German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[Mark IV]

My wording has caused you to misunderstand- I'm not talking about penetration data- that math doesn't happen until a round hits a target.

Putting the round on the target in the first place is a huge area of complex interrelationships (which is why some of it is abstracted), of which optics are only one part. The net effect is an AFV which can shoot a certain group at a certain distance.

If two AFVs have similar hit chances, one because of superior optics, and another because of a very well-made tube, who cares, in game terms? The group's the thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mostly I am "just" looking for an increased "chance to hit" at long ranges and an increased spotting and correctly identifying the enemy bonus for the "better" german optics<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ID part would make sense if they want to model to that extent- clearer, brighter optics would help ID a unit at longer range and/or in lower light. Or to pick one out of a treeline. But at least one of the cited studies seems to refute that.

The "chance to hit" part really has to defer to the historical record. The tanks don't need to be side-to-side and interchange components. Just dig up their gunnery school records and it should all be there.

If you can't hit a 2m square at 1500+m it doesn't matter if you can ID it. It takes more than optics to make a hit... they are part of an integrated system which has to be judged as a whole.

The tube and projectile design and manufacture have a LOT to do with how any bullet flies, and I'm NOT talking about kinetic energy or muzzle velocity.

The solidity of the "action", or the breech and tube mounting, as well as the aiming hardware and recoil mechanisms, are absolutely critical in all gun performance, and they definitely varied from AFV to AFV. Why would we ONLY consider the optics? Why would we focus on any sub-system, when range data must be available for actual performance of every AFV in the war (Ordnance and Training types are big on these records)?

It's tank vs. tank, not glass vs. glass.

[Slapdragon]

The biggest problem is who has to prove to whom. Do we, as people who want the game changed, have to prove it to BTS, or does BTS have to prove to us why the game is as it is.

Easy - we have to prove to BTS. The reason is simple, anyone can point to erros in models -- if I want better allied eyesight modeled and CavScout wants better gyros and Jeff wants a no miss gun and John wants an always kill gun and so on, we all want something. BTS would spend 48 hours each day explaining why something was done, and the reexplaining because as can be seen, when you REALLY want something sense goes out the window, as does reading comprehension, so like the 88L71 list it may tak 6-8 repeats of the same sentence before it sinks in.

So we need to prove that something needs to be different. Mark IV started on a great path of defining variable and looking at were the data will come from. Danielh presents a great methodology. They both want better optics but they want it in a sensible way.

(By the way -- Scott Clinton said it best when he defined the Germans Always Win players -- you may want to go back and read his post. Fight on ladders long enough and they will show up. The Germans always win group are those people who espouse german technology and power at the expense of reality in order to provide a definate advantage to there game playing -- they own a few German armour books and none on the allied, they are mostly anti-science because that would require skull seat and would also force themselves from their positions, and they freak when Willhammer comes up with an argument pro-allies).

Two methods are espoused so far.

1) Choose random tests and wave them about proclaiming correctness.

2) Create a body of proofs that as Danielh says can start at the level of historical reality but must progress beyond a single entry into a book we happen to own, then develop a mathematical model from which the game can be changed.

If you want the gyros banned you need to first find text evidence that they were not useful, then back it up with before and after tests on gyros, then create a new firing model that omits them. All evidence needs to be on the table, and then you should be able to explain major problems with the model or be ready to go back and account for them. No one can get every turn of a model to exactly follow reality, but close enough will work.

For the optics you need to find a body of evidence that points to firing differences -- and this I mean real evidence, not some comic book that says no US tank could fire over 800 meters just because it fits your arguments. Then you need to build a model on how much these optics will change firing models at what ranges, preferably a mathematic model that can be turned into programming code.Then you present your data in toto to BTS and the board for critical comment. Most models need to go back a couple of times to be perfected, that is part of the process. I should note that the critiques of any process are going to be tough, but that is part of the issue.

An honest look at the issue could well turn up that the difference in parallax between two sets of optics results in less than a second difference in firing accuracy at a given range, and although this may make the optics seem better or worse, they have no useful effect on firing. Certainly this is the case with rifle sights, were only the most gross difference change a hit from a miss in terms of modelling, since other variables (wind, deflection, sunlight etc) drown out the difference between a Bosch and a Zeiss scope.

For terms of critique in historical or OOB or some other issue, the process is different, but anything that effects the modelling in mathematical terms should use this system.

If you do not want to do this kind of work, then that is cool -- the system will remain the same. If you want to follow the method used by the 88L71 thread -- repeating the same test data over and over again, then cool -- you wont change anything either. But if you really want to change things, then jump on it and come up with some proffs, and if it survives the peer review of BTS and the useful members of this BBS then you will have changed BTS's mind.

Finally on the subject of BTS it may be useful for some of the people who are up in arms at them to actually stop and read their posts. Most of why CavScout, BTS, I, Willhammer, and others have come up with the labels of Germans always win group and anti-science group is because this group plain old does not read the previous posts, or pulls one sentence out of context, and in every thread on this BBS that they respond to it is the same. If you read the BTS response they will tell you what they are looking for as proof, often why they did what they did, and what is needed to change their minds. Ignoring this, or throwing out blanket statements that BTS has "turned their back" or "closed the door" on a subject is useless and counterproductive.

If and when Mark IV and the other sane members of this forum come up with a documented useful model that is well written and supported, you will find that the attitude of the "prove it" gang, of which I am one, will change overnight. The critique will go from source critique to model critique, and the changes will become smaller until it is ready to hand over. I am willing to bet $100 that BTS will listen at this point. They still may not buy it, DanielH's discussion of penetration on allied guns was an example of something I did not agree with but bought because it was well documented -- and BTS came up with a good reason why they did not buy it.

All I am saying is that you can do it the right way, or the wrong way, one which may be successful and another that wont ever be successful, and wouldn't it be better to do it in a way that may succeed in changing the system?

[danielh]

Spook,

Your reasoning is a quite strange one. It goes about that way:

1.) If there is no test evidence of the effect of "Zeiss" optics, it can't be taken into the game.

2.) To test it is impossible.

So in short: There is no possibility that Zeiss optics can make it into the game.

Right ?

So why the complex sentence ?

To the "Aberdeen" test:

On what ground was it executed ?

At which speed ?

How was the improvement measured ?

And in general:

Why were the US-Tankers not trained to use them properly ?

And why do even Regular crews use it then in CM ?

In short again:

One single source is evidence enough to incorporate it into the game not take into account the real operational deployment.

Great !

(I myself doesn't worry about the Gyro-system in CM, but what worries me is the reasoning behind.)

Greets

Daniel

[Guest machineman]

I remember someone mentioning in some thread (did a search and couldn't find anything) that the French extensively tested captured German tanks (presumably compared to the Shermans they still had around) in 1947, with the view to developing their own next generation. They would be the only army to train with both Shermans (Free French) and Panthers/Tigers (captured and used by the French army to equip their tank battalions for a few years after the war). As well they would have no national axe to grind about which would be better. I assume a lot of shot grouping work would have been done by them. Has anyone else heard of these tests, or better yet, have them? That might give an idea on just how the first hit probability between the various tank models compared with experienced crew, taking optics, gun, and all the other factors mentioned into account.

[danielh]

Slapdragon,

Agree 100 % !

But how administer that ?

Maybe there should be a Forum only for historical evidences and one for the more hard part (Tests, models and so on) ?

Today it's just a big hurly burly and information hard to keep together. There's already a lot buried in the thousands of posts already made.

A rating for Top Subjects would also be a great aid to aim the efforts to the important things (As indicator of course).

Greets

Daniel

[Guest Big Time Software]

Contrary to what might have been assumed from my last post, I have not buggered out of the forum. I have to still read this stuff as moderator However, I don't want to argue again and again over the same point, usually repeating myself since what I said the last time was ignored or blown off.

But since things have calmed down here, I'll try and at least restate our position about making game tweaks...

Simply put, nothing in CM is carved in stone. So the resistance to the optics issue is based SOLELY on our opinion that we are unconvinced that the opitics made an apreciable difference in accuracy, and if they did, to what degree.

We did feel that there was enough evidence to support a VERY small bonus for gyros, and I stated that case quite clearly. But of course our reasoning for that has been trashed and bashed. Well, our job is not to make everybody happy, but to do the best we can to make CM as realistic as possible. You are free to disagree, but not free to question our intentions.

As MarkIV and Slapdragon have pointed out, and has been ignored/trashed, there are thousands of little things that could, when added together, produce benefits and drawbacks in a given situation based on the exact circumstances. The question is, where to draw the line? Factoring in crew compartment comfort *is* important to considder. In fact, it is in an abstract way in the Rate of Fire number. But do we have *SPECIFIC* factors in for the other hundred things that go into Rate of Fire? NO.

A lesson for you budding game designers out there... the more you put in today, the more you have to put in tomorrow, and the more the next day, and the next, and the next... The reason is simple. An abstraction is an abstraction. The more you try to make it specific, the better the modeling has to be. The better the modeling, the more research, coding, testing, tweaking, testing, etc. has to be done. So unless a factor is *CLAEARLY* a seperate factor, that influences the abstract system as an outside force, then we shouldn't include it.

The problem here that the pro-optics people do not see is that we have a tests, first hand evidence, and plain and simple logic that shows gyros increased the ability to shoot and hit on the move. This part is quantifiable and quite neat and simple. The optics have NO such evidence behind them. I have read every single word in this thread, and in the prior discussions, and not one person has been able to show that there is some known, quantifiable difference using the "better" optics. Yes, German guns were more accurate at long ranges, but as stated many times, the gun systems themselves were more accurate, so this is not in any way evidence that the optics are responsible for better hit chances.

Look.... I have several sets of binoculars. I have two 25x sets, one from China and one using Japanese optics. I can see the same things at the same distance, but the Japanese optics are CLEARLY superior. I get a much better picture and a far easier time picking out very small details (like individual leaves on trees). However, would this change my ability to shoot at a target if these optics were scopes? No. It might change my ability to SEE the target in the first place, but that is an entirely different discussion (i.e. spotting, not accuracy).

My point is that if you do not question what you see presented as evidence, you aren't a good researcher in the scientific sense of the word. Example... the pro-optics position has two pieces of key evidence:

1. German guns are more accurate at long ranges - true. But what factors make them more accurate? Certainly more than the optics, so this position does not in and itself prove anything.

2. German optics were better, says US veterans - sure, I agree that this appears to be the case. But using my binocular example above, this does not prove that the better quality made any substantial difference when it came to hitting a target.

I must also point out that quoting veteran's opinions, as opposed to historical accounts of results, is questionable at best. Vets very often disagree with each other on the most simple issues. You also don't know exactly what the context of a statement is. For example, how many of the veteran statements that were presented dated from before 1944? US optics were pretty poor in early war tanks, so perhaps they were comparing something from a M3 Grant to a PzIV? There is nothing in the quotes to suggest either way on many of issues, therefore the big grain of salt comes out

So that is it. We have a standard set of "tests" that we hold up for the inclusion of a particular feature request. If the feature request fails to score well, it doesn't get in. And that is the way it should be since we should err on the side of keeping the system more abstract rather than trying to make it more specific. And our tests are NOT impossible to score well on (as some of you have directly stated). The Gyros is a clear example of something that scored well enough to be included, yet the optics debate has not even done that well, so it is not included.

As far as the pro-German bias goes... it exists. It is pervasive. And we try very hard to make sure it isn't in CM. If we left out gyros I bet NOBODY would be asking for them to be included, even though there is clear scientific and documented combat results to show that they had an effect on combat, had we chosen to not put them in. But I bet a million bucks that if this was a German invention, we would have 10 threads on the issue just like this one. I say this without any malice, but rather an insight few others her have. I have had the experience of managing this BBS for almost 2 years now, and the trend is a clear as day...

Steve

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by danielh:

Slapdragon,

Agree 100 % !

But how administer that ?

Maybe there should be a Forum only for historical evidences and one for the more hard part (Tests, models and so on) ?

Today it's just a big hurly burly and information hard to keep together. There's already a lot buried in the thousands of posts already made.

A rating for Top Subjects would also be a great aid to aim the efforts to the important things (As indicator of course).

Greets

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Daniel -- as someone who develops good arguments (that I do not sometimes agree with) it is great that you see why this system works. First off, some subjects -- OOB, color of uniforms, use of a weapon, rely naturally on historic rather than scientific proofs, and would naturally not be tested using science. Next, some are artificial overlays of the game that divide up reality in a way that allows us to understand it -- types of troops, what it means to be elite, types of movement. It can take some historic critique and some is just critique of how accessable the ordinal modelling is.

Finally, you have scientific issues -- usually under threads of BTS CHANGE THIS. These can be commenst on how the game works (point value versus quality) and things that impinge the physics and / or combat model. Here it would be useful if the poster stated right out front that "this is not a scientififc argument" so from BTS stand point they can just skip reading it -- and the people who critique can just ignore it. Alternately, calls to change the game physics model should understand that they can and will face a fairly high burden of presentation.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Daniel wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(I myself doesn't worry about the Gyro-system in CM, but what worries me is the reasoning behind.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see why this is. There were scientific tests done that SPECIFICALLY identified the gyros as having aided in shooting on the move. These same tests also found that gyros made from one source were NOT effective. So clearly the tests were being critical. We do not have to see the test results to know that. Especially when coupled with the reports from the field that specifically corroborate the test results. There is no room for outside factors coming in here. Shooting on the move without gyros - next to impossible. Shooting with the gyros - quite possible.

No such argument has been constructed and presented for optics. The two cases are fundamentally different, yet our standards are the same. That is why one passed and one failed.

Now... we *can* have a debate about HOW the Gyros are simulated in CM. That is perfectly fine. But the question about their effect on gunnery is, in our minds, firmly established by scientific study, reports from the field, and... consistancy. The US constantly improved gun gyros from 1941 to the end of the war (and up to today too!).

Confusing the basic and fundamental differences between the two cases does not reflect fairly unpon our system for judging things.

Steve

[CavScout]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000249.html

makes an interesting read.

[danielh]

Steve,

Thanks for your (first) post !

(The second emphasizes on gyros, which i have no concern about at all, but instead it's invetion and use in the discussion...)

This post brought the whole thing into another light for me !

I also have to confess myself, that i might have a favour for german armor, mainly because it was superior in certain aspects, and represents the crown of tank warfare in WWII, but i NEVER want that to be represented in the game in a way that brings it out of balance !!!!

In fact i also enjoy to play the allied side, but then i want the german armor to be as tough (as i might expected it by my of course prejudiced mind.....). My opinion is that it is easier to win a battle with the US, because in real they had (almost) everything in full.

Wouldn't it be possible from your side, to give us a catalog/list of requirements to be met, for that a subject can be examined to go into the game ?

And maybe to incorporate a hint in what direction a possible implementation should go algorithm wise (procedural or probability)

The "Zeiss" thing to me is an acronym for the spotting, aiming, aquiring at all ranges.

(I did a (great) scenario lately from a geographic photopicture of my nearest neighbourhood, and was astonished to see how big the map had to be only to contain the most important features (2 x 2.3 km). I know my neigbourhood very well, and was astonished with the completed scenario, that distances seem much greater in it than in reality...., reason ?). As i measured my jogging circle i was astonished to find out, it would never fit in it. So to me the range issue is a big one, which has to be proved.

I perfectly understand your position that you can't put in every ones desire.

Sometimes i think, me and others are just to eager to get things corrected, and we suppose you the poor developper to dig in the information mess, and put it right....

CM rules !

But the M2 has to be remedied, damn !!!

Greets

Daniel

[This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-03-2000).]

[This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-03-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

and John wants an always kill gun and so on, we all want something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And where did I ever state that?, see thats the problem right their SD, you have no idea what I want from CM if anything but post this as if I said this.

Let me set this straight for you, the KwK.43 thread was never about lethality or a 'kill all gun'; it was about the diference in mm penetration CM models compared to German wartime test data, and Charles statements that these figures were out of the ball park.

If you had actualy been part of the discussion, or even followed it, you would already know this & why I became involved in it, as I incorrectly thought BTS had found hard evidence that the test data was overstated,& I wanted to see the evidence to confirm suspicions I & others have had about German test practice of useing top quality ammo vs top quality plate, Ie the ammo was not the same as what troops were issued.

In the end BTS had no such evidence & the thread evolved into a varied discussion on armor practices FH, theories, live fire test results etc.

And finaly into a could the 8.8cm KwK.43 ammunition penetrate 202mm @ 100ms or not thread & some ppl developing a formula that will give us a mathmaticical model as

Sopwiths, Ie, the 1950 report formula used in CM is not applicable and E-mail discussions with Robert Livingston as the 30^ data no longer concerns BTS, as it's not theirs, eventualy the question will be resolved just not anytime soon.

Now as to telling me etc 6 times this or that, that may very well be, in your opinion once could assume it after a casual glance, & you can assume, I never read it etc, or whatever floats your boat, but if it was so plain & simple why do you think I & others didn't get it SD, perhaphs because its a little more complex of an issue then black & white or blindly agreeing with someone, who also may have not got what you were trying to say either, or still hasn't so it goes both ways.

Regards, John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Jagdcarcajou]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I must also point out that quoting veteran's opinions, as opposed to historical accounts of results, is questionable at best. Vets very often disagree with each other on the most simple issues. You also don't know exactly what the context of a statement is. For example, how many of the veteran statements that were presented dated from before 1944? US optics were pretty poor in early war tanks, so perhaps they were comparing something from a M3 Grant to a PzIV? There is nothing in the quotes to suggest either way on many of issues, therefore the big grain of salt comes out

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey all,

Been reading this thread with some interest over the last couple days, but stayed out 'cause it was a bit hot in here.

Steve, I have largely agreed with BTS's stance on this issue, but I would like to throw in at this point and be a Devil's Advocate. The statement above is largely true, but it may be the only evidence for this issue that we will ever see, short of rebuilding the vehicles and testing them. Objective data of the type you desire on this issue is probably not available. At that point, I believe it does become acceptable to use the above as expert testimony. This is an accepted form of proof in many cases (they aren't discussing dolphins or stellar formations, after all). I would further add, the men who used these sights in action are qualified, in this case, to be considered expert witnesses. Now, is that testimony quantifiable? No. Should it be discounted? I feel the answer is also no.

I am no expert on optics, and I have no evidence to present other that further quoting expert testimony. I have read though, that German optics included sighting aids that assisted their targeting efforts. I mention this because it differs from the binocular example you gave. Two sets of clear lenses would certainly not aid targeting, but a useful set of brackets, and range finding aids in one set would give it an edge over the other. Significant edge? Not sure.

I think that a large factor in the pro-bonus faction is that there are other numbers in CM that are apparently derived from educated guesses, so they want to know why this wasn't guessed at as well (don't mean to speak for anybody here). Some of the factors Jeff mentioned ages ago are actually good examples that were discounted out of hand by many. The probablity of troops firing on friendly units comes immediately to mind. This does not strike me as a figure that can ever be truely quantified from existing evidence as a universal truth for humans in that situation (please note I am not in any way complaining about this happening in CM). But at some point you had to quantify that for the game. Now, I may be way off here, but I believe I am correct when I say that the number you chose was picked because it felt right. Is this wrong to do? Hell no! But why isn't this educated guess method used for the optics issue?

I have designed games before (board games only) so I understand what you are talking about. But I also know that sometimes as a designer I had to pick a number to start from. One of the most difficult numbers to quantify is the human ability to hit a target under combat situations. Do you start at 50%, 100%, 25% etc? Add to that the myriad number of factors affecting the shot. Now publish that on the internet and see how many people crawl out to tell you why you are wrong (and most of them don't agree with each other either). It sucks.

But you had the guts to do it, and you produced a fantastic game/simulation. I have had a quibble or two, but knowing the nature of abstration I have got over it and I just play the game. Is CM perfect? No, but its a lot closer than anything else I have seen. So why should I bitch about anything? Simple, because I am interested in my hobby.

Anyway, my point, finally, is that I don't think that rejecting oral testimony from qualified individuals is the best move, in this one case. There should probably be some small fix for German optics, and that fix is probably entirely up to you. Truth be told though, I'll play the game even if you make MG Jeeps carry whole squads for 5 points, smear vasoline on the German optics, and never implement TCP/IP.

As I said, just playing the Devil's Advocate.

Now how come there are so many damn Gun Damaged results?

Ok, I'm back to reading this one fellas. Good luck.

Chris

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

What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou?

[This message has been edited by Jagdcarcajou (edited 10-03-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000249.html

makes an interesting read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes indeed..

it seemed like it was worth repeating here:

" Doug Beman

Member

posted 05-26-1999 01:44 PM

Q: In CC3, what is the best way to improve the accuracy of Russian tank gunners?

A: Play as the Germans.

It would be funny if it weren't so true...I played as the Germans, and lost lots of tanks to 1st-shot hits. Playing as the Sovs, I once watched a stationary T-34 fire (not kidding) 12 shots at an immobile Pz 38(t) for 1 hit (that did minor damage).

Here's the question (remember I mentioned a question): How did you at BTS come up with the accuracy stats for CM's little polygon-people? I know the Germans were generally much more accurate than the US (eg Wittman's adventures at Villers-Bocage...) but where do you go to figure the % chance of a 1st round hit, etc etc?

Hope it all makes sense and sparks some curiosity out there.

DjB

IP: Logged

Big Time Software

Moderator

posted 05-26-1999 03:45 PM

We have pieced together accuracy details since there is no comprehensive source for battlefield accuracy results. We have some nice data and 1st hand info, but as is often the case there is no scientific study we can lay our hands on.

The truth is that the Allied tanks were probably as accurate, if not MORE accurate, than German ones. Optics were probably superior towards the end of the war and generally US tanks had pretty good fields of vision. Something like the Hetzer was horrible for many reasons, one of which being very poor vision when buttoned up. Many US tanks also had better stabilizers and other things that aid in gunner accuracy. The difference is that the Germans could kill with just one shot and one hit, while the US might have to score several times to get a meaningful hit. Wittman's tanks were, don't forget, hit many times in that engagement (2 out of 3 Tigers and one MkIV were lost). The problem for the Allies was that hitting a Tiger wasn't good enough; they also had to penetrate or get a lucky spot. This is not easy against something

like a Tiger. On the other hand, a Tiger's 88 had no such problems against Allied armor. If it hit a kill (or serious damage) was the likely result.

Steve

IP: Logged

Big Time Software

Moderator

posted 05-26-1999 04:05 PM

Slight correction: Actually we do have several data from German gunnery ranges listing accuracy for tank-mounted guns, including (estimated) "typical combat accuracy" which is, of course, lower than that on the firing range.

So these data are a good reference point. However, I reduced the accuracy a bit further because I think the German assumptions were a little too kind for combat conditions. Add to this some reasonable assumptions (based on combat interviews) for roughly how many shots it takes to "get the range" on a target, then throw in our simulation of realistic muzzle velocities and air resistance to shells in flight (i.e. precise calculations of time-to-target and shot drop due to gravity) and I think we've got a very accurate simulation of gunnery accuracy.

US gunnery accuracy was only poor very early in the war (1941-2 or so) because a lot of US optics were originally of German manufacture, so it took a while for the US to switch to alternate optics production sources. By 1944, US optics and gunnery accuracy were equal to the Germans'. Like Steve said, the problem was penetrating power, not accuracy.

Charles

IP: Logged

Fionn

Member

posted 05-26-1999 05:03 PM

If you are looking for why tanks hit or missed I'd say the following in order of importance:

1. Crew Quality. (Germans superior till maybe mid-43 but much more even by mid-44 and then eventually they totally nosedived in quality)

2. Optics (German optics best until 1943... then US and British came into their own)

3. First round kill probability (basically down to Kinetic Energy.. the faster a shell went the flatter its trajectory and the less chance poor optics and poor gunners had of screwing up the shot.. and since the Germans had very high velocity guns in their most famous tanks (although by no means all their tanks) those famous tanks when manned by experienced crews got 1 shot kills.

Also remember that the Panther was only a Priority 2 weapon. The Tiger was a priority 1 weapon which means the Tiger was almost handcrafted (I'm not kidding.. parts of it almost were handcrafted.) so the Tiger got the best optics in the world PERIOD ! Match that with the most experienced crews the Germans had to offer and oodles of support (if available) and you can see why it killed lots. I have some really cool British and German evaluations of Tigers in combat which I'll be posting to the web soon which make really interesting reading. I hope to have them up within 2 weeks so I'll let ya'll know the instant they go up. "

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Steve,

Thanks for coming back for a bit when the forum returned to sane discussion. I am betting it devolves again, but you may see Mark IV, tom, jaq, and DanielH come up with something that does change your mind.

John, in one post you squashed the hopes we all had that you had started reading posts. Leave it to you to trot out the 6 least important words in a post. Deutschland über Alles! Down with Science!

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 10-03-2000).]

[danielh]

CavScout,

Nothing new here ! The post by Fionn is absolutely congruent to my own opinion.

One just has to look at the production figures for M4's and Tiger I's or Kingtigers.

What's the question, is the representation in the game (Tiger too weak, ok, overrated).

Influenced by several tests my impression tends strongly to the first (I may be wrong..), but even more important the range/hit probability seems to be strange.

If a tank needs 3 shots at 300 m to hit a stationary target one would suspect that at 600 m 9 shots would be needed, if all system variables are the same, with the exception of range, according to the rules of geometry and physics. Why becomes the system more precise at middle ranges ?

Greets

Daniel

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

John, in one post you squashed the hopes we all had that you had started reading posts. Leave it to you to trot out the 6 least important words in a post. Deutschland über Alles! Down with Science!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's we? you got a mouse in your pocket?. Ayup thats what I get for trying to clarify what the 88 thread was to me & how I became involved in it for you, I shouldn't have wasted the bandwidth aprently in trying to get along with you in this matter, no problem just keep putting words in my mouth etc SD.

Maybe it would be better if we both just ignore each other & you no longer reply to anything I write, or bring me up in your posts & I will do the same.

John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Wilhammer]

Gyro advantage vs Optics advantage.

So far, and correct me if I am wrong, but no one has yet explained how the Gyroscope thing works, but we know how the optics work--a crisper image.

I'll do my best to explain the gyroscope. Sorry for those who already know, but let's make sure all of us know.

Essentially, to target a gun you need to point it in the right direction and know the correct range. The Zeiss optics did a very good job of this, and I have no doubt it helped at long range. The device is complicated, and requires some brains, many of which had been splattered all over the Eastern Front by now.

The Gyroscope in the US tanks was adopted from the Navy. The Navy uses it to maintain gun elevation while they are moving constant relative to the target. The gun mount floats with the Gyro, which maintains the gun at level or a selected elevation while cruising over choppy water and through wakes. It was the employment of gyrostabilizers that resulted in the possibility of the now familiar long range gunnery duel. Before that, Naval battles were at very close range, under 5000 meters.

What does this have to do with a Tank? Simple, the tank moves over the ground and the barrel that is gyro-stabilized will follow NOT the lay of the land, but the chosen elevation.

Half the problem of aiming the gun is basically solved for a tank on the move.

The Zeiss optics advantage, if in in fact their is one, is in clarity and the calibration tick marks for shooting targets.

Fine, but I remind you it was complicated, so it is best used when you got some time and you are NOT MOVING. Zeiss optics would give you no advantage, and would be worthless in their complexity, while on the move in battle.

A non-Gyro tank's gun will follow the lay of the land as it moves, thus neccesitating a huge adjustment if they need to move the gun up if they are going down slope, etc.

The Gyro tank will need make only fine adjustments, thus laying the gun on the target much quicker. The gunner has far less work to do.

BTS Quote[shooting on the move without gyros - next to impossible. Shooting with the gyros - quite possible.]

As for shutting it off. Well, its probably exagerated how much it was shut off (I think it is one of those oft-occuring Squad Leader Urban Legends), but I bet some did shut it off. If the unit had no combat experience, and it broke, they may not fix it because it is under-appreciated. Those tanks that might be usually employed in Infantry support might not need it as they normally would not be hunting tanks, so they might let it fall into disrepair. Also, if a tank is travelling on a road expecting no opposition, they might shut it off in order to keep the breach from moving up and down while they are trying to relax on their "Sunday" drive.

Has any one asked if some ignored the Zeiss optics? Well, I think some if not many did. You don't need a scope to shoot a deer at close range, you use the iron sites. At close range you don't need all that complication to get a good shot.

When quoting or depending on limited sources, remember that the goal of many is to sell their product. When reading war accounts, be wary as well.

You watch the news? Good, then you know that it is the unusual that gets the spotlight, not the usual.

Thank you for your time.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

who's we? you got a mouse in your pocket?. Ayup thats what I get for trying to clarify it for, no problem just keep putting words in my mouth etc.

Maybe it would be better if you no longer reply to anything I write, or bring me up in your posts & I will do the same, or we can take this E-mail & off this forum where it belongs.

John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that simple John. You want me to back off baseless conjecture offered as fact, when there is to much in the world as it is. When you or anyone posts conjecture as fact, I will happily point out this, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you, until BTS asks me to stop. What you want is to clear the decks of your critics on this forums, but I am not a critic of yours, merely of the style of argument you and other espouse, and of the Deutschland über Alles click all together.

I suggest you take your complaints to BTS and let them decide if critical thinking is crime and science no good, then let them ban me. If you have a good argument, then I am sure they will ban me. I will not however back off on critiques of mushy thinking -- that is a road to disaster as shown by Rimm on the Source Billboard.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer:

Gyro advantage vs Optics advantage.

So far, and correct me if I am wrong, but no one has yet explained how the Gyroscope thing works, but we know how the optics work--a crisper image.

I'll do my best to explain the gyroscope. Sorry for those who already know, but let's make sure all of us know.

Essentially, to target a gun you need to point it in the right direction and know the correct range. The Zeiss optics did a very good job of this, and I have no doubt it helped at long range. The device is complicated, and requires some brains, many of which had been splattered all over the Eastern Front by now.

The Gyroscope in the US tanks was adopted from the Navy. The Navy uses it to maintain gun elevation while they are moving constant relative to the target. The gun mount floats with the Gyro, which maintains the gun at level or a selected elevation while cruising over choppy water and through wakes. It was the employment of gyrostabilizers that resulted in the possibility of the now familiar long range gunnery duel. Before that, Naval battles were at very close range, under 5000 meters.

What does this have to do with a Tank? Simple, the tank moves over the ground and the barrel that is gyro-stabilized will follow NOT the lay of the land, but the chosen elevation.

Half the problem of aiming the gun is basically solved for a tank on the move.

The Zeiss optics advantage, if in in fact their is one, is in clarity and the calibration tick marks for shooting targets.

Fine, but I remind you it was complicated, so it is best used when you got some time and you are NOT MOVING. Zeiss optics would give you no advantage, and would be worthless in their complexity, while on the move in battle.

A non-Gyro tank's gun will follow the lay of the land as it moves, thus neccesitating a huge adjustment if they need to move the gun up if they are going down slope, etc.

The Gyro tank will need make only fine adjustments, thus laying the gun on the target much quicker. The gunner has far less work to do.

BTS Quote[shooting on the move without gyros - next to impossible. Shooting with the gyros - quite possible.]

As for shutting it off. Well, its probably exagerated how much it was shut off (I think it is one of those oft-occuring Squad Leader Urban Legends), but I bet some did shut it off. If the unit had no combat experience, and it broke, they may not fix it because it is under-appreciated. Those tanks that might be usually employed in Infantry support might not need it as they normally would not be hunting tanks, so they might let it fall into disrepair. Also, if a tank is travelling on a road expecting no opposition, they might shut it off in order to keep the breach from moving up and down while they are trying to relax on their "Sunday" drive.

Has any one asked if some ignored the Zeiss optics? Well, I think some if not many did. You don't need a scope to shoot a deer at close range, you use the iron sites. At close range you don't need all that complication to get a good shot.

When quoting or depending on limited sources, remember that the goal of many is to sell their product. When reading war accounts, be wary as well.

You watch the news? Good, then you know that it is the unusual that gets the spotlight, not the usual.

Thank you for your time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tankers in 761 and CCB / 2 (per Wilson and History of the 76th Armoured) both mentioned that some tankers disconnected Gyros, but that many others learned how to fix and maintain them against orders (tankers were not suppose to take the covers off -- only in rear areas). Tankers in both these units "loved" the Gyros because they were "the only safety they had when things got hot." As a textual basis added to the Aberdeen tests this says that likely the game under models gyros, but this is not a bad compromise since some tankers did disconnect them.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Not that simple John. You want me to back off baseless conjecture offered as fact, when there is to much in the world as it is. When you or anyone posts conjecture as fact, I will happily point out this, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you, until BTS asks me to stop. What you want is to clear the decks of your critics on this forums, but I am not a critic of yours, merely of the style of argument you and other espouse, and of the Deutschland über Alles click all together.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh your right SD its not gonna be that simple, so get off your high horse Slappy, what you express here is your opinion nothing more, nothing less. you represent no one but yourself, drop the ego act. I have already pointed out you made incorrect assumptions concerning the 88 thread.

My being uncomfortable has nothing to do with this, its the constant spam from you thats dragging this out here & ruining this discussion for others that have to wade through these exchanges between you & I to get to relevant posts.

A personal problem between you & I apprently exits as evident by your fixation on me here, & it has no place here, you want to keep useing me as an example & putting words in my mouth, then we are going to have a problem here, a major one.

If you want to continue to troll this, then go right ahead continue on as you have & I will rebuff you every time, till you or BTS grows tired of it, and ends it, or you can take it up E-mail with me & spare the forum.

John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-03-2000).]

[danielh]

Wilhammer,

Nice theory ! But on what kind of ground, paved road or over a bumpy field ?

Don't you think, that this feature if it worked as you intend it worked would have found very warm praises by it's users, because it would have given the tankers a HUGE advantage over the enemy !

As i stated before, the gyro in CM doesn't bother me, because all vehicles seem to have gyros already built in (Think about that 0.5 Jeep slamming through the landscape at full pace, putting out sniper strikes on everything around...).

What we have here, is that testdata and the design suggest a strong advantage, but what is lacking is actual testimony from both sides in combat. (Also the germans should have had noticed such a gain in lethality...).

Greets

Daniel

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Oh your right SD its not gonna be that simple, so get off your high horse Slappy, what you express here is your opinion nothing more, nothing less. you represent no one but yourself, drop the ego act.

My being uncomfortable has nothing to do with this, its the constant spam from you thats dragging this out here & ruining this discussion for others. A personal problem between you & I has no place here, you want to keep useing me as an example & putting words in my mouth, then we are going to have a problem here, a major one.

if you want to continue this troll flamefest, then go right ahead continue on as you have & I will rebuff you every time, till BTS grows tired of it, and ends it, or you can take it up E-mail with me & spare the forum.

John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-03-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I have no personal problem with you as I have stated before, only your cavalier attitude toward terms like proof and such and your factions lack of reading comprehension. You are smart, you retain what you read, but unfortunately lack many of the critical skills needed to place what you read into a body of knowledge, something many many people share with you. As for having a problem here -- it is one sided. Trott out a useful argument and I will be the first to wipe my head and jump up and down in joy. If you mean a major problem as something more sinister -- then grow up , we had enough of that with your inuendo on that kid's grand dad.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

If you mean a major problem as something more sinister -- then grow up , we had enough of that with your inuendo on that kid's grand dad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their you go again SD you incorrectly interpreted what I said in that discussion and are portraying it, as if I did something wrong their which was not the case. at least Markus & others understood my meaning and again you refer to yourself as we.

As for what I meant, its exactly what I said, I will respond every time that you take it upon yourself to put words in my mouth etc or incorectly state as fact what I allegedly meant.

John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[Wilhammer]

What kind of ground? Anything that the tank can move on, even on a boat if need be

The only limitation is if the slope going up is greater than the gun can depress relative to the selected plane to keep the gun on, the opposite situation of going down slope.

As a naval gun on glassy sea, or rolling waves, the gun cares not for the surface the tracks are on, only the slope.

[Guest machineman]

Well what I've picked up from this is that the deadliness of the gun/optic/turrent/etc TOGETHER has to be up to spec, so I guess the optics question comes down to the first round hit percentage at various ranges during battlefield conditons. If this is correct historically tank vs tank, then the optics are automatically taken care of. I'm still looking for the French results. This is a bit on French use of the panther, from http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm

It revolutionized tank designs and influenced post-war western tank designs and is considered to be the first MBT (Main Battle Tank). After the war many French Army tank units were equipped with Panthers (eg. 503rd Tank Battalion in Mourmelon had 50 Panthers in 1947 and 501rd Tank Battalion used Panthers from 1946 to 1950). Other post-war users included Bulgaria (Bulgarian Panthers), Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and

Yugoslavia. After the war, modified Panther's 75mm KwK 42 L/70 gun was produced by French as 75mm DEFA and CN75-50 gun. It was used by them in a number of light tanks (eg. AMX 13) and armored cars (eg. EBR 75).

Also, Israelis used the gun to upgrade their M50 Super Sherman. In 1947, Sweden received single Panzerbefehlswagen Panther Ausf A from France as a gift, which was then handed over to Germany in 1960/61 and is today on display in the Panzermuseum Munster. In late 1940s, Israeli high command was considering

starting production of modified Panther but it was never realized.

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-03-2000).]