German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[:USERNAME:]

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

Lewis claims to be active military to most people here except CavScout (who really is). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EHHHHHHH!!! Sorry Hans

I never claimed active but a veteran yes. We had a special event for mouths like Slap'tha'dragon called a blanket party.

[Slapdragon]

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

It was discussed by BTS?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they handled it in a post with a reference back to their original discussion. It was thorough and covered what you are asking in a lot of detail.

[Simon Fox]

Lewis,

The quality of your contribution to this discussion comes as no suprise to those of us familiar with your previous failures. That a person so bereft of redeeming features as yourself so frequently resorts to personal invective is highly amusing. I am sure that Steve and Charles are mortified that such a 'valued' customer as yourself is dissatisfied. Your occasional recent adoption of the persona of 'elder statesman' of the forum and champion protector of nitpickers from the wrath of the 'CM mafia' (a paranoid delusion if ever there was one) is outstandingly comical. You are unable to maintain the pretence for long and soon return to form by descending to the familiar puerile prattle so redolent of your previous efforts.

[:USERNAME:]

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

Yes, they handled it in a post with a reference back to their original discussion. It was thorough and covered what you are asking in a lot of detail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I went bacck 30 posts and only saw off topic whining, gyro crap, and flaming (I saw alot of your work there).

Perhaps you can be a dear and cut and paste.

Lewis

[Simon Fox]

Some good info in there from rune. Have you got the whole of WO 185/195 "New type sighting for tanks" as I only have bits of it and am still trying to obtain the whole thing. Some other good stuff may be found in WO 185/194 "Tank and anti-tank armament".

In addition to the gyro documents rune cites there is also WO 291/90 "Firing on the move from tanks" which has basically the same conclusions but also addresses firing tank MGs on the move and low calibre guns.

And just for Fatso:

WO 291/2398, "The hit chance of WOMBAT against moving targets."

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[Slapdragon]

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

EHHHHHHH!!! Sorry Hans

I never claimed active but a veteran yes. We had a special event for mouths like Slap'tha'dragon called a blanket party.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis, this is a serious question. Were you injured in the military?

I have interviewed one Vet, Guy Cambell, who was on some pretty severe psychotropic drugs after a cooking unit exploded on him. It effected his cognition, caused behavioral problems, but also seemed to effect his "touch" with reality. I was lucky enough to speak with him in a lucid moment and was rewarded with a wonderful interview, but the next week he was almost unable to communicate coherently. He too used chat rooms for company, but was often labelled a looser or a freak, and called dumb, because he was on so much medication he was unable to properly track, and he often resorted to violent outbursts and child like regressions to get his point across.

I e-mailed him three weeks ago to see how he was doing and he was almost identical in his answering systems to you. One thing that I do for him is that he will e-mail me what he wants to say, and I will "wash it" to make it civilized and make rational sense, and send it back to him to get a yea or nay on its real meaning. It helps him in e-mail exchanges and to make friends (he is very lonely and I live to far away to visit often.)

So Lewis, and this is serious -- if you are in a similar boat and not just being a jerk -- e-mail me privately and I would love to help you communicate coherently as well. Especially if you are chair bound like Guy and only intereact through the Internet. he did not realize, or the drugs kept him from coming to grasp, what exactly sounded like on e-mail.

Luckily other at his VFW help him even more, and monitor his meds levels -- he calls it his Guy sanity watch. Great man, and very brave.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Lewis,

The quality of your contribution to this discussion comes as no suprise to those of us familiar with your previous failures. That a person so bereft of redeeming features as yourself so frequently resorts to personal invective is highly amusing. I am sure that Steve and Charles are mortified that such a 'valued' customer as yourself is dissatisfied. Your occasional recent adoption of the persona of 'elder statesman' of the forum and champion protector of nitpickers from the wrath of the 'CM mafia' (a paranoid delusion if ever there was one) is outstandingly comical. You are unable to maintain the pretence for long and soon return to form by descending to the familiar puerile prattle so redolent of your previous efforts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quality of this thread would make any normality stand out. Both sides suck. Things disappear. What the hell you want from me?

Elder statesman? C'mon. I am a customer. I have brought customers to the coffers. I literally add to the game.

I dont need slappy calling me stupid. I would prefer to discus this with BTS. My posts disappear. Excuse me.

Hey slappy. Nothing personal. I would rather you get someone else to futz around with. You have been banging the keyboard all day. Say hello to the wife or something.

Fox get off the box.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey slappy. Nothing personal. I would rather you get someone else to futz around with. You have been banging the keyboard all day. Say hello to the wife or something.

Fox get off the box.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helping a disabled vet and a friend is worth every second I put into it, so make fun if you like, but I think that reaching out in this way off the Internet is very important. Would you prefer the man to sit alone in his apartment all day and night with no one to interact with? Than I know you are not a Vet.

As for my offer to help you break out of your shell, I really think you are on some sort of chemical that effects your mentation. If you came out and said it and asked for help, then a dozen people would spring to you aid.

[:USERNAME:]

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

Lewis, this is a serious question. Were you injured in the military?

I have interviewed one Vet, Guy Cambell, who was on some pretty severe psychotropic drugs after a cooking unit exploded on him. It effected his cognition, caused behavioral problems, but also seemed to effect his "touch" with reality. I was lucky enough to speak with him in a lucid moment and was rewarded with a wonderful interview, but the next week he was almost unable to communicate coherently. He too used chat rooms for company, but was often labelled a looser or a freak, and called dumb, because he was on so much medication he was unable to properly track, and he often resorted to violent outbursts and child like regressions to get his point across.

I e-mailed him three weeks ago to see how he was doing and he was almost identical in his answering systems to you. One thing that I do for him is that he will e-mail me what he wants to say, and I will "wash it" to make it civilized and make rational sense, and send it back to him to get a yea or nay on its real meaning. It helps him in e-mail exchanges and to make friends (he is very lonely and I live to far away to visit often.)

So Lewis, and this is serious -- if you are in a similar boat and not just being a jerk -- e-mail me privately and I would love to help you communicate coherently as well. Especially if you are chair bound like Guy and only intereact through the Internet. he did not realize, or the drugs kept him from coming to grasp, what exactly sounded like on e-mail.

Luckily other at his VFW help him even more, and monitor his meds levels -- he calls it his Guy sanity watch. Great man, and very brave.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My answer? Hey you are "funny". In a "funny" way.

My fave:

"he did not realize, or the drugs kept him from coming to grasp, what exactly sounded like on e-mail."

You should take some communications courses huh? Could someone "wash" the great TV directors verbiage? ROTFLMAO!!!

Thanks. You made my day.

Lewis

[:USERNAME:]

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

Helping a disabled vet and a friend is worth every second I put into it, so make fun if you like, but I think that reaching out in this way off the Internet is very important. Would you prefer the man to sit alone in his apartment all day and night with no one to interact with? Than I know you are not a Vet.

As for my offer to help you break out of your shell, I really think you are on some sort of chemical that effects your mentation. If you came out and said it and asked for help, then a dozen people would spring to you aid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mentation? Mentalism? What?

I think you are breaking out of YOUR shell and scaring people.

I change my mind. You arent "funny". You are REAL "funny"

Lewis

[Simon Fox]

Pssst! Slappy, I think it's against the zoo rules to bang on his cage with that stick.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[aka_tom_w]

good night

maybe this thread will look brighter in the morning.

I think we had a dark day here

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

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

My answer? Hey you are "funny". In a "funny" way.

My fave:

"he did not realize, or the drugs kept him from coming to grasp, what exactly sounded like on e-mail."

You should take some communications courses huh? Could someone "wash" the great TV directors verbiage? ROTFLMAO!!!

Thanks. You made my day.

Lewis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally serious Lewis. Make all the remarks that you like, but until you come out and admit your problem people are going to treat you like a two headed monkey boy which you may not deserve. Many drugs used to treat severe injuries result in disjointed language, difficulty keeping information threads in the head, memory loss, and other disfunctions. Guy needs constant therapy to stay "with us" and often sounds like a person with turettes syndrome, barking, yapping, and not making sense. His conversational ability on the Internet is almost as low as yours, and he has similar problems with his temper and with cognition. I think the contempt you bring down on yourself may be because people do not understand what is really happening to you. Try to misdirect all you want, but your answers make me more sure it is the case.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Pssst! Slappy, I think it's against the zoo rules to bang on his cage with that stick.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah Simon, but I had to see if he could be reached. Not very Christian to insult someone without at least trying to see if it is his fault.

[Guest machineman]

Cough, um, how about going back to about where this excellent post was and forgetting about what is inbetween? This thread DOES have the potential to be an excellent topic to learn about ALL optics/firing solutions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Part I.

I think I may be able to offer some help on the American side of the gunnery equation. An FM/TM (forget which, can't find the number), called Tank & Tank Destroyer Gunnery, was published in January of 1946. I know this publication really existed because I was outbid on eBay for an original issue by the son of a recon trooper in the 701st Tank Destroyer Battalion.

Given its publication date and title, I think we can reasonably infer that it embodies both the standard gunnery procedures and the lessons learned from D-Day through the end of the war. As I recall, it was many hundreds of pages long, replete with photos, graphs and tables.

Seems to me that this kind of information would go a long way toward making concrete much of what's currently nebulous. In theory, it should provide some sort of handle on doctrinal open fire ranges for several different armament/sight configurations and should clearly and specifically explain exactly how to use the sights and adjust fire after the initial shot. I would further expect

photos or airbrush renderings of the actual gunsight images.

I believe that Fort Knox would have a copy of this important and information rich work, and there may be other sources as well. I am trying to get the guy who outbid me to run me a copy, but I haven't heard back from him.

Part II.

I agree completely with PzKpfwI about the importance of filters in gunsights. How many of you want to be in bright sunshine at high noon without sunglasses (Glare reducing or polarizing filters)? That's a neutral gray filter in a gunsight.

Now imagine facing all that glare through magnified optics with no glare protection. What? No takers?

Shooters routinely use amber lenses, which subtract blue from the visible spectrum, greatly reducing distortion from scatter and enhancing contrast. You'll sometimes see them as driving glasses, too. They're really handy in haze and overcast.

I invite those of you who can, to go to a gun or archery range, preferably outdoors. See if you can find someone who has/rent a good variable power spotting scope. The good ones have several filters built right into the focal plane, allowing the user to change both magnifications and filters, depending on distance and environmental conditions. You will then be able to see firsthand just how important those filters can be.

Targets lost in the haze will now be seen. Blurry targets will be crisp and clear, standing out from their background. And if you could see the target was there at, say, 2 power, at 6 power, you'll be able to precisely locate .223 bullet holes at 100 meter range.

Now, translate this back into the battlefield.

Clear, distortion free optics translate into greater detection range than lesser quality optics with the same magnification and field of view. They are useful for discriminating camouflaged targets and selecting weapon aimpoints.

Similarly, the side with higher magnification,

holding other parameters constant, can see farther/more detail than the side with lower magnification.

If one side can simply turn a knob to change sight magnification, while the other has to unscrew eyepieces, then the side with dialable

magnification has an advantage.

The side with filters will have an advantage on several fronts over the one without, being able to see and engage targets the other side will have a tough time seeing, much less engaging effectively. Again, this advantage is amplified if filters can be engaged by simply twisting a knob.

I leave it to the technical specialists to determine who had what,when, and how well it worked, but I can tell you from direct experience that the things I've mentioned here do matter and are militarily significant. I would further argue that sight goodness would be a larger concern for the force with lower velocity guns, since trajectory loopiness makes swift, accurate ranging even more important.

Part III

Like some of you, I also have played Panzer Elite (covers North Africa and Italy).

(Important: note qualifiers.)

If the sights for the U.S. and the Germans worked as depicted in that game (played both sides extensively), then I would much prefer the German sights if I had to go to war. I found them much more intuitive and easier to use, particularly with a flatshooting gun like the Panther's.

If you can, play Panzer Elite. Notice how much easier it is to aim and get hits with the German sights, particularly with high magnification in use. What you can't see at all through American gunsights is crystal clear through a Panther's at high magnification. I could easily put a shot through a specific house window from hundreds of meters away, whereas I was often hard pressed to hit the same house with American optics. The blur in the trees as the Americans resolved into a hunkered down squad, with discrete men, for the Germans.

Whether this depiction is in fact correct, I couldn't say. I would also observe that this game is set BEFORE the CM time period, hence presumably DOESN'T model late war, improved American

optics.

Hope the above are useful.

Regards,

John Kettler <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[CavScout]

<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>

The question have moved past "range finding" as it has been acknowledged that under 1000 meters even the Germans didn't normally use a range finder. Under 800 to 1000 meters, there is no real need to use a range finder.

Cav

[CavScout]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MUWAHHH! That is sooooo funny!

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, knock it off. Lewis, your record for rational discourse is well established. No need for you to further display your skills.

As for the question about the missing messages... I haven't a clue what happened. In fact, I didn't even know they were missing until just now. The only way to purposefully delete an entire page's worth of posts is for me to manually delete each and every one of them, or to find the HTML page on the server and nuke it. I have never, and will never, do any such thing to any thread here. So all I can think of is that the size of this BBS has finally produced a fluke loss of data. I hope it doesn't continue.

As for Lewis' side points he feels were not answered... I thought they were. In any case, they have nothing to do with the nature of this thread (i.e. increased accuracy) because a) what you mentioned is about spotting and if we thought there was a need for some sort of special bonus for spotting we would do it based on the actual vehicle NOT on the nationality.

Maybe someday we will try and qualify and quantify the ability of each AFV in the game to spot according to its standard equipment, but until then we are going to stick with the current abstraction. There are bigger fish to fry than adding +5% to this vehicle and -2% to that.

Steve

[CavScout]

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

Talk about anecdotal, but I got thinking about this sight/gun/trajectory combination thing, and it occurred to me that here in hunting country a high power, flat trajectory rifle like a 22-270 or so ALWAYS has a scope, usually the best the owner can afford, while a low power, high trajectory 30-30 usually has iron sights or a cheap scope. A better (ie higher resolution, more accurate, brighter, etc) sight may be NECESSARY for a high power tank gun to be used to it's fullest capacity for accuracy at long ranges, whereas with a low power round it's just give it a guess and do a lot of bracketing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well even more "anecdotal" is the fact that a "low powered, high trajectory" 25mm on a M2/M3 has a x12 scope to the "high powered, low trajectory" M1 has only a x10.

cav

[CavScout]

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

I am absolutely disgusted by this thread. A BTS low. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The low is the personal attacks you continue to throw.

BTW, you disqualified Steve from this discussion for being a "civilan". What military service have you done?

Cav

[CavScout]

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

EHHHHHHH!!! Sorry Hans

I never claimed active but a veteran yes. We had a special event for mouths like Slap'tha'dragon called a blanket party.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What branch?

[TeAcH]

For what's its worth Jeff, I agree with you. I just wanted to publicly display my support for your efforts in this discussion.

I think the whole flaming war started when Slap subtly accused some of us who were for the optics advantage as being part of some secret nazi lovers party then saying that we were anti-science lovers. BTS even made a comment to that end that there are those that are devote freaks of German ww2 military might. An "optics supporter" could easily infer that they were being painted with that brush.

Then when the warmth got returned to Slap, he posted fifty times a minute and pointed the finger at everyone else, namely Jeff. Sad.

Slap, you were even being snide in your response to my post back on page 7 or so (about the search warrant issue). Funny thing is, and I wont go into it, but there you were trying to use a police related, search warrant example like you knew what you are talking about. It was innacurate at best.

Overly presumptious of you, wasn't that? But that appears to be right up your alley. I would not even begin to tell you about, or make examples out of, your field of expertise, because I have not studied it nor have I practiced it for any length of time.

If I had a nickle for every person I met who thought they were smart because a certificate on their "I love me wall" says so, well..you know the rest.

I realize my post is off topic, but I really found it disturbing that Slap (you) would make subtle snide remarks towards others (Jeff) and their arguments, then cry fowl when they respond in kind. Unfair.

I agree with the poster who said this forum would have gone a lot smoother had slap been missing from it.

So now what? Slap quotes my whole post and disects it piece by piece? Who cares.

Good going Jeff.

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 10-06-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

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

What branch?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do a recon (that means do a search). I really dont care about discussing my military career in this thread. No more so than gyros or planes or nutty conflagerated vets and such.

I would like to discuss sights. The effect of sights. The effect that sights can have on combat and how they can be related to CM.

Effects like accuracy and clarity. Repeatability and precision. Anyone care to take this on?

Effects like spotting the target. IDing the targets. Seeing its orientation in relation to the gunner. Stuff like that. has to do with the sight? Lets discuss. Feel you need to impress me with Pathos or other garbage? You probably wont.

I really think CM has come to its present stage by applying good research with good reasoning and making good guesses. Making sound estimates and such. Any s**t for brains can revel in casting doubt and pontificating BS. As far as I am concerned there has been very little evidence in either way here.

The panzerfiebel books show the germans made a good attempt at using what they obviously engineering into their sights. Thats a good starting point.

Lewis

Ps NO. I am not slapdraggin. People emailed me that today. He is some freak or joker. I cant tell which.

[CavScout]

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

Do a recon (that means do a search). I really dont care about discussing my military career in this thread. No more so than gyros or planes or nutty conflagerated vets and such.

I would like to discuss sights. The effect of sights. The effect that sights can have on combat and how they can be related to CM.

Effects like accuracy and clarity. Repeatability and precision. Anyone care to take this on?

Effects like spotting the target. IDing the targets. Seeing its orientation in relation to the gunner. Stuff like that. has to do with the sight? Lets discuss. Feel you need to impress me with Pathos or other garbage? You probably wont.

I really think CM has come to its present stage by applying good research with good reasoning and making good guesses. Making sound estimates and such. Any s**t for brains can revel in casting doubt and pontificating BS. As far as I am concerned there has been very little evidence in either way here.

The panzerfiebel books show the germans made a good attempt at using what they obviously engineering into their sights. Thats a good starting point.

Lewis

Ps NO. I am not slapdraggin. People emailed me that today. He is some freak or joker. I cant tell which.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you have disqulified Steve for being a civilan and SD for being a teacher, I have to ask what QUALIFIES you for this discussion?

Cav

[Guest Big Time Software]

TeAcH,

I think you are WAY off base. It was Jeff that invented the "nazi thing". I, and others, pointed out the obvious and long standing pro-German bias that exists amungst wargamers and WWII history buffs. I also took the time to support that claim, as did others. This wasn't even directed at Jeff, but he went off the deepend and started lashing out. Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have seen this behavior from Jeff.

And as the person that has been on the direct receiving end of all the irrational positioning and direct abuse (by Jeff, mostly), I can clearly say that if the pro-optics camp had used logic and rational discourse instead of insults and irrelevant side issues (who introduced Gyros into this whole thing?!?) we could have had a nice little discussion going here. And TeAcH... what exactly did you contribute to this thread other than your opening opinions?

Lewis wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any s**t for brains can revel in casting doubt and pontificating BS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Lewis. First Step is admitting you have a problem. If you could just get past the dennial stage perhaps you could get to it.

Steve