Why the fire control of the Soviet T64 was worse than that of the Tiger tank (WWII model)?

[humback]

I'm not a Soviet fanboy, but I could sense what seemed to be abnormal stats for the Soviets' tanks in CW, so I created two simple scenarios to do a simple test of the T-64 and Tiger tanks' sight-seeing abilities.

The scenarios isn't symmetrical, but I'm sure that says something enough. I put these machine gunners on suppressive fire and watched to see how often they would be taken out by enemy tanks.

 

Within 15 seconds a T64B spotted a machine gunner in a building and took him out, but they had nothing to do for the next 5 minutes.

It was not until about 8 minutes later that they spotted the machine gunner who was firing in front of them without any cover.

 

Now let's see what WWII tanks do:

They spotted the machine gunners without cover within half a minute.

And within 5 minutes they also spotted a machine gunner in a building.

 

The performance of Soviet tanks in CW is absolutely ridiculous. Please fix them, thanks!

 

Edited March 20 by humback

[humback]

Disclaimer, this is not a rigorous test, but any CW player should have this bad impression after using Red Foe.

[MikeyD]

First thought off the top of my head, Tiger has a 5 man crew all viewing the forward battlefield from a 9 foot tall platform, T64 has a 3 man crew and is 2 foot shorter.

[Grey_Fox]

That entirely depends on the physical characteristics of the tank.

The Tiger has a bow gunner in addition to the gunner, commander, driver, and loader.

The T-64 has only the driver, gunner, and commander.

So you have 4-5 potential spotters in the Tiger (depending on what the loader is doing) versus 3 in the T-64.

Then there is the specifics of what the T-64 can see, the size and shape of the viewports, etc. Armoured vehicles have a lot of blind spots.

In terms of technology, much of Cold War era technology can be described as modern day weapons systems (ATGMs, guns, etc) with WW2 era optics (largely eyeballs and binoculars). It isn't until the widespread proliferation of night vision gear and thermal optics that you see a major swing.

Edited March 20 by Grey_Fox

[Brille]

So you made just 1 test for each side or did you do multiple ?

While it is a bit odd that the T64 takes so long to get visuals on the guys without cover it surely can happen.

On the other side he did see the ones in the house. 

So this test dont say much at all at this point in my opinion.

Like Mikey and Grey Fox said already the Tiger had a 5 man crew which could be beneficial for spotting, at least on this shorter range and it was taller.

On the T64 you had only 3 crewmembers, though the commander and gunner could in theory observe further out than the Tiger.

T64 commanders optics had I think 3x magnification while the Tiger had only his cupola I guess (when closed)... But it had max 5x on the  gunsight, though on the T64 I dont know sadly.

However the T64 was cramped and had optics with a narrow field of view so maybe not the best in crew comfort.

The Tiger on the other hand is often described as roomey for a tank and a wider FOV for the optics.

Never the less experience and softfactors would be nice to know to get a full picture. 

And why do you test it against infantry?

Isnt there maybe a vehicles/Tank with somewhat similar height and width in both games?

 

Testing spotting performance on such small targets is often a hit and miss in my experience. Sometimes they vanish all of a sudden or the outcomes are different (as it shows).

[Anthony P.]

There's been a fair few claims and opinions about AFVs in CMCW being significantly worse at spotting than even AFVs from the WW2 titles.

It's anecdotal so far, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand. I've gotta dissent and say that reasoning about how and why a Tiger could reasonably have better spotting abilities than a T-64 is approaching mental gymnastics. Yes, five crew versus three. But most crew in the Tiger have no practical optics for target acquisition: the driver and radio operator/bow gunner have very poor vision slits, and the loader has none at all. Compared to the T-64, there's as many eyes in the turret, and it should be safe to assume that the optics of an MBT from more than twenty years after the Tiger should be significantly better.

 

More testing though please. There's actually something to be said for the height of the Tiger in explaining how well the LMG team in the open was spotted (height and spotting a target at a shallow angle is just simple maths: the higher you are, the better the odds of finding it. Bar e.g. thermal sights, there might not be all that much difference in optics for this scenario, especially not if the TCs are turned out). Try some more typical/realistic terrain, with targets on different kinds of elevated terrain (there's not many places on the planet with are completely flat, after all).

[Butschi]

24 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

It's anecdotal so far, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand.

You should, though. Spotting in CM is a statistical process, meaning you throw dice every n seconds. Let's say I have a collection of 6, 8 and 10 sided dice. I only tell you I use one die for the T64 and one for the a Tiger but not which tank gets which. I'll also tell you that you need to roll a 1 in order to make a spot. I make a few dice rolls and tell you that the Tiger made the spot after 5 rolls, the T64 after 8 rolls. Now, tell me which die I used for which tank. (Or maybe I lied and only had 6 sided dice... How can you possibly know?)

[Anthony P.]

That... doesn't make much sense. Or rather, it's quite skewed statistics.

Optics and different kinds of sensors are modelled. A T-64 definitely has better optics than a Tiger 1, so it's not as though they're competing on an equal footing.

[Centurian52]

Both the Tiger and the T64 are using unenhanced optics. Visibility out of either one of them relies on fundamentally the same technology, periscopes and vision blocks. Both provide the commander with a cupola. Neither has thermals or CCTV screens. So on the face of it I would expect their spotting ability to be more or less the same.

But, as others have pointed out the Tiger has more crew members to assist in spotting. And, probably more importantly, spotting in CM is random. There is a chance that a given crew member will make a spot on a given target in a given amount of time. But there is no set amount of time in which the crew member will make the spot. This is realistic, but it does also mean that you need to run your tests more than once in order to get any sort of meaningful results. Each time you run the test it will take each tank a different amount of time to make the spot. After ten or so tests you will start to get a somewhat reliable average of how long it takes each vehicle to make the spot. The fact that it took the T-64 longer to make the spot in a single test could very easily just be statistical noise.

[Centurian52]

Also it looks like your German tanks have an FO team nearby that may be assisting them in making the spot. Units in CM that are in communication with one another will share spotting information. That FO team looks to be in the same formation as the tanks, and probably has a radio, which means it is probably in communication with the tanks.

[Anthony P.]

Even "just" normal optics aren't all the same. There's quality differences such as clarity, distortion, magnification, FoV, glare and more. Officiers and officials involved in Lend Lease found massive differences in the quality of T-34 optics compared to Sherman optics, and that was two contemporary tanks, so I can't readily agree that the optics of a T-64 and a Tiger should be assumed to be on par.

More tests, agreed. Preferably on realistic terrain, and maybe try adding a target vehicle which has a similar counterpart in the other game (to ensure that they're both looking for a similarly sized target)?

[Centurian52]

27 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

Even "just" normal optics aren't all the same. There's quality differences such as clarity, distortion, magnification, FoV, glare and more. Officiers and officials involved in Lend Lease found massive differences in the quality of T-34 optics compared to Sherman optics, and that was two contemporary tanks, so I can't readily agree that the optics of a T-64 and a Tiger should be assumed to be on par.

More tests, agreed. Preferably on realistic terrain, and maybe try adding a target vehicle which has a similar counterpart in the other game (to ensure that they're both looking for a similarly sized target)?

I definitely oversimplified a bit. The Tiger's cupola provides 360 degree visibility, but there are large gaps between each vision block. So it isn't uninterrupted 360 degree coverage. While each crew member doesn't get their own cupola, I believe they each have their own fully rotating periscope (except possibly the driver, who may just have a fixed periscope or vision block to their front (I'm not fully confident about my knowledge of Tiger optics)). I haven't seen the view from inside the T-64. But the periscopes in the T-62's cupola are much closer together, providing a much more contiguous view. The T-62's cupola does not provide a full 360 degree view all at once (the periscopes just cover a wide frontal arc, rather than going all the way around), but it does rotate. And I've heard that the T-34 often just used polished metal (and sometimes not even all that well polished) in its periscopes rather than proper mirrors (apparently this was a result of rushed production, rather than an intended part of the design?). And there are definitely significant differences in gunner sights from one tank to the next (markings, magnification, field of view).

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:

That... doesn't make much sense. Or rather, it's quite skewed statistics.

Optics and different kinds of sensors are modelled. A T-64 definitely has better optics than a Tiger 1, so it's not as though they're competing on an equal footing.

Even with enhanced optics and IR and and and.. there is still a chance things will not be spotted. It's just human nature to miss stuff or pay attention to one thing and miss something else. More importantly that is modeled in the game. So, I agree there is more testing that needs to happen for sure. Just starting with a statistically significant set of runs. That would be a starting point though. All the other factors would then need to be considered. First one I can think of is what happens if the T64 is on a slightly higher elevation does that change things - especially for the guy in the grass.

Feel free to conduct the tests. I would, personally, not even weigh in until that part gets done. If you try to chase every anecdote down you will get tired of running pretty quick. Having said that we should all pursue the issues we think look interesting / problematic.

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:

That... doesn't make much sense. Or rather, it's quite skewed statistics.

Optics and different kinds of sensors are modelled. A T-64 definitely has better optics than a Tiger 1, so it's not as though they're competing on an equal footing.

And nobody says they are. The Tiger might get to roll a 100 sided die while the T64 gets a 4 sided one. And still the Tiger can roll a success (rolling that 1) while the T64 doesn't. It is unlikely but that is statistics and you can't argue statistics with a sample size of 1.

And there may be 99 incidents where the T64 makes the spot first and 1 where it doesn't. People rarely post "Yep, look, happened just as I think it should." On the other hand, the one where the Tiger got lucky is almost guaranteed to trigger that "Spotting in CM is broken!!!" post.

[Anthony P.]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

I definitely oversimplified a bit. The Tiger's cupola provides 360 degree visibility, but there are large gaps between each vision block. So it isn't uninterrupted 360 degree coverage. While each crew member doesn't get their own cupola, I believe they each have their own fully rotating periscope (except possibly the driver, who may just have a fixed periscope or vision block to their front (I'm not fully confident about my knowledge of Tiger optics)). I haven't seen the view from inside the T-64. But the periscopes in the T-62's cupola are much closer together, providing a much more contiguous view. The T-62's cupola does not provide a full 360 degree view all at once (the periscopes just cover a wide frontal arc, rather than going all the way around), but it does rotate. And I've heard that the T-34 often just used polished metal (and sometimes not even all that well polished) in its periscopes rather than proper mirrors (apparently this was a result of rushed production, rather than an intended part of the design?). And there are definitely significant differences in gunner sights from one tank to the next (markings, magnification, field of view).

Driver's and bow MG gunner periscopes should provide negligible spotting for any AFV (possible exception for modern AFVs with thermal sights), so I'd say that the only optics which can be relied upon to achieve a spot should be the turret optics: these are the ones which are purpose built for doing more than just seeing what's right in front of the vehicle). So there should be a marked difference in favour of the T-64.

 

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

And nobody says they are. The Tiger might get to roll a 100 sided die while the T64 gets a 4 sided one. And still the Tiger can roll a success (rolling that 1) while the T64 doesn't. It is unlikely but that is statistics and you can't argue statistics with a sample size of 1.

And there may be 99 incidents where the T64 makes the spot first and 1 where it doesn't. People rarely post "Yep, look, happened just as I think it should." On the other hand, the one where the Tiger got lucky is almost guaranteed to trigger that "Spotting in CM is broken!!!" post.

But A, that still means that the T-64 ought to spot better, and B, I didn't say that this was a statistically significant result: quite the contrary, I said right away that more testing is needed to verify whether or not it's a fluke or if the anecdotal accounts are correct.

[weapon2010]

maybe the vehicles your trying to spot are much harder to spot as well, low to the ground , low silhouette, harder to see

[Brille]

7 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

But most crew in the Tiger have no practical optics for target acquisition:

Well that is true but in gameterms more eyes help in the spotting process. And 500m are not that far of that it would not matter.

It is not effective spotting but it is spotting non the less, even if it would just be a vague contact.

An infantry target is on it´s own very small and easily overseen, especially in a combat environment.

 

7 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

the driver and radio operator/bow gunner have very poor vision slits, and the loader has none at all.

Not that it would matter much but the driver and radio operator had actual periscopes/angled mirrors. But as far as I know they were in fixed position and offset to the left and right, so spotting to the front would be rather impractical as you said. Otherwise they have the slits, yeah.

For the loader it is only halfway true. Later versions of the Tigers actually gave him a periscope as well...yet also fixed.

However one cannot deny that it may help even more in the spotting process...at least in CM terms.

 

7 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Compared to the T-64, there's as many eyes in the turret, and it should be safe to assume that the optics of an MBT from more than twenty years after the Tiger should be significantly better.

One might think so, yes, but maybe at a distance like this it doesnt´t matter all that much ?

What has the T64 over the Tiger ?

It has a commanders sight via persicope that has a magnification on it. Though it is verry narrow in the field of view. Same goes for the gunners sight but I believe he has  an additional rotatable persicope with a narrow view also. Here are some gunners and commanders sights of soviet style vehicles and their charakteristics https://crib-blog.blogspot.com/p/soviet-t01-k0x-sight-family.html  

I believe the TKN 3 are the ones that were mounted in the T64 but I don´t know about it that much so feel free to correct me.

The Tiger has no commanders sight at hand but a cupola with multiple yet fixed visionports. The T64 has one too but while it is rotatable it has only 2 visionblocks.

So mayyybe (also due to the more roomey nature of it) the Tiger has a slightly better or on par situational awareness in this point because of the wider FOV and more eyes on the target.

That is just a strong guess on my part but maybe in some situations WW2 and cold war tanks are not that far apart as we like to believe.

 

[Erwin]

You guys are talking like CM2 is the definitive truth/reality that all else must be compared to.  But, it is a GAME and like any other GAME has many compromises, eccentric quirks and bugs.  I suggest to you that this is simply one of many.

[Bulletpoint]

Also a variable in this test is that in the WW2 version, you're testing with HMG42 which are deployed on a bipod and are bigger targets than the 2-man LMG teams you seem to be testing with in the CW test. The HMG teams also have more crewmembers, which also affects spotting chances.

A better test would be to use German LMG teams.

[Centurian52]

In any case I'm guessing that the differences between the Tiger's optics and the T-64's optics aren't so great as to make it unlikely that the Tiger might spot targets first just through sheer random chance (whether we're talking about the real tanks or the game tanks). And even if the T-64's optics really are significantly better, I would still expect an experienced and alert Tiger crew to spot faster on average compared to a relatively green T-64 crew (crew experience matters both in reality and in the game (the Soviets often have lower experience levels in a lot of scenarios, which may account for why so many people are so frustrated with their spotting abilities even though the T-62's optics really shouldn't be that much worse than the M60A1's optics)).

There's a limit to how much an experienced and alert crew can make up for inferior optics of course, especially as we move into the modern era. The most alert and experienced crew in a Tiger, or even in a T-64, is extremely unlikely to spot targets faster than even a relatively green crew in an M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams. Eventually the influence of technology overwhelms the influence of factors like skill. But among tanks using more or less the same technology for their optics, I would expect skill, alertness, and even luck to be the dominant factors.

[Thewood1]

As far as optics go, its plausible that German optics from WW2 might actually be better than 60s era optics from a Soviet or US tank.  If you jump in a T-64 in Steel Beasts, its almost impossible to see infantry 500m to the front if they are prone.  Standing infantry can be seen if the gunner optics happen to be point right at the infantry.  But all infantry is almost unspottable through vision blocks for driver and commander.  And that's on a  flat feature-less map.

[Vanir Ausf B]

3 hours ago, Brille said:

It has a commanders sight via persicope that has a magnification on it. Though it is verry narrow in the field of view. Same goes for the gunners sight but I believe he has  an additional rotatable persicope with a narrow view also. Here are some gunners and commanders sights of soviet style vehicles and their charakteristics https://crib-blog.blogspot.com/p/soviet-t01-k0x-sight-family.html  

I believe the TKN 3 are the ones that were mounted in the T64 but I don´t know about it that much so feel free to correct me.

I think that is correct for the commander's sight. The gunner's daylight sight on the T-64B is the 1g42. It's magnification and field of view are variable from 3.9x/20° to 9x/8.5°. By comparison the TZF 9 gunner's sight on the Tiger is 2.5x/25° and 5x/14°, so the T-64 has stronger magnification at the cost of a narrower field of view. Which of these would be better at spotting a machine gun team 450 meters away is anyone's guess. If we were talking about nighttime spotting or first shot accuracy the T-64 should be much better but I don't know that there would be a dramatic difference in daytime spotting. I agree with other posters that the OPs test is worthless for demonstrating anything at all.

Edited March 21 by Vanir Ausf B