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>

Has there been any MODs for the Jagdpanzer IV done? If so does anyone have a URL available? Thanks

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>

Interesting Paul. I just found several WWII GI Tanker related tales regarding the mythical superiority of German Tank optics. I will post later. A couple of interesting images from: “Panzer Page” by Eric Reits. URL: http://www.geocities.com/ereits/ I am guessing that this is the infamous TS1R or TZ1R spotting periscope...or the TSR1 was very similar in appearance to this scope. The photo is actually from a STUG III. Note the similarity in the device relative to the photo I posted of British Tanker Lt. Bill Cotton holding a captured German periscope (taken from either a destroyed MkIVh or MkVIe in Villers Boccage). Another interesting image from the same web site Flak 88 in an anti-tank role. Note the observer well to the left of the gun position outside potential flash and dust plume zone; Somewhat easier to observe his guns fall of shot from this position. [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-18-2000).]

Nothing really new here. Some Jentz info for the Panther. I did find a photo in a study on the Jagdtiger depicting a pair of scissors type periscope protruding through the TC hatch (TSF1 spotting periscope presumably). The TC’s hatch had some sort of smaller hatch specifically for the TSF1 (TZF1) periscope to stick through. The periscope apparently had graduated lines or stadia lines. Range finding with this periscope was based upon a mil scale and range would be estimated similar to the Ziess site (i.e. the viewer needs to have some knowledge of the targets actual dimensions). Apparently the Tiger Ie and Panthers A,D and G TC's hatches did not have the small hinged hatch for the TSF1. TSF1 would not have been "usable" while the TC was buttoned. The Panther F was apparently to have small TSF1 (TZF1) hatch: "The commander's cupola on the Schmalturm was lower, had a hinged hatch, and was drilled so that a TSF1 spotting periscope could be raised without opening the commander's hatch." Panther Gun Accuracy 75mmL70 Pzgr39/42 Test (bold)…Practice (in parentheses) 500 meters 100 (100%) 1000 meters 100 (97%) 1500 meters 100 (72%) 2000 meters 92 (49%) 2500 meters 73 (29%) 3000 meters 55 (18%) Jentz provides his favorite comments regarding the above figures: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 7,5 cm KwK42 L/70 was a very accurate gun capable of first round hits at ranges exceeding 1000 meters. The estimated accuracy is given as the probability (in percentage) of hitting a target 2 meters high and 2.5 meters wide, representing the target presented by the front of an opposing tank. These accuracy tables are based on the assumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the aiming point. The Test data show the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing of the gun to determine the pattern of dispersion. The Practice data include the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunition, and gunners. Both data were reported in the accuracy tables from an original report on the 7,5 cm KwK42 L/70 as shown in the Accuracy table. These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown as the Practice data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Images of Panther Gunners Optics TzF12 and 12a. Very similar to the Tigers TzF9 [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-18-2000).]

Conall: Here is the image you wanted. Thanks for contacting Dave F. Should be interesting to see what he can scrounge up. M38 Stuart Optics (another image provided to me by Conall) A footnote to my Stuart LOS quirk. I replayed the same “range test” except substituted Comets for the Stuarts. I got the same effect in that Comets could see and fire at the Tiger I, but the Tiger I was unable to see and fire at the Comets. Average range approx 1550 meters. The Comets showed up only as roundels. Technically not anything to do with accuracy or optics…simply a side effect noted during a test scenario. Steve: With regards to getting a show of hands on aspects of CM design…I personally am not interested in attempting to change the CM Engine. I don’t have a clue about what goes into computer wargame design. Maybe if I really had a clue I would get off my ass and go design a game of my own. My chief interest in this particular thread is discussing bits and pieces of WWII history. CM simply acts as the catalyst for such discussions. Playing Wargames without studying history is like eating French fries without Ketchup. Totally uncivilized behavior. I personally think BTS has done a fine job with CM, and I get a big kick out of playing it. I think it’s an excellent model of WWII tactical combat given the constriants of hardware\software etc. and abstractions required in any wargame. I’m not seriously suggesting BTS model German tank crews who put leather covers over their optics. What impresses me most about BTS is there good natured approach to discussing players bitches and moans. “How come the game isn’t more like the way I want it to be” seems to be paramount in many bitchie posts. Rather than some attempt to dig into the question (ala Paul, John and Machineman), we read one reference that implies “such and such” than we wield “reference such and such” like a sword…never going beyond the possibility that there may be other information that contradicts “reference such and such”. Having said this I wanted to add that I have been a long time poster\lurker on several Close Combat forums (I know…I know…Close Combat is a heathens game). When game related disscussions arose on these forums ATOMIC’s reps (I wont mention any names…DW) always responded very rudely and defensively. The designers really turned me off about a game that I enjoyed. They are certainly entitled to say we are full of ****…just say it in a diplomatic manner. I’m relatively new to this forum, but I am impressed with the tact that BTS tends to use in their responses to customer bellyaches and moans. Makes me feel like the money I have invested into CM is going to basically good folks (I shelled out for two copies…one for me…one for my brother...2nd I.D. Korea...has his own Tank Battalion now...urah big bro). [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-16-2000).]

German War Time Attrocities… Its well documented that the Germans utilized GI POWs for barrel swabbing. Oh the Humanity

single or two-ply. single gums up the rifling

PeterNZer: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway just reading good old 'Panzer Leader' and interested that Guderian notes that in the extreme cold on the east front the Mk4's sights were useless, (no creme stuff to keep them working.. whatever that means, fogging i guess), and that the first run of Panther's had terrible sights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting. I am in the middle of a book called "Commanding the Red Armies Shermans" by ?Loza? Recently interpreted into English. Loza relays a story in which he ambushes a lagered platoon of Tiger I's in February of 44. The German crews had apparently placed cloth or leather covers over their sights and periscopes to keep the snow off\out and prevent the optics from fogging. Needless to say Loza's Shermans got the best of these blind Tigers.

Just an added question...we have Tigerfibel, and FM 17-12 as potential sources of contemporary gunnery info. Does anyone know what the British Armys equivelent field manual might be for WWII tank gunnery training?

Conall: Great stuff...infact I posted that info several pages back on this thread. With your seemingly easy access to Bovington Archieves is it possible to get the entire write-up on this particualr War Office Study? The comments provided are actually John Salt's I beleive. It would be interesting to see the War Offices commentary on this...if there is infact any supporting documentation.

Hannants in England is apparently stocking the Tiger I reference CD from Tamiya. Couple URLs. http://www.hannants.co.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl http://www.hannants.co.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?Mode=view&Database=new&R=TATIGER1

Paul: Don’t be confusing me with any dam statistics. What did Abraham Lincoln once say (or was it Mark Twain…or maybe it was Samuel Langhorne Clemens): There’s liars…there’s dam liars…then there are statisticians. Actually thanks for the clarification. I reckon I understand what was meant know. By the way printed up your email and went through about ½ of the posting last night. Impressive that you had archived all of this info. At the risk of sounding retarded, who is Robert Livingston? Sure sounds like he knows his ****. John: Very smoothly said. You could be a geotechnical engineering consultant…or a lawyer

To Obtain 50-50 Probability Of Hit On Standing Tank At 1500 Meters: World War II Medium Tank - Had to fire 13 Rounds. Korean War Medium Tank - Had to fire 3 rounds. Mid-'70's Medium Tank - Needs to fire 1 Round. So what does that mean...after bracketing for 12 rounds...on the 13th round there was a 50 - 50 chance of obtaining a hit? Or if you fire 26 rounds you have a 100% chance of a hit? [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-15-2000).]

I think I would have to throw my hat into the ring with Conall's assessment. The effects of bracketing seem somewhat underplayed. However, I have found that testing the effect of bracketing (or second\subsequent round accuracy) in CM is not always easy. Targets in my little live fire test ranges have a tendency to squirm about, in and out of LOS, fire smoke and otherwise do things which cause the firing vehicle to lose its targeting line (red line). I reckon the games memory is short…so if you lose the red line to a target, you are probably going through the whole reacquisition thing over again. My actual gaming experiences would lead me to a gut feeling that 2nd and subsequent round accusation advantage is low (pretty vague and subjective on my part and in tune with the hand waiving typical of this subject matter). But just to throw a monkey wrench into the works it is rather evident from a series of postings I have thrown up...that tank crews were not always capable of tracking there own rounds. Missing both splash from impact or the tracer element. And I have seen nothing posted so far which would suggest the Germans had superior tracking skills. Tough to bracket when you dont see where the round is hitting. Along these same lines German tank crews were at somewhat of a disadvantage in that the loader and gunner did not have viewing periscopes...i.e. fewer eyes to help spot ones own fall of shot. A tank gunner firing at long ranges would no doubt be employing max magnification setting which results in a relatively narrow field of vision. Overline and or under shots could well be striking beyond the bounds of his optics field of vision. Of additional interest was my discovery of the Tiger I being unable to spot Stuarts at a range of 2000 meters…yet the Stuarts were able to spot and fire at the Tiger I from the same distance. I reckon there is some target aspect\size LOS benefit modeled into the game for smaller vehicles. This seems logical...smaller targets should be harder to spot. However in this particular instance there is something in the implementation of LOS\spotting modifier that is perhaps resulting in this odd quirk. Aside from all this what we are discussing is all very subjective based upon the information posted so far. Paul posted some interesting info on combat accuracy from tests conducted at NTC suggesting relatively low hits per round fired ratio. In addition John dug up something implying a 13 rounds per hit ratio for the US Army in ETO. We also have some AARs detailing German Tank crews nailing targets out to relatively outstanding gunnery ranges by WWII standards. It is also relatively easy to dig up AARs indicating 2nd or third round hits out to ranges of 1500 to 2000 meters are "doable" by even British Tankers and US Tanker equipped with sub-German optics. On the 13 rounds per kill…it is true that WWII tankers had a tendency to fire on targets till they began to burn. If you read Belton Coppers "Death Traps" it is evident that once a tank burns its done. No more combat even after ordnance boys get a hold of the hulk, hose off the old crew, and break out the welding torches and new paint. So the number of rounds per kill could be somewhat of a function of this shoot till it burns philosophy. Another thing that has been bugging me… If you have been wallowing through the whole 88mm thread there has been a fair amount of posting regarding live fire range accuracy and what was reasonable in training conditions...but only snippets on actual combat accuracy some of which are contradictory. The few AAR's that others and I have posted in my mind still raise as many new questions as they provide answers to old questions. On the one hand there is a fair amount of evidence suggesting that with high velocity flat trajectory KE munitions, errors in range estimates are not that critical. On the other hand from my own reading it is quite clear that the leading cause of misses boiled down to either poor initial range estimation (TZ1R or not) or anxious gunners. The two assessments seemingly contradict each other. In addition, if the Germans had all the answers there would have been no need to develop gun computers or laser range finders. I don't know what the new starships have in that regard…but the old M60 and M48 had a mechanical gun computer which would adjust the main gun for super elevation with respect to type of munition being employed…its velocity, range to target, and flight path, etc…SABOT, HEAT, HEP (I think it was HEP high explosive plastic or some such thing) each had their own respective settings. Now if trajectory weren't especially critical…why the micro adjustment of super elevation.

430 posts and no one wants to render an opinion? oh my.

The question still remains is the CM accuracy model good or bad? If its bad why?

The US ARMY tank destroyer center was terminated on 10 November 1945. The last tank destroyer battalion, the 656th, was disbanded at Camp Campbell, Kentucky on 1 November 1946. Several of the more famous tank destoryer battalion were later reactivated as regular tank units. No they didnt make it to Korea...they barely made it through WWII.

Jentz, "Tiger I & II Combat Tactics". Pages 54 - 55. I reckon I'm not going to get reciprosity on Green I have included text before and after Major Leuders disscussion regarding his concerns with rangefinders and training, so that the context of his report is included. Of particular interest is item 3. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eleven Tigers were reported to be operational on 14 February for the attack on Sidi bou Zid to open Operation "Fruelingswind." The Tigers attacked down the road from the least, the 10.Panzer-Division came in from the north, and the 21 .Panzer-Division circled and came in from the south and southwest. The 3rd Battalion of the 1 st U.S. Armored Regiment lost 44 Sherman tanks out of 50, of which 15 were claimed by schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501. On 15 February, schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501 with 14 operational Tigers was held in reserve during the envelopment of the counterattacking 2nd Battalion of the 1st U.S. Armored Regiment. The Americans lost one Lee and 46 Sherman tanks out of 51, of which only one was penetrated by an 88. No Tigers were lost in the actions from 14 to 22 February. Directly after the actions at Sidi bou Zid, Major Lueder, commander of schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501, relayed some very open and frank opinions and observations in the following letter dated 16 February 1943: 1. The Entfernungsmesser (rangefinder) Question: Several EM 09 have recently arrived and the bulk of them are still in Italy. Trials have revealed that personnel must first be selected who possess stereoscopic vision, a difficulty that I realized only now. Special equipment is needed for such a test, which is available only at psychological testing stations. During the next few days I will let tests and selection occur at Flakgruppe Tunis using 4-meter rangefinders, because with these larger rangefinders one can at least approximately determine if the personnel grasp the fundamentals. I will then immediately let the chosen personnel begin training, instructed by my anti-aircraft platoon leader. Training must last several weeks, if one wants to achieve reasonable results. These are all suggestions from Flak personnel, who must know what they are talking about. A lot of time-consuming work is necessary be fore experience in the use of the EM 09 on the Tiger can be obtained. The Abteilung is spread out over 250 kilometers in combat or must continuously be ready for combat, which makes bringing the crews together for training very difficult. On this basis I want to delay delivery of Feldfunksprechern (portable field radio sets) until I know if the rangefinder idea works. In 6 writes and telegraphs constantly for experience reports with the EM 09. I will be thankful if you would personally pass on the message that this requires time and that we have other things to do than rangefinding. I guarantee that only that which can happen will happen. Planning is necessary to further pursue this whole rangefinder question in training personnel at the Ersatz-Abteilungen. The rangefinder must be used by a crew member of the Panzer, not by a rangefinder squad that will be sent forward "when the need arises. " That must be known already because In 6 has ordered brackets to mount the EM 09 on the Tiger. Advise them how the situation stands here at the front in choosing and training personnel from the Panzer crews with the previously listed difficulties and delays. 2. Including the Tiger-Abteilung in a Panzer-Regiment: As a basic principle, light Panzers belong as part of a Tiger unit. A unit consisting solely of Tigers would not prosper. It constantly needs light Panzers for maintaining contact with other units, reconnaissance, and other similar duties (i.e., scouting, guarding, bringing repair parts or retrieving wounded under fire) that you can't use Tigers for, totally apart from the need to continuously guard the Tiger. Including the Tiger-Abteilung in a Panzer-Division is concurred with; also, incorporation in a Panzer-Regiment appears possible, with the reservation that the escorting light Panzers remain with the Tiger-Abteilung. 3. Tank Battles at Long Ranges: The old difference between us and the opponent — He would rather shoot; we would rather charge. If 15 enemy tanks advance to 2000 meters range or greater and commence firing from selected positions, it is an unpleasant situation. It is the same as if four batteries fired directly at us with 15 guns, with the difference being that tanks are harder to destroy than guns. Their high explosive shells are effective against roadwheels and can cause the turret and weapons to jam. With their fabulous shell material the opponent can also achieve direct hits. What do we do in such a situation? A charge is no good, so we try to outflank them. But very often the terrain doesn't play along. The result is you bite your tongue from rage over the effective fire from the enemy. We could do exactly the same thing with the long 7.5 cm or the 8.8 cm tank guns and achieve the same result, if we engaged 15 enemy tanks with ten long 7.5 cm or 8.8 cm guns, I am convinced that the opponent would yield sooner than us. But we don't do it, because to us it's a stupid idea and we must conserve ammunition. If the artillery wants to strike with large caliber high explosive shells at a range of 4000 m, other than by chance they won't destroy any tanks but only expend their ammunition supply. Using the total stockpile, the rare occurrence will grow to "probable destruction." But that is all theory. I don't know any of our own artillery that have enough ammunition. Only the enemy has enough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Concerning the use of TC observation devices, the French report also states; 'a scissors periscope with large magnification power was affixed to a bracket in the commanders cupola'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am assuming that the French Test was restricted to the employment of only stock German equipment in the Panther? In other words the scissors periscope was a piece of German equipment? While digging through some other references I found the following picture. This is from “Villers-Boccage, Through the Lens”, by Daniel Taylor. It’s a great book with numerous contemporary photos of the famous engagement and aftermath. This is a photo of a rather cocky British tanker named Lt. Bill Cotton. North African campaign vet with the "Desert Rats". Besides the intersting insight this photo gives into this brave fellows character (i.e. Sporting a Luftwaffe flying jacket, a Cross of Iron, the cigarette butt burned down nearly to the guy’s fingers…a “cool TC”) the scissors periscope was apparently German booty liberated by Cotton during the second phase of the Villers-Boccage engagement. Cotton and his tanks succeeded in spanking a German attack into Villers-Boccage spearheaded by several Tigers and several MkIV’s. Some pay back for Whittman's romp. Not exactly the photo I was hoping for…but perhaps Cotton liberated this periscope from a knocked out MKIV or MKVI. The caption of the photo reads: “Cotton with more booty collected during the fighting. These pictures were taken to accompany his award of the Military Cross for the fighting around Villers”

Its rocket science when it comes to putting steel on steel at 3000 or 4000 meters MEASUREMENT BY LATERAL DISTANCE A gunner or TC can use the four-finger method to find distance. He measures the distance from one point to another with the T&E mechanism. He extends his arm toward the target, palm out, elbow locked, one eye closed, and index finger raised. He sights along the edge of the finger, adding extra fingers to fill in the space (the average finger is 30 mils wide). One finger equals 30 mils, two equal 70 mils, three equal 100 mils. A circle has 6,400 mils. At a distance of 1,000 meters, an object 1 meter wide measures 1 mil. Change mils to meters by multiplying the number of mils times the range (distance) in thousands of meters. Obtain the unknown width or range to an object using a similar method. The mil relation is; when is the angular width of the object in mils, W is the width of the object in meters, and R is the range or distance in thousands of meters. To find Width when the known Range is 4,000 meters and the object is 15 wide, multiply (R x ) 4 (range in thousands) times 15 (mils). The answer is 60 (meters), or 4 x 15 = 60 meters. W = R (in thousands) x W = 4 x 15 W = 60 (2) To find Range when the known Width in meters (between two bursts or two objects) is 60 and the angular measurement for the same width, when measured with binoculars, is known to be 15 mils, divide (W) 60 (meters) by 15 (mils). The answer is 4 (thousand meters). (3) To find when the known Width in meters between a reference point and the target is 60 meters and the known Range to the target is 4,000 meters, divide W/R) 60 (meters) by 4 (range in thousands) and the answer is 15 (mils) or 60/4 = 15 mils. Pretty crude however.

Machineman: William Folkestad in “Panzer Jager, Tank Hunter” does mention observing a Nashorn crew employing a hand held Flak type range finder to engage T34’s at a range of 800 to 1200 meters. I think I quoted this story in one of my earlier posts on this thread. Something else of interest...From: “Seek, Strike, and Destroy, US ARMY Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The tank destroyers would even find it difficult to stand on the defensive and ambush attacking German armor, for German tanks rarely attacked blindly or recklessly. An American armored officer reported that "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. They always seem to make sure of what they are going to do and where they are going before they move… "Major General Orlando Ward, commander of the 1st Armored Division in Tunisia, remarked that advancing German tanks sometimes moved so slowly that it was necessary for the observer to line up the German vehicles against a terrain feature in order to be sure that they were moving at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Binoculars can be used to determine range. The modern US ARMY M19 includes horizontal and vertical reticles graduated in 10-mil increments. Were the Germans using bino’s equipped with a mil scale in WWII? I would like to see the cut away of the Tiger with the scissors range finder you are referring to. If you can scan the photo I would be happy to post it for you. Send the image as a *.jpg photo to: jeffduquette@home.com and I will see that it is posted here. Regarding the Jentz write-up on hand held range finders and the Tiger 1...I will scan the quote in tomorrow and post it in its entirety...if you will do me a favor and post Green's write up on the TZ1R as well as his write-up on hand held optics. Thanks. Sorry only got through your first post...the wife is already pissed at me for spending too much time on the "DAM COMPUTER". I'm a whipped man [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-13-2000).]

silver: very good...you win a cookie. machineman: I am aware of your contention on this…but I think we will have to agree to disagree on the practicality of Tiger or Panther TC’s employing large hand held rangefinders during a tank battle. These things are typically a meter plus long (An Em.R.1.5m has a base over 5 feet long) and would be useless once the vehicle was buttoned up. It however, would rapidly become a nuisance flopping about the turret and getting under the TC and Loader’s feet. Furthermore if you review Jentz it appears that the concept was never really realized due to: very specialized lengthy training requirements as well as the need to identify tank crewmen with “stereoscopic vision” to operate the thing (page 54, Tiger I & II Combat Tactics). In addition, I reckon that if the use of large hand held coincidence or stereoscopic range finders were being widely used we would have been able to dig up a couple photos showing Tiger or Panther TC’s employing these instruments. Numerous shots of TC’s holding bino’s but no range finders. On the other hand it is relatively easy to find photo’s of German Flak 88 crews employing stereoscopic range finders (Em.R.1.5m). Now the TZR1 is kinda throwin me for a loop (do you mean a TSR1?). Again photo examination has turned up nil on my part showing any Tigers or Panthers with a 3 foot high appendage sticking up from the top of the turret. Perhaps someone in the viewing audience can help us out here. Are you sure the TZR1 or TSR1 was not a simple periscope, as I can’t find a listing of this type of range finder in the “German Army Handbook”. Again perhaps someone in the viewing audience has some additional insight on this thing.

Guess the range

Not a bio on Whittman...but a great book on everyones favorite tank battle is "Viller-Boccage, Through the Lens" by Daniel Taylor.