Conall

Good points all, in addition you could add that the Germans benefitted from the advantage of operating under auftragestaktik at every level. Auftragestaktik translates very roughly as "mission oriented tactics". One key compnent is that anyone with a leadership role (plt cmdr, plt Sgt etc), should know the intent of the commander two echelons higher - therefore a section commander knew at least the full company brief, the plt commander knew at least the full battalion brief etc. In the context of a tank platoon this meant that the loss of the platoon leader was not automatically a cause for complete disfunction. Efficient radios also helped the transition of command if necessary. By contrast the Soviets, to the best of my knowledge, didn't initially operate a system with anything like that degree of tactical flexibility. Until perhaps mid-1943 Soviet units below the battalion level at least operated a major disadvantage in terms of command flexibility. I look forward to being proved wrong regards, Conall

Not necessarily the case - this is the subject of some debate, as to whether the Mk III & Mk IV Churchill's had geared or free elevation. The short answer is that no-one knows & it's quite possible that there was an ad-hoc mixture. Confusion arises because nearly all schematics show a geared elevation & a handbook on the III & IV's unequivocally refers to geared elevation, however, Vauxhall Motors (the manufacturers) published a handbook in Jan 1944 which has a cross sectional drawing clearly showinga free elevation system (gunner's shoulder pad etc). It would therefore be useful to know what kind of Churchill IV's were being used in the firing trial. For further reading see: D. Fletcher, Mr Churchill's Tank. The British Infantry Tank Mk IV, Schiffer 1999, ISBN 0-7643-0679-0 Regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 03-14-2001).]

Simon, Perhaps you'd care to expound on what you think are in the Regimental war diaries that are more useful (in the context of gun dispersion/accuracy figures) than the tabulated findings in the WO docs (usually material taken from the AORS data/research). I'm not sure that I understand quite what you're getting at, so a little clarification would be much appreciated. Regards, Conall

Paul, Are you referring to the picture I sent you a awhile ago - if so I resent it to you. If you haven't got it just give me a shout & I'll resend it. Regards, Conall

Claus, my bad for a) expressing myself unclearly & talking about two vehicles at once. As I understood it the M10 series required a weight at the back of the turret to balance the weight of the 3" gun (see Hunnicut, Sherman p.366). The Sherman series (either the 75mm or 76mm) didn't need this as the gun was sufficiently balanced in the turret (not least because the turret was much heavier than the open topped M10). In the case of the Achilles the 17pdr was a lighter gun, which didn't require the rear turret counterweight to such an extent, so rather than remove it, it was easier to fit another counterweight on the barrel. Apologies for creating any confusion - your article explains it rather better. http://www.panser.dk/profiler/achilles/achilles.htm Finally in the case of the Sherman Firefly, the radio in the ad-hoc rear extension to the turret acted to counter-balance the weight of the 17pdr. this appears to have been very successful & anecdotally was reported to have been a better balanced turret than the original 75mm Sherman, which in turn improved the smoothness & ease of the turret traverse. Regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 03-11-2001).]

Agreed it is a better website, & it shows that the object in the middle of the barrel of the Firefly mounted 17pdr was a fake muzzle barrel. No, the source I quoted didn't say that sabotted ammunition couldn't be fired from guns with muzzle brakes. It said that doing so would very likely cause a uneven discard & therefore create an unacceptable degree of round instability. It also pointed out that there was a risk of the muzzle brake being damaged. So one more time, just for you, the British had designed the 17pdr to fire AP, APC, & APCBC, for which the muzzle brake was essential in reducing recoil forces to an acceptable level. Having done so they then developed SVDS, and accepted the pay off of a more inaccurate round & much higher barrel wear because they needed the improved penetration. A simple aspect of wartime expediency & having to make trade-offs. Once the war was over however, they had the luxury of producing new guns specifically designed to fire APDS ammunition (20pdr etc). Note the rather glaring absence of a muzzle brake on the 20pdr. No ****, Sherlock! However, I think you should brush up on your intermediate ballistics. Not only does the shell clear the end of the barrel, so does the precursor blast shock (gases preceding the projectile down the barrel). These are followed by the blast shock & the projectile - the propellant gases rapidly expand, accelerating to velocities much greater than that of the projectile. Even under ideal circumstances the action of the muzzle gas flow can have an adverse effect on the accuracy of the gun by causing abnormal yawing of the projectile. This whole process is made much more complex by the effect of the muzzle brake & in particular exacerbates the effect of the muzzle gas on the sabotted ammo as it discards. I look forward to seeing the finding from your notes. Conall

See above ad nauseam. Nope that's a rather badly modelled fake muzzel brake. I look forward to seeing them, but I'm not holding my breath. Conall

References: Re the sights: A Guide to A.F.V. Telescopes, A.F.V. publications section, A.F.V. School Bovington, War Office AFVP/MSC/64 March 1945 This covers all the British & US sights in use at that time & includes some obsolete sights as well. The document runs to 64 pages & includes schematics & specifications plus some additional notes. The detail specific to the 17pdr is on pages 26 to 33, the 6pdr sights are covered on pages 12 to 19, & the 77mm on pages 34 to 37. Although all these guns were issued SVDS (APDS) ammunition at various times in 1944-45, none of the sights issued had any graticules for this ammunition. This is in stark contrast to APC, APCBC, HE & MG, all of which have range scales marked on the sights. Regarding the problem of muzzle brakes, see: Military Ballistics, ed. G.M. Moss, D.W. Leeming, & C.L. Farrar, RMCS, Brassey's 1983, ISBN 1 85753 084 5. Specifically see chapter 3 "Intermediate Ballistics" page 64-65 The Bovington Fire & Movement pamphlet, 1975 shows schematics of two types of SABOT - the pot type that had a single SABOT, which discarded as a whole axially & the petal SABOT, which discarded radially into several pieces - the latter as Claus has indicated was the more successful post-war design. For the best explanation of the process see: R.M. Ogorkiewicz, Design & Development of Fighting Vehicles, MacDonald & Co 1968, ISBN 356 01461 4, pp 58 & 60-63. He notes that the problems with APDS ammunition (disturbances arising during separation etc) were principally solved in the late 50's & early 60's by the Britsh & Canadians working at the Canadian Armament Research & Development Establishment, at Valcartier, Quebec. The problem for the British was that in 1944 SVDS (APDS) was an experimental technology, wheras APCBC was a proven type of ammunition. The priority was therefore, for the 17pdr to operate best (most accurately with the most efficient recoil forces) with APCBC ammunition. The muzzle brake was therefore, essential to reduce recoil to an acceptable limit, given the restrictions on how difficult it had been to shoe the 17pdr & it's trunnions into a Sherman turret (see David Fletcher, The Universal Tank, London HMSO 1993, ISBN 0 11 290534 X, pp. 81-85). The imperative need was limiting the recoil forces & the subsequent gun jump, a process which required a muzzle brake. See also WO 291/1263 Firing trials with 17pdr in Sherman I using APC & discarding sabot shot, 1944 & WO 291/324 Accuracy of first round of an anti-tank engagement of a stationary target using APCBC & APSV/DS ammunition, 1946. It's also worth noting that most 6pdr guns, mounted on the Churchill MkIII & MkIV either had no muzzle brake or had the muzzle brake removed once the SVDS (APDS) ammo was available. Likewise the 20pdr had no muzzle brake (see WO 342/1 Tanks Battle Performance & Tactics 1951-53 1953 for a discussion of the relative merits of 20pdr APCBC & APDS ammunition) The muzzle weight issue is a complete red herring - on the Achilles it was mounted primarily to balance the gun, as unlike the Sherman the turret was not sufficiently heavy to do so - there was also a counterweight on the back of the turret. The object which appears on the middle of some 17pdr gun barrels is nothing more than a fake muzzle brake, placed in an attempt to camouflage the long 17pdr barrel & make it appear more like a L/40 75mm barrel. For more on this see http://www.activevr.com/afv/muzzle.html#dragon & http://www.activevr.com/afv/camouflage/shrmic.html & http://www.activevr.com/afv/camouflage/shrvc1.html I look forward to seeing other sources on the subject. The one's I have quoted are by no means exhaustive, but they do represent a reasonable survey of the subject. For more on the Firefly specifically I would suggest David Fletcher: Sherman VC M4A4 Firefly, Militayr Ordnance Special Number 19, Darlington Productions 1997. regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 03-11-2001).]

Simon, I suggest you take a look through the gunsights which were issued to British tanks equipped with the 17pdr during WW2. Whether you look at the: No. 43 x3 L Mk.I (Sherman C only - Firefly) No. 43 x3 ML Mk.I (1st 23 A30 Challengers only) No. 43 x3 ML Mk.3 (A30 Challenger) No. 43 x3 ML Mk.3/1 (Sherman C - Firefly) you will see one common feature. None of these sights have any markings/graticules/range scales for APDS ammunition. Therefore your suggestion that proper calibration of the gunsight would improve APDS accuracy falls a little flat. I think the testing you are refering to concerns APCBC rounds in use with the AT gun & then the tank mounted 17pdr - the problem was one of the sight becoming rapidly misaligned due to the heavy recoil (a problem not unique to the 17pdr). I agree that experience with APDS would help but in my opinion only marginally at best & would vary from the experience of one individual to another (therefore a little hard to teach, standardise & even model for a computer game/simulation). I hope this helps a little - more to follow with references tomorrow(ish). Regards, Conall

I think a lot of people here are missing the point about the supposed slowness of the Panther's turret. The Panther A & G used a variable speed hydraulic turret, so that it could rotate it's turret 360deg in 15 seconds at 3000 rpm & 360deg in 18secs at 2500rpm. Only the Panther D was at a serious disadvantage as it's hydraulic motor only rotated 360deg in 60 secs. Therefore a Panther A or G in the hands of an experienced crew could rotate their turret almost as fast a Sherman (360deg in 12 secs) - not really a significant difference. Of course the disadvantage of such a hydraulic system was that you were f**ked if your engine stalled & it was much more flammable than an electric system. Best regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 01-31-2001).]

What I would be interested to know is how your model deals with the following factors: 1. The manner in which it treats aspects of fluid dynamics (drag etc), principally calculation of mach numbers & the transition from subsonic to transonic region & from there to supersonic & hypersonic (typically above Mach 5, equating very approximately to projectile speeds above 1000m/s). This area may help explain the difficulty you've had with low velocity guns the 75mmL24 for example. 2. Projectile shape (length, weight, ogive, skin etc), especially with regard to the calculation of the drag coefficient & therefore the ballistic coefficient. 3. How does it treat velocity loss, as a constant or otherwise? 4. Spin induced Yaw & aerodynamic lift. 5. External factors, notably crosswinds, air density & temperature. 6. Gun jump & barrel droop. 7. Treatment of subcalibre rounds - APDS etc. Given that you are trying to produce a simplified model from a very complex subject I'd be fascinated to know how you've incorporated these factors, or alternatively felt confident that for your purposes you can safely ignore them. Having read your posts my greatest concern would be with a) the treatment of different shaped rounds (especially sub-calibre) & the impact of external factors. Anyway thanks for all your material, it's been a really interesting way to start the New Year. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Conall

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: GREAT reference!! Is there any chance Charles and Steve can get a copy of this as it may come in handy when attempting to determine some long range optics advantage to for gunnery accuracy to be modeled in the up coming CM2?? That sounds like a VERY detailed and informative articel there! How can Steve and Charles get a copy of it? Or do they have it already? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If they ask me nicely & feel they need them, then I'll happily scan them my copy. regards, Conall [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 01-07-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: (aside: Firefly had 3x/6x interchangeale gun sight, makes sense to easily see and target long range targets) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just to clarify this the Firefly was equipped with the No. 43 Mk3/1 telescope which had a x3 eyepiece or a x6 eyepiece. These were not interchangeable in combat - nor could the higher magnification be selected in the same way as the dual magnification German telescopes (Tzf9d etc). A Guide to A.F.V. Telescopes Author: A.F.V. Publications Section, A.F.V. School, Bovington Camp Date of publication: March 1945 Publisher: War Office, A.F.V. Publications Section Page number(s): 6 On the subject of the Firefly's HE shell here is a little more information: The 17pdr fired two types of HE shells- the HE Mk 1 T shell (HE-T), weight 34.2 pounds (complete round), 15.4 pounds (projectile). During 1944 a reduced charge round (1,800 fps MV instead of 2,950 fps) was produced which allowed thinner walls for the shell & therefore a higher HE filler. See War Office Document 291/1268 for details of ranging, dispersion & bracketing procedure for 17pdr gun with HE ammo mks IT & IIT reduced charge, date 1944. Also see Hunnicut's "Sherman" p.565 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For those who are interested in ballistics, William Jurens wrote a paper entitled EXTERIOR BALLISTICS WITH BALLISTICS that is the single best work on the subject, in our opinion. Has drag coefficients, equations and a computer program in BASIC that computes elevation, angle, etc. for shots and prints out results every 50m or so. The paper ran in a naval magazine, and an internet search on Mr. Jurens' name might identify a current source (we haven't had time to do this). The paper covers naval rounds and it is easy to apply findings to WW II anti-tank stuff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You need to order a backcopy of Warship International produced by the International Naval Research Organization www.primenet.com/~inro I have a feeling that the article on Exterior Ballistics with Microcomputers is in Issue No 1 1984 & is still available. Hope that helps Best regards, Conall

This is a slightly gratuitous bump, mainly because I though this thread was relevant to Rexford's recent musings. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: But how much more difficult when all things are considdered? I mean, a sniper's scope on a Springfield or Kar98k has a much more limited field of vision than tank scopes, right? Yet they can hit smaller targets at great distances (1000m with a rifle is probably like 2000-3000m with a tank gun) with one shot in the hands of a very skilled gunner. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-22-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anyway Steve back to your point - I meant to respond to this but forgot. You're endulging in a wicked bit of sophistry here I'm sure you know perfectly well that most snipers/competative marksmen use binos first to identify the location of the target. In addition most snipers work in teams of two, so that one scans with low power, wide FOV binos & having spotted a target his partner shoots, using a rifle equipped with a high power narrow FOV scope - actually not a bad analogy for the relationship between a tank commander & the gunner. Hope you had a good Christmas & all my best wishes to the CM team for the New Year. Best regards, Conall

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger: Conall?!? Are you, by any chance, the Conall from the PE board with the distinguished service career in the famous "Fallschirmpanzer" online regiment? If so, do you still remember Lt. Schuggerbaby ( me ) who rather foolishly tried to stop a german tank offensive with his Greyhound ? Anyway, a very warm welcome to the board. Markus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Schuggerbaby good to hear from you - it's been a while. Yup certainly remember the Greyhound incident - did the same last night tying to take on a pair of Panthers with a bog standard M4 - messy very messy (did bag two Panthers though). regards, Conall

Just to add the British dimension to the topic, from the same discussion on AFV News. The Comet saw as much action as the Pershing. 11th Armoured Division was re-equipped with the Comet in December 1944 (equates to 226 tanks). Most of the action they saw was after March 1945, where they appeared to have performed well despite a propensity for bogging (mainly due to too much power being transmitted through the tracks - 18.1 Hp/t & 13.8psi - compared to the Sherman M4A3E8 12.1 Hp/t & 11.0psi). The Comet saw action against most types of German MBT - see W. Schneider Tigers in Combat II pp. 403 - 408, also Major Bill Close MC A View from the Turret pp. 158 - 160. Most casualties appear to have been from Panzerfausts. The incident in Schnieder's "Tigers in Combat II" mentions two Comets being KO'd by a Tiger from Gruppe Fehrmann on the 12th April 1945 & that Tiger in return being Ko'd by a Comet on the 13th April 1945. Another Tiger from Panzerdivision Clauswitz KO'd two tanks from 3RTR (part of 11th Armoured Div) on the 1st May 1945 & was then KO'd in return - the British tanks were almost certainly Comets. A source for Comet crew casualty data was a Medical Research Council Team Report quoted in ORS Report No. 33 "The Use of Panzerfaust In the N.W. European Campaign." The timeline of the study was "namely the armoured attacks after crossing the Rhine." The study counted penetrations without stating if any of the cases were of multiple penetrations. The number of penetrations was: Comet 14 HC, 12 AP From this you can extrapolate that from this report a maximum of 26 Comets were KO'd between March & May - a figure around 20 is more plausible if you count multiple penetrations. Assuming the sample didn't include every Comet KO'd then a figure between 20 & 40 seems likely. Vague but that's the best I can do. The following quote from the Regimental History of the 23rd Hussars (11th Armoured Div) indicates why the Comet was well liked by it's crews: "We were very glad to be in our Comets for their armour proved far tougher than that of a Sherman, which was not always penetrated by a bazooka but usually caught fire as well. The Comets were much safer. very frequently the bazooka did not go throughthe armour at all, particularly if it hit the track plates which we had hung on the turret. But sometimes it did go through, and caused casualties. It was a weapon which had to be taken very seriously." pp. 207-208 Hope this helps. Best regards, Conall

I thought the following might clarify the issue re: British armour organisation. British units were organised in the following manner: Armoured Regiments (equipped with Shermans) were organised into 3 Sabre Squadrons & an HQ Squadron (4 tanks plus Halftrack & two scout cars, 8 AA tanks, Communication troop 6 Daimler scout cars, Recce Troop 11 Stuarts M3/M5 & 1 Daimler scout car). The Sabre Squadron consisted of 4 Troops plus an HQ Troop (3 tanks) Each Troop consisted of 4 tanks 3 Sherman III/V's 1 Sherman Vc Firefly The Troop commander used a Sherman III/V, with the Sherman Vc Firefly being commanded by his Troop Sergeant. Armoured Regiments (equipped with Cromwells - only 7th Armoured Div) were organised into 3 Sabre Squadrons & an HQ Squadron (4 tanks plus Halftrack & two scout cars, 8 AA tanks, Communication troop 6 Daimler scout cars, Recce Troop 11 Stuarts M3/M5 & 1 Daimler scout car). The Sabre Squadron consisted of 4 troops plus an HQ Troop (3 tanks, of which one was a Cromwell VI CS) Each Troop consisted of 4 tanks 3 Cromwell IV/VII's (every other Troop replaced one Cromwell IV/VII with a Cromwell VI CS) 1 Sherman Vc Firefly The Troop commander used a Cromwell IV/VII or a Cromwell VI CS, with the Sherman Vc Firefly being commanded by his Troop Sergeant. Armoured Recce Regiments (equipped with Cromwells) were organised into 3 Sabre Squadrons & an HQ Squadron. (4 tanks plus Halftrack & two scout cars, 8 AA tanks, Communication troop 6 Daimler scout cars, Recce Troop 11 Stuarts M3/M5 & 1 Daimler scout car). The Sabre Squadron consisted of 5 Troops plus an HQ Troop (3 tanks, of which one was a Cromwell VI CS) Each Troop consisted of 3 tanks until August 1944 3 Cromwell IV/VII's (every other Troop replaced one Cromwell IV/VII with a Cromwell VI CS) The Troop commander used a Cromwell IV/VII or a Cromwell VI CS. After August 1944 1 A30 Challenger was added to each Troop, which were then re-organised along the same model 7th Armoured Division except that the Challenger substituted the Firefly. As before the Troop Sergeant commanded the Challenger, with the Troop Commander in either a Cromwell IV/VII or Cromwell VI CS. Each Sabre Squadron then had 4 Troops of 4 tanks each, instead of 5 Troops of 3 tanks. Tank Battalion (Army Tank Brigade, equipped with Churchills) were organised into 3 Sabre Squadrons & an HQ Squadron. (4 tanks plus 3 Churchill Bridge-layers, Communication troop 6 Daimler scout cars). The Sabre Squadron consisted of 5 Troops plus an HQ Troop (3 tanks, of which one was a Churchill Mk V/VIII CS) Each Troop consisted of 3 tanks 3 Churchill Mk IV/VI/VII (every other Troop replaced one Churchill Mk IV/VI/VII with a Churchill Mk V/VIII CS) The Troop commander used a Churchill Mk IV/VI/VII or a Churchill Mk V/VIII CS. This structure was later changed (possibly August 20th 1944 - see Patrick Forbes "6th Guards Tank Brigade" p.237), into one of 4 Troops of 3 tanks each plus an enlarged Squadron HQ of 4 tanks plus an OP tank. Armoured Regiments in Independent Armoured Brigades were equipped with Shermans (or DD Shermans) in the same manner as Armoured Regiments in Armoured Divisions. SP AT guns operated in Batteries of 12 Achilles IIC/Wolverine, with 4 Achilles IIC/Wolverine in each troop (only issued to Armoured Division). I strongly recommend "The British Soldier, From D-Day to VE-Day" by Jean Bouchery ISBN 2 908 182 742 Histoire & Collections 1998 or "British Army Handbook 1939-1945" by George Forty ISBN 0 7509 1403 3 Sutton Publishing 1998 Someone asked about the 17pdr (Firefly, Challenger etc) & the 77mm (Comet). Both guns were in fact 76.2mm, the 77mm was so called simply to avoid confusion with other 76mm guns. The 77mm was a Vickers 50 calibre 75mm bored out to take 17pdr ammo. However, the standard 17pdr ammo was too big, so it used 3in 20cwt AA cases with a 'hot' propellant charge. According to I.V.Hogg "it was virtually a detuned 17pdr" p 41 Allied Armour of WWII, Crowood Press 2000, ISBN 1-86126-325-2 Despite the reduced penetration, it was a well liked gun with better accuracy than the standard 17pdr and was much easier to observe fall of shot due to the reduced muzzle flash. Best regards, Conall

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: Yeah, Comets are better than just about any medium tank the allies fielded. Also, one major vehicle omission from the game is the Centurion, as many of which saw action as Pershings or arguable Jagdtigers. WWB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know this is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel but the Centurion never saw action in WWII. 5-6 prototypes were rushed to front but only got there in May '45 after hostilities had ceased. There are on the other hand numerous examples of Pershings & Jagdtigers seeing action. Perhaps you're confusing Comets with Centurions (Comet was introduced in Dec '44 & only saw any real action after March '45). On the subject of US & British troops fighting together another couple of examples would be the Lafeyette force in the battle of Kasserine (British armoured BG which helped cover the US retreat - fought until its virtual annihilation) & also 6th Guards Armoured Brigade (equipped with Churchills)teaming up with the US paratroopers of the 17th Airborne Division in March '45. Infantry combinations below the Battalion level don't seemed to have happened not least to conflicting ammo requirements & different SOP's. regards, Conall

<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

At least the Aberdeen people that received the tanks T-34 and KV-1 were extremely impressed with the optics. The Soviet delegation reported that the optics design was called unsurpassed by any tanks existing or in development in US. (courtesy of Vasiliy Fofanov) http://history.vif2.ru/library/army7.html As a caveat remember that the US optics (M38 & M40) were of an appalling quality at the time. Also see the following link for a brief comment on later Soviet sights: http://history.vif2.ru/library/reports19.html "In practice the 9T-17 telescopic sight was found uncomfortable for shooting and observation because it does not permit 360 traverse through turret roof and could not be used because of difficulties related to his adjustment and fast displacement of aimed lines." Finally here's some material that Robert Livingston very kindly dug up: "Purchase of the old Zeiss plant from the Germans (Zeiss used the money to re-tool with modern equipment) helped put the Red Army in a relatively good position as regards optical equipment. . . this optical equipment generally was of high grade." (Garrett Underhill, The Story of Soviet Armor, Armored Cavalry Journal/ARMOR magazine, 1950). Please note that Underhill had access to the Aberdeen reports on the KV and T34 sent over from Russia during the war, and his judgement of "high grade" probably reflects what the report said. KV 1: Periscopic dial sight PT-47: 2.5x, AP, HE & MG range scales. Rotatable head. Coaxial telescope TMFD: HE, MG range scales only; NO AP scale. (Norman, AFV Profile 17, based on inspection of another sample KV 1 '42 given to England during the war). Driver's view slit: "protected by layers of laminated glass block that were often contaminated by air bubbles and difficult to see through." (Zaloga and Grandsen, Soviet Heavy Tanks, Osprey Vanguard 24, 1981) PT-4-7 periscope: illuminated ballistic reticle, 360deg traverse, 2.5x, 26deg field, stadiametric range finding lines. "Adjustments provided for one HE and two AP rounds." (Zaloga, 1981) "The telescopic sight [TMFD] was usually used when firing the main gun since it had better light transmission while the PT-4-7 was used for general target acquisition and observation since it could be traversed and had a wider field of view." (Zaloga & Kinnear, KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks, New Vanguard 17, 1995). No mention of missing AP scale in TMFD, as referenced by Norman, above. T-34/76: "[Driver's] vision was poor when closed down, partly because of poor quality optical glass." (Brereton, Russian T-34, AFV Weapons Profile 47, 1972) Coaxial telescope TMFD, periscopic PT-4-7. As KV 1. T-34/85: Coaxial telescope TSh-16, periscopic sight: none. Simple observation periscope (MK-4) only. (Zaloga & Kinnear, T-34-85, New Vanguard 20, 1996) "Later versions [of the T-34/85 coaxial sight] incorporated a heater for the object glass to forestall frosting and condensation." Norman, T-34/85, AFV Weapons Profile 47, 1972) Hope you find this interesting. Bottom line is that the idea that Soviet optics were uniformly bad shouldn't be accepted as face value & a lot more research needs to be done. regards, Conall

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: Conall. Does PE better simulate optics than CM ? cause my friend whos tried both says theres nothing that comes close to PE!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is difficult - first I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm in no way making any comparisons between PE & CM, they are like apples & oranges. PE gives German optics a clear advantage over the Allies. This is achieved very simply by giving all German tanks a zoom function (this is ahistorical, see earlier posts). This translates into allowing the German player to see further (from 800m to perhaps 1000m). In addition this zoom incurs no reduction in FOV, which is a major benefit. The triangular moving graticlues in the German sights are modelled very well & really help with the estimation of range. The best method of estimating range with the Allied sights is to use your coax & watch where the tracers fall. IMHO PE is an excellent game & really good fun to play. I'd hestitate from calling it a simulation though for a number of reasons including those given above. It's biggest failing in my opinion is the absence of a true ballistics model - muzzle velocities have been tweaked & crucially there is no shell flight time (i.e you hit the target the instant you fire). This makes hitting moving targets much easier than it would historically been as there is no requirement for lead. Therefore fire & movement tactics are not easy to implement & there is little advantage to be had from having a faster tank. I would however, recommend it as the best 3D 1st person WW2 tank game around at the moment as it's a real blast to play both in SP & MP (when it works). I certainly wouldn't use it as a benchmark against which to compare how CM models optics, spotting & accuracy. Best regards, Conall

Please ignore double post [This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-22-2000).]

I think some of the posts here are missing the point about the difference in quality between German & Allied optics. The main advantage the Germans had was that their optics could achieve similar levels of magnification (x2.5) to those of the Allies with much wider fields of view (typically 25 degrees in comparison to between 9 & 12 degrees for the Allied sights) & with better optical clarity. This had two important repercussions: a) it allowed the German gunners to search for & acquire targets & the wider field of view/clarity made the estimation of range much easier. In order to estimate range you need as many points of reference as possible – it becomes exponentially harder to judge distance as your field of view is diminished. As an example I’ve asked Jeff to post a picture of the view through a British 17pdr sight . Best regards, Conall

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have some sympathy here with BTS mainly because I can't see how you incorporate anecdotal evidence into a spotting/accuracy model (algorithm). By the nature of anecdotal reports they tend to highlight notable incidents, which may statistically be outliers & not representative of the norm. Where I agree with you much more is that you shouldn't glibbly dismiss such reports out of hand. They represent useful controls - albeit an incident may be exceptional but it did happen & the model should therefore be able to cope with that. Incidentally I also second John's thoughts on spotting. When I was in the Army we used to practice spotting vehicles & using our MILAN ATGW sights by setting up a position approx 2000m from a road. We would then spot vehicles with the naked eyeball, identify them & estimate the range using binos. Finally we would use the MILAN simulator to practice firing a missile at a moving target. If you look at the FOV figures that I posted earlier you can see that a Tiger platoon could easily cover a frontage of approx 2000m, with overlapping arcs of fire. This would allow each Tiger gunner to scan his sector at 2.5x mag with minimal movement of the scope. This would optimise his chance of spotting movement or any other indication of enemy vehicles (shine,regular spacing etc). Best regards, 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).]