Worrying tank spotting results

[noob]

I have just ran a test with a M4A1 Sherman (late) versus a Pz IV H (late) to see who spotted who first.

I ran 100 tests with both tanks facing each other at 2000m using the parameters shown below:

I noted which tank got a first contact of any sort, either a question mark icon or a tank icon, the results were as follows:

The M4A1 Sherman spotted the enemy tank first 49 times out of 100.

The Pz IV H spotted the enemy tank first 51 times out of 100.

These initial results do not seem to back up the fact that the Pz IV had better optics, any thoughts ?

p.s. i will run more tests at different ranges as soon as possible.

[stikkypixie]

Well first of all, they are both unbuttoned so they are not using the better optics.

[Edit] Removed wrong stuff, thanks Phil

[Guest]

Optics are fully modeled in the game. "Better" optics will be "better". Optics don't represent the entire spotting equation, though.

[noob]

Well first of all, they are both unbuttoned so they are not using the better optics.

I don't believe the "better" optics are included in the game. The reasoning behind it is that if you put in the advantage for German tanks you have also have to put in disadvantages to not overdo things. And that is if you accept that the better quality lenses made a *significant* difference in spotting at these distances.

For example in CMBB German tanks had better optics but only crews with a certain experience level can benefit from the better equipment but green crews actually received a penalty.

Ok, an interesting explanation, i intend to do more tests with Vet Axis crews versus a Reg Allied crews so it will be interesting to see the difference, and i will button them

[stikkypixie]

Ok, an interesting explanation, i intend to do more tests with Vet Axis crews versus a Reg Allied crews so it will be interesting to see the difference, and i will button them

Check out Phil's post, because it seems I'm wrong. Try to button them up though, maybe that will make *some* difference.

[Thomm]

Well first of all, they are both unbuttoned so they are not using the better optics.

Isn't it the gunner who is using the optics?

Best regards,

Thomm

[stikkypixie]

Isn't it the gunner who is using the optics?

Best regards,

Thomm

Doesn't the commander have a periscope as well? Anyway, Phil cleared things up.

[wokelly]

Well both commanders are unbuttoned so I don't see a problem with the results really.

Secondly in terms of "better" optics, the German optics are noted for having better clarity and field of view, but in terms of magnification they are little different (2.4x for the German Mark IV and 3x for the Sherman). The German optics are easier to use to acquire targets, but are not necessarily better at spotting targets, especially at 2000 yards where a tank will look mightly small indeed to any optic with power less than 5x or 6x.

German tanks with strong magnified optics were the StuG (6x), Tiger and Panther (2.4x and 5x). Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger had strong optics as well, I think in terms of the latter it had 12x optics!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Secondly in terms of "better" optics, the German optics are noted for having better clarity and field of view, but in terms of magnification they are little different (2.4x for the German Mark IV and 3x for the Sherman). The German optics are easier to use to acquire targets, but are not necessarily better at spotting targets, especially at 2000 yards where a tank will look mightly small indeed to any optic with power less than 5x or 6x.

The sources I have seen say:

Sherman M70 F telescopic sight:

* 1.8 magnification

* 12° FOV

Pz IV TZF 5f telescopic sight:

* 2.5 magnification

* 25° FOV

I disagree that there should be no difference in spotting due to optics. In addition to higher magnification and wider field of view the German lenses were Argon treated to make them more clear at the same magnification compared to those in Allied tanks.

It will be interesting to see if there is any difference when they are buttoned.

[BadgerDog]

..... The German optics are easier to use to acquire targets, but are not necessarily better at spotting targets, especially at 2000 yards where a tank will look mightly small indeed to any optic with power less than 5x or 6x.

Amen ..

At 2,000 yards sitting in the gunner's seat looking through that narrow tube, it's nothing but a dot on top of a speck of dirt, so you need at least 3 rounds to get "on target", unless you are very lucky in your manual range estimation, or your CC (Crew Commander) was, whomever made the initial target call.

Here's some 45+ year old pics from my very first day on the tank ranges as a fresh young Crew Commander. Two of my first few engagements (different tanks) at 1,500 to 2,800 yards were captured in the color pics below. What the second one didn't show was the result of the 76mm back blast spinning me around in the turret, blowing my beret off my head and over the back deck, plus burning (singe effect) my eyebrows and hair bad enough that it crumbled to the touch. Of course, I straightened myself up and tried to look "very cool" to all of my buddies watching.

Regards,

Doug

[stikkypixie]

The sources I have seen say:

Sherman M70 F telescopic sight:

* 1.8 magnification

* 12° FOV

Pz IV TZF 5f telescopic sight:

* 2.5 magnification

* 25° FOV

I disagree that there should be no difference in spotting due to optics. In addition to higher magnification and wider field of view the German lenses were Argon treated to make them more clear at the same magnification compared to those in Allied tanks.

It will be interesting to see if there is any difference when they are buttoned.

Do WW2 tanks have special systems to keep out dust? My gut feeling says that any fabrication advantage would be probably be negated by dust and grime. Or is the effect of the Argon gas that significant it can overcome this?

[YankeeDog]

Bear in mind that this test is currently only looking at *spotting*, and only to the initial "hey there's an enemy tank over there!" moment, not at the length of time it takes the gunner to acquire the target in the gunsight, rangefinding, length of time/number of shots to first hit, etc.

My completely layperson's understanding is that, with an unbuttoned WWII tank, the TC scanning with binoculars from the hatch is far more likely to make the first sighting than the gunner looking through the gunsight, which may explain why these results are a dead heat.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, changes there are when the tanks are buttoned.

I would also note that it would actually be better to run the test in two separate courses, with the same "spotting target" for all cases. For example, first see how long it takes a Sherman to spot a Sherman.. Then replace one of the Shermans with a PzIV, and see how long it takes the PzIV to spot exactly the same Sherman from exactly the same position.

May seem like a minor difference, but rigor is what generates useful results, and there could be other factors, like size of the tanks, view height of the crew member(s) etc. coming in to play here.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Do WW2 tanks have special systems to keep out dust? My gut feeling says that any fabrication advantage would be probably be negated by dust and grime. Or is the effect of the Argon gas that significant it can overcome this?

Badgerdog would be the person to ask. But the few personal accounts I have read indicate there was a significant difference.

*

There was always a lot of talk about the effectiveness of the German tank guns against us. It is true that they had to stop to fire, but they started firing from 1,200 to 1,500 yards (1,096 to 1,371 meters). Their first shot was always a hit. We, on the other hand, had to get within 500 to 600 yards (457 to 548 meters) to be within effective firing distance, and even our best gunners needed at least two shots before they could score a hit.

Our CO (commanding officer), Captain Jimmy Leach, sent the platoon sergeant down to my tank during one of the lulls between German artillery barrages, and he hollered up, 'Hey Sator, you speak German?' 'Yeah, why?' I answered. 'The radio in that abandoned German tank (Pz.Kpfw.IV) back there is alive. Captain wants you to listen and see what they are talking about'. So, I went with him. Sure enough, when we got there, you could hear the radio squawking. I climbed in and put the gunner's earphones on. It was difficult to hear, and because the guy was talking in a strange dialect, I could understand only a few words here and there. Then I saw the gun-sight and I figured I might as well look through it while I was there, and as soon as I did, almost immediately, the realization came to me why the German tank gunners were so accurate. 'Shyte, I wanna go home' is the only thing I could think of at the moment. Their sights were so far superior to ours that we didn't stand a chance."

-- Tom Sator, US 4th Armored Division

[aka_tom_w]

Badgerdog would be the person to ask. But the few personal accounts I have read indicate there was a significant difference.

*

There was always a lot of talk about the effectiveness of the German tank guns against us. It is true that they had to stop to fire, but they started firing from 1,200 to 1,500 yards (1,096 to 1,371 meters). Their first shot was always a hit. We, on the other hand, had to get within 500 to 600 yards (457 to 548 meters) to be within effective firing distance, and even our best gunners needed at least two shots before they could score a hit.

Our CO (commanding officer), Captain Jimmy Leach, sent the platoon sergeant down to my tank during one of the lulls between German artillery barrages, and he hollered up, 'Hey Sator, you speak German?' 'Yeah, why?' I answered. 'The radio in that abandoned German tank (Pz.Kpfw.IV) back there is alive. Captain wants you to listen and see what they are talking about'. So, I went with him. Sure enough, when we got there, you could hear the radio squawking. I climbed in and put the gunner's earphones on. It was difficult to hear, and because the guy was talking in a strange dialect, I could understand only a few words here and there. Then I saw the gun-sight and I figured I might as well look through it while I was there, and as soon as I did, almost immediately, the realization came to me why the German tank gunners were so accurate. 'Shyte, I wanna go home' is the only thing I could think of at the moment. Their sights were so far superior to ours that we didn't stand a chance."

-- Tom Sator, US 4th Armored Division

EXCELLENT Quote.

[stikkypixie]

Reading all these accounts you'd think the Germans were 20 years ahead in terms of technology. It reads a lot like hyperbole, but then again I am no expert in what technology was like in the 1940's.

[sburke]

Reading all these accounts you'd think the Germans were 20 years ahead in terms of technology. It reads a lot like hyperbole, but then again I am no expert in what technology was like in the 1940's.

Especially coming from the 4th Armored Division which absolutely trashed German armor in Lorraine.

[aka_tom_w]

Don't get me started on German Zeiss optics.

I would just like to say one thing, in Toronto Canada when I went to get a root canal done on my sore tooth, the dentist looked through a large mobile dental microscope device, and on the side of it is boldly stated "Zeiss Optics" and when I mentioned the Zeiss name to the dentist he said they were they absolute best optics for dental root canals and he would have no other kinds of optics in his practice.

http://www.meditec.zeiss.com/C1256CAC0038CEFF/ContainerTitel/Dental/$File/optics.html

Of course everyone knows the WW II German tank optics were made by Zeiss (right?)

[Vanir Ausf B]

Reading all these accounts you'd think the Germans were 20 years ahead in terms of technology. It reads a lot like hyperbole, but then again I am no expert in what technology was like in the 1940's.

You always have to take first-hand accounts with a grain of salt. But his observation seems to match others I have read.

...

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

-- Brigadier General J. H. Collier, 2nd US Armored Division

The matter of tank gun sights has caused us much concern. I have looked through and worked with sights in German Mk V and VI tanks as well as our own. I find that the German sight has more magnifying power and clearness than our own, which is a big advantage to a gunner.

-- Lt. Col. Wilson M. Hawkins, 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment

[BadgerDog]

My completely layperson's understanding is that, with an unbuttoned WWII tank, the TC scanning with binoculars from the hatch is far more likely to make the first sighting than the gunner looking through the gunsight, which may explain why these results are a dead heat.

Absolutely correct... no contest... in an M4 the bino based CC made the best spotter ...

Regards,

Doug

[Guest]

So it sounds like tests with buttoned tanks might be more indicative?

[stikkypixie]

You always have to take first-hand accounts with a grain of salt. But his observation seems to match others I have read.

...

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

-- Brigadier General J. H. Collier, 2nd US Armored Division

The matter of tank gun sights has caused us much concern. I have looked through and worked with sights in German Mk V and VI tanks as well as our own. I find that the German sight has more magnifying power and clearness than our own, which is a big advantage to a gunner.

-- Lt. Col. Wilson M. Hawkins, 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment

Greater magnification makes more sense than some industrial process that gives better results. I'm a bit sceptic in the sense that it's being portrayed as Abrams tanks optical systems vs Soviet era Iraqi tank optics. Realistically you wouldn't expect a "better performance" of more than say 5% for the same magnification no?

[noob]

It will be interesting to see what, if any, changes there are when the tanks are buttoned.

I will test for that next with the same set up but buttoned.

I would also note that it would actually be better to run the test in two separate courses, with the same "spotting target" for all cases. For example, first see how long it takes a Sherman to spot a Sherman.. Then replace one of the Shermans with a PzIV, and see how long it takes the PzIV to spot exactly the same Sherman from exactly the same position.

I have reservations with that method as i'm assuming every time i generate a test the values of each crew member changes within the parameters of their quality, so a Regular crew's CO on test 1 will change slightly for test 2, so a Sherman on Sherman test will only show up the slight differences between similar crews, whereas the Sherman v Pz IV tests the spotters quality and the optics they use so you get a more accurate idea of what might happen in a CM battle.

Whatever the results are in relation to the realities of combat, the one thing that will be known is a rough benchmark to gauge how the units could perform in a CM game at those ranges, and the very least one could hope for is that your tank will be the first to spot the enemy, after that it's dice rolling

[BadgerDog]

So it sounds like tests with buttoned tanks might be more indicative?

Yes... At ranges like 2,000 yards, it's almost impossible to see much with of anything through the narrow tube affectionately called a "sighting telescope", with a lot of markings and gradients (mils for lateral corrections) getting in the way of seeing. Also, the glass itself is not like looking through a modern 35mm camera lense that's bright and clear, or a modern rifle sniper scope.

The glass was milky in spots and to be honest, not that great a quality, plus it had imperfections you could see in the glass itself. We used to swap the sighting telescopes around between tanks like musical chairs, hoping we personally wouldn't end up with the "crappy" one.

For the gunner to get a spot before the LO (loader operator) or CC with bonos did, the bad guy would have to drive into your field of view, with the motion being what triggered you to spot him, as opposed to using "shape, shadow, surface and silhouette" to see him.

The CC always called targets after spotting them, at least in my experience back in the 50's and early 60's..

I'd love to see these exact tests repeated with hatches closed and also a set with the CC out of action (dead or whatever), so the gunner was on his own.

Regards,

Doug

[Vanir Ausf B]

Greater magnification makes more sense than some industrial process that gives better results. I'm a bit sceptic in the sense that it's being portrayed as Abrams tanks optical systems vs Soviet era Iraqi tank optics. Realistically you wouldn't expect a "better performance" of more than say 5% for the same magnification no?

This was written a few years back by a guy who used to post here years ago. I don't know where he got his numbers from, but he is very knowledgeable on the subject:

***

Up until the late 1930s the standard way to make lenses employed a series of concave and convex mirrors usually two back to back pairs.Each lens lost ~ 10% clarity with the limit being around 40% reduction before clarity became seriously impinged. Also the more lenses the more restricted the field of view. In 1938 the Ziess company pioneered a technique for introducing Argon gass coating over the lenses that cut this per less loss to about 3-4%. What that meant was that german sighting systems with 4 lenses were as clear as western sights with 1-2 lenses. You can see it in the comparison between maginfication and field of view. For the same magnification they achieved twice the field of view...thus making it much easier to detect and acquire the targets in the first place.

No other country did this until after the war. The germans shared this technology with the Japanese who turned around after the war to make such bloody good camaras

-- Paul Lakowski

[dieseltaylor]

Spotting by naked eye was actually the preferred method and the Tiger manual states that the driver and the commander both estimate a distance and the middle figure is provided to the gunner. A gunner might have a monocular sight which is not ideal.

German binoculars 10*50's were superior to the 7*50 issued to the US Armour according to a report by Sgt. G A Barden, 2nd Armored, who claims he was able on two occasions to pick out an ATg, and a mortar position at a mile using German Binos which he could not see using the US bino's.

Testing a Tiger 1 88mm in UK trials showed at 1200 yards [1100metres] a 5 shot grouping of 16" by 18" so we can take it that the gunnery sights were pretty darn good.