Guest machineman Posted November 24, 2000 Share Posted November 24, 2000 A quote here on that topic, from George Forty's 'German Tanks of WWII'. This is quoted as from an article entitled 'Tiger vs Stalin' from German official 'Notes for Panzer Troops'. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The squadron commander drew the following conclusions from all the engagements his squadron had with Stalin tanks: 1).. 2) Stalin tanks generally open fire at ranges over 2,200 yd"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe because, for Tiger I at least: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"5) Stalin tanks can be brewed up but penetration is by no means easy against the frontal armour at long ranges"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"The Inspector General of Panzer Troops (who is responsible for this publication) commented as follows on the above remarks: 1)These experiences agree with those of other Tiger units and are correct."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Noted that it doesn't say if the Stalins could hit anything at that range. But maybe their sights were not that bad, as 2200 yds is a long way away. [This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted November 24, 2000 Share Posted November 24, 2000 Here's some more data from Robert Livingston to our queries on Tanker's list: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Some more on the Russian panoramic sight: Panoramic periscopes pioneered in Germany by the Goerz Company well before the First World War . . . TRF-3 (by Zeiss, 360 deg head rotation, 2.5x) used in Leicht- and Grosstraktoren, the experimental tanks built c. 1929 in Germany and tested in the Soviet Union at Kazan. Similar periscopes, based probably on the Zeiss model, appeared in 1935 on Soviet BT-5 tanks and later on T-34's, KV's and JS's. (paraphrased from Ogorkiewicz, c.1986) Ogorkiewicz also says all of the articulated, coaxial telescopes on German tanks were designed by Leitz, from Pz II through Tiger and Panther I had mistakenly said in an earlier post that the Pz I thru IV sights were by Zeiss. It seems that Zeiss did design the Sturmgeschutz sights, which were in large numbers produced by Leitz under license (Spielberger, StuG III book). The rotatable head, panoramic Zeiss type sights would of necessity transmit less light, and be less useful under low light conditions, because of the extra glass necessary to allow the head to rotate while the gunner's eye remained stationary. In American artillery sights of this general type there are three extra prisms (that is, extra blocks of glass absorbing light). TM9-2601 ELEMENTARY OPTICS (April 1945) says that military optical devices may have a light transmission efficiency of as little as 75%.That is, the objective appears to be only ¾ of full, naked-eye brilliance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> & More after questioning how the low light affected the L8r German sights: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> John, I think it would affect the L8r sights as well as the earlier. Glass absorbs light; the more glass, the more absorption. However, we see better light transmision in the German sights (late and early both) compared to US sights because of better coatings and better quality glass (coatings on lenses cut down on surface reflection, and enhance light transmission). Unfortunately, we still have hard data here. As you have alluded, lousy optics don't prevent long range target acquisition and long range hits, provided the day is bright and sunny enough. I think in marginal, low light conditions the difference in optical quality would become significant. -- Robert <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ "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 11-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted November 28, 2000 Share Posted November 28, 2000 Machineman: In the words of Homer Simpson "DOH"! This thing has been sitting on my bookshelf for many moons. I pulled it down the other day to look at some references, and low and behold. A German Panther TC in copula with the elusive TZR1. hmmm… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted November 28, 2000 Share Posted November 28, 2000 The Story of Cockoo More anecdotes. An example of British tankers impression of Panther optics…apparently based upon British combat testing of "Cuckoo". From: Mr. Churchill’s Tank, The British Infantry Tank Mark IV, By David Fletcher (Curator of the British Tank Museum at Bovington) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was while they were in Overloon that the Coldstreams acquired their Panther tank. It was found, abandoned in a barn, nicknamed Cuckoo and taken into service. The crew appointed to the German tank clearly liked it but if one feature appealed to them more than any other it was the superb quality of the sights. Germany had always been noted as a source for high quality optics such as binocular and camera lens but it is clear that high standards were maintained right through to the end of the war. British manufacturers, by comparison, never seem to have achieved these standards at any time during the conflict.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted November 28, 2000 Share Posted November 28, 2000 Conall: Regarding your previous post on comparisons between German, British and American tank gunsights: I came across the following information in “Tank Combat in North Africa”. Why do you reckon the Brits reduced the field of view in gunsights for the 6-pdr and 17-pdr relative to sights employed for the 2-pdr? Cruiser Tank Mark I Gunner had a No. 24 sighting telescope (1.9 x magnification and a 21 degree field of view) adjustable in 100-yard increments to a range of 1800 yards for the 2-pdr and 1500 yards for the machineguns. Mark IIA Infantry Tank (Matilda) Gunner had a No. 30 sighting telescope (1.9 x magnification and a 21 degree field of view) adjustable in 100-yard increments to a range of 1800 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted November 28, 2000 Share Posted November 28, 2000 Jeff You are sure that is a TZR1 rangefinder and not just a periscope? I found another picture as well, this one from a Stug, but I'm not sure how to tell the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted November 28, 2000 Share Posted November 28, 2000 Thats the same stug commander picture I posted 3 or 4 pages ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted November 28, 2000 Share Posted November 28, 2000 Yup, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted November 28, 2000 Share Posted November 28, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: Yup, my bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BAD, BAD, BAD machineman ...... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 Machineman: Regarding the TZR1 (or perhaps TSR1 as it is refered to by Jentz) I have found reference to it in at least two sources. The significant info is below. It is interesting that it is not mentioned specifically in the “German Army Handbook”, but than the Sf14Z periscope is not mentioned in the handbook either. I think perhaps there is a difference between the TZR1 and the Sf14Z employed in STUGs…but I am not certain. The Sf14Z (ala our favorite STUG Commander photo) is a coincidence type range finder. Turn a base knob until the two images in each side of the scissors scopes overlap (or are coincident with each other). Using some simple trig relationships (i.e. distance between scope mirrors and angle at which coincidence occurs…with these as “knowns” the distance to image can be determined…sin(theta) = y/R). Of course this is simplified for a TC who would basically read the range off the focus knob once image coincidence is achieved in his scope. The TZR1 however may simply be a spotting periscope...but again there is some discrepancy on this point between sources. There is some implication that the scope ID for the TZR1 is perhaps a US ARMY Designation (see first quote from M. Green). I suppose that could potentially throw a monkey wrench into the works. TZR1 is not mentioned at all in Jentz’s “Tiger I&II Combat Tactics”…odd considering his usual attention to detail and his long description of the TZf9b. Yet Jentz mentions a TSR1 spotting periscope in “Panther Variants”. At the very least I suspect the TZR1 or TSR1 had reticule lines for range estimation via a mil scale (i.e. similar to the way a tiger gunner would estimate ranges with his TZf9b). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From: Micheal Green’s “Tiger Tanks” MBI Publishing Co. Coincidence-type rangefinders work very well under conditions of clear visibility or when used on sharply defined objects. It is also relatively easy to train competent operators. Only a couple hours of instruction are usually required. On the minus side, they are ineffective at longer ranges or on targets having indistinct outlines. In wartime US Army documents, the German optical rangefinder device used by Tiger tank commanders is referred to as the TZR1. It was listed as having an overall length of fifty-five inches and a field of view of six degrees according to tests conducted by the First US Army and others in the United States. The TZR1 was typically used for observation by a German tank commander to see over the flash or muzzle obscuration (dust) from the firing of his tank's main gun. In many cases this would temporarily hide a tank gunner's view of a target. According to a US Army report: "When in use, the periscope is mounted on a bracket attached beneath the base of the cupola, so that it enables the tank commander) with his head below the top of the cupola, to see from a point approximately 39 in. above the cupola machine gun mounting ring. When not in use, it is stowed on the near side of the turret. The mounting bracket is adjustable and allows the periscope to be tilted approximately 5 degrees to either side of the vertical. Two clamping handles are provided for locking the periscope in position after adjustment." Early production Tiger I tanks with the drum pattern cupola did not have the bracket for mounting the TZR1. Instead, the crew used a hand-held optical rangefinder similar to those used by the crews of Flak guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From: Jentz, “Panther Variants 1942-1945” Osprey. Panzerbeobachtungswagen Panther Rheinmetall was assigned detailed design development of a turret for a Panzerbeobachtungswagen Panther (armoured artillery observation vehicle using a Panther chassis). Several variations were considered, including an altered Panther turret with a 5 cm Kw.K-39/1 gun and a coaxial machine gun in a Topfblende (pot mantlet) mounted in the centre of a flat plate covering the front of the turret. This version was identified as Entwurf 3 (third proposal) for an Artillerie-Panzer-Beobachtungswagen Fahrgestell Panther in drawings H-SkB 79557 dated 10/11 November 1942. The design already incorporated a built-in range finder, the TBF2 observation periscope mounted in the turret roof to the right of the commander's cupola, and a TSR1 spotting periscope mounted in the turret roof by the gunner. The commander's cupola shown in the drawing was an interim design with seven periscopes protected by cylindrical armour rings… The instruments in the Panzerbeobachtungswagen were designed to measure the initial range as well as switches and corrections based on observation of fall of shot for transmission to the ardllery. It was equipped with an EM 1.25 m (1.25 metre base) range finder, a TBF2 observation periscope (with a spare), a TSR1 spotting periscope (with a spare), an SF14Z scissors periscope, and a KZF2 telescopic gun sight (with a spare)… The TBF2 observation periscope was mounted in the center of the turret in a ball mounting in the roof plate. Counterbalanced by an elaborate rig of pulleys and counterweight, it could be raised and lowered through 37 centimetres, traversed through 360 degrees and tilled through 10 degrees. When it was in the lowered position, the opening in the roof above the periscope could be closed by a hinged cover plate. The TSR1 spotting periscope or the SF14Z scissors periscope was mounted on an adjustable bracket inside at the base of the commander's cupola…<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conall Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Conall: Regarding your previous post on comparisons between German, British and American tank gunsights: I came across the following information in “Tank Combat in North Africa”. Why do you reckon the Brits reduced the field of view in gunsights for the 6-pdr and 17-pdr relative to sights employed for the 2-pdr? Cruiser Tank Mark I Gunner had a No. 24 sighting telescope (1.9 x magnification and a 21 degree field of view) adjustable in 100-yard increments to a range of 1800 yards for the 2-pdr and 1500 yards for the machineguns. Mark IIA Infantry Tank (Matilda) Gunner had a No. 30 sighting telescope (1.9 x magnification and a 21 degree field of view) adjustable in 100-yard increments to a range of 1800 yards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, The reduction in the field of view isn't that drastic when you consider the increase in magnification from 1.9x to 3x as the standard. Put very crudely the increase from 1.9x to 3x equates to a loss of 7-8 degrees FOV, which suggests an equivalent optical quality. I suspect the increase in mag was a consequence of British experiences in the desert where long range gunnery duels were a relatively frequent occurence. Apologies for the rather vague/approx answer but I'm stuck in Brazil on business & can't check my sources. regards, Conall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 Conall: Brazil! Sounds rather exotic. Thanks for taking some time and replying. Perhaps when you get back and things are a little less hectic we continue on with this interesting subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 A parallel discussion was starting to form in the thread about Panther turret rotation speeds, so I thought I would answer the question here to keep everything better organized. John wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In about every successful LR US engagement (1200yrds - 3000yrds) I have read of was on a clear day, this had nothing to do with the 76mms guns ability to hit at 3000yrds it was because the 'adequate' optics, & their limitations that dictated engagemnt ranges, to the optics limitations, in difering weather conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are missing the finer point I have tried to make. I'll try a more abstract approach... Assume a .22 rifle has an effective range of 50 yards. Assume a .30 cal rifle has an effective range of 800 yards. Put the best damned scope money can buy on that .22 and it still only has an effective range of 50 yards. So the .30cal rifle, with no scope at all, is still far more effective at long range than the .22 This is my point about the superiority of the German tanks vs. the average US ones. Über optics would NOT make the *average* US/UK tanks (armed with shot 75s or short 76s) significantly more effective at long ranges vs. the German tanks. They simply were not up to the task. On the other hand, the German tanks were. And if the German optics were just "good" instead of "über" that advantage would STILL be there. Which brings us to the problem. You yourself say that the value of the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. I agree. You feel the optics are the most important part. I disagree. Strongly. Obviously if the German optics were not good enough, this would begin to negate the benefits of the other parts of the system (in particular the gun). But nobody is aruging that this is the case. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ie, in the Bulge fighting during snowfall a German tank snuck into a treeline 2000yrds from a US 76mm Sherman tank Plt & Inf forces position. The German tank (believed to have been a PzKpfw VI) opened accurate fire, destroying an Sherman on the 1st shot, the Sherman's could not even locate the German tank, because of the weather conditions, it destroyed 3 Shermans out of the Plt & forced the remaining tanks & Inf to pull back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This appears to be an issue with spotting. If you can't figure out where the enemy is, you can't shoot back. But this has nothing to do with targeting optics because nobody used them to locate unknown sources of enemy fire. The Germans got the drop on the Americans, and they came away the better. Happens all the time at all sorts of ranges in all sorts of different conditions (like pitch black night for example). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In another Ardennes engagement in cloudy weather, an Shermans (75mm & 76mm) were held up for over 2 hours by 2 Stugs & 1 PzKpfw IV located on high ground who opened fire at over 2000m knocking out 2 Shermans. The Shermans could not return accurate fire because they could not see their shotfall to adjust aim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know about the Sherman 76, but the Sherman 75 would have had a hard time firing and hitting at that range because the gun was simply not up to the task. I am interested to know what the source you are paraphrasing had to say about adjusting fire though. An exact quote would be apreciated. Also note that observing shot f fall is rather a different subject. Some German tanks, like the early JPzIVs, had significant problems with this because the gun was too low to the ground. So we need to be carefull to not start confusing aspects of simulation. As for the German optics being "superior" to the US ones in bad weather... this could very well be true. But what has been proposed here, so far, is some sort of "Zeiss Modifier" for an accross the board accuracy bonus for all German AFVs. And this has not been argued successfully at all. In fact, the start of your quote above actually contradicts this since it is clear that the US tanks, equipped with "better guns" (3inch, 90mm, and 76mm long) could effectively engage enemy tanks at long ranges, at least in ideal weather. So what I see being propsed here is that German vehicles be the only ones that do not get a NEGATIVE accuracy modifier in adverse atmospheric weather conditions. But I have problems with doing this based on annecdotal information alone. Heck, Jeff (I think it was you ) quoted something from the Eastern Front where Tigers had their optics under wraps because of temperature problems. So do the German über optics shrug off all adverse conditions in all situations, or just some? I have no idea, but I think there is room for argument here. Bottomline is that we very much oppose putting in modifiers based on questionable cases. But we get close to refusing requests to put in POSITIVE modifiers for a particular simulation aspect without making sure the NEGATIVES are also simulated as well (or the converse logic of giving all non-German tanks a NEGATIVE bonus and leave the German ones as is). And more importantly, that this issue is explored for with equal enthusiasm for all sides and not just assumed to belong to one particular nation. Remember what I said above. We are intending to do more research on this for the Eastern Front using a scientific approach (as best we can with the limited data available). We try very hard to not build in half-truths, stereotypes, urban legands, etc. So if our standards are too high, I still say that Combat Mission is, overall, more realistic than if they were lowered. Thanks, Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I don't know about the Sherman 76, but the Sherman 75 would have had a hard time firing and hitting at that range because the gun was simply not up to the task. I am interested to know what the source you are paraphrasing had to say about adjusting fire though. An exact quote would be apreciated. Also note that observing shot f fall is rather a different subject. Some German tanks, like the early JPzIVs, had significant problems with this because the gun was too low to the ground. So we need to be carefull to not start confusing aspects of simulation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The quote was from the 1945 report to Eisenhower on US tanks etc, its also related in Paluds ATB Bulge book IIRC. 75mm Shermans were capable of engageing at 2000yrds in the right conditions. My point was the tank could see them & they could not even locate it, yet the German tank saw thru the same conditions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for the German optics being "superior" to the US ones in bad weather... this could very well be true. But what has been proposed here, so far, is some sort of "Zeiss Modifier" for an accross the board accuracy bonus for all German AFVs. And this has not been argued successfully at all. In fact, the start of your quote above actually contradicts this since it is clear that the US tanks, equipped with "better guns" (3inch, 90mm, and 76mm long) could effectively engage enemy tanks at long ranges, at least in ideal weather. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The modifier would represent the better construction, material, & clearer FOV. Actualy my quote can support either stance Steve as I never contested that the 76 or 90 couldn't fire out to 3000yrds when their optics allowed them to aquire the target. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So what I see being propsed here is that German vehicles be the only ones that do not get a NEGATIVE accuracy modifier in adverse atmospheric weather conditions. But I have problems with doing this based on annecdotal information alone. Heck, Jeff (I think it was you ) quoted something from the Eastern Front where Tigers had their optics under wraps because of temperature problems. So do the German über optics shrug off all adverse conditions in all situations, or just some? I have no idea, but I think there is room for argument here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No thats not my position, mine is that the optics were not 'uber' either, just better in all conditions, because of the FOV & filters & glass compared to poor glass, no filtered US sights. As to thje covering in winter I also added that the Soviet's had the samew problem & added an sight heater in L8r versions of the T-34-85. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Remember what I said above. We are intending to do more research on this for the Eastern Front using a scientific approach (as best we can with the limited data available). We try very hard to not build in half-truths, stereotypes, urban legands, etc. So if our standards are too high, I still say that Combat Mission is, overall, more realistic than if they were lowered. Thanks, Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand that & await to hear more I just dont agree that you can remove the optics from the equasion or that optics in general are given eneough importance in these long range discussions as again you can't shoot what you can't see; no matter what your gun is, or its MV. 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 11-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 Hi John, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No thats not my position, mine is that the optics were not 'uber' either, just better in all conditions, because of the FOV & filters & glass compared to poor glass, no filtered US sights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, then we are back to square one. From the very beginning of this discussion we asked for two things... 1. Qualify differences between different sights -> this has been done to a very limited extent since we started this. We have at least narrowed down some characteristics that should server as as a basis for evaluating the overall performance of a given sighting system. But this still has a long way to go in terms of fully identifying those differences and researching the data for the various sights used by different vehicles in different armies. 2. Qualification of the impact of theses differences. This has still not even been scratched. There has been very little discussion thus far, and for obvious reasons (i.e. lack of data), about how MUCH of an impact each difference has on the whole sighting system, and in turn that sighting system on the overall accuracy. Just as important, under what circumstances do these differences apply and to what degree. Obviously, this is not a simple thing to do. But an across the board bonus (German) or negative (Allied) modifier is not something we are going to put in. There is no justification for it since it is clear from this discussion it would be far too arbitrary. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I understand that & await to hear more I just dont agree that you can remove the optics from the equation or that optics in general are given enough importance in these long range discussions as again you can't shoot what you can't see; no matter what your gun is, or its MV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I totally agree with you. Optics can not be separated from their gun systems and they play a critical role in acquiring and hitting targets. But the question is... which sights in which tanks "can't shoot what [they] can't see", for which nations, under what circumstances, and to what degree. These questions have not been answered except in vague and sometimes contradictory ways. Not good enough. What I find problematic is that you appear to be going on some sort of assumption that the degree of US optics "inferiority" was so severe that it precluded a US vehicle from being able to shoot and hit at long ranges. Conversely, the Germans have no problem doing so. However, at the same time you don't deny that certain US vehicles could in fact do just that at even very long ranges (3000m+). Nor do you deny that the German guns were superior in terms of overall performance, at least to the average US/UK guns. So we are back, once again, to the original questions about Qualification and Quantification. Ain't this fun? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hi John, What I find problematic is that you appear to be going on some sort of assumption that the degree of US optics "inferiority" was so severe that it precluded a US vehicle from being able to shoot and hit at long ranges. Conversely, the Germans have no problem doing so. However, at the same time you don't deny that certain US vehicles could in fact do just that at even very long ranges (3000m+). Nor do you deny that the German guns were superior in terms of overall performance, at least to the average US/UK guns. So we are back, once again, to the original questions about Qualification and Quantification. Ain't this fun? Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes Steve, I am assuming that US optics had limitations due to the quality of their construction,. The M70 sight in the Sherman was according to some sources not good above 1000yrds because it lacked optical power & clarity. My 'assumption'is based on what I have read etc. I have always agreed that the 76mm & 90mm guns could engage to 3000yrds it's just I believe that they were hindered more often then not, in specificly LR engagements by their optical limitations, not by their guns or ammunition, and the Germans wern't affected near as much, by optical quality & so far, no one has countered this assumption either. & remeber Steve I'm the one who believe's this issue will never be quantified one way or the other, & yes it is fun . Also Steve just a thought to help you research the optics issue you may want to contact Jacques Littlefield & Alan Cors both have large restored AFV collections, with US & Ge AFVs, they might be able to help on optic material 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. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 machineman: Take a gander at Chamberlain "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII". Pg 255 details Optical Equipment. TSR1 is found about half way down the chart. 1.4 meter height mx6.0 fov=6 degrees monocular observation telescope found on: Tigers, Panthers Pz art Beob Wg IV, and Pz Bef Wg IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 Way to dig out the info, Jeff. So the scissors type is the rangefinder. Well, brackets for both....Still think that the use of rangefinders on tanks would make a big difference in WWII long range gunnery, as it did after the war. Could maybe be one of Steve's significant factors affecting the whole accuracy picture. Here's an article on US tank development after the war, including the fire control improvement history, the early adoption of stereoscopic type and the switch back to coincidence. http://147.238.100.101/dtdd/armormag/ja98/4cameron98.pdf [This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 John wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>yes Steve, I am assuming that US optics had limitations due to the quality of their construction,. The M70 sight in the Sherman was according to some sources not good above 1000yrds because it lacked optical power & clarity. My 'assumption'is based on what I have read etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rember that up until very recently the request was for us to give the Germans some sort of across the board bonus of some undetermined, but significant, value. The problem with this is that it "assumes" that all US sights, in all circumstances, were inferior to German ones at the same range. Only at this point in the conversation are we getting to some info that proves this "assumption" incorrect. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have always agreed that the 76mm & 90mm guns could engage to 3000yrds it's just I believe that they were hindered more often then not, in specificly LR engagements by their optical limitations, not by their guns or ammunition, and the Germans wern't affected near as much, by optical quality & so far, no one has countered this assumption either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't counter this, but I also don't see what we are supposed to do about it without further study. As I said above, the suggestion thus far has been to give the Germans an across the board BONUS in all situations, all the time, vs. all Allied tanks in all situations, all the time. And that would clearly be wrong. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>& remeber Steve I'm the one who believe's this issue will never be quantified one way or the other, & yes it is fun .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup and yup The problem is that we must make an attempt to both qualify and quantify before we make changes. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and, in my opinion, simply be bowing to "the Germans always had better stuff" mentality that has made US vehicles ahistorically weak, and Germans ahistorically strong, in other wargames. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also Steve just a thought to help you research the optics issue you may want to contact Jacques Littlefield & Alan Cors both have large restored AFV collections, with US & Ge AFVs, they might be able to help on optic material etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As a MV collector (one so far, perhpas another one soon ) I know of both of these guys. In fact, go to the Resources section of our website and look for Bob Moore's vehicle pics. There are a ton of very high res shots of the Littlefield collection during a MVPA (Military Vehicles Preservation Association) open house two summers ago. Thanks, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 Machineman: Excellent article. Elaborates on the US ARMY's change in official doctrinal philosophy regarding the Tank being the best weapon for killing other tanks. In addition it details the emphasis the ARMY began placing on long-range gunnery, and long-range accuracy during the 50's. The design of post war MBT's fire control systems all apparently were built around stereoscopic range finders, and at least in the case of the M48, the inclusion of ballistic computers. The stereoscopic range finders were apparently not universally embraced by ARMY gunners (presumably those folks not blessed with acute stereoscopic vision). However, I would contend that the dramatic boost in accuracy at long range between WWII and the 1950's (FM 100-5 reference again) was this focus on both long-range gunnery training and the migration of tank designer away from range estimation via "Kentucky Windage" toward instrumented determination of range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 Interesting write-up from a member of the 704th SPTD Battalion <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dear Sirs: Reading in the May-June issue about the increased "lethality and tightability" of the enhanced M1A2, with its extensive use of digital electronics for target acquisition and target tracking, made me wonder if any younger readers knew how target acquisition and target tracking was done fifty-odd years ago. I would like to quote a paragraph from the combat history of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion, Fourth Armored Division, of General Patton's Third Army. The time was September, 1944, the weapon was the 76mm, high-velocity antitank rifle that armed the M-18 "Hellcat." The gunner was SSG Phillip Hosey. I quote from Phil Hosey. "Near Nancy, France, between Luneville and Arracourt, we faced a group of German tanks that had taken a position one mile away, across a shallow open valley. Our M-18s were in defilade, facing out over a small hill. Infantry led the way across the valley with three M-4s intermingled. The Krauts let them get halfway across, then opened up with anti-tank fire from woods on the right. They immediately KO'd two M-4s and drove the infantry to the ground. Two Panthers, a Mark IV, and an assault gun came out of the woods and moved across our line of fire at the distance of about a mile. In his position in our open turret, the tank commander, SSG Hicklin, watched their progression through his glasses and called out the range: "Two thousand yards, moving at about ten mph." Our rifle, with AP, had a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps, so it would take two seconds to arrive on target. The Krauts were moving at fifteen feet per second, which let them travel thirty feet in two seconds. Their lead tank was twenty feet long (from the book), so we led him a good length for a center shot. We laid on and fired. Voila, a hit! It struck two feet in front of his rear drive idler. We then picked the last tank and scored — he began to bum. The two intervening tanks were destroyed by two fast AP shots. So we got two Panthers, a Mark 4, and an assault gun. Our 76mm rifle packed a good punch, even at two thousand yards. We felt that we had the best self-propelled antitank gun in the ETO." In spite of his Purple Hearts and continued combat-related disabilities, Phil Hosey has provided many important first-hand accounts of his experiences for our combat history of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion. CPT Richard R. Buchanan, 704th Tank Destroyer Bn. Secretary/Historian, 704 TD Bn Assn. Wilmington, Ohio<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 An interesting anecdote regarding US ARMY gunnery training in North Africa. The number of bracket rounds required in this example would imply the Sherman’s 75mm was capable of bracketing and hitting a target at approx 1,600 meters by the 3rd or 4th round. Recall past postings on Jentz’s write-up on Tiger training accuracy in which a Tiger I gunner was expected hit a stationary target at 1200 to 2000 meters by the 4th round. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From: George Forty, “Tank Warfare In the Second World War, An Oral History” (Pg 51) In some cases, this training did not finish even while they were in progress to, or when they had reached, their overseas theatre. For example, Norris Perkins was a member of the American element of the Operation 'Torch' Task Force which landed in North Africa in November/December 1942. He recalled: 'Training on the high seas, December 1942. We constructed out of trash and cardboard, dummy traversing and elevating wheels, mounted on boxes, simulating tank cannon controls. A target scene was painted on canvas. The instructors drilled gunners in speedy adjustments of fire for pretended high or low shots, teaching rapid bracketing of targets. . . . Further training in Morocco. After the successful three-day campaign against the French in November, and further landings in December, intensive training was continued in the Cork Forest of Mamora north of Rabat, the capital of French Morocco. We found that the 75mm tank cannon was extremely accurate because of its excellent controls and heavy stability of the gun platform (the tank). As an example, we hit the trunk of a tree a mile away and knocked it down on the third or fourth bracketing round. Even the .30-calibre ball-mounted bow gunner's machine gun, without any gunsight, was accurately controlled by watching the tracer through the periscope. We could roll a burst of fire into a hat at a couple of hundred yards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted December 3, 2000 Share Posted December 3, 2000 For anyone still remotely interested in this topic. I suspect Michael Green in “Tiger Tanks” has gotten off track some how. He refers to the TZR1 as having a 55 inch length, and six degree FOV and refers to it as an optical rangefinder. 55inches equals 4.5833 feet…and….4.5833 feet equals 1.4 meters. TSF1 length is 1.4 meters and has a FOV of 6 degrees. Therefore Green's reference to the TZF1 should be TSF1. I know this may all seem like minutia (and it probably is in the grand scheme of things). However the rub is that that thing is really a simple monocular observation periscope. Range finding characteristics would simply be stadia lines and a mil relationship. No more efficient or accurate than the Tigers TZF9b gunsight. A picture of the TSR1 sticking out of a Panther Copula (from: Jentz’s ”Germany’s Panther Tank”). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 3, 2000 Share Posted December 3, 2000 Just a tiny correction here to a misspelling that I've seen a lot but is a potentially confusing one. No offense intended to anyone, just FYI. The mini-compartment on the top of a tank turret used for viewing the outside from behind (relative) protection is the cupola. I've seen it misspelled copula, but I think the copula is in the back of the tank where the sergeant takes the army nurse when they're on R&R. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted December 3, 2000 Share Posted December 3, 2000 Jeff, nice picture. That periscope looks like a useful tool to see over dust thrown up by the main gun and to get a higher viewpoint of the terrain, but I agree it doesn't look like a rangefinder. Green is referring from a US Army report, so the description/numbering system could be wrong either on the report itself or in his interpretation of it. I'll try to look up a friend with a huge WWII bk collection when I get home this Christmas and see if he has more info. Mind you, that other thread you pointed me to is really interesting, the mother of all rangefinder threads so far. The key from what I can see is how much the tank commanders used either SF14Z's or 'borrowed' E series rangefinders to help with their gunnery. I suspect it may have gone up as the war went on and defensive fighting against superior numbers favored their use. Even if such use was not widespread I think it is entirely possible the 'aces' used them. I have heard the folding periscopes being used both by Wittman and Otto Carius, for example. I have also heard mention of some Stug units getting very high scores, and well ranged in fire may have contributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts