mm gun, to meet the Panther on equal terms, and © A digest of the opinions of your tank commanders, drivers, gunners, and son on, on these general subjects.

Please do not take the time to make a general staff study out of this matter. If you could include a few quotes from experienced non-commissioned officers it might be helpful to my purpose as I want to tell the truth about these matters to the War Department rather than to allow any misconceptions to prevail.

Please mark the outside of your letter 'Personal.'

With warm regards, Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

P.S. Comparisons in other types of equipment would be helpful; i.e., half-tracks, light tanks, trucks, guns, bazookas, even clothing."

_________________________________

The Following are opinions resultant from Ikes inquiry (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division:

The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories.

Superior Flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.

The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.

German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks. The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression.

The fact that our equipment must be shipped over long distances does not, in the opinion of our tankers, justify our inferiority. The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943.

It is my opinion that press reports of statements by high ranking officers to the effect that we have the best equipment in the world do much to discourage the soldier who is using equipment that he knows to be inferior to that of the enemy."

-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"

--------------------------------------------

"Mechanically our tanks are at least the equal of any German tank and on good, firm terrain or on roads are more mobile.

Our tank's armor does not withstand German direct fire weapons of 75-mm high velocity and larger with the result that in a head on one tank against one tank fight ours always comes out as a casualty.

In my opinion, the reason our armor has engaged the German tanks as successfully as it has is not due to by any means to a superior tank but to our superior numbers of tanks on the battlefield and the willingness of our tankers to take their losses while maneuvering to a position from which a penetrating shot can be put through a weak spot of the enemy tank.

The few undamaged German tank sights I have seen are definitely superior to our sights in clearness and speed in laying.

Our tanks should: carry a gun that will penetrate any enemy tank at a minimum of 2,000 yards; carry sufficient armor to turn the German light anti-tank gun (smaller than 75-mm) at any range; sufficient mobility to outmaneuver the enemy on any terrain; have a lower silhouette than at present; have a better sight; and have an increased ammunition storage space.

The new tanks now being received are a far step in the proper direction but still do not possess the gun power necessary to penetrate the German tank for a crippling shot on the first hit.

In spite of the often quoted tactical rule that one should not fight a tank versus tank battle, I have found it necessary, almost invariably, in order to accomplish the mission.

-Colonel S. R. Hinds, Commanding Combat Command "B"

----------------------------

The German sight is far better than anything we are using today. It takes a bright light in order to see them - and we do not have that. The same thing goes for our field glasses; if we could spot them, we could fire on them ourselves, or get artillery to fire on that spot. I know that we have the facilities to build better optical equipment - why don't we?

-Donald Morgan, T/4

---------------------------

At Puffendorf, Germany, on 17 November 1944, my platoon of five M4 tanks were in a defensive position when the Germans launched a counterattack with Mark VI tanks. My platoon was at that time composed of three 76-mm guns and two 75-mm guns. My own vehicle (75-mm gun) was the first to open fire on a Mark VI that was coming across the field towards us. We got a hit with the second round fired at 1,300 yards, but from the tracer we were able to tell that the round ricocheted. At this time several of the other guns opened up (one, I believe, was not in a position to fire). This concerted effort stopped the Tiger and prevented his advancing closer, but several direct hits from both type of guns obviously did not penetrate. This tank knocked out both my platoon sergeant's and my own vehicle, killing my driver and assistant driver and wounding me. The German tank eventually withdrew into defilade and presumably escaped across the Roer River.

-Capt. John B. Roller Jr., Company "A" 66th Armored Regiment

________________________________

My opinion of the 90-mm gun is that it is a good gun if it just had a little more muzzle velocity, it could knock out anything that the Germans have. I have never seen the M26 with the 90-mm gun on it, but if it is as good as the ones on the tank destroyer it is the answer to a tankman's prayer. Against the Mark V our tank destroyer with a 90-mm gun are pretty good but our guns just don't stand up to the Jerry guns.

My opinion on the sights, tracks, engine, gun, and maneuverability is that our sights could be improved a lot, and if that M26 has wide tracks and a more powerful engine it would give use speed and maneuverability and with our added firepower we would have some chance of living. As we go now every man has resigned himself to dying sooner or later because we don't have a chance against the German tanks. All of this stuff that we read about German tanks knocked out by our tanks makes us sick because we know what prices we have to pay in men and equipment to accomplish this.

For the general comparison of the equipment of the Germans and of ours. I believe that on a whole our equipment is superior to the Germans, but our tanks are no match for the Panther and Tiger tanks, and it is just suicide to tackle them. Even our tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun cannot match themselves against the more powerful German tanks.

-Sgt Moore and Crew

___________________

Although we haven't seen the M26 in action, we have seen the tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun, and also the Tiger and Tiger Royal. We are of the opinion that the Tiger and Tiger Royal's 88-mm gun are far superior to our tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun. Our reasons for this assertion are:

1. Far superior sights which permits hitting a target at a great range, that is, 3,000 yards, usually without bracketing.

2. The "souped-up" ammunition of the Tiger permits penetration of our armor at long ranges.

3. The heavy armor plate combined with its slope and angles make them, tank for tank, harder to knock out.

We further believe that the 75-mm gun of the Panther (Mark V) compares favorably with our 90-mm gun. It has as large or larger powder charge and better sights.

The traversing mechanism of our 90-mm gun is faster (about two times as fast), is more quiet and all around seems to be much better than the German counterpart.

Although we cannot turn on a dime, we are satisfied with our maneuverability which is as good or slightly superior. Their engine has more horsepower and has a more quiet first gear, which permits 'creeping' up on us, but it doesn't seem to last as long as ours, and undoubtedly gets hot quicker than ours.

-Sgt Zins and Cpl. Parr

-----------------------------------------

It seems that the general opinion back home in the States is that American tanks are second to none. But anyone who has had any actual experience could tell you without a doubt, that our tanks don't compare with those of the Germans in many ways.

First, their higher velocity guns are more effective on our tanks. Same with their anti-tank guns; they're pretty accurate, effective at ranges up to 2,000 to 3,000 yards.

We have fairly good sights, but the Germans must have it when they shoot as far and accurate as they do. Binoculars are very important in tank warfare, yet we have seen better, but they weren't ours.

The "souped-up" ammunition HVAP is the real McCoy up to a certain extent and so is the "concrete buster." They help the cause quite a bit.

___________________________________

The Mark V and VI in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely over ground where the American M4 would bog down. On one occasion I saw at least ten Royal Tigers make a counterattack against us over ground that for us was nearly impossible.

The Mark V and VI have our tanks out-gunned and out-sighted in all cases except the new sight M71D on the American M4E8. They can hit at 3,000 yards in the M4 with a good percentage of penetrations. I have actually seen ricochets go through the M4 at 3,000 yards.

-Charles Carden, Platoon Sgt.

---------------------------

At Oberamot, Germany, 27 February 1945, our second platoon on road block was engaged by two Tiger tanks, Mark VI, at 3,600 yards, and two of our Shermans were knocked out. Our 3,400 feet per second 76-mm HVAP ammunition was used and bounced off the side slopes, seven rounds. Definitely out-ranged due to better sights in the Mark VI and more muzzle velocity in their souped-up ammunition. Upon throwing smoke at the Tiger tanks, they withdrew because smoke means marking target for artillery and fighter-bombers to the Germans.

On November 16, 1944, my light tank, M5A1, was hit by a German bazooka from about forty yards away. It made a hole about one inch in diameter and sprayed pieces all over the interior of the tank. It hit about three feet back on the left sponson. If the driver's overcoat had not been stuffed in tightly against the spot where it came through, I believe at least two crew members would have been killed. As it was, three members of the crew required hospitalization in excess of two months. Damage to the interior of the tank was light.

- Lt William Larock

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Edmund Blackadder]

ehrm... reading this discussion raises some questions on CM, which I would like answered.

I assume direct fire accuracy (not penetration) is dependant on:

- A general weapon system accuracy rating

- LOS

- Wind speed

- Suppression of firing unit

- Range

- Illumination

- Trajectory Deviation

- Target elevation

- Firing unit speed

- Target unit speed

- Unit ROF settings (higher = lower accuracy)

- Acquisition increase on first 3-4 shots

- Target silhouetted or not

- Firing unit morale

- Firing unit training

- Reduced initial fire (due to traverse)

- Target terrain

Since CM is proclaimed as 'the most realistic tactical game ever made' all this surely comes into play, does it not?

Anyway, it does in a not so graphically enhanced game from a publisher I figure I can't mention on this forum

[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 11-19-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Edmund Blackadder:

ehrm... reading this discussion raises some questions on CM, which I would like answered.

I assume direct fire accuracy (not penetration) is dependant on:

- A general weapon system accuracy rating

- LOS

- Wind speed

- Suppression of firing unit

- Range

- Illumination

- Trajectory Deviation

- Target elevation

- Firing unit speed

- Target unit speed

- Unit ROF settings (higher = lower accuracy)

- Acquisition increase on first 3-4 shots

- Target silhouetted or not

- Firing unit morale

- Firing unit training

- Reduced initial fire (due to traverse)

- Target terrain

Since CM is proclaimed as 'the most realistic tactical game ever made' all this surely comes into play, does it not?

Anyway, it does in a not so graphically enhanced game from a publisher I figure I can't mention on this forum

[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 11-19-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whats he talking about, is that PE ?

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Whats he talking about, is that PE ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe he's refering to HPS's Tigers on the Prowl & Panthers In The Shadows.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-19-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Paul and John:

You were discussing “tank gunner snipers” on several earlier posts…I thought this was a rather interesting tale from: Dimitriy Loza in “Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks”. I recall reading a similar account of a German MkIII crew doing something similar to a KVI. Can’t recall all the details of that story.

The first tidbit – unrelated to tank gunner snipers – regards Loza’s feelings on exterior ad-hoc armour reinforcement.

Couple terms Loza uses: Emcha refers the Russian name for their Shermans…I think it translates roughly as M4. Apparently Loza’s unit, the 233rd tank brigade, was outfitted entirely with M4A2 with the 76mm in mid-1943. Interesting considering the American shortage of the 76mm Shermans during the early days of Normandy. Perhaps the U.S. was to busy shipping all the up-gunned Shermans to the Soviet Union.

Emchisti: refers to the Russian nickname for the crewmen of the Shermans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With the appearance of heavy German tanks on the Soviet-German front, we were confronted with their unusual external rigging. Track blocks were hung on the front slope of the hull and along the entire turret. In the first place, this reinforced the armor defenses of the Tigers and Panthers. Second, an armor-piercing round that struck one of these fixtures was normally deflected.

The front-line trace had an influence on the nature of the activities of the opposing sides, especially in the conduct of fire. The front-line passed rigidly from north to south. For this reason, in the morning the bright spring sun blinded the enemy and in the afternoon blinded us.

A Tiger firing position was located on the eastern slope of one of the hills. From here, its crew could overlook our position almost up to the Prut River, in particular the road to the crossing site. Good observation and fire control optics of the "beast" and the long-range 88-mm cannon permitted the Germans to conduct precise fire on any target, large or small. For example, after 1300, anything that appeared on the road was quickly destroyed. "Rabid Fritz," as our soldiers christened it, did not experience any shortage of high-explosive shells.

We could not respond to the enemy with similar activities for a number of reasons. Because of the hilliness, we could see only a short distance into his defenses. We also had to conserve ammunition. Our own supply system had not yet caught up with us. How we wanted to get revenge on "Rabid Fritz." The impatience of the Emchisti, finally, was overextended when they had to go without fresh hot meals for two straight days. The cooks were driven off and had to send food forward in thermal containers. Senior Sergeant Anatoliy Romashkin had already given much thought to the problem of how to punish the unleashed bully. After this incident, the gun commander firmly cemented his fame as a precise gunner. The circumstances once again urgently called for confirmation of the rank and recognition accorded him by his comrades. Anatoliy scratched his head for more than a day on the practical accomplishment of the planned retribution. He constantly observed the movements of the enemy crew. He determined the range to the Tiger with careful precision—650 -meters.

The retribution was prepared and carried out in the following manner.

Romashkin received permission to fire two antitank rounds. He requested the infantry commander to assign him a sniper. With the sniper's assistance, Romashkin selected a firing position near his tank, from which the entire turret of the Tiger could he easily seen. Anatoliy recommended that the sniper, Junior Sergeant Yuriy Prokhorov, fire armor-piercing ammunition [such as would be used to disable a light-skinned vehicle] because it had a heavier propellant charge. "I might have to expend both main gun rounds. You should hit the target with the first shot." Over the course of two days, from dawn to 1300, while the sun was not shining in their eyes, Anatoliy and Yuriy vigilantly tracked the beast. But no luck. The other men, not knowing the reason for the postponement of the intended payback, teased Romashkin. He remained silent. Sometimes he retorted with an unintelligible, "If I don't get the angle, I don't shoot!" The essence of the gunner's plan was to wait patiently until the Tiger's main gun was pointed off five to ten degrees. He would fire from the Sherman at the Tiger's gun tube. But all this time, it stared at us with its threatening muzzle brake. With such a small target area, the probability of destroying the "88" approached zero. The third day of waiting began. A light morning fog was dissipating. Anatoliy put his eye to the sight. His heart leaped with joy. "Finally!" He immediately gave the prearranged signal to Yuriy. "Prepare to fire!" One second, two - . . five. The turret of the beast slowly rotated. Perhaps he could catch the target. Meanwhile, the rays of the rising sun were not striking his eyes. A main gun shot from the Emcha tore through the air. Identified by its tracer, the round, slamming against the turret mantle, had gone right and up. Another shot. This one struck home! Like a sawed log, almost half of the Tiger's gun tube flew off to the side. The cupola hatch immediately opened with a clank—the enemy tank commander raised himself out almost to the waist. Anatoliy saw in his gunsight how even the German's mouth fell open in surprise at the sight of the remaining stub of his long gun [main gun tube].

Prokhorov squeezed the trigger of his sniper rifle. The German jerked and then fell face downward on the turret roof. "Ura-a-a!" The shouts rang out over our positions. "The 'maniac' has been shot!" Romashkin humbly reported.

The wounded Tiger withdrew to the rear of the German position with the coming of darkness. From this time forward, nothing replaced it on the hill. The crews of other beasts became "quieter than water, lower than grass." The front-line road now was traveled in daylight. Sometimes, true, it was subjected to artillery fire and the occasional air strike.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Edmund Blackadder]

>Correct, unit size and type does influence spotting. Buttoned/unbuttoned also has a huge impact.

Sure Steve, SOP doctrines matter and apparent size matters (I assume CM uses this), but so does relative angles of vehicles, and more so apparent _traverse_ speed of target, not to forget other factors such as target silhouetted, suppression level of spotting unit, morale of spotting unit, training of spotting unit, movement rate of spotting unit, direction of spotting unit (units are likely to spot more in front than in rear and flanks), illumination level of area, terrain fluctuations, terrain, weather/atmosphere conditions, dust/smoke levels, lighting level, foilage level, LOS, time of day, target quantity, target currently sighted and being re sighted, and also unit type and concealment level... how much of this is modeled in CM?

That other not so graphically enhanced game takes quite a lot into consideration I would say .

>Also don't forget that CM at the moment has "absolute spotting" so once a unit is spotted EVERY friendly unit can, in theory (LOS), see it too.

This doesn't sound like 'the most realistic tactical wargame ever made' to me at all. The word that comes to mind is.... GAMEY.

[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 11-19-2000).]

[Guest rune]

Changed mind...

Rune

[This message has been edited by rune (edited 11-19-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh great... it has been a long while since we have heard from someone like Edmund Blackadder. It was bound to happen again But since you asked,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>how much of this is modeled in CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm... every single thing you listed in both of your lists above. It also simulates them down to the exact partial meter in 3D using real world physics and ballistics based on the partial degree facing of each body/turret. A certain game you are not mentioning doesn't do all of the things I just mentioned as well as the things you mentioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This doesn't sound like 'the most realistic tactical wargame ever made' to me at all. The word that comes to mind is.... GAMEY.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm... we never said that CM was a PERFECT model of real world WWII combat, only the most realistic one. And how does that certain unnamed game handle spotting? I doubt it is any better. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Especially if the glass is thinner than they think.

Your rather uneducated attempts to show the contrary did nothing to further your cause. In fact, why bother? If we were running a contest between the two games (which we are not), partisan snipes are hardly a way to go about it.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-20-2000).]

[Edmund Blackadder]

>A certain game you are not mentioning doesn't do all of the things I just mentioned

No, but all not implemetented derive from a (flawed?) 3D engine, which the not mentioned game doesn't contain...

>as well as the things you mentioned.

Every single item listed count as for 'direct fire accuracy' and 'spotting' respectively in the not mentioned game. RTFM.

And for your info folks: in the not mentioned game the Tigers vs. Shermans long distance shootouts usually renders in a not so funny sight if you're the allied commander

You know what? I'll run the same one Jochen (or whoever it was) did and present the results here!

[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 11-20-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Instead of repeating the test, why don't you read the various points and counter points. But I guess if you are just looking to prove your own blind conviction that this other game is 100% beyond question, then I guess you can do as you like.

And I don't know where you got the idea that CM's 3D engine is flawed. It is not. But any 2D engine, no matter how good, is inherently flawed. Just as IGO-UGO is utterly unrealistic no matter how it is implemented. But of course these major flaws are overlooked by you for some reason...

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff, thanks for those posts above. The Ike post was particullarly interesting. Veteran acounts are always cool to read, although they often are incomplete, vague, or even contradictory. Whenever I read a batch of vet opinions like this I am always struck by how much it is opinion. And as with any opinion, there is a range of truth within each. For example...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overall, this is not supported by the facts. Or is it? Certain Sherman models were NOT good in snow, but others were better. So it depends on WHICH US model tank you are talking about vs which German one. But overall, the US equipment was far better in adverse conditions because it was less likely to break down, or if broken down fixed in a timely manner.

An example of contradiction is seen in this post as well. Reread the above quote and then read this one:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although we cannot turn on a dime, we are satisfied with our maneuverability which is as good or slightly superior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, which is it? One says mobility is inferior to the Germans and the other says is possibly superior. It can't be both, can it? Sure it can. If the first tanker was in an earlier model Sherman, with narrow tracks, and the second vet was in a later model with HVSS and wide tracks both could be correct. But do we know these critical facts? Nope.

And when I see something like this next quote, I just write it off to "urban legands" (i.e. his buddy's buddy's buddy told him a story once that was heard from some other guy in another outfit). It is amazing how often these things are repeated as fact when they have little to no basis in truth, or at best were not representative of the general trend. Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Far superior sights which permits [King Tigers] hitting a target at a great range, that is, 3,000 yards, usually without bracketing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, how many King Tigers do you suppose this guy's unit ran up against? Statistically the chances are NONE. Regardless, I think it is clear from this thread that King Tigers did not REGULLARLY hit targets at 3000m on their first shot. Heck, Jeff... how easy was this to do in your tank on a firing range with all the post war improvements?

The problem with veteran accounts is that it is sometimes (often in fact) hard to tell fact from fiction, informed opinion from hearsay, wishfull thinking from overly pessimistic outlook, and honest evaluation from axe-to-grind statements. And in most cases the veteran's explanation is rather hard to qualify or, more often, quantify. For example:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have fairly good sights, but the Germans must have it when they shoot as far and accurate as they do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, what is "fairly good" mean? And how much of the greater German accuracy is because of a superior gun and perhaps gunner? And "fairly good" in what US tank compared to better in what German tank? Because another quote says this:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Mark V and VI have our tanks out-gunned and out-sighted in all cases except the new sight M71D on the American M4E8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so now we are seeing that at least one veteran thinks that the sights in the M4E8 are at least on a par with the ones in Panthers and Mark IVs.

And are these guys even qualified to draw such conclusions? Sure, they probably have the qualifications to talk about their own equipment, but why is that? Because they fired dozens or hundreds of rounds in combat against a real live target. But did they do the same in a German tank vs. Shermans? No, they most certainly did not. So Joe US Tank Gunner jumps into a Panther and looks through the sights. Thinks "gee, these are great!" and, coupled with the range benefit of the gun in action, then concludes they are better sites in combat vs. his own. Sorry, that is not a valid informed opinion for something this complicated. It could be that the sights in the German tanks are much more complicated and have great problems in some regards that a quick examination or test fire will not uncover.

Whoops! Didn't mean to make such a long post. Just wanted to comment on what Jeff wrote and to illustrate that there is more than one way to look at veteran's quotes. No, they shouldn't be tossed out, but they also should not be taken at face value. Because of this, we avoid using veteran accounts to establish the ground rules in CM.

Steve

[Guest machineman]

Some comparative shell sizes, from:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun

From left to right: 3.7cm (37x250mm), 5cm L/42 Pzgr 40 (50x289mm), 5cm L/60 (50x420mm), 7.5cm L/24 (75x243mm), 7.5cm L/43 and L/48 (75x495mm), 7.5cmL/70 (75x640mm), 8.8cm L/56 (88x571mm), 8.8cm L/71 (88x822mm).

From left to right: 3pdr (47x376mm), 2pdr (40x304mm), 6pdr APDS (57x441mm), 75mm (75x350mm), 17pdr APDS (76x583mm), 77mm (76x420mm), 3" Howitzer for close-support tanks (76x134mm), 95mm Howitzer for close-support tanks (95x206mm).

Some other interesting stuff there as well.

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-20-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Heres some more on optics off the Tanker's list from a response from Robert Livingston on my optics questions:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Dear John,

You are looking for some kind of quantified data which shows the difference between US and Allied sights. I wish I had such data to

contribute. Now, I can hardly recommend what the CM designers should do to improve their game, but I can say that there should be a

statistically significant difference between US and German to-hit percentages at all but close range, say <500 yards, AFTER the target is perceived/acquired by the crew.

I have done a little research by squinting through an actual US gun sight, as used in M10 tank destroyers and earlier Shermans with 76mm guns (M51, 3x, 12deg field). I was able to "acquire targets" (cars on a highway)up to around the limits of visibility, which was about 2100 yards on my "test range." I was testing on a sunny day, and despite the blurry image in the gun sight, the targets were distinct. If the lighting conditions were poor, or the

targets were not in motion, I would have had difficulty distinguishing them at that long range.

Optical quality would play a very small role

in the 500 yard area which I presume most CM combat takes place (say, 500 - 1000 yards?) If the targrets were in shadow, and/or camouflaged to resemble the terrain, more difficulty. Now, I did not have available a

German tank gun sight to compare, so I'm afraid my argument will seem to be baseless. But, I have compared binoculars of the same magnification power, one of poor and one of good quality, and the difference is

readily perceptible.

There is a lot to optics and target acquisition in tanks which may or

not be covered in CM. First, US sights and optics, altho of inferior in optical

quality, allowed quicker acquisition of medium and close range targets than did German sights.

This accounts for the numerous combat

anecdotes in which Shermans could bring fire onto Pz IVs, Tigers, and Panthers before the Germans could fire. The US system employed a

relatively low power telescope embedded in an no-magnification periscope with a wide field of view. US gunners could use this arrangement while the tanks rolled forward, because of the low magnification. The higher

the magnification, the more the target image jumps around in the field of view. Tigers and Panthers were at a disadvantage here, unless they were sitting still, waiting in ambush. Anyway, US gunners could acquire

the target as they moved, fire as soon as they braked to a halt, then shift over to the coaxial (through-the-mantlet), higher power telescope for more precise shooting.

This arangement was used in most all US

Shermans after D-Day, M18 Hellcat TDs, and Pershings. The ease and control of the US turret traverse mechanism also aided target

acquisition. German traverse mechanisms were unwieldy and difficult to control. The "speed of traverse," usually expressed as 360 degrees in so-many seconds, doesn't explain much. Control is the crucial factor.

I have read that the later US sights were better than the earlier sights, but how much better is open to question. I doubt they were up to the level of Panther and Tiger sights, in terms of pure optical clarity and brightness. Their specifications, such as powers of magnification, are improved. For example, later Shermans had 5x magnification (up from 3x). Zaloga has written that the M70 scope was "much improved optically" but in my limited experience, the M70 was as

bad as the earlier M51. I have looked through one of each type, but they were some 50 years old!

-- Robert

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Jeff Duquette]

Steve:

At the heart of the thread should be the search for truth. Lay the cards out and lets have a look. Personally I’m less interested in whether I’m right or wrong as much as I’m interested in gathering information. And again this goes beyond my interest in CM. Wargames will come and wargames will go. I was around when James Dunigan first started crankin out S&T Magazine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

Overall, this is not supported by the facts. Or is it? Certain Sherman models were NOT good in snow, but others were better. So it depends on WHICH US model tank you are talking about vs which German one. But overall, the US equipment was far better in adverse conditions because it was less likely to break down, or if broken down fixed in a timely manner.

An example of contradiction is seen in this post as well. Reread the above quote and then read this one:

quote:

Although we cannot turn on a dime, we are satisfied with our maneuverability which is as good or slightly superior.

OK, which is it? One says mobility is inferior to the Germans and the other says is possibly superior. It can't be both, can it? Sure it can. If the first tanker was in an earlier model Sherman, with narrow tracks, and the second vet was in a later model with HVSS and wide tracks both could be correct. But do we know these critical facts? Nope.

And when I see something like this next quote, I just write it off to "urban legends" (i.e. his buddy's buddy's buddy told him a story once that was heard from some other guy in another outfit). It is amazing how often these things are repeated as fact when they have little to no basis in truth, or at best were not representative of the general trend.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the intent of these quotes was to bring to light the Panther and Tiger’s superior flotation characteristics relative to Sherman’s equipped with narrow tracks. This superior flotation characteristic is in spite of both of these German vehicles having huge weight differentials over the Sherman. In addition the Sherman did not have a neutral steer capability. Panthers and Tigers could lock one track and turn in place…thus the “ability to turn on a dime” comments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Heck, Jeff... how easy was this to do in your tank on a firing range with all the post war improvements?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would simply be another “incomplete, vague, or even contradictory first hand report” sorry I couldn’t resist.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First of all, how many King Tigers do you suppose this guy's unit ran up against? Statistically the chances are NONE. Regardless, I think it is clear from this thread that King Tigers did not REGULLARLY hit targets at 3000m on their first shot. Heck, Jeff... how easy was this to do in your tank on a firing range with all the post war improvements?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I see one vet account relaying a tale of what seems to be a fantastic tale…I chalk it up to folk lore. When I see two vets telling similar tales…hmmm…still kind of vague. But when 10 men tell me I’m drunk, well I figure maybe I should get someone to drive me home.

A 2000 meter shot should not be unrealistic proposition. Considering the CM gunnery model testing I have conducted under idealistic conditions...2000 meter shots are very low probability affairs. The tests I have run typically render results in the range of 1 shot in 10 hit to miss ratio. Unbuttoned...clear visibility...flat terrain. Bracketing effect appears to be minimal. I dont know nuthin from nuthin...this is just my uniformed opinion on the matter. Perhaps you can suggest some additional references I should be devoting some attention to.

The essence of what is being relayed is

multiple independent sources arriving at the same conclusion. This by all rights goes along toward establishing a trend or correlation.

In addition, the above info on veterans talking about German optics were originally gathered by Eisenhower because he too could not bring himself to believe the reports coming from the front regarding the quality of the German equipment.

These are more than just accounts from GI Average Tanker from Hoboken. There are several high-ranking, professional, gray haired, armour officers providing the above assessments regarding German tank optics. Men making life and death decisions for their tankers. Men with careers and reputations. These are men that would logically be somewhat reluctant to scream fire in a crowded theater unless there was really a fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And are these guys even qualified to draw such conclusions? Sure, they probably have the qualifications to talk about their own equipment, but why is that? Because they fired dozens or hundreds of rounds in combat against a real live target. But did they do the same in a German tank vs. Shermans?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I drive a Ford Truck. I drive it everyday. It works just fine for me. It’s a good truck. Occasionally I ride in my bosses Mercedes. It’s not to hard for me to come to the conclusion that that Mercedes is a cut above my Ford. Now if I rode a bike everyday I wouldn’t really have a common frame of reference by which to compare riding a Mercedes with.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-21-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

From: Michael Green’s “Tiger Tanks”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Gun Optics

One of the major contributing factors leading to the successful use of the 88 as an antitank weapon during World War II was the gun's outstanding optics (sights). The effective use of any gun in the direct-fire mode depends on the weapon's crew being able to spot a target, engage it, and then destroy it in the shortest amount of time possible. Because the German optics industry was the best in the world prior to World War II, German weapons had the ability to see and engage opponents at ranges far in excess of what their Allied counterparts were capable of. Herr Franz Kurtz, a veteran of the Eastern Front, trained for two month's on the 8.8cm Flak. He vividly recalls looking through the 88's sight's and in his own words: "You could clearly see a blade of grass over a mile away with the sights on this weapon."

Almost always outnumbered, German tankers exploited the advantage of the Tiger's long-range firepower to reduce the number of enemy tanks getting too close. A good example of this approach is described in a wartime report by Captain Charles L. Davis where he recounts details of an attack on German positions in North Africa by units of the 1st AD in late April 1943:

"As the platoon moved back up the ridge to cover the left flank, the Germans responded with high explosives and armor piercing shells. A look through the glasses showed at least one Mark VI tank firing at approximately 3,000 yards (maximum range for the American tank direct fire because of inadequate sights). One round landed about three quarters of the distance to the enemy target. The Platoon Leader put his trust in mobility. He kept moving, issuing similar instructions to his platoon.

The Company Commander urged the Platoon Leader, via radio) to move higher on the hill. The Platoon Leader asked who was going to take care of the Mark VI on the right flank. "What Mark VI?" asked the CO. A moment later the Platoon Leader and his crew were hitchhiking. A near miss had struck near the right rear of the tank, breaking rhe track and immobilizing the vehicle. Recognizing the futility of using the 75mm gun to compete with high velocity weapons equipped with superior fire control instruments in that situation, the Platoon Leader ordered the crew to abandon the tank."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More From the Eisenhower Report: Major General I.D. White, “A Report on the United States vs German Equipment, T83-3-5.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lt. Col. Wilson M. Hawkins (US Army), commanding the 3rd Batallion, 67th Armored Regiment wrote in a wartime report about his opinion of German tank sights: "The matter of tank gun sights has caused us much concern. I have looked through and worked with sights in German Mark V (Panther) and Mark VI (Tiger) tanks as well as our own. I find that the German sight has more magnifying power and clearness than our own, which is a big advantage to a gunner."

----------------------------

Sgt. Lewis A. Taylor (US Army), of the 2nd Armored Division, stated in a wartime report: "The German telescopic sights mounted in their tanks are far superior to ours, in particular it is more powerful. In fact all their optical equipment is superior to ours."

-----------------------

Sgt. George A. Barden (US Army), also of the 2nd Armored Division,, confirms this fact in a wartime report: "I took from a German officer a pair of field glasses 10x50, the best glasses that I've ever seen. On two occasions, I was able to pick up an antitank position and a mortar position at a range of about one mile, when these same two targets could not be seen using a pair of G.I. glasses, 7x50."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From: Seek, Strike, and Destroy, U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A World War II US Army report dated March 1943 and titled Training Notes from Recent Fighting in Tunisia comes this description of German tank tactics from an American tank officer: "When the German tanks come out, they stay out of range and sit and watch. Then they move a little, stop, and watch some more. They have excellent glasses [binoculars] and they use them carefully."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jeff Duquette]

sorry double post

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-21-2000).]

[Conall]

A little more material on gunsights:

<PRE>/ Mag1 FOV FOVm@1000m/500m Mag2 FOV FOVm@1000m/500m

German

T.Z.F. 5b/L24 75mm x2.4 25° 436m/218m n/a n/a n/a

T.Z.F. 5f2/L43 75mm x2.4 25° 436m/218m n/a n/a n/a

T.Z.F. 5f1/L48 75mm x2.4 25° 436m/218m n/a n/a n/a

T.Z.F. 12/L70 75mm x2.5 28° 488m/244m n/a n/a n/a

T.Z.F. 12a/L70 75mm x2.5 28° 488m/244m x5 14° 244m/122m

T.Z.F. 9b/L56 88mm x2.5 28° 488m/244m n/a n/a n/a

T.Z.F. 9c/L56 88mm x2.5 28° 488m/244m x5 14° 244m/122m

T.Z.F. 9d/L71 88mm x2.5 28° 488m/244m x5 14° 244m/122m

British

No. 54 Mk 1 6pdr x3 13° 227m/113m n/a n/a n/a

No. 50 Mk 2 75mm x3 13° 227m/113m n/a n/a n/a

No. 43 Mk 3/1 17pdr x3 13° 227m/113m x6 9° 157m/78m

No. 57 Mk 1 77mm x3 13° 227m/113m x6 9° 157m/78m

US

M40 37mm M6 x1.44 12°19mins 212m/106m n/a n/a n/a

M70D 37mm M6 x3 12°19mins 212m/106m n/a n/a n/a

M70F 75mm M3 x3 12°19mins 212m/106m n/a n/a n/a

M10C 75mm M3/M6 x1 45° 775m/387m x6 11° 189m/95m

M70H 76mm x3 12°19mins 212m/106m n/a n/a n/a

M71D 76mm x5 13° 775m/387m n/a n/a n/a

M10G 76mm x1 45° 212m/106m x6 11° 189m/95m

</PRE>

The FOV was simply

calculated by (2xPixR)x(field in degrees/360 degrees). This doesn't account for the optical quality of the various sights but does demonstrate the advantage the Germans had when you solely consider the gunsights. What is immediately obvious is that with the exception of the later M10C & M10G sights US tankers were at a disadvantage with regards to FOV & had only marginally better magnification against some German sights. The British sights were marginally better in quality than their US counterparts, although

they only had one magnification setting (the x6 setting was an alternate eyepiece). The later British sights also had moving graticules, which made for slightly more accurate long range shooting. Jentz makes it clear that the German doctrine was to use the 2.5x setting for target acquisition & the 5x setting to fire & adjust. Furthermore German doctrine (see Wolfgang Schneider "Panzer Tactics") forbade firing on the move. Off the top of my head I think the US straight through scope had a 45 degree FOV.

Does anyone know anything about Russian optics & gunsights? Anecdotally they have a very poor reputation but this may be yet another Ostfront myth.

regards,

Conall

[This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-21-2000).]

[Nabla]

The Germans DO have superior optics in CM. Below the German veteran Tiger of the computer is targeting my peace loving halftrack through one knocked out halftrack, three light buildings and two heavy buildings. Perhaps its just not the visible wavelength...

All ended well, though. The tiger did not hit.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Nabla, I imagine what happened in your example is that the Tiger was either just targetting the half track as it passed behind the building, or your opponent just targeted the half track that another unit had spotted.

I would seriously doubt that the Tiger would fire at the half track in this example but if it did please pass on the save file for review....

Dan

[Nabla]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Nabla, I imagine what happened in your example is that the Tiger was either just targetting the half track as it passed behind the building, or your opponent just targeted the half track that another unit had spotted.

I would seriously doubt that the Tiger would fire at the half track in this example but if it did please pass on the save file for review....

Dan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having seen the discussion about optics above my example just sort of hit the spot . No problems or critique here, both of your explanations are possible. I did not even consider the situation problematic enought to check whether the Tiger fired. The situation was just somewhat hilarious to the untrained eye of a Junior Member

[PeterNZer]

Who left the trashcan lid off?

Look who crawled in, smelly little Black Adder.

Mate, if you have a game that's your favourite, have the balls to come out and say it. Come on! You can do it! I'll show you an example of how.

"monopoly is the most realistic property simulator ever made".

There! Come on, your turn now.

Snide comments and witless jibes at the work BTS has done, (in comparison to your fantastic efforts at...?) gain you NO support here, or even on your holy grail game site I am sure.

If you want to play the 'who has the most realistic game' game, then please, respond like a gentleman to BTS's examples of why CM is accurate and other games less so. Ignoring them, or brushing them off makes you look as foolish as you are insipid.

Just to remind you, you asked if CM modeled certain elements, and you were told 'yes it did, and this is more than game X'. Then, instead of having even some basic HONOR and nodding and saying you didn't know it was the case, you replied:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, but all not implemetented derive from a (flawed?) 3D engine, which the not mentioned game doesn't contain...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that the slither of a little snake trying to avoid being pinned to any of his previous statements? Or even admitting that maybe, just maybe, his perceptions are incorrect?

Is the world you live in flat? Or are you incapable of comprehending the world is 3d? Perhaps you are blind. Or could it be the laws of physics somehow bypass you and leave you in a temporal bubble of non-laws where plasmatic freespace leave you impervious to reality?

If I am higher than you, and I shoot at you with a gun, the balistics and penetration factors will be different than if I am lower than you, or on the same level. How is this flawed? Do i need to go on? For safety perhaps I better ram the point home.

If my Sherman is on the side of a hill, hull down, and rounds come over and strike the tank from a tank firing from below the Sherman you will see MANY richochets, simply because the angle the tank at increases the armor to be penetrated.. WOW, what a CONCEPT!

No other game can accurately simulate this without a 3d engine because flat games don't have bumps, they don't have hills. Or if they do the hull down and angle of attack (AOA) factors are an approximation and broad generalization as opposed to the real world physics of a piece of metal, moving at x speed, over y distance, striking at c incedence a sheet of metal of z thickness and AOA to the round.

I am not saying your pet game is bad, just that you are stupid. Hey, it's probably a great game, but it simply cannot simulate tank warfare as accurately. It can simulate many things as well, possibly even better, but not this feature as you may claim.

PeterNZ

------------------

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." George W Bush -Saginaw, Mich.,

Sept. 29, 2000

[This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 11-21-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

Since I'm so addicted to CM (Mostly because I'm a Mac fan and the game was available on a mac from its inception ) I'm afraid I'm not really all that familiar with other soley PC based WWII era video games.

Is BlackAdder refering to Panzer Elite?

Sorry to ask but I would really like to know exactly what game he thinks is more realistic and accurate than CM?

Thanks

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-21-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Is BlackAdder refering to Panzer Elite?

Sorry to ask but I would really like to know exactly what game he thinks is more realistic and accurate than CM?

Thanks

-tom w

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom, Adder I believe is refering to HPS's Tigers On the Prowl & or Panthers in the Shadows. 2 of the finest PC tactical games ever made & arguably the most 'realistic' WW2 tactical simulation in detail etc for many moons now, & arguably on par or superior to CM etc, depending on who's camp your in .

Ppl refering to CM as the 'most realistic' TAC sim etc, has apperently rattled a few feather's, as this persons posts show as TOP & PITS never realy had any percieved competion before etc.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[PzKpfw 1]

All I'm going to add on anecdotal material is it's fine to dismiss it, if you can prove it's at fault etc.

As far as concerning tank sights, so far all I have seen nothing contributed that proves the anecdotal matertial concerning sights, is no good, or this or that G.I. didn't realy know what he was talking about etc.

And that may be true in a few cases as well, but one thing to remeber is these men were their, they fought this war we play at, they paid for mistakes in blood not sprites and they certinly knew their equiptments capabilitiues or limitations just as any Gulf vet knows his, I think that has been lost in the flurry to bury anecdotal material.

No one has to be university 'qualified' to see a difrence in the clarity of binos or a scope, you look & you, immideatly notice a difrence, or you dont, its that simple, I don't have to know, how to zero the scope or adjust the sight, to look thru it, or change the magnification & such.

Wanna test it yourself go buy 1 cheap pair of 10x50 binos to represent US WW2 bino's, then go buy an expensive 10x50 set to represent German optics, then go look thru them, or buy 1 cheap 4X scope & 1 expensive 4x scope etc.

Or better yet Charles and Steve can contact WW2 museams and locate examples of the sights themselves Robert L, might be able to help them find examples, then go look thru & study them 1st hand etc.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[RMC]

This has been (and is) a great thread. This adder fellow reminds me of that oscar fellow...