German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[Jagdcarcajou]

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

Bottom line is... until we can qunatify some sort of advantage *AND* disadvantage between US/UK and German optics as used on the battlefield, nothing is going to change. Those biased in favor of things German are just going to have to realize that we do not assume that if it is marked "Made in Germany" that it is better than something marked "Made in US/UK". It doesn't matter how often people repeat something, it doesn't make it true.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey,

This is way back from page 2, but its still on the books. The last BTS post was the first to state that qualitative evidence was necessary before quantitative. The above statement does not coincide with that. No fair changing the rules...

BTS,

As a non-concerned party (I don't care if you include the bonus or not) I have noticed that you are being particulary beligerent in this issue. Evidence has been presented and it has been ignored. Others are looking for more scientific data because you asked for quantified data to make a case. As I stated before (in a post that was entirely ignored) first hand accounts by expert witnesses are perfectly legitimate evidence. They provide a qualitative base from which to begin discussions of quantified data. If a tank gunner looks through both sights, and remarks that the Germans had an advantage because of their optic devices, how can that be discounted? I realize you have said that veteran testimony doesn't always agree, but this "myth" didn't just pop out of thin air. It exists because the preponderance of veterans stated that an advantage existed.

This is entirely different than the entire world believing the Earth is flat. This is a straight comparison of two like objects which a group of experts have given an opinion about.

Kudos to the dedicated researchers out there looking for hard numerical data. But in terms of opening a discussion, there is ample reason to do so. It seems to me as I read these posts that BTS is almost disagreeing just to disagree.

As I stated before, I largely back your position, but I feel the animosity in this thread has caused both sides to dig in and refuse to give any ground at all. That is totally counter-productive.

I fully expect a tirade of accusations of how I can't read, etc... but I know better. I have read every post in this thread, and I've understood all the issues brought up. The evidence BTS asked for, to consider the subject, has been provided, and tons more could be sent your way, but no one wants to listen anymore. Has anything yet been quantified? No. But the overall consensus of most first hand accounts points to the fact that an advantage existed.

As always, its your game, and I respect your rights to design it your way. But as to this "discussion" it appears no one is listening to anyone anymore.

Now if I could just leave work to go play the friggin' game...

Chris

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

What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou?

[danielh]

To Slapdragon, (Sorry i can't keep up with the posting speed..)

Thank you for the data about the gyrosystem max acceleration question.

What's still open:

- Detailed explanation of M4-gun sighting device.

- Reason off to why some units actually used the gyro, and some not.

-> Some vague indications were given already:

- Not trained enough

- Crews dismayed any advantage

- Prone to malfunction

- A possible danger for the tank crew (?)

In my opinion the US-tankers didn't leave any possibility out to enhance the lethality of their equipment (One only think about the sandbags ladden tanks, or fieldmod welded add. armor). So why were they so reluctant to use a system which could give them an advantage ?

My very provisional answer: The advantage was not that obvious, or the system was prone to malfunction (maybe due to lack of proper maintenance...).

Greets

Daniel

[aka_tom_w]

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

Now if I could just leave work to go play the friggin' game...

Chris

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks forthe chuckle Chris

that was the most entertaining thing anyone has said in this whole Thread...

It felt good to laugh for a change, I too want to finish up here and go home and play CM.

Why is it that it doesn't seem so "bad" to post on the BBS here while at work, but most of us would never consider playing the game while at work. Maybe its because sometimes this feels like work, this thread particularily.

-tom w

[danielh]

To rune,

Thank you for your data, hope there is more to come....

We have to take one step after another, and not both together or we may land on the bottom....

Greets

Daniel

[aka_tom_w]

This sounds somewhat qualitative to me:

"Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division:

The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories. Superior Flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.

The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

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

German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks.

The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression.

The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before theinvasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943. "

-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"

But then this is not relly new to this discussion either.

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

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

This sounds somewhat qualitative to me:

"Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division:

The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories. Superior Flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.

The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

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

German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks.

The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression.

The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before theinvasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943. "

-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"

But then this is not relly new to this discussion either.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was the post that made me think that this issue could be explored -- there is some evidence for a bonus in the literature. I explain the French lack of hard results by saying that they either were not concerned about the Panther as a progenitor or competitor when they made their comments, or they did test quantitatively and those tests do not survive or have not been located.

For the T-34/85, by the time it was on the skids and a threat to NATO the United States had established a set of technology labs that tested East block hardware. Previous tests were conducted by armour school people who often gave them test drives and looked through the optics, but rarely performed harder tests -- and often messed them up when they did.

In addition, Isreal in 1952 established a very aggressive and very good testing program of "enemy" hardware. Soviet block equipment was tested extensively.

So we have a potential to get a post war test of the T34/85 if the documents remain extant. The quality of these tests are up for grabs, strict testing techniques evolved slowly -- but the potential is there. The reason why the tests may be better is that with post war testing techniques (developed during the war by stats heads like Schramm) did get quite good in the 50s, until most researchers trust them implicitly if they follow a standard format and are replicated

Now, this will not be perfect at all - you are getting a glimpse at the end of Soviet World War Two tanks but not the beginning, and are looking at the best rather than the worst. We still face a great deal of speculation on how effective the T-28 optics were. Ideally, we could get a vis a vis comparison with the M26, but that may be asking to much.

Of course if these documents are not extant we are back to the beginning and relying on strong qualitative evidence to create a quantitative model, very slippery.

[Hakko Ichiu]

This is all well and good, but it doesn't get to the question of whether or not the optics alone provided a significant advantage. Optics in those impressions -- and that is what they are, the impressions of front-line soldiers who understandably want the War Dep't to get them the best tanks possible -- are all wrapped up with flatter trajectory/higher muzzle velocity and better propellant. When someone can unbundle the effects of optics from those other components of German AT effectiveness, BTS will be able to judge whether those effects are worth including as an added bonus.

Also, there is a current of opinion, backed up by evidence (see rune's post) that overall, German optics were not particularly more effective than Allied by '44.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the current physics of the game already takes into account the superior trajectory of German guns, so adding in an optics bonus may be double counting.

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Slapdragon]

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

To Slapdragon, (Sorry i can't keep up with the posting speed..)

Thank you for the data about the gyrosystem max acceleration question.

What's still open:

- Detailed explanation of M4-gun sighting device.

- Reason off to why some units actually used the gyro, and some not.

-> Some vague indications were given already:

- Not trained enough

- Crews dismayed any advantage

- Prone to malfunction

- A possible danger for the tank crew (?)

In my opinion the US-tankers didn't leave any possibility out to enhance the lethality of their equipment (One only think about the sandbags ladden tanks, or fieldmod welded add. armor). So why were they so reluctant to use a system which could give them an advantage ?

My very provisional answer: The advantage was not that obvious, or the system was prone to malfunction (maybe due to lack of proper maintenance...).

Greets

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Daniel, I can answer a few questions based on "Men of the 704th", "History of the 67th Armoured", "Hit Hard", :Black Panthers", and "Uncommon Valor".

Gyro disconnection was occasional. While reliable, security demaned that they be fixed in the rear by special techs. The 761st violated rules and fixed them themselves, but some units did not, and would drive around with a disconnected gyro for a while until they got a rear area servicing. There are no accounts of disconnection for fear of loss of accuracy or because they were too complicated. One source mentions disconnecting them because at speed on rough ground with the gyros engaged the tank gun would constantly "hop" around as it kept zero. This banged the gunner and TC, not like a baseball swing, but it was a pain. The crew disconnected it.

Hellcat drivers, per Valor and 704, loved the gyros. 761 liked them and felt they gave them an edge. 76 tankers were not committal in what I have found in print.

This all needs a grain of salt because this is in no way a survey of the army as a whole, just surviving histories, some of which because of their oral history nature should always be read with care.

[CavScout]

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

This sounds somewhat qualitative to me:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about Rune's post:

1. We are only talking about 10% of battles that went past 2200 yards. Source:

WO 291/1212 Ranges of engagement in the ATk battle.

This report is dated December 1951. It was prepared by E. Benn and R. W. Shephard; readers of "Applied Operations Research" (Plenum Press, New York, 1988) by Shephard, Hartley, Haysman, Thorpe and Bathe, will recognise it as the original source of one of the exercise problems contained in that excellent book.

As a result of analysis of a number of tank engagements in NW Europe, it was concluded that

P = 1 – exp (–R/K)

is a good expression for the proportion, P, of engagements that occur at ranges of less than R yards.

For NW Europe, K is about 950 yards.

90% of engagements occur at less than 2200 yards;

80% of engagements occur at less than 1500 yards;

50% of engagements occur at less than 650 yards.

2. If someone is telling me a German 5X sight is BETTER then a 6X American sight or a British 6X sight, i refuse to believe it. Magnification and field of view are actually better on the Allied scopes. Source:

WO 185/195 New type sighting for tanks

3. No range finder in Allied Sights. OK, but standard doctrine was to use bracketing anyway, and units TRAINED to bracket and fire. Souce:

WO 291/882 Bracketing drills in tank gunnery.

This report is an attempt to standardise bracket distances for tank guns. A short bracket should be 1½ to 3 times the 50% zone of the gun.

4. Westinghouse Gyroscopes. The British also admit there was a gain in firing on the move using the gyro stabilized gun. They also admit crews would prefer to stop and fire from a stationary posistion. Source:

WO 291/1202 Tank armament stabilisation: User experience and the present situation.

It gave slightly better results when shooting on the move than could be obtained with a shoulder-controlled gun; but the chances of hitting when using it on the move were so small, compared with firing from the halt, that users preferred to engage their targets from the halt rather than on the move with the stabiliser working."

There is ALSO a source showing the effectiveness of veterans against average and new troops using rifle and bren. As soon as I find it, will post.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

This is all well and good, but it doesn't get to the question of whether or not the optics alone provided a significant advantage. Optics in those impressions -- and that is what they are, the impressions of front-line soldiers who understandably want the War Dep't to get them the best tanks possible -- are all wrapped up with flatter trajectory/higher muzzle velocity and better propellant. When someone can unbundle the effects of optics from those other components of German AT effectiveness, BTS will be able to judge whether those effects are worth including as an added bonus.

Also, there is a current of opinion, backed up by evidence (see rune's post) that overall, German optics were not particularly more effective than Allied by '44.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the current physics of the game already takes into account the superior trajectory of German guns, so adding in an optics bonus may be double counting.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has pretty much been the argument since post 3. What percentage of accuracy could be explained by different optics compared to flatter trajectory, which appears to be modelled (at least at 1000 meters firing tests of the E8 and Panther gave a higher first round hit to the Panther.) in the game. If the factor is exceedingly small, then it would be subsumed by the luck factor in shooting.

[Guest Big Time Software]

John wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ayup, thats one of the problems of establishing sides to an argument, one side is always right one is always wrong, even when searching for the same answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I for one engage in critical discussions about design decisions made in Combat Mission all the time. Most do NOT degenerate into name calling and bashing. I find that this only happens when we have put our foot down logically and rationally, yet the other side does not accept either logic or rational discussion as the means to the ultimate end. Then our credibility gets called into question, not just on this particular issue, but as a whole. This was done quite regullarly in this thread and so that is why it wound up where it did.

Chris wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is way back from page 2, but its still on the books. The last BTS post was the first to state that qualitative evidence was necessary before quantitative. The above statement does not coincide with that. No fair changing the rules...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No rules changed. What I failed to point out early on is that there still had been no proof submitted that the German optics had any net positive effect compared to the Allied ones in terms of accuracy. So any discussion of the effects of the optics was premature since the evidence to support a bonus AT ALL had not been established.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a non-concerned party (I don't care if you include the bonus or not) I have noticed that you are being particulary beligerent in this issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try laying out logical and rational arguments to have them ignored, insulted, and in general attacked. Do that for 300 messages and see how flexible you would be This is a topic still open to discussion, but only if the pro-optics camp can actually make a solid case. Not an airtight one, but at least one that is based on something that is convincing. It also has to be MORE convincing than the evidence put forth that disagrees with the supposed optics bonus. Until then, why on Earth should we change or position?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I stated before (in a post that was entirely ignored) first hand accounts by expert witnesses are perfectly legitimate evidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a vacuum, they are perfectly legit. But when they are contradicted by other pieces of evidence (including veteran statements) they must be questioned. Also, a statement like this is utterly worthless to us:

"I have looked through the Panther's optics and find them superior to our own" Joe Blow, tank commander.

The pro-optics people make A HUGE leap and say that this proves the Germans had better accuracy at longer range. This quote says nothing of the sort. Instead, it brings up the following questsions:

1. What type US tank did Joe Blow command?

2. Was Joe Blow even qualified to give such a response (he could be a supply guy for all we know)?

3. Define "superior". US Army boots were considdered inferior to German ones at one point in the war. So... should we conclude that the great skill showed by German infantry was due to their better boots? If so, maybe we should give them a +2 boot modifier for their Firepower ratings?

4. What year is this quote from? Early US optics were not as good, as even US reports show. So if this is 1942 it might very well be true, but how are we to know?

So on and so on. I also have US veterans accounts of their weapons, equipment, and other things. One vet says the 60mm mortar was the most useless thing since the 1 wheeled car, while another says they wouldn't be caught dead on the battlefield without as many 60mm mortars as possible. So why should we believe one and not the other without further evidence?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The evidence BTS asked for, to consider the subject, has been provided, and tons more could be sent your way, but no one wants to listen anymore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not going to claim you can't read, but if you think the pro-optics camp has presented all the evidence asked for, you obviously have a different standard than we do. See previous example about nutritional bonus and my older post about the dangers of messing with an abstract system too much.

If anybody cares to put all the "evidence" for an optics bonus into one cohesive and non-confrontational and non-insulting post, I will be more than happy to read it and assess it. Otherwise, case closed until someone does.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

As well as optics & their place in CM's future games, but as in CM it realy shouldn't make a diference at CMs map scale unless CM 2 maps are going to cover 2 - 5km, long range engagements will equate what they do now.

As to SD's assertion that due to captured T-34's etc their should be a way to look into the issue, I would point out that the US have had examples of every German tank, as well as the T-34-76 & T-34-85 and it has solved anything, to date, 1 report on the T-34-76 sight puts it's sight as 'adequate' useing a copy of the British MK 4 site with the T-34-85 useing a copy of the German monocular sight as described in Gudgin's text concerning Soviet optics. While a Soviet report dated 1944 detailing the advantages of the M4A2 Sherman over the T-34 states the Sherman had better optics but doesn't quantify the statement.

The French extensevly tested the Panther in 1947 & I have posted the quotes concerning optics here before but i'll repost the parts on optics; even though it is irrelevent to this discussion as their is no quantification:

'The gunsight with two magnification stages is remarkably clear and has its feild of veiw clear in the center. The gunsight enables observation of a target and shells out to 3000 meters.'

'In all cases the great range of the gun should be exploited to the fullest. Fire can commence at 2000 meteres with considerable accuracy. The majority of hits were accomplished at a range of 1400 to 2000 meters. The ammunition expenditure was reletively low; on the average the fourth or fith shot found its mark, even when useing HE shells'

Now this realy means nothing to this discussion as they don't do a comparison to the Sherman or any other tank so theirs nothing again other then anecdotal evidence from the report & from Allied crews who as some pointed out suffered from an inherent inferiority complex. Runes quote from the British report is interesting as was Simons take on it.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This post is quite well thought out. I have no evidence that Soviet tanks prior to the T34/85 were tested, or how they were tested. It could well be that they were tested to death and we just cannot find it. You are correct though that "better sights" on the Sherman does not cut the mustard, except to say that sometime we may find information on this.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So on and so on. I also have US veterans accounts of their weapons, equipment, and other things. One vet says the 60mm mortar was the most useless thing since the 1 wheeled car, while another says they wouldn't be caught dead on the battlefield without as many 60mm mortars as possible. So why should we believe one and not the other without further evidence?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is so true!

Being in recon, from divisonal to battalion, and used both M3s to Humvees. Ask this scouts which they like and you will get WILDLY different answers. Some, if not most, would argue that a Humvee is better. I would argue for the M3.

Cav

[Jagdcarcajou]

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

No it has not. I am not going to claim you can't read, but you obviously have a different standard than we do. See previous example about nutritional bonus and my older post about the dangers of messing with an abstract system too much.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS,

Thanks for the response Steve. I hear what you are saying, and I think my standards are fairly close to your own. I know that abstract systems can be "detailed" to death, and that at some point a line must be drawn. Is that line on or behind the pro-optics side? I don't know, because its your game. If you feel the evidence for Germans not having enough vitamin A is significant, model it.

My feeling is the overwhelming anecdotal evidence must have some gems in it (tank aces, known gunners, etc.) that could be used to evaluate the merit of the topic. If they all come down to 1942 reports on Pz.Kpfw. IIIs, chuck the issue out the window, and lets collectively move on.

Now, again, about those Gun Damaged results...

Enough smilies in this one for everyone?

Chris

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

What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou?

[danielh]

Slapdragon,

You mentioned:

"Penetration of Armour Plate" originally by (British) Ordnance Board Subcommittee of the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee (reproduced by U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information Service #PB91127506). -- Charles

Where can i get the whole of it ? (Armor vs. Armor 1939 is lacking vital information)

Thanks

Daniel

[danielh]

Gentleman,

To the "Zeiss"-subject once more.

The most important question to go ahead is:

WAS THERE ANY HELP IN THE AMERICAN SIGHTS TO DETERMINE RANGE ?

YES OR NO ?

If yes how did it work (technical explanation please so all can go through it, no citing of it's worth first)

Thank you !

Daniel

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the response. Also wanted to point out that I didn't mean that quote you put up to sound harsh. I reread it and said "oops!" and did an edit. Looks like you where Johnny on the Spot and got the original form

Steve

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon,

You mentioned:

"Penetration of Armour Plate" originally by (British) Ordnance Board Subcommittee of the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee (reproduced by U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information Service #PB91127506). -- Charles

Where can i get the whole of it ? (Armor vs. Armor 1939 is lacking vital information)

Thanks

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These documents are stored at major University Libraries on fiche, part of the Federal document distribution center. You need to see if your local University has a center (the bigger ones will) then see if they have that docut and look for the fiche. If it does not, then the University of Maryland is a repository for goverment documents and this one is in the list. Past that it is National Archives time, and having stood in line with my little brown card once too often I can tell you it can be a real pain (a pain that is suppose to change in the near future), except when you are doing historical research it is the only way to get to actually see the battle reports written by the 3rd Army in September, 1944, or that you can scan the loss documents for 26th Infantry Division, or anything really, only the most famous papers being excluded from veiwing on site.

Best to start at the local U and just ask if they have a federal archive repository or access to an institution that will do photocopies of these documents.

For those who really really want to do top drawer historical research I would also suggest historical methods and historiography class at your local university.

Also -- do not discount the use of primary source documents. Many scholars are perfectly willing to photocopy and send you their work. The author of "The Men of the 704th", a standard Oral history, sent me an unbound galley proof of the book that has long been out of print and is almost impossible to order. Another local scholar let me browse through his oral history tapes of WW2 vets, all unpublished stuff (in exchange I ran a set of them to CD-ROM for him).

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Slapdragon,

You mentioned:

"Penetration of Armour Plate" originally by (British) Ordnance Board Subcommittee of the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee (reproduced by U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information Service #PB91127506). -- Charles

Where can i get the whole of it ? (Armor vs. Armor 1939 is lacking vital information)

Thanks

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Daniiel you can purchase it & other reports online at:

http://www.ntis.gov/

Go their and do a search by the call number:PB91127506.

You also might be interested in:

GERMAN TANK ARMOR by the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee (BIOS) 1946.

This is held in the Tank Museum Library at Bovington, England, and is a giant-size 260 page exploration of captured German info on the specifying, making and testing of German rolled and cast armor throughout the war, including face hardened and odd stuff like induction hardened and austempered steel. Some is based on interviews with German engineers. Some captured Krupp gun performance data is included.

EFFECTS OF IMPACT AND EXPLOSION, by the Office of Scientific Research and Development, et al, 1946. Available from the NTIS under call number AD 221 586.

This report (511 pages) is filled with articles on terminal ballistics, bombs, explosions, armor, and numerous semi-legible charts.

GERMAN EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (PROJECTILES AND PROJECTILE FUZES) March, 1953, Available from the NTIS under call number ADA376695

presents all known technical parameters of every German projectile by that date. Cut-away drawings for each projectile. The document was a compilation of the wartime U.S. "Captured Ammunition Bulletin" series and the U.K. "Handbook of Enemy Ammunition Pamphlet" series.

Whoops forgot to add a few things: the call number for the Explosive Ordnance report has changed, I don't know what the new number is, but Kip does and the new number might be in the 'Some Illuminating Facts about the Tiger Tank' thread as well .

Also the BIOS report is only available to my knowledge from Bovington parts of it can be found all over England's depositories but the complete report is only available at Bovington, at least thats what I was imformed when attempting to locate it.

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 10-05-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

Daniiel it is available at:

http://www.ntis.gov/

Go their and do a search by the call number:PB91127506.

You also might be interested in:

GERMAN TANK ARMOR by the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee (BIOS) 1946.

This is held in the Tank Museum Library at Bovington, England, and is a giant-size 260 page exploration of captured German info on the specifying, making and testing of German rolled and cast armor throughout the war, including face hardened and odd stuff like induction hardened and austempered steel. Some is based on interviews with German engineers. Some captured Krupp gun performance data is included.

EFFECTS OF IMPACT AND EXPLOSION, by the Office of Scientific Research and Development, et al, 1946. Available from the NTIS under call number AD 221 586.

This report (511 pages) is filled with articles on terminal ballistics, bombs, explosions, armor, and numerous semi-legible charts.

GERMAN EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (PROJECTILES AND PROJECTILE FUZES) March, 1953, Available from the NTIS under call number ADA376695

presents all known technical parameters of every German projectile by that date. Cut-away drawings for each projectile. The document was a compilation of the wartime U.S. "Captured Ammunition Bulletin" series and the U.K. "Handbook of Enemy Ammunition Pamphlet" series. The document is a compilation of the wartime U.S. "Captured Ammunition Bulletin" series and the U.K. "Handbook of Enemy Ammunition Pamphlet" series.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for me John, I have been in the habit of trooping down to the libray and pulling hard to read fisch from the NTIS and FD archives, I never knew they had a web site.

[Slapdragon]

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

BTW, Slapdragon, if you wouldn't be here I think the thread would be just a bunch of people throwing ideas, opinions, and data around, with the idea to finding an answer to this, rather than the flamefest it keeps turning into. Half the post's here are yours, usually calling someone who's just posted some info or an opinion an idiot! No one here is forcing BTS to change anything, it's their game, they can sit back and pick and chose what info they want out of here. That's the whole idea of them setting this up, I thought.

So why, exactly, do you have to be so superior and abrasive? Do you realize how consistently insulting you are to people who don't happen to share your views on everything?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually not true -- look at the flames that CavScout was undergoing. If you mean that by being here I am disturbing the easily disturbed or previously disturbed you are probably correct.

As to my abrasiveness, read Simon Fox's post back a few pages ago. What you should say is that hard rules of critical analysis have no place in a thread that started out anecedotal and never pulled out -- which indeed is probably true. It is important though for the casual reader that anecedotes be placed in a perspective so that they can be judged. Also, people started acusing BTS of being unwilling to compromise, someone needed to point out that BTS is indeed following a good set of guidelines in evaluating arguments and data, and that the issue is far from "solved" just because a casual point is trotted out and treated uncritically.

My suggestion: if my posts irk you then complain to BTS, or post better arguments that can survive critical commentary to methods.

[Rother]

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

Gentleman,

To the "Zeiss"-subject once more.

The most important question to go ahead is:

WAS THERE ANY HELP IN THE AMERICAN SIGHTS TO DETERMINE RANGE ?

YES OR NO ?

If yes how did it work (technical explanation please so all can go through it, no citing of it's worth first)

Thank you !

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a picture of the reticle in the American M38A2 sight http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/turret/pegunnery/Figure%204.jpg (I know it's from another game but that really doesn't matter). Notice the the length of the verticle and horizontal lines and the space between them. You can use this sight to rangefind in almost the exact same way as the triangles in the Zeiss sight. The big difference is once you figure the range with the American sight all you need to do is elevate or depress the gun to line up the proper reticle, fire and bracket from there. If I understand the Zeiss sight correctly once you have the range you need to turn a knob to adjust the reticle for that range and then move the gun on target. There's that extra step with the German sight which IMHO makes it that much harder to use. Was that what you were looking for?

Rother

[This message has been edited by Rother (edited 10-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Rother (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

No doubt.

John says it nicely, but I am not so inclined to pull punches.

It is disturbing that Steve would abuse his position to declare by fiat that those who agree with him are blameless, and those who disagree are all morons.

Gee, what a coincidence that those who tell Steve how smart and brilliant he is are all totally free of blame for flaming, while those unwilling to presume that CM is the perfect game, and actually hold them to their own standards are the total cause for all this negative.

Steve should run for office. He has all the markings of a politician.

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, you have a serious problem with flaming when you loose arguments, both of me and CavScout, or not reading posts carefully, and of coming into a BTS board and telling BTS they are idiots. Grow up, post reasonable things, and please GOD start breaking whatever pills the doctors are giving you in half, they are seriously effecting your judgement.

If and when you post a reasonable, clear, and concise argument I am sure that BTS will do hand springs in joy. Now, with flames and failure to read others posts, you will not convince them of anything except to doubt your sanity.

So please calm down, take a deep breath, reread all the posts, formulate a response, and post it in an adult manner, hopefully surrounding the subject at hand. Then you will in return get reasoned posts instead of lectures on deportment from half the board.

[Rother]

oops no link then wrong link then reply to myself instead of editing. Hope I got it right this time. Sorry my head is up my ass today

[This message has been edited by Rother (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Combatboy]

Been reading reading reading, and I have to say this one is silly too.

Slaphappy, you take the cake on this one. Telling some guy who is melting down into his own personal little padded cell to grow up will solve nothing except make him flame twice as hard. But I did like the one about breaking the pills in half .

I think it is best if everyone acted nice to each other, then just let the flamers flame out on nothing. Ignore em and they will calm down, and maybe come back in!

Be joyful, do good work, and kill lots of enemy tanks

Tom