Hey Jeff Duquette!

[Jasper]

Nice to see a friendly face! Where you always here? or did you wander in here after CC died. sniff!

Me I'm wandering. I have a few questions about CM - in my next post.

[Kingfish]

Every Question known to man about CM can be answered here:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/search.cgi?action=intro&default=1

Enjoy!

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

Frag Hanoi Jane

[Jeff Duquette]

Hello Jasper:

Naw I've been posting here for a couple months. I wish they would get CSSI back up. I kinda miss the place.

[RMC]

Hey JD,

Since the other haunt has been boarded up at the moment.....

I think I found a photo of a TC actually having a rangefinder on his cupola. I'm not 100% certain but it is in the osprey Panzerkampfwagen IV 1936-1945 book. I will try to scan and post it soon. It doesn't really make a case but it should be interesting to show you.

[Jeff Duquette]

Sounds good RC. I found another possible coincidence range finder sittin on a MKIV copula...its hard to tell for sure. I'll post here after I get home from the gulag.

[Jeff Duquette]

The fellow in the track looks like he may have a scissors scope.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

The fellow in the track looks like he may have a scissors scope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's a putter.

[Jeff Duquette]

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

No, that's a putter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hadn’t really thought about it before…but it does appear that panzergrenadiers regularly took their golf clubs into combat. The Hano-mag is simply stuck in a giant sand trap. And the guys with grenades…well they’re caddies.

RC

On the front of the copula…perhaps an Em.R.1m. Looks like maybe the case for the thing on the backside of the copula. Or is this something else? A driver perhaps

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 12-20-2000).]

[RMC]

Damnit, JD, that was the picture I was going to post. Yeah, I was thinking that had to be a rangefinder, perhaps the EM70. I think the tube on the storage bin is probably the carrying case too.

I was wondering earlier about why I have never noticed any pictures of tanks with rangefinders before this one. The obvious answer is the lack of usage, but I must have looked at my Pz IV book a hundred times and never noticed that picture until the optics debate flared up.

Ok, so let's start two crusades each based on a single photo. One, on the panther using the TSR1 to find targets while completely defilade and the other to give Pz IV F2's better 1st round hit ability at longer ranges due to the range finder.

[Guest Madmatt]

maybe he is just *really* excited about being a Tank Commander...

Madmatt

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was wondering earlier about why I have never noticed any pictures of tanks with rangefinders before this one. The obvious answer is the lack of usage, but I must have looked at my Pz IV book a hundred times and never noticed that picture until the optics debate flared up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A hell of a lot more photos of TC's in the cupola using binoculars.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ok, so let's start two crusades each based on a single photo. One, on the panther using the TSR1 to find targets while completely defilade and the other to give Pz IV F2's better 1st round hit ability at longer ranges due to the range finder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure Steve would love that…especially Line Of Sight from completely defilade Panthers. One photo is certainly proof enough for me J

I think in addition to these two crusades…how bout slower German main gun ROF cause loaders had to work from the right side of the turret. Perhaps an optional left handed loader rule.

T34/85…no turret basket. That's got to be a pain in the arse. Gunner is suspended from the gun carriage???…The loaders got to continuously shift about whenever you traverse?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>maybe he is just *really* excited about being a Tank Commander.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Them fellows were on a strict diet of saltpeter…no potential for extending your "optics" in that situation.

[Jeff Duquette]

RC:

Some additional contemporary poop I dug up on the TSR1. The Brits have the best research info

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>INVESTIGATIONS IN GERMANY BY TANK ARMAMENT RESEARCH, MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

SECTION E

METHODS OF IMPROVING OBSERVATION OF FALL OF SHOT

NOTE: this section covers methods or reducing flash, smoke and dust which are produced when a gun is fired. It is desirable to reduce these factors both in order to improve the tank gunner's observation of fall of shot and also to avoid giving away the position to the enemy….

Krupp, Essen (personnel evacuated to Kettwig)

Dr. Muller said that the Waffenkommission attached considerable importance to the search for methods of reducing flash, smoke and dust. Early in the war, German tank ammunition was flashing, but there was a swing over to flashless ammunition produced by introducing potassium sulphate into the propellant. At first a fairly satisfactory combination was obtained, though flashlessness was thus achieved at the expense of some smoke. Towards the end of the war, propellants deteriorated badly in quality and smoke became excessive. At this stage, users said they would prefer flashing to flashless ammunition. No advantage was gained by using electric primers.

Contrary to certain reports, no change over from flashing to smoking ammunition was made for tanks in poor and fading light.

Experiments were done to determine the optimum port size for muzzle-brakes, and it was considered that those for the Pak 7.5 cm. were about right.

{ NOTE: T.A.R. experiments have shown that when the Pak 7.5 cm. muzzle-brake is attached to the 17-pr. gun in Challenger, the amount of forward dust raised is slightly less than with the British service muzzle-brake.}

Rheinmetall-Borsig, Dusseldorf

Propellants deteriorated as the war progressed and smoke was becoming a real nuisance. Tanks were therefore just being provided with long periscopes 1½ metres, which were stated to be quite satisfactory (but compare with statement by General Guderian - see below).

All tank guns were fitted with muzzle brakes, but the recoil systems were designed to stand recoil in the absence of muzzle-brakes. The effect of blast on the tank crew was always a factor considered in designing muzzle-brakes. The effect of muzzle-brakes on flash, dust and smoke was not considered. (This is at variance with statement by Krupp personnel).

Flash was considered less important as an obscuring element than smoke, even at dusk, because of its momentary duration. In any case the commander could use his long periscope. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>INVESTIGATIONS IN GERMANY BY TANK ARMAMENT RESEARCH, MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

SECTION A

POLICY REGARDING THE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT OF TANKS AND SP GUNS

Interrogation of General Guderian

General

Sighting Equipment and Methods of Fire Control

With the advent of the Tiger and Panther, sighting equipment for the gunner and observation equipment for the commander were improved.

The all-round vision cupola was considered essential for the commander, both to detect targets and to see his own units. The commander was provided with binoculars which were used hand-held outside the cupola. Range was estimated visually and communicated to the gunner over the 'inter-com'. In the case of indistinct targets, the commander got the gunner on from a conspicuous point near the target. This method was considered satisfactory, the basis of success being adequate training and continual close contact between the crew. It was admitted that towards the end of the war when training became inadequate the method became less successful, but Guderian knew of no developments to overcome this difficulty. Corrections for fall of shot were given in distance for range and in terms of deflection marks in commander's binoculars and gunner's sight for line (line first, range second).

The gunner’s sight had improved in the T.Z.F. series up to T.Z.F. 12 (a) which provided dual magnification. A swing from straight-through telescopes to periscopic telescopes was, however, necessitated by the increasing thickness of the frontal armour, and a periscopic sight had been developed and was going into production at the end of the war.

Guderian had no technical knowledge as to desirable optical constants for the gunner's sight. Advice on these points was given by Wa Pruf 6 and 8. Officers were continually being withdrawn from the front for questioning on such points, and for inclusion on his staff. Contact was made between high ranking officers and the troops after each action and directors of production and development were also sent to the front to appreciate Army problem.

The introduction of larger guns had made observation of fall of shot a real problem, and a flank tank had often to be used for observation. He did not consider a long periscope (e.g. T.S.R.1) a satisfactory solution.

German development of integrated fire control systems was towards a built-in (cross-turret) rangefinder in conjunction with a stabilised sight-line. Guderian felt it essential that the rangefinder should be linked to the sight to give an automatic feed in of range, but did not know if this had been done in the initial stages. As far as he knew, no lead computing mechanism was to be incorporated in the system, or any other corrections for factors which might affect the accuracy of tank gunnery. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jeff Duquette]

Here yah go. Sf14z in the cupola.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Jeff,

keep posting the pictures! its great!

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Here yah go. Sf14z in the cupola.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that's a Grossslugtruppen. Late in the war, due to the manpower shortage, these were pressed into service. They were all used as vehicle crew since they weren't able to maintain a normal marching pace on foot. Also, their special optical equipment enabled them to spot while in full defilade, as you can readily see.

Michael

[Jeff Duquette]

TSR1 interior and exterior of a Panther. This thing apparently stuck up out of the TC's hatch approx 4 feet. LOS from complete defilade

P.S. What the hell is a Grossstuffgruppen?

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I think in addition to these two crusades…how bout slower German main gun ROF cause loaders had to work from the right side of the turret. Perhaps an optional left handed loader rule.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? The French with their post-war deployment of the Panther felt otherwise

extracts from 'Le Panther 1947' (Taken from Spielberger) state: 'During rapid fire it is not uncommon to be forced to break off firing when the recoil of the gun reached its permissible limit (cease fire).' And ' A rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute is only permitted in execeptional cases when circumstances so dictate.' Odd I know but the fact that one was using the non master hand did not figure at all in ROF for German tank guns, unless one was playing reach around in the Hetzer with the loader on the right of a left loading gun.

The T-34 turret problem of 'walk after the gun' would also be part of the hand cranked PIII turrets.

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

Mr T's reply

"Don't touch me FOO!"

(BilgeRat) synopsis= "Im a dickhead"

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-24-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Bastables:

Its an inside joke. Motivated by a past discussion on a far away forum.

But 20 rounds per minute! WOW! Those are some shottin mo-fo Frenchies. Doesn't seem like a gunner would have time to accurately re-lay his gun between successive rounds. I guess if I were firing HE in kind of an area fire mode and wasn’t concerned so much with hitting a point target like a tank, and the loader was cheatin’ by not having rounds in the ready rack…than 1 round per 3 seconds seems conceivable. Say this quick and time yourself:

TC sees target and assume instantaneous acquisition by the gunner (uber-gunner): Gunner, Tank, Shot (AP), by large tree on ridge, traverse right.... steady...on...ONE TWO HUNDRED, Lead ONE ZERO, Identified, up, fire, on the way, BOOM. Something like that. Dunno the exact German fire commands used during WWII (now there would be something interesting to look up...you know what they were?).

Now pretend your a gunner with no periscope...only your gun sight...and your trying to find a hull down tank 1,200 meters away (target size about 5 x 3 feet).

Round travel time down range…1.2 or 1.4 seconds (don’t have may calculator..Panther Pzgr 39/42 was what? 900 m\s)…sense your round (assuming you don’t lose sight of the tracer element in flash and dust). Place burst on target and Fire …or adjust and FIRE (short-line or over).

I read a T34/85 was capable of 4 rounds/minute while doing halt-fire-move stuff, and 10 rounds/minute while firing from a stationary position.

I think average CAT results for a veteran M60 or LEO-1 crew was around 15 seconds +/- 5 seconds per engagement. Average crew results for M60 or LEO-1 was more like 20 seconds +/- 5 seconds.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The French with their post-war deployment of the Panther felt otherwise

extracts from 'Le Panther 1947'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would love to get my hands on a translated version of 'Le Panther 1947'. Any suggestions?

Merry X-mas

[Jeff Duquette]

just thought of a question on the same topic regarding turret ergonomics. Did the German Army stay with the left side gunner position after the War? Did the Leo-1 and Leo-2 have left side gunner positions?

[RMC]

JD,

Nice shot of the Tigerwith the SF14Z. This means another crusade.

Re: crew layouts in the Leos. Leo 2 is set up like the M1. Gunner is on the right, loader on the left. I have actually sat in one of these. The Leo1 I don't know about. It looks like it might have gone with the loader on the left based on the location of the commander's viewer and loader's MG on the Leo1A4 (with angular turret). IIRC the first post war tank used by the Bundeswehr was some version of an M47. They also had M48s floating around in the territorial units at least untila few years ago. These tanks may have influenced the change over.

Re: CAT engagement times. Zaloga's Tank War - Central Front NATO vs. Warsaw Pact (from 89) offers the following figures from CAT 85:

"The CAT 85 held at the Bergen-Hohne ranges in June 1985 provides a good example since it mixed older-generation tanks like the Chieftain and M60A3 against current generation tanks like the M1 and Leopard 2. The targets used are 1.90m long by 1.60m high, designed to simulate a partly exposed tank turret front, and are engaged from the halt and on the move at ranges varying between 800 and 2000m. The fastest scoring platoon was an M1 unit with a sizzling average score of 6.2 seconds from target pop-up to destruction. The combined average also found the the M1 Abrams to have the quickest engagement time ot 10.2 seconds, while the older Leopard 1s had the slowest average with 16.2 seconds. In terms of accuracy, Dutch Leopard 2s hit 46 out of 48 targets, while the low scorers were a Canadian Leopard C1 team with a very respectable 34 out of 48. The table below provides a quick summary of the results."

Team engage time(sec) hits %

US M1 Abrams 10:22 44-45 93

Dutch Leo2 11.9 46 96

German Leo2 11.9 42-45 91

German Leo1 16.2 45 93

Belgian Leo1 16.2 41 85

British Chieftain 13.0 38 79

US M60A3 14.1 37 77

Canadian Leo C1 16.2 34 71

Ok, that didn't work too well. Here's one that is readable:

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 12-26-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Excellent info RC.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Bastables:

Its an inside joke. Motivated by a past discussion on a far away forum.

But 20 rounds per minute! WOW! Those are some shottin mo-fo Frenchies. Doesn't seem like a gunner would have time to accurately re-lay his gun between successive rounds. I guess if I were firing HE in kind of an area fire mode and wasn’t concerned so much with hitting a point target like a tank, and the loader was cheatin’ by not having rounds in the ready rack…than 1 round per 3 seconds seems conceivable. Say this quick and time yourself:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the point it's a 'entire infantry battalion charging us! Kill them all!' type of fire, and yes this is with ammo in all the proper bins, be sort of pointless otherwise mandating a upper limit on 'crazy' fire. I'd point you to the Saumur: SAUMUR MUSEE DES BLINDES E.A.A.B.C.-49409 SAUMAR Cedex France, for info on Le Panther. Or try Spielberger's Panther book which has been translated into english, and has Le Panther exerpts in one of the latter chapters.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-26-2000).]

[RMC]

JD,

I should have mentioned that those figures from the CAT gunnery represent the elite teams from each country. The average figures are probably closer to yours.

Oh, and it seems that the first postwar German tank was the M41. I would guess that they adopted that turret layout as a standard for the Leo1 and subsequently the Leo 2 as by 1955 when they started up the Bundeswehr any institutional bias in favor of the old german layout had evaporated. I wonder how many old gunners, loaders and TCs made the transition to the Bundeswehr after 10 years.

[Jeff Duquette]

RC:

Here's another African photo. MkIII with a Sf14z in the cupola. Kinda grainy.

Regarding post-WWII German ARMY Armour, you dont suppose Regular or Territorial Units were ever using Shermans at some point. Say early 50's when the Red menace was casting its shadow in Korea and Vietnam. Real worry during this period that these were mere diversions, and the Guards 1st Tank Army was gonna come trompin through Fulda while the forces of good were transfixed in Asia.

[RMC]

JD,

Can't find any evidence of Shermans ever in the Bundeswehr inventory. The list of vehicles in the Panzermuseum in the Bundeswehr exhibit does not include them. If they had used them, there are enough specimens floating around for them to have easily gotten one for display.

The M41 was used in Panzergrenadier Battalions and some Panzerjaegerunits. The M47 was the first tank used by the Panzer battalions and most of the Panzerjaeger outfits. They were swapped out for the M48 in 1958. In the 80's they still had upgraded M48's in the territorial units. They developed the Kanonenjagdpanzer in the the 60's and the Leo 1. It'd be interesting to see the layout of the Kanonenjagdpanzer to see how it compares to the StuG and Jagdpanther arrangements. The M41 went out of service with the Germans in 69. According to the Panzermuseum the Danes apprarently stil have them and are upgrading them, but I can find no mention of them on the Danish Army pages.

Anyway, interesting shot of the Pz III. Perhaps the crusade should be limited to the fields of North Africa where obviously all Pz III had these SF14Z for spotting and every Pz IV had a rangefinder.

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 12-28-2000).]