German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[Guest machineman]

Well I was just going to congradulate Slapdragon for some very informative and restrained responses and NOT insulting anyone for a whole page (see how smooth the thread was going) but, here he goes again.

Anyway. Just throwing an idea out there, the Israeli army upgunned Shermans after the war from the original 75 or 76mm to a post war French 75mm gun, which as far as I know is virtually the same as what armed the Panther, with a redesigned and more compact recoil system. There might be some info there on how first shot killing power compared. It would be also interesting how they dealt with the sighting of the different gun, and if they upgraded the sights when upgunning to this vastly different weapon. The difference in trajectory is considerable.

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.

Oh, this is NOT a scientific paper, just a few ideas, SO HOLD YOUR FIRE!

[Slapdragon]

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

Well I was just going to congradulate Slapdragon for some very informative and restrained responses and NOT insulting anyone for a whole page (see how smooth the thread was going) but, here he goes again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, breaking the pills in half was an insult -- but the rest is serious The attempts to block the board with flames is silly, and juvenile. With reasonable, well thought out comments I respond with reasonable, well thought out answers. Flame bating and flamers though cannot and should not be allowed to drag a discussion into the gutter.

[ASL Veteran]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, after the BTS post that spelled out what they were looking for I thought that I detected a change in attitude by Slapdragon. An attitude a little more conducive to constructive conversation on the issue. Had we continued on in that manner perhaps this thread could be salvaged. Whether you realize it or not Slapdragon, this is a new 'shot across the bow' towards Jeff. In his current state of mind I hope that he can refrain from responding.

Jeff, please ignore this personal attack so we can move forward.

Okay, I think that BTS had made several very good points about the issue a few posts back. Desert Fox then made some very good observations. I also understand Jeff's logic and I have to say that some of those very same issues that he raised crossed my mind as well. After swaying back and forth in the breeze, I am more inclined to believe that by 44 there was no significant difference between American and German optics.

I think rather than having a confrontational 'prove it' argument, we would be better served to have a general discussion of the optics issue in general without the proving part. Let's leave the proving part after the discussion has matured a little. By matured, I don't mean the attitudes, but the data. It took a very long time before someone finally described an American sight. I personally think the discussion should be expanded to include Soviet, French, British, etc sights. What do we really know about these things to begin with? Why just compare American and German - why not all nation's optics?

No offense, but I wish BTS was less involved in this discussion. The more BTS is involved, the more this turns into something that is being considered as an official change. Perhaps a pointer here or there to assist the direction of the discussion, but I personally don't want to see a situation where they must defend themselves or their work (which is spectacular). The less involved they are, the less it is necessary for them to defend themselves.

Finally, I think that Jeff has been a little hard on BTS and that he can come across in an abrasive manner. Sometimes he gets caught up in minutae, but he generally makes good points.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Well, after the BTS post that spelled out what they were looking for I thought that I detected a change in attitude by Slapdragon. An attitude a little more conducive to constructive conversation on the issue. Had we continued on in that manner perhaps this thread could be salvaged. Whether you realize it or not Slapdragon, this is a new 'shot across the bow' towards Jeff. In his current state of mind I hope that he can refrain from responding.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that we had hit a dead end when the flames began and Jeff's last post showed he had not heard a thing BTS has said. Constantly repeating the same things over and over again has everyone on edge. BTS's post did not make me "wake up", no one paid one word of attention to it and what it said.

What I have said all along is that to make BTS change their mind about things you need to first present a serious qualitative argument about this issue, then back it up with a model that suggests how BTS might code it. Until we all realize that this is what BTS needs to change the game, we will have hurt feelings.

In addition, thie board will need to get much more academic in nature before it climbs out of this. What I mean is that more attention to presenting good data, and less freaking out when people call you on poor data.

Until we can work this out and everyone agrees to follow some form of civil and argumentative guidelines, and until everyone quites flaming BTS for rightly requiring a better standard of proof than urban legend, nothing will get solved.

Once before we backed down from a flame fest, but some feel this means that we are backing down from serious consideration of data.

So, I am all for reasoned discussion, but it turned into a flame thread with a response to CavScout on page 4, and I think BTS is right, when they say they need more data people start jumping all over them for being blind!

[Guest rune]

ASL,

You are on the right track...but you need to look at more then each country..you would need to look at sights per tank per year. Some tanks used the M10 sight, while others used different sights, M32 for example. Early year Sherman sights were bad, and I am trying to find out if they change sights during the war. There WAS a testing facility on optics at Aberdeen, and all material has been passed to the National Archives. Anyone in Wash. DC with spare time? Boy, would I have some work for you. hehehe Shame I can find British documentation easier. Oh, found a very interesting document on tank ratio and kills...will post tomorrow.

Rune

[Slapdragon]

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

ASL,

You are on the right track...but you need to look at more then each country..you would need to look at sights per tank per year. Some tanks used the M10 sight, while others used different sights, M32 for example. Early year Sherman sights were bad, and I am trying to find out if they change sights during the war. There WAS a testing facility on optics at Aberdeen, and all material has been passed to the National Archives. Anyone in Wash. DC with spare time? Boy, would I have some work for you. hehehe Shame I can find British documentation easier. Oh, found a very interesting document on tank ratio and kills...will post tomorrow.

Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rune,

Many national document archives are passed off to Maryland, and then burned to fiche. You may find out that you can get them through a University library. I got combat records from fiche of the 3rd Army is Salins (Moselle) by getting a librarian to photocopy them. If yuou have doc numbers or a docut number, I can try to get them here.

[Guest Big Time Software]

ASL wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No offense, but I wish BTS was less involved in this discussion. The more BTS is involved, the more this turns into something that is being considered as an official change. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, unfortunately... we had to become more and more involved as the stakes were raised. The discussion started off with the "accusation" (if you will) that we messed up something in the game. We presented a counter point of view, and then it was open season on not only our decision but our capability to create a simulated environment correctly. Then, quite unfortunately, our credibility as a whole was openly called into question because we would not give into "obvious" "facts".

Calls by us to get this discussion focused back on critical thought only brought more attacks on our credibility. If we walked away, the charges would stand unchallenged by us. That will never be allowed to happen. Nobody can shout us off our own BBS.

Slapdragon wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In addition, thie board will need to get much more academic in nature before it climbs out of this. What I mean is that more attention to presenting good data, and less freaking out when people call you on poor data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the heart of the problem. A legit question was posed. We answered that question. A questionable case was presented to show that we were in error and, at the same time, lobby for us to make changes to CM. We challenged that case and presented our own at the same time. Instead of being challenged in a rational way, we were insulted and attacked. Repeated calls for reason were met with more irrational gibberish. Not from everyone, mind you, but looking back on this thread that was the general trend.

One can not have a rational and informative discussion without both sides taking a critical look at the other's presentation. If one side can not present a cohesive case in the first place, the discussion is not likely to go anywhere.

Bottom line is we have a coherent system of logic for determining what does and does not go into Combat Mission. This is exactly WHY Combat Mission is so good. If we had just gone about tossing in things left and right, with no real critical look at the reasoning behind the feature and how it would impact the game, then CM would be a hopeless mess.

Steve

[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

[:USERNAME:]

I am absolutely disgusted by this thread. A BTS low. Maybe Steve needs a vacation.

Maybe the game isnt in the tank battle genre. Its a little kludgey targeting tanks at 1200 meters let alone 2000. CM perhaps showcases small infantry battles supported by tanks best.

I cant imagine CM2 on the russian front. I hope BTS releases a CM2 demo. Thats awful you know that?. I am a fan of the game. I cant imagine needing a demo of something I already bought into and have told other people they should buy. BTS should take a little notice here.

Not that it matters that much but I am not pro-anything but pro-realism. Thats what I like. If it aint realistic , than give me a pretty good abstraction. I like details and reality. I admire alot of great equipment of WWII. Yeah some is german. So what?

No group hug happy ending here folks. Bruddah man is sad inside.

Lewis

PS OH yeah, almost forgot. I did have a rib splitting hoot when I went to slappys homepage. DUDE!!! Call me stupid if you like BUT YOU ARE A WIERD LOOKING SOB!!!!!! WAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHH Go hike on a trail and eat something organic... Man you look like some sinister chickenhawk. Maybe thats why you like teaching huh?

[Slapdragon]

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

I am absolutely disgusted by this thread. A BTS low. Maybe Steve needs a vacation.

Maybe the game isnt in the tank battle genre. Its a little kludgey targeting tanks at 1200 meters let alone 2000. CM perhaps showcases small infantry battles supported by tanks best.

I cant imagine CM2 on the russian front. I hope BTS releases a CM2 demo. Thats awful you know that?. I am a fan of the game. I cant imagine needing a demo of something I already bought into and have told other people they should buy. BTS should take a little notice here.

Not that it matters that much but I am not pro-anything but pro-realism. Thats what I like. If it aint realistic , than give me a pretty good abstraction. I like details and reality. I admire alot of great equipment of WWII. Yeah some is german. So what?

No group hug happy ending here folks. Bruddah man is sad inside.

Lewis

PS OH yeah, almost forgot. I did have a rib splitting hoot when I went to slappys homepage. DUDE!!! Call me stupid if you like BUT YOU ARE A WIERD LOOKING SOB!!!!!! WAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHH Go hike on a trail and eat something organic... Man you look like some sinister chickenhawk. Maybe thats why you like teaching huh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Lewis, I was told you like taller skinier guys with pouty faces anyway, so your comments make me very happy indeed (makes my wife happy too, she was worried you would take a shining to me). But I know the routine, don't ask, don't tell is the law of the land now protecting Lewis from discovery! I wondered why CavScout was worried about what unit you were in.

[:USERNAME:]

?

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

[:USERNAME:]

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

Thanks Lewis, I was told you like taller skinier guys with pouty faces anyway, so your comments make me very happy indeed (makes my wife happy too, she was worried you would take a shining to me). But I know the routine, don't ask, don't tell is the law of the land now protecting Lewis from discovery! I wondered why CavScout was worried about what unit you were in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? Just anecdotal evidence? Wheres the numbers TV man? You know the numbers? Like ratings? y'know LOW?

HAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!

You are an egghead punk. Call me stupid huh? I just deflated your pompous airbag. You are so unsure of your masculinity that you have to post (within seconds) a retort that you have a wife (can we see her pic?) I need another laugh.

Lewis

[aka_tom_w]

<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.

-snip-

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>

"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"

Previous incorrect statement withdrawn.

My appologies.

I am not the least bit worried that "adding in an optics bonus may be double counting".

(I'll stand by this one though)

-tom w

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

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

[Slapdragon]

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

"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"

Quite frankly I think that statement is VERY debatable if you look at the debate in the 88 Lacking punch thread.

I'm not at all so sure that the game does accurately model the superior trajectory of German guns. I am not the least bit worried that "adding in an optics bonus may be double counting".

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Tom, the Long 88 thread is probably the worst example to use here since nothing was really shown in it, although it presented some interesting data at one point that might have led to something. Better to say that it was the Very dabatebale 88 thread might mean that there is no double benifit.

[Lorak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"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"

Quite frankly I think that statement is VERY debatable if you look at the debate in the 88 Lacking punch thread.

I'm not at all so sure that the game does accurately model the superior trajectory of German guns. I am not the least bit worried that "adding in an optics bonus may be double counting".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom,

As a long time lurker in both threads I would like some clarification.

I assumed from all my reading that the 88 thread revolved solely around armor penitration. Not the trajectory or flight path of the shell that is modeled.

Sorry I am just a slack-arsed lurker, But I honestly believe if you have nothing or any thing diffrent to add, to just say nothing. Maybe I'm destined to be a slack assed poster boy.

Just thought I'd ask about that one point though.

Lorak

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

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

[Guest Big Time Software]

As usual, Lewis has a wonderful gift for saying absolutely nothing. What evidence have you brought to this discussion about the superiority of German optics vs. US optics of the same time period? What rational and logical train of thought have you blessed us with to hammer home the point that we are buffoons? Gee... nothing more than a couple of illogical and hard to follow rantings?

Gee.. what a surprise.

Lewis, shut your hole. Remember our little agreement? You stay on here so long as you try and pretend that you are a human being instead of some ape with the uncanny ability to somehow crank out what appears to be sentences (they aren't coherent and are often horribly misspelled so I am being kind). I can easily put up with your single minded determination to embarrass us simply because all you do is make an ass out of yourself every time you try, but kept it to just that.

I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for the time used to insult me.

Steve

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

[:USERNAME:]

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

As usual, Lewis has a wonderful gift for saying absolutely nothing. What evidence have you brought to this discussion about the superiority of German optics vs. US optics of the same time period? What rational and logical train of thought have you blessed us with to hammer home the point that we are buffoons? Gee... nothing more than a couple of illogical and hard to follow rantings?

Gee.. what a surprise.

I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for the time used to insult me.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe I raised the issue of spotting and target identification. No response from BTS. No response here either from BTS about the missing posts.

I will reiterate:

Better sights allow better target ID

Better sights allow better target aspect determination.

refute it.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom,

I really wish you would stop posting utterly irrelevant stuff like that. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING in either 88 thread has anything to do with accuracy. And as far as "doubt" being cast in either thread, I must remind you that there has STILL be no coherent and logical challenge to our numbers. There is a debate going on to FIND the basis of such a challenge, but thus far it has not happened.

Yes, the German guns ARE more accurate at long ranges as is. Do your own tests and see for yourself. Accuracy is also greatly aided by crew experience so be sure to not have someone like Barkmann in mind and use a Regular Panther crew.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

oops sorry

double post

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

[aka_tom_w]

Just curious?

Steve can you elaborate on this one:

"I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for the time used to insult me.

Steve"

Does Lewis use some form of state sponsored technology the rest of us are unware of ?

I'm not flaming and I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just curious as to the "tax dollars" issue?

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

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

I believe I raised the issue of spotting and target identification. No response from BTS. No response here either from BTS about the missing posts.

I will reiterate:

Better sights allow better target ID

Better sights allow better target aspect determination.

refute it.

Lewis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Lewis, it was refuted about 22 posts back by three people, and refuted quite well -- in that it is a non issue as far as the game goes. Tough reading though, so I understand why you did not get it -- CavScout though gave a really good discussion of it. Might want to go back and read it. Seriously, I am not making fun or you son, but it was discussed much earlier.

[Slapdragon]

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

I believe I raised the issue of spotting and target identification. No response from BTS. No response here either from BTS about the missing posts.

I will reiterate:

Better sights allow better target ID

Better sights allow better target aspect determination.

refute it.

Lewis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Lewis, it was refuted about 22 posts back by three people, and refuted quite well -- in that it is a non issue as far as the game goes. Tough reading though, so I understand why you did not get it -- CavScout though gave a really good discussion of it. Might want to go back and read it. Seriously, I am not making fun of you son, but it was discussed much earlier -- just reread the past posts.

[aka_tom_w]

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

Tom,

I really wish you would stop posting utterly irrelevant stuff like that. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING in either 88 thread has anything to do with accuracy.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct, I withdraw that statement, I have read the 88 threads and I was mistaken to suggest they had anything to do with long range accuracy of the German guns.

-tom w

[:USERNAME:]

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

Actually Lewis, it was refuted about 22 posts back by three people, and refuted quite well -- in that it is a non issue as far as the game goes. Tough reading though, so I understand why you did not get it -- CavScout though gave a really good discussion of it. Might want to go back and read it. Seriously, I am not making fun or you son, but it was discussed much earlier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was discussed by BTS?

[Slapdragon]

Lewis claims to be active military to most people here except CavScout (who really is).